General Concepts
Leave a comment

The Muslim Rulers’ Support of Israel

If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” David Ben Gurion – First Israeli Prime Minister

[Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), p.121]

This statement made by Ben Gurion in 1948 reveals a great deal about the status of the Muslim Rulers in the eyes of Zionists. Even Ben Gurion the first prime minister of Israel regarded the act of signing an agreement by a Muslim ruler with the state of Israel as a betrayal of the people they represented. However, today the Muslims rulers are not content in their betrayal by signing treaties with the state of Israel, they are working to normalise relations between this illegal entity and the Muslim countries and they also oppose any resistance to the occupying state of Israel. This is why Ben Gurion regarded the Muslim rulers to be in the Israeli camp when he said that the Arab regimes are the first line of defence for Israel, he also said “the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine.” [David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.]

What he means by artificial is that these Muslim rulers have been artificially imposed on the Muslim Ummah ever since the Uthmani Khilafah was destroyed in 1924.

The failure of the Muslim rulers to respond to the aggression carried out over the years by non-Muslim states against the Muslim Ummah has exposed the betrayal of the Muslim rulers. The ultimate betrayal was witnessed during the recent war between Israel and Hizbullah, when Muslim rulers blamed Hizbullah for instigating the war.

The war was in fact instigated by Israel in its plan to disarm Hizbullah, which is the only military force in the region resisting Israel and protecting the people from Israeli aggression. Most of the biased western media outlets put the blame on Hizbullah for instigating the war, but when we examine a UN report on the matter of the conflict since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 the report mentions many Israeli violations:

“Regarding air violations, the report stated that Israeli aircraft violated the line on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace” (Jan-July 2001)

“Of equal concern, stated the Secretary-General, were Israeli air violations of the Blue Line, which continued on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. These incursions were not justified and caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas.” (Jan-Jul 2002)

“The Secretary-General also voiced deep concern that ” Israel persists in its provocative and unjustified air violations of sovereign Lebanese territory. Hezbollah’s retaliatory firing of anti-aircraft rounds across the Blue Line “is a violation that poses a direct threat to human life”, he added.” (Jan-July 2004). [Secretary-General report to the Security Council in 2001/2002/2004]

So in the words of the Secretary General in 2004, it was Israel, which was the provocateur and Hizbullah was only responding to the Israeli aggression.

As regards to the “kidnapping” of Israel soldiers, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 2006 report on Israel explained:

“At the end of 2005, approximately 11,200 Palestinians were held by Israel in interrogation units, temporary detention centres, military detention camps, prisons and police stations”

“12,192 detainees visited, including 7,504 monitored individually (of whom 131 women and 565 minors)”

The document states that ICRC issued documents to 17,882 detainees, so the total number of detainees being held illegally may be much higher. These numbers quoted are the detainees which ICRC has access to. There are a large number of Muslims who have gone missing and are therefore not reported in these figures. Most of the detainees have been either abducted or kidnapped on the streets in Palestine or Lebanon. It is worth noting that 565 are minors. So, when Israel claims that it has been provoked into this war with Lebanon due the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah, it is nothing but a complete distortion of the truth. It is clear to see that in fact Israel is the provocateur.

The facts presented above are well known in the region and especially by the Muslim rulers, and yet they blamed Hizbullah for instigating the war, which allowed them to lay the basis for their inaction. They even sought to promote divisions in the Muslim Ummah by calling the issue a sectarian one along the lines of Shia and Sunni, highlighting the fact that Hizbullah is Shia and is supported by Iran. The main reason for their inaction is that they do not serve the interest of this Ummah, rather they serve the interest of their colonial masters America and Britain.

According to Abdullah Mohamed, professor of international relations at Kuwait University:

“Blaming Hezbollah is a message to the U.S. from these countries, which says they are sources of stability and will continue to serve U.S. interests in the region,”

President Mubaraks statement reflects the stance of a Muslim ruler in the area:

“Those who urge Egypt to go to war to defend Lebanon or Hezbollah are not aware that the time of exterior adventures is over,”
“Those who are asking for war will make us lose all of that in a blink,”
“The Egyptian army is for defending Egypt only and this is not going to change,”
[Press Trust of India – Cairo, July 26, 2006]

These rulers once promoted Arab unity and they also claim to profess Muslim unity through the Organisation of Islamic Conferences (OIC). But when challenged to act on this unity they profess self-interest. The statement of Mubarak reminds us of Musharaf’s words when Afghanistan was invaded by the US in 2002, he said: “Pakistan first”.

But don’t be fooled into thinking that they will even defend the nation state, as we know with Iraq, Sadaam Hussein did not release the armies to defend the nation against the invading US force, it was the people and individual soldiers who took up arms to defend Baghdad in 2003. In fact the statements made by King Adbullah of Jordan , King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Hosni Mubarak criticizing Hizbullah implicitly gave justification for Israel’s attack and she took it as a green light to invade Lebanon.

The Muslim rulers have cited many excuses for their inaction, the main one being the superiority of Israel’s military and that confronting Israel will bring harm to their national economies. Let us examine what options are actually available to these rulers:

1. Military – Direct confrontation

2. Economic and cultural isolations of Israel.

 

Militarily

Published figures show that the Muslim armies combined outnumber the Israeli forces by a ratio of 68 Muslim soldiers to one Israeli soldier. The Muslim countries spend almost 17 times more on their military budgets than Israel. So it is clear that a united Muslim armed force is the dominant military power in the region. Even with their advanced military technology, the Israelis cannot overcome such a large military force.

 

Population

Military Manpower   

Military Manpower
fit for service             

Military Expenditure
$bn
 Israel

7,112,359

3,353,936  2,836,722  11.8187
         
 Egypt 81,713,520 41,654,185

35,558,995 

13.7836 

 Iran

65,875,224 

39,815,026

34,344,352 

 19.0725
 Jordan  6,198,677  3,371,706

2,886,132

 2.4467
 Syria  19,747,586

10,218,242

 10,218,242  5.33183

 Saudi

 28,146,656  14,928,539  8,461,049  54.6

 Turkey

 71,892,808  39,645,893  33,444,999  45.2567
 Yemen  23,013,376

9,932,593

 3,585,947  3.71184
 Libya   6,173,579

3,293,184

2,821,855

2.91408

 Lebanon

3,971,941

2,229,474

1,883,155

1.25364

 Kuwait

2,596,799

1,601,065

1,393,356

7.42

 Oman

3,311,640

1,429,296

1,207,291

6.94146

 Morocco

34,343,220

18,233,410

15,382,861

6.25

 Algeria

33,769,668

19,327,735

16,357,759

7.3359

 Tunisia

10,383,577

5,905,068

5,005,257

1.06498

 Sudan

40,218,456

18,961,029

11,264,895

2.4294

         

Muslim – Middle East    

431,356,727      

230,582,445

 182,058,952  179.81263

Also, after a brief glance at the borders of Israel, it is clear that it would be virtually impossible for Israel to defend itself from a simultaneous land offensive from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. You may be wondering have not these states engaged in a war against Israel before. Yes they have, but those wars were in reality ‘scenario wars’ with the objective of seeking peace with Israel.

This was mentioned by Mohammed Heikal’s in his book “The Road to Ramadan” – he quotes one of Sadat’s generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords – a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle ( the 1967-six day war) would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives. Indeed, this gross betrayal by of the Ummah by Egypt is currently matched by Turkey who assists Israel in her military exercises. As a Turkish news agency stated;

Billion-dollar military agreements, intelligence cooperation, maneuvers and secret operations are being made between Turkey and Israel. Israeli war planes are flying over Konya. A common missile shield project is on the agenda between the two countries; it’s under consideration for the missiles to be located on the borders of Iran and Syria. In a 20 thousand square kilometre area in the Konya valley, there were maneuvers of hundreds of planes making a nuclear attack. Dozens of examples like this can be shown. In short, Turkey is Israel’s friend and ally” – (http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&trh=20060824&hn=35945)

 

Economic blockade

It may be stating the obvious but the Israel is land, sea and air locked by the Muslim countries. So Israel is dependent on the Muslim countries for its survival and for access to the outside world. What would be the impact of a Sea, Land and Air blockade?

 

Sea Blockade

Some 98% (by weight) of Israel’s imports and exports travel by sea (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org). Just as Israel with its minute naval force imposed a sea blockade on Lebanon, it would be easy for Egypt, Syria and Turkey to impose a sea blockade on Israel further up the Mediterranean sea. Israel imports 90% of the oil it consumes, majority of which is imported by oil tankers. This blockade will have a major impact on its Energy requirements. The major oil ports are at Ashkelon and Eilat, currently the port at Ashkelon receives oil from Russia in tankers via the Bosphorus, which is controlled by Turkey. In 1989 Egypt supplied about 45% of Israel’s oil needs but this has been gradually replaced by Russian oil, currently it is still around 26-30%. The oil tankers arriving at Eilat have to pass though the Gulf of Aqaba whose waters are controlled by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This is a narrow waterway and a blockade can easily be implemented. The port at Eilat is strategic as it will become a key point of distribution for the central Asian oil to the world market, BP plans to pump oil through Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil and gas pipelines via Turkey through the Israeli Tipline pipeline to Eilat. All the routes require the consent of the Muslim countries. Continuing on the theme of Energy requirements Egypt signed an agreement with Israel in July 2005 to supply Israel between “1.7 to 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually for 15 years.”( www.arabicnews.com).

The blockade would simply nullify the following treaty, which really exposes how treacherous our rulers have been in aiding Israel:

“Ships of Israel, and cargo destined for or coming from Israel, shall enjoy the right of free passage through the Suez Canal and its approach through the Gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the Constantinople convention of 1888”

“The parties consider the strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to be international waterways open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation and overflight.”

“it is agreed that such relations will include normal commercial sales of oil by Egypt to Israel, and that Israel shall be fully entitled to make bids for Egyptian-origin oil”( Treaty Of Peace Between The State Of Israel and The Arab Republic of Egypt – 26/03/1979) [Treaty Of Peace Between The State Of Israel and The Arab Republic of Egypt – 26/03/1979]

The sea blockade would also curb the shipment of vitally needed water to Israel from Turkey. Israel and Turkey signed a ‘water for arms’ agreement in Jan 2004 where Turkey would “ship 50 million cubic metres of water a year for 20 years from the river Manavgat in Anatolia”(Guardian UK) to Israel in water tankers.

 

Land Blockade

The following trade agreement meant that goods were traded across the borders between Israel Egypt and Jordan:

Agreement on Trade and Commerce (08/05/1980) – “To ensure the free movement of goods between the two countries, each party will make available to the other party, laws, regulations and procedures prevailing in his country, concerning the importation and exportation of goods and commodities”. “Both nations shall accord each other most favoured nation treatment”.

The impact of this treaty has been the increase of exports from Israel to Egypt and Jordan as the report mentions below:

“Israel’s exports to Egypt and Jordan in January-May 2006 increased, thanks to the Qualifying Industrial Zone (QIZ) export agreements with Israel’s two neighboring countries…. Exports to Egypt rose 93% to US$48.7 million” [http://www.port2port.com]

A land blockade would affect trade, mail and communication between Israel and the international community.

 

Air Blockade

Air Transport Agreement – 08/05/1980 – “To fly without landing across the territory of the other Contracting Party.”. “To make stops in the said territory for non traffic purposes … Agreement for the purpose of putting down and taking on international passengers, cargo and mail to and from the territory of the other Contracting Party.”

International flights to and from Israel utilise the air corridors over Muslim countries. Imposing a blockade would greatly impact tourism and vital communication channels, which are required for the state of Israel to operate.

The Muslim states have supported the call for the Ummah to boycott Israeli goods on an individual level but nothing is done at the state level. So the Ummah very effectively boycotted the Israeli and American goods. So much so that the boycott in 2002 against American products by the Muslims in Saudi Arabia resulted in a $2 billion drop in US exports. But this is insignificant when we compare it to the investment of the Gulf countries in the US. It was reported by Pravda the Russian newspaper that the total assets of the six Persian Gulf countries are evaluated in the sum of 1.4 trillion dollars, 75% of which resides in the G8 countries. The figure is likely to be double if not more when we consider indirect investment and joint venture with the western countries that Gulf States indulge in. The $1 trillion lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the US attack exposed the Saudi investment in the US to be around $750 billion (Aug 2002 -BBC).

 

Cultural Blockade

On an area such as Education, Media and Culture, treaties have been signed between Israel and its Muslim neighbours. The aim of this is to dilute the Islamic culture and to make Israel more acceptable to the Muslim societies. The following are three example of such treaties:

Education-Protocol On The Establishment Of The Israeli Academic Center in Cairo (25/02/1982) – “Two parties have agreed to establish an Israeli academic center in Cairo …. The centre will be established by the Israeli Oriental Society ….. “, “provide hospitality and assistance to Israeli citizens on scholarships and visiting scholars”. ” Conduct seminars for its visiting scholars and researchers and provide opportunity for them to meet and cooperate with Egyptian scholars and researchers”.

Media– Protocol Of Cooperation Between The Israel Broadcasting Authority And The Radio And T.V. Union Of The Arab Republic of Egypt – 16/02/1982 – “The parties shall exchange Radio and Television programmes and Television films, reflecting culture, social, economic and scientific life in their countries”

Cultural -Cultural Agreement Between The State of Israel – 08/05/1980 –

“both parties shall encourage and promote youth and sport activities youth and sports institutions in each country”. ” Both Parties shall encourage co-operation in the cultural, artistic and scientific field…” … “Exchange of cultural, educational and scientific publications”.

It doesn’t end here. We know that the purpose of creating the PLO was to shift the responsibility of defending the Muslims of Palestine and protecting Masjid Al- Aqsa to a nationalistic organisation such as the PLO. In fact, this is the responsibility of the Muslim rulers who clearly have the capability to do so but try to deflect public expectations away from themselves. Similarly, the stance taken when the issue of boycotting Israel arises is to encourage the Ummah to boycott Israeli goods and even American goods for it’s support of Israel. But they themselves deceive this Ummah by importing Israeli products under the label of Muslim companies. It was reported in 2002 that a total of $150 million worth of Israeli goods were imported into Saudi Arabia alone through 72 companies in Jordan, 70 companies in Cyprus, 23 companies in Egypt and 11 companies from Turkey. These regimes use a third country to disguise the source of the goods (Deutsche Presse-Agentur).

 

Conclusion

One may think that this is a simplistic view of the situation and it is not easy to move the army and it is difficult to get agreement on implementing sanctions and blockade on a country. If that was the case then why did the Muslim Rulers assemble a force and join the Anglo American coalition to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. Surely in the eyes of the UN and the international community the invasion of Kuwait by Sadaam Hussien is no different to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Is it possible for the UN to impose sanctions, the no fly zones and the sea blockade for 10 years without the collaboration of the Muslim rulers? Just like Israel, Iraq is also surrounded by Muslim countries. It was the Muslim rulers, which actually implemented the sanctions. Can you recall any ruler opposing or violating these sanctions?

By now the question that should be on your mind is how do we rid ourselves of these rulers. A number of option have been suggested to us, such as vote them out. We have seen so called democratic elections in the Muslim world since the end of World War II and yet they have not produced any change. They have only hindered change and reinforced the status quo. There has been numerous attempts to bring change by arms struggle, this has only created instability and destruction and brought us back to where we started.

The problem is that Muslims have fallen into the trap of taking their policies from these corrupt regimes and their Western supporters who have always misled them. But our policies, as with everything else, lies in the example of our beloved Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم. 

Only the Khilafah, the Islamic system of ruling, can unify the Muslim lands and sweep the divisions that the colonialists have placed amongst the Muslims to keep them in a perpetual state of weakness and backwardness. Only the Khilafah government will establish a government independent of Western control that is obliged to protect the life and honour of the Muslims and other citizens. The solutions proposed are meant to ensure that such comprehensive change is never achieved. 

Hizb ut-tahrir is a global political party that is working in many countries in the Muslim world to lead the Ummah to reestablish the Khilafah. It works politically to unfying people at all levels of society in their efforts to establish the state and to bring comprehensive change.

Find out today how you can work with Hizb ut-Tahrir to establish the Khilafah and liberate the Muslim lands from the Muslim rulers and their colonialist masters.

Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.