 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| THE ISRAEL'S PEACE GAME The Oslo Accords signed in 1993 started a new page in Middle Eastern history. PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, in the presence of US President Bill Clinton, posed for journalists, shook hands, and brought Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to fruition with a concrete agreement. By signing the Oslo Accords, the two sides recognized each other for the first time in history and made the first bilateral agreement. After signing this agreement, the idea that peace might finally be possible began to take hold throughout the world. It was widely accepted that the Arab-Israeli dispute finally would be resolved permanently, and that peace would bring welfare and happiness to the Middle East. Shimon Peres, the second-in-command in Israel, wrote a book entitled The New Middle East, which described the happy scene in question. It promptly became a bestseller. Israel's appearance of "waging peace" seemed to have convinced almost everyone. However, our book The New Masonic Order, first published in February 1996, described how this appearance did not reflect reality, how Israel's peace was really a "phony peace." We explained that by negotiating with the PLO, Israel merely wanted to exacerbate the conflict between it and Hamas, that Israel really had no intention of withdrawing from the Occupied Territories, and that it was merely using peace as a "tactical maneuver." (See Harun Yahya, The New Masonic Order, Istanbul, 1996, pp. 508-520.)
The 6 years following the publication of this book have proved this view correct. The entire world now understands that the "peaceful Israel" of the mid-1990s was not realistic, and that Israel has continued its politics of occupation. The phony peace process initiated by Israel to end the Intifada only led to another one when Israel continued its oppressive and aggressive policies. After all of the fake peace scenarios, the election of Ariel Sharon, "The Butcher of Lebanon," as prime minister demonstrated that the Zionists had decided to continue their policy of occupation and cruelty rather than peace. This reality was sufficiently clear proof that Israel's peace offer was not genuine. Without a doubt, the replacement of peace by renewed conflict is a deplorable turn of events. What we hope for, of course, is the assurance of peace and security in the Middle East. But it must be a just peace. Israel wants to impose an unfair peace that does not entail withdrawing from the Occupied Territories and that compels Muslims to accept the status quo. The reason for this is the Zionist ideology, from which many Israelis have been unwilling to free themselves. The conditions that are necessary for a just peace in Palestine include the following: Israel must withdraw from the Occupied Territories, refugees must be allowed to return to their homes, Palestinians being held in Israeli jails must be tried by due process, and the final status of Jerusalem must be determined. Israel continues to insist upon its own views on all of these issues and refuses to make concessions. The reason is Zionist ideology. As long as Israel does not abandon Zionism, it will remain unconcerned with human rights and justice. For this reason, all of its plans for Palestinians will be unjust. For Zionist Israel, "peace" means nothing more than a "strategic ceasefire" within a larger war. When we go back and take a look at the period beginning with the 1993 Peace Accords, we find this fact confirmed. The Origin of the Israel-PLO Peace The long history of conflict between Israel and Palestine is known to everyone. Ever since the turn of the twentieth century, the Middle East has been the scene of clashes between indigenous Muslim and Christian Arabs and Jews, the vast majority of whom had not been born in Palestine. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, these clashes turned into outright wars. By 1967, there had been four major wars and one permanent state of war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. After 1967, organizations working to liberate Palestine also began to make their presence felt. The Palestinian resistance appeared in force when Israel occupied all Palestinian land in 1967. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a resistance movement formed by unifying several groups, increased its activities substantially during the 1970s. Until the 1980s, it played the leading role in the Palestinian people's struggle. The rise of Islamic movements during the 1980s had a grave impact upon this organization, which had survived largely through the support of leftists, socialist Arab governments, and the Soviet Union. Islamic groups, particularly those organizing in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, became the standard-bearers of the Intifada in 1987 and led this uprising. By the 1990s, their strength rivaled that of the PLO. There is no doubt that this development led Israel to change tactics, to deal with this new Islamic movement unifying under a common identity, rather than with the PLO, which had lost the material support of the now-defunct Soviet bloc, and with it most of its power. Israel decided to make a strategic change, rather than deal with these two threats at the same time. The most clever thing to do was to recognize the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian cause, and then play the PLO card against the other Palestinian forces. Of course this meant that Israel would have to put a temporary halt to its years-long policy of aggression, if only just for show. This is the context in which Israel and the PLO began the peace process during the early 1990s. The "Peace for War" Theory Retreating in order to make a more powerful move later is one of the more refined political strategies. Israel knows how to apply such a "strategic withdrawal" when necessary. One example occurred 3 years after it signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt. Israeli units invaded Lebanon in the summer of 1982, under the orders of Camp David signatory Menachem Begin, shocking those who had believed in the fairy tale of the Middle East peace process. The massacres that occurred in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps once again demonstrated what Israel really meant by peace. These events proved that Israel had not signed the Camp David Accords because it wanted peace in the Middle East; rather, it had merely sought to remove an obstacle (Egypt) so that it could concentrate on more important goals.
So the 1992 peace process was just another "strategic withdrawal," a camouflaged post-modern war tactic. This did not escape the notice of those experts and intellectuals who were following the peace process closely. Edward Said, one of these experts, warned the PLO near the beginning of the peace talks that they had forgotten that they were dealing with a "nation of Talmudists." (Talmudist: strongly bound to the Talmud, the Jewish Holy Book.) According to Said, the Israelis could be preparing a trap behind every word and every comma of these peace talks.120
With their first peace offer, which promised Palestinians the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the Israeli government was planning to put down the Palestinian resistance. This plan was really a trap. Likewise, the regions put under Palestinian control by the Oslo Accords amounted to about 22% of all Palestinian lands. Moreover, by putting the Gaza Strip, a stronghold of the Islamic movement, under Palestinian control, Israel freed itself of the need to deal with these resistance groups. Under the agreement, Palestinian security forces would have to deal with such resistance groups directly. Israel lost nothing in the bargain - on the contrary, it proved to be a most profitable transaction. In fact, the agreements that followed Oslo helped Israel "cleanse" Jerusalem of Christians and Muslims. It was certainly no coincidence that settlement construction near Jerusalem picked up speed immediately after signing the Oslo Accords. These developments were simply the result of an expertly devised strategy, each step of which had been carefully thought out in advance. SUPERFICIAL ATTEMPTS AT COMPROMISE: THE MITCHELL REPORT
Tension in the Middle East reached the breaking point with the eruption of the al-Aqsa Intifada, which led international circles to attempt new peace initiatives. The Mitchell Report, the one that gathered the most attention and was presented by a delegation led by former Senator George Mitchell, examined the problem at the source and presented its suggestions. Its main goal was to determine the basic reasons for the Israeli-Palestinian tensions and to suggest how to prevent such conflict in the future. Although the report was no less than 8 months in the making, it did not produce the desired result. Just like so many other earlier Middle East peace initiatives, the Mitchell Report was an artificial stopgap measure, rather than a genuine attempt at lasting peace. Of course the Mitchell Report contained material intended to please both sides. Where it was most sorely lacking, however, was in its failure to address the real problem and its lack of sincere suggestions or sanctions. While stating that Israel had used excessive violence, it also accused Yasser Arafat of sabotaging the Oslo Accords and failed to identify the real criminal and the real victim. Committee members, insisting that they were not a court of law, did not mention the continuing Israeli terror or the recent massacres. When the report is analyzed in detail, it is clear that when the committee members said that they "would not judge anyone," what they really meant was that they "would not reach any firm decision against Israel." Middle East expert Daniel Pipes explains the report's "supposedly" neutral attitude by saying: "Had the Mitchell committee been asked to assess the outbreak of World War II, it would likely have regretted Hitler's crossing of the Polish border but balanced this with tsk-tsking about "provocative" statements coming from Warsaw."1 Before the report had even been published, the commentary of a senior Israeli official published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz provided important clues as to whether it would really result in a just peace. This official reported that the report would probably accuse the Palestinians of sabotaging the peace negotiations and the Israelis ofpracticing excessive violence and continuing to open new settlement areas. But even more important was his remark that "[Israel] will be able to deal with the general complaints - like criticism of settlements or the use of force - … but will have a more difficult time dealing with any operative recommendations the report makes. This could include a call for an international observer force along the lines of the International Presence in Hebron."2 Another Israeli official caused a stir with these comments: We insist the commission stick to its mandate … that means clarifying the facts and not going beyond that. We will not let the report turn into a platform for the conflict to be internationalized with posting international observers.3 When the report was released, it contained no "specific directives," just as Israel had desired. By making only general criticisms, the report conformed completely to Israel's wishes. Indeed, despite the passage of time since the report's publication, the fact that Israeli tanks continue to pound Palestinian territory demonstrates just how successful the report has been in bringing peace to the region. The only way to ensure a permanent peace is to adopt a truly unbiased attitude and to protect the rights of the wronged party, no matter what the conditions. In terms of Palestine, it is quite obvious which party has been wronged and needs to have its rights protected. Before everything else, Israel must withdraw from the Occupied Territories and return to the Palestinians all of the rights that it has denied them. This fact is often brought to the agenda by Israelis who demand peace. Here is the announcement of the "Now Peace" movement: Right now we find ourselves in the middle of a Palestinian independence war. This ruthless and unnecessary war began because of Israel's 1967 forced occupation of Palestinian lands, the suppression of two million people through this occupation, and Israel's desire to continue this occupation. There can only be one end to this war: the withdrawal of Israel form the occupied territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital. The end of the occupation and the raids could usher in a period of peace in this region."4 As long as these conditions are not met, all of the peace negotiations and suggestions for compromise will fail to reach their target. As long as Israel does not forsake violence, diplomatic efforts will mean nothing. After all, in Palestine the sounds of cannons, tanks, and missiles carry farther than those of diplomacy. Ariel Sharon Prepares for War A news report obtained from the well-known defense strategy magazine Jane's Defense Weekly in the latter part of July 2001 demonstrated once again just how Sharon was planning to bring peace to Palestinian territories. According to this report, the Israeli military was preparing a war plan that would involve 30,000 troops, F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft, intense bombing, and heavy artillery. The goal of the operation would be to eliminate the possibility that Palestinian forces could ever assemble again. The most interesting part of the plan was how it was to be brought to life, as reported by CBS News. The Israeli government had devised a plan worthy of its ideology and its past: The war was to be set off by a suicide bombing against a heavily populated Jewish area. Such a plan is interesting in that it shows Israel's willingness to disregard the lives of its own people, if necessary, to achieve its Zionist goals. This information was reported by CBS: The report says the Israeli invasion plan would be launched after another suicide bomb attack which causes a large number of deaths, like the one at a Tel Aviv disco last month.5 With this report, and Sharon's rise to power, it was expected that regional tension would increase dramatically, and that Israel would withdraw from the peace process completely and increase its use of force. By electing "The Butcher of Lebanon" as their leader, the Zionists gave the first signals that such a war was coming. The Palestinian side had expected such a situation. With Sharon in power, the possibility that an all-out war will break out is a possibility that must not be ignored. While this war might be a partial operation aimed at the PLO, it could turn into a regional war, dragging in neighboring countries. Of course, the world will not see the real face of this war, but, as always, only the face that it wants the world to see. An article in The Independent reads: I suppose it's the same old story. The Israelis only want peace. The unruly, riotous, murderous Palestinians - totally to blame for 95 of their own deaths - understand only violence. That's what Israeli's military spokesman said last night. Force, he said, "will be the only language they understand". Which is about as near to a declaration of war as you can get.6 1- Daniel Pipes, Mitchell
Report Missed It, The Washington Times, 30 May 2001
How Fair Was Oslo? As we reported earlier, the 1993 Oslo Accords were greeted with enthusiasm by the Western media and by some groups who wanted peace in the Middle East. However, the years following that event have not justified their enthusiasm. The Western media followed a pro-Israel stance on the issue of peace, just as it had on so many other issues. The Palestinians were accused of not supporting peace, even though some of their demands were justified, and portrayed as callously rejecting the opportunity Israel was offering them to achieve "statehood." But the facts were otherwise, for Israel did not offer them what they deserved. In reality, Israel offered Palestine hush-money not to stand in its way. First, and most importantly, the land that Israel agreed to give the Palestinians parcels of land that amounted to less than 22% of true Palestinian territory, were surrounded by Israeli soldiers, and were separated from each other by roads that only Jews could use. Another detail that must not be forgotten is that the land was barren desert land. Moreover, the borders, airspace, and groundwater of the "independent Palestinian state" were to be under Israeli control. Some circles regarded Israel's division of Palestinian areas into three main regions (i.e., A, B, and C) as a significant concession. According to this example, though, while one Jerusalem street would be placed under the control of Palestinian police, the next street over would be controlled by Israeli soldiers. As a result, Israelis would be able cross over to this street, thus bringing the Israeli military into Palestinian territory, just as it does today in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank whenever it wants. One cannot speak of a sovereign Palestinian state in such a situation. Israel's suggestion of putting part of Jerusalem under Palestinian control also was nothing but a hoax. As with many of its other concerns, Israel is only interested in manipulating Palestinians to its own benefit. Robert Fisk mentions this fact in one of his articles: And the Palestinian Authority knows all too well what "control" would mean in Jerusalem. While Arafat's men collected garbage, supplied the traffic cops and kept their own people in order, the Israelis would continue to hold sovereign power over all Jerusalem.121 Aside from this, the Oslo Accords did not give the Palestinians who were forced to flee their homes and land due to the Israeli terror of 1948 the right to return. It is impossible to solve the Palestine problem without allowing the refugees to return. In conclusion, the "peaceful Israel" façade that began in the 1990s and revealed its falsity in 2000 clearly does not reflect the real truth. As long as Israel views Jerusalem and all Palestinian land as its own property, perceives Palestinians as "two-legged animals," and regards the world through the biased lense of Social Darwinism, it cannot bring peace to the Middle East. The True Road to Peace
The question of how peace, one that is fair and just, can be brought to the Middle East can be answered by looking at history. As discussed earlier, the only administration that ever enabled Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live together in peace and security in Palestine was an Islamic administration: that of the Ottoman Empire. The reason for this is that true Islamic ideals do not harbor any brutal ideologies like Zionism or the one that caused the Crusades. A true follower of Islam would not look at the world through the prism of Social Darwinism, as Zionists do. Also Islam teaches believers that any anger that they might harbor toward a community should not drag them into injustice. Moreover, Islam regards Jews and Christians as the People of the Book and respects their right to live, worship, and own property. For this reason, strengthening the Middle Eastern as well as the global Muslim community will bring peace and security not only to the Islamic world, but to other nations and people of other faiths as well. Throughout history, fair and just Muslim administrations have earned the consent of non-Muslims, and will do so in the future as well. Muslims will never abandon Jerusalem or accept this holy city as the "Eternal Capital of Israel." The most sensible solution, then, is for East Jerusalem to be administered by a Palestinian governing body, but under the direction of a board in which members of all three religions are equally represented, as a disarmed and free city. Of course, these administrators must live and practice the ethics of their respective religions. In such a Jerusalem, Christians and Jews would be free, as well as Muslims. This plan holds the key to the real salvation of Palestine and the Middle East. The environment of peace, justice, and tolerance experienced during the centuries of Ottoman rule is the best example of this. Since the end of Ottoman rule in the area, and despite the various regimes and policies that have been attempted, the Middle East has not experienced any peace and stability.
120-
Richard H. Curtis, "How Bad Is the Israeli Palestinian Peace Accord?"
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 1994, p. 11.
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
