Islam and the West: Middle East Peace Talks
by Khurram Murad

Let’s pause for a moment and ponder on the following seemingly disparate analogy. First, the most recent event: The date was Oct. 30, 1991 and the venue was Madrid, Spain. American New World Order diplomacy eventually succeeded in bringing Muslim Arab countries to their knees. They were forced to negotiate a peace agreement with the Jewish occupied state of Israel. Recounting the past, now let’s go 500 years back in history. It was on Nov. 25, 1491, in the same land of Spain, where a similar "Peace Agreement" was brokered at Gharnata, which is situated 200 miles South of Madrid. Here too, a Muslim Arab leader, Abu Abdullah Muhammad, ruler of the last Spanish Muslim state, succumbed to pressure because of constant siege, fear of hunger and starvation. The Muslim Arab ruler affixing his signature on an agreement to bring peace, agreed to lay down arms before armies of Ferdinand and Isabella, then rulers of Christian Spain. By virtue of this agreement, Abu Abdullah promised to hand over Gharnata, the castle of Al-Hamra and all weapons to Christians within 60 days.

Fall of Gharnata

Interestingly, all talks that took place between Abu Abdullah and his advisers regarding the peace agreement were kept secret as was done in the recent Madrid talks. Both these agreements are devastating for Muslims and this only time shall tell. In the former case, Muslim populaces were intentionally kept in dark and did not have even a hint about what was going on. Muslim armies, despite being ill-equipped, less in number and suffering from siege for many months, had till then not lost their spirit. They were ready to deliver a final blow to their Christian adversaries in the manner of their legendary hero, Tariq bin Zi’ad. However, this was never to be because the advisory council, which comprised of learned scholars, had other ideas. Fearing total annihilation of Muslims from Spain, they were unanimous in suggesting peace as the final resort. They were fearful of Christian armies who they assumed would not leave a single Muslim alive.

While on one hand, Abu Abdullah’s minister, Abul Qasim Abdul Malik, was instructed to visit Ferdinand secretly, on the other, the Christian leaders were busy in bribing the local populace under the garb of friendship. Abul Qasim used to meet Christian leaders in dark of the night outside the castle to chalk out clauses of the peace agreement, which guaranteed so-called future peace for Muslims of Gharnata. In return, Abu Abdullah was promised special concessions. When the Muslim masses and the army got news of the peace agreement with its humiliating conditions, they revolted. Fearing lest his peace agreement may fall through and in desperation that Muslims may resort to mutiny, Abu Abdullah treacherously sent a word to the Christian armies to capture Gharnata and Al-Hamra. As soon as Christian armies entered Gharnata on Jan. 2, 1492, Abu Abdullah was arrested from Al-Hamra together with his family and supporters. He was laden in jewels and diamonds and was wearing silk costumes.

On seeing the conquering armies enter Gharnata, Abu Abdullah got down from his horse, held its reins in his hands and most humbly handed over the keys of the city to the Christians, saying, "these keys are the last symbols of Muslim power in Spain. Take them because according to God’s pre-determination, our lives, our country and our possessions are all yours. I hope you will deal with us in the manner you promised." Ferdinand assured Abu Abdullah that "He will fulfill all promises made to the Muslims"

(Ehsan-ul-Haq in Muslim Europe, pp. 293)

A silver cross was displayed on the highest point of Al-Hamra and a gradual but discreet process was initiated to remove vestiges of 781-year-old Muslim rule over Spain. The peace agreement had guaranteed Muslims:

• Protection of person and property;
• Their right to practice their religion;
• To wear their local costume;
• To speak their own language;
• To adopt their own rites and celebrate their festivals;
• To decide their matters according to the Shari’ah;
• Their custody shall remain over Mosques and Auqaf; and
• No tax will be deducted from Muslims for Urce years and even after that no new tax will be imposed

It is surprising that Muslim rulers believed that their erstwhile enemies would ever keep such tall promises. However, such expectations by Muslims on their sworn enemy were by no means unprecedented. Muslim history is replete with many such instances.

The Christian rulers never intended to fulfill promises they had made to one as loyal and faithful as Abu Abdullah. He had been promised rule over the area of Al-Basharat, but instead was banished to Morocco. Muslims were given options either to embrace Christianity or face extermination, as cruelty towards them had become order of the day. In 1499, Muslims who refused to change faith were ordered to leave Spain. In 1502, all rogue Muslims were ordered to be executed. This way, all Muslims, excepting those who adopted Christianity, were either burnt alive, murdered, or expelled from Spain. Forced conversion to Christianity was firmly established when royal proclamation came in 1526. According to this order, wearing Arab costume, speaking Arabic, celebrating Islamic rites and keeping a Muslims name were all outlawed. Even ghusl i.e. Muslim bath, became an offense. Books were burned, hamams demolished and Mosques converted to citadels.

In short span of a few years following the 1491 Peace Agreement, not a soul in Spain professed faith in Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The agreement had thus annihilated remains of Muslims from territory where they had magnanimously ruled for over 781 years. The Qur’an aptly remarks in this connection as follows:

How many worthy gardens and springs they left behind, and corn fields and noble buildings, and wealth (and conveniences of life), wherein they had taken such delight! Thus (was their end)! And We make other people inherit (those things)! And neither heaven nor earth shed a tear over them: nor were they given a respite (again).

(Al-Dukhan, 25-29)

The Madrid Conference

Why was the 1991 Middle East Peace Conference held in Spain? A definite answer to this question is difficult. There may be many factors behind the choice of this venue. However, it would not be mere wishful thinking that those who fixed the venue had Spain’s 500^th anniversary in their mind commemorating the time when Muslims were wiped off Spain. It would not be gainsaying, keeping human psychology in view, that there was mockery in selecting this site as a venue for peace talks between pro-Israeli Western powers and the Muslim Arabs. It becomes all the more crystallized when one considers how meticulously birthdays are celebrated in Western culture. In this background, was it a message adapted from history which the West wanted to convey to the Muslim Arab participants to the peace talks? Or, was it the intention of vested interests to put psychological pressure on them? Were the peace talks, harbinger of vengeance, an example of which was the fall of Gharnata?

Whatever the answer, if we want to learn what America hopes to achieve from the Madrid Conference, we will have to see the situation in the historical perspective of a triangle the three legs of which involve US, Israel and Middle East comprising of Palestine and Arab nations. The entire truth may, however, not be found even then unless the long history of relations between Islam and the West are brought into consideration. Such an exercise shall bring before us new vistas.

West and Islam

If one ponders over relations between Islam and the West: the creation and preservation of Israel by the US and the West, their unconditional support to all it’s illegal actions, their all-out aid for Israel’s military, moral, financial and propaganda needs; one aquatinted with the situation can be dead sure of one implication – US and the West are not interested that peace comes to the Middle East. The two are only engaged in that amount and that kind of peace, which furthers their own interests. The US cares the least whether the problem is solved on the basis of justice and fair play, while the Western leaders view that human beings do not live in the Middle East, instead a race lives there whose religion and culture had in the past ruled over them for 1,000 years and has the potential to pose threat to them in future as well. Their other interest in the area is oil, which is inevitable for their progress and prosperity.

During World War I (1914-18), when the West realized its systems were decaying and that their progress is unattainable, it turned towards what it considered a threat to it’s existence — How to contain Islam so that it might never rises supreme again. With this end in view, on the one hand, a rift was created between Turks and Arabs which ended the Ottoman Caliphate due to infighting among Muslims. On the other hand, the Middle East was divided into small power pockets unable to defend themselves. By fueling own-invented notions of nationalism and race, the Western powers ensured that Muslims not only continue with the in-fighting, but also that they would never be free from colonial hegemony. They thus made it sure that there was no possibility of Muslims rising to power again. Most significantly, European powers, having realized that they would not militarily control the area indefinitely, decided to create a center in heart of Middle East that would forever serve their interests.

Thus, Israel came into existence with immense Western backing symbolizing their dominance in the area. There was no need to send Christian armies to conquer the area; creation of a Jewish state served the purpose much better. After this, the Palestinians were treated and reduced in number as the red Indians in North American. The West now considers nothing more or nothing less in the path of important cultural aims it sought in the area.

Design behind Agreement

Recognition of Palestine and Palestinians logically means that a state must be created for them. It does not mean that Israel be destroyed. However, formation of a Palestinian state irritates the Western powers and Israel since such an arrangement is ill suited for their design of the area. It totally goes against aims for which Israel is striving continuously and for which it is receiving all out support from Western powers. Proof of these aims can be found in (top secret) papers of the Joint Chiefs of US Staff (No. 11/1684, dated March 31, 1948). These aims of Israel and that of Western powers are:

• Initial take-over and control of Israel over a part of Palestine
• Followed by unlimited entry of Jews into Palestine (which continues even today)
• Followed by an extension of Jewish power in Palestine
• Followed by further extension of the Land of Judeo into Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and even further
• Followed by Israeli military and economic hegemony in entire Middle East

In words of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, "all stages of this program are equally sacred to Jewish leaders" – and presumably equally important to the US and the West.

These are the reasons for Israel’s non-acceptance of the PLO and its blank refusal to hold any talks with the organization. Many misconceptions about Palestine’s relations with Israel have been planted so cleverly in minds of the people around the world that they have been accepted as the truth. For example, the world is strongly convinced that Palestinians have themselves run away from Palestine; that Arabs and especially the PLO are out to wipe off every single Israeli; that they are continuously at war with Israel, and that; Israel is totally innocent and fighting each war merely for its survival. Israelis are portrayed like angels, while the PLO members are nothing less than cold-blooded killers.

But, the truth contradicts the wild propaganda. Wanton crimes have been committed on Palestinians in the form of genocide, attacks on innocent civilians and their expulsion from homes. The perpetrators of such offensives are none other than known terrorists such as Ben Gurion, Begin and Shaamir. Every Arabs offer of peace has been eyed as a threat to Israel’s existence, something greater than a declaration of war. Israel has always acquired weaponry with its own resources. With Israel, the aim of war has never been defense or the so-called survival, rather it always has been expansion of its frontiers. As rejoinder to each crime Israel commits, the US ushers in more dollars and more weapons. The sole super power, do not hesitate using its veto power if ever the Jewish state is cornered in the UN.

Israeli Terrorism

Volumes can be written, yet the topic shall remain unexhausted if one goes into details of Israeli terrorism and the strong backing and support it gets from the US. War and terrorism against Palestinian citizens commenced on Jan. 5, 1948, when the Semi Ramees hotel, located in the Arab area of Jerusalem, was blasted with a 175-lb hunk of dynamite. What other aims could there be of such an act than to strike fear in Palestinians’ hearts? Israeli terrorism in fact commenced even before the creation of Israel on April 9, 1948, when about 100 armed Israeli terrorists belonging to Stern and Irgun massacred 250 innocent women, children and adults in Der Yasin, a town within Jerusalem vicinity. The victims were unarmed and unprepared for the dynamite attack. The commander of Irgun, while giving a telegraphic message of his successful mission, used the following wards, "As in Der Yasin, as every where, O’God, you have made victory our destiny?" The result was that 300,000 Palestinians fled their homes by May 1948. After this, the cold-blooded killings continued forcing thousands of Palestinians to wander around shelterless in refugee camps as if homelessness has become part of their fate. Arrangements for expansion of the Land of Judeo were exquisitely made by the Jewish state in 1983 when its terrorists butchered thousands in their attack on Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut.

Israeli leaders have never hidden their motives: to expel Palestinians, to conquer the whole of Palestine, or to establish the Land of Judeo. Israeli aggression is rooted in the much-fancied dream to dominate the entire Middle East. It is neither the result of Arabs’ refusal to recognize Israel, nor because they challenge its dominance. While confessing plans Israel has for the division of Palestine, Ben Gurion made it clear that:

We are not withdrawing from our right over Jordan...we will stay in the whole of the territory, whether the Arabs allow us willingly, or by our adopting other means...with them in a language they understand. This other language will be in our possession when this state is taken over.

Begin’s comments at this juncture were: "Division of the homelands is illegal, we will never agree to it...Jerusalem is our capital and will always remain so. The land of Israel will once again be returned to the nation of Israel, all of it and forever and ever." In the words of a former chief of Israeli military intelligence, "We have a plan to expel 7 to 800,000 Palestinians from their homes in event of a further war."

Scenario during Talks

With this historical scenario, it is not difficult to predict who will benefit from the Madrid Conference, especially if the stages following this conference attain their desired result. As far as the people of Palestine are concerned, the comment by David Hurst of the daily Guardian, appears true that: "The conditions which were accepted by the US for Shaamir’s attendance at the conference, must logically point to a last agreement in which Palestinians cannot be accepted as a people with a land or as a people with any rights at all." It is as if a solution is reached at Madrid, it will be the final solution for the Palestinians. The most they are expected to get is power to run municipalities. This, too, because Israel feels it too cumber some to take control of a large number of non-Jews on its territory. To wash notion of its avowed denial of civilian rights to a large number of Palestinians is another reason for its allowing PLO control over municipalities.

Analyzing conditions imposed for participation in Madrid peace talks reveal yet another design. Let’s see what were the conditions:

• No Palestinian delegation will be allowed to take part in the talks
• If Palestinians are allowed they should come as part of the Jordanian delegation
• If any Palestinian comes thus, he should not be from Jerusalem (because Jerusalem is now part and parcel of the Jewish state. By doing so, Israel expected to acclaim recognition of Jerusalem, something not yet done either by the world or the US)
• Any Palestinians who comes as part of the Jordanian delegation should not be from those living abroad in exile, and finally
• He must not be a member of the PLO

The question then is who will be the person who fits into these requirements? A resident of West Jordan, whose name is acceptable to Israel and who is not vetoed by it. An example can be Haider Shafi, a leftist, secular Palestinian, who is not a fundamentalist and who opposes Intefada bitterly. Perhaps, it is the first instance in the history of talks between opposing group in which a party to the talks has been given the right to veto a member of the other party when it dislikes.

The Israel and US have also laid conditions for other participants of the talk in line with their common interests. The UN has been disallowed to come as an observer. This was indeed a strange international conference in that even the UN was denied full participation, the same UN which was always in the forefront throughout the Gulf War. Even Britain and France were not included in the Madrid Conference, though both have had deep involvement in the Middle East in the past. This is the result of Kissinger’s policies and US strategy to keep Japan and Europe away from Middle East talks. Russia stood with US in calling for talks at a time when its own power had dwindled. If Russia’s power was intact and its stance had not changed, these talks would never have held. In fact, Madrid Conference was not the conference, the Arabs demanded. According to Shaamir, the participants of the Madrid Conference will never again get the opportunity to sit together, neither does this conference have the option to do so. After this conference each Arab state will have to hold talks directly with Israel in its individual capacity. Since the agenda for any future talks between the Arabs and Israel have been set, the slogan land in return for peace shall have to be done away with. However, it should be understood that Israel would not budge an inch from its occupied territory. Palestinians can participate but no talk of a Palestinian state will be tolerated.

Now at the talk’s table, secular Palestinians were willing to dole out to Israel what they had lost on other fronts. However, the victories upon which they celebrated were fickle, such as:

• American secretary of state did not seek Israel’s approval for the participation of the Palestinian delegation, forming part of the Jordanian delegation to the talks (though Israel had already been given assurance that there would be no such Palestinian delegate against whom it may have any ion).
• The reception was done separately in Madrid where Palestinians were given a separate limousine and diplomatic status.
• They were given the same time span to speak at the conference as was given to the Jordanian and Israeli delegations.

As far as the rest of the Arabs were concerned, they were in no position to dictate terms following their demoralization and disarray during the Gulf War. On the other hand, they were there to loose every thing at the talks.

The Vested Interests

In this background it is logical to ask; what did the US and Israel hope to achieve from this conference and how? The answer perhaps is that when Palestinians had now stooped so low as to be ready for restricted autonomy from Israel, it could safely be assumed that each Arab country would now be ready to settle its issues with Israel on its own conditions. Among these countries are the old allies and friends of the US. The leaders of these countries are ready to return US favors in the Gulf War and there are those as well who believe after God (or perhaps even before God), the US was sufficient to defend them. In addition to these countries, there are others who had announced their readiness to settle issues with Israel regardless of the Palestinians intention to negotiate. The Israel and US strategy is to put Palestinians on solo flight, alone and without any supporters, and thus to consolidate Israel’s control over Palestine. They expect of the Arab countries to settle issues with Israel on their separate terms. However, they left open the option for another war or economic venture like the Gulf war to soften things out, lest no agreement could be reached with any country.

Israel feels at ease and ready to disarm Arabs after clipping their wings by entering into agreement with them. By doing so, Israel is about to digest Arab economies which now lie open for it. Since Israel is most powerful economy of the region: it receives $1000 per person as US aid; is acknowledged 4^th most powerful military power; has at least 200 nuclear bombs, and; was created to fulfill Western designs in the area; will shortly be in a position to establish its hegemony throughout the Middle East. It will not only be dominant military state in the region but also economically it will far exceed others. A regional conference is also part of the strategy to achieve Western ives in the area, in addition to two-way talks. It is planned that other issues, such as water, economy, pollution and environment etc., be settled between Israel and the Arabs even before two-way talks take place. Vested interests felt it was the right time to trap Arabs. They believed they could convert Arab enmity to friendship especially, when they were weak, dependent, disheveled and in disarray. They wanted to take full benefit of the confrontation, which existed, between the morally corrupt leadership and local Arab populace. Western powers designed to once again consolidate their power in the region by creating anarchic situation as they did in Spain 500 years ago. This way, they believed they could counter rising Islamic fundamentalism without going to war with Muslims.