Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

A look at the ancient history of the land of Palestine up to the advent of Islam

The land of Palestine, which in ancient times was known as Canaan, covers an area of 25,000 square kilometres, lies on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and borders Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Palestine is a fertile land enjoying a temperate climate. It witnessed the advent of such great prophets as Jesus (pbuh) and Moses (pbuh) and was the land through which Hazrat Abraham (pbuh) traversed and where he lived. From a geo-political point of view too, it is a very sensitive and strategic country.

The city of Jerusalem (Yerushalayim (Hebrew), known by Muslims as the city of Beit ul-Moqaddas or al-Quds or simply ‘Quds’ meaning ‘the holy’) was built in the Judean hills and is situated, along with a temple to Jehovah, atop Mount Moriah. It is one of the important sites of Palestine, to its east lies Mount Zion and on its west the Mount of Olives.

The eventful history of Palestine begins with the names of the prophets of our forefathers. The prophet Jacob was also known by the name Israel, and the Bani Israel are the descendants of Jacob who enjoyed power about thirteen centuries before the birth of Christ. At the time of the Pharoah’s rule and before the advent of Moses (pbuh), the Israelis formed a huge community in Egypt. Four hundred and thirty years after Jacob’s arrival in Egypt, Hazrat Moses led the Bani Israel tribe away from bondage in Egypt across the desert towards the Promised Land.

The journey was to take forty years and was not without incident. One of the most notable was while Moses (pbuh) spent forty days away from his people on Mount Sinai where he was inspired by God to write down the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone. In his absence, his tribe once again turned to idol worship and it was because of their disobedience that they had to spend forty years in the desert. Throughout this long period, Moses did not desist from guiding his people, but time and again the Bani Israel rebelled and transgressed.

After his death in Moab, within sight of the Promised Land he had never reached, Joshua, his successor, led the Bani Israel through Jordan towards the Promised Land. Their arrival there signalled the start of a campaign for conquest which included the plunder and killing of the local people. The ruler of Jerusalem united with the rulers of five other cities against Joshua and his men, but all were defeated and hanged. The people of Palestine, however, continued to resist the invasion and eventually prevailed over the Bani Israel. Bloody battles persisted between the two sides in which the inhabitants of Palestine continued to impose defeat. Eventually, however, the Bani Israel amassed power and gained control over the main cities and in c. 1010 BC Hazrat David was able to snatch Jerusalem from the Palestinians and found the Beit ul-Moqaddas or the House of God there. This building was completed by Hazrat Solomon.

Beit ul Moqaddas was built about 1100 years after the building of the Ka`ba in Mecca by Hazrat Abraham (pbuh) and 970 years before the birth of Christ. Hazrat David is a fourteenth generation descendant of Hazrat Abraham, the founder of the Ka`ba, and according to the Gospel of Matthew, Hazrat Jesus’ lineage reaches back twenty-eight generations to David. Consequently, Mecca (the Ka`ba) is the first sacred place of the monotheists and the al-Aqsa mosque in Quds the second.

The Ark of the Covenant: The Ark of the Covenant in Muslim tradition is the box in which Moses was laid by his mother and cast into the waters of the river Nile. Moses placed his stone tables, his chain mail and the tokens of his prophethood in this box so that no one could touch them. At the time of Hazrat David, this box was lined both within and without with gold and transferred from Hebron to Mount Zion where an altar was built to keep it. For a while it lay in the hands of the victorious Palestinians but was eventually handed back to the Bani Israel. It was kept on Zion until the time of Hazrat Solomon when upon completion of the Beit ul-Moqaddas building, the ark was transferred to Quds. Solomon ruled for forty years and returned peace to Quds, but following him the oppression and plundering of the Bani Israel began again.

About 730 BC, King Shalmaneser invaded Israel, imprisoned the Bani Israel and settled Babylonians in the area. In 586 BC, the land of the Jews was attacked once again, this time being overrun by the Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar. During this assault, most of the population was expelled or imprisoned, the Jewish monarchy was overthrown and the First Temple built by Solomon razed.

Since the arrival of the Bani Israel or the Israelites in Palestine 480 years before the founding of Quds (about 1300 years before Christ) under the leadership of Joshua, this land has been afflicted with strife. Today, 3300 years later, Palestine has still not found peace.

Subsequent Jewish prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah and Daniel, whose words and prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament, comforted the Jews during years of suffering and imprisonment and the destruction of Jerusalem, continuously promising deliverance and offering glad tidings of the coming of a great messiah. The conquests of Cyrus, the Achaemenian king who rose in the East and created his empire taking one land after another, pleased the Jews and their rulers. Cyrus went on to take Babylonia, where he freed the Jews from their captivity, and Palestine and Jerusalem, to where he allowed them to return. Cyrus ruled his empire with moderation and treated all tribes and religions well. It was on his orders that the House of God was once again constructed.

Peace reigned in Jerusalem until towards the end of the reign of Darius III, when in 333 BC the Persians in Palestine were overpowered by Alexander, king of Macedon. Upon his succession, Alexander had immediately set about the invasion of the Persian empire, wresting Egypt, Syria and Phoenicia from the hands of the Persians, leaving a trail of death and destruction in his wake. Much of Iran’s treasures were plundered during this period and in revenge for the destruction of Athens by Xerxes, Takht-i Jamshid, the seat of Persian government, was sacked and burned and Alexander’s commanders made rulers over conquered Persian cities.

After Alexander, Palestine fell into the hands of his successors. In 63 BC, Roman domination began with the capture of Jerusalem by the Roman general Pompey. Twelve thousand Jews were killed in the siege and the walls of the city were destroyed. Under such conditions, the advent of Jesus was eagerly awaited by the people of that region who saw in him the fulfilment of their hopes.

The promised messiah was born in Nazareth, a town of lower Galilee, to a mission which came to be marked, as the Bible relates, by many miracles. In Jerusalem, Jesus spent all his days teaching and learning at the temple, thus provoking the jealously of the Rabbis who set about trying to get rid of him. Eventually, on the instigation of the Jewish Council, which issued a ruling against him, Jesus was crucified by the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, who, it is said, actually liked Christians.

The Most Noble Qur’an actually rejects the story of Christ’s crucifixion as believed by the Christians and states instead: "But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them . . . Nay, God raised him up unto Himself." (Qur’an 4:157). Be that as it may, Christianity, the religion of which Jesus is the central figure, lived on and went on to attract many followers.

Repressive Roman administration sparked numerous revolts by the Jews which the Romans dealt with harshly, resulting in the deaths of many Jews. In 70 AD, Titus, the elder son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, put down a Jewish revolt in Judaea with an army of 80,000, and after a siege lasting a few months, destroyed Jerusalem causing the Jews to disperse once again.

About three hundred years after the death of Christ, when Constantine I (the Great 306-337 AD), emperor of Rome, converted to Christianity making it the official religion, Jerusalem underwent a revival. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, begun in 325 AD on the site believed to be that of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion at Calvary, was completed ten years later and Jerusalem became a holy Christian city. For more than five centuries, from 135 AD when the Roman Emperor Hadrian seized and destroyed the city reconstructing it as a Roman colony and banning all Jews, only a small number of Jews ever lived there.

At the time of Chosroes II Aparvez, the Sassanian king, war between the two empires of Iran and Byzantium broke out. It lasted from 604 to 630 AD and saw the defeat of the Byzantines by the Iranian armies. With the help and guidance of Jews who lent their assistance to Iran during the war, the Persians captured Palestine in 614 AD. However, after the death of Chosroes, this land once again fell into the hands of the Christians with its capture by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius in 628 AD.

 

Jerusalem after Islam

In the first thirteen years of his mission, when Hazrat Muhammad (upon whom be peace) lived in Mecca, the al-Aqsa mosque (the Remote Mosque) in Jerusalem was the Muslim’s qibla (prayer direction), the first. Two years after his migration to Medina, at the Bani Sulameh mosque in Medina, the qibla of the Muslims was changed on God’s command from the al-Aqsa mosque to the al-Haram mosque (the Sacred Mosque containing the Ka`ba) in Mecca. Perhaps the most important reason for the change was to rob the Jews of the excuse to pour scorn on the Muslims for praying in this direction.

After the death of the Prophet, at the time of the first caliph, the Muslim army was sent to face the Byzantines in Syria and Palestine. It was during the rule of the second caliph, however, that the Byzantine armies were defeated and Syria and Jerusalem fell into Muslim hands. The inhabitants of the city initially put up strong resistance and a siege lasted for many months leading to food shortages and the spread of disease which, among other things, finally forced their surrender.

The second caliph entered the conquered city to conclude a peace treaty wearing simple even shabby raiment and riding an unembellished mount, much to the surprise of the inhabitants. The caliph treated his subjects with tolerance and moderation. Under his rule, Jews were allowed to return and Christians given freedom of worship.

From 637 AD (15 AH) until the twentieth century, Palestine was to remain in Muslim hands. The population of Jerusalem comprised mostly Muslim Arabs and because it had been the first qibla for Muslims, it was held in great esteem and was recognised as a holy place.

 

The Crusades

With the attack by western European Christians led by Godfrey of Bouillon on the Muslims in 1096 (488 AH), resulting in the capture of Jerusalem, the wars known as the Crusades began and lasted for nearly two centuries. Several motives for the start of these wars have been cited, not least among them the Christians’ desire to exact an earthly revenge for advances made by the Muslims on the western front; the lure of eastern wealth and land; and in some cases, though by no means all, the genuine religious belief that heaven awaited those who ascended there from the site of Christ’s tomb. However, as historians have concluded, what lay at the heart of the matter was the issue of Palestine and the city of Jerusalem, the tributary status of the Christians of this city and the unpropitious treatment they came to be exposed to.

In the Middle Ages - the period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (476 AD) to the fall of Constantinople (1453 AD) at the hands of the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror - Europe was ruled despotically by the Church. The pope of the time, Pope Urban II, in order to start the first crusade, resorted to deceit. Priests spread the rumour that signs of Christ’s coming had appeared in Palestine. Consequently, large numbers of Christians set off for Jerusalem in the hope of witnessing the second coming of Christ. It didn’t happen, but every year the priests preached that it had been postponed until the following year, in this way increasing the number of pilgrims to Palestine.

In the early days of this affair, the Pope set off on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, accompanied by seven hundred pilgrims. He turned back for Europe upon reaching Cyprus and spread the rumour that the Muslims had stopped him entering the holy city. With such tricks the flames of war were fanned and for nearly two centuries claimed their victims.

In the first crusade, seven hundred thousand men, mostly from the masses of poor to whom, with their depressed economic and social conditions, taking the cross was a relief rather than a sacrifice, set off towards Jerusalem with a number of knights. Along the way, as the story goes, others joined them increasing their number to millions. However after three years of fighting, plundering and a slow advancement, only forty thousand men reached Jerusalem, the others either having been killed in battles with the Muslims or having succumbed to illness. After a month’s siege and a difficult battle, the besiegers finally stormed the city and perpetrated an indiscriminate massacre involving all ages and both sexes, and plundered everything in the name of booty. Godfrey their leader, who shortly after the victory was crowned king of the Crusader state in Palestine, in a report to the Pope wrote: "As to those who fell into our hands in Jerusalem, know this, our men rode in a sea of Muslim blood as deep as the horses’ knees."

So it was that for the next ninety years, Palestine lay under the sway of the Christians. Although the first crusade resulted in the capture of Jerusalem and the establishment of Crusader states in the Holy Land, the second (1147-9 AD / 542-544 AH) failed to stop a Muslim resurgence and Jerusalem fell to Salah al-Din (Saladin) Ayubi in 1187. Following this victory, most of the remaining Christian strongholds in the region were seized in a series of brilliantly executed campaigns. The Christians were swept out of the conquered lands and only Antioch, Tripoli and Tyre, besides certain smaller towns and castles, remained in their possession.

The fall of the holy city aroused Europe. The Pope, who saw the fall as a humiliation for the Christians, issued a religious edict for holy war. In response, hostilities among Europe’s rulers were buried and Frederick Barbarossa, emperor of Germany, Richard I Coeur de Lion, king of England, and Philip Augustus, king of France, took the cross. These three were the most powerful sovereigns of western Europe, and with them the third crusade (1189-92 AD / 585-588 AH) began.

Frederick, who was the first to set off, was drowned while crossing the River Calycadnus in SE Asia Minor. Most of his followers subsequently returned home. But the kings of England and France entered the fray, capturing some lost ground (although Jerusalem eluded them) and leaving a trail of slaughter in their wake, harrowing accounts of which European chroniclers have recorded. Peace between the two belligerents was finally achieved and following the death of Salah al-Din Ayubi, which came only a few months after the peace, the sultanate he had built was divided amongst his various heirs of the Ayyubid family.

In Europe, after much conflict between the popes and the kings, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216 AD) won maximum authority, excommunicated the kings and issued a religious edict for holy war with the Muslims. After only a few short years of peace, the flames of war were rekindled. The crusaders set upon their fourth crusade (1202-1204 AD) capturing Constantinople.

The fifth crusade (1217-21 AD / 614-618 AH) was started once again at the instigation of Pope Innocent and his successor. The Church wanted the European kings to return Jerusalem to the Christian fold. They, however, were not inclined to embark on such a campaign and thus a religious decree for holy war with the Muslims was once again issued. This crusade resulted in a Christian defeat.

Papal incitement was once again behind the start of the sixth crusade (1228-9 AD). In 1229, due to serious disputes which had arisen among the Ayyubids, Jerusalem was yielded to Frederick II of Germany, leader of the Crusaders, as the result of an infamous treaty which guaranteed one Ayyubid leader Frederick’s aid against the others. The al-Aqsa mosque, however, remained in Muslim hands. Jerusalem remained under Christian control until 1244 when a contingent of Khwarizm Turks, previously dislodged from their Central Asian abode by Chengiz Khan, restored the city to Islam.

The seventh crusade (1248-54 AD / 646-652 AH) ended in disaster for the Christians in Egypt. Their leader Saint Louis (Louis IX) of France had embarked on the campaign in revenge for the defeat of the Christians in Gaza. His army, however, was entirely destroyed and he, along with most of his nobles, was taken prisoner. After a month of captivity, he and his men were released on the payment of a ransom and the restoration of Dimyat (an Egyptian city that had earlier surrendered to his forces). In 1270, he led another futile crusade, the eighth and last (1270-1 AD), now to Tunisia, where he died.

Following the seventh crusade and the death of the last Ayyubid king, the Mamluks (a dynasty of slaves) took over the reins of power, dominating for about two and three-quarter centuries (1250-1517 AD) one of the most turbulent areas of the world. These slave sultans cleared their Syrian-Egyptian domain of the remnants of the Crusaders and checked for ever the advance of the redoubtable Mongol hordes of Hulagu and Timur.

Meanwhile, in Anatolia the Ottoman dynasty, founded by Uthman I (Osman) 1259-1326 AD, was busy securing its power. At the end of the thirteenth century, Uthman established the Turkish state which was expanded by his successors, by dint of many battles and victories, to include all of Asia Minor and much of SE Europe. Jerusalem came under Ottoman rule in 1517 where it remained until it was captured by British forces in December 1917. But it was the capture of Constantinople - an important Christian trade centre and the capital of the Easter Roman empire - earlier in 1453 (857 AH) by Uthman’s descendant Muhammad II the Conqueror (1451-81 AD) which formally ushered in a new era, that of the Ottoman empire.

The capture of Constantinople was a watershed in European history. It marked the end of the Middle Ages and, just as the Crusaders had transferred the knowledge and civilisation of the Muslims to Europe, so too this city, which remained the capital of the Ottoman empire for five hundred years, would inspire changes during the Renaissance and subsequent periods. Following its capture, important strides were made in the fields of industry, literature and architecture, and the lands under Ottoman sway flourished as Europe looked on with a wary eye.

The rise in Iran of the Safavid dynasty, which made the Shi`ite branch of Islam the official state religion, and the overt and covert machinations devised by the European governments, in particular the British government, led to bloody battles between Iran and the Ottomans which lasted for more than two centuries. Consequently, at a time when Europe had embarked on its movement to revive art and learning (the Renaissance) after making peace with the Ottomans, the world of Islam was cleft by a great schism, the power of the Muslims was exhausted in these lengthy wars and instead of turning their thoughts to the defence of the Islamic civilisation, they were distracted by civil war and religious rancour.

 

Jerusalem and Palestine in the Twentieth Century

After the Industrial Revolution, the face of Europe changed rapidly and the Europeans began to surpass the Muslims in the different fields of science and art. During this period, the East had fallen into a stupor while Europe created modern industrial methods and mass produced manufactured goods. Domestic markets came to be saturated so foreign markets were sought to which surplus goods could be exported and raw materials obtained. Thus the era of colonisation and appropriation of other countries was begun.

 

Preparations for the establishment of an Israeli state and Palestinian and Arab reaction

At the end of the 19th century, revolts took place in Palestine, and the British, who up until that time had supported the Ottomans, suddenly shifted their allegiance and stood against them in support of the agitators. The reason behind this switch in allegiance lay in Britain’s need to protect India, its most important colony at the time and the source of its wealth and power, against possible incursion by Russia and France, two of her most powerful adversaries. In her attempts to do this, Britain saw no choice but to wrest sovereignty over certain Asian countries from the Ottomans, and in particular to gain control of the Suez Canal. The British government thus embarked on a policy of inciting the Arabs to rebel against the Ottoman Turks. Amongst its targets was the opportunist Ottoman representative in the Hijaz, Husayn, the Sharif of Mecca, who, with the promise of Britain’s help, was encouraged to break away from Ottoman rule. In 1916, at the instigation of the British, he declared himself the ‘king of the Arabs’ and began the Arab revolt.

In May 1916 (1334 AH), a secret agreement between London and Paris, the Sykes-Picot agreement, was signed to carve up the Ottoman Empire among Britain, France and Russia after their victory in the First World War. Later, however, on seeing that the agreement ran counter to its control over the Suez Canal and taking advantage of Russia’s weakened position and the revolution which was taking place in that country, Britain reneged on its agreement in 1917 (1335 AH) and made Palestine a British mandate.

These measures were taking place at a time when nationalist ideas and their circulation were being strongly encouraged by the imperialist British government as a way to dismember the Ottoman empire and weaken the Ottoman government. Such ideas, which gradually displaced the Islamic identity in many Muslim countries, became the main weapon used by imperialism, of which the British government at that time was the standard-bearer, to secure and further imperialist policy interests. The result was the development of ethnic tendencies and the rise of divisive and separatist movements in Islamic lands, particularly in the domains of the Ottoman government.

As nationalist movements emerged in the Middle East, fanciful claims about the unity of the world’s Jews, which had no basis in historical realities, began to be propounded and promoted. The Zionist movement espousing the idea of transforming the Jewish religious community into a nation with an independent state was sparked by the publication of Theodore Herzl’s The Jewish State in 1896. When a number of Jews began to take steps towards the establishment of such a state and the settlement of Jews there, they were encouraged and supported by Britain, which in the early 1900s gradually became the principal centre of Zionist activity. They began to acquire financial support from wealthy Jews and in order to further their political aspirations they formed an organisation taking its name from the hill in Palestine where the prophets David and Solomon, along with a number of others, are buried: Zion. The British were not adverse to the Zionist’s plan, as they needed bases from which to perpetuate their control over the region. The imperialists in the Foreign Office saw an important advantage in having a friendly community in the region since the First World War had exposed the vulnerability of the Suez Canal, Britain’s lifeline to its empire in India.

Initially, the aims of the nationalist Jews of the Zionist movement did not attract much sympathy from other members of the Jewish community, and at the end of the 19th century attempts to start the flow of Jews into Palestine were foiled when a number of Jewish rabbis, aware of the political motives behind the moves and the link to imperialist policies, vehemently opposed them. However, as opposition to and persecution of the Jews increased, the solution to the Jewish problem was more and more sought in the creation of a Jewish state in the ancient homeland of the ancestors of the Jews. Although the Zionist Organisation still faced opposition from other Jewish bodies over this plan, it was opposition it could check through its branches in European countries. During the First World War political Zionism became dominant and the Zionists asked Britain and America to give them guarantees that after the war, if the Ottoman government, which was aligned with Germany against Britain and in whose hands Jerusalem lay, was defeated, this ancient land would be changed into a Jewish state.

The Zionists’ endeavours proved fruitful. They were able to secure the support of Lloyd George’s government in Britain, whose motives for doing so were mainly self-interest, and influential figures in America. When Turkish and German forces were defeated by the British at Megiddo in 1917, the land passed into Britain’s hands and the name ‘Palestine’ was revived as an official, political title for the land west of the Jordan. In November 1917, the Balfour Declaration, named after Lord Balfour, the then British Foreign Secretary, was issued, pledging official backing for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In April 1920, at a meeting of the Supreme Council of the League of Nations in San Remo, Italy, Britain insisted on and acquired a mandate over Palestine. It was approved by the League in July 1922 and went into effect in September 1923. Incorporated into it was the Balfour Declaration. In issuing this Declaration, the British neglected their conflicting commitments to the Arabs. Sharif Husayn of Mecca, now king Husayn, who was aligned with Britain, requested an explanation from the British government. In reply Britain assured him that the decision to help the Jews return to Palestine was not inconsistent with the rights and freedoms of the inhabitants of Palestine. No mention was made of the plan to create an independent Jewish state.

The British were, at the outset, committed to the Jews, believing as they did that a Jewish national home would best serve their interests in the region. They allowed immigration and purchase of land, defended the Jewish community from riots, and permitted the organisation of Jewish political institutions and the formation of a Jewish army. They also suppressed the Arab-Palestinian population. Under British rule, the Jewish community in Palestine grew rapidly from 50,000 in the early days to almost half a million in some 250 settlements by 1939, after the immigration floodgates had been opened. Arab opposition and uprisings were the response to occupation by the British and the Jews. Winston Churchill, then Britain’s secretary of state for the colonies, was given the task of reassuring leaders of the Arab community that Britain had no intention of turning its Palestine mandate into a Jewish state and that immigration would continue only to the point where a Jewish national home was formed and only as far as Palestine’s economy allowed. Independent Jewish trade, economic and cultural agencies and even terrorist organisations were quickly set up in Palestine with the help of financial aid from wealthy Jews around the world. The Jews were highly organised through the Zionist Organisation, the Jewish Agency, the Vad Leumi or representative body of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine), Jewish political parties and a Jewish labour movement.

In 1920, however, the Palestinian Arabs were not organised. The Arab community was deeply divided by numerous clans and groups of affiliated clans, by strong class distinction between landlords, tenants and sharecroppers, and by religious divisions among Muslims and Christians. The Arabs as a whole were beset by division and discord and other than talking about helping their brothers in Palestine they did nothing. In the course of the struggle against the British and the Zionists however, parochial ties among the Palestinian Arabs began to give way to a sense of regional identity and the Greek Orthodox Christians came to see themselves as part of the Palestinian Arab people.

In the summer of 1929, the first bloody confrontation between the Palestinian Arabs and the Zionist immigrants took place. The Zionists and British troops opened fire on the Palestinians martyring about 351 people. Many more were injured or arrested and faced life sentences or execution. From the late 1920s till 1935, the armed rebellion of Shaykh `Izz al-Din al-Qassam, the first Arab leader in Palestine to advocate an armed struggle against foreign colonisers and rulers, took place. In 1935, al-Qassam gathered some 800 armed men in Haifa and began marching towards the hills of the West Bank in an effort to overthrow the British forces and make Palestine independent. They were confronted by the British army and the Zionists in an uneven battle in which al-Qassam, along with some of his followers, was martyred and many more were arrested.

In 1937, `Abd Alqadar Husayni took over the leadership of the struggle and he too, after many battles, was martyred along with his followers. In 1944, Hassan Salameh assumed responsibility of commanding the guerrilla warfare against the combined British and Zionist forces, and he too was eventually martyred.

In the late 1930s and during the ’40s, the Palestinian problem became an Arab problem and was at the top of the list of headaches for the international community. In the face of the Palestinian struggles and Arab political reaction, the British government began to change its policy in Palestine and in the White Paper of 1939, it decided to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. This policy was to find even wider implementation after World War II. Zionist reaction to this change was bitter and a campaign of terrorist activities was launched against the British in Palestine.

Throughout the Second World War however, Palestine was relatively quiet. The Arab rebellion died down and, in the early stages of the war at least, the Zionists co-operated with the British, despite the latter’s enforcement of the provisions of the White Paper, in the hope of being able to form a Jewish army to fight Nazism. Their hopes proved to be in vain, and as the war progressed, the Zionists increasingly turned against Britain, resorting once again to terrorist tactics in an attempt to achieve their aims.

In December 1946, the Zionist Organisation demanded an independent state in Palestine. The issue was placed before the United Nations General Assembly which recommended in August 1947 that Palestine be partitioned - with 45.4% of the area going to the Arabs, who made up 70% of the population, and 53.5% to the Jews, who constituted just 30% of the population and owned 6% of the land. The remaining area, covering Jerusalem and its suburb, was to be placed under international control.

On 29 November, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 specifying partition. The Jews accepted the partition plan warmly while the Arabs, with good reason, rejected it angrily. Interethnic violence erupted immediately and intensified as 15 May 1948, the date Britain was to resign its mandate, approached. On 14 May 1948, as the last British troops left, a Jewish National Council was established in Tel Aviv and the State of Israel proclaimed.

During the war, international Zionism had shifted its main effort from Britain to the United States, where it gained the support of both major political parties. Subsequently, in accordance with a prior undertaking, a few hours after the proclamation of a Jewish state, Harry Truman, the US president of the time, officially recognised the new Israeli government.

As the British withdrew, they left valuable arms and equipment to the Jews. From then on UN intervention proved fruitless and attempts to stop Zionist attacks on Palestinians were in vain. The usurping Zionists began to seize towns and villages driving the Palestinian inhabitants out of their homes. Faced with the resistance of the poor, innocent people, they perpetrated massacres like those carried out in the villages of Deir Yasin and Kafar Qassem in April 1948. Arab villagers, terrified by reports of such events, left their homes en masse to Transjordan. Early on 15 May, units of the regular armies of Syria, Transjordan, Iraq and Egypt entered Palestine in support of the Palestinian Arabs. They scored some initial successes, but the Israelis launched a violent counter-offensive with the support of Europe and America and the flood of arms and planes with which they supplied them. The battle ended with an Arab collapse and the exodus of over a million Palestinian Arabs.

On the one side the Israeli government ignored the United Nations’ partition plan while on the other different guerrilla groups and organisations were set up by the Palestinians to defend their natural and indisputable rights. In early 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organisation was formed following a proposal made at a summit of the Arab League. The PLO held its first congress on 28 May 1964 in Jerusalem at which the Palestine Liberation Army was created, giving the struggle a new form and impetus. From that time on thousands of people were to sacrifice their lives for the freedom of Palestine. Despite continuous Jewish immigration, the Arabs and Muslims continued to be overwhelmingly superior in population.

 

The Six-Day War

On 5 June 1967 (1387 AH), with a surprise attack on airfields in Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Israel sparked the third Arab-Israeli war, which became known as the Six-Day War, and occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip in Jordan, the Golan Heights on the Syrian border and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. In a resolution, the United Nations called on Israel to withdraw from the territories they had occupied, Israel refused and went on to annex East Jerusalem and Bethlehem, formerly under Jordanian control, and another twenty-seven villages.

The direct lesson of the Arab defeat was that the Arab regimes could not destroy Israel in a classic war situation, especially since it employed the most up-to-date weapons supplied by America and Europe, and therefore the Palestinian guerrilla organisations had to be strengthened in order to confront it. After the 1967 defeat, the Palestinians reached a collective conclusion that the restoration of their country depended on their own efforts.

On 11 August 1969, the al-Aqsa mosque was extensively damaged by a fire said to have been started by a short circuit in the wiring, but which in fact was arson. The construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories was swift, and the Israeli government strived to transform the appearance of such cities as Jerusalem from Islamic to Jewish. Efforts were made to change the 3,000 minority population of Jews in Jerusalem to the majority, consequently the Jewish population of this town rose to 190,000.

Extensive excavations at the Dome of the Rock shrine and the al-Aqsa mosque were begun by the usurping government using the excuse that they had found archaeological relics and inscriptions there dating back to the time of the prophets and the old tribes. It was through this means that in addition to making more Arabs homeless, the Zionists could destroy the grounds of this site and rebuild it. Eventually with the powerful backing of America, Britain and Europe and after months of extensive efforts on their part, and despite much opposition from the Arabs and even the United Nations, the Israeli government succeeded in transferring the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

 

The Battle of Karameh (1968)

Following the Six-Day War of June 1967, which ended in humiliation for the Arabs, the Palestinian resistance organisations, based and trained in bases in Syria and Lebanon, intensified their offensives. The town of Karameh, situated 25 km to the west of Amman (the Jordanian capital) in the Jordan valley, was home to a number of Palestinian refugees before the June ’67 Arab-Israeli war. As a consequence of this war, its refugee population of 25,000 doubled and the town found itself only 4 km from the new Zionist truce line, well within the range of the Israeli army, a proximity which led the Fatah organisation to establish its base there and the Zionist defence minister at the time to announce that it had become the main base of Palestinian resistance. One of their reasons for standing against the Israelis from Karameh was that they would communicate to the Jordanian regime that the shedding of Palestinian blood in Karameh would give them the right to remain in this land and broaden their armed offences from the Jordan valley.

In March 1968, in an attack by a fully armed Israeli raiding force on the town of Karameh and the hand to hand battle which ensued with three hundred Palestinian guerrillas, aided for the first time by the Jordanian army, the Zionists suffered severe losses and were forced to retreat. The success at Karameh greatly boosted Palestinian morale, opened up new ways for the victory of the Palestinian nation and gave the Fatah guerrilla organisation new prestige and increased membership. In reality, however, 1968 was a false dawn for the Palestinian guerrillas. Although during the battle of Karameh, the guerrillas enjoyed extensive support from the Arab governments and for the first time joined forces with the Jordanian army, this co-operation was to prove transient.

The growth of guerrilla organisations based in Arab states came to pose a severe internal threat to regimes such as those in Jordan and Lebanon, where they formed a type of ‘state within a state.’ In Jordan, agreements between the Palestine Liberation forces and the Jordanian government broke down almost as soon as they were made. In September 1970 a bloody civil war broke out between the two sides. Fighting ended with a truce agreement sponsored by Arab heads of state which apparently left neither side the victor. But over the following months the Jordanian government gradually asserted its authority over the country and restricted the commandos’ base areas. By July 1971 the Palestinian resistance had been virtually liquidated as a guerrilla force in Jordan.

 

The Ramadan War (October 1973)

In October 1973, the Egyptian army with shouts of Allahu Akbar (God is the Greater), launched a surprise attack against the Israelis, crossing the Suez Canal in three sectors and capturing the entire Bar-Lev line, which at that time was deemed to be impenetrable, and with aerial support attacked Israeli positions in the occupied Sinai desert. At the same time from the east a force of 500 Syrian tanks and two infantry divisions advanced deep into Israeli-held Syrian territory to advance almost to Israel proper, and the Syrian air force launched raids on Israel. In the first days of this attack dozens of Israeli aircraft were destroyed and thousands of Israelis killed or taken prisoner and the myth of the Israelis’ impregnability was exploded.

The West’s reaction was quick and in response to desperate appeals from Tel Aviv, the US quickly began a large airlift of sophisticated equipment to Israel. Twenty thousand tons of weapons were sent to Israel (this amount had increased to 33,500 tons by the end of the airlift on 15 November) plus 40 Phantom bombers, 48 A4 Skyhawk ground attack jets and 12 C-130 transporters, while by comparison Soviet arms shipments to Egypt and Syria amounted to 15,000 tons. Consequently, the Israelis soon succeeded in turning their setbacks of the first week of the war into a military victory. By 12 October they had forced the Syrians back to their main defence lines, which at their nearest point were some 24 miles from Damascus, and on the night of 15 October, they succeeded in making a thrust across the Suez Canal and consolidating a bridgehead on the West Bank. Eventually on 25 October, with only 601 km between them and Cairo, a cease-fire framed in UN Security Council Resolution 340 went into effect marking a formal end to the hostilities.

Following the 17-day Ramadan war, Anwar Sadat, who had taken over as president in Egypt after the death of the national leader Gamal Abdul Nasser, set a course for compromise with America and the West.

 

Recognition of the PLO in 1974

In 1974, the United Nations officially recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. In September, the UN General Assembly agreed without a vote to include ‘the Palestinian question,’ for the first time since the creation of Israel, as a separate item on its agenda and then invited the PLO to take part in the debate. On 13 November Yassir Arafat, accorded the honours of a head of state, addressed the UN General Assembly with a pistol in one hand and an olive branch in the other saying: "I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand." His presence there was warmly welcomed by the representatives, especially those of the developing world.

 

The Palestinians’ Conflict in Lebanon

Following the Jordanian regime’s suppression of the Palestinian resistance in Jordan in 1970-71, Lebanon became the last remaining centre of Palestinian guerrilla activity. With the arrival of the Palestinian guerrillas and the PLO in the early ’70s and an influx of Palestinian refugees, traditional rivalry between left-leaning Muslims and rightists, mainly Maronite Christians, was accentuated. The stance of the Israeli-backed Christian militia on the presence of the Palestinians in Lebanon differed sharply with that of the Muslims who felt it was Lebanon’s duty to lend them all possible assistance.

Civil war was sparked in May 1975 by an attack on a bus carrying Palestinians in a Christian quarter of Beirut by the Christian Phalange (officially: the Lebanese Kataeb Social Democratic Party) militia, who worked in close co-operation with the US and Israeli intelligence agencies. Violence spread throughout the country reaching a culmination in atrocities with the attack in August 1976 on the besieged Tel el-Zaatar Palestinian refugee camp in East Beirut by right-wing forces as a result of which thousands of civilians were killed or injured. The civil war lasted until 13 October 1990 and influenced the political structure of Lebanese society and government.

 

The Camp David Accords

One of the most important events to occur in the history of the Palestinian revolution and one which constituted a turning point in Israeli-Arab relations was the signing of the Camp David Accords in September 1978. Following the demise of Gamal Abdul Nasser in September 1970 and in particular after the Ramadan War of October 1973, Egypt was led down a path of reconciliation.

In 1974 and ’75, Sadat, who had taken over the reins of power after Nasser’s death, signed two agreements with Israel over the Sinai; in 1977 he unilaterally abrogated the Egyptian-Soviet Friendship Treaty, increasingly turning to the US for aid; and in November of the same year in a dramatic move he addressed the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem. Eventually in 1978, at the US presidential retreat of Camp David in Maryland, he concluded a peace treaty with Israeli Premier Menachem Begin under the auspices of US President James Carter, making Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognise the usurper regime and causing a rift in the Arab world. This event took place on the threshold of the victory of the revolution in Iran.

Although past events and the treason of Camp David had created a widespread feeling of despair and shame amongst the Arabs and Muslims, the victory of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the overthrow of the most powerful western policeman in the region and Israel’s staunchest ally: the regime of the Shah, breathed new life into the struggle against the Zionists and created a rare joy in Lebanon and Palestine, moreover since calls of ‘Today Iran, Tomorrow Palestine’ were one of the revolution’s main slogans.

 

Attacks by forces of the Zionist regime on Palestinians in Lebanon

On 6 June 1982, the Zionist regime launched a widescale land, sea and air attack against Lebanon with the ostensible aim of clearing southern Lebanon of Palestinian guerrillas (who in any case had for nine months maintained a US-mediated cease-fire). Initially the Zionists announced that strikes would be carried out only against the Palestinian guerrillas, that they would last for only 48-72 hours, that they had no intention of attacking Syrian positions in Lebanon or of occupying any part of Lebanese soil, and that they would retreat as soon as their operations had ended. It was soon apparent, however, that the Zionist objective was in reality the annihilation of the entire Palestinian quasi-state that had been created in Lebanon and the establishment of a docile and friendly neighbour under right-wing Maronite domination.

The assault lasted not 48-72 hours but 80 days. Heavy civilian casualties occurred among both Lebanese and Palestinians; property was destroyed; Syrian positions were attacked in the Beqaa valley and their missile positions destroyed; and Beirut was subjected to a callous saturation bombardment which coupled with the severing of water and electricity supplies as well as fuel and food helped the Zionists secure a stranglehold on the PLO headquarters in Beirut.

Arab and Soviet assistance for the Palestinians was, during these events, minimal. The Zionists had chosen the best time for their attack, a time when Iran and Iraq were wrapped up in a full-scale war. Consequently, the Palestinian issue, which until then had been the focus of the region’s attention, was now relegated to a position of secondary importance and the reactionary Arab regimes, with the excuse of supporting Iraq in a war deemed to have first priority, procrastinated in their support for the PLO and Syria.

Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the PLO was forced out of Beirut and the Palestinian fighters were dispersed to eight Arab countries. The PLO headquarters was moved to Tunis. This invasion and the ensuing war not only weakened the PLO’s military might it also destroyed the organisation’s political clout driving some of the Palestinian leaders to seek solutions in conciliation and the development of closer relations with Egypt and Jordan.

Another important effect of this war was that it intensified differences within the PLO - in particular in the ranks of Fatah which constituted one of the biggest and most influential constituents of this organisation, even being considered its backbone - which inflicted a serious blow to its international standing. Internal differences in the organisation began on 9 May 1983 with a rebellion within Fatah in the Beqaa valley. Fatah opponents of Arafat under the command of Colonel Abu Musa and Abu Saleh, members of the PLO Central Council and the Fatah Revolutionary Council, with the support and encouragement of Syria, rebelled against Arafat and demanded a reconsideration of Fatah’s political policy and an improvement in relations with Libya, Syria and Algeria.

This rebellion resulted in a bloody confrontation between supporters and opponents of Arafat, a confrontation which ended with the expulsion of Arafat and his followers from Lebanon. They left Tripoli for Yemen, Tunisia and Algeria aboard five Greek ships flying the UN flag and protected by the French navy. From the very beginning the Fatah rebels were supported by left-wing factions who were themselves supported by Libya and Syria. The backing of these two countries for Arafat’s opponents led to the PLO chairman developing closer ties than ever with Jordan and Egypt (whose own relations with Syria and Libya were strained). From then on new branches were created in the organisation amongst them the Intifada Fatah Organisation, under the leadership of Abu Musa, which was a wing of the Fatah organisation.

 

 

The explosion at the US marine and French contingent headquarters in Beirut (23 October 1983)

The invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982, during which Israeli forces pushed through the country to the outskirts of Beirut, opened the way for the deployment of multi-national forces (American, French and Italian). As the invasion commenced, the Zionists announced that their objective was to establish a security zone 40-45 kilometres inside Lebanese territory. However it soon became clear that what they were really after was to drive all Palestinian forces from the country and install a regime in Beirut that would conclude a peace treaty with it. To this end the Israeli forces advanced on West Beirut where the PLO was based. The city was subjected to heavy bombardment and water and electricity supplies were severed as were supplies of food and fuel. During the 63-day siege of West Beirut thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese were brutally massacred provoking condemnation from the international community but no practical attempts to stop the slaughter.

Eventually the PLO was forced to agree to a withdrawal of its forces from Lebanon. Evacuation began on 22 August under the supervision of a multi-national force comprising 800 French and US troops and 400 Italian soldiers. The last of the 8144 PLO commandos, 3500 Syrian-controlled Palestine Liberation Army troops and 2700 Syrian soldiers left West Beirut on 1 September 1982 having secured a solemn promise from the US that Palestinian civilians would be protected after the fighters had withdrawn. However, after completing its task, the American contingent of the multi-national force which, in accordance with the explicit American commitment, was obliged to safeguard the civilian population as well, withdrew, two weeks before its original mandate ran out, forcing the French and Italians to also pull out and effectively terminating the multi-national commitment to protect the civilians.

Following the assassination on 14 September of Bashir Gemayel, the Lebanese President-elect, Israeli troops moved into West Beirut ostensibly to ‘maintain order.’ Two days later atrocious massacres of Palestinian civilians by Lebanese right-wing militiamen took place in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in areas now under Israeli military control and without any Israeli attempt to prevent them.

US marines returned to Lebanon on 20 September 1982 as part of an international peacekeeping force with similar Italian, French and much smaller British contingents. On 29 September 1982 the Israelis left Beirut.

After the Israelis’ withdrawal from the Shouf region of Lebanon the following year on 3 September 1983, their positions were taken up by the Phalange militia and the Lebanese army. This led to fighting between them and the Druze-PLO alliance. The United States and France intervened with warplanes and warships on the side of the Lebanese army. A cease-fire was mediated by Saudi Arabia on 25 September, but the US continued its reconnaissance missions over west-central Lebanon from its aircraft carriers. On 23 October 1983 the multi-national forces in Lebanon became the target of a suicide attack by revolutionaries from the Islamic Jihad Organisation. The headquarters of the US Marines in Beirut was blown up followed six minutes later by the French military headquarters. In all 241 US marines and 59 French paratroopers were killed.

This attack constituted one of the heaviest military and political blows the American forces had sustained since the Vietnamese war and the French since their war with Algeria. In addition to destroying the power and might of the multi-national forces in Lebanon and lifting the fear they had created for the Muslim and progressive forces by their presence, the attack strengthened the spirit of resistance and struggle in the Muslims, the Lebanese revolutionaries and the Palestinians.

On 7 February 1984 the US withdrew its troops from Beirut. The other members of the Western MNF followed suit.

 

The Camp Wars

From 19 May 1985 until early 1987 a one and a half year war broke out between the Amal movement, a Lebanese Shi`ite organisation, and Palestinian guerrillas in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, resulting in the siege of the two sides’ camps. The repercussions of this war were intense, the unity of the Palestinians was affected and differences among the Palestinian organisations aggravated.

The Amal organisation strongly opposed the Palestinian presence in Lebanon and viewed it as an incitement to Israeli attacks against the country especially since this presence, and the fact that many Palestinian operations against the Zionists were launched from Lebanese soil, had provided the excuse for the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Although the Palestinians sympathised with Amal’s position, they argued that they needed help to return to their homeland.

The dispute resulted in bloody clashes between the Palestinians and an important section of the Shi`ite forces in Lebanon, a dispute which served only the interests of the Quds-occupying regime. The different Palestinian factions adopted a common stand against Amal, but the Fatah intifada organisation, which harboured the most hostility towards Arafat, the Fatah leader, blamed him for the continuation of the camp wars saying he was encouraging them in order to bring himself out of political isolation. Within the Amal organisation too, criticism and uncertainty over the leadership centring around its performance and the stances adopted by it resulted in the formation of new, more militant groups.

And so the events which took place in Lebanon from the early 1980s onwards led to a general purging of the battle front against Israel of impurities. This process, which was greatly affected by the experience of the Islamic revolution in Iran, ended with the most genuine and unyielding of the forces - who viewed the struggle with Israel to be an Islamic duty - finding a new relentlessness and power and becoming the staunchest opponents of conciliatory moves. And up until the present, it is these forces which have created serious setbacks for the realisation of US and Israeli hopes and plans.

The birth and development of groups such as the Hizbullah in Lebanon is the most obvious manifestation of this process. The large volume of propaganda produced by the enemy against these groups and the machinations devised against them are proof of the fear and alarm which have come to prevail over the enemy camp.

It is clear that regardless of the slight possibility of transient success for the conciliatory plans one can be certain that the sowing of the seeds of Islamic resistance in Lebanon has borne fruit and as long as the domestic fronts of resistance in the occupied territories have the endurance and strength needed, then the enemy’s failure will be serious.

 

The advent of the intifada or the uprising of the Palestinian people

Introduction: What is certain is that the Islamic resurgence movement, which had entered a new phase with the struggles of Sayyid Jamal al-Din Asadabadi in the Islamic countries and also with the Tobacco Movement in Iran, was continued by Muhammad `Abduh and Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, resulted in the uprising of the Muslims against the British in India, was continued in Pakistan by Iqbal Lahori, and brought about the revolution in Algeria in 1962. The revolution in Iran in the late ’70s was also a continuation of this movement.

The two decades before the Iranian revolution were a period of stagnation for the Islamic resurgence movement in the Islamic countries. The reason for this was two-fold. On the one side this ideological movement was subdued by oppressive governments which held sway over the Islamic countries, forcing priority to be accorded to political action and political struggle against oppression and dictatorship and less attention being paid to theoretics and the propagation of the resurgence as a result. And on the other, this movement was overshadowed by the phenomenon of Arab nationalism during the years preceding the revolution in Iran, a phenomenon which itself gave rise to other factors - among them the creation of the Ba’ath party in Iraq and Syria by the Christian, Michel Aflaq, which became the most powerful political party in the Middle East region - which, with the creation of the government of Israel and the ensuing Arab-Israeli wars, were instrumental in turning the solution to the Palestinian problem into a purely Arab issue.

The 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran was a watershed in the Islamic resurgence movement. On the one hand it breathed new life into the movement while on the other it gave it a political content which it had hitherto lacked. For until the Iranian revolution, the Islamic resurgence movement had been an ideological-cultural movement, one of religious scholasticism whose call was for a return to the self, the Islamic identity and the values which all the Islamic nations shared. It was only natural then that the message of the Islamic revolution in Iran would move the Muslims and excite their sentiments, that the positions adopted by the Leader of the Revolution, Imam Khomeini, would be the focus of attention of the Muslim combatants around the world, including the Palestinian fighters, and that Islamic fundamentalism would be revived.

Before the revolution in Iran the Muslim Palestinians were bound together by the ties of their Arab nationality, Islam being relegated to second place. This is why Palestinians of different beliefs: Islamic, Christian or Marxist, came together in one group or organisation. With the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran, belief that the power of Islam could unite and bring victory gained strength, and Islam once again excited the attention of the Muslim combatants. Links between the Islamic revolution movement in Iran and Palestine were forged long before the victory on the common battle fronts against Israel, and Iranian guerrillas often went to Palestinian bases where they underwent training to help them in their struggle against the Shah. Indeed, many years previously Imam Khomeini had given permission for a third of sahm-i imam, zakat and khums monies to be used to support the Palestinian movement.

The slogan ‘Today Iran, Tomorrow Palestine" which was shouted in the thick of the revolution, struck fear into the hearts of the Zionists and offered hope to the Palestinians. The best evidence of this is to be found in the statements made by Palestinian leaders and members of the PLO’s Central Council concerning the Islamic revolution and Imam Khomeini during the early years of the revolution, statements which were carried in the domestic and foreign press. For further reference refer to volume five of the anthology Sahifa-yi Nur which covers the talks held between Palestinian leaders and Imam Khomeini.

The struggle with Israel was not limited to the Iranian revolution movement. Before the victory of the revolution in Iran, the Eastern bloc powers under the leadership of Russia and also some progressive countries put on a show of supporting the Palestinians. However, this support stemmed from the conflict of interests and the rivalry which existed between the world powers and at its best advocated the right for the Palestinian nation to exist. None of these powers opposed the existence of Israel, on the contrary they formally recognised it but considered it an aggressor country. The Islamic revolution of Iran and Imam Khomeini were, on the other hand, opposed to the very basis of the existence of the Zionist regime as a country. The saw it as a usurper and considered the perpetuation of the Zionist government in any shape or form to mean the perpetuation of conflict in Islamic lands. And it was this thinking which carried the sense of national and religious pride amongst the Palestinians to new heights and caused a surge in Islamic awakening, while at the same time striking fear into the hearts of Israel and its supporters.

 

Intifada: another link in the chain of Islamic resurgence

In November 1987, a summit of the Arab League was held in Amman, and unlike on other occasions, no stance was adopted on the struggle against the Zionist regime. In this conference, all attention was directed at the war between Iran and Iraq, and on the whole it progressed along lines favourable with the Camp David agreement.

For years the Palestinian refugees had waited for the Arab nation (umma) to deliver them from their homelessness while those in the occupied lands had sat back expecting the Arab governments to act. However, the preoccupation of the Palestinian groups and parties with their continuous differences and splits, along with the obvious indifference on the part of the Arab regimes to the Palestinian plight, dashed all hope of effective action ever being taken on their behalf or of the efficaciousness of Arab nationalism. Consequently, attention was turned to Islam and action from within, which the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran had shown to be successful.

It was under such circumstances that agents of the Saudi government killed pilgrims visiting the House of God. In this bloody tragedy, more than 400 pilgrims, ten of whom were from the occupied territories in Palestine, were slaughtered for the crime of expressing their disavowal of pagans and shouting death to America and Israel. Ceremonies for those martyred were held in Ramallah and al-Khalil (Hebron) and in other occupied areas of Palestine.

These events formed the basis of a new kind of uprising and struggle against Israel that was started in Autumn 1987 by the residents of the occupied lands: the intifada. Intifada in a word means uprising; it stems from the Arabic word meaning to shudder, to shake off, like a wet bird shaking off the drops of water that lie heavy on its feathers in order to lighten its wings for flight, or an uprising which shakes off the impurities in order to ascend to new heights. Hitherto each uprising (intifada) had been connected to a certain group, such as the uprising in Fatah during which, in May 1983, a group calling itself the Fatah Intifada - to distinguish itself from the main Fatah group under the leadership of Arafat - broke off from the main Fatah organisation. This time, however, in 1987, intifada had no prefixes or suffixes, it was simply the intifada, the uprising of the people in protest at the continued occupation of Palestinian lands. This movement had the following aims and results:

1 - It brought the Palestinian issue back from the brink of oblivion.

2 - It attracted the attention of world public opinion.

3 - It occurred simultaneously with the wave of Islamic resurgence in the region, which lent it a special attractive quality.

4 - It emphasised the need to find a solution to the Palestinian problem.

5 - It made western Europe attempt to get closer to the Palestinian issue.

6 - It cast doubt on the soundness of Israel’s policy, even amongst the American Jews, in such a way as to cause a number to come to believe that in order to prevent Israel’s image from becoming even more tarnished (after the Zionist forces’ reprisals for the uprising of the people) concessions must be given to the Palestinians.

7 - It created a threat to the internal security of the Zionist entity.

8 - The differences of the Palestinian groups were overshadowed and they began co-operating, and the governments and organisations, which had hitherto determined the fate of Palestine along lines conducive to their own interests, were forced this time to follow the lead of the people.

For the first time, after more than 40 years of occupation and Zionist rule, the Palestinians were on the offensive and the Israelis on the defensive.

 

A comparison of the characteristics of the intifada with those of the Islamic revolution in Iran

In some aspects, the intifada movement is very similar to the Islamic revolution movement in Iran, notably in the fact that it did not stem from one particular group or organisation. One of the characteristics of the Islamic revolution movement in Iran was that before its culmination, different Islamic, non-Islamic and nationalist organisations and individuals of various ideological leanings struggled against the Shah’s regime and each one believed the future of the revolutionary movement to lie in their hands. When on 17 January 1978, in demonstrations protesting against the publication of a calumnious article about Imam Khomeini in the Ittila`at newspaper, a number of people in Qum were martyred, a chain reaction was started. Ceremonies marking the seventh and fortieth days after their martyrdom were held in Tehran, Tabriz and other cities, each one of which turned into a demonstration which resulted in clashes and the martyrdom of a number of other people. This in turn set the stage for further seventh and fortieth day ceremonies and consequently further demonstrations. By the latter half of the year, the demonstrations had become a national uprising which all the political groups: the Marxists, nationalists and religious groups of different leanings, joined in. No one had expected such a large scale uprising of the people to have taken place without the intervention of some political group or another.

All groups joined the ranks of the people, and pictures and drawings of different personalities were held up. However, that which was important for the people in general and was a unifying factor in the uprising was the common aim: the overthrow of the Shah, and, as the slogans and demands of the people showed, the prevailing tendency of the movement was towards Islam, since Islam was and is the religion of the majority of people in Iran. The intifada movement had precisely the same characteristics.

Many opinions have been expressed about the intifada, opinions which only future events can verify. What can be claimed with some certainty is that the spontaneous and popular nature of the intifada was its most salient feature and its most dominant was its Islamic aspect. It is this which struck fear into the hearts of the Israelis.

The arrest and imprisonment of Shaykh Ahmad Yasin in the first few months of the intifada, stemmed from this fear, and the expulsion and sending into exile of 415 Palestinians from the occupied territories in December 1992 was done with the aim of stamping out the intifada. Those expelled were mainly committed Muslims who supported Hamas and were considered by the Zionists to be the leaders of the uprising. On the one hand, this move is demonstrative of the Islamic aspect of the intifada, while on the other it shows that it was an uprising of the people which lacked complete dependence on any group or party, even Hamas, for after the expulsions not only did the movement continue, but a short time later more than 300 Palestinians from the occupied territories were either killed or injured in a confrontation with Israeli forces. This shows that the uprising was a spontaneous, popular one, not one organised by a group or party, and leadership of it found its way into every home.

The prolonged continuation (1987-93) of the uprising shows that even if certain people had played a role in setting it off, they were not necessarily needed for it to keep its momentum. The intifada did not have a centralised political command and no one particular organisation formed its central nervous system; all the organisations were its followers and supporters and each one strove to direct its modus operandi. Each one of the Palestinian organisations spoke as if command of the intifada lay in their hands, however one should remember that most of them were based outside Palestine in Tunisia, Syria or Jordan. The people in Palestine heeded their words and acted towards achieving the common aim they shared with them i.e. freeing the occupied territories from Israeli occupation, however it did not mean that had all these organisations withdrawn their support the intifada would have ceased to be.

Another similarity between the intifada movement and that of the Islamic revolution in Iran, which was seen for the first time in the history of the Palestinian struggle, was the use of the mosques and Friday Prayer ceremonies as bases for demonstrations. The struggle of the Palestinians has always depended on guerrilla operations, weapons and organisation, during the intifada, however, Palestinian women and children were active in a striking way, and fists, sticks and stones were used against bullets. This time the struggle was dubbed ‘the revolution of stones’ or the ‘uprising of the stone-wielding youth.’ The desire for martyrdom and the willingness to forgo one’s life, weapons which have no likeness, no substitute and no equal, were other important characteristics of the intifada movement.

Another point to note is that the intifada was a reaction of the people to the failure of the different methods of struggle adopted by many and thought to hold the key to the Arabs’ problems. These included Arab nationalism - which reached its peak at the time of Nasser but which in recent years has lost its appeal - and communism and leftist tendencies which received a fatal blow with the break up of the Soviet Union. Eventually, after all the roads the Palestinian movement had travelled down came to a dead end, the conclusion was reached that Islam was the only solution. The path that political philosophies could not find, arriving mostly at defeat, surrender and compromise instead, is being sought through Islam today, and it is a path which will return the follower ‘to the self’, and one that is now pursued not in Palestine alone but through the surge of Islamic awakening witnessed in all the Islamic and Arab countries.

In the past, Islamic resurgence had only ideological and cultural aspects, but with the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 under the leadership of Imam Khomeini - as a religious scholar and marja’-i taqlid (sole source of religious guidance) - a political and practical dimension was added. The Palestinian struggle, which was for years characterised by its political and military aspects combined with nationalist ideas, had by the mid-nineties acquired an ideological aspect and an Islamic dimension. As Dr. Fathi Shaqaqi, the secretary general of Islamic Jihad in Palestine said: ‘The victory of the Islamic revolution brought back confidence in ideology and religion for all Muslims of the world and proved that Islam is an unbeatable force. Islam brought alive the power of uprising in the Palestinian people.’ With the people’s movement (intifada) in Palestine, even those who are still influenced by the ideas of Arab nationalism are looking to Islam as an energy source and a means to bring the Arabs together for saving Palestine, and some have even started to genuinely re-evaluate their ideas.’

Some of the Palestinian forces felt that the Palestinian issue was not simply one of settling Jews on occupied land. Rather, in addition to helping the political and economic aims of the imperialists in the Middle East region, they saw the whole affair as part of a new western crusade against the Islamic umma and as a way to take revenge for the defeat of the Christian and western forces in the Crusades of 1096-1254 and for the conquest, humiliating as it was for the West, of Constantinople in 1453 by the Ottoman Turks.

It was a new idea formed after the Palestinian movement reached the many dead ends in its struggle, or rather to be more accurate it was an idea which found renewed strength. So in this way one can say that the intifada had a lot of similarities with the Islamic revolution in Iran, in particular in its Islamic aspect, and Imam Khomeini was one of the respected role models for the Palestinian people and they paid great attention to his opinions. For this reason, the collection of his views and thoughts should be afforded considerable attention and scrutiny for he is an effective personality and role model in the Palestinian struggle and someone whom the Palestinian Muslims regard as having revived the Islamic movement.

 

The compromise of Gaza and Jericho

The intifada brought hope for the Palestinian refugees and created a serious danger for Israel which it felt acutely. The fear that the movement would continue agitated the occupying government and made it ready to compromise. The Israelis never recognised the Palestinian nation as one with an historical identity. Consequently, before the intifada they had always obstinately refused to accept any resolution or peace plan that tried to find a political solution, however limited the rights and concessions for the Palestinians it may have given. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and Reagan’s peace plan offer clear proof of this obstinate stance. Eventually though, America’s and Israel’s fear of the intifada forced them to give in to negotiations with the PLO.

The break-up of the Soviet Union and the shift from a polarised international system to one fully dominated by the US compelled the Americans to adopt new policies. In order to block the way for the infiltration of European and Japanese influence, and even that of Islamic fundamentalism, and open the way for installing the new world order and establishing American world dominance, they were forced to direct their attention to controlling and extinguishing tension in the world’s flash points, especially in the Middle East region - whose volatile situation was seen to have international repercussions - to grabbing the Middle East peace initiative and damping down tensions in areas prone to crises.

The more conciliatory groups in the Palestinian struggle saw the intifada as their trump card, one that would secure hitherto unachieved concessions in negotiations. They felt that because of the intifada, they could now enter negotiations in a much stronger position. Consequently, they began to use it to their advantage. On 9 September 1993, Yassir Arafat, chairman of the PLO, in a letter to Israeli premier Yitzhak Rabin, formally recognised Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. He also renounced violence and announced the PLO’s agreement to the Declaration of Principles (accord) and Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 (which formally recognised the existence of the occupying regime and called on it to withdraw to borders in place before 1968). He also stated that those articles in the Palestine National Charter that denied Israel’s right to exist and contradicted the PLO’s commitment to renounce terrorism and other acts of violence would henceforth be ‘inoperative and no longer valid.’ The day after Yitzhak Rabin, also in a letter, officially recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and in the Israeli parliament announced that he had agreed to start negotiations with them. The 17-point draft of the accord - which provided for Palestinian self-rule for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Jericho - was signed by Arafat and Rabin during negotiations. One of the aims of America and Israel in giving in to this agreement was to create a split among the Palestinians and damp down the flames of intifada using Palestinian hands.

Another of the results of this agreement was to smooth the way for the official recognition of Israel by the Arab governments and transform Israel into a legitimate base in the region. This agreement, brought about because of the acute worry the intifada caused Israel, may have constituted a limited retreat on the part of Israel from its previous stance of nonacceptance, but it was still a long way from securing the elevated goals the Muslim nation of Palestine aspired to in their struggle.

Recognising Israel’s right to exist will turn out to be the source of many tragedies for the Middle East and the Muslims in the future, and the fault does not lie only with the PLO and Arafat. If we look at this agreement issue from a wider perspective and judge it from the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini, then the fault for these tragedies lies also on the shoulders of all the Muslim governments, all of them have helped bring about this humiliating situation. Even though the results and future of these new moves for compromise cannot be given final judgement without more time and it is up to posterity to make known the realities, it is obvious now that the seeds of resistance in Palestine have found fertile soil in ideological and Islamic ground, and the faith and motivation of the Muslim people of Palestine form a gushing spring which is responsible for irrigating this ground. So the most natural assumption is that the tree of steadfastness and struggle will grow ever taller and prolific. Indeed, the signs are already there. This is the future that Imam Khomeini anticipated and throughout his life and struggles he took determined steps and bore much hardship along the road to realising this future.

"If ye will aid (the cause of) God, He will aid you and plant your feet firmly." (Qur’an 47:7).