The Struggle for Palestine – Q & A

1. What is the essence of the Palestinian struggle?

Palestine is classified as Islamic land in Islamic Jurisprudence.  It was opened by the second Khalifah, Umar ibn Khattab (ra). The significance of this is that the Ummah is forbidden from relinquishing the land to any other nation. If the Ummah loses the land, it becomes incumbent upon her to regain responsibility over the land and re-establish Allah’s (swt) just Deen. Allah swt says:

وَلَن يَجْعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لِلْكَـٰفِرِينَ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا

and never will Allāh give the disbelievers over the believers a way [Quran 4:141]

Palestine was occupied by the British during WWI and later handed over to the Zionists to form a Jewish homeland after WWII.

The establishment of the occupying entity came about through the wholesale killing, expulsion and displacement of the majority of the Palestinian population.

The occupation of Palestine was never accepted, nor was its transference into a Jewish homeland, and resistance efforts aimed at reversing this occupation continue to this day.

2. Is the problem the existence of occupation or merely its disagreeable actions?

Given the Islamic position on Muslim land, there is no such thing as a benevolent occupation of our lands.

Palestine, from the river to the sea, is occupied land, and the only conversation that can be legitimately entertained is how to reverse the occupation and reclaim it in its entirety.

Even if the occupying entity was to bestow the greatest privileges to its victims, it would not change the fact Muslims have the responsibility to regain authority over the land.

We should be wary of any calls that only criticise the actions of the occupation but not the fact the occupation of Muslim land persists.

3. How was the occupation of Palestine made possible?

The occupation of Palestine occurred at the height of colonialist ventures in the Muslim world.

Much of the Muslim world had already been occupied, and the last remaining traces of the Uthmani Khilafah dissolved after WWI.

The British, with the help of its allies like Australia and others, simply rode into Palestine facing little resistance.  

Much of the Arab world was already under the stranglehold of rulers who were loyal to colonialist countries, and these rulers ensured their populations would not become an obstacle when Britain unilaterally declared its mandate over the Holy Land.

In the subsequent years, Britain would prepare the groundwork for the expulsion of the Palestinian population to facilitate the mass migration of Jews from Europe.

4. Why did Britain hand over Palestine to the Zionists?

Britain is a colonial state, whose foreign policy endeavours exist only to further Britain’s national interests.

Britain, together and in competition with Europe, have always sought to avenge what they regard as their historic loss of the Holy Land. Whilst modern day colonialism is rooted in the struggle for power and material exploitation, the ideological imperatives that drive it are imbedded in both the secular and religious.   

Europe’s comprehensive victory over the Muslims was as unprecedented as it was unexpected. To cement this new power dynamic, Europe formulated a systematic colonial architecture designed to incapacitate the Muslim’s ability to challenge Europe’s stronghold over them.

Handing Palestine to the Zionists served four main purposes for Britain:

1. To establish an outpost and forward base for Britain in the heart of the Muslim world

2. To solidify the dismembering of the Muslim world by placing a foreign body at its heart to permanently separate the East from the West.

3. To serve as a distraction behind which Britain and Europe could hide. It was hoped Muslims would be so busy dealing with this new entity’s crimes they would forget it was the colonialists that installed it in the first place.

4. Encouraging the mass migration of Jews from Europe, especially after the horrors of the holocaust, could finally free Europe of what it regarded as its Jewish problem.

5. What role did Jewish people play in the occupation of Palestine?

The Jews have always existed on the fringes of Europe. Indeed, it was their historical treatment as second-class citizens that made the idea of a Jewish homeland free from European persecution desirable, despite its heterodoxy in the Jewish faith. Palestine, as the potential location of this new homeland, only entered the conversation decades later.

The idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was first proposed by evangelical Christians, who believed it would help usher in the era of Jesus’s (as) return. But this was mostly a theological proposition, and Zionism only started to seriously progress when its potential benefits became obvious to British imperialist thinkers.

The first British attempt to take over Palestine for this purpose would occur a century before the illegal Zionist entity would later be declared. The Balfour Declaration came to formalise Britain’s desire to exploit the vulnerabilities of Jewish people, a time when Britain was at the peak of its power and the Jews at their lowest.

6. How does the Zionist occupation of Palestine persist given its relatively small size in the region?

The occupation was born from the womb of Britain, entirely dependent upon it for sustenance and survival. The role of Britain would come to be replaced by the U.S., but the occupation’s dependency on foreign powers would not change.

The most recent war has exposed the occupier’s facade. It could not sustain itself for a single week without constant emergency supplies from abroad.

The occupying entity is also buffered by the complicity of Muslim rulers in surrounding lands. They continue to strengthen this entity, openly and secretly, even at the expense of their own people.

International institutions, established by the very nations that gave birth to the occupation, shield the occupying entity from state sanctions.

All these measures and more artificially inflate this entity’s perceived strength and resilience. The reality though is that it is no stronger than a spider’s web.

7. Why are Muslims accused of anti-semitism whenever they stand up for Palestine?

The charge of anti-semitism is a tired old trope invoked to shut down any criticism of the Zionist occupation.

It is a charge the West is happy to amplify as it masks the fact anti-semitism is rooted in the European experience.

The charge of anti-semitism is made possible by deliberately conflating Jews as a people and Jews as occupiers. It is the latter that is problematic, not because they are Jews, but because they are occupiers. So, it is the occupation that is being criticised, not the identity of the occupiers.

8. What is the significance of labelling resistance to occupation as anti-semitism?

The charge of anti-semitism seeks to shield the Jewish occupation from legitimate criticism.

It is designed to exploit Jewish victimhood by garnering unwarranted support.

It is intended to delegitimise resistance efforts by reframing it as aggression.

The claim ultimately inverses the aggressor-victim paradigm by painting Muslims as aggressors and Jews as their victims.

9. What are the various Muslim responses to the occupation of Palestine?

The responses are predictably varied, as would be expected by a people ravaged by centuries of colonialism. Responses are a mix of resistance, treachery, seduction, defeatism and idealism.

On one extreme, we have collaborators who are content with the occupation as they either desire it or profoundly benefit from it.

On the other side, we have those who principally reject it, continue to resist it and refuse to legitimise any aspect of it.

In between, we have those who oppose the occupation but have been seduced by some of its benefits.

It also includes those who reject the occupation but accept to be bound by the reality of occupation in determining how they choose to resist.

10. How do we explain the various Muslim repsonses to the occupation of Palestine?

Colonialism is not just a historical event that came and went with the passage of time. It is still with us, constantly changing form, and still reshaping our personal and political lives.

There are those amongst us that secretly celebrate the occupation, some even do so openly. They are the hypocrites and have placed themselves in the camp of the occupiers and should be treated as such.

There is a body of Muslims that just want to get on with their lives. It is not that they accept or are happy with the occupation, it is just that this occupation takes its toll, and therefore prefer a way forward that minimises further harm.

Another body of Muslims resist the occupation but have accepted, consciously or subconsciously, to be bound by its constraints. They are pragmatists trying to get the best deal for Muslims. This category is easy to manage for the occupation as their power imbalance ensures the outcomes of negotiations will always be favourable to the occupier.

The problem with the above two categories is that these ideas are deliberately being pushed onto the Muslims to get us to accept the occupation, if not principally, then at least practically. Islamic theological arguments are even impressed upon us to validate such sentiments.

The last category are those who refuse to legitimise the occupation, principally or practically. They persist in their resistance and reject all efforts at legitimisation, tapping into their Islamic faith for comfort and inspiration, whilst at the same time patiently preparing the means to bring about a practical, comprehensive liberation.

11. Why are some forms of resistance tolerated and others not?

The most pressing priority of the occupation today is to convince the Muslims to accept the occupation. It doesn’t matter if this is based on a principal or pragmatism, the priority is to get the Muslims to accept and normalise the occupation’s existence.

The occupation already has the support of colonial powers. It already has the support of the Muslim rulers. It already has the backing of international institutions and global media empires. All the political, military and economic support in the world will ultimately amount to zero if the occupied refuse to accept the occupation. That is why the occupation, after 75 years, still lives a fragile existence.

Any effort that leads towards normalisation will always be supported, including forms of resistance that can be controlled or negotiated. The PLO/Fatah experience shows us this very clearly.

It also includes forms of resistance that will be of little or no consequence. Such efforts will be tolerated, and even celebrated, as it will only entrench the defeatism in the Ummah.

But resistance efforts that cannot be controlled and refuse to negotiate would be harshly fought.

On a practical level, this includes all resistance efforts that take up arms against the occupation.

On a strategic level, this includes all resistance efforts aimed at reshaping the geopolitical conditions that make the occupation possible.

A red line for the West and the occupation is any attempt to involve the Muslim armies in resistance efforts. Under current arrangements, Muslim armies are forced to be guardians of the occupation who protect its borders and curb any external threats. Small bands of poorly armed fighters can be managed, but the introduction of a standing army would radically alter the scales.

12. If we disagree with how some Muslims are resisting, what should we do?

The Muslim ties of brotherhood are sacred. Even if we disagree on matters, we do so with the utmost respect and sincerity. The objective of any Muslim engagement is to bring one another closer to what is pleasing to Allah (swt).

We should recognise the enormity of the challenge in front of us and the difficulties required in maintaining a meaningful resistance. Sometimes the way forward is not always clear or easy, so we should be compassionate, understanding and uplifting when advising each other.

But for those who place themselves firmly in the camp of the enemy, then no such compassion is due. Ignorance cannot be an excused today, nor can treachery. These people should be shunned and rejected, and every effort made to ensure they represent only themselves.

13. What aspects of resistance should all Muslims at least agree upon?

There are a few key principles we should all agree on:

1. Palestine is Islamic land and must be returned under Islamic governance.

2. The occupation can never be accepted, no matter how long it persists, and every effort aimed at normalisation should be rejected.

3. The West and its institutions should have no say in relation to Palestine. It is the sole responsibility of the Ummah to take care of its own affairs.

4.  The Muslim armies should be mobilised in defence of a defenceless people. No regard should be given to the nationalist borders drawn for us.

14. What is the role of the West today in relation to Palestine?

The role of the West today in relation to Palestine can be summarised as follows:

1. To ensure the survival of the occupying entity by providing critical political, military and economic support

2. To lean on Muslim rulers to ensure they continue to act as faithful guardians of the occupying entity

3. To assist the occupying entity in confronting resistance efforts, and where necessary, to do so on the behalf the occupation

4. Shield the occupying entity from accountability by leaning on international institutions and global media outlets

5. Managing domestic public opinion through the weaponisation of the law and the media

6. Investing globally in ideological efforts aimed at undermining Islam’s resistance tradition.

15. Why are there concerted efforts in the West to criminalise or deligitimise certains calls to resistance?

In the short term, the priority of the West is to eliminate all forms of resistance conducted through actual fighting, including any political, ideological or economic support this fighting may receive. The purpose of these efforts is to incapacitate the Muslim’s ability to resist the barbarity of the occupation, practically.

Resistance by other means, like protests and propaganda, whilst undesirable, are easier to contain.

In the long term, the West is making every effort to ensure Muslim’s can never challenge the global political architecture that enables the occupation to persist. In essence, this means Muslim’s must never have enough power to throw off the stranglehold the West has placed over them.

The key to this potentiality are the Muslim armies, who have the capacity within them to snatch power away from existing rulers and hand it to a genuinely representative political leadership. That is why any contact with the armies for this purpose is considered a red line for the West, and even expressing a desire for it is increasingly being criminalised in the West.

So as long as you don’t cross this red line, the West will not necessarily prevent you from expressing your opposition to occupation. You may even find your voice being celebrated, especially if it is Western centric, because all these efforts will ultimately entrench the occupation.

16. Is the relationship between the occupiers and the West set in concrete?

Handing Palestine to the Zionists was always intended to serve the interests of Western nations.

If these interests can no longer be achieved, or the price paid to achieve them outweighs its benefit, then it is a well-established precedent with the West that it will, without hesitation, turn its back on its supposed friends. In Western political speak, there are no permanent friends or enemies.

17. Under what circumstances would the West reconsider its support for the occupation of Palestine?

Western states are driven solely by self-interest. If the cost of supporting the occupying entity significantly outweigh its benefits, then it is not inconceivable for the West to abandon its ‘ally’ in its hour of need.

There are multiple scenarios where this could be possible:

1. If opposition to the occupation rightfully morphs into a virulent anti-American sentiment, the U.S. will be forced to preference its own needs above that of its ‘friend’.

2. If the U.S. finds a less costly and more reliable entity in the region that serves the same objectives as the Zionist occupation, then switching allegiances becomes easy.

3. If regional developments explode beyond America’s thinking, then it will be forced to renegotiate the parameters of its engagement and preference its own needs above everybody else.

4. If wider geopolitical developments require greater American prioritisation, like its engagement with China or Russia, then supporting the occupation at all costs may very well become a distant memory.

5. If internal fissures within the U.S. continue to widen, and anti-occupation sentiment becomes a serious domestic liability, there is no doubt political parties of all persuasion will quickly abandon the occupation on pragmatic grounds. It is not as if they are actually invested in the idea of a Jewish homeland and prepared to pursue it at their own expense.

All these scenarios are easy to conceive, and their likelihood of materialising becomes clearer every day.

18. Is it too early to talk about a ‘post-’israel’’ world?

The conversation started long before Zionism was adopted by the British. It was never an eternal promise by the West or a commitment to defend at all costs. It was a pragmatic decision, taken in concert with other foreign policy exploits that sought to keep the Muslim world subdued.

But circumstances change, so too the strategic priorities of leading states.

Political commentators have long described seismic shifts in the emerging geopolitical environment that makes the continued support for the occupation untenable.

Such sentiment is shared officially too.

In 2012, Foreign Policy Journal reported sixteen American intelligence agencies jointly produced a draft report titled: ‘Preparing for a Post-[Israel] Middle East’, concluding [Israel] was the single greatest threat to US national interests.

Even the most ardent occupiers talk openly of their reservations about the future of the occupation. In 2017, Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Our existence cannot be taken for granted … The Hasmonean state lasted for about 80 years, and we have to surpass it.”

The conversation has shifted so much, even amongst Western allies, the question of the occupation’s existence is now shifting towards contentions about what the region will look like in its absence.

19. What does an Islamic Palestine look like?

The only time Al-Quds and Palestine saw real harmony between Muslims, Christians, and Jews was under Islamic rule. 

When Muslims ruled Palestine, there were no recorded massacres or persecutions against non-Muslims who lived under Islamic rule in Palestine, despite there being no mass media, efficient communication means or international “human rights” organisations to discourage in case of bad publicity.

The only solution for Palestine is Islamic rule, as the Shariah of Allah (swt) is the absolute truth and would implement justice in the blessed land.

The current genocide in Gaza is a natural by-product of the Capitalist world order that governs the world today, and the only viable alternative is the building of a new international architecture that is centred on the mercy of Islam.

All are invited to learn more about Islam’s societal systems and its creedal foundations.