The Road Map to Nowhere:
The crusade continues until the Muslims are powerless globally.

The Reality on the Ground!

Part I : Road map to nowhere

George W Bush and his lapdog Tony Blair have been promising an elusive document for years. I’m not talking about their letters of resignation, although that would go down well with many. The document in question is the roadmap for Middle-East ‘peace’. It would not be overly cynical to argue that this is nothing more than a way of appeasing the Islamic World and maintaining the shaky thrones of its Western backed tyrants. Even the name sounds fanciful; a more appropriate name would’ve been the Middle-East ‘roadblock’. As we are on traffic metaphors, the tagline could be ‘a green light to the Jailer of Jenin to continue his killing spree’, because that is what it in effect it will achieve. On a serious note what is this roadmap? It is sold as a document that will pave the way to a Palestinian state. Some would say what’s wrong with that? The answer is plenty.

The stated aim

The US has envisaged a ‘two state solution’ for Palestine-Israel since 1947. This was the US road map, which it aimed to achieve on the land of the Prophets and of the Isr’aa (night journey). Armed conflict between Israel and the Arab rulers were attempts to create a sense of defeat in the minds of the Muslims who it was thought would inevitably accept Israel rather than fight her. I say ‘armed conflict’ because a war is a fight to win by all participants; no nation fights a war to lose. Yet this is exactly what the Arab rulers perpetrated upon the ummah in 1948, 1967 and 1973. After that they cried about the superiority of the Israelis and sued for ‘peace’ (surrender). The first was Sadat in 1979, soon after he received his recompense for his crime in this world. After this, King Hussein, who should have received Israeli honours for services rendered, signed a treacherous surrender with Israel. Then came the PLO, groomed to be the jailors of Palestine. Yasser Arafat and his mob called the people to Intifadha, expending the blood of the Muslim child to further his colonialist backed aims to consolidate Israel and establish a ‘Palestinian state’ in only a part of the occupied lands. They re-draw the vision of the Muslims by focussing them on the ‘occupied territories’, which became the lands taken by Israel in 1967 instead of recognising the truth of the matter, that the entire land is occupied and requires liberation. George Bush the first, declared following the Second Gulf War, ‘the new world order’. Within this vision, he declared that it was time the ‘Palestinian-Israeli’ issue was solved. Thus followed the Madrid conference which publicly revealed the planned betrayal. This was followed by the European initiative which led to the Oslo accords and the Washington signing, after which the Wye River accords sought further to move the surrender process along. Between and before these public accords, secret agreements were being conducted between the Arafat mob and the Zionist officials.

All this places the current road map into its correct perspective. It is no more than a continuation of the Colonialist agenda to legitimise the existence of Israel. Despite this Arafat and the new US backed Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) have rushed to accept the road map, whilst Sharon has seeks to re-write it through amendments.

The draft road map claims to lay the foundations for a ‘final settlement’ to the ‘Palestinian-Israeli’ conflict. It goes on to state that this final status agreement will ‘end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the Madrid Conference terms of reference and the principle of land for peace’. The basis of this agreement is 1967, whilst the contention of the Islamic Ummah is that the starting point must be the illegal establishment of the ‘State’ of Israel in 1948. The road map to ‘peace’ will be overseen by the quartet, the US, the EU, Russia and the UN, a collaboration of colonialist nations and institutions. The first step to the release of the road map was achieved by the appointment of a Prime Minister, Abu Mazen. After announcing his cabinet the full text of the road map is promised for release. The first real step will have to be a cessation of hostilities by the ‘Palestinians’, this means that the Muslims of Palestine will be forced to fold their arms in the face of Israeli aggression. This is something which the US puppet Abu Mazen has advocated.

Father of betrayal

Abu Mazen is the second in command of FATH, the leading faction in the PLO. His own statements reveal why the US has welcomed his appointment and why he is to receive a red carpet welcome to the White House in the coming months. In February he visited Moscow where he announced " [the] Palestinian leadership has decided to demilitarize the intifada for one year." In December he had called upon “all Palestinian factions [to] declare their commitment to end the military operations, in all forms, totally and not partially. He further called upon ‘Palestinians’ to, "return to the means of resistance used in the first Intifadhaa (uprising between 1987 and 1993).” This means that in the face of Israeli tanks, F16’s and Apache Helicopters, the Muslims react with, "stone throwing, demonstrations and other means of peaceful protest."

If this were not enough to reveal his loyalties, he revealed recently that he had argued for political dialogue with Israel since the 1970’s. At the time the PLO refused to rest until they achieved their public aim of ‘driving the Jews into the sea’. Abu Mazen said, "I started thinking how to deal with people whom we did not know, and I began to put out feelers that we should recognize Israel."

A state of flux

This is the leadership that will enact the colonialist road map, disarm the Muslims and establish the Palestinian State. This Palestinian State that they are chasing after, will not have control over its own land, borders, airspace or waterways, it will be subservient to the Zionist State and be reliant on Colonialists handouts. This is not a ‘state’, even though this word will be appended to ‘Palestinian’ in order to deceive all but the ignorant. But most importantly it will seek to consolidate the permanent existence of Israel and crystallise surrender in the minds of the Muslims, and the rulers over the Muslim countries will be able to wash their hands of Palestine.

The Muslims have to act against these measures, looking to the reality of victory for the Muslims rather than the acceptance of betrayal and the mirage of a Palestinian state. The Muslims have to ensure that the blood of those who fought Israel and its occupation is not betrayed. Rather the Muslims have to focus their attention on working to re-establish the Khilafah that will stop this betrayal and protect the responsibilities towards Palestine and all occupied lands.

“O you who believe! Betray not Allah and His Messenger, nor betray knowingly your Amanaat (things entrusted to you)” [TMQ 8: 27].

Part II: Roadmap to nowhere revisited

The Israeli cabinet met, Sunday 25 May, and voted to endorse the Middle-East Roadmap. This event came a month after the Palestinian Authority (PA) accepted the document, which promised ‘Palestinian Statehood’. Colin Powell and European politicians are fresh from visiting the Middle-East to seemingly push the process forward. We may ask, is the Roadmap more of the same or something different? Are the claims of Bush, that he will focus on the Middle-East, to be taken seriously or are they similar to past promises? In order to answer these questions the Roadmap has to be clarified. Its stages and phases have to be understood, and the change in the US view towards the Palestinian leadership (and towards the armed groups) need to be explained. This will aid us in understanding what we are to expect in the coming months up until the American Presidential elections. We may find that it will prove that this Roadmap is not worth the small number of pages it is written on.

The Roadmap – A political Cul-de-sac

The basis of the current roadmap stems back to President Bush’s speech on June 24 2002, where Bush spelled out a new US vision for the Middle-East peace process:

“For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region. For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East.”

Thereafter Bush promised that the US would engage in the Middle-East. This was the first time that he pledged his support the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005.

My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security.

His speech also included new policy changes as well as re-affirming old ones, which were then included in the Roadmap to Middle-East peace. Included in the new policy changes was a demand for the Palestinians to replace the current leadership, headed by Arafat.

Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.

This meant there could be no Palestinian state without new leaders. Bush also took this opportunity to re-iterate his demand for ‘terrorism’ to be fought by the ‘Palestinians’.

What is this roadmap?

The roadmap is a document, which lays down the stages to ‘a final settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict’. It was written by the Quartet of nations and institutions overseeing the process, they include the UN, the US, the EU and Russia. It is meant to be a change to past initiatives; therefore negotiations with both sides were abandoned in favour of a Roadmap drawn up by the Quartet.

The roadmap envisages three distinct stages:

Phase 1: Transparent actions on the part of the PA to fight terrorist groups. This must be accompanied by a public declaration by the PA to disavow any actions involving terrorism, including a public declaration that Israel’s right to exist is absolute and unchangeable. This has to be followed by a change to the Palestinian leadership, in effect taking real power away from Arafat and placing it in the hands of a new Prime Minister and his Cabinet. This was finalised after a great deal of pressure from the US administration. Israel is obliged to ‘progressively withdraw’ from areas occupied since 28 September 2000 (Start of the Intifadhaa) and to dismantle all settlements built after March 2001 and to cease building of new settlements.

Phase 2: This was meant to start next month (June 2003). It envisages the setting up of a provisional Palestinian state with limited sovereignty and built on a new constitution. Phase 2 starts when the Quartet decides that enough has been done to put down terrorism and a new leadership arises out of Palestinian elections. This must be followed by complete restoration of diplomatic and economic relations (normalisation) between the Arab states stalled after the initiation of the Intifadhaa.

Phase 3: This is described by the Roadmap as the end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and is pencilled in for 2005. This is the point when the ‘sticky’ issues will be solved including the exact borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of ‘Palestinian’ refugees and Israeli settlements. Following this, it is envisaged that a settlement between Israel and Syria will be agreed (twin track approach).

Let us look at this roadmap, its features and implications for the Muslims and the plans and policies of the colonialist nations.

Ending Jihad

Ever since September 11 2001 the US has withdrawn from its historical stance of utilising armed groups to aid its foreign policy goals. This applies to Jihadi groups in Kashmir, just as much as in Palestine. When Colin Powell met leaders in his recent Middle-East tour he highlighted this in order to indicate the changed realities. In a press conference with Abu Mazen May 11, Powell was asked about his impressions of his first official meeting him, he replied,

I think he understands clearly that he has to move aggressively with respect security and with respect to ending terror and violence

And whilst in Jordan Powell said,

“Palestinians will have to move quickly and decisively against those who cling to the path of violence and terror to achieve their ends.”

This is therefore nothing new, what is relatively new is the US desire to sideline Arafat.

A new leadership

The first step to the Roadmap was enacted prior to its official publication. Towards the end of April Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) was chosen as the new Palestinian Prime Minister. The US had given signals since late 2002, that he was their chosen successor and due to the intensity of US power it was able to sideline Arafat, who had always been more influenced more by the Europeans than the US. The Europeans did not give up their own initiatives despite the overwhelming superiority of the US in terms of economy, military, diplomatic influence and political leverage. The Europeans do realise they have merely got an influencing role in the process but that has not meant they have sacrificed Arafat despite US pressure. This was illustrated a week ago, when EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had extensive talks with both Abu Mazen and Arafat. The Israelis in turn refused to meet Solana claiming that Ariel Sharon’s schedule would not allow it. An Israeli diplomat was more candid: "We and the Americans are saying that by having meetings with Arafat people will interpret that as showing he is still a relevant figure."

Colin Powell was asked about this whilst he was visiting Israel, he replied,

We recognize that Mr. Arafat is still there, but the United States will not be dealing with him. We believe that Mr. Abu Mazen and some of the people that he has assembled within his cabinet…give us new leadership to work with, and we will do everything we can to enhance his authority and ability to get the job done.

When asked about the actions of other nations, such as the Europeans who still recognised Arafat as the leader of the Palestinian people, he replied,

With respect to what other nations might do and what various European and other foreign ministers might do…they can make their own decisions, but we have made it clear to them that we believe this is the time to invest in the new leadership. And I hope that with the passage of time, my European and other colleagues will see the wisdom of acting in that way.

The US is seeking to sideline the remnants of the old leadership that still exist in Abu Mazen’s cabinet. This includes individuals such as long standing Palestinian Chief negotiator Saeb Erakat, who was forced to resign after being squeezed out of the ‘negotiations’. As Chief Palestinian negotiator he was expecting to be involved in the first high level meeting with the Israelis but he was not allowed to attend. Colin Powell on being questioned about the significance of the resignation replied he did not know whether it "will enhance or take away from the prospects of successful discussions".

Yet it seems that the Europeans are sticking by Arafat. Dominique de Villepin, French minister of foreign affairs, in an interview to the newspaper Le Monde said,

Let us not divide the Palestinians. There is a prime minister, and we welcome this. There is also an elected president. We have no reason to cut off contacts given what Yasser Arafat represents for the Palestinian people today.

It looks like the US is conducting a gradual purge due to the fact that Arafat has a couple more ounces of support than Abu Mazen. The first step has already been achieved by the imposition of Abu Mazen and Interior Minister Muhammad Dahlan. The hurdle the US will face is the uncertainty of outcome for the future Palestinian elections and whether their men or Arafat’s men will prevail, but Afghanistan and any future elections in Iraq will no doubt highlight, there is nothing like a good rigging.

Bad directions

There are other features of the Roadmap, which should be looked at before evaluating whether the US is truly serious about this venture.

The Roadap has been made purposefully vague. It is a skeleton agreement that was drawn up by the Quartet with minimal consultation with the parties. It does not deal with any of the contentious points such a clear outlawing of all illegal Jewish settlements, whether refugees kicked out from their homes in 1948-49 will be allowed to return or even what the future of Jerusalem will be. In essence it demands a great deal of action from the Muslims, but outlines the actions required of the Israeli in indistinct terms. It makes use of phrases such as ‘confidence building measures’ in this respect. What really clarified the relationship between the Roadmap and what it requires of the Israeli government is highlighted by two events.

a) Colin Powell assured the Palestinians that the Roadmap would not be changed, whilst the Israelis were convinced to accept the Roadmap under the assurance by Powell and Rice that any objections would be entertained in the future, which seems contradictory unless the pretence of agreement is being aimed for rather than a consensus on substance. This undoubtedly allowed the Israeli Cabinet to accept the Roadmap whilst confidently appending 14 ‘non-negotiable’ reservations, which were presented to Washington.

b) The Israeli’s marked their acceptance of the Roadmap by invading Tulkarem refugee camp and occupying ten of its homes, indicating what Israel regards to be the definition of the phrase ‘confidence building measures’.

The illusory Palestinian State that the US continually claims to want to establish is never defined in absolute terms. What will its powers be? Where will its borders begin and end? How will it gain access to water? Will settlements in these areas be policed by Israel if they are allowed o exist? There are no answers forthcoming to any of these questions. The only sensible reason for this is that the US is not at all serious about the Roadmap.

Why?

Some will inevitably ask why is the Bush administration seemingly immersing itself in the Middle-East if it is not serious about this initiative at this present time? Why has Colin Powell spent an entire week touring the Middle-East and why is Bush planning to meet Sharon and Abu Mazen in June? All this is in addition to his many direct phone conversations with them both.
To answer these questions, one needs to look into when the recent statements concerning the Roadmap came about. The Roadmap was initially advocated last June, yet it was left on the back burner until the eve of the Iraq campaign. This was then promised, so as to build the illusion in the Muslim world that the US is an ‘honest broker’ for peace. The US also wanted to provide its agent rulers in the region with something to present to their people to illustrate that the US will tackle the Israeli occupation. Apart from this reason, Bush tossed this initiative to Blair as a lifeline to dampen criticism he faced domestically and to lift his position in exchange for his support over Iraq. It was therefore an empty gesture to present to Blair who had publicly called for the Palestinian problem to be solved following the Iraq war.

Election year

Bush got into the White House by loosing an election but winning a court case. His election campaign for a second term started in earnest on “super Tuesday” September 2001 in New York. Despite the fact that the US Presidential elections are scheduled for November 2004, the fundraising has already begun. This is not peculiar to Bush alone, as the third year of a presidency is generally held to be the point at which preparations for winning a second term are started. Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political advisor who said ‘the focus now is on re-electing the president’. It is the want for a second term, which has placed the contentious issue of the Middle-East on the back burner throughout his presidency. Every proposal has faltered because it was intentionally allowed to falter. This applies to the Mitchell report just as much as the Tenet plan. Aside from the US declaration to combat armed groups, which is based on a real desire to halt their actions, nothing of substance was ever proposed by the Bush administration. The only reason that they were ever pushed in the first place was to combat criticism that the US lacked a coherent Middle-East policy.

Now that an election is approaching, the Bush administration does no wish to jeopardise its position by taking part in risky ventures. There was a general consensus on Iraq, and if need be one can be brought together if Syria is next on the list, but the same cannot be applied to Israel. There is a deep feeling in the US for Israel, this has forced huge sections of Congress to call for the rejection of the Roadmap. Even elements within the Bush administration have argued that Israel must not be pressured. The Bush administration recognises that the ‘Middle-East peace’ tree cannot be publicly neglected, but people have to believe it is believe it is being regularly fed and watered.

What this all illustrates is that the Israeli acceptance of the Roadmap is of little significance because the US is unwilling to push the process forward. Despite this the US blueprint for a Palestinian state involves a weak state dominated by Israel.

As Muslims we must reject all of these various proposals and initiatives that are marked ‘Made in the US/UK/EU’. The same nations that are advocating these proposals were responsible for handing the keys to Palestine in 1948. It was the British who supported the establishment of a ‘Jewish national home’ in Palestine in the shape of the Balfour declaration. It was US President Harry S. Truman who recognised its existence in 1948. Should we beg these same vultures for redress? Surely it is only the sick or insane who would turn to the accomplice for help against the perpetrator. The US/UK/EU and Russia use the political situation in the Islamic lands as political footballs to kick around when they see fit. The rulers of our countries allow them to do this. We must be the ones to stand firm against this treachery.

The intervention of kaafir states; America, Britain and the rest of the European nations in our affairs will give the Kuffar authority over the Muslims. This is Haram due to the saying of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said:

“And never will Allah grant to the disbelievers a way over the believers” [TMQ 4: 141].

Therefore, it is obligatory on every Muslim to work to put a stop to these intrusions. The Muslim is obliged to restrain the hand of the hypocrites and agents, through whom the kaafir enters our lands. It is obligatory to confront the rulers who bring new solutions from the kaafir states to solve the problems of our Ummah. He (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said:

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliya (friends, protectors, helpers)” [TMQ 5: 51].

The only legitimate way of protecting this Ummah and stopping the kuffar’s interference in our affairs is the establishment of a Khaleefah, to whom the Bay’ah would be given on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam). He (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) said:

“Indeed, the Imam is a shield, behind whom you fight, and are protected”.

Source:
Yusuf Patel
Khilafah.com Journal
25 Rabee Al-Awwal 1424 Hijri
26 May 2003 Comment:

Send us an email to confirm your thoughts below, do you agree with this article?: