Why
Palestinian politicians may not be entitled to make peace – why the negotiating
process may need to involve the Islamic Umma, the community of all Muslims
Gottfried
Hutter, theologian, psychotherapist, author of this peace initiative,
founder and chairman of “the Temple-Project Association.”
Since the founding of the State of Israel, sixty-five years ago, it has
lived in a constant state of war. If we, from our enlightened Western
perspective, look at the attempts to solve the conflict, we can hardly
understand why peace could not be achieved until now. In spite of our rational
intellect, we tend to ascribe evil intentions to one or even both sides.
Strangely enough, it seems to be that very intellect which prevents us from seeing
that Israel was established in a world whose people view life quite
differently. A person who has grown up in the West can
hardly imagine how our fellow human beings, the Muslims of the Middle East,
think and feel.
No one has expressed that more clearly than the present Turkish Prime
Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, in his formidable, highly philosophical book Alternative Paradigms, in which he
describes the fundamental difference between the Western and the Muslim view of
the world.
Without entering into the metaphysical background of the Islamic
paradigm, but applying it to the establishment of the State of Israel, one
could simply say: all Muslims – and thus, most Palestinians – are in the
service of the community of all Muslims, the Umma. Since an alien, non-Islamic
entity – Israel – was implanted without their consent on Umma territory the Umma as a whole
could not accept that. In 1948, it reacted militarily. Muslim States wanted to
expel the interloper. They did not succeed. Instead, in 1967 Israel went on to
occupy the remainder of the Palestinian territories on the West Bank of the
Jordan and in Gaza.
In the eyes of the Umma the subsequent struggle of the Palestinians is not only
regarded as a struggle for national liberation, but also as a religious duty. –
This perspective can help us to understand why attacks of the Islamic Hamas
have often been executed with so little regard to the consequences for the
Palestinian population: all must to contribute to the victory of Islam in the
fight against this foreign entity named “Israel” which intruded onto sacred Umma territory.
In order to resolve the conflict, the major powers of the world wanted
to provide the Palestinians with a State of their own. They designed a
wonderful peace proposal, the Two State Solution. The entire world seemed to
agree. However, despite their unanimity, even after decades of negotiations, an
agreement could not be reached. Why?
The wonderful peace proposal did not take into account the paradigm of
Islam. This
conflict is not a private matter between Israelis and Palestinians. The
conflict erupted because, when the State of Israel was implanted, a piece of
the Umma
territory was occupied by non-Muslims and the integrity of the Umma territory
was ruptured. The Umma
regarded this as a direct attack, all the more so because it happened near one
of the holiest sites of Islam, al Haram
ash Sharif, “the Noble Sanctuary” of the Muslims in Jerusalem, and because
Israel now claims ownership over precisely that piece of land. For, what Muslims
call al Haram ash Sharif is the location of the Jews’ ancient Temple.
Since the entire Muslim Umma is concerned, Palestinian politicians have not the
authority to declare the conflict settled after being satisfied with the
material outcome of negotiations. That is attested by statements from Iran, the
Hezbollah, and Hamas. Even a declaration of the Arab League of 2014 states that
Israel’s basic precondition for peace to be recognized as homeland for all Jews
must not be fulfilled.
People in the Western hemisphere often cannot understand why it should
be so important for Israel to be recognized as the homeland for all Jews. For
people who have grown up in the West – and for many secular Israelis as well –
it is hard to realize that the present openness of Western democracies can be
delusive.
They forget that there was a reason for the assignment by the League of
Nations to the United Kingdom to prepare a home for the Jewish people, which
led in turn to the UN plan of partition of 1947. Both are based on the assumption
that Jews need a State, one place on Earth in which they will be protected from
persecution.
In the past, safety was never guaranteed. In times of crisis, Jews were
scapegoated especially in European countries. Deadly persecutions broke out
again and again. And this could happen even today, as regional recurrences of
anti-Semitism show.
In order to be protected even in times of crisis, Jews needed and need a
sanctuary, their own State, comprising a Jewish majority. And because of the
worldwide risk of persecution, this State needs potentially to provide a
homeland for all the world’s Jews.
On the homepage of this peace initiative you will find an article by
Professor Sari Nusseibeh, the long-standing President
of Al Quds University in Jerusalem – the only contribution by an outside author
– Why Israel cannot be a Jewish State
(http://www.tempel-projekt.de/Warum%20Israel%20nicht%20ein%20juedischer%20Staat%20sein%20kann%20Nusseibeh%2011_10_02.htm).
I translated this article into German and placed it there, because in my view Nusseibeh’s reasoning needs to be taken fully into account
in any attempt to define the “Jewish” State, because it is necessary to provide
built-in guarantees that non-Jewish minorities will be in no danger of any form
of persecution.
Both Israelis and Palestinians need peace. But how can it be attained? A
return to the time before the State of Israel existed is not possible. The only
alternative: the Muslim Umma
must grant peace to their Jewish brothers and sisters. And that will need a formal reconciliation between Jews and
Muslims.
It will, therefore, be not enough merely to include the Umma in peace
negotiations; the Umma
must be seen to be Israel’s main partner in all negotiations. The problem that
was created for the Muslim Umma when the State of Israel was founded must be resolved
together with the Umma – and together with the reparations needed
for all material losses Palestinians suffered. Then the Umma can welcome Israel in its
midst.
As a first step, the Muslim Umma must be enabled to recover from the shock they
experienced when the State of Israel was founded. Israel must express empathy for
that shock – and all of Europe must acknowledge their forefathers’ guilt for
being the cause behind that shock. Next, Israel must express appreciation for
the privilege of protection extended to Jews for so many centuries within the
territory of the Muslim Umma.
But how was it that this long-lasting peace could turn into war?
The prophet Mohammed accepted the Jews as “people of the book.”
Nevertheless, wherever Islam became the dominant political power all
non-Muslims had to subordinate themselves to Islam. They had to regard
themselves as “Dhimmis”, protégés.
They had to pay a special tax, could not serve in the army, and had to accept
minor restrictions in their freedom of worship. But this practical solution
allowed a peaceful cohabitation over thirteen hundred years!
The founding of the State of Israel broke this ancient peace contract,
which is documented in the Muslim Sharia
law, and – regardless of any claims about land – that led to the intention to
eliminate the new and uncooperative entity. But of course, the new Israel could
not give itself up. In order to gain security it ended up, after decades of
being threatened with annihilation, by occupying the entire territory of
Palestine. Therefore, I believe, that occupation can be abolished only once
Israel’s existence is no longer threatened.
The Palestinians alone will not be able to guarantee safety. Thus, true
peace will be possible only once the entire Muslim Umma expressly welcomes the
Jewish State of Israel in its midst – an
act that entails connection with the very deepest values of Islam. – The
absolute need is for true reconciliation between Muslims and Jews, because then
not only armistice will be possible, but true peace. Then the old Sharia Dhimmi-rule can be replaced by
the Qur’anic command for a competition in virtue (Sura
5,48). And to that all Muslim States will have to
place their signature in confirmation on behalf of the Umma.
At least part of the present turmoil in
the Muslim world seems due to the Muslim Umma’s frustration at the
persistence of the alien enclave,
Israel, within its immediate sphere of interest. This frustration has been greatly aggravated since 1967, because
the Israeli victors went well beyond utilizing their undreamed-of gains of
territory purely for purposes of military security and ended up creating
and perpetuating a state of chronic injustice for the Palestinians and
chronic insecurity for all concerned.
While peace treaties have been signed with
Egypt and with Jordan, no one seemed able or willing to help the Palestinians
in the occupied territories. No one in the Muslim world dared speak and
act on behalf of the Muslim Umma. One rather hesitant step in this direction has
been taken by the Royal Court in Amman: the open letter “One Common
Word”, calling for reconciliation between Muslims and Christians:
hesitant, because it did not address the Jews.
Considering the terrifying power of the IS, a
new and far more forceful attempt is needed now – and there is only one person
with the authority throughout the Muslim world to take this initiative, King
Abdullah II of Jordan. He could accomplish what I have been talking about, the
precondition for true peace: reconciliation between two “peoples of the book”,
Muslims and Jews.
And one person can give him essential
support, Pope Francis I – especially since the former Israeli President Peres
formally requested him (on Sept. 4, 2014) to initiate and head a new
institution, the URO, the United Religions Organization.
(Update September 22, 2014)
Information and contact: www.Temple-Project.de, gottfried.hutter@gmx.de
Donations to the non-profit
“Temple-Project Association”, IBAN: DE93 7015 0000 1001 2410 31,
SWIFT-BIC: SSKMDEMM