PRC

How the Zionist Colonization of Palestine Radicalized British Muslims

The Palestinian quest for freedom and independence is arguably the last of the great anti-colonial struggles. No other international issue has dominated so persistently the agenda of the UN after its creation. Since 1947 the conflict in Palestine has threatened global security, undermined stability and plunged the Middle East into a series of destructive wars. Like the anti-apartheid movement, it has galvanized popular disaffection on every continent. British Muslims have not been immune from the impact and influences of this conflict. Over the years they have become increasingly radicalized by a catalogue of escalating injustices in Palestine.

Though often referred to as the Holy Land, Palestine's modern history has been shaped more by the undoing of men than by miraculous divine intervention. The Zionist objective of colonizing Palestine has been the root cause of the tragedy and turmoil. The Basle Protocol which was adopted at the First World Zionist Congress (29-31 August 1897) affirmed the Zionist aim to create a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Article I upheld that the means to achieve this end was through the ‘colonization' of Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers. In the same vein Article IV confirmed the need to secure government consent where necessary to realize the aim of Zionism. (Khan, 1998)

After several years of unsuccessful lobbying European governments, the Zionist leadership made their first and most important breakthrough when they won the support of the British government on 2nd November 1917. This was conveyed in a short letter written by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild (1868-1937) informing him that,

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." (Al Dajani, 1997:11)

For all its political worth, the legality of the Balfour Declaration was questioned from the onset. To begin with, it was issued without the knowledge or consent of the Palestinian Arabs. Notwithstanding, it begged the question, how could one country promise the establishment of a national home for one people in the country of another people when that country had no sovereign rights over the country concerned? In reality, it contravened the established legal maxim that no one can give that which he has not (nemo dat quod non habet).

By itself, the Balfour Declaration held little value to the Zionist movement. Though issued by the British government, it had absolutely no legal basis of authority. The purpose of the Mandatory was, therefore, to provide the legal cover to facilitate Jewish immigration to Palestine and place the country under a political, administrative and economic regime that would facilitate the establishment of the Jewish national home. (Asquith, 1928)

Had they so desired, any subsequent British government could have ignored or repudiated the Balfour Declaration, which was only a statement of policy. With its incorporation into the Mandatory and ratification by the Principal Allied Powers acting through the League of Nations on 22nd July 1922 the Declaration was, however, raised to the level of an international treaty. The fact of the matter, however, is that the British government at the time had little regard and less respect for the rights of the Palestinian people.

Lord Balfour unapologetically demonstrated this disposition when he resisted suggestions for an enquiry to determine whether the Palestinian people wished to be placed under a mandatory rule. Under the Covenant of the League of Nations the concerned people should be given the right to decide. (Tibawi, 1977) In a memorandum dated 22nd September 1919 he asserted that his government had no intention to consult the inhabitants of Palestine. Zionism, Balfour argued, was ‘of far profounder import than the wishes of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabitant that ancient land.'(ibid.)

With such undisguised prejudices built into the national home project and its attendant mandatory authority, it was clear that grave injustices were about to be committed.

During the short period of British rule (1922-1948) the doors of immigration were thrown open to the Jews. Their number rose from 83,794 in 1922 to 608,225 in 1946. (Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1991) The percentage of Jews grew from 11% of the population in 1922 to 86% in 1949 following the expulsion of an estimated 805,000 Palestinians who constituted 84% of the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. (Abu Sitta, in Karmi and Cotran, 1999)

The injustice done to the Palestinians was not lost to British historians. In a message to an international conference convened in Egypt in February 1970 Bertrand Russell conceded that the tragedy of the people of Palestine lies in the fact that their country was given by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The consequence of this he regretted was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. (Mayhew and Adams, 93)

Inevitably, there is a nemesis for committing and condoning injustice. Another eminent 20th century British historian Arnold Toynbee warned of this when he wrote,

‘The world has condoned the wrong that has been done to the Palestinian Arabs by Zionism. The Palestinian Arabs have been despoiled and evicted by force, and the force by which they have been coerced was first British, before the Israelis built up the military strength to do their own fighting - with American supplies of arms and American economic and political support.' (ibid.) PALESTINE AND THE MUSLIM FAITHPalestine's relationship with Islam goes back well beyond Prophet's Muhammad miraculous Night Journey to Jerusalem or the conquest of the city by Umar ibn al Khattab (636 AD). They actually started very early in human history. This is so because Palestine is the land of all the appointed prophets and messengers. Muslims believe in all the divinely sent prophets. Their message and call is the same as that of Prophet Muhammad. Accordingly, Muslims view the achievements and legacies of all the prophets as part of their religious and historical heritage.

Muslim affinity with Palestine is rooted in the doctrines of faith rather than in ties of kinship and blood. The closer a people are to the teachings of monotheism, the greater their claim to the legacy of the prophets. The Quran underscores this principle when it says;

"Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian. He was an upright man, who had surrendered himself unto Allah. He was not a polytheist. Surely the men who are nearest to Ibrahim are those who follow him; this Prophet, and the true believers." [3:67-8]

Many British Muslims do not believe that the role of Islam in Palestinian society and history should be confined to rituals associated with visits to Holy Jerusalem before or after Hajj. Suffice it to mention that one of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad narrated that he said, ‘If anyone puts on ihram for Hajj or Umrah from Masjid ul Aqsa and then proceeds to the Sacred Masjid (in Makkah), his former and latter sins would be forgiven, or he will be guaranteed paradise.' (Patel, 2005: 12-13)

Islam as taught by Prophet Muhammad was always intended to be a way of life for all mankind. It was never for one moment meant to be a philosophy or thought concerned with the development of abstract theories. Hence, the love of one's nation or homeland is part of faith. This was witnessed in the life of the Prophet Muhammad when he left Makkah after enduring thirteen years of relentless persecution. Upon his departure it was reported that he looked back at the blessed city and said, ‘You are the dearest place to me and if your people had not expelled me I would not have gone.'

Just as the Prophet had cherished Makkah so too his followers in every age have nurtured a special affinity with Palestine. Among the reasons for its distinction is the fact that it holds Masjid al Aqsa, which was the first qibla direction of the Muslims in prayer. Similarly, it is the third most holy mosque in Islam after the Holy Mosque in Makkah and the Prophet's Mosque in Madina. Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself encouraged visits to it and extolled the virtues of praying in it.

Abu Hurayrah reported the Prophet said, ‘Set out deliberately on a journey only to three mosques: this mosque of mine (in Madina), the Sacred Mosque (in Makka), and al Aqsa Mosque."(El-Awaisi, 1997:13)

The land of Palestine is blessed. The Quran says, "Glory to He who did take His servant for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose precincts we did bless." [17:1] The Sacred Mosque referred to here is that in Makkah and the Farthest Mosque (Masjid ul Aqsa) is that in Jerusalem. According to a prophetic tradition both mosques were built within a forty-year period of each other. Abu Dharr al Ghiffari narrated, "I asked Allah's Messenger about the first mosque on earth. ‘The Scared Mosque' (in Makkah) he replied. ‘And then what?' I asked. ‘Al Aqsa Mosque,' he said. ‘And how long was it between them?' I asked. ‘Forty years', the Prophet replied. (ibid.)

Another companion of the Prophet, Zayd ibn Thabit, narrated that he heard the Messenger say, "O how blessed is al Sham, O how blessed is al Sham, his companions asked, "and why is that so, O Messenger of Allah?" That is because Allah's angels spread their wings over al Sham." (Patel, 2005)

Still on the blessed nature of Palestine the Quran also recalls concerning Abraham, "But We delivered him and (his nephew) Lot (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations." [21:71]

For these reasons, British Muslims like all others feel a special sense of affinity and attachment to Palestine whenever they read the Quran. They express intense outrage and revulsion with the Zionist attacks and threats to destroy their third most sacred mosque. Anger is often turned into frustration and cynicism by the reluctance of the international community to enforce the law to end Israeli violations. By giving the impression that there is no law or that the law of the jungle prevails the community of nations have unwittingly contributed to the radicalization of British Muslims.

All the measures undertaken by Israel whether in the modern sector or the old sector of Jerusalem in terms of annexation or alteration of demographic structure are null and void. Several United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and Security Council resolutions confirm this. Security Council Resolution 476 (30 June 1980) deplored the change of the city's physical character and demographic composition and determined that "the basic law on Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith".

Notwithstanding, the same Security Council which adopts punitive measures and sanctions against Muslim countries have refused to enforce its own Resolution 465 of 1st March 1980 which declares that all the measures taken since 1967 have no legal validity and calls on states not to provide Israel with assistance to be used in this process.

ZIONISM AND APARTHEID

Whether Zionist oppression takes the form of house demolitions, extrajudicial killings, expulsion, seizure of land or desecration of places of worship, it cannot be passed off lightly as the work of a lunatic fringe. British Muslims are not alone in attributing this conduct to the ideology of Zionism. The Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi described it as a very dangerous ideology based on supremacy and a colonialist philosophy. (Ashrawi, 2005)

It was precisely on account of its discriminatory policies against the Palestinian people and denial of their national rights that the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 (XXX) on 10 November 1975, which determined Zionism a form of racism. Shortly before, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity set the stage for this resolution when they convened for their Twelfth Ordinary Session in Kampala (28 July -1 August 1975) and declared, "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being."

In hindsight, the UN's decision to declare Zionism a form of racism was not the result of an anti-Semitic campaign. It was, ostensibly, the verdict of the majority of members of the world body united and resolute in their determination to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. They affirmed that doctrines of racial differentiation or superiority are scientifically wrong, morally condemnable, socially unjust and politically dangerous.

Historically, Resolution 3379 was short-lived. Immediately after the launch of the Madrid peace process in 1991 the General Assembly adopted another resolution, No. 46/86 which summarily revoked Resolution 3379. For better or worse, the problem of Zionism persisted and remained exactly as Edwin Montagu, the former Secretary of State for India and Jewish member of the British Cabinet century, described it in the early 20th century, ‘a mischievous political creed.' (Tibawi, 1977: 221)

Without an acknowledgement that Palestinian collective suffering at the hands of the Zionists go back more than one hundred years it would be impossible to understand the depths of international anger and how the conflict has radicalized British Muslims. Asher Ginzberg (Ahad Ha'Am), the 19th century Zionist essayist condemned the attitudes of the settlers after his 1891 visit to Palestine. He decried their cruel and inhuman treatment of the Arabs. More significantly, Ginzberg deplored the unwillingness of fellow Zionists to oppose these practices. (Childers, in Abu-Lughod, 1971)

Ginzberg's verdict could easily be applied to the current Israeli leadership. As they used to do in the late 19th century, Zionist settlers still commandeer Palestinian homes, rob the inhabitants of their possessions, and evict farmers from their land.

Rooted as it is in the bigotry of 19th century European nationalism and theories of racial superiority the Zionist state never recognized the rights or humanity of the Palestinian people. The condition of its non-Jewish citizens is proof of this. Thousands still reside within meters of the homes from which they were evicted in 1948. They view the Polish and Russian immigrants who occupy their houses. While the cows of these immigrants are afforded electricity, running water and medical care the Palestinian Arabs must do without these basic amenities because they live in ‘unrecognized villages'. (Abu-Elheja, in Abdullah, 2004) There are at least 40 Palestinian villages in both northern and southern Israel, that are "unrecognized" by the Israeli government and therefore receive no municipal or state services such as electricity, running water, access roads, health and educational facilities, sewage and communications services. These villages came into being as a result of the Israeli legislation that prevented Palestinian Arabs from returning to their homes after they were expelled in 1948. Those who remained in the new state, ‘Israel' settled in other villages which Israel declared ‘unrecognized.'

To appreciate the Palestinian position the question may be posed, would British citizens submit to living in ‘unrecognized villages' while Arab immigrants occupy their homes and farm their lands? While Israel's separate and unequal systems of roads, laws and distribution of natural resources have won the approval and acceptance of western governments, they have been bitterly denounced by many peoples who were themselves the victims of racial discrimination and foreign domination.

Rev. Desmond Tutu the former Archbishop of Cape Town confirmed this when he declared in The Guardian [29th April 2002] that there is "Apartheid in the Holy Land". Elsewhere he recalled how deeply distressed he became in all his visits to the Holy Land because so much of what has been taking place here reminded him of what used to happen to Blacks in apartheid South Africa. Tutu further admitted that during his visits to the Holy Land he witnessed things that did not happen even in apartheid South Africa.' (Tutu, in M. and R. Tobin, 2002)

Apartheid is not an ordinary crime. It is a crime against humanity punishable by State parties signatory to the 1976 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The crime of apartheid is so repugnant to civilized values and contrary to the elemental principles of justice that both the Security Council and General Assembly affirmed that it could not be reformed or adjusted. In 1984 the Security Council adopted Resolution 554 which affirmed that only the total eradication of apartheid can lead to a just and lasting solution in South Africa. In the case of South Africa, the existence of the apartheid regime radicalised a generation across the world in the 1980s and 1990s. Israel's brand of apartheid is fast radicalising people in the 21st century. British Muslims are no exception.

HUMAN RIGHTS

When the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) was signed in 1949 its authors were motivated by a desire to prevent a repetition of the kind of barbarity that occurred during the Second World War. It has since become a fundamental pillar of international humanitarian law and governs the treatment of civilians under occupation and in times of armed conflict. A total of 189 countries including Israel have ratified the Convention, which is registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations [Art. 159]. Israel's belligerent occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and the Gaza Strip was neither benevolent nor enlightened. Institutional discrimination, economic strangulation, military siege and extra-judicial killings have been the hallmarks of a system that has ignited and fuelled two major uprisings since 1967.

Although Israel did not ratify the additional rules incorporated in the two Protocols of 1977, international legal authorities maintain that the Protocols are equally binding on all parties including Israel because they do no more than reaffirm existing obligatory international customary law. With the exception of Israel, all the 188 High Contracting Parties (HCP) to the Convention concur that it is applicable law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and should be adhered to by Israel.

Since the start of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 more than 650,000 Palestinians have been detained. The Palestinian population in the territories is around 3.6 million. More than 20% of the adult population in the OPT have been imprisoned at some time or another. This means almost every Palestinian household has been affected. As the majority of those detained are male, the number of Palestinians detained forms approximately 40% of the total male Palestinian population in the OPT.1
Four years after the outbreak of the Aqsa Intifada 3,334 Palestinian were killed. 82% of Palestinians killed by the Israeli occupation forces were civilians. 621 were children below the age of 17. Of this figure, 411 were shot with live ammunition and 200 were shot in the head, face or neck. 10,000 Palestinian children have been injured. By October 2004 an average of two to three Palestinians were being killed by Israeli soldiers, police or settlers every day. Mustafa Barghouthi of the Ramallah-based Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute (HDIP) pointed out that although it may appear low, this death rate if applied to the UK would be equivalent to 35 people being killed per day. In the US this would amount to 157 per day. (ibid.)

The response of the British government to Israeli repression has been indifferent at best. With its tremendous political influence in the Security Council and in the European Union it could have done much more to uphold the rule of law in Palestine. In the absence of any meaningful initiatives, British Muslims joined other faith communities and civic society bodies in a series of marches across the UK. Seminars were held on campuses and even in the halls of parliament, all to no avail. Petitions to invoke the EU Articles of Association with Israel were also futile.

Since 2000, Israel became linked to the EU by a Euro-Mediterranean Agreement concerning trade, economy and cooperation. According to Article 2, the relationship between the EU and Israel was to be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles. The reluctance of the EU governments to act against Israel after it was found to be in clear breach of this Agreement led 59% of Europeans to vote in an October 2003 European Commission opinion poll that Israel posed the greatest threat to world peace. The poll surveyed 7,500 people in 15 EU countries confirmed that Israel was a bigger threat to world peace than Iran, North Korea and the US. In Britain, 60% of those polled saw Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. (Telegraph, 4 November 2003)

To those who bought the argument that this was a crass demonstration of anti-Semitism it should be pointed out that in Israel itself the former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair recorded similar sentiments in Haaretz:

‘We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day. ... The intifada is the Palestinian people's war of national liberation. Historical processes teach us that no nation is prepared to live under another's domination and that a suppressed people's war of national liberation will inevitably succeed. We understand this point but choose to ignore it.'

[3 March 2002]

Britain had a golden opportunity to take the moral high-ground in September 2005 when a London Magistrate issued a warrant for the arrest of a former head of the Israeli forces in Gaza, Major General Doron Almog. The warrant was issued under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, on suspicion of war crimes including the destruction by the Israeli army of 59 Palestinian homes in Rafah refugee camp. Article 147 of the FGC cites wilful killing, torture and inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person as ‘grave breaches'. All these crimes are committed on a daily basis by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories.

Under Almog's command, the Israeli army had also destroyed vast areas of cultivated Palestinian land, commercial properties and public buildings, water and electricity networks, and other public infrastructure.

Upon arrival at Heathrow the suspect was reportedly tipped off and hence decided not to leave the plane which then took him back to Tel Aviv. Human rights organizations led by Amnesty International deplored the failure of the UK authorities to arrest the Israeli war crimes suspect. Under Article 146 of the FGC, Britain is obliged to search for persons alleged to have committed or to have ordered to be committed such grave breaches and bring them before its own courts, regardless of their nationality. If for whatever reasons it is unable to do so, it must hand over such persons for trial to another state party to the Convention that is able and willing to do so. The FGC expressly forbids the UK from entering into any agreement with another state absolving itself of this obligation (Article 148).

The case of Almog is symptomatic of Britain's soft policies on Israel that has not only spawned radicalism among British Muslims but also fury among Christians as well. In a hard-hitting report published in 2004 the British charity Christian Aid accused the international community of turning a blind eye to Israeli repression and expropriation of Palestinian land. The report noted that there was an urgent need for international intervention because Israel operates contrary to the legal standards required of it as an Occupying Power.' (Christian Aid, 2004)

The anguish and outrage felt in the UK was deeply felt in December 2002 when the Israeli occupation forces demolished a United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse in Gaza. The WFP lost 537 tonnes of food - worth $271,000 in the attack. Christian Aid 2004 report summed up the frustration and anger when it noted that years of aid to the Palestinians from international donors, including the United Kingdom and other EU member states, have been consistently undermined - and in many cases destroyed - by Israeli actions. The charity insists that EU taxpayers have every right to question why their money is being squandered due to lack of firm political measures to redress the Israeli policies which have made that aid necessary in the first instance. (ibid.)

RADICALIZATION

There is an unbreakable link between the rule of law, justice and security. Whatever the society, security only comes about when there is respect for the law and the rights of all are guaranteed and protected by it. When this principle is violated and replaced by racist notions of superiority and privilege, insecurity and mayhem becomes the order of the day. The undisguised injustices and double standards applied to Palestine have been an underlying cause for the radicalization of British Muslims.

Despite Israel's manifest breaches of humanitarian law in the period after September 2000, world leaders have demonstrated no courage or willingness to uphold the rule of law. Instead they chose to sing from the same hymn sheet of denial. Their chorus reached its crescendo during the November 2001 visit to Damascus by British Prime Minister. While Mr. Blair lectured his Syrian hosts on the virtues of civilized conduct and human rights, Israeli bulldozers were levelling the homes of Palestinian residents in Occupied Jerusalem. On the next leg of his tour, observers at home and in the region waited anxiously to see whether the Prime Minister would remind the Israeli leadership of the status of Jerusalem in international law and their legal obligations toward its "Protected People". None of this was forthcoming. On the contrary, what emerged was an expression of understanding and support for the Israeli leadership in the conduct of its extra-judicial policies in the Occupied Territories.

Britain's primary role in creating the problem and its impotence to rectify its wrongs has become something of a historical albatross as well as a source of anger and embarrassment. Arnold J. Toynbee writing the forward to The Palestine Diary (1970), explained the tragedy in Palestine is that an entire people, about 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs (estimated today at 5,000,000) were driven out of their homes and turned into permanent refugees as a result of foreign intervention in their country's affairs.

The Palestinian tragedy, Toynbee added, is not a local issue but a global one as its seminal injustice has consistently undermined world peace for decades. As a an Englishman Toynbee admitted he was loath to indict his country but in the case of Palestine the magnitude of the injustice was so immense that he felt obliged to speak out against it as this was the only form of personal reparation he could offer. (John and Hadawi, in Muslim & Arab Perspectives, 1993)

The impact on British Muslims was no less palpable. Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison had no doubt about this. In their article, ‘The Origins of Hostility' they explained that Muslim anger over the creation of a Jewish state in Islamic lands, the expulsion of three-quarter of the Palestinian population, their subsequent suffering under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, have all contributed to the ‘radicalization' of Muslims. (Counterpunch, 29/30 October 2005)

THE REFUGEE ISSUE

In summation, there were two predominant factors that rendered the Zionist colonization of Palestine offensive and abhorrent to British Muslims. The first was its religious motivation and the second was its inhuman and repressive nature.

Two weeks after the issue of the Balfour Declaration, the US envoy to the Arab East, William Yale illustrated the extent to which policy was shaped by hostility toward Islam. He argued that the nurturing of a pure Jewish state in Palestine would introduce a new element in the east capable of confronting Islam and protecting the Suez. At the same time it would deliver a people forever indebted to Britain. (Saleh, 1996)

The religious motive articulated by Yale was further reflected in more menacing terms through General Edmund Allenby's remarks after the conquest of Jerusalem in December 1917 when he pronounced that on that day the Crusades had ended. (ibid.)

In terms of its violent and repressive nature the Zionist project found its most outspoken advocate in the person of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of the Zionist revisionist movement. This was outlined in his essay the "Iron Wall." Jabotinsky accused Labour Zionists of being hypocrites for trying to disguise their colonial intent. Writing in the Jewish Herald (South Africa) he summarised the revisionist approach to the Palestinian people;

"If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf. Or else? Or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible - not difficult, not dangerous but IMPOSSIBLE! Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed force." (26 November 1937)

Ever since the 1920s Zionist leaders have dutifully espoused the ‘Iron Wall' strategy. Its underlying tenets informed the manner and timing of the creation of the state of Israel - a process that was attended by the destruction and depopulation of 531 Palestinian towns and villages. The methods of force adopted in 1948 and 1967 have continued unabated.

As it were, the violent transfer of the Palestinians was the translation of a policy that was rooted in Zionist thought and vigorously espoused by the Mandatory authority. Commenting on the partition proposal recommended by the 1937 Royal Peel Commission, Ben Gurion insisted in an entry in his diary on 12th July 1937 that the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the areas of the proposed Jewish state would give the Zionist something they never had, not even in the glory days of the first and second temple. (Masalha, 1992)

Although Israel was admitted into membership of the UN on condition that it implemented Resolution 194 of 1948 which calls for the return of the refugees to their homes it has refused to comply with this demand of the international community. In reality, the return of the dispersed Palestinians to their homes and property is not a privilege or favour that is subject to Israeli goodwill. Neither is it a matter that depends upon Israel's demographic security needs as it claims.

In 1945, forced expulsion was deemed so irreconcilable with respect for human rights that the Nuremberg Tribunal viewed it as a crime against humanity. With regard to the Palestinians the General Assembly in December 1969 further adopted Resolution 2535 B (XXIV) which recognizes the linkage between the ongoing misery of the refugees and the denial of their rights; "that the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Britain, quite evidently, has played a pivotal role in brining about this situation. Responding to the Peel Commission Report the British Government issued a Statement of Policy on 20th July 1937 stating in part that provisions would be made for the transfer of the greater part of the Arab population in the Jewish state, if necessary by compulsion. (Khan, 1998)

As a result of policies of this kind a great many of British citizens today, not least Muslims, believe it has a moral and legal responsibility to redress the historical injustice committed against the Palestinian people. Any attempt, tacit or otherwise, to maintain the status quo only serves to fuel anger, resentment and the radicalization of its Muslims communities.

The failure of UN appeals, censures, resolutions, and condemnations to alter the policies of the Zionist state means that seven million Palestinians now face the threat of permanent exile, primarily because they are Arabs. Nothing on the horizon suggests that their ultimate return would be realized in the current climate of indifference and complicity.

Emboldened by the prevaling apathy within the international community Zionist settlers have continued their attacks against Palestinians. In August 2005, John Duggard, the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the WBGS reported an increase of settler violence in the occupied territories. He specifically mentioned the settlers in the Tel Rumeida settlement in Hebron who were trying to evict their Palestinian neighbours by a process of terrorization. (Duggard, 2005)

Despite their solemn undertaking to uphold the rules of international law and comply with the rulings of its highest judiciary body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the High Contracting Powers done nothing to enforce the ICJ's July 2004 ruling which determined that all the states parties to the FGC are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

In mid September 2005 Haaretz columnist, Gideon Levy reported that in Hebron some of the worst atrocities of the settlement enterprise are being perpetrated against the Palestinians. With such conduct the writer concluded that it was ludicrous to regard Israel as a democratic state ruled by law ‘as long as the pogroms continue in Hebron.'

Amnesty International in its 2005 report corroborated these view. It revealed that the abuses committed by the Israeli Occupation Forces army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes. These included unlawful killings, extensive and wanton destruction of property, obstruction and denial of medical assistance, targeting of medical personnel, torture and the use of Palestinians, including civilians, as human shields.

In many respects the most distressing images to come from the world's conflict zones in recent years have been those of child victims. The image of 12 year-old Muhammad al Durra being shot in his father's arms in the Occupied Gaza Strip was arguably the most memorable. It was beamed into British homes as it was around the world. To many Muslims this was the ultimate symbol of man's inhumanity to his fellow man. It has been a hall mark of the Zionist colonization of Palestine. By demonstrating a disregard for international law in Palestine, the community of nations and the British government in particular have created the conditions for the radicalization of Muslim youth and those who espouse the views of the law of the jungle.

Using the spurious claims of ‘security', successive Israeli governments have waged an expansionist war against the Palestinian people. Avi Shlaim the Israeli historian rejected their claim that this is because the Palestinians pose a threat to Israel's basic security. On the contrary, he asserts Israel is not fighting for its security or survival but rather to retain territories it conquered in 1967. His conclusion stands today as a veritable indictment to which many must answer. ‘The war that Israel is waging against the Palestinian people on their land is a colonial war. Like all other colonial wars it is savage, senseless, directed mainly against civilians, and doomed to failure.' (Newstatesman, 31 October 2005)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Abu-Elheja, M. (2004) ‘The Law of Return and its Impact on the Unrecognized Villages - a Case of Deportation' in D. Abdullah's (ed.) The Israeli Law of Return & its Impact on the Struggle in Palestine, The Palestinian Return Centre: London)

· Abu Sitta, S. (1999) ‘The Feasibility of the Right of Return' in G. Karmi and E. Cotran (eds). The Palestinian Exodus 1948-1998, (Ithaca Press: Reading)

· Al Dajani, A. (1997) Britain's Obligations Towards the Arabs Concerning Palestine, (Palestinian Return Centre: London)

· Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (1991) A Survey of Palestine 1945-1946 Vol.1 (Institute for Palestine Studies: Washington)

Ashrawi, H. ‘Settler Violence Against Palestinians' MIFTAH, The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, August 21, 2005, www.miftah.org
Asquith, H. (1928) Memories and Reflections 1852-1927, Vol. II (Cassell & Co: London)
· Barghouthi, M. (2004) Fact Sheets, Prisoners, Palestine Monitor, www.palestinemonitor.org

Ben-Yair, M. ‘The War's Seventh Day', "Haaretz" on Sunday, March 3rd, 2002
· Childers, E. (1971) ‘The Worldless Wish: From Citizens to Refugees' in I. Abu-Lughod's (ed.), The Transformation of Palestine, (Northwestern University Press, Evanston) he

· Christian Aid, (2004) Facts on the Ground, the End of the Two-State Solution, London)

Christison, B. & K. ‘The Origins of Hostility, Israel and the Consequences of "Uniqueness", Counterpunch, October 29 / 30, 2005, www.counterpunch.com
· Duggard, J. (2005) ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestine Territories Occupied by Israel Since 1967'

· El-Awaisi, A. (1997) Jerusalem in Islamic History and Spirituality, (Islamic Research Academy: Dunblane)

Evans-Pritchard, A. ‘Israel is No 1 Threat to Peace, Says EU Poll', The Telegraph, 4/11/2003
John, R & S. Hadawi, (1970) The Palestine Diary, Vol. I, 1914-1945, (New World Press: New York)
· Khan, Z. (1998) Palestine Documents, (Pharos Media & Publishing Ltd: New Delhi)

· Masalha, N. (1992) Expulsion of the Palestinians, (Institute of Palestine Studies: Washington)

· Mayhew, C. & M. Adams, (1975) Publish it Not, (Longman Group Ltd: London)

· Patel, I. Forty (2005) Ahadith Concerning Masjid al Aqsa, (Friends of al Aqsa: Leicester]

· Saleh, M. (1996) Al Quwat al Askariya wa al Shurta fi Falastine (Dar al Nafais: Amman)

· Shlaim, A. ‘Sharon's Iron Wall', Newstatesman, 31 October 2005

· Tibawi, A. (1977) Anglo-Arab Relations and the Question of Palestine 1914-1921, Luzac & Co. Ltd., London)

· Tutu, D. (2002) ‘A Clarion Call' in M.& R. Tobin (eds.), How Long O Lord, (Cowley Publications: Massachusetts)