Betrayal of the Muslim Rulers
uploaded 12 Sep 2006
"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" - David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
This statement that Ben Gurion made in 1948 is quiet revealing about the status of the Muslim rulers. Even Ben Gurion the first prime minister of Israel regarded the act of signing an agreement by a Muslim Ruler with the state of Israel as a betrayal to the people they represented. However today the Muslim rulers are not content in their betrayal by signing treaties with the state of Israel, they are working to normalise relations between this illegal entity and the Muslim countries and they also oppose any resistance to the occupying state of Israel. This is why Ben Gurion regarded the Muslim Rulers to be in the Israel camp when he said that the Arab regimes are the first line of defence for Israel, he also said “the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine” (David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.).What he means by artificial is that these Muslim rulers have been artificially imposed on the Muslim Ummah ever since the Uthmani Khilafah was destroyed in 1924.
The failure of the Muslim rulers to respond to the aggression carried out over the years by the non Muslim states against this Ummah has exposed them. But the ultimate betrayal was witnessed during the recent war between Israel and Hizbullah, where they blamed Hizbullah for instigating the war.
The war was in fact instigated by Israel in its plan to disarm Hizbullah, which is the only force in the region resisting Israel and protecting the people from Israeli aggression. Most of the biased western media put the blame on Hizbullah for instigating the war, but when we examine the UN report (Secretary-General report to the Security Council in 2001/2002/2004) since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 the report mentions many violations :
“Regarding air violations, the report stated that Israeli aircraft violated the line on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace”(Jan-July 2001)
“Of equal concern, stated the Secretary-General, were Israeli air violations of the Blue Line, which continued on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. These incursions were not justified and caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas.”(Jan-Jul 2002)
“The Secretary-General also voiced deep concern that “ Israel persists in its provocative and unjustified air violations of sovereign Lebanese territory. Hezbollah's retaliatory firing of anti-aircraft rounds across the Blue Line "is a violation that poses a direct threat to human life", he added.” (Jan-July 2004).
So in the words of the secretary general it was Israel, which was provoking and Hizbullah, was only responding to the attacks.
As regards to kidnapping of Israel soldiers lets examine first the International Committee of the Red Cross 2006 report on Israel :
“At the end of 2005, approximately 11,200 Palestinians were held by Israel in interrogation units, temporary detention centres, military detention camps, prisons and police stations”
“12,192 detainees visited, including 7,504 monitored individually (of whom 131 women and 565 minors)”
The document states that ICRC issued documents to 17,882 detainees, so the total number of detainees being held illegally may be much higher, these numbers quoted are the detainees which ICRC has access to. There are a large number of Muslims which have gone missing, which are not reported in this figure. Most of the detainees have been either abducted or kidnapped of the streets in Palestine or Lebanon, it is worth noting that 565 are minors.
So, when Israel mentions that it has been provoked into this war with Lebanon due the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah, it is nothing but a complete distortion of the reality, it is in fact Israel which is the provoker.
The facts presented above are well known in the region and especially by the Muslim Rulers, and yet they blamed Hizbullah for instigating the war, which allowed them to lay the basis for their inaction. They even sought to divide the issue into sectarian one along the lines of Shia and Sunni, highlighting the fact that Hizbullah is shia and is supported by Iran. The main reason for their inaction is that they do not serve the interest of this ummah they serve the interest of their colonial masters America and Britain.
“Blaming Hezbollah is a message to the U.S. from these countries, which says they are sources of stability and will continue to serve U.S. interests in the region,'' Abdullah Mohamed, professor of international relations at Kuwait University.
President Mubaraks statement reflects the stance of the Muslim ruler in the area:
"Those who urge Egypt to go to war to defend Lebanon or Hezbollah are not aware that the time of exterior adventures is over,"
"Those who are asking for war will make us lose all of that in a blink,"
"The Egyptian army is for defending Egypt only and this is not going to change,"
(Press Trust of India - Cairo, July 26, 2006)
These rulers once talked about Arab unity and they also professed Muslim unity through the OIC. But when challenged to act on this unity they profess self-interest. The statement of Mubarak reminds us of Musharaf words when Afghanistan was invaded by the US in 2002, he said “Pakistan first”. But don’t be fooled to think that they will even defend the nation, as we know with Iraq Sadaam Hussein did not release the armies to defend the nation against the invading force, it was the people and individual soldiers who took up arms to defend Baghdad in 2003.
In fact the statements made by King Adbullah of Jordan, King Abdullah of Saudi and Mubarak criticizing Hizbullah implicitly gave justification for Israels attack and she took it as a green light to invade Lebanon.
The Muslim rulers have cited many reasons for their inaction, but the main ones being the superiority of Israel’s Military and that it will bring harm to their national economies. Let us examine what options are actually available to these rulers:
Military – Directly confrontation
Economic sanction and blockade of Israel.
Militarily Population Military Manpower available Military Expenditure $bn
Israel 6,352,117 2,936,041 9.45
Egypt 78,887,007 36,031,464 2.44
Iran 68,688,433 35,860,582 4.3
Israel 6,352,117 2,936,041 9.45
Jordan 5,906,760 2,920,637 1.4
Syria 18,881,361 8,479,752 0.858
Saudi 27,019,731 13,066,921 18
Turkey 70,413,958 32,808,029 12.155
Lebanon 3,874,050 1,998,636 0.5406
Kuwait 2,418,393 1,331,865 3.01
Oman 3,102,229 1,228,492 0.25299
Muslim - Middle East 300,648,110 141,652,713 43.94879
The Muslims outnumber the Israelis by a ratio of 48 Muslim soldiers to one Israeli soldier. They spend almost 5 times on their military, so it is clear that a united Muslim force is the dominant military power in the region. Even with the advance military technology the Israelis cannot overcome such a large Military force.
Also a brief glance at the borders of Israel it is clear that it would be virtually impossible for it to defend itself from a simultaneous land offensive from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. You may be wondering have not these states staged a war against Israel before. Yes they have but they were scenario wars with the objective of seeking peace with Israel. This was mentioned by Mohammed Heikal's in his book "The Road to Ramadan" - he quotes one of Sadat's generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords - a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives.
Economic blockade
It may be stating the obvious but the Israel is land, sea and air locked by the Muslim countries. So Israel is dependent on the Muslim countries for its survival. What would be the impact of a Sea, Land and Air blockade?
Sea Blockade
Some 98% (by weight) of Israel's imports and exports travel by sea (
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org). Just as Israel with its minute naval force imposed as sea blockade on Lebanon, it would be easy for Egypt, Syria and Turkey to impose a sea blockade on Israel further up the Mediterranean Sea. Israel import 90% of the oil it consumes, majority of which is imported by oil tankers. This blockade will have a major impact on its Energy requirements. The major oil ports are at Ashkelon and Eilat, currently the port at Ashkelon receives oil from Russia in tankers via the Bosphorus which is controlled by Turkey. In 1989 Egypt supplied about 45% if Israel's oil needs but this has been gradually replaced by russian oil, currently it is still around 26-30%. The oil tankers arriving at Eilat have to pass though the Gulf of Aqaba whose waters are controlled by Saudi and Egypt. This is approximately 12nm wide and a blockade can easily be implemented. There port at Eilat is strategic as it will become key point of distribution of the central asian oil to the world market, BP plans to pump oil through Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil and gas pipelines via Turkey through Israels Tipline pipeline to Eilat. All the routes require the consent of the Muslim countries. Continuing on the theme of Energy requirements Egypt signed an agreement with Israel in July 2005 to supply Israel between “1.7 to 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually for 15 years.”(
www.arabicnews.com).
The blockade would simply nullify the following treaty, which really exposes how treacherous our rulers have been in aiding Israel:
“Ships of Israel, and cargo destined for or coming from Israel, shall enjoy the right of free passage through the Suez Canal and its approach through the gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the Constantinople convention of 1888”
“The parties consider the strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to be international waterways open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation and overflight.”
“it is agreed that such relations will include normal commercial sales of oil by Egypt to Israel, and that Israel shall be fully entitled to make bids for Egyptian-origin oil”( Treaty Of Peace Between The State Of Israel and The Arab Republic of Egypt - 26/03/1979)
(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)
The sea blockade would also curb the shipment of vitally needed water to Israel from Turkey. Israel and Turkey signed a 'water for arms' agreement in Jan 2004 where Turkey would “ship 50 million cubic metres of water a year for 20 years from the river Manavgat in Anatolia”(Gurdian uk) to Israel in water tankers.
Land Blockade
The following trade agreement meant that goods were traded across the borders between Israel Egypt and Jordan;
Agreement on Trade and Commerce (08/05/1980) – “To ensure the free movement of goods between the two countries, each party will make available to the other party, laws, regulations and procedures prevailing in his country, concerning the importation and exportation of goods and commodities”. “Both nations shall accord each other most favoured nation treatment”.
(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)
The impact of this treaty has been the increase of exports from Israel to Egypt and Jordan as the report mentions below:
“Israel’s exports to Egypt and Jordan in January-May 2006 increased, thanks to the Qualifying Industrial Zone (QIZ) export agreements with Israel's two neighboring countries…. Exports to Egypt rose 93% to US$48.7 million” (
http://www.port2port.com)
A land blockade would affect trade, mail and communication between Israel and the international community.
Air Blockade
Air Transport Agreement - 08/05/1980 – “To fly without landing across the territory of the other Contracting Party.”. “To make stops in the said territory for non traffic purposes … Agreement for the purpose of putting down and taking on international passengers, cargo and mail to and from the territory of the other Contracting Party.”
(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)
International flights to and from Israel utilise the air corridors over Muslim countries. Imposing the blockade would greatly impact tourism and vital communication channels, which are required for the state of Israel to operate.
Betrayal beyond belief
The level of betrayal of the rulers is not just confined to their inaction, but they are actively defending Israel and helping to integrate it into the region, the following agreements clearly highlight this:
Over the last decade Turkey has been carrying out joint military exercises with Israel;
“Billion-dollar military agreements, intelligence cooperation, manoeuvres and secret operations are being made between Turkey and Israel. Israeli war planes are flying over Konya. A common missile shield project is on the agenda between the two countries; it’s under consideration for the missiles to be located on the borders of Iran and Syria. In a 20 thousand square kilometre area in the Konya valley, there were manoeuvres of hundreds of planes making a nuclear attack. Dozens of examples like this can be shown. In short, Turkey is Israel’s friend and ally” – (
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&trh=20060824&hn=35945 )
On area such as Education, Media and Culture treaties have been signed between Israel and its Muslim neighbours. The aim of this is to dilute the Islamic culture and to make Israel more acceptable to the Muslim societies. The following are three examples of such treaties:
Education-Protocol on the Establishment of the Israeli Academic Centre in Cairo (25/02/1982) – “Two parties have agreed to establish an Israeli academic centre in Cairo …. The centre will be established by the Israeli Oriental Society ….. ”, “provide hospitality and assistance to Israeli citizens on scholarships and visiting scholars”. “ Conduct seminars for its visiting scholars and researchers and provide opportunity for them to meet and cooperate with Egyptian scholars and researchers”. (Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)
Media- Protocol Of Cooperation Between The Israel Broadcasting Authority And The Radio And T.V. Union Of The Arab Republic of Egypt - 16/02/1982 – “The parties shall exchange Radio and Television programmes and Television films, reflecting culture, social, economic and scientific life in their countries”. (Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)
Cultural –Cultural Agreement between the State of Israel - 08/05/1980 –
“both parties shall encourage and promote youth and sport activities youth and sports institutions in each country”. “Both Parties shall encourage co-operation in the cultural, artistic and scientific field…” .. “Exchange of cultural, educational and scientific publications”.
(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)
It doesn’t end here; we know that the purpose of creating the PLO was to shift the responsibility of defending the Muslims of Palestine and protecting Masjid Al- Aqsa to a nationalistic organisation the PLO. In fact this the responsibility of the Muslim rulers.
A similar stance is taken when the issues of boycotting Israel arises, the ummah was encouraged to Boycott Israeli goods and even American good for it’s support of Israel. But they themselves deceive this ummah by importing Israeli products under the label of Muslim companies. It was reported in 2002 that a total of 150 million dollars worth of Israeli goods were imported into Saudi Arabia alone through 72 companies in Jordan, 70 companies in Cyprus, 23 companies in Egypt and 11 companies from Turkey. These regimes use a third country to disguise the source of the goods (Deutsche Presse-Agentur).
The ummah has been offered solution to their problems on an individual level and not at the state level. So the Ummah very effectively boycotted the Israeli and American goods. So much so that the boycott in 2002 against American products by the Muslims in Saudi Arabia resulted in a $2 billion drop in US exports. But this is insignificant when we compare it to the investment of the Gulf countries in the US. It was reported by Pravda the Russian newspaper that the total assets of the six Persian Gulf countries are evaluated in the sum of 1.4 trillion dollars, 75% of which resides in the G8 countries. The figure is likely to be double if not more when we consider indirect investment and joint venture with the western countries that Gulf States indulge in. The $1 trillion lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the US attack exposed the Saudi investment in the US to be around $750 billion (Aug 2002 -BBC).
Conclusion
One may think that this is a simplistic view of the situation and it is not easy to move the army and it is difficult to get agreement on implementing sanctions and blockade on a country. If that was the case then why did the Muslim Rulers assemble a force and join the Anglo American coalition to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. Surely in the eyes of the UN and the international community the invasion of Kuwait by Sadaam Hussien is no different to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Is it possible for the UN to impose sanction, the no fly zones and the sea blockade for 10 years without the collaboration of the Muslim Rulers. Just like Israel Iraq is also surrounded by Muslim countries. It was the Muslim Rulers, which actually implemented the sanctions, can you recall any ruler opposing or violating these sanctions.
By now the question that should be on your mind is how do we rid ourselves of these rulers. A number of options have been suggested to us, such as vote them out. We have seen so called Democratic elections in the Muslim world since the end of World War II and yet they have not produced any change. They have only hindered change and reinforced the status quo. There has been numerous attempts to bring change by arms struggle, this has only created instability and destruction and brought us back to where we started. The problem is that we looked to the reality for our solution. But the solution like with everything else lies in the example of our beloved prophet Muhammed (SAW). He (SAW) said :
"The master of martyrs (sayyid al-shuhada) is Hamza, and a man who stands up to a tyrant ruler and gives him nasiha (advice). And so the ruler kills him"
Accounting the Tyrant rulers is of one of the highest duties in Islam. The process of accounting is the way to bring change, because in this process the corruption is exposed and the correct solution is offered. The society witnessing this will rally around the correct Islamic ideas and will work to undermine the corrupt non Islamic ideas which are represented by the Rulers and the system they implements. The Prophet (SAW) did this in Mecca, where he publicly exposed the corruption of the system and the rulers, then he (SAW) presented them with Islam, this was also done in Madina. When the people had accepted the ideas and the solution that Islam brought to society, He (SAW) approached the people who possessed the power to remove the rulers and their system. The powerful tribes of Madina accepted and that is where the first Islamic state was established. Today the task is very similar, the Muslim armies need to approach to remove these rulers but at the same time we need to be accounting these rulers to maintain the Public opinion for Islam and against the Kufr they represent.
Source: KCom Journal
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=13876&TagID=1
.Iranians cruhsed that by declarying any MUslim country wants nuclear Tech will be supplied with all the now how.All Muslim countries better wake up And smell the coffee or tea.other wise they all will be picked up 1 at a time just like saddam.
