AL-AQSA 1

ContentsVOLUME 2 NUMBER 2 APRIL 2000MUHARRAM 1421

Editorial 3

Siege On Al Masjidul Aqsa Haram Sharif 5GRACE HALSELL

The Future of Jerusalem 1 1DR. GHADA KARMI

Right of Return � Sacred, Legal and Possible 1 7DR. SALMAN ABU SITTA

Al-Masjidul Aqsa Haram Sharif Site Plan 2 3ABDUL WAHEED KASSAM

A Perception of Islamophobia: Higher Education andthe Palestine Issue 2 7ANTHONY MCROY

Archaeological Excavations in Jerusalem�Part 2 3 3RAIF Y. NIJEM

BOOK REVIEWS 3 8Dispatches From Palestine: The Rise and Fallof the Oslo Peace Process, by Graham UsherREVIEWED BY ABU HUZAYFA

Forcing God�s Hand � why millions pray for aquick rapture � and destruction of planet earth,by Grace Halsell

Islam and Conflict Resolution � Theories and Practicesby Ralph H. Salmi, Cesar Adib Majul and George K. TanhamREVIEWED BY ABU HUZAYFA

AL-AQSA

Published By

Friends of Al-Aqsa

PO Box 5127

Leicester LE2 0WU

England

Tel: ++ 44 (0)116 251 0522

Fax: ++ 44 (0)116 253 7575e-mail: info@aqsa.org.uk

Website: www.aqsa.org.uk

ISSN 1463-3930

EDITOR

Ismail Adam Patel

PRODUCTION ASSISTANT

Hajra Kassam

Ali Bahadur

Farahana Foolat

PRINTERS

Al’Haq Printers,

Birmingham.

© 2000, Friend of Al-Aqsa

WE WELCOME

Papers, Articles on anyaspect of Jerusalemaffecting Al-Aqsa Mosqueand those worshippingtherein. With particularreferences to the History,Politics, Architecture,Religion, International Law,Human Rights violationand Present dangers tothe Al-Aqsa Mosque.Letters on any relatedtopics are also welcome.The Editor reserves theright to edit letters for thepurpose of clarity. Pointsof Views are also welcomebut must not exceed 2000words. Reviews of booksrelated to the Palestinianissue of not more than1000 words will beconsidered. Papers,Articles, letters and bookreviews must be typedand if possible on acomputer disk (Wordformat). It must includethe authors full name,address and a briefcurriculum vitae. Allshould be sent to theEditor, on the aboveaddress. Front Cover: Palestine 1920. Blue Dots�Zionist colonies & towns.

Red Dots�Palestinian colonies & towns.Black Dots�Mixed. From �Before Their Diaspora�.

2 AL-AQSA

AL-AQSA 3

E D I T O R I A L

Praise be to Allah, The Cherisher and Sustainerof the Worlds, who has said there is no onemore unjust than he who forbids God�s name

to be mentioned in His places of worship and seeks todestroy them. May Allah�s blessing be upon all HisProphets from Adam to His final Messenger,Muhammad.

Built upon a bier of Palestinian sufferings,Oslo�s cortege reaches its final furlong headingfor an academic post-mortem. In its wake lieunanswered questions about the immediatefuture of Palestinians and Israelis. For both,things appear to be bleak.

In the slow build up to final statusnegotiations, it is worth reflecting on the factthat Israel has thus far failed to honour andimplement over thirty provisions of the so-called Oslo Accord. Some of the most seriousconsiderations overlooked to-date includes, theissue of illegal settlement building, housedemolitions, Palestinian ID card confiscation,land expropriation and the denial of freedomof movement.

Since Oslo, and in the face of international(albeit half-hearted) rebukes, Israeli bulldozershave worked around the clock expanding thesettlements of Ras el Amud, Jabel AbuGhneim (Har Homa) and the Silwan quarters(City of David). Nearly one thousandPalestinian homes have been demolished in theWest Bank, 196 of them in East Jerusalemalone. Even worse, it is estimated that 1,300homes, housing a quarter of the populationin Area C (the area of the West Bank still underfull Israeli control) face demolition orders andaround 12, 000 homes in East Jerusalem,housing over a third of the population, facethe same threat. The illegal occupation ofPalestinian land has not abated since Osloeither; it is estimated that six per cent of thetotal area of West bank land has beenconfiscated by Israel since 1993. Such figureshave been hidden by the media and politiciansalike, using nominal Israeli troop withdrawalsto divert attention from these moreunpalatable �facts on the ground�.

Ethnic cleansing by ID card confiscationimplemented in 1995 has brought despair anddistress to tens of thousands Palestinianresidents of East Jerusalem who have to livewith the constant fear that they will lose their

Orights to stay in the city. The number ofPalestinians who have had their Jerusalemresident�s status revoked during the �peaceprocess� is 2890, 150 of which in 1999,under Barak�s government. Free movementfor Palestinians remains restricted, evenalong the so-called safe passage stripbetween Gaza and the West Bank. Overforty per cent of Palestinian applicantswishing to use this route were refused bythe Israeli authorities.

In the light of these facts, it is worthasking about the likelihood of anysustainable agreement emerging from theFinal Status Talks. When one side hasblatantly disregarded the conditions ofexisting agreements, how can they be trustedto implement anything in the future? IsraeliPremier Barak has flatly rejected anynegotiations on the Palestinian refugees�internationally acknowledged right ofreturn and the status of Jerusalem. Thesetwo issues are supposed to form the basisof the final status talks, and yet we haveone side saying point blank in advance thatthe issues are not open to discussion! Suchis the state of Israeli diplomacy, and yetPalestinians and anyone interested in real,lasting and just peace in the region have toaccept the unacceptable.

To those who suggest that Bill Clintonwill conjure up a formula for peace fromthese negotiations as a final trophy for hisPresidency may well realise their forecaston paper. But such an agreement will notprovide peace or reconciliation unless anduntil the most vital ingredient, justice, ispresent. Since justice has been mostnoticeable for its absence ever since 1948,never mind since Oslo I, Oslo II, Wye,Sharm al Sheikh, what chance does it havenow, in the Final Status Talks?

It is clear that Israel feels under nocompulsion to fulfil and honouragreements with the Palestinians. Sucharrogance mocks even the benign toleranceshown by US and European sympathy(parents to their belligerent, illegitimateoffspring�s misdemeanours). Examples ofthe latter are many but one - in April 1998- highlights the West�s duplicity: the Israeligovernment under Netanyahu made a

4 AL-AQSA

coalition pact with the Moledet party, whosepolicies include anti-immigration and theexpulsion of all Palestinians from Israel andthe occupied territories. Despite this, noWestern government questioned the Israeligovernment for including an openly racistpartner in its affairs. This is in marked contrastto the reaction and condemnation of Austriavis-a-vis Juerg Haider, whose politics shouldhave no room in a civilised world. It beggar�sbelief to hear Barak�s blustering threats tobreak diplomatic and economic links withAustria and seeing the rest of Europe and USechoing his sentiments.

Israel is clearly beyond reproach to theextent that in some quarters it is even beingsaid that the Zionists are forced to employapartheid policies and renege oninternationally-brokered agreements. It isinternational policies based on such beliefs thathave allowed Israel not only to dictate theterms of any negotiations but also theirtimetables.

However, the shortsightedness of theinternational community serves merely toprepare the ground for future unrest. Putsimply, all those Palestinians whose hopes arebeing raised by speculations about the Final

Status Talks and their outcomes will sooncome to realise that they have beenbetrayed -again. It is simply too painful tocontemplate what will happen when thepenny finally drops. If the West continuesto drag its feet in checking Israel�sintransigence it is conceivable that yetanother Memorial Day may be needed tocommemorate the catastrophe suffered bythe Palestinians. It is obvious to all who haveeyes to see that Tony Blair�s recent speechat the launch of �Holocaust memorial day�consisted of shallow sound bites and nomore. �It is important that we rememberthe genocides of the last century and learntheir lessons for the future�, sounds greaton TV and looks good in print. But whilehis own government�s policies fail toprevent the long-term, ongoing and slowgenocide of the Palestinian people hecannot expect to be taken seriously.

If we are to learn anything from the20th century it is this: the internationalcommunity has to intervene now and forceupon the parties in the middle east peacetalks to an outcome that has justice at itsheart. Anything less, and the price we willall have to pay will be too much to bear.

FRIENDS OF Al-AQSA

invites you to become a friend.

Why You Should Be A Friend?1. Palestinians are living under an apartheid regime, which needs to be abolished.2. The human rights abuses and the right of return of Palestinian refugees need a pro-active approach by the morally con-

scious citizens of the world.3. Al-Aqsa the first qibla of Islam, for over 14 centuries has formed an important article of faith and played an important role

in the Islamic Civilisation.4. Al-Aqsa and those worshipping within it have been victims to numerous attacks since the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem.5. Several Tunnels dug under the Al-Aqsa sanctuary is undermining the structure of the Mosque and scientists claim the

slightest earth tremor is likely to bring the Mosque down.6. Extreme Zionist organisations have openly declared to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.7. The Palestinian people have suffered tremendous human rights abuses and at the same time made many sacrifices in defence

of Al-Aqsa.

Name:Address

Post Code:Country:Occupation:

r I enclose a sum of (minimum £10)made payable to �Friend of Al-Aqsa�

Signed Date:

Your affiliation will be anappreciation of their effortsand a show of solidarity.

AL-AQSA 5

I n early 1999, members of a DenverColorado dispensationalist1 (people whobelief that God wants a Jewish temple

built before He can send Christ back to earth)group called Concerned Christians werearrested by Israeli police, handcuffed, jailedas common criminals and deported back tothe States. The Israeli police accused them ofplanning a �bloody apocalypse� to hasten theSecond Coming of Christ. It was suggestedthat they plotted the destruction of Jerusalem�smost holy Islamic shrine, al Aqsa Haram Sharif.

In a fervent wish to replace the mosquewith a Jewish temple, the Denver cultmembers are no different from otherdispensationalists who believe God wants thisdone. As I learned from Christians on aFalwell-sponsored tour, they hold this idea quitesacred. A retired Army major named Owen,who lives in northern Nebraska, seems typical.

One day, as I was walking alongside Owen,our group moved towards the old walled city.As we entered Damascus Gate and passedalong cobblestone corridors, it was easy toimagine Jesus having walked a similar route.In the midst of a rapidly changingenvironment, the old walled city, guarding layerupon layer of history and conflict, providesthe stellar attraction for tourists and remainshome for 25,000 people. As the PalestinianMuslim Mahmud had told me earlier,throughout its long history, Jerusalem has beenpredominantly and overwhelmingly Arab.

We approach al Aqsa Haram Sharif, orNoble Sanctuary, which encloses the Domeof the Rock and al Aqsa Mosque. Both theseedifices, on raised platform grounds, generallyare called simply �the mosque� and representJerusalem�s most holy Islamic shrine.

We stand on lower ground below themosque and face the Western Wall, a 200-foot-high and 1,600-foot-long block of huge whitestones, believed to be the only remnant of thesecond Jewish temple.

Siege On Al Masjidul Aqsa

Haram Sharif

Grace Halsell*

* Grace Halsell worked in the White House as staff writer for President Johnson for three years. She hasseveral books published and her articles have appeared in the USA, Hong Kong, Japan and the Middle East. Shewas named the Green Honours Professor of Journalism at Texas Christian University and has received theLifetime Achievement Award from the University of Pennsylvania.

�There-� our guide said, pointingupward towards the Dome of the Rockand al Aqsa mosque-�we will build ourThird Temple. We have all the plans drawnfor the temple. Even the building materialsare ready. They are hidden in a secret place.There are several shops where Israelis work,making the artifacts we will use in the newtemple. One Israeli is weaving the purelinen that will be used for garments of thepriests of the temple.� He pauses, thenadds, �in a religious school called YeshivaAteret Cohanim the Crown of the priests-located near where we are standing, rabbisare teaching young men how to makeanimal sacrifice.�

A woman in our group, Mary Lou, acomputer specialist, seems startled to hearthe Israelis want to return to the rites ofthe old Solomonic sacrificial altar of thetemple.

�You are going back to animalsacrifice?� she asks. �Why?�

Nuclear Explosion (Armageddon)

6 AL-AQSA

�It was done in the First and SecondTemples,� our Israeli guide says. �And we donot wish to change the practices. Our sagesteach that neglecting to study the details oftemple service is a sin.�

Leaving the site, I remark to Owen thatour Israeli guide had said a temple must berebuilt on the Dome of the Rock site. But hesaid nothing about the Muslim shrines.

�They will be destroyed,� Owen tells me.�You know it�s in the Bible that the templemust be rebuilt. And there�s no other placefor it except on that one area. You find that inthe law of Moses.�

Did it seem possible, I ask Owen, that theScripture about building a temple would relateto the time in which it was written, ratherthan to events in the current era?

�No, it is related to our era,� Owen says.�The Bible tells us that in the End Timesthe Jews will have renewed their animalsacrifice.

In other words, I repeat, a temple mustbe built so that the Jews can resume theiranimal sacrifice?

�Yes,� said Owen, quoting Ezekiel 44:29to prove his point. Is Owen convinced thatJews, aided by Christians, should destroythe mosque, build a temple and reinstate thekilling of animals in the temple, all in orderto please God?

�Yes,� he replies. �That�s the way it hasto be. It�s in the Bible.�

And does the building of the temple, Iask, fit into any time sequence?

�Yes. We think it will be the next step inthe events leading to the return of our Lord.As far as its being a large temple, the Bibledoesn�t tell us that. All it tells us is that therewill be a renewal of sacrifices. And Jewscan do that in a relatively small building.�

Isn�t it atavistic, I ask, to go back toanimal sacrifice? And what about themultitude concerned with animal rights inour modern age?

�But we don�t care what they say. It�s whatthe Bible says that�s important,� Owenstresses. �The Bible predicts a rebuilding ofa temple. Now the people who are goingto do it are not Christians but OrthodoxJews. Of course the Old Testament madeout a very specific formula for what theJews must follow regarding animal sacrifice.They can�t carry it out without a temple.They were observing animal sacrifice until70 A.D. With the re-building of the templethey will have some Orthodox Jews whowill kill the sheep or oxen in the temple, asa sacrifice to God.�

As Owen talks of reinstating animalsacrifice-a step he feels necessary for hisown spiritual maturity-he seems to blockfrom his awareness the fact that Muslimshrines stand on the site where he saysGod demands a temple be built.

That evening, after dinner, Owen andI take a long walk. Again, I voice myconcerns about the dangers inherent in aplot to destroy Islam�s holy shrines.

�Christians need not do it,� Owensays, repeating what he told me earlier�But I am sure the shrines will bedestroyed.�

But, I insist, this can well trigger WorldWar III.

�Yes, that�s right. We are near the EndTimes, as I have said. Orthodox Jewswill blow up the mosque and this willprovoke the Muslim world. It will be acataclysmic holy war with Israel. This willforce the Messiah to intervene.� Owenspeaks as calmly and as softly as if tellingme there would be rain tomorrow.

�Yes,� he adds, as we return to ourhotel. �There definitely must be a thirdtemple.�

Back home in Washington D.C.- aftergoing on the first Falwell2 sponsored tourand meeting Owen-I talked with TerryReisenhoover, a native of Oklahoma,who told me he is raising money to helpJewish terrorists destroy the Muslimshrines.

Reisenhoover, short, rotund, baldingand a Born Again Christian blessed witha fine tenor voice, told me he wasfrequently invited during the Reaganadministration to White House gatheringsof dispensationalists, where he was afeatured soloist.

Reisenhoover spoke freely to me ofhis plans to move tax-free dollars fromAmerican donors to Israel. In I985 heserved as chairman of the AmericanForum for Jewish-Christian Coopera-tion, being assisted by Douglas Kriegeras executive director, and an Americanrabbi, David Ben-Ami, closely linkedwith Ariel Sharon.

Additionally, Reisenhoover served aschairman of the board for the JerusalemTemple Foundation, whose sole purposeis the rebuilding of a temple on the siteof the present Muslim shrine. Reisen-hoover chose as the foundation�s inter-national secretary Stanley Goldfoot.Goldfoot emigrated in the 1930s fromSouth Africa to Palestine and became a

The Rev. Clyde

Lott, Canton,

Miss., a Pente-

costal minister,

interprets pas-

sages of the Bible

to say that a third

Jewish temple

must rise in

Jerusalem before

the Second Com-

ing can happen ...

Lott is producing

perfect red

heifers, virginal

cows “without

spot” that could

be sacrificed to

produce ashes for

ritual use in the

future temple. For

that to happen,

Muslim shrines

like Dome of the

Rock would have

to be knocked

down ... (Lott is)

convinced that

God will attend to

this in due time.

The New York Times,

December 27, 1998.

AL-AQSA 7

member of the notorious Stern gang, whichshocked the world with its massacres ofArab men, women and children. Figuressuch as David Ben-Gurion denounced thegang as Nazis and outlawed them.

Goldfoot, according to the Israelinewspaper Davar, placed a bomb on July22,1946, in Jerusalem�s King David Hotel,which destroyed a wing of the hotelhousing the British Mandate secretariat andpart of the military headquarters. Theoperation killed some 100 British and otherofficials. As planned by the Jewish militants,it hastened the day the British left Palestine.

�He�s a very solid, legitimate terrorist,�Reisenhoover said admiringly of Goldfoot.�He has the qualifications for clearing a sitefor the temple.�

Reisenhoover also said that whileChristian militants are acting on religiousfervour, their cohort Goldfoot does notbelieve in God or sacred aspects of the OldTestament. For Goldfoot, it is simply amatter of Israeli control over all ofPalestine.

�It is all a matter of sovereignty,�Goldfoot�s deputy Yisrael Meida, amember of the ultra right-wing Tehiya party,explained. �He who controls the TempleMount, controls Jerusalem. And he whocontrols Jerusalem, controls the land ofIsrael.�

Reisenhoover told me he had sponsoredGoldfoot on several trips to the UnitedStates, where Goldfoot spoke on religiousradio and TV stations and to churchcongregations. Reisenhoover helped me tosecure a tape cassette of a speech Goldfootmade in Chuck Smith�s Calvary Chapel inCosta Mesa, California. In solicitingdonations for a temple, Goldfoot did nottell the Christians about plans to destroy themosque.

Reisenhoover had given me severalnames of persons who knew StanleyGoldfoot, among them GeorgeGiacumakis, who for many years headed theInstitute for Holy Land Studies, a longestablished American-run evangelical schoolfor studies in archaeology and theology. Onone of my visits to Jerusalem, I made anappointment with Giacumakis, a GreekAmerican with dark eyes and cultivatedcharm.

Might he, I asked, after we had visitedcasually over coffee, help me arrange aninterview with Goldfoot? �Oh, no!�Giacumakis responded, dropping his headinto both hands, as one does on hearing a

disaster. �You don�t want to meet him.He goes back to the stern terroristgroup!� Raising his head and waving anarm toward the King David Hotel, headded, �Stanley Goldfoot was in chargeof that operation. He will not stop atanything. His idea is to rebuild the templeand if that means violence, then he willnot hesitate to use violence.�

Giacumakis paused, then assured methat while he himself did not believe inviolence, �if they do destroy the mosqueand the temple is there, that does notmean I will not support it.�

It was also Terry Reisenhoover whohelped me get acquainted with theReverend James E. DeLoach, a leadingfigure in the huge Second Baptist Churchof Houston. After we had spoken a fewtimes over the telephone, DeLoach whenin Washington, DC, came by myapartment, at my invitation, and I set mytape recording running, with hispermission.

�I know Stanley very, very well. We�regood friends,� he said. �He�s a verystrong person.�

With reference to Reisenhoover,DeLoach said, �he�s very talented atraising money. He�s raising $100 million.A lot of this has gone to paying lawyerswho gained freedom for 29 Israelis whoattempted to destroy the mosque. It costus quite a lot of money to get theirfreedom.�

And how, I ask, did he and the othersfunnel the money from U.S. donors tothe aid of the Jewish terrorists?

�We�ve provided support for theAteret Cohanim Yeshiva.�

The Jewish school, I asked, thatprepares students to make animalsacrifice?

�Yes,� he agreed. And Christiandonors are paying for that?

�It takes a lot of training,� he said.Then, quite proudly, �I�ve just hosted inmy Houston home two fine youngIsraelis who study how to do the animalsacrifice in the temple to be built.�

Pastor DeLoach talked for more thanone hour, all of which he permitted meto record. Before he left my apartment,I asked one final question. What if theJewish terrorists he supports aresuccessful and they destroy the Dome ofthe Rock and al Aqsa Mosque, holy toevery fifth person in the world today andthis triggers World War III and a nuclear

A late 1998 Israeli

newsletter posted

on a “Voice of the

Temple Mount”

Web site says its

goal is “the

liberation” of the

Muslim shrines

and the building

on that site of a

Jewish Temple.

“Now the time is

ripe for the

Temple to be

rebuilt,” says the

Israeli newsletter.

The newsletter

calls upon “the

Israeli govern-

ment to end the

pagan Islamic

occupation” of

lands where the

mosque stands. It

adds, “ The build-

ing of the Third

Temple is near.”

8 AL-AQSA

holocaust? Would he and Reisenhoover notbe responsible?

�No,� he said, because what they aredoing is �God�s will.�

It was Pastor DeLoach who suggestedI get in touch with Dr Lambert Dolphin, atop-ranking scientist with the StanfordResearch Institute in California. The Houstonpastor said Dolphin was �x-raying� themosque grounds, in preparation for thebuilding of a temple.

�He is the innovator of a plan that usesground search radar, an x-ray machine forarchaeological purposes. His ground searchradar has a great deal of validity.�

I began a cor respondence with Dr.Dolphin. He sent large packages withexplanations on �ground search radar,� aswell as a pamphlet describing his personallife and his having undergone a Born Againexperience. Finding Christ in his case alsomeant accepting the dispensationalists�belief that God wants a Jewish temple builtbefore He can send Christ back to earth.

In another pamphlet, Dolphin notes thaton the Islamic holy grounds, �digging isdifficult and remote sensing is to bepreferred.� In asking for funds, to be sentto Stanley Goldfoot, Dolphin gives a costestimate of �low six figures to mid-sevenfigures� for a single field season.

On a mission authorised by the JerusalemTemple Foundation and partially funded byChuck Smith�s Calvary Chapel, Dr. Dolphinspent several weeks at the Muslim site withstaff and electronic devices. However, aftermuch �x-raying� of the grounds of theDome of the Rock and al Aqsa mosque,Dolphin raised the ire of Muslims, whovoiced strenuous objections to his project.Dolphin packed his gear and returned toCalifornia. As of 1999, he remains a ferventdispensationalist, and continues to plan theelimination of the mosque and the buildingof a Jewish Temple. He has his own Website to inform readers of the progress.

Since 1967, the year the Israelis seizedmilitary control of East Jerusalem, militantJews, many of them armed Israeli rabbis,officers, soldiers and religious students,have on more than 100 occasions stormedJerusalem�s most holy Islamic grounds.Shlomo Goren, who later became Israel�schief rabbi, was one of the first. In August1967, he led 50 armed militants onto thesite.

As of 1999, Israeli chief rabbis hadnever, in more than three decades ofterrorist attacks on the mosque, condemned

the Jewish militants. The lack ofcondemnation, said one Israeli journalist,indicates that the highest Israeli officialssanction the actions of the terrorists.�The chief rabbis, who receive theirsalaries from the state, have notcondemned at all the violencecommitted,� the journalist noted, addingthat their lack of condemnation signaledthe government�s complicity.

In most armed assaults on al AqsaHaram Sharif, it has been militant rabbiswho were instigators and leaders. �Weshould not forget,� said Rabbi ShlomoChaim Hacohen Aviner, �that thesupreme purpose of the ingathering ofexiles and the establishment of our stateis the building of the temple. The templeis the very top of the pyramid.�

I first heard of militant Jewish plansto destroy the mosque in 1979. In thatyear, I went to occupied Palestine (theWest Bank) and stayed in the homes ofJewish settlers who call themselves theBloc of the Faithful, or Gush Emunim.They were there in violation of allinternational laws, that forbid occupationof land taken by force of arms. I foundmyself living in strange ghettos, protectedby high barbed wire fences, searchbeams and armed sentries.

Approximately one-third of thesettlers I met were from the States, andthe majority of these, were from NewYork. Bobby Brown from Brooklyn wastypical. �If destroying the mosque tobuild a temple creates a big war, then sobe it,� he told me. He, like all the othersaround me, carried Israeli army-issuedsubmachine guns.

�We feel it is a stain on our land tohave a mosque sitting in our midst,�Brown, a third generation American,continued, speaking from a settlementcalled Tekoa on the outskir ts ofBethlehem. �You look at any picture ofJerusalem and you see that mosque! Thatwill have to go. One day we will buildour Third Temple there. We must do thisto show the Arabs and all the world, thatwe Jews have sovereignty over all ofJerusalem, over all the Land of Israel.�

I stayed in the home of Linda andBobby Brown. One evening I suggestthat to build a temple by destroying themosque could ignite an apocalyptic war�Exactly,� said Brown. �But we wantthat kind of war-because we will win it.We will then expel all of the Arabs from

Since 1967, the

year the Israelis

seized military

control of East

Jerusalem,

militant Jews,

many of them

armed Israeli

rabbis, officers,

soldiers and

religious

students, have on

more than 100

occasions

stormed

Jerusalem’s most

holy Islamic

grounds.

AL-AQSA 9

the Land of Israel. Further, he emphasized,�we will rebuild our temple.�

Even as he spoke, Gush Emunimmilitants were meeting secretly to plot thedestruction of the mosque. As was laterdocumented, they obtained aerial photos ofthe mosque and recruited an air force pilotto steal a plane and strafe it. Then, theyopted for a ground attack.

�Squads of bomb-laden Jews were toscale the Old City walls into the mosque�scourtyard,� Robert I. Friedman reported ina 1985 issue of The Village Voice. �A modelof the mosque was built, practice runs weretimed, homemade explosives were tested inthe desert.� Menachem Livni, a bearded,stern-faced commander of a reservebattalion of combat engineers in the Israeliarmy, �calculated which way the mosquewould fall after it exploded and how farthe shrapnel would be catapulted.�

Before they could carry out their plot,however, they were arrested. At a trial, theywere treated as great heroes. One of theterrorists, Yehuda Etzion, told the court thatbecause the Israeli government itself wouldnot �purify� the Muslim site, he realized �Imyself must do it.� He was not repentant,�I�m 100 percent innocent,� he told thecourt, �because the building (Dome of theRock) will be removed.�

None of the militants served longsentences. The President of Israelcommuted their prison sentences. Themilitants had plenty in defence funds, withdollars flowing in from the United Statesfrom both Christians and Jews.

The U.S. Treasury provides the largestsource of funding for the Gush Emunimand their i l legal West Bank and East

Jerusalem settlements. Hundreds ofmillions of taxpayers� dollars have beenfunneled into building the illegal Jewishsettlements and their costly infrastructure.

Note1. Dispensationalist � one who adheres to the belief

in seven epochs [dispensation] � a belief systemthat holds, among other things that the sign ofthe Second Coming of Christ are clearly spelledout in Scripture and can be identified withcurrent international events. This theology lessthan 200 years old, was popularised by JohnDarby of England and in America by CyrusScofield, whose Scofield Reference Bibleexplains that God has special interest in onlytwo peoples: Jews, said to be on an �earthly�track, and Christians on a �heavenly� track.

2. Jerry Falwell sponsers tours from the US to Israelin order to recruit support. In March 1985,speaking to a conservative Rabbinical Assemblyin Miami, he pledged to �mobilise 70 millionconservative Christians for Israel�. He furthersaid, �theologically, all Christians have to supportIsrael�If we fail to protect Israel, we will ceaseto be important to God.�

Ariel view of Haram al-Sharif Masjid al-Aqsa

Information on Palestine

www.aqsa.org.ukJournal � Referenced articles from previous issues of Al Aqsa.Newsletter � Quarterly printed by Friends of Al Aqsa.Publications � History of al Masjidul Aqsa and Guide to al Masjidul Aqsa.Flyers � On Jerusalem, Refugees, al Masjidul Aqsa, UN Resolutions and Much MoreNews From Palestine � Important news and views from Palestine.Photographic Gallery � Photos from the ground in Palestine.Book Reviews � Reviews on books related to Palestinian issues.

Plus * Campaigns * Activities * Events and * Much, Much More

10 AL-AQSA

LITERATURE FROM

FRIENDS OF AL-AQSA

1. LEAFLETS: [FREE]Qty r Jerusalem The Open City r Jerusalem Update

r Centrality of Masjid Al-Aqsa in Islam r Christian & Jewish Fundamental-r Attacks on Masjid Al-Aqsa Since Occupation ist Plots destruction of Al-Aqsar Palestinian Refugees: Reclaiming Mosque

the Right of Return r Friend of Al-Aqsa2. VIDEOS: [£3.50 each inc P&P]Qty r The History of Al-Aqsa Mosque

r An Occupation Set In Stone. Produced by the PalestinianHousing Rights Movement.

3. BOOK: [£2.00 inc P&P]Qty r The History of the Fartherest Mosque4. POSTERS:Qty r The Al-Aqsa Mosque [Size A1-60cm X 84cm £5.00 inc P&P]

r The Al-Aqsa Mosque [Size A2-42cm X 60cm £2.00 inc P&P]5. PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION: [loan only]Qty r Nearly 50 photographs showing the condition of Palestinians

under Israeli rule and of Masjid Al Aqsa.6. BACK ISSUES OF AL AQSA JOURNAL: [£5.00 inc P&P]Qty r Vol 1 No 1 Oct 98 r Vol 2 No 1 October 99

r Vol 1 No 2 April 997. �Al Aqsa� NEWSLETTER: [Free]Qty r August 99 r May 2000

r November 99 r August 2000r February 2000

O R D E R F O R M

I enclose the sum of £

Or SAE for FREE literature.

NAME

ADDRESS

Post To: Friends of Al Aqsa, P.O. Box 5127,

Leicester. LE2 0WU

AL-AQSA 11

The Future of Jerusalem

Dr. Ghada Karmi*

* Dr. Ghada Karmi is a Research Associate at the Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies at the Schoolof Oriental and African Studies, University of London, author of several books and head of the �InternationalCampaign for Jerusalem. This is based on a lecture delivered at The Royal Institute of International Affairs,London, Dec 1999.

The future of Jerusalem is a particularlyimportant topic at this time when discussion of the final status issues is

imminent. It will be recalled that theDeclaration of Principles (DOP) signedbetween Israel and the PLO in September1993 deferred the question of Jerusalem tothese final negotiations, which were tocommence no later than the third year of theinterim period. Thus, Article 5, clause 3 of theDOP states, �it is understood that these(permanent status) negotiations shall coverremaining issues including Jerusalem, refugees,settlements, security arrangements, borders,relations with neighbours and other issues ofcommon interest.�

Furthermore, both signatories to theOslo Declaration undertook not tointentionally set up obstacles as a way ofretreating from their obligations on thesubjects that were postponed. In particular,there was also an implicit understanding thatneither side should take any steps whichcould alter the present status concerning issuesto be dealt with in negotiation on apermanent status. As Israel has continued tobuild settlements in and around Jerusalemand to alter by various means its demographicand physical character, it is clear that the latterconditions have not been met. It seems thatthe Israeli intention has been to use the interimperiod for consolidating its hold on Jerusalemand transforming it as far as possible into aJewish city, so as to pre-empt any possibilityof its reverting either to being a mixed cityor to being a shared capital for a futurePalestinian state.

Given Jerusalem�s centrality, not just forPalestinians, but also for the wider Muslimand Christian worlds, a unilaterally imposedIsraeli solution for the city is unlikely to leadto a stable peace in the region. Israel�s

recurrent assertion that it is the exclusiveJewish capital cuts little ice with theproponents of other religions who seeJerusalem as also sacred to them, or withthe city�s Arab natives whose concretephysical history lies there. It is preciselybecause of Jerusalem�s global significancethat its future has been the subject ofnumerous, separate proposals throughoutthis century, all trying to find a way ofaccommodating the conflicting claims ofvarious groups. In the context of thisjuncture in the peace process, it seemsuseful to review these previous attemptsat solving the Jerusalem problem and toput forward a further proposal, which Iconsider valid and worthy of discussion.

All in all, there were no less than 57Jerusalem proposals between 1916 and1994. Three Israeli scholars, Hirsch,House Couriel and Lapidoth (1995),have carried out an extremely usefulreview of these proposals, as has CeeiliaAlbin in a paper published in the Reviewof International Studies in 1997 and Iam indebted to both of these sourcesfor the forthcoming remarks.

It seems that the

Israeli intention

has been to use

the interim period

for consolidating

its hold on

Jerusalem and

transforming it as

far as possible

into a Jewish city

12 AL-AQSA

It is striking that the vast majority ofproposals have come either from the Jewish/Israeli side or from parties external to theconflict. Thus, 21 proposals emanate fromeither Jewish or Israeli sources and 24 comefrom external bodies and individuals, such asthe US, the British, various academic, politicalinstitutions and a number of individual experts.The two together make a total of 45 out ofthe 57. There are just 5 Palestinian and Arabproposals together, a further 4 drawn upjointly by Israelis and Palestinians and theremaining 3 proposals are derived from twoUN bodies.

As might be expected, the majority of theplan date from 1967 onwards. Only 13 weredrawn up before this time. The early proposals,as in the 1922 British Mandate and the 1937Peel Commission report1 , made stipulationsregarding the administration of the holy placesof Jerusalem which was seen as a Britishresponsibility. The 1947 United Nations SpecialCommittee on Palestine (UNSCOP)recommended a federation between twostates, Jewish and Arab, with Jerusalem as thefederal capital and freedom of access to theholy places under UN supervision2 . This wasfollowed in November of that year with thefamous UN General Assembly Resolution 181which introduced the concept of a cor pusseparatum for Jerusalem3 . According to this,the city�s borders were to be enlarged so as toinclude Abu Dis in the east, Bethlehem in thesouth, Ein Karim in the west and Shu�fat inthe north. The corpus separatum would beadministered by the UN and the inhabitantsof both the Jewish and Arab states envisagedby the resolution would have equal rights ofentry and residence in Jerusalem. Freedom ofaccess to the holy places would be guaranteedand nothing would be done to impair theirsacred character. The UN appointed governorwould be empowered to arbitrate in disputeswhich might arise between the differentreligious communities. This arrangement waslater affirmed by the UN Trusteeship Councilof 1950. However, although the resolutionwas passed by a vote of 33 to 13, it was neverimplemented.

If we now turn to review the Israeli/Jewishplans for Jerusalem, we may note that the cityseems initially to have played only a minimalrole in early Zionist thinking4 . Theodor Herzlnever mentioned Jerusalem once in his classicstudy, Der Judenstaat, which set the foundationsfor the Israeli state and many of the earlyZionist leaders, including Ben Gurion himselfpreferred to live elsewhere. Before MenachemBegin, not one Israel Prime Minister had a

home in Jerusalem. Zionist proposals forthe city during the 1930s and 1940s left theOld City out of the intended Jewish state,provided there was some municipalarrangement with the rest of the city5 . Thecity was negotiable, in exchange for thecreation of a Jewish mini-state in Palestine6 .In 1948, however, things seemed to change.Jerusalem was declared Israel�s capital in thatyear and the Knesset was moved to theWestern part of the city at the end of 1949.An Israeli government proposal from 1950suggested that the holy places (which wereunder Jordanian control) should be underUN supervision instead with freedom ofaccess to all religious communities. In 1980,the Knesset enacted the Basic Law which statesthat �Jerusalem, complete and united, is thecapital of Israel�.

From 1967 onwards, when the easternhalf of Jerusalem came under Israelioccupation, at least 18 Jewish and Israeliproposals have been put forward for thecity�s future. These may be summarised asfollows: all but one would retain Jerusalemunder exclusive Israeli sovereignty and theemphasis in the vast majority is on specialprovision for the holy places under avariety of arrangements. These includeproposals for the appointment of an inter-religious committee, an internationalcommittee, for custody of the holy placesby their own religious communities, forcreating a diplomatic status for the holyplaces and the like. Some proposals alsoinclude municipal arrangements to cater forthe needs of the non-Jewish population7 .Many of these are variation on theneighbourhood theme; that is, providingfor some form of autonomy for thePalestinian areas especially in the spheres ofeducation, health and social affairs.Probably the best known and mostdetailed of these plans is that put forwardby Meron Benvenisti, the former deputymayor of Jerusalem. Hazan has suggesteda system of boroughs with electedrepresentatives, Allon has put forward theidea of sub-districts according to ethnicityand Ish-Shalom the novel proposal ofhaving the Muslim Quarter of the Old Cityas the �symbolic capital� of the �Palestineentity� while Jerusalem remains unifiedunder Israel�s overall control8 . What allthese proposals have in common is that theyconsolidate unquestioningly the territorialacquisition of Jerusalem by Israel, butacknowledge the legitimacy of non-Jewishclaims to the holy places.

If we now turn to

review the Israeli/

Jewish plans for

Jerusalem, we may

note that the city

seems initially to

have played only a

minimal role in

early Zionist

thinking

AL-AQSA 13

Among the Arab/Palestinian plans, that ofAdnan Abu Odeh, put forward in 1992,provides for an Arab city � �al-Quds� � anda Jewish city � �Yerushalayim�. The walledcity, �Jerusalem� would belong to neither butbe governed by a supreme council made upof representatives of the three major religionsand be open to all9 (Abu Odeh: 1992). Theprominent Palestinian lawyer, Henry Cattan,put forward a plan, in 1981 which affirmedthe provisions of UN resolution 181 with a�Tripartite Communal Council� to superviseJerusalem until a final settlement was reached.Walid Khalidi�s proposal, first put forward in197810 , sees East and West Jerusalem as thecapital of Israel and Palestine respectively. TheJewish holy places in East Jerusalem wouldbe given �extraterritorial status� withguaranteed freedom of access. There wouldbe a joint inter-state greater municipal councilto operate essential services to the whole city.

Aside from these proposals, it has to besaid that the Palestinians have been strikinglyless forthcoming with their own strategies forJerusalem than has the other side or thoseoutside the conflict altogether. In recent years,a small number of joint plans between theIsraelis and Palestinians have appeared11 . Allof these visualise a unified Jerusalem as thecapital of two states, Israeli and Palestinian,with open access to both sides. Detailedmunicipal arrangements are provided in theproposals of Albin, Amirav and Siniora12 andthat of the Israel/Palestine Centre for Researchand Information (IPCRI)13 .

Numerous proposals have also been drawnup by third parties, many of whom haveadvocated shared or split sovereignty betweenthe two sides14 . One of the more detailed ofthese is the proposal first put forward by theAmerican international lawyer, John Whitbeck,in 1989 and published several timesthereafter15 . According to this, Jerusalemwould be the joint undivided capital of twostates and would become a �condominiumof Israel and Palestine�. It would beadministered by a borough system on the linesof the French arrondissements and would havean umbrella municipal council. There wouldbe a division of authorities between thisumbrella council and the sub-districts withdevolution of power along the lines of theEuropean Union�s principle of subsidiarity.

In addition to these plans, various bodiesinvolved in the conflict have held specificpositions on the issue of Jerusalem. The PLOhas no detailed strategy on Jerusalem as such,but ever since 1988 has declared the east halfof the city to be the capital of the Palestine

state with a guarantee of freedom of accessto the holy places. This position isvigorously reiterated by the PalestinianAuthority and is the declared stance aheadof the final status talks. The Egyptianposition on Jerusalem stipulates that therewill be two sovereign authorities in the city,Arab and Israeli, with a shared municipalcouncil, that Arab Jerusalem is an integralpart of the West Bank and that all measurestaken by Israel to alter the status of the cityare invalid16 . The Jordanian position hasundergone various changes since 1948. Thecity came under Jordanian rule from 1950until the Israeli occupation of 1967.Thereafter it was held to be illegallyoccupied and its sovereignty in abeyance17 .In 1988, King Hussein of Jordanrelinquished responsibility for the WestBank and Jerusalem to the PLO. But Jordanretained its historical role as the guardianof the Islamic holy places there. This rolewas ratified in the Israeli-Jordanian peacetreaty of October 1994 where Israelundertook to take account of Jordan�sspecial function with regard to the holyplaces in the final status negotiations. Thiscaused a dispute between Jordan and thePLO which does not accept thisarrangement, but the disagreement has nowbeen resolved through the PLO�sacceptance of Jordan�s custodianship untilthe final status negotiations.

Most importantly, the US position onJerusalem has also undergone significantchanges since its support for the UNGeneral Assembly resolution 181 in 194718 .Up until 1967, the US supported aninternational solution for the city whilstimplicitly recognising Israel�s sovereigntyover the western half. Through the end ofthe 1960s and 70s, Israel�s occupation ofeast Jerusalem was regarded as illegal andthe US voted in 1980 for Security Councilresolution 465 which criticised Israel forits settlement policies in the occupiedterritories, including Jerusalem. Howeverfrom this time onwards, the American tonehas distinctly softened and the issue wasincreasingly seen as one which should beresolved through negotiations between theparties. Even so, in 1990, the US expressedthe position that the Jewish areas in the eastof Jerusalem had the same status as theIsraeli settlements in the occupiedterritories. But in the Madrid peaceconference of 1991, the US agreed toIsrael�s conditions that the Jerusalem issuebe deferred and that no Palestinian

it has to be said

that the

Palestinians have

been strikingly

less forthcoming

with their own

strategies for

Jerusalem than

has the other side

14 AL-AQSA

representatives be present at the conference.In the ten point plan presented by Secretaryof State Warren Christopher for negotiationby the two sides, the term �disputedterritories� was used for the first time by theUS administration in place of �occupiedterritories�. All this time, the US embassy hadremained, along with nearly all those of therest of the world, in Tel Aviv, thus giving Israela message that no one else accepted its claimto Jerusalem as its capital. But in October 1995,the US Congress voted overwhelmingly tomove the US embassy to Jerusalem by 1999and thus threatened to reverse 50 years policy,which had steadfastly respected therequirements of international law. PresidentClinton has so far refused to permit theembassy move, but there is an activecongressional campaign to pressure him intoagreeing.

In 1995, a secret plan was drawn up, theso called, Beilin-Abu Mazin plan, in which anew �supermunicipality� of Jerusalem wouldhave an eastern Palestinian borough called �al-Quds�, including such villages as Abu Dis andAl-Azariyya, while the other part, calledJerusalem, would cover the rest and includethe major settlement of Maale Adumin. Israelwould have sovereignty over the whole city.The al Aqsa Haram Sharif would have extra-territorial status and be under Palestiniancontrol. The rest of the details are vague, butthe existence of this plan have been strenuouslydenied by the Palestinian authority.Nevertheless, it would seem that such a plandoes indeed exist and it is noted thatparliamentary buildings are already being builtat Abu Dis, presumably in anticipation of thisbecoming the Palestinian state capital.

The European Union�s formal positionremains in line with international law, namely,that Israel is in illegal occupation of EastJerusalem and that West Jerusalem is only underde facto Israeli sovereignty. This is strenuouslyrejected by Israel, as is any suggestion thatJerusalem is not its eternal capital city. It is thisintransigent Israeli position on the issue ofJerusalem which makes it difficult to see howa peaceful resolution of the problem may arise.To summarise, when there are two sides to aconflict and one of them is overwhelminglystronger, more influential and more powerfullysupported, how do you bring about a solutionwhich is unacceptable to the stronger side?

Given the situation in which Israel has beenable with impunity to annex territory, alterdemography and create a new reality which isprecisely tailored to the requirements of anofficially created mythology about Jerusalem,

how can Israel be persuaded now tocompromise its hard-won achievements?In the absence of coercion, what incentiveis there for Israel to give up any of its gainsto the Palestinians? Had the situation beendifferent then the Palestinians would nothave been left on their own to negotiatewith the far stronger Israelis. They wouldhave had the weight of the Arab, Islamicand Christian worlds behind them. But asthings stand and despite all their rhetoricabout the centrality of Jerusalem, none ofthese has been successful in halting a singlestep of Israel encroachment on the holycity. It is no wonder that Israel can feelencouraged in pursuing its enterprise tomake Jerusalem exclusively its own. Theinternational apathy towards the fate ofJerusalem is both astonishing anddisheartening and it is difficult to believethat the city has any future other than theone busily being fashioned for it by Israel.

It is in this context that the futility andirrelevance of elaborating yet moresuggestions and proposals for Jerusalem�sfuture in the peace process which do notconform to Israel�s requirements becomeglaringly apparent. There is, however, oneconsideration which should be taken intoaccount. The Palestinians are now verymuch the weaker party and can be forcedinto acquiescence. While in the short term,this will give Israel the victory it seeks inJerusalem, the fact is that the city is ofprofound significance to the Palestinian side,whose feelings, ironically enough, have beeninflamed by the very tenacity of Israel�shold on the city. If Jerusalem is an icon forthe Jews, then it is no less an icon for theArabs and will form the rallying point fora prolonged struggle. It is unrealistic toimagine that an amicable peace can beestablished between the two sides while theone monopolises the city for itself.

The gerrymandering of borders and theimposition of an artificial Jewish majorityin Jerusalem will not obliterate theexistence of its Arab inhabitants. Leavingthem deprived of rights and equality in acity which once theirs and that of theirforefathers, is a recipe for endless conflict.The only feasible long term solution is forJerusalem to become a shared city of all itscitizens, whether Palestinians or Jews. Allother plans incorporate in one way oranother the results of the inequality anddiscrimination which Israel has deliberatelycreated in order to appropriate the city foritself. The resulting jig-saw which we see

The international

apathy towards

the fate of

Jerusalem is both

astonishing and

disheartening and

it is difficult to

believe that the

city has any

future other than

the one busily

being fashioned

for it by Israel.

AL-AQSA 15

now of land ownership, population mix andcomplex regulations designed to wrest the cityfrom its rightful owners is a quagmire foranyone trying to find a solution based onterritorial separation and split sovereignty.Clearly, therefore, the only feasible wayforward now is for the city to be the homeof the two peoples.

The Plan Requires that:1. Settlement building and the importation

of more Jewish settlers into the city tostop and that the current so-calledunplanned and frozen areas be used tobuild Palestinian houses.

2. Palestinians are brought into Jerusalem innumbers aiming to redress thedemographic imbalance created in the cityby Israeli practices so far.

3. A municipal council is elected with an equalnumber of representatives from bothcommunities, despite their currentdemographic imbalance, so as to ensurethat the present artificially createdPalestinian minority is not to remain sopermanently.

4. Jerusalem should be an open city withrights of equal access and settlement toboth communities in all its parts.

5. The formal status of the city should bethat of a separate entity � a corpus separatum,perhaps. Neither side should keep its capitalthere, since this would create strife whichcould otherwise be avoided. Israel�s capitalcould be Tel Aviv, since this is already thecommercial and business centre. Likewise,the Palestinian state may have its capital inRamallah or any other Palestinian city.

6. This city, with its emphasis on democraticrepresentation of all its citizens, free to liveanywhere rather than in designated ghettos,euphemistically called neighbourhoods,could be the model for a future bi-nationalor even a secular democratic state in thewhole of Israel/Palestine.

Even if this plan is not implemented, it is theonly one which incorporates in my view,principles of elemental justice and mutualrespect which would be the cornerstone of a

lasting agreement. If, however, what isintended is a future where both sides mayfind harmony and peace, rather thandomination on the one hand and sullensubmission on the other, then it will onlylie in a truly democratic Jerusalem that is acity for all its citizens.

Notes1. Hirsch et al, 1995:26,28 Hirsch M, Housen-

Couriel D, Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem?Proposals and positions concerning the futureof Jerusalem. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1995.

2. ibid3. ibid4. Schenker, 1995:48-95. Hirsch et al: 27, 29 Hirsch M, Housen-Couriel

D, Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem? Proposalsand positions concerning the future of Jerusalem.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995.

6. The New York Times, 24.10.467. Hirsch et al: 52,72,82,95 Hirsch M, Housen-

Couriel D, Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem?Proposals and positions concerning the futureof Jerusalem. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1995.

8. In Hirsch et al: 99 Hirsch M, Housen-Couriel D,Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem? Proposals andpositions concerning the future of Jerusalem.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995.

9. Abu Odeh: 199210. Khalidi: 1978 Khalidi W. �Thinking the

unthinkable: a sovereign Palestinian state�.Foreign Affairs 1978;56:695

11. Hirsch et al: 109, 111, 117, 12112. in Hirsch: 117-120 Hirsch M, Housen-Couriel

D, Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem? Proposalsand positions concerning the future of Jerusalem.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995.

13. Baskin and Twite: 1993; in Hircsh: 121-5 BaskinG, Twite R. (Eds) The future of Jerusalem.Jerusalem: Israel/Palestine Center for researchand Information, 1993.

14. Hirsch: 91,96,97,100,101 Hirsch M, Housen-Couriel D, Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem?Proposals and positions concerning the futureof Jerusalem. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1995.

15. Middle East International, 198916. Hirsch: 129-130 Hirsch M, Housen-Couriel D,

Lapidoth R. Whither Jerusalem? Proposals andpositions concerning the future of Jerusalem.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995.

17. Hassan bin Talal: 1979 Hassan bin Talal.  A Studyon Jerusalem. London: Longman, 1979

18. Boundreavit and Salaam, 1992 Boudreavit J,Salaam Y. (Eds) US official statements: the statusof Jerusalem. Washington DC: Institute ofPalestine Studies, 1992.

d

16 AL-AQSA

AL-AQSA 17

Right of Return – Sacred, Legal

and Possible

Dr. Salman Abu Sitta*

It is often said that history repeats itself. Ibelieve it does not. It simply accumulatesunfinished business, piles up debts and

stacks up fortunes and misfortunes. Then therecomes a day when all these accounts have to besettled. Look at our departing 20th Century. Wehave seen the retreat of evils imposed by manon man, such as the fading away of colonialism,the disappearance of Nazi Germany and fascistItaly, the collapse of communism, theunceremonious departure of apartheid, the steadybut sure decline of racism � from the time whenMartin Luther King could not get a hamburgeron a lunch-counter until Nelson Mandelabecame a world leader hosted by big and smallcountries alike.

And yet the only people in this century, whohave been subjected to all these evils combined,continue to suffer, continue to resist andcontinue to defy all odds to attain their basichuman rights. The Palestinians have enduredfive major wars, innumerable raids and attacks,coup d�etats and removal of rulers in allcountries adjacent to Palestine. They havesuffered a life of misery, destitution,occupation and oppression. Yet they have notdisappeared. They have not given up. Still, theyhave not recovered their rights, nor restoredtheir homes.

Today, there are approximately 8 millionPalestinians world-wide. Five million of them,or two thirds, are refugees uprooted fromtheir homes. The Peace Process, initiated inOslo, deals only with the 1 million people, whoare the original inhabitants of Gaza and theWest Bank. Other Palestinians (87%), includingall five million refugees, derive no benefit fromthe Oslo Agreement and are not likely to doso in the future. How can one think that therecan be a global and final peace without takingaccount of the most basic rights of at least 5million refugees?

Without rhetoric, based on scholarlyresearch work it can be demonstrated thatthe Right of Return is not only sacred andlegal and but possible too.

The uprooting of whole people fromtheir homes in Palestine in 1948 by acarefully executed and externallysupported plan is unprecedented inmodern history. This is what we call AlNakba (the Catastrophe). Its dimensionsare staggering. The inhabitants of 531towns and villages were forcibly evictedfrom their homes by the Zionist forcesin 1948. They represented 85% of thepeople in the land that became Israel.Their land, which represents 92% ofIsrael today, has been confiscated andadministered by Israel Land Admin-istration. Their property and theirheritage have been given free for all:Russians, Ethiopians and other people asdiverse as passengers in a busy transitlounge. Provided such diverse people areJews, they were instantly welcomed tothe very same homes from which therightful owners were expelled and towhich they continue to be denied theright to return.

* Dr. Salman Abu Sitta is a Palestinian resident in Kuwait. An engineer by profession, he served for morethan twenty years on the Palestinian National Council. He has several books published on the topic ofrefugees and lectures extensively on the topic. This article is based on a lecture delivered in the House ofCommons, Nov 99.

The inhabitants

of 531 towns and

villages were

forcibly evicted

from their homes

by the Zionist

forces in 1948

18 AL-AQSA

Where are the Palestinians today?Of the total 8 million Palestinians, about:

· 3.6 million (46%) now live within theMandate Palestine boundaries (i.e. Israel,West Bank and Gaza).

· 3.3 million (42%) live in bordering ArabCountries (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria).

· Approximately 1.0 million (12%) live inother Arab and foreign countries.Thus, 88% of Palestinians world-wide live

in or adjacent to Palestine. Today there are 4.9million Palestinian refugees. Of these, 3.6million are registered with UNRWA. The rest,1.3 million, are self-supporting non-registeredrefugees. Thus, two thirds of all Palestiniansare refugees.

What is their Land?In 1948, the land area under Jewish control

was 1,682 sq km or 8% of Israel today. Theland area of Palestinian villages remaining inIsrael is 1, 474 sq km or 7% of Israel. Twothirds of their land is now confiscated byIsrael. The remainder of Israel�s area, which is17,166 sq km, or 85% of Israel, is the propertyof the expelled refugees. It has all beenconfiscated by Israel. Thus, fully 92% of Israel�sarea is Palestinian land.

How could such a massive catastrophe beallowed to have taken place? The refugees toldstories of massacres, expulsion and evictionover and over again. The West refused tobelieve them and preferred to believe the heroicstory of David against Goliath or little Israelfighting 7 huge Arab armies. It is a crying shamethat it is now left to the Israeli historians todemolish this myth and to tell the West thatwhat the refugees always said was true.

Most of the heinous crimes of �ethniccleansing�, which we have seen on our TVscreens during the Kosovo crisis, have beencommitted in 1948. About 34 massacres havebeen reported during the Al Nakba, all partof the Israeli military campaign. Many moreare still yet uncovered. The pattern is clear.Villages are surrounded from all sides exceptone, allowing the victims to escape and spreadthe horror stories. Young men are shot againsta wall, thrown in a well or burnt alive. Theirhouses are burnt and later demolished. Evenbacteriological warfare was used, poisoningwells and infecting drinking water with malariaand typhus. That was the case in Gaza in thesummer of 1948 as Ben Gurion admitted inhis diary. Evidence is overwhelming that thedepopulation of Palestinian land, hence the

creation of the so-called �refugeeproblem�, is the direct result of a total warwaged against the Palestinians by the Israelisduring and after the British mandate, usingmilitary and psychological means. In brief,they wanted the land, not the people. Theywanted a fulfilment of the myth thatPalestine was a �land without people�.

In the years of agony that followed AlNakba in 1948, there was not a single, morebasic or stronger driving force for thePalestinians than their quest for their rightof return. There are three aspects to theRight of Return which makes it compellingand inevitable. It is sacred, legal andpossible.First - The will and determination of thePalestinians.

To them, the Right of Return is sacred.In spite of being dismembered anddispersed in the four corners of the earth,Palestinians continue to maintain amonolithic structure, based on the familyand the village. They intermarry acrosscountries on a family or a neighbourhoodbasis. A grandchild of a 1948 refugeeidentifies himself as belonging to his originalvillage. On the national level, societies orsyndicates for professions, trades, women,students, creative artists and others,representing the Palestinian people, arefunctioning in many countries. That was theraison d�être of the PLO. It was basically arefugees� organisation.Second - The Right of Return has legal basis.

To begin with, neither the BalfourDeclaration of 1917, nor the UN PartitionPlan of 1947 is binding on the Palestinians.They were not a party to them. None ofthese can grant them any new rights ordeprive them of their basic rights.

In recognition of the rights of thePalestinians, the United Nations adoptedResolution 194 on December 11, 1948.Paragraph 11 states:

�(The General Assembly)... resolves thatthe refugees wishing to return to theirhomes and live at peace with theirneighbours should be permitted to do soat the earliest practicable date, and thatcompensation should be paid for theproperty of those choosing not to returnand for loss of, or damage to, propertywhich, under principles of international lawor in equity, should be made good by thegovernments or authorities responsible�.

This Resolution was affirmed over 110times since 1948. It represents the universal,

creation of the

so-called “refugee

problem”, is the

direct result of a

total war waged

against the

Palestinians by

the Israelis

AL-AQSA 19

sustained and unwavering will of theinternational community. The exception is, ofcourse, Israel and the US since 1994.

Some notes on this Resolution may be inorder. The refugees should return �at the earliestpracticable date�, which is the cessation ofhostilities, i.e. in the period from February 1949upon signing of the Armistice Agreement withEgypt, to July 1949 upon signing it with Syria.The delay of the refugees� return from this dateis a continuous violation of the Right of Return.The liability for this violation and itsconsequences rest with the Israelis.

Those who choose to return are also entitledto compensation for �loss of and damage totheir property� whether gardens, houses, shopsor personal belongings. Restitution of their land,homes and property (restoration to originalowners) should be made and it is what therefugees are demanding. Thus, they have theRight of Return plus compensation. Those whodo not wish to return are entitled tocompensation for their land as well as theirother property and the damages they havesuffered. The short reference to the Right ofReturn as �return or compensation� is thereforemisleading. The compensation includes theexploitation of their property for 51 years, andthe anguish they have suffered for this period,in accordance with the procedures adopted inthe case of Nazi victims, and as accepted bythe Compensation Law articulated by the UNfor a number of cases. War Crimes are dealtwith by the UN in a separate, well-developedbody of law, starting from NurembergPrinciples in 1946 and ending with the Statuteof Rome in 1998.

The liability for compensation extends to�the governments or authorities responsible�.These include the Provisional Government ofIsrael in 1948, the consecutive Governmentsof Israel, the Jewish Agency, the Haganah, theIrgun and Stern gangs, the Jewish NationalFund and others in Israel and abroad.

The Right of Return does not derive itsvalidity merely from UN Resolutions. Article13 of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights asserts the right of every individualto leave and return to his country. The Rightof Return to one�s home is so basic, that ithas been stated in Magna Carta (Ch. 42) in1215. The Geneva Civilian Convention of1949 prohibits �individual or mass forcibletransfers � regardless of motive�. Thereis a growing body of international, regionaland national legislation, which affirms theright of return. The Right of Return isaffirmed by the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, the International

Convention on the Elimination of AllForms of Racial Discrimination, theEuropean Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms, the American Convention onHuman Rights and the African Charteron Human and People�s Rights. In factthe Human Rights Law has supersededlocal laws in Europe if they were atvariance with it.

A state, such as Israel, which declaresits sovereignty on parts of Palestine, cannotdeny the inhabitants of that country theirnationality and domicile. Such a state hasan obligation to offer these inhabitants thenationality and protection afforded by itto its own chosen citizens withoutdiscrimination on the basis of religion orany other consideration. In international law,sovereignty dictates that land and peoplego together. You cannot wipe out thepeople and keep the land.

The Principle of Self-Determinationguarantees, inter alia, the right of ownershipand domicile in one�s own country. Thisprinciple was adopted by the UN in 1947.In 1969 and thereafter, it was explicitlyapplied to the Palestinian People, including�the legality of the Peoples� struggle forSelf-Determination and Liberation�.Resolution 3236 adopted by the UN onNovember 22, 1974 is �one of the mostfundamental actions� taken by thisinternational body to reaffirm �theinalienable rights of the Palestinians to returnto their homes and property from whichthey have been displaced and uprooted andcalls for their return�.

Last but not least, the Right of Returnderives its strength from the sanctity ofprivate ownership which cannot beextinguished by new sovereignty oroccupation and does not have a statute oflimitation. In this sense the Right of Returncannot be delegated to a national authorityor bargained away in a political deal ortreaty. All actions, laws or agreements whichdiminish the individual�s rights, other thanthose surrendered by the individual himself,are null and void. My advice to concernedleaders therefore is: �watch out, nobackroom deals. These will not work inlaw and in fact�.Third - Right of Return is Possible.

With such overwhelming support of lawfor the Right of Return, we hear voices, wellintentioned or self-serving perhaps thatexclaim! But is the return of the refugees

In international

law, sovereignty

dictates that land

and people go

together. You

cannot wipe out

the people and

keep the land.

20 AL-AQSA

feasible? They say, �that Palestinian towns andvillages have disappeared... (and) ... it would bedifficult to re-establish these former sites�.

The claim that it is not possible to �re-establish former sites� is factually erroneous.There is no land better documented thanPalestine. In the period 1920-1947, theSurvey of Palestine produced detailed mapsfor the whole of Palestine. The land areaand ownership of each town and village arerecorded on maps and government registers.In 1964, the UN prepared ownershiprecords for 500,000 owners describing thearea and location of each property. Afterthe Israeli occupation of Palestine in 1948,these very same maps, with their Arabicnames erased and replaced by Hebrewnames, were used by Israel. The Israel LandAdministration, which leases Palestinian landto Jews, has complete records of every plotof land. Today advanced technology suchas the satellite mapping system makes theretrieval and comparison of old and newdata quite feasible and accurate.

Thus the question is posed: where wouldthe Palestinians return? What is to be done withall those multi-national immigrants who werebrought to Israel to live in Palestinian homes?The answer lies in examining Israel�sdemography.

Demographic analysis of Israel showsthat the concentration of Jews today islargely in and around pre-1948 Jewish landand that the expropriated Palestinian landis still sparsely populated. As surprising asthis may seem, serious research proves thispoint. For this purpose, let us divide Israelinto 3 areas.

68% of the Jewish population in Israellive in an area of 1,628 sq km (8% ofIsrael). Let us call this area A. Note this areais almost the same area in which Jews livedin pre-1948 Palestine.

Another 10% of the Jews live togetherwith 20% of the Palestinians in Israel in anarea of approximately 1,500 sq km (7% ofIsrael). Again for the purpose of ourdiscussion, let us call this Area B. This mixedarea is almost the same in size as the landof the Palestinians remaining in Israel. Thusthe undisputed fact is that about 80% ofthe Jews in Israel live in 15% of Israel.

The remaining part, which we shall call AreaC, has a total area of 17,325 sq km and isessentially the land of the 4.9 million Palestinianrefugees. Apart from a few urban centres(mostly Palestinian towns originally) in whichurban Jews live, only 200,000 rural Jewscontrol and exploit this vast Palestinian land.

The striking fact is that this smallnumber of rural Jews who confiscatedthe heritage of about 5 mill ionPalestinians is almost the same as thenumber of settlers in the West Bank.

The irony is that those rural Jews arethe residents of the Kibbutz, which isnow ideologically outdated andeconomically bankrupt. The image ofthe Kibbutz pioneer, the picture of theIsraeli fighter, slinging his gun on hisshoulder and driving his tractor into thesunset, is dying out. There are constantdesertions from the Kibbutz. Almostthree-quarters of the Kibbutz are loadedwith debts and unable to survive. Mostof you have read about the tragicconditions in the Gaza Strip where overone million people live in a tiny stretchof land at a density of over 4,000persons per sq km. Across the barbedwire they can look at their empty landcontrolled by the Kibbutz at a densityof a mere 3 persons/sq km. Why can�tthe refugees return home?

Allow me to test two scenarios, whichin my opinion, can diffuse two volatiledynamites in the Middle East. The firstscenario is the return of the Palestinianrefugees from Lebanon. This is mostworrying and is now constantly in thenews because of their depressing workingand living conditions. The second scenariois the return of the Palestinian refugeesfrom Gaza, where over one millionpeople are crammed in 360 sq km withno hope of a future. Although the entireissue of the refugees must be resolved,these two explosive situations must beaddressed without delay.

If refugees from Lebanon return totheir homes in Galilee and elsewhere, theimpact would be hardly felt by the Israelis.The density of the whole new populationwould only increase by 1% in Jewish AreaA, 6% in mixed Area B, and by 17% inArea C to which most of the refugeeswould return. The much-tooted concernfor Jewish majority would not bewarranted. They would remain above 50%even in areas where Jewish concentrationis the lowest. The Jews, who may barelyfeel the effect of the return are those fewrural Jews who lease refugee�s land. Ofcourse, the urban Jews will continue to liveand flourish in towns.

While refugees from Lebanon couldreturn to a largely Arab territory in Israel,with minimum effect on the Jews, the

The claim

that it is not

possible to

“re-establish

former sites”

is factually

erroneous.

the undisputed

fact is that about

80% of the Jews

in Israel live in

15% of Israel.

AL-AQSA 21

refugees from Gaza would return to an almosttotally empty land. As I mentioned earlier, therural Jews who exploit their land are spreadat a density of 3 persons/sq km. The densityof population in Gaza is one thousand timesmore. According to Israeli statistics there arebarely 60,000 Jews - rural Jews in the southernhalf of Israel in an area of 14,000 sq km. Inaddition, there are 553,000 urban Jews, two-thirds of whom live in 3 Palestinian towns(Beer Sheba, Ashdod and Majdal-Ashqelon)and another 24% live in 3 new towns. Theseurban Jews are engaged in industry, educationand services. The return of the refugees wouldbe of benefit to these Jews and vice versa,and as such, would be a positive element. Afterthe return of refugees from Gaza, the densityof the total population in Israel would increaseby only 6% in Area A, 5% in Area B and 32%in Area C to which the refugees return. Onceagain, as is the case of the Lebanon refugees,the Jews would still be over 50% in Area Cwhere they are least in number.

One of the painful twists of history is thatthe number of Gaza and Lebanon refugees,who have been denied the right to return home,is almost exactly the same as the number ofRussian immigrants that have been freelyadmitted to Israel throughout this decade.While the return of the refugees will bringpeace and stability to the Middle East, theRussian immigration is a cause of tension inIsrael itself and, as studies have shown, couldtrigger a new major conflict about water.

If the Right of Return is implementedand Palestinians return to their homes, hardlyany infringement on the Jews� Lebensraum(living space) would occur. The Palestinians,mostly farmers, would return to their fields,which they had tilled for centuries. Theirefforts would compensate for the drop inIsrael�s agricultural production from 11% ofGNP (1950) to only 3.5% (1993). Alreadythe farmers in Gaza, in spite of beingdeprived of economic support and of watersupply, produce superior and cheaperagricultural products.

The Israelis claim that, if the refugees wereto return, Israel would lose its Jewish character.There is no place, or a future, in the civilisedworld for a state that is based on suchexclusivity. Israel must choose between beinga Jewish or a democratic state. It cannot claimto be both. In the words of a noted jurist,�The Jewish character is really a euphemismfor the Zionist discriminatory statutes of theState of Israel which violate the human rightsprovisions� The UN is under no more of alegal obligation to maintain Zionism in Israel

than it was to maintaining apartheid in theRepublic of South Africa�.

The Palestinians have no obligation tothe Israelis to lose their homes and identityand continue to suffer in the Diaspora, inorder to provide the Jews with a secondhome. The last 50 years showed clearly, thatit was the Palestinians who had no homeexcept in Palestine, while only 4 million Jewsout of 12 chose to live in Israel. On thecontrary, the Israelis have an obligation tothe Palestinians, which must be fulfilled, toaccount for their dispossession and thecrimes committed against them. The Rightof Return to the Palestinians is a direnecessity. To the Jews, it is an option, a luxury.

The notion of maintaining Jewishsupremacy is also short sighted andimpractical. The Palestinians todayconstitute 45% of the total populationin historic Palestine, between the riverand the sea, and the Jews 55%. It is onlya question of time when the Palestiniansattain a majority regardless of how manyJews continue to immigrate to Israel.Their immigration will sooner or laterdry up. What then would Israel do?Continue to maintain the only remainingapartheid system? It is absolutely clear thatthe denial of the refugees� right to returnhome in order to maintain the Jewish�purity� of Israel is immoral, illegal andsimply impractical.

We all are painfully aware of the trailof blood and destruction initiated 82years ago by the i l l-fated BalfourDeclaration. In that Declaration, thosewho did not own promised those whodid not deserve, to inherit the homes ofthose who did not know.

In the House of Commons, 76 yearsago, in July 1923, 110 members of the

Refugee Camp – Gaza 1999

One of the painful

twists of history is

that the number

of Gaza and

Lebanon refugees,

who have been

denied the right

to return home, is

almost exactly the

same as the

number of

Russian

immigrants that

have been freely

admitted to Israel

throughout this

decade.

22 AL-AQSA

House of Commons submitted a petition tothe cabinet to reverse the folly of the Balfourdeclaration. In it they urged that �the wholepopulation of Palestine, with its 93 percentArabs, should be consulted and a form ofgovernment agreed upon in harmony withtheir wishes�. It continued to say �To imposeon an unwilling people the DominatingInfluence of another race is a violation ofhuman rights�, condemned in the covenant ofthe League of Nations.

But the ardent Zionists in the Middle EastDepartment, such as Shuckburgh, Ormsby-Gore and the notorious Meinertzhagen,carried the day. The result was 80 years ofbloodshed, half a dozen wars, hundreds ofthousands killed and wounded, millions ofinnocent people made homeless, five countriesoccupied and all governments in the regiontoppled. If Balfour were alive today, whatwould he have said to answer for this tragedy?

But the British government of today canand should say and do a lot to redress thiscolossal injustice. First it must uphold theinternational law. It must insist on theimplementation of the Right of Returnaccording to UN resolution 194.

Britain, in the UN and through the SecurityCouncil, supported by diplomacy the right ofreturn in Tajikstan, Abkhazia, Namibia andCyprus. Why not in Palestine?

Britain, in the UN and through the SecurityCouncil, implemented by military force theUN resolutions, including the right of return,in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor.Why not in Palestine?

Britain in co-ordination with the EuropeanUnion should face Israel with the necessity ofimplementing the right of return, should refuseIsrael�s contention that the subject is a taboo,

DIARYPalestine Awareness Lectures

6th May 2000 National Conference “Justice for al-Quds”

(The Holy Land) (Back cover for details)

21st May 2000 Palestine Awareness Bazaar

St Savioures Neighbourhood Centre

Leicester

For venue and time contact, ‘Friends of Al-Aqsa’ Tel: 0411- 823524

should examine the modality of return, andshould explore the capacity of Galilee andthe South to absorb the returning refugees.Britain should express its objection toBarak�s four no�s as a threat to peace, as arecipe for war and a sure way to prolongsuffering. Britain should build on the fact,long demonstrated in the last 50 years, thatpeace is much cheaper in human andmaterial cost than war and conflict. Thehistoric role played by Britain in Palestinemakes it imperative that Britain shouldlead, not follow, in restoring Palestiniansrights. This duty is long overdue. ThePalestinian children await the fulfilment ofthis duty and no doubt will continue tostruggle for it in the 21st Century.

Five million people today wait for theirright to return home. If, by a miracle, 99%of these refugees were to surrender theirright to return, and only 1% were ready toresist that by force, this would mean amilitia of 50,000 motivated individuals,enough to cause serious trouble to anyhostile government in the region. ThePalestinians will not go away, disappear oraccept to be carted away to settleelsewhere. Their plight has shaped thehistory of the Middle East and willcontinue to do so in the next century. Itbehoves fair-minded people andgovernments concerned with peace andstability to support their Right of Returnactively and by every effective means. Forit would be an illusion, a dangerous andcostly illusion, to think that peace can prevailin the Middle East, indeed in our globalvillage, without implementing the mostbasic of rights - to return home.

To impose on an

unwilling people

the Dominating

Influence of

another race is a

violation of

human rights

AL-AQSA 23

Al-Masjidul Aqsa Haram Sharif Site Plan

Ariel view of Haram al-Sharif Masjid al-Aqsa

The centrality of al Masjidul AqsaHaram Sharif and Jerusalem havebeen central to those who submitted

to the will of Allah (Muslims) from timeimmemorial. According to an authenticnarration of Prophet Muhammad (saas), alMasjidul Aqsa was the second house ofworship for the Lord on planet earth.Further, this was built only forty years afterthe first house, the Ka�ba in Makkah.

Allah (swt) through verses in the HolyQur�an, Prophet Muhammad�s (saas)teachings and his visiting al Masjidul Aqsaduring his miraculous journey � al Isra alMahraj - to the heavens has connected alMasjidul Aqsa and Jerusalem to the believesand respect of present day Muslims.

Al Masjidul Aqsa Haram Sharif besidesbeing the first qibla (direction Muslimsfaced during Salah - prayer) represents oneof only three mosques where Muslims arerecommended to undertake a journey forsole purpose of praying Salah. The virtuesof praying in al Masjidul Haram Sharifare multiplied by a thousand times. Thenumerous virtues of al Masjidul Aqsaenumerated in the teachings of Islam hasmade it central to Muslims all over theworld � i.e. one in every five person ofthe world today. The love and affectionfor al Masjidul Aqsa transcends all nationalboundaries, languages and colour. Muslimsall over the globe through the teachingsof Islam hold it dear and venerate it.

Abdul Waheed Kassam

24 AL-AQSA

1. Islamic Museum � An extensive Qur�ancollection and Islamic ceramics, coins andglassware stand together with guns, swords anddaggers in the oldest museum in Jerusalem. Aunique group of architectural elements helpdocument the history of al Masjidual AqsaHaram Sharif.

2. Bab al-Magribah (Moroccans Gate) � This gateled to the Magribah quarters. This area wasdestroyed by Israeli�s in 1967 and its inhabitantsmade refugees. The area is now accessibale toJews only, where they have built a plaza.

3. Bab al-Silsilah (Chain Gate).4. Bab as-Salaam (Tranquility Gate).5. Silsilah (Chain) Minarat.6. Bab al-Matarah (Ablution Gate).7. Bab al-Qattanin (Cottan Mercants Gt).8. Bab al Hadid (Iron Gate).9. Bab al-Nazir/Majlis (Council Gate) � The

Awqaf has its office just outside the Bab alNazir gates.

10. Minarat of Ghawanimah.11. Bab al-Atim (Gate of Darkness).12. Bab al-Hittah (Gate of Remission).

AL-AQSA 25

13. Minarat al-Asbat.14. Bab al-Asbat (Gate of the Tribes).15. Bab al-Zahabi (Golden Gate) � Dating back to

the Umayyad times, the Golden Gate�s twovaulted halls lead to the Door of Mercy, Bab arRahman, and the Door of Repentance, Bab atTawba. Imam al Ghazzali is thought to havewritten his �Revivval of the Religious Sciences �Ahyal ul Uloom � while sitting and teachingabove these gates. The Christians believe Isa�(as) will on his second coming enter throughthese gates.

15a. Bab al Rahma (Door of Mercy).15b. Bab at-Tauba (Door of Repentance).16. Cradle of Jesus.17. Al- Mussallah al Marwani (Solomons� stables �

substructure) � Just below the paved courtyardin the southeast corner of the Sanctuary lies thevast vaulted subterranean area referred mistakenlyas Solomon�s Stables. The actual construction isUmayyad dating back to the 8th Century. Thisarea is accessible via a flight of stairs leading downto a recently renovated prayer area.

18. Al Masjidul Aqsa - A Mosque of timber wasoriginally built here by Hazrat Umar (ra) thesecond Khalifa of Islam in 638 AD. Abdul Malikibn Marwan after the completion of the Domeof the Rock commissioned an extension to alAqsa Mosque. His son Al Walid in 705 ADcompleted the work. The mosque at the timewas large enough to accommodate fivethousand worshippers. This building called alAqsa must not be confused with the whole areaalso known as al Masjidual Aqsa Haram Sharif.It must be emphasised the the whole area issacred to the Muslims and not even a centimetreis negotiable.

Directly beneath the eastern half of al AqsaMosque building is another subterranean area,leading from the courtyard in front of theMosque to the Double Gate in the southernwall of the Sanctuary. Sealed for hundreds ofyears, this gate led to the Umayyad palaces whichonce lay to the south. This area has also beenopened by Palestinians, against the wishes ofIsraelis, for worshipping.

The al Aqsa Mosque has been the centre oflearning and worship throughout Islamichistory. It has been modified several times toprotect it from earthquakes, which sometimesoccur in the area and to adapt to the changingneeds of the local population.

The form of the present structure hasremained essentially the same since it wasreconstructed by the Khalifa Al Dhahir in 1033AD. It is said he did not alter it from theprevious architecture except to narrow it on eachside.

19. Fakhriya Minarat.20. Dome of Yusuf Agha.21. Station of Buraq.22. Al-Kas (The Cup) � The place of abulation.

23. Minbar of Buran ad-Din � Originally builtin the 7th century, this open air pulpit isnamed after the 14th century Qadi ofJerusalem.

24. Dome of Yusuf � A dome built tocommemorate the Prophet Yusuf (as).

25. Dome of Al-Nahawiyyah (School ofLiterature) � Built in 1207 by al MuazzamIsa as a school of literature.

26. Dome of Moses - A dome built tocommemorate the Prophet Moses (as)

27. Fountain of Qasim Pasha.28. Pool of Raranj.29. Fountain of Qayt Bay.30. Muezzen�s Dome.31. Dome of The Chain (Silsila)� Directly east

of the Dome of the Rock, the Dome of theChain was built by Abdul Malik ibn Marwanand marks the exact centre of the sanctuary.

32. Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al Sakhra)�Jerusalem became known as al Quds (TheHoly). Many of the Prophet�s Companionstravelled to worship at the blessed precinctswhere the Prophet Muhammad (saas) wasbrought by night and from where heascended through the seven heavens to hisLord.

In 690�s (72AH) the Umayyad KhalifaAbdul Malik Ibn Marwan commissionedthe work to build the Dome over the rock.Essentially unchanged for more thanfourteen centuries, the Dome of the Rockremains one of the world�s most beautifulenduring architectural treasures.

The gold Dome stretches 20m across therock, rising to an apex of more than 35mabove it. The Qur�anic sura �Ya�sin� isinscribed across the top in the dazzling tilework commissioned in the 16th century bySuleiman the Magnificent. The interior isexquisitely decorated, the two mostimportant decorative elements are the glassmosaics and the carved marbles.

33. Dome of the Prophet -A dome built tocommemorate the Prophet Muhammad(saas). Restored in 1620 by Farruk Bey, theGovernor of Jerusalem.

34. Dome of the Miraj - A dome built tocommemorate the Prophet Muhammad�s(saas) ascension. Restored in 1200.

35. Dome of al-Khalili (Hebronite) � An early18th century building dedicated to ShaykhMuhammad al Khalili.

36. Mihrab Ali Pasha.37. Dome of Al-Khidr.38. Dome of the Spirits (Ruh).39. Fountain of Sha�lan.40. Solomon�s Dome - A dome built to

commemorate the Prophet Suleman (as).41. Dome of the Lovers of the Prophets.42. Fountain of Sultan Solomon.43. Solomon�s Throne.W. Wailing Wall.

26 AL-AQSA

The Palestinian Return CentreAn independent British registered consultancy and forum for the monitor of issues pertainingto the Palestinian refugees and their right to return. We carry out research, documentationand publication of our findings. We serve as an academic forum and information repositoryon other aspects of the Palestine Question and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Our Aims:n To promote the right of Palestinians to returnn To preserve the Palestinian national identityn Widen awareness among the general public of the facts and issues concerning the

plight of the Palestinian peoplen To uncover and thwart efforts to concede the rights of the Palestinian refugees

Subscribe now: To our monthly �Return Review� [English] or weekly �Al Awdah� [Arabic]

Visit our website: exhibitions on Jerusalem & the refugee camps . . . . www.prc.org.uk

The Palestinian Return Centre Tel: 0181 453 0919Crown House Fax: 0181 453 0994North Circular Road E-mail: info@prc.org.ukLondon NW10 7PN

Al-AqsaEditor

The Articles published in this journal do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Editorial Board or of Friends of Al-aqsa

AL-AQSA 27

A Perception of Islamophobia:

Higher Education and the Palestine Issue

Anthony McRoy*

* Anthony McRoy BA, BD, MA is an Irish citizen, he has worked as a lecturer in an Evangelical Christiantheological college, a religious journalist, researcher and is currently engaged in research for a PhD about theMuslim Community in Britain. He has a lively interest in the human rights issues.

It is often forgotten that the racism thatled to the Palestinian Catastrophe resultednot just from the political Right, but also

from the Left. Whilst it is true that the rightwing Zionist terrorist group the Stern Gangcarried many atrocities, most of the ethniccleansing of 1948 was carried out by the LeftistHaganah, whose members included YitzhakRabin and Ygael Allon who later wereprominent in the Israeli Labour Party, whichcontinues, despite its terrible record inapartheid-style discrimination against IsraeliArabs, to be a member of the SocialistInternational. Further, this racism was notrestricted to Socialist elements in Palestine itself;the British Labour Party, which enjoys thepreponderance of votes among BritishMuslims and Arabs, was equally culpable inthe ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Howmany British Muslims and Arabs who areLabour voters aware of its infamous 1944Resolution, which demanded that �Arabs moveout as the Jews move in�, called for theproposed Zionist State to include not only allof Palestine, but large parts of Jordan, Syria,Lebanon and Egypt?

Thereafter, the links between the Israeli andBritish Labour Parties remained intimate. Therewas a �Labour Friends of Israel� long beforeits Conservative equivalent. Harold Wilson,Prime Minister 1964-70 and 1974-75 was anerstwhile champion of the Zionist regime. Linksremain strong, even though the Party knowshow strongly British Muslims and British Arabsfeel about the issue, but it takes their votes forgranted, especially since Muslim and Araborganisations in Britain are still in its infancy andneither community as yet turns out in largenumbers in meetings, protests, nor makesPalestine a critical voting issue.

This Labour attitude is surprising at one level,since Labour was so vehemently opposed to

South African Apartheid, but does notappear averse to the policy in Palestine.Equally, the National Union of Students,traditionally dominated by left-wing Labourstudents and militant in opposing SouthAfrican Apartheid, has followed the LabourParty in its schizophrenic attitude to Palestine.Likewise, the traditionally liberal Universityand College establishments have beenperceived as engaging in a very illiberal policyof Muslim-baiting.

This article explores the British Muslimperception of Islamophobia in highereducation, both in terms of highereducational establishments and students�unions, to note how the Palestinian issuehas played a crucial role in the conflict nowimpacting upon British Muslim students. Itis not my purpose in this piece to suggestthat such a perception is either valid orinvalid, but merely to note that it exists.

The Impact of the Rushdie AffairEver since the Rushdie crisis, British

Muslims have felt under attack from allsides, Left as well as Right, in every sphereof life in modern Britain. Traditionally,hostility to Muslims was a product ofRightist racism and in no way noticeablydistinct from that experienced by Hindu,Sikh and African-Caribbean. Unlike thisform of biological racism, hostility toMuslims � Islamophobia - resulting fromthe Rushdie crisis was specific to theircommunity and crossed all barriers, classand ideology alike. Liberal and leftelements naturally sided with one of theirown � Rushdie, a secularist critiquingreligion. Akhtar notes that �the affair hasbeen responsible for arranging someunusual unions between the left and the

How many

British Muslims

and Arabs who

are Labour

voters are aware

of its infamous

1944 Resolution,

which demanded

that ‘Arabs move

out as the Jews

move in

28 AL-AQSA

right...�1 As he puts it, a �divorce� occurredbetween the �liberal left� and Muslims on theissue: �Asian Muslims are no longer in the goodbooks of the liberal anti-racists who oncesupported them in the name of equality andmulti-culturalism.�2 Whilst Leaftist urgedMuslims, �Fight racism, not Rushdie�, BritishMuslim youth, however, were determined tofight both racism and Rushdie. The sense ofbeing besieged caused an equivalentradicalisation of Islamic identity, especiallyamong the young. One area where Muslimshave experienced the radicalising effects ofperceived Islamophobia, both in its institutionaland overt forms, is in higher education, notjust with the University and Collegeestablishments, but also with the NUS.

The Hizb-ut-Tahrir [HT] FactorMuch of the strife involved has revolved

around the activities of HT and Al-Muhajiroun[AM]. Both groups can be described asmilitant who have less than a thousandmembers, an insignificant figure to the nearlytwo million Muslims in the UK. The vocal andoutright offensive approach of HT has beencarefully manipulated by the higher educationalelements to label Muslims as anti-Semitic.

It was the Palestine issue that first broughtthese groups to the attention of student bodies.In 1993 HT started distributing leafletsopposing the Israeli-PLO Oslo accords, callingfor jihad to liberate Palestine.3 �On the basisof leaflets collected on various universitycampuses during January 1994, the JewishChronicle and the Union of Jewish studentsaccused HT of blatant anti-Semitism.�4 Jewishgroups began to campaign vigorously againstthe group, leading to University CollegeLondon banning a talk on �the peace process�after thousands of leaflets criticised as �anti-Semitic� were distributed.5 Taji-Faruki claimsthat as a result of Jewish pressure, �universityauthorities� had �questioned the wisdom ofallowing HT speakers to use their venues.�6 Aswe shall see later, this coalition between Jewishgroups and the university authorities was laterto become more overt and with a wider brief.

Jewish students were astute in presentingHT as a danger to other groups, such asHindus and homosexuals.7 Both politiciansand the media reproduced these claims againstthe party, specifically directed them against all�British Muslim students.�8

The complaints of Jewish students havebeen echoed by the National Union ofStudents as a whole. LeBor reports that �TheNational Union of Students accuses the party

of intimidating Jewish, Hindu, gay andlesbian students, which it denies.�9 The April1994 NUS annual conference committedthe union to combating the party oncampus, accused the party of being a threatto Jews, Hindus, homosexuals, and alsoattacked it as racist.10 However, the NUSdid acknowledge that the party wasunrepresentative of �Moslems [sic] in theUK�.11

For the past five to six years MuslimStudents in various places have been bannedfrom talking about Islamic solutions topolitical issues. A leaflet issued by theAssociation of Muslim Students� states, �thepast six years have seen false allegations,slander, mis-representation [sic] anddistortion against many Muslim studentsocieties all over Britain, particularly onUniversity of London campuses. This formof clear discrimination has been dished outby the NUS, College authorities, but evenmore significantly fuelled by the Union ofJewish Students [UJS]. This type [sic] ofcensorship is a gross injustice against theIslamic student societies. All this from anorganisation which claims to be believersof liberal thought and freedom of speech!

All Muslim Students Extremist?However, NUS relations with Muslims

are not only poor with respect to radicalgroups such as HT. Increasingly, BritishMuslims believe that there is evidence ofboth institutional and overt Islamophobiain the organisation, often the accusationsmade by the Association of MuslimStudents are reproduced by those Muslimsnot aligned with any groups. Certainly, theBritish Muslim media interprets NUSactions against radical Muslims in this light.When the NUS debated a motion �to curbthe activities of HT and anyone else aligningthemselves with its views� in 1997, Q-News� no friend of HT � presented this as �anti-Muslim NUS motions�.12 Moreover, NUSantagonism was not limited to HT; the 1997conference allowed (though did not pass)a motion from the Jews� College in Londonthat sought the expulsion of ManchesterUniversity�s Islamic Society for attemptingto ban �pro-Zionist groups�.13 Q-Newscommented that ��Islamic societiesoperate in a climate of suspicion andhostility.�14 It must be reiterated that thePalestine question is a major factor in BritishMuslim perceptions of Islamophobia onthe part of the NUS. British Muslim

Whilst Leaftist

urged Muslims,

‘Fight racism, not

Rushdie’, British

Muslim youth,

however, were

determined to

fight both racism

and Rushdie.

Increasingly,

British Muslims

believe that

there is evidence

of both instit-

utional and overt

Islamophobia in

the organisation

AL-AQSA 29

references to Palestine frequently denounceZionism as a racist ideology and system thattargets a mainly Muslim people, see a parallelwith the former Apartheid system in SouthAfrica. Since the NUS led a very vigorouscampaign against Apartheid, the naturalpresumption of Muslims is that NUS wouldbe similarly zealous against what they see as aparallel regime, one that they regard as theepitome of Islamophobia. The NUS,however, has chosen not to sympathise withthe Muslim position. The same issue of Q-News stated ��the NUS is very much in thrallto the Zionist lobby, with the NUS stance onPalestine always appearing on the bottom ofthe committee agenda, thus invariably beingchopped from national meetings due to �lackof time.�15

Similarly, when the attempt was made byMuslim students to �de-recognise� pro-Zionistgroups at Manchester University, on thegrounds that Zionism was to be equated withracism and religious bigotry, �Muslim studentsaccused the SU of colluding with the nationalUJS� to disrupt the vote, by allowing studentsfrom outside the union to attend, anunprecedented policy.16 The Palestinecontroversy continued to haunt ManchesterUniversity; in 1999, Q-News reported thatduring anti-racism week, the Students� Unionhad removed posters placed by the IslamicSociety depicting Israeli soldiers beating upPalestinians, commented, �Some racism, itseems, is more acceptable than others.�17Hence, Muslims perceive that the NUS andaffiliated bodies does not regard racism orprejudice against Arabs and Muslims as taboo,yet, as we have seen, the NUS has accusedsome British Muslims of racism.

Defining Islamic �Extremism�There is a strong British Muslim perception

that the use of the term �Islamic extremism�or its derivatives in both the media and inhigher education circles is a cover to attackIslam and Muslims in general. The Muslimstudent magazine �The Reality� observed�Certain individuals and organisations continueto attack Islam in tune with western mediastereotyping under the guise of appearing totarget �extremism and homophobia�.�18 Interms of the latter, the NUS and universityauthorities are seen by British Muslims asconniving in this practice, the principalevidence being the 1998, report by theCommittee of Vice Chancellors and Principals(CVCP) �Extremism and Intolerance onCampus�. British Muslims felt that they were

the main targets of the Report.19 In fact,according to Jeremy Newmark, spokesmanfor the Jewish Board of Deputies, �Themajority of submissions to the CVCP werefrom the NUS which was contacted byJewish victims calling for Islamicextremism to be banned.�20 Other Jewishsources seem to confirm these claims,indicate that combating perceived Islamist�anti-Semitism� was the basis of the Report:

Following continued complaints frommany quarters the CVCP, the umbrellabody for British universities, undertook aformal enquiry into the presence ofextremism and intolerance on campus. Theinvestigation, which included contributionsfrom the BOD [Board of Deputies], theUJS and the Interparliamentary Councilagainst Antisemitism, reported itspreliminary conclusions in June 1997. It isexpected that the enquiry will lead to newguidelines proscribing the activities ofIslamist groups like AM and HT withinBritish universities.21

The CVCP denied an Islamophobicbias, but British Muslims were un-convinced. This was because, as MuslimNews complained, the CVCP neveractually defined what was meant by�extremism�.22 Muslim News continued itscritique by examining the CVCP�s criteriafor recognising �extremism�, indicated thatMuslims in general were the objects of theReport, were thus effectively labelled as�extremists� en bloc.

The Muslim News account argued thatthe effects of the CVCP Report would notbe merely theoretically Islamophobic, sincethere was past evidence about what wouldhappen to Muslim students once they werelabelled as �fundamentalists� or �extremists�:

Again, British Muslims perceived aZionist connection in that the head of theCVCP investigation was ProfessorGraham Zellick, Vice Chancellor ofLondon University, ��a leading memberof the Jewish community�.23 The article inQ-News claimed that he was �an ardentZionist� with �many professional ties toIsrael�. Similarly, its opinion of the CVCPfindings and recommendations was alsoexpressed in its headline for the articleexamining the report � �Universities danceto Zionist tune�.24 The Federation ofStudent Islamic Societies was not consultedin the formation of the report, despite thefact that the views of a number of Jewishand other organisations were obtained.25Naturally, the Federation of Student Islamic

the use of the

term ‘Islamic

extremism’ or its

derivatives in

both the media

and in higher

education circles

is a cover to

attack Islam and

Muslims in

general.

30 AL-AQSA

Societies [FOSIS] was unhappy about this:The NUS and UJS were both involved in

the consultation process and FOSIS regardsits exclusion as a �blatant omission�. This isespecially the case in view of the fact that thereport originated as a result of a perceivedproblem by Muslim extremist groups oncampuses. Despite its �reminder� to the CVCPof its existence and willingness to co-operatewith the report, FOSIS regards its exclusionas �insulting�.26

Where this affected the NUS was in its rolein the Report�s investigations. According to Q-News, the CVCP defended its failure to consultany Muslim group on the grounds that �It wouldhave been up to the NUS to representorganisations like FOSIS,� according to aspokesperson. The NUS confirmed there hadbeen no consultation between itself and anyother Muslim student body over the report.27

This gave the impression that not just theCVCP, but also the NUS itself had conspiredto produce a report that British Muslims sawas blatantly Islamophobic with draconianconsequences for British Muslim students. Incritique of the CVCP, it is perhaps questionableto produce a Report, apparently instigated bya particular complainant, then fail to takecontributions from the student grouping whoare accused of the offence. The sourcesemployed for any study will inevitably help todetermine its outcome, the fact that the CVCPapparently ignored or even rejectedsubmissions from FOSIS left it open tocharges of bias.

Double Standards In Combatting�Extremism�?

The British Muslim perception is that theNUS could scarcely be unaware that in theabsence of Muslim contribution, no contraryvoice would be heard to the claims of Islamistanti-Semitism from the UJS, making the unionat least culpable in the findings of the Report.This has given the impression that the NUS �a body self-consciously anti-discriminatory -are actually engaged in anti-Muslimdiscrimination. Moreover, in the eyes ofMuslims, the NUS do not appear to beconsistent in its treatment of �extremists�,especially with regard to Palestine. Q-Newsreported that during the attempt to �de-recognise� Zionist societies, the President ofManchester University�s Islamic Society hadreceived several death threats from Jewishstudents.28 Yet there were no reports of theNUS or affiliated bodies taking action againstthese particular �extremists�. Perceived

inconsistencies like this and especially theevents at 29Manchester University haveintensified Muslim impressions of apervasive Islamophobia in higher educationcircles on both sides of the lectern. Inparticular regard to Palestine, in BritishMuslim eyes, if an Islamic group is bannedfor alleged racism and religious bigotry, aJewish group, in the eyes of British Muslimsguilty of the same tendencies, escapesproscription because such is �unconstit-utional�, it follows in their estimation, validor otherwise, that there is one law forMuslims, another for non-Muslims. Not onlywas such a decision perceived asIslamophobic, it is also perceived asdemonstrating that Islamo-phobia isacceptable to the traditionally anti-discrimination Leftist element, of which theNUS is a prime example. Gillat-Rayobserved that one FOSIS interviewee

�made the point that the lastingimpressions and experiences of Muslims inhigher education may have an impact onlifelong attitudes towards British society.Memories of having to fight for basicfacilities whilst at college or university willcolour later views about attitudes to Islamin higher education in particular, widerBritish society in general.30

Possibly the climax of perceived NUSIslamophobia has come with the publicationin 1999 of the NUS handbook Racism: alight sleeper, jointly published with the UJS,which has been vigorously denounced in theIslamic Human Rights Commission Report,Anti-Muslim discrimination and hostility in theUnited Kingdom, 2000, launched by LordAhmed of Rotherham at the House ofLords in February. The IHRC reportstates that the NUS handbook �has causedus great alarm and exemplifies theinstitutionalisation of Islamophobia ineducation.� (p. 16) Whilst the Report attacksthe NUS for Islamophobia in general, suchas failing to mention �examples ofIslamophobic violence and harassment oncampus�, accuses the handbook ofcontaining �a litany of Islamophobiccomments and implications�, the Palestineissue is a major concern in that the NUSuses it to denounce Muslims as racist.

For example, the Report notes (p. 17)that under the heading �Anti-racism trainingProgrammes� on p36 , the handbook advisesstudents� unions to �Pre-prepare a list ofdifferent forms of racism and prejudice.�Amongst these are �anti-Zionism�. SinceBritish Muslims are invariably pro-

lasting impressions

and experiences of

Muslims in higher

education may

have an impact on

lifelong attitudes

towards British

society.

‘Pre-prepare a list

of different forms

of racism and

prejudice.’

Amongst these

are ‘anti-Zionism’.

Since British

Muslims are

invariably pro-

Palestinian, the

NUS effectively

damns the entire

community as

racist!

AL-AQSA 31

Palestinian, the NUS effectively damns the entirecommunity as racist! Again, in the context of�Pre-Prepared scenarios� of racism wefind �anti-Zionism literature on the JewishSociety notice-board� (p. 17 of IHRC Report).Whilst inappropriate, it is questionable if suchan action is racist. The IHRC Report concludeson this point �Interestingly the handbook citesanti-Zionism as being a racial offence, when infact it is not.� The Report regards the NUS asinciting religious hatred against Muslims - �TheIHRC is dealing with the issue of incitement toreligious hatred separately, but the NUS� bookletgives an indication of the extent of theproblem.�

ConclusionIt can be seen that Islamophobia,

whether institutional or overt, is perceivedas just as prevalent, if not more so, on theLeft as on the Right, so that British Muslimsfeel that they are besieged from all angles.The Palestine issue has been a major factorin this, and is likely to remain so. Of course,it is not the only one: Muslim students areperceived by the traditionally left-wingsecularist element as misogynistic,homophobic, anti-Hindu, generallyreactionary and divisive. British Muslimsview this same element as immoral, racist,Islamophobic and hypocritical � especiallywith respect to Palestine, seeking to pressureMuslims into a secularised identity andagenda which in their eyes amounts toapostasy. Equally, the University staff,traditionally the sentinels of academicfreedom, are perceived as betraying theirown principles and uniquely targetingMuslim students for draconian oppression.

It might be observed that at times, studentsand staff of all opinions have been guilty ofinflammatory language and insensitive actions,on all sides it could be argued that there hasbeen a conspicuous lack of restraint, with littleattempt at reconciliation. Despite claims to thecontrary, both staff and student elements havenot always clearly distinguished between radicaland mainstream Muslims, just as radical Muslimstudents in particular � at least in terms ofrhetoric and language � have at times failed toconsistently distinguish between Judaism andZionism, indeed, Jews and Zionists; the twoterms are not synonymous. Apart from theoffence caused, this further fails to recognisethe heroic ethical stance taken by Jews like DrUri Davis and Dr Israel Shahak in opposingethnic cleansing and Apartheid againstPalestinians.

Nonetheless, in the final analysis, theideological gulf between secularist andreligious elements, between Zionists(whether Jewish or non-Jewish) andproponents of Palestinian liberation cannotbe bridged. Part of the problem in highereducation affecting British Muslimsironically reflects that which has plaguedPalestinians and in fact, first led to theirdispossession � the efficiency of the pro-Zionist element, the correspondingineffectual character of supporters ofjustice for the Palestinians.

Notes1. Akhtar, Shabbir, Be Careful with Muhammad!:

The Salman Rushdie Affair, (Bellew Publishing,London, 1989), p. 110.

2. Akhtar, Be Careful with Muhammad, p. 110.3. Taji-Faruki, Suha, A Fundamental Quest: Hizb

al-Tahrir and the Search for the Islamic Caliphate,(London, Grey Seal,), p. 172.

4. Taji-Faruki, A Fundamental Quest, pp. 172-173.5. Taji-Faruki, A Fundamental Quest, p. 173.6. ibid., p. 173.7. ibid., p. 173.8. ibid., p. 174.9. LeBor, Adam, A Heart Turned East: Among the

Muslims of Europe and America, (Little, Brownand Company, Great Britain, 1997), p. 139.

10. ibid., p. 175.11. ibid., p. 175.12. Q-News, No. 260-263, April 1997, p. 13.13. Q-News, No. 260-263, April 1997, p. 13.14. Q-News, No. 260-263, April 1997, p. 13.15. Q-News, Vol. 3 No. 37, December 1994, p. 1.16. Q-News, No. 239-240, October-November,

1996, p. 1.17. Q-News, No. 302 & 303, March 1999, p. 6.18. The Reality, vol. 8 number 1, October 1999 �

January 2000, p. 5.19. Q-News, No. 294, August 1998, p. 14.20. Q-News, No. 294, August 1998, p. 14.21. Institute for Jewish Policy Research

Antisemitism in the world today, (London, 1999)http://www.pfcamp.demon.co.uk/europe/uk.htm

22. http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/123/123-4-3.html Issue 123, Friday 23 July 1999.

23. Q-News, No. 300, January 1999, p. 9.24. Q-News, No. 294, August 1998, p. 14.25. Q-News, No. 294, August 1998, p. 14.26. Gillat-Ray, S., A Research Project on Higher

Education and Student Religious Identity,(University of Exeter, 1998), pp. 163-163.

27. Q-News, No. 294, August 1998, p. 14.28. Q-News, No. 239-240, October-November,

1996, p. 4.29.30. Gillat-Ray, A Research Project on Higher Education

and Student Religious Identity, p. 162.

32 AL-AQSA

AL-AQSA 33

(e) The text (3-9) of chapter 3-2 Chronicles.�The inside of the Temple was sixty arms

long and twenty arms wide, according to theolder standards. The height 120 arms. Acrossthe front of the Temple was a porch thirtyfeet wide and thirty feet high. The inside wallsof the porch were covered with pure gold.Solomon had the inside walls of the Temple�smain room panelled first with pine and thenwith a layer of gold, and he had themdecorated with carvings of palm trees anddesigns that looked like chains. He usedprecious stones to decorate the Temple, andhe used gold imported from Parvaim todecorate the ceiling beams, the doors, thedoorframes, and the walls. Solomon also hadthe workers carve designs of winged creaturesinto the walls. The most holy place was thirtyfeet square, and its walls were covered withalmost twenty-five tons of fine gold. Morethan a pound of gold was used to cover theheads of the nails. The walls of the smallstorage rooms were also covered with gold�.

The exaggeration in the dimensions of theTemple is very clear in the above text. If thelength was only 60 arms (arm = 75 cm.), andthe width was 20 arms, how could Solomonmake the height 120 arms, which is very high(above 90 metres)?

As for the wooden material, the OldTestament texts did not explain how Solomonchanged the cedar wood, which Davidprepared in huge quantities, into palm and pinewood, and what happened to the cedar wood?Further more, 25 tons of gold used todecorate the walls of 20 square feet room isunrealistic and improbable.

Israeli Excavations in Jerusalemsince 1967

The excavations that began at the end of1967 are still going on apace, despite

international condemnation and SecurityCouncil, U N and UNESCO�s resolutionsrequesting Israel to stop them. The mostconcerning of these excavations are:1. Excavations South of al Masjidul Aqsa

These excavations started at the end of1968 extending 70 meters below theSouthern Wall of al Aqsa Haram SharifCampus, immediately behind the buildingsof al Masjidul Aqsa. With a depth of 14metres these excavations with passage oftime pose a dangerous threat to the integrityof the southern wall and the al MasjidulAqsa building, which is along it. TheHebrew University financed theseexcavations headed by Professor BenjaminMazar and his assistant Meir Ben Dov.

The first report about these excavationswas published in 1969. The discoveries wereIslamic, Ummayad (660-750 AD)antiquities and other Roman and Byzantineantiquities. Professor Mazar published abook in 1975 explaining his discoverieswith photographs proving that the findingswere Islamic and Byzantine, but he insistedin his book that the location of the JewishTemple is within the present site occupiedby al Aqsa Haram Sharif. He furtherpostulated that the entrance to the Templeis on the western side from the RobinsonArch.

Later Prof. Kaufman disagreed withProf. Mazar, and said that the entrance tothe Temple was on the East Side from theGolden Gate.2. Excavations South West of al Masjidul Aqsa

These excavations took place in 1969,extending 80 metres, starting from wherethe first project ended, and going northtowards Maghrib Gate, passing under agroup of Islamic buildings belonging toFakhriyah Zawiyah (Imam Shafi Center)

* Raif Y Nijem is an archaeologist specialising in Jerusalem. He resides in Amman, Jordan

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS

IN JERUSALEM – Part 2

Raif Y Nijem*

these excavations

with passage of

time pose a

dangerous threat

to the integrity of

the southern wall

and the al

Masjidul Aqsa

building

34 AL-AQSA

totalling 14 buildings in all. This has led tocracks and a weakening of the infrastructureto all of the buildings. The Israeli Authoritiesusing bulldozers on The 14th of June 1969demolished these buildings and theirinhabitants made refugees.

Meir Ben Dov states that the foundationsof three Ummayad Palaces were discovered.Two of which are similar and the third slightlydifferent. Prof. B. Mazar, in his book publishedin 1975, says that there is no evidence of anyarchaeological findings of the Holy City, beforethe destruction of the second Temple. The onlyexception being the books of the Jewishhistorian Josephus Flavious, who wrote theJewish history as well as in the Torah, Mishnahand Talmud. This means that Prof. Mazar hasbased his imagination which he published in1975 on the location of the Temple in this areafrom books which are not objective or neutral,but express the hopes of the Jews withoutscientific, historical or archaeological evidence.Prof. Mazar confesses that the Old City ofJerusalem has disappeared because the bedrockfoundation of that city has been uncovered inthe new Israeli excavations, and that he himselffound that pieces of rock were cut and takenfrom bedrock and used in new modernbuildings. These confessions totally contradictthe assumptions and imaginations he publishedabout the alleged location of the Temple, lackingscientific, historical and archaeological evidence.3. Excavations South East al Masjidul Aqsa

The excavations which started in 1973 andcontinued up until 1979 and have extendedeighty meters to the east penetrating in July 1974the south wall of al Aqsa Haram Sharif campus,emerging in the following four locations:

a. Below the Mihrab (Niche) of al AqsaMosque, 20 metres long extendinginwards.

b. Under the �Dome of the Rock�.c. Under the three gates of the lower

courts of al Masjidul Aqsa.d. Under the Southeast courts of al Aqsa

Mosque. The depths of theseexcavations reached more than 13meters, subjecting the south wall of alAqsa Mosque to cracks and possibledestruction due to the followingreasons:

i. The old age of the building.ii. The removal of soil adjacent to the

exterior face of the wall to a greatdepth, thus creating a big differencein soil elevation between the internaland external faces of the wall.

iii. The daily effect of the noise andvibration from the Militaryplanes breaking the soundbarriers. This is in fact adverselyaffecting all Islamic religious andhistorical monuments, includingal Aqsa Mosque and the Domeof the Rock.

4. Demolishing of al Maghrib QuarterAfter only four days of the Israeli

occupation of Jerusalem, on June 11th1969, the Israeli Authorities demolished bybulldozers al Maghrib Quarter, locatedadjacent to the southwest part of al AqsaMosque and uprooted its 650 Moroccaninhabitants. This quarter was a strongholdseparating the area inhabited by the Jewsfrom al Aqsa Mosque and close to the alBuraq Wall, which is an integral part of alAqsa Mosque. In this quarter, there weretwo mosques and 135 houses. Theconstruction of this quarter dated back toKing AI-Afdal Nour AI-Deen Salah AI-Deen�s era who endowed the land and theMoroccan community during his reign inDamascus (589-592). The Maghrib Quarterhas been converted by the Israelis into awide paved square, used as a gathering placefor tourists, from which the Israelis enterthe southern tunnel.5. The Excavations of Southern Tunnel

These excavations started in 1970, pausedin 1974 and recommenced in 1975continuing until late 1988, despite UNESCOresolutions condemning Israel. The tunnelextended from underneath Shariah Court,which is one of oldest historical buildingsin Jerusalem. Then passed under five gatesof al Aqsa Haram Sharif [Silsilah Gate,Matharah (Ablution) Gate, al Cattaneen Gate,al Hadid Gate and Ala� Eddin AI-BaseeriGate]. It also passes under a number ofhistorical, religious and civic buildings, fourof which were mosques, and some of theothers were Kaitby Minaret, Souq AI-Qattaneen (the oldest Islamic historicalmarket in Jerusalem), and a number ofhistorical schools and dwellings inhabited byapproximately 3000 Arab Jerusalemites. Thetunnel�s excavations reached between 11 to14 meters in depth under ground and alength of around 450 meters and a heightof 2.5 meters. These excavations causedcracks and weakening to several buildings.The tunnel passes through Ummayad andByzantium ruins consisting of precious andfragile stonewalls and arches.

AL-AQSA 35

In March 1987 the Israeli�s declared thatthey discovered the channel, which wasreported by the German General ConradeTchick, in the nineteenth century, to be 80mlong. The Israelis have not been satisfied bymerely connecting the tunnel with the canal,but on 7th July 1988, under the protection ofthe Israeli Military Forces, conducted newexcavations at the cross point between BabAl-Ghawanmeh Road with AI-MujahideenRoad (Via Delerosa). Using mechanicalexcavators, the Israelis began to dig a verticalopening to provide an entry to the Romanchannel to the tunnel. However they wereconfronted and prevented from continuingtheir vandalism by the citizens of ArabJerusalem.

The purpose for providing this openingwas to ventilate the tunnel from another end,establish a new Israeli checkpoint, and to easilyreach the Roman Pools.

However, despite the closure of thisopening the Israeli Minister of ReligiousAffairs (Zoufaloon Hamer) and the IsraeliMayor of Jerusalem (Teddy Koleck) declaredthat these archaeological excavations willresume at the right time. Indeed the Israelisrecommenced their attempts to open anotherentrance to the tunnel during Rabin�sgovernment, but had to stop in front of thedefiance and resistance of the citizens ofJerusalem one more time.

The Israelis tried again during Natanyahu�sgovernment. This time they succeeded on 24thSeptember 1996 in opening a second gate tothe tunnel from the Arabic Rawdah School atMujahideen Street.

By opening another gate to the tunnel, theIsraelis aim to improve ventilation and lighting,and to convince Jews of the world to cometo Jerusalem and pray inside the tunnel at alocation just below al Aqsa Haram Sharif .Therefore the interior of the tunnel became aJewish synagogue. The Israelis in the futureplan to jump upward from it, and here liesthe great danger from keeping this tunnel openand accessible to the Jewish fundamentalists.

Natanyahu, as Prime Minister, stated thatthis tunnel was old and historic and the Israelishave merely reopened it, and he was surprisedof the Arab condemnation. The facts are thatthe old tunnel are, 80m long, starting from alGhawanmeh Gate and terminating at two rockpools located inside Zion Sisters Monastery,which was discovered by the German GeneralConrade Tchick. The rest of the tunnel fromits entrance at Maghrib Square untilGhawanmeh Gate, approximately 450m, is a

new tunnel excavated by the Israelis inrecent years. At the time Jordan submittedseveral complaints to the UNESCO, andseveral resolutions were issued to stop thistunnel excavations. However the Israelis didnot respond to these resolutions. It wasstated in the report published in 1966 byMessue Loumair, the technical advisor tothe Director General of the UNESCO,that the Israelis have used special chemicalmaterials to soften and break the rock insidethe tunnel. These materials pose seriousdanger to the foundations of the Islamicbuildings if it can reach them through thesubsurface water.

6. The Reopening of Colonel Warren�sExcavations

On 21st August 1981, the anniversaryof the conflagration of al Aqsa Mosque,the Israeli Authorities re-opened the tunneldiscovered by Colonel Warren in 1867. TheJerusalemite Citizens barricaded inside thetunnel and prevented the Israeli Authoritiesfrom continuing their excavations. TheIsraelis had intended to connect this tunnelwith the one under the Dome of the Rock.The Muslim Awqaf in Jerusalem reactedpromptly and closed the tunnel entrancewith reinforced concrete on 29th August1981. The opening of this tunnel resultedin some cracks along the Western Courtof al Aqsa Haram Sharif.

the Israelis have

used special

chemical

materials to

soften and break

the rock inside

the tunnel. These

materials pose

serious danger to

the foundations of

the Islamic

buildings

Support under a tunnel in the old city

36 AL-AQSA

7. Bab al Amoud ExcavationsThe Israeli Department of Antiquities

carried out these excavations in 1975 underthe present entrance gate. The old gate of thewall which was about five meters below theexisting one was exposed. All that wasdiscovered was Islamic antiquities and archeshaving no connections to the Temple. Theexisting gate of Bab al Amoud was thenconnected to the external front yard withreinforced bridge for crossing to and fromthe Old City.8. Excavations at the Lions Gate

The area between the Lions Gate (onJerusalem Walls) and Saint Stephens Gate(on the walls of al Aqsa Haram Sharif) wasused after 1967 for the distribution ofrations to the refugees by UNRWA. In 1982the Israeli Authorities insisted in excavatingthis area despite the objection of IslamicAwqaf. The excavations were completed in1986 without finding any Jewish antiquity.In 1986 an amphitheatre with stone seatswas constructed over the excavated siteaccording to a design approved by theIsraeli Municipality. A stonewall was alsoconstructed separating the yard from alMujahideen road.9. Excavations at the Damascus Gate

In 1975 the Israeli Authorities carried outexcavations adjacent to Qishleh (Police Station).No evidence of Jewish antiquities was found.An Islamic minaret exists on this site.10. King David�s Area Excavations

These excavations were for thereconsideration of the excavations carried outduring the British Mandate of Palestine, toenable the Israelis confirm the conclusionreached by Mr. K. Johns in 1940, which hecalled at that time �King David Tower� (whichis in fact the Islamic Minaret).11. Excavations Around Ash - Sharaf Quarter

Ash- Sharaf Quarter, an old residential area,was owned by Arab families of Jerusalem andwas let to Jewish families during the BritishMandate. The Jews used to own less than 4%of properties in this area. During the war of1948 between Arabs and Jews this quarter wasdestroyed and all Jews left it.

During the Jordanian rule, the ArabJerusalem Municipality could not obtain a loanfor the reconstruction of this quarter. It wasonly in 1966 that a European loan was secured.However, because of the 1967 war the projectwas never completed.

In 1967 when the Israelis occupiedJerusalem, they claimed ownership of thelocality taking advantage of its demolishedstate. A team headed by Nahman Avigadexcavated in this area down to thebedrock. No antiquities were found apartfrom a small portion of a thick wall,claimed by Mr. Nahman to belong to theperiod of King Hazaqia. Nahman Avigadin his book (Discovering Jerusalem)claimed that the discovered ruins at Ash-Sharaf Quarter contains the wall of theIsraeli town. However the photograph hepresented proved contrary to his claim, asthe ruins in the photograph are Islamic, anda Mihrab (Niche) appeared clearly in theupper corner of the photograph.

After that, the Israeli Municipality ofJerusalem constructed 600 stone houses,exclusively for Jewish families, whosedesign was alien to the area and do notrelate to the history of this quarter. Someof these buildings were built to a greatheight thus superimposing the court of alAqsa Haram Sharif from the West Side.12. Recent Excavations

At present, new excavations areunderway. One of them starts from AI-Ghawanmeh Gate and aims towards theDome of the Rock passing two groundwater wells. The aim of this excavation isto reach the foundations of the Dome ofthe Rock.

Another excavation starts from AI-Ghawanmeh Gate towards al MasjidulAqsa building. The Israeli Authoritiesannounced that the excavations wouldcontinue under the Old City of Jerusalemin order to establish a comprehensiveunderstanding of its Jewish history(forged), under the guise of archaeologicalexcavations, although the Israelis have notfound any trace of the claimed Temple.

UNESCO Condemnation of Israelfor its Excavations in Jerusalem

According to the convention for theinternational cultural and natural heritage,which was signed by member countries atthe UNESCO�s seventeenth generalconference concluded on 21st November1972 in Paris, passed a resolution - �acondemnation of Israel�s action.�

Jordan submitted in 1982 a detailed fileon the status and conditions of the historicand holy sites and monuments in Jerusalem,supported with photographic documents,

AL-AQSA 37

to the International GovernmentalCommittee for the protection of theInternational Cultural and natural heritage,which was formed by the GeneralConference. Jordan explained the resultingdangers from the Israeli Excavations aroundal Aqsa Mosque and in the Old City ofJerusalem, particularly at the Western Tunnelextending under the foundations of a numberof religious and historic Islamic Monumentsthat are all Islamic Waqf. Jordan hadsucceeded in securing a resolution stating,�that Jerusalem is a part of the InternationalHeritage List.�

In 1983 Jordan submitted another filesupported by further details explaining thedangers that still existed to the Islamicreligious and historic monuments inJerusalem, and succeeded in securing a secondresolution, �considering Old City ofJerusalem a part of the EndangeredInternational Heritage.� Therefore it becameUNESCO�s responsibility, according to theInternational Heritage Convention, tosupport, financially and technically, theresolution of the endangered landmarks.

Regrettably, all this resulted in was a fundof 160 thousand dollars paid by UNESCOin several instalments extended over ten years,and used in the restoration of several historicalschools.

With the effect of the Arabs co-ordinatingwith UNESCO�s Director General FredricMayor, in 1999, reached a different resolutionthan previously. This resolution stated thenecessity to discuss Jerusalem under theHague agreement and the fourth GenevaAgreement. This meant to tackle the politicalaspect of Jerusalem in addition to its historicand archaeological aspects, as was the situationbefore. This is considered a success for theArab members of UNESCO who kept theissue of Jerusalem alive in the Internationalcommunity. However, all of this may notprove fruitful, as Israel continues to ignoreinternational law and continue its aggressiveacts in changing the landmarks of Jerusalem.

Jewish Archaeologist who RefuteClaims on Jerusalem

In July of 1998 a Jewish archaeologistJadoun Afni, declared that the lastarchaeological excavations which took placein the Palestinian Silwan quarter, in the easternpart of the City of Jerusalem lead to thediscovery of a complex system of watertransfer system going back to 1800 BC (i.e.800 years before King David according to

the Torah). He said that the discovery ofthe remains of two stone towers that wereused to support a water network andsome clay pieces, were used to estimatethe age of the network. Thus connectingit to the Canaanite period from the middlebronze age. These late discoveries covertwice the current area of Silwan Quarter,and it changes all Jewish claims of the Cityof David. King David did not build a newcity, but resided in an existing viable City.

The Jewish archaeologist Roni Rieche,commented saying, �I am sorry! but Mr.David and Mr. Solomon did not appearin that era.�

Those Jewish settlers who confiscatedeleven houses in Silwan Quarter andinhabited them in co-ordination with theIsraeli military forces under the guise thatSilwan was the City of David, have nowbeen proved wrong by the Jewisharchaeologists themselves.

The Jewish archaeologist Sagiev, wasasked by Shemon Peres to write a reportto prove that the Islamic religiousmonuments in Jerusalem and Hebronwere built on Jewish antiquities. After sixmonths of studies Sagiev, presented areport saying that he could not find anysuch evidence, and that the archaeologicaland historical facts prove that theseMonuments are Islamic.

The real aim of these excavations is toundermine the foundations of all religiousand historical Islamic Land Marks in theOld City of Jerusalem, and to expel theArab citizens from it, thus ethnicallycleansing the city of its Muslim andChristian population.

It is worth mentioning here thatdespite draconian aggressive actions byIsrael in Jerusalem, confiscation of Islamicproperty, expelling the Arab citizens andpreventing them from constructing newhouses, the Islamic face and the characterof this holy city and its Islamicarchitectural fabric is still dominant - butfor how long?

The Arab citizens of Jerusalem havestood and resisted all belligerent, politicaland economic aggressive practices for over33 years, but what does the future holdfor them? Jerusalem is waiting for theMuslims, Arabs and the just citizens of theworld to rally in liberating it from theclutches of apartheid regime and make it atruly holy city where people of all religionsmay practice their faith in peace.

King David did

not build a new

city, but resided

in an existing

viable City.

38 AL-AQSA

B O O K R E V I E W S

Dispatches From Palestine: The

Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace

Processby GRAHAM USHER, Pluto Press, London, 1999,198pp. ISBN 0-7453-1337-X, Price £12.95

Dispatches from Palestine� is a series of snapshotscovering the period from the eve of Oslo, 1993to Netanyahu�s demise in 1998. Graham Usher

has selected his subjects aptly to portray the image ofOslo in its true essence.

His first hand knowledge and sincere reporting on thecontemporary issue will serve well all those who wish tounderstand the mechanics behind the façade of Oslo andshould become a reference mark for future historians.

The book is divided in 24 parts, included areinterviews with Marwan Barghouti, Yossi Beilin, AzmiBishara, Rabbi Aryeh Deri, Ibrahim Ghoshah and IlanPappe. For me, the best chapter is on Hamas. Not becauseof the authoritative reporting but simply because Usheris one of the few reporters who has removed the westernveil of Islamaphobia and reported facts on the groundwithout the jaundiced pen.

Oslo as a Zionist plan, to those who did not alreadyknow, are provided with ample references. In chapter 2,Rabin is quoted during the Intifada era as, �getting Gazaout of Tel Aviv�. Further Oslo�s aim to silence Hamasby suffocating it of financial and political support isstated on Pg 22. �Oslo - so the argument ran- wouldnot only restore the PLO�s standing as the sole legitimaterepresentative of the Palestinian people. Moreimportantly, the international funds pledged to underwritethe autonomy would replenish the PLO�s empty coffersand so lubricate the network of support and patronagethrough which legitimacy could be consolidated�.

To create the PA authority as the bulldog of Israelisecurity is aptly quoted, again in Rabin�s words, �The

Palestinians will be better at it than we are, because theywill allow no appeals to the Supreme Court and willprevent the Israeli Association of Civil Rights fromcriticising the conditions thereby denying it access to thearea�.

Zionist vested policies in Oslo becomes moreapparent when yet in another outstanding essay, �Palestine:the Economic Fist in the Political Glove,� it is revealedthat two thirds of the Declaration Of Principles (DOP)is an economic document. As Abd al Shafi, a Palestinianeconomist states, �Palestine�s final and absoluteincorporation into the Israeli economy and with it thevanquishing of any notion of developing a genuinelyindependent Palestinian economic sector�. Adel Samara,another Palestinian economist, points out, �What therelationship actually portends is the swallowing of theeconomies of the Palestinian cantons [like Gaza] andconverting them into components of the Israeli economy,but with an Arab face.�

Credit to Usher for presenting scholarly work that islike going through an �Oslo� album, time framed withoutany trickery of light yet masterly presented. His first handknowledge of the area and contacts portrays the fallacyof those with shortsightedness in investing any hope fora meaningful peace for Palestinians or for that matterIsraelis from Oslo.

I recommend the book unreservedly to all who wishto have an insight to Oslo�s genesis, animation andprobable doom.

Ilan Pappe should be given the final words, �The Osloagreement is a wholly Israeli formula. There is nothingPalestinian in it� and further �through Oslo Israel hassucceeded in replacing one form of occupation withanother � the Bantustan option�.Leicester Abu Huzayfa

d

AL-AQSA 39

from England less than 200 years ago. The theologyholds that Christians must look to the biblical land ofthe Jews for their salvation; that the land itself is moreimportant to Christians than the message of Christ.Scofield taught that Christ was held hostage until Jewscarried out a preordained plan, they were to leave theirnative lands, including Russia, Europe, Africa andAmerica, and settle in Palestine. They were to eradicate,with the help of Christians, the most sacred Islamic shrinein Jerusalem, a mosque holy to a billion Muslims aroundthe world and once Christ returned, the Jews must convertto Christianity. His doctrine, called dispensationalism, wasencoded into the Scofield Reference Bible.

His dispensationalist Reference Bible is used by virtuallyall TV and radio preachers. Their certitude inArmageddon, along with their offer of an escape hatch,makes converts of a growing number of mainstream,middle to upper-middle class Americans. Dispensa-tionalists attend a variety of Protestant churches, includingthose known as charismatic. They represent 15 to 20percent of the 16-million member Southern BaptistConvention. They also are members of so-called Biblechurches and megachurches, such as those attended bySpecial Prosecutor Kenneth Starr in McLean, Virginia,and US Congressman Tom DeLay in Sugar Land, asuburb of Houston.

Dispensationalism is taught throughout the U.S., atlarge and influential seminaries including the DallasTheological Seminary, where Hal Lindsey studied, theMoody Bible Institute of Chicago, the PhiladelphiaCollege of the Bible, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles,as well as 200 other colleges and institutes. Currently thereare more than 100,000 students in Bible schools, witheighty to ninety percent of the teachers as well as studentsavid believers in an imminent destruction of Planet Earth,preceded by their own Quick Rapture.

Forcing God’s HandWHY MILLIONS PRAY FOR A QUICKRAPTURE � AND DESTRUCTION OF PLANETEARTH, by GRACE HALSELL, Crossroads Inter-national Publishing, Washington, 1999, 131pp. ISBN 0-9674013-1-3

In her startling new book, Forcing God�s Hand: WhyMillions Pray for a Quick Rapture and the Destruction ofPlanet Earth, Grace Halsell explores the danger of a

new religious doctrine sweeping America. Adherents tothis doctrine are said to constitute the fastest growingmovement in Christianity today. Its leaders proclaim thatGod wants�even demands�that Planet Earth bedestroyed in our generation.

Cult members do not look like the so-called�crazies��those such as Jim Jones or leaders of the�Branch Davidians� or �Heaven�s Gate,� who ledfollowers to death declaring the end is near. Yet, Halsellwrites, �They accept the same theology: we can donothing about the environment, it is useless to work forpeace, rather we must build more weapons forArmageddon.�

Those proclaiming that we must wage Armageddondo not, however, expect to suffer. As the book pointsout, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, Tim Laflaye and almost100,000 other U.S. Fundamentalists broadcasting on 2,000Christian radio and TV stations, assure adherents thatwhile the world will be destroyed, they will be given afree Rapture ticket. They need not suffer a moment ofagony. As Jerry Falwell puts it, �I�m not worried. Youknow why? I ain�t gonna be here�.

Cult leaders assure followers, now said to include oneout of ten Americans, that they will be wafted up toheaven for a special grandstand seat where, in comfort,they will watch the final holocaust, the agony and deathof billions of men, women and children.

Forcing God�s Hand explains the popularity of this EndTime doctrine. A Tennessean, Cyrus Scofield, popularisedthe idea of a Free Rapture, a theology originally imported

d

40 AL-AQSA

Islam and Conflict Resolution –

Theories and Practicesby RALPH H. SALMI, CESAR ADIB MAJUL andGEORGE K. TANHAM, University Press of America,Maryland, USA, Jan 1999, 221pp. Price £23.50. ISBN 07618 1096 X

The title suggested a greatly needed book to fillthe vacuum in one the most vital subjects to beexplored and discussed in the present status quo

of world order.The book is like travelling on a short journey in

the bitter cold just when you are getting warmed up,the cab pulls up at your destination. The title to thesix chapters reflects a better image of the contentsthan the title; Introduction, The Islamic Paradigm, TheGeneral Nature and Development of Islamic Law,International Islamic Law, Modern Islamic Thinkers-

The Role of Jihad and Siyar in International affairsand finally Conclusions for the West-IdentifyingCommon Vehicles.

Although the claim of the authors is to �investigateand analyse those aspects of Islam which deal withinternational law and peaceful resolution of conflict�,almost half of the book is dedicated to introducingIslam. From Prophet Muhammad�s (saas) life inMakkah, to the Sunni - Shia split and the emergenceof different madhahibs within the Ummah. The basicbeliefs of Muslims in tawhid, risalah etc covers almosta whole chapter.

The authors provide a basic groundwork on ijtihad,jihad, the four madhahibs and role of the Khalifate.

They have provided good introductory work onthe basic beliefs and prominent Muslim scholar�s views.This book will serve well those who are alien toIslamic beliefs and practices. I hope the authors couldhave dwelt deeper into the concept of siyar andproposed on how the Ummah could apply thesetheories into practice, especially with reference toPalestine and west- east relationship.

The simplistic approach may well be the best creditto the book. However I can only assume that this isthe first book written by the authors or were forcedto rush towards publishing the book before a deadlinefor there are numerous typing and spelling errors.

The other handicap for readers outside the USA isthe inflated price of £23.50. I wish the authors luckand hope they succeed if for only portraying the vastdynamic disciplines within Islam.

Leicester Abu Huzayfa

Books Available For Review

1. Fateful Triangle by Noam Cnomsky.2. Jerusalem �caught in time � by Colin Osman.3. The Palestinian Exodus 1948-1998. Edited by Ghada Karmi and

Eugene Cotran.4. Letters From Jerusalem �During the Palestine Mandate � Eunice Holliday.5. Between Despair and Hope � Windows on my Middle East Journey 1967 to

1992. Margarita Skinner.

Interested individuals contact Friends of Al-Aqsa