In what follows, I will attempt to shed some light on what might be
described as an Islamic position towards the declaration of a
Palestinian state. It is presumed that at this stage in history,
the lands of the state comprise the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. The Islamic position towards any
declaration, treaty or the establishment of any institution,
including a state, is dependent upon the fulfillment of justice.
Whether the declaration of a Palestinian state as a by-product of
the Oslo Accords achieves all the rights of the Palestinian people
is indeed questionable.
However, it is understandable that the balance of power, and
realpolitik, including inter-Arab/Muslim relationships, at this
stage in history are not conducive to the fulfillment of all the
rights of the Palestinian people. Moreover, the Palestinians have
suffered enough, and to wait until full justice can be achieved
once and for all is not to their advantage. Further waiting can
only serve the interests of those looking to create more "facts on
the ground," which means the continuous loss of Palestinian land to
Jewish settlers.
The Palestinian state will clearly face many challenges on the
level of realpolitik. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of the plight
of the Palestinian people cannot subscribe to the view of a
"natural" birth of the Palestinian state. If anything, its birth is
tantamount to a "Caesarean" section, given the strenuous labor
which predates the Israeli occupation.
Ending Occupation
This state, albeit with limitations, is welcome, not because it
fulfills all the aspirations of the Palestinian people, but because
it is perceived as an end to the occupation. Nevertheless, the
concept of a nation-state proves to be challenging from two
perspectives. First, the "nation-state" is a modern European idea
that could be subject to deconstruction like many other modern
concepts. In practice, many nation-states moved away from the
original understanding and the circumstances that led to their
rise. Today, the European Union is simply one vivid example of
nation-states that do not see this modern political form as viable
as they thought years ago. The second of these perspectives is the
Islamic worldview which is ummatic1 in its essence and, thus, it
advocates a political union amongst all Muslims. This could be
achieved in a non-confrontational way by gradually empowering the
already existing forums, such as the Organization of Islamic
Conference (OIC). While this is not the place to discuss this issue
in detail, there is a need for ingenuity in rethinking the
institution of khilafah.2
Hence, the Palestinian state is conceived as having an organic
union with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. As such, the idea
of a confederation with Jordan is only one step in the right
direction. In practice, the process of Palestinization should not
be stretched too far, otherwise it might lead to a collective
psyche that resists unions with sister countries across the
border.
Palestinian Statehood: Three Aspects
It should be clear that there are three aspects to the Islamic
position regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state in
terms of legitimacy: its relationship with Israel, civil
institution, and its relationship to the Shari'a.3
Without analyzing the complex context that led to the rise of
Israel, a historical insight might be helpful to understand one
important yet ignored factor: the impact of modernity on the rise
of nation-states in Europe and, as a result, elsewhere on this
globe. The Zionist movement also participated in the international
craze for nation-states. It represents the aspirations of the Jews
(not all, though!) to have a nation-state of their own. It is not
the right to a nation-state which is questionable here; what is at
stake is the establishment of such a state at the expense of
another people.
Islam does not question the rights of all people, including Jews,
to peace and security (rare commodities for Palestinians). In fact,
it is the lands of Islam that historically played host to the Jews
who feared European persecution. The escalation of anti-Semitism in
Europe to the degree it allowed the Holocaust to take place is
absolutely abhorrent and should be condemned in the strongest terms
possible. But to create a purgatory out of Palestine, so that
Europe is able to clear its burdened conscience is categorically
rejected.
As discussed earlier, the nation-state is subject to
deconstruction, both in theory and practice. The European Union can
be seen as a postmodern alternative to the nation-state which could
not function as an autonomous entity. The same is applicable to
Israel and the future Palestinian state. It is obvious that Israel
is trying to be a member of some higher order, which explains the
attempts to reinterpret the Middle East in a way that could
accommodate it. Palestine, on the other hand, fits well into all
paradigms: the Middle East, the Arab world and the Islamic world.
It is the lack of acceptance that haunts Israel far more than other
problems.
A Higher Moral Order
Knowing that ultimately the people of the region are looking for
some kind of Pan-Islamic unity allows no room for Israel to be at
home. It is quite unfortunate that the political leaders of Israel
do not have a sense of history (or maybe they do, but chose to
ignore it for immediate political gains). It is in this context
that all talk about eternal political entities cannot be sustained.
One example is the claim to Jerusalem as the eternal Jewish
capital. This claim can neither be sustained theologically (i.e.,
including all three faiths), nor philosophically. Indeed, God did
not guarantee the adherents of any of the three monotheistic
religions a free hand. This land was once ruled by Jews and they
lost it. The same is applicable to Christians and Muslims; each
ruled more than once and also lost it. It is obvious that history
tells us that no eternal governance was guaranteed to any
particular group. Certainly none was chosen for this
category.
As such, all assertions by any specific group to enjoy a divinely
conferred special status is absurd. It is worse when a people is
drawn to such a utopian status in a way that renders the others
lower on the scale of nations or of simple humanity. The political
implications of this position are clear: social Darwinism at work.
There is a need for a higher moral order that can generate the
maximum possible justice. The renowned Medieval Muslim scholar,
Imam Ibn Taimiyyah, stated that God would make the just state
victorious, even if it is non-Muslim. One could only emphasize the
fact that Islam advocates a theology of justice, and that
administering justice is a prerequisite for reconciliation.
From this perspective, nationalism is certainly not the solution.
The following might not be a popular position: in the absence of an
Islamic state, one democratic state is much better than two.
Currently, a Jew who resides anywhere in the world qualifies
automatically for the Right of Return. On the other hand, this
Right of Return is automatically denied by Israel to the
Palestinian refugee who resides in the Diaspora. This is clear
injustice, and any institution that denies the Palestinians their
historic (in fact, their basic human rights), cannot be seen as
legitimate.
Normalization Unacceptable
That is why Israel will remain a de facto rather than a de jure
state, a position which renders normalization with it unacceptable.
Nevertheless, this position should not have an impact on internal
Palestinian politics. Islamists should not be preoccupied with this
problem to the extent of their being prevented from actively
participating in the rebuilding of the Palestinian state on all
levels.
The above position makes it imperative that the state invest
heavily in civil institutions to ensure the participation of all
parties concerned without relegating any specific one to perpetual
opposition. Separation of powers, sustained pluralism and inclusive
democracy (though shuracracy4 is my first choice) are a must for
healthy and cordial relations within the Palestinian house.
That the state is an institution to serve the people and not to
oppress them should be inculcated in the mind of every citizen, but
especially in civil servants. A healthy civil society does not get
along with despotic measures. There should be clear and binding
laws. The prevailing ethos should reflect a deep respect for human
rights. No one, for example, should be behind bars because of
support for a particular political stand.
How Islamic?
The Palestinian state will also be judged in areas other than its
relationship with Israel and the formation of civil institutions.
Specifically, how Islamic is the new state? What is the role of the
Shari'a in the formation of the new constitution? I believe that,
rather than create a point of contention out of these issues, one
should opt to work within the parameters of the law; to work with
the state, rather than against it, in order to achieve any goal.
This would lead to a greater tolerance of differences and to a
continued striving for the common good of the society.
In this respect, secularist and Islamist, including independent
scholars and activists, should open channels of communication that
are not intended to revile the other. I have observed improper ways
of addressing the other in quite a few conferences and forums,
including TV shows, that have taken place in the past. A
professional atmosphere should promote the rapprochement between
both sides.
Moreover, the Palestinian state should have the ability to run its
affairs independently without allowing any foreign power to meddle
in its internal affairs. To be fully independent means that the
state has to be strong enough to face the most pressing challenges.
To be strong means that all those who could play a pivotal role in
the shaping of the future state should be enlisted. One should
learn to set aside differences for the sake of the public
good.
One does not have to compromise one's position regarding the rights
of the Palestinian people in order to advocate unity amongst
Palestinians. This should be done in the spirit of strengthening
the Palestinian leadership in order to safeguard Palestinian
aspirations. Whenever the Palestinian state is declared, it will be
long overdue.
I would like to conclude with the notion that, while there are
general and specific guidelines that govern politics in the Islamic
worldview, this does not, and should not, imply a rigid approach
towards realpolitik; there is room for movement. This premise might
be a prerequisite to the initiation of a new paradigm which could
achieve greater justice.
1. From umma, meaning the Muslim community.
2. A successor or one who comes after. In Sunni Islam, the title
was applied to the successors of the Prophet's temporal authority
over the community.
3. The term is normally used to refer to Muslim law, i.e., the
divinely revealed law.
4. From shura, meaning consultation. Classical theory held that a
ruler should consult the leaders of the community who had a duty to
give advice. Modernists have translated the concept into a form of
quasi-democratic assembly, the majlis al-shura, which may be
appointed, elected, or a combination of the two.