Developing Eight Islamic Countries (D-8)

 

Objectives and guiding principles

D-8, also known as Developing-8, is an arrangement for development cooperation among the following member countries: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. It also adds a new dimension to enrich the social and economic relations of its partners.

Following the “Conference on Cooperation for Development”, on October 22, 1996, and after a series of preparatory meetings, the establishment of D-8 was announced officially by the Summit of Heads of State/Government in Istanbul, on June 15,1997 (Istanbul Declaration).

The objectives of D-8 are to improve developing countries’ positions in the world economy, diversify and create new opportunities in trade relations, enhance participation in decision-making at the international level, and provide better standards of living.

D-8 is a global arrangement rather than a regional one, as the composition of founding members reflects. Membership will be open to other developing countries subscribing to the goals, objectives, and principles of the group, sharing common bonds.

D-8 is a forum with no adverse impact on bilateral and multilateral commitments of the member countries, emanating from their membership to regional and international organisations.

Principal organs

The principal organs of D-8 are the Summit, the Council, and the Commission.

The Summit, which is the supreme organ of D-8 is composed of the Heads of State/Government of member states. It is convened once every two years.

The Council is composed of the Ministers in charge of Foreign Affairs of member states. It is the political decision making organ of D-8, and acts as a forum for thorough and comprehensive consideration of the issues.

The Commission is the executive organ of D-8. It is composed of senior officials appointed by their respective governments. Each Commissioner is responsible for national coordination in his/her respective country.

An Executive Director is appointed to ensure efficient communication, expedite the flow of information, and supervise the provision of services for the meetings.

Areas of cooperation

At the outset, ten sectors have been identified for cooperation and project development. They are: Trade; Industry; Telecommunications and Information; Finance, Banking and Privatization; Rural Development; Science and Technology; Poverty Alleviation and Human Resources Development; Agriculture; Energy; Environment; and Health.

On the basis of a division of labour for the coordination of D-8 activities, each sector is assigned to a member country.

Although 50-60 projects were originally proposed at the First Summit, in order not to spread resources too thinly, the following six priority projects were selected to be launched immediately:

• Establishment of an International Marketing and Trading Company
• Workshop on Poverty Alleviation
• Establishment of an Industrial and Technological Data Bank Network among D-8
• Establishment of Takaful Schemes (Insurance), including joint ventures between the companies of D-8
• Cooperation for the Development of Inland and Coastal Aquaculture
• Design, Development, Production, and Marketing of Agricultural Aircraft

D-8 countries have large, young populations with a growing and increasingly skilled labour force

D-8 member countries have relatively large populations. The total population of D-8 countries was around 800 million in 1997. This corresponds to some 13.5 percent of the world population. In four of the eight countries the population is well over one hundred million, in one country it is more than two hundred million.

After relatively high annual growth rates recorded in previous decades, population growth is gradually coming down in all D-8 countries, similar to the phenomenon observed in the rest of the world. Due to rapid growth in the past, a large part of their population will continue to be young for the foreseeable future, constituting a factor of dynamism in D-8 societies.

Moreover, an increasing number of these young people are being educated and trained in universities and research institutions in order to meet the requirements of high-tech industries for skilled labour.

Population in D-8 countries

	Total (millions)	Avg. Annual Growth Rate (per cent)
	1997	1980-90	1990-95
Bangladesh	122.2	2.4	1.6
Egypt	64.8	2.5	2.0
Indonesia	204.3	1.8	1.6
Iran	67.5
Malaysia	21.0	2.6	2.4
Nigeria	107.1	3.0	2.9
Pakistan	137.8	3.1	2.9
Turkey	63.7	2.3	1.7
Total	788.4
World Population	5,840.0
D-8 Pop/World Pop	% 13.5

Source: World Development Report, 1997,World Bank; World Population Data Sheet, 1997, Population Reference BureauD-8 countries have growing economies and relatively high technologiesStarting from relatively modest income levels, D-8 economies have displayed respectable growth rates in the recent past. In all countries, governments have undertaken reforms to remove the bottlenecks to rapid growth, liberalise markets and integrate better with the world economy. Growth in incomes, coupled with the already large and increasing populations, will create rapidly growing markets in the coming years.

In most of these countries, the private sector has become the driving force of the economy. As a result, large holdings have emerged in recent years. Some now rank amongst the first 500 largest companies of the world. Their partnership with well-known firms of the industrialised world in high-tech industries such as electronics, automotive, etc. has helped build a significant technological and industrial base in D-8 countries.

Gross National Product in D-8 countries

	GNP 1995 bn (USD)	Annual GNP Growth rate (1985-95) (%)	Per Capita GNP (*) 1995
Bangladesh	28,752	3.5	240
Egypt	46,525	3.1	790
Indonesia	189,434	7.6	980
Iran	98,000		1,540
Malaysia	78,189	8.1	3,890
Nigeria	28,938	4.1	260
Pakistan	59,754	4.1	460
Turkey	169,858	3.9	2,780

Source: World Development Report, 1997, World Bank(*) When the purchasing power of US dollar and unaccountable services are taken into account, the figures in this column become much higher.D-8 Countries have a relatively rich resource base

In addition to sizeable human resources, D-8 countries also possess significant natural resources. Some of these resources are currently being exploited, but there remains large natural resources yet to be tapped.

Bangladesh is the largest jute exporting country, contributing 80 percent of world’s jute exports. Tea and rice are the other main agricultural crops. The discovery of natural gas in the Bay of Bengal indicates large reserves ready for exploitation.

Oil and gas reserves are Egypt’s main natural resource. While the size of the oil reserves is relatively modest by world standards, proven and potential gas reserves are substantial. Among the various other mineral resources, phosphate reserves are sizeable. In agriculture, Egypt produces and exports high quality cotton, rice, sugar cane, citrus and vegetables.

Indonesia is rich in both agricultural resources, and in oil and natural gas. Mineral resources include coal, tin, bauxite, copper and nickel. Indonesia is a major producer of palm oil, coffee, cocoa, natural rubber and wood products.

Iran has one of the oldest oil industries in the region, with 9 percent of the world’s known reserves. Natural gas reserves are also substantial, the second largest in the world. Iran also has mineral resources including iron ore and bauxite.

Malaysia continues to play a major role in the world market as a supplier of tin and rubber. Petroleum and natural gas production is gaining importance. The country remains the world’s leading producer of tropical lumber.

Nigeria has oil reserves of high quality with a low sulphur content and light gravity. There are also relatively large natural gas deposits, as well as a wide variety of mineral resources. In agriculture, cocoa remains a significant export item, after petroleum.

While fuel resources are relatively modest in Pakistan, the country boasts an extensive range of non-fuel minerals that includes, among others, magnesite, limestone, marble, and dolomite. In agriculture, Pakistan is a major producer of cash crops, such as cotton and rice.

Turkey has a diverse resource base. Given abundant water resources, the country has the capacity to produce a wide range of crops. Indeed, Turkey is one of the few countries in the world, self sufficient in food production. Moreover, for her energy needs, Turkey relies to a great extent (46%) on hydro-power obtained from water resources. There exists significant underground resources such as bauxite, chrome, iron ore and lignite.

Oil and natural gas production in D-8 countries (end-1995)
	Oil		Natural Gas
	Production	Share of World	Production	Share of World
	(million tons)	Total (percent)	(bill. cubic meters)	Total (percent)
Iran	182.8	5.6	35.3	1.7
Egypt	46.0	1.4	13.0	0.6
Nigeria	93.8	2.9	4.0	0.2
Bangladesh			7.4	0.3
Indonesia	73.8	2.3	58.5	2.8
Malaysia	34.9	1.1	29.0	1.4
Pakistan			13.4	0.6
D-8 Total	431.3	13.3	158.6	7.5
World Total	3252.4	100	2119.6	100

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 1996

Proven oil and natural gas reserves of D-8 countries (end-1995)
	Oil		Natural gas
	Reserves (thousand mil.barrels)	Share of World Total (percent)	Reserves (trillion cubic meters)	Share of World Total (percent)
Iran	88.2	8.7	21.0	15.0
Egypt	3.9	0.4	0.6	0.4
Nigeria	20.8	2.1	3.1	2.2
Bangladesh			0.3	0.2
Indonesia	5.2	0.5	2.0	1.4
Malaysia	4.3	0.4	1.9	1.4
Pakistan			0.8	0.5
D-8 Total	122.4	12.1	29.7	21.1
World Total	1016.9	100	139.7	100

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 1996

The share of D-8 countries in world trade is growing

An indication of the dynamism of D-8 economies is their rapid integration with the world economy. In recent years, their exports and imports, which constitute about 4 percent of the world total have been on the increase. Within a six-year period from 1990 to 1996, total exports of the D-8 countries increased by 87 percent. During the same period, increases in imports were even higher, at 93 percent. These large increases correspond to annual average growth rates of 10.4 percent and 11.0 percent for exports and imports respectively.

These rates are well above the changes in world trade as a whole which was at 5.5 percent during the same period. This obviously is an indication of the growing nature of the influence of the D-8 economies.

Main trading partners of the D-8 countries are industrialised economies. The majority of exports are destined for USA, Japan, Germany, and to a smaller extent, to UK, Italy, and France. With few exceptions, most imports originate from the same countries.

Main export items of the D-8 countries vary a great deal based on resource endowment, climate, and soil conditions. The bulk of these exports are oil and gas, agricultural products and textiles. Among import items machinery and transport equipment, iron and steel products, raw materials for textiles, chemicals, and certain food items are more important.

D-8 share in world trade
                                                             

	Exports		Imports
	Millions of U.S. Dollars
	1992	1996	1992	1996
D-8 Countries’Total Trade	133,928	202,287	146,558	221,449
	Billions of U.S. Dollars
World Total Trade	3,731.4	5,219.8	3,861.0	5,338.5
D-8 World Total/World Total (percent)	3.59	3.88	3.80	4.15

Source: Direction of Trade 1997, IMF

Main commodities of foreign trade of D-8 countries (1992-1995)
	Main Export Items	Main Import Items
Bangladesh	Textile yarn, clothing, food & live animals, jute products, raw jute, leather, fish & preparations,tea	Raw cotton, petroleum & products, chemicals, textile yarn, machinery & transport equipment, food & live animals, iron&steel, crude fertilisers&minerals
Egypt	Petroleum & products, cotton yarn & textiles, chemicals, engineering & metallurgical, cotton,foodstuffs, vegetables	Machinery & transport equipment, live animals, animal prod., food & drink,chemical prod., rubber, leather,wood,cork,paper,base metals
Indonesia	Crude petroleum, gas, petrol.prod., plywood, textiles, shrimps, processed rubber,elec. appar. copper, coal, paper&paper goods, palm oil	Industrial raw materials, machinery,manufactured goods, chemicals, crude materials, food, mineral fuels
Iran	Oil & gas, carpets, fresh & dried fruits & nuts, industrial goods which are cast iron & steel, chemicals, textiles, refined copper	Road vehicles & machinery, iron, steel & manufactures, chemicals & pharmaceuticals, food & live animals, beverages & tobacco
Malaysia	Machinery & transport equipment, elect.components, telecom equipment,office mach.,processed palm oil,crude petr.,sawn timber,rubber,crude petr.LNG	Machinery & transport equip.,  manufactured goods,chemicals,  food & beverages, inedible crude materials, mineral fuels
Nigeria	Petroleum, cocoa beans, rubber, textiles, fish and shrimps, cocoa butter	Machinery & transport, manufactured goods, food & live animals, crude materials, animal & vegetable oils & fat, mineral fuels, misc. manufactures
Pakistan	Cotton yarn & cloth, garments & hosiery, raw cotton, synthetic textiles, rice, leather, carpet & rugs, fish & products	Non electrical machinery, petroleum & products, chemicals, edible oil, transport equipment,iron, steel &  prod., grains, electrical goods
Turkey	Yarn & textiles, iron & steel products, machinery & equipment, transportation vehicles, tobacco	Machinery & equipment, transport vehicles, petroleum, iron & steel products, fuel & petroleum, gas, rubber, chemicals

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Profiles

Currently intra D-8 trade is relatively small but has prospects for growth

The volume of intra-trade among D-8 countries is rather low. Indeed, in 1996 it amounted to only 14 billion dollars. In return, during the same period, the total trade of the member countries with the rest of the world exceeded 400 billion dollars. Thus, D-8 intra-trade represents only 3.5 percent of their total trade.

Even a cursory review of trade statistics of these countries reveals the potential for increased trade among D-8 countries. For this reason, the development of intra-trade is set as one of the primary objectives of D-8 cooperation.

Intra D-8 trade

	Exports		Imports
	Millions of U.S. Dollars
	1992	1996	1992	1996
D-8 Intra-tradeTotal	4,206	7,382	4,466	7,192
D-8 Countries’ Total Trade	133,928	202,287	146,558	221,449
D-8 Intra-trade/D-8 World Total (percent)	3.14	3.65	3.05	3.25

Source: Direction of Trade 1997, IMFNote: Global financial crisis has to a certain extent affected the D-8 intra-trade and the share of member countries in the world trade in 1998-99.http://www.mfa.gov.tr/d-8/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_8_Countries

http://www.developing8.org/

About Turkey

Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), known officially as the Republic of Turkey (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) is a Eurasian country that stretches across the Anatolian peninsula in southwest Asia and the Balkan region of southeastern Europe. Turkey borders eight countries: Bulgaria to the northwest, Greece to the west, Georgia to the northeast, Armenia, Azerbaijan (the Nakhichevan exclave), and Iran to the east, Iraq and Syria to the southeast. It borders the Mediterranean Sea to the south, the Aegean Sea to the west, and the Black Sea to the north. Turkey also contains the Sea of Marmara, which is used by geographers to mark the border between Europe and Asia, thus making Turkey transcontinental.^[3]The region comprising modern Turkey has overseen the birth of major civilizations such as the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Because of its strategic location, where two continents meet, Turkey’s culture has a unique blend of Eastern and Western tradition, often described as a bridge between the two civilizations. A powerful regional presence in the Eurasian landmass with strong cultural and economic influence in the area between the Adriatic Sea in the west and China in the east, Russia in the north and the Middle East in the south, Turkey has come to acquire increasing strategic significance.^[4][5]Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic whose political system was established in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I. Since then, Turkey has become increasingly integrated with the West while continuing to foster relations with the Eastern world. It is a founding member of the United Nations,^[6] the OECD,^[7] the Organization of the Islamic Conference^[8] and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe;^[9] a member state of the Council of Europe since 1949,^[10] and of NATO since 1952.^[11] Turkey joined the European Economic Community (today known as the European Union) as an associate member in 1963,^[12] the Western European Union as an associate member in 1992,^[13] and signed the EU Customs Union agreement in 1995.^[14] Since 2005, Turkey has been in full accession negotiations with the European Union.^[15] Turkey is also a member of the G-20, which brings together the 20 largest economies of the world.

//Etymology

The name for Turkey in the Turkish language, Türkiye, can be divided into two words: Türk, which means “strong” in Old Turkic and usually signifying the inhabitants of Turkey or a member of the Turkish or Turkic peoples,^[16] a later form of “tu-kin”, name given by the Chinese to the people living south of the Altay Mountains of Central Asia as early as 177 BC;^[17] and the abstract suffix -iye, which means “owner” or “related to”. The first recorded use of the term “Türk” or “Türük” as an autonym is contained in the Orkhon inscriptions of the Göktürks (Sky Turks) of Central Asia (c. 8th century CE). The English word “Turkey” is derived from the Medieval Latin “Turchia” (c. 1369).^[17]

History

Pre-Turkic History of Anatolia

The Anatolian peninsula (also called Asia Minor), comprising most of modern Turkey, is one of the oldest continually inhabited regions in the world due to its location at the intersection of Asia and Europe. The earliest Neolithic settlements such as Çatalhöyük (Pottery Neolithic), Çayönü (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A to Pottery Neolithic), Nevali Cori (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B), Hacilar (Pottery Neolithic), Göbekli Tepe (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A) and Mersin are considered to be among the earliest human settlements in the world.^[18] The settlement of Troy starts in the Neolithic and continues into the Iron Age. Through recorded history, Anatolians have spoken Indo-European, Semitic and Kartvelian languages, as well as many languages of uncertain affiliation. In fact, given the antiquity of the Indo-European Hittite and Luwian languages, some scholars have proposed Anatolia as the hypothetical center from which the Indo-European languages have radiated.^[19]The first major empire in the area was that of the Hittites, from the 18th through the 13th century BCE. Subsequently, the Phrygians, an Indo-European people, achieved ascendancy until their kingdom was destroyed by the Cimmerians in the 7th century BCE.^[20] The most powerful of Phrygia’s successor states were Lydia, Caria and Lycia. The Lydians and Lycians spoke languages that were fundamentally Indo-European, but both languages had acquired non-Indo-European elements prior to the Hittite and Hellenic periods.The west coast of Anatolia was meanwhile settled by the Ionians, one of the ancient Greek peoples. The entire area was conquered by the Persian Achaemenid Empire during the 6th and 5th centuries and later fell to Alexander the Great in 334 BCE.^[21] Anatolia was subsequently divided into a number of small Hellenistic kingdoms (including Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamum, and Pontus), all of which had succumbed to Rome by the mid-1st century BCE.^[22] In 324 CE, the Roman emperor Constantine I chose Byzantium to be the new capital of the Roman Empire, renaming it New Rome (later Constantinople and Istanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire).^[23]

Turks and the Ottoman Empire

The House of Seljuk was a branch of the Kinik Oğuz Turks who in the 9th century resided on the periphery of the Muslim world, north of the Caspian and Aral Seas in the Yabghu Khaganate of the Oğuz confederacy.^[24] In the 10th century, the Seljuks migrated from their homelands in Central Asia into the eastern Anatolian regions.Following their victory over the Byzantine Empire in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Turks began to abandon their nomadic roots in favour of a permanent role in Anatolia, bringing rise to the Seljuk Empire.^[25] In 1243, the Seljuk armies were defeated by the Mongols and the power of the empire slowly disintegrated. In its wake, one of the Turkish principalities governed by Osman I was to evolve into the Ottoman Empire, thus filling the void left by the collapsed Seljuks and Byzantines.^[26]The Ottoman Empire interacted with both Eastern and Western cultures throughout its 623-year history. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was among the world’s most powerful political entities, often locking horns with the powers of eastern Europe in its steady advance through the Balkans and the southern part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.^[5] Following years of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I through the Ottoman-German Alliance in 1914, and was ultimately defeated. After the war, the victorious Allied Powers sought the dismemberment of the Ottoman state through the Treaty of Sèvres.^[26]

Republican era

The occupation of İstanbul and İzmir by the Allies in the aftermath of World War I prompted the establishment of the Turkish national movement.^[5] Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, a military commander who had distinguished himself during the Battle of Gallipoli, the Turkish War of Independence was waged with the aim of revoking the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres.^[4] By September 18, 1922, the occupying armies were repelled and the country saw the birth of the new Turkish state. On November 1, the newly founded parliament formally abolished the Sultanate, thus ending 623 years of Ottoman rule. The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the newly formed “Republic of Turkey” as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and the republic was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923, in the new capital of Ankara.^[5]Mustafa Kemal became the republic’s first president and subsequently introduced many radical reforms with the aim of founding a new secular republic from the remnants of its Ottoman past.^[5] According to the Law on Family Names, the Turkish parliament presented Mustafa Kemal with the honorific name “Atatürk” (Father of the Turks) in 1934.^[4]Turkey entered World War II on the side of the Allies on February 23, 1945 as a ceremonial gesture and became a charter member of the United Nations in 1945.^[6] Difficulties faced by Greece after the war in quelling a communist rebellion, along with demands by the Soviet Union for military bases in the Turkish Straits, prompted the United States to declare the Truman Doctrine in 1947. The doctrine enunciated American intentions to guarantee the security of Turkey and Greece, and resulted in large-scale US military and economic support.^[27]After participating with United Nations forces in the Korean conflict, Turkey joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952, becoming a bulwark against Soviet expansion into the Mediterranean. Following a decade of intercommunal violence on the island of Cyprus and the subsequent Athens-inspired coup, Turkey intervened militarily in 1974. Nine years later Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was established. TRNC is recognised only by Turkey.^[28]Following the end of the single-party period in 1945, the multi-party period witnessed tensions over the following decades, and the period between the 1960s and the 1980s was particularly marked by periods of political instability that resulted in a number of military coups d’états in 1960, 1971, 1980 and a post-modern coup d’état in 1997.^[29] The liberalization of the Turkish economy that started in the 1980s changed the landscape of the country, with successive periods of high growth and crises punctuating the following decades.^[30]

Government and politics

Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy. Since its foundation as a republic in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism.^[31] Turkey’s constitution governs the legal framework of the country. It sets out the main principles of government and establishes Turkey as a unitary centralized state.The head of state is the President of the Republic and has a largely ceremonial role. The president is elected for a seven-year term by the parliament but is not required to be one of its members. The last President, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, was elected on May 16, 2000, after having served as the President of the Constitutional Court. He was succeeded on 28 August 2007 by Abdullah Gül. Executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers that make up the government, while the legislative power is vested in the unicameral parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, and the Constitutional Court is charged with ruling on the conformity of laws and decrees with the constitution. The Council of State is the tribunal of last resort for administrative cases, and the High Court of Appeals for all others.^[32]The Prime Minister is elected by the parliament through a vote of confidence in his government and is most often the head of the party that has the most seats in parliament. The current Prime Minister is the former mayor of İstanbul, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose conservative AKP won an absolute majority of parliamentary seats in the 2002 general elections, organized in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 2001, with 34% of the suffrage.^[33][34] In the 2007 general elections, AKP received 46.6% of the votes and could defend its majority in parliament. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament, but in most cases they are (one notable exception was Kemal Derviş, the Minister of State in Charge of Economy following the financial crisis of 2001;^[35] he is currently the president of the UN Development Programme).^[36]Universal suffrage for both sexes has been applied throughout Turkey since 1933, and every Turkish citizen who has turned 18 years of age has the right to vote. As of 2004, there were 50 registered political parties in the country, whose ideologies range from the far left to the far right.^[37] The Constitutional Court can strip the public financing of political parties that it deems anti-secular or separatist, or ban their existence altogether.^[38][39]There are 550 members of parliament who are elected for a five-year term by a party-list proportional representation system from 85 electoral districts which represent the 81 administrative provinces of Turkey (İstanbul is divided into three electoral districts whereas Ankara and İzmir are divided into two each because of their large populations). To avoid a hung parliament and its excessive political fragmentation, only parties that win at least 10% of the votes cast in a national parliamentary election gain the right to representation in the parliament. As a result of this threshold, only two parties were able to obtain that right during the last elections in 2002.^[40] Independent candidates may run; however, they must also win at least 10% of the vote in their circonscription to be elected.^[37]The military has traditionally been a politically powerful institution, considered as the guardians of Atatürk’s Republic. The protection of the Turkish Constitution and the unity of the country is given by law to the Turkish Armed Forces, and it therefore plays a formal political role via the National Security Council (NSC) as the guardian of the secular, unitary nature of the republic and the reforms of Atatürk.^[29] Through the NSC, the army contributes to recommendations for defense policy against any threat to the country, including those pertaining to ethnic separatism or religious extremism. The current constitution was drafted after the 1980 military coup; which was triggered by the civil strife between the far left and far right militant groups in 1977-1980; and ratified by a national referendum in 1982. This constitution has been amended numerous times in the recent years,^[32] with reforms including the reduction of the military’s constitutional power under the program of compliance with EU demands, which resulted in an increased civilian presence on the NSC.^[41] However, despite its influence in civilian affairs and possibly because of it, the military still owns strong unequivocal support from the nation and is considered to be the country’s most trusted institution.^[42]

Foreign relations

In line with its traditional Western orientation, relations with Europe have always been a central part of Turkish foreign policy. Turkey became a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, applied for associate membership of the EEC (predecessor of the EU) in 1959 and became an associate member in 1963. After decades of political negotiations, Turkey applied for full membership of the EEC in 1987, became an associate member of the Western European Union in 1992, reached a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and has officially begun full accession negotiations with the EU on October 3, 2005.^[15] It is believed that the accession process will take at least 15 years due to Turkey’s size and the depth of disagreements over certain issues.^[43] The European Union remains Turkey’s biggest trading partner, and the presence of a well-established Turkish diaspora in Europe has contributed to the development of extensive relations between the two sides over the years.The other defining aspect of Turkey’s foreign relations has been its ties with the United States. Membership of NATO in 1952 ensured close bilateral relations with Washington, based on common threats and interest. Turkey was the bulwark of NATO’s southeastern flank throughout the Cold War, directly bordering Warsaw Pact countries and risking nuclear war on its soil during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although Turkey also supported the United States in the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan after September 11, the Iraq War faced strong domestic opposition in the country. A government motion which would have allowed U.S. troops to attack Iraq from Turkey’s southeastern border couldn’t reach the absolute majority of 276 votes needed for its adoption in the Turkish Parliament, the final tally being 264 votes for and 250 against.^[44] This led to a cooling in relations between the U.S. and Turkey and fears that they may be damaged as a result of the situation in Iraq.^[45] Turkey is particularly cautious about an independent Kurdish state arising from a destabilised Iraq; it has previously fought an insurgent war on its own soil, in which an estimated 37,000 people lost their lives, against the PKK (listed as a terrorist organization by a number of states and organisations, including the U.S. and the EU).^[46][47] This led the Turkish government to put pressure on the U.S. to clamp down on insurgent training camps in northern Iraq, without much success.^[48]Historically, relations with neighbouring Greece have known periods of tension. The long divided island of Cyprus and the disputes over the air and sea boundaries of the Aegean Sea remain the main issues of disagreement between the two neighbours.^[49] Throughout the Cyprus conflict, Turkey and Greece supported the island’s Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities, respectively. In 1974, Turkey militarily intervened to prevent an annexation of the island to Greece under the then Greek military junta. By 1983, Turkish Cypriots declared their unilateral independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, to be recognised only by Turkey. Recently, the issue of Cyprus has become one of the main points of contention in Turkey’s accession negotiations with the EU, since Turkey refuses to recognise the Republic of Cyprus, an EU member, as the sole authority on the island; and is refusing to open its ports to Greek Cypriot traffic.^[50] Nonetheless, following the consecutive earthquakes of 1999 in Turkey and Greece, and the prompt response of aid and rescue teams from both sides, the two nations have entered a much more positive period in their relations, with Greece supporting Turkey’s candidacy to enter the European Union.^[51]Since the end of the Cold War, Turkey has been actively building relations with former communist countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, leading to many reciprocal investments and migratory currents between these states and Turkey.^[52] Turkish industrial conglomerates have obtained a considerably large market share in these countries’ consumer electronics, retail, food, beverage and construction sectors. Turkey was also one of the first countries in the world to recognize neighbouring Armenia’s independence in 1991, but relations between the two states soured following the Armenian occupation of the western provinces of Azerbaijan; particularly the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent territories close to the Armenian-Azeri border.^[53] Azerbaijan is a Turkic-speaking neighbour and ally of Turkey. In the recent years, however, large numbers of Armenian workers have moved to Turkey, around 40,000 in Istanbul alone, contributing to the build-up of closer relations between the two nations.^[54] Turkey has also given top points to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and 2007, which is generally regarded as the measure of a large expat community due to televoting.Though primarily a Western orientated actor in international affairs, Turkey also fostered relations with the Middle East, becoming the only NATO member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as well as forging close ties with Israel.^[55] Turkey was the first country with a Muslim majority to formally recognize the State of Israel, on March 28, 1949,^[56] before Israel was admitted to the United Nations on May 11, 1949.^[57] The founders of the State of Israel and prominent Israeli politicians such as David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and Moshe Shertok had all studied in the leading Turkish schools of Istanbul in their youth, namely Galatasaray Lisesi and Istanbul University.Owing to its secular traditions, Turkey has viewed certain countries in the region with suspicion and this has caused tensions in the past, particularly with its largest neighbour, Iran.^[48] Ankara has long suspected Iran’s support of Islamist organizations and militant groups in Turkey, which aim to turn the country into an Islamic theocracy, similar to Iran.^[58] Nevertheless, the bilateral economic and political relations between the two countries have strongly improved in the recent years. Iran is a major natural gas supplier of Turkey, while Turkish construction companies have undertaken important projects in Iran, such as the new Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran.^[59]Relations with neighbouring Syria have also been tense since the annexation of the Hatay State to Turkey in 1939, which was never recognized by Syria. Hatay Province of Turkey still appears as a part of Syria’s territory in some maps published by the Syrian state.^[60] The two neighbours came to the brink of war in 1998 when Turkey threatened military action if Syria continued to shelter PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan and his armed militants in Damascus. Tensions eased in October 1998 when Öcalan left Damascus, his long-time safe haven, and Syria pledged to stop harboring the rebels, allowing a significant improvement in both political and economic relations.^[61]

Military

The Turkish Armed Forces consists of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The Gendarmerie and the Coast Guard operate as parts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in peacetime, although they are subordinated to the Army and Navy Commands respectively in wartime, during which they have both internal law enforcement and military functions.^[62]The Turkish Armed Forces is the second largest standing armed force in NATO, after the U.S. Armed Forces, with a combined strength of 1,043,550 uniformed personnel serving in its five branches.^[63][41] Every fit heterosexual male Turkish citizen is required to serve in the military for time periods ranging from three weeks to fifteen months, depending on his education and job location (homosexuals have the right to be exempt, upon their own personal request).^[64]In 1998, Turkey announced a program of modernization worth some US$31 billion over a ten year period in various projects including tanks, helicopters and assault rifles.^[65] Turkey is also a Level 3 contributor to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, gaining an opportunity to develop and influence the creation of the next generation fighter spearheaded by the United States.^[66]Turkey has maintained forces in international missions under the United Nations and NATO since 1950, including peacekeeping missions, various missions in the former Yugoslavia, and support to coalition forces in the First Gulf War. Turkey maintains 36,000 troops in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) since 2001.^[67][68] In 2006, the Turkish parliament deployed a peacekeeping force of Navy patrol vessels and around 700 ground troops as part of an expanded United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the wake of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.^[69]The Turkish military has traditionally held a powerful position in domestic Turkish politics, considering itself the guardian of Turkey’s secular democracy^[70]. It has several times within the last decades forcibly removed elected governments believed to be straying from the principles of the state as established by Ataturk and enshrined in the constitution. ^[70]The Chief of the General Staff is appointed by the President, and is responsible to the Prime Minister. The Council of Ministers is responsible to the parliament for matters of national security and the adequate preparation of the armed forces to defend the country. However, the authority to declare war and to deploy the Turkish Armed Forces to foreign countries or to allow foreign armed forces to be stationed in Turkey rests solely with the parliament.^[62] The actual Commander of the armed forces is the Chief of the General Staff General Yaşar Büyükanıt, who succeeded General Hilmi Özkök on August 26, 2006.^[71]

Regions, provinces, and districts

The capital city of Turkey is Ankara. The territory of Turkey is subdivided into 81 provinces for administrative purposes. The provinces are organized into 7 regions for census purposes; however, they do not represent an administrative structure. Each province is divided into districts, for a total of 923 districts.Provinces usually bear the same name as their provincial capitals, also called the central district; exceptions to this are the provinces of Hatay (capital: Antakya), Kocaeli (capital: İzmit) and Sakarya (capital: Adapazarı). Provinces with the largest populations are İstanbul (+10 million), Ankara (+4 million), İzmir (+3.4 million), Konya (+2.2 million), Bursa (+2.1 million) and Adana (+1.85 million).The biggest city and the pre-Republican capital İstanbul is the financial, economic and cultural heart of the country.^[72] Other important cities include İzmir, Bursa, Adana, Trabzon, Malatya, Gaziantep, Erzurum, Kayseri, İzmit, Konya, Mersin, Eskişehir, Diyarbakır, Antalya and Samsun. An estimated 67% of Turkey’s population live in urban centers.^[73] In all, 12 cities have populations that exceed 500,000, and 48 cities have more than 100,000 inhabitants.The territory of Turkey is more than 1,600 kilometres (1,000 mi) long and 800 km (500 mi) wide, with a roughly rectangular shape.^[72] Turkey’s area, inclusive of lakes, occupies 779,452 square kilometres (300,948  sq mi), of which 755,688 square kilometres (291,773 sq mi) are in Southwest Asia and 23,764 square kilometres (9,174 sq mi) in Europe,^[72] thus making Turkey a transcontinental country. Turkey’s size makes it the world’s 37th-largest country (after Mozambique). It is somewhat bigger than Chile or the U.S. state of Texas. Turkey is encircled by seas on three sides: the Aegean Sea to the west, the Black Sea to the north and the Mediterranean Sea to the south. Turkey also contains the Sea of Marmara in the northwest.^[75]The European section of Turkey, in the northwest, is Eastern Thrace, and forms the borders of Turkey with Greece and Bulgaria. The Asian part of the country, Anatolia (also called Asia Minor), consists of a high central plateau with narrow coastal plains, in between the Köroğlu and East-Black Sea mountain range to the north and the Taurus Mountains to the south. Eastern Turkey has a more mountainous landscape, and is home to the sources of rivers such as the Euphrates, Tigris and Aras, and contains Lake Van and Mount Ararat, Turkey’s highest point at 5,165 metres (16,946 ft).^[75][76]Turkey is geographically divided into seven regions: Marmara, Aegean, Black Sea, Central Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia, Southeastern Anatolia and the Mediterranean. The uneven north Anatolian terrain running along the Black Sea resembles a long, narrow belt. This region comprises approximately one-sixth of Turkey’s total land area. As a general trend, the inland Anatolian plateau becomes increasingly rugged as it progresses eastward.^[75]Turkey’s varied landscapes are the product of complex earth movements that have shaped the region over thousands of years and still manifest themselves in fairly frequent earthquakes and occasional volcanic eruptions. The Bosporus and the Dardanelles owe their existence to the fault lines running through Turkey that led to the creation of the Black Sea. There is an earthquake fault line across the north of the country from west to east, which caused a major earthquake in 1999.^[77]The climate is a Mediterranean temperate climate, with hot, dry summers and mild, wet and cold winters, though conditions can be much harsher in the more arid interior. Mountains close to the coast prevent Mediterranean influences from extending inland, giving the interior of Turkey a continental climate with distinct seasons. The central Anatolian Plateau is much more subject to extremes than coastal areas. Winters on the plateau are especially severe. Temperatures of −30 °C to −40 °C (−22 °F to -40 °F) can occur in the mountainous areas in the east, and snow may lie on the ground 120 days of the year. In the west, winter temperatures average below 1 °C (34 °F). Summers are hot and dry, with temperatures generally above 30 °C (86 °F) in the day. Annual precipitation averages about 400 millimetres (15 in), with actual amounts determined by elevation. The driest regions are the Konya plain and the Malatya plain, where annual rainfall frequently is less than 300 millimetres (12 in). May is generally the wettest month, whereas July and August are the most dry.^[78]

Economy

The CIA classifies Turkey as a developed country.^[79] Turkey is also classified as a newly industrialized country by economists and political scientists worldwide, and is a member of the G-20 which brings together the 20 largest economies of the globe.For most of its republican history, Turkey has adhered to a quasi-statist approach, with strict government controls over private sector participation, foreign trade, and foreign direct investment. However, during the 1980s, Turkey began a series of reforms, initiated by Prime Minister Turgut Özal and designed to shift the economy from a statist, insulated system to a more private-sector, market-based model.^[30] The reforms spurred rapid growth, but this growth was punctuated by sharp recessions and financial crises in 1994, 1999 (following the earthquake of that year),^[80] and 2001,^[81] resulting in an average of 4% GDP growth per annum between 1981 and 2003.^[82] Lack of additional reforms, combined with large and growing public sector deficits and widespread corruption, resulted in high inflation, a weak banking sector and increased macroeconomic volatility.^[83]Since the economic crisis of 2001 and the reforms initiated by the finance minister of the time, Kemal Derviş, inflation has fallen to single-digit numbers, investor confidence and foreign investment have soared, and unemployment has fallen. Turkey has gradually opened up its markets through economic reforms by reducing government controls on foreign trade and investment and the privatisation of publicly-owned industries, and the liberalisation of many sectors to private and foreign participation has continued amid political debate.^[84]The GDP growth rate for 2005 was 7.4%,^[85] thus making Turkey one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Turkey’s economy is no longer dominated by traditional agricultural activities in the rural areas, but more so by a highly dynamic industrial complex in the major cities, mostly concentrated in the western provinces of the country, along with a developed services sector. The agricultural sector accounts for 11.9% of GDP, whereas industrial and service sectors make up 23.7% and 64.5%, respectively.^[73] The tourism sector has experienced rapid growth in the last twenty years, and constitutes an important part of the economy. In 2005, there were 24,124,501 visitors to the country, who contributed 18.2 billion USD to Turkey’s revenues.^[86] Other key sectors of the Turkish economy are construction, automotive industry, electronics and textiles.In recent years, the chronically high inflation has been brought under control and this has led to the launch of a new currency to cement the acquisition of the economic reforms and erase the vestiges of an unstable economy. On January 1, 2005, the old Turkish Lira was replaced by the New Turkish Lira by dropping off six zeroes (1 YTL= 1,000,000 TL).^[87] As a result of continuing economic reforms, the inflation has dropped to 8.2% in 2005, and the unemployment rate to 10.3%.^[88] With a per capita GDP (Nominal) of 5,062 USD, Turkey ranked 69th in the world in 2005. In 2004, it was estimated that 46.2% of total disposable income was received by the top 20% income earners, whilst the lowest 20% received 6%.^[89]Turkey’s main trading partners are the European Union (59% of exports and 52% of imports as of 2005),^[90] the United States, Russia and Japan. Turkey has taken advantage of a customs union with the European Union, signed in 1995, to increase its industrial production destined for exports, while at the same time benefiting from EU-origin foreign investment into the country.^[91] In 2005, exports amounted to 73.5 billion USD while the imports stood at 116.8 billion USD, with increases of 16.3% and 19.7% compared to 2004, respectively.^[90] For 2006, the exports amounted to 85.8 billion USD, representing an increase of 16,8% over 2005.^[92]After years of low levels of foreign direct investment (FDI), Turkey succeeded in attracting 8.5 billion USD in FDI in 2005 and is expected to attract a higher figure in 2006.^[93] A series of large privatizations, the stability fostered by the start of Turkey’s EU accession negotiations, strong and stable growth, and structural changes in the banking, retail, and telecommunications sectors have all contributed to a rise in foreign investment.^[84]

Demographics

As of 2005, the population of Turkey stood at 72.6 million with a growth rate of 1.5% per annum.^[88][73] The Turkish population is relatively young, with 25.5% falling within the 0–15 age bracket.^[94] According to statistics released by the government in 2005, life expectancy stands at 68.9 years for men and 73.8 years for women, for an overall average of 71.3 years for the populace as a whole.^[95]Education is compulsory and free from ages 6 to 15. The literacy rate is 95.3% for men and 79.6% for women, for an overall average of 87.4%.^[96] This low figure is mainly due to prevailing feudal attitudes against women in the Arab- and Kurdish-inhabited southeastern provinces of the country.^[97]Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a “Turk” as anyone that is “bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship“; therefore, the legal use of the term “Turkish” as a citizen of Turkey is different from the ethnic definition. However, the majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity. Other major ethnic groups include the Kurds, Circassians, Roma, Arabs and the three officially-recognized minorities (per the treaty of Lausanne) of Greeks, Armenians and Jews. There are also small populations of Levantines, mostly of Italian and French descent, in Istanbul and Izmir. The largest non-Turkic ethnicity is the Kurds, a distinct ethnic group traditionally concentrated in the southeast of the country. Minorities other than the three official ones do not have any special group privileges, and while the term “minority” itself remains a sensitive issue in Turkey, it is to be noted that the degree of assimilation within various ethnic groups outside the recognized minorities is high, with the following generations adding to the melting pot of the Turkish main body. Within that main body, certain distinctions based on diverse Turkic origins could be made as well. Reliable data on the exact ethnic repartition of the population is not available, as the Turkish census figures do not include ethnic or racial figures.^[98]Due to a demand for an increased labour force in post-World War II Europe, many Turkish citizens emigrated to Western Europe (particularly West Germany), contributing to the creation of a significant diaspora. Recently, Turkey has also become a destination for numerous immigrants, especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent increase of freedom of movement in the region. These immigrants generally migrate from the former Soviet Bloc countries, as well as neighbouring Muslim states, either to settle and work in Turkey or to continue their journey towards the European Union.^[99]Turkish is the sole official language throughout Turkey. Reliable figures for the linguistic repartition of the populace are not available for reasons similar to those cited above.^[98] Nevertheless, the public broadcaster TRT broadcasts programmes in local languages and dialects of Arabic, Bosnian, Circassian and Kurdish a few hours a week.^[100]Nominally, 94.0% of the Turkish population is Muslim^[101] , of whom over 75% belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. A sizeable minority, about 20% of the Muslim population, is affiliated with the Shi’a Alevi sect.^[102] The mainstream Hanafite school of Sunni Islam is largely organised by the state, through the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı (Religious Affairs Directorate), which controls all mosques and Muslim clerics. The remainder of the population belongs to other beliefs, particularly Christian denominations (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox), Judaism, Yezidism and Atheism.^[103]There is a strong tradition of secularism in Turkey. Even though the state has no official religion nor promotes any, it actively monitors the area between the religions. The constitution recognises freedom of religion for individuals, whereas religious communities are placed under the protection of the state; but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process (by forming a religious party, for instance) or establish faith-based schools. No party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief; nevertheless, religious sensibilities are generally represented through conservative parties.^[31] Turkey prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities;^[104] the law was upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as “legitimate” in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey on November 10, 2005.^[105]

Culture

Turkey has a very diverse culture that is a blend of various elements of the Oğuz Turkic and Anatolian, Ottoman (which was itself a continuation of both Greco-Roman and Islamic cultures), and Western culture and traditions which started with the Westernization of the Ottoman Empire and continues today. This mix is a result of the encounter of Turks and their culture with those of the peoples who were in their path during their migration from Central Asia to the West.^[106][107] As Turkey successfully transformed from the religion-based former Ottoman Empire into a modern nation-state with a very strong separation of state and religion, an increase in the methods of artistic expression followed. During the first years of the republic, the government invested a large amount of resources into the fine arts, such as museums, theatres, and architecture. Because of different historical factors playing an important role in defining the modern Turkish identity, Turkish culture is a product of efforts to be “modern” and Western, combined with the necessity felt to maintain traditional religious and historical values.^[106]Turkish music and literature form great examples of such a mix of cultural influences. Many schools of music are popular throughout Turkey, from “arabesque” to hip-hop genres, as a result of the interaction between the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic world along with Europe, and thus contributing to a blend of Central Asian Turkic, Islamic and European traditions in modern-day Turkish music.^[108] Turkish literature was heavily influenced by Arabic and, especially, Persian literature during most of the Ottoman era, though towards the end of the Ottoman Empire the effect of both Turkish folk and Western literary traditions became increasingly felt. The mix of cultural influences is dramatized, for example, in the form of the “new symbols [of] the clash and interlacing of cultures” enacted in the work of Orhan Pamuk, winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature.^[109]Architectural elements found in Turkey are also testaments to the unique mix of traditions that have influenced the region over the centuries. In addition to the traditional Byzantine elements present in numerous parts of Turkey, many artifacts of the later Ottoman architecture, with its exquisite blend of local and Islamic traditions, are to be found throughout the country, as well as in many former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Since the 18th century, Turkish architecture has been increasingly influenced by Western styles, and this can be particularly seen in Istanbul where buildings like the Blue Mosque and the Dolmabahçe Palace are juxtaposed next to numerous modern skyscrapers, all of them representing different traditions.^[110]The most popular sport in Turkey by far is football, with certain professional and national matches drawing tens of millions of viewers on television.^[111] Nevertheless, other sports such as basketball and motor sports (following the inclusion of Istanbul Park on the Formula 1 racing calendar) have also become popular recently. The traditional Turkish national sport has been the Yağlı güreş (Oiled Wrestling) since Ottoman times.^[112 

Israel’s Peace Game

THE ISRAEL’S PEACE GAME

The Oslo Accords signed in 1993 started a new page in Middle Eastern history. PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, in the presence of US President Bill Clinton, posed for journalists, shook hands, and brought Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to fruition with a concrete agreement. By signing the Oslo Accords, the two sides recognized each other for the first time in history and made the first bilateral agreement.

After signing this agreement, the idea that peace might finally be possible began to take hold throughout the world. It was widely accepted that the Arab-Israeli dispute finally would be resolved permanently, and that peace would bring welfare and happiness to the Middle East. Shimon Peres, the second-in-command in Israel, wrote a book entitled The New Middle East, which described the happy scene in question. It promptly became a bestseller. Israel’s appearance of “waging peace” seemed to have convinced almost everyone.

However, our book The New Masonic Order, first published in February 1996, described how this appearance did not reflect reality, how Israel’s peace was really a “phony peace.” We explained that by negotiating with the PLO, Israel merely wanted to exacerbate the conflict between it and Hamas, that Israel really had no intention of withdrawing from the Occupied Territories, and that it was merely using peace as a “tactical maneuver.” (See Harun Yahya, The New Masonic Order, Istanbul, 1996, pp. 508-520.)

The 6 years following the publication of this book have proved this view correct. The entire world now understands that the “peaceful Israel” of the mid-1990s was not realistic, and that Israel has continued its politics of occupation. The phony peace process initiated by Israel to end the Intifada only led to another one when Israel continued its oppressive and aggressive policies. After all of the fake peace scenarios, the election of Ariel Sharon, “The Butcher of Lebanon,” as prime minister demonstrated that the Zionists had decided to continue their policy of occupation and cruelty rather than peace. This reality was sufficiently clear proof that Israel’s peace offer was not genuine.

Without a doubt, the replacement of peace by renewed conflict is a deplorable turn of events. What we hope for, of course, is the assurance of peace and security in the Middle East. But it must be a just peace. Israel wants to impose an unfair peace that does not entail withdrawing from the Occupied Territories and that compels Muslims to accept the status quo. The reason for this is the Zionist ideology, from which many Israelis have been unwilling to free themselves.

The conditions that are necessary for a just peace in Palestine include the following: Israel must withdraw from the Occupied Territories, refugees must be allowed to return to their homes, Palestinians being held in Israeli jails must be tried by due process, and the final status of Jerusalem must be determined. Israel continues to insist upon its own views on all of these issues and refuses to make concessions. The reason is Zionist ideology.

As long as Israel does not abandon Zionism, it will remain unconcerned with human rights and justice. For this reason, all of its plans for Palestinians will be unjust. For Zionist Israel, “peace” means nothing more than a “strategic ceasefire” within a larger war. When we go back and take a look at the period beginning with the 1993 Peace Accords, we find this fact confirmed.

The Origin of the Israel-PLO Peace

The long history of conflict between Israel and Palestine is known to everyone. Ever since the turn of the twentieth century, the Middle East has been the scene of clashes between indigenous Muslim and Christian Arabs and Jews, the vast majority of whom had not been born in Palestine. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, these clashes turned into outright wars. By 1967, there had been four major wars and one permanent state of war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. After 1967, organizations working to liberate Palestine also began to make their presence felt.

The Palestinian resistance appeared in force when Israel occupied all Palestinian land in 1967. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a resistance movement formed by unifying several groups, increased its activities substantially during the 1970s. Until the 1980s, it played the leading role in the Palestinian people’s struggle. The rise of Islamic movements during the 1980s had a grave impact upon this organization, which had survived largely through the support of leftists, socialist Arab governments, and the Soviet Union. Islamic groups, particularly those organizing in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, became the standard-bearers of the Intifada in 1987 and led this uprising. By the 1990s, their strength rivaled that of the PLO. There is no doubt that this development led Israel to change tactics, to deal with this new Islamic movement unifying under a common identity, rather than with the PLO, which had lost the material support of the now-defunct Soviet bloc, and with it most of its power.

Israel decided to make a strategic change, rather than deal with these two threats at the same time. The most clever thing to do was to recognize the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian cause, and then play the PLO card against the other Palestinian forces. Of course this meant that Israel would have to put a temporary halt to its years-long policy of aggression, if only just for show. This is the context in which Israel and the PLO began the peace process during the early 1990s.

The “Peace for War” Theory

Retreating in order to make a more powerful move later is one of the more refined political strategies. Israel knows how to apply such a “strategic withdrawal” when necessary. One example occurred 3 years after it signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt. Israeli units invaded Lebanon in the summer of 1982, under the orders of Camp David signatory Menachem Begin, shocking those who had believed in the fairy tale of the Middle East peace process. The massacres that occurred in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps once again demonstrated what Israel really meant by peace. These events proved that Israel had not signed the Camp David Accords because it wanted peace in the Middle East; rather, it had merely sought to remove an obstacle (Egypt) so that it could concentrate on more important goals.

So the 1992 peace process was just another “strategic withdrawal,” a camouflaged post-modern war tactic. This did not escape the notice of those experts and intellectuals who were following the peace process closely. Edward Said, one of these experts, warned the PLO near the beginning of the peace talks that they had forgotten that they were dealing with a “nation of Talmudists.” (Talmudist: strongly bound to the Talmud, the Jewish Holy Book.) According to Said, the Israelis could be preparing a trap behind every word and every comma of these peace talks

With their first peace offer, which promised Palestinians the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the Israeli government was planning to put down the Palestinian resistance. This plan was really a trap. Likewise, the regions put under Palestinian control by the Oslo Accords amounted to about 22% of all Palestinian lands. Moreover, by putting the Gaza Strip, a stronghold of the Islamic movement, under Palestinian control, Israel freed itself of the need to deal with these resistance groups. Under the agreement, Palestinian security forces would have to deal with such resistance groups directly. Israel lost nothing in the bargain – on the contrary, it proved to be a most profitable transaction. In fact, the agreements that followed Oslo helped Israel “cleanse” Jerusalem of Christians and Muslims.

It was certainly no coincidence that settlement construction near Jerusalem picked up speed immediately after signing the Oslo Accords. These developments were simply the result of an expertly devised strategy, each step of which had been carefully thought out in advance.

SUPERFICIAL ATTEMPTS AT COMPROMISE: THE MITCHELL REPORT

Tension in the Middle East reached the breaking point with the eruption of the al-Aqsa Intifada, which led international circles to attempt new peace initiatives. The Mitchell Report, the one that gathered the most attention and was presented by a delegation led by former Senator George Mitchell, examined the problem at the source and presented its suggestions. Its main goal was to determine the basic reasons for the Israeli-Palestinian tensions and to suggest how to prevent such conflict in the future. Although the report was no less than 8 months in the making, it did not produce the desired result. Just like so many other earlier Middle East peace initiatives, the Mitchell Report was an artificial stopgap measure, rather than a genuine attempt at lasting peace.

Of course the Mitchell Report contained material intended to please both sides. Where it was most sorely lacking, however, was in its failure to address the real problem and its lack of sincere suggestions or sanctions. While stating that Israel had used excessive violence, it also accused Yasser Arafat of sabotaging the Oslo Accords and failed to identify the real criminal and the real victim. Committee members, insisting that they were not a court of law, did not mention the continuing Israeli terror or the recent massacres. When the report is analyzed in detail, it is clear that when the committee members said that they “would not judge anyone,” what they really meant was that they “would not reach any firm decision against Israel.” Middle East expert Daniel Pipes explains the report’s “supposedly” neutral attitude by saying: “Had the Mitchell committee been asked to assess the outbreak of World War II, it would likely have regretted Hitler’s crossing of the Polish border but balanced this with tsk-tsking about “provocative” statements coming from Warsaw.”1

Before the report had even been published, the commentary of a senior Israeli official published in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz provided important clues as to whether it would really result in a just peace. This official reported that the report would probably accuse the Palestinians of sabotaging the peace negotiations and the Israelis ofpracticing excessive violence and continuing to open new settlement areas. But even more important was his remark that “[Israel] will be able to deal with the general complaints – like criticism of settlements or the use of force – … but will have a more difficult time dealing with any operative recommendations the report makes. This could include a call for an international observer force along the lines of the International Presence in Hebron.”2 Another Israeli official caused a stir with these comments:

We insist the commission stick to its mandate … that means clarifying the facts and not going beyond that. We will not let the report turn into a platform for the conflict to be internationalized with posting international observers.3

When the report was released, it contained no “specific directives,” just as Israel had desired. By making only general criticisms, the report conformed completely to Israel’s wishes. Indeed, despite the passage of time since the report’s publication, the fact that Israeli tanks continue to pound Palestinian territory demonstrates just how successful the report has been in bringing peace to the region.

The only way to ensure a permanent peace is to adopt a truly unbiased attitude and to protect the rights of the wronged party, no matter what the conditions. In terms of Palestine, it is quite obvious which party has been wronged and needs to have its rights protected. Before everything else, Israel must withdraw from the Occupied Territories and return to the Palestinians all of the rights that it has denied them. This fact is often brought to the agenda by Israelis who demand peace. Here is the announcement of the “Now Peace” movement:

Right now we find ourselves in the middle of a Palestinian independence war. This ruthless and unnecessary war began because of Israel’s 1967 forced occupation of Palestinian lands, the suppression of two million people through this occupation, and Israel’s desire to continue this occupation. There can only be one end to this war: the withdrawal of Israel form the occupied territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital. The end of the occupation and the raids could usher in a period of peace in this region.”4

As long as these conditions are not met, all of the peace negotiations and suggestions for compromise will fail to reach their target. As long as Israel does not forsake violence, diplomatic efforts will mean nothing. After all, in Palestine the sounds of cannons, tanks, and missiles carry farther than those of diplomacy.

Ariel Sharon Prepares for War

A news report obtained from the well-known defense strategy magazine Jane’s Defense Weekly in the latter part of July 2001 demonstrated once again just how Sharon was planning to bring peace to Palestinian territories. According to this report, the Israeli military was preparing a war plan that would involve 30,000 troops, F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft, intense bombing, and heavy artillery. The goal of the operation would be to eliminate the possibility that Palestinian forces could ever assemble again.

The most interesting part of the plan was how it was to be brought to life, as reported by CBS News. The Israeli government had devised a plan worthy of its ideology and its past: The war was to be set off by a suicide bombing against a heavily populated Jewish area. Such a plan is interesting in that it shows Israel’s willingness to disregard the lives of its own people, if necessary, to achieve its Zionist goals. This information was reported by CBS:

The report says the Israeli invasion plan would be launched after another suicide bomb attack which causes a large number of deaths, like the one at a Tel Aviv disco last month.5

With this report, and Sharon’s rise to power, it was expected that regional tension would increase dramatically, and that Israel would withdraw from the peace process completely and increase its use of force. By electing “The Butcher of Lebanon” as their leader, the Zionists gave the first signals that such a war was coming. The Palestinian side had expected such a situation. With Sharon in power, the possibility that an all-out war will break out is a possibility that must not be ignored.

While this war might be a partial operation aimed at the PLO, it could turn into a regional war, dragging in neighboring countries. Of course, the world will not see the real face of this war, but, as always, only the face that it wants the world to see. An article in The Independent reads:

I suppose it’s the same old story. The Israelis only want peace. The unruly, riotous, murderous Palestinians – totally to blame for 95 of their own deaths – understand only violence. That’s what Israeli’s military spokesman said last night. Force, he said, “will be the only language they understand”. Which is about as near to a declaration of war as you can get.6

1- Daniel Pipes, Mitchell Report Missed It, The Washington Times, 30 May 2001
2- Aluf Benn, Israel Braces for Mitchell Report, Ha’aretz, 24 April 2001
3- Aluf Benn, Israel Braces for Mitchell Report, Ha’aretz, 24 April 2001
4- Yeni Safak Turkish Daily, 25 May 2001
5- CBS, 12 July 2001
6- The Independent, 13 October 2001

How Fair Was Oslo?

As we reported earlier, the 1993 Oslo Accords were greeted with enthusiasm by the Western media and by some groups who wanted peace in the Middle East. However, the years following that event have not justified their enthusiasm. The Western media followed a pro-Israel stance on the issue of peace, just as it had on so many other issues. The Palestinians were accused of not supporting peace, even though some of their demands were justified, and portrayed as callously rejecting the opportunity Israel was offering them to achieve “statehood.”

But the facts were otherwise, for Israel did not offer them what they deserved. In reality, Israel offered Palestine hush-money not to stand in its way.

First, and most importantly, the land that Israel agreed to give the Palestinians parcels of land that amounted to less than 22% of true Palestinian territory, were surrounded by Israeli soldiers, and were separated from each other by roads that only Jews could use. Another detail that must not be forgotten is that the land was barren desert land. Moreover, the borders, airspace, and groundwater of the “independent Palestinian state” were to be under Israeli control.

Some circles regarded Israel’s division of Palestinian areas into three main regions (i.e., A, B, and C) as a significant concession. According to this example, though, while one Jerusalem street would be placed under the control of Palestinian police, the next street over would be controlled by Israeli soldiers. As a result, Israelis would be able cross over to this street, thus bringing the Israeli military into Palestinian territory, just as it does today in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank whenever it wants. One cannot speak of a sovereign Palestinian state in such a situation.

Israel’s suggestion of putting part of Jerusalem under Palestinian control also was nothing but a hoax. As with many of its other concerns, Israel is only interested in manipulating Palestinians to its own benefit. Robert Fisk mentions this fact in one of his articles:

And the Palestinian Authority knows all too well what “control” would mean in Jerusalem. While Arafat’s men collected garbage, supplied the traffic cops and kept their own people in order, the Israelis would continue to hold sovereign power over all Jerusalem.121

Aside from this, the Oslo Accords did not give the Palestinians who were forced to flee their homes and land due to the Israeli terror of 1948 the right to return. It is impossible to solve the Palestine problem without allowing the refugees to return.

In conclusion, the “peaceful Israel” façade that began in the 1990s and revealed its falsity in 2000 clearly does not reflect the real truth. As long as Israel views Jerusalem and all Palestinian land as its own property, perceives Palestinians as “two-legged animals,” and regards the world through the biased lense of Social Darwinism, it cannot bring peace to the Middle East.

The True Road to Peace

The question of how peace, one that is fair and just, can be brought to the Middle East can be answered by looking at history.

As discussed earlier, the only administration that ever enabled Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live together in peace and security in Palestine was an Islamic administration: that of the Ottoman Empire. The reason for this is that true Islamic ideals do not harbor any brutal ideologies like Zionism or the one that caused the Crusades. A true follower of Islam would not look at the world through the prism of Social Darwinism, as Zionists do. Also Islam teaches believers that any anger that they might harbor toward a community should not drag them into injustice. Moreover, Islam regards Jews and Christians as the People of the Book and respects their right to live, worship, and own property.

For this reason, strengthening the Middle Eastern as well as the global Muslim community will bring peace and security not only to the Islamic world, but to other nations and people of other faiths as well. Throughout history, fair and just Muslim administrations have earned the consent of non-Muslims, and will do so in the future as well. Muslims will never abandon Jerusalem or accept this holy city as the “Eternal Capital of Israel.” The most sensible solution, then, is for East Jerusalem to be administered by a Palestinian governing body, but under the direction of a board in which members of all three religions are equally represented, as a disarmed and free city. Of course, these administrators must live and practice the ethics of their respective religions. In such a Jerusalem, Christians and Jews would be free, as well as Muslims. This plan holds the key to the real salvation of Palestine and the Middle East.

The environment of peace, justice, and tolerance experienced during the centuries of Ottoman rule is the best example of this. Since the end of Ottoman rule in the area, and despite the various regimes and policies that have been attempted, the Middle East has not experienced any peace and stability.

Muslim Palestine

MUSLIM PALESTINE

Since the beginning of Islamic history, Palestine, and the city of Jerusalem in particular, has been sacred to Muslims. In contrast to Jews and Christians, Muslims have made their regard for the sacredness of Palestine an opportunity to bring peace to the region. In this chapter, we will address some historical examples of this fact.

‘Isa (Jesus), one of the prophets sent to the Jews, marks another important turning point in Jewish history. The Jews rejected him, and then were driven from Palestine and subjected to great misfortunes. His followers became to be known as Christians. However, the religion that is called Christianity today would be founded by another man, called Paul (Saul of Tarsus). He added his own personal vision of Jesus into the original teaching and formulated a new doctrine in which Jesus was not defined as a prophet and messiah – as he was – but as a divine figure. After two and a half centuries of dispute among the Christians, Paul’s teaching turned into the doctrine of Trinity. It was a distortion of the teaching of Jesus and his early followers. After this, God revealed the Qur’an to Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, so that he could teach Islam – the religion of Abraham, Moses and Jesus – to all of humanity.

Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims for two reasons: it is the first qibla that Muslims faced during their ritual prayers, and it is the site of what is considered to be one of the greatest miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad: the mi’raj, the night journey from al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, his ascent through the heavens, and his return to al-Masjid al-Haram. The Qur’an recounts this event as follows:

Glory be to Him who took His servant on a journey by night from the Masjid al-Haram to the Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. (Qur’an, 17:1)

In the Qur’anic accounts of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, most of the relevant verses refer to Palestine as being “blessed, holy lands.” Verse 17:1 describes the site upon which the Masjid al-Aqsa is located as the land “whose surroundings We have blessed.” In verse 21:71, which describes the exodus of Prophets Ibrahim and Lut, the same lands are referred to as “the land which We had blessed for all beings.” At the same time, Palestine as a whole is important to Muslims because so many Jewish prophets lived and fought for God, sacrificed their lives, or died and were buried there.

Thus, it is no wonder that, in the past 2,000 years, Muslims have been the only power to bring peace to Jerusalem and Palestine.

Caliph Umar Brings Peace and Justice to Palestine

Qubbat as-Sakhrah

After Rome expelled the Jews out of Palestine, Jerusalem and its environs became abandoned.

However, Jerusalem once again became a center of interest after the Roman Emperor Constantine accepted Christianity (312). Roman Christians built churches in Jerusalem, and transformed it into a Christian city. Palestine remained Roman (Byzantine) territory until the seventh century, when it became part of the Persian Empire for a short time. Eventually, the Byzantines reclaimed it.

The year 637 represents an important turning point in Palestine’s history, for after this it came under Muslim control. This event brought peace and harmony to Palestine, which for centuries had been the scene of wars, exile, looting and massacre. Moreover, every time it changed hands, which was rather frequent, it witnessed new brutalities. Under Muslim rule, however, its inhabitants, regardless of their beliefs, would live together in peace and harmony.

Palestine was conquered by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph. When he entered Jerusalem, the tolerance, maturity, and kindness he showed to the area’s inhabitants, regardless of their religion, marked the beginning of a beautiful new age. A leading British commentator on religion Karen Armstrong describes the capture of Jerusalem by Umar in these terms in her book Holy War:

The Caliph Omar entered Jerusalem mounted on a white camel, escorted by the magistrate of the city, the Greek Patriarch Sophronius. The Caliph asked to be taken immediately to the Temple Mount and there he knelt in prayer on the spot where his friend Mohammed had made his Night Journey. The Patriarch watched in horror: this, he thought, must be the Abomination of Desolation that the Prophet Daniel had foretold would enter the Temple; this must be Antichrist who would herald the Last Days. Next Omar asked to see the Christian shrines and, while he was in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the time for Muslim prayer came round. Courteously the Patriarch invited him to pray where he was, but Omar as courteously refused. If he knelt to pray in the church, he explained, the Muslims would want to commemorate the event by erecting a mosque there, and that would mean that they would have to demolish the Holy Sepulchre. Instead Omar went to pray at a little distance from the church, and, sure enough, directly opposite the Holy Sepulchre there is still a small mosque dedicated to the Caliph Omar.

The other great mosque of Omar was erected on the Temple Mount to mark the Muslim conquest, together with the mosque al-Aqsa which commemorates Mohammed’s Night Journey. For years, the Christians had used to the site of the ruined Jewish Temple as the city rubbish dump. The Caliph helped his Muslims to clear the garbage with his own hands and there Muslims raised their two shrines to establish Islam in the third most holy city in the Islamic world.9

In short, Muslims brought civilization to Jerusalem and all of Palestine. Instead of holding beliefs that showed no respect for other peoples’ sacred values and killing people simply because they followed a different faith, Islam’s just, tolerant, and moderate culture brought peace and harmony to the region’s Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities. Muslims never resorted to campaigns of forced conversions, although some non-Muslims who saw that Islam was the true religion did convert of their own free will.

This peace and harmony lasted as long as Muslims ruled in the region. However, at the end of the eleventh century, an external conquering force from Europe entered the region and plundered the civilized land of Jerusalem with a barbarity and savagery that had never been seen there before. These invaders were the Crusaders.

The Crusaders’ Savagery and Saladin’s Justice

The Crusaders captured Jerusalem after a five-week siege, and proceeded to loot the city’s treasures and slaughter its Jews and Muslims.

While Palestine’s Jews, Christians, and Muslims were living together in peace, the Pope decided to organize a crusade. Following Pope Urban II’s call on 27 November 1095 at the Council of Clermont, more than 100,000 Europeans set out for Palestine to “free” the Holy Land from the Muslims and find the fabled wealth of the East. After a long and wearying journey, and much plundering and slaughter along the way, they reached Jerusalem in 1099. The city fell after a siege of nearly 5 weeks. When the Crusaders moved in, they carried out a savage slaughter. All of Jerusalem’s Muslims and Jews were put to the sword.

In the words of one historian: “They killed all the Saracens and the Turks they found … whether male of female.”10 One of the Crusaders, Raymond of Aguiles, boasted of this violence:

Wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted … in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.11

Saladin (Salah ud-Din al-Ayyubi), who defeated the Crusaders in the battle of Hattin, was noted in historical sources for his justice, courage, and honorable character.

In 2 days, the Crusader army killed some 40,000 Muslims in the barbaric manner just described.12 The peace and harmony in Palestine, which had lasted since Umar, ended in a terrible slaughter.

The Crusaders made Jerusalem their capital and established a Latin Kingdom stretching from Palestine to Antioch. But their rule was short-lived, for Saladin gathered all of the Muslim kingdoms under his banner in a holy war and defeated the Crusaders at the battle of Hattin in 1187. After this battle, the two leaders of the Crusader army, Reynald of Chatillon and King Guy, were brought into Saladin’s presence. He executed Reynald of Chatillon, who had become infamous for the terrible savagery he had committed against Muslims, but let King Guy go, as he had not committed similar crimes. Palestine once again saw the true meaning of justice.

Three months after Hattin, and on the very same day that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had been taken from Mecca to Jerusalem for his night journey through the heavens, Saladin entered Jerusalem and freed it from 88 years of Crusader occupation. In contrast to the Crusaders’ “liberation” of Jerusalem, Saladin did not touch one Christian in the city, thereby turning aside their fear that they would all be massacred. He merely ordered all Latin (Catholic) Christians to leave Jerusalem. The Orthodox Christians, who were not Crusaders, were allowed to stay and worship as they chose.

Karen Armstrong describes the second capture of Jerusalem in these words:

On 2 October 1187 Saladin and his army entered Jerusalem as conquerors and for the next 800 years Jerusalem would remain a Muslim city. Saladin kept his word, and conquered the city according to the highest Islamic ideals. He did not take revenge for the 1099 massacre, as the Qur’an advised (16:127), and now that hostilities had ceased he ended the killing (2:193-194). Not a single Christian was killed and there was no plunder. The ransoms were deliberately very low … Saladin was moved to tears by the plight of families who were rent asunder and he released many of them freely, as the Qur’an urged, though to the despair of his long-suffering treasurers. His brother al-Adil was so distressed by the plight of the prisoners that he asked Saladin for a thousand of them for his own use and then released them on the spot… All the Muslim leaders were scandalised to see the rich Christians escaping with their wealth, which could have been used to ransom all the prisoners… [The Patriarch] Heraclius paid his ten-dinar ransom like everybody else and was even provided with a special escort to keep his treasure safe during the journey to Tyre.13

In short, Saladin and his army treated the Christians with great mercy and justice, and showed them more compassion than their own leaders had.

When King Richard I of England captured the Castle of Acre, he massacred the Muslims. The painting below depicts the executions of hundreds of Muslim captives. Their corpses and severed heads piled up beneath the platform.

After Jerusalem, the Crusaders continued their barbarity and the Muslims their justice in other Palestinian cities. In 1194, Richard the Lionheart, who is portrayed as a great hero in British history, had 3,000 Muslims, among them many women and children, treacherously executed in the Castle of Acre. Although the Muslims witnessed this savagery, they never resorted to similar methods. Rather, they abided by God’s command: “Let not the hatred of a people (who once) obstructed you from the Sacred Mosque lead you to transgress…” (Qur’an, 5:2) and never used violence against innocent civilians. In addition, they never used violence unnecessarily, not even against the defeated Crusader armies.

Crusader savagery and Muslim justice once more revealed a historic truth: An administration built upon the principles of Islam allowed people of different faiths to live together. This fact continued to be demonstrated for 800 years after Saladin, particularly during the Ottoman period.

The Ottoman Empire’s Just and Tolerant Rule

After Sultan Selim’s conquest of Jerusalem and its environs in 1514, a 400-year period of peace and security began on Palestinian lands.

In 1514, Sultan Selim captured Jerusalem and the surrounding area, and some 400 years of Ottoman rule in Palestine began. As in other Ottoman states, this period would enable Palestine to enjoy peace and stability despite the fact that adherents of three different faiths were living alongside each other.

The Ottoman Empire was administered by the “nation (millet) system,” the fundamental feature of which was that people of different faiths were allowed to live according to their own beliefs and legal systems. Christians and Jews, which the Qur’an calls the People of the Book, found tolerance, security, and freedom in Ottoman lands.

The most important reason for this was that, although the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state administered by Muslims, it had no desire to force its citizens to adopt Islam. On the contrary, it sought to provide peace and security for non-Muslims and to govern them in such a way that they would be pleased with Islamic rule and justice.

Other major states at the same time had far more cruder, oppressive, and intolerant systems of government. Spain could not tolerate the existence of Muslims and Jews on Spanish soil, two communities on which it inflicted great violence. In many other European countries, Jews were oppressed just for being Jews (e.g., they were forced to live in ghettoes), and were sometimes the victims of mass slaughter (pogroms). Christians could not even get along with each another: the fighting between Protestants and Catholics during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries turned Europe into a bloody battlefield. The Thirty Years War (1618-48) was one result of this conflict. As a result of that war, central Europe became a battleground, and in Germany alone, 5 million people (one-third of the population), perished.

In contrast to these brutalities, the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim states established their rule upon the Qur’anic commands of tolerant, just and humane administration. The reason for the justice and civilization displayed by Umar, Saladin, the Ottoman sultans, and many Muslim rulers, which is accepted by the West today, was due to their faithfulness to the Qur’anic commands, some of which are as follows:

God commands you to return to their owners the things you hold on trust and, when you judge between people, to judge with justice. How excellent is what God exhorts you to do. God is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Qur’an, 4:58)

O you who believe, be upholders of justice, bearing witness for God alone, even against yourselves or your parents and relatives. Whether they are rich or poor, God is well able to look after them. Do not follow your own desires and deviate from the truth. If you twist or turn away, God is aware of what you do. (Qur’an, 4:135)

Studies of Palestine during the late Ottoman period reveal an advanced level of welfare, trade, and industry throughout the region.

God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just toward them. God loves those who are just. (Qur’an, 60:8)

If two parties of the believers fight, make peace between them. But if one of them attacks the other unjustly, fight the attackers until they revert to God’s command. If they revert, make peace between them with justice and be even-handed. God loves those who are even-handed. (Qur’an, 49:9)

There is a phrase used in politics such that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This means that everyone who acquires political power becomes somehow morally corrupted by the ensuing opportunities. This really applies to most people, because they shape their morality according to social pressure. In other words, they avoid immorality because they are afraid of society’s disapproval or punishment. Authority grants them power, however, and decreases the importance of these social pressures upon them. As a result, they become corrupt or find it ever more easy to compromise their own morality. If they possess absolute power (and thereby become dictators), they may try to satisfy their own desires in any way.

The Ottomans brought peace, stability, and civilization to all the lands they conquered. One can still find fountains, bridges, inns, and mosques from the Ottoman period throughout Palestine. (Left) Herogate, 16th century (Right) Khan al-Umdan

The only human examples to which the law of corruption does not apply is people who sincerely believe in God, embrace religion out of fear and love of Him, and live according to that religion. Given that their morals are not defined by society, not even the most absolute form of power can affect them. God states in a verse:

Those who, if We establish them firmly in the land, will perform prayer and pay charity tax, and command what is right and forbid what is wrong. The end result of all affairs is with God. (Qur’an, 22:41)

In the Qur’an, God presents Dawud, peace be upon him, as an example of the ideal ruler, explains how he judged with justice between those who came to ask for his judgment and how he prayed with complete submission to God. (Qur’an, 38:24)

The Ottomans brought peace, order, and tolerance everywhere they went.

The history of Islam, which reflects the morality that God teaches Muslims in the Qur’an, is full of just, merciful, humble, and mature rulers. Since Muslim rulers fear God, they cannot behave in a corrupt, proud, or cruel manner. Of course there were Muslim rulers who became corrupt and departed from Islamic morality, but they were exceptions to and deviations from the norm. Thus Islam proved to be the only belief system that has produced a just, tolerant, and compassionate form of government for the last 1,400 years.

The land of Palestine is a testament to Islam’s fair and tolerant governance, and bears the influence of many different faiths and ideas. As reported earlier, the governments of the Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, Umar, Saladin, and the Ottoman sultans were such that even non-Muslims consented to them. This period of fair administration lasted until the twentieth century when, with the end of Muslim rule in 1917, the region was plunged into chaos, terror, bloodshed, and war.

Jerusalem, the center of three religions, experienced the longest period of stability in its history under the Ottomans, when peace, abundance, and prosperity reigned there and throughout the empire. Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and their various denominations, worshipped as they pleased, honored their own beliefs, and followed their own customs and traditions. This was possible because the Ottomans ruled with the belief that bringing order, justice, peace, prosperity, and tolerance to their lands was a sacred obligation.

Many historians and political scientists have drawn attention to this fact. One of them is Columbia University’s world-famous Middle East expert Professor Edward Said. Originally from a Christian family of Jerusalem, he continues his research at American universities, far from his homeland. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, he recommended resurrecting the “Ottoman nation system” if a permanent peace is to be built in the Middle East. In his own words,

A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived… it worked rather well under the Ottoman Empire, with its millet system. What they had then seems a lot more humane than what we have now.14

Indeed, Palestine never witnessed another “humane” administration once Ottoman rule ended. Between the two world wars, the British crushed the Arabs with their divide-and-conquer strategy and simultaneously empowered the Zionists, who would later prove antagonistic even to them. Zionism incurred the Arabs’ wrath, and, from the 1930s on, Palestine became the scene of clashes between the two groups. Zionists formed terrorist groups to fight the Palestinians, and, shortly thereafter, began attacking the British as well. Once Britain threw up its hands and abandoned its mandate over the region in 1947, the clashes turned into war and the Israeli occupation and massacres (which continue to this day) began in earnest.

In order for the region to enjoy “humane” rule once again, Jews must abandon Zionism and its goal of a “Palestine exclusively for the Jews,” and accept the idea of sharing the land with Arabs on equal terms. Arabs, for that matter, must abandon such un-Islamic goals as “driving Israel into the sea” or “putting all Jews to the sword,” and accept the idea of living together with them. According to Said, this means reviving the Ottoman system, which is the only solution that will allow the region’s people to live in peace and harmony. This system may create an environment of regional peace and security, just as it did in the past.