Nine Geopolitical Myths

Geopolitics has traditionally been the study of the relationship and links between political power and geographic space. The doctrine of Geopolitics gained attention largely through the work of Sir Halford Mackinder in England and his formulation of the Heartland Theory in 1904, which in reference to the British Empire at the time explored the significance of sea power in world conflict.

Whilst politics looks at the application of power, geopolitics looks at power in relation to places and resources. The Western world has dominated the geopolitical scene since the beginning of the 20th century. This has led to the creation of a number of myths, whilst a number of narratives also hide the underlying problems with the Western world. As aware Muslims we should be acquainted with the global situation for not only is this necessary for the defence of the ummah and Islam, it also exposes the weakness of the Capitalist West.

What follows is a list of such myths:-

The world is over populated

The rate of population growth over the last century has been labelled the underlying cause of the world standing on the brink of disaster; it is argued we are running out of food to sustain such growing population. It is argued by the proponents of over-population that the huge growth in world population is responsible for poverty, environmental destruction and social unrest. Economic development in the third world is impossible as long as populations continue to grow as a result international agencies and governments have developed numerous programmes to curtail the rate of population growth, all of these have been implemented in the third world.

This alleged over-population has to be in relation to something to qualify it being over. That something is the use of resources. The resources being consumed leading to global imbalances are attributed to population sizes.

When all assumptions on the effects of population growth are scrutinised population increases in no way has ever contributed to the many ills of the world today and what becomes clear is that there is a clear political agenda in attributing the increasing global population as the cause of the worlds potential disaster. This agenda is to shift the real cause away from the lifestyles, living patterns, un-sustainability of consumerism, poverty and blatant abuse of the Third world in order that the western world can live of the third world.

The developed world also faces a very series conundrum; Japan, Russia, Germany, Switzerland and much of Eastern Europe are experiencing population decline, due to a huge reduction in births. The rest of the Western world would also have declining populations was it not for immigration. As population numbers decline in the West relative to the third world and Muslim world such countries will have a legitimate right based upon their numbers to demand greater say in so called international institutes and representation on international bodies. The issue of overpopulation is a very useful tool to vilify nations with rising populations and at the same time protecting its potential loss of future influence. This can be seen clearly with Turkish EU accession, upon joining the EU, Turkey’s almost 70 million inhabitants would bestow it the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament. In addition Demographic projections indicate Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020. Turkey’s membership would have wide ranging consequences for the future direction of the EU including the thorny issue of future enlargement plans, grounds by which Valéry Giscard d’Estaing of France has opposed Turkey’s admission.[1] d’ Estaing has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco.

The world in not overpopulated, the West just consumes too much

Western intervention in the Balkans in the 1990’s was in order to help Muslims

The NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1993, was presented by the West as the consequence of Yugoslavia’s stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan – in particular its rejection of plans for an international security force to implement a peace plan in Kosovo. Intervention by the West and then the eventual bombing campaign by NATO is continually held as evidence that the current ‘war on terror’ is not a war on Islam and how the West will intervene across the world for ‘humanitarian’ purposes even helping Muslims as they apparently did in 1993. In reality the geopolitical aims were very different. The political instability in the Balkans during the 1990’s was exacerbated by American determination to reduce Russia’s influence in the region, increase Europe’s dependency upon her and confer new legitimacy to NATO when it appeared increasingly redundant after the Cold War.

The Western powers and specifically both the US and Britain worked for the fragmentation of Yugoslavia as was revealed by the then US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman in January 1992 before the outbreak of hostilities ‘we are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states.’[2] On the 18th March 1992 the EU brokered a deal in Lisbon among Bosnian Muslims, Croatian and Serb communities partitioning the Serb republic into three ethnically based cantons which would act as a confederation functioning as an independent state. This agreement was sabotaged by the US which urged the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to renege the deal by declaring statehood saying ‘this was justified by the referendum on March 1st .‘ Jose Cutileiro, sectary general of the Western European union confirmed ‘to be fair President Alija Izethbegovics and his aids were encouraged to scupper the deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by Western mediators.’ This is what caused the Bosnian civil war.

Today 11 000 troops are stationed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia for peace, however such troops have ensured US economic interests are secured. Former US congressman Lee Hamilton commented in the New York Times ‘we have completely taken over the control of the Balkans. US officials exercise managing functions all states of the former Yugoslavia. We are virtually the pro consul.’ Karen Talbot geopolitical expert confirmed “the determination by the U.S and NATO, at all costs, to occupy Kosovo and virtually all of Yugoslavia, is spurred on by the enticement of abundant natural resources. Kosovo alone has the richest mineral resources in all of Europe west of Russia. The New York Times observed that “the sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex, the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, is worth at least $5 billion.” producing gold, silver, pure lead, zinc, cadmium, as well as tens of millions of dollars in profits annually. “Kosovo also possesses 17 billion tons of coal reserves and Kosovo (like Serbia and Albania) also has oil reserves.”[3] President Bill Clinton at the time let slip ‘If we are going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key…That‘s what the Kosovo thing was all about.’[4]

Since the bombing has ended, numerous US bases in the Balkans have been set up. A military base is being built in Kosovo, described as the largest US foreign base built since the Vietnam War. US domination of NATO meant intervention by NATO forces in the Balkans would ensure US influence in the region. A leaked version of the Pentagon’s 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States ‘must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO … Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for US influence and participation in European security affairs.’

This all confirms the influence of Russia, the oil in the Caspian sea and the revitalisation of NATO (to continue US influence) where the geopolitical aims behind US and Western intervention, the lives of thousands of innocent people, the lives of the slaughtered in Srebrenica were a price worth paying for continued US dominance.

The world is running out of Oil

The struggle for global supremacy between Germany and Britain at the beginning of the 20th century drove them to search for alternative fuels to power the bulky coal based war machines. The discovery of oil fields in the Middle East in the 1920’s spurred a century of new technologies, created new patterns of society and consumption and changed the global balance of power.

However like oil fossil fuels they are limited and will eventually finish. For the most part of the 20th century this was never a discussion as most of the worlds oil will still not discovered, technologies such as the fighter jet, tanks, automobiles were all designed to run on oil, apart from oil prices exploding if oil was drying up, such technologies would also become redundant.

Peak oil was fist introduced in the 1970’s, this is the point where half of the known oil has been consumed, and at the time this view wad ridiculed and labelled a fringe view. Today it is considered a mainstream view and the world is running out of oil is considered a geopolitical headache for the world. No doubt the world is running out of oil; however this masks a number of deeper political issues.

The world is running out of oil is a convenient excuse for West’s over consumption, to reduce consumption is considered the ultimate taboo. As more and more nations scramble for the ever dwindling supply of oil, this has exposed the West. The Western world consumes 50% of the 21st century’s most important resource but produced less then a quarter of it. It is over consumption rather then China and India that are causing the crisis. The US specifically produced only 8% of the world’s oil but consumes 25% of it

As US consumption continues to rise the competition for dwindling energy sources will intensify, this will make the Muslim lands even more important and as with Iraq, occupation may well be justified for stable supplies of the black stuff.

The third world is in poverty because their is not enough food in the world

Numerous organisations have researched into the general causes of poverty which range from the lack of resources to the nature of the local climate to the lack of democracy. There is generally no consensus on the causes by sociologists and think tanks however a dominant idea that exists is that only the diffusion of capitalism with its free markets is the cure. However a cursory glance at not just the Muslim world but the third world in general shows a handful of factors have played a large part in the poverty in the world today.

The role IMF and World Bank and their notorious structural adjustment policies in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt have directly aided some of the underlying economic problems. The general solution provided by such institutions is the engaging of trade to climb out of poverty. In reality there are a number of obstacles placed by the developed nations that ensure developing nations will never reach a level where they can compete. What this actually means is that Western goods should be imported rather than allow imports from poorer countries. The theory is that only via trade will nations pull themselves out of poverty. The development of a market economy with a greater role for the private sector was therefore seen as the key to stimulating economic growth and removing poverty.

As an example Pakistan actually required essential investments in health, education and infrastructure before they could compete internationally. The World Bank and IMF instead required Pakistan to reduce state support to these sectors and concentrate on exports. They insisted on pushing Pakistan into markets where they were unable to compete with the might of the international private sector. Such policies inevitably undermined the economic development of Pakistan.

Africa is being asked to repay it’s a legacy of the colonial era. Africa’s debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing states, in billions of dollars, at very high interest rates. It also originates from ‘odious debt’, whereby debt was incurred as rich countries loaned funds to dictators and corrupt leaders when it was known that the money would be wasted. South Africa, for example inherited “apartheid-caused debt” at £28 billion (which is now $46 billion). Post Apartheid Africa was forced to repay debts incurred by the apartheid regime so, in effect, South Africans are paying for their own oppression. In 1998 ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa) estimated that the £11 billion (now $18 billion) that South Africa borrowed to maintain apartheid, and the £17 billion (now $28 billion) that the neighbouring states borrowed because of apartheid destabilisation and aggression now represents 74% of African debt owed.

Much of the situation in the Muslim world stems from the colonial era and is summed up best by David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago “Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty“.[5]

The third world remains poor due to the policies of the West and will remain poor not because of a shortage of food but due to the excessive consumption of the West – the West with 20% of the world population consume 80% of the worlds agricultural production.

The United Nations upholding of international law makes it best placed to regulate international relations and solve international conflicts.

The UN was founded in 1945 primarily to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’. Since then there have been more then 250 conflicts worldwide, it is patently clear the UN has been unsuccessful for the purpose it was created for.

The West as well as many policymakers from the third world considers the UN a non-biased, internationally represented institution boasting nearly 200 member states, who uphold the beacon for the values of internationalism, multilateral action, democracy, pluralism, secularism, compromise, human rights and freedom. This could not be further from the truth.

The UN in reality is a tool of exploitation where it is manifestly apparent from the inherent structure of the organisation that it legitimises wholesale abuse by the colonialist, permanent members of the Security Council. Many events have undermined the UN. The invasion of Iraq, the selective application of international law on the State of Israel, the failure to stop the massacre of Srebrenica and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda under its watchful eye.

In reality the UN is an international organisation which the five permanent security members have used as an extension of their foreign policies. Also international law in reality does not exist, only international norms. For international law to exist enforcement must be possible at a global level, supranational level. As this does not exist we must expect nation-states to flout the regulations of the international agencies when it suits them – neo-realism (cf. Waltz. K. 1979. ‘A Theory of International Politics’).

The third world need to liberalise their economies for them to develop

The last three decades have seen Capitalism dominate the international development scene. It has completely monopolised economic development and enforced its formula upon the world. The Asian tiger economies of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are held regularly held as successful nations who adopted liberalism and progressed. The IMF alongside the World Bank proclaimed industrialisation and the diffusion of liberal economic ideas would transform traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western industrialised nations during the Industrial Revolution.

Today Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people. 3 billion people in the world live on fewer than two dollars a day; another 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day. 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation and 2 billion have no access to electricity. Liberalism has actually been the cause of the wealth disparities in the world and the poverty the majority of the world’s people face. A number of surveys have highlighted that liberlism has created even more poverty stricken people in the world. The 7th December 2006 saw the culmination of a global study – from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. Some of its findings are staggering; by gathering research from countries all over the world the studies findings concluded that the richest 1% of the world owns 40% of the planet’s wealth and that only 10% of the world’s population owned 85% of the world’s assets.[6]

Liberalism has resulted in the Western world feeding of the remainder of the world. Liberalism in no way helped alleviate poverty, it actually contributed to it, and hence any continuation of liberal economic policies in the third world will result in the poor getting even poorer.

Global warming is due to the development of India and China

Global warming and climate change refer to an increase in average global temperatures. Natural events and human activities are believed to be contributing to the increase in average global temperatures. This is caused primarily by increases in the greenhouse which is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Every few years, leading climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have released major reports detailing the progress in understanding climate change. From the outset they have recommended that there be emission reductions. This body is comprised of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world. At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC’s fourth major report summarised that they were even more certain than before of human-induced climate change because of better scientific understanding; ‘The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.’ Their definition of “very high confidence” and “very likely” is a 90% chance of being correct. (Their 2001 report claimed a 66% certainty).
In terms of historical emissions, industrialised countries account for around 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the US has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively. Annually, more than 60% of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20% of the world’s population resides.
Much of the growth in emissions in the developed world stem from rapid industrialisation from the industrial revolution era. The US with its $14 trillion economy is the world’s largest polluter and has acted as an obstacle to any agreement on emission reduction targets. Reducing emissions would mean industry in the West would need to produce less – this would lead to the economies of the West to collapse rather then grow. To reduce consumption is considered Shirk in Capitalism. By the same token, the rate of consumption of fossil fuels in developed countries is also extremely high relative to the rest of the world.  The depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental destruction is primarily caused by the consumption patterns of US. US consumption of fossil fuels is well over five times the global average.
Global warming is the result of rapid industrialisation from the West with the sole concern of profit making. Although there exist technologies that allow the development of clean low-emission industrial development, their costs are high and as a result have been unable to break into the mainstream market. China and India have only in the last 20 years have seen rapid development, global warming was already high prior to that, US continued attacks on China and India for developing too quickly in reality is attempts by the world superpower to stifle their development.

The Muslim world does not want Islam

For years the West argued Muslim across the world want democracy and freedom rather then Islam, they argued only a minority of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan want Islam, the majority of the world was smitten by the West and wants to live by Capitalism. However today it is modernist Muslims who argue the Muslim world do not want Islam and are not ready for it. The West on the other hand is convinced the Muslim world wants Islam and have begun the process of defending themselves from the emergence of such a threat.

The US national intelligence council published its report following its ‘global 2020′ project, entitled ‘mapping the global future.’ The national Intelligence council (NIC) is the American intelligence community’s centre for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking. The report set out the likely scenario the world will face in 2020. The report concluded that the appeal of Islam today revolved around is call to return to earlier roots of Islam where the Islamic civilisation was at the forefront of global change under the khilafah. The report portrayed a fictional scenario ‘of how a global movement fuelled by radical religious identity could emerge.’[7] The report revealed unequivocally that at the highest levels of US policy planning preparation is being made for the emergence of the khilafah. Other reports from US policy makers and think tanks across the world acknowledged there is a broad based ideological movement seeking for the return of the Khilafah.

The CIA has already revitalized programs of covert action that once helped win the Cold War, targeting Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties. The agency is receiving ‘an exponential increase in money, people, and assets’ to help it influence Muslim societies.

At the same time various surveys, think tank reports and policy makers have all accepted that Muslims globally have rejected western values. This represents a glaring failure on the part of the West as it has faced no challenges to its global supremacy. This means the battle for hearts and minds and physical occupation represents a last ditch effort to salvage the emergence of an alternative system of governance.

The actins of the West clearly show rather then the Muslim wanting Islam; they are not very far from achieving such aims.

Israel is invincible, it has proven this in 4 wars, hence the Muslim world should accept its here to stay.

Since its formation in 1948, the reality of Israel’s military strength has been shrouded by a mythical aura of invincibility. Interestingly such myths have not been actively expressed by Israel, but have been given life by the actions of the treacherous Muslim rulers

Israel’s performance in the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 against the Muslims in the region has long been seen as confirmation of Israel military superiority. In light of this apparent superiority and its seizure of Muslim lands, it is argued that direct military conflict with Israel is not a viable course of action for the Arab states, creating the necessity of entering into negotiations. The direct consequence of such a move has been the acceptance of Israel’s sovereignty through plans such as the peace process.

In reviewing Israel’s supposed military might one must keep in mind: What purpose does the construction of this myth serve?

1948 war – Israel’s creation

The war of 1948 led to the establishment of the State of Israel. On the surface, one may find it difficult enough to understand how 40 million Arabs could not match the fighting strength of just 600,000 Jews. A closer study of the defenders of the Palestinian cause shows how their actions in fact led directly to the establishment of Israel.

The primary representatives of the Palestinian cause was King Abdullah of Transjordan, King Farook of Egypt and the Mufti of Palestine, all of them were extremely weak rulers subject to constant manipulation by the British. King Abdullah’s portrayal of himself as a defender of the Palestinian cause was a façade. It was known he and Ben Gurion (Israel’s first Prime Minister) were students together in Istanbul and that in clandestine meetings Abdullah had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine.

Abdullah had the Arab Legion at his disposal, a highly trained unit of 4,500 men, with General John Glubb an Englishman as its commanding officer. Glubb in his memoirs recounted that he was under strict orders from the British, not to enter areas under Jewish control. Egypt further weakened the attack against Israel when Nakrashi Pasha , the Prime Minister initially did not use existing military units but sent an army of volunteers that had only been organised in January of that year. Jordan had also delayed the passage of Iraqi troops across its territory thus thwarting any attack against Israel. This is why a blind Imam brought to rouse the Jordanian army prior to the battle embarrassed Abdullah when he said : “O army I wish you were ours.” (referring to the Arab Legion being British)

Although the combined Muslim forces were 40,000 only 10,000 were trained soldiers. The Zionists had 30,000 armed personnel, 10,000 men for local defence and another 25,000 for home guard. Furthermore there were nearly 3,000 specially trained Irgun and Stern gang terrorists. They were armed with the latest weaponry and funded heavily through Zionist agencies in America and Britain. Despite the preparedness of the Jews, the treachery of the Muslim rulers secured a foothold for the Jews in Palestine.

The 1956 Suez Canal crisis

This conflict was never a war for the liberation of Palestine but rather a struggle between America and Britain for control of the strategically important Suez Canal.

The US saw Egypt as a critical ally if America was to gain influence in the Middle East. Through the CIA, she moved to depose the Pro British King Farook in a coup in 1952, bringing into power the Free Officers who were soon afterwards led by Nasser. The CIA worked on a project in 1951 known as “The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham.” Mike Copeland the CIA operative, published classified information in his memoirs in 1989, The Game Player, about The CIA supported coup d’etat that ousted the British puppet King Farook. Copeland, who activated the project, explains that ‘the CIA needed a charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was building up in the area.’ He explains both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser’s enemy was Britain.

In 1956 Nasser carried out American demands of nationalising the Suez Canal. The response of Britain was to lure France and Israel into the struggle. This was outlined by historian Corelli Barnett, who wrote about the Suez in his book, ‘The Collapse of British Power,’ ‘France was hostile to Nasser because Egypt was helping the Algerian rebels, and attached to the canal for historical reasons. After all, a Frenchman built it. Israel was longing to have a go at Nasser anyway because of Palestinian fedayeen attacks and the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.’ so Sir Anthony Eden (British Prime Minister) concocted a secret tripartite plot with France and Israel. [8] He further explained ‘that Israel would invade Egypt across the Sinai Peninsula.’ ‘Britain and France would then give an ultimatum to the parties to stop fighting or they would intervene to ‘protect’ the canal.[9]

The US and USSR exercised diplomatic pressure to force Britain to withdraw. Russia directly threatened Paris and London with nuclear attacks. The immense international pressure forced the British and French to withdraw and consequently lose their footing in Egypt. The American administration, under Eisenhower, went as far as threatening the Israelis with economic sanctions if they did not withdraw from occupied territory seized from Egypt, a measure that would have had disastrous consequences on Israel at the time. In the aftermath of the crisis, America emerged as the dominant force in the Middle East.

1967 six day war

This war was again another episode in the Anglo-American conflict for control of the region. Britain had been surpassed as the region’s dominant force 11 years earlier, but still retained some influence through its agents in Jordan, Syria and Israel. In an attempt to weaken Nasser, Britain sought to lure Israel to drag Egypt into a war whereby Israel would seize territory and use it as a bargaining tool in a land for peace settlement, a means through which to achieve the security which the Israelis so desperately sought. On 5 June 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive strike destroying 60% of Egypt’s grounded air force and 66% of Syrian and Jordanian combat aircraft.

From Jordan the Israelis seized the West Bank and east Jerusalem. King Hussein, prior to the battle, had positioned his troops in different areas from where the main battle was taking place. In a matter of 48 hours the Israelis seized the major West Bank towns and most of those who were shot dead of the Jordanian forces were in retreat. In a similar manner the Israelis seized the Golan Heights on the 6th day of the war. The Syrian troops occupying the Golan Heights heard news of Israel’s capture of the strategically important heights through their own State radio announcing the Israeli capture of the heights while the Syrian troops were still clearly occupying them. Israel also dealt America’s Nasser a blow by capturing Sharm al Sheikh and securing the waterway of the Straits of Tiran. The objective of weakening the regime of Nasser was achieved, thus indirectly aiding British interests within the region. Israel was able to seize more land and use it as a bargaining asset in any land for peace negotiations, which today is still used as a basis for negotiations rather then the status of 1948.

1973 war: more treachery by the rulers

An examination of the October 1973 war launched by Egypt and Syria against Israel shows that the aims were limited and never included the liberation of Palestine. The aims never even included the liberation of the Golan Heights which were designed to be restored as part of a peace treaty between Syria and Israel. The aims were to solidify the positions of Anwar Sadat and Hafez al Assad who were relatively new leaders in countries prone to military coups. Sadat in particular was vulnerable given the fact that he had succeeded the charismatic Nasser.

Mohammed Heikal the respected editor of Al Ahram from 1957 – 1974, who witnessed the war,    he explained the extent of Anwar Sadats underlying motives in his book ‘The Road to Ramadhan’ where he cites Sadat’s mood in the run up to the war. Heikal quotes one of Sadat’s generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords – a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives.

Anwar Sadat had no intention of having a protracted war of liberation with Israel. This is why he sought peace with Israel whilst commanding a winning position in the war. In the first 24 hours of the war Egypt smashed through the Israeli’s much heralded Bar-Lev fortifications east of the Suez canal with only 68 casualties. Meanwhile 2 Syrian divisions and 500 tanks swept into the Golan Heights and retook some of the land captured in 1967. In two days of fighting Israel had lost 49 aircraft and 500 tanks. In the midst of this Sadat sent a message to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in which he said that the objective of the war was ‘the achievement of peace in the Middle East and not…partial settlements.’ The message went on to state that if Israel withdrew from all occupied territories Egypt would be prepared to participate in a Peace conference under UN or neutral auspices.

Thus despite having an immense strategic advantage Sadat was in the mood for negotiation in this early stage. Sadat’s refusal to press home his initial advantage and his delay in launching the second Sinai offensive allowed Israel to mobilise with aid from the US and she began to seize back lost territory. Hostilities formally came to an end on 25 October after Israel had violated previous cease-fire agreements.

All the wars with Israel best illustrate how the Muslim rulers have never seriously fought Israel with the intention of liberating Palestine, all the mentioned examples illustrate the reality behind the myths which the Ummah has been led to believe. The real treachery has been committed by the insincere rulers who have collaborated and helped create the myth of Israeli superiority, kindling it, nurturing it and maintaining it. The wars the Arab world fought show that the Muslim countries have never singularly nor collectively fought Israel with the intention of destroying it. Each of the wars was conducted in order to meet specific objectives, none of which were to liberate the land of Palestine and eliminate Israel. Hence the objective of seriously threatening Israel was never an aim, despite the unquestionable strength of the combined Arab armies.


History is always written by the victors, this is also the case with geopolitics. There are many myths that still exist including the reasons for WW1 and WW2 and apart from deceiving the world of the West’s invincibility; this is also a very useful tool to continue to fool the host populations in the West. US superiority has taken a major hit due to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, as well as Israel’s invincibility with its defeat at the hands of Hizbullah in 2006.  Muslims should bear in mind that however dire the situation may look globally for the ummah, much of this picture is a mirage and can very easily be changed and replaced.

[1] “The ins and outs: The EU’s most effective foreign-policy instrument has been enlargement. But how far can it go?” The Economist, March 2007,

[2] US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman in an interview with the Croatian daily Danas, 12 January 1992, reprinted at

[3] Karen Talbot ‘Backing up Globalization with Military Might‘ New World Order Onslaught, Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008,

[4] Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne ‘The Case Against Intervention in Kosovo,’ the nation, 19th April 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008,

[5] Fromkin D, A Peace to End All Peace, p 45, New York: Avon Books, 1989


[7] National Intelligence Estimate, December 2004, Report of the National Intelligence Councils 2020 project, ‘Mapping the Global Future,’ Pg 83-92, retrieved 26th October 2007,

[8] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,’ Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822, and also Paul Reynolds, ‘Suez: End of


[9] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,’ Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: