London, 2nd September 2010 – The much heralded ‘peace talks’ between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas began today in the United States.

Whilst most commentators agree that the prospects for this American imposed dialogue to bring peace are vanishingly slim, no one is honest enough to admit they are a charade and that no ‘peace process’ under this model will achieve peace, stability and harmony for the people of the Middle East. It is only under an Islamic model that this could ever be achieved.

Commenting on this week’s talks, Taji Mustafa media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said: “Western sponsored peace talks have a track record of doing little more than securing Israel’s strength, as their strategic ally in the region. However, these particular talks are more of a sham than usual – both parties having been dragged to the table by President Obama, desperate for a positive diplomatic image in the United States following the disastrous US engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“Yet fundamentally, it is worth re-iterating that the idea that the two-state model is a solution is a lie.”

“Firstly, the proposed Palestinian state will have no real independent sovereignty, no resources and only enough security to attack its own citizens in order to secure Israel. It would be an institutionalised prison camp for the Muslims of the region.”

“Western commentators delude themselves that it is the only hope because they disregard the fact that Israel is seen, by everyone except by Abbas and his cronies, as a brutal, externally imposed and illegal occupation – a dagger in the heart of their lands and an affront to their deeply held religious convictions. In their eyes, the talks hold little real legitimacy – which is why Abbas’s security forces regularly undertake violent round-ups of any activists who oppose his negotiations.”

“After decades of wars, bloodshed and failed ‘peace’ agreements, the solution to the conflict could only be when the land is liberated from the current tyranny and historic injustice and by a return to the unitary Islamic state that existed for centuries – which can guarantee justice and security for all.”

“Jews, Muslims and Christians lived largely in security under an Islamic Khilafah government for much of the last fourteen centuries in Palestine, in Islamic Spain and under the Ottoman Caliphate. Unlike Israel’s neo-apartheid system, an Islamic state is a government built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed; whereas the two state model would further separate Jews, Muslims and Christians, entrenching the racist model and values that Israel has cultivated.”

“Of course, western colonialist thinkers who rely on a compliant Israel, alongside a weak Palestinian entity, and a divided Middle East to achieve their interests will oppose this solution, along with the hawks in Israel. However, tens of millions today, including many Jews, oppose the status quo and the flawed two state model; and with demographic trends going against Israel and the region increasingly embracing its Islamic identity, the solution of the Islamic Caliphate is now the only viable option for delivering security for Jews, Christians and Muslims of the region.”