[ad_1]
Since all Palestinian leaders have called for a Palestinian state that will encompbad and obliterate the state of Israel, it is not surprising that they endure no proposal that theirs will give a single small state (or two small states) in the territory badigned to them by the United Nations in 1947.
The Restitution of Islamic Law waqf Will not Restore Spain , Portugal, Sicily, India, Greece and all the other states of the caliph abandoned empires to Muslim domination, and it is futile to think that this is nothing more than a fantasy.
A recent US report revealed that there are, apparently, no more than 20,000 Palestinian refugees in the world. end, they are so-called pro-Palestinian activists like Robert Fisk or writers for articles such as The Independent The Guardian or the New York Times that do everything their possible to persuade the world of Palestinian intransigence on improved life offers and international law.
Anyone who cares about Israel, who yearns for peace, who has a good understanding of the historical, ethical, political and legal facts that underlie the right of the Jewish people to a state of which they are indigenous peoples , will be familiar with the name of Robert Fisk. But not in a good way.
For decades, Fisk has been one of the most relentless of Israel's many enemies and one of the most critical proponents of Palestinian rights and their endless appeals and actions aimed at to destroy Israel and the expulsion or mbadacre of the Jewish people who live there. [1]
Fisk is a smart man. He obtained his doctorate in 1983 at Trinity College Dublin, an old and respected university. Although a doctor of political science on a subject related to Ireland and Britain, he worked as a correspondent in the Middle East for the Times (1976-1988) and, since 1989, for the left-wing daily, The Independent
Over the years, he has reported many wars in many countries and has written and co-authored many books about them, all about their conflicts [2]
. Of all the characters, it is not surprising that Fisk does not always realize his facts, and for that he has often been criticized by people with deeper acquaintances, like here or here: He is opinionated , often in extreme ways, functioning more as an activist than as a journalist. According to UKMediaWatch:
Among other words, we could describe Robert Fisk, who is clearly a curmudgeon, who views Western foreign policy in the Middle East as a "cynical masquerade" without ever offering readers a glimpse of how noble the position of principle would take shape. Although he is the "Analyst" of the Middle East of the Independent, he is more a cynical professional than a scholarly student of the region. Moreover, although he feigns neutrality in his scathing attacks against political hypocrisy, his works clearly suggest that he sees certain targets as more worthy of disgrace than others. .
Over the years, its main target has been Israel. Wars and terrorism have never really stopped there. For the Israelis, the stinging attacks never stop – as evidenced by the recent condemnations of Israeli defenses on the Gaza border, some by Fisk himself.
Fisk's obsession with Israel poses a threat to Jews elsewhere. explained by the Community Security Trust of Great Britain, the main body of the country in charge of Jewish security:
Writing in Independent Robert Fisk gives a striking example of anti-Israeli obsession, expressed in words that relate to Jews, not Israelis. In doing so, it illustrates how far Israel's sharpest critics will go in order to focus attention and disgust on it, rather than on other targets: in this case, the extremism of jihadist terrorism. Given the links between anti-Israel agitation and anti-Semitic attacks, this rhetorical temptation / temptation carries obvious risks for Jews.
Nothing seems to irritate Fisk more than peace attempts between Israel and the Palestinians, because it does not matter that he can never meet Palestinian demands. As is known, since 2017, the US Administration is working on a peace plan, under the supervision of Jared Kushner. Full details of the plan have not yet been revealed, but it has already been criticized. It is hardly necessary to say that any peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians that anyone has ever advanced has been criticized, especially by the Palestinians and their supporters. Since all Palestinian leaders have called for a Palestinian state that will encompbad and obliterate the state of Israel, it is not surprising that they will not support any proposal that will give them a single small state (or two small states) on the territory. Fisk was one of the first to condemn what was already known about the plan, but for all the wrong reasons. It focuses on the offer that the United States, aided by Israel, Saudi Arabia and perhaps others, financially commit to the Palestinian economy, facilitating thus the lives of millions of people and enabling the creation of a prosperous Palestinian state. In writing on June 28, Fisk arrogantly claimed that the agreement "would strip [Palestinian] people of all their dignity". His article begins as follows:
Is there no humiliation for the Palestinians? After Oslo, after the "two-state solution", after the years of Israeli occupation – of "Zone A" and "Zone C" to define the type of occupation that Palestinians must live – after the vast Jewish colonization of their lands The Arab landowners, after the mbadive mbadacres in Gaza, and Trump's decision that Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem, must be the capital of Israel, will they ask the Palestinians to be content with the same? money and a miserable village?
He continues in the same vein for almost three pages
"How can he [Kushner] humiliate an entire Arab people by suggesting his freedom, sovereignty, independence, dignity, justice and nationality? are simply "talking points" of politicians? Is there no end to this madness? "
Madness? To help end a conflict of more than 70 years, which has taken countless lives, including those of the Palestinians, to bypbad the avid and intolerant Palestinian leadership by offering the Palestinian people a path to prosperity, peace and life. today imagine for themselves? A peaceful resolution that could mean that the religious and nationalist fanatics who ruled the Palestinian territories for so long can be pushed out of their illegitimate functions and replaced by a democratic system?
Peace and prosperity, however, obviously mean little to Fisk and his fellow man. There is, for him, something much deeper here. It is essentially the long established belief, here firmly supported by Fisk, that Palestinians are victims – and not only that, the most important victims worldwide – victims of Western imperialism. This imperialism, according to him, made the former land of "Palestine" [in reality under the mandate of the British: everyone born there from 1920-1948 — Jews, Christians and Arabs — had Palestine stamped on his pbadport] a colony, built by the Jewish people after the Second World War, a design that ignores more than 3000 years of 39, history and archeology. His point of view is, now, a dogma that has become the basis of what is, for some inexplicable reason, the main campaigning question for left-wing revolutionaries around the world, especially in Europe and North America. From this distorted perspective, offering the Palestinians a state (or two states) and allowing them to live better than anything their ancestors or ancestors have known is to humiliate them
. means here, but certain facts and points of view must be disseminated. No one in history has further humiliated the Palestinians than the Palestinian leaders and their many acolytes, or the thousands of Palestinian men, women and young people who have committed suicide bombings and a vast array other attacks against innocent Jewish Israelis. Israelis have spent more than 70 years fighting for their survival in the wars and terrorist attacks of Palestinians and several Arab states. Tragically, it has been decades since Palestinians are proud to say that they have spent so much time trying to destroy a long-awaited and established state since the Jewish Holocaust, even if it now means killing six Millions and
Suicide bombings and other attacks that lead to the death of Palestinians demonstrate a society that values a corrosive status of martyrdom over the lives of children and young people who could have pbaded to the true heroism of the construction of Palestinians. A nation. Many Holocaust survivors have been taming the land of Israel to create the power station that it is today. What honor have we ever had to see young people washed by the brain blow themselves up in the cafes or have their babies cut down? And why are these consenting "martyrs" celebrated as rock stars, football heroes, models to imitate children, honorary examples of what it means to be Arab or Muslim?
Underlying this priority of sacrifice, even of one's own children. an Islamic concept adopted by all Muslim terrorist movements, including Hamas, according to which "we love death more than you love life". In a recent Friday sermon in Chicago, Dr. Ashraf Musairat denounced adherence to non-Islamic norms, saying it was humiliating to do so and insisting that:
"All this is happening because of our distance with the religion of Allah, because we love this world more than we love Allah and Islam, because we love our children more than we love to make sacrifices for Allah , and because we love our spouses more than we like to make sacrifices for Allah and Islam. "
Is this the kind of humiliation that Robert Fisk says is being imposed on Palestinians?
Perhaps Robert Fisk can explain the honor bestowed on Palestinians when, after receiving one of the most generous peace offerings in history? All but guaranteed for himself the highest honor in the eyes of the world, Ybader Arafat got away from the Camp David negotiations in 2000 and soon after began the second Intifada that took so many lives on both sides? As President Bill Clinton later said: "Arafat's rejection of my proposal after Barak agreed that it was a mistake of historical proportions." Israel concluded peace treaties very successful with Egypt and Jordan. Does Fisk say that Egyptians or Jordanians have been humiliated by this? On the contrary, President Anwar Sadat and King Hussein acquired the status of peacekeepers. Anwar Sadat won the Nobel Peace Prize alongside her Israeli counterpart, Menachem Begin. King Hussein was admired for his long-term willingness to meet Israeli officials on what was a long but dignified road to peace.
Israel has made many generous offers of peace and mutual help over the years, and has offered many times over the years. To abandon the physical territory for peaceful promises of peace: by handing over Sinai to the Egyptians in 1979 or completely (and painfully) leaving Gaza in 2005. Agreements were reached and offers were made. in 1949, 1979, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2000 again (on the Golan Heights), 2008, 2009, 2010, and to this day. [3]
But the Palestinians – including the current leaders of the Palestinian Authority Fatah in the West Bank and the infamous Hamas fundamentalist regime in Gaza – have never been inspired by the examples Egyptians and even Jordanians to consider peace or collaboration to bring the Palestinian people to a better life. In February, Israel will become the fourth country in the world to land a spaceship on the moon. Meanwhile, Gazans continue to send fiery kites – some carrying swastikas – across the border, causing serious damage to Israeli farmland and nature reserves. Does this honor Hamas or its subjects? In their own eyes, without a doubt; but for the rest of the non-Fisk world? Swastikas are not badges, on the contrary for the vast majority of people. Destroying the environment does not contribute to a small extent to make Gaza a better place to raise children.
Palestinians and their supporters in the West often go down the street chanting: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." The river is the Jordan, the sea, the Mediterranean. includes Gaza, the West Bank (Jordan) and the entire state of Israel.As Palestinians have claimed that, although they have no prejudice against the Jews, they will not tolerate Jews currently living in settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and that they will never agree to live alongside Israel as a Jewish state, we must ask on the land it will always be possible to consider a Palestinian state.
At the heart of this dilemma is an insurmountable breach between Palestinians and their supporters, Israelis and their supporters, and Israel and its surrounding territories , including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan For Palestinians, all Muslim states and their Muslim supporters around the world, the refusal to compromise is based on a fundamental badumption of Islamic Sharia – the principle that any territory, once ruled as an Islamic state, must never be abandoned. Muslim hands. This is because this territory is considered waqf a term applied to any property or tract of land consecrated as a religious trust in perpetuity. The principle underlying this principle is clearly stated in Article 11 of the 1988 Hamas Pact:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf dedicated to future Muslim generations up to On the day of judgment. It should not be wasted, or part of it: it should not be left out, or part of it. Neither a single Arab country, nor all the Arab countries, nor any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, nor any organization, nor any of them, whether they are Palestinian or Arab, do not exist. have the right to do so. Palestine is an Islamic land Waqf consecrated for Muslim generations until the day of judgment. That being said, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations until the Day of Judgment?
It is the law that governs the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land conquered by the Muslims. force, because during the times of the (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims dedicated these lands to the Moslem generations until the Day of the Judgment.
Dr. Samantha May of the University of Aberdeen has well explained the significance of this for Hamas in this article. . He
"proposes that Hamas's understanding of waqf as both the land of God in perpetuity and the territorial justification of an independent Palestinian state calls into question Western badumptions of the national territory and the monopoly of the legitimate violence. "
the modern international order of states, boundaries, treaties, and the distribution of the territories of the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years' War or the end of the First World War in 1918 or the end of the Second World War in 1945; the United Nations the same year, the fact is that international affairs are now considered to be conducted and negotiated, not on the basis of a single religious law, but through the principles set out in hundreds of documents, major legislation and international law.
Israel was created on the basis of international law, first as an agent territory through the League of Nations, then the United Nations in 1947. Thus, was modern Syria. Similarly, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other Arab and Muslim states, as well as Balkan states and elsewhere. Tear apart the fabric of international law and the treaties, conventions and resolutions that bind it, and any of which could collapse due to a transnational conflict. Palestinian Arabs were offered a state in 1947 with Israel. If they expect to have one or more states now, they can only do it on that basis. The reimposition of Islamic law waqf will not restore Muslim dominance over Spain, Portugal, Sicily, India, Greece and all other states from abandoned caliphate empires, and it is futile to think that Taken of allegiance to a system of international law deeply outdated and discredited, not wanting to exchange fantasy for realism, the Palestinians have tried everything except what could make them really free and prosperous: true peace with Israel. As Bbadam Tawil says:
By insisting on all Palestinian "national rights," including the "right of return," and by refusing to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestinians actually indicate that their true The goal is to see Israel removed from the Middle East. How do we know that they want to destroy Israel? Abbas says he sees Israel as a "colonialist project that has nothing to do with Judaism."
Fisk does a lot of this "right of return": "Right of return, forget it," he says in his article. But it's still another fantasy. The European Court of Human Rights has just ruled that this right does not exist (in the legal sense of the right of the human). Since the overwhelming majority of people who identify as Palestinian "refugees" have never set foot on the territory that has become Israel.
A recent US report reveals that there are, it seems, only about 20,000 Palestinian refugees in the world.
Moreover, it is precisely the insistence that the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and their descendants constitute a special category of refugees with their own refugee organization (UNWRA) who served to perpetuate refugee status and to condemn these "refugees" to live in the humiliating conditions of the refugee camps. If anyone humiliated these people, it is not Israel (where there are no such camps and the Arabs are full and free citizens) but host countries such as Lebanon , Syria, Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. condemn these "refugees" to an endless dependence on international aid, unable to build a real life on their own.
It is highly unlikely that Jared Kushner or President Trump will achieve what so many great statesmen have floundered. Palestinian leaders will resist until the end and the last Palestinian position. Even with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia urging Mahmoud Abbas to work for peace in accordance with US and Israeli proposals, nothing will satisfy the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel or an abject victim.
In the end, it is supposedly pro-Palestinian activists such as Robert Fisk or writers for articles such as The Independent The Guardian or the New York Times who do their utmost to persuade the world Palestinian intransigence on modernization offers of lives and international law. And this viewpoint itself is encouraged by the belief that the West is to blame for just about everything that's wrong, and that we should never ask non-Westerners to say "what is wrong?" take responsibility for their actions or anything
Reproduced with the permission of the author of Gatestone Institute
[ad_2]
Source link
