The position of Israel regarding drawing a map is that too much is at stake to risk its security, so its borders have to be defensible. The position of the Palestinians is that, apart from some minor and mutually agreeable swaps, the boundaries of Israel would be those of the 1949 Armistice Lines drawn between Israeli forces and the forces of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That's what they mean by the "1967 lines" when in reality there were never any lines agreed upon for mutual recognition between Israel and a Palestinian Arab state. President Barack Hussein Obama came down fully on the side of the Palestinian territorial demands, and threw away Israel's needs for secure boundaries.
This is contrary to the wishes of most Americans, who generally side with Israel rather than the Hamas and Fatah terrorists seeking to put Israel in indefensible borders. Nevertheless, Obama is a True Believer in making the maximum possible gift to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist partnership, and he doesn't really care one iota that the gift he wants to give will come at the expense of Israel's security.
The return to the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement would give Israel a width of only about 9 miles. There have been attempts to slice Israel, and a return to those lines would be a constant temptation to continue such efforts. It is not possible for Israelis to agree to such a suicidal plan. For it to be the basis of negotiations would be to bias the negotiations so that Israel appears as a supplicant that has lost all of its negotiating cards. This tilting of the negotiations seems to be the main objective of President Barack Hussein Obama, because he has also not mentioned resolving the Casus Beli of the Palestinian Arabs, which is their demand for millions of hostile Arabs to flood into Israel. This is a no brainer for anybody who understands the consequences of such a flood of hostile immigration: there would be a civil war, the millions of hostile Arabs would multiply, and the result would be the death of the Jewish state.
So the mask has been dropped. Mr. Obama has given his endorsement, essentially, to preparing the way for the jihad of the sword, while keeping his silence and thereby giving his tacit approval of the jihad of immigration and the jihad of the womb.
In addition, he has called for a contiguous Palestinian state, which would come at the expense of Israel's contiguity. There is no land connection between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. To provide one would split Israel, which apparently is what he wants to do. Also, he said that Egypt and Jordan would be borders of the Palestinian state, but he only mentioned that Israel would border Palestine. Therefore, he envisions Israel giving up its vital presence, both in terms of population and in terms of soldiers, at the River Jordan, to prevent an infiltration of rockets, missiles, mujahadeen, and even an invasion of tanks. So he has given formulas for dicing and slicing Israel, while not addressing the Casus Beli, and not providing any situation that would allow for Palestinian concessions, nor for Israeli security (except of meaningless words that he is all for Israel's security while giving formulas to gravely harm Israel's security and means of defending its borders and its population.
Obama has thrown away the promises made to Israel by the previous administration, the administration of President George W. Bush, that Israel would not return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, that a solution to the Arab refugee problem would be found outside the boundaries of Israel, and that the major settlement blocs that have formed during the demographic changes that took place over the last 44 years would be part of Israel while other settlements would be part of the negotiation.
Territorially, he has not allowed any daylight between his position and the position of the Palestinian Arabs, and of course by doing this he is encouraging countries and groups and individuals around the world to support that position and put pressure on Israel. Might this be fairly described as his portraying himself as a mentor and leader and agent of the Palestinian Arabs? He did this with his advocacy of the Palestinian Arab desire to have 500,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria and northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem to be deprived of their property rights and of their right to pursue their needs by building for their needs just as all people in the world are able to do. The result of that was that the Palestinian Arabs ratcheted up their demands, and refused to negotiate until Israel met the demands of Obama. Now he has escalated his diplomatic assault on Israel by ignoring Israel's needs, and calling for the basis of negotiations to be the Arab demand for Israel to return to the 1949 Armistice Lines, and the result of this of course will be a new ratcheting up of Palestinian demands. This is not rocket science. The more Obama escalates his demands on Israel, the more other countries will follow his lead, and even go further since they cannot be seen to be less "pro-Palestinian" than the US, and the more the Palestinian Arabs will escalate their own demands. For how can the Palestinians be less pro-Palestinian than the US?
Do you remember the antics of Milton Berle on TV, when his audience gave him applause? With one arm he would hold up a hand to say "stop", and with the other arm he would enthusiastically wave his hand to encourage the applause to continue. He would send out this mixed message, and it would be funny to see. Mr. Obama does the same thing. He raised the demand of stopping Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem from building -- anything -- to deprive them of their property rights and to take away their right to build for their needs. He said it was illegal for Jews to be doing building, in lands that had been conquered and occupied from 1948 to 1967 by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. The Palestinian Arabs took up his demands, and so did the international community. But when countries brought their demand to declare the settlements illegal to the UN Security Council, he did two things, a la Milton Berle. He vetoed their intended resolution at the UN Security Council, while simultaneously he had his ambassador vigorously denounce any building by Jews in the failed 1948-1967 Jordanian jihad territory as illegal.
It seems that he might be contemplating another such Milton Berle two-armed mixed message. His wants Israel to return to the "Auschwitz lines" (as Abba Eban eloquently called them) of 1949 and made a speech to give it much publicity. But he has indicated that when the matter comes to the UN Security Council he will veto it. If he follows through with Milton Berle, he will also have his ambassador give another speech supporting such a return to the Auschwitz lines.
It appears that Obama supports the goals of the ethnic cleansers, but wants to be on record as opposing their methods. And his Milton Berle antics of encouraging other countries to pressure Israel while he vetoes their efforts at the UN Security Council are his method of "leading from behind", to get other countries to do his dirtiest work of putting pressure on Israel while he claims innocence-per-veto.
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Mahmoud Abbas' legacy and the PLO's June 8 1974 Ten Points for War
The leader of the PLO and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, was born in 1935. He is 76 years old at this time, he has some issues involving his heart, and he has taken Jordanian citizenship. He will not run for president in the coming Palestinian elections, he said. Soon he will be bowing out of leadership of Palestinian politics, and he is anxious to leave a legacy in accordance with the PLO's June 8, 1974 Ten Points for War.
In the book Myths and Facts 1982, edited by Davis and Decter, there is the documentation of this important strategic plan produced in 1974 by the deliberative body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council. You can see how Abbas' recent actions show his adherence to this strategic plan. The timing of his actions show that he intends for this to be his legacy.
Davis & Decter: On June 8, 1974, the Palestine National Council met in Cairo to draft the political principles to be followed by the PLO. Following is the text of the Ten Point Program (in italics) interspersed with comments.
Preamble:
Proceeding from the Palestinian National Charter and the PLO's political program which was approved during the 11th session of the PNC held from 3 to 12 January 1973, believing in the impossibility of the establishment of a durable and just peace in the area without the restoration to our Palestinian people of all their national rights, foremost of which is their right to return to and determine their fate on all their national soil, and in the light of the study of the political circumstances which arose during the period between the Council's previous and current sessions, the Council decides the following:
Davis & Decter: Note the use of the word all -- "all their national soil"...
The Ten Points
1. The assertion of the PLO position regarding Resolution 242 is that it obliterates the patriotic and national rights of our people and deals with our people's cause as a refugee problem. Therefore, dealing with this resolution on this basis is rejected on any level of Arab and international dealings, including the Geneva conference.
Davis & Decter: The PLO has always rejected Security Council Resolution 242...
2. The PLO will struggle by all means, foremost of which is armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian land and to establish the people's national, independent and fighting authority on every part of Palestinian land to be liberated. This necessitates making more changes in the balance of power in favor of our people and their struggle.
3. The PLO will struggle against any plan for the establishment of a Palestinian entity, the price of which is recognition, conciliation, secure borders, renunciation of the national right, and our people's deprivation of their right to return and their right to determine the fate of their national soil.
Davis & Decter: Articles 2 and 3 are the heart of the document. The PLO is determined to continue the armed struggle to liberate every part of the "Palestinian land" -- a threat to both Israel and Jordan.
...
5. To struggle with the Jordanian national forces for the establishment of a Jordanian-Palestinian national front whose aim is the establishment of a national democratic government in Jordan -- a government that will cohere with the Palestinian entity to be established as a result of the struggle.
Davis & Decter: The PLO swears not only to liquidate Israel but also to overthrow King Hussein. The Council debated this article language for 10 days...
...
8. The Palestinian national authority, after its establishment, will struggle for the unity of the confrontation states for the sake of completing the liberation of all Palestinian soil and as a step on the path of comprehensive Arab unity.
...
My comments: Article 3 shines a light on what is necessary for an actual peace, and not merely a piece of paper.
Recognition: The Palestinians need to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state in their national ancestral homeland, The State of Israel, and to recognize its right to exist. This requires not only a pretense and delusionary statements by the international community that the Palestinians have in effect given this recognition (with smoke and mirrors), but to explicitly teach this continually to Palestinian Arab schoolchildren for two or three generations, so that the Palestinian Arab population becomes denazified. This includes the cooperation of Fatah and Hamas in giving this recognition and implementing the re-education of Palestinian Arab schoolchildren, as well as the other terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as the individuals constituting the leadership of the Palestinians. Also, there can be none of the "hat trick" nonsense, with individuals stating that they agreed to recognition while wearing the Palestinian Authority hat, but not as individuals, and not wearing the hat of Fatah or Hamas etc.
Conciliation: There has to be a real conciliation, a sulh, and not merely a hudna (a pause in hostilities), and not merely a salaam ( peace without conciliation).
Secure borders: Israel has to have secure borders, because whatever "peace" arrangements are made can fail. This includes a military presence by Israel along the Jordan River, to interrupt the flow of weapons and mujahadeen into an armed hostile Palestinian entity.
Demilitarized Palestinian entity: The "peace" arrangements can fail, and air travelers to Israel's airport should not be fired upon while in flight or while landing or taking off. Not providing for, and enforcing demilitarization of a Palestinian entity would be very reckless, and would be disregarding the right to life of residents and visitors to Israel.
No "right of return" of Arabs who have never set foot on the land that they are claiming: This is just a way of flooding Israel with millions of hostile Arabs, radicalized for generations in refugee camps, and raised to make war against Israelis. They will cause a civil war in Israel, and they will multiply and quickly end the Jewish state. This is the jihad of the womb, which is another means of seeking to destroy the Jewish state.
Jewish rights in the Jewish national soil cannot be disregarded -- it is not up to the Palestinians to remove these rights and give all rights to themselves. In addition, there are rights of religious pilgrims, of people of all faiths who have holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and these rights cannot be torn up, but must be honored by whoever is in charge.
In the book Myths and Facts 1982, edited by Davis and Decter, there is the documentation of this important strategic plan produced in 1974 by the deliberative body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council. You can see how Abbas' recent actions show his adherence to this strategic plan. The timing of his actions show that he intends for this to be his legacy.
Davis & Decter: On June 8, 1974, the Palestine National Council met in Cairo to draft the political principles to be followed by the PLO. Following is the text of the Ten Point Program (in italics) interspersed with comments.
Preamble:
Proceeding from the Palestinian National Charter and the PLO's political program which was approved during the 11th session of the PNC held from 3 to 12 January 1973, believing in the impossibility of the establishment of a durable and just peace in the area without the restoration to our Palestinian people of all their national rights, foremost of which is their right to return to and determine their fate on all their national soil, and in the light of the study of the political circumstances which arose during the period between the Council's previous and current sessions, the Council decides the following:
Davis & Decter: Note the use of the word all -- "all their national soil"...
The Ten Points
1. The assertion of the PLO position regarding Resolution 242 is that it obliterates the patriotic and national rights of our people and deals with our people's cause as a refugee problem. Therefore, dealing with this resolution on this basis is rejected on any level of Arab and international dealings, including the Geneva conference.
Davis & Decter: The PLO has always rejected Security Council Resolution 242...
2. The PLO will struggle by all means, foremost of which is armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian land and to establish the people's national, independent and fighting authority on every part of Palestinian land to be liberated. This necessitates making more changes in the balance of power in favor of our people and their struggle.
3. The PLO will struggle against any plan for the establishment of a Palestinian entity, the price of which is recognition, conciliation, secure borders, renunciation of the national right, and our people's deprivation of their right to return and their right to determine the fate of their national soil.
Davis & Decter: Articles 2 and 3 are the heart of the document. The PLO is determined to continue the armed struggle to liberate every part of the "Palestinian land" -- a threat to both Israel and Jordan.
...
5. To struggle with the Jordanian national forces for the establishment of a Jordanian-Palestinian national front whose aim is the establishment of a national democratic government in Jordan -- a government that will cohere with the Palestinian entity to be established as a result of the struggle.
Davis & Decter: The PLO swears not only to liquidate Israel but also to overthrow King Hussein. The Council debated this article language for 10 days...
...
8. The Palestinian national authority, after its establishment, will struggle for the unity of the confrontation states for the sake of completing the liberation of all Palestinian soil and as a step on the path of comprehensive Arab unity.
...
My comments: Article 3 shines a light on what is necessary for an actual peace, and not merely a piece of paper.
Recognition: The Palestinians need to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state in their national ancestral homeland, The State of Israel, and to recognize its right to exist. This requires not only a pretense and delusionary statements by the international community that the Palestinians have in effect given this recognition (with smoke and mirrors), but to explicitly teach this continually to Palestinian Arab schoolchildren for two or three generations, so that the Palestinian Arab population becomes denazified. This includes the cooperation of Fatah and Hamas in giving this recognition and implementing the re-education of Palestinian Arab schoolchildren, as well as the other terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as the individuals constituting the leadership of the Palestinians. Also, there can be none of the "hat trick" nonsense, with individuals stating that they agreed to recognition while wearing the Palestinian Authority hat, but not as individuals, and not wearing the hat of Fatah or Hamas etc.
Conciliation: There has to be a real conciliation, a sulh, and not merely a hudna (a pause in hostilities), and not merely a salaam ( peace without conciliation).
Secure borders: Israel has to have secure borders, because whatever "peace" arrangements are made can fail. This includes a military presence by Israel along the Jordan River, to interrupt the flow of weapons and mujahadeen into an armed hostile Palestinian entity.
Demilitarized Palestinian entity: The "peace" arrangements can fail, and air travelers to Israel's airport should not be fired upon while in flight or while landing or taking off. Not providing for, and enforcing demilitarization of a Palestinian entity would be very reckless, and would be disregarding the right to life of residents and visitors to Israel.
No "right of return" of Arabs who have never set foot on the land that they are claiming: This is just a way of flooding Israel with millions of hostile Arabs, radicalized for generations in refugee camps, and raised to make war against Israelis. They will cause a civil war in Israel, and they will multiply and quickly end the Jewish state. This is the jihad of the womb, which is another means of seeking to destroy the Jewish state.
Jewish rights in the Jewish national soil cannot be disregarded -- it is not up to the Palestinians to remove these rights and give all rights to themselves. In addition, there are rights of religious pilgrims, of people of all faiths who have holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and these rights cannot be torn up, but must be honored by whoever is in charge.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Folly of Ignoring a Foe's Goals
Today, when the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority has decided to take Hamas as a partner, governments around the world are tending to ignore the goals of the terrorist organization Hamas, and they would prefer that Israel do the same. A goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. That means that if Israel cooperates with Hamas, it is cooperating in plans for its own destruction.
An example of ignoring the real plans of a foe happened at Munich, when Britain's Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler's Germany by giving it a part of Czechoslavakia. "Peace in our time!" exulted Chamberlain, having gotten a piece of paper from Hitler. But Hitler's goal was not peace, it was conquest of much of the world. Receiving a key piece of Czechoslovakia allowed an easier conquest of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and convinced the Nazi German generals that Hitler seemed to know what he was doing, that he was on a successful path. It paved the way -- not for peace, but for the continued aggression that resulted in World War II.
A more recent example was provided by Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon forcibly removed some 9 thousand Jews who were living and working and raising families in Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip. He also removed Israeli soldiers from there. The newspaper The New York Times, in an editorial, exulted over their version of Chamberlain's "peace in our time". There has never been a better chance for peace, they enthused, leading readers to believe that this was the dawn of peace. What Israel got in return was the massive escalation of rocket fire into Israel, with thousands of rockets being fired into Israel. What Israel got was witnessing the election of the terrorist organization Hamas into the Palestinian government. The New York Times did not understand that the goal of a large segment of the Palestinian population was the destruction of Israel. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs' grievance was infinite, and no concessions by Israel could appease their grievance. Israeli concessions merely provided evidence of Israel's weakness, and showed them that the path of terrorism was a productive path for their goals. The New York Times made the mistake of overlooking the real popular goal of large segments of the Palestinian Arab population, and overlooked the fact that the grievance was infinite and unappeasable. Instead they apparently thought that the goal consisted of the excuse of the moment, the complaint about occupation by Israel, and The Times overlooked the real goal -- getting rid of Israel. Also, The Times, in their editorial, did not include a word about security matters, including the fact that the decreased security posed new dangers for Israel. So sure were they of their false assumptions that they did not even give any consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong. So they saw no need to even mention security. So they steered people to believe in the very opposite of the truth, seeing the evacuation of the Jews as a step toward peace when it was actually a step toward more violence against Israel, via the thousands of rockets fired at Israel.
Today there can be no doubt about the goal of Hamas to destroy Israel. Its own founding document makes that very clear. Now controlling the Gaza Strip, Hamas has indoctrinated the population of the Gaza Strip to have that goal of destroying Israel as their own goal. As Mahmud Abbas bows out of the picture in Judea and Samaria, Hamas will eventually come to dominate Arab areas of Judea and Samaria as well, and they will convert the vast majority of the rest of the Palestinian Arabs to their goal of destroying Israel. That is not the path to peace, but to endless war against Israel. Hamas has ties to the most militantly anti-Israel state of the region, which is Iran, and it will continue to receive more and more arms from Iran. Israel needs to prepare for defending itself against a stronger Iranian-Hamas rocket and terrorist presence in both the Gaza Strip and soon in Judea-Samaria.
For Israel to ignore Hamas' goals would be suicidal, and would be very unfortunate for Israel, inviting disaster. Just as Chamberlain's ignoring of Hitler's goals was self-delusionary and disastrous. It was disastrous not only for Britain but for all of the participants in World War II. It would add folly to tragedy to continue to make the same mistake of ignoring a foe's goals.
An example of ignoring the real plans of a foe happened at Munich, when Britain's Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler's Germany by giving it a part of Czechoslavakia. "Peace in our time!" exulted Chamberlain, having gotten a piece of paper from Hitler. But Hitler's goal was not peace, it was conquest of much of the world. Receiving a key piece of Czechoslovakia allowed an easier conquest of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and convinced the Nazi German generals that Hitler seemed to know what he was doing, that he was on a successful path. It paved the way -- not for peace, but for the continued aggression that resulted in World War II.
A more recent example was provided by Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon forcibly removed some 9 thousand Jews who were living and working and raising families in Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip. He also removed Israeli soldiers from there. The newspaper The New York Times, in an editorial, exulted over their version of Chamberlain's "peace in our time". There has never been a better chance for peace, they enthused, leading readers to believe that this was the dawn of peace. What Israel got in return was the massive escalation of rocket fire into Israel, with thousands of rockets being fired into Israel. What Israel got was witnessing the election of the terrorist organization Hamas into the Palestinian government. The New York Times did not understand that the goal of a large segment of the Palestinian population was the destruction of Israel. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs' grievance was infinite, and no concessions by Israel could appease their grievance. Israeli concessions merely provided evidence of Israel's weakness, and showed them that the path of terrorism was a productive path for their goals. The New York Times made the mistake of overlooking the real popular goal of large segments of the Palestinian Arab population, and overlooked the fact that the grievance was infinite and unappeasable. Instead they apparently thought that the goal consisted of the excuse of the moment, the complaint about occupation by Israel, and The Times overlooked the real goal -- getting rid of Israel. Also, The Times, in their editorial, did not include a word about security matters, including the fact that the decreased security posed new dangers for Israel. So sure were they of their false assumptions that they did not even give any consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong. So they saw no need to even mention security. So they steered people to believe in the very opposite of the truth, seeing the evacuation of the Jews as a step toward peace when it was actually a step toward more violence against Israel, via the thousands of rockets fired at Israel.
Today there can be no doubt about the goal of Hamas to destroy Israel. Its own founding document makes that very clear. Now controlling the Gaza Strip, Hamas has indoctrinated the population of the Gaza Strip to have that goal of destroying Israel as their own goal. As Mahmud Abbas bows out of the picture in Judea and Samaria, Hamas will eventually come to dominate Arab areas of Judea and Samaria as well, and they will convert the vast majority of the rest of the Palestinian Arabs to their goal of destroying Israel. That is not the path to peace, but to endless war against Israel. Hamas has ties to the most militantly anti-Israel state of the region, which is Iran, and it will continue to receive more and more arms from Iran. Israel needs to prepare for defending itself against a stronger Iranian-Hamas rocket and terrorist presence in both the Gaza Strip and soon in Judea-Samaria.
For Israel to ignore Hamas' goals would be suicidal, and would be very unfortunate for Israel, inviting disaster. Just as Chamberlain's ignoring of Hitler's goals was self-delusionary and disastrous. It was disastrous not only for Britain but for all of the participants in World War II. It would add folly to tragedy to continue to make the same mistake of ignoring a foe's goals.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Fatah Ideology Shifting?
A branch of Fatah known as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has carried out anti-Israel terrorist operations in the past, and has been celebrated at a Fatah convention as an honored branch of Fatah.
On the reported killing of Osama bin-Laden, the Fatah group issued a statement, which included this (translated by Palestinian Media Watch): "We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing."
And we have been told by the mainstream media that Fatah is nationalistic and not religious. Doesn't this announcement concerning capability of martyrdom for "restoring the glory of Islam" sound sufficiently religious and jihadic to be noticed? Doesn't it sound like Fatah is moving under the Hamas tent?
On the reported killing of Osama bin-Laden, the Fatah group issued a statement, which included this (translated by Palestinian Media Watch): "We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing."
And we have been told by the mainstream media that Fatah is nationalistic and not religious. Doesn't this announcement concerning capability of martyrdom for "restoring the glory of Islam" sound sufficiently religious and jihadic to be noticed? Doesn't it sound like Fatah is moving under the Hamas tent?
Hamas-Fatah Partnership
The Hamas-Fatah partnership that has been announced means that there is no way that a permanent peace can be agreed on with the Jewish state. Hamas is a religious-based organization and has an ideology that excludes being at peace with a Jewish state. Its war against Israel is a religious war. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Its motto emphasizes jihad, and dying for Allah (in jihad). It practices its ideology with terrorism, and is designated by the U.S. State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.
According to Hamas' ideology, since the region was once conquered by Muslims, it remains an Islamic trust, and must always be ruled by Muslims. For Israel, the state of Israel is a Jewish state. These are incompatible.
The Hamas-Fatah partnership, if recognized by the international community as governing a state, makes it impossible to have a permanent peace with Israel, and sets up the conditions for permanent religious warfare against Israel. This is a step in the direction of irredentist war, and away from permanent or long-lasting peace.
According to Hamas' ideology, since the region was once conquered by Muslims, it remains an Islamic trust, and must always be ruled by Muslims. For Israel, the state of Israel is a Jewish state. These are incompatible.
The Hamas-Fatah partnership, if recognized by the international community as governing a state, makes it impossible to have a permanent peace with Israel, and sets up the conditions for permanent religious warfare against Israel. This is a step in the direction of irredentist war, and away from permanent or long-lasting peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)