President Bush, according to the Reuter’s news report of January 11, wrapped up the first leg of his one week tour of the Middle East by calling upon Abbass to rein in the militants, reaffirming Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security and at the same time calling upon Olmert to withdraw from the West Bank after adjustment without however any countervailing commitment to Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank.
He glossed over the thorniest issue of withdrawal from East Jerusalem by merely advising the two sides to workout this issue. President Bush, two days earlier while in Jerusalem, let the cat out of his bag when he blatantly declared “my first question is going to be a firm commitment by the Palestinian government to deal with the extremists and the terrorists”, and throwing his full weight on the side of Israel, he went on to say “you cannot expect the Israelis to accept a state on their border which will become a launching pad for terrorist activities”. Encouraged by this pro-Israeli stance of President Bush, Olmert hastened to add “we are asking that Palestinian also respect their obligation to put an end to terrorism not only in Ghaza … Israeli settlements in the annexed East Jerusalem, did not fall in the same category as those in the West Bank”.
By insisting on reining in the militants as the very first step towards any negotiations, Bush as well as Olmert were trying to make Hamas and Islamic Jihad appear as the villain of the piece and, hence, responsible for the stalemate in the resolution of the Palestinian dispute in which they remained adamant not to recognize Israel and not to lay down their arms.
It may be recalled that Israel has always repudiated the position that it has come into existence through the legal instrument of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947. Instead, it has always insisted that the state of Israel came into existence by virtue of an edict in the Bible Book of Genesis that God bequeathed the entire stretch of land between the river Euphrates and the river Nile on Abraham and his seeds and accordingly it claims the Jews have the eternal right to live in and rule over the entire Biblical land. In view of such a claim by Israel, recognizing it would tantamount to recognizing its right to capture and rule over the entire Biblical land.
The Jewish divine right to occupy and rule over the Holy land does not bear scrutiny. Taking the Biblical edict for granted, God, according to the Book of Genesis, gave unto Abraham and his seeds the land between the river Euphrates and the river Nile. Abraham had two sons, Ismael and Issac; Holy Prophet Hazrat Mohammad (Peace be upon him) being among the descendants of Ismael. The seeds of Abraham, therefore, clearly embraces among other prophets all those namely Moses, Jesus and Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH) and, therefore, the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims all have equal rights to Palestine even if the bequeathal argument is carried out to the point of conferring an inalienable right to occupy and rule the Holy land.
Judging this claim according to the length of time lived by the Jews and their contribution to the development and prosperity of the land, we find that the period of the stay of the Jewish people in Israel has been marked by internecine tensions and conflicts, inviting aggression from the neighboring states and imperial powers, conquests by foreigners, exile of the Jews, large scale death by famines and equally large scale desertions as a result of hostile conditions prevailing in the land.
History, on the other hand, bears witness to the fact that the Arab Muslims have inhabited this land continuously for a much longer period of time; established peace and justice and brought about prosperity which they shared so generously with the minorities namely the Jews and the Christians living in this land.
While Jews lived in the Holy land, war, conquests, exile, slavery, desertions and poverty drastically depopulated the land when only 200,000 lived at the beginning of the 16th century.
The Jewish population, however, rose to 500,000 at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, more than 4.4 million Jews live in the state of Israel including more than one million Israel’s residents in the West Bank and Ghaza strip.
Palestine came under the Ottomans in 1517 and Suleman the magnificent developed this land and ushered in an era of equality, liberty and prosperity for all. He even encouraged Jews to migrate to Palestine. It is testified by the fact that population began to sharply rise from the beginning of the 16th century and the waves of migration of Jews into Palestine started during the period when Palestine was under the Turks. The first three periods recorded waves of Jewish migration into Palestine numbering about one hundred thousand during this period.
There has been, however, sudden spurt of immigration of the Jews during the time of the British Protectorate which swamped the local population and had a marked displacement effect on the Arab population already living there. During the period of 1923-1939 more than two hundred thousand Jews migrated into Palestine, only in one year i.e. 1935, 60,000 of them migrated -- in an organized manner.
Large scale purchase of land and properties under Jewish National Fund and the Palestine Foundation Fund inevitably alarmed the local population. It triggered different anti-Jewish riots in 1929 and again in 1933 in protest against the fast increasing population and power of the Jews. The rise of Hitler gave further impetus to migration, which in turn gave rise to the organized campaign against Jewish settlement in 1937 known as Arab rebellion.
British mandate over Palestine expired on May 14, 1948 and within hours, Ben Gurion declared Israel an independent Jewish state on the same date at 4 PM. The declaration said: “In the land of Israel, the Jewish people come into being”. Western powers vied with one another in recognizing the state and extending all possible help.
The question is whether the state of Israel as declared by Ben Gurion was the legitimate state, the state which was envisaged in the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947. Was it the same as contemplated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 or in the British White Paper issued in 1939? The declaration by Ben Gurion made no nexus either of the above two British documents or with the General Assembly resolution.
But even if the resolution of the UN General Assembly resolution is deemed to have conferred legal and moral legitimacy upon this Zionist entity the fact that ever since it has proved itself to be the most recalcitrant member of the world community in so far as it has been most persistently and habitually defying and violating the writs of the different organs of the United Nations, namely the General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice. It has both in law and morality, it has de jure even if not in fact ceased to be a member of world community. In utter defiance and violation of the Security Council resolution 242 and 338, it has refused to withdraw from the Palestinian land it occupied in 1967 war. Further, in utter defiance and violations of the series of the Security Council resolution 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969), 476 (1980), 478 (1980) and 672 (1970), it shifted its capital to East Jerusalem and passed a law declaring it to be the permanent and eternal capital of Israel. Further, it has pressed ahead with the construction of the fence in the West Bank in utter contempt and violation of the verdict of International Court of Justice.
With such a dismal record of defiance of the UN charter, this state deserves to be expelled from the community of nations in pursuance of United Nation Charter. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are, therefore, more than justified and in accordance with the requirements of the United Nations Charter in not recognizing Israel. Hamas and Islamic jihad have never recognized Israel even after the Oslo Accord and they have consistently opposed and protested against the PLO’s recognition of Israel. Even some notable members of the PLO including its secretary joined this protest.
On the day the Oslo Accord was signed, a complete strike was observed on the call of Hamas and other Islamists. On the same day, troops opened fire in Beirut on a Hizbullah demonstration against the Accord, killing 7 and wounding 31. In Syria and Jordan also there was a massive demonstration against the Accord.
Most importantly, Allah has commanded the believers to turn them out from where they have turned you out. (II; 191). Allah has also strictly forbidden the believers to seek friendship with those who have either themselves or have helped others to turn out the believers from their homes. (60; 09).
God bless Hamas and Islamic jihad who are braving the worst kind of turmoil and tribulations, yet sticking most resolutely to this divine command.
Palestinian Charter of Liberation also calls for armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine, and rules out any negotiation and compromise. The charter was later amended, in fact abandoned at the behest of the US by the members of PLO and not by the PLO parliament.
About fifty leading Islamic scholars from Asia, Africa and Middle East, representing a cross section of Islamic religious opinion in April 1995, issued a joint statement: “The Palestinian issue is an issue of fundamental concern to the Arab and the Muslim Ummah. A free Ummah would not consider conceding any parts of its sacred land irrespective of the compulsions of making such a compromise”.
True to the divine commandments and true to the mandate from the Islamic Ummah, true to the letters and spirit of the Charter of the Palestinian Liberation and true to the Charter of UN, Hamas and Islamic jihad are morally and legally justified in not recognizing Israel and in not laying down their arms until the full liberation of the entire Palestine.
Last but not the least, Israel by its very constitution is “the state of the Jewish people” and only those are entitled to take part in the election who subscribe to this religious apartheid in Israel. As against this, Yasir Arafat presented a plan in the UN General Assembly on November 03, 1974, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state where the Muslims, the Christians and the Jews could live in peace, justice and harmony, but Israel outrightly rejected it. If sanctions could be imposed on South Africa for racial apartheid, why sanctions could not be imposed on Israel for religious apartheid.
