Whats Left for you??
1- Palestinian Cause
2-UN Resolutions
3-Oslo
4- Road Map
5-Two State Solution
6- State under occupation
By Mahjoub
********************************************************
Comment:
I wonder why Yamin Zakaria chosed this title: Two-State solution of "Hamas"??
He knows that the "Two-State solution" is an Oslo Bastard, that Hamas rejected for years. He knows also that Hamas acceptance of a Palestinian state in 1967 occupied land is conditioned:
-No to recognition to Israel on 1948 occupied land.
-No to selling out the Palestine Rights, at the top of it the ROR.
Because of the the above conditions, Hamas is not considered by Israel, the Quartet and Arab Puppets an eligible peace partner, and consequently Both Hamas and Gaza are under siege.
Personaly, I consider Hamas and Syria talk about peace nothing more than a Puplic Relations Campain to expose "Peacfull Israel". With the above said condition, I would call it Two stages solution.
Moreover, It is the resistance, mainly Hamas and Jihad, that forced Sharon to follow the Steps of Barak (in Lebanon), and without leave Gaza without Conditions.
In that tiny strip called Gaza there is a Palestinian State sieged by Pharoah and other Arab puppets, rather than by the Zionist Entity.
No body say that Lebanon is under siege, because the Israeli Gates with South Lebanon are closed, no body is calling for breaking the siege on Lebanon and Hezbullah because Lebanon is open to sea, sky, and Syria.
Hamas bashers ignore the geopolitical facts, and dared to compare Lebanon with Gaza, Hezbullah with Hamas, blame Hamas for willing to talk to the west, blame Hamas for acceptance of the so- called Two peace solution, and claim that Hamas is following the steps of Fateh (Using resistance to get to the Negociation Table), claiming that Pharoah shall produce a domisticated Hamas.
Hamas bashers smearing Hamas for meeting Carter becaue Hezbollah refused to meet him, ignore the fact that Lebanon, even during 2006 July war, was under siege , so Hezbollah was never obliged to deal directly with the west. There was a Lebanese Goverment, Led by a resisting president Lahoud backed by Syria, not by a Lahd (Traitor Abbas) backed by Usrael, Pharoah and arab puppets.
Finally, I wonder what two states solution Yamin is talking about?? The two states are exising on Ground, the Palestinian State in besieged Gaza and the Zionist State in Occupied 1948 Land and Occupied Sieged West Bank.
Our task should be unconditional lifting the Siege on Gaza, (Sea, Sky, and Rafah crossing),
As for waiting the Caliphate, Who is waiting??
To my best knowlege no boby other than Hizb Al-Tahreer.
Let them wait.
I am not waiting the Caliphate, I am waiting the removal of Pharoah, which would turn Gaza the south of Palestine into a south Lebanon, to lead the resistance and force, as a second stage, Israel to leave West Bank without conditions.
***************************************************************
Palestine: Two-State solution of Hamas or wait for the Caliphate
Hamas, the elected government of Palestine recently stated that it is prepared to accept the two-state solution1, according to the UN resolution, which demands total withdrawal of Israeli troops to the 1967 borders, and the implementation of resolution 194, meaning repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. East Jerusalem with the holy cites of Masjid Al-Aqsa would be under the control of Hamas. The other major party, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), also concurs on this viewpoint; thus, a two-state solution seems to be representative of the vast majority of Palestinians living in the occupied territories.
This is contested by the minority view that opposes any form of agreement with Israel, and calls for a military solution: removal of Israel as an entity going back to pre 1948 borders. In practical terms, only a state can remove another state. To match the strength of Israel backed by the mighty US forces will require a strong unified state or an alliance of Muslim states. In Arab-Islamic history, such unity existed only under the Caliphate; the current nationalistic and secular regimes have been a total disaster in terms of confronting Israel.
The military solution via the Caliphate is merely wishful thinking; those who are vocal about this are not living in Palestine facing the daily Israeli oppression. None of the Muslims countries are prepared to give military support to the Palestinians, this makes resisting Israeli occupation very difficult, let alone liberate Palestine. Furthermore, the re-establishment of Caliphate to liberate Palestine as a long term solution requires one to overcome several major hurdles:
• There is no visible mass movement in the Muslim countries calling for the re-establishment of the caliphate. Nobody knows when the Caliphate will return. It could be tomorrow or it could take a thousand years, by that time there might not be any Palestinians left in the region.
• If the Caliphate is established, it would need to maintain its existence in the initial period and grow in strength, before it can help others. That could take substantial amount of time, and the task of liberating Palestine would be difficult, especially if it is established in distant lands. Like Muslim Spain, the Palestinians might be eradicated, if they simply continue to wait for the Caliphate to rescue them.
• The Caliphate would need to unify the various Muslim countries to gain strength, which is a very difficult task, because each nation seeks to preserve its national identity. This is not something new, even from the early period of the Caliphate the presence of nationalism was visible and remained throughout its history. The ruling body of the Caliphate was confined to each dynasty, the Ottomans never produced an Arab ruler, and the Arab dynasties never produced a leader of non-Arab origin.
• One has to consider, the Caliphate may collapse after it’s re-established. The West destroyed the Caliphate once, and they can do it again. The gap between the Muslim countries and the West in terms of military strength continue to increase, this is a fact.
We see politically naïve, hyper Islamic activists in distant West, waving the Caliphate as the ‘solution’. If a solution exists, why is not being applied to rescue Palestine? Because, the ‘solution’ is only theoretical at the moment, they have not even managed to cross the first hurdle of establishing the Caliphate. Moreover, if they only reflected on history, they would have seen that Spain was lost in the presence of the Caliphate, so was Palestine for approximately 100 years before it was liberated by Salahuddin Ayubi. Then the bloody Mongol invasion of Baghdad, the entire city is destroyed, the Khalif is executed. The Ottoman Caliphate gradually lost all its territories, until it was dismantled completely in 1924. Hence, the Caliphate is not a guarantee to solve all problems. One has to keep all options open.
Therefore, what should the isolated Palestinians in the occupied territories do now, in terms of dealing with Israel? They are the ones living under bombs, bullets and sanctions, facing systemic eradication; it is a matter of survival for them as a nation. It is their prerogative to decide which direction they should take. Should they resist the Israeli occupation or make a truce or should they confine to the effort of re-establishing the Caliphate?
Palestine is not going to be suitable place for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, as it is under occupation; they can do very little to rebuild the state elsewhere being imprisoned, and fighting for survival, trying to meet the basic necessities of life. Maybe those hyper activists living comfortably in the West should migrate to places like Gaza with their families, and live there for a while, and contribute to this process of dealing with the Israelis demonstrating how many real ‘solutions’ they can deliver.
More than likely, once they get glimpse of the real hardship, and face the Israeli firepower, they would run back to the West with a wiser head. Over the years, how many of them have gone to Palestine and lead by example to show how the Palestinians should not have truce, and continue to resist the Israelis on their own. Can you name one equivalent hyper Islamic-activist to the likes of Rachel Corrie? It was the collective effort and sacrifice of non-Muslim and Muslim peace activists, carrying aid to Gaza that brought it to world’s attention once again. No matter how many aid ships leave from the West, none of these hyper Islamic-activists will be on board or provide any help to raise funds, as they sit in the West, confine their ‘radical’ solution to talking about the Caliphate.
If I thought the decision of Hamas to have a two-state solution was prohibited by Islam, I would first seek clarification from them. They also have learned Scholars amongst them. It is easy to shout from a distance that it is prohibited to agree any truce where it acknowledges the right of Israel to exist, when you are not the one with burden of responsibility and actually suffering; thus the Palestinians take a different view. They will no doubt argue it is one of necessity for them and the armchair critics residing in the West have no appreciation of the real situation to pass such a verdict in the first place.
If there was a truce with the Israelis, the Palestinians can get some breathing space to flourish, focus on building the society and wage a demographic war as they continue to increase their population, and concurrently try to convert the Jews and the pseudo-Jews of occupied Palestine. The truce does not prevent those working for the long term solution of the Caliphate to continue and if they can establish the Caliphate, the treaty is not binding on them, as they were not a party to the contract in the first place.
In addition, the truce can always be repudiated in the future when the facts on the grounds change. When the Caliphate becomes strong, a pretext can always be construed with a little imagination. Thus, a truce does not mean the occupied land is being given up permanently.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London
Published on 14/06/2010
http://www.radicalviews.org/, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE64T2AI20100530
This is contested by the minority view that opposes any form of agreement with Israel, and calls for a military solution: removal of Israel as an entity going back to pre 1948 borders. In practical terms, only a state can remove another state. To match the strength of Israel backed by the mighty US forces will require a strong unified state or an alliance of Muslim states. In Arab-Islamic history, such unity existed only under the Caliphate; the current nationalistic and secular regimes have been a total disaster in terms of confronting Israel.
The military solution via the Caliphate is merely wishful thinking; those who are vocal about this are not living in Palestine facing the daily Israeli oppression. None of the Muslims countries are prepared to give military support to the Palestinians, this makes resisting Israeli occupation very difficult, let alone liberate Palestine. Furthermore, the re-establishment of Caliphate to liberate Palestine as a long term solution requires one to overcome several major hurdles:
• There is no visible mass movement in the Muslim countries calling for the re-establishment of the caliphate. Nobody knows when the Caliphate will return. It could be tomorrow or it could take a thousand years, by that time there might not be any Palestinians left in the region.
• If the Caliphate is established, it would need to maintain its existence in the initial period and grow in strength, before it can help others. That could take substantial amount of time, and the task of liberating Palestine would be difficult, especially if it is established in distant lands. Like Muslim Spain, the Palestinians might be eradicated, if they simply continue to wait for the Caliphate to rescue them.
• The Caliphate would need to unify the various Muslim countries to gain strength, which is a very difficult task, because each nation seeks to preserve its national identity. This is not something new, even from the early period of the Caliphate the presence of nationalism was visible and remained throughout its history. The ruling body of the Caliphate was confined to each dynasty, the Ottomans never produced an Arab ruler, and the Arab dynasties never produced a leader of non-Arab origin.
• One has to consider, the Caliphate may collapse after it’s re-established. The West destroyed the Caliphate once, and they can do it again. The gap between the Muslim countries and the West in terms of military strength continue to increase, this is a fact.
We see politically naïve, hyper Islamic activists in distant West, waving the Caliphate as the ‘solution’. If a solution exists, why is not being applied to rescue Palestine? Because, the ‘solution’ is only theoretical at the moment, they have not even managed to cross the first hurdle of establishing the Caliphate. Moreover, if they only reflected on history, they would have seen that Spain was lost in the presence of the Caliphate, so was Palestine for approximately 100 years before it was liberated by Salahuddin Ayubi. Then the bloody Mongol invasion of Baghdad, the entire city is destroyed, the Khalif is executed. The Ottoman Caliphate gradually lost all its territories, until it was dismantled completely in 1924. Hence, the Caliphate is not a guarantee to solve all problems. One has to keep all options open.
Therefore, what should the isolated Palestinians in the occupied territories do now, in terms of dealing with Israel? They are the ones living under bombs, bullets and sanctions, facing systemic eradication; it is a matter of survival for them as a nation. It is their prerogative to decide which direction they should take. Should they resist the Israeli occupation or make a truce or should they confine to the effort of re-establishing the Caliphate?
Palestine is not going to be suitable place for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, as it is under occupation; they can do very little to rebuild the state elsewhere being imprisoned, and fighting for survival, trying to meet the basic necessities of life. Maybe those hyper activists living comfortably in the West should migrate to places like Gaza with their families, and live there for a while, and contribute to this process of dealing with the Israelis demonstrating how many real ‘solutions’ they can deliver.
More than likely, once they get glimpse of the real hardship, and face the Israeli firepower, they would run back to the West with a wiser head. Over the years, how many of them have gone to Palestine and lead by example to show how the Palestinians should not have truce, and continue to resist the Israelis on their own. Can you name one equivalent hyper Islamic-activist to the likes of Rachel Corrie? It was the collective effort and sacrifice of non-Muslim and Muslim peace activists, carrying aid to Gaza that brought it to world’s attention once again. No matter how many aid ships leave from the West, none of these hyper Islamic-activists will be on board or provide any help to raise funds, as they sit in the West, confine their ‘radical’ solution to talking about the Caliphate.
If I thought the decision of Hamas to have a two-state solution was prohibited by Islam, I would first seek clarification from them. They also have learned Scholars amongst them. It is easy to shout from a distance that it is prohibited to agree any truce where it acknowledges the right of Israel to exist, when you are not the one with burden of responsibility and actually suffering; thus the Palestinians take a different view. They will no doubt argue it is one of necessity for them and the armchair critics residing in the West have no appreciation of the real situation to pass such a verdict in the first place.
If there was a truce with the Israelis, the Palestinians can get some breathing space to flourish, focus on building the society and wage a demographic war as they continue to increase their population, and concurrently try to convert the Jews and the pseudo-Jews of occupied Palestine. The truce does not prevent those working for the long term solution of the Caliphate to continue and if they can establish the Caliphate, the treaty is not binding on them, as they were not a party to the contract in the first place.
In addition, the truce can always be repudiated in the future when the facts on the grounds change. When the Caliphate becomes strong, a pretext can always be construed with a little imagination. Thus, a truce does not mean the occupied land is being given up permanently.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London
Published on 14/06/2010
http://www.radicalviews.org/, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE64T2AI20100530
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment