Twenty years ago this week, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians came to an end. So why do Israel’s critics keep claiming that Israel is still occupying the Palestinians?
On September 28, 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo II accord, also known as the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement. It provided for Israel’s withdrawal from the cities in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank) where 98% of Palestinian Arabs reside.
And in the weeks that followed, Israel did just that.
Israel’s forces retreated from the cities of Nablus (Shechem), Jenin, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Jericho and almost all of Hebron. Later, they withdrew from all of Gaza.
It is no secret that most of the Arab countries have long been mistreating their Palestinian brethren by subjecting them to a series of Apartheid-like discriminatory laws and regulations that often deny them basic rights.
In countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Syria, Palestinians are treated as second and third class citizens, a fact that has forced many of them to seek better lives in the U.S., Canada, Australia and various European countries. As a result, many Palestinians today feel unwelcome in their countries of origin and other Arab countries.
The condition of Palestinians in Arab countries began to deteriorate after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. The Palestinians were the first to “congratulate” Saddam Hussein on his invasion of Kuwait, a country that used to provide the PLO with tens of millions of dollars in financial aid every year. But many fled Kuwait to be away from the anarchy and lawlessness that prevailed after the Iraqi invasion.
I do not know what copy of the Qur’an Pope Francis has been shown, but it is clearly very different to any copy in my possession, whether the original Arabic or a translation.
When hate preachers in British mosques convey a violent or intolerant message to their congregants, they do so by quoting the Qur’an as the Word of God, thereby sanctioning acts of jihad. To ignore this is to hamper us in our efforts to bring Muslims into peaceful relations with the West, with all non-Muslims and especially with one another.
I am an atheist author and poet, who had lived as a Sunni Muslim for 23 years from birth, and I am still living in a Muslim country, Turkey. Also, my parents and all of my relatives are still Muslim. So, my critics about Islam can be easily consider this an inside view.
I know that the title of this essay seems assertive, but I will explain the rightness of this title step-by-step in this essay.
First of all, you have to learn about Islam that if you are an “outsider”, a non-Muslim, for example, a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew or whatever else, all Muslims have the “right” of killing and raping you, grabbing all your properties, your country, land, money and anything else. They take this “right” from the book of their belief, the Quran. In other words, they take this “right” from their belief’s core, the theology of Islam.
An illegal immigrant picks up a hooker. “Hey, how much you charge for da hour?” he asks.
“$100,” she replies.
In broken English, he says, “Do you do immigrant style?”
“No,” she says.
“I pay you $200 to do immigrant style.”
“No,” she says, not knowing what immigrant style is.
“I pay you $300.”
“No,” she says.
“I pay you $400.”
“No,” she says.
So finally he says, “OK, I pay $1,000 to do immigrant style.”
She thinks, “Well, I’ve been in the game for over 10 years now. I’ve had every kind of request from weirdos from every part of the world. How bad could immigrant style be?”
So she agrees and has sex with him. Finally, they finish and exhausted, the hooker turns to him and says, “Hey, I was expecting something perverted and disgusting. But that was not so bad. So, what exactly is immigrant style?”
The illegal immigrant replies, “You send bill to Government.”
AND THAT MY FRIENDLY TAXPAYERS, IS EXACTLY HOW WE ARE BEING SCREWED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
In his statement on the deal, President Obama seemed to suggest that Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. He said that this “long-term deal with Iran… will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He then repeated this assurance: “because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon.” These seemingly categorical statements were intended to assure the world that President Obama would keep his earlier promise that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
But is that what the deal itself does? Or, as stated by its critics, does it actually assure that Iran will be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal after a short delay of several years? That is the key question that the Obama administration has refused to answer directly. It must do so before Congress can be asked to buy a pig in a poke for the American people.