Author: Mashuk Ahmed Khan

L.L.M.; M.Phil; M.A.; PG Dip.(LP); PG Dip.(HRM); MCIPD 

A legal academic; and

Member of the University of Oxford Philosophical Society; and

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development


The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound – al-Haram-al-Sharif (Arabic) meaning, the noble sanctuary, or widely known as the Temple Mount – Har haBayit (Hebrew) meaning, Mount of the House of God  – in the Israeli-annexed old city of Jerusalem has become a regular flashpoint for colonial violence between the Palestinians [Muslims] and the Jews. Every year in the holy month of Ramadan Israel disturbs the peace of the Muslim worshippers in and around the Al-Aqsa Mosque – using brutal military force against them – as a precursor to wage war on Gaza. The year 2022 has not been an exception at all.

Above: Israeli police raid on Al-Aqsa Mosque Friday 22 April 2022 ,Source: Reuters

Although Israel has no written constitution, its unicameral 120 member Knesset (parliament) has enacted a series of “Basic Laws” that enumerate fundamental [Human] rights. Article 3 of the Israel’s Basic Law (1980): Protection of Holy Places, states;

“The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and from any other violation, as well as from anything that might hinder the freedom of access of the members of the various religions to the places sacred to them or that might give offense to their feelings toward these places”. (Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel (adopted July 30, 1980)).

The wealth of virtuous words connoting legal elements within this legislation (Basic Law1980) makes it all-inclusive – creating rights and mutual respect – and, coincides with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (“UDHR1948”).That provides protection for the Muslim worshippers to freely access the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound (al-Haram-al-Sharif) and other places within it – ‘sacred to them’ – such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the ‘Dome of the Rock’ and the ‘Dome of the Chain’ and for the holy sites to be ‘protected from desecration and from any form of violation’. Yet, in complete disregard of the Basic Law, the heavily armed Israeli police, physically abusing Muslim men and women with disproportionate force within the holy sites; innocent women are often being savagely pushed on their shoulders, and/or struck with police baton – while walking around the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound or the courtyard or when entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque itself. Their physical autonomy is grossly threatened. The Al-Aqsa Mosque has been raided (desecrated) by the Israeli Police twice in three days in April 2022 – firing rubber coated steel bullets and stun grenades – injuring and rounding-up worshippers – preventing them from conducting their daily prayers, and attending Friday congregation on 22 and 29 April, 2022.

Those acts against the worshippers in and around Al-Aqsa Mosque are of continued historical resonance of Israel’s barbarity, and deliberate provocation to Hamas and, the Palestinians [Muslims] as a whole to disrupting further, the already upset equilibrium of the situation in Jerusalem. Israel does this on purpose for Hamas to react to such provocations with rocket attacks from Gaza. So that it will provide Israel with the excuse of repeating its Dahiya Doctrine – (the Israeli blue-print for the massacre and devastation of Palestinian Muslim civilians (named after Dahieh neighbourhood of Beirut that was destroyed by Israeli aerial bombardment in 2006 Israel-Lebanon/Hezbullah War) to carry out a planned massacre of the civilians with the destruction of civilian infrastructures, as it did in the 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2021 Wars, against the Gazans, contrary to Geneva Conventions 1949 (“1949 Convention”).There is a fear of this being repeated again this year, as Israel has already launched air strikes on Gaza, twice in three days, recently – in response to Hamas’ rocket attacks.

Above: Moshe Dayan Quote, Israel’s Defence Minister 1967-1979

What is to be noted that when State actors cease adherence to international rules and ethics of war, and openly declares that the target is no longer restricted to militants, but extended to civilian populace (under Dahiya Doctrine in Israel’s case) their actions immediately give rise to war crimes. The Protocol – 1, Art. 51(3), of the 1949 Convention is designed to provide civilians, immunity from attack, “unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities”. Articles 76 (women), 77 (children), 15 (civilian medical and religious personnel) and 79 (journalists) provide special protection for each category respectively. Israel however is not a signatory to Protocol 1 (for obvious reasons), but the Palestinian Authority is  – having signed the accord in February 2014 – in spite of  the US and Israel’s bold opposition to this move. In 2009 Palestine gained recognition as a non-member observer State. Upon qualifying as a State it could obtain full membership status of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). That would enable Palestine to bring war crimes charges against Israel, under a proviso that allows for the charges of crimes committed, even before gaining State recognition; as long as the alleged crimes occurred after the establishment of the ICC in 2002. In other words, Palestine may piggyback on this proviso to instigate war crimes proceedings against Israel retrospectively from 1 July 2002. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority (government), as it stands, is not eligible to invoke Art.12 (3) of the Rome Statute (1998) and accept Jurisdiction of the ICC for want of Sovereignty of its territory. This may hinder the process of two-state solution as Israel does not want itself exposed to a situation – facing war crimes charges against it before the ICC.

With reference to the current unrest in Jerusalem, out of 57 independent Muslim States only a handful of them namely: Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Pakistan have raised their concern against Israel’s brutality – beating, killing, injuring and terrorising Palestinian worshippers in and around the Al-Aqsa Mosque at will. The silence of the other Muslim States does not mean that they have acquiesced to Israel’s inhuman and degrading treatment of Palestinian Muslims. The crux of the matter is that Israel benefits from blanket immunity provided to it by the United States (“US” / “America”) and other Western powers for its atrocities against Muslims. Therefore adding a few words of condemnation by others will not change its course. The world understands, and is fed-up of seeing America’s double standard in the global geo-political terrain.

Above: April 2022 at the Courtyard of Al-Aqsa Mosque Israeli Police pushing & terrifying women

However, there have been some reactions from the United Nations Security Council (“UNSC”) and its European Union (“EU”) Council members, and the US, but with the same old political rhetoric. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (“Blinken”) urged both sides to “end the cycle of violence” and to exercise “restraint” and refrain “from actions that escalate tensions”.  That said, Blinken moreover reiterated the US government’s “steadfast commitment” to Israel’s security and condemned the recent rocket attacks from Gaza, during his call with Israel’s foreign minister Yair Lapid. Hence the actual cause of the current crisis or the unlawful conduct of the Israeli armed police against the Palestinians [Muslims] in and around al-Haram-al-Sharif (Temple Mount) was neglected by Blinken; because of the US’s ‘steadfast commitment’ to Israel’s [unilateral] security. Blinken’s statement clearly does not sound equally favourable to both sides and is, rather encouraging for Israel to – escalate the tensions further – as before.  A joint statement by EU members of the UNSC also called for “calm and de-escalation,” stressing that “violence needs to stop immediately’”. Further “civilian casualties need to be prevented as a priority” and so on. As usual, the need for preventing further civilian casualties becomes a priority only after substantial casualties occurred on Palestinian side. Had the verbiage ever stopped Israeli aggressions? Between 22 March and 22 April (2022) 30 Palestinians and 14 Israelis have been killed in the clashes, and 200 Palestinians injured, some of them are in critical condition. The numbers could rise to an unprecedented level if the current situation persists in Jerusalem, and/or escalated to a [likely] post-Ramadan War on Gaza Strip by Israel.

It was only a year ago; similar Israeli aggression against the Al-Aqsa worshippers in the month of Ramadan was escalated to a full scale War by Israel on Gaza Strip (“Gaza”) on 10 May 2021. Curiously, on 5 May 2021 – just five days before the War – President Biden (“Biden”) signed an arms deal of $750 million dollars with Israel in order to equip its army with more sophisticated weapons, over and above US’s $3.8 billion foreign aid given to Israel for military and other defence purposes in 2020. It was the fourth Israeli War since 2007 waged against the Gazan Palestinians (“Gazans”). Gaza was burning every day from the Israeli aerial bombardment that continued for 11days. It was an apartheid déjà vu for the long-suffering Gazans; it was genocidal – killing of civilians by Israel in violation of the laws and ethics of war and due regard to humanity. With the world’s moral conscience being nearly frozen for the Gazans, they helplessly suffered another brutal carnage inflicted on them by Israel as the world witnessed. It was a repetition of Israel’s Dhaiya Doctrine – to decimate Gaza’s overall infrastructure in total ignorance of the inevitable loss of civilian lives therein.

Above: Gaza was burning (May 2021) Source: Reuters

The fake and fragile cease-fire to the conflict (“2021 War”) came into effect through private [puppet] brokerage, yet only, after severe damages were done to the Gazans. No UNSC instrument or provisions for an earlier cease-fire was available to the Gazans to prevent the deaths and destructions inflicted upon them by Israel. At least four attempts of the UNSC to officially intervene to halt the bloodshed were blocked by the US vetoes. Unsurprisingly, it was a forum non conveniens for Biden. Thus he continued emphasising on closed door diplomacy to the UNSC’s exclusion, which created a vacuum in the process to end the War sooner. That allowed Israel to continue its brutality for a number of extra days; whereas an hour’s delay to a cease-fire was deadly for the Gazans. They were incapable of withstanding Israeli onslaught on them for any length of time. Hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children had been killed and over a thousand injured by systematic bombing applying Dahiya Doctrine – thereby leaving millions bereft. But all is forgotten so quickly, as though nothing had happened to the curbed Gazans just less than a year ago. A War on these defenceless people by Israel could be waged anytime again, without warning.

We heard many statements coming from political leaders around the world voicing their grave [rhetorical] concern about the 2021 War on Gaza. The words spoken were euphemistic, carefully designed, or re-arranged to maintain their political oratory and double standards. So many statements came from the US officials, its State departments, House of Representatives, Senate and so on; which were more or less the replica of the statements made in the past decades by different US Statesmen and officials. However, most prominently, it was the Biden’s fig leaf statement that “Israel has a right to defend itself” did not make a good moral or legal sense at all. Although in theory such argument could be well justified if only considered in the light of just and fairness; but NOT whereas the prejudice suffered by the Palestinians, outweighed the presumed justification – with reference to the ethics of just war and defence parity. Biden’s statement would have been more palatable around the world if he had added to his statement the words that: the Palestinians too have a right to survive; at a time when the Gazans were unable to sustain Israel’s heavy pounding on them with its 160 US made fighter jets including F16s. Therefore Biden’s Statement lacked the requisite balance or the deserving weight for being totally biased.

Above: Palestinian children killed by Israel, May 2021 laid to rest in mass grave, Source: Reuters

The whole circumstances surrounding the 2021 War should have been considered in context, as to what happened prior to Hamas launching attacks on Israel. None of the statements made by the West referred contextually to an iota of the morbid situations affecting the daily lives of Palestinians, nor the words uttered, objectively represents the reality, for example: “Apartheid”; “Settler-colonialism” to denote ‘forced occupation’ of land, ‘forced displacement’ of Palestinians, ‘forced eviction’ of Palestinians from their homes, and ‘enforced disappearance of Palestinian individuals’ and, in summary: the systematic “ethnic cleansing” of them etc.. These practices are crimes against humanity and human rights contrary to Art.1 of the Genocide Convention 1948 (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3/260); and Arts. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 17(2) of the UDHR 1948 (General Assembly Resolution 217 A), respectively. But who cares when the might overrides the legal rights – as ‘might is right’.

The Biden Administration appeared to be no different than its predecessors. It was obdurate to calls from the UNSC to actively intervene, and carried on vetoing the resolutions drafted by the UNSC to compel Israel to stop the war. That was nothing new for the US, as over the past 50 years the US has blocked many UNSC resolutions against Israel including at least 53 since 1972, with its brazen support for Israel against the will of the Nation State members of the UNSC. Whilst a very few Muslim States condemned Israel’s actions against the Gazans (not worth the mention) the rest were hopelessly vigilant of the orchestrated crimes against humanity on the vulnerable Gazans, by Israel. It was shocking to learn that Blinken pledged on his Middle-East mission on 18 May 2021 that ‘Washington would rally support to re-build Gaza as part of efforts to bolster a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel’ (Reuters May 25, 2021). Blinken attempted to barter Israeli onslaught on the Gazans for US re-building aid to [Hamas] Gaza. What a travesty of humanity – damage and re-build policy – discarding human costs of an Unjust War? Does it bring back the loved ones the Gazans have lost? One underlying element of such promise of re-building Gaza by the US means fostering Hamas, and making the key persons of the Hamas and/or the organisation itself ex-amount richer in millions of US dollars. And that will contribute to Hamas intensifying its activities against Israel. Why should US lend a hand to an organisation recorded as terrorist in its own list [of terrorists]? Such a double-standard of the US administration is something not just unbeknown but well-founded.

Dead body of an infant killed by Israel recovered from under the rubble

 in Gaza May 2021

An early UNSC intervention could have saved some of those innocent lives, lost in the 2021 War. But the democratic deficit inherent within the UNSC with its flawed veto system prevented it from doing so. Resultantly, the death toll in Gaza stood at 297 including at least 68 children and 38 women. More than 1,400 people were left critically injured. Those who have lost their loved ones are perpetually mourning them. Some of the injured will never make it to a full recovery. The numbers of buildings destroyed including hospitals amounted to 450 (four hundred fifty) with enormous damage to Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. In addition, at least 21 Palestinians were reportedly killed in the West Bank at the time. The death toll on Israeli side was 13 including 2 children and 2 foreign workers. It was a tragic loss of innocent human lives on both sides. Loss of a single human life by unnatural cause is worst enough whether it is a Muslim or a Jew. No government has any right to authorise unlawful killing of any human being or subject them to risk of death, knowingly or by its recklessness. But who cares when it comes to the killing of defenceless Palestinian [Muslim] civilians since Israel maintains a military pre-eminence over them in terms of equality of arms (muscle).

Israel’s challenge to dismantle Hamas Militant was no excuse to use disproportionate force of such magnitude against the inhabitants of Gaza – already caged by Israel since 2007 – confined to extreme poverty and prejudice in terms of equality and inclusion. They are living under poorest ghetto condition, in deprivation of, even the basic utilities, ranging from water depletion by Israel from the supply sources, to its deliberate attacks on water installations causing – further water shortages – for the Gazans. The limited water supply available to them is not even fit for animal, plant or human consumption, as reported by WHO (World Health Organisation). With $3 US dollars per capita income a day, it is beyond Gazans’ affordability to buy bottled or clean water. People are dying there from kidney and liver failures and other diseases for want of clean drinking water.  It is a besieged Strip of land with a tiny geographical area of just 141 square miles – accommodating more than two million people – where hardly any room to breathe fresh air; it is in a debilitating state already. It is suffering from racial, economic, and educational disparities; their means of productions is largely destroyed by Israel in order to make them socio-economically vulnerable and thereby making them dependent on foreign aid. A balancing act was therefore necessary by the US before legitimising Israeli cause to wage devastating Wars on Gaza again and again in terms of proportionality – provoked rocket attacks versus carpet-bombing on civilian structures – engaging Dahiya Doctrine, developed by Gadi Eizenkot (former Chief of Israel Defence Forces). One cause, however legitimate, cannot de-legitimise another legitimate cause – the protection of lives of innocent human beings and their properties – from the risk of deaths and destructions. The malice of Hamas’ rocket attacks cannot be transferred on innocent Palestinian men, women and children by virtue of their right to life, equally, with respect to lives of Israeli civilians. But politics still revolves around personal interests of the leaders; it matters not to them, often, what is at stake.

Neither all Jewish people nor all Muslims are habitually hostile to each other. It would be unreasonable and foolhardy to suggest that they are. Israeli and Palestinian civilians definitely seek peace and social harmony; they do not want to live in every-day terror. But bitter hostilities and the sense of perpetual insecurity to peaceful co-existence of Muslims and the Jews are fed into the minds of general public, deliberately, by nasty political schema or motifs. It is the unscrupulous politicians entrusted by people cause such human catastrophe by abuse of their position, mostly for their private gains. They will do anything to preserve their political status quo. Netanyahu is an extreme example of this, in the context of Israeli politics. Although Netanyahu is unseated by Naftali Bennett (“Bennett”) shortly after the 2021 War, there is always a comeback theory for the nasty game to reappear. The current (2022) unrest in Jerusalem thus re-appeared in less than a year under Bennett administration, exactly in the same manner, as it did, under Netanyahu administration in the holy month of Ramadan last year (2021).

It was extraneous to Netanyahu’s interest how many Palestinians would be killed in the conflict (2021 War); he also ignored the fact that some Israelis would also be killed although were small in numbers as compared to Palestinians. But the gruesome event was pertinent to his frail (as it was at the time), and future political standing. He is a pathological liar, a skilled manipulator, and moreover a corrupt person with vicious and, vile persona – facing several criminal charges in Israel – for fraud, breach of trust, and for having golden touch (accepting bribes). He was concerned that if he loses his Premiership, then it was (is) more likely than not, he will end up in jail like his predecessor, Ehud Olmert. So Netanyahu had a particular motive to wage war on Gaza, over and above his anti-Muslim mind-set – simply to divert Israeli public attention to Israel’s national security – instead of him. It did not matter to him how big or small the [human] costs of War to Palestinians or Israelis would be, against his own interests. He manipulated Donald Trump (an identical corrupt facing so many charges including fraud, and feud (the Capitol Hill insurrection on 6 Jan.2021)), to declare Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, in order to needle the Palestinians’ religious sentiment, and reinvigorate Israeli false flag operation against them.

Although Netanyahu’s political rivals have already given him a thrush (albeit political) by unseating him from his Prime Ministerial post, the Israeli people might one day hold him responsible for his corrupt handling of the State affairs. He might end up in gaol for corruption, but certainly not for waging war on the Gazans, because that war was in consonant with the US administration and the ongoing Zionist agenda. Notwithstanding this, with recent developments in the effectiveness of international laws on crimes against humanity, and international justice being increasingly recognised; Netanyahu’s accountability to World Community is far from over under various International laws, for example: Geneva Conventions 1948; Genocide Convention1948 and the Rome Statute 1998 – if successfully pursued.

Netanyahu’s successor, Bennett, who was once his ally declared immediately after assuming his office – not to change his policy over the Palestinians – and also resolved, not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The recent Iranian military drills dubbed Payambar – e – Azadm or ‘Great Prophet’ fired sixteen ballistic missiles in response to constant Israeli threats to dismember Iranian nuclear development programme. The Zionist regime believes that its security is threatened by Iran’s potential development of nuclear arms. Iran too feels alike as constant threats posed by already a nuclear power Israel, to its [Iran] national security. The Bennett administration is markedly indifferent to peace and settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issues, or to neutralising regional tensions of arms conflict. The shift of Israeli Premiership from Netanyahu to Bennett has been merely a game changer – wooing personal interest. Israeli public opinion over the Israeli-Palestinian issues is hardly ever invited by their governments either through opinion poll or referendum. Bennett is now trying to drag Iran into a broader regional conflict, firstly: to thwart the resurrection process of the Iran’s nuclear deal 2015 by the US; secondly: to attack Iran together with the support of its newly found Muslim ‘normalisation’ [of relationship] partners (discussed below), in order to destroy Iran’s nuclear development programme; and thirdly: to gain popularity at home for his survival in office with his weak coalition.

One way of seeing the new Israeli slogan of ‘normalisation’ of its relationship with the Muslim neighbours is that, it is aimed to facilitate the US-Israeli mastery, over the [economically] dominant Muslim powers in the region. Nonetheless, it has impelled a positive response from United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’), Bahrain and North African Arab States: Sudan and Morocco, to normalise relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia, Oman, Libya and Mauritania are expected to follow suit in the future. Kuwait is unlikely to join for its apparent anti-Semitist foreign policy and Iran has refused to participate for reasons, needless to explain. Qatar also refused to join without Israel’s real commitment to a two-state solution. However, National Flags of a number of different Muslim States will be flown full mast in Tel Aviv to the sheer pleasure of the Israeli government, and the peace-loving segment of the Israeli population – holding [perhaps] glimmer of hopes – to see an end to the Arab-Israeli hostilities. But does Israel’s normalisation of relationship with other Arab countries mean anything for the safety and security of the Palestinians, or peace between Israel and Palestinians?

The other aspect of the normalisation process can be seen as a politico-economic integration between the regional militarily super power Israel, and the economically powerful Gulf States, than an actual or just peace process. As a result of entering into the peace agreement namely Abraham Accords 2020 with Israel, through mysterious normalisation process, the Gulf States will now be able to procure sophisticated weapons from the US and Israel, which was not the case before. The Trump administration negotiated incentives [inducement] for the UAE; and the US agreed to sell the UAE, state of the art F-35 stealth fighter jets, in return for signing the peace agreement (Abraham Accords). It also gave [bribed] Sudan $700 million dollars and recognised Moroccan sovereignty (as an inducement to Rabat officials) over Western Sahara (as-Sahra’ al-Gharbiyyah) a disputed territory which Morocco claims to be part of its Kingdom.

Further, at present, Israel’s arms industries are primarily dependent on US aid, and supply of arms, to its own Ministry of Defence. Its arms industries cannot flourish once Israel’s contract with the US for military aid expires in 2028; so they need to open new markets. This will enable these States to embark on arms race with Iran in total ignorance of the fact that it will lead to deeper regional tensions of, potential arms conflict, between Shia Iran, and the Sunni Gulf States. For Israel, it is a creation of export zones for exporting arms and other advanced technologies, and technical manpower to its newly found friends. Further it is a mechanism for Israel to strategic coalition-building with Sunni Gulf states; thereby opening multiple fronts against Iran, in the event of an all out war between Iran and Israel. Israel is anxious and could spark off a conflict at its convenience, with a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Abraham Accords 2020 will also help deepen bilateral military cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states and will allow them to conduct joint military exercise in the Persian Gulf and use its air space to attack Iran. In all likelihood the Abraham Accords 2020 might give rise to uncontrollable abnormalization of relationship between Shia Iran, Sunni Arab States, Sunni  Palestinians and the Jewish Israel.

While the Israeli public and the government are somewhat eager to adopt a policy [not guarantee] of peaceful co-existence with its extended Arab [Muslim] neighbours, the Muslim States have positively responded to it. Why then, Israeli brutal aggressions are continued against Palestinian Muslims if it really seeks to establish regional peace, harmony, and security? Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the worst conflict in the world, and a source of continuous unrest, instability, and insecurity in the Middle-Eastern region. Nonetheless, that was (is) largely ignored from the normalisation agenda; whereas making peace with the peaceful Gulf States (UAE), which had never been involved in war with Israel – has become so important for Israel (?). This is certainly off the wall.

The normalisation process that followed by the Abraham Accords (“AA 2020”) – named in honour of Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH), the Patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are a series of treaties normalising diplomatic relations between the Arab States and Israel; facilitated by the US between August and December 2020. But the AA 2020 does not appear to reflect the Palestinian issues in its corpus. Although all of the four Arab States “re-affirmed that the Agreement would not be at the expense of Palestinian cause” – nothing was bartered for the AA 2020 in favour of Palestinians or to help both parties (Israel & Palestinians) reach a modus vivendi. That is to say that the AA 2020 did not even endorse the need for an urgent realisation of the impending two-state solution for the Palestinians or seek at least, an Israeli undertaking for the cessation of its frequent military onslaught employing Dahiya Doctrine against Palestinian civilians until Israeli-Palestinian differences are mitigated or resolved. Therefore AA 2020 can be said, an Accord of Israeli convenience – not all-embracing.

With reflection to 2021 bloody-confrontation at Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the month of Ramadan between Israeli defence forces and Palestinians (where 158 Palestinians [Muslims] were injured, and 300 arrested); the subsequent War on Gaza in May 2021; and the current de facto atrocities in Al-Aqsa Mosque compound by Israel, denigrated the intrinsic worth (if any), of the AA 2020. It seems that, peace with the Palestinians is not desirable to the Israeli right wing (extremist) Likud party or Bennett’s coalition government, so as to maintain its apartheid policies against the Palestinians. Is it conceivable to establish and sustain peace in the region with the exclusion of settlement of the Palestinian problem? The truth is, the AA 2020 will continue to weaken the Palestinians’ bargaining strength in terms of, a two-state solution that is already in an indeterminate state, due to fraction between Palestinian Authority and Hamas; and Israel’s reluctance to implement Oslo Accords (1993). The Palestinians are all round losers and will continue to suffer Israeli repression for many years to come.

The never- ending Arab-Israeli conflict started with the creation of Jewish National Fund ( Keren Hakayemet) at the fifth Zionist Congress in Basel (Switzerland) in 1901 to buy and develop land in the Ottoman Palestine (now Israel & Palestinian Territories). Its primary objective was to purchase and develop land in the Ottoman Palestine (‘Palestine’) in order to promote Jewish settlement and its continuous occupation of land in there, with a vision to establish a State of Israel in the long run. Such plan was surfaced with the Belfour declaration dated 2 November 1917 by the British Foreign Office; with word for word formula provided by Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild (a leader of the British Jewish community) that, “Palestine should be reconstituted as the “National Home of the Jewish people”. That eventually culminated in the violent birth of the State of Israel, with displacement of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948. Hence, Palestine was not reconstituted, but dismantled and now 80% of Palestine is occupied by the Zion with further creeping annexation of the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods through settler’s colonisation. The term Zion used herein to signify the Zion [ist] movement, and its lack of support from the Arab world and some other UN member States. It would be unreasonable and irrational to suggest that all Palestinians, or Muslims around the world, are anti-Semitist and vice versa.

But the problem with Israel is that, the premise upon which it was established by its founding fathers meant, a ‘National Home of the Jewish People’. So it did not have the democratic stature attached to it in the first place. It was not ‘for the people’, ‘by the people’ or ‘of the people’; it was exclusively for the Jewish people. If those words (National Home of the Jewish People) are construed properly it clearly refers to Nationalist [fascist] Liberalism – in other words, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-foreigners and chauvanistic [emphasis added]. Hence, an Apartheid State of Israel was established originally, not a democratic one, and more appropriately so, in the context of Palestinian Muslims [further emphasis]. And that was the  raison d’être  as to why Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in 1948; and now, ever-growing displacement taking place by Settlers Colonialism – to oust the rest of them from their homeland completely. Further, the new Western political construct such as: War-on-Terror [Muslims], and Islamophobia (a brain-washing device following the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre, New York (2001)) are the key elements – marking the dark side of modern globalisation – extended to ever-increasing anti-Muslim sentiment in Israel and beyond – with resulting apartheid thereof. The Amnesty International recently accused Israel of being an apartheid state on the basis of its investigations and findings. Its 280 page report is no doubt an alarm-bell against Israeli State-induced racial segregation of the Palestinians [Muslims]. It also reinforces the world’s legal authority and obligations towards humanity under the Apartheid Convention (1973) and the Rome Statute 1998 which defines apartheid as systematic racial domination.

The Basic Law (Jerusalem Law) of Israel (1980) established the status of Jerusalem as the Israel’s capital. But Art.1 of the Basic Law refers to ‘Undivided and united Jerusalem is the capital’ of Israel is, what is problematic; because of its over-arching principle intended to displace Palestinians from East Jerusalem neighbourhoods of Sheik Jarrah, Damascus Gate,  Beit Safafa, Beit Hanina, Sur Baher and more,  through settlers-colonialism and, is therefore, discriminatory. This might be caught up by the Apartheid Convention 1973 – came into force on 18 July 1976 ( UK, US, Portugal, and South Africa voted against it) and by the Rome Statute 1998 with effect from 1 July 2002. The annual number of building permits granted for constructions in Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem had expanded by 60% after Trump became the US president. The Palestinians who make up the majority of the residents in East Jerusalem had only received 30% of building permits since 1991.

However it is remarkable, that no US or Israeli governments preceding Trump or Netanyahu administration had ever attempted to effect this law (Basic Law 1980). This was perhaps to respect their legal obligations under the UN Partition Resolution 1948 (Resolution181)) on Palestine (which provides a little niche for a Two-State solution); or due to disagreement over this sensitive issue between their respective (US-Israeli) governments about the status of Jerusalem to, remain under [tricky] international policing – pending Israeli-Palestinian resolve – by “mutual negotiation”. The use of the word mutual negotiation in this context is somewhat a mockery while it is impossible to trigger such negotiation without the US’s full and frank involvement in the process. Hitherto the UN is holding only symbolically the 1948 Resolution, in its dusty files, along with many other unimplemented, yet unforgotten, Resolutions – with buried hopes of the aggrieved parties for a virtual solution to their problems. As a mark of reference, the United Nations Kashmir Resolution 1948 (Resolution 27, 1948) concerning the Indian Kashmiri Muslims is another such sad example. Both the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Kashmir issues capture the peculiar zeitgeist of the late 1940s – the legacies of bloodshed left for these people by the British Colonial Rule, at the declining phase of its Empire – signifying its ‘divide and rule’ policy. The US eventually took over the domineering role over the outstanding Arab-Israeli issues to maintain its global hegemony and full control over the Middle Eastern petroleum economies – having left the Indo-Kashmir issues to its stillborn UN Resolution (27) 1948. For the US, where there is no oil, there is no intervention, whether of goodwill or force.

The al-Haram-al-Sharif (“Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound”/ “Temple Mount”) is not only for the Palestinians but for the World Muslims, consecrated as the third holiest place in Islam. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ascended to heaven from where the ‘Dome of the Rock’ now stands. It is a hub of religious sentiment for both sides (Jews & Muslims) driven by their emotional powers. The Romans had destroyed the Temple following a Jewish revolt and the site remained a wasteland for a couple of hundred years. Romans used the area as a garbage dump. However, Muslims rescued the Temple Mount in 635 C.E. (Common Era), from its abandoned and ruined state. Umar ibn Al-Khattab (R.A.) the second Caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate ordered the area cleared of rubbish and built the Al-Aqsa Mosque (in 637 C.E.). The Umayyad Caliph Abd el-Malik ibn Marwan built the shrine known as the ‘Dome of the Rock’ between 684 and 691 C.E., to protect the “holy rock”. Where were the Jewish enthusiasts of such a significant holy site then? Thus Muslims not only have a historical claim or significance over al-Haram-al Sharif (Temple Mount) but have a proprietary interest in it, even in the context of modern property law [emphasis added]. Therefore it would be difficult even for the Senior Courts of Israel to tamper with its long-established status quo since there is no legal basis to overrule the terms of the Waqf and the proprietary rights of the Muslims over the holy site. Politically, however, there is a threat, that at some point in the future, legislation could be enacted, to authorise Jews to pray in Al-Aqsa compound, as the fanatic Jewish [vandals] prayers will have the support of the Israeli armed forces and the judiciary to withstand their hostile challenges.

It is often argued by the Jews that Palestinians [Muslims] are tenants of the al-Haram-al-Sharif, but they are not. In fact, Muslims are the beneficiaries, as well as the trustees of this holy site by virtue of the Islamic Waqf (Trust) that created its unfettered status quo – assuring its use and access, as a mosque for the world Muslims [further emphasis]. Israel’s unilateral stance by use of excessive force (military muscle) to stifle the core issue is what, is politically appealing to the Israeli Likud, or other political parties; will not result in a solution other than ceaselessly aggravating the situation. The rise in provocative incursions to Al-Aqsa compound (al-Haram-al-Sharif) coincide with the Israeli extremist trend to take control over the Islamic site for the purposes of Judaization  of the Al-Aqsa compound, and turn it into a Jewish holy site. That will not bring peace for either party irrelevant of the numbers of casualties occurs on each side on every episode of violence. Any negotiation of meaning over the Al-Aqsa issues needs to be considered by both sides in tandem from the legal, political, historical and practical perspectives. The Israeli State-induced criminality of inciting religious hatred and authorised police brutality against Muslim worshippers, in and around Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, need to be stopped immediately as a matter of law.

The Hamas’ statement that their challenge is against the Zionists – ‘not against the Jews’ – is something admirable. But how far is this politically sustainable at home (Israel) and abroad, since the Zionists have established the State of Israel, and theoretically and perhaps contractually, retains the ownership and control of it with total ignorance of the orthodox Jews. Thus the Zionist regime will never be interested in a two-state solution. There is not, manifestly, much difference between the Hamas and the Zionist regime’s standing on a two-state solution as neither party is interested in pursuing this avenue. They are engaged in a game of life and death, and destructions. It is a source of political commerce; for Israel $38 billion (US) dollars aid yet to  be cashed by 2028 for its defence (under Obama promise); and for Hamas, donations from neighbouring Muslim countries in hundreds of millions of US dollars every year. Qatar has been helping the Gazans since 2007, and given $360millon financial assistance to Gaza strip in 2021. The US financial aid is now restricted to Palestinian Authority only, since Hamas, has been declared a terrorist organisation by the US, EU, and the post Brexit UK government. Nevertheless, a beckoning of US support came from Blinken to re-build Gaza for the deaths and destructions Gazans have suffered by a series of Israeli Wars on them.

The Palestinian authority – subservient to the West – came into being in 1994 pursuant to the Oslo Accords dated 13 September 1993 – after Arafat returned from his exile in Tunisia on 12 July 1994. Although Palestinian public dreamed of creating a democratic state, Arafat wanted to create a state that matched the characteristics of other [oil rich] sultanates (Kingdoms). That led the Palestinian Authority to deviate itself from its core mission, to self-indulgence. Its hedonistic unitary existence was very short-lived due to overwhelming corruption and the resulting malfunctioning of the Authority. The political unrest and divisions between Hamas and Palestinian Authority, ultimately separated Gaza and the West Bank from a single Palestinian entity – leaving its sole objective of having a Palestinian State, in vain. Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has little or no interest in resuming governance of Gaza Strip and Hamas is equally adamant not to yield to Mahmoud’s Authority.

The political dichotomy between the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is made worst by the Israel’s occupation and colonisation of the West bank; the siege of Gaza; settlers colonisation of Eastern Jerusalem; frequent assault on Al-Aqsa Mosque compound by Israeli armed forces,  certainly, is not conducive – to bring about an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The people of the West bank are given some sense of economic freedom by Israel as a sweetener to make them complacent about the overall Palestinian cause. The Hamas controlled Gazans are deprived of such freedom and their means of economic productions is adversely affected by several Wars on them by Israel. Gazans’ dependency on foreign aid and Palestinian Liberation Organisation (“PLO”) funds (largely donated by Arab-countries) is not allowing them to rise above the poverty line to have the benefit of a slightly better life or reasonably stable sustenance. The division between the pro-Western Palestinian Authority and the Iranian-linked Hamas (part of Iran’s Doctrine of Integrated Fronts – receives $70million US dollars from Iran every year) is now one of the main obstacle to settling the dispute with Israel and move towards re-establishing a State of Palestine, and re-build Palestinian nationhood.

The late PLO leader Yasser Arafat (“Arafat”) was ignorant of the fact that Israel would eventually secure its recognition as a sovereign state from most of the UN nation states. It was the Camp David Treaty signed in 1979, (‘1979 Treaty”) where Egypt recognised the State of Israel. Arafat although was against the 1979 Treaty, later on came to realise that, his unrealistic approach to politicise the non-existence of Israel will neither bring any success to his political career, nor will it be a meaningful instrument to the Palestinian cause. He therefore yielded to the US-Israeli [inordinate] pressure to recognise Israel while in exile in Tunisia. In December 1988 Arafat agreed to adhere to the UNSC Resolutions 242 (S/RES/242) and 338 (S/RES/338) recognising Israel’s right to exist, renouncing terrorism, and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel. Had the Palestinian representatives not refused to participate in the talks on Palestinian autonomy that was triggered by the 1979 Treaty, much of the existing differences over Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem could have been substantially mitigated if not completely resolved; and a Palestinian self-government might have been established then. That was a great opportunity lost for both sides (Israel & Palestine) but more so for the Palestinians. President Jimmy Carter was considerably keen to bring about a Palestinian autonomy, although he personally could not devote as much time as he did on Egypt-Israeli peace accord due to competing demands of crises particularly those in Afghanistan and Iran. But it was for Arafat to advance the Palestinian cause further while the US was ready and willing to bring about peace within the region, but he did not. Hamas is making the same mistake, and Israel too is becoming less and less inclined now to a Two-State solution since the threats to its national security from Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Libya is almost diminished. The AA 2020 (Abraham Accords 2020) will further weaken the Palestinians’ bargaining strengths in terms of a two-state solution that is already in an indeterminate state, due to fraction between Palestinian Authority and Hamas; and Israel’s reluctance to pursue it.

Israel has so far secured recognition from 163 of the 193 UN member States; their Sovereignty is now well established and the Palestinians are misled by Hamas in believing that their inflexible anti-Zionist movement (non-existence of Israel) could still be realised. Did Hamas not witness the Consequences Saddam Hussain suffered following his invasion of Kuwait’s Sovereignty? Isn’t Hamas witnessing, how the collective West is responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? It is time that Hamas should consider the best interest of the Palestinians and come to a practical solution rather than causing further loss of Palestinian lives; and save itself from being politically cornered further, as a listed terrorist organisation.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound has become a battle ground since Donald Trump’s declaration recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The Perpetual Israeli government-induced barbaric military raids inside the Mosque prevented defenceless people from performing their daily prayer; and most significantly, in the last 10 days of Ramadan, before waging War on Gaza on 10 May 2021. The same course of action has been repeated by Israel from the beginning of Ramadan in April this year (2022). It is an archetype of deliberate persecution of Muslims by Israel in the holy month of Ramadan and it is infectious. It is now adopted and practiced concurrently with Israel by its new ally India against its 209 million (2021 census) or so, indigenous Muslim populations.

Netanyahu’s repugnant scheme to impairing the opportunity of an impending two-state solution is not unbeknown to the world. He vehemently denounced in public in March 2015, any solution to that effect during his incumbency as the Prime Minister of Israel, with no heed to the (Partition) Resolution 181 of the United Nations, and the Oslo Accords 1993, on this issue. Strangely enough, even the former US President Donald Trump (“Trump”) in May 2017, in a meeting with then Israeli  President  Reuven Rivlin in Jerusalem, criticised Netanyahu for being unwilling to seek peace while Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Leader,  was “desperate for a deal”. The comment “knocked everyone off the chairs”, writes Trump’s ambassador to Israel, in a new book. Whether it was Trump’s slip of tongue or he genuinely wanted to make a valid point or was mocking, does not make much difference, since Netanyahu’s standing on this issue was, already in the global public domain. Any criticism made of Trump’s statement is therefore evidence that not only Netanyahu or the far right Israelis, but the US is not truly interested in a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. It is irrelevant that Mahmoud Abbas was [is] desperate for a deal. Instead of criticising Trump, his statement should have been welcomed, if the US was genuine about a two-state solution.

However, the madly Trumpian recognition of Jerusalem as the Israel’s Capital on 6 December 2017, marked 100 years of ongoing Zionist mission to conquer Jerusalem. It was a deliberate; slyly conduct of Donald Trump, ordering the relocation of US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, concurrently, with his declaration recognising Jerusalem, as the Israel’s Capital, in conformity with the Israel’s Basic Law (1980). Such move corresponds with the statement of Chaim Wiezmann (the first Israeli President) to Arthur Belfour (British Foreign Secretary (1917)) that “for English is London and for Jews is Jerusalem’” when he was asked about his preference for a Jewish National Home in Palestine as opposed to Uganda (originally proposed by the then British Government). That confirms that the proponents of Zionism envisioned the future occupation of Jerusalem, at the inception of their plan to establishing a permanent Jewish Home in Palestine with an expansionist view of occupying the whole of Palestine eventually. This has now been proved beyond doubt with Israel occupying nearly 80% of Palestine; and out of the remainder (20%) in West Bank & Gaza Strip they are increasing Jewish settlers by force, ousting the home owners on the streets. The judiciary and security forces are aiding and abetting the extremist settlers to the Palestinians’ detriment. This is surely out of the context of any democratic governance or humanitarian values, concepts, or ethics.

But why did Trump wanted to trigger Art. 1 – “Undivided and united Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel”; and Art.2 – “Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government, and the Supreme Court” of the Basic Law 1980?

The declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by Trump was a ransom he paid to the Evangelical Christians (‘Evangelicals’) in the US. Trump feared of losing Evangelicals’ vote in the forthcoming US Presidential election if, he did not make the declaration to that effect as had been desired by them. “Evangelical churches are flourishing across traditionally Catholic Latin America, and the Evangelists supports that, Jews should rebuilt their Biblical temple in Jerusalem, which is a key step in a series of events that will lead to second coming of Jesus Christ on earth”. Trump therefore sought to secure Latino-Americans’ vote and unhesitatingly sewed further seeds of bitter hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians for generations to come. He was an outright peace-breaker, not a peace-maker as he purported to be in his meeting with Rivlin in Jerusalem in 2017 criticising Netanyahu. Trump had keenly chosen to become a notorious participant to this bloody history that served his own (trivial) political interests and ambitions. Therefore, he has exposed both the Palestinians and the Israelis to a new frontier of everyday conflict; however so, that was hailed by Netanyahu. What could Trump have done better other than rubbing salt in the wounds of the Palestinians? Did Trump have any real interest in the Jewish cause? Clearly not, Trump himself is openly racist for his stance on African Americans, Latin Americans, Asian Americans, and Muslims. He has been criticised for praising Hitler during his visit to Germany stating that “Hitler has done a lot of good things for Germany”. That was an innuendo, humiliating the Jewish nation further, or throwing over fresh salt on the permanent injuries that Hitler caused to humanity, not just in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people.

Trump’s guile had not been unnoticed by the United Nations and the World leaders who condemned his decision to recognise Jerusalem as the Israel’s Capital. Most members of the United Nations still refuse to recognise Jerusalem as the United Capital of Israel except two little puppets of the US; Guatemala and Czech Republic, who followed Trump. The UN and its member states do not even recognise the legality of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem for political and religious reasons; and for Israel’s flagrant breach of International law.  In April 2017 Russia recognised West Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and the East Jerusalem as the Capital of future Palestinian State. The European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini said that “all governments of the EU member States were united on the issue of Jerusalem, and reaffirmed their commitment to a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its Capital”. Hostile reactions also came from Hamas calling for new Intifada (uprising) following Trump’s declaration. The Palestinian Officials said Trump’s declaration ‘disqualifies’ the US from peace talks. There were demonstrations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and in various countries around the world. By 25 December 2017 Salafi groups had fired 30 Rockets towards Israel although half of them landed in Gaza. Despite the fact, the US Embassy was officially opened in Jerusalem on 14 May 2018 coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Protests on the Gaza border were met with tear gas and sniper fire by the Israeli Defence Forces resulting in deaths of at least 58 Palestinians. As usual the killings were justified by Israel, alleging that, it was as necessary due to rocks and explosives thrown by protesters; heedless of the fact that it was towards a full-fledged, heavily armed, belligerent, Israeli Defence Force. Israeli government’s zero-tolerance against Palestinian defenceless protesters under the shadow of Washington encourages Israel to go at any length of aggression against the Palestinians.

The picture above depicts the George Floyd like inhuman and degrading treatment of a Palestinian by Israeli Security Forces who was protesting against forced eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in Sheik Jarrah, East Jerusalem. Everything Israelis do to the Palestinian resembles American model of racist brutality. No Palestinian lives matter to Israel or the West. The above picture undeniably supports the allegations made against Israel by the Amnesty International of being an Apartheid state. It is behaviour, the disciple [Israel] has adopted, from its Master [US] – the author of the Jim Crow Laws that legalised racial segregation in America. The Police officer responsible for George Floyd’s death has been sentenced to 22 years in prison, but there is no equivalence of this, in the case of Israeli police, in Israel, for their atrocities against Palestinians.

The world leaders, whether democratic or authoritarian, usually have little regard to the loss of human lives except when it comes to their own family and children. Biden, for example, still mourns the death of his first wife and children in public – not caused by aerial bombardment – but by car accident and terminal illness, respectively. Israelis still mourns the Shoah (holocaust) of European Jews in Hitler’s Germany and its occupied Europe during the Second World War. Certainly these were very painful events for any human being to encounter, suffer, witness, or overcome. Race, religion, ethnicity or nationality is irrelevant, where both natural or unnatural (State-induced) tragedy afflicts fellow human beings or the humanity at large. Yet by abuse of power, State actors escape justice for their crimes against humanity despite there being a plethora of international laws and legal instruments.

It is an irony that the Jewish people are in total loss of sight that, they were NOT subjected to racism and Shoah (holocaust) by the Muslims, but Christians. Long before the World War II holocaust, in the German Crusade of 1096 C.E. or Gzerot Tatno (in Hebrew); a series of massacre of the Jews were perpetrated by French and German Christians in, Speyer, Worms and Mainz – noted as the Hurban Shum (Destruction of Shum) and the trend continued until the World War II. Those were the worst crimes against humanity the history has noted with tears. But by the same token what the Israelis are now doing against Palestinians [Muslims] is no different than how the Jewish people were treated by the European Christians. The policies

adopted by the Israeli government(s),against the Palestinians resemble that of Hitler’s Germany.

Although Israel does not have a codified constitution such raids on religious institution or worshippers are contrary to Israel’s proclamation of secular democracy that assured freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture [for all]. Art.3 of the Basic Law (1980) discussed above protects the religious interests of all within Israel and its controlled territories such as the Jerusalem. The best aspect of Art.1(a) of the Israel’s Basic Law of 1992, as read, also intended to protect human dignity and liberty (enacted by Knesset (parliament) in 1992); Art.2 encompasses preservation of life, body and dignity; Art.3 provides protection of individual’s property; Art.4 provides protection of life, body and dignity; Art.5  provides personal liberty of persons. Therefore a best practice of those Basic Laws should bind Israeli government authorities to respect the rights of all individuals within Israel and in its controlled (Palestinian) territories. But when it concerns Palestinian interest, the Basic Law becomes ineffective by its overriding jingoistic feature under Art.8 that “there shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel enacted for a proper purpose and to the extent no greater than is required”. The question is what are the values of the State, its proper purpose, and its extent and, against whom is this Article targeted? How these undefined, open-ended criteria could be measured objectively? It could be instrumental to deny the Palestinians any right(s) that they may have under the Basic Laws of Israel even whilst they remain under Israeli controlled territories.

The application of the Basic Laws to Palestinians is often denied on grounds of Israeli disengagement (withdrawal from settlement) and lack of effective control (by the Israeli Defence Force or the Administration) of the occupied territories. However the Basic Laws incorporate elements of UDHR 1948. Thus Israel has legal responsibilities towards Palestinian [Muslim] residents of Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Jerusalem under International Humanitarian Laws, as a State. The founding instrument of this body of law is the UDHR 1948. Its Principal provisions have been enshrined over the years in six international conventions that have been adopted by the United Nations and ‘ratified’ by Israel too. As far as Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound in Jerusalem is concerned, Israel gained control (by annexation) of both parts of the city since June 1967, and retains [arbitrary] control over it; and enacted legislation (Basic Law 1980) declaring Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. And this was recognised by the Trump Administration in 2017, thus leaving no room for Israel not to be bound by Art.3 of the Basic Law (1980) which prohibits Israel’s atrocities against Muslims in and around Al- Aqsa Mosque compound along with other International laws mentioned above.

Palestinians are being pushed to their limits by Israel; their back is on the wall. Political interventions [pretence] have failed for the last 74 years to provide any solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than, promoting wars between the parties. The 1917 British government was the disingenuous author of this bloody legacy for the Arabs and Israelis. Today’s British government sidesteps the issues concerning Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians or the two-state solution when raised before the Parliament. Some of the British Ministers are not even interested to utter the words ‘State of Palestine’. The permanent conflict punctuated by periodic carnage on Palestinian [Muslims] by Israel is inscribed, in the Belfour Declaration, and enhanced by Dahiya Doctrine – targeting innocent civilians as it is true with the destruction of civilian infrastructures in Gaza.

Although more than 135 UN member States recognise Palestine as an independent State, Israel and few other nations including the US do not make this distinction. It is therefore not on the visible horizon to be realised in the near future. The Palestinian civilians need protection from Israeli massacres, regardless of political stand-off between Palestinian leaders and Israel. The US with its European partners have to come clean on this issue to a reasonable extent, in order to facilitate the two-state solution if they wanted to promote peace, security, and stability in the region.

The ongoing atrocities inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel have crossed the threshold of human endurance and requires urgent International legal interventions. There is sufficient evidence of Israel’s crime against humanity contrary to International Humanitarian Laws, for case(s) to be made out against it [Israel]. It is now time for the World Community to, rise against State-induced crimes committed against humanity around the world, and bring the perpetrators to justice. That will help deter its recurrence and will prove that, no one is above the rule of law. Israel definitely has a case to answer before the International Tribunals of Law.


Copy rights reserved.                 

Email: [email protected]

London 29 April 2022