This week’s “expert” is Fakhri Hashem Al-Sayed Ragab of Kuwait’s Al Qabas.
He writes:
Peace for the State of Israel basically contradicts its biggest goal, which is that its borders should be from the Euphrates to the Nile ..And if those that were forcibly planted in Palestine are working today vigorously and mainly to conclude peace agreements and normalize relations, then this is not for the purpose of the peoples of the region to live in peace, but rather to separate the east of the Arab world from its west in principle, and this has already happened and created a state of permanent tension, based on Western sympathy and support for them as an entity that protects their interests first.
It will also fulfill the hope of the West and other countries that the Jews of the world gather in a place far from Europe and elsewhere (specifically Palestine) in order to get rid of the arrogance and aggression that were associated with them as Jews, specifically the Zionists among them.
A major geo-political change has taken place and is rapidly developing in the interest of this entity [Israel.] As for the majority of the Arab people, we reap nothing but failures, humiliation and destructive wars. …While the Zionist state of Israel is controlling the computers of the world today, and they produce medicines for terminal diseases, researchers for them are infiltrating the borders of the countries of the world, they are serious in their quest to destroy us. As for us: it seems that we have nothing left but to raise our hands to applaud them.
This covered a lot of the Arab world’s opinion about Israel since the 1950s. But it takes a special kind of stupid to think Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are compatible with a desire to expand from to the Nile to the Euphrates.
Related Posts :
The U.S. Thinks About Space Warfare- Drop Zone: OTH Interview with Lt Gen David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
- What it Means to Be an Ally: A Vietnamese-American’s View on the US in the Vietnam War Image Credit: US Department of Defense What it Means to Be an Ally: A Vietnamese-American’s View on the US in the Vietnam War Strategic calculations can vary, but commitment to an ally must be steadfast. By Tom Le October 11, 2017 My mother was a teenager when she made her perilous journey to America as a “boat person.” Undoubtedly hiding from me many of the ugly realities of the Vietnam War, she instead loved to tell me the story of how American soldiers had given two dogs to my grandfather. He became so attached to them that after one of the dogs died protecting my mother from a snake, he used what little money he had for a proper burial. For many South Vietnamese, stories like this reveal their feelings about the war. America was a friend that, for various reasons, could not prevent Vietnam from losing its chance at true freedom. South Vietnamese mourn what could have been, but appreciate Americans for fulfilling the obligations of an ally. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s The Vietnam War has been a gift because its even-handed retelling of the war has generated renewed discussion of a turning point in world history. The reaction among academics and in the mainstream press, though, has been disheartening with scant diversity of opinion, and almost no input from Vietnamese. Typical of the response has been that of historian Andrew Bacevich, arguing that despite its strengths, The Vietnam War lacked the willingness to interpret and render moral judgments of a war that was “beyond all reason.” Bacevich contends the documentary does not go beyond the truism that the war was a great tragedy. Others argue U.S. intervention was duplicitous (Newsweek) or a crime (The Intercept).
- The nature of warfare is changing. It's time governments caught up
- The Book Mattis Reads To Be Prepared For War With North Korea
0 Response to "Kuwaiti site: “Israel doesn’t want peace; it wants to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates”"
Post a Comment