The Muslim Arab war cry of “right of return” tugs at the heartstrings of liberals and the media. Unfortunately, no one seems to realize that this “right of return” demanded by the Muslim Arabs is not a true right of return, nor do they want it to be applied universally. So let’s examine this whole idea of “right of return” in the harsh light of fairness and see who gets to return where.
According to the Muslim Arabs, there is no time limit on the “right of return”. I happen to agree. Anyone who was forced from their homes (forced — not voluntarily left) should be allowed to return. Also, according to the Muslim Arabs, one’s descendants inherit the right of return. I agree wholeheartedly.
Therefore, let’s examine the Muslim Arab version of “right of return” in light of the latest Arab Summit held in Tunis recently. Cagily, perhaps too cagily, the wording in the preamble of the “Tunis Declaration” seeks to lull the world into thinking that they are a bunch of peace-loving, law-abiding non-fascist, non-aggressive, non-dictatorships and non-tyrannies whose only goal is sweetness and light and not world domination and subjugation to Islam (1). And while the actual points made in the declaration push a decidedly biased agenda contrary to the preamble, the preamble itself is part of this declaration, so let’s apply it in the evenhanded manner in which they want the civilized world to believe is their goal. (In other words, let’s make them put their oil money where their mouths are.)
In the preamble, the following is declared:
“Reaffirming our attachment to the founding principles of the Arab League and the objectives of its charter, as well as the noble humanitarian values consecrated by the United Nations’ charter and all provisions of international legality.”
How blithely they toss that off. Maybe they figured that no one would look up the Arab League Charter. However, I did and learned that it is based upon an earlier agreement, from 1944, called “The Alexandria Protocol.”(2)
Now the Alexandria Protocol is a very interesting document that seems to contradict the image that the Arab League tried to project at their May 2004 pow-wow. In this Alexandria Protocol, section 5 is called “Special Resolution Concerning Palestine and states the following:
“…providing for the cessation of Jewish immigration, the preservation of Arab lands, and the achievement of independence for Palestine.” (So how come no Arabs were screaming about occupation and humiliation, and demanding their own State of Palestine prior to the 1960s, when Egypt ruled Gaza and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria?)
Notice that the date of this Alexandria Protocol, on which the Arab League is based, and upon which the 2004 Tunis Declaration cites as their basis (albeit convolutedly), comes before the UN mandate creating Israel. This means that the UN Mandate nullifies the above-quoted section, which oh-so-diplomatically called for the prevention of a State of Israel and the prevention of Jews returning to their aboriginal homeland.
One can see that the 2004 Tunis Preamble is meant to confuse because it endorses a Judenrein Middle East by reference to some long forgotten documents (in Western memories but certainly not Arab’s), and yet calls for “…humanitarian values consecrated by the United Nations’ charter and all provisions of international legality.”
So let’s look at those ‘humanitarian values’ cited in the 2004 Tunis Preamble, which reference UN mandates and international law. Since they do not specify anything in particular, I am choosing to look at the ‘UN Fact Sheet No.9 (Rev.1), The Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (3).
One does not even need to read the meat of this; the first sentence of the introduction is enough. It states “An objective…is the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people.”
And while the Arabs occupying Israeli land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria are bellowing about “occupation” and committing genocide-bombings to prove they are indigenous (despite their own statements to the contrary (4)), one of their respected own proved last year that the Jewish people are the aboriginal inhabitants. (And the Tunis Declaration of 2004 states its support of the rights of indigenous people by its endorsement of UN and international law.)
To refresh your memories, this highly respected Arab is Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of al-Zaqaziq. He made a statement in the August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly al-Ahram al-Arabi that he takes as fact the Bible’s account of the Exodus. Because of this, he proposed suing every Jew on the planet for a bajillion dollars to pay for The Exodus. The suit, he said, “…is based on what is written in the Torah. It can be found in Exodus, [Chapter] 12, verses 35 through 36(5)
This means that one of the Arab world’s leading scholars takes as fact The Hebrew Bible and is willing to present it as incontrovertible evidence in a court of law. This also means that he can be the chief witness for the Jews of today who are the descendents of the indigenous people (as proven in that incontrovertible book of historical fact — The Bible) in not merely what is now called Israel, but also Jordan, parts of Syria, Lebanon and other places.
Therefore, if the Arab League really means what it says, they should immediately evacuate all the lands stolen from the Hebrew peoples, and return and restore our holy sites, to include, in the disputed territories and Israel: the entire Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the 38,000 tombstones on the Mount of Olives removed by the Jordanians for use as paving stones and urinals, The Tomb of Joseph, The Cave of the Patriarchs, and The Tomb of Rachel (6). And while they’re at it, let them return Medina to the Jews! (7)
Notes:
(1) Tunis declaration.
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=277498&lang=e&dir=news
(2) Alexandria Protocol.
http://www.mideastweb.org/alexandria.htm
(3) UN Fact Sheet No.9 (Rev.1). The Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs9.htm
(4) “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”
Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper “Trouw” March 31, 1977 and http://www.paktoday.com/expert.htm
(5) Egyptian Jurists to Sue ‘The Jews’ for Compensation for ‘Trillions’ of Tons of Gold Allegedly Stolen During Exodus from Egypt. http://www.dangoor.com/issue76/articles/76087.htm
(6) Captured Jewish holy sites Desecrated.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_holysites.php, and
Arafat Still Preventing Jews From Visiting Their Holy Site, The Tomb Of Joseph
http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2001/20011226a.htm
(7) Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 1, pp. 308T
http://jewishinternetassociation.org/articles/goodtree_27may04a.html
