Understanding the nature of the conflict... Before we laid down arms #Mohamed_Al-Farah, I watched a program on Al Jazeera, in which there was a debate and debate between two parties: the first defended the resistance weapons, and the other was against the resistance weapons.
I was very surprised that the second party based its entire words and logic on the idea that laying down arms and transitioning to civilian governments would completely eliminate the pretexts, because after our countries transition to civilian governments, Israel will have no pretext left to attack them.
This is very strange logic in many ways.
First: it is unrealistic; Israel attacked Lebanon before Hezbollah existed, and Lebanon was a civil state at that time, and it occupied Palestine before the existence of Hamas, the Islamic Jihad movement, and the rest of the factions.
On the other hand, every settler and every rapist in the enemy entity is an armed person and trained in weapons, even women and children, and they support the militias in many places, directly or through their tools in the region.
Then, the enemy entity is further from civilization than ISIS, as it is a brutal occupying entity based on biblical religious notions, with mythical historical ambitions, and its parties acknowledge this in their internal programs and its leaders declare this publicly, including Netanyahu, when he talked about the “Greater Israel” project, which in turn will only be a station towards a broader project to control the region.
Laying down arms, in this context, does not mean peace, but rather means removing an obstacle from the path of occupation.
When you drop your weapon, you do not drop the enemy's aggression, but rather you drop the means of deterrence that prevents him from continuing.
Second: In addressing this issue from its roots, I see that we suffer from a major problem in misunderstanding the nature of the conflict with the enemy, and insufficient awareness of the nature of the enemy we face.
Many regimes or political elites deal with him as if he were an ordinary opponent whose covenants and treaties can be trusted, and this is not true.
The Noble Qur’an - the word of God who created people and is most knowledgeable of their conditions and natures, and who says: “And God knows best your enemies” [An-Nisa: 45] - has explained their characteristics, that they break covenants, and that their trait is treachery and betrayal.
Then God Almighty said: “And whenever they make a covenant, A covenant which a party of them has abandoned; nay, most of them do not believe.” [Al-Baqarah: 100], and God Almighty said: “And because they broke their covenant, We cursed them and made Their hearts are hard; they distort words from their intended meaning” [Al-Ma’idah: 13].
I was very surprised that the second party based its entire words and logic on the idea that laying down arms and transitioning to civilian governments would completely eliminate the pretexts, because after our countries transition to civilian governments, Israel will have no pretext left to attack them.
This is very strange logic in many ways.
First: it is unrealistic; Israel attacked Lebanon before Hezbollah existed, and Lebanon was a civil state at that time, and it occupied Palestine before the existence of Hamas, the Islamic Jihad movement, and the rest of the factions.
On the other hand, every settler and every rapist in the enemy entity is an armed person and trained in weapons, even women and children, and they support the militias in many places, directly or through their tools in the region.
Then, the enemy entity is further from civilization than ISIS, as it is a brutal occupying entity based on biblical religious notions, with mythical historical ambitions, and its parties acknowledge this in their internal programs and its leaders declare this publicly, including Netanyahu, when he talked about the “Greater Israel” project, which in turn will only be a station towards a broader project to control the region.
Laying down arms, in this context, does not mean peace, but rather means removing an obstacle from the path of occupation.
When you drop your weapon, you do not drop the enemy's aggression, but rather you drop the means of deterrence that prevents him from continuing.
Second: In addressing this issue from its roots, I see that we suffer from a major problem in misunderstanding the nature of the conflict with the enemy, and insufficient awareness of the nature of the enemy we face.
Many regimes or political elites deal with him as if he were an ordinary opponent whose covenants and treaties can be trusted, and this is not true.
The Noble Qur’an - the word of God who created people and is most knowledgeable of their conditions and natures, and who says: “And God knows best your enemies” [An-Nisa: 45] - has explained their characteristics, that they break covenants, and that their trait is treachery and betrayal.
Then God Almighty said: “And whenever they make a covenant, A covenant which a party of them has abandoned; nay, most of them do not believe.” [Al-Baqarah: 100], and God Almighty said: “And because they broke their covenant, We cursed them and made Their hearts are hard; they distort words from their intended meaning” [Al-Ma’idah: 13].