He stressed that the international climate is favorable for Jordan to use more cards of force against the Zionist entity

Amman – Raed Sbeih

Professor of International Law, Dr. Muhammad Al-Mousa confirmed in his statements to “compass“The occupation state’s resort to more extremism and fascism in violation of international norms and the violations it practices against sanctities and its custodian, represented in Jordan, is only because he feels his existential dilemma, his weakness, and his fear for his entity, which has become threatened.

Al-Mousa pointed out that the Jordanian measure to summon the Zionist ambassador in Amman and hand him a strongly worded letter of protest was the weakest of the legal measures, especially since Jordan possesses many strong legal papers to advance in light of a favorable international climate that rejects the extremist fascist government in the occupying country, stressing at the same time that That Jordan could at least freeze diplomatic relations and freeze the Wadi Araba Treaty in response to the usurper entity that does not care about or respect diplomatic representation (which we have reservations about and reject in the first place) between the two countries.

Al-Mousa clarified in shedding light on the issue through international law’s view of its events by saying: The city of Jerusalem is an occupied territory, although the entity annexed it and considers it Israeli lands and has laws such as the law of the Jewishness of the state and the annexation of all Jerusalem as its capital; However, this reality is contrary to international law. In 2004, the International Court of Justice was clear regarding the opinion on the wall, and considered Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, to be occupied lands.

Also read: An expert for “Al-Bawsala”: Consulting the “International Justice” is an important tool for dismantling the Zionist entity and delegitimizing it

He continued by saying: In the sense of the holder of sovereignty over the city, it is originally the Palestinian people because it is part of the occupied territories according to international law.

Al-Mousa added, saying: Now with regard to the holy places and entry to them, there are two issues: that an agreement was concluded between the Palestinians as the owners of sovereignty over the city with Jordan. management of those sanctuaries.

He pointed out that the second issue is that the issue of entry, regardless of whether the ambassador or someone else, is the issue of entry to religious places in principle that it should be free for all people of religions, as a Muslim has the right to enter Islamic holy places for worship, and so does a Christian.

Al-Mousa added, “Therefore, banning the ambassador violates a well-established principle in international law, which is freedom of access to religious places of those of these religions, and contradicts Palestine’s recognition of Jordan’s trusteeship and guardianship of the holy places in Jerusalem.”

He also referred to another issue related to the Wadi Araba agreement, “with our reservations about it and our absolute rejection of it,” in which there is a text that obliges the occupying state to take into account Jordan’s special role with regard to holy places, and the text in the treaty was weak, but the legal loophole in it was remedied, through the agreement that was concluded. His signature with the Palestinians, under which he approved the Jordanian guardianship and care of the holy places.

Al-Mousa indicated that the ambassador was prevented by the occupier in the city, and he is not the one who has the powers to grant permission to enter or prevent entry in the first place, adding, however, by saying: The most important point is that the ambassador did not pose any security risk, so that the occupation authority and its forces say that the danger calls for prevention, in addition to Violation of the idea of ​​care, guardianship and freedom of access to religious places.

Reservation and complete rejection of relations with the Zionist entity

And the international law expert continued his speech by saying: But all that we said previously does not mean that we do not have reservations about the existence of diplomatic exchange between Jordan and Israel, and I hope that he does not understand my legal statement that preventing the ambassador from reaching Al-Aqsa Mosque violates principles, laws and stable systems in international law, does not mean that we We defend the idea of ​​exchanging relations or defending the idea of ​​having a Jordanian ambassador in Israel. This is a separate issue, and I hope they are not mixed up.

Al-Mousa said: We reject normalization and we refuse to exchange relations with the Zionist enemy, and let me prove what I went to. Originally, the ban on the Jordanian ambassador and its violation of Jordanian care and guardianship over the holy places, this indicates that “Israel” does not care about the diplomatic exchange between us and it, and that all that It was said about the importance of diplomatic exchange and normalization that we do not see on the ground.

And he added, “But even the arguments of the opponents that defend normalization and others, we have not seen any of the benefits and positives that they are talking about.” It is an entity that does not care about an ambassador representing Jordan and its sovereignty, and does not respect the sanctity of the ambassador and his right to move.

Is the Jordanian move enough?

With regard to the issue of Jordanian procedures, the discussion here relates to the procedure when it does not respect the legal status and legal positions in its diplomatic representatives such as the ambassador. It has a wide range of procedures, and Jordan resorted to the method of protest and summoned the entity’s ambassador through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs because it is responsible for these affairs and it handed him over in protest against that.

He pointed out that Jordan used one of the legally permissible procedures. But is it the most severe, or rather the simplest procedure, wondering at the same time: Is it, from my point of view, sufficient? The Jordanian state decides that, and it saw that this is sufficient, but do we as jurists consider that sufficient? I do not think so, especially since Jordan has much greater legal action and could have taken them.

Al-Mousa stressed that Jordan possesses many legal papers that it could have taken against the Zionist enemy, explaining by saying: Not the least of which is to say “canceling the Wadi Araba agreement,” although there are legal grounds that allow this, to say stopping and freezing it.

Also read: Mansour to “Al-Bawsala”: Summoning the Zionist ambassador is not enough, and the government is required to take more forceful positions

Al-Mousa said: Because originally, when we talk about an entity that does not respect the ambassador who represents the Jordanian state and its sovereignty, and this is quite clear, and it exercises its occupation powers in an illegal way, and on the contrary, it takes measures that violate its obligations in international law towards Jordan.

He added, “I believe that when talking about sufficiency, summoning and protesting are the simplest procedures, and Jordan could have resorted to more powerful measures from a legal point of view, and international law helped it with that.”

He pointed out that “when talking about the legal part, there is no embarrassment, as we are talking about procedures that have legal principles, and not illegal procedures that Jordan can resort to, as it does not embarrass itself.”

The international climate is conducive to escalation against the occupation

He added that whoever talks about political embarrassment for Jordan if it escalates its legal measures against the occupation, this is not true. On the contrary, politically there are many Western countries, and despite our reservations, of course, about their positions and support for the entity, but many Western countries and the forces within them are not satisfied with the Israeli government. The fascism that exists in the entity, which has barely started its work and we have seen the successive measures that violate the laws that it is committing against Jordan.

Al-Mousa said: The international climate is favorable for Jordan to take legal measures that the world does not reject, but rather requires to besiege this fascist government, which will embarrass the West in the first place because it is its first supporter.

He pointed out that Jordan could “declare the Zionist ambassador persona non grata,” and Jordan would have the option of stopping diplomatic relations if it did not want to sever them, and to stop diplomatic representation by expelling the ambassador.

He added, however, that he could stop and freeze relations, at least freeze diplomatic relations with the Zionist enemy if he did not want to cut them off.

The whole scene and the fall of the justifications for normalization with the entity

Al-Mousa said: The reality has proven that all the evidence that has been said about normalization and establishing relations with the Zionist entity is incorrect and unrealistic.

He pointed out that one of the justifications and justifications that were said to justify our relations with the entity is that it becomes for us a function of the entity and thus that we serve the Palestinian state through our relationship with it, and today we are reinforced by the absence of such talk on the ground.

Al-Mousa stressed that, on the contrary, the relationship with the entity has become a burden on Jordan, and is not a way to solve problems and put pressure on it.

And he stressed that “this is a racist entity from the outset, a subjugating entity based on the expulsion of the country’s residents, not the Palestinians alone, but rather rejects any Arab presence in its confrontation, and it is a fascist colonial entity.”

Al-Mousa continued his speech by saying: I think that the racism of this entity will explode more, for one reason, which is that he began to feel his alienation in the region, and whatever was done in order to integrate it into the region, the Arab peoples reject it, and the political geography in it rejects it, and the natural geography in it rejects it.

And he added: Therefore, he resorts to more extremism and more fascism in order to defend himself, and what we see from the entity and what some talk about as a force and that “Israel is a superpower”, I think no, this is not true, because the increase in fascism in the entity is because he feels With its existential dilemma, its abnormal presence in the region, its rejection by the Arab peoples and their refusal to integrate it, and even the heroic Palestinian resistance in the West Bank and Gaza, it also constitutes an existential dilemma for the occupation.

He concluded his speech by emphasizing that “all the extreme fascist measures that the occupation takes, in fact, reflect its sense of its existential dilemma and its fear for its usurping entity.”

(compass)