Opinion.
Israel has never won the propaganda war of world opinion. With recent operations in the Gaza Strip, they will continue to be looked down upon as aggressors despite actions taking place based on obvious truce violations by their sworn enemy, Hamas. We think it has never actually tried to explain itself to the global body and has walked the line of its existance alone. It has done so in the name of defending its people, culture and basic right to exist (even at 1967 borders) after coming close to planned extinction. In recent years (perhaps since Oslo accords) Israel has attempted to approach peace with its Palestinian neighbors a gun and stick. It offers compromise while standing ready to fight back attempts to exterminate it. In the slug fest of Middle East politics, it seems that both sides can see no other way. Israel has no choice. Its very existence is on the line.
Israel has never been given the green light from world opinion to defend itself. The lack of any Security Council resolutions (against Palestinians etc) alone shows this to be true. Israel feels they are alone and now, it shows again, with action in Gaza that this is true. Despite pulling out from Gaza and leaving the land entirely, it has received neither praise nor compromise. They were only met with scorn as Hamas took over from an inept PA and moved rocket installations to the new frontlines.
Hamas ended the truce by not symbolically offering the Israelis an opportunity of interaction when Israel's settlers and Army left Gaza. We realize it is more than that, but when you consider your land is not "occupied anymore" perhaps it was worth more than shouting "your enemy lost the war" and use it as a cry for recruits. It's diabolical to think that Hamas propagandists believe that the world believes this. This is to pray on the disenfranchised.
Now as they are being pounded into the ground they long for, they cry foul. Why? To claim victory? Will they stand on the bodies of their dead people and destroyed buildings like Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and claim victory? They certainly will, while their people starve.
History’s wars show victory for those that concede defeat and pick up the plough. In the eyes of Hamas, only the extermination of the Jews will do, yet they throw their women and children into the fire with no mercy in the name of Jihad. We hope they see through the violence and plague that has fallen upon them. The violence is an eye for an eye. The plague is their failed leadership. Israel has no moral obligation to restrain from defending its people despite the ferocity of their attacks.
Where are the Arab peacemakers?
Scientocracy must rise.
ref:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2808&TTL=Did_Israel_Use_%E2%80%9CDisproportionate_Force%E2%80%9D_in_Gaza?
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewBlog.aspx?ArticleId=41
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/opinion/30morris.html?ref=opinion
Showing posts with label Hudna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hudna. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
War and Peace? What is a Hudna and why it is thought to be the beginning of the end?
***(This is an ongoing post. We have no illusion that we can speak to this term anymore than anybody else. We are discussing this possibility in context of what it means to the Arabs and what they plan to "actually" do in the event Israel agrees to such a truce.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the Arabs want peace? Have they switched from a people that want Islam as a global religion with tolerance as its central meaning or have they embraced such Nazi ideology as extermination (genocide)and only plan to regroup and strike with 10 years of resources and training?
Is the 2 state solution really being discussed in context of a Hudna (temporary truce)? Or wil this be the end of the line in (or beginning) preparing for final battle? Let's discuss history of such actions. Can you make peace with enemies that are sworn to your destruction or do you just hold a truce and wait for your destiny?
Denis MacEoin of the Middle East Quarterly puts it like this ...
"However, this acquired anti-Semitism creates numerous problems for Arab anti-Zionists. Western anti-Semitism is racist; not even a Jew who had abandoned his faith or converted to Christianity was spared by Hitler's racist doctrine of the Jew as üntermensch. Whereas a Jew under Islam had the options of conversion or life as a dhimmi, a Jew in German-occupied Europe had no choice at all. Once Israel was established, Arabs became anti-Semites and called not only for the extermination of Israel but also for the annihilation of all Jews living there. This has made the possibility of a truce even more remote since it has an all-or-nothing quality similar to Hitler's "Final Solution."
and this ...
" ... Should a Muslim victory seem remote, the caliph could declare a truce in the interests of the umma. Rudolph Peters, Islamic law professor at the University of Amsterdam states, "According to some schools of law, a truce must be concluded for a specified period of time, no longer than ten years."[11] Hanafi law, however, permits the Muslims to terminate a truce arbitrarily: The "imam may denounce the armistice whenever the continuation of warfare is more favorable for the Moslems than the continuation of peace," he continues.[12] Such a truce is necessary when the Muslims are weak relative to their enemies. It can also occur when there is fitna within an Islamic state.[13] These truces serve as protection against further violence to enable Muslims to regroup and gather their strength, whereupon they can issue a fresh declaration of jihad. Such a treaty is a hudna, distinct from sulh where the non-Muslim state pays tribute to a more powerful Muslim one, or an ‘ahd, a covenant of security, in which protection for Muslims is reciprocated.[14] ..."
[11] Rudolph Peters, in Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 2, p. 371, s.v. "Jihad."
[12] Peters, Islam and Colonialism, p. 35.
[13] Ibid., p. 33.
[14] See Daniel Pipes, "British ‘Covenant of Security' with Islamists Ends," The New York Sun, July 8, 2005.
Ref:
http://www.mefta.org/page1.htm
http://conflictblotter.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042960.html
ongoing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the Arabs want peace? Have they switched from a people that want Islam as a global religion with tolerance as its central meaning or have they embraced such Nazi ideology as extermination (genocide)and only plan to regroup and strike with 10 years of resources and training?
Is the 2 state solution really being discussed in context of a Hudna (temporary truce)? Or wil this be the end of the line in (or beginning) preparing for final battle? Let's discuss history of such actions. Can you make peace with enemies that are sworn to your destruction or do you just hold a truce and wait for your destiny?
Denis MacEoin of the Middle East Quarterly puts it like this ...
"However, this acquired anti-Semitism creates numerous problems for Arab anti-Zionists. Western anti-Semitism is racist; not even a Jew who had abandoned his faith or converted to Christianity was spared by Hitler's racist doctrine of the Jew as üntermensch. Whereas a Jew under Islam had the options of conversion or life as a dhimmi, a Jew in German-occupied Europe had no choice at all. Once Israel was established, Arabs became anti-Semites and called not only for the extermination of Israel but also for the annihilation of all Jews living there. This has made the possibility of a truce even more remote since it has an all-or-nothing quality similar to Hitler's "Final Solution."
and this ...
" ... Should a Muslim victory seem remote, the caliph could declare a truce in the interests of the umma. Rudolph Peters, Islamic law professor at the University of Amsterdam states, "According to some schools of law, a truce must be concluded for a specified period of time, no longer than ten years."[11] Hanafi law, however, permits the Muslims to terminate a truce arbitrarily: The "imam may denounce the armistice whenever the continuation of warfare is more favorable for the Moslems than the continuation of peace," he continues.[12] Such a truce is necessary when the Muslims are weak relative to their enemies. It can also occur when there is fitna within an Islamic state.[13] These truces serve as protection against further violence to enable Muslims to regroup and gather their strength, whereupon they can issue a fresh declaration of jihad. Such a treaty is a hudna, distinct from sulh where the non-Muslim state pays tribute to a more powerful Muslim one, or an ‘ahd, a covenant of security, in which protection for Muslims is reciprocated.[14] ..."
[11] Rudolph Peters, in Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 2, p. 371, s.v. "Jihad."
[12] Peters, Islam and Colonialism, p. 35.
[13] Ibid., p. 33.
[14] See Daniel Pipes, "British ‘Covenant of Security' with Islamists Ends," The New York Sun, July 8, 2005.
Ref:
http://www.mefta.org/page1.htm
http://conflictblotter.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042960.html
ongoing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)