Ongoing:
It's hard to say with certainty who is responsible for the truce breaking down (started on June 19, 2008) but if daily rocket fire since October is any indication, Hamas never thought it would work. The quick disintigration of the truce shows that Hamas has made a tactical decision to escalate violence to bring Israel to the table. Olmert has not bowed during the truce time frame as had been supposed by Arab negotiators based on his indictment and continues to run the government with confidence (for better or worse).
The Izzedine Al Qassam brigades have stated "that they have fired in retaliation" for an assassination of their operatives. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/24/israel.rockets/index.html). This might be true but since the rocket fire has been going on for some time now, the question is "Is this just propaganda?” Almost 100 rockets have fallen on Israel. Seems like it.
At its start, Hamas had won international claim by brokering the truce and the PA (and Israel) had to acknowledge that a government existed in Gaza (sort of). But the fact is Hamas never reigned in other militant groups (Islamic Jihad & Al Aqsa Martyers Brigades) as it had to by preventing cross-border attacks on Israel. Do they have control? Did they try or just make an arangement with the small factions by saying and not doing? Now they claim (threaten) "thousands of Israelis" are within their rocket range. So it is clear they have been rearming and preparing their forces as had been stated by Israel.
We think the beginning of the end is at hand. The world awaits an Obama administration that promises to make Middle East peace a priority. But at what price is peace worth it? Who will take the side of peace? An Arab leader of stature needs to step forward with a bold proposal. A Hudna (temporary peace) proposed by Hamas (in the guise of a 10 year truce) is a farce. Nobody in Israel believes that they will not attack after it is over in 10 years. Yes, that is a possibility and a done deal to many.
What the Palestinians need is a leader that can rally the people behind a 2 state solution, Mahmoud Abbas is not that person nor is Ismail Haniyeh. War is looming and Israel appears to be at the end of their line. Should they attack / invade Gaza? We think not. But they probably will. Martyrs on Arab television across the world is exactly what Hamas wants.
Will the Lion be the new US President Barack Obama?
Ongoing.
ref:
http://www.speedsignal.com/news/gaza-rocket-fire-follows-shooting/?referer=sphere_related_content
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
Showing posts with label Jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jihad. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 24, 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)