hudna « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Fourth Time's A Charm?

Killian Bundy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:56:39 +0000

The Pakistani military launched a major ground offensive Saturday in the insurgent haven of South Waziristan, starting a much-awaited fight that could define the nation’s increasingly bloody domestic struggle against Islamist extremism.

Pakistani officials said nearly 30,000 troops were deployed in the Taliban and al-Qaeda stronghold, from which militants have planned a two-week-long string of attacks against the nation’s formidable security forces.

The assaults have killed nearly 200 people and further destabilized a weak government that the United States has pressed to take a tougher stand against militancy. Now, with public alarm rising and winter snowfall approaching, Pakistani officials indicated they could wait no longer.

“There has to be consensus in the face of what is clearly now a war,” said Sherry Rehman, a ruling party lawmaker. “We have to treat this as a battle for Pakistan’s survival.”

The offensive is a gamble. Pakistani forces retreated after three previous, but far smaller, incursions into South Waziristan, an essentially ungoverned terrain of ridges and peaks that is unfamiliar to most except the tribes that live there. It is a potential vortex for the Pakistani army, which has been trained to battle archenemy India on the plains of the Punjab province, not conduct alpine counterinsurgency operations.

To succeed, experts on the insurgency said, the military will need to stunt the leadership of the feared Mehsud network of the Pakistani Taliban, which has regrouped since its chief was killed by a U.S. missile strike in August. The military will have to do that without alienating civilians in the area, they said, and before winter sets in. The operation is expected to last six to eight weeks, said Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a military spokesman.

“The stakes for both sides are enormous,” said Bruce Hoffman, a counterinsurgency expert at Georgetown University. “The attacks of the past couple weeks demonstrate that the militants are really concerned . . . and that will have increased the ardor of the Pakistani forces to succeed. But it’s also an indication of why they can’t fail — the threat is already manifest.”

Three times previously the Pakistani Army has ventured forth into South Waziristan and three times previously they have settled for “making peace” with the Taliban. The Pakistan government and people have been burned by these “truces” all three times. There is no making peace with the Talkiban, the only solution is their utter destruction.

Until the Pakistan government physically cleans out and gains sovereign control over Waziristan and the northern tribal areas, the Taliban will be free to continue to plan and carry out attacks and al Qaeda will continue to have a safe haven. For the sake of some modicum of stability in the region, let’s all hope that this fourth time’s a charm and that the Pakistani Army is finally serious about crushing the Taliban threat once and for all.

/no hudna this time, all the marbles, total war, in it to win it, it’s not over until the entire Taliban senior leadership is captured or killed, their heads displayed on pikes would be an appropriate, well deserved fate for these pirates of civilization

Dagens citat: Om innebörden av islamistisk vapenvila

sapereau — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:05:34 +0000

I den av muslimerna som helig ansedda skriften Koranen finner man följande ayah (dvs. vers i Koranen, eller “tecken från Allah”):

De, som äro otrogna, må ej tänka, att det anstånd, vi giva dem, är gagneligt för dem själva: vi giva dem blott anstånd, för att de skola tillväxa i synd. Ja, dem väntar ett nesligt straff.

(3:172 Zetterstéens övers.)

Jag är inte tillräckligt Koran-sprängd, alternativt -bombad (bara lite bombad), för att veta, om det är ur detta påstående, som islamisterna hämtar sitt tal om hudna, dvs. en vapenvila med de otrogna.

En möjlighet är att de även hämtat inspiration ur vad som hände efter slaget vid Hudayibiyya.

Hursomhelst kan en vapenvila, en hudna, enligt islamismen aldrig leda till fred med de otrogna, för de ska bekrigas till dess de underkastar sig islam eller dör. Till exempel bör Hamas’ från tid till annan återkommande tal om “vapenvila” med Israel ses i ljuset av detta faktum.

Kanske finns det någon islamist därute som – bildligt talat – är tillräckligt sprängd – eller bombad – för att upplysa oss? – De i bokstavlig mening sprängda och (självmords)bombade befinner sig tyvärr sannolikt inte längre därute, utan “därnere” och är därför inte tillgängliga för kommentar. Men ni andra?

Läs mera här om “krigets och fredens ord”.

***

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om islam, islamismen, frihet, Koranen, Hudna, vapenvila, Israel, Hamas

Lördagsnytt 2/09 från Sapere Aude!

sapereau — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:00:03 +0000

Det påstås, att den Palestinska Myndigheten (PA) efter påtryckningar har dragit tillbaka sitt stöd för Goldstone-rapporten. Men det är bara en uppskjutande manöver. För enligt JPost gäller det bara till mars nästa år. Ett klassiskt fall av hudna alltså, fast här gäller det inte krigföring mot Israel, utan lagföring …

Mohammed El Baradei, som fortfarande är chef för IAEA, tänker enligt vad som bl. a. framgår här, åka till Iran i helgen för att “utarbeta detaljerna” inför kontrollen av urananrikningsanläggningen i Qom-trakten, som avses äga rum om två veckor.

Men det lär nog inte finnas några “smoking guns” där på trakten. Snarare kulisser av den typ som Nazityskland byggde inför Röda Korsets inspektion av koncentrationslägret Theresienstadt. Här är en egenhändigt knäppt bild därifrån:

Tror du att det någonsin har kommit vatten ur kranarna? Nej, naturligtvis inte. De var bara attrapper.

Fast när nu det “internationella samfundet” sätter press på Iran att visa upp något, så måste de ju göra det, någonstans. Allt medan strävandena att utplåna Israel oförtrutet pågår på annat håll.

Nåja. USA tänker, enligt Haaretz, inte låta Iran “stall long enough to develop nuclear program”. Vad USA ska göra för att hindra Iran förblir oklart. Samtidigt sade EU:s utrikespolitiske talesman Javier Solana enligt samma länk, att “the threat of a military strike against Iran has been dropped”.

Detta verkar inte hänga ihop riktigt, tycker jag. Just när Iran misstänks utveckla militära anfallsvapen säger EU att, nej, någon militär “strike” mot Iran, det kommer inte på fråga.

20 kvinnliga fångar har släppts ur israeliska fängelser i utbyte mot en film som visar att den fångne israeliske soldaten Gilad Shalit verkar vara i ganska gott skick. Shalit skulle säkert vilja bli släppt, men enligt denna rapportering i Haaretz, så hade en del av de palestinska kvinnorna/flickorna tvärtom hellre suttit kvar i fängelset än tvingats åka hem, nämligen till slöjor och tvångsäktenskap. Här är en lista på alla deras namn och alla deras brott, oftast mordförsök.

Fler länkar: SvD, Dagen, MXp, JPost.

***

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om Palestinska Myndigheten, PA, Goldstone-rapporten, Richard Goldstone, hudna, krigföring, lagföring, Israel, Mohammed El Baradei, IAEA, Iran, Nazityskland, Theresienstadt, Röda Korset, USA, Javier Solana, EU, Gilad Shalit

Lär av talibanerna

kentekeroth — Wed, 13 May 2009 09:17:59 +0000

När Pakistan böjde sig för talibanernas krav om att införa Sharia i Swat-dalen, låta dem ta över, i utbyte mot att talibanerna lovade att inte fortsätta sin frammarch, begick de ett anmärkningsvärt misstag.

Man kan tycka att Pakistans regering, som borde vara väl insatt i muslimsk ideologi, förstod vad detta “fredsförslag” egentligen var – nämligen det som araberna benämnet “hudna“.

Hudna är inte egentlig fred, utan ett från muslimskt håll en taktisk vapenvila, vars syfte är att ge andrum för muslimerna och kan brytas när omständigheterna är lämpliga för dem att återuppta jihad. Detta var vad Pakistan fick uppleva alldeles nyligen.

Det började med en “långvarig vapenvila” från februari där Pakistans regering införde Sharia-lagar i bl a Swatdalen i utbyte mot att talibanerna upphörde med deras frammarsch och angrepp på pakistanska mål. Denna, vapenvila, som egentligen alltså var en hudna, bröts alltså snart, varpå talibanerna återupptog sin offensiv.

Pakistanska armén valde till slut att svara på den talibanska aggressionen och inledde en motoffensiv, som pågår nu.

Lärdomar som bör dras av detta exempel, och det finns många fler, är följande:

1) Eftergifter till muslimer ses som uppmuntran till att fortsätta våldsamheter, vilket inte bara talibanerna bevisat utan även på andra håll (t.ex. Hamas, Hizbollah, PLO, Fatah m fl).

2) En vapenvila med islamister är en “hudna”, dvs en taktisk fred vars syfte inte egentligen är fred, utan andrum så de kan fortsätta sin framfart. Det är bara naivt och djupt okunnigt att sluta avtal med sådana. Man ska inte tro att deras tankesätt är samma som vårt Västerländska, för det är det inte. Det är ett klassiskt misstag att överföra våra värderingar och vårt tankesätt, på människor som har en totalt motsatt ideologi.

3) Muslimernas språkbruk. Talibanernas talesman Muslim Khan anklagade enligt Daily Telegraph armén för att “sabotera freden i Swat och stoppa införandet av Guds lag”. Detta är ett klassiskt språkbruk: först startar man aggressionen, därefter anklagar man andra sidan för våldsamheterna. Precis som araberna gör gentemot Israel.

Talibanerna utgör ett tydligt exempel på hur muslimsk doktrin används idag. Denna doktrin går tillbaka till Muhammeds dagar, där Muhammed ingick en hudna med den judiska stammen i Quraysh i Mekka, den s.k. “freden i Hudaybiya”. Detta “fredsavtal” löpte på tio år, men bröts efter två år av Muhammed.

Muhammed är enligt islam felfri, varför hans liv och handlingar också är prejudicerande för muslimer. Och vi ser som sagt att principerna av denna typ av fredsfördrag, hudna, används flitigt av muslimer idag. Talibanerna i Pakistan är ett exempel; Hamas och Hizbollah två andra.

Som jag sagt tidigare; vi måste lära oss om den muslimska ideologin om vi ska kunna analysera situationen rätt. Gör vi inte detta kommer vi liksom Pakistans regering, att fortsätta vara lättmanipulerade, naiva stackare, som spelar islam rakt i händerna.

Der pragmatische Dreh

Bernd Dahlenburg — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:42:20 +0000

HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 5. Mai 2009

In einem Interview, das hauptsächlich darauf abzielte, Präsident Barack Obama eine Botschaft zu übermitteln, beschrieb Hamas-Führer Khaled Mashaal seinen “Friedensplan” gegenüber der NY Times:

Auf die von den Amerikanern angestrebte Zweistaatenlösung angesprochen, sagte er: „Wir stimmen einem Staat in den Grenzen von 1967 zu – basierend auf einer langfristigen Waffenruhe*. Das schließt Ostjerusalem mit ein, die Auflösung von Siedlungen und das Rückkehrrecht für die palästinensischen Flüchtlinge.“ Nachgefragt, was er mit „langfristig“ meine, gab er 10 Jahre an.

Das hieße, Israel wäre mit allem einverstanden, wenn es als Gegenleistung dafür lediglich 10 Jahre Ruhe bekommt. Kein Unterschied also zu 2006, als, neben anderen westlichen Nachrichtenmedien, die Times of London und AP Ismail Haniyeh pragmatisch genannt hatten und er exakt das gleiche Angebot unterbreitete.

Ich kann’s gar nicht erwarten, bis jemand behauptet, dass Mashaal “pragmatisch” ist, da er angeblich “seine Haltung mäßigt“.

ShareThis

————–
*Hinweis (bd):

Man muss exakt zwischen Waffenstillstand und Waffenruhe unterscheiden. Ein Waffenstillstand soll in der Regel zu Friedensverhandlungen führen, eine Waffenruhe bedeutet nach dem islamistischen Selbstverständnis der Hamas und Konsorten, dass sie (arab.: Hudna) im Sinne der wörtlichen Koranauslegung der Sammlung aller Kräfte dient, um später noch härter zuschlagen zu können. Eine Hudna verpflichtet zu nichts.

78%, eh. Maybe the Stats are Phoney?

elyakatz — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:59:52 +0000

BS”D So, I see the Obama Administration, complete with his own token Israeli, Rahm Emmanuel, i

racism, apartheid, and osloization

marcy/مارسي newman/نيومان — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:55:47 +0000

i’m preparing lecture notes for next week’s lecture notes for my postcolonial literature class. i’m teaching mbulelo vizikhungo mzamane’s novel the children of soweto. the novel is a moving portrait of the soweto uprising in 1976 that was led entirely by the youth. the youth were opposed to the enforcement of afrikaans as the language of instruction in south african schools. the thing that is interesting about the novel is that mzamane is one of the student leaders from that resistance movement so it is autobiographical and an historical chronicle of the events as they unfolded. it would be like of one of the youth leaders of the first intifada wrote a novel about it. because the soweto uprising was very similar to the first intifada–stone throwers against tanks and all. here is how he describes one of those instances:

Sizwe was two years older than Nomsa. He and Sandile went to school in the township. During the day they had been involved in a demonstration, together with children from other primary and secondary schools in the township. They marched through the streets, singing old liberation songs and others they had composed themselves, to protest against the enforcement of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in certain subjects throughout African schools. The students planned to converge at the township’s largest soccer stadium to voice their opposition to the scheme.

The police met them in the streets, before they could reach the stadium, and asked them through loudspeakers to disperse. They told the students that in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act, which the children had never heard about, they were breaking the law by staging a protest march without obtaining permission from the police first.

“You are here. Give us your permission then,” someone in the crowd shouted. And the chant caught on, “Give us your permission then.”

The police then used teargas to try and disperse the students. Far from scattering about in a disorganised fashion, the students soon developed a technique for containing the teargas. Armed with cloths and buckets of water requisitioned from nearby houses, they covered the canisters with wet cloths as soon as they hit the ground. In this way many of the canisters were prevented from exploding. Thus unable to break the march the police resorted to shooting. At first they aimed above the heads of the crowd, but as the students surged forward resolutely they fired at their front ranks. Some students retaliated by throwing stones at the police. In the ensuing scuffle a few people were injured, including some police and onlookers, and several children were shot dead. (53-54)

there are so many other parallels in the novel–from collaborators within the ranks of south african resistance to the media’s total distortion of why these youth were resisting in the first place. and, then, of course are the curfews, closures, arrests, and torture.

south africa, like the zionist entity, were founded on ideologies of racial or religious supremacy. it is worth recalling what ali abunimah’s brilliant book, one country: a bold proposal to end the israeli-palestinian impasse has to say about the colonization of south africa:

The origins of the Afrikaner identity date back to April 6, 1652, when the Dutch East India Company established a colony on the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa. Nelson Mandela explains that April 6 was “the day white South Africans annually commemorate[d] the founding of their country–and Africans revile[d] as the beginning of three hundred years of enslavement.” This anniversary is redolent of May 14, the day in 1948 that Israel declared independence but which Palestinians observe as al-nakba–the catastrophe–the beginning of their exile and subjugation. In the late seventeenth century, colonists arrived at the cape from the Netherlands, Germany, France, and other parts of Europe, many escaping appalling religious persecution and massacres in their home countries. In the 1830s, the Afrikaners or Boers (as these colonists eventually called themselves), chafing under British rule and in search of more land, set off to conquer the interior. These arduous journeys on foot and in covered wagons became known as the Great Treks and ended with the establishment of three independent republics. During the Boer Wars in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British crushed the Boer republics, generating enduring Afrikaner bitterness. The “Anglo-Boer War burnt itself into the collective consciousness of my people, the Afrikaners, like no other event in our history,” [F.W.] de Klerk has said. The British scorched-earth policy destroyed farms and killed livestock, and ended Boer independence. Worst of all, the British “interned our women and children in what became known as concentration camps.” (The term “concentration camp” was first used in this context.) Of the entire Afrikaner population–a few hundred thousand at the time–tens of thousands are believed to have died in the camps.

Afrikaners were determined never again to submit to foreign rule or forgo their independence and security. In 1910, the predominantly British-settled colonies of the cape and the former Boer republics int he interior formed the Union of South Africa, which excluded all indigenous African peoples, as well as Indians and other Asians, from any political power. Then, when the Afrikaner-dominated National Party won the whites-only general election in 1948, they ushered in a new era of more formalized discrimination–apartheid. As Mandela observes, the 1948 Nationalist election victory was, in the “cosmology” of Afrikaners, “like the Israelites’ journey to the Promised Land. This was the fulfillment of God’s promise, and the justification for their view that South Africa should remain a white man’s country forever.” Afrikaners compared the Great Treks to the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, and saw their republics as a “new Israel,” built on land redeemed from godless “Canaanites.” Out of the undeniable suffering and trauma of the Boer Wars, Afrikaners constructed an ideology in which they were in a state of permanent victimhood. They acted with the belief that God was on the side in a struggle for self-preservation against external forces whose sole motivation was their destruction. (136-138)

the histories and the methods of resistance in palestine and south africa have been quite similar. but the main difference between the two situations is that nelson mandela refused to sign any agreement, any document until all conditions had been met. he wasn’t stupid enough to trust the colonizing entity in south africa. he wanted to see them put their words into action, such as releasing political prisoners. and he had enough integrity to make sure the other prisoners were released before him. here in palestine the oslo accords were signed without the zionist entity ever having to give up anything. and they never have. instead, they’ve created more suffering, more oppression, and increased the apartheid conditions.

today on z net haidar eid has a really important and smart article that addresses the way that oslo has destroyed palestine on so many levels, which i quote in full below:

One of the most important outcomes of the Gaza massacre (2009) has been the unprecedented tremendous outpouring of popular support for the Palestinian cause; something the signatories of the Oslo accords (1993) must have not been happy with. The return of the pre-Oslo slogans of liberation, as opposed to independence, have, undoubtedly, created a new dilemma, not only for Oslo political elites, but also for the NGOized, Stalinist Left.

The process of “Osloization”i.e, a combination of corruption, Ngoization, and a selling-out of revolutionary principles and sloganeering, fused with the fiction of the two-prison solution, has been dealt a heavy blow in the 2006 elections. Judging from statements made, not only by PA officials, but also by the Left, and even the Hamas government, the ultimate goal of the current river of blood has become the establishment of a Palestinian state in any dimension, i.e. the two-state solution. The contradiction between the tremendous international support, the revival of the BDS campaign, the outpouring of demos against Apartheid Israel and its war crimes against the Palestinians of Gaza, and the reiteration, by most political orgs, of the two state mantra is a strong indication of the need for an alternative program that makes the De-Osloization of Palestine its first priority.

In order to understand the Oslo Accords and the extreme damage they have caused to the Palestinian cause, one needs a historical contextualization of the so called “peace process”, or rather what many critical thinkers have called the peace industry. This understanding is a necessary step towards a process of De-Osloization, a term I will get back to at a later stage.

The Oslo accord was claimed to be the first step towards self-determination and an independent state. But it is clear now, 16 years after the famous hand shake on the White House lawn, that no state in the short run will be established because of the mere fact that Oslo simply ignored the existence of the Palestinian people as a people. In other words, these accords have offered Zionism what it has always been striving for. Golda Meir’s infamous statement that there are no Palestinians is a case in point here.

And yet, to claim that ‘Oslo’ and ‘Camp David’ were great missed opportunities and ‘breakthrough’, and that the so-called ‘peace process’ was in track until the Palestinians (i.e. colonized victims) blew it is a deliberate ideological distortion of reality claimed in order to prepare Palestinians for more concessions. Real comprehensive peace was not created in Oslo and Washington; rather what was created is an American/Israeli plan to resolve the conflict after the destruction of Iraq and the collapse of the Soviet Union and their attempt to construct a “new Middle East”—to use Condoleeza Rice’s words–a Middle East characterized by imperialist-Zionist hegemony and supported by despotic regimes. The Oslo accord was born dead because it did not guarantee the minimum national and political rights of 10 million Palestinian. As long as there are refugees, cantons, detainees, blockade, settlements, ‘legal torture’ of prisoners, dispossession, assassinations and occupation, comprehensive peace cannot be achieved. It is an illusion in the minds of those who signed the Oslo accords.

These accords have led to the creation of a limited “administrative autonomy” in the Gaza Strip and some parts of the West Bank. The local population was given “the right” to form an authority that they could call “national.” Now the question is what makes the PNA (Palestinian National Authority) beyond questioning? What is the ‘legitimate’ ground upon which it was established? Very simple: The Oslo Accords. It has now become very obvious that despite the famous hand shakes on the White house lawn and in Annaplois, and the optimistic talk of the ‘New Middle East,’ these accords, in contradistinction with UN and Security Council resolutions, have not guaranteed the establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state, or the return of the refugees, nor even the demolishment of the Jewish settlements, and compensation for those Palestinians who have lost—and still losing—their homes, lands and properties; nor the release of all political prisoners, or the opening of all checkpoints, which have become daily nightmares for residents of the WB and GS; …etc. In spite of all the hand shakes, kisses, and friendly press conferences, Israel launched one of the bloodiest wars in the history of the conflict against the civilian population of Gaza, killing in 22 days more than 1400 people, including 438 children, 120 women, 95 old people, 16 medics, 5 journalists, 5 foreign women, and in which it destroyed more than 40.000 institutions and houses, leaving many families homeless. That, of course, was not mentioned as an objective of the Oslo Accords, but nothing either was mentioned in them that would prevent such bloodletting from taking place.

This is the political reality that Palestinian officials who signed the agreement do not like to be reminded of. In fact, what has been created in parts of Gaza and the West Bank is a very strange entity—an apartheid-type Bantustan endorsed by the international community. Gaza 2009, therefore, is the mirror-image of Oslo. When we bear in mind that 75-80% of Gazans are refugees, the results of 2006 elections become more comprehensible not only in its anti-colonial context, but also in socio-political terms. What Oslo has created in Gaza, and the West Bank for that matter, is literally two different worlds, both of which have been led by undemocratic institutions, many security apparatuses, a Third Worldish military court (commended by the Clinton administration), corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and nepotism—to mention but few (neo)colonial qualities.

By winning the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars, and by getting international, Arab and Palestinian recognition, Israel–as an Apartheid settler-colonial state—has hoped to move into a new stage; a stage that requires the formation of ‘new consciousness’ amongst colonized Palestinians. Herein lies the danger of Oslo; Osloization, within this neo-Zionist context, means the creation of a new paradigm through which you wash out the consciousness of your supposed enemy-the ‘Other’-and replace it with a one-dimensional mentality, through the construction of a fiction (two states for two peoples) whose end is unattainable. Even the fascist Lieberman has started singing the same song.

Put differently, to aim at creating the two-state Palestinian is to aim at creating false consciousness led by assimilated intelligentsia, some of whom have a revolutionary past record. Singing the slogans of “the two state solution,” “two states for two peoples,” “return to the 1967 borders,”–or even “a long-term Hudna” (as proposed by Hamas) — is intended to guarantee the subordination and conformity of the Palestinians, especially those with revolutionary ideas. Gone are the right of return of 6 million refugees and their compensation, and the national and cultural rights of the indigenous population of Palestine 1948.

This goal, however, never sees the antithesis it creates as a result of displacement, exploitation, and oppression; it ignores the revolutionary consciousness that has been formulated throughout the different phases of the Palestinian struggle. Nor does it take into account the legacy of civil and political resistance that has become a trademark of the Palestinian struggle. Hence the necessity of the formulation of Palestinian alternative politics. To be conscious of the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, and of the huge class gape that the Oslo Accords have created has definitely been the beginning of De-Osloization represented in the Al-Aqsa uprising and the outcome of the 2006 elections. This is an oppositional consciousness that the signatories of Oslo did not take into account. Both events represent an outright rejection of the Oslo Accords and their consequences.

The Gaza Strip, however, is seen by the PA as one of three building blocks of an independent state, although it is geographically separated from the second block, i.e. the West Bank. The third block is, Jerusalem, is under total Israeli control. None of the Palestinians in the occupied territories believe that the ‘semi-autonomous’ zones in the GS and the WB -that is, the ones that fall under category A—can lay the foundation for an independent state. What Oslo has led to is, in fact, a South Africa. When black South Africans needed to move from their townships to big ‘white’ cities, they needed to get a ‘pass’. During ‘peace time,’ Palestinians, not only those who work in Israel, but also those who wanted to visit the WB form Gaza, or vice versa, needed to apply for a ‘permit’. Beside the permit, Palestinians needed a so-called ‘magnetic card,’ which is a computer card that has a password to its holder’s security file. No one could work in Israel, or visit the WB, or even go to a hospital inside the ‘green line’ without a ‘permit’ and a ‘magnetic card’. If one was granted such invaluable cards, one was still not allowed to visit any other area except the one s/he was entitled to visit. If one was ‘caught’ at another area, one’s permit and card were confiscated immediately, not to mention the torture one was exposed to. Nowadays, no one is even given such luxurious ‘permits’ and cards. How was apartheid South Africa different?

The tribal chiefs of the South African Bantustans used to believe that they were the heads of independent states. Luckily, the ANC, despite its many compromises with the National Party, had never accepted the idea of separation and Bantustans. The official Palestinian leadership on the other hand, at the end of the millennium, boasts of having laid the foundation for a Bantustan, claiming it to be an independent state in the make. Undoubtedly, this is the ultimate prize Zionism can offer to its ‘Other’ after having denied her/his existence for a century, and after that same ‘Other’ has proved that she is human. For Zionism’s continued presence in Palestine, the ‘Other’ must be assimilated and enslaved without her/ him being conscious of her/his enslavement. Hence the granting of ‘semi-autonomous’ rule over the most crowded Palestinian cities, and hence the logic driving the Oslo Accords.

Oslo, then, brought an unprecedented level of corruption into Palestine; and security coordination with Israel, under the supervision of—irony of ironies—an American general, has become the norm. Repeating the two-state mantra, carrying the Palestinian flag, singing the national anthem and— more importantly—recognizing Israel, regardless of the rights of two thirds of the Palestinian people, are what Oslo is all about.

The lesson we learn from Gaza 2009 is to harness all effort to fight the outcome of the Oslo Accords, and to form a United Front on a platform of resistance and reforms. This cannot be achieved without dismantling the PA and realizing that ministries, premierships, and presidencies in Gaza and Ramallah are a façade not unlike the South African Independent Homelands with their tribal chiefs. The classical national program, created and adopted by the Palestinian bourgeoisie has reached its end unsuccessfully. Most political forces, including the governing party in Gaza, fail to explain how 6 million Palestinian refugees will return to the Israeli State of the Jews and an independent Palestinian state will be created at the same time.

Hence the necessity for an alternative paradigm that divorces itself from the fiction of the two-prison solution, a paradigm that takes the sacrifices of the people of Gaza as a turning point in the struggle for liberation, one that builds on the growing global anti-apartheid movement that has been given an impetus by Gaza 2009. De-Osloizing Palestine is, therefore, a precondition for the creation of peace with justice.

part of this osloizing process that eid analyzes above is the continual dispossession of palestinians from their land. in gaza it happened in a very obvious way. it was clear to those who watched al jazeera, the only international media allowed into the gaza strip. and that savagery continues with israeli terrorists bombing gaza every day, which no longer reported in the international media:

The Israeli military confirmed that it bombed smuggling tunnels in the southern Gaza Strip early on Thursday.

Witnesses in Gaza said that the bombing took place in Rafah Refugee Camp, along the border with Egypt.

The Israeli military said the strike was in response to four homemade projectiles and one mortar shell that landed in Israel. No damage or injuries resulted from those attacks.

The tunnels in southern Gaza are used to import goods made scarce by an Israeli blockade that has been imposed on Gaza since 2007.

and what seems to me to be a clear–and horrifying–indication that hamas is in the process of becoming osloized:

Gaza’s Hamas rulers issued rare criticism Thursday of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from the strip, saying now is the wrong time for such attacks.

The Islamic militant group has fired thousands of rockets at southern Israel in recent years. But Hamas said Thursday that it was not behind recent attacks and that it was investigating who was responsible.

there are no rockets coming from the west bank. and there may not be bombs falling on the west bank, but the continual ethnic cleansing in the west bank and in 1948 goes on unnoticed for the most part. there is, of course, a bit of international coverage of the ethnic cleansing in al quds, which is possibly why there is a temporary ban on the demolition order of homes in silwan:

The Israeli Central Court in Jerusalem decided to temporarily freeze a decision to demolish 35 apartments in Al Abbasiyya neighborhood in the East Jerusalem town of Silwan.

Lawyer Ziad Qi’war, representing the families, said that the order gives the Jerusalem Municipality seven days to respond to appeals filed by the residents.

There are more than 240 Palestinians living in the buildings slated to be demolished.

Qi’war added that the appeal accuses the Jerusalem Municipality of practicing racism against the Jerusalemite Palestinians, and of not providing services to the residents in this area.

The residents said that the Municipality does not want to sit with them in order to listen to their points of view.

Qi’war called on all civil, legal and political groups to unite their efforts in order to achieve a ruling that completely voids the demolishing orders.

Israel intends to demolish nearly 180 homes in Al the Arab Jerusalem neighborhoods of Al Bustan, Al Abbasiyya, Ras Khamis, and Al Tour.

of course this is when the israeli terrorist colonists send in the colonists without uniforms to go in and attack palestinians:

Palestinian sources reported on Wednesday that a group of extremist Jewish settlers attacked dozens of Palestinian homes and stores in East Jerusalem.

The settlers were marching in the city and chanting slogans against the Arabs and the Palestinians, and calling for expelling them from the Holy City.

The Israeli police did not attempt to intervene and allowed the settlers to continue their march, which encouraged them to attack Palestinian property, local sources reported.

The settlers chanted “death to Arabs” and other racists slogans while marching in Arab markets and the alleys of the Old City.

The Palestinian News Agency, WAFA, reported that the different settlers groups marched in different parts of the Old City under heavy protection and presence of the Israeli military and police.

The police closed main roads in the Old City barring the Palestinians from using them in order to allow the settlers to march.

WAFA said that dozens of extremist Jews arrived in the Old City by special buses since early morning hours of Wednesday, and held prayers at the Western Wall before marching in the alleys of Jerusalem.

They were accompanied by settlers living in East Jerusalem, especially from outposts in Sheikh Jarrah area, and several outposts in East Jerusalem.

in contradistinction, there is very little about the rest of the west bank. consider these latest developments:

in aqraba near nablus:

The Israeli Army handed miltary orders to several residents of Aqraba village, southeast of the northern West Bank City of Nablus, informing them of a decision to demolish six homes and a mosque in the village.

Local sources in the village stated that the order comes to enable the expansion of Israeli settlements surrounding the village, the Palestinian Information Center reported.

The sources added that nearly 90 percent of the village’s land is used as grazing ground, but the Israeli authorities are attempting to annex the land for settlement construction and expansion.

There are four Israeli settlements surrounding the village, all built on land annexed from the villagers. Settlers have carried out repeated attacks against the village and its inhabitants, killing four villagers over the past few years.

Recently, one resident was killed and another was wounded in a roadside bomb placed by the settlers, the Palestinian Information Center said.

Last week, Israeli Authorities handed fifteen military orders to the residents of Aqraba, informing them that Israel intends to demolish 15 homes, barns, tin-houses for sheep, and water wells located in Khirbit al-Taweel area, which belongs to the village.

in qalqilia a farmer suffered a heart attack after witnessing israeli terrorists destroying his olive trees:

Palestinian medical sources in Qalqilia, in the northern part of the West Bank, reported that a farmer suffered a heart attack two days ago after the Israeli army uprooted his olive trees in the village of Ras Tira, near Qalqilia.

The army was uprooting the trees to allow the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the area.

The farmer tried to stop the soldiers and defend his land, and suffered a heart attack while arguing with the troops and the bulldozer driver, local sources reported.

Also, the Palestinian News Agency, WAFA, reported that five human rights activists from the United states, Sweden, and Denmark were taken prisoner by the army after joining a non-violent protest against the uprooting of trees in Ras Tira, Wadi Ar-Rasha, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) reported.

Residents from the area, joined by activists, were protesting the uprooting of olive trees as the army started implementing the change of the route of the Israeli Apartheid Wall in the area.

As the trees were being cut, villagers and activists demonstrated while the troops fired tear-gas at the them and the villagers, WAFA said.

The new Wall route will lead o more destruction and uprooting of the villagers’ farmlands and orchards.

It is worth mentioning that the Wall and the Alfe Menashe settlement completely surround the villages of Ras Al Tira, Wadi Ar Rasha, and Dhaba’.

or how about in 1948 palestine?:

Bulldozers of the Israeli municipality of Beer Sheba in 1948 occupied Palestine on Thursday demolished two Palestinian houses at the pretext of lack of construction permit.

Local sources in Beer Sheba said that hundreds of policemen escorted the bulldozers during the demolition process.

They pointed out that the same force uprooted 100 olive trees.

The step was taken on the same day that cattle owners plan a demonstration in the same city to protest additional taxes and unfair distribution of grazing lands, the locals underlined.

of course, the united states doesn’t want to look at the racism inherent in the zionist entity’s apartheid regime. that is why it has chosen to boycott the world conference on racism in geneva (known as durban 2). (you see, obama does not care about discussing and ending racism any more than bush.) the main issue for boycotting the conference in 2001 was the discussion of zionism as a form of racism as well as the discussion of reparations for slavery. this time around the issue of slavery reparations seems to irk obama as does the discourse on the terrorist state of israel. but the draft document that the obama administration objects to does not talk about zionism as racism. instead, it focuses on israel as an apartheid regime. still, they refuse to attend. ramzy baroud explains:

The US conditioned its participation of the April conference in Geneva (Durban II) by removing any specific censure of Israel, and ensuring that Israel is not ‘singled out’ for criticism. Although US sensibilities constantly expect, but demand the singling out of any country, leader or group it deems rouge, war criminal, or terrorist, Israel is treated based on different standards. “A bad document became worse, and the US decided not to participate in the conference”, Israeli daily, Haaretz, reported in reference to the draft documents being finalized before the conference.

The original “bad” document apparently dubs Israel “an occupying state that carries out racist policies”, a description which is consistent with international law, UN resolutions and the views of leading world human rights defenders – Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Dugard, the former UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk,the current UN’s envoy, among many others.

The ‘bad document’ might have ‘became worse’ with new references to the Gaza bloodbath, which killed and wounded nearly 7,000 Palestinians in 22-days.

From an American – and unfortunately, Canadian and Italian, so far – viewpoint, such inhumane practices don’t warrant a pause or mere words of condemnation. The same, of course, doesn’t apply to Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran, Cuba and other ‘unfriendly’ nations. The US decision must be particularity disheartening to African nations who saw in the advent of Barack Obama some vindication. The US first black president, however, saw it fit to boycott a conference that intended to discuss the issue of slavery and repatriation, to once again prove that race alone is hardly sufficient in explaining US internal and external policies.

in response to this some people have organized a campaign to try to get obama to reconsider. while their letter is not perfect, i do think attending the conference sends the right message to the zionist entity that they cannot bully the world by threats of anti-semitism. their racist regime must not only be critiqued, but ended. here is the letter and if you click the link you can sign their petition:

January 20, 2009

Dear President Barack Obama,

As people of conscience in the United States struggling for a socially, economically and ecologically healthier world free of racism, colonialism, and militarism, we write to respectfully urge you to attend the upcoming Durban Review Conference on Racism from 20-24 April 2009.

Your election marks a historic moment in a nation founded upon the slavery and genocide of people of color. We, along with millions everywhere, are full of hope that this legacy will finally be redressed. First Nation, people of African descent, working class people, immigrants to this country, and people from colonized countries throughout the world all have suffered for far too long. We hope that your inauguration will usher a new dawn on which the US government will respond to calls to tackle historic and current injustices that stand in the way of change.

You were brought to power by an unprecedented chorus of grassroots voices, a unique gathering of activism and resources. We honor your experiences as a grassroots organizer working for change in the lives of working class people of color. Like many others who voted for you (or wanted to but couldn’t because we are not US citizens), we were inspired by your call for dialogue on foreign policy, and your opposition to the politics of torture and preemptive wars. We rejoiced in your victory – our victory – against racism and war.

Your participation in the Durban Review Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance (Geneva, Switzerland, April 2009) will reaffirm your commitment to these principles. We are aware that great pressure is being exerted on your administration to boycott the Durban Review Conference; that congress has passed a resolution in support of this boycott. Lobbyists on behalf of the State of Israel are wrong to claim that the first Durban Conference was anti-Semitic because it held Israel accountable for its racist laws and policies. Nothing could be farther from the truth: anti-Semitism today is fueled by U.S. policies that apply double standards in its relationship to Israel and allow Israel to violate international law with impunity. The failure to distinguish between criticizing Israeli government policies and anti-Semitism on the one hand, and perpetuating, the misleading image of Jews as united in support of Israel’s unconscionable violence against the Palestinian people, on the other, feeds into anti-Jewish hatred and incites anti-Semitism today.

Israel must obey international law like any other state. Israel has to end its occupation of Palestinian lands, its dismemberment of the country into Bantustans, its apartheid-like laws and policies against Arab people, and its theft of Palestinian land and resources. Only recently, the majority of the international community has raised its voice in protest as Israel waged a savage war against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The U.S. has for too long condoned Israel’s disregard for international law, settlement buildup, and bad faith negotiations. There has never been a more urgent time for the U.S. to join the international community to effect a serious change.

We stand in with the world’s majority who demand an end to the Israeli siege on Gaza and who had the courage to break ties with Israel—the leadership of Latin America, the Arab World, and Turkey; the UN General Assembly and its President, D’escoto Brockmann; Sir Gerald Kaufmann from the British House of Commons, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, and the millions of voices demanding that Israel comply with international law.

To ignore Durban is to align with those who justify Israel’s racism, human rights violations, occupation and apartheid-like policies; and to allow its siege of Gaza. A boycott of the Durban global dialogue towards a united and principled stand against racism could only send the wrong message that the U.S. is not committed t to overcoming its history of racism and the impact that history has had in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as on communities of color within the United States. A United States boycott of the Durban Review will squarely put the U.S. in opposition to the global aspirations to transform current conditions of racism and xenophobia.

US boycott of the Durban Review will precipitate a speedy disillusionment in the US and around the world with the commitment of your administration to developing policy that is qualitatively different from those of the previous administration. Ignoring the message of Durban would also undermine and alienate the organizers of the conference who are looking to the principled engagement of your administration against those whose power is based on promoting and enforcing racist divisions within their populations. We hope that your administration can show that the United States is ready to participate in international dialogue aimed at ending its legacy of colonization, slavery, racism and xenophobia. We are conscious that, because of your history and experience, you are well aware of the nature and impact of US policies in the Global South.

From amplifying the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina, through the terrorizing of immigrant communities, and to the continued destruction of indigenous lands, peoples and cultures, harmful U.S. government policies also reflect the culpability of the United States in perpetuating racism and injustice throughout the world. The lavish funding for war and the generous military and political aid to regimes that disrespect human rights have been part and parcel of a governmental outlook that is oblivious to the needs of health care, education, employment and housing.

To fulfill the hope you have inspired and which brought you to office, we urge you and your Administration to:

* Participate in the Durban Review Conference in Geneva from 20-24 of April 2009.

* Consider deeply felt and urgent demands of the Durban Review for US acknowledgment and repudiation of past racist crimes and injustices, in particular against First Nations and African people, as well as of current racist and xenophobic policies enforced by the US within and beyond its borders.

* Engage in critical dialogue on the de-institutionalization of racism within the US, and the ways in which war economy can be diverted into peace economy.

* Shift the US policies toward recognizing the legitimate concerns of participants from communities devastated by war and occupation and listen with an open mind to their demands for justice, dignity and peace.

In your speech at a Howard University Convocation in 2007, you asked the audience to:

Be strong and have courage in the face of injustice. Be strong and have courage in the face of prejudice and hatred. Be strong and have courage in the face of joblessness and helplessness and hopelessness. Be strong and have courage, in the face of our doubts and fears, in the face of skepticism, in the face of cynicism, in the face of a mighty river.

We ask you to be strong in the face of these challenges and to trust the strength of your grassroots base. We ask you to stand up against those who would keep this country and the world shackled by to policies that harm us all. Stand with us as we join hands to support you as a President of a United States that can leave behind racism, colonial oppression and war and that rejoins the world community for justice, dignity and peace.

Hudna

heplev — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:15:07 +0000

Eine Hudna ist ein vertraglich vereinbarter Waffenstillstand, der auf eine Höchstdauer von zehn Jahr

Tahdiya (Tahadiya, Tahdia)

heplev — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:56:57 +0000

Das deutsche Wikipedia definiert sie so: Eine Tahadiyah ist eine vorübergehende Einstellung kriegeri

Orsak och verkan - något Vänstern verkar ha missat

kentekeroth — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:46:08 +0000

Jag är inte förvånad. Jag hade inga som helst illusioner att araberna skulle sluta terrorisera, sluta döda, sluta anfalla israel.

Låt oss göra en sak ytterst klar;

1. Orsak
Araberna i Gaza anföll israel genom att döda en soldat och skada 3, med en bomb

2. Verkan
Israel svarade på attacken.

Det förefaller som att all logik försvinner när Israel diskuteras. Precis som inför den upptrappade konflikt som startade i december, är det återigen Hamas och araberna som ligger bakom orsaken och återigen Israel som försvarar sig själv.

Läs mer i samma ämne i dessa inlägg:
Araberna har inget intresse av att bygga en stat
Hamas krigspropaganda
Etnisk rensning ok så länge det är judar som rensas?
Om FN och bl a varför det bör läggas ner
Hudna – taktisk arabisk fred inte värt något
Färre döda civila än vad som sagts
Vad vill Hamas?
Odla jordgubbar, ansvar och fred
PLOs mål anno 1968 – utplåna judarna
Expert: Ingen armé gör mer än Israels för att skydda civila (VIDEO)

DN 1 2 3 4 5 6
SvD 1 2 3 4
Sydsvenskan 1

on war crimes in gaza

marcy/مارسي newman/نيومان — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:52:12 +0000

british visa application

so i spent the past hour helping a friend in gaza with his visa application to speak in the united kingdom. most of the questions were typical about family, employment, etc. but then i got to this page in which it asked things like have you “ever been involved in, or suspected of involvement in, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide?” the same with the following two questions about terrorism. so i have a question: does that mean that ehud barak is no longer allowed to go to the united kingdom?

because barak is a wanted man. as are his partners in crime tzipi livni, ehud olmert, you know the list. i’ve written about them regularly. i have reported their crimes daily. and i love it that the israeli terrorists are worried right now. they are trying to protect their terrorists masquerading as soldiers (and making them look even more guilty):

Israel will give legal protection to soldiers who fought in the three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has said.

“The commanders and soldiers sent to Gaza need to know that they are completely safe from different tribunals and Israel will help and protect them,” he said on Sunday.

anita rice wrote for al jazeera about the different options of trying these war criminals in an international court of law:

There are four main options open to states, groups or individuals seeking to launch legal proceedings against suspects should investigators find war crimes have been committed during the 22-day assault on the Strip, Ellis says.

All four routes are fraught with complexities, particularly in relation to the Gaza conflict.

First, individual war crime cases would ordinarily be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“The ICC simply doesn’t have jurisdiction over this conflict,” says Ellis, “because Israel has not signed up to the Rome Statute [that enshrined the ICC].”

As the ICC requires states to adopt the court’s jurisdiction, it is unable to bring any actions against non-signatories itself, unless the UN Security Council votes to refer specific cases for potential prosecution.

While that happened when ICC prosecutors accused Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan – another non-signatory state – of committing war crimes in Darfur, it is unlikely to occur in relation to the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Gaza is not formally recognised as a state by the UN and “the US, and perhaps other [security council] member states, would veto any resolution that would ask for the ICC to investigate Israel,” says Ellis.

“The ICC option is effectively closed.”

The second route would be for the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also based in The Hague, on the legality of specific actions taken by states.

However, the ICJ has no enforcement powers, as was witnessed by its inability to act following its ruling that Israel’s construction of a separation barrier breached aspects of international law.

The ICJ requested Israel rectify elements of the construction, which Tel Aviv ignored – something any state can choose to do, Ellis notes.

The third option involves states trying their own citizens or soldiers for war crimes – a requirement under the Geneva Conventions.

“That’s unlikely to happen on both sides, but that is still a responsibility of the state, body, or entity that’s responsible for, or has authority over, the individuals who have committed these crimes,” says Ellis.

Finally, Ellis points to a legal concept referred to as “universal jurisdiction”, where any state can choose to launch legal proceedings against any person, anywhere in the world, who is suspected of committing crimes such as genocide, torture, and other grave breaches of international law.

But states have already proven themselves reluctant to take responsibility for holding individuals to account for crimes committed in other countries and Ellis believes it is “highly unlikely that a third party is going to step up and bring actions against Israeli or Palestinian individuals”.

Despite this, lawyers across the globe, and particularly in the Arab world, are seeking ways to take legal action in relation to events they believe constitute war crimes.

but the evidence is mounting. now the israeli terrorists are admitting they used white phosphorous (though to be clear either way they committed war crimes. they exist in a perpetual state of committing war crimes):

After weeks of denying that it used white phosphorus in the heavily populated Gaza Strip, Israel finally admitted yesterday that the weapon was deployed in its offensive.

The army’s use of white phosphorus – which makes a distinctive shellburst of dozens of smoke trails – was reported first by The Times on January 5, when it was strenuously denied by the army. Now, in the face of mounting evidence and international outcry, Israel has been forced to backtrack on that initial denial. “Yes, phosphorus was used but not in any illegal manner,” Yigal Palmor, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told The Times. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.”

and the list of people naming these war crimes is increasing every day:

Never before in the 60-year-old history of Israel has it been the subject of such intense and vigorous condemnation for what it has been doing since coming into existence: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. While most critics point an accusing finger at its “war crimes” alone, some, like ex-judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Fouad Riad, have the courage to brush diplomatic language aside and call things by their name.

“What Israel did in Gaza is genocide,” Riad tells Al-Ahram Weekly. It “deliberately killed Palestinian children” with the aim of exterminating the population, he says.

Riad served on the ICTY in The Hague for seven years. In February 2001, Riad and others judged that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre committed in the former Yugoslavia was “genocide”. Nothing in the language of international law matches the magnitude of genocide, which is considered the “crime of crimes”. It is the most extreme consequence of racial discrimination and ethnic hatred.

i spoke with caoimhe today who is in gaza. she told me such horrible stories, one after another. many of them you will find in an amnesty international report in the near future. but there were many stories from all parts of gaza in which palestinians were holding white flags and israeli terrorists came up to them and shot them anyway. or israeli terrorists who came up to families and asked parents to choose which child they would shoot. this is NORMAL behavior. this is how israeli terrorists behave. here is a lovely video montage of some of their war crimes in gaza that shows once again how callous and evil israeli terrorists are:

and here is an al jazeera report by zeina awad documenting the situation of the homeless palestinians in gaza. people who cannot even stay in the united nations schools because schools have started again:

samera esmeir wrote in al-ahram this week a brilliant piece called “the horrors of israel’s peace.” she sums up the situation beautifully:

There are at least two lessons to be gleaned from the war on Gaza. The first is to consider how both war-making and unilateral ceasefires constitute strategies for the extension of Israel’s power over the Palestinian population in Gaza, as well as for the transformation of that population. Israel unilaterally demands peaceful co- existence with the Palestinians who must resign themselves to imprisonment, or otherwise threatens them with — and practices — the destruction of their lives. The Palestinians have two “choices” in the Israeli script: obedience or annihilation. Obedience is not an alternative to destruction, but another way that a population can be deadened within life. It entails remaking the Palestinians of Gaza into a needy recipient of humanitarian aid, thus docile and dependent. Worse, this humanitarian aid is more often denied than granted. Israel, in other words, demands that Gazans learn to live in their territorial prison for decades to come, while remaining under Israeli occupation and revealing no sign, in the form of a missile or otherwise, of their deprived existence in this world. Instead, they are commanded to remain statistics in international humanitarian agency reports, as well as stories feeding compassionate journalists. Such is the meaning of the initial Israeli and Egyptian proposals to establish a ” hudna “, or truce, (meaning no Palestinian resistance) with Hamas for 15 to 30 years. A great scenario for two states in a state of war, but far from a just one when one state is occupying the land of the other party. Hamas’s proposal for a one-year hudna was, in some sense, an attempt to avoid the equally disastrous options of obedience or annihilation.

rami posted a translation of an article by palestinian poet ‘ezzeddeen manasira in al hayat:

Once, after I returned from the International Poetry Festival in Holland in 2003, after I avoided a trap laid by the organizers to get me to share a platform with an Israeli poet, I got a phone call from the late Mahmoud Darwish from his house in Amman, asking me about the noise that had been raised in the Dutch newspapers about this matter. After telling him what had happened, I asked him: “Mahmoud, you know that I am personally opposed to dialogue with them, and I want you to answer frankly: do you believe that dialogue with them is useful for our common cause?” He answered literally: “You know that I was forced to talk to them, because of my special case. I am personally against the visit of Arab intellectuals to Israel because I am against gratuitous normalization. The outcome of dialogue with them was depressing, they are all racists and liars.”

In 2003, I told the director of the International Poetry Festival in Holland: When Nazi Germany was occupying your country, would you have agreed to share an open platform with an intellectual of the occupation? She answered: Of course not! I told her that I was ready to appear with a Jewish poet who supports my cause. She told me that she fully understood me. Those who did not understand my position were Arab poets who did not tell the truth when they came back to their newspapers. This is when I sadly realized that many Arab poets understood the condition of the Palestinians, but that they felt it was in their interest to show that they did not, in order not to lose the invitations to the European festivals.

And here I say: What was before the massacre does not resemble what is after the massacre. No Arab intellectual can visit (Israel) with a with a political or intellectual cover by the Palestinians, because the “democratic oasis” in the Middle East has proven to be a lie and a fake, and because Occupation is the opposite of Democracy, and because there cannot be any dialogue with Israeli intellectuals because they are against true modernity.”

manasira is eloquent. is brilliant. normalization = death.

Studying the Islamic Way of War

frankherles — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:05:35 +0000

To know an enemy, one must first acknowledge his existence. By Raymond Ibrahim * At the inaugural co

Estudando os caminhos das guerras islâmicas

frankherles — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:17:04 +0000

Por Raymond Ibrahim * Na conferência inaugural da Associação para Estudos do Oriente Médio e África

Hudna - taktisk arabisk fred inte värt något

kentekeroth — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:34:01 +0000

Araberna, denna gången Hamas, har nu gått med på en “vapenvila”. Som vanligt när araber i krig de själva startat blir alltför pressade, böner och ber de till slut om denna “hudna”, vilket är en gammal beprövad muslimsk/arabisk taktik.

Marie Helene Boccara skrev ett bra inlägg om “hudna” och jag ska spinna vidare lite.

Hudna är ett arabisk begrepp för vapenvila, som användes av deras “felfria” profet Muhammed med Quraish-stammen i Mecka. Detta refereras även som “freden i hudaybiyya“.

När Muhammed och hans krigare hamnade i ett militärt dödläge vid Hudaybiyya, inkörsporten till Mecka, försökte de intala Quraish-stammen att de bara var där för att be. Denna förfrågan förkastades av Quraish-stammen, av rädsla för att ge efter för den muslimska militärmakten. Dessutom befarade man att Muhammed ville erövra Mecka, vilket han också gjorde, åtta år innan “fredsavtalet” gick ut.

Muhammed hade ett intresse av att sluta detta avtal med Mecka för att undvika risken för ett tvåfrontskrig (mot judarna i Khaybar och Quraish i Mecka). Han kände sig därför tvungen att göra eftergifter i.o.m. “freden i hudaybiyya” för att inte Medina skulle hamna i farozonen.

Han ville därmed först säkra flanken mot Mecka innan han attackerade judarna i Khaybar. Efter att Khaybar var eliminerat kunde han tåga mot Mecka. Det var också vad som hände; han anföll Khaybar, delvis som kompensation för eftergifterna som han och muslimerna gjort vid hudaybiyya-freden (fredsfördraget som vissa muslimer dessutom motsatte sig). Resultatet av anfallet på Khaybar var att judarna där massakrerades, deras ögodelar togs och många av dem förslavades. Sedan, år 630, intog Muhammed Mecka, 8 år före vapenvilen gick ut.

Erövringen av Mecka helgades som “al Fath”, vilket betyder “öppnandet” (dvs, öppnandet till dess erövrare). Alla erövringar därefter kom att kallas “al Futuh”, vilket är plural av “al fath”.

Konceptet av “hudaybiyya” är inte bara någon gammal doktrin utan används idag som referens för muslimer och araber. T.ex. jämförde Arafat, i en moské i Sydafrika sex månader efter Oslo-avtalet, Oslo-överenskommelsen med hudaybiyya-freden. Detta fångades på band av en journalist och resulterade i stor uppståndelse i Israel, som med rätta ansåg sig lurade av Oslo-avtalet. Och Anwar Sadat, egyptens president 1970-1981, behöbde också legitimera sitt fredsavtal med Israel 1979, genom muftin Al-Azhar, som också drog hudaybiyya-parallellen. Även den saudiska muftien drog hudaybiyya-parallellen i relation till Oslo-avtalet.

Muslimsk tradition säger att Muhammed var den mest fullkomliga människan som inte kunde göra något fel. Därmed blev hans handlade prejudicerande för muslimer – ett exempel att följa.

Hamas, PLO, Fatah, Hezbollah, och omliggande arabländer har använt och använder sig av denna “taktiska fred” i syfte att få andrum för att bygga upp och vänta på bättre tillfälle. Det har hänt i varje situation där araberna anfallit Israel. Så fort de hamnat på defensiven, blivit tillbakaslagna, har de börjat snyfta till FN om att Israel ska sluta försvara sig själv. Det hände senast i Libanon 2006, och nu med Hamas senaste aggression mot Israel.

Men det handlar inte om en varaktig vapenvila/fred. Det handlar inte om påstådd “ockupation“. Det handlar om:

Efter de tre veckor som nu har förflutit i Gazakonflikten börjar Hamas bli hårt åtgånget och dess säkerhetsapparat uppges vara svårt åtgången. Hamas har förstås ett intresse av att få lite lugn och ro ett tag, att skapa en tahdiah eller détante, för att omgruppera och fylla på vapenlagren.

Men att sluta en hudna med Hamas på sådana premisser, dvs när dess syfte är att sedermera kunna återkomma starkare och farligare, vore dumdristigt och oansvarigt. En vapenvila måste ingås med avsikten att skapa ett momentum för att åstadkomma en varaktig fred, men med en islamistisk och terroristisk régim vars långsiktiga mål och syfte är att utplåna den judiska staten med alla tillgängliga medel är farligt – inte bara för Israel utan för hela regionen.
…
Det tål därför att påminnas om vad Hamas mål och medel egentligen är, och att dessa inte har ett dyft att göra med israelisk “ockupation”. Istället baserar sig Hamas idéer på ren antisemitism som i sin tur har sin grund i den destruktiva islamismen..[]

Jag hoppas därför att Israel slutför operationen när de nu väl kommit så långt i sin aktion mot Hamas. Därför hoppas jag att Israel inte återigen går på det arabiska snacket om “vapenvila”, deras “hudna”, som endast syftar till att ge araberna andrum, så att de snart återigen kan attackera den judiska staten, i sina evigt förekommande försök att utplåna denna.

—————————————

DN, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
SvD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
Sydsvenskan 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
VG 2 3 4 5 6
Dagbladet 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dagen 2 3
svt 1
Sydsvenskan 7, 8

Fire!!!

dajjal — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:22:02 +0000

Stand up and fight

Israel must learn to stand up for herself and tell the objectors to go to Hell. There is no national dignity in crawling to France on bended knee begging the President for ‘time’.

Time is one thing we all have in common, 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day. Time can not be begged, borrowed, bought nor extended. Will you use your time wisely before you die and must answer for it, or will you quiver in fear of ‘world opinion’?

Israel does not have much time. Her demise has been a dream in the minds of Muslims since her rebirth in ‘48. Now Iran is on the verge of building an atomic bomb capable of destroying her. Israel must choose: extermination or opprobrium. Israel must demonstrate that she possesses ability, will & resolve to exterminate her enemies before they exterminate her. I am not sure she has those qualities, and her enemies are convinced that she lacks them.

Proxies of Iran

Hamas & Hezbollah are proxies for Iran. In this writer’s opinion, Iran has sent Hamas to soften up Israel, using up vast quantities of ordinance. This will set the stage for Hezbollah to launch salvos of missiles, drawing Israel into a second front.

When Israel goes into Lebanon to stop the missile launches, Hamas will use their reserve arsenal to resume and increase their attacks. Then Syria will chime in to further wear down Israel for Iran’s final push.

Israel needs to tell the U.N., E.U., N.G.O.s, regional organizations, heads of state and international news & opinion media to sit down and shut up. This affair is none of their business. It is Israel’s business; a matter of her survival.

No Hudna!

There must be no cease fire. Islam does not cease fire until it obtains victory. It only slows the rate of fire while it rearms and regroups. Pull your head from your anal orifice, wipe the drek from your eyes and learn something useful from Allah’s unholy book.

47:35. So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

47:36. The life of this world is but play and pastime, but if you believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), and fear Allah, and avoid evil, He will grant you your wages, and will not ask you your wealth.

Islam will only seek Hudna when they perceive that they are too weak to achieve victory. They don’t give a damn about being killed, they worry about failing Allah by not following his command to the letter; they fear being cast into Hellfire for shirking Jihad.

No Monitors

There must be no ‘peace keepers’; no ‘international monitors’. You can not keep anything that does not exist. While there is Islam there is no peace. You ain’t got it; you can’t keep it! What good have the monitors done in Lebanon? They disarmed seven missiles. Big deal! They allowed Hezbollah to re-arm right under their noses. The U.N. is part of the problem, not part of the solution; it does not act in good faith. Such personnel in the area can only serve as shields for Hamas to hide behind as they launch their rockets; they’ll serve no other purpose.

Total Victory

Israel must totally destroy all of the Hamas infrastructure & armament, leaving no reserve or residue. All of their supply tunnels, missile factories, explosives laboratories, ammunition dumps and underground bunkers must be found and destroyed.

No Human Shields

Hamas launches missiles from residential areas and school yards. They store missiles and bombs in apartment buildings and Mosques. All such places must be leveled; reduced to rubble. There must be no sanctuaries. They use human shields; they must learn that no shield is effective against righteous indignation. Let them scream & caterwaul. Let them mourn. Let the whole world see that it is all for show. People who teach their children that martyrdom is their highest aspiration; who dress them in bomb vests and send them to blow up Jews have no grounds for complaint when the Jews retaliate. Human shields must not be allowed to deter retaliation!

Collateral Damage

Civilians get maimed & killed. So what? Hamas and other Muslims deliberately maximize civilian casualties; it is part of their strategy of casting terror. Let them taste their own medicine. Israel seeks to minimize collateral damage. Let her wise up and send her enemies to Allah’s waiting claws in the fire pit.

Its War, Idiot!

This is war, not a congeniality contest in a beauty pageant. Islam seeks to reconquer Israel; to slaughter her citizens and render the world Judenrein. Islam can’t quit. They have a demonic mandate to conquer the entire world and rid it of Jews. They can not obtain their promised Houris, rivers of wine and low hanging fruit until they hunt down and kill the last Jew.

Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

No Peace Partner

There are no moderate Muslims to negotiate with because there is no moderate Islam. Islam is immoderate; it is extreme in its original substance. Muslims sell their souls to Allah; they fight in his cause, kill and are killed in return for admission to the gardens after they die.

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Allah’s Orders

Get a clue!! Read Allah’s damn book and see for yourself what he commands Muslims to do.

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

That is the Hilali & Khan translation. Need more clarity? Try Rodwell’s translation of Al-Taubah 29.

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

Is there some part of that you don’t comprehend? Then read Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir of that ayeh: The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah.

Allah Promised

Allah made promises; by withstanding 60 years of Islamic aggression, Israel proves Allah’s promises to be null and void; proves Allah to be an impotent idol. No Muslim can tolerate that. For this reason, there will be no peace until Islam is extinct.

2:137. So if they believe in the like of that which you believe, then they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.

8:66. Now Allah has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allah. And Allah is with As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).

13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allah judges, there is none to put back His Judgment and He is Swift at reckoning.

40:51. Verily, We will indeed make victorious Our Messengers and those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism) in this world’s life and on the Day when the witnesses will stand forth, (i.e. Day of Resurrection),

Allah promised, he has not delivered.

Common Sense

There is only one way to stop a determined, persistent predator. Islam has persisted in aggression for nearly 1400 years. Let that aggression come to an end, permanently.

No Appeasement

Islam’s Jihad, genocide & terror will not be ended by concessions, good will gestures, negotiation or appeasement. They will be ended by making Islam extinct. Israel will have neither peace nor security until there are no Muslims within rocket range. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

Wisdom That Must Be Shared

dajjal — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:48:24 +0000

Israel National News carried one of the best articles I have read in recent months. Victor Sharpe gets it.

Humiliation is Thy Name
by Victor Sharpe
Humiliation gives way to annihilation.

The farce that was the truce between Hamas and Israel was always a lie. The three politicians, whom the Israeli people endure, bought into a deceptive Arab ploy that any schoolchild could see for what it was.

How many times must it be restated that no Muslim entity, especially Hamas, will ever honor any agreement made with non-Muslims. It is in the Koran for all to see, except, of course, those who lead Israel and choose not to see. Again, the Jewish state is humiliated.

Did he read “Victory: the Path to Peace” or “Another Call to Feed Israel to the Alligators“, or did he, as I presume, reach his conclusion independently? In either case, Victor Sharpe’s clearly expressed wisdom should be widely shared.

Dagens citat - del 5 (081218)

Red. — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:13:11 +0000

Israels tillbakadragande från Gazaremsan var ämnet för Dagens citat i förrgår, och två dagar tidigare uppmärksammade vi en löjeväckande mening från Sveriges Radio:

Tidigare har Israel sagt sig vara redo att förlänga vapenvilan i Gazaremsan under förutsättning att de militanta attackerna mot Israel upphör.

Även SvDs ledarblogg ställer idag frågan – Vilken vapenvila?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad och Mahmoud Zahar kramas

I maj 2003 intervjuade BBC Hamas talesman Mahmoud Zahar. Här ger Zahar sin syn på “vapenvila” (=hudna):

Question: You [Hamas] say that if Israel withdraws, then the resistance will stop. [You say:] ‘We are calling for just one condition: An end to the occupation and the Palestinian suffering.’ Then you would renounce violence totally, is that what you’re telling me – for now and forever?
Zahar: [no], without conditions. We are not the Palestinian Authority that we can give things without discussing them, without agreement…

Q. I’m asking you -
Z. Just one thing [we will give] – a ceasefire. A ceasefire is justified in our religion. Our attitude is that [Palestine] is not a political issue -

Q. Dr. Zahar, I asked you a very simple question: If Israel accepts your conditions – the elimination of the occupation – will you renounce violence, yes or no?
Z. We are going to ceasefire – only ceasefire.

Q. Yes or no to that condition? Yes, or no?
Z. I, I, I, I answered you. It’s not the way to say yes or no. We are not going to –

Q. So how can Israel trust your assurances ever? You can’t even give a straight answer to a straight question. How can they trust your answers?
Z. The question is – just a moment. If Israel withdraws from our land, and says that they will not re-attack and reoccupy our country – that’s a big if – they are not going to do that, because they did that before: They occupied our country in ‘48, occupied our areas in ‘56, and in ‘67, and Lebanon in ‘82 – so the history…

Q. You know what you’re telling me? That under no circumstances will you give up violence until you’ve pushed Israel into the sea. That’s what you want, isn’t it?
Z. Who is saying that?

Q. You’re saying that.
Z. I’m telling you frankly, the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area.

Q. So until Israel ceases to exist, you won’t lay down your arms. Is that right?
Z. First of all, we are a part of the independent Islamist – this is the attitude of thousands and millions of people…

Q. Why do you keep on with this attitude? You are seen… by many people in the world as a bunch of ruthless killers, fanatics, terrorists. Are you happy with that picture?
Z. We’re not happy – [but] these people are seeing Islam as an enemy, as a terrorist, but this is a historical mistake. Because Islam is a supreme power in this area, sooner or later we are going to achieve our power, our moral principles, our virtue, in order to implement a real state.

SvD Sydsvenskan Barometern Dagbladet Dagen DN HD Kristianstadsbladet Politiken SmP TrA YstA Sapere Aude! Al Hamatzav MXp

Com um trator?

Gabriel Toueg — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:17:07 +0000

Pois é. O terrorismo está ficando criativo… Hoje de manhã um sujeito dirigiu um trator de gran

Tregua di Hamas solo per chi ci crede

Focus on Israel — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:10:29 +0000

Edizione 124 del 19-06-2008

La “hudna” di Gaza non è pace, ma serve ai terroristi per riorganizzarsi

Tregua di Hamas solo per chi ci crede

di Dimitri Buffa

Bisogna conoscere il significato coranico della parola araba “hudna”, tregua, prima di iniziare a fare salti di gioia per questo flebile accordo tra Hamas e le forze armate israeliane, raggiunto ieri dopo le solite trattative sotterranee (che hanno coinvolto l’interessatissimo Egitto) a cui Ehud Olmert sta abituando i suoi concittadini. Ebbene la “hudna” è proprio quell’armistizio inventato da Maometto, su di Lui sia la pace, per tenere buoni i propri avversari coreishiti quando i rapporti di forza consigliavano una prudente ritirata. Ma quando i rapporti di forza diventarono di nuovo favorevoli a Maometto e ai suoi seguaci dell’epoca, la “hudna” non contò più niente e gli accordi poterono essere violati dall’oggi al domani senza alcun preavviso. E’ questo quanto conviene oggi allo Stato di Israele? La risposta a una simile retorica domanda è più che scontata: no e poi no.

La “hudna” di Hamas serve solo ad evitare ai terroristi, latitanti in Siria e in Libano, nuove uccisioni mirate dei loro capi e a tirarla per le lunghe con il povero caporale Shalit, ormai da due anni nelle mani di quegli assassini. E magari serve un po’ anche a Olmert per fare dimenticare gli scandali che lo riguardano e che presto ne determineranno la caduta. Ma, malgrado l’annuncio formale della tregua tra Israele e Hamas, che entrerà in vigore dalle sei di stamattina, ieri sono continuati gli attacchi dalla Striscia di Gaza. Due razzi Qassam sono stati lanciati contro il Negev occidentale e guerriglieri palestinesi hanno aperto il fuoco contro operai della compagnia di telecomunicazioni Bezeq che stavano lavorando presso la barriera difensiva, vicino al valico di Karni. Non ci sono stati feriti e i danni alle proprietà sono stati lievi. Ma questo non è di certo dipeso dalla buona volontà dei terroristi. E, con buona pace del ministro Frattini, che ieri diceva che questa “hudna” è una buona base per la ripartenza del dialogo tra israeliani e palestinesi, la “vera verità” è che i servizi di sicurezza delle Forze di Difesa israeliane si aspettano anche un “botto finale” prima della cessazione ufficiale delle ostilità. Insomma proprio una bella prospettiva in cui a gioire sono i soliti “cheer leaders” europei che non provano disagio a finanziare né Hamas, né i guerriglieri di mezzo mondo.

Il tutto in nome delle loro trite ideologie terzomondiste farcite di pseudo lotte di liberazione. Se veramente gli uomini di Hamas volessero smentire le tesi dell’assunto fin qui riportato non avrebbero che da compiere un semplice gesto di clemenza umanitaria: rilasciare il povero caporale Gilad Shalit, che oltretutto sta anche molto male. Così come lui stesso ha scritto la scorsa settimana in una toccante lettera indirizzata ai propri genitori e fatta poi filtrare alla stampa da questi ultimi. Ma, come già ai tempi di Maometto, Hamas si ferma quando il nemico ha il fiato sul collo. Poi quando la situazione sarà di nuovo stabilizzata in modo favorevole per i terroristi, lo stillicidio di razzi su Ashkelon, il Negev e Sderot continuerà come prima. Più di prima, se possibile.
Opinione.it

Truce or Hudna?

lilo97423 — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:30:40 +0000

Thursday morning I read that at 6 am, when the sun was barely peeking over the horizon, Israel and Hamas entered into another uneasy truce.

The ceasefire is supposed to be absolute, binding both the IDF and all terrorist groups in Gaza. If the truce lasts after several days, Israel agreed to reopen the Karni and Sufa goods crossings, allowing large quantities of food, fuel, building materials and other goods into the strip, in order to facilitate its economy. Once the Karni and Sufa crossings open – and prior to the reopening of the Rafah crossing – the negotiations to release kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit are to be accelerated.

Amos Gilad, Head of the Defense Ministry’s Security-Diplomatic Bureau, said yesterday that “unless Gilad Shalit is released, the Rafah crossing will not be reopened” and; “I think the ceasefire is the only way we can hope to be able to facilitate Shalit’s release.”

To a Western audience, the word “truce” suggests a Hamas commitment to a peaceful resolution. In Arabic such a truce is referred to as “hudna.”

Hudna (هدنة) is an arabic term coming from a verbal root meaning “calm”. It is sometimes translated as “cease-fire“. In the Lisan al-Arab (Ibn al-Manzur’s definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, dating to the 14th century) it is defined as follows: “hadana: he grew quiet. hadina: he quieted (transitive or intransitive). haadana: he made peace with. The noun from each of these is hudna.”

“Shu’ada hudna?” (What is a hudna?) Sayed Ahmed Youssef, adviser to Palestinian Hamas PM Haniyeh, explained the meaning of “hudna” to us ignorant foreigners in the August pages of 2006 in the New York Times: “A truce is referred to in Arabic as a ‘hudna.’ Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract.” – Americans should thank the New York Times for this bit of enlightenment. As we know, the US lacks Arab speakers, and this maybe the reason why the media nearly everywhere translates the term into English as “truce”.

Will a hudna with Hamas really mark a “major breakthrough” toward a nonviolent future?

The answer lies in the historical meaning of the Muslim expression, Hamas’ track record, and the terms of the road map itself. Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history.

It began with Islam’s most revered founder, Muhammad. He declared a 10-year “hudna” with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the 7^th century. Two years into the hudna, Muhammad had acquired enough troops and arms to abrogate the hudna and conquer Mecca, the holiest city in Islam – decimating the Quraysh in the process.

This became known as the “Quraysh Model,” which defines the meaning of a hudna. When you are militarily at a disadvantage, declare a “hudna” until you are militarily strong enough to discard it and win the war. This is a Muslim tactic that has been used over and over again throughout history with devastating success. According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi’i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: “if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud” (‘Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

The “Quraysh-hudna” tactic is something that fits perfectly into the plans of terrorists who have already sworn they will never make a permanent peace with Israel.

Once Palestinians have a state, they can bring all manner of weapons and trained militants into the heart of Israel. Israel will be forced into indefensible borders and have only one ultimate military option – nuclear weapons.

The “hudna” that Muslims make with non-Muslims can never be more than temporary, and is entered into only because the Muslim side feels it is too weak to conduct open warfare, and would benefit from a respite from open hostilities. If the hudna is undertaken in order to give the Muslims time to gather their strength, then the Muslim side is then not merely allowed, but required, whenever it feels strong enough, to re-engage in open hostilities.

The idea of a permanent peace between Israel and Palestine is a “pipe dream.” It is a self-deception for those who ignore the history of the Quraysh-Hudna Muslim tactic. To the followers of the Quran, this is just a tactical interlude in a long-term strategy for the ultimate annihilation of the state of Israel and the return of what they view as sacred Muslim soil to its rightful owner – Allah.

In the case of land previously conquered by Muslims, now under the control of “infidels,” there is no time limit for the obligation of true Muslims to take it back for Allah. It never means a permanent peace. It is only a tactical interlude in which Muslims rearm for a successful jihad.

Hamas has proven time and again their commitment to a tactical hudna —

replenishing their strength during the quiet periods, then returning with increased deadliness. – As documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to no less than ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every single one returned freshly armed for terror. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have paid for these hudnas with their lives.

So beware of the limited cease-fire, called “hudna!”

Waffenstillstand am Gazastreifen

heplev — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:34:30 +0000

Die israelische Regierung hat einem von Ägypten vermittelten Waffenstillstand mit der Hamas zugestim

Al Jazeera Interview with Khalid Mashaal

Konservo — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:50:55 +0000

The video seems to be malfunctioning on the MEMRI TV site. However, the audio is working and the tra

That's What I Thought

Konservo — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:40:57 +0000

I know the international Left, Carterists, and HAMAS-terrorist sympathizers are waving around the du