| ... more
When a 'Ceasefire' is Not a Ceasefire
Summary ... While making a truce with Hamas may seem like a good idea, the problem lies with what Hamas & Islam consider a 'truce'. Understanding the real meaning of the terms hudna, tahadia, and hudaybiyyah will allow better insight to what's involved with making a truce with Islamic terrorists.
In the current conflagration between Israel and Gaza, news agencies mistakenly report that a "ceasefire" is being discussed with Hamas.
In the imagination of the media, such a "ceasefire" might result in the kind of armistice that ended hostilities in World War I, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the eleventh month on Nov. 11 1918, paving the way to the Versailles peace treaty and the genesis of the League of Nations.
However, the three Arabic nuanced terms being discussed with Hamas as a resolution to the current situation have nothing to do with a "ceasefire":
Those terms are Hudna, Tahadia and Hudaybiyyah. All three terms imply continued war, after a respite.
Hudna: a tactical pause intended only for rearmament, a temporary respite in the war between Islamic forces and non-Islamic forces.
The authoritative Islamic Encyclopedia (London, 1922) defines hudna as a "temporary treaty" which can be approved or abrogated by Islamic religious leaders, depending on whether or not it serves the interests of Islam; a hudna cannot last for more than 10 years.
Tahadia: a temporary halt in hostile activity which can be violated at any time.
Hudaybiyyah: An understanding that there will be no fighting for 10 years named for the "treaty of Hudaybiyyah " in 628 AD.
The Islamic Encyclopedia mentions the Hudaybia treaty as an "ultimate hudna."
The late PLO leader Yasser Arafat often referred to "a hudna" in his speeches when he defined and described the nature of the Oslo Accords.
Mohammad made a hudna with a tribe of Jews back then to give him time to grow his forces, then broke the treaty and wiped them out. Although this treaty was violated within three years from the time that it was concluded, most jurists concur that the maximum period of peace with the enemy should not exceed ten years, since it was originally agreed that the Hudaybia treaty should last ten years."
Hudna, Tahadia, and Hudaybiyyah — the only options on the table with Hamas — do not compare to the "mu'ahada" treaty of peace that Egypt signed with Israel in 1979, or the mu'ahada treaty of peace that Jordan signed with Israel in 1994.
How many people remember that three hudnas already occurred with Gaza?
How many people remember what occurred during those 'hudnas'?
Well, the people in Sderot and the Negev region of Israel remember.
Let us refresh our memories.
From November 26, 2006, until May 15, 2007, a Hudna between Hamas and Israel went on for almost six months. One cannot ignore the statement made by Hamas five days before the hudna went into effect: "Hamas's military wing will stop the rocket fire when residents evacuate the city of Sderot." (from November 21, 2006)
During that hudna, Gazans launched 315 missiles targeted at Sderot and the western Negev, according to an IDF spokesman.
And there was another hudna with Gaza which lasted until the end of December 2008, which witnessed 878 attacks fired from Gaza.
And there was a hudna from the end of Operation Cast Lead on January 18, 2009, to the first day of Operation Pillar of Defense on November 12, 2012.
During that period, approximately 2,000 rockets and missiles were fired from Gaza, sending one million Israelis running to shelters
And from the end of operation 'Pillar of Defense', through June 30th 2014, 300 aerial attacks were launched from Gaza towards southern Israel- during yet another tenuous Hudna.
What country would tolerate one missile fired into its territory — and agree to a Hudna, Tahadia, and Hudaybiyyah that promises yet more aerial attacks?
[ Published: July 6, 2015 / Original: July 16, 2014 ]
The tragedy of the pro-'Palestinian' movement is its attachment to a single narrative: "Look at how wretched the lives of the 'Palestinian' people are," they tell us, "It is because of Israeli oppression." Because this narrative must be constantly reinforced, there is little room for real reporting about the failures of the 'Palestinian' leadership and the corruption and infighting that have caused the 'West Bank' [i.e., Judea & Samaria] and Gaza to languish.
The Arab leadership is attempting to portray the current Intifada as a kind of popular, spontaneous struggle that expresses the population's despair over the political situation. In reality, it is an Intifada supported and directed by the Arab leadership of the PA/PLO-Fatah and Hamas.
Rabbi Meir Kahane points out that, contrary to popular belief, the Temple Mount is in Arab hands, the cunning Arab foxes. And the words of Motta Gur ring hollowly — and it is the Jews who are to blame. They took a miracle and disdained it. They, who took holiness and profaned it. They who were given a Zion, a Jerusalem, Temple Mount — gave it over to the jackal-foxes.
Hamas explains general principles and objectives in 42-article document.
PA/PLO leader Abbas seems intentionally to ignore that he and his PA/PLO are responsible for the violence, as a result of their daily incitement against Israel. A recent poll found that approximately half of 'Palestinians' believe the "Intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel.
What is really going on behind the scenes of the current terrorist attacks? It's actually a lot more than what is seen on a daily basis. Hamas is fighting to take control of the PA/PLO while Fatah is doing its best to stay in power and get Gaza back under its control.
US Jewish leaders blew it recently when what was a rare opportunity to ask the US president face-to-face to release Jonathan Pollard, they didn't even consider the matter as being a priority.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizb'Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, and the establishment of a terrorist state in the midst of Israel.
It's no state secret that US President Barack Obama is not a huge fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His distain for the Jewish leader is well-known throughout the world; he's never tried to hide it. But now that Israel is having new elections in March does it mean Obama could, either directly or indirectly, influence the elections in Israel in order to obtain a defeat for Netanyahu?