| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |||
| Hamas leader appeals for truce with Israel | |||
| 2007-12-20 | |||
On Islam's most important holiday, the leader of Gaza's Hamas government appealed today for a ceasefire with Israel and said his people – battered by Israeli military strikes and international sanctions – are greeting this year's feast with "tears in our eyes."
Hamas officials said they were working with other militant groups to try to stop the rocket fire into Israel and also sent overtures to Israel through unidentified third parties. | |||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 ION Israel , JPOST OP-Ed > STARVING THE "FAT MAN" TO DEATH. Irony of basic public services declining as many individual Israelis get wealthier. Appropriate, in more ways than one. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 23:20 |
| #7 DEBKA > exclusive article claims that Palestinian HAMAS officios met secretly wid MOUD + AL-QODS/QUDS FORCE reps during Moud's HAJ pilgramage to discuss and plan for new escalations [attacks] agz ISRAEL??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 22:20 |
| #6 You're not a troll, Liberalhawk. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-12-20 19:31 |
| #5 "reputable historical accounts where Muslims, being the stronger side, granted a truce or ceasefire that did not lead to a surrender." I doubt there are many occasions in history when a clearly stronger side granted a truce - why would they? Victory IS what its all about. A stronger side granting a truce is a modern thing, a product ot democracies, where the citizens grow war weary even while winning. There havent been too many instances of Muslims at war in the 20th century BEING a stronger party - and of course far fewer where they were, you know, a democracy. Hamas, to which you refer, is a terrorist group, and the ministate they run in Gaza is no democracy of any sort. One can easily agree with you that acccepting a "truce" with Hamas would be a mistake, without accepting the broad charecterization of Islam. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2007-12-20 11:44 |
| #4 And thanks for the link, Icerigger. QED. Conclusion: Keep pounding away. This is a sign that they're losing. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman said there could be no deals with Hamas until it renounces violence and recognizes Israel, though one cabinet minister said Israel might consider outside mediation with the Islamic militants. They can negotiate when and how Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel. Those are the ceasefire terms. Hell, Israel should have demanded the return of Shalit, but hey, they're being nice this time around. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-12-20 09:35 |
| #3 Ptah we were apparently writing at the same time, good info! |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-12-20 09:29 |
| #2 The only time Muhamhead entered into a truce was when it was to the muslim advantage or they were to weak to attack. I wish I could remember the koran and hadith passages that explain this tactic. Maybe someone else can link it. His longest truce was 10 years. See Tactics of Hamas and the Prophet's Treaty of Hudaibiyya for addition information on this islamic rearming scurry method. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-12-20 09:27 |
| #1 Multiculturalists say we should learn about other cultures and respect their beliefs and ways. This implies that there exist differences between Western Culture and Muslim culture. Here's one: when a Western nation is at war with another Western culture, and they ask for a truce, Western culture says that the nation asking for a truce wants to permanently stop the war and is ready to concede on some or all issues that motivated the war in the first place. This is different from the Muslim/Islamic culture. Islam forbids surrending in a war, lest it invalidate itself. However, it does acknowledge that unfaithfulness, stupidity, circumstances, or Allah's desire to strengthen or prove the faith of the believers, may cause a Muslim army to lose battles. Islam never loses wars. What Western culture calls a war that Muslims have lost, Islam calls a group of pitched battles that Muslims lost, but which are part of a longer war that Muslims have NOT lost, but will eventually win by Allah's mandate. This is distinct from Western culture's view that, in war, there are winners and losers. Muslim culture calls truces a "hudna", a temporary ceasefire that gives Muslims an opportunity to rearm and get stronger. This is a pattern followed by Mohammed, who regularly broke truces when he figured out his side was stronger, or the other side let their guard down. Because Mohammed is the Perfect Muslim, and the template that Allah states all Muslims should follow and imitate, Muslims give themselves permission to break truces and ceasefires. These are usually called "Hudnas", using a term Mohammed used to justify the truce when his followers objected: THEY were using the western model of the ceasefire, where it is used by the stronger side as a confidence building measure and a signal of good faith to encourage the other side to move from the ceasefire to a truce, then on to peace. In western culture, the truce is proposed by either side, but the stronger side grants it, in an effort to stop the war. In Muslim culture, the truce is proposed by the weaker side (I.e. Muslims) so that they may become the stronger side. Muslims, when they have been stronger, never have proposed or granted truces or ceasefires: they only accepted surrenders. To them, there is no substitute for victory, and they will do anything, including violating infidel geneva conventions, to win. Trolls are invited to post links to reputable historical accounts where Muslims, being the stronger side, granted a truce or ceasefire that did not lead to a surrender. If done, I will recant what I have said above. Names of places and dates, please: endless screeds of verbal bullshit based on authority, not facts, are not acceptable. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-12-20 09:27 |