After genocide, Â the peace of the grave. That’s what Hamas offers Israel:Â
Â The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree,Â would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes. (Article 8)
Â So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas)
The implication is clear: Allah promised that the Jews will be murdered, and the Hamas “aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take.”
* None of the above deters Osama Abu Irshaid to dump a steaming pile of taqiyya over the heads of clueless Westerners, who can’t stop blathering on about “peace”…
“Israel and the United States should understand the Islamic laws Hamas obeys to begin finding solutions for a peaceful coexistence.”
Why Sharia Law Might Be Israel’s Path to Peace
BY OSAMA ABU-IRSHAID, PAUL SCHAM | From (the formerly respected)Â Foreign PolicyÂ via Sweetness & Light
In January, 2006, Hamas â€” an Islamist party with a military wing that is branded as a terrorist group by much of the West â€” won one of the freest and fairest elections ever conducted in the Middle East. In doing so, Hamas became the legally and duly chosen representative of the Palestinian people, an inescapable player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and also, necessarily, a factor in any peace process.
Despite apocalyptic and unequivocally anti-Semitic statements contained in its 1988 Charter, the organization has indicated an increasingly clear willingness to coexist with Israel for the foreseeable future, acknowledging it as an established fact in the region. This week, for instance, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal reportedly told a Russian diplomat he would not “stand in the way” of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with the condition that it be approved in a Palestinian referendum.
Despite similar previous pronouncements, the United States and Israel have avoided formulating a realistic policy towards Hamas, based primarily on three non-negotiable demands: that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence, and accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas has expressed willingness to enter into truces and to recognize or respect previous understandings. But it has unequivocally rejected the first demand. The United States has insisted that it will not deal with Hamas until all three are fully accepted.
- “Moderate” Fatah still supports terror, doesn’t recognize Israel
- Pat Condell tongue-lashes multiculturalists: stop alleging Islamo-phobia
- Flying Pig Spotted! Security Council Points Finger at Hizballah!
- “We we in Fatah have never recognized Israel”
- Arab Israeli Conflict – forgotten facts
Last month,Â the U.S. Institute of PeaceÂ published a special report we wrote, which sought to present perspectives on Hamas that are absent from current policy discussions. We are an unlikely pair: one an American Jew who lived in Israel for years and supports it as a Jewish state; the other a Palestinian Muslim whose father was expelled from his home at Israel’s creation and who believes the state should not have been established. Our views on many issues are often at odds. Yet we pooled our knowledge and perspectives to try to inject some reality into what has often been a discussion defined by dogmatism.
We argue that engagement with Hamas is essential, and possible. To understand how, it is necessary to take into account that many of Hamas’s statements and actions are governed and limited by its understanding of Islamic religious law (sharia), a comprehensive code relevant to all aspects of life for believing Muslims, very much including politics.Â We maintain that Hamas cannot be understood without understanding the sharia background of many of its policies.
By its reading of sharia (a reading it shares with the Muslim mainstream), Israel’s establishment is illegitimate and unjust, and its recognition by Muslims is forbidden. Thus far, the Muslim states that have recognized Israel, including Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, have made a political decision to do so, one not grounded in Islamic law. Similarly, the Arab Peace Initiative â€” which offered full recognition of Israel by all 19 remaining Arab states in return for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries and an “agreed-upon” settlement of the Palestinian refugees â€” is a political, not sharia-justified, compromise.
Hamas maintains that accepting Israel’s legitimacy necessarily renounces the Palestinian narrative, which defines Palestine as Arab and Muslim, in contrast to the Jewish narrative, which defines the Land of Israel as Jewish by God’s promise, by legal right, and by history. Can these two worldviews be reconciled? Absolutely not. Can Hamas and Israel co exist peacefully? We believe they can. Reconciliation is much harder than coexistence.
Hamas has repeatedly offered to end its violent resistance against Israel by means of various sharia-based mechanisms, such as a hudna (time-limited truce) or a tahadiyya (cease-fire). It has also advocated the principle of “Palestinian legitimacy,” whereby it would accept as binding the decision of the Palestinian people to accept peace with Israel â€” even if Hamas, as a Muslim religious organization, could not reconcile that outcome with sharia and preserve its Muslim beliefs.
To many, this may seem pointless and arcane double-talk. However, within Hamas’s frame of reference, these categories are crucial. Taking them into account may be the key to ending the current deadly stalemate.
We do not advocate that either Israel or the United States plunge into negotiations with Hamas based on these principles. Instead, careful and skillful diplomacy, using intermediaries, can test whether Hamas is indeed willing to abide by the necessary agreements. These agreements could eventually result in American and Israeli acceptance of a coalition government, including Hamas, that could negotiate a real peace with Israel.Â And even in a seemingly real peace, both sides would take a long time before they let down their guard.
We do not claim to be prescribing a series of steps that will assure peace.Â However, we are urging policymakers to realize that Hamas has signaled repeatedly it is ready for coexistence, and that taking into account Hamas’s view of sharia is critical to understanding what the organization will and won’t do, and why. Until that happens, we believe the current stalemate is likely to continue.