* From the annals of shame: the cowardice of our respective governments:
A theater audience in India is blown away by the Religion of Peace.
The establishment media is seemingly obsessed with “grim milestones” in the War on Terror, as the Associated Press reminds us this past weekend. But in the next week those same establishment media outlets will probably stand mute when yet another “grim milestone” is reached â€“ the10,000th attack by Islamic terrorists and militants since 9/11, which is responsible for approximately 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.
A warning for Annapolis — going unheeded, of course. In “Wrong approach to peace: US, Israel ignore leading scholar’s insights about Muslim attitude to peace deals” in Ynet News (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair), Yoram Ettinger says that Israeli and American negotiators would do well to read Majid Khadduri. And indeed they would — I have argued the same thing here. But has anyone at State actually read Majid Khadduri? At best, doubtful.
Policy makers in Israel and the United States are premising the Annapolis Conference on foundations that have led to a series of bloody collapses in Oslo, Cairo, Hebron, Wye, Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David 2, and the disengagement. They are formulating the conference on the assumption that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has adopted a mentality of peace, thus granting yet another victory to the simplistic world of delusions in the Mideast’s complex reality. Professor Majid Khadduri, may he rest in peace, from Johns Hopkins University in the US was the world’s leading authority on Arab definitions of peace and war, and he noted that they view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective â€“ defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy and/or infidel. Khadduri’s book, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, clarifies the meaning of the amazing 1,400-year sequence â€“ since the 7th century – of wars, terrorism, and the violent violation of agreements, alliances, and conventions between Arabs, between Muslims, and between Arabs and non-Arabs.
The insights in the book include the following: “If a catastrophe had befallen the Muslims, (they) might come to terms with the enemy…provided that the Muslims should resume the Jihad after the expiration of the treaty…treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike…If the (leader) entered a treaty which he was incapable of fulfilling, the treaty was regarded as void…the Prophet Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding a (628 A.D.) treaty with the Makkans, known as the Hudayabiya Treaty (whereby) a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument if it serves Muslim interests…the Prophet and his successors always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful…Muslim authorities might come to terms with (the enemy), provided it was only for a temporary period…a temporary peace with the enemy is not inconsistent with Islam’s interests….”
Islam is predictable: It kills and destroysÂ