Iran unveils cell phone game targeting Israel (and why the nuke deal is 10 years)
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Iran has unveiled a cell phone game that
simulates a missile strike against Israel.
"The anti-Zionist game displays Iran's missile power and the Zelzal,
Zolfaqar and Sejjil missiles (all built in Iran) are used by the players
in the game's first stage," game production project manager Mehdi Atash
Jaam told FNA on Saturday.
"In this game, users break into the Zionist regime's air defense and target Israel," he added.
Elaborating on the reason for developing a game in which the Iranian
missiles destroy targets in Israel, Atash Jaam said that it was a move
in retaliation for the console game, 'Battlefield', that includes scenes
simulating attacks on Tehran and its Milad Tower.
'Missile Strike' was unveiled on Friday on the occasion of the International Quds Day.
No, the game was not privately produced. It was released by the Iranian army.
Read the whole thing.
But it's okay. Once they sign this 'agreement' in Vienna, they will agree not to attack Israel for at least ten years. What could go wrong? Consider
this:
On its editorial page this morning, the New York Times permits Ahmed Yousef, "a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya," to use its soapbox to call for a hudna between Israel and Hamas.
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. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a
cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a
permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences. The Koran finds
great merit in such efforts at promoting understanding among different
people. Whereas war dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill, a
hudna affords the opportunity to humanize one’s opponents and
understand their position with the goal of resolving the intertribal or
international dispute.
Such a concept — a period of nonwar but
only partial resolution of a conflict — is foreign to the West and has
been greeted with much suspicion. Many Westerners I speak to wonder how
one can stop the violence without ending the conflict.
Actually what Yousef is describing is what's called a 'cease fire' or a
'truce' in western parlance. The problem is that he has mischaracterized
the true nature of hudna. In a
blog post in August, I cited an article by Tashbih Sayyed, the Editor
in Chief of Pakistan Today and The Muslim World Today, President of
Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of Hudson
Institute, and a regular columnist for newspapers across the world (in
other words - the elusive 'moderate Muslim') (which I can no longer find
at the original site) which described how Islam uses a hudna:
Political
Islam finds a number of examples in the life of Prophet Muhammad that
sanction the use of treaties as a tactical necessity. In explaining why
he signed the Oslo Accord, Yasser Arafat cited a truce signed by Prophet
Muhammad with the Meccan tribe Quraish at Hudaybiyah in 628 C.E.
According to the PLO leader, Prophet
Muhammad had signed the truce when he was not strong enough to win a war
and it was to last for ten years. But when, within two years of the
signing, the Muslims felt that they have gained enough strength to
defeat the Quraish, they broke the truce, attacked the Quraish and
captured Mecca.
A prominent Saudi sheikh, 'Abd Al-Muhsin
Al-'Obikan, also referred to the same treaty while condemning
Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon. He issued the edict against Hezbollah's
actions not because he considered them wrong but because in his view
Muslims, at the moment, are not strong enough to defeat Israel. He said
that since the Muslims have no chance of winning this campaign against
the Jews, a temporary solution is necessary - a truce similar to the
temporary truce of Hudaybiyya.
According to the Saudi Sheikh, Islamic
laws (Shari'a) also "place preconditions and constraints on the
declaring of jihad, which must be considered in order to ensure the
greatest gain for the nation and spare it loss - [that is,] in order to ensure the minimum possible damage and avoid greater damage.
One
of the preconditions regarding jihad [states] that the [the jihad
fighters] must have [sufficient] capability to inflict harm on the enemy
and to repulse its evil, so as to ensure the lives, the property, and
the honor of the Muslims and to safeguard them from aggression or harm,
that is, [from] destruction of property, from violation of honor, and
from bloodshed."
Those who understand the Islamist ethos know that for political Islam, disengagement, a cease-fire, or a pull back on the part of the "enemy" is a sign of its weakness. No one has more experience with this treacherous mindset than the Israelis.
So
that's why the nuclear deal is ten years. Hmmm.
Labels: hudna, Iranian nuclear threat, Islam, nuclear weapons, P 5+1, Quraish treaty
Video: Iranian political analyst compares P 5+1 agreement to Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
On Syrian television last week, an Iranian political analyst compared the P 5+1 agreement with Iran to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah,
which, Muslim tradition tells us, the Prophet Muhammad had signed with a
rival tribe called the Quraysh out of tactical necessity. Two years
later, by most accounts, a stronger Muhammad, citing a violation by the
Quraysh as pretext, saw to it that the treaty was dissolved. He then
defeated his enemy. Is Iran signaling to Muslim audiences
that even if it came to an agreement on its nuclear weapons development program, they shouldn't fear,
because an agreement with Israel wouldn't last forever?
Let's go to the videotape. The comparison is around the 2:10 mark.
Labels: Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mohamed, Quraish treaty
'Yesterday's people' and the treaty of Hudaybiyya
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
In a couple of weeks, we will reach the 20th anniversary of the Oslo Accords (on the secular calendar, they were signed on September 13, 1993 and on the Jewish calendar, it was the Monday before Rosh HaShanna, the 27th of Elul, 5753). Yitzchak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and the other fools who brought us the Oslo Accords, used to refer to those who opposed them as 'yesterday's people.' Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, referred to the Oslo Accords as his
Treaty of Hudaybiyya.
[O]n Aug.
6, 1995, Yasser Arafat gave a speech at Al-Azhar University in Cairo
explaining why he had signed the Oslo Accords despite his "thousand
objections" to it. Among other things, he said:
"My brothers, I would
like to remind you: when the Prophet signed the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, he
wished to preface it with the phrase: 'In the name of Allah, the
Merciful and Compassionate.' But the men of the Quraysh tribe stopped
him, saying that they did not agree. He also wished to sign his name as
'Muhammad, the messenger of Allah.' But the men of the Quraysh tribe
stopped him, saying, 'Who said we recognized you as the messenger of
God?' Then the Prophet instructed Ali: 'Cross it out and write 'Muhammad
son of Abdullah' instead. Omar ibn al-Khattab ran up and said, 'How can
that be, O Prophet of Allah?' The Prophet said, 'Be silent.' … He asked
them where it was written -- you know that the Prophet could not read
or write -- and they told him: 'It is written here.' He crossed it out
himself and they wrote: 'Muhammad son of Abdullah.'
"In addition, my
brothers, the Prophet agreed that whoever came from the Quraysh to
convert to Islam would be rejected, and they would not stand in the way
of anyone who reneged on his conversion to Islam. I merely remind you.
"Omar ibn al-Khattab
called the treaty a 'sulha dania' ['despicable truce'] and asked, 'How
can we accept such a humiliation of our religion?' But, my brothers, all
this applies to the Palestinian people also ... I say this because we
are now in the midst of negotiations. In any case, if the Israelis think
we have no alternative to negotiations, by Allah I swear they are
wrong."
What was the Treaty of Hudaybiyya? Perhaps 'tomorrow's people,' as they liked to call themselves, should have checked before they signed away Israel's existence.
Then
Muhammad signed a non-aggression pact with the Quraysh, his own tribe.
In the sixth year after the Hejira, he turned his army toward Mecca. He
did not enter the sacred site but instead camped to the west of it, in
Hudaybiyya, where he held negotiations with the Quraysh tribe. As Arafat
recounted, Muhammad agreed to strike clearly Islamic phrases from the
treaty and agreed to a series of fairly far-reaching concessions.
In exchange, he
received what seemed to be little but was actually a great deal: a
non-belligerence pact that gave him time to gather strength. Now free to
complete the work of expelling the Jews, Muhammad turned his attention
toward Khaybar, the largest Jewish community in the Arabian peninsula.
Muhammad's treaty with the Quraysh canceled out the protection agreement
they had with the Khaybar. The rear of Muhammad's army was secure. His
soldiers attacked the Jewish farmers as they went out in the morning to
work in their fields. The Jews had hoes and baskets. The Muslims had
swords. Muhammad burned the date-palm orchards, which were main source
of the Khaybar tribe's livelihood, and put the tribe under siege. Within
a month, the seven communities of Khaybar surrendered. According to the
conditions of the surrender, some of the Jews were allowed to stay and
cultivate what remained of their fields, but in exchange they had to
give half the crop -- and ownership of the land -- to the Muslims.
The conditions imposed
on the Jews of Khaybar became a precedent in Islamic law. That was how
the status of the dhimma -- the specially protected non-Muslim but
monotheistic subject in a Muslim state -- was created. The historian
Martin Gilbert writes that for non-Muslims, Khaybar symbolizes the
beginning of organized discrimination that lasted for centuries.
Apartheid, if you will. The Egyptian caliph Al-Amir, who reigned during
the 12th century, described the poll tax, or jizya, to be imposed upon
dhimmi (the plural of dhimma) not only as a source of revenue, but also
as a tool of discrimination and humiliation. He refused to exempt any
dhimmi, even the most respected, from paying the tax himself. "It must
be collected directly," he said, "to shame and humiliate him, so that
Islam and the people of Islam will be exalted and the race of infidels
will be brought low."
It is long, long past time for Israel to renounce Oslo.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Oslo accords, Quraish treaty, Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat, Yitzchak Rabin
PA Minister compares 'Palestinian Authority' agreements to Muhammad's Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty
I am sure that many of you recall that several months after signing the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat gave a speech in a mosque in Johannesburg in which he compared those accords to the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty, which the founder of Islam signed with the Jewish Quraish tribe.
Let's go to the videotape.
The Hudaybiyyah peace treaty was a 10-year truce that Muhammad, Islam's
Prophet, made with the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years into
the truce, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca.
On Friday, in the presence of '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash said in his sermon that when PA leaders signed agreements with Israel, they knew how
to walk "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the
Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah."
Let's go to the videotape.
Does anyone really believe that if Israel were to actually reach an agreement with the 'Palestinians' it would be treated differently than Mohammed's Hudabiyyah treaty?
Much more
here.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, Quraish treaty, Yasser Arafat
What does the US get for $2 billion?
Ordinarily, I don't support asking the US to do our dirty work for us. But in this case, there may be some merit to it. After all, the US is
footing the bill.
JINSA Executive Director Tom Neumann said, "Unless the Egyptian government makes clear its commitment to enforcing the security of the Sinai border, the relationship between Israel and Egypt will continue to unravel. As the provider of $1.3 billion annually to the Egyptian military, the U.S. government is well positioned to convey the seriousness with which it views the deterioration of Egypt's border security responsibilities."
"One casualty of the so-called Arab Spring has clearly been Sinai security. Thursday's terror attack coupled with a series of attacks on the natural gas pipeline, a critical energy supply for Israel and Jordan leaves no doubt that the Israeli security establishment will have to view Egypt in a new light," Neumann said. "Terror attacks like the one yesterday were much more difficult to carry out prior to President Mubarak's toppling."
Indeed, they were. And Mubarak never needed troops in the Sinai - in violation of the treaty - in order to maintain control of the Sinai.
Of course, you can't really expect the Obama administration to
withhold aid from the Egyptians if they don't fulfill their obligations under the treaty. Muslims might find that offensive. What, you expected a
treaty with a Muslim country to be permanent?
Labels: Egyptian-Israeli border, Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Quraish treaty, US foreign aid
