Op-ed in Kuwaiti paper slams Hamas

Can we expect the author in question to end up in prison, or executed?

I hope the author lives, but I doubt that he will. There are too many demonic killers in Islam to allow that.

The author, Fuad al Hashen, wrote that Hamas bore full responsibility for the recent IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip.

Mr. al Hashen forgot the first rule of islam
muslims are never to blame for anything, they are always the victim.

He's a dead man walking, but a brave one. And rarer still, he's an honest Muslim.

There is an honest sane muslim???

WOW!!!

God protect that brave soul for allah and the mos will not.

for intersting reading try:

http://www.haaretz.com/

"Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel after Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza, al Hashen continued. Therefore, Israel's decision to shell Gaza was "natural."

There is a certain "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" assumption in the minds of Hamas and Co. (and many other Muslims) that looks upon any Israeli or other Infidel self-defense as agressive provocation and oppression. It seems that it does not matter if the Infidel is in what a Muslim perceives to be Dar-al-Islam or Dar-alHarb-the rule applies to all self-defence from Infidels. I'm sure this mind-set applies in Darfur too. It's an infantile mentality that cannot be reasoned with and will probably have to be literally blased out of existance. The bully-mind is only stopped by firm resolution and force-not by reason. Save reason for those who reason.

Does anyone really believe that reason will prevail on this matter?

"There is a certain "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" assumption in the minds of Hamas and Co. (and many other Muslims) that looks upon any Israeli or other Infidel self-defense as agressive provocation and oppression.

To that I would add that this same line of thought is also supported by many in the MSM and the happy and always festive left...

My calendar says July 8, not April 1. Please save the April Fools jokes for the appropriate day.

If this is true, I fear it is but a single shooting star of reason against the unblinking firmament of illogical islamic intransigence. He will likely be snuffed out by his brethren as the shooting star is destroyed by the atmosphere.

It makes sense that it is a Kuwaiti saying this. Many Kuwaitis loathe Palestinians. Didn't many of them side with Saddam in Gulf War Part One?

As a matter of fact Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis and most of the Gulf people deeply distrust and dislike Palestinians.

I think most of the Arab world, though they may dislike a non Muslim state in the middle of the Middle East, despise the Palestinians even more. You only have to look at the way that they have destabilised the surrounding countries. There has been trouble, including an Palestinian led attempted coup in Jordan, trouble in Syria, Egypt, they made a mess of Beirut. Then the Palestinians complain about not being supported by their fellow Muslims! Maybe there is a reason for that lack of support!

He's not alone:

"The reactions I gathered were posted on an Arabic forum on the BBC Arabic website. About three dozens of comments were made by Iraqis both inside Iraq and in exile and all these comments were supportive of Israel or at least against Hamas as far as the topic is concerned except for only three comments; that's a 10:1 ratio while as you probably have guesses, the opposite ratio is true about the comments by the rest of Arabs.
These comments and some of the non-Iraqi Arab reactions they stimulated caught my attention.
In fact Mohammed and I spent an entire day reading through the 500+ comments in that thread and thought we could share some of the best and most interesting stuff with you.

What was written in that thread stands as one example of the change in the Iraqi way of thinking since the day we got rid of the dictator and shows that logic and facts are gaining more ground at the expense of emotions and conspiracy theories."
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/07/singing-out-of-flock.html

There is an honest sane muslim??

Yes, Freewoman, but he is not a GOOD muslim. That's the rub with islam. For a muslim to be sane and honest, and let's add humane to that list, he has to be a bad muslim - because he is bad for the cause.

R.I.P. al Hashen?

Great grandson of Asma Bint Marwan?

Hamas has a lot of friends in the neighborhood with explosive tempers.

Straight transmission from murdering Mohammad himself.

Maybe he'll want to take a vacation till their 1350 year old memories fade?

Give that man a Klondike bar.

From The Hindu

Get a load of this (typical rationalization), more b.s from "moderate" Muslims

Other Palestinians argue that the failure to translate the Israeli pullout into greater prosperity and the way Israel chose to quit Gaza, unilaterally, undermined moderates and bolstered radicals.

``They made the peace camp in Palestine just irrelevant ... and they gave Hamas the opportunity to claim that the evacuation of Israelis from Gaza is an outcome of their resistance,'' said Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinians' former planning minister.

and more

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' failure stop militant attacks and win the release of the captured Israeli soldier, 19-year-old Cpl. Gilad Shalit, has underscored his growing marginalization. Abbas, who was elected separately last year, has found himself largely powerless in the current crisis.

Gilad was seized in a June 25 cross-border raid by Hamas-linked militants, who have demanded the release of some of the 9,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

That demand has widespread support among ordinary Palestinians, which cuts to the heart of the current stalemate. Hamas could be finished politically if it gives up Shalit without a prisoner swap, and Israel fears that caving into militant demands would only encourage terrorism.

``We can't give in to such blackmail because if we do they'll kidnap soldiers and civilians again and again to use them again and again for negotiations,'' said Israeli Cabinet Minister Meir Sheetrit.

However, Israel has sent mixed signals regarding a prisoner swap, with one senior minister hinting it might be possible. Yet even if Israel agreed to it, disarray inside Hamas might preclude a deal.

The Islamic militant group is no longer the disciplined, monolithic movement it once was. Senior Abbas aides said they believe Hamas' Syria-based political leader, Khaled Mashaal, gave the green light to the June 25 raid that seized Shalit without consulting the Hamas-led Government in Gaza. Hamas' spokesmen in Gaza insist that neither Mashaal nor any other political leader holds sway over the militants holding Shalit.

Much of the Egyptian and Turkish mediation effort to end the crisis has focused on Syrian President Bashar Assad, who as Mashaal's host wields significant influence over him. But Assad, whose summer residence was buzzed by Israeli warplanes in a bold warning last week, has told the mediators he cannot push for Shalit's release in the absence of a prisoner swap, said the Abbas aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are supposed to be secret.

Sheetrit said the lack of a Palestinian negotiating partner should preclude another pullback like the one from Gaza, popularly known as ``disengagement.''

``I don't think we should leave the West Bank. I'm against it. In my opinion there will be no more unilateral disengagements,'' he told The Associate Press.

Those words hold great irony because Sheetrit is a senior member of the eight-month-old Kadima Party, whose main reason for existence is to partition historic Palestine between Arab and Jew in order to ensure a long-term Jewish majority for Israel.

A resolution of the current Gaza crisis could go a long way toward rescuing Kadima's political prospects and the concept of a West Bank pullback.

A largely overlooked but potentially significant development occurred in Gaza two days after Shalit's capture when negotiators from Hamas and Abbas' Fatah Party agreed on a joint platform that calls for the creation of Palestinian state alongside Israel.

An increasingly bloody rivalry between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza had threatened to spill over into civil war, but the current crisis has united Palestinians in a common rallying cry: no freedom for Shalit without a prisoner swap.

If the Shalit crisis is solved, either through a deal or military means, the new Palestinian unity could bode well for an end to the crippling international aid boycott of the Hamas-led Government and prospects for a return to peace talks.

Aluf Benn, the political correspondent for Israeli daily Haaretz, said Israel doesn't need a friendly force on its border to leave the West Bank, only a coherent one that can maintain ``some sort of security balance.'' Hamas, he said, doesn't fit that bill.

``The prerequisite is not their stated positions or what they say about peace, but how they care for security,'' he said.

The writer apparently has weak academic credentials. Word is he's been replaced by a graduate of the Baghdad Bob School of Journalism.

The "Palestinian" cause became an Arab cause for two reasons.

The first is that the English encouraged it; it was they who, especially in the administration in Mandatory Palestine, not only encouraged Arab opposition to the Zionists (see Bertie Waters-Taylor, and what Col. Meinertzhagen noted was his deliberate whipping up of the Arabs in the Old City as early as 1921), but also encouraged it to become of pan-Arab interest. But those who limit themselves to "blaming the British" and who take seriously the supposed assurances of Feisal in the famous Feisal-Weizmann correspondence (the words attributed to Feisal were likely composed by T. H. Lawrence) that "we [the Arabs] will give you [the Jewish Zionists] a warm welcome home" forget the context: at the time, Feisal and other Arabs were without any source of money or support other than whatever Western powers, chiefly Great Britain, chose to give them. Furthermore, the Jewish settlers might, in certain numbers, "be welcomed home" because they caused a mini-boom that led Arabs, especialy from Iraq and Egypt, to flock into Mandatory Palestine (there were more Arabs than Jews who entered and settled in Mandatory Palestine from outside -- this is constantly overlooked by BBC and other anti-Israel pontificators, for whom the historicla context always begins about a week, or at most a month, before whatever story they are pretending to report.

The second, and most important reason is that no matter what the British did or did not do, the Arab Muslims would not have allowed for the possibliity of land once controlled by Muslims to be controlled by Infidels, and still worse if those Infidels were not the Christians, who at least had always been a potentially powerful enemy, but the Jews, who had been treated with such contempt and despised because they were without power, and so could be exploited for whatever they offered by way of goods or services (for example, as doctors -- the Ottoman Padishahin, just like Saladin himself, had Jewish doctors; and also as dragomans useful for commercial intercourse with the non-Muslim world). The Holy Land (to the Christians), the Land of Jerusalem and Zion, Eretz Israel (for the Jews), was an ill-considred backwater for the Arabs and Muslims. But once someone else claimed it, it suddenly assumed an exaggerated importance -- exaggerated, that is, mainly for the outside, still powerful, Western world that needed to be won over.

If Muslims and Arabs decide to reconcile themselves to the existence of Israel, there is absolutely no assurance that this anything other than a hudna, temporary as all such hudnas must be. Neither Israel, nor the rest of the Infidel world, can rely ever on temporary accommodation, and must plan, and act, as if that hudna will come to an end. There may be "moderate" Muslims. There may be Muslims willing to accept Israel, begrudgingly, as a fact to be recognized and not as an achievement to be emulated. But that does not mean Israel can give up the tiny buffer zone, and control of the aquifers, in what we call (absurdly) the "West Bank." Israel cannot surrender any more territory. It needs to make that case, first to itself, and then to the outside world. It needs to explain, if it can, that the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya remains the basis of the treaty-making of its enemies. Unless and until that model of Islamic treaty-making is discussed openly, and openly abjured, there is no point in any further negotiations. The whole effort now must be spent in doing what could have been done in June 1967 and by now have long been accepted by the outside world: not uprooting "settlements" but expanding them, making clear to the local Arabs that the
"West Bank" was part of the territory assigned by the League of Nations for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the legal, moral, and historic claims of the Jews to at least what was Western Palestine (the provisions of the Mandate as to "facilitating Jewish immigration" and "encouraging close Jewish settlement on the land" were unilaterally held to no longer apply to historic Palestine "east of the Jordan" by the British, earning the fury not only of the Zionist leaders (including Jabotinsky) but also of the entirely non-Jewish members of the League of Nations' Mandates Commission. That all of this should have been forgotten by the world, and by most Israelis, does not mean it cannot be remembered and repeated, and repeated until everyone gets the picture. No more nonsense about a "Two-state solution." The Arabs in Gaza will once again be under Egyptian rule (many of them are a generation or two or three away from being Egyptians). In the "West Bank," there should be nothing but the sound of bags being packed, not of Jews but of Arabs who will either have to endure living under Infidel rule, with no further encouragement or favors to be done by them, either through UNRWA, or UN or EU supporters, or through the disguised Jizyah of Western, Infidel aid. That's over, or should be. If the rich Arabs choose to give them some money for staples, fine. Anything that uses up the unmerited wealth of the rich Arabs, whether gambling or call girls or luxury apartments, houses in Virginia Water or McLean, villas in Marbella or St.-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, or money for the local Arabs who remain in what will soon cease to be called "the West Bank" is money not available to be spent on Da'wa (mosques, madrasas, propaganda) or on the hirelings currently employed over the Western world.

the words attributed to Feisal were likely composed by T. H. Lawrence

Is that the guy who wrote Seven Pillars of Lady Chatterley?

WSW