Israel consists of several countries. One of those countries is the one in which an Olmert can compare the justified fury of Jewish villagers in Kiryat Arba who have been goaded by the local Arabs beyond endurance to a "pogrom." In that country, Ha'aretz columnists, aided by Israelis who control the radio and television, can consistently and deliberately avoid all mention of the texts and tenets of Islam, and blithely describe a "peace" that they think can be established if, and only if, Israel continues to make tangible concessions, as it has been making to the Arabs and Muslims ever since the 1948-49 war, though every single resulting agreement or, if not agreement, then assurances by an Arab state -- e.g., Nasser's Egypt to the "international community" in order to get back the Sinai, has in one way or another ultimately been breached by the Arab side.
And those breaches have been so continuous, so systematic, and so blatant, that one might have thought that some people in the Israeli government, as well as some in the Foreign Ministry, and some in the Israeli media would have begun to ask if perhaps the problem was not with this or that country or leader with whom the treaties were contracted, but rather with some underlying theory concerning the observance of treaties in Islam – a theory that had little to do with the "Pacta Sunt Servanda" (treaties are to be obeyed) principles that underlie the Western understanding, and Western assumptions, about treaties.
And if those in Israel's political and media elites had done what should have been the most obvious thing in the world, which is to say, if they had begun to study the law of war and peace in Islam, perhaps by beginning with Majid Khadduri’s book War and Peace In the Law of Islam, then the members of those elites -- the Ha'aretz columnists, in all their baseless and smug self-assurance, and the political figures who meet with their approval, and the television wise men -- would have had to recognize some uncomfortable truths. They would have had to come to grips with those truths, and would have had to come to formulate or support policies that were based not on the notion that Pacta Sunt Servanda would prevail, but on the truth: that no Arab Muslim state is ever going to reconcile itself to the existence of the Infidel nation-state of Israel, no matter what its size. They would have had to recognize also that Israeli policies for maintaining "peace" are futile. Such a "peace" is maintained right now by the threat of what the Israeli Defense Force can do to those who make war on Israel, and that is the only long-term "peace" that Israel can ever rely on. Israel must come to realize that it certainly cannot rely on a "peace" that depends on the Arab Muslims ignoring their own texts, tenets, attitudes, and their own insistence that the basis for their treaty-making with Infidels must remain the model of Muhammad's treaty with the Meccans in 628 A.D. at Hudaibiyya. After concluding that treaty for a period of ten years, Muhammad, that Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) and Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), soon found a pretext to breach it, and within 18 months did so. And he has been hailed for his cunning in deceiving the enemy -- hailed in Muslim texts -- ever since, and Muslims have no other model for treaty-making with Infidels, nor do they wish one.
One way that those who presume to inform and instruct us could and should promote greater clarity in discussions about the Arab Muslim war on Israel is to do the following: every time the word "peace" is written, instead let the phrase "peace treaty" appear. That will do a great deal. And if, every time that phrase "peace treaty" now appears, the phrase "truce treaty" were to be substituted instead, for it is indeed only a hudna, a "truce treaty," that would make things even clearer. And isn't clarity important? Isn't an absence of confusion a good idea, whether one is buying a toaster, or betting the future existence of an entire state and an entire people, on the right understanding of things?
Does Turkey have a significantly worse record of breaking peace treaties than Germany or Russia? Muslim-majority Malaysia has not attempted to re-conquer non-Muslim majority Singapore...
The commitments made by the secularists who have run Turkey during its Kemalist period are not relevant. What is more relevant, I suggest, are the promises made by the Ottoman state, to Western powers, to begin to treat non-Muslims with decency and even to ensure legal equality. The saga of promises made -- some were called, tellingly, "Capitulations" -- about such matters begin with the Tanzimat reforms of 1839, "reforms" which, when it came to the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, were not observed. Again and again the Western Powers put pressure, and only where force was threatened, was there much of a result.
The commitments made by the Muslims -- not so much pirates as privateers, who would often list in advance with the Muslim ruler the Christian prey they intended to attack, or at least the areas of the Mediterranean they intended to hunt in for such prey -- to the Christian powers of Europe, and of North America, were constantly broken. And you can find the comments of Jefferson, John Adams, and even John Quincy Adams merely by googling their names, and "Islam" -- comments which note how mendacious, how not to be trusted, these Muslims were -- and systematically so, because of the ideology of Islam.
The agreements made between Israel and its Arab neighbors have all been breached by the Arab side, in ways little and big, and especially by Egypt, beginning with the Armistice agreement (followed by 19,000 separate attacks by fedayin on Israel farmers and others, most of them in the end causing little damage), and the promises made by Nasser to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai (and then, in mid-May 1967, he violated them in every way, most importantly by blockading the Straits of Tiran), and of course, in the only promise Egypt made to get back the Sinai through the Camp David Accords, the one not to engage in hostile propaganda or actions, but to foster an atmosphere of goodwill, that has been breached by the antisemitic campaigns in the Egyptian media, the refusal of Mubarak to ever visit Israel (save to attend, in a lightning visit, for Rabin's funeral), and the meretricious actions, such as for so long allowing tons and tons of weaponry to be smuggled into Gaza).
And what is the point of mentioning Malaysia not having tried to conquer Singapore? The Muslims of Malaysia have been busily imposing the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system in Malaysia on the Chinese and Hindus, and on otherwise fattening on the golden calf of the Infidels. Why risk that by attacking Singapore? What does that have to do, anyway, with my point that any treaty made with Infidels by Muslims will be regarded as justifiably breachable, and to be breached at the first opportunity that presents itself -- that is, when Muslims feel they can gain from such a breach -- that is, the basis of Muslim attitudes toward such treaties, which you can find elucidated not by me, but by a thousand others, such as Majid Khadduri in his "War and Peace in the Law of Classical Islam"?
Do you disagree with Majid Khadduri? With the Encyclopedia of Islam? With a thousand scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim, who have discussed endlessly the example of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and its significance in Muslim jurisprudence? Surely you can't maintain that you do, not if you wish to be taken seriously.
The treaty Of 628, Al-Hudaibiyya has been used ever since as the model of deception and lies about arab muslim intentions in regards to honoring treaties. One only has to look to the stupidity of the current Israeli government and the way they keep making deals with the arab islamofacists. These are only truces, and that is all the islam will ever do is a truce. Strictly to buy time just as Mohammed, the not perfect man did to deceive the Jews back in 628 and then attack them ten years later. Cunning, yes in the Jew hating islamofacists eyes and hearts. In truth,a lie and deception at best and here is Israel now just about duplicating the same mistakes. The truce with hamas is now over, hamas has re-armed and fortified their defenses in gazastan. Just like with hezbollah in Lebanon and the brave french UN "peacekeeping forces" turning a blind eye, even aiding hezbollah in re-arming by doing what the french do best, being cowards.
I would love to the Israeli media do what Hugh has suggested but it will take a miracle of left and liberalista media to awaken to the truth they really face. They, like our own MSM here in the US have whitewashed the truth about islam and the true intentions towards Israel. Plain and simple the arab islamofacists want all Jews dead and every trace of Israel removed permanently from the world. Jefferson and Adams were not fooled and warned us, and the world long ago about the dangers inherent in islam. It is even more true today and Israel, the USA and the rest of west would be wise in heeding the warnings of Adams and Jefferson before it really is too late.