Morsi adviser on Egypt's treaty with Israel: "I am reflecting the opinion of the Egyptian public and the political forces which...concur on the need to amend, or cancel, the treaty"

Treaties are change very so often. The Treaty that allow the sciencist centers at the South Pole said no firearm of military weapons where allow. When pirate rob the bases and rob the personal the treaty was change to allow solider armed with small arms only.

Well, there goes Jimmeh Cah-duh's one real foreign policy success.

If Egypt unilaterally abrogates that treaty, then there really is no hope for peace in the Middle East. This was the one treaty that looked anything like a success, and if it can't even be maintained for a few decades, then Israel has no reason to think that the word of any Arab leader is worth the paper he signs.

Egypt will have signed the death warrant of every Arab peace effort if they abrogate this treaty, and signed on to a future of terrifying warfare.

On the subject of treaties, agreements, and any other kind of relationship or deal whatsoever, involving a Muslim party, on the one side, and a non-Muslim party, on the other side:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/44065

Tuesday, 25 September 2012

Fitzgerald: Waiting For Hudaibiyya

"I am waiting to see when, where, how, in what column by what columnist, in what report by what reporter, in what editorial by what member of what editorial board, the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya will first be mentioned or discussed.

"For these reporters, these columnists, these writers of scolding editorials who presume to inform and instruct their audiences, appear to believe, with what might be called, wickedly, a Eurocentric view of things, that everyone in the world accepts the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda -- the principle that "Treaties Are to Be Obeyed." It isn't true.

"That concept, which originates in the West, and which seems to people in the West as self-evident (for how, or why, would treaties have any value if one side or both could break them?), **is not honored, and is not even discussed as worthy of being honored, in the Islamic world.** {my emphasis - dda}

'In that world, a different principle obtains.

'Treaties may be made with Infidel enemies.

'But those treaties do not bind the Muslim side.

'They can, whenever they wish, whenever they feel the time is right or ripe, break those treaties.

'There is no such thing as a permanent "peace" treaty with Infidels.

'All treaties that are called that in the West are merely "truce" treaties or hudnas.

'They are based on the model of the agreement that Muhammad made with his Meccan enemies (because they would not yield to his demands) in 628 A.D., at Hudaibiyya, just outside Mecca...".

Any person new to this site or this subject, who has not yet heard of the 'Treaty of Hudaybiyya'...click on the link. In the Name of God: click on the link, and read the article.

Because it will explain so much. It will explain why the so-called 'peace process' in the Middle East, involving Israel and assorted Arab Muslim entities, is absolutely futile; a snare and a delusion.

And it will *also* explain why similar 'peace processes', in the Philippines, for example, between Muslims in the southern Islands, on the one hand, and the non-Muslim majority-Catholic Filipino state, on the other, or in Kashmir, between India and the local Muslims and the Islamic entity of Pakistan, or in southern Thailand, between the Buddhist Thai majority and the assorted Muslim groups in the south, are *equally* futile. And why South Sudan must fortify its border and be prepared to withstand, sooner or later, full-on Jihad waged against it by the North; and why little Timor Lorosae, if its rulers and its western allies have any sense at all, *must* similarly fortify itself and prepare, sooner or later, to withstand an Indonesian Islamic attempt at reconquering what was with such a very bad grace given up.

always, everywhere, anywhere, NO non-Muslim person or group should rely upon an 'agreement', deal, contract or treaty - no matter how apparently solemn - that it has concluded with any Islamic entity. For, sooner or later, that agreement, that 'treaty', will turn out to be a snare and delusion, and perhaps even a death trap.