Translate

Sunday, July 13, 2014

EGYPT ADMITS HAMAS REFUSED ISRAEL'S OFFER OF A CEASE-FIRE

ALMOST AS SOON AS THE TROUBLE BEGAN IN ISRAEL LAST WEEK, ISRAELI OFFICIALS OFFERED HAMAS A CEASE-FIRE DEAL. 
HOW DID HAMAS RESPOND? 

<<Palestinian Authority and Hamas spokesmen have said repeatedly since the operation was launched last week that Hamas has no interest in a cease-fire.>>

Israel was favorable toward Cairo’s bid last week for a 40-hour truce, to be followed by negotiations for long-term agreement

<<Egypt wishes to lead the Arab world in calling for Hamas and Israel to return to the 2012 agreement. Israel has said it is willing to accept the terms of that agreement, but Hamas has refused.>>  


While Hamas and PLO officials have blamed Israel for the lack of a cease-fire, it was actually Hamas who rejected the offer of a 40-hour "cooling-off" period, Walla! News revealed Sunday. 

Both Israeli and Palestinian Arab sources told the daily that Cairo presented Israel's offer of a ceasefire to Deputy Head of the unity government Political Bureau, Moussa Abu Marzouk last week.

Marzouk immediately rejected the cease fire, the sources said, after a brief consultation with senior officials from Hamas's "military wing," the Ezzadine Al-Qassam Brigades.

Egyptian officials stressed that were not be responsible for publishing Hamas's rejection of the offer, but did say that Hamas would be responsible for the negative repercussions of that decision. 

Al-Monitor learned from well-informed Palestinian and Egyptian sources that on July 4 Egyptian intelligence asked Ramadan Shalah, head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to communicate with Hamas to extend the truce that was concluded after the 2012 war. However, he refused to play the role of the mediator between Egypt and Hamas since he is in the same trench with Hamas, a situation that angered Egypt and made it no longer interested in upholding its efforts for the truce. It should be noted that communications between Egypt and Hamas have been almost severed following the ousting of President Mohammed Morsi last year.
Prior to Israel’s attack on Gaza at dawn on July 8, Al Jazeera Mubasher Misr channel reported that Maj. Gen. Mohammed Farid al-Tohamy, the director of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, had visited Tel Aviv hours before the attack and met with Israeli security officers. It also reported that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi had given Israel initial approval to launch a military operation on Gaza to destroy Hamas.

On July 9, Khaled Meshaal, head of Hamas’ political bureau, said in his speech on the war on Gaza that he has received dozens of calls demanding a truce with Israel, but he rejected them all since Israel was the one to start the aggression. It was clear that he did not mention Egypt, which further indicates the strained relations between both sides.
Al-Monitor contacted by phone a former member of the Egyptian People’s Assembly, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Egypt may not seem to be in a rush to end the Israeli aggression on Gaza, because Egypt’s foreign policy is associated with its domestic policies. It is clear that Sisi considers Hamas to be an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Thus, we do not expect him to shed a lot of tears if Israel dealt Hamas a severe blow,” he said.
July 22, 2012
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_lamps_are_going_out_all_over_the_islamic_world.html
With deference to Sir Edward Grey, it is not unreasonable to say that "[t]he lamps are going out all over the Islamic World, and we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."  But will we see the lights in the entire Islamic world lit again in our lifetime, or ever?

Brigitte Gabriel spoke of that turmoil recently in an interview with Accuracy in Media:

    There are 44 conflicts around the world between Muslims and non-Muslims, regardless of what nationality these non-Muslims are, or what language they speak, what passport they hold, or what region of the world they live in. 44 conflicts. Look what's happening in Djibouti. Look what's happening in Chad, what's happening in Mauritania. Americans don't even look at these countries. It's not even on our radar screen. So a war has been declared on the West by radical Islamists who want to bring back the Islamic Caliphate. They are empowered. The revolution started with Iran in 1979, with the coming of [Ruhollah] Khomeini, who birthed, basically, life into the Islamic radical movement worldwide. The sooner we wake up and identify the enemy we are fighting-how they think, what their goal is, what's their strategy, who are the key players in this war, who are the financiers of this war-that's when we're going to be able to make progress and come up with a plan where we can actually defeat our enemy.

She doesn't count the number of conflicts around the world between Muslims and other Muslims.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/07/08/islam-violence-and-civil-war-n1636028/page/full
Jul 08, 2013
In recent weeks, Sunni Muslims were killing Shiite Muslims in Egypt – according to reports, dragging them out of their houses and slaughtering them – while Shias and Sunnis have been killing each other in Syria for months now.
In Iraq, many of the suicide bombings involve Muslims blowing up other Muslims, while the terribly costly Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s was, among other things, a clash between Shiites (Iran) and Sunnis (Iraq).
Does anyone detect a pattern here?
It is true that all major religions have had their “civil wars,” but in the first 300 years of Christianity, how many Church leaders in one group were killed by Church leaders in another group? How many were massacred? Decapitated? (Approximately zero.)

IN JUST ONE WEEK IN 2013:
· 2013.07.06 (Lahore, Pakistan) - Four people, including a child, are blown to bits by Muslim bombers outside a restaurant. 

· 2013.07.06 (Potsikum, Nigeria) - Islamists massacre over forty students and teachers at a school, in some cases burning children alive. [According to AP figures, “Islamic militants from Boko Haram and breakaway groups have killed more than 1,600 civilians (in Nigeria) in suicide bombings and other attacks since 2010.”]  

· 2013.07.06 (al-Arish, Egypt) - Islamic gunmen murder a Coptic priest.  

· 2013.07.05 (Baghdad, Iraq) - A Sunni suicide bomber manages to take out over fifteen Shia worshippers at their mosque.  

· 2013.07.05 (Uruzgan, Afghanistan) - A dozen souls in a dining hall are taken out by a Shahid suicide bomber.  

· 2013.07.05 (Samarrah, Iraq) - A Shahid suicide bomber detonates near a rival mosque, incinerating four worshippers.  

I'M SICK OF HEARING FROM AMERICANIZED MUSLIMS WHO SAY THEY ARE A RELIGION OF PEACE AND DENY THAT THE QUR'AN INCITES ITS FOLLOWERS TO VIOLENCE.
WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A "MODERATE' WEBSITE, WHILE BEING PURELY MUSLIM, STATES THE FACTS: 

http://www.quranicstudies.com/jihad/muslims-in-present-day-conflicts/ 

Many Muslims tend to classify any war between Muslims and non-Muslims as a war between good and evil, right and wrong, faith and infidelity. Consequently, they classify the fighting of the Muslims as armed jihad, though they use the general term “jihad.” This simple model of classifying warring parties and identifying the case for armed jihad applied perfectly to the wars that the early Muslims were involved in. Then, the peace seeking Muslims stood for everything right and good, and their aggressive enemies represented everything wrong and evil. This is why Allah granted Muslims the right to armed jihad in the first place, as made clear in the following verses which I discussed elsewhere: 
Permission [to fight] has been granted to those against whom war is waged, because they are oppressed; and surely, Allah is well capable of assisting them [to victory] (22.39). [The permission is to] those who have been driven out of their homes without a just cause, only because they say: “Our Lord is Allah.” Had it not been for Allah repelling some people by others, then certainly cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; surely, Allah is Mighty, Invincible. (22.40)
But even then, not every violent aggression by disbelievers against Muslims necessarily counted as a cause for armed jihad. For instance, as I have already pointed out elsewhere in my comment on verse 8.72, an aggression by disbelievers who had a peace treaty with the Prophet against Muslims who had declined to immigrate to al-Madīna did not count as a cause for armed jihad for the Muslims of al-Madīna:
Surely those who believed, immigrated, and jāhadū [did jihad] with their properties and selves in the way of Allah, and those who gave shelter [to the immigrants] and helped them, these [the immigrants and the helpers] are close friends of each other. Those who believed but did not immigrate, you [O you who believe!] have no duty of close friendship toward them until they immigrate; and if they seek help from you for the purpose of religion, then help is incumbent on you, except [helping them] against a people between whom and you there is a treaty; and Allah sees what you do. (8.72)
This is a clear-cut case where violent persecution of some Muslims for their faith by non-Muslims was classified by Allah as incomparable to the case of the aggression of the disbelievers against the Muslims of al-Madīna, hence did not call for armed jihad. Given the far more complicated nature of today’s violent conflicts, there is even more reason not to hasten to liken modern armed conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims to the wars that Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims fought against the disbelievers. In fact, we can read warnings of such complication to come in the Qur’an itself which refers in this verse to inter-Muslim conflicts:
And if two parties of the believers fought each other, mediate [O you who believe!] between them; but if one of them acts wrongfully toward the other, fight the party that acts wrongfully until it returns to Allah’s command; then if it returns, mediate between them with justice and act equitably; surely Allah loves the equitable. (49.9)
This verse talks about a war between two factions of Muslims. Allah here orders the other Muslims to mediate between the warring parties and broker a peace. If one faction then rejected the reconciliation and peace and insisted on fighting unjustly, then other Muslims are ordered to fight those aggressors. The principle underlying this divine command is very simple and straightforward. By rejecting peace and insisting on their unjust war, those Muslims would have acted exactly like the disbelievers who launched unjust war against Muslims. Should the war against those in the wrong convince them to stop their aggression, Muslims must mediate between those who were at war.
The verse above highlights the fact that Muslims can be on the wrong side of a conflict. In fact, they can go astray to the extent of unjustly fighting other Muslims and of having other Muslims, under the instructions of Qur’an, fighting against them.
It is an undeniable fact that a number of conflicts in recent times have involved Muslims fighting each other, with other Muslims being victimized by the war. This is one way of looking, for example, at the Iraqi-Iranian war in the 1980s, and the violent history of Afghanistan during and after the expulsion of the Soviet occupation army. It is also true that some of those conflicts involved non-Muslims fighting on the side of each one of the warring parties, or at least providing them with various forms of support. Throughout their eight-year long war, both Iraq and Iran were aided by Western governments and intelligence agencies that they publicly described as their enemies, or even enemies of Islam. In such situations, it is simply impossible to say that the party that is fighting a just war is that of the Muslims, or that the wrongful side is that of the non-Muslims. Both fighting sides were Muslims, and both were supported by non-Muslims. If this situation is not complicated enough, a war may involve more than two warring parties each of which includes people with different affiliations. This is particularly true of civil wars, such as Afghanistan’s and the one that kept on breaking out every now and then in Northern Iraq after the Gulf war in 1991.
One essential condition for applying armed jihad is the availability of clear evidence on aggression by one party against another. This is not the case in many of today’s complicated conflicts. Let’s remember the following verse:
O you who believe! When you travel in the way of Allah, investigate and do not say to any one who offers you peace: “You are not a believer,” seeking riches of this world, for with Allah there are abundant spoils. You too were such before, then Allah conferred favors on you. Therefore, investigate. Allah is aware of what you do. (4.94)
Note the emphasis that Allah puts on seeking evidence before taking action. The Muslim must not resort to armed jihad before being absolutely sure that peace is not an option, and that armed jihad is indeed fully justified.
THERE IT IS, LAID OUT IN SIMPLE TERMS.
NOW YOU SEE WHY ISLAM WILL NEVER ACCEPT PEACE WITH ISRAEL....
NOR WITH FEW OTHERS!
THE ENTIRE WORLD MUST SUBMIT, MUST CONVERT, OR BE SEEN AS "OPPRESSORS", AND THOSE WHO OPPRESS ISLAM?
READ IT AND WEEP...

No comments:

Post a Comment