Gaza offensive 'disproportionate'

[HeiGou]

Surely this proves the point: Hamas is not interested in peace, but at most a ceasefire after which violence will, presumably, continue.

What is a ceasefire except peace and an opportunity for continued peace?

An opportunity to rebuild your Army, restock, train, gather your forces to start again and finish the job this time. A peace treaty would be an end to violence and the start of peace, but Hamas rejects the idea of Israel's continued existence.

Haniyeh is speaking about immediate plans, once you move to a ceasefire you have the opportunity for more negotiations, more discussions and a step in the direction of lasting peace. There have been many positive indications from both sides towards such an initiative
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5121164.stm

Or you can go right to recognition of Israel and a full peace treaty. Notice the context in which these positive indications have occurred,

The initiative, devised by Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, implicitly recognises the Jewish state.

Hamas's charter currently calls for Israel's destruction by force and rules out peace negotiations with it.

The deal comes amid heightened tension with Israel following the capture of an Israeli soldier by militants on Sunday.

Israeli tanks and troops have massed on the border and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned that a large scale military operation is rapidly approaching.​

So 1. It does not recognise Israel, 2. it follows a Hamas attack on Israel and so would certainly be rejected and so presumably is merely made for political propaganda points and 3. it happened as Israel massed troops for what was going to be a painful assault on Gaza - of course they were happy to try to deflect Israel. This is meaningless. Let them offer it when they do not have a gun to their head. Let it come with a recognition of Israel via a peace treaty.

It is not a Treaty and it can be broken - wasn't the original Treaty of Hudaybiyya broken after two years even though it was supposed to run for ten?

A hudna is a peace agreement and no it is forbidden to break treaties.

My question was more subtle - I did not ask if the Muslims broke it, I asked if it was broken. Anyone can find a cause if they want to. It may be forbidden to break a treaty, but is it forbidden to search as hard as you can for a more or less justifiable reason to claim that the other side has broken the treaty when you no longer wish to observe it?

A Muslim has to uphold all his agreements

Presumably why Hamas is only offering a Hudna and not a Treaty.

Moreover who in their right mind would trust Hamas?

Isn't mistrust and distrust the prelude to hostility and agression?

So I think every time I read a threat about the West, Western women, Western culture, America, kafirs, Christian missionaries, in fact anything to do with non-Muslims.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

An opportunity to rebuild your Army, restock, train, gather your forces to start again and finish the job this time. A peace treaty would be an end to violence and the start of peace, but Hamas rejects the idea of Israel's continued existence.

And as I already pointed out in my last post it would be an opportunity for continued negotiations and developments towards a lasting agreement. Obviously this would include the acceptance of peaceful coexistence which would preclude any notion of increased militarization.

Or you can go right to recognition of Israel and a full peace treaty.

Was it not Confucius who said "[SIZE=-1]A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" ? A peace agreement and open negotiations are something that is desperately needed in the Mid. East right now.[/SIZE]

Let it come with a recognition of Israel via a peace treaty.

You have to have a peace treaty in order for that to happen!

My question was more subtle

Yes, it was another one of your subtle attempts to throw an off-topic allegation about Islamic history into the thread so that appropriate attention cannot be given to the allegation without diverting the topic of the thread completely. Not the first time you have done this, is it? A Muslim must be completely sincere in all treaties, covenants and agreements, and must fully intend to uphold them and not look for ways to break them. This is what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh taught us and the example he set for us, such that even his opponents would trust him with their belongings and possesions.

Presumably why Hamas is only offering a Hudna and not a Treaty.

A hudna is a peace treaty.

So I think every time I read a threat about the West, Western women, Western culture, America, kafirs, Christian missionaries, in fact anything to do with non-Muslims.

So you knowingly give in to hatred and choose to fuel the distrust and misunderstanding by propagating isolationist views instead of calling for understanding and dialogue?