The respect with which Moslem Arab leaders can be expected to treat agreements reached with Jews was, yet again, made abundantly clear last week by Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi, the leading Egyptian Sunni cleric and spiritual head of the al-Azhar University in Cairo.
In late January, Tantawi was one of the Moslem representatives who attended what was billed as the first Interfaith Summit of the three monotheistic religions. The meeting, planned in secrecy and held in Alexandria, Egypt, was attended by Tantawi, Israeli Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, regional Latin Patriarch Michel Sabah and other sheikhs, rabbis and priests. The Summit produced a joint statement, signed by all, that read, in part, According to our faith traditions, killing innocents in the name of God is a desecration of His Holy Name, and defames religion in the world The Holy Land is holy to all three of our faiths. Therefore, followers of the divine religions must respect its sanctity, and bloodshed must not be allowed to pollute it .
However, last week, Tantawi was quoted by an Egyptian news agency as saying, Whoever blows himself up among aggressors who wreck houses and kill men, women and innocents, and who violates the dignity of our brothers in Palestine is a martyr [shahid] because he blows himself up in the midst of an enemy who is raping his land, violating his dignity and killing his people More specifically, Suppose he (a bomber) is in a settlement, a Jewish settlement, and it is proved there are aggressors there, and he blows himself up in this settlement and kills men, women and children. He is also a martyr The definition of aggressors is, of course, subject to dispute. Considering that the Palestinian Authority and all PA factions view the existence of the settlements as an aggression equivalent to their own terrorist warfare, in addition to the Arab definition of settlements as any Jewish town in the Land of Israel, one can safely assume that most every Jew is an aggressor.
The Egyptian sheikhs latest statements have been dismissed by many as damage control on his part, after he was criticized by fellow Moslems for participating in the Interfaith Summit and signing off on a document that might be understood to criticize Arab suicide bombers. That may be the case, but it was not last weeks pronouncement by Tantawi that was an aberration, rather it was his signature on the Alexandria Summit declaration that was. The al-Azhar cleric has had a lot to say about Moslem suicide bombings in the last few years, most of it rather impolitic to say the least.
In 1996, as a series of Hamas suicide bombings killed scores of Israelis, Tantawi told the al-Wafd newspaper, One who blows himself up among enemies, in order to defend his land, is considered a martyr. Not just any martyr, though, as the Egyptian cleric explained to al-Shaab, [T]he youth of the Islamic resistance who blow themselves up in order to cause casualties, are considered the greatest of those who die, because they die as martyrs. The same month, the Egyptian government newspaper al-Ahram contained a detailed explanation by Tantawi that an act of self-sacrifice is when someone blows himself up in a crowd of people who have adopted an enemy regime. Indeed, he told a gathering of students at the University of Alexandria in 1997 that such suicide terrorists are in a situation of self-defense against their attacker. Tantawi also made it very clear who the attacker was in the al-Hayat newspaper, Since the Jews cause us evil, we must fight them courageously.
With this history of public pronouncements, what could have possessed Rabbi Bakshi-Doron, Rabbi Froman and Rabbi Melchior to put any faith in any declaration signed by Sheikh Tantawi? Was it simply a naive innocence? If so, it was the same naivete that allowed many Israelis to believe that there was any honest intentions whatsoever behind PLO leader Yasser Arafats signature on the Oslo Accords.
Arafat himself referred to an historical pact with the innocent and naive in a speech he made in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1994, after signing the very first agreement between the PLO and Israel. In that speech, he compared the Gaza-Jericho First agreement with Israel to the 628 CE Hudaibiya Pact between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe that ruled Mecca at the time. Mohammed wanted to claim Mecca for Islam, but did not have the military wherewithal to do so; therefore, he signed a ten-year peace accord with the leaders of Mecca, even if it meant apparent concessions on the part of Moslems. However, after a period of just two years, in 630 CE, after Mohammed had built up his forces sufficiently for an assault on the city, the Moslems violated the pact and took over the city by a combination of force and threats. Moslem or pseudo-Moslem leaders like Tantawi and Arafat turn to the story of the Meccan peace accord as a living example of Islamic law, which calls the episode hilam - a war strategy.
The problem is that once the ethos of the double-cross enters the realm of the acceptable, even praiseworthy, it is hard to maintain control of its application. Arafat signed and violated more than 20 agreements with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the late 1960s, most notably a 1968 agreement whereby the PLO agreed to recognize Jordanian sovereignty and refrain from carrying weapons in Jordanian towns. In the 1970s, Arafat signed scores of agreements with Lebanon, recognizing that states sovereignty, as well, and with various Lebanese factions, and violated them all as soon as it was possible to do so.
Despite such a clear history of duplicity, such that no Arab state would be foolish enough to put stock in an agreement signed by Yasser Arafat, the State of Israel gambled its future on him. And now, he is being given yet another opportunity to sign yet another agreement with Israel.
Despite repeated clerical pronouncements by al-Azhar University?s grand sheikh, praising the murder of Jews in the Land of Israel, Israeli rabbis signed and credited a joint declaration of peace with him. Al-Azhar University, it should be noted, is affiliated with the office of the President of Egypt, thus making Tantawi the authoritative voice of Egyptian Islam. In light of the reversal of the sheikh?s position this past week, an investigation must be made to clarify whether US tax dollars are in any way financing the University's curriculum. Letters must be sent to US congressman demanding that the US not support an institution whose head calls - in pure Nazi style - for butchering Jewish men, women, and children.
Despite the virtual religious sanction Islam gives to duplicity in peace accords with infidels, the world still takes the Saudi Arabian peace initiative seriously. The whole world awaits the closing statement of the upcoming Arab League Summit in Beirut, once again placing stock in a declaration by states that view peace accords as a long-term stratagem of war.
There is a point where naivete crosses the line into willful blindness. In the case of Israel, such blindness is downright deadly.
----------------------------------
Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is an Editor for Arutz Shevas Israel National News.com. He can be contacted at Nissan@IsraelNationalNews.com.
In late January, Tantawi was one of the Moslem representatives who attended what was billed as the first Interfaith Summit of the three monotheistic religions. The meeting, planned in secrecy and held in Alexandria, Egypt, was attended by Tantawi, Israeli Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, regional Latin Patriarch Michel Sabah and other sheikhs, rabbis and priests. The Summit produced a joint statement, signed by all, that read, in part, According to our faith traditions, killing innocents in the name of God is a desecration of His Holy Name, and defames religion in the world The Holy Land is holy to all three of our faiths. Therefore, followers of the divine religions must respect its sanctity, and bloodshed must not be allowed to pollute it .
However, last week, Tantawi was quoted by an Egyptian news agency as saying, Whoever blows himself up among aggressors who wreck houses and kill men, women and innocents, and who violates the dignity of our brothers in Palestine is a martyr [shahid] because he blows himself up in the midst of an enemy who is raping his land, violating his dignity and killing his people More specifically, Suppose he (a bomber) is in a settlement, a Jewish settlement, and it is proved there are aggressors there, and he blows himself up in this settlement and kills men, women and children. He is also a martyr The definition of aggressors is, of course, subject to dispute. Considering that the Palestinian Authority and all PA factions view the existence of the settlements as an aggression equivalent to their own terrorist warfare, in addition to the Arab definition of settlements as any Jewish town in the Land of Israel, one can safely assume that most every Jew is an aggressor.
The Egyptian sheikhs latest statements have been dismissed by many as damage control on his part, after he was criticized by fellow Moslems for participating in the Interfaith Summit and signing off on a document that might be understood to criticize Arab suicide bombers. That may be the case, but it was not last weeks pronouncement by Tantawi that was an aberration, rather it was his signature on the Alexandria Summit declaration that was. The al-Azhar cleric has had a lot to say about Moslem suicide bombings in the last few years, most of it rather impolitic to say the least.
In 1996, as a series of Hamas suicide bombings killed scores of Israelis, Tantawi told the al-Wafd newspaper, One who blows himself up among enemies, in order to defend his land, is considered a martyr. Not just any martyr, though, as the Egyptian cleric explained to al-Shaab, [T]he youth of the Islamic resistance who blow themselves up in order to cause casualties, are considered the greatest of those who die, because they die as martyrs. The same month, the Egyptian government newspaper al-Ahram contained a detailed explanation by Tantawi that an act of self-sacrifice is when someone blows himself up in a crowd of people who have adopted an enemy regime. Indeed, he told a gathering of students at the University of Alexandria in 1997 that such suicide terrorists are in a situation of self-defense against their attacker. Tantawi also made it very clear who the attacker was in the al-Hayat newspaper, Since the Jews cause us evil, we must fight them courageously.
With this history of public pronouncements, what could have possessed Rabbi Bakshi-Doron, Rabbi Froman and Rabbi Melchior to put any faith in any declaration signed by Sheikh Tantawi? Was it simply a naive innocence? If so, it was the same naivete that allowed many Israelis to believe that there was any honest intentions whatsoever behind PLO leader Yasser Arafats signature on the Oslo Accords.
Arafat himself referred to an historical pact with the innocent and naive in a speech he made in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1994, after signing the very first agreement between the PLO and Israel. In that speech, he compared the Gaza-Jericho First agreement with Israel to the 628 CE Hudaibiya Pact between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe that ruled Mecca at the time. Mohammed wanted to claim Mecca for Islam, but did not have the military wherewithal to do so; therefore, he signed a ten-year peace accord with the leaders of Mecca, even if it meant apparent concessions on the part of Moslems. However, after a period of just two years, in 630 CE, after Mohammed had built up his forces sufficiently for an assault on the city, the Moslems violated the pact and took over the city by a combination of force and threats. Moslem or pseudo-Moslem leaders like Tantawi and Arafat turn to the story of the Meccan peace accord as a living example of Islamic law, which calls the episode hilam - a war strategy.
The problem is that once the ethos of the double-cross enters the realm of the acceptable, even praiseworthy, it is hard to maintain control of its application. Arafat signed and violated more than 20 agreements with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the late 1960s, most notably a 1968 agreement whereby the PLO agreed to recognize Jordanian sovereignty and refrain from carrying weapons in Jordanian towns. In the 1970s, Arafat signed scores of agreements with Lebanon, recognizing that states sovereignty, as well, and with various Lebanese factions, and violated them all as soon as it was possible to do so.
Despite such a clear history of duplicity, such that no Arab state would be foolish enough to put stock in an agreement signed by Yasser Arafat, the State of Israel gambled its future on him. And now, he is being given yet another opportunity to sign yet another agreement with Israel.
Despite repeated clerical pronouncements by al-Azhar University?s grand sheikh, praising the murder of Jews in the Land of Israel, Israeli rabbis signed and credited a joint declaration of peace with him. Al-Azhar University, it should be noted, is affiliated with the office of the President of Egypt, thus making Tantawi the authoritative voice of Egyptian Islam. In light of the reversal of the sheikh?s position this past week, an investigation must be made to clarify whether US tax dollars are in any way financing the University's curriculum. Letters must be sent to US congressman demanding that the US not support an institution whose head calls - in pure Nazi style - for butchering Jewish men, women, and children.
Despite the virtual religious sanction Islam gives to duplicity in peace accords with infidels, the world still takes the Saudi Arabian peace initiative seriously. The whole world awaits the closing statement of the upcoming Arab League Summit in Beirut, once again placing stock in a declaration by states that view peace accords as a long-term stratagem of war.
There is a point where naivete crosses the line into willful blindness. In the case of Israel, such blindness is downright deadly.
----------------------------------
Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is an Editor for Arutz Shevas Israel National News.com. He can be contacted at Nissan@IsraelNationalNews.com.