I am sure that the BBC knows the difference between a truce and a hudna so why does this report make reference to Hamas offering a 12 month truce? I reckon that after the pounding Hamastan has taken it will need at least 12 months to rebuild itself militarily. A hudna is of no benefit to Israel and yet that is what is being retailed by the likes of the BBC as the best possible outcome. I hope Israel is more precise in what it accepts from Hamas than the BBC.
TRUCE OR HUDNA?
Bookmark the permalink.
Why have the BBC not reported the firebombing of a Starbucks in Whitechapel and other anti-Semitic attacks that have taken place recently?
Why is this news not being reported by the BBC? You can be sure that it would be headline news had it been a Lebanese restaurant on the Edgware Road that had been firebombed following an attack by Hezbollah on Israel.
The fear of a backlaksh against Muslims pervades the BBC’s coverage but they seem not to care about attacks on Jews.
More here.
The silence over the Starbucks incident is a disgrace – but in the BBC worldview, it never happened. Non-news, does not fit narrative. Anyway, they hate Starbucks on several levels.
It’s quite curious , after brave Hezbollah’s glorious victory over the IDF in Lebanon (according to the beeb) and its subsequently emerging better armed and stronger than ever (according to the beeb) – it hasn’t been terribly keen to try its hand again.
I guess history will repeat itself, Hamas and the western media (especially the beeb) will declare a glorious victory for the brave Jihadi’s – and then we won’t hear another squeak out of them for a few years as they lick their wounds.
Which I guess is all Israel could really hope for all along.
Im not even sure why people are entertaining conditions from Hamas?
Someone, and I hope its the Israelis, should be telling Hamas they are defeated and are in no position to make conditions on a cease fire.
Any ceasefire MUST be permanent, MUST disarm Hamas but more importantly, any money sunk in to Gaza from the international community MUST come with conditions that the Palestinian society MUST change.
No change (ie. they continue to love death for their children), then no money.
Really, its quite simple isnt it.
Mailman
John Reith spins in his grave:
‘It’s quite curious , after brave Hezbollah’s glorious victory over the IDF in Lebanon (according to the beeb) and its emerging better armed and stronger than ever (according to the beeb) – it hasn’t been terribly keen to try its hand again.’
Yes, indeed – all that crowing about the Hezbollox ‘victory’ after they found some deeper holes to hide in still rankles.
That is why this time Israel must finish the job.
I heard similar verbal gymnastics in the aftermath of the July 7th bombings. The Beeb were keen to get as many Islamic “scholars” on the news as possible to reassure it really was the religion of peace. To a man they all used the phrase “Islam condemns the killing of innocents”. But they were never asked to clarify that rather odd choice of word. No one ever asked if a non Muslim could be an innocent or just what they meant by that word in this context.
Who is innocent?
“Anjum Chaudri’s revealing explanation – “When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God… As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God”
As far as I am aware nobody has ever asked Muhammad Abdul Bari or Inayat Bunglawala or the other Islamic “scholars” – “in your view and in the word of the Qur’aan, what types of people are innocent and what types of people are not innocent?”
I am not definitely not saying that Muhammad Abdul Bari or Inayat Bunglawala are terrorists, I am also not saying that they support terrorism within the UK; however I am saying that the question “in your view and in the word of the Qur’aan, what types of people are innocent and what types of people are not innocent?” should be asked of, and answered, by them.
David Vance
Excellent point.
Does the BBC deceive, or is it just ignorant in its non-use/non-explanation of the word ‘HUDNA’ and its real meaning in Islam for Hamas?
For more on the importance of Infidels being able to understand ‘HUDNA’, here is an article by Pamela Geller of ‘Atlas Shrugs’ (2006):
[Extract]:
“The word ceasefire is being bandied about as a solution the current Israeli/Islamic war. Once again the Western media ignores the meaning of a ceasefire or hudna.
“‘What is being touted as a ‘cease-fire’ is something called a ‘hudna.’ A hudna [also known as a hudibiyya or khudaibiya] is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the ‘cease-fire’ is called off.” — ‘Cease-fire?’ by Shira A. Drissman…
“Would a hudna mean a step to that dirtiest of a deceptions, peace? An advance toward a nonviolent future? NO, emphatically no. The answer lies in the historical meaning of the Muslim expression,
“Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.”
from ”The Ceasefire Deception is a Fraud’ (2006)
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/07/the_ceasefire_d.html
It is open to them to use the term “tactical ceasefire” if it is applicable.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2008/03/020301print.html
“The basis of Arab treaty-making with Infidels or Infidel nation-states is, and always has been, the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya signed by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. After 18 months, on a pretext, Muhammad attacked them. And according to Muslims he was right to attack them, for his goal justified any and all means: the goal to spread Islam, and to make Islam dominate. There is no other goal. It is the only goal that counts. The Western notion, that Western governments including those of the United States and Israel, fondly assume are universally shared, that Pacta Sunt Servanda — Treaties Are To Be Obeyed — has nothing to do with the Islamic Law of War and Peace.”
Mailman: You’re right. Hamas is in NO position to dictate surrender terms.
We didn’t let Germany, Japan or Iraq dictate them and neither should Hamas.
Hamas have two choices.
1. Surrender and do a real deal with Israel
2. Die
So as far as Hamas are concerned
Truce= A ceasefire so that they can rearm
Innocent= Only applies to Muslims
Civilians= Doesn’t include Israelis, they are all soldiers or future soldiers.
Children= Includes teenage Jihadis firing rockets at innocent Israeli civilians during a truce.
As if you can make any sort of deal with fanatical terrorists anyway!
Only the BBC Dhimmis would expect Israel to try.
I hope Israel does not relent. I hope they destroy Hamas.
Dr Michael Jones: We can only hope and pray.
David Vance,
The BBC cannot speak of a hudna, or openly report about what a Hamas “ceasefire” really means. To them, that would make Hamas look bad to the public, which they deliberately restrain themselves from doing. Beeboids have told us in the past that they have to be very careful in this regard. We all know that almost every time people get the BBC to discuss anti-Israel bias, their defense is that they get lots of complaints about being too pro-Israel. To them, this proves their impartiality, and they continue to painstakingly avoiding coming across as anti-Hamas, but will not make the same efforts regarding Israel.
As for Starbucks, the BBC doesn’t quite hate them. There’s a Starbucks at White City, and Starbucks has been in bed with BBC Worldwide, sponsoring a bit of merchandise.
What’s strange is that the BBC actually have the protesters smashing the window on video:
UK protesters call for Gaza peace
Check it out starting at around 50 seconds in.
However, I think I know why the BBC is silent on the vandalism on this particular Starbucks:
“No Starbucks in Whitechapel!”
Activists from an anarchist group called the Space Hijackers organised an “East End knees up” outside the Starbucks on Whitechapel High Street, giving out free tea and coffee to passers-by.
Okay, it’s not the anarchists the BBC understands and respects, but people like this:
Sayeem Mamood, from nearby independent Cafe Aura, said that multinational chains like Starbucks have much larger marketing budgets and economies of scale when buying their products.
“It will be very difficult for independent retailers like us to compete with Starbucks,” Sayeem said.
It’s just acceptable collateral damage, then.
The BBC and its fellow terrorist sympathisers in the media/UNRWA/etc are pushing harder than ever for a ceasefire because hamas is close to utter destruction, the hamas allies have been ordered to go all out in their media offensive against the IDF and Israel because time is running out for hamas….tick tock, tick tock…ha ha ha!
Every minute that passes more hamas scum die and hooray for that, every minute that passes the BBC leave more evidence of their collaboration with terrorist murderers, time is a wonderful thing eh?
Hamas are scrabbling for any crumb of comfort now, while hiding behind women and children, how brave and noble eh? hiding in holes under civilians and using them as shields, how very brave!
Dave,
When I hear about people complaining that Al Beeb is too pro-Israel…I actually take that to mean that Al Beeb doesnt criticise Israel enough.
What these morons want to see are endless stories about the stinky jooooos stealing the land from the kingdom of the palestinians and what ever other lie Arabs have created.
I dont take their complaints to mean Al Beeb is in bed with the joooos!
Actually… you know what…since the Joooos own all the worlds media, given the absolutely deplorable coverage joooos get in the MSM then this would have to go down as perhaps history’s worst purchase dont you think? 🙂
Regards
Mailman
Re starbucks. I reckon its just the ones in the UK that are crap. The ones in New York I got dragged to were bloody good!
Mailman
A picture says a thousand words.
http://revart.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341d1add53ef010536c252eb970b-pi
Warning, do not open picture while drinking a hot drink.
It depends on the kind of Hudna you’re talking about. In general it means the one the outside world believes to be some kind of truce or treaty, while in the jihad-world it means “operational pause”.
NotaSheep 16.01.09 – 10:14 am |
“Why have the BBC not reported the firebombing of a Starbucks in Whitechapel and other anti-Semitic attacks that have taken place recently?”
When political figures spoke out against the scandal of bogus asylum seekers, the BBC, especially the TODAY programme, was never slow in linking the words of these political figures to the next prominent racial (or suspected racial) attack, and if one of these political figures was disposed, the BBC would conduct a ‘your stirring up racial hatred, aren’t you?’ interview/hatchet job on them.
We have seen a spike in anti-semitic attacks in the wake of the BBC’s vehemently anti-semitic coverage of the Gaza war. Its time Parliament hoisted these Nazi leftists on their own petard.
John Reith spins in his grave 16.01.09 – 10:36 am
“It’s quite curious , after brave Hezbollah’s glorious victory over the IDF in Lebanon (according to the beeb) and its subsequently emerging better armed and stronger than ever (according to the beeb) – it hasn’t been terribly keen to try its hand again.”
I think the way Israel has seriously limited the MSN’s ability to spread Hamas black propaganda may be a determining factor.
The fact that Hamas are asking for A WHOLE YEAR hudna indicates they’re pretty much beaten.
Israel must continue until Hamas is completely defeated and f***s off to Tehran, like the PLO f***ed off out of Jordan after Black September
(Note the similarities between the PLO, the Jordanian, and the “Palestinian” flags. And remember Palestinians already have a state; it’s called JORDAN)
Estimates of the number of the people killed in the ten days of Black September range from three thousand to more than five thousand, although exact numbers are unknown. The Palestinian death toll in 11 days of fighting was estimated by jordan at 3,400, though Arafat claimed that 20,000 had been killed.[13] The Western reporters were concentrated at the Intercontinental Hotel, away from the action. Nasser’s state-controlled Voice of the Arabs from Cairo reported genocide.
I hope that there is no ceasefire until Hamas capitulates and agrees to a permanent ceasefire AND handing back Shalit.
Now, wouldnt that be a kick in the balls to Western Media, western governments and terrorist supporters around the world who wanted hamas to win! 🙂
Mailman
F9cking BBC at it again!
Watch the video and be outraged!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZlRxTOvos&feature=related
Mailman
People, this is a must read…
(If there is to be PR when fighting terrorism, let it be as simple and plain as this.)
“…That is why we choose us. Because no one else will. The lesson we have learned is that if we do not care for our children, no one else will. If we do not protect them, no one else will lift a hand to do it for us.
The world demands that we let our children die, so that theirs may live to kill us. We refuse. We choose us
It is the right of every nation to defend itself against enemies at home and abroad. That right of self-defense will not be abridged because the left has decided that Israel has less right to exist than an Iranian backed theocracy that just brought back crucifixion.”
please read it all
Why we choose us by Sultan Knish
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-we-choose-us.html
Boys and girls, get over the petty arguements and see the light. Israel is an aggressor and get what it deserves when it bombs innocent people in Gaza.
How many black Moslems killed in Darfur today by Arabs? Has the BBC told us or do they even know or care? When is Bin Laden going to call for a jihad against Arabs for slaughtering Moslems? Presumably the lack of interest in the genocide in Darfur by the BBC is that they would not know what line to take. If they can not blame evil whites or Jews then the BBC is at a complete loss.
Ah Bill, your true colours are showing at last.
Unfortunately for you, Israel is NOT the aggressor.
But do tell us, how many Israeli’s must die before Israel can defend its citizens?
How many missiles and mortars must be fired at Israeli civilians before Israel can defend itself?
You know deep down in your heart that Hamas got the war its been “dieing” for since 2005, and when it got it Hamas went crying like the bitches they are that big bad israel was bombing them.
Awe well, back to the drawing boards for your side aye Bill 🙂
Mailman
Anyone see the 10pm news? I see Al Beeb finally got off its fat arse and went in to Gaza through Egypt.
Wonder why it took them so long? Oh thats right, only Israel has borders with Gaza 🙂
Mailman
Mailman | 16.01.09 – 5:39 pm
When I hear about people complaining that Al Beeb is too pro-Israel…I actually take that to mean that Al Beeb doesnt criticise Israel enough.
What these morons want to see are endless stories about the stinky jooooos stealing the land from the kingdom of the palestinians and what ever other lie Arabs have created.
I dont take their complaints to mean Al Beeb is in bed with the joooos!
Good point. But the BBC does take those opinions seriously. They don’t realize that the only way to appease those people is to publicly condemn Israel and call for its destruction. The BBC News people really do think they must be doing enough to tell Israel’s side of the story. The BBC interview with Richard Landes is evidence of that:
Augean Stables
When confronted with Landes’s accusation of BBC pro-Palestinian bias and giving credence only to Pallywood casualty figures, Dan Damon says, “We get criticism from all sides. There was criticism today that we’ve put the Israeli ambassador to the UK on the air far more than we have his Palestinian counterpart.”
As if that was QED. Forget about the quality of treatment they gave him versus his counterpart: he just got more air time. But that’s good enough for the BBC.
Actually… you know what…since the Joooos own all the worlds media, given the absolutely deplorable coverage joooos get in the MSM then this would have to go down as perhaps history’s worst purchase dont you think?
I hope we didn’t pay retail. That would make it even worse.
David Vance
I thought that “Bill Buchanan ” had been banned from this website for dishonestly stealing another poster’s identity, but he seems to be posting at 10:47.
Mailman | 16.01.09 – 11:45 pm
how many Israeli’s must die
Why the apostrophe? Are you a mailman or a greengrocer?
Pedant 11:47
You have left yourself a hostage to fortune now ! Some people will follow all your future posts, ready to jump on the slightest slip-up.
Not me , of course !
You’re such a pendant!
Surely you mean “pedant”?
See what I mean!
😆
Islamic Al Ajzeera News shows wannabe Al Beeb how to report from Gaza.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bON0eMJDc9c
Time to give Al Beeb the boot. Show Abu Bowen the door to his local mosque.
Islamic Al Ajzeera News shows wannabe Al Beeb how to report from Gaza.
Islamic Al Ajzeera News shows wannabe Al Beeb how to report from Gaza.
pounce | 17.01.09 – 5:10 pm
I fully agree pounce. I’m hardly watching Al Beeb lately for news on Gaza. I know Aljazeera is biased, I expect it to be, but they have a wider range of moonbats on show to be interviewed and the whole shambolic state of Hamas and its lack of support from the Arab world is there for the world to see.
Yeah I don’t believe I’ve ever heard the BBC talk about Egyptians “turning a blind eye” to the smuggling through the tunnels.
What a strange irony – BBC staff who have joined Al Jazeera must be getting lessons from the Arabs in how to report a little more objectively on the Israeli-Arab conflict.