A One-Sided Peace Is Called 'Surrender'

If the Arabs would lay down their guns today, there would be peace by tomorrow! If the Jews would lay down their guns today, by tomorrow there would be no Israel!

(It would mean their anniliation by Arab Terrorists)

Terror - Islam
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

When only one party to a conflict is pursuing peace, it doesn't matter how one characterizes it, whether it be 'negotiated settlement' or 'political compromise' or even 'enlightened self-interest', whatever 'peace' ensues is the 'peace' of the conquered.

In the case of postwar Germany and Japan , peace was imposed on them by benevolent conquerors.

Had the war ended differently, the peace imposed on the west would be a very different kind. Peace without tranquilty is merely the absence of war.

The Danish cartoon incident raises all kinds of questions about the Islamic definition of 'peace'. Apologists for 'moderate' Islam claim it is, at its heart, a peaceful religion and quote verse after verse from the Koran to support their arguments.

Most countries in Western Europe echo President Bush's claim that the 'vast majority' of Muslims want to live in peace with the West, and that 'radical Islam' is a perversion of a peaceful religion by a demented few.

Even when taking a critical view of the 'peaceful' claims of Islam, most writers and columnists are quick to add something along the lines of, "of course, the vast majority of Muslims in the West live in peace in their communities" etc.

Until some obscure newspaper prints a dozen cartoons offensive to Islam. In 'moderate' Jordan , the editor of a Jordanian newspaper was fired, then arrested, for reprinting the cartoons in an Amman newspaper.

In the Islamic democracy of Lebanon , 'at peace' with the West despite its recent election of Hezbollah terrorists to its government, the Danish and Swedish embassies were burned to the ground.

Members of that 'vast majority' of peaceful Muslims living in the West smashed windows, burned Danish flags, pictures of Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen (and, predictably, American flags and pictures of George Bush) and attacked their non-Muslim neighbors in retaliation for the offense.

Moderate Muslims living at peace among their European host/neighbors gathered together to chant 'Death to Denmark ', War on Denmark ' while carrying signs lettered "Freedom Go to Hell" and " Europe, Take Some Lessons From 9/11."

All the cartoonists are now in hiding, in fear for their lives. The newspaper itself claimed more than 1,000 death threats.

While the newspapers are scouring the world over for moderate Muslim leaders willing to condemn the violence, they are universal in their reasoning, as articulated by a joint statement from the Organization of Islamic States: "Extreme reactions exceeding the limits of peaceful democratic actions are dangerous and damage the Muslim world's efforts to defend a legitimate case."

In other words, Islamic rage tends to blur the image of Islam as a noble religion of peace hijacked by a few terrorists.

It is hard enough to argue the case that those who follow the fundamentals of a religion are the aberration and those who stray from the fundamentals of a religion represent its typical adherents.

It is twice as hard when Islamic moderation includes death demands against those infidels living in their own, non-Islamic culture who don't adhere to the Islamic fundamentals regarding blasphemy against the prophet.

European leaders are rushing to the podium to condemn the Islamic reaction while apologizing profusely for the press freedoms that provoked it. Most news organizations in the United States refused to risk the wrath of Islam by publishing the offending cartoons despite wall-to-wall coverage of the reaction to them.

CNN showed the cartoons, but pixelated them. Some Western countries banned them altogether out of concern for an Islamic backlash from the 'moderate Muslims living at peace' with them in their own countries.

As already noted, genuine peace can only exist between two sides that want peace. Without that reciprocal desire, one only gets 'peace' by paying tribute to prevent war.

Under that kind of peace, reprisal is no further away than the next 'provocation'.

Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume 53, Issue 7

The “peace” issue is no different in Israel and between them and the Palestinians than we have seen in this discussion of “peace”. When two parties don’t want peace, but only one, then any peace will be an imposed one and it will be kind of peace that the countries under the thumb of Germany or Japan would have gotten if they had won their wars.



My Information