Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking
about the Israel-Hamas War
Note to readers: See previous APOLOGIA post for Chapter 12. (Also, Table of Contents with links is listed below. Or download pdf of the whole book here.)
Note to critics: Please read the whole of my little book (including notes) before offering criticism. Thanks.
Chapter 13: Israel should agree to a permanent ceasefire?
Objection: To achieve peace and facilitate the
return of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, Israel should agree to a permanent
ceasefire.
Reply: No, for two reasons (which work together).
First, we should keep in mind that Hamas is an Islamic-jihadist terrorist organization that has promised to repeat its October 7 attacks until Israel has been annihilated.1 Hamas’s purpose is to destroy Israel and all Jews, whether combatants or civilians.
Second, we should keep in mind the following insights from historian Paul Johnson, concerning Israeli-Arab armistice in response to violent Arab rejection of the Israeli state at the get-go: “Whereas Israel saw the armistice as a prelude to peace, the Arabs saw it as no more than a truce, and a prelude to war when it should become convenient to them.”2 Johnson adds: “For the Arabs, armistice was the continuation of war by other means. Hence in a real sense Israel has been at war with most of her Arab neighbours from November 1947 until this day.”3 Cultural commentator Alex Taunton: “For Hamas any ceasefire is just seen as a breather, an opportunity to regroup, to attack yet again. So peace in this sense is no lasting peace, it is just a prelude to war.”4
We should think about this. Though to Western minds Hamas’s agreement to the notion of a permanent ceasefire suggests a permanent peace, for Hamas a “permanent ceasefire” is in its interest only insofar as it can regroup and rearm in order to continue its genocidal jihad against Israel. Indeed, Westerners should keep in mind the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, which is, according to Merriam-Webster, “the principle of practicing the dissimulation of outward conformity permitted Muslims in a hostile or persecuting non-Muslim environment for the sake of their personal safety.”5 In other words, for Hamas to agree to a permanent ceasefire is a ruse by which it can gain strength to continue its jihad.6 So pressuring Hamas militarily by not having a ceasefire is wise: it weakens Hamas and its capacity to repeat its promised attacks on Israel. Such pressure also provides incentives for Hamas to give up hostages in exchange for temporary pauses so it can survive and attempt to regroup. Yes, have temporary pauses for the sake of the release of hostages and for helping to deliver humanitarian aid to innocent Gazan civilians, but continue the military pressure without a permanent ceasefire to weaken and eventually eradicate Hamas.
Instead of calling Israel to agree to a permanent ceasefire—which strengthens and emboldens Hamas (and other terrorists)—the international community should be calling for Hamas to surrender. The Israel-Hamas war would end immediately if Hamas were to lay down its arms and release the hostages.7
NOTES
1. Hamas Official: We Will Repeat October 7 Attacks Until Israel Is Annihilated, Haaretz, November 1, 2023.
2. Paul Johnson, A
History of the Jews (New York: Harper Perennial, 1988), 532.
3. Johnson, A History of the Jews, 533.
4. Alex Taunton, Israel-Hamas War 101, YouTube, October 24, 2023.
5. For further thought on the doctrine of taqiyya, see David Wood, What Is Taqiyya?—David Wood Explains, Seasoned Apologist, July 3, 2019 (6 minute video).
6. In other words (again), for Hamas to agree to a so-called permanent ceasefire would be an instance of Islamist utilitarian moral reasoning in which the end justifies the means. The end is a successful jihad, and the means is the telling of lies as needed.
7. If Hamas were to lay down its arms and release the hostages, the war would end immediately. But if Israel were to lay down its arms, Hamas would destroy Israel. And in this latter scenario Hamas—and fellow Islamic jihadists—would be emboldened to destroy any other infidels throughout the globe. (If the reader thinks my observation is Islamophobic, then the reader is mistaken and should read this book’s appendices on Islamophobia.)
Table of Contents (links)
Chapter 1. Israel is engaging in colonial retaliation?
Chapter 2. Israel is a powerful state and thus the oppressor?
Chapter 3. Israel is not a legitimate state?
Chapter 4. Israel occupies Gaza?
Chapter 5. Gaza is like a Jewish ghetto?
Chapter 6. What about Gabor Maté?
Chapter 7. What about Gabor Maté, again?
Chapter 8. Israel targets a hospital?
Chapter 9. Israel’s attack on Gaza is as bad (or worse) as Gaza’s attack on Israel?
Chapter 10. Israel is wrong to cause Gaza to suffer?
Chapter 11. Israel is guilty of genocide?
Chapter 12. Israel’s response to Hamas is not proportional?
Chapter 13. Israel should agree to a permanent ceasefire?
Chapter 14. Israel should embrace a two-state solution?
Chapter 15. Conclusion and prayer
Appendix 1: Criticizing Islam is Islamophobic? (Part 1 of 2)
Appendix 2: Criticizing Islam is Islamophobic? (Part 2 of 2)
No comments:
Post a Comment