Slouching Towards Bethlehem 2: Boyz n da Hudna

Peter Fruchter, September 6th, 2006

A couple weeks back, in Toronto’s Globe & Mail (“Judging Israel and Fidel”, August 18th, 2006), Rick Salutin commented thus:

[Israeli] attempts to impose peace by withdrawing from Gaza, erecting a wall on the West Bank etc., on its own terms, without negotiation. I know that got a good press here and sounded on the surface worthy. But it ignored a huge need that humans have: to be recognized; it is the basis of our sense of dignity. That need can supersede even the necessities of survival.

Seems odd, though, doesn’t it? That in Gaza, they continue to attack Israel at any and all costs – survival included – regardless occupation or withdrawal by Israel. And why? Because they’re not getting the respect they need from Israel. Because, according to (not only) Salutin, they’re not getting the recognition they require from Israel. Because they can’t live and won’t survive without dignity and self-respect – and in Gaza, self-respect hinges on getting Israeli respect. In Gaza, dignity hinges on Israeli recognition.

Wow. Radical. Maslow, who so chiefly emphasized self-actualization, wouldn’t have agreed. For Maslow, survival necessarily preceded self-respect. Nor would Marx have agreed. Far as Marx was concerned, nevermind self-respect – one can’t even think on an empty stomach. But I agree. I totally agree. Without self-respect, there comes a point at which mere survival is meaningless.

Seems odd, though. Not that, absent self-respect, there comes a point at which mere survival is meaningless. Not that. That’s insightful. Rather, what seems odd is the notion that, in Gaza, self-respect hinges on getting Israeli respect and recognition.

Let’s give the notion a chance, though. However odd, let’s go with it – let’s see where it takes us.

We know, for instance, that when individuals are abducted or otherwise sufficiently coerced, their self-respect may plummet. We call it Stockholm Syndrome. Like falling into a kind of childish dependency, an infantile helplessness – likely adopted for sake of survival. Although, too often, suffering Stockholm Syndrome impedes survival. Like when abductees foil rescue attempts. Even though no guarantee of abductor approval or leniency follows. Likely, at least sometimes, just the opposite results: the more self-respect abductees abandon, the greater abductors’ contempt for them. Abductees suffering Stockholm Syndrome may indeed confirm abductors’ beliefs that the abductees are expendable. After all, self-respecting human beings wouldn’t act so despicably. Maybe what makes them despicable isn’t their lacking self-respect, even. Maybe they’re not even human. But no matter. Despicable either way. And having proven despicable, it becomes less trouble expending them. Makes the job easier.

Makes the job so much easier when the coerced abandon self-respect. Perhaps, for some coercers, it makes the job pleasant. Cleansing, even. Not just ethnic cleansing – since coerced may share ethnicity with coercers. Viscerally, quintessentially cleansing.

Whether circumstances involve abductors and abductees, guards and prisoners or any other sufficiently coercive relating – it comes down to this: survival of those coerced may be most impeded precisely by their abandoning self-respect for sake of survival.

So, might something of this sort not also occur collectively? Let’s assume it might. And let’s call it Helsinki Syndrome – if and when Stockholm Syndrome occurs collectively.

Let’s assume that due to Israeli coercion – occupation – the Palestinian population of Gaza is suffering Helsinki Syndrome. Let’s assume that the Palestinian population of Gaza has been coerced so badly – by Israel – as to abandon self-respect; and that surviving in Gaza is thereby impeded. Let’s assume that what impedes surviving in Gaza is abandoning self-respect in order to survive Israeli coercion. To survive Israeli occupation.

Gazan Helsinki Syndrome: Israeli occupation has proven so damaging to self-respect that, in Gaza, they can’t stop shooting at Israel. Regardless whether Israel is occupying or ceasing to occupy. Even if doing so impedes and threatens surviving in Gaza – by eventually and inevitably forcing Israel to shoot back.

Talk-Show host: “Alright, fine. It’s conceivable. But what about Hezbollah, in Lebanon? Why can’t they stop shooting at Israel? Surely they don’t suffer Helsinki Syndrome too, do they?”

Talk-Show guest: “Sure they do. They’ve experienced Israeli occupation in Lebanon too. So their self-respect has been damaged too. Irretrievably damaged. Helsinki Syndrome isn’t just Gazan. They suffer it in Lebanon too.”

Host: “Alright. Even that is conceivable. But what about far away places? Places Israel never occupied. Like Iran, for instance. In the past they were too far away to shoot at Israel directly – but they’re doing their utmost to rectify that. They’re developing nuclear capabilities and the missiles required to deliver nuclear payloads over the intervening distance. They deny doing this – though they don’t bother making a secret of it. Some years back Rafsanjani pointed out Israel is so tiny, one nuclear bomb would annihilate it – whereas Iran could withstand ten nuclear bombs. And bear in mind, in Iran Rafsanjani is among the moderates. Meanwhile though, until they can manage shooting at Israel directly, they pay the big bucks and provide every encouragement – not just military – to anyone and everyone that’s willing to shoot at Israel on their behalf. But Israel never occupied Iran. So what’s their problem? How could Israel have damaged self-respect in Iran? How come they can’t stop trying either to shoot at Israel or to make sure someone else is shooting at Israel for them? Surely they can’t be suffering Helsinki Syndrome in Iran too. Right?”

Guest: “Wrong. Of course they’re suffering Helsinki Syndrome in Iran too. Not for having themselves been occupied by Israel. But for knowing that their Muslim siblings have been occupied by Israel.”

Host: “Oh, come on. That’s absurd.”

Guest: “Nope. That’s Islamic solidarity for you. They even suffer their Helsinki Syndrome together. Kind’a like the Jews. They sure do their suffering together, no? They do lots of things together, them Jews. It’s a conspiracy thing. The Jewish conspiracy. No doubt you’ve heard of it.”

Host: “Christ.”

Guest: “Ayup. That too. Absolutely. What, you think the crusades are over? Let me tell you something about Bush and the Templar..”

Host: “Hold it!”

Guest: “What? It’s right on the American dollar..”

Host: “Hold it. Even assuming you’re right. We still can’t go on calling it Helsinki Syndrome.”

Guest: “Why not?”

Host: “Because Helsinki Syndrome is just like Stockholm Syndrome – only applying collectively. It’s counter-productive excessive compliance due to coercive trauma. But what’s going on in the Middle-East is the exact opposite. They can’t stop shooting at Israel. No matter what. That’s no excessive compliance. Just the opposite.”

Guest: “Fine. Call it resistance, then.”

Host: “No, I don’t think so. It’s a syndrome of some sort, alright. Remember, that’s one of the original premises we’re working with. From Rick Salutin’s comment, that there’s a lack of respect and recognition, which leads to a lack of dignity and self-respect – which, in turn, can be so destructive as to even interfere with surviving. And it’s true, I think. We in the media are constantly hearing about this sense of Islamic humiliation, about Islamic low self-esteem. Not just from Gaza or from Lebanon. From everywhere in the Middle-East.”

Guest: “Fine. So there’s a collective low self-esteem syndrome in the Middle-East brought about by Israeli occupation – and we can’t call it Helsinki Syndrome. So what do you want to call it?”

Host: “How about Tehran Syndrome?”

Guest: “Tehran? Why Tehran?”

Host: “Well, twenty-five years ago I would’ve suggested calling it Cairo Syndrome – but they’ve totally managed to stop shooting at Israel in Egypt.. so it doesn’t fit any more. They don’t seem much suffering the syndrome in Egypt now.”

Guest: “Ok, whatever. So Israeli occupation has caused Tehran Syndrome throughout the Middle-East. Are we done?

Host: “Hardly. We’ve yet to understand it.”

Guest: “I thought we just did.”

Host: “Not in the least. It’s Stockholm Syndrome we’re familiar with. And Helsinki Syndrome, which would just mean Stockholm Syndrome plurality. But Tehran Syndrome – this inability to stop shooting at Israel – well, that’s the exact opposite. Right? The opposite of familiar. But I can explain it. It’s not so hard to understand.”

Guest: “It’s your show. Wake me when it’s over.”

It’s not hard to understand if we take into account an unfamiliar notion – unfamiliar to us, but entirely familiar to Islamic culture. The notion of hudna. The Islamic notion that it’s entirely proper and legitimate to enter into false treaties with infidels. Perhaps with any enemies. But for sure with infidels. Thus, when Islamic forces are weak, they may well sue for and enter peace treaties with stronger infidel forces. However, once Islamic forces become stronger than the infidel forces, it’s entirely proper and legitimate to declare war – regardless breaching peace treaty terms agreed to during relative Islamic weakness.

Hudna precedent was set by the Prophet Muhammad himself, when, on gaining in relative strength, he declared war – contravening terms of a peace treaty he had committed to during times of relative weakness. Now he was stronger, war suited him again. So, on pretext it was the other – now weaker – side breached the peace treaty, he declared war. Now the other side was weaker, the treaty no longer suited him. Peace no longer suited now he was stronger.

So, in Islam, the hudna precedent is better than ironclad. It’s definitive. For being Muslim means following such precedent as the Prophet set. And wherever governance is by Islamic fundamentalism, it’s the only way to go. In the footsteps of the Prophet. Faithfully following his precedence. There’s no other fundamentalist Islamic way to go. Fundamentalist Islamic following must be faithful. That’s not open to debate. It’s not subject to questioning. It’s God-given – in infinite mercy and wisdom.

Hudna isn’t just legitimate – in Islam, it’s quite ubiquitous. For instance, Hamas proposed hudna with Israel. Arafat, after committing to treaties with Israel – treaties which were taken seriously by most everyone – literally burst out disclaiming the treaties as hudna. And why not? Why shouldn’t hudna be ubiquitous in Islam? Why not sue peace and disengage the enemy when weak; regroup, rearm and reinforce; and then resume warring when strong, timing and placing the battling to one’s best advantage? Why not get one’s enemies to fight at such times and places as one chooses for them? If the ignorance of one’s enemy leads that enemy to self-defeat – what’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with adopting any means necessary to defeat the enemy? Even Shakespeare – not likely Muslim – acknowledged all’s fair in war. Of course, Shakespeare might have advocated asking a few questions to determine who one’s enemies are. Asking a few questions before starting shooting. Shakespeare might even have considered it tragedy, killing those not one’s enemies. But he wasn’t Muslim. No doubt he would have understood, had he been. Had he been fundamentalist Muslim, he’d not have been confused. Faithful Islamic following rather precludes asking whether enemies eager to treat for peace might not be inimical. Definitively not if infidels. For infidels are subject to the Surah of the Sword. To the faithful, infidel means enemy. That’s not all it means, of course – but it can’t conceivably fail to mean it. Infidel meaning enemy is definitive.

However, outside Islam, we’ve been relatively unfamiliar with hudna. Not ignorant, precisely – but unfamiliar. Sufficiently unfamiliar for Arafat to have received the Nobel Peace Prize for his peace treating with Israel. Regardless his bursting to disclaim his peace treating with Israel as hudna. Sufficiently unfamiliar that, instead of striking back while the iron was hot and shrapnel yet flying, we splayed for him and lavished him in Nobel fashion. In Shakespearean terms, this was comedy: many rolling on the ground – some laughing, more dying. In more current terms, this was slapstick.

Lately, outside Islam, we’ve become somewhat more familiar with hudna. We’ve debated the tactical significance of hudna. We’ve even touched on the moral significance of hudna – for what does repeatedly repudiating solemn commitment on flimsy pretext suggest? But this is silly. What solemn commitment? What fidelity is owed infidels by the faithful?

Nevermind tactical and moral significance of hudna. The former is obvious. The latter does not signify. What does signify, what requires understanding, is the cultural significance of hudna.

Going on sixty years now, it has been the avowed fundamentalist Islamic goal to genocide Israel. Since 1948, Islamic shooting at Israel has never stopped. At times the shooting has been concerted. At other times, the shooting has been sporadic. But either way, it’s never stopped.

Typically, the shooting pattern has been this: when the shooting becomes too concerted – or too sustained even if sporadic – Israel defends herself; one way or another, Israel manages to make shooting at her too painful for shooters to maintain sustained or concerted shooting; the shooters commit to stop sustained or concerted shooting if Israel will stop making it so painful to shoot at her; Israel invariably agrees, and; the shooting at Israel becomes intermittently sporadic – neither sustained nor concerted. Until it becomes sustained and then concerted again. Repeat.

Islamic countries attack Israel. Israel counter-attacks in self-defence. Islamic countries sue for peace. But, of course, the peace they sue for is actually hudna. Regardless whether tacit or outright, it’s just hudna. There’s no intention to stop shooting for good. There’s no abandoning the avowed goal – genociding Israel. There’s just a kind’a, “Oh, hell, you’re really making this difficult.. you’re making too much trouble for us. How about you calm down and we’ll try again later?”

That’s what Islamic peace suing amounts to – whether express or implied: only hudna. Almost if not always. Thanks to Sadat, Egypt’s given up on hudna. But Sadat’s thanks for getting Egypt to give up on hudna was an early grave. Courtesy Islamic fundamentalism. Other than that, though, that’s what Islamic peace suing amounts to. Regardless terms, the shooting won’t stop. Concerted or sporadic, directly or by proxy – everyone knows by now. The shooting won’t stop. It’s merely hudna.

It’s about time we look over the border – or fence. Let’s try to see it from the Islamic side. Be the Islamic side Sunny or Shiite, Wahabistic or Iranian revolutionary – regardless any of that. Let’s see it from the Islamic side.

Going on sixty years now, Islam has been shooting at Israel. Seeking to genocide Israel. Seeking to drive Israelis into the sea, over the sea, into the grave – whatever. And Israel? Every time the dust settled for a bit, the Israeli flag was still there. Israel was still there. Sometimes with expanded borders, even. Occupying as surety against future shooting. Rubbing in the salt.

Imagine that. See it from the Islamic side. Here’s this tiny infidel country. Eradicating it is religious service to the greater glory of God. God willing, it should be a cake walk.. or rather, no trouble at all making falafel of Israel. And why shouldn’t God be willing? He didn’t even give Israel oil.

But God doesn’t seem willing. Not in the least. Not at all. In 1948, Israel survives as if by divine intervention. How else could one explain it? In 1967, Israel wipes the map with the combined might of Islam. In six days. How is that to be explained away? And then, in 1973, Israel is caught not just with downed pants – but with undergarments lost. Yet Israel survives. More than just survives. Thanks in large part to Sharon’s insubordinate antics, Israel winds up in shelling distance of both Cairo and Damascus.

So it’s back to hudna. Had the situation ever been reversed – just once – Israel would not exist today. But Israel, even if not winning outright, has never lost. The proof of it is in the pudding of Israel’s continuing existing.

Nope. Israel has not lost to Hezbollah. The Israeli flag is still there. So is Hezbollah’s, of course. But what of it? Hezbollah is no military threat to Israel. It took Hezbollah an average of more than four Katyushas to kill or wound one Israeli. That’s burning bushes. The bushes in Israel are at greater risk – at least three times greater risk – from Hezbollah than Israeli civilians. This is not Egyptian and Syrian tank columns on Israeli soil on Yom Kipur. This does not qualify as concerted shooting. It is only sporadic shooting – though unusually densely sustained for a couple months.

For sure, after too much sporadic shooting, even Israel will defend herself. Yes. It’s a shock. We call it over-reacting, Israel defending herself from sporadic shooting. But there’s no helping it. However spectacular, 9/11 and Pearl Harbour didn’t qualify as even sporadic shooting. However spectacular, these were singular shots. Whereas at Israel, the shooting never stops. There’s no helping it. It eventually gets exhausting even for sitting ducks. Particularly when sporadic shooting begins to be punctuated with flagrant cross border raids, killings and abductions. By avowers of Israeli genocide. After going on sixty years of genocide avowing. Gets pretty fragrant, even just avowing genocide for sixty years. Too fragrant. Too flagrant. Them straws will break any camel’s back – particularly one that’s been sporadically shot at like a sitting duck for too long. Since the last time the shooting turned concerted. Since the last time Israel stopped sitting, stopped ducking and started shooting back.

Admittedly, though, it wouldn’t be sporadic were Iran to begin shooting nuclear weapons at Israel. Hell. Nothing could be more concerted, far as shooting goes. That would be Armageddon. But, let’s face it. Nuclear Iran isn’t just Israel’s problem. Armageddon isn’t only Israel’s problem. It’s the world’s problem. We all know it. For while Armageddon might start at the plains of Megiddo – Armageddon will not finish there. It will finish everywhere.

In the meanwhile, it’s back to Hudna. And while Israel hasn’t managed to ensure Hezbollah will stop shooting – what of it? When has Israel ever managed to ensure Islam will stop shooting? Not ever. Never. That’s what hudna means. That regardless what is said, the shooting will not stop. Whether sporadic – all Hezbollah really ever managed – or concerted remains only a matter of timing and placing. Regardless treaty terms. Regardless ceasefires however brokered. The shooting never stops. That’s what hudna means.

It’s back to hudna now. And what does it mean to Islam, this returning, this eternal returning to hudna with Israel? It means a kind of madness. For if hudna means it’s legitimate to devise false treaties with stronger forces – especially stronger infidel forces – then any hudna with Israel means that, for the duration of that hudna, Israeli forces constitute stronger infidel forces. Infidel forces stronger than Islamic fundamentalism.

It’s maddening. It’s unthinkable. Tiny Israel. Stronger infidel forces. Population less than some large cities. Stronger infidel forces. It just can’t be. But that’s what hudna with Israel means. It’s intolerable. Once would have been unacceptable. But this eternal returning to hudna with Israel.. words fail. The shooting cycle starts again.

It’s too intolerable for words. It defies description. But let’s try an analogy. A soccer analogy.

Let’s imagine ourselves Englishmen. And let’s imagine the pride we take in our national soccer team, the very spirit of – let’s say – England United. So. Pound for pound and leg for leg, England United is the best. There’s no disputing it. But. Imagine if, for the past sixty years, during World-Cup play, England United had invariably been knocked out. So far, not that much of a stretch. Here’s where imagining really comes in, though. Let’s imagine it hasn’t been Germany knocking England out. Nor even Portugal – some respect’s due there, surely. Nope. Nowhere near. For the past sixty years, England United hasn’t been making any finals. Neither semis nor even quarters. Nowhere near. For the past sixty years, England United’s been getting knocked out in the first or second round. Over and over and over. By this one shitty little country. That’s how the French – all too gleefully – put it: shitty little country.

England United is the best. There’s no disputing it. But.

Imagine it. What would happen? Vanity bonfires? Rampant hooliganism? Torched stadia? All of the above and more?

Well, hudna with Israel is worse. For the faithful of Islam, it’s worse. It’s so much worse that we, outside Islam, can hardly conceive it. Words can’t describe the sting of it. The humiliation of it can not for long be borne. Nothing withstands it. Inanimate ploughshares beat themselves into rocket launchers – while foreign rockets and missiles, on pilgrimage from the north, arrive and go ballistic.

Never much mind the tactical or moral significance of hudna. It’s the cultural significance of hudna that stings. Hudna with Israel is intolerable. With the international non-Islamic community, in a pinch? Sure, makes sense. With the United States, the world’s sole current super-power? Alright, in extremity – but not too often; it seems too much a paper tiger. With the European Union? Hah. Hardly. But with Israel? With that shitty little country? That shitty little infidel country? Inconceivable. Intolerable. Unspeakable. How could God humiliate the faithful in the midst of utmost religious service – the religious service of erasing, of genociding that shitty little infidel blemish?

The cumulative humiliation of repeated hudna with Israel is unspeakable for Islam. Over the past going on sixty years, the sting of it has sored and festered to such a boil as can but erupt incessant outrage. That’s why, in most Islam, any political legitimacy whatsoever requires, demands Israel bashing. Regardless how relatively moderate the politician. It’s also why that Islamic leader who best provides for Israeli genociding prospects quite directly acquires the mantle of pan-Islamic authority. Regardless that leader’s particular affiliation within Islam. Thus, while Bin Laden has acquired some pan-Islamic authority for striking the United States, it is not nearly what he was hoping for. He has not sufficiently threatened Israel. It’s Ahmadinejad who’s been acquiring the mantle. With Nasrallah tailoring. May it fit well. The pan-Islamic authority mantle once worn by Nasser, Saddat, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein. The mantle any Islamic politician of any Islamic stripe must hold the hem of – or discharge Islamic authority entirely. That’s why the Saudi Crown must participate, at times even incite Israel bashing. Either that or lose it’s head. That’s why Allawi could not concur, even on American television, that Israel is entitled to self-defence. That’s why Saad al-Hariri must start with bashing at Israel even when expressing his anger at Syria. Even though he and his family and his people have suffered at least as much at the hands of Syria as Israel. More, even. Whether directly or indirectly. And by no means least, that’s why Sadat lost not only his authority but his very life when he dropped the mantle. It was suicide, his abandoning all prospects of Israel genociding – his abandoning hudna with Israel. And he used to own that pan-Islamic authority mantle. He’d been the principal, at that time maybe even the sole provider of Israel genociding prospects. He knew it, too – that it would cost his life. He said it would. But he’d made honest war with Israel and, when he gave up shooting, the peace he made with Israel was honest too. He was honest in war. He was honest in peace. He was honest even with infidels. He was honest regardless circumstance and personal consequence. He was that one honest man.

But, festering to boiling by the humiliating sting of hudna with Israel, Islam unremembers Saddat. When Hezbollah celebrates victory among the dead, they are saying something. They are saying, “This hudnah is not for long. We beat them. Not for long shall we be weaker. Not for long this hudnah. The day is coming.” And thereby, Hezbollah acquires increasing pan-Islamic authority. Al-Qaida would like to get in on some of that too – but how have they threatened Israel lately? Wannabes. Most of all, most intimately, we see how the festered hudna sting boils when an Israeli is captured or abducted. When that Israeli is dismembered and gutted and some run the streets trailing organs while others hand out chocolates. They are saying something. They are saying, “Look how Israelis bleed! Look how weak they are! Look how they fall apart in our hands! We are stronger. We are stronger. Not for long this hudnah. God willing, the day is coming.”

So, yeah. Israeli occupation has caused Tehran Syndrome throughout the Middle-East. It’s true. All fundamentalist Islam is humiliated by Israeli occupation. But, outside Islam, to understand what this means, we must begin appreciating how the festering sting of hudna with Israel boils. What does it mean when a Hezbollah fighter tells western cameras he feels humiliated by Israeli attacks? What does it mean when Kofi Annan urges Israel to lift the humiliating blockade? What is the meaning of this humiliation?

It is hudna. Hudna with Israel. Repeating hudna with Israel. For however tactically advantageous the hudna with Israel, it entails that pan-Islamic fundamentalist forces are, albeit temporarily, weaker than Israeli forces. Weaker than the forces of a shitty little country – as the French so gleefully put it. Temporarily weaker now going on sixty years. Inconceivable. The once happy religious service of erasing an infidel blemish has become boiling festers throughout Islamic culture.

So, yeah. Israeli occupation has caused Tehran Syndrome in the Middle-East. In Islamic Middle-East, they are humiliated to the core – so humiliated that they can’t stop shooting at Israel. But, as Rick Salutin noticed, Israeli withdrawal from occupation has equally proven humiliating. And, once we begin to comprehend the quality of humiliation entailed by near sixty years’ repeating hudna with that shitty little infidel country, something else begins to come clear. Something entirely counter-intuitive to some of us outside Islam.

Some of us outside Islam might naturally expect that, since Islam can’t stop shooting at Israel due to feeling humiliated by Israel – well, Israel should just stop humiliating fundamentalist Islam. Then, when Islam ceases feeling humiliated by Israel, it will cease shooting at Israel. Sure. Yeah. But what’s it gon’na take for Islam to cease feeling humiliated by Israel? We must ask this question. Once we even begin appreciating how hudna stings, we’ve got to ask what is it that can ease the stinging. And on appreciating how deeply stung by hudna with Israel Islamic culture has become, there can follow but one answer: stamping out hudna with Israel once and for all. There can be no halfway measures. Perhaps there never could have been. By now, though.. not a single raindrop’s chance on the plains of Megiddo. Stamping out hudna with Israel once and for all – it’s the only answer.

But how might stamping out hudna with Israel be accomplished? Two ways are obvious – and absolutely contrary. There’s Sadat’s way: abandoning the definitive principle that the meaning of Israel essentially is infidel entity genociding which is mandatory to the greater glory of God; acknowledging Israel’s right to not be genocided – to exist; allowing for the conceivability of enmity with Israel ceasing; allowing for the possibility of enmity with Israel winding down, and; engaging Israel in genuine peace treating and becoming a real partner with Israel in stretching for peace. Then there’s the standard way. The tried and untrue way. The raised expectations of sufficient relative strength to accomplish the genociding; the attempt; the dashed expectations; and the ever deepening boiling festering humiliation of returning, returning, returning to the hudna. Except not this time. This is the last time. Hudna over once and for all. This is the final time. Finally, finally the faithful are stronger and, God willing, we take their women before their dying eyes as we put them to the sword… Yeah.

If Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, we need never wonder whether Ahmadinejad prepares landing pads for the Twelfth Imam. For Islam will not cease and Islam can not rest until the sting of hudna with Israel has been pulled once and for all. And going the tried and untrue way to pull the sting will eventually, inevitably take Islam to a final conflict with Israel. A final conflict near, or even at the plains of Megiddo. It really could start there. Regardless where it starts, though, it will finish everywhere. And it so doesn’t matter what Ahmadinejad prepares for the Twelfth Imam. For if, wearing the mantle of pan-Islamic authority, he leads Islam the tried and untrue way to the plains of Megiddo – well, then, Ahmadinejad becomes the Twelfth Imam.

One last thing. That counter-intuitive thing – at least for some of us outside Islam. So long as Islam continues the tried and untrue way, what must Israel do to cease humiliating Islam? Well, what can Israel do? Any time Israel succeeds in self-defence and strikes back sufficiently to dissuade the forces of Islamic fundamentalism – nevermind occupying additional territory for surety against future Islamic offensive – yet greater humiliation is heaped upon Islam. Forced back to hudna with that shitty little country. That shitty little infidel blemish. But if Israel tries the exact opposite – as Israel actually has tried – then what? What if, in order to cease humiliating Islam, in order to pacify Islam, Israel progressively gives up its scant territories? What then? With each retreat, the forces of Islamic fundamentalism would feel themselves stronger relative to Israel. With each retreat, Israel would seem a yet littler and shittier infidel blemish to erase. With each retreat, Islamic forces would become increasingly persuaded that the infidels are running, that they are stronger – that the infidels are running because Islamic forces are stronger. Teasing like that would totally be asking for it. How could Islamic excitement resist such incitement? Why should Islamic forces resist such flaunting? Such brazen flaunting. No. Should not and ought not. There would be gunfiring celebration. There would be abductions. Running the streets trailing abductees’ organs. Chocolates on little platters for everyone. Hudna over. Finally over. Pulling at the stinging, at the erupting boiling festering – putting an end to humiliation once and for all. What then? If in self-defence Israel struck back so hard yet again to force returning to hudna on Islamic forces? What then? How humiliating would that be – being forced back to hudna, yet again, with a yet smaller, shittier little country?

So long as the forces of Islamic fundamentalism keep going the tried and untrue way, their only hope for ceasing to be humiliated is to finally accomplish their goal – and never have returning to hudna forced upon them by that shitty little infidel blemish again. So long as Islamic forces will not conceive of Israel as essentially other than infidel entity genociding which is mandatory to the greater glory of God, there is but one way for Israel to cease humiliating Islam: cease surviving the onslaughts of Islam. Cease forcing Islam returning to hudna. Just die already.

So long as Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, only Israel’s final genociding will salve the stinging festered boil of sixty years’ incessant humiliation. The incessant humiliation entailed by endlessly being forced back to hudna by that shitty little infidel blemish. So long as Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, there’s no other option. Further surviving by Israel, any further forcing returning to hudna on Islam, can only compound the humiliation. It can only work the sting deeper still.

And that is counter-intuitive to some of us outside Islam. Counter-intuitive to those of us who naturally thought ceasing humiliating would result in ceasing shooting. Not false – just so incomplete as to be utterly misleading. Far as the humiliation entailed by repeated hudna with Israel is concerned, ceasing humiliating would result in ceasing shooting – but only once there would remain no Israelis as such available to be shot.

It’s only counter-intuitive to some of us outside Islam. To some others, I suppose it isn’t news at all. That, so long as Islam keeps going the tried and untrue way, calling on Israel to cease humiliating Islam is calling on Israel to die already. But it needed saying. Overtly.