Finish ‘em off, Bibi.

Hezbollah Wants a Ceasefire Now. Here’s Why Israel Shouldn’t Give Them One.
Ceasefire now? As much as Kamala Harris wants one and would capitalize upon one if it did materialize, the answer must be a firm no.

After exploding pagers and a series of carefully targeted Israeli airstrikes have completely decimated Hezbollah’s senior leadership, the jihad terror organization now wants a ceasefire with Israel. This will come as music to the ears of the Biden-Harris regime, which would like nothing better than an October peace agreement between Israel and one of the major players that are arrayed against it.

The Harris campaign could wave this agreement in the air every time someone pointed out that the world during the Trump years was a much more peaceful place than it is now, and use it going into the election as evidence of Kamala Harris’ superior negotiating skills. But for a number of important reasons, Israel should resist all pressure from Washington.

So far, the pressure for the moment is coming not from Washington, but from Hezbollah itself. CNN reported Tuesday that Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem, who is the highest-ranking official in the organization at the moment (after Israel took out longtime Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and several of his designated or potential successors) said, “We support the political efforts led by (Parliament Speaker Nabih) Berri under the banner of achieving a ceasefire. Once the ceasefire is firmly established and diplomacy can reach it, all other details will be discussed and decisions will be made collaboratively.”

Ceasefire! Diplomacy! Qassem knows how to push all the right buttons to get the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and the United Nations on his side, and even to shower billions upon his straitened organization. Kamala Harris has already sent $157 million to Lebanon, which means to Hezbollah.

Nevertheless, Antony Blinken and his henchmen in Foggy Bottom are likely to take Qassem’s endorsement of Berri’s ceasefire proposal with the utmost seriousness, and start badgering the Israelis to accept it. If they prevail upon them to do so, they’ll only be enabling Hezbollah to survive and get back on its feet after the heavy losses it has recently suffered. This is certain from what Islamic law teaches about when treaties, including temporary truces, should be concluded with a non-Muslim foe.

Yep, those “temporary truces” being known by a specific name in Muzzrat circles: hudna, that would be, a strictly temporary cease-fire intended to allow an exhausted, nearly defeated Mooselimb antagonist to re-equip, refit, and reinvigorate for the next round of jihadi conquest. Thus:

The concept of hudna deserves a close look: It is not a Qur’anic term, nor is it the only Arabic word for a cease-fire or truce; others include: muhadana, muwada’a, muhla, musalaha, musalama, mutaraka, and sulh. But hudna is the most prominent. It is the first word used in Muslim history to mean cease-fire, specifically in the context of the seventh century Truce or Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya, often termed the Sulh al-Hudaybiyya (peace of al-Hudaybiyya).

Named after a village outside Mecca, the truce came six years after Muhammad and his followers abandoned Mecca for Yathrib, today’s Medina. This move, known as the hijra (emigration) is of enormous significance for the classical understanding of jihad, inasmuch as it sets a pattern of retreat followed by regrouping and rearming, which permits an attack on the territory previously left behind.

Spencer, for his part, understands what’s actually going on here perfectly well.

Blinken and his colleagues are dogmatically committed to the proposition that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between Israel and its jihadi enemies and can illuminate nothing about that conflict, but the facts are otherwise.

Islamic law does not envision a state of permanent peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Instead, the Qur’an instructs Muslims to “fight them until persecution is no more and religion is all for Allah” (8:39). If Muslims must continue fighting non-Muslims until “religion is all for Allah,” that means that there is no place in Islam for the “coexistence” that the left professes to value so highly. There can be no coexistence, but only perpetual warfare, although there can be sporadic periods in which a temporary peace prevails.

Islamic law is very clear about when these pauses in the war can go into effect. It only allows for a truce if the Muslims expect their foes to convert to Islam, or if the Muslims are weak and need to gather strength to fight later more effectively: “If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud… Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim…” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.16). 

This idea is founded on the Qur’an: “So do not falter and cry out for peace when you have the upper hand…” (47:35).

Hezbollah is crying out for peace because it does not have the upper hand. It is calling for a ceasefire because it is weak, and needs time to gather its strength. This would, therefore, be the worst time to conclude a ceasefire. Heedless of all this, however, and hating Israel as they do, Biden, Harris, and Blinken will keep pressuring Israel to accept a ceasefire. Netanyahu should stand strong in rejecting this pressure.

And there you have it. Once again, I must repeat: Kill. Them. ALL. Contra the constant teary squeals of “genocide” from idiotic Western shitlibs and, embarrassingly enough, Crackpot Rightists in this context (neither Hezbollah, nor Hamas, nor Paleosimian, nor even Muslim itself constitutes a race, therefore definitionally rendering the claim of “genocide” entirely null and void), there really is no other long-term solution for Western Civ than just this.

Update! Francis asks the pertinent question.

I strive to use words according to their exact meanings. The word existential has such a meaning: “of, relating to, or affirming existence.” Thus, an existential enemy is one whose aim is to end your existence. There can be no greater threat than such an enemy; he poses an existential threat.

Is there a point – a defensible rationale – to negotiating with such an enemy?

A: No. No, there most certainly is not. In such a circumstance, you have but three (3) options: Kill him, surrender, or die your own self, the last two of which amount to the same thing when all’s said and done. Period fucking dot, all there is to it, end of story.

4

2

Error happened.