The Prophet Mohammed (riding a horse) accepts the submission of the

Banu Nadir, a Jewish tribe he defeated at Medina that was aligned with

the anti-Islam Quraysh tribe of Mecca. From the ancient Mongul book of

history called the Jami'al-Tawarikh, dated 1314-5 A.D.

In Arabic, Hebrew and English, the Meaning of 'Ceasefire' Varies Widely (El Diario Exterior, Spain)

"Notwithstanding the fact that the language of negotiation is English, each party to the process thinks in its own mother tongue, and consciously or unconsciously, negotiates through its own cultural bias. The United States, and even the Israelis, have little or no idea how the Palestinians or the Arab world think. The concepts and use of language in the Arab world is diametrically distinct, and even opposite, to that of the West."

By George Chaya

Translated By Rachael Bradley

June 20, 2013

Spain - El Diario Exterior  Original Article (Spanish)

PLO founder and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat: It appears that his definition of 'ceasefire' was entirely different than that of the Americans or Israelis he was negotiating the Oslo Accords with. ENEVIGHET VIDEO, GERMANY: The Oslo Accords - what happened and why they failed, 00:19:52

The concepts and language in the Arab world are in some cases diametrically opposed to what is known in the West. There is an urgent need for the international community to address this issue responsibly so as not to continue the long string of peace process failure in the region.

In the Israeli-Palestinian case, idiosyncratic elements, linguistics and the cultures that separate the parties, usually pose more difficulty than the complexities of the actual talks, which have been going on for years. Notwithstanding the fact that the language of negotiation is English, each party to the process thinks in its own mother tongue, and consciously or unconsciously, negotiates through its own cultural bias.

The United States, and even the Israelis, have little or no idea how the Palestinians or the Arab world think. The concepts and use of language in the Arab world is diametrically distinct, and even opposite, to that of the West. As an example of this phenomenon, let's take a look at the word ceasefire - a central concept of critical importance in the search for peace, which seems out of reach for the region, in light of its years of raging conflict and numerous crisis. Each party involved uses this word, but for each, it acquires different meanings and cultural connotations.

In English, as it is understood in the United States, the term ceasefire means a total cessation by one party of any activity that could be interpreted as aggressive by the other party. In Hebrew, the word is translated as hafsakat-esh. For the Israelis, ceasefire means that the Palestinians must cease all attacks against them, but that if Israel learns of an imminent terrorist attack it can and should act to prevent it.

In Arabic, the term used for "ceasefire" and "truce" is hudna, which means a temporary cessation of hostilities against the enemy until that enemy can be defeated in the future. These differences are enough to sink any signed agreement. In Arabic, there are three idiosyncratic peace agreements:

a) Hudna b) Atwah and c) Sulha.

All these words have their origins in the Arab world's tribal law. Hudna is a fundamental principle - a legal concept that applied to tribes. It is temporary and used as a vehicle to reach the next step, the atwah, which configures a lasting or longer term commitment. A final agreement, or sulha, can never be reached unless the previous steps have been achieved. In the Arab worldview, this and only this is required to complete the process.

The most famous hudna took place in 628 A.D., when the Prophet Mohammad on behalf of the elders of Medina, reached a peace treaty with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca in the city of Hudaybiyyah. The agreement reached was to last nine years, nine months and nine days. Two years later, Mohammad violated the treaty and attacked, destroyed and defeated the tribal elders.

The events of Hudaybiyyah are interpreted as containing two important lessons for radical jihadists. First, they believe one can sign an agreement with the enemy when passing through a period of operational and military weakness, provided that the agreement is in your own interest. The second lesson is that, after being revitalized and strengthened, the agreement can be broken. This interpretation by Islamist groups is similar to the legend of the Trojan Horse, in which a gesture or gift can be the catalyst for an enemy's defeat.

Posted By Worldmeets.US

For Arabs, including Arabs who live in Israel, the 1949 armistice agreements signed between Israel and neighboring Arab countries in the city of Rhodes, are considered hudna. The West interprets them as comprising an armistice, while the Israelis consider them hafsakat-aish.

An interesting fact complicating this analysis are the events of September 1993, when Bill Clinton, the U.S. president, Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister, signed an agreement at the White House that later came to be known as the Oslo Accords. This was presented an important step on the road toward peace. However, in Cape Town a month later, during a speech in his native Arabic, Yasser Arafat referred to Oslo Accords as a "Hudaybiyyah pact." By this statement, Arafats was understood to mean that the agreement was nothing more than hudna - an deal made to be broken at a suitable moment, and which would in some fashion bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians.

Like Worldmeets.US on Facebook

So, unfortunately, history shows that many agreements haven't been worth the ink they were signed in. These negative precedents indicate that Western leaders must avail themselves of a deeper understanding of the cultural aspects of the Arab world, but above all, whenever one wishes to truly succeed in negotiating peace in that region of the world, language is fundamental.

If history has taught us anything, it is that "ceasefire" must be understood as much more than a word on the path to obtaining a genuinely-sought peace. Particularly when it concerns deceptive and fraudulent aspects of tribal linguistic approaches to the honorable pursuit of peace.

SEE ALSO ON THIS:

L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon: President Obama: Impose Palestine as Truman Imposed Israel

L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon: Abraham, Moses, Arabs and Israel: 'Imposing Palestine' Not the Answer

Estadao, Brazil: Abbas Should be Congratulated for Victory of Beleaguered Palestine

Le Quotidien dOran, Algeria: 'Unequivocal Respect' for Palestine's Freedom Fighters

Zaman, Turkey: Arab and Israeli Extremists Teach Obama a Painful Lesson

El Pais, Spain: Coming in September: The U.N. 'Train Wreck' Over Palestine

Le Quotidien d'Oran, Algeria: Obama Reverts to Type on Palestine

Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, Palestine: After Obama's U.N. Veto: Awaiting the Arab Street

Le Quotidien dOran, Algeria: Obama's Disgrace Leaves Palestinians No Choice

Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, Palestine: U.S. 'Knesset' More Extreme than Israel's!

Samidoon, Palestinian Territories: 'America Cannot Be Trusted'

Haaretz, Israel: Israelis Must Brace for Dark Times

Jerusalem Post, Israel: Netanyahu and 'The Book of Why'

CLICK HERE FOR SPANISH VERSION

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

Posted By Worldmeets.US June 20, 2013, 9:54pm