'Peace first, war later': Arab state urged potential Israel partner to sign deal before launching war (Taqiyya)

Arab state reportedly urged another potential Israel-normalization country to sign deal with Israel, then go to war ‘when time is right’

Information cleared for publication by the Israeli military has revealed a reported exchange between several countries in the region over a possible agreement with Israel, according to reports by Israeli media Kan 11 and Channel 12.

According to the reports, one Arab state allegedly advised another country to first sign an agreement with Israel and then, if circumstances became more favorable, launch a war against the Jewish state.

The revelations come as the Middle East undergoes major strategic shifts. The Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States in 2020, established diplomatic relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, with Morocco and Sudan later joining the normalization process, although Sudan’s agreement was never fully implemented.

The latest developments also come after Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the “Mecca Pact,” a defense agreement under which an attack against one member would be considered an attack against all three.

UAE restores ties with Tehran while deepening Israel alliance Iran subsequently warned that the agreement would not guarantee Saudi Arabia’s security. Turkey’s foreign minister responded that the alliance was not directed against Tehran and said Egypt was considering joining the pact, potentially expanding the arrangement into a four-country defense alliance.

They are for war (Ps.120:7).

What happens when an official in one of the countries in the region advises an official in another country to pursue a peace agreement with Israel in order to "stun" it in preparation for a future campaign against it? As expected, Israeli intelligence recognizes this and, in a rare case, also approves of publishing the unusual discourse. An expert also explains to "Center of Affairs" the Israeli tactics.

By Avraham Cohen.

The dramatic consultation that was recently revealed by the State of Israel caused a fierce storm among the political and security leadership in Israel. Last week, the matter was allowed to be published, without relevant names, and the State of Israel and the entire region were exposed to the dramatic event.

The consultation that was revealed was short, but explosive and dangerous. According to the report, which was first published in Kan News, an official in one of the countries in the region advised an official in another country to reach an agreement with Israel in order to "reject" Israel. During the conversation, the advisor suggested that the other party seek help after an "agreement" with Israel for a confrontation against it, while there was an official peace agreement between the countries. In fact, behind the recommendation was one senior official in the region who advised it to choose another country.

Although the conversation between the senior officials was supposed to take place in secret, Israel knew about the project all along.

Impact on preparations.

It was later revealed that Israel had known about the dramatic information for months, according to N12 reports, remarked that for a long time Israel was conducting itself while being aware of the content of the consultations, while the Western countries were unaware that the information had been revealed.

According to the report, the information significantly affects Israeli conduct with regional actors. It was also reported that the conversation between the two Arab countries dealt with a plan designed to oust Israel by signing a diplomatic agreement, while preparing for a major war and violating the agreement in the future.

It was also noted that the same discourse affects both Israeli assessments of the country that advised and the country that received the advice. Avraham concluded that "given that the entire event rests on alliances and the hope of expanding the circle of peace, one can understand what a chilling effect it had on elements on various fronts."

The reporter also reported that in the past week there have been changes in the balance of regional power, with a peace alliance being negotiated between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. The agreement between the parties, which was dubbed the "Mecca Agreement," included a triple defense, by virtue of which "an armed attack against one of the three countries will be considered an attack against all three."

Contacts.

At the same time, the State of Israel has been holding direct talks and contacts with the regime of Muhammad al-Sharaa for the past two years. Initially, it reached an agreement between the parties.

Al-Sharaa, who overthrew the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in just months and sentenced him to death just last week, has been presenting a new and revolutionary vision since coming to power. The man who is nurturing al-Qaeda's jihadist organizations has been presenting quite surprising positions since his election; he is adamant about wearing a caliphate, dismantling the White House and hosting French President Emmanuel Macron in his country with great fanfare.

Al-Sharaa also presents a quite surprising position. His foreign minister has met with senior Israeli officials on more than one occasion, and Al-Sharaa himself met with the Syrian Jewish community that currently lives in the United States during his visit to the country, as a sign of a change of direction on his part.

The new relations between Israel and Syria have been blocked from all sides, and those who are promoting the full-force obstruction are the Americans, who are known for their complete lack of familiarity with the mood in the Middle East. About a year ago, President Trump proposed that Israel join the Abraham Accords. Shortly before that, the Americans lifted the sanctions that were in place on Syria during the Assad era.

Despite Trump's proposal, it is reported that Israel negotiated with the United Arab Emirates to bring Syria into the Abraham Accords.

Several months later, the Syrian president said in an interview with the Jewish media outlet 'Jewish Journal' that he wanted to return to the 1974 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Syria, calling for it to begin with airstrikes on Syrian territory, and saying that Israel and Syria have common enemies.

Furthermore, the Syrian government headed by al-Sharaa did not condemn the Israeli attack on Iran, but rather strongly condemned the Iranian attack on the American base in Qatar. After Israel's first operation in Iran, senior Syrian officials said that direct dialogue was underway with Israel and that Syria was not considering a peace agreement until the end of US President Trump's term.

In this context, it is worth noting that the tightening relations are even more disturbing given that the Syrian president's main sponsor is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, one of Israel's most prominent regional rivals. Other regional leaders who support his rule are the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar.

Deception operations.

Returning to the revealed consultation. Israel, it is important to note, has repeatedly repeated similar moves in the past, most notably the horrific massacre on Simchat Torah 5774, which occurred in the midst of a period in which it was conducting dialogue with Hamas.

In a conversation with the Center for the Study of the State of Israel, expert on mind warfare, Dr. Ron Shleifer, notes that the announcement in Israel was made with deep thought and is indicative of the psychological war against those elements. "Israel," he claims, "shows here that it has vast information, and therefore an impressive deterrent power against the countries of the region, which also warns against revealing information that they would not want to be revealed by us."

https://disq.us/p/36hpjhy

It’s not ALL “Taqqiya.” There are EIGHT other ways muslims are taught to lie.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373552364_9_DECEPTIONS_IN_ISLAM

Abstract
Islam employs 9 types of deceptions to destroy non-Muslims: Taqiya, Hiyal, Adab al jadal, dawah, kitman, tafsir, darura, and muruna. According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as ‘taqiyya’, based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. The sole function of the “peace-treaty” (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive (see for a latest example of such treaty Minsk between Christian NATO and Orthodox Russia only to strengthen Ukrains military to destroy Russia to steel her natural resources; Former German Chancellor Merkel admits the Minsk agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up). Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).” Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being harmed are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances. According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: “Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.” The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.) Al-Tabari’s (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them... Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.” Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels’] evil, may protect himself through outward show.” None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an “authentic” hadith). A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?” A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed. Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab’s guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kab’s head, to which the latter cried: “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad). The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the “best deceiver” or “schemer.” (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh. according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.” Islam’s dichotomised worldview pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szj_OlhU6_E&t=3161s; https://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.