Soldier sustains light wounds; suspected assailant, a foreign national, is shot and seriously wounded.11:03 07.02.16 | 0 comments
I can see a possible outcome with this. If history tells us that truces between Israel and Palestine always get broken eventually, and a religious cleric is declaring it a sin to break the truce, then the cleric is attempting to elevate the breaking of the truce above that of just a political or military conflict to that of a religious one, even though for many it already is one. This may have the effect among his religions followers of drawing in even more support from outside countries and people beyond what would ordinarily be. This would make breaking a truce a declaration of holy war essentially. I submit that, by declaring the breaking of a truce that has no other history than breaking as sinful, makes the declaration itself sinful because it entraps and has no reasonable alternative outcome. Sin by itself denotes that the one committing it has a choice and is operating under free will. It cannot be a sin if there is no real choice in the matter. The Israeli-Palestinian conflicts history demonstrates that there is no real choice in the matter, since there is no clear, universally accepted definition of the true causes of the conflict and subsequently no agreeable solution. In short, declaring breaking the truce a sin may delay it a while, but when it does, and it always does, get broken, this declaration will only serve to fan the flames of division and hate and do more to further the conflict into a worse, more sorely irritated religious conflict. This declaration is a bad idea. The Islamic cleric would do more good to declare terrorism a sin.