[A “hudna”, by definition, is not a cease fire or even an armistice.

A “hudna” connotes a respite in the preparation for continued war.

The Islamic Encyclopedia says it best:


In other words, what the following article documents is that the Norwegian government is ready to

endorse a Hamas regime that promises to continue the war to obliterate the state of Israel.]

This article was written by reporter Samuel Sokol:

Jerusalem– The foreign ministry of Norway has sponsored an endorsement of Hamas’ “hudna”

The unofficial endorsement came in the form of a research paper published by the Norwegian NGO the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) in 2010, entitled “Hamas’ concept of a long-term ceasefire: a viable alternative to full peace?”

The report was published as part of ministry of foreign affairs funded project entitled “the rule of Hamas in Gaza: rethinking the prospects for peace.”

In the report, researcher Dag Tuastad championed the Islamic concept of hudna, or temporary truce, as the solution to the current deadlock in Israel-Palestinian Authority talks.

Tuastad wrote that accepting a hudna “entails accepting that the final status cannot be fully agreed upon at this stage, but that does not mean that the alternative is war.”

Seemingly dismissing the Oslo paradigm of bi-lateral talks leading to mutual concessions and recognition, and ultimately ending in the establishment of a Palestinian state, Tuastad asks why Israelis have not taken Hamas up on its offer of an extended ceasefire based on a withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

“In terms of security,” he averred, “it is difficult to see what the risks are of taking the offer seriously…The questions is, is Israel willing to pay the political price for a hudna?”

Concluding the government sponsored report, Tuastad citing Hamas’ Lebanon branch head Osama Hamdan, writing that “in 10 years, if there is trust and people are happy, then there will be peace. If not, there will not be peace. It will be up to the next generation to decide. Hamas has offered a hudna and, on the basis of the sources quoted in this report, they are serious about it. They are still waiting for a response.”

The basic concept behind the Hamas offer is that while the group has stated that it will never extend recognition to Israel or set aside their “right” to “resistance,” it is willing to grant Israel a truce for a number of decades in exchange for territorial withdrawals and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Speaking with this correspondent from his house in Sur Baher last year, Hamas MP Ahmad Atoun explained how a hudna might be implemented.

According to the MP, who is currently residing in the Red Cross’ Jerusalem headquarters to avoid arrest by security forces, negotiations for a ceasefire will only be possible after an Israeli withdrawal. An extended ceasefire, he said, could last as long as thirty years.

Israel’s foreign ministry was quick to condemn the use of Norwegian government funds to sponsor the paper.

In a statement to the Five Towns Jewish Times, the ministry noted its disapproval of “official Norwegian monies go[ing] to promote Hamas politics,” a move that the ministry described as “extremely unsuitable.”

Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor further noted that the issue of the indirect endorsement will be raised in a future dialogue with Norwegian officials regarding their relationship with Hamas, which he said is “contrary to Quartet policy.”

Frode Andersen, speaking for the Norwegian ministry of foreign affairs, told the Five Towns Jewish Times that “this research project is supported financially by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

Andersen dismissed allegations that his country was promoting Hamas’ political agenda, stating that “when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Norwegian position remains support for a negotiated two state solution.”

“In Norway, decisions of governmental financial support to social science research projects are based on the quality of the projects, not the conclusions the researchers reach in the end. The conclusions of any given paper cannot be read as indicative of Norwegian government policy.”