Illusions About Hamas? Please Lose Them
From the organization’s own website (and this is the English translation – who knows what the Arabic one says…):
Occupied Jerusalem – Mushir al-Masri, Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said, during an interview with al-Arabeyya satellite station, that Hamas was open to relations with every country in the world including Europe, but not with the Zionist occupation.
During this interview on Friday, he also said that there was always meetings and discussions with European parliamentarians and that Europe will soon realise that it was wrong to put Hamas on the list of terrorist organisations.
Masri added that the Palestinian people chose Hamas to implement its program and that negotiations with Israel were tried over 10 years and got the Palestinians no where and Hamas is not prepared to embark on a futile exercise.
Occupied Jerusalem, Israel referred to as the Zionist occupation, the rejection of relations with said Zionist occupation, peace as a ‘futile exercise’…
There’s a lot of information packed into that little story, and none of it is good…what a pity that Sharon was struck down right before this catastrophe!…
Again, I don’t want to seem like a complete apologist, but consider the possibility that they represent the negotiations with Israel as futile, not peace. This is a group that was encouraged to exist by Israel because they wanted Palestinians to be divided between the PLO and religious organizations. From the ICG report cited on the other thread:
“While Israelis were legally prohibited from talking to PLO members, there was no such ban on contact with the Muslim Brotherhood. Even after Hamas was established, Israel continued to favour Islamist over nationalist militancy in an effort to undercut the PLO. In the words of a veteran head of an aid agency in the occupied territories, “25 years ago the Israelis were stopping us from working with any Fatah mayors and pushing us towards the religious representatives. Now it’s the reverse.”
In the same document, this quote from an Israeli scholar on Palestinian affairs:
“Shaul Mishal, a leading Israeli authority on Hamas, says: “[Israel] has to decrease the weight of ideology in the way it thinks of Hamas. They are not zealots. They don’t have this culture of alienation from the self, or from mainstream Islam. Many politicians here and abroad miss the point.”
Furthermore, since the municipal elections, Israeli officials have still worked (though sometimes through third parties) with officials from Hamas who attained office. In fact, in one city run by Hamas, the number of work permits issued by Israel has only increased since the elections.
As far as their official doctrine (from the charter) it is interesting to note many of the group’s most prominent leaders have been less hard-line of late. Again, from the ICG Report:
“Indeed, much like the PLO in the 1970s and 1980s, the most interesting statements emanating from Hamas are not those that confirm its established tenets but rather ones that seemingly contradict official doctrine, particularly when those making them are its most senior leaders. Sheikh Ahmad Yasin on several occasions explicitly referred to negotiations with Israel and a solution of the conflict that would leave the Jewish state intact and by his 2004 assassination had come to espouse the position “that while Hamas’s overall ideological project is the recovery of Palestine as a whole, it is ready to accept interim solutions based on a mutual cessation of hostilities and Israel’s full withdrawal from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war”. Perhaps more surprisingly, Abd-al-Aziz Rantisi, his radical successor as head of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, asserted that “the intifada is about forcing Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders”, and that once this was achieved the conflict, though it would not be over, would lose its armed character. In a statement that many who study Hamas consider its emerging consensus, its chief representative in Lebanon, Usama Hamdan, argued that “Hamas is clear in terms of the historical solution and an interim solution. We are ready for both: the borders of 1967, a state, elections, and agreement after ten to fifteen years of building trust”.
In the last five years, Hamas has always been portrayed as analogous to Al Qaeda, but I think that that is a mistake. It would be a lot more apt, as I tried to imply on the other thread, to compare them to Sinn Fein and the IRA. That is, admittedly, not a sterling endorsement of the group, and it isn’t meant to be. As was observed on the other thread, the balance of views between the leadership of an extreme government and the people isn’t always fair. From the news stories I’ve read, it seems like most people voted for Hamas because they are frustrated, want a state, and knew that Fatah was troubled with a great deal of corruption and in-fighting. That doesn’t automatically make Hamas the best successor, but you have to remember that they came in by open voting. If we want Democracy in the Middle East, we have to do our best to deal with Hamas in a reasonable way (It’s that hearts and minds thing that the military always talks about). So long as we (reasonably) hold up our end of the bargain, the burden is on Hamas to provide for the people what they want. The longer we waited for this to happen the worse it would have been (as in Iran). Similarly, the longer we wait to find a sensible way to respond to this, as opposed to simply acting as though the devil has taken over the neighbor’s house, the worse it will be.
Well, Owen, I hope you are right in your relative optimism…but when Hamas can’t even say the name of a country, but must refer to it as the Zionist occupier, I think it’s safe to say they’ve got a long way to go…
I suppose it looks overly optimistic, but I’m just trying to be pragmatic. With the elections having happened, we call them a mistake because the “bad guys” won. We know that democracy is a powerful tool and a powerful stick and carrot for the people. What we need to say now is “Okay, you won, you need to show that you can do things well because that’s what your people want,” without simply refusing to treat that as a possibility. Israelis and Palestinians both have a lot of justifiable grievances with each other, and Palestinians view the United States as being only in support of Israel. We need to be careful that that isn’t true (for instance, on the other thread someone mentioned the millions we give to the PA? We give billions to Israel.
Fatah was an armed, militant organization that we decided to deal with in the 90’s because they were secular and “moderate.” Over time, that situation pushed popular support behind Hamas. We need to be very sober in our assessment of that group, because there are certainly more radical groups that people could be pushed to if we refuse to acknowledge any success on Hamas’ part. Again, that is not to say that they have a blank check to bomb schools and shopping malls, but it is worth observing, along with the ICG, that even Israeli officers concede that Hamas has done a better job of observing the cease-fire than Fatah. Now, as the country is deciding how to respond to this change (which we cannot undo, we’re the champions of popular democracy), it is important to study up a lot on all sides of the argument, instead of engaging in the sort of reactionary racism that started that other thread.
Well, time will tell…it is true that militants have mutated over time…and I agree that we have to abide by the results of the election. I’m in the Missouri company on this one – show me…show me, Hamas, by moderating your words and deeds…
They carry the burden, in my view…and Israel should, and likely will, continue their unilateral withdrawal until given compelling reason to do otherwise…
It’s worth noting that many Israeli leaders – most notably Begin – made their bones as terrorists for the Irgun, whose acts were similar in nature (if not in scale) with Hamas – of course, whether the Palestinians make the same transition from terrorism remains to be seen. As the cliché goes, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity –
Well said…
…”made their bones as terrorists for the Irgun.”
Please define what “terrorist” constitutes in your world, Peter. You may have a finely developed sense of moral relativism here, so let’s cut to the chase – are you saying that Begin,Gurion, Dayan, and the rest of the founders of Israel deliberately set out in their actions to kill innocents and non – combatants in pursuit of their goals of nationhood?
I don’t know if Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan were part of Irgun — however, Begin was its leader for several years. Irgun carried out numerous attacks in the 1930’s and 1940’s against Arab and British targets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun_Zvai_Leumi
This does not answer my question, Peter – I asked if the aforementioned carried out attacks that were explicitly targeted to innocent civilians and other non – combatants (your source mentions neither here). This is exactly what the PLO, Hamas and Fatah have been doing for years (and have always proudly proclaimed), with a few attacks on military targets thrown in for good measure.
If your answer is no, then you’re engaging in the worst type of moral relativism – the type of rationalizing we’ve come to expect from infantile provocateurs like Michael Moore and Kos.
Here’s a source that was also confirmed by the BBC as a full accounting of the Irgun’s activities prior to WWII, when they were still active:
http://www.deiryassin.org/op0005.html
As in the Arabic world’s insistence regarding doubts about the Holocaust, so too the claims of innocents being directly targeted by the Irgun have been accurately refuted.
Any reading of the Quran… in fact, here’s my link: Religion of “Peace” Book
I suggest a full reading, rather than relying on the news media to tell you what to think about Islam.
To continue… any reading of the Quran will demonstrate that Islam cannot and will not ever compromise or co-exist with any kind of society, government, or religion.
History bears that last statement out. 1400 years of consistent application of the Quran in an unbending, unyielding anvil of change. The word of Allah through Muhammed cannot be changed.
“When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, let them go their way.” (Koran 9:5)
imo, i’m glad hamass won. i don’t know if any will agree with me, but if not for the absolute corruption of the PA, hamass would not exist.
however, if hamass does not listen to the optimism of owen & peter expressed here, guarded or otherwise, they now speak for a people in the world forum. as such, the relations are no longer with a shadowy organization, it now is state to state. the palestinians have excercised the right of self determination in the eyes of the world. and as with any state action, they can have their respective clocks cleaned if they engage in an act of war toward another state.
hamass will no doubt take the position that israel is not a state, recognized by themselves, therefore is subject to the same actions of the past.
the IDF may not see it that way.
i don’t think we’ll see another “black september”, remember that event(?), some may not be old enough.
2006 will be a dynamic year.
People like Owen will gladly use any excuse to look the other way.
Bush is looking the other way over Saudi, Paki, Syria, and Mexico. Condi supports her boss and makes excuses for them. And even FOX News engages in pot-fantasy wishing about Islam suddenly changing its tune after 1400 years because they win an election.
This is a victory to Islam in their eyes. Why suddenly back off when they keep racking up victories? Total fantasy.
dmac: did you read the cite which you posted? It shows that the massacre of Arabs did, in fact, occur: specifically, it states that even the discredited report “confirms most of the assertions generally held regarding the Deir Yassin incident to the point where it is difficult for a reasonable person to even doubt the massacre.”
Also, the terrorist incidents were, in fact, included in the Wikipedia cite above: “It included attacks on prominent symbols of the British administration, including the British military, police, and civil headquarters at the King David Hotel and the British prison in Acre.”
Or from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: “its activities included a 1946 attack on the King David Hotel that left 91 dead and a 1947 raid on an Arab village in which all 254 inhabitants were killed.”
It’s a historical fact that Irgun was a terrorist organization which killed many innocents — I’m not sure what you are arguing about here.
Also, there is no moral relativism here. I didn’t say that what Hamas did was right or what Irgun did was wrong. My point was simply that some of the Israeli leaders turned from terrorism to democracy after they gained power, and hopefully the same will happen with Hamas.
“My point was simply that some of the Israeli leaders turned from terrorism to democracy after they gained power, and hopefully the same will happen with Hamas.”
Sort of like how Iranian fundamentalists turned all pure after they seized power?
Eh, you have optimism. Optimism is a good thing. Looking at the list of Hamas murders recently shows that their aim is to kill not the “occupying” army, but Jews of all ages.
So maybe they’ll “grow up.” It’s such a quaint and “feel good” desire for us in the West. Maybe the wish will come true.
+More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
++More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
+++Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
++++19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years.
- Courtesy of The Religion of Peace.
Maybe instead of cynical well-wishing of Westerner’s well-wishes, I should point out that this isn’t necessarily a racial issue or a cultural one either. Muslim converts from all races and all cultures, across the globe for some reason turn violent – murderously violent. Now if they’re all different races and cultures, then what common factor brings them all together to behead little girls and shoot children in the back of the head?
Answer: Gee… it isn’t politically correct to name the common factor. Good luck on your good intentions and well-wishing.
“It’s a historical fact that Irgun was a terrorist organization which killed many innocents…”
Yes, of course I read my own source here, Peter – but I have yet to find anything from you or my own research to support your contention that Begin or the other founders of Israel specifically targeted and participated in the killing of innocents. Guilt by association does not make it so – does that make sense to you?
You’ve changed the original claims of your post to justify your conclusions here.
“It’s worth noting that many Israeli leaders – most notably Begin – made their bones as terrorists for the Irgun, whose acts were similar in nature (if not in scale) with Hamas…”
If it’s worth noting, then please back it up with eyewitness accounts of such individuals participating in this slaughter.
Golly… not even three days. The
murderersmuslims can’t even make it three days before their real colors show:“Following their resounding election victory, the Islamic militants of Hamas met the question of whether they will change their stripes with a loud “no”: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations, no renunciation of terror.” From here.
Boy, those wishes and good intentions sure were short lived. Where’s the defenders now? Where’s Owen’s somber imitation of self-proclaimed intellectualism? Come on… how about another Tom Brokaw mainstream media imitation for the road? Just for old times sake?
He can even call me names to make himself feel better.
Killing people in an Arab village, a prison, and a hotel doesn’t kill non-combatants and innocents?
Actually, I was away from the internet for a few days, so I’m glad you were able to get a few shots in. “Somber imitation of self-proclaimed intellectualism.” That’s good. Are you implying, then, that I’m imitating self-proclaimed intellectualism? Work on your grammar before you insult my intellectualism.
As to your statistics, cited above, a few things:
1) The fact that your source describes “36 years” of Sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland seems questionable because that particular fight went well back into the 19th century (that’s how Yeats and other Irish poets were involved). So either they are cherry-picking 36 years or they’re just not at all aware of the nature of the conflict.
2) The site you pointed out is pretty generally shrewd at manipulating history to defame a religion. For instance, in the history of the Crusades, they were smart enough to look up the Tabuk Crusades (A Muslim Crusade against Europe) but they’re entirely willing to overlook the fact that Christianity got its big boost at the end of a sword during the conquest of Charlemagne 100 years later. So the site is accusing Muhammed of attempting to convert, by force, the same pagan Saxons who would later be converted,by force, to Roman Catholicism.
3) It mentions the rape and mistreatment of women in Northern African countries by Muslim groups but failsto mention that those practices (along with female circumcision, another common practice in those societies) has been expressly condemned by the leaders of most Muslim groups, including middle eastern ones.
4) It links to a story about the mistreatment of Buddhist teachers in Thailand at the hands of Muslims on alertnet, but the same site’s treatment of Hamas talks about how the militant group that has promised to turn its guns on Israel this weekend is NOT Hamas, but the Martyr’s Brigade of Fatah.
None of this is to say that there aren’t bad things to report about these groups, and that I don’t have extreme reservations, but you seem to be responding with a sort of absurd and half-informed racism that can’t do anyone any good.
All that, and I didn’t need to call you whatever the opposite of “Abu-Mussolini” would be.
Hamas declares the murder won’t stop and you call me a racist?
Congratulations on artlessly beating moral relativism into everything you see.
You might want to work on both your intellectualism and grammar if you want your ad hominem attacks to make more sense.
You said that there were two types of Muslims, the kind that bomb schools and the kind that look the other way. How is there no racism in that comment? You call me tasteless, or you say that I’m a false intellectual when I’m citing real examples of real Hamas leadership who seem to admit the possibility of changing their charter and moving toward a long-term truce? Where is the moral relativism in looking into the issues and seeing them as two-sided, repreating reports that members of the leadership may be interested in moderating? That’s no moral relativism, that’s an attempt to look at things seriously. If I have to spend a lot of time trumpeting the optimist cause it’s because you play the pessimist tune so well.
You may be right, we may have gotten too caught up in attacks on each other (although I stand by my assessment of your initial comments); on the other hand, I have to see you offer much of a substanital argument against the things I’ve cited here. I refuse to see what I’m doing as false intellectualism because Mark provided some real evidence of concern, and I provided some counter-evidece to balance it. Those quotes above are significant, and worth considering seriously, but you seem so determined to simply ignore them. As far as I can tell, the only reason to do so is your pre-conceived notion of Islam that is about as sensible as assuming all Christians are born assassins because Pat Robertson is a ridiculous charicature.
You provided a site with information about Islam, I provided a lot of serious critiques of that site and the information it contained. You haven’t responded to those either, you just came back, called me a racist, and referred to my side of the debate as “ad hominem attacks.” I just don’t see anything of substance in what you’ve brought to the table here.
In fact, come to think of it, I went to my last post and counted two of those attacks, the one about the grammar and the one about the racism. Alongside those were four paragraphs of explanations as to why I felt the attacks were justified. In your response, you were three for three on personal attacks, including an appeal to the comment that had made me post on the thread in the first place (“Hamas said the murder won’t stop”), a comment I responded to with my sources. You, in turn, brought sources to the table, but when I responded to them you fell back on your initial comments and threw three attacks at me. How is it that I’m the unreasonable person slinging insults here?
Owen, let’s be serious. My comments about Islam are not racial. The “radical” and “moderate” thing?
Islam spans many, many races. Islam is a belief system, and its roots are in political murder and conquest.
To be a racist, I would need to speak ill of Arabs, or Persians, or Indonesians.
A close friend of mine is the son of the former banker for the dead Shah of Iran. The last I saw him (I moved out of state) we traded porn jokes in an Iranian bistro (yes, it was called a bistro).
All people have the basic qualities of what makes humanity great. When they choose to believe a doctrine that condones and in fact demands murder, they deserve no less than the enmity of all mankind.
Perfect solution? Convert them all. I don’t care to what religion. Bhuddism would be great for all I care. But in all practicality, they won’t be easily converted, and that means they’ll be killing us as their Quran demands and we’ll have to defend ourselves or continue to allow little children to get beheaded.
Our leaders want to wish away the reality, but it won’t be wished away. That’s where I stand.
I just don’t agree. I think that you’re characterizing them by the minority, not the majority. Look at that site you linked us to: it was so sensationalist. You characterize it as a religion bent on conquest for the past 1400 years, but it would be just as easy to paint Christianity in that light. I mean,Charlemagne, the Crusades, colonialism in the Americas. The fact that Christianity is a “religion of peace” hasn’t made its practitioners docile pacifists.
Look at what you say about Muslims not marching in the street; it presupposes that the rational response of anyone who is bothered by something is to march in the street about it. But how many Catholics marched in the street to protest the IRA? Are Catholics then the members of an evil religion? When Irgun was bombing hotels, how many Jewish people in America took to the streets? Is Judaism evil?
Look at this list of clerical condemnations of Bin Laden put together by Juan Cole: http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html
His page contains a link to this page, which is another library of comments from the Islamic leadership:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
I think that this idea that there is no Muslim resistance to extremism is a total myth.
Also, when you say they should be converted or we’ll have to continue to fight them, aren’t you also talking about forced conversion or death? What’s the difference between you and them?