What Do You Know? I Agree With Richard Cohen
Says Cohen of Hamas:
The leaders of Hamas brim with the word of God and the certainty of their cause. From here on they will lie about their ultimate aim and smilingly assure us that what they have always said they no longer mean. Their intention is clean government, efficient garbage service, good schools and level soccer fields — and also to con Europe and America into continuing to send money to the Palestinians. All over the world, people will believe them and urge the United States and Israel to do the same. Take my word for this. Anyone can see the future. It’s all in the past.
UPDATE 8:32 a.m.: Cohen is right; we must take Hamas at its word. Here’s the chief of its political section in the L.A. Times:
We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognize the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else’s sins or solve somebody else’s problem.
But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.
Translation: we do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Same ol’, same ol’…
But the idea of a long-term truce is hardly “same ol’, same ol’” for Hamas. Furthermore, this quote from the same article:
Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion “the people of the book” who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected.
Would you honestly have expected such a statement from Hamas five years ago? There is also a rebuke to the Arab (because Palestinian refugees were largely not allowed to enter a lot of other Middle Eastern Countries, or if they did they were simply allowed to start other refugee camps) that is important to pay attention to.
The biggest problem, I think is this: however they may have reacted, the Palestinians see themselves as having a legitimate grievance. They’ve been expelled from their country and they’re living in refugee camps. Instead of getting sympathy from the rest of the Arab world, it sometimes seems that they’re simply a tool, a figurehead for Western injustice, but they aren’t given homes in other countries. Meanwhile, the Israeli attempt to defend themselves and police their borders punishes all Palestinians as if they were terrorists, so it’s sort of a moot point whether an individual citizen is doing it or not (at the one border crossing, the loss to Palestinian farmers because of the search for that tunnel is something like $500k/day). The problem is that it’s just too late to “undo” everything, and I think that’s why they are increasingly focusing on the 1967 boundaries and a long-term truce. Forget any sort of radical leadership, but thinking simply of Palestinians themselves, is it so unreasonable to suggest that maybe they do have a real grievance?
Yes, well, I’ll meet you this far: it is indeed true that the other Arab countries use the Palestinians as simply a tool to foster anti-Western, anti-Israel sentiment…the Palestinians could have a home 30 times the size of Israel if Syria or Iran wished it…
Right, but the most important thing to me is whether or not they have cause for a real grievance with Israel. It’s not a judgment of how they respond to that grievance, but whether or not they have one. I mean, the United States could have all of North America, if Canada and Mexico would just give the land to us. Is that necessary? Should Palestinians need land from the Iranians or Syrians?
(Don’t take any of this as advocating the elimination of Israel. I don’t think that’s the solution, either, but I think acknowledging the fact that they have a legitimate ground for complaint and going from there would go a long way…)
“Should Palestinians need land from the Iranians or Syrians?”
They’ve only asked for land from Israel in the past, knowing full well that no other Arab countries would allow their presence on their soil.
This request also folds into Arafat’s (and Hamas) dream of being assimilated into Israel entirely, thereby eventually negating Israel itself, by virtue of their higher birth rates.
abu-owen,
Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture.
however, in quote, they do not state why they fight.
why wonder why?
they go on to say.
Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony;
rubbish.
the fact is, before muhamhead, ran all the jews out of mecca/medina at the point of a sword, the jewish population was the largest segment of the population in both cities. his word to the jews then, leave or die.
muslimes have only existed for 13 centuries, before that, they were simply none as murderers and thieves.
dmac: But that still doesn’t address whether or not they have a reason to be aggrieved with Israel. To me it just seems that they have a reason to be aggrieved with both Israel and groups like Syria and Iran. We should be pointing that out, shouldn’t we? But we’re not in a position to do so, so long as we deny that they have even the slightest shred of grievance with Israel. Furthermore, if Hamas’ interest is one of re-establishing the boundaries of 1967 and long-term truce, I don’t see how they’re going to “outbreed” Israel to death. Assimilation is hardly their concern; they’re talking about setting different boundaries then dealing through third-parties. How will that facilitate that sort of defeat by overbreeding? Isn’t the Israeli plan of attacking territory then establishing a foothold by putting settlements there much more indicative of a plan to breed the Palestinians out?
Louie: First of all, in Mark’s quote, they do state that they’re fighting because of a country created on their soil and the denial of their national rights. It seems pretty clear why they’re fighting: they feel that they lost their country as a result of a gesture to the Jewish people after the Holocaust. Whether or not that grievance is justified, or to what extent, is the point of my questions above. But it seems silly to say that they’re not saying why they’re fighting.
Furthermore, are you arguing from a Jewish perspective? Because I find it astounding the way that Western, Christian cultures suddenly argue about the noble struggle of the Jews when Christianity did most of the persecuting. Like other people on this site, you’ve villified Muhammed for leading a crusade of violent conversion, but crusades of violent conversion are the reason that the Western World is predominately Christian (and Latin Christian, as opposed to Orthodox). Like I said in that other thread, Europe wouldn’t be Christian today if it weren’t for Charlemagne’s ridiculous conquest and conversion campaign; campaigns like that against the Goths/etc. are the reason we celebrate Christmas when we do. I mean, when you talk about the age of Muhammed, you’re talking about the 7th century. Do you really have an example of a great, enlightened Christian society at that time? It wasn’t exactly a halcyon time for civilization in general.
Meanwhile, during that time when they were just “murderers and thieves” they were also doing a better job of preserving Greek and Roman texts, surpassing the west technologically, and working towards inventing modern medicine and mathematics. But hey, that was probably just so they could steal stuff, right?
“They’ve only asked for land from Israel in the past, knowing full well that no other Arab countries would allow their presence on their soil.”
Not to nit-pick here, but there is a sizable Palestinian population in Jordan.
Owen, I don’t deny that they have a beef with Israel…but they aren’t getting Jerusalem back, nor anything other than the West Bank and Gaza…no amount of wishing or low-scale terrorism will ever change the basic facts on the ground…
So it seems to me, the question is: hold a grudge forever, or try to work towards a smaller, sovereign Palestinian nation?…
I see that, sort of. Eliminating Israel isn’t going to happen, and furthermore, isn’t a moral solution to the problem. I definitely think that the West Bank and Gaza are what they should aim for (although I’m torn about dividing Jerusalem). I think that having Western Countries admit that Palestine has a real beef and that they have a real claim to those areas would go a long way toward defusing some of the appeal of extremism, you know? I mean, we’re very sympathetic to Israel’s desire to have their land and their state. I think that our approach should be to understand that impulse in Palestine, and to understand their legitimate complaints, then set up a rubric as to what activities in pursuit of those goals are permissible and what activities aren’t. If the governments of the West seem to be saying that all Palestinians (or Arabs) are nothing but murderers and thieves who deserved what they got, then it’s going to be hard to be more convincing than angry radicals. If, on the other hand, we say “We understand your complaint, there is no easy solution, this is what we think should be done and we will support you if you can do that peacefully (in my opinion, whether they recognize Israel or not, so long as it’s peaceful and they maintain the ceasefire)” then we will be taking a lot of ammo away from extremists who want to paint us as turning a deaf ear to the complaints of any Palestinians, you know?
one of the things i think legacy media should cover, and make allllll americans aware of is this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html
it does not matter dem/rep who had the reins of gov’t, this should outrage the american taxpayers of all stripes/dots. this is just about one country.
the american taxpayer should be asking why? buy influence. if so what good? we had to make a country for ourselves, their cultures are longer established. why?
i think the hamass story has got deecee running scared because someone is going to ask/demand, “show me the money”.
Owen – I understand your point here, but the entire “right of return” demand that Arafat made of Netanyahu during the last round of peace talks was a major killer of a signed agreement, precisely because of the Palestinian’s long – stated goals regarding this policy. These aims dovetailed with their wishes to annhiliate Israel from within, and confirmed their denial of the right to exist. Obviously, a non – starter, and Arafat knew it all along.
“Not to nit-pick here, but there is a sizable Palestinian population in Jordan.”
I think you’re going to have to define “sizable” here, Peter. The former King Hussein made no secret of his dislike of the Palestinians in general, and never felt comfortable with their presence next door – probably because he knew they had legitimate claims to land within his country’s borders.
so i read cohen’s column and replied to him, however, i doubt he would share my words, so here you go.
Dear Mr. Cohen:
For Several years now I have been an avid reader of TWP. I had always viewed it as one of the few newspapers that seemed unbiased towards any one race or anyone’s religious beliefs. I was very thankful for this as I am a person who believes in personal freedoms and also that people should not be judged by their choice of religion or their non-choice of race.
This morning, as every morning, I sat down at my computer, with coffee in one hand and my mouse in the other, and clicked on Washington Post that is safely tucked in my favorites list. I scrolled down to the opinions section and blinked at YOUR headline, “Don’t be fooled by Hamas”. My eyes widened and I clicked the link and to my utter dismay read on.
I love history as a rule, and do believe that we should learn through the mistakes of others and the atrocities of others. What I couldn’t believe, Mr. Cohen, was that you compared Hamas with the Nazis even though you said, ” I am not likening Hamas or Islamist Militancy to Nazism…. only the mindset”. Now Mr. Cohen, you are a very, extremely, intelligent man, and you know as well as I, that the thought of Nazis brings up anger and hateful feelings in the minds of Americans. To mention the Nazis in the same paragraph is going to get your desired affect.
Hamas = Nazis
SHAME ON YOU! Mr. Cohen, since you’re the one that brought up the past, I ask you, does 1948 ring any bells? To most Americans it doesn’t. Four years ago it wouldn’t have to me. If it doesn’t, let me enlighten you. It was the year Israelis and foreign, rich Jews themselves said, it is time to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE Palestine of all, or as many as possible, Palestinians. It was time to make a country for Israelis. And how, Mr. Cohen, did they displace almost 1 million Palestinians? They killed them, hunted them and threatened them. They massacred small villages, walked to the next, and told them that if they did not leave they would do the same to those who remained.
So now I ask you Mr. Cohen, are you scared that Palestinians well learn from, and become Nazis, or are you scared that they will learn from the Israelis and take to heart the old saying, “Do unto others, as they do unto you”?
Penelope
American,
of Irish, English and Norwegian Decent
Ummm, Penelope, you said that on another thread…
Like I said, you’re always welcome here, but identical posts…well, that’s what we call spamming…please be more careful….or I might get the impression that you’re just doing a search on Cohen’s name and cutting and pasting…
sorry accident, first time blogging
Hey, no problem…it’s just that you’d be surprised how much spam blogs get…it’s not quite as out of control as email, but it’s a major annoyance…
Owen-
“I think that having Western Countries admit that Palestine has a real beef and that they have a real claim to those areas [Gaza, West Bank, possibly part of Jerusalem] would go a long way toward defusing some of the appeal of extremism, you know?”
Newsflash: It’s done. All major “Western Countries” did this ten years ago. What’s more, Israel did as well. It was the basis of the Oslo Accords.
In return, they got the Intifada, and now Hamas elected to power. And still Israel, Europe and the U.S. all still assert that Palestinians have “a real beef” and a real claim to Gaza and the West Bank, and perhaps parts of Jerusalem. We’re still waiting for any major Palestinian to state that Israelis have a real claim to Tel Aviv.
dmac-
Peter’s absolutely right. Jordan may not have welcomed Palestinians with open arms, but they did vastly better than any other Arab nation, and by any possible definition of the term Jordan has a “sizeable Palestinian population.” About 1.7 million Palestinians (about half formally registered as refugees with the U.N.) in a nation of under six million people certainly constitutes both a significant fraction of the people in Jordan and a significant fraction of all Palestinians. For comparison, about 1.3 million people live in the Gaza strip and 2.4 million in the West Bank, and there are about 0.4 million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. (And, to be complete, there are about 5 million Jews and a bit over 1 million arabs in Israel.)
dmac: the Palestinians represent approximately half of Jordan’s population:
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66302
Thanks for the cites, Clint – couldn’t find any population figures regarding the question at the time. And yes, Jordan has done a commendable job with assimilation – but the younger Hussein’s father often mentioned his many problems with the “radicalized” elements of the refugees that they took in at the time.
His son hasn’t said anything on the matter, and he’s proven to be a fairly reliable (although never publicly stated) ally in the WOT.
Okay, I’ve been away (my mother was in town), so it took me a bit to respond. To respond to both dmac and clint:
Arafat’s position may have dovetailed with an apparent desire to assimilate Israel from within, but it also dovetails with another flaw of the Oslo accords, one that makes it hard to credit Clint’s rebuttal. Although the Israelis used the accord to “admit” that the Palestinians had been done wrong, most observers at the time were pessimistic about not only Arafat’s position (and I’ll be the first to admit he was not the person that should have been there. Frankly, if they could have had Abbas then…) but the Israeli position of forcing the Palestinians to give up on one of the most important stipulations in the peace process. The Israelis made the Palestinians give up on the rollback of settlements, or even the cessation of further settlement, in occupied territory. In fact, they took advantage of the initial ceasefire to increase the amount of settlement being done. Doesn’t that suggest that they were capitalizing on the situation to attempt one of your “outbreeding” situations?