In weeks and months to come I hope to publish more and more from my wife's young friend who is now in Gaza. She is a Harvard student and works with an NGO. I will be able to give you her name when she gets out of Gaza. Meantime, per her blog, let's call her the Queen of Sheba. And here is her latest report, a fabulous take down of Hamas. Yep, that's right:
I was at a workshop of Hamas and Fatah officials a few days ago where the majority of the audience (non-Hamas) was begging for Shalit to be given back, with one Hamas official flatly refusing...
It is totally understandable that a regime like this has taken power, given the circumstances that the Palestinians have been living under. No one can criticize the Palestinians for Hamas winning the elections by a landslide. However, refusing to criticize Hamas is not helping the Gazans. The situation here is bad enough due to the siege, but the refusal to acknowledge the repressive regime’s conduct makes it worse....
Now many people live in fear; I cannot tell you how many friends of mine are too scared to leave their homes because they are Fatah, and they have been sitting at home jobless for 3 years. But because Gaza has been cut off by the siege, there is no way for them to implement a change. I always am astounded when I hear Israel calling for the Gazans to get rid of Hamas, how on earth can they if they have been locked up, the key has been thrown away, and Hamas is in power? Where is the room to initiate change?
Phil,tell your gazan friend to go screw!
"I want to preface this post by saying how much it bothers me that people think that if they are anti-Israel they must be pro-Hamas. In addition I cannot stand the misconception that by being critical of Hamas; one is automatically condoning the international rejection of its legitimacy, and Israel’s desire to remove it from power…"
Yes, there is too much conflation in the world. If you argue this, you must also condone that. If you support this, you must be opposed to that. Conflation was a prime tool of the war party's run up to the Iraq war, as well. It is time for nuance! Down with the conflators! Up with careful discrimination, and good logic. As someone said in a different context, to hear such crap is an assault on one's personal integrity, as if we don't know better. And then we get sucked into unwinding some idiotic conflation, over further obstacles to clear thinking, and shouts of "Bigot!", instead of moving forward with good analysis. It's time to dismiss such claptrap, with the directive not to change the subject.
Poor (collaborating) Fatah. It's so repressed in Gaza, and that's so wrong. It's not like there's anti-Hamas repression in the West Bank. It's not like Fatah has been attempting a coup in 2006 with American guns and support. Poor, poor Fatah people, who want to give Shalit back for nothing, even though thousands of their fellows are in Israeli jails. Let's be nice to the occupier. That worked for us Frenchies in 1940, time for Palestinians to apply the lesson.
But seriously, I hate that idiot's guts. I think Fatah's members must dissociate themselves from their collaborator-superiors in the West Bank. Then we can talk about political repression. This isn't a republic living in peace and security. This is a country under occupation, fighting for independance.
Great article, Phil. Thanks for sharing.
Jews have no business telling Arabs how they should govern themselves, or how they should react to the Jews' own genocidal aggression against them.
Queen of Sheba wrote:
"I want to preface this post by saying how much it bothers me that people think that if they are anti-Israel they must be pro-Hamas."
This is an excellent observation; all too often it can seem that criticism of Israel exists in a vacuum of sorts, with there being no consciousness of beastly behavior on the other side.
And I wonder whether at some point the laser-like focus on Israel's behavior doesn't distract and/or otherwise harm what seems to me to be the bigger point for many U.S. observers anyway. That is, even though Americans are entirely justified in criticizing whatever aspect of Israel they want because they have supported same so thoroughly, after awhile it can just look like anti-Israeli-ism, if not worse.
And I don't think that anti-*anything*-ism of that sort has much staying power because it eventually just looks like someone has a bedbug up their fundamental orifice. To me instead the question is what are Americans for and it ought to be for American interests, and I for one see damn little American interest whatsoever being involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
And that's the argument I think is very rarely seen by ordinary Americans. Say, of the sort who might run across this blog. Otherwise they just look and say "oh, yet another blog wanting me to take one side or another in an obscure, complex, intractable, far-away fight that microscopically affects me not at all and thus doesn't interest me …."
This of course misses entirely what I think is the more central belief of many people here that no, our government is *already* taking sides, and it's *this* that we want to see stopped. And it misses where the concern of that ordinary American is too.
In short in talking about the latest event or issue brought up by Phil or Adam I for one would like to see more frequent and direct concentration paid on the effects of same on America's interests, and how they could be better served.
Just as both the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to pursue their interests as they see them best, so do we. And that's a much stronger if not unassailable argument than that the Palestinians or Israelis were "wrong" to do this or that.
'American interests' (by which you mean US interests) have already been flushed down the drain, in pursuit of the glittering whore's fads and foibles, you pompous idiot.
Mutual clear-eyed criticism is better than singled out contempt.
Who knows when well-meaning logic will prevail over contempt.
"I want to preface this post by saying how much it bothers me that people think that if they are anti-Israel they must be pro-Hamas."
Half true: those critical about Israel and Zionism are naturally (but Manicheically) inclined to give Hamas the benefit of the doubt (and sometimes more).
Following in Galloway's footsteps, I wouldn't personally have voted for Hamas but support the fact that their election was democratically sound.
Queen of Sheba (for whom I have great respect), however, is rather shallow in her criticism of Hamas and doesn't elaborate on the reasons of Hamas' intransigence on the Shalit issue (for instance). Personally I think she misses some tricks here: it would be very interesting for all of us here to gain some more insight into Hamas from a Westerner living in Gaza.
Gert:
"Queen of Sheba (for whom I have great respect), however, is rather shallow in her criticism of Hamas…"
Right, actually they are very nice guys. She should have been more explicit in explaining the beauty that is Hamas.
You should explain to her how you know better in the comfort of merry old England, while she's there dealing with them.
Half true: those critical about Israel and Zionism are naturally (but Manicheically) inclined to give Hamas the benefit of the doubt (and sometimes more).
I'm the kind of guy you're talking about, I think. But I'm not giving them the benefit of any doubt. I know exactly what they do and what they stand for, and what they're worth.
But again, we're not talking about the politics of a parliamentary republic. We must provide support to the best resisting party, until such a time as peace and independance are achieved.
When those are secured, it will be meaningful to politically oppose the Hamas' repression on human rights grounds. In fact, I'm pretty sure that will come naturally from the Palestinians. At the moment, there is a certain occupying country that makes collaboration with it pretty controversial.
That's my view anyway.
Right, actually they are very nice guys. She should have been more explicit in explaining the beauty that is Hamas.
You should explain to her how you know better in the comfort of merry old England, while she's there dealing with them.
Who's the manicheist here ? Everyone knows what Hamas is. Look what I just said above. It's about supporting those who don't collaborate. As you say, we're not in merry old England, voting for a party in a boring national election.
Also…
…while she's dealing with them.
What the hell does that mean ? Human Rights "NG"Os deal with Hamas ? Specifically ? And what about Fatah ? You think these guys are better ? You think this was ever about promoting the group that respected human rights ? You think Fatah doesn't torture and kill and threatens people with death as well ?
This has ALWAYS been about denigrating the resistants, and promoting the collaborators. When the PLO was offering peace with 78% (and therefore, an end to the Zionist dream of getting 100% of the territory), they, the Fatah members were the terrorists. Now that they have given up on that, they're the only guys Israel accepts to deal with. What has changed ?
The fact that she's got Fatah friends, known for collaborating and being servile to Israel, speaks for itself.
Queen of Sheba is a propagandist.
Don't release the terrorist Shalit, (who knows how many children he's killed), unless Israel releases a good amount of its political prisoners.
Saleema:
"Don't release the terrorist Shalit, (who knows how many children he's killed), unless Israel releases a good amount of its political prisoners."
I would only do a one for one swap. Israel would be very foolish to release a bunch of murderers.
"Queen of Sheba is a propagandist."
I agree. Phil should immediately reveal her identidy to Hamas. I'm sure Hamas will respect freedom of the press and get her a wheel chair after shooting out her knees.
Murder is in the eye of the beholder, old boy.
Got blowback?
…for half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I call the “Islamic right” as convenient partners in the Cold War.
…at the height of the Cold War and the struggle for control of the Middle East, the United States either supported or acquiesced in the rapid growth of Islamic right in countries from Egypt to Afghanistan.
And…Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.
The Book (Devil's Game-How the US Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam)
by Robert Dreyfus, H.Holt & Co., Nov 2005, ISBN 0-8050-7652-2
link to robertdreyfuss.com
Maybe they'll give us back the indigenous secular socialists now?
Reminds me of how the Brits promised both the Arabs (Lawrence Of Arabia) and the Zionists (Rothschild) the same land when the Germans had basically defeated them in the middle of WW1 and England was basically bankrupt. Well, Britain did get Arab legions, and Uncle Sam's doughboys, not to mention protection of the giant debt it owed USA loan sharks…
If I was Hamas, I wouldn't give Shalit back until Israel released at least a couple of hundred Palestinian civilians detained in Israeli jails without trials.
Israel has around 10,000 Palestinians and Lebanese in their prisons – half are so-called administrative detainees and haven't been given trials. The rest have been given military show trials that would give Stalin a run for his money.
The onus is on Israel over the Shalit issue
Hells bells…a little more balance, at last!
Why does she have to hide her name until she gets out of Dodge?
Rhetorical question, of course.
If and when (hopefully soon!) the Israelis pull out, the Palestinians are going to have to deal with their home-grown cultural demons. It's going to get interesting when there is no more Israel to blame.
Your wife's young friend, bless her,isn't there to help feed and clothe a million concentration camp survivors, but to lecture and report on "Human Rights", the club the West uses to further abuse the victims while feeling good about its own 'liberal' values.
A bit like Western bloviating about the plight of Afghan women as it bombs wedding parties and sends drones to kill people in their beds.
So, one can not support Hamas personally, but also see why a majority voted for them.And if the Palestinians want them out, the only measure would be a free election, in which all the prisoners are released, and Mahmoud Abbas stepped down.
Citizen wrote:
"Reminds me of how the Brits promised both the Arabs (Lawrence Of Arabia) and the Zionists (Rothschild) the same land….
Not to pick nits but my understanding is that Lawrence knew nothing of the Sykes-Picot agreement betraying the understanding previously given by the Brits that the arabs would get the land if they helped defeat the Ottomans. Indeed I believe, he denounced Sykes-Picot vehemently after it was made public and then he went to the Peace Conference with the arabs (and dressed in arab robes himself) to argue that they *should* get that land.
Having read the rest of her blog at link to thequeenofsheba.tumblr.com
I see her heart's in the right place but still am disappointed she has to defend her views by proving how even-handed she is: 'See, she's also criticising Hamas'. I too can criticise Hamas, but you can't conflate or bracket genocide with the regrettable but understandable actions of Hamas against Quislings and stooges.
Rats in a cage syndrome,and we…blame the rats.
I too can criticise Hamas, but you can't conflate or bracket genocide with the regrettable but understandable actions of Hamas against Quislings and stooges.
Yeah, yeah, the Taliban had its righteous reasons too.
With friends like you, the Pals don't need the Israeli occupation to screw their world.
"Don't release the terrorist Shalit, (who knows how many children he's killed), unless Israel releases a good amount of its political prisoners."
I would only do a one for one swap. Israel would be very foolish to release a bunch of murderers.
Julian: At this point in history, the murder charge is pretty much empty, coming from Zionists. I suppose the same could be said of Shalit being called a terrorist.
If I may do a Foxman on you, unless you proved to me you were one of those unique invididuals who happens to be a radical pacifist, that is, no to murder no matter what, the above charge is probably racist, if not just hypocritical.
More importantly, if they were all murderers, and that was a racist thing to say, that could be proved for most of them, with evidence.
Yet, most of them were simply civilians who were abducted by Israel precisely for the same cynical aims that you denounce when Hamas does it: bargaining chips.
Yeah, yeah, the Taliban had its righteous reasons too.
Suzanne, what part of "Occupying Power" don't you understand ? This isn't Afghanistan. This is Occupied France. Most of the resistance (75% I believe) was communist, remember. Would you hang with them now ? No one would. Yet, their courage was recognized, and they are praised, despite their ideological opinions.
I wouldn't exactly label this "balance"; to me it seems petty and naive and reactionary and quite narrow and shallow. I do not read Queen of Sheba but I believe she has come into Gaza with preconceived notions and the inability to relate to what really is the reality for Gazans in particular. It seems she wants Hamas to be able to function as if there were no occupation, there were no siege and there were no possible infiltrators and that Hamas had no enemies or perceived enemies at all. What would have been more "balanced" would have been what that Hamas official said (if anything) on why Shalit shouldn't be released and why those Palestinians in the room wanted his release in the first place and what strategy they wanted to lay forward for Hamas to do so. That would have been more enlightening than saying "Hamas sucks too but…" I didn't need a report from Gaza to know that Hamas is not functioning but I also didn't need some disclaimer for me to qualify for criticism of Israel.
I know that Queen of Sheba really attempts at neutrality here but that is a very fine line that one cannot even come close to walking (it's a tightrope). It's easier for an outsider to come in and give recommendations especially since that person is from the West and really has had no experience in dealing with a situation like this. It looks like it is beyond Hamas' extent to be able to deal with no control of anything here.
Should that be an excuse not to condemn what they do? No. But let's keep things in perspective here. Hamas has Shalit and a few rockets and some tunnels. It's understandable that the people want Shalit's release since they have connected that this only leads to their own misery of blockade. They are willing to blame everyone who has any authority for their failing existence; that goes to Hamas, to Israel, to the U.N., to the E.U., to everyone, Fatah too. But Hamas needs its Israel and Israel needs this Hamas, quite probably the ratio is on the same level here. Both need each other as they feed off the rejectionism.
Hamas is not powerless and is not immune to any criticism because they are occupied. But it looks like they are making a mistake that is reminiscent of other resistance movements and to an even more remarkable extent, being criticised from all circles for trying to consolidate their power when that is what every faction attempts to do. I believe that they are trying to learn from all of it and trying to come to terms to what few bargaining chips they have to try to get themselves out of this rut.
Your point is excellent, Joshua.
Israel has killed or captured huge numbers of Hamas personnel, and no doubt will continue to do so. Their goal, of course, is to eat away at and eventually destroy Hamas. Hamas has only one bargaining chip with which to get any of their people back. It is not hard to predict that Hamas is going to want to get the best deal they can.
Hamas has offered terms (450 out of over 10,000), but they were rejected. I'm not sure if the Israelis are interested in negotiating another deal. Both sides will use the situation to their interests, and the unfortunate Shalit is a pawn of their political agendas.
Last night I had a dream. I dreamt that Israel was dropping bombs on me. I keep running and hiding, running and hiding. There's fire all around me. I woke up in a sweat. It took me a minute to realize I was safe in my own bed.
I can't imagine what the people must have gone through when Israel was raining white phosphorous down on Gazans.
I looked over at my daughter sleeping peacefully, and I was thankful to God we were living safe lives. I can't imagine what the parents in Gaza went through who lost their children in the recent massacre.
Let the parents of Shalit live in fear each day and each night, thinking and wondering how their son is surviving. I could care less fro Shalit. I will be honest–I do not care what happens to him.
All these Zionists haven't said a word of pity for the children of Gaza.
As for the Queen of Sheba's friends, don't they realize that even when they release the terrorist, child killer Shalit they will still be living in an open air prison?
Let Shalit suffer what the thousands of children of Gaza suffer on a daily basis.
I don't give a hoot.
Damn, you can't say Saleema isn't honest. Reminds of me of the last scene in 7 Jewish Children.
Isn't it a main purpose of collective punishment to drive a wig between the population an the resistance? The resistance movement then is facing the choice between maintaining the focus on the longer term goal or giving in to short term relief. The more cruel they can be the better they will be at keeping their eyes on the main goal. The main goal may or may not benefit the population.
I think it's interesting to note that those who would dismiss Hamas outright (such as Israel) put their support behind a man who got his doctorate for Holocaust "denial" or at least revisionism. Imagine the furor if Dr. Abbas wasn't their man.
—–
On November 15, 2004, Mahmoud Abbas became chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, succeeding the late Yasir Arafat. On November 26, 2004, Abbas was nominated by the Fatah movement as its candidate for the chairmanship of the Palestinian Authority.
Abbas is the author of a 1983 book denying the Holocaust. The book was titled The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement. It was originally his doctoral dissertation, completed at Moscow Oriental College, in the Soviet Union. According to a translation of the text provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abbas's book repeatedly attempted to cast doubt on the fact that the Nazis slaughtered six million Jews. He wrote: "Following the war, word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews … The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller–below one million … It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions–fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand." Abbas denied that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews, quoting a "scientific study" to that effect by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz on May 28, 2003, Abbas asserted that in his book, he “did not address the question of the number of victims but cited historians who said the victims ranged in number from one million to 12 million … The Holocaust was a terrible thing, and nobody can claim I denied it.”
from: link to wymaninstitute.org
Yeah, well that 6 million figure was trumpeted during WW1 too. I guess you could call it trade markup–something like the 40% figure used by aluminum siding salesmen when they come to you home.
Yeah, think-Israel has an essay where they stand firmly against the outrage of "thought crimes" yet nowhere on their site is any objection to prosecuting people for not adhering to the official Holocaust narrative.
If B. really doesn't want her name known, she shouldn't include it in the code of her site or have sites link to hers with her name. Just a helpful hint.