Jerry Slater has a good piece of criticism of the latest NYT story on the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. I excerpt it below. He wanted to preface it with this note, re Hamas.
Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh's statement that Osama bin Laden was an "Arab holy warrior" whose assassination was "a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood" was remarkably stupid--indeed, offensive, not only because there was nothing "holy" about 9/11, but also because the same U.S. government that ordered the assassination of bin Laden also provided the initial leadership for a Western humanitarian intervention in Libya that may have saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives--just as it also saved thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Nonetheless, what I have written below still stands. As I said, Hamas has often made contradictory or ambiguous statements about its willingness to accept a two-state settlement (de facto, if not formally). The crucial point is that the only way to explore its real intentions is for Israel and the U.S. to engage it in negotiations, which both countries have repeatedly rejected. My own reading of the situation--unprovable, to be sure--is that if Israel offered a genuine two-state settlement, Hamas would not obstruct it.
And here is Slater's piece, the Shamelessness of the New York Times:
I suppose one can never be surprised at the disingenuous coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the New York Times in general, and that by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner in particular. Still, today's lead story--lead story, mind you--on the apparent political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas baldly asserts that "The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has negotiated for a two-state solution with Israel, whereas Hamas says Israel has no right to exist and continues to fire rockets at Israeli towns."
First, the implied suggestion that Hamas, out of the blue, fires rockets at Israeli towns, apparently for no other reason than to deny Israel's right to exist, is the usual distortion of a much more complex and even murky situation. By contrast, here's how the military correspondents of Haaretz covered the story:
March 23, 2011
"A small war is starting along Gaza border," by Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff
"Israeli communities near the border are receiving a daily dose of mortars and rockets, and the Israel Air Force has been attacking Gaza. What began as a local escalation is steadily transforming into a broader conflict that the sides will apparently have difficulty stopping....The current tensions began exactly a week ago when Israel launched an air attack on a Hamas base in the ruins of the settlement of Netzarim, killing two Hamas men. That attack came in response to a Qassam fired from Gaza that landed in an open area. Hamas then responded with a barrage of 50 mortars on communities south of the Gaza Strip. But on Monday evening Israel launched a series of air attacks in which a number of Hamas militants were wounded." (emphasis added)
Subsequent Haaretz news stories suggested that many of the rockets may have been fired by Islamic Jihad, not Hamas--and while Hamas has tight control over Gaza, it is not absolute--in the past Islamic Jihad has defied Hamas policies.
But far worse is the statement that "Hamas says Israel has no right to exist." At best, that is a child's version of reality; at worst, it amounts to a deliberate distortion of a far more complex, or if you prefer, ambiguous situation. Actually, what I really believe is that it amounts to a lie, since there can be no doubt that Bronner and Kershner know that "Hamas says" much more than "Israel has no right to exist."
If I may cite myself, here's what I have written on the issue, in the context of discussing what alternatives Israel had to its "Cast Lead" attack on Gaza at the end of 2008.
The best way for Israel to have ended the rocket attacks would have been to negotiate a political settlement with Hamas. The record leaves no doubt that Israel made no attempt at such negotiations before it attacked Gaza, despite a number of indications that Hamas was becoming increasingly amenable to a reasonable political settlement.
Well before the Israeli attack, there were reasons to believe that Hamas might be about to follow in the footsteps of Yasir Arafat’s PLO, as well as of many other radical movements that became much more moderate when they had countries to run. To be sure, prior to the Israeli attack on Gaza, there were no guarantees that Hamas would duplicate the evolution of the PLO, for it had not repudiated its anti-Semitic founding ideology and 1988 charter, which explicitly states that it is a religious obligation to eliminate Israel and the Jews from the Islamic holy land. Nonetheless, there had been a number of indications that Hamas was moving towards a pragmatic, if reluctant, acceptance of the realities of Israeli power and was becoming increasingly amenable to a de facto if not de jure two-state political settlement.
* In January 2006 Hamas published its official platform for the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary election; it included no language calling for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in all of Palestine..... Shortly after Hamas won the election Ismael Haniyeh, the new Gazan prime minister, sent a written message to George Bush, offering a truce for many years in exchange for a compromise political settlement; the Bush administration did not reply to this and additional overtures.
*Soon afterwards, Hamas began to go public with its new position. For example, in May 2006 Haniyeh told Haaretz that the Hamas government would agree to a long-term truce with Israel if it withdrew to the 1967 lines, and a few months later he told an American scholar that “We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all of our lands within the 1967 borders, living in calm.” In the same year, Khaled Meshal, one of the most militant Hamas leaders, said that Hamas could not oppose the unified Arab stance, expressed in an Arab League summit conference, which offered Israel full recognition and normalized relations in exchange for a full Israel withdrawal from the occupied territories and a solution to the refugee problem.
*Of particular importance was a May 2006 joint statement of senior Hamas and Fatah members who were imprisoned in Israel. The prestigious “Prisoner’s Declaration” went much further than the earlier Hamas overtures: abandoning the previous ambiguities, it called for the establishment of a Palestinian state “in all the lands occupied in 1967,” and reserved the use of armed resistance only in those territories.
*In yet another significant indication that Hamas was moving towards the moderate position of Abbas’s Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank, in March 2007 Hamas and the PA formed a national unity government to negotiate with Israel; Hamas officials stated at the time that they agreed that Abbas should play the leading role in any negotiations.
*Throughout 2008 Hamas’ political position continued to evolve, including that of its hardliners. In particular, in April 2008 Meshal publicly announced his support of a ten-year truce if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders.
Israel and its U.S. ally ignored all these overtures or contemptuously termed them “tricks.” It is undeniable that prior to the Israeli attack the Hamas position still contained ambiguities and inconsistencies. Yet, well before the Israeli attack on Gaza, the general direction was clear, and in historic terms the evolution had been rapid, as indeed was acknowledged by some former high-level Israeli government officials. For example, in late 2006 Yossi Alpher, a former deputy head of the Mossad and a pillar of the Israeli establishment, wrote: “Hamas’ conditions for a long-term hudna or ceasefire…are almost too good to be true. Refugees and right of return and Jerusalem can wait for some other process; Hamas will suffice with the 1967 borders, more or less, and in return will guarantee peace and quiet for ten, 25 or 30 years of good neighborly relations and confidence-building.”
Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, and Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad and the national security adviser in Ariel Sharon’s 2002-03 government, also argued strongly for negotiations with Hamas. In particular, shortly before the Israeli attack Halevy argued that Hamas militants “have recognized…[their] ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future.” Instead, “they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967…[and] they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.” Halevy concluded, dryly, that “Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas.”
Since Cast Lead, there is no evidence that Hamas has abandoned its probable pragmatic willingness to settle for a two-state settlement, though it can scarcely be expected to announce it daily, faced with the utter rejectionism of Netanyahu and the no-bottom political cowardice/fatuity (choose your own characterization) of the Obama administration.
I hate the thought, which is quite bloody-minded, but Hamas having been ignored when it spoke “peace” and “truce” resorted to (harmless) rocketry understanding that Israel would respond with force and desiring to bring that catastrophe down on the heads of Gazans. Cast Lead was, then, in that sense, a project of Hamas. And it had mixed outcomes: death and destruction, but also world knowledge of that death and destruction (including Goldstone, as it turned out). And including increased pro-Gaza activity in Egypt.
History marches on. Israel refused to accede to Hamas’s peace overtured but gladly acceded to Hamas’s war overtures. Lotta ways to lead the dance. But since Israel said it desired quiet and domination, and only got domination, I suppose it could be said (as I’ve just said) that it was Hamas that was leading the dance. And not Israel.
Timing & timeline is everything.
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
Then Israel broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:
“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip. Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions. In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel. During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008).
Citizen,
Hilarious!
Too many words, Citizen and long ones too! Werdine’s gone numb with all the squiggly lines.
This is what Haniyah recently said:
December 15, 2010 Clip No. 2729
Hamas PM Ismail Haniya: The Occupation Has No Future on the Land of Palestine – from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River
Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, in a rally marking the 25th anniversary of Hamas, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV, December 15, 2010:
Ismail Haniya: Let me reassure you, brothers and sisters, that the occupation has no future on the land of Palestine. When I say “the land of Palestine,” I am not referring [only] to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem. When I say that the occupation has no future on the land of Palestine, I refer to Palestine from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and from Rosh Hanikra to Rafah.
The occupation will not survive on this land. Never!
[...]
We see today that it is the enterprise of resistance in the region that defends the principles of the Islamic nation. In Iraq – which the American enemy thought it could swallow, before moving on to swallow other countries – the noble Iraqi resistance confronted the American occupation. From Gaza, we salute the Iraqi resistance. To this, one should add the resistance in Lebanon, in Palestine, and in Afghanistan.
[...]
“This is what Haniyah recently said:”
Shrug. And the Irgun sought an Israeli state over all of Mandatory Palestine and latter settled for much, much less. People say a lot of stuff.
are there any msm news sources confirming this text or is this all ‘according to memri’?
Don’t know. Doesn’t much matter, it’s pr and should be seen as such.
eee, do you have a link to that AJ video because i wanted to see it and all i can find in my search is memri. you must know they are famous for fabricating text don’t you?
Annie,
They are not famous for fabricating text. They are quite accurate. Why are you afraid of putting the memri video? The Arabic is clearly heard and if there is an inconsistency, it can easily be pointed out by anyone who speaks Arabic. Memri is not trying to hide anything.
By the way, the video is from Al Jazeera. So what is the problem with it?
i did not say i was afraid, i just wondered if there was another source. it’s fairly inflammatory one might think it would hit the msm, no? does al jazerra have an article about it? i’d read that.
He’s basically saying what many have said before, even within the US Establishment.
That is to say that Israel on its current trajectory has no future in the Middle East. It cannot survive and sustain itself as a colonial power in the region.
Thus, it will not remain a Zionist entity that considers itself part of the Western world, while it remains embedded like a thorn in the Middle East, with its Orientalist outlook, its racism and its taming-the-savages policies.
So, what’s so reprehensible about that? It’s quite realistic.
Incidentally, you were the one who was talking about “colloquialisms” a couple of weeks ago when you defended Netanyahu’s “cut their hands” comment.
Here, “the occupation” is Palestinian colloquialism for “colonialism”, no different than the often-used term “the Zionist entity”, both of which are apt and true.
Even the CIA in its assessment on Israel, agrees with Hanniyeh.
The link eee. Why are you being coy about providing it?
MEMRI is famous for their questionable translations, their editorialising in what they choose to translate (they emphasise extremist voices and tend to ignore moderate opinion), and of course being founded & lead by a former Israeli military ‘intelligence’ officer and head of Israel’s ‘civil administration’ in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Yigal Carmon.
I think it’s fairly safe to say MEMRI has an agenda.
Further reading: Middle East Media Research Institute
And Netanyahu regularly speaks about (and approves policy) for the theft of Palestine, in fact his party’s constitution calls for the destruction of Palestine.
“…but also because the same U.S. government that ordered the assassination of bin Laden also provided the initial leadership for a Western humanitarian intervention in Libya that may have saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives–just as it also saved thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo.”
At the time of the US/NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, I couldn’t help but notice the extent to which the liberal Jewish elite were the staunchest supporters of this bogus “humanitarian intervention,” and in fact were instrumental in selling this geo-strategic dismembering of Yugoslavia as an act of kindness. The US and Germany fomented this civil war, and their meddling greatly increased the blood shed. We have covered this before, however, Professor Slater cannot resist the opportunity to reinforce imperial falsehoods. Apparently, supporting Muslims, even the European descendents of the Ottoman Empire, provided Israel with some “pro-Muslim” street cred. Also, these liberal allies of the Israeli Labor Party showed that they could deliver the goods for Clinton and empire much better than the Likud linked neocons.
Re Keith: This is what is known, in social science circles, as the failure to provide “a null hypothesis.” If the U.S. attacks Muslims, that proves it hates all Muslims and/or is an imperialist power. On the other hand, if the US attacks the people who are killing Muslim innocent civilians–like in Libya today, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s–that also actually PROVES it wants to kill Muslims per se or that its only motivation is imperialism: it gains “pro-Muslim street cred,” you see, presumably so that it can resume killing Muslims again as soon as possible.
Lord, these imperialists are fiendishly clever–but not so clever that Keith and others like him can’t see right through them.
JNSLATER- That the US/Germany/NATO attacked and dismembered the former Yugoslavia for geo-strategic reasons is supported by the writings of Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Diana Johnstone, William Blum, John Pilger, Michael Parenti, Michel Collon, Michel Chossudovsky, and others. It has nothing whatever to do with the “null hypothesis” straw man you created. Below are a couple of paragraphs I wrote years ago regarding this “humanitarian intervention.” That you can refer to this as a good thing is shameful.
And what are the consequences of Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention? For the people of the former Yugoslavia, it has been a disaster. This is particularly true for the Serbs who have been ethnically cleansed from Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and have had Serbia destroyed by the U.S. led bombing campaign. Bridges, roads, power generation, water purification, hospitals, and TV stations were defined as valid “military” targets. Depleted uranium continues to poison the countryside. They have been reduced from a decent life to Third World paupers, all the while being blamed for the consequences of U.S./German geostrategic intervention. All of the groups now live in countries whose economies are directly administered by the IMF, with the inevitable consequences of neoliberalism. Countries, I might add, that are now too small to be economically viable. Once again, the Great Powers have Balkanized the Balkans.
On the other hand, the Imperial powers did just fine. A united and expansionist Germany took a big step toward establishing a new Mitteleuropa. The U.S. got to establish new military bases in the region, including the strategically located camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. These serve as instruments of power projection and military domination and control. One of the biggest victories for the U.S. was the ability to transform NATO into a U.S. controlled, out-of-area strike force. NATO is well on its way to becoming a U.S. controlled mercenary army.
If eee’s quote from Haniyeh is correct, I wouldn’t deny it is quite depressing. Nonetheless, it does not follow that Israel and the U.S. should not offer to meet with Hamas–or with a joint Fatah/Hamas government–and place a legitimate two-state offer on the table. Then–and only then–we can see what would happen, whether it is the pragmatic or the extremist side of Hamas that would prevail, once put to the test.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Khruschev sent two personal messages to Kennedy, separated by only a few hours: one was intransigent, the other was clearly seeking a way out of the crisis. Rather than try to figure out which one was “the real Khruschev,” Bobby Kennedy suggested what he called “the Trollope ploy,” (evidently from a Trollope novel not known to me)–ignore the rejection and respond only to the inviting one.
It worked–both sides then made reciprocal concessions (although Kennedy refused to publicly admit his). Thank the Lord for Bobby Kennedy–if his suggestion hadn’t prevailed, there might be no Mondoweiss today.
The problem with this strategy is that the “legitimate two-state offer” which Israel and the US envisions might not be sufficient to bring the pragmatic side out, whereas a more “legitimate” offer would.
Given what we know, there is little chance that Isreal/US would offer anything near what would be sufficient to get the job done, as they still seem stuck on continuing the occupation for generations, restricting Palestinian soverignty to nothingness, etc. So there is no chance that the pragmatic side would be apparant under those circumstances. In such a case, so there is no down side, and much up side, in Hamas maintaining an extremist stance in such circumstances (and this is the important point) even if Hamas were looking for a pragmatic solution.
Agreed, the real problem is that Israel does not want a two-state settlement–or else it would have offered one to Abbas–and Hamas extremism is the pretext, not the reason. That said, I fail to see that there is any “upside” whatever in extremist Hamas statements or positions–either on the merits of the extremism or on its consequences.
jnslater,
If Israel did not want a two state solution why did it engage the entire Oslo process to begin with at a time when Arafat and the PLO were at their lowest ebb? Why did they bring Arafat back from the territories? Why did they offer Arafat a state in 2000/2001 or do you deny that they did like everyone else on this blog? Why did they withdraw from Gaza? Why did Olmert make a similar offer to Abbas in late 2008, before Cast Lead?
You would have to admit that these are strange actions for someone uninterested in a peaceful, two-state solution. Why not simply refuse to do all of the above and hold on to everything by force?
Do you believe that Hamas could ever make peace with Israel? What is there for Israel to negotiate? Whether or not it may please exist?
This would be during the same Oslo process that Israel dramatically ramped up land confiscations and settlement activity, right? That Oslo process is the same one we’re talking about, right, Werdine?
Still have that question?
Robert Werdine:
There are persuasive answers to these rhetorical questions, but far too long to go into here. Still, two short comments: what Barak offered to Arafat in 2000 is far from clear–he refused to put anything in writing– but what is absolutely clear is that he refused to budge on Jerusalem, which was the deal breaker.
Certainly Olmert went considerably further–including on Jerusalem–and you can make a strong case that one part of his divided self genuinely wanted an agreement, while the other part launched Cast Lead, which–along with the impending election of Netanyahu–killed any chances of a settlement.
In any case, I was referring to Netanyahu–about whom there is simply no serious doubt that he wants to perpetuate and extend the operation, not end it.
As for your final three questions, the answers are (1)Yes, probably or at least quite possibly; (2)a great deal, and (3) a complete red herring: ending the occupation and allowing the creation of a limited, largely demilitarized Palestinian state has nothing to do with whether Israel “may please exist.” On the contrary, the only true threat to Israel’s “existence” arises from the possible consequences of its impenetrably stupid and morally disgusting policies towards the Palestinians.
“I fail to see that there is any “upside” whatever in extremist Hamas statements or positions–either on the merits of the extremism or on its consequences.”
The upside to Hamas is this: if Israel has no intention of making an offer that Hamas’s pragmatic side would be willing to accept, Hamas gains nothing internally or externally by appearing more “pragmatic” because, as we’ve stated, Israel is not willing to make concessions to meet the minimum demands of Hamas’s pragmatic side, so the pragmatic stance gains the Palestinians nothing.
But if it were to appear more pragmatically, it would be vulnerable from the extremist side because it would appear to be conceding to its enemies with nothing in return to show for it. That would open space for more extremist groups to co-opt that segment of the political landscape. (In some ways, this appears to be happening, with the rise of even more militant parties in Gaza.)
However, Hamas could shore up that flank by maintaining an extremist stance publically. The upside is the fact that it limits challenges from the extremist side and secures its position.
Woody Tanaka:
I was aware of this argument, but if that is Hamas’s logic, it is a very bad mistake. First, even in terms of Hamas’s internal constituency most Palestinians are not extremist, so an extremist position alienates more Palestinians than it attracts–look at recent Palestinian public opinion polls.
More importantly, the only chance–thin though it is–for the Palestinians to get their own state is through some combination of changes in Israeli attitudes and outside pressures on Israel. For Hamas to continue with–or reassert–extremist positions reduces the possibility of either changes in Israeli attitudes or serious external pressures from thin to zero.
The practical consequences aside, the moderate Palestinian position is morally compelling, whereas the extremist position is morally unacceptable.
You base your argument on the assumption that there is a thin but non-zero chance of Israel agreeing to conditions which would be acceptable to the Palestinians. I think that is fantasy. I have seen nothing with indicates that even such a thin chance exists. If it did, then perhaps a shift to pragmatism might make some logical sense for Hamas, as I noted initially. But where is the evidence that your “thin” chance is nothing more than a pipedream or wishful thinking??
Further, the question is not whether most Palestinians are or are not extremists; the question is whether adopting a more pragmatic stance would improve Hamas’s position with that population, in light of the fact of Israeli intrasigence — these are not the same questions.
It very well could be that Hamas has no great play here, and if public opinion moves too far away from the hardline positions it espouses, it could cease to have sufficient support. But Hamas exists, in part, as an alternative to Fatah precisely because the pragmatism of Fatah, and the PA, has borne so little fruit. So absent some real, concrete benefits resulting from the pragmatic position, shifting its position for the sake of shifting risks losing that portion of the population which favors a hardline approach, without peeling away support from the more pragmatic Fatah.
And, if the winds of public opinion shifts towards a hardline approach, it would suffer if it appeared to be pragmatic when pragmatism resulted in nothing.
Finally, it is really pointless to discuss what is “morally compelling” and “morally unacceptable” when discussing politics, even if the problem of subjectivity could be put aside. (I’m sure we could have a discussion on whether the Zionist enterprise, itself, was morally “compelling” or “unacceptable”)
In my mind, the only “morally compelling” solution is to have those weilding the powers of government to treat everyone in the land, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc., with absolute equality and with full protection of civil and human rights. Absent that, what we are fighting over is which “morally unacceptable” solution is politically possible.
Hamas has always had two faces, a ‘moderate’ one and a militant one.
Its ‘moderate’ one has stated only so far as being willing to recognize Palestine at the 67 borders (NOT recognizing Israel), and regarding those borders as temporary. As Robert pointed out, Hamas (the moderate branches) continue to describe all of the land as occupied, that it is Muslim land (beyond Palestinian).
Jerome Slater is hoping, wishing. I am wishing. But, I do not conclude that my wishing is already done. In the case of Hamas, it is not done, and it is reasonable for Israel to assume that it is falsely playing to those that wish so much. If Hamas goes so far as to accept Israel, then nearly certainly other organizations will emerge that exist in permanent ‘resistance’ and Hamas would be branded as fundamentally compromised as Fatah was described (for negotiating with Israel on ‘permanent’ relations).
It will remain a tension.
Acceptance is the change. More of the same isn’t a change.
Israel has always had two faces, a ‘moderate’ one and a militant one.
Its ‘moderate’ one says it is ready to accept Palestine at the 1967 borders (but NOT recognizing any right of return, or even recognizing that the Nakba was a crime against humanity).
Israel’s militant face continues to promote the illegal colonization of the West Bank; the numbers of settler/colonists rose to more than 500,000 while the Oslo talks were supposed to be progressing. Israel also attacked Gaza, killing 1400 human beings, including 300 children.
Which is the true face of Israel?
>> More of the same isn’t a change.
So true. And yet Israel is unwilling to recognize that truism about its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.
Once again, Jerry Slater has the intellectual courage to look squarely at the facts. Some of us are old enough to remember when Israel and its supporters demonized Yasser Arafat the same way they vilify Hamas today, insisting that Arafat would never settle for anything less than the destruction of Israel. I’m sure many Israelis would do anything to bring Arafat back to life, so they could negotiate with him.
Yeah, but for every Israeli like that, there’s two Israelis who would bring him back to life only to have him die in humiliation a second time.
I guess no matter what Hamas leaders say, do, write, whatever, some among us will never stop apologizing for them and projecting their own Western values upon them.
You all look very naive right now.
Heaven forbid Hamas (and Palestinians/arabs/muslims in general) should be thought of as an organisation consisting of actual human beings hophmi.
I suspect it isn’t the projection of western values that bothers you, it’s the projection of the wrong sort of western values. If Hamas were being discussed in a way which corresponded to Hollywood’s caricature of arabs and muslims, I imagine you’d be quite content:
Reel Bad Arabs – How Hollywood Vilifies a People
How naive of us to believe Hollywood isn’t real.
No. What bothers me is that people nonchalantly suggest Israel should negotiate with an organization that just praised Osama bin Laden as a martyr.
hophmi, doesn’t Israel honor some of it’s former leaders who were also terrorists? Why should anyone negotiate with Israel?
>> What bothers me is that people nonchalantly suggest Israel should negotiate with an organization that just praised Osama bin Laden as a martyr.
They should have just praised ObL as a hero, a righteous defender of justice and a beacon unto the oppressed. That would have made it all better. (“We” likes us our heroes, yes we do!)
What bothers me is that people nonchalantly suggest – actually, they indignantly DEMAND! – that the Palestinians negotiate with an Israeli regime that is engaged in an ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder against the Palestinians.
What bothers me is that anyone suggest anyone should negotiate with Israel. After murdering US citizens in international territory, we should be blockading them.
Instead, your fifth column insists we should shell out more taxpayer money to the “Jewish” terrorist state.
Whatever do you mean hophmi?
Ronald Reagan dedicated the Space Shuttle launch in 1982 to the muhajideen in Afghanistan – of which Osama Bin Laden was a leader – saying that as the Columbia represented our highest aspirations in science & technology the freedom fighters in Afghanistan represented our mankind’s aspirations in the struggle for freedom. Clip:
Ronald Reagan dedicates the Space Shuttle Columbia to the Taliban
Is freedom only a worthwhile aspiration when your enemies happen to be those of the US and Israel, or is it a universal value? I say it is a universal value. Whether it is the invading Soviet, US or Israeli army, the end goal is freedom from occupation and oppression.
I can disagree with OBL’s tactics (the targeting of civilians) but his critique of American foreign policy – responsible for many many more civilians deaths than OBL ever was – is on the money. Care to disagree hophmi? If OBL and Zawahiri were outraged by the death of a million civilian Iraqis due to the 1990-2003 sanctions (they were) can you honestly tell me you think that OBL has no moral reason to complain?
I guess no matter what Israeli leaders say, do, write, whatever, some among us will never stop apologizing for them and projecting their own Western values upon them.
You all look very naive right now.
You got it right, holmes. we’re all pinkos for Hamas.
what are you gonna do about it?
“You got it right, holmes. we’re all pinkos for Hamas.
what are you gonna do about it?”
After the “Osama’s a martyr” statement, there’s nothing I really have to do. Hamas has done it all for me.
Which would matter if, you know, anyone here actively supported Hamas. Nobody actually does.
Idiot. Keep beating up on your straw men.
Yeah, before that statement everything was love and kisses with Hamas, but doggonit, now they’ve gone too far!
Democratically elected representatioin really cheezes Israel, particularly when they’re voted in to oust corrupt Israel puppets.
Once again showing his ugly face to the world, hophmi trots his racist views for all to see.
Apparently, when an Israeli says, “Break their bones”, that is part of Western values, much in the same way, “We will bomb them back to the stone age” is a Western value, not to mention the incessant calls for the Ethnic Cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian people. Apparently, according to hophmi, ethnic cleansing is a “Western value”. You see, he is a member of the Chosen Ones; talk about Nazi racial superiority doctrine.