In the mechanistic template
imposed by western leaders on the Middle East, of ‘moderates' who must be
supported versus ‘extremists' who must be isolated and undermined, Hamas has to
be painted, by mechanical necessity alone, as ‘extremists'. Hamas has become the ‘extremists' to answer
in neat symmetry to the ‘moderates' of Ramallah, who for other reasons American
and European leaders wish in any event to support.Alastair Crooke is co-director of
Conflicts Forum, a former EU mediator with Hamas and other Islamist groups and
author of ‘Resistance: the Essence of the Islamist Revolution'.
Special offer for openDemocracy readers for Alastair Crooke's book, ‘Resistance: the Essence of the Islamist Revolution’.
But such models, once generally accepted, force a deterministic interpretation that can blind its advocates to the perverse results of such narrow and rigid conceptualising: a defeated and humbled Hamas, western leaders suggested, was to be ‘welcomed' as a blow to Hesballah, which in turn represented a strike at Syria, which weakened Iran - all of which strengthened the ‘moderates'; and, the model implies, serves to make Israel safer. It is a narrative that has reduced the Palestinian crisis to no more than a pawn in the new ‘Great Game' of an existential global struggle waged against ‘extremism'.
The appealing clarity of such a simple, and simplistic, model-making has however obscured its overriding flaw. The pursuit of this narrow formulation of moderates versus extremists has yielded the perverse result - not of bringing nearer a Palestinian state - but of pushing it beyond reach, possibly for good.
On the one hand, Mahmoud Abbas is left discredited, lacking the legitimacy to take forward any political solution: on the other, the ‘extremist' branding of Hamas has enabled the West to block Hamas' and other factions' access to the Palestinian leadership institutions. Palestinian leadership institutions remain captive to one section of Fatah in Ramallah. In short, western policy has brought about a void in which no Palestinian leader, and no Palestinian movement, now has the potential to achieve a credible mandate - or to move forward politically.
Attempts to undermine Hamas have all failed - be they economic siege, political cleansing (with British and American experts grooming a special operations militia around Abbas in order to politically-cleanse the West Bank of Hamas influence), the repression of Hamas' political and charitable institutions, or, more recently, the Israeli military onslaught on Gaza.
The prospect of a Palestinian state has been sacrificed to a flawed political model, thus only serving further to radicalise the region. Hesballah, Syria and Iran have not been weakened: they have emerged stronger. The region has become more polarised and less stable.
But the conceptual failure of the moderate/extremist template extends well beyond Palestine. In essence, the West has got it wrong: It has the wrong Islamists cast as ‘moderates' and the wrong movements cast as ‘extremist'.
We are not here dealing with secularist movements when referring to the western desire to empower ‘moderates' as their allies: These secularist movements, as opposed to the occasional individual, are almost all seen as western proxies, and have little or no influence now. Nor are we writing of certain immoderate ‘moderate' Arab leaders who will do almost anything to ensure their survival; and who will do almost anything to undermine the Islamist movements that challenge them.
The moderate/extremist template is so crucially flawed because it misidentifies the mechanism by which a narrow hatred of all heterodoxy and heresy evolves into something truly dangerous.
This transformation of a narrow literalism into a more dangerous form occurs because the West has tried to use a particular puritan current - Saudi-orientated Salafism - for its own political ends. An oil and military coincidence of interest has given rise to a fifty year Saudi alliance; but also to one of two flawed premises underlying the moderate/extremist template of today: in which Hamas is deemed the ‘extremist' to be hollowed out and contained - ‘contained' incongruously by the very forces that have proved, time and time again, to be the root from which the truly dangerous splinters of extremism have emerged.
Salafists of this type - that is, those who follow a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an, certain sayings attributed to the Prophet, and who try to practice an exact imitation of the conduct of early Muslim believers - are for the most part, peaceful, pious and reformist Islamists who stand aloof from politics and from national and local elections. They are properly ‘apolitical'. But America and Britain have used this current for the past fifty years in order to try to contain trends emerging in the region to which they have taken a dislike.
The branding of Hamas and Hesballah as ‘extremists' has its roots in a pattern of western behaviour established in the 1960s, well before Hamas was formed. This pattern of western behaviour consisted of reliance on ‘apolitical' Salafism, managed and funded by Saudi patrons, to contain and circumscribe firstly, ‘Nasserist' Arab nationalism; then to act as a counter-weight to the spread of Marxism in the region; to contain Soviet influence; to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; to contain the impact of Shi'ism and the Iranian Revolution; to contain the spread of ‘revolutionary' Islam; and, in Iraq, to contain al-Qae'da and the Shi'i militias. With each successive manifestly political use, essentially in support of perceived western and al-Saud interests, these dissidents have not only become progressively more ‘political' - they have become more violent, immoderate, intolerant and dangerous.
It is when this ‘apolitical' orientation is used politically; or, when major political events impinge adversely on Islam, that it fractures under the stress. With each new fragmentation and splintering, the dissidents become angry, and begin to brood darkly on the predicament of Islam. From this introspection, begins their migration to the ideas and thinking of an earlier and particularly desperate period of Islamic history.
The truly dangerous movements that the West faces - the abu Musab al-Zarqawi affiliates - are all splinters from ‘apolitical' Salafism. Western efforts to hollow-out mainstream Islamists, such as Hamas, have served only to open up the space for the entry of such Salafi splinters. Sunni groups such as al-Qae'da, the Taliban and movements such as Lashgar-i-Toiba are deeply influenced by Salafism, through Deobandism - effectively a form of Salafism transplanted to India.
The West has labelled the ‘wrong' people as ‘extremist'. It is a case of apples and oranges: there is simply no comparison between an armed resistance movement such as Hamas or Hesballah on the one hand; and the violent splinters and haters of heterodoxy and heresy of dissident Salafism, on the other.
Dissident Salafism is the opposing current to that which emerged from the Islamist revolution. Dissident Salafism is counter-revolutionary ‘conservatism': it is anti-reasoning; it is anti-philosophic; it is reductive; anti-heterodox and literalist. It is a current which, in its extreme form, so dislikes any divergence from a narrow literalist ‘puritan' vision of Islam that it stands ready to kill other Muslims who are Sufi, Shi'i or in any way unorthodox: they are as much a danger to their own communities as to the West. It is the ideology of dogmatic closure imposed on all believers.
These forces have come about, have been created, by the practice of abusing a particularly fissiparous ‘apolitical' strand of Islam through its deployment as western proxy - in a parody of a Cold War containment policy - charged with containing the forces of the Islamist revolution. The West bears some responsibility for lighting these fires of extremist schism and dogmatism; although it is no surprise that a western dogmatic closure on Islamism has in turn spewed Muslim movements of extreme dogmatism.
Paradoxically, the West has positioned itself on the wrong side of an ‘old struggle': that between reasoning and philosophy on the one hand, and - on the other hand - literalism in Islamic revelation.
Hamas and Hesballah are not literalists or fundamentalists. We have it the wrong way around. They could not be more different in their thinking from those described above.
In ‘Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution', I have argued that the Islamist revolution is capable of a clear and reasoned explanation. It is neither irrational, nor whimsical, as is often asserted.
It stemmed from the crisis in which Islam found itself in the aftermath of the First World War. Islam was in shock, it was disoriented, and it was struggling to find a solution to its predicament. It embarked on a journey to discover a new ‘Self'; it went back to its roots; and found new insights that gave it political, social and economic ‘solutions' to its problems; it began to imagine itself in new ways. The revolution was about ways of thinking, understanding the human being, and the world in which we live.
It is, in short, a revolution of ideas, of philosophy and some of its conclusions put into question the purpose of politics. It is of course at the outset of this journey. Like any revolution, it remains vulnerable and with major shortcomings - as its architects acknowledge. But the key development is that Islamism has started to transform itself, after 300 years, to be a dynamic religious, social and political force again.
That the Europe of the Enlightenment should have assumed this posture is truly paradoxical. It has arrayed itself with the forces of narrow literalism, reductionism and dogmatism in its illusory quest for a de-politicised, pro-western Islam - against a dynamic questioning of thinking, of understanding and the purpose of politics.
But there is another strand to this story beyond the West's slothful and habitual recourse to a form of Islam that they believed might curb and weaken the intellectual and religious renewal that so disconcerted western leaders. This is the second pillar and the second flawed premise that explains why Hamas, Hesballah and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates have had to stand in as the West's ‘extremists' - and not its ‘moderates'.
Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, evolved in the 1950s a defensive strategy of an ‘alliance of the periphery'. The aim was to balance the ‘vicinity' of hostile Arab states by forming alliances with Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia. It was an attempt to strengthen Israeli deterrence, to reduce its isolation, and to add to her appeal as ‘an asset' for the US.
It was against this background that Iran came to be seen firstly as a ‘natural ally' for Israelis. It was rooted in an imagined cultural affinity between two non-Arab peoples. This sense of close affinity persisted beyond the Iranian Revolution, and prompted even hard-headed Israeli politicians of the Right to reach out to the new Iranian leadership.
But 1990 - 1992 witnessed two events that changed the outlook for the whole region - and set the scene for Iran's demonisation by Israel.
In this brief period, the Soviet Union imploded, and Saddam Hussein was defeated in the first Gulf War. These two events removed both the Russian threat from Iran, and Iraq's threat to Israel. This left Iran and Israel as unchallenged rivals for leadership and pre-eminence in the region. It also saw the US emerge as a unipolar, unchecked power.
Israel read the new map of the Middle East and realised that it needed a new role from that of America's ally against the now-imploded Soviet Union - as the rationale justifying its strategic relationship with Washington.
Emergent Iran was now seen as a threat to Israel whose survival was deemed to depend on its military supremacy. Any prospect of an US-Iranian rapprochement risked undercutting Israel's relationship with the US, and therefore Israel's continued military supremacy too.
Israel, in 1992 in a dramatic move, decided to drop the strategy of wooing the periphery, and instead opted to make peace with the Arabs - a far-reaching and radical reverse of strategy. It was also a highly problematic strategy: whereas the periphery doctrine enjoyed broad popular consensus; its reversal - to seek affinities in the vicinity and to make peace with them - carried no such broad support.
This shift placed Israel and Iran on opposite sides in the new equation, and the change was as intense as it was unexpected: "Iran has to be identified as Enemy No.1," Yossi Alpher, at the time an adviser to Rabin, told the New York Times four days after Clinton's election victory. From this time, Israel and its allies in the US began insistently to accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran had to be demonised as a part of an ideological shift in Israel. Israel needed to find a new, post-Soviet ‘purpose' to justify its role to the US as indispensible vanguard and ally. It found it in the new war against Islamic ‘extremism'.
Israel's re-configuring of its own template from ‘moderate periphery' versus ‘extremist Arab vicinity' to one defining Iran and political Islam as the new ‘extremists', and certain states of the Arab vicinity as the ‘moderates', inexorably led to Hamas' branding as ‘extremist' by the West too. It is no coincidence, therefore, that it is Israel's own particular ‘enemies' who have become the West's ‘extremists' also - and perhaps no coincidence that the outcome of this conceptualising is a Palestinian state pushed beyond reach.
Quartet Envoy Tony Blair's proselytising around the world on this moderate/extremist theme has been a huge asset for an Israel who has always aspired to be the leading member of a ‘moderate' bloc, rather than an isolated island in a hostile region; but Blair's, and other Quartet members' attempts to fit this simplistic and terribly flawed template over a complex Middle East has left the region a more dangerous and unstable place.
Comments
Great analysis there Alastair.
I think one of the main problems with the moderates vs. extremists definition is that it relies, for definition, heavily on the willingness of movements to resort to military solutions for their problems. Although this might not be the motive behind casting them as extremist, it's certainly one of the most frequently cited signs of an extremist group. If Hamas had never engaged in military activities against the Zionists, then it would be kind of hard to cast them as extremists. This willingness to engage in military activities, doesn't really tell us much about an organisation though, but more about the circumstances it finds itself in. Hamas have been willing, since they took office, to cease hostilities with the Zionists, and all they got in return was the great "lock in".
The problem with Hamas stems from the fact the world simply did not like the Palestinian people's choice of government. They don't respect their democratic choice, and so from the outset, they've worked to remove it and reinstate their own first choice as Palestinian leader.
Just a note on your classification of Islamist movements/streams, the Deobandis are clearly not related to the Salafists. They are in fact a Sufi-based movement, and anywhere they interact around the world, they find themselves diametrically opposed to one another. The Deobandis are clearly apolitical, whilst the Salafists are quite obviously split into two streams, a split much more evident post-9/11. The split is between those who consider the Arab regimes to be good-for-nothing Western puppets, whose only job is to guard the Arab world's resources until the West can siphon them all off, and those who consider Saudi Arabia to be the represenative of all Muslims and the protector of the global Islamic community. Quite obviously the latter are deluded fools, but they are certainly not apolitical Their political positions though are rather simplistic and are formulated for them by the Saudi-government scholars. I would class them as political lemmings, they are engaged in political activity, but it's fairly mindless, and they have little understanding about the goals and aims of the work they're engaged in. The former group on the other hand, are very aware of their political destiny and they have seized control of it. And this is what makes them so dangerous to the West.
I wouldn't worry too much about the "extremist", or any other, label.
Demonisation of the opponent by a politician is a standard weapon, well understood, easily picked up and used, and just as easily discarded.
If you doubt me, look at Northern Ireland. Look at the demonisation, twenty years ago, by "mainstream" politicians, of the republican movement. Now, those same demons are in Government, and these last few days, themselves deploring the current "men of violence".
When it becomes necessary, for the exercise of pragmatic politics, these same "extremists" or "terrorists" will effortlessly segue into "statesmen".
Clear skies!
Hamas is indeed extreme and judging that others are more extreme is like saying that the viking ss division was less extreme than das reich hence less effort should be made to oppose them.
The torture,systematic shooting off of legs of fatah supporters and encouragement of children to become future martyres should be taken seriously if only because they might be used against others apart from Israelis.
Likewise the Iranian combinaton of a declaired desire and respect for martyrdom and nuclear weapons could affect others apart from Israelis.
Israel is a declared target but the usa or europe is not immune and has been involved in terror attacks by organisatons that have links with hamas.Let us remember that we are not privy to all the intelligence of the depth of the links and that not all is known.
The fact that hamas,iran and hizbulla can act rationally means that sanctions and the threat of military action can deter (note hizbulla in 2008 and hamas today in trying to distance itself from the daily rocket fire from gaza).
Hamas has been undermined in the westbank by military action and its suicide campaigns in Israel was beaten by active and passive (security barrier) miltary actions.The effects of its rocket attacks in 2008 were diminished by effective mobilisaton of home front services and bomb shelters which will probably be enhanced in the future.
Hamas has been undermined in the westbank
-----
Are we talking about the same West bank and the same Hamas? Hamas have gained an astronomical amount of credibility in the West bank since the Ghaza siege, and Fatah has lost the same.
If anything the siege of Ghaza was designed to diminish support for Fatah and increase it for Hamas, whether intentional or not is irrelevant, that was the overwhelming result.
If Hamas apologists spent as much time working toward a practical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they do endeavoring to "recast" the organization in a more favorable light, peace in the Middle East would have been achieved long ago.
Enter Alastair Crooke, whose substantive arguments are as unpersuasive as they are nonexistent. Rather, Crooke - not coincidentally, his name is probably a homophone of crook - spends the bulk of his paper arguing over semantics - what "extremism" is not, for example - and somehow arrives at the conclusion (perhaps after looking up the definition of the word "extremism" in HIS lexicon) that suicide bombings and an organization with a long history of targeting civilians and embedding themselves within civilian society doesn't qualify.
How on earth such an argument could be presented with conviction is beyond comprehension. But such is the problem that exists whenever an individual or organization attempts to present an irrational argument to a rational mind. It simply fails to convince. And as Thomas Jefferson once observed: The only defense that can be mounted against unintelligible propositions is ridicule.
Hence my little quip on the author's name.
Oh-oh.
Another "unverified" fanboy.
Another Hamas = Hitler.
Another linking together of the usual suspects, and flashing of the terror card and, hello, "we're not privy to all the intelligence".
Looks like we're not privy to any of the intelligence.
You are Lobby Ludd and I claim my five pounds.
Clear skies!
From the hamas charter
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
That just means Hamas are resolute, doesn't mean they are extremist. What country/party has in it's charter that it doesn't mind giving away parts of it's land to foriegn invaders? Very few would be my guess. Quite a normal and rational position.
However, as you're probably a Zionist lackey, you'd prefer they did believe in giving up large portions of their land to the foreign Zionist entity...
That just means Hamas are resolute, doesn't mean they are extremist. What country/party has in it's charter that it doesn't mind giving away parts of it's land to foriegn invaders? Very few would be my guess. Quite a normal and rational position.
However, as you're probably a Zionist lackey, you'd prefer they did believe in giving up large portions of their land to the foreign Zionist entity...
From "Michael T Sager"; "The hamas charter..."
So, irrational bigoted believers in a particular strand of a Bronze Age creation myth had a hand in the draughting of the Hamas Charter.
Tell us something we didn't know.
They're not unlike certain other movements and groups in the area, that believe that the Great Sky Juju granted "Eretz Israel" to the Jewish people (however they may be defined) in perpetuity. Now where may that be written down? Can't seem to find the reference...
You know, it's almost as bad as those who say that I can't play cricket for Yorkshire; not born there, you know. Not that I can play cricket...
The point is, me 'andsome, that if we're all "extremists", none of us are extremists.
The point is that slanted, pejorative, and coloured language is not helpful. It does not inform the debate. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
What's more, it's sloppy. Tell us what you are complaining about, rather than slapping labels on things and then trying to justify the language you've used.
Clear skies!
the author has spent so many years invested in his academic theories of what's going on that he's oblivious to any realities, like indoctrinated children blowing themselves up or breaking the legs of other indocrinated children. the palestinians suffering under the leadership of hamas might consider, with "friends" like crooke, who needs enemies? the idea of "open democracy" is a good one, but it is diminished when this type of faux insight is proffered.
Mr Crooke's analysis is interesting and well worth discussing, and he seems to speak from a position of knowledgeable experience.
However, whilst I entirely agree that the futile and moronic labelling of various parties in the Middle East (and elsewhere) as "moderate" or "extremist" in order to suit political prejudices and/or to serve the needs of propaganda, is short-sighted, we cannot get away from the basic nature and purpose of Islamism - which is to impose the religious prescriptions contained in the Koran and the Hadiths onto human society. In other words, to turn religious teachings into public policy and legal regulation. Thus, Islamism (even accepting that there are many strands of this current) may reasonably be described as bigotted and as a form of Clerical Fascism.
The fact that Hamas may have popular support as a genuine Liberation Movement fighting the invasion and occcupation of Palestine by aggressors bent on conquest (although the involvement of the Israeli security services in founding and deliberately promoting Hamas cannot be ignored) does not mean that progressive secularists are obliged to treat it as a normal political movement which can be allied with to achieve common goals just like any other.
Certainly, Hamas' status as an elected leadership entitles it to deal with other governments and institutions (including the EU, the USA, the UN etc.) and to be recognised by them. However, those who still believe in working for a Middle-East peace based on justice and non-racially-defined/non-confessional states (however remote that prospect may seem now) can only be saddened by the rise of Islamists in the leadership of the resistance movements - while those who oppose any such settlement, notably the Israeli state, will rejoice (quietly).
Steve Radford.
wants to destroy a democratic country that is a member of the UN
it wants to kill Jews because they live in the middle east
it has fired 10,000 rockets targeting Israeli schools and homes
it executes and imprisons its political oponents
it is sytematically driving out Christians from Gaza
it is introducing sharia law which tramples on the rights of women
etc etc
this is forum to advocate democracy.
to legitimise hamas is to de-legitimise democracy
Mr Radford puts his finger on the nub and crux of the matter when he points out that a major difficulty with Hamas is its aim to "turn religious teachings into public policy and legal regulation."
Indeed.
The same can be said of the religious in most of our societies. There is scarcely a religious sect that does not try this on, from, in the UK, Catholicism requiring exception from discrimination laws, sects of all kinds requiring special and charitable status for their "faith schools" and the craven complicity of the Government in not only allowing, but encouraging them, to anti-evolutionists in the USA demanding the right to censor reality in the education of their nation's children. The attempted interference by religious groups in societal sexual mores and legal regulation stretches across the globe.
It is silly to single out Hamas, or any individual organisation, on this basis.
We must identify and oppose the tendency, of course, but whereever and whenever it raises its ugly head, not just in any one instance.
Religious interference in the regulation of society is the single greatest problem facing the world today. It is the cause of more death and suffereing than any other single cause, with the possible exception of bad sanitation and pollution of water supplies, with which it has much in common.
Clear skies!
"Michael T Sager"
You're not related to "Prof Ethan II", are you? You have the same single-sided view of the world, singing the same litany.
Oh, sorry, no, you differ. Your message is "10,000" rockets. His is "6,000". Sorry, you're quite different, sending a totally different message.
Hint: you will be taken a littel more seriously if you attempt to present a more realistic picture and weigh the issues, rather than parrotting the same old list of propaganda points.
Jeepers.
How many of them are there?
Clear skies!
So, Mr Sager has exactly the same attack pattern as Prof Ethan.
Running from the same playboook, are you?
Someone makes a comment less than complimentary about either your paean of praise for Israel or your litany of denunciation of Hamas - call him a Jew-hater, say he's an unthinking supporter of Hamas. He's obviously a left-wing feminist fellow-traveller.
Ignore the facts, make them up, and attack him with them.
If you'd bothered to look at any of my posts, you would have seen that I call out Hamas and other Arab governments as much as I do Israel.
You'd see I don't hate Israel, or Jews. (Or indeed anybody, much.)
You'd see I'm anything but a left-winger. Feminists, now; I like most women.
If I hate anything, it's mindlessness. The mindless demonisation of the other. The mindless repetition of "facts" which are facts only in the minds of irrational bigots who ignore reality and assume the world conforms to their fantasies.
Just because I can see a fault in your shining castle doesn't make me an anti-semitic Jew-hater.
Look at my reply to your post of Friday, and actually read it; you'd see that I think both sides are idiots, for the same reason.
Mindless adherence to self delusion and irrational belief in Bronze Age creation myths - justification for hate and aggression. The reason Hamas and Israel hate each other so much is that they're so alike.
But no.
It's far too hard to think for yourself.
Just call anyone who disagrees with you a Jew-hater, that'll do it.
Clear skies!
Who are the real extremists?
I've said equally very nasty things about both the Israeli and Arab governments on OpenDemocracy now for quite some time. (Well, I hope they were nasty - they were intended to be.)
There are obviously partisans of both sides here who have read them.
So far, the people taking the Arab position have been fairly quiet; I've had a couple of replies arguing, which is rather the point, isn't it?
Odd that on the other, Israeli, side, I've had three people, "Prof Ethan II", "Suzanne Schlitt", and "Michael T Sanger", whose response has been not to contest the points at issue, but to immediately accuse me of anti-semitism.
Maybe my comments could be so construed, you say? When I've gone out of my way to make it plain I'm not even talking about all Israelis, let alone all Jews, that I respect and admire many Jews, particularly those who stand up for decency and abhor the abuses I'm talking about? When I make the same complaints about non-Jews? When I hold both sides to the same standards?
Once is happenstance; twice is co-incidence; three times?
Now what was that definition of "extremism", again?
Clear skies!
It's the facts that Calder can't stand.
Here's another fact, another indication of how "moderate" Hamas is. Big C, for one, has taken a single remark made by Khaled Mashal a year ago to mean that Hamas has modified its genocidal charter, and therefore referring to the Charter as relevant to judging Hamas is now cheating in debate (article 7 calls for killing all Jews, quoting a Hadith; article 22 including the passages copied from "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"), because--according to Big C--Hamas actually now accepts that israel has a right to exist. This is simply false. Proof: From the Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2009 (reporter: Khaled abu Toameh):
"Barhoum and other Hamas spokesmen reacted angrily to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's demand that a new Hamas-Fatah government accept the conditions of the Middle East Quartet, namely recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and accepting all agreements between the PLO and Israel.
Taher a-Nunu, spokesman for the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, said he wasn't optimistic about the Cairo talks. Fatah's demand that the next PA government accept the PLO's political agenda, which supports the two-state solution, was unacceptable, he said.
"Fatah wants a government that accepts the two-state solution, and this is something that Hamas can't and will never accept," Nunu said."
Sager put his finger on what bothers people, Mr. Calder, and I wish you would take it seriously:
The difference in tone between the venom you constantly pour out on Israel and your tut-tuts to other states is striking. I ask you to take that argument seriously.,
Also striking, in view of the venom you pour on Israel is your attempt to "normalize" Hamas as a religious organization and shift the discussion at 13:31 yesterday. This is essentially to defend Hamas (by "normalizing" it). But Calder, we're not talking about a fringe group with no power; we're talking about a government in Gaza. And we're not talking about a group of the religious asking for exemptions from govt regulations; we're talking about a government training children to be suicide bombers.
The difference between the "venom" I "pour out on Israel" and the "tut-tutting" I apply to others is entirely in your head, Professor. I have condemned them, I condemn them now, and will continue in the future to condemn them in exactly the same terms for exactly the same faults and abuses.
You see a difference because you have emotion invested in the one side, so it hurts you to see them condemned. You are less than favourably inclined to the other side, so you discount that.
There is a difference in my condemnation of both sides, as I have repeatedly said, and repeatedly explained to you and others; it is getting tiresome repeating it, and I wish you would once and for all accept it. The difference is that I condemn more where I see more to condemn; it is a question of volume, not intensity. Hamas has killed dozens of innocents; dastardly crimes, and attacking civilians indiscriminately cannot be excused.
However, where Hamas has killeds its dozens, Israel has killed its hundreds and thousands. For every dead Israeli, there are a hundred dead Palestinians. As a matter of policy. The fact would be bad enough; the policy makes it worse.
These are the basic facts (and they are facts, professor, unassailable facts, unlike your value judgements and hearsay tertiary sources) that you have failed to address in the past, fail to address now, and, I suspect, will continue to fail to address in the future.
I fail entirely to understand your point about "normalising" Hamas by describing its religious nature, and why this is supposed to be "defending" it, so can scarcely address it. Hamas is an organisation steeped in religion, with the avowed aim of establishing Islamic law and governance. That is an established fact, which I point out, and condemn again as I condemn all religious interference in law and governance. I fail to see how their being religious is in any way a defence of the enormities they have perpetrated.
We have yet another problem with your language where you call Hamas a "government". I realise that English may not be your first language, but you really have to try harder, and be a little more forensic with regard to your language and use of logic if you are to have any impact.
Hamas is not a "government"; it is a party in charge of an administration. I know you would like it to be a government, because that would absolve Israel from several of the charges against it; but sadly for your argument, it is not, and no amount of your or anyone else naming it that will make it so.
Government is "the act of ruling and directing the affairs of a state". A government is an organisation charged with so doing. Gaza is not a state, it is an Occupied Territory, de jure and de facto; it has none of the characteristics of a state.
The occupying power, the one responsible for the territory, is Israel. The fact that Israel has abdicated its responsibility for security and day-to-day administration of the territory to an administration within that territory does not make the territory a state or that administration a government, nor does it relieve Israel of the final responsibility for the welfare, security, and administration of the peoples in that territory.
Israel cannot have it both ways; it cannot on the one hand treat the Gazan (and West Bank) polity as an area to be occupied and controlled with regard to international access, internal movement, access to airspace, security, welfare, and so on and so forth, on the one hand, and on the other claim that it is an independent entity against which it has the right of national self-defence.
You cannot defend yourself against territory you control; you can (and should) police it according to accepted norms of behaviour.
I am sorry to have taken so long for so little; but it seems necessary to inform the "Professor" about realities, language, and logic. I have for some time been confused about his self-appelation as a "Professor". I wasn't certain whether this was as a teaching academic or a religious profession. It clearly cannot be as a teaching academic, for all his attempts to present a surface appearance of legitimacy to his arguments. No self-respecting academic could present such a farrago of special pleading, hearsay tertiary sources, confusion of fact, assertion, and value judgement. So we are left with the religious profession, and you know my opinion of that type of irrationality.
Or perhaps it is something else; perhaps he is a "Professor" after the example of music hall artistes, magicians, and comedians; "Professor Bonko and Doris; a song, a smile, and a rabbit".
On that note, did you all note the death recently of Ali Bongo? Now there was an illusionist. He could teach Ethan a thing or two about misdirection.
Clear skies!
One cannot call a govt an occupying power when it does not occupy the territory in question and when that area is in the control of another entity. Are you really claiming, Calder, that Israel occupies Gaza "both legally and de facto"? This goes along with your previous corker, that all 1300 Palestinians killed in the Gaza War were civiians. That statement, from another thread, should warn people about Calder.
The ratio of casualties merely shows that the Israelis fought better than Hamas and Islamic Jihad this time. That's because they learned from the Hezbollah War two years ago. If the Israelis had wanted to create a massacre, no doubt they could have done so: that's proven by the fact that tens times the number of houses were demolished than Palestinian fighters were killed. That statistic is most unusual. And while war is always a terrible, terrrible thing, the statistic also helps explain the statement of the British govt military expert Richard Kemp that the Israelis were more careful about civilian casualties than any army he had ever seen in action.
Calder claims he's not "normalizing" Hamas: here he is on Friday 3-13 at 13:31:
"The same can be said of the religious in most of our societies. There is scarcely a religious sect that does not try this on, from, in the UK, Catholicism requiring exception from discrimination laws, sects of all kinds requiring special and charitable status for their "faith schools" and the craven complicity of the Government in not only allowing, but encouraging them, to anti-evolutionists in the USA demanding the right to censor reality in the education of their nation's children. The attempted interference by religious groups in societal sexual mores and legal regulation stretches across the globe.
It is silly to single out Hamas, or any individual organisation, on this basis."
Prof Ethan II gives us here a perfect example of the faith-based mind at work. Never mind reality. Never mind inconvenient facts. They can be safely disregarded and ignored, because they conflict with the dogma that the adherent believes in. Have faith, and all will be well. Repeat the mantra, mindlessly repeat the dogma, prove to the Great Sky Juju that your faith is pure.
"One cannot call a govt an occupying power when it does not occupy the territory in question and when that area is in the control of another entity."
No, perfectly true.
"Are you really claiming, Calder, that Israel occupies Gaza 'both legally and de facto'? "
Yes. And your point would be?
Israel claims the right to blockade Gaza, to control movements in and out, to control internal movements, to control the airspace, to deny the population any control over the vast majority of areas of government, and claims the right to determine the future nature, extent, and boundaries of any Palestinian political entity. Well, if it doesn't claim the right, then what is it doing all those things for? If that is not de facto control, I don't know what is. The only reason the rest of the world puts up with any of this is that Gaza is seen by the UN as an Occupied Territory. That's the "de jure" bit, in case you were in any doubt.
Your definition of "occupation" appears to be the narrow one of troops on the ground, which sadly for your argument, is only part of the whole. Even there, Israel seems to claim the right to put its troops there as and when it desires, to rocket and bomb whenever it likes - and before you pull out the old song of "6,000 rockets", the current rocketing and bombing seems to be in support of the Israeli blockade; an element of Israeli state control, or an illegal collective punishment, depending on your point of view.
PE's assertion that the discrepancy in the number of casualties is because Israel fought better "this time" - well, words fail me.
[On re-reading this, I realise that it can be read to be talking about the ration of IDF casualties to Hamas. Of course, that was not the original point - we were talking about the difference in number between the those Israelis murdered by Hamas vs those Palestinians murdered by the IDF.]
That someone can come up with such an arrogantly brazen and threadbare argument with such a cavalier attitude to the death and suffering of innocents proves their moral worth far better than anything I could possibly say. Professor, you are the epitome. What of, I am not allowed to say.
I would only point out that the casualty ratios when the IDF comes up against Arab civilians is always of that order.
And again, we always get the repetition of a pointless bit of hearsay from a valueless source; he's quoting Richard Kemp again. Only now he's been promoted; he's a "British govt military expert", according to PE.
No he's not. He's a retired soldier who runs a security company, who likes to get a bit of free advertising pontificating on the TV; it impresses his potential clients, and he seems to think that being partial to the Israeli point of view is good business. It probably is.
Finally (thank Providence!), "Calder claims he's not "normalizing" Hamas".
No I don't. I can't. I don't know what you're talking about, you're not making sense. Sorry, let me re-phrase that. You're making even less sense than usual, to the extent that I can't understand what you're going on about.
You seem to be complaining that I don't like religion, that I think it has no place in rational discourse, in the ordering of society, or its governance. Well, I don't like it, and I do think those things.
What this has to do with "normalising" Hamas (whatever that means), and why saying that Hamas is a gang of religious doofuses who use religion to excuse their excesses like a lot of other religious groups near and far is a bad thing, I fail to see.
When you can make up a coherent sentence or two (please, let it be no longer) explaining what you mean, I'll try and answer it.
Meantime, Professor, keep taking your medication.
Clear skies!
Hamas is the second part of the "equal and opposite reaction" equation except that this 'opposite reaction' is not not 'equal' at all. Compare crude home made rockets with what Israel fires at or drops on the Palestinians. For the Palestinians in Gaza as well as in the West Bank, Israel is a 'foreign occupier' which has to be removed whatever it takes and the time it takes. The Indian, South African, Algerian, Libyan, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Chinese models are known to Hamas and Hizbollah. In India it took tens of millions killed and a struggle of 90 years, 1857 to 1947! In Algeria it took 1 million dead and 60 years of struggle, so on and so forth. Forget the claims of colonialists. The French used to claim Algeria was part of the French mainland connected at the bottom of the Mediterranian Sea! The British claimed Indians were uncouthed 'coolies' and the Chinese were opium addicts, hence, not fit to rule themselves and run their affairs on their own. We wish we could have read what else was written on the plaque under the statue of Ozymandius. Despite Lord Kitchener, Winston Churchill, Disraeli and Palmerston, the British did leave India and China as did the French, Algeria. They all left their colonies to the same freedom fighters they used to demonize as 'terrorists' who then went on to prove prove that they were anything but 'terrorists'. In fact it was the other way round! With reference to Hamas and Hizbollah, both are anything but 'terrorists'. The real 'terrorists' are the Israelis. They should start writing their epitaph now because when the time for their 'diaspora' arrives, they will not have time to write a proper one. Empires end and colonies disappear. They always do! The Philistines were there in Palestine before the first Jew came walking in with one of their prophets killing, raping and burning as ordered by their Jahveh. The Philistines were there even during the 400 years they established their two mini kingdoms in Judea and Samaria. The Philistines remained there when the Egyptians and the Babylonians took the Jews away from Palestine and when the Romans burnt their 'Temple'. The Philistines were there when the Zionists stole their lands in 1948, 1949 and 1967. The Philistines will still be there after the Zionists return to Europe, Russia and the rest leave for America and I very much doubt if they would be welcomed there. This, now, is what the Philistines have been saying for 5000 years, "Jews may come and Jews may go but we go on forever".
1. Kemp commanded British forces in Afghanistan in 2003 and is an advisor to the British government on mililtary affairs, and he does not have close ties to Israel. My guess is that he knows more about the reality of war than Calder does. His opinion should count.
2. Calder seems to think that Israel controls Gaza because it once occupied it. Yet it does not occupy it not--which Calder derides as a "narrow" definition of occupation. No, it is is the correct definition, Calder, don't play Humpty-Dumpty: “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Gaza is controlled by Hamas, from food to hospitals to education to shooting rockets--yet Calder denies it (!). And if (partial) blockade equals occupation (said Humpty-Dumpty), then Calder needs to take into account that Egypt is also blockading Gaza.
To put pressure on a hostile entity is not the same as occupying it. Otherwise the U.S. blockade of Cuba would constitute proof that the U.S. is occupying Cuba (a place it indeed once controlled) and hence is "de facto and legally" responsible for good Cuban health care and bad Cuban political prisons and terrible Cuban maltreatment of homosexuals. The argument falls to the ground.
2. All war is terrible and all death a tragedy. But I did mean the ratio of IDF casualties to Hamas casualties, but the Hamas (and IJ) casualties represent about 2/3 of all Gaza casualties, and the other, civilian casualties are in my view mostly the fault of Hamas' intentional tactics. Oh, I almost forgot--Calder is the person who on another thread said that ALL the casualties in Gaza were civilian. That gives you his measure...
3. Calder normalizes Hamas by equating Catholic (or even Muslim) interest-group calls for special favors from European govts to Hamas--a government-- training little children to be suicide bombers for God. I gave the quote from Calder below. These phenomena cannot be equated. I'd bring up the 6,000 missiles, which also are being fired by Hamas (and IJ) at civilians to please God--but Calder doesn't want to hear about them anymore.
1. We can swap assessments of Mr Kemp as long as you like. The fact remains that Ethan only quotes those who justify his stance, regardless of their standing or qualification, whether they are people with evidence or not, understanding or not, opinion or not, prejudice or not . Everyone else can judge how deeply and at what distance Mr Kemp has studied the situation.
2. Israel controls Gaza, and is the occupying Power. The UN says so, the USA says so, the rest of the world says so. Ethan doesn't. End of story.
I was reading a newspaper this morning that reports on the current status of the Israeli election, and on a right-wing party joining up with Mr Netenyahu. It reported Mr netenyahu's policy as being "opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza". So, apparently, Mr Netenyahu doesn't think Gaza is a state, either.
2 bis. "All war is terrrible and all death a tragedy." Having given lip service to civilised values, PE then is happy for Israel to kill thousands using justifications that the rest of the world, apart from a few militarist fanatics, deplore. Realising that there is a slight inconsistency here, he resorts to "Look what you made me do" - Israel has to do this because Hamas is evil. Yes, Professor, much of Hamas is evil and does evil, and when Israel does worse, what are the rest of us to think?
3. I do not "equate" religious groups interference in social governance with anything. I use them as examples of the interference of the religious with proper governance and the proper regulation of society. It is a virtually universal characteristic of the religious to wish to interfere in the lives of others, to impose thier own prejudices on the rest of us. Hamas does this. It also commits abuses, which I condemn. The fact that it uses religion as part of its excuse is irrelevant, so far as I can see. PE has got some idea that I "justify" Hamas because he wants me to have justified Hamas. I do not and never have, but he won't have that, because in his world view I am an enemy to Israel, therefore I am a supporter of Hamas. Just another example of his lax grip on reality, I'm afraid.
Clear skies!
Israel does not control Gaza and does not occupy it; Hamas does. Egypt also is engaged for its own reason in a blockade of the Hamas govt; does that mean that Egypt controls Gaza and occupies it? (After all, Egypt did control and occupy Gaza from 1948 until 1967 and even claimed Gaza as part of Egypt.) But really, it's an absurd position. Hamas controls Gaza.
It is possible to debate issues with people who have a different point of view, as long as you can speak (or write) a mutually intelligible language. However, it is not possible to have a rational or meaningful debate with those who wilfully distort the language to mean whatever they choose it to mean at any given point in time (a bit like debating international law on unprovoked aggression with Tony Blair or George W Bush). It is both farcical and dishonest for anyone to claim that Israel dfoes not occupy the Gaza strip - by any rational (or legal) definition of the phrase. Yes, Israel is certainjly "legally" an occupying power - although the occupation itself is of course illegal. Yes, it is de-facto in occupation, for all the self-evident and obvious reasons that Mr Calder has pointed out.
Anyone who denies these facts is being deliberately disingenuous and simply muddying the waters - this is a common tactic used by racists (of all types) who have no rational or moral justification for their position. This is not debate but simple contradiction and denial of "plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face" facts. There is little point in trying to have a sensible debate with these people as they are clearly unwilling to speak the same language.
Steve Radford.
Here's why Hamas is no extremist: it's crazed and religiously fanatical position is no different from that of other major Palestinian organizations.
Thus, whereas Big C's persistent assertions elsewhere on openD that Hamas was willing to recognize Israel's right to exist (despite its genocidal Charter) has been disconfirmed by Hamas' public refusal this week to recognize Israel despite the PA's urging that it do so (see the story I posted below on that, on Friday 3-13 at 16:32), we now also have a statement from a leader of Fatah (the largest faction of the PA) agreeing with Hamas that the Palestinians should never recognize Israel's right to exist.
Here's the story, from the Jerusalem Post, March 17, 2009, by Khaled Abu Toameh:
"Former Fatah security commander Muhammad Dahlan on Tuesday called on Hamas not to recognize Israel's right to exist, pointing out that Fatah had never recognized it.
This was the first time since the beginning of the peace process 15 years ago that a senior Fatah official has said that his faction does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
Dahlan's remarks were made in an interview with the Palestinian Authority's official Palestine TV station.
Dahlan added: "They [Hamas] say that Fatah has asked them to recognize Israel's right to exist and this is a big deception. For the one thousandth time, I reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist."
He explained that it was the PLO, and not Fatah, which recognized Israel's right to exist when the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993."
Wake up, folks: THAT is what the Israelis are dealing with on the Palestinian sie.
Hamas is no "extremist" because its position, extreme though it is, is no more extreme than that of other Palestinian groups.
So, pace Professor Ethan (by the bye, Professor, you've not let us know your area of skill yet; are you a Professor of Magic, Juggling, or Phrenology? Perhaps something more obscure? Or are you saying you just believe in Israel? We knew that.) Hamas is not extremist, no more than any Arab organisation; they are all just "crazed and religiously fanatical". You missed out "racist", Professor. Surely they are "racist" as well, and surely it can't be just Hamas that is "genocidal"?
How different from his own dear land of dreams. Israel is, according to the Professor, pure as the driven snow.
Of course, let us give him one thing. He has admitted he thinks it "mistaken" in one aspect of policy. He says he thinks they should not have made all those settlements in the West Bank.
Surely not, Professor? Surely not all the settlements? Surely you consider, for example, Jerusalem to be one city indivisible, the rightful capital of Israel. Do tell us that you think that some of the settlements are justified. Or perhaps they are not "settlements" at all; perhaps they are some other category of entity unknown to the rest of us mortals, some word that can be defined in a purely Ethanical modality.
After all, he has told us elsewhere that Israel is entitled to annex teritory by right of conquest, and surely if you annex territory you are entitled to settle it, else what is the purpose of annexation. Leave us be consistent, Professor.
No matter. The internals of a true believer's brain are a wonder to us all.
Sadly for the Professor, "extremist" does not mean what he thinks it does (what a surprise; Professor Ethan, redefining the meaning of the language?).
An "extreme" is a position "farthest from the centre or mean", and an "extremist" is one who occupies such a position.
Now let us accept for the purpose of the argument solely, that Fatah and all other Arab organisations adopt, as Ethan says, the same position.
Let us ignore, for the time, that a single hearsay report in an Israeli newspaper of what is alleged to have been said by a single Arab is not necessarily proof positive of the inner thoughts and desires and policy of all or indeed any Arab organisation or organisations, given that the Arab in question is not even reputed to be a current official as well as all these other qualifications. No, let us assume that Ethan's fantasies are true.
Are they all, then, not extremist? Is their position the "centre or mean"?
Of course not. This is to ignore all observers and any other parties. There is at least Israel as another party.
Now Ethan would have you believe that Israel's position is sensible, moderate, and measured. Just what you would expect of the "centre".
So by Ethan's worldview, all the Arab organisations must be "extremist". For him to argue otherwise, for them to be in the centre, would be to place Israel at the extreme, which cannot be.
Of course, given a spectrum of outside observers, without any axe to grind, the position may appear otherwise; the centre or mean may shift, and (horrors) Ethan's position may even be considered "extreme" by some demented individuals.
In the real world, of course, "extremist" is used as a label to mark those with whom you disagree, wish to demonise, wish not to have to accomodate onself with; and is a mark of unwillingness to adjust or understand. We see of course in Ethan's final paragraph that this is anyway his stance; he labels anyone who disagrees with him as extremist, because he must be the centre. He and his must be the only reasonable people in this naughty world.
No, Ethan is unloading a waggonload of old toot again, I'm afraid.
Suggestion, Ethan. Next time, engage brain before writing. Facile tropes impress no-one. Neither do exaggerated partisan conclusions or generalisations based on limited hearsay. Whatever you're a Professor of, it sure ain't polemic.
Clear skies!
Some Arab govts recognize Israel (Egypt and Jordan, for instance). My point is simple and it is irrefutable: Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
This is a simple matter of empirical evidence. I have cited up to date evidence, not once but from two separate stories written by Arabs, that Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist as of last week, and that this is such a huge issue for Hamas that it has undermined attempts to create a coalition governtment with the PA. The second story, about Mohammed Dahlan (who is no small figure in Palestinian politics) shows that sections of the PA, namely parts of Fatah, do not recognize Israel's right to exist, either. I
If Calder is saying that Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, I say--prove it.
As for extremism, I was being ironic: my point was that Hamas isn't "extreme" in Palestinian terms--unfortunately for the Palestinians (as well as the Israelis).
I repeat: all of this shows what the Israelis have to deal with. They made a good faith diplomatic effort in 2000/2001--Bill Clinton says so, and Arafat later blamed himself (NOT the Israelis) for the failures of that year-- and the result was the genocidal suicide-bombers of the Second Intifada. That is the real world.
That Hamas has "signalled" a willingness to accept the 1967 borders as permanent is untrue. Their position was clear last week; I cited it; it's what's stopping the creation of a coalition government with the PA; they do not recognize Israel's right to exist. How come Mohammed Dahlan, who speaks Arabic, understands this (and supports it), and you don't, BC?
Even if Israel made a "good faith" effort at Camp David (which I am not qualified to judge, being no expert, having not studied it in detail, and above all, not having been there), and even if there was suspicion and failure to agree to a "good deal" (good for who?) on the part of Arafat; given all those theoretical concessions, and they are quite a bagful, does that excuse Israel giving up on diplomacy for ever and a day?
Does that excuse what appears to many independent observers (and Jews of conscience) to be the excessive dependence on force?
Does that excuse the arrogant attempts at extending justification for killing civilians under the pretext of "voluntary human shields"?
Other people in other situations have recognised the necessity for continued dialogue, for continued negotiation, to talk to people you don't necessarily like, to achieve a necessary resolution. You don't try once and then give up.
The Palestinians aren't going away. The Israelis aren't going away. They are both going to have to live in the region for a long time.
Because of their history, it's unlikely that a one-state solution would work in the short to medium term.
Most people seem to accept (and I suspect this is true both within Israel and amongst Palestinians) that a two-state solution is the only way to go.
The only real alternative is the continued occupation and continued violence and instability. That is not acceptable.
Netenyahu's apparent objective, the "one state plus no state", where the Palestinians are given local administration over the rump of the West Bank and Gaza, but are not allowed a state or foreign relations and Israel controls external security, airspace, and retains the right of interference in internal security, is a total non-starter. You can imagine the explosion of wrath if such a solution were proposed for the Israelis.
Both sides have to start talking, without preconditions.
The insistence on preconditions, which Israel has consistently demanded for years, looks very much like a ploy for the avoidance of the necessity to talk. So don't give us any guff about "we try but those other nasty guys won't let us".
Clear skies!
Big C, on another thread you declared that Hamas had demonstrated a willingness to recognize Israel's right to exist. Now you defend Hamas' not having done so, but claim it is a negotiating tactic. Make up your mind.
Calder, the Israelis have to have someone to talk to in order to make a peace deal. You can't negotiate without a negotiating partner. On the Palestinian side you have (1) the corrupt PA that is in any case not willing to make a deal, and (2) the ignorant religious fanatics of Hamas, with their genocidal intention. That's the real world.
No Professor, the real world is where there are two sets of people, neither of whom are going to go away, that have to work out how to live together, in a limited region.
They are going to have to come to an accommodation. They are going to have to negotiate with each other. They can't continue posturing, imposing preconditions, staging provocations, and all the rest of the arsenal of delaying tactics so beloved of the dogmatic, the power-seeking, the pig-headed, the wishful thinkers, the "faith-based" reinterpreters of reality, the arrogant self-centred partisans and zealots.
That's the real world.
Not the world you believe in, where Israel is brilliant white and everyone else black.
Not the world you believe in, where negotiation is impossible.
Not the world you believe in, where you can continue to bully and murder to your heart's content, and deny a normal life to the people you dominate militarily.
On another thread, you gave away your blindness, saying, on the refugee
question, that Germans were unable to return to Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Romania, forgetting the existence of the EU and the free
movement of peoples there.
The EU, Professor, is an example where people, who were at war with each other in the same era when Israel was founded, decided that they had had enough of war, and started to talk and decided to start living together. Funnily enough, it worked. It worked so well that the idea has spread, and we have what is called "enlargement", where more and more former enemies have joined the club, and are all living together like any happy family, squabbling about the furniture and whose turn it is in the bathroom.
Apparently even Israel has heard of the EU, and I understand has a Free Trade agreement with it, and some Israeli politicians even have ambitions for closer links. Well, Ethan, that will only happen if attitudes in Israel change considerably.
If your attitudes change, and if you start to make a real effort to make an accommodation instead of posturing peacefully in one direction and swinging a billy-club in the other, you might find yourselves surprisingly welcomed.
Clear skies!
If Calder thinks this issue of German expulsions is settled, he is wrong. It is precisely because Erika Steinbach has been a spokesperson for the rights of German expellees regarding Poland that the Polish government caused a storm over her this very month with Germany (this very month, Mr. Calder) including hostile statements by the Polish foreign minister.
I don't support Steinbach. She's an important figure in the German Federation of Expellees, which is an important pressure group in Germany (millions of people belong, and they vote) and she is a hyper-conservative, she's not really an expellee herself, and is involved in setting up a museum about the expulsions in Berlin which the Polish government vehemently objects to. But that very objection shows how allive the issue actually still is.
The Germans in east Prussia had lived in those regions for 800 years. None live there now. The same is true for Bohemia.
The issue of expellees is so alive in the EU (despite Calder) that the Polish govt is vehemently objecting that a museum in Berlin (in Berlin, not anywhere near Poland itself) is being built to commemorate them. The Polish foreign minister issued nasty statements this month, so did the Polish ambassador to Germany.
Again, I don't have sympathy for Erika Steinbach. My point is a simple and empirical one: the issue of German expellees from Poland is so alive and tender that it caused a rift between Poland and Germany this month (March 2009). That's a fact.
And the fact remains that in the EU we talk about these things and come to an accommodation.
We don't demonise each other, don't set unrealistic preconditions for talks, make unilateral and provocative demands, and then bomb and rocket each other on the grounds that we have "no partner for peace".
Someone has to break the cycle, Professor. Why not try?
Clear skies!
Big C, the Germans had lived in east Prussia for 800 years; and the same was true in Bohemia. Is that not long enough for you? The Germans were the indigenous population, from time immemorial, of eastern Pomerania, from which they were also expelled, this becoming part of post-1945 Poland and settled by Poles.
I'm not taking Erika Steinbach's side; she's a repulsive character. But those are the facts, the expellees number in the millions and they and their descendants are an important German pressure group, and it is also a fact that the construction of a museum to expellees in Berlin, in Germany (not in Poland!) was enough to send the Polish govt into a rage.
And to Mr. Calder I then say: I see you are on the side of the angels in wanting everyone to just get along. But the Middle East is not the EU, and even in the EU it is difficult on some topics, including expellees. It would be great if we could all just get along, but the Israelis have to have someone to talk to. All there is on the other side is hatred, fueled increasingly by Nazi-like anti-semitism and genocidal fantasies. This isn't limited to extremists, this has become mainstream. Show me that it isn't, and I might come around.
And, assuming both Big C and WC are British, I urge you to read the chilling article "Jihad Chic Comes to London," from Newsweek March 23, 2009, to find out what's going on in your own backyard.
Prof Ethan II shows his true colours yet again.
Contemptuously, he writes me, and the pacific approach to conflict resolution, off; "to Mr. Calder I then say: I see you are on the side of the angels in wanting everyone to just get along". He demands to be shown "that the Israelis have someone to talk to" before even considering a non-violent approach. Implicit is the statement that he considers his beloved Israel justified in using as much overwhelming aggression and force as is necessary to impose its will on the lesser breeds without the law.
He doesn't want to "get along".
He's not prepared to look for "someone to talk to".
He's not prepared to try and try again.
I don't want everyone to "just get along", Professor; I demand that you all work at it, and work hard, because it is hard work. Too hard for you, it seems.
It's so much easier to be the bully.
I'm not one for national stereotypes; I don't believe that Germans do everything by numbers or that Hungarians can follow you into a revolving door and come out ahead of you; but I can see why a common accusation of Israelis is arrogance.
Not every Israeli can be so arrogant as to expect that the world must conform to their expectations or have its head cut off.
It's about time they stood up and told the monsters in their midst that they cannot continue.
And instead of writing off the appalling conduct of those Israeli snipers wearing T-shirts showing Palestinian children's corpses, and targets over pregnant women's bellies, as "humour", unacceptable or not, they should be demanding that such animals are not "disciplined" but thrown out of the IDF, along with the rabbis that characterised Gaza as a "holy war".
Clear skies!
Prof Ethan II again accuses us of "Nazi-like anti-semitism and genocidal fantasies."
Like the supposed anti-semitism when I said that "the people who should have been the audience for it would now see it as a book of trophies". Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I meant then, and I mean now, that there are such people; not only Jews, and not that all Jews are such people.
From today's Independent on Sunday; "The Israeli military yesterday officially condemned as "unacceptable" shocking images printed on T-shirts ordered by some soldiers to commemorate the end of their basic training or field duty. The Israeli daily Haaretz disclosed that some T-shirts are emblazoned with "dead babies, mothers weeping on their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques". One, which the paper says was a sharpshooter's T-shirt, shows a pregnant Arab woman with a bullseye superimposed on her belly, accompanied by the slogan "1 shot, 2 kills".
It adds that another shirt for infantry snipers is inscribed "Better use Durex" next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby with his weeping mother beside him."
I await an apology, Professor. I know I won't get one, of course; you're always right, aren't you.
Clear skies!
I was referring to the Palestinians, Mr. Calder--not you. I said you were on the side of the angels, if very naive. Ethan yesterday at 14:29:
"And to Mr. Calder I then say: I see you are on the side of the angels in wanting everyone to just get along. But the Middle East is not the EU, and even in the EU it is difficult on some topics, including expellees."
Please read more carefully, Mr. Calder.
As for the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the Muslims in general, however, you will profit in terms of realism by reading this:
Sunday, 15th March 2009, from Melanie Phillips:
Today we have from Egypt further evidence that the Islamist hatred of the Jews is not caused by Israel’s behaviour or even its existence. It’s caused by... hatred of the Jews.
Here, Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya’qoub raves:
"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels – not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said: 'The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are.’ It is Allah who said that they are infidels.
"Your belief regarding the Jews should be, first, that they are infidels, and second, that they are enemies. They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing. Allah said: 'You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the disbelievers [sic] to be the Jews and the polytheists.' Third, you must believe that the Jews will never stop fighting and killing us. They [fight] not for the sake of land and security, as they claim, but for the sake of their religion: 'And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back you’re your religion, if they can.'
This is it. We must believe that our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end until the final battle – and this is the fourth point. You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth."
Egypt, let us not forget, is a ‘moderate’ Arab state that has a peace agreement with Israel. It is nevertheless a major source of barking-mad Jewish demonisation in the Arab world. Here is Egyptian Cleric Salama Abd Al-Qawi warning Muslims against the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – the notorious Czarist forged claim that the Jews covertly rule the world -- and many US companies :
"They [the Jews]began conspiring to annihilate the Islamic and Arab nation, to plunder its resources, and to destroy its youth. Regretfully, the plots they hatched are being implemented today in detail. One of their conspiracies, which stemmed from their black hatred, was to gain control over the entire global economy, bringing the world under their thumb. So they founded huge companies, which, like spiders, send their webs all over the world. The main goal of these companies was to erase Islamic identity.
... Many basic products, which may be found in many Muslim households, like the Ariel, Tide, and Persil laundry detergents, are made by Zionist companies. The Coca Cola and Pepsi companies and all their products – Seven Up, Miranda, Fania, and all these products, all the carbonated beverages, with very few exceptions that don't bear mention... Almost all the carbonated beverages are Zionist-American products.
[...] Some restaurants, I'm sad to say, are teeming with Muslim youth, and their safes are full of the money of Muslims... McDonalds is Jewish-Zionist, Kentucky Fried Chicken is Jewish-Zionist, Little Caesar, Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza, Burger King... By the way, all these products, which I have mentioned... In addition, there is a new type of coffee these days... All these are pure Zionist products, especially what is known as Starbucks, the well-known coffee. It is Zionist."
Ah yes, Starbucks: home of the Zionist genocidal apartheid bean. In January, Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi brought viewers of al Nas TV urgent news about the Starbucks logo:
"Has any of you ever wondered who this woman with a crown on her head is? Why do we boycott Starbucks? ... The girl on the Starbucks logo is Queen Esther. Do you know who Queen Esther was and what the crown on her head means? This is the crown of the Persian Kingdom. This queen is the queen of the Jews. She is mentioned in the Torah, in the Book of Esther. The girl you see is Esther, the queen of the Jews in Persia...
Can you believe that in Mecca, Al-Madina, Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait, and all over the Islamic world, hangs the picture of beautiful Queen Esther, with a crown on her head, and we buy her products.[...]We want Starbucks to be shut down throughout the Arab and Islamic world. We want it to be shut down in Mecca and in Al-Madina. I implore King Abdallah bin Abd Al-‘Aziz, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques: It is inconceivable that in Mecca and Al-Madina, there will be a picture of Queen Esther, the queen of the Jews."
As anyone can see, however, the female figure in the Starbucks logo has two fish tails. This is a clue that she is not Esther, queen of the Jews in Persia. She is instead a twin-tailed siren of Greek mythology. This is because the company is apparently named in part after Starbuck, Captain Ahab’s first mate in the book Moby Dick.
These people are not marginal, they are on Egyptian state television. What we are up against within the Islamic world is quite simply an increasingly wholesale negation of reason; nothing less.
Are these the people the Israelis are supposed to talk to, Mr. Calder?
The Israelis HAVE tried, and tried again: ask President Clinton; ask Arafat himself, who admitted in 2002 that he should've taken the Israeli offer in 2000/2001 instead of rejecting every offer without a counter-offer and launching the Second Intifada instead.
And since Arafat the quality of Palestinian leadership has declined (no one thought it was possible!). On the one hand there is Abbas, who is corrupt, incompetent, commands little support and is unwilling to make a deal; on the other are the ignorant and genocidal religious fanatics of Hamas.
It should be obvious that while the Israelis are no angels, the problem is on the Palestinian side. Calder, direct your demands to THEM. Yet somehow, this never happens on openD. It's always the Israelis who are the problem here.
"The Israelis have never made a realistic offer." This puts BC in a camp more radical--and less historically accurate--than that of Yassir Arafat!
You could accept President Clinton's opinion on this, too, BC--that a good ffer was made in 2000/2001--but of course you wouldn't accept Clinton's opinion, if you wouldn't accept even Arafat's!
Ethan II never rises above the simplistic, does he?
The Israelis "have no-one to talk to". Proof? Long, boring quotations from one extremist or another, or one fellow-travelling journo or tired-out pol or another.
Even if they're accurate, they're second-hand hearsay about one or two people's views. Not proof of universal attitudes. Not proof that negotiations are impossible.
If Israel were serious about negotiation, we wouldn't have seen one highly staged, highly visible, show negotiation driven by a fag-end President wanting to rescue something for his legacy.
We'd be seeing a series of repeated attempts. If met with rebuffs, we'd see them trying again, at the same and different venues, with the same and different people, with the same and different proposals, and all combinations of all six.
What do we see?
Nada. Nix. Nothing.
Just blather that "we have no partner for peace", "the Palestinians are not serious", "we have no-one to talk to", "the Palestinians won't meet the simple preconditions necessary for talks".
It's clear that Israel is not trying and has never tried.
And why are we talking here about Israel and not the Palestinian side?
Because it's the Israelis who have the whip hand. It's the Israelis who are setting pre-conditions. It's the Israelis who are the occupiers and the aggressors. It's the Israelis who are refusing to talk.
Clear skies!
And while Ethan II is happy to continue to talk about the "ignorant and genocidal religious fanatics of Hamas", we hear nothing from him about the ignorant and genocidal fanatics within the IDF, who deliberately shoot old ladies, mothers and children, then wear triumphalist T-shirts with pictures of corpses and pregnant women in targets, and about the rabbis who distribute pamphlets urging the troops to consider Gaza a "holy war".
I forecast that we'd hear no apology over accusations that I was wrong to suggest that some would see corpses as trophies; I was right. He doesn't even acknowledge the problem.
Clear skies!
1. Calder, I'm waiting for an apology concerning your misreading of my message when I said you were on the side of the angels (if very naive), urged you to show me evidence of Palestinian willingness to compromise and I would listen, and the result was a blast of bile against me which was based on your confusing yourself with Hamas.
2. The facts of the Camp David and Doha offer (which was even better) mean nothing to either Calder or BC.
I was correct that BC is more radical than Arafat was. In the end, he thought Doha esp was a serious offer which he was wrong to turn down. But that means nothing to people ideologically committed to saying the Israelis were never serious, in order to depict them as monsters, "inhuman scum", to quote Calder. (Of course, he included me in that group, and has never apologized for that, either...)
3. A lot of "information" on alleged Israeli atrocities is coming from Dani Zakim who is a far left activist, and a lot of it is hearsay (i.e., "I wasn't there myself but I heard about it") accepted as fact. Some of it may be true, but we will have to see. My advice is that as ideologically satisfying as you find these stories, you should wait. That doesn't seem to me an extreme position.
One other point:
The claim is that the horrible, anti-semitic and even insane quotes I quoted to you are merely some stupid Arab extremists who don't speak for the mainstream. But these sermons came from Egyptian state television and were beamed to millions of people.
What would be your reaction if the Israelis were broadcasting material like this, every day, on state tv? Do I have to guess?
Similarly, al-Manar TV--the official tv arm of Hezbollah--put on during Ramadan 2004 a 29-part tv series on how Jews kidnap and eat non-Jewish babies at Passover. 29 episodes! I repeat: Who is there to talk to?
BC, I know what Mr. Calder claims. He also claims that every single one of the Palestinians' casualties in Gaza was a civilian.
You don't dispute that Mr. Calder called me "inhuman scum", but I guess you defend his not apologizing to me. So be it.
As for Arafat, my guess is that he knew more about the Middle East than you, and was actually more committed to getting something for the Palestinians than BC is. At least BC admits that his position is more radical than Yassir Arafat's was. This enables us to judge his claim that the Israelis have never made a serious peace offer. Neither President Clinton nor Arafat believed this, but...um...I guess BC's position is "So what?"
I think I've made my points to anyone who can think.
"I know what Mr. Calder claims. He also claims that every single one of the Palestinians' casualties in Gaza was a civilian."
No I didn't. I quoted a number of casualties, and I said in clarification that nobody knows how many of those were civilians, but that my position was that it was far closer to 1300 than the 400 Israel and you claim to be the "true" figure, on what basis I don't know.
As the number of children killed is now known to be around 440, and as Israeli snipers have admitted shooting at least two women who were not doing anything aggressive, we can see that your figure of 400 is fairly certainly an underestimate, and I see no reason to change my opinion. Others can judge how measured either of us are being.
Of course, you claim a direct line to the absolute truth, so you are in a position to pontificate. Sadly, the world you live in bears no relation to reality.
Similarly, you claim these "stories" about abuses arise solely from a left-wing propagandist.
No they don't. They arise from a report from an Israeli military college, which is reportedly taken seriously enough by the Defence Minister of Israel for him to announce an investigation.
You are a serial misrepresenter, Ethan.
Your misrepresentations are deliberate and obvious.
I don't know how else to call you a liar that won't get me into trouble. But if I don't call you a liar then you'll continue to lie about me and what I've said ad infinitum. So far, the list is "racist", "hypocrite", "anti-semite" on a personal level, and I've lost count of the number of times you've misrepresented what I've actually said.
Most importantly, I see that you don't deny that there is no current attempt at negotiation and dialogue, no plans to do instigate any, and no evidence of any series of continuing attempts in the past.
The reason is, of course, that for Israel to negotiate and discuss would be to cut off the only superiority that Israel currently has; military superiority. It would also put at risk the territorial gains and control over water supplies that Israel considers it has made; gains that it does not intend to relinquish.
Clear skies!
Israeli negotiations with the PA have been on-going continually. I have no idea where Mr. Calder gets his false information.
The IDF is investigating charges of civilian abuse. At least, unlike Hamas, they don't exalt them when its Israeli civilians who are killed. However, I urge your to read the fofllowing, from Melanie Phillips:
"There are precisely two charges of gratuitous killing of Palestinian civilians under allegedly explicit orders to do so. One is what even Ha’aretz made clear was an accidental killing, when two women misunderstood the evacuation route the Israeli soldiers had given them and walked into a sniper’s gunsights as a result. Moreover, the soldier who said this has subsequently admitted he didn’t see this incident – he wasn’t even in Gaza at the time – and had merely reported rumour and hearsay.
"The second charge is based on a supposedly real incident in which, when an elderly woman came close to an IDF unit, an officer ordered that they shoot her because she was approaching the line and might have been a suicide bomber. The soldier relating this story did not say whether or not the woman in this story actually was shot. Indeed, since he says ‘from the description of what happened’ it would appear this was merely hearsay once again. And his interpretation was disputed by another soldier who said:
She wasn't supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn't be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn't right.
So two non-atrocity atrocities, then. What else?
Soldiers mouthing off -- in conversations of near-impenetrable incoherence – that instructions to kill everyone who remained in buildings designated as terrorist targets after the IDF had warned everyone inside to get out amounted to instructions to murder in cold blood. There cannot be an army in the world which would not issue precisely such instructions in such circumstances, where Hamas had boasted it had booby-trapped the entire area.
Gloating graffiti left in the houses of presumed terrorists.
Tasteless T-shirts emblazoned with motifs crowing about killing, condemned immediately by the IDF.
Rabbis distributing to soldiers psalms and religious opinions about the conflict.
That’s it. Not one single verifiable actual incident of intentional killing of civilians. No evidence whatever of any such rogue incidents -- let alone any order by the IDF to tear up its actual rules of engagement which forbade the deliberate targeting of civilians. Talk by one soldier about the IAF having killed a lot of people before the soldiers went in contradicted by another who said:
They dropped leaflets over Gaza and would sometimes fire a missile from a helicopter into the corner of some house, just to shake up the house a bit so everyone inside would flee. These things worked. The families came out, and really people [i.e., soldiers] did enter houses that were pretty empty, at least of innocent civilians. [my emphasis]
Funny sort of unethical military behaviour, that goes to some lengths to empty houses of civilians before storming them. Indeed, the soldiers’ discussion contains more such material totally contradicting the impression of gross violations of ethics. Such as this:
‘I am a platoon sergeant in an operations company of the Paratroops Brigade. We were in a house and discovered a family inside that wasn't supposed to be there. We assembled them all in the basement, posted two guards at all times and made sure they didn't make any trouble. Gradually, the emotional distance between us broke down - we had cigarettes with them, we drank coffee with them, we talked about the meaning of life and the fighting in Gaza. After very many conversations the owner of the house, a man of 70-plus, was saying it's good we are in Gaza and it's good that the IDF is doing what it is doing.
The next day we sent the owner of the house and his son, a man of 40 or 50, for questioning. The day after that, we received an answer: We found out that both are political activists in Hamas. That was a little annoying - that they tell you how fine it is that you're here and good for you and blah-blah-blah, and then you find out that they were lying to your face the whole time.
What annoyed me was that in the end, after we understood that the members of this family weren't exactly our good friends and they pretty much deserved to be forcibly ejected from there, my platoon commander suggested that when we left the house, we should clean up all the stuff, pick up and collect all the garbage in bags, sweep and wash the floor, fold up the blankets we used, make a pile of the mattresses and put them back on the beds.
... ‘There was one day when a Katyusha, a Grad, landed in Be'er Sheva and a mother and her baby were moderately to seriously injured. They were neighbors of one of my soldiers. We heard the whole story on the radio, and he didn't take it lightly - that his neighbors were seriously hurt. So the guy was a bit antsy, and you can understand him. To tell a person like that, 'Come on, let's wash the floor of the house of a political activist in Hamas, who has just fired a Katyusha at your neighbors that has amputated one of their legs’ - this isn't easy to do, especially if you don't agree with it at all. When my platoon commander said, 'Okay, tell everyone to fold up blankets and pile up mattresses,’ it wasn't easy for me to take. There was lot of shouting. In the end I was convinced and realized it really was the right thing to do. Today I appreciate and even admire him, the platoon commander, for what happened there. In the end I don't think that any army, the Syrian army, the Afghani army, would wash the floor of its enemy’s houses, and it certainly wouldn't fold blankets and put them back in the closets.’
THIS is what instructor Danny Zamir, the left-wing ideologue, described as
‘contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians.’"
So let's wait and see what the investigation says.
On another thread Mr. Calder, you never denied saying that the Gaza dead were all civilians; now you do.
How about apologizing, Mr. Calder, for your confusing my conciliatory message to you, saying you were on the side of the angels, combined with my invitation to give me specific evidence that there was someone to talk to for the Israelis, with your subsequent sewer of bile against me based on your misreading of my message, confusing yourself with Hamas and followed today by more abuse?
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Anyone reading this blog can see who is the reasonable person here, who calmly presents the reader with information, and who is a loud-mouth and abusive ideologue. BC is more radical than Arafat and claims falsely that the Israelis have never made a serious offer--something neither Clinton nor Arafat believed. As for Mr. Calder, when Iron Mike ruled that a message he wrote was indeed subject to various interpretations, Calder let off abuse at him too, accusing Iron Mike of bias against Calder because IM had served in the armed forces. That says it all about Calder.
Post new comment