open Democracy News Analysis - the middle east - Comments

Michael T Sager on "How Do We Cope?"

Michael T Sager — Sun, 31 May 2009 09:48:27 +0100

They are being asked by the international community to:

accept that Israel should exist

accept the proposed swap of Palestinean prisoners for Gilad

stop attacking Isarel with rockets - which they have basically done anyway since the Gaza war

then Israel and Egypt will open the borders, 4 billion dollars of aid will come in and other good things

This is a clear example of a population being held hostage by ideologically driven fanatics - and no one seems prepared to stand up against them.

michaelcalder on "The Left and Hamas"

michaelcalder — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:04 +0000

Applause.

Clear skies!

Steve Radford on "The Left and Hamas"

Steve Radford — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:27:54 +0000

Normal
0

Ms Rosa-Rosso (Red Rose; what a great name - is it real?) does herself
and her readers a disservice with this poorly thought-out and sloppily
researched article.

The European "Left" is not a homogenous or monolithic bloc whose
policies, actions and thought-processes can be summed up in a few sentences or
paragraphs. Some of the alleged actions of supposed leftists (eg. the alleged participation of Die Linke in a pro-Israeli demonstration in Germany) might
well bring harsh criticism from other leftists - and Die LInke is, in any case, a coalition which includes people fro a wide variety of political ideologies and traditions. Attacking the ideological and
political weakness and vaccilation of some European leftists (though I suspect
she includes Social Democrats under this heading) is very often justifiable,
but Ms Rosa-Rosso makes many sweeping allegations against the Left in general
with fairly flimsy supporting evidence.

In many years of regular contact with leftist writers and activists I can
honestly say I have never heard any of them talking about the "Invisible
Hand" - this phrase is only ever heard from the pro-capitalist right
wing (which in the UK includes the Labour Party).

The difficulty which the left has with Hamas is (as I have pointed out on a related discussion) that it is essentially a Clerical Fascist political party. It is also, to a large extent, a deliberate creation of the Israeli state which has promoted it and used it to undermine and divide the secular Palestinian liberation movements for reasons which those familar with the issue will understand very well.

Israel does not seek a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, it seeks victory. Therefore Israel has manipulated a situation whereby a substantial part of the Palestinians are led (or ruled), either by corrupt and compromised puppets (as on the West Bank under the discredited rump of Fatah), or by religious parties who use the same delusional and biblical language as religious zionists (which of course alienates them from secular supporters in Europe).

Hamas is an elected leadership and therefopre must be recognmised and dealt with, but it is not a leadership with which progressive or leftist groups (all secular) can comfortably ally with or support. Solidarity with the people (inmates) of Gaza is one thing, but how can leftists solidarise with a political party who would repress and crush (with the utmost violence) everything they stand for? Allying with the forces of the Islamist Revolution in Iran cost the left dearly (and cost many of them their lives - remember the televised confession and political retraction, almost certainly extracted by threats and torture, by the Tudeh Party Secretary before he was executed).

Ms Rosa-Rosso is quite right to castigate much of the left (especially the Labour and Trade Union Movement) for its miserably inadequate response to racist mass-murder and long-term injustice in Palestine, but she has gone way off the mark with her flawed, and frankly incoherent, analysis in this article. Digging up examples of racist language from the archives of the Belgian CP might be interesting from a historical point of view but it does not say much about current attitudes towards Palestine. I don't know what kind of "leftists" this author mixes with but it is difficult to believe that she has talked to a wide range of people from across the genuine European Left (a term which does not include those who describe themselves, usually erroneously, as "Centre-Left" - who are often economically neo-liberal as well as pro-zionist). Her frequent (and apparently approving) quotes from Gilad Atzmon also undermine her credibility as this commentator has been drifting off in some strange directions and has been denounced by some of the UK's leading leftist anti-zionists for his anti-semitic rants.

Let's discuss the European Left's response to Hamas with a bit more thoughtfulness than this article brings to bear.

Steve Radford.

r.augman on "The Left and Hamas"

r.augman — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:24:03 +0000

Abu,

You're conflating two things, an emancipatory project with a genocidal one. Have you read Hamas' charter? Did you notice that they cite from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Did you notice the referenes to "vanquishing the jews"? Their insistence that it is every Muslims' responsibility to kill jews? Did you conveniently skip over those parts, or do you think their genocidal agitation is legitimate?

Abu Rashid on "The Left and Hamas"

Abu Rashid — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:35:59 +0000

r.augman,

Hamas' desire to destroy Israel and it's war against the Jews, both
proclaimed in the group's own charter, combined with their continued
targeting of Israeli civilians with rockets

-----

I'm sure if Eskimoes had mass illegally immigrated into Palestine in the earlier part of the 20th. century instead of Jews, then Eskimoes would be the ones listed in Hamas' charter, not Jews. Although you and others would like to try and invalidate the Palestinians legitimate struggle to remove the Zionist occupation from their land, by slipping it into the "anti-Semitic" bag, in reality it's got nothing to do with it at all.

r.augman on "The Left and Hamas"

r.augman — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:57:27 +0000

You're mixing things up when you say that "support for the people of Gaza (does) not (exist) at the political level," simply because we don't support Hamas and Hezbollah. These groups represent no political solution for the palestinians, but rather continued war and misery.

Yes, Hamas was elected. So what? Do you ascribe to Bush's definition of "democracy"? Hamas' desire to destroy Israel and it's war against the Jews, both proclaimed in the group's own charter, combined with their continued targeting of Israeli civilians with rockets, has only meant the deterioration of material situation and the social standing internationally of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

There is absolutely no problem with people chanting in Arabic or any language they choose. The content is what's at stake. And when demonstrators chant, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas" (as they did in Amsterdam at a "pro-Palestine" demo, or "Die, Die Israel!" as they do often in Germany, then these agitators for anti-Jewish violence are absolute enemies of the Left.

Your attempt to make this out to be an issue over religion is wrong. There are tons of religious people involved in social movements (liberation theology in latin america, Christian peace activists in the U.S., Jewish progressive groups, Muslim feminists, etc.). The issue is about politics not religion.

Additionally you make the typical mistake of seeing the left as being anti-imperialist. It isn't. It is silent about Iranian or Syrian imperial interests to take just two examples.

The Left is disempowered and your call to line up with anyone who "opposes imperialism" is just a desperate attempt at feeling important in face of a dire political and social situation. But lining up with reactionaries who seek emancipation for religion, but not emancipation for people, is absolutely the wrong direction.

If you think Hamas rockets targeting civilians help to liberate the Palestinians, you are deluding yourself. It only intensifies the military conflict that has already taken enough Palestinian lives. Hamas is only putting Gazans at more risk by its cynical lobbing of rockets at Israelis.

And the constant quoting of an Israeli (Gilad Atzmon) doesn't make your case any stronger. Yeah, he supports Hamas' imperial and genocidal interests in "liberating the land." What's at stake is the liberation of people, not that of religion or land.

Also, the small faction of the Left party that joined the demo against Hamas terror did not do so out of "fear of being associated with terrorism." They do it out of political principle. Of objecting to a form of violence against civilians which has no political aim other than maintaining the political power of Hamas, and the only result of destroying Gazans chances of improving their situation.

You want to fight the misuse of the terrorism category. Fight the green scare in the U.S., where the state is locking people up who destroyed nothing other than construction sites for suburban housing development projects and the like, and harmed no people.

And finally you end by telling us to support "the resistance" as if the world is a black and white picture between good and evil, as if "resistance" is a homogenous thing. Please expect more intelligence out of your readers than that.

michaelcalder on "The Left and Hamas"

michaelcalder — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:08:11 +0000

The problem with much of the Left is that so much of its dogmatic base is as irrational, as faith-based, and as tribal, as the religions which most of the early Left instinctively shrank from.

The problem with Islamist movements, as much as Leftist movements (and Rightist ones, for that matter) is their demand for adherence to, compliance with, and respect of, their dogmatic beliefs without the slightest element of a rational basis.

This is the reason why so many people ignore politics; they instinctively devine that the politicians are talking so much bullfeathers with no connection to reality, and so discount everything they hear and, so far as is possible, carry on their lives without bothering to interact with the political world. As long, of course, as there is food on their plates and the latest reality show on the television. (Panem et circenses, anyone?)

As an apolitical secularist, i can only applaud them. I only wish they would go further in ignoring their politicians, and follow the lead of the Rochdale pioneers, and the thousands of Frenchmen who to this day run their local co-operatives, and build mutualist municipalities separate from the corporate or nation state; so long as they do not dogmatically follow all the prescriptions of Proudhon. Pragmatism, and maybe even a little syndicalism, perhaps.

As for respect, no.

I accept anyone's right to believe, and express in words, pictures, and other representations (but not necessarily in action) anything they wish.

That acceptance is not even conditional on reciprocation, but I refuse to respect anyone who does not fully reciprocate, and I refuse to respect the irrational.

Clear skies!

Abu Rashid on "The Left and Hamas"

Abu Rashid — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:22:50 +0000

You might be amongst a minority for now Nadine, but your position is a natural one that will continue to gain ground amongst the Left.

The disdain amongst Letists for Islamist movements is a consequence of the fact most of the anti-Imperialist movements in the Muslim world were once socialist/communist/anarchist. They lost ground to the Islamic ideology and this is probably what causes a lot of the resentment.

But as you say, they need to recognise that this is the choice of the peoples they are claiming to support, in their resistance. So they should respect that choice and work with it.

aspacia on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

aspacia — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:30:43 +0000

Thank-you RobPC. The author fails to mention the fact that according to the Quran, women are inferior. Muslims can't step around that one.

EthanII on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

EthanII — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:57:13 +0000

On Feb. 13, 2009, just as Iftekhar was denying there was a problem with male domination and violence in many Muslim families, and blaming western stereotypes for perpetuating this concern on the part of the public,, the following tragedy occurred:

On February 13, 2009, in Orchard Park, a suburb of Buffalo, 44 year-old Muzzamil Hassan, a prominent Muslim businessman, was arrested for having be-headed his wife, 37 year-old Aasiya Z. Hassan. Yes, he beheaded her. Aasiya's crime? She dared to obtain an order of protection which forced her violent husband out of their home.

We are now sadly familiar with some high profile Islamic beheadings of infidels in Muslim lands; Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, immediately come to mind. Sadly, we are also familiar with the practice of beheading, dismembering, burying alive, and stoning Muslim women to death in Muslim lands--or throwing acid in their faces if they are "uncovered", as in Pakistan and Kashmir. But this took place in a suburb of Buffalo, New York.

What can this mean? Why behead a wife who simply wanted a divorce and who wanted to live free of daily violence? Why didn't Hassan just agree to a divorce?

Because this foul murder was a ritual honor killing, a crime which has everything to do with Muslim culture, and little to do with western-style domestic violence.

Iftekhar on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

Iftekhar — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:32:45 +0000

Male dominance in Muslim countries - ah! The eternal subject returns.

I read a headline in a local newspaper that contraceptive use has reached 56% over the last 30 years from a low of 7% in Bangladesh.

Indeed, the fertility rate has come down from 6 per woman to 3 in the same period.

Given the premiss that women are dominated by men, the inescapable conclusion seems to me that men are FORCING more and more of 'their' women to gulp contraceptives.

More than 2 million women work in the garments industry in Bangladesh: this trend began in the '80s. How did these women have the temerity to work in the teeth of opposition from husbands, brothers and fathers?

Obvously, they were FORCED to work by these men.

When the writer says that more and more women are working, she doesn't realise that she is contradicting the basic thesis of male-domination. If women are working, then how are they dominated? If women are having fewer children, then how are they dominated?

Muslim society, like most non-western societies, works by consensus. It is the same in the Muslim family.

In fact, the trend seems to be the opposite of what the writer claims: more women, and men, are turning back to 'tradition' and religion rather than embracing a 'modernity' that they find degrading. Freedom of expression? Pornography. Freedom to date boys? Date rape. Sexual freedom? Teenage sex and pregancy.I personally know many women who have left western countries because they were revolted by these things. If western society respects women, then we all respect zoo animals.

In Bangladesh last year, around 200 women were raped - considered a high figure despite a population of 150 milion. In Britain, 61,000 rapes took place in a population half that size. If that's respect, then western men sure have odd ways of showing it (watch one film on the subject: The Dead Girl).

Interestingly, in a World Bank report on health in the early '90s, it was observed that Muslim women are the safest in the world - Arab women had very little to fear from men as well as themselves (in terms of self-inflicted wounds).

Their main source of danger? War.

Analyse that.

PS India has some remarkable laws on the family, and yet several thousand women there are sod intio temple prostitution every year. How come I never hear about that?

RobPC on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

RobPC — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:42:31 +0000

"the Quran dose not teach bad things".
Here are some of the good things the Qur'an teaches.
".... I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." [8:12].
“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.” [8:67]
“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.” [33:50]. “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.” [4:24]
“One-fifth of your spoils of war shall belong to Allah, the Apostle, the Apostle's kinsfolk, the orphans, the destitute, and the traveler in need.” [8:41]
“You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they accept Islam.” [48:16]
“Warfare is prescribed for you” [2:216].
“Who so fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward.” [4:74]
“Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands and establish worship and pay the poor-due? But when fighting was prescribed for them, behold! a party of them fear mankind even as they fear Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? If only Thou wouldst give us respite for a while. I Say: The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for him that wardeth off evil.” [4:77]
"Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers." [48:29]

“Allah promises you will capture much booty.” [48:20]
“Slay the pagans wherever ye find them”.[9:5]
“Fight the unbelievers till they pay the Jizya tax on unbelievers and are subdued.”[9:29]
"Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies."[8:60]
"…. if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks." [4:89]
"Fight them until there is no dissension, and the religion is entirely Allah's." [8:39]

Qur’an 59:2-7 is a commentary on the start of Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing of Arabia, with his military attack against the Jews of Bani-Nadir. (As with much of the Qur’an its context is made clear by the related sacred Hadiths which are detailed accounts of Mohammed’s sayings.)
These Qur’an verses below make clear that the Jews were acting defensively, that Allah approved of their exile and the unexpected innovation of cutting down their desert food trees to terrorise them, and Allah granted the Muslims ownership of the property of the evicted Jews.

“He it is who hath caused the Jews who disbelieved to go forth from their homes unto the first exile. Ye deemed not that they would go forth, while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allah. But Allah reached them from a place whereof they reckoned not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands…“[59:2]
“This is because they were opposed to Allah and his messenger ….” [59:4]
“Whatsoever palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah’s leave, in order that he might confound the evil-livers.”[59:5]
“And that which Allah gives as spoil unto His messenger from them, ye urged not any horse or riding-camel for the sake thereof, but Allah giveth His messenger lordship over whom he will. Allah is able to do all things.”[59:6]
"The spoils of war taken from the town-dwellers and assigned by Allah to His apostle shall belong to Allah, to the Apostle and his kinsfolk, to orphans, .....” [59:7]

There's also a huge amount of wisdom in the Qur'an, such as the following.
“Every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him.” [30:26] … and the Qur’an also makes hundreds of references to those who are not obedient [2:11-20, 3:10-12, etc etc] and the horrors that await them.

Unapproachable on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

Unapproachable — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:05:13 +0000

Its funny how we talk down to muslim people with out understanding their sense of identity and world view. Typical stereotypes and cliches do not offer anything constructive.

When I saw the tittle of this article I knew that i would see statements like religious fundamentalism and backwards or my favorite Med-evil.

Its true that there is more to muslims then you think. There are complex dynamics at work. Religious and spiritual believes, as well as culture, identity. Muslims from Asia do not have the same dynamics as Muslims from Africa. Things are more complex then that.

I know that people in the media are unwilling to try to understand Islam on a intellectual level. As a young black man people like me have always been seen as a threat to society long before they even cared about my beliefs.

Muslim dose-not equal Arab. The problems which the global muslim community has is that they have been vilified and dehumanized plus years of stagnations and underdevelopment.

What the Muslims need is modernization not just in how to deal with new things like, globalization, the internet and social reforms. But how to train and educate their community leaders to deal with modern problems. We dont need Judge Judy we need Dr Phill. I subject you look up Imam Suhaib Webb on the net or youtube or google.

Islam is not backwards and the Quran dose not teach bad things. It is because of the cultural dynamics and lack of modernization that the classical scholarship of rationality and the flexibility have not had a chance to deal with these new things.

The first Scholar of Islam was a women and there are many women in history who have achieved alot in muslim society. No community is with out its problems, but lets make a separation between Culture and authentic Islamic Teachings.

Thanks

Iqbal Latif on "What is Hamas?"

Iqbal Latif — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:54:24 +0000

Iqbal Latif

Anyone who uses a single child as cover for his
dirty bomb is the major decadent; anyone who uses a mosque to hide his
dirty bomb is immoral of highest order. Hamas and Hezbollah both do
this without any censure.

Judaism after holocaust did not take revenge
from the Germans they trained their children to become the minds and
soul of the world, on the other hand residents of kins of @!$%#illa and
Sabra are now peaceful citizens of West Bank (Arafat and Mehmoud Abbbas
are both ex Beirut), they have after many a black September realised
that their best bet is peaceful coexistence, Hamas and |Hezbollah want
to use their children as collateral damage to mark their presence in
Gaza. Robert Fisk is wrong, liberal media who hides their crimes and
multiplies those of Israel is the cause of these regular raptures.

Don’t shoot aimless missiles and mortars in
Israel and live with your children in peace, continue to multiply your
kids and give them the best education from Israeli sponsored
Universities, win the hearts of Jews and times will heal all wounds
even time will resort sovereignty because democracy is servant of
numbers, however if numbers continue to disseminate like in case of
Gazan foolhardiness they will only produce more slaves, Gazans need
better leadership a leadership that should loves its children more than
slogans.

Bendara on "What is Hamas?"

Bendara — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:07:25 +0000

By ignoring the reasons for the existence of Hamas, Levitt simplifies the struggle as good versus evil. Through pandering to a conservative readership, he has guaranteed the endorsement of organisations such as Aipac and numerous politicians. Doubtless his book will sell well in the United States, bringing him great praise, public speaking engagements and a heatlhy financial return. What his book won't bring is progressive debate on the Israeli-Patestinian conflict.