Search the Lounge

Categories

« The Opioid Epidemic and Chronic Pain Patients | Main | Guest Post: California Supreme Court Fails Bar Examinees by Mitchel Winick »

July 15, 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alexander Tsesis

This is beautifully written, Steve. As a further example of your point, Hamas’s genocidal calls for the annihilation of Jews is also often misrepresented in the media as a fight against Zionists. But Hamas is too honest in its genocidal intentions to let their efforts be whitewashed, keeping its religious calls to kill all Jews in its Charter despite the many efforts of outsiders to have it altered. Hamas Charter, Article VII, etc., https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp. Hamas is very clear in the Introduction about whom it regards to be its enemies: " Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious."
Alex

Patrick S. O'Donnell

Any assiduous or minimally diligent and fairly dispassionate student of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in general and Hamas in particular should arrive at the conclusion that Hamas, for most of its existence, and speaking for the organization (or institution) as a whole (in other words, a few actors have proven to be exceptions), has not acted in conformity nor seriously attempted to comply with its (largely morally and politically odious) Charter. Moreover, Hamas does not view it as providing a politically relevant program of action or strategic guidance of any sort (and there is a paucity of evidence to the contrary). This has been meticulously and continually documented over the years in the work of the foremost scholarly experts on this subject.

It’s worth pointing out that Illan Pappe has provocatively and I think correctly termed what the Israeli army has been doing in Gaza Strip since 2006 as “incremental genocide,” the historical seeds of which go back to the founding of the Israeli state itself, which involved well-documented acts of ethnic cleansing (a ‘crime against humanity’) as predominant form of prevailing Zionist ideology (in which religious and mythic beliefs are used to provide a sacred sanction for a political program of colonization and dispossession) motivating this variation on the theme of settler-state colonialism. Hamas, on the other hand, has shown no evidence whatsoever of “genocidal intent,” let alone committed acts of ethnic cleansing or genocide (while distinguishable, these can overlap). I will treat this and related topics in more depth in a forthcoming blog post. For now, one might take the trouble to read the titles below, as well as consult my blog post (09/13/2010) on “Hamas and Terrorism” at Religious Left Law wherein I made the following claims:

1. Respected researchers in and outside Israel have thoroughly documented and explained how “Hamas is neither anti-modern or anti-democratic, nor inherently anti-Western.”
2. Hamas recognizes the significance and relative authority of popular mandates.
3. Like other rational collective actors, Hamas has historically been open and responsive to contractualist or quid pro quo bargaining and negotiations with the state of Israel, to which Israel has repeatedly responded with disdain and dismissal, topped off with on ongoing assassination (targeted killings) campaign of its key leaders.
4. Hamas’ ability to inflict violence is an important source of its political authority (recall that States are frequently defined by their de jure or de facto monopoly on the means of violence and that Hamas is fighting for recognition of a right to collective self-determination which, in our time and place, takes the form of a State). “While this capacity for violence provides important symbolic capital for Hamas as a whole, the majority of its political leaders derive the bulk of their authority from other sources—increasing the possibility of a transformation away from violence if Hamas members believe their basic security will be guaranteed through different means.”
5. With regard to democratic and especially electoral politics (e.g., the municipal and legislative elections of 2004-2006), Hamas has made cross-ideological alliances and the bulk of its “election manifesto reads like that of any ‘secular’ political party.” As part of their decision to participate in electoral politics Hamas fielded “candidates with political and administrative, rather than paramilitary experience, [which] suggests that it recognizes that political capital in the domestic arena is derived from having non-violent, administrative skills and professional expertise than from a career in the resistance.”
6. Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated a “readiness to make alliances, even with those who support a two-state solution and co-existence with Israel,” a fact that “further underlines that Hamas is not fanatical and incapable of compromise, but pragmatic.”
7. Hamas leaders, notably Khalid Misha’al, have repeatedly stated they would not object to a two-state solution were the terms favorable to the “will of the people” (‘During the 2006 election campaign, senior Hamas legislative candidates Hasan Yousef and Muhammad Abu Tair categorized negotiations with Israel concerning a two-state solution as legitimate if they were both “in the interest of the people” and “presented to the new parliament,” the embodiment of the popular will.’) and their willingness to abide by a long-term hudna or truce (several decades, the terms of which would be renewable), evidences a de facto recognition of the state of Israel. Hamas is hardly prepared to pronounce a de-jure like or principled recognition until such time as Israel is willing to grant the collective right of self-determination to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories (note again the logic of reciprocity).

Some of the following books are clearly better than others, but all of these works on Hamas (while wider in scope, the Bröning and Pappe titles have significantly incisive material on Hamas) I’ve found helpful or insightful in one way or another:

• Baconi, Tareq, Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance (Stanford University Press, 2018).
• Brenner, Björn. Gaza under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance (I.B. Tauris, 2012).
• Bröning, Michael. The Politics of Change in Palestine: State-Building and Non-Violent Resistance (Pluto Press, 2011).
• Cardici, Paola (Andrea Teti, tr.) Hamas: From Resistance to Government (Seven Stories Press, 2012).
• Gunning, Jeroen. Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence (Columbia University Press, 2009).
• Milton-Edwards, Beverley and Stephen Farrell. Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement (Polity Press, 2010).
• Mishal, Shaul and Avraham Sela. The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence (Columbia University Press, 2000).
• Pappe, Ilan. Ten Myths about Israel (Verso, 2017). For the relevant material on Hamas, see ch. 9, ‘The Gaza Mythologies’).
• Roy, Sara. The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development (Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995).
• Roy, Sara. Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector (Princeton University Press, 2011).
• Tamimi, Azzam. Hamas: A History from Within (Olive Branch Press/Interlink, 2007).

anon

I don't usually read the undergraduate essays (loaded with jargon to try to sound knowledgeable, string citing articles without context or excerpts, polemic attitude and style, etc) like the one posted above, in the comments on a Lubet post.

But this passage (this is where I stopped reading) really does deserve mention:

" the founding of the Israeli state itself ... involved well-documented acts of ethnic cleansing (a ‘crime against humanity’) as predominant form of prevailing Zionist ideology (in which religious and mythic beliefs are used to provide a sacred sanction for a political program of colonization and dispossession) ..."

In other words, this author is asserting that the State of Israel was founded by Zionists whose religion -- Judaism -- calls for genocide and war crimes.

What a perfect example to support Lubet's point.

anon

Now, on the other hand, let's take a look at Hamas Covenant 1988, The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988, posted on Yale's Avalon Project website:

"Article Eleven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem 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. ...

Article Twelve:

Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission. Nothing of the sort is to be found in any other regime. ,...

Article Fifteen:

The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised ...

Article Twenty ...

In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.

To counter these deeds, it is necessary that social mutual responsibility should prevail among the people. The enemy should be faced by the people as a single body which if one member of it should complain, the rest of the body would respond by feeling the same pains. ...

Article Twenty-Two:

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it. "

And so forth. You get the idea. This declaration may have been modified since, but that isn't particularly relevant. Do we not hear, even among some members of the US Government, echoes of these claims?

anon

Is it not striking that the good people of legal academia, who pontificate so righteously and loudly and often about hate and prejudice, by and large remain silent about, or even support, those who promulgate views like the ones expressed above.

This is not just isolated to hatred of "Zionists" (as demonstrated above, used synonymously with hatred of the "Jew") -- it extends to the hate promulgated by other groups that the Left supports, directed against other groups.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

anon @ July 17, 2019 at 01:24 PM could take some lessons in careful reading from our elementary school granddaughter.

I did not “assert[] that the State of Israel was founded by Zionists whose religion—Judaism –calls for genocide and war crimes.” What I said in, in effect, is that what the Israelis refer to as their “war of independence” (and Palestinians know as ‘the Nakba’) involved historically well-documented acts of ethnic cleansing by Zionists (while there is some conceptual, moral, and legal overlap between ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide,’ these are, technically speaking, distinguishable: I referred to the former and not the latter).* These Zionists selectively draw upon myths, narratives, ideas, and beliefs within Judaism by way of justifying or rationalizing their reprehensible military and political behavior toward Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Arabs within Israel. As I’ve written elsewhere, when it comes to religious and non-religious worldviews (or philosophies) and ideologies, people, like these Zionists, often see what they want to see. Moreover, and relatedly, we should keep in mind the Scholastic dictum (translated from Latin): “whatever is received, is received according to the capacity of the recipient,” a capacity more often than not decisively shaped by such (individual and group) psychological phenomena as willful ignorance, self-deception, denial, and wishful thinking (Stanley Cohen has written about ‘denial’ in the case of many Israelis with regard to their treatment of the Palestinians). It is also a reminder that motley individuals, groups, and regimes have historically proven quite adept at using, manipulating, and distorting various elements from worldviews for their own selfish if not immoral or evil ends, and that is precisely how I understand these Zionists. In practice, worldviews (be they, say, of Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Buddhist, Confucian, Marxist, Liberal, Feminist provenance) are what we make of them, however otherwise elegant, coherent, consistent, ennobling, idealistic, utopian (in a non-pejorative sense), reasonable, rational, and so forth when described, defended, or defined by the foremost philosophical, intellectual or spiritual adherents and representatives of these worldviews. Therefore, and moreover, on the ground, such worldviews are typically quite messy, and often containing elements or features or ideas borrowed or otherwise (consciously or not) incorporated from earlier or surrounding worldviews, as well as ideological ingredients that together render them far different from the normative, abstract, doctrinal pictures, or defensive apologias, self-sufficient dogmas, hermetic doctrines, or creatures of orthodoxy most familiar to us. In short, I did not come remotely close to making the claim that Judaism, as such, “calls for genocide and war crimes.”

It should go without saying, but as it appears otherwise, I’ll reiterate: the class of Jews is far larger than the class of Zionists, and I did not categorically equate the two nor reduce the former to the latter. While most Zionists are therefore Jews (some Christians happen to be avowed Zionists as well, indeed, some Christians were vigorous proponents of early Zionist ideology and ambitions), not all Jews are Zionists. From the beginning there as has been, and remains, different kinds of Zionism, and the kind essential to the powers-that-be in Israel today is one with historic ties to the noxious form of Zionism linked to ethnic cleansing and the ongoing and active denial of Palestinian liberation and self-determination, a denial which involves flagrant and repeated violations of international humanitarian, criminal, and human rights law, including the prohibitions of colonialism and apartheid. It is this Zionism that has demonstrated unremitting reliance on “preemptive violence” and “targeted killings,” the habitual resort to “collective punishments” (since 1967), especially in Gaza, the “forcible transfer” of civilians from their homes, systematic violations of the prohibition against the destruction and appropriation of property of Palestinians (designated by international law as ‘protected persons’) and widespread human rights violations. Israel has for some time now been inexorably moving toward annexation of the West Bank, in conjunction with its ongoing expansion of Jewish settlements—in egregious contravention of international law—since 1967 in the Occupied Territories.

In addition to there being various Zionist ideologies, there also happen to be Jews, both religious and non-religious or secular, in and outside Israel, historically and at present, who are of course not Zionists. In his book, The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge (Verso, 2014), Ilan Pappe provides us with essential documentation and a succinct historical narrative of the (comparatively few) courageous and inspiring Jewish individuals, groups, and political parties in Israel that have been and are today are in fact non- and anti-Zionist. Given my own political orientation, one of these in particular is close to my heart, namely those individuals, groups, and political parties that were heirs to the worldview of the “General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania, Poland and Russia,” in short, “the Bund.” These non-Zionist Jews were communist and more frequently socialist, dedicated to universalist and secularist principles, while no less committed to retaining their Jewish personal and collective identity (I blogged about these remarkable people in conjunction with a moving film about their remaining members in the state of Israel at Religious Left Law on 9 September 2017).

* See, for example, Ilan Pappe’s book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, 2006). When this book was written, Pappe was an Israeli historian and senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University. He is now an expatriate Israeli historian, that is, “a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university's European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies.”

As for the remaining “anon” comments, they do not deserve a response, in other words, we’d be better off ignoring them.

Should anyone be interested, among the over 100 bibliographies on my Academia page, there are compilations for Judaism (and a separate study guide for same), the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Zionist ideologies, the Bedouin, and the contemporary Arab world.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

Please pardon the numerous typos above, as I too quickly wrote this so as to return to my day's work.

anon

PTSOD

As usual, you attempt to cloak your hate in vague, rambling, over intellectualized claptrap.

Read the portions of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988, posted above.

Knock off the posturing and evasive nonsense: Do you agree with what was stated there, or not? Don't try to sift out some kernel of truth and say, "Well, I agree with one part of it." The message of that "Covenant" was clear.

Honestly, after reading (admittedly only some) of what you post on this site, I think you do agree with the message of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988. That Covenant (as demonstrated above) makes very clear how to equate "Zionism" with "Jews."

That was the point of this thread. Of course, you seem to rarely if ever pay any attention to the point of anything that anyone else has written; in order to try to get your manifestos published somewhere, you quite obviously just start cutting and pasting from a seemingly vast cache of your musings about "Palestinians" (a really absurd and outdated label, in context).

Patrick S. O'Donnell

It is not a "covenant" but a Charter, written by one person and not approved by any group or organization. Some relevant facts follow:

With the help of Michael Bröning’s first class research as detailed in part in his book, The Politics of Change in Palestine: State-Building and Non-Violent Resistance (Pluto Press, 2011), let’s introduce the (frequently morally and politically odious) Hamas Charter as it relates to its current struggle for the liberation and self-determination of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories (presumably they are also concerned with the legal and political standing and status of Arabs in the state of Israel):

“For decades Western and Israeli observers have based their assessment of Hamas not only on the movement’s violent operations [indiscriminately described as ‘terrorist’ by these selfsame observers and their mass media] but on a policy document, the ‘Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement’ (the Hamas Charter), which appears to describe the identity and political agenda of Hamas with indisputable clarity. The Charter was published in the form of a leaflet in 1988 and is an oft-quoted point of reference for Western observers, the so-called pro-Israel lobby in the US and the Israeli public [in other words, for these parties, this document functions as a dogmatic, transparent, and hermetic sacred text that determines and thus explains both the political ideology and praxis of Hamas]. Effectively, the Charter constitutes the only widely circulated document that is used to characterise Hamas. The prominent position the Charter has attained in Western discourse can be seen by the preponderance of full-text quotations featured prominently on the websites of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

The Charter is politically and moral repugnant and regressive in many respects: it aims in anachronistic fashion to establish an Islamic state, it expressly avows preference for militant jihad (a conception that has often been understood along the lines of ‘just war’ theory but here is correctly translated as ‘holy war’), and promotes the proposition that Palestinian land is “an Islamic Waqf” consecrated for Muslims until the Day of Judgment (cf. that kind of Zionist ideology that claims that possession of this land is sacred right with biblical warrant and traced at least as far back to the Jews of Roman Palestine, hence the Jews are a nation belonging, as it were, to Palestine). But even more disturbing, Bröning points out, the document is littered with “ … statements that are blatantly anti-Semitic …, equating Israel to Nazi Germany by condemning ‘Nazi Zionist practices’ and paraphrasing the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as proof of Israel’s inherent wickedness. In a truly abhorrent paragraph (§ 22), the Charter features a blatant (mis)representation of modern history fraught with anti-Semitic stereotypes.”

And yet we can question whether the ideas contained in the Charter accurately reflect the history, politics, and beliefs of Hamas over time, given that it “…has been referenced numerous times to demonise Hamas by comparing the movement to Al Qaeda and similar organisations. Despite obvious shortcomings, this is a view that only sporadically has been questioned. Most proponents of this traditional perception of Hamas firmly adhere to the conviction that the Islamic Resistance Movement is not only unwilling to engage in political compromise with Israel but that Hamas is also inherently incapable of change per se” (Bröning).

The military and political powers-that-be in the state of Israel have an ideologically driven vested interest in maintaining this radically simplistic and “frozen” image of Hamas and have proven strategically hell-bent on taunting, tempting, and provoking Hamas to behave in ways that can be viewed in conformity with this image (and on occasion Hamas has taken the bait, although it has been the smaller and far more radical Islamist groups like the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine that act in the spirit if not letter of the Charter), similar to the psychological and political mechanisms found in self-fulfilling prophecy. How relevant is the Charter to understanding Hamas? On the ground, it has shown itself to be virtually irrelevant. In Bröning’s words,

“In reality, Hamas, like many social institutions, has undergone dramatic change in recent years [this was written about a decade ago], partly influenced by outside factors and partly reflecting internal responses to external developments. Following Hamas’s participation in the Palestinian elections of 2006, the movement’s electoral triumph, the international boycott, Hamas’ seizure of Gaza Strip in 2007, Israel’s 2008-9 war in Gaza [and again in 2012 and 2014, as well as the 2018 Palestinian ‘Land Day’ or ‘border’ protests] and caretaker Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s suppression of Hamas institutions in the West Bank, the Hamas of today bears little resemblance to the original movement founded in 1987-8.”

Bröning proceeds to note that these changes have largely “gone unnoticed by Western observers” for obvious ideological reasons and concedes that Hamas itself has “expressed ambiguous and, at times contradictory statements and policies that not only reflect different wings struggling over the movement’s future but have also targeted a wide range of audiences.”

“[While Hamas’ Charter] serves as a convenient point of reference for Western and Israeli observers … [it is] probably more widely read in Washington DC or West Jerusalem than in the Palestinian Territory. In the OPT, the Charter has fallen into near-total political neglect. Realising that it failed to represent the movement’s evolving identity and resulted in a significant political fall-out, protagonists inside Hamas were faced with the difficult choice of defending a document that had effectively turned into a PR liability or of officially re-drafting it. Initially, it seemed that the latter was to be the course of action. In 2003, the Hamas political bureau in Damascus commissioned the re-drafting at this time would be perceived as giving in to external pressure. To avoid appearing compliant with Western demands and in order to retain a certain degree of ambiguity in its programmatic heritage, Hamas leaders subsequently opted for a different strategy for overcoming the problems generated by the Charter. [….]

First, for years Hamas leaders have refrained from publicly embracing the Charter. The document today is noticeably absent from any Hamas statement and is unavailable on most Arabic-language webpages affiliated with Hamas. One exception is the web presentation of the Qassam Brigades (Hamas’ military wing [although often to the chagrin of Hamas’ political leaders, its decision-making is markedly independent from the larger Hamas organization]) which, in the summer of 2010, published an abridged version which rather tellingly only included the Charter’s ‘Ideological Starting-Points’ and deleted the anti-Semitic slander of subsequent paragraphs.

Second, Hamas leaders have been engaged in drafting more recent policy documents that have effectively replaced the Charter in all but name. These statements have been partly issued as communications to foreign diplomats and were partly developed as official policy documents for election campaigns in the Palestinian Territory. Third, Hamas leaders have played down the relevance of the Charter. Thus Mahmoud Ahmad Al Ramahi, the Secretary General of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), notably clarified that the Charter should not be confused with the Holy Qu’ran and was backed by Khaled Mishal, the head of Hamas’ political bureau in Damascus, who explained that ‘the Charter should not be regarded as the fundamental frame of reference.’ Rather, Mishal reiterated in a television interview with PBS host Charlie Rose that Hamas’ practice and recently policy outlines have effectively replaced the Charter. ‘So, the whole world should deal with Hamas, with what it practices, its political stance that it declared, and not based on the Charter that was put [sic] 20 years ago.’

Fourth, attempts to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the Charter have been notable. Hamas leaders have repeatedly pointed out that it has never been internally debated or formally approved. Proponents of this approach have pointed out that the Charter was written by a single confidant of Hamas’ founder Ahmad Yassin, Abdel Fattah Dukhan. Dukhan wrote the Charter without an official mandate, failing to utilise broad consultative processes that would have otherwise been the norm. This multi-level approach of minimising the significance of the Charter has not achieved the desired effect of freeing Hamas from the Charter’s fall-out—at least not among Western observers [who have a penchant for demanding from others what they would not even ask or consider of themselves]. Rather, critics of these attempts to contextualise the Charter have been quick to demand a formal rescinding of the Charter as proof of a ‘moderate’ Hamas. While such claims might appear understandable, it is doubtful whether such critics would be willing to accept even a formal renouncing of the Charter as anything but a tactical manoeuvre.”

Patrick S. O'Donnell

anon,

Please have the last word, you sorely need it. Don't forget to add fallacious abusive and circumstantial ad hominem arguments to the mix and deliberately misread and misstate what I have written, attributing malicious motives in the process. Do you know what a manifesto is? Did you graduate high school? If so, please provide evidence for same in your reply. Incidentally, I have been cutting and pasting since I was a child: it was enjoyable then and remains so today (I suspect you missed out on this and other childhood pleasures, for I cannot otherwise account for your nastiness).

anon

So, here we have it:

A document entitled "the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement" is not; a manifesto (a written statement declaring publicly the views of its issuer) is not a manifesto, "cutting and pasting" does not mean lifting long irrelevant passages from some trove of really obtuse writing to make points that are irrelevant to any subject under discussion, etc.

Again, Mr. PTSOD (you are fairly inclined to throw around the insults yourself, are you not?), knock off the posturing and evasive nonsense: Do you agree with what was stated there, or not? Don't try to sift out some kernel of truth and say, "Well, I agree with one part of it." The message of that "Covenant" was clear.

Don't just rush to your trove of drivel and post another 1000 evasive irrelevant words. Yes or no?

Anonanonanon...

All of Patrick's remarks (and sources) are belied by Hamas' repeated and well-documented remarks in non-Western media sources, let alone their deeds in neighboring countries. The professed changes in attitude and outlook, rather than understanding the value of appearing in some regards to have so changed, has not tricked any government - especially not their intelligence agencies.

Moreover, the Zionist project is one of reclaiming land that was conquered by the Arabs (after the Roman period), who stole many of the Jews' property, banned the Jews from their key holy sites for centuries, and imposed Dhimmitude upon them. (Patrick has explicitly lied on this very web page before about what this legal status is and entailed in most sharia systems over the last 1400 years). The Arabization and Islamification of Palestine was, and continues to be, a project of cultural appropriation and cultural erasure, under a long-standing system of (religio-legal) apartheid - norms that are fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic ones.

What's also interesting is the invocation of international law, which does not actually delimit the legal borders there, and thus determine what is or is not Israel's territory. Further, Pappe's hyperbolic claims fly in the face of regular calls for actual genocide by the other side. This, if one is even to consider the international law governing such matters as being anything other than a wholesale Western imperialist project. Thankfully, East Asians countries are beginning to chip away at this form of Western control, exploitation, and effort to maintain hegemonic power. Once the East becomes the economic and political hegemons in the next couple of generations, such invocations and bases for condemnation will be correctly condemned for what they were - especially given such peoples' explicit views about their own countries' shaping and borders!

Furthermore, Patrick: anon is correct. I've been reading this blog for too long to not know your tactics, e.g., how you project nastiness onto others, how you insult others, and how you essay dump. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad