Tuesday, September 26, 2006
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- What's going on? Saudi-Israeli secret talks! Seni...
- Israeli ambassador criticizes U.S. for granting I...
- US moves to scuttle Arab plan for international pe...
- George Soros, a Hungarian-born Jew who escaped th...
- How to bring Jews and Muslims together. Warning. T...
- From The Abba Eban film we learned the important r...
- Criticize Israel and You are an anti-Semite! Rosa...
- ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS This is an important...
9 Comments:
Hamas is an interesting organization to look at from different perspectives. On one hand you have the US who calls Hamas a terrorist group and along with the American media, only focuses on the suicide bombings.
[A side note about the attention given to suicide bombings by the American media and the lack of attention given to an Israeli shooting: you have to remember that in the US people in say Philadelphia get shot all the time. This is something that Americans are somewhat accustomed to. Now if 3 people get shot in Philly on one night, national news isn't going to pick it up. But if a drug dealer or gang member blew themselves up and killed 3 people, it would be all over the national news. Why? Because explosions aren't a common occurrence in the streets of the US. And Americans love action movies where things blow up. The mentality of the US media is "if it bleeds, it leads."]
And then on the other hand you have people focusing on the fact that while Hamas does commit violent acts, it also does charitable work.
It is the tendency of the US and Israel to just cast aside groups that they view as terrorists. However, the problem with doing this with Hamas is that it is not an isolated group. It isn't a fringe group plotting attacks in someone’s basement. As Azzam Tamimi said, Hamas came out of the people; it isn't forcing its will on them. Hamas has popular support because while they resist Israel, they also help the people.
The problem lies in Hamas' use of violence. If they didn't use violence, while they may lose some support, they would be viewed as a charitable organization and would be given some recognition as such. If you think of Hamas like a drug dealer, the reason that a lot of people don't turn in drug dealers is because that aside from selling drugs they also have to pay a lot of people off to not turn them in. So the community somewhat benefits from the drug dealer while it also suffers from the use of drugs. Drug dealers often still live with the mothers due to the fact that despite the amount of money they are making, they still have to pay a lot of people off. Now compare this to Hamas, you see some similarities. Hamas commits violence which is harmful like the drugs but also is charitable. However, the main difference between Hamas and the drug dealer is that the drug dealer’s main intent is to sell drugs. Hamas' main intent is to make things better for the Palestinian people and while this may involve the commission of violence, violence is not their main intent.
While Hamas' charitable work is looked over by the US media, Haaretz had an interesting article on Hamas' schools and how they're significantly better than the PA's schools. Here's the link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759714.html
Ted, interesting post. I enjoyed your discussion of explosion and shooting. Also thanks for the link, it was interesting. I am looking for more discussion of Tamimi, he is very high up in Hamas and the speech is a very recent one.
Throughout Dr. Azzam Tamini’s speech he made one point completely clear: Hamas and Hezbollah are based on principles of justice. Stemming from this is the theorem that since the creation of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinian people, Hamas and Hezbollah can never accept the legitimacy of the Israeli state at its current location; because that would be an injustice in itself. Dr. Azzam Tamini repeatedly stated that Hamas and Hezbollah will never betray this basic principle and will never accept Israel’s right to exist at its current location. Yet at the end of his speech he said that if the Israeli’s were to come to Hamas and say that they were wrong in what they have done and that they want to live in peace, then there would be peace. But it seems to me that it will not be enough for the Israeli’s to admit that they were wrong. The Israeli state would either have to move or cease to exist. To me, this seems like an impossible condition to be met. Timini did say that Hamas is willing to enter into a long term cease fire to end the bloodshed, but I feel that unless Hamas and Hezbollah are able to live with the state of Israel then there will never be a complete end to the struggle. How can peace be made if both sides are not willing to compromise? Could Hamas and Hezbollah not accept the apology of the Israeli people and then respond with a declaration saying they wish to have a nation of their own that lives in peace with the Israeli nation? According to Dr. Azzam Tamini, this would be the greatest sin and by doing so “Then you will go with America to hell”.
Jacob, you capture the fundamental contradiction in Hamas' position. [A] That they will never accept Israel since it is a grave injustice [B]They are willing to have a long-term cease fire .. We must also remember that Israel too does not recognize Hamas, nor the fundamental right of Palestinians to have a state of their own. It is only willing to withdraw from some of the occupied territories in exchange for complete peace from the Palestinians.
But what good is a long term cease fire when the ultimate goal remains to force Israel out of what they consider their land? It seems like a cease fire would be just pushing back the violence for another time.
The newest developments concerning Hamas’ cease fire and the results of the most recent election could serve as a reason to view a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict with new optimism. However, I’m not sure that these new reasons for optimism will amount to much more than any others in the past.
Hamas has recently proven that they have enough restraint to maintain a ceasefire. This cease fire however, has only been sustained for the last 6 months. Though they have in the past held a cease fire for a little more than a year, they’re still responsible for an estimated 350 terrorist attacks since 1993. Hamas has operated on an estimated average of 27 attacks a year over the past 13 years, why should 6 months of silence be viewed so highly? I do believe that Hamas could be headed in a new direction and that they, as the new power of the Palestinians, may have abandoned their former militant tactics but is 6 months long enough to erase their past and assure a future?
Dr. Tamimi still contends that Hamas will not recognize Israel in its current state so, as Jacob Wishko questioned in his post, “what good is a long term cease fire?” Also, how long of a cease fire can be maintained if there does not appear to be a chance of recognition? I realize that Israel plays an equal part in the peace negotiations but assuming that the status quo remains and the Palestinian economy continues to plummet, how much time will pass before violence once again emerges as a main tactic? It appears unlikely that Israel will soon concede to Palestinian demands which could have the political result of making Hamas appear stagnate. That’s not to say that violence is the only means in which Hamas has negotiated but in a world of little patience I’m not sure how long Hamas can maintain control, as they’re still the minority power in the region (all of Israel) and continue to fall into economic ruin. Hamas does make significant public contributions but at the end of the day this conflict is what appears to reign supreme.
Meanwhile, Fatah, the former majority leaders of the Palestinians which have not stayed true to a cease fire, still present a challenge to Hamas. Even if Hamas can prove to sustain a cease fire, what will keep Fatah from assuming the spoiler role for negotiations? Hamas may no longer carry out terrorist attacks but if Fatah continues, Palestinians are still going to be viewed as housing a significant terrorist threat.
A number of positive things could result from Hamas’ control and their cease fire. However, there still seems to be a number of issues that keep it from being too promising. Hamas could revert back to their terrorist ways, still refuses to recognize Israel, is faced with economic crisis, and still in a sense shares the political stage with groups like Fatah, that still engage in terrorist action. Israel appears to have the military power to remain steadfast in their stance for a relatively substantial time, but as to whether Hamas can simply weather the storm until these issues are resolved remains to be seen. The conflict could be heading towards an end, or could unfortunately just be continuing its vicious cycle.
I agree with Kyle and others who believe that Hamas may potentially provide some positive actions in the Middle East. The potential leverage which Israel holds could provide incentive for parties to seek peaceful options. Failure to produce any progression toward peace will cause displeasure with voters. Fears of “empty promises” and inefficiency may help Israel influence Hamas to consider negotiations. Nonetheless, the idea of negotiating through proxies seems complex and leaves both parties vulnerable to communication failures. Any party which does not receive the concessions which they seek could claim that they were not properly informed of specific terms and cause a breakdown in the peace negotiations. Such failures would bring more violence to the area. I’m not sure that open negotiations would be realistic or feasible, considering the position in which it may place political leaders. I do believe there are many advantages to open talks, specifically the ability to prevent misunderstandings. But is there any hope for open negotiations when one or more parties refuse to recognize the other?
Dr. Tamimi has some good arguments and truth about Hezbollah and Hamas.
He argues that both groups are national groups not based on terrorism, political ambitions, or tied to outside terrorist worldwide groups or Islamic movements. They're based on principles, especially justice and truth. Palestine is being occupied and their lands unfairly taken for a Jewish Israel, that had no justification for existing in the first place.
Dr. Tamimi is the same as Ahmadinejad in pointing out that the logical connection between Jews suffering and having no home and then forming a Jewish state in Palestine makes no sense, except perhaps through religious Zionist justification. If the Americans/Europeans and Nazis were responsible for ignoring and causing the Holocaust then they should form a Jewish home there, not in the Middle East.
I accept many of the arguments and truths presented.
Hamas is currently better at providing necessary social services to Palestinians. The people like Hamas and brought it to power in the recent elections. It currently (though who knows what may change) has no ambitions to make the world Muslin or conquer any lands. It just wants Palestinians to have a home.
I also agree that Israel has very weak justification for forming, based on principle. It's also obvious that the rest of the world, most especially US, is given false twisted information on the facts in the Middle East. That the US must be willing to talk with Hamas and concede that the current situation is an unjust occupation of at least West Bank and Gaza.
After agreeing with this though, there're many harder points and holes in the truths..
The doctor justifies Hamas' small militant arm (small but still existing) that fights Israel's forces and funds suicide bombing because it's self defense. It's fighting injustice. This is the same type of argument that the US would make in starting foreign wars except Hamas has slightly better justification. On one hand, suicide bombing and violence brings attention to the problem, but it's bringing predominantly a negative cast on Hamas. Fighting violence with violence is also a logically faulty argument. It would be nice if there was a Palestinian massive civil disobedience effort like MLK or Gandhi. The only problem is if there would be any media coverage and sympathy from the world of it. Seeing an innocent youth being beaten by "Security Forces" is more effective in the long term of getting support from world's population than blowing up a bus.
The second issue is that Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel wants first and foremost its security. To know that one's child won't be killed on the way to school. Peace talks do not guarantee results. It's a lot easier to lock up or kill a criminal so it's no longer a threat to society then trying to educate, support, or redeem the criminal. At least in the US. Not accepting occupation might be ok, but the Jews of Israel will never leave. It gives less support worldwide as well, just look at our class continually pointing the fact that Hamas said it won't accept Israel.
The problem is really the people’s fear of the unknown, wanting of security, and living through this rather than principle. The problem is that politics is flawed right now.
Politics by its very nature is easily inclined to power and ambition. I dare say most politicians will infringe on people's rights and principles to further their political and personal agendas. The PA is full of corruption as are all political parties around the world. Hamas is a fully grass roots movement full of principle, not politics. The problem is now it's a political group that must deal in this "political game" with the rest of the world. I fear that if it sticks to its principles, it won't progress and if it does play the "political game", it'll become corrupt and lose its original dream.
Because politics by nature is usually trying to always win, the US is willing to fund and do injustice if it provides future security, jobs, and power. So, the Egyptians and everyone dependent on the US will also follow suit. So groups like Hamas or any "right" group like Sudan or Global Warming will always be fighting against the system of politics...and probably losing. “Idealists” like Wilson’s national self-determination or Clinton’s universal health care will always be fought by the status quo.
On Thursday in class, Professor Khan talked about the danger of a unity government forming which recognizes Israel while a host of other armed groups rises up in opposition to that. I found this article on Ynet, and it foreshadows the imminent fact that there is such a strong opposition to the recognization of a Jewish state, that people will fight their own kind. This article doesn't just discuss that these armed groups will counteract the calm and the benefits of a unity government by attacking Israeli citizens, but they claim they will attack the Palestinian government itself! Such forces of hatred stand as a strong barrier to piece, and if armed groups force Palestinian policy makers to be afraid of making peace, peace will never come. It is so sad and aggrivating that whenever something optimistic occurs in this process, there is someone who wants to maintain the pessimistic status quo. Its similar to the groundbreaking step towards peace that occured between Yitzhak Rabin and Arrafat. Peace seemed so near, and the hatred of a Jewish extremist shot that hope to pieces. Now, as we turn to a unified Palestinian government for hopes that the Palestinian plight could be mitigated and the economy could be strengthened by a negotiating party, Palestinian militant groups would rather spread hate than spread hope.
Here's the article from http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3307507,00.html
PA groups: We’ll fight gov’t recognizing Israel
Spokesperson for four armed Palestinian groups, including Popular Resistance Committees and al-Aqsa Brigades, says, ‘Any government that recognizes Israel will become a target for our fighters. We will fight it with all means necessary and deal with it as though it were a derivative of the occupation’
Ali Waked Published: 09.24.06, 16:28
Opposition to Palestinian unity government mounts: Four armed Palestinian organizations issued a joint statement Sunday saying they would harm any PA government that would recognize Israel, as demanded by President Mahmoud Abbas.
The Popular Resistance Committees, al-Aqsa Brigades, Abu Rish Brigades and another Islamic group (Tawhid) – said they would back any government that would not recognize Israel and fight any government that does.
Hamas Rule
Haniyeh: We won’t recognize Israel / Ali Waked
While Abbas is in US laboring to promote coalition with Hamas to international leaders as a government that will cooperate with international demands, Palestinian prime minister throws a curve ball and proclaims: We do not accept Quartet’s conditions
Full Story
Resistance Committees spokesperson Abu Abir, who spoke on behalf of all four groups, said, “Any government declaring its recognition of Israel will become a target for our fighters. We will fight such a government with all means necessary and deal with it as though it were a derivative of the occupation.”
Abu Abir said the groups would support a unity government that would uphold the Palestinian national principles, mainly the “non-recognition of the Zionist entity.”
The spokesperson called on the Palestinian organizations rally around the armed resistance as ‘a strategy for battling internal and external plots.’
“The Palestinian resistance has the right to fight Israel with all the means at its disposal until the occupation ends, the Palestinian refugees return to their homes and the prisoners are freed,” he said.
Talks to resume this week
It should be noted that the statement is apparently a continuation of the struggle between Hamas and Fatah regarding the recognition of Israel - a dispute that continues to stand in the way of a Palestinian unity government. However, the majority of Abu Rish and Al Aqsa Brigades members are still affiliated with Fatah, while only small groups within these organizations act in cooperation with Hamas, meaning that the statement was not issued on behalf of the four groups in their entirety.
On Monday or Tuesday at the latest Abbas is set to travel to Gaza for the renewal of talks with Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh regarding the establishment of a unity government.
Meanwhile, Fatah officials have denied claims that the talks are focusing on the demand that Hamas recognize Israel. Fatah leader Hussein Al-Sheikh said his organization is not demanding that Hamas adopt this stance, apparently in response to recent polls showing that while the Palestinian public supports a unity government that would facilitate the lifting of the economic siege, more than 60 percent of respondents said they support the government’s position according to which it should not recognize Israel.
Post a Comment
<< Home