Not-Hysterical-at-All Statement of the Day: Hamas = Taliban
Thursday, January 1, 2009 at 21:21 The fact is that Hamas is a Taliban state, as one Israeli diplomat put it. This is almost an epiphany, a clarifying truth. Hamas operates against its Palestinian enemies like the Taliban does against its Afghani enemies. Imagine a Hamas squad enters a kindergarten in a kibbutz. Neither the Taliban nor Hamas strive for earthly aims. Armed with instruments of death, they each fight for a heavenly design. But on earth. Yes, what a heaven that would be. Death is their own blessed comrade.
Those who find this far too sensible an assessment are advised to read the challenging opinion piece by William Sieghart in The Times of London, "We Must Adjust Our Distorted Image of Hamas":
In the five years that I have been visiting Gaza and the West Bank, I have met hundreds of Hamas politicians and supporters. None of them has professed the goal of Islamising Palestinian society, Taleban-style. Hamas relies on secular voters too much to do that. People still listen to pop music, watch television and women still choose whether to wear the veil or not.
The political leadership of Hamas is probably the most highly qualified in the world. Boasting more than 500 PhDs in its ranks, the majority are middle-class professionals - doctors, dentists, scientists and engineers. Most of its leadership have been educated in our universities and harbour no ideological hatred towards the West.
Reader Comments (5)
What is Sieghart on!? The proof is right here. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1208/glick122608.php3
As if the rise of Islamic movements in the Middle East has nothing to do with anything.
And degrees from Western institutions? What does have that have to do with anything? What about here in Europe, where we have radicals with degrees from European institutions? What about the British doctors who drove a Jeep Cherokee into a Glasgow airport terminal? They have no ideological hatred towards the West? We have Muslim extremists right here in Europe who are hell bent on redefining Europe's political and cultural institutions. Most were born, raised and educated here in Europe -- from Manchester to Malmo and on to Moscow. We're having a hard time with honour killings and women on the run from their families over a number of things having to do with Sharia law -- from religious conversion to forced marriages. It's these people who have pushed for Sharia courts and the legalisation of polygamy in the UK. Is Hamas really an exception?
If anything, the white collar professionals are the ones that are the most dangerous. The UK is full of terror cells.
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868840606&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This was the one I wanted to post. Alcohol possession and consumption is another no-no, from I've read. 40 lashings for alcohol.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/27/hamas-control-has-gazas-christians-on-edge/
"Christians say the primary danger comes not from Hamas — which has an interest in protecting Christians — but from more-fanatic Muslim groups that are sprouting up amid its rise."
--------
Okay, I guess I should take that back. But take a look at this article.
So, we have three different point of views at the end of this news. In the first one, Martin Peretz is evaluating Hamas as an “inherently evil” organization from a Bushian perspective whereas William Sieghart takes the issue to an “inherently angel” position. Moreover, Dave’s comments are more likely to be considered in the former line with an exception of the approach that made me feel as if Dave is a little bit sceptical towards thousands of Muslims of that even a professor born in Britain might commit a terrorist act at any time, anywhere…
I do not approve what Hamas or Taliban-minded people ask from any governments regarding the law of Sharia but calling people randomly like this:
“If anything, the white collar professionals are the ones that are the most dangerous. The UK is full of terror cells”
is more than labeling your neighbors “potential terrorists” which will bring counter-suspicions regarding your “anti-Muslim attitudes” from the “othered” side. Because you could not express yourself well, they will see you as a “potential threat” and become more uncompromising in the society… It has nothing to do with pragmaticsm but to do with emphaty at first. Anyway, shortly, criticizing peoples’ decisions and actions is not the same thing with labeling white collar professional Muslims as “potential terrorists.”
Let’s come to the contradicting arguements between Peretz and Sieghart. For me, Hamas is not a Taliban state but a terrorist organization. First of all, the conjuncture during Hamas’s foundation does not constitute the same pillars in Taibans’. In common terms, yes, both have found space to reach out thousands thanks to the downside effects of globalization and to the regional goals of the US. After the end of Cold War, the decline in leftist fractions’ effectiveness – which had already been sheared during the Cold War - also contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. After the retreat of the Soviets, Taliban forces had the support and opportunity to rule the lands under the Sharia law and were supported in 1996 by the US until 2001; however the reasons behind the birth of Hamas – which has been in the international arena since 1988 - are:
- the pressure of Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood until 1967.
- the pressure of Israel against seculars in paralel with the US foreign policy based on green antidote against the pro-Soviet secular theat which brought the support of Israel to fundamentalists from 1973 by confirming the foundation of Islamic Center.
- Israel’s pressure on Hamas since 1988, especially after 1994.
Taliban had never faced such a long and deep pre-mature period strong enough to construct an ideological framework in order to embrace the entire population in terms of providing legitimization. The Islamic perspective it brought could not bring success under threat & fear administration. On the other hand, the Palestinian issue remained both national & religious conflicts in the Palestinian society.
- Fatah’s corruptions interms of income sharing and accepting a two-state solution without getting any rights in 1993 as Hamas argues and Hamas’s social activities in Gaza.
In addition to the these stated above, I would like to state that Hamas has never targeted any Western asset or civilian since 1988 – despite the fact that its 1988 Charter was full of religious themes describing Israelis as the “head of the snake” and criticizing all the Western nations. The main reason is that – as stated above – Hamas’s root is much deeper than the basis of existence of Taliban and ideologically Hamas succeeded in contributing to the ongoing construction of the national question by applying to violence and refering to religion. In the course of time, Hamas had to change its vision by declaring that the emphasis was on “the struggle against Zionists;” not “against Jews” in the Introductory Memorandum in 1993. Lastly, in June 2006, Hamas declared that it could approve a solution plan that gives a Palestinian state on the occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Therefore, we see that Hamas’s discourses are changing into a more pragmatic dimension as long as It gets more power. Even this consequence takes us to the point that the multiple equation in which Hamas exists is more complicated and requires more than one identity.
Briefly, Hamas is not a Taliban state because:
- Hamas has ideologically a deeper root which is comprised of both religious and nationalist motivations.
- Hamas was born in a society whose efforts in national identitiy construction had already brought a political consciousness to the society itself. (For instance, Palestinians, who have been suffering for ages, are unlikey to be seen as Arabs first; but to be seen as Palestinians)
- Hamas has never waged war against the Western countries. (But, yes, it did against “the Western values”)
- No one cared Taliban until 9/11 cause it was Afghanistan the only important thing for the US was to control the area through militias; however Gaza had been under the Israeli rule from 1967 until 1995 Oslo B Plan. This difference is also efficient in designating the interests and duties of Hamas and Taliban. On the one side, there is a relatively free and more despotic regime in Afghanistan supported by the US without any serious domestic or foreign challenger and on the other side, there is an organization (which is a terrorist one since 1994 for me and since 2002 for the US) trying to turn the pointer in its favor in its struggle against Fatah which requires more reasonable steps (that is why we see free health and education services of Hamas, even to the members of Fatah whose income is below the poverty line) and trying to resist against the State of Israel. On one hand, there is a nuclear state that is the enemy of Hamas; on the other hand, the enemies of Taliban are poor “infidels.” Hope these are enough to facilitate to see the larger picture in that Hamas and Taliban are not the same though both are terrorists by having targeted civilians.
PS: The US again vetoed in UN Security Council against Israel... What about Palestinians now? Do we have any idea how they are feeling about "the Western values," including the ones in "UK terrorist cells?"
@ Dave
"The UK is full of terror cells."
Would you care to substantiate that claim? You intention here appears only to scare-monger us. I maybe wrong, however. It seems to me that people are too often only looking for evidence that confirms or validates a rigid preconceived view which excludes nuance. I'm sorry to single you out dave, but your comments signify not a willingness for engagement, but fear.
This is borne out by the linked Glick article, which attacks a moderate "realist" position with respect to negotiations with the so-called "axis of evil". Cue charges of "appeasement", "these-are-terrorists-and-cannot-be-bargained-with" mentality. I think the realist perspective - though I'm no supporter of it - will be Obama's default position given the utter failure of American hard power. There are parallels to be drawn with the position of Nixon-Kissinger in 1969 in the sense that America is faced with new realities that will surely force a reconsideration of its international role onto a more prudent footing. Whether realism is a panacea to the multifaceted challenges that will confront the president-in-waiting is questionable however.
I