Harry's Place

Bravissimo Brett!! you say clearly and coolly things I keep trying to say somewhat hysterically.

Brett: This post so clearly articulates the issues, and so cleanly cuts through the obfuscating bluster, it feels like a huge relief, a release from the strangling vines of the Habara Buster’s and his ilk’s fallacies, I wish there were a Pulitzer prize for posts.

The supposed SA/Israel equivalence is often brought up by people evocating some sort of boycott of Israel but it always misses the point that the SA boycott was in solidarity with the people of SA, not at the behest of another power or authority or people. If the people of Israel called for a boycott because they had been disenfranchised by a minority party, I would happily take part.

>It’s the same reason why VHS beat Betamax, a superior format in the VCR wars.
Betamax was the superior format to VHS in terms of both recording and playback. It lost out because a far greater number of movies were made available for home viewing in the cheaper VHS format – market conditions for software doomed the hardware.

There were also all those 1980s “libertarians” who claimed to be opposed to the ANC on anti-communist grounds and opposed to apartheid as “racial socialism”. They usually associated themselves with groups like Inkatha. Alas, as James Sanders points out in Apartheid’s Friends: The Rise and Fall of South Africa’s Secret Service, much of the “libertarian” perspective was being manipulated by the regime – Jack Abramoff played a major role in the US and the UK. The SA spy Craig Williamson is quoted as having said:

We couldn’t convince Americans that apartheid was right. The only chance of manipulating things to survive just a little bit longer was to paint the ANC as a product of the international department of the Soviet Communist Party.

I’ve got more here.

(NB – I’m not applying any of the above to Israel/Palestine, and I agree that Hamas is bad news and incomparable to the ANC)

Brett

You justify the oppression of the Palestinians by reference to the politics and actions of Hamas, which you compare unfavourably with the politics and actions of the ANC. Thus you shield yourself from looking at the injustice itself.

Yet the apologists for apartheid justified oppression of the black population in exactly the same terms, i.e. the ANC were terrorists, ‘black on black’ political violence (ANC v Inkhata), crime, necklacing etc. Be afraid, be very afraid. The dark man is coming after you.

You sanitise the ANC and demonise Hamas because that is the only way you can square your opposition to apartheid in South Africa with your support for Israeli version of ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

On the previous thread I thrice asked you the following question:

suppose the PAC had emerged as the representative of the South African liberation struggle and targetted white civilians, would you have become a propaganda mouthpiece for the apartheid regime?

Your refusal to answer was revealing.

“You sanitise the ANC and demonise Hamas because that is the only way you can square your opposition to apartheid in South Africa with your support for Israeli version of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. ”

What is this ‘demonisation’ of Hamas? It is an orgnisation one of stated aims of which is the killing of all Jews. How can you ‘demonise’ that. We will be hearing about the ‘demonisation’ of the KKK, soon. ‘They don’t just lynch black, people you know, they do barbecues too!’

“On the previous thread I thrice asked you the following question: suppose the PAC had emerged as the representative of the South African liberation struggle and targetted white civilians, would you have become a propaganda mouthpiece for the apartheid regime?Your refusal to answer was revealing.”

Not as revealing as his steadfast refusal to tell me when he stopped beating his wife!

1. If the PAC were the main ‘resistance’ movement in SA, you should certainly have opposed it.

Since when has supporting genocide been a Left wing value (don’t answer that Morgoth)?

2. Your argument also presupposes that Apartheid – a system which disenfranchised the majority of the population – is comparable to a democratic state in which the majority and the minorities are enfranchised.

In any case, you are Malcolm Caldwell. Perhaps one day you will get to meet your own Pol Pot.

One thing not mentioned in Brett’s post is that almost every single ANC leader, black / white / Jewish / other, supports the Palestinians. THEY can see the parallels. Are they anti-semitic? Islamofascists? Nazis? Dupes? Stupid? Or what?

You can see the statements of the ANC leaders posted in the comments of the earlier thread:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/28/lessons-from-the-apartheid-error/

““Who knows?” is inevitably followed by “who cares?”. And this is why I’ve arrived, like many others, at the conclusion that antisemitism is at the root of the obsession with Israel.”

Over 1000 people were just killed in Gaza, Brett. More than half were civilians. Hundreds of children. This, you willfully ignore. To be disgusted by this, you conclude, is anti-Semitism. Totally ridiculous.

TheIrie

Tell me what action you’ve noticed about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/29/sri-lanka-tamil-tigers-civilian-casualties

Have there been any demonstrations called? Occupations? Anything at all?

What has you been doing about it?

I’m not saying that you HAVE to be involved in both pro-LTTE and pro-Hamas activism, or even have a position on both.

But why has this not grabbed your attention and involvement?

Or has it?

“One thing not mentioned in Brett’s post is that almost every single ANC leader, black / white / Jewish / other, supports the Palestinians. THEY can see the parallels. Are they anti-semitic? ”

Who knows. Here are a couple of recent statements by the South African Deputy Foreign Minister, Fatima Hajaig, though. Perhaps there is a clue here:

“They [Jews] in fact control [America], no matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush,”

“The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else.”

Jimmy Carter’s use of the term “apartheid”, as he is keen to stress, refers to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, not Israel itself. I think this is accurate, and it blows David’s #2 above out of the water.

A lot of decent, courageous people opposed the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. I recall Helen Suzman tearing shreds off some lesser pol on US television who was advocating inpoverishing the country in order to change it. She wanted to know if he was going to feed all the poor African people who lost their jobs due to sanctions.

David – Let’s be clear about this. The point you are making is why can’t I shut up about dead Palestinians. You imply I’m a hypocrite because I don’t act in response to other attrocities. But what exactly should I do about the Sri-Lankan situation? Who am I supposed to protest against? Unlike the case of Palestine, my government is not complicit, and unlike the case of Palestine? And what are you doing, since you ask me? I mean, you go out of your way to highlight the problems faced in Israel? Why? Why focus on Israel? In fact, I probably focus on Palestine, not only because of the injustice there, but because of the apologetics for attrocities that I read every day here. You have to do something about issues that you understand and can effect. This is a rationale argument. Your position is to excuse and ignore suffering in Palestine, and its very transparent.

I mean’t to write “Unlike the case of Palestine, my government is not complicit, and unlike the case of Palestine it is not clear to me how I can influence the situation”.

You could organise a demo TheIrie.

In fact, David, you response above is pathetic. If you can’t deny an Israeli attrocity and you can’t explain/excuse it, then all you’re left with is “look over there”. And this is the desperate state you are now in. Do you think people can see this?

Zin: I opt for “Or what?” Sentimental, misguided feelings of of loyalty to Palestinians their allies in the Struggle days. Why does Mandela steadfastly refuse to hear a bad word about Castro and Gadaffi (his grandchild is named Gadaffi) saying we will never desert those who supported us during the Struggle. Even Lenin’s tomb decried “Mandela bestowing a medal on Suharto of Indonesia precisely at the moment when student and worker revolts were beginning to topple his rule”.

This delegation of ANC people also disagreed:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html

And not all ANC people agree- Benji Pogrund has argued fiercely against the parallel.

Great post Brett.

Additionally SA also had, and still has many British ties, widespread use of English and was an easy place for journalists to operate from. The ANC was also highly influenced by the British Labour party, which gave had a moderating effect compared to other Liberation movements. SA itself also spawned many educated, articulate folk able to make the anti Apartheid case.

Pity that you, like me, and so many others in these here parts, are pointedly ex SA. But that’s another story!

Since when has supporting genocide been a Left wing value (don’t answer that Morgoth)?

OK I will, from the right from the start. Maybe the French Revolution.

David T

Grow up, and stop mooting.

If the PAC were the main ‘resistance’ movement in SA, you should certainly have opposed it.

Not by supporting apartheid. Under absolutely no circumstances. The apologists for Israel and apartheid South Africa opposed the ANC / PAC / Fatah / Hamas, not because of their tactics, but because they wanted to maintain the status quo.

That’s what it’s all about. I know it. You know it. The dogs in the street know it.

In contrast, Peter Tatchel’s position on Palestine – support for the principle of liberation but opposition to any actual liberation movement – is quite different.

But being in a different intellectual league to Brett, you did at least have a stab at answering the question.

Your argument also presupposes that Apartheid – a system which disenfranchised the majority of the population – is comparable to a democratic state in which the majority and the minorities are enfranchised

Yes David. And Israel disenfranchised, i.e. ethnically cleansed, the Arab population as a prerequisite to becoming an ethno-religious state. They now languish in a patchwork of unviable bantustans, intersected by Jew only roads and illegal settlements. Those Arabs who remained in the Jewish state became second class citizens, ensnared by myriad of discriminatory regulations.

You’re a smart guy, David. But what a wasted mind.

If you can’t deny an Israeli attrocity and you can’t explain/excuse it, then all you’re left with is “look over there”.

The emphasis/obsession on Palestinian suffering to the detriment of all the other struggles in the world, and the ridiculous and unwaranted sympathies expressed by so many for Hamas are the result of nothing more than jew-hatred.

I remember an interview with Mia Farrow, leftist par excellence, who had been doing UN wotk in Darfur, and who had witnessed the death and destruction first-hand, complaining about how so many western-based rights groups were completly ignoring the atrocities and expressing her utter frustration at being unable to motivate them to highlight what was going on.

Some of us are aware of this, and some of us, quite obviously, are not.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Zin wrote, re: Mr T.

If the PAC were the prime resistance mover in SA. The National Party would have tried to hold the ring – probably successfully – longer. There would have been massively more white flight than there has been, and the economy would have collapsed. Pretty much what happened in Mozambique, Angola and even Zambia.

None of that would have made Apartheid right.

“Unlike the case of Palestine, my government is not complicit, and unlike the case of Palestine it is not clear to me how I can influence the situation”.

British imperialism might have something to do with the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict. Try again.

“Unlike the case of Palestine, my government is not complicit, and unlike the case of Palestine it is not clear to me how I can influence the situation”.

British imperialism might have something to do with the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict. Try again.

good article … important to add, that the liberation movement in South Africa wasn’t only the ANC but also a lively independent trade union movement, among them the “populist” and “workerist” currents which both tried to organize workers from all “ethnic” communities, e.g. the left-wing car workers union in the Volkswagen plant was ~ 1983 able to attract there also a relatively large number of boer workers because of the unions dedication to fight for the social interest of all workers

David T,

Have there been any demonstrations called? Occupations? Anything at all?

Yup, there’s been a national demo called in London for Saturday.

Plus, the same group of people who organised the Gaza protests in Oxford are organising some sort of protest when the Sri Lankan foreign minister comes to speak in Oxford on Sunday.

Lots of allegations that the current conflict in Sri Lanka represents ‘genocide’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’. Do you think that this is because the activists involved have some sort of anti-Sinhalese prejudice?

Zin, from the other thread, in answer to your question which you ask again here: “You justify the oppression of the Palestinians by reference to the politics and actions of Hamas, “

I don’t justify any oppression of the Palestinians with reference to Hamas or anyone else. I just don’t think everyone is on teh same page about what that oppression is, or what the remedy is.

With regard to the PAC, I would not have supported them, nor would I have excused apartheid. It is surely reasonable to identify X as a problem without endorsing Y as the remedy? Some “remedies” can make the problem worse.

But I think it is telling that the PAC didn’t have popular support. This wasn’t a quirk of fate, a toss of the coin, a roll of the dice, this was because, as I note in my new post, the ANC had a proper political programme. They succeeded for specific reasons and teh PAC failed for specific reasons. The choice did not have to be made, because out of struggle and stregnth of will, the people of South Africa themselves ensured that this choice would not have to be made.

How strange. This was posted about 1. 00 p.m. and seems to have disappeared. Couldn’t be censorship at work could it or just saving Brett’s face!

It would seem that the humourless Brett Lock and all the other, equally humourless Zionist, are unable to understand or even realise that HP was engaging in parody, not a history lesson.

One of the central myths of the colonisation of South Africa by the Whites was that it was an empty land which Africans had only recently colonised. It was the same with Australia – terra nullis. In other words this is a myth common to colonialism because the indigenous population are invisible, as Ahad Ha’am said in his 1889 essay ‘This is not the Way’ and 2 years later in ‘Truth from Israel’.

Brett also plays fast and loose with the facts. The apartheid state was set up in 1948 by Malan, the 1961 establishment of a republic was just the final window dressing. In fact the colour bar and de facto separate development was established under Smuts, the pro-British pre-1948 ruler. And of course there was no greater supporter of Zionism than Smuts!

Again missing the irony of HB, Brett tells us that ‘SA was opposed because its system of government was repugnant.’ Err quite. But they did allege at the time it was because we were anti-white. And that is the whole point. Israel, despite its apologists is opposed for what it does not because its supporters are Jewish!

So when he asks if it got more attention than worse attrocities then of course the answer was yes, and the reason the unique nature of apartheid rule. But, as Mr Lock says, ‘I don’t for a second think that this was for reasons of anti-Afrikaner prejudice akin to antisemitism.’ Err quite Brett. Perhaps when Brett has visited the Negev and the Bedouin shanty towns or the Arab villages of the Galilee all his cant about no running water or electricity in South African will be seen as just that.

But at least David T manages to get it, being a somewhat brighter spark. Desmon Tutu, the Ghandi of South Africa (no he was better!) like most anti-apartheid activists recognise that the reason Israel had the closest alliance of any state, including nuclear co-operation, with South Africa, was because the 2 states are much the same! Although some erstwhile whites like Brett refuse to face up to it.

And speaking of playing fast and loose with facts, oh yes South Africa supported Britain in the second world war. But they had to depose the Prime Minister in order to obtain that support! Most Afrikaaners, like future PM John Vorster, supported the Nazis. It is generally accepted that the overwhelming majority of whites were opposed to the war against the Nazis and in 1948, of course, Malan was elected as Prime Minister.

Brett is also disingenuous in pretending that it took 60 years before a fully fledged apartheid republic emerged. In fact the whole point of Dominion status, which SA achieved in 1910, was home rule. Although the British had given as one of the reasons for fighting the 2nd Boer War the plight of the African, they soon forget that, as support for what became apartheid was the quid pro quo of British-Afrikaaner relations. And not just Afrikaaners either.

And however desperately the apologists for Zionism on HP and their refusal to face up to the fact that Israel too is an apartheid country, in the practical realities of life for Israeli Palestinians, the situation is akin to apartheid. Those who are sincerely interested in these things, which Brett Lock, David T and others are clearly not, recognise this fact. The rash of exclusion of Arab children from ‘Jewish’ kindergardens and nurseries recognises this e.g. an article in Haaretz of 25.12.08. or the campaign in Hagalil Elementary School in Hatikvah neighbourhood of Tel Aviv against the admission of Arab children. You can fail to recognise this fact on HP but the forthcoming elections where Yisrael Beteinu, the transfer party of Lieberman are forecast to do better than the Labour Party says it all.

And Brett of all people, understands the similarities between Apartheid and Israel. Indeed the South African Afrikaner press asked:

‘Is there any difference between the way the people of Israel are trying to maintain themselves amid the non-Jewish peoples and the way the Afrikaner is trying to remain what he is? The people of Israel base themselves upon the Old Testament to explain why they do not wish to mix with other people. The Afrikaner does this too. Henry Katzew South Africa – A Country Without Friends’ Midstream Spring 1962 p. 73.

Or as Dr Verwoerd, the founder of Apartheid and the assassinated Prime Minister noted: “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a 1000 years. In this I agree with them. Israel like South Africa is an apartheid- state.” Rand Daily Mail, 23.11.61.

And the Jerusalem Post made clear in April 1976 on the conclusion of a. pact between Israel and South Africa, after Vorster’s visit there:
‘The Afrikaners were especially enthusiastic… seeing a similarity of interest in two ‘white’ nations at the head and foot of the African continent waging lonely fights for survival against overwhelming black numbers.

As Brett also should know, Hertzog’s government introduced bans to isolate and silence political dissent, removed the Africans from the common voters’ roll in the Cape, and passed legislation upholding the industrial color bar. These were the foundation stones of Apartheid and were laid well before 1961 or even 1948.

But as I said, Brett doesn’t get it, on any level. His refusal to acknowledge the similarities between Zionism and Apartheid are based on his frankly racist attitudes to Muslims which led him to taking part in a ‘free speech’ rally a couple of years ago where BNP supporters participated. After all, today both Zionists and Fascists compete in their hostility to Muslims.

I have no intention of engaging with Greensteins lies and misrepresentations on this thread any more than I did on the last thread. Life was too short then, and it still is now.

Wonder how many people will come to the demos against the Sri Lankan govt.

John P: As someone who is involved with Darfur, I echo Mia Farrow’s frustration in getting a lot of those who are concerned with human rights, etec to work against the genocide being waged against the African people of Darfur by the Sudanese govt and its militia allies.

The people who keep the occupation going are Hamas and the other terrorist organizations (including those who have worked on behalf of Fatah) – not the Israelis who, at this point, are just trying to protect innocent lives in Israel proper, which IS their primary responsibility, to the electorate. If you want to end the war, then stop propping up Hamas, stop giving them safe haven, make them the pariahs they deserve to be on the left as well as the right. These are people who’s first act in office was to beat to death women for public displays of affection – giving the “First day of freedom for Gaza” headlines an ironic twist.

I know what I’m in favor of, and it’s peace, not death to all the Jews.

theIrie etc, you are on the wrong side of history and morally depraved.

Many of the posts here in HP about Gaza have been a bit too strident, and some normally sensible commentators have been too easy with accusations of antisemitism and whatnot. But Brett’s posts were pitch-perfect, and very illuminating. It is all well and nice to be for a two state solution, but what is the pro-Palestinian *program*? There is no significant group or serious leadership articulating, advocating and fighting toward a Palestinian equivalent of the Freedom Charter. While none materialize (and there is something protesting westerners could usefully help come about), any help the Palestinians get will be only humanitarian, in the sense that it might alleviate suffering, but it won’t bring about an independent state.

Bruno – it is not for you or I to determine who should represent the Palestinian’s. Ok, so we don’t like the nature of Hamas. I personally don’t like the nature of Likud or the Bush administration, but that doesn’t mean I supported the overthrow of those governments by a foreign army. The root of the current conflict is in the reaction by Israel, the US and the international community to the result of the 2006 election (which I’ve seen described as the fairest election in the Arab world, ever). In fact, it goes further – a few years ago it wasn’t the Hamas charter that was the blockage to peace, it was the Fatah charter. The fact is, Israel doesn’t want a sovereign Palestinian state, and does everything possible to undermine this possibility, evident from the fact that whoever the Palestinian leadership is, is always going to be considered inappropriate from some reason. (It’s further evident from the events of 2008, where a ceasefire was proven to work, but completely undermined by Israel, in favour of war).

Enough. Israel must deal with the Palestinian’s as they are, not as you would like them to be. And the “pro-Palestinian program” is to allow the Palestinian’s to make their own decisions, leading to ecomonic development, and gradual normalisation of relations.

I found this on Wikipedia:

“There is research that supports that the overwhelming majority of Arab citizens of Israel would choose to remain Israeli citizens rather than become citizens of a future Palestinian state.”

And also this:

“While formally equal according to Israeli law, a number of official sources acknowledge that Arab citizens of Israel experience discrimination in many aspects of life, Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.)”

I would appreciate it very much if HP did some serious work on this crucial subject, otherwise it looks as though one is turning a blind eye to it.

“Bruno – it is not for you or I to determine who should represent the Palestinian’s.”

Yes, but to think that the quality of Palestinian leadership and what these cleaders claim to be representing, surely should determine to what extent whatever support offered is qualified.

Brett – no one is offering support to Hamas. What has happened is that Israel, the US and the EU have actively worked to undermine them from the moment they were democratically elected. Now, I’d be happy to take the position that since Hamas is a pretty nasty movement, or at least has nasty strains within it, we offer them no positive support. But at the same time, we must not actively undermine them. That is anti-democratic. And of course the elephant in the room is that Hamas was able to keep to a ceasefire, which Israel deliberately broke for the clear reason that it refuses to work with Hamas, and the peace offensive by Hamas was the most dangerous thing in Israel’s mind. Israel then openly attacked and killed, deliberately, civilian police officers, offering the excuse that they work for Hamas. The idea that the Israeli attack was to prevent rocket attacks, believed here, is a complete lie.

So, if you don’t want to support Hamas, fine. Do nothing. Allow them to fail under their own steam. But this isn’t Israel’s policy, as most sentient beings can clearly see.

TheIrie, well, my view is that Hamas are hell-bent on provoking a violent confrontation with Israel (and when they got it, the certainly weren’t in any hurry to stop it) and that a mjority of people of Gaza know that this was Hamas’s stategy when they voted for them, and furthermore few seemed to object to the Hamasmaus children’s TV that Hamas introduced, and so got the war that Hamas made inevitable.

Of course you disagee, and we’re not likely to agree on this.

My concern is that Hamas *is* supported on the left regardless of it being a “pretty nasty movement” (and more and more I fear *because* it is a “pretty nasty movement”).

The way I see it is this:

Imagine you have a friend whose boss is not very nice. She complains to you about the unfair treatment she’s getting and how this rotten boss harasses and undermines her at work. You agree that her treatment is unfair and probably unlawful.

She confides in you that as revenge, she’s planning to burn down her boss’s house and spray threatening grafditi outside his children’s school.

Do you say to her, okay, I agree you have a legitimate grievance, you take whatever action you think is appropriate in response? Or do you say, whooah! Hold on a minute, let’s rethink this!

As far as I can see, people aren’t prepared to say this to Hamas.

“my view is that Hamas are hell-bent on provoking a violent confrontation with Israel” – which is contradicted by the facts, but hey, others and I have been saying this for weeks now, and you still ignore it, so what’s the point.

And the idea that Palestinian militants consult the Western left before they launch rockets as ridiculous as the insinuation that the Western left support the rocket attacks. The rockets are immoral and politically stupid. And you have as much influence over those firing them as I do – i.e. none.

“which is contradicted by the facts” – no, that’s your interpretation of ‘facts’, moving one for this is unproductive territory…

“And the idea that Palestinian militants consult the Western left before they launch rockets as ridiculous as the insinuation that the Western left support the rocket attacks.”

I don’t suggest they contact the Western Left, but I do suggest that the Western Left signal that the rockets are “immoral and politically stupid” and attach conditions to their support, and that for tehir part, the Western Left attempt constructive engagement with Hamas to persuage them of the imorality and political stupidity of their tactics.

Furthermore, as I suggested earlier, the supporters in the West don’t even appear clear on what they’re supporting. The ANC, regardless of its faults, has a clear vision for what outcome they wanted and what their demands in persuit of this vision were.

What do we have from Hamas, or from any “Free Palestine” campaign? Nothing. Or at least nothing most would support if it were spelt out.

“Furthermore, as I suggested earlier, the supporters in the West don’t even appear clear on what they’re supporting.”

Utter codswallop. Its called the two-state solution, its been laid out in extreme detail, and there have been gestures to accept it by all sides. It would come about by negotiating the final status of borders, refugees and so on. Its complicated, but not impossible at all.

“Utter codswallop. Its called the two-state solution”

Oh really! This is what Hamas is fighting for? All the rocket attacks and suicide bombs have been in persuit of this goal?

did someone once argue that many of the Hamas leaders were “moderate”??

Hmm

Brett “Furthermore, as I suggested earlier, the supporters in the West don’t even appear clear on what they’re supporting”

TheIrie “Utter codswallop. Its called the two-state solution”

Brett “Oh really! This is what Hamas is fighting for?”

Do I need to point out that you are a silly boy, or do those sentences speak for themselves? We were talking about “supporters in the West”, not Hamas. However, even Hamas have said they could work for the two-state solution – they’ve gone further than Likud for example have ever gone in this respect.

Hamas do NOT believe in the Two States solution

anyone without bias and a modicum of rationality would see that by looking at their Charter and candid interviews with high ranking members, they want a Jew free Middle East, the rest is just timing and method for them (they will seek hudna when weak and need time to build up their military machine), but Hamas’s end-game is NOT peaceful coexistence with the Israelis

Well, I don’t know if they believe in it, but “high ranking members” have certainly accepted the principles. Here, for example is Khalid Mish’al in 2007. The money quote is here (but do read the whole thing):

“A historic new phase in the Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence has begun. Last week’s Mecca agreement between Hamas and Fatah will pave the way for the first ever truly Palestinian national unity government. [...] The Palestinian national accord achieved in Mecca envisages the establishment of a truly sovereign and independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967 – with Jerusalem as its capital, the dismantling of the settlements in the West Bank, the release of all Palestinian prisoners and the acknowledgement of the right of the refugees to return to their homes.”

Here is a report of Ismail Haniyeh saying the same thing.

So, you’re quite wrong, Modernity.

Irie, there is not much I can add to what Brett just said. I don’t presume to tell the Palestinians what to do (well, I do, actually, but don’t expect them to pay any attention to me). But let me point out that Hamas has a program, very clearly enunciated and reiterated by word and deed*, and it not a 2SS. In fact, Hamas gained notoriety by waging relentless war against a peace process that had a 2SS as an end goal, and managed to attract the support of every rejectionists group and faction in the Middle East as a result. While an alternative Palestinian program does not emerge, no amount of support, marches and outrage will lead to a negotiated Palestinian state. This is not a judgment on the justness of the cause, it is just a statement of fact.

As for whether ‘Israel’ wants a two state solution, I’m not sure if it makes more sense to talk about what Israel wants than to talk about what Palestine wants. But my support of a 2SS is not predicated on Israelis as one just waiting for the rockets to stop to gladly hand a state to the Palestinians. A proper ‘program’ with that goal in mind would seek to decrease the benefits Israel accrues for continuing the occupation, while at the same time increasing the prospective benefits of ending it. Unfortunately, what Hamas and its enablers and fellow travellers have done is the exact opposite.

___________________
* Compared to which a handful of interviews that kind of sound indirectly near concialiatory, with exactly zero deeds to match the rethoric, seems like small potatoes.

TheIrie,

you’ve been banging on about this for 2+ years, and in that time the ONE achievement that Hamas has accomplished is to improve the range of their rockets from 8 to 25 miles.

you might be naive enough to believe the utterances of selected Hamas leaders, fortunately, the rest of us are NOT :_)

in politics, you judge their actions, not their slightly conciliatory soundings

bruno said it all, you might do well to listen to him.

Bruno’s original piece:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2006/08/04/how-should-the-palestinians-have-fought/

” I don’t pretend this is an easy question. Any list is bound to be simplistic; certainly none of the things I suggest would be easy. But, considering that the accomplishments of the Palestinian national movement these past 60 years have been non-existent, if not negative, they were at least worth a try.

First, historically a Palestinian state could have been created if
a) The 1947 partition plan had been accepted, or even if the principle of partition had been accepted.
b) A Palestinian state could have been created at any time between 48 and 67.

This is history now, a history HP threads have dissected in nanoscopic details multiple times.

Under the present context of being under occupation, Palestinians, or their leaders, might try to:

1) Have a realistic, non genocidal goal. Wiping Israel off the map is neither. Establishing an independent state in the occupied territories is. Work exclusively towards the goal. Ignore revenge, getting even, paying back or pointless venting of anger. Focus on the goal.

2) Act together. Having multiple groups with fractal splintering, often fighting each other, dissipates energy, and makes negotiating with the nominal head of the movement kind of pointless. Having a democratic, or at least consultive, decision-making process helps in this regard.

3) Be credible. When you say you will do or refraing from doing something, follow through. See 1.

4) Act state-like even before you become a country. Begin building solid national institutions, competent and non-corrupt, from the begining. Strive to make such institutions a viable alternative to the occupation.

5) Stop terrorism.. Please don’t make me explain why.

6) Understand the occupiers. Not as a racist cartoon, but as a bunch of fallible human beings. Most of which have probably more profitable things to da than make your life miserable. Forge alliances with those without any vested interest in the occupation, to undercut its support in the home front.

7) Keep talking. Put forward tangible proposals, and create a national consensus behind them. Follow the letter of any agreement you do sign, and then demand the other side do the same. Acknowledge the other side also has legitimate core demands, and learn how to diferentiate them from tactical negotiating positions. In the whole process, the more trusted you are the more concessions you are likely to get.

8) Resist occupation. Collectively, unceasingly. And non-violently. Ignore provocation and distractions, and keep focused on the goal. One of the least noticed side effects of suicide bombings is that they excuse the non-suicidal majority from doing anything against occupation.

Really, if the Palestinian violence and genocidal rhetoric were to stop, the conflict would be quite straightforward for most people, including Israelis: A people under occupation whose land is slowly taken away. Statehood would still be a long walk, but at least the Palestinians would be moving in the right direction.”

still holds true today

Well, Bruno, as you say you do presume to tell the Palestinian’s what to do, and I frankly find this no more impressive than I would find Irish protestants tellings Catholics what they need to do to achieve peace, or Soviets lecturing American’s about how they ought to behave (or vice versa in both cases). Pointing out how your enemy should behave is not terribly difficult is it? It’s rather more difficult to comment on your own side – the side you actually have some degree of influence over.

Now, regarding Hamas, if you consider the period since they were democratically elected, they have wanted to negotiate with Israel, they have respected ceasefires far more seriously than Israel has, and senior members have talked about a two-state solution. This leaves Israel with a clear choice. Either they can call Hamas’ bluff – hold them to their statements and negotiate with them. See how it goes, and have the moral high ground. Alternatively, they can repeat the mantra they’ve repeated for 40 years, which you just repeated: in your words “While an alternative Palestinian program does not emerge” there cannot be a Palestinian state. Perhaps you can tell me when, since 1967, this hasn’t been Israeli policy? It used to be the Fatah charter that was the problem. Now its Hamas. Israel will always find a reason to snub the current Palestinian leadership. Currently this rejection in the form of a massive slaughter, with Israel having commited more attrocities in the last month than Hamas has in it’s entire history.

Irie, you are missing the point quite spectacularly. The Palestinians can do whatever they like. Some choices might lead to an independent state, others won’t. Throughout the past 100 years or so they’ve been cursed with abysmal leadership that has consistently made lousy strategic choices, as far as Palestinian self-interest is concerned. I’m not talking here about the morality of said choices; I’m simply stating the self-evident fact that they have not led to the fulfillment of the Palestinian strategic goal, the creation of the state of Palestine.

As for my side, or the side either of us have “some degree of influence over”, Hamas (or the IDF) to my knowledge is not attacking or threatening to attack Brazil, which has in any case zero influence in the ME. As for Britain, its influence with Israel is quite minimal. However, as part of the EU, it does have in theory some significant leverage over Hamas, as it is the prime contributor to the UNRWA budget, and is set to pay through the nose for Gaza’s reconstruction. I would say, in fact, that Hamas is aware of this fact, which partially explains why it is sounding more quasi-conciliatory now, after being so radicalized by the last war, than it had been in years.

Some of Hamas’ leaders have talked about a long term truce after they get the WB and Gaza, and after refugees return to a country which existence they rule-out ever recognizing, but can’t at the moment destroy. They’ve also talked, far more often, of victory over the Jews and of turning Gaza into a cemetery for the Zionists. The IDF decided to call their bluff on that instead. Go figure.

Hamas’ democratic credentials and supposed good faith have been discussed at length here in HP, and I won’t rehash the argument yet again. But I find ridiculous the notion that allowing a islamist statelet in Gaza, funded by someone else’s money, to flourish and arm itself, would be conductive to peace. After being allowed to do the same in the West Bank, Hamas kind of suggests it might promise, a long-term truce will come into being. Why won’t Israel call that bluff?

About atrocities, even if you descend to the inane level of doing body counting as a proxy for moral judgment, suicide bombing inside Israel still has probably killed more civilians than the Gaza war, but I guess the numbers ought to be close. One or two more iterations of this, however, and the situation will change. Which is why avoiding such wars ought to be paramount. I don’t think making concessions to Hamas and letting it rearm would have prevented this war, or will prevent the next. You would likely have rockets falling in Tel Aviv (and perhaps a more proportionate death toll), and a harsher Israeli response. Note, however, that there would not have been a war had the Israeli not left Gaza. This last point is important, because the Israeli government has oscillated between wanting to appropriate all land in the occupied territories and pretend to talk peace, and appropriating just a bit and wanting to talk peace. I don’t like this any more than you do, but note that after the Sinai, Israel has never lost anything significant by holding on to land, and has always attacked when relinquishing it.

“I frankly find this no more impressive than I would find Irish protestants tellings Catholics what they need to do to achieve peace,”

well, frankly the reason that you probably don’t tell others what to do, is that you don’t know it, and even if you did, couldn’t articulate a coherent argument

but again, your historical and political illiteracy shows, there are plenty of Catholics in Ireland that would tell the Nationalists in the Six Counties that blowing up shoppers in the street does NOT advance a united Ireland one jot

TheIrie, you write:

“Pointing out how your enemy should behave is not terribly difficult is it?”

again Irish Protestants are not the enemy of the Catholics, only in the head of the most sectarian killers (Red Hand Commando types), idiots and those completely unfamiliar with Ireland

if you ever pick up a book try read Sean O’Casey, the premier playwrite, who’s religion was Protestant or the famous Wolfe Tone, still yet Charles Parnell, and if you like poetry then Yeats will do, who could forget playboy of the western world by Synge, another “Protestant”, etc

so TheIrie, instead of mangling Irish history as you do other parts of the world, please pick up a book, read, think, discuss.

Throw away your binary view of the world and not least LEARN that the conflict in the Six Counties is not a religious one, thus religious labels should be avoided, tis a bit more complex than that.

as for the Hamas Charter, which clearly you haven’t even read, only a knave or an apologist for anti-Jewish racism could suggest that it isn’t a problem with a straight face, Hamas’s Charter is dripping with genocidal racism

and still you haven’t touch on Hamas’s “achievements” ? making better rockets? what an omission?

*and has always attacked when relinquishing it -> and was always attacked after relinquishing it.*

talk about perverse incentives…

Bruno – I agree, on a factual level, with your first paragraph, but still find it an odd point to focus on. If you can rise to the level of recognising that the power relationship between Israel and Palestine is that of occupier and occupied, then why focus all your comments on what the occupied should do? I mean, what you are saying is, here is a situation where one of the most sophisticated military powers in the world, backed up by the worlds superpower, is militarily occupying a collection of unarmed, poverty stricken, people, most of whom are children (median age in Gaza = 17), whilst rejecting any calls for dialogue, and ignoring rulings by the World Court, UNSC resolutions and even its own supreme court. And you want to talk about what the people with the boot on their neck are doing wrong? Fine. You points might even be correct. But they are not going to make a blind bit of difference to this situation in the real world.

“As for Britain, its influence with Israel is quite minimal.” Well, this is not true at all. Britain is one of Israel’s strongest allies, it has significant trade with Israel, and sells Israel weaponry.

“However, as part of the EU, it does have in theory some significant leverage over Hamas, as it is the prime contributor to the UNRWA budget, and is set to pay through the nose for Gaza’s reconstruction.” Again, wrong. The EU is boycotting Hamas in case you didn’t notice, and funding the UNRWA is not equal to funding Hamas.

Your body count point is also wrong – unless you can attribute every single suicide bombing and other attack to Hamas, which whilst it might suit your argument, is not true.

“But I find ridiculous the notion that allowing a islamist statelet in Gaza, funded by someone else’s money, to flourish and arm itself, would be conductive to peace.” You don’t have to allow them to arm themselves. You do have to allow them to develop a sovereign state. But I wonder whether you think killing 1300 people, hundreds of whom were children is conducive to peace? But now I’m being emotive, and we are supposed not to be emotive when having intellectual discussions about these things.

“I don’t like this any more than you do, but note that after the Sinai, Israel has never lost anything significant by holding on to land, and has always attacked when relinquishing it.” There is also a clear solution to this problem. Give Israel something to lose by holding onto Palestinian territory. The US could very easily do this – Israel is completely dependent on the US for it’s survival, at least in the manor it currently behaves. It would be very very easy for the US to force a settlement. Not that it will do that, of course.

Brett’s new response posits that the African National Congress worked better than other liberation movements in presenting their case before the international community. To begin with, they had a Freedom Charter that was a model of good intentions. Next, they had clear and logical objectives. Finally, they showed good communicational skills. Their case was “better packaged” than that of other peoples who also fought for their freedom. Such is, in a nutshell, Brett’s argument.

While publishing a response to it on HP would seem to be the logical step to follow, I also understand that it would further anger the blog’s “constituency,” which was already enraged by my being allowed to publish a post in the first place, and does not appear to enjoy dissent very much. I don’t expect HP’s editors to commit blogospherical suicide for the sake of balance. Therefore, I’m responding to Brett here on my blog.