Well, not really, but I thought it would be eye-catching. Anyway, here's an interesting piece about Hamas' latest manifesto.
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian
Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories.
The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.
24 comments:
Leopard... spots...
See the Hamas Charter. Do a text search for "jew":
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)
Jocularity and leopard-spot ratio discussion aside, while scepticism is not unfounded, this development is nonetheless to be welcomed (however cautiously). No?
Is the development to be welcomed? List the reasons why anyone would welcome it, and I'll tell you which ones I subscribe to.
I would suggest the same cautious welcome that is extended by some people to IRA announcements regarding putting weapons beyond use. It's right to be sceptical, but surely NOT calling for the destruction of Israel is better than actively doing so. It might be a sign of a more realpolitik approach. Entering into the political process makes eventual compromise more likely.
This is not to say 'Woo-hoo, everything is now sorted'. Simply, that Hamas talking about a Palestinian state along the lines of 1967 borders seems preferable to Hamas continuing to call for the destruction of Israel.
If your position is 'it's all a trick, you can't trust them', I would agree that one still has to watch them carefully.
1. It's the last two words of the headline that are the giveaway: "Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto".
2. You had a look at the Hamas Charter. Would *you* trust them? Religious nuts are notoriously averse to compromise. The IRA may have been Catholic, but inasmuch as that mattered they were politically/ethnically Catholic, not religiously Catholic.
No, I wouldn't. But I'd still see it as a positive development (while still wanting to keep a close eye on what happens.)
As you point out, Hamas is not ordinarily reticent in it's anti-jewish rhetoric. Maybe the manifesto is a pure PR exercise, but if so it's a drop in the ocean.
Anyway, welcomed or not, I thought the story was of interest. What happens next remains to be seen.
Posted on SL's behalf:
----------------
OK, well done to Hamas for dropping the call for the destruction of Israel. This works very well for those people who are totally illiterate.... Anyone who can actually read will see from their ridiculous charter that the whole point of Hamas is to get as many people as possible to answer the call of jihad so that the whole of Palestine (that includes Israel) returns to Muslim hands. Just about every point in the charter refers to the return of ALL of Palestine to Muslim hands, the duty of all people including women to answer the call of jihad to fight the occupiers and the reason why Jews (and their organisations such as the Lions, Rotary Club and yes, the Freemasons) are vile pigs and should be eradicated, yes from the land of Palestine.
Aside from that there is the typical flowery language we have come to expect from Arab leaders. They obviously believe that the way to win wars is to threaten and use special language as people will be so scared of the rhetoric that they will just run. Unfortunately for them, the Israeli soldiers actually rely on fighting to win wars... This may explain the huge numbers of shoes left behind by fleeing Arab soldiers in the Six day war, Yom Kippur war and both the Iraq wars. They are obviously singing, dancing and sprouting flowery language forth when the "non-believers" come to fight. This is kind of like bringing a knife to a gun fight...
Being cautious? Not really, if you read a single point of the charter you will see that dropping the call for the destruction of Israel is just good spin for functioning illiterates (as most of the Arabs must be). Has Alistair Campbell gone to work for Hamas?
SL - I take your point about the Charter and respect both your knowledge and passion.
However, I feel the phrase "functioning illiterates (as most of the Arabs must be)" cannot go unchallenged. To say that Hamas is not to be trusted is one thing. To say that their own Charter provides ample justification for that mistrust is not an unreasonable position. But, to casually say that most Arabs must be 'functioning illiterates' crosses a line - it is a sweeping generalisation that adds nothing to your argument other than a racial slur. Perhaps I have misread you and you merely intended to make a (non-judgmental) point about literacy in the Arab world. However, I feel if that were the case you would have expressed it differently and backed it up with some evidence.
Forgive me for speaking frankly. I know the subject is contentious and arouses strong feelings. Dispassionate language may not in itself provide a solution, but at least it makes debate and dialogue possible.
I know this blog exists within a very closed circle, but I would hope that someone with opposing views could read it and be persuaded by the force of reason and not be distracted by inflammatory language.
I apologise if I have misconstrued your comments. My remarks are offered with respect and affection.
Dan: you should try to make allowances, these are South Africans you're talking to - this actually *is* diplomatic language by their standards.
JSL: slag 'em off all you want as far as I'm concerned, just make sure you can back up the insults. Now I'm no expert on this, but I suspect your "illiterate" comment is off the mark:
http://www.sil.org/computing/catalog/support_files/LLL/errataforlingualinkslibrary40/BibliographyInTheSociolinguist.htm
The spread of religions that are tied to a holy book is especially important in the spread of literacy.
According to this letter from Israeli embassy press secretary Shuli Davidovich, Hamas spokesmam Sami Zuheiri has clarified the difference between the manifesto and the charter. "The election platform of the Hamas is meant to describe only what it seeks to achieve within the Palestinian parliament. The charter, on the other hand, establishes Hamas' strategic objectives including the eradication of Israel."
Ho Hum.
Case closed, then?
We're back to the interesting question of whether a democracy can ever allow the participation in elections of parties committed to the platform of "one man, one vote, once".
I think the short answer is no. In theory, there's no reason why people shouldn't have the right to vote to end elections. Problem is, without elections, what mechanism would you have to allow people to bring elections back again if they so desired.
Trickier still is when you're dealing with parties who profess to be democratic, but who you suspect are anything but.
And while we're on the subject, here's some illuminating testimony from hook-handed tabloid fave Abu Hamza: "[Democracy] gives freedoms to the silly people who do not know how to use freedoms and they end up destroying themselves, their family, their country, their morals, their even humanity."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1684970,00.html?gusrc=rss
A quick coda to the Hamas story. JP asked me if the spokesman quoted above had made his statement in English or Arabic. At the time I didn't know, but I think what lay behind JP's question was the possibility that Hamas was saying one thing in English and something else in Arabic. Some of the comments from SL & JP above, have I think, been based on the assumption that Hamas might be engaged in some kind of PR offensive. I also thought it might be worth looking for an independent source (in case anyone was worried that an Israeli embassy official was unlikely to be neutral on the subject.) Then I found something on the Muslim Brotherhood's english language site.
Far from trying to persuade people that they have changed their stance re: Isarel, Hamas are at pains to make clear that they have not:
Hamas Denies Reports of Dropping Call for the End of Israel
(Ikhwan web) - Cairo, Egypt
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Commenting on recent media reports that indicated a possible change in Hamas strategy to omit the destruction of Israel statement from its charter as poll nears, the leader of the Hamas movement Mr. Khaled Meshael denied any change in that regard. Mr. Mashael stated that the movement’s ideology is based on the armed resistance as a strategic option until fully liberating Palestinian soil from Israeli occupation, and the refusal to recognize the Zionist entity.
In other words, Hamas vigorously denies being 'soft' on the eradication of Israel.
I'll continue to keep an eye on this story if I can.
In theory, there's no reason why people shouldn't have the right to vote to end elections.
I disagree - but maybe we should start a separate political philosophy thread on this. But in brief, my reason is that democracy is not in itself a fundamental value, but a means to the realisation of those values - and I find it hard to believe that any system that permanently replaced democracy would continue with that realisation.
JP asked me if the spokesman quoted above had made his statement in English or Arabic. At the time I didn't know, but I think what lay behind JP's question was the possibility that Hamas was saying one thing in English and something else in Arabic.
I believe this is commonplace in the Arab world (Arafat in particular often being accused of it). Thank Allah for Memri.
As promised, here's an update on the Hamas story. It's a fairly realpolitik analysis of the upcoming elections.
Hamas swaps bullets for ballots in attempt to sweep away old guard
Islamist movement poised to be the second largest party and win Gaza outright
[...]
After the election, the Islamist movement is almost certain to be the second largest party in the Palestinian parliament, and to win outright in the Gaza strip. That presents a dilemma for Israel, and the US and Europe, which must decide how to deal with an organisation they call terrorist but that has evident electoral support.
But it also poses a problem for Hamas, which has to define its role within a system built around a negotiated peace deal with a country the Islamist movement refuses to recognise.
I may have been too quick to say that I didn't believe Hamas was engaged in a PR offensive...
[Read the links inside the post - particularly the first one to the Guardian. Look out for the 'Helpful Hints'.]
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3309
Don't deal with terrorists
by Daniel Pipes
25/1/06
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/24/hamas_hardens_campaign_rhetoric/
Hamas hardens campaign rhetoric
Boston Globe
Hamas sweeps to election victory
Broadly speaking this result looks like it will do one of two things.
It either:
a) demonstrates the flaw in democracy (the door is open to extremist* parties winning power)
or b) will demonstrate how democracy can bring said extremists into the politcal process and force them into the inevitable compromises that come with power.
* I use the term extremist as something of catch all. Some may feel it is too mild a word to describe Hamas, but I hope it will be allowed for the purposes of this discussion.
Personally, I think some good may come of this result. Hamas in power will no longer be able to offer themselves purely as the 'clean' alternative to Fatah, untainted by the compromises that come with government. The result also breaks the (corrupt) Fatah stranglehold on Palestinian politics. Yes, the result is a polarising one, but maybe it will lay bare the contradictions at the heart of the peace process. It puts the Islamist strand of the Palestinian movement squarely in the spotlight. Supporters of the Palestinian cause will have to confront the blood-thirsty rhetoric that we've seen in the Charter (see comments above). No use pretending that strand of thought simply doesn't exist. Hamas' links to Iran are obviously of grave concern in the current climate, but again, maybe it's better if everyone is on their guard, rather than following a course of 'out of sight, out of mind.' Writing this, I realise that my 'some good may come' sentiment is probably in the 'it's got to get worse before it gets better' tradition. Or to borrow from addiction therapy - the peace process needs to hit 'rock bottom' before real progress can be made. On reflection, this is not the cheeriest of outlooks, but I suppose I'm suggesting that a Fatah victory would have just delayed an inevitable confrontation with Hamas and Islamist ideology.
Anyway, here's an upbeat assessment from Jonathan Steele in the Guardian.
The Palestinians' democratic choice must be respected
The excuses given for refusing to deal with Hamas will not wash. This is a chance for Europe to have an independent role
Hamas's triumph in Wednesday's Palestinian elections is the best news from the Middle East for a long time. The poll was a more impressive display of democracy than any other in the region, outstripping last year's votes in Lebanon and Iraq both in turnout and the range of views that candidates represented.
Other reactions? Predictions?
The Hamas electoral victory - Democracy's bitter fruit
by Daniel Pipes
National Post
January 27, 2006
Why has a democratic prescription that's proven successful in Germany, Japan and other formerly bellicose nations not worked in the Middle East? It's not Islam or some cultural factor that accounts for this difference; rather, it is the fact that ideological enemies in the Middle East have not yet been defeated. Democratization took place in Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union after their populations had endured the totalitarian crucible. By 1945 and 1991, they recognized what disasters fascism and communism had brought them, and were primed to try a different path.
That's not the case in the Middle East, where a totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place. ... This pattern has several implications for Western governments:
* Slow down: Take heed that an impatience to move the Middle East to democracy is consistently backfiring by bringing our most deadly enemies to power.
* Settle in for the long run: However worthy the democratic goal, it will take decades to accomplish.
* Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives.
* Appreciate stability: Stability must not be an end in itself, but its absence likely leads to anarchy and radicalization.
Returning to the dilemma posed by the Hamas victory, Western capitals need to show Palestinians that – like Germans electing Hitler in 1933 – they have made a decision gravely unacceptable to civilized opinion. The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority must be isolated and rejected at every turn, thereby encouraging Palestinians to see the error of their ways.
1. Yup, Zakaria's book is a must
2. Not quite sure what to do with Wembley agreeing with me all of a sudden, am somewhat nonplussed. ;-)
3. Pipe's latest contribution to the topic:
Why Hamas [Electoral Victory] Leaves Me Neutral
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
January 31, 2006
Hamas Calls For 'Giant Summit' With All Israelis
The Onion
February 15, 2006
RAMALLAH, WEST BANK—After his militant Islamic party took the majority in Palestine's recent elections, Ismail Haniyeh called for a "giant summit with all living Israelis" Monday, rekindling international hopes for peace in the war-torn region.
Haniyeh characterized the one-day summit as "the final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute," and invited every Jewish citizen of the world to attend. Haniyeh said he expects more than 5 million participants from Israel alone. "It was foolish of us to think that a satisfactory resolution could be reached through small-scale aggression," Haniyeh said. "It will take more than the sporadic deaths of small groups of Israeli civilians to achieve our ends." "This summit is long overdue," he added.
Haniyeh, who once said that Palestinian independence could only be achieved through the destruction of Israel, has apparently reversed his stance. "It is clear to us now that a positive outcome will not be possible unless many, many sacrifices are made," Haniyeh said. "I give my word that the Israeli people shall have their cries for peace heard for miles around."
A MEMO TO PALESTINE'S P.M.
[Free to read, may require you to register]
PA Confidential
by Efraim Halevy
The author served for four and a half years as the head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. As a thought experiment, he placed himself inside the mind of a Palestinian spymaster to provide a cold assessment of the challenges faced by the new Hamas-led government.
Post a Comment