By Jackson Diehl
The Washington Post
September 21, 2009
When it was launched last December, Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip looked to most people in Washington to be risky, counterproductive and doomed to futility. Not only pundits like me but senior officials of the Bush administration predicted that the Israeli army would not succeed either in toppling Gaza's Hamas government or in eliminating its capacity to launch missiles at Israeli cities. Instead it would subject the Jewish state to another tidal wave of international opprobrium and risk its relations with West Bank Palestinians and Egypt.
Mostly, we were right. But today, Operation Cast Lead, as the three-week operation is known in Israel, is generally regarded by the country's military and political elite as a success. The reasons for that are worth examining now that a new and even more hawkish Israeli government is weighing whether to flout Washington's prevailing opposition to a military attack on Iran.
Israel's satisfaction starts with a simple set of facts. Between April 2001 and the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar shells were fired into Israel from Gaza, killing 14 Israelis, wounding more than 400 and making life in southern Israel intolerable. During what was supposed to be a cease-fire during the last half of 2008, 362 rockets and shells landed. Meanwhile, between late 2000 and the end of 2008, Israeli forces killed some 3,000 Gazans.
Since April there have been just over two dozen rocket and mortar strikes — or less than on many single days before the war. No one has been seriously injured, and life in the Israeli town of Sderot and the area around it has returned almost to normal. Israeli attacks in Gaza have almost ceased, too: Since the end of the mini-war, 29 Palestinians, two of whom were civilians, have been killed by Israeli action.
Hamas, of course, remains in power and unmoved in its refusal to recognize Israel. It is still holding an Israeli soldier who was abducted in 2006. It is still smuggling material for weapons through tunnels under the Egyptian border and, if it chose to, could resume rocket attacks on Israel at any time.
The point, however, is that Israel has bought itself a stretch of relative peace with Hamas, just as its costly 2006 invasion of Lebanon has produced three years of quiet on that front. From the Israeli perspective, a respite from conflict is the most that can be expected from either group — or from their mutual sponsor, Iran.
"They will never change their ideology of destroying Israel," a senior government official told me last week. "But you can deter them if they are convinced you are not afraid of fighting a war."
But what of the grievous Palestinian suffering in the invasion — Israel itself counted 1,166 dead Gazans, including more than 450 civilians — and the international backlash that has caused? Just last week a U.N. commission headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone condemned what it called "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population," and suggested that responsible Israelis be hauled before the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges.
Israel's leaders worried a lot about losing the war that way. But as they see it, they suffered only scratches. Egypt, which quietly collaborates with Israel's blockade of Gaza, came under pressure to change its policy but held firm. No Arab country toughened its stance toward Israel: According to the Obama administration, as many as five may be willing to offer diplomatic and economic concessions if Israel freezes its West Bank settlement construction.
Perhaps most significant, Hamas's rival for Palestinian leadership, the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, is considerably stronger than it was before the war. Probably it will renew peace talks with Israel within weeks. As for the Goldstone report, the heat it briefly produced last week will quickly dissipate; the panel was discredited from the outset because of its appointment by the grotesquely politicized U.N. Human Rights Council.
The Gaza invasion was the second military operation Israel embarked on in less than 18 months despite disapproval from Washington. The other was its bombing of a nuclear reactor under construction in Syria in September 2007. Then, too, officials in Washington feared a dire diplomatic backlash or even a war between Israel and Syria. Nothing happened.
As they quietly debate the pros and cons of launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel's political and military leaders no doubt will be thinking about that history. That doesn't mean they will discount American objections — Iran would be a far harder and more complex target, with direct repercussions for U.S. troops and critical interests in the region. But, as with Gaza, even a partial and short-term reversal of the Iranian nuclear program may look to Israelis like a reasonable benefit — and the potential blowback overblown.
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Eliminating that rallying cry
By Sherri Muzher
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 31, 2009
All Islamic groups are allied with Al-Qaeda, right?
That has certainly been the wisdom accepted by so many in the post-9/11 years.
And though I am an American-Palestinian Christian, it is assumed that I am Muslim and therefore a Hamas supporter. This was made clear to me by a Detroit-area talk show host earlier this year when he chastised me for not knowing the names of the Hamas leadership. The producer later told me that it “was just hard to believe you didn’t know the names.”
I resented the implication but my guess was that they were not the only people to make this assumption. So I’d like to answer by default... no, not all Islamic groups share al Al-Qaeda’s vision or tactics.
When Hamas ruthlessly shut down an Al-Qaeda-inspired faction in Gaza recently, you can bet that most Palestinians were content with this result. Even when Hamas was elected in 2006, they won because the people wanted to punish the ruling Fatah for their corruption, not because they embraced a Taleban-like atmosphere.
I’m not saying there aren’t pangs of religious zealousness by Hamas. There are and it alarms the secular majority. The silver lining is that Hamas keeps tabs on the people’s pulse and has reversed itself, on occasion. An example of this was when Hamas tried to ban a Palestinian book of folktales, “Speak Bird, Speak Again” in 2007 for “sexual expression.” Palestinians were outraged and the ban was reversed after “re-examining” the book. And now there is the recent “urging” to Muslim women to wear head scarves. This has now been greeted with concern. It is safe to say that Al-Qaeda would disregard public opinion.
So why are there Al-Qaeda-inspired players now in Gaza?
The phrase, “oppression breeds extremism” is not psychobabble. It’s the reality. As the vice keeps tightening on Gaza and as the alienation from the rest of the world increases, so does the desperation and turning toward religious extremists. This happens everywhere; Gaza is no exception.
Supporters of Israel who have been gleeful at the Palestinian internal chaos ought to consider two points.
One, Hamas’ earliest support came from Israel in an effort to counter the secular and nationalist PLO. According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, “the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism.”
“The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it,” he said.
Second, mischief does not lead to good things and with Al-Qaeda growing in influence in Gaza, Israel needs to do some serious soul-searching. Using humanitarian goods against 1.5 million Gazans as a weapon, be it food or fuel, is unconscionable and illegal. If “security” is the name of the game, how does it help having Al-Qaeda next door in Gaza?
And what can we do as the superpower of the world?
Well, it would help if we leave the two powerful Palestinian factions (Fatah and Hamas) alone to work out a national unity government, which the Palestinian public and diaspora have demanded. The factions actually agree on the principle of forming a state side by side with Israel on the 1967 Green Line.
Yet, unity has remained elusive. There is a bizarre notion that marginalizing Hamas and discouraging Palestinian unity somehow works in our interests or those of the regions.
It obviously doesn’t.
Finally, I’d like to end on a hopeful note. People understandably tire of the Mideast conflict. Nobody can “ditto” that more than family and friends. But with the increased “oomph” to solving the Palestine vs. Israel conflict, we are also one step closer to removing the biggest rallying cry for Al-Qaeda-like extremist groups. These groups often use the Palestinian cause to increase their memberships and then threaten the world.
Think about it.
What better way to serve US and world interests than by eliminating that rallying cry?
Sherri Muzher, JD is director of Michigan Media Watch, Michigan, US.
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 31, 2009
All Islamic groups are allied with Al-Qaeda, right?
That has certainly been the wisdom accepted by so many in the post-9/11 years.
And though I am an American-Palestinian Christian, it is assumed that I am Muslim and therefore a Hamas supporter. This was made clear to me by a Detroit-area talk show host earlier this year when he chastised me for not knowing the names of the Hamas leadership. The producer later told me that it “was just hard to believe you didn’t know the names.”
I resented the implication but my guess was that they were not the only people to make this assumption. So I’d like to answer by default... no, not all Islamic groups share al Al-Qaeda’s vision or tactics.
When Hamas ruthlessly shut down an Al-Qaeda-inspired faction in Gaza recently, you can bet that most Palestinians were content with this result. Even when Hamas was elected in 2006, they won because the people wanted to punish the ruling Fatah for their corruption, not because they embraced a Taleban-like atmosphere.
I’m not saying there aren’t pangs of religious zealousness by Hamas. There are and it alarms the secular majority. The silver lining is that Hamas keeps tabs on the people’s pulse and has reversed itself, on occasion. An example of this was when Hamas tried to ban a Palestinian book of folktales, “Speak Bird, Speak Again” in 2007 for “sexual expression.” Palestinians were outraged and the ban was reversed after “re-examining” the book. And now there is the recent “urging” to Muslim women to wear head scarves. This has now been greeted with concern. It is safe to say that Al-Qaeda would disregard public opinion.
So why are there Al-Qaeda-inspired players now in Gaza?
The phrase, “oppression breeds extremism” is not psychobabble. It’s the reality. As the vice keeps tightening on Gaza and as the alienation from the rest of the world increases, so does the desperation and turning toward religious extremists. This happens everywhere; Gaza is no exception.
Supporters of Israel who have been gleeful at the Palestinian internal chaos ought to consider two points.
One, Hamas’ earliest support came from Israel in an effort to counter the secular and nationalist PLO. According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, “the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism.”
“The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it,” he said.
Second, mischief does not lead to good things and with Al-Qaeda growing in influence in Gaza, Israel needs to do some serious soul-searching. Using humanitarian goods against 1.5 million Gazans as a weapon, be it food or fuel, is unconscionable and illegal. If “security” is the name of the game, how does it help having Al-Qaeda next door in Gaza?
And what can we do as the superpower of the world?
Well, it would help if we leave the two powerful Palestinian factions (Fatah and Hamas) alone to work out a national unity government, which the Palestinian public and diaspora have demanded. The factions actually agree on the principle of forming a state side by side with Israel on the 1967 Green Line.
Yet, unity has remained elusive. There is a bizarre notion that marginalizing Hamas and discouraging Palestinian unity somehow works in our interests or those of the regions.
It obviously doesn’t.
Finally, I’d like to end on a hopeful note. People understandably tire of the Mideast conflict. Nobody can “ditto” that more than family and friends. But with the increased “oomph” to solving the Palestine vs. Israel conflict, we are also one step closer to removing the biggest rallying cry for Al-Qaeda-like extremist groups. These groups often use the Palestinian cause to increase their memberships and then threaten the world.
Think about it.
What better way to serve US and world interests than by eliminating that rallying cry?
Sherri Muzher, JD is director of Michigan Media Watch, Michigan, US.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Gazan Jilbab
By Diana Mukkaled
Asharq Alawsat (London)
August 28, 2009
The Hamas movement was enraged by the media and the Agence France Press [AFP] in particular, which published a report that was circulated concerning Hamas’ decision to impose the Hijab and Jilbab [traditional, long, loose-fitting robe] on female students in schools in the Gaza Strip. The report also spoke of the decision that only female staff would be allowed to work in girls’ schools.
The Hamas-affiliated Interior Ministry issued a lengthy statement that condemned the AFP report, describing it as “superficial and lacking the required media transparency and objectivity, as well as being selective.”
The lengthy statement did not refute or deny any of the basic information revealed in the AFP report by school principals, teachers, and female students, nor did Hamas deny that female students would be required to wear the Hijab and Jilbab, and would be subjected to punishment should they fail to comply with this. A number of statements and decisions were made following Hamas’ decision and these were verbally conveyed to school principals.
There is no doubt that the statement of clarification issued by Hamas in response to the media report and the disapproval of the decision it had already taken led to a fundamental dilemma within the movement. This is accompanied by its recent experiences and the numerous, serious mistakes that Hamas has made over the past few years.
Hamas failed to justify this step and was cautious about adopting it; it was happy just to hide behind repeating the same old phrases such as “the Palestinian nation is a conservative and a Muslim one” and that “wearing the Hijab for female students is a personal decision that stems from the family and is not imposed by force.” Therefore, the tolerance that Hamas claimed to have when it seized power in Gaza by force has disappeared on more than one occasion and the issue of Hijab in school will not be the last time this will happen.
This recent restriction that Hamas is imposing on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip that further aggravates the crises is a new step taken by Hamas in an area where nothing has been achieved except more sanctions and continuous suffering for the Palestinians. Once again, Hamas is defending itself by casting accusations against the media and demanding that it focus on the Israeli sanctions and the sufferings caused by the occupation forces (which of course does deserve media coverage and attention), and asks the media to turn a blind eye to its own fatal errors and failures. This is the foundation of the Hamas experience in power. It is not enough that Hamas gives in to the media that is sympathetic towards it, i.e., those who are either refrained from talking about this particular issue or others who side with the movement to the extent that many have warned against such bias.
Once again, the media is the target of ill will, coercion and dismissal. How can it not be when it is held responsible for revealing such intentions and orientations? But on the other hand, how could Hamas believe that a decision such as imposing the Hijab on students would pass unnoticed and uncovered by the media? The Hamas authority is not meant to be ashamed of its decisions but it seems that we are facing an authority that is equivocal in its intentions and one that demands the media to conspire along with it.
Hamas is not supposed to be ashamed of such a decision, especially as it is supposedly in harmony with its constitution and its own doctrine. Its attempt at equivocation is evidence that its doctrine is flawed and Hamas cannot declare this publicly. The media can host such discussions without necessarily having to accept them.
Diana Mukkaled is a prominent and well respected TV journalist in the Arab world, thanks to her phenomenal show "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" (By The Naked Eye), a series of documentaries around controversial areas and topics which airs on Lebanon's leading local and satellite channel "Future Television."
Asharq Alawsat (London)
August 28, 2009
The Hamas movement was enraged by the media and the Agence France Press [AFP] in particular, which published a report that was circulated concerning Hamas’ decision to impose the Hijab and Jilbab [traditional, long, loose-fitting robe] on female students in schools in the Gaza Strip. The report also spoke of the decision that only female staff would be allowed to work in girls’ schools.
The Hamas-affiliated Interior Ministry issued a lengthy statement that condemned the AFP report, describing it as “superficial and lacking the required media transparency and objectivity, as well as being selective.”
The lengthy statement did not refute or deny any of the basic information revealed in the AFP report by school principals, teachers, and female students, nor did Hamas deny that female students would be required to wear the Hijab and Jilbab, and would be subjected to punishment should they fail to comply with this. A number of statements and decisions were made following Hamas’ decision and these were verbally conveyed to school principals.
There is no doubt that the statement of clarification issued by Hamas in response to the media report and the disapproval of the decision it had already taken led to a fundamental dilemma within the movement. This is accompanied by its recent experiences and the numerous, serious mistakes that Hamas has made over the past few years.
Hamas failed to justify this step and was cautious about adopting it; it was happy just to hide behind repeating the same old phrases such as “the Palestinian nation is a conservative and a Muslim one” and that “wearing the Hijab for female students is a personal decision that stems from the family and is not imposed by force.” Therefore, the tolerance that Hamas claimed to have when it seized power in Gaza by force has disappeared on more than one occasion and the issue of Hijab in school will not be the last time this will happen.
This recent restriction that Hamas is imposing on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip that further aggravates the crises is a new step taken by Hamas in an area where nothing has been achieved except more sanctions and continuous suffering for the Palestinians. Once again, Hamas is defending itself by casting accusations against the media and demanding that it focus on the Israeli sanctions and the sufferings caused by the occupation forces (which of course does deserve media coverage and attention), and asks the media to turn a blind eye to its own fatal errors and failures. This is the foundation of the Hamas experience in power. It is not enough that Hamas gives in to the media that is sympathetic towards it, i.e., those who are either refrained from talking about this particular issue or others who side with the movement to the extent that many have warned against such bias.
Once again, the media is the target of ill will, coercion and dismissal. How can it not be when it is held responsible for revealing such intentions and orientations? But on the other hand, how could Hamas believe that a decision such as imposing the Hijab on students would pass unnoticed and uncovered by the media? The Hamas authority is not meant to be ashamed of its decisions but it seems that we are facing an authority that is equivocal in its intentions and one that demands the media to conspire along with it.
Hamas is not supposed to be ashamed of such a decision, especially as it is supposedly in harmony with its constitution and its own doctrine. Its attempt at equivocation is evidence that its doctrine is flawed and Hamas cannot declare this publicly. The media can host such discussions without necessarily having to accept them.
Diana Mukkaled is a prominent and well respected TV journalist in the Arab world, thanks to her phenomenal show "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" (By The Naked Eye), a series of documentaries around controversial areas and topics which airs on Lebanon's leading local and satellite channel "Future Television."
The Islamic Republic of Gaza (and my comments)
How can the project to liberate Palestine be saved from collapse, asks Galal Nassar
Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt)
27 August - 2 September 2009
The culture of exclusion and narrow mindedness, of the claim to a monopoly on the absolute truth, branding those who beg to differ as traitors and heretics, breeds fanatics, militias, sectarian violence and groups that clamour to proclaim entities like an "Islamic Republic of Gaza" over which they have an exclusive right to rule. Such a mode of behaviour proliferates like a particularly virulent weed in times of political decay and military defeat, especially in areas gripped by poverty, unemployment, weakness and frustration, as is the case in Gaza.
The situation in Gaza is further aggravated by an economic stranglehold as well as by an authority that fosters, protects and uses such movements to terrorise the people, intimidate opponents and purge political adversaries. Not infrequently, outside powers and forces have fostered such trends and groups, only to discover that the magic formula they used against others has turned against them. The most notorious example of this phenomenon is the Taliban, bred and fed by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Then they were termed freedom fighters, later becoming the "terrorist" scourge that provided the grounds for the US invasion. Al-Qaeda took root in a similar manner and for the same purpose. The horrors it subsequently perpetrated provided the US and other Western powers with an excuse to brand the Palestinian liberation struggle and other national resistance movements as terrorism and thus negate the universally sanctioned right to resist occupation and oppression. Yet a further example of the cynical use of terrorism unfolded in Lebanon following crimes committed by the Fatah Islam militia. The militia members took flight and hid out in the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp, giving Lebanese authorities the excuse to invade the camp, destroy it and drive out its inhabitants. These people, whose camp has yet to be reconstructed, are yet another tragic example of how civilians pay the price for organised violence.
The militant Islamist group Jund Ansar Allah emerged in Gaza against the backdrop of both Israel's stranglehold on the Strip and under a brutish ruling authority. After having opted for military force as the means to settle Palestinian differences and seize control of Gaza, Hamas evidently succumbed to the lustre and allure of power. Its subsequent actions, from suppressing other Islamist and political forces on the pretext that their independent political activities or expressions of resistance conflict with the interests of the Palestinian people, their violations of civil rights and individual freedoms, and their oppressive laws and regulations, proclaim their determination to impose their own beliefs on others. Nothing speaks louder of this intent than their edicts compelling women lawyers to cover their heads, making the galabiya the school uniform for girls, and decreeing similar dress codes for female mannequins. More insidious are the interventions in people's private affairs by the morals police. Hamas has an endless store of excuses for its random arrests. It has rounded up and incarcerated most Fatah members in Gaza, just as the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has rounded up Hamas members in the West Bank. Both groups seem bent on undermining the Palestinian national project, pursuing factional interests that have nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the Palestinian people and that only serve the American and Israeli regional projects.
Hamas wants to turn Gaza into an Islamic emirate. Towards this end it has issued a series of laws and edicts that accomplish two general aims: they force its vision and beliefs on others, and in so doing ensure that Hamas has a monopoly on truth and on what is in the best interests of the Palestinian people. Ironically, last week Hamas turned its wrath on Jund Ansar Allah, a group with its hearts set on the same goal. Justifying its assault against the rival Islamist militia, Hamas maintained that its members once belonged to the former, Fatah-controlled security agency in Gaza. The pretext is particularly curious given that some Jund Ansar Allah members were closely connected to Hamas and, indeed, carried out many acts of murder and destruction on behalf of, or at least with the cognizance of, Hamas's security agencies.
Force is no way to handle internal relations. It breeds greater extremism and spurs fragmentation. Hamas, with its ideological absolutism and political exclusionism, with the witch hunts and repressive tactics it has used to establish its monopoly on authority, has already served as the catalyst for the proliferation of ever more virulent clones. These can serve only one purpose — to hand the Palestinians' enemies the gift of being able to brand their struggle as "terrorist" and to hand Israel an excuse for perpetuating its occupation, the blockade and other injustices.
Suppressing civil liberties and individual freedoms and disseminating a culture of suspicion, combining this with inquisitorial methods, is a recipe for disaster. The only way out of the current impasse is to guarantee civil liberties and individual rights and institutionalise political plurality. If Hamas wants to market itself abroad as a centrist movement and establish non-extremist credentials the last thing it should be doing is engage in shootouts and pitched battles, precipitating a downward slide into security breakdown. The effect of all this is to perpetuate and aggravate divisions and set people at each other's throats over control of a governing authority that exercises no real power.
It is hard to contemplate what will happen should the Palestinian situation continue in its current, repugnant direction. As if the Palestinians have not suffered enough already from political rifts and infighting, now they face a one-upmanship in fanaticism that will spawn a plethora of preachers and sermonisers, self-proclaimed caliphs and emirs, transforming Palestine into a hotbed of bigotry and religious quackery that violates the most essential tenets of Islam. Nothing could be of greater help to the agendas of forces antagonistic to Palestinian and Arab national causes, especially in this era of mounting hostility towards Islam and Muslim peoples. How could terrorism cloaked as jihad or national liberation conceivably promote a cause for which someone is willing to blow himself up at a wedding, a funeral, a house of worship, or a restaurant, taking dozens of innocent lives along with him? What possible moral points are scored by indiscriminate and senseless killing? Such mindless, gratuitous violence undermines the legitimacy of national struggle and makes a mockery of the right to resist occupation.
If Hamas is to avert the alarming prospects described above it must undertake a comprehensive revision of its practices and policies with regard to the Palestinian national cause and social affairs. The Palestinians still live under occupation. What should be foremost in everyone's mind is to do what it takes to end division, mend rifts and unify behind a common strategy in order to safeguard the project of national liberation from collapse.
Mark says:
It should have been obvious that when suicide bombings started becoming a popular form of resistance in the Arab and Muslim worlds against Western targets in the 1980s that at some point it would be turned inward against Arab and Muslim targets. The justification by those who used suicide bombers against non-Arabs and non-Muslims, and especially against Israelis and Jews, inevitably became the same justification used against fellow Arabs and Muslims: they followed or supported or imposed policies or ideologies or religious beliefs that were "heretical" or "blasphemous" and "went against God and his prophet."
Likewise, when politics is fought out in the realm of religion, your opponents become not merely opponents or people with whom you differ, but heretics and blasphemers and unbelievers and rebels against God who must be killed and destroyed lest God punish you for "allowing" them to corrupt the world. Your opponents who call themselves Muslims are even more dangerous than the United States and Israel who, by the way, use these heretics and unbelievers through unnumbered dark and tangled conspiracies to undermine the "true faith," because they might lead the unknowing and naive into similar heresies and blasphemies.
And thus it has come to pass.
And thus hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims (the two are not synonymous) have been killed by fellow Arabs and Muslims over the past 25 years. The efforts of the United States and Israel to kill Arabs and Muslims seem pitiful and amateurish by comparison although, of course, the conspiracy mongers will claim that the inter-Arab and inter-Muslim violence and murder is all the result of Western and Zionist conspiracies.
So, Galal Nassar should have seen it coming long before. Instead, only now does he ask:
And wait — Galal Nassar will soon be denounced by those who are "pure of heart" for they know what is right and true. They will declaim that Galal Nassar has strayed from the true path — or they will declaim that Galal Nassar's past support of national liberation movements and resistance to Western imperialism and colonialism and Zionism was just a cover and that he was really an agent of Western imperialism and colonialism and Zionism. Or they will declaim that he was both — he strayed and he was a foreign agent.
In any case, he is clearly guilty of "thought crimes." And the penalty is...?
Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt)
27 August - 2 September 2009
The culture of exclusion and narrow mindedness, of the claim to a monopoly on the absolute truth, branding those who beg to differ as traitors and heretics, breeds fanatics, militias, sectarian violence and groups that clamour to proclaim entities like an "Islamic Republic of Gaza" over which they have an exclusive right to rule. Such a mode of behaviour proliferates like a particularly virulent weed in times of political decay and military defeat, especially in areas gripped by poverty, unemployment, weakness and frustration, as is the case in Gaza.
The situation in Gaza is further aggravated by an economic stranglehold as well as by an authority that fosters, protects and uses such movements to terrorise the people, intimidate opponents and purge political adversaries. Not infrequently, outside powers and forces have fostered such trends and groups, only to discover that the magic formula they used against others has turned against them. The most notorious example of this phenomenon is the Taliban, bred and fed by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Then they were termed freedom fighters, later becoming the "terrorist" scourge that provided the grounds for the US invasion. Al-Qaeda took root in a similar manner and for the same purpose. The horrors it subsequently perpetrated provided the US and other Western powers with an excuse to brand the Palestinian liberation struggle and other national resistance movements as terrorism and thus negate the universally sanctioned right to resist occupation and oppression. Yet a further example of the cynical use of terrorism unfolded in Lebanon following crimes committed by the Fatah Islam militia. The militia members took flight and hid out in the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp, giving Lebanese authorities the excuse to invade the camp, destroy it and drive out its inhabitants. These people, whose camp has yet to be reconstructed, are yet another tragic example of how civilians pay the price for organised violence.
The militant Islamist group Jund Ansar Allah emerged in Gaza against the backdrop of both Israel's stranglehold on the Strip and under a brutish ruling authority. After having opted for military force as the means to settle Palestinian differences and seize control of Gaza, Hamas evidently succumbed to the lustre and allure of power. Its subsequent actions, from suppressing other Islamist and political forces on the pretext that their independent political activities or expressions of resistance conflict with the interests of the Palestinian people, their violations of civil rights and individual freedoms, and their oppressive laws and regulations, proclaim their determination to impose their own beliefs on others. Nothing speaks louder of this intent than their edicts compelling women lawyers to cover their heads, making the galabiya the school uniform for girls, and decreeing similar dress codes for female mannequins. More insidious are the interventions in people's private affairs by the morals police. Hamas has an endless store of excuses for its random arrests. It has rounded up and incarcerated most Fatah members in Gaza, just as the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has rounded up Hamas members in the West Bank. Both groups seem bent on undermining the Palestinian national project, pursuing factional interests that have nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the Palestinian people and that only serve the American and Israeli regional projects.
Hamas wants to turn Gaza into an Islamic emirate. Towards this end it has issued a series of laws and edicts that accomplish two general aims: they force its vision and beliefs on others, and in so doing ensure that Hamas has a monopoly on truth and on what is in the best interests of the Palestinian people. Ironically, last week Hamas turned its wrath on Jund Ansar Allah, a group with its hearts set on the same goal. Justifying its assault against the rival Islamist militia, Hamas maintained that its members once belonged to the former, Fatah-controlled security agency in Gaza. The pretext is particularly curious given that some Jund Ansar Allah members were closely connected to Hamas and, indeed, carried out many acts of murder and destruction on behalf of, or at least with the cognizance of, Hamas's security agencies.
Force is no way to handle internal relations. It breeds greater extremism and spurs fragmentation. Hamas, with its ideological absolutism and political exclusionism, with the witch hunts and repressive tactics it has used to establish its monopoly on authority, has already served as the catalyst for the proliferation of ever more virulent clones. These can serve only one purpose — to hand the Palestinians' enemies the gift of being able to brand their struggle as "terrorist" and to hand Israel an excuse for perpetuating its occupation, the blockade and other injustices.
Suppressing civil liberties and individual freedoms and disseminating a culture of suspicion, combining this with inquisitorial methods, is a recipe for disaster. The only way out of the current impasse is to guarantee civil liberties and individual rights and institutionalise political plurality. If Hamas wants to market itself abroad as a centrist movement and establish non-extremist credentials the last thing it should be doing is engage in shootouts and pitched battles, precipitating a downward slide into security breakdown. The effect of all this is to perpetuate and aggravate divisions and set people at each other's throats over control of a governing authority that exercises no real power.
It is hard to contemplate what will happen should the Palestinian situation continue in its current, repugnant direction. As if the Palestinians have not suffered enough already from political rifts and infighting, now they face a one-upmanship in fanaticism that will spawn a plethora of preachers and sermonisers, self-proclaimed caliphs and emirs, transforming Palestine into a hotbed of bigotry and religious quackery that violates the most essential tenets of Islam. Nothing could be of greater help to the agendas of forces antagonistic to Palestinian and Arab national causes, especially in this era of mounting hostility towards Islam and Muslim peoples. How could terrorism cloaked as jihad or national liberation conceivably promote a cause for which someone is willing to blow himself up at a wedding, a funeral, a house of worship, or a restaurant, taking dozens of innocent lives along with him? What possible moral points are scored by indiscriminate and senseless killing? Such mindless, gratuitous violence undermines the legitimacy of national struggle and makes a mockery of the right to resist occupation.
If Hamas is to avert the alarming prospects described above it must undertake a comprehensive revision of its practices and policies with regard to the Palestinian national cause and social affairs. The Palestinians still live under occupation. What should be foremost in everyone's mind is to do what it takes to end division, mend rifts and unify behind a common strategy in order to safeguard the project of national liberation from collapse.
Mark says:
It should have been obvious that when suicide bombings started becoming a popular form of resistance in the Arab and Muslim worlds against Western targets in the 1980s that at some point it would be turned inward against Arab and Muslim targets. The justification by those who used suicide bombers against non-Arabs and non-Muslims, and especially against Israelis and Jews, inevitably became the same justification used against fellow Arabs and Muslims: they followed or supported or imposed policies or ideologies or religious beliefs that were "heretical" or "blasphemous" and "went against God and his prophet."
Likewise, when politics is fought out in the realm of religion, your opponents become not merely opponents or people with whom you differ, but heretics and blasphemers and unbelievers and rebels against God who must be killed and destroyed lest God punish you for "allowing" them to corrupt the world. Your opponents who call themselves Muslims are even more dangerous than the United States and Israel who, by the way, use these heretics and unbelievers through unnumbered dark and tangled conspiracies to undermine the "true faith," because they might lead the unknowing and naive into similar heresies and blasphemies.
And thus it has come to pass.
And thus hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims (the two are not synonymous) have been killed by fellow Arabs and Muslims over the past 25 years. The efforts of the United States and Israel to kill Arabs and Muslims seem pitiful and amateurish by comparison although, of course, the conspiracy mongers will claim that the inter-Arab and inter-Muslim violence and murder is all the result of Western and Zionist conspiracies.
So, Galal Nassar should have seen it coming long before. Instead, only now does he ask:
How could terrorism cloaked as jihad or national
liberation conceivably promote a cause for which someone is willing to blow
himself up at a wedding, a funeral, a house of worship, or a restaurant, taking
dozens of innocent lives along with him? What possible moral points are scored
by indiscriminate and senseless killing? Such mindless, gratuitous violence
undermines the legitimacy of national struggle and makes a mockery of the right
to resist occupation.
And wait — Galal Nassar will soon be denounced by those who are "pure of heart" for they know what is right and true. They will declaim that Galal Nassar has strayed from the true path — or they will declaim that Galal Nassar's past support of national liberation movements and resistance to Western imperialism and colonialism and Zionism was just a cover and that he was really an agent of Western imperialism and colonialism and Zionism. Or they will declaim that he was both — he strayed and he was a foreign agent.
In any case, he is clearly guilty of "thought crimes." And the penalty is...?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Offering a more nuanced view of Hamas
By Rami G. Khouri
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
August 22, 2009
Is it important for Israel and the United States to sit down with Hamas and talk business? Yes, it is, for the same reasons the US is trying to extract itself from its self-inflicted mess in Afghanistan by negotiating with Taliban elements, and from Iraq by partnering with and paying off Sunni insurgents who spent several years killing Americans.
Ironically, the US and Hamas do not have a direct confrontation; the conflict is between Hamas and Israel. Yet according to the rules of US policy-making in the Middle East, wherever Israel is concerned the US plays according to Israeli rules, which in this case means those of the hard Israeli right and its lobbyists in Washington, who forbid the US from speaking with Hamas. This is another example of how the bizarre relationship between the US and Israel totally distorts American foreign policy principles, and makes hypocrisy a central pillar of how Washington deals with the rest of the world.
This is significant because as long as American policy in the Middle East is largely defined by right-wing Israeli extremists and their agents in Washington, the chances of achieving a breakthrough for peace and stability in the region are zero. Israel will have to decide for itself whether coming to grips with the reality of Islamist sentiments and movements in the Middle East is a reasonable thing to do. The US should have no similar dilemma engaging with Islamist movements like Hamas that have proven beyond a doubt that they represent a large number of people in our region, and are prepared to play by fair rules.
Sarah Palin, in the eyes of many people, is a certified nutcase, and a reckless extremist; but she has to be dealt with because she represents the sentiments of many people, in other words she has legitimacy and representational credibility. Similarly, many people in the world and even in the Middle East view groups like Hamas as dangerous extremists and terrorists, but these Islamists also have legitimacy and credibility among large swathes of citizens in our region, so they cannot be ignored.
The American government, after some wasted years, has sensibly grasped that it is more realistic to negotiate peaceful coexistence with antagonists or enemies like the Iraqi resistance or the Taliban in Afghanistan. As long as Washington refuses to apply a similar approach to negotiating with Islamists in the Middle East, it will only cement the perception that American policy is totally run by Israel and its Washington lobbyists.
An impressive new report from the US Institute of Peace, by Paul Scham and Osama Abu-Irshaid, suggests a more useful and nuanced approach. It recognizes that full peace is unlikely to happen between Israel and Hamas, but also that Hamas, in practice, has “moved well beyond its charter … Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel.”
The June 2009 special report available on the USIP website (usip.org), entitled “Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility,” starts with the important acknowledgment that Hamas fights Israel because it sees Israel as an occupier of land that is inherently Palestinian and Islamic. So while Hamas cannot and will not officially recognize Israel, “it has formulated mechanisms that allow it to deal with the reality of Israel as a fait accompli. These mechanisms include the religious concepts of tahadiya (short-term calming) and hudna (truce) and Hamas’s own concept of ‘Palestinian legitimacy,’ i.e., its willingness to consider a permanent, comprehensive peace agreement such as envisioned by the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, if this is ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas has made it clear it could participate in such a process by being part of a national unity government in Palestine.”
The authors conclude: “Although a peace process under such circumstances might, for Israelis and Westerners, seem involved, arcane, and of dubious utility, it is necessary to consider the possibility of such a process because there is no realistic scenario under which Hamas will disappear. Understanding the Islamic bases of Hamas’s policies and worldview will be essential for the success of any process in which it is engaged.”
Scham is executive director of the University of Maryland’s Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies, and Abu-Irshaid is completing a Ph.D. thesis on Hamas at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. The two authors represent a rare ability by sensible individuals on both sides of this conflict to transcend surface antagonisms and fears, and instead delve into the more complex and nuanced worldviews of the actors in this long-running conflict.
Such honest attempts to reconcile the driving principles and real national interests of both Israelis and Palestinians are more likely to move us towards peaceful coexistence than the ranting of Zionist maniacs, Arab extremists and American simpletons who allow themselves to get caught in between.
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
August 22, 2009
Is it important for Israel and the United States to sit down with Hamas and talk business? Yes, it is, for the same reasons the US is trying to extract itself from its self-inflicted mess in Afghanistan by negotiating with Taliban elements, and from Iraq by partnering with and paying off Sunni insurgents who spent several years killing Americans.
Ironically, the US and Hamas do not have a direct confrontation; the conflict is between Hamas and Israel. Yet according to the rules of US policy-making in the Middle East, wherever Israel is concerned the US plays according to Israeli rules, which in this case means those of the hard Israeli right and its lobbyists in Washington, who forbid the US from speaking with Hamas. This is another example of how the bizarre relationship between the US and Israel totally distorts American foreign policy principles, and makes hypocrisy a central pillar of how Washington deals with the rest of the world.
This is significant because as long as American policy in the Middle East is largely defined by right-wing Israeli extremists and their agents in Washington, the chances of achieving a breakthrough for peace and stability in the region are zero. Israel will have to decide for itself whether coming to grips with the reality of Islamist sentiments and movements in the Middle East is a reasonable thing to do. The US should have no similar dilemma engaging with Islamist movements like Hamas that have proven beyond a doubt that they represent a large number of people in our region, and are prepared to play by fair rules.
Sarah Palin, in the eyes of many people, is a certified nutcase, and a reckless extremist; but she has to be dealt with because she represents the sentiments of many people, in other words she has legitimacy and representational credibility. Similarly, many people in the world and even in the Middle East view groups like Hamas as dangerous extremists and terrorists, but these Islamists also have legitimacy and credibility among large swathes of citizens in our region, so they cannot be ignored.
The American government, after some wasted years, has sensibly grasped that it is more realistic to negotiate peaceful coexistence with antagonists or enemies like the Iraqi resistance or the Taliban in Afghanistan. As long as Washington refuses to apply a similar approach to negotiating with Islamists in the Middle East, it will only cement the perception that American policy is totally run by Israel and its Washington lobbyists.
An impressive new report from the US Institute of Peace, by Paul Scham and Osama Abu-Irshaid, suggests a more useful and nuanced approach. It recognizes that full peace is unlikely to happen between Israel and Hamas, but also that Hamas, in practice, has “moved well beyond its charter … Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel.”
The June 2009 special report available on the USIP website (usip.org), entitled “Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility,” starts with the important acknowledgment that Hamas fights Israel because it sees Israel as an occupier of land that is inherently Palestinian and Islamic. So while Hamas cannot and will not officially recognize Israel, “it has formulated mechanisms that allow it to deal with the reality of Israel as a fait accompli. These mechanisms include the religious concepts of tahadiya (short-term calming) and hudna (truce) and Hamas’s own concept of ‘Palestinian legitimacy,’ i.e., its willingness to consider a permanent, comprehensive peace agreement such as envisioned by the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, if this is ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas has made it clear it could participate in such a process by being part of a national unity government in Palestine.”
The authors conclude: “Although a peace process under such circumstances might, for Israelis and Westerners, seem involved, arcane, and of dubious utility, it is necessary to consider the possibility of such a process because there is no realistic scenario under which Hamas will disappear. Understanding the Islamic bases of Hamas’s policies and worldview will be essential for the success of any process in which it is engaged.”
Scham is executive director of the University of Maryland’s Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies, and Abu-Irshaid is completing a Ph.D. thesis on Hamas at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. The two authors represent a rare ability by sensible individuals on both sides of this conflict to transcend surface antagonisms and fears, and instead delve into the more complex and nuanced worldviews of the actors in this long-running conflict.
Such honest attempts to reconcile the driving principles and real national interests of both Israelis and Palestinians are more likely to move us towards peaceful coexistence than the ranting of Zionist maniacs, Arab extremists and American simpletons who allow themselves to get caught in between.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Into the Abyss
By Hussein Shobokshi
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 20, 2009
As if the Palestinians needed a new chapter to be added to their sad story! It seems, however, that the road is still full of sadness, shocks, and unpleasant surprises. How else can one explain the harsh bloody clashes between the "government" of the Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip and the new "alien" faction called Jund Ansar Allah? These clashes led to the killing of scores of people, including Dr. Abdul Latif Al Mousa, the obscure and controversial leader of this faction who is also known by his code name of Abu Noor al-Maqdisi.
The clashes erupted after the man [Abdul Latif Al Mousa] proclaimed the establishment of an "Islamic Emirate" in the Gaza Strip in an extremely radical style reminiscent of the same violent tone of the factions fighting the government in Algeria, the same tone used by the Taliban, and the same tone used by the Al-Qaeda organization. They use the same words, the same tone, and the same style and are all photocopies of the same harsh pseudo-ideologies that refuse to co-exist with anyone. The truth is that the chaotic style and odd narcissism adopted by these groups is no longer bizarre. One wakes up from his sleep, loudly proclaims himself the leader of the Ummah [Community of Islam], and asks for allegiance and blind obedience as did Abu Noor al-Maqdisi. The destruction, devastation, discord, and division that follow are not important! It is an ignorant and selfish style always paid for by the innocents. Nevertheless, it is a scene that is repeated in different forms and shapes in various parts of the world. The only losers are the Muslims that continue to constitute a silent majority. This silent majority needs to take firmer and stronger stands in confronting the "ideas" of these groups and in banning the publication and circulation of "heritage" books that are loaded with these ideas and that continue to be glorified as the mothers of all sources and the springs of thought.
Hamas created an extremist environment in the Gaza Strip and nurtured it with dictatorial management. It was natural for such an experiment to produce one that is even more radical and excessive in its practices. The result was this "provisional" Jund Ansar Allah that seems not to have been crushed completely. Fresh statements by "new" leaders were issued promising revenge and more "jihad". Only a few hours after the news that al-Maqdisi had been liquidated, a fresh group of the same "type" emerged also in Gaza calling itself "Suyuf al-Haq" [Swords of Justice] threatening Hamas to target its leaders and security centers. The Palestinians are presenting Israel with the biggest service in history. They are liquidating one another systematically and consistently without mercy. All the shame and criticism leveled against Israel about its ability to produce fundamentalist extremism can now also be leveled at the Palestinians themselves. The code names of armed organizations that hide behind religious epithets such as "Swords of Justice", "Jund Ansar Allah", and others are all plans for political destruction. A firm stand should be taken against such groups because their ideologies can only lead to plunging into one abyss after another.
Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
August 20, 2009
As if the Palestinians needed a new chapter to be added to their sad story! It seems, however, that the road is still full of sadness, shocks, and unpleasant surprises. How else can one explain the harsh bloody clashes between the "government" of the Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip and the new "alien" faction called Jund Ansar Allah? These clashes led to the killing of scores of people, including Dr. Abdul Latif Al Mousa, the obscure and controversial leader of this faction who is also known by his code name of Abu Noor al-Maqdisi.
The clashes erupted after the man [Abdul Latif Al Mousa] proclaimed the establishment of an "Islamic Emirate" in the Gaza Strip in an extremely radical style reminiscent of the same violent tone of the factions fighting the government in Algeria, the same tone used by the Taliban, and the same tone used by the Al-Qaeda organization. They use the same words, the same tone, and the same style and are all photocopies of the same harsh pseudo-ideologies that refuse to co-exist with anyone. The truth is that the chaotic style and odd narcissism adopted by these groups is no longer bizarre. One wakes up from his sleep, loudly proclaims himself the leader of the Ummah [Community of Islam], and asks for allegiance and blind obedience as did Abu Noor al-Maqdisi. The destruction, devastation, discord, and division that follow are not important! It is an ignorant and selfish style always paid for by the innocents. Nevertheless, it is a scene that is repeated in different forms and shapes in various parts of the world. The only losers are the Muslims that continue to constitute a silent majority. This silent majority needs to take firmer and stronger stands in confronting the "ideas" of these groups and in banning the publication and circulation of "heritage" books that are loaded with these ideas and that continue to be glorified as the mothers of all sources and the springs of thought.
Hamas created an extremist environment in the Gaza Strip and nurtured it with dictatorial management. It was natural for such an experiment to produce one that is even more radical and excessive in its practices. The result was this "provisional" Jund Ansar Allah that seems not to have been crushed completely. Fresh statements by "new" leaders were issued promising revenge and more "jihad". Only a few hours after the news that al-Maqdisi had been liquidated, a fresh group of the same "type" emerged also in Gaza calling itself "Suyuf al-Haq" [Swords of Justice] threatening Hamas to target its leaders and security centers. The Palestinians are presenting Israel with the biggest service in history. They are liquidating one another systematically and consistently without mercy. All the shame and criticism leveled against Israel about its ability to produce fundamentalist extremism can now also be leveled at the Palestinians themselves. The code names of armed organizations that hide behind religious epithets such as "Swords of Justice", "Jund Ansar Allah", and others are all plans for political destruction. A firm stand should be taken against such groups because their ideologies can only lead to plunging into one abyss after another.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Hamas: Extremism Breeds Extremism
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat (London)
August 16, 2009
Armed conflict between Palestinians has returned to Gaza once more, however this time it is against the Islamic Hamas movement in the name of religion and under the pretext of Jihad. On Friday, an extremist group announced the establishment of a new Islamic Emirate; the group also announced that it considered Hamas to be a secular movement that had falsely laid claim to Islam.
The Salafist Jihadist group Jund Ansar Allah announced the establishment of the "Islamic Emirate of Palestine…in the heart of the Beit al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]." Dr. Abdul Latif Mousa AKA Abu Noor al-Maqdisi called for "acceptance and allegiance [to the new Islamic Emirate]."
In his Friday sermon, al-Maqdisi said that if Hamas follows the path that it is following then the movement is nothing more than a secular party with false affiliations to Islam in the same manner as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyup Erdogan. It also seems that the honeymoon between the Turkish government and our extremists has come to an end, and this is a subject that I will return to in a future article.
Al-Maqdisi said that Hamas fears the West, particularly America, and that the Hamas movement and government still has "time and opportunity so long as it does not move against the Sheikh al Islam Ibn-Taymiyah mosque" which is the Jund Ansar Allah stronghold [in Rafah].
The question here then is; is what happened in Gaza [following this sermon] surprising?
Of course not, this was only a surprise to those who were not paying attention [to the situation] and endorsed the Hamas movement, as well as accused of treason anybody who described the Hamas coup in Gaza as a mistake and a crime, and said that this would lead to the entire Gaza Strip becoming like Afghanistan under the Taliban, which is in fact what happened. This [outcome] may also seem strange to some, as a result of the censorship and control of information taking place in the Gaza Strop, not to mention the collusion of some Arab media outlets and figures with regards to the media coverage of the situation in Gaza following the Israeli war that took place early this year.
The extremist language used by the Salafist Jihadist group that was led by Al Maqdisi is no different than the language used by Hamas against the Fatah movement, from inflammatory language to putting forward accusations of treason and being agents [of foreign powers]. It is enough to recall what Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas said which was that Hamas was rushing to kill Fatah members believing that "In killing you, I will enter Paradise."
What happened is therefore normal because extremism breeds extremism, and division only brings further division and underdevelopment. As a result of this an extremist group emerged which viewed Hamas as being soft, secular, and treasonous. I wish there was a camera to show the reaction of the Hamas leaders and those who support this movement in our Arab world to this new extremist group describing them as secular and treasonous.
We are now at an important crossroads where we will see how the fanatical, and those that are fooled by them, as well as those who are dragged along with them, will deal with what is happening in Gaza, especially since Hamas threatened to destroy the site where the Jund Ansar Islam members were sheltering adopting the Israeli example of destroying the house of any Palestinian who takes up arms against it.
Today we are able to say to the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Hamas movement in Gaza, its members throughout the Arab world, and especially its defenders, from the writers in the Gulf media to the internet "Mujahedeen," that you reap what you sow, that extremism only breeds extremism, and that so long as Hamas underestimates the situation, things in Gaza will only get worse.
Asharq Al-Awsat (London)
August 16, 2009
Armed conflict between Palestinians has returned to Gaza once more, however this time it is against the Islamic Hamas movement in the name of religion and under the pretext of Jihad. On Friday, an extremist group announced the establishment of a new Islamic Emirate; the group also announced that it considered Hamas to be a secular movement that had falsely laid claim to Islam.
The Salafist Jihadist group Jund Ansar Allah announced the establishment of the "Islamic Emirate of Palestine…in the heart of the Beit al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]." Dr. Abdul Latif Mousa AKA Abu Noor al-Maqdisi called for "acceptance and allegiance [to the new Islamic Emirate]."
In his Friday sermon, al-Maqdisi said that if Hamas follows the path that it is following then the movement is nothing more than a secular party with false affiliations to Islam in the same manner as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyup Erdogan. It also seems that the honeymoon between the Turkish government and our extremists has come to an end, and this is a subject that I will return to in a future article.
Al-Maqdisi said that Hamas fears the West, particularly America, and that the Hamas movement and government still has "time and opportunity so long as it does not move against the Sheikh al Islam Ibn-Taymiyah mosque" which is the Jund Ansar Allah stronghold [in Rafah].
The question here then is; is what happened in Gaza [following this sermon] surprising?
Of course not, this was only a surprise to those who were not paying attention [to the situation] and endorsed the Hamas movement, as well as accused of treason anybody who described the Hamas coup in Gaza as a mistake and a crime, and said that this would lead to the entire Gaza Strip becoming like Afghanistan under the Taliban, which is in fact what happened. This [outcome] may also seem strange to some, as a result of the censorship and control of information taking place in the Gaza Strop, not to mention the collusion of some Arab media outlets and figures with regards to the media coverage of the situation in Gaza following the Israeli war that took place early this year.
The extremist language used by the Salafist Jihadist group that was led by Al Maqdisi is no different than the language used by Hamas against the Fatah movement, from inflammatory language to putting forward accusations of treason and being agents [of foreign powers]. It is enough to recall what Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas said which was that Hamas was rushing to kill Fatah members believing that "In killing you, I will enter Paradise."
What happened is therefore normal because extremism breeds extremism, and division only brings further division and underdevelopment. As a result of this an extremist group emerged which viewed Hamas as being soft, secular, and treasonous. I wish there was a camera to show the reaction of the Hamas leaders and those who support this movement in our Arab world to this new extremist group describing them as secular and treasonous.
We are now at an important crossroads where we will see how the fanatical, and those that are fooled by them, as well as those who are dragged along with them, will deal with what is happening in Gaza, especially since Hamas threatened to destroy the site where the Jund Ansar Islam members were sheltering adopting the Israeli example of destroying the house of any Palestinian who takes up arms against it.
Today we are able to say to the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Hamas movement in Gaza, its members throughout the Arab world, and especially its defenders, from the writers in the Gulf media to the internet "Mujahedeen," that you reap what you sow, that extremism only breeds extremism, and that so long as Hamas underestimates the situation, things in Gaza will only get worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
