Prospects with Hamas

57 thoughts on “Prospects with Hamas”

1. Your kidding, right? No Israeli goverment (not even one led by Peres) will allow a state led by Hamas to negotiate with them. Talk about naivete!
   If Hamas is such a great bunch of guys (which is your clear inferrence) then they can start by renpouncing their pledge to destroy the state of Israel. Otherwise, no deal. And by the way, this is not the first time historically that the Palestinians have hitched temselves to the wrong star. Theyve been doing it for years. Thankfully, even congressional Democrats have said they will not send aid to Hamas anytime soon. The best way Israel can guarantee its safety is to calmly (your words) and methodically keep building the wall- then Hamas can do whatever it wants.

2. Did Israel “hitch itself to the wrong star” by electing Sharon?
   The wall is a crime against humanity, as are Israel’s other apartheid projects. However, Palestinian human rights are a non-issue for American and Israeli politicians and newspapers. They will only complain about attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. These are often responses to Israeli provocations.
   As far as the complaint about Palestinians “making the wrong choices” is concerned I have to wonder how many right choices the Palestinians have had. They do not have a military. They are in a very weak state vis-a-vis Israel. How much would arrogant and expansionist Israelis be willing to cede the Palestinian untermenchen under any circumstances? The Oslo “peace process” has shown us how much.
   Ultimately the problem is not Palestinian “wrong decisions” but Israeli crimes.

3. thanks so much for pointing out the abu marzook piece. but i don’t quite agree with your interpretation of the view he presents for the longer term.
   abu marzook’s allusion to what you call the ‘muslim-dominant’ model is pretty clear, and just as plainly central to hamas’ set of goals as the present mirror-image ‘jewish-dominant’ model is to zionist aims.
   but i don’t see any suggestion that he entertains the idea of a two-state approach any more than his equivalents in the israeli jewish religious-nationalist camp do.
   what’s more interesting, and separates abu marzook far more clearly from his secret sharers of the jewish right, is that he seems to be allowing a certain amount of room for a single state set up on a non-ethnic/religious basis.
   these are my prooftexts in this present neo-kremlinology:
   “…fair governance demands that the Palestinian nation be represented in a pluralistic environment.”
   “We call on them [Israeli Jews] not to condemn posterity to endless bloodshed and a conflict in which dominance is illusory. There must come a day when we will live together, side by side once again.”
   these seem to me to indicate that it is a single polity that abu marzook envisions, and that “side by side” is something that happens over the whole territory between the jordan and the mediterranean – as it must when palestinian refugees return to their homes. the main question to me is whether ANYONE’s “dominance is illusory” (and thus the “pluralistic environment” is a lasting fact on the political as well as the social level), or only israeli jewish “dominance is illusory” (and thus the muslim-dominant model is the condition for living “side by side”).

4. Helena, I have a side question. In Gaza there have been heated demonstrations against Denmark over those Mohammed caricatures published in a Danish newspaper. Now protests are understandable and the caricatures were in poor taste. But rhetoric at those protests have included lines like “Death to Denmark!” and Danish flag burning.
   I heard from someone that Hamas is supporting these protests. So my question was do you know if that’s true. If it is true it seems like a very bad decision on Hamas’s part. Hamas wants its EU funding to continue. So I wouldn’t think they would endorse protests that go as far as to endorse the death of an EU member.

5. “Imagine what a disaster it will be for the US military and the US in general if there’s a massive explosion of Israeli-Palestinian violence”
   More of a disaster for the Palestinians, I should think.
   edq: “The wall is a crime against humanity”
   The wall is just a wall. It saves human lives, both Palestinian and Israeli. The border has to be somewhere, at least temporarily. I guess it makes you feel radical to call Israel “Apartheid” but the shoe just doesn’t fit. The history is too different. Apartheid was based on racial theories, the Arab-Israeli conflict is not.
   After 50 years of rejectionism and now electing an Islamist government, I don’t see how the Arabs intend on persuading the Israelis that they will be secure in their Jewish State and should permit a Palestinian State…

6. The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem compares Israel’s policies in the West Bank (and in Gaza before they left) with South Africa’s policy of apartheid. It doesn’t matter very much what the details of the ideology are–that’s just an intellectual parlor game. The resulting policy is what matters,
   As for Hamas, I hope they become realistic. I wonder how well that discipline will hold if there are pragmatists internally who do want to negotiate, for instance, a 100 year truce. Would everyone go along? When Hamas didn’t have power it might have been easier to remain united and disciplined.

7. Warren said “Apartheid is based on racial theories, the Arab-Israeli conflict is not.” You’re right, insofar as both the Israelis and the Palestinians are part of the Semitic order of things. But noone can deny that Israel was a state founded by Jews exclusively for Jews. You can’t get much more exclusive or racist or bigoted or chauvinist or jingoist or apartheid than that. Words fail me.

8. Inkan– I haven’t heard the reports of Hamas supporting these nasty, anti-Danish protests. If they have supported them, I agree with you. But honestly, given the enormity of what the leaders are trying to do at the broad level these days, I highly doubt they would have supported them. Maybe a few low-level H people might have supported them? (Though again, I’ve seen no reports of it.) If they did, I imagine they’d get jumped on pretty rapidly by their superiors

9. Haaretz on “Rewarding terrorism”
   One simple explanation why Hamas won in January is that after Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Israelis lost control over the area and Hamas took advantage of this situation.
   Mr.Arens will never say simple things like this directly, so it is clear that he plays a typical semantic game and talks about “rewarding terrorism”. In the rest, he is quite straightforward: Irael needs to control as much WBG as possible no matter what.
   Moshe Arens. The wages of unilateralism: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/676700.html

10. Helen & Inkan1969
    I think what put in the newspaper it’s absolutely inappropriate, disgraceful and shameful.
    By using freedom of speech claims I think this some think nonsense and should not allowed from fist place because its purely insulting the Islam and Muslims around the world.
    What you put here about Hamas I think same happened in Egypt and Gulf courtiers and others but to different extend.
    So please do not escalating things to build your things and start discussing a problem which from the start can be prevented.
    In the same talk Inkan using freedom of speech claims, I like to raise one question to you, if that Dutch newspaper publishes some thing of denial of Holocaust massacre and Crims, what will happen around the word from UN, US, Israel, Jews communities, and other western courtiers?

11. kassandra
    I’m sorry words fail you. Apparently you are also firmly opposed to “Affirmative Action” in US Universities? And, of course, you have been protesting for decades the fact that it is against the law for a citizen to be a Christian or Jew in Saudi Arabia and in Jordon?
    A State for Jews seems like a practical idea. Do you think it realistic for Jews to have settled back in Europe or under Islamic rule? Must they all become refugees in the US? Do you propose that the Jews will all be safe in Malaysia or Iraq? Or perhaps Uganda?
    I am sure that if you read up more on the history of the Jewish people you would see that a State for the Jews is a simple practical necessity. Non-Jews enjoy excellent civil rights in Israel and vote and even the Arabs have members in the Parliament. There has been a long-standing war, however, and in wartime, compromises must be made.
    The fact remains that the Muslims want to utterly destroy Israel and it must take a few special steps to defend itself.

12. “But noone can deny that Israel was a state founded by Jews exclusively for Jews.”
    To the contrary, anyone can deny it. Israel is not and has never been “exclusively” for Jews.

13. Yes Helena, they are going ape over a caricature in Denmark:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm
    You know how to pick sides Helena, if you made a living out of criticizing them instead you’d be in much hotter waters than my ocassional dissent.
    Long Live Denmark and her humorists.
    David

14. It doesn’t matter very much what the details of the ideology are–that’s just an intellectual parlor game. The resulting policy is what matters.
    Actually, ideology matters a great deal, because the solution to a bad policy is often dictated by its underlying reasons. If a policy results from racism, then the cure is to eliminate the racism or racist institutions in question. If it results from conflict over security or land, then the solution is to find a way to share the land and make all parties secure.
    And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, Kassandra’s natterings aside, a conflict over security and land. Trying to shoehorn it into the wrong model can lead to good solutions being missed or, even worse, bad ones being promoted. The political dynamic between Israelis and Palestinians isn’t like that between black and white South Africans, and treating them as the same can lead to fundamental misunderstandings.
    There’s also the fact, which I’ve noted before, that “apartheid” seems to become a facile term with which to demonize parties to conflicts with racial or ethnic overtones. This usage isn’t limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by any means, and I’d argue that the increasing use of “apartheid” as polemic counsels caution when using it in serious discussion.

15. Jonathan, you need to explain your point more if you maintain “The political dynamic between Israelis and Palestinians isn’t like that between black and white South Africans, and treating them as the same can lead to fundamental misunderstandings.” and the expression apartheid is not relevant.
    The situation looks to me pretty similar to apartheid, in that the solutions sought by the Israelis are nearly identical to those sought by the South Africans. I would agree that the explicit legal structure that existed in South Africa doesn’t exist in Israel – no doubt a point which troubles you as a lawyer, though it doesn’t bother me. Otherwise the situation looks to me pretty close, and I don’t see why the term apartheid shouldn’t be used.

16. Helena, I apologize. I looked through news.google.com and could not find any explicit endorsement of those Gaza protests by Hamas. The protests themselves were actually by Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade.
    The reason I asked in the first place was this alleged Hamas quote that concerned me. I found it again here:
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=21835
    This article quotes Hamas as saying “the Protestant community in Denmark supported this racism under the slogan and allegation ‘freedom of speech.” Hamas is reportedly calling for boycotts of Danish goods. Now boycotts are nonviolent. Boycotts of that Danish newspaper and its sponsers are reasonable. But blanket boycotts of Danish goods might be misdirected. And if that quote is indeed true it’s a gaffe. The cartoons were the act of a specific newspaper, not “the Protestant community”, and secularism is prevalent in Denmanrk enough such that “the Protestant community” is not an accurate characterization. I think that with Hamas fighting against EU attempts to suspend aid it would be a bad idea to join in any movement against an EU member. No one in the EU will support them then.
    Actually though, I found few other sources with that quote. I don’t know how reliable the Daily Star is. So I’m not 100% sure of the quote.
    ————————————————
    Me, I think the newspaper badly botched the situation. I’ve heard that this started when an author wanted to write a children’s educational book about Islam but wanted to put an illustration of Prophet Mohammed in it? If that’s true that is showing incredible ignorance in Muslim custom. When the newspaper took up this controversy it came off as insensitive to the Muslim community; like it didn’t care about trying to understand the Muslim perspective. So I think anger among everyday Muslims is valid.
    OTOH I think Arab government protests are cynical attempts to grandstand. Demands for the Danish government to punish the paper only illustrate the lack of respect for freedom of speech these governments have. And of course protests should refrain from violence.
    Salah, I do think the newspaper behaved terribly and Muslims should respond by saying they behaved terribly. But, that’s all they should say. One main aspect of freedom of speech is that there inevitably will be people who say disgusting things and we can’t physically stop them. The justification that enables people to speak out in support of Hamas’s and Hezbullah’s points of views and condemnation of Israel’s policy is exactly the same that enables people to paint offensive religious images on their own time.
    It occured to me that in the West there are many portrayals of Jesus that arguably are not relevant. “South Park” once had a bawdy portrayal of Him. The US show “Morel Orel” is very critical of Protestant religious culture. There are many people who would be offended by these shows, but the shows go on. If that can never be the case for Islamic equivalents in the Islamic world then this could be an insurmontable divide between Christian/secular and Islamic cultures.

17. Pardon me. I signed my real name in that post instead of my handle. I’m Juan F. Lara.

18. “David” has not buzzed off, as asked. “David” has sought to clutter up this discussion with a comment in which he refers to a group of people “going ape” over anti-Muslim cartoons. In a multi-cultural discussion this feels like a dehumanizing slur to me, so I shall remove it.
    Moreover, he childishly seeks to make a “point” against me by posting a link to a BBC article that makes no reference whatsoever to the participation of Hamas in any of these anti-Danish demonstrations.
    I repeat– no reference to Hamas whatsoever.
    David, once again. Please buzz off with your hostile, childish, offensive, and completely diversionary interventions here.

19. Inkan– Thanks for your helpful contribution here.
    (Btw, I like that you use the name “Inkan1969”. It lends the blog a whiff of multiculturalism… I’d love to hear more of your views of indigenous issues in S. America– or N. America, come to that– some time. Maybe when I get round to writing about Evo Morales again… On the other hand, maybe you get tired of people seeking your point of view “as a representative of” an entire and very diverse bunch of people.)

20. the solutions sought by the Israelis are nearly identical to those sought by the South Africans
    This depends on how you define “solutions” and “nearly identical.”
    The current situation in the West Bank resembles pre-1994 South Africa in one respect: the current territory of the Palestinian Authority looks a hell of a lot like a bantustan. That is, as far as I can tell, the only close point of comparison between the two systems, not only in legal infrastructure but in how the parties view each other and in their actual day-to-day relationship. One point of comparison doesn’t make the situations “nearly identical,” especially given the number and character of the disanalogies.
    Also, unlike ZA, Israel doesn’t view the PA’s territorial structure as the end stage of a system of racialized subjugation. Instead, the stated goal of the Israeli government (and, I would argue, the goal of an Olmert government in actual fact) is the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. The bantustans of ZA were regarded as permanent by the South African government and were created due to racial considerations; the cantonization of the WB is temporary and was done due to security considerations. So the current arrangements in the WB aren’t a “solution” either.
    And finally, there’s the not inconsiderable point that, unlike South Africa, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a straightforward battle between conflicting nationalisms rather than racialized subjugation of a domestic population. If Israel were an apartheid system, then its non-Jewish citizens would be treated exactly the same way as the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza. The fact that they aren’t suggests that the root causes of the conflict, and therefore the solutions, lie in something other than race.

21. “The situation looks to me pretty similar to apartheid, in that the solutions sought by the Israelis are nearly identical to those sought by the South Africans.”
    Just the opposite. Apartheid South Africa was a single state, where by law, whites and blacks were different classes of citizenries.
    Israel supports two separate states for the people. The Israeli one will be democratic with full rights of participation for minorities. The Palestinian one? No one really knows, though we may now have a better idea where it’s headed with the election of Hamas.

22. BTW, I discussed other aspects of the Israel-ZA comparison in this thread.

23. Wow, Warren, I bet it’s news to most Jews in the US that they are refugees in the United States. Does Steven Spielberg know that?
    I started out by being reasonably positive about Israel, but the more I did read, the more I came to the conclusion that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. Israel is a state by Jews for Jews. Just like a state by Afrikaaners for Afrikaaners, no difference. Wait, actually there is a difference: the Afrikaaners never claimed an exclusivity given to them by God.
    To quote from Israel Shahak’s book, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion”
    “The routine means for enforcing discrimination in everyday life is the ID card, which everyone is obliged to carry at all times. ID cards list the official “nationality” of a person, which can be “Jewish”, “Arab”, “Druze” and the like, with the significant exception of “Israeli”. Attempts to force the Interior Minister to allow Israelis wishing to be officially described as “Israeli”, or even as “Israeli-Jew” in their ID cards have failed. Those who have attempted to do so have a letter from the Ministry of the Interior stating that “it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality”.
    I understand the designation is no longer printed, but still exists in the electronic bar code.
    Maybe Israel is a theocracy?

24. “Also, unlike ZA, Israel doesn’t view the PA’s territorial structure as the end stage of a system of racialized subjugation. Instead, the stated goal of the Israeli government (and, I would argue, the goal of an Olmert government in actual fact) is the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. The bantustans of ZA were regarded as permanent by the South African government and were created due to racial considerations; the cantonization of the WB is temporary and was done due to security considerations. So the current arrangements in the WB aren’t a “solution” either.”
    This looks to me like an over-interpretation of what’s Israel’s aims are, and certainly a very sympathetic one to Israel. There are plenty to people in Israel, and some very close to or in government who have no intention of permitting a viable Palestinian state. In that case the west bank bantustan is permanent, as I always thought. Your view is based upon a “sanitized” image of Israeli policy. So what’s the problem with calling it Apartheid?

25. There are plenty to people in Israel, and some very close to or in government who have no intention of permitting a viable Palestinian state.
    And in the current government, those people are…

26. Not to mention that even if you regard the cantonization of the WB as permanent (which I don’t, given that I regard the fence line as the most plausible indication of the government’s intent), that only gets you past the “solution” part of your argument and not the “nearly identical” part. One point of comparison doesn’t make the systems the same.
    Note that I don’t object to use of the term “bantustan” to describe the current cantonization of the PA – my objection is to the term “apartheid” to describe the overall conflict.

27. “Maybe Israel is a theocracy?”
    Or maybe not.
    Given that you are citing Israel Shahak as a source, I think we can see where you are coming from.

28. Helena—
    Although the business of the Danish cartoons isn’t directly relevant to discussion of Hamas, I think that the controversy and various parties’ responses to it is an interesting case study in what happens when deeply held cultural values come into conflict. I’d be interested to hear your perspective on the subject, and what can or should be done by Denmark or anybody else to calm the waters.

29. “There are plenty to people in Israel, and some very close to or in government who have no intention of permitting a viable Palestinian state.
    And in the current government, those people are…”
    Actually I’d intended to say recent governments, which is what I said the last time. But it is also true of the present government. After all Olmert is an intelligent man, he knows what the consequences of the present situation are.
    As I said here the other day, there never has been an offer to the Palestinians which they could accept. The area inside the wall (I see you call it a “fence” in order to sanitize it) is not a viable area, especially not with Israeli military along the Jordan, and many Israeli settlements even then within it. Olmert knows this, he is intelligent. So, for all he says, it must be intended to keep the Palestinians in subjection in some fashion. So the comparison with Apartheid is perfectly valid.
    You work in law, so you want something logical. I work in history, so I’m interested in what people are actually doing, and have been doing.

30. Bantustan:
    This word, taken from the South African context, is not quite precise enough. The difference is that a West Bank or Gaza that is under Palestinian control will not actually be a part of Israel.
    The edge of the idea is too fuzzy. Is Tijuana a Bantustan of California?
    I think that Israel is going to have a security interest in what goes in in the West Bank and Gaza even if there is a Palestinian State. Perhaps the proper word is Finlandization?
    You may think you know what you are trying to say when you speak of Bantustans, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t figured it out. I guess you’re saying you don’t like it and it seems unfair. If that’s what you mean, then that’s what you should say.
    I do think the prospects for a Palestinian State may have been dimmed by the election win of Hamas; Trust has been reduced and the positions of the negotiating parties has moved further apart.

31. I use the terms fence, wall and barrier interchangeably, because it is a fence in some places and a wall in others. I’m not particularly interested in “sanitizing” it or otherwise; I regard it essentially as a necessary evil, although I’d prefer to see it built along the Green Line.
    In any event, I’d like to know the source of your belief that the area inside the wall… is not a viable area. Compare the current barrier route with the proposed Taba borders, the latter of which are generally considered to be viable. The planned route of the wall/fence/barrier may not be one that the Palestinians will accept (and may not be one they should accept), but it will leave them in control of a contiguous area comprising about 95 percent of the West Bank and including most of the major aquifers. As such, it may be a combination of security device and land grab, but it doesn’t seem designed to keep the Palestinians in subjection.
    Maybe you’re thinking of the originally proposed route, which was an entirely different story. But that wall won’t be built.

32. You know how to pick sides Helena, if you made a living out of criticizing them instead you’d be in much hotter waters than my ocassional dissent. Long Live Denmark and her humorists. David Posted by David at February 1, 2006 11:46 AM
    This “dissent” looks like crude trolling to me. I have no idea why Helena keeps this spam unmoderated – this is a personal blog, not an open forum!

33. You may think you know what you are trying to say when you speak of Bantustans, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t figured it out. I guess you’re saying you don’t like it and it seems unfair.
    Actually, I think of a bantustan as something very specific – a non-contiguous, cantonized, dependent political entity that lacks effective sovereignty. Such an entity may be created for a variety of reasons and may exist either inside or outside an apartheid system. The PA as currently constituted meets the definition.
    It’s worth noting, though, that there’s at least one respect in which the PA doesn’t resemble the bantustans – the absence of complete Israeli control over local politics. In the South African bantustans, the ZA government wasn’t shy about sponsoring coups every time local officials showed a breath of independence. If Israel were South Africa, then the election would never have been allowed, or some compliant colonel would have overthrown Hamas by now.

34. “It’s worth noting, though, that there’s at least one respect in which the PA doesn’t resemble the bantustans – the absence of complete Israeli control over local politics. In the South African bantustans, the ZA government wasn’t shy about sponsoring coups every time local officials showed a breath of independence. If Israel were South Africa, then the election would never have been allowed, or some compliant colonel would have overthrown Hamas by now.”
    You make a not very important point, as efforts were in fact made to control voting – look at the initial refusal to allow the inhabitants of Jerusalem to vote, and even the final permission was very strange and destined evidently to make difficulties. It is clear also that the Israelis, as everyone else, didn’t expect Hamas to win; if they had thought there was a danger of that happening, they would have made more effort.
    There’s also a problem with a vote like that: it is decisive, once it has taken place, and you can’t simply decide to overturn it, as you suggest they would have done if they were true apartheiders. Actually even South Africans could not have overturned that vote, once it had taken place.

35. Actually even South Africans could not have overturned that vote, once it had taken place.
    Lesotho, 1970? The reason Leabua Jonathan stayed in power after losing the election was because he had help from Pretoria. (And although Lesotho was internationally recognized and isn’t usually numbered among the bantustans, the ZA government treated it exactly the same way.)
    In other bantustans, South Africa didn’t allow elections at all, and sponsored coups at the drop of a hat when its handpicked leaders became too independent.

36. 2006-02-01 How radical Islam gets stronger

37. The comparison between Israel and Apartheid South Africa is not new. For example, here are two links to some old articles examining this question:
    http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=105
    http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=165
    South Africans have visited Palestine and commented on the similarities there with what existed under apartheid South Africa. This includes, I believe, Desmond Tutu.
    Israel has more or less defined the terms of the discussion about the Middle East in the U.S. so the term “apartheid” may seem an exageration.
    However, the fact is Israel systematically discriminates against non-Jews, both within its 1948 borders and in the OT. Israel classifies its citizens as having both “citizenship” and “nationality”. Both Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis have Israeli citizenship but Jews are assigned “Jewish” nationality which entitles them to special rights. Israel has used various legal devices to deprive Palestinians of their land and turn this land over to Jews. Any Jew anywhere in the world can aquire Jewish citizenship while Palestinians are barred from returning to their homes.
    A number of people have written about Israel’s intentions during the so-called “peace process”. When the Oslo agreement was initially formed, Israel Shahak warned that Israel’s rulers were seeking to hoodwink the Palestinians. It should be remembered that this agreement was not prompted be some change of heart in Israel but by desperation on Arafat’s part because of his declining political fortunes. In any case, Israel’s continued colonization of the OT makes it pretty clear they do not want a sovereign Palestinian state. Sharon’s lawyer, Dov Weinglass, spelled this out a year ago in an interview:
    “The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians.”
    “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
    “What I effectively agreed to with the Americans [in talks leading to Bush’s endorsement of disengagement] was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns.”
    — Ha’aretz, Oct. 6, 2004.
    I found this quotes at
    http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij12092004.html

38. You make a not very important point, as efforts were in fact made to control voting – look at the initial refusal to allow the inhabitants of Jerusalem to vote, and even the final permission was very strange and destined evidently to make difficulties.
    There was no initial refusal (or subsequent refusal). There were simply opinions expressed. In fact, in both of the previous elections, Palestinians in Jerusalem were allowed to vote. Further, even the “ban” on campaign activity within East Jerusalem (a ban sanctioned under Israel’s interpretation of the Oslo occords), was not really enforced.
    It is clear also that the Israelis, as everyone else, didn’t expect Hamas to win; if they had thought there was a danger of that happening, they would have made more effort.
    This is pure conjecture on your part, and does not reflect what was reported. (If you have information about what “they” thought, then please come forward with it.) The Israeli governmetn and security forces may not have been aware of the extent to which Hamas would win the elections, but they were aware, weeks before the election, that it would be close and that Hamas would be a serious force within the new parliament and possibly memebers of the government. This, in contrast to your attempts to attribute thoughts to unnamed individuals, is a clear matter of public record.

39. Shahak engages, I believe, in a little sleight of hand in his “nationality” argument. While the Hebrew word le’om is translated as “nationality”, it corresponds to this only in cultural, and not in political, terms.
    All Israelis – irrespective of le’om or “nationality” – are citizens of the state with equal rights under the law. (As in pretty much any other state, those rights may not, in fact, be applied equally all the time, but the courts have been pretty consistent in trying to make sure that they are applied equally.)
    Shahak further brings up the issue of people being refused to have their citizenship (Israeli) listed under their “nationality”. I think that a more interesting question is that of Arab Israeli citizens who define themselves, not as Israelis, but rather as Palestinians or 1948 Palestinians.

40. edq,
    Would you care to remind us what Dov Weissglass’ official position is (or, actually, was) within the Israeli government? It is my understanding that Mr. Weissglass does not have the authority to sign a check on behalf of the Israeli government.
    The man was expressing an opinion – not very eloquently, for a man of his profession, I might add – not the policy of the government.

41. Once again some participants in this comments section over the last few days (dealing with the SAfrican “apartheid” analogy) have trouble making reasonable and constructive analyses that suit the tone Helena sets on this website.
    It is amazing to see how quickly certain counterpunchers resort to “raising the bogey” and making false accusations — accusations that actually reflect the accuser’s own behavior: “a deliberate attempt at libel and sowing confusion” …. (is this not a mirror held to your own face?).
    While Helena attempts to give serious consideration to serious political issues for the sake of those who seek more than the “majority-held” views produced by our major media, I wonder how many new readers are driven away because of such hysterical reactions.
    Counterpunching is permissible, but try to hold any wild round-house swings. As I said previously, blog readers are becoming far too sophisticated on the Middle East and Israel-Palestine for things like this:
    “in SA, the rebels wanted social integration and equality … Hamas does not want social integration with Israel except perhaps if they are dhimmis, and abhors the idea of equality … And, indeed, (Hamas) has always said that it needs to eradicate the Jewish State.”
    From this the counterpuncher jumps to the conclusion:
    “Helena is a consistent supporter of terrorists and suicide movements.”
    Are you per chance related to Bibi?
    Also this: “The ideology and behavior of the ANC is radically different from that of Hamas. And the ideology and behavior of the Afrikaners is radically different from that of Israel.”
    And this explains why Israeli officials champion the US “war on terrorism,” while Nelson Mandela has an invitation to Cairo along with Ramsey Clark to participate in a mock war crimes trial of Bush and Blair? And Archbishop Tutu has consistently been with the Palestinian cause?
    There are a few commenters who have counterpunched in reasonable terms, and with apparently genuine intentions.
    “Hamas’s charter demonstrates their mindset and core ideology. It is based on classic antisemitism, as bad as anything that has ever come out of Europe.”
    But Helena is not asking readers to embrace Hamas’s ideology, nor is she saying that all Israelis share the Afrikanner’s old racist ideology. She just finished saying: “No-one says that Jewish or pro-Israeli people have to imagine themselves only as Afrikaners (though frankly, any of us who does that can learn a lot from the Afrikaners about how to think and act yourself OUT of a defensive and cyclically violent box.)”
    “Think outside the box,” instead of resting assured that a majority of misinformed American cable news viewers share your own prejudices.
    At least one other counterpuncher shares a reasonable tone and clearly has genuine intentions, but the counterpunch also falls short of the mark. In response to the following statement by Alistair: “The situation (in IP) looks to me pretty similar to (SA) apartheid, in that the solutions sought by the Israelis are nearly identical to those sought by the South Africans,” the reasonable counterpuncher wrote:
    “This depends on how you define “solutions” and “nearly identical.” The current situation in the West Bank resembles pre-1994 South Africa in one respect: the current territory of the Palestinian Authority looks a hell of a lot like a bantustan. That is, as far as I can tell, the only close point of comparison between the two systems, not only in legal infrastructure but in how the parties view each other and in their actual day-to-day relationship. (Ed: so there is a point of agreement, but then …) One point of comparison doesn’t make the situations “nearly identical.”
    Note, however, that the original statement to which said counterpuncher responds was that “the solutions (Ed: not the situations) sought by the Israelis are nearly identical to those sought by the South Africans”
    Later in a separate comment the same long-winded counterpuncher states:
    “Not to mention that even if you regard the cantonization of the WB as permanent (which I don’t, given that I regard the fence line [sic] as the most plausible indication of the government’s intent), that only gets you past the “solution” part of your argument and not the “nearly identical” part.”
    But … that was the whole point.
    Alistair’s original statement was “that the solutions (Ed: not the situations) sought by the Israelis are nearly identical to those sought by the South Africans.”
    hummmmmmm? ……. Lawyers can be so verbose and boring, as they waste time pontificating, wandering in circles…. until they have contradicted themselves….. or ended up agreeing with the original point of disagreement.
    Wasn’t it ol’ Bill Shakespeare who said of lawyers: leave Middle East analysis to the people who really know the Middle East, before you make statements like “the political dynamic between Israelis and Palestinians isn’t like that between black and white South Africans, and treating them as the same can lead to fundamental misunderstandings.”
    Please.

42. Sd, you didn’t provide any actual counterarguments to those “counterpunchers” you listed. All you did was label them “counterpunchers” and cop a sanctimonious attitude to them.

43. Compare the current barrier route with the proposed Taba borders, the latter of which are generally considered to be viable. The planned route of the wall/fence/barrier may not be one that the Palestinians will accept (and may not be one they should accept), but it will leave them in control of a contiguous area comprising about 95 percent of the West Bank
    Jonathan, here is a better map of the currently approved route of the wall/barrier/fence. You can see the enclaves it creates west of the Ariel salient. According to David Makovsky (WINEP) — 8% of the WB would fall on the “Israeli side” of the wall, if completed as planned. I’ve seen estimates between 8-10%, but never 5%.

44. Inkan,
    I tend to agree with you. “Copping a sanctamonious attitute”, describes that post well.
    I might also add that the post was “so verbose and boring,” and appears to “waste time… pontificating, [and] wandering in circles….”
    Johnathan,
    In addition to your excellent arguments, I would add that Israeli law lacks the statutory basis of separation that was central to “apartheid”.

45. Sofia,
    Please read the legend on that map again concerning what is “approved” and what is “to be completed”.
    Further, Jonathan’s statement had to do with comparing this route with the Taba proposal (which was, according to both Saeb Erekat and Nabil Sha’ath, fully acceptable to the Palestinian side and was, further, the basis for the Geneva Accords). You can find the Taba map in Ron Pundak’s piece (highly recommened by St. Noam) on page 35 of this document.
    The key issue is that there is no “cantonization”, nor are there any “bantustans” on either of these maps.

46. He refers to Israelis as Israelis, not as “Zionist usurpers”, or whatever.
    Yes, Hamas paid an image consultant to learn how to speak to Westerners in English (most people are aware of what they still say, and have said, for decades, in Arabic):
    Guadian: New-look Hamas spends £100k on an image makeover:
    Say you are not against Israelis as Jews
    Don’t talk about destroying Israel
    Don’t “talk” about it. Precious. Money well spent, Hamas. You bought some more ostriches – nice work.
    Of course, hope is one thing, naivete is quite another.
    You’d think Hamas has made their position clear enough times – but I suppose it will never be enough for certain White people who can’t seem to get around to believing what’s coming out of the mouths of certain “Brown” people.
    Here’s Marzook’s Boss in the Guardian on the same day Marzook typed “Israelis” into his keyboard:
    We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else’s sins or solve somebody else’s problem.
    I guess “never” is still not clear to some people, amazingly.
    Maybe they’re just playing “good cop/bad cop.” I believe Mr. Meshaal, not his subordinate.

47. JES, I know exactly how to read a map, and all the implications of what I wrote and what Jonathan wrote. That said, my post was directed to Jonathan, not you.

48. Re “percentages of West Bank land” to be returned to the Palestinians under various schemes, as described by different people– my clear understanding is that nearly all such percetages, when given by Israeli or US official sources, fail to count East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank (which under international law it is), and thus fail to account for the chunk of land in EJ that the Israelis somehow just “assume” is theirs.
    There is also a problem with just counting raw percentages of land. If you rip the metropolitan heart (East Jerusalem) out of an entire region (the West Bank), then you do damage not only to the Palestinian people and institutins of EJ, but also to the whole of the West Bank… as the people of the WB tell you time after time after time if you ask them.
    Similarly, people in the US “counting” the # of Jewish settlers in the occupied WB most often completely omit the 200,000 or so who’ve been implanted into East Jerusalem.

49. Jonathan, I agree that my statement about intellectual parlor games was too glib. But my impression is that there is a considerable amount of racism on the Israeli side, just as it seems to me there is a lot of antisemitism on the Palestinian side. The Israelis happen to have the upper hand and it’s not surprising that their policies, according to B’Tselem, resemble those of apartheid South Africa. I agree that the conflict is about security and land, but to my untutored eye, having read at least a few books on the subject, there’s always been more than a tinge of racism/antisemitism on both sides fueling the conflict. In the US the antisemitism factor is taken for granted, but getting any kind of admission that there might be racism on the Israeli side is like pulling teeth. Or if racism isn’t the right word (maybe people don’t think in terms of an inherent biological inferiority, but of a cultural one), then maybe bigotry would describe it better.

50. 2006-02-02 Cartoons, movies and the total cold war

51. Excellent points and references, edq on the history of the South Africa – Apartheid –
    Israel comparison; I was about to say something similar. But I’d like to
    emphasize that it is not only the fashionable lefty (cryptoantisemitic or self-hating?) peaceniks and
    South Africans like Tutu and Mandela who make the comparison. During Vorster’s
    1974 visit described in those articles, he commented on the similarity of their nations’
    situations, and his hosts agreed. Back then, apartheid was not so unfashionable, and
    Israel was not so quick to dissociate itself (verbally) from it and SA’s white rulers. So those
    opposed to the comparison have to face the fact that they seem to disagree with the true
    feelings of Israeli leaders like Golda Mei

52. “All Israelis – irrespective of le’om or “nationality” – are citizens of the state with equal rights under the law.”
    Adel Kadaan? What’s happened to his case since he got a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court?
    Helena,
    I came across something interesting in ariga.com. It pointed out that the popular vote was 45% Hamas, 42% Fateh, 13% other (which included secular parties). The point was that the popular vote equated to an electoral landslide, much as a razor-thin popular vote can equate to an electoral landslide in the US, depending on where the votes are distributed.
    Now, I am _not_ saying that Hamas didn’t win, fair and square. They did. What I am saying is that we should all take a deep breath and see that this victory was much more “purple” (to apply an American term) than it appears to be.
    Jonathan,
    I admire your ability to argue about definitions. Given the plasticity of definitions, forensic skills always settle the day.
    But there is an underlying TRUTH to these issues, which are obscured by arguments about bantustans and apartheid.
    I prefer the philosphical way of approaching things, which begins with a definition of terms.
    If you define apartheid in its petty sense: that is, “colored water fountains” and so on, then Israel is not an apartheid state.
    Grand apartheid is another matter. Grand apartheid is a thoroughgoing system which separates persons by law, based on immutable characteristics.
    OK, technically, Muslims and Christians can convert to Judaism in a way that blacks cannot become white, but let’s get real here. The vast majority of psychologically sound people are not going to give up their birth identities for advantages. In any case such conversions would be very difficult given the way the Church of Israel’s rabbis work.
    So let’s take a look at Israel. No civil marriage, separate school systems, unequal funding for townships, constant, nasty harassment by officials when Arab towns want to perform necessary upkeep on municipal infrastructure (see under: Nazareth v. Nazareth Illit) special land setasides for the Jewish National Fund so that “Diaspora Jews” like me can “return” while Israeli Arabs aren’t allowed to lease or rent, Supreme Court decisions allowing some Israeli Arabs to return to their villages flouted (see under: Iqrit) an entire sector of employment in high tech that is effectively barred to Arabs because only graduates of intelligence units need apply…Hello? What is going on here?
    Jonathan, you are an excellent debater and I’m positive that you can take every one of these cases and somehow “prove” that there is no apartheid, just temporary disability…but it doesn’t work for me anymore. Israel’s state apparatus is by, for and about Jews. And only a certain defintion of “Jew”, which I do not accept. (That is another, related, story, but let it pass for now.)
    What I’d appreciate here is some honesty. As in, “Yeah, it’s apartheid. It creates hardships for “non-Jews” as “non-Jews” and not as individuals and that’s not exactly consonant with universal values, but hey, tough.
    I would admire the honesty.
    What I do not admire is attempt to have it both ways.
    The West Bank, with it’s special roads for settlers and utter lack of human rights and simple justice for “non-Jews” is both.
    Clarification: I apologize for the over-use of quotation marks. It is my way of distancing myself from words that I dislike but must use because they express concepts unique to them.

53. Apologies to Helena, I read the comments more carefully than your post. Where, of course, you deal with the popular vote/electoral landslide issue.

54. Diana,
    My understanding is that the Kadaan family is currently building their house in Katzir. The Kadaans – and the legal system – won.
    And now a question for you:
    What is the punishment in the PA for selling land to a Jew?

55. JES:
    thanks for info about Kadaan. I did not know this. Do you have a source?
    Your question about land dealing is a dodge and a ruse. I specifically limited my purview to Israel, a duly recognized country, which purports to treat its citizens equally.
    Jonathan among others makes the claim that this is _essentially_ a true statement. I say it isn’t and the country wasn’t set up to treat people equally. It give me more potential rights than it does to Christian and Muslim citizens who were born there. You haven’t proven that it isn’t, although the Kadaan case is a hopeful sign.
    (Note: doesn’t Katzir belong to the JNF? Is Katzir Israel state land? Perhaps Jonathan can enlighten us about this.)
    But for the hell of it, the answer to your trick question is that if a Palestinian sells land to a Jew is that he gets killed. Same thing happens in Israel: remember what happened to that old land-dealer, Rabin? Also Israel has “settled” (i.e., confiscated) a lot of Palestinian land already.

56. Well Diana,
    First of all, you can check out Ha’aretz on the Kedaan family. (I believe the article was published last month.) I also believe that Katzir is built on land owned by the JNF. All JNF land is administered by the Israel Lands Authority, under an agreement with the owner (the JNF). I don’t know if you have ever dealt with the Israel Lands Authority, but I have, and it is a nightmare – even for a Jewish Israeli like me.
    You may maintain, if you want, that my question was “a dodge and a ruse”. I think that your arguments concerning “Grand Apartheid” are tautological.
    Let’s take a look at some of your assertions:
    No civil marriage. I am not sure why this is “Grand apartheid” or “lesser apartheid”, or why, as you say a lack of civil marriage “separates persons by law”. There are many states that do not have civil marriage – including, I believe, most of the Muslim states in the Middle East. So, perhaps you would like to elucidate your argument further?
    separate school systems. In any other country, this would be called government funded multicultural education, with Arabic, for example, being offered as the primary language of education. The important point here is that there is no segregation. There are also separate, state funded secular and religious schools. So what? Israeli Arab children are free to, and do attend Jewish schools, and there are even cases where the opposite occurs.
    an entire sector of employment in high tech that is effectively barred to Arabs because only graduates of intelligence units need apply This is simply a made-up argument. I can assure you that the majority of high-tech workers in Israel are not “graduates of intelligence units” as you say.
    BTW, and “just for the hell of it”, I was not asking a “trick” question. The law in the PA makes sale of land to a Jew a capital offense.

57. Sorry to more or less drop out of this thread for a few days; I’ve been under the weather. It seems to be pretty much over, so I’ll reply to Sofia’s comment which is directed at me:
    Jonathan, here is a better map of the currently approved route of the wall/barrier/fence. You can see the enclaves it creates west of the Ariel salient. According to David Makovsky (WINEP) — 8% of the WB would fall on the “Israeli side” of the wall, if completed as planned. I’ve seen estimates between 8-10%, but never 5%.
    That map looks like the fence route prior to the last official revision, and also prior to the Supreme Court judgment in the Mara’be case. The Mara’be judgment will require further revisions (some of which have already been made) and, according to my projections, limit the fence to around 4-5 percent of the WB. Among other things, the Ariel salient is likely to be much smaller.
    BTW, Diana, I don’t deny that institutional racism exists in Israel. Lots of countries have institutional racism of various sorts, as we saw in France last fall. However, not all institutional racism is of the particular kind called “apartheid,” and I think we need to be very careful what we label as apartheid because of the political volatility of that term. France isn’t an apartheid state despite its institutional racism; Malaysia and Fiji (which also categorize their citizens by “nationality”) aren’t apartheid states, and neither is Israel.

Comments are closed.