Why are British MPs courting cowardly Hamas?

[Fozzledick]

By Max Julius, Haaretz Correspondent

There is something so distinctly British about the overtures that some of the United Kingdom's lawmakers have been making to Hamas of late. The visit to the Islamist group in Damascus, the letters of sympathy in the British press, Khaled Meshal's invitation to give a video address to parliamentarians; all these moves smack of a kind of an old-school colonial refusal to be scared by the natives coupled with a bloodyminded desire to patronize them.

Many Israelis are gripped by fear in the face of Hamas' Jew-hating rants and maximalist demands; they are roused to defiance by the group's cross-border provocations and terrorist outrages.

But for a small yet vocal number of British MPs, these things only add to the Palestinian militant organization's allure. The anti-Semitism is taken as a sign of Hamas' authenticity as a real Third World group; after all, who else but "noble savages" could be uneducated enough to not know that the Nazis have made the ancient hatred passé? Hamas' murderous attacks on Israeli civilians and brutal oppression of its own population are likewise winked at as the inevitable behavior of unruly Oriental masses.

These modern-day British imperialists, the vast majority of whom are on the left, by the way, see Palestinian terror as a sort of ineffectual temper-tantrum; much as their forebears in African and the subcontinent saw their subjects' occasional acts of hostility toward them as childlike bouts of rage. The fact that Hamas' plots are so regularly thwarted by Israel, which often responds with far greater force, only goes to further the sense these Britons have of the group as something that only seems malignant to those without a true understanding of the Arab: Their poor American cousins and, of course, the hysterical, persecution-obsessed Eastern European Jews who now call themselves Israelis.

A good example of this is the recent hostilities in Gaza. Hamas sparked the three-week war, in which over a thousand Gazans and thirteen Israelis were killed, with a spate of rocket barrages on Israel's South. When Israel Defense Forces ground troops entered the Strip they encountered surprising light opposition, despite the group's violent bluster and bombast. Hamas' leadership and top militants instead apparently chose to sit the war out, concealing themselves in bunkers and hospitals while untrained gunmen were left to fend off the attack. Who else but children would trigger such a calamity - in which over a thousand Palestinians were killed as opposed to 13 Israelis - and then shy away from it, doing the adult equivalent of hiding under the bed. George Galloway reaching out to Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza, and Clare Short doing the same to Khaled Meshal in Damascus are the political equivalent of giving those naughty kids a big hug.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085831.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. When IDF entered Gaza "they encountered surprising light opposition."

When Israel Defense Forces ground troops entered the Strip they encountered surprising light opposition, despite the group's violent bluster and bombast. Hamas' leadership and top militants instead apparently chose to sit the war out, concealing themselves in bunkers and hospitals while untrained gunmen were left to fend off the attack.

I am confused. I thought that the IDF's brutal tactics were somewhat related to Hamas' resistance. Max Julius seems to be giving more weight to those that accused Israel of a disproportional response.

As to the article itself, that's a mighty broad bush to paint all leftists as being enamored of Hamas, a religious fundamentalist group that oppresses women and LGBTs, engages in acts of terrorism, and that has yet to release the remains of Gilad Shalit to his family.

[aquart]

2. "engages in acts of terrorism"

I'll just guess that that's the brutality they were thinking of.

There's nothing like a rocket hitting the swing set to set off a killing spree.

[shira]

3. excellent point by the author of the OP

Many in the British "peace camp" are acting precisely like British Imperialists from over 70 years ago, with the same racist, smug attitudes towards the lowly "brown natives" of Gaza who, like retarded children, need to be excused for their stupid or naughty acts b/c hey, what else can they do - what else can be expected from the "natives"...that's who they are after all...."proper Brits" certainly cannot hold the "brown people" to the same standards as responsible "whites", etc...

Maybe if these modern-day British Imperialists really cared about Palestinians on humanitarian grounds, they'd realize it doesn’t make sense to help impose an extremist and repressive dictatorship like Hamas on them.

Also any British Imperialist who thinks that suppressing women, forbidding freedom of speech, supporting terrorism, and rejecting the values of logic, the scientific method, and such things are just quaint local customs to be respected should be forced to live in those societies.

Just saying.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Actually, the striking parallel is between the Israelis and the British empire.

Israel is one of the very few remaining imperial powers.

[shira]

5. of course, if you know nothing about history and ignore facts then you're absolutely right.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Frankly, both you and Shira are making inappropriate analogies with the past IMO

Israel isn't an imperial power. It is an occupier, but the OTs are not colonies; it is not using them for an economic purpose, or actively planning to keep them long-term for the 'glory' of Israel. Or, if the occupation *is* to be treated as 'imperialism', then there are many other imperial powers, as many other countries engage currently in occupations.

And Britain has no 'imperial' influence over Israel or Palestine, and for MPs to express views and seek to be involved in the peace process is not imperialism. Or do you (Shira here, not Donald) think that Blair's role as peace envoy is also imperialism? (actually he did collaborate with a sort of imperialism in Iraq). Nor does having different views from yours - or from mine -on Palestine necessarily mean patronizing the Palestinians.

I would add here that both Galloway and Short are very much out of the mainstream and are sitting as independent MPs. For some reason - perhaps his grandstanding- Americans on all sides seem to attribute far more of a role to Galloway in British politics than he actually has.

[shira]

7. not holding all societies to the same single standard and expecting less of them was a basis for....

Imperialism and Colonialism (saying they were "helping" the poor natives). It's the same racist mindset.

Do you think Gazan society and its gov't should be held to the same standards and expectations as Israeli society and its gov't?

[LeftishBrit]

9. I think all governments should be held to certain standards (e.g. not murdering their own people)

However, there are not many British MPs who actually support Hamas. For most who are making any 'overtures' to Hamas, it's more a matter of including them in negotiations. Most negotiations include nasty governments and groups.

Do you think that Nixon should not have gone to China, or that America and Russia should not have been involved in arms reduction talks? There's no doubt that Russia and China had (and have) some pretty nasty governments. Do you think that Britain should not have talked to representatives of Catholic and Protestant paramilitary (= terrorist) groups in the run-up to the Good Friday agreement? Lots of rather nasty people on all sides there!

For that matter, what do you think of our own governments' actions in Iraq? Not meeting a very good standard, I'd say; even if their treatment of their *own* people is of a higher standard than many other countries.

[shira]

13. expecting "peace" based on double-standards and different expectations is futile

and it appears the reason these double-standards and different expectations are acceptable is based on (perhaps) unintended racism (the same mentality of the British Imperalists and Colonialists).

And no, it's not all British MP's but there are definitely some with this mentality. A large and growing number in the so-called peace camp are of the same mentality and they expect diplomacy between Israel and Palestinian leadership to be based on this racism (the responsibility is mostly Israel's, not much can be expected from Palestinians, etc...).

[Sezu]

8. You asked if I considered you a postmodern

deconstructionist. This post of yours is an example of why I do. You would do well to consider shira's advice.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. you called him that too? Well, I guess I was not alone

I just cannot possibly fathom how you could possibly deduce an abstract concept on the basis of a few sentences.

I think you are making too many assumptions about where people are coming from based on your own prejudices.

[Sezu]

12. Oops, I mixed up my posters but yes he appears

to be one as well. He takes the FACTS, tears em up into lil factoids, puts em in a hat, pulls out one or two and reconstructs the original into a new narrative to demonize his new bad guy/bad guy de jour.

You could be right ; I well may be prejudiced against what I consider people who stoop to false disambiguation. But then shouldn't we all be?

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. and there goes another example of your "critical thinking"

I don't know if this is funny or just sad.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. The former Israeli Foreign Minister & Colin Powell and countless others support dialogue with Hamas

Is this because they all want to destroy Israel? Or is it because they understand that there is a difference between pragmatic political realities and over the top political rhetoric, made both by some Hamas leaders and made by those who oppose talking with Hamas .

They understand that to not include Hamas in dialogue is to oppose peace between Israel and the Palestininians - since without Hamas at the table, peace is impossible.

Interview with Former Israeli Foreign Minister and lead Israeli negotiator, Shlomo Ben-Ami:

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible. "

from during debate with Norman Finkelstein on the T.V. program, "Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman. Full transcript:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=140

=========================================================================

Collin Powell and several other prominent mainstream leaders support dialogue with Hamas
and signed a letter which includes a paragraph very clearly stating so - along with calling for real talks which covers substantial real issues.

Some of the signatories frankly surprised me:

"As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point."

Partial list of Signatories:


Zbigniew Brzezinski -Former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter

Lee H. Hamilton - Former Congressman (D-IN) and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group

Carla Hills - Former U.S. Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush

Nancy Kassebaum-Baker - Former Senator (R-KS)

Thomas R. Pickering - Former Under Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton

Brent Scowcroft - Former National Security Adviser to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush

Theodore C. Sorensen - Former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy

Paul Volcker - Former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System

Jodie Allen - Senior Editor, Pew Research Center; Former Editor of the Outlook Section, Washington Post

Harriet Babbitt - Former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States; Former Director of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs

Birch Bayh - Former U.S. Senator (D-IN)

Shlomo Ben-Ami - Former Foreign Minister of Israel

Lincoln Chafee - Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies; Former U.S. Senator (R-RI)

Harvey Cox - Hollis Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School

Michael Cox - Professor, London School of Economics and Director of the Cold War Studies Centre

James Dobbins - Former Assistant Secretary of State

Joseph Duffey - Director, U.S. Information Agency, 1993-1999; Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Culture, 1977

Peter Edelman - Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy; Former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Gareth Evans - President & CEO of International Crisis Group; Former Foreign Minister of Australia

Leon Fuerth -Former National Security Advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Gary Hart -Wirth Chair at the University of Colorado; Chair of the Council for a Livable World and the American Security Project; Former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Robert E. Hunter - Senior Advisor, RAND Corporation; Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO

Robert Hutchings - Diplomat in Residence, Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University; Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council

Daniel Levy - Director, Middle East Policy Initiative, New America Foundation; Senior Fellow, Century Foundation; Lead Israeli Drafter, Geneva Initiative; Member of Israeli Delegation, Taba Negotiations

Anatol Lieven - Professor of War Studies, Kings College London; Senior Research Fellow, New America Foundation

John McLaughlin -Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Everett Mendelsohn -Professor Emeritus of the History of Science, Harvard University

Diana Villiers Negroponte - Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution

William E. Odom - Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Professor of Political Science, Yale University; Former Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-1988

Christopher Patten - Co-Chair of International Crisis Group; Chancellor of the University of Oxford; Former EU Commissioner for Foreign Relations; Former Commander in Chief and British Governor of Hong Kong

Edward L. Peck - Former U.S. Chief of Mission to Iraq; Former Ambassador to Mauritania

Larry Pressler - Former U.S. Senator (R-SD) & Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Member, Council on Foreign Relations

Theodore Roosevelt IV - Managing Director, Lehman Brothers

J. J. Sheehan - General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

Eric Shinseki - General, US Army (Ret.)

Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

Stephen J. Solarz - Former U.S. Congressman (D-NY)

Robert and Renee Belfer - Professor in International AffairsJohn F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Phil Wilcox - President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; Former U.S. Ambassador at Large; Former Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for Management at the U.S. Department of State; Former Director for Regional Affairs, Bureau for Middle Eastern and South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Lawrence B. Wilkerson - Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.); Pamela C. Harriman Visiting Professor of Government, College of William Mary; Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University; Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of State; Former Director, U.S. Marine Corps War College

Joseph Wilson - Ambassador in President George H. W. Bush’s Administration; Special Assistant to President Clinton; Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council

Timothy Wirth - President, U.N. Foundation; Former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Frank Wisner - Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines and India; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs; Vice Chairman of External Affairs at American International Group

link to full letter and all the signatories:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Annapolis%20Summit%20Statement.htm


=========================================================================

[Sezu]

15. History is filled with well intentioned or simply cowardly

types who wrongly figured engagement with a murderous outfit of thugs could attain anything more than a temporary respite if even that. Let's face it. If the fine gentlepeople who signed on as you listed were all that smart we wouldn't be here now would we?

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. I would suggest you learn a little bit about the conflict

from both sides. Forming opinions exclusively on the basis of prejudice and emotions is not going to help and is certainly not critical thinking.

[LeftishBrit]

17. And it is also filled with well-intentioned and cowardly people and even thugs who did end up making

peace with their often thuggish enemies.

Yes, there were Chamberlain and Hitler, and the Nazi-Soviet pact. But there were also Nixon and the Chinese government; and Begin and Sadat; and the Brits and the IRA and the Paisleyites.

Sometimes peace negotiations work. Sometimes they don't, or come at too high a price. However, even the far from pacifist Churchill said that in general 'jaw jaw' was better than 'war war'.