babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » What Hamas is and isn't

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What Hamas is and isn't
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 03:53 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
There is, it seems to me, a lot of confusion about what Hamas does and does not stand for, who they are and what they are trying to do. Discussion of this started in another thread.

What follows is an interview given by the political leader of Hamas in 2004. The interviewer does a fine job of parroting every hackneyed cliche of Israeli propaganga, but Khaled Meshaal more than holds his own.


quote:
Hamas: Khaled Meshaal

TIM SEBASTIAN - Khaled Meshaal. A very warm welcome to the programme. In the wake of the Israeli assassination of Sheikh Yassin, is Hamas planning yet another cycle of pointless revenge violence?

KHALED MESHAAL- In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful. Bloodshed in Palestine is going on because of the Israeli crimes before and it didn't begin after the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The Zionist crime requests a Palestinian response. This is something very ordinary. This reciprocity is acknowledged by all human and spiritual laws and legislations.

T S - Where does it get you? Where does it get you, this retaliation? It doesn't change anything. It doesn't get you anywhere does it? More people die. More of your people die, more Israelis die. No progress is made. Haven't you got anything else to offer to the process?

KM: Our goal is to end the occupation and not kill people. If the world was able to be fair with us and give us back our land and rights, we won't need anymore fighting and resistance

TS- And when you take this revenge and you see the bodies of Israeli women and children on the streets, does that make you feel better?

KM: We feel better when the occupation ends. We hope that no blood will fall in Palestine but the one who began with aggression is the one to be held responsible for it. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was a religious cleric paralysed and despite that, he was targeted by Zionist missiles which are American weapons. The Palestinian people have the right to respond to this aggression.

TS- Sheikh Yassin is a man who ordered killings of civilians - Israeli civilians. You can hardly complain when in a war he himself is killed can you?

KM: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin didn't order anyone. The resistance has a military specialised wing that fights on the ground. It is a natural right.

TS - He sanctioned the killings didn't he. He sanctioned them.

KM: The resistance operations don't need anybody's decision. Every Palestinian knows his duty. Any Palestinian who sees the Israeli crimes would act normally. The military wing in Hamas like the military wings in other factions knows their duty. They are doing their job in defending their people, responding to the Israeli aggression and resisting the occupation.

. . .

TS - The EU needs you to denounce violence otherwise they can't help you. They're not going to help you.

KM: The Palestinian resistance is not terrorism neither violence, and therefore we can't surrender our rights.

TS- You're the only one with that view Mr Meshaal. You're the only one who thinks that.

KM: Do you think I am the only one? What about those people who are resisting occupation and condemning Israel and America? Do you know that 43% of the American people consider the US the biggest danger to world peace? There is an international terrorism led by the US and Israel.

. . .

TS- Answer me just one question. Does Israel have the right to exist in peace? Do you acknowledge the right of Israel to exist in peace?

KM: We consider Palestine our land and this is our natural right and the occupation must end. Occupation cannot be divided.

TS- Answer the question, yes or no, does Israel have the right to exist? It's a very simple question.

KM: I am saying we have the right to our land and we have the right to be freed from occupation. Any occupation even if time goes by doesn't become legitimate.

TS- So the answer is no. Israel does not have the right to exist. That's what you're telling me.

KM: The occupation doesn't become legitimate even after a long time. You are talking about a fair and comprehensive peace. The Palestinian who was forced to leave his land in Haifa and Jafa, if he doesn't return to his land, how do you say this is fair? Why do you stick to your rights in Europe and the whole world while you ask us to drop ours?

TS- So Israel does not have the right to exist. Let's just clarify this once and for all. You're saying Israel does not have the right to exist.

TS- So you're not going to answer my question. Let's just clarify that for the sake of the viewers, you're not going to answer my question because it's too difficult.

KM: This is not difficult. I answered in the spirit of the situation. Occupation must end regardless of the duration. Therefore, it is our right to hold on to our land.

TS- How can anyone negotiate with people who will not give a straight answer to a straight question? How?

KM: Didn't you understand my answer?

TS- I don't think the rest of the world will understand.

KM: People will understand it. I am asking you one question. Before 1948 what was happening on the land of Palestine? There were a people living peacefully on its land.

. . .

KM: I will summarize very clearly Hamas position. First to adopt it in Europe and oblige America to do so. It consists of putting aside civilians in the struggle. If you were pitying the circle of killings in occupied Palestine oblige Israel to accept to put aside civilians in the struggle from both sides.

TS- Put aside the civilians as a first step.

KM: I am telling you let us stop the bloodshed from both sides. Let us put aside civilians in the struggle and let it just be between resistance from the Palestinian side and the Israeli forces and settlers. You are refusing this. When you are refusing our initiative to put aside civilians, you are allowing continuing the bloodshed. Why do you want to make pressure just on us and you can't do any pressure on Israel?

TS- And the second step?

KM: After that if Israel is convinced and sees the necessity to withdraw from the occupied territories, then this is a good step and then I would think the violence and killings in the region would stop even for a period of time, then coming generations would continue their own vision. But at least let us do a first step. Let us stop the struggle between civilians, let Israel withdraw first then tell the Palestinian people we gave you a state.

TS- Khaled Meshaal. Thanks for being on the programme.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/3639093.stm

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 08:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler here:

I could be wrong, but I believe Lenin and his croanies held elections after The Revolution which the social democrats won. Lenin didn't like the result. He took over the government, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Just because Hamas promises democracy to the Palestinians, it doesn't mean they'll get it. Besides, the whole idea of Wahabists controlling Palestine, a part of the Middle East once so famous for it's poets an intellectuals, makes me slightly ill.


Question # 1) is Hamas Wahabists?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 08:37 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
No, they are not: they are ordinary Sunni Muslims.

Cue: I don't think the passage cited contradicts Yassin at all. In fact, one of the things that struck me about all the interviews I readwas the consistance of the views expressed. In this case, both leaders are saying that they want a democratic Islamic state, and that the way to get it is to establish democracy, and then persuade a democractic majority to enact their program. There is no indication in their statements -- nor in the very respectful way they have dealt with the PA -- that the failure of their program would drive them into a Leninist orgy of terror. I'm afraid that's a hangover from the propaganda from those who would have us believe that anyone dedicated to Palestinian victory in the war with Zionism must be a murderous fanatic (which Hamas has unfortunately helped along in the past by using (under great provocation) attacks on civilians as retailiation.)


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 09 August 2005 09:01 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hamas has been very clear that their goal is the destruction of Israel, and to remove the Jews from the area. As such, they cannot be seen as anything less than a terrorist group.

I can at least give the light of the day to kingdoms like Saudi Arabia which are willing to negotiate peace with Israel, even on terms favourable to the arab countries.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
No, they are not: they are ordinary Sunni Muslims.

Cue: I don't think the passage cited contradicts Yassin at all. In fact, one of the things that struck me about all the interviews I readwas the consistance of the views expressed. In this case, both leaders are saying that they want a democratic Islamic state, and that the way to get it is to establish democracy, and then persuade a democractic majority to enact their program. There is no indication in their statements -- nor in the very respectful way they have dealt with the PA -- that the failure of their program would drive them into a Leninist orgy of terror. I'm afraid that's a hangover from the propaganda from those who would have us believe that anyone dedicated to Palestinian victory in the war with Zionism must be a murderous fanatic (which Hamas has unfortunately helped along in the past by using (under great provocation) attacks on civilians as retailiation.)


1) I think you are being optimistic. If one thing is clear it is that almost all parties operating in the region, which define themselves along religious lines, assert the primacy of Islam over secular state. This is the case with almost all parties in Iraq involved in creating a consititution for the puppet regieme there.

This is consitent with Hizboallah, as well. My experience in direct discussion with politically minded adherents of Sunni Islamic thought show consistency in the area. More often than not, the will assert that the pluralist and humanitarian nature of Islam make "democracy" compatible within Islam, not external to it. There is a very small fringe element that calls for a secular state model. This seems to fall into line with Abu Shanab reading.

2) Asserting that Hamas is made up of "ordinary Muslims," and not Wahabist, (especially without supporting evidence) is to assert that there is such a thing as "ordinary catholics," as if there is such a thing. Frankly, given Hamas's roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, it does not seem unlikely that there are Wahabist thinkers within the group.

3) Ultimately, I think part of the problem I have with your "defence" of Hamas on this issue, does not take into account the variance that actually may exist within Hamas itself. Having done some political organizing, speaking and interviews, I have a personal understanding of what is being said when someone like Yassin says, "my best vision...." as opposed to "our" or "we." This kind of phrasing, one I have used myself, is often used to gloss over issues that are not defined, or even in dispute within the organization itself.

It is very plausible that Rantisi, Yassin and Abu Shanab simply diagree or interpret differently the Qu'ran and there own charter.

Also, this fuzziness on some issues within the Hamas leadership, may have a lot to do not only with the concrete problems internal to any political organizition, but also something I have observed about Islamic Sunni ideology itself, which is that Sunni's tend to stay away from absolutist political and religious constructions which assign total authority to the group or a single leader. This in itself is part of the pluralist tradition, which many politically minded and progressive Sunnis point out when talking about the inherent pluralist tradition within Sunni Islam.

That is the way it appears to me, but really I think someone who is more familiar with the Islam should go into deapth on this issue. I do not feel comfortable asserting the above as truth, only as a possibility.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 August 2005 09:05 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, you mean like tha democratic Jewish state that's been such a great success over the last 57 years?
Why do you support an end to Zionism and yet endorse this "Islamic Democracy" Hamas talks about?
quote:
democratic Islamic state...

[ 09 August 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 09:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
Hamas has been very clear that their goal is the destruction of Israel, and to remove the Jews from the area. As such, they cannot be seen as anything less than a terrorist group.

This is a complete fabrication, which you would know if you had bothered to read any of the material, including the Hamas charter and the qouted material from various Hamas leaders under discussion.

In particular, I would ask where, in any of the documents in discussion here is it stated that there goal is "to remove the Jews from the area?" It is simply not there my friend.

What is being discussed is whether or not the Hamas charter and its leaders calls for the Jews of Israel to live within an Islamic state, or a democratic state.

Also we are not talking about Saudi Arabia.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Oh, you mean like tha democratic Jewish state that's done such a great success over the last 57 years?
Why do you support an end to Zionism and yet endorse this "Islamic Democracy" Hamas talks about?

A sailent point.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 09:50 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
Hamas has been very clear that their goal is the destruction of Israel, and to remove the Jews from the area. As such, they cannot be seen as anything less than a terrorist group.

I'd like to see you support this claim with some evidence. I've yet to find a single Hamas spokesman talk about "removing Jews from the area."

And when, in any case, did intention, as opposed to targeting noncombatants, become the definition of terrorism?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 09:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually there is very little eveidence that any major Arab leaders ever talked about "Driving the Jews into the sea," a quote wich has been atributed to everyone from the Arafat to Nasser. The only political speech that it is recorded in is one by Ben Gurion in 1961, the probable source original source:

"The Arabs' exit from Palestine...began immediately after the UN resolution, from the areas earmarked for the Jewish state. And we have explicit documents testifying that they left Palestine following instructions by the Arab leaders, with the Mufti at their head, under the assumption that the invasion of the Arab armies at the expiration of the Mandate will destroy the Jewish state and push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive."

Notice, Gurion does not even reference it himself, and merely states that it was an "assumption."

Ben Gurion: "We Must Expel the Arabs and Take Their Place"

[ 09 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

1) I think you are being optimistic. If one thing is clear it is that almost all parties operating in the region, which define themselves along religious lines, assert the primacy of Islam over secular state. This is the case with almost all parties in Iraq involved in creating a consititution for the puppet regieme there.

This is consitent with Hizboallah, as well. My experience in direct discussion with politically minded adherents of Sunni Islamic thought show consistency in the area. More often than not, the will assert that the pluralist and humanitarian nature of Islam make "democracy" compatible within Islam, not external to it. There is a very small fringe element that calls for a secular state model. This seems to fall into line with Abu Shanab reading.


A state does not have to be secular in order to be democratic. I never said Hamas supported the idea of a secular state, only that there is reason to believe, based on their statements and their record, that they will pursue an Islamic state by democratic means.

quote:
2) Asserting that Hamas is made up of "ordinary Muslims," and not Wahabist, (especially without supporting evidence) is to assert that there is such a thing as "ordinary catholics," as if there is such a thing. Frankly, given Hamas's roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, it does not seem unlikely that there are Wahabist thinkers within the group.

It was you who said that Hamas was "Wahabist" without any supporting evidence of any kind, and it is now clear, based on your radically watered-down assertion ("it does not seem unlikely that there are Wahabist thinkers within the group") that you don't have any.

quote:
3) Ultimately, I think part of the problem I have with your "defence" of Hamas on this issue, does not take into account the variance that actually may exist within Hamas itself.

Based on what in my posts do you say that?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Farrel. Read these threads again. CMOT states in the post I quoted him from that Hamas was "Wahabist." I asked the question quite plainly, is it, or is it not. I did not assert that it was.

You stated that you thought that it was not, without defence. I stated that it was likely that there were strains of Wahabismo in Hamas, given the nature and history of the organization. I gave my reasons.

Please read the thread carefully.

quote:
Farrell

Based on what in my posts do you say that?


You have stated this clealy here:

quote:
I don't think the passage cited contradicts Yassin at all. In fact, one of the things that struck me about all the interviews I readwas the consistance of the views expressed. In this case, both leaders are saying that they want a democratic Islamic state, and that the way to get it is to establish democracy, and then persuade a democractic majority to enact their program.

Lack of "contradictions" and "consistency" indictates uniformity not the "variance," which I was asserting might account for what I view as apparent differences.

[ 09 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 August 2005 10:11 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It was you who said that Hamas was "Wahabist" without any supporting evidence of any kind, and it is now clear, based on your radically watered-down assertion ("it does not seem unlikely that there are Wahabist thinkers within the group") that you don't have any.


That wasn't Cue. That was me.
He was actually going some way in defending your assertion that Hamas is not connected with Wahabism. Why attack him?

Cue: What are the main differences between the Islam practiced by the Islamic brotherhood and the Islam practiced by Bin Ladenists?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 10:14 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:


That wasn't Cue. That was me.
He was actually going some way in defending your assertion that Hamas is not connected with Wahabism. Why attack him?


I'm responding to him, not attacking him. Clearly I was confused about who said what; thanks for the clarification.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I may research this. But I am not going to assert anything absolute as to the Wahabist nature of Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Although I think Hamas view is distinct from the Bin Laden line.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 August 2005 10:18 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Note to self: must learn to read a heck of a lot more carefully.

[ 09 August 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 August 2005 10:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said:

quote:
Frankly, given Hamas's roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, it does not seem unlikely that there are Wahabist thinkers within the group.

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 10:38 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Farrel. Read these threads again. CMOT states in the post I quoted him from that Hamas was "Wahabist." I asked the question quite plainly, is it, or is it not. I did not assert that it was.


No, that was CMOT. Sorry.

quote:
You stated that you thought that it was not, without defence.

The original assertion was unsupported by any evidence. I concede I don't have sources to back up my thought, but I don't think that the burden of proof is all on me.

quote:
I stated that it was likely that there were strains of Wahabismo in Hamas, given the nature and history of the organization. I gave my reasons.

Wahabism (which, we should note, is a derogatory term not used by the believers themselves, who prefer Salafism.

Salafism is not the branch of Islam assoiciated with the Muslim Brotherhood:

quote:
In an interview with National Review Online, Schwartz claimed that Hamas "represents pure Wahhabism". This is in spite of the fact that Hamas are a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul Muslimeen) whose scholars have frequently criticised Wahabiism and ignores the fact that many Wahabi scholars have themselves differed with the Muslim Brotherhood as to their methodology. It also ignores the fact that Hamas employ suicide bombings whereas the leading scholars of Saudi Arabia (and therefore Wahabiism) such as the late Grand Mufti of the Kingdom Sheikh Ibn Baz opined that such bombings were not allowed in Islam.

http://www.atrueword.com/index.php/article/articleview/75/1/1

quote:
Lack of "contradictions" and "consistency" indictates uniformity not the "variance," which I was asserting might account for what I view as apparent differences.

You seem to be assuming differences where the text does not support that presumption. If you want to argue that Hamas is putting out mixed signals, and are not consistant, some sources on that would be nice. I'm saying that my experience has been that the message is consistant reguardless of who is being interviewed. Hamas representatives may not say the same things, but I can't think of a time when I've heard them contradict each other. Which is quite surprising, but is indicative of a highly disciplined organization.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 August 2005 10:41 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A state does not have to be secular in order to be democratic.

Yes, it does. Religions, in their most traditional forms (even psudeo democratic ones like Islam) tend to be against open discussion. This is contarary to the very spirit of democracy.
You want to see what a state tha mixs sectarianism and democratic politics is like? Look at Isreal. Look at India. Look at the U.S.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
So anywhere the Anglican Church is established is not a democracy? I think democracy is a little more robust than you suppose.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 09 August 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I should also point out that religion is by its inherent nature no more or less opposed to "open discussion" than any other social institution. Sometimes they are conservative, sometimes they are progressive, sometimes they are revolutionary.

You sterotype of the religious outlook ignores both the long and illustrious tradition of "open discussion" in all three monthestic religions (St. Augustine, Ibn Rushd, Maimonides et al), and the proud history of social activism and liberation theology from the Quakers to the Muslim Brotherhood to Martin Luther King.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 09 August 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am referring to a quote to a chief fundraiser for Hamas who was active in north america. He was on record as saying that "there are vast tracts of uninhabited land in the united states that could absorb the Jews," or close to that.

Saying that the jews should live as a minority in a palestinian state is tantamount to saying they should leave. 800, 000 Jews left arab countries in the years following Israel's creation and there are reasons for that. Different circumstances of course. My mother left morrocco with fond memories. My father wanted to run away from Tunisia.

If you believe that Israel should be abolished, or that an islamic majority should be allowed to happen, you believe that 5 million Jews should be kicked out. It is that way, unfortunately. A lot of people here in North America have a rose-coloured view of the situation and don't realize just how bad the feelings are over there. When you can put yourself in the mindset where you perceive either Ariel Sharon or Yassin as being moderates, then you have a clearer grasp of the human emotions involved. No arrogance intended I assure you, as I can't honestly claim to be able to understand a mindset where Yassin is a moderate.


From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 August 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I should also point out that religion is by its inherent nature no more or less opposed to "open discussion" than any other social institution. Sometimes they are conservative, sometimes they are progressive, sometimes they are revolutionary.
You sterotype of the religious outlook ignores both the long and illustrious tradition of "open discussion" in all three monthestic religions (St. Augustine, Ibn Rushd, Maimonides et al), and the proud history of social activism and liberation theology from the Quakers to the Muslim Brotherhood to Martin Luther King.


I take your point, it's just that(other then vehemently disagreeing with the french government on the subject of head scarves) I 'm still very much comitted to secularism in government.
Hearing the words Islamic or Jewish coupled with the word democracy, makes me deeply uncomfortable. It's a gut reaction. I can't do anything about it.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 August 2005 12:19 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and thank you for pointing out the difference between The muslim Botherhood and contemporary Wahabists.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I too feel that secularism is the way to go. I just don't think that a little religion is the end of the world. That kind of thinking can have serious consequences -- witness Algeria, where a moderate Islamic party won a majority in parliament in 1990. The military, with support from the Islamophobic west, nullified the election. It's been a hellish civil war ever since.

I agree that "Jewish democracy" and "Islamic democracy" are suspect concepts, although in practice, not equally suspect. I think my personal litmus tests would be two; are non-(dominant religion) people equal under the law? And, very important; is your government religious until the electorate says otherwise, or is it democratic until the religion says otherwise? That, to my mind, is the difference between Britian and Iran, and I am hopeful, based on what I'm hearing, that Hamas is on the right side of that divide.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 12:28 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Oh, and thank you for pointing out the difference between The muslim Botherhood and contemporary Wahabists.

I'm far from knowledgable about such matters. Islam is such a rich and diverse tradition, so different from the Christian tradition we're more familiar with. It's hard to tell the players without a program.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 12:33 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
I am referring to a quote to a chief fundraiser for Hamas who was active in north america. He was on record as saying that "there are vast tracts of uninhabited land in the united states that could absorb the Jews," or close to that.

Someone raising funds for Hamas may say anything -- that's not Hamas, any more than the people raising money for Israel speak for Israelis. Also, the source would be nice.

quote:
Saying that the jews should live as a minority in a palestinian state is tantamount to saying they should leave.

No, it's not. Is saying Palestinians should live as a minority in Israel tantamount to saying they should leave? It is not.

quote:
If you believe that Israel should be abolished, or that an islamic majority should be allowed to happen, you believe that 5 million Jews should be kicked out. It is that way, unfortunately. A lot of people here in North America have a rose-coloured view of the situation and don't realize just how bad the feelings are over there. When you can put yourself in the mindset where you perceive either Ariel Sharon or Yassin as being moderates, then you have a clearer grasp of the human emotions involved. No arrogance intended I assure you, as I can't honestly claim to be able to understand a mindset where Yassin is a moderate.

Nor can you claim to understand the Palestinian mindset, if you believe that majority rule in Palestine is equivelent to expelling the Jews. If you want to share your personal experience and insights, I'm eager to hear them; but what you are offering here is not a corrective to a "rose-colored view" but a careworn propaganda line that tries to equate democracy with destruction.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 01:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
I am referring to a quote to a chief fundraiser for Hamas who was active in north america. He was on record as saying that "there are vast tracts of uninhabited land in the united states that could absorb the Jews," or close to that.

Saying that the jews should live as a minority in a palestinian state is tantamount to saying they should leave. 800, 000 Jews left arab countries in the years following Israel's creation and there are reasons for that. Different circumstances of course. My mother left morrocco with fond memories. My father wanted to run away from Tunisia.

If you believe that Israel should be abolished, or that an islamic majority should be allowed to happen, you believe that 5 million Jews should be kicked out. It is that way, unfortunately. A lot of people here in North America have a rose-coloured view of the situation and don't realize just how bad the feelings are over there. When you can put yourself in the mindset where you perceive either Ariel Sharon or Yassin as being moderates, then you have a clearer grasp of the human emotions involved. No arrogance intended I assure you, as I can't honestly claim to be able to understand a mindset where Yassin is a moderate.


Which chief fundraiser, where?

And I knew we would end up with something along the lines of making Israel and Islamic state would be tantamount to saying that they should leave. Saying something "amounts to something," is very different to saying that this is what is being said.

Does saying Israel should be a Jewish state amount to saying all non-jews should leave?

The fact is that the charter and various Hamas officials have all stated that Jews, Christians and Muslims would all be allowed to live peacefully within the Islamic state they envision. This is consistent.

I tend to agree the principle allows for bigotry.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958

posted 10 August 2005 01:15 AM      Profile for DA_Champion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There can be one Jewish country in this world. How many muslim states are there? It doesn't have to be bigotry.
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 10 August 2005 01:19 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

I'd like to see you support this claim with some evidence. I've yet to find a single Hamas spokesman talk about "removing Jews from the area."

And when, in any case, did intention, as opposed to targeting noncombatants, become the definition of terrorism?


That's always been the definition of terrorism, targetting 'noncombatents' with the intent to instill terror within the general population for political purposes. And I've seen Hamas spokesmen flatly refuse to admit any possibility of a Jewish state anywhere within Israel/Palestine on live tv, that is their basic aim however they put it. Thats what differentiates them from the ex-PLO and Fatah. Whether they'll actually allow Jews to live in a Palestinian is an open question, or maybe only semantics, as they might just allow survivors residence status under the 'wing of Islam'. What's it called again, Dhimmis?


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 02:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

You seem to be assuming differences where the text does not support that presumption. If you want to argue that Hamas is putting out mixed signals, and are not consistant, some sources on that would be nice.


You have provided the sources for this:

Article 11

quote:
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

(What is a state but an expression of law?}

Article 27:

quote:
That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.


Article 31:

quote:
Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.


quote:

Q: And it doesn't necessarily have to be an Islamic state?

Yassin: That question should be left for the democratic process. Let the people select the kind of state they want, in the same way that the United States is a state for all its people and they solve their differences democratically as equals.


quote:
Abu Shanab: No, let's speak about a democratic state, because an Islamic state is compatible with democracy. In this way, we see the Israelis as part of this community, if they want to live as equals.

You say all of this amounts to:

quote:
In this case, both leaders are saying that they want a democratic Islamic state, and that the way to get it is to establish democracy, and then persuade a democractic majority to enact their program.

I disagree, as per article 11 and 27, 31 Abu Shanab is saying that an Islamic state is "compatible with democracy," in other words democracy within an Islamic state, Yassin is sugesting a different process where an Islamic state is chosen through a democratic process.

And then there is Rantisi's clear evasion of the loaded question:

quote:
When you say restoration of rights, you mean the removal of all the Jews?

"I am not talking about the Jews but about Palestinians who are living a tragedy. Without an end to that tragedy, no solution will hold fast."


I submit that this all amounts to differences of opinion within a general framework. You can read it how you want. But I think you are cherry-picking the good parts. The charter is quite clear, and Yassin's statment is at variance with it, I think. As I suggested before, I would not commit myself to a vision of political justice based on interpretaions of the Qu'ran.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 August 2005 02:17 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually there is very little eveidence that any major Arab leaders ever talked about "Driving the Jews into the sea," a quote wich has been atributed to everyone from the Arafat to Nasser. The only political speech that it is recorded in is one by Ben Gurion in 1961, the probable source original source:

Ben Gurion likely assumed that Arabs, if given the opportunity, would behave as badly as the Israelis had. I believe this is called "transference" where one assumes that someone else has the same desires and motives as oneself.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 10 August 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not an expert but here's the perspective from my part of the street.
Hamas's purpose is to be an controlled outlet for Islamic setiment. It serves the same purpose the Moslem Brothers do in other Arab countries. Without this outlet, Moslem political activity in Palestine would be hard to observe and control.

I think its important to differentiate the Hamas leadership and its members and supporters.
Hamas leaders are politicians. They have connections and recieve funding from many places. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,... who are in turn sponsored by the U.S. and U.K. They all have there own conflicting and converging interests in the region. Hamas leaders reflect these intersts. They also have direct connections to Israel. Hamas wouldn't survive without political protection from outside, but it wouldn't exist without some benefit to Israel in return. Hamas keeps track of its members activities, and provides Israel with much information on any activity by rival groups or independent people in Palestinian communities. Israel has been able to stop thousands of possible attacks on its interests with the information Hamas provides. Without that cooperation Hamas leaders wouldn't survive very long. But in this regard they are not very different than the PLO.

One thing that makes Hamas different is the way they talk. The Islamic language they use is very appealing to the Palestinian majority. Their seeming uncompromising stance against Zionism and protection of the peoples rights gives them a legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians that the PLO has never been able to recover since Oslo.
But what seems to give Hamas more legitimacy than the PLO is that it is a simply a less corrupt alternative. For many the PA is seen as an extension of Israel's occupation. Its leaders, western puppets like other Arab leaders. The PLOs corruption was especially clear to the people in the last elections. Almost everywhere PLO candidates fought among each other for power and funding. Everywhere in the west bank people describe the race as discraceful. Hamas on the otherhand provided a much more civil campaign. This is one of the reasons they recieved so much support, and the corruption is one reason why there was so little participation overall. Its also important to note that many if not most candidates who run under the Hamas name are not really members of Hamas, but independent candidates who ran under the name Hamas to give a more united face to the PLOs opposition.
Despite that, in my opinion, if Hamas leaders were given the same promises and money the PA is given, they would act just as dissapointingly as them. They would only look different with their longer beards.


From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 02:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anarchist!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 10 August 2005 02:43 PM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is something Hamas isn't.
From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No I was calling you an anarchist.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
[QB]

That's always been the definition of terrorism, targetting 'noncombatents' with the intent to instill terror within the general population for political purposes.


As I said, that's the definition. What the poster I was responding to implied was that the intention to dismantle a Jewish state rendered a movement terrorist.

quote:
And I've seen Hamas spokesmen flatly refuse to admit any possibility of a Jewish state anywhere within Israel/Palestine on live tv, that is their basic aim however they put it.

Yes, and there are ANC spokespeople who refuse to admit the possibility of an white-majority state anywhere in South Africa. How shocking.


quote:
Whether they'll actually allow Jews to live in a Palestinian is an open question, or maybe only semantics, as they might just allow survivors residence status under the 'wing of Islam'. What's it called again, Dhimmis?

You claim it is "an open question" but no offer no evidence to that effect. In fact, the Hamas representative interviewed all, when asked, say Jews would be allowed to remain. So what, besides hostility to Hamas, indicates they wouldn't?

You're welcome to reference discrimination against non-Muslims by past Islamic states, but it proves nothing, any more than past discrimination by Christian states against Muslims or Jews proves that they cannot be equal citizens today.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 06:34 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DA_Champion:
There can be one Jewish country in this world. How many muslim states are there? It doesn't have to be bigotry.

You really want to say that? To say that the principle of human rights reguardless of ethnicity ought to take a back seat to a sort of endangered species act for minority religions? So if the Bahi invade Britian we ought to back them, because there are lots of Christain states but just the one Bahi country?

It is morally bankrupt to support permanent disenfranchisement of a people because you find their oppressors more culturally distinctive snd hence more valuable. I'm sorry, but that is bigotry.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 06:37 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Cue wrote:

quote:
You say all of this amounts to:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, both leaders are saying that they want a democratic Islamic state, and that the way to get it is to establish democracy, and then persuade a democractic majority to enact their program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree, as per article 11 and 27, 31 Abu Shanab is saying that an Islamic state is "compatible with democracy," in other words democracy within an Islamic state, Yassin is sugesting a different process where an Islamic state is chosen through a democratic process.


I don't agree with your reading of Abu Shanab's interview. If he had meant that democracy only existed as an outgrowth of Islam, he would have said that democracy is compatible with Islam. He said the opposite; Islam is compatible with democracy.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the champ would be better to answer this question:

quote:
Which chief fundraiser, where?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 06:43 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Ben Gurion likely assumed that Arabs, if given the opportunity, would behave as badly as the Israelis had. I believe this is called "transference" where one assumes that someone else has the same desires and motives as oneself.


"Projection." Transference is when you fall in love with your therapist. And you're absolutely right.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Cue wrote:

I said the two speakers did not contradict each other. You are saying one of them contradicted articles in the charter. That is a completely different claim that has nothing to do with what I said.



I have no idea why you are engaing me in this little slug fest about itty-bitty little deatials amount to sweet fuck all. And btw, it is clear that you do not understand what I am saying.

I am saying that when Abu Shanab says:

quote:
Abu Shanab: No, let's speak about a democratic state, because an Islamic state is compatible with democracy. In this way, we see the Israelis as part of this community, if they want to live as equals.

He means democracy within Islam, as in the charter, "Under the wing of Islam," he does not mean that Islam would be subservient to the democratic process, but that the democratic process would be contained within an Islamic state. I support this contention, by referencing the charter, which clearly establishes the supremacy of Islam, and in fact does not even mention democracy.

You can read it how you want, but I wish you would at least attempt to understand what I am saying.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 06:51 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And then there is Rantisi's clear evasion of the loaded question:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you say restoration of rights, you mean the removal of all the Jews?
"I am not talking about the Jews but about Palestinians who are living a tragedy. Without an end to that tragedy, no solution will hold fast."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I submit that this all amounts to differences of opinion within a general framework. You can read it how you want. But I think you are cherry-picking the good parts. The charter is quite clear, and Yassin's statment is at variance with it, I think. As I suggested before, I would not commit myself to a vision of political justice based on interpretaions of the Qu'ran.


When your interviewer pitch you one loaded question after another, you have to be careful not to accept the assumptions that the questions are "loaded" with. Every loaded question is a variation on that old saw; "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Whatever answer you give, you lose.

I read Rantisi here as resisting the loading of the question and trying to keep the focus on the rights of the Palestinians rather than the fears of the Jews. As Yassin and Rantisi both point out elsewhere, the PA tried for years to reassure the Israelis and the West and got nowhere: they always found a reason to assume the worst. So there is an effort among Hamas leaders being interviewed not to fall into the trap of begging for recognition as moderates. They know that they will never get it, and seeking it allows their opponents to dictate the terms of the debate. That is how I read Rantisi's answer -- not as equivocation but as a rejection of the direction the reporter is taking the interview.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 06:53 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And btw, it is clear that you do not understand what I am saying.

It was clear to me too, which was why I quickly edited the post, see above.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 August 2005 06:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine. And thank you.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 07:00 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Fine. And thank you.

I apologize, I shouldn't be in such a rush to respond. It's a adrenaline thing.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 10 August 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Projection." Transference is when you fall in love with your therapist.

Right, of course. I wasn't sure that "transference" was the correct word, although one could say that the term is germane to the issue in another sense.

How does this therapist business work, if I may ask?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 10 August 2005 09:21 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:


How does this therapist business work, if I may ask?


How do you think it works?

And how does that make you feel?

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 12 August 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote riginally posted by Erik the Red:
[QB]

That's always been the definition of terrorism, targetting 'noncombatents' with the intent to instill terror within the general population for political purposes.

As I said, that's the definition. What the poster I was responding to implied was that the intention to dismantle a Jewish state rendered a movement terrorist.

Trying to dismantling a state throuh terror tactics can be considered terrorism, at least by those who would prefer the state to remain. What Israel is doing to the dream of a Palestinian state could also be considered terrorism.

quote:And I've seen Hamas spokesmen flatly refuse to admit any possibility of a Jewish state anywhere within Israel/Palestine on live tv, that is their basic aim however they put it.

Yes, and there are ANC spokespeople who refuse to admit the possibility of an white-majority state anywhere in South Africa. How shocking.


quote:Whether they'll actually allow Jews to live in a Palestinian is an open question, or maybe only semantics, as they might just allow survivors residence status under the 'wing of Islam'. What's it called again, Dhimmis?

You claim it is "an open question" but no offer no evidence to that effect. In fact, the Hamas representative interviewed all, when asked, say Jews would be allowed to remain. So what, besides hostility to Hamas, indicates they wouldn't?

It is an open question, and I offered the proof above and you just shrugged it off. Is the Hamas oranization open to a wide variety of opinion, wide as even a less than fully democratic state? We can get into an argument of semantics of what people really Mean by putting others 'under the wins of Islam' but I tend to put what any political spokesmen in the context of how their organization acts.


You're welcome to reference discrimination against non-Muslims by past Islamic states, but it proves nothing, any more than past discrimination by Christian states against Muslims or Jews proves that they cannot be equal citizens today.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm simply questioing the assumption that the Hamas (or Jihad or whatever) would necessarily be any less discrimanatory to Jews than Israeli Jews have been to them up to now. Not that that scenario is at all likely to happen anytime soon, anyhow. I am glad to hear that some make some more moderate sounding statements though.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 August 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is an open question, and I offered the proof above and you just shrugged it off.

Where is the proof, exactly? You offered nothing as evidence but some general "evil Islam" examples -- Arab governments harassing Jews in the wake of the Nakba, discrimination against religious minorities in the middle ages (what society didn't discriminate against religious minorities in the middle ages?) None of it referred specifically to Hamas except the fact that their charter refers to "the wings of Islam."

You go from "the wings of Islam" to the wholesale expulsion of the Jewish population, which is not only contradicted by everything Hamas' spokespeople have said about the matter, but also directly contradicts the passage you are quoting (for who is sheltering "under the wings of Islam" if the minorities have been expelled?")

Your unfocused and uninformed prejudice against Hamas is a good example of why this thread is necessary. Hamas is not the answer to all the ME's problems, they are not saints and saviors, they might not make a good governing party. But they are as an organization far more reasonable, principled, flexible and democratically-minded than you seem to be willing to see.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 14 August 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Where is the proof, exactly? You offered nothing as evidence but some general "evil Islam" examples --

--Wrong. I offered a simple example of a Hamas spokesmen refusing repeatedly to recognise Israel's right to exist. You just said it wasn't significant. Now, what exactly he meant he didn't make clear either but I also said I tend to measure a particular groups intentions by their actions. For example, George W Bush's rhetoric about 'defending democracy' and reassurances that he didn't really mean to call it as 'a crusade', should be measured against his UN defying invasion of Iraq, the statements of his generals and political backers, and the way Muslims are being denied due process, etc. Hamas or Jihad etc may have more extenuating circumstances to excuse their behaviour but Israeli crimes don't make their tactics right either, nor does it mean they could necessarily be trusted to be anymore fair to a Jewish minority, if they somehow succeeded in reinstating a Palestinian state in its place. If they're making somemore conciliatory noises now, well, that might be more than smart PR, it may even lay the groundworks for them being some sort of partners in any future settlements. OTOH, it may not.

I understand some of the nervousness about accepting the state of Israel being seen as accepting its supposed 'defensive' actions, but I'm also a bit nervous about going too far the other way and assuming that the state of Israel cannot be reformed by other means, or is foredoomed to repeat this pattern as long as they're a state with a Jewish majority.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 August 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You guys are arguing at cross-purposes.

Denying Israels "Right to exist," is not necessarily advocating mass ethnic cleansing of Jews, that is a Zionist ideological construction, not the one expressed by Hamas.

Red, Farrel has never adocated attacks of Israeli civilian targets, it is like you are arguing that he does. He doesn't.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 August 2005 11:29 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Cue, couldn't have said it better.

Erik, it's not that I have a problem with right-wingers wandering into the ME threads and talking about "Israel's right to exist" and a "Jewish majority" as if those concepts are any more real than nymphs and unicorns. It happens all the time, and we try to make you welcome. But to go beyand that, and to say that those of us who live in the real world are prima facie plotting genocide, is very offensive.

To say that your enemies, because they are your enemies and don't agree with you, are capable of anything, is a dangerous distortion and is usually used in the end to justify doing anything to the enemy.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 August 2005 01:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Farrel, Erik is far from right wing (but I guess this is subjective identification.)

One of the good things about the recent absence of right wingers is that left wingers actually get to talk about these issues in detail. This is what I mean by you guys are arguing at cross purposes. I think you are both reading each other wrong.

Anyway....


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 15 August 2005 08:06 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Denying Israels "Right to exist," is not necessarily advocating mass ethnic cleansing of Jews, that is a Zionist ideological construction, not the one expressed by Hamas.

Didn't you tell me at one point that one of the stated goals of Hamas is to take over Isreal and forcibly convert it's Jewish population to Islam. If this is indeed true, wouldn't that particular part of the Hamas Charter lead to pograms and riots anyway? Forcibly trying to convert your neghibour is not generally considered the best way to win their trust and affection.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 15 August 2005 11:56 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I've never heard of Hamas advocating forced conversion, in fact, I've never heard of Islamic forced conversion. The charter implies that there will continue to be religious minorities in a proposed Islamic state.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 August 2005 02:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Didn't you tell me at one point that one of the stated goals of Hamas is to take over Isreal and forcibly convert it's Jewish population to Islam. If this is indeed true, wouldn't that particular part of the Hamas Charter lead to pograms and riots anyway? Forcibly trying to convert your neghibour is not generally considered the best way to win their trust and affection.


I don't think that I ever would have said that. If I did I was extremely drunk or confusing my articles or something so that what I was saying was profoundly wrong.

I have no idea what individual Hamas leaders think about Israeli jews other than what I have read in the charter and in there written statements, and their interviews. No where have I ever read anything about forced conversions, although I suppose all Muslims think everyone should convert, but there is nothing special about that.

At best, I think Hamas had not real political program, other than a general one about ending the occupation, and eventually asserting Islamic rule throughout what is today called Israel.

To me, beyond that general and highly theoretical idea (especially the last part, about Islamic rule in Palestine, which seems to me to be mostly a propoganda meme) Hamas seems to function as a central organizing point for active violent resistance to Israeli occupation, and were it to actually suceed in any part of its program, I think it very likely that it would collapse as a functional political entity.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 August 2005 03:27 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hamas seems to function as a central organizing point for active violent resistance to Israeli occupation, and were it to actually suceed in any part of its program, I think it very likely that it would collapse as a functional political entity.

Wow, I don't agree. Are you aware that Hamas runs a variety of highly efficient social service agencies, from schools to daycare to road-building to employment offices? That their presence as a political party is well enough established that the PA is afraid of the results of free elections and has delayed them for that reason?

I would say that if any part of the Palestinian leadership is ready for government, it is Hamas. The institutions of the PA are corrupt and torpid by comparison.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 August 2005 03:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I am aware of Hamas's charitable works. Thing is I am also aware of the history of "revolutinoary" organizations and in my estimation, the Qu'ran, though useful as a rallying point for restistance, does not amount to a politcal program.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 16 August 2005 08:56 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is the Qu'ran any more useful than say the Bhagvat Ghita or the Torah in this regards?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 August 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am still suspicious of a radical organization running charitable activities, especially as Christian orgs in Canada in times past before the War often used their position of relative power vis-a-vis the unemployed person wanting a meal to do a little proselytization.

In addition the characteristic inefficiency of charities must rear its head sooner or later as Hamas runs into the problem of scaling up their orgs to meet higher demand.

The PA must needs encompass a welfare state - but to do so it may well have to fold the Hamas people into its ground-floor apparatus, so to speak. Oh yes, and Israel will need to help, not hinder, the process.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 August 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I need a few posts to catch up with what's being said here, but for starters, I think to think of Hamas' operations as "charity" misses the point entirely. They are operating in a place with no legitimate government, only a military administration and a dysfunctional, autocratic, and corrupt administration in bed with the aforementioned military government. Right now, Hamas is the welfare state. They are not a mob of violent, fundementalist revolutionaries that do some charity work; that is a media-created sterotype. They are, it seems to me, a broadly based mass movement adressing the needs of the people they represent. These needs range from daycare to violent resistence to occupation. But neither of those services is more organic to Hamas than the other; they simply differ dramatically in the amount of media exposure they get.
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 August 2005 07:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Is the Qu'ran any more useful than say the Bhagvat Ghita or the Torah in this regards?

An intereseting question, I am no expert, but it seems to me that all of these texts have a political intent, but one that it specific to the time and place of creation. That said, the Qu'ran was written later in history, so it seems to me that its political reference point is more relevant to more modern forms of social organization, but then it is still centuries out of date:

quote:
It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.

Salman Rushdie

But then again, I am really a dilettant in respect to the qu'ran, although I have read through it,

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 16 August 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Is the Qu'ran any more useful than say the Bhagvat Ghita or the Torah in this regards?

Myself, I have never agreed with those who hold that religion is a pernicious influence -- whether on individuals, social movements or governments. A government which was religious according to the best sense of religious faith would indeed be well-guided.

The problem comes when human beings twist the meaning of religion into a totalitarian ideology. This is not somthing particular to religion that is less likely to happen in a movement informed by secular values. The only requirements for such a distortion are some source of authority which can be vested with absolute credibility (Marx, the leadership principle, what have you) and the application of the logic according to which "“The principle of the movement is whoever is not included is excluded, whoever is not with me is against me, so the world loses all nuances and pluralistic aspects that have become too confusing for the masses” (H-A, Origins of Totalitarianism.

When we mistrust religious movements (which, like all other movements with the misfortune to have human beings as their principle leaders, are often worthy of mistrust) we should remember that abolitionism was a religious movement, civil rights in the South was a religious movement; so was the struggle against apartheid. Not in the sense, mentioned above, that everyone in the movement was religious, or else, but in the sense that the movement's greatest strength lay in people whose religious belief was that you can't treat God's children this way.

If a genie were to appear to me and offer me the choice between a total Palestinian military victory or genuinely Jewish state, a state where the true principles of the Talmud would be its law and practice, I would chose the Jewish state without hesitation. Because what would such a state be like? Everyone would be equal under the law: "you shall have one law for the stranger and for the citizen" (Leviticus 24:22). No one would be oppressed: ""You must not oppress the stranger; you know how the stranger feels, for you were strangers in Egypt" (Exodus 23:9). Palestinians would not be kept from returning, nor would they be treated as a "demographic threat" subject to endless tests of numerus clausus,; Jews have suffered all these things, and "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your others. That is the Torah; the rest is commentary."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 17 August 2005 01:27 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually Farrel, Erik is far from right wing (but I guess this is subjective identification.)

Thanks Cue, I'd consider myself a leftwing social democrat, but I get the feeling we're a dying breed now. To save more time, let's just say that I'm a bit more pessimistic about Hamas than Farrel is and a bit more optimistic about the prospects of Israel.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 August 2005 05:11 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Myself, I have never agreed with those who hold that religion is a pernicious influence -- whether on individuals, social movements or governments. A government which was religious according to the best sense of religious faith would indeed be well-guided.

You know why I'm suspicious of religion's effect on the body politic? Because I've never quit being amazed at how fast religion can stop even the most intelligent person in their tracks.

Case in point: I knew a brilliant guy a few years ago. Actually majored in physics; I took the easy way out and majored in chemistry because I couldn't stand math. Yet he was deeply religious and for this reason absolutely refused to accept the theory of evolution or anything that backed it up, even as he was learning the basic principles of radioactive decay, which is one of the foundations on which we rest our fairly certain knowledge that yes, this planet goshdarnit really is 4.5 billion years old.

He told me that he would end up teaching only classical mechanics to high school students, and so no doctrinal conflicts need apply.

This man deliberately cut himself off from a rewarding career in academic research or teaching at a more challenging intellectual level because he didn't want to burden his brain with the possibility that the science he was learning directly conflicted with a literal reading of the alleged Word of God stating that the Earth is but six thousand years old.

If ever you doubt the efficacy of my aphorism, I invite you to re-read my story.

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 17 August 2005 10:55 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If ever you doubt the efficacy of my aphorism, I invite you to re-read my story.

Nice. "If you don't agree with me, just re-read my post until you do." Why didn't I ever think of that?

The problem in your logic is that the phenomenon you describe is not at all specific to religious people. There are religious people who don't do it, and non-religious people who do. People lose themselves in systems. They get a sense of safety, order, and meaning within a given framework, and they don't want to step outside of it. In fact, we all do this from time to time, to a lesser or greater extent. Scientists do it with theories, activists do it with their particular party line, ad infinium, ad nasuem.

Religious people stick out in modern western countries not because they are unquestioning but because most people have moved on to other systems of belief. But the mass of people follow their new faiths just as blindly.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Big Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5451

posted 17 August 2005 11:43 AM      Profile for Big Willy        Edit/Delete Post
What Hamas is and isn’t?

Is a murderous terrorist organization that has the blood of many innocent Israelis on its hands.


From: The West | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 17 August 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Big Willy:
What Hamas is and isn’t?

Is a murderous terrorist organization that has the blood of many innocent Israelis on its hands.


Reminds me of that spiel the narrator used to read at the start of the GI Joe TV program: "Cobra, a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world."

Both describe cartoonish fantasies. Hamas, like Israel, has targeted civilians (though "innocent" is a bit of a strech when applied to Israelis. A truly innocent Israeli is a child, a radical activist, or an idiot.) That is wrong of them. But if doing so means that the only important thing about you is that you are a "murderous terrorist organization" than the American government is a ruthless terrorist organization, the Russian government is a ruthless terrorist organization, and the Israeli governement (and the settlers as well) are a ruthless terrorist organization.

But those who use such labels for Muslim murderers rarely apply them consistantly to everyone. If a few dozen suicide bombing make every member of Hamas a murderer, than the actions of Israel make every member of the nation of Israel guilty of murder, theft, and genocide.

Which, ironically, means that killing them would not be murder. So I think we've found the flaw in your free and easy application of the term "murderer." If it truly applies to all who belong to an organization which murderers people, than most of the people killed in Hamas attacks are themselves murderers, and presumably deserve their fate. "Targeted killings," as it were.

[ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 August 2005 10:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Big Willy:
What Hamas is and isn’t?

Is a murderous terrorist organization that has the blood of many innocent Israelis on its hands.


Missed the rest of the thread, I guess. Hard reading all those words.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 August 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball...come on.

That said, Big Willy, if you are coming to the Middle East forum just to drop little one-line troll bombs instead of contributing to the discussion productively, you'll find your account gets suspended much more quickly here.

[ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Big Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5451

posted 18 August 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for Big Willy        Edit/Delete Post
Did I say anything that is not true?
From: The West | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 August 2005 07:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In my view: Yes.

For one thing, as I pointed out in another presently active thread called: "Israeli terrorist kills four Palestinians in West Bank."

quote:
Frankly I reject the use of the word terrorist to describe anyone, or any politcal group. It means nothing and says nothing. It is usually used by the powerful to describe unauthorized violence against the state, or the person the state says that it is portecting.

It would be kind of racist and hypocritical of me to believe the above applied only to Israeli's and not Palestinians.

By the way, if you read the thread, you will see the answer to some of the questions I asked you a while back on another thread. I don't know if you bothered to reserach any of that, but it seems you haven't.

I think it would be nice if you would do us the favour of approaching the content of this thread somewhat carefully, as there is plenty of specfic historical and political background material here, which is being discussed.

[ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 August 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
Nice. "If you don't agree with me, just re-read my post until you do." Why didn't I ever think of that?

Sometimes it takes a couple kicks at the can for something to sink in.

quote:
The problem in your logic is that the phenomenon you describe is not at all specific to religious people. There are religious people who don't do it, and non-religious people who do. People lose themselves in systems. They get a sense of safety, order, and meaning within a given framework, and they don't want to step outside of it. In fact, we all do this from time to time, to a lesser or greater extent. Scientists do it with theories, activists do it with their particular party line, ad infinium, ad nasuem.

I do not deny that the "dogma virus" can attack anyone. I do point out that it seems that religious dogma seems particularly infectious to the point where it has the most astonishing impacts I have ever seen; what else but religous dogma has created the imprimatur of acceptable interference in politics at levels which even businesses are prohibited? Corporations in Canada are now banned from donating to political parties, whereas religious doctrine is implicitly marked as wholly acceptable by means of the standard prayer in the Commons prior to session.

Furthermore, what else but religious dogma seems to be "catching" on a mass scale to create mass delusions of grandeur among people with a mistaken belief in their own "manifest destiny" in the name of a god that as yet nobody has seen?

I have yet to see scientists, on a mass scale, howling for the destruction of, say, the non-relativists, those people who believe that Einstein was wrong and that mechanics and electromagnetism obey only the Galilean transformations?

I speak from direct experience that while such people may be scorned, nobody is howling for their destruction, nobody is suicide-bombing the relativists and nobody is executing the non-relativists. The worst of the debate is when the non-relativists get sworn at or vice versa, and I'm happy to report that it stays this way.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 18 August 2005 10:18 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some beliefs are just based on nobler, more peaceful, intentions than others, and some are more at odds with what science and history tell us about our world. Politics and science shouldn't be confused with religious or philosophical beliefs and values either, even if they sometimes overlap in practice.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 18 August 2005 10:26 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Hamas, like Israel, has targeted civilians (though "innocent" is a bit of a strech when applied to Israelis. A truly innocent Israeli is a child, a radical activist, or an idiot.) That is wrong of them. But if doing so means that the only important thing about you is that you are a "murderous terrorist organization" than the American government is a ruthless terrorist organization, the Russian government is a ruthless terrorist organization, and the Israeli governement (and the settlers as well) are a ruthless terrorist organization.

This is exactly where we differ. Hamas does in fact target innocent children along with other civilians, and civilians seem to be their main target. That's not the same as standard guerilla tactics. Hamas is also an organization representing a far more limited range of ideas than any nation state and is devoted to far more limited aims. Better comparisons would be between the Hama and the IDF or Likud parties, or, conversely, Palestinia Arabs and Israeli Jews. Otherwise the picture gets muddied again.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 18 August 2005 11:42 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
what else but religous dogma has created the imprimatur of acceptable interference in politics at levels which even businesses are prohibited?

Oh, I don't know, I've heard tell that communist dogma interfered with businesses now and then.

quote:
Furthermore, what else but religious dogma seems to be "catching" on a mass scale to create mass delusions of grandeur among people with a mistaken belief in their own "manifest destiny" in the name of a god that as yet nobody has seen?

Nazism? Socialist Zionism? Patroitism and hyper-nationalism in general?

quote:
I have yet to see scientists, on a mass scale, howling for the destruction of, say, the non-relativists, those people who believe that Einstein was wrong and that mechanics and electromagnetism obey only the Galilean transformations?

Scientist most certainally have howled for the destruction of people -- both Nazism and Communism enlisted science in the service of of their ideological goal, including de-legitimizing enemies. Of course, this did not make for good science, but then, neither does it make for good religion.

quote:
I speak from direct experience that while such people may be scorned, nobody is howling for their destruction, nobody is suicide-bombing the relativists and nobody is executing the non-relativists. The worst of the debate is when the non-relativists get sworn at or vice versa, and I'm happy to report that it stays this way.

It's easy to idealize science, a wonderful tool for learning about the world. It is a short step from that to idealizing scientists, but, in fact, given the power, they is no reason to think they would be any less prone to the egotistical and violent fallacies which have enraptured others.

It is important to realize that science, with its many virtues, has no moral content at all. You cannot use the information science generates about the world to conclude anything about how we should treat other human beings -- about the rightness or wrongness of lying, stealing, killing or destroying the enviroment. It can give you a better idea of the consequences of your choices, but that is all. So even the best scientists have no special protection against the seductive evils you describe.

[ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 18 August 2005 11:50 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Furthermore, what else but religious dogma seems to be "catching" on a mass scale to create mass delusions of grandeur among people with a mistaken belief in their own "manifest destiny"...

Are you sure you not talking about Stalinism?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 18 August 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
[QB]

This is exactly where we differ. Hamas does in fact target innocent children along with other civilians, and civilians seem to be their main target.


Evidence? Sources? As above, you are repeating a sterotype about Hamas cultivated by Israeli propaganda.

quote:
Hamas is also an organization representing a far more limited range of ideas than any nation state and is devoted to far more limited aims.

Again, no source or other support, and what you're saying contradicts the evidence cited on the thread. Hamas does not have "a limited range of ideas" whatever that may mean. Nor are they devoted to "far more limited aims" than a nation state. Different parts of Hamas address Palestinians' needs for education, healthcare, infrastructure, culture, and national defense. They also participate in the democratic process, with canadiates and campaigns, complete with party platforms with positions ranging from how to conduct the struggle with Israel to creating jobs and fixing potholes. So in what way are their concerns "far more limited" than a state's?

quote:
Better comparisons would be between the Hama and the IDF or Likud parties, or, conversely, Palestinia Arabs and Israeli Jews. Otherwise the picture gets muddied again.

Your supposed clarity on these issues seems to stem from swallowing the Israeli party line hook, line, and sinker. I'll stick with the muddy reality, thanks.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cam_eron_a
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10042

posted 18 August 2005 11:55 PM      Profile for Cam_eron_a     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Chretien was as close to Stalin as we're going to get.

Now, we're being Martinized.
Can Canada come clean?

I, mean, all those great rivers flowing to the sea.....


From: riverside | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 19 August 2005 12:04 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zionism is based on a rather dark and nasty interpritation of the Talmud. Nazi ideology relied heavily on a strange neo pegan christianity, and hyper nationalism is often based on religious faith. Just look at the Baptist reich that's currently controlling your country.
quote:
Nazism? Socialist Zionism? Patroitism and hyper-nationalism in general?

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 19 August 2005 12:27 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Both describe cartoonish fantasies. Hamas, like Israel, has targeted civilians (though "innocent" is a bit of a strech when applied to Israelis.

This is completely unacceptable!

Isreal has many flaws. Many of it's people are arrogant and racist. but saying that no Isreali over the age of ten is innocent is incredibly stupid.
P.S. Do not tell me that every victim of a Hamas suicide bombing is a reservist, because many aren't.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 19 August 2005 12:39 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Abdul-Aziz Rantissi is constantly interrupted by calls. But his young bodyguard, Kalashnikov rifle nursed upside down on his knee, hands him a big military two-way radio receiver, not a mobile phone. I think – but I do not say – that this is to protect the Hamas leader. Mobiles are traceable to within a few feet. Israel's death squads became masters of analogue and digital technology in Lebanon.

[URL=http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles69.htm ]Robert Fisk on Rantisi[/URL]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 19 August 2005 12:42 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Zionism is based on a rather dark and nasty interpritation of the Talmud.

Actually, and this is thread drift but is interesting nevertheless, religious Zionism has very little to do with Talmudic Juadism. Zionists -- and here I'm paraphrasing the explanation of an Israeli Arab politican, I remember when I heard it being astonished a politician could say something so penatrating -- are engaged in a project of rejecting 2,000 years of Talmudic Juadism and ressurecting a tribal Juadism based on a literal interpretation of the Torah. It is, in essence, a rejection of evevything we know as Judaism, which was created in exile, and priviledges justice, scholarship, moderation, and the value of compassion, mercy, and tolerance.

It's similiar to those Christians who in practice relate to the Old Testament far more than the message of Christ, except in Judaism there was no New Testament; rather, they radically reinterpreted the Torah according to a new, humanist, hermeneutic. Zionist Judaism, to satisfy the demand for justification in an era of aggression, conquest, and oppression of those weaker, rejects that shift.

By that as it may, neither of these things is what socialist Zionism was about. Sure, you can find religious overtones in them or in Nazism or even in communism if you look hard enough, but that is because religion has so satuated our culture for thousands of years that every cultural project, from revolutionary movements to romance novels, is suffused with religion's influence. I could equally say that all of the above partook of scienctific justifications for what they were doing. Yet science did not make those people evil; neither did religion.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 19 August 2005 12:49 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

This is completely unacceptable!

Isreal has many flaws. Many of it's people are arrogant and racist. but saying that no Isreali over the age of ten is innocent is incredibly stupid.
P.S. Do not tell me that every victim of a Hamas suicide bombing is a reservist, because many aren't.


Tut, tut: you're forgetting the exceptions I made for activists and idiots.

Guilt and innocence are matters of degree. To assert something or someone is innocent is a strong claim. To disprove it, one need only show complicity in evil, not (you seem to be confusing these two things) to show that they are actively violent.

Being guilty does not make them legitimate targets; that is a matter not of guilt or innocence but of the rules of warfare, which specify who may or may not be targeted. Killing guilty noncombatants is still murder.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 August 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have considered this:

I don't think its quite accurate to say that Wahabismo doens't exist, and that it is Salafism pure and simple. The two groups within a religious or political tradition may share the same roots, but it is quite common for new branch to claim themselves as the true inheritors, and correct interpreters of an old tradition.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 19 August 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I have considered this:

I don't think its quite accurate to say that Wahabismo doens't exist, and that it is Salafism pure and simple. The two groups within a religious or political tradition may share the same roots, but it is quite common for new branch to claim themselves as the true inheritors, and correct interpreters of an old tradition.


I think the point of people who say Wahabbism doesn't exist is that it is a derogetory term not used by the people themselves. Do you know of anyone who self-identifies as Wahabismo? If not, is there any good reason to use the term when members of a this religious persuasion prefer to be called something else?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 August 2005 11:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahh yes, but the Salafists themselves commonly denounce Bin Laden, so then what is he?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 20 August 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Ahh yes, but the Salafists themselves commonly denounce Bin Laden, so then what is he?

Excellent question. I don't have an answer. If he considers himself a Salafist, then I'd call him an extremist fringe Salafist. Or maybe a radical Islamic terrorist.

I guess I'm wondering what "Wahabbist" really means. It sounds like a religious sect with a given ideology and adherents, and it is presented that way in the media, but when we look closer it seems less and less like that. I wouldn't want to hamper our ability to talk about radical Islam, but it seems to me that this term is perhaps deceptive in its implications.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 August 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you sure some religious idealogues aren't manipulating the discourse through semantic games?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 20 August 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Your supposed clarity on these issues seems to stem from swallowing the Israeli party line hook, line, and sinker. I'll stick with the muddy reality, thanks.


More horse hockey. I've avoided even reading this up to now, but sure enough youre the one who continues to perpetuate irreconcileable oppositions under the pretext of some sort of pan-Palestinian accord that some of us just can't grasp...what being the hapless dupes of IDF PR and all. Everyone knows the Hamas and Jihad are directly involved with murdering innocent civilians including children, they don't even deny it themselves but rather seek to justify it, so the onus is really on You to provide more than a few vaguely moderate sounding statements from vaguely moderate looking spokesmen.

Re your touching insistence that the Hamas represents anywhere near the complex diversity of opinion that several million Jewish citizens do, just tell me this, are there really socialist, liberal, or conservative wings within the Hamas? Are there secularists and agnostics too, or one single Jew standing among them? Do they really hold free elections among their ranks? The fact that they provide some social services that the PLA can nolonger provide really is about as meaninful as Colombian drug lords building schools or the Hells Angels holding toy runs every Xmas.

Last points, you don't know Near as much about Israel or its diverse subcultures as you seem to think, therefore you have no right to make the grand pronouncements that you do. (noone does really) You didn't even know that Yahudic speaking "Arab" Jews are as Jewish as any other MiddleEastern group, who happen to have spoken Iranian or Aramaec dialects instead. Or Yiddish or Ladino or Yevanic etc. And in case you still haven't gotten my only real point here, oneside killing the others children isn't justified by the others doing the same, nor does it do Anything to deter more in the future, as we've all seen. And that applies as much or more so to Israelis, in case you try to pull your cheap rhetoric on me again.

I'm outa here. Maybe I'll dip a toe into this forum onemore time just start a thread on the more positive and peaceful possibilities available for dealing with this supposedly unresovable conflict. I'm sure you'll jump through even more rhetorical hoops to deny them too.

[ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 21 August 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Now, what was the word for posters who show up on threads for no other reason than their personal axe to grind, then depart suddenly in a blaze of ad hominem mixed with offended dignity? I think it starts with a "T."
From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 August 2005 01:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I guess Erik the Red and rsfarrell have cancelled each other out, so just a reminder to both to knock off the personal stuff.

And this thread is probably long enough.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca