Fw: the Primaries and thier discontents

 

The Absurd Tribune

 

 

      The cartoon is illustrative of what I see in this election, even though it is still the primaries.  That stupid commercial about 3am hot-line phone calls plays to the worst in the American electorate and makes one wonder if it would not be wiser simply to opt out of that group altogether.  I do wonder why the phone rings 7 times.  Surely, someone was there?  Perhaps an answering machine finally picked it up, or the commercial ran out of time. 

      The NAFTA is another issue.  Canada had a fierce debate over supposed leaking of a memo about Nafta, which both candidates oppose but tell others they are not going to change.  Finally, Canada, which I know fairly well, said, in essence, to paraphrase Chevy Chase "We're Canada, and you're NOT!"

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is from znet, then CounterPunch.  First it show how much easier it is to be even-handed on Israel while in Israel than it is in the United States.  Second, it reveals the truth about both countries and also points to a few problems with the politics of fear.

 

 

  Good Morning, Hamas

 

 

      CounterPunch

 

March 08, 2008 By *Uri Avnery*

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery03042008.html

 

Uri Avnery's ZSpace Page

We Israelis live in a world of ghosts and monsters. We do not conduct a

war against living persons and real organizations, but against devils

and demons which are out to destroy us. It is a war between the Sons of

Light and the Sons of Darkness, between absolute good and absolute evil.

That's how it looks to us, and that's how it looks to the other side, too.

 

 

 

Let's try to bring this war down from virtual spheres to the solid

ground of reality. There can be no reasonable policy, nor even rational

discussion, if we do not escape from the realm of horrors and nightmares.

 

 

 

After the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, Gush Shalom said

that we must speak with them. Here are some of the questions that were

showered on me from all sides:

 

 

 

Do you like Hamas?

 

 

 

Not at all. I have very strong secular convictions. I oppose any

ideology that mixes politics with religion - whether Jewish, Muslim or

Christian, in Israel, the Arab world or America.

 

 

 

That does not prevent me from speaking with Hamas people, as I have

spoken with other people with whom I don't agree. It has not prevented

me from being a guest at their homes, to exchange views with them and to

try to understand them. Some of them I liked, some I did not.

 

 

 

It is said that Hamas was created by Israel. Is that true?

 

 

 

Israel did not "create" Hamas, but it certainly helped it along in its

initial stages.

 

 

 

During the first 20 years of the occupation, the Israeli leadership saw

the PLO as its chief enemy. That's why it favored Palestinian

organizations that, it was thought, could undermine the PLO. One example

of this was Ariel Sharon's ludicrous attempt to set up Arab "village

leagues" that would act as agents of the occupation.

 

 

 

The Israeli intelligence community, which in the last 60 years has

failed almost every time in forecasting events in the Arab world, also

failed this time. They believed that the emergence of an Islamic

organization would weaken the secular PLO. While the military

administration of the occupied territories was throwing into prison any

Palestinian who engaged in political activity - even for peace - it did

not touch the religious activists. The mosque was the only place where

Palestinians could get together and plan political action.

 

 

 

This policy was, of course, based on a complete misunderstanding of

Islam and Palestinian reality.

 

 

 

Hamas was officially founded immediately after the outbreak of the first

intifada at the end of 1987. The Israeli Security Service (known as

Shabak or Shin Bet) handled it with kid gloves. Only a year later did it

arrest the founder, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.

 

 

 

It is ironic that the Israeli leadership is now supporting the PLO in

the hope of undermining Hamas. There is no better evidence for the

stupidity of our "experts" as far as Arab matters are concerned,

stemming from both arrogance and contempt. Hamas is far more dangerous

to Israel than the PLO ever was.

 

 

 

Did the Hamas election victory show that Islam was on the rise among the

Palestinian people?

 

 

 

Not necessarily. The Palestinian people did not become more religious

overnight.

 

 

 

True, there is a slow process of Islamization throughout the region,

from Turkey to Yemen and from Morocco to Iraq. It is the reaction of the

young Arab generation to the failure of secular nationalism to solve

their national and social problems. But this did not cause the

earthquake in Palestinian society.

 

 

 

If so, why did Hamas win?

 

 

 

There were several reasons. The main one was the growing conviction of

the Palestinians that they would never get anything from the Israelis by

non-violent means. After the murder of Yassir Arafat, many Palestinians

believed that if they elected Mahmoud Abbas as the new president, he

would get from Israel and the US the things they would not give Arafat.

They found out that the opposite was happening: No real negotiations,

while the settlements were getting larger every day.

 

 

 

They told themselves: if peaceful means don't work, there is no

alternative to violent means. And if there be war, there are no braver

warriors than Hamas.

 

 

 

Also: the corruption in the higher Fatah echelons had reached such

dimensions, that the majority of Palestinians were disgusted. As long as

Arafat was alive, the corruption was somehow tolerated, because

everybody knew that Arafat himself was honest, and his towering

importance for the national struggle overrode the shortcomings of his

administration. After Arafat, tolerating the corruption became

impossible. Hamas, on the other hand, was considered clean, and its

leaders incorrupt. The social and educational Hamas institutions, mainly

financed by Saudi Arabia, were widely respected.

 

 

 

The splits within Fatah also helped the Hamas candidates.

 

 

 

Hamas, of course, had not taken part in previous elections, but it was

generally assumed - even by Hamas people themselves - that they

represented only about 15-25 percent of the electorate.

 

 

 

Can one reasonably expect the Palestinians to overthrow Hamas themselves?

 

 

 

As long as the occupation goes on, there is no chance of that. An

Israeli general said this week that if the Israeli army stopped

operating in the West Bank, Hamas would replace Abbas there too.

 

 

 

The administration of Mahmoud Abbas stands on feet of clay - American

and Israeli feet. If the Palestinians finally lose what confidence they

still have in Abbas, his power would crumble.

 

 

 

But how can one reach a settlement with an organization that declares

that it will never recognize Israel and whose charter calls for the

destruction of the Jewish state?

 

 

 

All this matter of "recognition" is nonsense, a pretext for avoiding a

dialogue. We do not need "recognition" from anybody. When the United

States started a dialogue with Vietnam, it did not demand to be

recognized as an Anglo-Saxon, Christian and capitalist state.

 

 

 

If A signs an agreement with B, it means that A recognizes B. All the

rest is hogwash.

 

 

 

And in the same matter: The fuss over the Hamas charter is reminiscent

of the ruckus about the PLO charter, in its time. That was a quite

unimportant document, which was used by our representatives for years as

an excuse to refuse to talk with the PLO. Heaven and earth were moved to

compel the PLO to annul it. Who remembers that today? The acts of today

and tomorrow are important, the papers of yesterday are not.

 

 

 

What should we speak with Hamas about?

 

 

 

First of all, about a cease-fire. When a wound is bleeding, the blood

loss must be stemmed before the wound itself can be treated.

 

 

 

Hamas has many times proposed a cease-fire, Tahidiyeh ("Quiet") in

Arabic. This would mean a stop to all hostilities: Qassams and Grad

rockets and mortar shells from Hamas and the other organizations,

"targeted liquidations", military incursions and starvation from Israel.

 

 

 

The negotiations should be conducted by the Egyptians, particularly

since they would have to open the border between the Gaza Strip and

Sinai. Gaza must get back its freedom of communication with the world by

land, sea and air,

 

 

 

If Hamas demands the extension of the cease-fire to the West Bank, too,

this should also be discussed. That would necessitate a

Hamas-Fatah-Israel trialogue.

 

 

 

Won't Hamas exploit the cease-fire to arm itself?

 

 

 

Certainly. And so will Israel. Perhaps we shall succeed, at long last,

in finding a defense against short-range rockets.

 

 

 

If the cease-fire holds, what will be the next step?

 

 

 

An armistice, or Hudnah in Arabic.

 

 

 

Hamas would have a problem in signing a formal agreement with Israel,

because Palestine is a Waqf - a religious endowment. (That arose, at the

time, for political reasons. When Caliph Omar conquered Palestine, he

was afraid that his generals would divide the country among themselves,

as they had already done in Syria. So he declared it to be the property

of Allah. This resembles the attitude of our own religious people, who

maintain that it is a sin to give away any part of the country, because

God has expressly promised it to us.)

 

 

 

Hudnah is an alternative to peace. It is a concept deeply embedded in

the Islamic tradition. The prophet Muhammad himself agreed a Hudnah with

the rulers of Mecca, with whom he was at war after his flight from Mecca

to Medina. (By the way, before the Hudnah expired, the inhabitants of

Mecca adopted Islam and the prophet entered the town peacefully.) Since

it has a religious sanction, its violation by Muslim believers is

impossible.

 

 

 

A Hudnah can last for dozens of years and be extended without limit. A

long Hudnah is in practice peace, if the relations between the two

parties create a reality of peace.

 

 

 

So a formal peace is impossible?

 

 

 

There is a solution for this, too. Hamas has declared in the past that

it does not object to Abbas conducting peace negotiations, on condition

that the agreement reached is put to a plebiscite. If the Palestinian

people confirm it, Hamas declared that it will accept the people's decision.

 

 

 

Why would Hamas accept it?

 

 

 

Like every Palestinian political force, Hamas aspires to power in the

Palestinian state that will be set up along the 1967 borders. For that

it needs to enjoy the confidence of the majority. There is no doubt

whatsoever that the vast majority of the Palestinian people want a state

of their own and peace. Hamas knows this well. It will do nothing that

would push the majority of the people away.

 

 

 

And what is the place of Abbas in all this?

 

 

 

He should be pressured to come to an agreement with Hamas, along the

lines of the earlier agreement concluded in Mecca. We believe that

Israel has a clear interest in negotiating with a Palestinian government

that includes the two big movements, so that the agreement reached would

be accepted by almost all sections of the Palestinian people.

 

 

 

Is time working for us?

 

 

 

For many years, Gush Shalom was telling the Israeli public: let's make

peace with the secular leadership of Yasser Arafat, because otherwise

the national conflict will turn into a religious conflict.

Unfortunately, this prophecy, too, has come true.

 

 

 

Those who did not want the PLO, got Hamas. If we don't come to terms

with Hamas, we shall be faced with more extreme Islamic organizations,

like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

/Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He

is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.  /