” But the Guardian is justified for two reasons. First, they are also a democratically elected body, and obviously have some popular support.”

Unfortunately the same could be said of the BNP, so are you against UAF’s no platforming of them? Both Hamas and the BNP are abhorrent organisations who espouse dangerous ideals, so where is the line drawn?

@1

If the BNP had anywhere near the support levels of Hamas then you may have a point. As it stands they are a billion miles apart (and I’m not even going to deal wth the fact that Hamas’s rasion d’etre is that Israel have been subjegating Palestinians for the past 60 odd years whereas the BNP is the evolutionary conclusion of the old British Union of Fascists….)

Democratically elected (like Hitler) but have not behaved or acted in a democratic way since then thereby reducing dramatically their right to be treated or respected as a democratic government.

The fact that a nasty piece of work like Paul Staines may support a particular position does not in any way give any credence to Sunny’s position on this one.

Discussing Israel/Palestine is practically pointless. It’s too spun and is too partisan.
Just because the guy is the leader of Hamas it doesn’t follow though that he should get an opinion piece in the Guardian. Geert Wilders probably got more votes than him and he’s a bit of a persona non grata at the Guardian.

As for Gaza, it is a prison of sorts, but Egypt is under no obligation to keep the border closed. I don’t know why it’s not just given to Egypt actually. They used to rule it.

It’s going to be decades before there is an Israel/Palestine settlement, so why keep pushing for it in Gaza? Israel doesn’t want anything to do with them and will always have the border pretty much sealed off. It’s to Egypt that they should be looking for their future in Gaza.

Gaza is not an “open air prison”, and even less so at Israel’s whim.
It has a land border with Egypt. Why did Egypt keep the border closed for 4 years?

No country can be forced to keep an open border to a neighbouring territory. Neither can Israel. The UK controls all its borders and decides who comes in and out.

Gaza is not an “open-air prison”.

No. It’s merely somewhere that a large population, mostly civilian, is interred and segregated from society, often for a period of years, due to some characteristic of racial or political undesirability, generally under harsh or oppressive conditions, with ingress and egress of people, supplies, humanitarian aid, and so on strictly curtailed or suspended altogether.

It’s important to be accurate when addressing such matters.

Accusing those who opposed the leader of “whining” is silly. They were making a reasonable comment, whether you agree with it or not.

Secondly, I find the hysteria surrounding Geert Wilders’ ban as quite hypocritical. The list of people previously banned from coming into the UK include ‘Bounty Killer’, rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg, Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Would Melanie Phillips or Douglas Murray stand up for the rights of Farrakhan to speak? I doubt it – he’s black.

Elected politicians, entirely normal to let them speak, write etc.

Sunny’s view does seem to depend upon which poltician though….

Sunny’s view does seem to depend upon which poltician though….

Really Tim? Tell me which politician I wanted banned from the UK?

Incidentally, your so-called libertarian party whined a lot when Geert Wilders was not allowed to come here the first time… but why no outrage when others are banned?

The US conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan called Avigdor Lieberman “a fascist“. But when this guy came to London on an official trip no one batted an eyelid.

Strange! I don’t remember reading Lieberman’s op-ed in the Grauniad.

The US conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan called Avigdor Lieberman “a fascist“. But when this guy came to London on an official trip no one batted an eyelid.

Strange! I don’t remember reading Lieberman’s op-ed in the Guardian.

@2 Mr S.Pill – i’m not sure the BNP have got round to throwing their opponents off buildings yet either. In full agreement with Sunny on this one, even though Hamas are repugnant the Graun should be entitled to publish such drivel to at least give oxygen to the vested intransigence. Full marks to the mods as well for the largely open comment policy.

Strange! I don’t remember reading Lieberman’s op-ed in the Guardian.

I’m nto even sure how that constitutes a reply to the Andrew Sullivan point. Did you protest when Lieberman was here? I’ll take lessons from people who are consistent on these things. Not ones who scream constantly about Muslims but are surprisingly mum when Israeli politicians are concerned.

The BNP comparison might hold more water if we’d sealed them and their supporters into a tiny area and bombarded it over a period of years, or if there was some kind of compelling reason to hear what they have to say.

Hamas are a horrible bunch, but the sad fact is that any real peace process* in the region is going to involve a lot of negotiations with them, including a lot of painful concessions. If we’re saying that Hamas’s various loony spokesmen shouldn’t be heard, we’re accepting the status quo indefinitely.

That, non-coincidentally, would suit a lot of people just fine.

*As opposed to the entirely fictional peace process at the moment, which exists entirely to justify whatever one side wishes to do on any given day.

1 Kitto

“Unfortunately the same could be said of the BNP, so are you against UAF’s no platforming of them? Both Hamas and the BNP are abhorrent organisations who espouse dangerous ideals, so where is the line drawn?”

No-platforming is a big mistake. The left and liberals have to rely on the power of their ideas to discredit the BNP/EDL/Hamas etc, and they can do so. Who knows, they might even behave like that Golden Dawn guy the other day and manage to discredit themselves in the process………

@ Sunny

“Really Tim? Tell me which politician I wanted banned from the UK? ”

Let’s deal with the straw man first. Tim didn’t say you wanted anyone banned from the UK. In the context of both his post and the OP, he appears to be saying you blow hot and cold on the “no platform” debate.

This is true. Here’s a post where you complain about the Telegraph giving a platform to someone you dislike:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/27/telegraph-gives-the-fascists-a-platform/ . And here’s one by another author, but published and supported in the comments by you, making a similar complaint against Hays Festival:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/05/10/why-on-earth-is-anjem-choudary-invited-to-speak-at-hay-philosophy-festival/

Now, you may have a reason for this inconsistency, but you certainly don’t have a blanket objection to “no platform” policies.

I’m sure they’d publish an article by the Israeli Prime Minister – I don’t see the difference.

Flyingrodent @6, you’ve lost me with the description of Gaza. It’s never going to be part of Israel, there will always be a border there and Palestinians who live there will never be welcome in Israel. The best they can hope for in a future state is a fenced off border, but access from the sea at their own port, and an open border with Egypt.
That and the closed road through the desert of Israel to the West Bank. A road that will have to be fenced off and watched over like the roads to West Berlin running through East Germany were. It’s always going to feel like a prison.

I caught some of this yesterday afternoon. The behaviour of the Fawkes blog was predictable, and the attitude of Robin Shepherd was sheer desperation, telling anyone that bought the Guardian that they were a bigot.

When some nonentity from a neocon outfit tells me that walking into Sainsbury’s and making a discretionary purchase makes me a bigot then he ought to know that he ain’t going to make a sale himself. He got off on the wrong foot in any case by pretending that a piece on CiF equals the paper’s editorial line.

Blair’s point is right. Hamas were elected. The “International Community” wanted there to be an election, and then when the result was announced suddenly realised that they had a result they didn’t want.

So what do they do? The electorate vote for Hamas, they get elected, they have democratic legetimacy. How does Israel, or any other country, achieve a peaceful settlement with neighbouring Governments, other than by talking to them?

There has, ultimately, to be a political settlement. And, before the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines or his unprincipled SOB of a gofer Master Cole tries their smears on me, I yield to no-one in my support for the state of Israel and its right to exist, as I laid out in a response to Dan Hodges recently:

http://zelo.tv/MMNoqS

Some folks have short memories. There was a period where the leaders of Sinn Fein could not be heard on air. Little good it did the peace process. That only moved forward when they were brought in from the cold. There had, ultimately, to be a political settlement.

All that this episode has done is to demonstrate the rabid and tribal nature of the neocon right. Folks like the Laurel and Hardy of the blogosphere, and their pals like Shepherd, Kassam and the rest, do not want to see a political settlement. They couldn’t get their heads round the idea.

Kudos to Sunny for doing what the Fawkes blog is never going to do – take a pragmatic and measured view, and think it through.

End of rant – as you were.

Chaise – no, I was specifically talking about democratically elected politicians, that Tim W accused me of having double standards over. Not so difficult to offer examples.

Now, you may have a reason for this inconsistency, but you certainly don’t have a blanket objection to “no platform” policies.

In both, I said there was no reason they had to give them a platform – they chose to, in order to make it a bigger issue.

On the other hand the Hamas guy is the representative of Gazans in an area that is consistently ignored in the media. And he’s democratically elected.
Context matters, as I said above.

I think that anyone genuinely concerned with human rights should acknowledge the plight of the people in Gaza.

After all the Gazans are being ruled by an authoritarian grouping who obtained power via a coup d’etat and who have a history of throwing their opponents off of buildings.

Gazans have to watch whilst Hamas spends much-needed money on armaments, not food.

Gazans have to suffer why groups within Gaza fire thousands of missiles at Israelis and the IDF responds in a ham fisted fashion.

Gazans have to live with power outages as Hamas rejects fuel from Israel.

Gazans have to watch their leaders grow fat (yes, each one of the top Hamas leaders is portly to say the least), whilst they suffer lower standards of living.

Gazans have to live with capital punishment continued torture by Hamas forces.

Gazans have to suffer as a five-star hotel, Al Mashtal, is opened in Gaza.

Gazans have to put up with the continued stupidity of the Israel Govt’s unnecessary and bloody incursions into Gaza.

But above all, Gazans have to live their life in misery as the hard right-wing, racist Hamas are patted on the back by the senseless editors at the Guardian, a once great newspaper.

Once agin, Sunny misses the point. The issue is *not* whether or not to have given soace to a Hams leader. The point is that the Guardian , in both its editorials and its comments (notably Seamas Milne) project Hamas as a respectable and, indeed, admirable, organisation. They are not: they are antisemitic clerical fascists, who have, unfortunately, been democratically elected.

you’ve lost me with the description of Gaza… It’s always going to feel like a prison.

Yes. I can think of some very straightforward reasons why it’s always going to feel like a prison. Some very obvious ones.

And like I say, Hamas are a Godawful bunch. I’m glad my country doesn’t have to negotiate with a shower of ultrareligious, glowering loony headbangers of that ilk.

Nonetheless, a process of negotiation featuring mutual accommodation between Israel and Hamas is going to have to take place, ending with something resembling a Palestinian state, if peace is the goal.

Of course, if a peace imposed by the Israelis by force, by hoovering up so much land that a Palestinian state is utterly impossible is the goal, then the status quo is pretty much awesome.

This is, by the way, the present practice, plan and goal and anyone giving out aggro on behalf of the Israelis would do well to address this undeniable fact.

6. flyingrodent

No. It’s merely somewhere that a large population, mostly civilian, is interred and segregated from society, often for a period of years, due to some characteristic of racial or political undesirability, generally under harsh or oppressive conditions, with ingress and egress of people, supplies, humanitarian aid, and so on strictly curtailed or suspended altogether.

Segregated from Israeli society. That is what you want isn’t it? A real border between an independent Israel and an independent Palestine? Gaza is no more an open prison than Belgium is. Well actually we probably have to accept people from Belgium these days. Than Argentina is. Argentinians do not get free access to the UK. Nor should they. Nor do people from Gaza.

Those oppressive conditions are entirely the work of the Palestinians.

It’s important to be accurate when addressing such matters.

Indeed.

23. flyingrodent

Nonetheless, a process of negotiation featuring mutual accommodation between Israel and Hamas is going to have to take place, ending with something resembling a Palestinian state, if peace is the goal.

If. Given Hamas has not shown one single iota of interest in peace, it is largely irrelevant. You may as well have said that seat belts are necessary if you want to fly to Nepal on a magic carpet.

Of course, if a peace imposed by the Israelis by force, by hoovering up so much land that a Palestinian state is utterly impossible is the goal, then the status quo is pretty much awesome.

Yes. And if blowing up as many Israeli civilians, teenage girls included, is the goal then the status quo pretty much sucks. Which is why Hamas objects to it. Why do you? Can we at least start from a sane perspective which is that it is only those walls around Gaza that prevents Hamas sending as many deluded souls as they can to blow up Israeli teenagers as they wait for their pizza?

This is, by the way, the present practice, plan and goal and anyone giving out aggro on behalf of the Israelis would do well to address this undeniable fact.

Israel has long since stopped expanding settlements. They are very specifically not expanding settlements in Gaza. Which they evacuated. Entirely. There is now not one Jew living in Gaza. Not merely not one Jew of Israeli origin, but not one Jew, period. There is no land grab at all going on there. So the causes for this part of the dispute are not as you wilfully mischaracterise them. Why is that?

@So Much For Subtlety

You are an astoundingly boring tit of epic proportions, and I couldn’t care less what your opinion is on anything. Your mind-numbingly dull drivel makes me want to shove my index finger into my eyeball, to see if it will result in death.

Israel has long since stopped expanding settlements.

Although while I’m at it, this is thirty seconds on Google…

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34030&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15080160

http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-slams-netanyahu-for-vowing-to-expand-settlements/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-defense-ministry-plan-earmarks-10-percent-of-west-bank-for-settlement-expansion-1.421589

The bathos.

25. flyingrodent

You are an astoundingly boring tit of epic proportions, and I couldn’t care less what your opinion is on anything. Your mind-numbingly dull drivel makes me want to shove my index finger into my eyeball, to see if it will result in death.

Well yes, but I am not wrong. Hence the lack of a substantive response.

I am not wrong. Hence the lack of a substantive response.

You are an astoundingly boring tit, as proven by your countless brutally dull, meandering, tedious, stultifying, somnambulant, rectally-extracted comments, hence the lack of substantive response.

I apologise for dragging this into the gutter, if other LibCon commenters find SMFS’s comments fascinating. I don’t. I can’t read further than four words because he’s so dribbling monotonous that he makes me want to start head-butting concrete.

I imagine these remarks may actually cost me my commenting privileges here, at a site where I’m a contributor, but it’s well worth it.

In summary – SMFS, TL:DR, GTF.

They are not: they are antisemitic clerical fascists, who have, unfortunately, been democratically elected.

I wonder why people in Palestine might choose to vote for an antisemitic political party.

I also wonder why turkeys might choose to vote for an anti-Christmas political party.

Now John, you could have phrased that better*. You could at least have pointed out how much anti-Catholicism there was in the Holy Land during the Crusades. Obviously, the anti-Christian bigots of the day were driven solely by prejudice.

Not that I mean to justify anti-Catholicism, of course. I support Celtic, for Christ’s sake.

*This is not to suggest there’s nothing irrational and insane about Hamas, annoying Israel fans.

28. john b

I wonder why people in Palestine might choose to vote for an antisemitic political party.

I can imagine why they might vote for an anti-Zionist party but for the life of me I can only think of one reason why they might vote for an anti-Semitic one. Can you explain to me John precisely why they might vote for Hamas?

flyingrodent

Now John, you could have phrased that better*. You could at least have pointed out how much anti-Catholicism there was in the Holy Land during the Crusades. Obviously, the anti-Christian bigots of the day were driven solely by prejudice.

No doubt. Or they would have been if they had not invaded a Christian region which still probably had a Christian majority – and whose Muslim inhabitants actually preferred Crusader rule to that of their fellow Muslims.

Let us remember how Hamas treat their political opponents:

“A MEMBER of the Palestinian Fatah movement was thrown off the roof of an 18-storey building today amid renewed clashes between rival factions across Gaza, as Israel vowed to continue its strikes.

Mohammed Suwerki was kidnapped near the seafront in Gaza moments before he was flung to his death from the roof of a building by fighters loyal to the Islamist Hamas movement, which has been locked for months in a power struggle with President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/fatah-man-thrown-off-roof/story-fn3dxix6-1111113722008

Let’s remember how Hamas treat their political opponents…

That’s a really devastating rejoinder to all those people on this thread who were arguing that Hamas are awesome and nice, and that we should invite them round for tea and scones. Crushing.

Let’s have an open discussion on Hamas.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/98081F2768DA83B485257737004B542A

“03 June 2010, Jerusalem — I am deeply concerned at reports from Gaza that Hamas has broken into a number of NGO offices in Gaza City and Rafah in recent days and closed them down, confiscating their materials and equipment in the process.

This targeting of NGOs, including UN partner organizations, is unacceptable, violating accepted norms of a free society and harming the Palestinian people.

The de facto authorities must cease such repressive steps and allow the re-opening of these civil society institutions without delay. “

From HRW:

““Human Rights Watch has documented cases in which military courts in Gaza failed to examine credible evidence that the accused were convicted on the basis of confessions coerced under torture, as well as other due process violations like arbitrary arrest and failure to allow detainees to consult with lawyers until after they had been interrogated.

The Interior Ministry announced the executions of three men, convicted in unrelated cases, in a statement on its website. The men had exhausted their appeals, and the victims’ relatives did not agree to accept compensation in lieu of their executions, the statement said. “

a link to the above:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/10/gaza-hamas-should-halt-executions

MG: blimey. I hadn’t realised that Hamas were a nasty bunch of scumbags who bullied NGOs and ignored due process; I’d assumed they were just antisemitic religious fanatics who tortured people. THIS IS THE LAST STRAW. It’s a shame, I’d bought the teabags and made the scones already.

(see also: fuck off somewhere where your linkspam might be appreciated:

@ 20 Sunny

“Context matters, as I said above.”

Fair enough. Like I said, you could have reasons for the difference in attitude.

Wow, well done to the people who’ve taken the time out to cut and paste tracts of information pointing out that Hamas is anti-semitic. It’s almost like I didn’t even say that in my OP… Oh.

FR: I apologise for dragging this into the gutter, if other LibCon commenters find SMFS’s comments fascinating. I don’t.

I don’t either. I just skip over them every time.

Israel has long since stopped expanding settlements.

And the award for funniest comment goes to…

Nor should we forget the inequalities of wealth that Gazans have to suffer under Hamas’s brutal rule:

The excesses at the Gaza Mall can be seen at Safa Images, http://tinyurl.com/7awav3h

The excesses at the Gaza Mall can be seen at Safa Images…

Ah yes, the old Look, some Palestinians have access to basic amenities that first worlders take for granted, thus what are they complaining about? stick. How very edifying that one always is.

Such an endearing argument, reflecting so very well upon the person making it, especially coming so soon after instructions to sympathise with the Palestinians because they’re ruled by loonies.

The argument is not, in fact, that the Palestinians should feel happy because they have a few amenities, quite the opposite.

By and large they don’t have amenities, many Gazans live wretched lives and part of that reason is Hamas.

Hamas use wealth collected from the Arab states to build up their security apparatus, an internal police force and arm themselves against their own internal enemies.

Hamas use torture, summary executions and restrict basic freedoms.

Hamas are repressive towards Gazans, not their saviours.

Wealth inequalities in Gaza is a direct consequence of Hamas’s rule.

Hamas keeps hold of power by virtue of the gun, after its 2007 coup d’etat. They kill political opponents.

All of that is not something which the Guardian or its readers should forget.

Those truly concerned with wealth inequality, in Britain, Scotland and elsewhere might want to peruse this clip concerning the five-star hotel in Gaza, Hotel Almashtal

http://vimeo.com/26288397#

Hamas use torture, summary executions and restrict basic freedoms.

I have to say, you’re doing sterling work of arguing your case.

Who you’re arguing it against is a different matter, since nobody here is disagreeing with your Hamas = Bastards line.

Therefore, it follows that if the Guardian doesn’t believe in assisting torturers, those who abuse human rights and spend money on arming themselves while Gazans go poor then it shouldn’t offer free publicity to a right-wing genocidal group like Hamas.

If the Guardian wouldn’t publish a puff piece of propaganda from the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, then it shouldn’t offer space to Hamas either.

That is, if it is true to its values.

Not forgetting Human Rights Watch on Hamas:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/28/gaza-hamas-report-whitewashes-war-crimes

“(New York) – Hamas’s latest claim that its rocket attacks against Israel are not war crimes is factually and legally wrong, Human Rights Watch said today.

On January 27, 2010, Hamas authorities in Gaza released the summary of an internal report that tried to clear itself and other Palestinian armed groups of laws-of-war violations during last year’s hostilities with Israel. The report says that rocket attacks into Israel only targeted military objectives, and that civilian casualties were an unintended result.

“Hamas can spin the story and deny the evidence, but hundreds of rockets rained down on civilian areas in Israel where no military installations were located,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Hamas leaders at the time indicated they were intending to harm civilians.”

Since 2001, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rockets deliberately or indiscriminately at civilian areas in Israel. “

This is the Guardian’s own words:

What is the Guardian’s position on Gaza?

The Guardian’s leader line is that the Gaza blockade is illegal in international law, that it constitutes collective punishment, and that it has not had its intended political outcome, which was to kill support for Hamas, drive a permanent wedge between it and Fatah and divide the Palestinians.

Given that we all here seem to agree with the Hamas = Bastards line – do we find it curious that the Guardian’s own ‘position on Gaza’ has no criticism of Hamas?

Indeed they seem to think that the blockade is the only issue meant when asked about Gaza?

Therefore, it follows that if the Guardian doesn’t believe in assisting torturers, those who abuse human rights and spend money on arming themselves

That’s enough about Israel MG…

If the Guardian wouldn’t publish a puff piece of propaganda from the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, then it shouldn’t offer space to Hamas either.

Yet again, since this has been so conveniently ignored, I have to point out that the BNP aren’t an essential party in what is going to have to be a negotiated end to one of the world’s longest-running and most miserable conflicts.

Nick Griffin can be safely ignored – Hamas’s opinions are going to have to be heard, because any peace between Israel and the Palestinians is going to involve some kind of negotiation and settlement between the two.

And again, if we’re saying that Hamas’s voice shouldn’t be heard, we’re endorsing the status quo of Israel quietly strangling any prospect of a Palestinian state and Hamas firing rockets in perpetuity. And once more – that position of allowing the status quo to continue without any negotiations until there is no possibility of a Palestinian state emerging is the desired outcome of one side, which is pushing very hard for that result.

But then, you guys are well aware of all this. You could hardly miss it.

Even if Sunny is correct it’s almost pointless discussing this. People are too bitterly divided and sectarian about I/P for any progress to be made.
This is what they made of it on the Harry’s Place website.
A Guardian Q&A with Ismail Haniyeh

The Guardian also ran a Gaza blog ….. which was a positive thing or not depending on your perspective.
Guardian publishes praise of Hamas from Palestine Telegraph writer

There was also the really silly (IMO) Palestine Place activist get together in a squatted building in London recently.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-place-brings-resistance-heart-london/11377

The Palestinain solidarity movement has some serious issues that need addressing I think. But they are rerely are.

46. flyingrodent

Yet again, since this has been so conveniently ignored, I have to point out that the BNP aren’t an essential party in what is going to have to be a negotiated end to one of the world’s longest-running and most miserable conflicts.

Yet. On the other hand we did not negotiate with their bigger brothers in Germany or with their fellow spirits in the Soviet Union. Nor is there any reason whatsoever to think this conflict has to, or will, or even can be, negotiated to an end.

Nick Griffin can be safely ignored – Hamas’s opinions are going to have to be heard, because any peace between Israel and the Palestinians is going to involve some kind of negotiation and settlement between the two.

Assuming that Hamas is some rock of the ages which is going to exist forever and is never going to go away. Whereas most political parties serve a particular end and purpose. When they are no longer relevant to the voters, the voters do not vote for them. There is no reason to think the BNP is going to remain tiny forever, although presumably we all hope it will, nor is there any reason to think Hamas is going to remain as popular as it may be now.

And again, if we’re saying that Hamas’s voice shouldn’t be heard, we’re endorsing the status quo of Israel quietly strangling any prospect of a Palestinian state and Hamas firing rockets in perpetuity.

Or until Hamas gives up suicide bombings or until the Palestinians vote for some other party.

But then, you guys are well aware of all this. You could hardly miss it.

Still waiting to here back on why you think Anti-Semitism is justifiable in the OTs.

But let us acknowledge the bloody obvious.

There is no real concern, no genuine, heartfelt, concern for the fate of the ordinary Palestinians either at Liberal Conspiracy or the Guardian as there’s been no meaningful engagement with a material which proves that Hamas contribute, aid and encourage the impoverishment and murder of Palestinians.

If there was genuine concern for poor Palestinians then the true nature of Hamas would be acknowledged and detailed, but it isn’t.

If there was heartfelt concern for Palestinians then their plight within Arab countries would be acknowledged, but it isn’t either here or at the Guardian.

I understand the Guardian on this issue.

They are a business and cynically exploit the misfortunes of the Gazans for higher circulation figures. To them any controversy concerning Hamas drives up hits on their web site. They do it for traffic and in turn, advertising revenue.

The Guardian couldn’t give a damn if Hamas wastes money on armaments instead of food. Locks people up at a whim, tortures them or implements capital punishment. It is a business decision for the Guardian.

No doubt, if they thought it would help their business they give Putin a slot on their website.

But that’s not what they *should* do….

The Indy surprisingly had a piece which covered the wider issue:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/no-way-home-the-tragedy-of-the-palestinian-diaspora-1806790.html

“It is a cynical but time-honoured practice in Middle Eastern politics: the statesmen who decry the political and humanitarian crisis of the approximately 3.9 million Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and in Gaza ignore the plight of an estimated 4.6 million Palestinians who live in Arab countries.

For decades, Arab governments have justified their decision to maintain millions of stateless Palestinians as refugees in squalid camps as a means of applying pressure to Israel. The refugee problem will be solved, they say, when Israel agrees to let the Palestinians have their own state.
…

Yet the results of this horrifying policy may not be confined to Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. In his book Everyday Jihad, about the experience of refugees in the Ain al-Hilweh camp, home to an estimated 70,000 Palestinians, the French scholar Bernard Rougier describes the results of decades of exclusion and marginalisation which have severed the refugees from any connection to a lost homeland – or the country in which they were born.

As a result, he says, many Palestinians have abandoned a failed nationalism for the radical millenarian ideas associated with al-Qa’ida. “Palestinian salafist militants have devoted themselves to defending the imaginary borders of identity,” Rougier writes, “declaring themselves the protectors and guardians of the cause of Sunni Islam worldwide.”

Visitors to the Ain al-Hilweh camp are immediately made aware that they have entered another world. While Lebanese army checkpoints ring the camp, the Lebanese state has no presence inside. Food, water and other basic services are provided by UNRWA, while armed factions openly display weapons in muddy alleyways and recruit generations to serve under their banners. It is easy to see why the secular promise of Palestinian nationalism has faded and why the promise of a Muslim paradise without borders might take its place. One of the 9/11 hijackers dedicated a poem to Ain al-Hilweh’s most prominent jihadist in his videotaped will, and dozens of Palestinian fighters from the camp joined al-Qa’ida in Iraq. “

Remember that figure, 4.6 million Palestinians …..

I think there is a big difference between acknowledging that one might have to negotiate and deal with Hamas, and publishing this piece. Also, I don’t think this should be seen just through the I/P lens – I see it in the context of the Guardian’s dismal track record on antisemitism (which is not the same issue although it intersects with it).

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/04/19/guardian-limbo-always-a-new-low/

If by “dismal track record on antisemitism” you mean “less dismal track record than most of the English-language media at licking Israel’s arse”, then yes, you’re absolutely right.

Er, I agree with Anonymous Coward (and must remember not to engage with the internet before having some caffeine).

@john – it even acknowledges the problem itself, somewhat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian

The hardcore pro-Israel/neocon/Decent Left lobbyists are so thin-skinned and paranoid that it’s very easy to draw a tirade of accusations of antisemitism for saying something that clearly isn’t (as the unfortunate Ben White has discovered recently).

That Guardian editorial is a polite way of recognising that reality, and highlights the extent to which the Guardian bends over backwards in order to avoid causing offence, in a way which neither it nor other newspapers extend to other nations or religious groups.

“highlights the extent to which the Guardian bends over backwards in order to avoid causing offence”

My keyboard is now covered with spluttered coffee.

They specialise in offence-causing.
Partly it’s the malign influence of people like Milne.
Partly it’s all about the clicks.
They will either succeed as an online operation or, given their current losses – which even Autotrader will not be able to cover forever – they will fail altogether.

There is no real concern, no genuine, heartfelt, concern for the fate of the ordinary Palestinians either at Liberal Conspiracy or the Guardian…

Yes, I think I’ll decline the opportunity to enter into a competitive emoting contest over the fate of ordinary Palestinians with you, thanks. I imagine few would relish the chance.

I understand the Guardian on this issue. They are a business and cynically exploit the misfortunes of the Gazans for higher circulation figures.

Well, let’s just play Devil’s Advocate and proclaim that this is 100% true.

And? I mean, what’s the takeaway here? If the Guardian exploits the misfortunes of Gazans, does that mean the views of Hamas aren’t going to be essential if any kind of negotiated peace is to be achieved? If the Graun is padding its clicks rate*, does that mean that Hamas’s wacky opinions shouldn’t get published in the UK? How did we get from one to the other?

I mean, what? Beyond the assertion that the Graun are bad and evil and insensitive to the needs of Palestinians, what’s the point here? That we should be annoyed about the Guardian? More annoyed than we are about, say, actual, dead Palestinians? How many opinion pieces do the Guardian have to publish before it’s the equivalent of a rocket attack? One, or more?

Can you please produce a flowchart explaining exactly how annoyed a hypothetical person should be about each and every aspect of this situation in sequence with scope for variation, and then run us through it with a laser pointer, to avoid confusion, thanks.

This stuff is always an exhibition of an elaborately retarded logic. If people are angrier about the Israelis rubbing out Palestinian kids than they are about Hamas wasting money on weapons, and angrier about Hamas wasting money than they are about Jordan oppressing Palestinian refugees, then British newspapers shouldn’t publish interviews because they’re only seeking a profit. QED.

Is there an if (x) > (y) then (z) formula available to explain this meaningless guff? If an anti-Zionist calls for a one-state solution and there’s nobody around to hear it, is it still anti-Semitic?

Far, far better just to go with Anonymous Coward’s stance – sure, Hamas’s opinion should be heard, but the Guardian shouldn’t publish it because if you look at the Guardian with your eyes sort of screwed up they’re, like, celebrating genocide and shit, man. Hamas should be heard, but at a place and time of our choosing. Failure to heed this warning is racist. Thus, peace in the Middle East, or something.

It’s taken decades to get to this point – a labyrinth made of pure bullshit; people speaking a language that’s entirely composed of angry non-sequiturs. Do you guys even know what you’re talking about yourselves, any more?

*Which it could do far easier by upping the celebrity tat content, by the way, rather than celebrity terrorist Op-Eds.

Yes, I think the idea that giving space to Hamas being a callow attempt to generate money by getting fuckloads of people to click through, is by and far the shittest idea I’ve heard in a long time. Kim Kardashian in a swimsuit however…
Do you lot not know how the Mail online became the number one news site in the world? You really must try harder.

The issue is simple.

*IF* people truly support the human rights of the ordinary Palestinians then they should not publish and defend PR from a group who only bring suffering to poor Palestinians, Hamas.

Hamas torture and kill ordinary Palestinians.

Hamas “solution” to conflict in the Middle East is a racist utopia, as they detail:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts.

It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps.

The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised.”

Hamas’s enemy in this case is, Jews. Jews everywhere in the world.

So Hamas organises for a racial genocide, uses ordinary Palestinians as cannon fodder, lying to them, abusing them, starving and murdering them, but the Guardian and Liberal Conspiracy can’t or won’t acknowledge those realities.

“They specialise in offence-causing.”

Anyone offended by any of the examples of APPALLING GUARDIAN BEHAVIOUR cited on this thread really needs to attend a skin-thickening clinic.

Sunny,

“Yesterday the Guardian ran a live-blog on Gaza, for reasons they explain here. It was to note the five year anniversary of the blockade of the Gaza strip, which keeps 1.7m people in an open air prison against their will.”

I am not denying life in Gaza for many of the people who live there is a fairly crappy deal by western standards of living and justice and that the closure of the border with Israel hardly assists their wellbeing.

One shouldn’t fail to point out that Gaza borders Egypt as well as Israel. Israel can close their border and even restrict incoming shipping to Gaza but this is a restriction not a blockade as it does not determine how Gaza and Egypt deal with their affairs – passage of people and goods etc.

“But the Guardian is justified for two reasons. First, they are also a democratically elected body, and obviously have some popular support.”

So, by the same token, would you write a blog defending the Guardian if they were to publish a comment piece by Geert Wilders?

If by “dismal track record on antisemitism” you mean “less dismal track record than most of the English-language media at licking Israel’s arse”, then yes, you’re absolutely right.

I think the law of the interwebz is that, according to some people, if you’re going to write something negative about Israel you’re anti-semitic by default.

Sunny,

Two straight questions.

Do you think 1) that Palestinians are treated well by Hamas 2) that Palestinians have benefited from Hamas rule since the 2007 coup d’etat?

*IF* people truly support the human rights of the ordinary Palestinians then they should not publish and defend PR from a group who only bring suffering to poor Palestinians, Hamas.

These are fine words, and congratulations – by the standard you’ve just set, you’ve just barred more or less every interested party in I/P from commenting, except perhaps Mr M. Hassan, 78, of Nablus and the nice lady who owns that cool little waflle shop in Haifa.

While I’d actually be far, far happier for those two parties to decide the outcome of the situation than the shower of mean-as-fuck murderers and scumbags who actually will decide, I suspect that any deal negotiated between these two wouldn’t hold up for long.

Not that I actually think any such deal is possible, of course, but there isn’t much else to hope for.

would you write a blog defending the Guardian if they were to publish a comment piece by Geert Wilders?

And yet again – Geert Wilders is not a key player in one of the nastiest and longest conflicts in world history.

While I think Hamas and Fatah are two of the worst, most useless and counterproductive liberation movements on Earth, they are not going to go away if we wish very hard, any more than the Israelis are going to disappear because God is going to snap His massive, celestial fingers and perform a miracle for His people. The toothpaste is out of the damn tube.

FR, well you might consider that the “disappearance” of the Israelis would be a “miracle”…

well you might consider that the “disappearance” of the Israelis would be a “miracle”…

As you’re very well aware, I’m referring to Hamas’s religious fantasies of destroying an invincible foe, which are not without historical precedent. Think Wovoka, Paiute Indian, 1890-ish, telling his followers about his vision of a new layer of soil burying the white man and all of his works.

Incidentally, there have been countless times on sites like this where some joker has described Catholics as superstitious idiots, just gagging to have their brains washed with the most imbecilic Roman nonsense imaginable, and priests as a unique threat to our young ‘uns, and so on and so forth.

I don’t instantly start waving my arms, accusing them of loving the UVF and howling about how this stuff is reminiscent of excuses for pogroms and persecution past, although it clearly is. I don’t do it, even though it would be very easy indeed to score points off people who don’t understand the resonances of what they’re saying,

The main reason why I don’t do it is because you really have to be a bit of a dick to pull that stuff at every single opportunity that presents itself.

Food for thought there, I think.

@ cjcj

Think you just got owned there, buddy.

Think you just got owned there, buddy.

Its ‘pwned’, grandad.

The problem with Flyingrodent’s argument is history.

The Guardian was NOT even tempted to publish a puff piece from a UVF leader.

I doubt even the Liberal Conspiracy would be inclined to sanitize the UVF.

53. john b

The hardcore pro-Israel/neocon/Decent Left lobbyists are so thin-skinned and paranoid that it’s very easy to draw a tirade of accusations of antisemitism for saying something that clearly isn’t (as the unfortunate Ben White has discovered recently).

John, John, John, dear boy, you have just justified anti-Semitism. Not anti-Zionism but actual hatred of all Jews everywhere simply for being Jews. Yes, the pro-Israeli lobby does tend to see too much anti-Semitism. But sometimes they are right. Anti-Semites are Anti-Semites. And what you defended was anti-Semitism.

SMFS – Yes, it’s not reasonable to try to dismiss all criticism of the Guardian as the result of hypersensitivity. I’ve come across people who would find, to borrow someone else’s expression, antisemitism in a jam sandwich, but, to go back to Sunny’s comment:

“I think the law of the interwebz is that, according to some people, if you’re going to write something negative about Israel you’re anti-semitic by default.”

there are plenty of people who do *not* see antisemitism everywhere (though they may be more sensitive than some on this thread) who don’t like the Guardian. To give some specific examples, without necessarily always agreeing with their perspective, I have been interested to read posts by Steve Hynd and Matt Hill on this site which have been critical of Israel. But – I would not buy the Guardian (though I do look at it online which probably isn’t very consistent.)

Sunny,

You might have missed my previous questions to you, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter:

Do you think

1) that Palestinians are treated well by Hamas ?

2) that Palestinians have benefited from Hamas rule since the 2007 coup d’etat?

@70 Do you really need the answer to those questions from the man who described Hamas in the op as “I have no love for Hamas – they quite clearly have an anti-Semitic charter and used to engage in terrorist activities.”?

At a guess, I’d reckon Sunny’s answer to both would be no.

I’ve come across people who would find, to borrow someone else’s expression, antisemitism in a jam sandwich

You write for a blog which actually has found antisemitism in a pizza.

I am trying to determinate whether or not people are really pro-Palestinian or merely reflexively anti-Israeli.

If the former, then they should be genuinely concerned about the treatment of *all* Palestinians, those in Gaza and elsewhere.

If the latter, then I suppose such people will ignore the Arab government’s treatment of Palestinians for the past 60+ years, focus solely on Israelis, bring up any negative material against them and provide Israeli’s opponents (like Hamas) with talking points.

So you have to decide if you really, really are pro-Palestinian or something else.

Just a question to think about.

If the latter, then I suppose such people will ignore the Arab government’s treatment of Palestinians for the past 60+ years, focus solely on Israelis, bring up any negative material against them and provide Israeli’s opponents (like Hamas) with talking points.

Conversely to your point, I doubt that if you were to offer strong criticism of the Arab government’s treatment of Palestinians, or indeed of how Hamas treats it’s own people, that many people you appear to wish to argue with would begin robustly defending them and their record on the matter. You might note that in this thread no one has actually disputed your points that Hamas are a bunch of shits and rushed to their defence.

I am trying to determinate whether or not people are really pro-Palestinian or merely reflexively anti-Israeli.

Isn’t it intriguing how this kind of chat, always so superficially reasonable, appears on closer inspection to be nothing more than a series of hoops to jump through, held ever higher, higher and higher?

I mean, isn’t it odd that we can agree that Fatah are basically gangsters; that we can say that yes, Hamas are a bunch of violently murderous religious lunatics with a deeply sinister worldview, and yet that does us no credit? Somehow, our views are still suspect, in some way.

Always, always a higher hoop to jump through. Do you agree Israel has a right to defend itself? Yes, we agree Israel has a right to defend itself. Will you Condemn atrocity (x)? Yes, we Condemn atrocity (x) and explicitly reject atrocities similar to (x). Do you agree Islamism a highly unpleasant and aggressive mindset? Yes, we agree Islamism etc. and so on, for weeks and months.

Now, Mod, can we voice a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion without being treated like the second coming of Goebbels?

Not yet! There’s another, very important hoop to jump through – you have to decide if you really, really are pro-Palestinian OR SOMETHING ELSE.

Or something else! Well, you don’t have to be Lt. Columbo to work out what Something else might be, in this context.

So let’s say me, Larry and John B. pen tear-streaked, Oscar-winning tributes of heartfelt solidarity with the Palestinians so convincing that even the Neds in the street break down in tears.

Will we be fine then, or will there be another hoop to jump through?

Readers can observe this thread and decide for themselves. I’m fairly confident any neutrals would conclude that I might have a good point here.

“You might note that in this thread no one has actually disputed your points that Hamas are a bunch of shits and rushed to their defence.”

No certainly not!

Heaven forbid, but what they have done is *avoided* the conclusions which follow many of the points I have raised.

Again, I/P discussions seem to be more heat than light -it’s tough to find the right environment to have a meaningful debate on it.

But I did raise a question about the Guardian – which nobody picked up on, and we maybe could talk round and still avoid the hurdles FR mentions above.

My question was whether this statement by the Guardian, is sufficient:

What is the Guardian’s position on Gaza?

The Guardian’s leader line is that the Gaza blockade is illegal in international law, that it constitutes collective punishment, and that it has not had its intended political outcome, which was to kill support for Hamas, drive a permanent wedge between it and Fatah and divide the Palestinians.

flyingrodent,

I mean, isn’t it odd that we can agree that Fatah are basically gangsters; that we can say that yes, Hamas are a bunch of violently murderous religious lunatics with a deeply sinister worldview, and yet that does us no credit? Somehow, our views are still suspect, in some way.

This is one of those weird rules: criticism of something entails support for some other thing.

I’m sure that someone knows the answer to this. So please do tell me.

My basic view on the I/P is that it was going on before my birth and will be continuing after my death. Having said that, this:

“My question was whether this statement by the Guardian, is sufficient:

What is the Guardian’s position on Gaza?

The Guardian’s leader line is that the Gaza blockade is illegal in international law, that it constitutes collective punishment, and that it has not had its intended political outcome, which was to kill support for Hamas, drive a permanent wedge between it and Fatah and divide the Palestinians.”

I agree, given my statement above, that I’m very hazy on all of this. I really do not know the details. But doesn’t Egypt also run a blockade of Gaza? If they do, aren’t they therefore guilty of the same evils as Israel?

And yes, I really am asking. I do not know: Flying Rodent seems to know so perhaps he could tell me?

Heaven forbid, but what they have done is *avoided* the conclusions which follow many of the points I have raised.

Such as?

75. flyingrodent

I mean, isn’t it odd that we can agree that Fatah are basically gangsters; that we can say that yes, Hamas are a bunch of violently murderous religious lunatics with a deeply sinister worldview, and yet that does us no credit? Somehow, our views are still suspect, in some way.

Yes. Well. When people defend anti-Semitism, as John B certainly did and in so far as your English is open to any definitive meaning it looks like you did too, it is natural that people do not give them credit.

You want people to take your views seriously, do not say anti-Semitism is justified.

42. flyingrodent

Who you’re arguing it against is a different matter, since nobody here is disagreeing with your Hamas = Bastards line.

Except he is not. The issue is which is the Lesser Evil. He is arguing that Hamas is so evil it is beyond the Pale, so to speak, and that the blockade is the lesser evil. As far as I can tell, you are arguing that the blockade is so evil (despite that fact that it has killed no one so far) that Hamas is the lesser evil and so they have to be set free to send as many suicide bombers to Israel as they want.

The problem is not that you two are arguing past each other. But that you are not being honest about what it is you are supporting.

Cylux,

I asked, very reasonable questions in 73, please try and draw out where they lead, as if you were the Guardian or LC.

@MG I ain’t the Guardian or LC, so I’m not entirely sure what you’re angling at.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re angling at.

He means “You may only discuss this topic within the highly specific parameters that I permit and absolutely without deviation, or your opinions will be considered inherently suspect and quite possibly tainted by Nazi race fetishes”.

It’s phrased to distract the unwary, but it really does go no further than that. Mod and others like him on this thread are the Police, and anyone in their line of sight is on probation until they can prove beyond doubt that they’re not guilty. Since Mod is also the judge and the law is a little Kafkaesque, your chances of escaping a heavy sentence are slight.

Note also here that nobody is sniffing Modernity’s opinions on this issue for some kind of depraved ulterior motive; nobody is looking for any opportunity, however slight, to imply that his real beliefs are considerably more extreme than he’s letting on.

Nobody is telling him how to argue, or how he should feel, or how he should respond to provocative issues; nobody is implying that his basic stance on anything is motivated by hatred, or by bigotry, or by anything other than a genuinely-held belief based on his best estimation of the situation.

Isn’t it interesting, to see who’s slinging this stuff and who isn’t? And, how come it seems to clarify nothing, and to cloud everything? If this is a quest for truth, why does it so closely resemble an intentional attempt to fudge, slime and fuddle.? Why is that?

Reader, it is because it is bullshit. It is because it is explicitly intended to fudge, slime and fuddle.

Cylux,

You say my points have been answered, I would suggest otherwise.

I asked you to *make* an effort and follow them through (and that’s all I am asking a contribution, an effort) and you respond with

” I ain’t the Guardian or LC, so I’m not entirely sure what you’re angling at.”

What should I do?

Spoon feed interlocutors ?

Or sneer at them, as Flyingrodent does? Neither seems appropriate

I am sorry, but if people here are **genuinely** have an interest in the Middle East or are really troubled about the human right’s of Palestinians then they have to make a slight effort on these topics.

If you want *me* to make an effort to understand *your* point of view and engage with you on this topic, at least do me that courtesy.

@MG You’ve really lost me now. As far as I can tell your points are ‘Hamas are a bunch of bastards’ which is fair enough, and ‘Palestinians are ill represented by these gangsters’ which is also fair enough. Thing is, the only conclusion I reach is that diplomacy often requires negotiating with unpleasant people. Which I’m guessing, you’ll find to be unsatisfactory.

Cylux,

I have made several points here, most of which have whooshed over people’s heads in their desire to trot out their standard positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

My latter point is simple.

If you wish *me* to make an effort to engage with other people’s points, and I expect that courtesy, in return.

I expect you, or anyone else to take the time and trouble to think, to understand what *I* am getting out and then follow it, if you wish me to do the same.

if you’re not bothered, then obviously I can’t be.

But and this is a considerable but.

If someone is serious, semi-serious or genuinely concerned with human rights across the Middle East then they should be able to discuss these issues with a degree in engagement.

Or not, it is their choice.

@MG fair enough if that’s how you feel about it all.

Cylux,

My apologies, I feel I have been too harsh on you, It is probably reading Flyingrodent’s absurdities, none too good for my blood pressure.

Let me, for your benefit, refresh my points.

1. No, I don’t mean that “Hamas are a bunch of bastards”, they are genocidal racists.

That is a big difference. Hamas want to kill Jews, not just those in the Middle East, but everywhere.

2. Hamas obtained power recently by a coup d’etat, killing their opponents brutally.

3. Hamas only retain power by virtue of the barrel of a gun.

4. Hamas use riches acquired from the Arab countries to build up their repressive regime.

5. Hamas torture and murder Palestinians.

6. Hamas perpetuate wealth inequalities in Gaza, deliberately.

7. Hamas, as far as we can tell (and I would acknowledge that it is debatable) are not interested in long-term relations with Israelis, other than a temporary truce whilst they build up their powerbase.

8. Hamas are responsible for war crimes against Israelis (firing rockets at civilians).

9. Hamas are everything that liberals or anyone with an idea of human rights should oppose.

Hamas are NOT people that should be aided in their propaganda.

Hamas’s record of atrocities and human rights abuses should be extensively covered by the Guardian, not relegated as it becomes the mouthpiece of Hamas leaders.

That’s what I’m saying.

And incidentally, before my views are continually misrepresented, it is the case that Israel already negotiates with Hamas, indirectly.

I have no problem with any government biting the bullet and negotiating with Hamas, **if** it brings permanent peace.

Again, it may be necessary to negotiate with Hamas, that is not my issue.

My real objection is, how in the West anti-Israeli figures are romanticised and sanitised, even the genocidal racists in Hamas.

Particularly by people who should know better.

I hope that explains my views, but I wasn’t really interested in my own views, I already know them.

All along I’m curious as to why Guardian readers, those with access to the Internet and those who purport to support human rights for the Palestinians, can’t see these issues.

My real objection is, how in the West anti-Israeli figures are romanticised and sanitised, even the genocidal racists in Hamas.

Sunny: “I have no love for Hamas – they quite clearly have an anti-semitic charter and used to engage in terrorist activities.”

Flying Rodent: “Hamas are a Godawful bunch.. a shower of ultrareligious, glowering loony headbangers”

John B: “a nasty bunch of scumbags who bullied NGOs and ignored due process… antisemitic religious fanatics who tortured people”

Cylux: “no one has actually disputed… that Hamas are a bunch of shits”

Feel all that romanticisation.

Feel the sanitisation.

And still the Guardian is right to publish their leader.

OK.

“Feel all that romanticisation. Feel the sanitisation.”

Excellent point, however, I remember a rather good article by Sunny.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/15/israelandthepalestinians-india?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

“The problem for Palestinians is that while Hamas style themselves as freedom fighters, their racism for Jews in general offers only moral confusion. They’re not comparable to Gandhi, or even Udham Singh – who at his excecution offered his name as Ram Mohammed Singh Azad, using common Hindu, Muslim and Sikh names to signify the Indian independence movement.

The problem with Palestinian leadership has been their inability to provide moral clarity. To see them as merely as freedom fighters is an injustice to selfless freedom fighters from across the world, including Martin Luther King, who stood for higher principles. When I march for a free Palestine, I cannot march for Hamas.
…
My point is: it’s patronising to freedom fighters when the left hold up Hamas as brave revolutionaries, because frankly I wouldn’t want to live in a state they ruled. And it’s also patronising to assume that Muslim freedom fighters can only be rabidly racist. The experience of South Asia suggests otherwise. “

So who was Sunny talking about? When he talks of the Left?

Well, obviously, no one here, I was talking more broadly, rather at the Guardian and elsewhere…..

Why not read the aggressive comments connected to Sunny’s fine article and how many people objected his sensible remarks.

In this instance they proved his point.

That is a big difference. Hamas want to kill Jews, not just those in the Middle East, but everywhere.

Hmm. This is probably the biggest Questionable Point. I imagine that members of the Vietcong wanted, abstractly, to kill Americans not just in Vietnam, but everywhere. “Dear Mr VC Commander: for the purposes of this ridiculous thought experiment, I have an American hostage in Peoria, Il.; should I kill him or should I let him go?” / “Well, kill the bugger”.

Since Hamas have no power to kill any Jews other than the Jews who are Israelis and who oppress the fuck out of the Gazans, and very little knowledge of any Jews other than the Jews who are Israelis and oppress the fuck out of the Gazans, generalising beyond what Hamas want to do to the Jews who are Israelis and oppress the fuck out of the Gazans seems silly.

John B,

Elsewhere you have already conceded this point when you argued:

http://www.johnband.org/blog/2008/07/12/jumping-in-slightly-late/

“… however, in the case of an organisation whose manifesto states that “the Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews…The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him“, it’s pretty much a fair cop…“

That’s a devastating critique of the claim that Hamas aren’t antisemitic. Which nobody is making outside of your imagination.

Anyway I’m glad we have established that it is right for the UK’s leading liberal (ha!) newspaper to provide a platform for the leader of an undisputedly anti-semitic party.

Whom will they publish next, I wonder?

a devastating critique of the claim that Hamas aren’t antisemitic. Which nobody is making outside of your imagination.

Quite. We might also like to imagine how, exactly, Mod’s “Are you concerned about the victims of crime, or merely filled with contempt for the criminals?” theory of whether opinions are legitimate or tainted by SOMETHING ELSE would work in the case of other countries with terrible human rights records.

Are you pro-victims of Russian authoritarianism, or merely reflexively anti-Russian? Are you pro-journalists who have been repeatedly shot in the face, or just full of anti-Russian urges?

Prove it, prove that you are motivated by sympathy for shot-in-the-face-journalists, or I will be forced to assume you are motivated by… Something Else.

Take it out of the ludicrous I/P debate, and suddenly it looks a bit wacky and weird, doesn’t it?

Indeed, who next will the Guardian pick?

Thein Sein?

Stephen Lennon?

Bashar Assad?

Whom will they publish next, I wonder?

The Guardian printed a column by Osama Bin Laden a few years back, basically an edited version of one of his endless “The West will quail before my hiding-in-a-house-in-Pakistan antics” screeds.

Which was also in the public interest, I’d add. If you’re having a massive War on Terror which is costing tens of thousands of lives and bajillions of pounds, it’s probably a good idea to get a measure of the enemy.

And since we’re all grown-ups, I’m capable of reading OBL’s words and recognising that he is certainly lying, propagandising and bullshitting, just as I’m capable of recognising that half the opinion columnists, politicians and salesmen do likewise day in, day out.

Of course, if you believe that we are all of us feeble near-children with fragile, eggshell minds, incapable of distinguishing fact from assertion, that might vaguely trouble you. Not me, though – I’m in favour of letting the public decide, by and large. That’s why I’ve repeatedly argued for all manner of knobbers, cranks and racial obsessives to be put on TV and in print, to be showered in the hot urine of public derision.

Not that this prevented any of the Woe Is Us, The Sky Is Falling And The Guardian Is Literally Satanic stuff we’re seeing here playing out over the OBL column, mind. The wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments was biblically impressive and just as concern-trollish back then, too.

Whom will they publish next, I wonder?

The Guardian printed a column by Osama Bin Laden a few years back, basically an edited version of one of his endless “The West will quail before my hiding-in-a-house-in-Pakistan antics” screeds.

Which was also in the public interest, I’d add. If you’re having a massive War on Terror which is costing tens of thousands of lives and bajillions of pounds, it’s probably a good idea to get a measure of the enemy.

And since we’re all grown-ups, I’m capable of reading OBL’s words and recognising that he is certainly lying, propagandising and bullshitting, just as I’m capable of recognising that half the opinion columnists, politicians and salesmen do likewise day in, day out.

Of course, if you believe that we are all of us feeble near-children with fragile, eggshell minds, incapable of distinguishing fact from assertion, that might vaguely trouble you. Not me, though – I’m in favour of letting the public decide, by and large. That’s why I’ve repeatedly argued for all manner of knobbers, cranks and racial obsessives to be put on TV and in print, to be showered in the hot urine of public derision.

Not that this prevented any of the Woe Is Us, The Sky Is Falling And The Guardian Is Literally Satanic stuff we’re seeing here playing out over the OBL column, mind. The wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments was biblically impressive and just as concern-trollish back then, too.

(Apologies if this winds up a double-post, by the way. Technical issues).

Peter Tatchell commented on Hamas before and his points are still relevant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/hamas-palestine-israel-human-rights

“This is the broad consensus among much of liberal and left opinion in western countries like the UK and US. I agree. But while progressive opinion is justifiably quick to condemn Israel, it is oddly silent when Palestinians are being persecuted by fellow Palestinians. Why the double standards?

Hamas styles itself as a resistance movement. In fact, it is as much a repression movement and the victims of its repression are fellow Palestinians who don’t toe the Hamas line.

In the future, Hamas is potentially as much of a threat to Palestinian freedom as Israel is today. Hamas shares a similar religious-political ideology to the tyrants in Tehran – Islamism. More than a faith, Islamism is a religious-inspired fundamentalist political movement. The Islamists of Hamas have the ultimate goal of establishing a theocratic state, where every detail of Palestinian life is governed by its hardline misinterpretation of the Qu’ran.
….
It is therefore disturbing that significant sections (not all) of the left are flirting with Hamas. During the January protests in the UK against Israel’s barbaric bombardment of Gaza, there were frequent pro-Hamas chants and placards. “We are all Hamas now!” some marchers yelled. At one rally in Hyde Park, speakers on the main stage urged “Victory to Hamas!” and received tumultuous cheers of approval (with only a few boos).

I am tired of hearing leftwingers defend Hamas on the grounds that it was democratically elected. So what? The Israeli leaders are democratically elected but that does not make their war in Gaza right. A democratic mandate is not, by itself, sufficient to secure legitimacy for the government in Gaza – or anywhere else. If democratically elected governments violate human rights they forfeit their legitimacy, as in the case of Britain when it was torturing and assassinating Irish republican suspects in the 1970s and 80s.”

To all the anti-Hamas posters. The Guardian has also published pieces by representatives of successive Israeli governments that have perpetrated systematic ethnic cleansing, aparthied discrimination and numerous other atrocities against the Palestinians for over sixty years. Why don’t you object to that?

Why don’t you object to that?

A very, very pertinent question, and one that I’ve refrained from asking, because two wrongs wouldn’t make a right. After a thread featuring this much dodging drivel, it can be forgiven just once, though.

The answer, of course, is that -

- Theoretical atrocities can be loads worse than actually-occurring ones;

-that ideology can be worse than actual practice;

- that (x) atrocity is so, so much worse than (y) atrocity, ergo comparison is actively hateful;

- that you may only ask that question if you can prove beyond all doubt that your motives are entirely pure, and that

- hey, look, some tit with a blog said something stupid about Hamas, ergo this proves that no answer is required.

If these answers don’t work, there are a billion more diversionary, hey-look-over-there answers available on request.