Hamas — VOICES for REASON

At the United Nations this week, the Palestinians will ask for — and possibly get — endorsement for their own independent state. But first, a quick reality check on what a Palestinian state means. This seven-part report from the Middle East Media Research Institute documents the rule of Hamas since it took over Gaza — in a bloody civil war — four years ago. To draw a brief sketch: Hamas has arbitrarily seized private land and bulldozed homes; censored the press; mocked freedom of assembly; killed political opponents (including those accused of “collaboration” with Israel); exploited civilians and private homes as human shields for armaments; imposed sharia law; and colluded in and carried out rocket attacks on Israel. And so the Islamists of Hamas have followed in the footsteps of the rival faction, the Fatah/PLO, which under Yasser Arafat had built up a horrifically repressive dictatorial regime. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, whose faction nominally has authority over parts of the West Bank, is known to celebrate suicide bombers, even honoring terrorists by naming streets after them.

For Palestinian leaders to demand a state of their own in order to sanctify their tyrannical rule is perverse.

Fouad Ajami, a canny scholar of the Middle East, observes in today’s WSJ that “The [UN] General Assembly may, in September, vote to ratify a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.” But that would be a hollow victory, he argues, because the Palestinians are far from having established the political institutions needed for a state. Ajami here draws a useful historical contrast with the establishment of Israel, which “was a fait accompli perhaps a decade before that [1947 UN] vote” thanks to the extensive development of political institutions.

The gist of his case is that the Palestinian movement was led astray by the likes of Arafat and the nursing of false hopes. The article is well worth reading, and it prompts questions that deserve serious consideration:

Is it right to hold the Palestinians blameless for accepting murderers like Arafat and Hamas as leaders of their cause?

Is it right to hold Palestinians blameless for accepting horrific goals (e.g. the wiping out of Israel) and means (e.g. rocket attacks, terrorist bombings) that Arab and Muslim leaders have encouraged, financed, and celebrated for decades?

There remains a crucial point: are there any grounds left for taking seriously the stated goal of the Palestinian cause — a peaceful, prosperous national homeland — given its history?

My answers: no; no; and, it beggars belief.

The Goldstone Report on the 2008/09 Gaza war brings to light genuine horrors — not pertaining to Israel’s conduct in the war, but horrors indicative of the U.N.’s basic character.

What events led up to the Gaza war? Perhaps it had something to do with the 10,000+ rockets and mortars fired into Israeli towns from Gaza during an eight-year period. But that salient fact is given no weight in the report. The report actually seems to be calculated to absolve Hamas of guilt for its aggression, while smearing Israel for “war crimes” for defending itself. E.g. the report cites an admission by a Hamas official that the Islamist group “created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machines” — but dismisses that admission in concluding that Hamas did not exploit human beings as shields. Facts in the report appear to have been bent into submission to advance a pro-Hamas agenda.

Read the rest of this entry »

The BBC and Sky News have come under fire for refusing to air a two-minute appeal for donations on behalf of Palestinians in Gaza. The group of British humanitarian organizations behind the appeal is furious. Along with a number of British politicians and public figures, like the archbishop of Canterbury, they have railed against the two television networks. What’s their beef against the broadcasters?

The broadcasters explained that they did not want to compromise their journalistic impartiality, since airing a solicitation for charity to Palestinians might be seen as endorsing one side in the recent war. Sky is a private satellite broadcaster, and so it should be free to decide what it airs; the BBC is in a more complicated situation, because it is publicly funded and required to serve the “public interest,” but its position is not unreasonable. (For the BBC, like other “public” institutions, there’s ultimately no objective way to determine what is in the “public interest” nor what content the network should air. Ayn Rand’s point re the “public interest” is particularly relevant here.)

But the British charity groups behind the appeal believe that there’s a more important issue at play, and that the broadcasters must put aside their own decision regarding what they’re willing to put on the air. The two networks are being urged to sacrifice that–in the name of what?

Mr. ADRIAN LOVETT (Director of Campaigns and Communications, Save the Children): Whatever the – what we acknowledge are deeply complicated issues around this crisis, at the heart of it are 400,000 people today without running water, 50,000 people who are homeless today, raw sewage running down the streets, and children who tell us on the ground in Gaza that they are afraid, that they’re traumatized….[Read the NPR transcript.]

Richard Burden, a Labour member of Parliament, has been leading the charge against the BBC and Sky:  ”This is not about taking sides in the conflict. It is about providing urgent help to people in desperate need.”

Need, on this moral outlook, is paramount–regardless of one’s own convictions and values, and regardless of the actions and moral character of the people deemed needy. Even though the Palestinian people overwhelmingly embraced the anti-Western, jihadist group Hamas for its leadership–that doesn’t matter. Even though so many of the people in Gaza are complicit in the attacks on Israel–that doesn’t matter. Even though some, if not all, the charitable funds sent to Gaza will end up with Hamas–no, all of that must be put aside, because there is a duty to serve others. Any evidence that the needy are in fact hostile and undeserving is papered over and evaded (hence the common fiction that Hamas and the Palestinian people are utterly distinct and separate groups, with Hamas somehow rising to power against the wishes of the people). 

Given this moral ideal of service to the needy, is there anything the Palestinians might say or do that would disqualify them from receiving Western largesse? Seemingly not.