Nice 2 no w planet u r n, Ismail

Hamas Mourns OBL, Throwing Deal Into Doubt – by Marc Tracy > Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life

 

On the one hand, al-Qaida is not the sticking point here; it was not disagreement over Bin Laden that held up the 2000 or 2008 peace talks, and Israel isn’t skeptical of reconciliation—that is, of a unified Palestinian sovereign that prominently includes Hamas—because Hamas refused to celebrate, and in fact condemned, the death of one of the world’s worst men.

But Hamas’ take on Bin Laden’s killing is nonetheless unbelievably disturbing. (It is also far from shocking: Both Hamas and al-Qaida are jihadist entities; longtime Bin Laden mentor Abdullah Azzam helped found Hamas. So, let’s dispense with the myth that this was merely a case of “bad P.R.” on Hamas’ part. This isn’t P.R.; this is policy. And that remains true even if Hamas was motivated in part to shore up its hardline flank. It’s very simple: Hamas is against the killing of Bin Laden.) You can make compromises—you can make peace—with those with whom you disagree, even vehemently. But you have to be living on the same planet. And people who unequivocally condemn the killing of Bin Laden are not living on the same planet as mainstream Israelis, and Israelis shouldn’t be required to move to that planet in order to make peace.

So, while the most immediately obvious contradiction is that between the Hamas and P.A.—the group that mourns the jihadist and the group that celebrates his death may have a tough time seeing eye-to-eye going forward—the most important one is that between Hamas and Israel, America, and the West. The reconciliation deal yet again proves a useful heightening of contradictions. This time, that heightening is a clear defeat for the forces that favor peace.

 

17 comments on “Nice 2 no w planet u r n, Ismail

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. we need to send out miggs, our MoundoAshhole correspondent to get the word on how Hamas has a right to condemn the killing because Gaza is encircled.

  2. Hamas’ leadership in Syria refuses to make any statement about the struggle going on there and is reportedly shopping for housing in an entirely new location.

    Might be a bit of truth to the idea that the timing of the signing of the agreement with the PA was the result of pressure from and need to appease the Arabs at the expense of their Iranian big brother.

  3. I said nothing about that, they had the easiest curveball in the world, and they fumbled it.

  4. @ miguel cervantes:
    I’m agreeing with you, dude. I was making fun of PiloWeiss. The opinion there seems divided between those who are off in conspiracy never-never land and those who agree that Hamas has made things a lot more difficult for solidarity ideological struggle with these comments. I would call it possibly a major setback in that arena.

    PW couldn’t bring himself even to offer an opinion.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/hamas-officials-condemn-bin-laden-killing.html#more-42082

  5. There is a twisted logic to this, they don’t want to encourage Mossad to go ‘landshark’ in Damascus, but still they could have phrased it better.

  6. @ CK MacLeod:

    even more fun is that the wrong side is always the one that most Americans view as the right one.
    same argument as how we were in the wrong side because we were allied with Stalin against a german nation that was a little extreme but was facing a terrible threat.

  7. @ miguel cervantes:
    We may have to admit, I think, that we don’t understand exactly what makes them (Hamas, not MW) tick, except when it’s a bomb – can’t really see from their point of view. Your version of their logic makes a kind of sense. They may honestly believe it, but their communications strategy in that case is, shall we say, a bit lacking. What they’ve done is establish a better , or anyway politically more tenable, justification for Israel to send a candy-gram, at the appropriate moment.

  8. Put simply, instead of arguing “good thing we’re not OBL,” they said, “killing OBL is wrong (so don’t kill us),” which leads Americans to say, “oh, just like we thought, you’re like OBL, better off dead, if you don’t mind us saying so, or even if you do.”

  9. @ fuster:
    Not necessarily. Don’t know. Was thinking of putting up a comment on the reconciliation thread remarking upon the reaction, and how it tended to support Morris/Soffer and even Netanyahu over Weiss/Slater. But right about now, I’m going to turn around and watch the Lakers.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply to miguel cervantes Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*