Saree Makdisi, Counterpunch, February 10:
"...There can be no doubt that the Hamas charter is not only xenophobic, sectarian, and racist, but also ill-conceived, inaccurate, retrograde, and intellectually vacuous. Nevertheless, the obsessive attention being paid to this document in the US in recent weeks forces one to ask not merely what purposes such an obsession serves, but also what equally (or even more) important issues it elides or covers up.
"First, one has to marvel at the interest being paid to the racism of the Hamas charter, given the extraordinary lack of interest here in Israel's own racism, which is executed not merely on paper and in theory but actually, practically, materially.
"Israel's Basic Laws, for example, discriminate between Jews and non-Jews in ways that many of those Americans who object most loudly to the mixture of religion and politics strangely don't seem to find objectionable. And Israel's unique existence as a country that expressly claims to be not the state of its actual citizens but rather of a globally dispersed people manifestly privileges the (non-Israeli) Jews of New York and Chicago over Israel's actually existing non-Jewish citizens. Although they amount to some twenty percent of the state's population, the latter are literally written into second class status by virtue of their non-Jewishness in what loudly proclaims itself to be the Jewish state."
"...There can be no doubt that the Hamas charter is not only xenophobic, sectarian, and racist, but also ill-conceived, inaccurate, retrograde, and intellectually vacuous. Nevertheless, the obsessive attention being paid to this document in the US in recent weeks forces one to ask not merely what purposes such an obsession serves, but also what equally (or even more) important issues it elides or covers up.
"First, one has to marvel at the interest being paid to the racism of the Hamas charter, given the extraordinary lack of interest here in Israel's own racism, which is executed not merely on paper and in theory but actually, practically, materially.
"Israel's Basic Laws, for example, discriminate between Jews and non-Jews in ways that many of those Americans who object most loudly to the mixture of religion and politics strangely don't seem to find objectionable. And Israel's unique existence as a country that expressly claims to be not the state of its actual citizens but rather of a globally dispersed people manifestly privileges the (non-Israeli) Jews of New York and Chicago over Israel's actually existing non-Jewish citizens. Although they amount to some twenty percent of the state's population, the latter are literally written into second class status by virtue of their non-Jewishness in what loudly proclaims itself to be the Jewish state."
8 Comments:
Hmmm, thats a toughie. Why would anyone "obsess" about a charter that was racist etc etc etc? Could it be because the charter has been the basis of deliberately targetting non combattants with suicide bombings? Is this the tiny detail that eludes the author?
No, it is not enough that Palestinians would voluntarily elect a terrorist entity that holds these values. This again would not be enough reason to examine them closely. The close attention must be denigrated into the world 'obsession' in order to de-legitimise the real interest that should be paid to a country that elects terrorist leaders. Makdisi merely tries to obfuscate thse issues by once again pointing the finger at Israel. This is the typical action of the antisemite with their backs against the wall: when in doubt, accuse Israel.
Israel's basic laws reflect the utter failure of the world to protect Jewry during the second world war. Jews cannot rely on any state other than their own for complete sanctuary. It is transparently discriminatory and requires no defence.
Israel is not the only state based on religious values. Almost all Western states incorporate Christianity and Most Arab states Islam. I don't think as a Jew I am even allowed to go to many places inside Saudi. The Vatican will always be headed by the pope. Frankly I don't care. I do care however about a terrorist group that has as its raisen detre the elimination of a peaceful neighbour.
Comparing what is effectively Israel’s Constitution to Hamas’s Charter is a nice attempt at tying to show some kind of institutionalised South African (circa Apartheid) state, but the evidence just isn’t there.
That’s never mattered much to Counterpunch though, Makdisi is probably just another ‘creative writer’ employed for $25 an article.
Israel's basic laws reflect the utter failure of the world to protect Jewry during the second world war. Jews cannot rely on any state other than their own for complete sanctuary. It is transparently discriminatory and requires no defence.
The reality is that the concept of a sectarian state in the mode of Israel has become "outdated" in the short time since Israel's formation.
It is true that many western states still have some claim of official religion, but any attempt to use the tactics employed by Israel to preserve that identify, such immigration restrictions based on religion, state sanctioned attempts to increase the "preferred" population and the second class status of the non-state approved group would be pilloried.
Think if the UK or the US attempted similar policies? One only has to look at the treatment of the BNP to see the result. Additionally, much of the backlash would come at the hands of mainstream Jewish organizations.
And this does not even include the day-to-day outrages Israel engages in in the name of security such as tying illegal Palestinian workers to donkeys, killing of young children and confiscation of housing with "absentee" owners who are living in the houses.
All this adds up to significant condemnation from the mainstream and left sides of the isle for Israel. (The hard right is only angry because they can't do the same.) Frankly, the condemnation is rather mild all things considered.
Israel is not the only state based on religious values. Almost all Western states incorporate Christianity and Most Arab states Islam.
As i mentioned above this is in name only. No western state employes the same methods as Israel.
I don't think as a Jew I am even allowed to go to many places inside Saudi.
Not a western state.
The Vatican will always be headed by the pope. Frankly I don't care.
Well, other mainstream Jewish groups do care, as well as the mainstream left press. They scream bloody hell if anyone proposes preserving the religious identity of their nation using the tactics employed by Israel.
And, this does not even go into the racial component of "Jewishness," which simmers below the surface of this debate.
I do care however about a terrorist group that has as its raisen detre the elimination of a peaceful neighbour.
While I don't want anymore conflict, you really can't argue that, from a Palestinian point of view, that Israel behaved peacefully towards them over the last 60 years. As someone who lives in "settled" territory (the US) I concede that the matter is very complex, but to argue that Hamas is completely unjustified in its anger toward Israel is not taking a full view of things.
brian: "to argue that Hamas is completely unjustified in its anger toward Israel is not taking a full view of things."
You need to understand the difference between anger and terrorism. I don't care who is angry, I do care about a policy of deliberately targetting men, women and children with suicide bombers in pizza parlours. There are the elected representatives of the palestinians. It is a shocking indictment on palestinians to have elected such blatantly bigotted fanatics. In doing this they condemn themselves and reveal to the world that it is not a small group that support such tactics, but the vox populi.
American Indians don't do it, Australian Aboriginals don't do it and neither should Arab/Islamic terrorists.
No Western state employs the same methods as Israel for very obvious reasons, no western state has been under an existential threat since its very existence. The threats are continual, military and political in nature.
No Western state responds perfectly to terrorism, because it is a burden that is extrodinary and outside the realm of usual experience. It is a dilemma for all countries to respond adequately whilst attempting to preserve autonomy and freedom. This is something that Arafat and his terrorist cronies have exploited over years: use ambulances for terrorists then complain of human rights violations when they are then stopped; use schools and hospitals as military bases then complain that the Israelis are killing children and the sick; use Mosques as refuge for combattants and then complain that they are religiously persecuted.
Sure Palestinians are angrey: they have been the victim of sinister and cynical manipulaiton by their own leaders as a strategy to demonise Israel. And guess what everyone suffers.
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinianambulancesterrorism1009.html
Oh, thats right, step inside a pizza bar and kill young children rather than resort to the law to address your grievances.
addamo, it is impossible debating with you. The tragic death of the young girl you speak of was fully investigated. It is self-evident that the IDF do not target children as a matter of policy. The same cannot be said for Hamas. It is amazing that you cannot appreciate the difference.
Edward, I linked the Basic Laws. No institutionalised racism there.
It wasn't a 'slide' at all. I was staying on the topic raised by Antony's quotations from Counterpunch- which was an attempt to compare the Basic Laws to the Hamas Charter.
I glanced through your link. Worn arguments and attempts to rewrite history, especially regarding 1948.
Israel also get's the blame for PA and Arab activities- [under occupation, Palestinians are refused] the right to adequate medical help [...] and the right to work.
It was Arafat who proclaimed that no Arab should go to Jewish hospitals. Israel shouldn't be responsible for providing jobs to non-Israeli's, its like blaming Australia for unemployment in the Pacific.
Although, an interesting point on Israel's economy- that its citizens are becoming worse off as a whole, and there is a general decline in economic strength.
Also interesting is the decision that its a good idea to destroy Israel to protect the world from its inhumanity or whatnot.
I shouldnt have to try and convince Antony's fans here so often, but there is clearly no evidence of an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as claimed in Apartheid Israel.
Post a Comment
<< Home