Europe, Israel and Palestine
Over at the blog of Time.com editor Tony Karon, guest contributor Saifedean Ammous nails the fatuous demand that Hamas should recognise Israel's "right to exist":
"When looking at the current situation in Palestine, an observer will find an illegal Israeli occupation that has been festering for 40 years, combined with illegal ethnically-exclusive colonies built on stolen Palestinian land, and the world’s only ethnically-segregated road network, where many routes can only be accessed by Jews. An internationally-illegal apartheid barrier surrounds Palestinian towns and villages, not only cutting them off from one another, but also cutting off farmers from their lands, children from their schools, patients from their hospitals and workers from their jobs. Israel controls all of the Palestinians’ openings to the outside world, stifling not only Palestinians’ freedom of movement, but also their economy and trade. One of the world’s strongest armies, the IDF, is regularly unleashed on civilian populations in Palestine, murdering thousands and killing innocent children with complete impunity. The Israeli government has as its Deputy Prime Minister an unabashed Fascist who openly and regularly calls for ethnic cleansing and mass murder of Arabs as a solution to the conflict. Israel continues to deny millions of Palestinians their legal right to return to their own homes from which they were ethnically cleansed in 1948, restricts land-ownership to Jews only, and has discriminatory racist laws in countless areas from marriage to immigration.
In the face of this travesty of justice, what is the only thing that the Europeans do? Demand that the oppressed, the Palestinians, only elect political parties that “recognize Israel’s right to exist” as a precondition for sitting on one table and discussing what to do about all these travesties.
Let us first bear in mind that the idea of Hamas—or any Palestinian political party for that matter—recognizing Israel’s “right to exist” is a patently meaningless idea that makes as much sense as Manchester United Football Club recognizing Tanzania’s “right to exist”. Nowhere is it written that nation states have a “right to exist” themselves. What is meant by “recognition” in an international setting is what happens when countries exchange embassies and establish diplomatic relations. Nowhere but in Palestine has the idea of a non-state entity recognizing a state ever been seriously discussed. Further, the imbeciles who repeat this canard conveniently ignore that Israel is not merely “not recognizing Palestine’s right to exist”, but actively, deliberately and comprehensively destroying any chance of a Palestinian state ever existing. But, for the morally-superior Europeans, Hamas’ “recognition” of Israel is the thing that bothers them the most about Palestine/Israel today, and not all of the crimes listed above. The kicker, of course, is not just that this is a morally and logically absurd position, but that Israel’s actions are the root of the conflict, and not whether Hamas recognizes Israel. This recognition won’t change anything on the ground and won’t affect the lives of anyone in any way, but the walls, settlements, killings, checkpoints and Israel’s racist policies will. Only when these are ended can there be peace, regardless of what Hamas “recognizes” or declines to “recognize.”"
Ammous' article concerns the EU approach to the Israel/Palestine issue, and poses an uncomfortable challenge to those on this side of the Atlantic who subscribe to the self-flattering "liberal EU / neo-con US" dichotomy:
"The tragic aspect of Europe’s policy with regard to Palestine today is not just that is practically indistinguishable from the policy of the US, but that it comes bundled with great self-righteousness and an unshakable belief that it is not only the correct policy, but is also vastly morally superior to anything anyone else is doing."
Click here and see how Ammous develops this point. Its an excellent article and well worth a read.
Labels: Israel/Palestine


4 Comments:
It is not just about recognizing israel's "right to exist" but also about the Covenant of Hamas (their charter) which is being used time and time again as a counter argument for not negotiating with them.
Most people have cited it as being antisemitic whereas I can only say that if you were being occupied by a group of people you would most certainly hate this group of people, and in this instance the group of people are israeli's and Jew's. And people most often forget this fact and the fact that all the hardlined paragraphs from their charter are not directed towards jews (per say) but towards Israel, and that to me seems only logical considering the circumstances.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Rgrds,
P.
By all accounts its a disgusting document - you can understand the reasons for its racism while still condemning it. But anyone who really wants to understand Hamas will look at the totality of their statements, including the most recent ones, not just a 20 year-old-document that is now sharply at odds with Hamas' oft repeated contemporary position.
Its plain that Hamas has evolved and changed significantly as a movement. This opens the possibility of a meaningful dialogue that could lead to peace. We can draw our own conclusions about those who look for reasons not to explore that dialogue.
Have they (Hamas) never (never-ever?) renounced this charter?
Rgrds,
P.
Not officially or explicitly. But repeated statements made by senior Hamas officials over the last several years all repudiate the charter in that they advocate a two state solution on the internationally recognised borders, while the charter calls for the end of Israel as a state.
The difficulty the Palestinians have (not just Hamas) is that because Israel was created through ethnic cleansing and the expropriation of Palestinian lands by force, any "recognition" of the state of Israel would feel like it was excusing a terrible crime that was the start of 60 years of suffering.
Palestinians, quite understandably, are reluctant to recognise Israel for that reason, so repudiating the charter is not as simple as might otherwise be the case. There's some serious symbollism attached.
Post a Comment
<< Home