Sunday, August 29, 2010
Speaking of Hamas...the New York Times printed yesterday an op-ed by professional anti-Israel activist and founder of the "Electronic Intifada," Ali Abunimah, purveying the rather hackneyed and repeatedly discredited comparison of the Middle East peace process with that which occurred in Northern Ireland: Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us.
Now, picture the absurdity. The Times presents into the mix an essay on the proper way forward in the peace process written by someone who does not believe in said process. Ali Abunimah has dedicated his life to the destruction of the Jewish State, gathering around him any and all allies, including the New York Times, in that effort. But don't expect the Times to hip its readers to that fact while it tries to administer the medicine of his prescription for a cure.
Abunimah is so extreme, and Times editors so willing to print anything these days, that he not only says Israel is bad, he says it's actually worse than Hamas:
...As for violence, Hamas has inflicted a fraction of the harm on Israeli civilians that Israel inflicts on Palestinian civilians. If violence disqualifies Hamas, surely much greater violence should disqualify the Israelis?...
This is a rather more straightforward example of moral perversion appearing in the pages of the Times than most conservative culture warriors refer to when criticizing the paper.
Via Sophia who writes to the Times:
To the editor:
This represents a new low in NYT editorials.
I'm nearly speechless.
Hamas is not only brutal to Israelis, it's a violent, repressive organization that terrorizes Palestinians, steals from the UN and is sworn to destroy not only Israel but Jews...
They don't care. The Times has completely lost the thread.
Update: See the post above for a fisking of the Middle East/Northern Ireland analogy.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: New York Times Trots Out Hamas Apologist to Write About the Peace Process.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/18544
[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word, and comes as a conveniently timed fisking of the Ali Abunimah piece from the New York Times I scolded below. I told you it was "rather hackneyed and repeatedly discredited... Read More
This is being portrayed as a "drive by." It was clearly far worse than that. 4 Israelis killed in shooting attack Murderous terror attack on eve of peace talks: Four Israelis killed in West Bank shooting attack Tuesday evening; pregnant... Read More
Let me defend the Times here. In the past it has given actual members of Hamas the right to its op-ed pages. So this is not a new low. They passed the new low a few years ago. This is just a standard low.
After all, aside from the sophistication is there really a difference between Ali Abuminah and Roger Cohen?
You make good points my brutha.
blair demanded the ira disarm before getting any role.
they did.
maybe israelk should demand the same of hamas and fatah and ij?
Thanks for posting this, Sol.
Right on target, this piece talks about the "police state" in Gaza:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100829/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_silencing_opposition
As for Roger Cohen, he is very idealistic to the point of sometimes not seeing things, for example the negativity of the regime in Iran. I've been accused of the same thing, simply for arguing against stereotyping people - frequently Muslims for example or Arabs. So I understand Roger Cohen from the inside out.
He may be too idealistic, perhaps - but he isn't anti-Israel any more than I am.
However, Abunimah seems to me to actively work against peaceful solutions. His lack of historical perspective in this particular article is appalling - either he's completely ignorant of history or he's mendacious.
Either way I'm shocked.
The fact is, Israel and Egypt and of course other Palestinian factions TRY to work with Hamas. But the clarity of their philosophy is straightforward - every time people declare Hamas doesn't really want to wipe out Israel they reiterate they wish to do exactly that.
And even if people in Gaza want to moderate the leaders in Syria won't let them.
So apart from the offensiveness of the commentary I don't see how the US is supposed to "engage" with Hamas.
What's to engage? If the Palestinians themselves, and other members of the Arab League plus Israeli negotiators can't negotiate successfully with Hamas what exactly is the US supposed to do?