By Stephen Farrell
A1, A12
In The Closed Circle, David Pryce-Jones, argues that Arab society is governed by a dual set of emotions – honor and shame. The goal: Gain honor and avoid shame.
Many Palestinians, Farrell writes, “admired Hamas for its willingness to take on a regional superpower.” Certainly, the impression that Palestinians want to convey to the world is that of the underdog’s heroism, but consider for the moment another impression that could come through – utter irrationality. The calculation appears to be guided by the prospect of gaining honor and avoiding shame rather than simply finding the best way to live. Choose life!
Farrell’s query is, Will Hamas be strengthened or weakened in this confrontation with Israel? In the process of not answering it, he misleads readers in several places.
In the first full paragraph on A12, the reporter explains, “the rejectionist credo” is “that Fatah negotiated with Israel and got nowhere.” Even had Fatah accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David 2000, Hamas would have rejected such an agreement because it desires to rule all of Israel. In other words, when a group’s objective is politicide – the eradication of Israel – members of that group are bound to be disappointed by negotiations, which are unlikely to end in a state’s dissolution.
Farrell raises the prospect of Hamas unleashing a suicide bombing campaign, as it did several years ago. The will to execute suicide bombings has been there all along, but the capability has been significantly weakened because of the security barrier, Operation Defensive Shield, and targeted assassinations of Hamas’ leaders. The threat of suicide bombing does not loom as large as it once did because Israel – through pain – has discovered methods for weakening Hamas’ capability. Farrell does not provide this sobering counter to the exuberance he finds among Palestinians for Hamas to carry out such attacks.
Gratitude to Mohanad Salah, who gets to play the role of “Palestinian who really wants peace” in Farrell’s article. Salah promises that if Israel offered a political solution, “it would be completely accepted by the majority of Palestinian people.” Pray tell, what would that political solution be? It most likely constitutes an Israeli withdrawal to the ’49 armistice lines and implementation of the so-called right of return. No, thank you, Mr. Salah.
Many Palestinians, Farrell writes, “admired Hamas for its willingness to take on a regional superpower.” Certainly, the impression that Palestinians want to convey to the world is that of the underdog’s heroism, but consider for the moment another impression that could come through – utter irrationality. The calculation appears to be guided by the prospect of gaining honor and avoiding shame rather than simply finding the best way to live. Choose life!
Farrell’s query is, Will Hamas be strengthened or weakened in this confrontation with Israel? In the process of not answering it, he misleads readers in several places.
In the first full paragraph on A12, the reporter explains, “the rejectionist credo” is “that Fatah negotiated with Israel and got nowhere.” Even had Fatah accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David 2000, Hamas would have rejected such an agreement because it desires to rule all of Israel. In other words, when a group’s objective is politicide – the eradication of Israel – members of that group are bound to be disappointed by negotiations, which are unlikely to end in a state’s dissolution.
Farrell raises the prospect of Hamas unleashing a suicide bombing campaign, as it did several years ago. The will to execute suicide bombings has been there all along, but the capability has been significantly weakened because of the security barrier, Operation Defensive Shield, and targeted assassinations of Hamas’ leaders. The threat of suicide bombing does not loom as large as it once did because Israel – through pain – has discovered methods for weakening Hamas’ capability. Farrell does not provide this sobering counter to the exuberance he finds among Palestinians for Hamas to carry out such attacks.
Gratitude to Mohanad Salah, who gets to play the role of “Palestinian who really wants peace” in Farrell’s article. Salah promises that if Israel offered a political solution, “it would be completely accepted by the majority of Palestinian people.” Pray tell, what would that political solution be? It most likely constitutes an Israeli withdrawal to the ’49 armistice lines and implementation of the so-called right of return. No, thank you, Mr. Salah.
Posts
One of the best posts. A few points that would've weighed down your commentary:
ReplyDeleteThe number of Palestinian rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza since 2001.
-a good point rarely, if ever made.
"The threat from Hamas's homemade rockets and those of other armed Palestinian factions..."
It's discomfiting that the writer pens in the concern of Hamas' rockets into "homemade". Israeli defense is much more worried about the imported ones.
"The Palestinians' principal resistance."
Good. It's a golden opportuntiy for a clean, sober and necessary breakdown on the term "resistance" and it extends to all Palestinian politics. It never comes here and that clouds things a bit.
"The questions remain:"
- I thought this was cute...and sad. Are you kidding? The biggest question isn't asked: how does Israel convince the Palestinians to accept compromise?
"Hamas's way of armed force…was the only way"
To do what? To liberate Palestine…and that's what Fatah [obviously] wants …only it's playing the game. Doing the dance.
"left Gaza reeling"
- Maybe. But really, Hamas is reeling.
"…that Hamas and Fatah spent too much time fighting each other instead of working for Palestinian unity."
-Palestinian unity for what?
"firing highly inaccurate rockets from Gaza"
-and if they were accurate? What kind of point was this? Why the assertion, which wasn't mindless? It's again to misread the Hamas (and to a large and unfortunate extent the Palestinian) intention of killing as many Israelis as possible.
and "defiant gesture"
-Yes…it is, but as part of what? there's a bigger point not being made. That the main political platform for Palestinians is resistance to Israel…forcing its demise. How hard is this?
The piece de la resistance, which you commented on:
[drumroll]
"But you should know that even after Israel carried out this operation yesterday, if today it says 'We want a political solution, let's reach an agreement,' it would be completely accepted by the majority of the Palestinian people,' Mr. Salah added."
No response to this would be fitting, if the writer was someone who truly saw the ludicrousness of the quote.