"Palestinians' Rift Prevents Gazans From Traveling to Mecca"
A6, December 12/4/08
By Taghreed El-Khodary and Ethan Bronner
This piece highlights Hamas' barring of 2,200 Gazans pilgrims from making the annual hajj to Saudi Arabia as part of its ongoing power struggle with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and more moderate Arab powers. To prevent the potential pilgrims from making the religiously-mandated journey, Hamas set up eight checkpoints to prevent passage to Egypt and "used sticks to beat those who did not turn back." Saudi Arabia had given the Palestinian Authority exclusive mandate to determine which Gazans would make the pilgrimage, which Hamas viewed as an unacceptable usurpation of its authority.
The authors properly note that "The result is that Gazans, isolated by an Israeli, Egyptian and Western closure for the past year and a half, now have another reason to feel besieged — they are being deprived of the chance to perform one of the most basic duties of a Muslim, the Mecca pilgrimage." However, why don't the authors mention Gazans besieged by Hamas rule of the Strip since June 2007? Hamas has ruled with an iron-fist, silencing any voices of dissent and implementing elements of Islamic Sharia law. Is this what Gazans really want?
Furthermore, the authors fail to explicitly hold Hamas accountable for the hajj restriction, giving voice to Hamas officials who argue that responsibility does not lay with them. This is surprising given that even the vehement Israel critic Amira Hass of Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper declaims that "What Israel has never dared to do - certainly not to this extent - is being done by a Palestinian government for which Islam is the basis of its platform and provides personal guidance for each of its ministers."
Lastly, the article creates a false equivalence by holding Hamas and Israel equally responsible for the latest Gaza violence -- "For the past several weeks, both have violated its [the truce's] terms..." This is despite the fact that the authors positively observe that the conflict began with Israel's preemptive destruction of a Hamas built-tunnel on the Israeli border that was to be used to abduct Israeli soldiers. This strategy was similarly employed in June 2006 to kidnap Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit. If Israel was responding to a hostile Hamas action, how is it then equally responsible?
Far too often, the NYT gives Hamas, a violent Islamist organization with no commitment to peaceful compromise or humanitarian norms, a free pass on its clearly repugnant and immoral behavior.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good point about "Gazans…now have another reason to feel besieged."
ReplyDelete- He should've added...by its own government. Not only with iron-fist rule, but with actions that will obviously elicit Israeli responses like border closures and preemptive raids.
Nice reference to Hass. The only difference I'd point out is that Hass is more opinion, and Bronner is more reporting. Although Bronner's explanation of events is revealing.
"Hamas is under growing pressure not only from Israel, which has stepped up military action here."
- As if that military action took place in a vacuum; the IDF response to Hamas building tunnels and laying mines along the border is not "pressure," since Hamas expects it.
"...and Israeli forces carrying out raids into Gaza, killing and wounding militants."
- Never mind that Israel has a right to kill militants firing rockets into its territory, but is this Israeli response clearly a violation of the truce? What exactly are the truce's terms on such a matter? Bronner likely neither knows or cares.
Bronner has in the past reported a similar tunnel was used in the Schalit abduction. He stops short of that here. You should've noted that.
I like the moral indignation in your last point on the false equivalence of the Times, which you point out contradicts itself in the article.