How Hamas Is Trying to Fool Everyone

by Khaled Abu Toameh
November 28, 2012 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3471/hamas-moderation

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

In reality Hamas has not changed or relinquished its dream of replacing Israel with an Islamist state that is funded and armed by Iran. Unless Hamas changes its charter, the talk about changes in its strategy only serves to spread the movement's campaign of deception.

Is Hamas really on its way to moderation and pragmatism, as some Western political analysts and diplomats have come to believe?
And what do some Hamas leaders mean when they say that they are ready to accept a Palestinian state "only" in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem?
These questions were raised after CNN recently aired an interview with Hamas "political leader" Khaled Mashaal.
Mashaal told CNN's Christiane Amanpour: "I accept a Palestinian state according to 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right of return [of millions of Palestinians to Israel]."
The Hamas leader's remark has since been misinterpreted by some Westerners as a sign that the radical Islamist movement, which was established 25 years ago with the declared goal of destroying Israel, has now abandoned its ideology and is on its way to endorsing a softer approach.
But while Mashaal was speaking on CNN, several Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip were talking -- in Arabic -- about their intention to pursue the fight against Israel until the "liberation of all our lands, from the sea to the river."
Mashaal's remark is nothing but an attempt to mislead the international community into believing that Hamas has endorsed the two-state solution and is willing to live in peace alongside Israel.
In reality, Hamas has not changed or relinquished its dream of replacing Israel with an Islamist state that is funded and armed by Iran.
What Mashaal is actually saying is that because Hamas is aware of the fact that it cannot achieve its goal of destroying Israel now, it will take whatever land the Israelis give it and then continue the fight to "liberate" all Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
No one better than Mashaal himself expressed this view in the same CNN interview, where he stated: "Palestine, from the river to the sea, from the north to the south, it is my land. And the land of my fathers and grandfathers, inhabited by the Palestinians from a long time ago...but because of the circumstances of the region, because of the keenness to stop the bloodshed, the Palestinians today, and Hamas, have agreed on a program that accepts the 1967 borders."
What Mashaal and other "moderate" Hamas leaders are saying is this: "Give us a Palestinian state now in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem so that we could use it as a launching pad for eliminating Israel."
In an interview with Al-Jazeera this week, Mashaal admitted for the first time that Iran has been providing Hamas with weapons and money. He also revealed that Arab and Islamic countries, as well as individuals and organizations, have also been supporting Hamas militarily and financially.
Today it has become clear to most Palestinians that a future Palestinian state would be run by Hamas or Islamic Jihad. These two groups' popularity has increased among Palestinians, especially in wake of their self-declared "victory" over Israel during the recent Israel-Hamas conflict.
Hamas's effort to depict itself as a "moderate" movement reached its peak this week when Mashaal phoned Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to voice support for the request to upgrade the status of a Palestinian entity to non-member observer in the UN.
Mashaal's phone call was again misinterpreted as a sign that Hamas was willing to accept a state only within the pre-1967 lines.
But as Hamas officials later explained, the fact that Mashaal had welcomed Abbas's statehood bid did not mean that the movement was prepared to give up "one inch of Palestine."
Hamas is engaged in a subtle campaign to win the sympathy of the international community by appearing as if it is ready to abandon its dream of destroying Israel. Mashaal's remarks should be seen in the context of a new Hamas tactic aimed at turning the radical Islamist movement into a legitimate and recognized player in the international and regional arenas.
Those who have been misled into believing Hamas's lies should be referred to the movement's charter, where it is clearly stated that "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it…the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad [holy war] becomes a duty binding on all Muslims."
The next time CNN or any other Western media outlet interviews a Hamas leader, it would be advisable to ask him whether his movement was willing to change its charter. Unless Hamas does so, the talk about changes in its strategy only serves to spread the movement's campaign of deception.

Related Topics: Khaled Abu Toameh

The Indignation Industry

by Martin J. Day
November 28, 2012 at 4:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3470/muslim-indignation-australia

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

We cannot, and must not, stand for a religion that will limit our ability to speak, especially a religion that openly calls for the murder of people of other religions, and often even its own.

The Sydney police force announced a few weeks ago that, in anticipation of more hostile Islamic street protests similar to those that several weeks ago had turned violent, it intended to increase its numbers by several hundred. The original protest, sparked by the YouTube video that mocked the Islamic prophet Mohammed, featured people sporting placards that read, "Behead those who insult the prophet," and ended with at least nine arrests.
Sydney, Australia? A place that prides itself on racial and religious tolerance and for being a land of broad multi-culturalism? Well, as the young Muslim, Mohammed Zuhbi from Liverpool Sydney told reporter Tom Tilley from Triple J, "We don't want to apologize for our behaviour, or feel like we need to justify our existence because of this."
Zuhbi then asked how else can you express yourself when you are seeing death on a global scale, besides being violent. He went on to claim it was a peaceful protest, but had escalated when the police "provoked" them with batons and pepper spray -- just as the Americans had provoked them into violence with their unforgivable treatment of Muslims, including Israeli provocations.
Peaceful protests? Perhaps Zuhbi did not see the posters, often held up by young children, encouraging murder by beheading for the infidels who criticise Islam and inciting hatred for America. Perhaps Zuhbi did not see bleeding and unconscious police officers. Zuhbi, however, went on to say that protestors normally do not have a voice and were therefore forced to act, and that the protests were a manifestation of such anger and sadness towards their ill-treated brothers in Syria, and the treatment of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The recent protests were not really about not about a film, or cartoons in French or Danish publications, or even about retribution on the anniversary of 9/11 the for the arrest -- and subsequent release -- of the man who was evidently responsible for murdering a US Ambassador on US soil, or the usual kind of extreme offence-taking. Although many religions contain distasteful verses, and although most people in most religions, including Islam, are undoubtedly good, hardworking souls who just want a decent life, these protests really seem to be about a religion which stands apart as the only faith that awards itself a warrant to kill anyone who criticizes it or even tries to leave it.
We have witnessed many sacrilegious events in recent times, such as painting of Jesus in urine, or the Virgin Mary amid dung. As author Sam Harris protested in September 2012, a line needs to be drawn and defended without apology: "We are free to burn the Quran or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being." We cannot, and must not, stand for a religion that will limit our ability to speak, especially a religion which openly calls for the murder of people of other religions – and often even its own -- some of whom are referred to as "sons of pigs and monkeys," or which itself permits the burning of the holy Bible, or, as in certain countries such as Saudi Arabia, does not even allow it on its shores.
The Imam of Sydney largest mosque, Sheikh Yahya Safi, spoke to his people at Friday prayers at that time, calling on members of the Islamic community not to respond to protests. According to Zuhbi, this was only out of fears for Muslim safety and police provocation. Another elder, Sheikh Riad Galil, declared that these aggressive protestors had been isolated for so long that "they cannot communicate with others in what we call normal ways." Yet another Muslim spokesman, Shiraz Patel, then granted further clemency by explaining, "I think in any society there are always going be parts of the youth, the young communities that are going to feel a little bit alienated or marginalized."
We infidels are left feeling frustrated, and with a niggling feeling that the Muslims of Australia remain -- as they are permitted in both the Quran and the Hadith -- absolutely unapologetic on these matters. All the while, our leaders and police spokespersons continually advertise the "peaceful nature" of the Islamic community, and their willingness to co-operate with the authorities.
It is disheartening to see how completely useless Christianity is in a struggle of this kind, and to realise that Christianity now is a religion not of peace but of pacifism and surrender. This seems to be our country's position as well: pitiful submission to intimidation, as if they are saying, "Let's just not upset them further; let's just become acquiescent to their demands on us to comply with their Islamic laws, or else they will just go completely berserk."
* * *
When the leader of Hezbollah stands up and announces that the video allegedly at the center of all of the most recent hysteria was in fact designed by US intelligence, it should come as no surprise that people in the Middle East believe that everything that spills out of America is sanctioned by its own government, just as it is in their countries. The question of course is: Can this deep-seated belief ever be changed?
If one looks back a few decades, Islam and its culture already have changed. Cities such as Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, Alexandria, Tehran and Baghdad were famous, open cities -- cultured cosmopolitan places. Beirut was once called the Paris of the East.
The Islamization of the Middle East and then the entire world is the stated end game for many Islamists; as that condition is imagined to be the greatest gift and blessing from Allah, many are determined to realize their dream whatever the cost. If even just one percent of Muslims feel this way, that still counts as 15 million people. Those of us who choose to read, think and venture outside of our sheltered and often privileged boundaries are beginning to realize that the cost for the infidel will be great.
So what do we do about this? The answer probably lies in changing our foreign policy of complicity, partly by educating women in Islamic nations so they can have economic independence, and partly by educating ourselves more accurately about the objectives of radical Islam. Is Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's recent lunge for power just personal ambition for more money and power for himself or the Muslim Brotherhood he represents, or do the Brotherhood and he look on his newest decree as just the first step in a larger, more universal, power grab?
We should also be reminded how politically manufactured this Islamist rage often is – not the protestors currently camped out in Tahrir Square who lament they never intended to trade in a secular Pharaoh for an Islamist one – but Islamist protests, such as the Mohammed Cartoon riots, which are not the impulsive outbursts of people suddenly rising up, but fabricated, professional demonstrations, orchestrated by people with political agendas in search of a pretext -- an industry of indignation, safeguarded by politicians and religious leaders for political purposes.
We also need to call the problem by its right name, which is not Islam vs. the West, but rather Islamic Leaders vs. Their People – wherein those in positions of authority are like puppet masters, manipulating their own countries, and using their own citizens as serfs to gain for themselves greater power and often wealth – all fuelled by the strong and unshakable belief in the supremacy of the faith of Islam.
In addition, we need to stand up and tell our governments that we will not tolerate religious extremism of any description. This applies especially to the Australian government, which recently was too cowardly to allow an entry visa to democratically elected Dutch M.P. Geert Wilders, even while granting visas to Muslim leaders such as Taji Mustafa from groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Finally, and most importantly, we need to tell our government that we will not stand for being merely "tolerated" by an intolerant population right here in our own country.
Sadly, Geert Wilders was forced gracefully to retreat from his scheduled tour, following the apparently calculated stalling of his visa. But he is re-scheduled to tour Australia in February 2013.
Meanwhile the doors are opened wide for people such as Taji Mustafa whose religious and political directives come straight from bin Laden himself. Wilders is a brave and thoughtful man from whom our politicians could learn much, as he has already done the hard work for them. All that politicians, such as our craven immigration minister Chris Bowen, need do is listen to what he has to say, instead of making loud noises about anti-multiculturalism and racism.
In darker moments, one might well ask, what noises will be made following a nuclear Jihad?

Martin J. Day is a psychologist stationed on the Gold Coast, Australia. Included in his special interest studies are neuroscience, mental illness, psychopathy, and the worldwide history of politics and its coalescence with religion. He is also interested in indigenous affairs and the study of societies of all colors and how they are evolving in a rapidly changing modern world.

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php

Gatestone Institute