Zak vs. JMC Dept: The replies
Here are the responses I have received after sending the Hamas Covenant to the department. I will also include my replies to their responses. Copying and pasting from the UWM email pages on to the blog doesn't automatically format text. Thus many words are attached and there are no paragraph breaks. I have tried to fix all of the text but I will have probably missed a few "mistakes." The process takes a lot of time, so you will have to excuse me for not making it "perfect" as I simply don't have the time to proof and proof and proof. Please excuse that, and do not assume any attached words, etc. were the fault of any of the authors.
Hi Zak.I, too, was disheartened to hear of Hamas progression from terrorist organization to terrorist org/"legitimate" political institution.After that news, and reading Sharifah's latest post from Khartoum (ask Jesse for it, it's quite a read), it makes me ill to think that we will have yet unstable,corrupt government using violence in the name of Islam as its ruling mandate.Let's see if the coming months and the Israeli elections give us reason to bemore optomistic for peace in the middle east and in Islamist Africa . . .Ang
Angie, bless her heart, is actually a friend of mine, and a close friend of my brother. Sharifah is a part of my bro's college crew of friends and she volunteered to do humanitarian work as a nurse in Darfur, Sudan, where the genocide by the Arab dominated government against the Black African Muslim population of Darfur. Sharifah was almost recently killed in a mortor attack on a hospital by the Jamjawid. Luckily she is safe now and out of harms way.
Now it's time to enter the alternate loony universe that far too many universities are known for these days. Please note that my replies will be in bold.
It seems that those in power start backing off their valorization of democracy as soon as democracy in a different nation calls for our own nation's demise. If what Bush says is right, we have no option then but to support democracy in the Middle East, and by extension, our own destruction. Fun Factoid:The CIA did support Hamas in the 1980's. For more info read Robert Dreyfuss's"Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805076522/qid=1138387585/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1417918-9876841?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
About the Author: Said is half Palestinian, half Puerto Rican. He's actually a nice guy and disregarding politics, I like him. Following is my reply to his message. Remember: the entire JMC department are receiving these messages.
Hey Said,
It seems that those in power start backing off their valorization of democracy as soon as democracy in a different nation calls for our own nation's demise. If what Bush says is right, we have no option then but to support democracy in the Middle East, and by extension, our own destruction.
Nobody ever said life or international relations were simple. The nice thing about a democratic election, however, is that it helps to unmask the will of a people. In the case of the Palestinians, or most other Arab countries, a common argument is that the dictators represent themselves, and not necessarily the will of their people. Thus, what do the people really want if they can't express their will through elections? At least now we know (although I knew before) that the will and desire of the vast majority of the Palestinian people is to destroy Israel. Palestinians may disagree (violently) on tactics,cease-fires, etc., but the end goal is the same: destroy Israel.
Previously with Arafat, who mouthed platitudes about peace in English and encouraged jihad and violence in Arabic, we had a wolf in sheep's clothing.With Hamas we have a wolf; a particularly nasty Jew-hating wolf with lot's of innocent Israeli blood dripping from it's mouth.
Fun Factoid: The CIA did support Hamas in the 1980's. For more info read Robert Dreyfuss's "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam"
We need to hangout some time and talk more. I'm not even sure if it is appropriate to include the entire JMC department in on this at this point, because it's a never ending argument/debate.
Zak
Then an actual professor, you know, a PhD, a Doctor, blah blah, chimed in:
The election victory was decided by the irony of local politics with a very interesting global twist. In other words, Hamas won because their platform was improving public services and betterment of infrastructure and civic life at local levels for citizens. This can be construed as global in the sense that many people in formerly third world/poor countries are now looking to globalization as a way to improve the quality of their lives and less and lessas a means to exercise national identity politics. Simply put, they see no choice but to go global and some are more pro-active than others--for e.g. Ireland, various Asian countries. If these countries seek a nationalist identity it is in different terms as a country that can be a global success story rather than some hidebound modernist patriotic identity. Of course the histories of these countries are repositories of meanings that can shape their present and future in regressive ways but insofar as countries have changed their nationalist rhetorics in and through globalization, it is important to recognize these changes, no matter how miniscule, and to allow these changes to occur and communicate that recognition and factor those changes into changing our own stereotypes. Otherwise we are simply confined by the colonialist compulsion to create an other at their expense.
The democratic process as an electoral majority in the Hamas case appeared to fuel a democratic outlook both on the side of the party and voters as ensuring quality of liveable life for citizens and a meaning of political leadership as delivering and ensuring that basic needs are met. The global and national politics of terror per se did not appear to factor into the decision to vote for Hamas. In fact the party has issued a continuance of ceasefire on a principle of reciprocity. This answers the question who is also Hamas. If the U.S.A decides to cut off aid then it will no doubt force the identity of Hamas as a terror group to the forefront.
The entire department received this email as well, but then I got this message:
Okay. I don't think that this is the most appropriate conversation to be having on these lists. The situation in the Middle East is a complicated one and it does no one any good to present reductionist arguments on either side of the political divide. There's plenty of guilt -- and innocence -- to go around, as feminists engaged in peace work in the region can attest to.
Peace
To which I replied:
Carol,
Perhaps you missed it, but this was what I wrote to Said at the end of my email to him: "We need to hangout some time and talk more. I'm not even sure if it is appropriate to include the entire JMC department in on this at this point, because it's a never ending argument/debate."
So I don't think I need to be reprimanded by you about that.
I do not, however, regret providing a link to the Hamas manifesto/covenant in the first place. Other people have linked to political things in the past, and so for the first time in my graduate school "career", I did too. The Hamas victory was a huge event that is going to have temendous implications for the future of Middle East peace. I thought it was important that people realize just who these Hamas people are, and what they stand for. Frankly, I was expecting people to be horrified by Hamas' positions, but curiously except forAngie, nobody voiced much concern about that. I am writing a reply to Supriya's email to me. If anybody else is interesting in receiving it too, please let me know and I will send it.
Zak
And here is my reply to Prof. Supriya, which I sent only to her:
Quoting Supriya: The election victory was decided by the irony of local politics with a very interesting global twist. In other words, Hamas won because their platform was improving public services and betterment of infrastructure and civic life at local levels for citizens.
I don’t dispute that, and there is some truth to it. However, Hamas’suicide bombing campaigns and stance towards Israel (destroy it) and general Islamic fundamentalist ideology also resonates with huge segments of conservative Palestinian society. This should not be discounted nor brushed under the table. (factoid: A Hamas suicide bomber blew up the bus that I use totake to Hebrew class in Jerusalem in the summer of 1995. Luckily for me I had slept at a friend’s apartment and took a different bus to class. A middle aged American mother who was in my class and a number of Israelis on their morning commute were not so fortunate and were killed.)
This can be construed as global in the sense that many people in formerly third world/poor countries are now looking to globalization as a way to improve the quality of their lives and less and less as a means to exercise national identity politics. Simply put, they see no choice but to go global and some are more pro-active than others--for e.g.> Ireland, various Asian countries. If these countries seek a nationalist identity it is in different terms as a country that can be a global success story rather than some hidebound modernist patriotic identity. Of course the histories of these countries are repositories of meanings that can shape their present and future in regressive ways but insofar as countries have changed their nationalist rhetorics in and through globalization, it is important to recognize these changes, no matter how miniscule, and to allow these changes to occur….
If I may… what if allowing those changes to occur is at the expense of your own country’s existence, or your own personal safety?
… and communicate that recognition and factor those changes into changing our own stereotypes. Otherwise we are simply confined by the colonialist compulsion to create an other at their expense.
Surely after reading the Hamas manifesto/covenant and considering the well-documented vitriolic anti-Semitism that is so common in much of the Islamic and Arab world, I would have to say that it is THEIR turn to consider changing stereotypes, too. Wouldn’t you agree? I am not "creating" my own stereotype of Hamas: They openly declare their goals. I happen to take them at their word.
The democratic process as an electoral majority in the Hamas case appeared to fuel a democratic outlook both on the side of the party and voters as ensuring quality of liveable life for citizens and a meaning of political leadership as delivering and ensuring that basic needs are met.
Again, you seem unwilling or unable to consider that Hamas’ past suicide bombings and hard line political position may have played a role in their popularity.
The global and national politics of terror per se did not appear to factor into the decision to vote for Hamas. In fact the party has issued a continuance of ceasefire on a principle of reciprocity.
Right after Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, Hamas responded with akassam missile barrage into Israel, firing over 30 rockets. They haven’tentirely abided by the ceasefire. They are still stockpiling arms, notdisarming. Their leadership has repeatedly stated that they will not recognizeIsrael, or ever agree to a two state solution. Can’t you see that the ceasefire is merely tactical?
This answers the question who is also Hamas. If the U.S.A decides to cut off aid then it will no doubt force the identity of Hamas as a terror group to the forefront.
Hamas is also responsible for the terrible living standard of thePalestinians. Throughout the 90’s peace process, Hamas initiated scores of suicide attacks, knowing well that Israel’s response would be to seal off the territories and to disallow Palestinian workers into Israel. After a suicide bombing, the thought of getting on a bus the next morning is terrifying. I know, because I’ve been through it. Israelis demanded their government protect them, and one of the best ways to accomplish that was to seal the borders and thus prevent more human bombers from entering Israel. This harmed the Palestinian economy. I believe Hamas did this intentionally in order to create more misery and thus more hatred. The PA (Fatah) and its corruption were not the only reason the Palestinians standard of living plummeted ever since theday Arafat and his crew entered Gaza and Jericho.
And it is not just the USA that may cut off aid; the EU has also threatened to cut off aid unless Hamas accepts Israel’s right to exist and agrees to enter into peace talks.
While I appreciate your input, I find your views disturbing.You have the audacity and temerity to blame the USA for future Hamas terrorism if the USA doesn’t fund this group (because funding the PA now means funding Hamas). Let me get this straight: Are you really implying that if the USA cutsoff aid, and Hamas re-breaks the ceasefire, it will be the USA’s fault? That’s crazy. Sorry for being so blunt. When (not if) Hamas resumes its fight againstIsrael, it will be Hamas’ fault. Any other explanation indicates a bigotry of low expectations for the Palestinians on your behalf.
Zak
I will continue to post all of the email correspondences as they come.
Hi Zak.I, too, was disheartened to hear of Hamas progression from terrorist organization to terrorist org/"legitimate" political institution.After that news, and reading Sharifah's latest post from Khartoum (ask Jesse for it, it's quite a read), it makes me ill to think that we will have yet unstable,corrupt government using violence in the name of Islam as its ruling mandate.Let's see if the coming months and the Israeli elections give us reason to bemore optomistic for peace in the middle east and in Islamist Africa . . .Ang
Angie, bless her heart, is actually a friend of mine, and a close friend of my brother. Sharifah is a part of my bro's college crew of friends and she volunteered to do humanitarian work as a nurse in Darfur, Sudan, where the genocide by the Arab dominated government against the Black African Muslim population of Darfur. Sharifah was almost recently killed in a mortor attack on a hospital by the Jamjawid. Luckily she is safe now and out of harms way.
Now it's time to enter the alternate loony universe that far too many universities are known for these days. Please note that my replies will be in bold.
It seems that those in power start backing off their valorization of democracy as soon as democracy in a different nation calls for our own nation's demise. If what Bush says is right, we have no option then but to support democracy in the Middle East, and by extension, our own destruction. Fun Factoid:The CIA did support Hamas in the 1980's. For more info read Robert Dreyfuss's"Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805076522/qid=1138387585/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1417918-9876841?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
About the Author: Said is half Palestinian, half Puerto Rican. He's actually a nice guy and disregarding politics, I like him. Following is my reply to his message. Remember: the entire JMC department are receiving these messages.
Hey Said,
It seems that those in power start backing off their valorization of democracy as soon as democracy in a different nation calls for our own nation's demise. If what Bush says is right, we have no option then but to support democracy in the Middle East, and by extension, our own destruction.
Nobody ever said life or international relations were simple. The nice thing about a democratic election, however, is that it helps to unmask the will of a people. In the case of the Palestinians, or most other Arab countries, a common argument is that the dictators represent themselves, and not necessarily the will of their people. Thus, what do the people really want if they can't express their will through elections? At least now we know (although I knew before) that the will and desire of the vast majority of the Palestinian people is to destroy Israel. Palestinians may disagree (violently) on tactics,cease-fires, etc., but the end goal is the same: destroy Israel.
Previously with Arafat, who mouthed platitudes about peace in English and encouraged jihad and violence in Arabic, we had a wolf in sheep's clothing.With Hamas we have a wolf; a particularly nasty Jew-hating wolf with lot's of innocent Israeli blood dripping from it's mouth.
Fun Factoid: The CIA did support Hamas in the 1980's. For more info read Robert Dreyfuss's "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam"
"funner" factoid: At one point in the 80's Israel also encouraged/turned a blind eye to Hamas because they saw it as a way to weaken Fatah (PLO). This doesn't mean Israel "created" Hamas or that the CIA created Hamas. Many make the argument that US support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's following the USSR's invasion somehow means we "created" bin-Laden. This argument is specious on a number of accounts. For one, just because US and Mujahadeen interests coincided some 20 years ago (both saw the Soviets as anenemy) doesn't make the US responsible 20 years later for al-Qaeda or the Taliban or Isalmic fundamentalism. The desire to follow Islamic fundamentalism was already organically ingrained in the population, whether or not the CIAgave them shoulder held missiles to shoot down Soviet aircraft.
Further, even if we can imagine that we are responsible for them, so what? If I give you a hunting rifle for your birthday and then 5 years later you decide you hate me and want to use the rifle to kill me, does that mean I deserve to die, or should just let you shoot me? We have to remember that Third World people also have their own ideas, motivations and desires. We are not all powerful and do not control all events in the world. We have to hold supporters of fundamentalists terrorist groups or other odious ideologies to account. The attitude that the US created bin-Ladenor any other like-minded argument (other than being specious and overly simplistic) negates the ability of Third World peoples to make their own decisions. It is a heavy-handed view that implies Third World people only act in response to the US. It implies that they are just automatons at worst, or have the mentality of children, at best. Some would consider such a view racist, and it is ironic that it is held by so many on the Left.We need to hangout some time and talk more. I'm not even sure if it is appropriate to include the entire JMC department in on this at this point, because it's a never ending argument/debate.
Zak
Then an actual professor, you know, a PhD, a Doctor, blah blah, chimed in:
The election victory was decided by the irony of local politics with a very interesting global twist. In other words, Hamas won because their platform was improving public services and betterment of infrastructure and civic life at local levels for citizens. This can be construed as global in the sense that many people in formerly third world/poor countries are now looking to globalization as a way to improve the quality of their lives and less and lessas a means to exercise national identity politics. Simply put, they see no choice but to go global and some are more pro-active than others--for e.g. Ireland, various Asian countries. If these countries seek a nationalist identity it is in different terms as a country that can be a global success story rather than some hidebound modernist patriotic identity. Of course the histories of these countries are repositories of meanings that can shape their present and future in regressive ways but insofar as countries have changed their nationalist rhetorics in and through globalization, it is important to recognize these changes, no matter how miniscule, and to allow these changes to occur and communicate that recognition and factor those changes into changing our own stereotypes. Otherwise we are simply confined by the colonialist compulsion to create an other at their expense.
The democratic process as an electoral majority in the Hamas case appeared to fuel a democratic outlook both on the side of the party and voters as ensuring quality of liveable life for citizens and a meaning of political leadership as delivering and ensuring that basic needs are met. The global and national politics of terror per se did not appear to factor into the decision to vote for Hamas. In fact the party has issued a continuance of ceasefire on a principle of reciprocity. This answers the question who is also Hamas. If the U.S.A decides to cut off aid then it will no doubt force the identity of Hamas as a terror group to the forefront.
The entire department received this email as well, but then I got this message:
Okay. I don't think that this is the most appropriate conversation to be having on these lists. The situation in the Middle East is a complicated one and it does no one any good to present reductionist arguments on either side of the political divide. There's plenty of guilt -- and innocence -- to go around, as feminists engaged in peace work in the region can attest to.
Peace
To which I replied:
Carol,
Perhaps you missed it, but this was what I wrote to Said at the end of my email to him: "We need to hangout some time and talk more. I'm not even sure if it is appropriate to include the entire JMC department in on this at this point, because it's a never ending argument/debate."
So I don't think I need to be reprimanded by you about that.
I do not, however, regret providing a link to the Hamas manifesto/covenant in the first place. Other people have linked to political things in the past, and so for the first time in my graduate school "career", I did too. The Hamas victory was a huge event that is going to have temendous implications for the future of Middle East peace. I thought it was important that people realize just who these Hamas people are, and what they stand for. Frankly, I was expecting people to be horrified by Hamas' positions, but curiously except forAngie, nobody voiced much concern about that. I am writing a reply to Supriya's email to me. If anybody else is interesting in receiving it too, please let me know and I will send it.
Zak
And here is my reply to Prof. Supriya, which I sent only to her:
Quoting Supriya: The election victory was decided by the irony of local politics with a very interesting global twist. In other words, Hamas won because their platform was improving public services and betterment of infrastructure and civic life at local levels for citizens.
I don’t dispute that, and there is some truth to it. However, Hamas’suicide bombing campaigns and stance towards Israel (destroy it) and general Islamic fundamentalist ideology also resonates with huge segments of conservative Palestinian society. This should not be discounted nor brushed under the table. (factoid: A Hamas suicide bomber blew up the bus that I use totake to Hebrew class in Jerusalem in the summer of 1995. Luckily for me I had slept at a friend’s apartment and took a different bus to class. A middle aged American mother who was in my class and a number of Israelis on their morning commute were not so fortunate and were killed.)
This can be construed as global in the sense that many people in formerly third world/poor countries are now looking to globalization as a way to improve the quality of their lives and less and less as a means to exercise national identity politics. Simply put, they see no choice but to go global and some are more pro-active than others--for e.g.> Ireland, various Asian countries. If these countries seek a nationalist identity it is in different terms as a country that can be a global success story rather than some hidebound modernist patriotic identity. Of course the histories of these countries are repositories of meanings that can shape their present and future in regressive ways but insofar as countries have changed their nationalist rhetorics in and through globalization, it is important to recognize these changes, no matter how miniscule, and to allow these changes to occur….
If I may… what if allowing those changes to occur is at the expense of your own country’s existence, or your own personal safety?
… and communicate that recognition and factor those changes into changing our own stereotypes. Otherwise we are simply confined by the colonialist compulsion to create an other at their expense.
Surely after reading the Hamas manifesto/covenant and considering the well-documented vitriolic anti-Semitism that is so common in much of the Islamic and Arab world, I would have to say that it is THEIR turn to consider changing stereotypes, too. Wouldn’t you agree? I am not "creating" my own stereotype of Hamas: They openly declare their goals. I happen to take them at their word.
The democratic process as an electoral majority in the Hamas case appeared to fuel a democratic outlook both on the side of the party and voters as ensuring quality of liveable life for citizens and a meaning of political leadership as delivering and ensuring that basic needs are met.
Again, you seem unwilling or unable to consider that Hamas’ past suicide bombings and hard line political position may have played a role in their popularity.
The global and national politics of terror per se did not appear to factor into the decision to vote for Hamas. In fact the party has issued a continuance of ceasefire on a principle of reciprocity.
Right after Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, Hamas responded with akassam missile barrage into Israel, firing over 30 rockets. They haven’tentirely abided by the ceasefire. They are still stockpiling arms, notdisarming. Their leadership has repeatedly stated that they will not recognizeIsrael, or ever agree to a two state solution. Can’t you see that the ceasefire is merely tactical?
This answers the question who is also Hamas. If the U.S.A decides to cut off aid then it will no doubt force the identity of Hamas as a terror group to the forefront.
Hamas is also responsible for the terrible living standard of thePalestinians. Throughout the 90’s peace process, Hamas initiated scores of suicide attacks, knowing well that Israel’s response would be to seal off the territories and to disallow Palestinian workers into Israel. After a suicide bombing, the thought of getting on a bus the next morning is terrifying. I know, because I’ve been through it. Israelis demanded their government protect them, and one of the best ways to accomplish that was to seal the borders and thus prevent more human bombers from entering Israel. This harmed the Palestinian economy. I believe Hamas did this intentionally in order to create more misery and thus more hatred. The PA (Fatah) and its corruption were not the only reason the Palestinians standard of living plummeted ever since theday Arafat and his crew entered Gaza and Jericho.
And it is not just the USA that may cut off aid; the EU has also threatened to cut off aid unless Hamas accepts Israel’s right to exist and agrees to enter into peace talks.
While I appreciate your input, I find your views disturbing.You have the audacity and temerity to blame the USA for future Hamas terrorism if the USA doesn’t fund this group (because funding the PA now means funding Hamas). Let me get this straight: Are you really implying that if the USA cutsoff aid, and Hamas re-breaks the ceasefire, it will be the USA’s fault? That’s crazy. Sorry for being so blunt. When (not if) Hamas resumes its fight againstIsrael, it will be Hamas’ fault. Any other explanation indicates a bigotry of low expectations for the Palestinians on your behalf.
Zak
I will continue to post all of the email correspondences as they come.
posted by semite1973 at 7:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home