Danish Cartoons

In solidarity with other bloggers and people around the world who believe in freedom of speech and expression, here is the link to the Danish cartoons that started it all: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Now, compare those cartoons to the following linked Arab-language cartoons, and you'll see the difference between "hate" speech and innocuous lampoonery:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

So, not only is the Muslim reaction to the cartoons psychotic and fanatic, it's also incredibly hypocritical, as this cartoon illustrates.

Googled myself... and it felt good

Weird. For the hell of it I googled myself (I know, it sounds like a euphemism for masturbating) and one of the links that came up was to a website called Cannabis News.com. There were even some comments about my article, although some of them were a little “out there.”

I don't mind CN using my article without my permission because it's for "the cause," I guess. But I wonder if the UWM Post minds? I offered my latest column about Hamas to the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle. The way I see it is, if I wrote it, it's mine. Still, it’s strange how fast things get picked up and passed around the on the World Wide Web. Check it out:

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21543.shtml

Update:

Sweet, I also found one of the articles I wrote recently for the News Graphic: http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2006/Jan_06/01242006_15.asp

Another update:

I "yahoo'ed" myself and discovered that a website called GrassCity.Com also published my article. Weird! WTF is going on here?

http://forum.grasscity.com/showthread.php?p=828690#post828690

Let Hamas Rule

I think Amos hits it right on the mark in this article about Hamas' victory:

The prosaic fact is that Hamas won regardless of us; it won because the Palestinian leaders who went to Oslo never began to even reluctantly reeducate their people to stop hating Jews, to accept them as worthy neighbors and to respect them as indigenous inhabitants in their ancestral land. That is what recognition is about, that is what our interlocutors remain light years from, and that is what will continue to stand between us and them for many years to come.

Read the whole thing, here.

Visit LittleGreenFootballs

LGF has particularly chilling pictures and news postings today. For a shot of reality, check it out: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Baby wounded by Kassam rocket

Excerpt:

The infant was one of three members of an Israeli family who were wounded when a Kassam landed in a community near Ashkelon.

Hamas alarms Bethlehem's Christians

The dark ages cometh:

BETHLEHEM, West Bank -- While Israelis struggle to come to terms with the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections last week, another group also is worried by the rise of the avowedly Islamist organization -- the Christian Arab minority centered here in Jesus' birthplace.

How dare they!!!

The Muslim furor over the tame depictions of Muhammad and God is exploding. It might be only a matter of time before this fury translates into actual explosions. For anybody who pays attention to what Islamic fundamentalists say, the general Muslim response is hardly surprising.

But where is OUR fury? Freedom of speech and the freedom to express ourselves is one of the most sacred freedoms and rights that we have in the West. These medieval minded fanatics suppress and stifle freedom of expression in their own despotic societies and now they are trying to do it in our societies! We must not let them!

Nobody wants to admit that the war against Islamic terror is really a manifestation of the brewing war of civilizations—Islamic vs. Western (Judeo-Christian). But the cartoon issue shows that, indeed, this is a war of civilizations. Just look at the how far the gulf is between our two societies. Many Westerners are stunned that a mere picture of the prophet Muhammad has elicited such rage.

This issue is not about making horribly offensives statements about Islam, which could understandably have offended Muslims. Rather, it all began months ago when a Danish newspaper wanted to exercise it’s freedom of expression, and so asked cartoonists to merely draw pictures of Muhammad, knowing, however, that in Islam one may not depict a prophet or God. They wanted to test the waters and see if freedom of expression was still possible in Denmark, despite the large Islamic Danish community. But if Muslims find depictions of prophets and God offensive, does that mean that anybody who has a depiction of Jesus is thus offending Islam, since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet? Where does their madness end? I hope this latest episode wakes more people up about the danger that faces us, because it is creeping into our own societies and affecting us; not merely via increased security measures, but now our blessed and sacred freedom of expression.

Freedom ain’t free. Not too long ago Theo Van Gogh was slaughtered like a lamb in the streets of Amsterdam for offending Muslims. We cannot afford to be cowed and to cave in to these fanatics. We’ve been lampooning our own faiths in the West for generations. Why should Islam be given special dispensation? If we back down on this, they will have scored a huge victory against us; they will have infringed on our sacred right of freedom of speech and expression.

Again, where is our rage? They can suppress themselves in their own medieval-minded societies all they want. But not here. Not ever. We must take a stand. We should be the one’s who are enraged. They wish to take away the rights that so many Americans fought and died for. How dare they!

Can Israel take out Iran's nukes?

I'm just waiting to wake up and learn about some crazy shit happening regarding Iran.

My latest column

Here is a link to my latest column in the UWM Post: For pot smokers, it’s just not fair

Update:

If the end of the article seemed to end awkwardly and abruptly, it did. For some reason the copy-editors took out this last line: "One of the worst things anybody can say about marijuana, however, is that it is a gateway drug. This is a strange argument indeed, because really-- what hard drug user ever began their drug career with crack?"

I've been told that on Mondays the copy-edited versions of the paper are on display at the office. I'm going to have to start checking out my pieces to make sure that these under-graduate copy-editors don't mutilate them.

"You bet, we'll defend Israel"

You can say what you want about Bush, but when it comes to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, he really gets it.

President George Bush, my heartfelt thanks.

Excerpt:

"I am concerned about a person [Ahmadinejad -ed] that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said in the interview aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, Tennessee, from Washington.

"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing," he added.

Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

Validation

In the last two days I have received a couple of private complimentary emails from faculty members in the JMC department. They were in regards to the public email debates that I had recently on the JMC email reflector. It's nice to know I'm not alone.

Last night I also met the girl with whom I had the previous email spat regarding my office door politics op-ed. We have a class together, but I was not aware because I was sick last week and missed class. I don’t know if she likes me as a person—nor do I really care, although I prefer to be liked than disliked—but as usual I made a few humorous comments in class last night, and she found one of them particularly funny. While she was laughing we looked at each other and I said softly, “See, I’m not so bad.” She kept laughing and nodded her head.

Currently I am working on my column. It’s about the Hamas victory. I will also be sending in a photograph of myself along with the article, so by next week I’ll have my very own column—a long time desire of mine—with a (hopefully) nice picture of me next to it. Again, it will be called “Hoc et Illud.”

I submitted my application for a general assignment reporter position for a nearby small-time daily newspaper. Last Friday I had the interview and I think it went well. If I am offered the job I will have to take a drug test within 24 hours. I stopped smoking pot since a week from last Sunday, and I purchased a supposedly reputable cleansing product. But I am at peace with the possibility of failing the drug test. I think drug testing is a despicable, anti-American policy. It is a total invasion of one’s privacy. The irony is that should they offer me the job above all of the other candidates—and should I fail the drug test—the company will end up getting the second best person for the job. Just because I smoke a joint on Tuesday nights with my buddy, or have a bong hit after bar-time on the weekend, has no barring on my ability to be a good journalist and employee.

Oh well. We shall see. If I fail the test I might consider aggressively pursuing a “career” of freelancing. Then I’ll be my own boss. But I won’t have health insurance, and it might take some time before I can earn a living wage doing it. For some reason, though, I feel impervious to any setbacks; I feel like other than learning that a loved one is dying, or that I am terminally ill, nothing can get me down these days.

Drug testers of America—FUCK YOU, you invasive pigs.

Overly emotional

It's true that my political views are not shared by most in my department. I did, however, receive a nice email from a faculty member last night who wrote that he found my comments and views interesting. I've decided not to post email dialogues because it is too tiresome to re-adjust the formatting; I just don't have the time. But suffice to say, his email gave me encouragement. Maybe they are not all living in a Marxist dream world?

Last night in my ethics class I had a wonderful time. Although the professor is to the far left, he's always done an excellent job of keeping his political views out of the fray, and I respect that. I also really like him as a person; he's a really nice guy and a good educator. Class discussion was a blast. I assumed I'd be leaving class angry and frustrated. Instead, I left happy.

Some of my personal female friends/fellow graduate students were a bit angry at me because they felt that I was too harsh with Melody, the girl who criticized my article about office door politics. "She's really sweet when you get to know her..." The truth is though, I don't feel sorry. Thanks to Air Force Wife's comments in the comment box, I realize that Melody DID indeed attack me to the extent that she attacked my column. I can't respect people who base their arguments off of emotion only without pointing out a single fact. It's a doggy dog world out there. If you come to me with a half-baked emotional argument--especially one that calls me a whiner--I will hand you your ass on a platter.

Pipes agrees with Zakstradamus

In a recent post "Zakstradomus predicts the future" I wrote that eventually Israel would find itself slowly being pushed to neogitiate with Hamas by the International community. Daniel Pipes seems to agree: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21096

I predict an approximate repeat performance of the pressure on Arafat in 1982-88 to renounce terrorism. But Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an acute observer of the Arab-Israeli conflict, doubts that Hamas will be compelled even to match Arafat’s concessions back then.

I also expect that, despite bold statements how it will not change, Hamas will play along with the verbal demands on it. Feeling a financial pinch and diplomatic pressure, its leaders will adopt Arafat’s habit of delivering opaque hints and saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. Like Arafat, they might even “renounce” terrorism or pretend to change their Protocols-laced covenant.

Indeed, what Yossi Klein Halevi calls “the era of the wink and the hint” has already begun, with Hamas largely desisting from terrorism against Israel during its declared tahdiya (calming down) in 2005, then somewhat moderating its rhetoric in recent weeks; for example, it proposed a 15-year truce with Israel. The makeover shows signs of success: former U.S. president Bill Clinton, often an opinion bellwether, has just urged the Bush administration to consider dealing with Hamas.

I predict Palestinian-Israeli negotiations will resume their glorious record of bringing goodwill, harmony, and tranquility, with Israel this time facing a far more determined and clever foe than the blighted Arafat or the hapless Mahmoud Abbas.

Would somebody give this boy a job as a Middle East analyst?

Clinton makes hideous comparision

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19013_Clinton-_Totally_Outrageous_Cartoons_Against_Islam&only

Hat tip to Charles at LGF.

My own column and more...

I have been given the opportunity to write a weekly column for the UWM Post. Because I will be writing about many different topics--you know, this and that--I have decided to call my column "Hoc et Illud," which is Latin for "This and That." My column will also include a photo of me.

I have already penned two op-ed's, albeit not under the title of my column (since this was before I was actually given a column). One of my columns elicited a passionate response from one of my fellow graduate students.

The following is the op-ed, and then our email exchange. I will provide links to all of my future columns, but I simply don't have the time or patience to copy-paste due to all of the HTML corrections I have to make. If you want to read the op-ed, here it is: Politicizing the office door

And here is the exchange:

zak-did you write that editorial in the post about political office doors? if so, may i comment? [M].

M, Yes, I wrote that op-ed. Of course you may comment.

Zak

M: Yes. I figured it was someone in JMC b/c our faculty is overly guilty of practicing office door politics. My feelings are a bit more radical. Oh also, I have lots of political crap on my office door as well.

The deal is way beyond students becoming intimidated. If you haven't noticed, thousands of people are dying unjustly overseas, and we are ignoring the people in our own country dying from lack of medical care and homeless conditions. People passionate about the problems in society always feel the need to pick up a megaphone and announce the bullshit that happens(while most of society walk around ignorant). Therefore, I argue a few pictures of Bush being an idiot and some animal rights posters is pretty tame. Our leaders are so screwed up that I find it completely justified to educate students on what is happening. If that isn't enough, one sentence coming out of the mouths of most of our faculty and it is pretty obvious what side they are on. No surprise most teachers are liberal, minus one or two in JMC. The right wingers make it obvious as well.

One LOOK at me, and you would be blind to think I support the US government. So maybe we should work on teachers silencing their bias. It is hard to do. It comes out unconsciously. Should we dictate what we can wear or have on our bodies--if those things signify blatant political statements? My major point is: this country, government, and the war is so unfair, sad, unjust, fucked up, and full of lies--that whining about some PG rated political statements on some doors is a waste of time. We have bigger things to worry about, and damn it--these undergrads need to know what is going on. My argument is fueled with emotion, which one JMC prof says creates weak arguments.

Holla back

[M]

Me: I believe there are other ways to be passionate regarding your political views other than politicizing your office door. I believe that a person who has power over students' grades and education has a special responsibility to allow those students to come to their own conclusions about complex political issues. They should be given all sides to a complex situation, and allowed to make up their own minds. I was a TA and I have views that I am also passionate about, yet I did not announce them on the office door, nor did lead class discussions in a manner that openly favored one side over the other. There were even times when I played devil's advocate with particularly strident students who shared some of my views, but I did so in order to chide them to think about all angles, even if I didn't agree with a particlar argument or example I made. Clearly you are uncapable of doing that. I feel sorry for your students.

Therefore, I argue a few pictures of Bush being an idiot and some animal rights posters is pretty tame. Our leaders are so screwed up that I find it completely justified to educate students on what is happening.

I am not trying to be offensive, but the self-righteous tone of your email vindicates my main argument. You are so confident that your political views are the correct ones that you admit you feel obliged to thrust them on any student visiting your office. I think that crosses the line in to indocritnation. Do you want to be an educator, or an activist? Apparently you are more concerned with being an activist and pushing your own personal agenda on students. I think students deserve more.

If that isn't enough, one sentence coming out of the mouths of most of our faculty and it is pretty obvious what side they are on. No surprise most teachers are liberal, minus one or two in JMC. The right wingers make it obvious as well.

I think I clearly stated in my op-ed that I thought it was inappropriate for any faculty memember to politicize their office door, left or right.

One LOOK at me, and you would be blind to think I support the US government.

If you feel that strongly, you can always move to another country. I do not jest. If you feel the US is such an evil place and such a force for evil inthe world, how can you live here and respect yourself, paying taxes to this"terrible" country?

So maybe we should work on teachers silencing their bias. It is hard to do. It comes out unconsciously. Should we dictate what we can wear or have on our bodies--if those things signify blatant political statements?

I was only talking about office doors, not body art. A good teacher will be able to educate students about complex issues as best they can without their own biases creeping in. Apparently you are not one of them.

My major point is: this country, government, and the war is so unfair, sad, unjust, fucked up, and full of lies--that whining about some PG rated political statements on some doors is a waste of time. We have bigger things to worry about, and damn it--these undergrads need to know what is going on.

There are a lot of rational arguments for the war. You are so sure it is evil and wrong, however, that you openly admit you have an agenda and that you want to thrust it upon your students. In my view, that is wrong, terribly wrong, totally unprofessional.

My argument is fueled with emotion, which one JMC prof says creates weak arguments.

I'd have to agree 100% with that JMC prof.

Zak

Was I too harsh? The dialogue continued:

M: you have now personally attacked me which is really...weird. "Clearly you are uncapable of doing that. I feel sorry for your students." so i'll leave it at rest. i just felt like commenting, and i am sorry my emotional appeal got the best of me.f or the better, melody

I replied to her, but now I don't know if I regret what I wrote or not. It was sort of emotional, too.

Me: You wrote:"My major point is: this country, government, and the war is so unfair, sad, unjust, fucked up, and full of lies--that whining about some PG rated political statements on some doors is a waste of time."

I thought my editorial was well-thought out. Yet you reduced me down as a whiner. I didn't exactly appreciate being labled as such. I wouldn't call that a personal attack, but it wasn't polite. If you feel that I personally attacked you, I apologize.

Do you know how frustrating and annoying it is for me to almost always be the only dissenter in most class discussions in graduate classes; where the starting point of so many discussions starts from the presumption that America is generally rotten and Marxism is the usual paradigm through which everything thing is examined? Maybe I became a little frustrated too in my response to your letter. I'm much nicer in person.

At least during your graduate experience you can feel consoled knowing you're in the majority. Although I am always respectful in all class discussions, I also realize that most of the faculty and many of my fellow students loath my views, and perhaps me as a person as well. Frankly, participating in class is often an extremely uncomfortable exeperience for me, and I don't enjoy having to debate the entire class at once, which has happened many times in the past and will no doubt happen this semester. It is emotionally and intellectually exhausting. If I was overly harsh with you, that is why, yet I still appologize.

I don't know what my point is in telling you this, however, as you probably think of me as a fascist war-monger because I happen to support the Bush Administration's foreign policy inasmuch as it relates to fighting Islamo-fascist terrorists (although I am actually very liberal on a number of social issues). I am not a Republican; I'm an independent. I hope I'm not sounding like I'm complaining (I guess Iam).

Take care,

Zak

This is going to be a frustrating semester. But I will never keep silent when people start spewing arguments that I disagree with. God, or whatever is up there, or rather, Zak, give yourself the power to keep your cool, to keep your hot-head in check. It's gonna be tough.

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"

"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.