| |
|
Apologies to all - with the exception of Phex, since ze has made it clear that any respect I might show towards hir would not be reciprocated, and as such shall receive none - for my recent absence from this thread. I was aware at the time of posting that putting that up, then leaving work and disappearing for the weekend was not the best of ideas, and it doesn't seem like any better an idea in hindsight.
Anyway, the more qualified version of my earlier post:
I am not keen on the existence of a state whose existence is predicated upon the idea of maintaining a particular racial/religious* majority. I am particularly not keen on this state's settlement of lands in which a population not belonging to said race/religion already exists, and its pursuit of policies intended to ensure such a majority. I support the right of those indigenous groups who have been displaced and persecuted by said state to resist, including violent resistance.
I hold the above to be the most basic tenets of Hamas' ideology, and the basis on which I offer them my broad support (broad support, in this case, meaning something akin to nighthawk's far from straightforward support as displayed by the majority of the Palestinian population).
I do not support:
Violent attacks against civilians.
The idea that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are authentic**.
The eradication of either the current inhabitants of the state of Israel or "the Jews" more generally***.
Misogyny.
I take my lack of support for these things to be pretty obvious, and do not consider it to be in any way contradictory with "broad support" for Hamas, as Phex suggests would have to be the case. If the majority of Hamas' words and actions, or even a large minority (say 30%, if such things could be measured), were consistent with these things, then yes, my support for Hamas would contradict my lack of support for these.
Phex, would you like to name an organisation or two for which you would be prepared to say you offer "broad support"? You cite Human Rights Watch approvingly above - and I agree that they're an organisation reasonably worthy of broad support, human rights being lovely and everything - so would you like me to look up some instances of their being rather less than perfect, so that I can shout, "A ha! You support HRW, so you must support this!"
For your statements in which you either conflate a country, its administration and its people, or in which you deny such conflation is possible, I think Haus and Flyboy's posts are just peachy, and so don't think I need to expand on them.
* Clearly these are not the same, but are often conflated both by apologists for, and opponents of, the state of Israel, and this conflation is to some extent reflected in Israeli policies.
** However, the meaning of things being different according to context and all that, I don't really take citing of the Protocols in the Hamas charter as being indicative of teh facism. In Western countries, citing of the Protocols is pretty much synonymous with anti-semitism, holocaust denial and fascist tendencies; when cited in context of the Israel/Palestine situation by someone living within that context, it reads to me at least much more as simply overstating one's case using some dishonest misrepresentations.
*** Again, I don't exactly take this as proof, as Phex seems to, that Hamas want to wipe out "the Jews", but rather as posturing and awful phrasing. The conflation of Zionism, the Israeli state and Jews more generally is also a much more common occurence amongst those on the right than on the left - see reams and reams of utter rubbish written by Zionists. In fact, I'd also like to hear from someone with Arabic language 5k1llz on this one, as it's not exactly uncommon for such things to emerge from dodgy translation. |
|
|
