Sigh.

I mean, it's a nice opinion piece and all. With real interviews with actual Hamas folks. And that's great. It reduces the odds that J. Goldberg is wrong about what actual Hamas leaders actually believe.

Once we leave that stuff and head into "is piece possible or not" we leave behind Goldberg's knowledge and go into his opinion, as empirically certain as the God turns people into pigs story.

The logic appears to be:

1) Hamas folks really are anti-semites. They really are prejudiced against Jews. Some of them really hope, expect, believe, or have decided on as an external consensus PR point that God will solve Israel for them in the long run.

2) thus, peace is impossible with Hamas.

See, I have very little skepticism about 1) at all. But the idea that 2) follows from 1) is stupid. Really stupid. In fact, it's gob-smackingly, astoundingly, shake-your-head in amazement ignorant. Tell me, when Egypt made peace with Israel in the Camp David accords in 1973, does anyone think that a lot of the Egyptians involved didn't feel the same way?

For God's sake, what about the various alliances made between Christian settlements and Muslim rulers against other Muslim settlements in the freaking 1500s? Does Jefferey Goldberg know what those different groups thought about each other then? The language isn't identical. It's worse! And so is the associated behavior. Those people were barbarians in a way that puts Hamas to shame.

The whole point of a peace process is that you usually make it with people who fear and loathe you and think you're subhuman. If not for that fact, it wouldn't even be necessary in the first place. And yet, peace processes happen. An idea - by people who have never done any diplomacy or studied any diplomacy - has somehow arisen that the criteria to qualify for a peace process is that one is already a nice, tea-drinking, pinky-finger curling sophisticate. Those aren't the people you need to make peace with. Those are the people for whom a big freaking negotiation is superfluous.

If anyone wants me to start listing treaties, armstices and peace settlements between states and forces whose leaders thought the other guys were brothers of pigs and donkeys, and said so out loud, I'll start doing it. Someone writing a Master's thesis on it could stretch the list into four figures. Virtually everything before the 20'th century qualifies. I don't understand how people could fail to get this.

Actually, the evidence that Hamas is psychologically preparing for peace is right there, if you care to look for it. Note the difference between "all we need is a "short-term" cease fire because God will take care of Israel in the long term" and "All we need is a short-term cease-fire because WE will be ready to wipe out those bastards after that". Anyone ready to hazard a guess as to what that means? Do I need to draw a map? What happens when God doesn't do it? Do you know? Does Hamas know? They know it's not going to happen down in the hindbrain, and no, they have no idea what they're going to do about it.

Posted by: glasnost at January 14, 2009 3:38 AM

Here's a priceless quote.

“Our country is occupied and our bodies are torn apart, but we shouldn’t forget our families in Palestine,” he proclaimed in a sermon recently to an overflow crowd in his austere mosque, its white walls gouged by shrapnel from his assassination attempt.

“Those sons of monkeys, enemies of God and killers of prophets,” he declared, his voice rising in denunciation of Jews, “are killing our brothers and sisters in Palestine.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR2009011203295.html

Iraq, circa January 2009. From the guy who runs the local Sons of Iraq program. I have no doubt that this dude lumps in Americans with the sons of monkeys, but he's put down the plastic explosive. I'm never going to find a better example than that.

Posted by: glasnost at January 14, 2009 5:09 AM

Tell me, when Egypt made peace with Israel in the Camp David accords in 1973, does anyone think that a lot of the Egyptians involved didn't feel the same way?

Is this a bad time to point out that when the Egyptians made peace with the Israelis in 1979, the memories of the severe ass-kicking they had received from the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War of '73 were still quite fresh?

There is nothing quite like an ass-kicking to encourage someone to consider the alternatives to violence.

The whole point of a peace process is that you usually make it with people who fear and loathe you and think you're subhuman.

Actually, you usually make it with people who fear and loathe you and know for a fact that the alternative to making peace with you is death at your hands.

Posted by: rosignol at January 14, 2009 5:24 AM

Killers of prophets? Islam doesn't believe Jesus was killed by the Jews. The dude is confused ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Posted by: Boojum at January 14, 2009 7:20 AM

Boojum,,

Don't confuse true believers with facts, they'll only get angry. The Islamists are justifying their position with "Protocols" so now all the blood libel is in play.

What the hell, go ahead and confuse them, but don't expect them to listen.

Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at January 14, 2009 8:50 AM

Peace with Hamas would be possible if Hamas was playing the good/moderate cop this time, but since that role has been taken by Fatah this time around, 'peace' will have to be made with Fatah.

However, if Fatah turns back into the bad cop, things may change. And what role will Hezbollah play after this war? This game is more complex than good cop/bad cop, it's more like three card monte. People like Rayyan give interviews to shuffle the cards around and make Israelis guess which one is the moderate [Ha, ha, none of them are]

Although Goldberg has interviewed more bad guys, your interviews are more enlightening, because you see through the BS. Goldberg appears to accept what Rayyan says without acknowledging that this bloodthirsty zealot might be lying. I'm more interested in Rayyan's attitude and demeanor. The words of this criminal are meaningless.

And why does he focus on Hamas' anti-Semitism? They're all motivated by hate, that's about as surprising as the fact that they have beards.

Posted by: maryatexitzero at January 14, 2009 9:27 AM

Tell me, when Egypt made peace with Israel in the Camp David accords in 1973, does anyone think that a lot of the Egyptians involved didn't feel the same way?

I do. The Jews of Egypt were expelled by Nasser's order in 1956, not by the hostility of the people. That came later, long after the Jews were gone, for after Egypt's defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War the propaganda campaign against Israel ramped up, especially after the Camp David accords (1979, not 1973) and Sadat's assassination. Many Israelis had good memories of Egypt and the Egyptians themselves; that is one of the things that made the withdrawal from Sinai possible.

The whole point of a peace process is that you usually make it with people who fear and loathe you and think you're subhuman.

I don't agree with that as a generalization, but OK, there is some truth to it.

Note the difference between "all we need is a "short-term" cease fire because God will take care of Israel in the long term" and "All we need is a short-term cease-fire because WE will be ready to wipe out those bastards after that"

Yes. But I'm not sure a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in physical control of Gaza is as desirable an outcome as a total defeat for Hamas that leaves Gazan rule in the hands of others. Maybe Fatah, maybe UNRWA with its rules against weapons enforced by Israeli guns rather than ignored, but not Hamas.

Posted by: Solomon2 at January 14, 2009 10:06 AM

"Really stupid. In fact, it's gob-smackingly, astoundingly, shake-your-head in amazement ignorant."

Applies to your own posting. Applying it Goldberg's article is rather outrageous on your part.

"Tell me, when Egypt made peace with Israel in the Camp David accords in 1973, does anyone think that a lot of the Egyptians involved didn't feel the same way?"

Yes, but they weren't in power and didn't have an army and secret police. Still managed to kill Sadat, though. Comparing Egypt under Sadat to Gaza under Hamas control is, well, see your own comment above.

"The whole point of a peace process is that you usually make it with people who fear and loathe you and think you're subhuman."

Bullshit. Peace is not possible with ideologues. You can only defeat them utterly and remove them from power. Like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Israel was able to make peace with Egypt and Jordan because they were non-ideological regimes that could enter into rational cost-benefit analysis.

"If anyone wants me to start listing treaties, armstices and peace settlements between states and forces whose leaders thought the other guys were brothers of pigs and donkeys, and said so out loud, I'll start doing it. "

Please do so, but only if one of the sides are religious or ideological fanatics. And where they weren't forced into a surrender because they were occupied and annihilated and basically had no choice but to surrender. Please don't include Metternich and Talleyrand and other rational, realpolitik players.

Posted by: MarkC at January 14, 2009 11:07 AM

"For God's sake, what about the various alliances made between Christian settlements and Muslim rulers against other Muslim settlements in the freaking 1500s?"

Whatever minute historical cases you're talking about, they can't possibly be relevant.

In the larger sense scope of history, Christians and Muslims never made peace with each other. The Muslims were kicked out of Spain by the Christians and the Christians were kicked out of the holy land by the Muslims. Some peace process. That's certainly the historical perspective that Hamas is taking.

Posted by: MarkC at January 14, 2009 11:29 AM

"In the larger sense scope of history, Christians and Muslims never made peace with each other."

That is dead wrong. There have been "MANY: examples of peace between Sunni and Shia, and between Christians and Muslims, Hindus and Muslims, Sikhs and Muslims, Buddhists and muslims, Taoists and muslims, Zorastrians and muslims, Sunnis and Sufi, throughout history.

Your comment is plain wrong.

MJT, it is a thought provoking piece. I would add that there are more moderate elements within Hamas. You will never make peace with Hamas extremists, but you can help Hamas moderates against Hamas extremists and non Hamas moderates against Hamas extremists.

Hamas leaders have tried to reach out to America before. America should engage them even if Israel does not. We should try to find out where it goes.

Posted by: anand at January 14, 2009 11:49 AM

"there are more moderate elements within Hamas."

anand,

Names; since you use the verb "are" rather than "might be"? What "moderate" element would Hamas tolerate in their ranks?

Unless proven wrong with verifiable evidence, I'll assume I just violated my own dictum about debating with belief.

Posted by: Paul S. at January 14, 2009 4:32 PM

Hamas has fought battles with AQ linked networks before. Some in Hamas have suggested discussing cooperation with America against AQ linked networks. Some in Hamas might be open to a long run Hudna with Israel.

If I am wrong on this, please correct me.

The way some Palestinians describe it to me, many of them favor a one free plural democratic state solution for all of Palestine and Israel where Jews, Palestinians and Christians live side by side in peace. This is how the position of some in Hamas has been described to me. Is this an accurate perception?

No doubt there are Hamas extremists with very different ideas. I don't know nearly as much about Hamas as MJT or some others here. I look forward to learning more about Hamas from all of you.

Posted by: anand at January 14, 2009 5:20 PM

The way some Palestinians describe it to me, many of them favor a one free plural democratic state solution for all of Palestine and Israel where Jews, Palestinians and Christians live side by side in peace.

Anand, you need to ask Palestinians who say things like that, if they'd still support it if there was no "right of return". I've never gotten an affirmative on that yet. I have gotten a couple of Palestinians to admit that they'd like to be able to vote Israel out of existence, once they are a majority, though. That's not kosher. No pun intended :)

Posted by: programmmer_craig at January 14, 2009 5:51 PM

Goldberg gets it mostly right and for that I commend him. But while he accurately describes the culture and attitude of the radical islamic culture, he fails in that he takes a too passive approach as a way to solve the issue. He believes that by assembling together the moderate arabs, that will deter the radical islamic culture from taking hold. However, I disagree. Arabs base their culture on one defining factor--fear. If you want an arab to listen to you and to respect you, you have to inspire fear in them. A person achieves respect in the arab world not by appeasing everyone, but rather by having everyone fear you.
The purpose of the Israeli operation in gaza is not to, as goldberg states, "bomb [Hamas] into moderation" but rather to get Hamas to be afraid of attacking Israel ever again.

Posted by: michelle at January 14, 2009 6:09 PM

Anand,

You wrote:
"The way some Palestinians describe it to me, many of them favor a one free plural democratic state solution for all of Palestine and Israel where Jews, Palestinians and Christians live side by side in peace. This is how the position of some in Hamas has been described to me. Is this an accurate perception?"

The "peace" that you refer to above is the obliteration of Israel and any Jewish self-determination, and the "peace" of dhimmitude, or second class inferior but "protected" status for non-muslims in a muslim state. As the Hamas Charter says (and Hamas is easily the most popular movement among "Palestinians"): "The Islamic Resistance Movement [hamas] adopts Islam as its way of life. [Islam] is its creed and its law." Islam allows the subservient existence of Jews and Christians in a muslim state as long as they acknowledge their inferiority and pay a poll tax. If they do, then they are given the nominal protection of the state. In practice (e.g. see what happens to Christians in Pakistan) the state does little to protect them from depredation, however. Additionally, the claim for a "democratic" state is true only as far as it allows the muslims to gain control. Once the koran becomes the new constitution, out the window goes the "democracy" in any way that the "democracy" conflicts with sharia.

But really. I'm confident that you knew, and know, all that.

Posted by: del at January 14, 2009 6:24 PM

glasnost,

You need to understand the meaning of "hudna" for muslims. It is a temporary truce, entered into with enemies and especially non-muslims, in order to give the muslim side time to rearm or recover from setbacks. A hudna is definitively not a step toward peace. It is a strategy of war. The Oslo process was described by arafat, to his own (muslim) constituency explicitly as a hudna.

The other "peace" treaties between Israel and its neighbors are also insincere. These treaties exist between a small avaricious-and-meretricious arab elite, which is basically being bribed by the US and EU, and Israel. The governments do not actually speak for the peoples of Egypt and Jordan, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the treaties and overwhelmingly filled with Jew-hatred, itself fomented by the meretricious leaders of the Arab states.

Occasionally one might see muslim countries or states, or more accurately, some evanescent leader or group within such a state, make a somewhat more sincere agreement or relationship with a non-muslim polity. Examples might include Turkey and Israel in the 1980s, 1990s (but no longer as a Turkish islamist party is now ascendant), or various temporary relationships between Crusader principalities and muslim polities, 800-1000 years ago, or the conduct of some particular ruler of India (but not his predecessor nor successor). These relationships are non-islamic. Whenever the people return to that-ole-time-islam, the example of the prophet of islam and his hudna at Hudaybiyyah rules.

But please, do list your numerous examples and prove me wrong. Don't include any examples where neither of the formerly hate-filled enemies were islamic. The key is to find examples where islamic states made permanent and sincere and respectful peace-of-equals with non-muslim states. Armistices (hudnas) don't count for me, though. Nor do any "peace" treaties which functioned as hudnas. Good luck.

Posted by: del at January 14, 2009 6:55 PM

In the larger sense scope of history, Christians and Muslims never made peace with each other.

Allow me to translate: "In a set of historical examples I've heard of, Christians and Muslims fought each other. I don't know jack sh*t about alternate examples. Ergot, "Christians and Muslims never made peace with each other".

It's news to me that the siege of Vienna lasted for four hundred years. Who do you think was running the Ottoman Empire while it plotted its way through various alliances with Christian powers? Jews?

Educate yourself. This is a trivial example. It's the first one I came across and all I could be bothered to find. Look into pre-British india, the British consolidation of India and Central Asia, the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. For pete's sake, look at the relationship between the British Empire and the extremely devout Muslims of the Arabian penninsula between 1900 and 1950. G*d, just google Ibn-Al-Saud!

But there are too many different questions here. What do you want? Devout Muslims eagerly cooperating with Christian Westerners? Saudi Arabia.

Peace Processes involving religious fanatics, all types? Look at the Spanish empire - Christian fanatics - or the endings of the Thirty Years' War - absolute massacres committed, Catholics vs. Protestants - or the truces made with Muslims by fanatical Christians dedicated to a campaign of religious conquest in the 1100's and 1200s. (Not, in fact, the 1500's. Sorry about that.)

Peace processes involving Muslim religious fanatics? Why don't you look into the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1989? Does Ayatollah flippin' Khomeini not qualify as zealous or cruel enough for you? How about those crazy religious fanatic Muslims who invaded Spain in the first place? Notice how they found something better to do than mount eleven or twelve reinvasion attempts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_III_of_Tripoli

Del, you seem somewhat more educated, but your thesis is absolutely wacky, right off the bat. You're trying to take a single subset religion from among the human cavcalcade of nutty religions out there and claim it uniquely immune to peace, and you start by taking most of the good peace process examples out there and declaring that they don't count.

These relationships are non-islamic.

Seriously, what the fu*k are you talking about? They were made by Muslims, including devout Muslims. I don't know what kind of further criteria you've manifested to validate your islamophobic thesis, but I'm not going to waste my time dancing through it.

Posted by: glasnost at January 15, 2009 8:18 AM

I think the Wikipedia article on Saladin pretty much hits any target you'd care to name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

Posted by: glasnost at January 15, 2009 8:31 AM

re: Saladin - He already excluded such cases, glasnost. I saw it, and I wasn't even paying much attention to this subthread :)

It's news to me that the siege of Vienna lasted for four hundred years. Who do you think was running the Ottoman Empire while it plotted its way through various alliances with Christian powers? Jews?

Dude, you are the one who needs to educate yourself. You seem to be completely oblivious to the European and American campaigns against Ottoman holdings in North Africa and Egypt? For instance?

America's first foreign war was fought against North African Muslims, and a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. That was in the early 19th century. When was the Siege of Vienna, again? :o

Oh, and when was the Armenian genocide? How many hundreds of years ago? Ancient history?

It seems pointless to belabor the historically hostile relations between Christians and Muslims, and it doesn't matter much now anyway since there aren't many Christian countries near the ME, that are Christian in anything but name. But I'm not going to watch you re-write history and not say anything :P

Posted by: programmmer_craig at January 15, 2009 12:56 PM

Seriously, what the fu*k are you talking about?

He's talking about the Quran. Muslims are only prohibited from breaking a "covenant" - which I interpret to mean a peace treaty. Muslims are actually encouraged to break truces when conditions are favorable to do so, when it involves non-Muslims (the assumption is that non-Muslims are inherently untrustworthy, and it is better for Muslims to break the truce first, when the time is right).

You've never read these verses? I thought everyone had, by now.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

There's a pretty good search engine in there someplace, only problem is it sometimes yields too many hits. Like most search engines. I think you can find what you are looking for if you search on "truce" and "peace".

This is going to be my last comment on this one, I don't want to get into religious debates, especially involving somebody else's religion. But, glasnost, you seriously should educate yourself about what Muslims really believe before you start telling everyone else they are wrong. Islam is never going to be reformed, as long as non-Muslims keep issuing free passes for every wrong that gets done. You know that Hamas charter for instance? That is totally Islamic. Every Muslim who reads it, knows it is 100% compliant with Islam. How can non-Muslims fix that? We can't. Only Muslims can. And they don't have much motivation to, as long as people like you are willing to turn a blind eye.

Posted by: programmmer_craig at January 15, 2009 1:07 PM

glasnost,

Your ignorance and arrogance are both impressive. Congratulations.

You seem to think that, for intentionally odd example, the fact that the Sioux and Northern Cheyenne have apparently made peace (for whatever reasons it has been) has some bearing on how Islam (yes, Islam is a polity, or group of mostly if not completely now allied polities, not merely a "religion") will make a permanent peace with some other group or groups. In the absence of some convincing explanation of cultural similiarity between this example I pulled out of a hat, or any other example, and Islam, this is utter foolishness on your part(similiar to President Bush's naive and foolish projection and assumption concerning Iraq that they are just like us: people with identical interests and motivations to USA citizens. Please pardon my assumption here that you are from the USA. Whether you are or not is really immaterial, anyway). The only "peace-process" examples which would have any realistic bearing on the issues discussed on this blog thread would be those between Islamic polities and non-islamic polities. My request and conditions are entirely reasonable.

You are correct in understanding that I view Islam as unique. In the history of humanity, it is unique in its (as you wrote) nuttiness-yet-longterm-malevolent-and-supremacist-success.

Saladin? You've got to be kidding. If this example of yours were valid in your favor, the Crusader Principalities would still exist in some fashion, or at least its Frankish or Christian inhabitants' descendants would exist as a recognizable group. They were obliterated 100 years or so later. Even if he were the generous and chivalrous (and therefore unislamic) leader of myth, his successors didn't waste much time conquering the Crusader States for islam.

Further, you seem to not understand that not all war consists of violent active warfare with weapons. Iran and Iraq did not make any real peace in 1989. Both saddam and the ayatollahs despised each other but realized a truce was necessary at the time. They were still in-conflict, biding their time, and supporting insurgencies and rebels among their opponents. This is another ridiculous example of a "peace process" to emulate.

Look up the phrase "War is deceit". Try to find out who said it, and what its present significance is, which significance results from it having been (supposedly) uttered by uswa hasana al insan al kamil, the excellent model of conduct and the perfect man. The permanent texts of islam do not allow a permanent state of peace with non-muslims. They do allow temporary renewable truces with the purpose of future victory in mind.

Posted by: del at January 15, 2009 10:54 PM