The Things People Say
Just as you can apparently be hailed as a brilliant reporter for peddling bogus conspiracy theories about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, it seems that stringing together random nutty quotes from Hamas figures to draw the conclusion that Hamas is an organization of unappeasable madmen now counts as brilliant analysis. But of course the problem with this sort of thing—and precisely parallel efforts with regard to Iranian leaders or Hezbollah leaders or whomever else—is that when you look at the record as a whole it turns out that people say all kinds of things. Yesterday, for example, Israel killed a senior Hamas guy named Said Sayyam who was prone to saying stuff like this:
The air strike on Sayyam was apparently an attempt by Israel to deliver an image of victory in its offensive against Hamas. The Israel Defense Forces understands that Hamas’ agreement in principle to the Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza signals that the campaign is nearing its end.
In an interview with Haaretz in November 1995, Sayyam said, “I do not hate [Israelis] for being Jewish or Israeli but because of what they have done to us. Because of the acts of occupation.”
In response to a question about whether he saw a chance for change in relations between Palestinians and Israelis, he said, “It is difficult to forget what was done to us. If the reason for the hate will not exist, everything is possible.”
Now what’s the “real” Hamas here? Honestly, I have no idea. I have no idea how it is that people reach such firm conclusion about who it is and isn’t possible to negotiate with. I think the record of history is simply that these things are very uncertain. If you look, for example, at the series of events from the Anglo-Irish War through the Irish Civil War and the Irish Free State era, I don’t really know how anyone would have predicted in advance which people would turn out to be the irreconcilables and which would turn out to be open to compromise.
42 Responses to “The Things People Say”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am
And a little earlier in the article:
So if the most extreme guy was talking like that, then the other two should be perfectly normal. Or something.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I think that’s true. I also think it’s true that you have an intelligible reason for killing your enemies (assuming you’re in a generalized war with them anyway) taking into account what they *usually* say, not for what they *occasionally* say, or might conceivably say after a hypothetical peace accord.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Also killed in the attack were his son, his brother, as well as Salah Abu Shreich, head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas.
Palestinian sources said Hamas’ military commander in Gaza City, Mahmoud Watfah, was also killed in the attack.
Six other Hamas operatives were wounded in the air strike in the heart of Gaza City, the sources said. The IDF Southern Command ordered the airstrike on the basis of precise intelligence provided by the Shin Bet security service.
Terrorism.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
“If you look, for example, at the series of events from the Anglo-Irish War…”
Analogy! Analogy! He’s using an analogy!
January 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
The Irish comparison is an interesting one. There’s some interesting comparisons about the way events radicalized the country so that a long-standing, relatively moderate, open to compromise, nationalist party (Redmond’s Irish Nationalists/Fatah) was replaced as the main force by a much more extreme, uncompromising group (Sinn Fein/Hamas).
Said replacement convinces the hegemonic power that there can be no compromise. In the Irish case, though, when the British did finally sit down to talk, it turned out that some, at least, of the Sinn Fein people were willing to compromise (Collins, Griffith, Cosgrave). Others were initially not willing to compromise, but ended up within a few years making their peace with the settlement (De Valera and his camp). There remained, of course, a small group of irreconcilables, although it was only the continuing poor treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over several decades that gave them any kind of real power again.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Quite frankly, it is immoral to use any violence if we’re not using every opportunity we have to negotiate and Israel has repeatedly rejected overtures by Hamas’s more moderate elements and we’re in a war now because of that, as President Carter wrote so eloquently. We have to get everyone to sit down and talk, because if they’re talking they’re not fighting.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Second of all, why do people think the Palestinians just harbor hard feelings against the Israelis because they are fanatics or racists or something? That seems incredibly ignorant to say. They’ve been oppressed by the Israelis for a long time.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Matt, you did not give the complete quote. The words that follow “If the reason for the hate will not exist, everything is possible” are:
He is saying that the creation of Israel in 1948 is the reason for the hate. Once that goes away, he is willing not to hate.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
wondering:
No, he is saying the denial of Palestinian rights is the reason for hate. And following the attacks of the IDF against schools, shelters, and humanitarian trucks its pretty clear Israel is denying Palestinians’ rights.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I am reminded of Bushes talk about manufacturing our own realty. Perhaps the goal is to make the reality (of Hamas version 2.0) consistent with the myth about Hamas 1.0 (as being entirely evil, and impossible to negotiate with). I think this policy objective is likely to be achieved.
Now, to be fair. Hamas has often been accused of making reconciliatory pronouncements in English, and very militant ones in Arabic. It might not be entirely illogical to assume the former to be deliberate deception.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I suspect that if the official policy of Israel were to call for the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah that most people would think that unreasonable. Yet, Hamas and Hezbollah can call for the destruction of Israel and are viewed as upstanding negotiating partners?
Hamas and Hezbo are extensions of the Iranian notion of Islamic revolution and are being used as such. Not much discussion of the Iranian nuclear program with all the rocket fire going on.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Yeah, you’re asking emotionally stunted people to imagine themselves in the plight of others – and they are incapable. And that’s a big part of why they should never have been given jobs as writers / thinkers / analysts in the first place. When you select people to do these things just because you know they’ll echo your propaganda, you lose something very important in the process. You lose the ability to do the damn job correctly!
Of course armchair general pro-war types here in the US can’t fathom Hamas as anything but a force comparable to the Nazis (just like Iran is, Saddam was, etc). Doesn’t matter what other information is out there, they’re done researching, thank you very much!
The truth is that Hamas gets elected in a place like Gaza because they really do lots of things besides launching missiles and acting angry on camera with masks on. They feed people. They clothe people, give people shelter. They pay families money when a family member is killed. They are the only organized group in Gaza that can ‘get things done’ in that sense. Of course they got elected! If I was broke, living in the ghetto, and the only money I ever saw was per diem from the local syndicate of the Latin Kings, I’d be voting for them on election day too, I’m sure.
If Palestine weren’t so brutalized and oppressed, I”m sure there would be many fault lines and factional disagreements within Hamas – these are not all people with the same political viewpoint. But they have a more over-riding, and more important thing in common – the occupation. Remove the occupation, and within a decade, Hamas will be 3 different groups arguing with each other over domestic policy, etc.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Israel’s basic policy is the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Hamas and Hezbollah’s basic policy is the destruction of Israel.
Here is the main difference between the two: Israel has the weapons to actually destroy Hamas and Hezbollah, and has used them to kill all the top leaders Israel could find with the hopes of bringing down Hamas and Hezbollah using the theory that if you destroy its leadership the whole organization will crumble. Hamas and Hezbollah have some crummy rockets that will never pose a threat to Israel’s existence or its leaders.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Most people do think it unreasonable, yes! just not in either Israel or the US. People go on and on about how Hamas is unable to be negotiated with because they “don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist”, and these people can say this with no sense of irony, despite the obvious fact that it is Israel’s official position, as a nation, that Palestine has no right to exist. Seriously, what is wrong with your brains, people who think this way?
January 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Or when he’s talking about ‘48 and ‘67 he means the right of return and the occupation of the West Bank. Both are items that can be negotiated.
Had a nice drunken argument with a friend last night over this. His point was that you can’t negotiate with Hamas, and mine was that you could negotiate, it’s just that it might be a very short negotiation.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
In the spirit of this post, let me offer the original words to the pretty Scottish song Loch Lommond:
“So ye’ll tak the high road, and I’ll tak the laigh road,
An’ I’ll be in Scotland before ye:
But me and my true love will never meet again,
By the bonnie, bonnie banks o’ Loch Lomond.
“For my love’s heart brake in twa, when she kenned the Cause’s fa’,
And she sleeps where there’s never nane shall waken,
Where the glen lies a’ in wrack, wi’ the houses toom and black,
And her father’s ha’s forsaken.
“While there’s heather on the hill shall my vengeance ne’er be
still,
While a bush hides the glint o’ a gun, lad;
Wi’ the men o’ Sergeant Mor shall I work to pay the score,
Till I wither on the wuddy in the sun, lad!
“So ye’ll tak the high road, and I’ll tak the laigh road,
An’ I’ll be in Scotland before ye:
But me and my true love will never meet again,
By the bonnie, bonnie banks o’ Loch Lomond.”
England and Scotland seem to be at peace now, despite this, so maybe here’s hope yet.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I posted a comment earlier on but apparently it disappeared because it had three links. So I will post three comments each with one link. It appears that Mr. Sayyam was a bigger threat to Mr. Abbas and the PA then to Israel. It would not be surprising if this guy was wasted as a favor to Mr. Abbas.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/said_siam_killed.php
January 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The link below also indicates that Mr. Sayyam and the Fatah boys formed a mutual disadmiration society.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950868535&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
January 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
According to the attached link, the Fatah boys are settling some old scores on the West Bank, taking advantage of the distraction of Hamas in Gaza.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950868927&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
January 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Let me apologize if comments 18 to 20 are a repeat of comment 3 which didn’t appear the last time I opened this thread. There seems to be something untoward happening with comments that are supposed to be in moderation.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“I suspect that if the official policy of Israel were to call for the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah”
Wait, they don’t?
January 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
An Israeli policy comparable to the official policy of Hamas would be to offically call for the expulsion of all Arab residents of currently occupied territories into Egypt, Jordan, or wherever.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
A hint, SLC: you can post with up to two links, no more. Three or more and it goes in the bit bucket.
Where most of your stuff actually belongs, so forget I said that and post ALL your stuff with three links or more.
Danceswithgoats: “Not much discussion of the Iranian nuclear program with all the rocket fire going on.’
This IS NO Iranisn nuclear program (i.e., weapons program), you moron.
Wondering: “An Israeli policy comparable to the official policy of Hamas would be to offically call for the expulsion of all Arab residents of currently occupied territories into Egypt, Jordan, or wherever.”
Which is the unofficial policy, and occasionally is called for by various members of the Israeli government or other right wing Zionists.
Actually, if anybody would READ the Hamas Charter, it says nothing about the expulsion of Jews from Palestine – in fact, it explicitly says that Jews can live in peace under Islamic law – only the destruction of the Israeli STATE. Just like Iran’s official policy. There’s a certain amount of more or less anti-Semitic stuff in the charter, but there’s no call to exterminate Jews or any of that crap.
Besides which, that is completely irrelevant because even if the Israeli state went out of business, the members of the IDF aren’t going to disappear and the Palestinians couldn’t exterminate the Jews in Israel is they tried. So anybody bringing that crap up is an idiot by definition.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
A reminder: there IS NO moderation on this blog. Don’t make posts with more than two links or it goes in the bit bucket.
Matt’s old blog allowed three links before it went in the bit bucket. This one is more restrictive.
Must have been my Corrs links.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
That’s a relief! I was worried that Hamas had something against Israel per se, something against Jews in the Holy Land. But I see it’s only the occupation of Gaza they don’t like. I can’t wait until the occupation ends in August 2005, and Hamas shows the love.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Heh.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
This is called not seeing the forest for the trees. Did Palestinian independence begin in 2005? Nope.
To get this definitively from the quote, you have to put a lot of words into people’s mouths. You also have to ignore that Palestinians did suffer in 1948 (ethnic cleansing) and 1967 (being conquered and the beginning of the Occupation). The inability for so many to recognize that Palestinians did suffer when they were forced out of the land that became Israel – thus being the ones to pay for centuries of European anti-Semitism that culminated in the German-led Holocaust – is infuriating. Recognizing Palestinian suffering as real does not erase the very real need there was post-WWII to create a Zionist state somewhere where Jews could be safe. However, there is no good reason that Palestinians had to be the ones to suffer for injustices committed by Europeans. This was just another example of Europeans not taking responsibility for their own actions and making the darker-skinned peoples of the world pay for it. Recognizing this does not mean the end of Israel any more than recognizing the genocide of Native Americans means the end of the US.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Ron: Go look at Iran, where they do.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
“Recognizing Palestinian suffering as real does not erase the very real need there was post-WWII to create a Zionist state somewhere where Jews could be safe”
Actually there was no such need. Since Jews were scattered all over the world since the Diaspora, it was the best thing that ever happened to them. Instead of being some small country that could get wiped out, Judaism can never be wiped out now – only damaged in local areas like Germany in WWII.
And the Zionist program began WAY before the Holocaust. It was a stupid pipedream and made no sense from the beginning.
Rational people call it “putting all your eggs in one basket”. A ridiculous plan explicitly done on the backs of the Palestinians as you correctly point out.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Reality Man,
Where, exactly, do you think the Jewish homeland should have been created? Birobijan? Perhaps that might have worked if Stalin wasn’t in charge, but he was, so so much for that idea. Uganda? So that they could fight wars against the Turkana and Baganda instead of the Arabs? Simply put, the Jews were unwilling to be settled anywhere else, and they at least had some historic connection to Palestine. Somebody had to pay the price, and it turned out to be the Palestinians. I’m sad that they paid such a bitter price, but it was no higher than the price paid by the Germans of Kaliningrad, the Hindus of Sindh, or the Christians of Smyrna. Smyrna was Greek long before it was Turkish, and I believe it still had a Christian-majority population in 1920.
It’s also false to say that the Arabs were completely innocent of anti-Semitism. The Mufti of Jerusalem was extremely anti-Semitic, a Nazi collaborator who organised pogroms against the Jews; so was, I believe, the king of Iraq at the time though I can’t swear to it.
Finally, there are some major differences between, say, the fate of the Sioux and the fate of the Palestinians. There are still Arab countries elsewhere in the world, besides Palestine; there isn’t any Sioux country anywhere in the world. And there was never an actual genocide of the Palestinians, unlike with the Native Americans.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Hack,
Iran doesn’t have anti-Semitic laws for the same reason that Wyoming didn’t have Jim Crow laws.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:04 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra