Religion, Nationalism, and Terror

 Hussein Ibish rightly criticizes those who defend Hamas even though they would never defend Christian or Jewish movements with similar views. Israel and the United States both bear much of the responsibility for Hamas’s electoral successes because of their failure to improve Palestinian living conditions. Fatah has also been crippled by corruption and, in some cases, a willingness to cooperate with counterproductive Israeli efforts to destroy Hamas.  Israel’s punishment of the people of Gaza for the Hamas takeover is outrageous.  And refusing to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas as a result of its electoral successes is both wrong and counterproductive. But none of these facts entails ignoring the reactionary aspects of Hamas. None of these facts entails ignoring the antisemitic rhetoric of the Hamas charter that is routinely echoed in sermons and statements by Hamas supporters. Those of us who routinely condemn the simplistic Manichean language of the neoconservatives should make sure we avoid simplistic Manichean language of our own. The bigotry of the oppressed is no more excusable than the bigotry of their oppressors.

Hussein Ibish, American Taskforce on Palestine - ATFP Issue Paper (Sept 7, 2007)

…let us recall that the Hamas government’s foreign minister, Mahmoud Zahar, told an astonished Wolf Blitzer of CNN in his first post-election interview that an “Islamic” society in Palestine was needed because a “secular system allows homosexuality, allows corruption, allows the spread of the loss of natural immunity, like AIDS. We are here living under Islamic control.” In 2005, the same gentleman condemned dancing between men and women, and castigated “homosexuals and lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick.” Meanwhile, Hamas’ education minister banned a book of folkloric tales because of its “immoral” references to romance….

… [those] of us who seek first to end the occupation and then support the development of a democratic and pluralistic Palestinian state have to hold firm to those commitments. This means at the very least not defending those whose stated policies and concrete actions run strictly counter to those aims. It is not necessary to support any particular entity to promote these principles, and it is hardly our role as Americans to carry water for any leadership outside of our own country. But support for those principles must translate into sober judgments about what and who is most likely to promote them, and words and deeds should follow these considerations. Dismissing those who hold firm to these important values and goals as “diplomatic fronts” or “Washington lobbies” for narrow Palestinian political factions, or, most preposterously, as “neoconservatives,” is beneath contempt.