Is Hamas anti-Zionist or just plain anti-Semitic? The far left and liberals of the UK try to stress that Hamas is fighting ‘Israeli racism’, ‘Israeli imperialism’ and whatnot. Why don’t these people actually read or listen to what Hamas itself (and numerous other Islamists and Muslims) have to say on this subject? Islam/religion is not just an epiphenomenon above the material socio-economic and political conditions underneath... blah, blah, blah!
“Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day... Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains.”
Despite the strength and violence of that, what it says can still, nonetheless, be construed as anti-Zionism (or anti-Israeli-ism) rather than anti-Semitism. But what about what Lutfi Abd al-Azim, the editor of a prestigious Egyptian weekly, wrote in 1982, three years after the conclusion of an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty? -
"A Jew is a Jew, and hasn’t changed for thousands of years. He is base, contemptible, scorns all moral values, gnaws on live flesh, and sucks blood for pittance. The Jewish Merchant of Venice is not different from the arch-executioners of Deir Yasin and those at the (Palestinian) refugee camps. Both are similar models of inhuman depravity."
Now that is pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism which comes from, if not from Hamas itself, then from someone with a Hamas-like mindset. All the classics of anti-Semitism are there: the Jews are ‘base, contemptible’ and they ‘scorn all moral values’. He even mentions the Merchant of Venice – so that’s at least one other Western book, alongside Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that Arab Muslims have translated! The above passage, having mentioned Mein Kampf, also sounds like a passage from that book or from Der Stürmer. In fact, Mein Kampf is a best seller in Egypt, as it is in many other parts of the Arab Muslim world.
So it sounds like much more than your basic Islamic/Muslim ‘anti-imperialism’. There is something deeper in these words. These anti-Jewish depths go back to the Koran and the time of the Prophet. It is the Islamic tradition of fanatical anti-Semitism.
It is no surprise, then, that we can now arrive at Hizb ut-Tahrir’s position on Israel and ‘the Jews’. A position which Hamas would always and everywhere enunciate if it weren’t for reasons of realpolitik and the fostering of false friends in the West. Hizb ut-Tahrir’s position is plain and simple:
“There can be no peaceful relations with the Jews: this is prohibited by Islamic Law. It is also prohibited to settle for only part of Palestine. There can be neither negotiations, co-existence nor normalization of relations with the Jews in Palestine. None of the Jews in Palestine who arrived after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire have the right to remain there. The Islamic legal rule requires that those of whom are capable of fighting be killed until none survive.”
(From A Fundamental Quest, Hizb al-Tahrir and the search for the Islamic Caliphate, page 162, Suha Taji-Farouki, Grey Seal London)
Again, note that Hizb ut-Tahrir, like Hamas, doesn’t talk about ‘Israelis’ or ‘Zionists’ here, but ‘the Jews’ instead.
It is strange, then, that after all this the die-hard far leftist John Pilger should respond to this by saying that ‘the vote for Hamas was actually a vote for peace’. The Socialist Workers Party (who run Unite Against White Fascism) also loves to cuddle up to Hamas. One of its (past) leaders, John Rees, waxed lyrically about sharing a bed with Hamas and his other brown fascist lovers:
"Where else can you sit down in a single evening and listen to senior people from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, people from the revolutionary left and the antiwar movement from around the globe?"
—The Cairo Anti-War Conference, April 2007
But the rot goes deeper than the far left and the monomaniacal John Pilger. On the Hamas election victory, the Guardian said that it was ‘the best news from the Middle East for a long time’. And CounerPunch wrote that it was time ‘to reinforce Hamas resistance to Zionist ideology’ – it was an ‘ethical cry to the world’!
Perhaps Hamas know what a senior Nazi politicians knew (in the mid-1930s) when he referred to Julius Streicher’s ‘primitive methods’ in Der Sturmer. He said that
"Anti-Semitism … was beyond question the most important weapon in his propagandist arsenal, and almost everywhere it was of deadly efficiency.”
What is Hamas Terrorism About?
Islamist terrorism is all about ‘the Occupation’, the ‘apartheid regime’ of Israel and all the rest. Well, all that and Afghanistan and Iraq as well. So, on this kind of reasoning, there should have been no Islamist bombings, etc. in the 1970s. There was! -
i) The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In 1970 it hijacked three airlines. What did it want? The release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Britain, Switzerland and West Germany.
ii) A Hanafi Muslim group. What did it want? The cancelling of the movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God and the turning over of the five men who had killed the Hanafi leader’s family. What did they do? They attacked the B’nai B’rith headquarters and two other Washington, DC building in 1977.
Why do Hamas supporters and Hamas insist on suicide bombs when other poverty-stricken peoples and oppressed people throughout the globe (south American indigenous, sub-Saharan Africa, parts of east Asia and India) have produced no terrorism – or almost no terrorists?
Is it really only because of ‘the sheer magnitude’ of the Occupation and the ‘oppression’ of Palestinians? Perhaps is also has something to do with the fact that Islam is a death cult and that many Hamas members and supporters love death more than life and are therefore not afraid of death. Al-Manar, on MEMRI TV, puts the case for death-no-matter-what very well:
“We do not want to...leave our homeland to Israel... Therefore, we are not interested in our own personal security. On the contrary, each of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah. (MEMRI: Al-Manar TV , Feb. 18-19, 2005)
As for Israeli violence against the Palestinians, why don’t we hear much about the Syrians in this respect? During Syria’s occupation of Lebanon (1975-2005), Palestine’s neighbour (and an equal producer of terrorism and terrorists) wrecked Lebanon, destroyed its economy, killed literally tens of thousands, rendered close to a million homeless.
Yassar Arafat himself, another fat-leftist fave (or he was before Hamas) killed, imprisoned, or tortured far more Palestinians than Israel, yet he was adulated as a modern Saladin. You see, it just dandy if brown people kill brown people, or Muslims kill Muslims (as they have done in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran , etc.), but when ‘white’ people (as the Israelis are classed by the far left), then that’s the worst abomination a leftist mind can possibly imagine.
So, instead, is it really about Gaza and the West Bank? Riyad Nasan as-Agha, the Syrian Minister of Culture speaking in 2008, doesn’t think so:
“I am optimistic that within ten years, Israel will come to its end.” - (Al-Hiwar TV, April 19, 2008)
Hamas and Democracy
The far left and Guardian liberals seemed to think, or imply, that a beautiful democracy would flower after the success of Hamas. Hamas itself, however, doesn’t see things this way:
"Democracy gives legitimacy to the legislation of the masses or to the despotic regime. It is not [the expression of] the rule of Allah....Allah ordered his Prophet to execute the commands given to him and forbade him to follow the emotions of the nation, the masses, and the people."
"Democracy is the rule of the masses or the rule of paganism, which is conducted according to a constitution [written by humans] and not according Allah's laws....It [democracy] has become the mother of laws and is considered [by the masses] as a holy book. The religion of democracy has no relation to Quranic verses or the Prophet's way of life and it is not possible to legislate according to them unless they are compatible with the holy book [the constitution]."
"Democracy is an outcome of despicable secularism and its illegitimate daughter, since secularism is a heretical school striving to separate religion from state and government."