LA Times: DUST-UP
May 13, 2008
Jimmy Carter, Hamas. Hamas, Jimmy Carter.
George E. Bisharat says the former president assumed the pragmatist
role that the Bush administration refuses to play. Judea Pearl sees
wishful thinking behind Carter’s actions, as well as a willingness to
accept terrorism as a legitimate tactic.
Today's question: What's up with Jimmy Carter and Hamas? Later in the
week, Pearl and Bisharat will discuss the United States' role in
facilitating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, their personal
connections to the Holy Land and more. Click here to read Monday's
exchange.
Point: George E. Bisharat
Former President Jimmy Carter is a pragmatist who understands that
conflict resolution requires negotiations between enemies, not friends.
That simple wisdom, unfortunately, eludes our current administration,
which has attempted to ostracize and intimidate anyone, including
Hamas, who opposes our Middle East policies. As a result of Bush's
confrontational and unconditionally pro-Israel stance, our image in the
Arab and Muslim worlds is at a historic low. Yet there is no indication
that this policy has appreciably weakened our ostensible foes.
Meanwhile, Carter's courage has been rewarded with little but
condemnation from our politicians and media pundits adhering, as
always, to a suffocating pro-Israel orthodoxy.
Hamas, the acronym of the Islamic Resistance Movement, emerged out of
the Gaza Strip branch of the Muslim Brotherhood shortly after the
beginning of the first Palestinian intifada ("uprising") in 1987.
Hamas' professed aim is to establish an Islamic state in all of
Palestine (that is, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). Its
ideology, particularly as expressed in its charter and early
communiques, is regressive and anti-Semitic. I abhor these
characteristics as much as I abhor racism in any other context.
Hamas' goals, however, are little more than the mirror image of
Zionism. Where Hamas seeks an Islamic state, Zionism seeks a Jewish
state. Each promotes a vision that privileges one group over another.
Both impulses are illegitimate. There is no room in the 21st century
for ethno-religious exclusionism as espoused either by Hamas or by
Israel.
Still, I would not counsel that either be barred from negotiations.
Hamas has evolved greatly from its early days as a resistance
organization against Israeli military occupation. It has developed an
extensive social service network that dispenses medical care,
education, child care and food to the poor. In doing so, it has
consistently outperformed the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.
Hamas has, in recent years, also demonstrated considerable ideological
flexibility -- for example, proposing a long-term "truce" with Israel
that was tantamount to a peace agreement. Although public opinion polls
show that as few as 3% of Palestinians support Islamic rule in
Palestine, a plurality of Palestinians voted for Hamas in their 2006
legislative elections. They did so believing in Hamas' "change and
reform" platform and trusting that Hamas would stand up strongly
against Israeli violations of Palestinian rights.
Over the last eight years, Israel has repeatedly ruptured cease-fires
unilaterally adopted by Hamas, arresting or killing the group's leaders
-- and often family members, friends and other innocent bystanders.
Why? Quite simply, Israel's politicians hope to control all of
Palestine, and conflict provides the cover for continuing territorial
expansion. Stirring the pot always distracts attention from Israel's
relentless drive to colonize the West Bank.
Judea, based on your last post, it strikes me that the difference
between us is that you support a form of "separate but equal" in Israel
and Palestine, whereas I support equal rights for all. The experience
of the United States should help us understand that separate is never
equal, and yours is a prescription for perpetual injustice and
continuing conflict.
George E. Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law
in San Francisco and writes frequently on law and politics in the
Middle East.
Counterpoint: Judea Pearl
Hamas seems to be doing something right after all.
Carter tells us that we should negotiate with Hamas because he is a
"friend of Israel," and Hamas, Carter discovered, "was willing to
accept the Jewish state as neighbor next door" (if certain conditions
were met). The whole world cheered Carter for this discovery because it
understands that satisfying the national aspirations of all people in
the region, aside from being the key to peace, is a moral and
historical imperative. George, you tell us that we should negotiate
with Hamas, but for the exact opposite reason: The state of Israel
should be dismantled and giving Hamas legitimacy is the best way to
advance this noble cause. I tend to agree with your assessment of
Hamas, and for two reasons.
First, I have found Carter's sincerity to be questionable. Second, I
have found Hamas to be quite consistent and explicit in its claims,
methods and final aims. So bringing it into peace negotiations will
make the prospect of destroying Israel appear within better reach to
Palestinians, weaken Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other
peace-minded Palestinians, and make the dream of a Palestinian state
another century removed from reality.
But before we discuss Carter and Hamas, I would like to correct
another one of your misconceptions, George, of which you are perhaps
unaware having made the grotesque comparison, "Where Hamas seeks an
Islamic state, Zionism seeks a Jewish state." The "Jewish state" sought
by Zionism has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. Theodore
Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, was an atheist.
About 70% of Israeli Jews are secular (they do not practice Jewish
laws and do not believe in divine supervision or in the afterlife) and
comprise dozens of ethnic groups, including black Jews from Arab
countries and even Afghan Jews, thus making up one of the most open,
pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural societies in the world.
To Israelis, a "Jewish state" means "a state for the Jewish people,"
based on shared history, not religion. This is no different from any
other state. Take Spain, where holidays and textbooks commemorate
milestones of Spanish -- not Portuguese -- history, where streets are
named after Spanish -- not French -- writers, and where the
Portuguese-speaking minority enjoys the same rights as the
Spanish-speaking majority. Spain and Portugal (or the U.S. and Mexico)
provide a good model for the kind of neighborly relation that the
two-state solution offers Israel and Palestine, and which Hamas (and
evidently you, George) are laboring to caricature as exclusionist,
ethno-religious and even racist.
George, if there is racism in this conflict, it lies with the ideology
of anti-Zionism, which grants all nations in the world the right of
self determination except one -- the Jewish nation.
Back to Carter. My problems with the former president lie on two
planes: first, his apparent blindness to the immorality of terror, and
second, his imprisonment by wishful thinking. To understand the moral
mind-set of Carter vis-a-vis terror, I invite readers to look at page
213 of his infamous book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," and to try
and figure out what he means by saying, "It is imperative that the
general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it
clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of
terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap
for Peace are accepted by Israel."
To me, it means that terrorism is a legitimate tactic to pressure
Israel to behave according to Carter's interpretation of the roadmap.
Put more bluntly, it is like telling a rapist, "It is imperative that
you and your entire gang make it clear that you will stop raping the
woman when she conforms to standards of good behavior." Carter's tango
with Hamas is a further proof that the man is oblivious to what the
culture of terror is doing to society.
Finally, on wishful thinking, Carter's assessment of Hamas as a
partner for negotiations lies crucially on the hope that Hamas will
some day accept Israel. George, you tell us that Israel is an
irredeemable, criminal, imperialist and racist state that should be
dismantled immediately and will never, never be accepted by any
honorable Palestinian. Now, please help me with my logic: If an
educated, secular professor like yourself (as well as the overwhelming
majority of your Palestinian colleagues) sees no chance nor moral
license for accepting Israel, can we assume that Hamas will?
Judea Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is a frequent
commentator on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is the president and
co-founder of the Daniel Pearl Foundation -- named after his son -- a
nonprofit organization dedicated to dialogue and cross-cultural
understanding.
»to read the discussion postings or add your comments go to
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-pearl-bisharat13
-2008may13,0,1301730,full.story