There was a ceasefire in place on Oct 7. If Hamas hadn’t committed massacre and outrages, there would be no war. To demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire (no mention of any return of hostages) fits beautifully with what Hamas wants and therefore encourages them. Such a move would be seen as a huge triumph for Hamas, strengthening them enormously. Their future grip on Gaza would be assured. They are already more popular than the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, so would become unstoppable there also.
Hamas publically state that they will repeat Oct 7 “again and again”[1]. As they have zero interest in anything short of the elimination of the state of Israel and all its Jewish citizens,[2] this means no peace short of their “Final Solution” to the Jews. Rules based international order is irrelevant wherever Iran’s proxies rule. Or do you intend that the West undertake a permanent intervention in any Palestinian state: i.e. a heavy, colonial hand?
Why are you against the Palestinians?
Hamas has committed countless atrocities against its own people in Gaza. It is Hamas who uses their own civilians as shields and place their military installations in and under schools, hospitals, universities, mosques and UNRWA Headquarters. It is Hamas who shell aid assembly points and repair work on the water supply system from Israel into Gaza (which Hamas left in disrepair, using water pipes as rocket casings.) It is Hamas who have spent the highest aid per capita in the world on military material and tunnels, not on civilians. It is Hamas who refuse to shelter civilians in their tunnels. It is Hamas who recognise no rights for women in marriage and murder gays and non-binary people. It is Hamas who assassinated Gaza clan leaders who moved to assist with aid distribution.
Alas, a majority of the population of Gaza and the West Bank continue to support Hamas, having been subject to fierce indoctrination and hate toward Israel and all Jews – no shortage of stomach turning examples from children’s TV and school books.[3] The oppression will only strengthen if Hamas is rewarded by your favoured policy.
And what of the two million Arabs in Israel, who have full rights as citizens – far more rights than in any Arab state? From surveys, the majority identify as Israeli or Israeli Arab and have drawn closer in the present war:[4] their people also were murdered and kidnapped on Oct 7; their people also fight – and die – in the IDF. But they complicate the narrative and so are ignored.
Why are you against the Jews?
Labour’s outrage is focussed against Israel. The hostages merit no mention; no demands for their release; their long agony and that of their families not in the equation. The survival of Israel – the Middle East’s only working democracy and the world’s only Jewish state – passed over; the explicit policy of Hamas to kill all Jews everywhere[5] of no concern. In the rush to cast Israel as the villain, you effectively give Hamas a free pass and – whatever your intentions – appear utterly contemptuous towards their victims, towards Israel, and, indeed, towards Jewish people in general.
In consequence, your position marginalizes and greenlights antipathy toward Jews and will encourage the haters here too – regardless of any formulaic statements against racism by politicians.
Why do you serve the interests of Iran?
Your statements align with, and thus support and encourage, the policies of Iran who aim to eliminate Israel and who stand against Western values and Christian morals.
What is your motivation?
If you take Hamas and Al Jazeera as your trusted news source, you may well see Israel as committing genocide against the Palestinians. Yet, their reports of hospital bombings and starvation have time and again proved false.[6] It is Hamas who wish to carry out genocide and Hamas who say they need the blood of their own women, children and old people for the cause.[7] I don’t deny that there have been serious excesses by IDF troops. However, it is Hamas who seek – and gain from – their own civilians’ deaths and Israel who seek (sometimes inadequately) to minimise such deaths and do not benefit from them. You ignore the efforts of COGAT. Aim your rage at Hamas – and their backers, Iran – who repeatedly glorify in the suffering and mayhem.
Perhaps you are moved by compassion. But silencing the guns today in Gaza cannot provide a lasting peace when Hamas says it is in a permanent state of war. The suffering of civilians is awful, yet you do not advocate a ceasefire on Russian terms to end civilian suffering in the Ukraine. The ferocious 2023 civil war in Ethiopia / Eritrea cost hundreds of thousands of lives yet drew no public concern from you. Over ten million are at severe risk of famine in Sudan; again your compassion lies dormant. Of course, Ethiopia and the Sudan gain minimal attention from the mainstream media or the Twitterati.
Perhaps you are committed to fight “colonialism.” However, beyond a boo word, the Marxist based model of colonialism does not fit Zionism or the history of Jewish settlement at all. The model does fit New Zealand however, so in validating violent extremism over there you will fall into hypocrisy if you act against it here.
I fear that in seeking peace – maybe in indulging in a little righteous, moral outrage – you have become mere followers of the mob. Is it asking too much for you to proceed with some knowledge of the facts and complexities, to consider the consequences of favoured policies, to stand up for the hostages or Israel or the Jewish people or the non-extremist Arabs living there?
Please show leadership, clarity of thought, courage, and a measure of prudence, rather than running before the latest TikTok memes like chaff before the wind.
Sources:
1 Gazi Hamad: https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-israel-attacks-again-and-again-until-its-destroyed/
Why are you against the Palestinians?
Hamas has committed countless atrocities against its own people in Gaza. It is Hamas who uses their own civilians as shields and place their military installations in and under schools, hospitals, universities, mosques and UNRWA Headquarters. It is Hamas who shell aid assembly points and repair work on the water supply system from Israel into Gaza (which Hamas left in disrepair, using water pipes as rocket casings.) It is Hamas who have spent the highest aid per capita in the world on military material and tunnels, not on civilians. It is Hamas who refuse to shelter civilians in their tunnels. It is Hamas who recognise no rights for women in marriage and murder gays and non-binary people. It is Hamas who assassinated Gaza clan leaders who moved to assist with aid distribution.
Alas, a majority of the population of Gaza and the West Bank continue to support Hamas, having been subject to fierce indoctrination and hate toward Israel and all Jews – no shortage of stomach turning examples from children’s TV and school books.[3] The oppression will only strengthen if Hamas is rewarded by your favoured policy.
And what of the two million Arabs in Israel, who have full rights as citizens – far more rights than in any Arab state? From surveys, the majority identify as Israeli or Israeli Arab and have drawn closer in the present war:[4] their people also were murdered and kidnapped on Oct 7; their people also fight – and die – in the IDF. But they complicate the narrative and so are ignored.
Why are you against the Jews?
Labour’s outrage is focussed against Israel. The hostages merit no mention; no demands for their release; their long agony and that of their families not in the equation. The survival of Israel – the Middle East’s only working democracy and the world’s only Jewish state – passed over; the explicit policy of Hamas to kill all Jews everywhere[5] of no concern. In the rush to cast Israel as the villain, you effectively give Hamas a free pass and – whatever your intentions – appear utterly contemptuous towards their victims, towards Israel, and, indeed, towards Jewish people in general.
In consequence, your position marginalizes and greenlights antipathy toward Jews and will encourage the haters here too – regardless of any formulaic statements against racism by politicians.
Why do you serve the interests of Iran?
Your statements align with, and thus support and encourage, the policies of Iran who aim to eliminate Israel and who stand against Western values and Christian morals.
What is your motivation?
If you take Hamas and Al Jazeera as your trusted news source, you may well see Israel as committing genocide against the Palestinians. Yet, their reports of hospital bombings and starvation have time and again proved false.[6] It is Hamas who wish to carry out genocide and Hamas who say they need the blood of their own women, children and old people for the cause.[7] I don’t deny that there have been serious excesses by IDF troops. However, it is Hamas who seek – and gain from – their own civilians’ deaths and Israel who seek (sometimes inadequately) to minimise such deaths and do not benefit from them. You ignore the efforts of COGAT. Aim your rage at Hamas – and their backers, Iran – who repeatedly glorify in the suffering and mayhem.
Perhaps you are moved by compassion. But silencing the guns today in Gaza cannot provide a lasting peace when Hamas says it is in a permanent state of war. The suffering of civilians is awful, yet you do not advocate a ceasefire on Russian terms to end civilian suffering in the Ukraine. The ferocious 2023 civil war in Ethiopia / Eritrea cost hundreds of thousands of lives yet drew no public concern from you. Over ten million are at severe risk of famine in Sudan; again your compassion lies dormant. Of course, Ethiopia and the Sudan gain minimal attention from the mainstream media or the Twitterati.
Perhaps you are committed to fight “colonialism.” However, beyond a boo word, the Marxist based model of colonialism does not fit Zionism or the history of Jewish settlement at all. The model does fit New Zealand however, so in validating violent extremism over there you will fall into hypocrisy if you act against it here.
I fear that in seeking peace – maybe in indulging in a little righteous, moral outrage – you have become mere followers of the mob. Is it asking too much for you to proceed with some knowledge of the facts and complexities, to consider the consequences of favoured policies, to stand up for the hostages or Israel or the Jewish people or the non-extremist Arabs living there?
Please show leadership, clarity of thought, courage, and a measure of prudence, rather than running before the latest TikTok memes like chaff before the wind.
Sources:
1 Gazi Hamad: https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-israel-attacks-again-and-again-until-its-destroyed/
2 Article 13 of Hamas charter warns Palestinians that peace negotiations, peaceful solutions, and normalization of the Jews are forbidden and that anyone who engages in them is a traitor destined for hell.
3 Article 18 of Hamas’s charter instructs Palestinians to raise children to wage jihad against the Jews.
4 https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/only-7-percent-of-israeli-arabs-define-themselves-as-palestinian-625285 and https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-over-half-of-arab-israelis-feel-sense-of-shared-destiny-with-jews/
5 Fathi Hammad: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14575/hamas-iran-eliminate-israel
6 See https://x.com/hashtag/TheGazaYouDontSee?src=hashtag_click for a different picture of life in Gaza both now and before Oct 7.
7 Isamil Haniyeh: https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-leader-ismail-haniyeh-we-need-blood-women-children-and-elderly-gaza-%E2%80%93-so-it-awakens
Dr Simon Smelt is a New Zealand based economist and policy analyst. He has a Ph.D. (on money) from the London School of Economics of London University and a B.Phil in sociology. This article was first published HERE
13 comments:
Well said. Your frustration and heartfelt sentiments shine through.
The Greens and co leader Chloe Swarbick should have been included with Labour in your article . I do not believe that the Greens would have the support polls suggest in NZ if the truth about the start of the conflict was understood or accepted.
>"... the policies of Iran who aim to eliminate Israel and who stand against Western values and Christian morals."
Cheap shot. Which Western values? I Googled the expression and got "civil rights, equality before the law, procedural justice, and democracy". These are all present in the Sharia system of governance, although we need to acknowledge some differences in the approach to the last of them (as we have to when comparing between systems even within the Western fold). As for 'Christian morals', this term has become so nebulous as to have effectively become meaningless. The Sharia moral framework, on the other hand, remains rock solid and Islamic morality is anything but ambiguous or permissive.
I am no apologist for the Iranian theocracy but won't let gratuitous cheap shots like this pass without challenge. BTW this piece was first published by the NZ Israel Institute which kind of tells you what biases the writer is operating on the basis of.
An analogy. "Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean. Between them both you see, they licked the platter clean."
To all you people on both sides of this, you should realize there is no solution no matter how much bleating is done about the rights and wrongs. It's war to the annihilation of one. What happens after that is what you need to consider. And which outcome do you prefer?
MC
I have an idea.
How about Hamas shifts the population of Tel Aviv around the city & while preventing them from leaving or accessing power, water, food or medical supplies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemen & Iran level the city around their ears while claiming they are no more than animals & Palestine will not be safe until they are all dead ?
Seems like justice to me, but I doubt the US Deep State would pay for it...
Barend wrote: “ Which Western values? I Googled the expression and got "civil rights, equality before the law, procedural justice, and democracy". These are all present in the Sharia system of governance.”
Anything halfway decent in the Sharia system of governance applies just to Muslims—those who have submitted to Allah and acknowledged Muhammad as his final prophet.
Under an Islamic theocracy, Jews and Christians—as ‘People of the Book’—have three options:
(1) convert to Islam;
(2) retain their religion but accept inferior dhimmi status, meaning an ongoing trampling underfoot by Muslims and shouldering the burden of heavy, punitive taxes; or
(3) death.
Those who follow other religions or who are atheists, get just two choices:
(1) convert; or
(2) death.
In Islam, women have an inferior status to men:
Bukhari: V3B48N826 "The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.'"
Anyone who prefers the back bum to the front bum gets tossed off a tall building.
There is no freedom of belief or conscience and anyone who abandons their Islamic religion is required to be murdered by their more pious co-religionists.
The proof of this is in the following Hadith: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said ‘Whoever changes his religion, execute him.’l (Bukhari, 2794).
Mired in his visceral animus towards Christianity, Barend is unable to acknowledge that Western nations, founded on Judeo-Christian principles that are universal in their application, are far better places than those whose core values are particularist rather than applying equally to all.
This explains why everyone who can exit a Third World sh^thole wants to come live in the West: because the West has social, political, and economic systems that actually work.
,
Your closing point is absolutely correct, Unknown.
I don't think you are being entirely fair when comparing 'pure' Sharia with modernday Western law. 'Pure' Sharia is practised by the Taliban but very few others. A fair comparison would be between the Sharia as written and mediaeval European law - and I suspect the former would come out of it the better.
Interestingly, a committee of Arab jurors who visited a Crusader settlement in the 11th century to study European law described it as 'barbaric'. And it was - confessions extracted by torture do not feature in Sharia.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to live under Sharia - I like my Scotch too much. But as an expatriate living in the Middle East I have little to fear from Sharia as long as I keep my trap shut about certain topics (which of course I have to do in the wonderful Woke West as well).
As a closing comment, most of my students at varsity were Muslim women and I have heard some passionate defences of Islamic law pertaining to the sexes from young Muslim women in my office. I recall one girl defending the Sharia's position on the weighting of evidence by sex that you mention in your post. She leaned towards me, face beetroot red, and fumed rather than said, "It is because women are too emotional!"
On the whole, I found educated Muslims to regard some of the Sharia as a bit of an embarrassment. "That was relevant or OK THEN, not any more: is a common sentiment. The winds of change are blowing in Islam, but the more we demonise Islam, the more crowds like ISIS will react.
Muslims believe that the earthly Koran is just a copy of the original ‘perfect’ book that has remained inviolate in paradise with Allah since the creation.
This was transmitted verbatim to Muhammad by Jibreel [Gabriel] and to change the revelations in any way is intolerable blasphemy punishable by death at the hands of a more pious and observant co-religionist.
This is why putative ‘reformers’ looking to ‘innovate’ are rather thin on the ground in Islamic states.
Anonymous 2:03, remember that alongside the Quran we have the Hadith, which CAN be reinterpreted and parts of which can even be abandoned. The raw material for change is there, and it is happening. The worst thing we in the west can do is demonise Islam thereby creating a niche for the likes of ISIS.
Rhetorical question, Barend: Would you rather live in a post-Enlightenment culture founded on the example of one; or in a religious theocracy founded on the example of the other?
COMPARE THE PROPHETS I
Muslims regard the Koran as a ‘perfect book’ which states 93 times that to be a good Muslim one must strive to emulate Muhammad.
1. Muhammad said Allah hates those who don't accept Islam. (Koran 30:45, 3:32, 22:38).
Jesus said God loves everyone. (John 3:16)
2. Muhammad said, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" (Sahih Muslim 1:33).
Jesus said, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
3. Muhammad stoned women for adultery.
Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7)
4. Muhammad permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764).
Jesus said, "Thou shalt not steal." (Matthew 19:18)
5. Muhammad permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)
Jesus said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." (Matthew 19:18)
6. Muhammad owned and traded slaves. (Sahih Muslim 3901)
Jesus neither owned nor traded slaves.
7. Muhammad beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys. (Sahih Muslim 4390)
Jesus beheaded no one.
8. Muhammad murdered those who insulted him (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)
Jesus preached forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38)
9. Muhammad said,"If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Qur'an 2:194)
Jesus said, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)
10. Muhammad claimed jihad in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundredfold. (Muslim 4645)
Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God" (Matthew 5:9)
11. Muhammad married 13 wives and kept sex slaves (Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)
Jesus was celibate.
12. Muhammad slept with a 9-year-old child (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
Jesus did not have sex with children.
13. Muhammad ordered the murder of women (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)
Jesus never harmed a woman.
14. Muhammad said, "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Qur'an 9:123)
Jesus taught, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)
COMPARE THE PROPHETS II
15. Muhammad ordered 65 military campaigns and raids in 10 years (Ibn Ishaq )
Jesus ordered no military campaigns, nor offered any approval of war or violence.
16. Muhammad killed captives taken in battle (Ibn Ishaq 451)
Jesus never took captives and never killed anyone.
17. Muhammad encouraged his men to rape enslaved women (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)
Jesus never encouraged rape and never enslaved women.
18. Muhammad demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war (Qur'an 8:41)
Jesus took no booty or charity. He taught, "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve." (Matthew 20:28)
19. Muhammad was never tortured, but tortured others (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764).
Jesus suffered torture, but never tortured anyone.
20. Muhammad said, "And fight them until there is no more unbelief and all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39)
Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44)
21. Muhammad ordered the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)
Jesus healed a blind man (Mark 8:28)
22. Muhammad ordered a slave to build the very pulpit from which he preached Islam (Bukhari 47:743).
Jesus was a servant and even washed his disciples feet (John 13:5).
23. What are the Greatest Commandments?
Muhammad’s answer: "Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause" (Muslim 1:149)
What are the Greatest Commandments? Jesus’ answer: "Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:34-40)
24. Muhammad demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship (Qur'an 4:102).
Jesus rebuked anyone attempting to defend him with force (John 18:10-12)
25. Muhammad died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute.
Jesus demanded nothing for himself and died without possessions.
26. Muhammad advocated crucifying others (Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)
Jesus was himself crucified.
27. According to Muhammad’s followers: Had others give their lives for him (Sahih Muslim 4413)
According to Christ’s followers: Gave his life for others (John 18:11 and elsewhere)
Islam is Allah and Muhammad.
Allah is found in the Koran, which makes up around 17% of Islamic scripture by word count.
The Koran tells Muslims 93 times that Muhammad is Allah’s final Messenger and the perfect example of conduct for one who aspires to be the best possible Muslim.
Muhammad is found in the Sunna—made up of his biography by In Ishaq and various Hadith collections (narrative accounts of the saying and doings of Muhammad.
The Sunna makes up the balance 83% of Islamic scripture.
The most reliable, authenticated Hadith collections, those collated and verified by Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, are accepted as authentic by both Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Islam has a number of schools of sharia jurisprudence, and the meaning and application of the authenticated hadith narratives has been settled for centuries.
Barend claims that the Hadith narratives can be reinterpreted or even discarded by Muslims at will.
This is arrant nonsense and any reader is free to tell us all how the following Koran suras and Hadith can be ‘reinterpreted’ to mean anything other than what they plainly state:
Here's one hadith saying of Muhammad as recorded by his biographer, Ibn Ishaq at 322:
"Allah said, ‘Do not turn away from Muhammad when he is speaking to you. Do not contradict his orders. And do not be a hypocrite, one who pretends to be obedient to him and then disobeys him. Those who do so will receive My vengeance. You must respond to the Apostle when he summons you to war. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who reject Me. So strike off their heads and cut off their fingers. All who oppose Me and My Prophet shall be punished severely."
Koran 9: 44 confirms that Muslims cannot escape their Jihadist obligation: “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not ask for an exemption from fighting with your goods and persons. And Allah knows well those who do their duty.”
Koran 9: 68 describes those failing in this duty as “Hypocrites,” warning that they will suffer the same fate in the afterlife as unbelievers: “Allah has promised the Hypocrites, both men and women, and the unbelievers the Fire of Hell for their abode: Therein shall they dwell. It will suffice them. On them is the curse of Allah, and an enduring punishment, a lasting torment.”
Koran 5:33 expounds further upon the fate of unbelievers and Hypocrites: "Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger [refuse to accept Islam] and who do mischief [non-Islamic behaviour] in the land … shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet shall be cut off on opposite sides, or they shall be exiled. That is their disgrace in this world, and a dreadful torment is theirs in Hell."
In the Koran's 5th sura, the final revelation chronologically, Allah ordered Muslims "not to question the Koran." Those who did so, he said, "discarded their religion."
Bukhari V4B52N260 is unequivocal regarding the fate of recalcitrants: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’”
Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 58 :: Hadith 236:
“Narrated Hisham's father:
‘Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage. when she was nine years old.’”
Bukhari V1:25:
“Mohammed was asked: what is the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and His Apostle? His answer was: ‘To go out for Jihad, holy fighting in Allah's cause. "
Not a lot of wriggle room to be found in that lot, Barend.
There's heaps of wriggle room for me and modern-day Muslims, mate. That's why there are variations in the application of the Sharia.
I don't think you fully understand the difference between the Quran and the Hadith.
Regarding your question "Would you rather live in a post-Enlightenment culture founded on the example of one; or in a religious theocracy founded on the example of the other?", I have already said I wouldn't want to live under the Sharia because I like my Scotch. I'd rather live under a secular State which is what the Enlightenment, led by deists and not theocrats, delivered.
I'll leave it to readers to decide how relevant your ad hominem diatribes I and II are.
Post a Comment