Sunday, May 3, 2009

defining Hamas

I just read a news article that used the clause "the Islamists pledged to the destruction of Israel" to identify Hamas, the way one might use the phrases "former Republican Vice-President" and "popular British singer and infamous wildchild" preceding the names of Dick Cheney and Amy Winehouse, respectively.

That's how we know Cheney and Winehouse, and that's how we know Hamas. But Hamas could just as well be "the Palestinian political party once supported by the U.S. and Israel." Hamas could be "the winners of a 2006 democratic Palestinian election."

So which is it? How about all of the above?

I feel like I've been harping on the categorization of Hamas for forever. But I don't see any solution in the narrow- and inaccurate- definition of Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is a dilemma for newswriters- how to sum up a complex conflict- and for Israel, too.

I don't think that you have any chance of making peace with someone you have labeled your enemy. You must be able to imagine them a viable partner. And that's not idealism- that's history. That's how it happened in Northern Ireland, and if peace ever comes to Israel-Palestine, it has to come by accepting the possibility of partnership.

2 comments:

Michelle said...

I like you (and your summary of struggling with Hamas stereotypes) a lot. enjoy your event tomorrow!

小芸 said...

i stumbled upon an argument FOR the use of nonviolence as dissent against repression: that dissidents are fighting ISSUES not PEOPLE and the means of protest used should reflect that. Violence is also identity-blind - an idea based in the belief that everyone is more than just one identity :) You are a daughter, friend, colleague, teacher, student ... if I have a problem with you, it is mostly likely only one of these identities that I have a problem - violence does not recognize that