Hamas ‘death culture’ beyond comprehension, says founder’s son

[Twiglets1]

Hamas’s embrace of “death culture” is beyond comprehension for much of the world, Mosab Hassan Yousef, the eldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, the founder of the terrorist group, told JNS on Tuesday.

“It is not just the West, it’s also the East. It is beyond understanding that some people are willing to sacrifice human life for political gains, or worse for financial gains. I am a living example of this. My father had to choose between his eldest son and the cause and he chose the cause,” said Yousef.

“There is no parent in the world that would go into a fight that would put their own children in harm’s way. Hamas did the opposite. They went and dragged Israel in the most brutal fight of our time, knowing children would pay the price. This shows you their hypocrisy,” he continued.

“It’s the same game with pro-Palestinians worldwide. Everybody cries for the children on one hand, and on the other they are pushing Palestinian indoctrination which leads to the death of children. And then when children die, they blame Israel,” he added.

www.jns.org/hamas-death-culture-beyond-comprehension-says-founders-son/

Yes we know its a democracy. In what way is it Western?

Australia is not exactly in the West either, it couldn’t be further East geographically. Yet it is a modern Western democratic society.
It is not about geographic location, comprende?

@Vivi0 Geographically, yes, it is part of the Middle East and when you’re there you certainly don’t feel like certain parts are comparable to the safety of other parts western democracies ( because plenty of western democracies have places you would actively avoid after dark for safety reasons @dairydebris ) but in terms of its international relations identity and how it is accepted/viewed on a global level, it is firmly aligned with ‘us’ western democracies. It’s political theory rather than just geography. It is how Israel presents itself on the world stage and how it expects to be treated. This also means it is expected to abide by those same standards internationally despite its geography/threat level. And when it doesn’t, uproar. The same is true when the US army was found to be torturing people. They could argue that plenty of militaries torture their enemy and the higher standard on them was unfair but WD are meant to be different to those killing/torturing people. When we’re not, people hate it because their understanding of the world falls apart.

So the narrative that there is no starvation in Gaza or the minimising of treatment towards WB Palestinians or the denial of racism towards Arab Palestinians you might feel more understandable/suitable because they are dealing with a ‘ME threat’ but they are still seen as a WD identity wise and lying about suffering or ignoring human rights is (rightly or wrongly) seen as more shocking because they are viewed more like ‘us’ and not like ‘them’.

You could see it as a clash between their perceived reality and how they present themselves/want to be seen and treated. So I’m not saying it’s not a tough situation to be in but I do think it helps explain why there’s outrage about Israel but not so much about Yemen or Sudan. I don’t think it’s fair or acceptable that suffering is given more weight when a WD is involved but it is a reason why people are more shocked by it than something like Saudi and Yemen which we can disregard as a ‘typical’ or ‘predictable’ conflict between two Muslim/ME countries.

@Jerrypicker added you but realised we are saying the same thing!

'West' is a geographical word. Most of the population is Middle Eastern. Its a Middle Eastern democracy. It has western characteristics in its political structure and institutions but it also has differences which are material. Show me another Western Democracy surrounded by non-democracies that have been attacking it throughout its history.

Well, that depends where you draw the line separating East from West doesn't it really?

Geographic location is important in this case.

Western culture is generally taken to indicate European originated culture these days.

Israel is firmly middle eastern, and is located in the geographic region we know as the Middle East.

Its not a Western democracy by any measure I can think of. I'll agree there are some similarities.

Why do you say its a Western democracy?

@dairydebris @SharonEllis we can call it a liberal democracy if that label feels more appropriate geographically. But the same idea I set out above applies.

I agree with you.

But Israel is a democracy in the Middle East.

It doesn’t have the same fortune of Western democracies to be surrounded by, and share borders with, other Western democracies.

Thus, it faces situations that no other Western democracies face, and it requires to act in ways we are not used to seeing from Western democracies.

That doesn’t mean that, given the same set of circumstances, Western democracies wouldn’t act in the same way. They absolutely would.

However, to say that Israel is a western democracy that does not act like a western democracy is really inappropriate and dishonest because of its geopolitical situation.

I'm sorry but on this occasion I cant agree with the argument you set out above.
I don't believe Israel cares first about whether or not its perceived or judged to be a Western democracy. I believe it's a nation first looking out for itself, with awareness of it's history and how it came to be. I dont think Israel expects to be treated any way other than that which it is- namely with huge scrutiny and sometimes a lack of understanding of its position.

@Vivi0 has put this much more clearly than I have above this post.

Israel's situation is unique and applying western standards of international policy isnt appropriate. They are not surrounded by nations dealing with them in western democratic ways.

Very interesting discussion above - thanks everyone

Israel's situation is unique and applying western standards of international policy isnt appropriate. They are not surrounded by nations dealing with them in western democratic ways.

And this takes us back the OP, and the point about Israel being held to unique standards.

I think we can see that many other western democracies were either founded or gained prominence based upon ethnic cleansing and genocide or occupation. So through that lens it is unfair to Israel to single it out.

The history of many 'western democracies' is absolutely based upon violent conquest, occupation, subjugation and exploitation of native populations, racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The difference with Israel is that it was established much later than the others and is still now trying to consolidate its borders in a time where such practices are not seen as acceptable.

I don't believe the criticism of Israel (on the whole) comes down to the religion of those perpetrating these acts. It appears to be a disgusting feature of the human race that we historically have engaged in such behaviour to gain and maintain power. Its possibly unfair that Israel wasn't established and consolidated earlier when such practices were more commonplace and accepted.

It’s okay - we can agree to disagree. But I will add that a lot of this on a subconscious level. The Israeli government isn’t actively planning or not planning things based on how they will look or trying to be a western/liberal democracy. It’s not so much of an act but a series of decisions and actions they have chosen along the way (over many decades) that have shaped their identity to the rest of the world. From buddying up with the US to being part of Eurovision - they are much more ‘us’ than ‘them’ politically and culturally. This plays a role when they’re looking for investment or trade deals but also when they potentially commit war crimes. Their ‘reputation’ or ‘identity’ on the global stage matters to people and people don’t like it when their understanding of WD or LD is rocked.

And as much as I understand the threat argument, I do think it can only do so far. Fighting Hamas using whatever military tactics they can is perhaps understandable as they’re up against terrorists. But withholding food from an entire population for months of denying that there is starvation is, in my eyes, beyond understanding. The same with settler violence - that’s not fighting an enemy like Hamas, that’s just violating people’s human rights. And, linking back to the US army - they were fighting terrorist and people still had an issue with torture in prisons. People will always call out bad behaviour, even if there’s a threat.

So we can agree to disagree but I do think it is very unfair to say that the only reason people are interested in this conflict is because Israel is a jewish state and we all want it gone. I think that ignores an interesting and important discussion that highlights valid alternative theories.

do think it is very unfair to say that the only reason people are interested in this conflict is because Israel is a jewish state and we all want it gone.

A few problems with your position. Notably the large number of people who DO think Israel is illegitimate. @TulipLavender for one, it seems, from the pp.

To call yourself an 'anti-Zionist' is now a mainstream position in British politics.
Do you think its possible for someone who calls themselves an antizionist to approach this comflict in an evenhanded fashion?

Hence why I said reducing it to just one reason was unfair. There will of course be people driven by hatred who believe Israel shouldn’t exist or, on the flip side, that Palestine shouldn’t exist. Neither will approach this argument from anywhere near neutral or with an open mind.

But I don’t see that as the only two groups that are in disagreement here, let alone the majority view. I think plenty of people weighing in on this conflict support the two state solution and have no issue with Israel both existing and defending itself. I think you can support the idea of Israel but disagree with the actions of its government. A lot of people aren’t criticising Israel’s existence, just its behaviour.

And I think that’s what @TulipLavender is suggesting - if you perceive Israel to be taking Gaza to keep as part of Israel (which isn’t an unfair view when Smotrich said yesterday “Israel must completely hold control of the entire strip, forever.”) then in modern times, it’s much less acceptable or common so draws attention and criticism. Whereas if Israel was redefining its borders/territory when the rest of Europe was doing the same and by similar means, it wouldn’t attract any attention because we were all doing it. I didn’t interpret @TulipLavender post as saying Israel shouldn’t exist but more that it’s tactics are something we all did in history (hence why it could be deemed unfair to judge them for doing what we all did) but don’t do now (hence the shock/outrage/judgement).

Until people are really honest with themselves there will be no progress. I used to be in the thick of the lefty anticolonialist mindset. Until a conversation with a friend made me question why I was boycotting Israel and no other nation on earth. Its the problem of the left who think they are the good guys therefore what they do is always the right thing. Honestly if people can't be bothered to do the thinking and research for themselves noone else can do it for them.

The problem is that there are other power groups in the world who are attempting to redraw their boundaries or fighting wars you might suggest would be more suited to medieval/ colonial times. Yet we dont see 2 or 3 threads a day on them. And we dont hear the almost visceral hatred for those other parties. We only see it for Israel. Most surprisingly we dont even see it for Hamas! Thread after thread on Israeli atrocities, pretty much crickets for Hamas / Putin / Iranian / Houthi / Sudanese atrocities.

This is not a defence of Israel. I share your opinion that the withholding of aid is indefensible. There's no doubt that war crimes are being commited. Etc. Etc. Its just, theres something unique about the way people are losing their minds over this war, are not thinking objectively, and often actively looking away from objective thinking and cloaking that in moral outrage.

I actually think that antisemitism is so deeply ingrained into our culture that we literally cant see it when we're doing it. A lot of people who are so vocally anti Israel will think of themselves as anti racist. I'm sure some of them will be of BAME heritage themselves. And I think its too painful for these people to truly examine why they hate Israel so much, and so they dont.

I expect this post will be removed soon... but anyway after months of being on here that is what I believe.

Beat me to it Sharon. I can make all these arguments for them, I used to make them myself. But then I started to wonder, why does Israel do this? Then I started reading and here I find myself a few years later.

Not everyone is going to ask themselves the same questions though are they...

Another cruise ship with Israeli tourists on attacked.

Has this ever happened to a cruise ship carrying Russians?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15046217/amp/Israeli-Palestine-Greece-Cruise-Ship.html

You are right.

I do think people are also incredibly ignorant of history in general. Shifting borders, conflict, displacement have been a feature of most of European, Middle Eastern and African (I dont know about Latin America) History forever, and very recently too. The idea that Israel is uniquely awful or illegimate or anachronistic is completely incredible. And it is not a colonial state. Jews are indigenous to the region. Its crazy we keep having this conversation.

And Jewish people attacked in a greek restaurant this week too.

Yet people will tell us, with a straight face, that it has nothing to do with anything except humanitarian concern.

Yes. But this could so easily be remedied by only a little bit of research. And yet it's not. That's what I mean by looking away.

Just to clarify i believe Israel to be legitimate within its pre 1967 borders.

I dont understand how what i said questions its legitimacy unless i am also questioning the legitimacy of USA and Australia for example because of their founding history - which im not.

You distinguished Israel from those states with 'The difference with Israel is that it was established much later than the others'. Which certainly gave that impression.

I think your first paragraph links back to what I was saying about the us v them argument. We are indifferent/more accepting of conflict that fits the way we see the world. When a liberal democracy is so clearly in the wrong (or the US army or even British citizens who become radicalised) it hits differently. So I am not denying the antisemitism issue but it isn’t the only reason (just as the humanitarian argument isn’t the only reason either). A reason I know this to be true is because there are Israeli citizens and Jewish people more generally who protest what is happening and disagree with it.

I find it interesting that you think antisemitism is so deeply engrained. Out of interest, would you say the same of Islamophobia?

I think the interest in this war is unusual compared to other conflicts (current or historical) and I think there are multiple factors to that. Some I’ve discussed already (including antisemitism and apathy towards conflicts that don’t include a liberal democracy). I think social media is being used by both sides as a tool in this war and that has led to a lot of people hearing about it and, therefore, having a view (on a spectrum of informed to ill informed!).

@SharonEllis I am agreement with you re history and Israel not acting dissimilarly to other states. But again, in current times, you don’t see it from liberal democracies and I think that matters to some people. I’m not saying everyone. But some.

Finally, re the cruise ship, I do not condone any attacks on Israeli citizens or Jewish people more broadly because of the actions of the Israeli government. They are not the ones causing harm. I would, however, note that two other papers say that the police quickly dealt with the protests and the offboarding was delayed but no one was hurt. To stress, I am not condoning the behaviour and Israeli citizens travelling shouldn’t be attacked or intimidated, but I would actively encourage anyone to avoid the daily mail for real news updates!

Sorry, that just doesn't wash. Whether you condone it ir not is irrelevant, as is how quickly the police deal with an incident Are you denying the massive increase in antisemitism? There are 3 antisemitic incidents a day reported in France at the moment.

The denial is ridiculous.