we must adjust our distorted view of hamas

[sherazade]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5420584.ece

Ah, the debate is closed I suspect because Hamas have been shown to be the brutal horrors they truly are? Interesting that.

I think Desiderata was with "what do you want from us" referring more to the fact that Sherazade is unable to be non partisan in any discussion about Hamas even if evidence emerges that they are not the final bastion of democracy and decency in Gaza.

"Us" meaning those who try to maintain a bit of balance......"you" meaning you who refuse to even consider news articles that do not favour your point of view.

I dont know enough about this situation to put in a detailed argument.
But I see a Palastinian, being sneered off mumsnet with jibes like "why dont you get a soapbox?" "what do you want from us?" by a bunch of people who are quoting the guardian and radio 4....

sherazade, sadly mumsnet is often like this when you express a minority view.

Is "Israel bad, Hamas good" a minority view on MN? Dozens of threads over the last month would suggest otherwise.

minority on this thread.

I dont think most people on mumsnet know the difference between Hamas and a ham sandwich.

myself included. though I too have drunk at the guardian and radio 4...

I think it's the minority view on this thread because some posters may be a bit tired of the "Israel bad Hamas good" argument that has spawned thousands of posts of blanket condemnation for Israel.

I think Desiderata's point was that Sherezade is not actually part of the "we" that she claims must alter "our distorted view" because she doesn't consider herself to have a distorted view. She thinks she sees Hamas correctly and others don't.

That's how I read it.

I think the issue is that the minority view here is directly in conflict with media reports.

That same minority view held media reports in the past as true enough when they were attacking Israel.

The minority view here is unable to adjust her own distorted view of Hamas regardless of any evidence placed before her.

I think that is why the minority view has gone. Because she knows that.

So you are both entrenched in your positions. Fine. As someone who isnt directly involved, I'll read both points of view.

winky, it is outrageous to bully someone off (and it IS intimidating facing the jibes that I referred to under), and then say "she has gone becuase she knows she was wrong"

I'm not involved, I'm not Israeli or Palestinian, and I'm not entrenched.

I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of posts on this subject on MN have been pro-Hamas (or at least anti-Israeli) and therefore I'm surprised the OP felt the need to start a thread saying "we (collectively) need to change our distorted view" because most MNers seem to agree with her, not the other way round.

probably because most of the mn posts were reacting to what they were seeing about israel (rather than knowing owt about hamas), and the press has portrayed a certain picture of hamas, which sher obviously feels from her own experience, is distorted.

The OP was quoting the title of an article which she linked to when she said "we".

Peersonally, I found the article very interesting. People obviously had reasons for voting for Hamas, and it was interesting to see things from a different perspective.

I don't see either side in this conflict as being "black" or "white"... Hamas may well be terrorist thugs, but they were obviously seen as preferable to Fatah by a majority of Palestinians. I think people should look at the reasons behind that, rather than just dismissing Hamas with the kneejerk call of "terrorists".

As for not talking to terrorists... well Thatacher didn't get too far with that view, did she? It was only when Major agreed to talk to Sinn Fein that the Irish peace movement really got going.

Nighbynight, Sherazade is more than capable of holding her own as I have seen on other threads.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Whether you talk to them about peace or not is a separate issue. It is not knee jerk to describe them as such when you read about their activities.

people might be interested in the following

www.jfjfp.org/background3_gaza-crisis_2008-09/leslie-brent_CNJ_0901.htm

also should really remember that one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter and what people are saying about hamas being terrorists is exactly what was said about ben gurion in 1947-8 oh yes and about mandela in s. africa of course.

Bit of a shame that the argument seems to have gone back to any criticism of israeli tactics must mean uncritical support for hamas!

well winky, let's hope that sher doesn't feel upset enough to leave mn over this, as she's obviously personally involved.

Kate, the thread was about supporting of Hamas.

Actually I don't have a problem with people supporting hamas - they are the officially elected body in gaza whether people like that or not. But even if people do support hamas doesn't mean they are not critical of their tactics. Also i feel a bit wary of people equating kneecapping (horrible though it is) with the might of the IDF and white phosphorus.

I was really commenting how heavily people have come down on the op who put up a perfectly reasonable link originally. Shame sherazade was driven off of this thread by horrible bully-boy 'usandthem' tactics!

Message withdrawn

They accused him of being a terrorist though.

And Ben Gurion

Who is equating knee capping with the might of the IDF? Where did that comparison come from? Nobody has even mentioned Israel's might in comparison on here. What are you on about Kate?

I think that a lot of people find Hamas repugnant. How can you not have issue with a 'political party' that rules by terrorising its people? Weird.

And the ANC in the 80's necklaced dissenters

well grimupnorth i think you've made it clear that you find hamas repugnant - i just don't agree with you. Hamas was voted in on a ticket of providing hospitals, education and basic public services. Actually before the israeli devastation of the infrastructure in gaza they weren't doing a bad job considering the constant israeli incursions during the so-called ceasefire, and the horrendous blockade set up by the 'wall' of the israeli government.

And as for supposedly 'terrorising its people' I think the terrorising of the palestinians is being done by the israelis and all this aggressive 'what are you on about' crap is designed to sidestep that point.

Do you read at all Kate?

Not quite the heroes you like to think they are

And this is such a good job

Oh yes i read and i don't believe that i said hamas were heroes just that i don't agree with you that they are 'thugs' or 'repugnant' - i still think that you are trying to evade the point about the might of the israeli state who are the opressors here!

I don't know how to do links properly but its interesting that on your top link is also this:www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/30/gaza-samouni.

also repeating an above link from a kindertransport survivor:

www.jfjfp.org/background3_gaza-crisis_2008-09/leslie-brent_CNJ_0901.htm

part of which says
"I do not condone the rockets launched by Hamas against Israeli towns, but at the same time I can understand that these are desperate acts of desperate men ? call them terrorists or freedom fighters, the distinction is often blurred ? against an enemy with vastly superior and deadly weapons and with atomic bombs in reserve in their arsenal."