Prof. Suheir Daoud (currently at Harvey Mudd, has been at Pomona) writes against the Middle East peace process in The Balimore Sun. (October 24, 2007). Daoud, a pro-Palestinian academic and writer at the Claremont Colleges has a history of speaking out for radical Islam. She gave a talk several months ago titled ""Palestinian Women 'Suicide Bombers' and the Second Intifada." (Notice the use of quotations for suicide bombers.) She also authored a paper "Palestinian Women in Suicide Bombings: Causes and Motives," al-Adab (Beirut) 3\4 (2007), 12-23. Both articles blamed Israel for the Occupation and suggested that suicide bombing was the only means available for Arab women to address their complaints.
The Baltimore Sun article makes several bold and erroneous accusations, but the last and most damning falsehood comes at the end:
But instead of pushing for new Palestinian elections, the international community must have the courage to pressure Israel to end its occupation, because all efforts for peace will ultimately fail until that occurs.Putting aside the obvious --that Israel "occupies" the West Bank and Gaza because of repeated attacks on Israeli civilians and that any country would act to safeguard its citzenry-- Prof. Daoud fails to mention what constitutes "the occupation."
Surely this is no accident. By carefully not clarifying what she means by occupation, she allows it to mean all things to all Palestinian factions and allows that nuance to muddy in her reader. Hamas, which has openly said it will never accept an Israel the size of a postage stamp, should not be equated with the realistic concerns of Fatah and the legitimate Palestine Authority, which wants a state in Gaza and the West Bank and which recognizes Israel's right to exist.
Of course, Daoud advocates relations with Hamas. She casually mentions Hamas's thuggish behavior, but advocates that Israel recognize it.
Despite Hamas' thuggish behavior, the Bush administration, Israel and Fatah should not exclude Hamas from any dialogue on the conflict. Boycotting Hamas and other primary parties to the conflict, such as Syria, does not make them disappear.On the contrary, boycotting those organizations, denying them funds, and branding them as the terrorists they rightly are shows Hamas that its open support of terrror and murder will not be tolerated. Responsible "democracies" do not murder the opposition or use children as soldiers. The U.S. government rightly refuses to fund Hamas and should pressure its allies, Saudi Arabia, and other funders to quit it. Hamas, which openly calls for the killing of American targets, is not a reasonable party and cannot be included in the peace talks. Indeed, Daoud tips her hand and reveals her bias. She writes Hamas's "violent politics" will fail, not that they are reprehensible. Her criticism of Hamas amounts to little more than tactics. She avoids morality altogether.
Purporting to be an objective analyst for the peace process, Daoud never mentions that Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel, nor that many countries recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, unworthy of respect. This omission allows Daoud to use the boycott of Hamas as the reason for a failed peace talks.
Daoud's article couldn't come at a worse time. With the three major parties -- Israel, Fatah, and the U.S.-- facing low approval ratings they'll be more likely to make concessions because they don't have to play tough and because tensions have reached a make or break point. When Arafat rejected almost everything the Palestinians wanted, he did it because he knew that he could continue to wait out Clinton and Barak. Daoud knows this and yet she says that it's a bad time to conduct peace talks. Of course it's a bad time-- a bad time for Hamas. With Israel, Fatah, and the U.S. united on the need for stability, Hamas can be destroyed.
I would ask Daoud a simple question: "If not now, when? If not us, who?"
Exit questions: Why is someone who has such a history of advocacy for the Palestinian cause teaching an introductory course to Middle Eastern politics? What will her "Islamic studies" major look like when it's fully completed?
4 comments:
wow, this is probably the most biased piece that you've ever written. If someone doesn't agree with you, charles, it doesn't make them this evil conniving monster thats out to fool the public. Not that I agree with what she has to say, but extremism in any form is bad. Israel and the Palestinian authorities have both done some pretty f-ed up sh**. But thats the way the world is, in shades of gray. So to come out and call either one of the two angels is plain silly.
Both are evil, and the question to ask at the end of the day is whose evil can we tolerate because it is either:
1. In our interest economically/geopolitically
2. is the backbone of our government structure through strong funding (rent seeking, lobbying, bribing etc.)
--
i take great comfort in the words of christ - dont point out the speck in your brother's eye when youve got a plank in your own! ie if youve got a long way to go, dont point out the small imperfections in others. i would argue that israeli checkpoints and security measures are of a speck and palestinian suicide bombers are more of a plank, but of course both sides are human and imperfect. israel gave back gaza, look where it got them. if they ruled the west bank 'nicer' or even gave it back, would there be peace? no. the aggression will never end.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure if you either have no grasp of the current situation, or if you are simply doing an amazing job at ignoring reality. Israel does occupy the West Bank. It's a fact. That land was never theirs, not under the original UN partition, nor after the 1948 and 1949 wars. The land was seized in 1967 during a war. So when you say "Prof. Daoud fails to mention what constitutes 'the occupation.'" I think it's fairly obvious. Is there another definition of occupation besides "control of a territory by a military force" that is applicable in this particular case?
Moreover, It is simply lunacy to assume that Hamas is going to be destroyed anytime soon. They run Gaza, were legitimately elected to the majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council (their Parliament), and have made even further gains in recent West Bank elections. You actually think they are anywhere close to collapse? In addition, proposing that the US ignore Hamas to show them we disapprove just exhibits supreme naivety. It's alot easier to let someone know that you disapprove of their actions (and in this case it is legitimate disapproval on the part of the US and Israel) when youu can say it right to their face, leader to leader. Turning the cold shoulder didn't stop North Korea, Syria or Iran from continuing to develop nuclear programs. Dialogue brought about the shutdown of NK's program, maybe we should look at history, negotiations work, let's try it here.
claremontliberal,
I'm quite familiar with the history of the Middle East. Are you aware that Hamas and most Arab governments never recognized Israel as a legitimate state and that therefore ANY land the Jews control is considered occupation?
You never mention that the reason Israel occupies the West Bank is due to 1) increased attacks on Israel 2) a desire not to return to the "Auschwitz lines" that characterized partition
As for Hamas, there have been successful attempts at marginalizing disastrous parties to peacetalks. The U.S., lest you forget with the example of North Korea, was in large part responsible under the Clinton years of giving North Korea the time and the resources to complete their nuclear reactor at Yongbin. What's more, the U.S. brought NK down by forcing it to engage in US-sponsored six party talks. Basically, the US brought NK down by saying it was our way or the highway. The North Koreans complied. There's no reason to think that Hamas (and the Palestinian people) won't follow the same rules, particularly if the US consistently and quietly works on its EU allies to stop providing aid to the terroristic dictatorship that is Hamas in the Gaza Strip. For the record, the West Bank still remains pro-Fatah.
Post a Comment