Op-Ed
A Rose by Any Other Name?
Email: 
Share: 
Between the Lines
March 15, 2007 - 1:00amThe Middle East poses many questions worthy of debate. It is a pity, though, that the debate is so often pointless. All too often, discussion of the Middle East becomes a dispute over terms. It is nearly a cliché that “one man’s ‘freedom fighter’ is another’s ‘terrorist.’” But the fact that we do not agree on terms does not mean we cannot usefully discuss facts. Right and wrong are easier to debate —and more important — than subjective labels. To have a useful discussion, we should be clear on which disputes are substantive and which are mere quibbling over terms.
A recent Sun column by my colleague Laura Taylor ’07 asserted that, “the BBC correctly identifies Hamas as a ‘militant group’ rather than a ‘terrorist organization.’” 
Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it. This is a meaningless distinction, since there is no generally accepted definition of either term. The choice of terms here is a marker of the speaker’s attitude, not a fact about the world. The question for debate shouldn’t be what to call Hamas, but what sort of organization it is. This question is depressingly easy to answer. Hamas is a bloodthirsty gang of religious fanatics who hate Jews, and it is the elected leadership of the Palestinian people.
The desire of Hamas to wipe out the Jewish population of Israel is no secret. As Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said in 2003, “By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine.” This is not simply a political goal. Rantisi said “Jews”, not “Israelis”, and Jews he meant. For Hamas, the struggle is about religion, not politics. Article seven of the Hamas charter notes that: “The prophet ... said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” This charter is available on the Hamas website for all the world to see; its contents cannot be disputed.
Hamas freely borrows from earlier, more effective, anti-Semites. Article 32 of the Hamas charter claims that the Jews are plotting world domination and that “[Their] scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.” The Protocols, recall, was an anti-Semitic forgery of the early 20th century, describing Jewish plans for world domination. It is not a book often cited in polite company. The Hamas website is a virtual treasure-trove of this sort of antiquarian anti-Semitism, and in addition to conjuring up the anti-Semitic horrors of the 20th century, it sometimes recalls those of the 12th. When I checked last week, one of the featured stories on the website was asserting a factual basis for blood libel.
If you want to describe Hamas as “militants” rather than “terrorists,” go right ahead. But there’s something silly about criticizing others for using stronger language to refer to Hamas, an organization pursuing an exterminationist agenda, on behalf of an unusually vile anti-Semitism, by means that are outlawed by international law, and that turn the stomachs of most observers. Hamas is what it is, and describing it in more approving terms will not change the facts. It might be worth debating whether Hamas truly represents the opinions of the Palestinian people, or whether it came to power in some monstrous mistake. But there is no sense wasting breath debating labels.
It is nearly as pointless to debate whether our enemies in Iraq are the “resistance,” or the “terrorists.” Their strategy is perfectly clear: set off a sectarian civil war to expel the Americans, then slaughter the unbelievers. You can call them “freedom fighters,” but this does not change their goals. The vast bulk of the violence in Iraq is directed neither at Americans, nor at Iraq’s elected government; it is directed against random individuals selected as targets solely because of their religion. Debating what the United States should do is perfectly reasonable; debating what to call our enemies isn’t.
There may be a legitimate defense of the Iraqi “resistance.” But describing them in glowing terms does not convince a skeptical observer: hauling families out of their houses, torturing them, and leaving their broken bodies by the roadside is just as wrong if it’s done by a “freedom fighter” as by a “terrorist.” If apologists for Iraqi death squads feel the need to defend the killers, they are welcome to, but referring to them as “resistance” falls short of the mark.
If Western apologists for Hamas or Al-Qaeda in Iraq would like to defend those groups and their actions, I would enjoy hearing their side of the debate. But the true topic for debate should be whether Hamas’ goal of rendering Israel a Judenrein territory is defensible, or whether Iraqi militias are right to conduct a campaign of torture and killing to achieve ethnic cleansing. Arguing about names is merely a way to avoid confronting facts. If deliberately killing Jewish and Iraqi children on behalf of Islam is defensible, then let the backers of Hamas and Al-Qaeda justify their labels by defending it. If it is indefensible, then western apologists should give up the obscene verbal gymnastics they use to position themselves as sympathizers for religiously inspired murder.
Ari Rabkin is a graduate student in Computer Science. He can be contacted at asr32@cornell.edu. Between the Lines appears Thursdays.
Ari's nonsense
As usual, Ari Rabkin writes historically inaccurate, political nonsense. Under international law, the inhabitants of an invaded country or occupied territory have the right to defend themselves using physical, violent means. It's quite common for anti-occupation conflict to transform itself into civil war when stronger outside powers are involved. (In fact, the US neo-cons have been advocated severing of the oil producing regions from the states we call Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia so the US can control these areas and have veto-power over the emerging Asia-Pacific and European security-energy grip that challenges US world power). There would be no insurgents in Iraq (a mislabeled term), if the US hadn't invaded. It's true that the sectarian strife is problematic, but this has more to do with the machinations of and the legacy of the British Mandate in Mesopotamia that was inherited by the US after WWII than anything else. Hamas is actually a creature of the Israeli government that supported it financially as a counter-weight to the secular Fatah organization. (The US has a long, sordid history of undermining secular nationalists in Indonesia, Vietnam, Iran and elsewhere). There are lots of things not to like about Hamas, but without the Israeli occupation and confiscation of Palestinian land -- that has been recognized as such under international law and many UN resolutions -- the violent dynamic in Israel would be different. Everything I have written is historically accurate, though inconvenient for those who are too partisan on either side.