Hamas, Sharia and Sudan

[tangentlama]

You're just seeing what you want to see, and not taking into account all currents of thought evident and their actual policies as practiced.

The weird thing is that you're trying, as far as I can tell, to make them out to be a reactionary organisation, and yet I for one don't have any doubt about this - tho I still do not think the IDF is the one who should be defeating them. It should be Palestinian working people dealing with them and Fatah.

But Fateh's foundng members were MB?!

 

[Spion]

But Fateh's foundng members were MB?!

*runs for the hills* "Help! The muslims are coming!!!"

 

[tangentlama]

The majority of FATEH's founders began their political careers in the Muslim Brotherhood Society(MBS), and yet durruti02 doesn't bother to mention this fact in any of his discussion on the Hamas

He links the Hamas to Muslim Brotherhood', and then objects to Hamas based on that.

He then links the Hamas to the Sudanese govt., by saying 'they are both MBS'!

 

[durruti02]

The majority of FATEH's founders began their political careers in the Muslim Brotherhood Society(MBS), and yet durruti02 doesn't bother to mention this fact in any of his discussion on the Hamas

He links the Hamas to Muslim Brotherhood', and then objects to Hamas based on that.

He then links the Hamas to the Sudanese govt., by saying 'they are both MBS'!

you are laughable in your critical abilities .. everyone knows arafat was associated with MB .. but if we look at fatah/plo ideology clearly ther is a clear break .. they are secular .. hamas is fundamentalist muslim .. shows NO break from MB ..

 

[Spion]

you are laughable in your critical abilities .. everyone knows arafat was associated with MB .. but if we look at fatah/plo ideology clearly ther is a clear break .. they are secular .. hamas is fundamentalist muslim .. shows NO break from MB ..

So what? What is all this bullshit about? If you saw a racist attack would you question the victim about his ideology or whether he'd ever hit his wife before you decided whether to help him or not? Because that's what it looks like you're doing here

 

[belboid]

mate, are they both key sections of the MB?

oh ffs.

This is just shite d, uttr utter shite. You are going back to your argument from before this thread even started. your argument since then has been roundly and utterly hammered, so you have just gone back to your starting point! What is the point in trying to argue if thats what you're gong to do?

Did you think we'd all just forget that we'd done this one already?

And then you have the nerve to have a pop at someone else 'critical abilities'!! This is really quite dishonest of you d

 

[belboid]

from an interview last week with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (who no doubt D wil tell us another bunch of fools who know nothing about the ME in a moment)

Ma’an: What is the relationship between Hamas and the PFLP like today?

PFLP: The relationship between Hamas and the PFLP is defined by resistance now.

Ma’an: But the PFLP is a secular movement; does that create difficulties working with Hamas, which believes in an Islamic society and government?

PFLP: Both Hamas and the PFLP are in the camp of resistance, the camp of defending our people, our cause and our fundamental rights.

Both the PFLP and Hamas reject so-called "negotiations,” reject cooperation with the occupier, and reject any so-called political solutions based on the denial and abrogation of the rights of our people, and both stand united in resistance to the massacres and genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. This is the unity, and the relationship, that matters now - unity, in struggle, for our people, our cause and our rights.

 

[Spion]

best put the source in

 

[belboid]

I assume it is this (where I got it from didnt have any original source in) - http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/63520/exclusive-pflp-in-gaza-on-peace-resistance-and-unity.html

 

[tangentlama]

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2009/01/israel-hamas-gaza-palestinian

".. for Hamas is not a monolithic organisation with a simple agenda - it consists of many different wings and factions, with conflicting aims and philosophies. It was founded in 1987, at the beginning of the first intifada, by the leadership of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, with the aim of directing resistance against the Israeli occupation (the name "Hamas" is an acronym of Harakat al-Muqa wama al-Islamiya - "Islamic Resistance Movement", though it also means "zeal").

The new organisation shared the Muslim Brothers' aim of Islamicising Palestinian society, but it differed from its philosophy in one crucial respect: it reserved the right to commit violence...

Dr Khaled Hroub, of the Cambridge Arab Media Project, believes that Hamas has long since outgrown the crude anti-Jewish sentiments of its founding charter, which was written by one member of the "Old Guard" of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza.

He says that we should judge it on the "government platform" delivered by the newly elected prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, on 27 March 2006. "The entire thrust of the statement is confined directly and indirectly to the parameters of the concept of a two-state solution," he says.

"There is no mention or even the slightest hint of the destruction of Israel or the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine. It reflects very little inclination to radical positions and religious overtones... Someone who read this document without knowing that it had been produced by Hamas could justifiably think that it had been written by any other secular Palestinian organisation."

to be honest i think this is rubbish .. pragmatism does not mean a change in ideology just a change on tactics .. for secular parties this might be real but when hamas is a relegious party basing its politics on the koran and hadiths .. this is fundamentally differrent

durruti02's response loosely translates as "to be honest, la-la-la I'm not listening to any of the well-researched factual evidence because it renders my original premiss and subsequent viewpoint invalid .. la-la-la"

 

[ViolentPanda]

really .. ok so you accept they are both MB? yes?

Not in the way you're presenting it, no.
I accept that there are factions in HAMAS, as well as in the leadership of the Sudanese govt that follow the MB line, which is different from saying "they are both MB".

so you accept they are the only two MB groups in power> yes? ok

No, because in neither case is the Muslim brotherhood "in power", for fuck's sake!
It has influence with those who have power, which is a different thing entirely.

so that they support each other e.g hamas res sudan and darfur and hamas attacking israel? yes?

Your source Levitt contends that they do, although if you've read Levitt's book you'll know that he contends that Sudan's current regime sponsors "Islamicist terror" full stop, rather than having a reciprocal "we're all Muslim Brotherhood members together" deal going with HAMAS.

so what more do you think i need to show? give me an example please of level that you would accept

From you?
Some indication that rather than just reading a web-page or excerpt, that you've tried to "read around" a subject, rather than just taking a couple of sources and treating them as gospel.
I mean, how many times have you been pulled up for getting sucked in by what turns out to be propaganda, and ended up giving a sheepish apology? I've lost count, and I suspect you have too.

did you then read the mathew levitt google book stuff? this shows some practical links and actually ignores the ideologically link

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CG-AjU3rraQC&pg=PA184&dq=sudan+hamas#PPA185,M1

I own the book, and I've read it a couple of times. It's not particularly good. It's what an academic would call "partisan", and what I'd call "a right-wing viewpoint".
Personally I prefer Zaki Chehab's "Inside HAMAS", because it covers a wider time-frame than Levitt, looks deeper into the history and politics of HAMAS and is less obviously partisan.

 

[Idris2002]

The Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood don't have "power", they have influence with certain sections of the government and establishment of Sudan, and have provided ideological justifications for the behaviour of the Sudanese p-t-b, and as far as HAMAS is concerned, I recommend you read Edward Platt's article about them in last week's New Statesman, as he gives a very concise breakdown of the main ideological constituencies within HAMAS, and the MB and MB-related political ideology doesn't get much of a look-in. Having members who support a particular ideology isn't the same as the entire membership supporting an ideology.

Sudan is officially Islamist . . . but in practice it's Bashir-ist. I mind back in 1999, when the Islamist ideologue Turabi (who'd helped B. seize power in Sudan in 1989, IIRC) told Bashir he wasn't being Islamic enough, Bashir promptly had the ulema Turabi flung in jail.

 

[ViolentPanda]

to be honest i think this is rubbish .. pragmatism does not mean a change in ideology just a change on tactics .. for secular parties this might be real but when hamas is a relegious party basing its politics on the koran and hadiths .. this is fundamentally differrent

Thank you for at least at last indicating that you're utterly intolerant of any viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own in this matter.

 

[nino_savatte]

you are laughable in your critical abilities .. everyone knows arafat was associated with MB .. but if we look at fatah/plo ideology clearly ther is a clear break .. they are secular .. hamas is fundamentalist muslim .. shows NO break from MB ..

The truth left town long ago, in your case. It wouldn't hurt you to do some proper reading instead of pulling any auld shite off Google. But I don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon - is it?

 

[durruti02]

durruti02's response loosely translates as "to be honest, la-la-la I'm not listening to any of the well-researched factual evidence because it renders my original premiss and subsequent viewpoint invalid .. la-la-la"

so you take the announcements in the politcial arena as proof that the charter has been junked?? .. jesus how nieve are you! lol

political parties will say anything in certain situations .. thats what teh fucking do!!

the key things is to get below the superficial .. all we have from hamas is a charter and a mix of disgusting stuff on their TV and better stuff during elections ... i have agreed with you hamas is not monolithic .. but you still can find no evidence the charter has gone

 

[durruti02]

Not in the way you're presenting it, no.
I accept that there are factions in HAMAS, as well as in the leadership of the Sudanese govt that follow the MB line, which is different from saying "they are both MB".

No, because in neither case is the Muslim brotherhood "in power", for fuck's sake!
It has influence with those who have power, which is a different thing entirely.

Your source Levitt contends that they do, although if you've read Levitt's book you'll know that he contends that Sudan's current regime sponsors "Islamicist terror" full stop, rather than having a reciprocal "we're all Muslim Brotherhood members together" deal going with HAMAS.

From you?
Some indication that rather than just reading a web-page or excerpt, that you've tried to "read around" a subject, rather than just taking a couple of sources and treating them as gospel.
I mean, how many times have you been pulled up for getting sucked in by what turns out to be propaganda, and ended up giving a sheepish apology? I've lost count, and I suspect you have too.

I own the book, and I've read it a couple of times. It's not particularly good. It's what an academic would call "partisan", and what I'd call "a right-wing viewpoint".
Personally I prefer Zaki Chehab's "Inside HAMAS", because it covers a wider time-frame than Levitt, looks deeper into the history and politics of HAMAS and is less obviously partisan.

thanks for that VP ... ok i half agree .. but this is surely sematics ..

do you deny MB factions control sudan and hamas?

you have read the book .. good .. you know i had said i had i would be accused of being a zionist stooge again ..

i have not read the book .. but i continuously try to educate myself .. in thiws day and age that measn using the internet .. we ALL know it has problems .. i have continually said IF someone contradicts with sources what i have posted i will happily accept this ..

and you are NOT contradicting me on the basics i have posted .. you simply interpret them slightly differently .. it remains that sudan and hamas are linked by MB

btw i have given apologies .. are you suggesting this is wrong? occasionally ( not frequently NOT regularly .. to say you have lost count is simply childish ) i get things wrong and i rightly apologise ..

maybe you could look at all those who wrongly accuse me of being likud / zionist / etc etc ( and previously of rascism/ strasserism/nationalsim/zenophobia etc ) and wonder why they are so incapable of critical thought and honesty

 

[tangentlama]

do you deny MB factions control sudan and hamas?

you have read the book .. good .. you know i had said i had i would be accused of being a zionist stooge again ..

i have not read the book .. but i continuously try to educate myself .. in thiws day and age that measn using the internet .. we ALL know it has problems .. i have continually said IF someone contradicts with sources what i have posted i will happily accept this ..

and you are NOT contradicting me on the basics i have posted .. you simply interpret them slightly differently .. it remains that sudan and hamas are linked by MB

 

[belboid]

do you deny MB factions control sudan and hamas?

aaarrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!

how many ways do you need to repeat the same thing, each time pretending it is something new or different.

your argument here has just been utter rubbish d. in fact there hasn't been ANY actual argument, just the one point repeated over and over and over and over

and then you have the nerve to slag off other people for their supposed 'naivety' or 'ignorance' of the ME!

 

[tangentlama]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CG-AjU3rraQC&pg=PA184&dq=sudan+hamas

did you then read the mathew levitt google book stuff? this shows some practical links and actually ignores the ideologically link
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CG-AjU3rraQC&pg=PA184&dq=sudan+hamas#PPA185,M1

[/quote]

I own the book, and I've read it a couple of times. It's not particularly good. It's what an academic would call "partisan", and what I'd call "a right-wing viewpoint".
Personally I prefer Zaki Chehab's "Inside HAMAS", because it covers a wider time-frame than Levitt, looks deeper into the history and politics of HAMAS and is less obviously partisan.

really .. ok so you accept they are both MB? yes?

Not in the way you're presenting it, no.

I accept that there are factions in HAMAS, as well as in the leadership of the Sudanese govt that follow the MB line, which is different from saying "they are both MB".

so you accept they are the only two MB groups in power> yes? ok

No, because in neither case is the Muslim brotherhood "in power", for fuck's sake!
It has influence with those who have power, which is a different thing entirely.

Your source Levitt contends that they do, although if you've read Levitt's book you'll know that he contends that Sudan's current regime sponsors "Islamicist terror" full stop, rather than having a reciprocal "we're all Muslim Brotherhood members together" deal going with HAMAS.

you have read the book .. good ..

i have not read the book ..

..written by Matthew Levitt of WINEP (Parent organisation, pro-Likud AIPAC)!

But of course, you never use right-wing zionist or pro-Likud sources in attempts to back up your worldview, do you, durruti02??

maybe you could look at all those who wrongly accuse me of being likud / zionist / etc etc [...] and wonder why they are so incapable of critical thought and honesty

 

[ViolentPanda]

thanks for that VP ... ok i half agree .. but this is surely sematics ..

I presume you mean "semantics"?
No, it isn't semantics.

do you deny MB factions control sudan and hamas?

YES!!!
As I've said, they have influence, they don't have power

you have read the book .. good .. you know i had said i had i would be accused of being a zionist stooge again ..

No, if you read it and took it as gospel you'd probably be called an "arse" rather than a "Zionist stooge", because the author's agenda is fairly obvious from the first page, so if you don't "filter" what Levitt has written through the fact that he's a neocon fellow-traveller who spins his narrative accordingly you will indeed look like an arse.

i have not read the book .. but i continuously try to educate myself .. in thiws day and age that measn using the internet .. we ALL know it has problems .. i have continually said IF someone contradicts with sources what i have posted i will happily accept this ..

It seems to me that you're not being constructive in the way you search for information. If you're attempting to present an argument, it's up to you to make the best argument you can, rather than using pernicious crap like that Itamar Marcus kak.

and you are NOT contradicting me on the basics i have posted .. you simply interpret them slightly differently .. it remains that sudan and hamas are linked by MB

It's not a difference of interpretation, it's a difference of emphasis. [b[You[/b] appear believe that the Muslim Brotherhood link is some kind of proof of deep links between the Sudan regime and HAMAS, whereas I believe that the link is one shared with many ME/NA and CA regimes that have issues arising from the tensions between secularism and Islam. Yes, the Sudan regime and HAMAS are "linked" in that they have Muslim Brotherhood members, but no, they're not linked through being subjects or tools of the Muslim Brotherhood.

btw i have given apologies .. are you suggesting this is wrong? occasionally ( not frequently NOT regularly .. to say you have lost count is simply childish ) i get things wrong and i rightly apologise ..

I'm talking about the amount of times you end up having to apologise because you've gone off half-cocked. Do you not think that to have to do so at such regular intervals says something about the strength of your arguments?

maybe you could look at all those who wrongly accuse me of being likud / zionist / etc etc

If people were to judge you by your statements over the past couple of weeks on the Gaza situation they might (notwithstanding your professions of anti-nationalism) draw those conclusions, and purely because of the way your criticism of the parties involved is asymmetric. You give the actions of the state of Israel a far easier ride than the actions of HAMAS in Gaza.

( and previously of rascism/ strasserism/nationalsim/zenophobia etc ) and wonder why they are so incapable of critical thought and honesty

I've often wondered during posts on Urban why MC5 is incapable of critical thought.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by durruti02
you are laughable in your critical abilities ..

That's rich coming from someone who relies on stuff that he's pulled off the Internet without verifying the source.

 

[durruti02]

I presume you mean "semantics"?
No, it isn't semantics.

YES!!!
As I've said, they have influence, they don't have power

No, if you read it and took it as gospel you'd probably be called an "arse" rather than a "Zionist stooge", because the author's agenda is fairly obvious from the first page, so if you don't "filter" what Levitt has written through the fact that he's a neocon fellow-traveller who spins his narrative accordingly you will indeed look like an arse.

It seems to me that you're not being constructive in the way you search for information. If you're attempting to present an argument, it's up to you to make the best argument you can, rather than using pernicious crap like that Itamar Marcus kak.

It's not a difference of interpretation, it's a difference of emphasis. [b[You[/b] appear believe that the Muslim Brotherhood link is some kind of proof of deep links between the Sudan regime and HAMAS, whereas I believe that the link is one shared with many ME/NA and CA regimes that have issues arising from the tensions between secularism and Islam. Yes, the Sudan regime and HAMAS are "linked" in that they have Muslim Brotherhood members, but no, they're not linked through being subjects or tools of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm talking about the amount of times you end up having to apologise because you've gone off half-cocked. Do you not think that to have to do so at such regular intervals says something about the strength of your arguments?

If people were to judge you by your statements over the past couple of weeks on the Gaza situation they might (notwithstanding your professions of anti-nationalism) draw those conclusions, and purely because of the way your criticism of the parties involved is asymmetric. You give the actions of the state of Israel a far easier ride than the actions of HAMAS in Gaza.

I've often wondered during posts on Urban why MC5 is incapable of critical thought.

another fair post vp

influence v. power .. ok i am really not sure about this .. all groups have factions so it woudl be hard to nail down ANY regime 100% .. but who else then are you suggesting has MORE influence ..

but i do disagree that they are not linked re MB membership ..

i have rarely made mistakes on urban VP .. and the onlty recent one is where i went off at belboid .. and it was not related to a internet or otherwise fact but that i said he had said something he had not

i will say again .. there are peopel all over these threads who do worse than me and are utterly incapable of fessing up .. you named one name of those who can not critically think .. but there are others who are utterly destructive of these threads

i have not givebn israel a hard ride .. boy oh boy .. i thought i was debating with peopel who ALL agreed the actiosn of israel are criminal utterly criminal .. sadly they have not the political understanding of nationalism and hence the genesis of iosrael and of hamas and hopw neither are a solution

now even IF people do not get this .. of

BUT do you thinnk it correct that someone accuses someone who has 3 times been to the israeli embassey pickets, who denies the right of a relegious state ( as israel is ) to exist, who denies the right of one group to take anothers land, who states clearly the fascist roots of major strands of zionism and who qoutes lenni brenner, who calls the attacks on gaza crimes against humanity and who calls what israel has done, ethic cleansing, you think it acceptable to accuse that person of being a zionist, a likud supportter and of being an ultra right wing nationalist???? .. all becuase i like most 'anarchists' find these issues rooted in nationalism and hence there solutions to be found without nationalism????


and does someone who qoutes benny morris become a supportter of ethnic cleansing?? this is all ridiculous

 

[ViolentPanda]

another fair post vp

influence v. power .. ok i am really not sure about this .. all groups have factions so it woudl be hard to nail down ANY regime 100% .. but who else then are you suggesting has MORE influence ..

I'm suggesting that like almost any other government, both the HAMAS government in Gaza and the ruling regime in Sudan are a patchwork of competing interests, and that influence and the amount of leverage it provides waxes and wanes from day to day and policy to policy. Even in authoritarian regimes this is the case, there's always a need for compromise from one faction or another.

but i do disagree that they are not linked re MB membership ..

I'm saying the link isn't as meaningful as you make it out to be, or you'd have to put quite a few North African, Central Asian and Middle Eastern regimes in the same bracket as HAMAS and the regime in Sudan, because they all have the same type of "link", i.e. MB members or "fellow-travellers" in their political hierarchies.

i have rarely made mistakes on urban VP .. and the onlty recent one is where i went off at belboid .. and it was not related to a internet or otherwise fact but that i said he had said something he had not

i will say again .. there are peopel all over these threads who do worse than me and are utterly incapable of fessing up .. you named one name of those who can not critically think .. but there are others who are utterly destructive of these threads.

I don't believe that MC5 can't think critically, I suspect that you annoy him so much he chooses not to.

i have not givebn israel a hard ride .. boy oh boy .. i thought i was debating with peopel who ALL agreed the actiosn of israel are criminal utterly criminal .. sadly they have not the political understanding of nationalism and hence the genesis of iosrael and of hamas and hopw neither are a solution

See, to me the above is a prime example of where you repeatedly trip up.
You compare "Israel" with "HAMAS". One is a state, the other is a political faction. You shouldn't compare them, but rather compare "Israel" with "Palestine" and "HAMAS" with "the state of Israel".
You talk about having given the actions of Israel (by which I suspect you mean "the state of Israel") a hard ride, but you've concentrated your opprobrium on HAMAS, you've decried the state of Israel pretty much as an addendum to decrying HAMAS, when the crimes of HAMAS have a scale and effect so many times smaller than those of the state of Israel. I'm all for condemning the illegal actions of HAMAS, but I prefer to condemn them in context to the reason they were taken in the first place.

now even IF people do not get this .. of

BUT do you thinnk it correct that someone accuses someone who has 3 times been to the israeli embassey pickets, who denies the right of a relegious state ( as israel is ) to exist, who denies the right of one group to take anothers land, who states clearly the fascist roots of major strands of zionism and who qoutes lenni brenner, who calls the attacks on gaza crimes against humanity and who calls what israel has done, ethic cleansing, you think it acceptable to accuse that person of being a zionist, a likud supportter and of being an ultra right wing nationalist???? .. all becuase i like most 'anarchists' find these issues rooted in nationalism and hence there solutions to be found without nationalism????

1) The number of protests you've attended is irrelevant unless you're playing Trotskyite Top Trumps.
2) The state of Israel is not a "religious state", being Jewish isn't a religion. It's a "Jewish state", which is just as bad because it makes the state culturally exclusive (i.e. non-Jewish cultures have no official sanction).
3) Quoting Lenni Brenner is all well and good, but doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
4) You dug your own grave. You uncritically (for someone who goes on about critical thinking) used two sources to support your arguments that were drawn from right-wing pro-Zionists. Of course people are going to query your allegiances. You should have seen through both Marcus and Levitt like a shot, but you were more concerned about winning an argument than doing something basic like actually checking your sources.

and does someone who qoutes benny morris become a supportter of ethnic cleansing?? this is all ridiculous

Context is everything, isn't it?