Charlie

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by Nicolas Sawaya in Islam, Terrorism

Tags

I stand with freedom of speech, and the right of everyone, including bigots and racists, to freely express themselves and their ideas; as such,‪#‎jesuisCharlie. I do not stand with or support the freely expressed opinions of everyone, in particular those of racists and bigots; as such,‪#‎jenesuispasCharlie.

I understand and appreciate the position of many of my Muslim friends who have chosen to publically condemn the massacres and who have tried to explain that Islamic teachings do not condone in the slightest these attacks in order to educate, but I stand with my Muslim friends who refuse, on principle, to condemn these attacks. The latter refuse to condemn not because they condone these attacks (they don’t), and not because they don’t support freedom of speech (they do), and not because they don’t consider this to be a heinous attack on innocent civilians (they do), but because they refuse to play this condemnation game whose underlying logic they recognize as essentially bigoted. I say bigoted because the implicit logic here is that unless they publically condemn this attack, they are deemed to be complicit in this attack by virtue of their silence, and solely because they share the same faith as extremists who claim to be acting in defense of that faith. As such, their refusal to condemn is a refusal to acknowledge this bigoted logic. On a deeper level, the fact that they feel it necessary to take this principled stance is a reflection of a certain Zeitgeist, especially in the West, that has permeated social discourse on these issues. Sometimes, this is explicitly vocalized by aforementioned bigots in the form of “why aren’t the moderate Muslims speaking out against these attacks!?”, but most of the time, it is more subtle and expressed in the form of suspicion and un-trust towards Muslims in different spheres of life. This creates a poisonous atmosphere where the targeted group begins to feel the walls closing in; thus defiance and the principled stand.

I do not stand with hypocritical proclamations coming from the leaders of France about their unequivocal support for freedom of speech as a universal value that ought to be protected and that serves as a fundamental pillar of French values. I say hypocritical because when freedom of speech is elevated to a universal value (as it should be), but only selectively enforced, then that claim to universality is automatically undermined. Leaving aside the historical fact that the French law advocating for freedom of speech, passed in 1881, was explicitly shaped to exclude France’s colonial subjects, including Algerian Muslims, from exercising that freedom, freedom of speech continues to be selectively enforced today across different facets of French policy. It is selectively enforced within France when that freedom of speech is not accorded to some who wish to criticize certain religions or events, and selectively enforced when it interferes with certain business interests of the French Republic. The latter is especially ironic when one examines the relationship between France and Saudi Arabia. At the same exact moment that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were occurring, a world away in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi blogger by the name of Raif Badawi was publically flogged 50 times in public for running a liberal website that criticized Saudi rulers and the ruling Wahhabi ideology. Badawi was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to 1000 public lashes (50 of which were administered a few days ago) and 10 years of prison for exercising his freedom of speech. Meanwhile, France has been busy supplanting the US in becoming Saudi Arabia’s leading arms dealer; Hollande, in particular, has been leading this charge. Raif Badawi’s freedom of speech, which he used to criticize this ideology that is responsible for so much of the Islamic extremism that we see today including the Charlie Hebdo massacres, is one that is conveniently not being supported by France, by virtue of their continued business dealings with the Saudis. And to be clear, Badawi is not the only victim of this oppression: Mohammed al-Qahtani, Abdullah al-Hamid, Mohammed al-Bajadi, Abd- al-Kareem al-Khodr, Omar al-Saeed and countless others have had their freedom of speech denied by the Saudi state, and yet, their freedom of speech is not deemed worthy of being defended by France (by for instance, terminating their arms deals with the Saudis).

These dynamics and other underlying issues that I’ve failed to highlight in this post are worthy of being examined and unpacked as a result of this tragedy, so hopefully, we can have a good discussion that goes beyond the usual clichés.

To moderate Muslims: Condemn!

16 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by Nicolas Sawaya in Islam, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Islam, Terrorism

Every time some atrocity is committed by some individual or group “in the name of Islam”, you inevitably hear someone say: “why aren’t the moderate Muslims condemning this atrocity?”. I’m really tired of hearing this complaint over and over again. Here’s why:

1) There are “moderate Muslims” that condemn this atrocity. There are many who do so in English, and many more that do so in Arabic. The fact that you haven’t heard anyone condemning it (by virtue of you asking the question) reflects more on you than anyone else: you should either consider befriending more Muslims and/or learn Arabic. In fact, there is quite the vigorous debate within the Arab/Islamic world about whether Islam allows for the atrocious acts to be done in its name. So that we don’t hide behind our finger (like we say in Arabic), yes, there are fundamentalist schools of Islamic thought that have been adopted by some in the Muslim world, and yes, they do have access to funds. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Islamic schools of thought and their scholars (and by extension, their adherents) do not condone these atrocities.

2) There is clearly a double standard when it comes to atrocities committed by some “in the name of Islam” vs. others committed in the name of some other religion. For example, take the state of Israel, an admittedly Jewish state that purports to speak on behalf of Jews world-wide. Does anyone ask “moderate Jews” to condemn the heinous atrocities and massacres committed by the State of Israel against Palestinians and other Arabs? Or what about Christian Zionists who provide invaluable financial, political and moral support to the State of Israel in committing these atrocities by virtue of their interpretation of the Bible? Does anyone ask “moderate Christians” to condemn the support provided by Christian Zionists to the State of Israel in committing these atrocities? Or what about the group of fundamentalist Buddhists of Myanmar who have no problem massacring the Rohingya Muslims? Does anyone ask “moderate Buddhists” to condemn these massacres? The list goes on and on.

3) Most importantly, Muslims shouldn’t be asked to condemn anything at all done in the name of Islam in the first place. I don’t tend to use the racist or bigot card very often, but the statement “why aren’t the moderate Muslims condemning this atrocity?” is actually a bigoted statement, and demonstrably so. The statement implies that the lack of explicit condemnation is (tacit) approval, for otherwise, why ask the question? To be clear, the implication here is that unless there is explicit condemnation by some (moderate) Muslims, then *all* Muslims (tacitly) approve of this atrocity. This follows logically, for if you believed that there were moderate Muslims that didn’t approve but chose to be quiet for instance, then you wouldn’t be asking for explicit condemnation (since you would already know that there were “moderate” Muslims that didn’t approve of this atrocity, but chose to be quiet). As such, anytime anyone claims that *all* members of a group are “fill in the blank”, he is clearly making a bigoted statement. This applies to any and all groups, whether Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists or anyone else.

In conclusion, just stop with the complaining, and examine your own assumptions.

Does Hamas declare intended targets?

13 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by Nicolas Sawaya in Palestine, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Hamas, Palestine, Rocket

Qassam Rocket [Getty Images]

Following up on an earlier post, some people have asked: is it true that Hamas declares that their intended targets are Israeli soldiers and/or military targets before launching rockets or mortars into Israel, or crossing into Israel through “terror” tunnels? Aren’t all of their attacks intentionally indiscriminate and aim to target civilian population centers?

I cannot claim that every rocket or mortar launch into Israel is preceded by an explicit declaration of a military target simply because finding documented evidence of every instance is impossible, but I can claim that there are multiple instances where they have explicitly declared so, and instances where their rockets or mortars into Israel or cross-border crossings through tunnels specifically killed only soldiers (hard to chalk that up to pure luck; as such, good evidence that the intended target was indeed military in nature). Below, I’ve compiled several examples of such cases.

Also, I can refer to statements by Hamas and the Commander in Chief of the military wing of Hamas (the Qassam brigade) where he explicitly declares that Hamas does not seek to target civilians when engaging in rocket or mortar launches, or crossing into Israel through tunnels, but on the contrary, that their intended targets are military in nature (again, see below).

Finally, I want to also emphasize that the purpose of the post is expository in nature, and that I do not support certain means of resistance that Hamas has (historically) engaged in or their ideology. I do, however, support the right of any oppressed people to engage in (legitimate) armed struggle (i.e. hitting non-civilian targets), which is a right that is broadly acknowledged. In addition, I also support honesty in reporting. Too often, in major Western media and even in reports by respected Human Rights organizations, these things are simply not reported, and the blanket statement that “Hamas indiscriminately launches rockets at civilian population centers” or that “terror tunnels aim to kill civilians” are simply accepted as fact. Judge for yourself.

July 10

“Hamas claimed responsibility for the rocket fire on Jerusalem, saying the rockets were aiming for the Knesset.”
“Hamas also took responsibility for those attacks, and said it fired its long-range rockets for the first time since fighting began, in an attempt to hit an army base”

July 17

“Like most other journalists, Jones is ignoring the fact that in their statements, Hamas and other resistance factions regularly declare military targets. As the brilliant Nazareth-based journalist Jonathan Cook often points out, tight Israeli military restrictions on reporting the landing locations of Resistance rockets makes this all hard to verify.”

July 22

“كتائب القسام تعلن قصف قاعدة التنصت الإسرائيلية 8200 ب3 صواريخ غراد“

Translation: “Qassam battalions declare the rocketing of the 8200 eavesdropping base with 3 Grad missiles”. Note that unit 8200 is the Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) unit of the Israeli Intelligence Corps

July 28

“Four Israeli soldiers were killed when a mortar shell fired from Gaza struck southern Israel on Monday, the army said” […] “The Zionist enemy acknowledges that four of its soldiers were killed and 10 wounded in a Qassam shelling in Eshkol,” said a statement from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas.”
“The four soldiers killed by the mortar belonged to the 7th Armored Brigade. They had been in a staging area in the Eshkol region when they were killed. The mortar attack represented the deadliest incident of cross-border shelling from Gaza since the beginning of the IDF’s operation to suppress Hamas rocket fire and tunnel attacks on southern regions.”

July 29 (this one is related to the “terror” tunnels)

“The Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa TV broadcasted Tuesday night a video allegedly showing militants of its Al-Qassam brigades attacking an Israeli military base, killing 10 soldiers and attempting to capture one. The video allegedly shows combatants belonging to Hamas’s military wing equipped with machine guns and portable rocket launchers going out of a tunnel and appearing next to what was reported as “an armored enormous military tower,” belonging to the Nahol Aouzunit of the Israeli army.”
“Hamas operatives aim primarily to abduct soldiers and not to penetrate into civilian communities along the border with Gaza, a senior intelligence source said Monday” […] The intelligence source, however, said that of the nine cross-border tunnels detected, none actually stretches into the grounds of a civilian community. “They could have gone 500 meters more, into the kibbutz,” he said. “Why didn’t they do that?

July 29 (Statement by Muhammad Al-Dayf)

This is the statement of Muhammad Al-Dayf, Commander in Chief of the Qassam Brigades (Hamas’ armed wing) The relevant statement starts at 2:14 in the above youtube video, where he explicitly declares that Hamas targets Israeli soldiers only, and that they do not seek to cause harm to civilians.
“The general commander of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian movement Hamas, said that Gaza fighters are only targeting Israeli soldiers and have not sought to hurt civilians […] Thirdly, he stressed that Hamas is targeting Israeli soldiers only, and is not seeking to cause harm to civilians. This is, he adds, despite Israel’s “deliberate” killing of Palestinian civilians”.

August 4

We Don’t Target Israeli Civilians’, Claims Hamas”

“At the same time, the statement claimed, Hamas is not trying to harm Israelis with its rocket attacks, only military personnel and installations […] During the campaign we tried as much as possible to focus on targeting military personnel, soldiers and officers of the enemy, its military bases and airports, and avoided as much as possible targeting someone who is not a military person,” Hamas claimed”

Indiscriminate Rockets

12 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by Nicolas Sawaya in Palestine, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Hamas, Palestine, Rocket

Qassam Rocket [Getty Images]

I’ve had several recent conversations with friends and colleagues of mine about Gaza, and there’s one point that constantly comes up about Hamas rockets. I should mention that this point (discussed below) also comes up when reading Western NGO reports, even those that are sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view.

The notion that Hamas rockets are launched indiscriminately has already been discussed and countered, in the sense that Hamas typically declares a military target before launching their rockets. But even if they are willing to acknowledge this (and often they will not because this is not circulated in the Western press), they will argue that given that Hamas knows how crude their rockets are, there is a good chance that the rockets will miss their targets (despite intended military target) and hit a civilian home or a non-military target. Therefore, the argument goes, given the relatively low expected success rate, launching rockets even when declaring a military target is still not acceptable because of the high probability of civilian damage.

Leaving aside the ironical (and tragic) fact that the supposedly more accurate high-tech missiles that Israel launches cause way more civilian damage than crude Hamas rockets, there’s something more sinister (though perhaps unintentional) in the reply above: the implication is that the oppressed have no right to resist through (legitimate) armed struggle because they are poor. In essence, the supposed accuracy of the missiles (or rockets) is license to launch them, and the lack of access to this high-tech supposedly “accurate” technology ablates the possibility of acquiring that license. As such, given that the oppressed are typically resource-deprived and thus poor and are therefore confined to low-tech non-guided rockets, their poverty becomes the reason for the lack of acquisition of this license (to engage in legitimate armed struggle).

To me, it is this conclusion that is unacceptable, and so I ask: in some imaginary world, if Palestinian resistance groups were given the same high-tech weaponry as that possessed by the Israelis, would that change your perspective? Their answer is never a comfortable yes…

Notes from the Gazan Margin

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Nicolas Sawaya in Palestine, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Gaza, Palestine

Bombed residential complex in southern Gaza [AP]

Crude Hamas rockets are always launched indiscriminately at population centers, while high-tech, guided Israeli missiles always seek to surgically strike Hamas militants or infrastructure. In reality, however, Hamas often declares military targets before launching their rockets (but you need to understand or read Arabic to know that), and sometimes manages to hit these military targets (as they have recently). In fact, Hamas rockets have killed more soldiers than civilians. But if they miss despite intended and declared military target (and they often do), can we call Israeli civilian casualties “collateral damage”? Israel, on the other hand, indiscriminately kills civilians in their supposed surgical strikes on militants or military infrastructure. In fact, despite possessing vastly superior technology (or perhaps because of that), Israel has managed to kill more than 5 civilians for every militant killed. So either Israel is deliberately killing civilians, or Western media that engage in this “fetishization of technology” need to shut up; or both.

A medical surgeon with a success rate equivalent to Israel’s “surgical strike” track record would be sued out of existence instantaneously. I repeat, for every militant killed, more than 5 civilians have been killed: 2 males, 1 female, 2 children. I’m insisting on explicitly pointing that 2 out of 5 are male. Too often, male civilian casualties are literally ignored, or at best, relegated to the margins of mental math, as in 1200 civilians have been killed, including 200 women and 400 children (which these days, is as good as completely ignoring them because no one knows how to do mental math). Do they not warrant explicitly highlighting because they’re males of fighting age, which gasp, implies they could, potentially, in theory, deep-down in their heart of hearts be Hamas terrorists? These victims are stuck in the gray zone.

Speaking of victims, if, for whatever reason, you refuse to or cannot leave your house, your hospital, your school or your UNRWA shelter (which you sought as shelter precisely because you chose to or were able to leave your house, your hospital or your school) despite innocuous, gentle-sounding knock-on-the-roof warnings by your friendly and magnanimous Israeli Defense Forces, you’re a Human Shield and you deserve to die.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen stories in Israeli media of suicide donkeys and cows dying. We know Israel engages in Pink Washing; are they trying to attract animal activists now?

If we accept the definition of terrorism commonly used in today’s vernacular as the deliberate use of violence (or threat thereof) to enact political ends (and I’m aware of the controversy around this and any definition of terrorism, but the word is used in shaping discourse and therefore needs to be defined somehow to mean something), it’s quite ironic that the creation of the state of Israel is the quintessential example of a state born into existence though terrorism. To be specific, I’m not only talking about Irgun and Lehi terrorism, but pointing to all ethnic cleansing of villages and massacres perpetrated before the declaration of independence in May of 1948 which were instrumental in the creation of the State (which is accepted even by the Israelis as “necessary” to birth the State). I simply don’t see how the latter are not precisely terror acts (they fit the definition to a tee).

Along the above lines, acts such as deliberately engaging in the blockading of a population, deliberately targeting and destroying power plants and/or waste water treatment facilities are acts of terror. Indeed, per the commonly accepted definition above, there is no restriction on the nature of the actor: as such, a state can engage in acts of terror; and there is no restriction on the nature of the violence: as such, this violence can be direct, as in the deliberate targeting of civilians for political ends, or indirect, as in the deliberate restriction of movement of goods (blockade) or the deliberate targeting of infrastructure (power plants, waste water treatment facilities) that (indirectly) targets civilians for political ends, in the sense that the intended goal is to make life miserable enough for the civilian population (and often leads to death) in order to put pressure on them to reject their rulers. Along those lines, why is “collective punishment” not explicitly labeled as terrorism?

Hamas uses their network of tunnels to smuggle food and basic goods into Gaza (because you know, Gaza has been under blockade for 7 years), weapons (including rockets) and as a means to infiltrate into Israel to kill Israeli soldiers (not a single civilian has been killed in 7 years by virtue of these tunnels, but many Israeli soldiers have). As long as Hamas declares a military target when they launch their rockets into Israel (which as mentioned above, they often do), will the media re-label these “terror tunnels” as “legitimate resistance tunnels”?

I haven’t heard a single liberal Western interventionist cry out that NATO needs to intervene to stop the massacres going on in Gaza. Remember those days when every talking head on TV was asking the U.S. and NATO to act to prevent the inevitable Benghazi massacre about to be committed by Gaddafi? Remember the philosophical discussions around Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Humanitarian Interventionism? Just remember that the Palestinian Cause is *the* litmus test par excellence in revealing hypocrisy.