Ladies and Gentlemen, courtesy of the Guardian, the Ahmed Yassin we barely knew:
In truth, neither Arafat nor Yassin had Mandela’s special greatness. But of the two, it was Yassin, the founder-leader of the militant Islamist organisation Hamas, who came closer.
Yassin the wise, Yassin the benevolent, Yassin the humanitarian. He was a gift to mankind. It was said of Yassin that he could light up a room, though he generally preferred lighting up buses and cafes.
Yassin had personal glory largely thrust upon him.
Which ‘personal glory’ was so tragically snuffed out by an Israeli missile that was very largely thrust upon him.
Meanwhile, in the shadow of his formal career, he was laying the foundations of his future eminence as both a religious and political seer. He founded al-Mujamma’ al-Islami, the Islamic Centre, which soon came to control virtually all religious organisations – including the Islamic University – in Gaza.
What a wellspring of entrepreneurial endeavour. Yassin the man, the wit, the raconteur and the bon vivant will be sadly missed by his army of adoring fans (at the Guardian).
“Indeed, for most of his career, as a local leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Yassin shared its deep-rooted, strategically motivated opposition to direct, violent action against the Zionist foe, let alone of such an extreme and atrocious kind.”
Apparently there were no Zionists at Hatshepsut’s Tomb.
Is the Guardian written and edited on Planet Earth?
“Yassin the man, the wit, the raconteur and the bon vivant will be sadly missed by his army of adoring fans (at the Guardian).”
It would have been sad had the IDF missed him too. Fortunately, they didn’t.
Here is my take on what the Guardian might have written in 1945 if it then had its current group of intensely stupid writers and editors.
Dateline 1945
Today, Adolf Hitler, the elderly spiritual and political leader of the German people since 1933, overwhelmed by the intense pressures of the war to defend his homeland, died by his own hand rather than allow himself to be captured by ravening hordes of communist and allied troops hell-bent on killing him or subjecting him to a humiliating post-war trial.
Hitler had been suffering terribly from Parkinson’s disease and intermittent bouts of depression for some time, aggravated, no doubt, by efforts of traitorous Germans to remove him from his position as Fuehrer, and even to kill him.
Hitler had greatness and glory thrust upon him in the 1930’s as he rallied the German people to throw off the yoke of the brutally unfair Treaty of Versailles and worked tirelessly to lead Germany out of the Great Depression. Hitler’s prestige grew inexorably during the 1930’s. Even the Allied powers, his future enemies, appreciated his selfless and intense efforts to avoid war and achieve lasting peace during the negotiations at Munich in 1938. Even the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, recognized that the negotiations led by Hitler at Munich meant “Peace in our time.” It was only an isolated, discredited, bitter, bellicose, and unstable Winston Churchill, always a highly partisan critic of Hitler’s, who uncharitably characterized Munich as “a total and unmitigated defeat.” (Churchill held the prestigious position of First Lord of the Admiralty in World War I until he was discredited by the failure of his foolhardy Dardanelles invasion where the lives of many Australian troops were needlessly sacrificed. Churchill was subsequently demoted and sent the front line trenches in France.)
Domestically, Hitler was credited with rounding up many undesirables during the Night of the Long Knives, recognized for his charitable efforts in founding camps for displaced persons of Jewish origin, and hailed [heiled] for improving the literary content of German libraries. However, in spite of his best efforts, the ungrateful British never fully appreciated his accomplishments at urban renewal in the Greater London area. Hitler never withered under the glare of a publicity he could not escape. He became an accomplished speaker, hosted the 1936 Olympics with style, and endured the itnense spotlight of public adoration at Nuremburg as tens of thousands of intensely loyal Germans cheered him with salutes of Zieg Heil.
A decorated veteran of the front-line trenches on the Western Frontin World War I, Hitler is credited with returning the German military to its former glory and leading daring and brilliant military campaigns in defense of the Third Reich. He fell into misfortune when he was briefly imprisoned by shortsighted politicians in the 1920’s. However, Hitler did not allow himself to be deterred by this temporary setback. Unseen, unheard, and isolated in his prison cell, he applied himself to writing his epic work, Mein Kampf, in which he laid out his glorious vision for a new Germany and a new, united, and purified Europe.
Once released from prison, he tirelessly imbued his people with the self-evident glories of National Socialism and won a spectacular election as Chancellor in 1933. In the following years, through his unmatched charisma and foresight, he became Fuehrer of the Third Reich and led his people into a new golden age of power, prosperity, and lebensraum.
But it was the self-sacrificing zeal of his followers, enthusiastically implementing his inspired visions, that did so much to purify the Aryan blood lines and to mastermind new scientific advances ranging from the autobahn, to innovative policing methods, to advances in rocket science which may one day lead us into space, and to innovative new applications for showers and ovens.
Whether he truly intended it or not, he is likely to remain the embodiment of the German spirit and German aspirations for some time to come.
Herr Hitler’s loyal German Shepard, Blondi, and his adoring new young wife, Eva, were with him at the end, although they pre-deceased him by several minutes.
Private burial services were conducted shortly after his untimely death precipitated by the unrestrained fanatical violence employed by his enemies. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to The Fund for the Future of National Socialism (FFNS).
I came in late and my girlfriend told me “you’ll like this, the Isrealis have killed some terrorist in a wheelchair…”
“Yassin!” I cried, “geddin!”.
Had I known about it when I was still in the pub I would have raised a glass to the devils that were waiting for his shade to come wobbling and squeaking down that long path.
To say I was very pleased indeed would be an understatement – that bastard had sent more people to miserable deaths than an NHS waiting list.
And what does the Guardian do?. Lionises him. Toerags.
I have a very Pratchett distrust for “holy men”. Those who are the most “unworldly” and “holy”, are the most likely to be stacking humans as kindling. Unselfish, they don’t comprehend others’ selfish wish to live. Filled with conviction, they ignore conscience.
You forgot this part:
“He also offered more than the PLO ever could: a special kind of struggle that combined moral purity and social action with the promise of divine grace – not just redemption of the homeland, but salvation of the troubled soul as well.”
The author of the obit was David Hirst, who has written about the “rogue state” Israel as well. I’ve got an excerpt here:
Obituary Comparison Quiz
As a strong supporter of Palestine, I have mixed feelings about this. For one, as a US citizen, I am appaled that US weaponry was used in this (and other)assassination(s), and worry that the Palestinian resistance groups may start targeting Americans because of this fact. At the same time, I have little sympathy for both the tactics and political objectives of religious groups like Hamas, but recognize that there is little moral difference between their goal of an Islamic state and the Israeli reality of a Jewish state. I dont really understand what Israel hopes to achieve with such extrajudicial actions though as an American would rather not be associated with them.
I think the best strategy for the Palestinians to adopt at this point would be to drop the violent struggle and approach things more in terms of a civil rights struggle.
That is a truly contemptible piece of hagiography about a man who looked forward to “killing the last Jew”. Its pathetic attempt to suggest that a “suicidal” Israeli setller” somehow started off all the suicide bombings with the mosque murders beggars belief.
The comparisons to Mandela make my flesh crawl.
The article nicely elides any responsibility of the “religious and political seer” (so now he’s a prophet?) for the Israeli blood he was up to his neck in.
I thought the Hitler hagiography skit was particularly pointed.
I read elsewhere this morning that Hamas is having a heck of a time getting new recruits for martyrdom. Among other reasons, the premium paid to the families of suicide bombers has gone from $25,000 to around $11,000.
I was actually kind of comforted. Call me cynical, but I would rather face people who strap explosives to their children for money than people who do the same for god. At least the former is explicable, if appalling.
“The man in the street is usually not in a position to understand the entire political situation. He lacks the practice, the experience and above all the background necessary to form a clear and certain judgment. It is therefore entirely understandable why he dislikes theories and programs, and prefers to place his firm and confident faith in a personality.
A nation inclines to doctrines only when it is poor in personalities. But when a man of historic greatness stands at its head, one who not only wants to lead but is able to do so, the people will follow him with its whole heart, giving him its willing and obedient allegiance. Even more, it will put all of its love and their blind confidence behind him and his work.”
Goebbels speaking in 1939 on Hitler’s 50th birthday.
Now we know where the “Guardian” gets its inspiration.
Disgusted — Sorry, I meant to acknolwedge your prior post as an inspiration to mine. Hit my “send” button too early.
Disgusted — Sorry, I meant to acknowledge your prior post as an inspiration to mine. Hit my “send” button too early.
Dave: I have to agree. This obituary is amongst the vilest things I have seen in a long time.
I went into a local “Paki” shop this afternoon to buy some milk. The young man who served me was wearing a “Gates of Hell are Now Opened” T-Shirt.
This is a joke right? That can’t be a real article. Am I jut being naive?
I understand that Europeans have a peculiar need to see all sides of a conflict (especially the one opposite to America) and have descended into moral relativism to a degree that would be laughed at by even the moderate left in America, but this is downright distrubing.
Do Europeans really think like this? There is no way to come to a conclusion other than these people are genuinely sad. They really do think these terrorists are heroes, don’t they? This goes way beyond simply trying to understand both sides of a conflict.
Every day I get the feeling that Americans and Europeans have absolutely no common ground left. Europe is certainly determined to fill the void left by the Soviets.
I’ll ask the question again: Is this really representative of how Europe (Britain supposedly being the most clear headed of the “Old Europe” crowd) views the world?
So how does one contact Teh Grauniad to express one’s disgust? I can’t seem to find an e-mail address on their website
DSpears:
Europe’s morality is the morality of Karl Marx. The basic moral value of Marxism is that power and wealth are inherently evil; and that weakness and deprivation are inherently good.
The US is wealthy and powerful; therefore it is inherently evil. Its opponents are automatically raised to the height of morality no matter how depraved their actions might actually be. This is why you saw Euroleftists openly cheering for the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to defeat the US despite the well-known, documented disgustingness of both regimes.
Israel is also (comparatively) wealthy and powerful; therefore it is inherently evil. The Palestinians are weak and poor, so therefore they are inherently good, no matter how sickening the behavior of their leaders (and no matter that much of their poverty and weakness is their own fault).
Deliberately targeting children’s nurseries with bombs; using their own children as human shields and unwitting suicide bombers; torturing homesexuals to death; murdering their own daughters for the sake of “honor”; being inspired by “spiritual leaders” who preach hatred and plan murder — there is no standard of behavior so low that the Euroleft won’t accept it from the Palestinians.
From my guess, the Euroleft and its mindset influences about 80-85 percent of their media, academia and other established institutions. The percentages might be a bit less in Britain.
Dspears, this is my humble attempt to explain the European perspective on the world. I think that the main difference between us, and its no small thing, is that Europeans are more collectivist than individualistic in terms of how they see themselves in relation to others in society; I think that there is more of a ‘social conscience’ among Europeans than Americans, a stronger concept of ‘society’, a desire for equality and fairness for all, even if this means stooping to the lowest common denominator at times. (I believe however that this is changing and we are increasingly adopting the American outlook, particularly as a result of the increased number of economic migrants entering the country and the consequent perception that our hospitality is being abused).
In relation to the stance taken by the Guardian writer on Yassin’s assassination, I think what is behind it is the feeling that the Israeli/Palestinian battle is very unfair because the US backs the Israelis. The Palestinians are seen as the oppressed, who have nothing, which is why they resort to desperate measures (i.e suicide bombings) to get what they want. The feeling is that they would not be resorting to these measures if they had any other way of being heard. Therefore the leaders of these people are seen as brave warriors, defending their people against evil giants… Or something like that.
I’m sorry but, I can maybe see looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and coming to the conclusion that they are both wrong and that there are no good guys in this conflict. But to glorify and come to the defense of a group of people whose stated (as opposed to implied or nuanced) goal is to completely remove another group of people from the face of the Earth is indefensible.
In any other context that would be called genocide. You would think that a continent with such a disgusting and dismal history of anti-semitism would think through things a little more clearly than to support a group of people for whom “Mein Kampf” is looked at as a textbook, as opposed to the rantings of a lunatic.
Europe cannot explain this away with nuance, “complexity”, moral relativism or any other of the devices they continually use to blur the lines between right and wrong.
To even try to defend it says a lot.
Umm, in other words, sheila, Europe has adopted the “morality” of Karl Marx, just as I wrote above your post.
DSpears:
Actually, that is a common misconception. Many people equate the destruction of Israel with extermination of Jews. Even the most radical of the Palestinian groups, like Hamas, wish to replace the Jewishstate of Israel with an Islamic one. In my opinion, there is little moral difference between either extreme. I am personally in favor of a non-religious (secular) democracy in which Jews and Arabs can live with equal rights in all of Palestine. This was actually the pre-Madrid position of Fatah. (Arafat’s PLO)
“friend of palestine”
The state you describe as favoring already exists. It is called Israel. Over one million Arabs (Christian and Muslim) hold Israeli citizenship, vote, get elected, have newspapers, access to schools and hospitals, own businesses, have passports, travel freely in and out, and even work in the Israeli military and diplomatic service. Israel is a functioning liberal democracy with freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. Arabs in Israel enjoy rights that their cousins in Arab countries do not. Arabs in Israel are the most free Arabs in the Middle East. I don’t see them moving to Jordan or Syria or Saudi Arabia or joining the PLO or Hamas.
“Lewis”
I thought Israel was a Jewish state. Millions of people with valid claims to the land which is now a Jewish state have no right to vote, indeed they dont even have the right to live on their own land! Millions more have the privilege of living under military rule, are subjected to harrasment, ridicule, confinement, curfews, torture and killing. Trust me, this is not the kind of state that I favor!
“Many people equate the destruction of Israel with extermination of Jews. Even the most radical of the Palestinian groups, like Hamas, wish to replace the Jewishstate of Israel with an Islamic one.”
I don’t know what Hamas’ plan is for all of the Jews in the world who don’t live in Israel (I know they don’t like them much either and would probably prefer them all dead), but step one of replacing the Jewish state of Israel with a Palestinian state involves killing every Jew there. This is their stated goal, it is not a “misconception” or a distortion. This is in their own charter.
This is just the kind of moral relativist garbage that has destroyed the credibility of Europeans. Hitler would be very proud of the socialist anti-semite utopia that Europe has become these days.
“This is just the kind of moral relativist garbage that has destroyed the credibility of Europeans. Hitler would be very proud of the socialist anti-semite utopia that Europe has become these days.”
This is the kind of ignorant self-righteous generalisation that continues to destroy the credibility of Americans in much of the world.
Hitler would be horrified by Europe today. Untermenschen; Jews, people with dark skin, people with weak bodies, are breeding freely with members of the master race. Young people listen to music made by the descendents of African slaves, & strive to emulate their suggestive dances. Here in the UK, people from the Indian subcontinent are everywhere, diluting our proud anglo-saxon heritage…. and listen to this, a huge proportion of the population don’t give a damn!
You have to hunt hard to find an antisemite outside of ignorant recent immigrants from Muslim countries (and due credit to various right-wing American journalists for going that extra mile to dig up a few).
It is *possible* that Europeans are misinterpreting the Israeli situation, but to lay this at the door of some latent antisemitism is pure ignorant. As i’ve pointed out in this blog before, I’ve lived in a number of European countries, and have come across quite a few people I would describe as racist. Not one of them expressed any kind of antisemitic feelings, & they were not prone to pc-inspired self censorship.
This “moral relativist garbage” just says “hey, maybe this isn’t as simple as one side being utterly right, & the other utterly wrong. Maybe sometimes where there’s a conflict, it’s about more than just pure good and bad.”, which admittedly makes the world a less simple place; sorry, but seems to fit the real world somewhat better.
Having said all this, and returning to the original point, I think the Guardian’s elevation of this dude to saint-like status was pretty weird. At the end of the day, I’m not sorry to see the back of him, though I fear the consequences of killing him may outweigh any benefit his absence may bequeath to the world.
Dspears:
Killing every Jew there? And you say this is in their own charter?? Could you point out to me where in the Hamas charter this is stated?
This is what I saw in the Hamas charter:
??? I’m not sure if I understand what you are trying to say here? What do moral relativism or European socialism have to do with the political objectives of groups like Hamas? (or other more moderate Palestinian freedom fighting groups?)
Dspears:
Sorry, i forgot to include the link to the translation of the Hamas charter that I looked at:
http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html
Again, could you point out where in this charter it calls for “killing every Jew there”?
I think the Guardian may have accidently tripped over the truth in comparing noted terrorist Ahmed Yassin to noted terrorist Nelson Mandela. Mandela’s boys used to handcuff the feet and hands of a victim together, douse a tire in petrol, stick it over the head of their victim, and light it.
– Josh
friend of Palestine: Hamas wants a radical Islamic state in Israel. Islamic law is not a just or humane or “tolerant” system of law: it discriminates foully against all non-Muslims.
The quote you bring from the Hamas charter is nonsense. There is no such thing as “equality” for non-Muslims under Islamic law. “Tolerance” in Islam means that that non-Muslims are allowed to live as long as they accept being second-class citizens and accept practicing their religions in secret and many other humiliations and inequities.
Please read up on Islamic law before spouting off about how “tolerant” it would be. And read about it from the primary sources — the actual manuals of Islamic law like Reliance of the Traveller — not from Western-based apologists like Badawi or El-Fadl.
spiritual leader, my ass. i’ve scraped better things than yassin off the bottom of my lousy sneakers on a hot summer’s day. he was old, blind, and parapalegic? good: made it harder for the evil bastard to run away.
Friend of Palestine: You missed the point. The Arabs who live in Israel, not in Gaza or the West Bank, but in Israel, live quite well. They have all the rights denied Arabs in Arab countries, e.g., they vote, they run for office, have freedom of speech, assembly and property ownership. Arabs who stayed in Israel after partition, i.e., those who rejected the calls by the Arab world to defy the UN and to destroy the new state of Israel, have done quite well. You don’t see them fleeing to Saudi Arabia or Syria or joining the late “spiritual” Yassin and his Hamas in blowing up school buses.
The Arabs who responded to calls by the Grand Mufti (a Nazi ally) and the Arab states to leave Israel and help destroy it, well, they haven’t done very well. They were placed in refugee camps by their fellow Arabs and the UN and kept there as essentially political pawns — one could even say, political prisoners. That contrasts, of course, with how Israel treated some one million Jews who were expelled from Arab countries — don’t see any UN-sponsored camps for them, do you? And, of course, Jordan moved in and occupied the West Bank — which was supposed to be part of an Arab Palestinian state — until Israel defeated Jordan in 1967. During the time that Jordan occupied the West Bank, we, of course, saw no calls for Intifada against Jordan or UN condemantion of Jordan for illegally occupying the West Bank — or of Egypt for its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. No, all that outrage is reserved for the Jewish state.
So it seems that you join those who have a problem with Israel because it is a Jewish state. Or perhaps I am mistaken and you have the same problem with England because it is an Anglican state? Or with any number of other European, Latin American or Asian countries that also extend official recognition to a religion? Or is it only with the one and only Jewish state?
Lewis:
I agree. However, there is a good deal of sympathy amongst this group for their brethren in diaspora and in the WB and Gaza. I imagine that given the choice, they would rather live in a secular democratic state rather than a Jewish state, even though many elements of the former are found in the latter.
Again, I agree. However many who left did so not because the Mufti told them to do so, but because they feared for their lives. Also, amongst those who chose to stay, some were either killed or driven out.
Well, that should tell you something, no? Interesting that there is also a lot less opposition to the Syrian presence in Lebanon than there was to the Israeli presence.
Well…yes. But not a personal problem. The only problem I have with a Jewish state in Palestine is that the vast majority of the non-Jewish residents of Palestine (as well as the descendants of non Jewish residents of Palestine who no longer live there) seem to have a problem with a Jewish state there. Wouldnt it be better to have a state that is acceptable to all who have a valid claim to the land that is Palestine?
Susan:
I dont seem to remember “spouting off” about how “tolerant” Islamic law would be. Could you point out to me where I did so?
To be honest, I’m not very well informed on the nuances of Islamic law. (though I used to live in Saudi Arabia) I will look into the sources you mentioned.
The point of my post was neither to defend nor advocate an Islamic state, but merely to point out that in my opinion, there is little moral difference between one kind of religious state over another. (practicalities are another matter altogether…) The kind of state that I would personally favor in Palestine (and anywhere else, for that matter) would have to be a secular democracy. (like the US model)
Susan – yes. The EU is Marxist. Sheila seems to be rather out of her depth, as she failed to appreciate she was repeating, but in more vapid, cloudier language, exactly you had written with precision in your previous post.
Don’t know about Germany, but in France, the papers are propaganda organs of the government. This isn’t the case in Britain – except for the Beeb, which everyone takes with a pinch of salt anyway. The previously neutral Times has turned a bit Blairy-fairy, but as soon as Rupert Murdoch signals time’s up for Blair, they’ll be supporting whomever he chooses next. The Telegraph’s conservative and independent spirited. The Daily Mail and Sunday Mail are conservative. The Spectator is (nominally) conservative, although its thought process seems to become duller and more fragmented by the week under the disastrous editorship of Boris Johnson (sorry, Andy). The Scotsman, although lefty leaning, is a very fair-minded. In fact, at the moment, as The Telegraph Group doesn’t have a proprietor, I would say The Scotsman is probably the best paper in Britain.
Then we have the usual suspects: Al-G’arday’an, The Independent and the Observer – radical left.
The tabloid Murdoch-owned The Sun officially backs Blair, but the political editor doesn’t like Blair and frequently writes good pieces against him. And its columnist Richard Littlejohn famously loathes Blair and Cherie and the whole lefty edifice and writes pieces dipped in heartwarming vitriol. (The editor, lefty extraordinaire Rebekka Wade, has no power to change a word he writes.)
So our media is in much livelier, more independent shape than the media on the continent.
Here is an interesting article from the Cato Institute about how things may (hopefully) turn out:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-04-2.html
🙂 Verity’s world never ceases to surprise:
“in France, the papers are propaganda organs of the government. This isn’t the case in Britain – except for the Beeb”
Aha.. yes, two little-known facts:
-France is actually like the Soviet Union in the 70s. They just hide it better. Freedom there is an illusion, but most of the French are utterly taken in, and would blithely claim they were free if asked. The fools! Only Anglosphere observers can see this however, because the view’s so much clearer from their homes on the moral high ground.
-The Beeb is controlled by the UK government. The little spat they had recently, & their “anti-war stance”, which contradicted the government line, was actually all part of a fiendishly clever double-bluff intended to umm… er… hmm… ok, i’ll get back to you on that one.
Verity, I am rather surprised and gratified that you took the time and effort to refer to my post at all, seeing as it was written in “vapid, cloudy” language, by someone “out of her depth”. Or was it in fact the content, not the style, that you were uncomfortable with?
However, seeing as you have taken an interest in what I have to say, allow me to illuminate you on a few points. There were two very good reasons why I “failed to appreciate” I was repeating Susan’s comments;
1) I wasn’t repeating them (unless you see the world in very distorted black-and-white terms).
2) I was responding to Dspears’ post.
Hope this hasn’t been too cloudy.
Friend of Palestine: you lovingly quoted excerpts from the Hamas charter which discussed how Jews, Muslims and Christians would live “under the shadow of Islam”.
What the hell do you think they mean by “under the shadow of Islam”? It means Islamic Law and Islamic hegemony.
And Islamic Law ain’t pretty. At all.
I fail to see how anyone can support Hamas and at the same time say they are in favor of a secular, multi-cultural state in Israel/Palestine.
For one thing, secularism is forbidden by Islamic law.
Friend of Palestine: Hitler couldn’t have said it any better. Blame the Jew. If non-Jews are unhappy, get rid of the Jews.
Friend of Palestine
Friend of Palestine: Hitler couldn’t have said it any better. Blame the Jew. If non-Jews are unhappy, get rid of the Jews.
FOP..you say: “..the best strategy for the Palestinians to adopt at this point would be to drop the violent struggle and approach things more in terms of a civil rights struggle.” Well, “best strategy” depends on what you want to accomplish. Evidence strongly suggests that those who lead the Palestinians want to accomplish one thing: bloodshed. It’s an end, not a means. Can you imagine these “leaders” settling down to run farms, schools, businesses? They would view such a life as beneath contempt. It’s like suggesting that WWII could have been settled by giving Hermann Goering an assignment to run Lufthansa…