Thursday, April 23, 2009

Updated and Expanded: The Anglo-American Pro-Hamas Lobby (see new postscript)

RubinReports

23 Apr 2009 05:39 AM PDT
The following article is by my colleague at our Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. What makes this piece a real scoop is that Dr. Spyer reveals how the EU is financing a group lobbying to gain Hamas and Hizballah--two terrorist and revolutionary Islamist groups tied to Iran--recognition, concessions, and support in the West. This is nothing short of a scandal.
[See a new postscript about the latest statements of Hamas]

By Jonathan Spyer

A meeting was meant to take place April 23 in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, adjoining the House of Commons in London. The planned meeting, entitled "Talk with Hamas," featured that group's most powerful leader, Khaled Mashal, speaking from Damascus to an audience of parliament member and journalists. But he never spoke because the video conference link didn't work. Still, the fact that the meeting was being held at all is the important point, and it shows the workings of the pro-Hamas lobby in London, and the West more generally.

This meeting was the latest event in an ongoing and organized campaign to break the Western boycott of Hamas and transform policy toward the organization. Much energy is being expended in the UK. But London is only a way station, with the real prize being the transformation of the US stance.

In turn, this campaign is part of a larger effort to change the way that the West sees Islamist movements - and by doing so to bring many of the arguments made by such movements into the mainstream.

Who is behind this effort? The invitation came from the office of Independent Member of Parliament Clare Short.

However, it was issued in the name of John, Lord Alderdice. This name immediately offers a pointer. Alderdice, a veteran Northern Irish politician, is head of the board of advisers of an organization called Conflicts Forum.

Conflicts Forum is jointly led by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry. Crooke is a former British intelligence officer, while the US-based Perry is described by the organization's website as a "military, intelligence and foreign affairs analyst." It describes its aim as opening "a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world."

What this anodyne phrase means in practice is revealed in a remarkably frank document published by this group, in which it explains the means it intends to use to bring about the basic change in perception that will bring Hamas and Hizbullah into the mainstream.

The document notes the need to build a "link-up between activist groups and mobilizers of opinion in order to shift the debate on Islamism from a predominantly defensive posture to a positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking."

It suggests, "Articulation of Hamas's and Hizballah's values, philosophy and wider political and social programs....Being more proactive in statements and rephrasing discourse to focus on the positive aspects of Islamist ideology."

The Conflicts' Forum publication lays down a precise strategy for promoting Hamas and Hizbullah. The various public relations' devices include:

"Use influential individuals--key Muslim personalities...use the Internet, DVD, interviews, podcasts....Link with mass organizations in Western countries--social movements, trade unions - to challenge hegemonic discourse. Approach editors of established journals... with a view to the possibility of them doing a special issue on Islamist thinking or on particular issues."

Undoubtedly, the attempted video link between Hamas HQ in Damascus and the Grimond Room in Portcullis House was meant to be a worthy contribution to this extensive effort to "re-brand" Hamas and Hizballah.

The UK, and the EU as a whole, remain committed to the Quartet conditions which Hamas must meet to become a partner for dialogue. Hamas (or at least its "military wing") remains on the EU list of proscribed terror organizations.

A cursory observation of the backers of Conflicts' Forum, however, reveals a curious paradox. In January 2007, the group proudly announced that it had been awarded a grant of €500,000 by the EU, to develop "more inclusive and legitimate approaches to transforming the Middle East conflict." More specifically, the project entails the "engagement" of "faith-based movements."
So the EU, while currently opposing "engagement" with Hamas, also appears to be offering financial support to a body engaged in lobbying for the organization.

How important are the efforts of Conflicts Forum and its associated groups? Are initiatives such as Wednesday's planned meeting likely to have a tangible effect on policy?

Britain has, of course, already announced that it intends to hold talks with Hizbullah. On Hamas, however, no immediate significant shift in British government policy looks likely.

The Hamas Lobby is busy and active. It encompasses former senior diplomats such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, as well as the Conflicts Forum nexus.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has praised the Egyptian role in managing dialogue with Hamas in the following terms: "Others speak to Hamas. That's the right thing to do, and I think we should let the Egyptians take this forward."

A knowledgeable source noted that many in the Foreign Office consider that engagement with the group is a "matter of time."

Still, for as long as the United States remains firmly committed to insisting that Hamas first abide by the three Quartet conditions (committing to nonviolence, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous agreements and obligations), the UK is unlikely to break ranks openly. Differences might well surface if a Palestinian coalition government that included Hams were to be formed. But this currently looks highly improbable.

Ultimately, the main obstacle to the success of Lord Alderdice, Clare Short and their friends in Conflicts' Forum may well be the nature of their client. Hamas leaders have an unfortunate tendency to be candid regarding their movement's goals. This makes presenting the "positive aspects of Islamist ideology" something of a challenge.

Hamas "Foreign Minister" Mahmoud Zahar, for example, speaking last week, stated bluntly that "[Hamas] will never recognize the enemy [Israel] in any way, shape or form."

A few months ago, the same speaker asserted that "they [Jews] have legitimized the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine....They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."

Spinning statements of that kind into moderation would pose a challenge to the smoothest of PR operators. But as the planned Portcullis House meeting showed, Hamas possesses an experienced, well-oiled, well-funded (largely by the European taxpayer) lobby in the heart of London.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer, senior fellow, is my colleague at our GLORIA Center


Postscript [from Barry Rubin]: Just as distinguished and very well-mannered British apologists for Hamas were holding a meeting explaining that Hamas is misunderstood, the group continues its openly antisemitic and genocidal rhetoric. See for yourself.

In a recent booklet entitled The Zionist Holocaust, here is what Hamas has to say:

Page 10: "that country, the one called `Israel'...believes only in killing and destruction...some of its principles are endless fighting, shedding blood and corruption. For the Jews, all men are flocks of lambs [i.e., fit for slaughter], while only they [the Jews] are fit to live ...”

Page 221: The Palestinians have only two options, to surrender or wiping out Israel and the Jews.

Oh and the Introduction is written by Ismail Haniya, who is often referred to as a "moderate" and the leader of Hamas's "political wing."

[Memo to Haniya: That was very clever of you to hide the Hamas leadership and set up its command post in Shifa hospital. That way if Israel attacked you could accuse it of war crimes and since it didn't you were safe and could run your war from there. And you probably don't even have to worry about the Western media picking up the story.]

Updated: Memo to British Government: Dar al-Harb Isn't Arabic For House of Lords

Posted: 22 Apr 2009 04:37 PM PDT
It’s been a busy time for British policymakers. First, they announced they are going to begin contacts with Hizballah’s “non-military wing.”

Next, they attended the Durban-2 meeting, walking out for a few minutes during Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech, then returning to approve a resolution which precisely mirrored the Iranian regime’s political line.

And then, rather than rest on their laurels, a group of British parliamentarians invited Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to address--albeit through modern long-distance technology--a meeting at Parliament.

[Update: There is some justice. After several speeches about how wonderful Hams is--leaving out the calls for genocide against Jews, the expulsion of Gaza Christians, and the murder of Fatah supporters, among other things--the link-up with Damascus (where Mashal lives protected by the Syrian dictatorship) didn't work!]

Having written about two of these events, let me not leave out Her Majesty’s Government’s dialogue with the radical, Shia Islamist Lebanese group Hizballah, an organization that is a client of Iran and Syria, and which has used terrorism as one of its main tactics.

This step is supposedly acceptable because the British government will be targeting--perhaps not the best choice of words since it is Hizballah that really targets people—Hizballah legislators.
The goal is to talk to Hizballah members of the Lebanese parliament allegedly to get them to encourage their organization to abandon violence and play a constructive political role in Lebanon.

This approach is based on the assumption, of course, that parliamentarians are parliamentarians, friendly, outgoing chaps who know how to kiss babies and slap backs in the local constituency. This, however, misreads what Hizballah is about.

Yes, Hizballah is a political party but that’s where the similarity to the Labour or Conservative parties ends. The name gives it way. At least historically, the Labour party is supposed to represent workers; the Conservative party those who are either better-off or favor the historical status quo more.

But Hizballah means, in Arabic, literally, the Party of God. That’s who they represent, or think they do, and their purported constituent is a bit harder to please than the trade unions and the local gentry or greengrocers.

And the Hizballah parliamentary delegation is called the Loyalty to the Resistance group. Resistance has become the codeword for the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent (a nice word for terrorist) bloc which seeks to promote Islamist revolution throughout the Middle East. What are they resisting? Peace and moderation. Who are they resisting? America, Israel and the West. How are they resisting? Assassinations, car-bombs, kidnappings, and suicide attacks are high on the list of favored tactics.

Of course, Hizballah like other revolutionary Islamists has social welfare programs. But the purpose of these is to build its mass base so it can seize power, and then to do all the things it wants to do .

Having tea with Hizballah parliamentarians is sort of like breaking bread with the elected members from Stalinist Communist parties or fascist parties of the past. While you’re breaking bread, their doctrines are all for breaking heads. Hizballah is led by clerics and gunmen (perhaps that’s what is meant by the division into political and military wings). The Honourable Member from south Sidon is not making the decisions or influencing party policy.

Even if Hizballah plays a political role within Lebanon it is hardly likely to be a constructive one. Their goals include: turning Lebanon (or at least the Shia parts of it) into an Islamist society; welcoming Iranian-Syrian hegemony over the country; wiping out Israel violently; expelling Western influence; spreading Islamic jihad elsewhere; and such things.

For Hizballah the word "constructive" means constructing a caliphate.

This is a naïve approach to say the least. And of course such actions are read by Lebanese as Western support for Hizballah so the opposition might as well give up and the faint-hearted jump on the Syrian-Iranian bandwagon. Arab states look on such antics as crazy. Why help your worst enemy take power? No wonder they believe in Western conspiracies. The alternative would be to believe that the West is insane.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/britains-pro-hamas-lobby.html

No comments: