Gaza film-makers decry Hamas censorship

[oberliner]

(Reuters) - - "Cinema in Gaza is like writing on rocks with your fingers," says Palestinian writer-director Sweilem Al-Absi.

It's not just the dearth of funds, equipment and studio facilities that prompts such laments from film-makers in the Gaza Strip. Four years into Islamist Hamas rule, cultural censors are fraying the already threadbare local movie industry.

Locked in conflict with Israel and vying against secular Palestinian rivals in the occupied West Bank, Hamas has long invested in television- and Internet-based news, educational shows and even animated clips that advance its political views.

But independent artists say Gaza's Culture Ministry, where projects must be approved before public screening, is quick to crack down on content that does not conform to Hamas edicts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-palestinians-gaza-idUSTRE76R1LA20110728

[demosincebirth]

1. Who would have thought?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Does this surprise anyone?

That some who call themselves progressive support Hamas surprises the hell out of me.

[azurnoir]

3. who here supports Hamas? care to name names or just like to

make baseless hit and runs?

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I'll field that one. No-one here supports Hamas n/t

[oberliner]

5. There are definitely people here who support Hamas

And even greater numbers among the wider progressive community who at the very least favor Hamas over the PA and view them as a legitimate governing body that ought to be treated as such.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Here at DU? No, there's not...

No-one in this forum supports Hamas, despite the regular attempts by some to say there are supporters of Hamas here. As for the wider progressive community, I don't see thinking that Hamas should be treated as a legitimate governing body makes someone a supporter of them.

[oberliner]

7. Definitely absolutely without question there are

For certain at DU there have been posters who clearly support Hamas.

And in the wider community, of course arguing in favor of treating Hamas rather than the PA as the legitimate governing body makes someone a supporter of them.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. But there aren't any in this forum now...

I'm sure there have been in the past, just like there's been those who support a vision of Greater Israel, but they're weeded out and shown the door. Some take a bit longer than others to get the boot, but in the end they all depart....

You know I despise Hamas based on their ideology, but despite that I acknowledge that they are the governing body of Gaza right now (whether they're viewed as legitimate or not doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned) and they're the guys that have to be dealt with. I want Israel to try to negotiate with them, though of course it's not going to be the current extreme RW govt, but a visionary one in the future. Wanting that to happen doesn't make me a supporter of a governing body that makes my toes curl with its public attitude towards Jews and women. It makes me a pragmatist. I'm sure many other progressives feel the same way...

on edit: returned to remove the word 'more' from the sentence 'though of course it's not going to be the current extreme RW govt, but a more visionary one in the future' as there's nothing the slightest bit visionary about Netanyahu's government...

[oberliner]

23. I wish I had kept a dossier

I am only half-kidding when I say that.

Precisely for arguments like this one, I wish I had saved all the unpleasant messages I have read here over the years.

[shira]

33. I wouldn't say pro-Hamas or pro-Fatah, PFLP, or Islamic Jihad either.

But definitely part of an axis of hateful people dedicated to Israel's destruction. That's the one common denominator that unites them.

They're as "pro-Palestinian" as Hamas, Fatah, or PFLP, in that they support the Palestinian cause, not Palestinians themselves, who they could care less about. The Palestinian cause they believe in is Israel being replaced by Palestine, by whatever means necessary.

They're also implicitly pro-terror as they're against any form of Israeli self-defense, including passive measures like the blockade, checkpoints, and separation barrier.

I think it's a mistake to say they're pro-Hamas. It wouldn't matter to them if Islamic Jihad were in control...

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Why? There's been ugliness in the past from both sides in this forum...

...but no regular in this forum supports Hamas. And the poster who made that accusation seemed to be doing it with no regard to the fact that his claim had zero to do with the OP itself...

[oberliner]

47. Your earlier claim was about everyone on DU, not "regulars in this forum"

Incidentally, who are the forum regulars? About how many are there would you say?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No, I said people in this forum. Plus, this has zero to do with the OP...

All it takes to see who the regulars is is to read the forum. I'm sure you can work it out for yrself...

[oberliner]

50. No you didn't. You said that no one on DU supports Hamas.

I wrote that there are definitely people here who support Hamas.

You wrote in reponse "Here on DU? No, there's not..."

The phrase you used was "here on DU" not "here in this forum".

And as to the regulars, I'd say maybe ten? Does that seem right?

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I said: 'No-one in this forum supports Hamas, despite the regular attempts by some to say there are

Again, this has nothing to do with the OP...

[King_David]

12. i do not see that as a legitimate stance,

'thinking that Hamas should be treated as a legitimate governing body '

Unless they hold a scheduled election and win. (sans throwing anyone off the roof)

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Well, I'm sure you 'seeing' that will make everyone rethink everything they've thought n/t

[King_David]

19. Huh. ?

Great rebuttal. ;)

[King_David]

25. Ha ha ha ;)

[Jefferson23]

9. You mean like this guy?

Carter says Hamas must be included

Former US president says Palestinian group must be included in any permanent peace deal.

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has said any future permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement has to include Hamas, the Palestinian movement that controls the Gaza Strip.

Carter also told Al Jazeera's Riz Khan on Wednesday that US presidents were unable or unwilling to take on Israel's supporters in the US, but said he had high hopes for George Mitchell, the new US Middle East envoy.

The former US leader said there was "no way to have a permanent peace in the Middle East without the inclusion of Hamas".

"Hamas has got to be involved before peace can be concluded."

Carter said reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the faction led by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, had been "objected to and obstructed by the US and Israel".

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200912823298296434.html

[oberliner]

10. That was January, 2009

Wonder who is obstructing reconciliation now. Is it still the US and Israel?

Seems not to be the case at this point.

"Until now, Hamas has prevented the elections committee from doing its work in Gaza. Our staff cannot work because our offices are closed and they have confiscated our cars," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gBmIjy0FSvDqD1LzRJXJKUldhazA?docId=CNG.b060e67fd75d9d367f61c289f3e63114.a61

Perhaps President Carter has re-evaluated those remarks in light of the fact that it is well over two years since he made those comments and Hamas has allowed no elections to take place since that time.

Has he made a statement since the reconciliation agreement broke down?

[Jefferson23]

11. I doubt he changed his mind, why would he? The concern he expressed

is about Israel to include them...what has changed about Israel and the US?

My question to you was, You mean like this guy? So are these progressives you're referring to
share Carter's opinion, or not? Whether in 2009 or now, doesn't matter, or shouldn't.

[oberliner]

20. Hamas has not allowed elections to take place

That would be the first area of potential concern.

But more to the point, what President Carter was saying then (and has said consistently) is that there ought to be some kind of unity government and then elections that involve all factions.

Right now there are two different entities that each claim to be the sole ruling authority for both the West Bank and Gaza. There are two men who claim to be PM and two men who claim to be President.

Supporting Hamas would be making a statement along the lines of suggesting that the Hamas PM and President are the legitimate ones and that Abbas and Fayyad are not (that they are stooges, puppets, frauds, etc).

President Carter has not (and would not) make any such statement.

Those who do (and would and have) are who I would consider to be supporters of Hamas.

[Jefferson23]

21. I am well aware of the present format of power disputes but that was not the subject at hand.

I questioned your remarks about progressives and support for Hamas.

As I said, I can't imagine why Carter would change his mind since nothing significant has changed from the Israel/US side.

"Many Israelis say that as long as the Palestinians are divided, there is no partner for peace," Carter wrote. "But at the same time, they refuse to accept a unity government."

Carter also claimed that the accord could ultimately lead to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians because Abbas will represent all Palestinians. He called for such an agreement to include "an exchange of prisoners for the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit and a settlement freeze" and mutual recognition of Israel and Hamas." http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=219109&R=R4


So oberliner, you're clarifying here: "Supporting Hamas would be making a statement along the lines of suggesting that the Hamas PM and President are the legitimate ones and that Abbas and Fayyad are not (that they are stooges, puppets, frauds, etc)."


In your view, the progressives you speak of, are not making a distinction between PA/Abbas corruption but prefer Hamas based on what,
other than that they were democratically elected? What exactly did they support, I ask since you seem to be aware
of more than a few of these people.

These progressives you know, they do not share Carter's perspective, is that right?

[oberliner]

22. That is exactly the subject at hand

In that you provided a quote from President Carter that was made over two years ago when the situation was quite different from what we see today.

And, of course, much has dramatically changed since then so it is bizarre that you would not think that President Carter's views may have changed also. Especially in light of how important free and fair elections are to the former president.

With respect to your question, I offer Ali Abuminah as an example of the sort of progressive that I am referencing. He is a prominent Palestinian-American blogger and progressive activist who has expressed support in exactly the way that I am referencing.

He does not share President Carter's perspective and has been quite explicit in criticizing him rather frequently.

If you'd like to learn more about Mr. Abuminah and others who share his views, I recommend expanding your source base beyond the hallow walls of Wikipedia.

[Jefferson23]

24. Your answer addresses the progressives

you are speaking about here at DU? I'm not interested in what you believe is bizarre oblerliner. I am interested in
finding support for your claim..I am not going to hunt it down for you.


The link I gave you in my previous post is from May 2011, and like I said, what has changed in Israel/US relations that would
make you think Carter would change his mind based on that link.


Since you were given no wiki sources in this thread, you felt the need to bring it up regardless, you're amusing sometimes.

[oberliner]

26. You know I am not allowed to call out posters here

And I'm sorry that you are not interested in what I believe is bizarre. I am certainly interested in your observations. That's why I devote as much time to these exchanges with you as I do. Not sure what your motivation is if you have a lack of interest in what I believe.

President Carter's remarks from May, 2011 support the point I am making about him. Which is that he does not believe that Hamas is the legitimate Palestinian governing body and that the PA is not.

The Wiki comment was just a little joke, glad you found it amusing (if you did).

[Jefferson23]

27. Carter makes your point?

As I have asked you twice now, what has changed from the Israel/US side that reconciles Carter's
statements here: "Many Israelis say that as long as the Palestinians are divided, there is no partner for peace," Carter wrote. "But at the same time, they refuse to accept a unity government."

Bibi is going to deal with Hamas? Like this was going to happen if there existed no turmoil on the Palestinian side?

I am not suggesting and haven't that Carter would not find fair elections important, but as you can plainly see, his concerns
rest with when given the unity, Israel says will still say, no. He has also called for the US and Israel to help make that unity
a reality...that hasn't happened yet either.

My motivation I spelled out to you earlier, to please support your claim regarding two posts you made about
progressives here and within the greater community as you phrased it for the support of Hamas. When I hear
claims like that, I would appreciate support for it. I am not here to change your opinion, and your opinion
of what is or is not bizarre to you in this thread holds no significance to me.

My first question was, You mean like Carter's? So this population of progressives, you can't name due to board rules, ok.
It comes off as gossip without support imo.

For the most part according to you they and Carter are far apart, the gentleman you listed with no link, ok.



I think we have a very different understanding about Carter's position from years ago and now, I'll leave it at that.


Hamas deserves to be recognized by the international community, and despite the group's militant history, there is a chance the soon-to-be Palestinian leaders could turn away from violence, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

Carter, who monitored last week's Palestinian elections in which Hamas handily toppled the ruling Fatah, added that the United States should not cut off aid to the Palestinian people, but rather funnel it through third parties like the U.N.

"If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government," Carter said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-02-01/world/carter.hamas_1_hamas-leaders-palestinian-parliament-palestinian-elections?_s=PM:WORLD

[pelsar]

28. your quote certainly explains a lot

"If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government," Carter said.

i guess that explains why he seems to have little remorse of the enslaving of millions of iranians under the facist regime that runs iran, or those actually, really starving under zimbabwa (Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world: 34 for women and 37 for men.").

and now, learning little about how fanatic govts govern, he supports hamas as a legit government. What mr carter seems to have trouble understanding is that democracies are more than mere elections, they require institutions and culture that will educate and protect it. mr carter appears not to understand to elect a facist govt is to put an end to a democracy and take away the right to democracy and to elect their own leaders from the next generation...

its easier to ignore fascism, pretend that people prefer it, than to face it and fight it........

[Jefferson23]

29. I'm convinced you have a strong held opinion of Carter. I would

like to ask you pelsar, have you participated in any of the housing protests?

What is your concerns if any on the how this going..supportive, non-supportive?

[pelsar]

42. the housing protests-israeli economy

the israeli economy is very lopsided, we have something like the top 5% owning 80% of the country (or something like that-numbers are not exact). So it shows up in the housing costs, when land is freed up for building and what exactly will be built there. We've had a lot of high rise expensive apts build recently in Tel Aviv.

My opinion? I support them, we have an interesting "elite leadership" in that no matter what ones background, one can get in, there is no "blue blood" as evidenced by the variety of backgrounds in the knesset.

however once their in, they seem to forget from where they came and enjoy the fruits of power, they are now being reminded.

Israel has an active democracy, the citizens are active, be it 4 women on a street corner forcing a withdrawl from Lebanon or 100,000 protesting housing costs, and as they have done in the past will force a change.... Nor will it be cosmetic.

I have no concerns other then pride, our elected leaders, despite it all, will make the changes, this is how its supposed to work.

[Jefferson23]

43. So true, and certainly not exclusive to Israel's elected representation:

"however once their in, they seem to forget from where they came and enjoy the fruits of power, they are now being reminded."

[oberliner]

30. Your new link is from 2006

And this new link illustrates my point even further.

President Carter says that people ought to make their own decision about their leaders.

Yet Hamas is currently preventing the Palestinians from doing precisely that.

They have remained in power in Gaza well beyond the point where there ought to have been new elections.

None have taken place - and it's over five years since those prophetic remarks from President Carter that you cited.

[Jefferson23]

32. Sure thing and ignore the details of his greater concern as re-stated

in 2011.

Have a good day.

On edit to add from Post #21, again,

Carter: Palestinian unity will help bring peace
By JPOST.COM STAFF
05/04/2011 10:03

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=219109&R=R4

[oberliner]

37. I'm not even sure what we are disagreeing about at this point

Can you refresh my memory?

[pelsar]

13. Carter....helped Iran and Zimbabwe

become what they are....to say Carters judgement in Intl affairs is flawed is to be kind. He has helped facilitate what has go to be one of the worst dictators in Africa, who is actually starving his own people-Mugabe

an of course we shouldn't forget iran, he helped create a fascist theocratic dictatorship that is busy hanging homosexuals or girls who talk back, while developing the bomb, threatening to wipe out israel, threatens Saudi Arabia.....

Carter...the epitome of diplomatic incompetence

[shira]

14. Carter also argued there's no genocide in Sudan & that Gazans were being starved to death. n/t

[Jefferson23]

18. Yea, the Camp David Accords too, what a freakin loser Carter was.

Now, George W. Bush, there is a great friend of Israel..yep.

Ah, the good ole days.

[oberliner]

31. George W Bush was no friend of Israel

He didn't know or care much about the region at all.

I would say Bill Clinton was probably the best friend Israel has had in its history.

If he wasn't forced to redirect his attention to more prurient matters, he may have been the president who brought lasting peace both Israelis and Palestinians.

[Jefferson23]

34. According to you, to the Israeli government, no sale. n/t

[oberliner]

35. The Israeli government signed the Oslo Accords during his presidency

Had events not unfolded they way they did soon after that historic day, we could be living in an entirely definitely reality today with respect to the region.

[Jefferson23]

36. You inserted yourself in my communication with pelsar, and you seem

quite lost. You don't need to convince me oberliner, I suggest you
take your argument to those who govern Israel...they were great friends
with George W.

[oberliner]

38. Actually pelsar inserted himself in my communication with you

Not sure why you decided to go down this particular road but there is no need to talk about anyone being lost.

George W was also very popular in Africa. Rumor has it that many people in Darfur named their children after him.

[Jefferson23]

39. I speak to what I see, you're lost as far as I'm concerned. Bush's

popularity in Africa? This is what is relevant to you in this exchange
about Bush and Israel..ok.

I think you missed what I was communicating to pelsar and why I believe you
are/were lost oberliner..it happens.

[oberliner]

40. It's all good

That is what makes this place (and the world) such a rich and wonderful tapestry.

In any case, on to more substantive matters!

Incidentally, I have noticed that when I comment on something small or minor, a long and sometimes testy exchange of responses follows, but when I post something major and important about what is happening right now in the region it usually sinks without much comment.

Not sure why that is the case. Any theories?

[Jefferson23]

44. This is what makes this place such a rich and wonderful tapestry? I hope you

realize I was speaking only about your confusion (lost in translation) regarding my communication
with pelsar...not your politics. I am not suggesting we share the similar political views on I/P,
but that is not what I was referring to.

If you think about it, you have answered your own questions. What is relevant and or considered
of major importance to you, is not necessarily shared by all on a political forum.

[oberliner]

46. Absolutely

There are so many different folks with different opinions, different styles, different ways of approaching one another. It is quite fascinating.

With respect to my question, I am not talking about items that are of "major importance to me" I am taking about items of major importance period (i.e. Palestinian reconciliation crisis, massive Israeli housing protests, etc).

Issues that actually effect Israelis and Palestinians in large numbers in a major way, as opposed to say, a rambling op-ed from a RW loon in JPost or Alan Dershowitz's thoughts on Norwegian anti-semitism (two of the more popular recent stories posted here by others).

[Jefferson23]

49. Absolutely?? I will state one last time, I was referring to your confusion

earlier with myself and pelsar, that's all.


Again,I believe you have answered your own question, you believe they are relevant, you believe you know where best
the effort should be exerted on which story/angle of an OP. Also, I think it difficult to speculate why
some stories are not responded to, but from the count, they are indeed being read by members here. There
are a host of reasons for that, I am in no position to offer more than that to you in explanation. From
the perspective of the reader there is motivation to respond or not...I hope that answers your question.

[oberliner]

51. I'm in complete agreement with you

I would note that I think you have suffered the same fate with many of your posts.

It is a shame that the trivial seems to supercede the more significant stories so often.

[Shaktimaan]

41. How...

did Carter help create the theocracy in Iran?

[Dick Dastardly]

8. I dont understand? Where in the article does it say that progressives support

Hamas censoring films?

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I'm pretty sure that was nowhere in it, Dick...

One thing I've noticed that American progressives are adament about is their dislike of government censorship. I've been at DU nearly ten years and I can't recall seeing a progressive groundswell of support for censorship of any kind...

[Dick Dastardly]

52. Actually Americans in general from both the right and the left

except for the more extreme elements on either side share a deep dislike for government censorship. Obviously just like for anything exceptions can be found but its one of the things that cuts across most party/political lines for Americans. American dislike of censorship is more ingrained than in any other country.