Thursday, July 24, 2014

Palestinians Chose Hamas and the Mass-Murder of Civilians—Including Their Own


Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On July 22, 2014 @ 6:27 am In Uncategorized | 41 Comments

Hamas
Palestinian members of Hamas' armed wing take part in the funeral of their comrades in Gaza City June 21, 2014. Hamas' armed wing in Gaza said at least six members of its group were killed in the collapse of a tunnel the group had dug close to the border with Israel to infiltrate the Jewish state. Reuters/Mohammed Salem

I argued in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy that the illusion’s signature feature is a fantasy: By holding free elections, a people is choosing freedom: joining modernity, adopting pluralism and tolerance, rejecting revolutionary violence and totalitarianism.

Today, we are yet again being inundated with tales of Palestinian woe after Hamas’s familiar barbarism has provoked an Israeli military response. It thus bears remembering that the Palestinian people chose Hamas. What ever happened to all those Democracy Project paeans to self-determination? Hamas is Palestinian self-determination. Hamas was not forced on Palestinians. Hamas did not militarily conquer Gaza. No, Hamas swept parliamentary elections freely held in the Palestinian territories in 2006 – thrashing its rival, Fatah, which is only marginally less committed to the destruction of Israel.

Hamas did not suddenly become a terrorist organization after it was elected. Hamas was elected because it was a jihadist organization. It was elected because, by its own declaration, Hamas connects Palestinians to something they find attractive: the global Islamic-supremacist movement. Palestinians widely reject Israel’s right to exist. They regard not just Gaza, Judea and Samaria but all of Israel as “occupied Palestine.” Even those Palestinians who purport to accept the “two-state solution” see it as a way-station on the march to a one-state solution in which the Jewish state eventually ceases to be. Palestinians chose Hamas precisely because Hamas was seen as more dedicated than Fatah to the achievement of that goal—not to mention, more brutally competent.

At the time of its election, Hamas was well known to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian terrorist wing. It has been formally designated as a terrorist organization by the United States since the mid-nineties. Indeed, shortly before Palestinians endorsed Hamas at the ballot box, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted several Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case, a multi-million dollar terrorism financing conspiracy orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in which several of the Brotherhood’s American affiliates—CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, among others—were proved to be complicit in the promotion of Hamas and thus designated as unindicted co-conspirators.

The Wall Street Journal gets close to the heart of the matter in its fine editorial this morning about Hamas’s “civilian death strategy”:
The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation. 
What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low; children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore. 
To make matters worse, Gazans sheltered terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside ottoman sofas and dirty diapers. When Israel warned them of impending attacks, the inhabitants defiantly refused to leave. 
On some basic level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets. 
It also calls your parenting skills into serious question. In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows closed, a social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on MSNBC where they can call Israel a genocidal murderer.
I say this “gets close to the heart of the matter” because it pulls up just short. The problem in the Palestinian territories is not Hamas; it is the Palestinians. Hamas is a natural outgrowth of the Islamic supremacist ideology that is dominant among Palestinians. It is not just that the Palestinians chose Hamas with eyes open. It is that the Palestinians are Hamas. That Hamas Charter speaks for Palestinians, particularly in its scripturally-based Jew hatred. “[O]ur struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave,” its Introduction proclaims, “so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”

That is just a warm-up for Jew-hatred that pervades the Charter’s Article Seven:
Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.
This is what Palestinians voted for. The highlighted section of Article Seven comes straight from Islamic scripture, from the authoritative Bukhari and Muslim collections of hadith (the sayings and doings of the prophet Mohammed). It foretells an eternal struggle until the end of time, when, with Allah’s intercession, the rocks and trees will help Muslim battalions find and kill every remaining Jew.

Tellingly, as I recounted in The Grand Jihad, other than the Hamas charter, the place where you are most likely to find repetition of the doctrinally-based call to jihad against Jews is in the sermons of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He is the chief sharia jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood and, perhaps, the most influential Sunni Islamic-supremacist figure in the world. He is also a staunch champion of Hamas, having issued fatwas that enthusiastically authorize suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. “They are not suicide operations,” he claimed in April 2001. “These are heroic martyrdom operations, and the heroes who carry them out don’t embark on this action out of hopelessness and despair but are driven by an overwhelming desire to cast terror and fear into the hearts of the oppressors.”

But what about the fact that these indiscriminate “martyrdom operations” kill Israeli civilians? Qaradawi rejects the premise – there are, he maintains, no Israeli civilians. “Israeli society is a military society, and every person is either a soldier in the Israeli Army or a reserve soldier,” he told al-Jazeera that same spring – repeating a theme that, for him, is a constant. Israelis, therefore, “must be intimidated, until they return to the countries from which they came.” This, it should be noted, is substantially indistinguishable from al Qaeda’s rationale for mass-murdering American civilians. As Osama bin Laden explained, Americans choose and arm their government and should thus be attacked the same way a jihadist would attack their government.

To its great credit, Israel does not target Palestinian civilians even though, in the Palestinian terrorist jihad, there are few real civilians among a population that chose Hamas as its leader and provides Hamas’s atrocious campaigns with material support and encouragement. Like any competent military fighting a defensive war for its nation’s survival, Israel’s defense forces kill some Palestinian non-combatants collaterally, in the pursuit of necessary and wholly legitimate military objectives. The killings of non-combatants are inflated by the Palestinian practice of using “civilians” as human shields, the better to wage the all-important propaganda part of the jihad that is so effective in swaying Western progressives.

The war will not end unless Israel is allowed to fight until victory is achieved and the Palestinians, with their will having been broken, abandon the jihad and accept peaceful coexistence. As we all know, it is a peaceful coexistence they could have right now if they weren’t hell-bent on killing every Jew. In any event, people who claim a right to kill every enemy civilian, whose savage way of war is to target enemy civilians and deny them civilian status, should not be heard to complain about civilian casualties.

Article printed from Ordered Liberty: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Obama to the rescue – of Hamas


By CAROLINE B. GLICK
http://www.jpost.com/
July 22, 2014


The IDF posted this photo to Twitter, July 22, 2014, with the caption, "So far, we have exposed 23 Hamas tunnels with 66 openings throughout Gaza."

Operation Protective Edge is now two weeks old. Since the ground offensive began Thursday night, we have begun to get a better picture of just how dangerous Hamas has become in the nine years since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. And what we have learned is that the time has come to take care of this problem. It cannot be allowed to fester or grow anymore.

We have known for years that tunnels were a central component of Hamas’s logistical infrastructure.

What began as the primary means of smuggling weapons, trainers and other war material from Hamas’s sponsors abroad developed rapidly into a strategic tool of offensive warfare against Israel.

As we have seen from the heavily armed Hamas commando squads that have infiltrated into Israel from tunnels since the start of the current round of warfare, the first goal of these offensive tunnels is to deploy terrorists into Israel to massacre Israelis.

But the tunnels facilitate other terror missions as well.

Israel has found tunnels with shafts rigged with bombs located directly under Israeli kindergartens.

If the bombs had gone off, the buildings above would have been destroyed, taking the children down with them.

Other exposed shafts showed Hamas’s continued intense interest in hostage taking. In 2006 the terrorists who kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Schalit entered Israel and returned to Gaza through such a tunnel.

Today the presence of sedatives and multiple sets of handcuffs for neutralizing hostages found in tunnel after tunnel indicate that Hamas intends to abduct several Israelis at once and spirit them back to Gaza.

In an interview with Channel 2 Monday evening, Minister Naftali Bennett spoke of a mother at Kibbutz Netiv Ha’asara who told him that her children wake her in the middle of the night and tell her that they hear digging beneath their beds.

As Bennett said, this state of affairs simply cannot continue. People cannot live in fear that there are terrorists burrowing beneath their homes, digging tunnels to murder or kidnap them.

These tunnels must be found and destroyed not merely because they constitute a physical danger to thousands of Israelis. They must be located and destroyed, and Hamas’s capacity to rebuild them must be eliminated because the very idea that they exist makes a normal life impossible for those immediately threatened.

Hamas’s tunnels are also the key component of their command and control infrastructure inside Gaza.

Hamas’s political and military commanders are hiding in them. The reinforced bunkers and tunnel complexes enable Hamas’s senior leadership to move with relative freedom and continue planning and ordering attacks.

The sophistication of the tunnels and the malign intentions of Hamas are not in the least surprising.

But Hamas’s rapid advances in both tunnel and missile technology are deeply worrisome. At a minimum, they indicate that if it is allowed to end the current round of fighting as a coherent, relatively well-armed terrorist army, Hamas will be able to rapidly rebuild and expand its capabilities.

As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is not a stand-alone terror group. It is part of a much larger web of Islamic jihadist terror groups including al-Qaida and its affiliates as well as the Shi’ite Hezbollah. Like Hamas, all of these threaten several major Sunni Arab states.

Due to their recognition of the threat Hamas and its allies pose to the survivability of their regimes, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have taken the unprecedented step of supporting Israel’s efforts to defeat Hamas.

They understand that a decisive Israeli blow against Hamas in Gaza will directly benefit them. Not only will Hamas be weakened, but its state sponsors and terrorist comrades will be weakened as well.

Presently, Hamas’s most outspoken state sponsors are Qatar and Turkey.

As Israel’s Calcalist newspaper reported earlier this week, Qatar is Hamas’s biggest and most important financier, a role it plays as well for ISIS, al Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood and various jihadist groups in Libya.

Turkey for its part is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Like Qatar, Turkey has also been a major supporter of ISIS and al Nusra, as well as Hamas. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s slander against Israel has grown so hysterical in recent weeks that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has been trying to downplay Turkey’s animosity, called him out on his open anti-Semitism.

By Tuesday morning, IDF forces in Gaza had destroyed 23 tunnels. The number of additional tunnels is still unknown.

While Israel had killed 183 terrorists, it appeared that most of the terrorists killed were in the low to middle ranks of Hamas’s leadership hierarchy.

Hamas’s senior commanders, as well as its political leadership have hunkered down in hidden tunnel complexes.

In other words, Israel is making good progress.

But it hasn’t completed its missions. It needs several more days of hard fighting.

Recognizing this, Israel’s newfound Muslim allies have not been pushing for a cease-fire.

In contrast, the Obama administration is insisting on concluding a cease-fire immediately.

As Israel has uncovered the scope of Hamas’s infrastructure of murder and terror, the US has acted with the UN, Turkey and Qatar to pressure Israel (and Egypt) to agree to a cease-fire and so end IDF operations against Hamas before the mission is completed.

To advance this goal, US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Cairo on Monday night with an aggressive plan to force on Israel a cease-fire Hamas and its state sponsors will accept.

As former ambassador to the US Michael Oren told the media, it is clear that neither Israel nor Egypt invited Kerry to come over. Their avoidance of Kerry signals clearly that the US’s two most important allies in the Middle East do not trust US President Barack Obama’s intentions.

And their distrust is entirely reasonable.

The State Department has openly applauded Turkey and Qatar for their involvement in attempts to achieve a cease-fire. Last week Israeli officials alleged that the US was responsible for Hamas’s rejection of the Egyptian cease-fire proposal. By attempting to coerce Egypt to accept Qatar and Turkey as its partners in mediation, Obama signaled to Hamas’s leaders that they should hold out for a better deal.

Due to Turkey’s membership in NATO and the glamour of the Qatari royal family, many Westerners find it hard to believe that they are major sponsors of terrorism. But it is true. Turkey and Qatar are playing a double game.

While sending his ambassador to Brussels for NATO meetings, Erdogan has been transforming Turkey from an open, pro-Western society allied with Israel into a closed, anti-Semitic and anti-American society that sponsors Hamas, ISIL, al Nusra and other terrorists groups.

As for Qatar, the tiny natural gas superpower presents itself to Americans as their greatest ally in the Muslim world. The emirate gives hundreds of millions of dollars to US universities to open campuses in Doha and pretends it is a progressive, open society, replete with debating societies.

Qatar hosts three major US military bases on its territory. And it is becoming one of the most important clients for US military contractors. Earlier this year Qatar signed an $11.4 billion dollar arms agreement with the US.

At the same time, according to the Calacalist report, Qatar is the major bankroller of ISIS and al Nusra in Syria and Iraq. It gives $50 million a month to jihadists in Libya. It gives Hamas $100m. in annual aid. And in the past two years Doha has provided Hamas with an additional $620m. dollars, including $250m. it transferred to Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal’s personal bank account, and $350m. in military aid to Hamas, transferred after the Egyptian military forced the Muslim Brotherhood government from power last July.

Add to that the $100m. per year that Qatar pours into Al Jazeera’s satellite network – which has dedicated itself to undermining pro-Western Arab regimes while popularizing the likes of al-Qaida and Hamas, and Qatar is the largest financier of international jihad in the world.

Rather than notice that Qatar and Turkey are playing a double game, and treat them with suspicion, the Obama administration has embraced them.

Chances that Kerry will secure a cease-fire in the near future are small. In all likelihood, the government will be able to buy the time necessary to complete the mission in whole or large part. But the fact that the US has chosen at this juncture in the operation – with Israel enjoying unprecedented support from the most important Sunni states in the region – to side with Hamas and its state sponsors in their demand for an immediate cease-fire speaks volumes about the transformation of US foreign policy under Obama’s leadership.

D’Souza Nation, Part III

http://www.nationalreview.com/
July 23, 2014


Editor’s Note: In the current issue of National Review, Jay Nordlinger has a piece called “Take Two: D’Souza films again.” It’s about Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative author and filmmaker, and his new movie, America: Imagine the World without Her. Nordlinger has been expanding on his piece in Impromptus. For Parts I and II, go here and here. Today concludes the series.

In our rolling conversation — rolling in more than one sense, because we’re aboard the rock-star bus — Dinesh makes a familiar point, but one that bears repeating: Capitalists are terrible at defending capitalism. They will defend it on grounds of efficiency, but not on grounds of morality or justice. We will lose capitalism, says Dinesh, unless we learn to defend it, rhetorically, against its enemies.

You recall what the Marxists used to say, and probably still do (I haven’t listened to them in a while): “‘Freedom!’ say the capitalists. Yeah: the freedom to sleep under bridges.”

For my money, Dinesh’s most compelling insight is that justice is a more powerful idea than freedom, in political debate. Justice will trump freedom every time. The Left eats our lunch, over and over.
“What do little kids say?” Dinesh points out. “‘That’s not fair! That’s not fair!’” It is elemental.
In the old days, people didn’t ask whether the king made the economy grow. They had one question: “Is he just or unjust?”

“The Left recognizes the power of justice,” says Dinesh, “and they recognize the vulnerability of America, because capitalism is a counterintuitive system that has never been in tune with our instincts about justice. 
Look at the teacher, the plumber, and the rock singer. If you were distributing their salaries, how would you do it? Your distribution would probably look different from the market’s.”

I have a memory of speaking at a Renaissance Weekend, many years ago. (This is a recurrent Democratic jamboree, and I was a token, which was fine. My hosts were wonderful.) I said that Orwell spoke of the “law-and-liberty countries,” and that Robert Conquest had described himself to me as a “law-and-liberty man.”

In the Q&A, a man very angrily said to me, “You left out justice!” (Turned out, he was a judge.) I said that I thought the rule of law and liberty included justice.

President Obama talks about fairness constantly — constantly. It is “the core theme of his presidency,” as Dinesh says. Couple of memories (further memories).

Obama was debating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries. A moderator, Charlie Gibson, brought up the capital-gains tax, pointing out its history: When the rate had gone down, revenue had gone up; and when the rate had gone up, revenue had gone down. “So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”

Obama answered, “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Yes. Economics is out the window. Cause and effect is out the window. Real, practical consequences are out the window. All that matters is something psychological: someone’s notion of “fairness.”

At National Review, we were speaking with someone in the Republican House leadership. This was about four years ago, I would say. The leader said that, in budget negotiations with Obama, the Republicans would make economic arguments — and the president would ignore those arguments, coming back with the theme of social justice.

Rich Lowry, our editor, said, “Does he really say ‘social justice’?” The congressional leader said, “Well, he says ‘fairness.’ That’s his word: ‘fairness.’”

I love the way Daniel Hannan, the British politician and writer, began a recent column: “Would you rather live in a 1000 square foot house where everyone else’s was 800, or a 1200 square foot house where everyone else’s was 1400? I sometimes think it’s the most elemental question in politics.”

Dinesh D’Souza says, “The Founders’ idea of freedom is the solution to injustice.”

One could write at length about his legal case, but let me put things briefly: In the 2012 election cycle, Dinesh made a financial contribution to his friend Wendy Long. She was the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in New York. She was a severe underdog — indeed, she wound up losing by some 45 points — but Dinesh wanted to help her. They are old college classmates. They are comrades.

Dinesh wrote his own check, and then, asked to do more, and wanting to comply, asked others to write checks — for which he would reimburse them. That is illegal. And it was “cockamamie” and “dumb,” he said to me. “I was swamped, I was rushing, and my brain just shut down.” There were all sorts of legal ways he could have helped his friend: by setting up a PAC, for example.

The FBI found out about his reimbursements in a supposedly routine review. That is a head-scratcher. The matter went to the U.S. attorney’s office in New York (a Democratic stronghold, naturally). D’Souza was prosecuted and, in May, pleaded guilty. He will be sentenced in September. He faces up to two years in prison.

He and his defenders say that the prosecution was spectacularly selective and suspect, smelling of political retribution. It is smelly indeed. One day, Dinesh will write a compelling book, article, or pamphlet about it.

Jail or no jail, his career will continue (perhaps with an aspect of martyrdom). His goal, he says, is to create a movie company that will offer maybe two products a year: a documentary and a feature film. “The Left knows the power of telling a story,” he says. “Oliver Stone and Steven Spielberg are much bigger than Michael Moore. They don’t make liberal films — they just make films, and they have a point of view. I want to make films with a different point of view.”

Dinesh inhabits two worlds: the book world and the film world. The best-selling book he ever had sold 150,000 copies — which is a whopping number, let me tell you. But his first movie was seen by 8 million people. That’s a bigger megaphone, as he says. And, as he also says, conservatives need more and bigger megaphones.

He makes a further point: The resources are there, i.e., the conservative money. But the know-how and initiative? Not so much.

I tell him that I regard him as someone who came from a foreign land to teach or remind Americans what is good about their country. He likes to quote a remark from Jeane Kirkpatrick: “Americans need to face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is.”

Yes. America is sometimes like a pretty girl who, afraid to be stuck up, is a self-condemnatory, neurotic wreck.

Dinesh gives me some autobiographical reflections. I will paraphrase: “I’ve had a great life in America, and I recognize that I wouldn’t have had this life in India or England. If I had gone to England — which was kind of my parents’ aspiration for me — I might have become a barrister or businessman. I might have been like Dodi Fayed or someone! Somewhat excluded from the corridors of power, so to speak.

“I married a girl from Louisiana. Her family and friends welcomed me with open arms. America in general welcomed me with open arms. I have faced no limits.”

Some years ago, Dinesh turned on the television and saw Christopher Hitchens debating a pastor. Hitchens was running rings around him, of course, using every trick in the book. He was sneering at the pastor, undermining him at every turn. Hitchens was Oxford Union; the pastor was . . . not.

And Dinesh, sitting in front of the TV, thought, Hey, no fair. Pick on someone your own size. You should be debating me, not him.

Someone like Dinesh gives voice to people who cannot speak for themselves, or who cannot do it adequately. “I see myself as standing up for an America that has been good to me.”

I ask him, “Is America going down the tubes? Is it curtains?” No, he says. “I’m a congenital optimist, temperamentally happy. I wake up in the morning happy. I also have great faith in the inner American spirit. I think that, if you activate that spirit, it’s a formidable force.

“This is the spirit that resisted getting involved in World War II, that is prone to looking the other way, that doesn’t want to be bothered. But when that spirit is aroused” — whoa, baby, look out.

Thanks for joining me, ladies and gentlemen, on this D’Souzan journey, and I’ll talk to you soon.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Today's Tune: Bobby Womack - Lookin' for a Love

A Tribute to the Mighty James Garner


by 

July 21, 2014

According to various media reports, police were called to the Los Angeles home of James Garner Saturday night where the television and screen legend was found dead of natural causes. He was 86. The Emmy winner and 1986 Oscar nominee (Best Actor in "Murphy's Romance") is survived by Lois, his wife of 56 years, and daughters Kimberly and Gigi.

Before trying acting on a whim, the Oklahoma-born Garner worked as a roughneck in the oilfields, as a telephone installer, and as a lifeguard and janitor. He served his country honorably in the Korean War and earned two Purple Hearts.
Like many screen legends who made the mistake of making it look way too easy (the Oscar-less Cary Grant, Barbara Stanwyck, and Edward G. Robinson, for example), there are not enough words or awards to do justice to The Mighty James Garner's brilliance as an actor. In his terrific memoir "The Garner Files," Garner reveals that he learned the technique through listening.
Garner's first role was as one of six judges in a stage production of Herman Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial." He had no lines. His job night after night was to sit silently for two hours and watch the other actors act. Luckily for Garner, two of those actors were Lloyd Nolan and Henry Fonda.
The qualities Garner and Fonda shared are unmistakable. Simply by showing up, both (who became lifelong friends) epitomized the confident non-conformist who is uncommonly comfortable in his own skin; American can-do masculinity, common decency, and a formidable sly streak that made crossing them a bad idea.
By all accounts, Garner was very close to that man in real life -- he certainly was his own man. Although a pacifist (Garner said he held the exact same anti-war views as the "proud coward" he played in 1964's "The Americanization of Emily"), he was a pacifist with two Purple Hearts and a reputation for punching out anyone he found deserving.
During the Korean War, Garner was a scrounger (a vocation he would go on to immortalize in 1963's "The Great Escape").
Both of Garner's iconic television series -- "Maverick" and "The Rockford Files" -- ended in bitter lawsuits. In both cases Garner abruptly quit a hit show and then risked his career to sue powerhouse employers Warner Bros. and Universal (twice) because he felt he had been wronged and cheated. Garner prevailed in his lawsuits and his career never lost a step.
Although a proud, lifelong Democrat and liberal, Garner was also a patriotic traditionalist who wanted nothing to do with dirty or violent films. "I'm no do-gooder," Garner wrote in his memoir, "I just like to do good movies. I consider myself an average American and I think I have a duty to other average Americans. … I prefer clean over dirty."
He explained why he turned down a role in Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo": "He had a bad attitude. He killed a bunch of Americans -- National Guardsmen and police. … I guess the violence in my early life made me partial to characters who try to avoid it."
"I like things the old-fashioned way," Garner added. "Where the language is clean and the sex scenes done tastefully, not graphically. … Now we have formula pictures that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Everybody's wrong and nobody cares enough to point out what's right."
In over 50 feature films and 2 iconic television series, Garner's characters did a lot of pointing to what was right … and wrong; sometimes cynically, almost always reluctantly. But in the end a selfless and self-effacing hero would emerge even if the white hat made him uncomfortable and a little cranky.
Amiable, broad-shouldered, and handsome, Garner spent a half-century easily moving back and forth between television and film roles, a feat very few lead actors have successfully pulled off. Garner was the rare leading man who could spend countless hours in our living rooms without losing the quality that made him a movie star.
On top of headlining two of the most enduring television series in history, Garner starred in a number of outstanding films that range from timeless crowd pleasers to legitimate classics: "Sayonara" (1957),  "The Children's Hour" (1961), "The Great Escape" (1963), "The Americanization of Emily" (1964), "Grand Prix" (1966), "Support Your Local Sheriff" (1971), "The Skin Game" (1971), "Victor Victoria" (1982), "Murphy's Romance" (1985), "Maverick" (1994), "Space Cowboys" (2000), and "The Notebook" (2004).
As if that's not enough, Garner starred in a number of memorable television movies which resulted in numerous award nominations and wins: "Heartsounds" (1984),  "Promise" (1986), "My Name Is Bill W." (1989), "Decoration Day" (1990), "Barbarians at the Gate" (1993), "Breathing Lessons" (1994), and a personal favorite of mine, "The Streets of Laredo" (1999), a miniseries good enough to live up to its predecessor, the 1989 classic "Lonesome Dove."
And then there was that series of charming Polaroid commercials from the late 1970's where Garner and Mariette Hartley were so convincing as a couple people believed they were married in real life:
For as long as either they or I have been around, there have been five pop culture constants in my life that are never-ending sources of joy: Classic studio movies, John Wayne's films, Frank Sinatra's music, "Married with Children," and "The Rockford Files."
When "The Rockford Files" premiered in 1974, I was 8 years old. Ever since, 40 years on, almost non-stop -- from late night reruns on a vacuum tube-powered TV to the modern-day miracle of digital streaming -- the adventures of Jim, Rocky, Angel, Beth and Dennis have been a part of the playlist and background of my life.
Despite all the great television released over the last decade or so, I still think "Rockford" is the best written and acted one-hour drama television has ever seen. Over 4 years ago I explained why in an article that explained why Hollywood can't remake "The Rockford Files":
You can't remake "The Rockford Files." You can call a television show "The Rockford Files." Hell, you can call your parakeet "The Rockford Files," but that doesn't mean it's "The Rockford Files."
That show was James Garner, and if you've recently watched any of the episodes you know that the thirty-years that have passed since the program went off the air in 1980 have only served to cement its timelessness and status as a true classic. Sure, the sports coats might be a little loud and the sideburns too long, but Mike Post's iconic theme, that awesome gold Pontiac Firebird and some of the best writing ever seen on television have kept the series as entertaining, compelling and fresh as anything produced today. …
The original "Rockford Files," which ran on NBC from 1974 to 1980, was not just another hour-long detective/crime/mystery show. It was lightning in a bottle, the perfect mix of smart producers and talented writers who understood the unique quality of their star, James Garner, a man who could take an off-beat line of dialogue and make magic from it like no other.
Jim Rockford was also a character Garner had been perfecting for over a decade in films like "The Great Escape, "The Americanization of Emily," and under-appreciated classics such as "Skin Game" and "Support Your Local Sheriff[.]"
And what a delightfully interesting and endlessly fascinating character he was. On the surface, Jim Rockford was cheap ("I have expenses."), always looking out for number one, ready to quit whenever threatened, rarely carried a gun ("Because I don't want to shoot anyone!"), demanded his civil rights at the drop of a hat, and had no ambition beyond covering his monthly nut and going fishing with his dad, Rocky (Beery).
If the former con man and jailbird (for a crime he was innocent of) was ever the hero in any of the 122 mostly self-contained episodes, he was a reluctant one due to a complicated code of honor that somehow managed to remain consistent even as it kept surprising. Unlike his 1970s contemporaries such as Mannix, McCloud, Cannon, and Barnaby Jones, Rockford frequently failed to come out on top (his clients had a way of stiffing him), hated hitting people (it hurt the hand) and most of all, despised The Man: anyone in authority from police captains who forever threatened his license to lazy government bureaucrats who gave off attitude.
Rockford was cynical, glib, petty, a dirty fighter, had a temper, a smart mouth, a non-TV star waistline (tacos and Oreo cookies were a weakness), and chose to retain his fierce independence even though it meant barely scraping together a living in a rusty house trailer that uglied up a beachside Malibu parking lot. Rockford could also be intimidated (temporarily) and though he was always the smartest person in the room, it was surprisingly easy to catch him off guard.
But beneath those flaws and quirks was James Garner, a one-of-a-kind talent who gave this character what he gave all his characters, an unmistakable undercurrent of warmth and competence that kept us on his side. Boiled down to essentials, Jim Rockford was -- unless he was running a game on some deserving scoundrel -- an honest man who couldn't help but offer the world a running verbal commentary on life as he saw it. Nothing was sacred, either. Government bureaucracy, pious hypocrites, and Hollywood celebrity would all come away with blisters after any confrontation with the working class PI.
We loved Rockford because he hated stupidity, insecurity, laziness and phonies as much as we did. And we loved him because even though he had led a life that had time and again made clear that there was no profit in doing the right thing, by the time the credits rolled -- though he bitched and moaned the whole way there -- Jim Rockford always did the right thing. He was also loyal to his friends, sometimes to a fault, and would risk his livelihood and even his life to get them out of a jam. …
Over six seasons a caustic, complicated, paunchy, middle-aged Los Angeles PI managed to give almost as good as he got as he eked out a living filled with betrayals, disappointments, reversals, beatings and many a trip to jail. Through it all, though, James Rockford persevered, never once giving up an inch of his dignity or sharply observant sense of humor. This premise brought to life by geniuses and a creative alchemy even they had difficult recreating in a series of "Rockford" television films in the 90s, gave us one of the best one-hour dramas ever created.
So to those involved in this coming remake, I wish you nothing but success and a long run and the vast wealth that comes with syndication. May your show meet with critical acclaim and a shower of Emmys.
Whatever that show is.
Because no matter what you call it, it won't be "The Rockford Files."
I want to express my personal condolences James Garner's daughter, Gigi Garner, who for years, through her Twitter account and other social media platforms, has been paying tribute to her dad befriending his many fans (like myself). 
Knowing how tough this loss is on those of us who for so long admired him from afar, it is impossible to imagine what she and all of James Garner's loved ones are going through.   
Let me leave you with the finest hour of television ever produced:

Follow  John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC   

Appreciation: James Garner, reluctant hero

July 21, 2014
James Garner as Bart Maverick and Jack Kelly as Bret Maverick from the television program 'Maverick'.

There are actors. There are icons.
And then there are those rare stars who illuminate what it means to be American at our best. The ones you look at and think, yeah, that's the man I'd like to be. Or be with.
And that's James Garner.
For over 50 years, he was the epitome of the reluctant hero. Smart, funny, handsome, sort of larcenous and uncomfortable around fools — which, considering how many fools there are, could make him a little cranky. Someone who's good in a fight, but would rather not have to prove it. Someone who, when riled, could sue his studio bosses twice, and win both times.
We first saw his on-screen persona full-blown in Maverick, a 1957 Western that stood out from the era's herd of horse dramas by slipping in a satirical tone, overcoming ABC's fear that comedy and the Old West could not mix. Garner was Bret Maverick, card shark and — when absolutely required — gunslinger, tooling around the west looking for ladies and finding trouble. Well, and ladies.
Or at least he did until 1960, when he walked out on the show and on his Warner Bros. contract. The studio sued and Garner fought back — and in a rare victory in those days for actors, won his freedom.
Soured, perhaps, by his television experience, he spent the next decade in movies. Success followed him to the big screen, with films ranging from comedies like The Thrill of It All and The Art of Love, to action hits like The Great Escape and Grand Prix, to cult favorites like The Americanization of Emily and Marlowe, to an unofficial revival of his Maverick character in Western comedies like Support Your Local Gunfighter and Skin Game.
Despite a burgeoning film career, he returned to television in 1971 as a scheming, money-hungry, anti-hero sheriff in the offbeat, end-of-the-West Western Nichols. It was a terrific series that would have been a smash hit for HBO, had there been an HBO at the time. On NBC it was a flop — so much so that, in a last-ditch plea for renewal, the producers killed Nichols in the last episode and replaced him with his more upright twin brother, also played by Garner. The show was canceled anyway.
The show was gone, but Garner stayed in TV. He and Mariette Hartley did a string of commercials for Polaroid that were so popular, and so natural, people thought the pair were married.
Undeterred by his Nichols experience, Garner tried series television again a few years later with 1974's The Rockford Files. The result was yet another signature role, and the one that perhaps most fully develops and enshrines the persona he created forMaverick. Both performances are essentially, wonderfully comic, but in place of Maverick's roguish youth, Rockford adds the poignancy of Jim Rockford's middle age, from his physical aches to his realization of this unjustly imprisoned ex-con that life did not always turn out as one hoped. It was Garner at his best, and it set a standard for detectives with depth TV has yet to surpass.
Yet as good as Garner was as Rockford and as much as he may have enjoyed it, the physical demands of the role overwhelmed him — and while the sixth season was still going on, Garner walked out. It led to yet another legal battle, with Universal suing Garner and Garner countersuing, claiming the studio cheated him out of his share of the profits. The near eight-year lawsuit eventually settled out of court, with Garner winning an undisclosed amount — making it Garner 2, Studios 0.
While fighting Universal, he entered his most prolific and productive film period. On the big screen, he had two of his biggest and best hits, Victor Victoria and Murphy's Romance. On TV, he starred in such well-regarded movies as HeartsoundsMy Name is Bill W, Space, Decoration Day and Barbarians at the Gate.
Best of all, he was able to show us the extent of his range, exploring the serious and not so lovable side of his customary lovable rogue in the 1986 TV movie Promise. Playing opposite James Woods, Garner starred as a self-absorbed bachelor forced to fulfill his promise to care for his mentally ill brother — and then forced to admit that it was a responsibility he could not fulfill. It remains one of the toughest, most honest TV movie performances ever.
Age slowed him, but did not stop him. He did Space Cowboys and The Notebook, among other films, for the movies, and Man of the People, Chicago HopeFirst Monday and 8 Simple Rules for TV.
His performances have now come to an end, but the work endures — and despite a fine movie career, TV will always be his home in our minds' eye. And it's not just because he was so wonderful in so many wonderful shows. It's because, like all the best TV stars, Garner was able to use the curious intimacy of that smaller screen to make us believe we were seeing both him and the character, and to make us fall in love with both.
With Garner, you have to think that love will endure.

James Garner: an actor of gentle gallantry

By Tim Robey
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
20 July 2014



James Garner, who died on Saturday at the age of 86, had a career that shuffled from TV to film to TV and back to film with the relaxed, unflappable gait of a cowboy – the type of role he was initially and really always associated with, from his first successes in the series Cheyenne (1955-7) and Maverick (1957-62). As a standalone film star, he caught some good breaks early on – starring opposite Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn in William Wyler’s terrific second adaptation of The Children’s Hour (1961), and as part of the whopping alpha-male line-up in The Great Escape (1963). There, his part as Flight Lt Hendley, the American in the RAF able to procure everything from cameras to ID cards, even threatened to steal the movie away from Steve McQueen. (McQueen was allegedly envious of his strapping co-star’s screen time, and “that goddamn white turtleneck” he was always wearing.)
Though you wouldn’t have guessed it at that moment, Hendley was Garner’s definitive film turn. At 6ft 2, and with his lady-killer looks and bushy eyebrows, Garner certainly wasn’t short of movie-star charisma or sex appeal. But the 1970s were encroaching, and this was a time when male stardom in Hollywood was starting to change: we were entering the era of the craggy (Gene Hackman), sardonic (Jack Nicholson), dangerous (Pacino, De Niro) and downright scrawny (Dustin Hoffman). Garner was almost too good-looking for his own good, a throwback to the Rock Hudson age when square jaws were bankable. He was a natural co-star for a specifically wholesome brand of leading lady – it’s telling that he worked twice with Doris Day (in the 1963 double bill of Move Over, Darling and The Thrill of it All) and three times with Julie Andrews.
The first of these pairings with Andrews, 1964’s cheeky, Paddy Chayefsky-scripted war satire The Americanisation of Emily, he regularly called his favourite film. John Frankenheimer’s expensive racing flick Grand Prix (1966), in which he was the biggest draw, was enough of a hit that stardom still looked like a rosy prospect. But gunfighter roles kept sticking to him. His persona was raffish and easygoing – the bluff, manly flipside to Clint Eastwood’s squinty iconoclasm – at a time when American film viewers were gravitating towards the latter.
TV viewers, not so much. It was natural, then, that Garner slipped back onto the small screen for the bulk of the 1970s, with his six-year stint as the rugged but oddly danger-averse hero of The Rockford Files (1974-80). Re-emerging as a film star was no cinch, despite the success of Victor/Victoria (1982), where the gender-bending let him send up his hetero credentials, moustache and all. Martin Ritt and Sally Field had to fight Columbia Pictures to get him cast in the horse-ranch dramedy Murphy’s Romance (1985) – the studio’s preference was to drag Marlon Brando out of retirement to do it, arguing that Garner was too squarely associated with TV stardom by this point. But the director and leading lady got their way, and the Academy duly awarded Garner with his one and only Oscar nomination for that part.
The film was a significant sleeper hit, but still didn’t quite usher in the major afterlife as a movie star that, say, Bryan Cranston is currently enjoying after Breaking Bad. A lot of Garner’s subsequent work, like his good supporting role in Mel Gibson’s spin-off of Maverick (1994), was very obviously a nod back to his TV roots, but fondly and enjoyably done, like donning a favourite hat for the first time in decades. His old pal Eastwood – they’d had an epic fistfight together in an episode of the show called “Duel at Sundown” (1959) – threw him a nice opportunity as one of the grizzled astronauts in Space Cowboys (2000). And though his role in Robert Benton’s noirish old-timers’ mystery Twilight (1998) was fourth-ranked below Paul Newman, Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon – he didn’t even make the poster – it was the most interesting part in a neglected movie, and might even have bagged him some supporting-actor kudos had the film been more of a hit.
To a new generation of viewers, he had one last renaissance waiting, as Ryan Gosling’s older self in The Notebook (2004): a very touching performance that serves as a capstone to his career now. It had his stolid affability, his Clark Gable-like charm, and a touch of the rogue, without transgressing civil boundaries. He tipped us a wink with his old devil’s smoothness, but it was also exactly as sentimental as it needed to be. It was a reminder, behind the hearty frame of this Oklahoma jock and ex-soldier, that Garner’s best gift to us was something a little out of fashion – a gentle gallantry.