For those of you who frequently read CNN, I'm sure this will come as no surprise.
In recent weeks, tensions between the Hamas-led Palestinian government and the Palestinian security apparatus (mostly run by followers of Fatah, the ousted party) have been slowly escalating. At least in the Gaza Strip, it seems rather likely that a full-scale civil war will erupt. What amused me, though, was CNN's reporting on the issue. At the end of the article detailing yet another confrontation between police (Fatah) and Hamas' new pseudo-legal security force, CNN said:
Israel and the U.S. State Department consider Hamas a terrorist organization, though it also operates an extensive social services network in the Palestinian territories.
CNN always tacks this on to articles about Hamas. It's like they just have to tell us that an organization that has murdered several hundred civilians and is fighting its own police force isn't completely bad, so it's all right. They also always mention that Israel and the US 'consider' them a terrorist organization; technically true, but neglecting that the rest of the Western world agrees with the US and Israel. Do we need to say that Al Qaeda is 'considered' a terrorist organization? *shrugs* Okay, fine, that's CNN's shtick.
Now here's what gets me. The reasons why Hamas has gotten more legitimacy in the world are threefold:
1) Social welfare programs in Gaza
2) Popular election to run the PA
3) A cease fire with Israel
Do I need to bother to address the first? So what if they give some charity on the side? It might explain their popularity, but that hardly absolves them from being terrorists. (For those who would like to argue that the social and military arms of Hamas are entirely separate, there are a whole host of proofs that you're wrong. I won't belabor the point here; google should help you.) CNN's silly for bringing this point up time and time again.
Okay, but what about the second? If they run the Palestinian government, doesn't that give their military operations an aura of legitimacy? After all, some definitions of terrorism include that it must be carried out by non-state actors. Otherwise, it's just a 'war crime' or somesuch.
Firstly, not all definitions agree. As Hamas still intentionally targets civilians, one could argue that it's a terrorist government. Additionally, one could quite reasonable argue that the PA is not a state actor... it's certainly not sovereign. Lastly, most of the Hamas military wing is not yet part of the Palestinian government's security apparatus, making its military operations fit the definition of terrorism regardless.
...which brings us to the last reason one might not consider Hamas a terrorist organization: the 'cease fire'. Now, neglecting whether this cease fire has held (it has not), I bring the latest ridiculousness to your attention. As you well know, Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip (particularly Sderot and Ashkelon) have been experiencing high levels of rocket fire on a daily basis. Most of these attacks are orchestrated by the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella Palestinian terror group.
The founder of the PRC is now the head of Hamas' new security force.
So, let me get this straight: Hamas is following a cease fire by putting their security force under the authority of the man who's in charge of daily attacks against Israeli civilians?
*shakes head* I just don't understand it.
And now Ha'aretz reports that Hamas is so 'moderate' that they are willing to indefinitely extend their cease fire with Israel if Israel pulls back to the 1967 armistice lines. Note that this makes no mention of peace or joint recognition, or much of anything. Just an extended cease fire, to give them time to rearm for the next push.
No comments:
Post a Comment