Ahhhhh .... The French.

[Ed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/in...e/11diplo.html

And so, the self rightious indignation at the Hamas win begins to evaporate.

Quote:

France on Friday endorsed Russia's decision to hold talks on the Middle East conflict with Hamas, the radical Islamist Palestinian group, saying the discussion "can contribute to advancing our positions."

There is always a reason for abandoning a principled stand. Which EU government will be next?

I thought that there were provisions in the EU charter or one of those documents that forbade treating with terrorists.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Ed

I thought that there were provisions in the EU charter or one of those documents that forbade treating with terrorists.

One man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fries...fighter!".

Quote:

Thursday, 11 September, 2003, 16:50 GMT 17:50 UK

EU blacklists Hamas political wing

European Union diplomats have been finalising details of their decision to put the political wing of the Palestinian militant group Hamas on its list of terrorist organisations.

EU diplomats said that Hamas would be named as a whole....

Quote:

September 6, 2003

US Department of State

We welcome the political decision of the European Union Foreign Ministers to designate the Hamas leadership and its institutions.

This is an important step in halting the financing of terrorist activities. This will send an important message that the violence and terror Hamas carries out does not represent the future for the Palestinian people and will not lead to a Palestinian state.

Quote:

30.01.2006

Hamas must change and renounce violence if it wants Europe's support, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Monday as EU foreign ministers met to discuss the militant group's shock election win.

"They have been a terrorist organization. They have to change their methods and they have to accept that violence is incompatible with democracy," Solana told AFP as he arrived for a day of talks in Brussels.

[Orwell]

Whanna bet that the Bush administration id going to talk to Hamas? Heck, they might be doing it already...

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by Orwell

Whanna bet that the Bush administration is going to talk to Hamas? Heck, they might be doing it already...

Not directly, no, I don't think we will see that, Orwell. But I'm sure we'll be asking our friends the Russians about their talks with the Hamas leadership.

And low-level, well-below-the-radar between a couple of guys in a Damascus Coffee Shop? May sound like Tom Clancy, but there are such things--my guess (and only a guess) is that Egytp and Jordan will be our middlemen on this deal. Just hope nothing gets lost in the translation.


ZN Quoted:

Quote:

Hamas must change and renounce violence if it wants Europe's support, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Monday as EU foreign ministers met to discuss the militant group's shock election win.

"They have been a terrorist organization. They have to change their methods and they have to accept that violence is incompatible with democracy," Solana told AFP as he arrived for a day of talks in Brussels.

And...?

[Lukretius]

Originally Posted by Orwell

Whanna bet that the Bush administration id going to talk to Hamas? Heck, they might be doing it already...

Probably - and I don't understand why any state shouldn't. They are elected representatives for the Palestinian people, and should be considered as such. However, if they choose to keep their ideas of wiping out Israel, they shouldn't expect the rest of the world to help their administration.

Besides the whole idea about meeting with "bullies" is a classic. As long as radical people are left out of responsibility, they can say whatever they want, it's free because no one can test their claims. Giving them responsibility tends to make them behave more moderate, because they now have to show results. So it's gonna be interesting to see how the respond to acquiring power.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Lukretius

As long as radical people are left out of responsibility, they can say whatever they want, it's free because no one can test their claims. Giving them responsibility tends to make them behave more moderate, because they now have to show results.

Yep. Look how moderate Hitler became after coming to power (I call Godwin's Law!).

[geni]

Originally Posted by Hutch

May sound like Tom Clancy, but there are such things--my guess (and only a guess) is that Egytp and Jordan will be our middlemen on this deal. Just hope nothing gets lost in the translation.

I don't know. I doubt that Hosni Mubarak is too happy about haveing a fundimentalist islamic state on his doorstep.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Lukretius

Probably - and I don't understand why any state shouldn't.

Here's one. Hamas is officially designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada and Israel.

So my argument is even if Hamas is elected by a group of people it should not change it's status in regards to US, EU, Canada and Israel. Especially since Hamas has not changed it's tune - the destruction of Israel. If Afghanistan elected in Al Queda would Russia and Europe say:

Quote:

France on Friday endorsed Russia's decision to hold talks with Al Queda, the radical Islamist group, saying the discussion "can contribute to advancing our positions."

Unfortunately when it comes to the Middle East, one day your a designated terrorist organization, the next you are having tea with some world leaders.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Lukretius

Probably - and I don't understand why any state shouldn't.

According to the Hamas charter, the jews created the league of nations after WWI as part of a plot to control the world. It goes downhill from there, complete with holocaust denial and openly calling for another holocaust.

(The most moderate part of the charter merely delegates women to the status of semi-educated chattle, claiming "The Islamic woman must be educated enough to take care of her home and kitchen.")

The only thing Hamas ever will negotiate is what it can get from other states in its goal of a second holocaust. I would say that negotiating how to help with a second holocaust, which is the real and openly-admitted goal of Hamas, is not morally acceptable even if they were democratically elected.

[CBL4]

Yes, the line between principled and whoredom is very fine. In France it normally depends on which side of the mouth is talking.

Foreign governments should talk to Hamas because, like it or not, they are the legitimate government of Palestine. We talked with Stalin, Hitler and Mao and Hamas is not on the same page in evilness.

However, providing support to Palestine is an iffy business. It could turn Hamas into a reasonable group or it could help their murderers. As much as I hate them, I would not advocate stopping all aid. I do not think that is the productive response. Most aid should be funnelled through NGOs but some well targeted aid may be need to be given to the government.

At least I think so but I may be wrong.

CBL

CBL

[Tony]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

Here's one. Hamas is officially designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada and Israel.

That's not a reason, that's a duplicitous an excuse to ignore the democratic decisions of a people. And Hamas is no-longer a terrorist organization; it is a political party with power and a government. That is a good thing. Any counter-action the Israeli government takes will now have more legitimacy because they are acting against a foreign government as opposed to a rag-tag rabble of Islamic fanatics.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Tony

And Hamas is no-longer a terrorist organization; it is a political party with power and a government.

Did you mean to write "Hamas is no longer just a terrorist organization"?

They can be both, you know...

Happy birthday!

[Luke T.]

Arafat was a terrorist, too. And he had an honorary ambassorship position at the UN, didn't he?

Did he ever renounce his terrorism?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Did you mean to write "Hamas is no longer just a terrorist organization"?

They can be both, you know...

Maybe, but I don't prescribe any meaning to "terrorist organization". It is a subjective term used purely to demonize those with whom a government/movement/political party/religion disagress or doesn't like.

Quote:

Happy birthday!

Thanx man.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Tony

Maybe, but I don't prescribe any meaning to "terrorist organization". It is a subjective term used purely to demonize those with whom a government/movement/political party/religion disagress or doesn't like.

"Purely"? You mean there's really no such thing as a terrorist organization? Terrorism is simply in the mind of the beholder?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

"Purely"? You mean there's really no such thing as a terrorist organization?

Nope, unless the organization's only M.O. is terrorism. A more accurate description would be to call them rebel groups that often use terrorism. If you label any group which uses terrorism a “terrorist group”, for the sake of honesty, you'll also have to label the US government (among others) a terrorist organization.

Quote:

Terrorism is simply in the mind of the beholder?

Not at all. You seem to be under the impression that unless I think there are "terrorist organizations", I can't think that terrorism is objective.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Tony

Nope, unless the organization's only M.O. is terrorism.

So al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization because in addition to terrorism, they use money-laundering and al Jazeera videos to advance their agenda? What if their favorite m.o. is terrorism?

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Yep. Look how moderate Hitler became after coming to power (I call Godwin's Law!).

Does Godwin's Law work when you're actually making a valid point, though?

Marc

[Tony]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization because in addition to terrorism, they use money-laundering and al Jazeera videos to advance their agenda?

I didn't include things like money laundering and videos in their M.O. But you're right, under your terms and broad definition of M.O., Al Quaeda is not a terrorist organization.

Quote:

What if their favorite m.o. is terrorism?

What if? I dunno. Good luck proving that their favorite M.O. is terrorism. I'd like to see you find a quote by an Al Quaeda member saying something to the effect of "we don't use cruise missles, battleships, aircraft carriers, bombers, and we don't attack military bases and targets because we like terrorism better". No. The only reason terrorism is employed is because they have no other options with which to make their war.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Arafat was a terrorist, too. And he had an honorary ambassorship position at the UN, didn't he?

Did he ever renounce his terrorism?

I think he did - from the left side of his mouth.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Tony

That's not a reason, that's a duplicitous an excuse to ignore the democratic decisions of a people. And Hamas is no-longer a terrorist organization; it is a political party with power and a government.

I disagree. Just because Hamas was "elected" doesn't change who Hamas is, what they did or what they stand for. The only difference between before and today is "they now hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority". Don't forget Hamas has killed many americans too. One such instance was the Hamas bombing of the Frank Sinatra cafeteria at the Hebrew University in July 2002.

Originally Posted by Tony

Any counter-action the Israeli government takes will now have more legitimacy because they are acting against a foreign government as opposed to a rag-tag rabble of Islamic fanatics.

I agree. If a government of a country allows a group of terrorists to make attacks on another country, without making a good faith effort to stop them, then they are as responsible for those attacks as if they'd ordered them. Now that Hamas is actually the Palestinian government, the Israelis can treat terrorist acts by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as acts of war.

[edited to add]

Here's "Palestine" under Hamas.



Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun



Palestinian school children carry a mock coffin draped in a Danish flag during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun



Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Tony

I didn't include things like money laundering and videos in their M.O. But you're right, under your terms and broad definition of M.O., Al Quaeda is not a terrorist organization.

Okay, so if you don't consider al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, can you identify any organization that you believe qualifies?

Quote:

No. The only reason terrorism is employed is because they have no other options with which to make their war.

That's kinda like saying someone isn't a bank robber because he only robs banks because he can't get honest work.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Marc L

Does Godwin's Law work when you're actually making a valid point, though?

Yes.

Quote:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Note the definition does not speak to the validity of the comparison.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Okay, so if you don't consider al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, can you identify any organization that you believe qualifies?
That's kinda like saying someone isn't a bank robber because he only robs banks because he can't get honest work.

I think it more akin to saying that a bank robber is also a son and a father and plays cricket on the weekends, in other words the "bank robber" label does not define all that is relevant about the person.

For once I do want to explicitly distance myself from the initial idea - Hamas is a terrorist organisation, it is not just about the tactics a group uses but also its goals and by that definition they are 100% a terrorist organisation.

Also whilst some may claim the USA has committed terrorist acts even if it has it cannot be classed as a terrorist organisation in the same way Hamas can.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Okay, so if you don't consider al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, can you identify any organization that you believe qualifies?

I don't believe any organization qualifies. I think the label is fundamentally flawed and useless. Al Quaeda is an Islamofascist organization that uses terrorism to prosecute it's war.

Quote:

That's kinda like saying someone isn't a bank robber because he only robs banks because he can't get honest work.

No it's not. It's nothing like it at all.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

I disagree. Just because Hamas was "elected" doesn't change who Hamas is, what they did or what they stand for.

So? That's irrelevant to the fact that they were elected. Your beef is with democracy.

Quote:

The only difference between before and today is "they now hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority". Don't forget Hamas has killed many americans too. One such instance was the Hamas bombing of the Frank Sinatra cafeteria at the Hebrew University in July 2002.

Ok.

Quote:

I agree. If a government of a country allows a group of terrorists to make attacks on another country, without making a good faith effort to stop them, then they are as responsible for those attacks as if they'd ordered them. Now that Hamas is actually the Palestinian government, the Israelis can treat terrorist acts by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as acts of war.

Exactly!!

Quote:

Here's "Palestine" under Hamas.



Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun



Palestinian school children carry a mock coffin draped in a Danish flag during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun



Palestinian school children shout slogans during a Hamas rally in the West Bank city of Hebron February 13, 2006. REUTERS/Nayef Hashlamoun

What is the point of posting these pictures? Do you think this type of stuff is news to me? I've long known that the fanatics is palestine brainwash their kids to become fodder for their war against the evil jooz.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Darat

Also whilst some may claim the USA has committed terrorist acts even if it has it cannot be classed as a terrorist organisation in the same way Hamas can.

Why not?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Tony

So? That's irrelevant to the fact that they were elected. Your beef is with democracy.

Not true. The Palestinians can elect Scientologists if they want, I won't stop them. But that doesn't mean I have to automatically accept Scientology cuz the Palestinians elected it.

Quote:

Feb 14, 2006

JERUSALEM - Hamas protested "interference" by the United States and Israel on Tuesday following reports the nations were exploring ways to topple the militants' incoming government unless they renounced their violent ideology and recognized Israel's right to exist.

"There will be no recognition of Israel and there will be no security for the occupation and colonization forces," Mashaal told a rally in Khartoum. "Resistance will remain our strategic option."

Does a militant terrorist group change because it is elected? Given Hamas' history, extreme skepticism is in order.

Originally Posted by Tony

What is the point of posting these pictures? Do you think this type of stuff is news to me? I've long known that the fanatics is palestine brainwash their kids to become fodder for their war against the evil jooz.

The pictures aren't directed at you. They are just a snapshot of yesterdays Hamas rally.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tony

Why not?

Because its reason for existence is not something that can be equated to a terrorist act.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

Not true. The Palestinians can elect Scientologists if they want, I won't stop them. But that doesn't mean I have to automatically accept Scientology cuz the Palestinians elected it.

Umm, who is asking you, personally, to accept Hamas or Islam? No one. But you DO, if you have any respect for democracy, have to accept them as their legitimate government.

Quote:

Does a militant terrorist group change because it is elected?

Yes. By defintion it changes from "militant terrorist group" to elected government.

Quote:

Given Hamas' history, extreme skepticism is in order.

I never contended Hamas was going to stop wanting war against Israel, on the contrary, I'm counting on it.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Darat

Because its reason for existence is not something that can be equated to a terrorist act.

I don't see how wanting the destruction of a country by a people is a de facto terrorist act. Can you explain how it is?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tony

I don't see how wanting the destruction of a country by a people is a de facto terrorist act. Can you explain how it is?

Granted when a state declares such a stance we tend to call it a "war of aggression" rather then terrorism however I think when it is a terrorist organisation that has become the government, without changing anything about it's previous terrorist stance then there is no reason to change the label we apply to them.

I should add I do not disagree with you that we should recognise Hamas as the legitimate government of the proto-Palestinian state but along with that recognition comes consequences. E.g. a recognition that the proto-state is a terrorist state.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Tony

Umm, who is asking you, personally, to accept Hamas or Islam? No one. But you DO, if you have any respect for democracy, have to accept them as their legitimate government.

Strangely I've never said Hamas isn't their legitimate government, therefore that claim is dead in the water.

What I am saying is just because Hamas is the legitimate Palestinian government doesn't mean I have to automatically agree with their ideology. And if I don't agree with their ideology the way I show that disagreement is to not support them. Such is my democratic right no?

Originally Posted by Tony

Yes. By defintion it changes from "militant terrorist group" to elected government.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Tony

I never contended Hamas was going to stop wanting war against Israel, on the contrary, I'm counting on it.

There are those - France & Russia - who argue that if Hamas gains political responsibility it will find itself forced to weed out its militants, eventually turning from terror to moderation. I say, ya...sure....just like the fundy mullahs in Iran moderated their policies after they took power....

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Darat

Granted when a state declares such a stance we tend to call it a "war of aggression" rather then terrorism however I think when it is a terrorist organisation that has become the government, without changing anything about it's previous terrorist stance then there is no reason to change the label we apply to them.

That doesn't answer the question and it's also circular reasoning. How is wanting the destruction of a country a de facto terrorist stance? You're still taking it for granted that wanting the destruction of a country is a terrorist stance, it's not.

Quote:

I should add I do not disagree with you that we should recognise Hamas as the legitimate government of the proto-Palestinian state but along with that recognition comes consequences. E.g. a recognition that the proto-state is a terrorist state.

You're adding fuel to my claim that "terrorist" is simply a label used to demonize those with whom certain groups disagree. I still don't see how the US government wouldn't qualify under this exact reasoning.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

What I am saying is just because Hamas is the legitimate Palestinian government doesn't mean I have to automatically agree with their ideology.

Well no ***** Sherlock. Who the hell is saying that you do?

Quote:

There are those - France & Russia - who argue that if Hamas gains political responsibility it will find itself forced to weed out its militants, eventually turning from terror to moderation.

I chalk it up to wishful thinking.

[kittynh]

the best hope is that the rest of the Arab world doesn't like Hammas.


Matter of fact, a lot of them really hate the Palestinians and treat the "refugees" that live within their borders as little better than immigrant pond scum.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tony

That doesn't answer the question and it's also circular reasoning. How is wanting the destruction of a country a de facto terrorist stance? You're still taking it for granted that wanting the destruction of a country is a terrorist stance, it's not.

It doesn't necessarilybut given the starting point in this particular instance it does.

Originally Posted by Tony

You're adding fuel to my claim that "terrorist" is simply a label used to demonize those with whom certain groups disagree. I still don't see how the US government wouldn't qualify under this exact reasoning.

Hamas has already demonised itself - it has already proved that does not respect the rule of any law, the sanctity of life and so on in particular if that person is an Israeli and so on.

See what the USA has done in the world - you see no systematic process of destruction or attempts at genocide etc., you see a state that on the whole obeys its own and others laws and so on.

May I ask you what definition you use for a terrorist or a terrorist organisation?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Darat

It doesn't necessarilybut given the starting point in this particular instance it does.

Why?

Why is it terrorism for some to want the destruction of a country, but not others?

Quote:

Hamas has already demonised itself - it has already proved that does not respect the rule of any law, the sanctity of life and so on in particular if that person is an Israeli and so on.

See what the USA has done in the world - you see no systematic process of destruction or attempts at genocide etc.

Except the American Indian.

Quote:

you see a state that on the whole obeys its own and others laws and so on.

Except laws against spying on its citizens, laws against censorship, laws guaranteeing religious freedom, laws guaranteeing gun ownership ect..


This is all boiling down to the fact that since you don't like Hamas, they're a terrorist organization.

Quote:

May I ask you what definition you use for a terrorist or a terrorist organisation.

I don't have one. I reject the terms altogether for being objectively useless. They are only useful as a subjective label.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tony

Why?

Why is it terrorism for some to want the destruction of a country, but not others?

I've already explained that as best as I can.

Quote:

Except the American Indian.

Which strictly speaking was not an action of the USA.

Quote:

Except laws against spying on its citizens, laws against censorship, laws guaranteeing religious freedom, laws guaranteeing gun ownership ect..


This is all boiling down to the fact that since you don't like Hamas, they're a terrorist organization.

No it boils down to the fact that Hamas knowingly and as a policy target non-military targets to cause terror. Which is the definition I tend to use for terrorist.

Quote:

I don't have one. I reject the terms altogether for being objectively useless. They are only useful as a subjective label.

All words are subjective, all labels are subjective however as humans we seem to have found that they are useful tools to allow us to communicate with one another. That you do not wish to use a word that has accepted use is of course your prerogative, however as long as I can use the word terrorist and the person I am communicating with can understand what I mean by it I will continue to use it.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Darat

I've already explained that as best as I can.

But you haven't. You've just re-asserted that wanting a country destroyed is a terrorist stance.

Quote:

Which strictly speaking was not an action of the USA.

Huh? How can you call a direct action by the US government not an action of the USA?

Quote:

No it boils down to the fact that Hamas knowingly and as a policy target non-military targets to cause terror. Which is the definition I tend to use for terrorist.

So did the USA, and I'm sure the tactic would be used again if it was deemed necessary to win. Incidentally, they also attack military targets. I asay again, this simply boils down to you not liking Hamas, and thus, label them a terrorist organization.

There is nothing really wrong with that, but don't pretend that its an objective observation.

Quote:

All words are subjective, all labels are subjective however as humans we seem to have found that they are useful tools to allow us to communicate with one another.

ALL? That's a big claim. I can think of plenty of labels that are objective.

Quote:

That you do not wish to use a word that has accepted use is of course your prerogative, however as long as I can use the word terrorist and the person I am communicating with can understand what I mean by it I will continue to use it.

Of course, but under your criterion, you would also have to label the US government a terrorist government, but you don't. You are extremely selective in how you apply the label, only those with whom you disagree receive it. That is my point.