The language of Hamas

[Shaktimaan]

Hamas also uses a vocabulary that has to be decoded. For example, it talks about the Israeli "occupier". In the current conflict, this of course, can refer to Israeli troops in Gaza. But before the Israeli operation, they controlled Gaza's borders by land, sea and air and so were also called "occupiers".

And more generally, the word means that Israel occupies all the land of Palestine. This, Hamas defines by the boundaries of the territory mandated by the League of Nations to Britain after World War I, minus the east bank of the Jordan that Britain sliced off to give to the Jordanian royal family and which is now Jordan.

So when Hamas talks about resisting the "occupier", it is not just talking about resistance in Gaza.

Its occasional references to a long-term "truce" also must be understood. For Hamas, this does not mean a proper peace agreement with Israel. It means a cessation of violence, which could perhaps last for years, but under which it holds its options open.

And when Hamas says it is ready to accept a Palestinian state within the borders as they existed before the war in 1967, it does not follow that it would accept those borders as the last word. It hopes to re-establish Palestine as it once was.

Sometimes Hamas leaders come into the open. A few years ago I interviewed one of them, Dr Mahmoud Zahar, in Gaza. He referred to Israel as "a foreign body. It does not belong in the area".

Dr Zahar has now declared that Israel's attacks in Gaza have "legitimised" the killing of Israeli children. I doubt if he has changed his mind about Israel being a foreign body.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815630.stm

[The Magistrate]

1. These Are Unfortunate Facts, Sir, Which Need To Faced

The idea only one side is at fault here is pernicious.

[aquart]

2. Yep.

The woolly lambs of DU don't want to believe any of this.

As for a "Palestinian state," there is no real advantage to Hamas in forming one...because it will have a parliamentary form of government and Fatah and other groups could gain control.

Not to mention someone might audit the books.

So the children and women continue to die for the wonderful principle of Arabs own it all.

[PerfectSage]

5. I'd say your a woolly lamb.

In my opinion, in the long run Isreal is doomed as long as Israeli politicains keep on getting the grand strategic level of warfare wrong.

Just keep on thinking like a neo con, because you don't want to believe any of this grand strategic level of warfare stuff.

[cali]

7. everyone and everything is doomed in the long run.

and stop accusing people you disagree with of being a neocon. It's so lame.

[PerfectSage]

9. So is being accused of being a wooly DU lamb.

Can I accuse him of being a mental and moral imbecile? Cuz that's what I think he is.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Hamas is just as bad as the Israeli government

when it comes to spewing out hate and having the delusional idea that they can make the problem go away not by compromise and legislation and treaties but by killing all the Israelis. NOTHING justifies killing children and non-combatants. NOTHING justifies killing medics and aid workers.

[Shaktimaan]

8. Actually, Hamas is far worse than Israel in all those regards.

Israel does not refuse to negotiate with its enemies, it has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and negotiated with the PLO, Lebanon, Syria and others. Nor does the Israeli government put out anti-Arab children's programming designed to foment hatred of Palestinians.

Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organization while Israel is a free democratic nation.

NOTHING justifies killing children and non-combatants. NOTHING justifies killing medics and aid workers.

No, that's not quite accurate. Nothing justifies targeting them on purpose. But some of the people you mentioned are invariably killed whenever there is war. A war without any collateral damage at all is a fantasy. And while war is a despicable enterprise it is sometimes necessary to protect the very people you mentioned... civilians and children.

Every nation is obligated to protect, first and foremost, the lives of its citizens. Hamas' worst crime by far is their callous disregard for its responsibility to its citizenry by provoking this war, rejecting opportunities for peace and exposing civilians to danger by using them as cover.

If Israel acted as Hamas does then it would be unconcerned with whether it was killing civilians or militants. Thankfully, Israel distinguishes between the two... something Hamas has never done themselves.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I say again, NOTHING justifies killing

because I am a pacifist and don't believe in having wars at all.

[Shaktimaan]

16. OK, I can respect that.

All I would say, in that case, is that as a pacifist who feels that war can never be justified, your philosophy differs significantly from that held by most/all nations. Whereas you can say that you would rather die yourself than kill for any reason, governments do not always have that luxury.

War is sometimes necessary to save lives. Not usually, but when it does occur governments have to decide whether it is right to send their citizens to fight, kill and often die themselves. If the lives at stake are those of their countrymen and families then people are usually willing to take any necessary action to protect them. I know some people who may not kill to save their own lives, but would to save their children or their spouse.

There's a philosophical exercise that I'm curious to get your opinion on. Imagine that you're standing by the side of a railroad track and you see an out of control commuter train careening towards you. The train is about to go over a ruptured section of rail and it will surely kill everyone on board, say 100 people. You have the option of pulling a switch and sending the train away from the damaged section, saving everyone on board, but then the train would plow through a stalled station wagon that's stuck on the tracks. A family of five is trapped inside and they would surely be killed were the train to hit them. So you can pull the lever and save 100 people while dooming five. Or you can do nothing and allow 100 people to die. What would you do?

Most people answer that they would pull the switch, even though doing so would equate to killing 5 innocent people. They say that saving 100 justifies killing 5. But I'm curious... as a pacifist who can't justify the killing of anyone, ever, how would you approach the problem?

[shira]

22. a better challenging question

suppose the 5 people in that car are your family and you have to choose between them and a train full of 100 people. Do you choose to save your family or the 100 folks in the train?

What if the 100 in the train are all children?

Or all rightwing freepers and their children?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. I am not sure

probably go try to help the 5 who were stuck get out whilst having someone else pull the switch to save the train.

[shira]

26. it's either, or.....

...no time for both.

Choose wisely.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. There is no wise choice n/t

[Shaktimaan]

27. right...

but that's avoiding the purpose of the exercise, isn't it?

I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious. It's one thing to say that no one DESERVES to die. That's an easy philosophy to get behind because there aren't any consequences. Ditto for saying that killing is always wrong. I agree with both those sentiments. But once you say that killing can never be justified it opens up a world of catch-22s and hard, real-world choices. After all, killing may always be wrong, but there are vastly different degrees of "wrong."

The classic example, of course, is WWII. (And I am NOT comparing the Palestinians to hitler.) Stopping the Holocaust required going to war and killing lots of other people. History is filled with other examples... Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge's rule, for instance. Sometimes there are alternatives to killing, (your example of trying to help the 5 stuck in the car), a third way. But sometimes there really isn't. That isn't the case here anyway, and besides, the IP conflict is way too complex to reduce to such simple analogies.

I'm not going to try and change your mind because I respect your position. Personally, I feel that as most circumstances in this world are out of our control it can be dangerous to deal in absolutes. You know the old saw, "You can't be responsible for how other people act, just for how you choose to respond to them" or something like that. If people choose to act murderously then it can sometimes be less ethical, IMO, to refrain from stopping them than otherwise.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. WWII

Interesting time. The children of the founder of my order, Vilayat and Noorunnisa Khan, decided, even though they were pacifists, to support the Allies. Vilayat went into the Royal Navy on a ship that rescued downed pilots. Noorunnisa worked for the French Resistance as "Madalaine" who broadcast on the radio. She was betrayed and was captured and tortured by the Nazis. She died at Dachau. Vilayat spent the rest of his life forgiving those who tortured and killed his sister.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. It's not really accurate at all to paint Hamas' position that way.

I don't support Hamas (I favor widescale non violent resistance in the form of international boycotts, sanctions and divestment), but they aren't wild-eyed barbarians screaming for Jewish blood.

That's just inaccurate. I would expect that most here would disagree with Hamas' stance, but it should at least be discussed accurately.

Here's one piece that appeared in the WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html

Here's another that appeared in The Guardian this week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x239921

[azurnoir]

4. Are you hopingno one reads the entire article?

the updates at the end are saying that at least in the case of the UN school Hamas was telling the truth.Not mention Hamas does not have an entire government department dedicated to distribubting propaganda about how everything they do being OK. Zahars statement was terrible but it does not justify anyones actions and that includes Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

28. OK, you got me.

No, I'm just kidding. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I posted the article because I thought it was extremely relevant to the discussion that people understand exactly what Hamas' rhetoric means, esp since their meanings of certain terms are not the generally accepted ones. When Hamas talks about resisting the occupation many neophytes might believe that they are referring to the occupation of the OPT. When they speak of offering Israel a truce, people might assume that they mean a permanent peace treaty.

Not mention Hamas does not have an entire government department dedicated to distribubting propaganda about how everything they do being OK.
Really? Who makes their pro-terror children's programming then?

Zahars statement was terrible but it does not justify anyones actions and that includes Israel.
I agree. But it was never Hamas' statements that were the actual issue. It is their actions that are everyone's concern. Their statements are only relevant as they demonstrate a particular philosophy that drives their actions, and are thus important for understanding the nature of the conflict.

[EFerrari]

6. Both sides use coded language to further political ends.

Dead Palestinian children are "human shields", dead Palestinian men are "militants" no matter who they are and the Palestinian resistance is all "terrorists". The hundreds of deaths and thousands of wounded is just "self defense".

There's blame to go around.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Well, that is just untrue.

Dead children are human shields when they have been used as such, but not always. Regardless, use of HS is an admitted tactic of Hamas, so I don't see why you would find it suspicious.

Dead Palestinian men are militants sometimes. Israel has never claimed that 100% of the men killed are Hamas. Besides, even the Palestinians own figures showed that most of the dead so far actually are Hamas. (Last time I checked, anyway.)

"Palestinian resistance?" I'm not sure what that means. If you're referring to peaceful protesters, then you are mistaken. Israel does not refer to them all as terrorists. If you are referring to Hamas militants, then you are correct... Israel does refer to them all as terrorists. But that's because they are. How is that a code?

You are just using hyperbole here to try and claim moral equivalency. There IS plenty of blame to go around, but not where you seem to be placing it. Your examples don't seem to be valid, nor are they even examples of "coded language." Coded language implies a secondary meaning; something that can be understood as meaning different things depending on the audience.

See to Hamas, "fighting the occupation" means "fighting against the existence of the state of Israel." That's coded language.

When Israel says they are "attacking militants" or "fighting Hamas" it means exactly that. "Militants" does not mean one thing to the Israelis and another to the rest of the world. It is not generally understood to be a code word for "all Palestinians" amongst Israelis, for instance.

[EFerrari]

11. There is not an iota of hyperbole in my post. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

13. really?

So Israel has been claiming that every, single Palestinian male killed in the assault is a militant? That's news to me.

Would you care to source that?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. While Israel has not claimed *every* dead person is a militant, it is disengenuous in the extreme

to pose as though Israel hasn't done everything possible to minimize and spin the human toll of this.

[Shaktimaan]

18. I don't disagree with you.

Of course Israel has been trying to spin this as to put themselves in the best possible light and minimize the suffering of the Gazans.

I was just pointing out the hyperbole in the above posters comments. Originally I thought it was important to post something about the specific semantics of Hamas, since they could easily be misunderstood by someone who was unaware of what they meant by certain terms. Their definitions of words like "occupation" and "truce" differ considerably from the ones that a casual western person might assume.

This is not "spin" or merely telling their side of the story. It is a dual-meaning that's critical to understanding their narrative, and subsequently, both theirs and Israel's policies.

[EFerrari]

21. You have a mote and beam problem.

Israel's words like "terrorists" and "militants" are equally duplicitous.

Why is it that when someone you agree with describes code, they are describing behavior but when I show you how the other side does precisely the same thing, I am using "hyperbole"?

[EFerrari]

20. No. For a while, they were claiming that only women and children

could be counted as civilian dead implicitly -- in the reported number of civilian casualties by only counting women and children. That was before the actual invasion.

[EFerrari]

19. This has been discussed here. It was brought up in the press conference

the President of the UN General Assembly last gave and it was brought up in Amy Goodman's reporting either Monday or Tuesday.

I only noticed it myself because of the math. The 25% civilians number just happened to correspond with the number of casualties who were women and children.

But, whether it is literally true or not, that is the LANGUAGE that is being used, i.e., the code. That is the topic of this thread, right?

[Vegasaurus]

12. Thank you for this article

I hadn't seen it but it confirms what I have been saying for months:

Hamas considers ALL of Israel occupied.

ALL of it,not just Gaza (which was evacuated in 2005) or the West Bank, but ALL of Israel.

They have said they will NEVER make peace with Israel.

That they will continue violent resistance until they liberate 'all of greater Palestine'.

There will be no truce; only a time to rearm until they can continue their struggle.

Semantics are important.

Hamas is honest, but so-called progressives don't seem to believe them,

They want Israel GONE, and are willing to keep up perpetual war forever.

[Arrowhead2k1]

23. Hamas doesn't get to enjoy our tax dollars, Israel does.

Hence the outrage.

If our goverment was funding Hamas let's say, I'd be pissed off about that too.

[Shaktimaan]

25. Well, we certainly give aid money to the Palestinians.

Primarily Fatah. And the US is the primary financier of the UNRWA which provides aid to the Palestinians. But I can't imagine anyone being upset about that.

You're right, the US doesn't give Hamas any money. But then Israel is hardly the ethical equivalent of Hamas. US tax money goes to support far more destructive things than the IDF. Such as the war in Iraq for instance, which has a much worse record when it comes to distinguishing between civilians and militants than anything Israel has ever done.

This conflict is complex, you should not let headlines draw you into making knee-jerk conclusions as to the morality of the situation. I don't support Israel's current actions but then I don't have any family in Sderot either. There are no easy answers to any aspect of this conflict. It was no different during the time prior to America's financial aid of Israel. However, rest assured that if Israel were to one day adopt goals and tactics similar to Hamas', the US would soon cease funding them.

[Vegasaurus]

31. There is so much aid money that goes to the Palestnians

billions and billions.

Where is it?

Certainly not feeding children, building schools, or improving the lives of citizens.

Most of it went to corruption and weapons.

Lots to weapons.

So, you are funding Hamas, inadvertently.