From the Horses Mouth, But No One Listens

I wish all the fools who support the 'democratically elected' murderers in Gaza would listen to what they actually say. All the talk of a secular democratic state, led by these 'democratically elected' Islamic terrorists makes me puke.

Today, on the anniversary of the UN decision to partition the British Palestine Mandate into two states (after 80% of it had already been lopped off and turned into Transjordan in 1922), Hamas has issued a childish call to revoke the partition.

Now, listen to what they say and think again before you advocate a South African style single state solution. Think again before you tell me that Hamas has problems with Israelis; not Jews.

Hamas on Thursday called on the UN to rescind the 1947 decision to partition Palestine into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that "Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem... there is no room in it for the Jews."

Comments

[Brett Chatz]

The myth needs to be shattered: Terrorism is terrorism period

Murder, mayhem and carnage and intimidation against a civilian population cannot be justified regardless of the cause.

This comes as a shock to liberation movements and their military cadres the world over.

With so many groups currently listed on the world’s terrorist chart including: Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, IRA, ETA, LTTE, Shining Path, PKK, Hamas and others, why are some people still pussyfooting around the issue?

Terrorism is an exceptionally difficult concept to define and the choice of words used has to be precise. Words like killed or murdered have different definitions which are imperative to understanding the definition itself. Killing is justifiable in terms of the law but murder is not. To an unsuspecting observer the two concepts have the same end result, but they are radically different.

Terrorism targets both military and non-military in its wide-reaching network. No-one is safe and the choice of target is oftentimes indiscriminate. While planned attacks against military personnel are carried out, this does not detract from the terrorist component of the act. Guerilla warfare and highly organized militia character many terrorist organizations today.

It is important to understand some basic rules of engagement used by traditional military as opposed to terrorist groups

According to the Geneva Convention, a fighting force may not intentionally target civilians in combat. However, the presence of civilians doesn’t protect military; the presence of military endangers civilians. This is subject to two conditions:

• Discrimination: You must use all means at your disposal to discriminate between military and non-military targets given that you are not to target civilians in the first place

• Proportionality (A widely misunderstood concept by the media)
It has nothing to do with the amount of force used against your enemy: it has everything to do with the target of your attacks. If the military is relatively certain that a potential target is against an enemy military operation, then the amount of force used against such a target does not in any way violate the terms of the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Terrorists are not freedom fighters because they do not play by any rules of engagement. Quite the contrary, they are a law unto themselves because they:

• Take civilian hostages
• They do not treat POWs according to internationally accepted standards
• They do not recognize neutral territory and citizens’ rights in those states
• They do not respect the dignity of diplomats and government representatives

All the left-leaning liberals out there, you decide - where does Hamas slot in?

[Mike]

Sadly, i think the UN general assembly would actually pass it.