Hamas PM Pens Op-Ed In Washington Post

I suppose this is a close call, but I don't think the WaPo did anything wrong here. True, it gives terrorists a forum, but the Hamas PM is the political leader of the Palestinian "state."

Crosblog fisks him.

[Terrorist PM:] [The Israelis] think, doubtless, of the hostage soldier, taken in battle -- yet thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of women and children, remain in Israeli jails for resisting the illegal, ongoing occupation that is condemned by international law.

[Gib:] "Taken in battle" - now I get it, Shalit isn't a kidnap victim, he's a prisoner of war. Here, Mr. Haniyeh, I have your back, to an extent. He could be a prisoner of war - if you're at war. If you are, in fact, at war, then Israel is entitled, I'd think, to try and win said war, and frankly, the Gaza incursion is a miniscule fraction of the destruction Israel has the capacity to bring down upon the Palestinians. I'm sure if you had the means Israel has, you'd show similar restraint. If Israel is not entitled to fight a war, then Shalit has been illegally kidnapped, and the only question that remains is whether you're an accomplice before the fact (authorizing the strike where Shalit was taken), or after (in helping the kidnappers make their ransom demands.)

I think that's about the sum of it. Muslims wish to make perpetual war on non-Muslims while not calling it war, and being protected from a warlike response.

I think those days are almost over.

I like the lead of that story:

An Israeli airstrike targeted a group of people in this southern Gaza town on Wednesday...

A "group of people." Not Hamas "military" commanders or anything.

A "group of people." If this the final euphemism for "terrorists"? Terrorists become extremists who become militants who finally become a "group of people."

Just a group of people, sitting around, drinkin' Schlitz, playing canasta.

And Lebanese Hezbollah "warriors" captured two Israeli soldiers.

Muslim nations wax poetic about "sovereignty" when action is taken against them, but "sovereignty" isn't all rights. It also encompasses responsibilities. Such as not allowing your land to be used as a safe-haven for psychopathic paramilitary groups.

Either you're permitting the paramilitaries to operate on your soil, in which case you are engaged in an act of war yourself, or else you can't police your land to stop such paramilities, in which case you don't really have "sovereignty" over your land at all and can't really complain if, say, Israeli invades. If other armed groups are using your land as a murder-playground, hey, you really can't complain if one more group of armed men comes in, can you?

The US faced "indpendently operating" troops making violence on it from Mexico, and we responded by invading Mexico. The "Punitive Invasion," it was called, back when people were ballsy enough to use the proper words for things.

Israel promises a "far-reaching" and "painful" response.

A Punitive response, perhaps?

posted by Ace at 12:31 PM

| Access Comments