Hamas, In Its Own Words to The US

In the LA Times, Hamas takes a turn to addressing the US directly:

HAMAS' RESCUE of a BBC journalist from his captors in Gaza last week was surely cause for rejoicing. But I want to be clear about one thing: We did not deliver up Alan Johnston as some obsequious boon to Western powers.

It was done as part of our effort to secure Gaza from the lawlessness of militias and violence, no matter what the source. Gaza will be calm and under the rule of law — a place where all journalists, foreigners and guests of the Palestinian people will be treated with dignity. Hamas has never supported attacks on Westerners, as even our harshest critics will concede; our struggle has always been focused on the occupier and our legal resistance to it — a right of occupied people that is explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Yet our movement is continually linked by President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to ideologies that they know full well we do not follow, such as the agenda of Al Qaeda and its adherents. But we are not part of a broader war. Our resistance struggle is no one's proxy, although we welcome the support of people everywhere for justice in Palestine.

(A response can be found here.)

Comments

[SLC]

"Hamas has never supported attacks on Westerners, as even our harshest critics will concede; our struggle has always been focused on the occupier and our legal resistance to it — a right of occupied people that is explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention."

What the Hamas terrorists don't say is that they consider all of the State of Israel to be occupied territory.

[aguy109]

I think it is fairly disgusting that 3QD sees itself as a mouthpiece for Hamas statements. To have sympathetic or critical reports about a terrorist organization is one thing, but to become its bulletin board is taking an extreme step. I was under the impression that 3QD's aim was to take a step back from events and provide reflective views.

[Cyrus Hall]

aguy109-

I must have missed where Robin said "3QD supports this statement and we support a pro-Hamas position on our blog." Why shouldn't 3QD link to what is a truly interesting event, a Hamas editorial in an American newspaper, along with a response they apparently could only find a comedian to write? Some of us read 3QD exactly for such oddities.

[trey]

The Hamas statement is full of inaccuracies and lies - Marzook states that "Hamas has never supported attacks on Westerners, as even our harshest critics will concede," but many Americans and Westerners have been killed over the years in Hamas terror attacks, which were praised by Hamas leaders before and after they occurred. As others have already pointed out, the statement's reference to "the occupier" refers (as the Hamas charter, weekly mosque sermons and regular statements from Hamas leaders support) to the entire state of Israel, and not just territories gained by Israel in wars launched against it by combined Arab armies. The suggestion that Hamas is the savior of Gaza from lawlessness and violence is, as the saying goes, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

It was irresponsible of any reputable newspaper to uncritically run this statement from Hamas, and it is the height of gullibility for any informed reader to give it any credence.

[Pepito]

Yeah, yeah. But none of the comments in this article even mentions the most important fact: Israel is illegally occupying a territory that does not belong to them and has imposed a de-facto foreign military dictatorship on another group of people. Defenders of Israel's behavior are quick to label Hamas as "terrorists" while keeping quiet about Israel's own terrorist policies. Nobody is even addressing the deep injustice that causes responses like those by some Palestinians, and seem to believe that, were they in the same situation, the right thing to do would be to meekly accept the occupation and abuses imposed by those who are invading their land.

As for Hamas considering all of Israel as occupied, that might well be the case, but nobody here is even mentioning the fundamental injustice of a policy that made a group of Arabs pay for the crimes committed by the Europeans on the Jews for centuries and which is at the root of this problem. This is a point that is so evident for people in the Middle East that it's hard for them to understand how can the "Western World" dismiss it so cavalierly.

What a shame that the "progressives" who constitute most of the readership of 3QD defend Israel in virtually all circumstances. They defend terrible acts of violence and humiliation while refusing to consider the legitimacy of a group that was democratically elected by its own people because they are the only ones who seem to unambiguously oppose the occupier.

[Robin]

For the record, this post in no way should be considered an endorsement of Hamas or its position as articulated in the op-ed by 3QD or anyone affiliated with it. I thought that would've gone without saying, but I guess not...

[What Israel does]

Who are we?

We are peace activists, Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens, who take part in the grass-root organization of Taayush – Arab-Jewish Partnership. Since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000 we have been active together with Dar ElHanoun residents in the struggle for its recognition. In August 2001 we held a voluntary work camp in the village. Hundreds of Jewish and Arab activists stayed in the village. Together with its residents, we paved an asphalt entrance to the village and created a small playground for its children. Since then we have been in constant contact with the village and took part in its struggle for recognition. Our joint activities included demonstrations, protest vigils, public campaigns, legal aid and political lobbying.

http://www.geocities.com/dar_elhanoun/icdh.html

[www.pchrgaza.org]

See an attempt to murder a jurnaloist camera man (for the great joy of Israel's supporters/ For video of the crime please click here:

http://www.pchrgaza.org//images/2007/ganem.wmv

The distinction between legitimate military objectives and civilians is fundamental to IHL and is the foundation of civilian protection.[2] Journalists in areas of armed conflict are considered civilians under IHL, and are thus protected from direct, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks.[3]

PCHR’s initial investigation leads it to conclude that the Israeli military targeted Ghanem despite clear indications that he was a journalist, in violation of IHL. Ghanem was carrying a large video camera when he was initially hit, which should have alerted Israeli forces to the fact that he was a journalist and not a belligerent. Perhaps most disturbing though is that once he was injured, lying on the ground with his camera next to him, Ghanem was struck twice more. Video footage from that day obtained by PCHR clearly indicates that Ghanem was not hit by stray or aimlessly fired rounds. Instead, the footage shows that Ghanem was directly targeted, hit most likely by sniper fire while he lay wounded and incapacitated on the ground, his camera at his side.

Al Aqsa journalists, as is customary for journalists in conflict zones, generally wear clothing that makes them clearly identifiable to hostile forces. That Ghanem failed to wear such clothing perhaps increased his risk of sustaining injury during the fighting. However, regardless of whether Ghanem was wearing such identifying clothing, he is still entitled to the protections afforded journalists and indeed all civilians under IHL.

The Israeli military’s response to the shooting of Ghanem is deeply troubling. Maj. Avital Leibowitch, Israeli army spokeswoman, stated that Ghanem was a legitimate target because he was with the Hamas gunmen firing at Israeli forces, was separated from other journalists covering the clashes, and could have been carrying a weapon.[4] And an Israeli military official told the New York Times that al-Aqsa cameramen should not be considered bona fide journalists and suggested that they are legitimate military targets because they are “Hamas operatives in every respect.”[5]

A cameraman working for al-Aqsa is just as much a journalist as a cameraman working for any other news organization, and as such he is entitled to all those protections afforded civilians under international law. Thus, contrary to the assertions of the Israeli military, Ghanem was a journalist, protected under IHL, and therefore not a legitimate military target. Moreover, even if one accepts IOF’s argument, Ghanem’s affiliation was only discovered after he was shot. When Ghanem was targeted, IOF could only have known that he was an unarmed cameraman, and as such should have been immune from attack. The IOF’s response not only fails to refute the claim that its forces deliberately targeted an unarmed journalist, but in fact strengthens such a charge.

The Israeli military’s response evinces a disturbing disregard for the protection of journalists and represents an attempt to strip IHL protection from certain members of the press for politically motivated reasons. Journalists cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally characterized in such way that converts them into legitimate military targets when it suits the needs of armed forces and military commanders. Such subjective determinations would undoubtedly lead to a serious undermining if not a total vitiation of the protection of journalists as civilians under IHL.

This incident is but the latest in a long history of IOF targeting of journalists. PCHR has documented hundreds of incidents of IOF attacks against international and Palestinian journalists since the beginning of the second intifada. PCHR reiterates its concern that these attacks on journalists reflect a policy of preventing media coverage of IOF violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in the OPT.