Soccer Dad

What's Hamas up to?

June 29, 2005 - Ha'aretz - PA acts to prevent Hamas taking over in evacuated Gaza Strip:

The PA is worried by Hamas' recent shows of power. In addition to the "popular army" it has established, Hamas has also recently initiated armed patrols, known as murabitun, that patrol near areas where the Israel Defense Forces operate. Each patrol consists of five to 10 masked men dressed in army uniforms. However, they do not engage in attacks on IDF soldiers; rather, their goal is to demonstrate presence. Palestinian residents of Gaza view the patrols as another effort by Hamas to supplant the PA and its security services.

June 27, 2005 - Jerusalem Post - "Hamas gathers several thousand Gaza fighters and arsenal of Kassams":

Hamas is using the lull in fighting to raise an "army" of several thousand fighters in the Gaza Strip to complement its developing arsenal of Kassam rockets and mortars, an IDF source told The Jerusalem Post Sunday.

June 22, 2005 - Middle East Newsline - "JIHAD OBTAINS HAMAS MISSILES":

Islamic Jihad has obtained an arsenal of short-range missiles from Hamas.

Palestinian sources said Jihad has for the first time deployed the Kassam-class, short-range missile. They said the Iranian-sponsored Jihad paid Hamas for Kassam missiles, produced in workshops in Gaza City and Khan Yunis.

So in the past few weeks it's been reported that Hamas is strengthening itself so it can fight Israel and, if necessary, the PA. It has fueled the violence in the region by selling missiles to Islamic Jihad. Surely that would catch the attention of a prestigious American paper such as the Washington Post.
So what did Hamas do recently according to the respected Washington Post? "In Politics, Hamas Gains in the West Bank":

Bilal Swaleh's journey from prisoner to politician began years ago in an Israeli jail cell. It ended triumphantly last month at the ballot box in this city populated by citrus growers, living along a wall separating the West Bank and Israel.

A butcher by trade, Swaleh was among the candidates affiliated with the militant Islamic movement Hamas who won all 15 municipal council seats. The victory placed Qalqilyah at the leading edge of a shift in Palestinian politics that is bringing some of Israel's most ardent enemies into public office. Seven of the new council members have served time in Israeli prisons. The newly elected mayor is still behind bars.

Swaleh attributes his success primarily to the network Hamas has built through charitable work, which supports thousands of people here and in villages nearby. But he said the wall, which Israeli officials said they built around the city for security reasons, has enhanced Hamas's standing more than ever and helped the group's members get elected.

Members of Hamas are engaged in politics. I suspect that sixty and seventy years ago members of the National Socialists also engaged in politics; that doesn't automatically make the organization legitimate.

And of course there's no reason to jump to any conclusions about Hamas. The reporter takes great pains to show that the political and "military" wings are sepearate. But in any case:

This month, low-level E.U. diplomats were given permission to meet with elected officials of Hamas -- considered a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States.

This is pure laziness. "[C]onsidered a terrorist organization?" There are definitions for what constitutes terror. And Hamas meets those criteria.
(via Instapundit via Vodkapundit ) An article in Parameters a publication of the Army War College, lays out some of the possibilities:

It’s sometimes argued that organizations like al Qaeda don’t qualify for lawful combatant status because their members don’t meet such standards. They don’t wear uniforms, carry arms openly, or follow the laws and customs of war. But these factors only determine the lawfulness of military conduct in interstate warfare. In an unlikely scenario where terrorist organizations actually followed such rules (highly unlikely, as such practice would be antithetical to their doctrine and goals), they still would be acting outside the laws of war. Again, those rules make no allowance for privately waged international warfare, no matter how or why fought. In essence, being enrolled in an organized, uniformed military force is irrelevant if there’s no lawful authority for its existence or deployment.

I realize that the author doesn't think that saying that Hamas is a terrorist organization because its members don't wear uniforms, carry arms openly or follow the rules of war is sufficient. But it is true. And by that definition Hamas, indeed, is a terrorist organization. The reporter shouldn't shrink from his duty of reporting. Instead he writes that some "consider" Hamas a terrorist group.
Compare that with this recent by article by the same reporter (and a colleague) "Israel Agrees To Demolish Its Settlers' Gaza Homes" (I preivously posted about the article here:

:Under international law, Israel is required to return the property as it had been when it seized it during the 1967 war, which would mean a costly and time-consuming cleanup and leave Israeli soldiers vulnerable to attack for months. Moreover, indiscriminate destruction of the homes could ruin water and sewer lines necessary for future development.

No source is given for this international law. Though one presumes it is based on the widely accepted (but mistaken) view that Israel is an occupying power. In the article "Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories" an unidentified writer reminds us:

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the UN rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.

In any case, under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967, that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles, Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.

The last international legal allocation of territory that includes those strategic zones of what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. Moreover, these rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

According to the Washington Post what do we have? Whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization is a matter of perception. Whether or not Israel is an occupying power (it is) is a matter of settled law.
There is no way the Washington Post can claim to be free of bias in its Middle East reporting. Simply put, it takes the Palestinian perspective at face value but is agnostic toward Israeli claims. And when it comes to reporting on Hamas it ignores its terror activities and focuses only on its political efforts.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at July 3, 2005 05:16 AM | TrackBack