AI report on Hamas killing off political opponents

No its not random, it looks like a concerted effort to break Fatah power in Gaza, just as Fatah have made a concerted effort to break Hamas in the West Bank.

Its been pretty clear from the beginning that Hamas had its own political aims in Gaza which the Israeli attack allowed them to realise - bringing rival factions in line or breaking them.

Similar to this, there were some pretty clear reports that Hamas was preventing Gazans accessing Israeli hospitals recently, vindicating some of what various internationalists were saying during the conflict.

Link

I realise that view has become a bit of a consensus on this site but i wonder how true it is? My impression is that <i>most</i> 'leftists' know that hamas are basically a pack of cunts but they think that it's not good form to criticise them because:

a) Hamas was elected by the palestinians, and it would would imply that they are too stupid to know their own interests.
b) Hamas attacks on the israeli military/collaborators are justified, legitimate and admirable responses to israeli aggression because the alternative is submission. i.e Finkelstein's views on Hizbollah would apply.
c) Some of Hamas tactics are terrorism (i reckon most leftists don't approve on suicide bombs in pizzeria's) but overall they are far less deadly than the occupation which is the root cause of all the violence.

I'm not saying i agree with these views, i just think that the idea of leftists blindly supporting Hamas isn't accurate.

It's a documented fact that Hamas seeks to kill their political opponents in cold blood. Hamas does kill their political opponents in cold-blood in barbaric ways without any trial or tribunal. Hamas imposes brutal Sharia law on Gaza and is at the forefront in promoting a culture of violence. How can Hamas claim to be defending its people from Zionist "aggression" if its far worse to its people than Israel's "occupation" ever was. What "freedom" is Hamas fighting for by killing their political opponents, forbidding women to even wear bathing suits in beaches [instead forcing them to swim with their clothes on and with the veil] and by harassing people like Asma al-Ghoul? Gaza is now basically a colony of Iran and Syria. Hamas rule in Gaza is the real brutal and illegal occupation. Unlike Israel, which won Gaza in a war of self-defense in 1967, Hamas conquered Gaza from an illegal coup. If Hamastan is a "free" Palestinian state, then the "freedom" is a total joke. Gazans under Hamas are less free than they were under Israel, which just sought to defend itself from rejectionist terrorism.

Yes, Israel did take Gaza [as well as the other territory] from a war of self-defense. Want me to explain the history of the Six-day war? Well, I'll give a preface on the tensions between Israel and Egypt, since it was from Egypt that Israel won Gaza from. A few weeks before the Six Day War, Egypt's-then dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded the UN peacekeepers to leave [the peacekeepers were there in the border between Israel and Egypt since the end of the Suez war to keep the peace]. The UN peacekeepers complied. Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran, which was vital for Israeli shipping. The Arab leaders and Arab media kept on bragging about how they would destroy Israel. Nasser and other Arab leaders sent troops near Israel's borders to prepare for an Egyptian-led coalition to eliminate Israel and to carry out a genocidal bloodbath on Israeli Jews, something that the invading Arab armies failed to do in 1948. Israel concluded that it either had to prevent the Arab armies from invading through a preemptive strike and that it wouldn't be able to defend itself if the Arab armies invaded. So, on June 4, Israel carried out a preemptive strike on Egypt. Israel won Gaza and the Sanai, the latter of which was returned to Egypt in exchange for a peace of paper that stated that Egypt was at peace with Israel. Israel was simply defending itself in the Six day war, but discussing the Jordanian and Syrian sector is irrelevant to this discussion.

You're right. Hamas did win the elections. But do you know who else came to power through winning elections? Adolf Hitler. You seem to be one of those who excuses Hamas for whatever it does because it was democratically-elected. I discussed the foolishness of that way of thinking in my though-provoking Israel-insider essay called "The real Occupation of Gaza"[http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-real-occupation-of-gaza]. As for the Dahlan-backed US coup conspiracy, there is no evidence to support that there really was going to be one. There is enough proof that Hamas carried out that coup and there is also proof of their brutality. Just ask people like Asma al-Ghoul, who experienced it. I'm no supporter of Fatah, as anyone can see from my writings and comments. It is true that Israel, the US and the EU were horrified that Hamas won the election. The reason why is because of their history of terrorism and their rejectionist position via the Arab-Israeli conflict. The EU, US and Israel gave Hamas three preconditions, which were [and are] to recognize Israel's right to exist, denounce terrorism and to honor previous agreements, the last of which was the land for peace formula based on UN resolution 242. Those were the three preconditions for Hamas to have negotiations with Israel and the west and to get recognition, as well as an end to the sanctions on the Hamas regime. Hamas said no to all three of them, continued to promote hatred toward Jews and terrorism toward Israel, as well as the goal of destroying Israel and of impose a radical Islamic caliphate all over the world. Hamas continued with their rocket attacks, which terrorize the people in southern Israel [especially Sderot]. The people in southern Israel have to worry when the next rocket will come. The Israeli government set up sirens for them. When the siren rings, people have five seconds to find a bomb shelter. Daily life is disrupted. I suppose that's okay, since Hamas was won the election "fair and square". Hamas came in democratically. Hamas never behaved democratically, as one can easily see when looking at their Islamo-Fascist policies in Gaza.

Actually, Gazans under Hamas are less free than they are under Israel because of the dramatic difference between the policies of Israel and of the illegitimate Islamo-Fascist Hamas regime. For example, a few days before Operation Cast Lead, Al-Hayat reported on an Islamo-Fascist bill passed by Hamas. According to the bill, "drinking to making wine will be subjected to 40 lashes… drinking and harassing the public will be punishable by 40 lashes and three months in jail". And the bill also stated that those who were "engaging in games of chance, offending religious beliefs and defaming others' character" would also be wipped and that "any Palestinian found guilty of raising a weapon against Palestine in favor of the enemy; countering Palestine's interests in a negotiation with a foreign government; and placing Palestine's existence in danger by committing an act of aggression against a foreign country... will be sentenced to death."
Also, women are forced to wear the veil, even when swimming in the oceans. Gazan women are not allowed to change to their bathing suits. The Lebanese New TV reported that women aren't allowed to change to their bathing suits and that they have to wear their Islamic attire even when swimming. Under Hamas, criticizing that regime is a big gamble on safety. So at least many Gazans are too afraid to speak out against Hamas. Israel just sought to live in peace and security. When Israel ruled Gaza, not only was opposition to Israel's policies allowed; but Gazans were allowed to complain to Israel's Supreme Court. In fact, from 1967 till Oslo [except perhaps during the first intifada], Gaza and the West Bank were the fourth fastest growing economies. Israel modernized the economy, improved the access to health care and fought diseases. Things like electricity and refrigerators became at least virtually universal. You're right that Israel controls the border between Israel and Gaza and Gaza controls the Strip's border with Egypt. But America also controls the border it has with Mexico.
The fact is that Gazans are suffering because of Hamas, not because of Israel, which just seeks to get the peace and security that it never was able to get thanks to the genocidal terror war launched against it. That terror war on Israel is now led by a reactionary ideology called Islamo-Fascism.

Yesterday it was the Reds, today it's the Islamo-Fascists (the same ones endorsed in fighting the Reds). I wonder who tomorrow's bogeyman is going to be.

No-one here "excuses Hamas for whatever it does". Those of us who were out on the streets at the start of this year during the Gaza massacre got a lot of abuse from Hamas supporters for our criticism of them - I know I did. We just point out that they were democratically elected when people make untrue statements about how they got into power. I completely agree that being democratically elected doesn't make someone worthy of support - Hitler, Hamas, Blair, Brown, Sharon and Olmert were all democratically elected, and they're all a bunch of shitbags who just about everyone using this site would oppose.

Actually, I'd be happy to delete those posts, where the quoting is messed up [I reported those ones]. I still want to keep the one where the quoting isn't messed up. The message in my posts are accurate.

This happens fairly regularly with Israel threads, people like this google for these threads and post on them. Although at least this guy is handily steering us to his "thought-provoking blog".

The Hitler card, the political version of the Chewbacca defence.

I love how you anti-Israel propagandists cry Zionist "propagandist" when I say the truth. I'm not too insulted. I'm a Zionist. That movement was a national liberation movement for the Jewish people and sought to reestablish the Jewish homeland in Eretz [land of] Israel. I didn't assume that everyone excuses Hamas. When people like me point to Hamas's rejctionist anti-peace stance, their rocket attacks on Israeli men, women, children, babies, fathers and mothers, their brutal killing and torturing of political opponents, as well as their Islamo-Fascist policies in Gaza and their illegal coup there and someone defends them by saying that they were democratically-elected, that's excusing Hamas on the basis of them being democratically-elected. I don't think everyone excuses Hamas. But at least a lot of people do. Definitely too many people do excuse Hamas no matter what just because they were democratically-elected three years ago. Hamas has less popularity in the Gaza Strip. At least many people in Gaza are too afraid to publicly criticize Hamas because then it would be a big gamble on their safety.

I didn't state why the peacekeepers were there because I'm not giving a whole history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You conveniently leave out important facts. Nasser didn't want peace with Israel. His goal was Israel's destruction and he sought to unite the Arab world under his totalitarian rule. You mention that Israel collaborated with Britain and France, but leave out why. You conveniently leave out the Fedayeen terror attacks. The Fedayeen was a terror group that was created after Israel's victory in the 1948 war. After Nasser took power in a 1952 coup, he made the Fedayeen as his proxy group. The fedayeen became under his control. Nasser used it to commit terror attacks on Israel, something that group did even before Nasser came to power. Nasser also closed the Suez canal and Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Britain and France didn't like Nasser because he nationalized the Suez Canal. But Israel didn't care who controlled the suez canal. Israel found Britain and France as useful allies because Nasser sent terrorist squads into Israel and closed vital waterways to Israeli shipping. So Israel joined in with Britain and France. The US pressured the Israelis, British and French to leave. Britain and France left without getting back the Suez Canal. Israel was still unable to use the Suez canal. Israel was free to use the Straits of Tiran. And there were peacekeepers to prevent any war between Israel and Egypt. The Fedayeen was dismantled, though later, new terrorist groups such as Fatah and the PLO came to the scene. You leave out the Fedayeen and you leave out the hostile acts that Nasser did. You attack Israel for making an alliance with Britain and France and portray Nasser as a peace seeking innocent victim. If Nasser left Israel alone, it would've just been Britain and France. The Zionist "propagandist" here just gave the full picture, including the pesky information that you anti-Israel propagandists conveniently leave out. It was Israel that sought peace. A few months after the Six Day War, Israel offered to leave most of the land won in the Six Day War [including Gaza] in return for peace. The Arab leaders met in Khartoum. I think we know how they responded. They said,"No peace. No negotiations. No recognition." When Sadat did offer peace with Israel, Israel accepted and gave the Sanai back to Egypt. It should be noted that the Sanai is 91% of the territory that Israel won in 1967 and is even bigger than Israel proper and is even bigger than Israel with the other territories she won in 1967. The basis of UN Resolution 242, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council and which is the consensus for the basis of the land for peace principle, was that Israel would administer the territories until the fate of them are decided with a peace partner. The drafters of that resolution acknowledged that an acknowledged that it didn't call on Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. That Resolution called for Israel to return territories captured in 1967 and purposely excluded the words all and the. So it didn't call for Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders, but for the borders to be negotiated, where Israel would get secure and recognizable borders. Those who drafted UN Resolution 242 knew quite well that Israel won the territories by defending itself from existential threats in 1967. The facts are that Israel didn't want the war; but had to defend itself. If Israel went back to the pre-1967 borders, then it would be going back to vulnerable borders and it would give a base to rejectionist terrorists that seek Israel's destruction. So Israel had legal rights to the territories. Israel has shown that its willing to trade land for peace and that its willing to create a Palestinian state for peace. At Camp David in 2000, for example, Israel offered 97% of what the Palestinians claim that they want. Yasser Arafat said no and started another terror war on Israel known as the Second intifada. Anti-Israel propagandists will deny this including the fact that the Palestinians were offered a generous offer. Yes, to you, I'm just stating more Zionist "propaganda". But what I'm stating here is the truth.

an example of godwin's law:
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/read-posting-23102009

I like the alternatives you're giving Palestinians: a Jewish-supremacist society like the one in the West Bank (and to a lesser extent, Green-Line Israel), or an Arab-supremacist society, like the one in Gaza (?). Then again, I thought you said they were Islamo-Fascist. Get your bogeymen straight, your propaganda is showing.

Your definition of imperialist is a good one. But at the same time, it doesn't represent Israel's wars. Israel's wars are wars of survival, for the Jewish people in their historical homeland. Israel was reluctant to rule over the Palestinian people to begin with and, contrary to anti-Israel propaganda, Israel DID NOT want to carry out ethnic cleansing. Israel repeatedly offered to return the territory for peace; but nothing happened and the Arab states kept on saying the same thing called NO! The only exception was when Sadat offered peace and when Israel accepted. As a result, Egypt got back the Sanai and was ferociously denounced by Arab leaders and by movements within the Arab and Muslim world [Egypt was even suspended by the Arab League for about a decade]. If Israel did not fight in the Six day war, then it would've been destroyed and there would've been a genocidal bloodbath. Put yourself in the Israeli government's position at the time. How would you feel if you were the government of a small state and heard countries all around you, like the leaders, media and political cartoons, brag that they would destroy your nation and kill your people and even sends up troops to your borders to prepare to do it. That was exactly the position Israel was in in 1967. And Egypt even blocked the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping [the Gulf of Aqaba was vital for Israeli shipping].

Hamas has nothing in common with the Israeli government. While the latter values life, even having an army that trains their soldiers not to kill civilians and even putting their own soldiers at risk at times to minimize the risks and deaths of Palestinian civilians, Hamas has no value for innocent life, since Hamas is willing to put their civilians in danger as long as Israel is destroyed and as long as the world turns into an Islamic caliphate. Israel never supported Hamas. Hamas was established by the Muslim Brotherhood and is the Palestinian arm of that Islamo-Fascist movement. It's true that Israel did view the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood as simply a religious movement and thought that it could be a useful counterweight to the PLO, which was a notorious international terrorist group that sought Israel's destruction. So the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood had a tolerated presence, despite its rejectionism vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict and despite its Islamic Fundamentalist worldview. It is true that Israel's view of te Muslim Brotherhood movement within the disputed territories was deluded. But Israel did not support it. At the same time, the PLO was also free to establish their own network [except there were times when Israel did crack down on PLO activity]. Israel seeks peace and security. You're right that Hamas does want to keep this war going. Hamas would rather have the Palestinians suffer than have peace with Israel or any non-Muslim power. Your last claim there that "The terror struggle is led by the Israeli government on one hand, and Hamas/Fatah on the other, against the Israeli and Palestinian working classes" gives a moral equivalence when there isn't one and looks at the conflict through a distorted class-like setting. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, which seeks to defend itself while minimizing the killings done to Palestinian civilians, and the other sides, which sends human bombs and commits all sorts of terror on Israel.

You said that since this is a Communist site, then people don't like imperialist wars. I was just pointing out that Communists themselves launched imperialist wars and were guilty of all sorts of aggression. And you think that me just stating my point of view here, since it is different than form everyone else's view, means that I show more contempt than just casually throwing around a few 'curse words.'" I'm sorry that you can't take opposing views and that you expect everyone to be mindless Marxists or at least mindless Israel-bashers. When Communists take power, they establish brutal dictatorships and kill and torture their political opponents. When their killing records are well-known [as with Stalin], then Communists claim that Stalin didn't represent true Communism. When their killing records aren't well-known, then Communists at least try to whitewash them. Look at how Communists [and non-Communist useful idiots] idolize Che Guevara, despite the fact that killed and tortured thousands of people. Communists [and non-Communist useful idiots] do the same thing with the Sandinistas, which carried out a genocide on the Miskito Indians and which persecuted Nicaragua's Jewish population. Communists bullied other nations and supported totalitarian Communist terrorists from other nations.

You're right that "killing innocent civilians cannot be rationalized through mere sophistry". I agree that the death of any innocent civilian is horrible [to say the least]. When defending themselves, nations do have the obligation to minimize the killing of the enemy's civilian population. Israel doesn't want to kill innocent Palestinian civilians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you provoke another nation by launching rockets at their civilian populations and then hide your weapons infrastructure in civilian areas, then you'll put the civilians on your side in danger of being killed. That's exactly why it is against international law, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the basic rules of war to do that. Yet you, leftists, dopes apologists and useful idiots for Hamas seem unable to understand that basic fact. Was it tragic that innocent Palestinians died in Israel's operations? Yes. At the same time, those operations were still justified. Innocent Palestinians weren't intentionally killed. Israel accidentally killed them while targeting terrorists and their infrastructure, which the terrorists put in civilian areas. It's far worse to purposely kill an innocent person than to accidentally kill an innocent person. Look at it this way. What's worse: a car accident or an intentionally murder? Obviously the former is horrible; but the latter is still worse, as anyone can tell you. If I was a hostage held by Hamas, I wouldn't want to be killed by Israeli bombs [or any bomb]. At war, innocent civilians will at least accidentally get killed. That's one reason why war is such a horrible thing [to say the least]. When it comes to defending yourself, sometimes it's justified.

But Israel didn't flatten or nuke whole cities. The fact is that, if Israel warns of bombing through telephone calls or leaflets, then innocent civilians can still flee to a safe area. They're not like stuck. The fact that Israel did send those warnings are more evidence that Israel really doesn't want to kill innocent Palestinians and that Israel goes out of her way to not kill innocent Palestinians. If Gazans were unable to flee to a safe area despite of Israel's warnings, then why did Hamas encourage them to stay?

Does it matter? The point I made there is that Hamas got more people there and didn't want anyone to leave. It showed that Hamas was happy to sacrifice them as long as Israel gets bad PR. The media would report on it. It would dupe people like you.

I don't think that people can magically teleport themselves. But Gazans, who were warned of Israel's attacks by Israel, were able to go to a safe area. It's amazing that people can be naive enough to think that people are just stuck where they are. You are just a Communist nut who looks for ways to bash Israel, no matter how much evidence there is that Israel's reaction to terror and attacks is one of the most humane the world has ever seen, especially when compared to other case examples in history.