EU agrees to put Hamas on EU agrees to put Hamas on outlawed terror group

[nn2004]

The European Union moved Thursday to increase
pressure on Hamas by adding the entire
organization to the EU terrorist list, but
appeared to stop short of a U.S. crackdown on European-based
charities that allegedly funnel money to the Islamic militant group.
.....
Senior Foreign Ministry official, Gideon Meir,
called the EU decision "very, very helpful" in
saving Middle East peace efforts.

"As long as the Hamas has the ability of terror
activity, it means that the peace process will
never be able to get off the ground," he said
by telephone during a visit to Germany.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/339388.html

[papau]

1. The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood -Hamas - was not a terrorist grp?

Seems a stretch - these folks under one name or the other have killed innocents (granted Arab innocents only in the first decades of their group) for 50 years - heck - I do not see how a few dollars to schools and social programs make you good guys when you send bombers - not to check points where they might kill IDF folks - but to the best places to kill little children.

Hama choose to murder the innocent - a major differences from the IDF who does not target the innocent - albeit the innocent arab kids do die in IDF attempts to stop the terror and punish the bad guys.

[mike_c]

2. since no one killed by the IDF ever gets a trial...

...how can you state that the IDF "does not target the innocent?" The last time I looked, one of the most fundamental human rights, as professed by Americans, is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Thus EVERYONE summarily (and extrajudicially) murdered by the IDF is by definition innocent, unless you want to toss out this most basic protection from persecution by tyrants. You can't have it both ways.

[Paschall]

3. Extrajudicial demolitions of homes might also be considered...

...a violation of the fundamental human right to property.

Nicely put, by the way, mike_c. :thumbsup:

[The Magistrate]

4. The Weakness Of That Line, Sir

Is that it rests on the assumption there exists a state of settled peace, and that these people are merely suspected of violating Israeli criminal law.

In fact, a state of war exists between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine, and has done for many years. Persons who are serving members of an armed force, whether the regular forces of the state of Israel, or the various armed irregular bodies of Arab Palestine, are combatants in that war, and, like all combatants ihn war, subject to beinmg killed by enemy forces at an instant, without any warning. Concepts of civil and criminal law do not apply: nobody serves a warrant before attacking an enemy position, or holds a trial, even in absentia, before a sniper takes aim and fires. The question in war is solely whether the act is or is not criminal under the laws of war. Attacks aimed solely at enemy civilians are crimes of war: attacks aimed at enemy combatants which may also effect enemy civilians may be such, if the direct military value gained is insufficient in relation to the harm the done enemy civilians. That last is, certainly, a subjective standard, not yet tested before a tribunal. The cases out of Yugoslavia at The Hague have focused on clear-cut instances of murder of prisoners and civilians in custody, for the most part.

[nn2004]

6. Well put

Please stay healthy and continue to bring a breath of sound reason and logic to this evergoing battle of words.

[The Magistrate]

5. The Weakness Of That Line, Sir

Is that it rests on the assumption there exists a state of settled peace, and that these people are merely suspected of violating Israeli criminal law.

In fact, a state of war exists between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine, and has done for many years. Persons who are serving members of an armed force, whether the regular forces of the state of Israel, or the various armed irregular bodies of Arab Palestine, are combatants in that war, and, like all combatants ihn war, subject to beinmg killed by enemy forces at an instant, without any warning. Concepts of civil and criminal law do not apply: nobody serves a warrant before attacking an enemy position, or holds a trial, even in absentia, before a sniper takes aim and fires. The question in war is solely whether the act is or is not criminal under the laws of war. Attacks aimed solely at enemy civilians are crimes of war: attacks aimed at enemy combatants which may also effect enemy civilians may be such, if the direct military value gained is insufficient in relation to the harm the done enemy civilians. That last is, certainly, a subjective standard, not yet tested before a tribunal. The cases out of Yugoslavia at The Hague have focused on clear-cut instances of murder of prisoners and civilians in custody, for the most part.

[mike_c]

7. if a state of war exists between the Zionists and the Palestinian Arabs...

...then the Zionists are surely the aggressors-- recall that much of the current Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank originated as refugees fleeing Zionist violence fifty years ago, and has endured fifty years of oppression and deprivation at the hands of Israel-- and their methods, e.g. theft of land for "settlement," collective punishment of non-combatants, denial of civialian access to resources, medical care, and economic relief, and political assasination, are brutal and ultimately counter-productive. There can never be lasting peace without justice, and Israel, led by the Likudists, pursues only a cessation of violence against its citizens, not a just solution in which such peace could be kept. I do not believe that the Israeli leadership even wants peace. The Palestinians are an historic embarrassment to Israel, a living indictment of Zionist violence. Israel wants more than anything to wipe them from the face of the earth.

[The Magistrate]

9. Bandying History Will Not Help You Much, Sir

The war of '48 was hardly the start of the stuff, and even in that conflict, the boiler-plate of "aggressor" can be claimed by either side. Trying to determine who started it has little relevance to the present day. The "no peace without justice" line is similarly fatuous: what there can be no peace without, Sir, is a recognition and regularization of nine-tenths of the status quo in the region, however it came to be. Justice being the meting out of what is deserved, people ought to be damned careful about calling for it: the results might well prove unexpectedly painful.

"I know of nothing against him except that he is a human being: that ought to be enough to hang any man."

[Jackie97]

10. Zionists are not the Israeli government....

I do wish that people would learn the difference between Zionists (many of which do not support all the stuff that the Israeli government does) and the Israeli government (the aggressors).

To the Magistrate, the PA can't have their own military. Are you sure that the Hamas and other terrorist groups qualify as legally being combatants?

[The Magistrate]

11. They Do Indeed

The Geneva Accords recognize irregular armed bodies as combatants, in large part to secure their treatment as prisoners: prior to the modern era, the law of war mandated the immediate execution of any civilian taken in arms against a state's army. They are required to abide themselves by the laws of war as combatants against their foes, and in general are for legal purposes interchangeable with the armies fielded by a state.

[Jackie97]

8. Well, that's nice.....

One possible step forward from the EU.