Ahhhhh .... The French.

[Ed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/international/europe/11diplo.html

And so, the self rightious indignation at the Hamas win begins to evaporate.

France on Friday endorsed Russia's decision to hold talks on the Middle East conflict with Hamas, the radical Islamist Palestinian group, saying the discussion "can contribute to advancing our positions."

There is always a reason for abandoning a principled stand. Which EU government will be next?

I thought that there were provisions in the EU charter or one of those documents that forbade treating with terrorists.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I thought that there were provisions in the EU charter or one of those documents that forbade treating with terrorists.

One man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fries...fighter!".

Thursday, 11 September, 2003, 16:50 GMT 17:50 UK

EU blacklists Hamas political wing

European Union diplomats have been finalising details of their decision to put the political wing of the Palestinian militant group Hamas on its list of terrorist organisations.

EU diplomats said that Hamas would be named as a whole....

September 6, 2003

US Department of State

We welcome the political decision of the European Union Foreign Ministers to designate the Hamas leadership and its institutions.

This is an important step in halting the financing of terrorist activities. This will send an important message that the violence and terror Hamas carries out does not represent the future for the Palestinian people and will not lead to a Palestinian state.

30.01.2006

Hamas must change and renounce violence if it wants Europe's support, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Monday as EU foreign ministers met to discuss the militant group's shock election win.

"They have been a terrorist organization. They have to change their methods and they have to accept that violence is incompatible with democracy," Solana told AFP as he arrived for a day of talks in Brussels.

 

[Orwell]

Whanna bet that the Bush administration id going to talk to Hamas? Heck, they might be doing it already...

 

[Hutch]

Whanna bet that the Bush administration is going to talk to Hamas? Heck, they might be doing it already...

Not directly, no, I don't think we will see that, Orwell. But I'm sure we'll be asking our friends the Russians about their talks with the Hamas leadership.

And low-level, well-below-the-radar between a couple of guys in a Damascus Coffee Shop? May sound like Tom Clancy, but there are such things--my guess (and only a guess) is that Egytp and Jordan will be our middlemen on this deal. Just hope nothing gets lost in the translation.


ZN Quoted:

Hamas must change and renounce violence if it wants Europe's support, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Monday as EU foreign ministers met to discuss the militant group's shock election win.

"They have been a terrorist organization. They have to change their methods and they have to accept that violence is incompatible with democracy," Solana told AFP as he arrived for a day of talks in Brussels.

And...?

 

[Lukretius]

Whanna bet that the Bush administration id going to talk to Hamas? Heck, they might be doing it already...

Probably - and I don't understand why any state shouldn't. They are elected representatives for the Palestinian people, and should be considered as such. However, if they choose to keep their ideas of wiping out Israel, they shouldn't expect the rest of the world to help their administration.

Besides the whole idea about meeting with "bullies" is a classic. As long as radical people are left out of responsibility, they can say whatever they want, it's free because no one can test their claims. Giving them responsibility tends to make them behave more moderate, because they now have to show results. So it's gonna be interesting to see how the respond to acquiring power.

 

[BPSCG]

As long as radical people are left out of responsibility, they can say whatever they want, it's free because no one can test their claims. Giving them responsibility tends to make them behave more moderate, because they now have to show results.

Yep. Look how moderate Hitler became after coming to power (I call Godwin's Law!).

 

[geni]

May sound like Tom Clancy, but there are such things--my guess (and only a guess) is that Egytp and Jordan will be our middlemen on this deal. Just hope nothing gets lost in the translation.

I don't know. I doubt that Hosni Mubarak is too happy about haveing a fundimentalist islamic state on his doorstep.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Probably - and I don't understand why any state shouldn't.

Here's one. Hamas is officially designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada and Israel.

So my argument is even if Hamas is elected by a group of people it should not change it's status in regards to US, EU, Canada and Israel. Especially since Hamas has not changed it's tune - the destruction of Israel. If Afghanistan elected in Al Queda would Russia and Europe say:

France on Friday endorsed Russia's decision to hold talks with Al Queda, the radical Islamist group, saying the discussion "can contribute to advancing our positions."

Unfortunately when it comes to the Middle East, one day your a designated terrorist organization, the next you are having tea with some world leaders.

 

[Skeptic]

Probably - and I don't understand why any state shouldn't.

According to the Hamas charter, the jews created the league of nations after WWI as part of a plot to control the world. It goes downhill from there, complete with holocaust denial and openly calling for another holocaust.

(The most moderate part of the charter merely delegates women to the status of semi-educated chattle, claiming "The Islamic woman must be educated enough to take care of her home and kitchen.")

The only thing Hamas ever will negotiate is what it can get from other states in its goal of a second holocaust. I would say that negotiating how to help with a second holocaust, which is the real and openly-admitted goal of Hamas, is not morally acceptable even if they were democratically elected.

 

[CBL4]

Yes, the line between principled and whoredom is very fine. In France it normally depends on which side of the mouth is talking.

Foreign governments should talk to Hamas because, like it or not, they are the legitimate government of Palestine. We talked with Stalin, Hitler and Mao and Hamas is not on the same page in evilness.

However, providing support to Palestine is an iffy business. It could turn Hamas into a reasonable group or it could help their murderers. As much as I hate them, I would not advocate stopping all aid. I do not think that is the productive response. Most aid should be funnelled through NGOs but some well targeted aid may be need to be given to the government.

At least I think so but I may be wrong.

CBL

CBL

 

[Tony]

Here's one. Hamas is officially designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada and Israel.

That's not a reason, that's a duplicitous an excuse to ignore the democratic decisions of a people. And Hamas is no-longer a terrorist organization; it is a political party with power and a government. That is a good thing. Any counter-action the Israeli government takes will now have more legitimacy because they are acting against a foreign government as opposed to a rag-tag rabble of Islamic fanatics.

 

[BPSCG]

And Hamas is no-longer a terrorist organization; it is a political party with power and a government.

Did you mean to write "Hamas is no longer just a terrorist organization"?

They can be both, you know...

Happy birthday!

 

[Luke T.]

Arafat was a terrorist, too. And he had an honorary ambassorship position at the UN, didn't he?

Did he ever renounce his terrorism?

 

[Tony]

Did you mean to write "Hamas is no longer just a terrorist organization"?

They can be both, you know...

Maybe, but I don't prescribe any meaning to "terrorist organization". It is a subjective term used purely to demonize those with whom a government/movement/political party/religion disagress or doesn't like.

Happy birthday!

Thanx man.

 

[BPSCG]

Maybe, but I don't prescribe any meaning to "terrorist organization". It is a subjective term used purely to demonize those with whom a government/movement/political party/religion disagress or doesn't like.

"Purely"? You mean there's really no such thing as a terrorist organization? Terrorism is simply in the mind of the beholder?

 

[Tony]

"Purely"? You mean there's really no such thing as a terrorist organization?

Nope, unless the organization's only M.O. is terrorism. A more accurate description would be to call them rebel groups that often use terrorism. If you label any group which uses terrorism a “terrorist group”, for the sake of honesty, you'll also have to label the US government (among others) a terrorist organization.

Terrorism is simply in the mind of the beholder?

Not at all. You seem to be under the impression that unless I think there are "terrorist organizations", I can't think that terrorism is objective.

 

[BPSCG]

Nope, unless the organization's only M.O. is terrorism.

So al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization because in addition to terrorism, they use money-laundering and al Jazeera videos to advance their agenda? What if their favorite m.o. is terrorism?

 

[Marc L]

Yep. Look how moderate Hitler became after coming to power (I call Godwin's Law!).

Does Godwin's Law work when you're actually making a valid point, though?

Marc

 

[Tony]

So al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization because in addition to terrorism, they use money-laundering and al Jazeera videos to advance their agenda?

I didn't include things like money laundering and videos in their M.O. But you're right, under your terms and broad definition of M.O., Al Quaeda is not a terrorist organization.

What if their favorite m.o. is terrorism?

What if? I dunno. Good luck proving that their favorite M.O. is terrorism. I'd like to see you find a quote by an Al Quaeda member saying something to the effect of "we don't use cruise missles, battleships, aircraft carriers, bombers, and we don't attack military bases and targets because we like terrorism better". No. The only reason terrorism is employed is because they have no other options with which to make their war.

 

[Darat]

Arafat was a terrorist, too. And he had an honorary ambassorship position at the UN, didn't he?

Did he ever renounce his terrorism?

I think he did - from the left side of his mouth.