RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
The question goes unanswered (to your satisfaction) because it involves more than just a short sound bite answer that you want. There is no one single perspective that will satisfy what you want to hear, and still be both sound and valid.
My experience, from answering other less complex questions you have posed, that if your perspective is not the composite answer you want to hear, you play dumb, not able to understand that the world is not perfect and the politics that actually wins the day, is not always what you believe makes sense. Thus, no one wants to take the time to thoughtfully answer your question, only to get a non-responsive reply: "Deflection"
(being the most common, with Israeli Talking Points no far behind).
The never answered question.
Fatah lost the 2006 elections. Howizit that they are running the West Bank?
(COMMENT)
Yes, HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement, which is by Charter, a Jihadist Organization) won the election 74:132 or approximately 56% of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) seats.
Having said that, HAMAS and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are both terrorist organizations. That makes them very controversial. Especially when hostile organizations like HAMAS build their premise upon the notion that armed struggle
(Jihad in the Covenant) is the only solution and that they are diametrically opposed to the decisions of the Allied Powers
(50 to 100 years ago).
Needless to say, there are three positions a nation might take in response to the controversial notion that there is a legitimate right to resist state oppression.
◈ Capitualtion to Terrorisn
◈ Non-acknowledgement of Terrorism
◈ Combat Terrorism
No actual International Law addresses the issue in depth. However, Customary
(19 Counter-terrorism Conventions in Law) and International Humanitarian Laws like the Geneva Convention do criminalize violence in special conditions which adequately describe much of the activities employed by HAMAS, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, etc.
✪ Now I can just hear you say: Holy Deflection - Smokescreen, etc. (or my personal favorite: How does that answer my question)...
The reason the answer is complex is that there is more than one vantage point. The US and Israel fall on the side that it opposes organizations
(whether it is sponsored by the government or not) that either engage in activities that are prohibited by Customary and International Humanitarian Law. → THUS, would prefer not to see a state sponsor of terrorism, like HAMAS, emerge and thrive. So if HAMAS does not receive the cooperation in the transition of government into their hand → well, so be it. Countries, like the US, that support the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.
I know it is not the simplified answer you want to hear, but it is a valid viewpoint. Knowing that you would not appreciate that viewpoint, people in the discussion just choose not to respond and give Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters any credibility.
Any country that would elevate a person like Dalal al-Maghribi, famous for personally killing unarmed men, women, and children, to the status of hero or martyr, is a providing state support to terrorism.
Most Respectfully,
R
Talk about smokescreens.
