‘Comment is Free’ writer praises Hamas for limiting its acts of terror to ‘only’ Israeli Jews


H/T Mark

The first indication that the essay by Tareq Baconi, Hamas is making a tactical appeal to the grassroots“, CiF, March 8, was going to represent yet another example of a Guardian whitewash of a terrorist group committed to the Jewish state’s destruction was the accompanying photo.

The beloved Ismail Haniyeh, a true man of the people.

But, it gets much worse.

Baconi writes:

Hamas officials have said that in the event of a war between Iran and Israel, they will not become involved on Tehran’s side.

Historically, Hamas has always gone to great lengths to assert its independence from any foreign influence. It is widely recognised that it receives support from powers such as Syria (until recently) and Iran. Yet this has never been worn as a badge of honour by the movement.

Rather, its leadership has consistently asserted that the movement cannot be influenced or directed by any external power. It has insisted that it charts its course based on the will of the people – in stark contrast to Fatah and its leadership, who have frequently been portrayed as the pawns of western powers and Israel.

Hamas: Authentic, boldly asserting its independence from imperial powers while engaging in terrorism.

Fatah: A pawn of the U.S. and Israel.

Baconi continues:

Hamas, which governs Gaza, is also territorialised, limiting its resistance to historic Palestine.… Unlike the Palestine Liberation Organisation…Hamas has rarely if ever meddled in regional or global affairs, either rhetorically or through acts of resistance.

[and has] limited its war to a well-defined battle: that of liberating Palestine from “Zionist occupation”. 

At a time when people at the grassroots are calling the shots across the region, Hamas is prudently differentiating itself from other regimes and parties by visibly siding with the people.

This is not a new concept for Hamas, since it has always derived its legitimacy and popularity from Palestinians [emphasis added]

Please read the above passages over.  

The euphemisms are meant to communicate the following:

  • Hamas, unlike the more moderate Fatah, is not guilty of cravenly being influence by Western powers, charts its own path, determined by the will of the Palestinian people.
  • As such, Hamas limits its terrorist attacks by targeting merely Israeli civilians (those living anywhere in pre or post 1967 borders): The murder of innocent Jewish men, women and children in Israel as an act of restraint.

Yes, “resistance” means murderous terror attacks.

Yes, “historic Palestine” means the entire nation of Israel.

And, yes, ‘Comment is Free’ published a commentary suggesting that brutal terrorist attacks against Israelis are consistent with the responsible and admirable behavior of a legitimate “resistance” movement. 

5 comments on “‘Comment is Free’ writer praises Hamas for limiting its acts of terror to ‘only’ Israeli Jews

  1. “Hamas, unlike the more moderate Fatah, is not guilty of cravenly being influence by Western powers, charts its own path, determined by the will of the Palestinian people.”

    That’s pretty accurate. That’s why the US (and to a lesser degree, Israel) collaborated with Fatah to mount a coup against Hamas after their surprise election victory.

    “As such, Hamas limits its terrorist attacks by targeting merely Israeli civilians (those living anywhere in pre or post 1967 borders): The murder of innocent Jewish men, women and children in Israel as an act of restraint.”

    Again, that’s also pretty accurate. Through it’s military wing, Hamas has, of course, targeted civilians in Israel.

    “Yes, “resistance” means murderous terror attacks.”

    For Hamas, largely, but not exclusively, yes.

    “Yes, “historic Palestine” means the entire nation of Israel.”

    Yes, just as Likud commits itself to engulfing all of “Eretz Yisrael”, meaning historic Palestine.

    “And, yes, ‘Comment is Free’ published a commentary suggesting that brutal terrorist attacks against Israelis suggests the responsible and admirable behavior of a legitimate “resistance” movement.”

    Terrorism is terrorism. Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians are terrorism. But so are Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. We both know who is the bigger player in the terror stakes.

    • ” ‘Eretz Yisrael’, meaning historic Palestine.” No, “Eretz Yisrael, meaning the land of Israel.

    • Except Israel doesn’t target civilians, while Hamas does. If Israel would have targeted civilians, there would have been a tad more causalities than a few hundred from thousands of air sorties. You know that of course, but you prefer to lie to yourself and to others.

      By that logic Britain in WW2 was a bigger “terrorist” and war monger than Nazi Germany.

      I won’t even go into the notion of “cause and effect”, like who started the latest escalation, because you like to ignore that too.

  2. The first paragraph you quoted might be excused as paraphrasing Hamas and not necessarily the anther’s view. The second paragraph though, with such terms as “historic Palestine” and “resistance”, is a little less ambiguous.

    I’d like to see for once a Muslim writer and the Guardian and step up for something a little less conformist (conformist to the Guardian world-view that is.) Chickens.

  3. Baconi writes:

    Hamas officials have said that in the event of a war between Iran and Israel, they will not become involved on Tehran’s side.

    Hamas, as always, speaks with forked tongue.

    ‘Hamas denies it would stay out of Israel-Iran war’

    Iranian report directly contradicts BBC quote by Zahar, saying the group wouldn’t get involved in any regional conflict.

    Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar denied reports in British media Wednesday that the Gaza-based group would stay out of any military conflict between Israel and Iran, the Iranian Fars news site reported.

    “Retaliation with utmost power is the position of Hamas with regard to a Zionist (Israeli) war on Iran,” Fars quoted Zahar as saying.

    The quote directly contradicts a BBC report the same day, which said Zahar told the news outlet: “If Israel attacks us we will respond. If they don’t, we will not get involved in any other regional conflict.”

    A day earlier, another Hamas official also asserted that the group would stay out of a war between Israel and Iran. Hamas Political Bureau member Salah Bardawil was quoted by the UK’s Guardian saying, “If there is a war between two powers, Hamas will not be part of such a war.”

    “Hamas is not part of military alliances in the region,” he continued, “our strategy is to defend our rights.”

    Speaking with Fars Wednesday, Zahar added that the group would respond not only against Israel if it attacked Iran, but also, “whoever [was] helping them.”

    Hamas has traditionally launched attacks only against Israel, distinguishing it from other Islamist groups that target other Western and Arab powers. In response to the January, 2010 assassination of Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, the group threatened to attack Israeli targets overseas.

    In both the Guardian and BBC reports, the Hamas officials discussed Iran’s funding of the group, although there too, conflicting messages were sent. The Guardian quoted Bardawil as saying, “In the early days of the blockade (on Gaza), the money was very good, but it was reduced two years ago.”

    The BBC quoted an unnamed Hamas official in Gaza as saying that while “Iran has been very generous with its money,” Shi’ite Iran and the Sunni Islamist Hamas have little in common ideologically.

    The BBC and The Guardian – two peas in the same worm infested pod.

Comments are closed.