Strewth – The Yale University Law School data base (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm) calls the founding Hamas document a covenant, not a charter. But given that we are dealing with a translation from the Arabic, let’s not quibble about semantic details, eh? I never argued that AQ coauthored the Covenant, but merely that it shares the same worldview as Hamas. Article Two of the Covenant declares that “Hamas is one of the wings of the Moslem Brotherhood”. Article Five declares that the movement’s “extent in place is anywhere there are Moslems who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe.” Article 33 states: “the Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road.” AQ also draws its ideological origins from Hassan al Banna and the Ikqwan (Moslem Brotherhood), as well as from the writings of Sayed Qutub. The bottom line is that there is a definite ideological common denominator between the two movements.

Wibbie – in essence, you are arguing that jihadist terrorism should be treated as a criminal justice issue rather than a national security problem. But I believe that the threat far transcends the conventional law enforcement paradigm and that we are at war. And as Napoleon said, a la guerre, comme a la guerre (in war, as in war). Bill Clinton viewed AQ through a law enforcement prism and as a result he passed up a perfect opportunity to nab bin Laden in 1996 (not enough admissible evidence to convict). How many lives would have been saved if the Prez dispatched a team of Navy SEALS to Somalia instead of consulting Justice Department lawyers? There are a couple of skyscrapers in Manhattan that might still be standing today if he had opted for the military option. As previously stated, democracy has the right to defend itself, and it will employ warlike measures to do so in the face of a warlike threat. Blowing up commuter trains, a la Madrid and London, and 9/11 pass my threshold for a declaration of war against me.

Thanks, Ted. So, Hamas and al-Q are not, repeat not, in "overt alliance", as you have claimed, they just, according to you, "share the same world view"? Article 2 of the Hamas Charter, states that "Hamas is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine [you left out those last 2 words on purpose now, didn't you, Ted?]", but what's that got to do with your claim that "it subscribes to the al-Q vision of a global Caliphate"? Article 5 says its "extent in space is wherever Muslims...are found, in any region on the face of the earth." (JPS version), but what's that got to do with "global caliphate(s)"? Article 33 has nothing to say about "an Islamic Palestinian state upon the ruins of Israel" (your first version) or "the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism" (your second version). Ted, are you sure you're on top of this subject? And what about my last question? When are you going to answer that? Or will the answering put you in too much of an uncomfortable stress position?

Ted Lappin wrote:

“Hamlet – the difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber and Baruch Goldstein is that the former is embraced as a national hero and role model, while the latter was reviled and despised by the overwhelming majority of the Israeli population. If Goldstein hadn’t been killed during his terrorist attack in Hebron, then he certainly would have been sent to prison by Israel for life. Extremism is a phenomenon found in every culture – so the test is not whether a society has lunatics, but how it treats them. The Palestinians celebrate their fanatics, while the Israelis punish theirs. That’s the difference.”

I have raised the issue of Goldstein in another forum, and was told by several Israeli contributors that Goldstein was a ‘sacrificial attacker’. This attitude wasn’t surprising as the contributors were members of the Israeli military.

However there are members of Israel society who celebrate what Goldstein did. May I suggest that you visit this BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm

It could also be considered that Sharon is/was a fanatic, after all he lead Israel into the disastrous adventure into Lebanon; a fanatic working within the Israeli military, who was responsible for more Palestinian deaths than any Palestinian leader can be blamed for Israeli deaths.

Israel doesn’t celebrate its fanatics, it elects them instead.

By the way, you haven’t replied to my assertions of Israeli aggression. Whilst the analogy may not be strictly correct, to the German occupiers and government of France 1940-1944 the resistance movement were just terrorists.

If any ethnic group decided that they, for whatever reason, decided to kick me out of my home and the neighbourhood in which I live, you could pretty much bet that I and my fellow inhabitants would start acting like terrorists against the occupiers.

If an Islamic power decided to occupy the Vatican there is a fair chance that Catholics the world over would start attacking Islamic targets in other places, with whatever means they had at their disposal.

The suicide attacks on Israel cannot be justified, but neither can the occupation of land captured by Israel in 1967.

HAMAS CHARTER
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

The discussion between Ted and Strewth is better served by referring to 'The Document' itself. The name matters little compared to the content.

Article 11
[This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise.]

1/ Note that there is an admission that the land was 'conquered by force'
2/ Note also the idea of having now been conquered it attains a special RELIGIOUS status, for ALL GENERATIONS of..... MUSLIMS.

So, on this alone, without reference at all to refugees, to dispossession, but to the simple fact of it being once conquered by Muslims, it is clear that only ONE solution will be acceptable to HAMAS and that is the total and complete destruction of Israel.

Given this I gaze in amazement at Israels restraint, by not embarking on a re-enactment of the original command to 'posses the land and destroy them utterly'.

CONCLUSIONS.
1/ There will never ever, ever EVER be a peaceful solution to this problem. (refer the above quote)
2/ The reason for conclusion "1" is that it is based on the Islamic concept of 'once Islamic, always Islamic'

So Strewth, I truly think you are wasting your time appealing to international law, or human rights etc.. because the driving force behind Hamas does not recognize such things.

Rather, it recognizes 'Islamic Sharia' and 'Rights as Dhimmis UNDER Islam'

Ted. There are many lessons in the Book of Joshua, might be time to review them and urge appropriate action.

At the risk of boring everyone....

TED.. I notice your comparison between Baruch Goldstein and suicide bombers, and how you draw the distinction between one being revered and the other reviled.

You state this as some kind of signpost of humanitarian qualities in Israel.
Well, Goldstein did, what the Israeli government should have done, and should still do. Remove absolutely any trace of Islamic presence in Israel and this includes the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksah mosque.

Extreme ? 'Radical' ? 'fundamentalist' ?

Considering the quote in my last post from the Hamas charter, I think 'no reasonable alternative'.

Remember the Cuckoo Ted.. it's egg gets laid in the nest of a thrush, but when the chick, having been nurtured by the Thrush, becomes large, it consumes the chicks of the thrush and takes all for itself.

I'm sure the world can find a place for the Palestinians but only as good citizens who leave the politics behind them.

Ted, I can promise as sure as I write this, 'mene mene tekel upharsin'

In your heart of hearts I think you know it too, but perhaps it is not very 'politically acceptable' to recognize this.

[And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel; from each tribe of their fathers you shall send a man, every one a leader among them.]

They returned and 10 out of the 12 said "Yes, it is a wonderful land, but the inhabitants are very strong"

Only the voice, of Caleb, (and implied also is Joshua), said "Let us go up at once and take possession, for we are well able to overcome it."

Your next prime minister needs to be a Caleb or a Joshua.

Remember what happened to the reconnaisance team who brought the 'we cannot defeat them' news ? Only the Caleb and Joshua survived.

deterrents do not work. generally they have become the rallying call for further violence because they are seen to prove the case.

if deterrence worked, why are israel and palestine unable to deter each other from continued violence against one another?

you can not deter ideologies. you also do not 'win' by becoming (like) the enemy.

besides, why all the concern about what bin laden might think? why is a terrorist controling the agenda?