In a laughable "analysis" in Ma'an, Whitbeck shows that he can ignore the most elementary rules of logic and the English language itself in order to defend terrorists:
When, in response to the threat of potential Palestinian reconciliation and unity, the Israeli government suspended "negotiations" with the Palestine Liberation Organization on April 24 (five days before they were due to terminate in any event), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a statement asserting: "Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel."Check out how deceptive Whitbeck is. He is claiming that since some people may misuse the word "terrorist" and since the word has no "agreed upon definition" then the word becomes meaningless when Israel uses it.
...The extreme subjectivity of the epithet "terrorist" has been highlighted by two recent absurdities -- the Egyptian military regime's labeling of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has won all Egyptian elections since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, as a "terrorist" organization and the labeling by the de facto Ukrainian authorities, who came to power through illegally occupying government buildings in Kiev, of those opposing them by illegally occupying government buildings in eastern Ukraine as "terrorists."
In both cases, those who have overthrown democratically elected governments are labeling those who object to their coups as "terrorists."
It is increasingly understood that the word "terrorist," which has no agreed-upon definition, is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning and that it is commonly abused by governments and others who apply it to whomever or whatever they hate in the hope of demonizing their adversaries, thereby discouraging and avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.
However, there are generally agreed upon definitions of terrorism. For example, the draft UN definition:
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:The FBI says that international terrorism involves violent acts that "appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.
There are plenty of other definitions. While the definitions may not be identical and they may not be 100% perfect, it is clear that - for example - the 9/11 attacks fall under all definitions of terror. (Although Whitbeck says 9/11 is a hoax. Really.)
Whitbeck is trying to say that the word "terrorism" is meaningless, but it isn't. Just because boundary cases aren't defined doesn't mean that some acts aren't clearly cases of terrorism.
Suicide bombings, rocket attacks aimed at civilians and other acts meant to intimidate and instill fear in a population for political purposes all fit in under every single serious definition of terrorism from both a legal and dictionary perspective. Which makes Hamas, by definition, a terrorist organization.
Indeed, Whitbeck is using a silly semantic argument to whitewash Hamas acts which fall under every single definition of terrorism.
He continues in the same vein:
Netanyahu's assertion that Hamas "calls for the destruction of Israel" requires rational analysis as well.You see? In Whitbeck's conception of "the real world," Hamas isn't calling for the destruction of Israel - Hamas is calling for democracy and peaceful coexistence!
He is not the only guilty party in this regard. The mainstream media in the West habitually attaches the phrase "pledged to the destruction of Israel" to each first mention of Hamas, almost as though it were part of Hamas' name.
In the real world, what does the "destruction of Israel" actually mean? The land? The people? The ethno-religious-supremacist regime?
There can be no doubt that virtually all Palestinians -- and probably still a significant number of Native Americans -- wish that foreign colonists had never arrived in their homelands to ethnically cleanse them and take away their land and that some may even lay awake at night dreaming that they might, somehow, be able to turn back the clock or reverse history.
However, in the real world, Hamas is not remotely close to being in a position to cause Israel's territory to sink beneath the Mediterranean or to wipe out its population or even to compel the Israeli regime to transform itself into a fully democratic state pledged to equal rights and dignity for all who live there. It is presumably the latter threat -- the dreaded "bi-national state" -- that Netanyahu has in mind when he speaks of the "destruction of Israel."
For propaganda purposes, "destruction" sounds much less reasonable and desirable than "democracy" even when one is speaking about the same thing.
...In the real world, the Hamas vision (like the Fatah vision) of peaceful coexistence in Israel-Palestine is much closer to the "international consensus" on what a permanent peace should look like, as well as to international law and relevant UN resolutions, than the Israeli vision.
Unfortunately for Whitbeck, Hamas leaders' own words show a slightly different story. They say quite clearly and explicitly that they don't quite esubscribe to Whitbeck's fantasies as to what they believe and what they want to do to all Jews in the area. (And Whitbeck knows this very well.)
"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."Expulsion of all Jews from Israel. Hmm. It sounds so peaceful and democratic!
Here a Hamas commander calls on Israeli Arabs to destroy Israel from the inside.
Congratulations to our people of 1948 [Israeli Arabs] on the liberation of Gaza. You wish to destroy them [the Israelis] from their inside...He must mean by voting in elections.
Here's another example of how Hamas cannot possibly mean anything offensive:
"Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah"Only a fanatical right wing Zionist could possibly interpret that as anything but puppies and flowers and rainbows, right, John?
There are many Israel haters that would read this ridiculous article and sagely nod their heads as if it makes perfect sense.
But that is because they want to justify Arabs killing Jews.
Just like John V. Whitbeck.