Defining Terrorism Down (CM)

From an editorial in The New Republic:

The tragedy is that Kadima and Hamas are in the ascendant at the same time. At the very moment that the Israelis have achieved a new consensus about withdrawing from territories and abandoning settlements and establishing borders and acquiescing in the creation of Palestine, the Palestinians have achieved a new consensus of the antithetical sort and have elected, by a significant majority, a movement that stands brazenly for theocracy and terrorism and the destruction of Israel. The contradiction could not be sharper or more disheartening. 

The democratic legitimacy of the Hamas victory says nothing about the moral and historical legitimacy of the Hamas program. It is important to be clear about this: The results of free and fair elections can also be opposed. Hamas does not represent a radical nationalism. It represents a religious nationalism. The Palestinians now have an Islamist leadership. Worse, a jihadist leadership: Hamas has been in the forefront of the suicide bombings of recent years, and of the sanctification of suicide bombings. These are not extremists; these are killers, and the  ideological instructors of killers. Yes, yes, Hamas also presides over institutions of social welfare and despises  corruption. So what? This is the oldest of fascist alibis. The probity of Hamas is an authoritarian probity. Are  they to be admired because they will murder but will not steal? ...

[O]ne hears over and over that the rise of Hamas is a perverse kind of good news, because power breeds  responsibility. But the history of the Middle East, and of many other regions of the world, has demonstrated the opposite. Again and again, power has bred irresponsibility. Consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. And consider, too, Khaled Mashal, the exiled leader of Hamas, who was in Tehran this week arranging for Iranian assistance. What drove Mashal into Ahmadinejad's arms was not Israeli or U.S. policy. It was a deep political and philosophical affinity. They are made of the same stuff; and it is not the stuff of which we are made.

More here.

Comments

[todd]

I'm not sure that the ascent of Kadima and Hamas concurrently is a bad thing. Hamas has stated that land for peace will not end with the West Bank, and that they will not stop until the Jews are driven out of 'their land'; "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad" (Article 13). http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

The radical doctrine of Hamas is bound to disturb even the average moderate or secular Jew. This may halt the 'roadmap to peace' talks (since Israel gives all the land and gets no peace) and strengthen the Israelis desire to not give in. We should support them in this effort not only because they are the only true democracy in the Middle East, but also (and more importantly) because the land was given to the Jews by our Creator. The LORD also declared Jerusalem to be set apart for Himself (not Allah) and the Jews;
"And to his son I will give one tribe, that My servant David may always have a lamp before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen for Myself, to put My name there."
(1Kings 11:36)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=11&verse=36&version=50&context=verse

From the position of a 'pro-Israel', no land for peace individual, the rise of Hamas (although certainly to be marred by increased violence) might be more of a blessing than a curse.