EU court took off Hamas from terrorist organization list

[alhoon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30511569

The gist: Top EU court took Hamas off from the list of entities considered terrorist organizations by the EU for some legal reasons I don't 100% understand. Funding freezes will stay in place for 3 months or if the decision is appealed, till the appeal closes.
Israel was angered.
Yet other parts of EU leadership disagree.
" But European Commission spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said the EU continued to "consider Hamas a terrorist organisation" and would consider its response to the
ruling. "



I'm not supporting Israel's actions in the West Bank and I consider it an illegal occupation. I'm also against the blockade of Gaza. I usually find Israel's response to terrorist attacks on Israelis to be incredibly harsh.
BUT: While Hamas claims to be an insurgency... they have a stated goal to destroy Israel and during the harsh response of Israel, they hide behind civilians. They also target civilians. To my book, those are terrorist acts.
That Israel's response is extremely heavy handed, doesn't mean that Hamas should be declassified as a terrorist organization. 2 wrongs don't make a right and that we don't like Israeli goverment's heavy-handed actions against Palestinians doesn't excuse Hamas.
Not everyone in Hamas is a terrorist, but the organization IMO should be considered a terrorist organization.

[snuggans]

it was a lower court who seemed to be swayed by a lawyer, this should however produce even better evidence against Hamas, or at least presented in a better way that the bureaucracy would be pleased with.

[Roma_Victrix]

Hamas' position on and threats against Israel are repulsive, but something tells me this is part of a growing trend of a "live-and-let-live" policy by the West with Shia groups, including the Syrian Alawites of Bashar al-Assad, so long as they oppose the bigger threat of ISIL, which is Sunni. It would be very ironic, though, if Saudi Arabia made a big clamor about this in the media and opposed the ruling, considering how their native wahhabists have periodically funded and sponsored terrorism.

[Aanker]

And yeah this pretty much means that they will stop shooting rockets then.



Long live everlasting peace!

[Salah ad Din Yusuf]

Terrorist organization definition: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/).
hamas members use civilian buildings as hideouts. Hamas members target civilians. Hamas members execute 'collaborators' for intimidation. Terrorist enough for me.

[Odenat]

Terrorist organization definition: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/).

Then you are calling Israel terrorist too, aren't you ? Because that's exactly what they are doing.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I understand the Tamil Tigers went through something similar, getting off the list due to a technicality. Their terrorist status was re-introduced before they could take any advantage of their new status, fortunately. Hamas will likely go through the same, though that didn't stop them from declaring a great victory (then again, they'll declare a great victory over just about anything; you have to make these things up if you have no real victories to present).

And for anyone having doubts, Hamas is a terrorist organization. They deliberately target enemy civilians with rockets and suicide bombers, hide from Israeli bombings behind women and children (the bombs usually still fall; its mostly to paint Israel in a bad light), and in the last conflict, started shooting "Israeli spies" (read: political dissidents) in the streets.

[Request a new user name]

I understand the Tamil Tigers went through something similar, getting off the list due to a technicality. Their terrorist status was re-introduced before they could take any advantage of their new status, fortunately. Hamas will likely go through the same, though that didn't stop them from declaring a great victory (then again, they'll declare a great victory over just about anything; you have to make these things up if you have no real victories to present).

And for anyone having doubts, Hamas is a terrorist organization. They deliberately target enemy civilians with rockets and suicide bombers, hide from Israeli bombings behind women and children (the bombs usually still fall; its mostly to paint Israel in a bad light), and in the last conflict, started shooting "Israeli spies" (read: political dissidents) in the streets.

Hamas does not deliberately target civilians, and since every adult Israeli practically serves in the IDF, they are not civilians and thus forfeit civilian protection especially if they keep their service weaponry in their homes.

Also Hamas despite having no precision guided weaponry has killed soldiers in 96% of the times they fired, which is better than Hezbollah's 89%. IDF on the other hand has killed 89% Civilians every time they fired and deliberately targeted them while doing so making them the real terrorist. Also Israel started the war, Hamas is legitimately defending itself and the citizens of the strip.

The hides behind civilians crap is . The only way Hamas can defend its civilians is to fight amongst them, there is no other way to defend the strip and its population, the other choice is to surrender and let the population be massacred and dispossessed in the same way the West Bank's citizens are under Fatah.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Hamas does not deliberately target civilians, and since every adult Israeli practically serves in the IDF, they are not civilians and thus forfeit civilian protection especially if they keep their service weaponry in their homes.

Also Hamas despite having no precision guided weaponry has killed soldiers in 96% of the times they fired, which is better than Hezbollah's 89%. IDF on the other hand has killed 89% Civilians every time they fired and deliberately targeted them while doing so making them the real terrorist. Also Israel started the war, Hamas is legitimately defending itself and the citizens of the strip.

The hides behind civilians crap is . The only way Hamas can defend its civilians is to fight amongst them, there is no other way to defend the strip and its population, the other choice is to surrender and let the population be massacred and dispossessed in the same way the West Bank's citizens are under Fatah.

You know, its this sort of reaction that forces Israel to bomb its enemies into submission rather then trying to work out something more diplomatically minded...

I'll go as far as saying that by portraying the opposition to Israel in such an uncompromisingly fanatical light, you're actually doing Israel a service.

[nein]

Just trying to appease their new muslim/radleft masters

[sumskilz]

Also Hamas despite having no precision guided weaponry has killed soldiers in 96% of the times they fired, which is better than Hezbollah's 89%. IDF on the other hand has killed 89% Civilians

So you pulled these statistics out of your ass then? Even the Hamas run Gaza Health ministry only claimed 70% civilian casualties in the last conflict, but Israeli's methods aren't the issue in this particular thread. In the last conflict Hamas killed 66 soldiers and only 6 civilians (not counting Gazans), but it was not for lack of trying. The reason the civilian casualties were so low is because of Israel's tremendous efforts to protect them. The reason the military causalities were high is because soldiers are forced to expose themselves to more danger. The disparity has nothing to do with Hamas or its methods.

since every adult Israeli practically serves in the IDF, they are not civilians and thus forfeit civilian protection

And yet out of the six civilians killed in the last conflict, one was a 4-year-old, one was a Bedouin, one was a Thai guest worker, one was an elderly woman, one was a Chabad rabbi who never served in the IDF, and one was a man past military age.

Now about Hamas in general, a few quotes from Mudar Zahran's interviews with Gazans...

"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.

"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.

"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.

"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student

"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.

Source and many more quotes from his interviews: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/47...mas-war-crimes

Abbas claims Hamas executed 120 Fatah members for violating curfew during the conflict: http://www.egynews.net/%D8%B9%D8%A8%...-%D9%82%D8%A8/

[snuggans]

Hamas does not deliberately target civilians, and since every adult Israeli practically serves in the IDF, they are not civilians and thus forfeit civilian protection especially if they keep their service weaponry in their homes.

Also Hamas despite having no precision guided weaponry has killed soldiers in 96% of the times they fired, which is better than Hezbollah's 89%. IDF on the other hand has killed 89% Civilians every time they fired and deliberately targeted them while doing so making them the real terrorist. Also Israel started the war, Hamas is legitimately defending itself and the citizens of the strip.

The hides behind civilians crap is . The only way Hamas can defend its civilians is to fight amongst them, there is no other way to defend the strip and its population, the other choice is to surrender and let the population be massacred and dispossessed in the same way the West Bank's citizens are under Fatah.

wow, hahahaha



can you also whip up a post on the WB barrier and Gaza barrier? i'd love to read it

[alhoon]

Just trying to appease their new muslim/radleft masters

How many Radical left governments or muslim governments are in EU? None
How large is the far left or the muslim populace in EU? Very small

So, it can't be that... Perhaps, it's because the rule of law comes with loopholes and a few such decisions. It also comes with (usually) a more fair legal system.

[fkizz]

I hope now my skepticism towards EU doesn't seem as "Bigot Nationalist" as before, required EU to take Hamas off terrorist list for blind Euro enthusiasts to reconsider their ideas

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Hamas does not deliberately target civilians, and since every adult Israeli practically serves in the IDF, they are not civilians and thus forfeit civilian protection especially if they keep their service weaponry in their homes.

So your argument here is.. Israel has no civilian population?
And no, only ages 18-21 undergo active military service.
No israeli civilian has a weapon at home. Heck, even most soldiers don't. I serve in the IDF and I don't even carry a weapon when i am at my base, needless to say take one home.
Hamas doesn't target civilians? What are they firing at cities for then?

Also Hamas despite having no precision guided weaponry has killed soldiers in 96% of the times they fired, which is better than Hezbollah's 89%. IDF on the other hand has killed 89% Civilians every time they fired and deliberately targeted them while doing so making them the real terrorist. Also Israel started the war, Hamas is legitimately defending itself and the citizens of the strip.

So if not for brave Hamas, gaza would be completely slaughtered? Give me a brake. Israel could carpet bomb that place in a day if that was our goal. The casualty rate in Israel is only so low thanks to the Iron dome, and lack of precision in Hamas' attacks.
We do not target civilians.

The hides behind civilians crap is . The only way Hamas can defend its civilians is to fight amongst them, there is no other way to defend the strip and its population, the other choice is to surrender and let the population be massacred and dispossessed in the same way the West Bank's citizens are under Fatah.

The population will be massacred in the same way as in the west bank? Can you source this masaacre? Because i must be blind to not see it. Surely this murder of millions is documented.
Oh wait, there is no massacre.
Fight amongst them? You mean fire a rocket and run while forcing civilians to stay and die?

[Papay]

Too soon. The EU must wait for 50 years(like the US did in the case of Cuba)

[paleologos]

Terrorist organization definition: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/).
hamas members use civilian buildings as hideouts. Hamas members target civilians. Hamas members execute 'collaborators' for intimidation. Terrorist enough for me.

How about drone bombing, targeting wedding parties and hitting them again after, the rescue crews arrive to extract any survivors from the debris?
Is that terrorist enough for you?

I believe that two wrongs don't make a right and that reprisals on civilians are a demonstratedly efficacious method for breeding new terrorists and perpetuating a vendetta.
And I am sure that there is a branch of Hamas that doesn't give a rodent's sphincter about the public relations debacle that targeting civilians usually causes.
And the last thing I want to be is an apologist for the likes of them.

But to say that Hamas in it's entirety is about nothing else but violence is to make onself an extension of the Israeli public-relations-industrial-complex.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the entire discourse about how any of the "enemies of Israel" are nothing else but a bunch of mindless fanatics bent only on violence is fig leaf for a major Israeli blunder:
By invading and occupying Palestinian territory they have maneuvered themselves into a rhetorically unattainable position.

A state is a social-organisational entity that wields the monopoly of legitimate violence over a specific region. That region is the domain of the state.

If violence against Israeli occupation forces is legitimate, then Israel is an aggressor state, guilty of crimes against international peace (among a great many others).

If the same acts of violence against Israeli occupation forces are illegitimate then the territories where they occur are claimed by the state of Israel as de facto parts of it's domain.
Which by extension would mean that everyone born within that domain is entitled of full rights of citizenship, something much abhorred by those who want Israel to be a state for Jews alone, an appartheid state for all intends and purposes.

So which is it?
An aggressor state, guilty of warmongering for the purpose of grabbing some land?
Or a racist appartheid state, who oppresses everyone who's not a Jew for the purpose of grabbing some land?

The only way to avoid the above question is to brand all opposition as "terrorist".
And opposition there will be.
And -at least in some instances- it will be violent.
And civilians will get in the way and get hurt, as it usually happens in war.
But a war's first victim is invariably the truth.
For if those involved were not too eager to disregard the merits in the other side's grievances for the sake of their own self righteousness there would not have been war to beggin with.

For those of you who would think that I have digressed, I would have to bring up one of the mantras of management: think globally - act locally.
We need to have an awareness of every aspect in any situation before we can make deductions about which are the causes and which are the effects.
And in this case it would seem that Israel and it's allies in the EU bureaucracy got it backwards once again.

[Roma_Victrix]

There are many reasons I dislike Israel and the war hawk policies of their government under Netanyahu and his Likud party, but this assertion here is a bridge too far. It's actually the sentiment like yours that ensures people like Netanyahu stay in power, because Israelis tend to become more insular and conservative and unilateral when they feel their EXISTENCE is at stake.

[paleologos]

There are many reasons I dislike Israel and the war hawk policies of their government under Netanyahu and his Likud party, but this assertion here is a bridge too far. It's actually the sentiment like yours that ensures people like Netanyahu stay in power, because Israelis tend to become more insular and conservative and unilateral when they feel their EXISTENCE is at stake.

Furthermore the question whether Israel has or has not the right to exit is an irrelevant question because what is it going to do? Pass out of existence?
And still, as a topic of discourse, it is a very convenient one for the Israeli public-relations-industrial-complex as it carries the conversation away from their least attainable positions.

Now, if you want to ask a relevant question it would be this:
If Israel does indeed want to be a state of fairness and justice and peace for all the people who are native to the domain of the state - that is the area where Israel enjoys the monopoly of legitimate violence as they claim it - what ought to be the terms of Israel's existance?

[sumskilz]

How about drone bombing, targeting wedding parties and hitting them again after, the rescue crews arrive to extract any survivors from the debris?
Is that terrorist enough for you?

I believe that two wrongs don't make a right and that reprisals on civilians are a demonstratedly efficacious method for breeding new terrorists and perpetuating a vendetta.
And I am sure that there is a branch of Hamas that doesn't give a rodent's sphincter about the public relations debacle that targeting civilians usually causes.
And the last thing I want to be is an apologist for the likes of them.

But to say that Hamas in it's entirety is about nothing else but violence is to make onself an extension of the Israeli public-relations-industrial-complex.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the entire discourse about how any of the "enemies of Israel" are nothing else but a bunch of mindless fanatics bent only on violence is fig leaf for a major Israeli blunder:
By invading and occupying Palestinian territory they have maneuvered themselves into a rhetorically unattainable position.

A state is a social-organisational entity that wields the monopoly of legitimate violence over a spicific region. That region is the domain of the state.

If violence against Israeli occupation forces is legitimate, then Israel is an aggressor state, guilty of crimes against international peace (among a great many others).

If the same acts of violence against Israeli occupation forces are illegitimate then the territories where they occur are claimed by the state of Israel as de facto parts of it's domain.
Which by extension would mean that everyone born within that domain is entitled of full rights of citizenship, something much abhorred by those who want Israel to be a state for Jews alone, an appartheid state for all intends and purposes.

So which is it?
An aggressor state, guilty of warmongering for the purpose of grabbing some land?
Or a racist appartheid state, who oppresses everyone who's not a Jew for the purpose of grabbing some land?

The only way to avoid the above question is to brand all opposition as "terrorist".
And opposition there will be.
And -at least in some instances- it will be violent.
And civilians will get in the way and get hurt, as it usually happens in war.
But a war's first victim is invariably the truth.
For if those involved were not too eager to disregard the merits in the other side's grievances for the sake of their own self righteousness there would not have been war to beggin with.

For those of you who would think that I have digressed, I would have to bring up one of the mantras of management: think globally - act locally.
We need to have an awareness of every aspect in any situation before we can make deductions about which are the causes and which are the effects.
And in this case it would seem that Israel and it's allies in the EU bureaucracy got it backwards once again.

There is a fair amount of BS in this post, and actually irrelevant BS since what Israel does or doesn't do is not what Hamas should be judged on. The only relevant point you make is the assertion that anyone who opposes Israel is delegitimized by being labelled terrorist organization. However that is not the case, since the PLO/Fatah stopped directly supporting terrorism, it is no longer considered a terror organization. Hamas is not considered a terror organization because of its opposition to Israel, but because of its methods. Hamas terrorizes Palestinian civilians as well. I do agree with you that the whole term can be somewhat a thought terminating cliche. Hamas is a political organization with a political agenda, terror is only one of its tools. Although they are hardly an idealist political organization considering the level of corruption they engage in at the expense of their own people.