December 31, 2008

Hamas' Christmas "gift": Legalization of crucifixion

Isn't that nice?

Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seems to have noticed.

On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.

Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas. (Source.)

Where's Hamas' sense of "proportionality," for goodness sake??

UPDATE: Steve Newton at DE Libertarian has discovered more details about this story. It's what great blogging is all about, even though Steve makes a distinction between "blogging" and "reporting" in his post!

You don't have to be a libertarian to enjoy Steve's blog. It's the best researched and written blog in the First State, by far. Be sure to check it out!

Posted by Hube at December 31, 2008 02:07 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Steve Newton says: "Bloggers get to go with what appears to be true, and what makes sense to them as true, and what they can find a link to."

That's exactly what you did, Hube.

When I checked your source, the fact that there was a missing source citation on the crucifixion allegation was immediately apparent. Nevertheless, you ran with it.

Steve did do an excellent job of research and reporting. You failed to mention in your update that there was no meaningful basis for your previous claims about crucifixion.

In fact, a close reading of your source, Hube, reveals a writer with a strong pro-Israeli bias, therefore hardly credible without proper attribution, except to those of similar bias!

Posted by: Perry at January 1, 2009 11:21 PM

You also failed to mention what Steve said, Perry, in that bloggers do precisely that -- that is, they link to stories of interest and the link allows people to find more information about it. Steve also conceded that Hamas certainly may be lying -- which is what they do on an hourly basis, as you'd know if you weren't such a freakin' terrorist sympathizer.

Nevertheless, spare me your bullshit that you "knew" there was something more to the story. Only someone with an obvious pro-radical Muslim bias would claim to know that.

Also, you fail to cede the fact that I bothered to include an update AT ALL, which I certainly didn't have to do. That's your problem -- no matter WHAT I say or do you spin it negatively. So, screw you.

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 09:02 AM

That's just too easy for you to say! You are totally wrong!

I believe in peace and justice, neither of which I am observing in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Terror is in the perception of the victim. I think we can agree that both the Gazans and the Israelis experience terror emanating from the other side.

The Palestinians have responded to a mandated partition of their land, mandated by outside powers, and in more recent years, have responded to continued encroachment of their mandated borders like the West Bank and Jerusalem, not to mention a refugee problem that has festered for decades, citizens forcefully displaced and forbidden to return. These roots bode ill for either peace or justice. Moreover, the unbalanced hand played by the US has exacerbated the problem over the years.

Any fair minded person has to condemn the overall role of the US in this ongoing tragedy, although Carter and Clinton made valiant attempts at peace.

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 11:00 AM

BTW Perry, why isn't the Jerusalem Post a legitimate source? I'm sure you'd say the same if I linked to a NYT article, right?

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 11:01 AM

"I believe in peace and justice"

Can you sing "Kum-ba-yah" too?

"The Palestinians have responded to a mandated partition of their land"

Yes -- responded with armed force (alongside the armies of surrounding Arab sovereign states) in an attempt to destroy the nascent Jewish state. Did you happen to forget that "small" detail?

The rest of your diatribe is useless as it fails to note the REASON for the continued problems the Palestinians face: Their OWN intransigence and that of their [Arab] neighbors for a lasting peace.

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 11:06 AM

The article in the Jerusalem Post was not a report, it was an editorial. Of course I am not surprised that it is biased. We had the same phenomenon in the NYT and WaPo, etc, re justifying our war on Iraq.

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 11:22 AM


Yet in another comment around here you advocated for the NYT and WaPo.


Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 11:25 AM

As far as the impact of the mandate on the Palestinians, would you consider the impact on us were the UN to partition our country? Come on, Hube, get real. That 1948 mandate was a crime against the Palestinians. Moreover, Israel has NEVER ever lived up to it, to this very day. You conveniently forget that little detail, Hube.

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 11:25 AM

The point you failed to deduce, Hube, is that the home country press can be expected to be biased with respect to home country policies, unfortunately, therefore I've now spelled it out for you!

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 11:29 AM

Palestine WAS NOT A COUNTRY prior to the partition, Perry. You understand? Any analogy to the US thus falls flat on its face. In addition, it was the UN which facilitated the plan which, for all those who scream about Israel's supposed "violation" of all those past UN resolutions, makes the plan legal and valid, does it not?

No plan for that area would have been perfect, Perry, and the UN plan was probably the best that could be come up with. And how has Israel "never lived up to it?" They signed onto it lock, stock and barrel.

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 11:30 AM

Yeah, our own press is SOOO biased in favor of US policies!! ROTFLMAO!!!

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 11:31 AM

"That 1948 mandate was a crime against the Palestinians."

Perry, I think you're confusing yourself - the Palestinian Mandate was granted to the British in 1922 by the League of Nations, part of the divvying up of WWI spoils (the Ottoman Empire in this case) among the victors. The British administered the territory until 1948, when UN Resolution 181 terminated the mandate and called for partition.

Posted by: G Rex at January 2, 2009 12:13 PM

It is generally agreed, Hube, that the press did not do their job in the lead up to the Iraq War. At the time I followed the bbc reporting, which was much more informative and critical of the contrived case being made for the invasion.

But that's off-topic. Palestine was not a country, prevented from being so by the Brits in 20's and 30's. The Jewish settlers/occupiers also did not constitute a country, so your point is mute. The point is that the rural Arabs lived in Palestine, almost 100%, at the outset of the Zionist movement begun in the 1890's.

I agree that the 1948 mandate gives the appearance of being legal, but what about the Arabs who had no say in the partition of the lands in which they lived? The war weary Brits had no motivation for a diplomatic solution, so they and the US drove it through the UN, thinking that the Arabs were too weak to matter.

And what about the Israelis who have hardly lived up to 1948 UN mandate?

Now this is 2009. In recent decades, the Israelis have usually refused to sit down with the Palestinians without preconditions being met. The preconditions should be the subject of negotiations, not used as a means of negation. So the Israelis have always depended ultimately on the use of their US backed power to resolve their issues. The disastrous results of their most recent war with Hezbollah in Lebanon have set them on a course for the total destruction of Gaza this time, it seems. Moreover, what will happen should Israel decide to crush Iran's nuclear capability?

This continuing and festering Israel-Palestinian dispute could well lead to a spreading conflict which may well involve nuclear bombs. I wonder how much time is left to reverse this trend in time, by use of skilled and persistent diplomacy.

Wikipedia has a pretty good history of mandates and the conflicts in the 20th century:

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 12:28 PM

G Rex, you are correct. The so called UN Mandate of 1948 could better be referred to as the Partition of Palestine.

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 12:31 PM

"The Jewish settlers/occupiers also did not constitute a country, so your point is mute."

The correct word is "moot," idiot, and I never claimed otherwise with regards to the Jews living there at the time. And Jews had been living there since time immemorial too. Which makes my point all the MORE relevant with respect to the UN partition plan. And how, precisely did the Israelis not live up to the '48 mandate (again)? They embraced it!

Yeah -- those silly Israelis wanting "preconditions" like recognition of their right to exist and ceasing of terrorist activities. The nerve!

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 12:55 PM

"Moot" is correct, a careless mistake!

Ask a Palestinian if they feel terrorized by Israel, or better yet, a ask a Gazan. And yes, Israelis feel terrorized by indiscriminate rockets and suicide bombers. I don't discriminate between the two parties regarding the perception of terrorism and the promotion of terrorism. On the other hand, you do, Hube -- It's all the Palestinians, right?

Israeli preconditions have made diplomatic resolutions impossible, which is exactly what the Israelis wish, otherwise they would behave differently. Incidentally, with the Iranians, Bush/Rice have practiced the same approach, i.e., requiring preconditions.

I am struck by the timing of the Israeli attack on Gaza. Could it have anything to do with Bush out Obama in?

Posted by: Perry at January 2, 2009 02:43 PM

You get tremendous credit from me for publishing the update, and I appreciate your taking me seriously when I said I didn't write to indict your original post.

I suspect that on many occasions my own posts could be traced back through sources like that, and with a story as complex and polarizing as Israel v Hamas in Gaza there are always loose ends and details that need to be covered.

But again--and Perry please read this clearly--I applaud Hube's willingness to publish the update and link to my post.

Posted by: steve Newton at January 2, 2009 02:51 PM

That's pretty much accurate, Perry -- I DO believe that, despite the feelings that the Palestinians have about being "terrorized" by Israel, they THEMSELVES could easily halt the supposed terrorism by 1) recognizing Israel as a sovereign state, and 2) halting any and ALL terror attacks against Israel.

Wanna place bets on how fast a lasting peace could be achieved? Wanna place bets on how quickly Israel would stop its supposed "terror" against Gaza?

I wonder if you had "different perceptions of terrorism" during WW II, say, between the Allies and Axis, Perry. After all, didn't Germany have legitimate grievances regarding Versailles? Hmm?

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 03:52 PM

Steve: Thanks for your comments. You didn't need to offer them; I recognized the goodwill in your post immediately. :-)

I'm certain *every* blogger to one degree or another could have some linked posts of theirs refuted by one who may know more about the story from previous knowledge or readings. Like Perry, it's disingenuous to think bloggers post such out of a feeling of outright bias. Indeed, as you mention, Steve, you fair assessment of my post more than warranted my subsequent update.

Posted by: Hube at January 2, 2009 03:57 PM

What you are saying, Steve, is that Hube's update, without explicitly admitting to the incredibility of his Hamas crucifix allegation allegation, the topic of this thread, is OK? I don't agree! I have already credited you with a laudable job of research and reporting; that said, unattributed allegations, whether by Hube or by you, or by me, leave something more to be done to enhance credibility.

Hube, you so far refuse to acknowledge the desperate position in which Israel has placed the Gazans by their extreme isolation of the place and people, creating extreme deprivation of even the most basic of needs, all this during the truce period. What means, I ask you, do the Gazans have at their disposal to fight against this act of terror by the Israelis? Lobbing over a few primitive rockets is about all they have to attract some attention to their cause. So now what is the Israeli response? -- A massive invasion with sophisticated American weapons, just like their recent response against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. And on top of it all, Israel refuses to have a discourse with Hamas, or with Hezbollah for that matter. Peace will never come with massive military aggression like this, because the victims will never give up and will respond in an extreme way themselves.

Recognizing Israel as a sovereign state and ceasing all acts of terror are preconditions, Hube, therefore non-starters, exactly what Israel seems to want, i.e., they wish to destroy Hamas and the Gazans in the process; otherwise, the Israelis would behave differently. A cease fire is not enough to seal a peace deal!

And Hube, Israel certainly has not lived up to the 1948 partition mandate, for example, the pre-1967 boundaries. In fact, Israel has established a long list of post partition resolutions in which they are in violation.

Steve, how about you address this bigger picture here, or have you already?

Posted by: Perry the Hypocrite at January 3, 2009 02:05 AM

Perry: It's a "non-starter" to demand to be recognized as a legitimate sovereign state? This just shows how ridiculously far-gone you are. I wonder if Jimmy Carter said that to Israel during the negotiations w/Egypt!

And let me get this get this straight: It's Israel that hasn't lived up to the 1948 partition deal ... because they defended themselves in 1967 and captured land in a DEFENSIVE WAR?? You immediately jump to this as a "violation," yet at the very same time you JUSTIFY the nullification by the Palestinians of that initial partition plan?

You f***ing insane.

Posted by: Hube at January 3, 2009 01:32 PM

Perry. Why are the Egyptians keeping the Palestinians out of Egypt? Why don't they remove the wall on the Egyptian border?

Posted by: h. at January 6, 2009 01:00 PM