Hamas legitimate?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I'm having all sorts of issues posting links, so I'm just going to try again with a new post:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wi...ted-power-gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/wo...14mideast.html

The New York Times article is particularly interesting because it was written in "real time" and not from a historical basis.

[NightTrain]

The palestinians themselves view Hamas as a brutal military dictatorship and have said so many times.

I would definitely question any 'election' with suspicion, especially given the track record of election results from military dictatorships. Ol' Saddam pulled off almost 100% election results. I imagine it's hard to vote for anyone else with an AK-47 pointed at you in the booth.

Hamas is officially a terrorist organization, therefore it is not a legitimate government. It doesn't matter what some of the fools in the UN are saying or nutjob politicians. You don't deal with terrorists as a civilized country. You bomb them further into the stone age and eradicate them before they grow strong enough to harm your soft civilian underbelly with another sneak attack.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

The palestinians themselves view Hamas as a brutal military dictatorship and have said so many times.

I would definitely question any 'election' with suspicion, especially given the track record of election results from military dictatorships. Ol' Saddam pulled off almost 100% election results. I imagine it's hard to vote for anyone else with an AK-47 pointed at you in the booth.

Hamas is officially a terrorist organization, therefore it is not a legitimate government. It doesn't matter what some of the fools in the UN are saying or nutjob politicians. You don't deal with terrorists as a civilized country. You bomb them further into the stone age and eradicate them before they grow strong enough to harm your soft civilian underbelly with another sneak attack.

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

[Drummond]

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

Well, it would definitely help matters if Hamas didn't position their rocket launchers in civilian areas, such as near schools and hospitals !

And what would not only help, but would cure, the hostilities .. would be to see Hamas renounce violence and verifiably disarm.

Hamas's terrorism makes a response necessary. For as long as Hamas remain a terrorist threat, that response is mandated. Don't kid yourself - Hamas bears the fullest responsibility for Israel's actions.

[aboutime]

Well, it would definitely help matters if Hamas didn't position their rocket launchers in civilian areas, such as near schools and hospitals !

And what would not only help, but would cure, the hostilities .. would be to see Hamas renounce violence and verifiably disarm.

Hamas's terrorism makes a response necessary. For as long as Hamas remain a terrorist threat, that response is mandated. Don't kid yourself - Hamas bears the fullest responsibility for Israel's actions.

Sir Drummond. This may sound terribly awkward, and even racist to many. But I see Hamas, and the way the Palestinian people follow them, as near equal in comparison to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP here in America with our OVERLY HIGH UNEDUCATED Black population across this nation that voted for OBAMA, and who continue to vote for the political party that makes the most UNKEPT Promises at election time.

Like our Democrat/Obama liars. Hamas has promised the Dreadfully Uneducated, and Easily led to never question anything because they know. They will be threatened with being part of the RACIST portion of society.
Can't state it much better than that?
(a quote by aboutime)

[NightTrain]

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

I already outlined my solution to the problem in Gaza... it's the only way I can see out of that mess.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...t=66+years+ago

[jimnyc]

And it comes down to opinion on the one hand and irrelevancy on the other. As I earlier predicted much of the "debate" on this issue is validation of one's view. Case in point. \/

So there are quite a few varying stances on what I have asked, but you still claim it's solely about some sort of validation? And exclude everyone in the thread to make your point? Same as I say to the others, probably best to ignore what you don't like and reply to those that you prefer to engage. But certainly nothing is accomplished by going on about validation and the other crap.

[jimnyc]

We don't? I would presume we did considering the complaints I've heard here about funding Hamas. I don't think that there is a requirement that we have diplomatic efforts with any group we recognize.

You quote me, to be sarcastic about what you've seen others post? And did I say it was a requirement, or is your comprehension button broken once again? It's certainly fair to assume in many cases that when a legitimate government is in place, we generally have some sort of diplomatic relations with them. In many cases, SOMEONE out there has diplomatic relations with legitimate governments.

[Jeff]

You're dealing with a stretch of land that is 25 miles long and 10 miles wide with a population of over a million people. How do you bomb them into the stone age without killing innocent civilians?

And no, I'm not necessarily pro-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. But, the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced that Hamas is the equivalent of the Taliban.

They voted these animals in, they cheered as Hamas sent rocket after rocket into Israel and at a million strong maybe they should think of over running Hamas before Israel annihilates them. just my opinion, but I don't think here in America we would allow a group of people drive us to death.

[Gunny]

I ask this based on a recent story where Jimmy Carter has stated as much.

Suppose it was Al Qaeda? Does the Palestinians voting them into office now make them legit? Any less of a terror organization? What if they were in Pakistan? Iran? or maybe even America?

Does a terror organization EVER become legitimate? My belief is, once you become such an organized group, and you start murdering people - you can NEVER be legitimate. Not even votes can make it so. Votes don't suddenly make a murderous crew innocent, nor bring back the people they terrorized and killed.

ISIS. Now what if they are voted into office in Iraq? Do we forget what they are doing right now? What about Hezbollah down the road? Islamic State?

I guess what I'm asking is - can a terrorist group EVER be an officially recognized government by other legitimate governments, or should they? My answer is HELL NO!

A legitimate terrorist organization backed by Iran. To answer your last question, didn't Arafat win the Nobel Peace prize? Mr PLO. And he was Egyptian. But you stay around long enough with the media, and even Obama can get it.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

They voted these animals in, they cheered as Hamas sent rocket after rocket into Israel and at a million strong maybe they should think of over running Hamas before Israel annihilates them. just my opinion, but I don't think here in America we would allow a group of people drive us to death.

Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Apparently, it took a coup for Hamas to take control. Please read the links I posted. They aren't from liberal sources.

[Gunny]

Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Apparently, it took a coup for Hamas to take control. Please read the links I posted. They aren't from liberal sources.

No? The so-called Palestinians voted this terrorist organization in as their government. They are to blame and lost ANY legitimacy with me they never didn't have. They're a terrorist organization. Terrorist = target to me. And you know what targets do? They die.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

No? The so-called Palestinians voted this terrorist organization in as their government. They are to blame and lost ANY legitimacy with me they never didn't have. They're a terrorist organization. Terrorist = target to me. And you know what targets do? They die.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are. I'm asking you to determine for yourself whether or not they were truly "elected into power." I've posted some links that indicate that was not the case.

[fj1200]

So there are quite a few varying stances on what I have asked, but you still claim it's solely about some sort of validation? And exclude everyone in the thread to make your point? Same as I say to the others, probably best to ignore what you don't like and reply to those that you prefer to engage. But certainly nothing is accomplished by going on about validation and the other crap.

I didn't mean you, that many of the posters here are validating their own opinion based on their own biases. Is Hamas legitimate? Dare I ask for legitimacy be defined?

Forms of legitimate government

In determining the political legitimacy of a system of rule and government, the term proper — political legitimacy — is philosophically an essentially contested concept that facilitates understanding the different applications and interpretations of abstract, qualitative, and evaluative concepts such as “Art”, “social justice”, et cetera, as applied in aesthetics, political philosophy, the philosophy of history, and the philosophy of religion.^[8] Therefore, in defining the political legitimacy of a system of government and rule, the term “essentially contested concept” indicates that a key term (communism, democracy, constitutionalism, etc.) has different meanings within a given political argument. Hence, the intellectually restrictive politics of dogmatism (“My answer is right, and all others are wrong”), scepticism (“All answers are equally true or [false]; everyone has a right to his own truth”), and eclecticism (“Each meaning gives a partial view, so the more meanings the better”) are inappropriate philosophic stances for managing a political term that has more than one meaning.^[9] (see: (Walter Bryce Gallie)

• Communism — The legitimacy of a Communist state derives from having won a civil war, a revolution, or from having won an election, such as the Presidency of Salvador Allende (1970–73) in Chile; thus, the actions of the Communist government are legitimate, authorised by the people. In the early twentieth century, Communist parties based the arguments supporting the legitimacy of their rule and government upon the scientific nature of Marxism. (see: dialectical materialism)

• Constitutionalism — The modern political concept of constitutionalism establishes the law as supreme over the private will, by integrating nationalism, democracy, and limited government. The political legitimacy of constitutionalism derives from popular belief and acceptance that the actions of the government are legitimate because they abide the law codified in the political constitution. The political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich (1901–84) said that in dividing political power among the organs of government, constitutional law effectively restrains the actions of the government.^[10] (see checks and balances)

• Democracy — In a democracy, government legitimacy derives from the popular perception that the elected government abides democratic principles in governing, and thus is legally accountable to its people.^[11]

• Fascism — In the 1920s and the 1930s, Fascism based its political legitimacy upon the arguments of traditional authority; respectively, the German National Socialists and theItalian Fascists claimed that the political legitimacy of their right to rule derived from philosophically denying the (popular) political legitimacy of elected liberal democratic governments. During the Weimar Republic (1918–33), the political philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888–1985), whose legal work as the “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich” promoted fascism and deconstructed liberal democracy, addressed the matter in Legalität und Legitimität (Legality and Legitimacy, 1932) an anti-democratic polemic treatise that asked: How can parliamentary government make for law and legality, when a 49 per cent minority accepts as politically legitimate the political will of a 51 per cent majority?^[12]

• Monarchy — In a monarchy, the divine right of kings establishes the political legitimacy of the rule of the Monarch (King or Queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular perception (tradition and custom) and acceptance of him or her as the rightful ruler of nation and country. Contemporarily, such divine-right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute monarchy of the House of Saud (est. 1744), a royal family who have ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since the 18th century. Moreover, constitutional monarchy is a variant form, of monarchic political legitimacy, which combines traditional authority and legal–rational authority, by which means the monarch maintains nationalist unity (one people) and democratic administration (a political constitution).

How, pray tell, is a monarchy legitimate? Because God said so? How were the Nazis legitimate when they started exterminating its own people? Because they were legitimate at one point? How is Kim Jong Un legitimate? Because his dad was legitimate? Should Hamas be legitimate? Probably not, they just are.

You quote me, to be sarcastic about what you've seen others post? And did I say it was a requirement, or is your comprehension button broken once again? It's certainly fair to assume in many cases that when a legitimate government is in place, we generally have some sort of diplomatic relations with them. In many cases, SOMEONE out there has diplomatic relations with legitimate governments.

I wasn't being sarcastic, merely asking a question. I don't know the answer. I'm surprised that we would provide funding to an organization that we don't recognize diplomatically.

[jimnyc]

I didn't mean you, that many of the posters here are validating their own opinion based on their own biases. Is Hamas legitimate? Dare I ask for legitimacy be defined?

How, pray tell, is a monarchy legitimate? Because God said so? How were the Nazis legitimate when they started exterminating its own people? Because they were legitimate at one point? How is Kim Jong Un legitimate? Because his dad was legitimate? Should Hamas be legitimate? Probably not, they just are.

My belief is that a known terrorist organization CANNOT be legitimate. I notice "terrorist government" was not on the list you supplied.

And if Hamas IS legit, WHY are so many countries refusing to even acknowledge them and/or have any official relations with them? Do you know what that reason is?

I wasn't being sarcastic, merely asking a question. I don't know the answer. I'm surprised that we would provide funding to an organization that we don't recognize diplomatically.

My point was that you brought up the validation again and pointed to Drummond while stating so. There were quite a few posting here and there were multiple stances. I don't see anyone seeking validation, just members voicing opinions on whether Hamas is legit, and why they feel so.

Now, when you say "providing funding", are you saying that we don't recognize them but directly give them money? Or are you stating that the US government funds the Palestinian government, part of which Hamas has overtaken more or less by force? Personally, I wouldn't send over a penny until Hamas is destroyed, but last I checked I didn't think we were working with and directly sending them money. And if that is the case, sending funding to the Palestinian Authority for their budget, is much different than stating we are funding their organization.