So This Is What Hamas Means By “Respecting Past Agreements” (Bonus: AP’s Ibrahim Barzak Whitewashing Palestinian Terrorism Again?)

By
Omri Ceren
– March 20, 2007Posted in: Anti-Israel Journalism, Palestinians

This should probably be an update to this morning’s post on Hamas’s terrorist attack. But this “respecting past agreements” thing needs its own post.

The whole “respecting past agreements” thing is absurd to begin with. What does it even mean to “respect” a treaty? Respect is something that you give to Kobe Bryant’s superhuman basketball skills. It’s not something you give to legally binding obligations that have significance under international law. You don’t respect treaties, you adhere to them. Your mood doesn’t count in international jurisprudence – it’s not like Israel gets to embrace the mere fancy of giving away land.

But even if it was OK for Hamas to obey the spirit but not the letter of agreements (which it isn’t), they’re not even doing that. Last week when the Palestinians were trying to convince everyone that they should be allowed to break all their treaties, this is how they were characterizing “respect”:

The government platform, posted on Hamas and Fatah web sites, includes only a vague pledge to “respect” past peace deals, falling short of explicit recognition of Israel. The government program also affirms the Palestinians’ right to resist and “defend themselves against any Israeli aggression.” At the same time, the platform calls for maintaining and expanding a truce with Israel. While many in the West consider “resistance” to be a code word for violent attacks, the Palestinians have a much vaguer definition, including anything from armed attacks to street protests.

That was a hell of a street protest on the tips of those rockets that fell this morning. But we have no doubt that when this was originally written, liberal sophisticates everywhere nodded at Ibrahim Barzak’s nuance – and clicked their tongues about how dense and myopic conservatives are.

“Maintaining and expanding” the truce. Indeed.

This isn’t the first time that Barzak has gotten caught a bit of an inaccuracy because of how messy time and reality can be. A couple years ago he described a homicidal suicide attack as a revenge attack for Israeli military actions. Except the suicide video was recorded a day before the Israeli actions that it was supposedly a revenge for. Opps.

PS – Apologies for the hackneyed Kobe example at the beginning. The only non-sports example we could think of involved the phrase “the morning after” – and except on Wednesdays this is a family blog, so no go.

References:
* Hamas Celebrates Unity Government, Diplomatic Thaw With Brazen Terrorism Against Israelis
* Kobe Bryant Is the Best Clutch Player In the NBA [MR]
* New Palestinian cabinet announced
* Email of the Day: Suicide Bombing Was Not Act of Revenge [MR]

Previously:
* AP Bias Alert Level: Obvious (Grandma Suicide Bomber Edition)
* AP Headline and Lede: Syrian War Against Israel Would Be “Resistance”
* AP: It’s A Cycle Of Violence. Except the Palestinians Keep Restarting the Cycle

[Cross-posted to Israpundit]

Related Mere Rhetoric Posts: