Who is a Terrorist?

Obama is going to talk to Iran, as soon as Khameni puts down the demonstrations and takes care of Mousavi. Why are there no similar plans to talk to Hamas?

Most of my Dear Readers would answer simply, because Hamas is a terrorist organization.

But that didn't stop Rabin from talking to the PLO. Perhaps Obama is trying to avoid repeating Rabin's mistake? But if talking to the PLO was a mistake in 1992, why is it OK to talk to Abu Mazen now?

Anyway, is Hamas really a terrorist organization? Jimmy Carter doesn't think so. How about Harry Truman, was he a terrorist? What about Moshe Rabbenu?

We human beings used to have all kinds of semantic debates: who is a terrorist, who is a Jew, what "is" is, and so on. Then wikipedia was invented. Now all we need to do is wikipedia terrorism.

The wikipedia entry on terrorism really drops a bomb, so to speak: the term "terrorism" is actually politically incorrect! Of course, wikipedia provides the correct term that we should use instead:

<wikipedia>The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.^[6] The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them. A less politically and emotionally charged term (used not only for terrorists), allowing for more accurate analyses, is violent non-state actor."</wikipedia>

Some of you Dear Readers might protest that all of this semantics is just obscuring the issue. Hamas targets civilians. Targeting civilians is evil. Therefore, Hamas is evil. Therefore, negotiating with Hamas is evil.

Believe me, no one hates the targeting of civilians more than I do. That's why this week's parsha makes me sick. But let's consider a few things:

First of all, I'd like one of my Dear Readers, one who is not quite as lazy as I am, to come up with two numbers. One number would be all the Israeli civilians killed by Hamas. Let's call this number A. The other number would be the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israel, and we'll call it B. Once I have those numbers, I can (that is, Google Calculator can) divide A / B. What do you think I'll come up with? Yes, I know that Israel's activities are directed against combatants, and Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties.

Second of all, how many suicide bombings has Hamas perpetrated since the disengagement? (Bli ayin hora!) A reporter in Hamodia recently claimed that the IDF, "with a little help from Fatah", is preventing Hamas terror attacks around the clock. I suppose that may be true, but why is the IDF so much more successful after the disengagement? Did the creation of Hamastan in Gaza somehow increase the effectiveness of the IDF's anti-terrorism (I mean, anti-violent-non-state-actor) units?

Finally, other news sources, including some from the same Hamodia, suggest that Hamas is now actually preventing terror attacks on Israel, and trying to prevent missiles from being fired at Israel from Gaza.

Hamas certainly hasn't officially renounced suicide bombings, or apologized for them, or anything like that. Along with the entire civilized world, I call on Hamas to renounce the targeting of civilians. But should this be a precondition for negotiations, or should it be a goal of negotiations?

I'd like to take an abstract approach to this question and ask in general, when you want something from your enemies, should it be a precondition to negotiations or a goal of negotiations?

What do you think, Dear Readers? My own opinion will appear, God willing, in an upcoming post.