Rebuttal To Jumanah Imad Albahri

Her blog post can be found here.

In it she defends herself against the attack of David Horowitz, who asked her, "Do you support Hamas?" She refused to answer, saying,

"I am not a member of Hamas, nor have I ever given support to Hamas, nor do I agree their actions or stances wholesale, but I refused to offer Mr. Horowitz a blanket condemnation of Hamas that night. I felt that doing so would be a blanket condemnation of the Palestinian cause."

"My opinion of Hamas is not as simple as condemn or condone, “for it” or “against it.” I firmly believe that the killing of civilians, even as “collateral damage” regardless of creed, politics, sexuality, nationality, or ethnicity is one of the highest crimes in the eyes of God and is morally reprehensible and abhorrent. But I condone Hamas in its ambition to liberate the Palestinian people."

Let's clarify this. Let's say there was a Israeli terrorist organization called Jamas. Let's say this organization had as it's mission statement, "the destruction of all Islamic Arabs in order to ensure the survival of the Israeli and Jewish people forever." Let's say, this organization Jamas put guns in the hands of infants, had a history of killing regular innocent every day people because they are Islamic, and stated repeatedly that they won't stop until every Islamic Arab is killed. EVERY ONE.

Now, lets say you asked me, "Do you support Jamas?" And I said, well, its not simple, because while I don't support killing innocent people, I do support Israel's right to exist peacefully.

And you said, "No, that is not an answer, do you or do you not unequivocally support Jamas? The organization that has sworn to kill every Islamic Arab?"

And I said, I believe killing civilians is the highest crime against God, but I do support Jamas' goal of the safety of the Israeli people.

How do I look in your eyes now? Because how can you support the ends by ignoring the means? You can't condone Hamas' goals of the 'liberation of the Palestinian people' without condoning their methods. It's that simple. And nor could I condone a murdering band of freedom fighters who want to keep Israel safe.

You could say, "I condone Jamas' ends, of the safety and lasting existence of the Israeli people, but I decry the methods of Jamas to obtain those ends."

THAT IS DIFFERENT, than saying, I don't condone the murder of innocents, but I do condone Hamas' goal of the liberation of the Palestinian people. Because you aren't condemning their methods, you are therefore implicitly condoning what they need to do to reach their goal.

This may seem like a fine line, but it is extremely important when dealing with such volatile issues, emotions, and perceptions.

So, Ms. Albhri, regardless of whether you think you were railroaded by Mr. Horowitz into making statements, the statements you HAVE made show you still don't know what you are talking about.