Hammas may not be THAT bad After all...
BBC reports:
Armed men have raided a privately-run American school in the north of the Gaza Strip, setting fire to buses and stealing computer equipment...The excerpt doesn't read like a group that wants to blow up every Israeli, does it now? Some sanity in American foreign policy would be greatly appreciated.
Hamas has condemned the attack (as) "terrorism against education"
Failed States
I am of the firm belief that a so-called terrorist group thrives in what is generally known as a "failed state". However, it's not strictly a state. It can exist within a state and between parts of several states. Think the transnational criminal gang MS-13 for an example of this. They thrive in places like South Central Los Angeles, precisely because they provide the populace with services the government is unwilling to (or can't). The powerless authorities see them as extra-legal only because they can't tax their activities.
Now, let's move from the streets of America to the Gaza, where Hamas is strong. What's up with that? The Israelis left, taking with them, the tools to keep a semblance of control over a rapidly growing populace and jobs for said populace. Hammas steps in to provide the basic service of a civilised society -- insurance against loss of life and property. In exchange, they gain some monetary compensation in the form of extortion money. Petty criminals are punished by being sent away as suicide bombers into Israel. The families of these suicide bombers are then paid using the extortion money.
How are the two different? They aren't too different. So why is one not talked about while the other is seen as satan incarnate?
