Hamas confirms executing collaborators

[GoesTo11]

The Palestinian Authority's Minister of Social Welfare Affairs, Mahmoud Habbash, accused Hamas on Wednesday of confiscating 63 trucks loaded with humanitarian aid while they were on their way to the UN Relief and Works Agency in Gaza.

He also confirmed that Hamas had been torturing and executing Fatah members in the Gaza Strip during and after Operation Cast Lead. Nineteen Palestinians were murdered in cold blood by Hamas, Habbash said, while more than 60 others were shot in the legs.

Ihab Ghissin, spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza, confirmed that his men had arrested scores of "collaborators" with Israel during and after the war. However, he refused to say whether the detainees were members of Fatah. He also denied that the detainees were being tortured.

However, Musa Abu Marzouk, a top Hamas official in Syria, confirmed that his movement had executed "collaborators" during the war. He claimed that Fatah members had taken to the streets to blow kisses at IAF planes and handed out candies as they attacked Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip.

more

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292930390&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

(reported by Khaled Abo Toameh, who some here do not trust)

[Alamuti Lotus]

1. Not terribly surprising

Some factions of Fatah supported the assault and hoped to benefit; like their patron, their hopes are dashed.

[delad]

2. If they were collaborators

then nobody should be surprised that they would be shot. If they weren't collaborators then Hamas is guilty of cold blooded murder.

[TheWraith]

5. I suspect that they're being generous with the definition of "collaborators."

The nonsense about blowing kisses at IAF planes and handing out candies makes me suspect what they really mean is "We had the chance, so we dragged out and shot some Fatah members who were inconvenient to us."

[bemildred]

3. Ought to be "suspected collaborators" shouldn't it?

I mean, who dropped the ball here on the headline?

[GoesTo11]

4. Probably should. I think they were quoting Hamas.

Anyway, I doubt the "suspected collaborators" will be suing for libel.

[bemildred]

6. I just want competent writing.

Leaving out "suspected" is bad as news, because it's all hear-say, and bad as propaganda, because you don't want to miss the chance to suggest someone is lying. By leaving it out, you give credence to what Hamas says, i.e. that they were collaborators.

[Shaktimaan]

8. In this context I think the writing is probably fine.

Hamas was accused of executing collaborators by the PA minister. So when the Hamas official agreed he was confirming a specific accusation. It doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the victims actually were collaborators... it's a confirmation, not a statement of truth from the journalist.

Has the headline read "Hamas executes collaborators" then I would agree with you. But this is no different than had the line read, "Hamas says that they executed collaborators." Unless Hamas said that they executed suspected collaborators then the headline shouldn't either.

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, I know you don't care.

When you quote someone, you put it in quotes, or you use a colon. When you don't do that, you purport to be reporting fact.

[Shaktimaan]

11. Right. But it is fact, isn't it?

Fact being the confirmation.

If it said "Hamas confirms killing of suspected collaborators." wouldn't that have meant that Hamas considered them "suspected?"

[Idealism]

7. Considering the bloody civil war between the two governments, who is surprised if this were true?

[Uzybone]

9. Well thats so unlike Hamas