Start A Petition

Hamas Condemns Arrest Order Against Sudan's Leader

World  (tags: World, Hamas, Gaza, Palestine, Darfur, ICC, Hague, Africa, Khartoum, Sudan, Bashir, Janjaweed, violence, rape, murder, genocide, war, crimes, terrorism, starvation, extermination )

- 3633 days ago -
GAZA CITY The Gaza Strip's Hamas government has condemned the International Criminal Court for issuing an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in Darfur. The Islamic militant group voiced its "solidarity" with al-Bashir and


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Cheryl B (375)
Friday March 6, 2009, 4:10 am
this is a huge disappointment, for hamas to have the legitamacy and war crimes against israel by the ICC, it must recognize it, this is profoundly stupid, not quite the right word is it. noted, sadly,

. (0)
Friday March 6, 2009, 5:25 am
Like most political groups, Hamas supports those who it believes further its interests.

The next time Hamas calls for war crimes charges to be brought against Israeli politicians, I do believe I shall laugh out loud....

. (0)
Friday March 6, 2009, 5:28 am
Like most other political groups, Hamas supports those who it believes further its own agenda. And perhaps those most like itself.....

Joycey B (750)
Friday March 6, 2009, 5:34 am
Noted with disgust. Thanks Tom.

Past Member (0)
Friday March 6, 2009, 6:21 am
Why should HAMAS blame another genocidal terrorist? They are "BROTHERS"!

Cheryl B (375)
Friday March 6, 2009, 6:27 am
none the less israel is guiltyof war crimes and has been since 1948 actually, later

Cheryl B (375)
Friday March 6, 2009, 6:28 am
yes lindsay like the USA.

. (0)
Friday March 6, 2009, 7:38 am
No question about that, Cheryl. The U.S. will, like any other nation, support those nations which best promote its own policies in the world and best further its own interests.

Most individuals do that as well - support politicians and organizations which promote that individual's own interests, whether or not that support benefits society as a whole. Simple self-interest.

In A Mirror Darkly (31)
Friday March 6, 2009, 8:45 am
Well it is time for a leadership change in Hamas.
Adapt or die out somewhere.
I condemn hamas and invest more in P.F.L.P, FATAH, D.F.L.P etc.


Michael Owens (1647)
Friday March 6, 2009, 12:14 pm
Hamas change coming for him

Stan B (123)
Friday March 6, 2009, 6:11 pm
" Birds of a feather flock together." I understand Iran is also supporting this mass murderer.

Tom M (814)
Friday March 6, 2009, 6:53 pm
In a tape released in April 2006, Osama bin Laden rails against the agreement that ended Sudan's civil war with its Christian and animist south and accuses the U.S. of plotting to dispatch "Crusader troops" to occupy Darfur "and steal its oil wealth under the pretext of peacekeeping." Osama calls on good Muslims to go to Sudan and stockpile land mines and rocket-propelled grenades in preparation for "a long-term war" against U.N. peacekeepers and other infidels.

Now all the Arab leaders, including Hamas, are against the ICC indictment of Sudan President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and have come to his defense. They say it's out of concern for the starving displaced people in Darfur, who's plight was caused by al-Bashir in the first place. Some are now calling the ICC a western plot to undermine the sovereignty of the Arab countries. These are the same people who recently were calling for the ICC to investigate Israel for war crimes in Gaza.

By supporting al-Bashirs criminal regime, the Arab leaders are sending the hypocritical message that it's OK for Arabs to commit war crimes, but not anyone else. African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu calls their support for al-Bashir "shameful". The Arab countries are not alone in their hypocrisy. Along with China, Russia and India, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC for the simple and obvious reason that it does not wish to suffer the indignity of seeing its own leaders prosecuted for a multitude of crimes. The ICC can become an effective deterrent for genocide and other crimes against humanity only if all countries, including the United States, become signatories to it.

Bella Fitzpatrick (280)
Friday March 6, 2009, 7:39 pm
How sad !! How very sad!!

Kit B (276)
Friday March 6, 2009, 8:39 pm
What else could any one expect from one group of terrorist, but to support another.

Marena Chen (200)
Friday March 6, 2009, 9:20 pm
What did you expect from HAMAS - a regime that deliberately sacrifices it's own people by using them as human shields in order to garner international sympathy? Dafur is a terrible tragedy and Al-Bashir is the Devil incarnate. My vote would be for a "hit squad" to take him (and his cronies) out. Sorry, I am usually not inclined towards violence - but this Demon makes me see red.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Saturday March 7, 2009, 6:47 am
Bravo, Tom, for all your efforts to keep Darfur on the Front Page.

Hamas' position here and that of all the Arab nations sticking together here, in the face of genocide, IS 'shameful,' as Desmond Tutu said. Outrageous!

While your hit squad is in Africa, Marena, could you please have them make a little detour to Zimbabwe, where there is another 'devil incarnate' wreaking havoc & tragedy on people's lives? Zimbabwe's Tsvangirai Survives 'Suspicious' Car Crash; Wife Killed

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 7, 2009, 12:16 pm
There's nothing for me to add. Most of you have said it all. Thanks, Tom, you are so right.

Gillian M (218)
Saturday March 7, 2009, 2:12 pm
It is about time someone did something about Darfur. There are people on this board who spend all their time condemning Israel for protecting their people and do nothing for where the real genocide happens.

Well done Tom for keeping the momentum going. Everyone else, please keep signing and harrassing leaders to do what is right and honourable.

Stan B (123)
Saturday March 7, 2009, 5:21 pm
Article in Al Jazeera. No comment from me neceasary.

No wonder these poor people are suffering so much.

pete O (242)
Monday March 9, 2009, 11:32 am
Sorry here Cheryl i have seen nothing which would shift my thoughts that the icc is a baised organisation.

Marena Chen (200)
Monday March 9, 2009, 11:52 pm
Pete, this is why this is a discussion thread, so that everyone can voice their own opinions/convictions. DEMOCRACY in action.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Wednesday March 11, 2009, 7:26 am
Do you have to be biased to denounce genocide?

pete O (242)
Friday March 13, 2009, 8:09 am
Thanks for saying this Marena, To reasure you, I never doubted otherwise you always demonstrate a ballance in any arguement, from what i have previously read 8@). Alba do you have to be baised to denounce Genocide ? No. and we should support any action where organisation are supporting people live a decent life. My claim for Biased comes from the fact that the Icc appears to act only on certain humanitan crimes and when other western friendly nations, go beyond - what we would accept, there appears to be an acceptance. If Israel, for example is allowed to bomb civilians of uncountable numbers and there is no indictment from the Icc for the responsable heads of state then we are only left with the conclusion that the Icc is a part and parcel of the will to remove islamic states and replace them, with what we think of as democracy. Therefore it is baised. From my personal position - it a unforgivable sin to commit murder regardless of how many. or by what method. Hammas were voted into power by the people of palestine through a democratic proccess which was monitored and found fair, but the icc have accpeted israels actions as acceptable defence regadless of how many people since have died - through israels actions. If Groups like Hamas are to rally behind the Icc and their claims where evidence can be demonstrated then is must be supportive of their needs also. we cant measure people with different sticks, to con a Toraic term. That is if we wish there to be a representative justice system.when Shimon Peres is sat in a brussels court as the accountable head of the Israeli state then I would gladly recant my claim, till then the Icc is n peace

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Saturday March 14, 2009, 2:51 am
I understand your point of view, and thank you for responding, Pete.

Hamas and Sudan agree that the ICC ruling is 'an insult to Muslims,' according to the article Stan has given the link for.

It is true that Hamas is the elected govt in Gaza, but George B. was the elected president of the US (for 8 years), and neither fact makes their decisions or views acceptable on certain issues. The ICC has not indicted G. Bush either, but I still feel that their case against Sudan's Al-Bashir is valid.

Both support faith-based laws and I oppose that, whether or not you think that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is justified or justifiable. I personally don't, but I wouldn't say that ICC's failure to bring charges against Israel makes their case against Sudan irrelevant or invalid.

I don't know about the/an ICC position on Israel, & I would have to do some research on that. But is it not possible to condemn their failure to prosecute Israel, while at the same time supporting their action against the Sudanese genocide, on behalf of Darfur refugees and victims?

I do know that faith-based laws are retrograde, though, and deplore the Bush administration's anti-abortion, anti-death with dignity, pro-abstinance education, & anti-stem cell research positions & laws; the Vatican's support of the excommunication of a mother and a whole medical team in the recent case of a nine-yr-old Brazilian girl, raped from the age of 6 by her stepfather, whose 15-wk-old twins were aborted (Excommunicated Doctor Hailed for Abortion on Child Rape Victim As Brazilian Case Continues to Cause Controversy); and the acceptance of Sharia law councils and tribunals in UK and Greece, to name the two that I know of ( 'One (Secular) Law for All' Campaign Against Sharia Law - UK, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, USA - Events).

I have posted a relevant essay (from "In Focus: Cultural Relativism," from 'Butterflies and - Fighting Fashionable Nonsense')in the comments section of the One(Secular)LawForAll post,

"If we think and say that women shouldn't be murdered by their fathers and brothers for, e.g., resisting an arranged marriage, only to be told that that's their culture and it's arrogant and Eurocentric to judge other cultures by Western standards, then surely the thought is available: what do you mean 'their culture'? Whose culture? And what follows from that? Is it the culture of the women who are murdered? Or is it only the culture of the men doing the murdering. If the latter, why should their culture be privileged?

In fact it's quite strange the way a line of thought that's intended to side with the oppressed often sides with oppressors in the name of multiculturalism. A great many practices could be put in the box 'their culture'. Dowry murders, female infanticide, female genital mutilation, slavery, child labour, drafting children into armies, the caste system, beating and sexually abusing and witholding wages from domestic servants especially immigrants, Shariah, fatwas, suttee. These are all part of someone's 'culture', as murder is a murderer's culture and rape is a rapist's. But why validate only the perpetrators? Have the women, servants, slaves, child soldiers, Dalits, ten-year-old carpet weavers in these cultures ever even had the opportunity to decide what their culture might be?

One can decide that tolerance and cultural pluralism trump all other values, and so turn a blind eye to suffering and oppression that have tradition as their underpinning, or one can decide that murder, torture, mutilation, systematic sexual or caste or racial discrimination, slavery, child exploitation, are wrong, wrong everywhere, universally wrong, and not to be tolerated." I will add the obvious to that: genocide.

For me this is a very convincing argument, and why I don't hesitate to 'insult' evangelists, the Vatican & their supporters, and Islamists &/or Muslim fundamentalists, including Hamas.

. (0)
Saturday March 14, 2009, 3:01 am
Excellent points, Alba. I also am tired of the concept that we must accept abhorrent "cultural" traditions and values merely because they are deeply entrenched in other groups. The United Nations has fallen into this trap with its decision to refrain from criticizing practices so long as those practices are religiously based. To avoid offense to the religionists' psyches, of course. Thereby placing a greater premium on avoiding hurt feelings than human rights.

pete O (242)
Monday March 16, 2009, 9:16 am
Thank you Alba. I understand your position and i accept what your are saying r/e the ICC's postion on Sudan and it should not be ignored, if at that time another area of need is not being addressed. I Also agree that perhaps politions and merchants can play a big part on what actions are being brought to the ICC through properganda and raising awareness ect.i totally Agree Bush should be standing trial also i would calim Winston chrichill should of been tested also for the bombing of Dresden after the 2nd world war but that is all yesterday and it is tommorow we are concerned -looking at current efforts on behalf of forgotten issues perhaps under the leadership of mr Obama in the US, we may see a fairer world justice system. So here I grumblingly appologise for the term. but only because your personal arguement is just as perhaps is your heart.i hope the rest of the world can follow ! love n peace
Lindsey I am less sure of the Womens rights issues, that can be perspective. Western ideals may indeed allow for equal rights which i was a battler for but I think somehow we lossed our moral way when we threw away the Male Dominant religion.We perhaps need something in the middle ? where we enable all peoples regardless of gender culture ect but we must also protect them from preditors too ....?

. (0)
Monday March 16, 2009, 10:39 am
Pete, when it comes to civil rights, there IS no "something in the middle." If women are, as the law says, equal citizens of this nation, that means exactly what it says. And it isn't a matter of "allowing" for equal rights - but rather of "recognizing" their equal rights.

I understand the desire of many men to protect women - and I appreciate that sentiment in men. Of course, that works both ways - I would fight to protect the men that I love as well. But protection doesn't mean an abrogation of rights.

The ideal, in any case, is not to have to protect women - it is to teach women the ways of protecting themselves. And not to raise them to believe that when trouble arises they should go scurrying to the nearest male for shelter. One of the reasons why some women (not all by any means) become helpless in the face of danger - they were not raised, as men are, to fight for themselves.

If we must have a male-dominated religion in order to regain our "moral way", then as far as I'm concerned that "way" isn't particularly moral to begin with (and is certainly unconstitutional). One of the reasons, of course, why I cannot accept any such religion as being true.

pete O (242)
Tuesday March 17, 2009, 8:42 am
Perhaps if we sought the middle grounds we wouldnt swing for extreme to extreme politically, im sorryy if you did not understand my meaning here !but form my experiance islam protects its female population as we expose them. there are case where individuals go passed boundaries but that does enot give us right to change things for people that would be arrogance surly. uncontitutional well if it is ok to disrepect people then im sorry the constitution is a pile of shite that was an extreemist aim at removing faith based politics did it do a good job ? is americas laws loved outside of america ?

. (0)
Tuesday March 17, 2009, 9:23 am
How does Islam "protect" its female population? And I'm talking in practical real-world terms, here. By refusing in so many countries to allow a woman the vote? By refusing in many countries to allow her to leave the country without her husband's permission? By refusing in some countries to allow her to drive? By refusing in many countries to allow her to take a job absent her husband's permission? By forcing her in many countries to wear clothing to only allows her eyes and hands to show or (in more moderate places, her face)? By creating Sharia law, which says that a woman's testimony is only worth one-half of a man's? And that her inheritance rights are only one-half of a man's? By creating laws which say that to prosecute rape, there must be three or four upstanding males who actually witnessed the rape? By creating laws which require a woman to be stoned to death for adultery? By allowing honor killings (either legally or tacitly) if a woman is even THOUGHT to have done anything which her manfolk feel will bring shame upon them? And I could go on and on.

Now, explain to me again how Islam - as it is practiced today in the real world - protects women?

. (0)
Tuesday March 17, 2009, 9:57 am
Women are not children, Pete - immature beings who must be protected by adults. We are also adults. And the only difference between us and you is that, on average, we have lesser physical strength. Does our lesser physical strength justify taking away our civil rights in the name of "protection"?

What you're talking about is "protecting" us "for out own good". Just as we protect our children and force them to do things they don't want to do for their own good. And have you ever asked most women if we WANT that form of "protection" at such a terrible price to ourselves? Because many women are like me - what we want is equality rather than dependence - and to be given the ability to protect ourselves in life wherever possible.

. (0)
Tuesday March 17, 2009, 10:43 am
Pete, since you believe that Western women are "exposed" in some negative way, exactly and specifically how would you change the way we live our lives to protect us?

Kit B (276)
Tuesday March 17, 2009, 11:26 am
Protect the women? Pete you should be ashamed of yourself. Children and animals do need protection, from the harms of society, but your description of women is not only invalid it is insulting to all women. When fair laws are in place that allow women to move freely in a society, they need only the protection from criminal acts that all need, men and women.

I can't decide if you are misogynistic or just ill informed. Either way your attitude toward women belongs in the anus of history. (not a spelling error!)

David R (26)
Tuesday March 17, 2009, 3:18 pm
The ICC frankly gives me the willies. It's a great idea but for an international body to wield that much power scares me. Not least is what has happened to the conference on Racism in Durban. Iran charging anybody with war crimes when they use there children to clear land mines? It seems we come up with some great ideas but somehow they end up corrupted with pressing issues turned upside down. I'm not sure, but, not only is the US not a signatory but congress has given the President the right to use military force to spring American's charged with crimes by this court. When this world stops using religion, oil, race as reasons on how to slant justice then I would be happier. This is just way, way too scary for me.

pete O (242)
Thursday March 19, 2009, 5:15 am
Dar lindsey i was making a parralel between how Faith based culture has worked and how our democracy works or the attitude that appears different to us. I am personally happy with how our democracy supports all peoples rights, however there are abusive elements within it.Personally i am anarchistic i dont believe that any man made system can really work, i long to return to the days of extended family tribal systems ( i was born to late ) Here however is A funny irony that perhaps has not been mentioned, when the ladies and gentlemen of Palestine voted, in their 06 election they voted in favour of Hamas ? perhaps we could support the ladies of Palestine to have a fair an equal life which is being repressed by israli greed. How to improve democracy ? i believe we need to go back to constitutional politics where polititions meets the needs of the electorate.I could go on to describe how it supports a few through supporting buisness but we all can see for ourselves how this has had a negative impact on our economy (it a flawed proccess that booms and busts continually and the creators of this procees have benifited from it very well) The american constitution i believe could be improved by adding a few words. where all citizins have the right to freedom of speach, i believe it could be evolved (?) by adding the words- providing it causes no harm or offence. A bit like our incitment to racial hatred act.i personally believe we all have the right, to say no i do not accept this or that, but not perhaps to preach to others this or that is wrong (?) im anti negatism (?) This bring me to what kit was trying to divert people to think of me personally. There is a ballance between the restrictions of traditionalism and the destructivness of progressivisim.Again neither is right or wrong just different approaches. Perhaps kit we could do a thread and discuss the progress of the suffragettes and debate where doese martyrdom become an acceptable practice ? please do not be concerned for me I am an adapted ninties gentleman, who still opens doors for ladies, I hope this helps you and thanks for your concern.
love n peace

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Thursday March 19, 2009, 6:58 am
Good grief, Pete, how can you claim to understand my point of view, in one breath, and claim you "think somehow we lossed our moral way when we threw away the Male Dominant religion," in the next?

The second part of my comment was entirely about women's rights and faith-based laws (or faiths trying to turn their dogma into laws) that seek to prevent women from enjoying their rights.

I grant you that this issue may be exceedingly secondary, and for good reason, among Palestinian women, because their basic human rights are far more threatened by Israel, and their present concerns are survival for their families; but if ever the 2-state solution gets off the ground, once a real Palestinian state comes into existence, women are sure to come into conflict with Hamas & Islamic law. With Arafat, Palestinians were more secular as Muslims, and I believe that some turned to Hamas simply out of despair with their Fatah leaders. While Arafat was great as a resistance leader, but as administrator and govt leader, he and his party were ineffective and corrupt. I don't think that most Palestinians were attracted by Muslim extremism before.

pete O (242)
Friday March 20, 2009, 9:44 am
I think Alba, that we threw away the baby with the dirty bath water. faith for me is something that a person finds, i do not think others can install it (personally)i do not wish to return to a Minister dominating daily events ect I grew up in an area in scotland where that was the case. on one hand, it could of appeared opressive to outsiders but to us it was a way of life. Our culture -there was no crime or sexual problems, divorse rates were none existant, but since the falling of the temple (?) the town now suffers from all manner of social problems drugs knife crime ect ect. the town you could say evolved into what it is today ? so although i can see the benifits of equality and i would fight right alongside anyone who was fighting for their eual rights i feel that perhapos it would be best to lead by example rather than push with a stick. We have deviated from the main topic but i am happy with that as it demonstrates there is more to this conflict that we admit to. I thinks also there are many answers and truths that are apparent if we seek to help relieve the situation both for israel and palestine then we need to see the different things we can agree on. I do not know if Hammas would implement what we percieve as repressive islamic tradition upon the Palestinain Ladies, how can we know we are not allowed dialogue with them due to their termination of being a terrorist group ? i cannot read Arabic so i cannot read their website. the only place i hear this is from oposing opinions so i cannot truly say ?? if it is then perhaps we could show them how better life is when their is equality. househusband the greatest job ever invented. love n peace

. (0)
Friday March 20, 2009, 10:04 am
Pete, Hamas' website can be viewed in English:

And the Arabic newspaper, Al-Hayat, reported back in December that Hamas had voted to institute sharia law in Gaza, although nothing has been done since that time about it (and there has been no other confirmation of that institution of sharia).

pete O (242)
Monday March 23, 2009, 7:59 am
thanks Lindsey i will take it home a read it through ill comment here after if that is ok, as i dont think we share any groups ! love n peace

pete O (242)
Monday March 23, 2009, 8:14 am
Interesting, that they account for all their military activities, I could not find any information as to how Hamas would insitute voting and other civil rights.but the site Is, Al Qassam, which is the miltary wing of Hamas. Ill find some info regarding Sharia, from an egyptian source as i understand there are cultural differences between Arabic Pakastani and African approaches.but they are based on cultural differences not sharia sharia meaning law can be interpretted differently through cultural needs attetudes, where as the Qur'an is consitant however i am sure conflicts can occur as the implementation of Mosaic law i/e the Torah and the Talmud

. (0)
Monday March 23, 2009, 8:26 am
Of course, since there was only the one report in Al-Hayat about the voting on Sharia law, with no confirmation from any other source that I've seen, it may either be untrue or perhaps something that has been shelved or even abandoned. No way to know at this time. In any case, I hope the idea never comes to fruition.

pete O (242)
Monday March 23, 2009, 8:34 am
A british perceptive

A usefull article which support my claim of different interpretaions through out the world

The Sharia council (?) which i guesse is like our house of lords who deal with matters of devising and adapting law

hope this helps where missunderstandings have occured. but Hammas would not prevent ladies from voting in fact they do have (albeit only one) femal minister perhaps progress (?) could be better enabled without external influences. I know we have deviated form the main issue should they be supporting a person who is labbled as a war criminal ? i revert to my initial comment why do it now when there is an effort by the african union to bring peace to dafur ( prevention is better than cure) as we all will point out when things occur, take away the poison whihc is feeding the root of the tree, which is war then attrocities dont ussually occur ? love n peace


Douglas K (134)
Thursday June 30, 2011, 9:55 am
UN condemns China for not arresting Sudanese leader Al-Bashir:
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.