InstaPundit writes, or rather, as is Glenn's wont, mostly quotes:
READER TOM BROSZ EMAILS:Anybody notice how many people are, almost simultaneously, berating George Bush for not taking out bin Laden, and berating Sharon for taking out Ahmed Yassin?
Yes, I have.
Good to know, good to know.
Now explain the comparison.
In land with little hope, Hamas seen as rare benefactor
From its beginnings in 1987, Hamas has been at the forefront of the campaign of suicide bombings in Israel that has killed hundreds. But among the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, the group is seen as one that nurtures lives with its food and educational and health-care projects.
Hamas' leaders have advocated a holy war against Israel and promised martyrdom for those who die in the struggle against it. Many Palestinians, though, see the group's Islamic foundations as principled and devout.
Dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, Hamas has refused to cooperate with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority and denounced its off-and-on negotiations with Israelis. Yet among many Gazans, Hamas is regarded as a disciplined alternative to Arafat's corruption-tainted group and the best hope for achieving statehood.
"From the start, Hamas has devoted itself to the heart of our suffering," Masri said in the family living area furnished with little more than a plastic mat, a wardrobe and seven cheap foam mattresses. "They are not corrupt. They are true to our people."
I'd try to head off anyone thinking of accusing me of supporting Hamas, or being in favor of suicide bombings, but, again, they're insane. They cannot be reasoned with.
And my point, of course, is that I've not heard of al Qaeda doing any sorts of charitable good works on the side. Even if you do consider these to be part of Hamas' evil campaign to do evil and win hearts and minds to the cause of, um, evil (it's so hard to write like the warbloggers, I actually have a vocabulary. . .), the fact remains that they are doing something other than committing acts of terrorism. Does al Qaeda?
Yes, children, I know what Glenn and Tom were getting at. What I'm doing is challenging the presupposition underlying their question. Think you can possibly restrict yourselves to discussing that?