Hamas overtook Gaza, though the fighting between two elected governments in the form of Hamas and Fatah have waged numerous battles over the past year alone.  The fighting escalated in recent weeks, thus one major question has been posed.  Is there a civil war in the Palestinian territories?

A civil war is loosely defined as a war between two groups with a right to govern.  In the case of Palestine, both Hamas and Fatah can and do claim a right to govern.

For the purposes of debate, let us look at another conflict which is called a civil war by politicians and journalists.  Yes, that conflict is inside Iraq.  There are numerous sides to the conflict, but only one of those sides is represented in the Iraqi government.  That side affiliated with the current elected Iraqi government is aligned with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.  Sadr’s military wing, known as the Mahdi Army, chooses to war against Sunnis.  Now those Sunnis the Mahdi Army has declared war upon are not affiliated with the Iraqi government, nor for the most part are they affiliated with the umbrella Sunni insurgent group known as the Islamic State of Iraq, who, by the way, has no affiliation with the Iraqi government nor any legitimate claim to govern the nation of Iraq.

The conflict in Iraq, however, was declared a civil war by NBC News despite not carrying the main characteristic of what a civil war entails.  Calling Iraq a nation engulfed in a civil war has also been hoisted by leading Democratic politicians, apparently without regard to what the term actually means.

Meanwhile back in Palestine, it strikes me as completely odd none of the ‘purveyors of truth’ within the media elite or Democratic Party’s stronghold of Iraq naysayers have concluded there is actually a civil war ongoing.  Perhaps it’s already over after Hamas overtook Gaza and posed for pictured in Mahmoud Abbas’ presidential palace, fully hiding their true identities for whatever reason.  Regardless, what would make Iraq a civil war and Palestine not?  By the pure definition of what a civil war is, the opposite is true.

Earlier today I flipped to Fox News just at the right time to catch the Reverend Jesse Jackson who stated there was an insurgency in Chicago.  He went on to call handguns weapons of mass destruction and asked if the United States wished to engage insurgencies why the U.S. government has not taken action in Chicago.

Good question Rev. Jackson.  Should Americans conclude because there are people murdered in Chicago there is in fact an insurgency, and should Americans conclude that if we as a nation wish to curtail the use of WMDs we should vote in favor of gun control?  Jackson argued in favor of both stances.

But perhaps the good reverend should take a look around at the party he’s adopted during his runs for office and call for an immediate withdrawal of Chicago.  Nope, instead Jackson argued for more federal involvement and helped lead a protest against violence, I suppose deciding to place himself within a theater of war as he put it.

Don’t get me wrong here.  Just like the vast majority of people across the globe, I abhor violence.  I prefer to make jokes as opposed to lash out physically, but the solution to crime in Chicago isn’t to classify criminals as insurgents or to confuse the GWOT with gang wars that have gripped Chicago for decades.

I love Chicago and hope to get back there some day, though hopefully I’ll wait until after the insurgency is ended and after all WMDs are secured.  Until then, however, I am eagerly awaiting Rev. Jackson to explain why the United States should engage one insurgency while withdrawing from another.