O/T:- Palestine / Israel

[keldsyke]

I hope The Rozzers have a plan for Remembrance Sunday with these ‘Protesters’, if not can see real problems in tbe UK.

[Magpies1959]

Could be very nasty.

[andy6025]

What is the raison d'etre for Hamas? To develop a Palestinian state or to destroy the State of Israel? Explain your answers please so that we might all understand.

OldPie,

Like any government, Hamas undertakes many purposes. You can read Hamas’ 2017 charter in full here:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/h...-document-full

The relevant sections you are specifically inquiring about are addressed in parts 16 and 17 (and various other places), some of which I will reproduce for you here:

“Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine… Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.“

If you read the document further you will see that they reject Israel ‘as a Jewish state’, and wish to establish Palestine as an Islamic state. In other words, just as the Israeli government wants Israel to be an exclusively Jewish state, Hamas wants it to be an exclusively Islamic state.

Does this answer your question?

Interestingly, the United Nations Human Rights New York Director, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned. In his resignation letter (full text in the link below), he calls for a ‘one secular state solution. He also says: “Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it… As a human rights lawyer with more than three decades of experience in the field, I know well that the concept of genocide has often been subject to political abuse. But the current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs, and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt or debate... In Gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. In the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, homes are seized
and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Across the land, Apartheid rules…

This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What's more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations "to ensure respect" for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the
assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel's atrocities. In concert with this, western corporate media, increasingly captured and state-adjacent, are in open breach of Article 20 of the ICCPR, continuously dehumanizing Palestinians to facilitate the genocide, and broadcasting propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. US-based social media companies are suppressing the voices of human rights defenders while amplifying pro-Israel propaganda. In such circumstances, the demands on our organization for principled and effective action are greater than ever. But we have not met the challenge. The protective enforcement power Security Council has again been blocked by US intransigence, the SG is under assault for the mildest of protestations, and our human
rights mechanisms are under sustained slanderous attack by an organized, online impunity network...

In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US, and to fear of the Israel Lobby, to abandon these principles, and to retreat from international law itself. We have lost a lot in this abandonment, not least our own global credibility. But the Palestinian people have sustained the biggest losses as a result of our failures.“

He goes on further… you can read the rest for yourself here:

https://minbane.wordpress.com/2023/1...me-p1xtjg-pic/

[OchPie]

It's quite amazing to see people who were so loud in calling for free speech suddenly wanting people rounded up and worse, just for sharing a message they disagree with - a call for a ceasefire.

Anyway, onto this:

I think your point about Hamas ‘obliterating’ the rules of war can likewise be applied to Israel, both in its response to Oct 7th, and from its long history of war crimes against Palestinian civilians, those who support them, and many others (for example, journalists that cover the conflict).

However I think the author’s point is to question whether or not an organization that commits war crimes loses its right to conduct legitimate military actions.

Can an organisation lose its right for its existence to be tolerated? Can a government? I think, yes.

The author makes three points:

"A blanket condemnation of Hamas is absurd, because some of its actions are legitimate and simply not subject to condemnation."

No. No! That an organisation - or a person - does legal things does not shield it from blanket condemnation. What next? "Yeah but Harold Shipman saved lives too, so go easy on him"? Sometimes you have to say, sorry, but the illegitimate has overwhelmed the legitimate. Hamas went too far, far too far. Had their actions been only against the IDF, you could make a decent case here. But that their actions were also against the IDF isn't good enough.

"The fact that Hamas also commits crimes does not mean it or the Palestinians in general then lose their right to legitimate resistance."

The Palestinians? No, although their armed groups do all frequently flout international law in how they go about it. Hamas? I'm sorry, but - unless they can show how seriously they take international law here, release all the hostages and show they are bringing those responsible for war crimes to justice* - they HAVE lost their right to legitimate resistance (which, again, October 7th simply wasn't).

"The only thing that one can condemn is precisely that Hamas violence that is criminal."

Again, no. We can condemn the leadership that led it to make decisions that led to that violence. We can condemn the organisation that was set up to perpetrate that violence. Can, and must.

The role and influence of Hamas can not be allowed to stand. I don't think Israel is going about trying to remove them in a smart, legal or effective way - but that cannot be used to relieve Hamas of its responsibility (just as it cannot vice versa).

Clinging on to humanity in this horrible mess means setting out principles, and holding both sides to them. Even where there's a difference in power. Even when one side suffers disproportionate deaths. Even when one side is an illegal occupier. What Hamas did on October 7th was simply appalling.


* The Americans do this. The British do this. Even the Israelis do this - though far less than I think is warranted. Hamas have, as far as I can tell, never done this.

[Old_pie]

OldPie,

Like any government, Hamas undertakes many purposes. You can read Hamas’ 2017 charter in full here:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/h...-document-full

The relevant sections you are specifically inquiring about are addressed in parts 16 and 17 (and various other places), some of which I will reproduce for you here:

“Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine… Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.“

If you read the document further you will see that they reject Israel ‘as a Jewish state’, and wish to establish Palestine as an Islamic state. In other words, just as the Israeli government wants Israel to be an exclusively Jewish state, Hamas wants it to be an exclusively Islamic state.

Does this answer your question?

It seems to evade it rather than answer in. Hamas, as I said, wishes to eliminate Israel. Hamas is not about creating a Palestinian state, that option has been refused in the past, it wishes to create an islamic State.

Let's read the beginning of the article:

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all worlds. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad, the Master of Messengers and the Leader of the mujahidin, and upon his household and all his companions.

Preamble

Palestine is the land of the Arab Palestinian people, from it they originate, to it they adhere and belong, and about it they reach out and communicate.

Palestine is a land whose status has been elevated by Islam, a faith that holds it in high esteem, that breathes through it its spirit and just values and that lays the foundation for the doctrine of defending and protecting it.

Palestine is the cause of a people who have been let down by a world that fails to secure their rights and restore to them what has been usurped from them, a people whose land continues to suffer one of the worst types of occupation in this world.

Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity and on imposing a fait accompli by force.

So much "doublespeak".

The State of Israel was formally established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, and was admitted to the United Nations (UN) as a full member state on 11 May 1949.

You know all this.

[keldsyke]

It's quite amazing to see people who were so loud in calling for free speech suddenly wanting people rounded up and worse, just for sharing a message they disagree with

I'm guessing you are referring to me - to be honest I would go one further I would deport them too - if you don't fit with the countries values goodbye! The country is turning in to something it shouldn't be and it needs addressing asap or its going to get worse, you come here you fit in, simple as.

[andy6025]

It's quite amazing to see people who were so loud in calling for free speech suddenly wanting people rounded up and worse, just for sharing a message they disagree with - a call for a ceasefire.

Anyway, onto this:



Can an organisation lose its right for its existence to be tolerated? Can a government? I think, yes.

The author makes three points:

"A blanket condemnation of Hamas is absurd, because some of its actions are legitimate and simply not subject to condemnation."

No. No! That an organisation - or a person - does legal things does not shield it from blanket condemnation. What next? "Yeah but Harold Shipman saved lives too, so go easy on him"? Sometimes you have to say, sorry, but the illegitimate has overwhelmed the legitimate. Hamas went too far, far too far. Had their actions been only against the IDF, you could make a decent case here. But that their actions were also against the IDF isn't good enough.

"The fact that Hamas also commits crimes does not mean it or the Palestinians in general then lose their right to legitimate resistance."

The Palestinians? No, although their armed groups do all frequently flout international law in how they go about it. Hamas? I'm sorry, but - unless they can show how seriously they take international law here, release all the hostages and show they are bringing those responsible for war crimes to justice* - they HAVE lost their right to legitimate resistance (which, again, October 7th simply wasn't).

"The only thing that one can condemn is precisely that Hamas violence that is criminal."

Again, no. We can condemn the leadership that led it to make decisions that led to that violence. We can condemn the organisation that was set up to perpetrate that violence. Can, and must.

The role and influence of Hamas can not be allowed to stand. I don't think Israel is going about trying to remove them in a smart, legal or effective way - but that cannot be used to relieve Hamas of its responsibility (just as it cannot vice versa).

Clinging on to humanity in this horrible mess means setting out principles, and holding both sides to them. Even where there's a difference in power. Even when one side suffers disproportionate deaths. Even when one side is an illegal occupier. What Hamas did on October 7th was simply appalling.


* The Americans do this. The British do this. Even the Israelis do this - though far less than I think is warranted. Hamas have, as far as I can tell, never done this.

I think there are two additional important points the author makes that you appear to have avoided.

The first:

“If, therefore, having committed war crimes somehow deprived a nation of its right to the legitimate use of military force, then the US and Israel, for instance would have to abolish their armies, because of their outstanding record of war crimes.”

Of course the logic may be applied to an organization (such as any Israeli and/or US parties that have presided over war crimes, or the IDF, etc - as I said in a post above ‘however we wish to divide that pie) instead of a ‘nation’.

The second point, in light of your position, is that we are not likewise called upon to condemn the Israeli government wholesale for its war crimes:

“So, why are we so ritualistically asked, urged, compelled to “condemn Hamas”? … The reality is that this is an ideological test of submission, a sort of loyalty oath. We are supposed to take it, again and again and again, to prove that we are in compliance with the double standards of a West that proactively helps Israel commit genocide.”

Perhaps, in congruence with your logic, an argument could be made that if an organization consistently strives in good faith to hold all of its members who perpetrate war crimes to account, only then does the organization retain the right to the legitimate use of force. However, it is clear that Israel hasn’t and doesn’t do this.

[BigFatPie]

I'm guessing you are referring to me - to be honest I would go one further I would deport them too - if you don't fit with the countries values goodbye! The country is turning in to something it shouldn't be and it needs addressing asap or its going to get worse, you come here you fit in, simple as.

Deport them to where, and what are these ‘values’ you talk about?

[OchPie]

I'm guessing you are referring to me - to be honest I would go one further I would deport them too - if you don't fit with the countries values goodbye! The country is turning in to something it shouldn't be and it needs addressing asap or its going to get worse, you come here you fit in, simple as.

I wasn't - I was thinking of people on the mess that is Twitter - but I guess I am now!

I dunno. For me free speech and free protest - as long as not directly intimidating, and certainly as long as not glorifying terrorism - IS a key value of the UK.

Many of those protesting were born here. Anyone who is caught glorifying terrorism should be locked up, but most of the protestors just want to pause the killing (and there's a significant number of Jewish people in their number). And I really don't like the idea of deporting anyone British, even if they have a second citizenship, for anything less than something like murder or espionage. The UK shouldn't have two tier citizenship.

[andy6025]

It seems to evade it rather than answer in. Hamas, as I said, wishes to eliminate Israel. Hamas is not about creating a Palestinian state, that option has been refused in the past, it wishes to create an islamic State.

I’ve evaded the question? How so? As you yourself quoted I said “ If you read the document further you will see that they reject Israel ‘as a Jewish state’, and wish to establish Palestine as an Islamic state. In other words, just as the Israeli government wants Israel to be an exclusively Jewish state, Hamas wants it to be an exclusively Islamic state.”

It seems the only thing evaded is the acknowledgment of a double standard that Israel is seemingly permitted to have an exclusively Jewish state on occupied territories whereas an exclusively Islamic state is disallowed.

So much "doublespeak".

Their statement refers to the ‘promise’ of the Balfour declaration - I’m not sure what you’re finding to be in accurate or taking issue with.