Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbeach | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

OK, but it's not exactly like the population there had any choice, or even any way before the war to improve their circumstances of living.

Also, reminder that Smotrich, Ben Gvir and friends were already hard at work taking over the west bank before Hamas did Oct. 7.

Israel could have sidelined Hamas, boosted the PA and gave Gazans an actual alternative to the fundamentalist vision of Hamas. They did the exact opposite.

Which nation's constitution is built upon the annihilation of Israel?

It’s a fair point if you disagree, like I do, that Hamas’s Palestine is a nation.

But the Hamas Charter makes alarming reading:

https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

Some excerpts:

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)

'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'

(Article 11)

'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the

Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.' (Article 13)

- - -

Hamas are genocidal religious supremacists. Just because they haven’t succeeded in destroying the Jewish state doesn’t mean that they’re the peaceful victims in all of this. If they had access to weapons of mass destruction they would use them without a second thought. Read the Charter

> But the Hamas Charter makes alarming reading:

That happens with worst possible out of context translations.

There's a lot written about that charter, the original and translations, and various reasons why Hamas feel that Palestinians must defend themselves from Israelis.

As I understand it that feeling is mirrored, both sides having more in common than they might admit.

Could you please translate Article 7 for me so I can understand your take on it?

The context of the 1988 charter is a better start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter

The later charter removed the strident stuff which was in the context of defence against oppressors and invaders.

The great thing about a charter is that it’s there in black and white, a first-class source of information on the actual intent, as opposed to later subjective analysis of things like “context”

If a group tells you who they are in official written terms, believe them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com