That would mean that IHH supports terrorism because it funds its welfare programme which clearly designates them a supporter of terrorism in line with this law.
I'vew always had a bit of an issue with this line of reasoning. Here's my concern.
In the 1930s, you had the mob running soup kitchens and all different sorts of "charitable programs". Motivation for this, of course, was not related to "giving back to the community" or to do good or anything like that, clearly.
The mob, of course, was also extorting money from local businesses, engaged in numerous illegal lines of business, and murdering opponents/police officers/members of the public as it suited them.
So how do we then describe the mob, or people who donate money or material support to the mob.
Do we say that giving money to the mob, not knowing or controlling where the money is going, can be described as "contributing to a charitable organization" because "it funds its welfare programme", or do we see past the transparent veneer of charitable activity used to dull the impact of a distinctly negative agenda?
It is really no different than Hamas. it is a wholly negative agenda, both vis-a-vis Israel and, more importantly for these purposes, vis-a-vis the broader Palestinian population. Hamas as an organization and a political movmeent is NOT concerned about the general welfare of the population, economic opportunity, rule of law or any of those other elements one would expect to see in a civil society. Hamas is interested in its military/religious agenda and power IN SPITE of the general welfare of the population, not in order to further that welfare.
However, knowing what they know about society and human behaviour, and entirely consistent with the behaviour and rationalle of the mob providing public handouts in the 1930s, Hamas has recognized that "charitable giving" both can be used as a cover for appologists to run flak to obfuscate the organization's real agenda (where such flak is helpful; in other places, Hamas can be perfectly open about its agenda and intentions and does not need such appologist obfuscators), and to create dependencies of the population on the organization, such that the people (i) give the organization credit for the benefits that they provide at the expense of the people and the rboader society on which the organization parasitically exists and (ii) forgive the organization for the drastically and profoundly negative impact the organization has on the society on which it feeds.
If you can shed some light on this for me, that would be very helpful. How would you distinguish Hamas' charity and public works from the "charity" of the mob in the 1930s? Would you characterize the essence of Hamas as charity, and how would you justify that conclusion? How does one give money to the mob with no accountability and then rely on a "donating money to charity" type justification?
Seriously, I am really struggling with this.
Thanks
