• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hamas clamps down on Gazan women

Shayah

יותר מקו
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
865
Reaction score
388
Location
תל אביב
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Gunmen destroy Gaza City water park
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
09/20/2010

Unidentified gunmen set fire Sunday to the Crazy Water Park, one of the Gaza Strip’s most popular entertainment sites. Eyewitnesses said that at least 25 men participated in the predawn attack. The gunmen beat the two night watchmen, bound their hands and confiscated their mobile phones before setting the complex on fire, they said. Hamas had closed site on legal pretexts, after warning against men and women mixing at parties there. Human rights activists said that Hamas has recently stepped up its efforts to impose strict Islamic observances in the Gaza Strip.
Gunmen destroy Gaza City water park

Israel to allow first import of cars to Gaza since 2007
(AFP) – 11 hours ago

JERUSALEM — Israel will allow the import of private vehicles into the Gaza Strip for the first time since 2007, the military said Sunday.

The "transfer of vehicles for the Palestinian private sector is expected to take place for the first time since the Hamas violent takeover," the military said in a statement.
The cars were expected to cross Monday morning into the besieged strip, but it was not immediately clear how many cars would go into Gaza.
AFP: Israel to allow first import of cars to Gaza since 2007

Under Hamas rule, I highly doubt any Gaza females will be allowed to drive these vehicles.
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,412
Reaction score
4,815
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
None of this will ever change as long as Middle Eastern women don't stand up and fight for their rights. Not in Gaza, not in Saudi Arabia or Iran or anywhere else. I understand that their struggle is infinitely more dangerous and, in many places, actually life-threatening, than the relatively easy struggle by comparison that Western women had to face. The fact remains that change will only occur when women rise up and demand equal rights. There's nothing that can be done from the outside other than to support the movement in every way possible if and when it happens. You can't force a culture to change. It has to come from within or it won't last.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,755
Reaction score
6,217
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A tyrannical regime, nothing less and nothing more.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Does anyone actually understand the reason behind these clamp downs?

Hamas has a fairly large and influential secular element and always has. This has never been more evident than in recent years which has seen a radical change in the official stance of Hamas - they have entered the political sphere and renounced suicide bombs and even spoken of peace on many occasions. We're not supposed to know this though.

With the ever increasing noose around Gaza's neck, and especially after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas's power has been reduced dramatically. This has resulted in splinter groups - extremely fundamentalist and dangerous to both Israeli civilians and Gazans alike - springing up all over the place calling for Sharia and other elements of fundamentalist Islam. Especially after the brutality of Operation Cast Lead (how does destroying a country in that manner not create a mass of enemies who want nothing more than blood?).

This is why Hamas are cracking down. If you read the human rights reports they state that the reason for Hamas's crackdown [to paraphrase HRW] is about 'saving face'. They are doing so to keep control. What people don't seem to realise is that 'the devil you know' in this case is most definitely the preferable choice. If some of these mental groups wrestle control of Gaza from Hamas we will see a massive escalation to the hostilities with suicide bombing and other atrocities once more becoming the norm. While I have no doubt that this is the last thing the average Israeli wants, I often am forced to wonder, by Israel's own actions, if that would not be preferable to the Israeli leadership and the IDF. After all, it's become increasingly difficult for Israel to claim the moral upper-hand when Hamas have done so much to alter their stance.

For I don't believe that any government would think twice about putting their citizens in danger to further their own agendas. History has shown this to be the case numerous times over.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
None of this will ever change as long as Middle Eastern women don't stand up and fight for their rights. Not in Gaza, not in Saudi Arabia or Iran or anywhere else.
Women's rights in Lebanon (I think) are better than the rest but I agree with your post.

I do have hope though that over the next ten years we will start to see a change in some of the brutal laws employed. I believe the US should put massive pressure on the Saudis to change. If they ever manage to get the Saudis to change then the rest of the Arab world will follow suit in my opinion. Maybe not straght away but it would happen.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does anyone actually understand the reason behind these clamp downs?
IMO, Hamas' cracking down is largely the result of its worldview. It has a particular perspective on how it defines the role of women, both sociocultural in general and with respect to the historic Arab-Israeli dispute in particular. The Hamas Charter declares:

Woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and embuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam. She has to teach them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them. That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to schools and the curriculum followed in educating Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good mothers, aware of their role in the battle of liberation.

She has to be of sufficient knowledge and understanding where the performance of housekeeping matters are concerned, because economy and avoidance of waste of the family budget, is one of the requirements for the ability to continue moving forward in the difficult conditions surrounding us. She should put before her eyes the fact that the money available to her is just like blood which should never flow except through the veins so that both children and grown-ups could continue to live.


Hamas likely sees recreation as constituting a distraction from women's role in the conflict, as it allows women opportunities to shift their focus to matters that have little to do with the conflict. Hamas also likely sees recreation in general as a source of possible competition with Hamas' view of how women should be educated/live their lives. Given that Hamas is an ideological movement, genuine competition with that group's ideology is viewed by Hamas as an intolerable risk.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Looking over the sources it seems there is nothing particularly serious here done by the government, actually. While I think no country should ban things like this it is also not even remotely unusual for countries in the region and the laws in Gaza are less strict than ones in other countries. Hell, people have talked about banning public smoking in general even here in the West.

On another note these incidents of masked gunmen engaging in violence inside Gaza is disturbing in another way. The recent attacks on civilians in the West Bank and public declarations from some officials tied to the military wing of Hamas stand in stark contrast to statements from the civilian leadership.

It makes me think there is a potential power struggle going on and that potential exists for the situation to escalate. Seems to me Israel should seriously consider negotiations with the civilian leaders of Hamas because if not Israel may find itself dealing with a much more violent militarist government in Gaza. Then again, like expand said, it might very well be that Israel could care less since such a government would be provide a much better target as well as providing a casus belli for invasion.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
IMO, Hamas' cracking down is largely the result of its worldview. It has a particular perspective on how it defines the role of women, both sociocultural in general and with respect to the historic Arab-Israeli dispute in particular. The Hamas Charter declares:


Hamas likely sees recreation as constituting a distraction from women's role in the conflict, as it allows women opportunities to shift their focus to matters that have little to do with the conflict. Hamas also likely sees recreation in general as a source of possible competition with Hamas' view of how women should be educated/live their lives. Given that Hamas is an ideological movement, genuine competition with that group's ideology is viewed by Hamas as an intolerable risk.
Donald, you and others put far too much emphasis on Hamas's charter.

Khaled Hroub writes in, 'Hamas: Political thought and practice', that since the mid 90's Hamas has "rarely, if at all", enforced its charter and that it now "no longer cites or refers" to it.


Former Mossad chief Ephraim Levy:
"The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future,"; "They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. . . . They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."

As we can see, they have continually moved further away from their original 'goals' [the charter].

Quoting the charter as a means to define Hamas 'right now' is pointless.

Your second paragraph is simply your opinion based on what you already think of Hamas and their charter. I have told why why Hamas have felt the need to crack down and indeed, apart from the original article's loose reference to Hamas cracking down without there being an actual connection to them, it actually looks entirely possible that the incident was carried out by one of the far more extreme splinter groups that I mentioned. Hence the need for Hamas to save face. Trust me, we do not want Hamas to lose control to another entity.

If Hamas hadn't been essentially barred from being able to operate as a government, then this would not be happening. They would have control over the citizens [militants in this case] who's hearts they won after over a decade of seeing to their needs, while Fatah and the PLO were busy being corrupted up to their eyeballs.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Donald, you and others put far too much emphasis on Hamas's charter.
When Hamas' deeds match its words, as has remained the case to date, I do take the Charter's core provisions seriously. To date, Hamas has never indicated that it would conclude peace. It has always offered arrangements short of peace e.g., a hudna, in exchange for large, concrete Israeli concessions such as withdrawing to pre-1967 war boundaries.

Khaled Hroub writes in, 'Hamas: Political thought and practice', that since the mid 90's Hamas has "rarely, if at all", enforced its charter and that it now "no longer cites or refers" to it.
Hamas is fairly sophisticated in its public relations. It knows that it should not explicitly reference the Charter. Yet, its actions and carefully selected words do not put it on a path that contradicts the Charter.

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Levy:
"The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future,"; "They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. . . . They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."
I agree with much of what Levy says. However, the underlined excerpt is key. It provides insight into why Hamas has refused all attempts at cooperation in the peace process. The door to its participation remains open via the Madrid Quartet's terms.

As we can see, they have continually moved further away from their original 'goals' [the charter].

Quoting the charter as a means to define Hamas 'right now' is pointless.
When I see Hamas' senior leadership embrace a peace agreement as the organization's goal, then I'll know that they have truly diverged from their charter. Weaker terms e.g., hudna, do not indicate such movement. Therefore, I disagree with the argument that referencing the charter is "pointless."
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does anyone actually understand the reason behind these clamp downs?

Hamas has a fairly large and influential secular element and always has. This has never been more evident than in recent years which has seen a radical change in the official stance of Hamas - they have entered the political sphere and renounced suicide bombs and even spoken of peace on many occasions. We're not supposed to know this though.

With the ever increasing noose around Gaza's neck, and especially after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas's power has been reduced dramatically. This has resulted in splinter groups - extremely fundamentalist and dangerous to both Israeli civilians and Gazans alike - springing up all over the place calling for Sharia and other elements of fundamentalist Islam. Especially after the brutality of Operation Cast Lead (how does destroying a country in that manner not create a mass of enemies who want nothing more than blood?).

This is why Hamas are cracking down. If you read the human rights reports they state that the reason for Hamas's crackdown [to paraphrase HRW] is about 'saving face'. They are doing so to keep control. What people don't seem to realise is that 'the devil you know' in this case is most definitely the preferable choice. If some of these mental groups wrestle control of Gaza from Hamas we will see a massive escalation to the hostilities with suicide bombing and other atrocities once more becoming the norm. While I have no doubt that this is the last thing the average Israeli wants, I often am forced to wonder, by Israel's own actions, if that would not be preferable to the Israeli leadership and the IDF. After all, it's become increasingly difficult for Israel to claim the moral upper-hand when Hamas have done so much to alter their stance.

For I don't believe that any government would think twice about putting their citizens in danger to further their own agendas. History has shown this to be the case numerous times over.
and here I thought I had already read the single biggest piece of sophistry ever offered up in these forums. I guess I was wrong.
Yes, by all means -- ingrained Arab attitudes towards women are the fault of those pesky Joos.



Just like everything else.........
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
and here I thought I had already read the single biggest piece of sophistry ever offered up in these forums. I guess I was wrong.
Yes, by all means -- ingrained Arab attitudes towards women are the fault of those pesky Joos.
Just like everything else.........
First, the bold has no place in a civil discussion. It is clear flame-baiting. I have have been civil when discussing these matters, I give valid reasons for my opinions and I expect the same in return, on both counts.

Second, I didn't even imply that Sharia law or the culture that goes with fundamentalist Islam was the fault of Jews, Israelis, or anyone else that isn't directly involved, never mind say it. I made my case clear. I said the rise in Hamas's clampdown could have been prevented if they had been allowed to operate and take care of Gaza as they were elected to do. This is a simple fact and to deny it to adopt a paranoid stance as to my meaning (if you weren't simply just trying to defame my character) is simply denying reality. Are you saying we shouldn't look at situations in context? Because I believe all matters, political or otherwise, should always be looked at in context. And I thought the rest of civilisation was on board...
 
Last edited:

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When Hamas' deeds match its words, as has remained the case to date, I do take the Charter's core provisions seriously. To date, Hamas has never indicated that it would conclude peace. It has always offered arrangements short of peace e.g., a hudna, in exchange for large, concrete Israeli concessions such as withdrawing to pre-1967 war boundaries.
The bold is simply a fabrication. Hamas has continually indicated that it would conclude peace, in compliance exactly with international law. I'm not sure why people think that this is unreasonable? And I'm not sure why you keep repeating this claim when I have shown many times in my short time here that this is simply not the case.

Israel have never offered one concession. I cannot stress this enough. They have only ever been willing to comply with some matter with regards to what is required of them under international law. It is to twist facts to claim that Israel have ever been willing to concede anything. How can this be continually portrayed this way? It's fairly simple to grasp.

Hamas is fairly sophisticated in its public relations. It knows that it should not explicitly reference the Charter. Yet, its actions and carefully selected words do not put it on a path that contradicts the Charter.
This is an empty statement that denies the truth. To continually claim such things when the truth has been presented is dishonest.

I agree with much of what Levy says. However, the underlined excerpt is key. It provides insight into why Hamas has refused all attempts at cooperation in the peace process. The door to its participation remains open via the Madrid Quartet's terms.
Why should a people who have been occupied for over four decades be expected to appease the occupiers? Especially when international law is clear on this matter.

Hamas have already, as I seem to have to keep telling you, stated that they would be willing to settle for peace along the internationally recognised borders, in compliance with international law. In this deal Israel make no concessions. In any other deal offered Palestinians make massive concessions (and have been willing to do so, as far as splitting Jerusalem in half) and Israel have made none - only what is required of them legally and indeed morally.

When I see Hamas' senior leadership embrace a peace agreement as the organization's goal, then I'll know that they have truly diverged from their charter. Weaker terms e.g., hudna, do not indicate such movement. Therefore, I disagree with the argument that referencing the charter is "pointless."
I have posted a link in this forum to an interview with Hamas's leader. I suggest you read it. Their goal is peace. Peace and freedom for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When Hamas' deeds match its words, as has remained the case to date, I do take the Charter's core provisions seriously. To date, Hamas has never indicated that it would conclude peace. It has always offered arrangements short of peace e.g., a hudna, in exchange for large, concrete Israeli concessions such as withdrawing to pre-1967 war boundaries.



Hamas is fairly sophisticated in its public relations. It knows that it should not explicitly reference the Charter. Yet, its actions and carefully selected words do not put it on a path that contradicts the Charter.



I agree with much of what Levy says. However, the underlined excerpt is key. It provides insight into why Hamas has refused all attempts at cooperation in the peace process. The door to its participation remains open via the Madrid Quartet's terms.



When I see Hamas' senior leadership embrace a peace agreement as the organization's goal, then I'll know that they have truly diverged from their charter. Weaker terms e.g., hudna, do not indicate such movement. Therefore, I disagree with the argument that referencing the charter is "pointless."
I would have to agree that Hamas' charter is not irrelevant. It can be overemphasized, though, especially when Israel uses it as a way of avoiding issues that would have merit regardless of Hamas' actions. Israel has nothing to lose by respecting basic human rights, and in fact by doing so Israel would either encourage Hamas to moderate its position or, if not, at least put itself on higher moral ground.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The bold is simply a fabrication. Hamas has continually indicated that it would conclude peace, in compliance exactly with international law.
Perhaps I've missed it. Do you have a link where Hamas' senior leadership stated explicitly that Hamas would conclude peace with Israel based on UNSC Res. 242 (or similar parameters). Statements to the effect that Hamas would seek a hudna or truce (both temporary) or a Palestinian state that omits a clear reference to peace with Israel do not suffice. Certainly, a Lexis search finds no references where Hamas' leaders stated that they would seek or reach a peace agreement with Israel.

I have posted a link in this forum to an interview with Hamas's leader. I suggest you read it. Their goal is peace. Peace and freedom for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
The problem is that under Hamas' definition of "occupied territories," Israel amounts to an "occupied territory."
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, the bold has no place in a civil discussion. It is clear flame-baiting. I have have been civil when discussing these matters, I give valid reasons for my opinions and I expect the same in return, on both counts.

Second, I didn't even imply that Sharia law or the culture that goes with fundamentalist Islam was the fault of Jews, Israelis, or anyone else that isn't directly involved, never mind say it. I made my case clear. I said the rise in Hamas's clampdown could have been prevented if they had been allowed to operate and take care of Gaza as they were elected to do. This is a simple fact and to deny it to adopt a paranoid stance as to my meaning (if you weren't simply just trying to defame my character) is simply denying reality. Are you saying we shouldn't look at situations in context? Because I believe all matters, political or otherwise, should always be looked at in context. And I thought the rest of civilisation was on board...
We must have very different ideas of the meaning of the term "civil".

I do not consider the blaming of the target of your hatred for the actions of a terrorist organization to be an act of cilivility, especially when the agenda you defend mistreats women so horribly. This is just typical M.O. for those of your ilk to address any issue pertinant to Hamas by launching into yet another attack against Israel.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Perhaps I've missed it. Do you have a link where Hamas' senior leadership stated explicitly that Hamas would conclude peace with Israel based on UNSC Res. 242 (or similar parameters). Statements to the effect that Hamas would seek a hudna or truce (both temporary) or a Palestinian state that omits a clear reference to peace with Israel do not suffice. Certainly, a Lexis search finds no references where Hamas' leaders stated that they would seek or reach a peace agreement with Israel.
Hamas: We agreed in the past to state within '67 borders

Hamas PM Haniyeh: Retreat to 1967 borders will bring peace - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Hamas ready to accept 1967 borders for Palestinian state - The Irish Times - Tue, Sep 21, 2010

They're just from a quick Google but this is not the first time they have stated this. In the past they have declared that if negotiations take place, a deal is made and the Palestinians agree to this in a referendum, then they would be willing to accept it.

This is the recent interview:
Khaled Mesh

While you won't agree with all the logic applied, it is clear to anyone that Hamas are not the organisation you have been led to believe they are. In the past, as they were born through desperation they have been unrelenting, but as is common knowledge amongst those who actually know about Hamas, they have been progressing and
theui stance has gradually changed, but this has never been recognised by Israel in any official capacity.

The problem is that under Hamas' definition of "occupied territories," Israel amounts to an "occupied territory."
Yes Israel make up the laws as they go along. It is not "Hamas's definition", it is the world's definition. It's like Israel's claim they used to rhyme off the the UN after the '67 war that because they didn't start the war (which itself was untrue) they can take whatever land they want; hat the law only applies to the aggressors. The UN dismissed this claim for what it was: baseless. As I said, Israel making up laws as they go along.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[C]hoosing the very most extreme to try to prove a point is an insult to those who do not fit the description and do not want to be tarred by it.
Food for thought.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We must have very different ideas of the meaning of the term "civil".

I do not consider the blaming of the target of your hatred for the actions of a terrorist organization to be an act of cilivility, especially when the agenda you defend mistreats women so horribly. This is just typical M.O. for those of your ilk to address any issue pertinant to Hamas by launching into yet another attack against Israel.
You continue to make claims but don't even come close to backing up said claims with reasonable evidence. You haven't actually addressed the content of my post, instead opting to label me as one thing or another based on your own prejudiced views.

And the comment about 'civil' was clearly addressing your baiting in the bold of your post that I quoted [i.e. 'Joos']. It is a response I have come across before while debating someone who has nothing else to offer.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If one reads that report, one finds exactly the kind of careful wording I'm talking about. From the article:

Hamas sent messages to the US government in the past stating that the movement does not oppose the formation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, Israel Radio reported on Monday, quoting the group's Gaza leadership.

There is no reference to peace with Israel. In the past, Hamas has indicated that a Palestinian state within 1967 boundaries would be transitional. The absence of any references 'in exchange for peace with Israel' does not indicate a change in stance for Hamas. Hamas is casting itself in moderate packaging while maintaining an unchanged course underneath that packaging.

Key excerpt:

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told Haaretz Monday that the Hamas government is prepared to agree to an extended cease-fire if Israel withdraws to the 1967 lines.

Israel would make a substantive concession in making major withdrawals and Hamas would offer, not peace, but only an "extended ceasefire."

Key excerpt:

THE HAMAS movement said yesterday that it had repeatedly told the United States it would accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

Again, no mention of peace with Israel.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Moderator's Warning:
Get this thread back on track... Hamas clamps down on women in Gaza.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is no reference to peace with Israel. In the past, Hamas has indicated that a Palestinian state within 1967 boundaries would be transitional. The absence of any references 'in exchange for peace with Israel' does not indicate a change in stance for Hamas. Hamas is casting itself in moderate packaging while maintaining an unchanged course underneath that packaging.
Read the interview. Use Google or some other search engine. Your claim that Hamas is 'maintaining..' is nothing more than your opinion.

The interview also contains Hamas's stance on women for anyone who is interested.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You continue to make claims but don't even come close to backing up said claims with reasonable evidence.
You mean like your words here?

With the ever increasing noose around Gaza's neck, and especially after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas's power has been reduced dramatically........ Especially after the brutality of Operation Cast Lead (how does destroying a country in that manner not create a mass of enemies who want nothing more than blood?).

This is why Hamas are cracking down.
Yes, by all mean, let's blame Hamas brutalization of women on Israel :roll:
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,801
Reaction score
10,152
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I would have to agree that Hamas' charter is not irrelevant...
I appreciate your recognition that the Hamas Charter is not irrelevant. I believe the Charter goes a long way toward explaining the recent crackdown on Gaza's women. As Hamas continues to try to consolidate its rule, efforts to tamp out dissent and efforts to impose doctrine as set forth in the organization's Charter are to be expected. The evolution in that direction is still ongoing, so future examples of oppression are probably quite likely over the next 12 months or more. Likely targets include the political opposition, women, religious minorities, and possibly people engaged in business should Hamas make a confiscatory push to seize products/financial assets.
 
Top Bottom