• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

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.

You clearly have not even considered my standpoint.

It is impossible to debate with someone who continually disregards facts, quotes and evidence to the contrary. No offence mate, but this is exactly what you are doing.

And am I the only one who listened to the mod's warning?
 
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 the problem with debating the pro-Israeli side on these issues. You rarely have actual evidence or logic backing up your side. What you have is gut and paranoia.

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.

Expand was making a very basic point that sanctions and war typically strengthen the hardliners in a government. It happens in every country regardless of political persuasion. I could give examples if you like.
 
Moderator's Warning:
I issued a Mod Box warning in Post #22. Either adhere to this warning or there will be consequences.
 
This is the problem with debating the pro-Israeli side on these issues. You rarely have actual evidence or logic backing up your side. What you have is gut and paranoia.

The above overgeneralization has no basis in fact.

Early in the thread, I cited the relevant references from the Hamas Charter's description of the role of women in Hamas' ideology. The recent crackdown is consistent with that description. Deeds match words. Furthermore, the historic experience related to would-be authoritarian regimes seeking to consolidate power also highlights a noted tendency toward suppression of rights. What's happening with respect to Gaza's women fits Hamas' worldview of women and it is consistent with historic experience when would-be authoritarian parties seek to consolidate power.

As with most geopolitical developments, what is happening in the Gaza Strip is neither accidental nor unforeseeable. They are a function of ideology/Hamas' quest to consolidate its grip on power.

Furthermore, the rationalizations made by those oppressing women's rights (Hamas) that outside parties are to blame for their own oppression carry little weight once one examines Hamas' ideology. If the rationalization were true, then the crackdown would need to represent a dramatic departure from the group's ideology. It doesn't. Instead, it is highly consistent with that ideology, which is spelled out in the Hamas Charter.
 
You clearly have not even considered my standpoint.

Why should anybody consider the viewpoints of those whose agenda it is to attribute the brutalization of women to the targets of their hatred rather than those indulging in the actual brutalization?
 
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.

I would guess these women need to stand up and fight. They need to make it clear to the apes who run the government that they will not be treated as second class citizens. Then ... Islam needs to be completely and totally removed from government.
 
Early in the thread, I cited the relevant references from the Hamas Charter's description of the role of women in Hamas' ideology. The recent crackdown is consistent with that description. Deeds match words. Furthermore, the historic experience related to would-be authoritarian regimes seeking to consolidate power also highlights a noted tendency toward suppression of rights. What's happening with respect to Gaza's women fits Hamas' worldview of women and it is consistent with historic experience when would-be authoritarian parties seek to consolidate power.

As with most geopolitical developments, what is happening in the Gaza Strip is neither accidental nor unforeseeable. They are a function of ideology/Hamas' quest to consolidate its grip on power.

I agree it is not unforeseeable, but not because some document written by some guy who was seemingly connected to Hamas wrote something unsavory about women over two decades ago. There is no indication that is their charter, let alone that they follow any of the ideas espouses therein.

Furthermore, the rationalizations made by those oppressing women's rights (Hamas) that outside parties are to blame for their own oppression carry little weight once one examines Hamas' ideology. If the rationalization were true, then the crackdown would need to represent a dramatic departure from the group's ideology. It doesn't. Instead, it is highly consistent with that ideology, which is spelled out in the Hamas Charter.

The only point anyone made is that Israel's policies have strengthened hardliners in Hamas.
 
I agree it is not unforeseeable, but not because some document written by some guy who was seemingly connected to Hamas wrote something unsavory about women over two decades ago. There is no indication that is their charter, let alone that they follow any of the ideas espouses therein.

Hamas need not cite the Charter with respect to its crackdown on Gaza's women. The overriding issue is Hamas' ideology with respect to the role of women. The Charter merely provides a good summary of Hamas' ideology. It provides useful insights into that ideology, though insights can be obtained from beyond the Charter, too.

Ideology is not irrelevant and some outside claims e.g., in some op-ed pieces in recent years, proclaiming the emergence of a post-ideology world have little merit. Ideology still matters greatly in setting strategic direction, guiding policy, and shaping political dynamics. Furthermore, its importance is not unique to the Gaza Strip. The crackdown on women in the Gaza Strip is an example of ideology translating into policy. The specific aspects of that ideology are set forth in the Charter. The development is not accidental. It is not the fault of outsiders. It has home-grown origins.
 
Hamas need not cite the Charter with respect to its crackdown on Gaza's women. The overriding issue is Hamas' ideology with respect to the role of women. The Charter merely provides a good summary of Hamas' ideology. It provides useful insights into that ideology, though insights can be obtained from beyond the Charter, too.

So now you concede the Charter may not really be reliable, but still assert that this is just what Hamas think. Of course, that implies Hamas is a monolithic organization with no differences in ideology.

Ideology is not irrelevant and some outside claims e.g., in some op-ed pieces in recent years, proclaiming the emergence of a post-ideology world have little merit. Ideology still matters greatly in setting strategic direction, guiding policy, and shaping political dynamics. Furthermore, its importance is not unique to the Gaza Strip. The crackdown on women in the Gaza Strip is an example of ideology translating into policy. The specific aspects of that ideology are set forth in the Charter. The development is not accidental. It is not the fault of outsiders. It has home-grown origins.

I am not going to challenge the idea that there are people in Gaza and Hamas with such an ideology, but no one was challenging that. What I said and what others have said is that these actions represent the strengthening of hardliners in the party and Israel's policies have served to strengthen them. You want to claim that all members of Hamas share this ideology as though were of one mind, which is just absurd.
 
So now you concede the Charter may not really be reliable, but still assert that this is just what Hamas think.

Not at all. On the contrary, I wrote, "The Charter merely provides a good summary of Hamas' ideology." If it were an unreliable source of information [on that group's ideology], it would not provide a good summary of that ideology.
 
Not at all. On the contrary, I wrote, "The Charter merely provides a good summary of Hamas' ideology." If it were an unreliable source of information [on that group's ideology], it would not provide a good summary of that ideology.

Nice how you once again glossed over most of my response. My point was that you seemed to be conceding the Charter may not be a legitimate Hamas document. That you insist it still describes their ideology well only indicates you consider their ideology to be similar or identical to that of the Charter, though seemingly without the document being authoritative in Hamas.
 
Nice how you once again glossed over most of my response. My point was that you seemed to be conceding the Charter may not be a legitimate Hamas document. That you insist it still describes their ideology well only indicates you consider their ideology to be similar or identical to that of the Charter, though seemingly without the document being authoritative in Hamas.

I glossed over nothing and conceded nothing. As the Hamas Charter continues to provide good insight into that group's ideology, it remains an important document for understanding Hamas' policy making. As Hamas has not repudiated the Charter, it remains a legitimate document for that organization.

Those who believe that the Charter has become obsolete might well have been caught by surprise by Hamas' crackdown on Gaza's women. They might well have been tempted to look to some outside influence to explain that development. However, on closer inspection, Hamas' crackdown on women fits that group's ideological position concerning the role of women. That role is spelled out in some detail in the Charter. Therefore, especially as Hamas' actions remain consistent with the Charter's words outlining Hamas' ideology, one most definitely should not dismiss the Charter as having become irrelevant, much less illegitimate. It remains highly relevant. It continues to define Hamas' mission and set Hamas' strategic direction.
 
I glossed over nothing and conceded nothing.

You glossed over more than half of my post and it is not the first time you've ignored the majority of my response, usually the most significant parts.

As the Hamas Charter continues to provide good insight into that group's ideology, it remains an important document for understanding Hamas' policy making. As Hamas has not repudiated the Charter, it remains a legitimate document for that organization.

This is assuming they have any need to repudiate it in the first place. If it is not a legitimate document of Hamas then there is no need to repudiate it. What interests me is the fact the only time anyone brings up the Charter it is because some foreign interviewer asks them about it and they always seem to give odd responses almost like this is some document they don't really know anything about. Nothing I have read indicates the charter is some document they use much, if at all.
 
This is assuming they have any need to repudiate it in the first place. If it is not a legitimate document of Hamas then there is no need to repudiate it.

Nations don't draft constitutions, corporations don't develop mission statements, and groups such as Hamas don't write charters simply for the fun of it. They do so for purposes of establishing their values, laying out their ideology, setting their direction, etc. If such documents were not legitimate, they wouldn't devote the time to drafting them in the first place. Of course, such documents can be changed in the future or even replaced, but Hamas has done neither. Its recent crackdown on Gaza's women is consistent with its charter's description of the role Hamas envisions for women.
 
I am not going to challenge the idea that there are people in Gaza and Hamas with such an ideology, but no one was challenging that. What I said and what others have said is that these actions represent the strengthening of hardliners in the party and Israel's policies have served to strengthen them.

Very likely, but let's give Israel credit where credit is due. At least they're probably not doing it on purpose this time. ;)
 
Very likely, but let's give Israel credit where credit is due. At least they're probably not doing it on purpose this time. ;)


Well, we can give you credit for blaming them, anyway.

once again.
 
Hamas need not cite the Charter with respect to its crackdown on Gaza's women. The overriding issue is Hamas' ideology with respect to the role of women. The Charter merely provides a good summary of Hamas' ideology. It provides useful insights into that ideology, though insights can be obtained from beyond the Charter, too.

Ideology is not irrelevant and some outside claims e.g., in some op-ed pieces in recent years, proclaiming the emergence of a post-ideology world have little merit. Ideology still matters greatly in setting strategic direction, guiding policy, and shaping political dynamics. Furthermore, its importance is not unique to the Gaza Strip. The crackdown on women in the Gaza Strip is an example of ideology translating into policy. The specific aspects of that ideology are set forth in the Charter. The development is not accidental. It is not the fault of outsiders. It has home-grown origins.

Your logic doesn't stand up here. You, after I have already provided evidence to show otherwise, are still insisting that Hamas have employed or adopted their charter. Up until now I don't even think you have provided an example but let's look at the 'example' you have provided here.

You claim that due to Hamas's treatment of women they definitely must have adopted the charter. Please think about this for a second. Are you claiming that almost all Arab states employ Hamas's charter? After all, they are far worse in their treatment of women than Hamas.

This is a cultural and an Islamic problem. It has nothing to do with their charter.

More to show that they have not adopted or enforced it.

From Wiki: Senior British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006". Greenstock also stated that Hamas is not intent on the destruction of Israel.

Hamas may have in the past, as most Palestinians, wanted the death of Israel. This is natural, Israel systematically denied their own rights to exist. But now Palestinians aren't fighting for the death of Israel [a goal so unattainable it becomes silly when it is even used as an excuse by Israel], they are fighting for their freedom from Israel and for their survival.
 
Last edited:
Nations don't draft constitutions, corporations don't develop mission statements, and groups such as Hamas don't write charters simply for the fun of it. They do so for purposes of establishing their values, laying out their ideology, setting their direction, etc. If such documents were not legitimate, they wouldn't devote the time to drafting them in the first place. Of course, such documents can be changed in the future or even replaced, but Hamas has done neither. Its recent crackdown on Gaza's women is consistent with its charter's description of the role Hamas envisions for women.

Anyone can write a document and call it a group's charter. The only time Hamas ever mentions a charter is when someone interviewing an official mentions it first and the response does not seem to suggest it is a legitimate document of the party.
 
Your logic doesn't stand up here. You, after I have already provided evidence to show otherwise, are still insisting that Hamas have employed or adopted their charter. Up until now I don't even think you have provided an example but let's look at the 'example' you have provided here.

You claim that due to Hamas's treatment of women they definitely must have adopted the charter. Please think about this for a second. Are you claiming that almost all Arab states employ Hamas's charter? After all, they are far worse in their treatment of women than Hamas.

I cannot be more clear. A charter reflects, in part, a group's ideology. That ideology is a product of numeorus factors including but not limited to history, tradition, perspective, aspirations, culture, etc. That Hamas' view on the role of women, enshrined in Hamas' Charter, is of sociocultural origins does not in any way negate the Charter. The Charter is an instrument that is rooted in such a foundation.

From Wiki: Senior British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006". Greenstock also stated that Hamas is not intent on the destruction of Israel.

That's strictly one man's opinion. I respect it, but disagree. After all, Hamas has never suggested peace with Israel. It's a truce, a hudna, creation of a Palestinian state (omitting reference to Israel), transitional matter, etc. "Occupied territories," as defined by Hamas, includes Israel.

The Madrid Quartet has left the door open to Hamas to become a partner in the peace dialogue. To date, Hamas has rejected that opening. Hence, those actions demonstrate that the position that Hamas does not seek Israel's elimination is not sustained. Otherwise, Hamas would have seized the opportunity available to enter the negotiating framework. Moreover, it would unequivocally state that its objective is to reach peace with Israel, establish a Palestinian state that would exist alongside Israel, etc.
 
I cannot be more clear. A charter reflects, in part, a group's ideology. That ideology is a product of numeorus factors including but not limited to history, tradition, perspective, aspirations, culture, etc. That Hamas' view on the role of women, enshrined in Hamas' Charter, is of sociocultural origins does not in any way negate the Charter. The Charter is an instrument that is rooted in such a foundation.



That's strictly one man's opinion. I respect it, but disagree. After all, Hamas has never suggested peace with Israel. It's a truce, a hudna, creation of a Palestinian state (omitting reference to Israel), transitional matter, etc. "Occupied territories," as defined by Hamas, includes Israel.

The Madrid Quartet has left the door open to Hamas to become a partner in the peace dialogue. To date, Hamas has rejected that opening. Hence, those actions demonstrate that the position that Hamas does not seek Israel's elimination is not sustained. Otherwise, Hamas would have seized the opportunity available to enter the negotiating framework. Moreover, it would unequivocally state that its objective is to reach peace with Israel, establish a Palestinian state that would exist alongside Israel, etc.

You're logic is flawed because you assume that the charter is in any way official.

Read this below, or search for some material yourself.

Middle East: Understanding Hamas

And for the record, Hamas has accepted peace with Israel on the '67 borders, this is recognition. Furthermore, they have also accepted any peace negotiated by the PLO and voted for and agreed on in a referendum.

I'm not sure why I'm even trying here. You've already made up your mind. I'll bet you haven't even read the interview with their leader I provided, have you? How can you debate like this?
 
You're logic is flawed because you assume that the charter is in any way official.

I'm not going to get into conspiracy theory territory and accept the assumption that Hamas drafted a charter that was intended to be meaningless. Countries, organizations, corporations simply don't deliberately undertake meaningless exercises, much less when they are defining basic foundations of their purpose/authority in constitutions, charters, and missions.

As for the linked document, its authors are overly optimistic and premature in making judgments. For example, they wrote:

Hamas’s new understanding of itself has gone hand in hand with more pragmatic political visions. Reading only the charter, one could easily conclude that Hamas’s main goal is to establish a political system that would “conform to Islam,” this has not been borne out by the measures it has taken to strengthen state structures in Gaza.

Suddenly, as it continues to consolidate its power, Hamas has adopted a posture on Gaza's women that is more consistent with Hamas' charter. The authors' blunder is to assume that because Hamas doesn't implement all of its agenda immediately, Hamas is pragmatic. That's a common blunder. There is more often than not a lag between when a party/entity gains power, consolidates power, and then implements its full agenda. Even in Iran, it took several years following Ayatollah Khomenei seizure of power for the regime to consolidate its grip on that country and then translate large parts of its radical agenda into that country's laws, its institutions, etc.
 
I'm not going to get into conspiracy theory territory and accept the assumption that Hamas drafted a charter that was intended to be meaningless. Countries, organizations, corporations simply don't deliberately undertake meaningless exercises, much less when they are defining basic foundations of their purpose/authority in constitutions, charters, and missions.

Yes but Hamas didn't even create the Charter and if you know anything about charters born through resistance then you'll know that the end results often don't relate to the charter. Take the IRA for example; their charter called for (I'm not sure on all the details) the British to be wiped from Northern Ireland. We can see clearly what happened there.

I find it strange that you mention conspiracy theories when your view that the Charter is in any way an official document is itself a conspiracy theory. I've provided plenty of supporting evidence and you have supplied none bar the weak claim about the clamp-down on women, which I have already shown to be weak at best (and which I'll address again below) when we consider nearly all surrounding countries treat their women worse. It's an extremely weak position but you are under the impression that it is somehow unshakable.

As for the linked document, its authors are overly optimistic and premature in making judgments. For example, they wrote:
Hamas’s new understanding of itself has gone hand in hand with more pragmatic political visions. Reading only the charter, one could easily conclude that Hamas’s main goal is to establish a political system that would “conform to Islam,” this has not been borne out by the measures it has taken to strengthen state structures in Gaza.

Suddenly, as it continues to consolidate its power, Hamas has adopted a posture on Gaza's women that is more consistent with Hamas' charter*. The authors' blunder is to assume that because Hamas doesn't implement all of its agenda immediately, Hamas is pragmatic. That's a common blunder. There is more often than not a lag between when a party/entity gains power, consolidates power, and then implements its full agenda. Even in Iran, it took several years following Ayatollah Khomenei seizure of power for the regime to consolidate its grip on that country and then translate large parts of its radical agenda into that country's laws, its institutions, etc.

*That is more consistent with Islamic law, not their charter (possibly their charter also but to make that connection is simply dishonest when I and others have provided you with plenty of contrary evidence), is what you should have said.

You haven't even considered anything else. As I said before, you have made up your mind based on prefixed misconceptions.

HRW:The Hamas government, trying to shore up its image as an Islamic reform movement in the face of challenges from more radical Islamist groups, is consolidating its social control by upping its efforts to "Islamize" Gaza.

The Danger of an Islamized Gaza | Human Rights Watch

This is only happening because they don't have the power, the means, or the freedom to operate without being targeted for assassination. Attributing their crackdown simply to the charter is, as I previously stated, dishonest.

Your opinion is quite simply a conspiracy theory that is unsupported by evidence. Speculation and nothing more.
 
Since don seems to insist on ignoring me once again and is also ignoring legitimate points raised in expand's link like the following:

As early as 2003, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal pointed out that the charter “should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference” for the movement.

I figure I should just point to a source explicitly attesting to the largely irrelevant status of the charter:

BBC - Today

About halfway through you get to the part where the person they cite is discussing Hamas and its practices. In the OP you just have to look at the examples to see there is not really much here of note. The most serious restrictions are requiring women to wear the hijab in courts and public schools. There were some other serious restrictions, but these were more concerned with public decency and so calling them restrictions on women would be disingenuous.

In general, however, what I am seeing are rather recent restrictions that also seem to be accompanied by blatant acts of illegality like gunmen burning down buildings. Given recent events I concluded these were connected with a strengthening of the hardliners brought on by Israeli policies.

Nothing suggests to me this is anything but that.
 
Yes but Hamas didn't even create the Charter and if you know anything about charters born through resistance then you'll know that the end results often don't relate to the charter.

As noted previously, I'm not going to get into conspiracy theory territory. The charter simply did not appear out of spontaneous combustion. The process by which Hamas developed its charter e.g., specific authors assigned to translate Hamas' principles into a working document, editing and consultations, etc., to produce the text aimed at guiding the organization does not mean that the charter is strictly the intellectual property of the authors and not Hamas. Moreover, such a situation is far from unique.

In any case, if the charter is obsolete (and it isn't), Hamas can take a number of steps to reflect that situation. Short of complete repudiation or replacement of the Charter, Hamas can limit its modifications to various provisions.

To date, the only thing some senior Hamas leaders have done is to argue that the Charter does not define all of the group's ideology. In other words, there are non-charter documents/precedents that also provide insight into Hamas' ideology. I have no disagreement with that. My argument has never been that the Charter is the sole source that explains every thing about Hamas. My point is that the Charter remains highly relevant and provides insight into the group's ideology. The latest example of repression of Gaza's women highlights one aspect of the Charter that remains relevant, in that case, Hamas is enacting policy that is consistent with its previously expressed view on the role of women.
 
Last edited:
You're already in conspiracy theory territory. You made the claim that they use the charter, the burden of proof is obviously on you. You haven't produced any.

You can continue to keep on claiming they do if you want mate but anyone who can read the thread can see that your position is not a supported nor stable one.

I've already shown you and told you the steps they have taken and you continue to play this circular game.

Asking someone to "prove they don't use the charter" is a bit like asking someone to "prove they're not a racist". You can't prove a negative, therefore, as I stated before, the burden of proof is clearly on you or anyone else claiming the charter has been adopted or enforced. You clearly have not supplied anything, just an extremely loose connecting that even HRW says is due to Islamic Law and a crackdown for fear of far more extreme Islamic groups gaining control, and they mentioned nothing about Hamas's charter.

I don't know what else to say don. Do you want me to continue this pointless back and forth with you?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom