egg

And the text that I've referred to, and the large document I've linked to, comes from ITIC who are an Israeli based research group with links to the IDF. I think it reasonable to assume that they wouldn't translate in favour of Hamas. Hamas want land. They want Jews to live a life of misery. You can't want people to live any sort of life if you apparently want them dead.

Where's this bit in the article I posted? "The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18)". There is a world of difference between killing those infidels that Hamas are in conflict with, and all Jews. Don't get me wrong, the 7/10 attacks and the subsequent threat suggests that Hamas see any Jew/Israeli as fair game. Anyways, no point in getting bogged down on this. We both agree that Hamas are evil. What we won't agree on is that the Israeli government are evil in a different way.

Yep, the charter was a bit of an eye opener on the culture and mentality. Not aligned with mine, but that is what it is. Yep, it's clear that it wants all the land back. And yep, it's clear that Hamas expects everyone to join the fight... having voted them in once upon a time, I wander if Hamas would argue that everyone should be cool with being a human shield as a way of joining the fight? Possibly. Regardless, it doesn't call for the death of all Jews.

Yep. Conflict with the infidels - not the death of all Jews. Jihad against the Israeli state - not the death of all Jews. Nowhere does it call for the death of all Jews. What it actually says is that all Jews are "worthy of only humiliation and lives of misery" - Living a life of misery is not death. You'll find it there if you read it, but you won't find a call to kill all Jews - something which would be an impossible task even if Hamas had Israel's military machine and their will to use it.

I last saw him a couple of years ago in Shirley. Same suit. I've never seen someone look so scruffy in a suit.

Interesting. This calls for jihad against Israel (and it's eradication). That's not the Jewish people. https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/pdf/PDF_06_032_2.pdf

Very good 🤣😂🤣

The only answer is the lovely theory that the Palestinians and the Israeli's have a state each and leave the other alone. The problem is that neither of them want that.

The charter is Hamas. Hamas are not all Palestinians. Benji was not referring to Hamas. He said "If you don't believe that there is a significant population of people who want to kill all Jews come what may, then by extension you believe there could be a solution. I don't see how anyone can sensibly argue that the current Israeli actions will contribute to a long term solution".

I've answered the question directed at you. Their 2006 manifesto is clear. So is their later accord. Have a read. If you say that they changed their mind before their 2017 accord, crack on and post a link please.

I think it was their 2017 or so accord. They were elected in 2006 based on a softer position, then went loopier in or around 2017. Without the usuals piping up about equivalence and whataboutery, one can't ignore that the Israeli settlement policies and general behaviour in West Bank seems to suggest that they ain't keen on allowing a Palestinian state to live in peace either.

Is it our role to instill regime change in other countries? It seems that Iran only becomes it supplies cash and weapons to others. The plight if the Iranian people is different to the plight of the Palestinians.

How do you think that an uprising in Iran would end for the Iranian people? He says "The people on the ground will then take care of the rest". If only it were that easy - look at Syria. I also think that we have a fusion of two motivations. The Iranian one, and the Palestinian resistance/vengeance one. Addressing the former without focus on the Israeli policies and activities which (in part at least) underpin the latter, ain't gonna get us very far.

Thanks. That's an interesting iece. Point 3 is very interesting in terms of his take on the religious fundamentalism which he feels underpins this from the Iranian side. Although that addresses the Iranian motivation to fund a Palestinian fight, it overlooks the Palestinian motivation. I don't buy for one moment that the Palestinians are fighting for the reappearance of the Mahdi rather than independence and release from oppression. His proposed solution is regime change in Israel, essentially brought about by international ostracisation of Iran, prompting an uprising in Iran. Basically that'll be Syria on a bigger scale. Is that a sensible solution? He also says "The IRI have not changed their behaviour one iota in 44 years. Sanctioning them is like being attacked by a group of zombies and politely asking them if they would consider a vegan diet". Is the same not true of the Israel government in terms of UN resolutions re settlements and the treatment of the Palestinians? As interesting as it is, it's one man's take.

Can't disagree with that Hypo. The issue is, and as Whelk raised, whether they'll blame Israel or Hamas. I can't help but think that events like today's attack on the refugee camp (that, to take out one man) will leave them blaming Israel and seeing Hamas as their hope of salvation. Who knows. Clusterfuck doesn't come close.

It's only going one way sadly. Israel won't row backwards, and neither will Palestinian supporters. Worrying times.

Indeed. The sad thing is that I suspect that many want to see Hamas gone, but obviously not at the price they're paying. At the end it this, Gaza and Hamas won't exist in the form that it was before 7/10, but christ knows what happens then.

Strange points. 1 - the behaviour of the Hamas loons on 7/10 has nothing to do with the remaining (vast majority of) Palestinians being stuck with a "government" that they didn't vote for! 2 - the lack of Gaza democracy doesn't mean that Gaza people who would like a democracy should have to go to Egypt and / or Egypt have to take them. Jeez.

You make SoG's point for him. A huge chunk of Palestinians weren't of voting age in 2006. They did not vote for Hamas, so did not vote for the breakdown of Gaza democracy. They are not vote for what they have.

Why should Egypt take Palestinians? Why should the Palestinians have to go to Egypt? Perhaps it would be a tad better for the Palestinians if they lived under less oppression...even moderate Israeli's seem to acknowledge that Palestinians have been treated like shit.

I make no comment about SoG - I'm playing posts, not posters. As an aside ,there are a number of anti semitic (now racist) slurs on this thread from posters who have more class than to do that. On your main point, we must as a society allow peaceful protest, whatever the subject, and the government policy. It's for the police to deal with those acting illegally, but my main point remains.

I think it comes down to the intention of those organising, and the majority of the attendees. If that is to stand there holding a Palestinian flag and a placard saying "free Palestine" or similar, then there's no hate on that. If some loons then shout "death to Israel" or similar, then you have a hate element, but I don't accept that changes the nature of the protest. I take your point on numbers. It's impossible to quantify for me. However, if we start to see peaceful protests becoming generally aggressive, unpleasant, anti semitic, etc, then that's an issue to address. SoG has hit the nail in the head up there about the lack of balance in the discussion, and in the labelling. The government are throwing fuel on that fire. Wrongly labelling peaceful protests mean that we continue this issue of wrongly labelling peaceful protesters or objectors.

"I don't like what you're saying, so I'll imply that you're a racist. Bollox to my islamaphobia though".

Stay on topic Hypo. This ain't EDL. A few hate filed nutters in a group of peaceful protesters doesn't make the protests 'hate marches'.

Don't confuse the hateful behaviour of some individuals in attendance at the protests with the non hateful nature of the protests.