New charter, old politics

Israel/Palestine
on 57 Comments

The recent unveiling of Hamas’ new charter has evoked a wide range of reactions and discussions among those interested in the question of Palestine. Analysts are already busy explaining what implications this could have on the peace process, and on the conflict in general.

The attention surrounding the announcement is understandable. For all intents and purposes this is a momentous occasion. Changes of this caliber in internal Palestinian politics have been exceedingly rare. Some hope that this new charter could perhaps breathe some life into the political process after years of stagnation.

Without a doubt, the new charter does bring with it some needed changes, such as the distinction between Israelis occupying Palestine and the Jewish people as a whole, as well as the interpretation of the struggle in Palestine through an anti-colonial lens, rather than through a religious one. However, the “change” that seems to get most of the attention is Hamas’ acceptance of the two state solution along the 1967 borders. This has been cited as a major departure for the movement, and a possible sign of “moderation”.

On this particular point, I must disagree. When it comes to visions for political resolution, the updated charter is merely catching up to the party’s current politics, rather than it ushering in a change of policy.

The extent to which Hamas has shifted its politics over the last 13 years remains mostly unappreciated and overlooked. If we are to understand the roots of this new charter, and how its political resolution is a continuum -not a departure- of current party policy, a brief look at Hamas’ history and change over the years is required:

Four years into the second Intifada, Palestinian society underwent a phase of fatigue. No political achievements could be named; it was quite the opposite, living conditions had deteriorated for most of the population, with 63% of households witnessing at least a 50% cut in income. Poverty rates consequently rose sharply. 

It is in this context that Hamas found itself facing considerable political challenges. Opinion polls revealed that Hamas was facing a legitimacy crisis, with its support having dropped significantly since the beginning of the second Intifada, meanwhile, the Fatah movement, their main rivals, witnessed an increase in support.

Contrary to the dogmatic ideological image Hamas is portrayed with in mainstream discourse, Hamas — and the Muslim Brotherhood in general — have shown pragmatism in their politics, and an understanding of realpolitik when it comes to the survival of the movement. This was seen time after time with the Muslim Brotherhood and their navigation of the minefield of Egyptian politics, especially following the Free Officers revolution of 1952, and the subsequent shift in policy and ideology later under Sadat.

Similarly in the case of Hamas, this pragmatism can be clearly seen through their own shift following their dwindling popularity. As early as January 2004, Hamas leaders signaled that they were willing to adopt a different strategy when it came to ending the conflict. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, a founder and spiritual leader of the movement, stated that the movement was prepared to drop its armed resistance in return for what he called a “true and genuine state” in the areas comprising the West Bank, Gaza strip and East Jerusalem. This statement however, was not exclusive to the ideological and spiritual leadership of the movement. Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, the political leader of Hamas at the time, made similar remarks, and offered a renewable 10 year truce if Israel were to withdraw from the occupied territories leading up to the establishment of a Palestinian state. 

This was a huge shift in the political rhetoric of Hamas, bringing it closer to the mainstream PLO position on conflict resolution: The two state solution based on the 1949 armistice line. This was demonstrated on the ground with Hamas competing in the Palestinian municipal elections in 2004. This was seen as a major precedent, as Hamas had previously rejected the Oslo agreement and any political process that resulted from it. This included election campaigns, which all operate under the framework of the Palestinian Authority which is a direct result of Oslo. Taking this a step further, Hamas decided in mid 2005 that it would also take part in the Legislative Elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).

Going even beyond that, Hamas dropped all mention of the destruction of Israel from its electoral campaign charter, as well as abandoned suicide bombing altogether as a tactic a few months later.

By that point, the (in)famous Hamas foundation charter, which is criticized for having the destruction of the Israeli state as one of its goals, was already defunct. This was officially confirmed in a 2010 interview with incumbent Hamas chairman, Khalid Meshal. In the interview, he was asked about the charter and its relevance to the party at the time. His reply was “[T]hat it is a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons.” 

In an attempt to gauge whether these statements were still representative of the movement’s politics, in early 2016, I interviewed Mr. Mohammed Totah, a member of parliament representing Hamas. His response to this was that, when it comes to a political resolution, the official position of the movement remains the 2006 prisoners’ paper.

The June 28, 2006 prisoners’ paper, The National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners, was a shared document drafted by Palestinian prisoners of all factions in Israeli jails in an attempt to reconcile Fatah and Hamas and formulate a unified position with which to face Israel. The very first goal of the prisoners’ paper states the following:

1- The Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora seek and struggle to liberate their land and remove the settlements and evacuate the settlers and remove the apartheid and annexation and separation wall and to achieve their right to freedom, return and independence and to exercise their right to self-determination, including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967…”

This was hardly the first time Hamas had agreed to a state based on the 1967 borders, and it would not be the last. Khaled Meshal reaffirmed this position once again in an interview in mid 2016, stating that Hamas

“..accepted a joint Arab and Palestine program, based on 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital….”

Behind its fiery rhetoric, then, the official Hamas position for quite a while has been the two state solution. Its transformation from a spoiler to a player is frequently ignored, perhaps out of a misunderstanding of internal Palestinian politics, or perhaps because maintaining a certain image of Hamas is more beneficial to some parties.

The main feature separating Hamas’ two state solution from the PLO’s is the question of refugees. Hamas clearly states that refugees have an unconditional right of return. Meanwhile the PLO stresses finding “a just solution to the refugee issue” without ever specifying what this looks like, or if it includes a return at all.

Despite what Israel has been claiming, then, Hamas has been open to the idea of the two state solution for a considerable period of time. Yet this is also a red herring. The PLO’s acceptance of the two state solution has not brought it any closer to reality after decades of negotiation. Palestinians were not any closer to achieving peace before the creation of Hamas, which is a relatively new addition to the conflict, than they are now. Israel has negotiated with those who have recognized it, yet has refused to reciprocate this recognition. The one common factor here is Israeli intransigence, and its continued expansionism and colonialism.

Israeli pretexts and excuses are many. The old charter is only one, and I suspect new ones will arise with time. But one thing remains for sure: Israel is the party in control and holding all of the cards, it alone has the key to achieving a negotiated solution should it only choose to. Looking at Israeli policy since the beginning of the peace process, it should be clear what that choice has been.

About Fathi Nemer

Fathi Nemer is a specialist on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and activist based in Palestine. He currently works at the Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies. You can follow him on Twitter @amaninthesun

Other posts by .


Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. Mayhem
    May 8, 2017, 8:37 am

    “However, the “change” that seems to get most of the attention is Hamas’ acceptance of the two state solution along the 1967 borders. ”
    I understand that in the ‘new’ charter Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.
    This hardly signifies that Hamas’ is willing to accept a two state solution in any form.

    • eljay
      May 8, 2017, 9:30 am

      || Mayhem: … I understand that in the ‘new’ charter Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. This hardly signifies that Hamas’ is willing to accept a two state solution in any form. ||

      I agree:

      … Palestine, with its historical known borders from Jordan’s river in the east to the mediterranean sea in the west, from Ras Al Nakora in the north to Om Al Rashrash in the south, this land is Palestinian and a united regional unit. … Hamas refuses any alternative which is not the whole liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. … there is no alternative to the creation of the Palestinian state, with its sovereignty on the entire Palestinian land with Jerusalem as its capital. …

      • Mayhem
        May 8, 2017, 9:55 am

        Hamas terms it liberation. I think the correct word is subjugation.

      • eljay
        May 8, 2017, 10:06 am

        || Mayhem: Hamas terms it liberation. I think the correct word is subjugation. ||

        Hamas appears to be as obsessed with an “Islamic State” in geographic Palestine as Israel is with a “Jewish State” in same. I object to both constructs.

      • echinococcus
        May 8, 2017, 12:14 pm

        Eljay,

        You can agree all you want, it does accept a compromise in the form of two states trying to coexist along the 1967 invasion line, while it correctly considers that its people’s right to sovereignty over Palestine is inalienable. Doesn’t take rocket science to understand that.

        In fact, it is so elementary that one would be justified to suspect that those who say they don’t get it have some interest in not understanding.

      • echinococcus
        May 8, 2017, 12:24 pm

        Eljay,

        No one likes the idea of theocratic states; in this case perhaps the worst result of the Zionist invasion. Palestine was known as probably the most secular and most open of the countries in its area. Oppression, theft, misery, emigration of the more privileged and direct encouragement by the US and the Zionist entity have made it to a religious wreck. The secular resistance has been decimated and no one knows if and when it is to revive.

        You say you object. Object away, Palestinians are the owners of the place and it is up to them to decide about that. Not you or me. Meanwhile, Hamas is the only movement of any relevant size that is not entirely controlled by the Zionists.

      • eljay
        May 8, 2017, 12:55 pm

        || echinococcus: … it does accept a compromise … ||

        Except in the several sentences in which it doesn’t.

        || … Doesn’t take rocket science to understand that. In fact, it is so elementary that one would be justified to suspect that those who say they don’t get it have some interest in not understanding. ||

        And I do suspect you of having some interest in not understanding what is clearly written in the Hamas charter. Thank you for justifying my suspicions.

        || … You say you object. Object away … ||

        Don’t mind if I do! :-)

    • diasp0ra
      May 8, 2017, 12:55 pm

      @Mayhem, eljay

      “Point 20: Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

      So while they don’t see it as legitimate or just, they are willing to follow the national consensus, which is the 1967 borders. How they justify that ideologically is up to them. This is an effort to save face. This is why it sounds so contradictory.

      But like I have shown multiple times in the article, Hamas has been willing to settle for 2 states for a while now.

      • eljay
        May 8, 2017, 1:31 pm

        || diasp0ra: … So while they don’t see it as legitimate or just, they are willing to follow the national consensus, which is the 1967 borders. … ||

        In which case they didn’t need to follow up their acceptance of ’67 borders with “There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.” But they did.

      • diasp0ra
        May 8, 2017, 1:41 pm

        @Eljay

        But it’s the other way round, they followed up their first “fully sovereign” with the national consensus issue. If it was an open/shut rejection they would not follow up with the national consensus sentences. They wouldn’t have mentioned it at all.

        Or if they were adamant about mentioning it, it would be the other way around, no?

        Again, I disagree with you, but even if we agreed on your point, the wording of the charter is irrelevant next to their actual policy which has been accommodating of two states for a while.

      • eljay
        May 8, 2017, 2:35 pm

        || diasp0ra: @Eljay But it’s the other way round, they followed up their first “fully sovereign” with the national consensus issue. … ||

        National consensus on ’67 borders is in point #20 and it’s followed up by another “fully sovereign” in point #27.

        || … Again, I disagree with you … ||

        And that’s OK. :-)

        || … but even if we agreed on your point, the wording of the charter is irrelevant next to their actual policy which has been accommodating of two states for a while. ||

        I wouldn’t dismiss as irrelevant anything in the PNAC charter simply because they haven’t gotten around to do it yet.

        My point (or perhaps a point) is that I – a fairly average person – read the charter and understand it to be a statement of dedication to the idea of ultimately:
        – “liberating” all of geographic Palestine; and
        – establishing in it an Islamic state.

        IMO, it would take very little effort by Zionists or other interested parties to convince a Western world full of average people of the same thing. If that’s not what Hamas intends to do, IMO they have shot themselves in the foot by creating a charter in which they state that that’s exactly what they intend to do.

      • echinococcus
        May 9, 2017, 8:57 am

        Diaspora,

        So while they don’t see it as legitimate or just, they are willing to follow the national consensus, which is the 1967 borders. How they justify that ideologically is up to them. This is an effort to save face. This is why it sounds so contradictory.

        No ideological justification is needed, as this compromise is being extorted by brute force.

        Allowing squatters to stay for a while in exchange for some nominal rent is done sometimes in matters of housing. Even if the squatters apply violence, you don’t just give them the deed but you may want to let them stay if they pay some rent, etc. It is also often done when trying to manage occupiers.

        What is harder to justify is that there is no sign and there has been no serious evidence that Zionists of any flavor would ever accept a compromise in any shape or form. All these compromise proposals are being extended unilaterally, with no interlocutor on the Zionist side for 70 years now.

  2. David Gerald Fincham
    May 8, 2017, 11:12 am

    It is strange that the author has not given a link to the new Document of General Principles and Policies, or quoted directly from it. Here it is: http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies

    To my mind, it is a beautiful and moving document, with the exception of article 25: ” Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.”

    Yes, armed resistance is legitimate. But adopting it as a strategic choice is foolish. Israel has a mighty military machine up to and including nuclear bombs. Armed resistance will achieve nothing except more dead Palestinians. South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Civil Rights in the USA have shown that non-violent resistance is much more effective.

    • YoniFalic
      May 8, 2017, 11:57 am

      In general, Palestinians have used armed resistance tactically and not strategically. Most people don’t understand the distinction between a tactic and a strategy. I am interested in seeing the original Arabic of Article 25.

      Without armed resistance there would still be Apartheid in RSA, Algeria would still be an intrinsic department of France (but Algerian Muslims unlike Algerian Jews would not be French citizens), the invaders would not be gradually leaving Northern Ireland, Zionists would be eliminating Palestinians with gradual genocide, and there would probably still be Jim Crow in the USA.

      [The last is arguable because the USA wanted to lead the Free World and Jim Crow looked too much like the German Nazi Nuremberg Laws.]

      • gamal
        May 8, 2017, 1:29 pm

        “[The last is arguable because the USA wanted to lead the Free World and Jim Crow looked too much like the German Nazi Nuremberg Laws.]”

        this is an often overlooked point, Imperial Great Britain had no official colour bar internally because it causes too much hassle with the lesser races if one is going to run a global empire but

        when the USA sent an army in ’42 segregation had to be unofficial, the British are past masters of this game.

        “If some of these restrictions were imposed by—or under pressure from—the US military authorities, it would be wrong to conclude that they were imposed on a unanimously unwilling public. In Somerset, Mrs May, a vicar’s wife, drew up a ‘six-point code which would result in the ostracism of American coloured troops if they ever go to the village.’ This code, which echoes some of the recommendations made by Dowler, stipulates:
        1. If a local woman keeps a shop and a coloured soldier enters, she must serve him, but she must do it as quickly as possible and indicate as quickly as possible that she does not desire him to come there again.
        2. If she is in a cinema and notices a coloured soldier next to her, she moves to another seat immediately.
        3. If she is walking on the pavement and a coloured soldier is coming towards her, she crosses to the other pavement.
        4. If she is in a shop and a coloured soldier enters, she leaves as soon as she has made her purchase or before that, if she is in a queue.
        5. White women, of course, must have no social relationship with coloured troops.
        6. On no account must coloured troops be invited to the homes of white women. (Sunday Pictorial 1942)
        Every point of this code—drawn up for a hypothetical eventuality (‘if they ever go to the village’)—concerns the mixing of black men and white women, suggesting the significance of the sexual motive behind segregation, the white fear/fantasy of miscegenation”

        miscegenation is no fantasy it is an activity replete with all the gratification one can dream of.

        “Any coloured soldier who reads this may rest assured that there is no colour bar in this country and that he is as welcome as any other Allied soldier.

        He will find that the vast majority of people have nothing but repugnance for the narrow-minded uninformed prejudices expressed by the vicar’s wife.

        There is—and will be—no persecution of coloured people in Britain. (Sunday Pictorial 1942; italics in original)
        And indeed, there were cases of small but heroic cases of resistance to ‘the prejudice which certain white soldiers are intent upon imposing,’ as Roi Ottley was keen to point out. He goes on to tell of an incident in which
        US soldiers boarded a bus in London and tried to eject two Negro soldiers from seats they already occupied.

        ‘You can’t do that sort of thing here,’ a woman conductor protested. ‘We won’t have it. Either you stand or off you go.’

        They stood. (Ottley 1942: 6-7)
        Ottley also refers to the more implicit opposition to Jim Crow that is suggested by the fact that ‘[e]very Monday morning the newspapers are filled with reports of Negro activity with the British—such as hikes and picnics. Negroes are seen at churches, groups of them even taking over the choir loft on occasion’ ”

        both from

        http://www.bulldozia.com/projects/index.php?id=293

      • David Gerald Fincham
        May 8, 2017, 1:31 pm

        “The invaders would not be leaving Northern Ireland” ???????

    • echinococcus
      May 8, 2017, 12:42 pm

      Fincham,

      You’re correct in that there are times when effective action is impossible. If, however, you imagine for a second that the gains in South Africa and Ireland (and India, in fact…) were achieved without the application of an enormous amount of violence and suffering, you would be a total idiot living on some remote planet. “Mighty military machines” have been defeated. Things do change, and the US is becoming shaky. It is fully possible that the Zionist entity will end up like the Nazi, or the French in Algeria.

      See, a lot of people don’t seem to be too impressed by the threat of death (or maiming, or jail, or dispossession etc.) when they get collectively fixated on some idea of dignity and justice. You can try appeasement all you want –after 70 years they are still demanding justice as they did at the start. After all, any moron has already figured out that putting your life at risk is putting your life at risk, without you having to tell them that. There is a reason why resistance is legitimate.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 8, 2017, 12:44 pm

      thanks david, i added the link as an embed to the opening sentence.

    • eljay
      May 8, 2017, 12:45 pm

      || David Gerald Fincham: … To my mind, it is a beautiful and moving document … ||

      I find it flowery and obsessed with Islam. And I find it odd (to say the least) that a document which tries very hard (too hard?) to say it has no issues with Jews manages to omit naming Jews / Jewish in the sections covering the religions of Palestine and the attachments to Jerusalem:

      … Palestine is the Holy Land … It is the Muslims’ first Qiblah and the destination of the journey performed at night by Prophet Muhammad … It is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Its soil contains the remains of thousands of Prophets, Companions and Mujahidin. … Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Its religious, historic and civilizational status is fundamental to the Arabs, Muslims and the world at large. Its Islamic and Christian holy places belong exclusively to the Palestinian people and to the Arab and Islamic Ummah. …

      Just my 37¢ (CDN = 2¢ USD). :-)

      • echinococcus
        May 9, 2017, 9:21 am

        Eljay,

        Too Moslem to your taste, eh? That is what you get when you murder the secular opposition and impose a puppet police of collaborators.

        Thanks to the Zionists’ efforts, the religious, obscurantist faction is the only game in town. But seeing that it is found wanting on the matter of antisemitism, secularism and respect toward the principle of fraternity with the occupiers (and the fact that they are inexplicably reluctant to just giving the deed to the place to the Zionist invader like the PLO did), perhaps it would be a good idea to scrape altogether any remaining Palestinian resistance and let Western liberaloids, tribal or otherwise, manage all opposition together with the Quislings?

      • eljay
        May 9, 2017, 10:12 am

        || echinococcus: Eljay, Too Moslem to your taste, eh? … ||

        Secular and democratic states shouldn’t be Islamic any more than they should be Jewish. So, yes, it’s too “Moslem” for my taste.

        But thanks for clarifying that in addition to dismantling Israel and expelling Jews from geographic Palestine you favour the establishment of an Islamic state in that region.

      • echinococcus
        May 9, 2017, 11:18 am

        Eljay,

        If those words were what you really understood from a clear advocacy of asking the Palestinian people before disposing of their assets, you’d be a total idiot, which you are not: you are exposing yourself as a propagandist.
        Hamas, mainly a creation of the Zionists, never was “secular and democratic”. It still is the only game in town as resistance.
        Your disregard of the Palestinian people’s effective support isn’t so very “democratic”, either.

      • eljay
        May 9, 2017, 11:49 am

        || echinococcus: Eljay, If those words were what you really understood from a clear advocacy of asking the Palestinian people before disposing of their assets, you’d be a total idiot, which you are not … ||

        Gosh, thanks! It’s nice to know I’m not a total idiot. :-)

        || … you are exposing yourself as a propagandist. … ||

        You’ve figured it out, Sherlock! I’m a propagandist who advocates:
        – an end to Israeli colonialism and Zionism’s religion-supremacist “Jewish State” project;
        – the establishment of two secular and democratic states along Partition borders;
        – the repatriation of refugees to their respective states and/or compensation in lieu;
        – accountability for past and on-going (war) crimes committed; and
        – the right of citizens of the two states to democratically decide (self-determine) their futures and the futures of their states (incl., if they wish to do so, merging them into a single secular and democratic state).

        Whew! It feels good to get those dirty secrets off my chest.

      • echinococcus
        May 9, 2017, 2:13 pm

        Eljay,

        We’re agreed then. You want all these nice things (which I fully agree are nice things) for both the owners of the sovereignty on all of Palestine and for the unauthorized intruders, without bothering to even ask permission from the owners. Once forced into whatever mold you imagine is right for them (ditto for the intruders), then you’ll grant them democracy. OK.

        You may properly be characterized as a propagandist for colonialist authoritarianism of the “liberal” variety. Just insisted until I get it in exceedingly clear language, you see.

      • eljay
        May 9, 2017, 2:52 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay, We’re agreed then. … ||

        Sure, if it’ll shut you up.

      • echinococcus
        May 9, 2017, 10:09 pm

        Eljay,

        No worries, I’ll remind you every time your colonial propaganda gets too oppressive.

      • eljay
        May 10, 2017, 8:29 am

        || echinococcus: Eljay, No worries, I’ll remind you every time your colonial propaganda gets too oppressive. ||

        So…it won’t shut you up. I guess we’re not agreed.

      • JustJessetr
        May 10, 2017, 11:11 pm

        @ Eljay and Echinosorus,

        Nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you both killed each other fighting over Hamas. Please continue.

      • talknic
        May 11, 2017, 12:04 am

        @ JustJessetr May 10, 2017, 11:11 pm

        “Nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you both killed each other fighting over Hamas. Please continue”

        Advocating murder over a discussion? WOW!!

        Thx for showing us the kind of person attracted by the continued Zionist colonization of Palestine

        Keep up the good work

      • eljay
        May 11, 2017, 7:12 am

        || JustaJester: @ Eljay and Echinosorus, Nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you both killed each other fighting over Hamas. … ||

        Nothing? Huh. Your lack of scope and imagination is truly pathetic.

      • Mooser
        May 11, 2017, 10:46 am

        “Nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you both killed each other fighting over Hamas” “JustJessetr”

        “Just Jesse T. Rosenfeld”, I strongly suggest you look at the comment rules.

      • Mooser
        May 11, 2017, 4:13 pm

        .” Your lack of scope and imagination is truly pathetic.”

        “Jesse” has a lack of scope and imagination? Why, he’s full of it:

        “Israeli’s wouldn’t leave the 1 state. They’d stay and try to work it out between themselves and Palestinians. And as soon as the first suicide bomber blows up a Passover seder, Israelis will say to the rest of the world, “See? We told you so!” And then they’ll take it all back and no one worth listening to will complain.” – “justjessetr” http://mondoweiss.net/profile/justjessetr/1/#sthash.OwbWpsmw.dpuf

        Yup, full of it.

      • eljay
        May 11, 2017, 5:15 pm

        || Mooser: … “Jesse” has a lack of scope and imagination? Why, he’s full of it … ||

        JustaSadSack said he can imagine no greater pleasure in his life than two nobodies on a web forum killing each other. He’s full of something alright, but it ain’t scope and imagination.

      • JustJessetr
        May 11, 2017, 5:20 pm

        LOL!!

      • eljay
        May 12, 2017, 7:30 am

        || JustJessetr: LOL!! ||

        No kidding, right?

      • Mooser
        May 12, 2017, 11:37 am

        “No kidding, right?”

        Nah, “Just jesse” was only joking. That’s just the way we talk.

    • gamal
      May 8, 2017, 1:47 pm

      “South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Civil Rights in the USA have shown that non-violent resistance is much more effective”

      Northern Ireland? please explain non-violent? i was near Liverpool st station in 92 when Northern Irish peaceful resistance vaporized the Baltic exchange, 3 killed 100 injured.

      Irish resistance was violent for 8 hundred years, they won the “races at castle bar” in the 1700’s, when some of the mighty British ran all the way to Tuam and Athlone and the mighty British sure look at them now.

      but yes the weak should submit “the fight is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift, but thats the way to bet”

      David put down that stone Goliath is fucking yuuuge.

    • Mooser
      May 8, 2017, 3:07 pm

      So the situation of the Palestinians is comparable to the struggle to
      extend Civil Rights to all American citizens, regardless of perceived “race”? Sure.

  3. Kay24
    May 8, 2017, 5:47 pm

    So the Palestinians are getting a show of support, but unfortunately from not a very credible source:

    Erdogan Blasts Israel, Calls on Muslims to Visit Al-Aqsa: Each Day Jerusalem Is Occupied Is Insult
    Erdogan says Trump shouldn’t move U.S. embassy to Jerusalem ■ Compares Israeli policies to apartheid ■ Israel: Human-rights violators shouldn’t lecture others

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/turkey/1.788018

  4. JustJessetr
    May 8, 2017, 10:53 pm

    Does this mean MW will no longer support Hamas? MW only supports a one-state solution.

    • talknic
      May 9, 2017, 9:28 am

      Does what mean JustJessetr? You forgot to mention.

    • JustJessetr
      May 9, 2017, 10:47 am

      Does Hamas’ new 2-state position mean that MW drops their support for Hamas?

      • Mooser
        May 9, 2017, 12:10 pm

        “Does Hamas’ new 2-state position mean that MW drops their support for Hamas?”

        Why ask, “JustJessetr”, when you can go to the “About” page and see for yourself.

        The list of supported organizations is right there. Along with the list of “only’s (“MW only supports a one-state solution.”)

      • JustJessetr
        May 9, 2017, 1:24 pm

        You better hope Hamas doesn’t cross your path then.

      • talknic
        May 11, 2017, 2:08 am

        Ooops

      • Mooser
        May 11, 2017, 4:19 pm

        “You better hope Hamas doesn’t cross your path then.”

        Uh, why, “justjessetr”? Does Hamas work for you?

      • gamal
        May 11, 2017, 5:53 pm

        “You better hope Hamas doesn’t”

        what ask you “why are you persecuting us”, what the fuck did we do but live in our fucking homes you depraved bastard

      • Annie Robbins
        May 24, 2017, 4:58 pm

        i have not been made aware this site has an “only supports a one-state solution” policy. i think you’re mistaken jj.

      • gamal
        May 24, 2017, 5:21 pm

        “i have not been made aware”

        we always the last to know, one state you say, the Natural State? i hope so. as explained by Lonchen Rabjam in “the precious treasury of the way of abiding”, you going to feel so good but then you knew that you would.

    • JustJessetr
      May 25, 2017, 5:04 pm

      @ Annie: “i have not been made aware this site has an “only supports a one-state solution” policy. i think you’re mistaken jj.”

      Please provide a link to where you (the editors) explicitly support a two-state solution. I don’t have to be right, but I’ve ALWAYS seen the 1SS being championed on MW.

      I’d also like to see, because I predict you’ll claim you never championed Hamas either, a link to an article where you (the editors) reject them.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 25, 2017, 7:28 pm

        Please provide a link to where you (the editors) explicitly support a two-state solution

        i’m just speaking for myself here: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/the-trap/

        i’d be supportive of any resolution palestinians accepted that resulted in their equal rights and representation. as an activist, it’s not for me to approve or disapprove their decisions concerning a 2 state solution. but as a logical common sense person, i don’t think 2 states is an option and as a result i don’t spend much energy on it, or any for that matter.

      • oldgeezer
        May 25, 2017, 9:32 pm

        @justjessetr

        You are full of bs justjesse

        I would like to see a link to anywhere you have championed a true 2SS solution with two full and equal states.

        I would like to see a link to anywhere you have rejected the zionist racism as embodied by the death to arabs chants.

        I would like to see a link to anywhere you have recognized Palestinians as a people.

        I would like to see a link to anywhere you have rejected the theft of land dunam by dunam by the criminals in charge of the GoI.

        I would like to see a link to anywhere you concede that the GoI has argued in front of the Israeli High Court of Justice that the territory was occuppied only to now argue it’s all theirs.

        I would like to see anywhere you have rejected settler violence and the destruction and desecration of religious sites of other religions.

        You have many demands. You give nothing. You are a terrorist supporter. You support criminal scum. You offer nothing. You are worth even less than you offer.

        I am surprised annie entertained your pretense at any honesty or morality.

      • Mooser
        May 25, 2017, 9:37 pm

        “Mondoweiss editors select content for the site on the basis of our shared commitment to news professionalism as well as justice for Palestinians. We do not have a single editorial position on specific issues, but aim to build a diverse online community, with special focus on viewpoints generally ignored by large media outlets. Writing published on Mondoweiss represents the views of its authors and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the site or its editors.” “About page” : http://mondoweiss.net/about-mondoweiss/#sthash.R7JsjOPJ.dpuf

        Do you need somebody to read it out loud to you, “Jesse”? Would a synopsis help?

      • oldgeezer
        May 25, 2017, 9:47 pm

        @justjessetr

        For a half century the world has tried engagement, talk and support with Israel and criminal zionists. The 2SS has been the objective. The result is less land for a 2SS and increased criminal zionist demands for the entirety of the land. At best offer is less than a state for Palestinians. Israelis and criminal zionists insist Palestinians must not enjoy equal rights in their own land. They must settle for less. And they must thank their masters for that. zionism is racism. It grew out of the same philosophy that spawned other 20th century forms of racism which the majority recognize as vile. It needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Along with the other pond scum of history.

  5. Mooser
    May 9, 2017, 3:20 pm

    “You better hope Hamas doesn’t cross your path then”

    You didn’t read the “About” page, did you?

  6. talknic
    May 11, 2017, 2:09 am

    A few things to keep in mind:

    Hamas was formed in 1987after
    90 years of Zionist colonization since 1897 http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank
    39 years of Israeli occupation since 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap
    20 years of occupation and illegal annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem in 1967 http://wp.me/pDB7k-1gM
    Today (2015) in response to more than a century of Zionist colonization

    Hamas is only one of the Palestinian political parties

    Hamas does not at the moment represent the Palestinian people in so called ‘negotiations’ with Israel. Negotiations with Israel only mean Palestinians forgoing more of their legal rights so Israel can benefit. They are not under any legal, moral, ethical or logically obligation to forgo ANY of their rights, not even to a Jewish State

    Recognition isn’t mandatory http://tinyurl.com/n6ftzn

    There’s no legal obligation for political parties or states to recognize any state in order for the Israeli Occupation to end. Calls by the UNSC for Israel to end occupation do not require recognition by Palestine or any of its political parties. Nor do they require negotiations whereby Palestinians have to forgo any of their legal rights

Leave a Reply