Does the Hamas Charter call for genocide?

[Richard_Parker]

The charter of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is a deeply anti-semitic document, and is certainly against having any Jewish state in the region (in much the same way the Likud Charter is against having any Palestinian state in the region). Many writers go further and declare that it is a genocidal document. This is a common debating point in Israel-Palestine discussions.

But is it genocidal?

Those making this claim rely on Article VII, which states:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

My question is whether this quotation from a hadith inserted at the end of Article VII is reasonably interpreted as a call to genocide or not.

I’m not so sure. The Charter elsewhere says “Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security.” Of course, I don’t really buy that rhetoric, but that’s a rather odd thing to say if you’re otherwise comfortable calling for genocide in the same document. How do you make sense of the contradiction if you read Article VII as calling for genocide?

Also, the relevant language about pursuing the Jews until they hide is purportedly quoting a hadith (from Sahih al-Bukhari). But it’s unclear to me whether this is meant merely as inspirational rhetoric (of a very sick kind, obviously) or as a literal call attacking all Jews everywhere. I think the latter is a bit of a strained reading, especially since many of the sections end with quotes from one hadith or another and most seem to be serving a role as a sort of inspirational bookend. The prior section ends, for example, “with Allah had inspired the Muslim poet, Mohamed Ikbal, when he wrote: ‘If faith is lost, there is no security and there is no life for him who does not adhere to religion. He who accepts life without religion, has taken annihilation as his companion for life.’” This section is meant to distinguish Hamas from the secular Fatah, and I don’t think anyone reads it as a call for annihilation of Fatah.

So what say you, Teeming Millions?

[Trinopus]

I’m willing to accept that the ideal under Islamic Law is to accept the surrender of a defeated foe. The notion is that, yes, there would be some slaughter, but in the end, the Jewish population of Israel, once conquered, would be permitted to live, even to retain their religion. They would simply be treated as a subject population, denied the right to bear arms, forced to swear fealty to the Islamic leadership, etc.

What would really happen? Impossible to guess, because so much depends on the way the defeat came about. If Israel fired nuclear warheads at Damascus and Cairo, then feelings would run pretty high, and a wholesale massacre would likely follow.

If (unlikely, but let’s say) the Arab armies cut through the Israeli defenses, penetrated in deep armored columns, cut the Israelis off from supply, and defeated them the way the Arabs themselves were defeated in the Six-Day War, then the ideal might be more likely to be respected.

The blood-dripping language of the charter might be mere hyperbole…or it might come about as literally true (except the part about the talking trees)…all depending on how the battles went.

To begin with, Hamas is only a small organization, and Israel’s defeat (extravagantly unlikely!) could never be accomplished by them alone. It would require another grand alliance, as seen in 1973, including the participation of trained, professional soldiers functioning in cohesive military units. Those are less likely to engage in slaughters.

Then again, cast your thoughts back to Jerusalem in 1099: the streets ran with rivers of blood. That might be what would happen again.

[chappachula]

@Richard_Parker

How do you make sense of the contradiction if you read Article VII as calling for genocide?
I think the latter is a bit of a strained reading

As a general rule, when reading religious (or political) documents, the important thing is not what the document says, but how the document is used by its faithful followers.
For example, the Bible has plenty of verses calling for death by stoning as punishment for certain sins.
Or another example: the constitution of Communist Russia guarranteed freedom of speech, etc.

You can read the documents as much as you want, but will that cause modern Christians to start stoning sinners to death in the parking lot of a Methodist church in Ohio? Or did Kruschev’s Russsia allow freedoms?

Hamas is recognized by all rational people as a terrorist organization.
Rational people also recognize that, if Hamas had the ability to crush the Israeli army and then march 50,000 well-armed soldiers 20 miles into Israeli civilian areas,-- there would a massacre on the scale of Rwanda.

Reading the words of the Hamas charter may seem a bit ambiguous to you; but only if you really care whether they want to murder all 13 million Jews on the planet, or only those 6 million Jews who are nearby in Israel.

[Little_Nemo]

The section the OP quoted comes from “Part I - Knowing the Movement” of the Hamas charter. It’s a description of what the organization is.

Then there’s “Part II - Objectives” which is a description of what the organization wants to accomplish. This section does not mention the extermination of Jews as a goal. It does, however, say that it wants to put an end to the State of Israel and establish an Islamic Palestine in its place.

So while there might be a debate about genocide, it appears clear that Hamas is not looking for peaceful co-existence.

[Ranger_Jeff]

In the 20s and early 30s, German Jews dismissed what Hitler said in Mein Kampf. The Israelis are NOT going to make that mistake again.

[nani]

Citing all those hadith is an effort by Hamas to place themselves within an Islamic context, demonstrate their Islamic bonafides, and gain religious legitimacy among other Muslims and Palestinians. What they are emphasizing in that article is that their goals are righteous goals, their struggle is a righteous struggle, and their methods are righteous methods. For certain definitions of righteous, at least.

While I am not an expert on Hamas specifically, the part of their charter to me that gives the biggest clue into what will happen to Jews and Christians in Israel after Hamas’ hypothetical victory is Article Eleven:

[After the conquest of the area from the Byzantine Empire and] following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf (in perpetuity) for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.

Assumably, those Jews and Christians who could demonstrate that all their ties to the land date back to whatever Hamas decides is enough to pre-date Zionism might be allowed to stay in some form, though who knows who would be left in the process of Hamas gaining victory. Those who cannot prove that they are not ‘invaders’ will meet the same fate Hamas ascribes to previous ‘invaders,’ death or expulsion. From Article Thirty-Five:

Hamas has learned from these lessons and examples, that the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it.

[Richard_Parker]

@Trinopus

The blood-dripping language of the charter might be mere hyperbole…or it might come about as literally true (except the part about the talking trees)…all depending on how the battles went.

@Little_Nemo

So while there might be a debate about genocide, it appears clear that Hamas is not looking for peaceful co-existence.

Yes, but those same things could be said about Likud’s Charter, which calls for the elimination of any Palestinian territories from the Jordan to the Sea. Would that elimination likely come peacefully? Or would it involve killing many more Palestinians?

That’s why my question is not about whether Hamas endorses peaceful co-existence. That would not distinguish their charter from that of Likud. What would distinguish them, and what is very often used as the basis for doing so, is if their charter called for genocide.

So far no one in this thread appears to want to endorse that concept, which is odd since it is such a widely-repeated talking point in the US among both the left and right.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

So far no one in this thread appears to want to endorse that concept, which is odd since it is such a widely-repeated talking point in the US among both the left and right.

I’m a bit skeptical of the claim that it’s widely repeated, as I don’t recall having ever heard of it. But leaving that aside, I don’t think any of this has a practical point.

Let’s suppose there’s some likelihood that you’re right about your interpretation. But there’s no way you can be certain. Bottom line is that this is an organization who says that they want to kill all the Jews, and they’ve also done whatever they can to this point to accomplish that. As a practical matter, you need to treat them as if they mean what they say. So the ambiguity (which I agree exists) is not so relevant.

[The reason you can’t make peace with Hamas is not because of anything about genocide; it’s because they themselves are not willing to make peace, and say upfront that whatever concessions are made to them will be regarded as temporary at best and they will resume the armed struggle afterwards.]

[Bricker]

Which sentences from the Likud Charter call for killing of Palestinians, even if they’re hiding behind trees or rocks?

Your question seems to be along the lines of, “Yes, there’s a portion of the Hamas Charter that says this, but another portion that says maybe they won’t be so hardcore about it, so are they serious?”

It seems to me that if they weren’t serious about it – if this was an unfortunate bit of poetical excess – they would have acted to remove it, given the years involved and the way it’s been used to claim they’re genocidal.

What about this:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

[Malthus]

I would read the Hamas Charter in its totality, and note that it takes its inspiration from not only cherry-picking the most Jew-unfriendly bits of the Islamic tradition, but also modern European anti-Semitism.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

From the introduction - the struggle is against “Jews”:

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.

Article seven - Jews are to be killed:

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Article 13 - peace is contrary to Islam, peace conferences are useless, vengence is the goal:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. “Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

“But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.” (The Cow - verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

“The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.”

Articke 28: It isn’t just Israel that is the problem:

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.

Article 32: Cites the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as authority:

The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

Given:

(1) no differentiation is made between “Jews” and “Israel” (indeed, the struggle is expressly against “Jews”);

(2) There is an express call to kill all Jews; and

(3) The Covenant draws on a long history of exterminationist anti-Semitism in Europe - such as expressly referencing the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a fake invented by the Russians to justify pogroms and later used by the Nazis for the same purposes,

I think a good case can be made that the Charter calls for genocide.

[Shodan]

I think it will be clearer if you simply interpret it as if a Republican had said it about black people.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’m a bit skeptical of the claim that it’s widely repeated, as I don’t recall having ever heard of it.

In addition to the link in my OP to a piece this week discussing the issue, which has been widely discussed in the media, here’s several more links from this month alone.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

But leaving that aside, I don’t think any of this has a practical point.

I disagree, but I’m more interested in debating whether it is a reasonable assertion or not.

@Bricker

Which sentences from the Likud Charter call for killing of Palestinians, even if they’re hiding behind trees or rocks?

None. Who said it did?

What it calls for is for Israeli sovereignty to cover both the West Bank and Gaza and for recognition of the “unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel,” specifically mentioning the West Bank. That position is as inconsistent with peaceful co-existence as the Hamas Charter. Notably, both Likud leaders and Hamas leaders have disavowed their respective charters.

@Bricker

Your question seems to be along the lines of, “Yes, there’s a portion of the Hamas Charter that says this, but another portion that says maybe they won’t be so hardcore about it, so are they serious?”

That’s one aspect. But the other aspect is asking whether any part of the Charter is reasonably read as calling for genocide as distinct for calling for the end of the Israeli state.

@Bricker

It seems to me that if they weren’t serious about it – if this was an unfortunate bit of poetical excess – they would have acted to remove it, given the years involved and the way it’s been used to claim they’re genocidal.

Some Hamas leaders have indeed disavowed it in much the same way Likud leaders have disavowed their charter without altering it.

@Malthus

I would read the Hamas Charter in its totality, and note that it takes its inspiration from not only cherry-picking the most Jew-unfriendly bits of the Islamic tradition, but also modern European anti-Semitism.

I agree, as I noted in the first sentence of my OP. It is a very anti-Semitic document.

@Malthus

Given:

(1) no differentiation is made between “Jews” and “Israel” (indeed, the struggle is expressly against “Jews”);

(2) There is an express call to kill all Jews; and

(3) The Covenant draws on a long history of exterminationist anti-Semitism in Europe - such as expressly referencing the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a fake invented by the Russians to justify pogroms and later used by the Nazis for the same purposes,

I think a good case can be made that the Charter calls for genocide.

I don’t think the first and second statements are correct.

If I’m writing propaganda for Israel and I end with a quote from Deuteronomy 20:16-18, which talks about genocide against proto-Palestinians in even starker and more violent terms than the quoted hadith, am I making an “express call to kill all Palestinians”? I don’t think so. At most, I am making an implicit call, which would need to be interpreted in the larger context. I think we ought to apply the same standard of interpretation to Hamas.

And the Charter does differentiate between Israel and Jews insofar as it calls for Jews to live in the Palestinian state, and identifies the destruction of Israel as its explicit call in the opening paragraph.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Shodan

I think it will be clearer if you simply interpret it as if a Republican had said it about black people.

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan, that’s off base and pointless. Any more nonsense like this - statements irrelevant to the thread at hand and designed to throw things off track - and you’ll be warned.

[Malthus]

@Richard_Parker

I don’t think the first and second statements are correct.

If I’m writing propaganda for Israel and I end with a quote from Deuteronomy 20:16-18, which talks about genocide against proto-Palestinians in even starker and more violent terms than the quoted hadith, am I making an “express call to kill all Palestinians”? I don’t think so. At most, I am making an implicit call, which would need to be interpreted in the larger context. I think we ought to apply the same standard of interpretation to Hamas.

And the Charter does differentiate between Israel and Jews insofar as it calls for Jews to live in the Palestinian state, and identifies the destruction of Israel as its explicit call in the opening paragraph.

How can the be “not correct”? I quoted the specific language. The Charter explicitly states that the struggle is against “the Jews”, not against “Israel”, in a couple of places, as noted above.

If you are referring to article 31 as ‘contrary evidence’, here it is in its entirety:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

“They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand.” (The Emigration - verse 14).

Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people’s rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. “For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday.”

“As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried - verse 8).

You have asked in your OP “How do you make sense of the contradiction if you read Article VII as calling for genocide?”. Reading article 31 in its entirety provides the answer: Jews are to be protected under the benevolent rule of Islam, unless they have “borne arms against you on account of religion”, or “turned you out of your dwellings”. Given that “the Jews” (again, they are not differentiated from “Israelis” in this document) have violated these preconditions - given that “The Jews” have born arms in opposing Islam, and have turned Muslims “out of their dwellings” - it is “the Jews” who have violated this covenant, and therefore it is their fault that Hamas has to kill them.

This is how Hamas can, at one and the same time, be a “humane movement” and call for genocide of the Jews - it is because, in fact, the Jews deserve it. Hamas would be totally humane, and live in peace with Jews, but the Jews messed that up.

[Richard_Parker]

@Malthus

How can the be “not correct”? I quoted the specific language. The Charter explicitly states that the struggle is against “the Jews”, not against “Israel”, in a couple of places, as noted above.

Your quotes don’t actually say that. You’re making inferences from your quotes, and there are contrary inferences from other quotes to be weighed as well.

@Malthus

You have asked in your OP “How do you make sense of the contradiction if you read Article VII as calling for genocide?”. Reading article 31 in its entirety provides the answer: Jews are to be protected under the benevolent rule of Islam, unless they have “borne arms against you on account of religion”, or “turned you out of your dwellings”. Given that “the Jews” (again, they are not differentiated from “Israelis” in this document) have violated these preconditions - given that “The Jews” have born arms in opposing Islam, and have turned Muslims “out of their dwellings” - it is “the Jews” who have violated this covenant, and therefore it is their fault that Hamas has to kill them.

You are placing–again–the whole weight of your argument in a phrase from a quoted hadith. But you haven’t made an argument for why that is a good or reasonable way to read these religious quotations.

[Lumpy]

Yeah, radical Islam seems to have a very, very, very broad definition of “defense”, to the point of making the Bush administration seem isolationist by comparison.

[Malthus]

@Richard_Parker

Your quotes don’t actually say that. You’re making inferences from your quotes, and there are contrary inferences from other quotes to be weighed as well.

Huh? I don’t get it. There is no “inference” on my part.

From the Introduction:

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.

From Article 28:

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.

Where am I “making inferences”? I’m merely quoting what it says. Clearly, to Hamas, it isn’t just “Israel” that is the problem, but “Israel, Judaism and Jews” (that’s a direct quote).

What quotes create “contrary inferences”?

You are placing–again–the whole weight of your argument in a phrase from a quoted hadith.

So? Hamas clearly uses Hadiths as authoritative statements.

But you haven’t made an argument for why that is a good or reasonable way to read these religious quotations.

It is reasonable to read them with their plain meanings, unless there is some sort of contrary evidence at hand. How else are we to read them?

[Shodan]

My apologies then.

If a document calling for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel, and quotes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, isn’t a call to genocide, then perhaps we can find a real call to genocide and see if there is any difference.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

@Malthus

Where am I “making inferences”? I’m merely quoting what it says. Clearly, to Hamas, it isn’t just “Israel” that is the problem, but “Israel, Judaism and Jews” (that’s a direct quote).

Yes, but your claim is that “no differentiation is made between ‘Jews’ and ‘Israel’” and that “The Charter explicitly states that the struggle is against ‘the Jews,’ not against ‘Israel.’”

You’ve now retreated to the claim that “it isn’t just 'Israel that is the problem.” That’s not just a retreat, it contradicts what you originally wrote.

The point here is that while Hamas is clearly calling for the destruction of Israel and concomitant violence against Jews, it is unclear to me whether Hamas is calling for killing Jews apart from that violence necessary to destroy Israel. I don’t think any of your quotes clearly answer that question.

@Malthus

What quotes create “contrary inferences”?

That the document mentions Israel many times and calls for its destruction, contradicting your earlier claim that no differentiation is made and that the struggle is not against Israel but against Jews.

@Malthus

So? Hamas clearly uses Hadiths as authoritative statements.

How is that clear? Does the fact that they use poetry in the exact same way create any doubts about that in your mind?

And do they interpret them literally?

@Malthus

It is reasonable to read them with their plain meanings, unless there is some sort of contrary evidence at hand. How else are we to read them?

Perhaps if you respond to my question about Deuteronomy that will make my issue clearer to you.

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

My apologies then.

If a document calling for the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel, and quotes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, isn’t a call to genocide, then perhaps we can find a real call to genocide and see if there is any difference.

This seems like a fair standard to me. Present us a text that is widely-regarded as expressly calling for genocide, and we can assess whether that text is more explicit than the Hamas Charter.