August 14, 2014

In Blog

I was watching Cornel West waste his time at Sean Hannity’s show and it was nauseating how many times the host brought up Hamas’ charter.
As you probably know, Hamas does not even use their charter on their website, nor do they ever include it in any public relations work. In fact, their leader has dismissed it as an irrelevant piece of history. It has not political standing, much like the Declaration of Independence, which refers to native Americans as “merciless Indian savages.” (Why aren’t folks crying about that and acting as if it has any relevance today? PS: that is a rhetorical question.)

On the other hand, the Likud party in Israel, which Israel’s prime minister is the leader of, actively and routinely states in their party platform that they have the right to take all of the land and that there can never be a Palestinian state.

So, how odd is it that apologists for Israel like to bring up an irrelevant piece of history that has no standing function within Hamas (who just a month before the latest war agreed to the Quartet’s demands of renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and accepting previous agreements) yet say nothing about an active policy of an Israeli political party that enshrines the very thing that breeds Hamas’ existence? I mean, even if the Hamas Charter was a legal and relevant document to today, which is worse: calling for the ending of a state that is the culmination of one groups dispossession and reclaiming what was stolen (that the charter says this will have to be done by force is true: Israel won’t simply give it back), or saying the theft is permanent and the land will never be given back?