Hamas, Israel, Palestine,

Has Hamas adopted a “Moderate” stance towards Israel? Really?

A New York Times article describes a “Palestinian Power Struggle,” in which “Hamas Moderates Talk on Israel.” This headline and description of events could not be further from the truth.

Actually, this article’s headline is misleading, perhaps deliberately so, and even more concerning is that the headline doesn’t match the content of the article. One could confidently argue that this article is an example of “Fake News.” In an age when so many people read the headlines and not the details of the article, such misleading headlines are even more damaging.

The New York Times article states that “the Hamas document, which has been leaking for weeks, is less a change in Hamas’s fundamental beliefs than a challenge for the credibility of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, as well as internationally.”

So if Hamas’ document doesn’t change its fundamental commitment to the Genocide of the Jews, which is contained in the Hamas Covenant of 1988, how could it possibly be considered a moderation? For one to be moderate, or for one to moderate one’s stance, that involves a change in position. Hamas won’t accept the two state solution. Hamas’ Senior officials have repeated that there will be no negotiations with Israel. Hamas even claims in Article 21 of its “New Charter,” that Jihad, hence terrorism, will remain a “legal right”

Perhaps the language of Hamas may have changed, but the motivations of this anti-Semitic organisation and its ideological goals have not.

For example, Article 19 of the New Hamas Charter states

“We do not leave any part of the Palestinian’s land, under any circumstances, conditions or pressure, as long as the occupation remains. Hamas refuses any alternative which is not the whole liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

Essentially, without calling explicitly for the destruction of Israel, Hamas yet again makes it clear that Israel cannot co-exist with any Palestinian state. So much for a “moderate” approach to Israel.

The New York Times coverage raises even more questions about the coverage that were hinted at by Benjamin Netanyahu. How can one be moderate and call for a genocide? How can one hold a moderated stance and not have changed their views on killing Jews and destruction of Israel? Surely this makes Hamas even more dangerous, since they seek to hide their genocidal core beliefs.

Indeed the article continues to assert “Experts on all sides of the complex struggle here say the new document is unlikely to represent any profound change in Hamas’s true position toward Israel.”

So if experts, from all sides of the debate, suggest that Hamas’ position has not been moderated in any way, even experts supportive of Hamas’, why would the New York Times seek to suggest there has been a moderation? Does it not seem nonsensical to headline an article suggesting moderation when all the experts suggest this is anything bar a moderation?

There is a second point that should be examined, the suggestion that this move is to gain the “credibility of Palestinians” and “internationally.”

The New York Times should have seen this New Charter for what it was. A cynical ploy to try to gain positive international coverage by an organisation that is still dedicated to murder, jihad and destruction by its own declarations.

The New York Times article may be headlined with the fact that Hamas has moderated, but it even later notes that “the new document does not replace the original charter” a document which it acknowledges “proclaiming Jews as enemies and comparing their views to Nazism.”

Also, the New York Times should be more accurate in its reporting, because an individual is more moderate than the individuals they surround themselves with, does not make that individual a moderate. Setting the bar of moderation as not openly calling for genocide is a very low moral standard to hold.

The New York Times was not alone in falling for Hamas’ ploy – the Guardian led with an article headlined “Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders.” This article contradicts the headline that accompanies it as it notes that this “new charter” does not “supplant the previous charter of the founding fathers.” So if this Document, as the New York Times notes, is not replacing the old charter, how can it be described as a new charter? Surely, it is nothing more than an attempt to release a document designed to garner positive media coverage, hence attempting to make the organisation look moderate.

We should all be concerned that in this era of Fake News, terrorist organisations like Hamas are using inaccurate reporting to their advantage to delegitimise Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that this document belongs in the waste paper basket. Perhaps we would all do better if our media saw through Hamas and adopted his position.

About Guest Writer

Check Also

everyday feminism, intersectional, feminist, sex, relationships

10 Ways Nuance Can Improve Your Intersectional Sex Life!

Critiquing the gem that is Everyday Feminism's comprehensive dating guide for the intersectional feminist is no easy feat, but might a dash of nuance help?

Leave a Comment