"Its practically Qu'ranic law that provisions be made for religious minorities."
I guess someone forgot to tell Saudi Arabia - where its actually illegal to be anything other than Muslim.
But how exactly do you create an "islamic state" is Muslims are the minority?? What is the Qu'ranic law provisions for religious MAJORITIES that are non-Muslim??
The charter of Hamas calls for the creation of an "islamic state" in Palestine. I would like to know how exactly you go about creating an Islamic state if the majority of the population is not Muslim and wants no part of that? (Not to mention that many Muslims want no part of an Islamic state) How? I'd like to know. What's the secret recipe?
Yes, well the Israeli declaration of independence calls for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. You don't seem to find that so appauling.
I find it "appalling" if it has to be a Jewish state in the entire old mandate of Palestine (ie: everything between the Med. and the Jordan river) with no rights for non-Jews - (i.e. if Israel annexed all the occupied territories and forced all 2 million Palestinians to convert to Judaism and/or live under Jewish religious law).
Ridiculous, Hamas has always affirmed the rights of minorities, including Jews and Christians in their proposed state. Indeed they ran several Christian candidates in the last elections. It's practically Qu'ranic law that provisions be made for religious minorities. Indeed their arguement is that Islam is far a more appropriate model for creating a multiethnic state than Judaism, because Judaism makes absolutely no such provisions for minority rights.
Therefore there is no basis for your claim that Hamas proposes to impose a uniform religious state that enforces religous conformity.
Oh Stock, me thinks you are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.
I do try to ignore Unionist as much as possible - though I wouldn;t be so hard on him as to call him an elephant.
Okay that was funny, although you know that is not what I mean )
Anyway, all this stuff about Jerusalem is thread drift, and I'm sorry I participated in it. It would make a very interesting thread. The issue here is the Canada Israel Committee and its homophobic attack on Libby Davies. Should Jack Layton condemn it - or say nothing?
I'd actually like to see a gay rights organization like Egale take the lead in demanding an apology from the Canada-Israel Committee.
Egale is a bad example. They joined with the CJC to bar a Muslim cleric from Canada, based on phony "evidence" from the racist pro-Zionist CCD.
Jack Layton should consider speaking out publicly when his Deputy Leader has been called a "mouthy lesbian" by a registered Ottawa lobby group.
Is that rocket science?
Egale is a bad example. They joined with the CJC to bar a Muslim cleric from Canada, based on phony "evidence" from the racist pro-Zionist CCD.
It might interest you to know that Helen Kennedy the Director or Egale is a member of the Pride Day committee and cast one of the dissenting votes AGAINST preventing QAIA taking part in the parade.
Ok, thanks for that info, Stockholm. I guess she'll be saying that the CIC should not have called Libby Davies a "mouthy lesbian", then? I guess we don't need to lobby Egale on that issue, since they're so pro-LGBTQ and pro-free-speech? Let me know when that happens. I'm all ears.
And I guess it's proper for Jack Layton not to condemn a homophobic attack on his Deputy Leader, because it's someone else's jurisdiction to do that, eh?
I would actually like the NDP and Egale to demand that the head of the Canada-Israel Committee personally apologize to Libby Davies and to all gays and lesbians - with tv cameras rolling.
"f you actually bothered to read Hamas statements on this, and indeed their original charter they explicitly express the principle of a multireligious state, under Islamic guidance"
Oh I se, so under Hamas rule I can be Jewish or Christian or atheist as long as I'm under "ISLAMIC GUIDANCE". Sounds like Philipine dictator Ferdinand Marcos describing his regime as "guided democracy".
"Its practically Qu'ranic law that provisions be made for religious minorities."
I guess someone forgot to tell Saudi Arabia - where its actually illegal to be anything other than Muslim.
But how exactly do you create an "islamic state" is Muslims are the minority?? What is the Qu'ranic law provisions for religious MAJORITIES that are non-Muslim??
And as I pointed out. If you actually bothered to read Hamas statements on this, and indeed their original charter they explicitly express the principle of a multireligious state, under Islamic guidance:
Article Thirty-One: The Members of Other Religions The Hamas is a Humane Movement
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. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region.
There is absolutely no foundation for your generalized and stereotyped hyperbole, exageration and libel, about mass expulsions of religious minorities.
I don't agree with this, but there is nothing in this that seperates it from the concept of a multi-ethnic state, defined under the banner of Judaism, as expressed in "secular" Zionism.
No, my question is how you can have an "Islamic state" if a majority of the population is not Muslim in the first place. I see two options: mass expulsion of all non-Muslims followed by an election, or a violent coup where a minority seizes power, suspends all elections and parties declares an Islamic state and simply imposes it on the non-Muslim majority (and also imposed it on the many Muslims who don't want to live in a theocratic state).
How else do you suggest creating an "islamic state" in a country where only a relatively small minority of the population wants one?
Nope. You were saying they would not allow any Jews or Christians to live in their Islamic state, ala Saudi Arabia. It's just Islamophobic stereotyping and slander. You have no basis for making such assertions.
In fact, Hamas has explicitly distanced itself from those concepts, on paper, in the very charter you and others like you like quote when discussing how Hamas aims to kill Jews, "just because they are Jews". Your cherry picking of the document shows your ill intent. You choose which parts you want to believe, and then assert the rest is lies.
To avoid intellectual hypocrisy you must either accept that the document is a valid expression of their intent, or not.
Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"? I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege. You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.
I don't know why. You seem perfectly happy to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, why not also everything from then until 2010?
You proclaim your surprise at the idea that Palestinians might now demand all of Jerusalem as the proper capital for their state, as if this was some kind of extra new agressive territorial demand, as opposed to recognizing that agreeing only to having East Jerusalem as the capital is a major concession on their part.
The people who are now demanding more, are not the Palestinians, but the Isrealis, who are now demanding all of Jerusalem as part of their territory. Indeed as we speak they are affecting this land transfer through an agressive policy of disallowing Palestinian development, ongoing evictions of Palestinian families, and giving out permits to Jews seeking to build in East Jerusalem.
No I am NOT willing to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, nor everything since. You have no reason to think that I would have thought that. If I thought that, I wouldn't have said what I said on the Right of Return and compensation and a future unitary state. If I'd thought that everything prior to 1967 was alright, I'd sound like Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman. You are baiting me here for no reason.
I oppose the Israeli demands for all of Jerusalem. They have no right to all of it. OK?
I'm not the enemy here, dude.
OK.
Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"? I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege. You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.
I don't know why. You seem perfectly happy to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, why not also everything from then until 2010?
You proclaim your surprise at the idea that Palestinians might now demand all of Jerusalem as the proper capital for their state, as if this was some kind of extra new agressive territorial demand, as opposed to recognizing that agreeing only to having East Jerusalem as the capital is a major concession on their part.
The people who are now demanding more, are not the Palestinians, but the Isrealis, who are now demanding all of Jerusalem as part of their territory. Indeed as we speak they are affecting this land transfer through an agressive policy of disallowing Palestinian development, ongoing evictions of Palestinian families, and giving out permits to Jews seeking to build in East Jerusalem.
No I am NOT willing to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, nor everything since. You have no reason to think that I would have thought that.
Sure I do. You just made it sound as if claiming all of Jerusalem as the capital of the propose Arab state was some new demand on behalf of the Palestinians, as opposed to recognizing that surrendering a claim to everything but East Jerusalem was a massive concession by the Palestinian leadership of Yasser Arafat.
Bagkitty made an innocent comment in #22, and 45 posts later, can we please deal with the topic of this thread? I've already apologized for my role in diverting it.
@Stockybaba
Nope that wasn't your question. You changed your tack, sorry. Prevously you were simply misrepresenting the facts of Hamas's stated positions and pandering to Islamophobia.
However, more detailed statements by Hamas officials have indeed suggested that they would expect to win a democratic election in a future unified state, because the Muslim population will indeed soon outnumber all the rest. They presume of course that all Muslims would vote for them, which is doubful.
Why would you think I would EVER "stuff everything that has happened between 1967 and now"? I've never absolved the Israelis of anything or in any condoned the Occupation or the Siege. You're being very hostile in this and you're making assumptions about where I come down on the issues that are completely unfounded.
I don't know why. You seem perfectly happy to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, why not also everything from then until 2010?
You proclaim your surprise at the idea that Palestinians might now demand all of Jerusalem as the proper capital for their state, as if this was some kind of extra new agressive territorial demand, as opposed to recognizing that agreeing only to having East Jerusalem as the capital is a major concession on their part.
The people who are now demanding more, are not the Palestinians, but the Isrealis, who are now demanding all of Jerusalem as part of their territory. Indeed as we speak they are affecting this land transfer through an agressive policy of disallowing Palestinian development, ongoing evictions of Palestinian families, and giving out permits to Jews seeking to build in East Jerusalem.
No I am NOT willing to flush everything prior to 1967 down the memory hole, nor everything since. You have no reason to think that I would have thought that.
Sure I do. You just made it sound as if claiming all of Jerusalem as the capital of the propose Arab state was some new demand on behalf of the Palestinians, as opposed to recognizing that surrendering a claim to everything but East Jerusalem was a massive concession by the Palestinian leadership of Yasser Arafat.
Look, I made a mistake on that. I wasn't intentionally implying that the Palestinians were asking for something they hadn't asked for before. I just got confused on what their position was for a moment and I apologize for that.
But I would never, ever take the position that everything since 1948 should be swept under the rug. That's not where I come from on this.
Can we please move on from this now?
K. Its just a very slippery, and well oiled machine that is slowly submerging the facts beneath the surface of what is common knowledge.
Fair enough. And it was never my intention to be a cog in that particular machine. Are we ok between us now on this?
Well, I'm ok with you, Ken, always have been, and I'm sure Cueball is also. These days, historical lapses on Middle East history are being used to destroy people's careers and justify the most abominable crimes of the murderers in the Israeli government. It's not surprising that these issues would then attain an urgency and passion that they may not have at other times.
I'm not sure how much these debates about 48, 56, 67, really matter. Ultimately the Palestinians and Israelis are going to have to negotiate an agreement with one another.
It would be in everyone's best interest to fully support a negotiated settlement ASAP.
And who doesn't. The point is that one party is not, and will never honestly approach a negotiated settlement, because it is simply not in its best interests to do so. This is clearly evidenced by the history; 48;56;67. Each instance shows that force, over negotiation succeeds. The primary motivator behind the lack of action in any of these instance where a negotiated settlement was possible, was the failure of the international community to force negotiation upon the victor through sanction and international pressure.
Indeed the USA rewards the aggression with ever increasing hand outs of military aid to Israel. Indeed to a certain extent the economic viability of the Israeli state is entirely dependent on the "Occupation Economy", which feeds on, and is justified by the constant state of military alert that Israel is in, due to its expansionist policies, and its need to repress violent dissent by those it subjugates.
How different this picture would be if the billions in aid that Israel receives for buying US Apache helicopters were spent on compensationn packages for displaced Palestinians, or financial rewards for settlers who leave the West Bank. But of course, there is no reason for Israel to back down, because intransigence bears fruit.
" The point is that one party is not, and will never honestly approach a negotiated settlement, because it is simply not in its best interests to do so."
You're being very hard on the Palestinians - surely some of them want peace.
How different this picture would be if the billions in aid that Israel receives for buying US Apache helicopters were spent on compensationn packages for displaced Palestinians, or financial rewards for settlers who leave the West Bank. But of course, there is no reason for Israel to back down, because intransigence bears fruit.
The other factor is probably the personal ambitions of the Israeli political elite.
As long as the war goes on, they get to be world famous.
If it ended, would they matter to anyone, in geopolitical terms?
Look at it this way...
When's the last time anybody noticed that the Swiss defense minister showed up in Washington or Ottawa?
What would happen if Mahmoud Abbas announced that he's willing to enter into negotiations without any pre-conditions.
That he wants to go to Camp David and negotiate with the Israelis and not leave until a settlement is achieved.
How could Israel and the US back out of that?
Demanding that someone enter into negotiations "without pre-conditions" is indeed a pre-condition. How is it that you just fell into the trap of demanding a condition upon Palestinian negotiators, without actually demanding that Israel shoud do the same... such as stop coming up with cheap ways of blocking negotiations, such as demanding "no pre-conditions" as a "pre-condition" for negotiation?
Why indeed do you put the onus upon Palestinians, when indeed they have essentially already made massive concessions on their original position, such as no explicit demand for the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees, such as renouncing their claim to 70% of their historic homeland, such as agreeing to recognizing Israel's "right to exist".
In fact, all these three things were all pre-conditions to negotiations that Israel has demanded of Palestinians, before entering into negotiation, and in each case the Palestinians have agreed to these pre-condtions... but now, for some reason you seem to think it is Palestinian intransigence on key issues as "pre-conditions" for negotiations that is the block to a peaceful settlement.
So, how does Israel back out of negotiations? Simple. Demand no "pre-conditions", as a precondition.
Yes my friend it is precisely this kind of tortured logic that has dogged a peaceful settlement for many many years, and through many rounds of so-called peace negotiatios.
How about both Israel and the Palestinian Authority enter into negotiations without pre-conditions?
Logical if you assume that Israel is bargaining in good faith. Why should it? It gets what it wants simply by maintaining the status quo. I mean, seriously, you think this miserable Palestinian rebellion impacts Israel or its economy in any real way? Not at all. It is just one great big excuse to justify the billions and billions of dollars that flow into the Israeli military industrial complex from Uncle Sam.
Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land" (Jer 1:14) is a verse every Israeli pupil learns by heart. This biblical truth has never been more true than these days: the Syrian President, in a major threat to the Jewish state, offers Israel to resume peace talks. A blatant crime against war itself. Israel, understandably, is forced to defend itself.There are several convincing reasons why Israel should reject the peaceful Syrian hand. First of all, Syria should come to the negotiation table without any preconditions. When Assad proved evil enough to accept this, Israel demanded that Syria stop it alleged support for "terrorism" (and accept the Israeli-American definition of terrorism, to include resistance to occupation). Fair enough: both sides, except the Israeli side, should come to the negotiation table without any preconditions. Imagine Syria demanding that Israel end its occupation, or just dismantle its death squads, as a precondition to resume peace talks.
Eithere there are negotiations or another hundred years of never ending bloodshed and suffering and more and more Israeli "facts on the ground" on the west Bank. The fact is that time is on Israel's side, the more time passes without an agreement - the more the outcome of any negoatiations will be more and more skewed away from what the Palestinians want.
I think just about the only "trump card" that the Palestinians have and which for some reason they have never chosen to play is the following: Demand incorporation into Israel! Imagine if both Hamas and Fatah said that they wanted their people to all become Israelis and for the Gaza strip and the West Bank to be formally annexed by Israel (in which case Palestinians and Arab-Israelis would instantly become close to 50% of the population of the country and in a position to win an election).
Yeah, so back on topic, gentlemen.
Here are more examples of homophobic and misogynist hate from supposedly enlightened and gay-loving Israel supporters. I think the Canada-Israel Committee should have considered leaving their post about Libby intact - they were representing their constituency well, judging from the hate they're spewing on her Facebook wall and twitter!
Menachem: @LibbyDavies Get out of Politics you Dumb Dyke! Your comments towards my Homeland are inexcusable! You do not know the facts!You are a bitch
Menachem: @LibbyDavies Regarding the Unarmed IDF Soldiers who were viciously attacked and Reuters cropped the pics explain this one bitch!!
Menachem: Libby, why must you twist facts?! Do you hate us Jews that much?! What did we ever do to you?! You are ugly because of hate you, know that?!
Menachem: @LibbyDaviesIDF was unarmed when boarding the first ship,they were attacked and thus retaliated!get your facts straight moron!
I guess someone forgot to tell Michael Schonberger (Menachem) about the pinkwash campaign too!
One can see actually who is ugly from the hate he spews, what an ass nubby he is.
You know I had not quite realized the full extent at how whacked these people are.
Is this guy on the executive of the Canada-Israel Committee? If not, then he is just one of thousands of pseudo-anonymous cranks who spew their hate on talk radio and in the comments sections of various blogs. As much as I object to the Canada-Israel Committee, I'm not going to hold them responsible for what individual people who are not members of that organization choose to tweet. I would to have any of the progressive organizations I sympathize with be forced to take responsibility for nutbars to (for example) express support for the people who bombed the Royal Bank in Ottawa.
Well, Stockholm, considering that the CIC posted a homophobic tweet of their own before they remembered, oopsie, we're supposed to be pinkwashing, not gaybashing, I stand by my comments.
I don't hold the pro-Palestinian cause/community responsible for the viciously homophobic comments from the Khadr family and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find posting from some fundamentalist Muslims that gays shoudl all be killed - so what? Tell me something I didn't know. The CIC shoudl be forced to apologize for what was put out under their rubrik. Its not their problem if one individual crackpot who has no ties to them chooses to tweet bigoted comments as an individual.
Are all Muslims the same to you or something, Stockholm? Since when were the Khadrs associated with Palestinian solidarity?
Yeah, Michelle, excellent point. The main difference between the CIC, and their homophobic pro-Israel ideological fellow-travelling commenters, is that the CIC only lets its guard down once in a while.
I don't think all Muslims are the same. Not all Muslims are Al-CIA'da as is the case with at least one of the Khadrs.
Are all Muslims the same to you or something, Stockholm? Since when were the Khadrs associated with Palestinian solidarity?
...and since when is "Menachem" part of the Canada-Israel Committee?
Are all Muslims the same to you or something, Stockholm?
Maybe this is none of my business, but I find this absurd and offensive. Stockholm said nothing of the kind here. This kind of deliberate twisting of people's words to try and paint them as something approaching racist is ugly and unfair. Now, apologies to Stockholm, because you haven't asked for someone to stand up for you here, but I feel strongly about this kind of comment, and have been at the receiving end of quite a few of them myself. I flagged it for the moderators as well.
Well, I'll reiterate Michelle's challenge to Stockholm as well, so you can flag this too.
Stockholm's "analogy" made a whole bunch of stereotypical and privileged (false) presumptions, such as:
1. All Palestinians are Muslims.
2. The Khadrs have some identification with Muslims.
3. Afghans have something to do with Palestinians.
It comes from, and feeds, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and racism.
Personally, I don't think Stockholm meant all this, but in stretching for an analogy, he gave birth to this monstrosity.
So, Michelle could just as well have said: "So Stockholm, Afghans and Palestinians are somehow the same"? Or the way she said it. Both very proper.
Explanations from Unionist and Cueball are acknowledged and heard. Cueball, thank you for explaining this to me. Clearly I missed some dot connecting. Michelle, apologies. I was too quick to judge and rash in my judgement. Mods, apologies for wasting time with the flagging. Please accept this as a by-product of youthful exuberance. In another thread someone said something about well-meaning youth saying "jaw-droppingly stupid" things, or something to that effect....
Are all Muslims the same to you or something, Stockholm?
Maybe this is none of my business, but I find this absurd and offensive. Stockholm said nothing of the kind here. This kind of deliberate twisting of people's words to try and paint them as something approaching racist is ugly and unfair. Now, apologies to Stockholm, because you haven't asked for someone to stand up for you here, but I feel strongly about this kind of comment, and have been at the receiving end of quite a few of them myself. I flagged it for the moderators as well.
He didn't say it. He free associated it. Advertising and propaganda 101. You don't need to say something directly to express its meaning. Indeed, one can then turn around and say "I didn't say that". Of course you didn't, That was intentional. Just as intentional as the fact that you meant to infer the association.
Stockybaba often does this. For example, We can talk about Hamas, and somehow represession of human rights in Saudi Arabia will suddenly enter into the conversation, as if that has anything to do with what is actually in the Hamas charter, which indeed explicitly distances itself from certain ideas that are applied by the Saudi regime.
These stereotypes are used to play on explicit Islamophobic sentiments of a very extreme nature, and without a doubt, the intention to play on ignorance, and the commonly held beliefs propogated by the extreme racist right, is very, very intentional.
The idea for example, that Al Queda, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, Hizbollah and Hamas all hold the same "Islamist" ideological stance, as expressed by the lowest common denominator of rights and can be associated with each other, as being representative of THE muslim world view, and inherent in Muslim theology, is an essential active mode of common place anti-Muslim prejudice.
This all started when someone else seemed to be trying to steroetype all supporters of Israel as being homophobic bigots. That's obviously absurd as wel. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The idea for example, that Al Queda, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, Hizbollah and Hamas all hold the same "Islamist" ideological stance, as expressed by the lowest common denominator of rights and can be associated with each other, as being representative of THE muslim world view, and inherent in Muslim theology, is an essential active mode of common place anti-Muslim prejudice.
Its no different from the sweeping generalizations people make about Zionism.
Perhaps the solution would be as follows: 1) that people who are supporters of Israel refrain from labelling anyone who criticises Israel as being anti-semitic and 2) that people who are supporters of Palestinians refrain from labelling anyone who criticizes Hamas as being Islamophobic.
Until both of those conditions are met this topic will continue to be as toxic as ever.
Who made any sweeping generalizations about Zionism that are not true?
On the other hand suggesting that Hamas articulates a position that no Jews or Gentiles should live in Palestine, ala the Saudi Arabian example, is in fact an outright lie.
In fact, no Palestinian organization with any amount of real support among Palestinians has ever argued for the explusion of persons just because they were Jews, or non Muslims. That is a lie as well. Not the PLO or Hamas. Ever.
Hamas claims to want to install an "Islamic state". I think its fair to look at other examples of "Islamic states" and see what that might mean. Judging from wehat it means in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Afghanistan - it ain't pretty.If you can show me examples of "Islamic states" that are wonderful liberal democracies where women have equal rights and where people are free to practice any religion they want - I'd love to hear about it and maybe I will then be less suspicious of what Hamas has in mind.
Similarly, if someone tells me that they want Canada to be a fascist state, I look at what fascism meant in Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy and Pinochet's Chile and I tend to think that fascism in Canada would eb something along those lines. If the leader of the Fascist Party of Canada said, we want to impose an explicitly fascist corporatist regime in Canada but don't worry it won't be EXACTLY like what Franco or Mussolini did - I don't think it would do much to assuage my fears and suspicions.
Exactly Stockholm. Your position is rank prejudice without any evidence whatsoever. Hamas say in its charter they want an Islamic state. You accept this at face value. When the same charter goes on to say that their image of an Islamic state includes Jews and Gentiles you reject that on pure prejudice alone. You have no basis for it at all. Indeed Egypt and Pakistan are also officially an "Islamic" states, but neither has any special prohibition against Jews and Gentiles living there.
But you assert the lowest common denominator as being representative of the whole: Stereotyping and Prejudice.
I certainly do not advocate for any kind of religious state as a model for civil society, however, I also do not advocate for lies, misrepresentation and slander. I am opposed to both.
I'm not sure why you're quoting the Hamas Charter now since I think in the past you claimed that the Charter was menaingless and that no one took it seriously after it was pointed out that the Hamas Charter explicitly says the following:
"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)."
Are we supposed to believe the charter or not - or are we only supposed to believe the parts that are not embarrassing to Hamas and make it look bad?
I am quoting is as the source for your assertion that Hamas wants an Islamic state. It's true. That is what is says there. It also says, "Hamas is a humane movement" that respects the rights of non-Muslims to live in that state. Do you have another source for the assertion that Hamas wants and Islamic state other than the charter, or did you just get that out of your head?
