Israel Will Always Be At War As The World And Its Arab/Muslim Neighbors Do Not Want A Jewish State

Israel Is Still at War

By Prof. Efraim InbarMay 4, 2017

FacebookTwitterPrintEmailMore17

Image of Israeli soldiers via Israel Defense Forces, Flickr CC

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 459, May 4, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel just celebrated its sixty-ninth anniversary. Its citizens can be proud of its many impressive achievements, and particularly the building of a very strong military that has withstood many tests. Yet acceptance by all its neighbors has not been attained. Israel is still at war.

After several military defeats, the largest and strongest Arab state, Egypt, signed a historic peace treaty with Israel in 1979. The defection of Egypt from the anti-Israel Arab alliance largely neutralized the option of a large-scale conventional attack on Israel, improving Israel’s overall strategic position.

Yet Cairo refrained from developing normal relations with the Jewish state.  A “cold peace” evolved, underscoring the countries’ common strategic interests but also the reluctance of Egypt to participate in reconciling the two peoples.

Jordan followed suit in 1994, largely emulating the Egyptian precedent. Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel also reflected common strategic interests – but was commonly referred to by Jordanians as the “King’s peace,” indicating a disinclination for people-to-people interactions with the Jews west of the Jordan River.

The inhibitions in the Arab world against accepting Israel should not be a surprise. Muslims seem to have good theological reasons for rejecting the existence of a Jewish state. Moreover, the education system in the Arab countries has inculcated anti-Semitic messages and hatred toward Israel for decades. Unfortunately, the dissemination of negative images of Jews and Israel has hardly changed in Arab schools and media.

This is also why the euphoria of the 1990s elicited by the “peace process” with the Palestinians, and propagated by the “peace camp”, was unwarranted. Indeed, the peace negotiations failed miserably. The process did, however, allow the Palestinian national movement a foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. As a large part of the Arab world is in deep socio-political crisis and another fears the Iranian threat, it is the Palestinian national movement and the Islamists that carry on the struggle against the Zionists.

The Palestinians are at the forefront of the war on Israel, despite their lack of tanks and airplanes. They use terror, and pay the terrorists captured by Israel as well as their families. The use of force against Jews is applauded, and killed perpetrators are awarded the status of martyrs. They use missiles against Israel’s civilian population. The limits on their firepower are the result of Israeli efforts to cut off their supply of armaments.

The Palestinian national movement denies the historic links of the Jews to the Land of Israel, and particularly Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority (PA) demanded of the UK that it apologize for the 1917 Balfour declaration, which recognized Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel. There are endless examples in Palestinian schools and media to sustain the conclusion that the Palestinians are not ready to make peace.

Moreover, the PA cannot conclude a “cold peace” like Egypt or Jordan. Those two countries take their commitment seriously to prevent terrorism from their territory. In the West Bank, the PA – established by Yitzhak Rabin on the premise that it will fight terror in exchange for the transfer of territory – refuses to honor its part of the bargain. It encourages terror by subsidies to jailed terrorists and by innumerable steps to eulogize the “martyrs” and honor their “heritage.” The ruling Palestinian elite in Gaza, Hamas, formally refuses to give up armed struggle against Israel.

The “Oslo process” was an attempt by Israel to push the Palestinian national movement into a statist posture and to eventually adopt a statist rationale along the lines of that of Egypt and Jordan, which led them to a “cold peace” with Israel. But the religious and ethnic dimensions of the conflict with Israel have overcome any underdeveloped statist Palestinian instincts. The ethno-religious impulses of the Palestinians nurture their continuation of violent conflict.

So far, no Palestinian leader who has adopted a statist agenda, prioritizing state-building over other Palestinian aspirations, has garnered popular support. Salam Fayyad, who was admired in the West for his attempts to reform the PA’s bloated bureaucracy, seemed to tend in this direction. But his level of support among the Palestinian public never rose above 10%.

Palestinian society is becoming more religious and radical, similarly to other Arab societies. This trend benefits Hamas, which is becoming more popular. The ascendance of Hamas further feeds hostility towards Israel. A drive to satisfy the quest for revenge, and, ultimately, to destroy Israel – which would be an historic justice in the eyes of the Palestinians – overrides any other consideration.

A renewal of negotiations leading to Israeli withdrawals is extremely unlikely to result in a durable and satisfactory agreement any time soon. Israel will need to maintain a strong army for many more decades to deal with the Palestinian challenge. Moreover, changes within neighboring states can be rapid. Unexpected scenarios, such as a return of the Muslim Brotherhood to the helm in Egypt or the fall of the Hashemite dynasty, might take place, and a large-scale conventional threat might reemerge. Finally, the Iranian nuclear specter is still hovering over the Middle East.

Israel must remain vigilant and continue to prepare for a variety of warlike scenarios. The understandable desire for peace should not blur the discomforting likelihood that Israel will live by its sword for many years to come.

Efraim Inbar, professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and founding director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (1991-2016), is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum. 

Are All Ills Of The World The Result Of Anti-American, Anti-Western, Anti-Israel Beliefs

• ABOUT US
• EVENTS
• EXPERTS
• AUTHORS
• DONATE
• ARCHIVES
• MEDIA CITATIONS
• CONTACT
• MOBILE WEBSITE

The Bigotry of "Intersectionality" by Alan M. Dershowitz March 29, 2017 at 8:00 pm https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10131/the-bigotry-of-intersectionality Share193 Comment There is no more evidence that Jews are responsible for economic or social inequality in contemporary America, than there was for Jews being responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels. Indeed, Jews disproportionately support racial equality and other liberal causes. Most successful Jews, like most successful people of other religions and ethnicities, earned this success by hard work, not special privilege. The linking of unrelated "victimizations," despite their tenuous connections, is reflective of a broader trend in hard-left politics, whereby increasingly, radical activists demand that the demonization of "Zionists"—often used as a euphemism for Jews – be included, indeed featured, in the package of causes that must to be embraced by anyone claiming the label of "progressive." Lumping seemingly disparate groups under the "umbrella of oppression" leads to the forming of alliances between causes that at best, have nothing to do with each other, and at worst, are averse to one another's stated mission. Their only common feature is that to join, they must demonize the nation state of the Jewish people. The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews must be its cause. Hitler started by blaming Jews for Germany's economic downturn. Today, many hard-left activists explicitly or implicitly blame Jews and Zionists for many of the evils of the world. All decent people must join in calling out intersectionality for what it is: a euphemism for anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti- Israel bigotry. Exposing and condemning "intersectionality" for the bigotry that it represents is critical to ensuring that those repressive extremists, who falsely claim the mantle of progressivism, are not able to hijack important liberal causes in support of their own bigoted agenda. What do the terrorist group Hamas and the anti-violence group Black Lives Matter have in common? What does the democracy of Israel have in common with the anti-Semitic Ku Klux Klan? What does the Islamic Republic of Iran, which throws gays off rooftops, have in common with gay right activists? What do feminists have in common with radical Islamic sexists who support the honor killing and genital mutilation of women? Nothing of course. Unless you subscribe to the pseudo-academic concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality – the radical academic theory, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked— has become a code word for anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bigotry. Nowhere has adoption of this radical paradigm been more pronounced then on college campuses where, in the name of "identity politics" and "solidarity," intersectionality has forced artificial coalitions between causes that have nothing to do with each other except a hatred for their fellow students who are "privileged" because they are white, heterosexual, male and especially Jewish. Students at the University of Illinois (UIC) recently took to social media to express their distress after flyers were plastered around campus calling for the "end of Jewish privilege." The flyer stated in bold letters that: "ending white privilege starts with ending Jewish privilege." The posters had outlines of silhouettes with Stars of David printed out, and an arrow pointing to them with the accompanying caption "the 1%." Although some of the posters identified Black Lives Matter as sponsors, it is not clear whether they were distributed by extreme right wing groups using hard-left anti-Semitic tropes or by hard left anti-Semites. In some respects, it does not really matter because many on the hard right and hard left share a disdain for Jews, their nation state and so called "Jewish privilege." The very concept of "privilege" – the idea that white people benefit from certain privileges in Western society, compared to non-whites living in the same social, political and economic environment – has a long and complex history in the United States. The subjugation of black Americans, and other non-whites, is an endemic problem that requires far-reaching legislative and grassroots action. By attributing this domestic social problem to so-called "Jewish privilege," radicals are engaging in traditional economic anti-Semitism; attributing far-reaching societal problems to Jewish status, occupation or economic performance. This practice resembles the vile, anti-Semitic propaganda of the 1930s, when splashed across Der Spiegel was blaming Jews – and so called disproportionate Jewish wealth – for Germany's losing WWI and the country's subsequent economic downturn. Canards about Jews' controlling world finances – first promulgated by the Tsarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – was anti-Semitic back then and it is anti-Semitic today, whether espoused by the extreme left or right. There is no more evidence that Jews are responsible for economic or social inequality in contemporary America, than there is for Jews being responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels. Indeed, Jews disproportionately support racial equality and other liberal causes. Most successful Jews, like most successful people of other religions and ethnicities, earned this success by hard work, not special privilege. I certainly did not begin life with any privilege – despite finishing first in my class at Yale Law School, I was rejected by all 32 of the law firms to which I applied. The linking of unrelated "victimizations," despite their tenuous connections, is reflective of a broader trend in hard-left politics, whereby increasingly, radical activists demand that the demonization of "Zionists"—often used as a euphemism for Jews – be included, indeed featured, in the package of causes that must to be embraced by anyone claiming the label of "progressive." Lumping seemingly disparate groups under the "umbrella of oppression" leads to the forming of alliances between causes that at best, have nothing to do with each other, and at worst, are averse to one another's stated mission. Their only common feature is that to join, they must demonize the nation state of the Jewish people. Some intersectional feminists involved with the recent Women's March on Washington, for example, purport to be natural allies with anti-Israel Muslim groups that tolerate, if not accept, the "honor killings" and genital mutilation of women. Similarly, Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) – an organization that calls for "an end to violence against civilians, and peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East" – invited Rasmieh Odeh, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and convicted terrorist, to appear as a speaker at its national conference later this month. The idea of Odeh – a terrorist who quite literally has blood on her hands –speaking for a Jewish organization that claims to propagate peace, flies in the face of logic. Fortunately, Odeh is being deported for perjuriously failing to disclose her murder conviction. Perhaps peace-loving members of JVP will have to applaud her on Skype. The following are among many examples of radical leftists conflating unrelated grievances. Consider the linking of our government's handling of the Flint water crisis to the "severe" water crisis in Gaza. Black Lives Matter activists have visited Gaza to express solidarity with the terrorist group Hamas, and with Palestinians oppressed by so-called racist Israeli self-defense measures. While Black Lives Matter claims to disavow violence in securing its political objectives, many of its most prominent members are far more eager to criticize the "Israeli genocide of Palestinians" than to criticize Hamas for using rockets to target Israeli civilians. During a recent interview on PBS's Charlie Rose program, Jonathan Haidt – social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business – had this to say about the conflation of various left-wing causes under the banner of intersectionality: "...There is a good kind of identity politics, which is, you know, if black people are being denied rights, let's fight for their rights, that's the good kind. But there is a bad kind, which is to train students, train young people to say let's divide everybody up by their race, gender, other categories. We'll assign them morale merit based on their level of privilege is bad, and victimhood is good. Okay, now let's look at everything through this lens. Israel, the Palestinians are the victims. So therefore, they are the good and the Jews or the Israelis are the bad... [T]here is one totalizing perspective. All social problems get reduced to this simple framework. I think we are doing them a disservice. I think where actually making students less wise." There is a certain irony of many feminists and gay-rights activists refusing to condemn the sexism and homophobia in the Arab world. Increasingly, they try and force other progressives to adopt a "No True Scotsman" worldview, in which they are made to feel that to be a "true progressive," one must embrace a wide variety of so- called hard-left causes, regardless of how unrelated they may be – as long as they also condemn Israel. The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews must be its cause. Hitler started by blaming Jews for Germany's economic downturn. Today, many hard-left activists explicitly or implicitly blame Jews and Zionists for many of the evils of the world. All decent people must join in calling out intersectionality for what it is: a euphemism for anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti- Israel bigotry. Exposing and condemning "intersectionality" for the bigotry that it represents is critical to ensuring that those repressive extremists, who falsely claim the mantle of progressivism, are not able to hijack important liberal causes in support of their own bigoted agenda. Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is Professor Emeritus of Harvard Law School. Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

German Jihadits Are Recruiting Among Refugees

• ABOUT US
• EVENTS
• EXPERTS
• AUTHORS
• ARCHIVES
• GATESTONE IN THE MEDIA
• DONATE
• CONTACT

Germany: Salafist "Aid Workers" Recruiting Refugees by Soeren Kern December 9, 2015 at 5:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7027/germany-salafists-recruiting-refugees 64 Comment Salafists disguised as aid workers are canvassing German refugee shelters in search of new recruits from among the nearly one million asylum seekers who have arrived this year from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Some Salafists are offering gifts of money and clothing. Others are offering translation services and inviting migrants to their homes for tea. "The absolutist nature of Salafism contradicts significant parts of the German constitutional order. Specifically, Salafism rejects the democratic principles of separation of state and religion, popular sovereignty, religious and sexual self-determination, gender equality and the fundamental right to physical integrity... The movement also has an affinity for violence." — Germany's domestic intelligence agency. "Come to us. We will show you Paradise." — Salafist literature distributed in Schleswig-Holstein. Many young Muslims in Germany "believe in conspiracy theories, cherish anti-Semitic thoughts and do not think democratically." For these people, "Islam is their only identity." — Ahmad Mansour, former Muslim Brotherhood member, author and expert on Islam. The main Muslim groups in Germany all adhere to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and are anti-Western in outlook. — Ansgar Mönter, editor, Neue Westfälische. The number of radical Salafists in Germany has more than doubled over the past five years, according to a new estimate by German intelligence officials. Salafists disguised as aid workers are also canvassing German refugee shelters in search of new recruits from among the nearly one million asylum seekers who have arrived in Germany this year from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. A local preacher addresses Muslim refugees in Münster, Germany. Local authorities later cut off contact with the preacher's organization due to suspicions of radical Islamism. (Image source: Westfälische Nachrichten video screenshot) The revelations by Hans-Georg Maassen, the director of the Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), come amid growing fears that jihadists linked to the Islamic State have infiltrated Germany by posing as refugees. In a December 3 interview with the Berlin newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel, Maassen said that the number of Salafists in Germany has now risen to 7,900. This is up from 7,000 in 2014, 5,500 in 2013, 4,500 in 2012, and 3,800 in 2011. Although Salafists make up only a small fraction of the estimated six million Muslims living in Germany today, intelligence officials say that most of those attracted to Salafi ideology are impressionable young Muslims, male and female alike, who are willing to carry out terrorist acts in the name of Islam at a moment's notice. Salafists — who follow what they say was the original Islam practiced in the 7th and 8th centuries — openly state that they want to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law. In its annual report for 2014, released in June 2015, the BfV said that Salafism is the "most dynamic Islamist movement in Germany." It added: "The Salafist scene constitutes a considerable recruitment field for jihad. Salafist ideology purports to be based exclusively on the principles of the Koran, and the example of the Prophet Mohammed and the first three generations of Muslims. The movement also has an affinity for violence. Almost without exception, all of the people with links to Germany who have joined the jihad [Islamic State] had prior contacts with Salafist structures. Also in 2014, Salafists tried to draw attention to themselves with rallies and provocations, including the READ! campaign and the Sharia Police." The BfV was referring to an effort by Salafists to enforce Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany. Salafists have also organized a mass proselytization and recruitment campaign — Project READ! — aimed at placing a German translation of the Koran in every household in Germany, free of charge. A previous BfV report stated: "The absolutist nature of Salafism contradicts significant parts of the German constitutional order. Specifically, Salafism rejects the democratic principles of separation of state and religion, popular sovereignty, religious and sexual self-determination, gender equality and the fundamental right to physical integrity." Speaking to Der Tagesspiegel, Maassen also defended himself against accusations that his agency has failed adequately to vet incoming refugees to ensure that jihadists are not infiltrating Germany. He said: "My agency has repeatedly pointed to this possibility. Looking at the overall situation, I am advocating a differentiated approach. It would be wrong to see all asylum seekers as a terrorist threat. It would also be shortsighted to act as if the flow of refugees will not have any impact on our security. Salafists are trying to win new followers in the vicinity of refugee camps." Critics say that Maassen is downplaying the migrant-jihadist threat to Germany to protect German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her open-door migration policy. The editor of Tagesspiegel's editorial page, Malte Lehming, has accused Maassen of trying to "influence the political discourse for the benefit of the government." In a scathing editorial, entitled, "German Intelligence Has Been Discredited," Lehming wrote that three of the jihadists who carried out the November terrorist attacks in Paris entered the European Union posing as refugees and holding false passports. According to Lehming, this development is "highly inconvenient" for German intelligence, which has been "disgraced to the core." This is because up until the Paris attacks, Maassen had insisted that the possibility that terrorists could enter the country by posing as refugees was, at best, an "abstract danger." Lehming continued: "The assessment of the German secret services has been discredited ever since the Paris attacks. The question remains, why did they lean so far out on this point? "Possibility One: They really did not know. This would be appalling. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have entered Germany unchecked. If the security services have no idea who has come here, this country will have a massive problem. "Possibility Two: The secret services know more than they are publicly saying, but they do not want to stir up panic among the general public that Islamists could be among the refugees." Some are attributing the fact that Germany has not suffered a major jihadist attack to sheer luck. According to Ahmad Mansour, an Israeli-Arab expert on Islam who has lived in Germany for more than a decade, the German government is not doing nearly enough to combat Islamism. Mansour, the author of "Generation Allah," a new book about the radicalization of young German Muslims, says that the number of Islamic radicals in Germany is likely to grow to such an extent that German authorities will no longer be able to keep track of them. In an interview with Die Welt, Mansour — a member of the Muslim Brotherhood for more than a decade until he abandoned Islamism in the late 1990s — said that many young Muslims in Germany "believe in conspiracy theories, cherish anti-Semitic thoughts and do not think democratically." For these people, "Islam is their only identity." Mansour said the German government "lacks a plan" to deal with the problem. He added that much of the blame lies with "highly problematic" Islam teachers who are radicalizing German youth. Commenting on the question of why jihadists have not yet carried out a major attack in Germany, Mansour said: "So far Germany has been lucky." This assessment has also been voiced by German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, who has conceded: "So far we have been lucky. Unfortunately, this may not always be the case." A poll published on December 3 by the newsmagazine Stern found that 61% of Germans believe jihadists will attack their country in the near future. The poll shows that 58% think the German military should be attacking the Islamic State, although 63% believe this would lead to retaliation in the form of terrorist attacks in Germany. Overall, nearly 75% of Germans believe the government needs to do more to prevent terrorism in the country. The head of the Federal Criminal Police Agency (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA), Holger Münch, hasacknowledged that German intelligence lacks the human resources necessary to track all of the most dangerous Islamists in the country. "Given the number of potential attackers, we must prioritize," he said. According to the newspaper Bild, at least 60 police officers are necessary to monitor just one German jihadist around the clock. Meanwhile, some German Salafists are posing as aid workers and are offering gifts of money and clothing in efforts to recruit asylum seekers. Others are offering translation services and inviting migrants to their homes for tea. Still others are handing out leaflets with information about local Salafist mosques. In an interview with the Rheinische Post, BfV Chief Maassen said: "Many of the asylum seekers have a Sunni religious background. In Germany there is a Salafist scene that sees this as a breeding ground. We are observing that Salafists are appearing at the shelters disguised as volunteers and helpers, deliberately seeking contact with refugees to invite them to their mosques to recruit them to their cause." In the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, Salafists are distributing literature with the message: "Come to us. We will show you Paradise." In Frankfurt, city officials are now sending teams of police, translators and social workers to refugee shelters to warn asylum seekers of the dangers of Islamic radicalism. The teams are also educating migrants about the German legal system, religious freedom and the equal rights for men and women. In Bielefeld, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, Salafists are infiltrating refugee centers by bringing toys, fruits and vegetables for the migrants. According to the editor of the newspaper Neue Westfälische, Ansgar Mönter, "naïve" politicians are contributing to the radicalization of refugees by inviting Muslim umbrella groups to reach out to the migrants. Mönter points out that the main Muslim groups in Germany all adhere to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and are anti-Western in outlook. Some groups have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, while others want to implement Sharia law in Germany. According to Mönter, politicians should not be encouraging these groups to establish contact with the new migrants. Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in early 2016. Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook © 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

ANY Supporter Of Hamas Whether By Stupidity, Ignorance, Or Full Knowledge IS Anti-Semitic.

Supporting Hamas is Anti-Semitic

by Alan M. Dershowitz
August 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4609/supporting-hamas-antisemitic

25

Comment

Criticizing specific Israeli policies is certainly not anti-Semitic. Indeed many Israelis are critical of some of their nation's policies. But support for Hamas is anti-Semitic, because Hamas' policies and actions are based, at their core, on Jew-hatred. Yet many prominent individuals, some out of ignorance, many more with full knowledge of what they are doing, are overtly supporting Hamas. Some have even praised it. Others, like Italy's most famous philosopher, Gianni Vattimo, are trying to raise money and provide material support to this anti-Semitic terrorist organization. Still others refuse to condemn it, while condemning Israel in the strongest terms.
Here is some of what the Hamas Charter, which remains its governing principles, says about Jews:

The enemies have been scheming for a long time. [Their] wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe…They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions…They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B'nai B'rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations…[T]hey stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate…They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II…. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it: "…

Most of these references to "the enemies" precede the establishment of Israel. The charter plainly means "the Jews" and it invokes the usual tropes of anti-Semitism and Jew hatred. Indeed, it expressly calls for the murder of Jews, citing Islamic sources for its genocidal goal:

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; 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 should not be surprising news. Hamas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an outgrowth of the German Nazi Party. The brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a close ally of Adolf Hitler. It worked hand in hand with Hitler during World War II, establishing the Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar division, which committed war crimes against Jewish communities. It then helped to rescue Nazi war criminals following the defeat of Nazism and the disclosure of the Holocaust.

Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, inspects Bosnian volunteers of the Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar division in 1943.

Nor is the charter and the origin of Hamas merely past history. Current Hamas leaders frequently invoke the "blood libel," accusing "the Jews" of killing Christian children and using their blood for the baking of matzo. They regard Jewish places of worship and Jewish schools, anywhere in the world, as appropriate targets for their terrorist attacks.
Some of those who support Hamas, such as Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson, claim that they support its political goals, but not its anti-Semitic policies. (We must recognize "its legitimacy as a political actor".) Others, such as the Turkish Foreign Minister and the leaders of Qatar, support its military goals. (We support the Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas "because it embraces the Palestinian cause and struggles for its people.") These distinctions hold no water, since Hamas' anti-Jewish policies are central to its political and military actions. Some supporters of Hitler made the same argument, claiming that the Nazi Party and its leaders espoused good economic, educational and political policies. No reasonable person today accepts that excuse, and no reasonable person should accept the excuses offered by supporters of Hamas who claim to be able to slice the bologna so thin.
The same is true for those who argue that Hamas is preferable to ISIS or other Jihadist groups that might replace it. A similar argument was made by fascists who claimed that their parties were preferable to the Communists. The reality is that Hamas is an anti-Semitic organization, based on a Jew-hating philosophy, with the goal of destroying the nation state of the Jewish people and killing its Jewish inhabitants. It is evil personified. There is no excuse or justification for supporting Hamas, and anyone who does is supporting anti-Semitism.
Some Hamas supporters — such as those who chant "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas" — proudly acknowledge this reality. Others, such as Cornell West, who according to the American Spectator "headlined a high profile pro-Hamas demonstration," deny it. But all are complicit, even if they are themselves Jewish or have Jewish friends. Supporting an organization that at its core is anti-Jewish and whose charter calls for the killing of all Jews is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. And those politicians, academics, entertainers and others who support Hamas — and there are many — must be called out and condemned, as Roger Waters of Pink Floyd has been. So must those, like Navi Pillay, the head of the United Nation's Human Right Council, who see a moral equivalence between this anti-Semitic terrorist group and the democratic nation state of the Jewish people. She demanded that Israel share its Iron Dome system with Hamas, without condemning Hamas for using Palestinian civilians as its own Iron Dome.
Among the worst offenders is Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has a long history of anti-Semitism. He, like Carter, has urged recognition of Hamas, whose leaders he compares to Nelson Mandela. Among Tutu's alleged "Mandelas" with whom he has collaborated is Ahmad Abu Halabiya who has said the following:

"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them . . . and those Americans who are like them, and those who stand by them."

I'm quite certain the real Nelson Mandela never made any comparable statement. Yet Bishop Tutu, who refused to sit on the same stage as Tony Blair, has worked hand in hand with murderous Hamas leaders such as Halabiya.
It may be necessary to negotiate — directly or through intermediaries — with Hamas, just as one "negotiates" with kidnappers, hostage takers or extortionists. But to "recognize" their "legitimacy," as Jimmy Carter and Bishop Tutu would do, is to recognize the legitimacy of anti-Semitism. Carter, Tutu and other Hamas cheerleaders may be willing to do that, but no reasonable person who hates bigotry should legitimate Hamas' anti-Semitism or its express goal of destroying Israel and killing its Jewish inhabitants.