Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    That is not a "new charter". It is merely a policy document. It does not replace or revoke the 1988 Hamas Covenant.
    It replaces it in the same sense that every major policy statement or manifesto released by Hamas since 1988 has replaced it. It's fairly obvious that any organisation's more recent statements will better reflect its current stances than its statements from 30 years ago.

    A demand for an explicit replacement, amendment, or revocation, doesn't really make sense given the nature of the document. People tend to mistakenly assume that it's like the PLO 1964 Charter, which is a semi-constitutional binding document with a formal amendment process that can and has been used. The Hamas 1988 Charter isn't a binding governing document, it's just a manifesto they published when the group was founded. It has no formal primacy over more recent manifestos.

    If the 1988 Charter is still the unaltered real policy outlook of Hamas and its leadership, why do they bother publishing new policy documents?

    Also, if you read it through, you will see that it still rejects all the negotiated accords and any solution that does not give the sole control of Jerusalem.
    There's a bit of vagueness and ambiguity about this, article 20 seems to imply they're just referring to East Jerusalem.

    More fundamentally though, what it does do is at least put Hamas within the real world of international law and borders that can meaningfully be discussed, rather than behind a wall of their Islamist ideological fantasies.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It replaces it in the same sense that every major policy statement or manifesto released by Hamas since 1988 has replaced it. It's fairly obvious that any organisation's more recent statements will better reflect its current stances than its statements from 30 years ago.

    A demand for an explicit replacement, amendment, or revocation, doesn't really make sense given the nature of the document. People tend to mistakenly assume that it's like the PLO 1964 Charter, which is a semi-constitutional binding document with a formal amendment process that can and has been used. The Hamas 1988 Charter isn't a binding governing document, it's just a manifesto they published when the group was founded. It has no formal primacy over more recent manifestos.

    If the 1988 Charter is still the unaltered real policy outlook of Hamas and its leadership, why do they bother publishing new policy documents?



    There's a bit of vagueness and ambiguity about this, article 20 seems to imply they're just referring to East Jerusalem.

    More fundamentally though, what it does do is at least put Hamas within the real world of international law and borders that can meaningfully be discussed, rather than behind a wall of their Islamist ideological fantasies.
    Yeah, I guess every little helps.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I support the Balfour declaration
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Bruh, whats even happening?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    I support the Balfour declaration
    Cool story bro.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I personally do not care at all about this far away conflict between two tiny nations, nor can I fathom why so many people do. It is utterly inconsequential to me and to most of you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I personally do not care at all about this far away conflict between two tiny nations, nor can I fathom why so many people do. It is utterly inconsequential to me and to most of you.
    Aren't you nice. By your logic we also shouldn't give a toss about any other flagrant abuse of human rights and/or genocide anywhere else in the world?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FriendlyPenguin)
    It is central to the Middle East issue, and therefore to the refugee crisis - and the many more migrant crises to come - and therefore to the future of European politics.
    Please explain how the Israel-Palestine conflict is central to the refugee crisis, because the conflict has been going on for decades, whereas the refugee crisis is a more recent development triggered by the Syrian Civil War. The refugees weren't displaced by the Israel-Palestine conflict to my knowledge.

    And people cared well before the refugee crisis. I simply don't understand how people can be so adamant about picking a side when they have nothing to do with this dispute over a small patch of land thousands of miles away between two tiny nations famous for nothing else.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Aren't you nice. By your logic we also shouldn't give a toss about any other flagrant abuse of human rights and/or genocide anywhere else in the world?
    That's not what I mean. I'm referring more to the passionate side-taking; not the humanitarian impact.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    There was once a solution like that, under the rule of Umar Al Khattab but after his death the Jews/Zionists broke the treaty and started persecuting the Palestinians- still today Christians and Muslims reside happily together on Palestine
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Moved to International.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.