I actually had another post before this one that you replied to (don't know if you didn't see it or forgot to reply)
I do not think it is the intention of Israel to "collectively punish" a populace for their election results. I do, however, feel that the election results and resulting governing party do give cause for concern and ultimately change foreign policy.
See how you're placing the blame on the victims? The way you're phrasing your argument is so very similar to the pro-Zionist media in the West whenever it comes to any issue regarding Palestine-Israel.
Here's how it went down. The Palestinians voted for someone, the US/Israel didn't like it & called the winning party a terrorist organization (oh, how convenient), and Israel placed a blockade on it because Hamas won.
Six and a half years ago, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections and took charge of Gaza, a senior Israeli official described Israel’s planned response. “The idea,” he said, “is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
.....If the politicians and generals were advised by health experts that Gaza needed at least 170 trucks a day, why did they oversee a policy that allowed in only 67?
There can be no doubt that the diet devised for Gaza — much like Israel’s blockade in general — was intended as a form of collective punishment, one directed at every man, woman and child. The goal, according to the Israeli defense ministry, was to wage “economic warfare” that would generate a political crisis, leading to a popular uprising against Hamas.
Israel's starvation diet for Gaza | The Electronic Intifada
So, yes, they are being punished for voting for the "wrong" people.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that advocates the extermination of all Jews (see Charter).
No, it does not. You still have failed to provide quotes that say they advocate the extermination of all Jews. Also, why is it a terrorist organization? Because Israel said so? Do you call the IDF a terrorist organization?
Why should Israel not have a right to close its borders? Why are these concerns only addressed towards Israel and not towards Egypt?
If Israel wants to totally control what comes in and out of Gaza, then it is incumbent that they provide enough food to avoid malnutrition. But they don't. Why should Palestinians not have a right to have enough food to eat?
As for Egypt, who said that I did not address my concerns towards Egypt? I did, and so did many others.
Is it really so hard to understand that it is more humane to prevent weapons imports into Gaza than to wage a continuous war?
Is it really so hard to understand that it is barbaric and cruel to prevent food and force the Palestinians on a "diet" as punishment for voting for Hamas? What happened to their love for democracy there?
MIDEAST: Siege Hits Palestinians Before They Are Born | Inter Press Service
Gaza siege damages Palestinians' health - study | Reuters
Israel's 'Crime Against Humanity' | Alternet
"Shocking" rate of malnutrition in donor-dependent Gaza | The Electronic Intifada
Creepy Israeli Planning for Palestinian Food Insecurity in Gaza Revealed | Informed Comment
They heard a phone call and heard gunfire. I sure hope that if I were in the situation, that a search for me would not be called off under that circumstantial evidence.
.....?
Israeli police, intelligence officials and Netanyahu knew within hours of the kidnapping and murder of the three teens that they had been killed. And they knew who the prime suspects were less than a day after the kidnapping was reported.
Rather than reveal these details to the public, Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency imposed a gag order on the national media, barring news outlets from reporting that the teens had almost certainly been killed, and forbidding them from revealing the identities of their suspected killers. Netanyahu government knew teens were dead as it whipped up racist frenzy | The Electronic Intifada
Do you also hope that if you were in that situation that the terrorist Israeli government would have killed 6 Palestinian civilians in their search for the "missing" (though they knew they were already dead) teens?
Hamas had advocated the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers before the boys went missing on several occasions. Just because they "only" advocated it does not release them from responsibility. Furthermore, they went on to criticise the cooperation between Fatah and the IDF in tracking down the boys and Barhoum called the kidnappers "heroes".
1.) Who cares that Hamas advocated the capture of Israeli soldiers? How does this mean that they are responsible for the teenagers' (who were illegal settlers) kidnapping? It's amazing to see how much latitude you give to Israel but just blame Palestinians at every turn.
2.) Who cares that one person from Hamas criticized the cooperation and called the kidnappers heroes? Do these two things mean that Hamas is responsible for the kidnappings?
3.) The most important point:
Netanyahu said "Hamas is responsible, Hamas will pay."
And guess what?
Turns out Hamas wasn't responsible. You're ignoring this point.
Claim that Hamas killed 3 teens is turning out to be the WMD of Gaza onslaught | Mondoweiss
The ceasefire that was agreed on included the clause that the tunnel destructions would continue during its period.
Evidence? Also, you expect those in the tunnels (in their own land) to just take the detonating of the tunnels without defending themselves?
Anyway, that's besides the point. Why did Israel attack Rafah based on the lie that Hamas captured one of its soldiers after the start of the ceasefire (they have since admitted that the soldier was killed in battle before the ceasefire). Israel is the one that broke the ceasefire by attacking Rafah.
.. because? Genetics? Judaism?
No, nice assuming though. Because of Zionism and how it has only brought evil and destruction to Palestine.
Not only kidnappings, but also killings constitute a breach of the cease fire.
Why are you ignoring the portion where I said
THE SOLDIER WAS KILLED BEFORE THE START OF THE CEASEFIRE?
We both don't know. I can only say what the IDF stated on twitter, its news outlets, facebook and its blog - of course, the theoretical possibility still stands that these claims are simple propaganda.
Do you have evidence that IDF warned the residents of Shuja'iyah of the massacre before they were attacked?
Besides which, their warnings are turning out to be useless and are just used as a lip service. They attack places that are supposed to be safe.
But then I wonder, if Hamas advocates find all the time to post their own propaganda on facebook, then why not check the IDF blogs once in a while to see that they called for the evactuation several hours before attacks.
1.) Are you saying that those in the Shuja'iyah village were Hamas members and that they should've checked the IDF blogs instead of preparing for the dawn meal before the start of the Ramadhaan fast? Are you saying that the 65+ non-combatants that Israel killed in its massacre of the village were Hamas members?
2.) Where's your evidence that they warned Shuja'iyah about the attack at all (let alone hours before the attack)?
3.) Even if Israel gives the Palestinians ample warning, I ask again where are these Palestinians supposed to go when no where is safe?
Do you not find it terrible that Hamas is hiding weapons in these schools, making them legitimate targets?
Do you not find it terrible that Israel attacked a UN school, a center for the disabled, and destroyed hospitals providing no evidence that there are weapons in these places? They have attacked such places in the past without providing any evidence of weapons being stored there.
Israel has never provided evidence that the inhabited places they attacked have weapons in them. In fact, of the two schools that the *
UN* (not Israel) found weapons in, they were vacant.
Changing the transliterations does not change the core meaning.
That's not changing the translations (not transliteration). This is the wording of the narrations in Arabic. They are different narrations to the one in Hamas' charter but they're referring to the same event.
And it shows that not all Jews will be killed but the ones who will be fought against & killed are the ones
who were fighting against the Muslims. This is in contrast to your incorrect, repeated statement that this narration calls for the extermination of all Jews.
The new covenant (New Testament) is the covenant between God and man since his crucifiction. It explicitly denies allowing murder under any circumstance.
Ok, doesn't change the fact that Jesus (peace be upon him)/ God (Exalted is He from all claims of Him being His own creation), according to the Christians, commanded the people to slaughter innocent babies of a town for a sin of their forefathers. Or does it not count as "primordial human instincts that tell us to kill those who attack us of the" Christianian "ideology"? Oh...wait, it's not even about those attacking you....it's about attacking those who are completely innocent.
I have understood this. But I wonder what constitutes defence.
Whatever constitutes as defense, Islaam forbids the Muslims from the intentional targeting of non-combatant women and children. Islaam would never, ever tell us to slaughter entire nations including their babies. That was my point.
Israel has existed for more than two generations now - is it still okay to drive out the third generation?
Neither the original inhabitants (some of whom are still alive) nor their descendants ever stopped struggling for their right to the land back. Plus, the Zionist Israelis are just as, if not more, brutal than the first generation of Zionists who took over. They are even denying the Palestinians of the right to self-defense and portray themselves (i.e. the aggressors) as the victims instead of the invaders & occupiers.
What constitutes an "attack" on Islam? When Muslims were driven out of Spain, was than an "attack" that would justify killing Spaniards in the 21st century?
Where did my post talk about attacks on Islaam? See, this is what I mean by not wanting to encourage the entrapment culture. You seem to be asking a lot of loaded & agent-provocateur-like questions.
I'll leave you with this quote from Ibn al-Qayyim, a classical scholar who is highly regarded by many Muslims:
"Killing is only obligatory when facing warfare and armed combat not when facing kufr (disbelief). For this reason, neither women are to be killed nor children, or the elderly, nor the blind nor those worshippers who do not fight, rather we fight against those who fight us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allaah in dealing with the people of the earth, he used to fight those who fought against him until they either entered into the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him or came under his authority via paying the jizya. This is what he used to instruct his armies if they fought against their enemies, as has preceded from the Hadeeth of Buraydah". ("Ahkaam Al Udh-Dhimmah", Vol 1, Page 17).
These are exactly the questions I have. And I do hope you can find the trust to actually answer these questions because they will prove more insightful than merely referencing to Surahs.
The Qur'aan and the sunnah are where we derive our understanding of Islaam from.
You can also try out this website for answers to common allegations from anti-Islaam sites:
Islamic Awareness
Home
I do not mean this as a threat, but don't you fear that silence on the matter may even fuel these feelings and cause you troubles in the future?
