When Palestinians, whether members of Hamas or not, say they consider killing Jews their religious duty, do not doubt them
Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023, a day that will live in Jewish infamy, was when Gaza terrorists conducted unspeakable horrors, blatant war crimes, and crimes against humanity against Israeli civilians.
The motive for the cold-blooded murder of some 1,200 Israelis is crystal clear: a fanatical desire, rooted in Muslim religious beliefs and buttressed by fake history, to exterminate the Jews of Israel.
This is no histrionic conjecture. As the 1988 Hamas Charter says:
“The Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam … strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine [the State of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza] …. The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part or abandon it or any part of it. Palestine is an Islamic land …. The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them.”
 Photo by Joe Catron |
| Related Stories |
| Potential disaster is looming at the Paris Olympics
|
| Why Palestinian claims for statehood lack legitimacy
|
| Young activists mobilize for human rights across the globe
|
In practical terms, had there been no resistance to the Oct. 7 invasion, all 7.1 million Jews living in Israel would have been systematically executed Holocaust-style.
Though few of Israel’s supporters could ever envision such a horrific outcome, Arab masses across the globe support a ‘ceasefire’ they know will prevent the defeat of Hamas, thereby allowing more such heinous attacks on Jews, eventually leading to a final solution to the Jewish question.
The Arab street’s Middle Eastern leaders, especially those who have sought normalization with Israel via former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords, have trod a fine line by refraining from blaming Israel for the Oct. 7 attack.
This still leaves the Palestine faction of the “Arab street” at the forefront of the vilification of Israel.
Only the blindest observer could ever claim that the countless organized public demonstrations around the world since Oct. 7 are aimed at encouraging a just and lasting resolution to the current conflict that would be acceptable to its combatants.
The words on the banners displayed and slogans uttered – “from the river to the sea,” “Palestine lives matter,” “Israel = racism and apartheid” – prove this.
“From the river to the sea” is particularly provocative because it rejects a two-state solution, one for the Jews and one for the Palestinians. Instead, it means a single Judenrein (“free of Jews”) Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
“Palestine lives matter” means Jewish ones don’t.
Saying Israel is racist and based on apartheid denies that its large Arab population enjoys freedom and prosperity denied to their brethren elsewhere in the region.
According to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people, nor their legitimate aspirations. They do not speak for Muslim or Arab communities, and they do not represent the better futures that Palestinians or their children deserve.” This sentiment is expressed by other leaders like U.S. President Joe Biden and his Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Tell that to the thousands of protesters who joyfully celebrated the Oct. 7 attack throughout the Middle East and the Western world, including Canada.
Tell that to the Palestinian pollsters who recently found radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad were viewed as “the best thing that happened to the Palestinian people since 1948.”
The poll also showed low Palestinian support for a two-state solution: approval of 28 percent and rejection of 70 percent. One state with no Jews is what most Palestinians yearn for.
Likewise, the poll found that 52 percent of Palestinians believed armed struggle against Israel is the most effective means to end an “occupation” (that officially ended in Gaza in 2005) and build a Palestinian state. Twenty-one percent claimed they supported achieving these goals through negotiations, while 22 percent preferred “popular resistance,” a close synonym for armed struggle.
While some Gazans at home and abroad despise Hamas, it is false to claim, “Hamas is not Gaza, and Gaza is not Hamas.”
When Palestinians, whether members of Hamas or not, say they consider killing Jews their religious duty, as has been repeatedly expressed or implied since Oct. 7, do not doubt them.
Hymie Rubenstein is editor of REAL Israel and Palestine Report and a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba.
For interview requests, click here.
The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.
© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.
Subject: Response to Defamatory and Inaccurate Claims About Muslims and Palestinians
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Hymie Rubenstein’s opinion piece published on October 7, 2023, which contains numerous defamatory and inaccurate claims about Muslims and Palestinians. It is imperative to address these misrepresentations and highlight the importance of distinguishing between free speech and hate speech.
Firstly, Rubenstein’s blanket assertion that Palestinians consider killing Jews their religious duty is an egregious and unfounded generalization. This statement not only maligns the entire Palestinian population but also promotes harmful stereotypes about Muslims. It is crucial to recognize that the actions of any group do not represent the beliefs or desires of all Palestinians or Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims and Palestinians advocate for peace and coexistence.
The article’s reliance on selective excerpts from outdated documents to characterize all Palestinians as religiously motivated to commit violence is misleading. While certain documents might contain troubling language, they are not representative of the views of all Palestinians. Many Palestinians seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict and reject violence as a means to achieve their goals.
Rubenstein’s article also distorts the meaning of slogans such as “from the river to the sea” and “Palestine lives matter.” These slogans, while contentious, do not inherently call for the extermination of Jews. They are expressions of Palestinian aspirations for freedom and statehood. Interpreting them as calls for genocide is a gross misrepresentation that fuels fear and division.
The claim that public demonstrations since October 7 are not aimed at encouraging a just resolution to the conflict is similarly flawed. Many protests around the world call for a ceasefire and an end to violence on both sides. The international community’s desire for peace should not be dismissed as support for terrorism.
Furthermore, the article’s suggestion that the Palestinian population overwhelmingly supports extremist violence is an oversimplification. While there is frustration and anger among Palestinians due to the ongoing occupation and lack of progress toward a two-state solution, this does not equate to widespread support for violence. Polls and statistics should be interpreted with caution and in context.
It is also important to address the issue of hate speech. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it has limits when it crosses into hate speech, which incites violence and discrimination against a group of people based on their religion or ethnicity. Rubenstein’s article, with its sweeping accusations and inflammatory language, crosses this line and contributes to an atmosphere of hostility and prejudice against Muslims and Palestinians.
In conclusion, it is essential to promote dialogue based on facts and mutual respect rather than fearmongering and defamation. Mischaracterizing an entire population based on the actions of a minority not only undermines the pursuit of peace but also fosters a dangerous environment of hatred and intolerance.
Sincerely,
Hakim
Once more our biased media agrees to publish a highly provocative and hate filled diatribe against Palestinians and Muslims and in fact most Arabs.
The number of inaccuracies in Hymie Rubenstein’s opinion piece are too numerous to mention but the tone of hate should have been flagged by your editors and the piece dumped in the wastebasket where it belongs
Camille Husseini
I write with an unyielding sense of duty to address the recent publication by Hymie Rubenstein, a piece teeming with vitriol and misrepresentation against Palestinians and Muslims. It is imperative that we confront and correct such egregious errors with resolute clarity.
Firstly, Rubenstein’s assertion that the events of October 7 stem from a “fanatical desire, rooted in Muslim religious beliefs and buttressed by fake history, to exterminate the Jews of Israel” is a flagrant manifestation of Islamophobia. Such baseless accusations not only misrepresent the complex political realities but also inflame religious intolerance, which has no place in informed discourse.
Rubenstein’s selective quoting from the 1988 Hamas Charter, while ignoring the revised 2017 Charter, reveals a deliberate attempt to perpetuate a false narrative. The 2017 Charter explicitly states that Hamas’s struggle is against the Zionist project, not against Jews. This distinction is crucial and must not be obfuscated by those intent on demonizing an entire population.
The inflammatory claim that Palestinians harbored genocidal intent on October 7, suggesting that all 7.1 million Jews in Israel would have faced systematic execution, is not only preposterous but also deeply racist and Islamophobic. Such rhetoric is designed to dehumanize Palestinians, casting them as inherently violent and fanatical, thereby justifying continued oppression and marginalization.
Furthermore, Rubenstein’s assertion that Israel’s Arab population enjoys unparalleled freedom and prosperity is a gross distortion. Numerous reputable human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have documented extensive evidence of systemic apartheid practices within Israel. To deny these findings is to turn a blind eye to the lived experiences of countless Palestinians who suffer under discriminatory policies.
It is the responsibility of Troy Media to uphold journalistic integrity by providing a platform for factual, unbiased reporting. Rubenstein’s article fails this standard, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and misinformation. We must strive to foster understanding and truth, especially in such a volatile and sensitive context.
In the spirit of justice and truth, I urge Troy Media to reconsider the dissemination of such divisive and unfounded rhetoric. The pursuit of peace and coexistence demands a commitment to honest and respectful dialogue, devoid of prejudice and distortion.
Sincerely,
Haitham Ghunaim
Dear Troy Media,
You have published a lot of articles about Palestine and Palestinians since Oct. 7. However, it was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Israel and not critical of Israel or sensitive to Palestine and Palestinians.
Today, I, specifically, take issue with the opinion piece by Hymie Rubenstein: “Hatred of Jews makes peace impossible in the Middle East.” Not only was this article defaming Palestinians and Muslims, but it was factually incorrect.
Rubenstein asserts that the 1,200 people who were killed on Oct. 7 were all Israelis, civilians, and killed by Hamas, which is not the case. According to social security data, on October 7, 695 Israeli civilians were killed, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, and not all the Israeli victims on October 7 were killed by Hamas. Israel killed its own civilians in a friendly fire that day, including 12 civilians in a home in Kibbutz Be’eri.
Rubenstein also asserts that Israel’s “large Arab population enjoys freedom and prosperity denied to their brethren elsewhere in the region.” This goes against reputable human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, that have released reports proving that Israel is based on an apartheid system.
Lastly, Rubenstein wrote a lot of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism statements. He wrote that the motive behind Oct. 7 was a “fanatical desire, rooted in Muslim religious beliefs and buttressed by fake history, to exterminate the Jews of Israel” and handpicks a quote from the 1988 Hamas Charter to further his point of rooting the “extermination of Jews” in “Muslim religious beliefs.” Rubenstein is assigning genocidal intent to Palestinians, which is extreme anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia.
This was a troubling opinion article to read, and it is deeply concerning that such articles are published.
Why is it okay to publish articles hateful of Muslims and Palestinians? What would be the reaction if such an opinion article was published about Jewish people? I can assure you that the accusations of antisemitism will be fast, and actions and public condemnations will not be long-awaited before people are held accountable for it. This is such a deplorable and despicable double standard.
Fatima Haidar
Media Analyst
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Montreal, QC
Thank you for your comments and concerns. It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the principles of free speech and the editorial practices of Troy Media.
Firstly, Troy Media is committed to upholding the principle of free speech, which means allowing a diversity of voices and opinions to be heard, even those that are controversial or provocative or which you may disagree with. This commitment extends to all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, Troy Media has published numerous commentaries that support the Palestinian perspective and critique Israeli policies.
Regarding Hymie Rubenstein’s opinion piece, it is important to understand that opinion articles are meant to present individual viewpoints, which may not necessarily align with the views of all our readers. While you may disagree with Rubenstein’s perspective, it is essential to recognize that free speech encompasses the right to express differing and sometimes contentious opinions.
To Camille Husseini, Haitham Ghunaim, and Fatima Haidar: Your critiques highlight the importance of balanced and respectful discourse. Rubenstein’s piece has sparked significant debate, which underscores the need for diverse viewpoints to be represented. While some may find his arguments inflammatory, others see them as part of the broader dialogue on these issues. It is only through this exchange of ideas that a deeper understanding can be achieved.
We encourage our readers to engage with all published content critically and thoughtfully, recognizing that the expression of different opinions is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Furthermore, we remain committed to publishing a wide range of perspectives, including those that advocate for the Palestinian cause.
Thank you for your engagement and for contributing to the ongoing conversation on these critical issues.
Troy Media