BASIC KNOWLEDGE TO UNDERSTAND ISLAMIC JIHADIST MINDSET.

REALITY OF THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION IN JIHADIST MINDSET

PREAMBLE

This is a very important study to understand how jihadists ‘minds work, how and why they want to destroy western civilization and any other non-islamic, and will provide the tools to get into those monsters brains.

Despite the global spreading of jihadi violence over the last century and this one, many misinformed people think that all this Islamic violence is a by-product of a misinterpretation of the Islamic scriptures. Nothing can be further from reality. Jihad is not an inner spiritual battle, has nothing to do with strengthening your soul or becoming a better person. The actual teachings of islam are clear. Jihad id fighting whatever the means to conquer the world, the umma must prevail.

The fact that the vast majority of muslims don´t support this violence doesn´t distort the real meaning of the Islamic jurisprudence in this regard. All texts, traditions and history in islam are authoritative.

The main problem we find with islam is….. it isn´t just a religion, it is a political, social and psychological method to undermine individuality. Jihadists aspire to direct and administer states, as we´ve seen in Syria and Iraq, albeit briefly. And this “Administration” is acquired by violent means, terrorism and insurgency.

So, we are talking politics here, no religious considerations, when they try to overcome democratic regimes or western people, and implement their jihadi agenda. The final goal is establishing

global caliphate.

“Islam is a complete and comprehensive regime for the totality of human life, which muslims are obligated to implement and execute completely” Hizb at-Tahrir, founder of Daesh.

As you all already know, there is no separation between religion and politics in islam, like jihadists strongly point out, no private and public spheres….. all is communal, due to two characteristics of islam:  It is complete (Kamil), perfect and sufficient, and comprehensive (Shamil), that is to say, encompassing all aspects of human  life.

The Arabic language has a word for “politics” (siyasa) that corresponds to the western category. But it is not a Quranic concept, which might explain why it is not central concept in jihadist narrative. There are, on the other hand, several important concepts that feature prominently in jihadist thought and could be described as political in our terms. These include Khalifa (caliph), Sharia, and the lesser-known term hukm, which means “judgement” or “rule”.

These Arabic terms appear a lot in jihadist writings, and they come from the Quran, becoming the cornerstone of jihadist political theory. “Hukm”, from the verb hakama (to judge) has the sense of meaning rule in all its political dimensions. The verb “hakama”  is present in three closely related passages in the fifth sura (al-Mai´da, the table), which are often cited in jihadist literature, particularly in arguments seeking to substantiate the infidel status of governments in today´s muslim-majority states.

The formula is first found in the last part of verse 42: “Unbelievers are those who don´t judge according to God´s revelations”. The passage is repeated with minor variations in verses 45 and 47. Jihadists interpret these as indicating that any ruler who fails to govern in strict accordance with Sharia law is an infidel and thus to be resisted, included violence, seen as apostates and due to be executed.

Khalifa, or Caliph, comes from the verb Khalafa, which means to follow or succeed. Caliph literally means successor and, in the context of islam, denotes announcement by Daesh of its putative caliphate in 2014 provides a vivid illustration of how the quranic concept of caliph is used by jihadists in support of their political goals.

The statement was titled “This is what God has promised” and it begins with verse 55 of durat aan-Nur (The light), which says:

“God has promised those of you who believe and do good works to make them masters in the land as he made those who went before them, to strengthen the religion, He chose from them, and to change their fears to safety….”. “Let them worship me and serve none besides me. Wicked indeed are they who after this deny me”.

The verb translated “make masters” (“rulers” in other translations) is “istakhlafa” from the root Khalafa and, therefore, with connotations of caliph. On the basis of this aand related to qquranic passages, ISIS statement claims that God has promised islam global leadership and sovereignty over the earth, but that fulfillment of this promise is contingent on God being worshipped in the strictest monotheism. Consequently, paving the way for the fulfillment of God´s promise is one of the central missions for the global jihadist movement.

This examination of jihadist exegesis illustrates that while jihadists do  not formally recognize the western distinction between politics and religion, they nevertheless have something like a  political theory. God rules over the earth as the sovereign through his revealed law in the form of Sharia, and the political task is to ensure that his sovereign rule is put into effect by subjecting and ordering all human social relations to the arbitration of that revealed law.

The apparent contradiction between the inseparability of religion and politics is resolved by recalling that islam is a complete and comprehensive way of life. For jihadists, Islam is nidham (regime) and a manhaj (program) that is to be implemented completely in both private and public spheres. In that sense, jihadist political theory and the political manifesto that flows from it are simply dimensions of living out islam.

The global jihadist movement and its violence is truly a political movement. The question, however, is whether politics alone can provide a complete and comprehensive understanding of the movement and its violence. This brings us to theology.

THEOLOGY

Theology

 

Theology, in the Western sense, is not a category in jihadist thought or arguably in Islamic thought. One Arabic term equates to the English word “theology,” ilm al-lahut, but refers exclusively to Christian theology.

 

Islam, on the other hand, has its own indigenous tradition of scholarship with a unique vocabulary designated by the umbrella term ulum Islamiya (Islamic sciences). These cover a range of disciplines, some with correlates in other faiths, such as tafsir (exegesis) —found also in Judaism and Christianity. Others are particular to Islam, such as hadith science, the study of the prophet’s biography, and asbab an-nuzul, which is the science of determining the sequence and circumstances in which each passage of the Qur’an was revealed since passages within individual suras are not arranged in chronological order.

 

Still, one can productively employ the Western (or Christian) conception of theology to analysis of the global jihadist movement much in the same way as with politics. This draws out some distinctive characteristics that are not captured by politics and which differentiate the global jihadist movement from secular, political movements with which it is often (misleadingly) compared.

 

A conventional Christian definition of theology “denotes teaching about God and his relation to the world from creation to the consummation, particularly as it is set forth in an ordered, coherent manner.”[6] In this sense, it is possible to conclude jihadists do have a theology shaping their worldview and political activity.

 

Introducing the category “theology” also allows one to identify something unique about jihadist political concepts such as caliph, Shari’a, and hukm. They are theological concepts in twin senses that relate to teaching about God and his relation to the world, and they find their source in a text regarded as the literal word of God, which articulates His will for humankind.

 

Some of the foundational concepts of jihadist thought and activity can thus be described using two distinct Western categories: politics and theology. Put differently, it requires two Western conceptual categories to adequately describe, let alone explain, key aspects of jihadist thought, which combine to form a “political theology.” Central jihadist concepts such as caliphate, Shari’a, and hukm are best thought of as theopolitical concepts that relate both to God’s relation to the world and to the administration of states.

 

An understanding of global jihadist terrorism illustrates the necessity of integrating politics and theology. The moral legitimation for killing Western citizens is fundamentally theological, based on an interpretation of commandments made by God in the Qur’an and the model of warfare practiced by Muhammad and his successors. But the selection of terrorist targets is often made on the basis of political considerations. Targets are rarely, if ever, selected because of revelation, but rather for their strategic, symbolic, and political value to the larger jihadist political agenda: coming to power and implementing “true” Islamic rule.

 

Why, then, is it so controversial to talk about theology when it comes to the global jihadist movement and its violence? One explanation is the nature of contemporary social sciences where there is palpable and sometimes explicit discomfort with the category of theology. This can be attributed to what Jason Blum aptly terms the “methodological and ontological naturalism” of most social science researchers, the idea that “phenomena are to be explained solely through natural [mundane, not religious] … categories and causes.”

Methodological and ontological naturalism treats the theology of its subjects as irrelevant because there is no such thing as “God’s relation to the world.” Theological concepts and rhetoric, along with religious practice and experience, are to be explained by natural phenomena and causes alone, which are necessarily ulterior when the subjects claim theological motivations and goals. Politics, unlike theology, is considered to be real, tangible, and, most importantly, natural, and therefore a legitimate category for explaining the global jihadist movement.

 

There is a tension for social scientists, however, because jihadist literature is saturated in theological language. So researchers must do something with the expressed theology of jihadists. Two strategies are common in academic literature and public commentary. One is to minimize the importance of jihadist theology and then to ignore it. The other is to construe jihadist theology as merely politics by another name.

 

Thomas Hegghammer, a leading expert on the global jihadist movement, offers a vivid illustration of the “minimize-and-ignore” strategy. While he acknowledges that the movement “has both theological and political dimensions and may be analyzed from both perspectives,” he advocates focusing exclusively on politics because theology, though useful for understanding the “intellectual origin of particular texts,” cannot explain the “political preferences” of jihadists. [8] Jihadists, therefore, have a theology, but one that is not deemed to be particularly illuminating of their violent, revolutionary political agenda.

For his part, French political scientist Olivier Roy, who has published widely on Islamism and Islamist terrorism, contends that jihadist violence arises from what he calls the “Islamization of radicalism” and not the “radicalization of Islam.” He contends that “rebellious youth” have simply “found in Islam the paradigm of their total revolt.”[9] In other words, jihadists are really to be understood as political revolutionaries, who incidentally express their tendencies through Islam, perhaps for reasons of convenience, i.e., they were born into Muslim families and communities.

 

The evidence, however, forces Roy to use the term “religion” constantly, undermining his thesis that theology is ancillary. He admits that foreign jihadists from France and Belgium appear overwhelmingly to be “born-again” Muslims who, “after living ahighly secular life … suddenly renew their religious observance.” He further concludes that they are “sincere believers.” But he then appears confused by the fact that there is a “paucity of religious knowledge among jihadis. [10] Roy takes this paucity of theological knowledge as evidence that theology is incidental to the revolutionary impulse driving rebellious Muslim youth to violence. This is a clear example of the politics-by-another-name strategy.

 

Roy’s analysis reflects a common problem among contemporary social scientists: the inability to take professed, or even observable, religious experience seriously, even when these apply to young people who have made the momentous decision to give up their lives to fight and possibly die in the name of Islam.

 

Another source of controversy relates to Western Muslim scholars, for whom questions about jihadist theology are unavoidably normative. There is much more at stake for Muslim scholars than merely an accurate description of jihadist theology. It is entirely understandable that such scholars wish to dispute the normative theological claims made by jihadists and to offer an alternative reading of those same sources and traditions.

 

The tension, however, arises from the fact that the global jihadist movement does not pose normative theological questions for non-Muslim scholars, or indeed for the majority of Westerners. Yet some Muslim scholars misconstrue descriptive statements from non-Muslim scholars about contemporary jihadist beliefs as normative statements about Islam as a whole, then oppose such descriptions. They object to non-Muslim scholars adopting the language of jihadists because they believe it unjustly legitimizes jihadists.

Some take this opposition to extremes. Muslim scholar Asma Afsaruddin, for example, has argued that “those who describe the actions of these militant groups as jihad are part of the problem.” She has even provocatively suggested that it is “Islamophobes” who “focus on the notion of jihad as armed combat.”[11] This opposition to even talking about jihadist theology pushes many non-Muslim scholars to the more comfortable and uncontroversial waters of political explanations, which also happen to be those offered by Muslim scholars like Afsaruddin.

 

But as Sun Tzu famously observed, “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat.”[12] Shutting down honest and empirical study of jihadist thought is utterly counterproductive, a recipe for gross misunderstanding of an enemy with which the West—rightly or wrongly—finds itself at war. Muslim scholars such as Afsaruddin must recognize that it is not “Islamophobia” that has brought jihad into public discussion: The global jihadist movement itself is responsible. If there were no self-described jihadists waging self-described jihad against many Muslim-majority states and their Western allies, then the question of jihad would probably be as little discussed as it was prior to 9/11. Muslim scholars such as Afsaruddin could also be more sensitive to the fact that, while their restrictive reading and application of jihad is laudable, it does not illuminate what jihadists believe, which is what policymakers, scholars, and the general public all seek to understand.

 

Religion

 

Religion is the Western conceptual category most readily observable in jihadist thought. The term din (religion) occurs frequently and centrally in jihadist literature. Moreover, jihad, as conceived by jihadists, is taken to be a fundamental element of din al-Islam (the religion of Islam). One could argue that, in the jihadist conceptual universe, theopolitical concepts such as caliph, Shari’a, and hukm are properly understood simply as religious, or even more precisely, as Islamic, falling under the rubric of din.

But the category “religion” creates real confusion in the Western context, making it a fraught category for analyzing the global jihadist movement and its violence. The heart of the problem is that religion in the Western context is generally construed as both a plural and generic phenomenon, in the sense that there are multiple religions that share a common essence. The Western view is evident in the preoccupation of Western universities with comparative religion as a research methodology and goal of religious studies, and in the concomitant obsession with identifying and defining the putative transcultural essence of religion.

 

American academic Kenneth Rose, for example, defines religion as “the human quest to relate to an immaterial dimension of beatitude and deathlessness.”[13] French-American Catholic intellectual René Girard defines religion as “any phenomenon associated with the acts of remembering, commemorating, and perpetuating a unanimity that springs from the murder of a surrogate victim.”[14] These are classic essentialist definitions of religion. The problem is that jihadists believe in one religion alone: Islam. When they employ the term “religion” (din), it has no plural or generic connotations, thus making scholarly definitions of religion marginally useful as analytical frameworks for understanding the global jihadist movement.

 

It is true that Rose’s and Girard’s definitions of religion could be applied in the broad sense to the global jihadist movement. But the quest for beatitude and deathlessness and commemorating the murder of a surrogate victim is unlikely to help comprehension of the jihadist mindset and agenda. Any profitable investigation of the religious dimension of the global jihadist movement must begin with Islam, not with what the global jihadist movement might share in common with Buddhism.

 

It is, of course, not illegitimate to investigate whether there might be intrinsic links between religion and violence. But this is a separate question from that of the role of the religion of Islam (din al-Islam) in jihadist thought and action, and conflating the two does not aid an understanding of the latter. The Christian Crusades of the 12th and 13th centuries or the German church’s entanglement with the Third Reich do not illuminate the thought, motivations, and goals of twenty-first-century jihadists. Yet these kinds of issues constantly intrude into discussion of the global jihadist movement.

 

Conclusion

 

The false dichotomy of religion vs. politics has long hamstrung analysis and discussion of the West’s conflict with contemporary jihadists. Instead of adhering to this facile and dated paradigm, Western academics, journalists, and policymakers should shed their longstanding denial of the role of Islamic theology in contemporary jihadism. Recognizing that the West confronts a potent “Islamic political theology” in the form of the global jihadist movement will be a first step towards understanding the true nature of one of its most enduring security challenges.

Author: Jonathan Cole holds a Ph.D. in political theology from Charles Sturt University and an MA specializing in Middle Eastern studies from the Australian National University. He has worked as a senior terrorism analyst at the Office of National Assessments and the Australian Signals Directorate

PERMISIVIDAD OCCIDENTAL CON HAMAS

Después de solo un día de los asesinatos de esa banda criminal financiada por irán, que ha dejado un rastro de cuerpos mutilados en la frontera con Gaza, los islamistas iraníes organizan un “evento” en un local londinense de la red de Hamas, presentando voces pro islamistas, incuyendo en el pack a un prominente líder americano pro Hamas.

Este 8 de Octubre, la comisión de derechos humanos islámica (no os riais, leñe) , la IHRC, apadrina una charla sobre “justicia, paz y reconciliación en Palestina”. que sí, leches!!!! os lo prometo.

Los analistas de inteligencia anti islamistas, como el conocido Habibi, anuncian que se incluyen oradores como Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, un clérigo malayo que propone la yihad contra “el regimen sionista hasta el último aliento”. Esta es la calaña de la charla

Hamid se unirá a Dawud Walid, director de la rama de michigan del consejo de relaciones americano-islámicas (CAIR). Walid ha denunciado a los judíos por “incurrir en la ira de Alá”. CAIR fue fundada por tres líderes de la IAP, asociación islámica de Palestina, una organización disuelta ya y descrita por USA como parte de Hamas y su aparato de propaganda. sus líderes no han parado de justificar la violencia de Hamas, como es lógico.

El presidente del IHRC, Massoud Shadjareh, también está presente en la charleta. Es un apoyo incondicional de hamas, siempre presente en estos “eventos” organizados por irán.

Investigaciones del 2019 revelan que el IHRC, que se afilia abiertamente con el regimen iraní, recibió millones de libras del gobierno británico en el formato de “caridad”. De hecho, son apoyados por el líder laborista Jeremy corbin y otros activistas izquierdosos de la pérfida albión.

el IHRC hace el “evento” en la galería P2 sito en la calle 32 del este, un “fondo de caridad establecido para promover el arte contemporaneo árabe y su cultura”. Cómo lo veis.

Esta “galería” es un componente más de la intrincada red de ONGs y compañias controladas por Hamas, que opera impunemente en inglaterra.

Esta red de Hamas se estableció y se controla mediante una compañia financiera, Sayam and Co, basada en el este de Londres. Documentos filtrados muestran quienes son los directivos de la compañia, como Muhammad Sawalha, el estratega de la mayoría de las políticas militares de Hamas desde Europa.

Otro operativo de Hamas en inglaterra ligado a la dirección de esa empresa es Zaher Birawi, quien respondía ayer a los ataques de Hamas en las redes sociales como “una mañana bendita”.

El IHRC es solo otra voz pro terror en la escena islamista británica. Otras muchas entidades “caritativas” vinculadas con Hamas se continuan fundando abiertamente en ciudades inglesas.

Y así andamos en Europa. La arrogancia británica junto con el antisemitismo rampante de Escandinavia son caldo de cultivo perfecto para el crecimiento de estas “entidades caritativas pro Hamas”. No mola Europa?

EL MURMULLO SILENCIOSO PREVIO A LA ELIMINACIÓN DE HAMAS

En medio del pavoroso silencio que sigue al horror de otro despliegue de sangre y fuego, y en un, una vez pacífico Kibbutz próximo a la frontera con Gaza, encontramos un emblema de la inocencia, un bebé encontrado solo en el Kibbutz Kfar Aza, cuyos padres fueron secuestrados por Hamas.

Los asesinos de Hamas se han infiltrado en una base del ejercito israelí en el distrito sur, cortando el contacto de los soldados destinados allí, produciendo un silencio que representa la amenaza de un enemigo atroz.

En la ciudad fronteriza de Sderot, la “crisis” se eleva a la enésima potencia. Shoval Kahlon, residente, detalla la narrativa en donde Hamas pulula a sus anchas con impunidad, y sus botas hacen eco del terror que ahora mata esas calles.Llaman a las puertas, y sus siniestros motivos se revelan cuando los residentes, pensando que es el ejército israelí, abren las puertas al terror y el secuestro.

Los lloros silenciosos de ese bebé echando de menos a sus padres, el silencio de los soldados sometidos, y los tiroteos entre escuelas y mercados en Sderot, hacen eco de los irrelatables horrores de un conflicto que no reconoce fronteras, un testamento vívido de la brutalidad y falta de humanidad de esta agresión sin precedentes de Hamas y la invasión contra Israel.

Cada cohete lanzado,cada vida segada y cada familia destrozada, determina la urgente necesidad para Israel y el mundo de reevaluar y responder a esto con estrategia militar y determinación letal.

Hamas y sus aliados no solo han violado las leyes internacionales, han pisoteado lo más esencial de la naturaleza humana, iniciando una era de oscuridad en este 50 aniversario de la guerra del Yom Kippur.

Ya en Junio, medios competentes desvelaron información retando a la pasiva política de “cuidar el jardín” de Gaza, y así mostrando el camino hacia la victoria Isrealí. El reto llama a Israel a deshacerse de Hamas y su amenza desarmandolos, prohibiendo su rearmamento, y demostrando sin lugar a dudas el coste de amenazar a israel. Con este ataque, es hora de destruir a Hamas de una vez por todas.

Las imagenes del terror sobre civiles inocentes israelíes y sus vidas resuena como trueno en los medios. El mundo esta´siendo testigo de la resiliencia del pueblo israelí y su inmortal espiritu haciendo eco de la santidad de su lucha histórica. Mientras, la guerra estalla otra vez en suelo judío, y la resistencia se impera otra vez, no por elección, por necesidad. Israel no lucha para conquistar, sino para sobrevivir; no para dominar, sino por el derecho a vivr sin la nube negra amenazando su existencia a cada paso.

El eco de la inocencia se ahoga ante los estruendos de las explosiones. Hamas no solo ha iniciado la violencia, ha declarado abierta la veda contra el estado judío. Las paralizantes escenas vistas en las ciudades israelíes, así como los terroristas llenando las calles y los cohetes lloviendo, decenas de israelíes asesinados, docenas secuestrados y cientos desmembrados, solo resaltan un urgente imperativo: Ha llegado el momento de la extinción definitva de Hamas, sin paliativos.

El mundo observa en sobrecogedor silencio los horrores desatados. Cada cohete lanzado es un testimonio del odio visceral y la determinación de los árabes de aniquilar a los judíos. Cada uno de estos actos subraya la necesidad de una respuesta inequívoca, directa y sin escuchar las estupideces del consenso internacional. Las acciones de Israel no nacen de la elección, nacen del imperativo de querer existir.

La situación actual no es sólo un acto de terrorismo: es una invasión, una masacre orquestada que esconde ideas de genocidio. La llamada de mohammad Deif a una guerra total de los árabes en general contra Israel lleva a oriente medio al borde del abismo, resucitando el miedo y la ominosas sombras de violencia histórica.

En el amanecer de esta invasión, se programa una llamada entre Joe biden y Netanyahu, quien representa la resolución y angustia de una nación bajo sitio, y debería reflejar las negras realidades que encara Israel.

“Señor Presidente”, Netanyahu podría decir, “nuestra nación está siendo atacada, los cielos se cubren de cohetes y fuego de hamas, un grupo que esconde armas entre sus ciudadanos, usandolos como escudos mientras trantan de exterminarnos. Ese bebé encontrado solo, hace eco del grito silencioso de una nación, y es un apremiante testimonio de la gravedad de esta amenaza”.

El presidente Biden, en frente de esta realidad, debería responder con el apoyo incondicional de USA y reconocer la necesidad de desarmar a Hamas y Gaza. Debería decir: “Primer ministro Netanyahu, USA se alza sin equivocos al lado de israel. Reconocemos la profunda amenaza de Hamas, una banda que no solo busca la aniquilación de los judíos sino que mina todos los principios de la paz, seguridad y la dignidad humana. America no dudará en su compromiso para con la defensa de Isael y su derecho a defenderse, y extenderemos ese compromiso con diplomacia y apoyo militar. Aseguraremos la integridad de los isaelíes”. Esto debería decir, ya veremos.

La respuesta de Israel esta vez no se puede limitar a medias tintas y acciones quirúrgicas. La reocupación de la franja de Gaza es un imperativo. Hamas y la yihad islámica, entidades nacidas para destruir Israel, deben ser erradicadas, ya que mientras respiren, la sombra de la tortura de mujeres, niños y hombres estará presente.

Desarmar la franja de Gaza no es un acto de opresión, es un paso hacia la paz. Cada cohete eliminado, cada fusil en manos de Hamas y la yihad destruido, son el camino perfecto para que los niños nacidos hoy en esa zona no tengan que ver más violencia.

Las consideraciones de eliminar el liderazgo de Hamas y destruirlos no nace de un deseo de venganza, sino de estrategia y necesidad legal. Radica en el objetivo de neutralizar una amenza existencial, de silenciar las armas que dejan huerfanos a niños de un lado y del otro, y de desmantelar el edificio ideológico que da combustible a la incesante campaña de terror.

Esta no es una decisión tomada a la ligera, sino una necesidad nacida de la amenaza. Hay un caso legal para una actuación militar seria contra Hamas, y razones que van más allá de la simple necesidad de aniquilar esta despreciable invasión de la mañana de ayer.

El programa de Hamas inequivocamente llama a la destrucción de Israel. Sus actos no se limitan a escaramuzas en la frontera, y son un peligro constante para los judíos.

La historia demuestra que Hamas nunca ha respetado los acuerdos de alto el fuego, y usa los periodos de calma para reagruparse y rearmarse y reiniciar las hostilidades con vigor.

Con el paso de los años, Hamas ha incrementado su capacidad militar, amasando miles de cohetes, esos que pueden alcanzar las principales ciudades israelíes. Lo visto ayer lo demuestra.

Hamas conscientemente coloca su infraestructura militar entre civiles, entre hospitales y escuelas. Esto no solo pone en riesgo a los civiles de la zona, además dificulta los esfuerzos israelíes para neutalizar amenazas, Justo lo que pretenden sin importar la vida de los allí residentes.

La sintonía de hamas con Irán contribuye a desestabilizar la región y abordar esta alianza dará paz.

El intrincado sistema de tuneles usados para traficar con armas, lanzar ataques e infiltarse en Israel es una realidad que yo llenaría de gas sarín. Las recientes invasiones son testamento de su efectividad.

Todo estado legal tiene la obligación de proteger a sus ciudadanos. Con Hamas atacando más profundamente dentro de Israel, la intervención letal militar es una cuestión de seguridad nacional y protección de civiles. El dominio de Hamas en Gaza es el impedimento más grande para llegar a la paz. Castrando este elemento radical, se abre la puerta a voces más moderadas.

Hamas, con su nada ambiguo deseo de destruir Israel, presenta una amenza existencial que trasciende los retos de seguridad convencionales. Cada cohete lanzado y túnel construido mina la paz.

Es crítico completar la aniquilación de Hamas y el asesinato de sus líderes emerge como objetivo central de Israel.

Cada agresión desde Gaza no un incidente aislado de terror, sino un oscuro recordatorio de la amenaza constante del islam contra los judíos. No hay nada de territorialidad aquí, es meramente un asunto de odio religioso de musulmanes contra ludíos. Punto.

La potencia de este logro se apoya en la habilidad de decapitar esa maquinaría islamista, y si se logra, se logra la paz.El retorno judío a Gaza es simplemente una táctica para conseguir objetivos, lo mismo que mantener los altos del golán. Israel no se puede mover de allí porque sería aniquilado por Siria y jordania. Esa estrategia territorial capacita una eliminación sistemática de Hamas. Además, para el flujo de armas y recursos militares, inhabilitando su capacidad de atacar.

Por todas estas razones y más, El caso de Israel contra Hamas es imperativo. Esa banda será erradicada de Gaza. sé que la guerra debe ser el último recurso, también sé que Israel encara una situación en la que la acción sin ambajes es requerida para salvaguardar su futuro y, por fín , conseguir PAZ.

Paz para todos, incluidos terroristas, aunque no tengan puta idea de que hacer con ella.