CLAIM:
Hamas rhetoric does not target Jews or civilians.
STATUS:
False.
KEY COUNTERPOINTS:
-
Hamas rhetoric has repeatedly targeted Jews explicitly, not only Israeli soldiers, Zionist institutions, or the Israeli state. The 1988 Hamas Covenant uses religious language about Muslims fighting Jews, and senior Hamas figures have made public statements calling for violence against Jews. The claim collapses because the disputed wording is not only “Israelis” or “soldiers”; it repeatedly includes “Jews.”
-
Public incitement by Hamas officials has included direct calls for violence against civilians using knives and other weapons. Fathi Hammad’s 7 May 2021 speech, broadcast on Hamas linked media, called on people in Jerusalem to cut off the heads of Jews with knives. That is not abstract anti Zionist rhetoric. It is explicit incitement against an identity group.
-
Hamas’s conduct on 7 October 2023 confirms that the rhetoric was not limited to lawful military targets. Civilians were murdered and abducted, and hostage taking became a core feature of the attack. The rhetoric and conduct reinforce each other: civilians were not merely caught in crossfire; they were direct targets.
-
The 2017 Hamas political document creates a talking point for defenders, but it does not erase prior doctrine, later speeches, or civilian targeting. Hamas’s later attempt to frame the conflict as anti Zionist rather than anti Jewish is relevant as a public relations move, but it cannot outweigh the 1988 Covenant, explicit speeches targeting Jews, and actual attacks on civilians.
EVIDENCE:
• Article 7 of the 1988 Hamas Covenant quotes a hadith about Muslims fighting Jews before Judgment Day.
• Article 13 of the same Covenant rejects peaceful initiatives and states that jihad is the only solution to the Palestinian question.
• On 7 May 2021, Fathi Hammad called on people in Jerusalem to cut off the heads of Jews with knives, using the Arabic phrase “رؤوس اليهود” meaning “the heads of the Jews.”
• The statement targeted Jews as Jews, not only Israeli soldiers or government officials.
• The 7 October 2023 attacks included killings and abductions of civilians, making the claim that Hamas rhetoric and practice avoid civilians unsustainable.
• Hamas’s 2017 document contains language distinguishing Zionists from Jews, but that selective text does not neutralize contrary Hamas sources and conduct.
PRIMARY SOURCES:
• Hamas Covenant, 1988, Articles 7 and 13
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Founding Hamas document. Strong because it directly shows that Hamas’s ideological rhetoric includes Jews as a category and rejects negotiated settlement.
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them.” Article 7.
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” Article 13.
↑↑↑ Best source!
• Video of Fathi Hammad speech, 7 May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgBFPnQiho
Primary video source for the cited speech. Directly relevant because the claim is about whether Hamas rhetoric targets Jews or civilians.
“يا أهل القدس، نريدكم أن تقطعوا رؤوس اليهود بالسكاكين.” 7 May 2021.
Ya ahl al-Quds, nureedukum an taqtaʿu ru’us al-Yahud bil-sakkakin.
“People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives.” 7 May 2021.
↑↑↑ best source!
• JNS, Senior Hamas official calls on Arabs of Jerusalem to cut off the heads of the Jews, 10 May 2021
https://www.jns.org/senior-hamas-official-calls-on-arabs-of-jerusalem-to-cut-off-the-heads-of-the-jews/?utm
Secondary report preserving the speech context and translation. Useful as support, but weaker than the video itself.
↑↑↑ mid source
• Hamas Document of General Principles and Policies, 2017
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
Primary Hamas political document often cited by defenders to claim Hamas distinguishes between Jews and Zionists. Relevant for the strongest counter argument, but weak as a defense against older Hamas doctrine, later incitement, and civilian targeting.
“Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion.” Article 16.
↑↑↑ mid source
• UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry, A/HRC/56/26, 12 June 2024
https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/56/26
Official UN report on the 7 October attacks and the Gaza war. Supports the point that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups did not restrict violence to soldiers or military targets.
↑↑↑ best source!
• Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 34
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-34
Primary treaty source prohibiting hostage taking. Supports the point that civilian abductions cannot be reframed as lawful rhetoric or lawful resistance.
“The taking of hostages is prohibited.” Article 34.
↑↑↑ best source!
• International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 1
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1
Primary legal source on distinction. Supports the point that civilians are protected from direct attack regardless of political justification.
“The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants.” Rule 1.
↑↑↑ best source!
STRONGEST COUNTER ARGUMENTS WORTH KNOWING:
• The strongest opposing argument is that Hamas’s 2017 document says the conflict is with Zionism, not Jews as a religion. That source should not be ignored. It is the cleanest text defenders will use.
• Defenders may argue that Fathi Hammad’s statement was a wartime outburst by one official rather than binding Hamas doctrine. The answer is that the statement is not isolated when read beside the 1988 Covenant and repeated civilian targeting.
• Some will argue that translations overstate the issue by rendering “Yahud” as Jews when the intended political target is Israelis. That defense is weak in the 2021 speech because the Arabic wording uses “al Yahud,” not “soldiers,” “occupation forces,” or “Israeli army.”
• Some will argue that Israeli civilians are settlers or reserve soldiers, so the civilian category is blurred. That argument fails under international humanitarian law. Civilian protection is not erased by nationality, ideology, or residence.
NOTES:
The key debate move is to separate three categories: Jews, Israelis, and soldiers. Hamas rhetoric often blurs those categories. That blur is the problem.
Do not let the opponent retreat from “Hamas does not target Jews” to “Hamas mostly means Zionists.” The claim being tested is categorical. One clear senior official speech and one founding charter reference are enough to defeat the absolute claim.
The 2017 document is the main defensive source. Address it directly: later public relations language does not cancel earlier doctrine, repeated incitement, or actual civilian attacks.
The most compact rebuttal: Hamas has used anti Jewish rhetoric in its founding charter and senior public speeches, and its 7 October conduct showed civilians were direct targets, not accidental rhetorical collateral.
RELATED CLAIMS:
Hamas is a resistance group
Hamas is not the governing authority of Gaza
Hamas does not indoctrinate children into jihad, martyrdom, or terrorist violence
Hamas does not use UNRWA facilities