I'm not sure how you could say this when a few lines down you acknowledge that persecution would probably occur, but seriously, what do you think would happen?No, Hamas rule would mean the disenfranchisement of post-1947 Jewish immigrants to Israel into becoming non-citizens. What happens after that might be hard to say.
Based on everything we've read/seen, it would mean the expulsion of every Jew (nice case of history repeating itself). All the other ME and North African countries have expelled their Jews, and there's no reason to think they'd take them back.
So, basically, another dispersal of the Jews, only this time there's only one region they can go to.
The Hamas Charter explicitly labels Palestine an Islamic state, and Jerusalem an Islamic city. There's no ambiguity there. Even the 1947 plan expected Jerusalem to be a separately administered zone for the three faiths, and even under Israel, there's various levels of access allowed (e.g. Al Asqua Mosque allows Jews and Christians to come around it, but not pray on it, despite being built on a former Jewish site).The Hamas charter definitely does not explicitly support de-Christianisation: quite the opposite, in fact. Although I suspect in practice, Hamas would not be terribly concerned about persecution of Christians beyond the PR damage in the international community.
Hamas claims it respects religious pluralism, but it hasn't happened. Not in Gaza. And while not responsible, it hasn't occurred anywhere in the ME apart from Lebanon's power sharing agreement, and we know what Jordan did to East Jerusalem when it occupied the West Bank.
Well, how far do you want to go back?Well, sure. de-Christianisation has been going on since the 7th century, if you want to look at it that way, but it's not necessarily very useful to go back that far.
I mean, rhetorical question, but on the subject at hand, I usually go as far back as the 19th century. It's true that de-Christianisation began as soon as Islam emerged, but the process accelerated from the 20th century.
To the above:There has clearly been a rapid decline in the last few decades, attributable in large part to emigration. But that emigration has more been driven by war, disorder and economic hardship than anything else. In many cases, where persecution has occurred, it has been enabled by this war and disorder. Much war and disorder has been inflicted by Western and Israeli actions. Al-Qaida and ISIS were born of resentment of Western interference, and ISIS flourished in Iraq where the West destroyed the local authority. At a significant step down in Islamism, being much more pragmatic / nationalist, Hezbollah was founded in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and Hamas in response to the First Intifada. Hezbollah was subsequently vastly empowered by the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon, and Hamas by the persistent failure of Israel and Fatah to secure a future for the Palesinians.
-Al Quaida was formed out of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
-The origins of ISIS are murky, but while it's absolutely true that the invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum that allowed it to take power, not only does its founding pre-date Iraq, but its ideology is rooted in the writings of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist texts. ISIS, or some variant of it, would likely exist without any kind of interferance, at least if we assume that ideology = outcome.
-As for the reduction of Christianity as a whole...maybe. I say "maybe," because everything I've read on the subject doesn't disprove the economic thesis, but I haven't seen much that backs it up. Ask why Christianity isn't a thing, and "persecution" is the main result. Even if we buy the idea that the de-Christianization is due to Western interferance (which isn't unreasonable, there's likely truth to that), the persecution has gone on in countries regardless - see Saudi Arabia and Egypt for example. The closest I've seen to the economic thesis is the basis of economic times being tough, ergo, use Christians as scapegoats. If it was simply "bad economy, emmigrate," you'd expect to see similar percentages leave.
To the first point, maybe. I mean, the region has many legitimate gripes with Western interferance, but while I've read of some Islamists framing such things as "the return of crusading Christians" (or similar phrases), just as often, it's a case of Islam vs. secularism/godlessnes - certainly that's the case in Europe right now.Key here of course is the fact that the West is viewed as Christian. Every time the West interferes politically or militarily, it can be perceived by some Middle Easterners as an attack by Christians on Muslims, and increases the risk that the native Christian populations become viewed as an enemy within. The upswing in Islamic fundamentalism such as Wahhabism makes this even more likely.
This is the tragic truth. The West and Israel have probably done more to de-Christianise the Middle East than centuries of preceding Muslim rule. Although of course, Israel couldn't give a shit about de-Christianisation and in terms of Israel/Palestine, effectively supports it.
To the latter point, debatable. At the start of the 20th century, the ME was about 20% Christian. As of 2016, it was 3-4%, and went into overdrive in the last 15 years. Some of that last 15 could be down to stuff like Afghanistan and Iraq, but there's also the Arab Spring, which didn't turn out well for Christians, as sectarian conflict sprung up. You're right about Israel, yes, but the de-Christianization (and de-Jewification) process has gone on all around it. If the de-Christianization was entirely due to Western intervention, you'd have expected to see Christian populations remain in place in the countries unaffected by it, but that hasn't been the case.
Also, Christians don't do well in Muslim countries, period, and that's outside the ME. In contrast, 90% of all religious terrorist groups are Islamic. Doesn't take much to find out why.
Relative as in percentage, or absolute? Because in absolute terms, the Christian population in Lebanon has gone up (in part due to refugees).Hezbollah was founded in 1982. The Christian population of Lebanon has been in relative decline (much through emigration) significantly longer. See also above about the drivers for Hezbollah's growth. Iran can supply arms and funds, but it is anger against Israel that drives recruitment
Um, yes? Israel's expelled non-Jewish people, and declared itself a Jewish state.by that logic Israel's commitment to a Jewish state necessarily means expelling or murdering everyone who is not Jewish.
I mean, sure, unless Hamas succeeds in its goals, we can never be 100% sure of what it would do, but we can look at what has happened under Hamas (de-Christianization within Gaza), and in surrounding Islamic states (near complete de-Jewification and significant de-Christianization), and in Jerusalem and the East Bank under Jordan (further de-Jewification). The region's hand a taste of what Islamic states mean for non-Muslims, whereas in contrast, Israel's done better in protecting minorities within its borders than other countries, which includes access to holy sites in Jerusalem (something the Jordanians flat-out refused when they controlled East Jerusalem).
I fully agree that Israel has done shit things, and continues to do shit things, and I'd like it to stop doing shitty things (it could start by freezing settlements and evictions) but by any measure, living under Hamas would be worse. Both of their charters, their history, and the history of Islamic states in the region demonstrates this.