How do those who quote Hamas' charter defend the Likud charter?

The Hamas Covenant states they want to kill the Jews in Israel, and Hamas has stayed committed to that goal in both their words and their deeds. Their biggest "peace offer" has been to offer truces of up to 10 or 20 years, but they've made it clear that they would spend that time building up a force to try to destroy Israel afterwards.  Likkud was originally against a Palestinian state west of the Jordan, but Netanyahu and others have since stated that they support it, as long as Israel can guarantee her own security. If Hamas would renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist, in both word and actions, then its Covenant would no longer be relevant. Until that point, the Covenant needs to be quoted more to demonstrate the threat that Hamas currently is.

The foundation of your question is incorrect. Netanyahu himself has endorsed a two-state solution. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence. Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922

Netanyahu is asking for a precondition that states that murder is wrong.  The Likkud charter, while it's not compatible with a two state solution, doesn't call for mass murder. I don't think I'm splitting hairs.

Gee wiz; all that it is missing is the requirement to kill all the Palestinians and we have the exact same document.

This is a nasty and ugly comparison!! I reject both charters but I see the Likud party charter as a political opponent with whom I can debate, not as a charter calling for genocide and religious rule over millions of people!!! How can you compare?? The Likkud are expecting the UN adheres to the old decision to devide the area once called region of Palestine to an Arab country - Jordan, and a Jewish country in the rest of it. This has nothing to do with genocide. They think Israel should be a Jewish country, not ethnically cleannsed of Arabs, just acknowledged by them as the Jewish homeland and a democracy. I may disagree with the Likkud charter, but I believe this is a legitimate disagreement, unlike my total condemnation of the Hamas charter, which are hoping to achieve an Islamic yudenrein country! They also plan to go on for the distruction of the western civilization after they're done, as do all branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.

See: http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/branco-cartoon-crash-of-civilization/. I do it all the time. So much, that I am not sure why I did not get an A2A. I put it in as many Quora answers where it is relevant to make sure people know what is in the Hamas Charter. I pointed out the Hamas Charter to an Egyptian I was going back and forth with on Quora pointing out a number of provisions in the Hamas charter. He pointed me to this: http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html I pointed out to him this from the article he pointed me to: The Hamas charter, of course, does more than just reject Israel as a sovereign political entity. It’s a vile document that echoes some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes of the modern era. I consider charters to be a lagging indicator but a fair one nonetheless.  I view the fact that leaders on both sides are making statements ahead of amending their charters as a good thing but still hold the charters paramount. I have no expectation that either Hamas or Likud remove from their charters their conflicting claims on the land whether it be based on current occupation, religion, or being dispossessed, no matter how far back in history the claims. To my knowledge, the Likud Charter contains no hate filled anti Muslim parallel to this: The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim). There is a lot more in there. Read it for yourself: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397.

Interesting question. My answer, and I do sometimes quote the Hamas charter, is that I don't defend the Likud charter. I see no reason to, I don't agree with it. I'm not Israeli, but if I were I probably wouldn't vote Likud. The underlying assumption here is that if someone is against Hamas, then they must be for Likud. That's a wrong assumption. One should be able to be objective, to be able to judge all without bias. Picking a side doesn't mean universal acceptance of that side and universal condemnation of its enemy. At least it shouldn't. If you take a step back and look at the rhetoric of the different positions, you see that the advocates for Palestinians put a lot of effort into mirroring all the criticisms leveled against Palestinians with a similar criticism against Israel. They know what the pro-Israeli talking points are, so they create parallel talking points that, in their opinion, negate the pro-Israeli talking points. For example. years ago, before the separation wall was built an Arafat led Fatah was waging war by sending suicide bombers into Israel, whenever you mentioned how awful the suicide-terror campaign was, someone would pipe up with an Israeli mass murderer, Baruch Goldstein. Baruch Goldstein was a mass murderer. He killed more than 30 Palestinian worshipers at a holy site, and wounded more than 100 more. He was bad, no defending him. But was he really comparable to a government run (Fatah, Hamas) campaign of terror? Was one lone nutter really the equal to the suicide-bombing industry Arafat created? There is a term for that kind of reasoning.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence Hamas is a violent, religiously zealous, oppressive organization. They wage needless war, and display a shocking disregard over the well being of the people they're supposed to govern. Likud? They're too right-wing for my tastes, but they seem to be effective leaders. They know how to run a government and are pretty good at taking care of their constituents. Are they perfect? No. Are they comparable to Hamas? No, not even close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Israel is a democracy. There are many political views represented in government (more than in most democracies). About 75% of Israelis did not vote for Likud so government decisions require support from more left wing parties. In contrast, Hamas won the election in 2006 with 74 seats of the 132 seats. Fatah won just 45. Hamas fighters took total control of the Gaza Strip and removed Fatah officials by force. The battle resulted in about 600 Palestinian deaths. Hamas also seized fixed assets from Fatah by force. BTW this is what led to the international community deciding to blockade Hamas.

Your question is built on a flawed foundation. They are not at all equally nauseating to many. Hamas charter calls for GENOCIDE. Hamas repeatedly and clearly says their goals of genocide and the total destruction of Israel will not be changed and anyone who says otherwise is lying. They KILL people who disagree with them. The Likud charter does say they don't want an Arab state in the WB and Gaza. You cannot compare the two as being equally bad. AND the Likud charter DOES not represent all Likud members or the state of Israel just as the Republican or Democratic platforms don't represent all R's or D's or the USA. AND the Likud govt has accepted the previously made agreements committing Israel to withdrawing from Gaza and much of the WB for the creation of another Palestinian state there.