Last week, reporter Mike Elk attended at Tree of Life
Synagogue in Pittsburgh a commemoration "marking the 5th anniversary of
the 11 Jews that were killed there in the biggest massacre of Jews in U.S.
history." He reported that Pennsylvania senator John
Fetterman, who was "at the edge of the ceremony,
has refused to back a ceasefire and has denounced those who
have supported it.
Last week, after someone spray painted the phrase “Free
Palestine PGH-Gaza” on the side of local Allderdice high school down the street
from the massacre, Fetterman tweeted that the graffiti was “reprehensible.”
Then, Fetterman tweeted out a photo of his Senate wall with pictures of Hamas’
Israeli hostage, saying that “the only thing that belongs on a wall right now
is this.”
When I asked Fetterman why he objected so much to someone
spray painting the phrase “Free Palestine – PGH-Gaza” on a high school, he
falsely stated that the message read, “Free Palestine from the river to sea,
Palestine will be free.”
Fetterman defended his denouncement of the spraying
painting.
“I don’t believe that whatever message you’re able to make
shouldn’t be vandalized on a high school in the middle of Squirrel Hill, “says
Fetterman. “I am really about making sure that Israel is able to do what Israel
deserves to do.
Disappointingly, but not unexpected from a journalist of the
left
.@JohnFetterman denounces "Free Palestine" graffitti on local high school & tells me why he's against the ceasefire.
The entire slogan is not "free Palestine" but
"from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and it most
assuredly has not been official U.S. policy. Official U.S. policy has been
support for a two-state solution, not a Palestine free of Jewish influence, as in "from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea."
An interesting spin on racialism has become prevalent on the far
left, and on a limited basis on the near left. It has not dropped one bomb or launched one missile against
Palestinians as we've known them. Tel Aviv has not attacked the Palestinians on the west bank, the Palestinians of Jordan (where Palestinians are in the majority), or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet, Israel is charged with pounding "the Palestinians" as if it is waging war against an entire race.
So John Fetterman thought "Free
Palestine-PGH-Gaza" read "Free Palestine from the river to the sea,
Palestine will be free." The student must have run out of spray paint or
space on the wall, or was simply lazy.
Journalist Elk apparently is not familiar with "a distinction
without a difference."
Once upon a time, Lindsey Graham told presidential candidate Donald Trump to "go to hell" and that he is "a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."
Graham later visited Donald Trump at the White House and played golf at the President's golf resort, and came out as an enthusiastic Trump supporter. Otherwise, he didn't "come out" and clearly is still in the Trump loyalist phase of his personal journey
Graham: I tell you what, if Trump were President, Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine because he’s afraid of him pic.twitter.com/yREEQtDG4S
That is absurd. While speaking on Sunday in Sioux City, Iowa and giving a shout-out to Sioux Falls (South Dakota), Trump boasted "about threatening to abandon U.S. allies, even if Russia attacked one of them." He
notably also said he had threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from NATO members unless they paid the bloc more. He said, at one point, he told member state leaders, “We’re not going to protect you any longer.”
“The head of a country stood up, said, ‘Does that mean if Russia attacks my country, you will not be there?’ That’s right, that’s what it means,” Trump said to applause. “I will not protect you.”
“And the money came!”
Trump’s refusal to step in even in the case of a Russian attack is notable considering how much he loves Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin. Trump and Putin enjoy a particularly cozy relationship, and Trump has repeatedly praised the Russian president.
Given the fact that Republican support for the war in Ukraine is on the wane, Putin must be overjoyed that the party’s presidential front-runner is actively advocating letting Russia attack whichever countries it wants.
In an early August interview on NewsNation, John Bolton, a national security adviser in the Trump Administration
called the deal with the Taliban that led to the U.S.
withdrawal a “disastrous mistake” and said that his dealings with Iran fell
short. He also said Trump threatens the U.S. relationship with NATO.
“In a second Trump term, we’d almost certainly withdraw from
NATO,” he said.
Obviously, if Donald Trump had won re-election, Vladimir Putin would have been more eager to invade Ukraine. Without support from NATO which President Biden has been able to cobble together, Ukraine would have been overrun swiftly. And Hamas terrorists would have invaded Israel, made easier because Benjamin Netanyahu, once a Trump favorite, and Israel's security forces dropped the ball.
Nonetheless, there is good reason, aside from being compromised by Trump, for Graham to remark
I believe, if Trump were President, none of this would be going on. If he gets to be President in 2025, this would end pretty quickly. Whether you like Trump or not, there was order in the world that's been lost.
There may not have been order in the world when Donald Trump was President. Hamas was eyeing the opportunity to do its imitation of genocide by slaughtering Israelis, and Putin had his eye on Ukraine. But with the misleading nature of hindsight, we believe that there had been order, that the world was topsy-turvy. And Trump, as the prior President, is perfectly situated to exploit this feeling which voters have.
He was, after all, President before Biden was President. In George Orwell's classic Animal Farm, Squealer rhetorically asked ".... it is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back!"
The horror of it all! The animals would be better off if Jones returned but exclaiming, without explanation, "Jones would come back!" creates the assumption that things were worse. When Lindsey Graham asserts "whether you like Trump or not, there was order in the world that's been lost," he's addressing independent-minded voters, who are less ideological than Republicans or Democrats and are vulnerable to an assumption that things were simply better in an earlier time.
It's a deceptively strong argument in the court of public opinion with low-information voters, particularly those less committed to either political party. It may not be rational but this is a country which once voted for Donald Trump for President and which counts among its Senators a guy who is now a passionate advocate for a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."
In the fall of 2020, President Donald Trump ran for President against former Vice-President Joe Biden. So I hate to defend the press secretary to Mr. Biden when she says "Remember, when the President decided to run for President...." but here we are.
Krystal Ball is lying.
The Israeli govt has imposed a siege on every civilian in Gaza, is mercilessly bombing civilian targets, has already forced the displacement of over a million people, has massacred thousands of innocents. To the White House those who oppose these war crimes are akin to nazis. https://t.co/NZpVHvOCLi
The Israeli government has not imposed a siege on every civilian in Gaza. It is not mercilessly bombing civilian targets. The IDF is bombing military targets which Hamas has strategically placed amongst civilians. That somewhat discourages Israeli bombing raids and when Israel proceeds nonetheless, considerable civilian casualties ensue. For Hamas: a win-win.
The people displaced "forcefully" have been directed by Tel Aviv to go south because Israel is concentrating its attacks in the north of Gaza. And the massacre? The massacre occurred on October 7 in an attack which Ball will not acknowledge. The word "massacre" has lost all meaning if it doesn't mean rape, burning babies, beheading adults, and slaughtering everyone in your way. But for opponents of the State of Israel, "massacre" is just an eight-letter word to be thrown around recklessly.
College students and hundreds of thousands of protesters worldwide marching in support of a ceasefire to preserve innocent lives are in no way comparable to the neo-nazis in Charlottesville. https://t.co/4D5GWlHxUy
Asking "does President Biden believe the anti-Israel protestors in this country are extremists?"Peter Doocy was being diplomatic, wherein he could have replaced "extremists" with "anti-Semitic" or "pro-Hamas." Jean-Pierre avoided answering the question directly, yet accurately equated them with the Charlottesville protests.
Jean-Pierre cited President Biden's repeal of Trump's "Muslim ban" and effort to address 'Islamophobia,' anti-Semitism, and related forms of bias and discrimination." In the context of recent events, she could be slammed for equating the danger of "all forms" of hatred with that of anti-Semitism, which is growing exponentially and threatening the political viability of the President's defense of Israel.
And yet, .for Nina Turner, the problem evidently is that the press secretary noted that candidate (or as she inaccurately stated, "President") Biden condemned the violent Unite the Right rally and will not tolerate hate as President.
Or maybe that was not really Turner's concern. I suspect that noting that the left- or, rather, ethnic groups the left favors- in its most extreme form present a threat to our basic values is offensive to her.
So maybe Karine Jean-Pierre, in her faltering and barely coherent fashion, desires a measure of credit. There are bigots such as Turner and Ball on her far left condemning her for defending standard, traditional moral values. There are Democratic politicians and pundits who see protests of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," know that means the elimination of Israel, and turn mute. Representing President Biden, the press secretary decried prejudice. Other Democrats now must step up and denounce the people who would like the Israelis to sink into the sea and vanish from history.
Someone here is very naive, and someone not. The first Indian-American woman to serve in the
United States House of Representatives, she is not vile and pro-terrorist,
unlike fellow progressives Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, and Rashida Tlaib. And appearing on Sunday's Meet the Press,
Washington State's Pramila Jayapal explained
Well, look, Kristen, first of all, nobody has any love for
Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has deprived the Palestinian
people, absolutely, of many, many things in the time of their rule. And let's
not forget that the last election, where Hamas was elected, was 16 years ago.
Half of Palestinians are children. They were not part of that. And Hamas is not
Palestinians. And Palestinians are not Hamas. We have to be very clear about
that.
"Hamas is not Palestinians." Not only is that
accurate, Jayapal she is one of very few people- politicians, pundits,
journalists, whomever- who will acknowledge that. The people of Gaza are not
the Palestinians of Israel proper, nor of the West Bank, nor of Jordan, the
nation more than half of whose residents are ethnic Palestinians. There is a
difference between the Gazans and the other peoples, unless all of life now is
race and genetics, with no account for citizenship, national lineage, or
anything else.
It is true, moreover, that the misguided individuals who
voted Hamas into power did so many years ago and many changes occur over time,
including the death of individuals and the birth of so many more.
However, reality mourned when Jayapal remarked (moments
earlier)
.... we need immediate sustained humanitarian aid to flow into
Gaza. We need the bombings – and, you know, you can call it a humanitarian
truce, as 140 countries said in the resolution that was passed at the United
Nations. The United States was one of only 14 countries to oppose that
resolution. Call it a humanitarian truce. Use that time to make sure we get the
hostages out, both American hostages and Israeli hostages.... And I think this is the moment for us to
de-escalate, to call for cessation of hostilities, and to allow humanitarian
aid through and the negotiators to work to get the hostages released.
Calling a truce, then expecting hostages to be released and
Hamas to cool its heels is almost as naive as John Lennon's
"Imagine," in which bad music was paired with lyrics so unrealistic
as to be silly: "Imagine no
possessions. I wonder if you can. No need for greed or hunger; a brotherhood of
man."
Without regard to Lennon or Jayapal, a wise and balanced
remark:
In a conversation with @NorahODonnell, Secretary Hillary Clinton on those calling for a ceasefire:
“People who are calling for a ceasefire now do not understand Hamas, that is not possible. It would be such a gift to Hamas because they would spend whatever time there was a… pic.twitter.com/cCcL1JusCU
In a candidacy that is equal parts bold and bizarre, United
States Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota has announced a run for the
Democratic nomination for President.
"The irony," as William Conrad intoned at the beginning of each television episode of The Fugitive, "(is) Richard Kimble is innocent." The irony here, after eight years of Barack Obama and four of Donald Trump, the country has had the benefit of almost three years of a productive and effective presidency. And unlike the last Democratic President, Joe Biden is being challenged- sort of- from within his own party.
As this article by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic suggests,
Phillips, a member of the centrist, bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, is not
challenging Biden on ideological grounds. Nor is he running because he believes
that the incumbent has been a bad President. Interviewing Phillips at the
latter's Virginia farmhouse on October 20, Alberta found a congressman fearful
that Joe Biden is dead man walking, a clear underdog to Donald Trump.
After spending portions of 2022 "cultivating
relationships with powerful donors, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, who had
offered their assistance in recruiting a challenger to Biden," Phillips
was still undecided, with Democratic heavyweights warning him that a challenge
to the incumbent would only impede the latter's re-election in 2024. This summer, he
began asking House Democratic colleagues for the personal
phone numbers of governors in their states. Some obliged him; others ignored
the request or refused it. Phillips tried repeatedly to get in touch with these
governors. Only two got back to him—Whitmer in Michigan, and J. B. Pritzker in
Illinois—but neither one would speak to the congressman directly. “They had
their staff take the call,” Phillips told me. “They wouldn’t take the call.”
Eventually "feeling hopeless," Phillips made a few
last-ditch phone calls, pleading and praying that someone might step forward.
No one did and in the first week of September
several major polls dropped, the collective upshot of which
proved more worrisome than anything Phillips had witnessed to date. One survey,
from The Wall Street Journal, showed Trump and Biden essentially tied, but
reported that 73 percent of registered voters considered Biden “too old” to run
for president, with only 47 percent saying the same about Trump, who is just
three and a half years younger. Another poll, conducted for CNN, showed that 67
percent of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Biden as the party’s
nominee.
The Minnesota congressman, who appears to lack the ego of a
US Senator, governor, or celebrity who might seek the presidency, seems to
be the ultimate reluctant candidate. "In the run-up to his launch,"
Alberta remarks, "Phillips tried to speak with the president—to convey his
respect before entering the race. On Thursday night, he said, the White House
got back to him: Biden would not be talking to Phillips." Moreover, as Alberta interviewed him
the less energized Phillips seemed by the idea of
dethroning Biden. He insisted that his first ad-making session focus on
saluting the president, singing his opponent’s praises into the cameras in ways
that defy all known methods of campaigning. He told me, unsolicited, that his
“red line” is March 6, the day after Super Tuesday, at which point he will
“wrap it up” and “get behind the president in a very big way” if his candidacy
fails to gain traction. He repeatedly drifted back to the notion that he might
unwittingly assist Trump’s victory next fall.
Despite an effective President, voters believe the recovery is faltering and the incumbent is too old to serve a second term. Nonetheless, signaling that he is expecting to quit the race before the spring equinox is no way for Phillips to run a campaign if he is determined to win. Yet, as bizarre as this effort is, it is equally bold.
So believing that President Biden's message has not been heard by voters and that he is hampered by age, a somewhat unknown member of the U.S. House has launched a campaign
extremely treacherous for a Democratic hopeful. Alberta writes
In a year’s worth of
conversations with other party leaders, Phillips told me, “everybody, without
exception,” shares his fear about Joe Biden’s fragility—political and
otherwise—as he seeks a second term. This might be hyperbole, but not by much:
In my own recent conversations with party officials, it was hard to find anyone
who wasn’t jittery about Biden. Phillips’s problem is that they refuse to say
so on the record. Democrats claim to view Trump as a singular threat to the
republic, the congressman complains, but for reasons of protocol and
self-preservation they have been unwilling to go public with their concerns
about Biden, making it all the more likely, in Phillips’s view, that the former
president will return to office.
In the past fifteen months, Alberta explains, Phillips
name-dropped some Democratic governors on television and
made personal calls to others, urging someone, anyone, to jump into the
Democratic race. What he encountered, he thought, was a dangerous dissonance:
Some of the president’s allies would tell him, in private conversations, to
keep agitating, to keep recruiting, that Biden had no business running in
2024—but that they weren’t in a position to do anything about it.
In an underrated irony
What made this duplicity especially maddening to Phillips,
he told me, is that Democrats have seen its pernicious effects on the other
side of the political aisle. For four years during Trump’s presidency,
Democrats watched their Republican colleagues belittle Trump behind closed
doors, then praise him to their base, creating a mirage of support that
ultimately made them captives to the cult of Trumpism.
Phillips made clear to Alberta that he found no equivalence
between Biden and Trump. Certainly, there is no cult of Bidenism to rival
Trumpism or even Obamism, the latter the Democratic Party's irrational fealty
to President 44. Nonetheless- and despite the incumbent seemingly headed for
defeat in twelve months- no Democrat stood up to challenge Biden even as,
according to Phillips/Alberta, the Minnesotan was told "to keep agitating,
to keep recruiting."
This would be baffling, if it were. But it is not, because
the answer is hiding in plain sight.
While having written an otherwise excellent article, neither Alberta nor
the courageous (if misguidedly centrist) Phillips will even mention, let
alone acknowledge, why no Democrat who believes Biden is going to get beaten will
challenge him. In an important, conveniently ignored piece in early September, two NBC reporters found
Biden allies have not been shy about getting the word out
that it would be self-defeating for ambitious white male candidates like Newsom
to try to snatch the nomination away from Biden and Kamala Harris, who made
history as the first woman and person of color to become vice president.
Consider the past: A string of Democratic candidates who
failed to lock down Black voters went on to lose the race for the party's
nomination — including Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Hillary Clinton in 2008.
“When you had people who were trying to test the waters” for
a presidential bid, “the party rose up and made it clear to those individuals —
who were mostly white men — that to disrespect the vice president would not be
well received by women and people of color within the party,” said Karen
Finney, a longtime Democratic strategist. “They got a little bit of a smack in
the face.”
In the words of the legendary broadcaster Paul Harvey, "now you know the rest of the story." Potential candidates were reluctant to stand up not because they adore the incumbent, nor only because it might hurt him in the general election. The
major reason has been race.
Let's clarify: R-A-C-E. (Gender is playing a secondary role.) Karen Finney warned "the party rose up and made it clear to those
individuals — who were mostly white men — that to disrespect the vice president
would not be well received by women and people of color within the party. They
got a little bit of a smack in the face."
She said the quiet part out loud and no one responded
publicly. Cenk Uygur has claimed that he asked prominent Democrats to challenge
Biden and no one took the bait. Dean Phillips evidently did all he could to get
someone interested but found no takers. Uygur is now in the race, despite being
ineligible for the office. Phillips declared for the office on Thursday, but
reluctantly. His chance of being nominated is only slightly better than that of
Uygur, not the least because he's more committed to defeating Trump than he is
to his own candidacy.
Dean Phillips did not get the memo. To Finney and the party
hierarchy, Kamala Harris is no more and no less than a black woman- so proceed
with caution. Every Democratic politician has responded as required. Do not
pass go, do not collect $200, and don't even think about getting in the way of
Kamala Harris. The rather brave Dean Phillips has made his
future as a Democrat extremely precarious, even more so than Joe Biden's future
as a President.
We have a Donald J. Trump. We have a George Santos. Now it
appears that the United Nations has an Antonio Guterres. CNN reports that at a
meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
called for a humanitarian ceasefire on Tuesday amid the
deepening crisis in Gaza, and told the Security Council that “clear violations
of international humanitarian law” are being witnessed.
He called Hamas’ October 7 murder and kidnap rampage
“appalling,” and said “nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and
kidnapping of civilians, or the launching of rockets against civilian targets.”
“It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did
not happen in a vacuum,” Guterres said. “The Palestinian people have been
subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land
steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy
stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished.”
“But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify
the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the
collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Excellencies, even war has
rules,” he added.
The war in the Middle East does not pertain to "the Palestinian people" and clearly "the Palestinian people" are not being collectively punished. Israel is not bombing the West Bank which, before October 7, was home to those who were referred to as "the Palestinians." Were Israel to punish Palestinians collectively, there would by now be very few Palestinians still alive for Arab leaders and UN executives to feign concern about.
Advising people to migrate from the area which a nation's military is planning to bomb is a very strange way of inflicting "collective punishment." Guterres should know better- and does. After strong criticism from Tel Aviv
In an effort to “set the record straight,” Guterres said
Wednesday he was “shocked by misinterpretations by some of my statement
yesterday in the Security Council – as if I was was justifying acts of terror
by Hamas.”
“This is false. It was the opposite,” he told reporters, restating his condemnation of the October 7 attacks.
But Guterres did not back away from his Tuesday call for a ceasefire, or from his nod towards the historical treatment of Palestinians.
Guterres is "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here"- and that he was accused of justifying acts of terror by Hamas after he rationalized acts of terror by Hamas. He was accused of justifying terrorism because that is precisely what he had done, having criticized the group before adding "The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished."
Those Palestinian people whose land is occupied live in the West Bank, not in Gaza. Were Gaza occupied, Hamas would not have been controlling the area for sixteen years and there would be no need for the invasion Israel is contemplating.
According to CNN, the Secretary-General did not, as CNN put it, back away from his nod toward the historical treatment of Palestinians. The slaughter by Hamas was terrible, Guterres admitted, but there was good cause for it, he insisted while excusing the massacre.
If you're looking for George Santos to admit to serial deceit; Donald Trump to declare "I am a racist," or John Bolton to slip and say "I want war with Iran," And Antonio Guterres won't say "I hate Jews." It's not going to happen. This is not your corner bar. Men and women- even Mr. Trump- in the public eye understand the need not to be explicit.
Guterres wants us to recognize that "Hamas did not happen in a vacuum." After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas won an election against Fatah in 2006 and has ruled since then without an election- because, of course, they care so much about "Palestinians." They
“developed the
capability to tax and extort,” said Matthew Levitt, who worked as a senior
Treasury official focusing on countering terrorist financial networks. Hamas
began to rake in taxes and kickbacks from salaries, sale of goods and smuggling,
a sum that now reaches up to $300 million to $450 million a year, said Levitt,
now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank.
Although the U.S. and the European Union have designated
Hamas as a terrorist organization, “they’re not effectively cut off from the
international financial system,” said Hans-Jakob Schindler, senior director of
the Counter Extremism Project. “They actually are able to invest funds in
companies and in real estate.”
Hamas’ leadership has invested its income in an
international investment portfolio worth $500 million in real estate and other
assets from companies in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey and the United
Arab Emirates, which it uses to conceal and launder its money, according to a
Treasury announcement.
Cryptocurrencies have helped the group invest its money
while bypassing international financial sanctions according to a report by the
Counter Extremism Project. To combat those efforts. “Hamas was an early adopter
of fundraising in crypto starting in 2019,” said Ari Redbord, a former federal
prosecutor and global head of policy and government affairs at TRM Labs, which
is working to track Hamas funding. “They were using Telegram channels to
solicit donations. They then stood up website infrastructure to solicit
donations.” Yet, experts, including Rebord, emphasize that cryptocurrency
remains a small piece of the group’s financial strategy.
To some extent, Hamas also supplements its income with
various criminal enterprises, experts said. “All large-scale terror groups,
such as Hamas, have to ensure that they have multiple, overlapping financing
streams, because there is international pressure on its finances,” Schindler
said.
Hamas may be merciless, barbaric, and running international criminal enterprises but at least they're killing Jews, a redeeming quality to Antonio Guterres. And the United Nations will offer only condemnation of Israel coupled with support for Hamas, couched in dishonest language parroting its deeply dishonest Secretary- General.
Israel is losing the war- the messaging war. (Fortunately, messaging is a major battle, not the war itself.) This is reflected in Cenk Uygur's response expressing an opinion held by tens of millions of Americans and more abroad:
This is a bullshit, unobtainable standard meant to punish innocent Palestinians for as long as humanly possible. If you’re enjoying the torture of your fellow human beings, there’s something deeply wrong with you.
Innocent "Palestinians?" The tweeter to whom Uygur was replying did not mention Palestinians. This would be inconsequential were it not the primary framing of the war Tel Aviv is engaged in with Hamas.
It's a framing both prejudicial and so inaccurate that the conclusion that it is dishonest is almost inescapable.
Mosab Hassan Yousef was raised in the West Bank as the son of one of the founders of Hamas and at one time a member of the group.. However, he became an undercover agent for Israel's Shin Bet security force, serving from 1997-2007. (Although it is difficult to determine whether he actually converted, Yousef clearly is very sympathetic to Christianity.
He has remained extremely hostile toward Hamas and supportive of Israel. Recognizing that this war is not a struggle between Israel and the Palestinian people, he told (beginning at 4:08 of the video below) Fox News' Brian Kilmeade
You know, Hamas is not a national movement ,it's a religious movement. They don't care for nationalism. Actually, they're against nationalism. With that said, my understanding- they are using the Palestinian cause only to achieve their goal. So the long term goal, you know, transforming the Middle East and the world into an Islamic state. This is Hamas' agenda and they are not hidden, by the way.
Lately, that goal has been hidden, disappeared by both the traditional and non-traditional media, which will only extremely rarely mention "Islamic" or "Islamic fundamentalist" and never, ever utter the word "Muslim."
It's as if Hamas selection as its immediate target the planet's one Jewish state was by accident. However (as Yousef didn't mention but undoubtedly understands well), Hamas made clear at its inception its agenda. Its 1998 charter is called "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement," which states "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
That's not Hamas obliterating it or Palestinians obliterating it. it's Islam which will obliterate it, in the name of "The Marty, Imam Hassan al-Banna,of blessed memory." Of course, they are radical, fundamentalist Muslims, not representing all Muslims or all Palestinians. Nonetheless, if a Christian organization were to declare its intention to obliterate Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar in the name of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pope Francis, or Jesus Christ, the world would not write it off as inconsequential, merely the work of an extreme, violent wing of the religion. Everyone would be justifiably horrified.
Yet, that may not be the most significant promise of the charter. Article 27 reads
That is why, with all our appreciation for the Palestinian Liberation Organization- and what it can develop into- and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.
Loosely (but not very) translated, that would be "the future Palestine will be Islamic, will not be secular, and whatever Palestinian and/or Muslim individuals who don't accept our version of Islam better watch their back."
CNN's Jake Tapper asked Yousef "What are the leaders of Hamas like? What do they want?" Yousef at 6:01 of the video below can be seen stating
They are a religious movement. And this is what everybody is afraid to say. If Hamas were a political movement, then we can satisfy their political ambition But Hamas is a religious movement that does not believe in political borders.
You know, they want to establish an Islamic state on the rubble of the state of Israel. They want to annihilate the Jewish people and the Jewish state. They want to kill everybody who supports Israel, then establish an Islamic state. But this is not the end because their ambition is global. They want to establish eventually an Islamic state, a global state. So this is what's on their mind.
The media needs a narrative to report a story which if told accurately and honestly, would be highly controversial. So Mosab Hassan Yousef must do what no others will do, reveal the ugly reality that this fight is not between Israel and the Palestinians but between Israel and Hamas, the latter composed of fundamentalist Muslims who "want to establish an Islamic state on the rubble of Israel."
