BBC: One isn’t a jihadist if one just kills Jews

 "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

 

Let me be clear from the very beginning: the BBC never said ‘One isn’t a jihadist if one just kills Jews’ – though what they did say boils down to it. I wouldn’t normally stoop to this sort of dishonest headline tactics – it’s not my style.  But the BBC is utterly, outrageously dishonest in its reporting on Jews and the Jewish state – so I believe they deserve a taste of their own medicine.

As everybody knows, the BBC stubbornly refused to refer to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hizb’ullah, etc. as ‘terrorists’ – even after 7 October 2023, when they butchered and abducted random civilians in the name of ‘the cause’.  At the time, the Beeb rolled out ‘veteran journalists’ such as John Simpson, who ponderously explained:

“Terrorism is a loaded word . . . It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people . . . who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business . . . The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.”

Except that the BBC did say “terrorist” in their own voice, when referring to the Manchester Arena bomber and his purported accomplices. That’s of course different because… err… they didn’t kill Jews?

The Beeb never referred to the 7 October 2023 massacre (1,195 people killed) as a ‘terror attack’.  But they did so in reference to other, decidedly smaller incidents: for instance the 2016 attack at Brussels International Airport (32 fatalities) and the 2017 London Bridge attack (8 dead).

But why am I bringing all this up – you might ask – almost two years after that shameful BBC decision?  Because relatively recently (20 June 2025), I came across a BBC news item entitled “Jihadists on 200 motorbikes storm Niger army base”.

Why, I wondered, was the BBC referring to Islamist terrorists storming an army base in Africa as “jihadists”, while claiming that a much larger attack on civilian communities in Israel was perpetrated by “militants”?

So I put pen to paper (figuratively, of course: I actually used a laptop) and sent a complaint to the BBC, asking them to explain that discrepancy.

No journalistic dinosaur with a God complex was available to reply to an ignorant pleb like me; but an Assistant Editor at the BBC News Editorial Standards informed me that

“Hamas is not typically classified as a jihadist group, unlike the Islamic State (IS) group which claimed the attack on the army base in Niger.

IS promotes a violent transnational Islamist ideology, whereas Hamas and PIJ are localised groups whose focus is the Israel-Palestinian conflict, in particular the replacement of Israel with an Islamic state in Palestine.

As such, we feel it is clearer to readers to describe Hamas and PIJ as armed groups rather than jihadist, as their fight is against the Israeli state.”

So there you are: the Palestinian Islamic Jihad aren’t jihadists – because they only kill Jews.  So Saith the BBC.

I briefly wondered whether the Assistant Editor blushed when arguing that line?  ‘Briefly’, because I once again got on my laptop, to point out to the BBC that the ‘difference’ between “transnational” and “localised” was cut entirely out of new cloth.

Firstly, because – far from being “localised” – both Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are merely local branches of transnational movements.

In its Covenant, Hamas describes itself as

“one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine . . . a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times”

But hey – what does Hamas know?  Nothing is true unless the BBC Saith it.

Fortunately, the BBC – aiming no doubt to enlighten dumb members of the audience like myself – did saith it.  They published an explanatory article helpfully entitled “What is jihadism?”

That article beats around the bush a lot; but the gist of it is that “jihadism” consists of two elements:

1. An Islamist ideology;
2. Willingness to employ violence in order to promote it.

The BBC did call Hamas “Islamist” (albeit very occasionally) in the past.  As for the use of violence… I figured that post 7 October even the Assistant Editor might find it a bit too embarrassing to argue that point.

But, just to remove any doubt, the BBC explainer also mentioned that jihadists are not all exactly the same: they “share the basic aims of advancing Islam, but their priorities can vary”.  An example of such priority is:

“Establishing sovereignty on a territory perceived as occupied or dominated by non-Muslims. The Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (Soldiers of the Pure) is opposed to Indian control of Kashmir, while the Caucasus Emirate wants an Islamic state throughout the "Muslim lands" in the Russian Federation.”

Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas are as similar as two terror outfits can ever be.  Despite BBC’s euphemistic description, the former’s programme goes ‘a bit’ further than just “oppos[ing] Indian control of Kashmir”; they plan to ‘liberate’ all India and ‘reestablish’ Muslim rule over it.  Sounds familiar?

So I got on my laptop again and wrote all this to the BBC.  But when the Assistant Editor came back to me, his answer was an exercise in ‘logical’ contortionism and dishonest obfuscation – causing me to immediately escalate to the highest stage of BBC complaints consideration: the mighty Executive Complaints Unit (ECU).

The Assistant Editor’s response started with the inimitable BBC brand of arrogance:

“We appreciate that it remains your view that Hamas should be called Jihadists.  However we remain of the view that the reasoning outlined in your complaint does not amount to compelling evidence for changing our approach.”

But why not – I hear you crying?  How can an article published by the BBC itself “not amount to compelling evidence” for the BBC?  Well, the respondent pointed out that the BBC explainer I quoted from did not mention Hamas.  It didn’t, of course – and nor did it mention most of the other Islamist terror groups.  The article was entitled “What is jihadism?”; not ‘An Exhaustive List of Jihadist Groups’.

The BBC guy went on to school me in the intricacies of Islamic theology:

“the term itself is rooted in the Quran and often used interchangeably to mean ‘fight’, ‘struggle’, or ‘resistance’, appearing widely in the rhetoric of militant and political movements - including some that are not overtly religious.”

In my letter to the ECU, I once more referred to the Hamas Covenant:

“Art. 7 . . . refers to ‘the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.’ Art. 8: ‘Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes’. Article 13 [states]: ‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad,’ and goes on to disparage diplomacy as “all a waste of time and vain endeavors”

Which part of that, I asked, refers to non-violent jihad?  And which part is “not overtly religious”?

Next, the Assistant Editor asserted that there were “a number of fundamental differences in approach” between Hamas and “organisations like so-called Islamic State”.  Which is why, he went on to claim, the latter “not only disdain Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, but have openly labelled them ‘apostates’, declaring them legitimate targets for violence.”

To further school me in the facts of life, the good Editor added links to two articles (one of them by the BBC) explaining the differences between Hamas, Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

But, as I pointed out to the ECU, this was

“Another irrelevant ‘argument’: that Hamas, the PIJ, IS & Al-Qaeda are all jihadists needs not imply that they are identical in every respect. The SNP, Alternative für Deutschland, the Catalonian Nationalist Party, Israel’s Jewish Power & the PLO are all nationalist movements – but that doesn’t mean they’re identical or in agreement.

Neither of the two articles linked [in the Assistant Editor’s response] claims that Hamas & PIJ aren’t jihadist; they merely point out the differences between various jihadist groups. One may find articles pointing out the many differences between sharks and mackerel; sharks may even feed on mackerel – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t all fish!

While the IS disdains Hamas, they’re also at odds with Al-Qaeda – yet the BBC does not use this to claim that the latter aren’t ‘jihadists’. In fact, both sources cited [by the Assistant Editor] refer to ‘rival jihadists’. Like other extremists (especially religious extremists), jihadists are factional: they view deviations from the ‘pure’ ideology not just as erroneous, but heretical.”

The Assistant Editor’s letter concluded:

“We can therefore only reiterate that we feel it is clearer to readers to describe Hamas and PIJ as armed groups rather than jihadist.”

I told ECU that this

“is illogical. There are many types of ‘armed groups’ in the world. The term gives the audience zero information: post-7 October 2023, most of the audience already knows that they’re ‘armed’.

This is like calling Trotskyism and Leninism ‘political ideologies’: true, but not informative. Surely it’d be much more edifying to call them both – despite their differences/rivalry – ‘communist ideologies’?”

I also pointed out that, since the BBC did publish an article explaining the differences between Hamas, IS and Al-Qaeda, there was little risk that the audience might be misled into thinking they were all exactly the same.

But the BBC would have none of it.

ECU’s response came signed by… a former Assistant Editor, who had gradually risen through the ranks.  He wrote:

“Having read carefully through the correspondence to date I am not sure there is much to be gained from continuing a relatively academic argument over which definition most closely fits Hamas as an organisation. There will always be debates over how to characterise Hamas – just as there were over IS. The question for a broadcaster like the BBC is less whether there can be a definitive answer to such a question, and more what is the best means to convey the similarities and differences between the different groups in a way that allows audiences to understand their motives, ideologies and background.”

You got that, plebs?  Calling Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad “armed groups” rather than “jihadist groups” is more likely to allow “audiences to understand their motives, ideologies and background”!

So Saith the BBC.  Or, in ECU’s charming language

“This letter represents the final word of the BBC and general complaints of this kind do not usually fall within Ofcom’s remit. But you can contact them if you wish.”

No, it’s not just extreme, disgusting arrogance that permeates that letter – but also intellectual dishonesty and ill-faith.

And it’s far from being a one-off case.  When it comes to Jews, the BBC applies a different ‘logic’, a unique reading of its own Editorial Guidelines and a distinct way of doing things.

The son of a Hamas minister was employed to narrate a BBC documentary on the war in Gaza. 'We didn't know!' claimed the BBC brass, after the boys identity was discovered by a pro-Israel researcher equipped with... a laptop.

When it comes to Jews, the BBC ‘hears anti-Muslim slurs’ that nobody else does.  When it comes to Jews, the BBC pays Hamas families to push Hamas propaganda (as if they wouldn’t do it for free; and as if BBC’s own journalists don’t promote it enough!)  When it comes to Jews, the BBC sees only the most evil of intentions – and smuggle in the ruminations of its ‘International Editor’ as facts.

BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen: "I've been accused of anti-Semitism [sic!] more times than I have hot dinners..." One of those many times was when Bowen accused Israeli PM Netanyahu of "play[ing] the holocaust card" by acknowledging survivor Elie Wiesel in the audience.

When it comes to Jews – and only when it comes to Jews – the BBC behaves like Völkischer Beobachter, subjecting its audience to a constant stream of antisemitic ‘news’.

Sure, the BBC will say that they ‘cover the war in Gaza’.  But – leaving aside the biased content – which other war did they cover in the same relentless, obsessive way?  The war in Ukraine (one million casualties and counting, seven million refugees)?  How about the war in Syria (500,000 killed, 12 million displaced)?

The BBC has quoted ad nauseam the Hamas ‘report’ of people who died “as a result of malnutrition” in Gaza (circa 200 since 7 October 2023); but when is the last time you read or heard on the BBC about Sudan’s Zamzam refugee camp, where 1 child died every 2 hours?

The BBC is, of course, not the only media outlet that actively promotes antisemitism; it’s just that the others don’t do it on my dime.  In the UK, anyone watching a live broadcast has to pay the ‘licence fee’.  This applies to watching any live channel, through any means (aerial, satellite dish, internet…) and on any device (TV set, computer, smartphone…)  The licence fee is used to fund the BBC but not any other media outlet (so, if you watch live on the internet a TV channel from Zambia or a YouTube broadcast from Burma – you must pay a licence fee to the BBC!)  Not paying it constitutes a criminal offence; it will result in a hefty fine – if not a prison term; and it goes on your criminal record potentially preventing you, for instance, from being employed as a teacher, a social worker, etc.

But even if you don’t watch any live broadcasts, being a UK income taxpayer means that some of your money goes to fund this ‘national treasure’.  You may never use the service – but you’ve got to pay for it.

Not that paying gives one any influence over what the BBC says, does, over whom they employ and promote, etc.  You may believe that BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen is a talentless piece of dead wood who should at best be working for The Whispering Hedge Weekly (circulation: 15 and growing); but you are still required to fund part of his c. £260,000 per annum salary!

BBC's 'Diplomatic' Correspondent, posted on X on 8 October 2023.

The BBC’s only raison d'être is being a ‘public’ news outlet.  This means that, in return for receiving public funds (while its ‘commercial’ competitors have to work hard to scrape a living), the BBC is supposed to work in the public interest, according to strict rules ensuring accuracy and impartiality – not to mention integrity.

Except it doesn’t.  It’s all a disgusting sham.

Let’s start with the hierarchy: the BBC is led by a Board whose Chair is – in practice – appointed by the sitting Prime Minister.  The other Board members are appointed either by His Majesty’s Government or by the BBC itself.

In turn, the Board appoints the Director-General, who appoints the Directors/Executive Officers.  The Director of News & Current Affairs then appoints the Editors.

So much for ‘checks and balances’.  There is nothing in that recruitment process that truly guarantees BBC’s independence – let alone impartiality and diversity of opinion!

As for ‘public interest’: before 2017, the BBC was ‘regulated’ by the BBC Trust, which was supposed to represent the licence payers.  But in 2017, a new Royal Charter dismantled the Trust, replacing it with the Board and giving the Government more power over the BBC.  As for the licence payers, they are now represented by… nobody in particular.

At the time, the change was spun as an improvement in BBC accountability, as the complaints process was referred to Ofcom – the industry regulator (before 2017, the BBC was outside Ofcom’s jurisdiction).

But that was no improvement – it’s just another lie.  Here’s why:

• Ofcom considers complaints only once the BBC Complaints process has been exhausted (i.e., once ECU has issued a final response rejecting the complaint). But the BBC process is long, tiresome and demoralising.  Complainants either give up or avoid it altogether.  In 2023-2024, no less than 2,709 BBC-related complaints were submitted to Ofcom.  But only 153 (less than 6%) had completed BBC’s own complaints process – the others were generally dismissed by Ofcom with no consideration.
• Ofcom considers complaints according with its own Broadcasting Code, as opposed to BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The Broadcasting Code is applicable equally to all broadcasters, meaning that – despite being funded by the public – the BBC is not held to higher standards.  Since 2017, Ofcom received no less than 7,133 complaints about BBC bias; only 29 (0.4%) were upheld.
• Ofcom’s jurisdiction extends only to BBC audio-visual content. It does not encompass articles and news items published on BBC websites, mobile apps and social media.  These remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the BBC, which is left to ‘regulate itself’.  Of course, increasingly people read news on websites and apps, rather than watching live TV or listening to the radio.
• Ofcom is woefully underfunded and understaffed. While its budget and headcount have increased gradually, its workload has grown massively.  The number of BBC-related complaints has grown 20-fold since 2017; those specifically about BBC bias have tripled in the past 3 years.  But the BBC is far from being Ofcom’s main headache: in 2023, the UK Parliament adopted the Online Safety Act, which brought a huge expansion of Ofcom’s role.  In addition to its already broad role (further expanded in 2017) Ofcom is now UK’s online safety regulator – covering search engines, social media, user-to-user services, online risks, disinformation and misinformation, algorithmic transparency, as well as assuming responsibility for promoting ‘digital literacy’ among the 69 million-strong British populace.

 

I mentioned the BBC Editorial Complaints.  These are written by… the BBC, of course.  There is usually a consultation, but the BBC does not have to hold one; nor does it have to take on board anything that the consultation brings up.

Such a consultation took place in 2024-2025.  But you’d be forgiven for not having heard about it: despite considerable efforts, I could not find anything on the BBC News website announcing this ‘public’ event.  So – in practice – the BBC also gets to decide who is consulted…

The Guidelines are a long and prolix document – the latest version runs to 448 pages.  One can read there whatever one wishes to read – and the BBC does!  For instance, Paragraph 2.4.7 says

“Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.”

Not a BBC original contribution, but a fundamental principle of ethical journalism.

But just a little further on, another Paragraph (2.4.12) states:

“Presenters, reporters, correspondents and on-air editors . . . may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience…”

In practice, I found many instances where BBC “[p]resenters, reporters, correspondents and on-air editors” failed to “clearly distinguish [opinion] from fact.”

Invariably, those assessing my complaints claimed that they were expressing not “opinions,” but “professional judgements,” which they “may” do.

I responded by pointing out that, by definition (see here, here, here), “judgements” are opinions, albeit considered ones.  And that the paragraph that permitted such opinions to be expressed did not remove the obligation to distinguish them from fact.

But, of course, it did not help.  The BBC responded as follows:

“You say ‘Judgements are opinions’. We would say that judgements are sound conclusions which are rooted in evidence.”

That’s it: the BBC writes its own rules; it interprets rules as it wishes; it assesses complaints against itself as it pleases; and it changes the meaning of the English language at its own convenience.  The national anthem should really be called ‘God save the BBC’!

Did I say “assesses complaints against itself”?  The BBC’s 3-stage Editorial Complaints process isn’t fit for purpose.  It’s another sham.

The BBC is obliged (by the Royal Charter and the Framework Agreement) to publish “a framework for handling and resolving complaints”.  That’s another document (52 additional pages I had to read).  Only instead of dealing with how the BBC should perform the “handling and resolving [of] complaints,” the “framework” is primarily concerned with what the complainants need to do: complain in a certain way and not another; within a certain time period; include all the required details etc. etc.  What the Editorial Complaints Procedure does not say is how the BBC should investigate those complaints.  Besides a few woolly formulations (e.g. “we aim to…”), there is no requirement for the complaints personnel to be independent; no obligation of fairness and impartiality; no commitment to investigate beyond ‘giving consideration’.

The BBC only commits to respond within a certain time period, ‘unless it requires longer’ (one of my complaints required more than 18 months to be… rejected by the ECU).  At any point, it can decide to amalgamate hundreds of complaints together and provide one boilerplate response to everybody; it can decide not to investigate a complaint for a variety of reasons; it can even ban complainants if – in the opinion of the BBC, of course! – they complain too much, raise trivial, irrelevant or groundless points, are unduly persistent (“pressing the point”), or God-forbid use “abusive language”.  The banned complainants still have to pay the licence fee, of course!

As we have seen, complaint adjudicators are colleagues of those complained about, who use the first person plural (”we”) to defend the BBC from criticism and accountability.  The Framework promises “an initial response” at Stage 1a and “a response from or on behalf of a BBC manager or a member of the editorial team” at Stage 1b.  This would suggest to a reasonable person that the 1b adjudicator should be higher up the hierarchy, compared to 1a.  But the BBC claims that there is no such obligation, and in practice the same person might respond at 1a and 1b; or one may receive an anonymous response; or a response from someone who isn’t “a BBC manager or a member of the editorial team” and does not state “on behalf of” whom they respond...

Stage 2 (and last) is the pompously named Executive Complaints Unit (ECU).  Naïve persons might take ‘unit’ to mean a group of people discussing, debating and making collective decisions.  But that’s just more deceit: in practice ‘ECU’ is just one person scratching their head, deciding and responding.

At each stage, the BBC is supposedly required “to give an explanation for any decision about a complaint“.  But that’s often ignored, with some responses particularly curt and dismissive.

Finally, even on the exceedingly rare occasions when a complaint is upheld (usually because it’s so blindingly obvious, that the adjudicators can’t possibly wriggle out of it), the BBC isn’t required to do anything beyond applying a minimal correction to the offending news item (which by then may be many months old, forever buried in some godforsaken corner of the BBC News website!)

As a ‘public’ media outlet, the BBC is supposed to hold up the flag of ethical, quality journalism, resisting the temptations of both ‘commercial’ sensationalism and political activism.  It does exactly the opposite: it competes with Al-Jazeera in providing shamelessly skewed, biased content.

The BBC has turned malignant.  And, as usual with such things – Jews are the canary in the coal mine.  These days, the BBC is one of the main promoters of antisemitic prejudice.  It is only a matter of time before its insidious but incessant propaganda – which is already responsible for additional suffering in the Middle East – will cause bloodshed in this country.  UK Government – be warned, or be damned!

Gaza: starved of the Truth

 An unprecedented media and political campaign has been launched, to persuade everybody that Israel is deliberately starving innocent Gazans – men, women and especially children.  The drumbeat is so intense because it aims to drown out everything else – especially the Truth.  And it mostly does.

The photos of Israeli hostages starved by Hamas did not make it to the cover of New York Times or The Guardian...

As usual, the lies are monochromatic and simple to grasp; the truth is complex and uncomfortable.  But that’s no reason to fall for the lies.  Choose the truth.  Here it is.

Question: Is there famine in Gaza?

Short answer: no.  This isn’t an opinion, but a fact that even the BBC was forced to admit, just a few days ago:

“Global food security experts have not yet classified the situation in Gaza as a famine, but UN agencies have warned of man-made, mass starvation taking hold.”

Long answer: ‘Famine’ is not a metaphor, but a well-defined phenomenon.  The international body that defined ‘Famine’ and put itself in charge of declaring it boasts the catchy name of Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).  These are the “[g]lobal food security experts” that the BBC refers to.  The BBC report above is deliberately worded to give the impression that the “[g]lobal food security experts” are different from “UN agencies”.  In reality, the IPC functions as an arm of the United Nations.  Several UN agencies are part of the IPC ecosystem, as are several charities and governmental agencies.  As a result, IPC (which was born out of the best humanitarian intentions) has gradually been politicised.  But, to try and balance the various interests, while also striving to preserve some credibility, the IPC structure includes the so-called Famine Review Committee.  The FRC is (at least in theory) made up of independent experts and acts as a sort of auditor, reviewing IPC-issued classifications.

To make things even more confusing, several other bodies may declare Famine in a territory, based on IPC methodology.  Nobody accredited them to do that, but they do it anyway and the FRC tends to agree with these assessments – unless they are too far fetched.  Such a situation occurred in 2024: in May that year, one of the bodies supporting the IPC ‘determined’ that there was Famine in the Gaza Strip; but in June the FRC disagreed:

“The FRC does not find the . . . analysis plausible given the uncertainty and lack of convergence of the supporting evidence employed in the analysis.”

The IPC/FRC system does two things:

1. Assesses & classifies the current situation;
2. Produces a forecast for the next period.

As mentioned above, currently the situation in Gaza is not classified as famine.  The IPC did issue a forecast on 12 May 2025, warning of “critical risk of Famine” in the next period (April-September 2025).  The document goes on to explain that, from 11 March 2025 (when the Israel-Hamas ceasefire collapsed), the territory had been under a complete blockade:

“Over 60 days have passed since all humanitarian aid and commercial supplies were blocked from entering the territory.  Goods indispensable for people’s survival are either depleted or expected to run out in the coming weeks.”

The “[g]oods” referred above were those provided during the ceasefire, when massive amounts of aid had been delivered into the Strip.  Israel claimed that much of that aid was stashed away by Hamas; it wanted it returned to and consumed by the population before any additional supplies were delivered.

“[C]ritical risk of Famine” means ‘currently there is no Famine, but there very likely will be in the future, unless something is done about it’.  But something was done about it: starting from 18 May 2025 (just a few days after the IPC forecast was issued) aid deliveries to Gaza resumed.  According to Israeli reports quoted (i.e., not disputed) by the IPC, almost 20,000 metric tonnes of food were delivered between 19 and 31 May 2025, followed by close to 38,000 metric tonnes in June and 32,600 between 1 and 23 July.

Yet on 29 July 2025, the IPC issued an ‘Alert’ entitled: “Worst-case scenario of Famine unfolding in the Gaza Strip”.

Most media outlets reported the title above (and embellished it), but without providing a link to the document itself.  So most people have no way to know that this does not mean that there is currently famine in the Gaza Strip.

Just after the ominous title, the document (designed as an infographic) explains:

“According to IPC protocols, an Alert does not classify areas or provide population estimates and does not constitute a Famine classification. [emphasis added]”

Unlike IPC Assessments and Forecasts (which must be based on rigorous scientific data and are reviewed by the FRC), Alerts are political advocacy documents.  They can and often do rely on fishy sources – in this case ‘data’ from the Hamas-run ‘Health Ministry’ in Gaza.  Indeed, the ‘Alert’ states:

“The IPC Global Initiative is issuing this Alert based on the latest evidence available until 25 July to draw urgent attention to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, following the IPC analysis published in May 2025, which detected a risk of Famine.”

In other words, the Alert isn’t based on any new analysis (the latest analysis was the one published in May, before the resumption of aid), but on “evidence available”; which, as the rest of the document shows, is the ‘evidence’ supplied by the Hamas ministry.

The purpose of Forecasts is to establish a scientific basis for action; the purpose of Alerts is “to draw urgent attention” – i.e. advocacy.

But let’s have a closer look at what the IPC is saying: they use rather convoluted phrases such as “Famine unfolding” and “Famine is currently playing out”.  Isn’t this strange?  Why not simply state ‘there is terrible Famine in the Gaza Strip’?

Well, even when engaging in political advocacy, a body like IPC cannot be caught lying.  And stating outright that there is currently Famine in Gaza would be an obvious lie – one contradicting IPC’s own classification.  Hence, they use ambiguous phrases: “unfolding” and “playing out” can be said to refer to the future (they both mean ‘gradually developing’).  At the same time, many people will read them as meaning ‘there’s famine now’.  So the IPC gets effective advocacy without severe loss of credibility: they’re not lying – just misleading.

Additional information: Famine should not be used as a metaphor – it’s a well-defined situation on the ground.

So, if there is currently no Famine declared in the Gaza Strip, why do so many media outlets say there is?  How can they get away with a lie?

Well, just like the IPC, they don’t ‘technically’ lie – they just deceive.

On 21 July 2025, in the course of just 8 hours of ‘live reporting’ on Gaza, the BBC News website printed the term ‘famine’ 3 times.  But, technically, the BBC did not claim that there was famine.  Rather, they quoted ‘sources’ making that claim.  For instance:

“A 15-year-old girl at Shifa says there is a ‘severe and devastating famine in Gaza’"

The other two BBC reports of famine were attributed to unspecified“[l]ocal residents” and to the UN agency World Food Programme (WFP).  The latter claimed “Gaza is facing famine-like conditions”.  “[F]amine-like”, by the way, is a simile – not a metaphor…

Google ‘what is a simile?’ and find out that it means

“a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g. as brave as a lion).”

So “famine-like” does not mean Famine, just as “brave like a lion” does not mean the subject is actually a lion.  It's "a figure of speech"...

But most people browsing the news (as most people do, rather than dissecting the meaning as I do) will mentally associate ‘Gaza’ with ‘famine’ and, of course, blame Israel for it.

The IPC, the WFP, the BBC all understand this; they know that there is no Famine in Gaza.  They use ‘famine’ not as a statement of fact, but as a rhetorical cudgel.  They do this because they are, essentially, political activists.  And many political activists are, unfortunately, fundamentally dishonest: they feel that the ‘noble cause’ they strive for justify a few ignoble means – such as being rather ‘liberal’ with the truth.

But corrupting the truth is never a good thing: by giving the false impression that there is Famine when there isn’t, these activists gradually erode their own credibility – and that of the outfits that employ them.  With the ultimate outcome that they won’t be believed when they do report the truth – like the proverbial boy who cried ‘Wolf!’

And there’s something else, as well: by focusing so much attention on Gaza, the activists deny it (along with donations and other resources) to places that are in even direr need.

Following analysis conducted in July 2024, on 1 August that year the IPC declared Famine in parts of Sudan.  By December, it found that Famine was persisting in those places and had expanded to at least 10 additional areas, with 17 others at high risk.

Unlike in Gaza, in Sudan there is Famine, with capital ‘F’: the real thing, not the metaphor.

The Famine in Sudan is the direct consequence of the civil war raging in that country.  C. 9 million people have been displaced; people are unable to gather the crops on which they depend for nourishment.  The warring armed factions have plundered international aid and prevented it from reaching those in need.

BBC News reported on the Famine in Sudan – but only sporadically, in a handful of items spread over several months.  So did other Western media outlets.  There was none of the obsessive fascination with Gaza.  As a consequence, the Famine continues unabated in Sudan, with people dying like flies.

Question: Hold on – I saw with my own eyes on Twitter images of emaciated children, little kids reduced to skin and bones.  Are you saying that those images are not genuine?

Short answer: Even when they are genuine, those photos are fundamentally dishonest.  Those children are wasting away because of disease, not lack of food.

Long answer: Some are not, but others are genuine in the sense that they show actual children from Gaza.  Take for instance this one, published by the BBC on 25 July 2025.  Attributed to Reuters but reproduced by many media outlets (let alone on social media), this is a powerful image, deliberately designed to resemble Madonna with Child.  Christian imagery aside, the vast majority of human beings will be touched by this picture of an obviously starving child – bones sticking out of his pale-bluish skin.  But, before we rage against Israeli inhumanity, let’s read the picture’s caption:

“Samah Matar holds her malnourished son Youssef, who suffers from cerebral palsy, at a school where they are sheltering in Gaza City”

Then let’s ask Google:

“Is starvation associated with Cerebral Palsy?”

Wonders of technology: these days the search engine comes with Artificial Intelligence capabilities.  In less than two seconds, it ‘read’ thousands of scientific articles, returning the following summary:

“Yes, malnutrition and starvation are significant concerns for individuals with cerebral palsy (CP). Children with CP are at a higher risk of malnutrition due to various factors including feeding difficulties, increased energy expenditure, and underlying medical conditions.”

Clearly, it was the disease and not just shortage of food that caused Youssef Matar to look so pitifully emaciated.  One of those diseases that… you know… can’t really be blamed on the Jews.

Some would say that, at least, the BBC had the decency to disclose that little Youssef suffered from cerebral palsy.  But why use that photo in the first place in the context of ‘starvation’ in Gaza?  Most people won’t investigate; they will see the heartbreaking picture and believe it to be the result of Israeli policies, not of a terrible disease.

Little Youssef’s case is by no means the exception: the picture of another little boy is – if possible – even more tragic.  It went viral on social media in mid-July 2025, posted, reposted and commented on (initially, at least) by accounts boasting Iranian flags.  Official Israeli sources identified him as 5-year-old Osama al-Rakab.  Little Osama, who suffers from a serious genetic disease, is no longer in Gaza.  The same Israeli source (COGAT) reports:

“On June 12, we actively coordinated Osama's exit from Gaza with his mother and brother through the Ramon airport.  He is now receiving treatment in Italy.”

And more: on 21 July 2025, the New York Times published the picture of 3-year-old Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq: another hauntingly thin child, also portrayed in his mother’s arms, in the same Madonna-with-Child pose.  The original photos published by a Turkish media outlet featured in the background the child’s slightly older brother, who looked perfectly normal; but the NYT cropped the brother out of the picture…  Why let such details interfere with a good story?

The BBC did one better: they didn’t ‘just’ publish the photo – they proceeded to interview the photographer, who suggested the photo was representative of the widespread starvation of children in the Gaza Strip.

And it’s not just the NYT and the BBC – the photo appeared in the CNN, NBC News, The Guardian, The Daily Mail…  And no journalist wondered: if this is representative of Gaza’s children, how come we are being sent photos of the same child?

A few days later, it was revealed that little Muhammad Zakariya suffers from a series of severe genetic disorders…

Left: the photo of 3-year-old Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq (left) and his mother, in a ‘Madonna with Child’-like composition. Right: the same child, who (it turns out) suffers from severe genetic disorders, next to his slightly older brother, who looks perfectly normal.

Unfortunately, in Gaza – as elsewhere – there are some very sick children.  No doubt, war and all the associated hardship makes their situation even worse.  But using those pictures to ‘exemplify’ the starvation of Gaza’s children is dishonest and calumniatory.

Question: And what about the reports that each day Gazans die of malnutrition? Sure, they come from the Hamas-run health ministry.  But are they mere inventions?

Short answer: Again, we are talking about people who died of disease, not starvation.  Their sickness may or may not have been made worse by the general scarcity and hardship caused by the war.

Long answer: Let’s pay attention to the terminology.  Gaza’s health ministry does not actually claim that these people starved to death.  Such a claim would be easy to verify by any pathologist.  No, the official phrasing (not always reproduced as such by the Western media) is that they “died as a result of malnutrition”.  That’s different.  Even in the midst of a terrible war, people die not because they’re shot or blown to pieces and not because they starve to death, but because of unrelated disease.  In some cases, poor nutrition may worsen the disease and bring about or hasten death.  This is what Hamas is claiming: that given a better nutrition these people would not have died of disease (or at least, not in the short term).  Such a claim cannot be verified.  Even if the bodies could be independently examined (but they generally aren’t available for such examination), it is very difficult to determine whether better nutrition would have been sufficient to ensure survival or to prolong life.

One thing is sure: these fatalities – alongside everybody else that died of natural causes in the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023 – will be counted among the victims of ‘Israeli aggression’.

Question: So are you claiming that everything is fine?  There’s no hunger, no malnutrition, no suffering, it’s all propaganda and fabrication?

Short answer: No, that’s not what I claim at all.  Gazans are not starving to death, but they experience hunger, disease and horrendous hardship.

Long answer: Starvation means that people do not get enough food to keep them alive in the short term.  Famine means widespread starvation.  That’s by-and-large what happens in Sudan, not in Gaza.

Malnutrition, on the other hand, means bad or improper nutrition.  A person can survive for a long time by eating relatively small amounts of concentrated food: bread, rice, pasta, beans or lentils…  But that’s still malnutrition, because bread, rice, pasta, beans and lentils do not provide all the nutrients that she needs to be healthy.  Malnutrition is currently widespread in the Gaza Strip.  People get enough to stay alive – but they do not get good, proper nutrition.

Additional information: Listening to the BBC and other mainstream media these days, one might think that malnutrition (especially child malnutrition) is a rare phenomenon.  In fact, it is widespread, even outside the context of war.

According to the UNICEF, at least 77 million children in the Arab world suffer from some form of malnutrition.  Even in a rich country like the UK, food poverty causes significant numbers of children to be malnourished.  A 2017 report by The Food Foundation found that “one in 10 children [in the UK] are living with adults who report experiencing severe food insecurity”.

Question: OK, so why doesn’t Israel just open the Gaza border crossings to aid, as much as the UN and others wish to bring in?  Why limit it to the bare minimum?  Why would Israel care if civilians get plenty of food?

Short answer: Because it is impossible to supply the population with everything they need, while also fighting Hamas.  The two activities are incompatible: the logistics of aid delivery at such a scale simply preclude military operations in that territory.

Long answer: Israel’s standard response to the question above is to blame Hamas for stealing aid.  Deliberately denying basic sustenance to the civilian population is a war crime; denying it to the enemy is a legitimate war strategy.  Hence, claim the Israelis, the supply of aid needs to be tightly controlled, to deny it to Hamas and the other terror organisations.

But does Hamas really steal aid?  Western media outlets habitually cast doubt on this (as they do with most other Israeli claims).  The BBC, for instance, states:

“Israel has said an alternative to the current aid system is needed to stop Hamas stealing aid, which the group denies doing.”

And also:

“Israel claims that Hamas stole aid from the UN system. The UN says it is still waiting for the Israelis to back their claims with evidence.”

The BBC, it turns out, continues to promote those doubts, despite the fact that Israeli claims were corroborated by Gazans.  Buried deep inside a video report by BBC Diplomatic Correspondent Paul Adams (a video that is generally very critical of Israel), one finds the following little nugget:

“But Hamas took control of some of the newly arrived goods.  That’s not just an Israeli allegation.  Our own sources inside Gaza have confirmed it.”

This must be blindingly true – if even the BBC let it slip out.  But – I’m afraid – it’s not the entire truth.

Here’s the unpleasant reality: in places like Gaza, it is impossible to starve out Hamas without starving the entire civilian population.  Sure, there are a few terror leaders that may be hiding in tunnels.  But the typical foot soldier (whether Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Mujahideen Brigades, etc.) is indistinguishable from the rest of the population.  That foot soldier seldom resides in tunnels or in paramilitary bases.  When he is not digging out his weapon to try and kill or kidnap an Israeli soldier, he spends his time at home, with wife, kids and often an extended family: brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces…  So how exactly can one feed the wife and kids, but not the terrorist husband and father?

It cannot be done – and that’s not really what Israel is trying to do.  Hamas cannot be starved out of Gaza.  But, the terrorists want to do more than eating: if left to its own devices, Hamas would like to control the distribution of aid as a means of maintaining its power over the population of Gaza.

Separating Hamas from its tools of power – not the physical elimination of every single terror operative, nor the complete dismantlement of Islamism as an idea – is what Israel is trying to achieve in Gaza.  Failing in that endeavour would mean that Hamas remained in power in Gaza for the foreseeable future; which would constitute a clear victory for Hamas and an obvious defeat for Israel – however many foot soldiers the IDF ‘eliminates’.

Israeli leaders actually say all this, but not quite as loud and clear; because it is not 100% clear that, in the cold eyes of ‘international jurists’ long-detached from the realities of war, this would constitute a ‘legal’ reason for the tight control of aid.

But even this is not the entire or main reason for limiting aid.  True, Israel must deny Hamas control of the aid distribution; but it could conceivably (albeit with a lot of extra risk, effort and expense) allow more aid in – and still attempt to eliminate Hamas from the supply chain.

But there’s something else here – something that ‘people in the know’ understand, but they’re hiding from you.  The truth is that, in a situation like Gaza, it not possible to keep the population supplied with all the life’s necessities – while also prosecuting the war against Hamas.

It needs to be understood: Supplying 2,000,000 people to the level that the UN and others demand would be a gigantic logistic operation.  The issue is not lorries being allowed into Gaza – that’s just one small step in a long journey; the much larger problem is aid distribution inside the Strip.  In contrast to the US/Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the philosophy of UN agencies and of the various charities involved in Gaza is that aid needs to be brought to the aided.  That means that the lorries need to travel in many different directions.  They need to take their cargo to warehouses and from there to many hundreds of distribution centres, bakeries and community kitchens.  All that on roads and in areas that must be ‘deconflicted’ (i.e., free of Israeli troops and away from IDF military operations).  If they are not completely ‘deconflicted’, then the result is (as we’ve seen in the past) aid convoys that are either caught in the crossfire or inadvertently attacked.

The UN claims that it needs more than 600 truckloads of aid a day.  It’s a lie; but even if the number were 100, distributing that amount of aid translates into hundreds of truck journeys a day and hundreds of ‘deconflicted’ areas – all that in a territory just 41 kilometres (25 miles) long and 6 to 12 km (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide.  Roads the military would have to avoid, areas it would have to vacate… Such massive ‘deconfliction’ would not just hinder, but in practice completely paralyse Israeli combat operations.  Not so Hamas’s operations, of course: terrorists aren’t required to ‘deconflict’ anything.

Here's the naked truth that nobody wants to tell you: one can either fight a war in Gaza, or one can keep Gaza’s civilian population well-supplied with food, medicines and other necessities.  One or the other, but not both!

The UN and aid organisations claim that at least 600 truckloads a day must not just go in, but be distributed to the population of Gaza.

The ‘humanitarians’ understand this, as do politicians; which is why both categories of people so keenly advocate a ceasefire.  Even while continuing to bash the Jewish state for ‘not allowing more aid into Gaza’, they know that only when the fighting stops can the aid reach those in need, in sufficient volume and variety.  That’s why the IPC Alert doesn’t just say ‘let the aid get in’; no, the very first of its 5 ‘Recommended actions’ actually demands

“End hostilities: An immediate, unconditional, and sustained ceasefire is critical to reversing the catastrophic levels of human suffering.”

Of course, everyone understands that “sustained ceasefire” is a euphemism.  What the ‘humanitarians’ want is the end of the war, not a temporary ceasefire.  In that, their aims are completely aligned with those of Hamas.  But of course, ending the war and leaving Hamas in power in Gaza is something Israelis simply cannot afford to do: it wouldn’t just mean living in perpetuity with a sword hung over their collective neck – but also admitting a vulnerability that can only invite more attacks from additional enemies.

Question: So what’s the solution?  Are you saying that we must resign ourselves to seeing innocent people suffering and being killed?

Short answer: Unfortunately, innocents will always suffer and get killed in wars.  But it is possible to alleviate that suffering and starkly reduce the number of innocent casualties.

The first step is, simply, to allow those innocents to escape; they are currently cynically trapped in a war zone.  Using a combination of political pressure and economic incentives, Egypt must be persuaded to allow unarmed Gazans to cross into Sinai, where well-organised refugee camps can be established, away from the rigours of war and with full access by aid organisations.

Long answer: Currently, the war in Gaza is the only armed conflict in recent history that civilians have been utterly prevented from fleeing.  While millions of Syrians found refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and further afield, very few Gazans have managed to bribe their way into Egypt.  As I have shown in a previous article, this is a cynical ploy by Egypt and other Arab countries, who fear that allowing Gazans to leave would constitute the end of ‘the Palestinian cause’.  This isn’t surprising; in fact, it’s always been obvious that Arab dictators are very keen on ‘the Palestinian cause’, but don’t actually give a damn about Palestinians.

Even more outrageously, the ‘international community’ (including the likes of Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, as well as media outlets) seems to accept that ‘logic’.  How else can we explain that in 2022 the European Union and the UK opened their gates to c. 6 million Ukrainian refugees, but in 2023 they shut them to practically every Gazan wanting to escape the war?

But if a genocide is taking place in Gaza – as some people claim – then surely the priority should be to take those innocents outside the reach of the ‘genocidaire’ Israelis?  Do these people want to save the victims, or are they only interested in punishing the offenders?  If the latter, what does this tell us about their true motivations?

Yes, I know: nobody but fanatics and a handful of dupes actually believes in this tall ‘genocide’ story.  But, regardless, innocent people are getting killed – because they are forcibly kept inside a battlefield.  Why are they not allowed to escape?

Question: But it isn’t happening.  So I don’t understand how Israel hopes to achieve its goals in Gaza.  You’ve been fighting there for almost two years.  What are you hoping for now?

Short answer: Unsurprisingly, Israel hopes that ‘someone’ (preferably a ‘moderate’ Arab ‘someone’) will take Gaza off its hands, pacify and rebuild it.  Whether this is feasible and desirable is at this point unclear, but no other conceivable alternative promises to deliver what Israel wants: peace and quiet, at least in the medium term.

Long answer: Firstly, “it isn’t happening” because you put no pressure on your government to make it happen.  Rather than just wringing your hands about the suffering in Gaza and bashing Israel for it, you should demand that your government a) pressures Egypt into opening its border and allowing unarmed Gazans to take refuge in the Sinai Peninsula; b) takes in a reasonable number of Gazan refugees – just like it did with Ukrainian asylum-seekers.

Secondly, Israel hopes that at some point, confronted with this perpetual problem and under pressure to alleviate the suffering, a consortium of Arab countries will take over the governance of Gaza and its reconstruction.  Of course, all those countries currently say that they have no intention to do that.  But, as the Abraham Accords demonstrate, such vows are not set in stone.  Given a suitable pretext (for instance, saving the Palestinians from mass displacement and the end of their ‘cause’), the likes of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar may come to believe that they can ‘dress it up’ as a noble – and temporary – gesture.

Would that be a good solution?  I don’t know.  But, when it comes to the Palestinian issue, everybody is running out of ‘solutions’.  Israel has tried ‘benign occupation’; it has tried negotiations and accommodation; it tried unilateral withdrawal; it attempted to ‘manage’ the conflict without ‘solving’ it.  Nothing really worked so far.  In fact, all the ‘solutions’ ended in disaster.

The likes of Starmer and Macron are even worse: they don’t even try anything new – they cling to a ‘solution’ that the Palestinian Arabs have been rejecting for an entire century.  The only thing that changed in the meantime is that in the post-7 October era the vast majority of Israelis reject it, too.  So how do Starmer and Macron hope to achieve their ‘two state solution’?  No, reader, you don’t need to answer that.  It was a rhetorical question; we all know that Starmer and Macron don’t really believe in what they say.  They’d just say anything to get re-elected.

So they are terribly exercised by the rhetorical, yet-to-be-declared famine in Gaza, even while showing no interest in the real, duly declared Famine in Sudan.  That’s because these sleezy, weaselly and unscrupulous politicians have decided to ride the wave of antisemitism, rather than confronting it.

Some have compared this outburst of antisemitism to Germany in the early 1930s.  But a better analogy, I think, is turn-of-the-century Eastern Europe.

The anti-Israel campaign unfolding these days in Europe, Canada, Australia and sectors of the American society is reminiscent of czarist Russia.  Like there and then, it can only lead to pogrom.

Logic and prejudice: from BC to BBC

The international media is once again abuzz with reports of Israeli atrocities.  Allegedly, after helping establish an aid organisation called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and heavily promoting it as an alternative to UN and other outfits, the Israelis proceeded to kill innocent civilians trying to reach that GHF aid.  And – also allegedly of course – this wasn’t even a one-time mistake, but occurred 3 days in a row.  Such allegations, if true, raise the suspicion that a crime was committed.

Which is interesting, because one of the first questions that a crime investigator asks is: ‘What is the motive?’  Understanding the crime motive is relevant in itself, but can also bring us closer to identifying the criminal, via the next query: ‘Who might have a reason to commit the crime?’  This logic is so blindingly obvious that people already understood it more than 2,000 years ago: the famous Roman lawyer and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero coined the phrase "Cui bono?” (to whom is it a benefit?)

Weird, therefore, that the question of motive has never come up, despite the very extensive coverage of the events by every international media outlet.  What was obvious to Cicero in the 1^st century BC never occurred in 2025 to the BBC!

One thing is clear: this omission can’t be attributed to lack of attention.  The Corporation has followed the events live, publishing and broadcasting tens of thousands of words on this topic.  The handful of ‘sources’ have been quoted ad nauseam, their stories reiterated countless times – sometimes in copy/paste fashion – in dozens of articles and news items.  At least a score of BBC journalists have been mobilised to cover the events.  Those included International Editor Jeremy Bowen, whose remit apparently is to ‘analyse’ issues in depth, to provide ‘insights’ and make ‘professional judgements rooted in evidence’.  They comprised also BBC Verify – the Corporation’s new investigative department, whose role is to weed out disinformation and propaganda from genuine news.

And something else should be clear, too: it’s not that the ‘crime motive’ is obvious here.  After all, the Israelis spent lots of time and effort setting up this alternative humanitarian relief mechanism, one that took Hamas out of the equation – both as beneficiary and as ‘custodian’ or ‘protector’ of the aid.  The New York Times called the project “an Israeli brainchild.”

There must have been extensive discussions between the political and military echelons within Israel; and then with the US Administration, to flesh out the concept and ensure the latter’s support; then funding had to be raised – much of it supplied by Israel, if we are to believe Yair Lapid, the country’s head of the opposition; staff had to be recruited, contractors employed, food purchased, packaged and transported.

As the BBC itself reported, the IDF – already stretched by 18 months of war – took time and dedicated resources to plan and prepare the logistics: 4 distribution hubs, complete with warehouses, accommodation quarters, access routes and fenced perimeters.

All that must have cost a fair amount of money, let alone time, effort, political capital and attention from decision-makers.

Having made that large investment, why would the Israelis then shoot into crowds of Gazans attempting to do exactly what they (the Israelis) so wanted them to do: get aid from GHF, rather than from UNRWA, World Food Programme or UNICEF?

Israelis may be many things, but idiots they’re not.  These are the same people who killed a Hamas leader in arguably the most secure location in Tehran; the same people who maimed their enemies by supplying them with ‘special’ communication devices.  Are we now to believe that they cut their noses to spite their faces – not once, not twice, but three times, on three consecutive days?

On the other hand… ‘Cui bono?’  Obviously, the main beneficiary is Hamas.  If, while lying low in their tunnels, Hamas’s surviving leaders can tune into the BBC, they must surely rub their hands in delight.  After all, sabotaging the GHF is vital if Hamas is to retain its sway over Gaza’s hapless population.  The hand that feeds you is the hand that leads you – and everybody in Gaza knows that no unarmed, ‘neutral’ aid organisation can supply one can of beans without Hamas’s ‘protection’ and assent.  Which is why, as the BBC itself reported (on 27 May, i.e. days before the ‘suspected crime’):

“Hamas has publicly warned Palestinians not to co-operate with GHF's system.”

The BBC has also reported (though occasionally, rather than ‘live’) what Hamas does to Palestinians who “co-operate” (or ‘collaborate’) with ‘the Occupation’:

“Two Palestinian men accused of collaborating with Israel have been executed in the Gaza Strip, the Hamas-run interior ministry says . . . Three others were also executed – on charges of murder . . . Four were hanged and one was executed by firing squad because he was a policeman…”

‘Cui bono?’  Well, Cicero would say ‘Hamati bono!’ (it benefits Hamas!)  So how come nobody seems to have investigated the possibility of Hamas acting on its ‘warning’?  How come Jeremy Bowen hasn’t ‘analysed’ that possibility?  Or even raised the issue as a – however remote – possibility?

It’s not like what actually happened and who did what is obvious – much as BBC’s output might lead many to believe so.  Sure, we have testimonies from ‘medical personnel’.  But, even if we choose to believe them – and there are reasons not to – they only tell us that dozens of Gazans have been killed and injured, mostly by bullets.  They shed no light on who fired those bullets.  They also reveal nothing about who those Gazans are.  Mostly young men, it seems – which is why few photos showing those victims have been published; and why the ‘medical personnel’ have made few references to their gender and age: corpses of young men have lower emotional value.

In any case, gender and age prove nothing in this instance: yes, Hamas terrorists are more likely to belong to the ‘young men’ category; but so are family members sent to pick up food on behalf of their families.

In summary – to circle back to the ‘crime’ analogy – we may have a body.  But no evidence to identify the victim, let alone the perpetrator.

One of the surprising features of this ‘news’ is the dearth of eyewitness testimonies, as well as of direct, relevant video evidence from the field.

Or, rather, it should be surprising.  If you think Europeans are addicted to their mobile phones – try the Middle East!  Most young people in Gaza (and the description ‘young people’ encompasses the vast majority of Gazans) have never used a landline phone; they probably never owned a ‘conventional’ camera.  But using mobile phones – to communicate, take pictures and shoot videos – is second nature.  Everything is being filmed – from Hamas’s 7 October ‘exploits’ to aspects of everyday life.  And, if anything, this cultural propensity has only intensified during the war, with photos and videos acquiring added importance as ‘evidence’ or propaganda tools.

Yet, strangely, nobody – none of those hundreds of Gazans purportedly attacked en-route to the GHF distribution hub – thought of filming the Israeli soldiers (or indeed Israeli tanks!) allegedly shooting into the crowd.  After spending a goodly amount of our licence fee investigating, BBC Verify was forced to admit that they ‘verified’… absolutely zilch:

“Very little footage has emerged purporting to show the moment of the shooting. But one clip posted online showed people running with gunfire audible. BBC Verify geolocated the footage to a road near SDS 1 and established it was newly published on Tuesday although we cannot say for certain it relates to Tuesday's incident.”

As for eyewitness accounts, they are also unusually scarce and sketchy:

“Yasser Abu Lubda, a 50-year-old who has been displaced from Rafah, told the Associated Press (AP) news agency that the shooting began shortly before 04:00 local time. Rasha al-Nahal, another witness, told AP ‘there was gunfire from all directions’.”

Neither eyewitness quoted appears to have seen who was shooting.  Either that, or they’d rather not say.

But some ‘sources’ offered much more ‘vibrant’ accounts:

“Mahmoud Basal, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Civil Defence agency, told the BBC that the incident again occurred a few hundred metres away from the Al-Alam roundabout. He said most of those killed or injured ‘were hit by gunfire from tanks, helicopters and quadcopter drones’.”

“Palestinian Civil Defence” sounds like something Mother Theresa might’ve approved of; most people won’t know that it’s just an agency of the Hamas ‘government’ and that Mr. Basal is a medium-rank Hamas official.  The BBC knows it, of course, but… hey-ho, it’s a ‘source’, ‘innit?  Hamas “told the BBC;” and the BBC (including BBC Verify) dutifully published.  With attribution, of course!  However misleading it may be.

It seems also that in BBC parlance, “[v]erify” does not include asking Hamas impolite questions like ‘Where is your evidence?’

And nobody at the BBC (or at many other media outlets) thought of asking themselves ‘Why would the Israelis concentrate tanks, helicopters and quadcopter drones to… shoot themselves in the foot?’

What BBC Verify failed to… ‘verify’ is even more enlightening: these days, every corner of the globe is being scrutinised by – among other things – high-resolution cameras mounted on satellites.  Everybody spies on everybody, but some of these satellite feeds are available to buy from private companies like SkyWatch.  And, while not tracking every bullet being fired, these are unlikely to miss the telltale signs left by concentrations of “tanks, helicopters and quadcopter drones” repeatedly firing on masses of people.

The BBC is well-aware of these satellite capabilities – having reported on them and even used them previously in Gaza.

So has BBC Verify examined such footage and ‘forgot’ to tell us that they found nothing?  Have they quietly concluded – in ‘light’ of the ‘testimonies’ – that the chances of finding anything were too low to warrant spending our money?  Or have they assessed that not finding anything would be the wrong evidence to find?

The truth is that... we don't know (and we may never know) with absolute certitude, the truth about what happened close to GHF’s aid distribution hub on 1, 2 and 3 June 2025.  It’s very possible that Gazans have been killed there – but it is also possible that they were killed elsewhere.  They (or some of them) may have been Hamas terrorists deliberately sent to pick a fight and generate PR ‘tailwind’; but it is also possible that they/some of them were innocent people trying to get food for their families.  As for the shooters, they could well have been Hamas, for whom GHF represents an existential threat; but it is also possible that the shooters were IDF soldiers, for reasons that we don’t understand.  A more complex scenario is also possible – for instance one in which Hamas perpetrated the shooting on Sunday, while the IDF fired shots on Monday.  Everything is possible.

And that’s exactly the point: we do not know exactly what happened; not right now, not for sure.  We are – or should be – in the realm of probabilities.  And in the field of contested narratives.  Who are you going to believe: the official agencies of a democratic state (with a strong political opposition, a free press, independent courts, etc.)? or those of a fanatical Islamist, antisemitic organisation – one with a proven track record of violently crushing dissent?

And even if one objects to the descriptions above, logic should still scream ‘Cui bono?’

Yet this is not how many in the international media (and also many politicians, here in the UK and elsewhere in the West) saw things.  And the real question is: why?

Why is it that, when it comes to the Jewish state – and only when it comes to the Jewish state – so many people are willing to suspend logic, critical thinking and healthy scepticism?  Why do they find it so easy to believe that Israelis are willing to murder innocents not just with no pity or remorse, but also without sense or reason?  Why do they automatically choose the least-probable explanation, as long as it’s most damning for Israel?

Why the singling out, the ganging up, the obsession with?  And why does this ‘modern’ attitude towards the Jewish state mimic so closely the ‘traditional’ view of everything-else-Jewish throughout the centuries?

To many international journalists, it was obvious that Israelis were to blame – who else could it be?  And none asked ‘why would Israelis do something like this?’  Because in the eyes of these journalists, Israelis are quintessential Jews; and Jews don’t need a motive to do evil.

So what are you saying – I hear you asking: are all these journalists are a bunch of antisemites?  Do you really believe that?

Sorry, folks, but that’s the wrong question.  This isn’t about ‘being an antisemite’.  Antisemitism is rarely an identity; it’s usually a prejudice.  One that has its roots in early antiquity and still bore atrocious fruits as recently as mid-20^th century.  One that has demonstrably been deeply entrenched and widely spread (to the point of constituting the prevalent view), for hundreds and hundreds of years.  And one that is still harboured by a large proportion of the population in many areas of the world – even here in the UK.

No, the Shoah was not an exception, but an exacerbation: the most powerfully acute flare up among centuries of chronic genocide.

If the current ‘anti-Israelism’ feels so similar to ‘classic’ antisemitism – it’s because it is.

This tweet was 'liked' 88,000 times. No other comment needed.

So it’s not ‘they’re all a bunch of antisemites’ that’s the ridiculous proposition; no, what’s ludicrous is claiming that a social phenomenon that’s been so pervasive and ubiquitous for 2000 years suddenly fizzled out or somehow became marginal in the space of just 8 short decades.  Now, do you really believe that??

 

 

From Syria with Hate

About two weeks ago, seemingly out of the blue, an army of Sunni Islamists and fellow travellers spilled out of Syria’s Idlib region.  Their offensive met with little resistance – the ‘official’ Syrian Army (whose soldiers are majority Sunni, too) simply disintegrated.  The regime of Bashar Al-Assad fell like a house of cards, with a speed nobody (including yours truly) foresaw.

If anything, this shows how poor our understanding of the Middle East is: even people from the region, who are carefully following events, struggle to predict them; let alone the hapless West.

But we can at least analyse things post-factum, trying to make some sense of what transpired.

Reactions from the West

First, let’s dispose of the bombastic, ridiculous statements released by ignorant and stupid Western ‘leaders’.  French President Emmanuel Macron is a typical specimen from that sorry pack.  Mr. Macron was among the first Western politicians to weigh in on Syria, already on 8 December:

“The barbaric state has fallen. At last.

I pay tribute to the Syrian people, to their courage, to their patience. In this moment of uncertainty, I send them my wishes for peace, freedom, and unity.

France will remain committed to the security of all in the Middle East.”

Someone needs to break it to Mr. Macron: France has long ceased to be a great power; she no longer rules colonies in the Middle East.  Even while it was a great power, it proved quite unable to defend herself, let alone others.  So that bombastic commitment “to the security of all” sounds decidedly hollow.  Even assuming that Macron – who is despised by a majority in his own decaying country – could speak in her name.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed...

It’s worth paying attention, however, to another part of Mr. Macron’s post – the one praising “the Syrian people”.  Firstly, because it’s a deceitful attempt to portray a change of regime based on military might as some sort of popular uprising.  Secondly, because it’s unclear which part of “the Syrian people” is Mr. Macron talking about.  Is it the Kurds in the North-East?  The Druze in the South?  The Alawis in the North-West?  The long-suffering Christians, who actually supported “[t]he barbaric state” of the Assads – as they saw tyranny as preferable to extinction?  Or was Macron referring to the Sunni majority, which spawned a variety of jihadi groups – including the one that just rose to power in Damascus?  If they were able to voice their opinions in safety (for them and their family), some parts of “the Syrian people” would express immense joy and jubilation at the fall of the Assad regime; others, however, would show concern and even fear.

But I may be slightly unfair here by singling out Macron.  He is just the most ridiculous of the lot – but others (including US President Biden and UK Prime Minister Starmer) made similar and equally hollow, meaningless, even deceitful comments.

 

The Syrian people

20-odd years ago, the West’s ‘understanding’ of Iraq was shaped to a large extent by Iraqi expats such as Ahmad Chalabi, who painted a fake picture of their country – using colours they knew were fashionable in the West.  Including similar claims about ‘the Iraqi people’.  The West learned the hard way that the Iraqi reality was utterly different from those self-serving pictures.

Shouldn’t that learning be applied to Syria?  Or should the West commit the same mistakes again – allow its military and/or its economic might and/or its moral support be used in the service of yet another ignoble ‘cause’?

The Syrian reality is that, by and large, there is no “Syrian people”.  Like Iraq and Lebanon, ‘modern’ Syria is an invented country – cut by British and French colonialists out of whole cloth.

And – also like Iraq and Lebanon – the territory of ‘Syria’ is home to a variety of people, differing by ethnicity and faith.  Even the hapless BBC found it necessary to remark:

“While Sunni Arabs are the dominant ethnic and religious group in Syria, the country is notably diverse, with a range of minority groups including Shia Alawites, of which the ousted president Bashar al-Assad is a member, Kurds, Christians, Druze, Turkmen and Ismailis, in addition to other small groups.”

The term ‘diversity’ may sound comfortingly positive to Western ears.  But the Middle Eastern reality is that ‘diversity’ translates into sectarian division and lack of national cohesion.

Ethno-religious map of Syria

In Syria, eight decades of independence (more than five of them under the Assads) failed to forge a ‘Syrian’ national identity.  Ask the Kurds whether their allegiance is to a ‘Syrian state’ ruled from Damascus – or to other Kurds, like the ones enjoying a great deal of autonomy in Iraq, or the ones struggling under oppression in Turkey.  Ask the Druze or the Christians if they trust a ‘Syrian’ government (any Syrian government – let alone a Sunni Islamist one) to respect and preserve ‘diversity’.

Yes, the “barbaric state” of the Assads was hated by many in Syria – and with good reason.  But no, “the Syrian people” had little to do with the recent change of regime.

 

So what the hell happened?

Those who don’t know history, are condemned to repeat it.  For three decades, Syria has been held together in the iron grip of a ruthless tyrant – Hafez Al-Assad.  But Bashar Al-Assad, his son and successor, was widely viewed as an epigone.  His perceived weakness emboldened internal opponents and attracted the (initially covert, then blatant) interference of ‘neighbours’ such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Faced with an extensive insurrection that threatened to overwhelm those forces still loyal to him, Bashar was propped up by Iran and Russia.  The former supplied ground troops (via the Lebanese Hizb’ullah and various Shia militias), the latter air support.  They differed also in terms of interests: Iran viewed Syria as a land bridge to Lebanon and through it to Israel; Russia wanted to preserve its military bases on the Syrian coast – its only remaining foothold in the Middle East.

With Russian and Iranian support, Assad re-established control over the country’s largest cities and its most populous parts.

Worried by Shia Iran’s expanding influence, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates lavished funds on a plethora of Sunni Islamist organisations, often at odds with each other, but all of them opposed to the Assad regime.

The West also intervened in Syria, deploying air operations and special forces, both against the Assad regime and against ISIS.  The US armed and funded a local Kurdish-led militia – the Syrian Democratic Forces.  The SDF fought ISIS and achieved control of the majority Kurdish areas in the North and North-East.

In turn, Turkey worried that its own restive Kurdish minority might join their brothers just across the border – demanding autonomy and, potentially, independence.  Its military (plus Turkish-sponsored Syrian militias) established control of a 20-mile wide ‘buffer zone’ inside Syria’s border with Turkey – a ‘buffer’ the size of Lancashire.

Responding to the Iran-sponsored encroachment, Israel launched hundreds of aerial bombardments on Syrian territory, targeting Islamic Republic’s military installations and personnel, as well as assets involved in supplying weapons to Hizb’ullah in Lebanon.

Add to the dry paragraphs above lots and lots of human suffering.  Half a million dead – many of them women and children.  Many more maimed.  Widespread hunger and economic deprivation, abysmal lack of healthcare, collapse of children’s education.  More than 12 million Syrians (i.e., more than half of the population) displaced from their homes, of which almost 5.5 million (roughly a quarter of the population) in neighbouring countries and overseas.

But all this is history.  Until a couple of weeks ago, it was clear to everybody that Assad won and was there to stay.  So unbreakable seemed his grip on the country, that there were voices in the West advocating ‘bringing him back from the cold’ in diplomatic terms – since the world would have to work with him for many years to come…

So why the sudden collapse?

Most commentators attribute it to the lack of military support from the two allies – Russia and Iran.  Russia is busy fighting in Ukraine, while Iran’s main ‘tool’ in Syria – Lebanon’s Hizb’ullah – is licking the many wounds inflicted by Israel.

Or so the story goes.  Frankly, this sounds utterly unconvincing to me.  There are Russian planes at the Hmeimim base on the Syrian coast – and they’re not bombing Ukraine.  Before the recent ceasefire, Hizb’ullah still had enough forces to fight the IDF – so surely those forces could now be deployed in Syria?

And while complete abandonment by allies may explain Assad’s downfall, it does not explain the lightning speed of that defeat.  After all, before the Iranian and Russian intervention Assad was gradually losing ground – but his regime did not crash down within days.

As for the main rebel force – The Organisation for the Liberation of Levant (Arabic: Ha’yat Tahrir al-Sham or HTS) – it is not a new movement.  It was established almost 8 years ago (almost an eternity in terms of Syria’s volatile politics) through the merger of even older groups.  Since then, it established control over the Idlib region – in the north-western corner of Syria, not far from Aleppo – but until recently showed little appetite for a frontal fight with the regime.  What changed?

 

The Turkish connection

In the absence of democracy, power springs from the barrel of the gun.  That means men, money and weapons.  In the Middle East, men are moved by ideologies – and there are plenty of them sloshing around.  Most Arabs are observant Muslims and many of them can – with relative ease – be persuaded to join Islamist ‘causes’.  But while beliefs and ideas can send them to wage jihad, they still expect their leaders to ‘take care of them’ from a material perspective.  Even believers have to make a living; families left at home need to be provided for; and generous compensation is expected for property damage and other losses incurred by the valiant mujahideen.

And then there’s weapons.  Assault rifles are not hard to find in the Middle East – though they (and attending ammunition) still have to be procured and paid for.  A rifle, a hand grenade, even a humble knife may be enough for martyrdom; but the leaders want power – and these days it’s hard to win a war with such weapons, no matter how uplifted one is by the spirit of jihad.  We’re talking machine guns, cannon and missiles – sometimes even drones.  Not to mention vehicles – from the humble motorbike to cars, pickup trucks and even light armour.  There’s a market for all that, yes – but not enough to equip an army.  Only a state can provide that.

So what state equipped HTS – to the point of causing the Syrian Army to largely disperse after a few skirmishes, rather than facing it?

Let’s ask the same question in a different way: what country, just days after HTS conquered Damascus, called on the UN to remove the group’s designation as a terror organisation?  You got it – it was Turkey!

Turkey’s increasingly autocratic leader Erdogan – himself an Islamist, ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood – harbours a longing for the old Ottoman world order, much as Putin dreams of a reborn USSR.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan gives a speech during the celebrations of the 563rd anniversary of Istanbul's conquest by Ottoman Turks. On May 29, 1453, Sultan Mehmed II conquered Istanbul, then called Constantinople. The conquest transformed the city, once the heart of the Byzantine realm, into the capital of the new Ottoman Empire. (Photo by Kayhan Ozer/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Of course, Turkey and its sponsored militias clashed with HTS in the past; but it is hardly unusual – certainly in the Middle East – for past adversaries to become allies, especially when they discover some shared interests.

Turkey’s involvement can explain a few other mysteries.  For instance – why were Iran and Russia so quick to abandon their faithful ally Assad in his hour of need?  And how come that no Russian soldiers, no Iranian-sponsored militiamen and no IRGC ‘advisers’ were captured by the rebels – to be publicly lynched by mobs thirsty for revenge?  How come that the Damascus embassies of neither Russia nor Iran were invaded, looted and set on fire – as usually happens in this sort of ‘revolution’?

Is it that the HTS fighters are so generous in victory that they decided to let bygones be bygones?  Or is it that two deals were actually (and secretly) made: one between Turkey and HTS, the other involving Turkey, Russia and Iran?

Both Russia and Iran are under Western sanctions and desperately in need of allies.  Neither Russia nor Iran are interested in Syria per se, but in its narrow utility: Russia wants to maintain its military bases; Iran wants a land bridge to Lebanon.  Both things that the HTS can afford to grant, in return for Turkish support, plus Russian and Iranian non-interference.

No, Mr. Macron: what we have witnessed is not the ‘courageous and patient’ “Syrian people” removing “at last” the “barbarous state”.  What’s just occurred is a regional power with neo-colonial ambitions colluding with two other powers and a local agent to further their respective interests.

Under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey is increasingly adventurous, aggressive and overbearing.  That this Islamist ideologue with a hanker for dictatorship also controls an impressive arsenal of Nato weaponry shouldn’t make anyone’s sleep easier.

No, this is very unlikely to bring “security of all in the Middle East” – with all due respect to France’s generous ‘commitments’.  If it is allowed to continue unopposed, Turkey’s lunge into the Levant is likely to end up in war and strife on a scale yet hard to fathom.

As for the “Syrian people,” they just exchanged one bloody, murderous tyrant for another – at least as bad and potentially even worse.

Make no mistake: HTS is not a ‘Syrian nationalist’ movement – as the BBC and other hapless Western outlets want to believe.  It’s not ‘just’ the group’s past affiliations with ISIS and Al-Qaeda; it’s not ‘just’ the acts that ‘earned’ them the terrorism listing in the first place.  No, it’s in the name: the ‘S’ in HTS does not stand for ‘Syria,’ but for ‘al-Sham’ – a term loaded with almost mythological significance in the Middle East.  This is the same ‘S’ as the second ‘S’ in ISIS.

The recently Islamised Arabs who conquered the area in the 7^th century CE called it بِلَاد الشَّام (Bilad Al-Sham, literally: ‘the Land of the Left Hand’).  They emerged from the Arab Peninsula and – when standing there and facing the rising sun – the Levant is to the left…  Al-Sham was just an internal province within the early Islamic Caliphate – hence its ‘borders’ were not clearly defined.  But it included roughly the territories of modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel (including West Bank and Gaza), as well as a large chunk of Jordan.

HTS is not the Organisation for the Liberation of Syria (as some would like to think in the West); its goal – declared in its very name – is to ‘liberate’ the entire Levant.

If your world view is that the entire world will eventually ‘see the light’ and (one way or another) embrace Islam; if your ideal model of society is the Islamic Caliphate of 7^th century CE; then you won’t be put off by foreign and irrelevant concepts such as internationally-recognised borders.  And from that perspective ‘liberation’ doesn’t just include removing the Jewish state and the Western ‘Crusaders’ – but also most Arab regimes, seen as not truly Islamic. ‘Liberation’ means returning to the ‘purity’ of 7^th century Islam: its supremacy uncontested; its men dressing in the prescribed way, its women returned to their designated place, its infidels either suitably humble or put to the sword; and the various deviations punished as ordained.

Of course, if you’re a clever Islamist, you don’t say things like that in English, or in the hearing of infidels.  No, you’ll assume a moderate, even ‘progressive’ vocabulary.  You’ll talk about bringing back peace and social justice.  You might even force yourself to pronounce the name ‘Israel’ and declare that the Jews have nothing to fear.

You will, of course, talk unctuously to the likes of BBC’s ‘International Editor’ Jeremy Bowen.  Not that it’s difficult: these Western ‘journalists’ are, after all, absolutely clueless: they speak none of the local languages (making them totally dependent on local translators and ‘fixers’) and understand none of the local customs and culture (beyond, at most, having acquired a taste for sweet Arabic coffee).  And they’re not easy to dupe just because they don’t understand when someone lies to them, but because they so desperately want to believe – they end up lying to themselves.  Imbued by a keen desire to ‘please the natives’ (and thus atone for historic wrongs or for their own racist prejudices) they want to show affinity; it comes out as asininity.

BBC's International Editor Jeremy Bowen is paid c. £250,000 a year for onerous jobs such as 'gently interviewing' the likes of Bashar Al-Assad and Abu Muhammed Al-Jawlani.

A case in point: these Western journalists have all been told to refer to the HTS leader by his real name of Ahmed al-Sharaa – and immediately complied.  Most have ‘reported’ this (swapping the ‘nom-de-guerre’ for the ‘real name’) as a sign of the man’s confidence or even as a declaration of peaceful intentions.  It’s much more likely an attempt at dissimulation.

I have yet to read a Western article commenting on the significance of that ‘nom-de-guerre’ – Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani.  In itself, it represents a symbolic ‘return’ to early Islamic tradition, which – for any Islamist – represents ‘the Golden Age’.  ‘Abu Mohammed’ is the traditional ‘kunya’: it means ‘father of Mohammed,’: the bearer of that ‘kunya’ obviously named his firstborn son after the Prophet – itself an unmistakable mark of piety.  The latter part of the name (called ‘nisbah’) is an indication of origin: the late Islamic State ‘caliph’ was called Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – indicating that he is ‘from Baghdad’.  The late leader of Al-Qaeda was called ‘Al-Zawahiri’ (‘from Zawahir’ – a town in Saudi Arabia).  Al-Masri means ‘from Egypt’, Al-Soodani – from Sudan and so on.  As for the current leader of HTS, his chosen ‘nisbah’ is al-Jawlani (or al-Julani, but not al-Jolani, as incorrectly rendered in the West).  ‘Jawlan’ or ‘Julan’ is the Arabic name for the Golan Heights… 

Ahmed al-Sharaa, alias Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani

The current HTS warlord was born… no, not in Syria and not on the Golan Heights, but in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  The man the BBC calls ‘a Syrian nationalist’ joined Al-Qaeda in… Iraq – where he fought for a few years alongside another famous terrorist – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (from Zarqa, a town in Jordan).  He only returned to Syria in 2011 – on an al-Qaeda mission.  Islamists are not nationalists – their homeland is the Umma, ‘the Nation of Islam’.  Still, Abu Mohammed’s family originated from the Golan Heights – and that seemed important enough for Abu Mohammed to change his ‘nisbah’ to Al-Jawlani.  I wonder why?

 

So what should ‘we’ do about Syria?

(By ‘we’ I mean the rest of the world – the West in particular.)

Here’s something my science teachers taught me: before trying to invent a new solution to a problem, have a look around: it may be that somebody has already tried and tested a solution to a similar problem.  Saves you time and embarrassment!

Not so long ago, in the heart of Europe, there was a country called Yugoslavia.  Also an invented name, meaning ‘Land of the Southern Slavs’.  Also created by political interests, out of the shards of an Empire.  Also home to a ‘diversity’ of people, differing by ethnicity, faith and language.  For decades, that fake country was held together in the iron fist of a bloody dictator.  People were talking about ‘the Yugoslav people’…  But then the tyrant died – and it turned out there was no such people.  There were Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croatians, Muslim Bosniaks and Albanians who didn’t quite see eye to eye… and so the civil war began.  People were slaughtered by the thousand; women and girls were gang-raped.  Hundreds of thousands were forced to leave their homes or fled out of justified fear – this was the war that gave the phenomenon the name we use (and sometimes abuse) today: ethnic cleansing.  Foreign powers got involved, as they do – Russia, Turkey, NATO…

Ethno-religious map of Yugoslavia

The war ended only when everybody accepted that there was no Yugoslavia; that Croatians did not wish to be ruled by Serbs, in ‘Yugoslavia,’ but to govern themselves in their own country – Serbia.  The fake ‘Land of the Southern Slavs’ disappeared into history’s ‘failed experiments’ bin and a handful of nation states came into being: Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Kosova.  None of those are ‘ethnically pure’ – nor should they be.  There are Croats living as a minority in Serbia and Serbs in Croatia.  But, however wicked in itself (and it was!), the big ethnic cleansing was never reversed – as that was likely to generate more suffering.  Those new nation states have meanwhile by-and-large learned to treat their minorities fairly – since they are minorities and do not threaten to take over and oppress the majority.  They also learned to live in peace with each other and are gradually building something they still hesitate to call friendship.

So why don’t ‘we’ learn from that example?  Why don’t we adopt (or, better still, adapt) a similar solution to a similar problem?  Why is it that – just a few days ago – the European Commission (i.e., the same body that played a role in pacifying ‘Yugoslavia’) was:

“in agreement [with Turkey’s President Erdogan] on the need to preserve Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity, with a particular focus on creating an inclusive government…”

Now, why should foreigners continue to impose “Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity” upon “the Syrian people,” rather than allow (nay, encourage and help) those people to choose how they wish to organise and govern themselves?  Why does the EU believe that Kurds and Alawis want less self-determination than Croatians, Bosnians or Kosovar Albanians?  Or does Ursula von der Leyen believe that they deserve it less?

I think, unfortunately, that it’s even worse than that.  Western ‘leaders’ with no sense of history and morals are simply driven by political convenience.  They understand only too well that Turkey was behind the HTS takeover, that’s why Ms. Von der Leyen rushed to Ankara: to try and appease Erdogan, to make sure the EU is ‘on the side of the winner’ – and attempt to get something in return for the EU ‘support’.  That in the process she betrayed “the Syrian people” (along with EU’s own loudly proclaimed principles) is no skin off her hard nose.

And that’s where ‘we’ get it horribly, dreadfully wrong.  Despite their ‘inclusiveness’ and their in-your-face wokeness, too many Western leaders believe – deep inside and concealed even from themselves – that ‘brown people’ are different; that they have different aspirations, that they don’t crave freedom and identity like ‘we’ do.  That they can be fobbed off with less – for instance made to live in an invented country with an “inclusive government” (like Lebanon, perhaps?)

But people are people.  They are endowed with intelligence and moral sense, whatever the colour of their skin and the shape of their eyes.  From the ruins of Syria, from the misery of Africa and Asia and Latin America, those eyes are watching ‘us’.  From ‘us’ who have already conquered our freedom, they expect righteousness, integrity and hope.  But they see Emmanuel Macron.  They see Ursula von der Leyen standing next to Recep Tayyip Erdogan – and they see through her.  What they see is utter hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, callousness and crypto-racism.  No, they don’t like what they see.  And can ‘we’ really blame them??