Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨🇮🇱🇵🇸 DEBATE: JACKSON HINKLE V.S. SHABBOS ON HAMAS V.S. ISRAEL Hinkle: ‘Hamas should have Nukes’ Shabbos: ‘Gaza should not be a state’ In one of the fiercest debates yet, and Shabbos Kestenbaum clashed over war, morality, and what peace in the Middle East really means. They went head-to-head on:...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,860,898 subscribers

1,490,050 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

ComedyNachrichten & PolitikBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨🇮🇱🇵🇸 “HUMANITY IS ON THE LINE” - DEBATE EXPLODES OVER GAZA, HAMAS, AND WHO’S LYING and Joseph Cohen from the Israel Advocacy Movement went head-to-head in a volatile showdown that quickly turned personal. Cohen called Hamas a death cult. Hinkle said Israel’s committing genocide. Every line drew fire. They went blow-for-blow on: * Whether Israel’s bombing of Gaza is defense or revenge * If Hamas has any legitimacy left after October 7 * Why civilians keep dying while both sides claim self-defense * Whether Western media is covering truth or propaganda * And what “peace” even means when neither side will back down Cohen says Israel’s survival is non-negotiable. Hinkle says it’s humanity that’s on the line. No spin. No script. Just raw conviction and chaos caught on camera. 00:00 – Opening clash over “genocide defenders” and defining invasion 00:40 – Accusations of war profiteering and monetization motives 01:05 – “How can you hate something that doesn’t exist?” The Palestine question 01:55 – Joseph says a Palestinian state guarantees perpetual violence 03:42 – The 1937 Partition Plan and Arab rejection revisited 06:17 – Jackson calls Israel a genocidal beast erasing Palestinians 09:52 – Joseph says Palestinians rejected every major peace plan 12:39 – Jackson points to U.S. hypocrisy on Jewish refugees 14:30 – Haavara Agreement and Western refusal of Jewish refugees 17:54 – Joseph outlines British Mandate and Balfour Declaration history 21:34 – Moderator asks if two states fail, what’s the alternative 29:01 – Destroying wells and cemeteries sparks debate over strategy or war crime 33:27 – Joseph says Hamas hides hostages as bargaining chips 36:08 – “Israel was forced into this war,” Hamas planned it all 49:09 – Bulldozed cemeteries ignite moral and military debate 51:30 – Jackson mocks Israel’s “fantasy world” of no genocide 1:00:02 – Should media platforms interview terrorist leaders 1:05:19 – Jackson says Israel sees Palestinians as genetically violent 1:32:05 – Final exchange on Hezbollah, Houthis, and U.S. troops
1:33:17

🚨🇮🇱🇵🇸 “HUMANITY IS ON THE LINE” - DEBATE EXPLODES OVER GAZA, HAMAS, AND WHO’S LYING and Joseph Cohen from the Israel Advocacy Movement went head-to-head in a volatile showdown that quickly turned personal. Cohen called Hamas a death cult. Hinkle said Israel’s committing genocide. Every line drew fire. They went blow-for-blow on: * Whether Israel’s bombing of Gaza is defense or revenge * If Hamas has any legitimacy left after October 7 * Why civilians keep dying while both sides claim self-defense * Whether Western media is covering truth or propaganda * And what “peace” even means when neither side will back down Cohen says Israel’s survival is non-negotiable. Hinkle says it’s humanity that’s on the line. No spin. No script. Just raw conviction and chaos caught on camera. 00:00 – Opening clash over “genocide defenders” and defining invasion 00:40 – Accusations of war profiteering and monetization motives 01:05 – “How can you hate something that doesn’t exist?” The Palestine question 01:55 – Joseph says a Palestinian state guarantees perpetual violence 03:42 – The 1937 Partition Plan and Arab rejection revisited 06:17 – Jackson calls Israel a genocidal beast erasing Palestinians 09:52 – Joseph says Palestinians rejected every major peace plan 12:39 – Jackson points to U.S. hypocrisy on Jewish refugees 14:30 – Haavara Agreement and Western refusal of Jewish refugees 17:54 – Joseph outlines British Mandate and Balfour Declaration history 21:34 – Moderator asks if two states fail, what’s the alternative 29:01 – Destroying wells and cemeteries sparks debate over strategy or war crime 33:27 – Joseph says Hamas hides hostages as bargaining chips 36:08 – “Israel was forced into this war,” Hamas planned it all 49:09 – Bulldozed cemeteries ignite moral and military debate 51:30 – Jackson mocks Israel’s “fantasy world” of no genocide 1:00:02 – Should media platforms interview terrorist leaders 1:05:19 – Jackson says Israel sees Palestinians as genetically violent 1:32:05 – Final exchange on Hezbollah, Houthis, and U.S. troops

Mario Nawfal

1,489,459 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

🚨🇮🇱 EXCLUSIVE: IS THE PEACE DEAL DEAD ALREADY? W/ FORMER IDF SPOKESPERSON I challenge Jonathan Conricus on why Israel seemingly breached the peace agreement by blocking aid and killing Palestinians. He points the finger at Hamas, claiming they are intentionally delaying the return of deceased Israeli hostages as they do not want to give up power in Phase 2 of the Peace Deal. We both agree the peace deal is looking shaky to say the least. 03:14 – Hamas stalls to test Israel and Trump 05:23 – Israel hints tit-for-tat on prisoner releases 06:45 – 28 bodies promised, 4 returned “it's an insult” 15:29 – Reports of street executions by Hamas 19:12 – Stalling to regain control through terror 22:30 – Pullout tied to completing stage four 23:05 – Disarmament is the deal’s bottleneck 24:21 – Israel plans permanent buffer zone to stop future attacks 26:08 – Hamas leaders reject disarmament, threaten new war 30:07 – No one wants peacekeepers coming home in caskets 36:04 – Hamas rebuilding outside Gaza, shifting to Syria and Lebanon 41:11 – Israelis tired of building peace while others try to destroy it 45:17 – No one-state: preserve Jewish-majority democracy 47:17 – Two-state solution “dead horse” forced by outsiders 52:45 – Words over weapons after Oct 7
53:21

🚨🇮🇱 EXCLUSIVE: IS THE PEACE DEAL DEAD ALREADY? W/ FORMER IDF SPOKESPERSON I challenge Jonathan Conricus on why Israel seemingly breached the peace agreement by blocking aid and killing Palestinians. He points the finger at Hamas, claiming they are intentionally delaying the return of deceased Israeli hostages as they do not want to give up power in Phase 2 of the Peace Deal. We both agree the peace deal is looking shaky to say the least. 03:14 – Hamas stalls to test Israel and Trump 05:23 – Israel hints tit-for-tat on prisoner releases 06:45 – 28 bodies promised, 4 returned “it's an insult” 15:29 – Reports of street executions by Hamas 19:12 – Stalling to regain control through terror 22:30 – Pullout tied to completing stage four 23:05 – Disarmament is the deal’s bottleneck 24:21 – Israel plans permanent buffer zone to stop future attacks 26:08 – Hamas leaders reject disarmament, threaten new war 30:07 – No one wants peacekeepers coming home in caskets 36:04 – Hamas rebuilding outside Gaza, shifting to Syria and Lebanon 41:11 – Israelis tired of building peace while others try to destroy it 45:17 – No one-state: preserve Jewish-majority democracy 47:17 – Two-state solution “dead horse” forced by outsiders 52:45 – Words over weapons after Oct 7

Mario Nawfal

649,581 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Chris Brunet: I have very simple question for Shabbos, who is Amalek? Shabbos Kestenbaum: Who is what? Who is Amalek? Oh, Amalek? Chris Brunet: Yeah, and do you believe they should be destroyed? Who are they, and do you believe they should be destroyed? Shabbos Kestenbaum: I... I mean, I’m happy to have a Jewish theological debate, but I don’t want to be rude, I’m not sure how much Hebrew you know, but most of them [classic religious texts] believe that Amalek is more of a concept in the age of Golus. Chris Brunet: Are they people today? Shabbos Kestenbaum: No Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.: According to Netanyahu, they are, in fact, he referred to the Palestinian people… Shabbos Kestenbaum: Hang on, hang on, you don’t speak Hebrew so you wouldn’t know, I speak Hebrew, you can listen to the video yourself, [Netanyahu] clearly says… Michael Rectenwald: Watch the video yourself, he said, we should treat [Palestinians] like we treat [Amalek] in the bible, which is to destroy all men, women. Shabbos Kestenbaum: First of all, I’m going to give you all a Hebrew lesson, it’s not Amalek, it’s Amalek, all right, that’s first of all, second of all, you just sound stupid when you say it like that, the second way, the same way you said that there’s a Golan brigade, there’s no Golan brigade, it’s called Golan. So it’ll just make it sound smarter. The second thing is when [Netanyahu] said that, he said that Hamas is the equivalent of Amalek, which sure if that’s your theological political justification go for it. But again, I don’t know how much of a theological debate you want to have, but almost all the [classic religious texts] certainly in the Gemara as well say that Amalek in the age of Golus is not a practical people. Chris Brunet: So when every Israeli politician says that Amalek must be murdered and destroyed, who are they talking about? Shabbos Kestenbaum: Well, as I just said, when [Netanyahu] refers to Hamas, he’s comparing them to the Amalek nation in the Bible, but the thing is that... Michael Rectenwald: The bible says, and I do know the Bible in this regard, it says the Amalek should be utterly destroyed, man, woman, child, and all the animals, wipe them out, so that’s not just Hamas, that’s all the Palestinians, that’s what he was referring to, and not only that, other Israeli officials called for total extermination. This is not a moral people. This is not a moral nation. This nation is barbaric.
2:06

Chris Brunet: I have very simple question for Shabbos, who is Amalek? Shabbos Kestenbaum: Who is what? Who is Amalek? Oh, Amalek? Chris Brunet: Yeah, and do you believe they should be destroyed? Who are they, and do you believe they should be destroyed? Shabbos Kestenbaum: I... I mean, I’m happy to have a Jewish theological debate, but I don’t want to be rude, I’m not sure how much Hebrew you know, but most of them [classic religious texts] believe that Amalek is more of a concept in the age of Golus. Chris Brunet: Are they people today? Shabbos Kestenbaum: No Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.: According to Netanyahu, they are, in fact, he referred to the Palestinian people… Shabbos Kestenbaum: Hang on, hang on, you don’t speak Hebrew so you wouldn’t know, I speak Hebrew, you can listen to the video yourself, [Netanyahu] clearly says… Michael Rectenwald: Watch the video yourself, he said, we should treat [Palestinians] like we treat [Amalek] in the bible, which is to destroy all men, women. Shabbos Kestenbaum: First of all, I’m going to give you all a Hebrew lesson, it’s not Amalek, it’s Amalek, all right, that’s first of all, second of all, you just sound stupid when you say it like that, the second way, the same way you said that there’s a Golan brigade, there’s no Golan brigade, it’s called Golan. So it’ll just make it sound smarter. The second thing is when [Netanyahu] said that, he said that Hamas is the equivalent of Amalek, which sure if that’s your theological political justification go for it. But again, I don’t know how much of a theological debate you want to have, but almost all the [classic religious texts] certainly in the Gemara as well say that Amalek in the age of Golus is not a practical people. Chris Brunet: So when every Israeli politician says that Amalek must be murdered and destroyed, who are they talking about? Shabbos Kestenbaum: Well, as I just said, when [Netanyahu] refers to Hamas, he’s comparing them to the Amalek nation in the Bible, but the thing is that... Michael Rectenwald: The bible says, and I do know the Bible in this regard, it says the Amalek should be utterly destroyed, man, woman, child, and all the animals, wipe them out, so that’s not just Hamas, that’s all the Palestinians, that’s what he was referring to, and not only that, other Israeli officials called for total extermination. This is not a moral people. This is not a moral nation. This nation is barbaric.

Chris Brunet

328,056 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 IS ISRAEL DRAGGING THE U.S. INTO ANOTHER FOREVER WAR? This debate between Cenk Uygur and IDF’s Jonathan Conricus got very very heated. I’ve never seen Cenk so upset The discussion started with a focus on the imminent war with Iran, and whether it is in America’s best interest Iran cannot reach the U.S. mainland with its missiles, does not have a nuclear weapon despite decades of warnings the country is on the verge of one, and has made it clear it does not want a war with the U.S. Cenk argues the Israeli lobby is the reason the U.S. is about to start a new war Jonathan disagrees, criticizing those who blame Israel for everything. In his view, Iran is building a nuclear weapon, as well as ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S., and has a history of destabilizing the region while killing U.S. servicemen through their proxies. The debate then moves to Israeli policy in the region, and the future of Gaza and the West Bank, and this is where it gets very emotional. Jonathan does not believe in a two-state solution, and Cenk equates that with genocide, asking one question: What will happen to the Palestinians if they do not accept to be integrated into Israel? Watch the full debate below with @jconricus0 and Cenk Uygur below. 03:00 - War nearly guaranteed, U.S. military buildup largest since Iraq, Israel controlling US policy 06:02 - Israel’s three “reasons” for war: nukes, missiles, foreign policy... none serve US interests 09:20 - Iranian people’s protests ignored; focus should be on their freedom, not regime 12:40 - Iranian regime’s threat: nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles, proxy wars 16:15 - US has historic chance to reshape Middle East, reduce Iranian terror influence 19:50 - Critique of US politicians prioritizing Israel over Americans; 80% oppose war 23:30 - Israel blamed for pushing US into wars repeatedly; weapons of mass destruction parallels 27:15 - Jonathan argues Iran threatens Israel; discussion of Iranian missile capabilities 31:00 - Israel’s defense role vs US leadership in the region; Iran-China-Russia tech cooperation 34:45 - Extremist insurgencies likely if Iran invaded; past examples Iraq & Afghanistan 38:20 - Israel’s “Greater Israel” ambitions and annexations; impact on Palestinians 41:50 - Historical context: 1948 Nakba and ethnic cleansing accusations revisited 45:30 - Debate over Palestinian resistance vs Israeli self-defense; moral questions raised 49:10 - US public largely against war; Israel benefits more than America from regime collapse 52:45 - Peace offers to Palestinians rejected multiple times; Israel insists on defense 55:30 - Current Israeli strategy: annexation, control over Judea & Samaria, handling 5.5M Palestinians
57:25

🇺🇸🇮🇷 IS ISRAEL DRAGGING THE U.S. INTO ANOTHER FOREVER WAR? This debate between Cenk Uygur and IDF’s Jonathan Conricus got very very heated. I’ve never seen Cenk so upset The discussion started with a focus on the imminent war with Iran, and whether it is in America’s best interest Iran cannot reach the U.S. mainland with its missiles, does not have a nuclear weapon despite decades of warnings the country is on the verge of one, and has made it clear it does not want a war with the U.S. Cenk argues the Israeli lobby is the reason the U.S. is about to start a new war Jonathan disagrees, criticizing those who blame Israel for everything. In his view, Iran is building a nuclear weapon, as well as ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S., and has a history of destabilizing the region while killing U.S. servicemen through their proxies. The debate then moves to Israeli policy in the region, and the future of Gaza and the West Bank, and this is where it gets very emotional. Jonathan does not believe in a two-state solution, and Cenk equates that with genocide, asking one question: What will happen to the Palestinians if they do not accept to be integrated into Israel? Watch the full debate below with @jconricus0 and Cenk Uygur below. 03:00 - War nearly guaranteed, U.S. military buildup largest since Iraq, Israel controlling US policy 06:02 - Israel’s three “reasons” for war: nukes, missiles, foreign policy... none serve US interests 09:20 - Iranian people’s protests ignored; focus should be on their freedom, not regime 12:40 - Iranian regime’s threat: nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles, proxy wars 16:15 - US has historic chance to reshape Middle East, reduce Iranian terror influence 19:50 - Critique of US politicians prioritizing Israel over Americans; 80% oppose war 23:30 - Israel blamed for pushing US into wars repeatedly; weapons of mass destruction parallels 27:15 - Jonathan argues Iran threatens Israel; discussion of Iranian missile capabilities 31:00 - Israel’s defense role vs US leadership in the region; Iran-China-Russia tech cooperation 34:45 - Extremist insurgencies likely if Iran invaded; past examples Iraq & Afghanistan 38:20 - Israel’s “Greater Israel” ambitions and annexations; impact on Palestinians 41:50 - Historical context: 1948 Nakba and ethnic cleansing accusations revisited 45:30 - Debate over Palestinian resistance vs Israeli self-defense; moral questions raised 49:10 - US public largely against war; Israel benefits more than America from regime collapse 52:45 - Peace offers to Palestinians rejected multiple times; Israel insists on defense 55:30 - Current Israeli strategy: annexation, control over Judea & Samaria, handling 5.5M Palestinians

Mario Nawfal

521,913 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨🇧🇾EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: PUTIN’S #1 ALLY REVEALS ALL! In a world first, Belarus’ President Lukashenko talks about what REALLY led to the war, his private discussions with Putin, how close we got to a nuclear war, and major new revelations on how he stopped a Russian coup! This interview breaks all the rules, and Europe’s longest-serving ruler speaks out. This video has an English voice-over, and below it in a comment is the original video with subtitles. Enjoy this unfiltered, unedited, no-holds-barred discussion. 03:24 – No Turning Back: “You don’t need to come back, you need to move forward.” 06:25 – Can Trump Stop the War? Lukashenko says Trump is the only leader pushing for peace. 08:55 – The Secret Calls Before the Invasion: What Putin and Zelensky told him before war broke out. 11:00 – The Peace Deal That Could Have Ended It: “The West pushed Ukraine to fight.” 21:30 – Boris Johnson BLOCKED Ukraine Peace Talks: “Johnson banned Zelensky from making peace.” 39:20 – How the US Pushed Russia & China Together: Sanctions backfired, forcing Russia closer to Beijing. 54:00 – The mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine—what does Putin think of it? 58:00 – EU’s aggressive stance in peace discussions and the U.S. involvement in Ukraine 01:01:00 – Wagner Mutiny: How Lukashenko Stopped a Coup 01:06:50 – How Close Were We to Nuclear War? “Putin never wanted it. The West did.” 01:10:30 – China’s Endgame: Xi Jinping’s quiet strategy and why China avoids escalation. 01:14:15 – NATO’s Future: Lukashenko on why the US-EU alliance is fracturing. 01:17:51 – What If Biden Was Still President? “The war would have continued endlessly.” 01:20:29 – Lukashenko’s Message to Americans and Europeans I want to give a special thanks to Belarus MFA 🇧🇾 for coordinating this interview.
1:22:24

🚨🇧🇾EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: PUTIN’S #1 ALLY REVEALS ALL! In a world first, Belarus’ President Lukashenko talks about what REALLY led to the war, his private discussions with Putin, how close we got to a nuclear war, and major new revelations on how he stopped a Russian coup! This interview breaks all the rules, and Europe’s longest-serving ruler speaks out. This video has an English voice-over, and below it in a comment is the original video with subtitles. Enjoy this unfiltered, unedited, no-holds-barred discussion. 03:24 – No Turning Back: “You don’t need to come back, you need to move forward.” 06:25 – Can Trump Stop the War? Lukashenko says Trump is the only leader pushing for peace. 08:55 – The Secret Calls Before the Invasion: What Putin and Zelensky told him before war broke out. 11:00 – The Peace Deal That Could Have Ended It: “The West pushed Ukraine to fight.” 21:30 – Boris Johnson BLOCKED Ukraine Peace Talks: “Johnson banned Zelensky from making peace.” 39:20 – How the US Pushed Russia & China Together: Sanctions backfired, forcing Russia closer to Beijing. 54:00 – The mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine—what does Putin think of it? 58:00 – EU’s aggressive stance in peace discussions and the U.S. involvement in Ukraine 01:01:00 – Wagner Mutiny: How Lukashenko Stopped a Coup 01:06:50 – How Close Were We to Nuclear War? “Putin never wanted it. The West did.” 01:10:30 – China’s Endgame: Xi Jinping’s quiet strategy and why China avoids escalation. 01:14:15 – NATO’s Future: Lukashenko on why the US-EU alliance is fracturing. 01:17:51 – What If Biden Was Still President? “The war would have continued endlessly.” 01:20:29 – Lukashenko’s Message to Americans and Europeans I want to give a special thanks to Belarus MFA 🇧🇾 for coordinating this interview.

Mario Nawfal

6,887,378 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Hamas negotiator talks to The Grayzone about new barriers to Palestinian freedom This December in Doha, Qatar, The Grayzone’s Aaron Mate sat down with senior Hamas negotiator and former Minister of Health in the Gaza Strip Dr. Basem Naim to discuss the fractured ceasefire in Gaza, the prospects for a second phase, and Hamas’s political and military positions amid ongoing Israeli siege. Dr. Naim argues that the so-called ceasefire has largely failed due to Israeli violations and that any meaningful progress toward peace is impossible without addressing the roots of the crisis: the lack of Palestinian self-determination and ongoing military occupation. Dr. Naim contends that Hamas has fully complied with its obligations under the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, including the release of Israeli prisoners and bodies, while Israel has failed to uphold its commitments. More than 350 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds wounded since the ceasefire began, with frequent Israeli attacks continuing daily. Israel has restricted humanitarian aid, blocked essential supplies, limited entry of heavy machinery needed for rubble removal and reconstruction, and kept the Rafah crossing largely closed, preventing wounded civilians, students, and families from traveling. Dr. Naim explains how these systematic violations were reported to mediators without consequence. Because the first phase has not been implemented as agreed, Dr. Naim argues that discussion of a second phase is premature and problematic. He rejects the framing that Hamas alone would determine the next phase, stating that decisions about Gaza’s future, resistance, and governance must involve all factions inside the Palestinian polity. He slams international proposals that marginalize Palestinians from decision-making structures, including a proposed international “boards of peace,” which he likens to an occupation imposed from outside. Asked about the role of the international community, Dr. Naim says Hamas would accept a limited international role strictly confined to supervising the ceasefire, facilitating aid, and supporting reconstruction. He supports the deployment of an international stabilization force only along Gaza’s borders to separate Israeli forces from Palestinians, not inside Palestinian cities or in daily governance, noting the consensus among Arab and Muslim countries for this position. Asked about demands that Hamas unilaterally give up its weapons, Dr. Naim strongly rejects unconditional disarmament, arguing that Palestinians remain under occupation and retain the right under international law to resist, including through armed struggle. History did not begin on October 7, he argues, explaining how Palestinians have endured decades of killings, dispossession, and siege. While rejecting disarmament, he leaves open the possibility of long-term ceasefires lasting five to ten years, during which weapons could be frozen or stored – but only if tied to a credible political process leading to a sovereign Palestinian state with clear timelines and guarantees against renewed Israeli attacks. Dr. Naim blasts the UN resolution for being vague, selectively enforced, and lacking enforceable commitments to Palestinian self-determination. He argues that international law and UN resolutions must be treated as a package, not selectively applied to serve Israeli interests while ignoring Palestinian rights such as statehood and the right of return. Asked by Mate about Hamas’ support for a two-state solution, Dr. Naim restates the Movement’s longstanding position that Hamas would cooperate with a consensus Palestinian position supporting a fully sovereign state on the 1967 borders, provided it includes East Jerusalem and guarantees the right of return for refugees. He emphasizes that this would represent a historic compromise and insists that such a state is not a concession from Israel, but a Palestinian right under international law. Recognition of Israel, he argues, would be a decision for a future Palestinian state and society, not one imposed amid ongoing violence. On the issue of continuing Palestinian divisions, Dr. Naim acknowledges deep fragmentation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, describing decades of failed reconciliation efforts despite repeated agreements. He argues that the Oslo process has failed catastrophically, citing massive settlement expansion and annexation. He attributes continued division partly to external pressure from Israel and the United States, which he says have conditioned Palestinian leadership choices. He explains Hamas’s efforts to secure the release of prisoners from all factions, particularly Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah-aligned longtime political prisoner with street credibility across Palestine. According to Dr. Naim, Hamas views Barghouti as one of the only figures capable of reshaping Palestinian politics and advancing unity. Dr. Naim closes by addressing Palestinian criticism of Hamas and its October 7 operation, particularly those who argue that the unbelievable levels of civilian suffering were not worth it. While acknowledging dissent, he argues that Palestinians faced no viable alternative under siege and occupation. He frames Hamas’s actions as resistance born of desperation and insists that the root problem is the “prison” of occupation itself, and that resistance is inevitable under such unjust conditions.
49:14

Hamas negotiator talks to The Grayzone about new barriers to Palestinian freedom This December in Doha, Qatar, The Grayzone’s Aaron Mate sat down with senior Hamas negotiator and former Minister of Health in the Gaza Strip Dr. Basem Naim to discuss the fractured ceasefire in Gaza, the prospects for a second phase, and Hamas’s political and military positions amid ongoing Israeli siege. Dr. Naim argues that the so-called ceasefire has largely failed due to Israeli violations and that any meaningful progress toward peace is impossible without addressing the roots of the crisis: the lack of Palestinian self-determination and ongoing military occupation. Dr. Naim contends that Hamas has fully complied with its obligations under the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, including the release of Israeli prisoners and bodies, while Israel has failed to uphold its commitments. More than 350 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds wounded since the ceasefire began, with frequent Israeli attacks continuing daily. Israel has restricted humanitarian aid, blocked essential supplies, limited entry of heavy machinery needed for rubble removal and reconstruction, and kept the Rafah crossing largely closed, preventing wounded civilians, students, and families from traveling. Dr. Naim explains how these systematic violations were reported to mediators without consequence. Because the first phase has not been implemented as agreed, Dr. Naim argues that discussion of a second phase is premature and problematic. He rejects the framing that Hamas alone would determine the next phase, stating that decisions about Gaza’s future, resistance, and governance must involve all factions inside the Palestinian polity. He slams international proposals that marginalize Palestinians from decision-making structures, including a proposed international “boards of peace,” which he likens to an occupation imposed from outside. Asked about the role of the international community, Dr. Naim says Hamas would accept a limited international role strictly confined to supervising the ceasefire, facilitating aid, and supporting reconstruction. He supports the deployment of an international stabilization force only along Gaza’s borders to separate Israeli forces from Palestinians, not inside Palestinian cities or in daily governance, noting the consensus among Arab and Muslim countries for this position. Asked about demands that Hamas unilaterally give up its weapons, Dr. Naim strongly rejects unconditional disarmament, arguing that Palestinians remain under occupation and retain the right under international law to resist, including through armed struggle. History did not begin on October 7, he argues, explaining how Palestinians have endured decades of killings, dispossession, and siege. While rejecting disarmament, he leaves open the possibility of long-term ceasefires lasting five to ten years, during which weapons could be frozen or stored – but only if tied to a credible political process leading to a sovereign Palestinian state with clear timelines and guarantees against renewed Israeli attacks. Dr. Naim blasts the UN resolution for being vague, selectively enforced, and lacking enforceable commitments to Palestinian self-determination. He argues that international law and UN resolutions must be treated as a package, not selectively applied to serve Israeli interests while ignoring Palestinian rights such as statehood and the right of return. Asked by Mate about Hamas’ support for a two-state solution, Dr. Naim restates the Movement’s longstanding position that Hamas would cooperate with a consensus Palestinian position supporting a fully sovereign state on the 1967 borders, provided it includes East Jerusalem and guarantees the right of return for refugees. He emphasizes that this would represent a historic compromise and insists that such a state is not a concession from Israel, but a Palestinian right under international law. Recognition of Israel, he argues, would be a decision for a future Palestinian state and society, not one imposed amid ongoing violence. On the issue of continuing Palestinian divisions, Dr. Naim acknowledges deep fragmentation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, describing decades of failed reconciliation efforts despite repeated agreements. He argues that the Oslo process has failed catastrophically, citing massive settlement expansion and annexation. He attributes continued division partly to external pressure from Israel and the United States, which he says have conditioned Palestinian leadership choices. He explains Hamas’s efforts to secure the release of prisoners from all factions, particularly Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah-aligned longtime political prisoner with street credibility across Palestine. According to Dr. Naim, Hamas views Barghouti as one of the only figures capable of reshaping Palestinian politics and advancing unity. Dr. Naim closes by addressing Palestinian criticism of Hamas and its October 7 operation, particularly those who argue that the unbelievable levels of civilian suffering were not worth it. While acknowledging dissent, he argues that Palestinians faced no viable alternative under siege and occupation. He frames Hamas’s actions as resistance born of desperation and insists that the root problem is the “prison” of occupation itself, and that resistance is inevitable under such unjust conditions.

The Grayzone

172,461 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Left: Rachel Reeves: “I am a Zionist” at Labour Friends of Israel annual lunch. Right: Israel announces $843 million in new West Bank settlements and #C4News report that Israel is blocking a 3 month supply of 150 trucks of aid to Gaza Labour may not have an antisemitism problem, but it does have a blind spot when it comes to holding Israel accountable for international law and humanitarian issues - Ignoring illegal settlements, the destruction in Gaza, and the prevention of aid is a real political problem Antisemitism and Islamophobia are both horrific and must be challenged. Our society thrives when people of all faiths support each other and stand against abuse; that includes protecting our British Jewish and Muslim populations from harm However, whether a one-state or two-state solution leads to lasting peace, it is difficult to see it being achieved under a Labour government that consistently whitewashes Israel’s actions in Gaza while their friends in Israel restrict humanitarian aid Peace in the Middle East requires courage, accountability, and compromise from all parties. It means halting illegal settlement expansion, allowing humanitarian aid to reach civilians, and supporting a political process that respects the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis So many Labour MPs are members of Labour Friends of Israel, but far fewer join Labour Friends of Palestine. If they can’t be bothered to stand publicly for both Palestinian and Israeli lives, how can they expect to set an example of fairness, humanity, and equal concern? True leadership means defending the rights and safety of all civilians, not just those on one side That's Labour's problem today
0:57

Left: Rachel Reeves: “I am a Zionist” at Labour Friends of Israel annual lunch. Right: Israel announces $843 million in new West Bank settlements and #C4News report that Israel is blocking a 3 month supply of 150 trucks of aid to Gaza Labour may not have an antisemitism problem, but it does have a blind spot when it comes to holding Israel accountable for international law and humanitarian issues - Ignoring illegal settlements, the destruction in Gaza, and the prevention of aid is a real political problem Antisemitism and Islamophobia are both horrific and must be challenged. Our society thrives when people of all faiths support each other and stand against abuse; that includes protecting our British Jewish and Muslim populations from harm However, whether a one-state or two-state solution leads to lasting peace, it is difficult to see it being achieved under a Labour government that consistently whitewashes Israel’s actions in Gaza while their friends in Israel restrict humanitarian aid Peace in the Middle East requires courage, accountability, and compromise from all parties. It means halting illegal settlement expansion, allowing humanitarian aid to reach civilians, and supporting a political process that respects the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis So many Labour MPs are members of Labour Friends of Israel, but far fewer join Labour Friends of Palestine. If they can’t be bothered to stand publicly for both Palestinian and Israeli lives, how can they expect to set an example of fairness, humanity, and equal concern? True leadership means defending the rights and safety of all civilians, not just those on one side That's Labour's problem today

Farrukh

21,323 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Once again, Jeremy Bowen is misleading the British public about Gaza: Yet again the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen is misrepresenting a key issue in Gaza – and as always, he is doing so in a way that places Israel in the most flattering light possible. The BBC’s international editor notes two reasons why Hamas will not wish to disarm, as stipulated by Israeli and US officials: a) Because having weapons is “deep in their ideological DNA”. b) Because Hamas are worried that, if they are not armed, “there are plenty of people out there in Gaza who would like to take revenge on them and will come after them”. Notice two things here: First, both of these claims are rooted in Israeli rationales for why Hamas needs disarming. Inadvertently or not, Bowen is subtly suggesting that the group is inherently bloodthirsty, and that it does not properly represent the people of Gaza (more on that in a moment). Second, Bowen ignores the main reason why Hamas wants to keep its weapons, one so obvious that it is simply astounding that he forgot to mention it. Hamas believes that, if it is not armed, Israel will have an even freer hand to carry out its genocidal policies in Gaza, to continue its decades-long, illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and to intensify its siege of the enclave. Hamas believes Israel’s violence against the Palestinian people should not be cost-free. Whether or not one approves of Hamas’ approach – and to do so would be a violation of the UK’s Terrorism Act and could lead to a 14-year jail sentence – Bowen is required to report what the group actually thinks. Otherwise he is not a journalist, he is just another western propagandist. Instead, he is actively misleading the British public both about Hamas’ worldview and about a core issue – Hamas’ disarmament – that could soon give Israel the excuse it seeks to trash the ceasefire agreement. Like the rest of the BBC’s coverage, Bowen’s reporting refuses to address the elephant in the room: that Palestinians are caught in a trap crafted for them by the West. If they try to resist their illegal occupation by Israel, they are slaughtered and damned as terrorists. But if they don’t, they must live as permanent prisoners of an illegal, dehumanising occupation. A further point: Bowen says Hamas are using their weapons to take on “armed clans who have weapons themselves – to reassert their power, to send a message to Gazans, ‘Don’t mess with us’.” Bowen, of course, carefully ignores the part Israel has played in arming these criminal clans and letting them steal food aid. The clans sold that aid at inflated prices to a small section of Gaza’s population who could still afford to pay, while everyone else starved. One doesn’t need to be a genius, or Hamas sympathiser, to imagine – contrary to Bowen’s suggestion that Hamas is widely feared by the population – that most people there may be relieved to see Hamas back and taking on the criminal gangs that extorted them and were central to the implementation of Israel’s genocidal starvation campaign.
0:54

Once again, Jeremy Bowen is misleading the British public about Gaza: Yet again the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen is misrepresenting a key issue in Gaza – and as always, he is doing so in a way that places Israel in the most flattering light possible. The BBC’s international editor notes two reasons why Hamas will not wish to disarm, as stipulated by Israeli and US officials: a) Because having weapons is “deep in their ideological DNA”. b) Because Hamas are worried that, if they are not armed, “there are plenty of people out there in Gaza who would like to take revenge on them and will come after them”. Notice two things here: First, both of these claims are rooted in Israeli rationales for why Hamas needs disarming. Inadvertently or not, Bowen is subtly suggesting that the group is inherently bloodthirsty, and that it does not properly represent the people of Gaza (more on that in a moment). Second, Bowen ignores the main reason why Hamas wants to keep its weapons, one so obvious that it is simply astounding that he forgot to mention it. Hamas believes that, if it is not armed, Israel will have an even freer hand to carry out its genocidal policies in Gaza, to continue its decades-long, illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and to intensify its siege of the enclave. Hamas believes Israel’s violence against the Palestinian people should not be cost-free. Whether or not one approves of Hamas’ approach – and to do so would be a violation of the UK’s Terrorism Act and could lead to a 14-year jail sentence – Bowen is required to report what the group actually thinks. Otherwise he is not a journalist, he is just another western propagandist. Instead, he is actively misleading the British public both about Hamas’ worldview and about a core issue – Hamas’ disarmament – that could soon give Israel the excuse it seeks to trash the ceasefire agreement. Like the rest of the BBC’s coverage, Bowen’s reporting refuses to address the elephant in the room: that Palestinians are caught in a trap crafted for them by the West. If they try to resist their illegal occupation by Israel, they are slaughtered and damned as terrorists. But if they don’t, they must live as permanent prisoners of an illegal, dehumanising occupation. A further point: Bowen says Hamas are using their weapons to take on “armed clans who have weapons themselves – to reassert their power, to send a message to Gazans, ‘Don’t mess with us’.” Bowen, of course, carefully ignores the part Israel has played in arming these criminal clans and letting them steal food aid. The clans sold that aid at inflated prices to a small section of Gaza’s population who could still afford to pay, while everyone else starved. One doesn’t need to be a genius, or Hamas sympathiser, to imagine – contrary to Bowen’s suggestion that Hamas is widely feared by the population – that most people there may be relieved to see Hamas back and taking on the criminal gangs that extorted them and were central to the implementation of Israel’s genocidal starvation campaign.

Jonathan Cook

179,078 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten