Category Archives: Middle East Analysis

Trading Antisemitism in US For Help in Foreign Wars?

Posted on by
Reply

Al Jazeera is the global media company funded by Qatar, governed through a board appointed by the Qatari state and used to project Qatari influence around the world. Its digital arm, AJ+, was built in 2013 specifically for younger Americans who consume news through social media rather than television. By the late 2010s, it had become one of Facebook’s largest news-video publishers, generating billions of views and millions of followers while focusing heavily on race, social justice and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a peculiar cocktail of a socialist-jihadi alliance at that time, which is now mainstreamed.

AJ+ has a long history of peddling Hamas propaganda

In September 2020, the Trump Justice Department concluded that AJ+ was acting on behalf of a foreign principal and ordered it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Registration would not have restricted its journalism, but simply would have required public disclosure of its relationship with Qatar and periodic reporting similar to that required of other foreign state-backed media organizations like those from Turkey (TRT), China (CGTN) and Russia (RT).

AJ+ refused to register. Republican lawmakers including Chuck Grassley, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Todd Young pressed DOJ to enforce its own determination.

Then, in May 2022, the Biden Justice Department withdrew the order after reviewing additional information submitted by AJ+. What changed has never been publicly explained. DOJ has not identified the decisive new facts, released its legal analysis or explained why AJ+ was treated differently from other foreign state-funded broadcasters.

“AJ+’s reporting ‘supports an inference’ that its broadcasts are ‘designed to influence the opinions and perspectives of its U.S. audience as directed by the foreign principals and for their principal benefit.’…

Given Al Jazeera’s and TikTok’s public prominence in the U.S., mounting evidence of their use to advance foreign agendas, and the Biden Administration’s own national security concerns with the two companies, the Committee is puzzled that the Department appears to have either ceased or paused enforcement of FARA registration requirements for the companies without explanation.” – February 8, 2024 letter from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

The timing naturally raises questions.

Only months earlier, the United States had completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Qatar had become indispensable to Washington—hosting negotiations with the Taliban, assisting the evacuation from Kabul and serving as one of America’s principal diplomatic intermediaries in the region.

There is no public evidence that the FARA reversal was connected to Qatar’s diplomatic role but it is reasonable to ask whether a government relying heavily on Doha’s cooperation became less interested in forcing Qatar’s flagship media network to register as a foreign agent.

The same question now confronts the second Trump administration. Although Trump’s first Justice Department initiated the FARA action, his current administration has not publicly reopened the case. That may simply reflect DOJ’s legal judgment or competing priorities. It may also reflect Qatar’s continuing importance as a partner in addressing Iran, Gaza and other regional crises.

A final question – closer to home – may be the most consequential. During this same period, antisemitism reached levels not seen in decades while anti-Israel activism surged across American campuses and social media, principally from young people. And AJ+ was one of the most influential foreign state-funded digital news brands reaching young Americans, peddling such hatred over this time.

The unanswered question is whether Washington accepted greater Qatari influence inside the United States – including directly and indirectly promoting antisemitism – in exchange for Qatar’s assistance abroad.

Whether making Al Jazeera and AJ+ register under FARA would suddenly change these trends is unknown. But it is also unknown and curious why the government stopped asking the Qatari media powerhouse to do so.

The OIC’s Hamas Exception

Posted on by
Reply

Founded in 1969, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is a coalition of 57 Muslim-majority nations, making it the second-largest intergovernmental organization in the world after the United Nations. Stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, and from Kazakhstan to Nigeria, it represents roughly a quarter of the world’s countries and speaks collectively on issues affecting the Muslim world.

OIC Member states

One of the organization’s longstanding positions is that extremist groups claiming to act in the name of Islam do not represent Islam. Over the years, the OIC has repeatedly condemned organizations such as:

  • ISIS (Daesh) — for attacks across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Nigeria, all OIC member states.
  • Al-Qaeda — for attacks in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and other Muslim-majority countries.
  • Boko Haram — for its insurgency in Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon.
  • Al-Shabaab — for attacks centered in Somalia and extending into neighboring countries.
  • ISIS-K (Islamic State Khorasan Province) — for terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  • Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) — for its campaign against the government and civilians of Pakistan.

The common thread is unmistakable. Every one of these organizations has waged war against governments, civilians, or institutions in Muslim-majority countries, mostly members of the OIC itself.

The OIC has consistently argued that Muslims have been among the principal victims of jihadist terrorism. These groups bomb mosques, seek to overthrow Muslim governments, and destabilize OIC member states are denounced as terrorists and rejected as contrary to Islam.

Yet one jihadi terrorist groups is not called out. It is embraced.

Hamas is an Islamist movement whose founding charter and rhetoric have long drawn on jihadist themes and whose October 7, 2023, attack deliberately targeted civilians. Nevertheless, the OIC has not designated Hamas as a terrorist organization or issued the kind of sweeping institutional condemnations that it has directed at ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, ISIS-K, or TTP.

The most obvious distinction is not the use of Islamist ideology or armed violence. It is the target: Israel, the Jewish State.

For an organization that frequently states that terrorism has no religion and that Muslims are among terrorism’s greatest victims, its record reveals a clear pattern. When jihadist groups attack the Muslim world, the OIC is unequivocal in its condemnation. When an Islamist movement wages jihad against the Jewish state, the organization’s response is support.

The Iran War Reveals The Two Jihadi Wars On America

Posted on by
Reply

When Iran offered condolences after the death of former Qatari emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the gesture appeared incongruous. Iran had recently been firing missiles and drones at Qatar and across the Gulf. So why the words of consolation?

Iran was not primarily attacking Qatar as a Muslim or Arab society. It was targeting the American military presence on Qatari soil. The same pattern has extended across the region: U.S. facilities and assets in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, as well as American positions in Iraq and Syria, have come under Iranian attack. Recent strikes included an early-warning installation in Qatar, Patriot systems in Kuwait, a U.S. fuel depot in Bahrain and military facilities in Jordan.

That reveals the real fault line in the Middle East.

It is not simply Sunni against Shia, Arab against Persian or even Muslim country against Muslim country. It is increasingly a divide over how to handle the United States: between governments and movements determined to expel American power and those that invite it in and then seek to shape it.

Iran represents the first model. Since 1979, its hostility has been explicit. It calls America the enemy, demands the removal of U.S. forces and uses missiles, drones and proxies against American military positions. Its war is visible. It announces its contempt and fires at the flag.

Qatar perfected a more nuanced model.

Under Sheikh Hamad, Qatar financed and expanded Al Udeid Air Base, which became central to U.S. operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and across the region. At the same time, Doha built influence inside the United States, financing American university campuses, purchased entry into American television distribution, invested in think tanks and businesses, hired lobbyists and cultivated political relationships. It also hosted anti-Western terrorist groups including Hamas leaders and Muslim Brotherhood figures, and used Al Jazeera to broadcast narratives often deeply hostile to the West and its allies.

Iran attacks American power from the outside. Qatar embraces it corrodes it from within.

anti-American Iranians

Iran seeks direct confrontation; Qatar seeks leverage.Iran’s weapons are missiles and militias. Qatar’s are money, access, prestige and indispensability.

The West is naturally more alarmed by Iran’s model. And Qatar’s model is harder to confront because it arrives as partnership.

The military base protects American interests. The university campus carries a prestigious name. The investment creates jobs. Each relationship is defensible in isolation. Together, however, they create influence on a scale no tiny monarchy could achieve through military power alone.

The broader contest is therefore not between countries that love America and countries that hate it. Iran and Qatar represent different tactics of genocidal jihadists. One strategy attacks the fortress. The other purchases rooms inside it.

Iran’s war is louder. Qatar’s may prove more insidious and enduring.

The Emir Who Changed the Battlefield

Posted on by
1

The death of Qatari Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani on July 12 marks the passing of one of the most consequential – and controversial – strategists of the modern Middle East.

Qatari Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani

When he took power in Qatar in 1995, he inherited a tiny Gulf monarchy with enormous natural-gas reserves but limited international influence. By the time he abdicated in 2013 in favor of his son, Qatar had become a global financial center, media power, diplomatic broker and investor deeply embedded in the institutions of the West.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres mourned him as a “visionary and transformative leader.” The question is what he transformed and toward what end.

For most Americans, the War on Terror was fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The enemy was imagined as something external: terrorists hiding in caves, regimes sheltering them and armies that could be defeated on a battlefield.

Sheikh Hamad developed a different model. Qatar did not physically confront the West. It enmeshed itself.

That strategy began with security. The United States and Qatar signed a defense cooperation agreement in 1992, but the relationship expanded dramatically after Sheikh Hamad took power. Qatar financed the development of Al Udeid Air Base beginning in the 1990s. After September 11, the base became central to American operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in 2003 the United States moved its regional air-operations command center there from Saudi Arabia.

Qatari military base

Thus, during Sheikh Hamad’s reign, Qatar became essential to America’s military posture even as Doha cultivated relationships with Hamas, the Taliban and leading Muslim Brotherhood figures. That contradiction was core to the strategy: become so useful to Washington that Qatar’s other alliances would be tolerated.

Qatar is Hamas’s largest and principal sponsor

At the same time, Sheikh Hamad built Qatar’s machinery of influence.

In 1996, he launched Al Jazeera, which transformed Arabic-language media and gave Qatar a powerful instrument for shaping political narratives across the region.

Beginning in 1998, Qatar also imported elite American universities into Education City: Virginia Commonwealth in 1998, Weill Cornell in 2001, Texas A&M in 2003, Carnegie Mellon in 2004, Georgetown in 2005 and Northwestern in 2008. Qatar was not merely sending students to America. It was paying prestigious American institutions to plant their flags in Doha and bind their faculty, administrators and reputations to the Qatari national project. Simultaneously, it began pouring billions of dollars into American schools and think tanks in America.

Then came direct entry into the American media market. In January 2013, Al Jazeera purchased Current TV from former Vice President Al Gore and his partners in a deal reportedly valued at $500 million. The real asset was distribution: the purchase offered access to approximately 40 million American homes, compared with fewer than five million previously.

This was not a collection of unrelated investments. It was a coherent doctrine.

Qatar hosted America’s military command structure, funded American universities, purchased Western media distribution, invested in landmark properties, supported think tanks and lobbyists, and cultivated Western political relationships. At the same time, it provided sanctuary and legitimacy to movements hostile to the West.

In 2012, Sheikh Hamad became the first head of state to visit Hamas-led Gaza and pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to the terrorist enclave. Qatar also became a home for Hamas political leaders and a major platform for Muslim Brotherhood figures.

Saudi Arabia’s role in the rise of jihadism was more direct and more visible, as fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. The West responded with armies, invasions, intelligence operations and trillions of dollars in military spending.

Qatar’s jihadism arrived differently. Not as a bare bomb but wrapped in prestige, access and partnership.

It was a velvet bomb.

Its instruments were television studios rather than training camps, endowed programs rather than militias, lobbying firms rather than armies, and investment funds rather than explosives. Qatar learned that it did not need to defeat Western institutions. It could finance them, partner with them and make them dependent, while corroding their values from the inside.

That is why Guterres’s tribute is so revealing. To the United Nations, Sheikh Hamad was the visionary builder of a modern state. To his critics, he helped perfect a model in which a small authoritarian monarchy could use money, military protection and institutional legitimacy to amplify movements fundamentally hostile to the West’s own political order.

During Guterres’s tenure, the United Nations itself has increasingly appeared less like the guardian of the postwar liberal system and more like an arena in which the grievances and ideological priorities of the Global South are directed against the countries that built and financed that system.

Sheikh Hamad set that groundwork. He understood that changing the world did not require conquering it.

It required gaining access to its command centers, universities, media platforms, political networks and international institutions—and persuading the West to welcome the process as partnership.

That is his most consequential and controversial legacy.

“Are You Going to Hamas Me?”

Posted on by
Reply

The English language is constantly changing. Sometimes a person’s or group’s name becomes a verb.

We boycott because of Charles Boycott. We lynch because of William Lynch. We pasteurize because of Louis Pasteur. We sandwich because of the Earl of Sandwich.

The verb survives because it captures something distinctive that no existing word quite conveys.

What if the same happened with Hamas?

At first glance, someone might say, “We already have a word. It’s called pillaging.”

But pillaging isn’t nearly enough to convey the particular depredation.

The Vikings pillaged. They raided villages, stole livestock, carried off treasure, and sometimes took captives. Their brutality was driven by conquest and material gain. History rightly remembers them as ruthless raiders.

Yet even “to pillage” fails to capture what the world witnessed on October 7.

If “to Hamas” became a verb, it would not simply mean to rob, raid, or kill.

It would mean to deliberately massacre civilians, rape and murder, burn families alive, and carry away even the bodies of the dead – not merely to deny burial, but to torment loved ones and use the dead as bargaining chips. It would mean celebrating those acts publicly, then, when the victims fight back, proclaiming yourself to be the true victim. It would mean embedding fighters among civilians, hiding like cowards behind women and children while forcing every effort to rescue hostages or defeat you into another propaganda opportunity.

Dead Israeli woman hauled back to Gaza by Hamas, spat on by local Gazans on October 7, 2023

The cruelty is not only in the violence itself. It is in the inversion.

“To Hamas” is to attack and demand sympathy for committing crimes against humanity. The hostage-taker claims oppression. The organization that began the war insists the people searching for their murdered and kidnapped relatives are the real aggressors.

Hamas genocidal jihadist in Israeli kibbutz, celebrating killing families

“To Hamas” is to invite the world to join the crime and taunt the victims. To call “globalize the Intifada” in the streets of the Global North. To say the victims are not welcome on street signs. To taunt worshippers working into prayer halls.

Language evolves because sometimes old words are no longer enough.

If someone someday asks, “Are you going to Hamas me?” they would not be asking whether you’re going to steal from them or rape them. They would be asking something far darker.

Vikings pillaged. English already has a word for that.

“To Hamas” is to commit heinous atrocities, run for physical and emotional cover, and call for support to exploit the victims further.

Many Jews are being Hamased daily. It is time to label it clearly.

The Leadership Democrats Didn’t Provide

Posted on by
Reply

This week’s House debate over Israel’s $3.3 billion in annual military assistance was more than a vote. It was a test of leadership.

Many Democratic members of Congress allowed the debate to become one of competing sympathies: Israel versus American families, Israel versus veterans, Israel versus schools and health care. Some even embraced that framing themselves.

But leadership is not about amplifying the loudest voices in your coalition. It is about explaining difficult truths.

Over the past months, I wrote two essays that made straightforward strategic arguments.

In “Nobody Protests the Military Bases in Germany,” I argued that Americans have long understood military commitments abroad not as charity, but as investments in American security. We maintain troops, aircraft, and bases around the world because we believe confronting threats abroad is less costly than confronting them at home. It runs around $75 billion annually.

In “America’s Greatest and Quietest Military Victory in Nearly a Century,“ I argued that the wars in Israel and Ukraine should be viewed together, not separately. Two American allies have spent the last several years severely weakening two of America’s principal adversaries—Iran and Russia—while requiring virtually no American combat casualties and only a fraction of the cost of wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

One can disagree with either argument. What is remarkable is how rarely Democratic leaders even attempted to make it.

  • Instead of explaining that military aid is part of a broader American strategy, they allowed it to be portrayed as a gift to a foreign country. And to only one country – Israel.
  • Instead of explaining that weakening Russia and Iran advances American interests, they permitted the conversation to revolve almost entirely around domestic tradeoffs. Only relative to Israel.
  • Instead of educating their constituents about seventy-five years of American global defense strategy, they surrendered the debate to slogans about “blank checks.” Specifically to the Jewish State.

Leadership requires more than counting votes. It requires helping citizens understand why America stations forces overseas, why it supports allies under attack, why it spends money beyond its borders, and why deterrence is almost always less expensive than war.

That conversation becomes even more important when the facts are uncomfortable.

  • The United States has committed far more aid to Ukraine than to Israel. Over eight times as much.
  • The wars involving Ukraine and Russia have produced far greater casualties than the war in Gaza. As much as eight times as much.
  • It spends vastly more each year defending allies through bases and military deployments across Europe and Asia. About 18 times as much.

Yet Israel alone has become the symbol of America’s supposedly misplaced priorities.

Statesmanship is not measured by how well elected officials echo the passions of the moment. It is measured by whether they are willing to explain complex realities even when doing so is politically difficult.

This week’s vote exposed more than a divide over Israel.

It exposed a failure to teach. A failure to lead. And a willingness to lean into vile antisemitic tropes.

Fiction vs. Fact: Palestine 1948 and PLO 1964

Posted on by
Reply

There is a popular belief that Palestine was a country stolen and occupied by invading Jews in 1948. This has no basis in fact.

When the British Mandate ended in May 1948, there was no sovereign Palestinian Arab government waiting to assume power. There was no functioning Arab parliament, cabinet, constitution, or national administration prepared to govern an independent state.

The Jewish community took a different path. Over decades it had built the institutions of self-government: representative political bodies, courts, schools, hospitals, financial institutions, and a defense force. When Britain withdrew, those institutions became the foundation of the State of Israel.

The local Arab leadership did not establish comparable institutions of national government. Not before 1948 nor after.

Instead, neighboring Arab armies invaded the newly declared Jewish state. Transjordan assumed control of the West Bank. Egypt administered Gaza. A short-lived All-Palestine Government was announced later that year, but it exercised little authority and never became an effective sovereign government.

For the next sixteen years, there was no effort to start a Palestinian State.

Only in 1964 did the Arab League create the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Even its name is revealing.

It was not called the State of Palestine. It was not called the Government of Palestine. It was called the Palestine “Liberation” Organization.

Governments are created to govern. Liberation movements are created to liberate territory from an existing sovereign.

First Chairman of the PLO, Ahmad al-Shukeiri, was born in Lebanon and served as both Syrian and Saudi Arabian delegate to the United Nations at different times. He had to resign in shame after failing to destroy Israel in 1967.

The PLO’s founding charter reinforces that distinction. Rather than outlining the institutions of a future Palestinian state, Article 24 declared:

“This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip, or in the Himmah Area [where Israel, Jordan and Syria meet].”

The PLO’s founding charter expressly declined to claim sovereignty over the parts of historic Palestine then under Arab administration. Yet throughout the document, its central mission was the “liberation of Palestine” – a struggle directed at Israel, the Jewish State. At its core, local Arabs wanted Arab rule, wherever it may come from. They opposed the so-called “Zionist invasion” and Jewish sovereignty “in any part of Palestine.“

When the first lasting Palestinian national organization finally appeared in 1964, it was constituted not as a government-in-waiting or a reclamation government but as a liberation movement, and its own charter expressly disclaimed sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza while solely focusing its mission on Israel.

Within three years of its founding, the PLO and surrounding Arabs countries initiated their plan to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They failed then as they failed in 1948.

The Palestinian “liberation” movement is a pan-Arab effort to remove the Jewish state first and foremost. Current efforts to portray it as a people seeking to reclaim their historic country is without any basis in fact.

Basic National Rights… For Some

Posted on by
Reply

The Palestinian Authority had no trouble explaining what every nation deserves.

In a statement condemning Iran’s attacks on Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, and Jordan, the PA repeatedly invokes the same principles: sovereignty, security, stability, and protection of civilians.

PA President condemns Iranian attacks on July 12, 2026

Iran is condemned for violating each of them. The Arab governments are praised for taking measures to defend them.

“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” United Nations Charter (Article 2(1))

Where were these principles when Israel was attacked?

When Iran launched missiles at Israel, did the Palestinian Authority defend Israel’s sovereignty?

When Hezbollah rained rockets on Israeli cities for months, did it affirm Israel’s right to security and stability?

states “refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” UN Charter (Article 2(4))

When the Houthis fired missiles toward Israel, did it support Israel’s right to protect its people?

And most pointedly, when Hamas – fellow local Arabs of the Palestinian parliament – crossed an international border on October 7, murdered civilians, kidnapped hostages, and occupied Israeli communities, did the PA condemn it as an assault on Israel’s sovereignty?

“the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” UN Charter (Article 51)

A principle that applies only to friends is not a principle. It is a preference.

The Palestinian Authority’s own statement demonstrates that it understands exactly what every nation deserves. Its silence when those same principles are violated openly and repeatedly against Israel says just as much as its words.

Gaza Was Called “Hell on Earth” Long Before This War

Posted on by
Reply

Long before the current war began, prominent advocates for the Palestinian cause were describing Gaza as “hell on earth.”

In January 2009, Palestinian Queen Rania of Jordan released a video for UNRWA titled “Hell on Earth.” Eight months later, speaking at UNRWA’s 60th anniversary, she recalled that video and lamented that Gaza was still “Hell on Earth.”

Palestinian Queen of Jordan Rania called Gaza “Hell on Earth” in 2009

In May 2021, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared, “If there is a hell on earth, it is the lives of children in Gaza today.”

When Israel began to respond to the war waged by Gazans in 2023, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said Gaza had become “a living hell.” In January 2024, UN humanitarian coordinator Sigrid Kaag told the Security Council, “Gaza is hell on earth.”

The description has been remarkably consistent. What has often been missing is the question: Why?

Hell is not merely a place of suffering. It is a place where evil reigns.

Hamas violently seized Gaza in 2007 after defeating Fatah in a brief but brutal civil war. Fighters executed political rivals, threw some from rooftops, publicly brutalized opponents, and dragged the bodies of alleged collaborators through the streets. Those who challenged Hamas risked imprisonment, torture, or death. Independent political life disappeared, and an entire generation grew up under the rule of an armed Islamist movement that prioritized rockets, tunnels, and perpetual conflict over building a prosperous society.

Hamas drags a disloyal Gazan through the streets to his death

And Hamas was a known entity, a political party which won 56% of Palestinian parliament in elections with the most antisemitic political charter ever written. It remains the most popular political group to this day, expected to win Palestinian elections in every poll.

Calling Gaza “hell on earth” without acknowledging who built that system leaves the story unfinished. Should people want to transform the region, they must work to end the evil rule and worldview that turned part of the holy land into such a place in the first place.

Why Doesn’t Anyone Call for a State of Boko Haram?

Posted on by
1

For more than fifteen years, Boko Haram has waged one of the world’s deadliest terrorist insurgencies. Since 2009, the group has been responsible for the deaths of more than 35,000 people, with some estimates placing the toll significantly higher when indirect deaths from the conflict are included. It has massacred civilians in villages, churches, mosques, schools, and marketplaces. It has bombed public places, murdered those who refused to submit to its rule, and driven millions from their homes across Nigeria and neighboring countries.

Kidnapping has been one of its defining tactics. The 2014 abduction of 276 schoolgirls from Chibok drew worldwide attention, but it was only one of thousands of kidnappings. Women and girls have been forced into marriage and been raped. Boys have been recruited as child soldiers. Entire communities have lived for years under the constant threat of murder, abduction, and terror.

Boko Haram rejects the legitimacy of Nigeria, a United Nations-member state. It seeks to replace it with its own extremist Islamist regime.

Yet almost no one argues that Boko Haram deserves its own country. No demonstrations demand that its leaders be rewarded with sovereignty. No governments argue that decades of massacres, hostage-taking, and terrorism should culminate in international legitimacy.

And then there is Hamas. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Dozens of other Palestinian terrorist groups. And the Palestinian Authority that pays for terrorist acts they commit.

The Bibas family taken hostages and murdered by Hamas on October 7, 2023

As Israelis buried over 1,000 people brutally killed by Hamas, anti-Israel activists took to Times Square and college campuses to express their glee. As Hamas supporters in Iran, Lebanon and Yemen joined the fight against Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia recognized the State of Palestine.

There are now 157 countries that recognize Palestine. That look at the war between Israel and Palestine as one between two sovereign states, one which invaded another, raped and burned people alive, and took 251 hostages. These nations didn’t pause to question whether Palestine has a right to exist, but got three more countries to join in their sadistic effort.

Perhaps it is time for the 36 countries which do not recognize Palestine to put a resolution before the UN to recognize Boko Haram as the legitimate government of Nigeria, or at least a breakaway state in the northeastern corner which they control.

Boko Haram in Nigeria