Abdullah al Andalusi – Israel’s genocidal end-game & Piers Morgans terrorism tongue-tie

			Now we are joined by
		

			Abdullah out under Thea, who's a political commentator. Thank you for joining us, Abdullah. He's
instructor and is an international speaker, thinker and intellectual activist for Islam and Muslim
affairs. He's instructor and head of the department of oxygen technology at the Qur'an Institute and
co founder and discussion forum of Muslim debate initiative. Abdullah, welcome. Thank you.
		

			We are hearing it seems growing voices for calling for a ceasefire. And this seems to be an
indication both from a mass that they will be prepared to discuss a ceasefire not an exchange of
prisoners like the last time but cessation of violence. And Israel's Prime Minister Isaac Hertzog
saying something similar. Are you hopeful we're moving towards an endgame here?
		

			Well, basically, there's been growing international pressure on Israel to
		

			limit its bombing campaign, as well as to have a ceasefire and bring an end to the violence because
there's no kind of end in sight. Hamas are well entrenched organization within Huzar. And so I think
people are realizing that the if this was allowed to continue, the civilian desktop would just climb
higher and higher and higher. And this has led to many people being very worried or concerned over
there are links with, with Israel, many, many of these Western governments from United States to to
even the toilet, British government. And they want to bring this, they want to rein this in before
their own populations put a lot of pressure on them, and of course, coming up to the elections with
		

			Donald Trump and Biden. So this is basically the the issue that's come about. So yes, there is a lot
of pressure, and Israel is facing a lot of pressure. Although there's a strong pressure within
Israel bloodlust, would you you could call it to want to basically continue the bombardment of Gaza
and wiping out the gardens, many have called including news pundits have called for the complete
wiping out of Gaza. And this is something which I think, is what the Israeli government are trying
to, to balance out, which is how they respond to the international pressure, while continuing what
many deem to be a genocidal campaign to push out the Gazans out of Gaza, and to put the liquid party
		

			for the ruling party of the State of Israel to achieve its objective as of a greater Israel where
they would completely annex both Gaza and the West Bank without having to deal with the Palestinians
that reside there. Now, you recently appeared on the Piers Morgan show, we've got this quick West
watching and we can talk about that. So considering that you have justified the operation, that
Israel initiative, self defense, and that you refuse to call Israel as a terrorist organization, or
terrorist government, despite the fact that as many Palestine almost as many Palestinians gardens
have died under Israel's precision bombing, then the Londoners have died during the whole year of a
		

			blitz on the German bombing, which wasn't precision bombing. And yet, you still say that, well,
Israel isn't a terrorist organization. I think the question we should be asking is, shouldn't you
should you be suspended? Is it responsible to have a person with your views speaking to the public,
when you clearly refuse to condemn that which needs to be condemned? was worse than the London
group, but that's perfectly, perfectly reasonable precision weapons, and the German didn't have
precision were so friendly, reasonable question. Yes. And you've asked me on my show, yes. The fact
you're here and able to ask that, I think is evidence I'm prepared to listen to people who will look
		

			me in the eye and ask me difficult questions. But he didn't say that, but
		

			that's fine. You're perfectly entitled. Yeah, we believe in uncensored free speech here. But let me
ask you the question that which I was answering my question, but you haven't answered it. Well, I
have I said, I don't think they're a terrorist organization. Despite the fact that they've they've
killed almost as many questions as Germans. You've asked me a question. They bombed London during
the Blitz for one year, non precision bomb. I have given you an equivocal answer now. Okay. ask you
if you can give me one. Yes. Do you believe her maths or a terror organization? Okay. And I'd like
to ask you what just asked him a question. Well, I need I need clarification. This country has
		

			prescribed terror group. Do you think they are? Are you the British government? No, Moscow. Are you
okay? So I want your car. I want a clarification gave you a simple straight answer. What does it
mean? Now you tell me. I don't know. You asked me a question. You are a terror group. No, I want
your definition of what what do you what is a terror group an actively committed acts of terror, a
group that commits terrorist acts as they get on top of that, so one that can be stereotyped?
Alright, fine. So define terror. Do you want to answer your question? No, no, I do. I just want
clarification. No, no, we'll move
		

			on.
		

			We're gonna go somewhere with this. We're gonna go somewhere this right? Well, you asked the
question. Yes. Once I get your definition, what's a terror attack? The definition is, as is laid
down in international law, which is committing an act of terror, which is which is terrorism? Are
you asking question you don't know the definition of what what are you telling me what you think? I
don't know you're asking the question, no idea what terrorism? No, I want it. I want you to answer
your question, massacring 1200 people on October the seventh and the way he mastered is an act of
terror. Do you agree? So killing civilians is an act of terror? No, that's not what I said. Oh, so
		

			then kingster meeting is not that scary. So killing civilians is not an act if you're not going to
answer let me bro I wouldn't
		

			want you to peek? We have a third test. No, but I want to bring in do you want to say something? All
right, you know, really, you know,
		

			United States recognize bill or as a terrorist, and it negotiates with be in Oh, this is one thing.
The second October 7 happened and many things happened after? Are we here to just stuck there as a
snapshot and to discuss it or we want to discuss what after and what can be done we do but that's
the most important thing. There are all important issues. But right now, because of what happened in
the fallout from last night's show, I specifically want to discuss the definition of terrorism, her
mass and whether a British
		

			definition you can bring your definition.
		

			Up to I can recall, conservatives in this country calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist. I can remember
of obviously calling Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and other architects of the of the Northern
Ireland peace process terrorist.
		

			The global south is littered with people who were formerly called terrorists who then went on to
become heads of state were loaded. We're entering quite a wooded territory when you discuss this,
and it's emotive as well. And this is not just a neutral, neutral concept. There isn't ground and
fast rules for saying what terrorism is or isn't?
		

			Well, basically, there is there are there are definitions that have been given by different
different people. One of the problems with this is is that
		

			that some are quite broad. So the the definition in the UK is basically any violence done for
political ends, in essence, which covers every single war in human history by every state, because
all states the hope the definition of war is violence for political ends. And so the British
governor has kept it nice and broad so they can capture anyone they want to capture. I mean,
technically speaking, if you call to fight Russia, in Ukraine, that would be terrorism, by the the
definition of the law of England and Wales. Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service, don't
prosecute people for calling to advocating for terrorists. And just because you're calling to, to
		

			fight Russia, in Ukraine, according to Ukrainian to fight Russia, even though it would, in theory be
covered under that law. But also, the international understanding of it is they defined as a sub
state actor. So state, a less than a state, any actor that's less than a state, any group
organization does not state that engages in violence, specifically targeting targeting civilians.
And they've defined that way to prevent states from falling under that definitions for so some
internet definitions, allow states to commit acts of terrorism, but it's not called terrorism,
purely because it's done by a state literally, because it's done by a state not done by, quote
		

			unquote, less than a state. And, of course, this brings up the question as to how you would define
Hamas because Hamas classify itself as a government as a administration over an area of land, they
are recognized by a number of governments as being a government. And so how would you how would that
fall into the category? And so really, there's a lot of confusion, there's a lot of debate and
discussion and what I tried to highlight when I required Piers Morgan to define the question, he was
going to ask me, and he asked like, well, don't you know what terrorism is? And I said, but I don't
know. I don't know his definition. Like you give me your definition. So I can answer what you mean
		

			by it, because then we can have a discussion. He was unable to, to define it. And of course, the
closer he gets to definition, the more he gets closer to something that would condemn, for example,
the British government, and I always bring the example of World War Two and Winston Churchill's
ordering of terror bombing, bombing, deliberate bombing of German civilians, for the sake of
inducing pressure on the German government, because that is something that he praises or he feels to
be something that was justified and so so he doesn't want to actually condemn that because and then
his hypocrisy is exposed when he was unable to or didn't want to, or he argued that well, because
		

			Britain was trying to defend itself against an existential threat.
		

			Due to its liberty, its political freedom, that it was justified to fight the enemy like this and
then again pointed his inconsistency and say, well, the Palestinians could argue that same thing
their their self determination on the international law, which is a considered a sovereign principle
in international law, their sovereign, the sovereign, right to self determination is completely at
fret. In fact, it's been denied by Israel. So using piers Morgan's justifications could would that
justify that too? Of course, he's just want to sell when he consistency and I asked for him
consistency, and he was unable to produce a consistent answer. But that never stopped him from
		

			dividing other people to condemn Hamas and of course, throughout the interview with Piers Morgan
well wasn't interview was more of a debate, it was debate of a panel unfortunate wasn't a one to
one, I could have pressed him more. But in that discussion,
		

			I wanted to press him on the issue of the fact that look,
		

			more peep more Gazan civilians have died in two months of precision bombing with smart weapons with
mostly smart weapons by the Israeli state. Then all the Londoners that died during World War Two
from the Blitz from Germans bombing with V one rockets v two rockets, and just bombing from their
their planes are using dumb bombs, unguided bombs. So more so almost as many guys and sorry, have
died as World War Two for that the whole world war two bombing by Germans of London, doesn't that
illustrate doesn't that indicate that Israel is just going for destruction is just going to
deliberately target civilians? And so if that's the case, should it not be condemned as a terrorist
		

			organization? That was well,
		

			you wouldn't defend Hamas has actions and assembly would take into account that they're not the
proportion dead on his ends, October is no normal, comparable to the number of dead in Gaza. But
even so you wouldn't defend the guy as the seventh of October operations. As I said in that debate,
with Piers Morgan, that there is no justification for the deliberate targeting of civilians, whoever
is doing the targeting and whoever is being targeted, there is no justification, all deliberate
targeting of non combatants, is to be condemned by everyone.
		

			And that is the point the targeting of of hospitals, the targeting of schools, mass reprisals on the
civilian population. All of this was made illegal after the second world war under international
law. That is very clear international law.
		

			Yes, that's what that's what the Jiva conventions were brought in, to prevent was to prevent the
deliberate targeting of civilians in order to induce pressure against the government. And there was
a a recent journalism piece by Israeli journalists who uncovered with their intelligence service,
their intelligence contacts within the Israeli military, there was a actually a deliberate policy of
bombing civilians, which are called by the Israeli military as power targets, that they were targets
that would civilian targets designed to induce pressure on the Hamas government. So we are getting
on the cover of again, investigative journalism, uncovering Israeli investigative journalism, is
		

			uncovering that Israel's deliberate policy of targeting civilians. And what I really wanted from
Piers Morgan, was for him to condemn Israel for being for you, engaging in acts of terror, against
the population of Gaza for potentially genocidal purposes. I mean, this goes back to the very
origins of Israel, because when there is you're seeing the massacre of, of civilians by her Ghana,
which was well publicized her Ghana publicize this at the time, they sent speaker vans out telling
people in our villages, this is what had happened, they allowed a small number of survivors to weave
deliberately, so they could spread that news. So this is going back, as I say, to the very origins
		

			of the Israeli state.
		

			I mean, indeed, the Israeli state in from 1947, when it initiated the clearing of ethnic cleansing
operation against the Palestinians. But before anyone attacked them, no one, there was no invading
armies from Arab states coming in, they initiated the ethnic cleansing. And it was because of all
the policies and streaming out, seeking refuge against the ethnic cleansing, that the surrounding
kind of governments were under pressure from their people to come rescue the Palestinians. That's
actually what initiated the war was to rescue the Palestinians from the ethnic cleansing that was
happening, but to mention a point that you made before which is, you know, people in history who've
		

			been part of terrorist organizations and have engaged in terrorism become you know, prime ministers
and leaders and so on. Menachem Bagan, for example, was one such individual was was part of a
terrorist organization
		

			during the British rule of the mandate part
		

			Last night, and then of course, is now what was the big became the Prime Minister of State of
Israel. So I in fact many of the of the ruling the ruling party legally called actually came from
the the the jabber ZEV Java Jabotinsky, kind of militant movement within the Zionist Zionist
settlers in Israel before it became independent, which were engaged in active active fighting and
bombing, and so on, so forth, which was was motivating many actual terrorist organizations called
the stern Gannett Aragorn and many others. So, the liquid itself it's it's ancestry was in a
terrorist terrorist kind of thinking terrorists kind of movement back in the day. And this has all
		

			become now normalized when that is because they've gotten the political power when they're all
politicians. And so we should be under no illusion that they are very much continuing the type of
thinking, the type of terrorism that they engaged in, over 70 years ago, today, it's always
continued. The policy of Israel's was been quite consistent when it comes to collective punishment
of Palestinians, as well as disproportionate response to if there's a criminal action by any small
minority of Palestinians, all Palestinians are made to suffer. I mean, going back to the wider thing
as well, I mean,
		

			we're also talking about internationally providing weapons to Israel, which is used in this week, I
mean, Britain, the United States could be in the dark as well, internationally.
		

			Well, if war crimes are demonstrated, and of course, if the International Court of Justice, and
many, there's been some sources saying that those close to the International Court of Justice are
worried to investigate Israel for war crimes, because if they do investigate himself, war crimes,
and war crimes are proven, then all of those who supply weapons knowing that there's war crimes
going on, we'll also be complicit, which includes the United States government and UK Government,
and quite a few other governments. So this is going to be a very big case, a class action, you could
say,
		

			in the criminal action in criminal proceedings for a war crimes. And so this is what I mean, this is
what should happen in a in a fair world where people are investigated for war crimes, no matter who
they are, and who supported them. But unfortunately, I don't think we'll see that after.
		

			Thank you very much for joining us and for your insights on that. We're gonna take a short break
now. Please join us after that break for our continuing news coverage of the war in Palestine and
the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
		

			Salam aleikum Welcome back to Islam channels rolling news coverage of the war in Palestine growing
humanitarian crisis in Gaza myself, Chris Banbury.
		

			We're now joined once more by Abdullah Al and we'll see who's international speaker, thinker,
international activist for Islam and Muslim Affairs. Welcome back, Abdul when we're looking at the
situation here, in in Palestine, it's clear that the cannot the Israelis cannot succeed in
destroying Hamas for reasons you're willing to have popular support in the Enclave that can't be
died. And that, no, almost three months into this campaign, Hamas is still and others are still able
to fire rockets into Israel. They're still facing Gaza City, which was supposedly taken at the
beginning of this campaign. This isn't quite going to plan is it?
		

			No, there are reports of mounting casualties in the Israeli army,
		

			from Gaza City, and other places where Hamas is using hit and run attacks against the army and
continuing to strike it. And this was something which I suppose it seems, by many analysts that
Hamas was kind of relying on me even inviting Israel before the ground invasion began to come in to
Gaza to engage it on the ground. So clearly, Hamas appear to have prepared for a extended ground
operation, and they are continuing to fight that despite the fact that they are fighting in areas
which the Israeli government has declared to be cleared areas. So this is what's continued to
happen. But it seems to many analysts that Israel's strategy had been to pressure the golden
		

			civilians.
		

			And Human Rights Watch was just recently mentioned, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, so
that goblins will begin to flee Gaza itself. But seeing as the rough aborting is closed because
Egypt understands and many of the Arab governments surrounding understands that if the Palestinians
are, are allowed to leave,
		

			they will never be allowed to return back. Much the same thing happened in 1948 once they left their
homes and
		

			To escape the bombardment, the mortars the terror campaigns by the Haggadah and then the Israeli
army, they will never allow to return back to their properties. And so many of the people in Gaza
are refugees from areas which are now considered to be part of Israeli Israel proper. So Israel was
it was kind of inculcating conditions designed to, in essence, destroy a part of, of the garden
population through bombardment through
		

			no access to water, no access to electricity, no access to food. And this has been remarked upon the
issue is now they're not they're not being released. And now, they've been kind of from Gaza not
being kind of removed from Gaza, much that many people would say Israel what would wish to see that
happen and has intimated on numerous occasions including reported by the Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak, when he was he intimated that Benjamin Netanyahu approached him with the proposal to
relocate called the Golden population, as well as a leaked a recently leaked Intelligence document
from the Israeli government that looked at the scenario of removing the Gazan population from from
		

			Gaza, and putting them in Sinai on the Egyptian side. So this would be ethnic cleansing. And some
people might define that as
		

			genocide from a particular location. So that has been to be to remove an ethnicity from a location
is the same as in essence, wiping them out. So these are the kinds of situations but there's been
international pressure on Israel. And of course, Israel sees that that's no longer possible, but
doesn't mean that they're making the conditions any better for the gardens, but they have to buckle
to international pressure. And they have been, they've been only recently forced to
		

			kind of allow aid in from the Israel side of the of the golden, golden kind of border, you could say
to want to call it a border. So only recently they've they've allowed a didn't from there, which
previously was only from the Egyptian side. But also they've confined the gardens to an area of
Gaza, called Morsi, which is a very small enclosed area, the size of an airport, many people have
compared it to a kind of, kind of confined them in. I'm concerned that once the gardens are confined
into this area, Israel might seek perhaps, something short of a full ethnic cleansing from Gaza by
in essence, not allowing the gardens to return to Gaza City, or to or unused units, and so on, but
		

			But keeping them there pending into a new refugee camp, which will become a permanent refugee camp
for the gods. So I'm concerned about this. I hope that's not the case. But I wouldn't put it past
the Israeli administration to make that the new reality going forward. No, because Israel is only
going to resettle Gaza, if the Palestinians are there, but the Kurds, as you say, create what they
would call a buffer zone in the north of Gaza. You know,
		

			in order to control that situation, we returned to Hamas. I mean, how else can win militarily, but
they don't need to what they need to do is survive. If Israel doesn't destroy them. In a sense,
that's a victory.
		

			Well, I mean, always want to stay sane. But we said before, which is, yes, Israel can't settle an
area that when gardens are there, if they're there, if they're not there, if they're not in Garden
City will haunt you and Eunice, then that can all be declared a security buffer zone is we've done
it done it many times in the West Bank itself, declare wide squatters area as security zones, and
not permitted Palestinian settlement there. So they they can Penn in the gardens for more long term
for long term kind of arrangement. And I'm a fear for that, because that means that they'll never be
able to return back to their homes or what's left of their homes, and they'll never be able to
		

			rebuild. And then over time that guards that security zone, you know, over a year or two or so will
start to see settlements as ready settlements being built in which is the same method they've been
using in the West Bank. But anyway to go to your garden, your Hamas point. Yes, the Hamas never
intended to win if by winning You mean the annihilation of of the State of Israel. Of course,
there's they don't have the resources to they don't have the army to that was never on the table.
But it seems like their strategy was, in essence, to prevent the normalization of relations of
Israel with with Saudi Arabia and all the states to raise the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza
		

			with the rest of the world. And perhaps at the end of it seek a settlement that might see
Palestinians being granted a state that's been their revised policy since their 2017 kind of new
charter, where they proposed the point that they would be willing to have a long term ceasefire with
is
		

			Well, not a full recognition of Israel, but in essence within the 1967 borders, a two state
solution, so in effect, a two state solution. So they might be hoping that this would put the Gazan
situation back on the agenda. Because many people have, as Norman Finkelstein, Professor Norman
Finkelstein put it
		

			met the world had forgotten the plight of the gardens. And so, rightly or wrongly, Hamas have
undertaken, obviously, military operation in order to put that back on the agenda and for the world
to solve the issue of the gardens and grant them a state where they're no longer embargoed anymore.
They're no longer blockaded anymore by Israel, they can now control their own our own trade that
might be what is Hamas has been intending on. Turning to the Americans, the Americans concern is
obvious that they don't want this
		

			situation to escalate. And we've seen the Houthis carry out these attacks in the Red Sea, which had
been effective. In a sense, the major shipping lanes are no longer using that route. We've seen
Hezbollah engaged these artillery and drone exchanges in the north border, we see attacks by Israel
into Syria, we've seen the Americans striking into Iraq, where they're facing opposition from Shia
Shia militia. That is the danger for the Americans, isn't it?
		

			Well, yes, what escalation? The issue is, the the pressure from the populations of the Muslim world,
against their governments is the concern of both the United States of America and their, some might
call them client regimes. So regimes are which are in the orbit of the United States. They're double
standards, their cowardice, their lack of action, or real action when it comes to what Israel is
doing against Gaza. And will action could be anything from implementing their own boycott against
the State of Israel, stopping the supply of energy, which they currently do, to the state of is a
gas and oil, they could stop that they could turn off those taps, for example, they could have a
		

			military show of force, even in the military, and just sending their warships out there, just to
make a statement, as as just the very minimum of things that they could do and of course, blockading
trade into the state of Israel via the Red Sea, which the Houthis have actually engaged in the fact
that these hooves don't fully control their own country. And yet they're able to implement some kind
of
		

			kind of an interdiction of supplies coming from the from the South to Israel, just shows that
there's much more that the rest of the Muslim world can do. When it comes to what Israel is doing
against gardens and they can help save the gardens. They could they could come and defend them, they
could come and help them. And they could force Israel to
		

			tour kind of step back and withdraw what they're doing and force them to the negotiating table, at
least as a as a short term measure anyway. But we're not seeing that at all. I mean, aren't you
talking about the Arab states, I mean, one of the claims about Israel is the only democracy in the
region. Now, let's not go there, because that's a huge topic in itself. But then contrasting that
with autocratic Arab states, the point is surely, that the United States in particular, but also the
United Kingdom, and others, they have moved a lot to create those autocratic states and why we saw
those autocratic states under challenge in the Arab Spring. They supported for instance, the
		

			military coup in Egypt, which essentially restored military rule, the even more savage dictatorship
under our cc and cc regime in Egypt is essentially beholden to the United States. It's not going to
challenge the United States.
		

			Oh, yes, the second largest of the second largest recipient of us finance and aid, military aid is
the is the Egyptian government in the region. And that is that that tells you something that the
Egypt has bought off by the United States. And of course it does, it supplies weapons, to Saudi
Arabia and UAE. In fact, it was the offer of a next generation fighters to UAE that got UAE to agree
to normalize its relations with Israel. So America has bought off many of the countries with
promises of wiping off their debt, giving them military weapons, which require spare parts from the
US which means that these the states will never be able to fight wars that America doesn't approve
		

			of because spare parts for your your weapons you purchase for your hardware has to come from a
manufacturer that manufactures in the United States of America, you want them deep handed to us. So
we have to move to a break. Thank you for joining us and for your insights. Take care. We're gonna
take a short break again. Join us after that break for
		

			I continue news coverage of the war in Palestine and the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.