Sami Hamdi – Gaza The Betrayal of the Muslim Rulers
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
The reason erdogan's rhetoric has changed is not because he's
changed his mind with regards to Israel, but because the Turks have
forced him Riyadh season, Shakira and Tyson fury andingano are so
fundamental. And hopefully Nicki Minaj, if she accepts the
invitation that will come and igzelia, who already has an
invitation to come to Riyadh, the only fan star, they're so
important to transform people think being sarcastic, I'm not the
message that has that is going between the Iranians and the
Americans is a simple one. We really don't want escalation, we
don't want to go to war. We don't want to fight. Do you think this
is a game changing moment? I think that the Iranians have the same
view as Erdogan and Bin Salman and Bin Zayed and the Sisi and the
King Abdullah in Syria, the way they stood with Bashar Al Assad,
Western leaders have had to defend the indefensible
since Allah spoke to Sami Hamdi, a lot has happened in the ongoing
Gaza slaughter. Israel has finally moved its ground operations into
Gaza and their western backers have set down their intentions to
provide diplomatic cover to their settler offshoot and shield it
from criticism. Western leaders have had to defend the
indefensible as Israel's punitive and indiscriminate actions
continue. For example, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU
Commission, just yesterday, sent out a tweet at a holocaust
memorial saying, Never again, yet, the day before, she met with an
Israeli official and gave her undying commitment to his cause,
such is their bare faced duplicity, calls for a ceasefire
have been vetoed at the UN and the West accepts no liability for The
1000s murdered in cold blood. It is truly astonishing to see how
liberals on both sides of the Atlantic have confirmed what most
of us have known for a very long time. Their so called rules based
international order is set up to cover their brutality. It is not
that they kill civilians without any recourse to humanity. It's
that they openly declare their mass murder with knowledge of
impunity. The West has given them diplomatic cover to engage in
slaughter without red lines. This is truly an age of impunity. Sami
Hamdi, our guest today is the director of international interest
and a regular commentator on mainstream news networks and
Alhamdulillah at Muslim venues across the UK and the world.
That's right. Sami, things have moved at a very rapid base for ya
Salaam Alaikum, warahmatullahi, you've been very busy, Samira,
Alhamdulillah, at the end of the day, I think there are three
things that are worth noting whenever people make this
particular point, which is the first that Allah says in the
Quran, he who seeks glory let her know all glory belongs to Allah.
Nobody participates in that or can take that away. The second thing
that worth noting is always, in my opinion, that is Islam that makes
Muslim Great. Muslims great, not the other way around. And that's
why I think that when it comes to this cause on Palestine, or
they're like, I understand the setting that some people are
saying, yes, things have blown up very well or the like. But I think
it's more anybody who has spoken about the cause, and I see even
the views on the thinking Muslim and other people are talking about
it, it's the cause that is really amplifying our voices and really
elevating some of us. Alhamdulillah. And I think as long
as we focus on that and keep on the trajectory, we're still in the
middle of this particular war of narratives that is our war. And
things are still unfolding, Alhamdulillah, aloku Lihat And
Alhamdulillah Allah, who elevates those status and Inshallah, we
are, we say in Arabic, idol, Miss Uli. Inshallah, we are. We are
worthy of the responsibility. Now today, I want to take get your
take on the past week's critical events and the diplomatic
maneuvers that have taken place. I want to get an update on your
political analysis. We're speaking on the evening of Friday, the 10th
of November, but I want to begin with discussing the Muslim
governments and where they are. But last time we spoke, you talked
a little bit about the leverage for Muslim governments have.
There is a social media call to deploy the armies in support of
Muslims in Palestine. Is this realistic when the US and all the
Western Allies are really giving diplomatic and military cover to
Israel? And short of this military action, what else can the Muslim
governments really do? I think that first and foremost, it's
important to remember that World War One and World War Two began
via what were called military mistakes. There was World War One
was the assassination of in Sarajevo, Fran Ferdinand. In World
War Two was Hitler, who believed that if he invaded Poland, then
the other countries wouldn't get involved. In other words, world
wars were not started because people intended for that World War
to start. And I think one of the reasons why there is a lack of
entertainment with of the military solution is more a concern that
the moment a power moves militarily, aside from the
Palestinians and the Israelis.
But then another world war three might break out. And I think there
is a consensus even in Washington, that nobody wants that to happen,
which is why I think the Americans have been very keen to affirm that
they are trying to make sure that this conflict does not expand
beyond the Palestinians and the Israelis. And I don't think that's
necessarily Machiavellian. I think that's a genuine out of concern
that we are touching on the precipice of a disaster that might
particularly unfold. I think that when it comes to the possible
options, aside from military order, I think the reason that a
lot of the Muslim governments are being lambasted is because there
are other means that the Muslim states can leverage, that can
force a ceasefire, that can force the Americans tomorrow to say, we
can no longer back Israel. And I give some examples, please, when
the Saudi Crown Prince when the Canadian ambassador to Saudi
Arabia criticized bin Salman's human rights record. Adil Jubeir,
who was the foreign minister at the time, said, We are not a
banana republic. And the Saudi Crown Prince immediately kicked
out the Canadian ambassador and canceled arms contracts with the
Canadians. The Canadians panicked. They held out for a few months,
and eventually said to Saudis, we're very sorry, please. Can we
restore relations? And they restored it when Biden called the
Saudi Crown Prince a pariah, the Saudi Crown Prince utilized the
increase in the gas prices to encourage it to go even higher.
And we all saw the scene of Biden getting on the plane, going to
Jeddah and pleading with Bin Salman, pleading for a reset in
ties. To tell Vincent man, please help me with this gas prices. And
Vincent man was able to secure concessions from Biden. And when
Biden tried to go back and change his mind, Vincent man cut
production just before the midterm elections to punish Biden, let him
know the point here being is that when Vincent man wants to pressure
the Americans, he does. When Vincent man was upset that Biden
was still treating him with a cold shoulder, despite declaring a
reset of ties, Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman, as we discussed,
called the Chinese Premier Ji Jinping to Riyadh,
rolled out the red carpet and then pursued the invitation of bricks
to try to join bricks to say that I'm shifting to the east, I'm
moving towards China. How did the Americans react? They pleaded with
the Saudis. They went to the side and said, What is it that you want
tell us, Mohammed bin Salman, what are your conditions? The point
here being we're seeing that Saudi has the leverage, and it has used
that leverage in the past to secure its own individual interest
and Bin Salman's personal interest, which shows that Saudi
is it's not that it doesn't have the leverage to do so for the
Palestinians, but rather that it believes that it doesn't want to
use that leverage in favor of the Palestinians. Yeah, when a gun was
upset with the US support for the Kurdish separatist in northern
Syria. Erdogan kept threatening to unilaterally intervene with a
military offensive. When people believed that he wouldn't do it,
he began to move his troops. He moved them onto the border. He
began skirmishes. And as a result, the Americans went and sent their
CIA chief, the Vice President and their national security adviser to
Ankara, to say to Erdogan, yet er Dugan, please, please, please.
What is it that you want in exchange for you not to embark on
this unilateral measure? When the Americans continued to pressure
Erdogan, Erdogan went to the Russians. He bought s4 hundreds.
He allied with the Russians. He established good ties with them.
The Americans went in rushing and said to Erdogan, what concessions
can we make to you in order to what policy can we change in order
to make you happier? Erdogan has political and diplomatic leverage
that he can deploy. The problem is that he believes that he it's not
the time to deploy that political and diplomatic leverage because
he's concerned about because he wants relations with Israel, which
we'll discuss later on. The point here being is that the power is
there, aside from using the military armies. The reality is
this, from a political perspective, and it may upset some
people, Gaza is not in need of military armies today, because
it's the military armies. It's not the only means to get Israelis to
back off if you pressure the Americans with this diplomatic
leverage, as is being reported now. Today, it was reported that
all of the cables coming into Washington are that the Arab
allies are furious because they are being under pressure from
public public opinion, and that the Americans are now concerned
over the ramifications that this is going to have on the future of
the relations with the Arab states. It means that the
Americans have identified a scenario that is disastrous for
American foreign policy without even the need to deploy the
armies. One of the reasons there is a humanitarian pause right now
and again, we'll talk about it later on, is because it's the
Americans going to the Israelis and saying, Look, we're feeling
the pressure here. We're feeling the pressure from public opinion
that is forcing even the allies that we rely on, even our friends
in the region, even our allies in the region, who want to normalize
ties with you, public opinion is forcing them to say, look, we like
the US and Israel, but we're not going to put those interests above
the interest of public opinion. We're forced to alter that public
opinion. When we saw, for example, King Abdullah of Jordan withdraw
the ambassador from Israel, when we saw Turkey reluctantly withdraw
the ambassador from Israel because the Israelis had already
withdrawn, and Erdogan was concerned about that, the Turks
would ask, why haven't we withdrawn us? When you see those
withdrawn, the ambassadors, and when you see that, Blinken does
two or three visits to the region to talk to allies, to try to
present his vision for how they can handle Gaza or the like, it
shows that Blinken identifies that there's a power beyond military
might that these allies have, that they can leverage against the
Americans to make the Americans a.
Put pressure on the Israelis in order to push for a ceasefire. And
this is where the tragedy comes with regards to the Muslim
nations, in that it appears that Muslim nations have the diplomatic
leverage, they have the economic leverage to force a ceasefire, but
they believe that their immediate national interests, when they
weigh it, is vision 2030, worth compromising for the Gazans.
Vincent man says no. Is the Middle East corridor and the gas pipeline
in the Mediterranean worth compromising for the sake of Gaza?
Erdogan is still mulling whether it's true or not. King Abdullah of
Jordan has already made his decision, I'm on the verge of a
potential regime change. If I don't do anything, I need to adapt
accordingly. And he's essentially said that any displacement of
Gazans constitutes a declaration of war, a very strong statement.
But to go back to your question and answer it very briefly, Muslim
powers have the ability to put leverage on the Americans to force
a ceasefire, but they're not willing to deploy that leverage on
their own. They're not willing to be the sole country that deploys
that leverage on their own, because they fear the
repercussions that might come later on, which might even be
supported by other Muslim nations. Hamad bin Jassim, the Qatari Prime
Minister, posted a cryptic tweet a few days before the recording of
this interview, saying that there is a brotherly nation that is now
lobbying and using Qatar's ties with the Palestinian factions as a
means to deride Qatar in Washington, that there are states.
The implication here is the UAE that is going to the Americans and
saying, yo, see, look how Qatar is talking to Hamas and the
Palestinians. We told you they support terrorism. This is, in
other words, the idea being is that if Erdogan goes out on his
own, he can expect the UAE and other countries to work with the
US against him. It's the idea that the Muslims or lineage nations are
looking forward, but also looking at each other and believing that
all their lives are out ready to be stuck in each other's backs. So
there is leverage to be used, but they haven't decided yet, or some
of them haven't decided yet if that leverage is worth using for
the sake of Gazans or the Palestinians. Sami, how do we
distinguish between these diplomatic and political actions
that may have an impact over say, just symbolic gestures. I mean,
Erdogan gives a speech where he says that Hamas is not a terrorist
organization. It's a, you know, a speech that everyone talks about,
and Turkish people are pretty happy he gets his ACT Party
members to BOYCOTT STARBUCKS. In fact, a lot of them stage boycotts
within Starbucks in Turkey.
A lot of that sounds pretty hollow and pretty symbolic. How do we
distinguish between what are real, concrete, political and diplomatic
actions and just symbolic gestures to pacify public opinion? I think
to talk about this in general terms is very difficult, if you
take it country by country. However, it becomes much easier to
do so you've mentioned Erdogan. So we'll start with Erdogan. I think
that when it comes to Erdogan, we mentioned it in the previous
podcast as well, that he was looking for warmer ties with the
Israelis. He wants a gas pipeline Mediterranean. He wants an
alternative Middle East corridor. He met with Netanyahu in the UN he
was talking about warmer ties with Israel. And even in the beginning
when after October 7, he gave an unprecedented statement,
unprecedentedly weak statement, where he didn't necessarily throw
his weight behind the Gazans or the Palestinians, but rather try
to present himself as a mediator and wanted this to de escalate
quite quickly, and presented himself as a friend of the
Israelis. The reason erdogan's rhetoric has changed is not
because he's changed his mind with regards to Israel, but because the
Turks have forced him to change the rhetoric, Erdogan is looking
at his Turkish population, which is seething with rage over what is
happening in Gaza. There was a viral video in Turkey of a man, an
older man, who was shouting at the camera and saying, Erdogan, when
you called us out in 2016 to rescue you from the attempted
coup, we all took to the streets. Call us now for Gaza. Let us now
mobilize to the streets. The implication here is that Erdogan
is not leading the efforts in the way that the Turks expected him
to. Not only that, we also saw protests in Ankara, the secular
capital of Turkey, coming out in force for Gaza, the Turks in their
seething anger. And Turks, of course, believe that Turkey has
become strong. They believe that Turkey is a power. Turks refuse to
accept the idea that they are weak in any way whatsoever. So the
suggestion that Erdogan can't do anything against Israel is
something that offends the very basic sensibilities of even the
secular Turk, the idea that the Turk is incapable of doing it. And
as a result, Erdogan, we saw him go from I want to be friends with
Israel to I want to be a neutral mediator. And when he saw the
buildup of anger in Turkey, his policy and his statements have
been geared towards appeasing the Turkish population, not about
offending the Israelis. It's been about trying to find the means to
allow the Turks to channel that anger in a way that will not burn
him, and that's one of the reasons he held that million man rally
where he allowed the Turks to come, to let off some steam, to
shout, and gave them a speech about how Israel is a terrorist
state or the like, and how Israel is violating he set his media
channels to go and attack the Israelis. TRT.
World and these others providing all this attack on Israel, which
has offended the Israelis, but not offended the Israelis to the
extent that they believe that Erdogan doesn't want ties. And
here is why Erdogan believes he can escape from offending the
Israelis. It is because there is a political article that came out,
political, not political. Political article that came out
last week, in which it suggested, or it said, that when Biden went
to Tel Aviv, Biden told Netanyahu That I will support you in your
offensive and I will support you in what you want to do with Gaza.
But he told the other Israeli parties, I'm sick and tired of
Netanyahu. Once we finish with Gaza, Netanyahu goes. Once we're
done with this episode of punishing the Palestinians.
Netanyahu has to go. I can't work with Netanyahu. If you notice
Erdogan speech, Erdogan said that we can no longer work with
Netanyahu. We can no longer talk with Netanyahu. We will no longer
cooperate with Netanyahu. Because erdogan's conclusion is that,
given that Biden now agrees that Netanyahu has to go. I don't have
to go all gung ho. I can keep my position as it is. I will appease
my Turkish population by talking against the Israelis, and when
Biden changes the Prime Minister of Israel into somebody like Benny
Gantz, who's in favor of regional normalization, Benny Gantz, from
erdogan's perspective, is somebody who will let bygones be bygones,
and will pursue warmer ties with Turkey and facilitate
normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia, and even if people lambast
Erdogan later for his stance, when Saudi Arabia normalizes, it would
be such a body blow for the Muslim conscience that they will ignore
the fact that Erdogan has restored those ties. But the point that I'm
saying is it's not that Erdogan is callous or that he's being
Machiavellian. I truly believe that Erdogan does have convictions
that are firmly aligned with the Palestinians, but I think
erdogan's calculation is realistically, what can I do? I'm
not making excuses justifying I'm saying that, imagine you are the
leader of Turkey at this moment in time. You're struggling in Syria.
You're struggling Azerbaijan ties with Europe at an all time low.
The US. Biden openly said that we need to support the opposition to
get rid of you. The opposition have finally got rid of kilij
darulu. They brought somebody else now as the leader of the party,
somebody who you never know might stand a chance to to topple you.
We have the appellate court and the constitutional court now
fighting between themselves, which has sweeping consequences and
ramifications over your influence over the judiciary. Erdogan
believes that, in light of this economic crisis, he believes that
there is nothing really, materially he can do for the
Gazans, aside from applying this diplomatic pressure or the light.
Having said that,
one of the things that has been that Erdogan has made clear is
one, Erdogan did not kick out the Israeli ambassador. Israeli
ambassador left on their own. Yeah,
Erdogan recalled the Turkish ambassador because it looked
humiliating that the Israelis had withdrawn Ambassador because of
Turkish public anger, but Turkey had left its ambassador there. The
point I'm making is Erdogan is playing keep up or catch up with
the Turkish public opinion. The harder Turkish public opinion is,
because remember, Turkey is a country that is more free than the
other Muslim countries. The Turkish people have the power to
oust their leader in a way that Arab populations don't. Erdogan
knows he will have to face an election, and he knows that those
who carry him to power are the Muslim Islamic movements that will
never forgive him. If he does not stand with Palestine. They might
forgive him for other things. They might forgive him on issues
related to Syria or that, but they will never forgive him for
Palestine. And that's why Erdogan believes that he's trying to
navigate this very thin line on a tightrope how to appease the
Turkish population while not offending the Israelis. And I
think he's found comfort in that, given there is a consensus
Netanyahu should go. I can talk about Netanyahu, but not the
Israelis, and then I can restore those ties with the Israelis. The
point that I want to make here is going back to your question, is
that Erdogan is clearly buckling under public opinion. That public
opinion is happening because of the ordinary Muslim. Is because
the ordinary Muslims are sharing on social media, because they're
taking to the streets. They're taking on the protest. They are
forcing Erdogan into a change. Now, because Erdogan has forced
into a change. This is why Blinken went to Turkey. Blinken is
concerned that Erdogan is hesitating. You are asking, what
impact does it have? What tangible impact? Blinken is concerned that
public opinion is forcing an ally in Turkey who wants to have good
ties with Israel, to reconsider those ties, to go on a tightrope.
In other words, Blinken is going because he believes that that
public opinion has started a chain reaction that has the potential to
create a scenario in which Erdogan goes all the way. Blinken went to
Ankara because he's concerned that Erdogan is being squeezed into a
corner where he will have to decide between Turkish public
opinion and standing with Gaza and between ties with Israel and
warmer approach, more with the Americans and Blinken is
concerned. This is the point I want to make, that Erdogan is
closer to aligning with public opinion in Gaza than he is about
resisting public opinion and standing with the Israelis. So you
ask, what is.
The tangible impact of the public opinion, the diplomatic measures
and the statements, the statements are causing concern in Washington
because Washington believes, unlike the ordinary person
listening to this video, Washington believes that Erdogan
has shown before that when he's forced into a corner, he acts.
They're worried that Erdogan will act. The same applies to Jordan.
Will move it from country to countries may Same applies to
Jordan.
King Abdullah has been a vital vehicle through which to uphold
Israel's security, not because he wants to, but because he lacks the
power to do anything else. Jordan is heavily reliant on golf money
to keep the economy going, and when King Abdullah of Jordan has
tried to act independently in the past, we saw Saudi Arabia and the
UAE tried to orchestrate a coup last year through one of His half
brothers, and the half brother was eventually detained and the like,
and it was a big scandal. And then eventually there was a
reconciliation. The Jordanians arrested Saudis man in Jordan as
well, clearly indicating they believe the Saudis were trying to
topple him. King Abdullah in Jordan has been under heavy
pressure from the Saudi Crown Prince to hand over custodianship
of the Al Aqsa mosque to Muhammad bin Salman, so that bin Salman
becomes in charge of the three Haramein. And according to
diplomats which I've spoken to in closed rooms, the Israelis are
convinced. I'm not saying the Saudi said it. I'm not saying that
Saudis promises. The Israelis are convinced that Saudi normalization
will result in Vincent man handing over the territories of Al Aqsa to
the Israelis as part of improving those ties. Whether that's true or
not, Israeli, the Israelis are convinced about that. Jordan has
been under heavy pressure. The Jordanians have been trying to
maintain the status quo, keep the peace with Israel and keep the
peace with the Americans. So imagine you're an American sitting
in the White House, and adviser to Blinken and King Abdullah of
Jordan, who you know is willing to play the role of helping to
protect Israel's security, because he doesn't pour to anything else,
is suddenly talking about declaration of war. Is suddenly
withdrawing his ambassador. There are protests now taking place in
Jordan, and he decides to go to the convention in the meeting in
Cairo, and he gives a speech in English where he lambast the
Americans, where he says that you guys consider your lives more
expensive than us, that you're making our lives as cheap, and you
will pay the price for generations to come. Blinken reaction is to go
to the region to meet with King Abdullah of Jordan. The reason
Blinken gets on a plane to go to King Abdullah of Jordan is not
because he's at ease with King Abdullah of Jordan. If he was, he
would have stayed in the White House. He goes to King Abdullah of
Jordan because he's concerned that King Abdullah is under heavy
pressure from public opinion, from the ordinary Muslim watching this
video, who is tweeting and retweeting and sharing and
protesting and the like blinking, is worried that that public
opinion is becoming so heavy that King Abdullah of Jordan, when he's
forced to decide, should I protect us? Interests all gone, public
opinion. Blinken is concerned that he will side with public opinion
even if he doesn't. Is irrelevant. Politics is all about perceptions
and the under and the science of possibilities. Blinken is
concerned that King Abdul is a scenario that exists where King
Abdullah of Jordan will side with public opinion, and that
necessitates a visit to go to Amman to talk to King Abdullah of
Jordan. And King Abdullah of Jordan canceled the quad meeting
between the Palestinians, the Egyptians and the Americans. He
said, I'm not having any of it something that upset the
Americans, and that's an example of where the tangible process
lies. Because one of the reasons that Blinken went from a
ceasefire, from no ceasefire to humanitarian pause is because he's
concerned that public opinion is forcing the regional policy makers
to alter their stars. Take Sisi for example, and forgive me for
going on about this, but we'll take it country by country. Sisi
for example.
Sisi has banned protest in Egypt since he took power in 2013 Yeah.
Sisi is concerned that the Israeli plan is to push the Palestinians
out of Gaza into the Sinai Peninsula. Sisi knows, as a matter
of fact, that if this happens, he will go down in history as the
greatest traitor to the Ummah that ever lived, as somebody who helped
to facilitate that Nakba, Sisi is under heavy pressure. The
Americans came to him and said to Him, we will give you debt relief
if you take them in on the 20th of October, Biden proposed a funding
bill to Congress. Part of that funding bill says that we want to
designate millions of funds for neighboring countries to help them
with displaced Palestinians. It was Biden saying, I want Congress
to provide funds for ethnic cleansing. Financial Times
reported that the Egyptian Foreign Minister responded privately to a
meeting of diplomats that Wallahi, if these Palestinians are sent
into Sinai Peninsula, we will put all of them on boats and send them
to the Europeans, and you guys can deal with your human rights or the
like, on the 28th of October. So before 28 Blinken goes to visit
Sisi in Cairo. Sisi is under so much pressure that he decides to
leave the cameras on. He seats blinking on the side, and he
proceeds to give a 40 minute lecture to Blinken, to tell him
when you came to Tel Aviv. You said you came as a Jew. When have
we ever persecuted the Jews in this region? And he proceeds.
To surprise the Americans and lambast Blinken, indicating the
extent to which Sisi is livid with the Americans, not because he's
upset about the Palestinians, but upset that they're threatening to
throw him under the bus by forcing him to take in those refugees as a
result of the stance of the Egyptians of Sisi on the 28th of
October, Biden tweets and says, I spoke in a phone call with Sisi,
and we have agreed that no Palestinian should be displaced
outside of Gaza. I thought that Biden might be lying, because
Biden has said that he saw the pictures of the 40 beheaded babies
and the White House said that he never saw it. It was Netanyahu
told him. Then John Kirby came out the next day and said, Yes, there
will be no displacement of Palestinians outside of Gaza. You
asked about the tangible shifts, the reason that they shifted from
displacing the gazas outside of Gaza, even though some people say
they're being displaced from Northern Gaza to southern Gaza.
But the point is this, that shift in US policy is as there as a
result of the shifting policy of the regional allies as a result of
the public opinion and public anger that is being expressed on
the streets. And that's why, when Blinken went to Tel Aviv,
according to Axios and CNN, Blinken said to Netanyahu, we need
a humanitarian pause. Netanyahu said to Blinken, I think this is a
nasty ploy from Biden to force me into a ceasefire. Blinken replied
and says, according to Axios, help us to help you. We are suffering
under that public opinion. If it continues this way, our position
will of preventing a ceasefire will become untenable. We need
this humanitarian pause to help you with the ethnic cleansing. We
need the humanitarian pause so we can market our support for you as
humanitarian the question is this, and I'll finish on this, because
you might go into some other stuff in detail. The point here is this,
the shift in the stance of the regional allies and the statements
forced a shift in the stance of the US and the statements of the
US. We're not in the clear yet in terms of calling for a ceasefire,
but the shift is undeniable, and that shift shows that there are
tangible changes taking place as a result of the shifting stance of
the regional allies, and those shifting stance as a result of
public opinion, which makes you wonder that if the leaders took it
upon themselves to act instead of waiting public opinion, what the
possibilities could be. That's a very thorough answer. Sami, there
is a view that the Muslim governments are weak. They don't
have the ability to move at this moment in time, and if they do,
they'll become another pariah, say a North Korea or a Saddam Hussein
Iraq. The argument suggests that some of these leaders, whether
it's Saudi Arabia or turkey or Jordan, abiding their time,
does that idea that they're developing themselves to resist
the greater threats that come from the United States and our allies,
and they're trying to create a system where they can create more
strategic autonomy for themselves? Does that argument convince you in
any way? Absolutely not. I don't think that's the issue of what's
happening here at all. I think the reality is that the Muslim nations
are badly divided and conspiring against each other, and that
results in the inability to form a united front that might actually
force the Americans to back down. In 1973 when the Israelis were
pushing back against the Egyptians and the Syrians, they were
actually marching towards Damascus and marching towards Cairo. The
reason that they backed off was because King Faisal turned off the
oil threatened to increase it by 5% every single day, or cut it by
5% every single day, increase the oil price. The Americans panic.
They rushed quickly to the Israelis, stop, stop, stop. We can
no longer support you on this. And they even forced the Israelis to
give concessions to Egyptians and the Syrians and to withdraw from
the lands that they had actually taken from the Syrians and from
the Egyptians themselves. The point here being is that when they
come together, they're capable of forcing the Americans to back
down, I think, as it stands at the moment. And even when you look at
the stance of Saudi and the UAE in particular, you can see that there
is not a unified stance whatsoever. You can see that. And
I know that it's a brazen thing to say, and it will cause shock for
people. I actually argue that Saudi in particular is more in the
Israeli camp than it is in the Palestinian camp by every measure
possible. Yeah. The reason why I say this is that when you're
talking about are these countries trying to pursue autonomy, or the
like, I think it's less about pursuing autonomy and more about
just trying to survive. King Abdullah of Jordan is just trying
to survive. Short term, short term thing. Sisi is just trying to
survive. The reason that Sisi hesitated to allow protest was
because he was concerned that if he allows protest in Egypt, which
is supposed to show support for the Palestinians, if he lets the
Egyptians onto the streets and lifts that chokehold that he has
on the Egyptian people, then they'll turn on him and go to
Maidan at the harida and they'll go proxy against him. Instead,
some of them did. They were beaten up by the police and driven back.
But it's scared. CC, Sisi is aware he doesn't have public support, he
doesn't have regional support. And now there is even an idea being
touted that is allegedly coming from the UAE, that an Arab force
could be put inside Gaza to help the Israelis to change the
Palestinians. In other words, an offer that's being made, which is
why it was interesting that the Jordanian Foreign Minister came
out and said, We reject an international force in Gaza.
Gaza, whether it's Arab or not Arab. Why did he include Arab in
that statement? It suggests that an Arab force has been suggested,
and the Egyptians then repeated it. We reject the idea of an Arab
force in Gaza. And William Burns is reported, the head of CIA is
reported that on his trip to Cairo a couple of days ago, he suggested
the idea of an Arab force in Israel, in Palestine to say to the
to the Arab allies. Look, we all know. You all want good relation
with the Israelis. How about you send some forces over there to
help us to contain the Palestinians and the Arab forces
are rejecting the idea on the basis that they would look like
traitors. I think that when it comes to the pursuit of strategic
autonomy, I think that applies only in the case of Saudi Arabia.
And explain what I mean, the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
has three main priorities at this moment in time. Moment in time, a
NATO style security agreement to push back against Iran and its
proxies, a support for vision 2030 and also the acquire the acquiring
of nuclear technology to build a nuclear program. Those three
priorities are so important and so fundamental, especially vision
2030 it's so important that on the night that the Israelis cut off
internet connection to Gaza and proceeded to pound it harder than
it had pounded at any point in the previous weeks, the Saudi Crown
Prince hosted Shakira and Tyson fury and dengano and went ahead
with the festival, even though the UAE and Oman and Kuwait, the UAE
canceled The festivals. Oman and Kuwait had already canceled them.
And Turkey elishi, the descendant of Muhammad bin Abdul, Wahab Turki
al ash, who is the head of the general entertainment authority,
put on Facebook the night before, saying, How dare anybody tell me
to cancel real season and cancel Shakira Name me one football match
that was canceled because of a political event, and he didn't
even have the class to put at the end of it, may Allah have mercy on
those happening on Gaza. The reason being is that Vincent man
believes that Riyadh season is absolutely fundamental to
transforming the image of the kingdom. It's absolutely
fundamental to showing the world that Saudi Arabia is moving
forward, that Saudi Arabia is progressing, that Saudi Arabia is
the new power. Riyadh season, Shakira and Tyson fury ANDing Gano
are so fundamental. And hopefully Nicki Minaj, if she accepts the
invitation that will come and Iggy Azalea, who already has an
invitation to come to Riyadh, the only fan star, they're so
important to transform people. Think, being sarcastic, I'm not
Vincent believes these people are absolutely important in
transforming the image of Saudi Arabia. He believes that this is
so important that the Gazans or the Palestinians are not worth
compromising on this. He believes that hosting Jared Kushner,
Trump's son in law, who came up with the idea of the deal of the
century in which some a few millions would be given to the
Palestinians in exchange for giving more land to the Israelis.
Jared Kushner was the keynote speaker last week at Saudis Davos
in the desert forum, at the Economic Forum, at his keynote
speech, he lambasted the Palestinians. Talk about the
necessity of normalization of ties and talk about the enthusiasm of
the Abraham accords and how it could achieve peace. A nation that
is angry about what's happening in Palestine would never have
received Jared Kushner or allowed them to speak in that way in the
middle of the kingdom, not only that, when Jared Kushner went back
to the US and he spoke to, I think it was the hill, or seen, I think
the hill he spoke to. He said, When I went to Saudi Arabia, I
found that the Jew is safer in Saudi Arabia than he is on college
campuses in the US. And he said that I found an enthusiasm for
normalization of ties, and that it's very much still on the table.
Bin Salman believes that Israel is absolutely important as an ally to
secure a NATO style agreement against the Houthis in Yemen,
against the Hashd the shabby in Iraq, against the pro Iran
militias and against Iran itself. Bin Salman believes that the
security of the kingdom cannot be compromised for the sake of the
Palestinians, 10,000 Palestinians dying, including children, 10,000
Muslims dying. 10,000 Palestinians dying is not worth canceling
vision or compromising vision. 2030, it doesn't matter how many
Palestinians die. Bin Salman believes that there is a necessity
to normalize ties with Israel, to get the Americans to help to
protect him against the Iranians, and to help to advance vision 2030
to help build cities that look like Miami, to help advance the
concerts, in order to promote this new Saudi identity, in order to
promote this new idea of what Saudi Arabia is meant to mean. So
when we look at strategic autonomy, Vincent man is planning
for strategic autonomy. Vincent man believes the strategic
autonomy is so important that it should come at the expense of the
Palestinians. Vincent man this is the reason why, at the at the ACN
Riyadh Summit, ACN being the countries, Indonesia, Malaysia and
these countries, two weeks ago, Vincent man gave a speech of five
minutes. In it, he dedicated 32.25
seconds to Gaza. I know because I cut it on Premiere Pro in those
32.25 seconds, he called the what's happening. He didn't call
it a genocide or ethnic cleansing. He called it an unfortunate
violence. He didn't mention Israel by name. He didn't denounce the
Israelis. He called for restraint on all sides and called for an
urgent deal.
Escalation to take place. Not only that, Saudi Arabia's strategic
autonomy is so important. The pursuit of strategic autonomy is
so important. Vision 2030 is so important that bin Salman has been
trying to redefine the parameters of debate on Palestine within
Saudi Arabia itself, the Mashiach in nearly every mosque in Saudi
Arabia has been giving the same lesson almost every single day.
You must obey the ruler. You must obey bin Salman. You must obey the
ruler who knows better than you. Do not talk about issues that you
don't know. Abd Rahman is today's the head of the Haramein, the
chief Imam yesterday told the crowd he started with Allah Ummah,
rescue Palestine, Allahumma, bless the people of Raza and protect
them. Once he finished, once he did the the word jib, in order to
try to get the Muslims to listen to him, he said, and remember,
don't let people use this fitna. He called it a fitna. Don't let
people use this fitna to cause you to turn on your leader, to cause
you to turn on bin Salman and obey your rulers and obey the scholars
that he has appointed over you. The reason they are delivering
this message is because they are concerned that Saudis are angry
and the Muslim world is angry, that they are angry that bin
Salman is not doing anything, and therefore they are Islamically
trying to chain the Ummah by saying that you must obey the
ruler, because the ruler knows better than you. In the words of
one Sheik in JAMA Raj he and Riyadh, the mosque that belongs to
the billionaire Sulaiman Raji, although he doesn't run it,
there's a sheik who said, quote,
you are like slugs compared to the ruler. You have no knowledge of
these affairs, and your analyzes are burdensome on our rulers. We
should trust them and let them know what they're doing when they
host Shakira for Riyadh season. We must trust that our ruler knows
what they're doing when they host Tyson fury and in Gano while Gaza
is being bombarded. We must trust that our ruler knows what he's
doing because he's pursuing strategic autonomy that we might
later be able to use in favor of the Palestinians. The point here
being is the only country that your argument applies to strategic
autonomy is Vincent man. Vincent man is pursuing strategic
autonomy, one that is so important that it should not be compromised
for the sake of the Palestinians. It can only be compromised if
Vincent man is personally insulted, if the Canadians, say,
criticize human rights record, Vincent man will compromise
strategic autonomy by kicking other Canadians and upsetting the
West. If Biden calls him ma pariah, if Biden insults Vincent
man personally, Vincent man will cut the oil production. He'll
increase the prices. He'll mess around with the gas prices,
because Biden has insulted him specifically, and he's ready to
compromise Saudi strategic autonomy for the sake of the
personal insult or rectifying that personal insult. But the point is
to finish here on this, with regards to strategic autonomy of
the like. It's absolutely abundantly clear that the Muslim
countries have the ability to do something, but they are choosing
not to because they believe that their strategic autonomy, that
they are still building it, and they believe that that strategic
autonomy can be built on the abandonment of the Palestinians.
There are different degrees to it. I don't think Erdogan is as
callous as Vincent man in it. I believe that Erdogan, for all of
my issues with regards to his policies, is sitting in the palace
and holding his head, scratching his head, thinking, My goodness,
what am I going to do? I'm really struggling with this. I think King
Abdullah is pulling his hair. I think Sisi is pulling his hairs
out, but I think that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are sitting there and
saying, Israel, we can make this easy for you. What you need from
us. And we're seeing the scholars being deployed in this in this
effort. So in the absence of clear public pressure in Saudi Arabia,
we don't have that type of pressure on the streets of Saudi
Arabia. There's no demonstration. There's no ability for the Saudi
public to demonstrate or protest their disagreement with the
policies of the Crown Prince in the absence of that. I mean, there
was a speculation at the very beginning of this crisis that
normalization is dead for a generation, but we're getting
signs that it's still on the table. In fact, there was a high
level government minister in Saudi Arabia who suggested that
normalization is still present. I mean, do you think that the Saudis
could utilize this crisis to pursue that process of
normalization? I don't think the Saudis will utilize it. In this
regard, I've seen the suggestion that normalization would be used
in exchange for a ceasefire with the Palestinians. I don't think
Vincent man is even thinking about that at all. I think Vincent man,
regardless of what happens in Gaza, normalization, is still on
the table, because it's absolutely integral to the three aims that we
were talking about, NATO style, agreement, Vision 2030, and the
proliferation of nuclear technology. I think that for the
Saudi Crown Prince, Gaza is an inconvenience that should only be
talked about because there is concern about public pressure. You
made the point that in Saudi there's no real manifestation of
public pressure or the like.
I think that the fact that the main lessons being preached in
mosques, including in Medina, munawara, on the day that we are
so a friend sent me a recording. He's sitting in the Haram in
Medina, and he.
He recorded the khutbah and he sent it. He doesn't understand the
Arabic. He said, what's the Imam saying? And the Imam is saying,
and I have the recording here. I won't show it for the purpose the
Imam is saying that, yeah, ibad Allah, our hearts are bleeding for
Gaza, but beware those who are utilizing this to turn you against
your rulers. This is in Al medinal, Muna, in the prophets
mosques, Allahu, alaihi, wasallam, they are preaching this message
when a government believes that every imam in the country has to
be deployed in order to Islamically argue that you should
not talk about Gaza because its risks turn you against your ruler.
That means a meeting took place in the royal palace el Riyadh that
said that Saudis might there is a scenario where the Saudis might
punish us. There is the potential for a public backlash that might
cause problems for us. There is a scenario where Saudis get angry.
Let's deploy the means at our disposal, the concepts and the
IMA, in order to try to get them to be quiet. I think the
proliferation or the idea of the Imams talking about this issue,
including Abdul Rahman sudas, the imam in Mecca. I think the fact
that they're talking about it so openly suggests there is concern
in Riyadh about public opinion. Moreover, if you note in the Saudi
statements, they've gone back to using the word to describe the
Israelis. That's to appease public opinion that's not about offending
the Israelis. When the Saudi Crown Prince starts to talk about the
1967 borders again, when, if you remember the Fox News, he said
he's willing to accept anything that makes the lives of the
Palestinians easier. And Reuters was reporting that the Saudis were
not interested in Palestinian state. They would settle for less
when he talks about the 1967 borders, it's not that he's
changed his position, but that he feels that he needs to say that he
needs to say that he's upping the price to get Jalal and Sam al
Hamdi and everybody else in this room and and the people watching
to say the Saudis are now firmer in their stance with regards to a
Palestinian state. You do that when you're concerned about the
potential that public opinion might be able to achieve, and
that's the point that is underlying all of the political
changes, Blinken change in his policy and Bin Salman talking
about these issues is not because suddenly they believe that there
should be a pause or that there should be the 1967 borders. It's
because they're concerned about a dynamic that they fear will go out
of control. And that's public opinion. That's the ordinary
people. And that's why a lot of the questions should be how to
amplify that public opinion or the like. But to go back to your
question about strategic autonomy, just to put it in one line, with
regards to strategic autonomy, it's very blunt. Bin Salman is
pursuing strategic autonomy, and Gaza and Palestine is not worth
compromising that at all. Can I ask you about Iran's position?
Now, last week, we're talking on a Friday, last Friday that there was
a speech given by Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, known, or
obviously a proxy of Iran. It was a one and a half hour meandering
speech, probably setting out what seemed like his non position. Now
there's two interpretations of the speech. First interpretation is
that Hasan Nasrullah was speaking on behalf of Iran, and was trying
to really distance themselves from the Hamas operation, but also
suggesting that they're not going to intervene in a substantial way.
But of course, that
possibly contradicts what's happening in so called Northern
Israel on the border with with Lebanon, where Lebanon is, where
the Hezbollah in Lebanon are engaged in skirmishes. Let's call
them skirmishes with the Israeli state. And some, by some accounts,
a third of Israel's army is preoccupied on that border. And in
a way, it's taken, it's it's created some relief for Hamas or
for the Palestinians in the operation in Gaza, how do you
interpret nasrallahs speech? I think that when it comes to
Hezbollah or indeed Iranian proxies, I think it's easier
understood by remembering where Iran was at just before October 7,
Iran was in a reconciliation process with Saudi Arabia. It was
talking about reviving the nuclear nuclear talks, and it was about
cementing its ally in Yemen, in the Houthis, and cementing its
militias in the other in Syria and these other places. It was about
trying to reconcile Assad with the rest of the Arab states, so that
the Arab states would invest in Syria, so that that money could go
to Tehran and Tehran could take its reward for having rescued the
Assad regime. The point here being is Iran's main policy was de
escalation, reconciliation and rapprochement. Iran was not what
did not see itself in a position where it wanted to escalate, and
the reason it was pursuing reconciliation and rapprochement,
or accepting the call for reconciliation from Saudi Arabia,
was because the Iranians had their hands on their knees. They were
panting. They were tired. They were saying, let's take a time to
breathe before we start up again in five, six years, and continue
to antagonize the rest of the the Arab and the other Arab states, or
the like. This is because of economic crisis, economic crises
and the like. So when this situation explodes in Palestine,
when now the Israelis are marching in, the Iranians are approaching
it from the perspective this has come at the worst time. Iran.
Iranians share the same position as Saudi and Erdogan and all the
other Muslim states. There could not have been a worse time for the
Palestinians to start and for the situation to explode once more.
And that's why the Iranians are caught in a very difficult
situation whereby they fear that if they abandon Hamas in
Palestine, it will send a message to the Houthis in Yemen and the 23
militias of the Hashd ABI in Iraq and Hassan Al sallallah in
Lebanon. And as said that there is a scenario where Iran would
abandon its allies. Iran is legendary in the region. I don't
say that in a positive way, in that Iran never abandons its
allies. Iran never sells out its militias. Iran is not like Saudi
Arabia or the UAE or the other countries where they pull the rug
from underneath their allies when it suits them. Iran sticks by its
militias at all times, even when they're under pressure. So the
Iranians believe that they have to do something with regards to Hamas
and try to ease that burden. They've lined up their militias.
They've shown some posturing, but they have sent a clear message
that we are posturing in the hope that the Americans can get the
Israelis to back down. The message that is that is going between the
Iranians and the Americans is a simple one. We really don't want
escalation. We don't want to go to war. We don't want to fight the
skirmishes are designed to show that we're taking a stance. It's
not about actually provoking a war. That's why, for all of the
rockets that are going over the Lebanon and Tel Aviv, Lebanon and
Israel, I don't want to say Israel, between the border on the
Lebanese border. The reason it hasn't resulted in all out war is
because there is a clear understanding between the parties
that this should not escalate more than this. And that's why, when
the Israelis started to understand firmly that this, this
understanding would stay in place. They began their grand invasion.
They delayed it because they weren't sure what the Iranians
were doing. And when they were sure that the Iranians were
posturing more than getting in, they decided to enter into the
ground invasion. And that's why it was interesting that Hassan a
speech. In the build up, there were many prominent Sunni figures
who were desperately hoping that Hassan assala would be in the
quote of one of them, the salah Haddin of the day, and when he
didn't, we saw a wave of apologies from very prominent figures saying
that my faith in Hasan assalaa and Hezbollah was misplaced. I think
that the Iranians have the same view as Erdogan and Bin Salman and
Bin Zayed and the Sisi and the King Abdullah, which is that
public opinion and public pressure, if it continues at this
rate, eventually Biden will have to change his mind on the
ceasefire. The polls in America already show that he's trailing in
six different states. The pollsters are saying this is
because of the economy and because of Biden's position with regards
to Israel and Palestine, Erdogan and Bin Salman and the Iranians
are saying, Look, this won't last for months. This will, let's hope
that it lasts only for a few weeks. And let's all in the
meantime, plan to show positions where we can later show the world
and say this is a stance that we took for the Palestinians and the
Israel politically. It's not a bad stance to take politically, it
makes sense. But the reason why I mentioned with regards to Iran is
because while Iran is posturing and there are missiles being
exchanged, it reminds me a lot of when Qasim Suleimani was
assassinated in 2019 when Qassem Suleimani was assassinated,
everybody said there would be a war between Iran and the US.
Instead, what we saw was the Iranians saw that the militias
were looking at each other, saying, Sayyid, Qasim Suleimani
has been killed, and he's the top dog. He's the top Don. If they can
get custom sulaymani, imagine what they could do to me. So all the
militias suddenly were concerned. So the Iranians decided to launch
a show of force, fire missiles at any random place to show they have
power. And then they they de escalated military bases,
essentially on the edge of military bases. The Americans
understood the message. Let them, you know, shake off some steam.
Trump alluded to it last week or earlier to something similar. I
believe that that is that he's telling the truth in this. But the
point is that the Iranians, I think, are posturing. It doesn't
mean the Iranians won't get involved. I think one of the
things that's been quite fascinating is all the analysis,
there is not a single sentence that expresses fear about Turkey
or fear about Jordan or Egypt, the only centers are all fair about
whether Iran will get involved or not, and I think there is a
possibility Iran will get involved. But I think as it
stands, Iran is more posturing, and there is a desperate hope that
the public pressure will force the Americans to change their mind,
and many are seeing the humanitarian pause as an
indication that Biden might change his mind. I'm not sure that's
entirely true, but I think that's the position of the position of
the Iranians. Can I think a tour as we're on the subject of Iran,
many Muslims still feel that Iran is a force for good, and their
relationship with Hamas and their relationship with the Palestinian
cause the Arab rulers have deserted Palestine, yet Iran has
remained firmly pro Palestine. So there is this perception that Iran
is a good actor amongst in a region of pretty bad actors. Can
you talk to maybe the malign influence of Iran? I mean, I'm
thinking about Iran in Syria now, its actions in Syria were
deplorable, and the West always.
Focus on ISIS, but Iranian militias acted like ISIS in many
respects, and they committed horrific crimes in Syria. How do
you evaluate Iran's position vis a vis the Muslim ummah and our
attitude towards them versus the Arab rulers?
I think that one of the failings of Muslims in general
is, I don't know if it is disinterest. I don't know if it is
a lack of desire to learn about the affairs of the other places in
our ummah. The reason why I say that is because I think that one
of the greatest tragedies that colonization did to the Muslim
ummah was it detached our consciousness from each other. If
you read Ibn Khaldun, muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun talks about the
affairs from Morocco all the way to Iran and beyond, and he talks
about it like he knows the intricate details, because for
him, the consciousness of the Ummah spreads across all of those
territories. It's not unnatural for a Muslim to know the affairs
of their brothers and sisters in different parts. I think that one
of the tragedies of the part of colonization was it cut our
consciousness, which means that when people talk about Iran's
influence in the region, there's often a very simplistic, naive
approach of we are all Muslim brothers. Let's just get along.
The reason that Iran is derided in the region is because the number
of Muslims that Iran has killed since 1979 in its pursuit of
exporting the revolution has been huge. It's vast amount of Muslims
the prop the propping up of militias in individual countries
and using them to undermine central governments and then
allowing those militias to roam with impunity where they can
commit sectarian killings is what has resulted in Iran having a very
negative image amongst the Arabs in the in the countries where Iran
has influenced. The reason why, I said is, if you go to Algeria,
they will often sympathize with the Iranians on the basis that
Iran has a good stance with regards to Palestine. But when you
go and ask the Yemeni, who then complains and says, Listen, the
Houthis believe that it is worship that only somebody from Ahlul Bayt
is allowed to rule, and that it is worthy for a Muslim to keep
fighting until his dying breath, to bring somebody from Ahlul Bayt,
in this case, Abdul Malik al Houthi, or Badr Dil Houthi, to
bring them to power, and they launched seven wars since, just
since 2004 they launched seven wars for the sole purpose of
bringing a little bit because el beit other saw people to have the
rule. The Yemeni does not have a positive image of this ideology
that Iran has brought into Yemen and managed to convince the
Houthis and supported the Houthis in toppling the internationally
recognized government, which was agreed upon by a national dialog
of all the Yemeni parties that the Houthis themselves participated in
as well. The Yemeni believes that Iran is shouting about Palestine
today, but look what it did to me in my own country, that in Iraq,
for example, when you look at the militias and the way they march
north towards Mosul, the like they were holding up banners saying,
this is the revenge for Sayyid al Hussain, radhala Anu, when they
put this banner, the Sunni in Iraq turned around and said, Yeah, what
did I have to do with what happened to Hussain? Yes, but they
would, the way they put this banner and the way they pushed it,
and the way the militias committed atrocities in their march in Iraq
has meant that people have a negative view in Iran, in Syria,
the way they stood with Bashar Al Assad. For those who don't know,
Syria has seen only two presidents since the 1970s Hafez Al Assad and
his son, Bashar Al Assad, when the Syrians took to the streets to
say, we're tired of family rule. We're tired of a regime where the
walls have ears. We want dignity and freedom, because Allah has
afforded this to us in the Quran and said that it's a right when
Iran says absolutely not, because Bashar Al Assad, whose actions are
secular, but he hails from an Alawi family, which is from a
similar ideology, when Iran sends its militias in Iraq to cross the
border, and when this Qasim Suleimani negotiate ceasefire
agreements whereby Sunni populations in the south are put
on busses to be relocated to the north, in exchange for Shia
populations in the north to be relocated to the south so that
Iran can build what's being touted as a Shia crescent. It's hard to
imagine a Syrian saying that the Iranians are genuine about their
support for Palestine. And this is why I think that while some people
will say this is not the time to be talking about Iran, and Iran is
supporting Palestine or the like. The reason that Saudi Arabia not
bin Salman here now I'm talking about Saudi Arabia as a state, the
reason Saudi Arabia has been pursuing tighter security
agreement agreements with the Americans, is is because the
Saudis believe that the Iranians have surrounded them in the north,
surrounded them to the south, surrounded them to the east and
Abu mahdil mohendus, the leader of the Iraqi militias that are loyal
to Iran who was killed with Qassem Soleimani in the drone strike.
There is a video that went viral up just before he died, where
students.
In Iran are saying to him, in Persian yet Abu Muhammad, in
Minas, you are a Mujahid. You are a hero, and one day Inshallah, he
will liberate Palestine. And he says, and the enemy is Israel? He
goes, No, the enemy is not Israel. Riyadh. Riyadh. We go after Saudi
first. So, and this is why I think that sometimes, when people look
at the states, I'm not justifying Saudi's position. But if you ask
me, as a political analyst, I would, I would say that Vincent
man's pursuit of a NATO style security agreement is not coming
because he wants to please the Americans. It's coming because he
truly believes Iran poses an existential threat. And when
Saudis say that Israel is less of a threat to me, that it's a threat
to the Palestinians, but not to me. But Iran is an immediate
threat, even if I dislike the argument, even if I reject it
because of the manner in which it's used, there is a basis in
when you look at the political field as to why they believe that,
and that's why I think that Iran's words sound nice when it talks
about Palestine, but when you look at the actions on the ground, and
when you look at, for example, in Iraq, in Iraq, remember from 2003
after the US invasion, it was pro Iran parties that ran the
government. They had the golden opportunity to show us what an i
What the governance that ideology, ideology produces, what governance
that an ideology that forbids every Muslim from political power
except the descendants of Ahlulbayt, something that the
Prophet Muhammad never ordered or never told the Muslims whatsoever
they had a chance to show us in those 1520, years in which they
rule, what their rule looks like. And we found it to be sectarian.
We found it to be brutal. We found it to be violent, and we found it
to be rooted in this idea of taking revenge on people who have
nothing to do with the crime that was committed many years ago. And
that's why with Iran, I've been accused heavily, and I'll probably
accused again in the comments. Sammy, that we we noticed that you
always hesitate when you talk about Iran. It's because I
acknowledge that the Iranian posturing has made Israel
hesitate. I acknowledge that the Iranian posturing has helped to
ease I know it sounds weird in this context, ease the immediate
nature of the suffering of the Palestinians. It made Israel
hesitate. At the same time, I am not sure if what Iran is doing in
Palestine forgives and wipes out what it's done in those other
different countries. So when people are celebrating that
Houthis are firing missiles towards the Israelis, part of me
thinks a large part of me that if the Houthis
ended their war in Yemen, it would be more favorable and beneficial
to the Ummah and Palestine than firing missiles to the against the
Israelis or the like. That's my view on Iran. I appreciate that.
I've set many people, but I do think that what they have done in
the region has been catastrophic, and I think that what they are
trying to pursue in the region is something that is not beneficial
to Donna. No, I agree entirely. And I think a lot of this comes
from strong political awareness and to detach ourselves from the
political leaders, as you've detached yourself from Turkey and
Saudi Arabia and these governments,
we all need to detach ourselves from very unsavory regimes in
Syria, in Iraq, Iranian militias have engaged in mass murder.
They've engaged in *, they've engaged in torture at a mass
scale, and there's plenty of evidence to corroborate all of
this. Can I ask you again? I'm sorry, I'm going on a detour once
again, but just as we're talking about this subject, there is a
strand of opinion here in the West, amongst Westerners, you can
call it the anti imperialism, left, which believes, in a way
that Iran is involved in an anti imperialist struggle. And so they
found a meeting of minds between the left, the Socialist left, or
at least the radical socialist left, not all socialists, but a
radical socialist left in Iran. So you got people like George
Galloway who would protect Iran and its actions in the region and
praise Khalid, praise Soleimani and his sectarianism, as well as,
of course, the actions of Russia.
I suppose this is a question about political awareness and astuteness
from outside. How much should we be aware of the the agendas of
these left radical, left leaning groups. Napoleon has a saying. He
says the road to Hellfire is paid with good intentions. A lot of
these opinions don't actually come from a malicious nature at all. I
think a lot of them actually come from a very true sincerity. I
think when you sit with a lot of people, there is a sincere desire
to see the world to be a better place. And a lot of times they
believe that, because the Americans have wrought such
destruction on the world, those who oppose the Americans must be
good and vice versa. And that's why I think that the words of Ali
bin Abi, Tala, brother anhu, are very profound in this, in when he
said that the truth is not determined by who is advocating
it, but rather the sincerity and truth.
Of a person is determined as to whether he tells the truth or not.
And I think that's significant. And the point being is, just
because Jalal says something, it doesn't mean it's right. Yeah, I
just Jalal based on whether he's standing with what's right. So I
think that a lot of it comes here in the sense that given that Iran
is resisting the US, it is given that Iran is a thorn in US foreign
policy in the region, given that Iran does act as an independent
actor, given that it has displayed power, given it has survived
sanctions, given that it survived sanctions that were imposed in
order to force ideological changes, and the Iranians have
held very strongly to that ideological belief, to that 12
Shi'a idea, faith or the like, given that they held very close to
their culture, there is much to admire about the resistance that
Iran has demonstrated against all odds, and that admiration which is
legitimate and justified, even if I believe it sometimes to be
misplaced, the admiration for Iran's ability to stand up to the
United States of America and survive and be able to pressure
the Americans in the region through the use of political
leverage, or the like, through the use of militias that we condemned
earlier, the like, let's talk amorally. There is a sense amongst
people who have no power, who are who are devastated in despair,
that they have no power to look to Iran and say, alternative powers
exist, and therefore a natural sympathy emerges from that. And
one of the things that I find quite interesting, and the reason
why I hesitate sometimes when I talk about Iran,
is that many people view it as a binary of either Saudi or Iran.
Yeah, either the Arabs or the Persians, either. So the
suggestion is that if you dislike Iran, you are promoting Saudi, or
if you dislike Saudi, you are pro Iran. And the issue with politics
is that it's not clear cut like that at all. The Saudis and the
Iranians
have had negative influences on the region. To denounce one does
not mean benefiting the other at the same time. However, politics
is about where do you find the opportunities? And I think for the
leftists, the reason that they align with Syria and align with
the Iranians is because they identify and they say, look, and
this is a rational argument. If Bashar Al Assad falls, the other
Arab states have shown that the US can regain its influence by
supporting a coup and bringing somebody else to power. So given
Assad is resisting the US. Let's, let's keep the resistance alive,
instead of giving an opportunity for the US to come in and alter
the regime that may happen. That's their interpretation of the
politics. That's probably why they stand with ESS or the like, who
has butchered his people and massacred his people. But the
point I want to say is this, sometimes it doesn't come from a
bad place, even though I resent it and I think the stance is vile. It
doesn't come from a bad place. And the reason why I want to affirm
that is to affirm the power of Dawa and affirm the power of
debate, and affirm the power of political awareness, the power of
convincing the other side that their stance is misplaced, the
necessity to go and talk to these people and say, Look, this is the
reality of what's happening. Because often, a lot of the
positions are rooted in ignorance, such as the position of Iran and
what it's doing in the region, and we don't do enough of that. You're
right. Sami, when we last spoke, you talked about the events of
seven of October, as being as having taken Israel by surprise
and Netanyahu was cobbling around for a coherent strategy. Do you
feel this coherent strategy has now come about, but ground war has
begun and then making steady progress, I suppose, of course,
through brutal means, have the Israelis now come to a coherent
view as to what's going to happen in the immediate and what's the
post war situation. I think that when you look at the debate inside
Israel itself, one thing becomes abundantly clear, Netanyahu
political future is in doubt. When you look at the fact that
Netanyahu has not attended any of the funerals of the hostages. The
reason he hasn't attended is because he's concerned that the
hostage families will lambast him and that they will shout at him
and that they will humiliate him. When you look at the fact that
protests have been held by the families of hostages denouncing
Netanyahu and accusing Netanyahu of not taking the lives of the
hostages seriously by carpet bombing Gaza, you can see that
Netanyahu is under pressure, even from the families of the hostages.
When the Times of Israel reported last week, last week from this
recording, that when Hamas released the two elderly hostages,
The Times of Israel reported that the IDF and Netanyahu were annoyed
and frustrated at the release of the hostages, because they feared
that the release of the hostages will dampen the ardor and the
desire for a ground offensive, suggesting that Netanyahu prefers
the hostages to stay in Gaza at the mercy of the bombing campaign,
rather than having them released, because he believes that the
priority is a ground offensive in Gaza, because he's concerned that
he needs to huge prize to give the Israelis in order to rescue his
political future. When you see that Ehud olmer, the former prime
minister, comes out and says that Netanyahu political future has.
Fatally damaged, and that Netanyahu is scrambling, and that
he's concerned, and that the reason that the war is continuing
is not because of Israel's strategic aims, but because
Netanyahu believes that if the war stops, then he will have to face
an Israeli public that is demanding his resignation. When
you look at the polls inside Israel, that suggests that more
than 60% of Israelis blame Netanyahu for what has happened,
and more than 60% are demanding Netanyahu his resignation. It
becomes abundantly clear that Netanyahu, in the situation inside
Israel, is not united behind the grand offensive, and the grand
offensive is more a Netanyahu project than it is an Israeli
project, because Netanyahu believes that only one prize can
satiate the Israeli public, and can get the Israeli public to get
back on site, and that's the annexation of more land to give to
Israeli settlers. To say, Yes, we struggled in October 7, but look,
I finally managed to expand the borders of Israel. Netanyahu is
hoping that that's the prize, that he will be able to give him the
and also, when you look at the fact that it took more than a week
for Netanyahu to form a war cabinet, and in that war cabinet,
a lot of parties did not join that war cabinet. It shows that for the
opposition parties, they see events as a Netanyahu issue, not
an Israel issue. Think about it. If it was an issue of a national
crisis, the parties would have rushed to form a war cabinet with
Netanyahu. The fact that they did not is because when they looked at
the situation, they believed that the threat was not as great as was
being made up by Netanyahu, that the IDF had enough power to push
back the Palestinians, and that now the only reason the war is
going on is because Netanyahu is concerned for his political
future. When you look at the political article that we talked
about earlier, which reports that Biden told Netanyahu that you
cannot say or stay on after this issue finishes. After this
offensive finishes, it shows that even in the US, in the White
House, in those closed door meetings, they know they see that
it is Netanyahu who has caused this issue, and that Netanyahu is
under pressure. The point here being is when you're asking about
the Israeli strategy, I think there is no Israeli strategy.
There is a Netanyahu strategy, a Netanyahu strategy that says that
we need this ground offensive, because if we don't do it, then I
will be forced to resign. And that's why that the Israelis, when
you talk about the strategic aims, a lot of the debate inside Israel
itself is what strategic aims have actually been achieved? What high
profile Hamas commander? Have we killed? What high profile Hamas
base have we defeated? Instead, we're taking casualties, and those
casualties are piling up because Netanyahu strategy is no longer
about strategic aims for Israel. It's about right now. If I stop
now, I will be forced to resign. Let me prolong this war until an
opportunity presents itself where I can survive and stay on in
power. Do you think that the alleged view that the Israelis are
trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza? I mean, there was the initial
suggestion that they were trying to the US were trying to pay the
Egyptians, and you've dispelled that that's just not going to
happen anymore. But do you think that it's realistic that they're
going to, in effect, colonize the north of Gaza, north of Wadi Gaza,
and ethnically cleanse the entire population to the south?
In effect, an expansionist policy, and that's partly driving this
policy of Netanyahu. I think that Netanyahu sees only one way out,
and that's to take land in the West Bank and to take land in
Gaza. And I think that when you look at the Israeli allies, even
in the US, I think there is a rabid thirst to take more land of
the Palestinians at part of expanding this Israeli state.
Remember Netanyahu before the October 7, the week before at the
UN he held up that map which completely erased Palestine from
the map. I think that when it comes to Netanyahu and what he's
trying to pursue, I think the ethnic cleansing is the manner in
is the gift that he wants to give to the Israelis to forgive him for
what happened on October 7. I think the ethnic cleansing is the
dream of those US officials who support Israel, who believe in the
expansion of Israel. They believe that, given that a crisis has
emerged, let's turn it into an opportunity and take parts of Gaza
and take parts of the West Bank. The issue that has emerged,
however, is that Blinken is struggling to maintain diplomatic
cover and support for Israel's bid that ethnic cleansing, which is
why Blinken buckled and essentially said, Okay, I won't
call for a ceasefire, but we need a humanitarian pause, because
we're under heavy pressure from public opinion. Blinken is trying
to provide a cover to provide that ethnic cleansing, where he
presents a humane and merciful choice to the Palestinians. Give
up your lands to Israel for a new batch of Israeli settlers or die.
I give you four hours every single day. This is Blinken genius idea.
I give you four hours every single day to leave your lands and leave
your homes so that Jewish settlers can come in and live in those
homes, so that we can build from them a lovely beach and lovely
shopping malls and lovely homes. We need you to leave these lands
in order to do so and.
Netanyahu was public about it, and the Israeli ministers about
genocide, about using nuclear weapons, about wiping them out,
about annihilating the animals, public statements coming out and
making the Americans think these guys don't understand anything
about PR. You can't come out publicly and say it. Let's go and
provide that public PR. For one of the examples is that when Israel
struck the hospital, the refugee camp. When they struck the refugee
camp, the jubeli refugee camp, the IDF admitted that they had bombed
it, but the that killed 400 refugees Allah, but the New York
Times felt it was such bad PR for the Israelis that they said an
explosion happened in the refugee camp. CNN said it was a blast that
took place in the refugee camp. They believed that the Israelis
were so bad at their PR, they decided to embark on the PR for
them. The point being is that Blinken is struggling in that
Israel is being so brazen about its desire to commit genocide and
ethnic cleansing that he's going on this tour and providing these
ideas of humanitarian pauses in order to try to facilitate it. But
the crux of your question is, Israel is Netanyahu is trying to
form ethnic cleansing because he knows that's what gets Israelis
really going. He know the US officials want to see ethnic
cleansing, but on the condition that it does not compromise their
interest elsewhere. And there is a debate now in the US as to the
extent that Israel should be allowed in order to embark on that
ethnic cleansing. Why would the United States embark on this
process of ethnic cleansing? Because it's going to possibly
save Netanyahu from his public and as we know, Biden despises
Netanyahu. Biden wants Netanyahu to go. So in a way, it gives a
lifeline to Netanyahu. Why, and it creates a big problem for Biden.
At home, you've just talked about the poll ratings of Biden, they're
plummeting. The recent polls in six of the five battlegrounds,
five of the six battleground states, suggests that Biden would
lose those states, and Palestine has a part to play in that,
because young progressives now no longer have a majority in favor of
Israel. So it seems like that policy is going to harm Biden in
the long run. I think that the reason that the US is lending
support has already been said by a number of us, politicians, Robert
Kennedy, for example, who wants to run for president of president,
said that Israel is our outpost in the Middle East. It is our it
belongs to. It's like a colony that we have there that allows us
to protect American interests. Hillary Clinton, however, hit the
nail on the head. Hillary Clinton, although she said it in terms of
Hamas, but I think that it's more than Hamas.
Put yourself in the position of the US whereby the Palestinian
cause was dying, normalization was taking place. Saudi was
normalizing with the Israelis. Erdogan was pursuing closer ties
with Netanyahu. It all looked as if suddenly the Palestinians no
longer had any agency or power. When you look at the situation as
it stands now across the entire world, people are now posing
questions about the existence of Israel. People are now asking, how
did it come to be they are opening the history books. They are
learning about the Palestinians, and they are sympathizing with the
Palestinians. The reason the US is supporting Israel is because it
believes that the environment that has been created now is not one in
which the Palestinians no longer have any power, but rather that
the shift is taking place that has empowered the Palestinians, which
means now that the invincible image of the Israelis and the
invincible image of the US ally has been completely tattered, and
that if they do not support Israel, and if they do not allow
Israel to ethnically cleanse, then the conclusion of the Muslim world
and the conclusion of the world at large will be that the Palestinian
resistance can work, that the Palestinians can actually secure
their rights. They can actually pressure the Israelis. And that
will have sweeping ramifications for how it shifts. So the
Americans believe, not necessarily, that the Israelis
should completely ethnically cleanse, even though some of them
do. But there is the US believes that the Palestinians have to be
battered and pay a price that is so high that the world will say
that resistance is futile and is simply not worth it. And I think
the price that they are considering is less ethnically
cleanse and take territory so that Palestinians know that the next
time they resist, they will lose more land and then they will lose
more territory, and that's why the Americans are firmly supporting
the Israelis in this so on a broader level, much of foreign
policy, whether that's in Britain or Europe or in America, is
determined by national interest, and there is a bipartisan support
on both sides of The Atlantic for Israel. How much can this policy,
this embrace of Israel, be dislodged by public opinion in
either of the countries or in Europe? I think that it's
important to put things into context. Genocide is unfolding
before us. Ethnic cleansing is unfolding before us. And the
reality is that the.
Response to it has been very weak, and in terms of deploying power to
forcefully resist genocide and ethnic cleansing, that power has
been absent, and that's been the cause of a lot of despair amongst
many people. One of the reasons that we focus on public opinion a
lot as a political analyst, why I've been emphasizing that point a
lot, is because in the absence of a force that can prevent that
genocide and ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing, the issue
becomes one of, what can we do and what are the options that are
available to us in order to try to force through a ceasefire? When I
mentioned earlier that Erdogan has been changing his position as a
result of Turkish public opinion, that's Erdogan buckling to public
opinion that the Turks have created and generated, and that
has scared Blinken enough into forcing him into a Middle East
tour to go and try to meet with Erdogan. Erdogan ignored him and
went instead to the north of Turkey to go to drink tea. And he
left Hakan vedan to talk for two hours with Blinken, and Blinken
left. And the reports are that Blinken would told the White House
that everybody's angry with us in the region. These are, this is
public opinion within those Muslims. What about say the Iraq
war? You know, 2 million people marched against the Iraq War. Tony
Blair went to war. How much can public opinion be really changed
in these western countries? I think that one, one of the reasons
why I don't want to compare it too much to the Iraq War, was because
911 created such a surge of support for the US, that when Bush
came out and said, you're either with us or against us, and when
the FBI started cracking down on Muslim organizations in the US,
and when the US made clear that there was an appetite for war,
when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was Crown Prince at
the time, was left reeling and trying to reverse to prevent him
from being on the list of countries that might be invaded. I
think the overwhelming vibe at that time as a result of what
happened in 911 meant that for all of the protest and the marches, or
the like the casus belli, had already been determined, and there
was nobody who was going to stop the US. I think this time is
different for two reasons. The first is that when people look
back at what happened in the Iraq war on 911 everybody's referencing
the Taliban. Everybody is saying that, look, we've been in this
situation before we went gung ho, before we supported these
invasions, before 20 years later, the Taliban came to power. So
there is an increased restraint. Sounds ironic and straining
situation, but there is a increased reflection with regards
to what action should be taken, with regards to what's happening.
The second point that's worth noting is, with regards to public
opinion is bush was not facing an imminent election when 911
happened. Biden is facing an election that is upcoming. Biden
is concerned about the polls, about being behind in six states.
The reason public opinion matters because in the CNN article, one
thing that was quite interesting is it reports that when Biden
spoke to Netanyahu, he told them that the relentless bombardment of
the images and the videos that are going viral on social media is
making it increasingly untenable to uphold a position whereby the
US does not support a ceasefire, that the bombardment of These
social media videos that is describing the reality of the
atrocities that are being committed in Gaza is making it
difficult for Biden to hold his ground. You asked, What difference
does public opinion make? The humanitarian pause, in and of
itself, is a buckling on the part of Blinken because he wants to
present the ethnic cleansing in a more humanitarian way. And Axios
reported, as we mentioned earlier, that Netanyahu was resisting the
humanitarian pause because he feared it was Biden buckling, and
Biden using it as a way to lure him into a ceasefire. The reason
that humanitarian pause is causing friction between the Israelis and
the Americans is because Biden is not concerned about Saudi Arabia
or turkey or the like. Biden is concerned about public opinion at
home, when you look at Congress, when Rasheed at lab gave her
speech, and then she was censored, and they voted to censor one thing
that I thought went or that I thought went under the radar, was
that 192
con of members of Congress voted in favor of Rashida. Tlaib, 188
voted in favor of Rashida, and four decided to abstain. That
means there was a difference about 50 votes or 40 votes. That means
that Israel failed to convince 192 members of Congress, more than 40%
of Congress to stand with it in order to silence Rashida type.
That's unprecedented. That's as a result of public opinion, as a
result of public pressure, and that was noted by the Democrats
because the subsequent article revealed that the Democrats are
there's huge tensions now inside the Democrats, with regards to
Biden's stance, with regards to Israel, when Michigan and two
other of the swing states are under threat from Trump, and show
that Trump is leading, knowing that in those states, the Muslim
population, which is a minority, but makes the difference in those
votes when suddenly Biden sees himself lacking in the polls. This
is why Kamala Harris came out the Vice President and said, we've
come up with an Islamophobia program in order to combat
Islamophobia. Kamala Harris didn't do it because Biden suddenly cares
about the Muslims. Biden didn't call Rai throughout the month.
When the Palestinians were being bombarded, the reason Kamala
Harris did it is because in the on the table where the Democrats are
talking to each other, they've said, Look, Michigan, we need that
Muslim vote. We need these wretched Muslim votes. We need
these Muslim votes that ordinarily wouldn't care about because they
might make the difference. In terms of Michigan and the Muslims
are now saying that while Trump is bad, Biden is committing genocide
that we survived four years of Trump, but 10,000 Palestinians
didn't survive four years of Biden. The point here being is
that the Democrats are buckling under that public opinion. The
point that I want to make here is this,
the outcome is not ideal. When people hear it, I often say, okay,
but that's not stopping what's happening in Palestine. That's
true, but it's putting pressure in altering the course of what's
happening in Palestine. Blinken would have preferred Netanyahu to
give him a free pass to completely ethnically cleanse Gaza. He's now
imposed the humanitarian pause, which is a cover for ethnic
cleansing. But the necessity of that cover came about because of
public opinion. It came about because of you in the thinking
Muslim. It came about because of those who are listening to us. It
came about because of the two who decided to come late at night
because I came late for this appointment, and they've decided
to tolerate it and sit down and help with the camera work, or the
like. It's because of the public opinion that's been generating
that this is buckling, which leads me, as a political analyst, to
conclude that if this public pressure continues today, we have
a humanitarian pause. Tomorrow, we can get a ceasefire. That if we
keep up this pressure, if we keep up the bombardment, as Biden
called it, of those social media videos that are making it
difficult to uphold support for Israel, then eventually a
ceasefire will come about. And then that leads to the conclusion
as to, how do you punish the Democrats for what happened? Some
people are saying that if we don't vote for the Democrats, Trump will
be worse. But there is an argument to be made that if Muslims still
vote for the Democrats, or still vote for labor, then the Democrats
will come to the conclusion that no matter how many genocides we
commit against the Muslims, the Muslims will always come to us
because they don't have a vote. There is an email that is being
sent out by the Democrats the past three four days in which they are
saying that Trump wants to put the Muslim ban and we are against the
Muslim ban. The reaction to Muslims is, I will never vote
Biden again. It may provoke a debate in the Democrats where the
Democrats say, look, okay, how can we win the Muslim vote? Let's move
Biden and bring another candidate in his place. At that point,
Muslims can go vote for the Democrats, although. But the point
here being is this, I understand the frustration that we're not
seeing the results that we want. I understand the frustration that
change is not happening at the pace that we want, but the reason
change is happening is because of public opinion, which leads me to
conclude that if that public opinion was not there, the
situation would be worse than it is now, and the fact that we're
seeing these changes take place is because of public pressure. Means,
as a political analyst, as I'm as I'm writing in the reports, as
long as that public opinion is sustained and the pressure is
sustained, we could be closer to a ceasefire, not in a matter of
months, as Netanyahu is assisting, but perhaps even in weeks or
perhaps days, if we really push, can I ask you about the position
of the European Union? I was speaking to a journalist from
Brussels, and they suggested to me that the position of Ursula von
der Leyen, the commission president and many members of the
Commission and the hierarchy of of the EU is actually far more
firmly, in a way, behind Israel than even some of the American
positions. What do you think accounts for that? I mean, there
was, you know, Aristotle von der Leyen. She hasn't moved, she
hasn't moved an inch since for the last five weeks, and she her
position is deplorable in so many ways. Yes, you've got the high
representative of foreign affairs, Joseph Borrell, who's somewhat
contradicting her, but EU position seems firmly in favor of Israel.
Can you shed some light on why that is? I think that when it
comes to the EU position, I think there are deep divisions inside
the EU, which is why the EU, when people say that it doesn't have a
major role to play in what's happening. The reason it doesn't
have a major role to play is because of the divisions. If it
was united, it could play a stronger role. But because it is
not united, it cannot play that role. Because Joseph Borrell is
saying that von der Leyen does not represent opposition, because
those ministers from Spain and Spain is coming out and calling
for Netanyahu to be dragged before the International Criminal Court.
It means that the motions in the EU that were designed to restrict
social media's promotion of pro Palestinian content have not gone
through because of those divisions. It means the EU has
been unable to help Israel in the manner that perhaps von der Leyen
would have liked. And the reason that the motions and the bills
have not been passed that Israel has been calling for is because of
those particular divisions, and the reason those divisions have
been exacerbated is because of domestic public opinion. The
reason we're seeing a lot of repressive measures emerge in
France and in Germany with regards to pro Palestinian sentiment is
not because these governments necessarily are wholeheartedly
behind the Israelis. Macron, for example, is now using the seawall.
He's used the word ceasefire at a Gaza event, and he also on record
where he said the civilian casualties is far too much for us
to keep supporting the Israelis. The reason the repressive measures
are so hard is because the backlash to Israel is so great
amongst the populations and the policy makers in the EU are unsure
how to tackle that. In other words, what we're seeing as the EU
position, not budging. I actually argue that the inability of the EU
to even present an effective stance that might be of use to the
Israelis is because of those divisions. And I think that, but
for those divisions, we would have seen a more famous I think that's
something to describe, to do the EU's to Spain's credit and also to
the credit of public opinion that exacerbated those differences.
Sami, I've got two more questions left for you. This has been really
interesting and really useful for me.
Do you think this is a game changing moment? I was speaking to
a friend of mine who sort of somewhat cynically suggested that,
okay, Muslims are pretty angry at the moment, but come next year,
come elections in America and Britain, they're going to still
vote for the left leaning parties who have endorsed and signed off
genocide. Things are going to go back to normal. This is analogous,
maybe to the 2003
when there was a boycott campaign against American McDonald's and
Coca Cola. A year later, I visited Medina and spoke to a friend of
mine who ran a restaurant, and he said that, you know, although he
banned Coca Cola within a year, his customers wanted Coca Cola
back.
Is it a game changing moment, or are we going to see more of the
same once a ceasefire is announced and once things die down? The
problem with that argument is that it presumes that the status quo
has been the same for the past 90 100 years, or even for the past 10
years. It assumes that the status quo has been the same all of this
person's life, for all of our lives. It assumes that the events
that we've seen in our lifetimes is the history of mankind. It
assumes that the status quo where Israel is existing, and where the
Americans back the Israelis, and where the EU are back in the
Israelis, has always been the situation. Whereas the reality is,
you don't have to look far back to look at articles here in the UK in
which they were deriding the Jewish population as aliens, where
there were pogroms taking place, where they were trying to kick out
the Jewish population and trying to send them anywhere but allow
them to stay in Europe. I think that when it comes to these
assumptions that somehow things will go back to the way they were
before, they never do. They never go back to the way they were
before, one of the reasons that the US has been rather hesitant
with regards to the extent to which it is prepared to support
Israel, again, I know that sounds strange, is because there is a US
is concerned that its failure in Afghanistan means there should be
a revision in terms of how it lashes out in foreign policy, two
events that look similar are not the same, because the context and
the history of those events is very different, and that's why I
think that while it's true that people are celebrating the way the
Ummah has been mobilizing in terms of raising public awareness, and
why we're seeing all these videos of pro Israelis who are now
changing their minds and becoming pro Palestinians, while we're
seeing more and more allies come out, while we're seeing a lot of
the policy makers buckle towards public opinion, I think the
cynicism that is emerging has more to do with a failure to accurately
read the trends of history and a failure to appreciate the gains
that have been made in history. In and of itself, the reality is that
in politics, politics is about taking opportunities. The reality
is that now, when you look at the way that people are talking about
Palestine and Israel, before these events that took place in October,
nobody was talking about the legitimacy of Israel as a state in
the US or in Europe. Nobody was talking about the nature of Israel
as a state in its dealing with Palestinians, they were reading
apartheid on Human Rights Watch, and they were thinking, maybe, is
it an apartheid? Is it not? But now, as a result of the
atrocities, people are now talking about the nature of Israel, so
much so that there are some US intellectuals who came out and
said, Listen, in my readings, in my in my books, I always support
Israel, but after seeing what Israel has done, I can no longer
good conscience support this. There was a famous rapper in the
US who came out and said, I don't know much about Palestine and
Israel, but I recognize a genocide when I see one which is making
people's minds change. I think that even if your friend who is a
cynic, is unable to capitalize on that, I think there are many
people now who are trying to capitalize on that. I give an
example of, for example, me and you sitting here, for example, and
liaising and trying to raise that public awareness after I do this
interview, or when I did the interview beforehand, there are
organizations from around the world who I've never spoken to,
never met before, who want to bring their their efforts and our
efforts. They want to combine them together. How can we amplify and
you've seen it before in the collaborations that people want to
make with you, because they want to cement those gains, and that's
why I think the direct answer is yes. I understand that people want
to feel cynicism and pessimism over what is happening. I
understand that the images of the Nakba are brutal. I understand
that the images of the ethnic cleansing are brutal. I understand
that the genocide is brutal. But when you read the articles that
are coming out in the think tanks and in the.
And in established papers, you can see the change in rhetoric and the
change in discourse with to one that doesn't suggest that the
Palestinians are being defeated, but one that suggests that Israel
will no longer enjoy the support that it has enjoyed over the past
70 years. Just today, for example, in the hill a pro Israeli writer
has written that when all of this is over. One of the greatest
damage that will happen to Israel is that Netanyahu now has
alienated Israel's friends so much by his actions that Israel's
friends may no longer be willing to provide the support that it did
in the past. Even they are acknowledging that this is a game
changer. Even they are acknowledging that things are
moving and I always strike the comparison whenever it comes to
atrocities such as this, to what happened in 1945 in Algeria, where
30,000 Algerians were killed. In the same year that the Geneva
Convention was signed that every man is born free. In the same year
that France was liberated from Nazi Germany, France massacred
30,000 Algerians with the view of establishing to the Algerians that
any whiff of resistance will be met with the brutal massacre 17
years later, Algeria was liberated. I think this is a game
changer. Blinken is concerned, it's a game changer. Biden is
concerned it's a game changer. Erdogan is concerned it's a game
changer, which is why he's adapting his rhetoric to make sure
he's on the right side of history. Vincent man believes it's a game
changer, which is why he's trying to go through the Quran to find
any air yet that might justify supporting the Israelis and
condemning the Palestinians. I think they all believe it's a game
changer, which leads me to believe that the one who doesn't believe
it's a game changer is one who's not reading the situation
correctly. Finally, Sami, you've talked about the ineptitude of the
Muslim rulers, their failure to use their leverage to deal with
this crisis.
We believe you and I believe, and I think the majority of Muslims
actually believe that things are going to change. There is a better
Muslim world that may emerge. I don't know when that's going to
emerge, whether I will see it, whether my children will see it,
or their children will see it, but I believe that Muslim world is
going to become a better place. Describe that world for me, when
you look at the Sira of the Prophet Muhammad, sallAllahu,
alayhi wa sallam,
when you read it as a political book, you begin to dive more into
the statements that are made during the crises of what
happened. And when you read them, you start to realize that a lot of
the crises and the responses are human.
Growing up, you always feel like a Muslim world has to be perfect,
devoid of conflict, devoid of issues and problems or the like.
But when you read, for example, that Allah says in the Quran,
yeah, man orti, Allahu ATI or Rasulullah, una, BiLlah Dalit, all
you who believe obey Allah and this Prophet and those who rule
over you, but in the event that you disagree with each other,
who's disagreeing, it's the people and the rulers. Then go back to
Allah and Rasul. Go back to the Quran and Sunnah and Allah. The
arbitrator between the two, the arbiter between the two is the
Quran and the Sunnah, implying that the people might be able to
overrule the ruler, or the ruler might make a mistake, and
therefore he needs to be corrected. So Allah is saying that
in a Muslim world, or Ideal Muslim society, or the like, mistakes are
made that require the people to pressure the ruler to go back in
terms of in terms of the way that the trajectory that he should be
going when the Prophet Muhammad, sallAllahu, alayhi wa sallam, and
this is the Hadith, that really was a turning point for me in in
rereading some of the politics of our history, when the Prophet
Salim says about Al Hassan his grandson, he says, This grandson
of mine is a Sayyid, and he will reckon he will reconcile between
two large groups of Muslims. The two large groups he talks about
Muawiyah and Ali Bin Abu Talib, Rabbi Allahu anhuman under both of
them, the prophet sallam, in this says that Al Hasan is a noble
because he will reconcile between the two. The Prophet Sallam did
not make a judgment who was right or wrong between Ali Bin Abu Talib
and Muawiyah. He celebrated the reconciliation between two large
groups of Muslims and the bringing of that Ummah back together a
conflict between the Sahaba, who were the best of people. Islam was
not compromised, despite what had happened. It continued to spread
to Iraq, continued to spread to the four corners of the globe. The
other thing that's worth noting is that the Prophet Muhammad,
sallAllahu, sallam, in his lifetime,
achieved the great success of any creation, but that success, and
I'm not belittling here, is politically only the conquering of
Mecca and Medina. Mecca and Medina were considered cities by the
Romans and the Persians that weren't worth conquering, that
weren't worth they weren't of strategic importance, that were
worth conquering. But the Prophet sallallahu, sallam, in taking
those cities, went down as the greatest influence in history, and
described by Michael Hart as the greatest influence in the history
of mankind. Why? Because the significance was not the history.
It was the impact that he left behind. It was the attitude that
he left behind. It was the spirit amongst the Sahaba that he left
behind that enabled him to deliver Islam and to carry it to all four
corners of the world. There.
Reason why I say that is because when people talk about describe
what, what the Ideal Muslim scenario looks like, I think that
the focus is often on the of the form and the shape, as opposed to
the attitude itself of what the Ummah looks like. When I said
earlier that it is Islam that makes the Muslims great, not the
Muslims that make Islam great, it's because when Islam became the
impetus for science. When people read malaj al Bahraini, altaqian,
Bana, Huma, Barza, halaya Brien, that the seas have been divided
between them is a barrier that don't cross. The attitude of
Sahaba was not Masha Allah. Look what Allah has written. The
attitude of Sahaba was, I want to understand it. I'm going to get on
a boat and I'm going to go out and I'm going to find where Maharaj al
Bahraini, Al taqiyyan, and in that he makes a discovery. When Allah
says, Qul, lumfi felican, yes, bahun, when he talks about the
planets and the stars that they swim in the sky, the sahabi did
not say, masha Allah, what Allah says in the Quran, the sahabi
went, made the telescope, looked up into the sky, and wanted to
understand why the orbits go wrong, go around, which is why al
Biruni then came up with this idea of astronomy and and the like,
which then inspired the Europeans to go and find when the when the
Quran, for example, talks about that Allah created everything from
water. The Sahabi didn't say, Masha, Allah, everything came from
water. The Sahabi said, Allah said it, I'm going to go and prove it.
And so he was suddenly incentivized to go and pursue
sign. When Islam became the incentive to propel people in
their actions in life, Miss Muslims became great. But when
Islam became habitual, rituals, when it came became about
ascetism, when it came about solely focusing on your spiritual
relationship with Allah subhanahu wa, that's when Islam failed to
lose its ability to innovate, its ability to propel people to
success, and that's when you see the decline. The reason why I
mentioned the idea about the form and the substance is because we've
had Muslim nations before that collapsed. The reason they
collapsed is because even though they were Muslim, there was
something lacking in it, and that is an appreciation that Islam is
the impetus that should drive you in your actions. Look at what's
happening in Palestine today, when I said to you earlier that Blinken
buckled and that the humanitarian pause, after Blinken banned his
state department from using the word ceasefire, when Blinken is
now talking about humanitarian pause, he buckled because the
ordinary Muhammad SAW a Zara and all these other different Muslims
decided to tweet on social media, those Muslims said to themselves,
Ya Allah, I don't have an army, I don't have a foreign minister, I
don't have a big business, I don't have lots of money, but I have,
won't I want to use the powers that are with that you have given
me in order to advance the cause of Islam and advance the cause of
Palestine. They took one step. Allah took 10 and amplified the
voice, and blinking is now bucketing. Janelle, you sat here
and you said, I want to do a thinking Muslim podcast, and I
want to bring speakers to promote the Palestinian cause. You brought
the guttara sui Dan. You brought other people and the like you
said, Allah, this is the power that I have, Allah, let's see how
it goes and in the end, the views that you're seeing on your
channel. You took one step. Allah, took 10. Everybody who talks me
says that they watched the thinking Muslim podcast. You took
one step. Allah took 10. Allah rewards the striving of an ummah.
When Allah says, In the Quran, in Allahumma be common hat a fusion,
when Allah says he does not change the state of a people until they
change what is in themselves, many people interpret that area solely
from an ascetic perspective. It's about the spirituality. What Allah
means in this area is that an ummah that takes this step to
strive, I amplify that striving, and I amplify the efforts on it,
because all outcomes belong to Allah, Subhanahu wa The reality is
that when we talking about the Ideal Muslim order, or the like, I
think the Ideal Muslim order is less about its form, and more
about what this ummah is about, what this ummah chooses to strive
to believe in. Everybody who's tweeted about Palestine made a
difference. Everybody who liked to tweet about Palestine made a
difference. Everybody who commented made a difference. They
forced those posts on the algorithm to go higher and higher,
which reached new areas where they had never reached before, which
made ordinary people who supported Israel turn around and say, I can
no longer support a genocide. It is the ordinary Muslim who said,
Yeah, I am weeping and crying about what happened in Palestine.
And yeah, Allah, I want to do something, and I don't have the
power, and I don't like my rulers who aren't doing anything. Ya,
Allah, I'm going to do the basic of iman. I'm going to comment on
it on Twitter, and I'm just going to pour my heart out, because the
efforts, because that person made the intention to say, Allah, all
power belongs to you. I'm going to use the powers that I have. They
forced 192 Congress, people in Congress, to vote against Israel.
Unprecedented. They forced Biden to tell the Israelis that the
content that they're sharing on social media means I can't keep
supporting the Israelis. You don't have months. You only have weeks.
And if we continue, we can get that ceasefire. An Ideal Muslim
society is not one that is devoid of problems. Allah, Subhanahu wa
says, In surah, in Surat Rafer, where he says, wakihi must say at
waman taki say.
Uma IDF with Alika who follow the this used to stop me when it come,
when it came to politics, Allah says, and forgive them their sins.
These are the angels. When they make dua for those who say asta,
Allah, for those who seek ALLAH, the angels say, Allah, forgive
them and wipe out their sins. For the ones for whom you wipe out
their sins, they are the ones who've got the victory. Note, the
category, the characteristic they have given of the Muslim who gets
the ultimate victory. It's not the perfect Muslim. It's not the
Muslim who doesn't buckle. It's not the Muslim who doesn't
despair. It's not the Muslim who doesn't weep. It's not the Muslim
who is power, who doesn't who feels they have no power. It's the
Muslim who despite their buckling, despite the fact they have no
power, despite the fact that they feel like they are making
mistakes, or despite their sins, they when they buckle and they
fall over, they get back up, they wipe themselves down, and they
say, You know what, I'm going to keep going. Allah forgives those
sins. And so he gives them the greatest victory Islam. The
reality is this, what made Islam great is what Islam inspired in
the Ummah, and what ruined the Muslim states is when they forgot
what had inspired them about Islam in the first place, when ALLAH
SubhanA wa taala, and this is why I say the Quran should be read
also as a political book, Allah has no need of Muslims to deliver
his message. Allah sent Yunus alayhi salam to His people to say
to them, to guide them to the deen to guide them to Allah subhanaw
taala. Yunus got so angry and frustrated with his people that he
left them and he was swallowed by a whale. Allah subhanaw taala, in
the story, when Yunus comes out alayhi salam, he finds all his
people guided. Allah had said to me, Eunice, Your Honor was that I
had sent you. Your Honor was not that you would achieve the result.
All glory belongs to me. All outcome belongs to me. I've shown
you that I can do it on my own. You are the one who's supposed to
fell on it when you asked me in the beginning of this of this
podcast, Sami mashaAllah, people are talking about the reason why
I'm terrified of such statements is because of the story of Eunice.
Allah doesn't need me. I'm not the one honoring Allah. I'm not the
one honoring Islam by mobilizing. Islam honors me by encouraging me
to mobilize. Allah honors me by allowing me to be the tool and
vehicle. Once upon a time, I used to sit on my couch watching the TV
telling my wife, do you think one day, one day I will be able to
have a platform where I can reach people and talk? And she would
say, Inshallah, but you need to keep typing. You need to keep
moving. And it was hard to keep moving today. Alhamdulillah, I'm
speaking, and you see, you reach now in the US or the like, Allah
is elevating that power. I don't know where it will end up one day,
but the point here being is, it's abundantly clear, Allah rewards an
ummah that strives. Allah rewards an ummah that takes a step. Allah,
you take one step. You take one step. Allah gives you 10. When we
look at, for example, successes, engaging successes. Remember,
Allah determines the success. Allah determines the outcome. The
Prophet Muhammad, sallAllahu, sallam, did not see Islam in
Argentina. He did not see Quds liberated. He did not see the
Battle of qadisiyah. He did not see the Islam enter Peugeot
enterom. He didn't see it, but he didn't need to Jalen because he'd
done what he had to do. Allah used them as a vehicle to inspire
Sahaba to go out. Somebody made a very good point in terms of the
sahaba. When you look at the graves in Medina, most of Sahaba
are buried outside, because for them, what Islam meant Islam was
not to sit in a room and focus on spirituality. Islam was a religion
of action, where we go out, where we tell ourselves, because we're
travelers in this dunya, I see an injustice. Let me go for it. And
the Prophet Muhammad Salah said, This is what I mean. Look at Islam
also from a political lens. We read the Hadith Bali convey from
even as a verse, we read it as a spiritual verse. Read the Quran,
you feel better. But part of the meaning is also the prophet has
meant that when you speak it, you advance the cause of Islam. You
force a debate. You force a discussion. People ask you who
said it. Then they want to know about Islam. Then it enters Rome,
then it enters Berlin. Paul Williams, who you had over here,
is now listed as one of the most influential Muslims. He's an
English revert. When you look at the way Islam is spreading and
entering people's homes, Allah is making it abundantly clear that
the outcome belongs to him. When you look at the Prophet Muhammad,
sallAllahu, sallam, people are saying we have no power. He says,
He who sees something that is wrong, let him change it with his
hand, and if he cannot, then with his tongue. And if he cannot, then
let him cut them in his heart. The Prophet SAW has already made
allowances for a situation where we don't have the power to do the
out to achieve the outcome that we want. So the Prophet has qualified
it in that if you can't change it with your hand, then condemn it
with your tongue and raise awareness. That's an elevated form
of resistance as well. But the reason why I mention all this
is because when people ask, what does a Muslim polity look like? I
look at Islamic history. And I see that the best of creations, the
Sahaba, they fought between themselves. I see that, for
example, the Abbasids and the Umayyads, they were side by side,
one in Andalusia and one in Baghdad. Baghdad became a golden
age for Islam at the same time that cordaba became a golden age
of Islam. Because what drove this ummah, what drove the Muslims, was
the Imper.
Of Islam. And I think what we're seeing now, with regards to
Palestine, is everybody feeling the despair, but going back to
Islam and realizing that Islam is not just about the DUA, although
it's fundamentally important, it's not just about the Salat, even
though we should increase our Salat, because the Prophet saw him
in the Battle of the Trench, used to increase his Salat in order to
pray for victory. But they are realizing that this ummah should
also be about action. Yeah, Jalal, I'm seeing Muslims here in the UK
now talk about the Muslim census to identify constituencies where
they can punish the parties for their support for Israel and for
their support for the genocide that's unfolding. That's action.
That's Islamic. That's what the Muslim ummah should be about. I'm
seeing in the US Muslims who us Muslims who were terrified after
911 I'm seeing them come out, and I'm sitting with them in the
discussions where they are saying, Okay, where are the states where
we can punish the parties for betraying and supporting the
genocide? They are mobilizing. They are becoming a people of
action. When you see you have hope. You have hope because you're
a man of action, and you're seeing other people take action. Islam
becomes great when the Muslim believes that Islam inspires them
to embark on actions and to finish on this point. The reason why I
say read the Quran as a political book is that the Prophet Muhammad,
sallAllahu, sallam, conquered Mecca and Medina, but he didn't
see quotes, but that was enough for him. Allah guaranteed the
outcome Ibrahim alaihi salam, when he couldn't have a child. He had
he had two children in old age, but the angels promised him. They
said, Allah has promised your progeny would be like the stars.
He died in a small village near Mecca, never seeing that progeny,
never seeing Mecca become such a large city. But that was enough
for him, because Allah dealt with the outcome. He did what he had to
do. But who? DALAI, salam, Shuai, Balai, salam, Salem, no Hala
Salaam. They spent hundreds of years with their people, not 900
years calling to their people and never succeeded in establishing
that polity that you're talking about. They never succeed in
convincing their people, even though they tried. Layla, when
ahazidom Do I Illa firano used to say that my Dawa only makes them
run away. The point is, Allah is making absolutely clear that the
outcome belongs to him. I don't know what shape or form a Muslim
polity will look like. I don't know what it should look like.
What I do know is Allah already knows what it looks like. What I
do know is that Allah is the best one to trust with the outcome of
it. And what I do know is it will never come about if this remains
an ummah that doesn't take action. What I hope and my response to
your friend earlier, who was a cynic, is this Palestine has shown
you, has shown you that your actions, however insignificant you
feel they are, were significant. Everybody who posted on social
media has made Blinken buckle has made Netanyahu buckle has made bin
Salman mobilize the mashay in the mosques to get them to come up
with an Islamically legitimate argument in order to try to tell
them you should be quiet. Don't talk about Raza. He's worried, so
he's coming after you. We've seen Erdogan go from being neutral to
saying, We want to win the Palestinians. The Ummah has power.
The reason it feels it doesn't have power is because it never
took that first step that required Allah to take 10 and when you meet
the people who take the first step, they are extraordinary
people. There are people who liberated the Muslim world from
colonization. They are a people who establish those independent
states that in their in their intention, they were hoping those
states would join together. That's our responsibility, to try to
encourage that. But the reason why I mentioned all of this is to go
back to the point. There are some who will say, Sammy you the
question in terms of describing the substance at home with the
polity. The reason why I'm ducking it is because that's not the
essence of the question. The essence of the question is this,
it is Islam that made the Muslims great, not the Muslims that made
Islam great. It is Islam as long as we see Islam as something that
governs our actions, as long as when we go to work in the morning
and we say, Alhamdulillah, that we have that is and we try to excel
in our jobs so that maybe we get that promotion, or maybe we're
kicked out of the job, but we learn the expertise to establish
our own businesses, our own Starbucks, our own McDonald's, our
own corporate entities, maybe one day when, if we see Islam as a
means of political action, when we see Keir Starmer, we're able to
get together in order to punish him in the elections, or to punish
Biden in the elections. That requires political thought that
stems from an Islamic desire to take action in the hope that Allah
will reward the action and that Allah will produce an outcome. I
always have a positive relationship with Allah. I believe
everything in his in his hands, wallahu, Ali Bin Allah, wala,
kinna NAS, Allah is always in control of all affairs, but people
tend to forget it. I think that when it comes to Palestine, people
often say, they message, they say, I feel despair, I feel
heartbroken. But this is not the time to feel despair or
heartbroken. We are in the middle of a war of narratives. That's our
battle at this moment in time, and we are winning that war of
narratives when Biden is changing his support for Israel or
suggesting that he's going to limit support for Israel, he's not
doing it because he wants to. He's doing it because we're forcing
him. And that leads me, as a political analyst, to plead with
this ummah, to plead keep going. Don't let people tell you you're
powerless. Don't let people tell you you're insignificant. Don't
let people tell you it doesn't matter for Allah subhanahu wa says
women Yaman mitkala.
He who does even an atom of good deeds, Allah sees it. Allah sees
an atom, and he amplifies it. So when he sees the tweet, he
amplifies it. When he sees the Facebook books, he amplifies it.
When he sees the Instagram, he amplifies it. This ordinary and
ordinary circumstances, people probably wouldn't watch the video.
Abu Shala, Allah will amplify it, provided our intention is about
trying to pursue that. The to finish, to conclude on this point,
even though I become notorious for that sentence to conclude on this
point, I think that a Muslim order or a Muslim polity, or a Muslim
success, or a successful Muslim society, is defined by a people
who believe that their actions are governed by Islam, not in terms of
its injunctions, but that they are inspired by Islam, that when they
read the as of the Quran, it inspires them to excel in science.
One of the reasons Christianity left Europe was because people
came to realize that Christianity was not aligning with scientific
advancements, that it was not encouraging intellect, that it was
hampering that the reason the Muslims Thrive was because they
found that the Quran was encouraging it, that the Quran was
commending it, that it was even giving them clues as to where they
should look in order to advance in terms of science or the like. And
I think, I think that the greatest victory that is coming out of here
is that the global public shift, the shift in public opinion, is
going to have sweeping consequences on how we talk about
Palestine and Israel when a ceasefire eventually comes, I
promise you those journalists will not write that Israel won, they
will write that Israel lost. They will write that Israel was unable
to defeat this, these ragtag group of Palestinians, that Israel lost
the moral compass, that the West lost its moral authority, and that
would have sweeping ramifications for how new organizations emerge,
for the new thinking about how the political era should look, for new
thinking of how the global order should look like. I think that
this is a turning point for the generations. This is a turning
point in terms of our thinking. This is a turning point in terms
of how we perceive the ummah. And that's why I think that to
conclude, remember, that at the end of the day, we are travelers
in this dunya, Allah will decide the outcome. Allah will say that
we may not see it in our lifetime. Allah may not have written it, but
Allah has guaranteed it. Allah has decided it. The honor for us is
whether we decide to be the vehicles or not, and that's why my
dua is not necessarily that, Allah, please deliver the outcome.
My dua is always, Allah, I know you've decided it. I know you've
decided on your own terms. I know you already have a point. You
already have a time when you're going to bring the outcome. But
Allah, I plead with you, let me be a vehicle for it. I plead with
you. Give me the honor to be part of it. I plead with you. Let me be
associated with it, because it is you who honors me, not I who honor
you. It is Islam that honors me, not me who honors Islam. It is me
who needs you. You don't need me. It's we who need you. You don't
need us. And you've shown that throughout the Quran, and I think
that once you've reconciled that, I think
that what you feel inside you is a fire that starts burning, and you
set that despair aside, and you start seeing the opportunities
that are in front of you. And Inshallah, today, we have a
limited power. Tomorrow, you don't know what kind of power we have
inshallah. And Inshallah, this ummah, appreciates what it's
achieved, appreciates what it's done, appreciates the power it
has, and remembers that our the All glory belongs to Allah,
Subhanahu wa the more we believe that, and the more we take those
steps towards Allah, Allah will amplify our voices, as he's doing
today.
Alhamdulillah,
please remember to subscribe to our social media and YouTube
channels and head over to our website, thinkinmuslim.com to sign
up to my weekly newsletter. JazakAllah khair Abu