RSS
Turkey Will Stay Anti-Israel and Anti-US — Unless It’s Forced to Pay for Its Actions
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (C) alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (L) and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, July 26, 2023. Photo: Reuters/Palestinian Presidents’ Office
In the first days of the war that broke out following the October 7 massacre conducted by Hamas, Turkey employed a relatively balanced discourse about it. But after the bombing of Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza on October 17, Ankara hardened its stance and bluntly condemned Israel. This change in Erdoğan’s rhetoric reflects a long pattern of anti-Israel sentiment. Erdogan’s support for Hamas in the wake of the massacre pulls Turkey, a NATO member, further away from the West. As long as Turkey pays no price for its anti-Israeli rhetoric, it will continue, and the resulting distance between Turkey and the West could have serious consequences.
After the events of October 7, Turkey remained silent. It issued no condemnation of Hamas for the massacre and did not express any sympathy for Israel’s grief and shock. Following the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza on October 17, Turkey finally spoke out on the war by issuing a condemnation of the State of Israel.
Turkey’s support for Hamas is not new. The connection between Turkey and Hamas has long been a stumbling block on the path to normalization with Israel, and it became highly visible with the Mavi Marmara flotilla clash in 2010.
In 2011, Ankara issued a direct invitation to Hamas to establish a presence in Turkey, which it immediately did. Ever since, Turkey has served as a safe haven for Hamas senior leadership. Experts label Turkey the second-largest Hamas center after Gaza — a striking fact, as Turkey is a member of NATO.
Turkey is the only NATO country to maintain such close ties to a terrorist organization. The Hamas office in Turkey is well-armed, able to launder money through Turkish financial institutions, and equipped to facilitate the entrance of terrorists into Israeli territory.
In 2015, Cihat Yağmur, a Hamas operative involved in the kidnapping of IDF soldier Nachshon Wachsman, became the Hamas representative in Turkey. Among other responsibilities, Yağmur oversees terror units in Judea and Samaria and maintains connections with the Turkish government and its intelligence services.
In an interview with the Islamist newspaper Yakit in 2018, Yağmur said that unlike other Muslim leaders and most Muslim-majority countries, Erdogan genuinely loves Jerusalem, as is evident in Turkey’s substantial investments in charities and material and moral support for Jerusalem. According to Yağmur, Erdogan is the only leader who truly cares about the Al-Aqsa Mosque and understands what needs to be done.
Erdogan does not attempt to conceal his support of Hamas ,and holds public meetings with senior Hamas leaders. In July 2023, he hosted the head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh. In 2020, Ankara granted Turkish citizenship to Haniyeh and 12 other Hamas activists. Haniyeh’s deputy, Saleh al-Arouri, who is referred to as the commander of Hamas West Bank, is a US-designated terrorist with a bounty of $5 million on his head. Al-Arouri celebrated the massacre on October 7 on social media and is believed to be one of the chief planners of the attacks. He holds a Turkish passport, which grants him freedom of movement worldwide.
In 2012, Zahir Jabarin, Hamas’ financial chief, reported that more than 1,000 Palestinian terrorists who were released as part of the Gilad Shalit deal with Israel in 2011 were managed and funded for terrorist activities in Israel from his office in Istanbul. Jabarin serves the Hamas network by establishing businesses, obtaining permits, and acquiring commercial real estate in Turkey.
The Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a Turkish non-governmental organization with close ties to the Turkish government, has been transferring cash payments to its Gaza branch since 2010. Hamas uses these payments to fund terrorism. In July 2023, Israeli authorities seized 16 tons of explosive material originating from Turkey and destined for Gaza, likely intended for Hamas rockets.
Erdogan’s political views align with the ideology of Hamas, and in 2017, he even quoted a Hamas leader calling for the destruction of Israel. Erdogan frequently compares Israel to Nazi Germany. After October 7, he referred to Hamas as a “resistance group fighting to defend its lands.” In his view, Hamas represents the essence of the Palestinian liberation movement, and for that reason he refused to condemn Hamas after October 7. Similarly to his response at the time of the Mavi Marmara incident, he threatened that Turkey could “come unexpectedly any night.” It is worth noting that a year ago, he made similar threats to send missiles to Athens. Erdogan often expresses his political positions via threat, and his words should not be dismissed lightly.
Turkey has raised the issue of Israel’s nuclear capability and suggested that Israel, as well as other countries, should be disarmed of nuclear weapons. Erdogan also told UN Secretary-General António Guterres that “Israel must be prosecuted in international courts for the war crimes it commits in the Gaza Strip” and later claimed that Israel is carrying out “the most heinous attacks in human history.” He reiterated his anti-Western rhetoric, which aligns well with Hamas’ values. In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen instructed Israeli diplomats to leave Turkey “to reassess the relations between Israel and Turkey.”
In a conversation with Al Jazeera, Turkish Foreign Minister Akın Pekcan said Hamas operates as a political party within the Palestinian state system and is a product of occupation. “We are a country that recognizes the State of Palestine, and along with us, close to 140 countries also recognize it,” he said. “Therefore, we do not classify factors operating within any country as terrorists or non-terrorists.” When asked if Turkey would lead an economic, diplomatic, and military embargo of Israel similar to the one the US imposed on Russia during the Ukraine war, Pekcan said there are no obstacles to such an initiative and added that the issue is on Turkey’s agenda.
Whether Turkey decides to halt trade with Israel or not, expectations published on October 9, 2023, in The Marker indicate that even accounting for the consistent increase in the volume of bilateral trade between the countries, there remains enormous untapped potential for business cooperation between the two states. It is speculated that one million Israeli tourists will visit Turkey in 2023-24. Israelis have a short memory, and despite the tourist boycott and suspension of purchases at Turkish online sites, it is expected that trade will fully resume after tensions ease between the countries.
Considering Turkey’s pressing economic challenges, Erdogan will find it difficult to unilaterally sever ties with Israel, though he is likely to display a tougher stance towards Israel to divert attention from those challenges. However, a massacre on the scale of what occurred on October 7, an atrocity of a severity that Israel had never before experienced throughout its existence as a state, makes it hard to believe that trade with Turkey will return to what it once was. The fact that Erdogan held a major rally in support of Hamas on October 28, 2023, the day before the centennial of the birth of modern Turkey, did not go unnoticed in Israel. Supporting Hamas on that day in particular painted a picture of Turkey’s future — one in which the Turkey of Atatürk and even of Demirel no longer exists.
Today’s Turkey aims to see itself in a hundred years as the Turkey shaped by Erdogan: a country with dictatorial rule and rife with anti-Israel and anti-Western sentiment. Turkey does not cease to blame the West, the United States, and Israel for a wide variety of ills but never points a similar accusing finger at Russia.
The Turkish elite may be uncomfortable with the idea of dictatorship, but it is not bothered in the least by that dictatorship’s anti-Israel position. With that position, the intellectual elite in Turkey reveals its ignorance of the history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to this conflict in particular, the elite has no concerns about press freedom in Turkey. No one wonders why the Turkish media is so one-sided regarding Israel. The Turkish elite’s blind support of Hamas and implacable hatred of the Jews is as unsurprising as Erdogan’s reaction to the October 7 massacre.
Anyone who thought Turkey’s normalization with Israel would succeed, particularly insofar as it works in Turkish interests by turning it towards the West, was mistaken. Turkey opposes Israel and the Jews for the same reasons as Hamas. The hatred is not about time- and place-dependent factors; it’s about a deep-seated antisemitic enmity that tolerates the spilling of Jewish blood inside Turkey by labeling the Jews “internal enemies” and accusing them, rather than their attackers, of being criminals. It was only a matter of time before Erdogan’s rhetoric would exact a cost on the Jewish community in Turkey.
Erdogan is taking quite a few risks by maintaining this position. The partitioning policy that Turkey implemented to protect its interests vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia, which it has operated for many decades, will not work in the Middle East nor vis-à-vis Israel. Turkey’s credibility as a regional mediator is also at stake: as Turkey moves away from the West, it loses credibility in the region. Erdogan has not proposed that Turkey act as a mediating or compromising force in the Hamas-Israel war, and that stance may prevent Turkey from mediating other conflicts.
Israel must not underestimate the degree of Erdogan’s hostility. He has never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a state, and in view of his consistently virulent anti-Israel rhetoric over the years, any such statement would only be made if he were either very secure or very desperate.
It is worth noting that the current tension between Ankara and Jerusalem makes cooperation on the Eastern Mediterranean gas reservoirs an impossibility for Turkey. Erdogan’s willingness to persist in his anti-Israelism against Turkey’s interests suggests that he is not yet paying a sufficient price for his statements and actions in the region.
One of the main reasons for Erdogan’s support for Hamas was his desire to divert the attention of his electorate away from the removal of Turkey’s veto on Sweden’s entry into NATO. Local elections in Turkey are coming up, and Erdogan, who has already lost Ankara and Istanbul in the past, is concerned about a similar loss. Erdogan’s deviation from the West, as expressed in his statements in favor of Palestine, stands in stark contrast to his signature on the protocol for Sweden’s NATO accession and its submission to Parliament for final approval.
Although the Turkish parliamentary subcommittee on foreign affairs has not yet voted on the matter, Erdogan’s move with the protocol seems strategically planned as an olive branch to the West. Erdogan is waiting for the green light from Washington to purchase F-16 fighter jets worth $20 billion. Turkey removed its opposition to Swedish accession to NATO after steps were taken by Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands to influence Turkish opinion.
Turkey’s main objection to Sweden’s NATO entry was its purported status as a haven for Kurds, whom Ankara regards as terrorists. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the EU and the US, where the Kurdish militant group PKK is designated as a terrorist organization, treated PKK fighters the way Turkey treats Hamas fighters.
As long as Turkey pays no price for its anti-Western policy, that policy will continue. During World War II, Turkey managed to remain neutral for most of the war despite its strategic location, which could have influenced the course of the war. That neutrality is unlikely to be sustained in the next world war.
Dr. Efrat Aviv is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a senior lecturer in the Department of General History at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Turkey Will Stay Anti-Israel and Anti-US — Unless It’s Forced to Pay for Its Actions first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why Anti-Israel Flotillas to Gaza Are Illegal Under International Law
A US soldier leaves a cordoned-off area as other troops work on a beached vessel, used for delivering aid to Palestinians via a new US-built pier in Gaza, after it got stuck trying to help another vessel behind it, on the Mediterranean coast in Ashdod, Israel, May 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Forty anti-Israel activists set sail aboard the ship “Al Awda” with the intention of breaching the blockade around Gaza. Just outside Maltese waters last week, two drones of unknown origin targeted the ship’s generators, causing no injuries but leaving the vessel stranded at sea.
Nearby countries are refusing to allow the Al Awda to dock, and spokespeople for the activists, as well as Greta Thunberg, claim the drone attack to be a violation of international law. It is not.
Why is there a blockade around Gaza?
Hamas, the internationally designated terror organization that rules Gaza, uses foreign supplies, including international aid, to carry out a variety of combat operations, including the October 7, 2023, massacre against Israel, and much of the fighting since that time.
In 2010, an “aid ship” called the Mavi Marmara attempted to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza. Upon boarding, Israeli forces discovered large quantities of weapons and other military equipment, intended for use against Israelis by Gaza’s various terror organizations.
The incident had put Israel in an impossible “Catch-22”: either allow the delivery of weapons to terror organizations, or else suffer international condemnation for attacking a vessel that (falsely) claims the moniker “humanitarian.” It is likely that the Al Awda was hoping for a similar “win-win” scenario: to either successfully supply Hamas, or at the very least, to harm Israel diplomatically in the attempt.
Why did Israel freeze aid to Gaza?
On March 2, 2025, Israel temporarily froze the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza (as permitted by Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV) because such aid is typically transferred to enemy combatants instead of civilians.
Specifically, Hamas habitually steals international aid, as well as torturing and killing civilians who attempt to take aid for themselves. This reality has been confirmed by multiple international sources, including the United Nations, and has been caught on camera numerous times. Hamas uses aid materials to raise funds for combat, as well as directly in combat operations, such as fueling rockets or using concrete to build terror tunnels where Israeli hostages remain in captivity.
It is not known whether the Al Awda carried weapons, but based on the example of the Mavi Marmara, this must be considered a real and dangerous possibility for any un-inspected vessel. Even if the Al Awda were not carrying weapons, all materials that enter Gaza could very well end up being used by Hamas either to indirectly fund, or to directly carry out, terror activities.
Is a naval blockade legal?
A naval blockade is governed by the San Remo Manual on armed conflicts at sea and, when made pursuant the San Remo rules, is considered a legal act of war. Legal blockades have been used in numerous conflicts, including around Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II, and today around Russia and Iran.
By the same international rules, attempting to break a legal blockade is an act of combat. Specifically, Article 67 of San Remo states (in relevant part) that, “merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they are believed on reasonable grounds to be…breaching a blockade.”
International law provides a number of mechanisms for legally transferring aid to a blockaded territory, however attempting to break a legal blockade is not one of them.
Being in international waters does not guarantee impunity.
Section 10 of San Remo explicitly states that its rules apply to the “high seas,” which is a legal term often used with respect to international waters.
Therefore, when a ship is en route to a blockaded territory, with the intention of attempting to break the blockade, that ship is already engaged in an act of war under the terms of San Remo.
Anyone who follows naval history knows that battles often take place on the “high seas” and for good reason: if San Remo prohibited countries from striking an invading navy until it reached their shores, then international law would have effectively outlawed self defense. Therefore, even being en route to commit an act of war (such as breaching a legal blockade) opens the invading vessel to legitimate attack.
The crew and passengers of the Al Awda are not civilians.
The Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I defines three categories of persons in a conflict: 1. combatants (Article 43), 2. civilians (Article 50), and 3. any person who has taken part in hostilities but who does not qualify as a legitimate combatant under Article 43 (Article 44).
According to San Remo, activists aboard the Al Awda are taking part in hostilities, and they are therefore “non-civilians,” under international law and are “unlawful combatants” under the laws of numerous countries, including Israel and the United States.
Was the attack on Al Awda legal?
Israel has not taken responsibility for the drone attack on the Al Awda. However, under San Remo and the Geneva Conventions, Israel would be absolutely justified in treating the Al Awda, and all persons aboard, as hostile combatants. Under these circumstances, engaging the Al Awda, including in international waters, would have been absolutely permitted under international law. Merely stranding the vessel is not only permitted, but an enormous act of restraint.
Any shipment of supplies to Gaza, where Hamas controls all such deliveries, places Israeli civilians in direct and significant military danger, even as such shipments fail to help Gaza’s civilians. On the other hand, going after a vessel that claims to be “humanitarian” places Israel in diplomatic danger, even if due only to widespread ignorance of international law.
Therefore, the drone incident on the Al Awda, which took no lives, and cannot be officially traced to any source, combined with the regional refusal to allow the Al Awda safe harbor, has confounded both outcomes. In all likelihood, lives have been directly saved by last week’s events off the Malta coast.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Why Anti-Israel Flotillas to Gaza Are Illegal Under International Law first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
If Mahmoud Abbas Won’t Condemn Oct. 7, the UN Should Not Meet With Him
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 79th United Nations General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York, US, Sept. 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
As Western leaders plan to meet at the UN on June 17 to possibly give Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas recognition of a Palestinian state, Abbas continues to prove how unworthy the PA is of being a state. Abbas and the PA’s continued embrace of Oct. 7, 2023, show that the PA remains a terror-supporting entity, diametrically opposed to the values of the very countries that plan to recognize a Palestinian state.
Abbas has reminded us once again that if the PA were to become a state, it would be a terror state.
Last Sunday, the PA’s official daily published an interview that Abbas gave in August 2024, which included the straightforward question of how Abbas views the Oct. 7 atrocities. It turns out that the brutal murders, rape, torture and kidnappings are not atrocities at all from Abbas’ perspective, but rather Hamas’ attempt to achieve “important goals” which embarrassed Israel and showed its weaknesses.
Abbas defined Oct. 7 by listing the “important goals” that Hamas achieved:
- Hamas “killed 1,200 Israelis, abducted 250 others, and took them as hostages. This attack shook the foundations of the Israeli entity”;
- Hamas “exposed the [false] claims that … [Israel] has an invincible army”;
- Hamas exposed the “glaring failure of this entity’s [i.e., Israel’s] components, especially the army and the various security forces”; and
- The “entity” failed “to discover what Hamas was planning, and failed to block the attack and prevent heavy losses”[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 1, 2025]
However, according to Abbas, there was one problem with Hamas’ achieving these “important goals”: they were not equal to the devastation that Hamas brought on Gaza:
As important as the goals that Hamas attempted to achieve through this attack may have been, they are not comparable to the damages and heavy losses that the Gaza Strip, its residents, and the Palestinian cause have suffered …
Without absolving the hated Israeli occupation of the primary responsibility for the destruction of the Gaza Strip, Hamas provided this occupation [i.e., Israel] with the excuses to do what it did: genocide and war crimes against our people.
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 1, 2025]
The publication of Abbas’ interview lauding Hamas’ accomplishments comes shortly after an interview given by Abbas’ senior advisor, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, who defended the Oct. 7 atrocities as “legitimate resistance,” five times in one interview:
Al-Habbash: “What Hamas carried out on Oct. 7, I start from the assumption that resistance is legitimate. We agreed from the start that the resistance is legitimate, and no one can dispute the legitimacy of the resistance … What happened on Oct. 7 is a legitimate thing, okay? It’s legitimate.” [emphasis added]
Abbas’ interview and his advisor’s recent defense of Oct. 7 must serve as a wake-up call for all Western countries that plan to attend the UN event later this month.
To his people in Arabic, Mahmoud Abbas remains a terror-supporting leader. When he meets world leaders, he continues his years of deception.
Palestinian Media Watch calls on France and Saudi Arabia — the sponsors of the June 17 UN event — to condemn Mahmoud Abbas’ support for Oct. 7, and demand that Abbas retract this statement and publicly condemn the Oct. 7 massacre in Arabic on official PA TV, in the official PA daily, through the official PA news agency WAFA, and in mainstream and popular Arabic media.
If Abbas refuses to condemn the Oct. 7 atrocities, there is no justification for the June 17 UN event, and it should be cancelled.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.
The post If Mahmoud Abbas Won’t Condemn Oct. 7, the UN Should Not Meet With Him first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Unlike the Media, Palestinian Authority Blames Hamas for Death of Civilians in Gaza
Palestinians displaced by the Israeli military offensive, shelter in tents, in Gaza City May 11, 2025. REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas
While the international community is blaming Israel for the tragic civilian deaths in Gaza, Palestinians are correctly blaming Hamas for intentionally using civilians as using human shields. Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah published a short video criticizing Hamas for its responsibility for the deaths of Gazan civilians, because they use them as human shields in the war:
Fatah-run Awdah TV narrator: “From [Hamas leader] Khaled Mashaal, who described the Martyrs of the Gaza Strip as ‘tactical losses,’ to [Hamas official] Musa Abu Marzouq and [Al-Jazeera’s] Sa’id Ziyad, who said ‘We will fight using the flesh of Gaza’s children,‘ there is a clear way in whose name people are being sacrificed with utmost arrogance and denial.
But from the heart of the Gaza Strip voices are rising … Today the Palestinians are demanding that Hamas leave the political scene after it failed to provide the most minimal protection to the civilians and used them as human shields in an endless war.” [emphasis added]
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, May 18, 2025]
A regular columnist of the official Palestinian Authority (PA) daily echoed this criticism two days later, saying Hamas is preoccupied with “child flesh production,” viewing Gazan women merely as “factories for producing babies” so they can be led to “the slaughterhouse” of the war:
Hamas, has demonstrated the discourse of disaster … The first was broadcasted on the [Al-Jazeera] screen of deceit and fraud: ‘We will fight using the flesh of our children,‘ as [Al-Jazeera commentator] Sa’id Ziyad said, and the second: ‘The Martyrs, Allah willing – we will create dozens of times as many in their place,’ as was said… by their [Hamas] Spokesman Dr. Sami Abu Zahri … [emphasis added]
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 20, 2025]
A top Fatah official condemned Hamas, citing several statements from Hamas leaders during the current war that testify to the lack of value of human life for the Hamas terror organization and its evil use of civilians as human shields:
Fatah Spokesman in Europe and Fatah Revolutionary Council member Jamal Nazzal: “[Hamas] considers this as a gain because the value of the Palestinian person … has no consideration or value according to Hamas’ perspective …
[Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri] says that in return for the Martyrs, we will produce several times of them. [Hamas Political Bureau member] Ghazi Hamad said that whether Israel will kill 100,000 or 200,000 [Gazans] we will continue. Or as [Hamas leader] Khaled Mashaal said that these Palestinian losses are “tactical losses.“ …
[Hamas official] Musa Abu Marzouq said we did not establish the [bomb] shelters for the Palestinian people in Gaza, because the Palestinian people in Gaza are under the responsibility of the UN and our [Hamas’] responsibility is our fighters… If we have a white cloth, we won’t use it as a white flag …[emphasis added]
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, May 20, 2025]
Gazans themselves have been speaking out against Hamas, for some time now.
In November 2024, when the Gaza war launched by Hamas had lasted for more than a year, Israeli journalist Ohad Hemo entered the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip and interviewed Gazans about Hamas. This video shows some of their statements (longer excerpt below):
Woman 1: “The situation is difficult, may God take revenge on those who uprooted us and killed us in our homes.”
Channel 12 reporter Ohad Hemo: “Who killed you?”
Woman 1: “Hamas killed us. Hamas wounded me and killed us. Hamas.”
Hemo: “Is Hamas responsible for everything we see here?”
Woman 1: “It’s all Hamas, Hamas.” …
Woman 2: “May God settle accounts with Hamas. May God take revenge on Hamas. They destroyed our lives. We want you [Israelis] to rule here, we do not want Hamas. The entire people hates Hamas.”
Woman 3: “Hamas has ruined our lives. We are a poor people. Hamas has eaten us up. Hamas has taken our [humanitarian] aid, they have taken everything. Hamas’ wicked government. Hamas are terrorists. Exterminate Hamas from the world! We are with you! We are with you! We are with you!” …
[Channel 12 (Israel), Nov. 10, 2024]
For years, Palestinian Media Watch has exposed that Hamas uses Gazan civilians as human shields.
The current Gaza war is just the latest example. In April, the PA complained that Hamas is holding “more than two million Palestinians hostage… as human shields.”
Additional criticism of Hamas was voiced by a group affiliated with Fatah, because it should be the shield for Gazans, but instead turned Gazans into shields for their own protection:
Posted text: “Hamas, which is supposed to be the shield, has become the sword raised over our heads. Instead of defending – it has become oppressive…
The people in the Gaza Strip are not only under external siege, but are also under an internal siege… Whoever speaks out receives a bullet, prison, or disappears… We are not against the resistance, but we are against being used as shields.” [emphasis added]
[“Sons of the Homeland,” Telegram channel, April 24, 2025]
A columnist of the official PA daily stressed that Hamas has endangered “millions of peaceful and innocent civilians”:
[Hamas] has become professional in ways of drawing the religious-Talmudic Zionist monster into the homes of millions of peaceful and innocent civilians in private wars, which are meant to achieve sectoral goals.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 29, 2025]
The author is a senior analyst at Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article was originally published.
The post Unlike the Media, Palestinian Authority Blames Hamas for Death of Civilians in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login