Middle East Press On: Genocide, Resistance, Guevara, Gaza, ICJ, Hamas: New Age Islam's Selection, 5 September 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
5 September 2025
A Legend Of Resistance: Who Was The ‘Guevara Of Gaza’?
A Losing Battle: Israel’s Struggle Against Genocide Scholars
How the UN Can Act Decisively to End Genocide in Gaza: Turning ICJ Rulings into Action
What Would Muhammad Do? The Answer They Fear
Ignoring Deal To Bring Back Hostages Would Be Greater Tragedy Than Hamas Surviving
Israel Should Highlight Diversity Over Panic About European Muslims
-------
A Legend Of Resistance: Who Was The ‘Guevara Of Gaza’?
By Robert Inlakesh
September 4, 2025
While the profiles of many historical Palestinian resistance fighters, dating back to Sheikh Izz al-Deen al-Qassam and beyond, are today well known, little has been published on one of the central figures of Gaza’s armed struggle.
A child of the Nakba, born in Haifa on January 8, 1946, Muhammad Mahmoud Musleh al-Aswad was expelled from his home when, at the age of two, displaced to the Shati Refugee Camp, where he would grow up.
The environment in which Muhammad al-Aswad grew up was one of harsh living conditions, coupled with raids and massacres in the Gaza Strip. Perhaps the worst period came in 1956, when Israel invaded the Gaza Strip during their tripartite war of aggression against Egypt.
Despite having been forced to stop the war by the United States, in less than two weeks, Israel had set up a military administration that oversaw a four-month-long occupation of Gaza, until March 8, 1957.
After this, the Egyptians maintained control over the coastal territory and would greatly influence the course of the Palestinian struggle, including the course of Muhammad al-Aswad’s journey towards joining the resistance.
In 1959, when al-Aswad was only 13 years old, Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara paid a visit to the Gaza Strip at the request of Egyptian President Gamal Abdul-Nasser. During his visit to al-Bureij Refugee Camp, Che Guevara was recorded as having told one of the Camp’s leaders, Mustafa Abu Midyan, the following:
These early years would help cultivate an entire generation of resistance fighters and their ideology. Al-Aswad was not absent from these influences and had joined the Arab Nationalist Movement (ANM) in 1963, where he excelled at organising demonstrations against the occupiers.
He had even traveled to Egypt to pursue his studies, but ultimately returned to Gaza after a year, due to his family’s inability to support him financially, deciding instead to find work and dedicate himself to the revolutionary struggle.
Led by Palestinian resistance leader George Habbash, the ANM was aligned with Egypt’s Abdel Nasser, as a result it became extremely influential in Gaza.
However, in 1967, when Israel launched Operation Focus, a surprise attack against Egypt that initiated the ‘June War’, the defeat of the Arab Nations, popularly referred to as al-Naksa (the setback), resulted in the total occupation of the Gaza Strip.
Up until 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s brand of Arab Socialist Nationalism, known as Nasserism, had been the most prominent ideology driving the resistance against Israel. Yet, his defeat spelled an end to this era of resistance ideology, including the Arab Nationalist Movement that broke up.
In its place, the ANM’s Secretary General George Habbash, would go on to create the Marxist resistance movement called the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
In Gaza, the PFLP would quickly become the most prominent resistance group that led the majority of the armed attacks against Israel’s occupying forces. Key to this resistance was Muhammad al-Aswad, who would eventually earn the title Guevara Gaza.
Al-Aswad helped in the formation of the first PFLP resistance cadres, calling themselves the Vanguards of the Popular Resistance. The very first armed operation was an assault on the Saraya Prison, operated by the Israeli occupation forces and nicknamed “the slaughter house” by locals, using two hand grenades and was ordered by the Guevara of Gaza.
Muhammad al-Aswad was not only the mastermind of countless attacks against Israeli occupation soldiers, between the 1960s and 70s, but also an educator. He was a central figure in helping to spread the revolutionary message of the PFLP throughout Gaza, ensuring that the people became familiar with the likes of George Habbash, Abu Ali Mustafa and Ghassan Kanafani’s works and ideology. While the Fatah Party was also active in Gaza, the PFLP was the most effective armed resistance organisation in the territory.
Al-Aswad led the PFLP’s armed struggle in the Gaza Strip, while his counterpart Abu Ali Mustafa would lead the West Bank’s resistance. He even participated in an ambush on an Israeli military vehicle in the Shati Refugee Camp area, during which he successfully threw two grenades at his target and inflicted casualties.
This event and other street battles that were carried out under his orders led to a mass arrest campaign, where al-Aswad and around 100 others were all kidnapped by the occupying forces. Although he served two years under Israeli detention, his true role in the attacks coordinated against the occupying regime’s soldiers was not uncovered.
While under detention, he had also participated in the first-ever coordinated hunger strike by the Palestinian political prisoners.
In July of 1970, al-Aswad was released from Israeli detention and immediately returned to his work in preparing resistance fighters to launch attacks against the occupiers. These near-daily street battles, which would take place during the nighttime hours under the cloak of the dark, led former Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan to declare that “We run Gaza by day, and Guevara and his comrades run it at night.”
These military operations had exploded in the early 70s, largely due to the efforts of Muhammad al-Aswad and his comrades. One of the most effective attacks on Israeli soldiers occurred in the Umm al-Limon area of al-Zeitoun neighbourhood, when the PFLP fighters managed to procure RPGs for the first time.
The fighters, under the command of Guevara Gaza, lured a convoy towards a kill position, opening fire on their vehicles and killing an intelligence officer, along with a number of soldiers.
Eventually, the Israelis had managed to receive intelligence through an operative who infiltrated the PFLP and identified the mysterious Guevara of Gaza. He was then tracked to the home of Dr Rashad Mismar. Originally, the Israeli army was unable to find al-Aswad and so brought in an engineering unit in order to take measurements of the house and ultimately detonated the entire building.
The Guevara of Gaza, along with his two comrades Kamel al-Amsi and Abdul Hadi al-Haik, refused to give themselves up when besieged, deciding instead that a fight to the death was a more favourable fate.
Across the Gaza Strip, Muhammad al-Aswad would become a legend and stories about his life were spread through word of mouth to all corners of the occupied coastal territory.
In fact, following the decline in popularity for the PFLP and Fatah movements in Gaza, the next generation of Islamic resistance movements would draw great inspiration from this central figure to the armed struggle. PFLP fighters in Gaza would visit his grave to pay their respects for generations to come.
Unknown to many outside of Gaza and the Israelis who hunted him, the model of Muhammad al-Aswad served as a major inspiration for generations of resistance fighters and helped shape the course of the Palestinian armed struggle.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-legend-of-resistance-who-was-the-guevara-of-gaza-profile/
-------
A Losing Battle: Israel’s Struggle Against Genocide Scholars
by Dr Mustafa Fetouri
September 4, 2025
The resolution, on 31 August, passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide has comes at the time when the occupation state is further isolated on the world stage with legal proceedings already in process before the two international courts: the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In a way the resolution confirms the fact that genocide is in progress and the question now is what the world is doing about it—not much apparently.
The top world scholarly body on genocide voted with 86 per cent to support the resolution which says that that Israeli’s policies and actions “in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in article II of the United Nations convention for the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (1948).” Calling on the occupation state to immediately “cease all acts that constitute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza,” including the “deliberate attacks against and killing of civilians including children; starvation; deprivation of humanitarian aid, water, fuel, and other items essential to the survival of the population; sexual and reproductive violence; and forced displacement of the population.”
Indeed, the IAGS has no way to reinforce its decisions but the fact that it is the top world academic body on genocide is quite important in the world of academia and beyond. IAGS’ damming verdict is another strong sing that the occupation state has crossed all red lines and committed all sorts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by repeatedly breaching the international humanitarian laws.
IAGS is a top world academic body on the issue of genocide and coming out in such strong and clear way against the Israeli occupation has significant implications for Israel both political and academically. Despite the fact that the organisation is not a legal body nor is it being part of the United Nations, its opinion usually resonant with relevant international organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Both organisations and Israel’s own B’Tselem, have reached the same verdict and have been referenced in IAGS’ resolution.
For Israel, the resolution further isolates it on the world stage and intensifies the already substantial pressure from the international community. While Israel has rejected the IAGS’s determination, calling it “an embarrassment to the legal profession,” the resolution adds a powerful academic voice to the chorus of organisations and countries that have already accused the occupation state of similar atrocities. This new development could further erode Israel’s global reputation and diplomatic standing. The IAGS’s finding could also be used to bolster existing legal cases against Israel, such as the one at the ICJ, and potentially encourage more nations to take action against the country. It also lends another credible voice to the ICC warrant calling for the arrest of both prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant issued last November.
For Palestinians in Gaza, the IAGS resolution serves as a form of validation and a powerful advocacy tool. The resolution echoes the sentiments of many Palestinians and their supporters who have been calling Israel’s actions genocide since the early days of the war. This declaration, from a group of leading academic experts on the subject of genocide, could help mobilise international public opinion and spur greater global action. It provides a formal, scholarly basis for their claims, which may lead to more diplomatic pressure on governments to cease arms sales to Israel and to support a more robust response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The resolution specifically calls on Israel to cease all acts that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including the deliberate attacks on civilians and infrastructure, starvation, and forced displacement and engineered famine. It also urges compliance with orders from the ICJ and arrest warrants from the ICC, giving Palestinians a stronger basis to demand accountability for the violence and suffering they have endured.
It is also important to point out that here are multiple legal cases against individual Israeli military commanders and soldiers, including foreign mercenaries fight in Gaza, before the ICC or still under processing to be submitted to the court. Now with IAGS’ decision such cases do gain further weight.
The IAGS resolution is unlikely to change anything on the ground as Israeli has not only rejected it describing it as “based on lies” but its timing is crucial. Countries like France and many others and potentially the United Kingdom are planning to recognise the Palestinian State in just couple of weeks in a UN hosted conference starting on 22 September. Decision makers and diplomats of such countries now have the definitive scholarly opinion to further make their point on the world stage.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250904-a-losing-battle-israels-struggle-against-genocide-scholars/
-------
How the UN Can Act Decisively to End Genocide in Gaza: Turning ICJ Rulings into Action
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies
September 4, 2025
One year ago, the UN General Assembly demanded that Israel end its occupation of the Palestinian Territories within twelve months.
The General Assembly voted, by 124 votes to 14, with 43 abstentions, for a strong resolution that not only “demanded” an end to the occupation within a year, but called on all countries to refrain from trade involving Israeli settlements and from transfers of weapons “where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
The General Assembly was meeting on September 18th, 2024, in an Emergency Special Session, invoking the “Uniting For Peace” principle to act where the UN Security Council has failed to do so.
The General Assembly had asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule on the legality of the Israeli occupation and the legal consequences arising from it. The new resolution was triggered by the court’s ruling, on July 19, 2024, that the Israeli occupation is unlawful and must end “as rapidly as possible.”
A year later, Israel has failed to comply with any of the demands of the 124 states. On the contrary, it has escalated its genocide in Gaza by cutting off nearly all food, medicine and humanitarian assistance, launching relentless bombardments, expanding ground incursions, and displacing virtually the entire population. All over the world, people are calling on leaders and politicians to do whatever it takes to put a stop to this holocaust before it goes any further.
As world leaders gather again in New York for another UN General Assembly beginning on September 9th, how will they respond to Israel’s ever-escalating genocide and continued occupation and expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem? Grassroots political pressure is building on all of them to turn the strong words in ICJ rulings and UN resolutions into meaningful action to end what the vast majority of the world recognizes as the most flagrant genocide of our time.
Countries have taken individual actions to cut off trade with Israel and cancel weapons contracts.
Turkey announced a total trade boycott on August 29th, and closed its airspace to Israeli planes and its ports to Israeli ships. Twelve members of the Hague Group, formed to challenge Israeli impunity, have formally committed to banning arms transfers and blocking military-related shipments at their ports. Sweden and the Netherlands have urged the EU to adopt sanctions on Israel, including suspending the EU-Israel trade deal.
But most of the 124 countries that voted to demand an end to the occupation have done very little to enforce those demands. If they fail to enforce them now, they will only confirm Israel’s presumption that its corrupt influence on US politics still ensures blanket impunity for systematic war crimes.
In response to this unconscionable state of affairs, Palestine’s UN Representative has formally asked the UN to authorize an international military protection force for Gaza to help with the delivery of humanitarian aid and protect civilians.
So has the largest coalition of Palestinian NGOs, PNGO, as well as pro-Palestine groups and leaders such as Ireland’s President Michael D. Higgins.
There is a growing global movement calling for the UN General Assembly to take up this request in another Emergency Special Session when it meets this month. That would be well within the authority of the General Assembly in a case like this, where the Security Council has been hijacked by the US abuse of its veto power.
Whether or not this initiative for a protective force succeeds, the truth is that the governments of the world already have countless ways to support Palestine—they simply need to muster the political will to act.
Israel is a small country that depends on imports from countries all over the world. It has diversified sources for many essential products, and, although the United States supplies 70 percent of its weapons imports, many other countries also supply weapons and critical parts of its infernal war machine.
Israel’s dependence on complicated international supply chains is the weakest link in its presumption that it can thumb its nose at the world and kill with impunity.
If the large majority of countries that have already voted for an end to the occupation are ready to back their words and their votes with coordinated action, a UN-led trade boycott, divestment campaign and arms embargo can put enormous pressure on Israel to end its genocide and starvation of Gaza, and its occupation of Palestine.
With full participation by enough countries, Israel’s position could quickly become unsustainable.
Two years into a genocide, it is shameful that the world’s governments haven’t already done this, and that their people have to plead, protest and push them into action through a dense fog of spin and propaganda, while leaders mouth the right words yet keep doing the wrong things.
Many people compare the problem the world faces in Israel to the crisis over apartheid South Africa.
The similarity lies not only in their racism, but also in the western countries’ shameful complicity in their human rights abuses and lack of concern for the lives of their victims.
It is surely no coincidence that the United States, with its own history of genocide, slavery and apartheid, acted as the main diplomatic supporter and military supplier of apartheid South Africa, and now of Israel.
But it took over 30 years, from the first UN arms embargo and oil sanctions in 1963 to the final lifting of UN sanctions in 1994, before UN action helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa.
It was not until 1977 that the UN even made its arms embargo binding on all members.
In the case of Israel and Palestine, the world cannot wait 30 years for its actions to have an impact. What will be left to salvage of Palestine if the UN can only counter Israel’s genocide and America’s bombs with endless court rulings, resolutions and declarations, but no decisive action?
One initiative that will be debated and voted on in the General Assembly is the one advanced by France and Saudi Arabia.
In July, they hosted a high-level UN conference on the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two State Solution.” But its agenda is weak, and it avoids any strong action to pressure Israel to end the genocide or the occupation.
The first steps the declaration calls for are a ceasefire in Gaza, the restoration of the Palestinian Authority’s control of Gaza, and then the deployment of an international military “stabilization” force. But Israel has already rejected the first two steps, and critics warn that a stabilization force would mean foreign troops deployed in Gaza, not to protect Palestinians from Israeli bombs and bulldozers, but to police them, contain resistance, and reinforce Israeli demands.
Moreover, the declaration contains no enforcement mechanism. Instead, it offers only carrots—promises of recognition, trade, and arms deals—while Israel pays no price for continuing its crimes.
And while the declaration could pave the way for more Western countries to join the 147 countries that already recognize Palestine as an independent state, without concrete pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza and end the occupation, such recognition risks being symbolic at best—and, at worst, may embolden Israel to accelerate its campaign of mass killing, settlement expansion, and annexation before the world can act.
What is urgently needed is for the General Assembly to hold an Emergency Special Session to vote on a UN protection force, as well as a UN-led arms embargo, trade boycott and divestment from Israel, conditioned on ending the genocide in Gaza and the post-1967 occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The arms embargo and economic measures against Israel should be binding on all UN members, with the full support of the UN secretariat, which can provide staff to organize and supervise them, in coordination with UN members.
China, the largest supplier of Israeli imports, and Turkey, which was the third largest before it cut off trade with Israel, should both be ready to take leadership roles in a UN boycott and arms embargo.
The European Union collectively does even more trade with Israel than China, and has failed to unite against the genocide, but strong UN leadership could help Europe to overcome its divisions and join the campaign.
As for the United States, its role in this crisis, under Biden and now under Trump, is to encourage Israel’s crimes, provide unlimited weapons, veto every Security Council resolution, and oppose every international attempt to end the slaughter.
Even as majorities of ordinary Americans now side with the Palestinians and oppose US military support for Israel, the oligarchy that rules America is as guilty of genocide as Israel itself.
As the world comes together to confront Israel’s crimes, it will also have to confront the reality that Israel is not acting alone, but in partnership with the United States of America.
Aggressors and bullies get their way by dividing their enemies and picking them off one at a time, as the world has seen the European colonial powers and now the United States do for centuries. What every aggressor or bully fears most is united opposition and resistance.
Israel and the US currently apply huge political pressure against countries and institutions that take action to boycott, sanction or divest from Israel, as Norway has by its decision to divest its sovereign wealth fund from Caterpillar for supplying bulldozers to demolish homes in Palestine.
In a world that is truly united to end Israel’s genocide, threats of US and Israeli retaliation would isolate the United States and Israel more than those they target.
Recent UN General Assemblies have heard many speeches lamenting the UN’s failure to fulfill its most vital purpose, to ensure peace and security for all, and how the veto power of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council prevents the UN from tackling the world’s most serious problems.
If, at this year’s UN General Assembly, the world can come together to confront the holocaust of our time in Gaza, this could mark the birth of a reenergized and newly united UN—one finally capable of fulfilling its intended role in building a peaceful, sustainable, multipolar world.
Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, with a new edition recently published by OR Books.
Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/how-the-un-can-act-decisively-to-end-genocide-in-gaza-turning-icj-rulings-into-action/
-------
What Would Muhammad Do? The Answer They Fear
By Junaid S. Ahmad
September 5, 2025
It was once the darling slogan of liberal Muslims in the West, their talisman against suspicion, their get-out-of-Guantánamo-free card. In the shadow of 9/11, when Muslims were being strip-searched at airports, interrogated at borders, and rounded up in their neighbourhoods, Western Muslim leaders found themselves endlessly parroting this question.
It was their shield, their mantra, their desperate attempt to prove to the “civilized” world that they were not, in fact, bloodthirsty savages. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), they said, was compassionate, tolerant, patient, merciful, endlessly forgiving—more yoga instructor than warrior, more monk than statesman. And so, every Friday sermon, interfaith dinner, and panel discussion circled back to the same soothing line: “What would Muhammad do?”
But how curious the silence today. Gaza burns, Palestinians are starved and slaughtered in numbers that recall the darkest chapters of the twentieth century, and the “good” Muslims—the liberal Muslims, the moderates, the tireless ambassadors of interfaith kumbaya—suddenly forget their favourite question. Nobody wants to ask what Muhammad would do in the face of genocide. Why not? Because the answer is too obvious and too uncomfortable.
The Post-9/11 Muhammad: A Pacifist Mascot
Let us recall the context. After 9/11, Muslim leaders in the West scrambled to perform what might be called the ‘Great Pacification of the Prophet.’ No longer the man who organized armies, brokered treaties, defended his community, and met aggression with force—Muhammad was rebranded as a pacifist saint. His patience in the face of insults was exalted. His forgiveness of enemies was endlessly quoted. His emphasis on inner struggle (jihad al-nafs) was turned into the *only* jihad worth mentioning.
The goal was transparent: to convince a deeply suspicious Western public that Muslims were not ticking time bombs. “See?” these Muslims pleaded. “Our Prophet is just like your Jesus—peaceful, forgiving, nonviolent.” The “What would Muhammad do?” question became their version of “What would Jesus do?”—a saccharine slogan perfectly fitted for bumper stickers and youth group T-shirts.
It was not entirely disingenuous. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did indeed show patience, did indeed forgive, did indeed emphasize inner reform. But the narrative was highly selective. It was also deeply political. In the ‘War on Terror’ climate, Muslims were under enormous pressure to prove their loyalty, to sanitize their religion, and to present Islam as a benign spiritual hobby rather than a political force.
The Vanishing Question
Fast forward two decades. The bombs fall on Gaza. Hospitals, schools, and refugee camps are obliterated. A population penned in like cattle is starved, denied water, denied medicine. The word “genocide” is whispered at first, then shouted openly. Muslims across the world watch in horror, rage, and despair.
And yet, those same liberal Muslims who once found their tongues so nimble with the phrase “What would Muhammad do?” now fall mute. Where are the interfaith panels, the carefully rehearsed sermons, the op-eds in The Guardian? Where are the hashtags and the bumper stickers?
The silence is not accidental. The silence is strategic. Because everyone knows what Muhammad would do in the face of genocide. And it does not fit the pacifist rebranding.
The Uncomfortable Answer
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), faced with the annihilation of his people, did not advise patience and Twitter activism. He did not retreat to his prayer mat and wait for celestial justice. He organized. He defended. He made it an obligation for his followers to resist. The Qur’an itself makes the duty explicit: “What is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of God and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town of oppressors!’” (Qur’an 4:75).
This is not an obscure or fringe interpretation. It is the mainstream of Islamic tradition: defensive jihad is mandatory when a community faces extermination. For Muhammad, the defense of the vulnerable was not optional, not metaphorical, and certainly not reducible to therapy-speak about “resisting your lower self.” It was concrete. It was armed. It was non-negotiable.
So if one were to ask, honestly, “What would Muhammad do?” in the face of Gaza, the answer would be devastatingly clear: he would organize a protection force, and he would make defense a duty. He would not wring his hands about “messaging” or fret about what white liberals might think. He would not outsource morality to the State Department. He would stand between the slaughterer and the slaughtered.
And that is precisely why the question is not being asked.
The Liberal Muslim Dilemma
Here lies the dilemma of the “good” Muslim in the West. For two decades, they have invested heavily in the pacifist Muhammad narrative. They have reassured their governments, their colleagues, and their neighbors that Islam is peace, that jihad is just a personal detox retreat, and that the Prophet was basically a life coach with a beard.
To now say, “Actually, Muhammad would call for armed defense of Palestinians” is to risk unravelling two decades of carefully curated branding. It risks losing the approval of the very Western societies they have bent over backwards to placate. It risks being lumped in with the “bad” Muslims—the militants, the radicals, the ones forever marked as barbarian.
And so, better to stay silent. Better to issue vague platitudes about peace, condemn “violence on both sides,” and retreat into the comfort of interfaith dinners. Better to mock or sideline those “useful idiot” imams who dare to speak the uncomfortable truth. Better to remain respectable, even as Gaza burns.
The Politics of Selective Piety
The irony, of course, is glaring. When cartoons of the Prophet appeared in Denmark or France, the “good” Muslims were quick to remind us: Muhammad ignored insults. He forgave his enemies. He never condoned mob violence. And they were right.
But when it comes to genocide? When children are pulled from the rubble, when families are obliterated in their homes, when a besieged people cry out for help—suddenly, the Prophet is nowhere to be found. Suddenly, the selective piety that once filled conferences and press releases evaporates. The Prophet, once paraded as a mascot of moderation, is now locked in the attic, too embarrassing to bring out.
This is not simply cowardice. It is complicity. It is the internalization of Western hegemony so deep that one’s own religious tradition must be amputated to fit the demands of respectability. It is to reduce Muhammad to a caricature—first as a saintly pacifist, now as a silence-inducing taboo—rather than grapple with the full complexity of his legacy.
The Real Taboo
Here, then, is the true taboo question: not “What would Muhammad do?” but “Why are liberal Muslims afraid to ask it?”
The answer is not flattering. They are afraid because they know the truth: Muhammad would not sit idly by in the face of genocide. He would act. He would fight. He would obligate his followers to defend the oppressed.
And that answer does not play well at interfaith luncheons. It does not reassure security agencies. It does not flatter the liberal order. So the question is buried. The Prophet, once deployed as a prop for Western acceptance, is now silenced by those same Muslims who once could not stop invoking him.
Conclusion: The Prophet They Dare Not Name
“What would Muhammad do?” was never really about Muhammad. It was about politics. After 9/11, it was about survival: Muslims needed to prove they were safe, and so they fashioned a Prophet who was permanently nonviolent. Today, in Gaza, the same question would expose a truth too dangerous for “good” Muslims to utter: that their Prophet was not only merciful but militant when justice demanded it.
And so the silence speaks volumes. The “good” Muslims have trapped themselves in their own narrative. They are so invested in the pacifist Prophet that they cannot now call upon the real one. They have chosen approval over integrity, respectability over responsibility.
But history is merciless. When future generations ask, “What did you do during the genocide in Gaza?” the “good” Muslims will not be able to say, “We asked what Muhammad would do.” They did not dare. And perhaps that silence will be remembered as their loudest answer.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/what-would-muhammad-do-the-answer-they-fear/
-------
Ignoring Deal To Bring Back Hostages Would Be Greater Tragedy Than Hamas Surviving
By Jpost Editorial
September 5, 2025
It feels like déjà vu.
With the IDF offensive in Gaza aimed at defeating Hamas once and for all ramping up for nearly a month, the terror group that launched the October 7 massacre and caused the decimation of the coastal enclave has repeated its offer, made many times since the nearly two-year war began.
In a statement issued on Wednesday night, Hamas proposed a deal that would involve releasing all of the hostages, living and dead, who are being held in Gaza, in exchange for ending the war and the withdrawal of IDF forces.
The proposal also included the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons, opening the border crossings to allow massive aid, and the beginning of a reconstruction process. Hamas also agreed on a “national administration” to take over the management of Gaza.
The proposal was made, coincidentally or not, following US President Donald Trump’s post calling for Hamas to “IMMEDIATELY give back all 20 hostages! Not 2 or 5 or 7!”
The impetus for the Hamas declaration was more likely connected to the pressure exerted by the IDF’s actions in Gaza City, the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza.
There has been a massive call-up of reservists, and Hamas sees that a ground operation, which is planned for the coming days, will be devastating for its survival.
The scare tactics have worked, and Hamas is afraid. Although most ministers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet are bullish on his intent to push forward and implement the full Gaza City takeover, entailing evacuating some million residents, now is the time to take stock and reassess the situation.
Israel’s conditions for ending the war are different to those of Hamas. They entail the dismantling of Hamas’ military and political capabilities; the immediate release of all the hostages; the demilitarization of Gaza; Israel having “overriding security control” in Gaza for the “foreseeable future”; and the imposition of a civil authority in Gaza, which excludes Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
Defense Minister Israel Katz dismissed Hamas’s proposal out of hand, calling it “empty words.”
“Hamas continues to deceive… but it will soon understand that it must choose between two options,” Katz said. “Accepting Israel’s conditions to end the war: first and foremost, the release of all hostages and disarmament, or Gaza City will become like Rafah and Beit Hanun. The IDF is fully prepared.”
Changes of freeing all hostages through military means very slim
There is no long-range game plan for the “day after” Hamas in Gaza, and the chances of freeing all of the hostages in a painstaking military campaign are slim, despite the assurances of the prime minister.
His aims of defeating Hamas and rescuing the hostages are unfortunately almost mutually exclusive.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that the only way to bring the hostages home alive is through a diplomatic deal, not through a military conquest.
We agree with Katz that Hamas cannot be trusted, but if there’s a chance to retrieve hostages – either through a partial deal that Hamas has agreed to (10 hostages for a 60-day ceasefire) or the new/old proposal issued Wednesday, it would be remiss of Israel to dismiss it without discussion involving both the political and military leadership.
It would be a tragedy for Hamas to survive and retain control of Gaza. It would leave Israel at risk of attack and another October 7 in the not-too-distant future. However, it would be a greater tragedy to ignore the possibility of a deal that would bring home the country’s citizens, who have been living (barely) in unspeakable conditions for nearly 700 days.
Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We’ve achieved massive success in Gaza in weakening Hamas, but the final blow can only come with a horrible price for the hostages’ lives. We must choose the option that provides hope for their return and reserves the option to ultimately finish off Hamas at the time and in the setting of our choice.
As much effort, energy, and resources as we plan to devote to taking over Gaza City, must also be exerted to secure a diplomatic deal.
Return high-level delegations to Qatar or Egypt and stay there until the white smoke rises.
The Hamas offer to end the war may be the same as it was last year. But for Israel, it’s different. The hostages have been in captivity that much longer, and their lives, always precarious, are on the line. All doors must be left open before they’re shut for good.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-866418
------
Israel Should Highlight Diversity Over Panic About European Muslims
By Daniel Goldman
September 4, 2025
In the Digital Age, misinformation travels faster than fact-checkers can work. Israel and the Jews know this well from very personal experience. X/Twitter, TikTok, and other social media networks have spawned an entire universe of anti-Semitic and toxic conspiratorial content that spreads like wildfire.
This reality manifests across many domains, including the viral spread of demographic data about European Muslims used to paint a dire picture of civilizational collapse and radical Islamic takeover.
Imagine my surprise upon seeing two recent incidents involving Israeli figures sharing unverified data and unsourced graphics to amplify anti-Islamic narratives that have migrated from Europe’s far Right fringe into mainstream Israeli discourse.
Naftali Bennett
The first incident involved former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett sharing an unaccredited graphic claiming to show the percentage of Muslim children in primary schools in major European capital cities.
Bennett’s post cited a lengthy list of sources, including the key researcher who could not be located and studies that bore little resemblance to his inflammatory conclusions. Most tellingly, a major Pew Research report he referenced, a highly credible source on European Muslim demographics, contained none of the data specific to the dark threat that he highlighted. The gap between source material and sensationalist interpretation reveals a deliberate or negligent pattern of distortion.
The second incident saw Israel’s official Arabic-language social media account share an old graphic purporting to show the number of mosques across European countries. The image, which dates at least as far back as 2016, carries no attribution or source, and was accompanied by inflammatory text describing mosques as representing “the true face of colonialism” and calling them a “fifth column” that Europe must “remove.”
Remarkably, that text was lifted verbatim from an anonymous X account that had posted the identical graphic earlier that same day. Israel’s official government account was literally copy-pasting incendiary content from an anonymous social media user whose entire feed was full of anti-Islamic content. What possible policy goal could justify this approach?
For a country that suffers so much at the hands of toxic and slanderous social media content, it would seem an odd and worrying tactic to use.
Islamophobic currents
The graphic claimed the UK has 1,825 mosques [a 2025 report by the UK’s Religion Media Centre notes 1,884 mosques and prayer halls based on registered charities, and the Muslims in Britain database lists 1,850.] Of course the number of mosques cannot justify the jump to describing the entire Muslim population as a fifth column or a threat to civilization.
Would British Jews feel comfortable if a foreign government’s official social media account began circulating graphics about synagogue numbers while warning of Jewish demographic threats? The answer should be obvious.
These incidents don’t exist in a vacuum. They align perfectly with Islamophobic currents that have gained mainstream legitimacy in European politics. The migration of these ideas from extremist forums to parliamentary debates and newspaper columns represents one of the most concerning political developments of recent years. In the UK, as in other Western European countries, it is upending traditional political alignments.
The broader European debate about immigration and integration is legitimate and critical.
Citizens have every right to discuss the challenges of managing migration flows, ensuring successful integration, and addressing security concerns.
There are indeed mosques in Europe that foster extremist ideologies, and combating radical Islam remains a genuine priority. But these real issues become distorted beyond recognition when filtered through the lens of demographic panic and civilizational fear-mongering.
The distinction matters
The distinction matters. Addressing specific problems, such as radical preaching, integration failures, or security threats, requires targeted, evidence-based responses. Promoting generalized fear about Muslim demographic growth treats an entire religious community as an inherent threat, regardless of its members actual beliefs or behaviors. It incites hatred and is incendiary.
Violent and other racist attacks against Muslims are on the rise in Europe.
The Israeli government is rightly focused on the steep rise in antisemitism since the October 7 attacks, but has missed that there is a parallel rise in hate crimes against Muslims in Europe over the same period.
For those who study racism, this should not come as a surprise, and should drive Jewish, Israeli, and Muslim community leaders to tackle racial hatred together, rather than allow those on both sides to use the politics of religion and demographics to increase the tensions.
Why would Bennett, as well as the government’s Arabic-language social media account, choose to amplify European Islamophobia using questionable data or incendiary language? A possible clue was given by Amit Segal of Channel 12 on a podcast with Dan Senor, in which he explained that the lack of concern over Israel’s diplomatic crisis with Europe will be solved when the populist Right gains power.
If the calculation is that Israel’s security somehow depends on European far Right parties gaining power through anti-Muslim sentiment, this represents a profoundly misguided strategy that threatens to undermine Jewish communities’ own security and values.
Using this type of misinformation, it is hard to see how Bennett offers an alternative, all the more surprising given that he was prime minister in the first Israeli government that included an Arab party – Israel’s own Islamic party.
Success story
Rather than trafficking in demographic panic about European Muslims, Israeli leaders like Bennett could instead highlight one of their country’s genuine success stories: the integration of Israel’s Arab citizens, who comprise over 20% of the state’s population and serve as judges, doctors, engineers, and members of parliament.
That is a compelling narrative of coexistence and integration that could inspire rather than inflame, yet it is abandoned here in favor of spreading alarm with unverified graphics and manipulated statistics. At a time when multiculturalism is coming under increased pressure in Europe, Israel’s domestic story stands out like a beacon.
In the current fractious political environment, we need leadership that distinguishes between legitimate security or societal concerns and demographic fear-mongering.
Israeli politicians have a choice: Amplify the success story of their own diverse democracy, or continue sharing anonymous anti-Muslim content from the dark corners of social media. For Jews and Israelis, the choice should be obvious.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-866214
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/genocide-resistance-guevara-gaza-icj-hamas/d/136725
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism