"UN Relief Chief Martin Griffiths told a representative from Sky News on Wednesday that he did not consider Hamas to be a terrorist group.

Asked about the feasibility of Israel’s military goal to eliminate Hamas and disallow the terrorist group from having any governing say in Gaza, Griffiths responded “Hamas is not a terrorist group for us, as you know, it is a political movement. But, I think it is very very difficult to dislodge these groups without a negotiated solution; which includes their aspirations.

“I cannot think of an example offhand of a place where a victory through warfare has succeeded against a well-entrenched group, terrorist or otherwise.”

Speaking of Hamas’s October 7 attack, Griffiths said he had “total understanding” of the “trauma” it had caused Israel but that Israel would need to build a relationship with its neighbors regardless."

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-787084

What Griffiths is doing is justifying October 7.

Standing in solidarity against Hamas and against antisemitism is not a requirement for supporting what Israel is doing in Gaza, and this jackass Griffiths doesn't seem to understand that.

Hamas since it's branch off from the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that assassinated Sadat, has been at the forefront of sabotaging any efforts at peace with Israel, including a two-state solution.

It is a positive step that Mr. Griffiths is a former UN aid chef, because his bias immediately after October 7, in a not so subtle way, "justifying the attack", demonstrated he absolutely had no business as an arbitrator in that conflict.

"Standing in solidarity against Hamas and against antisemitism is not a requirement for supporting what Israel is doing in Gaza, and this jackass Griffiths doesn't seem to understand that."

I must admit I'm having trouble understanding it.

But if you meant one can condemn terrorism and anti-Semitism, while also condemning what's happening in Gaza, then I'd have to agree.

It is neither pro Hamas, pro terrorism, nor anti-Semitic to be horrified by what's happening there. How can one not be?

And while I'd agree that, based upon his own statements, 'Griffiths has no business as an arbitrator' in this ongoing conflict,

that doesn't much change the reality of the situation in Gaza (and as reported via numerous other sources).

I've said from the start, and several times hence, that I do not believe the powers that be (on many sides of this conflict) are truly interested in a two state solution and a lasting peace. That they use their own people in power plays, and place them in harm's way.

My opinion re. that has remained unchanged.

Western complicity

Last edited Fri Jul 25, 2025, 09:12 PM - Edit history (2)

Though TBH, I think both words, "Western" and "complicity" are over simplifications.

Whether 'complicity' or 'involvement' - there certainly had been a long history of both, involving Israel and Palestine, and in the Middle East as a whole.

Though not everyone in 'the West,' were on the same page as to how and to what extent said involvement / complicity should be.

For example, Obama (as I recall) made certain proposals for a peace accord, during his presidency. Proposals that weren't too well received by certain parties.

Also I think one must acknowledge the diplomatic and political intricacies of the conflict, especially for Democrats during this last election, upon whom many expectations were placed, while, curiously, few if any demands or expectations were placed upon Republicans.

So in the West, there were often various factors, sometimes in agreement, sometimes working at odds with one another, and sometimes not working towards a solution at all.

None of which, btw, is being offered as an excuse, as much as a more accurate representation of the realities.