Since the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, there has been a noticeable shift in the perception of The Hindu, a once-respected newspaper known for its articulate and scholarly articles. It is now accused of engaging in what some consider a form of propaganda characterised by alleged distortions of truth, exaggeration, and false comparisons. The latest interview with Moussa Abu Marzouk, who leads Hamas’ international relations office in Doha, Qatar, conducted by Frontline magazine, is viewed by some as a prime example of this perceived shift in journalism, particularly within woke liberal circles. In this interview, the actions of Hamas are seemingly absolved of wrongdoing.

As published in The Commune, one of the critical points of contention in this interview is the first question posed by the interviewer, Iftikhar Gilani, an Indian journalist based in Ankara, Turkey. In his opening query, Gilani appears to exonerate Hamas by asking Marzouk, “Hamas surprised the world by taking on one of the world’s strongest armies. But the way Israel is retaliating, the way civilians and children are getting killed, the question arises if it was worth it?”

The question’s phrasing is notable for what it omits. It fails to acknowledge the Hamas-led terror attack that took place on October 7, 2023, resulting in the brutal deaths of over 1,400 people. Furthermore, it ignores the incident in which Hamas targeted innocent civilians at a music festival, leading to the deaths of over 250 people and the heinous acts of rape and mutilation of women. These incidents are seemingly overlooked, and the interviewee is given a platform to portray these actions as part of a broader “resistance movement” against perceived historical injustices.

When questioned about Hamas’s involvement in the killing of civilians and taking hostages, Marzouk seemingly absolves the group of wrongdoing. He asserts, “There are false Israeli narratives about civilian deaths. According to the testimony of the Israelis who lived through the events, our freedom fighters did not kill them.” This assertion shifts the blame onto the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), suggesting that they are responsible for the deaths of their own civilians, a perspective that certain woke-liberal-leftist circles may embrace.

Marzouk goes on to express that he and his people seek freedom from occupation and compares India’s struggle for independence from British colonial rule. However, the Indian freedom movement largely followed non-violent methods, such as civil disobedience and non-cooperation, to challenge the British. In contrast, Hamas has been involved in acts of violence, including the killing of innocent civilians, rape, mutilation, and taking hostages, actions that sharply contrast with the principles of non-violence embraced by India’s freedom fighters.

Marzouk further emphasises that Hamas no longer believes in peaceful solutions alone and advocates for a comprehensive resistance strategy that includes both armed and popular resistance. This approach raises questions about the nature of the so-called popular resistance, given the documented violence perpetrated by Hamas, including the killing of infants and the rape of women. This statement underscores the complex nature of freedom fighters and jihadists, highlighting the blurred line between these two categories. 

While it is important to avoid painting an entire population with a broad brush, it is crucial to acknowledge Hamas’s role in promoting violence and terrorism in the pursuit of its goals.

Furthermore, what raised eyebrows was Moussa Abu Marzouk’s assertion that “The easiest option may be to abandon resistance and accept Israel, but we see the truth in Mahatma Gandhi’s saying, “The right path is always the most difficult.”

It’s striking how some on the left and within Islamist circles justify violence under the guise of Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings. Meanwhile, there’s a noticeable absence of concern for the plight of Muslims suffering in Yemen or those held in “re-education camps” in Communist China.

One undeniable fact remains: Hamas appears steadfast in its rejection of peaceful resolutions and the notion of a two-state agreement, citing its interpretation of Islamic principles. The Quran says, “The earth belongs to Allah, He gives to His servants (Muslims) as He pleases, and the end is (best) for the righteous.” (Surah Al-A’raf (7): Part of Ayat 128). sustenance which he fumishes, but unto Him is the resurrection” (Surah al-Mulk (67): 15). Their stance, rooted in their belief that the land belongs to Allah and is destined for the righteous, means they see no path to peace until all Jews are removed from the region. Given this ultimate objective, it’s difficult to expect Israel to refrain from taking action.

The interview concludes with a question about the possibility of coexistence between Israel and Palestine for the sake of peace, to which Marzouk responds, “You are asking the lamb, do you agree to coexist with the wolf,” underscoring Hamas’s uncompromising stance.

In summary, this interview raises essential questions about the narrative surrounding Hamas and its actions. While some may view Hamas as a resistance movement, its history of violence and terrorism cannot be ignored.