Who is The ‘True’ Terrorist Here?!

CrossFireArabia
Opinion
September 16, 2025

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

“This is not a geopolitical battle; it is a spiritual battle. A battle of the ages. It is not horizontal. It is not left or right, liberal or conservative. It is a vertical battle… a battle of heaven against hell, good against evil. People must see it in this context, or they will completely fail to understand it.”

With these words, Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, described the ongoing war of extermination in Gaza during an interview with NBC. He criticized the move by several European states to recognize Palestine at the United Nations this month, adding: “You do not stand with Israel merely because you agree with its government… but because it defends the traditions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

This rhetoric aligns seamlessly with statements made by members of Netanyahu’s government. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, for example, openly called for the “complete destruction of Gaza” and the forced displacement of its residents to other countries, invoking biblical injunctions about “erasing the memory of Israel’s enemies.” What is striking is that such discourse is no longer viewed as fringe or shocking in Western and global media and political circles. It has become commonplace—voiced by ministers, politicians, and even Netanyahu himself—steeped in extremism and religious absolutism toward “the other.” In this case, the “other” is the Palestinians as a whole, along with anyone who dares oppose the Israeli far right.

Here, the urgent question arises: how should terrorism and extremism be redefined today? Who is the true terrorist? And what form of terrorism most threatens regional security and societal peace?

Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States declared its “war on terror,” rallying dozens of states against al-Qaeda and later ISIS. ISIS was undeniably a brutal extremist group that committed massacres, established a so-called caliphate, and tore down borders between Syria and Iraq. Yet it remained an isolated, besieged organization—globally reviled, stripped of legitimacy, and unsupported by institutions or states. What we witness today, by contrast, is state terrorism practiced openly, backed by major powers, and legitimized through religious rhetoric presented as divine will. The irony is palpable: Israel engages in territorial expansion, rejects recognized borders, launches cross-border military strikes, and has a prime minister who frames his mission in explicitly spiritual and historic terms—the realization of Greater Israel.

Skeptics may argue that labeling Israel a terrorist state changes nothing; it clashes with power dynamics and U.S. strategic interests. Perhaps. Yet it remains essential to reshape Arab, Islamic—and indeed universal—awareness of these realities, and to recalibrate the very language and definitions we use. These should form part of today’s Arab political, media, and diplomatic discourse. If an international coalition against terrorism is to exist, the actor most deserving of that designation is Israel’s government—not transient groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. Huckabee’s words and the declarations of Netanyahu’s ministers are not aberrations; they are clear manifestations of this reality: state terrorism, sanctified by religion and legitimized internationally. If there is a rogue state whose leaders should stand before the International Criminal Court for genocide and mass killings, it is Israel.

This framing is of enormous significance for international, regional, and even domestic debates. Otherwise, Arab political and intellectual circles will continue to be dragged along by narratives that consistently place the blame on extremist movements emerging here or there—movements that are, in truth, the predictable outcomes of political dysfunction. Whether born of Israeli aggression or Arab authoritarianism, such groups are less causes than consequences. To blame them alone is to misread the sequence of cause and effect.

Today, amid the genocidal war on Gaza, a new political generation is coming of age. It witnesses, daily and directly, the starvation, slaughter, and devastation visited upon children, women, and civilians. It also sees the deafening global silence, alongside Arab paralysis and strategic impotence. What reactions can we reasonably expect from such a generation? This is not an attempt at justification, but rather an explanation of what is taking shape: a coming wave of anger among youth, or a wave that others may channel into particular political or religious agendas. That wave is already being born—out of the crucible of Gaza.

The writer is a columnist in The Jordan Times

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

News Opinion

World Cup, Wimbledon Kicks: Flags, Nepotism, Red Cards and a Watermelon!

Saleem Ayoub Quna
July 9, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

For a change I would like to give credit to President Trump’s, latest attempt to support the American team before facing off Belgium’s team on July 6, when the day before, and despite his tight and loaded schedule, he called “his friend” Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s President, and asked him for a second look at the punishment against the American striker Folarin Balogun, who made a foul against a Bosnia-Herzegovina player in the match they played earlier on July 2, and which the US won 2-0.

FIFA regulations stipulate that when a player gets a red card during a match for an offense he makes against the other team, he should be suspended from playing in the following match! Mr. Infantino obliged and lifted the ban against the American player. But the match against Belgium in which Balogun played was won by Belgium 4-1.

This intervention episode by Trump on behalf of the American national soccer squad did not end there and led to a controversy that would not be settled before the closing of the 32nd round of the current international tournament.

Infantino was criticized by many within and outside the FIFA body and was asked to resign his post as head of this huge powerful organization. In brief, this episode shows that behind the broad smiles and nice words, sits a huge monster of nepotism and even possible corruption!

Also it means that sports, as a human “noble” endeavor, is not immune from certain uncouth and loath viruses that can affect and may shatter the dreams of other less resourceful nations!

Then we have the phenomenon of waiving national flags when a team wins a match. This occasion is ceased by some staff of the winning teams and players to demonstrate their support for a certain political or human cause or admiration of a person. This is exactly what Hossam Hassan, head-coach of the Egyptian team did when his players defeated Australia on July 3 as they scored 4 goals against Australia which scored only 2 goals, in the final shootout play of the match.

Coach Hassan came down to the pitch and waived the Palestinian flag in a sign of support for the Palestinians in beleaguered Gaza, which celebrated Egyptian performance at the tournament. Israel protested this solidarity gesture with Palestinians and labeled it as anti-Semitic, but FIFA officials maintained that flags belonging to FIFA members, (including Palestine) are allowed to be waived on this occasion!

On the other side of the Atlantic, and in London to be precise, another major sports event is underway, known as the Wimbledon grand slam championship. Wimbledon is known for its strict rules starting with the must-wear white attire, by all players and staff!

On June 29, the Turkish Tennis player, Zeynep Sonmez, ranked 51 by WTA, defeated American player Ann Li 2-1. Sonmez wanted to waive a sign of support for the Palestinians, but could not and according to Jamie Baker, the Wimbledon Tournament Director: “Wimbledon rules do not allow political massaging from players”!

So, what does Ms. Zeynep Somez do?! She sticks a small rubber shock absorber to her racket in a shape of a watermelon composed of the four colors of red, white, black and green! To that subtle demonstration, the Wimbledon people could not raise a finger or blow a whistle!

In this regard, other sources insisted that some people among the audience waived the Israeli which was received by a blind eye!

So next time I attend an important tournament or watch it on TV, I will keep my eyes open on tactics and kicks of this sort, which actually might add to the fun of watching!

Opinion

New York: AIPAC Stranglehold No More !

CrossFireArabia
July 8, 2026

By James J. Zogby

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long held sway in elections, threatening and intimidating any opposition. When a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory as a lesson for others. In last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, pointing to the potential end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.

 AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and donors they used to effectively influence members of Congress to embrace pro-Israel positions.  They’d visit elected officials in Washington seeking endorsements of legislation and enlist local leaders in a congressperson’s district to make the pitch.

They’d have local representatives offer to help write new candidates’ Middle East policy positions. Implicit were the promise of support if the official or candidate did what was asked—and the threat of opposition if they didn’t.  AIPAC also spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel.  Strategic in their operations, not everyone benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive congressmembers facing tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would benefit from PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors.  Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. When an election went their way, the lobby would crow about the victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was communication: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”  

With the end of federal oversight of independent election expenditures, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups created “super-PACs” to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars each cycle. In 2022 and 2024, they effectively targeted a few candidates critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat them.  After Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of public support for Israel—especially among Democrats. AIPAC can no longer make examples of just a few candidates, with well over 100 electeds now critical of Israel. Add to this that AIPAC has become so toxic they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates to distribute funds to candidates.  Meanwhile, Israel’s behaviors alienate more voters. And the more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand—even when they win, their heavy-handed tactics lead to declining support.

This brings us to last week’s New York primaries, a turning point in US politics when two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress were defeated by challengers critical of Israeli policies and supporters of Palestinian justice, and a former leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests won an open race. Not only did AIPAC and its allies spend millions and fail, but also these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.  

A hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past campaign involvement was the lengths they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They’d raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but their expenditures would pay for ads criticizing a candidate’s age or “radical agenda,” never mentioning the candidate’s position on Israel. In these NY contests, many issues mattered to voters, especially frustration with the Democratic establishment’s failed policies—but they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.   

In predictable reactions from the pro-Israel side, some accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—ignoring decades of AIPAC boasting about its money and influence as the source of its power. Others claimed that with the election’s results, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring that the most prominent contest’s victor is Jewish—a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. Finally, some desperately attempted to dismiss the entire election as just about New York with no larger significance, ignoring the changed national political landscape as similar contests emerge everywhere.   

The bottom line is that after a half-century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but a real debate over US Middle East policy can now take place. Thank you, New York voters

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute  and contributed this article to The Jordan Times