It is time to stop asking "But, Hamas" questions. A question inquiring into the condemnation or support for Israel or the genocidal project on Palestinians inspires "But, Hamas" answers. "But, Hamas" answers delve into fragile accounts on the whether Hamas may have or have not committed XYZ. The attempts at answering these questions branch off into discourse defining Hamas spinning into Hamas/ Israel justification. Ultimately, the Hamas answers are turned into somatic trivial disputes, reducing a crucial conversation into a " Good Hamas, bad Israel, good Israel, bad Hamas" discussion. " But, Hamas" answers and questions do not enrich the American public but rather perpetuates confusion and political divide. Major Democrats, mainly Pete Buttigieg, as well as political commentators are preparing for Israel-Palestine to be a litmus test for the 2028 Presidential Election. It is more important than ever to serve the American public with appropriate journalism starting at the questions asked to prospective and elected public government officials. The " But, Hamas" conversation is semantically incapable of yielding anything fruitful. "But, Hamas" questions are corporate media distractions designed to stimulate unproductive discourse. As long as corporate media is intent on entertaining simple templates pretending to be informative no accountability nor justice will be served to the Israelis, Palestinians, or the American political system.
An unfortunate crowded list of journalists who have died reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict are a testament to the importance of journalism. This piece will not continue without paying respect to the lives lost ensuring a world-wide audience has access to reliable, accurate, and timely information on the ground. " But, Hamas" questions are formulaic prompts meant to encourage tangents falling short of any quality journalism requires and respects. The question itself is not designed to provide access to new, reliable, or punctual information. The question, although unassuming in its yes or no format, is designed for an interviewee to deflect. The corporate media sponsored prompt ensures a continued tired back and forth rehearsal diversion propelling Palestinian-Israeli suffering. In short, a "But, Hamas"question does not avenge journalists, the public, Palestinians, or Israelis.
For more than a decade, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars in Qatari aid to Hamas. A political strategy intended to "buy quiet" and maintain a Hamas-governed Gaza as an opposition to the Palestinian Authority, ensuring a divided Palestinian leadership and preventing a Palestinian state. Netanyahu's support aims in also providing any "justification" for an Israeli military response in Gaza. This strategy involved insured cash-filled suitcases to enter Gaza. Netanyahu is responsible for enabling Hamas to strengthen its infrastructure, which ultimately preceded the October 7, 2023, attacks.
To answer the question, Hamas and Israel are both condemnable. The coverage coming from Gaza and the publicly available information regarding US politicians who receive AIPAC money are accessible to any interviewer or party interested in where a government official's support lies. The politicians who do not support Israel are blatantly clear on their stance. Sparing air time for such a question is irresponsible. The question itself is far removed from uncovering anything of value to the discussion, offering no insight to policy framework. The "But, Hamas" question potential productivity does not out perform a question inquiring into the mechanics or the extent of support/condemnation for either Hamas or Israel. These questions look like asking our government officials: why should the American people be impressed with the "impossible negotiations" facilitated by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu given the pair is proven to be in cahoots with Hamas? Or, how does receiving any amount of AIPAC monetary support during your campaign affect your votes on any Israel/Palestine related issue?
Holding public servants accountable to the public starts at understanding Western corporate media complicitness in promoting dissent, deflection, and division. Asking interviewees well researched, targeted, and specific questions yields punctual, reliable, and insightful information. "But, Hamas" questions are accessible via the internet and hardly warrant any legitimacy due to their deflection, serving as questions meant to entertain and not intent to inform the public.
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
