I think the time is finally right to ask Walid J. Abdullah a few questions: What is your agenda? Whose interests do you represent in Singapore? And why do you keep obfuscating facts in defence of a terrorist organisation like Hamas?
The outspoken Palestinian supporter who tacitly excused Hamas' butchery by saying that "omitting history before Oct 7 would be ‘intellectually dishonest’." has now taken issue with Singapore's support for the Gaza peace plan.
Oddly enough, he mentions Hamas twice and criticises Singapore's government for "rushing" to support the peace plan, but makes absolutely no reference to the fact that the plan has been vocally supported by countries all over the world, including Arab/Muslim nations:
- Saudi Arabia
- Egypt
- Jordan
- United Arab Emirates
- Qatar
- Turkey
- Indonesia
- Pakistan
In addition to:
- EU
- UK
- Russia
- China
And, (drum roll please):
Yes, even the Palestinians are on board. Why are Walid's readers not informed of this?
What is more, he appears to be alone in his complaints, since there is so far no country in the world which has condemned or rejected the plan (not even Iran).
The only group of people likely to be unhappy about the proposal are... Hamas (though the organisation is yet to even make a comment).
Why is it then that a Singaporean academic takes it upon himself to attack a widely supported roadmap to ending the war in Gaza? And why is he singling out Singapore for choosing to back it?
Does this make any sense to anyone?
I understand that academia permits a wide degree of freedom of expression among its workers, but they are still paid by the public and it is at least somewhat troubling that one of them would leap into defence of Hamas while criticising the democratically elected government that keeps him not only employed but safe and sound in Singapore, even as the rest of the world applauds the very proposal he's attacking.
Whose interests does Walid J. Abdullah represent? Well, when pressed on the issue he responded, so I'm going to paste his comment here, which really is just an expected deflection – and, predictably, one which doesn't make much sense:
I have no idea how the war in Gaza or the entire Palestinian issue is even remotely related to Singapore, let alone why it should be a topic of high-level political debate in the country.
Singapore has no stake in the conflict and is not affected by it – with the exception of people like Walid, hailing from the portion of the society deeply invested in it emotionally for religious and ideological reasons.
That, however, doesn't make it a national issue.
Prof. Walid tries to frame it as a question of "international law", which in his view makes it important to Singapore – but that, again, doesn't make any sense when pretty much the entire international community (upon which that international law depends) is backing the proposed plan in one way or another.
Why exactly should Singapore throw a wrench in the works when the EU, China, Russia as well as the Arab world (for which it is a regional conflict) are all supporting the American proposal?
It's quite telling, as I mentioned earlier, that he talks about Hamas but nobody else, attempting to even preemptively excuse its potential surrender as a "desperate" act, while laying ground for a defence of a possible rejection of the plan by the terrorist group, even as it is facing global pressure.
This doesn't sound like a measured, reasoned take on the issue but a carefully worded defence of a known terrorist organisation which has no regard for human life on either side of the frontlines.
Of course we have many people spreading this sort of corrosive nonsense that only serves to encourage more extremism around the world, by providing cover for even the most heinous acts of violence. If these are their personal views we just have to live with that. But it is extremely troubling to see this coming from someone in a position of authority, charged with educating young people while paid by the public in a country known for extreme sensitivity to religious and ethnic issues.
Even as the entire world has rallied in support of the comprehensive peace proposal that would end the suffering, here's someone saying it should be blown up, while trying to frame the act as Singapore's national interest.
What the hell?
