The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Opinion section published an op-ed purportedly written by Yaser Abu Shabab. The bio accompanying the piece offers his “credentials”: “Mr. Shabab is commander of the Popular Forces in Gaza.”
Abu Shabab dropped out of elementary school & can’t read or write Arabic, let alone this fluent level of English
Did WSJ allow the IDF/Mossad to write an oped on behalf of an ISIS-linked gang leader & convicted drug dealer? pic.twitter.com/MJqVB25NCG
— Muhammad Shehada (@muhammadshehad2) July 26, 2025
The anti-Hamas screed was supposedly written by a man described by an Israeli media outlet as an elementary school dropout who “cannot read or write Arabic…and is a convicted drug dealer.” But that’s not all: his drug smuggling operation partnered with Sinai ISIS-affiliated militants. Now, his militia reportedly loot and extort humanitarian aid. They are protected by, and serve as Israeli proxies in Gaza.
In fact, an Israeli security official tells me that Abu Shabab is “a channel for conveying Israeli messaging.” How and why did WSJ publish such a dubious piece offering pro-Israel talking points disguised as an authentic Gaza viewpoint?
I’ve posed questions to the WSJ opinion editor, James Taranto, who is known as an ardent Zionist. In fact, he once called Rachel Corry a “dopey 23-year-old” and a “terror advocate” who “died in an accident.” None are in fact true.
I asked him if Abu Shabab wrote this piece, considering that the Israeli media outlet, I24 reported that he never finished elementary school and can neither read nor write Arabic. How did WSJ confirm that he wrote it? Was it ghostwritten by another source? Was it written in Arabic? If so, presumably it was translated into English. Why was this not mentioned in the piece? Finally, why did WSJ publish a piece by someone with such a notorious reputation? He has not responded.
Clearly, this was yet another WSJ apologist screed on behalf of Gaza genocide. It follows the same narrative of–“if only we could get rid of Hamas, no more terrorism, everything would be fine.” Presumably, the vacuum would be filled by thugs like Al Shabab and his band of brigands. They would rule Hamas as their mafiosi territory extorting , killing and looting everyone there, instead of just humanitarian aid trucks. He would have a field day.
This is what WSJ has endorsed. Though by the time Al Shabab becomes the chief mafioso, the Journal will have moved on and acknowledged no responsibility for the havoc it helped unleash in Gaza.
This piece (and this one by the BBC) further amplifies an Israeli claim that the people of Gaza are rising up against Hamas; and that there are viable internal forces capable of taking control once Hamas is eliminated. Palestinian analysts affirm that while there may be sporadic outbursts, Palestinians understand that there is no alternative to Hamas:
…The overwhelming majority of Gazans blame Israel and the U.S. for their suffering; only one in five puts the blame on Hamas…Despite the…criticism of Hamas, Gazans are fully aware that even if that group leaves the governance scene immediately, there is no viable alternative that can enforce some level of order, manage the critically needed civil defense units and health sector, ensure a relatively secure environment for humanitarian service delivery, allow markets to operate, and prevent the eruption of tremendous chaos and open anarchy and violence.
Further, the people of Gaza are starving to death. They aren’t capable of blaming anyone but Israel for their impending death. Second, this Israeli proxy is virtually a repeat of previous proxies Israel has propped up in the past: including Hamas itself (when it was a rival to Fatah); the South Lebanese Army (when it was a rival to Hezbollah); and Syrian al-Nusra (when it was a rival to Hezbollah). Each of these proxies failed either by imploding from within; or after Israeli withdrawal left them high and dry (remember the US withdrawal from Afghanistan?). Third, Abu Shabab is a detestable scumbag whom no one trusts, and for good reason.
Regardless of any of these geostrategic failures, foisting him on Gaza might be just what Israel wants: a rapacious thuggish force which will sow chaos in there. Then, all factions will be at war with each other and none will be able to focus on Israel as their enemy. This has been the recipe in the above strategic situations. The more chaos, the better. The weaker the better. Stability is the enemy. Because a stable state is one that can unify to oppose Israel.
This is the classic colonialist strategy, followed the by British in Mandatory Palestine. It set the Jews against the Palestinians, so they would exhaust themselves fighting each other and avoid focusing their anger against their colonial masters. While it worked for a time, by 1947, when the Mandate ended, the Jews had made British forces their primary target.
A further unforeseen outcome is that after the former proxy takes power, it often turns its anger against the former patron and becomes its worst enemy. This happened with Hamas and Hezbollah. And it mirrors the US relationship with the Taliban, which it armed during the Russian occupation.
The Hamas looting hoax
Not content with starving Gaza and killing its babies, Israel perpetrated yet another hoax on the world. In order to distract from this genocidal crime it claimed, without any basis, that it stopped aid shipments and created the Gaza “Humanitarian” Foundation (aka Gaza “Killing Fields” Foundation) was Hamas’ looting of the cargo. Now US and even Israeli officials concede there was no such looting by Hamas. The world should have known this was a hoax meant to distract its attention (which worked to some extent). But now the pictures of starving babies with their spines protruding from their backs has overwhelmed this unspeakable narrative. Too late for the hundreds of children who died in the throes of hunger.
The world outcry has proven overwhelming, so Israel has opened the spigots somewhat and dribbles of food have entered Gaza. But it is permitting 70 trucks a day, which is only 14% of the pre-10/7 tally. It has created deliberate bottlenecks impeding the other 6,000 trucks waiting for permission to enter and distribute their life-saving cargo.
It has also permitted Jordan and Abu Dhabi to airlift supplies into Gaza. But not only is this method dangerous for the Gazans below, but it delivers only a fraction of land-based distribution. It is performative; allowing Israel to claim it is providing relief without doing much of anything.
Not to mention, that it will shut off the spigot as soon as the world’s attention drifts elsewhere. This fraud is not a change of policy. It is not a change of heart. It is not a humanitarian gesture. It is a strategem. A temporary diversion from the real policy of extermination of the Palestinian people.
The Netanyahu government continues to engage in unjustifiable atrocities — babies are starving. I won’t be complicit in the horrors only to benefit Netanyahu’s political ambitions rather than find peace. Feed Gaza now.
— Rep. Becca Balint (@RepBeccaB) July 28, 2025
It is one thing to call for an end to starvation and feeding Gaza. That is critical. But unless there is equal pressure to end the war and IDF occupation, and recognize a Palestinian state, we’re just putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
Trump: “finish the job”
It’s probably a mistake to think of anything Trump says as definitive, since he changes his minds as often as he changes his socks. But a few days ago, he offered an astonishingly explicit endorsement of Israeli genocide. Given the alleged breakdown in ceasefire negotiations, for which the US and Israel (falsely) blamed Hamas, Trump called for the group to be mercilessly “hunted down.” He offered this statement to reporters:
Hamas didn’t want to make a deal. I think they want to die. It got to be to a point where you have to finish the job…They’re [Israel] going to have to fight and they’re going to have to clean it up. You’re going to have to get rid of them [Hamas]…I think what’s going to happen is they’re going to be hunted down.
Israel didn’t need such encouragement before this,when it was attempting and failing to do precisely what Trump urged. But with the president’s statement, it can tell the world that the leader of the globe’s most powerful country legitimated genocide.
I think a Palestinian state beside Israel is no longer a viable solution by now. The Israelis managed, through decades of ongoing, concerted effots to render it an impossibility.
BUT
with the Sambatiyon of (by far mostly Palestinian) blood boiling between the the two communities, neither is a one (democratic!) state solution right now, as Israelis are very unlikely to let Palestinians form an elected government over them.
A wide international recognition in a Palestinian state, regardless of its borders, could only help the Palestinian cause right now, their gravest moment of urgent need.
Dutch parliament opposes sanctions on Israel is no news.
Interesting development … breaking news.
link to middleeasteye.net
I think it’s a mistake to call for recognition of a Palestinian state. As this piece (link to theguardian.com) makes clear, it entails accepting ethnic partition, aka apartheid, in principle; endorsing the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, in particular; and legitimising the quisling PA, exactly as I argued here (link to bureauofcounterpropaganda.substack.com), echoing a number of Palestinian voices I cite there. It would probably be more effective to demand comprehensive sanctions on Israel, including expulsion from the UN and withdrawal of any bilateral or multilateral recognition. And armed escorts to ensure aid gets past the IOF and their proxies.
@ Harry Feldman: I agree with you. The only just long term solution is a single democratic state. But there doesn’t even seem to be international will for two states, let alone one. For one state to be a viable option the world would have to implement all the actions you mention. And I just don’t see that happening.
It needs to be remembered it was one country before the UNGA got suckered into the whole partition thing after WW11 having failed miserably with the whole 1930’a Peel commission, The UN posted the Palestine notes on the net last year, they make for fascinating reading and the irrational claims that Israel keeps saying the Arabs made are very rational indeed. Now what is most noticeable is that the Palestinians were not there and had no say and their rights are not even mentioned by the main parties to the question but the arab statements have all come true – The representative of Yemen argued that the partition plan was illegal, being contrary to the United Nations Charter and unjust, since it imposed an institution upon a country without its consent. Furthermore, he said it was unworkable.
The representative of Egypt thought that it was clear that the General Assembly was not competent to impose any solution in the matter. In the Ad Hoc Committee only 25 of the 57 Members of the United Nations had supported the partition plan. If the General Assembly’s resolution was passed, he reiterated that it would be taken for what it was: a mere recommendation addressed to the Egyptian Government. His delegation’s position was that it would like to be enlightened by an opinion from the International Court of Justice.
The representative of Saudi Arabia suggested that it was tyrannical that an international organization was intervening to partition a country in order to present a part of it to the aggressor.
The representative of Syria stated that among those who had approved the plan for dividing Palestine into two independent states, there was perhaps no-one who had really taken into account the legal side of the question. He said no plan had ever been more contrary to logic or to social, political or economic laws.
The representative of Lebanon felt that the fact that there was no other plan before the Assembly was not a reason for adopting a plan which did not convince it.
The representative of Iraq stated that the General Assembly was being asked to vote upon a plan which had not given the least consideration to the Arab point of view, and that it was most partial and unjust since it had been drafted by a Sub-Committee which contained no neutral members.
So all perfectly rational indeed and even now the Palestinians are being pushed around like cockroaches.
Thanks for that useful summary.
My understanding is that there were, in fact, alternative plans before the assembly, but they got shelved in committee or something?
Given the choice between a patently unjust option that requires accepting principles that would otherwise be anathema and one that potentially delivers a modicum of justice, both of which are equally impracticable, I am not going to favour the unjust option, as I’ve argued since 2007 (link to bureauofcounterpropaganda.substack.com). In the current climate, a call to recognise The State Of Palestine can only mean a demilitarised bantustan presided over by a ‘reformed’ PA, whose right to self determination does not extend as far as deciding how to govern and defend themselves.