If you ask a Westerner a question to which he does not know the answer, he will respond without hesitation, “I don’t know.” This response, Imam Malik, (May God have mercy on him) declared thirteen hundred years ago to be half knowledge. The rationale behind this lies in the fact that admitting ignorance requires knowledge, consciousness, and courage. Such an admission signifies that an individual, lacking knowledge on a specific subject, recognizes the folly of speaking on it without insight. Therefore, confessing ignorance becomes the correct path in such situations.
Similarly, one of the commendable qualities of Westerners is their awareness that the theoretical knowledge acquired in universities may lead them to become researchers in their field or employees in a factory or company. Consequently, they cultivate social awareness through extracurricular studies. Thus, when they discuss an issue, even if one disagrees with their opinion, it must be acknowledged that the individual possesses knowledge and awareness of the subject at hand. Such a person is not an empty vessel.
Without extracurricular study, modern textbook knowledge is potentially more perilous than ignorance. Individuals acquiring such knowledge, for instance, obtaining an MBA, may falsely believe that possessing this degree automatically renders them “educated and knowledgeable.” Subsequently, they may arrogate to themselves the right to opine on any subject worldwide. This often results in their commentary bearing little distinction from a drain.
Instances of this phenomenon are observable daily. While it pervades various subjects, an immediate demonstration can be found by posting something inconsequential on social media about religion or cricket. Within your friend list, you’ll encounter individuals who deem themselves experts on Imam Abu Hanifa or cricket surpassing even Sir Don Bradman. The former might have evaded both formal education and religious instruction, while the latter’s sole expertise may be in tape ball cricket on the street.
This extensive preface is necessary to contextualize the comments made by some educated and uninformed individuals on social media during the temporary cease-fire in Gaza. They asserted that the Palestinians suffered a significant loss, with eleven thousand casualties and widespread destruction in Gaza. The predicament with these individuals of MBA ilk lies in their lack of understanding of the concept of “freedom” and its associated cost. Unaware that freedom often demands sacrifices, they are oblivious to the historical context.
When Allied commander Eisenhower planned to liberate France from German occupation during World War II, he met French leader Charles de Gaulle. Eisenhower acknowledged that over a hundred thousand French citizens would lose their lives in the process, to which De Gaulle responded with resolve, “It’s a small price to pay for freedom. You attack.”
The MBA-educated ignoramus fails to recognize that if a life of slavery were acceptable, why would Russia sacrifice 2.7 million people during the Second World War? These MBA-obsessed individuals remain ignorant of the fact that every attacker typically has a strategic target in wars. The critical aspect is whether the goal was achieved or if there was significant progress towards it. In the case of Hamas’s October 7 attack, the key question is, what was the target?
Approximately two and a half weeks before the October 7 attack, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman disclosed being close to an agreement with Israel under the Abrahamic Accords. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enthusiastically confirmed this news. The Abrahamic Accord aims to isolate Palestinians by fostering friendly relations between Arab countries and Israel, enabling Israel to suppress them more easily.
However, the agreement was not finalized, and the negotiations were confidential. So why did Mohammed Bin Salman reveal it? It is speculated that the Saudi crown prince signaled to Hamas, and Benjamin Netanyahu fell into the trap. Hamas’s primary goal is a “free and sovereign Palestinian state,” recognizing the Abrahamic Accord as an impediment. The October 7 attack was an unprecedented effort to advance this objective.
This endeavor is noteworthy in three aspects. Firstly, even Joe Biden, a staunch supporter of Israel, had to acknowledge that, once the situation normalized, his first priority would be a serious effort to establish a Palestinian state. Governments worldwide, recognizing the urgent need, declared the establishment of a Palestinian state as paramount. The BRICS leaders convened an emergency meeting to discuss a proposed international conference for the establishment of a Palestinian state, expected in the coming days.
The BRICS conference included leaders from countries approved for BRICS membership, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Djibouti. The presence of these countries signifies a significant shift in global power dynamics towards Beijing and Moscow rather than Washington. A clear indication of the waning American influence was evident in a recent United Nations Security Council resolution vote, where the United States found itself isolated.
What does this situation signify? The October 7 attack allowed Hamas to make substantial global progress toward its primary goal. The world is now earnestly preparing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state. The only lasting solution to the problem is deemed to be an independent and sovereign Palestinian state. Yet, this was not Hamas’s sole objective; it had two secondary goals.
The first secondary goal was to shatter the illusion propagated by Netanyahu of having secured Israel. The October 7 attack demonstrated that Israel is more insecure than before, causing fear among its citizens. Many have reportedly left, vowing not to return. The second secondary goal was to secure the release of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. Hamas successfully negotiated the release of 150 prisoners in exchange for 50 Israeli hostages, along with receiving significant aid for Gaza.
If an MBA fails to grasp the difference between three for one, it suggests a lack of understanding. Hamas not only secured a favorable exchange but also received two hundred trucks of aid for Gaza daily. Considering Israel’s strategic goal of annihilating Gaza and eliminating Hamas, why did Israel accept a temporary ceasefire? The demand for the ceasefire came from the international community, not Hamas. Israel’s acceptance indicates a lack of proof of success and a distance from its strategic goal.
This situation has led American intellectuals to assert that Israel has lost this war. While Hamas has made substantial progress towards its goals, Israel is treated as a criminal globally. Millions worldwide have expressed support for Palestinians, contrasting sharply with the dwindling support for Israel, even from figures like Biden, who aims to remove Netanyahu from power.
