Hamas’ crimes against Palestinians are well-documented. In 2021 alone, the Gaza Strip’s rulers — deemed a terror group in its entirety by the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, Israel, and Japan — killed dozens of Palestinians while violently dispossessing over 20 families from their homes.

After severe flooding this winter season, Palestinians accused Hamas of diverting funds earmarked for much-needed infrastructure projects to the building of tunnels, often used to smuggle weapons and carry out terror attacks against Israel. This, even though Hamas reportedly has $500 million stashed away in a secret foreign investment portfolio.

Yet, even as Gazans are increasingly protesting against Hamas’ brutality, Australia’s SBS News recently published a piece titled, “Concern Australia’s Listing All of Hamas as a Terrorist Organisation Will Harm Ordinary Palestinians.”

The publicly-funded broadcaster produced the piece in the aftermath of Canberra’s declared intention to designate all of Hamas as a terror organization.

Up until then, the Australian government had only proscribed Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terror group. As HonestReporting has noted, there is no meaningful distinction between Hamas’ “military” and “political” wings, and the failure to make clear that they are two sides of the same coin has contributed to whitewashing the Palestinian group’s totalitarian and genocidal ideology — and its violent manifestations.

Besides several factual inaccuracies in the SBS News article, it also uses quotes from two clearly biased “experts” to inflate baseless claims that “designating the entirety of Hamas as a terrorist organi[z]ation will make life harder for Gazans and sweep up ordinary Palestinians and Australians in counterterrorism laws.”

In fact, foreign donors, often through humanitarian organizations in the Gaza Strip, have for years supported the Palestinian population, while attempting to prevent funds from reaching terror groups. For example, when US President Joe Biden announced humanitarian assistance for Gaza in the wake of May’s Hamas-initiated war with Israel, he stipulated that the aid would be provided “in a manner that does not permit Hamas to simply restock its military arsenal.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken added at the time: “All of these funds will be administered in a way that benefits the Palestinian people — not Hamas, which has only brought misery and despair to Gaza.”

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza in November held online demonstrations under the hashtag #WeWantToLive, to protest the lavish lifestyles of Hamas officials.

So who are the “experts” who contend that taking measures against Hamas will hurt the Palestinian people?

The first expert quoted in the SBS piece is Ben Saul, who has described Canberra’s effort to thwart Hamas terrorism as “pro-Israel, manic national security politics.” Saul has insisted that Gaza-based terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad should “only demilitari[z]e if Israel demilitari[z]es and de-occupies [sic].”

For the record: Israel uprooted every man, woman, child, and soldier from Gaza 17 years ago; so the notion that the coastal enclave is “occupied” has no basis in international law.

Meanwhile, Saul once blasted the Australian government for not condemning “Israel’s refusal to readmit Palestinian refugees” — a demand that could spell the end of Jewish self-determination.

On at least three occasions (see here, here, and here), this SBS “expert” criticized the presumed Israeli killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Brig. Gen. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh — going as far as labeling it the “murder of a civilian.” As HonestReporting detailed in an extensive article, Fakhrizadeh was not a “civilian.”

In 2014, in an opinion piece calling for sanctions against Israel, Saul likewise condemned the alleged Mossad operation in which Hamas’ arms procurement mastermind, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was killed — while only identifying him as an “an unarmed Palestinian.” A co-founder of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, al-Mabhouh was, in fact, responsible for acquiring Iranian long-range ballistic missiles and anti-aircraft missiles.

Saul furthermore condemned the widely-accepted IHRA working definition of antisemitism, calling it “excessive,” and falsely asserting that it “censors legitimate free speech critici[z]ing Israel.”

For his part, Tristan Dunning, the second “expert” cited by SBS, has referred to Israel as “just another crackpot regime in the Middle East.” Dunning, who five years ago bizarrely accused Israel of “culturally appropriat[ing] traditional Middle East foods,” has flirted with justifying violence against Israelis.

On multiple occasions (see here and here), he declared that the Hamas charter — a manifesto that calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews — “isn’t a key obstacle to peace.” Dunning instead blamed Jerusalem for the impasse in solving the conflict, writing that “Hamas has long been open to peace with Israel.”

In the piece, SBS cites Dunning as saying that “Hamas updated its overall charter in 2017 to accept a two-state solution with Israel, along with removing antisemitic aspects of the charter.” Already in 2017, HonestReporting debunked this whitewashing of Hamas’ true aims. As we pointed out, the violent and antisemitic manifesto remains in full force until this day.

In fact, Hamas has made clear its goal to “obliterate” Israel, “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of [British Mandatory] Palestine,” and kill or enslave the local Jewish population.

Finally, SBS quotes the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), an organization that opposes Israel’s right to exist.

The Australian broadcaster, which is set to receive over $690 million in government funding between 2022 and 2025, also obscures the reality surrounding the joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip.

“Gaza has been under a naval and land blockade since 2007 by Israel, which controls who and what gets in and out of the area,” the article asserts, glossing over the fact that Gaza borders the Cairo-controlled Sinai Peninsula.

Who is going to hold SBS accountable for the facts?

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.