Pulitzer Prize winner says 'I don't want to compare suffering' in poignant chat
Pulitzer Prize winner Mosab Abu Toha refused to compare suffering as he was awkwardly questioned in an interview with MSNBC 's Weekend Primetime. Abu Toha appeared on the chat-show to talk with Ayman Mohyeldin, Antonia Hylton and Catherine Rampell about winning the highest accolade within journalism.
However, Rampell's line of questioning has caused reaction across social media, not least from Abu Toha himself. Rampell congratulated Mosab on his award, but in her words, it had come "not without controversy."
The anchor continues to ask about the case of British-Israeli hostage, Emily Damari. As reported by the BBC , Damari was kidnapped from her home in Kibbutz Kfar Aza on October 7. Damari lost two fingers, and was then released in January 2025.
The MSNBC anchor queries Abu Toha about a possible comment about whether Damari was a hostage at all. In response, he refutes this. He said: "First of all, I did not question her status as a hostage." Instead, he explains that the language used to describe those incarcerated differs depending on whether they are Israeli or Palestinian.
He continues: "I have people in my family who were kidnapped from checkpoints, from schools, from shelters, and they are named prisoners. So my question is, why should Emily and other hostages be named hostages while my loved ones should be named prisoners?"
He says: "I have never denied anyone's suffering. Everyone is suffering, Israelis and Palestinians. But why are our sufferings not acknowledged? Why are we called terrorists?"
Abu Toha has written extensively about Palestinian suffering. On his personal pain, he said: "I was kept hostage for 53 hours. I was blind-folded, and hand-cuffed, and was beaten in my face. I asked Israeli soldiers to see a doctor, and they denied me any medical treatment. Am I less human than anyone else? So that was the question."
He tells the three MSNBC anchors that 31 members of his family were killed in one airstrike. In response to Damari being held hostage for 15 months, he says "I don't want to compare suffering."
But he continues on to highlight the continued plight of Palestinians, by saying: "A cousin of mine was killed in October 2023, and her body remained under the rubble for 558 days. And still, her husband and her child are still under the rubble to this day."
When he is asked about his Pulitzer win, he explains that being awarded the prize is bigger than his own story. He says: "My win is not my win as Mosab, it is for the stories I shared with the whole world. And I promise you there are so many stories that I have that I haven't written."
Mosab Abu Toha won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, for his series of essays in the New Yorker on the war in Palestine. The Pulitzer Prize committee in awarding Abu Toha the prestigious prize said that his work as contributor to the New Yorker consisted of "essays on the physical and emotional carnage in Gaza that combine deep reporting with the intimacy of memoir to convey the Palestinian experience."
He won the prize for four articles, which include, ' My Family's Daily Struggle to Find Food in Gaza ' and The Pain of Travelling While Palestinian,' both of which highlight the suffering caused to the Palestinian people during the Israeli conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
24 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What does Adam Curtis know?
Photo byOn or about May 1979, the British character changed. That, in a sentence, is the argument of Adam Curtis's new documentary series Shifty. The election of Margaret Thatcher was the beginning of a revolution she helped accelerate but could never control, one involving economics, physics and ideology. Our nation – fretful, immiserated, lonely – was created in the two decades that followed. The adjectives most often used to describe Curtis's recent work tend to be related to drugs: hallucinatory, trance-like, psychedelic. They are apt. Though his earlier films featured interviews and televisual strictures, now he works through a combination of montage and caption, ditching even the nasal narration that once characterised his work. Some storylines he pursues for a full episode, others receive a mere 30 seconds of fame. The effect is disorientating, a constant swaying between plot and subplot. But sudden contrast is Curtis's fetish: gentlemen in cricket whites beneath skeletal electric pylons; shots of glass-and-steel towers immediately followed by a horse dying in a field. However, despite this reputation for experimentation, you get the sense that the scenes he is most drawn to are sober, humdrum, everyday. So, while you have Thatcher scuttling about laying tables for state banquets and trying to force monetarism to work, you also get nightclubs, barbers and police interviews – all the inventory of history from below. Sometimes you wonder where such moving footage comes from: who was letting documentarians into their house parties in 1981? But no matter. Such is the capaciousness of the BBC's archive that serves as Curtis's quarry, he doesn't have to show or tell you. You simply see. When he's doing history from above, though, Curtis is, by his own standards, dealing with a conventional arc. We move in a familiar sequence from Thatcher to Big Bang, from deindustrialisation to MDMA, from mass politics to mass atomisation. Perhaps it is a sign of the shifting historiography of the recent past that this feels more like restatement than reinterpretation. Thatcher is no longer seen as Britain's saviour on the right or left. We all know the bankers are crooked and the politicians are powerless. And did anyone else hear that Max Clifford was a wrong 'un? However, these familiarities are diversified by much more Curtis-like swerves into the strange and the eccentric. Like the story of Stephen Knight, a local reporter who became a national figure for claiming in his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution that the Victorian murders were linked to both the Freemasonry movement and the British royal family. Knight went on to write another conspiratorial book about the Freemasons before his early death from a brain tumour. Though Knight is scarcely remembered today, for Curtis he is illustrative of a paranoid society growing fearful and sceptical of its elites. The title of this series ('shifty') is a description of what happens 'in societies when the foundations of power begin to move'. It's something we all feel – almost to the point that you wonder if it is truly confined to the last two decades of the 20th century in Britain. The Sixties and Seventies – with their own depressive introspection, aristocratic crack-up, and stewing industrial conflict – could surely have served as part of the same canvas. At times Curtis overstretches himself, conflating the late-20th century with modernity in the broadest terms. Aside from Mrs Thatcher, Curtis's main protagonist is probably Stephen Hawking, whose hyper-rational analysis of the cosmos Curtis places in parallel with the penetration of market forces into the soul of Britain. It is difficult to see these phenomena as coterminous. At other moments, his captions are slightly strident, almost drunkenly so: 'The concept of privatisation had been invented by the Nazis.' 'Do you really believe that, sir, or are you just trying to make us think?' So Dakin asks his teacher Irwin in Alan Bennett's The History Boys as he hears the mythos of the First World War being swept away. I would ask Curtis the same question. But in Bennett's play, the boys learn that sincerity and iconoclasm are both necessary instincts. As a rare historian who is willing to prioritise sweep, argument and craft over the accumulation of credible detail, we are fortunate to have Adam Curtis. Shifty BBC iPlayer [See also: Amol Rajan's Ganges vanity project] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
UK Government accused of stitching up Palestine Action vote
MPs are set to debate the proscription order later on Wednesday, which – if passed – would make membership and support for the direct action group illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. If MPs vote to approve the proscription order, it would then need to go before the Lords on Thursday afternoon. The proscription order does not relate solely to Palestine Action, but includes three other groups: the "Maniacs Murder Cult", a Moldovan neo-Nazi group, the Russian Imperial Movement – a far-right group aiming to rebuild the Russian Empire – and its paramilitary wing the Russian Imperial Legion. READ MORE: LIVE: Latest updates as MPs vote on proscribing Palestine Action Independent MP and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn raised the matter in a point of order, as he asked for Palestine Action to be considered separately to the other organisations. He asked deputy speaker Roger Gale: "Can you consult with the Speaker's office about any process that could happen between now and the start of the debate on the statutory instrument on prevention of terrorism, so that the three organisations listed can be voted on separately? "Because I think that would be a proper way of members of the House expressing their views." Responding, Gale told Corbyn: "I thank the right honourable gentleman for his point of order. "I'm afraid that his request is simply, in procedural terms, not possible. "The chair is not responsible for the selection or the grouping of motions such as this. "The motion is and will be put to the House as it is on the order paper." READ MORE: Plane damaged by Palestine Action flying over Scotland Commenting, Palestine Action said on Twitter/X: "Jeremy Corbyn's request to vote on the proscription of Palestine Action separately to two neo-Nazi groups, one of which is the 'Maniacs Murder Cult', was rejected. "This is a stitch up to try and force through the first proscription of a domestic direct action protest group." Jeremy Corbyn's request to vote on the proscription of Palestine Action separately to two neo-Nazi groups, one of which is the 'Maniacs Murder Cult', was rejected. This is a stitch up to try and force through the first proscription of a domestic direct action protest group. — Palestine Action (@Pal_action) July 2, 2025 The Independent Alliance – a group of Independent MPs, which Corbyn is a member of – released a statement ahead of the debate, arguing that the Labour Government's use of the Terrorism Act is "an outrageous clampdown on civil disobedience" and is "an assault on the democratic rights of us all". The statement said: "We unequivocally oppose the proscription of Palestine Action. "Yesterday, at least 24 people were killed in an Israeli strike on a crowded seaside café in Gaza. Among those killed were women, children and the elderly. "Still, our Government allows the supply of arms to Israel. The real crime is the Government's complicity in genocide – and the proscription of Palestine Action is a shameful attempt to silence dissent. READ MORE: Ryanair cancels more than 800 flights due to conflict in the Middle East "The use of the Terrorism Act is an outrageous clampdown on civil disobedience. We implore MPs to recognise this gross misuse of state power for what it is: an assault on the democratic rights of us all. "Moreover, we are appalled by the government's cynical move to bundle Palestine Action in with foreign neo-Nazi organisations, as part of one piece of legislation. This represents a transparent ploy by the government to coerce MPs into supporting its authoritarian crackdown on Palestinian solidarity." The statement added: "Today, we look back and celebrate those who protested for the freedoms we enjoy today. Years from now, we will look back and commend those who stood on the right side of history. "The Government will not succeed in shielding itself from accountability. We will continue to demand an end to the UK's military cooperation with Israel. We will continue in our search for truth and justice. And we will continue to campaign for the only path to peace: an end to the occupation of Palestine." The debate is expected at around 5.30pm, with a vote taking place after.
Rhyl Journal
43 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
