IT IS disingenuous on the part of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (picture) to woe and lament over what he described as politics of hatred which he insists is engulfing the nation.

Claiming that no matter what was being done, and despite facts, the government would be criticised and demonised unrelentingly in the prevailing politics of hatred.

Since all the criticisms stemmed from hatred, Anwar said, it would not bother him as he “has a job to do.”

Anwar plays the victim and in one sweep ignores why and when such hatred emerged and is it truly a mean, meaningless hatred as he chose to box it in.

But given that he is a seasoned politician; and as pointed out by his detractors, that Anwar himself had in the last quarter of the century, until he became PM, been indulging in politics of hatred, he probably understood it better than others.

His detractors were quick to remind him that it was during his time in the Opposition that demonstrations after demonstrations, some violent, were staged and continued to be organised until the very last leg before he succeeded in getting the coveted post.

Mockingly, his detractors asked whether Anwar had forgotten whose supporters were rolling on the streets in protest against the Government and PM for raising the price of fuel by a meagre few sen.

By any measure, they further argued, the present opposition to the Government is mild-mannered and none had rolled anywhere despite diesel prices being increased by more than 50 percent.

But who started the politics of hatred and how they were expressed are merely digging into a past that does not have much bearing on the future, unless Anwar and his ilk are prepared to accept that these expressions stemmed from their failings.

As in the past, the so-called politics of hatred can only gain momentum if there is a cause celebre, a controversy that is capable of stirring up public sentiments.

Simply put, the political climate is such from their own doing.

Instead of boxing it as a politics of hatred, Anwar and his Government would probably be able to fare better by accepting that public disgruntlement and disgust over their performance had reached an all-time high.

Anwar contended that the hatred spewed ignored the facts put forth by him and his Government, citing how even his refusal to accept his pay was ridiculed, as were his firm efforts to combat corruption.

He lamented that he was also ridiculed for being friendly to Hamas and dealing with Blackrock had led to accusations of him being a Jewish agent.

Actually, other things had caused public ire but simply addressing the points he raised is actually sufficient for Anwar to understand why there is widespread anger towards him and his Government.

Anwar is not lying about him being ridiculed for not taking his PM’s pay and his efforts to combat corruption. The problem is that he did not share why he was being ridiculed.

On the pay, in so far as the public is concerned Anwar’s financial well-being is not dependent on the meagre salary. They are more concerned about his insistence on holding the Finance portfolio which went against his pre-electoral promise and that of Pakatan Harapan or the appointment of his daughter into the Ministry.

Apart from that, reports of his former aide securing a billion-ringgit government contract and suspicions of insider trading make Anwar’s no-pay sacrifice a joke.

In his efforts to combat corruption, Anwar lost the moral ground the minute he appointed Ahmad Zahid Hamidi as Deputy PM. When Zahid’s 47 cases were given the discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA), Anwar lost all of it.

Being ridiculed for being friendly with Hamas is something that Anwar brought upon himself. He was doing quite fine in the eyes of the Malay-Muslims when he decided to meet Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh and had a show of public affection.

His undoing came when cornered over hotly-debated Blackrock/Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) share sales controversy, Anwar criticised those opposed to it of being more Hamas than Hamas.

It is indeed a joke to use Hamas as a justification for Malaysia’s decision to dispose of MAHB’s stakes or otherwise to Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), wholly-owned by Blackrock, a rabid supporter of the Tel Aviv regime.

But more than that, Anwar attempts to spin and link previous Government’s deals with Blackrock to defend his current position on the MAHB.

And Anwar went all over the place, from the purchase of Malaysian shares and bonds in the open market to the right of an Israeli shipping company to berth in Malaysia’s ports and previous Government’s and PM’s invitation of Blackrock to invest in Malaysia.

Some of his backers, including a Minister, even insisted that if Malaysians were so opposed to the Blackrock deal, they should stop everything associated with Israel, from the Apple products, and Microsoft to the apps and other digital applications.

Again, they are missing the point. What is possible to be boycotted and isolated should be done but in the case of Blackrock, it is currently participating, or rather fuelling the Tel Aviv regime in the genocide of Palestinians.

The demand for Anwar to stop the MAHB deal with Blackrock is in response to the current and ongoing genocide of Palestinians by the Israelis. Blackrock is openly and unashamedly fuelling and supporting the regime and the genocide.

It is a simple analogy. Going by Anwar’s logic, the public should also not boycott Starbucks, McD and KFC since they were allowed in by previous administrations and these entities had existed in Malaysia for decades.

Obviously, the boycott is in response to the behaviour of the owners of these chains to support the present genocide. To most Malaysians, that is the least they could do to show their solidarity with the Palestinians.

If Anwar’s spins are not enough to disgust the public, enter his dim-witted backers, one attempting to go as far back to the 1980s, as how the then PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had used Rothschild in the legendary Dawn Raid which saw the return of British-plantation giant Guthrie back into Malaysia’s hand.

It was pointed out by Anwar’s detractors that in the 1980s, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) had yet to exist and there was no genocide to boot.

More importantly, Dr Mahathir had used a pro-Israel company to recoup a Malaysian entity usurped by the former colonialists. It was done so ingeniously that it left the Brits dumbfounded to lose its crown jewel to those they used to lord over.

In the MAHB’s case, Anwar and his ilk are defending a deal in which Malaysia is selling a substantial share of a profitable and strategic Malaysian entity to a rabid, pro-Israel company while the genocide is going on.

Of course, there are other causes which had led to Anwar’s alleged politics of hatred.

But more than that, they are expressions of anger and disgust over attempts to spin issues and continuously comparing what previous leaders and governments had done, in efforts to wriggle out of trouble.

Spins are attempts to insult intelligence. They spawn revulsion, not some unintelligent, meaningless hatred.