users online counter
Interesting

On May 15, many Palestinians and their supporters mark what they call “Nakba Day,” a commemoration focusing on their view that the reconstitution of a Jewish state in Israel was a “catastrophe.”

The commemoration is often accompanied by a flurry of opinion pieces and news stories conveying the Palestinian narrative of Israel’s independence, which frequently contain false charges.

In May 2008, for example, an Op-Ed in the New York Times claimed “a people had been expelled from their land in a comprehensive ethnic cleansing operation, given the name ‘Plan D’ by Israelis” (Elias Khoury, 5/18/08, “For Israelis, an Anniversary. For Palestinians, a Nakba”). In fact, notwithstanding a limited number of tactical expulsions, “a people” was certainly not expelled. And Plan D was not at all a “comprehensive ethnic cleansing operation” — you can read the text of that plan here.

A news story published in the Washington Post likewise passed along this false charge of mass expulsion. Reporter Sylvia Moreno relayed, from organizers of an anti-Israel rally, the accusation that every Palestinian that fled the war was actually “expelled.” She wrote: “To make way for Israel, 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and more than 400 of their villages were destroyed, organizers of the event said” (5/18/08, ”Palestinian Quilt Presents a Different Viewpoint; Creation of Israel Came At Great Cost, Some Say”). The reporter didn’t bother pointing out that this accusation has been debunked by prominent historians.

The piece below provides needed facts and context about the frequently distorted refugee issue.


During and after the 1948 war, hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Jews fled, and in some cases were forced from, their homes in Mandate Palestine and beyond. The effects of this flight are still today a major issue, as politicians, diplomats and other concerned parties try to resolve the Palestinian “refugee problem” — the status of the original Arab refugees and millions of their descendants, many of whom still live in refugee camps. The vast majority of Jewish refugees went to Israel, where they were absorbed with great difficulty. Despite having found a country committed to taking them in, they still seek redress and acknowledgment of their largely ignored plight.

Arab refugees

Numbers

Estimates vary on the number of Palestinians who became refugees as a result of the war. Israel’s Foreign Ministry and Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the number to be between 500,000 and 600,000. [Update: Historian Ephraim Karsh reached a similar conclusion after breaking down the flight by locale.] The British Foreign Office suggested the number was between 600,000 and 760,000. A 1950 report by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine endorsed an estimate of 711,000 refugees by an “expert of the Statistical Office of the United Nations.”

Periodization

Most broadly, the Arab flight can be divided into two time periods corresponding with the two major phases of fighting. Roughly half of those fleeing did so between November 1947 (when Palestinian Arabs responded to the United Nations partition recommendation with anti-Jewish violence) and May 1948 (when the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon invaded Palestine). During this period, the conflict more closely resembled a civil war, with Palestinian Jews battling Palestinian Arabs and several thousand Arab militiamen. A second phase of the fighting and flight occurred after May 1948, when neighboring Arab armies initiated the conventional phase of the war by joining in the fighting on the side of the Palestinians.

Some commentators divide the Palestinian exodus into three or four somewhat shorter waves. One prominent example of the ‘four wave’ characterization refers to 1) the flight of the Palestinian elite between November 1947 and March 1948; 2) a flight coinciding with the shift by the Jewish Haganah militia from defensive to offensive operations in April 1948 and lasting until a truce in June of that year; 3) the period between July, when that truce expired, and October, when a second truce ended; and lastly, 4) the period from October through November 1948.

Causes of Flight

Historians agree that there was no single cause of the Arab flight from Palestine. In large part, the masses fled because they saw the Palestinian elite doing the same thing. In part, it was in response to exhortations by Arab military and political leaders that Palestinian civilians evacuate their homes until the end of the fighting. Vast numbers were simply fleeing the heavy fighting that surrounded them, or that they expected to soon disrupt their lives. In some instances, Palestinians were forced from their homes by the Jewish military.

 

Following the Leaders

The Palestinian leadership and elite set an example for the rest of society by evacuating their towns and villages early during the conflict, usually long before fighting neared their towns, and some even before the civil war began. (Or as commander of the Arab Legion John Bagot Glubb put it, “villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war.”) This behavior not only shattered the morale of the Palestinian masses, but also, in the words of historian Shabtai Teveth, “amounted to clear — albeit unwritten — instructions to flee Palestine.”

The British High Commissioner for Palestine at the time, General Sir Alan Cunningham, described this phenomenon and its effect on the general population:

You should know that the collapsing Arab morale in Palestine is in some measure due to the increasing tendency of those who should be leading them to leave the country. For instance in Jaffa the Mayor went on 4 days leave 12 days ago and has not returned, and half the National Committee has left. In Haifa the Arab members of the municipality left some time ago; the two leaders of the Arab Liberation Army left actually during the recent battle. Now the Chief Arab Magistrate has left. In all parts of the country the [elite] effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period and the tempo is increasing.

Another British official, Palestine’s Chief Secretary Sir Henry Gurney, wrote that “It is pathetic to see how the [Jaffa] Arabs have been deserted by their leaders.”

Palestinian refugees at the Ein al-Hilweh camp in Lebanon Palestinian refugees in Lebanon

After Haifa’s chief Arab magistrate abandoned that city, a British intelligence report described the act as “probably the greatest factor in the demoralization of Haifa’s community.”

Just as the residents of cities followed in the footsteps of their fleeing leaders, the cities in general served as examples for inhabitants of nearby rural villages. For example, the residents of Balad ash Sheikh and Hawasswa left their homes after seeing Haifa residents do the same; Salama, Al Kheiriya and Yazur followed the lead of Jaffa; and Dhahiriya Tahta, Sammu’i and Meirun followed Safed.
 

Explicit Instructions to Flee

Palestinian leaders also explicitly instructed Palestinians to leave their homes. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, told a delegation of Haifa Arabs in January 1948 that they should “remove the women and children from the danger areas in order to reduce the number of casualties,” and continued to encourage evacuations in the months that followed. Indeed, just a few months later, when Haifa’s British, Jewish and Arab leadership were working to negotiate a truce, the Arab side, in line with the Mufti’s orders but to the great surprise of everyone involved, insisted on a complete evacuation of all Arab residents.

Similarly, the national Palestinian leadership (or “Arab Higher Committee”) published a pamphlet in March 1948 urging the evacuation of women, children and the elderly from areas affected by the fighting. The local Palestinian leadership (or “National Committee”) in Jerusalem heeded this call, ordering Jerusalem Arabs to evacuate these populations, and asserting that those who resisted doing so would be seen as “an obstacle to the Holy War” and as “hamper[ing]” the actions of the Arab fighters.

Jordan’s Arab Legion ordered women and children out of Beisan, a town near the Jordanian border and an anticipated point of invasion by the Legion.

In Tiberias, local Arab leaders chose to clear the town of its Arab residents, and did so with the help of the British authorities. In Jaffa, after the British forced Jewish militiamen to withdraw from the city, local Arab leaders organized the evacuation of the roughly 20,000 residents who hadn’t already fled during or before the fighting.

Similar scenes played out in dozens of Arab villages across the land.

Some villagers were not merely instructed to leave, but actually expelled by Arab militiamen from outside the country who feared local Arabs might ally themselves with the Jews, or who wanted to use the residents’ homes for lodging.

In a number of instances, the Jewish leadership appealed for the Arabs stay. The surprise announcement by the Palestinian leadership of Haifa that “the Arab population wished to evacuate” was immediately followed by a tearful plea by the town’s Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, for the leaders to reconsider. The Haganah’s chief representative in Haifa also assured the Arabs that if they stayed, “they would enjoy equality and peace, and that we, the Jews, were interested in their staying on and the maintenance of harmonious relations.” The British commander in Haifa, Hugh Stockwell, emphatically insisted that the Arabs were making a mistake, and also urged them to change their decision, which reportedly came from the Arab Higher Committee in Beirut.

Even as Haifa’s Arabs were streaming out of the city on British boats and trucks, the Jewish establishment continued to urge an end to the exodus and to insist that those who had departed should return. “[E]very effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives,” reported the British Superintendent of Police. A member of the Arab National Committee, Farid Saad, admitted that Jewish leaders “have organized a large propaganda campaign to persuade [the] Arabs to return.” (Most, however, did not return. The Arabs fleeing Haifa made up approximately 10 percent of the total number of Palestinian Arab refugees, and influenced countless others to follow in their wake.)

Likewise, in the town of Tiberias, which was evacuated with the help of, and perhaps at the behest of, the British, a senior Jewish representative appealed against the evacuation to the British governor, to no avail.
 

Expulsion

Although fighting between Jewish and Arabs in Palestine began in late 1947, the Jewish military began offensive operations only in April 1948. (Before this point, the Jewish fighters operated only defensively.) Things had been going poorly for the Yishuv early in the fighting. The combination of the Jews’ precarious position and the knowledge that professional armies of neighboring Arab countries would soon be invading prompted a change in strategy — loosely along the lines of the Jewish contingency plan known as Plan D, which called for gaining control of key territory in order to protect Jewish towns and the frontiers of the Jewish state against the attacking armies. Already before this Jewish switch to the offensive, about 100,000 Arabs, mostly those with the financial resources to relocate to somewhere more comfortable, had fled their homes. As the expected date of the invasion by Arab countries approached, Israeli military commanders saw the control of Arab villages along the borders (which were expected to soon become the front lines of fighting and points of entry for Arab armies) and of villages along key transport routes as a key objective. If a village could not be searched and controlled due to resistance, Plan D allowed for troops to force residents from their homes, something that indeed happened in a number of cases.

There were never any blanket orders to expel the Arabs, and in fact the new Israeli army, at the behest of the government, made clear in July 1948 that “it is forbidden … to expel Arab inhabitants from villages, neighborhoods and cities, and to uproot inhabitants from their places without special permission or explicit order from the Defense Minister in each specific case.”

Although no such orders would be issued by Defense (and Prime) Minister David Ben-Gurion, the military in some cases nonetheless chose, mostly for operational reasons (such as securing vital roads, preventing sniping, preventing the use of villages as a base for Arab armies), to expel Arab residents who remained behind after their neighbors’ spontaneous flight. These decisions were occasionally overturned by government officials.

Lydda, an Arab town near Tel Aviv, which was the temporary Jewish capital, is a prominent example in which the combination of military expulsion orders, the government’s overturning of these orders, the military’s interpretation of the government’s position, significant fighting, and spontaneous flight resulted in a substantial numbers leaving.

In July 1948, the Israeli army invaded Lydda and the neighboring town of Ramle to help secure Tel Aviv and drive out Arab Legion troops based in the towns. As the fighting began, a considerable number of civilians fled in panic. The battles ended quickly, and the towns surrendered, Ramle formally and Lydda informally.

Then, with a few hundred Israeli troops controlling a pacified Lydda, Arab Legion armored cars attempted to enter the town, only to encounter Israeli resistance. This minor encounter spurred local residents, who seemed to think — wrongly — that the vaunted Legion was staging a counter-attack, to themselves open fire on Israeli troops.

The troops, shaken by the attacks, aware of their small numbers, and worried about their vulnerable position in a town of thousands of hostile residents, responded harshly to end the attack, striking at homes thought to be used by snipers and firing at townspeople who violated curfew. Some estimate that 250 were killed by Israeli troops during the fighting. The incident helped convince further masses of Arab residents to flee, and simultaneously helped convince the Israelis to clear the town of its insurgent population. An Israeli military order called for immediately expelling the residents of Lydda.

But as troops were still figuring out how to transport the Arabs, many of whom were already streaming out of the town on their own, Israel’s Minister for Minority Affairs, Bechor Shitrit, arrived in Lydda. Shitrit was furious when he learned of the deportation orders, and indignantly reported what was happening to Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, who in turn spoke with Ben-Gurion. Sharett and Ben Gurion, in turn, told the IDF leadership that those who wanted to leave must be allowed to do so, those who wished to remain behind would be responsible for themselves, and women, children, elderly and sick residents must not be forced out of the town. The new orders, though, failed to end the removal or the voluntary exodus of the towns residents.

Despite such incidents, though, the overwhelming majority of Palestinian refugees were not expelled by the Israelis.
 

Other Factors

Factors associated with war in general — the deterioration of public services, food shortages, demoralization, the breakdown of law and order, misbehavior by armed militiamen and, not least, the din and danger of the fighting itself — all put strains on Palestinian Arab life, and certainly contributed to the flight.

Volunteer Arab militiamen from neighboring states, ostensibly sent to Palestine to protect local Arabs, often terribly mistreated the population of towns that hosted them. According to an account by one leading Palestinian, militiamen based in Jaffa and other cities robbed the locals, looted their homes, and defiled the “women’s honor.” A British report noted that the officers of one of these foreign militias “treat the locals like dirt.”

Rumor was also a factor. Arab-spread rumors about supposed Jewish atrocities apparently compelled some already demoralized locals to flee, while others left as a result of Jewish psychological operations — which intentionally spread rumors about impending attacks so as to induce an exodus from several villages.

Mostly generally, and perhaps most understandably, it was fear of war that spurred the Arabs of Palestine to decide to leave their homes. Whether they fled well before the fighting began, just as a battle for their village was set to begin, or during the exchange of fire itself, local townspeople did not want themselves or their families in harm’s way.

Regardless of the causes, the bottom line is that had the Arab world, including the Palestinians, not chosen to launch a war of destruction against the Jewish state, the much-discussed Palestinian refugee problem would not exist.

Sources:

  • “Charging Israel With Original Sin,” Shabtai Teveth, Commentary, September 1989
  • “1948, Israel, and the Palestinians — The True Story,” Ephraim Karsh, Commentary, May 2008
  • “The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and its Origins,” Shabtai Teveth, Middle Eastern Studies, April 1990
  • Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians, Ephraim Karsh
  • Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Benny Morris
  • Genesis 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, Dan Kurzman

Jewish Refugees

Numbers

Jewish refugees from Iraq at Lod airport, 1950 Iraqi Jewish refugees 1950

Although relatively overlooked, a large number of Jews — over 800,000 — became refugees during and after Israel’s war for independence. An overwhelming majority were driven from their homes in the Arab world, a result of anti-Jewish sentiment amplified by the war. Others lost their homes in British Mandate Palestine as a direct result of the fighting — they either fled or were captured by Arab troops as the armies of neighboring states overran and destroyed their villages.

Jewish Refugees from Mandate Palestine

The number of Jews who lost their homes within the territory of Mandate Palestine as a direct result of the fighting was significantly less than the number of Arabs who fled from the region. In large part, this was because Arab armies failed to capture many Jewish towns, thus allowing many of the roughly 10,000 Jewish evacuees who fled the fighting to return to their homes after the war. It was also because, in the words of Palestinian leader Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib, “[t]he Palestinians had neighboring Arab states which opened their borders and doors to the refugees, while the Jews had no alternative but to triumph or to die.”

Still, in some cases Jews fled their homes when it became clear their village was on the verge of being lost to Arab forces. For example, women and children were evacuated from Gush Etzion, a block of four villages southwest of Jerusalem, as the situation there started to deteriorate. At Yad Mordechai and Kfar Darom, in the south, residents escaped just before the Egyptian army captured and destroyed the towns. The village of Atarot, north of Jerusalem, was evacuated under fire, its residents escaping on foot to Neve Yaakov. When the Arab Legion attacked Neve Yaakov the following day, the residents of that town fled and, along with the displaced from Atarot, found refuge in Hadassah Hospital.

Jewish villagers who did not flee before Arab forces gained control of their town were generally removed from their homes and held as prisoners of war. Prisoners from areas that remained under Arab control after the war were eventually transferred to Israel, where they had to find new homes. For example, residents of the Gush Etzion villages of Mesuot Yitzhak, Ein Tzurim and Revadim, which came under the control of the Arab Legion, were taken captive and resettled in new Israeli villages after the war. (The residents of the fourth Gush Etzion village, Kfar Etzion, were almost all massacred by Arab gunmen.)

The surrender of Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter to Arab Legion troops was immediately followed by the exile from the ancient city of roughly 1,300 Jews. Almost 300 others — males of fighting age — were taken captive. The impossibility of keeping a Jewish presence in the Old City, which had been inhabited by Jews from time immemorial, was underscored by the Arab mobs that marched on the departing residents and on a hospital housing severely injured Jews, only to be held off by the well-disciplined Arab Legion. The Jewish Quarter was ransacked and burned.

Even when Israel regained control of a captured village by the end of the war, residents generally could not return to their homes, as they were destroyed by the Arab conquerors. The residents of Mishmar Hayarden, for example, were taken into captivity by Syrian troops, who then destroyed the village before Israel regained control. The same happened when Nitzanim was overrun by Egyptian troops.

Jewish Refugees from the Arab World

Between 1948 and 1951, as a result of the War of Independence, about 400,000 Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel after being driven from their homes from Arab lands. In total, well over 800,000 Jews indigenous to Arab and Muslim countries lost their homes and property following Israel’s independence, roughly 600,000 of whom found refuge in Israel. Although the number of Jewish refugees and the total area of their lost land exceeded that of their Arab counterparts, the similarity in the numbers of Jewish and Arab refugees has led some to describe the exodus of the two groups as a de facto population transfer.

With the UN’s 1947 decision to partition Palestine, the Jewish community in Iraq, which only a few years earlier had suffered a devastating pogrom, faced a new wave of harsh persecution.

The Iraqi government adopted what author and journalist Edwin Black described as “Nazi confiscatory techniques,” levying “exorbitant fines as punishment for trumped-up offenses.” Zionism was made a criminal offense. As Arab countries invaded the newly declared Jewish state, the Iraqi police ransacked Jewish homes and arrested hundreds of Jewish citizens. Hundreds more were dismissed from their public jobs. Crippling restrictions targeted Jewish commerce and travel. The government seized Jewish property, cut off municipal services to Jewish neighborhoods, and shut down Jewish newspapers

Researcher Esther Meir-Glitzenstein explained that “what had begun as voluntary emigration turned into an expulsion.” Eventually, about 120,000 people — almost the entire Jewish community — would escape the oppression, with little more than the clothes on their backs.

A similar scenario played out in Egypt. The events of 1948 brought a revival of anti-Jewish sentiment, complete with anti-Jewish riots and murders, the confiscation of Jewish property, legal restrictions affecting the employment of Jews and mass arrests. This prompted a wave of Jewish flight from the country, a trend that only increased in the decade that followed.

Violent anti-Jewish rioting in Yemen in the wake of the UN partition plan help spur tens of thousands of Yeminite Jews to leave their homes and migrate to Israel as part of Operation Magic Carpet. Murderous pogroms in Morocco in 1948 and 1953, and in Libya in 1945 and 1948, yielded similar results.

Sources:

  • The Edge of the Sword: Israel’s War of Independence, 1947-1949, Natanel Lorch
  • Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Martin Gilbert
  • Encyclopedia Judaica
  • “1948, Israel, and the Palestinians — The True Story,” Ephraim Karsh, Commentary, May 2008
  • “The evacuation of the noncombatant population in the 1948 war: three kibbutzim as a case study,” Nurit Cohen Levinovsky, Journal of Israeli History, March 2007.
  • Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century, Martin Gilbert
  • The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, Maurice Roumani
Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip: A Delivery Company Smuggles KFC from Egypt via Underground Tunnels
A courier business based in Gaza is apparently offering an ambitious service to deliver smuggled orders of Kentucky Friend Chicken from Egypt via underground tunnels. According to the company’s ads on Facebook, Gazans can get a taste of the “finger-lickin good” stuff for 100 shekels ($30 USD, triple the usual price) within 3 hours of placing the order. Fried chicken is only the latest addition to a long list of supplies and products that are being transported through the network of tunnels, which serves as a vital lifeline between Egypt and the Hamas-controlled region.

Meanwhile in the Gaza Strip: A Delivery Company Smuggles KFC from Egypt via Underground Tunnels

A courier business based in Gaza is apparently offering an ambitious service to deliver smuggled orders of Kentucky Friend Chicken from Egypt via underground tunnels. According to the company’s ads on Facebook, Gazans can get a taste of the “finger-lickin good” stuff for 100 shekels ($30 USD, triple the usual price) within 3 hours of placing the order. Fried chicken is only the latest addition to a long list of supplies and products that are being transported through the network of tunnels, which serves as a vital lifeline between Egypt and the Hamas-controlled region.

לא יסתפקו ב-67’. מאת שאול רוזנפלד
כמדי 15 במאי נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהודים “עשו לאבותיהם”. נראה שתאבונם של רבים מהם אינו עוצר בגבולות 1967
“זה מצב אבסורד שאין כמותו בעולם, שבזמן שנעקרו ערבים מאדמותיהם מעלים יהודים במקומם בהפלגות מכל העולם”, אמר ח”כ אחמד טיבי ב”יום הנכבה” בשנה שעברה, ולו רק כדי ללמדנו עד כמה לצנינים היא בעיניו עליית היהודים ארצה, עצמאותם ומדינתם, שלידתה לטעמו הייתה ועודנה כרוכה בחטא הגירוש, העקירה, הנישול וההגליה של ערביה.
 ייתכן מאוד שלא תמיד הטון עושה את המוסיקה, וטיבי כעמיתו ג’מאל זחאלקה, שבשבתו באולפן שידור ברמת אביב לפני כמה שנים הסביר למארחו דן מרגלית כי הם יושבים למעשה בשייח’ מוניס, והוא, מרגלית, שנולד בתל אביב ב-1938 אינו יותר ממהגר במדינה - חרגו קמעה בסגנונם הבוטה מהקו הרטורי המקובל משכבר הימים על הנהגת ערביי ישראל.
ואולם מבחינה מהותית קצת קשה לאתר הבדלים של ממש בין דברי הח”כים מכנסת ישראל לקביעתם של “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב העליונה של ערביי ישראל” ו”ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות”, כי “ישראל היא תוצאה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית, שיזמו האליטות היהודיות-ציוניות באירופה ובמערב” (כפי שהדבר כתוב במפורש במסמכי החזון של ערביי ישראל) - כשכל בר דעת אמור להבין מה ראוי שיעלה בגורלה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית משוקצת שכזו.
 המהדורה השנייה של “יום הנכבה”, המצוין היום ב-15 במאי, כבר שמורה בעיקר לאחיהם הפלסטינים של טיבי וזחאלקה, שיותר משמבכים הם את האסון שנפל על ראשם ב-48’, כידוע על לא עוול בכפם, הם מקוננים על כישלונם של צבאות מצרים, סוריה, ירדן, לבנון ועיראק, שפלשו לארץ ב-15 במאי 48’, בביצוע התשליך המכובד של היהודים ובביטולה באחת של מדינת היהודים בת היממה.
 מתוקף לקורבן
אז, כשזממם של ערביי ארץ ישראל ומדינות ערב על מיגור “היישות הציונית” במלחמת השמד וטבח (כדברי מזכ”ל הליגה הערבית דאז, עבדל אל-רחמן עזאם, ב-14 במאי 48’) לא עלה בידיהם, ומעשיהם לא רק שלא קירבו אותם לתכלית המיוחלת, אלא הרחיקו אותם ממנה ואת חלקם אף מבתיהם - החלה להירקם תוכנית הקונברסיה. אותה תוכנית המרה שבה התוקפן, שזממו לא צלח, הופך את עורו בן-לילה לקורבן זך ותמים, שמעולם, כידוע, לא חרש רוע וזדון; והציונים, שבחוצפתם כי רבה לא ששו אז להניח את צווארם לפני המאכלת, נהפכים באחת ל”ישות כובשת, חומסת ומגרשת”.
 ברוח ההתְקַרְבְּנוּת המופלאה הזאת, ותוך שהם מצטיידים ב”מפתחות בתיהם” מ-48’ ובנאומי תוכחה של “אנחנו מאשימים”, נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל מדי שנה ביום העצמאות וב-15 במאי, כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהוד “עשה לאבותינו ולנו”, ולא פחות מכך - להשיח על ההכרח שבהשבת הגזלה לבעליה ובהחזרת הפליטים לבתיהם. מההתכנסויות, התהלוכות והעצרות הללו לא נפקד חלילה גם מקומם של יהודים טובים, שנפשם הדוויה אינה יודעת מנוח והם אינם יודעים לאן להוליך את “הבושה”, ובדומה לאחיהם הפלסטינים, בישראל ומחוצה לה, הם יודעים גם יודעים איך ראוי לתקן “עוולות ציוניות”, במיוחד כמו זו של הנכבה, למשל במימוש אמיץ של סעיף 11 של החלטה 194 של העצרת הכללית של האו”ם בדבר השבת הפליטים לבתיהם.
 אמנם לא כל ההנהגה הערבית החזיקה אחרי דבריו של חאג’ אמין אל חוסייני כי “הרוג ביהודים באשר הם, זה ירצה את אלוהים, ההיסטוריה והדת”, אך היא הקפידה הקפד היטב לדחות מכל וכל כל תוכנית ליישוב צנוע ומצומצם של היהודים, ולו על מקצת מהשטח שהובטח להם בהצהרת בלפור - בין אם הייתה זו תוכניתה של ועדת פיל מ-1937, בין אם את תוכנית החלוקה השנייה של האו”ם מ-1947 ובין אם היו אלה הצעות אחרות.
פאיז צאיע, אחמד בהא א-דין, נאג’י עלוש, עבד א-לטיף שרארה וקונסטנטין זורייק הם רק אפס קצהו של שובל אינטלקטואלים ערבים מן העבר שביצרו את הקונסנסוס, הפלסטיני בפרט והערבי בכלל, שהיהודים הם עדה דתית ותו לא, וש”מדינת לאום יהודית” היא צירוף מופרך מיסודו - ולפיכך מדינת ישראל כמות שהיא ראוי לה שתעבור מן העולם. חזונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, חנין זועבי, “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב”, “ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות” או אבו מאזן אינו שונה כמלוא הנימה מאותה רוח השורה על מיטב בניו של העולם הערבי שמסביבנו.
 עתה, כשמתגברים מחדש הקולות הקוראים לחידוש המשא-ומתן בין ישראל לפלסטינים, ראוי אולי לחזור
 ולהיזכר מהן דרישותיו ומטרותיו האמיתיות של הצד השני, מה עלה בגורלן של הצעותיהם מרחיקות הלכת לפלסטינים של ברק בקמפ דייוויד ב-2000 ובטאבה ב-2001 ושל אולמרט באנאפוליס ב-2007, ומה נדרשת ישראל לעשות לטעמם לשם תיקונה של “עוולת הנכבה שעוללה”.
 למקפידים שבקרבנו לשמר את אמונתם היוקדת כי השלום הוא בהישג יד, תהליך ההיזכרות קרוב לוודאי שלא יועיל במיוחד, אך למרבית המפוכחים שבינינו, שהתרבו עד מאוד מאז אופוריית אוסלו ב-93’ ועד עתה, תזכורת זאת היא באחת גם ההכרה המחודשת כי תאבונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, אבו מאזן ושות’ אינו נעצר בגבולות 67’.

לא יסתפקו ב-67’. מאת שאול רוזנפלד

כמדי 15 במאי נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהודים “עשו לאבותיהם”. נראה שתאבונם של רבים מהם אינו עוצר בגבולות 1967

“זה מצב אבסורד שאין כמותו בעולם, שבזמן שנעקרו ערבים מאדמותיהם מעלים יהודים במקומם בהפלגות מכל העולם”, אמר ח”כ אחמד טיבי ב”יום הנכבה” בשנה שעברה, ולו רק כדי ללמדנו עד כמה לצנינים היא בעיניו עליית היהודים ארצה, עצמאותם ומדינתם, שלידתה לטעמו הייתה ועודנה כרוכה בחטא הגירוש, העקירה, הנישול וההגליה של ערביה.

 ייתכן מאוד שלא תמיד הטון עושה את המוסיקה, וטיבי כעמיתו ג’מאל זחאלקה, שבשבתו באולפן שידור ברמת אביב לפני כמה שנים הסביר למארחו דן מרגלית כי הם יושבים למעשה בשייח’ מוניס, והוא, מרגלית, שנולד בתל אביב ב-1938 אינו יותר ממהגר במדינה - חרגו קמעה בסגנונם הבוטה מהקו הרטורי המקובל משכבר הימים על הנהגת ערביי ישראל.

ואולם מבחינה מהותית קצת קשה לאתר הבדלים של ממש בין דברי הח”כים מכנסת ישראל לקביעתם של “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב העליונה של ערביי ישראל” ו”ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות”, כי “ישראל היא תוצאה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית, שיזמו האליטות היהודיות-ציוניות באירופה ובמערב” (כפי שהדבר כתוב במפורש במסמכי החזון של ערביי ישראל) - כשכל בר דעת אמור להבין מה ראוי שיעלה בגורלה של פעולה קולוניאליסטית משוקצת שכזו.

 המהדורה השנייה של “יום הנכבה”, המצוין היום ב-15 במאי, כבר שמורה בעיקר לאחיהם הפלסטינים של טיבי וזחאלקה, שיותר משמבכים הם את האסון שנפל על ראשם ב-48’, כידוע על לא עוול בכפם, הם מקוננים על כישלונם של צבאות מצרים, סוריה, ירדן, לבנון ועיראק, שפלשו לארץ ב-15 במאי 48’, בביצוע התשליך המכובד של היהודים ובביטולה באחת של מדינת היהודים בת היממה.

 מתוקף לקורבן

אז, כשזממם של ערביי ארץ ישראל ומדינות ערב על מיגור “היישות הציונית” במלחמת השמד וטבח (כדברי מזכ”ל הליגה הערבית דאז, עבדל אל-רחמן עזאם, ב-14 במאי 48’) לא עלה בידיהם, ומעשיהם לא רק שלא קירבו אותם לתכלית המיוחלת, אלא הרחיקו אותם ממנה ואת חלקם אף מבתיהם - החלה להירקם תוכנית הקונברסיה. אותה תוכנית המרה שבה התוקפן, שזממו לא צלח, הופך את עורו בן-לילה לקורבן זך ותמים, שמעולם, כידוע, לא חרש רוע וזדון; והציונים, שבחוצפתם כי רבה לא ששו אז להניח את צווארם לפני המאכלת, נהפכים באחת ל”ישות כובשת, חומסת ומגרשת”.

 ברוח ההתְקַרְבְּנוּת המופלאה הזאת, ותוך שהם מצטיידים ב”מפתחות בתיהם” מ-48’ ובנאומי תוכחה של “אנחנו מאשימים”, נאספים להם פלסטינים וערביי ישראל מדי שנה ביום העצמאות וב-15 במאי, כדי לדוש ב”מעשי הנבלה” שהיהוד “עשה לאבותינו ולנו”, ולא פחות מכך - להשיח על ההכרח שבהשבת הגזלה לבעליה ובהחזרת הפליטים לבתיהם. מההתכנסויות, התהלוכות והעצרות הללו לא נפקד חלילה גם מקומם של יהודים טובים, שנפשם הדוויה אינה יודעת מנוח והם אינם יודעים לאן להוליך את “הבושה”, ובדומה לאחיהם הפלסטינים, בישראל ומחוצה לה, הם יודעים גם יודעים איך ראוי לתקן “עוולות ציוניות”, במיוחד כמו זו של הנכבה, למשל במימוש אמיץ של סעיף 11 של החלטה 194 של העצרת הכללית של האו”ם בדבר השבת הפליטים לבתיהם.

 אמנם לא כל ההנהגה הערבית החזיקה אחרי דבריו של חאג’ אמין אל חוסייני כי “הרוג ביהודים באשר הם, זה ירצה את אלוהים, ההיסטוריה והדת”, אך היא הקפידה הקפד היטב לדחות מכל וכל כל תוכנית ליישוב צנוע ומצומצם של היהודים, ולו על מקצת מהשטח שהובטח להם בהצהרת בלפור - בין אם הייתה זו תוכניתה של ועדת פיל מ-1937, בין אם את תוכנית החלוקה השנייה של האו”ם מ-1947 ובין אם היו אלה הצעות אחרות.

פאיז צאיע, אחמד בהא א-דין, נאג’י עלוש, עבד א-לטיף שרארה וקונסטנטין זורייק הם רק אפס קצהו של שובל אינטלקטואלים ערבים מן העבר שביצרו את הקונסנסוס, הפלסטיני בפרט והערבי בכלל, שהיהודים הם עדה דתית ותו לא, וש”מדינת לאום יהודית” היא צירוף מופרך מיסודו - ולפיכך מדינת ישראל כמות שהיא ראוי לה שתעבור מן העולם. חזונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, חנין זועבי, “עדאלה”, “ועדת המעקב”, “ועד ראשי הרשויות הערביות” או אבו מאזן אינו שונה כמלוא הנימה מאותה רוח השורה על מיטב בניו של העולם הערבי שמסביבנו.

 עתה, כשמתגברים מחדש הקולות הקוראים לחידוש המשא-ומתן בין ישראל לפלסטינים, ראוי אולי לחזור

 ולהיזכר מהן דרישותיו ומטרותיו האמיתיות של הצד השני, מה עלה בגורלן של הצעותיהם מרחיקות הלכת לפלסטינים של ברק בקמפ דייוויד ב-2000 ובטאבה ב-2001 ושל אולמרט באנאפוליס ב-2007, ומה נדרשת ישראל לעשות לטעמם לשם תיקונה של “עוולת הנכבה שעוללה”.

 למקפידים שבקרבנו לשמר את אמונתם היוקדת כי השלום הוא בהישג יד, תהליך ההיזכרות קרוב לוודאי שלא יועיל במיוחד, אך למרבית המפוכחים שבינינו, שהתרבו עד מאוד מאז אופוריית אוסלו ב-93’ ועד עתה, תזכורת זאת היא באחת גם ההכרה המחודשת כי תאבונם של טיבי, זחאלקה, אבו מאזן ושות’ אינו נעצר בגבולות 67’.

Virtually all international media has ignored recent news from France, where a court issued a ruling related, among other things, to the legality of Israel’s occupation. As noted in a March 13, 2013 article published by the French media outlet Dreuz, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled that the Israeli occupation of the territories claimed by the Palestinians is in fact legal.
 
The judicial decision put an end to a long process initiated by the French-Palestinian Solidarity Association (ASPF) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) represented by Mahmoud Abbas.
 
Also, in February 2007, both the ASPF and the PLO denounced the French companies Veolia Transport and Alstom Transport SA for building the Jerusalem tram that runs through the Eastern part of the city, which the Palestinians claim as theirs. Regarding the occupation, the PLO and ASPF appealed using existing articles from the Geneva Convention and both The Hague Conventions of 1907 and 1954. But the Court of Versailles specifies that those articles are not applicable. Firstly, these agreements apply to States, and neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO are such. Secondly, both Convention articles refer to “High Contracting Parties”, and neither the PLO nor the PA ever signed those Conventions.
 
As for the transport companies, the French court – which does allow for appeals – ruled that Israel has the right to build in the occupied territories. Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 specifies that “the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” The Court fined the AFPS and the OLP 30,000 Euros payable each to Alstom, Alstom Transport and Veolia Transport.
 
It is interesting to note the mainstream media’s willingness to report promptly when it comes to Tribunals that condemn Israel or when proven Israel detractors accuse the Jewish State of legal violations. However, when a legal court rules in favor of Israel, abiding by International Law rather than personal opinion, the media silence is quite staggering. It seems there’s no room for facts, just for opinions and mere assumptions.
 
This article originally appeared in Spanish on ReVista de Medio Oriente. You can read the original version here.

On April 30, 2013, an Israeli citizen was stabbed to death at Tapuach Junction in the West Bank. The attack was carried out by Salam Al-Zaghal, a released prisoner and member of Fatah’s military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The latter took responsibility for the attack, saying that it had “received a green light to carry out military actions against Israeli targets in response to the deaths of prisoners ‘Arafat Jaradat and Maysara Abu Hamdia in an Israeli prison.”[1]

Conversely, Fatah Central Committee Member Jamal Muheisen tried to distance Fatah from the attack, saying: “The Za’atra action was a natural response to attacks by the occupation and settlers [on Palestinians], but it does not express the general policy of the Palestinian Authority and of Fatah, who have espoused [the option of] popular resistance to the occupation.”[2] Muheisen’s statement was met with criticism from other Fatah members and journalists, who praised Al-Zaghal as a hero who has restored Fatah’s pride. 

The following are excerpts from their responses

Read on 


Endnotes:

[1] Amad.ps, April 30, 2013.

[2] Alzaytouna.net, April 30, 2013.

Where’s the Coverage? Hamas Bulldozes UNESCO Heritage Site to Build Terrorist Training Camp
Monday, watchdog group UN Watch sent a letter to the Director General of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization:


UN Watch is alarmed by the reported destruction by Hamas of parts of the ancient Anthedon Harbor in Gaza for use as a terrorist training camp. We urge you to bring the matter immediately before the UNESCO Executive Board, currently meeting at its 191st session in Paris, for protective action.
We note the tragic irony that this destruction by the rulers of Gaza comes exactly one year after the area was nominated by new UNESCO member state Palestine as a World Heritage site.
As you must know, earlier last month, despite criticism from nongovernmental organizations, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas bulldozed a part of the Anthedon Harbor in northern Gaza along the Mediterranean Sea, according to yesterday’s report by Al Monitor Palestine Pulse.
Hamas damaged the harbor in order to expand its “military training” zone, which was initially opened on the location in 2002, according to your own UNESCO representative in Gaza, Yousef al-Ejla.



UNESCO itself describes Anthedon, the historical significance of which dates back to 800 BCE, as a port that continued to thrive thru Neo-Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic periods:


The present site consists of a variety of elements which spread in the area from the seashore, including the underwater archaeology, to the inland: the ruins of a Roman temple and a section of a wall have been uncovered, as well as Roman artisan and living quarters, including a series of villas, testifying of the city of Anthedon. Mosaic floors, warehouses and fortified structures are found in the area.


Despite the importance of the site, its at-least-partial destruction has attracted very little mainstream news media attention. Outside of the Jewish and Israeli press and some blogs, CAMERA could find coverage in only The Washington Times, The Washington Free Beacon, FrontPage Magazine, and TheBlaze.com. The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, the network news, cable news channels… nothing.

Al-Monitor quotes Deputy Minister of Tourism in Gaza Muhammad Khela saying that the location was taken for “military” use:


“We can’t stand as an obstacle in the way of Palestinian resistance; we are all a part of a resistance project, yet we promise that the location will be limitedly used without harming it at all,” Khela explained.
[…]
“If the location was excavated already, I don’t think it would have been possible for anyone to take it over,” Khela explained, adding that “it should be UNESCO and other donating groups’ job to do so.”



Yet, UNESCO and Palestinian leaders have repeatedly failed to protect sites that have been excavated and that are even in use to this day. Though UNESCO’s constitution, Article 1 Paragraph 2c, states that the organization’s purpose is to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science,” UNESCO has been mute on repeated attacks on archeologically significant Jewish sites that were, if not allowed by, at least ignored by Palestinian authorities obligated to protect them.

Rachel’s Tomb, described by some as the second holiest place of worship in Judaism, comes under frequent rock and Molotov cocktail attack as do the Jews who worship there.

Visitors to Joseph’s Tomb report that vandals had urinated at the entrance to the tomb and there were indications on the wall and window of attempts to start a fire there.

Instead of protecting these and other sites from Palestinian damage, UNESCO, like many United Nations agencies, focuses disproportionate criticism on Israel. UN Watch notes in its letter to the organization:


According the current UNESCO session timetable, there are in fact four agenda items dedicated exclusively to Palestinian issues: Items 9, 10, 34, and 35, while Item 5 includes a fifth report on this issue. Israel is the only country in the world that is targeted for specific criticism in this session.


Though the United States withdrew funding for UNESCO when the organization admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011, the Obama administration seeks to restore $77.7 million in funding in the proposed 2014 budget:


The Administration seeks Congressional support for legislation that would provide authority to waive legislative restrictions that, if triggered, would prohibit paying U.S. contributions to United Nations specialized agencies that grant the Palestinians the same standing as member states or full membership as a state. Should the Congress pass this waiver legislation, the FY 2014 funding specifically requested for UNESCO would cover the FY 2014 UNESCO assessment and the FY 2013 and FY 2014 Contingent Requirements funding would cover arrears which accrued in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

Jewish heritage sites, which should be protected by the Palestinian Authority, are regularly desecrated and Hamas destroys a 3,000-year-old archeological treasure in Gaza yet UNESCO does nothing? Where’s the outcry in the archeological community? Where’s the outrage among academics? Where, oh where’s the coverage?

Where’s the Coverage? Hamas Bulldozes UNESCO Heritage Site to Build Terrorist Training Camp

Monday, watchdog group UN Watch sent a letter to the Director General of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization:

UN Watch is alarmed by the reported destruction by Hamas of parts of the ancient Anthedon Harbor in Gaza for use as a terrorist training camp. We urge you to bring the matter immediately before the UNESCO Executive Board, currently meeting at its 191st session in Paris, for protective action.

We note the tragic irony that this destruction by the rulers of Gaza comes exactly one year after the area was nominated by new UNESCO member state Palestine as a World Heritage site.

As you must know, earlier last month, despite criticism from nongovernmental organizations, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas bulldozed a part of the Anthedon Harbor in northern Gaza along the Mediterranean Sea, according to yesterday’s report by Al Monitor Palestine Pulse.

Hamas damaged the harbor in order to expand its “military training” zone, which was initially opened on the location in 2002, according to your own UNESCO representative in Gaza, Yousef al-Ejla.

UNESCO itself describes Anthedon, the historical significance of which dates back to 800 BCE, as a port that continued to thrive thru Neo-Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and early Islamic periods:

The present site consists of a variety of elements which spread in the area from the seashore, including the underwater archaeology, to the inland: the ruins of a Roman temple and a section of a wall have been uncovered, as well as Roman artisan and living quarters, including a series of villas, testifying of the city of Anthedon. Mosaic floors, warehouses and fortified structures are found in the area.

Despite the importance of the site, its at-least-partial destruction has attracted very little mainstream news media attention. Outside of the Jewish and Israeli press and some blogs, CAMERA could find coverage in only The Washington Times, The Washington Free Beacon, FrontPage Magazine, and TheBlaze.com. The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, the network news, cable news channels… nothing.

Al-Monitor quotes Deputy Minister of Tourism in Gaza Muhammad Khela saying that the location was taken for “military” use:

“We can’t stand as an obstacle in the way of Palestinian resistance; we are all a part of a resistance project, yet we promise that the location will be limitedly used without harming it at all,” Khela explained.

[…]

“If the location was excavated already, I don’t think it would have been possible for anyone to take it over,” Khela explained, adding that “it should be UNESCO and other donating groups’ job to do so.”

Yet, UNESCO and Palestinian leaders have repeatedly failed to protect sites that have been excavated and that are even in use to this day. Though UNESCO’s constitution, Article 1 Paragraph 2c, states that the organization’s purpose is to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science,” UNESCO has been mute on repeated attacks on archeologically significant Jewish sites that were, if not allowed by, at least ignored by Palestinian authorities obligated to protect them.

Rachel’s Tomb, described by some as the second holiest place of worship in Judaism, comes under frequent rock and Molotov cocktail attack as do the Jews who worship there.

Visitors to Joseph’s Tomb report that vandals had urinated at the entrance to the tomb and there were indications on the wall and window of attempts to start a fire there.

Instead of protecting these and other sites from Palestinian damage, UNESCO, like many United Nations agencies, focuses disproportionate criticism on Israel. UN Watch notes in its letter to the organization:

According the current UNESCO session timetable, there are in fact four agenda items dedicated exclusively to Palestinian issues: Items 9, 10, 34, and 35, while Item 5 includes a fifth report on this issue. Israel is the only country in the world that is targeted for specific criticism in this session.

Though the United States withdrew funding for UNESCO when the organization admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011, the Obama administration seeks to restore $77.7 million in funding in the proposed 2014 budget:

The Administration seeks Congressional support for legislation that would provide authority to waive legislative restrictions that, if triggered, would prohibit paying U.S. contributions to United Nations specialized agencies that grant the Palestinians the same standing as member states or full membership as a state. Should the Congress pass this waiver legislation, the FY 2014 funding specifically requested for UNESCO would cover the FY 2014 UNESCO assessment and the FY 2013 and FY 2014 Contingent Requirements funding would cover arrears which accrued in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

Jewish heritage sites, which should be protected by the Palestinian Authority, are regularly desecrated and Hamas destroys a 3,000-year-old archeological treasure in Gaza yet UNESCO does nothing? Where’s the outcry in the archeological community? Where’s the outrage among academics? Where, oh where’s the coverage?

Patronising the Palestinians. By Pat Condell

Somebody to Hate (Latma)

ניסיונות החיסול הכושלים של המוסד, הטיפ שהביא השב”כ, הטבעת ספינה במרחק 2,600 ק”מ מחופי ישראל, אימונים של סיירת מטכ”ל בווילות של רמת השרון ולוחם אחד שמסתובב בלבוש בחורה בקניון איילון. “ישראל דיפנס” חושף פרטים חדשים על פעולת חיסולו של סגן יו”ר אש”ף בטוניס לפני 25 שנה

הסיפור האמיתי מאחורי חיסול אבו ג'יהאד
זה קרה לפני כ-25 שנה, ב-16 באפריל 1988, בארוע שהיה אמור לשנות את פני המזרח התיכון: שני לוחמים של סיירת מטכ”ל, אחד מהם היה מחופש לאישה, התקרבו לעבר הוילה של חליל אל וזיר (אבו ג’יהאד), סגן ראש אש”ף, בעיר טוניס שלחוף הים התיכון. 

אחד מה”נאהבים” החזיק חבילה שנראתה כבונבוניירה, ואילו הלוחם בתחפושת האישה אחז מפה של האזור. ה”בחורה” עם המפה התקרבה אל השומר, כאילו כדי לבקש ממנו הסבר כיצד להגיע לכתובת מסוימת בשכונה. באותו זמן, האיש עם החבילה כיוון רובה עם משתיק קול, שהיה מוסתר בתוך הקופסא, היישר אל עבר הראש של השומר. המאבטח של אבו ג’יהאד לא היה יכול להבחין בנקודה אדומה שסומנה על המצח שלו. לפתע, הוא התמוטט ונפל. יריה אחת פגעה בו בדיוק קטלני. 

אבו גי’האד סומן כיעד להתנקשות כבר באמצע שנות ה-80 של המאה הקודמת, כאשר המודיעין הישראלי העריך שהוא יזם כמה מגה-פיגועים בישראל. אחד מהפיגועים היה אמור להתבצע במחנה הקריה בתל אביב על ידי כוח “קומנדו ימי” פלשתיני שיפשוט מן הים, בתוכנית שהניסיונות לסכלה שלחו את הקומנדו הימי של ישראל עד נמל ענאבה באלג’יריה.

מן הפרטים שנחשפים כאן בראשונה עולה שהכוונה הייתה להתנקש בחייו בלי להשאיר טביעות אצבע ישראליות, אולי בגלל שההתנקשות היתה אמורה להתבצע על אדמתה של מדינה שנחשבה ידידותית למדי ולא היה רצון להסתבך איתה. 

ניסיונות החיסול הראשונים של אבו ג’יהאד בוצעו ככל הנראה על ידי המוסד. אבו ג’יהאד נסע במשך ימים ארוכים במכונית שהיתה ממולכדת ברימונים, אבל למזלו הרימונים לא התפוצצו, וכנראה שהיו גם מקרים שבהם נורו בקרבתו יריות ואפילו התפוצץ טיל, אבל המזל שוב שיחק לו. 

לבסוף הוטלה משימת החיסול על סיירת מטכ”ל בראשותו של משה (בוגי) יעלון, לימים הרמטכ”ל וכיום שר הביטחון ונקבע כי היא תתבצע על אדמת טוניס. כ”פרויקטור” של הפעולה בסיירת מטכ”ל נקבע נחום לב ז”ל, שקיבל אחריות על התכנון. למוסד היה גם כן תפקיד מרכזי: אנשיו כבר היו מרושתים היטב בעיר טוניס. במשך חודשים אספו המוסד ואגף המודיעין כל פיסת מידע על הנעשה בטוניס ובעיקר על הווילה שבה התגורר אבו ג’יהאד בלב העיר, בסמיכות לרבים מבכירי אש”ף. שכנו הקרוב ביותר היה מחמוד עבאס, המכונה אבו-מאזן, שמשמש כיום כיו”ר הרשות הפלשתינית. 

אימוני ה”מודל” לקראת המבצע התקיימו ברמת השרון, ובמסגרת התגנבו חיילי היחידה מהחוף לשכונה של וילות יוקרה בישוב פעם אחר פעם. 

אבו ג’יהאד היה עדיין ער כאשר לוחמי סיירת מטכ”ל התפרצו לווילה שלו בטוניס בשתיים לפנות בוקר, ארבע לוחמים שונים ירו בסגנו של יו”ר אש”ף לפני ששככה האש בתוך הווילה וברשת הקשר נשמע קולו של המפקד שדיווח לחפ”ק מאחור: “המנהל ושלושת הפועלים שלו בדרכם לעולם שכולו טוב”. 

הפעולה בטוניס זיכתה שלושה מאנשי סיירת מטכ”ל בצל”שים מהרמטכ”ל. זו הייתה הפעם הראשונה שבה ישראל ניסתה לשנות את מהלך ההיסטוריה באמצעות חיסול מנהיג ערבי בולט. האם החיסול תרם לישראל ולביטחונה? נותרה השאלה המרכזית גם כיום. 

הסיפור המלא מאחורי החיסול של אבו ג’יהאד בשנת 1988 והניסיונות הכושלים לחסלו כבר קודם, כולל פרטים חדשים שנחשפים לראשונה לגבי הפעולה, יובאו במלואם בכתבה שתתפרסם בגיליון החדש של “ישראל דיפנס”, גיליון מספר 13 שיראה אור בקרוב.

How a Small Nation Makes a Big Difference

Actually, he pretended that they have already done that. He spent his time hectoring the only side that really wants peace as if it were the only obstacle to that peace, and called upon it to take steps that would seriously imperil its survival. “Obama tells Israel: ‘Peace is the only path to true security,’” by Stephanie Condon for CBS News, March 21:

Speaking before a lively and receptive crowd of 600 Israeli students, President Obama today urged the youth of Israel to accept “the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.” A two-state solution, the president suggested, is the only viable path forward for Israel, given the political and technological changes underway.

“Peace is necessary. I believe that,” Mr. Obama said, speaking at the Jerusalem International Convention Center on his second day in Israel. “I believe that peace is the only path to true security. You have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future.”

Yes, creating a new base for jihad attacks against Israel will certainly secure the Zionist dream.

With the fast-moving developments in the Middle East sparked by the Arab Spring and the spread of democratizing technology, Mr. Obama said, “This is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve and commitment for peace.”

That “wave of revolution” brought to power governments that are unanimously and indefatigably hostile to Israel. So apparently Obama wants Israel to respond to this new threat not by preparing itself for a war that appears to be inevitable, but by pretending that the developments are positive and doing nothing to protect itself.

“Peace must be made among peoples, not just governments,” he continued. “No one step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of millions…. But progress with the Palestinians is a powerful way to begin, while sidelining extremists who thrive on conflict and division.”

Mr. Obama noted that, given the strong support for Israel in the U.S., it would be easy for him to put aside the idea of pursuing a two-state solution. However, he added, “It is important to be open and honest, especially with your friends.”

“Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine,” Mr. Obama said, prompting cheers from the young audience.

Mr. Obama hailed Israel’s thriving economy and robust democracy, remarking on the robust debate that young Israelis engage in. He even found the silver lining when a heckler in the crowd began yelling in Hebrew for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who spied for Israel.

“This is part of the lively debate that we talked about — this is good,” he said, bringing the audience to give him a standing ovation. He joked, “I have to say we arranged for that because it actually made me at home. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I didn’t have at least one heckler.”

Mr. Obama said that while he backs a two-state solution, “the only path to peace is through negotiation… That is why, despite the criticism we’ve received, the United States will oppose unilateral efforts to bypass negotiations through the United Nations.”

He also said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. Still, he said, “Palestinians - including young people - have rejected violence as a means of achieving their aspirations. There’s an opportunity there — there’s a window.”

Have they really done that? Where? Who? How?

The president made an appeal for empathy, noting that before delivering his speech, he met with a group of young Palestinians, between the ages of 15 and 22.

“Talking to them, they weren’t that different from my daughters. They weren’t that different from your daughters or sons,” he said. “I honestly believe if any Israeli parent sat down with those kids, they’d say, ‘I want these kids to succeed.’”

It isn’t the Israelis who are teaching their children that their highest aspiration is to hate Israel and work for its destruction by killing Jews.

In the past, CAMERA has taken New York Times blogger Robert Mackey to task for “seeking out harsh criticism [of Israel] and passing it off as if that’s where the conversation begins and ends.” On Israel’s controversial introduction earlier this week of buses for Palestinian laborers working in Israel, Mackey does it yet again. This time, interestingly, it’s Palestinian voices he silences. In particular, he ignores Palestinian passengers who are are in favor of the new service.

As became clear from several media accounts this week, there are three main views regarding the new Israeli bus service for Palestinian workers traveling to their jobs in Israel. As the Associated Press reported,

Israel’s decision to launch a pair of “Palestinian-only” bus lines in the West Bank on Monday, presented by the government as a goodwill gesture and assailed by critics as racism but was welcomed by Palestinian riders – is shining a light on the messy situation created by 45 years of military occupation and Jewish settlements in the area. (Emphasis added.)

In his March 4 blog entry about the new bus service (“Israelis Divided Over Separate Bus Lines for Arabs and Jews in Occupied West Bank”), Mackey completely ignores the Palestinians workers who are quite content to pay the nominal fee and to travel without Israelis. Per AP:

Haroun Hamdan, a 44-year-old blacksmith from the Palestinian village of Salem, said riding buses with Jewish settlers has become so unpleasant that the Palestinians prefer to have their own buses.

He said settlers often complain when Palestinians enter their buses. Palestinians can be blocked from boarding, or kicked off or subject to verbal abuse once on board, he said. “Riding with settlers is humiliating, and involves a lot of suffering,” Hamdan said.

In one instance, Hamdan said a female Jewish settler tried to order him off a bus that had come from the large Israeli settlement of Ariel, but the bus driver refused to stop. He said his friends have had to walk 10 kilometers, or six miles, after being kicked off Israeli buses.

“The new bus line is better, because we won’t have to go through all of this,” he said, adding that the buses were a cheaper alternative to the private minivans that shuttle Palestinians to work inside Israel. A bus ticket costs anywhere from $1 to $3, compared to $6 demanded by the private drivers.

While Mackey does not include the satisfied Palestinian customers, he grants extensive space to critics, Israeli and otherwise. “Creating separate bus lines for Israeli Jews and Palestinians is a revolting plan,” Mackey quotes Jessica Montell of B’Tselem. “This is simply racism.” Mackey also reports:

Under the headline “Separate but Equal Bus Lines?,” the Tel Aviv daily Yedioth Ahronoth noted that Israeli activists from the group Peace Now heard echoes of the segregated public services for African-Americans in the 1950s in the plan. “The decision to separate bus lines in the territories is shocking and turns racism into the norm,” the activists said. “A Palestinian Rosa Parks is needed to insist upon sitting on Jewish bus lines.”

After also citing the outraged tweets of Yousef Munayyer, the director of the Palestine Center in Washington, Mackey closes with the view of Jeffrey Goldberg, now at the Atlantic:

Several critics of the new bus lines in Israel said they evoked not just the segregation of the American South but also the apartheid regime of South Africa. Mr. Goldberg, who has long argued that the unchecked growth of Israeli settlements is undermining the possibility of a two-state solution, reminded readers in a 2008 Op-Ed article that no less an Israeli patriot than former Prime Minister Ehud Barak once warned: “Every attempt to keep hold of this area as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic state or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.”

In the comments section, “DanielZ” of Ann Arbor aptly notes:

The headline is “Israelis divided”, but you quote only left-wing critics (beyond government spokesmen), as well as Palestinian critics. You also don’t quote any Palestinian supporters, found easily in the Israeli media. Here is some context you don’t mention: (a) Palestinians who have passed “rigorous security checks” have killed Israelis in the past and (b) the bus lines serving the Palestinians offer them more convenient routes to work than the bus lines serving the Jewish towns; (c) given that Israelis can ride the Palestinians buses, and vice versa, they are not in fact legally separate, which inherently renders analogies to apartheid, Jim Crow, etc. suspect. And did you ever hear of Jim Crow towns offer blacks special routes to better serve them?

None of that excuses unjustified harassment by “settlers”, nor does it offer a justification for Israeli settlement policies. But if you are going to purport to report on such issues, citing everyone from “liberal American critics to leftist Israeli critics to Palestinian activist groups in the U.S.” is hardly providing the full story. Indeed, it’s hard to avoid noticing that you don’t quote a single person, Israeli or Palestinian, who actually lives in the West Bank.

In response, Mackey defends his decision to exclude Palestinians in favor of the new bus service as follows:

This is an overview of how the story has been reported in the Israeli press not a report from the region, so it cannot be comprehensive, but there are quotes from Israeli settlers and Palestinian workers who live in the West Bank in the primary articles readers can access by clicking on the links provided in the post.

This is “an overview of how the story has been reported in the Israeli press”? Really? Then why does he include the views of Yousef Munayyer and Jeffrey Goldberg, both of Washington, and neither of the Israeli press?
 
And, in response to another talkbacker who criticizes Mackey for ignoring the Palestinian supporters of the buses, the blogger reiterates on March 5:

There was no omission of pertinent facts. You appear determined to accuse me of bias, as if that is the only way that the information contained in this post can be understood, but the fact is that there were no testimonies from Palestinians praising the new bus lines in the reports in the Israeli press I read yesterday, which is when this post was written. There were, however, reports of great dissatisfaction with overcrowding on the buses from Palestinians that I did not include, not out of bias in favor of Israel’s transportation ministry, but simply for reasons of length and because readers of a blog who want to know more are encouraged to click the links and read the articles summarized. (Emphasis added.) 

Mackey claims to have seen no reports in the (English-language) Israeli media March 4 mentioning pleased Palestinian travelers. It stretches the imagination to believe that Mackey, who, in his 7:17 p.m. EST post on the new buses, cited a Ha’aretz article dating back to November, and yet he could not find the following 11:40 a.m. Israel time Ha’aretz article:

This article appeared on Ha’aretz’s home page more than 12 hours before Mackey posted on the same topic, and he says he didn’t see it? And yet he managed to find a three-month-old Ha’aretzarticle? The March 4 Ha’aretz story that Mackey purportedly missed, headlined “As Israel’s separate bus lines start rolling, some Palestinians don’t seem to mind,” reports:

On Sunday, Khalil heard on the news that there would be a new bus transporting Palestinian laborers to and from the crossing point – and he was pleased.

The bus will cost him NIS 8.80. “That’s nothing,” he says. It’s a savings of NIS 12 in each direction, NIS 250 per month. Since he earns NIS 200 per day, that’s a significant amount, he says. At 4:20 Monday morning, he is already waiting for the special bus that will take him to work… .

It took the workers a few minutes to understand where they needed to go and which buses were headed where, but they quickly asked to get on one of the two lines. The first is to Ra’anana and Kfar Sava, and the second is to Petah Tikva, Ramat Gan and Tel Aviv. Thousands pushed onto the Tel Aviv line. There weren’t enough buses to meet the demand. After a few minutes came the complaints and suggestions for improvement.

One man working on the Meier-on-Rothschild luxury tower asked why the Tel Aviv bus stopped at the northern train station and did not continue on to the Central Bus Station. A group of workers looking to get to Herzliya asked why the Ra’anana–Kfar Sava line wasn’t extended to Herzliya. Many wondered about the buses’ return times. Several workers asked for buses to run on Fridays as well, since they pay “pirate” drivers even on Fridays. Representatives of the Afikim bus company and Lt. Col. Adel Masalha, the district coordination liaison, noted all the comments and promised changes in the near future.

In addition to this Ha’aretz report citing Palestinians pleased with the service, the Times of Israel published the aforementioned Associated Press piece at 12 a.m., March 5, Israel time, two hours before Mackey posted on the topic.
 
If Mackey really missed these stories, then what does that say about his journalistic skills? Alternatively, if he didn’t miss them, and just said that he did, then he’s just plain lying. Either way, New York Times readers deserve better.

(via CAMERA: Updated: Neglected Facts About Hunger-Striking Samer Issawi)
As Palestinian prisoner Samer Issawi has allegedly exceeded more than 200 days of a hunger strike, Palestinian demonstrations and NGO activity on his behalf have intensified, and so too has media coverage. Though some media outlets have demonstrated great interest in Issawi’s case, that interest is decidedly selective.
Take for instance the following photograph and caption which appeared in yesterday’s Ha’aretz English edition on page 2. (It did not appear in the Hebrew edition.)
This prominent photograph is huge — it runs across five columns, and is 5.5 inches tall. The caption, however, is extremely brief. It states:


Palestinians in Ramallah yesterday holding placards depicting Samer Issawi, who is jailed in an Israeli prison and has been on hunger strike for 209 days. Palestinians have been protesting on Issawi’s behalf for several days.


Despite the fact that space constraints were not an issue here — again, the photograph is gigantic, and is the largest in the day’s paper — the editors left out key information: Who is Samer Issawi and why had he been imprisoned?
According to the Israel Prison Service, Samer Issawi of Issawiyeh, Jerusalem was arrested in April 2002 and sentenced to 26 years for attempted murder, belonging to an unrecognized (terror) organization, military training, and possession of weapons, arms and explosive materials. Issawi (identification number 037274735) was one of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released in the first stage of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in October 2011. (The Prison Service lists him as Samir Tariq Ahmad Muhammad. Multiple names are not uncommon among Palestinians. The date of his arrest, birth, his sentence term and the terms of his release are consistent with the details provided about Samer Issawi in media reports.)
In an October 2011 letter to the editor of the Guardian, Amir Ofek of the Israeli embassy in London took that paper to task for failing to provide information about Issawi’s terror activities. He detailed:


Your centrefold (19 October) carries a double-spread photograph of released prisoner Samer Tareq al-Issawi in a cheering crowd, after being freed under the terms of the deal to release Gilad Shalit. It is important to point out the grave terrorism offences of which Al-Issawi was convicted, including firing a gun at a civilian vehicle in October 2001, indiscriminately firing an AK47 assault rifle at civilian buses, and manufacturing and distributing pipe bombs used in attacks on Israeli civilians.


The Israeli Ha’aretz (which has no excuse for not consulting the Prison Service document in Hebrew which details the prisoners’ indictments) did no better than the British Guardian. Had Ha’aretz editors even marginally shrunk the enormous photograph, they would have been able to include half a sentence regarding Issawi’s violent acts directed against Israeli civilians. By failing to include even a few minimal words about Issawi’s terror activities, Ha’aretz gives an imcomplete, sanitized picture, leaving open the possibility that he had been incarcerated for stone-throwing or less.
As part of the Shalit deal, a condition of Issawi’s release was that he had to remain in Jerusalem. In July 2012 he reportedly violated the terms of his release by leaving Jerusalem and crossing into the nearby neighborhood of A-Ram, and was therefore rearrested.
Other media outlets have also failed to report Issawi’s violent activities. AFP, which has reported extensively over the last few days about Issawi’s hunger strike, is rather vague about Issawi’s violent crimes:


Issawi, 33, and Sharawna, 36, were long-term security prisoners who were initially released by Israel under a prisoner swap deal in October 2011.But within months, they were both rearrested following unspecified allegations that they violated the terms of the agreement, with Israel ordering them to serve out the remainder of their original sentences.Sharawna was rearrested on January 31 and began refusing food on July 1 to protest against his re-arrest and demand his immediate release.Issawi was arrested on July 7 and stopped eating on August 1, to protest over his re-arrest and retrial based on information which was not made available to him or his lawyer. (Emphasis added.)


Likewise, AP does not specify why Issawi was imprisoned in the first place, although it does does a slightly better job than AFP. AP reports:

Issawi’s original sentence was 26 years “for a terrorist act” but he had served only six years, [Israel Prison spokeswoman Sivan] Weizman said. [sic: He served nine years, from April 2002 until October 2011.] 
The four were re-arrested and sent to prison for violating the terms of their release, Weizman said. She said Issawi was banned from entering the West Bank but entered three times after he was freed.


It’s unfortunate that the prison spokeswoman failed to specify Issawi’s terrorist acts (and that she also misstated the length of the term that he served), but AP could have easily consulted the list of released prisoners and their crimes for more detailed information, as CAMERA had done. (Indeed, after AP’s earlier, October 2011, whitewashing of the crimes of another Palestinian prisoner released as part of the Shalit deal, CAMERA had been in touch with AP editors. After pointing out the Prison Service document, AP commendably corrected.)
How Long a Hunger Strike?
Ha’aretz’s photo caption yesterday reported as fact that Issawi “has been on hunger strike for 209 days,” while the AP reportedthat Issawi “has been on an on-again, off-again hunger strike for several months” (emphasis added). According to the Feb. 15 article by Ian Deitch, there are conflicting claims about the extent of Issawi’s hunger strike. He reported:


Issawi is under medical supervision and eats periodically, [Prison spokesman Sivan Weizman] said.
Issawi’s sister, Shirin, said he has been on hunger strike for 206 days. She said he has only been drinking water since January. She said the prisontakes her brother to an Israeli hospital for treatment.
The Palestinian minister of prisoner affairs, Issa Qaraqe, said Issawi began his fast in August and has been observing it intermittently.


In other words, the Israeli prison spokeswoman and the Palestinian minister of prisoner affairs agree that Issawi has been eating periodically, yet Ha’aretz reports as fact that he “has been on strike for 209 days.” Even a partial hunger strike is most certainly a difficult ordeal. But why is it so difficult for Ha’aretz to stick with the facts? How long will the paper continue to supply its English readers with a steady stream of agenda-driven, whitewashed propaganda?

Feb. 20 Update: More Details Emerge About Issawi’s Violent Acts
Capt. Eytan Buchman, an IDF spokesman, has provided CAMERA with additional details about Issawi’s terror activities. He writes that Issawi


was convicted of severe crimes, which including five attempts of intentional death. This included four shootings, between July 2011 and February 2002, in which Isawi and his partners fired on police cars and buses travelling between Ma’ale Adumim and Jerusalem. In one attack, a policeman was injured and required surgery. On October 30, 2001, Isawi, together with an accomplice, fired at two students walking from the Hebrew University campus to their car in a nearby parking lot. In another case, Isawi provided guns and explosive devices to a squad, who fired on a bus. Finally, in December 2011, Isawi ordered an attack on security personnel at Hebrew University, providing a squad with a pistol and a pipebomb. Two of the squad members tracked security personnel but opted not to execute the attack.

(via CAMERA: Updated: Neglected Facts About Hunger-Striking Samer Issawi)

As Palestinian prisoner Samer Issawi has allegedly exceeded more than 200 days of a hunger strike, Palestinian demonstrations and NGO activity on his behalf have intensified, and so too has media coverage. Though some media outlets have demonstrated great interest in Issawi’s case, that interest is decidedly selective.

Take for instance the following photograph and caption which appeared in yesterday’s Ha’aretz English edition on page 2. (It did not appear in the Hebrew edition.)

This prominent photograph is huge — it runs across five columns, and is 5.5 inches tall. The caption, however, is extremely brief. It states:

Palestinians in Ramallah yesterday holding placards depicting Samer Issawi, who is jailed in an Israeli prison and has been on hunger strike for 209 days. Palestinians have been protesting on Issawi’s behalf for several days.

Despite the fact that space constraints were not an issue here — again, the photograph is gigantic, and is the largest in the day’s paper — the editors left out key information: Who is Samer Issawi and why had he been imprisoned?

According to the Israel Prison Service, Samer Issawi of Issawiyeh, Jerusalem was arrested in April 2002 and sentenced to 26 years for attempted murder, belonging to an unrecognized (terror) organization, military training, and possession of weapons, arms and explosive materials. Issawi (identification number 037274735) was one of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released in the first stage of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in October 2011. (The Prison Service lists him as Samir Tariq Ahmad Muhammad. Multiple names are not uncommon among Palestinians. The date of his arrest, birth, his sentence term and the terms of his release are consistent with the details provided about Samer Issawi in media reports.)

In an October 2011 letter to the editor of the Guardian, Amir Ofek of the Israeli embassy in London took that paper to task for failing to provide information about Issawi’s terror activities. He detailed:

Your centrefold (19 October) carries a double-spread photograph of released prisoner Samer Tareq al-Issawi in a cheering crowd, after being freed under the terms of the deal to release Gilad Shalit. It is important to point out the grave terrorism offences of which Al-Issawi was convicted, including firing a gun at a civilian vehicle in October 2001, indiscriminately firing an AK47 assault rifle at civilian buses, and manufacturing and distributing pipe bombs used in attacks on Israeli civilians.

The Israeli Ha’aretz (which has no excuse for not consulting the Prison Service document in Hebrew which details the prisoners’ indictments) did no better than the British Guardian. Had Ha’aretz editors even marginally shrunk the enormous photograph, they would have been able to include half a sentence regarding Issawi’s violent acts directed against Israeli civilians. By failing to include even a few minimal words about Issawi’s terror activities, Ha’aretz gives an imcomplete, sanitized picture, leaving open the possibility that he had been incarcerated for stone-throwing or less.

As part of the Shalit deal, a condition of Issawi’s release was that he had to remain in Jerusalem. In July 2012 he reportedly violated the terms of his release by leaving Jerusalem and crossing into the nearby neighborhood of A-Ram, and was therefore rearrested.

Other media outlets have also failed to report Issawi’s violent activities. AFP, which has reported extensively over the last few days about Issawi’s hunger strike, is rather vague about Issawi’s violent crimes:

Issawi, 33, and Sharawna, 36, were long-term security prisoners who were initially released by Israel under a prisoner swap deal in October 2011.

But within months, they were both rearrested following unspecified allegations that they violated the terms of the agreement, with Israel ordering them to serve out the remainder of their original sentences.

Sharawna was rearrested on January 31 and began refusing food on July 1 to protest against his re-arrest and demand his immediate release.

Issawi was arrested on July 7 and stopped eating on August 1, to protest over his re-arrest and retrial based on information which was not made available to him or his lawyer. (Emphasis added.)

Likewise, AP does not specify why Issawi was imprisoned in the first place, although it does does a slightly better job than AFP. AP reports:

Issawi’s original sentence was 26 years “for a terrorist act” but he had served only six years, [Israel Prison spokeswoman Sivan] Weizman said. [sic: He served nine years, from April 2002 until October 2011.] 

The four were re-arrested and sent to prison for violating the terms of their release, Weizman said. She said Issawi was banned from entering the West Bank but entered three times after he was freed.

It’s unfortunate that the prison spokeswoman failed to specify Issawi’s terrorist acts (and that she also misstated the length of the term that he served), but AP could have easily consulted the list of released prisoners and their crimes for more detailed information, as CAMERA had done. (Indeed, after AP’s earlier, October 2011, whitewashing of the crimes of another Palestinian prisoner released as part of the Shalit deal, CAMERA had been in touch with AP editors. After pointing out the Prison Service document, AP commendably corrected.)

How Long a Hunger Strike?

Ha’aretz’s photo caption yesterday reported as fact that Issawi “has been on hunger strike for 209 days,” while the AP reportedthat Issawi “has been on an on-again, off-again hunger strike for several months” (emphasis added). According to the Feb. 15 article by Ian Deitch, there are conflicting claims about the extent of Issawi’s hunger strike. He reported:

Issawi is under medical supervision and eats periodically, [Prison spokesman Sivan Weizman] said.

Issawi’s sister, Shirin, said he has been on hunger strike for 206 days. She said he has only been drinking water since January. She said the prisontakes her brother to an Israeli hospital for treatment.

The Palestinian minister of prisoner affairs, Issa Qaraqe, said Issawi began his fast in August and has been observing it intermittently.

In other words, the Israeli prison spokeswoman and the Palestinian minister of prisoner affairs agree that Issawi has been eating periodically, yet Ha’aretz reports as fact that he “has been on strike for 209 days.” Even a partial hunger strike is most certainly a difficult ordeal. But why is it so difficult for Ha’aretz to stick with the facts? How long will the paper continue to supply its English readers with a steady stream of agenda-driven, whitewashed propaganda?

Feb. 20 Update: More Details Emerge About Issawi’s Violent Acts

Capt. Eytan Buchman, an IDF spokesman, has provided CAMERA with additional details about Issawi’s terror activities. He writes that Issawi

was convicted of severe crimes, which including five attempts of intentional death. This included four shootings, between July 2011 and February 2002, in which Isawi and his partners fired on police cars and buses travelling between Ma’ale Adumim and Jerusalem. In one attack, a policeman was injured and required surgery. On October 30, 2001, Isawi, together with an accomplice, fired at two students walking from the Hebrew University campus to their car in a nearby parking lot. In another case, Isawi provided guns and explosive devices to a squad, who fired on a bus. Finally, in December 2011, Isawi ordered an attack on security personnel at Hebrew University, providing a squad with a pistol and a pipebomb. Two of the squad members tracked security personnel but opted not to execute the attack.

anonymous-rebel:

Murderers!

If Israel regularly commits atrocities against suicide bombers (like Mahmoud Salah), why do you have to recycle photos from March 8, 2002? Can’t you find any fresh Israeli atrocities?

References
Controversy over ‘execution’ pictures
Israeli Justice?
The killing of Mohammed Salah by Israeli police on 8 March 2002 - a collection of newspaper articles

anonymous-rebel:

Murderers!

If Israel regularly commits atrocities against suicide bombers (like Mahmoud Salah), why do you have to recycle photos from March 8, 2002? Can’t you find any fresh Israeli atrocities?

References

PALESTINE TODAY: Israeli soldiers kidnapped a well-known Palestinian cartoonist on his trip home between the Jordan and West Bank border.

silly-nanners:

Wasn’t Latuff though….

Israel’s war on ..

  • Journalism
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of press
  • Freedom of expression

Unless your motivation is unsubstantiated anti-Israel propaganda (and as a champion of freedom of speech, press, and expression - surely that’s not your motivation), it would be helpful if you gave a link to your sources for the above item, along with other pertinent data like:

  • the “well-known Palestinian cartoonist” name,
  • the place where the “kidnapping” took place,
  • and the date of the kidnapping.”

free counters