De aanval vond plaats op de Goldmannpromenade, niet ver van een politiebureau. De gewonde vrouwen slaagden erin het politiebureau te bereiken, waar ze vervolgens medische hulp ontvingen.
De terroristen slaagden erin om te vluchten. In de richting van het nabij gelegen Arabische dorp Jabel Mukaber. Veiligheidsmedewerkers gingen naar hen op zoek en stelden in de omgeving van de plaats van het delict wegversperringen op. Later konden twee verdachte Palestijnen worden aangehouden. De politie gaat door met zoeken naar verdere verdachten.
CDN, by Bob Taylor
CHARLOTTE, N.C., April 9, 2016 – When it comes to understanding Islamic extremism, jihad and Muslim thinking, you can count on Middle East analyst Raymond Ibrahim to have an interesting take on the subject.
Ibrahim says he never writes about the latest terrorist attacks anywhere in the world because there is no need. “What can one add when a symptom of the root cause he has long warned against occurs other than ‘told you so’?” he asks.
As Ibrahim sees it, the Islamic world is weak when it comes to mounting a credible threat against the West. He believes that Islamic terror could easily be halted if the West were not so “scared” to respond adequately.
“For approximately one thousand years, the Islamic world was the scourge of the West. Today’s history books may refer to those who terrorized Christian Europe as Arabs, Saracens, Moors, Ottomans, Turks, Mongols, or Tatars —but all were operating under the same banner of jihad that the Islamic State is operating under,” writes Ibrahim.
Thus what we are witnessing today is nothing new. It has been around as long as Islam.
With that in mind, Ibrahim claims the Islamists gain their strength from Western thinking when we fail to recognize what is staring us directly in the face. Key among the apologists is President Barack Obama because he is the leader of the free world. Add in Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel and David Cameron, and you have a powerful consortium of Western thinking that gives Islamic jihad free rein to operate throughout the world.
Ibrahim says the West “stifles… examination of Muslim doctrine and history; welcome(s) hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants while knowing that some are jihadi operative and many are simply ‘radical’; who work to overthrow secular Arab dictators in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom,’ only to uncork the jihad suppressed by the autocrats (the Islamic State’s territory consists of lands that were ‘liberated’ in Iraq, and Syria by the U.S. and its allies.)”
It has been proven time and again that terrorism is incapable of dealing with a response through strength. There is no better example than when the Ottoman Turks were defeated at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
The victory was so important that Osama bin Laden used the Sept. 11 anniversary as a “symbolic” reminder to the West when the twin towers crumbled to the ground in 2001.
The fact that Islamic extremism was “relatively quiet” for more than 300 years afterwards should be enough of a message to Western leaders that Islamic bluster can be defeated through strength.
That does not mean it will be easy or without sacrifice, but it does mean it is better than allowing terrorism free access to the world in our current approach to the situation.
Ibrahim reminds us that the Western leaders mentioned above “insist that Islam is innocent of violence and push for Muslim immigration – because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West.”
It is here that Ibrahim makes his knockout punch when he reminds us, and Barack Obama, that he “did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in – twice. This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview. He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.”
Ibrahim reminds us that Obama told his own constituents to “get off their high horse” about Islamism. He then dredged up age-old references to the Crusades and the Inquisition, both of which have been distorted by liberal thinking and political correctness, which play directly into the hands of Islamic “victimization.”
Sadly, Barack Obama succeeds in the fact that many, if not most, Americans have little interest in understanding the misrepresentations of Christian, Jewish and Islamic history.
Ibrahim’s solution is revolution, an all-out uprising against Islamic jihad that he says will easily sweep extremism back into the dustbin of history. “For the fact remains: Islam is terrorizing the world, not because it can, but because the West allows it to.”
Not only is Raymond Ibrahim accurate in his assessment regarding Islam, he is also explaining the sidebar phenomenon of the political environment in our current presidential campaign.
Ik eindigde mijn vorige blog met de Israelische constatering dat aanslagen elders niet leiden tot meer begrip voor Israel en haar strijd tegen de Palestijnen. De druk op Israel om concessies te doen lijkt eerder toe dan af te nemen na aanslagen zoals 9/11, Parijs en wellicht nu Brussel. Hoe kan dat?
Enerzijds komen veiligheidsexperts graag in Israel kennis opdoen over de beveiliging van bijvoorbeeld luchthavens, anderzijds staan we als vanouds klaar om Israel terecht te wijzen wanneer men daar wat te ‘trigger happy’ lijkt tegenover Palestijnse belagers. Dat lijkt niet erg consequent en vooral ook niet erg solidair. Israel wijst er daarbij fijntjes op dat het al vaker cruciale informatie heeft doorgegeven waardoor aanslagen in Europa konden worden voorkomen, zoals nog onlangs na de aanslagen in Parijs, toen in Duitsland een aanslag werd verijdeld.
De reden voor dit verschil in benadering is dat men een wezenlijk onderscheid ziet tussen Palestijns terrorisme en IS of Al Qaida. Hoewel Hamas eenzelfde soort jihadisme zegt aan te hangen en zich net als IS op de islam baseert om haar daden te rechtvaardigen, wordt dit toch vooral gezien als gevolg van de bezetting en de onderdrukking van de Palestijnen. Welnu, in Europa is er geen bezetting dus ligt de oorzaak ergens anders, namelijk bij de jihadisten zelf en hun extreme visie. Simpel zat. Of toch niet?
In tegenstelling tot Israel zijn EU landen niet in serieuze territoriale conflicten verwikkeld met islamitische staten (sarcastische kaartjes met de tekst dat Frankrijk een deel van het land of België een deel van Brussel aan de moslims moet afstaan om zo vrede te bevorderen, ten spijt). Er zijn moslims die vinden dat Spanje en Portugal, die ooit grotendeels onder Arabisch bestuur vielen, weer islamitisch moet worden maar dit is geen groot issue dat in de VN en andere gremia naar voren wordt gebracht of als belangrijke reden voor aanslagen wordt genoemd.
Territoriale conflicten leiden vaak tot geweld, soms ook terrorisme, zoals ook gebeurde in Europa met de ETA en de IRA. Dat wil nog niet zeggen dat de territoriale eisen gerechtvaardigd of redelijk zijn. Wat velen in Europa maar niet willen zien is dat zowel Hamas als Fatah het hele land willen hebben, heel Israel moet weer ‘Palestina’ worden, oftewel een Palestijns-Arabisch-islamitische staat (ook de PA heeft een provisie over de rol van de islam in de voorlopige grondwet van Palestina staan). Officieel zullen in die staat andere minderheden worden gerespecteerd; in de praktijk zal daar weinig van terecht komen, gezien de staat van dienst van andere Arabische landen, ook de meest liberale. Hoewel de PLO ooit halfslachtig de tweestatenoplossing heeft geaccepteerd, erkent zij het Joodse recht op zelfbeschikking niet en spreekt zij in het Arabisch een dergelijke concessie veelvuldig tegen, toen en nu.
Volgens veel commentatoren zal de positie van Palestijnse hardliners vanzelf veranderen wanneer de bezetting van de Westoever beëindigd is en de Palestijnen daar een staat kunnen oprichten. Zij menen niet alleen bij Fatah, dat volgens hen sowieso achter een tweestatenoplossing staat, maar ook bij Hamas tussen de regels door te lezen dat men open staat voor een compromis. Men kan het alleen niet openlijker zeggen omdat dat neer zou komen op zelfmoord. Hoe men denkt dat de Palestijnen officieel met twee staten kunnen instemmen als zelfs een voorzichtige hint in die richting je leven al in gevaar kan brengen, is me niet echt duidelijk. Bovendien menen diezelfde commentatoren dat een meerderheid van de Palestijnen zich allang bij Israels bestaan heeft neergelegd. Een en ander lijkt niet echt logisch, maar dat zie je wel vaker bij mensen die vooral Israel als obstakel zien.
Hoewel Europese landen geen vergelijkbaar territoriaal conflict hebben met moslims, hekelen veel moslims onze inmenging in het Midden-Oosten. Al Qaida en IS gaven als direct motief voor hun aanslagen in Europa dat de getroffen landen zich inmengden in Afghanistan, Irak en nu Syrië. Andere aanslagen in Europa waren gericht tegen cartoonisten en opiniemakers die de profeet bespotten en tegen Joodse doelen. Joden zijn voor jihadisten blijkbaar altijd een legitiem doelwit. Hoewel de buitenlandse inmenging vaak als imperialisme wordt voorgesteld, is die wel degelijk gebonden aan internationale regels en wordt ook veel geld en energie gestoken in de wederopbouw en ontwikkeling van die landen. Dat neemt niet weg dat sommige operaties en activiteiten omstreden zijn en niet gespeend van eigenbelang.
Terug naar de vraag in hoeverre de motieven van terroristen die in Europa toeslaan verschillen van die in Israel, wat een verschillende benadering zou rechtvaardigen. Is in beide gevallen niet sprake van de wens om ons hun wil op te leggen? Is er in beide gevallen ook geen sprake van een aanval op ‘onze Westerse waarden’, onze manier van leven, onze vrijheden, homo- en vrouwenrechten? Zowel Israel als Westerse landen zijn immers goddeloos en heidens in de ogen van fundamentalistische moslims. Soms denkt men zelfs dat de zionisten in de hele Westerse wereld aan de touwtjes trekken. Palestijnen hebben eerder al beweerd dat Israel aids verspreidde via de checkpoints, en snoepjes met wellust opwekkende stoffen aan Palestijnse kinderen uitdeelde, om zo hun maatschappij van binnenuit kapot te maken.
Palestijnen groeien, meer dan moslims in Europese landen, op met propaganda tegen Israel en de verheerlijking van geweld tegen Joden. Naast de reële problemen die voortvloeien uit het conflict, leert men dat je opofferen voor het fictieve vaderland, voor Al Quds en de Al Aqsa Moskee, het hoogste is dat je kunt bereiken en je door Allah beloond zult worden. Niet alleen radikale imams kramen dergelijke onzin uit, ook Abbas in hoogsteigen persoon heeft het pure bloed van de martelaren die voor Al Aqsa streden geprezen. Op scholen, in videoclips en tv programma’s speciaal voor de jeugd, en in preken wordt deze boodschap van opoffering en haat tegen Israel en Joden erin gehamerd. De UNRWA scholen in Gaza zijn berucht om hun radikale leraren die terrorisme verheerlijken, evenals de zomerkampen van Hamas en Fatah. De hele Palestijnse maatschappij is doordrongen van dit slachtofferschap en de vijandschap tegen Israel. Dat is, evenzeer als de bezetting en de vernederingen die men soms moet doorstaan, een reden dat het Palestijnse terrorisme zo ver is ontwikkeld en een onderdeel is geworden van de dagelijkse realiteit in Israel.
Dat laat onverlet dat veel Palestijnen lijden onder de Israelische bezetting en overheersing. Hoewel de bezetting sinds de Oslo Akkoorden en de Palestijnse Autonomie veel minder aanwezig is, en je strikt genomen ook niet meer van een echte bezetting kunt spreken wat betreft de A gebieden (waar de overgrote meerderheid van de Palestijnen woont), zijn er nog steeds allerlei beperkingen. Zo kan men niet vrij reizen buiten PA gebied, en ook binnen dit gebied zijn er soms beperkingen. In reactie op de terreur worden wegen afgesloten, mensen gearresteerd of vergunningen om in Israel of de nederzettingen te werken ingetrokken. Sommige Palestijnen moeten dagelijks door checkpoints naar hun werk of hun land. Hoewel er veel verbeterd is brengt dit nog steeds ongemak en soms vernederingen met zich mee. De bezetting is geenszins de oorzaak van het Israelisch-Palestijns conflict en het Palestijnse terrorisme, maar het versterkt wel de gevoelens van haat en wrok, en zorgt ervoor dat de propaganda op extra vruchtbare bodem valt.
Het op één lijn stellen van terrorisme in Israel en Europa, zoals met name Israelische politici en conservatieve commentatoren doen, doet geen recht aan de specifieke regionale context. Anderzijds is het terecht te wijzen op de overeenkomsten in de ideologie van de islamisten: anti-Westers en tegen iedereen die niet dezelfde extreme versie van de islam voorstaat. Vergeten wordt soms dat niet Israeli’s of Europeanen het voornaamste slachtoffer zijn van de jihadi’s, maar mede moslims. Verreweg de meeste slachtoffers vallen in het Midden-Oosten onder Arabieren.
Natuurlijk, als men zou kunnen zou men Israel allang hebben overmeesterd en de Joden hebben onderworpen, verdreven of vermoord. En ook in Europa worden regelmatig aanslagen verijdeld. Toch lijkt het voornaamste terrein van de jihadi’s het Midden-Oosten zelf te zijn, waarbij Israel als klein Westers landje tussen Arabische landen extra kwetsbaar is. Wat meer solidariteit en begrip voor deze lastige positie zou Europa niet misstaan. Overigens is in de jaren ’70 en ’80 ook hard opgetreden tegen de IRA, de ETA en de RAF, en werd er pas onder strenge voorwaarden gepraat of een akkoord gesloten.
On the afternoon of Saturday, October 3, 2015, two Israelis were stabbed to death near Lions’ Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem.
Both were rabbis, one had come to pray at the Western Wall with his young family, the other had come to try and save them when he witnessed the stabbing attack in progress. Both were easily identifiable as Jews.
While just one of many hundreds of terrorist incidents perpetrated by Palestinians against Jews over the years, this attack was a moment in time: it marked the start of something new, a “Stealth Intifada,” an insidious wave of seemingly un-orchestrated attacks, perpetrated by unlikely assailants, and generally untraceable to any particular organization.
These were also characterized by brutality, viciousness and randomness, and the purposeful use of the knife, to drive home the intent of bringing a new and unrelenting wave of slaughter to the Jews; a message to all Israelis that neither they, nor their children, will ever be able to live in this land in peace.
This message was delivered almost daily, sometimes several times a day, from mainly young Palestinians, fired by incitement from their leaders, accelerated by social media, and aimless other than in its mission of indiscriminate slaughter. Some were seeking martyrdom and others revenge. The message and the means, however, remained the same.
The months covered in this document have also seen shooting attacks and, particularly in Jerusalem, nearly a dozen instances of Palestinians driving their cars into groups of Israelis waiting for public transportation.
Our focus, however, is intended to give frame and form to what we see as the roots of a new Palestinian uprising, one with no suicide bombers and explosives; no direct orders; no clear demands; a stealthy uprising because it brings the shadow of terror, death, and fear to every corner of the country in the most unexpected and unpredictable ways, starting in Jerusalem, then to other cities, and the West Bank.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot told a conference in Tel Aviv on January 18, 2016, there is no early warning when it comes to random knife attacks. “We have had 101 such attacks over the past three months,” he said, “and have not been able to provide a warning in a single place.”1
Ten years earlier, when he headed the Judea and Samaria Division, Eisenkot said, good intelligence allowed for preemption. “Now,” he said, “the knife-attack phenomenon, for all intents and purposes, leaps over what was our most important asset in fighting terror – intelligence.”
“Now we have no early-warning. Today an attack occurs when the terrorist pulls out a knife and runs towards his target,” he concluded, saying that finding a solution to the problem was “a serious challenge” the IDF will have to resolve.
Killed in the October 3 attack were student-rabbi Aharon Banita-Bennett, a 22-year-old Breslov Hassidic resident of Beitar Ilit, and Nehemia Lavi, 41, a long-time resident of the Old City and rabbi at Yeshivat Ateret Kohanim for the last 23 years. Rabbi Banita’s wife, Odele, was seriously injured; the couple’s two-year-old was slightly injured. Their infant remained unharmed.
The violence of the attack was shocking and captured, in full, on video.2 The film shows the chaos in the Old City market as a young Palestinian man runs amok after a Jewish family, apathetic Palestinian shopkeepers watching as a woman screams for help for her family. It is an act of rage and hatred for all to see; another indelible moment in the Israel-Palestinian struggle.
Chief of Staff Eisenkot is right. With all the resources available to him, he could not have predicted that Muhannad Shafiq Halabi, a 19-year-old law student at al-Quds University in Jerusalem, would become a multiple killer that afternoon.
Not unless they had read his Facebook page that morning where Halabi explains his intentions with utmost clarity: revenge for the death of a friend, Dhiaa’ al-Talahme, killed in clashes with Israeli forces two weeks before; “what is being done to al-Aqsa and our other holy sites; what is being done to the women of al-Aqsa is also being done to our mothers and sisters.”
“The third intifada,” he declared, “has begun.”
Social Media in the Service of Death
Social media is the new enabler of random terror. It spreads rumors and lies, and provides role models and incentive for copycats. It gives instructions on how best to kill, who to kill and why to kill, all without fingerprints. There is no organization to formally accept responsibility for its actions, no recruiting bureau where potential recruits can be watched, no ammunition belts, explosives and arms, all of which leave behind intelligence trails.
It is also the builder of symbols and legends. Halabi has become a role model, touted as a hero on social media by the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and even the Palestinian Bar Association. A monument depicting his face has been erected on a stone shaped to include all of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and framed by the Palestinian flag. The PA and Fatah have sponsored a sports competition in his name.
Halabi’s face and name and the narrative of his “legacy of martyrdom” have flooded Palestinian social media sites. Many have cited him as an inspiration and many have since October 3 chosen to follow in his path.
On October 6, two Associated Press correspondents filed a story titled “New Generation of Disillusioned Palestinians Drives Unrest”3 from Halabi’s home town, Surda, six kilometers northeast of Ramallah in the West Bank. They wrote in their opening paragraph:
A new generation of angry, disillusioned Palestinians is driving the current wave of clashes with Israeli forces. Too young to remember the hardships of life during Israel’s last clampdown on the last major uprising, they have lost faith in statehood through negotiations, distrust their political leaders and (believe) Israel only understands force.
They went on to quote, among others, Malik Hussein, a 19-year-old fellow law student and friend of Halabi at al-Quds, as saying: “We are all impressed by what he has done. The day after the attack, university students took to the streets and clashed with Israeli soldiers. Mohannad’s way is the only way to liberate Palestine.”
They quote Halabi’s 22-year-old cousin, Ahmed, as saying he hopes a new uprising will erupt. “What is going on here is unbearable: al-Aqsa; the settlements, and the killing in the streets. We have to move. We cannot stay silent,” he said, repeating, virtually verbatim, the messages that had flooded his social media of late.
Halabi’s father, Shafiq, spoke to the reporters in his newly-built two-story home, saying that while his son followed events at al-Aqsa closely and was known to be a supporter of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad students association at al-Quds, he was not particularly religious and that his son’s violent act had come as a surprise.
He was “proud of him,” he said and ended with an observation: “This generation cannot be controlled by family or any other authority. Even we, the family, couldn’t tell Mohannad what to do.”
His words were echoed by 21-year-old Bassel Obeida, who said the unrest would continue regardless of the decisions of the Palestinian leadership. “If Abbas is against us…we will reject his words and start the intifada. We don’t want any leaders to tell us what to do.”
But, as this document will show, the Palestinian president and those under his authority are very much telling the youngsters what to do. Not sending them into battle as soldiers, but goading them into action through deliberate messaging, distortion and fabrication, sometimes stated openly by senior Palestinian officials, but mostly insidiously, aimed at keeping the conflict alive and portraying the Palestinians as the victims; a whitewash of terror by other means.
There is a guiding hand in all this, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian faction that leads it, Fatah. What is being witnessed today is the end-game of a strategy adopted by Fatah in 20094 and culminating in Mahmoud Abbas’ speech to the UN General Assembly on September 30, 2015, when he announced that the Palestinians are no longer bound by the Oslo (peace) Accords.
“We cannot continue to be bound by these signed agreements with Israel and Israel must assume fully all its responsibility as an occupying power.”5
Muhannad Halabi was not created in a vacuum.
The Palestinian Authority’s Agenda
The new curve of violence started to escalate around mid-September 2015, two weeks before the Jerusalem Old City stabbings. Earlier, the country’s capital had seen an erratic series of attacks, primarily by Palestinians deliberately driving their vehicles into bus stops and other public areas near highways and roads, hoping to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, usually with some modicum of success.
The randomness began to take on form on September 13, 2015, the eve of the Jewish New Year, when a series of clashes broke out on the Temple Mount between youths who had armed themselves with pipe bombs and stones6 in preparation for an attack on Jewish pilgrims to the site the following day and against Israeli police.
Palestinian media constantly replayed videos of the incident. The perennial incitement over official Palestinian Authority media, statements by the highest levels of the Palestinian leadership, and vitriol spread by the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement – a now-illegal, Israel-based, Islamic fundamentalist movement – proclaimed that Israel and the Jews were trying to take over al-Aqsa, Islam’s third holiest site.
The reasons for this, from the Palestinian Authority’s point of view, were manifold: al-Aqsa in east Jerusalem is the only issue of international Islamic concern that makes the Palestinians relevant.
With geo-strategic realities focused on the tragedy in Syria, the American-Iranian nuclear agreement, manifestations of an escalating Sunni-Shiite rift as demonstrated in Yemen, the situation in Iraq, the phenomenon of ISIS, NATO-Russia tensions over the Ukraine and Crimea, and instability in Turkey, the Palestinian issue had become marginalized on the international agenda, so much so that the Palestinian issue was not even mentioned by the U.S. president in his extended overview of world affairs in his speech at the UN in September 2015.
The Palestinians had expected, as had become a near-annual ritual, that Israel’s alleged failure to move on the peace process would be criticized, its settlement policy condemned, and Israel’s government castigated for flouting international conventions. None of these were mentioned, not even in passing.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict had taken a backseat on the international stage and, in consequence, the Palestinian leadership decided to ignite the explosive issue of al-Aqsa, which they did with deadly effect, as witnessed by the events that followed.
Internally, as well, the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority needed to re-assert itself, fighting for relevancy against its principal rival, Hamas, the militant Islamic arm of the Palestinian movement, isolated in Gaza as a result of the 2014 Gaza War, but still active and growing in influence in the West Bank.
A poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in September 2015, before the Abbas UN speech, indicated that two-thirds of Palestinians wanted their 80-year-old president to stand down; 57 percent supported an armed intifada in the absence of peace negotiations, up from 49 percent three months earlier.7
A Failure of Leadership
From the Palestinians’ perspective, Mahmoud Abbas had failed to deliver a single item on the Palestinian national agenda. He rejected an intensive U.S.-led peace initiative in 2013-14 and formed a Fatah-Hamas government of national reconciliation instead. The supposed reconciliation, however, quickly fell apart when Fatah refused to transfer any funds or authority to Hamas personnel, embittering even further Fatah’s already noxious relationship with that organization.
In terms of his own constituency in the West Bank, Abbas, elected president of the Palestinian Authority for a four-year-term in 2005, has unilaterally suspended all further electoral processes, including the 2009 election as demanded by Palestinian law.
He instituted measures of repression over a free press and the arrest and intimidation of journalists. There was an endless stream of reports of corruption among the Palestinian leadership, of featherbedding and patronage for those families close to the centers of power, and of an entrenched bureaucracy.
Abbas tightened his control over the police and security forces, unencumbered by the rule of law or transparency in the way they are deployed – this despite their training undertaken and financed by the international community, and their positive interaction, when convenient, with Israeli security forces in controlling Hamas terror.
Against this backdrop, the frustration among young Palestinians takes on a new perspective. It is a frustration with the inability of their leaders to offer them a vision of a future where they will be able to lead fruitful and open lives, a society where they can express their opinions, a place where their children will want to live.
They see no road to progress, no negotiations underway to change the current reality, but rather an unmovable, entrenched, corrupt and repressive leadership whose only “achievements” to date have been getting esoteric and meaningless resolutions passed in the UN that do not impact on their daily quality of life by one iota. They saw sporadic, noisy anti-Israel demonstrations on the pavements of the world, and a campaign to boycott Israeli goods and institutions that may have kept Roger Waters off Israeli stages and Israeli wines off Scandinavian supermarket shelves, but did little to change the reality in which they live.
Instead of holding elections in 2009, as the law required, Fatah, the arm of the PLO headed by Abbas, held a convention in Bethlehem, where they adopted a new course of action, dealt with in detail later in this study. The plan called for something different from the second intifada, which was characterized as an armed struggle, but where violence would be used differently. It would be a war of attrition, termed as “popular resistance,” to include the use of “low-intensity” violence without resorting to firearms or explosives, while, at the same time, keeping the flame of resistance alive by seeking Israel’s de-legitimization internationally, promoting the BDS campaign against Israeli services and products, and, at the heart of it, incitement as a valve to turn on and off as required, as witnessed initially with calumnies that Israelis were defiling al-Aqsa and, later, randomly slaughtering innocent Palestinian children in the streets.
In tandem, and with a great degree of sophistication, a parallel policy was decided on, a policy spoken in English, not Arabic, to ostensibly keep a door open for negotiations with Israel, Fatah not wanting to be perceived as opposed to peace or to antagonize its international supporters and, critically for the Palestinians, the Israeli peace camp.
The formula was to speak of peace to bolster Palestinian legitimacy while demonizing Israel’s occupation of the territories. PA security forces also continued cooperating with their Israeli counterparts in preventing terror, but only with regard to quelling Hamas, one interest shared by both the PA and Israel, and mutual common ground where the sides could meet and coordinate formal security matters.
Typical of this dichotomy were two reports published on January 19, 2016, in Al Quds, the largest Palestinian daily, of a statistical study noting “direct executions and excessive use of force were the main reasons for martyrs, with a rate of 84 percent martyrdom in this way.”8
In an interview published the same day in the U.S. magazine Defense News, the head of the Palestinian intelligence services, Majed Faraj, said that the PA security services “were able to foil 200 attacks against the Israeli occupation throughout the past three months since the start of the Quds Intifada.”9
The difference between the two reports is both typical and apparent: Al Quds’ report of executions was in Arabic and designed to incite; the Defense News interview was in English and designed to curry international favor. Together they epitomize the meaning and intention of the strategy adopted by Fatah at its 2009 convention.
On January 15, Amos Harel, defense correspondent of Ha’aretz, reported that for the past month, Israeli divisional commanders had been interviewing young Palestinians apprehended while planning or executing an attack to try and understand what was motivating them.10
The prison meetings, he reported, had been arranged by the IDF Central Command, and focused on what the military called “lone terrorists” or “lone wolves” – those unaffiliated with any specific terrorist or political organization.
These meetings, he continued, pointed to two main understandings: Israel is facing a long-term phenomenon; and that while Israel’s tactical responses in the deployment of its security forces have managed to reduce casualties, the present response is far from complete, particularly in terms of intelligence.
The far more interesting observation, however, was what they heard from the young Palestinians in terms of their motive – an observation that ties this new wave of unrest to a coordinated incitement campaign, carried on official Palestinian media, from mid-September 2015 and onwards.
In October it was fear for al-Aqsa that motivated the attacks. In November there was a general atmosphere of preparations for a third intifada. In December, those questioned mainly talked about being inspired by the deeds of others and imitating others attackers. In January it was about extracting revenge for the alleged slaughter of innocents.
On January 24, 2016, in an unusual press release to the local and foreign media, the Israel Security Agency reported that a minor from the village of Beit Amra, near Hebron, was apprehended on suspicion of stabbing and killing Dafna Meir, a mother of six, in the neighboring Jewish settlement of Otniel on January 19.
“Released for publication,” the press release11 continued, “was that during questioning by the ISA (Shabak) it transpired that prior to committing the attack, the youth was watching Palestinian television portraying Israel as ‘killing Palestinian young people.’”
It was then, while watching the program, that the 15-year-old decided to “commit a stabbing attack with the goal of murdering a Jew.”
The television broadcast that sent the youth on his mission of death was yet another careful calibration of incitement, policy and cynicism, which has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a new level, one that generates terror without fingerprints, but which adroitly serves Fatah’s strategy, which may differ from that of Hamas in terms of tactics and the use of violence, but which is identical in its ultimate goal: an endless war of attrition, by varying means, against Israel.
Timeline of Terror
An unofficial log of the violent events that occurred in the first 100 days and more mounts up to scores of pages of single-spaced text, each line a description of another horrific attack and its consequences.
The first fatality in this new phase of confrontation was 64-year-old Alexander Levlovich on September 14, 2015, killed while driving home from a family dinner on the Jewish New Year, when stones hit his car and caused him to crash.
Three youths, two 18-year-olds and one 17, were later arrested in the east Jerusalem village of Sur Baher and admitted to the attack.
The next day, September 15, saw a third day of clashes on the Temple Mount. The Waqf, the Muslim authority on the Mount, issued incendiary statements that “Israeli forces had penetrated the southern mosque as far as Saladin’s Minbar (pulpit) and witnesses said that stun grenades had set fire by the mosque’s Bab al-Janaez (funerals door),” intimating that Israel was willfully violating the inner sanctums of Muslim holy sites.
However, Israeli UN Ambassador Ron Prosor wrote to the UN Secretary General and the Security Council that “at no point did Israeli police forces enter the mosque. All damage sustained at the mosque was a direct result of the activities of the militants.”12 Moreover, Israel Police Spokeswoman Luba Samri said Palestinians threw rocks, firebombs and fireworks at police from within the al-Aqsa mosque and the firebombs sparked a fire at the entrance to the holy site.13
In the following days, Molotov cocktails were hurled at Israeli army checkpoints. Firebombs were also thrown at and destroyed a bus in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Armon Hanatziv.
Clashes on the Temple Mount became more aggressive. Riots began to flare up in major Palestinian cities as well, and on September 21, 2,000 Israelis visiting Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus were violently attacked by some 60 Palestinian teens. Serious injury to the group was avoided thanks to a quick and efficient response by the IDF in coordination with the PA security forces, neither side wanting to see the incident escalate into a massacre.
If, in the smoke of unrest, one can point to a seminal moment when the new Palestinian intifada emerged, it would be September 22, 2015, on the outskirts of the West Bank village of Khursa, near Hebron.
On that day, Diyaa Abdul-Halim Talhama, 21,was killed by Israeli forces during a violent demonstration, some say by a bomb of his own making, against what he considered Israel’s abuses on the Temple Mount.
On that day, at Talhama’s funeral, Muhannad Shafeq Hallabi, Talhama’s fellow law student at Al-Quds University, kissed the dead man’s forehead and swore revenge.
On October 3, outside Lions Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem, Hallabi exacted it, knife in hand, insanely slashing away at the Benita family, with the intent to kill all in his wake, including their infant child, leaving the cobbled path covered in blood. His Facebook page, as we have written, tells it all.
Also on that day, September 22, and also on the outskirts of Khursa, Hadeel Al-Hashlamoun, a 19-year-old married student, dressed herself in a black traditional niqab, her body and face fully covered, and approached Israeli soldiers standing casually by a roadblock.
Footage, taken from behind, as if to document her journey, shows no particular tension among the soldiers as she came close to them. The footage, later to become viral on Palestinian social media, then stops and the next image is of her body, as if callously killed by the soldiers for no reason other than for being a Muslim woman in traditional garb. The knife she pulled out of her bag as she lunged at the unsuspecting soldier was never shown, and when pictures of the knife were later released by Israel, they were deemed forgeries by Palestinian activists.
Defending Women’s Honor
Within hours, driven by a social media frenzy, Al-Hashlamoun became a symbol of a violated Muslim woman, killed for her traditional garb, a victim of the Israelis in their war against Islam, another crime against Muslim women, like Israel’s decision to banish the so-called Mourabitat (women guardians on the Temple Mount) the week before in an attempt to quell the explosive situation at the site.
It is now known that Al-Hashlamoun had asked her husband for a divorce the previous day. From the footage and the way it was edited and distributed on social media after the fact, she was clearly sent on this carefully choreographed mission with a purpose in mind. While Hamas praised her actions, the Palestinian Authority did not, though it did nothing to temper the storm that followed.
Al-Hashlamoun’s portrait has become, and remains, a feature intrinsic to much of the incitement that has led to the current situation and which frames the Stealth Intifada we now face. Her profile appeared on a poster with the Kaaba in Mecca, Islam’s holiest site, a rare honor, maybe unprecedented, for a Muslim woman.
In Khursa, a street was named in her honor. The real reasons for her deed are long forgotten, but her legacy of hate lives on and thrives and her actions have been emulated by an inordinate number of young women since.
The message of the knife became an entrenched icon of this new and different struggle.
The Spread of Hate
At first the main violence seemed to be in and around Jerusalem, with sporadic armed involvement by Hamas operatives, trying to ride the wave of stabbings and motor vehicle attacks. Then the attacks started to spread throughout the country, from Beersheba in the south, to Afula in the north of Israel, as well as Gush Etzion and, in particular, the Hebron area in the West Bank.
The spread and intensity of these attacks makes for numbing reading. Here is a partial report for October 8, 2015: Subhi Ibrahim Khalifeh, 19, stabbed a 25-year-old Haredi man in French Hill; a Palestinian stabbed four soldiers near IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv with a screwdriver; a Palestinian stabbed a settler, 25, inside Hebron; a Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier, 20, in Afula; a Palestinian died in a confrontation with Israeli forces in Shuafat; Palestinians attack Israeli soldiers in Bethlehem; Tha’er Abughazaleh, another teenage Palestinian, was shot dead after stabbing an Israeli soldier.
On October 9, 2015, a 16-year-old Israeli youth was stabbed on Shmuel Hanavi Street in Jerusalem; 19-year-old Mohammad Al-Jabari, 19, repeatedly stabbed a police officer in Kiryat Arba; Israa Abed, 30, one of the very few Israeli Arabs involved in the violence, was injured when she tried to stab an Israeli security guard in Afula; five Israelis, including three children, were injured after their car crashed after being pelted by Palestinian stone-throwers; three Israeli soldiers were injured by stones and projectiles thrown at them at Nebi Saleh and near Rachel’s Tomb; in A-Tur, an east Jerusalem suburb, a man holding a firebomb was shot in the leg by the police, while two firebombs were thrown at Israeli vehicles on Route 65, and an Israeli woman reported being shot near the settlement of Karnei Shomron.
The litany of violence is endless. The next morning, a 16-year-old Palestinian, Ishak Badran from Kafr’ Aqab, stabbed two Israelis returning from prayers at their local synagogue in Jerusalem. Muhammad Saed Ali, 19, of Shuafat, was killed after stabbing a policeman on Sultan Suleiman Street near the Damascus Gate. Another incident just days later and 50 meters away caused international outrage after a foreign reporter erroneously reported that a Palestinian youth had been killed in cold blood. The on-site reporter was corrected, in real-time, by the newscaster who said that the video footage clearly showed the knife attack in progress.
On October 12, two cousins, 13-year-old Ahmed Manasra and Hassan, 15, rode their bikes from the prosperous Palestinian neighborhood of Beit Hanina and stabbed an Israeli man and a 13-year-old Israeli boy as they came out of a candy store in the shopping center of Pisgat Zeev, east of Jerusalem.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared that “Israel is responsible for the execution of our children in cold blood as they did with the child Ahmed Manasra.” Hardly had the ink dried on the calumny, when Manasra appeared in the media, bandaged and in treatment for a slight wound in the head, at an Israeli hospital. The mistake, however, did not deter PLO Executive Committee Secretary Saeb Erekat from sending a formal letter of complaint to the UN Special Envoy on October 16, demanding an international investigation into the “extrajudicial killings being carried out against the Palestinians in the past few weeks.”15
And thus it has gone, from day to day, almost every day, for over 100 days. The attacks have been inside Israel, in the territories, on buses, on trains, in shopping malls, on the streets, outside synagogues, on the roads, at junctions where Jews and Palestinians share traffic routes, and, in a different direction, in the last week of January, inside settlements in the West Bank.
On January 17, 2016, as noted, Dafna Meir was stabbed to death in the doorway of her house, in full view of her children, in Otniel. Michal Froman, a pregnant woman, was wounded in a separate attack while shopping in a clothing store in the settlement of Tekoa the next day. Both attacks were carried out by 15-year-old Palestinians.
A week later, on January 25, two Palestinians from the village of Ur-al-Tahta stabbed women shoppers in neighboring Beit Horon, killing Shlomit Krigman, 23, and moderately wounding Adina Cohen, 58. In this attack, however, in addition to knives, the assailants brought three home-made pipe bombs, intended to be used in the attack, but which failed to explode.16
These bombs, like the instructions on how best to stab Jews, were produced from lessons broadcast over social media, indicating, perhaps, that the Stealth Intifada may be headed in a more explosive direction, the long-term consequences of which bode ill for both sides.
The Victims Are to Blame
Hours after Shlomit Krigman of Beit Horon died on January 26, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon addressed the current situation at the UN Security Council. While condemning the current wave of attacks against Israeli civilians, he added the unilateral perception that what we see now is a result of “Palestinian frustration…growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process….It is human nature to react to occupation.”17
In what the New York Times termed “an unusually personal retort,” Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is quoted as saying, “The words of the UN secretary general give a tailwind to terrorism. There is no justification for terrorism. The Palestinian murderers do not want to build a state – they want to destroy a state and they say that out loud.” 18
The Israeli prime minister is not alone in this perception. As opposed to other Palestinian uprisings against Israel, where the Israeli pro-peace camp remained intact, this situation of random terror in Israel’s heartland, as well as in the territories, has changed the way many Israelis think. It has deepened skepticism that peace with the Palestinians is possible or that a two-state solution is attainable.
In a stunning turn-about, in early February 2016, the Israeli Labor Party, long the advocate of a two-state solution, formally changed its position to one of unilateralism, whereby Israel would unilaterally withdraw from those Palestinian areas whose retention they consider poses a security threat to Israel, including the Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, while retaining those areas of the West Bank they consider vital to Israel’s security. A two-state solution was the core of Labor’s thinking. Now, hopes for peace have become a vision of unilateralism; a one-sided divorce with no negotiation.
While the current wave of violence has succeeded in placing the Palestinian issue back on the international agenda to some degree, it has lost the Palestinians a valuable asset: the Israeli political center. No polls are necessary here: the Labor Party’s formal decision to adopt a policy of unilateralism says it all.
Israelis have lost trust in the Palestinians and their leaders, even those Israelis who believe that Israel should relinquish the territories as part of a peace agreement between the sides.
No society can live in fear and with anarchy at its doorstep, where suspicion lurks at every turn.
And no society can live with and tolerate the hatred being spewed against them, via social media and other means, with calumnies and lies reminiscent of the dark days that led to even darker days in the not-too-distant past of the Jewish people.
Israel will learn and adapt to this new situation as it has done in the past, its security relations with the Palestinians resulting in a constant learning curve. The question is whether the Palestinian leadership will do the same and come around to understanding that the monster they have created, a generation of children led to believe in the culture of death, is not in their own best interest.
The international community has not yet fully comprehended the change that has occurred here. This is not the same conflict they knew. A quest for justice has been replaced by a lust for revenge and an ideology that slaughtering the enemy, not negotiating with him, is the path to true salvation.
This current reality may not have been foreseen by Fatah when they adopted their policy of “popular resistance” back in 2009. But what we are witnessing now are the consequences, intended or otherwise, and a future riddled with more violence and blood.
Israel can control the damage, but only Fatah and the PA can end it, and it is they, the Palestinian leadership, who have to do so if the path to negotiation and conciliation is to be opened again, and this endless and senseless wave of violence extinguished.
* * *
3 Mohammed Daraghmeh and Karin Laub, , “New generation of disillusioned Palestinians drives unrest,” Associated Press, October 6, 2015, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c5c5284068ae4e7291e995cc13c0ad34/new-generation-disillusioned-palestinians-drives-unrest
5 Rick Galdstone and Jodi Rudoren, “Mahmoud Abbas, at U.N., Says Palestinians Are No Longer Bound by Oslo Accords,” New York Times, September 30, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/world/middleeast/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-authority-un-speech.html?_r=0
6 Stuart Winer, “Police find pipe bombs on Temple Mount during clash,” Times of Israel, September 13, 2015, http://www.timesofisrael.com/police-find-pipe-bombs-on-temple-mount-during-clash/
8 “68% of Palestinian deaths resulting from recent violence occurred at checkpoints,” Middle East Monitor, January 19, 2016, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/23405-68-of-palestinian-deaths-resulting-from-recent-violence-occurred-at-checkpoints
9 Barbara Opall-Rome, “Keeping ISIS out of Palestine,” Defense News, January 18, 2016, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/mideast-africa/2016/01/18/keeping-isis-out-palestine/78939962/
10 Amos Harel, “Senior IDF Officers Visit Palestinian Terrorists in Jail in Effort to Understand Their Motives,” Ha’aretz, Jan 15, 2016, http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.697571
11 “Palestinian minor who murdered Dafna Meir,” Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 24, 2016, http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Palestinian-minor-who-murdered-Dafna-Meir-24-Jan-2016.aspx
12 Amb. Ron Prosor, “Letter on Palestinian Violence at the Temple Mt.,” Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations, September 17, 2015, http://embassies.gov.il/un/statements/letters/Pages/Amb.-Prosor-on-the-Palestinian-violence-at-the-Temple-Mount.aspx
13 “Israel Eyes Administrative Detention for Temple Mount Rioters,” Times of Israel, September 28, 2015, http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-eyes-administrative-detention-for-temple-mount-rioters-2/
16 Isabel Kershner, “Palestinian Assailants Are Killed After Knife Attack on 2 Israeli Women,” New York Times, January 25, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/world/middleeast/palestinian-assailants-are-killed-after-knife-attack-on-2-israeli-women.html
17 “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks to the Security Council,” United Nations, January 26, 2016, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=9417
18 Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Chides Ban Ki-moon for Settlement Remarks,” New York Times, January 26, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/world/middleeast/israeli-palestinian-attack-beit-horon.html
There is a groundswell of support in Israel for the soldier that shot a ‘neutralized’ terrorist as he lay on the ground. Although he has been arrested and may be tried for manslaughter or at least violating rules of engagement, the spirit of the country is with him.
The usual suspects, like Gideon Levy, think that the soldier (and the country) are “monsters.” They are wrong. They are making a mistake in geography. They haven’t noticed that Israel is located in the Middle East; or, having noticed, they would prefer it to be elsewhere, like Europe. But you see how well that has worked out for Europe!
Liberal American Jews make a similar mistake. They would like Israel to be in California. I don’t think that would work out so well, either.
Israel is a Middle-Eastern country. An exceptional one, with highly advanced science and technology and a decent economy and a relatively free and democratic system of governance. But Middle-Eastern nevertheless.
I don’t know why Levy and his ilk are so surprised. Half of the population has recent roots in Arab countries. Our religion and ethical principles developed here, even though they took something from the years of Diaspora. Since before the founding of our state, our neighbors have been teaching us about life in the Middle East the hard way.
Herzl thought Altneuland would be a more tolerant version of Germany, but that isn’t what happened. Not surprising, actually.
Honor is important in the Middle East. Families and clans are important in the Middle East. The Jewish people is in a sense a large clan (the ‘Palestinians’ would like to be a people in that sense, but they don’t have the history. They are trying to make it up).
In the last 6 months or so 34 Israeli Jews (and several Arabs) have been murdered on our streets, in stores and homes, and at bus stops. The murders have been incited by official and social Palestinian media. The killers try especially hard to kill soldiers and police, particularly young women. Tacit (and sometimes overt) approval comes from the Palestinian Authority, as well as support and admiration for the murderers. To the disgust of Levy and friends, our human, Jewish and Middle Eastern response has been “when they rise up to kill you, kill them first.”
Levy and others have a vision of a secular, Western state, a state in which the protection of the rights of Arabs – even while they are trying to kill us – takes priority over the pain of their victims. This might work in a place like the US or Germany with their resources and power – although the signs of decay there are becoming more and more evident – but it does not fly in a tiny Middle Eastern country surrounded by enemies.
Levy writes: “The People of Israel lives, and will continue to do so, its country is strong and steadfast and it will apparently survive forever. But this place will become impossible and intolerable for anyone who thinks differently.”
He is correct.