RSS
LA Times Op-Ed Gaslights Israelis & Jews on Intifada Violence
The aftermath of the suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem on Aug. 9, 2001, that killed 15 people, including two Americans, and wounded around 130 others. Photo: Flash90.
In a recent opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab takes umbrage with New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s assertion that public calls for an intifada are akin to calls for the genocide of the Jewish people.
In making his case, Kuttab’s article is riddled with historical revisionism, factual inaccuracies, and misleading statements, all in an effort to whitewash the violent nature of the two Palestinian intifadas and to lay the onus for continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians solely at the feet of the Jewish state.
“Civil Disobedience & Protest”: The First Intifada
In defending the use of the term “intifada” (literally “shaking off”), Kuttab asserts that the term is a Palestinian “demand for freedom from occupation,” and that its sole focus is on ending Israeli control over the post-1967 territories.
Following this favorable presentation of the term “intifada,” Kuttab then initiates his whitewashing of reality, beginning with the First Intifada.
For anyone unfamiliar with Israeli and Palestinian history, the First Intifada would appear from Daoud Kuttab’s description to have been a righteous struggle for civil rights, similar to those that took place in the southern United States or South Africa.
This is not mere hyperbole, as he actually writes, “Initially, the intifada included the methods of resistance practiced by Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.”
This complimentary portrayal of the First Intifada is further reinforced by a later description of it as “six years of civil disobedience and protest.”
While it is true that the First Intifada included acts of non-violence, it is disingenuous for Kuttab to present those six years as an idealistic struggle for peace and freedom.
From the start, the First Intifada was also defined by Palestinian violence against Israeli soldiers and civilians.
It is estimated that during the first four years, there were “more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives” directed against Israelis.
In fact, for an “uprising” supposedly directed against “the occupation, not Israel,” more Israeli civilians were killed during the First Intifada than members of the Israeli security forces. Of these Israeli civilians, more were killed within pre-1967 Israel than were killed in the West Bank, Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem.
Between the Two Intifadas: The Oslo Years
Following his rosy assessment of the First Intifada, Daoud Kuttab then turns his attention to the Oslo era, the seven years between the signing of the Oslo Accords by Yitzhak Rabin’s Israeli government and Yasser Arafat’s PLO, and the eruption of the Second Intifada.
To hear Kuttab tell it, Israel and the Palestinians were on a clear course for rapprochement and friendly relations between two states until a right-wing Israeli extremist assassinated Rabin in 1995, leading to Benjamin Netanyahu’s first government, which “multiplied illegal settlements” in the West Bank.
Ultimately, all blame is laid at Israel’s feet for the demise of the Oslo Accords.
However, this brief history of the Oslo era is overly simplistic and misleading in several ways.
First, it does not take into account the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism, including suicide bombings, shootings, firebombs, and stabbings, which was aimed at derailing the Oslo peace process and inflicting severe damage against both Israeli security forces and civilians.
Second, contrary to Kuttab’s assertion, there was no mass proliferation of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza under the first Netanyahu government. In fact, as part of the Oslo process, there was a freeze on the establishment of new Israeli communities in these areas. This led to the development of outposts, small communities that are established without government approval.
Third, during his first tenure as prime minister, Netanyahu continued to engage in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), culminating in the signing of the Wye River Memorandum. Under this agreement, Israel ceded more territory to the control of the PA and agreed to release a large number of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for counter-terrorism efforts on the part of the PA.
Lastly, no mention is made of the 2000 Camp David summit, where Arafat walked away from negotiations with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and ultimately began planning the Second Intifada.
Shootings, Suicide Bombings & Stabbings: The Second Intifada
Unlike his portrayal of the First Intifada, Kuttab does not go into great detail about the Second Intifada.
However, what he does write about the Second Intifada is just as deceptive and misleading.
Kuttab states that in 2000:
Israeli prime minister candidate Ariel Sharon staged a deliberately provocative campaign visit to Al Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinian protests that followed were violently and fatally put down, and so began the second intifada, a recognition that negotiation and nonviolence had failed to end the occupation and create an independent Palestinian state.
In just one paragraph, Kuttab misleads his readers into believing several factual inaccuracies, including:
That Ariel Sharon visited the Al Aqsa Mosque. In fact, he never entered the mosque but walked around the Temple Mount complex, the holiest site in Judaism.
That the Palestinian response to Sharon’s visit was “protests” that were “violently and fatally put down.” In fact, the immediate response to the visit included the stoning of Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall and gun battles between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen.
That the Second Intifada was a grassroots response to the Sharon visit and subsequent Israeli violence. In fact, even Palestinian sources agree that it was planned ahead of time by the Palestinian leadership. Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was just a convenient justification for the Palestinian leadership to put its plan into effect.
The reason why Kuttab’s description of the Second Intifada might be so sparse is that for many people, it is defined by a spate of suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, stonings, and other attacks against both Israeli civilians and security forces.
Furthermore, many of these attacks were directed against restaurants, nightclubs, and Jewish religious gatherings in cities in pre-1967 Israel, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Netanya.
Thus, the Second Intifada belies Kuttab’s rosy image of an intifada as a righteous venture whose “target is not Jews but Israel’s illegal occupation.”
Daoud Kuttab is not the only person to recently gaslight Jews and Israelis about what an “intifada” is.
Both MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan and talking head Peter Beinart have recently claimed that calls for an intifada are not inherently violent and that an intifada is a legitimate form of “uprising” against Israel.
Imagine being a professor and not understanding the definition of the word ‘explicitly’.
You can believe that ‘intifada’ chants are calls for violence – they aren’t btw! – but what you can’t do is claim they are ‘explicit’ calls for violence when, *by definition*, they are not. https://t.co/0XiijMfOGD
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 12, 2023
While there can be a discussion about whether a call to “globalize the intifada” is a call for the genocide of Jews (as was recently claimed in the US Congress) or whether the term “intifada” has other linguistic connotations, it is the height of gaslighting to try to argue that when calling for an “intifada” in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the word connotes anything other than the indiscriminate violence against Israeli civilians which plagued the First and Second Intifadas.
The post LA Times Op-Ed Gaslights Israelis & Jews on Intifada Violence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Ritchie Torres Blasts Columbia Over ‘Intifada’ Student Publication, Calls For ‘Revolution’ Against ‘Far-Left’
US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) speaks during the House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, DC, Sept. 30, 2021. Photo: Al Drago/Pool via REUTERS
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) blasted Columbia University over the weekend over their lackadaisical approach to combating antisemitism, excoriating the Ivy League institution for allowing a terrorist-supporting student group to exist on campus.
“Columbia University is so embedded in anti-Israel propaganda that it has a publication entitled, quote, ‘The Columbia Intifada.’ What is needed in our society is a revolution of the responsible against the intifada idiocy of the far-left,” Torres said in a statement on Sunday.
Earlier this month, the prestigious university came under fire after it was revealed that ‘Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine’—a cohort of anti-Israel student activists—distributed a publication titled ‘The Columbia Intifada’ around campus. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) reportedly printed 1,000 copies of the publication, which included articles titled “Zionist Peace Means Palestinian Blood,”and “The Myth of the Two-State Solution.”
When pressed about the publication, Columbia University criticized the students involved and indicated that it would consider administering punishment.
“Using the Columbia name for a publication that glorifies violence and makes individuals in our community feel targeted in any way is a breach of our values,” Columbia said in a statement.
“As we have said repeatedly, discrimination and promoting violence or terror is not acceptable and antithetical to what our community stands for. We are investigating this incident through our applicable offices and policies,” the university continued.
Though the publication is not officially recognized by Columbia University, critics argue that it indicates a thriving anti-Israel sentiment on the prestigious campus.
This is not the first time that Torres has lambasted Columbia over their failure to protect Jewish students on campus. Over the past year, Torres has repeatedly condemned the campus for allowing pro-Palestine students to chant slogans perceived by many to be antisemitic. He has also called Columbia’s anti-Israel professors “pseudo-intellectuals.”
In addition, the congressman has commended New York University (NYU) for expanding its anti-harassment and non-discrimination policies to protect students who support the existence of Israel. NYU’s new hate speech policies state that deploying “code words like ‘Zionist’” do not necessarily shield students from violating the university conduct policies. He has called on Columbia to implement a similar policy.
In the year following the Hamas terrorist group’s slaughter of roughly 1200 people throughout southern Israel, Columbia has become a hotbed of pro-Palestine protests. Immediately following the Oct. 7 massacre, a litany of Columbia student groups issued statements expressing approval of the Hamas attacks and assigning blame exclusively to Israel. A mob of pro-Palestinian protesters held a demonstration in front of the City University of New York Hillel on Tuesday, shouting at Jewish students to get “out of the Middle East” and “go back to Brooklyn.”
Many Columbia campus groups have implemented policies banning self-professed “Zionists” from membership, effectively excluding the majority of Jewish students. Columbia University student Khymani James publicly stated that Zionists “don’t deserve to live.” The Ivy League university has not confirmed if James has been permanently expelled from the campus.
The post Ritchie Torres Blasts Columbia Over ‘Intifada’ Student Publication, Calls For ‘Revolution’ Against ‘Far-Left’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Destroy or Explode’: Anti-Isreal Jordanian Pleads Guilty to Bomb Threat and Sabotaging Energy Facility in Florida
An American flag waves outside the US Department of Justice Building in Washington, DC. Photo: Al Drago via Reuters Connect
A Jordanian expatriate who was federally charged in August for attacking an energy facility and threatening to bomb businesses that he deemed supportive of Israel has pled guilty to his crimes, the US Department of Justice announced earlier this month.
As The Algemeiner previously reported, Hashem Younis Hashem Hnaihen, 43, this past summer vandalized small businesses in Orange County, Florida, and left “Warning Letters” addressed to the US government in which he vowed to “destroy or explode everything here in America. Especially the companies and factories that support the racist state of Israel.”
Later, he breached an energy facility in Wedgefield, Florida, where he “smashed” scores of solar panels and damaged other “electronic equipment.” The spree of infrastructure sabotage lasted “for hours,” the department added, destroying $700,000 worth of technology. In early July, Hnaihen left a final warning letter at an industrial propane gas distribution depot located in the city of Orlando., according to federal prosecutors. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department arrested him on July 11.
On Dec. 20, Hnaihen conceded to the federal government its case against him, pleading guilty to “four counts of threatening to use explosives and one count of destruction of an energy facility.” His plea also contained a promise to “make full restitution” to his victims, a debt he will likely repay by working a job in prison, where he stands to spend as many as 60 years.
“With this plea, we are holding this defendant accountable for his threats to carry out hate-fueled mass violence in our country, motivated in part by his desire to ‘warn’ businesses because of their perceived support of Israel,” US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement announcing the news. “The Justice Department will fiercely protect the right over every person to peacefully express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas, but we have no tolerance for acts and threats of hate-fueled violence that create lasting fear.”
FBI Director Christopher Wray added, “The defendant is admitting that he attacked a solar power facility, damaged a number of Florida businesses, and left a series of threatening messages about perceived state of Israel. Violence, destruction of property, and threats are simply unacceptable.”
Hnaihen’s conviction is one among several that the Justice Department secured this year against offenders who committed crimes animated by anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish hatred.
In November, Adam Edward Braun, 34, pleaded guilty to repeatedly vandalizing a synagogue in Eugene, Oregon during a 2023 unrestrained bout of hate. Braun, graffitied the Temple Beth Israel synagogue twice in Sept. 2023, spraying “1377” for its resemblance to “1488,” a reference to Adolf Hitler and a white nationalist slogan. He came back several months later to vandalize the glazing of the synagogue’s entrance. A search of Braun’s home in Jan. yielded copious evidence of his guilt. Authorities also found “several items and writings” that were antisemitic, further implicating him in the crimes.
In October, federal prosecutors helped convict a gunman who shot two Jewish men as they exited a synagogue in Los Angeles.
Jaime Tran, 30 — an affiliate of the “Goyim Defense League” hate group — had attempted to murder two Jewish men in the Pico-Robertson section of Los Angeles in Feb. 2023. Prior to the crimes, Tran called Jews “primitive” and told a former classmate, “Someone is going to kill you, Jew” and “I want you dead, Jew.” According to the Justice Department, he even described himself as a “ticking time bomb,” broadcasting his murderous ideation to all who knew him.
After declining to fight the federal government’s case against him, Tran pled guilty in June to four charges the DOJ described as “hate crimes with intent to kill” and “using, carrying, and discharging a firearm” in the commission of an act of violence. His sentencing of 35 years ensures that he will not again be free until the year 2059.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post ‘Destroy or Explode’: Anti-Isreal Jordanian Pleads Guilty to Bomb Threat and Sabotaging Energy Facility in Florida first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why Erdogan’s Turkish Empire Is an Emerging Threat
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq, April 22, 2024. Photo: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS
The world was once a series of empires. The British Empire, at its peak in 1922, covered about a quarter of the Earth’s land and ruled over 458 million people. The Russian Empire once covered about 8,800,000 sq/mi, roughly one-sixth of the world’s landmass, making it the third-largest empire in history, behind only the British and Mongols. An 1897 census recorded 125.6 million people under Russian control. Genghis Khan’s Mongol Empire, while short, was the largest contiguous empire in history.
The Ottoman Empire lasted from 1301 to 1922, and at one point, included parts of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon. It was, in some ways and at some times, a relatively benign occupation of other people, though decidedly not for Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds.
Why does it matter? We don’t do empires anymore. Do we?
That depends. Turkey now, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is projecting its next empire — a scary combination of ISIS-related religious extremism, nationalist prejudice, and Western weaponry.
Erdogan gave a speech last week. The key paragraph is this:
Turkey is much bigger than Turkey as a nation. We cannot limit our horizon to 782,000 sq/km, Just as a person cannot escape from his destiny by fleeing it, Turkey as a nation cannot flee or hide from its destiny. We must see, accept and act according to the mission that history has given us as a nation. Those who ask, “What is Turkey doing in Libya, Syria, and Somalia?” may not be able to conceive the mission and the vision.
And, if you couldn’t “conceive the mission,” Bilal Erdogan, his son, clarified for you. At a massive rally, he exhorted the crowd: “Yesterday Hagia Sophia (once a Church in Istanbul), today the Umayyad Mosque (Damascus), tomorrow Al-Aqsa (the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem).”
Today, Turkey illegally occupies a large swath of northern Syria, claiming only to have in interest in defeating the PKK –– considered by Ankara to be a Kurdish terror organization. [For the US, the Kurds were an essential partner in defeating ISIS in Syria and northern Iraq, and remain an ally.]
Between October 2019 and January 2024, the Turkish military carried out more than 100 attacks on oil fields, gas facilities, and power stations in Kurdish-held areas. According to the BBC in October 2024, Ankara cut off access to electricity and water for more than a million people.
Turkey has operated in northern Syria in conjunction with HTS, the ISIS-adjacent group that has been on the US terror list, but now appears to be seeking legitimacy as the ruler of Syria. According to a Turkish news source, as a new Syrian military establishment begins to take shape, “Turkey will actively provide consultant-expert support to the restructuring process of Syria’s sea, air, and land forces. In addition … Turkish military presence will be included in five different points of Syria.”
The new force will number 300,000, according to the Turkish report, including 40,000 fighters from HTS, and 50,000 from the Syrian National Army (SNA). The latter is actually an auxiliary of the Turkish Armed Forces. SNA forces have been deployed by Turkey as a proxy in Libya and elsewhere.
Ankara also hosts leadership of Hamas, earning a rare rebuke from the US State Department in November 2024, and Hezbollah. It should be noted that the dismemberment of Hezbollah by Israel was understood as a defeat for Iran, Turkey’s regional rival.
Turkey’s relations with Hamas, Hezbollah and the emerging Syrian military all threaten Israel. Turkey’s direct attacks on Israel — both rhetorical and military, going back to Turkish sponsorship of the Mavi Marmara flotilla in 2016 but increased after October 7 — also pose threats.
Turkey operates across Africa, as Erdogan noted in his speech. In January 2020, Turkey sent military forces to Libya in support of the Government of National Accord, the Tripoli government, followed by as many as 18,000 soldiers of the Syrian National Army (SNA — see above), which included child soldiers. Turkey has defense agreements with Somalia, Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ghana. Turkish drones have been recently delivered to Chad, Togo, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.
Like many empire-driven military adventures, this one appears to have two purposes: first, to secure access to natural resources, and then to serve as a launching point for Turkish social and religious interests. Turkey has built 140 schools for 17,000 students, while 60,000 Africans are studying in Turkey.
Turkey has made clear its intention to play as a world power. It is coming up against Russia and China in Africa, and Iran in the Middle East (Iran is injured, but not defeated). While there is no mechanism for the Western countries to remove Turkey from NATO (that requires a unanimous vote, and Turkey won’t vote itself out), the United States and its allies in Europe and the Middle East should be very skeptical of Turkey’s intentions and leery of its capabilities.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine.
The post Why Erdogan’s Turkish Empire Is an Emerging Threat first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login