3 feb 2018
The European Union’s (EU) Political and Security Committee (PSC) discussed, in its session on Wednesday, a secret report that strongly criticized Israel and its policies, Palestine’s ambassador to the EU, Abdul Rahim al-Farra, said on Saturday.
He said, in an interview with the official Palestine TV, that the PSC, which is composed of ambassadors from the 28 EU member states, also discussed the situation in occupied East Jerusalem, in particular, and came out with recommendations that will be presented to the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council when it meets on February 25 and 26, in Brussels.
He said, according to WAFA, that the PSC recommended the EU play a primary and active role in the Middle East peace process in order to salvage the two-state solution.
It also discussed EU-funded projects in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank, which is under Israeli military rule, and recommended that Israel should pay compensation for the destruction of these projects.
He said, in an interview with the official Palestine TV, that the PSC, which is composed of ambassadors from the 28 EU member states, also discussed the situation in occupied East Jerusalem, in particular, and came out with recommendations that will be presented to the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council when it meets on February 25 and 26, in Brussels.
He said, according to WAFA, that the PSC recommended the EU play a primary and active role in the Middle East peace process in order to salvage the two-state solution.
It also discussed EU-funded projects in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank, which is under Israeli military rule, and recommended that Israel should pay compensation for the destruction of these projects.
30 jan 2018
Moein Haja 56
Moein Haja was injured in a workplace accident in Israel and then hospitalized in Beilinson Hospital; his employer would not confirm he was employed in Israel, so he was transferred to a dilapidated hospital in Nablus, where he passed away; 'Was it not clear transferring him will lead to his death?'
Son demands; Beilinson claims authorization for transfer was received.
A Palestinian family is suing Israel for damages over alleged negligence that led to the death of the family's father, who was employed in construction in Israel and was injured in a workplace accident.
The man, Moein Haja, 56, from the village of Burqa near Ramallah, was fatally injured during his job as a construction work in Tayibe, an Arab city in central Israel, and was hospitalized in the Beilinson Hospital at the Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva.
Despite his condition, Haja was transferred eight days later to the Rafidia Hospital in Nablus, where he passed away two days later, with the family claiming it was because of the hospital's deplorable conditions. His swift transfer out of Beilinson, his family maintains, was a cost-saving measure.
Attorney Pesach Stamler, who represents the family, told Ynet, "It's unclear how Beilinson dared to cast off someone who was on a respirator and under general anesthesia. Was it not clear halting treatment to transfer him to the territories will lead to his death?"
Replying to the Haja family's claims, Beilinson Hospital said authorization to transfer the patient was received from "other authorities."
The family further added that hospitals in the Palestinian Authority were not equipped to provide the requisite care to people in Moein's condition. One of his sons said, "This is negligence of the highest order. Instead of treating him, they threw him away to die. We have to find out who decided to transfer him to a hospital that couldn't save his life. It's utter disrespect towards human life."
Another son, Salim Haja, said, "We're in shock. This is a nightmare. Dad went to work, and then we got a call saying he was hurt and taken to Beilinson Hospital. We arranged for my brother and mother to be issued three-day entry permits into Israel. They used them for two days and then the hospital wouldn't sign off on our dad being hospitalized there.
"Several days later, people from the Rafidia Hospital in Nablus called us. They said dad was in intensive care there. Two days later doctors pronounced him dead. We didn't sign any transfer form and were not told of an official intention to transfer him. They did it without our knowledge. How do you move someone so grievously wounded from place to place? I can't explain it. Dad had rights, and we want answers."
A visit to the Nablus hospital where Moein Haja who hospitalized, which was captured on a hidden camera, showed the premises suffer from severe neglect. The bathrooms, counter and refrigerator in the emergency room were completely rusted, while malodorous aroma permeated the halls.
The floor was strewn with papers, food waste and medical equipment. In the waiting room and near the entrance to other departments, visitors smoked and threw cigarette butts in the halls without sparing a thought to patients.
Near the pediatrics ward, there was a dirty stairwell, broken chairs, walls with water damage and a dirty water cooler.
One of the patients hospitalized there told Ynet, "We only come here because we have no choice. Instead of receiving treatment, I may get an infection. This is the situation of many other West Bank hospitals unfortunately. Only government officials receive the best care here."
Attorney Stamler added, "It's also unclear why Moein Haja's employer refused to sign forms confirming he was under his employ, which would allow him to continue to receive care in Israel. The employer's signature would have also allowed the deceased to be recognized as someone who suffered a workplace injury for the National Insurance Institute's purposes, going towards paying medical expenses."
"A person who was employed in Israel for years was cast away to die because there was no way of forcing his employer to confirm the injury by filling out a form, and no way to instruct the police to force him to do so despite the fact he admitted (to employing Haja)," Stamler continued.
"It's unclear why there's no way of instructing the hospital to continue treating a patent at least until a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances of his injury is undertaken. Everything is done out of financial considerations."
Providing its own version of events, Beilinson Hospital said, "A fatally wounded patient arrived to the hospital with multisystemic injuries. He was treated by the trauma staff and later hospitalized in the intensive care ward. He received all medical treatment in accordance with his condition.
"After exhausting all treatment options, he was transferred to the hospital nearest to his residence in coordination with the appropriate authorities in Israel. Transferring patients from the territories does not require their families' signatures and is carried out in coordination with other authorities."
Moein Haja was injured in a workplace accident in Israel and then hospitalized in Beilinson Hospital; his employer would not confirm he was employed in Israel, so he was transferred to a dilapidated hospital in Nablus, where he passed away; 'Was it not clear transferring him will lead to his death?'
Son demands; Beilinson claims authorization for transfer was received.
A Palestinian family is suing Israel for damages over alleged negligence that led to the death of the family's father, who was employed in construction in Israel and was injured in a workplace accident.
The man, Moein Haja, 56, from the village of Burqa near Ramallah, was fatally injured during his job as a construction work in Tayibe, an Arab city in central Israel, and was hospitalized in the Beilinson Hospital at the Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva.
Despite his condition, Haja was transferred eight days later to the Rafidia Hospital in Nablus, where he passed away two days later, with the family claiming it was because of the hospital's deplorable conditions. His swift transfer out of Beilinson, his family maintains, was a cost-saving measure.
Attorney Pesach Stamler, who represents the family, told Ynet, "It's unclear how Beilinson dared to cast off someone who was on a respirator and under general anesthesia. Was it not clear halting treatment to transfer him to the territories will lead to his death?"
Replying to the Haja family's claims, Beilinson Hospital said authorization to transfer the patient was received from "other authorities."
The family further added that hospitals in the Palestinian Authority were not equipped to provide the requisite care to people in Moein's condition. One of his sons said, "This is negligence of the highest order. Instead of treating him, they threw him away to die. We have to find out who decided to transfer him to a hospital that couldn't save his life. It's utter disrespect towards human life."
Another son, Salim Haja, said, "We're in shock. This is a nightmare. Dad went to work, and then we got a call saying he was hurt and taken to Beilinson Hospital. We arranged for my brother and mother to be issued three-day entry permits into Israel. They used them for two days and then the hospital wouldn't sign off on our dad being hospitalized there.
"Several days later, people from the Rafidia Hospital in Nablus called us. They said dad was in intensive care there. Two days later doctors pronounced him dead. We didn't sign any transfer form and were not told of an official intention to transfer him. They did it without our knowledge. How do you move someone so grievously wounded from place to place? I can't explain it. Dad had rights, and we want answers."
A visit to the Nablus hospital where Moein Haja who hospitalized, which was captured on a hidden camera, showed the premises suffer from severe neglect. The bathrooms, counter and refrigerator in the emergency room were completely rusted, while malodorous aroma permeated the halls.
The floor was strewn with papers, food waste and medical equipment. In the waiting room and near the entrance to other departments, visitors smoked and threw cigarette butts in the halls without sparing a thought to patients.
Near the pediatrics ward, there was a dirty stairwell, broken chairs, walls with water damage and a dirty water cooler.
One of the patients hospitalized there told Ynet, "We only come here because we have no choice. Instead of receiving treatment, I may get an infection. This is the situation of many other West Bank hospitals unfortunately. Only government officials receive the best care here."
Attorney Stamler added, "It's also unclear why Moein Haja's employer refused to sign forms confirming he was under his employ, which would allow him to continue to receive care in Israel. The employer's signature would have also allowed the deceased to be recognized as someone who suffered a workplace injury for the National Insurance Institute's purposes, going towards paying medical expenses."
"A person who was employed in Israel for years was cast away to die because there was no way of forcing his employer to confirm the injury by filling out a form, and no way to instruct the police to force him to do so despite the fact he admitted (to employing Haja)," Stamler continued.
"It's unclear why there's no way of instructing the hospital to continue treating a patent at least until a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances of his injury is undertaken. Everything is done out of financial considerations."
Providing its own version of events, Beilinson Hospital said, "A fatally wounded patient arrived to the hospital with multisystemic injuries. He was treated by the trauma staff and later hospitalized in the intensive care ward. He received all medical treatment in accordance with his condition.
"After exhausting all treatment options, he was transferred to the hospital nearest to his residence in coordination with the appropriate authorities in Israel. Transferring patients from the territories does not require their families' signatures and is carried out in coordination with other authorities."
28 jan 2018
By Ben White
For those who always saw a so-called two-state solution as a means of preserving Israel as a ‘Jewish and democratic’ ethno-state, goodbye is the hardest word to say.
As the Israeli government consolidates a de facto, single state that all its predecessors since 1967 helped forge, those urging ‘separation’ from the Palestinians are sounding desperate – especially in their attacks on calls for a single democratic state, to replace today’s apartheid status quo.
Three op-eds recently published by Israeli newspaper Haaretz in the space of a week are a case in point – and they all share something in common: fear of a Palestinian majority.
On 11 January, Haaretz columnist David Rosenberg lashed out at the idea of one democratic state, which he described as “no solution at all”. The “Palestinian version” of a single state “sounds appealing to Western ears”, Rosenberg acknowledges, “a country where everyone has equal rights”.
“But”, he continued, “behind that lovely vision is the expectation that demographic trends would soon lead to a Palestinian majority”, adding that this “would certainly be the case if the new state allows even a limited Palestinian right of return”. Tellingly, however, Rosenberg does not clarify why a Palestinian majority undermines the ‘lovely vision’ of a democratic state. It’s just assumed.
In a piece published by Haaretz the same day, Eric H. Yoffie, American rabbi and former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, slammed what he called “dangerous” calls for a single state from both “the Jewish hard right and the Jewish hard left”.
Here, Yoffie disingenuously lumped together, on the one hand, the vision of a formally and proudly apartheid single state proposed by those on the pro-annexation Israeli right, and on the other hand, those advocating a solution shaped by the principles of civic self-determination and equality.
Opposition to the former is a given. But what’s so terrible about the latter? Because it would mean an end to “the Jewish state of Israel” (my emphasis) through the “unification of two hostile cultures”. For Yoffie, there is no possibility of a democratic single state: “the Jewish minority in Israel/Palestine [will be subjected] to chaos, powerlessness, and eternal civil war”.
A few days later, meanwhile, yet another op-ed, this time by Hebrew University-based academic Gadi Taub, warned that “the option of a non-Jewish democracy is purely theoretical”.
In reality, “an Arab majority” means “an Arab government”, Taub wrote, “which according to a relatively optimistic forecast would resemble the corrupt dictatorship of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas” but would probably “be much worse, something like the Hamas regime in Gaza”.
Rosenberg, Yoffie and Taub are not alone in viewing a Palestinian majority as an apocalyptic prospect – it is an anxiety that animates many an advocate of ‘separation’; as former Labour and Meretz politician Yossi Beilin put it in 2012: “I want a Jewish majority in [Israel] forever. If there is no line between us and them there will be a Jewish minority controlling a Palestinian majority”.
Or take Amos Oz, also writing in Haaretz, in 2015: “If there will be one state here, it will be an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. If there will be an Arab state here, I don’t envy my children and my grandchildren”. Again, Oz feels no need to explain why this would be so terrible.
Such attacks on the vision of a single democratic state betray an inability to decouple self-determination and ethnic statehood, and, to put it bluntly, racism: Palestinians, or just ‘Arabs’, are deemed intrinsically incapable of democracy.
The echoes of white South Africans’ fears before the end of the apartheid regime are clear, and instructive. There, the argument that self-determination (for whites) necessitated domination ultimately lost, because it was both unsustainable and deemed morally unacceptable internationally.
In 2007, Israeli demographer Arnon Soffer told The Guardian: “We have to do everything to keep Israel as a Jewish state…They [Palestinians] use words like ‘democracy’, but if they are in power, it is the end of democracy. We have to stop being naïve”.
As discussion of, and calls for, a single democratic state grow, this kind of apologia for the status quo will be heard more often. But then Israel’s political class will be in the situation they have always feared, and are ill-equipped to deal with: a globalised struggle of apartheid vs. democracy.
- Ben White is a British journalist and activist who primarily writes about the Israel-Palestine conflict. His article was published in MEMO.
For those who always saw a so-called two-state solution as a means of preserving Israel as a ‘Jewish and democratic’ ethno-state, goodbye is the hardest word to say.
As the Israeli government consolidates a de facto, single state that all its predecessors since 1967 helped forge, those urging ‘separation’ from the Palestinians are sounding desperate – especially in their attacks on calls for a single democratic state, to replace today’s apartheid status quo.
Three op-eds recently published by Israeli newspaper Haaretz in the space of a week are a case in point – and they all share something in common: fear of a Palestinian majority.
On 11 January, Haaretz columnist David Rosenberg lashed out at the idea of one democratic state, which he described as “no solution at all”. The “Palestinian version” of a single state “sounds appealing to Western ears”, Rosenberg acknowledges, “a country where everyone has equal rights”.
“But”, he continued, “behind that lovely vision is the expectation that demographic trends would soon lead to a Palestinian majority”, adding that this “would certainly be the case if the new state allows even a limited Palestinian right of return”. Tellingly, however, Rosenberg does not clarify why a Palestinian majority undermines the ‘lovely vision’ of a democratic state. It’s just assumed.
In a piece published by Haaretz the same day, Eric H. Yoffie, American rabbi and former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, slammed what he called “dangerous” calls for a single state from both “the Jewish hard right and the Jewish hard left”.
Here, Yoffie disingenuously lumped together, on the one hand, the vision of a formally and proudly apartheid single state proposed by those on the pro-annexation Israeli right, and on the other hand, those advocating a solution shaped by the principles of civic self-determination and equality.
Opposition to the former is a given. But what’s so terrible about the latter? Because it would mean an end to “the Jewish state of Israel” (my emphasis) through the “unification of two hostile cultures”. For Yoffie, there is no possibility of a democratic single state: “the Jewish minority in Israel/Palestine [will be subjected] to chaos, powerlessness, and eternal civil war”.
A few days later, meanwhile, yet another op-ed, this time by Hebrew University-based academic Gadi Taub, warned that “the option of a non-Jewish democracy is purely theoretical”.
In reality, “an Arab majority” means “an Arab government”, Taub wrote, “which according to a relatively optimistic forecast would resemble the corrupt dictatorship of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas” but would probably “be much worse, something like the Hamas regime in Gaza”.
Rosenberg, Yoffie and Taub are not alone in viewing a Palestinian majority as an apocalyptic prospect – it is an anxiety that animates many an advocate of ‘separation’; as former Labour and Meretz politician Yossi Beilin put it in 2012: “I want a Jewish majority in [Israel] forever. If there is no line between us and them there will be a Jewish minority controlling a Palestinian majority”.
Or take Amos Oz, also writing in Haaretz, in 2015: “If there will be one state here, it will be an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. If there will be an Arab state here, I don’t envy my children and my grandchildren”. Again, Oz feels no need to explain why this would be so terrible.
Such attacks on the vision of a single democratic state betray an inability to decouple self-determination and ethnic statehood, and, to put it bluntly, racism: Palestinians, or just ‘Arabs’, are deemed intrinsically incapable of democracy.
The echoes of white South Africans’ fears before the end of the apartheid regime are clear, and instructive. There, the argument that self-determination (for whites) necessitated domination ultimately lost, because it was both unsustainable and deemed morally unacceptable internationally.
In 2007, Israeli demographer Arnon Soffer told The Guardian: “We have to do everything to keep Israel as a Jewish state…They [Palestinians] use words like ‘democracy’, but if they are in power, it is the end of democracy. We have to stop being naïve”.
As discussion of, and calls for, a single democratic state grow, this kind of apologia for the status quo will be heard more often. But then Israel’s political class will be in the situation they have always feared, and are ill-equipped to deal with: a globalised struggle of apartheid vs. democracy.
- Ben White is a British journalist and activist who primarily writes about the Israel-Palestine conflict. His article was published in MEMO.
Legislation in Poland that would outlaw blaming Poles for the Holocaust has prompted swift and furious condemnation from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli lawmakers across the political spectrum.
The measure, which passed in the lower house of the Polish Parliament on Friday, would make it illegal to suggest Poland bore responsibility for atrocities committed on its soil by Nazi Germany during the occupation in World War II.
“The law is baseless; I strongly oppose it,” Netanyahu claimed in a statement on Saturday. “One cannot change history, and the Holocaust cannot be denied.”
Netanyahu said he had instructed the Israeli ambassador to Poland to meet with the Polish prime minister and express his disapproval.
The bill, which would need approval from Poland’s Senate and the president to become law, sets prison penalties for using phrases such as “Polish death camps” to refer to concentration camps set up by the Nazis in Poland.
Yair Lapid, leader of a centrist opposition party in Israel, claimed on Twitter: “It was conceived in Germany but hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered without ever meeting a German soldier. There were Polish death camps and no law can ever change that.”
The Polish Embassy in Tel Aviv responded, saying that Lapid’s “unsupportable claims show how badly Holocaust education is needed, even here in Israel,” and that the legislation was intended “not to ‘whitewash’ the past, but to protect the truth against such slander.”
“My grandmother was murdered in Poland by Germans and Poles,” responded Lapid. “I don’t need Holocaust education from you. We live with the consequences every day in our collective memory. Your embassy should offer an immediate apology.”
The measure, which passed in the lower house of the Polish Parliament on Friday, would make it illegal to suggest Poland bore responsibility for atrocities committed on its soil by Nazi Germany during the occupation in World War II.
“The law is baseless; I strongly oppose it,” Netanyahu claimed in a statement on Saturday. “One cannot change history, and the Holocaust cannot be denied.”
Netanyahu said he had instructed the Israeli ambassador to Poland to meet with the Polish prime minister and express his disapproval.
The bill, which would need approval from Poland’s Senate and the president to become law, sets prison penalties for using phrases such as “Polish death camps” to refer to concentration camps set up by the Nazis in Poland.
Yair Lapid, leader of a centrist opposition party in Israel, claimed on Twitter: “It was conceived in Germany but hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered without ever meeting a German soldier. There were Polish death camps and no law can ever change that.”
The Polish Embassy in Tel Aviv responded, saying that Lapid’s “unsupportable claims show how badly Holocaust education is needed, even here in Israel,” and that the legislation was intended “not to ‘whitewash’ the past, but to protect the truth against such slander.”
“My grandmother was murdered in Poland by Germans and Poles,” responded Lapid. “I don’t need Holocaust education from you. We live with the consequences every day in our collective memory. Your embassy should offer an immediate apology.”
27 jan 2018
The Danish government has recently decided by a majority vote to exclude the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank from bilateral agreements with Israel. It was also decided to strengthen the government guidelines against investing in projects in both private and public bodies in the settlements.
Haaretz newspaper said that Denmark, through these decisions, has adopted the UN Security Council resolution 2334 wherein settlements are defined as a violation of international law and a distinction is made between Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. The same view is held by the European Union in all agreements with Israel.
These decisions express support for the efforts made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to formulate a black list of Israeli companies operating in the settlements.
The decision was raised in a formal query to the Danish Foreign Ministry in November 2017 after a number of Danish pension funds were forced to withdraw their investments in Israel following a wave of public outcry.
According to Israeli Foreign Ministry data, Israel and Denmark have 13 direct bilateral agreements in the fields of aviation, culture, education, law, industry, taxes and visas. The latest resolutions will affect future agreements between the two countries. Existing agreements might be effected pending updates.
Danish Foreign Minister, Anders Samuelsen, in December 2017 announced that his country would toughen the terms of support for Palestinian NGOs following Israeli pressure to stop Danish funding of Palestinian organizations allegedly involved in anti-Israel incitement and boycott activities.
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had sent to Samuelsen a list of Palestinian organizations which receive Danish funding and which, Israel claims, are involved in activities led by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
A few months after receiving the list, Denmark decided to freeze the remainder of the support and to formulate more strict criteria for the future.
However, Denmark stressed that it would continue to support organizations focusing on human rights in Palestine.
Haaretz newspaper said that Denmark, through these decisions, has adopted the UN Security Council resolution 2334 wherein settlements are defined as a violation of international law and a distinction is made between Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. The same view is held by the European Union in all agreements with Israel.
These decisions express support for the efforts made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to formulate a black list of Israeli companies operating in the settlements.
The decision was raised in a formal query to the Danish Foreign Ministry in November 2017 after a number of Danish pension funds were forced to withdraw their investments in Israel following a wave of public outcry.
According to Israeli Foreign Ministry data, Israel and Denmark have 13 direct bilateral agreements in the fields of aviation, culture, education, law, industry, taxes and visas. The latest resolutions will affect future agreements between the two countries. Existing agreements might be effected pending updates.
Danish Foreign Minister, Anders Samuelsen, in December 2017 announced that his country would toughen the terms of support for Palestinian NGOs following Israeli pressure to stop Danish funding of Palestinian organizations allegedly involved in anti-Israel incitement and boycott activities.
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had sent to Samuelsen a list of Palestinian organizations which receive Danish funding and which, Israel claims, are involved in activities led by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
A few months after receiving the list, Denmark decided to freeze the remainder of the support and to formulate more strict criteria for the future.
However, Denmark stressed that it would continue to support organizations focusing on human rights in Palestine.
22 jan 2018
Maor Malul was killed in broad daylight on the island Ko Samui after being run over, stabbed; Thai police arrest 2 Israelis who fled the scene by boat, then plane to Bangkok; Malul and Bokel were both involved in previous assassination attempts in Israel.
Israeli criminal Maor Malul was assassinated on Sunday on the island of Ko Samui in Thailand, with his attackers running him over with a jeep and then stabbing him multiple times.
Hours later, Thai police arrested two Israelis, Eyal Bokel—brother of Baruch Bokel, who heads a crime syndicate in Netanya—and Dolev Zuarez.
Surveillance cameras at the scene captured the incident as it happened on a busy road near the popular Chaweng Beach.
A Honda CVG can be seen hitting the scooter which Malul and his wife Racheli were riding. Malul immediately got up to help his wife but had to flee as the jeep reversed.
He was hit again, and then a man dressed in black exited the jeep and stabbed him multiple times before climbing back into the vehicle and fleeing the scene.
Thai media reported that the two suspects abandoned their vehicle 3 km from the scene, near Bophut Beach on the northern part of the island, and fled into a wooded area.
An arrest warrant was issued for Bokel and Zuarez, who had meanwhile managed to take a motor boat from Ko Samui to Surat Thani, where they took a Thai Airways flight to Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok. There they were were arrested by Thai immigration police at around 10:30pm.
Malul was taken to "Bangkok Hospital" in Ko Samui, where he succumbed to his wounds. His wife suffered light injuries when she fell off the motor bike and was treated at the hospital.
The Israeli consul in Bangkok, Itai Mizrachi, and the Foreign Ministry's department for Israelis abroad are assisting the families.
In August, 2015, Malul and an accomplice, Ron Shevach, attempted to assassinate Baruch Bokel, a Netanya criminal.
According to an indictment filed against them, Malul and Shevach ambushed Bokel as he headed home on his motorbike. Malul, who was driving a Toyota, accelerated and hit Bokel. Shevach, who was in the back seat, got out of the car with a loaded gun and wearing a mask.
Shevach and Bokel fought over control of the gun, which went off, with a bullet hitting Bokel in his left thigh. Still, Bokel managed to wrestle the gun away and remove Shevach's mask.
Bokel also fired a shot at the road "to make sure the gun worked" in case the two attacked him again, before being taken to the hospital in serious condition.
A few months before that assassination attempt, Avi Malul, the brother of Maor, was shot and killed in Kfar Yona. Bokel's brother was also targeted by an explosive device, which seriously injured him. His Netanya business was also a target of arson.
In a plea bargain, Malul was convicted of assisting in aggravated battery and sentenced to only 20 months in prison. The case was lacking in critical evidence and the prosecutor was concerned the police's methods would be exposed during the trial.
Israeli criminal Maor Malul was assassinated on Sunday on the island of Ko Samui in Thailand, with his attackers running him over with a jeep and then stabbing him multiple times.
Hours later, Thai police arrested two Israelis, Eyal Bokel—brother of Baruch Bokel, who heads a crime syndicate in Netanya—and Dolev Zuarez.
Surveillance cameras at the scene captured the incident as it happened on a busy road near the popular Chaweng Beach.
A Honda CVG can be seen hitting the scooter which Malul and his wife Racheli were riding. Malul immediately got up to help his wife but had to flee as the jeep reversed.
He was hit again, and then a man dressed in black exited the jeep and stabbed him multiple times before climbing back into the vehicle and fleeing the scene.
Thai media reported that the two suspects abandoned their vehicle 3 km from the scene, near Bophut Beach on the northern part of the island, and fled into a wooded area.
An arrest warrant was issued for Bokel and Zuarez, who had meanwhile managed to take a motor boat from Ko Samui to Surat Thani, where they took a Thai Airways flight to Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok. There they were were arrested by Thai immigration police at around 10:30pm.
Malul was taken to "Bangkok Hospital" in Ko Samui, where he succumbed to his wounds. His wife suffered light injuries when she fell off the motor bike and was treated at the hospital.
The Israeli consul in Bangkok, Itai Mizrachi, and the Foreign Ministry's department for Israelis abroad are assisting the families.
In August, 2015, Malul and an accomplice, Ron Shevach, attempted to assassinate Baruch Bokel, a Netanya criminal.
According to an indictment filed against them, Malul and Shevach ambushed Bokel as he headed home on his motorbike. Malul, who was driving a Toyota, accelerated and hit Bokel. Shevach, who was in the back seat, got out of the car with a loaded gun and wearing a mask.
Shevach and Bokel fought over control of the gun, which went off, with a bullet hitting Bokel in his left thigh. Still, Bokel managed to wrestle the gun away and remove Shevach's mask.
Bokel also fired a shot at the road "to make sure the gun worked" in case the two attacked him again, before being taken to the hospital in serious condition.
A few months before that assassination attempt, Avi Malul, the brother of Maor, was shot and killed in Kfar Yona. Bokel's brother was also targeted by an explosive device, which seriously injured him. His Netanya business was also a target of arson.
In a plea bargain, Malul was convicted of assisting in aggravated battery and sentenced to only 20 months in prison. The case was lacking in critical evidence and the prosecutor was concerned the police's methods would be exposed during the trial.
21 jan 2018
Thousands of Israelis on Saturday evening staged protests against the so-called supermarket law and premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption.
Recently, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, voted a bill into a law prohibiting the opening of businesses on Saturdays and religious events without prior approval from the Israeli minister of interior affairs.
The law was enacted to please the Haredi population, who are extremist Jews rejecting modern secular culture and refusing to serve in the army, and many of them do not recognize the authority of the modern state of Israel.
According to the Hebrew media, thousands of Israelis rallied to protest the law outside the house of attorney general Avichai Mandelblit in Petah Tikva city near Tel Aviv.
In Ashdod city, Yesh Atid (opposition party) chairman Yair Lapid also led a protest against enforcement of business closures on Shabbat (Saturdays).
Earlier on the same day, Israeli war minister Avigdor Lieberman visited Ashdod city to display his support for the residents' rejection of the law.
A massive protest against Netanyahu also took place on Rothschild street in Tel Aviv on Saturday. The participants called on the Israeli police to take swift steps to file indictments against Netanyahu and his wife Sarah over corruption scandals.
Recently, Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, voted a bill into a law prohibiting the opening of businesses on Saturdays and religious events without prior approval from the Israeli minister of interior affairs.
The law was enacted to please the Haredi population, who are extremist Jews rejecting modern secular culture and refusing to serve in the army, and many of them do not recognize the authority of the modern state of Israel.
According to the Hebrew media, thousands of Israelis rallied to protest the law outside the house of attorney general Avichai Mandelblit in Petah Tikva city near Tel Aviv.
In Ashdod city, Yesh Atid (opposition party) chairman Yair Lapid also led a protest against enforcement of business closures on Shabbat (Saturdays).
Earlier on the same day, Israeli war minister Avigdor Lieberman visited Ashdod city to display his support for the residents' rejection of the law.
A massive protest against Netanyahu also took place on Rothschild street in Tel Aviv on Saturday. The participants called on the Israeli police to take swift steps to file indictments against Netanyahu and his wife Sarah over corruption scandals.
17 jan 2018
Israel’s outgoing chief archivist warned that most of the contents of Israeli archives, which include war crimes and human rights violations, is closed and will never be opened.
In a scathing report issued Monday and published by Haaretz on Wednesday, Yaakov Lazovik summarized the issues faced by the Israel State Archives, which is subordinate to the Prime Minister’s Office.
Lazovik, who announced his retirement eight months after more than six years on the job, said that under the cloak of national security concerns, Israeli government conceals from the public material much of it unrelated to security issues.
This includes material that could prove embarrassing to the government, such as human rights violations.
According to Lazovik, Israelis have committed war crimes.
The Shin Bet security service was involved in education in the Arab sector; Israel treated its Arab (and other) citizens in a manner that doesn’t dignify a self-proclaimed democratic entity.
He added that among three million files shelved in the government archives only 550 have been opened.
In a scathing report issued Monday and published by Haaretz on Wednesday, Yaakov Lazovik summarized the issues faced by the Israel State Archives, which is subordinate to the Prime Minister’s Office.
Lazovik, who announced his retirement eight months after more than six years on the job, said that under the cloak of national security concerns, Israeli government conceals from the public material much of it unrelated to security issues.
This includes material that could prove embarrassing to the government, such as human rights violations.
According to Lazovik, Israelis have committed war crimes.
The Shin Bet security service was involved in education in the Arab sector; Israel treated its Arab (and other) citizens in a manner that doesn’t dignify a self-proclaimed democratic entity.
He added that among three million files shelved in the government archives only 550 have been opened.
15 jan 2018
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said that he was "disappointed" by India's refusal to back the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital but affirmed that he would not let it spoil his visit to the Asian country.
Netanyahu told India Today media group, in an interview released on Monday, that he has a "special relationship" with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi.
However, this relationship was clouded by India's vote, along with more than 100 countries, against the US Jerusalem move at the UN General Assembly in December 2017.
"I am certainly disappointed," Netanyahu said, "But I think this visit shows that our relationship is moving forward on so many fronts."
Ahead of the visit, India canceled a $500 million deal to buy Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles.
Israel exports an average of $1 billion of military equipment each year to India, but Modi wants to end India's status as the world's top defense importer.
In an effort to strengthen business ties with India, Netanyahu arrived in the country at the head of a 130-member business delegation.
Netanyahu told India Today media group, in an interview released on Monday, that he has a "special relationship" with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi.
However, this relationship was clouded by India's vote, along with more than 100 countries, against the US Jerusalem move at the UN General Assembly in December 2017.
"I am certainly disappointed," Netanyahu said, "But I think this visit shows that our relationship is moving forward on so many fronts."
Ahead of the visit, India canceled a $500 million deal to buy Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles.
Israel exports an average of $1 billion of military equipment each year to India, but Modi wants to end India's status as the world's top defense importer.
In an effort to strengthen business ties with India, Netanyahu arrived in the country at the head of a 130-member business delegation.
14 jan 2018
By Ramona Wadi
Israeli Agricultural Minister Uri Ariel wants more injured and dead Palestinians in Gaza. “What is this special weapon we have that we fire and see pillars of smoke and fire, but nobody gets hurt?” he said on local radio. “It is time for there to be injuries and deaths as well.” This was reported by Haaretz.
Ariel’s comments come at a time when, bolstered and emboldened by US support over Jerusalem, Israel is seeking to increase ways in which Palestinians are restricted even further in terms of politics, freedom of movement and resistance to its military occupation. The increasingly threatening rhetoric, combined with its often resultant violence, is a clear message that Israel wants Palestinian existence to be determined according to its own colonial needs.
Indeed the minister’s remarks are indicative of Israel’s need for violence and conflict to sustain its existence. Framing his penchant for more deaths against the narrative of the purported “Palestinian terrorist”, he also amalgamated his demands with Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s comments from 2016. At that time, far-right extremist Lieberman recommended the further fragmentation of Palestinians by suggesting that the homes of those involved in resistance should be demolished, and that those who “desire coexistence” should be rewarded.
Lieberman’s differentiation of Palestinians, particularly the latter group, is a simplistic approach which negates many of the reasons why not all Palestinians are visibly involved in resistance. One obvious reason which Israel has perpetrated is the juxtaposition of survival due to extreme poverty and lack of basic necessities, and the struggle against several forms of state violence. It also refutes the fact that most Palestinians, unlike the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, do not want to live under colonial rule.
Whether Ariel’s statement suggests yet another military offensive against the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip remains to be seen. However, there is no doubt that demands for state violence against civilians will become more brazen, as Israel basks in the impunity which is sustained on two levels: that generated by its own actions and absence of accountability under the pretext of “security concerns”; and the international community’s endorsement of this false narrative.
Another ramification of Ariel’s words is the separation of the visible injuries and killings in the occupied West Bank and the silent forms of slow extermination in Gaza as a result of Israeli-imposed deprivation. Clearly, he prefers the macabre spectacle of multitudes of injured and dead Palestinian civilians in Gaza and, what is more, he is allowed to express himself in such a manner without censure of any kind, safe in the knowledge that killing Palestinians has not only become normalised, but also expected.
The dehumanization of Palestinians in the Israeli minister’s words is also reflective of how statistics contribute to the absence of Palestinians in terms of collective memory. For Israel, the numbers serve to boost the false claims of self-defense. Conversely, statistics for Palestinians depict the cycles of murder by Israeli institutions. The international community, on the other hand, is partial to the anonymity of numbers, particularly when there is no requirement other than for it to turn a blind eye until Israel decides upon the next phase of Gaza’s destruction, whereupon the UN will exhort the colonial entity’s “right” to defend itself against the colonized. In doing so, it will also affirm its contempt for human rights and resolutions by refusing to uphold the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and, indeed, their right to resist military occupation by any means available.
– Ramona Wadi is a staff writer for Middle East Monitor (MEMO)
Israeli Agricultural Minister Uri Ariel wants more injured and dead Palestinians in Gaza. “What is this special weapon we have that we fire and see pillars of smoke and fire, but nobody gets hurt?” he said on local radio. “It is time for there to be injuries and deaths as well.” This was reported by Haaretz.
Ariel’s comments come at a time when, bolstered and emboldened by US support over Jerusalem, Israel is seeking to increase ways in which Palestinians are restricted even further in terms of politics, freedom of movement and resistance to its military occupation. The increasingly threatening rhetoric, combined with its often resultant violence, is a clear message that Israel wants Palestinian existence to be determined according to its own colonial needs.
Indeed the minister’s remarks are indicative of Israel’s need for violence and conflict to sustain its existence. Framing his penchant for more deaths against the narrative of the purported “Palestinian terrorist”, he also amalgamated his demands with Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s comments from 2016. At that time, far-right extremist Lieberman recommended the further fragmentation of Palestinians by suggesting that the homes of those involved in resistance should be demolished, and that those who “desire coexistence” should be rewarded.
Lieberman’s differentiation of Palestinians, particularly the latter group, is a simplistic approach which negates many of the reasons why not all Palestinians are visibly involved in resistance. One obvious reason which Israel has perpetrated is the juxtaposition of survival due to extreme poverty and lack of basic necessities, and the struggle against several forms of state violence. It also refutes the fact that most Palestinians, unlike the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, do not want to live under colonial rule.
Whether Ariel’s statement suggests yet another military offensive against the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip remains to be seen. However, there is no doubt that demands for state violence against civilians will become more brazen, as Israel basks in the impunity which is sustained on two levels: that generated by its own actions and absence of accountability under the pretext of “security concerns”; and the international community’s endorsement of this false narrative.
Another ramification of Ariel’s words is the separation of the visible injuries and killings in the occupied West Bank and the silent forms of slow extermination in Gaza as a result of Israeli-imposed deprivation. Clearly, he prefers the macabre spectacle of multitudes of injured and dead Palestinian civilians in Gaza and, what is more, he is allowed to express himself in such a manner without censure of any kind, safe in the knowledge that killing Palestinians has not only become normalised, but also expected.
The dehumanization of Palestinians in the Israeli minister’s words is also reflective of how statistics contribute to the absence of Palestinians in terms of collective memory. For Israel, the numbers serve to boost the false claims of self-defense. Conversely, statistics for Palestinians depict the cycles of murder by Israeli institutions. The international community, on the other hand, is partial to the anonymity of numbers, particularly when there is no requirement other than for it to turn a blind eye until Israel decides upon the next phase of Gaza’s destruction, whereupon the UN will exhort the colonial entity’s “right” to defend itself against the colonized. In doing so, it will also affirm its contempt for human rights and resolutions by refusing to uphold the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and, indeed, their right to resist military occupation by any means available.
– Ramona Wadi is a staff writer for Middle East Monitor (MEMO)
13 jan 2018
When he wrote his book The Jewish State in 1896, could Theodor Herzl have imagined that his ‘promised land’ would begin to deport some Jews or ban them from entering, and even impose restrictions on their organisations? What could be said to the father of political Zionism if he was around today about the condition of the Zionist state under the current government and its predecessors, which looks to have become an established tradition?
The banning of Jews from the self-declared “Jewish state” is nothing new; it attracted particular attention when American philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky was prevented from entering Israel from Jordan in 2010, despite his Jewish heritage. The Israeli authorities did not want him to give a lecture at Birzeit University in the occupied West Bank. This may have surprised some at the time, but Chomsky is not the only Jew who has been deported or refused entry to areas under Israeli control. A growing number of Jewish activists from around the world face the same problem at the hands of a government that considers itself as running a state on behalf of all Jews.
Israeli propaganda now targets NGOs, including organisations established by Jews and acting on their behalf. Some of them are Israelis, such as groups like Breaking the Silence, set up by former members of the Israel Defence Forces who seek to expose the excesses and oppression of the occupation army against the Palestinians. Every time the organisation tries to hold public lectures or exhibitions in a European country, the “pro-Jewish state” lobbyists harass the ex-soldiers, as happened in Switzerland in June 2015, for example. The issue has gone as far as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refusing to meet with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel last year because he had met with Jewish-Israeli activists from Breaking the Silence, as well as from other human rights groups such as B’Tselem.
It is clear that the government led by Netanyahu is determined to confront Jewish intellectuals and activists who do not conform to Israel’s official narrative. More and more Jewish public figures in Europe are facing fierce campaigns against them launched by official and semi-official pro-Israel circles. Such figures have simply taken a critical moral stand against Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory. It is astonishing to hear accusations that they are “encouraging anti-Semitism” by taking this principled stand, and that such attacks have even been directed at veteran Jewish figures such as the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, who was raised as a Zionist, served in the British House of Commons for 47 years and then stood up for the rights of the Palestinian people until his dying day in February last year.
The very obvious fact is that change is happening in many Western countries with regards to Jewish attitudes towards Israel and its occupation; criticism is growing. Emigration is on the rise too, with many “former Israelis” moving to Europe and the US permanently, some of whom express deep opposition to Zionism and the Zionist state. Even Goa in India attracts young Israelis with temporary or permanent residency permits keen to distance themselves from the “Jewish state”. It is ironic that Berlin has become a favourite destination for tens of thousands of young Israelis who have not found opportunities in Tel Aviv and other major cities.
While Israeli propaganda directs accusations of “anti-Semitism” against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, it does not address the fact that a remarkable number of the founders and key activists in the movement around the world are Jews who have discovered the truth behind Israel and its occupation. It was, therefore, no surprise for the New Zealand-born Lorde to cancel her concert scheduled for June in Tel Aviv after receiving an open letter from a Jewish compatriot, author Justine Sachs, and Palestinian Nadia Abu Shanab. Of course, the subsequent vicious campaign launched against the 21-year-old singer did not hesitate to label her move as anti-Semitic; one individual bought a full-page advert in the Washington Post in which he described her as a bigot.
The growth of the anti-occupation movement across Europe and the US has not occurred solely due to the influence of Palestinian activism; the reality of Israel and its occupation, especially the brutality of its armed forces, has been exposed, causing this shift in public opinion. Many more Jews are now uniting to raise their voices against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in the name of world Jewry. The result is the existence of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, whose members speak out against the occupation, just like those from Breaking the Silence. They are not alone.
It is estimated that the number of Jews who demonstrate in European cities under Palestinian flags is sometimes greater than those who wave Israeli flags. This happened in the summer of 2014, for example, when the Israeli army bombed Gaza for two months. More importantly, well-known Jews throughout Europe are now often absent from “solidarity with Israel” gatherings, which have difficulty in mobilising enough people, so they are replaced with lots of flags to try to disguise the fact.
With the development of social networks, public awareness about Jewish organisations against the Israeli regime has grown. There are now online civil society groups with global membership sharing knowledge and experiences to end the Israeli occupation. This online presence helps to minimise the impact of the defamation campaigns and restrictions imposed on activists by the Israeli authorities.
It was no surprise, therefore, to see Israel starting 2018 by publishing its list of “banned organisations”, whose members will be prevented from entering the Zionist state; the list includes Jewish Voice. The occupation Apartheid government is keen to monopolise “the Jews” and is thus concerned by the bold and growing moral opposition within Jewish circles to its occupation policies, in which secular as well as religious Jews are involved.
We have seen large demonstrations on the streets of New York by ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups taking a stand against Israel and Zionism. The streets of the West Jerusalem neighbourhood of Me’a She’arim have witnessed such Jews expressing their frustration at America’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Some have even talked about leaving Israel forever as a result. It is difficult to come across Israeli flags hanging in their neighbourhood in particular, but sometimes they have Palestinian flags on the walls; the message is clear.
All of this points to the fact that it is difficult for any propaganda, regardless of how powerful and well-funded it might be, to justify what is happening without raising doubts about its credibility. More and more Jews across the world are feeling a heavy burden as a result of the grey concrete walls, humiliating checkpoints, bombings, killings, land confiscation and house demolitions being carried out in their names by the entity claiming to be the “Jewish state”. The fact that the same state is now banning Jews and Jewish organisations illustrates the fallacy of that claim. Some Jews, indeed, are definitely not welcome in the “Jewish state”.
- Hossam Shaker is an expert on Arab-European affairs and a journalist and an author. His article was published in MEMO.
The banning of Jews from the self-declared “Jewish state” is nothing new; it attracted particular attention when American philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky was prevented from entering Israel from Jordan in 2010, despite his Jewish heritage. The Israeli authorities did not want him to give a lecture at Birzeit University in the occupied West Bank. This may have surprised some at the time, but Chomsky is not the only Jew who has been deported or refused entry to areas under Israeli control. A growing number of Jewish activists from around the world face the same problem at the hands of a government that considers itself as running a state on behalf of all Jews.
Israeli propaganda now targets NGOs, including organisations established by Jews and acting on their behalf. Some of them are Israelis, such as groups like Breaking the Silence, set up by former members of the Israel Defence Forces who seek to expose the excesses and oppression of the occupation army against the Palestinians. Every time the organisation tries to hold public lectures or exhibitions in a European country, the “pro-Jewish state” lobbyists harass the ex-soldiers, as happened in Switzerland in June 2015, for example. The issue has gone as far as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refusing to meet with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel last year because he had met with Jewish-Israeli activists from Breaking the Silence, as well as from other human rights groups such as B’Tselem.
It is clear that the government led by Netanyahu is determined to confront Jewish intellectuals and activists who do not conform to Israel’s official narrative. More and more Jewish public figures in Europe are facing fierce campaigns against them launched by official and semi-official pro-Israel circles. Such figures have simply taken a critical moral stand against Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory. It is astonishing to hear accusations that they are “encouraging anti-Semitism” by taking this principled stand, and that such attacks have even been directed at veteran Jewish figures such as the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, who was raised as a Zionist, served in the British House of Commons for 47 years and then stood up for the rights of the Palestinian people until his dying day in February last year.
The very obvious fact is that change is happening in many Western countries with regards to Jewish attitudes towards Israel and its occupation; criticism is growing. Emigration is on the rise too, with many “former Israelis” moving to Europe and the US permanently, some of whom express deep opposition to Zionism and the Zionist state. Even Goa in India attracts young Israelis with temporary or permanent residency permits keen to distance themselves from the “Jewish state”. It is ironic that Berlin has become a favourite destination for tens of thousands of young Israelis who have not found opportunities in Tel Aviv and other major cities.
While Israeli propaganda directs accusations of “anti-Semitism” against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, it does not address the fact that a remarkable number of the founders and key activists in the movement around the world are Jews who have discovered the truth behind Israel and its occupation. It was, therefore, no surprise for the New Zealand-born Lorde to cancel her concert scheduled for June in Tel Aviv after receiving an open letter from a Jewish compatriot, author Justine Sachs, and Palestinian Nadia Abu Shanab. Of course, the subsequent vicious campaign launched against the 21-year-old singer did not hesitate to label her move as anti-Semitic; one individual bought a full-page advert in the Washington Post in which he described her as a bigot.
The growth of the anti-occupation movement across Europe and the US has not occurred solely due to the influence of Palestinian activism; the reality of Israel and its occupation, especially the brutality of its armed forces, has been exposed, causing this shift in public opinion. Many more Jews are now uniting to raise their voices against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in the name of world Jewry. The result is the existence of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, whose members speak out against the occupation, just like those from Breaking the Silence. They are not alone.
It is estimated that the number of Jews who demonstrate in European cities under Palestinian flags is sometimes greater than those who wave Israeli flags. This happened in the summer of 2014, for example, when the Israeli army bombed Gaza for two months. More importantly, well-known Jews throughout Europe are now often absent from “solidarity with Israel” gatherings, which have difficulty in mobilising enough people, so they are replaced with lots of flags to try to disguise the fact.
With the development of social networks, public awareness about Jewish organisations against the Israeli regime has grown. There are now online civil society groups with global membership sharing knowledge and experiences to end the Israeli occupation. This online presence helps to minimise the impact of the defamation campaigns and restrictions imposed on activists by the Israeli authorities.
It was no surprise, therefore, to see Israel starting 2018 by publishing its list of “banned organisations”, whose members will be prevented from entering the Zionist state; the list includes Jewish Voice. The occupation Apartheid government is keen to monopolise “the Jews” and is thus concerned by the bold and growing moral opposition within Jewish circles to its occupation policies, in which secular as well as religious Jews are involved.
We have seen large demonstrations on the streets of New York by ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups taking a stand against Israel and Zionism. The streets of the West Jerusalem neighbourhood of Me’a She’arim have witnessed such Jews expressing their frustration at America’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Some have even talked about leaving Israel forever as a result. It is difficult to come across Israeli flags hanging in their neighbourhood in particular, but sometimes they have Palestinian flags on the walls; the message is clear.
All of this points to the fact that it is difficult for any propaganda, regardless of how powerful and well-funded it might be, to justify what is happening without raising doubts about its credibility. More and more Jews across the world are feeling a heavy burden as a result of the grey concrete walls, humiliating checkpoints, bombings, killings, land confiscation and house demolitions being carried out in their names by the entity claiming to be the “Jewish state”. The fact that the same state is now banning Jews and Jewish organisations illustrates the fallacy of that claim. Some Jews, indeed, are definitely not welcome in the “Jewish state”.
- Hossam Shaker is an expert on Arab-European affairs and a journalist and an author. His article was published in MEMO.
