Jordanians call for a third intifada to thwart ‘Deal of the Century’

Jordanian thought leaders are calling for a third Palestinian intifada against Israel in order to thwart the “Deal of the Century.”

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
May 24, 2019 05:15

2 minute read.
Advertisment
Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi addresses the press in Amman, Jordan, July 2, 2018.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi addresses the press in Amman, Jordan, July 2, 2018.. (photo credit: MUHAMMAD HAMED / REUTERS)

Jordanian thought leaders are calling for a third Palestinian intifada against Israel in order to thwart the “Deal of the Century,” according to a report published this week by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

The United States is scheduled to reveal the first part of its peace plan at an economic conference in Bahrain in late June.
MEMRI examined a series of columns printed in the Jordanian press, including the government daily Al-Rai, calling on the Palestinian people to rise up in violence.
“How Shall We Deal with the Deal of the Century?” was the title of a column by journalist Muhammad Ali Marzouq Al-Zuyoud. The piece, which was published on April 26 in Al-Rai, called on Palestinian factions to rally around the spirit of resistance.
“[The Palestinians] must immediately stop the security coordination with the occupation, support and encourage all the liberation forces in Palestine, and spread the spirit of resistance and confrontation among the people – for a serious revolution or intifada inside the occupied territories is the best way to thwart any deal or plan,” he wrote.
A different columnist for Al-Rai presented a similar argument.
Journalist Basem Sakijha lashed out at Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for considering peace with the Israelis and said that if Abbas could not properly resist the “Deal of the Century,” he should consider stepping down.
“Abu Mazen is one of the five founders of the Fatah movement, which has led the Palestinians for about half a century,” wrote Sakijha. “It is only natural that he should contemplate and take a historic decision about his future and the future of the Palestinian Authority. Anyone who fails to see that a Palestinian intifada is about to arrive is politically blind and unable to understand Palestinian history. And whoever fails to see that Israel realizes this, and wants it to be an intifada against the PA and not against Israel, is blind as well. Let’s hope [people] realize what is happening in the streets, and that the intifada will be against the enemy.”

 

And, in a column in the daily Al-Dustour, Hussein Al-Rawashdeh wrote that, given the dire condition of the Arab world, and given that the Israelis understand only the language of force, the Palestinians have no choice but to launch a new intifada that will unite them and the Arab world as well.

 

“The Palestinians themselves have not yet declared their intifada,” wrote Al-Rawashdeh. “Do we now need a third intifada that will reverse all the existing equations? Yes we do, [but] only the Palestinian people itself can reshuffle the deck and create [new] options.

 

“A new intifada. Why not? It is more important than the [inter-Palestinian] reconciliation, and it is the best response to the Deal of the Century and to those who spread [the idea of] normalizing [relations] with the occupier for no reward. It is more important than the barren negotiations and all the rhetoric about defending Al-Aqsa – for the Israelis understand only the language [of force] and the world notices only dramatic events,” he continued.

 

These op-eds were translated and disseminated by MEMRI with full citation and are only a sampling, the organization noted, of the types of anti-Israel articles being written by reporters and columnists in Jordan.

Why are the Palestinians so opposed to the ‘Deal of the Century’?

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

There are many reasons the Palestinian Arabs oppose Trump’s initiative, but a central one is that Iran stands behind Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the Islamic Republic opposes any agreement that puts an end to hostilities with Israel.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, 22/05/19 16:51 | updated: 16:35

 

When US President Donald Trump began talking about his “Deal of the Century,” Palestinian Arabs responded with vociferous opposition before hearing a single word of its contents. The question is why? And the answers are numerous.

The main and most fundamental reason is that both the leading Palestinian organizations, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), cannot – and therefore will not – be part of any deal that legitimizes Israel’s existence in the land of the Jewish people.

The PLO’s main considerations are nationalistic. It claims that “Falestin” belongs solely to the Arab nation and the Palestinian people as an inseparable part of the Arab Middle East. There is no way the Arab nation and Palestinian people will give up their land to the Jews who are not – at least, according to the Arab viewpoint – a nation, but a set of communities belonging to whatever countries they left to come to Israel over the last 130 years.

Hamas opposes Israel’s very existence due to that organization’s religious-Islamic approach which believes that Judaism is extinct (“din batel”), the Jews having been ejected by Allah to an exile where they must remain until their conversion to Islam.

According to the Islamist approach, “The Land of Falestin” is an Islamic trust, sacred to the Islamic nation. There is no way it can be removed from under Islam’s wings and handed over to another religion – which has lost its validity in any case.

In addition, according to Islamic tenets, Jews must live under Islamic patronage, as dhimmi, lacking any rights to a state, sovereignty, government, army or police. According to this Islamic viewpoint, Trump\s deal cannot be accepted because it grants Israel the right to exist as a Jewish national homeland.

The Palestinian Arabs believe that Trump disqualified himself from having the right to express an opinion on the conflict from the moment he took a pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian stance on the two crucial points of the Palestinian narrative: Jerusalem and the “refugees”.

Both the PLO and Hamas agree that eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, must be the capital of a Palestinian state in order to keep it from being part of a Jewish state, although the city was never the capital of any Arab or Islamic national entity.

They demand Jerusalem because they understand that there is no Zionism without Zion, and that the best way to sow despair among the Jews is to take away their historic capital, Jerusalem. That is why they, and the only too eager to assist them Arabs and Muslims, spend many millions on efforts to emphasize and hold on to
They demand Jerusalem because they understand that there is no Zionism without Zion, and that the best way to sow despair among the Jews is to take away their historic capital, Jerusalem.
Jerusalem’s centrality in the struggle against Israel. They do this because most of the world does not yet recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State or as being under Israeli sovereignty, so that issue is “a weak link” that can be broken if it is hit repeatedly. When, despite this approach, Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, thereby authorizing the existence of a state for the Jewish people, that made him unfit to serve as an honest broker in Palestinian, Arab and Muslim eyes.

Another painful problem is the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees. This is the main issue for the refugees who still dream of returning to Israel to live and are not interested in any Palestinian State. The fact that a large portion of them are not originally from Palestine is of no significance to them, because the Arab states, PLO, Hamas, international organizations such as UNRWA and those countries who have been funding them for decades, have also served to keep alive the hope of returning one day to their non-existent homes and villages The refugee ethos is central to the Palestinian experience but Trump actually had the courage to reduce American support for these delusions. This, too. casts a pall over Trump’s legitimacy as someone trying to solve the Palestinian problem.

Another serious flaw in the “Deal of the Century” is that it involves additional Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. This is totally unacceptable to Palestinian Arab spokesmen because years ago, Arafat established the rule that “independence is a Palestinian decision,” meaning that the Palestinians are the only ones allowed to decide on their own destiny and future. That is why Arafat was opposed to the Palestinian chapter in the 1978 Camp David Accords agreed to by Begin and Sadat after Jimmy Carter exerted considerable pressure on the two. The Palestinians are opposed on principle to any Arab interference in their affairs – and certainly to their affairs being an issue in an agreement between Egypt and Israel.  They saw Sadat as a traitor to the Palestinian cause first because he dared to deal with their problem without authority or permission to do so, and second, because he agreed to peace with Israel without solving the Palestinian problem to their satisfaction.

Trump\’s “Deal of the Century” includes the involvement of other Arab states, and the Palestinians fear a situation where those states and Israel agree on something to which the Palestinians are opposed, leading to the strengthening of Israel’s position in the Arab world. This could lead to rapport between Israel and these states, in an attempt to isolate the “recalcitrant” Palestinians and pressure them to agree to sign things against their interests and positions.

It has recently been made public that the Trump administration  is planning a conference in Bahrain to  deal with economic aspects of the “Deal of the Century”. PLO spokesmen are up in arms because, in their opinion, dealing with the economic issues before solving all the other problems – Jerusalem, the refugees, borders,  Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, water, sovereignty –are a result of the American conception that money, work and economic development can solve everything. In their view, all the unaddressed problems must be solved to their complete satisfaction before dealing with economic issues. They call the other problems “axioms” which cannot be bypassed or solved by economic means.

It is important to remember that Iran stands behind Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and that the Islamic Republic opposes any agreement that puts an end to hostilities with Israel. These two organizations fan the flames of struggle with Israel whenever they feel it is necessary, and Israel has neither the political nor public will to enter into negotiations while rockets are being launched at it from Gaza. That is how the two organizations can manage to stymie any progress in negotiations meant to advance the “Deal of the Century” – and that is why its chances of success are not particularly sanguine.

Even if the Israel government and its citizenry accept the “Deal of the Century,” that act will have little significance because the  probability that the Palestinian side accepts it is minimal. Nevertheless, it is extremely important that Israel refrain from announcing any territorial or other concessions until the other side signs a permanent peace agreement and ends its claims against Israel. Any unilateral Israeli concessions will be remembered forever and taken for granted, placing the starting position of possible future negotiations past the point where Israel conceded something in the “Deal of the Century”, even if that deal never reaches fruition.

These and other reasons mean that the “Deal of the Century” will in all probability be consigned to the shelf where  numerous other “Peace Plans” gather dust, despite the good and pure intentions of those suggesting them from the year 1947 (The Partition Plan) up to the present.

There is a verse in the Koran saying: “Allah is on the side of those who are patient,” and Israel’s neighbors have a good deal of patience. They are prepared to wait and wait until the opportunity for them to destroy Israel arrives, so why bother granting peace to the Jewish State?

Written in Hebrew for Arutz Sheva, translated by Op-ed Editor Rochel Sylvetsky 

‘UNRWA has only succeeded in inciting violence against Israel’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Israeli Ambassador to UN Danon slams UNRWA at Security Council discussion. ‘UNRWA’s mandate must come to an end.’

 

Arutz Sheva Staff, 22/05/19 20:03

 

Danny Danon

Danny Danon

Flash 90

On Wednesday, the United Nations Security Council held a special discussion on UNRWA, the United Nations agency that oversees the Palestinian refugees.

At the beginning of the discussion, Pierre Krähenbühl, the UNRWA representative, said: “We need an additional $1.2 billion for our activities in 2019. We don’t believe the future of Palestine refugees should be framed in decades of UNRWA. They deserve a better political future. Until then, we will continue to operate.”

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, responded by saying that “UNRWA has been empowering the refugee problem for years, instead of trying to solve it while adopting a unilateral political position. The organization’s schools have been transformed into terror and incitement infrastructures, with textbooks distributed on the ground denying Israel’s existence, and underground tunnels dug by Hamas.”

“UNRWA failed to rehabilitate the Gaza Strip and succeeded only in inciting violence against the State of Israel. UNRWA’s mandate must come to an end,” added Danon.

Danon then turned to the UNRWA representative and challenged him: “UNRWA, like any organization, must have clear goals. What are those goals? How long will it take to reach them? And how much will it cost?” Ambassador Danon demanded that the Council members receive the representative’s answers within six months.

Jason Greenblatt, the US envoy to the Middle East stated: “It is time to face the reality that the UNRWA model has failed. Year after year, budget shortfalls threatened essential services to Palestinian mothers and children. And year after year, Palestinians in refugee camps were not given the opportunity to build any future; they were misled and used as political pawns. We need to start a conversation about planning the transition of UNRWA services to host governments and international or local non-governmental organizations.”

PLO leader: Political parts of ‘deal of the century’ already implemented

Secretary General Saeb Erakat of the Palestine Liberation Organization has responded to the United States announcement of a workshop in Bahrain on economic aspects of its peace plan for Israel and the Palestinian Authority by writing on Twitter, Tuesday, “The political parts of the deal were implemented:

1-Jerusalem Capital of Israel

2-Refugees off the table

3-No self determination of the Palestinians.(National racist law)

4- Settlements are legal( annexation soon)

5-Occupation no more

6-American Counsulate closed , American Embassy Moved

7-All aid to Palestinian cut .

8-PLO office in WASH DC closed .

Now let us make the deal ,or the price is right .”

Doctor Erekat closed by asking, “How much for all of this ? proposed a work shop in Manama.Palestinians will reject , we blame them and have Netanyahu pocket it .Why Bahrain?”

Moral Lessons Derived from the Laws of Leket

Leket’s Lessons

Orthodox Union

And when you harvest the harvest of your land you should not completely harvest the corner of your field. You should not make a collection of the fallen ears of grain. Do not collect lone grapes from your vineyard and do not make a collection of the fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor person and the convert. I am Hashem your G-d. (Sefer VaYikra 19:9-10)

1. Support for the poor through their participation in the harvest
Among the many mitzvot described in Parshat Kedoshim are a number of commandments designed to assure that the poor and less fortunate are cared for at the time of harvest. All of these commandments operate in a similar manner. They restrict the manner in which a field of grain or vineyard is harvested and assure that some portion of the crop is left behind for collection by the poor. The first of the two passages above delineates specific mitzvot that apply to a field of grain and the second passage describes the commandments that apply to a vineyard.

Two mitzvot are described in regard to a field of grain. The first is the commandment of Pe’ah. The mitzvah of Pe’ah requires that the corner of the field not be harvested. The grain is to be left standing for collection by the poor and needy. The second mitzvah is Leket. This mitzvah requires that ears of grain that fall to the ground at the time of harvest not be subsequently collected. Instead, these ears of grain should be left in the field for the poor to collect.

Two mitzvot are described in regard to a vineyard. The first is Olelot. Loosely defined, this commandment requires that isolated grapes be left on the vine to be collected by the poor. The second commandment is Peret. This mitzvah requires that fallen grapes be left for the poor.[1]

2. How much fallen grain must be abandoned to the poor?
The mishne in Mesechet Pe’ah describes a basic dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai – the School of Hillel and the School of Shamai. As explained above, the mitzvah of Leket requires that when a few ears of grain fall to the ground at the time of harvest, they are to be left to the poor. Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai argue over the number of ears that are regarded as “a few”. According to Bait Hillel a single ear of grain or two ears that fall to the ground in a single spot are regarded as a mere “few” and the field’s owner must leave these for the poor. Bait Shamai argues that even three ears that fall to the ground together must be left to the poor. Only groups of four ears that have fallen together may be collected by the field’s owner.[2]

It is hard to imagine the basis for such an argument. However, the Talmud Yerushalmi explains the issue in dispute.

When you reap your harvest in your field, and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to take it. It shall be for the convert, for the orphan, and for the widow; so that Hashem your G-d may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Sefer Devarim 24:19)

3. Talmud Yerushalmi’s explanation of the dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shamai
In Sefer Devarim the Torah discusses another mitzvah that is similar to Leket. The mitzvah of Shich’chah requires that bundles of grain that are forgotten in the field and not collected when the grain is gathered must be left for the poor. In other words, the mitzvah of Leket requires that individual or small quantities of dropped ears must be abandoned to the poor. Shich’chah requires that even after the grain is bundled in order to be collected, individual or small quantities of overlooked bundles must be abandoned to the poor. How many bundles are regarded as a small quantity? Again, Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai argue. Bait Hillel posits that if one or two bundles are forgotten at a single spot, then they are left for the poor. If three bundles are overlooked, the owner of the field may recover them. Bait Shamai contends that even groups of three bundles that are forgotten in a single spot must be overlooked. Groups of four or more bundles may be recovered by the field owner.[3]

The Talmud Yerushalmi notes that both the passages in Sefer VaYikra and those in Sefer Devarim direct Bnai Yisrael to leave Leket and the other agricultural gifts to the poor. However, the two sets of passages describe the beneficiaries differently. The passages in Sefer VaYika direct Bnai Yisrael to “leave them for the poor person and the convert”. Two beneficiary groups are identified – the poor and the convert. In Sefer Devarim the Torah tells us that “it shall be for the convert, for the orphan, and for the widow”. In this passage three beneficiary groups are identified.

The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that Bait Hillel maintains that the maximum number of sheaves or ears that must be left for the poor corresponds with the number of beneficiary groups identified in Sefer VaYikra – the poor and convert. Therefore, only two or less ears or sheaves dropped or forgotten in a single spot are left for the needy. If more than two ears are dropped or sheaves forgotten, the owner may collect them. Bait Shamai bases its position of the number of beneficiary groups identified in Sefer Deravim. That passage identifies three groups – the convert, orphan, and widow. Based upon this passage, even three dropped ears or forgotten sheaves must be abandoned and only four or more may be collected by the owner.[4]

4. Reconciling two descriptions of Leket and Shich’chah
In considering this dispute it is important to note an observation made by the commentator on Talmud Yerushalmi, P’nai Moshe. He explains that the dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai does not suggest any actual contradiction between the passages. The convert, orphan, and widow are all entitled to Leket and the other agricultural gifts. However, the passage in Sefer Devarim mentions each beneficiary group specifically. The Sefer VaYikra passage combines the orphan and widow into a single group – the poor.

P’nai Moshe further explains that the dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai is over which passage is more fundamental to the commandments discussed in the passages. According to Bait Hillel, the Sefer VaYikra text is the fundamental source text. It identifies two beneficiary groups. The Sefer Devarim text only intends to delineate more fully the members included in the beneficiary group that Sefer VaYikra refers to as “the poor”. Bait Shamai disagrees. It argues that the Sefer Devarim text is more significant. It delineates three beneficiary groups. The Sefer VaYikra text abbreviates its list of beneficiaries by referring to widows and orphans with a single descriptive term – the poor.[5]

The Talmud Yerushalmi’s explanation of the dispute is difficult to understand. Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai were certainly aware of both passages. Yet, Bait Hillel accepts the Sefer VaYikra passage as the relevant text and Bait Shamai bases its ruling on the Sefer Devarim text. The question remains. On what basis does each school select its specific source text?

5. Alternatives to the Talmud Yerushalmi’s view
Before attempting to answer this question, it is useful to consider how the dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai could be explained without recourse to the Talmud Yerushalmi. In other words, is there an alternative explanation of the dispute that is not based upon the passages cited by the Talmud Yerushalmi?

There is a simple explanation that does seem to emerge. Two sheaves or ears constitute a pair. However, three ears or sheaves constitute a group. This suggests that the two schools agree that a pair of ears or sheaves must be left to the poor. However, they differ on the status of the minimal – the smallest possible – group. Bait Hillel argues that if the forgotten or dropped grain constitutes a group, then it is no longer an insignificant quantity. Once the forgotten or dropped grain is significant in quantity, it belongs to the field’s owner and not to the poor. Bait Shamai disagrees. This school argues that the field’s owner is obligated to leave the minimal group – comprised of three ears or sheaves – to the poor. Only when the number of ears or sheaves comprises a group that exceeds the minimum – it is composed of four or more ears or sheaves – is the owner permitted to collect them.

Perhaps, this dispute between Bait Hillel and Bait Shamai reflects a fundamental divergence of views on the nature of the institutions of Leket, and Shich’chah. According to Bait Hillel, these mitzvot essentially enjoin the field owner to not collect insignificant amounts of dropped or forgotten grain. Two ears or sheaves are deemed by the Torah as insignificant because they constitute only a pair and not a group. Essentially, the Torah commands the owner to not be miserly and sweep the field of every last ear and sheave. According to Bait Shamai, the obligations of Leket and Shich’chah are not satisfied by leaving behind insignificant amounts of ears and sheaves. The Torah requires that the owner leave for the poor even significant amounts of ears and sheaves. Therefore, the minimal group – the group of three must be left for the poor as their portion. Only when the group is larger than minimal – when it is comprised of more than three ears or sheaves – may the owner retrieve it. The Torah is requiring much more from the owner than suggested by Bait Hillel. Although not required to intentionally create Leket and Shich’chah, the owner is required to leave for the poor forgotten sheaves and dropped ears that are significant in number – that constitute a minimal group.

6 The Talmud Yerushalmi revisited
This analysis provides insight into the Talmud Yerushalmi’s explanation of the dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shamai. According to Bait Shamai, the source text is the Sefer Devarim passage. Bait Shamai contends that this passage enumerates the beneficiary groups – the convert, orphan, and widow. The enumeration suggests that the Torah is stressing the breadth of the challenge to be addressed in responding to poverty. The Torah is demanding that we take note of multiple causes for poverty and respond accordingly. It follows from this perspective on the immensity of the challenge that the response to poverty must be more aggressive. Therefore, Bait Shamai suggests that leaving the poor only those ears and sheaves whose numbers are insignificant is inadequate. Instead, a higher level of support for the poor is requisite. A subsidy of some significance must be left for the poor. Therefore, even the group of three ears and sheaves must be abandoned to the poor. Only when the group of forgotten or lost grains becomes more than just significant and is deemed substantial – a group of four or more ears or sheaves – may the owner collect it.

Bait Hillel argues that the Sefer VaYikra passage is the more significant text. In contrast to the Sefer Devarim text, this passage combines the orphan and widow into a single category – the poor. The passage is apparently moderating the description of the challenge suggested by the Sefer Devarim passage. Consequently, Bait Hillel suggests that the Torah only demands that the owner not be stingy. He may not sweep the field of insignificant, lone or pairs of ears and sheaves. However, the more maximal requirement to abandon even amounts of grain that are significant is not mandated.

7. The underlying moral lesson
In short, both schools agree that the number of sheaves and ears that the Torah requires be abandoned to the poor corresponds with the degree of need. Bait Shamai argues that the Torah emphasizes the extent of the need. Therefore, even ears and sheaves significant in number must be abandoned to the poor. Bait Hillel suggests that it is not the Torah’s intention to emphasize the extent of the need. In fact, the Torah’s intention is to moderate the impression of extensive need implicit in the Sefer Devarim text. Therefore, numbers of ears or sheaves that are significant may be collected by the owner. However, he may not be parsimonious and collect even the insignificant dropped or forgotten ears and sheaves.

It is appropriate to note that both schools agree on an underlying principle. Charity and support for the needy must correspond with the extent of the need. The two schools differ only on the extent of need that the Torah describes. This lesson should inform our personal charitable giving. A commitment to make an annual gift to charity of a set amount is praiseworthy. However, this behavior does not meet the standard suggested by the above discussion. Sometimes need in a community burgeons. At such times, charitable giving must grow and expand in proportion to the need. We conform to the principle of Bait Shamai and Bait Hillel through expanding our giving to meet the greater need. In other words, in difficult economic times; at times when more people are in need and when need is more intense; those blessed with resources to help others embrace the principle espoused by these schools by expanding their charitable giving in response to that need.

1. This is a very simplified presentation of the contents of these two passages. Actually, each of the institutions outlined above is legislated by two commandments. For example, a positive commandment legislates that Pe’ah must be left for the poor and a negative commandment prohibits the owner of the field from harvesting Pe’ah. The same dual-commandment structure legislates each of the other three forms of support for the poor. This results in a total of eight commandments legislating four institutions.

2. Mesechet Pe’ah 6:5.

3. Mesechet Pe’ah 6:5.

4. Talmud Yerushalmi, Mesechet Pe’ah 30a.

5. Rav Moshe Margolis, P’nai Moshe, Commentary of Talmud Yerushalmi, Mesechet Pe’ah 30a.

Why was Ahed Tamimi allowed to enter Britain?

Why was Ahed Tamimi allowed to enter Britain?

Ahed Tamimi is a convicted criminal, an inciter of terrorism and has spoken libel against the UK, yet she is currently in the UK, speaking to crowds of thousands, sharing the stage with Labour politicians and encouraging people to become “freedom fighters”.

There are so many reasons why Ahed Tamimi shouldn’t have even been allowed into this country:

  • She is a convicted criminal
  • She has incited terrorism and encourages people to carry out “stabbings and martyrdom-seeking operations (i.e. suicide bombings)” and has repeatedly called for people to be “freedom fighters” (support for terrorism and encouraging terrorism is a criminal offence in the UK)
  • She has vowed to be a terrorist herself, declaring she will “follow in the path of the martyrs”
  • She has praised Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah is banned in the UK and support for the group is illegal in this country)
  • She calls for the destruction of Israel
  • She has accused the UK of being “racist”, “completely controlled by Israel” and spoke libel against the UK
    (All evidence to these reasons detailed below)

In her first major public appearance in the UK, Ahed Tamimi spoke at the “National Demonstration for Palestine: Exist! Resist! Return!” march, a pro-Palestinian hate rally against Israel that featured several Labour MPs, including Shadow Ministers Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon, and political activist Owen Jones.

About 2,000 pro-Palestine protesters marched in Central London on Saturday with hundreds of placards with messages from “Israel provokes antisemitism” to swastikas daubed over the Jewish Star of David, showing that their hatred of Israel was morphing into anti-Semitism.

Ahed Tamimi, who served almost eight months in prison in Israel for hitting an Israeli soldier and telling people to carry out stabbing attacks and suicide bombings, addressed the crowd in a short speech, saying, “We choose to struggle for freedom and justice. We choose to be freedom fighters… from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

It is important to note that “freedom fighters” is the common term used to describe Palestinian terrorists, and the saying “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a call for Israel’s destruction, which is situated between the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea.

So how could someone who holds anti-Semitic views, who advocates terrorism and hates the UK be allowed to enter this country? What’s more, why were political leaders supporting her? She should not be allowed here, let alone be given such a platform.

Sadly, we won’t find the answer out any time soon. Below are the reasons why Ahed Tamimi shouldn’t have been allowed.

 

Ahed Tamimi’s accusations against the UK

Just last month, Ahed Tamimi was interviewed by Russia Today and levelled a series of derogative statements against the UK, calling the country “racist” and “completely controlled by Israel”.

Tamimi was being asked about her plans to study in the UK, which at the time she felt were being stopped because of some basic questions on her application documents.

During the interview, Tamimi charged that “the UK government is completely controlled by Israel, who are the biggest supporter of terrorism, they encourage the killing of Palestinian people.”

“The UK is completely occupied and controlled by Israel and it is supporting Israel to kill innocent people who are demonstrating for their rights,” Tamimi said.

Not only is Tamimi making libellous claims about the UK, but she is also using the anti-Semitic trope that Israel (or Jews) control foreign governments, in this case the UK.

Tamimi continued: “The whole world is defeated, we are alone”, before declaring, “but I am pretty sure that the Palestinian people will bring back dignity to the whole world even to the UK who are supporting Israel. The UK brought Zionism to Palestine in the era of the British mandate. We will eventually end this occupation. Their power will not last forever.”

Clearly, this is not the language of someone who is supportive of the UK or someone who the UK should be inviting into this country (and especially not for government figures, such as Labour, to be aligning themselves with).

Ahed Tamimi then spoke of Israel’s actions on the Gaza border, falsely accusing Israel of wanting to “kill all Palestinians” – a blood libel.

“They (Israel) have no right to harm any Palestinian and this is another reflection to their terrorism. They want nothing but to kill all Palestinians so they can take all their land. They believe that all Palestinians should be killed, which also shows that they’re racist.”

Be warned, it is very anti-Israel and there are a lot of lies and distortions throughout the below video.

Ahed Tamimi’s support for terrorism and Israel’s destruction

Ahed Tamimi has become a “symbol of resistance” in the eyes of the Palestinians and, thanks to the biased media reports on her, she is now viewed this way by many in the West. The reality is that she incites and condones terrorism.

Last year, Ahed praised the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

She was interviewed on France 24 TV in September asking about her views on Hezbollah.

Tamimi replied, “At the end of the day, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I’m with Hassan Nasrallah…”

When asked if she regretted the outcry her comments caused, Tamimi replied, “Of course I do not regret it. Hassan Nasrallah supports the Palestinian cause, and he is against America and Israel, so I’m with him on that matter. I agree with many people on certain issues and disagree with them on others, but ultimately, I thank him for his support for the Palestinian cause.”

It is important to note that Hezbollah’s actions “against America” include the killing of 241 American soldiers in Beirut in 1983, and his opposition to Israel includes calling for the destruction of Israel and saying that “if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”.

Hezbollah has just been banned in the United Kingdom as a terrorist organisation. This ban means it is illegal to support Hezbollah, be a member of Hezbollah or even invite support for Hezbollah. It is easily arguable that Ahed Tamimi is inviting support for the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, a criminal act in the UK. So she should not be allowed to enter the country based on that alone.

Tamimi has previously said it is everyone’s responsibility to slap Israeli soldiers, no matter if the soldier is doing anything bad or not.

This comment is just the tip of the iceberg, however, as Ahed goes on to explain how Palestinians, and herself, are on “the path of the martyrs” and that they are no longer aiming for a two-state solution, but for “the liberation of all of Palestine”.

“The world should not panic or be appalled by a Palestinian who slaps an IDF soldier. Everyone should do it, not just me,” she told Musaique FM, a Tunisian radio station.

She claimed that harming soldiers “is a natural response to the presence of the occupation, to the presence of occupying soldiers on my land, all of them have to contradict the soldiers.”

She went on to say that “Jerusalem was and will remain the eternal capital of Palestine”.

In another interview (also featured in the video above), Ahed says how the previous generation “fought and died as martyrs” with the aim of a two-state solution. But claimed that her generation “will not repeat this”.

“We, as a generation, will fight for the liberation of Palestine in its entirety”, Ahed Tamimi said.

Note: She is not saying that the mistake was in dying as “martyrs”, but that the cause was for a “two-state solution”. She still believes in the “path of martyrs”, but instead wants Israel destroyed so that only “Palestine” exists.

She went on to clarify that Palestinians will not accept Israel on any part of the land, that Israel controlled 78% of the land before repeating her claim to liberate the whole area.

It is clear that Ahed Tamimi seeks the destruction of Israel. Something she has spoken of many times over the years, as well as her parents.

Ahed Tamimi was arrested after a video of the teen went viral, showing her slapping, punching and kicking two Israeli soldiers who did little to react.

When Ahed Tamimi was arrested, the media and anti-Israel activists were quick to condemn Israel for convicting a child. However, they also failed to recognise the true crime of Ahed Tamimi. She did not just attack Israeli soldiers, she spoke on camera afterwards telling people to continue martyrdom operations, including suicide bombings and stabbing attacks.

Ahed Tamimi’s message to the world:

“I wish that everybody would participate in demonstrations because that is the only way for us to get results; because our strength is in our stones; and I wish that everybody all over the world would unite so we can liberate Palestine, because Trump must bear responsibility for the decision he took for any Palestinian reaction – be it stabbings, martyrdom-seeking operations [i.e. suicide bombings], throwing stones – everyone must do something. So we can unite this way, so we can get our message across in the required way and get this result, that is the liberation of Palestine, Allah willing.”

A family relative said that Ahed would often express a desire to die as a martyr. “She would say ‘I am not scared of them arresting me or killing me. I am struggling for the Palestinian people. Many martyrs have fallen and they deserve a lot. Maybe there will be more martyrs and I will be one of them.’”

It is surprising then that organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) would run campaigns such as, “We are Ahed Tamimi” and that the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would give his support to Ahed Tamimi.

The UK government also showed support for Tamimi through former-foreign office minister Alistair Burt (Conservative) who also defended the teen’s actions.

“The truth is the soldiers shouldn’t have been there and the young woman shouldn’t have needed to do what she did,” said Mr Burt.

Labour MPs have in the past been lectured by Bassam Tamimi (Ahed’s father) inside of the UK Parliament, where his lies and distortions have been allowed to be spoken unchallenged.

Bassam Tamimi has brainwashed his children and used them as weapons to attack Israel. He himself referred to Ahed as a weapon that he wields when talking to children at an American school. He also told that American children to become “Freedom Fighters” for Palestine.

It is also worth noting that Ahed Tamimi’s mother was the one who told the teen to attack the soldiers whilst she filmed, which led to her arrest.

Ahed Tamimi’s family has long been involved in attacks against Israel. Ahlam Tamimi, Ahed’s aunt, is a member of Hamas and carried out a suicide bombing that killed 16 Israelis in a restaurant, including children.

Watch the video below to see her take on the incident: