+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The source of Palestinian incitement

Israelis are right, there is dangerous incitement among Palestinians. Here’s what they can do to fight it.

Palestinians run from tear gas and shootings during a protest near the Gaza border,east of Al Bureij refugee camp, October 16, 2015. Thousands of Palestinians marched towards the border in different locations in the Gaza Strip following a call for protests for a 'day of rage'. Two Palestinians were killed by the Israeli forces during the demonstrations. At least 35 Palestinians have been killed in the occupied Palestinian Territories since Oct.1, while seven Israeli have been killed. (Activestills.org)

Palestinians run from tear gas and shootings during a protest near the Gaza border,east of Al Bureij refugee camp, October 16, 2015. The Israeli army killed two Palestinians as thousands marched to the border in different locations in the Gaza Strip. (Activestills.org)

The controversy over the Hebron shooter is the gift that keeps on giving.

By Saturday, we have already stood to learn that the star of last week’s show will not be charged with murder, that a large part of the Israeli public views him as a national hero, and that municipalities will not hesitate to spend taxpayer money on organizing events in support of anyone who shoots a wounded Arab in the head. Lately, we have also geared witnessed to Israelis explaining that the poor shooter was incited by the Israeli leadership, and try to put the spotlight — as well as part of the blame — on the victim, Abed al-Fatah Sharif, who was also incited by the “other side.”

Since those same Israelis are able to come up with these pearls of wisdom through learning about the occupation from Israeli television alone (of course, we must not forget that the Israeli media tells us about everything that happens to the Palestinians), there is absolutely no one better to teach us the ins and outs of Palestinian existence under their regime.

After all, we already know that the way Israelis interpret Palestinian actions — even without ever having spoken to a single Palestinian or, say, basing their knowledge on facts — is always right. So let us just speak about this whole Palestinian “incitement” issue the way it is seen by Israelis.

Yes, there is incitement. There is definitely incitement. It has reached peak levels among Palestinians, and the proof is the hundreds of Palestinians who have been killed since October of last year. If only they would have listened to the Israelis and stopped the incitement, we would go back to the coexistence that was always here, even if it was disrupted here and there (by the Arabs, of course).

Palestinians carry an injured protester during clashes with Israeli forces near the Israel-Gaza border, near Nahal Oz crossing, Nobember 20, 2015. (Ezz Zanoun/Activestills.org)

Palestinians carry an injured protester during clashes with Israeli forces near the Israel-Gaza border, near Nahal Oz crossing, Nobember 20, 2015. (Ezz Zanoun/Activestills.org)

Those Israelis are right. What was the young, incited Palestinian thinking to himself when he was sleeping in his home in an incited Palestinian refugee camp or incited Hebron or incited East Jerusalem and is awoken in the dead of night to soldiers yelling in broken, non-inciting Arabic as they pound on the door? What was he thinking to himself when he went downstairs as his mother and sisters cry tears of incitement after the door was broken down? What was he thinking to himself when his incited father, and maybe even one or two of his incited brothers, are handcuffed with non-inciting violence and led outside, while an innocent Israeli kid, salt of the earth, who has his face covered and is armed to the teeth, pushes a camera into his face and demands he identifies himself?

But is that same young Palestinian thinking to himself when he discovers that his father has been put in administrative detention, and that the chances that he sees him in the next months or even years are close to nil? What does he think to himself when he sees his (incited) unemployed friends, just like him, who cannot pass through the most moral army’s checkpoints? What does he think when settlements are built on his incited grandfather’s land, while he lives in crowded conditions with the rest of his family? What does he think when he sees no chance that he will somehow establish and support his own incited family?

An Israeli soldier seen during a House Raid near the West Bank city of Hebron. (photo: Meged Gozani/Activestills.org)

An Israeli soldier seen during a house raid near the West Bank city of Hebron. (photo: Meged Gozani/Activestills.org)

If only Israelis weren’t so enlightened and would prevent incited Palestinians from having their own television and radio broadcasts — not to mention access to the Internet — Palestinians wouldn’t have a single clue about the siege on Gaza or the massacres there.

According to the logic of the majority of Israelis, if those same Palestinians never logged in to Facebook or Twitter, which is so full of hate toward Israelis, they would never know that their neighbor was shot in her head by a soldier, or that settlers burned down their olive trees or an entire family’s home. And we haven’t even spoken about other causes of incitement: Israel’s enlightened apartheid laws, the inciting puppet government known as the Palestinian Authority, thousands of Palestinian prisoners, etc.

Like Abed al-Fatah Sharif and others, the young Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are incited. And believe them when they say how awful it is that all these years, despite repeated attempts, they are simply unable to distance themselves from the inciters among them.

This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Baladi Akka 1948

      Ya Rami, you seem so incited too, what incited you ? Don’t you live in the heart of the Light-Upon-Nations, the light didn’t shine on you ?
      Keep up the good work,your pen is golden, though I’m afraid you’re speaking to people who don’t want to listen.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Ben

      Take, too, this time trip. Nothing has changed since 1951:

      Ben-Gurion in 1951: Only death penalty will deter Jews from gratuitous killing of Arabs
      ‘Until a Jewish soldier is hanged for murdering Arabs, these acts of murder won’t end,’ Israel’s first prime minister told his stunned cabinet 66 years ago, when Jewish murders of Arabs had become all too common.

      Gidi Weitz
      http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.712125

      ““…as defense minister I know some of the crimes, and I must say the situation is frightening in two areas: 1) acts of murder and 2) acts of rape…some Israelis “think Jews are people but Arabs aren’t, so you can do anything to them. And some think it’s a mitzvah to kill Arabs, and that everything the government says against murdering Arabs isn’t serious, that it’s just a pretense that killing Arabs is forbidden, but in fact, it’s a blessing because there will be fewer Arabs here. As long as they think that, the murders won’t stop.” “Soon, we won’t be able to show our faces to the world. Jews meet an Arab and murder him.”

      Reply to Comment
    3. Margot Dunne

      On behalf of my young Palestinian friends – thank you, bless you, & please keep on trying to cut through.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Yea well, maybe we are learning from our humane Arab neighbors who lynch Israelis who fall into their hands as they lynched two unfortunate Israelis who lost their way and drove into Ramallah in early 2000.

        Oh and who demand the release of a thouasand terrorists, some of them child a murderers in exchange for one hostage and in exchange for pretending to negotiate.

        Reply to Comment
    4. carmen

      ben gurion knew exactly what type of people the zionists were then and were going to be. It had been documented by others from even earlier periods, before the ‘state’, about the horrible behavior of the zionists towards the Arabs, who’d been living here hundreds of years of course, only to be shot in cold blood by some eurotrash who just got off a boat. There was a rally hosted by the mayor of Ramleh for the Israeli soldier who executed Abed al-Fatah Sharif. This is exactly what ben gurion was warning about. This is the behavior of the coddled, spoiled, zio-trash, the largest welfare recipients in the world with a massive sense of entitlement, who do nothing but take and take and demand even more. “There ain’t nothin’ more dangerous in this world than a fool with a cause”. And that’s the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF48wdxBvbQ&feature=player_detailpage

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Horrible behavior? Only the Jewish freedom fighters (Zionists) were horrible in the horrible war which the Arabs started? But the Arabs were angels? Butter wouldn’t melt in the mouths of Arabs, they were/are so righteous?

        Myths, anyone? One sided myths? Go read up of the Hebron massacre of Jews in 1929 to start with. There was no occupation then and Irgun hasn’t started yet. And it doesn’t get better since. I can literally list hundreds if not thousands of Arab atrocities carried out since against Palestinian Jews by Palestinian Arabs both before the state of Israel came into existence and afterwards.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          But that’s the point isn’t it? As Gertel (on Epstein) says, from each side’s perspective, then and now, the other side is rising up against them. (Only, from a legal perspective, today, it is actually the occupying soldier who defies the law, not the resister who attacks him. And on a political and moral level, it is Israel that is the oppressor for 49 years.) Gertel sees this. Epstein saw it. You can’t and won’t. It undermines years of cherished talking points.) Therefore, it is time to at long last seriously compromise and make peace. The Israelis are unwilling to do that because, as YR pointed out to you,

          “Israel is stealing land, and it’s pretty easy to see that such ongoing (and apparently never-ending) land-theft not only dissuades the Palestinians from “making peace” with Israel, it also dissuades Israel from wanting that peace to be made. After all….. gobble, gobble, gobble….”

          I know, you won’t see it that way. No need to reply.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Benny’s post is simplistic clap trap at best and outright partisan propaganda at worst. He sees everything only from the Arab perspective. And worse, he attempts to invert reality.

            Benny claims that we are the ones who want to hang onto ALL the land. The fact however is exactly the opposite. It is the Arabs who claim that the existence of a Jewish state is an injustice towards Arabs. We have always agreed to the two state solution the Arabs were the ones who rejected it historically. Hamas still openly rejects the idea even today while the PLO is performing mental gymnastics even as they still reject the idea of the Jewish state in their charter today AND they refuse to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

            Under the circumstances, this is more than just a border dispute in which each side claims part of the land. Such a dispute would not be that hard to resolve. Compromises are always possible to resolve such minor disputes. This is a much more serious dispute than that because the Arabs claim that ALL the land that the Jewish state is on is Arab land. We cannot compromise with such a zero sum claim. Therefore the occupation continues because we are just not going to allow the emergence of a hostile state on our door step which is bent on our destruction. Nobody in our place would react differently.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Actually I see things from Yitzhak Epstein’s perspective. And he was the opposite of simplistic. He was intelligent and wise and far-sighted. And humane. The rest of your post is the epitome, the epitome, of simplistic black and white claptrap. But what’s new? For one thing, reducing your brutal occupation, as only an impossibly smug occupier would, to “a minor border dispute.”

            Do you ever think twice before you deploy “the Arabs” as a propaganda device? There is no evidence you ever have. I have news for you. This statement is at least as equally true and false as your propaganda statement:

            “The Jews claim that ALL the land between the river and the sea is Jewish land. We cannot compromise with such a zero sum claim.”

            However, an Arab person who deployed such a statement as you routinely do would be instantly labelled by you as an ‘anti-Semite’ and a ‘hater’ or a ‘self-hater.’ But apparently you are not an anti-Arab-Semite and a hater because . . . you’re Israeli! “What’s the problem?! Next question?”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”For one thing, reducing your brutal occupation, as only an impossibly smug occupier would, to “a minor border dispute.”

            Boooooooring. I never said any such thing and I think Benny knows it. He deliberately distorts what I actually said!!!

            …but this guy is so boring that it isn’t worth my while even to engage him. He is not as dumb as he pretends to be. He deliberately obfuscates, distorts and blurs every fact at the edges that damns his position. A classic propagandist…

            My post speaks for itself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”For one thing, reducing your brutal occupation, as only an impossibly smug occupier would, to “a minor border dispute.”

            Boooooooring. I never said any such thing and I think Benny knows it. He deliberately distorts what I actually said!!!

            …but this guy is so boring that it isn’t worth my while even to engage him. He is not as dumb as he pretends to be. He deliberately obfuscates, distorts and blurs every fact at the edges that damns his position. A classic propagandist…

            My post speaks for itself.

            Here is what I actually said about the border dispute issue…

            GUSTAV:”Under the circumstances, this is more than just a border dispute in which each side claims part of the land. Such a dispute would not be that hard to resolve.”

            I said the exact opposite of what Benny claims I said!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”“The Jews claim that ALL the land between the river and the sea is Jewish land. We cannot compromise with such a zero sum claim.”

            We do? But the fact is that most of us don’t.

            Evidence: Ehud Barak’s peace offer in 2000/2001 in which he offered to hand over most of the WB.

            More Evidence: Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace offer in which he offered to hand over the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank.

            So Benny says, what to do? He just denies it!!!

            Reply to Comment
    5. Farragut

      Hey, Baladi Mecca 622,

      Speaking of light upon nations, shouldn’t you be in Europe taking the Arab Man’s Burden of civilizing those Western pork-eating, wine-drinking savages? What’s the good of Arab colonialism if all you do is sit in the safety of Dar Al Islam all day long?

      Reply to Comment
    6. Carmen

      “We have always agreed to the two state solution the Arabs were the ones who rejected it historically.”

      This is just a portion of the entire commentary.

      Commentary from Middle East Policy Council

      The Original “No”: Why the Arabs Rejected Zionism, and Why It Matters

      Natasha Gill

      Dr. Gill is a research associate at Barnard College and a former professor of conflict studies at The New School University. She is the founder and director of TRACK4, which runs negotiation simulations for diplomats, mediators, journalists, policy makers, students and community leaders.
      June 19, 2013

      A viable peace process does not require either party to embrace or even recognize the legitimacy of the other’s narrative. It requires that both have an informed and non-reductionist understanding of what this narrative consists of, come to terms with the fact that it cannot be wished away, and recognize that elements of it will make their way to the negotiating table and have to be addressed.

      What confusion would ensue all the world over if this principle on which the Jews base their “legitimate” claim were carried out in other parts of the world! What migrations of nations must follow! The Spaniards in Spain would have to make room for the Arabs and Moors who conquered and ruled their country for over 700 years…

      — Palestine Arab Delegation, Observations on the High Commissioner’s Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine during the period 1st July 1920 – 30th June 1921

      The Palestinian Arabs said No to the idea that in the 20th century a people who last lived in Palestine in large numbers over 2000 years ago could claim, on the basis of a religious text, rights to the land where the current inhabitants had been living for a millennium and a half.

      They did not base their rejection on a denial of Jewish historical and religious ties to the Holy Land. Rather, they said No to the idea that highly secularized Jews arriving from Europe, who seemed to abjure religious life, manners and practices, could use the Bible to support a political project of a Jewish state in an already populated and settled land.

      Nor did they deny the suffering of the Jews, or the pogroms and persecution they were experiencing in Western and Eastern Europe at the time. On the contrary, many of the most vocal critics of Zionism were extremely aware of Jewish suffering, as they were unsettled by the impact it was having on the British support for the project of the Jewish National Home. What they said no to was the idea that the Jews’ humanitarian plight granted them special political and national rights in Palestine, and that those Jewish rights should trump Arab rights. The Arabs said No to the idea that they should pay the price for longstanding Christian persecution of the Jews, and they expressed deep resentment at the hypocrisy of the Europeans, who were promoting a home for the Jews in Palestine as they closed their own doors to the victims of Christian/European anti-Semitism.

      There is nothing shocking or strange about Arabs considering Zionist Jews coming from Europe an “alien implant” in Palestine, and resenting that.2 The logic of most national and proto-national movements — with Zionism hardly an exception — is that outsiders are a threat, and the definition of both “outsiders” and “threat” are influenced by the shifting needs and interests of each movement in its defining moments. In response to Zionism, the Arabs pointed out that the laws of territorial possession were accepted worldwide: had they not been, the Arabs could reconquer and reclaim Spain, a country they reigned over for longer and more recently than the Jews did Palestine. In the view of the Palestinian Arabs, regardless of whether Jews were genuinely attached to or had a history in Palestine, the appeal to the Bible was not strong enough to overturn the rules of a modern, secular world order.

      The Arabs and Palestinians still today are taken to task for not having shown enough compassion for Jewish suffering and welcomed them to take refuge in Palestine. But while many Jews can make an intuitive connection between the predicament they faced between the turn of the century and the 1940s and their need for a state, there is no reason that for other parties compassion for Jewish suffering would naturally translate this into an acceptance of Zionism, either then or now. This is especially so in the case of the Arabs in the early years of the conflict, who knew that Zionism would negatively affect their lives in the future.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        A very long post with lotsa errors. I won’t correct them all for now. I will just ask Carmen to at least be honest and say what she means.

        1. Does it mean that she agrees with the Arabs that the Jewish state has no right to exist?

        2. Do I misunderstand her and she disagrees with the Arabs about their claim that Israel has no right to exist?

        My interpretation of Carmen’s long post is that she takes position (1). That she says that the Jewish state has no right to exist.

        If so, what is there to talk about? Nobody else in our situation would react differently. We are not going to allow the Arabs to just walk over us and take over. We are not going to commit national suicide just to please Carmen, her ilk and the Arabs. It is a fight to the death then. Either our death, or their death or both our deaths.

        The only other option is for the Arabs to regain their sanity and accept part of the land that was the British Mandate which was inhabited by both Jews and Arabs continuosly for millenia.

        Reply to Comment
        • Carmen

          “My interpretation of Carmen’s long post is that she takes position (1). That she says that the Jewish state has no right to exist.” You’re incorrigible. You have the disgusting habit of putting words in other people’s mouths; your lack of boundaries illustrates very well the mind of the occupier. Thankfully, you represent a majority of 1. My entire post was cut and pasted from the commentary of Dr. Natasha Gill, and that was made obvious to anyone that actually READ it. I think you’re just as the saying goes somewhat like ‘throwing mud on a wall to see what sticks’. IOW – ‘talking loud and saying NOTHING’.

          “A viable peace process does not require either party to embrace or even recognize the legitimacy of the other’s narrative. It requires that both have an informed and non-reductionist understanding of what this narrative consists of, come to terms with the fact that it cannot be wished away, and recognize that elements of it will make their way to the negotiating table and have to be addressed.”

          This makes sense to me.

          Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            “A very long post with lotsa errors. I won’t correct them all for now.”

            I’m sure Dr. Gill must be breathing a sigh of relief with this news. What a useless d&^#.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh…

            I am putting words into Carmen’s mouth which she doesn’t say?

            First of all, I asked her a question. Ok I preemptively ventured to interpret what she seemed to be saying. But I invited her to actually agree or disagree.

            Instead? What is she doing? She complains that I put words in her mouth.

            ….aaaaand, predictably, she did not answer my question. It seems to be a fetish around here. Never mind, it only makes them look foolish and shifty. The fact that they won’t allow themselves to be pinned down.

            Now, for the record what are you trying to say with this?

            “A viable peace process does not require either party to embrace or even recognize the legitimacy of the other’s narrative. It requires that both have an informed and non-reductionist understanding of what this narrative consists of, come to terms with the fact that it cannot be wished away, and recognize that elements of it will make their way to the negotiating table and have to be addressed.”

            Are you trying to say that Israel should just ignore the professed intention of the majority of the Palestinian Arabs to eliminate the Jewish state?

            Sigh… I know…. I am putting words in your mouth… by asking you a question…. What a &@%…

            Reply to Comment