+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Netanyahu government’s true colors are shining through

Even as the flames spread from Jerusalem into the West Bank and back over the Green Line, Israeli leaders are showing no restraint in their statements and actions. It feels like they just don’t care anymore.

Arab youth clash with Israeli riot police in Kafr Kanna, Israel, November 8, 2014. The protests took place after an Arab man from the village was shot and killed by Israeli policemen. (Photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Arab youth clash with Israeli riot police in Kafr Kanna, Israel, November 8, 2014. The protests took place after an Arab man from the village was shot and killed by Israeli policemen. (Photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

These are tough, disgusting times in Israel/Palestine. The flames in Jerusalem, which were ignited well before the recent war in Gaza, seem to be climbing higher every day, spreading to the West Bank and inside the Green Line as well.

The recent events also seem to be bringing out some of Israeli leaders’ true color. Yitzhak Aharonovitch, the Israeli public security minister (something equivalent to a police minister), had some very harsh words after the last attack by a Palestinian who ran over a group of Border Police and pedestrians in Jerusalem, killing two and wounding others. After a police officer killed the attacker on the scene, Aharonovich said that, “the sentence for any any terrorist who harms civilians is to be killed.” He added that all such events should end that way. To hell with the rule of law, right guys?

But who would have thought that the police would heed their boss’ call so soon? On Saturday evening cops shot 22-year-old Khir Hamdan from Kafr Kanna (well inside Green Line) in the back after he attacked a police van with a knife. No taser, no shooting towards the legs. Just a bullet in the chest as he was running away. To make things worse, instead of calling an ambulance they dragged him into the van like he was a sack of potatoes, while still alive. I’m pretty sure I saw that scene on a Sopranos episode; I just can’t remember which season.

Obviously, the killing heated things up. As would be expected of a wise leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thought this might be a good time to try and calm things down — to be the responsible adult. Oh sorry, scrap that! Instead, just like his public security minister, Netanyahu poured some more gas on this bonfire, showed his true colors as well and just hours later announced he “will instruct the interior minister to evaluate revoking the citizenship of those who call for the destruction of the State of Israel.” Or, in other words, “I don’t have anything to say about shooting Hamdan in the back and you Arabs better calm down before I frickin’ lose it.”

Then comes a Facebook post from Naftali Bennet, leader of The Jewish Home and the Economy Minister:

Notice how Bennet calls Hamdan a “crazed Arab terrorist.” Not a suspect in a violent crime who should be arrested and tried in court like any other criminal suspect. No, Bennet is a minister in the “only democracy in the Middle East” that claims every other day that Arabs in Israel are equal citizens. That is, except for when they commit crimes. Then, they’re crazed terrorists. Who should be shot. In the back. While running away. From a group of armed cops in a van. With a only a knife. (This should come as no surprise, of course. Bennett has never hid his feelings on the topic.)

But for me, the best part of this feces storm came on Sunday when the government voted to support a bill extending Israeli law to West Bank settlements without formally annexing the area. For those of you who still don’t see Israel’s policies in the West Bank as apartheid, it might become a little easier for you if this bill becomes a law. It’s a nice, big step in that direction.

Looking at all these statements and actions, it feels like they just don’t care anymore. They’re really going ahead with it; they actually want this to happen. Their true colors are coming out. They’re no longer hiding.

And if I may be honest for just a moment (did you expect anything else?), I’m actually quite satisfied with this rather rapid deterioration toward a full-fledged apartheid state. There’s simply something too painful in watching it unfold so slowly, like pulling off a Band-Aid way too carefully instead of just getting it over with in one quick pull.

Seriously, why condemn every settlement expansion, every undemocratic law, every racist comment from a politician? The only thing these condemnations do is slow things down and delay the inevitable. It only keeps things in some sort of gray area that allows the rest of the world to keep debating if Israel is an apartheid state or isn’t. Why not let things worsen quicker so the world understands sooner and will be left with no choice but to finally act?

How police lied about the deadly shooting of Khir Hamdan
Israeli government votes to support annexing West Bank settlements
PHOTOS: Protests in northern Israel after police kill Arab man

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

    * Required


    1. “Why not let things worsen quicker so the world understands sooner and will be left with no choice but to finally act?” I appreciate your words and can only pray action will be taken, but feel ultimately the world will lose it’s will as they have all along, the spineless bastards.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Yeah, right

      AK: “Israeli leaders are showing no restraint”…

      A statement that rather presupposes that “leadership” existing in this Clown Car of a government, does it not?

      Reply to Comment
    3. Pedro X

      Today a member of the IDF lies in hospital fighting for his life after being stabbed by another harmless Palestinian terrorist wielding a knife.

      Kaufman likes to pretend that the perp was not armed with a deadly weapon, He likes to pretend that the perp was running away. He was not. He retreated a few feet after having tried slashing the Israeli policeman as he attempted to get out of the vehicle. Kaufman likes to pretend that the prep was simply a suspect in an unsolved attack.

      Kaufman like other 972 writers ignore the incitement to violence and murder coming from the Palestinian Arab sector. A billboard has gone up in Nazareth whereby Arabs are encouraged to run over Jews in their cars.

      Hamas and Fatah websites are awash with calls to run over Jews. A popular Palestinian song has been penned calling to run over Jewish babies, an obvious reference to the 3 month old Jewish infant killed in the car attack on the train platform in Jerusalem.

      Algemeiner reports

      “In the latest example of the Palestinian call for killing Jews and Israelis, lyrics of a just released “pop song,” say: “Run over the two month old baby – that is how we get them,” Channel 2 News said.

      The song, by Anas Garadat and Abu Khayad goes on, “For Al-Aqsa we will run over settlers. Run over settlers. Make the road become a trap, Allah will help you. The whole Arab nation calls you – bless you Akari Ibrahim (The terrorists behind the attack last Wednesday), run over run over!”

      Reply to Comment
      • Tim Biddsy

        And the context is, as always, the illegal occupation. It’s very unfortunate when Palestinians resort to violence, but I can fully understand why they do.

        Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          What occupation? The West Bank and Judea and Samaria are at best for Palestinians unsettled territories. After the 1948 war there were only two claimants to the these territories, Israel and Jordan. There was no Palestinian nation with a claim to the land. The Armistice agreements of 1949 provided that the armistice lines were not borders and did not preclude the claims of either party.

          Jordan annexed the West Bank and occupied Judea and Samaria for 18 years until they were ejected after attacking Israel in the 1967 war in contravention of the Artisitce agreements.

          Jordan gave up all of its claims against these territories. Israel remains the only sovereign country with a legal, sovereign claim to Judea and Samaria. The Palestinians advance a claim against the land based on their self determination as a people which did not occur until after 1967.

          Israel has delayed asserting full sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria in the hope that Israel could reach an accommodation with the Palestinian people which would allow them to govern themselves in part of the territories without threatening Israel’s security.

          The context of the situation is that Israel has many times offered the Palestinians with the opportunity to rule themselves. In 1978 Israel offered them autonomy, while the Egyptians offered a chance for a country. The Palestinians refused and continued with terrorism and the shelling of Israel from Lebanon. In 200 and 2001 Ehud Barack offered Arafat and the Palestinians statehood. He responded with terrorism and the second intifada. Olmert offered Abbas a golden offer of statehood which Abbas did not take up and Hamas started the first of three Gaza wars with Israel.

          It is easy to understand why the Palestinians always resort to violence. They do not agree to the recognition of a Jewish state in any part of the middle east.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            PX: “What occupation?”

            Why, this occupation.

            Israel seized this territory by force of arms, and by doing so imposed its authority over it.

            That’s the very dictionary definition of a “belligerent occupation”.

            PX: “The West Bank and Judea and Samaria are at best for Palestinians unsettled territories.”

            And that’s a TERRIFIC observation if the question was this: Palestine, is it a territory or is it a state?

            But it is a USELESS observation if the question is this: The West Bank, is it an occupied territory?

            The answer to the latter question is to be found elsewhere i.e. the West Bank is definitely “territory”, and the source of Israel’s control over that territory is indisputably “the guns of the IDF”.

            That situation = “occupation”

            PX: “After the 1948 war”… followed by a whole lotta’ stuff that it equally irrelevant to this question: The West Bank, is it under IDF occupation?

            The answer to that is: Why, yes. Yes, it is.

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            Israel in a defensive war in 1967 liberated Judea and Samaria from foreign occupation. The Arabs persistently and widely planned to eradicate the state of Israel in the 1967 war.

            “We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel.” (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, May 26, 1967)

            “The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.” (Egyptian Radio, ‘Voice of the Arabs,’ May 18, 1967)

            “I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, May 20, 1967)

            “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. … Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, May 31, 1967)

            Jordan joined in the war to annihilate Israel believing Egyptian claims to have inflicted serious losses against Israel in the first day of the war.

            Israel liberated the territories illegally held by Jordan in contravention of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine. This is liberated not occupied territory. Israel is the only country with a sovereign claim to the territory.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            PX: “Israel in a defensive war in 1967 liberated Judea and Samaria from foreign occupation.”

            Well, I could quibble about “defensive war”, since it is indisputable that Israel struck first.

            But it isn’t even necessary to argue over that point, because regardless of whether it was a “defensive”, “aggressive”, or “whoops, what just happened?” war, this still remains true: YOUR army ended up outside YOUR territory, and that makes YOUR army an “army of occupation”.

            As far as int’l law is concerned shouting “they started it!” or “they had it comin’ to ’em!” is irrelevant.

            Int’l Humanitarian Law simply doesn’t care, for the simple reason that EVERY war always has both sides shouting “they started it!”

            Heck, even the Germans insisted that “Poland started it!”. Go look it up: the “Gleiwitz incident”

            So int’l law cares only about this: your army ended up as an army of occupation, and so it is bound by the int’l laws that pertain to belligerent occupations.

            Pretty simple, really….

            Reply to Comment
          • Weiss

            This Fascist does not speak for this Jew.

            The Occupation is REAL

            And if you want peace you better get used to the idea of a Sovereign Palestinian State along the 67′ lines.

            The future of Israel depends on it…

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            Israel will never return to the 1967 lines. Abba Eban called the these lines the Auschwitz lines for good reasons. Israel could never of defended itself in the 1973 war if it had withdrawn to the armistice lines. Nor could it defend itself today if it does not retain Israeli communities like Maale Adumim or communities in the highlands of Judea and Samaria whiclh protect central Israel from rocket attack. An Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley prevents weapons and terrorists flooding the West Bank in advance of being used on Israel’s major population centers. It also blocks any advance from any Arab army through Jordan, with or without Jordan’s consent. Without the Golan heights numerous terrorist organizations would be shelling Israeli communities in the North.

            The Palestinians have to decide if they want a state which fulfills less than their full demands or if they want another existential war in which they might find themselves on the wrong side of the Jordan River.

            Historian Martin Van Creveld during the height of the second intifada said:

            “Interviewer: Does that mean that the Palestinians stay within the borders?

            Creveld: No, it means that they all get deported. The people who strive for this are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago only 7 or 8 percent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 percent and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.

            Interviewer: Will that ever be possible?

            Creveld: Sure, since desperate times give rise to desperate measures.”

            The future of Israel is secure, the future of Palestine is not.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            PX: “Israel will never return to the 1967 lines.”

            Yeah, ya’ like yer’ Lebensraum, I get that.

            I understand where you are coming from, though I suspect very much that you don’t.

            PX: “Abba Eban called the these lines the Auschwitz lines for good reasons.”

            Oh, I get that too: he called them “Auschwitz lines” because it’s catchy, regardless of how ludicrous it is.

            After all, Israel managed to whup three – count ’em, three! – Arab armies in six – that’s right, six! – days from those very same “Auschwitz lines”.

            So much for them being “indefensible”.

            PX: “Israel could never of defended itself in the 1973 war if it had withdrawn to the armistice lines.”


            Egypt and Syria would not have attacked in 1973 if the IDF had withdrawn to the armistice lines.

            After all, what were Egypt and Syria attacking in 1973?

            Oh, yeah, that’s right: They were attacking an IDF that was encamped on THEIR territory and was refusing point-blank to even discuss vacating THEIR territory.

            An attack upon a recalcitrant military occupier seems pretty justifiable to me, and neither Egypt nor Syria had the slightest intention of “invading Israel” in 1973.

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            Golda Meir and Israel made peace offers to Egypt which were spurned. Meir offered to return the entire Sinai except for a small buffer zone in return for peace. When the dust settled the settlement between Egypt and Israel was very similar to what Golda Meir had offered.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            PX: “Golda Meir and Israel made peace offers to Egypt”….

            Well, there goes Pedro’s credibility!

            If Golda Meir had proposed a “peace plan” then it would have been called the “Meir Plan”.

            Google all you like, you’ll see no reference to a “Meir Plan”.

            In the early 1970s the only plan doing the rounds was the “Rogers Plan”, and this can not be denied: Rogers was a dude, and Golda Meir most definitely wasn’t.

            PX: “Meir offered to return the entire Sinai except for a small buffer zone in return for peace.”

            No, you are definitely talking about the “Rogers Plan”, and Sadat was perfectly open about being agreeable to it.

            But Golda Meir treated the “Rogers Plan” in the same way that Netanyahu treats the “Saudi Plan” i.e. she wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.

            Her ideas were these: Israel will colonize the Sinai Desert and turn Sharm el-Sheikh (sorry, “Ofira”) into a major Israeli port, and all Egypt can do about it is gnash its teeth in frustration.

            PX: “When the dust settled the settlement between Egypt and Israel was very similar to what Golda Meir had offered.”

            No, it was very similar to the plan that ROGERS had proposed, and which SADAT had, indeed, accepted.

            Meir had been overcome by a classic example of hubris, so she had never bothered to even reply to those feelers.

            As far as she was concerned why bother? After all, it’s not as if Egypt could do anything about it, right?

            Honestly, Pedro, you have your “version of events” exactly 180 degrees out of true….

            Indeed, if “being wrong” was an event in the Olympic Games then you’ve just put in a gold-medal-winning performance.

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            Times of Israel, June 9, 2013

            “Several months before the 1973 Yom Kippur War, then-Israeli prime minister Golda Meir used West German diplomatic channels to offer Egypt most of the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace,”

            “West German diplomatic personnel later met in Cairo with Hafiz Ismail, a close adviser to Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and relayed the Israeli proposal, which Ismail reportedly rejected bluntly.”

            “Israel retained possession of the Sinai, but later, in 1978, Egypt entered into a deal resembling Meir’s proposal as a result of the Camp David Accords, and over the next few years the entire Sinai was returned to Egypt.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Oh, I’m definitely calling bullshit on that Time Of Israel nonsense.

            The ToI claims an “offer” from Meir that was (if it had been as it was portrayed in that article) no different to the proposal put forward in the 1969 “Rogers Plan”.

            And, one more time, Sadat had already said that he was agreeable to the Rogers Plan.

            The ToI is simply lying, because it can’t actually provide any quote from those archives that constitutes “an offer”.

            Here, read this bit again: “He can tell Sadat that he, Brandt, is convinced that we truly want peace. That we don’t want all of Sinai, or half of Sinai, or the major part of Sinai. Brandt can make it clear to Sadat that we do not request that he begin negotiations in public, and that we are prepared to begin secret negotiations, etc”

            There’s no “offer” in that quote. There isn’t even the outlines of an “offer” in that quote.

            Nothing is being “offered” in that quote except an invitation to the West Germans to convey the message that “Meir is interested in bogging you down in talks about talks about… talking”.

            Go here if you really want to know what is in those archives:

            That’s a report on those archives by a Uni of Haifa Professor, and he points out – correctly – that those archives paint a picture of a Golda Meir who “wanted talks” but didn’t “want to offer anything” that would make those talks worth anything.

            Honestly, Pedro, the Times of Israel is a propaganda rag, and when you read that nonsense you need to look very carefully about what ISN’T being quoted.

            You know, things like… “an offer”.

            Reply to Comment
      • Mouna

        Pedro, Have you been following the news, confiscations, bulldozings, killings, imprisonment, apartheid walls, shoot to kill orders,attacking the Dome of the Rock, more settlements, etc. Are those incitements or mere acts of democracy?!

        Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          Stop the crocodile tears. Palestinians are in jail or shot for terrorist offences. Terrorist homes are bulldozed in accordance with criminal laws of forfeiture in western society. Jews legally buying land from Arabs is hardly confiscation. The Dome of the Rock has not been attacked. Israel has restored calm on the Temple Mount against rioters egged on by Abbas and Hamas.

          Reply to Comment
          • Weiss

            Crocodile tears???

            You don’t even have an ounce of empathy left in your body…

            WE Jews were once the persecuted and now have become the PERSECUTORS!!!

            Meanwhile the Extreme Far Right leaders of Israel seems to have forgotten Fascism is on the Far Right of the political spectrum.

            How quickly WE Jews forget…

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            Jews remember all too well how they have been treated over the last 3000 years. They have not forgotten Nebuchadnezzar, Sennacherib, Sheshonk, or modern enemies of the Jewish people such as Amin al-Husseini, Yassir Arafat, Shiek Yassin and the Palestinian political movements which seek to destroy Israel.

            The Arab Palestinians brought down harm on themselves by rejecting every peace offer made to them. They sought the destruction of the emerging Jewish state and genocide of the Jewish people. Hamas and its patron Iran still openly call for Israel’s destruction. Hamas calls for a genocide of Jewish people. Fatah still incites violence and murder against Israelis. Israel defends itself against those who would harm it and its people.

            Reply to Comment
    4. ashraf chaudhry

      so what is new?

      Reply to Comment
    5. Danny

      Yossi Gurevich had a pretty good writeup on what is going with Netanyahu recently. It appears that his patron in Las Vegas has some interesting ideas about where Israel will be going in the coming few years (“So Israel won’t be a democratic state, so what?”), and we know he is a man who likes to back up his words with actions. So there you have it.

      Pretty simple math: Adelson asks, Netanyahu obeys. That’s the state of Israel’s political system now, and it should really cause every sane Israeli to question whether Israel is the place he or she would like to raise their kids in.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben Zakkai

        Danny, do you really think that Netanyahu is Adelson’s bitch, plain and simple? I thought it was more a case of partnership between two guys who generally share the same worldview, one of whom has great political skills and the other boatloads of money. What makes you think that Adelson’s pulling the strings? Anyway, even the most anti-Semitic novelist couldn’t come up with a more devastatingly stereotypical character than the real-life Adelson. Geez, the guys makes gazillions of dollars by preying on human weaknesses and then uses it to buy newspapers and politicians to further his evil plans, all on an international scale. This guy is Shylock, Fagin and the Elders of Zion, all rolled into one.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Average American

      Let’s pause a moment before we just assume that this video represents a country out of control and nearing a civil war the likes of 1948, and ask a few questions:
      1)Why was the camera aimed at that exact spot? No panning, no looking up and down the road? 2)Who was holding the camera? 3)What did the writing on the side of the van say in English? 4)From where was the man running and to where? 5)From where was the van coming and to where? 6)Why did the police think a knife was going to penetrate their van, much less their flesh? 7)Why did the police open the van to expose themselves to the knife? No rolling down the window or perhaps someone on the other side of the van could have opened their door? 8)Was the shooter really that good of a shot that he intended to just disable a moving target of a man and bring him to court, or was he shooting to kill?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Mikesailor

      Average: This was a security camera, if your talking about the video of the police execution of the Palestinian. The video clearly shows the man beating on the van, then moving away. When the police exit the van, the Paletinian doesn’t attack but moves away. The police shoot him. There is no way this was “self-defense” but instead a cold-blooded execution-style murder. The only thing missing would be the coup-de-grace shot behind the ear as was done to the passengers on the Mavi Marmara. Remember. This is your tax money at work. Digusting, isn’t it?

      Reply to Comment
    8. Average American

      Mikesailor – I tried to ask objective non-weighted questions, but your answers bring me right round to what I feared was true in the first place.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Bruce Gould

      This is how the New York Times reports it (not that they’re the beacon of truth or anything):

      Grainy video footage said to be from the scene showed Mr. Hamdan banging on the closed windows of a police van with an object that looked like a knife, but it also appeared to show him retreating from the vehicle when the officers got out and shot him. The officers were then seen dragging Mr. Hamdan’s limp body toward the van.


      Reply to Comment
    10. Victor Arajs

      The emerging alliance between Obama and Khamenei will allow a joint Iranian-American military force, aided by Turkey, the Arab League, and the EU to solve the zionist problem once and for all. Supreme Leader Khamenei sent out a very important 9 point tweet for ending the zionist experiment once and for all

      Reply to Comment
      • Yikes.

        Reply to Comment
    11. Click here to load previous comments