Harriet Sherwood feels Islamic Jihad terrorist’s pain


When reading the headline of Harriet Sherwood’s report on a Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror suspect being held by Israel, you’d almost think the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent was covering a political prisoner being held by a totalitarian regime.

The title of Sherwood’s piece, “Israel shackles Palestinian hunger striker“, would be easy to pass over or dismiss, but yet says so much about how the Guardian frames such Palestinian “prisoners”, even those clearly affiliated with the most violent and malevolent Islamist movements.

Sherwood’s story begins:

A Palestinian prisoner who has been on hunger strike for more than eight weeks is being kept shackled to a hospital bed by the Israeli authorities, despite warnings that he may be close to death.

Khader Adnan, 33, has been held without charge under “administrative detention” since mid-December. The Israeli military authorities have refused to tell his lawyer what he is accused of or disclose any evidence against him.

His wife, Randa, who is expecting the couple’s third child, said no reason was given for his arrest.

First, “administrative detention”, used to imprison Adnan, is a judicial method similarly employed by other democratic and rights-respecting states around the world, including the the UK – and the U.S. 

In fact, unlike the U.S., Israeli detainees are allowed judicial review, generally within eight days, and are subject to renewals every six months – which would seem to undermine claims by Adnan’s wife, uncritically cited by Sherwood, that no reason was given for his arrest.

But, more importantly, it’s only by the sixth paragraph where we learn that Adnan has been previously convicted for being a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad

Evidently considered of little significance to Sherwood in properly contextualizing the story is the fact that Adnan is a member of  a group recognized as a terrorist organization by the EU, U.S., and the UK,.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was formed in 1979 by Fathi Shaqaqi and other radical Islamists in Egypt who had split from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza whom they deemed too moderate.

The mission of PIJ is the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through terrorist attacks on military and civilian targets.

PIJ receives financial assistance from Iran and logistic assistance from Syria.

The group’s paramilitary wing— the al-Quds Brigades—has conducted numerous deadly attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings.

PIJ terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of dozens of Israelis and wounded hundreds.

Here is a partial list of the group’s attacks:

  • An August 1987 shooting killed one Israeli in the Gaza Strip;
  • A December 1993 shooting killed one Israeli aboard a bus;
  • An April 1994 car bomb killed nine people and injured fifty aboard a public bus;
  • A January 1995 a suicide bomb killed nineteen Israelis near Netanya;
  • A March 1996 suicide bomb at a Tel Aviv shopping mall killed thirteen and injured seventy five more;
  • A June 2001 suicide bomb killed twenty-one people in a Tel Aviv nightclub;
  • A June 2002 suicide attack at the Meggido Junction killed eighteen and injured fifty;
  • An October 2003 suicide bomb at a Haifa restaurant killed twenty-two and injured sixty;
  • An October 2005 bomb at a Hadera market killed five people;
  • An April 2006 suicide attack in Tel Aviv killed eleven;
  • A January 2007 suicide attack at an Eliat bakery killed three.

In reading the Guardian’s coverage of such terror groups, I’m often reminded of the Talmudic warning that “Those Who Are Kind To The Cruel, In The End Will Be Cruel To The Kind.”

In 482 words, Harriet Sherwood didn’t even suggest that “prisoners” such as Adnan are willing participants in a supremely cruel, violent, antisemitic movement which intentionally kills innocent civilians without remorse.

This is the story the Guardian rarely if ever tells.

It’s a sad commentary on the hard left that more aren’t outraged by a media group which fancies itself a liberal voice, yet continually finds the most reactionary political movements worthy of sympathy.

20 comments on “Harriet Sherwood feels Islamic Jihad terrorist’s pain

  1. There’s also the featuring of Islamic Jihad in Cast Lead where Israel was blamed for the deaths in the Samouni family although its Islamic Jihad members brought the war to their own home and were thereby responsible.

    Killing and lying. What does Chickenbrain have to be to support that?

    • M. Levick’ obsession with Hariett Sherwood is an interesting case. Would it be that M. Levick cannot bear the idea that a woman has a great career in one of the world’s most prestigious media outlets, while he writes for a non-journalistic website?

      • Yeah, you really see through me Yigal. My contempt for the transparent anti-Zionism evident in Sherwood’s reports is really just a thinly veiled expression of misogyny.

        Oh well, I had a good run, but now that I’ve been exposed by your penetrating analysis I may have to pursue another career.

  2. If a terrorist decides to kill himself to blacken Israel’s good name, he’s not exactly an angel. The reason for administrative detention is sometimes with a dangerous suspect, the evidence isn’t strong enough to bring him to trial but he nonetheless remains a threat to others which would involve having to expose intelligence methods and sources. In the latter instance, it would put in grave danger people who help Israel at great risk to their own lives to protect its citizens from further harm. What’s telling is the Left and the so-called human rights community doesn’t care for their lives as much as it does for a terrorist whose ideology brought death and suffering to others. People also need to keep in mind that while this terrorist detained by Israel can see his family, there are Israelis who will never see their families again. My compassion and sympathy are for the latter and the death of this terrorist, to the contrary is all the more reason Israel needs a mandatory death penalty on the books to protect its people from the likes of him far into the future.

    • It might be worthwhile to recall the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands who starved himself to death. He didn’t “go to glory”.

      He name became a joke to schoolboys.who of course called any skinny boy “Bobby Sands.”

    • Sherwood is simply an idiot with a simpleton’s anti-Israeli agenda. Why the Guardian keeps her on is only explainable in terms of the parallel universe the editorial board inhabits.

      • This is a much longer discussion, but I think Sherwood, like many of her colleagues, fetishizes Palestinians. That is, for Sherwood, Palestinians are an abstraction, devoid of the nuance, and capacity for good and evil which all possess. In short, Sherwood’s analysis of the I-P conflict is terminally infected with liberal racism.

        • Problem is, why does she fetishize Palestinians only? Why does she (and her ilk) promoted palestinians to universal victimhood, while there are much, much, much worse conflicts going on around the world? The most plausible answer is Judeophobia (coupled with anti-Western self-hatred, of course).

            • Is that so, Cleopatra? I see that you can´t let go your passion for Anthony. Maybe you should try some in-loco therapy: why don´t you move your fat lazy ass and go to Gaza? Join a Salafist movement! At least they are as hateful and paranoid as yourself.

              Go! Don´t stay there, do something.

  3. Its the usual Palestinian as helpless victim of his own violent actions report. No matter how many this person kills, or helped kill, he is simply a victim.

    What could be more touching than the idea that a hunger striker is shackled to his bed?

    Perhaps just in case he is overcome once again by a violent desire to kill someone that he cannot suppress? Or perhaps just in case he might get out of bed and leave the public hospital – not jail – where he is being held and go back to his bad old ways, unable to repress his desire to kill Jews?

    “As an exception, the IPS allowed the prisoner’s family members to visit as well as religious figures and allowed several meetings with representatives and doctors from Physicians for Human Rights. The prisoner is hospitalised in a public hospital and is co-operating with doctors.”

    Another example of Israel’s barbaric treatment of terrorists, I suppose, letting all these people visit this terrorist held in a public hospital.

  4. Harriet Chickenbrain – a peculiar symptom of the Guardian’s cognitive enchephalitis – terminal left liberalism.

  5. The point is Israel’s administrative detention procedure is not unusual or exceptional.

    And if he really does kill himself, all he will do is remove one highly dedicated terrorist from the world. He can’t resume his former activities if he is dead.

    I don’t think the Israelis care less since his protests are not going to end their policy. As a publicity stunt its futile and stupid.

    All this terrorist has demonstrated is he is willing to deprive his daughter of her father that will not change Israel’s approach to dealing with terrorism.

    • Thanks, Norman. I also failed to contrast Adnan’s relatively brief detention with Abu Qatada’s 8 year detention in the UK.

      • I haven’t noticed very much sympathy here for Qatada and the Groan’s poll on whether he should be released – and I believe Belmarsh is high-security – resulted in this:

        36.5% Yes

        63.5% No

        I’d like to know what that 63.5% wishes for Adnan.

  6. The ‘judges’ who decide the fate of these people are nothing more than military thugs enforcing a brutal and unjust occupation.

  7. The Chicken Lady should be allowed to visit this palestinian terror suspect,holding his hand and feeding him the same BS that she feeds CiF………

    Hopefully this is one terrorist that won’t be exchanged.

Comments are closed.