“I am going to start an Intifada.”


The narrative regarding the deadly terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, which the MSM and the Guardian advanced, but which soon was proved to be completely erroneous, suggested that an obscure anti-Muslim film – which, it was claimed, was produced by an Israeli Jew – triggered a “spontaneous” protest outside the embassy, leading to an assault which left four people dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

It soon became apparent that the film – which was actually created by a Coptic Christian – had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  

It is now known that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

On September 28, 2000, an Israeli Jew was blamed for inciting what would become known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada – a brutal five-year campaign of Palestinian terrorism, directed largely against Jewish civilians, which claimed over 1,100 innocent lives and injured thousands more.

The Intifada was defined by the hideous tactic of suicide bombing, in which the Palestinian terrorists detonated explosive belts in crowded public places (in order to maximize the loss of life), sending thousands of pieces of shrapnel tearing into human limbs and organs. 

parkh1

On March 27, 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber named Abdel-Basset Odeh murdered 30 people at a Seder meal at the Park Hotel in Netanya, including several Holocaust survivors

Most who truly understand the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict would have known already that Yasser Arafat started the Second Intifada, but the latest admission by Arafat’s widow, Suha, about the origins of the Intifada – which she similarly acknowledged last year - serves to completely discredit those who continue denying the obvious.

Suha Arafat in an interview in December on Dubai TV, said the following:

“Yasser Arafat had made a decision to launch the Intifada. Immediately after the failure of the Camp David [negotiations], I met him in Paris upon his return, in July 2001 [sic]. Camp David has failed, and he said to me: “You should remain in Paris.” I asked him why, and he said: “Because I am going to start an Intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so. I do not want Zahwa’s friends in the future to say that Yasser Arafat abandoned the Palestinian cause and principles. I might be martyred, but I shall bequeath our historical heritage to Zahwa [Arafat's daughter] and to the children of Palestine.”

suha

Click on image to go to video

Here’s permanent content on the Guardian’s Israel page, The Arab-Israel conflict:

headline

The photo story consists of 22 photos illustrating the history of the conflict.

Here’s the photo representing the Second Intifada. (Note the caption)

intifada

Click to Enlarge

Here’s a photo and caption from a 2006 Guardian piece titledAriel Sharon: A life in pictures‘.

sharon

Indeed, among the more common erroneous narratives advanced by the mainstream media (and, of coursethe Guardian) is that Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, “sparked” the Second Intifada and that the Intifada began organically – lies repeated so often that causal observers could be forgiven for believing them.

However, commentators of good faith can no longer make such a claim.

Arguing that an Israeli Jew sparked the Second Intifada, however, often serves a broader polemical objective: to deny Palestinian terrorists, and their leaders, moral responsibility for the five-year war of terror against Israeli civilians, and its injurious political consequences, in a manner consistent with an anti-Zionist narrative which rarely assigns such moral agency to the Palestinians under any circumstances.  

The claim that, in 2000, Jews incited Palestinians to kill Jews, like so much of what passes for conventional wisdom about the conflict, is a total lie.

49 comments on ““I am going to start an Intifada.”

  1. On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon – an Israeli politician who had been declared co-responsible for the massacre of women and children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps by Israeli judge Kahane – decided to force his way into one of Islam’s holiest sites, the Haram Al Sharif in Jerusalem.

    Following this provocation, some Palestinians threw stones towards Israeli citizens praying at the Western Wall. As a result, the Israeli army opened fire with live ammunition, killing several Palestinian civilians.

    In the Palestinian territory, where tensions were already running high following years of military occupation imposed by Israel’s army, the population suddenly rioted against the occupation.

    A deadly confrontation ensued which caused the death of numerous Israelis, and of numerous Palestinians.

    • Throwing stones in a try to kill Jews after a Jew visited the holy place of his ancestors.
      You are just another miserable Antisemite.

      • It was not “a Jew” ” who visited the Haram Al Sharif / Temple mount, it was Ariel Sharon, an Israeli politician who was declared co-responsible for the massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps by Israeli judge Kahane.

        On on 14 October 1953, Sharon had already been responsible for the massacre of women and children in the Palestinian village of Qibya. Original documents of the time showed that Sharon personally ordered his troops to achieve “maximal killing” in the village.

          • It was not “a Jew” ” who visited the Haram Al Sharif / Temple mount, it was Ariel Sharon, an Israeli politician who was declared co-responsible for the massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps by Israeli judge Kahane.

            On on 14 October 1953, Sharon had already been responsible for the massacre of women and children in the Palestinian village of Qibya. Original documents of the time showed that Sharon personally ordered his troops to achieve “maximal killing” in the village.

          • “Nat”/”Ariel”/”Shoshana”, why do you use sock puppets, instead of “engaging in a debate?”
            Are you itching to get banned here too?
            Troll elsewhere, scum?

    • No one forced their way anywhere, Champ.

      What a desperate little screed you wrote. Congratulations on not just a full decade of futility, but for showing us all what a waste of energy you have become.

  2. The Second Intifada was defined by the high rate of civilian casualties in both Israel and Palestine. Onone side, Palestinian militants used the tactic of suicide bombing, killing numerous Israeli civilians in public areas. On the other side, Israeli soldiers entered Palestinian cities, fighting in densely populated civilian areas and causing the death of numerous Palestinian civilians.

    • On the other side, Israeli soldiers entered Palestinian cities, fighting in densely populated civilian areas and causing the death of numerous Palestinian civilians.

      Were any Palestinian ‘militants’ killed Ariel?

      Or isn’t that important?

      • “Were any Palestinian ‘militants’ killed Ariel?”

        No, he’s using what has become a quite familiar time-worn tactic. First, equate the two sides, then show how the Israelis are really worse and that it’s really all their fault to begin with.

        • Exactly! And always judging Israel through standards of utter perfection, while ignoring or accepting all types of palestinian barbarity (the typical racism of low expectations towards the palestinian “eternal victim” just shows these hysterical Israel “critics” don’t really give a damn to palarabs to which they cultivate a most patronizing contempt; of course, true hatred is reserved to J..,er, Zionists).

    • Your revisionism is apt as a defender of the Guardian. Duly noted.

      Funny how just as many Israeli soldiers were casualties in Jenin, and yet the Guardian and others went down in history as calling in a genocide.

      Do not say you are on the side of peace. You can’t even be trusted with factual data.

  3. I don’t get it. Do they think this version puts the Palestinians in a better light? That a Jew visiting the site of The Temple is cause for mass murder to them?

    • It was not “a Jew” ” who visited the Haram Al Sharif / Temple mount, it was Ariel Sharon, an Israeli politician who was declared co-responsible for the massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps by Israeli judge Kahane.

      On on 14 October 1953, Sharon had already been responsible for the massacre of women and children in the Palestinian village of Qibya. Original documents of the time showed that Sharon personally ordered his troops to achieve “maximal killing” in the village.

      • Of course the *real* perpetrators were the Christian Falangists, though. And Sharon was judged, while Thom Karremans, the Dutch commandant of UN troops supposed to defend people at Srebenica (resulting in the death of 8.000) wasn´t even tried.

        • Series, we illuminated the skies for them that night. The troops told Rob Ben Yishai they were not at ease. He called Sharon telling something is not right. Sharon didnt give a fuck. You justifying him or comparing his position to the UN’s position is wrong.

          • I’m not justifying s*it. Go read the link to Martin Gesternfeld’s discussion of the comparison of the two incidents. Sharon was tried, there was a huge comotion in Israeli society, etc. While the Srebenica incident was much worse, didn’t cause much trouble to Dutch people, and the commander was even promoted. It’s important to make those comparisons and smear them at the face anti-Semitic dreks such as “ariel” and the euro-trash that keep hectoring Israel with their fake high moral ground.

          • Here’s a key sentence in Manfred Gerstenfeld lenghty discussion:

            “The continual measuring of Israel against the imaginary standards of others is both perverse and socially dangerous.”

          • I agree with SerJew that we Israeli Jews have always questioned ourselves time and time again.
            Our moral campos is up high in the sky and nothing will change that.
            The minute this changes we cease to be Jews.
            They do not say “2 Jews in a room, 3 opinions” for nothing.
            Never the less, I believe that some of us trust the Arab side far less than others do.
            But even those die hard like Sharon were willing to try and give the Arabs a chance by handing over Gaza.
            This in itself should show that most Israelis understand that we do not want to deny the Arabs their right to self determination but simply ask in which borders and with which leader?

        • Ariel Sharon gave weapons to the Phalangists and let them access the two camps, which were guarded by Tsahal. Israeli soldiers were given orders not to intervene, even though some sreported seeing what was happening and hearing the cries of the women and children as they were massacred. This is why Ariel Sharon was declared co-responsible of the massacre by an Israeli court.

          Many Israeli soldiers were traumatized by what they saw and by their inability to stop this horror. I suggest you watch the beautiful Israeli movie “Waltz with Bashir”.

          • What I cannot understand is why Sharon was sent to South Lebanon even though he was already responsible for the massacre of women and children in the Qibya village. How could Israeli decision-makers let a man responsible for the slaughter of innocent civilians continue to serve in Tsahal?

            Many Israeli soldiers were traumatized by the massacre of women and children in South Lebanon, which they had to watch while being forbidden to intervene by Sharon, in violation of Jewish values. That Sharon was elected Prime Minister is a mystery to me – who can vote for a man who contributed to the slaughter of civilians?

          • “That Sharon was elected Prime Minister is a mystery to me – who can vote for a man who contributed to the slaughter of civilians?”

            Maybe Israeli people thought he was the most competent man to defend Israel from destruction. After all, without living Jews there cannot exist Jewish values.

            BTW, who the heck are you to pontificate about Jewish values?

          • How can you expect to ever have peace and to be shown respect when you elect a man known for contributing to the slaughter of innocent women and children?

          • “Ariel Sharon gave weapons to the Phalangists and let them access the two camps, which were guarded by Tsahal.”

            Are you saying that Sharon gave the Phalangists arms specifically to go on a murdering rampage against civilians? Do you have any more lies to back that one up?

          • “who can vote for a man who contributed to the slaughter of civilians?”

            Do you mean other than the Palestinians?

          • Ariel,
            Sharon pride himself during that period as being the only viable Israeli choice that didn’t and wouldn’t shake Arafat’s hand.
            You need to put things in perspective.
            The Qibya attack was a replrisle attack which at the time was frequent.
            Fadayeens used the open Jordanian border to carry out cross raids.
            Sharon hardly attempted to line them up and kill them.
            Had he did no one would have survived.

            This is from his diary:
            “I couldn’t believe my ears. As I went back over each step of the operation, I began to understand what must have happened. For years Israeli reprisal raids had never succeeded in doing more than blowing up a few outlying buildings, if that. Expecting the same, some Arab families must have stayed in their houses rather than running away. In those big stone houses [...] some could easily have hidden in the cellars and back rooms, keeping quiet when the paratroopers went in to check and yell out a warning. The result was this tragedy that had happened.”

            I very much doubt if the elite units of those days which were filled up with many different Israelis would line up people and shoot them (women and children included).
            This – on the other hand – is exactly what surrounding communities did.
            Palestinians, Shiites and Christian Phalangists did just that.

            In fact the Israelis were one of the few that rarely did this.
            As you can see from today’s most dead Arabs in the Israeli front occur during artilary fire rather than rifles or gun fire.

            When you consider the attack took place at night, the village was bombarded by mortar fire and mines laid to prevent Jordanian legioners from attacking the troops, you can see how such an indiscrimnate death toll took place.
            Add to that the fact that the troops were fired upon from within the village you can see what might have happened.

            As much as I dislike Sharon for political reasons I find his encounter and behaviour to be inline with the way people fought at the time.
            Israel was no “regional super power” back then.
            Egypt was.

        • “How can you expect to ever have peace and to be shown respect when you elect a man known for contributing to the slaughter of innocent women and children?”

          You mean the palestinians, whose great leader, al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who was was a nazi war-criminal? How do you expect to have peace with islamonazis? Now, quit you condescending crap.

      • Here’s the the relevant part (and recall, “ariel”, that YOU brought up the Sabra-Chatila BS; now swallow it):

        “A Case Study in European Hypocrisy

        European countries are seldom challenged in the way that Israel is. They are not under great stress, and the illusion is propagated that, when they are, they consider carefully before making decisions. By all accounts, Srebrenica is a far more severe case than Sabra and Shatilla, both with respect to the magnitude of the crime and the responsibility of the commanders on the ground. Nevertheless, the similarities between the two cases demonstrate that double standards are being methodically applied by many abroad and also by several Israeli journalists and opposition figures.

        The Dutch had much longer to assess what might happen in Srebrenica than the Israeli command had with respect to Sabra and Shatilla. Despite the fact that the number of victims in Srebrenica was much larger, the Dutch political system reacted slowly and complacently. Dutch intellectuals and the general public were greatly indifferent compared with the massive demonstrations and debate that took place in Israeli society. Israel’s Kahan Commission investigations went deeper and were conducted soon after the events, as compared to the case in The Netherlands six years after the fact.

        In Sabra and Shatilla, Lebanese Christians murdered hundreds of Moslems; in Srebrenica, Serbian Christians killed many thousands of Bosnian Moslems. Efforts to link Israel with the massacres in Sabra and Shatilla have been proven to be baseless, even in a U.S. court (where Ariel Sharon won a libel case against Time magazine). Nonetheless, the image of Sharon is associated worldwide with Sabra and Shatilla, an event that developed suddenly over a period of less than 36 hours. One may wonder why Prime Minister Kok is not associated at all with the much more predictable disaster of Srebrenica. His ministerial responsibility seems substantially greater than Sharon’s, especially in view of his lack of action over a substantial period of time while the Srebrenica drama was unfolding.

        In this context, it is important to recall that there had been previous Serb attacks in the past on UN “safe areas.” The Srebrenica atrocities could have been anticipated. The Kahan Commission established in the Israeli case “that no clear warning was provided by military intelligence or the Mossad about what might happen if the Phalangist forces entered the (Palestinian refugee) camps.”60 Moreover, the Dutch and the UN had several days to intervene to stop the killings; the Kahan Commission established that, by the time Israel’s Minister of Defense learned of the Christian atrocities, they had already been halted.61

        Exposing the double standards of the Dutch has become specifically relevant as a result of the recent Middle East visit of Dutch Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen. Despite the major structural failure of his country to deal with the Srebrenica situation that it entered into voluntarily, he came to stress that Israel must take confidence-building measures, such as stopping the expansion of settlements and transferring to the Palestinians tax monies that have been withheld. After his visit, he made positive remarks, inter alia, about Arafat and negative ones about the Israeli leadership. Karremans’ admiration for criminals seems to have found a successor higher up in the Dutch hierarchy.

        Another example of van Aartsen’s judgement were his remarks after the first round of the Yugoslav elections in autumn last year. Kostunica had been elected, but Milosevic was not conceding and called for a second round. Unasked, van Aartsen publicly advised Kostunica to accept a second round. He was strongly criticized for this in the Dutch parliament, but refused to change his opinion.” (Manfred Gerstenfeld)

      • Ariel,
        You may want to read the article again for lessons you missed the first time around.
        Yasser Arafat planned and directed the 2nd Intifada. He wasn’t co-responsible, but completely responsible for it, as well as numerous other slaughters during his illustrious career as a terrorist (including Lebanon).
        But here you are insisting on that which has now been disproven, i.e., that this was a spontaneous and unavoidably “natural” reaction, for Arabs to run riot, because the poor little dears just couldn’t help themselves, because the other guy is such a “bad man.”
        If you don’t yet know what a racist you are, rest assured, I do.

        • Fritz, please stop insulting Jews and calling them “antisemite” just because they disagree with your own extremist views.

          • Please, stop insulting people’s intelligence with your condescending crap and your relentless lies. Do some research and go inform yourself about Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the nazi war criminal and leader of palarabs. Or quit obsessing about Jews and go jump out of your window.

          • An Antisemite who begs for being recognised as Jew and who defines other Jews as non-Jews.
            Get medical help, idiot.

    • If you’re referring to the Suha Arafat transcript then yes, it’s a mistake and that’s why [sic] (“thus” in Latin) was written after it–it indicates that the error was in the original and not the transcription.

      If you watch the video, you’ll see she hesitates a bit before giving the year. My guess is that since the following year became so famous in the annals of terrorism (excuse me, I meant “militant action”) she got confused.

      It happens.

  4. Pingback: Stop press! BBC uses word ‘terrorist’! | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.