You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Hezbollah’ tag.
Given the total lack of any mention of it on the ‘Comment is Free’ Israel page, one can only assume that the CiF editors find nothing newsworthy about the launching from Lebanon of several Katyusha rockets at sleeping Israeli civilians late on Monday night.
Things were not much better in the Guardian World News Middle East section, where the incident received all of 57 words and 49 seconds-worth of attention in a video showing Israeli fire-fighters extinguishing the blaze caused as one of the rockets hit a gas tank and another a chicken farm. (Surely the famous chicken rights defender Harriet Sherwood should have been interested in that?).
As ‘Honest Reporting‘ rightly pointed out, the Guardian even managed to bungle the headline.
The moral equivalence implied in the headline is developed further below:
“The Israeli military say they responded after a volley of rockets were fired across the border from Lebanon, raising fresh tensions in the volatile region”
Hmm; so according to the Guardian, a sovereign state’s targeted response to missile attacks on its civilians by terrorist groups raises ‘fresh tensions’ in precisely the same way as the rocket fire itself?
Of course we are more than used to this type of shoddy reporting every time similar incidents occur in the southern communities near Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip. Consistently keen to muddy the waters of cause and effect, Guardian editors are very fond of suggesting some kind of equivalence between the actions of the IDF and the war crime of deliberately firing rockets and mortars at civilian population centres.
But what is also interesting is that the Guardian has not seen fit to provide its readers with any background whatsoever regarding the perpetrators of Monday night’s rocket fire, the possible reasons for it, or the implications of the fact that it is highly unlikely that such an attack could have taken place without the knowledge of Hizballah.
Similarly, the Guardian chooses to disregard the fact that according to the very patchily implemented UNSC resolution 1701, there should be no militias and no weapons which do not belong to the LAF south of the Litani River.
The 2006 Lebanon war could have been prevented if the international community – as represented by UNIFIL in southern Lebanon – had taken serious steps towards enforcing its own UNSC resolution 1559 which called for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias”.
The next war is being made a certainty by the same abject failure to implement UNSC resolution 1701 as demonstrated by the events of Monday night. But that, of course, will come as a total surprise out of the blue to Guardian readers schooled only in lessons of ‘moral equivalence’.
We may, of course, never know with certainty if Israel was behind the recent explosion at Alghadir missile base at Bid Ganeh, Iran which killed seventeen of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, including a man described as the “architect” of the country’s missile programme, Major General Hassan Moghaddam.
However, the manner in which Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan framed the issue, in “Iranian missile architect dies in blast. But was explosion a Mossad mission?“, Nov. 15, was classic Guardian.
Though assigning blame for the blast on Israel is more than plausible, to characterize such an act, as Borger and Dehghan do, as “a dramatic [Israeli] escalation in a shadow war over the Iranian nuclear programme” is a classic Guardian style moral inversion. And, it is thoroughly consistent with a recent Guardian editorial lecturing the Jewish state on the folly of not only a pre-emptive missile strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities but even against covert action, cyber attacks, and economic sanctions.
Of course, opining that Israeli responsibility for the explosion is a “dangerous escalation” represents either remarkably myopia or willful blindness in the face of undeniable evidence regarding Iran’s role as one the biggest exporters of terrorism on the planet.
In addition to the Islamic Republic’s role in “continuing to fund, train, and provide weapons and ammunition to Shia extremist groups that carry out attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces,” Iran, primarily through the efforts of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, continues to employ a sophisticated arms smuggling network through Syria to Hizballah in Lebanon, and to Hamas in Gaza – representing an Iranian proxy war against the Jewish state.
In fact, Iran has been so successful at re-arming Hezbollah after the 2nd Lebanon War that Israeli authorities estimate the Shiite terror group to have a rocket arsenal of over 50,000, many which could strike almost anywhere in Israel.
Further, experts believe, in the next Lebanon war, Hezbollah could fire 400-600 rockets at Israeli towns per day.
Yet, strangely, Iran’s arming of terrorist groups who fire rockets at Israeli towns is, for some reason, not considered a “dangerous escalation” by the Guardian.
Further, evidently the moral and political experts at the Guardian are unmoved by an Iranian regime which both denies that the Holocaust, while inciting for another one against the Jewish state – what Irwin Cotler, former Justice Minister of Canada, terms “incitement to genocide. Said Cutler:
“[We are] witnessing s incitement to genocide, we can see the unfolding of one case where there is a responsibility to act. This incitement, dramatized by parading in the streets, promotes the wiping of Israel off the map and religiously sanctioned genocide. The inflammatory epidemical metaphors used by Iran, are reminiscent of the Metaphors used by Nazi Germany. These metaphors are used by Ahmadinejad along side the denial of the Holocaust.
These calls of Ahmadinejad and other senior officials are also reminiscent of Rwanda government’s incitement to the elimination of the Tutsi.
The failure of state parties and the United Nations to act is a fatal blow to the corpus of international law and the United Nations, especially to the Genocide Convention. The international community must promote preventative action, accountability and not impunity for the sake of international peace and security.”
Not only don’t Guardian editors and journalists even marginally share Cotler’s concern, but a recent Guardian editorial decried the Israeli notion that it can, or should, engage in efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear aspirations as the foolish belief that “they can stop history.”
Israel, it seems, should listen to the sage advice from London, let history take its course, and just meekly accept their fate – a moral formula which, I assume we are to believe, has worked so well for the Jewish community throughout history.
Related articles
Would 1 million citizens out of a population of 7.8 million seem like a significant percentage to you?
Well, the figure of one million only includes the threat posed by Gaza terrorists in the south and not from Hezbollah in the north, who, Israeli authorities believe, are in possession of tens of thousands of rockets, many which can reach almost anywhere in Israel.
Not included in this graphic: The Iranian made Zelzal 2, Hezbollah is in possession of, which has a range of up to 400 Km
Since 2001, more than 10,000 rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza, resulting in 35 dead, more than 1,500 injured and thousands traumatized.
Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into Israel during the Second Lebanon War alone, resulting in 43 killed and over 2000 injured.
Some facts to consider the next time Harriet Sherwood or other Guardian reporters callously dismiss such threats in future reports about terrorist rocket fire into Israel.
Related articles
- Harriet Sherwood’s latest Guardian report on terror attacks from Gaza redefines the word “Sporadic” (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood: Terror Propagandist. (cifwatch.com)
- If rockets are fired at your city but the Guardian doesn’t cover it, did the attacks really occur? (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian interactive map rewrites Israeli-Arab history (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s permanent (Israeli) “war crimes” page that just won’t die (cifwatch.com)
- The wretched scandal of David Miliband’s liberal racism (cifwatch.com)
Martin Chulov’s July 12th article marking five years since the outbreak of the second Lebanon war is so anodyne in its omissions that it is positively soporific. Yes, the reader may be briefly awakened from Chulov’s Pravda-style descriptions of Lebanese construction work by the erroneous reference to Qana as a “biblical site” where Jesus “purportedly turned water into wine”, but apart from that the article tiptoes so cautiously around the issues at hand that it fails to inform its readers of anything remotely newsworthy or relevant.
“Summer has often been fighting season in the south. And in the densely wooded lands around the Litani, preparations have been made for the next war ever since the guns fell silent last time.”
That is all Churlov has to say about Hizbollah’s flagrant violation of UN SC resolution 1701 and the UN’s turning of a blind eye to the process of its rearmament. No mention of an almost four-fold increase in the number of rockets and missiles held by Hizbollah since 2006 and the doubling of its forces. No reference to the known arms stores constructed in the heart of some 270 south Lebanese villages, turning the local population into automatic human shields or the extensive system of bunkers and other military facilities.
And above all, no reminder whatsoever of from where and how Hizbollah manages to rearm right under the noses of UNIFIL: Churlov’s only reference to Hizbollah’s connection to Iranian patronage is to state that via that organisation and Amal Iran has “dispense[d] hundreds of millions in cash to Lebanese who were caught up in the war” as though the Iranian regime were some sort of benevolent charitable organization.
Hizbollah positions in Lebanon, March 2011
We may not know precisely when a third Lebanon war will break out, or what will be the incident which lights the touch paper, but we know that it will happen and that primarily it will be a war against Israel’s civilians, with Hizbollah now capable of firing several hundred rockets a day upon Israeli cities, towns and villages.
When it does commence, the next Lebanon war will come as a complete surprise to the somnambulistic Guardian reader who, thanks to articles such as this one by Chulov together with the Guardian’s disproportionate focus on the joys of the ‘Arab Spring’, remain safely and securely in the dark as regards the details of the complex internal Lebanese political situation, the rearmament of Hizbollah and the failure of yet another UN resolution to curb Iranian expansionism in the Middle East, as well as the true nature of Hizbollah itself.
Tehran itself could hardly have done a better job.
Related articles
Chomsky in a tete-a-tete with Hezbollah's Nasrallah
The Guardian, not content with six pieces (news items and commentaries) already published defending the anti-Semitic radical preacher, Raed Salah, and demonizing his opponents, decided to publish two additional apologias (Letters: Double standards over Salah arrest, July 4) from ferocious critics of Israel – Ghada Karmi and Noam Chomsky.
Evidently, the Guardian felt that Karmi, an outspoken proponent for the end of the Jewish state, and Chomsky, who believes the U.S. is “the world’s greatest terrorist state“, has defended the Khmer Rouge, expressed support for Hezbollah, and has likened Zionism to Nazism, could provide unique, and thoughtful, insights into the UK’s detention of Salah.
While Chomsky’s letter characterized Salah – who’s advanced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 – as an important voice for “rights” and “justice”, Karni chastised the UK for failing to arrest Israeli leaders, who she characterizes as “war criminals”, and advances the blatantly false claim that “Raed has committed no crime in Britain or elsewhere.”
Karmi, evidently writing without the services of an internet search engine, neglected to inform her readers that Salah was imprisoned in Israel after acknowledging funding Hamas, served time for assaulting a police officer, and has been banned from Jerusalem for repeatedly engaging in incitement to violence.
More broadly, in eight pieces and over 3000 words in the course of a week, the Guardian has displayed a disgraceful, if characteristic, obsession with the “cause” of an extremist preacher with a proven record of anti-Semitism, support for designated terrorist organizations, and incitement to violence.
Of course, the ubiquity of such profound moral inversions at the Guardian – regarding radical Islam, Israel and anti-Semitism – doesn’t render such ideological pathos any less outrageous or shameful.
Related articles
- On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- On the “Guardian Hamas support network” (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)
- At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian and “powerful” Jews (cifwatch.com)
This is cross posted at the blog, Anne’s Opinions
For a change, the Guardian has published a story which, although it is about the Middle East, does not have an Israel angle to it at all. And yet it shows up British politics at its perfidious worst. The item, on British MPs’ 107 paid visits to Middle Eastern dictatorships, was hidden away in the Guardian’s World news page, but curiously filed under the non-world title “Politics”.
It is extraordinarily revealing, and goes a long way towards explaining Britain’s hostility to Israel. Conversely it could be said that because of Britain’s hostility to Israel, Britain’s politicians are so cosy with Middle Eastern Arab dictators.
Either way it shows up British politicians in a most unflattering and unsavory light. It also shows how feeble is the famed “Israel lobby” and “Jewish influence” in Whitehall.
The most shameful of the politicians is Clare Short:
“Former international development secretary Clare Short accepted £1,580 worth of flights, hotel accommodation, food and travel expenses from al-Manar television in Lebanon in 2008. Al-Manar is described by the US government as “the media arm of the Hezbollah terrorist network“, and was classed as a specially designated terrorist entity by the US in 2006.
Short said her trip had been registered with Commons authorities and that the visit allowed her to see how reconstruction in southern Lebanon was proceeding after the country’s conflict with Israel in 2006.
“I did an interview for the TV programme and was free to express my views without censure, and I also met with senior Hezbollah officials,” she said. “I do not accept US advice on who I should speak to. UK diplomats also talk with Hezbollah. I have also met with Hamas leaders on a number of occasions as well as Fatah leaders, and the Syrian and Lebanese governments.”
On the basis of these meetings of hers with known and recognized terrorists, and defying British foreign policy, Short should have been blacklisted and even thrown out of Parliament, rather than letting her stay until her resignation in 2010. She is a disgrace to any democracy. Her attitude and statements about Israel explain her disgraceful behaviour.
Note the list of countries visited:
Trips by country
Qatar 32
Bahrain 18
Oman 16
Egypt 12
UAE 10
Saudi 8
Kuwait 4
Jordan 3
Tunisia 2
Yemen 1
Syria 1
And note which little democratic country is not mentioned at all.
This review of Michael Totten’s new book, “The Road to Fatima Gate: The Beirut Spring, the rise of Hezbollah, and the Iranian War against Israel”, was written by Hadar Sela, and published in The Propagandist.
The current political and social upheaval throughout the Middle East and North Africa has highlighted something that those of us living in the region have known for a long time; just how rare accurate reporting and analysis of events in this area is.
Too much of the commentary produced by foreign correspondents and Middle East ‘experts’ is one-dimensional and it is the result of both the inability of writers to set aside their own cultural straight-jackets which have little or no relevance in this region, together with the commercial pressures to compete for headlines in a digital age in which speed and volume of content trump accuracy and quality reporting.
I often think of this prevalent sort of Middle East journalism in terms of mass-produced, flat-pack chipboard furniture. It’s not meant to last, it all looks pretty much the same, it doesn’t aspire to quality in terms of the materials used, and it comes in a one-size- fits- all form of presentation designed to appeal to the broadest possible consensus.
By contrast, Michael Totten is a master carpenter. His work is a long, slow process using only carefully selected quality materials, often acquired with difficulty. In terms of volume, he comes nowhere near the output of many of his colleagues, but what he does produce will stand the test of time because Totten does not seek to tell his readers (or himself) what they want to know – he informs them of what they need to know.
Over five years of research went into “The Road to Fatima Gate”, which begins with the ‘Beirut Spring’ of 2005 which followed the political murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. The book documents the subsequent seismic shifts in Lebanese politics over the next half-decade and the related events in the broader region, including the 2006 summer war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Not only does Totten manage to unravel for his reader the intricacies of the various factions at work in Lebanon, he succeeds in mapping their changing alliances and connections to the broader regional picture, whilst at the same time deconstructing the often one-dimensional impressions which many Westerners hold of the players at work in the entire Middle East.
Read the rest of the essay, here.
What a newspaper does not report can be just as revealing as what it does.
Back in May 2010 CiF rushed to report the arrest of two Arab Israelis suspected of espionage, allowing Ben White to make wild claims that “Israel seeks to silence dissent” and “repressive practices long used in the West Bank and Gaza are now being used to limit civil liberties within Israel”.
White claimed that:
“Several examples now point to an uncomfortable reality for the self-proclaimed “only democracy in the Middle East”: practices that have long been routine in the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are being used in Israel to suppress dissent and limit civil liberties.” (my emphasis)
He attempted to paint a terrifying picture of Soviet-style assaults on the civil liberties of Israel’s Arab citizens:
“So why is this happening now? First, it is the latest manifestation of a deteriorating atmosphere in Israel, with political dissent and human rights groups under attack…..
….Second, there is also a specific focus on Israel’s Palestinian minority…..
…..Hussein Abu Hussein, the lawyer for both Makhoul and Said, stressed the role of someone like Makhoul in being a prominent advocate internationally for “the need for accountability” – in other words, “the state has enough reasons to stop this voice”. Mohammad Zeidan, of the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA), says that the arrests are “clearly political”. He believes that for some in Israel, the work being done by NGOs and Arab parties on the international level is “crossing a red line” – “they want to remind us that this is not a democracy”. “
Ten days after White’s article, CiF published a piece by Yousef Munayyer in which he too took up the theme of Israel’s supposed ‘intimidation’ of Ameer Makhoul.
“In recent years, the Israeli repression of Palestinian nonviolent dissent has increased significantly and Israel is showing signs of transforming into a fully-fledged police state. Even Israeli citizens, both Palestinian such as Ameer Makhoul and Jewish, have faced intimidation in one form or another for being critical of Israel’s policies.”
On June 1st CiF printed an article by Daphna Baram in which she managed to link Ameer Makhoul’s arrest to the previous day’s events aboard the Mavi Marmara.
“Ameer Makhoul and Dr Omar Saeed (human right activists and Israeli citizens) were arrested in the middle of the night at their homes some two weeks ago, and were unlawfully prevented from conferring with their lawyers for 12 days. Now they are facing trial on extremely controversial spying allegations. In this atmosphere, no wonder the government now starts killing European human rights activists and protesters in an act of terrorist piracy.”
In November 2010 Seumas Milne wrote that
“leading civil rights campaigner Ameer Makhoul faces up to 10 years in jail after being convicted of the improbable charge of spying for Hezbollah.” (my emphasis)
Earlier this week Ameer Makhoul was sentenced by a court in Haifa to nine years of imprisonment for spying for Hizbollah both in war-time and afterwards. So far, the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Harriet Sherwood has failed to report upon the subject whatsoever and CiF readers remain ignorant of the details of the case. Whilst for people such as Milne, spying for Hizbollah is probably at worst the moral equivalent of stealing a few paper clips from the office, the fact is that Ameer Makhoul has been tried and found guilty of an extremely serious crime in a court of law in a democratic country with a fiercely independent judicial system.
If that calculated omission of information were not enough, CiF published an emotional polemic written by Makhoul’s wife on Jan. 31st in which she repeats the Guardian-style claims of persecution against him, painting him as an innocent victim of Israeli oppression.
Janan Abdu knows as well as I do that any Israeli civilian is free to make a complaint regarding his or her treatment by the security forces at any stage of proceedings and that such a complaint must be investigated. She also knows that if a defendant makes any claims of mistreatment during his or her trial, that too is investigated – regardless of whether a formal complaint has been made or not.
But of course neither Abdu nor the Guardian have any interest in informing readers of the truth, the details of the case nor the gravity of Makhoul’s crime. The Guardian’s decision to print Abdu’s unproven accusations without presenting the other side of the story indicates that it is more interested in defaming Israel than reporting the news. Janan Abdu’s decision to write this article for a foreign newspaper – rather than addressing any complaints she may have to the authorities who can actually do anything about them – show that she is interested solely in whipping up hatred against the country her husband has betrayed.
In the summer of 2006 over one million Israeli citizens in the North of Israel, myself and my family included, spent weeks in air raid shelters under a barrage of lethal Hizbollah rockets. Thousands of people were displaced from their homes. Children were still being treated for post traumatic stress disorder well over a year after the war ended. 43 Israeli civilians – Arabs and Jews - were killed along with 76 soldiers and hundreds were injured.
These are just a few of the people who lost their lives that summer:
A guest post by AKUS
In all the excitement over the Pallypapers, the events in Lebanon are getting less attention than they deserve, even though vastly more significant.
The state of play at the moment is that results of the UN Hariri assassination investigation have not yet been released. In the meantime, Hezbollah has managed to depose Hariri as Prime Minister through a parliamentary coup and the incomprehensible support of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. One can only assume that Jumblatt hopes avoid conflict by siding with Hezbollah – a vain hope at best as the country falls further and further into the hands of these theocratic thugs. A new Prime Minister – yet another Lebanese billionaire – Najib Mikati, has been selected by Hezbollah to put a moderate face on things, but clearly will be no more than a puppet in a Hezbollah dominated government.
The pro-Western elements in Lebanon are now urging sit-ins against Hezbollah, something that no doubt amuses that heavily armed group. The Sunnis have rioted futilely because Hezbollah are Shiites (standard operating procedure for Islamic factions). The Saudis are backing their Sunni Muslims against Iran’s Shiite Hezbollah. According to the Washington Post article, “Hariri has insisted he will not join a government led by a Hezbollah pick”. The US has rather feebly said it would “reconsider” its aid to Lebanon if Mikati forms of a government dominated by Hezbollah. But that, of course, is exactly what is about to happen. One can only wonder, in retrospect, why America ever provided any aid to Lebanon rather than joining with Israel to destroy Hezbollah.
So we now have what amounts to the world’s first terrorist state – a country headed by the selected puppet of a terrorist group. At the next session of the United Nations, will we have the edifying spectacle of Ahmadinajad once more representing Iran and a person representing its terrorist client state, Lebanon, denouncing Israel and the United States? Will Hezbollah be asked, perhaps, to provide one of its thugs to chair the UN Human Rights Council?
Fascinating stuff, and a testament to the increasing wimpish nature of the West.
Dramatic developments took place last week in Lebanon as Hizbollah brought down the government whilst the Prime Minister was out-of-town: just the latest in its continued attempts to prevent the conclusions of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon from being implemented.
It is, of course, too early to predict and foolish to speculate what will happen in long- beleaguered Lebanon, but there is one scenario which can be placed right at the bottom of a list of possible outcomes, and that is the likelihood of a war between Israel and Lebanon. Unless Hizbollah deliberately leaves Israel no choice – for example if Israeli civilians are targeted as was the case in 2006 – there is no reason that these latest internal Lebanese developments should lead to cross-border conflict
It therefore seemed rather strange that CiF should choose to publish an article by Nicholas Noe on January 14th which totally ignores the internal aspects of the current crisis in favour of an elaborate hypothesis detailing why, if conflict does break out, it will be anyone and everyone’s fault except that of Hizbollah.
This isn’t the first time that Noe has predicted similar doom and gloom on the pages of CiF; in fact lately he appears to get wheeled out whenever there is some sort of crisis in Lebanon in order to promote the anti-American and anti-Israeli line. Noe’s impressive ability to ignore the objective facts at hand in favour of almost superstitious speculations may be somewhat easier to comprehend if one takes into account that he’s the founder and editor-in-chief of ‘Mideastwire’, and also runs Arabic language courses for foreign students in Beirut, the highlight of which are visits to Hamas and Hizbollah HQs.
“When Amtissal signed up to learn Arabic in Beirut, she was in for a bonus: class trips to the offices of Hezbollah and Hamas, both classified as terrorist organizations by her native America.
“It was an amazing experience,” the U.S. media studies graduate told AFP. “We saw the difference between television and reality.”
For 21-year-old Andrew Waller, the Beirut Exchange was a golden opportunity to hear the voices of groups he had only read about.
“Meeting Hezbollah was an experience I really treasure,” said Waller, an economics student at the University of Exeter in Britain.”
“To be fair, you’d have to look long and hard to find a tyranny or a fascist dictator of the Islamist or the Baathist kind upon whose boots Galloway has not slobbered.” – Terry Glavin
Galloway with Hamas leader Ismail Hanyieh
“Useful idiots” is a term which was used to describe Soviet sympathisers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. However, the term, in a broader sense, refers to Western journalists, travellers and intellectuals who give their blessing – often with evangelistic fervour – to tyrannies and tyrants, thereby convincing politicians and the public of the utopian (rather than dystopian) nature of the society.
While such a definition may seem apt in any analysis of George Galloway’s political behavior, another compelling case can be made that he’s not an “idiot” at all. There is reason to believe that, indeed, he knows fully well that the groups he champions (whether it be Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Ba’athist Syrian regime) are ideologically reactionary, racist movements, and that his support is given not in spite of such ideological orientations, but because of them. In which case, we are left with the impression that he is not simply a terrorist dupe, but a full-fledged fascist.
This essay by Terry Glavin, which appeared in the National Post, makes a compelling case for the latter view.
Galloway with Saddam Hussein
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
1 of 1000: First person account of ’04 apprehension of (newly released) Palestinian terrorist
January 15, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Gilad Shalit, Hezbollah, Marc Goldberg, Terrorism | by Guest/Cross Post | 13 comments
A guest post by Marc
(Full list available here and in English here though only the Hebrew actually states the crimes they were indicted for).
I remember well the day we arrested him in his home town Nablus. Though it wasn’t what he eventually was convicted of, we were told at the time by the Shin Bet that the main reason he was important to the terrorist networks was that he was the link between Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hezbollah.
We were also told that he would be armed and ready to fight when we came for him. He was convicted for (forgive the direct translations from the Hebrew):
The mission resulted in the arrest of both Tastos and another terrorist named Jamal Sa’adon.
Both were among the top 5 most wanted terrorists in the city and we had rehearsed the operation that would ultimately result in their capture many times. It was in 2004 (when I was approaching the end of my service) that that we grabbed them. We had already aborted the operation in various stages of carrying it out many times due to last-minute intelligence telling us that he was no longer in the hideout we were targeting.
The operation was considered so sensitive that military vehicles had been forbidden from driving past the apartment block that his family lived in for fear that it would spook him from returning there and ruin our chances of picking him up.
We were guarding the settlement of Migdalim when we were told to get our body armour on and pile into the vehicles. I didn’t think that the op was going to go ahead after it had already been aborted so many times, but the drivers gunned their engines and we were off. I waited for the mission to be aborted right up until the point that the vehicles stopped outside the building and we launched out into the hostile territory outside.
Once the residents of the block had been brought out of the building the search team went in, and no one was under any doubt that this man would come quietly. I spotted a hand emerge from the building to close a window when everyone was supposed to be outside. The squad commander directed the search team to an apartment they had already searched.
After the 2nd unsuccessful search they took no chances, and threw in a grenade.
Once the noise of the explosion died down the search team could hear muffled cries of surrender coming from somewhere deep within. A hand emerged from a kitchen cabinet that was only waist-high. The terrorists had pulled a small brick out of the back of this cabinet and squeezed into a tiny hollow that they had carved out behind it.
We had only expected to find Tastos, so Sa’adon was an extra surprise, who had previously spent 17 years in an Israeli prison.
After serving that term, he murdered the son of the mayor of Nablus by mistake while trying to kill the mayor – who he evidently considered to be too moderate. The list of his crimes was endless and he was not one of those released in the deal for Shalit.
Tastos had been a wanted man in the Casbah of Nablus for years prior to finally being captured. He had been responsible for terror attacks that had undoubtedly resulted in deaths of innocent civilians, and provided a level of technical sophistication to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade that allowed them to perpetrate attacks and gain information that otherwise wouldn’t have been available to them.
But when the army came for him, when he was looking death in the face, he knew better than the fellow terrorists he inspired and so chose prison instead – despite the fact that he was armed when he surrendered.
Tastos is just one out of a thousand people who have now been thrown back into the mix for Gilad Shalit.
There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether it was worth it or not.
The whole country breathed a collective sigh of relief when Gilad came home and now we all just have to wait and see what damage terrorists like Tastos may do.
Related articles
Share this: