Culture, Israel, Politics

It's not really terrorism when Kahanists do it

BBC News reports:

“Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says.
Under Israeli law, only attacks by “enemies of Israel” are considered terrorism, the ministry said.
The ruling means families of the four victims will not be entitled to the lifelong monthly payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks. “

Further coverage: JPost, Ha’aretz, AP

15 thoughts on “It's not really terrorism when Kahanists do it

  1. No, they’ll just be entitled to the lifelong payments given out to victims of violent crime.
    Six of one, half dozen of another.
    Ain’t socialism grand!

  2. Wow, that headline doesn’t match the text of the article at all: MK Muhammad Barak is the only one who made explicit reference to the religion of the attacker, not the defence ministry.

  3. Joe Grossberg:
    “But in this case the shooter, IDF deserter Eden Natan Zada, 19, was Jewish and his attack cannot be designated as terror, said [Defense Ministry spokeswoman] Malkin.”

  4. But the Jewish Agency acted with more menshlikheit:
    Local leaders support aid to Israeli-Arab terror victims
    by Robert Wiener
    NJJN Staff Writer
    With a boost from New Jersey Jewish leaders, a Jewish Agency for Israel program designed to assist survivors and families of those killed or injured in Palestinian terrorist attacks will also assist the Israeli Arabs victimized in a shooting by an AWOL Jewish soldier earlier this month.
    Members of the MetroWest community responded quickly to support the JAFI decision to offer emergency aid to Arab citizens of the village of Shfaram, where 19-year-old Eden Natan Zada killed four people aboard a bus and wounded at least 12 others.

  5. asc, the desire to flaunt fairness (to go out of one’s way to show how incredibly egalitarian one is), while in this case is certainly valid and just, is often pushed beyond any line of sanity. you can see how some people may kick up a stink about jews never caring this much about victims of palestinian terror.

  6. Joe
    “the psycho killed Israeli citizens in response to Israeli government policies … sounds like it fits the definition just fine.”
    It may fit the definition just fine – but the problem is that the law doesn’t define or speak of terrorism in the first place.
    The BBC article – or the Israeli Ministry of Defense spokewswoman – is somewhat misleading here. If you can read Hebrew, you can see the text of the law in question at [b]Nowhere[/b] in that law will you see the word terror or [i]pigua[/i] (terror attack).
    Instead, the law speaks of “hostile acts”, which are defined as actions carried out by “military, paramilitary, or irregular organizations of an enemy state, or organizations hostile to Israel”. Zada’s act, despicable as it is, was not an attack against Israel (at most, it was an attack against government policy), and was not, AFAIK on behalf of any organization.

  7. hey, according to the bbc its NEVER terrorism when the muslims do it, it’s always “militants”!

    This is completely insane.

  8. So there is a legal definition of terrorism. Fine. But Israel dropped the ball on this one. Israeli Arabs will only see this as another sign that they’re second class citizens.
    Not only that, but the murderer who carried out the attack was “protesting” Israeli policies and he chose to do so by attacking Israeli citizens. Shouldn’t that make an “enemy of Israel”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.