Start A Petition

Israel Created the 13-Year-Old 'Terrorist'

Society & Culture  (tags: world, society, culture, ethics, Israel, Palestine, Human Rights, Netanyahu, violence, government, freedoms, interesting, politics, sadness, children, abuse, activists )

- 1207 days ago -
It's a mark of Cain on the forehead of Israeli society, a moral indictment. Not against the boy, Arab Knesset members, the Palestinian Authority, radical Islam or the mufti, but against Netanyahu and Barkat and everyone around them.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Carrie B (306)
Monday October 26, 2015, 7:47 pm

Although it’s hard to believe, at one time there was a concept called assumption of responsibility. At the time, right after the implementation of the Oslo Accords’ first stage that established the Palestinian Authority, Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman was kidnapped. Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister at the time, held Yasser Arafat responsible for Wachsman’s fate.

But when it turned out the soldier had been kidnapped in an area that remained under Israeli control, Rabin stated clearly that the matter was Israel’s sole responsibility. Rabin probably hadn’t heard about the mufti when it came to hanging the blame.

Now we have a prime minister of a different breed. Everyone and his wife is to blame while he remains pure. He has no hand in what’s happening in the occupied territories or East Jerusalem, which is entirely under Israeli control. It’s the same when it comes to a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who set out one morning in Jerusalem with a knife to stab a Jewish boy.

Instead of keeping quiet to avoid embarrassment, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exploited an embarrassing statement by Mahmoud Abbas in which the Palestinian president said the Palestinian 13-year-old had been murdered by Israelis. Netanyahu turned to the media, announcing that the boy was alive, and that when it came down to it, he was a terrorist.

What was he boasting about? The experience of this Palestinian boy was Israeli through and through, from the sandwich his parents made him for lunch, to the school system where he studied — under Israeli supervision — to the sewage system at home.

Your excellencies, Mr. Netanyahu and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, what have you done to the children of our people? How is it that a 13-year-old leaves home with a knife in the clear knowledge he probably won’t return alive?

It’s a mark of Cain on the forehead of Israeli society, a moral indictment. Not against the boy, Arab Knesset members, the Palestinian Authority, radical Islam or the mufti, but against Netanyahu and Barkat and everyone around them.

If there were a grain of fairness and an assumption of responsibility in this country, those two gentlemen would resign in disgrace. But in Israel, such people simply go higher and higher.

Haaretz’s Yossi Verter has written that one member of the security cabinet wondered why most attackers are actually coming from East Jerusalem, not the West Bank. Here’s an explanation for the honorable minister. It’s because of the riches the Israeli government and Jerusalem city hall heap on the city’s Palestinians: third-world municipal services versus first-world services in Jewish neighborhoods, daily humiliations, raids, arrests, menacing roadblocks.

The Palestinians enjoy this so much their children prefer death to what Israel has to offer. How ungrateful can you get?

Anyone who visits East Jerusalem feels the despair and the sadness in people’s eyes. And amid this misery patrol the cops of Israel’s Border Police, threatening anything that moves. Folks, spare your children’s emotional health and get them out of the city.

If all this weren’t enough, along comes Education Minister Naftali Bennett, celebrating with Jewish zealots who have just “liberated” another house from the Arabs. Their message to Palestinians in Jerusalem is clear: You are living here on borrowed time. You will be out of here soon, without even time to pack.

Golda Meir is reputed to have said: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” Golda could have taken comfort in the fact that after the Palestinians “forced” her children to kill their children, the Jews conquered all of Palestine. Now they are forcing the Palestinians to kill and be killed, and later, in a victory cry, they call them terrorists.

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday October 27, 2015, 3:57 am
Conditioning of the young can be a very destructive force.

Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday October 27, 2015, 2:22 pm
A lot of truth in this.
Kudos Haaretz

Lois Jordan (63)
Tuesday October 27, 2015, 4:13 pm
Noted. Thanks, Carrie.
Excellent article.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday October 28, 2015, 10:16 pm
The assumption of responsibility at the beginning was about the responsibility for law-enforcement. That's very different from the responsibility for a crime. Under the logic presented here, are we to blame the leaders of every country for the crimes committed within them or in particular for motivated by rebellion against it? In the U.S., should Obama assume of responsibility for the school-shootings during his tenure, or more closely parallel, was Lincoln responsible for the war crimes of the South?

When most of us were talking about bringing back the girls from Boko Haram, how many people came out blaming the Nigerian government for the kidnapping? Should we have? The closest I saw anybody coming was condemnation of Nigerian inaction, of its army leaving innocent people to the mercy of Boko Haram. I see one country condemned for its action, with its action being blamed for the crimes of rebels or would-be rebels, while another was condemned for inaction, with its inaction being blamed for the same.

I understand that's an oversimplification, but it's not really much of one. The trouble is that the sort of action that many here seem to demand is not just difficult or demanding of courage, but impossible. There is no shortage of good people and officers throughout history who would have preferred to do as many demand of Israel rather than what they actually did. The reason they did not was not a matter of ethics, but of practicality. They did not because they were all unable not unwilling. The choice really is on a spectrum between active violent oppressive engagement like in Israel and non-engagement with the full surrender of the safety of innocent people like seen in Nigeria.

Also, regarding the municipal services, I know where the story is coming from and it's not even near the level that would typically drive rebellion. The discrimination and poverty imposed by Israel on Palestinians in East Jerusalem is much less than what Lincoln insisted the Southern whites faced by seeking to outlaw the slave-basis of its labour-intensive economy.

Arild Gone for now (174)
Thursday October 29, 2015, 4:37 am
Thanks for sharing this article Carrie.

Angelika R (143)
Friday October 30, 2015, 4:10 pm
"The assumption of responsibility at the beginning was about the responsibility for law-enforcement. That's very different from the responsibility for a crime."
How is that different? Kidnapping IS a crime for which the then country's leader took responsibiity.

Thx Carrie.

donna m (97)
Saturday October 31, 2015, 12:49 am

donna m (97)
Saturday October 31, 2015, 12:49 am
thanks for sharing

Jim M (38)
Saturday October 31, 2015, 1:25 am

Jim M (38)
Saturday October 31, 2015, 1:25 am
thanks you

Past Member (0)
Monday January 18, 2016, 10:50 am
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Society & Culture

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.