Ha’aretz reports:

The Prime Minister’s Office demanded on Wednesday that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz review the issue of recognizing those injured in attacks by Jewish terrorists as terror victims.

There are also moves in the Knesset, one initiated by an Arab Israeli Member of Knesset belonging to one of the “Arab” lists, and one initiated by a Jewish Israeli Member of the Labor Party, to change the law that forced the Ministry of Defense to rule on the killing of four Arab Israelis that it wasn’t a terrorist attack.

…MK Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash-Ta’al) submitted to the Knesset Tuesday an amendment to the law governing compensation for terror victims that would entitle Arab Israeli families hurt by Jewish terror to money from the state.

Barakeh’s ammendment will recognize as victims of terror anyone hurt from “hostile activities by a terror organization,” and not just those hurt by “organizations hostile to Israel.”

On Monday, an inter-ministerial committee headed by a Defense Ministry official decided that the victims of the terrorist attack in Shfaram and their families will receive a one-time compensation from the state, but will not be recognized as terror victims.

Four Israeli Arab citizens were killed in the Shfaram attack, when a Jewish extreme-right activist who had gone AWOL from the Israel Defense Forces opened fire in a bus. The attack was seen as an attempt to thwart the disengagement plan.

Barakeh’s proposed ammendment, which was signed by three MKs from the Arab Hadash-Ta’al faction, noted that while Arabs have suffered from acts of Jewish terror – performed against them from nationalistic and racist motives – they have not been entitled to compensation. Israelis, however, who are hurt in terror activities intended against the state do receive compensation.

The ammendment will also apply to Palestinians residing within Israel’s territory. The bill stresses that an identical bill was submitted to the Knesset in 1994 but was not approved.

MK Yuli Tamir (Labor) has also prepared an amendment for the law on compensation for terror victims. This will define victims of terror as any person who is hurt as a result of actions aimed at foiling government policy. People whose property is damaged because of their belonging to a specific national, ethnic or religious groups will also be defined as terror victims.

Note the part mentioning “Palestinians residing within Israel’s territory.” Presumably, that would mean any attack within the West Bank as well.

About the author



  • Yeah, on my last post I was going to add at the end “expect the supreme court to call it terrorism.” It may be the jewlicious, er, I mean, judicious thing to do (to compensate these arab families) because we are righteous and we know what the words ‘honorable’ and ‘fair’ really mean. Still, we shouldn’t call it terrorism. That’s wrong. That’s moral equivalency — very NOT jewlicious!

  • Moral equivalency that is, uh, immoral, takes place when, say, somebody compares Hamas to the IDF.

    When some Jewish idiot starts shooting at innocent civilians because he’s trying to make a political statement or cause some sort of change in the status quo, how is that different than what a Hamas or Fatah bomber does?

  • As noted below…
    These is the definition according to the US.
    Note definition 1: foreign.

    Legal Criteria for Designation
    (Reflecting Amendments to Section 219 of the INA in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001)

    1. It must be a foreign organization.
    2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
    3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

  • What’s more foreign to peace loving Judaism than cold blooded murder? Than a chillul hashem that stains us all with its depravity? Are you telling me that Jewish victims of terror perpetrated by an Israeli Arab would ever engender this kind of debate? This idiot tried to effect political change via an act meant to terrorize. Even engaging in this debate makes me want to hop into a shower!

  • ck,

    Listen they are having a technical discussion about terminology. I am just answering according to that.

    The real bottom line is that I understand what makes people act like that. I even understand arabs- after all they think Jews are robbers. Thats why of course I realize that one of us Jews or Arabs must go – and of course since we the Jews are the owners the arabs must go.

    But since the discussion always gets reduced to these silly arguments of what is a ‘terrorist’ and ‘compensation’ while the main issues are not dealt with and while Israel is on its way under-I guess i’m forced to go along…

  • alright. so israel’s defintions of terror *was* “terror against the state.”

    well, that’s not good enough. i changed my mind. i ranted on and on about how it technically wasn’t terror. but f*ck technicalities. it’s wrong, and if we condemn it we just proove we’re better than them, once again.

    they’ll glorify their killers, and we’ll take active steps to seperate ours from society by deeming them terrorists. i like the idea of calling jews who kill arabs (for any reason, except self-defence) terrorists.

    i retract all i said before. zada = terrorist. glad they’re changing the law. what was i thinking defending that monster on a technicality? that’s not the jewish way. that’s unkosher.

  • I’m only suggesting that such an act be prosecuted as a crime, perhaps a crime with political motive, and deserving of punishment as serious as the law provides for. But it’s still not “terrorism”, which is of an ongoing nature and requires a functioning infrastructure.

  • bullshit.

    terrorism –> terror –> violence committed to intimidate or coerce a population –> to incite FEAR

    idiots like this TERRORIST incite fear upon the Arab population of Israel-proper, who are *not* the threat, and are not the source of Arab terrorism.

    he makes them fear, he makes us look bad. he’s a terrorist. for you to defend him based on technicalities and the assumption that terror requires a group/infastructure is morally inexcusable.

    no more b/s. he’s a terrorist. period.

  • eliglick,

    Don’t be intimidated by all these responses of those falling over themselves to show ‘equivalency.’

    Like I said in another post all this is just diversion like the musicians playing music while the titanic is sinking.

    We are being attacked and pushed into a corner. Frusterated people of course react in self-defense. Isn’t it obvious that this would happen?

    The point is that Israel is under attack by both arabs and self-hating Jews who both seek to claim that Israel does not belong to us. There is no question that in the end those self-haters will be punished for their role.

    Two nations cannot share one land when both claim it as their own. Is it really ours? Of course nevertheless they ‘claim’ it as theirs.

    Therefore THEY MUST GO.

    The sooner the better for them and for us.

    All this Hullabaloo over things like this by Jews is meant to instill more feelings of guilt in order to divert attention from the real threat that hovers over the Jewish people.

    Some of those making a Hullabaloo do it on purpose – but some are good people who simply don’t have a clear perspective of what is taking place in the world around them and simply follow the crowd.

  • Muffti enjoys all the comments: but he takes it as confirmation that it is awfully difficult to define ‘terrorist’ in a way that is acceptable to everyone.

  • 1. Harm or seek to harm civilians.

    2. With the intent of making a political statement or change, or to fulfill or pursue a religious or ideological goal.

  • Joe Schmo is like a broken Journey record — not only does it play the same thing over and over again, it sucked in the first place.

  • Yes Michael, truth always remains the same- and its hard for some to swallow.

  • By David’s logic, a serial rapist-murderer who “terrorizes” (a particular ethnic group?) an urban area is a terrorist. Clearly not. And the notion that a “lone gunman” episodic murderer, whatever his motive, would cause a sense of general fear among the Israeli-Arab population is ridiculous to the point of laughable. As for your comments, Mr Schmo, while I appreciate your spirited defense, clearly the Arabs are not going “to go”, nor will we force them out anytime soon. It’s how we conduct ourselves under such pressure that defines what Jewish sovereignty is all about. Finally, we all know that fellow Jews can be the most painful of thorns, it’s nothing new; no group has ever cornered the market on either wisdom or ignorance.

  • eliglick,

    Believe me I know that they won’t go – but that is only because of Jewish responses like yours.

    Jews seem to be quite slow in grasping when their own fate is at stake. It happened before in Europe where they ignored all signs and hoped they would ride it out. There are a lot of bad things coming to us Eli, because we are so stubborn.

  • Joe, what exactly do you mean “Jewish responses like mine?” Yes, it would be nice to deport Arabs but probably bad strategy. And “bad things might happen” but that is as it’s always been: the problem is the amoral world around us. I agree with you about Jews in denial. Here is an excellent example.

  • I know your under stress Michael, but that’s no reason to slander the group who sang my 9th grade Prom theme song, Open Arms. If you must slander musical talent, wouldn’t it be more contemporary to say “it’s like a Hillary Duff CD with a scratch in it, it says the same thing over and over again and it sucked in the first place.” Hang in there.

  • eliglick what I mean is exactly what I said.

    Your attitude that deporting them is ‘bad strategy’ or ‘it won’t happen.’

    You are the reason it won’t happen.

    You see if there were more people like me it WOULD HAPPEN.

    But since we have nay-saying, goyim-frightened people like you
    -it won’t happen.

    If you still don’t understand me I can talk even slower.