Ahed Tamimi supporters call for Intifada at Grand Central Station protest
“The people of Palestine will wipe the Zionist Entity from all the world maps”
Ahed Tamimi is the Palestinian teen who turns 17 this month and has been the focus of protests after her arrest for kicking and hitting Israeli soldiers. It was streamed live on Facebook by Ahed’s mother.
As documented here many times, Ahed’s parents Bassem and Nariman, and Western supporters of the Tamimis, have exploited Ahed for such confrontations since Ahed was a small child. They send Ahed, her younger brother, and other children from the village of Nabi Saleh to try to provoke police and soldiers for the cameras.
Ahed was so prominent among the many children of the Tamimi clan because her blond hair and blue eyes present the image he wants to present to Westerners, according to Bassem:
Tamimi’s father argues that her blonde hair and Western dress have contributed to the attention she has received.
“If she was veiled and dark-skinned, would she have got the same attention?” Bassem Tamimi told AFP.
“The Zionist propaganda machine always depicts the Palestinian as dark-skinned and ugly, attacking the blonde victim, but now she is blonde.”
This exploitation is not by chance, it’s part of a deliberate strategy publicly articulated by Ahed’s father Bassem many times. We have documented this dangerous child exploitation tactic many times, including this recent post, Ahed Tamimi case is about child exploitation by anti-Israel activists.
For the first time, Ahed was arrested and indicted for her conduct. How long she stays in jail and whether the Israelis follow through on the prosecution remains to be seen.
In the meantime, there is a campaign to portray the Tamimis and Ahed as peace-loving people who merely want to get along. The Tamimi Clan, and Ahed’s immediate family,however, Aren’t the Palestinian Saints the media presents them to be:
Promote the blood libel? Check. Glorify terrorism? Check. Celebrate Israeli deaths? Check. Ahed Tamimi and her family aren’t fighting for peace, and they’re not just fighting the occupation: They’re fighting to destroy Israel, and their fight is seasoned with Jew-hatred
Ahed’s own statement after the latest incident demonstrates this point:
Yet the media continues to whitewash Ahed Tamimi’s terror-supporting family.
There have been protests held in various locations against Ahed’s arrest.
Several dozen anti-Israel groups organized what was supposed to be a massive demonstration at Grand Central Station in New York City on Friday, January 5, 2018, during late afternoon/evening rush hour.
While claims are being made that there were “hundreds” in attendance, in fact turnout was poor. A Legal Insurrection reader was passing through Grand Central and emailed the following:
No one was paying much attention them, thankfully…. Maybe 50? Lots of cops nearby.
That small turnout is shown in this photo — a small group of protesters with tall signs, surrounded by hundreds of commuters passing by:
What they lacked in numbers, the protesters made up for in pure hatred and vitriol, calling for an Intifada.
The Intifadas were the bloody spasms of violence by Palestinians against Jews. The First Intifada was in the 1990s, and the Second Intifada started in 2001, after Yasser Arafat walked away from a U.S.-sponsored peace deal. The Second Intifada was particularly bloody, marked by numerous suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. Almost 1000 Israelis would be killed, and it led to the construction of the security barrier (frequently called a wall, but actually a fence in most places).
One of the most bloody suicide bombing attacks was at the Sbarro Pizzeria, in which 15 people including 7 children (including 2 Americans) died. The suicide bombing was masterminded by Ahed’s relative, Ahlam Tamimi. Ahlam eventually was released in a prisoner exchange, and now lives in Jordan, which refuses to extradite her to the U.S.
As documented in a recent post, Ahlam is highly regarded among the Tamimi Clan in Nabi Saleh. Ahed and her parents attended the wedding in Jordan of Ahlam and another released murderer.
Here is a video compiled from a live feed broadcast by the Workers World Party and original footage provided to us.
The woman at the beginning shouting for an Intifada is Ariel Gold, the Code Pink activist from Ithaca, NY, who is particularly close to the Tamimi family. Gold brought Bassem Tamimi to a third-grade classroom in Ithaca, where his call for the children to become “freedom fighters for Palestine” was condemned by the district Superintendent. The woman in the scarf who led the rally is believed to be Nerdeen Kiswani of NY City Students for Justice in Palestine.
How morbidly ironic that supporters of the Tamimis were calling for an Intifada when one of the most bloody incidents in the Second Intifada was carried out by a Tamimi.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I wonder what they mean by “wiping the Zionist entity off all maps”?
Why ironic? I don’t see anything ironic about it; on the contrary, it seems entirely logical that supporters of this bloodthirsty family should celebrate one of its major achievements, and should call for more such deeds. Ironic would be if a Tamimi had been a victim of one of the Intifadas.
“Ironic would be if a Tamimi had been a victim of one of the Intifadas.”
i’m sure that could be arranged… are you listening Mossad/Shin Bet/IDF?
make it so.
this actually violates #1A Free Speech on grounds of Incitement of Violence as Intifada is a Muslim call to kill all opposed to Islam especially the Jews.
then there’s the NY & NYC Hate Crime laws..
Apparently the NY & NYC support murdering Jews and non-Muslims who would have thought..
Do not expect equal application of the law
I apologize, but I don’t understand your observation… For the past 12-16 years the Muslim ‘race’ has been a protected class of people. I don’t know, perhaps people are being cautious about upsetting the religion of peace. Fear does funny things to people.
Um, no. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this before it penetrates, but the definition of incitement is speech that is both (a) subjectively intended and (b) objectively likely to cause its audience to (c) imminently violate the law. Merely advocating the murder of Jews is not incitement.
You also seem not to understand the term “hate crime”. The definition of “hate crime” is a crime that is motivated by hatred. So before something can be a hate crime it must first be a crime. If it’s not a crime then it doesn’t matter how hateful it is, it can’t be a hate crime. Hatred itself, or any expression of it, is not and cannot be a crime, anywhere in the US, including NYC.
Your Readers Digest explanation of the law does no one any favor, least of all readers of this blog.
(Readers: read Hugh Hewitt on incitement of violence:
“Hugh Hewitt: Incite violence? Then lawyer up:”
http://www.omaha.com/opinion/hugh-hewitt-incite-violence-then-lawyer-up/article_3e5c6826-8072-11e7-81d6-1f7f555759a8.html
Further, a ‘hate crime’ is not a crime ‘motivated by hate.’ (Not even Readers Digest would give such a lame explanation.) In New York, a hate crime is defined as:
S 485.05 Hate crimes. *Listing of Specified Offenses*
1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.
2. Proof of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of the defendant, the victim or of both the defendant and the victim does not, by itself, constitute legally sufficient evidence satisfying the people’s burden under paragraph (a) or (b) of subdivision one of this
section.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article485.htm#p485-05
In addition, there are “specified offenses” of the underlying criminal act (which includes lessor offenses, such as criminal trespass, criminal mischief and harassment.)
The idea is that if an offender intentionally commits a qualifying crime against a person from enumerated group because of a belief or perception an offender may have against the victim’s race, religion. ‘Hate’ has nothing to do with it.
If the NY city or state department of justice was not corrupted by the left, the likes of these people demonstrating would probably be prosecuted for incitement upon some subsequent violent act by some idiot follower of theirs. (It probably happens every day. Just ask a local mugging victim.) And the idiot offender would be charged with a ‘hate’ crime.
You filthy liar. My statement of the law is exactly correct, and your link says nothing different. You rely on people not following your link and assuming that if you say it says something different it must do so, but it doesn’t.
Your stupid cut and paste also doesn’t say anything different than I did. If something is not a crime it cannot be a “hate crime”. Hatred itself is not and cannot be a crime.
That is a deliberate lie. You know very well that they could not be prosecuted, because the three elements I listed are lacking; your own link says so.
If there is enough evidence for a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was motivated by hatred, then it is charged as a hate crime. It happens every day, and you know it d*mned well, and your claim that it doesn’t happen is a deliberate filthy lie. Where there is no such evidence then of course it can’t be charged that way, so it’s just charged as an ordinary offense and the defendant, if convicted, gets the ordinary penalty for that crime.
Why do you feel the need to lie so much?
Fuzzy, why is FineReport allowed to keep deliberately misrepresenting the law on a law blog? and why is he allowed to keep up this stream of hateful lies about other people?
Milhouse, Fine is a commenter, not an LI author and as such is not subject to accuracy standards. Comments are not weeded out due to untrue or incorrect statements; if someone is wrong about the law, I have every confidence that you will be happy to correct them.
I don’t see a “hateful lie” about another person in his comment, but even if I did, so what? Are you so delicate and precious that you can’t take the heat? After, by the way, calling him “a filthy liar” in your own comment; I don’t see Fine whining to me about being called a bad name and demanding you not be allowed to post comments here. Put on your big boy pants, Milhouse.
Personally, I think this is an interesting discussion. In part because the left does indeed want “hate” to be a crime; they’ve said so repeatedly (equating “hateful” words with violence, insisting that “hate” makes any crime more horrific and somehow more criminal in terms of tougher sentencing for “hate crimes,” and etc.).
Hate itself is not (yet) a crime, so in that you are correct, but Fine is also correct in noting that there are sundry and various offenses (like harassment) that can be elevated by introducing the “hate crime” element. For example, graffiti is graffiti, a minor vandalism charge in most jurisdictions if it’s investigated at all (which it typically is not); however, if the graffiti vandal writes something deemed “hateful” on the wall of a mosque or black church, etc., that’s the big league. Tagging a wall with your “colors” or a pretty picture of a daisy is one thing, tagging a mosque with “Muslims are evil” is completely different under the law.
The former a big yawn for law enforcement, who may be sitting in their cruiser chatting with the daisy vandal, and the latter is a hate crime that can and often does bring in the feds. Heck, you don’t even have to vandalize a property: someone hung a picture of Jesus on the fence of a mosque and it was investigated as a “hate crime.” Had that been a picture of a tree or cute little bunny rabbit, no one would think it a crime of any kind.
Fine’s point, as I read it, is that the “hate crime” designation is so intentionally broad that an underlying crime need not even be apparent or typically pursued by law enforcement. I guess the cute little bunny picture hanger COULD be charged with littering, but . . . that would never happen.
Your black and white thinking is difficult to deal with for most people, so try to be patient. No one understands why you find it so offensive and onerous and otherwise objectionable that someone sees some gray where you see only a hard line between black and white. In this case, Fine doesn’t call you names or tell any “hateful lies” about you. I guess implying you’re less than capable of critical thinking by calling your comment a “Reader’s Digest explanation of the law” may be offensive to you. Even so, this is not a safe space; you will find no Play-Doh and promise that you’ll never hear anything you find offensive or with which you disagree. Or do you really want us to start removing all comments with which any single person disagrees? That would leave us with exactly zero discussion. Or is it that you want us to remove only comments with which YOU disagree?
the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.
“this amounted to an incitement to commit murder
The above is the dictionary definition of incitement. Couldn’t find one that produced a different definition.
Calling for the death of Jewish people is incitement to violence i.e. Incitement to commit murder against them.
why is this scrunt even allowed in our country?
or any of the rest of her family, for that matter?
maybe they could be declared a “terrorist organization”?
I don’t know that she’s ever been here. Her awful uncle has, presumably because whoever issued his visa either didn’t know who he was, or didn’t care. There’s no law saying he can’t come, but a decent visa official would deny him one.
Where do you come up with the nerve to espouse knowledge of the law when you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
“According to the State Department rules on which criteria make potential immigrants ineligible for visas under the INA, people can be excluded if they have certain health conditions or have a criminal record. Potential immigrants found to have terrorist ties are also excluded, including anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”
“Anyone who is a current member of a totalitarian party is still excluded, such as “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign.” There are provisions to allow former party members to come to the United States as immigrants, based on how long ago they ceased their party membership and if they lived in a nation where the ruling government prescribed party membership. And the ban placed on polygamists back in 1891 still stands.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/who-can-be-excluded-as-an-immigrant-to-the-united-states
What the **** do you think any of that has to do with the subject? He’s not applying for immigration. He has no intention of immigrating here. There is no law that says he’s ineligible for a visa; it’s entirely up to the State Dept representative at the consulate who handles his visa application, and then to the ICE agent at the airport when he shows up with his visa and applies for admission to the US. Either one of them can turn him away, but doesn’t have to.
“It was streamed live on Facebook by Ahed’s mother.”
Serious question. Who paid for the cell phone towers that allowed for this to be broadcast? Assuming an Israeli entity did, why is Ahed’s mothers cell allowed to access the network?
Because whichever company built the tower did so for all its paying customers, and doesn’t care who they are.
Looks like a target when we get serious.
In terms of jihad and organized protests by immigration, how much longer before NYC resembles London, Brussels, Stockholm and Paris?
NYC has a communist mayor (di blasio) and a fascist governor (cuomo: “anyone who is pro-traditional marriage, pro-life or pro-guns – they “have no place in the state of New York”.) Dangerous, corrupt oafs, both of them.
London, Brussels, Stockholm and Paris could be looking good by comparison.
Unfortunately at this rate the only “wiping out” will be of the Palestinians. I wonder how long Americans would take rocks, rockets, bombings, and murders against it’s citizens from a neighboring territory like Israel has been receiving for decades. I would wager not long.
The Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from 29 August to 1 September and was attended by eight Arab heads of state: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Sudan.[1] The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it…”[2]
wiki
there IS NO OCCUPATION of ‘arab land’
the arabs initialed war to wipe out Israel..
the arabs lost land in ‘Mandate Palestine’ which they conquered in 1948, and which Jordan ILLEGALLY ANNEXED
this land is DISPUTED…the arabs conquered it by war and they lost it by war
the arabs are waiting for Europe and the UN to give them what they want..