Palestinian Family Hangs 15-Year-Old Boy Due To Suspicion of Collaboration with Israel

Ramallah_LogoIn Ramallah, West Bank, Palestinian police say that a family hanged a 15-year-old boy because they believed that he might be a collaborator with Israel. The police doubt that he was a collaborator due to his young age.

Police report that the boy was hanged by his own father, uncle, and cousin. One account says that the boy was tortured before being hanged.

For the full story, click here.

218 thoughts on “Palestinian Family Hangs 15-Year-Old Boy Due To Suspicion of Collaboration with Israel”

  1. sicilian writes: Trans-Jordan was an Arab ONLY domain.

    Jordan is a Hashemits kingdom, not arab.

    that’s the most glaring misstatement you’ve made just today.
    want to make more friends? present your facts in a logical and respectful way.
    do the same with any lies and/or propaganda.
    using CAPS for emphasis is shouting at people. we didn’t like it when we were kids and that mean old guy on the corner shouted at us for riding our bikes too close to his house. we don’t like it when you do it either.

  2. Sicilian,

    Excuse me: “…That you don’t use the Bible for as a factual source…”

  3. Sicilian,

    I just can’t let you get away with saying you don’t use the Bible as a historical source.

    From earlier “If you had any clue you’d know we ALL have a connection to Abraham through the bloodlines of Noah’s sons. DUH!” and “When Joshua led the Jews over the River Jordan to retake the Promised Land the Canaanites were slaughtered or otherwise assimilated into the Jewish culture or the surrounding cultures.”

    It’s the use of “Joshua led” that gives it away.

  4. Sicilian,

    I asked a different question than the one you answered. I got your point a long time ago. Although I don’t see what some of what you say has to do with anything. Assuming there was a real Abraham he wouldn’t have practiced any form of Judism modern Jews would recognize. Remember, the texts as we know them all came into form after the Babylonian exile, which would have had a huge effect on the religious practices of the captive people. (For instance: The creation story in Genesis is generally regarded to be an adaptation of the Babylonian creation story). It’s insulting to anyone’s intelligence to assume otherwise.

    The point I was hoping to get you to address is this: Human history is one wave of emigration after another. Some emigrations displaced people that were already living there (I doubt btw that the Canaanites were the VERY FIRST people to settle that land). Aside from the Nile Valley humanity is native to nowhere.

    So taking that into mind, how long do a people have to live in a land before they can be considered natives? Are the modern Italians natives, or should they have no claim on the land because they aren’t Etruscan?

  5. Gyges,

    My dates are in fact correct. Many have argued my conclusions and I respect that but the historical accuracy of my writing is on point.

    I do not assume any historical book to be fact. Is the Hebrew Bible 100% accurate? Probably not.

    But what is a fact is that Islam as well as Christianity are branches of Judaism. They all believe in the “Abrahamic” God. Whether the Jewish narrative is real or nothing more than allegory is NOT the issue because what is undeniable and acknowledged by even a secular student of history is that Judaism was being practiced milleniums before Mohammed even created Islam. The insult to the world’s intelligence is that Muslims expect everyone to believe that it was in fact Islam what Abraham was practicing and that it was the Jews who stole the faith and corrupted the Bible. THE whole “reason” for Mohammed was to “set the record” straight and take back what the Jews first and the Christians later corrupted. Now Mohammed was successful in getting many to buy that (Mainly by force I might add) but the historical record does NOT support that in the slightest.

    However you view the Jews, like them or not sympathize or hate. It is a FACT that they birthed what are today considered the 3 masjor Western religions. It is the Christians and then later the Muslims who grew from the Jewish root.

    All these Arab/Muslim first right claims do NOT hold up.

    Who are the native people? The Canaanites. But they’ve been lost to history so no one is native any more which begs the question, why can’t they peaceably live side-by-side?

  6. Ay’

    I also want to thank you for bringing the conversation back to an intelligent exchange of words and ideas.

    It had gone off the deep-end, I myself got caught-up in trying to one up, so you did a very good thing.

    Sometimes cooloer heads must prevail.

    Again, thank you.

  7. Mike S,

    Your criticisms about my hyperbole are well taken and I do NOT deny them. I just can NOT accept the Arab/Muslim version of history.

    I completely agree with the seond to last to paragraph in your post that was left immediately following my post.

    You are obviously very knowledgable about the topic and lend an honest and very respectful response.

    Thank you for your participation and being able to see the forrest through the trees as to what I was trying to say.

  8. Sicilian,

    Assuming your dates and info is correct (although I will point out again that you’re arguing that one people forcing other’s to accept their holy book as historical fact is wrong, and then taking another holy book and assuming it is historical fact). How long do a people have to live someplace before they have a claim to the land as natives?

  9. Carlyle Moulton:

    one hopes you never achieve a position of authority in whatever country you may live.

    Any state that proclaims the value of an individual life and strives to protect the individual is a moral state.

  10. Mike.

    There is no such thing as a moral state. All states are amoral and commit atrocities to a lesser or greater extent. My definition of a psychopath is an individual who acts as a nation.

    The fact is nations always have interests that are too important to allow actions in support of them to be constrained by moral issues. The protection of the morality of citizens of a state does not extend to that state’s enemies.

  11. IS,
    Fair questions, let me give you my reasoning.

    The Irgun was a pre-State terrorist organization that struck out on its own and wouldn’t form a unified from with
    David Ben Gurion. The Irgun were followers of Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, a right wing person who was in league with two other immoderates and opposed Chaim Weitzman’s vision. Incidentally, Netanyahu’s father and Grandfather followed Jabotinsky. They were not about establishing a “moral state,” they were for tactics like blowing up the King David Hotel, which was a similar terrorism to that which Israel faced. Their militancy actually made establishing a state harder.

    Netanyahu, is a hard line right winger who’s support comes from the settler’s and the religious fundamentalists. His previous government was an abject failure and characterized by corruption. His vision for Israel is similar to Reagan’s and the Bushes for the US.

    As a Jew and like the Hebrew National commercial I believe that Israel should answer to a higher authority. As a Deist of course I’m not certain if God is listening. That “higher
    authority” though is at the very least at the heart of Jewish belief. the two prongs of it are Rabbi Hillel’s “Do
    unto others……” formulation and the concept of Tikkun Olan, the healing of the world. Netanyahu, Begin and that ilk are essentially nationalistic corporatists. They had and have limited and selfish vision. Their support by the Fundamentalist religionists tries to ensure that the vast majority of Israeli’s will be controlled by religious fanatics.

  12. Mike,

    I understand your displeasure at Bibi’s qualifications and agree they are unworkable. But baby steps are still steps no matter how taxing they can be to one’s sense of optimism. Or so I keep telling myself. 😀

  13. “I was pleased to see Bibi actually have the words come out of his mouth in the last week.”

    Buddha,
    Believe it or not I was quite displeased with Bibi’s statement, although it did represent some progress. The reason I was displeased was his insistence on a de-militarized pseudo-Palestinian State, which I think is unworkable and his refusal to state that the settlement building would cease. I think his movement represents pressure from the US. Bibi is truly between a rock and a hard place because of his coalition support from Avigdor Lieberman (the settler’s friend and protector) and from the fundamentalist Israeli’s. If he loses that support his position becomes untenable.

    The halting and roll back of West Banks settlements is an obvious need for peace so I won’t comment on that further. The de-militarized State though is unreasonable given the realities of the area and I think held to to purposely make things hard. It could be though, looked in the best light, as part of a negotiation strategy and it well might be, I just don’t trust Bibi.

    So far to me this is something that President Obama is doing right and the AIPAC consternation with his Egyptian speech is proof.

  14. I’ll chime in and say thanks to everyone that utilizing this site for the exchange of free ideals and not a site for personal nasty attacks. Silcian1, Mike and Buddha the exchange of ideals is and was informative.

    Sometime it is easier to work within a conceptually defined ideal and explore what we agree with and not and seek some commonality of purpose rather than disproportions that need a Richter Scale to see where the fault lies.

  15. Mike Spindel:

    Why are Begin and Netanyahu scoundrels? From my perspective they are/were concerned for the future of Israel and for her continued existence. They faced much opposition from all corners of the world about the creation of Israel, let alone her survival.

    Israel is a moral state and has a moral right to exist. How can one who considers the continuation of the state of Israel to be moral a scoundrel?

    I know Begin was part of Irgund (sp?) but was that wrong, supporting the creation of a moral state amidst despotism? Was Washington a scoundrel, was Nathan Hale a thug? Do the people of Israel enjoy life as a free people? People that believe in freedom and liberty are neither scoundrels nor thugs.

    A thug is someone like Lenin or Saddam, or Assad, or the mullahs in Iran. They suppress freedom and liberty and believe in the primacy of the state over the individual.
    Bebe and Begin said liberty or death, and lived for Israels right to exist. If they are scoundrels and thugs then they are in good company-Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hale, Henry, et. al.

  16. Mike,

    You said, “You actually can make some decent points once you skip the hyperbole. I don’t care whether you promote your blog. What bothered me was the anti-Muslim diatribes which I feel are not helpful and the fact that you started a flame war with the wrong person (on all levels).”

    I’ll agree with that.

    I also agree with the bulk of what you said on the two-state solution even though (as you well know) we get there via different logics. I was pleased to see Bibi actually have the words come out of his mouth in the last week. His eventually addressing the issue was never in question, but I was surprised at how quick he came to it considering his hawkish record. It’s a sign he’s getting pressure to moderate from somewhere. The efficacy of that pressure remains to be seen.

  17. sicilian 1,
    You actually can make some decent points once you skip the hyperbole. I don’t care whether you promote your blog. What bothered me was the anti-Muslim diatribes which I feel are not helpful and the fact that you started a flame war with the wrong person (on all levels).

    As to your response to Mr. Hogan’s article I agree. Much as I as a Jew wish the Exodus to be real there is little historical evidence that proves it. Secondly, Mr. Hogan’s specific dating of it to the time of Ramses II is very much in dispute. This is just one of the problems in Mr. Hogan’s essay. The problem in general is that the archaeological evidence for the whole area is still in the developmental stage and Egypt’s Archaeology, perhaps the most important of all, is controlled by Mr. Hawass, who is an agent of the State and therefore works to present everything on ancient Egypt into the best political light for the current regime.

    In general I agree with much of what you wrote historically.
    Your over-the-top criticism of Islam though is uncalled for
    as a generality, since the real problem is religious fundamentalism of any religious stripe. If the Fundamentalist Christian’s took control of the US today, for
    instance, their actions towards women would be just as repressive save perhaps for the veil. The ME problems really stem from the years of colonialism and the vicissitudes of the Cold War.

    There is also an attitude there of victimization by the West.
    It has always struck me that the Crusades (which indeed were horrible)are viewed as the “crime” of the Christian West. Yet the fact of Islam’s being spread by the sword, four hundred year earlier, to Europe is forgotten. As you also described the Ottoman Empire, Islamic Turks, controlled had hegemony over the whole area up until WW1. While not Arabs, they certainly were Muslims.

    As to your allusions in passing as to why many of these myths hold such strength, I believe partly it is because the image of strong Jews bothers some people, who would rather see them as victims. Arab PR has done a good job of portraying the pseudo-Palestinian’s victimhood, when the issue is far more complex. The sympathy on the left arose as an offshoot of the USSR siding with the Arabs vs. Israel to vex the US and in their own attempt to get to the oil. The whole web is tangled beyond belief.

    The way to cut the Gordian Knot is indeed the two state solution. Unfortunately, the Israeli’s, shell shocked from years of constant strife, have voted in scoundrels like Netanyahu and thugs like Begin. Their intransigence, fuel by
    the minority of Jewish Fundamentalists has made a bad situation even more difficult.

  18. AY,

    This site is a very sloppy history lesson with some clear falsehoods.

    But I will debate it and hopefully set the record straight.

    First off, I am NOT claiming the Jews have MORE right to the Land than the Arabs. Everybody sees the Arab criticism and automatically gets their “dander” up and gets all offensive and wants to make Zionist accusations.

    My only position that to kill in the name of a lie and to promote that lie to turn the Arab/Muslim/Palestinians into a victim is dangerous.

    The gentlman who wrote this title’s his article, with the fallacy tag then tells the lie Arafat has been disseminating since the PLO founding in 1964. This is the problem with Muslim/Arab revisionist history; It’s been SO successful.

    The Palestines are NOT the ancient Canaanites. It is impossible for that to be true. Any honest student of history will tell anyone the same.

    When Joshua led the Jews over the River Jordan to retake the Promised Land the Canaanites were slaughtered or otherwise assimilated into the Jewish culture or the surrounding cultures.
    Did the Jews slaughter all the Canaanites? Maybe. Were the Canaanites assimilated into the Jewish culture? Probably. But what is true is that an indigenous Canaanite civilization disappeared from the earth somewhere B.C.E.

    The Canaanite people could NOT have assimilated into any Arab culture because the Arabs were still nestled in Arabia at this point in history. There was NO such thing as Islam at this point as EVEN the Arabs were practicing polytheism.

    Islam wasn’t invented untill some 1,800 years after the Jewish takeover of the Land. The Arabs did NOT even make their first incursions into the Middle East untill some 1,850 years after the Jewish takeover of the Land. There is NO credible Arab claim to Canaanite blood. As I said the Canaanites disappeared from civiliztion in ancient times. If any of them remained they did so only in pockets and most likely converted to Judaism. If there are any people with ancient Canaanite blood floating through their viens it is most likely Jewish people being that they were the immediate conquerers of the Canaanites and either slaughtered or converted the remaining inhabitants.

    What is certain is that the Arab/Muslims can NOT claim Canaanite blood being that the Canaanite civiliztion had disappeared or otherwise assimilated into the surrounding peoples more than a millenium before Islam was invented or the Arab/Muslims ever made their way to the Land.

    The people of the Land lived subject to whoever ruled the Land. After the Babylonian exile the Jews themselves NEVER had any soveriegnty in the Land. And for that matter NO one living there ever had any soveriegnty. The native peoples had disappeared, their civilization destroyed or assimilated into the surrounding cultures. Once the Jews destroyed the Cannanites there could NEVER be native claims to the Land by ANYBODY.

    The Land passed back and forth between many different Empire’s and Kingdoms. The Crusades happened and the Land passed back and forth untill the Arabs remained in possession.

    Lets skip to 1517 when the Ottoman Empire took possession of the Land. Although the Turks themselves were Muslim, they still oppressed their Arab/Muslim brothers forcing a Turkish nationalism on them many times. The Arabs chaffed under Ottoman rule.

    Then during WWI thje Ottoman Empire sided with the Central powers. The Arabs dreaming of an exclusively ARAB state in the Middle East, under the leadership of the Hashemite tribe of Arabia conspired with the Brits to undermine the Ottoman Turks. The Great Arab Revolt orchestrated by “Lawrence of Arabia” was a blow to the Ottoman Empire.

    Obviously WWI ended in defeat for the Central Powers and they were kicked out of the Middle East with the allies, mainly the Brits in control of the Land. The Brits ran the territories under a series of mandates. To pay off the Hashemite tribe they installed them in what became known as Iraq, Syria and Jordan. The Hashemites considered themselves the King of the Arab world, tracing bloodlines back to Mohammed.

    Eventually the House of Saud from the land of the Nejd (sic?) took the land of the hejaz from the Hashemites and formed what became known as modern day Saudi Arabia in approx. 1932. Eventually the Hashemites lost Syria (Very quickly after the area was given to them) and Iraq (Many years after it’s formation.

    Jordan, that’s the ancient Land everybody talks about. Well the Hashemite dynasty of Arabia was able to retain the Land of what would eventually be called present day Jordan but what was known then as Trans-Jordan.

    Trans-Jordan was an Arab ONLY domain. All Palestinian Arabs were offered citezenship. So you see that what today is known as the Middle East is a MODERN invention. A Jordanian IS a MODERN invention. The people who the world calls Jordanians ARE in fact Palestinians.

    So this Arab state encompassed about 75% of the Land. The Brits tried to give the Jews a home in what remained for many years with the Arabs puttig up a fight every time.

    Then WWII hapened, the Holocaust and eventually the UN Partition Plan with a Jewish and Arab state in what remained of the Land. In 48′ the Jews declared there independence. The Arab/Muslim world told all the Palestinians in the territories to flee and that after the Jews were wiped out they could return. The Palestinian Arab/Muslims did as told and the Arabs attacked. The Jews beat them back with Jordan annexing the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip (Or visa-versa)

    Two decades passed. Those Palestinians in those territories NEVER once cried for their soveriegnty. Their Arab “possessers of the territories NEVER once offered soveriegnty to them.

    Then in 67′ after many warnings to the Arab/Muslim countries to back off, Israel attacked. The 6 day war ensued and the Jews took back the annexed territories, hence the occupied territories.

    So what is the solution? Obviously a two-state solution. No party can claim native/soveriegn/indigenous rights to the Land so agreeing to coexist peacefully is the only way. The problem is that the Arab/Muslims won’t go for it. The Jews have offered land for peace on the condition the Arab/Muslim world acknowledge their statehood. The Arab/Muslims REFUSE that concession EVERY time.

    It is this misinformation that the Arab/Muslim?Palestinians have native rights that I find so insulting.

    I’m arguing from the position that NOBODY is going to live in “perfect harmony”, I think that history has proven that to be a valid assumption. So then lets look at the history. Each group certainly has arguable claims to the land. But the sad reality is that the Land has always been a Land of conquer since the Jews drove out the native Canaanite culture. The Arab/Muslims NEVER complained when they took the Land by military conquer from other peoples.

    Granted the Jews were “given” the Land by the UN. Well, the Arab/Muslim world didn’t like it so they initiated the war in ’48 and again in 67′ not to mention all the terrorist actions in between and since.

    So if the Arab/Muslims were ok with the Land being a Land of conquer then, then they should accept that the Jews conquered the Land to possess it now. Untill those fighting over the Land can let humanity reign and come to a peaceful existence the Land will always be a Land of conquer and whoever holds it last will be the owner.

    My problem with the Arab/Muslims is their insistence on forcing the world to buy all their fabricated beefs. They have NO native claims to the Land. They are NOT an indigenous people. The refugee problem was created by the Arab/Muslim countries. Jordan could easily give the Palestinian “refugee’s” refuge. Citizenship in Jordan was offered to all Palestinian Muslims when Jordan was originally created. But if they did that they’d lose their victim status and would no longer be able to portray the Jews as the big bad guy. And that’s what this is really all about, claiming victimhood, branding the other side as evil then getting yourself sympathy on the international stage.

    The Arab/Muslims insult the intelligence of everyone out there by trying to claim Abraham as their own which in turn in their minds makes them the “true” followers of God.

    Ok, Abraham lived in the Mesopotamian region. There is little evidence he ever made his way down to Arabia. Undoubtedly Abraham was a Hebrew. His son Ishmael was born of his Egyptian concubine. Ishmael the father of the “Ishmaelites” was of mixed Hebrew and Egyptian heritage. Abraham deposited Ishmael and his mother Hagar just outside the Promised Land in Haran. NOT in Arabia. Abraham was still in contact with Ishmael during his life. Ishmael probably didn’t even make his way down to Arabia.Did Ishmael’s decsendants make their way into Arabia? Yes, but not untill decades after Ishmael died.

    Can all these historical Biblical figures and the details of their lives be proven beyond doubt? NO., I do concede that. But historically speaking the monnotheistic faith that is known as Judaism was born in the mesopotamian region. NOT Arabia. Arabs were still practicing polytheism centuries after the birth of Christianity.

    Can the Arabs/Muslims make any first right or native claims to the Land? Absolutely NOT.

    I only constantly rant about this because it is an historical fabrication that we’re all forced to believe. We all have to buy this revisionist history about the Land, Abraham and God. We are forced to argue from an invalid starting point.

    If the Arabs were like look, ‘We believe in the “Abrahamic” God too, we just have some theological and doctrinal disagreements with the other practitioners of this God so we’re gonna go off and do our thing’, that would be fine.

    Instead we get terrorism, arrogance, indignace, stubborness and an insistence that the world submit to their beliefs.

    That website that was pulled up was right only by the title of the article. The body was a complete mess with sloppily done research. It’s these inaccuracies that are the real danger.

    It is fine if any one disagree’s with my conclusions. No problem, we aren’t robots and we all bring different outlooks to things. BUT the historical facts I presented ARE in fact ACCURATE. What you conclude from those facts is your business just as mine are mine.

    I know Mike S doesn’t like me promoting my blog but sometimes I do so I don’t have to write these long disertations. I stand behind the facts and the conclusions I draw are mine alone

  19. The point is that no one can refute my original claim of an Arab/Muslim/Palestinian fallacy.

    Those that citicize with name-calling and personal attacks only do so because they lack the knowledge to debate the issue.

Comments are closed.