Tuesday, March 28th | 1 Nisan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
December 8, 2015 12:21 pm

5 Israeli Arabs Indicted for Creating ISIS Cell in Nazareth, Planning Terror Attacks in Israel

avatar by Algemeiner Staff

Email a copy of "5 Israeli Arabs Indicted for Creating ISIS Cell in Nazareth, Planning Terror Attacks in Israel" to a friend
The five Nazareth men charged with setting up an ISIS cell. Photo: Channel 2/Screenshot.

The five Nazareth men charged with setting up an ISIS cell. Photo: Channel 2/Screenshot.

Israeli legal authorities filed an indictment against five Nazereth men, charging them with setting up an ISIS terrorist cell to carry out attacks in Israel.

The indictment, delivered to the Nazareth Illit District Court and cleared for publication on Tuesday, charged the five men, all relatives between the ages of 18-27, with organizing an illegal network, storing weapons and even carrying out drills for potential attacks in urban areas.

According to the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, and prosecutors from the Northern District office, the cell was preparing to launch attacks in Israel on behalf of ISIS, although they had no plans themselves to visit Syria, where the terrorist group is headquartered. The indictment revealed that the five had discussed ISIS ideology among themselves on Facebook.

Related coverage

March 27, 2017 12:06 pm
0

Israeli President Rivlin Rejects Former PM Olmert’s Pardon Request

JNS.org - A pardon request filed by incarcerated former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was rejected Monday by President Reuven Rivlin. In the...

The members of the cell, according to Israel’s Channel 2 news, were Abd al-Karim Ihab Abd al-Rahman Suleiman, 22, Muhammad Ihab Abd al-Rahman Suleiman, 18, Abd al-Karim Jamal Ali Suleiman, 23, Muhammad Saleh Muhammad Suleiman, 19, and Murad Muhammad Salim Suleiman, 27.

According to the indictment, the five spent the last year amassing weapons to be used in an attack, and even practiced shooting these firearms. Additionally, the members apparently became newly religious and held meetings, pledging their allegiance to ISIS and praising jihad against those considered heretics.

Former national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror, told an Israeli radio station on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post, that there were three ways ISIS was likely to try to attack Israel. One of these methods was the establishment of an ISIS cell among Israeli Arabs.

The other two methods were either setting up a terror cell among Palestinians in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, or launching an attack using ISIS-affiliated groups in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, along Israel’s southern border or in the Syrian Golan region.

Amidror noted Shin Bet’s capabilities when it comes to thwarting terror cells in Israel and among the Palestinians of the West Bank and east Jerusalem — all under the security service’s purview.

As for the external cells in Egypt or Syria, Amidror said the IDF — and likely its intelligence branch, Aman — was prepared to encounter such threats.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • The phrase “in Palestine”, another expression found in the Balfour Declaration that generated much controversy, referred to the whole country, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan. It was absurd to imagine that this phrase could be used to indicate that only a part of Palestine was reserved for the future Jewish National Home, since both were created simultaneously and used interchangeably, with the term “Palestine” pointing out the geographical location of the future independent Jewish state. Had “Palestine” meant a partitioned country with certain areas of it set aside for Jews and others for Arabs, that intention would have been stated explicitly at the time the Balfour Declaration was drafted and approved and later adopted by the Principal Allied Powers. No such allusion was ever made in the prolonged discussions that took place in fashioning the Declaration and ensuring it international approval.

    There is therefore no juridical or factual basis for asserting that the phrase “in Palestine” limited the establishment of the Jewish National Home to only a part of the country. On the contrary, Palestine and the Jewish National Home were synonymous terms, as is evidenced by the use of the same phrase in the second half of the Balfour Declaration which refers to the existing non-Jewish communities “in Palestine”, clearly indicating the whole country. Similar evidence exists in the preamble and terms of the Mandate Charter.

    The San Remo Resolution of 1920 on Palestine combined the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as international treaty with Article 22 of the League Covenant. This meant that the general provisions of Article 22 applied to the Jewish people exclusively, who would set up their home and state in all of Palestine. There was no intention to apply Article 22 to the Arabs of the country, as was mistakenly concluded by the Palestine Royal Commission which relied on that article of the Covenant as the legal basis to justify the partition of Palestine, apart from the other reasons it gave. The proof of the applicability of Article 22 to the Jewish people, including not only those in Palestine at the time, but those who were expected to arrive in large numbers in the future, is found in the Smuts Resolution, which became Article 22 of the Covenant. It specifically names Palestine as one of the countries to which this article would apply. There was no doubt that when Palestine was named in the context of Article 22, it was linked exclusively to the Jewish National Home, as set down in the 1917 Balfour Declaration, a fact everyone was aware of at the time, including the representatives of the Arab national movement, as evidenced by the agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann dated January 3, 1919 as well as an important letter sent by the Emir to future US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter dated March 3, 1919. In that letter, Feisal characterized as “moderate and proper” the Zionist proposals presented by Nahum Sokolow and Weizmann to the Council of Ten at the Paris Peace Conference on February 27, 1919, which called for the development of all of Palestine into a Jewish commonwealth with extensive boundaries. The argument later made by Arab leaders that the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine were incompatible with Article 22 of the Covenant is totally undermined by the fact that the Smuts Resolution – the precursor of Article 22 – specifically included Palestine within its legal framework.

    The San Remo Resolution of 1920 on Palestine became Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 which was intended to end the war with Turkey, but though this treaty was never ratified by the Turkish National Government of Kemal Ataturk, the Resolution retained its validity as an independent act of international law when it was inserted into the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine and confirmed by 52 states. The San Remo Resolution of 1920 is the base document upon which the Mandate was constructed and to which it had to conform. It is therefore the pre-eminent foundation document of the State of Israel and the crowning achievement of pre-state Zionism. It has been accurately described as the Magna Carta of the Jewish people. It is the best proof that the whole country of Palestine and the Land of Israel belong exclusively to the Jewish people under international law.

    The Mandate for Palestine implemented both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League Covenant, i.e. the San Remo Resolution of 1920. All four of these acts were building blocks in the legal structure that was created for the purpose of bringing about the establishment of an independent sovereign Jewish state. The Balfour Declaration of 1917; in essence stated the principle or object of a Jewish state. The San Remo Resolution of 1920 gave it the stamp of international law. The Mandate furnished all the details and means for the realization of the sovereign Jewish state. As noted, Britain’s chief obligation as Mandatory, Trustee and Tutor was the creation of the appropriate political, administrative and economic conditions to secure the sovereign Jewish state. All 28 articles of the Mandate were directed to this objective, including those articles that did not specifically mention the Jewish National Home. The Mandate for Palestine created a right of return for the Jewish people to Palestine and the right to establish settlements and communities on the land throughout the country of Palestine in order to create the envisaged Jewish state.

    • Jack

      So much gets lost in the haze of history. People forget how Israeli’s had to fight for their right to create Israel.
      The Arab League tried to prevent that occurring.
      Britain, and Balfour were conflicted about Israels creation, on the one hand believing in the right of return and Jewry’s right to self determination, versus the need to uphold the law and the ‘status quo’.
      Begin’s insurrection was a necessity, since that ‘staid auld’ British mentality of being dependable to all was moving not at all.
      The common person in Britain was horrified by the Holocaust and whole-heartedly supported the recognition of Israel when the time came, which finally caused the political class to put aside some of, (very little, really), the old thinking in the region.
      The problems created by the colonialist past is far from resolved.

  • Dvir Yaakov

    Public Execution and immediate removal of their families from the Land of Israel!

Algemeiner.com