/m7mdkurd

Mohammed El-Kurd sur X :
▻https://twitter.com/m7mdkurd/status/1749088737533821215

I was investigated by Britain’s counterterrorism police, which succumbed to political pressure from top Israeli propagandists, diplomats, lobby-affiliated British government officials, and countless right-wing media outlets, who demanded I be arrested and charged over a recent anti-zionist speech I gave in London.
The interrogation, which I attended with counsel, proved to be a great waste of time and public funds, and the police promptly closed the case and pursued no further action. If anything, it was a mere inconvenience. This is but one of the many recent instances that reveal the political bankruptcy of Zionists, who have to rely on duplicitous and ridiculous measures to distract from the colonial violence they defend and perpetuate.
It should also serve as a reminder that, in the ‘civilized world,’ those opposing war crimes are more likely to be scrutinized and persecuted than war crimes themselves. In the last 107 days, the Israeli occupation forces have murdered a daily average of 250 Palestinians; 1 in every 20 Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip has been killed, wounded, or dispossessed by the Israeli regime. Genocide is the crime and Zionism is the culprit. That is the only headline that matters.

There’s a mass Palestinian grave at a popular Israeli beach, veterans confess

The Israeli veterans of the 1948 battle at Tantura village finally come clean about the mass killing of Arabs that took place after the village’s surrender

Adam Raz - Jan. 20, 2022- Haaretz.com
►https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT.MAGAZINE-there-s-a-mass-palestinian-grave-at-a-popular-i

https://img.haarets.co.il/img/1.10553965/490949339.jpg?precrop=1354,788,x0,y111&height=698&width=1200

“They silenced it,” the former combat soldier Moshe Diamant says, trying to be spare with his words. “It mustn’t be told, it could cause a whole scandal. I don’t want to talk about it, but it happened. What can you do? It happened.”

Twenty-two years have passed since the furor erupted over the account of what occurred during the conquest by Israeli troops of the village of Tantura, north of Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, in the War of Independence. The controversy sprang up in the wake of a master’s thesis written by an Israeli graduate student named Theodore Katz, that contained testimony about atrocities perpetrated by the Alexandroni Brigade against Arab prisoners of war. The thesis led to the publication of an article in the newspaper Maariv headlined “The Massacre at Tantura.” Ultimately, a libel suit filed against Katz by veterans of the brigade induced him to retract his account of a massacre.

For years, Katz’s findings were archived, and discussion of the episode took the form of a professional debate between historians. Until now. Now, at the age of 90 and up, a number of combat soldiers from the Israel Defense Forces’ brigade have admitted that a massacre did indeed take place in 1948 at Tantura – today’s popular Dor Beach, adjacent to Kibbutz Nahsholim. The former soldiers describe different scenes in different ways, and the number of villagers who were shot to death can’t be established. The numbers arising from the testimonies range from a handful who were killed, to many dozens. According to one testimony, provided by a resident of Zichron Yaakov who helped bury the victims, the number of dead exceeded 200, though this high figure does not have corroboration.

According to Diamant, speaking now, villagers were shot to death by a “savage” using a submachine gun, at the conclusion of the battle. He adds that in connection with the libel suit in 2000, the former soldiers tacitly understood that they would pretend that nothing unusual had occurred after the village’s conquest. “We didn’t know, we didn’t hear. Of course everyone knew. They all knew.”

Another combat soldier, Haim Levin, now relates that a member of the unit went over to a group of 15 or 20 POWs “and killed them all.” Levin says he was appalled, and he spoke to his buddies to try to find out what was going on. “You have no idea how many [of us] those guys have killed,” he was told.

Another combat soldier in the brigade, Micha Vitkon, talked about an officer “who in later years was a big man in the Defense Ministry. With his pistol he killed one Arab after another. He was a bit disturbed, and that was a symptom of his disturbance.” According to Vitkon, the soldier did what he did because the prisoners refused to divulge where they had hidden the remaining weapons in the village.

Another combat soldier described a different incident that occurred there: “It’s not nice to say this. They put them into a barrel and shot them in the barrel. I remember the blood in the barrel.” One of the soldiers summed up by saying that the his comrades-in-arms simply didn’t behave like human beings in the village – and then resumed his silence.

These and other testimonies appear in an impressive documentation project of the director Alon Schwarz. His documentary film “Tantura,” which will be screened twice this weekend online as part of the Sundance Film festival in Utah, would seem to undo the version that took root following the libel suit and Katz’s apology. Even though the testimonies of the soldiers in the film (some of them recorded by Katz, some by Schwarz) were given in broken sentences, in fragments of confessions, the overall picture is clear: Soldiers in the Alexandroni Brigade massacred unarmed men after the battle had concluded.

In fact, the testimony Katz collected was not presented to the court during the libel trial, which was settled midway through the proceedings. Listening to those recordings suggests that if the court had probed them at the time, Katz would not have been impelled to apologize. Often what the soldiers told him was only hinted at and partial, but together it added up to an unequivocal truth.

“What do you want?” asked Shlomo Ambar, who would rise to the rank of brigadier general and head of Civil Defense, the forerunner of today’s Home Front Command. “For me to be a delicate soul and speak in poetry? I moved aside. That’s all. Enough.” Ambar, speaking in the film, made it clear that the events in the village had not been to his liking, “but because I didn’t speak out then, there is no reason for me to talk about it today.”

One of the grimmest testimonies in Schwarz’s film is that of Amitzur Cohen, who talked about his first months as a combat soldier in the war: “I was a murderer. I didn’t take prisoners.” Cohen relates that if a squad of Arab soldiers was standing with their hands raised, he would shoot them all. How many Arabs did he kill outside the framework of the battles? “I didn’t count. I had a machine gun with 250 bullets. I can’t say how many.”

The Alexandroni Brigade soldiers’ testimonies join past written testimony provided by Yosef Ben-Eliezer. “I was one of the soldiers involved in the conquest of Tantura,” Ben-Eliezer wrote, some two decades ago. “I was aware of the murder in the village. Some of the soldiers did the killing at their own independent initiative.”

The testimonies and documents that Schwarz collected for his film indicate that after the massacre the victims were buried in a mass grave, which is now under the Dor Beach parking lot. The grave was dug especially for this purpose, and the burial went on for more than a week. At the end of May 1948, a week after the village was conquered, and two weeks after the declaration of statehood, one of the commanders who was posted at the site was reprimanded for not having dealt properly with the burial of the Arabs’ bodies. On June 9, the commander of the adjacent base reported: “Yesterday I checked the mass grave in Tantura cemetery. Found everything in order.”

In addition to the testimonies and documents, the film presents the conclusion of experts who compared aerial photographs of the village from before and after its conquest. A comparison of the photographs, and the use of three-dimensional imaging done with new tools, makes it possible not only to determine the exact location of the grave but also to estimate its dimensions: 35 meters long, 4 meters wide. “They took care to hide it,” Katz says in the film, “in such a way that the coming generations would walk there without knowing what they were stepping on.”

Disqualified

The confession of the Alexandroni Brigade troops casts a new light on the dismal attempt to silence Teddy Katz. In March 1998, while a graduate student at the University of Haifa, Katz submitted a master’s thesis to the department of Middle Eastern history. Its title: “The Exodus of the Arabs from the Villages at the Foot of Southern Mount Carmel in 1948.” Katz, then in his fifties, received a grade of 97. According to custom, the paper was deposited in the university’s library, and the author intended to proceed to doctoral studies. But his plan went awry.

In January 2000, journalist Amir Gilat borrowed the study from the library and published an article about the massacre in Maariv. It touched off a firestorm. Besides the libel suit initiated by the Alexandroni veterans association, the university also went into a tizzy, and decided to set up a committee to reexamine the M.A. thesis. Even though the original reviewers found that Katz had completed the thesis with excellence, and even though the paper was based on dozens of documented testimonies – of Jewish soldiers and Arab refugees from Tantura – the new committee decided to disqualify the thesis.

Katz’s paper is not fault-free, but probably the primary target of criticism is the University of Haifa, which accompanied the research and the writing in a deficient manner, and after approving it then reversed course and disowned its student. That made possible the years-long silencing and repression of the bloody events in Tantura. For Katz, one court hearing was all it took for him to sign a letter of apology in which he declared that there had not been a massacre in the village and that his thesis was flawed. The fact that just hours later he retracted this, and that his lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, was not present at the nighttime meeting in which Katz came under pressure to recant, was forgotten. The apology buried the findings the thesis had uncovered, and the details of the massacre were thereafter not subjected to comprehensive scrutiny.

The historians who addressed the episode – from Yoav Gelber to Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé – reached different and contradictory conclusions. Gelber, who played a key role in the struggle to discredit Katz’s paper, asserted that a few dozen Arabs had been killed in the battle itself, but that a massacre had not occurred. Morris, for his part, thought that it was impossible to determine unequivocally what happened, but wrote that after reading several of the testimonies and interviewing some of the Alexandroni veterans, he “came away with a deep sense of unease.” Pappé, who engaged in a highly publicized debate with Gelber over Katz’s thesis, determined that a massacre had been perpetrated in Tantura in the straightforward sense of the word. Now, with the appearance of the testimony in Schwarz’s film, the debate would seem to be decided.

In one of the more dramatic scenes in the documentary, Drora Pilpel, who was the judge in the libel suit against Katz, listens to a recording of one of Katz’s interviews. It was the first time she had encountered the testimony collected by Katz, whose speedy apology brought the trial to a quick end. “If it’s true, it’s a pity,” the retired judge tells the director after removing her headphones. “If he had things like this, he should have gone all the way to the end.”

The Tantura affair exemplifies the difficulty that soldiers in the 1948 war had in acknowledging the bad behavior that was on display in that war: acts of murder, violence against Arab residents, expulsion and looting. To listen to the soldiers’ testimony today, while considering the uniform stand they demonstrated when they sued Katz, is to grasp the potency of the conspiracy of silence and the consensus that there are things one doesn’t talk about. It’s to be hoped that from the perspective of years, such subjects will be more readily addressed. A possibly encouraging sign in this direction is the fact that the film about Tantura received funding from such mainstream bodies as the Hot cable network and the New Fund for Cinema and Television.

The grim events at Tantura will never be completely investigated, the full truth will not be known. However, there is one thing that can be asserted with a great deal of certainty: Under the parking lot of one of the most familiar and beloved Israeli resort sites on the Mediterranean, lie the remains of the victims of one of the glaring massacres of the War of Independence.

Adam Raz is a researcher at the Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research. The Akevot Institute assisted the filmmaker (without remuneration) .

traduction en français : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/946137#message946214

Mohammed El-Kurd
@m7mdkurd
▻https://twitter.com/m7mdkurd/status/1484631528718094338

Our grandparents have viscerally narrated the harrowing massacres upon which the Zionist state was built.

But our testimonies aren’t enough. It takes the “confessions” of an ex-soldier or the belated “miraculous epiphanies” of foreign human rights orgs for the world to listen.

Mohammed El-Kurd
@m7mdkurd
▻https://twitter.com/m7mdkurd/status/1484635981701648384

Why do we give the authority of narration to those who’ve murdered and displaced us, when the scarcity of their guilty consciences means honesty is never guaranteed?

Why do we wait for those carrying the batons to speak when our bruised bodies tell the whole truth?

Mohammed El-Kurd
@m7mdkurd - 10:56 AM · 3 août 2021
▻https://twitter.com/m7mdkurd/status/1422481550982123538/photo/1

At the court, when I asked the BBC journalist about their framing, they said “don’t worry, we’re the BBC!” And I said that’s exactly why I am worried.

Typically, their framing is a gross obstruction of reality.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E72rbddX0AAJjr2.jpg

In Sheikh Jarrah, Israel’s Supreme Court seeks to avoid ruling on who’s right
Nir Hasson | Aug. 3, 2021 - Haaretz.com
▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-in-sheikh-jarrah-israeli-court-seeks-to-avoid-ruling-on-

https://img.haarets.co.il/img/1.9928347/876287836.jpg?precrop=2200,1281,x0,y127&height=698&width=1200

By offering a compromise, top court justices showed they did not want to discuss the legal substance of the case nor order the eviction of hundreds of Palestinians from their homes, especially now

An extraordinary hearing was held in Room D of the Supreme Court of Justice on Monday. Outside were scores of journalists, diplomats, left-wing activists and a small group of right-wingers. There were also scores of Sheikh Jarrah residents who had arrived in a last-ditch effort to prevent eviction from their homes.

At the start of the proceedings, the justices sought in any way possible, albeit with decidedly moderate pressure, to bring the two parties to a compromise deal.

The thrust of the arrangement Justices Isaac Amit, Daphne Barak-Erez and Noam Sohlberg sought would let the Palestinian residents remain in their homes with the status of protected tenants. Moreover, they would be recognized as first-generation protected tenants, meaning that their children and grandchildren would be able to stay in the houses. In exchange, they would pay 1,500 shekels ($465) a year to the company Nahalat Shimon, which has been seeking to evict them.

The problem isn’t the money but the question of recognizing Nahalat Shimon as the owner. The Palestinians refuse to. For their part, representatives of the settlers demanded explicit Palestinian recognition of ownership of the land under the buildings and a promise not to raise further claims in the future. The Palestinians resolutely refused.

The arrangement the court proposed had other problems, for example, who would be the recognized tenant of each property, because it was often the case that a number of brothers inherited a house but only one of them can be designated a protected tenant.

Another problem is that protected tenants aren’t wholly protected from eviction. For instance, if the settlers are able to get a construction permit in the framework of the P’nui U’Binui (urban renewal) program, they can order the residents out in exchange for providing them with substitute housing. Justice Amit, the chairman of the three-judge panel, was optimistic that this problem could be solved by “constructive diplomacy.”

“We will rule that the petitioners declare that they are the protected tenants and that the respondent is registered as the owner, and the issue is resolved. This [compromise] will provide breathing space of a few good years until then either there will be a real estate agreement or peace will come. We do not know what will happen. Is it possible to sum up this matter?” Amit said to the two sides.

It was clear that Amit and his colleagues didn’t want to sign an order evicting the families from their homes. “What we are saying is let’s bring this down from the level of principles to a pragmatic level. People should be able to continue living there – that’s the idea – to try and reach a practical arrangement without making declarations of one kind or another. We’ve seen how interested the media are in this. We want a practical solution,” said Amit.

But as the hearing progressed, the justices found it harder and harder to bring the two sides together. In the end, they responded to the request by the Palestinians’ lawyers, Sami Arshid and Salah Abu Hussein, to break for consultations. But the court told them they couldn’t leave the courtroom. The justices expressed concern that if they were allowed to leave they would be subject to outside influences that would cause them to reject any compromise.

“You will remain here under house arrest but without electronic handcuffs,” joked Amit. The non-Palestinian spectators, who have never experienced arrest or house arrest, perhaps enjoyed the joke more.

After the hearings resumed, however, the justices despaired of compromise. Instead, they instructed the two parties to begin making their cases over the substance of the legal dispute itself. That was unusual since the Palestinians’ claims have already been rejected for a variety of technical reasons – statute of limitations, a lack of public interest in pursuing the litigation, presumption of administrative correctness and others.

Arshid and Abu Hussein jumped at the opportunity and began to detail the difficulties and illogic of a foreign company controlled by right-wing activists becoming the owners of an East Jerusalem neighborhood. All the eviction orders to date have been based on two foundations: The first is the registration of the land as Jewish in 1972 and the second is the hearings that took place in the Supreme Court in the 1980s during which the Palestinians recognized Jewish ownership of the land. Since then, in nearly all the legal proceedings, it has been claimed that the Palestinians were not entitled to appeal either of these foundations. This time, they were allowed to.

Arshid and Abu Hussein claimed, for example, that the 1972 registration was done by accident or fraudulently, that the settlers have no documents attesting to their ownership, that the Israeli Justice Ministry’s Custodian General didn’t have the authority to award control of the land to Jews, that the government of Jordan transferred control of the land to them and that even Yaakov Shapira, when he was Israeli justice minister in 1968, promised that even if the land was restored to the Jews who controlled it before 1948 the tenants wouldn’t be evicted.

Ilan Shemer, representing Nahalat Shimon, rejected all the Palestinian claims. He asserted that the current Sheikh Jarrah residents aren’t necessarily connected with those who were settled in the place by the Jordanian government. He noted that the defendants had revised their claims over the years and each time raised new ones in their defense.

“You can’t claim there was fraud 50 years later,” he said and added, “They want us to overturn every ruling since the creation of the world.”

As the hearings proceeded, it was clear that the judges were even less happy to make a decision and even more determined to get the parties to agree to a compromise. “Contrary to what we wanted, you have both sought to bring this to court. But our hope is not yet lost,” said Amit.

The justices instructed the Palestinian side to present the court with a list of candidates for protected-tenant status. Most of those in court assumed that the justices’ intention was to use the list in the next hearing to pressure the parties to compromise, thereby avoiding a decision to evict the residents.

In the end, the Sheikh Jarrah legal battle revolves around one question. Is it simply a real estate dispute, as the settlers assert, or is it part of a campaign by the state – its official arms (the custodian general, Land Registry, the Israel Police) and its unofficial ones (the Nahalat Shimon Company) to dispossess the Palestinians and Judaize the neighborhood? If it’s the latter, it’s a campaign based on discrimination and unjust laws.

Needless to say, for the rest of the world, apart from Israel, the Palestinian viewpoint is the one that is accepted; the view that it’s a private dispute is rejected.

The three justices struggled to decide where the court stood on this question. On the one hand, they are clearly not happy reopening a discussion on the legal substance of the affair. On the other, they also very much do not want to order the eviction of hundreds of people from their homes – at least not now, when Sheikh Jarrah is the focus of media and diplomatic attention.

But the Palestinians also have a problem. Sheikh Jarrah has become a powerful symbol for the Palestinian public. Its residents have become culture heroes, a status that makes it difficult for them to agree to a compromise, even if it ensures they will not be evicted.

The pressure on them in the time that remains until the next hearing will be immense. It appears that the justices are aware of that as could be seen in Justice Amit’s parting wishes to the lawyers on Monday: “If we meet again, may it be with fewer people. Not that this is a problem – we’re willing to rent Teddy Stadium. But everyone realizes what the problem is.”

Palestinians Reject Israeli Court’s Deal That Would Put Them at “Mercy of Settlers” in Sheikh Jarrah
StoryAugust 03, 2021 | Democracy Now !, Nermeen Shaikh, with Juan González.
▻https://www.democracynow.org/2021/8/3/sheikh_jarrah_evictions_israeli_supreme_court
(...)

MOHAMMED EL-KURD : The court is really aware of the international media pressure. They even explicitly made a remark about the media pressure. And so, they wanted to reach a, quote-unquote, “diplomatic” solution, and so they’re evading their responsibilities, pressuring us to reach a settlement with the settlers instead.

Now, the way this is being reported or the way this is being conveyed might sound like a good deal, but what’s happening here is that we would be living at the mercy of settlers, paying rent to live in our own homes, and dealing with all kinds of arbitrary policies. I imagine I don’t — I personally don’t love the idea of having a landlord, let alone having a settler landlord.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mohammed, could you go a little bit, for our listeners and viewers who don’t know the story of the history of your home, going back to, actually, to 1956? And you wrote in an article in The Nation last summer that your grandmother, who was an icon of Palestinian resistance, was one of the original people who settled in that particular home?

MOHAMMED EL-KURD: Yeah, absolutely. My grandmother was among 27 other families that were forcibly expelled from their homes in the 1948 Nakba upon the establishment of what is called the state of Israel on Palestinian lands through ethnic cleansing, and so they were made refugees. And they went from city to city, and they found themselves in Jerusalem. The United Nations, alongside the Jordanian government, decided to build Sheikh Jarrah, the units at Sheikh Jarrah, as a refugee project to house them. Unfortunately, they never — both of these entities never fulfilled their promises of transferring the land ownership to the Palestinian refugees because of the Naksa in 1967, because of the war with the Israeli forces. And so, in the ’70s, you began seeing Israeli settler organizations, largely registered in the United States and funded by private donors in the United States, claiming our property.

Now, to understand this, you have to understand the larger picture, that every — almost every neighborhood in occupied Jerusalem is facing the same threat of NGOs, settler NGOs, that are fabricating documents and using an inherently biased judicial system, an inherently colonial judicial system, to expel Palestinians. So you have a partnership here between the settler organizations and the state to expel Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah. And this is exactly what’s happened in Sheikh Jarrah since 1972. This has been 49 years of postponement and delays and court cases.

So I think it’s really important for people that are listening to understand that the punishment is not just in the act of the expulsion. The punishment is the process itself. It’s losing your youth, losing your hope, losing the prospects of your future to the lingering threat of homelessness at all times. And this reality is not just for people in Sheikh Jarrah; it’s the reality for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians all across Palestine. (...)

Territoires palestiniens : un verdict en demi-teinte pour les familles de Sheikh Jarrah
RFI - Publié le : 03/08/2021
▻https://www.rfi.fr/fr/moyen-orient/20210803-territoires-palestiniens-un-verdict-en-demi-teinte-pour-les-familles-de

À Jérusalem, à la Cour suprême, c’était une audience que beaucoup ont suivi lundi : celle des familles de Sheikh Jarrah, un quartier stratégique de Jérusalem-Est. Quatre d’entre elles sont menacées d’éviction forcée de leurs maisons au profit de colons israéliens, qui précisent être les propriétaires des terres.

Avec notre correspondante dans les Territoires Palestiniens, Alice Froussard

L’audience à la Cour suprême était entièrement en hébreu, une langue que la plupart des Palestiniens de Jérusalem-Est ne comprennent pas et il n’y avait aucun traducteur. Alors dans la salle, ceux qui comprenaient chuchotaient, traduisaient à l’oreille des autres. Muna et Mohammad al Kurd, les deux jumeaux, devenus les militants emblématiques de la cause de Sheikh Jarrah, le racontaient à travers des lives ou des photos postées sur les réseaux sociaux.
D’une certaine manière, lundi il y avait donc plus d’informations sur Twitter que dans la salle grâce aux tweets des journalistes, grâce aux médias, aux militants des droits de l’homme qui retraduisaient les paroles en temps réel.
Ce suivi en ligne, cette présence sur les réseaux sociaux est aussi une manière pour les Palestiniens d’être présent, soutenant les familles en postant des messages, en réexpliquant le contexte. Nombre d’entre eux, sur les réseaux sociaux, faisaient part aussi de leur manque d’espoir quant à la décision finale, confiant qu’ils n’attendaient rien d’un tribunal israélien, avec des juges israéliens, qui ne rendraient « jamais justice à des Palestiniens ».
​ De nombreuses réactions après le verdict
Après le verdict, ou du moins, l’absence de décision, les réactions se sont multipliées, car la solution proposée par les juges de la Cour suprême est un « compromis », où les familles de Sheikh Jarrah peuvent rester dans leur maison, à condition de payer un petit loyer aux associations de colons. En échange, elles « ne sont pas expulsées pour quelques années ». Cela revient en fait, pour les Palestiniens, à abandonner leurs titres de propriété.
À la sortie du tribunal, dans un live sur Instagram, Mohammad al Kurd expliquait que « ces colons ne sont pas leurs propriétaires et que dans ce compromis, rien ne garantit qu’ils n’augmentent pas le loyer ou que la municipalité de Jérusalem ne démolira pas leurs maisons ». Selon lui, si les juges n’ont pas rendu de verdict final, c’est en partie à cause de la pression médiatique et diplomatique.
​ Les militants insistent sur la « résistance populaire »
Les Palestiniens sont bien décidés à ne pas s’arrêter. Lundi, beaucoup de militants insistaient sur la « résistance populaire », car, comme le précise un tweet de l’association Adalah, regroupant des avocats Palestiniens en Israël, « la justice a utilisé la loi comme une arme contre les Palestiniens ».
Lundi, c’était aussi le début d’un autre mouvement sur les réseaux sociaux, absolument lié à Sheikh Jarrah : « August Month of Action » avec ce hasthag pour faire du bruit sur toutes les injustices palestiniennes. Même si ces militants le savent, cela ne se réglera pas en une nuit.

Yousef Munayyer sur Twitter : “A ceasefire premised on Palestinians ceasing fire while Israel continues Apartheid is a ceasefire with an inevitable expiration date.” / Twitter
▻https://twitter.com/YousefMunayyer/status/1395694412991279105

mohammed el-kurd sur Twitter : “Tomorrow 5 pm, we are protesting the illegal blockade imposed on Sheikh Jarrah. #SaveSheikhJarrah” / Twitter
▻https://twitter.com/m7mdkurd/status/1395828740446380040

Réoccupation par Israël de la Mosquée Al Aqsa et du quartier Sheikh Jarrah, cette nuit du 22 au 23…
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/916827