Skip to content

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law

Menu

The Condemnation of Terror by Mansour Abbas: Is It Real?

 
Filed under: Palestinians, Radical Islam

The Condemnation of Terror by Mansour Abbas: Is It Real?

Muhammad Majadla, head of Nas Radio’s news department, Channel 12 commentator, and weekly columnist for Globes, said that “today [April 3, 2022] Ra’am is planning an important speech, they say, by Mansour Abbas in Hebrew and Arabic. On the second evening of Ramadan.”1

A few hours later Majadla reported: “The speech by the Ra’am chairman will not be broadcast this evening, even though it was already filmed, because of internal disagreements about the content. As I understand it, the Islamic Movement thinks Mansour got a bit carried away in some of his statements about the terror wave, and they are fearful of criticism in the Arab public.”2

Member of Knesset Mansour Abbas, who serves as chairman of the United Arab List (Ra’am party) and deputy head of the Southern Branch of the Islamic Movement, voiced condemnations of the terror attacks during the second half of March, as follows:

  • March 22: “Ra’am condemns the criminal attack in Be’er Sheva, and sends its condolences to the victims’ families while wishing a full recovery to the wounded. The Arab citizens of the country are law-abiding and deplore anyone who uses violence against other citizens. Ra’am calls on all citizens to maintain the common and delicate fabric of life, show responsibility, and promote a tolerant discourse in this difficult hour.”3
  • March 27: “I condemn the despicable crime in Hadera. This is vile Daesh terror that does not represent the Arab society in Israel, which seeks to uphold the rule of law and the values of respect for the sanctity of human life, ordinary Arab and Jewish life, and the values of peace and tolerance. My condolences to the families of the victims, and I wish a speedy recovery to the wounded.”4
  • March 29: “In Bnei Brak today a terrible and deplorable crime of terror was perpetrated against innocent civilians. I take part in the sorrow of the families and wish a full recovery to the wounded. All of us stand together against a murderous wave of terror, all of us without distinction. The streets of Israel’s cities are full of Arab and Jewish citizens, and those who engage in a despicable killing spree do not distinguish and do not differentiate between blood and blood.”5

Abbas repeated his message condemning the terror attacks in interviews with the Israeli media.

At the same time, his condemnations of terror in Ra’am’s name were not posted on the official Facebook pages of Ra’am;6the Southern Branch of the Islamic Movement,7 which Ra’am represents in the Knesset; or of the Islamic Movement’s Institute for Religious Law and Islamic Studies.8

Nor did the Islamic Movement’s leader Safwat Freij9 or its former leader Hamed Abu Dabas10 issue any condemnations of the terror.

Ra’am Knesset members Walid Taha11 and Ayman Khatib12 did not disseminate Abbas’ condemnation of the terror in Ra’am’s name, and Ra’am Knesset member Mazen Ghnaim issued only his March 22 condemnation of the Be’er Sheva attack.13

Analysis and Assessment

In Israeli political circles there is disagreement about the sincerity of Mansour Abbas’ recent condemnations of terror.

Some see them as reflecting a moderate and courageous line of Ra’am and the Islamic Movement, while others view them as no more than a propaganda exercise.

The condemnations do not jibe with Ra’am’s and the Islamic Movement’s consistent support for the security prisoners, most of whom are convicted terrorists. They portray them as freedom fighters and heroes, and the Islamic Movement funnels aid to them through its charity organization.

The fact that the condemnations were voiced almost exclusively by Abbas probably points to disagreements among the senior Ra’am and Islamic Movement leadership about the policy toward the armed jihad operations—or “wave of terror.”

By giving Abbas alone the task of condemning the attacks, Ra’am and the Islamic Movement want to have their cake and eat it too—paying lip service to partnership in the government coalition without requiring the leaders of the movement, and particularly its institutions of religious law, to take an official stance against armed jihad.

Still at the top of Ra’am’s order of priorities are the perks of being part of the coalition—a large budget for the Arab sector, influence over outline plans, recognition of Bedouin communities in the Negev, and the fight against crime. At this stage, they have no interest in breaking up the coalition. They believe that, with the condemnations, they can overcome the challenge to its stability posed by the security incidents.

* * *

Notes