Reuters, the largest wire agency in the world, has established a record of deep antipathy to Israel. It recently did itself proud with a report by Henriette Chacar, covering the story of 13.-year-old Mahmoud Aleiwat, who attempted to murder an Israeli father and son at the City of David archeological site in Jerusalem. More on this story can be found here: “Reuters Glowingly Describes Palestinian Terror Teen as Wannabe Chef Who Loved Football,” by Rachel O’Donoghue, Algemeiner, February 7, 2023:
Given the horrific attack perpetrated by 13-year-old Palestinian terrorist Mahmoud Aleiwat, who shot two people at the City of David archeological site in Jerusalem on January 28, it is beyond disturbing that Reuters has chosen to publish a piece glorifying Aleiwat and seeking to suggest he may even be innocent.
The story by the wire agency’s Henriette Chacar, “Palestinian teenager dreamt of being a chef before attack, teachers say,” opens:
In the middle of last week, 13-year-old Palestinian Mahmoud Aleiwat was pressing his teachers for the school report he needed so he could go to a Jerusalem college to train as a chef….
There he was, young Master Aleiwat, eagerly planning his training as a chef, the profession which has long been his dream. So what happened? We are supposed to understand, without being told, that the suffering he had endured – that his people have endured — under the oppressive rule of the Israelis, became too much. He snapped, and felt impelled to attack the oppressors; he managed to shoot two of them.
“He dreamt of being a chef.” Yes, and Adolf Hitler dreamt of being a painter. But we should judge Mahmud Aleiwat not by his dreams, but by what he actually did, which was to try to murder an Israeli father and son.
Three days later, he was lying unconscious in hospital accused of opening fire at a group of Israeli passers-by in Jerusalem’s Silwan district.
Why did Reuters give attention to Aleiwat’s lying in a hospital, when there has not yet been any mention of the current status of his victims, also lying, both in serious condition, in hospital beds? And why does the Reuters report describe him merely as “accused” when there is no doubt of his guilt?
Reuters should have described the hospitalization of his two victims, and then that of their assailant, thus: “The Israeli father and son are still hospitalized in serious condition, while their assailant remains unconscious in a hospital bed.” Surely the condition of the two victims is more important than that of the person “lying unconscious in the hospital” who tried to kill them.
Two people were critically wounded and Aleiwat was shot and wounded by one of the group. Police have not publicly named a suspect, but his lawyer said they accuse Aleiwat of opening fire and attempted murder, accusations his family rejects.
While it is a mystery that Chacar decided to write the piece at all, it is even more perplexing that she has attempted to humanize a terrorist who tried to murder innocent people by quoting his teachers, who claim Aleiwat had ambitions to become a chef.
The article is a quite unnecessary puff piece for Aleiwat. He is, in Chacar’s telling, merely “accused,” even though there Is not the slightest doubt of his guilt. The shooting was witnessed by many Israelis. And why tell us about Aleiwat’s dream of being a chef? How often do news stories about would-be killers or other criminals tell us about their innocent “dreams”? I don’t remember ever seeing one.
Furthermore, the way Aleiwat’s involvement in the atrocity is couched, including the word “accused” and leading with his family’s denial of his involvement, is simply shameless.
This [denial by his family of his involvement] after Aleiwat reportedly hinted at his terror plan, writing in a Facebook message to his mother shortly before that said, “Mom, please don’t be angry with me,” but promising that she would eventually be proud of him.
In addition, footage of Aleiwat during his arrest as well as his own notebook confession that he sought “martyrdom” have been widely circulated online:
Aleiwat knew that his mother “would eventually be proud of him” for killing, as he hoped, several Israelis, and then dying as a martyr. His family knew this was what he planned because he posted his farewell to his mother as a Facebook message; when his family denies he could have been the shooter, they are lying.
In addition, footage of Aleiwat during his arrest as well as his own notebook confession that he sought “martyrdom” have been widely circulated online:
The bizarre terrorist puff piece quotes people who knew the teenager and are “puzzled about what could have prompted him to carry out such an act.”
Perhaps Chacar should have probed this professed incredulity at Aleiwat’s motivation, considering there are more than a few incentives that might have influenced the young man, including the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” fund which offers financial rewards to Palestinian terrorists, and the textbooks Aleiwat studied that glorify Palestinian suicide bombings.
Reuters reporter Chacar doesn’t state the obvious: no one who knew Aleiwat should have been puzzled by his action — and indeed no one really was, but merely claimed to be to the credulous Chacar. Aleiwat knew – all Palestinians, from a young age, did — about the “Pay-For-Slay” program, by which very large monthly payments are made by the P.A. to imprisoned terrorists and to the families of terrorists who died while committing their terrorist attacks. He would have known, if not exactly how much those payments came to, that they were many times the average Palestinian wage. He might have wanted to become eligible — either by being a “martyr” or by being imprisoned — for such large payments, in order to help his family. He also knew that terrorists were lionized in Palestinian society; they had schools and streets and squares named after them. He might, that 13-year-old, have imagined that in some posthumous and glorious future, there would be an Aleiwat Street or an Aleiwat School for his relatives to admire.
Aleiwat was also raised on schoolbooks full of anti-Israel and antisemitic venom. He watched children’s television shows broadcast by the Palestinian Authority, which showed tiny tots clutching tiny knives and making stabbing movements while declaring “I want to kill a Jew.” Those shows, too, must have had a great effect on the impressionable youngster, Mahmoud Aleiwat.
But Chacar does not devote any of her report to why this 13-year-old did what he did. She wants us only to feel sorry for him, not to understand him, for that understanding necessarily requires looking at how the Palestinian Authority promotes, in its schoolbooks and on its television shows, antisemitic hatred among the young, while its “Pay-For-Slay program rewards past, and incentivizes future, terrorism. Her aim is to convince us that Aleiwat’s murderous behavior, far from being predictable given his upbringing, comes as an inexplicable “shock.”
Indeed, Chacar even had the audacity to include comments from Souhair Mikkawi, 57, Aleiwat’s school principal, who expresses her surprise at the “shocking” news.
We are presumably supposed to believe that Mikkawi was unaware that books issued at her school encourage impressionable youngsters to “cut the throats of enemy soldiers” and “don explosive belts.”
Chacar’s attempt to absolve Aleiwat continues with the inclusion of extraneous and heartwarming details about his innocent interests, such as his “passion for football” and his desire to work in a professional kitchen.
Why does Reuters allow this attempt by Chacar to create empathy for the young would-be killer? Aleiwat has a “passion for football” – so what? Is he somehow less guilty as a result? Do his now-shattered dreams of becoming a chef make us empathize with him? I hope not. He is more, Chacar wants us to understand, than a terrorist. He has his dreams and his passions, like any other 13-year-old.
An implied justification for the attack is also conveniently offered midway through the article:
Many Jews believe the ancient City of David stood on the site of Silwan and Jewish settlers have bought properties there, which Palestinians see as part of a policy to drive them out.
About 600 settlers now live among 50,000 Palestinians in Silwan, according to Aviv Tatarsky at Ir Amim, an Israeli organisation that monitors Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem….
With only 600 Jews living among 50,000 Palestinians, one cannot seriously believe that there is an Israeli policy to “drive the Palestinians out” from Silwan. It’s an absurdity.
The mother of Wadi’ Abu Ramuz, a 17-year-old in possession of a Hamas flag and a knife when he was shot dead during a riot in which firebombs and Molotov cocktails were hurled at Israeli police, is quoted claiming her son was not even involved in the clashes but was simply “trying to drag a wounded friend to safety.”…
Reuters quotes the mother of Wadi’ Abu Ramuz, a 17-year-old shot dead during a riot in which firebombs and Molotov cocktails were thrown at Israeli police, as claiming her son was not involved in the riots at all; he was there simply ”trying to drag a wounded friend to safety.” Reuters fails to mention – why is that? – that Ramuz was carrying a Hamas flag and a knife when he was shot. That doesn’t suggest he was an innocent bystander, simply trying to save a friend’s life. He was out for Jewish blood.
Reuters ought to ask itself the following questions:
Why did its reporter, Henriette Chacar, think mentioning Aleiwat’s “passion for football” was relevant to the story of his shooting an Israeli father and his son?
Why did Chacar think mentioning Aleiwat’s hope to someday become a chef was relevant to his shooting of that father and his son?
Why did Reuters describe Mahmoud Aleiwat merely as “accused” of shooting the Israeli father and son, when a group of people saw the shooting, and while on social media Aleiwat had hinted at a future exploit that would “make his mother proud”?
Why did Reuters neglect to tell readers that another young Palestinian, the would-be killer Wadi’ Abu Ramuz, when shot was in the middle of a riot, where firebombs and Molotov cocktails were being thrown by the rioters at Israeli police? And why did Reuters further fail to mention that Ramuz was carrying a Hamas flag and a knife at the time?
Why is Reuters doing PR work for Palestinian terrorists? Explain this, please.
We’ll wait right here for your answers.
