Six Israelis detained for attacking soldiers in West Bank
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Six Israelis were detained for assaulting soldiers near a town in the occupied West Bank where clashes with Palestinians erupted earlier this week, the military said on Saturday.
Soldiers went to disperse a gathering of Israelis near the central West Bank town of Kafr Malik overnight Friday to Saturday, the military said in a statement.
'Upon the arrival of the security forces, dozens of Israeli civilians hurled stones toward them and physically and verbally assaulted the soldiers, including the Battalion Commander,' it said.
'In addition, the civilians vandalised and damaged security forces' vehicles, and attempted to ram the security forces,' it added.
'The security forces dispersed the gathering, and six Israeli civilians were apprehended and transferred to the Israel Police for further processing.'
Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military declined to say whether those arrested were residents of Israeli settlements in the territory, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967.
The military referred the query to the Israeli police, which was not available to comment.
In a separate incident on Wednesday, the Palestinian health ministry said three men died in Kafr Malik in an attack by settlers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Age of ill-founded generalisations
The writer is an educationist based in Kasur City. He can be reached at Listen to article We are living in a world of ill-founded generalisations. Generalisations are our judgemental, aphoristic and summarised assessments of people or circumstances. They are mostly churned in haste, satisfying our inner cathartic or vengeful cries. They are also forged in the smithy of slothful minds who shirk viewing anything as relative. Being closed to possibilities leads one to generalise. Generalisations is also the arsenal of propagandist cultures. "My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist" is a defiant thesis statement of a Shahrukh Khan movie, My Name is Khan, against the broad-brush propaganda painting all the Muslims, particularly with the generic name Khan, as terrorists. The generalisations don't pop up out of nowhere. There are always contributions of the species being generalised. In one of Aesop's fables, the shepherd boy is labelled for crying wolf as "once a liar, always a liar". So, whosoever cries wolf is called a liar; all liars can be humans, but to label all humans as liars sounds misanthropic. Generalisations are also based on fears – fears of threats to existence, supremacy and hegemony. The Muslim countries developing and having nuclear weapons are branded as a threat to the US and its allies despite the fact that they themselves are nuclear hegemons defying all the UN nonproliferation resolutions. North Korea and Israel possessing nuclear capability are not considered as menacing to world peace as Iran which, even American analysts predict, is years behind in achieving nukes. It is said that generalisations without examples and examples without generalisations are useless. Whether it is education, politics or public discourse, communication remains infertile when one is offered without the other. The nuptial bond between the two births healthy understanding, intellectual persuasion and ideological clarity. Oversimplifying students' behaviour into binary terms (intelligent or obtuse) ignoring neurodiversity is common in our educational institutions. Kierkegaard says, "Once you label me, you negate me." Our teaching is devoid of contextual examples, hence fails to inspire students. Generalisations are handy go-to statements for politicians. At talk shows and pressers, generalisations are used as off-ramps to avoid pointed questions and blunt replies. When people run out of arguments, they generalise. The failure to substantiate generalisations causes mistrust. In science, a theory (generalisation) must stand the test of experiments and observations (examples). At the crossroads of world crises, the generalisations are the fence sitters' choice. Instead of taking sides and doing something practically, statements of condemnation and support are issued as policy statements. We heard this lip service at the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and its unprovoked attacks on Iran. In written outpourings, generalisations make the writing abstract. Examples are actually stories – the time-tested means to better communicate, understand and retain information. An idea becomes palpable when it is embodied. When a writer doesn't show but tells, his writing goes abstract. Our politicians are well-known for showcasing their flagship achievements. The public must not be befooled by the cherry-picked examples as one swallow doesn't make a summer. The public can differentiate between a well-annealed generalisation and a manipulative one by observing the consistent performance of their representatives. The gap between a generalisation and examples bespeaks of craft and hypocrisy. In the realms of morality and ethics, the gap becomes the acid test for one's character and charisma. In our political discourse, a line is drawn between a leader's personal and public life. If his public persona is taken as a generalised life statement, his personal life stands for the telltale examples. The unparalleled yardstick to assess a leader is the life of the last Prophet of Allah, Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH and his progeny). All the biographers of his life concur that there was no discord between his personal and public life. In Mohsin-e Insaniyet, the biographer writes on page 120: "The greater the gap between a person's private and public life, the lower their true status." [Disclaimer: the space here necessitates generalisations]
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The dangerous new normal in Middle East
Listen to article Who won the 12-day war between Iran and Israel? To answer that, one must first examine the objectives of all parties involved in the conflict. Israel publicly stated that its main goal was to degrade or eradicate Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. Before launching direct attacks, the hardline Israeli government claimed that Tehran was only weeks away from achieving nuclear capability. This, it insisted, justified its preemptive strikes. The US initially maintained distance. When Israel, on June 13, launched a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinated senior military leaders and top nuclear scientists of Iran, the Trump administration said it was a unilateral Israeli action. Interestingly, just three months earlier, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had assessed there was no indication Iran was close to making a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, publicly dismissed the assessment. Despite Israel's claims of initial success, it continued to press for the US involvement. It wanted the US to deploy B-2 bombers capable of dropping bunker-busting bombs needed to destroy deeply buried facilities like Fordow, located hundreds of metres beneath the mountains near the historic city of Qom. For over 45 years, no American president took the bait, even while maintaining close ties with Israel. The reason was simple: any direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities risked triggering a full-scale regional war. But Trump, who often brands himself a man of peace, broke with the precedent. He ordered direct strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites including Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. The US B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bombs in an attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Trump swiftly claimed victory, announcing that Iran's nuclear capability had been "totally obliterated". However, a leaked report by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contradicted this, revealing that the strikes caused only limited damage and had set back Iran's programme by just a few months. Trump dismissed the report as a deliberate attempt to undermine his administration's success. Reports later confirmed that there was no radiation leak from any of the bombed sites, indicating that Iran might have moved its enriched uranium and sensitive materials to safe locations before the attacks. While Iran continued to retaliate against Israel with its limited resources, the direct US involvement escalated the stakes. Until then, Iran had avoided targeting American military bases in the Gulf. But after the strikes, Tehran altered its approach. It had promised retaliation and the obvious targets were the US bases in the neighborhood. When Iran launched missiles at a major US base in Qatar, fears surged that the world was entering uncharted territory. However, it soon became clear that the strike was a choreographed move and coordinated in advance with both Qatar and the US. It was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire. Tehran needed a symbolic response to show its people it had avenged the strikes. Trump even thanked Iran for the advance notice. All the missiles were intercepted over Doha, resulting in no casualties or damage. Hours later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal. Although there were initial violations from both sides, the US president publicly rebuked Tel Aviv, ensuring the truce was held. In Trump's own words, Iran had fought "bravely" and Israel was hit "very very hard". This meant Israel needed a breather. Iran too, under immense pressure, could not afford to prolong the conflict. Israel's ultimate goal of regime change in Tehran did not materialise. Iran, despite heavy losses, survived to fight another day. For decades, Israel and Iran had avoided direct confrontation. That precedent is now broken. The real danger going forward is that such exchanges may become the new normal.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Iran's military chief thanks Pakistan for support during conflict with Israel
Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi speaks with Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir via telephone on Sunday. Photo: APP/Press TV Listen to article Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir received a call from Iran's top military commander on Sunday, with Tehran thanking Islamabad for its support during the 12-day war with Israel, Iranian Press TV media reported. During the conversation, Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, praised Islamabad's 'courageous stance' during the crisis and thanked the people of Pakistan for their 'bold positions' in condemning what he called unprovoked attacks by the Zionist regime. He credited Islamabad for standing by Tehran as Israeli strikes targeted senior military commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians—including women and children—starting June 13. Gen Mousavi claimed that the US administration under President Donald Trump 'spared no effort in assisting the Zionist regime' by attacking Iran's civilian nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow—sites operating under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. 'Alongside the US,' he added, 'several Western countries also provided verbal and practical support to the enemy.' Read More: '71 killed by Israeli strikes on Iran's Evin Prison' Despite suffering losses, including the martyrdom of senior commanders early in the conflict, Iran asserted that it successfully prevented its adversaries from achieving their objectives, forcing them to request a ceasefire. According to military analysts cited by Iranian authorities, Israel unilaterally halted its strikes on June 23 under significant pressure. COAS Munir told his counterpart that Pakistan valued its enduring ties with Iran and underscored the importance of regional stability. Both officers agreed to maintain communication channels to promote peace and counter external threats. The Iranian commander's remarks came in the wake of a 12-day conflict that began on June 13, when Israel launched a series of targeted strikes on Iran, killing senior military leaders, including the chief of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and striking several nuclear installations. Iran responded with retaliatory attacks on Israeli positions. On June 22, the US attacked Iran, claiming to have destroyed Iran's key nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. In response, Tehran launched strikes on American bases in Iraq and Qatar. The hostilities ended with a ceasefire announced on June 24, following mounting international pressure and heavy losses on both sides.
