Former Palestinian intelligence officer 'sentenced to death for selling home to Jews' 


A former Palestinian intelligence officer has reportedly been sentenced to death after it was revealed he had sold his home to Jews.

Muhammad Abu Shahala, who worked for the Palestinian Authority reportedly confessed under torture to selling his home in Hebron on the West Bank to a Jewish man.

Jewish officials are now calling for the international community to get involved to save Mr Abu Shahala's life.

Capital crime: Former Palestinian intelligence officer Muhammad Abu Shahala has reportedly been sentenced to death for selling his home in Hebron (pictured) to a Jew

Capital crime: Former Palestinian intelligence officer Muhammad Abu Shahala has reportedly been sentenced to death for selling his home in Hebron (pictured) to a Jew

Under Palestinian law, the death sentence can be executed if approved by the president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas.


In an open letter addressed to Ban Ki-moon, Hillary Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahu, and other high ranking officials, David Wilder and Noam Arnon, of the Jewish community in Hebron, compared the case to trials in Nazi-era Germany. 

The letter read: 'According to various news agencies, Mr. Muhammad Abu Shahala, a former intelligence agent for the Palestinian Authority, has been sentenced to death, following a hurried trial. 

Decision maker: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must concur with the sentence before it can be carried out

Decision maker: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must concur with the sentence before it can be carried out

'His crime: selling property to Jews in Hebron. It is appalling to think that property sales should be defined as a "capital crime" punishable by death.  

'The very fact that such a ‘law’ exists within the framework of the PA legal system points to a barbaric and perverse type of justice, reminiscent of practices implemented during the dark ages.

'It is incumbent upon the entire international community, which views Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority as a viable Middle East peace partner, to publicly reject such acts of legal murder, when the ‘crime’ is nothing more than property sales. What would be the reaction to a law in the United States, England, France, or Switzerland, forbidding property sales to Jews?

Actually, less than one hundred years ago, such acts were legislated and practiced, known as the  infamous ‘Nuremberg laws.’ 

'On October 3, 1938 the Nazi Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, implemented a  "Decree of the Confiscation of Jewish Property, regulating the transfer of assets from Jews to non-Jewish Germans.'

'On December 11, 1938 another law was  passed:  ‘the regulation for the elimination of Jews from the Economic life of Germany.’  Among other sections was a clause forbidding Jews from offering merchandise for sale.

'Is the Palestinian Authority a reincarnation of the Third Reich?'

According to columnist Caroline Glick, the law banning the sale of land or property to Jews has been in force for some time 

She told the Weekly Standard: 'The PA was established in May 1994. The first law it adopted defined selling land to Jews as a capital offense. 

'Shortly thereafter scores of Arab land sellers began turning up dead in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in both judicial and extrajudicial killings.'

Read more: 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Views: 355

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And one last thought.

Here is a link exploring some laws based on national origin. While I do not endorse the word apartheid being used in context with the state of Israel, I think it is important to the dialog , to have fair and truthful discussion.

I  agree a state like Israel in no way resembles an Aparteid State.  I mean the President of Israel was sent to jail by  an Arab Judge, does not sound like anything close to apartied.  As it was stated before Arab citizens of the Jewish State have more rights than an Arab in Arab countries..... Hardly apartied

What did Supreme Court Justice Asher Grunis mean "it is not worth the price of national suicide?"  It sounds as though this is just a demographic war.


Your inquiry below :

Funny you say " ridiculous at least and racist at worst" - ridiculous, I wonder if you would use that term is Israel had a comparable law...
" orthodox Jews as well as Paestinian Arab populations each have some laws applied that the general population is not subject to" I am also unsure what laws you are talking about  - please explain.

1. I would say if Israel had a similar law that restricted one legal resident or citizen from marrying another legal resident or citizen or selling land , yes , I would say that is an antiquated and dated law that is ridiculous and such law has no place in a free and democratic society.

2. An example of laws applied unequally in Israel, would be draft laws for the IDF.

1. Most people would think is was racist and horrible - they would not use the term ridiculous

2. I agree to an extent but this law works in the "favor" of these minorities, they can always volenteer for national service which many do...


Here is the quote you are referring to--

In January 2012, Israel's High Court upheld the Citizenship and Entry Law and rejected petitions from NGOs and politicians, including the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. The law disqualifies West Bank Palestinians from living in Israel if they marry an Israeli citizen, Jewish or Palestinian. Supreme Court Justice Asher Grunis justified the decision by asserting that "human rights" were not worth the price of "national suicide."

1. In reply to your question : What did Supreme Court Justice Asher Grunis mean "it is not worth the price of national suicide?" I have not read the entire ruling, nor am I commenting as a legal scholar. I am also not commenting on whether the decision is right or wrong in a moral sense. The ruling addresses the "fear" that non resident Palestinians could marry Isreali citizens and in a period of years, " gain a significant population increase" in Israel for the Palestinian population. In effect, the Palestinians outside the state could marry themselves into an eventual majority population inside the state . The Justice argued that this eventuality was dangerous and therefore the nationhood of Israel ( and the Jewish character ) was more important than the human rights position that an Israeli citizen could marry someone and that spouse then could live in Israel.

 2. In resonse to your statement : It sounds as though this is just a demographic war, the answer is , yes !!! Many people on both sides of the geography see the current state of affairs as a matter of demographics . Imagine that Israel is occupying the west bank in thirty years and the population of Israel is half that of the west bank. Ariel Sharon and others like him saw this possibility . Indeed, this is why a peaceful solution to the Palestiinisns- Israeli issue is critical to the long term stability, security, and viability of a democratic and Jewish Israel.

1. There is no law against marring a Palestinan, you can marry whom ever you want, the citizen who marries does not get any penalty.  The question is regarding the non-citizens standing.  Every country has its own laws in emigration, and this is a real problem so the law makes sense and as mentioned retains the full rights of the citizen. By the way this law applys equally for Arabs or Jews that marry west bank palestinans.

2. I dont see how demographics play a part.  If Palestinans get a state they will not have less children rather, letting refugees flood into the West Bank, that will be the cause of demographics issues. Currently 95% of Palestinains live under their own "elected" authority.  That have separate school, welfare and   police force.  They have their own parliament and even a representative in the UN.  They are not part of the country or the electorate so state or not state it doesnt matter.  The issue is really the Israeli Arabs who are part of the electorate, they are Israels biggest concern in maintaining a democratic Jewish state.

An independent Palestine would not have the economy to absorb a flood of refugees.  They cannot accept the ones from Syria now.  Any outsiders returning back would more than likely be retirees from the United States, living off American retirement.  This happened when retirees were returning back to Central Europe.  They were living like kings and queens in Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, simply because American retirement went further there as oppose to the United States.

The point of them coming back would be to find home for those in refugee camps..... Israel amnaged to do it for many many refugees at its founding, I am sure thew PA will get good money to do it as well...

When you talk about refugee camps, nobody is living in a tent.  Everybody is living in a fixed structure.  Going through the West Bank and Gaza, all Palestinians were living in homes, some of them were very nice homes too.

Of course, but outside the west bank they have little rights in their host countries and most live in horrible poverty

What the other countries have not provided them, is citizenship.  In Syria, they are offered all the social services as a Syrian citizen, but just no citizenship.  In Lebanon, this was not done until 1993.  But I cannot verify living standards in places like Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan, because I just have not seen them.  But remember it was wealthy expatriates living in Europe, who financed the Munich Olympic Massacre.  Also, Suha Arafat is one of those wealthy expatriates too.



Latest Activity

Mauricio San Miguel Llosa updated their profile
Oct 4
Amir Salameh updated their profile
Jun 25
Fredda Goldfarb updated their profile
Apr 15
Dr. David Leffler posted a blog post
Apr 9


"Like" us on Facebook

Promote MEPEACE online



© 2019   Created by Eyal Raviv. Supported by One Region, One Future.   ..

Feedback | Report an Issue  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service