Exclusive: ‘History has proved my father was right,’ late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s son tells Arab News

Short Url
Updated 06 October 2021
Follow

Exclusive: ‘History has proved my father was right,’ late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s son tells Arab News

  • Gamal El-Sadat discusses his father’s life and legacy in wide-ranging interview on the 40th anniversary of his assassination
  • He provides rare insight into the rationale behind Anwar Sadat’s decision to go to war and later pursue peace with Israel

CAIRO: On Oct. 6, 1981, Islamist extremists gunned down Egyptian President Anwar Sadat as he reviewed troops at a military parade in Cairo to celebrate the country’s 1973 war against Israel. Sadat’s bullet-riddled body was rushed to the Maadi Military Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:40 p.m. due to “intense nervous shock and internal bleeding in the chest cavity.”

Two years earlier, Sadat had become the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel — a decision that angered many Egyptians and led to violent demonstrations against him. But the assassination of Sadat did not derail the peace process, which continued without him, with Egypt formally establishing diplomatic relations with Israel in 1982.

In an exclusive interview ahead of the 40th anniversary of the assassination, Gamal El-Sadat, son of Anwar Sadat and chairman of Etisalat Misr, spoke with Arab News about his father’s political legacy, the values he learned from his father, and his memory of that fateful day.

“I was traveling in the US at that time with a couple of my friends,” Gamal El-Sadat said, referring to his location on Oct. 6, 1981. “I had just arrived in Florida. It was a fishing trip that never happened. It was the only time that I had missed the parade.”

Back in Cairo, a group of officers wearing army uniforms and led by Khaled Al-Islambouli, a lieutenant in the Egyptian army, stopped in front of the parade’s reviewing stand. They then fired shots and threw grenades into a crowd of Egyptian government officials.

Anwar Sadat, who was shot four times, died two hours later as 10 other people were also killed in the attack.




Egyptian President Anwar Sadat shown in a photo taken February 11, 1981 during a private visit to Paris. (AFP/File Photo)

“In the morning, I woke up to a call from the resort manager telling me that there was a shooting in the parade and my father was hurt,” Gamal El-Sadat said. 

“I tried to call Cairo, with no luck, then turned the news on. The bulletin said that Anwar Sadat was hurt in his arm, but he was in stable condition. I kept trying to call Cairo until I reached my mother (Jehan Sadat) who told me directly ‘your father has passed away.’”

Jehan Sadat was sitting in the stands at the military parade, just a few meters away from her husband when the deadly attack unfolded.

Gamal El-Sadat remembers very clearly the events that took place immediately after his return to Cairo. His father’s autopsy had not been conducted yet. There was a theory at the time that Anwar Sadat’s murder might have been an inside job.

Opinion

This section contains relevant reference points, placed in (Opinion field)

Gamal El-Sadat recalled arriving directly at the Sadat family home but something cropped up. “I received a call from the prime minister at the time, Dr. Fouad Mohideen, who told me that ‘we would like to have an autopsy done because there is a bullet that is lodged somewhere. We just need to verify because there is a theory that some of my father’s own bodyguards might have assassinated him.’”

Gamal El-Sadat said he would like to be present for the autopsy. 

“The autopsy concluded that when the shooting started, my father stood up and he took bullets in his arm and thigh. Those were not fatal,” he said.

“However, another bullet from an AK-74 assault rifle that was fired from one of the parade’s trucks had ricocheted off the counter in front of my father, took an upward trajectory to enter his chest. The bullet went through his heart and got stuck in his neck.

“This finding laid to rest all suspicions about my father’s murder being an inside job. Members of his security detail used to carry sidearms only.”

Less than two years before his killing, in an unprecedented move for an Arab leader, Anwar Sadat traveled to seek a permanent peace settlement with Israel after decades of conflict.

Sadat’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and address to Israel's parliament were met with outrage in most of the Arab world. The global reaction was different: Sadat and Begin were jointly awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize for peace.

Gamal El-Sadat said: “Before going to Jerusalem, my father went to Syria when he met President (Hafez) Assad to invite the Syrian leader to join him. President Assad was a dear friend of my father but he said ‘No, I will not come with you.’ So, my father told him, ‘Please, I ask you to give me your permission to speak on your behalf. If I fail, it will be me who failed. If I succeed, then we will both succeed.’ But Assad told him ‘No, I will not give you permission to do that as well.’ So, my father left and was very unhappy because it was an offer that had no downsides for Syria at the time.”

Gamal El-Sadat continued: “My father believed that the military had finished its role; there was no way we were going to go any further with the military. It had to be political. It had to be diplomacy. …  He had no other choice. (He could not be) the man who looked out for his own fame and kept saying ‘I will throw (the Israelis) into the sea’ and got the support of all the countries, yet not do anything in the end, because nobody was going to throw (the Israelis) into the sea because their safety was guaranteed by the US and the Soviet Union.”

Despite criticism from Egypt’s regional allies, Sadat continued to pursue peace with Begin, and in September 1978 the two leaders met again in the US, where they negotiated an agreement with President Jimmy Carter at Camp David, Maryland.

The Camp David Accords, the first peace agreement between the state of Israel and one of its Arab neighbors, laid the groundwork for diplomatic and commercial relations.

The peace efforts were greeted with suspicion and hostility across the Arab world. In addition to being subjected to political, economic, and diplomatic sanctions, Egypt was also suspended from the Arab League and the body’s headquarters was temporarily moved from Cairo to the Tunisian capital, Tunis.

Today, besides Egypt, five other Arab countries — Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco — have established full diplomatic relations with Israel.




Sadat was portrayed as "The Hero of the Crossing" following the 1973 war with Israel, which gave him a huge bump in status and popularity. (Getty Images)

“When my father came to office as president after Gamal Abdel Nasser, he made several proposals for peace with Israel, but they were never met with any seriousness,” Gamal El-Sadat said. 

“They were completely disregarded, and he came to understand that the world only listens to power. It was the October war that demonstrated that Egypt would not keep silent regarding Israel’s occupation of its territory.”

Gamal El-Sadat rejects the notion, however, that Egypt did not emerge victorious in the 1973 war. 

“The Israelis crossed over to the western side of the Suez Canal, yes,” he said. “They tried to take Suez but could not take Suez, which was a civilian city. And they could not go any further west. The Egyptian reserves blocked the west.”

Gamal El-Sadat continued: “My father understood the (necessity of the) peace deal earlier. He knew that wars were not going to solve the issue. He wanted other Arab countries to join Egypt in the Camp David Accord, and history has shown his vision to be right. Now Arab countries have begun to build strong relations with Israel as they have started to understand that the only solution is politics and dialogue.”

Gamal El-Sadat cited the generosity shown by Anwar Sadat to the dying shah of Iran as proof of the principles his father lived by. Their friendship dated back to the 1970s when Mohamed Reza Pahlavi stood by Egypt during the 1973 war with Israel and sent medical aid and doctors.




The coffin of late Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat is transported on a gun carriage during his funeral 10 October 1981 in Cairo. (AFP/File Photo)

After being overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the ailing shah moved between Morocco, the Bahamas, Mexico, the US, and Panama. He then took refuge in Egypt on March 24, 1980, after being received by President Sadat.

Gamal El-Sadat said: “My father did not want to make an enemy of anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. But he could not deny (the fact) that this man stood by Egypt — not by my father, but by Egypt in its time of need.”

For Gamal El-Sadat, Anwar Sadat was of course not just a president of Egypt whose place in history is recognized and secure. He also remembers his father as a kind and simple person.

“I am biased because I am his son, but I believe this statement is true,” Gamal El-Sadat said. “Anwar Sadat was a man in touch with reality. He had lived a hard life and understood what it was to be poor. He appreciated life and understood that life has so many aspects other than money and politics.”

Indeed, Anwar Sadat’s personal history simply reflected the tortuous history of Egypt itself in the 20th century. He was born into a peasant family in the Nile Delta. He joined the Egyptian army, took the side of the Axis powers during World War II, and participated in activism against the British, who imprisoned him.

Anwar Sadat was a senior member of the Free Officers who overthrew King Farouk in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, and a close confidant of Nasser, under whom he served as vice president twice and whom he eventually succeeded as president in 1970.

“My father was a religious person and very humble,” Gamal El-Sadat told Arab News. “He taught me and my siblings to love our country, and always respect people regardless of their position or station. He used to pray with poor people to show me that we are all alike.”

Until her death from cancer at the age of 88 in July, Jehan Sadat spent much of her life dedicated to promoting social justice and female empowerment in Egypt. Long before she became a global public figure, Jehan helped lead a campaign to reform Egypt’s status law which would go on to grant women new rights to divorce their husbands and retain custody of their children.

She was frequently photographed alongside her husband on official visits abroad and in more intimate settings, at home with their family.

Jehan Sadat would go on to earn a master’s and doctorate degree in comparative literature and, in her later years, took on lecturing posts in Cairo and the US.

“Jehan Sadat was a public figure during Sadat’s time and afterward,” Gamal El-Sadat said. “She was really a strong lady. After my father passed away, she would not sit back and stay at home. She continued her career and got a Ph.D. in Arabic literature, traveled to the US, and started teaching as a visiting professor.

“She used to promote women’s rights in our part of the world. She kept doing so until very recent years when she decided to spend more time with her family.”

Jehan Sadat was just 46 when Anwar Sadat was assassinated. She spent the rest of her life trying to preserve his legacy of peace through her travels and lectures around the world.


Analysis: What happens if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz?

Updated 16 June 2025
Follow

Analysis: What happens if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz?

  • Tehran has never fully closed the strategic waterway but it has threatened to do so many times in response to geopolitical tensions
  • Iran-Israel war has potentially immediate ramifications for energy-exporting Gulf states and, in the longer term, for the entire world

LONDON: It is thanks to a quirk of ancient geological history that almost half the global oil and gas reserves are located under or around the waters of the Arabian Gulf, and that the flow of the bulk of bounty to the world must pass through the narrow maritime bottleneck that is the Strait of Hormuz.

On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the world that Israel’s unprecedented attack on Iran earlier in the day was an act of self-defense, aimed at disrupting its nuclear program.

By Saturday, Israel had broadened its targets from nuclear facilities, ballistic-missile factories and military commanders to oil facilities in apparent retaliation for waves of missile and drone strikes on its population centers.

In his video broadcast, Netanyahu said: “We will hit every site and every target of the ayatollahs’ regime, and what they have felt so far is nothing compared with what they will be handed in the coming days.”

In a stroke, Israel had escalated the conflict into a crisis with potentially immediate ramifications for all the oil- and gas-producing Gulf states and, in the longer term, for economies of the region and the entire world.

Reports originating from lawmakers in Tehran began to circulate suggesting that Iran was now threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. Sardar Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s parliament and a commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned in an interview that closing the waterway “is under consideration and that Iran will make the best decision with determination.”

While the strait is, in the words of the US Energy Information Administration, “the world’s most important oil transit choke point” — about a fifth of the world’s total petroleum liquids consumption passes through it — the two main oil producers, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, are not without alternative routes to world markets for their products.

Saudi Aramco operates twin oil and liquid gas pipelines which can carry up to 7 million barrels a day from Abqaiq on the Gulf to Yanbu on the Red Sea coast. Aramco has consistently shown resilience and ability to meet the demands of its clients, even when it was attacked in 2019.

The UAE’s onshore oil fields are linked to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman — beyond the Strait of Hormuz — by a pipeline capable of carrying 1.5 million barrels a day. The pipeline has attracted Iran’s attentions before. In 2019, four oil tankers, two each belonging to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, were attacked off the port of Fujairah.

Iran has never fully closed the Strait of Hormuz but it has threatened to do so multiple times in response to geopolitical tensions.

Historically, it has used the threat of closure as a strategic bargaining tool, particularly during periods of heightened conflict. In 2012, for instance, it threatened to block the strait in retaliation for US and European sanctions but did not follow through.

Naturally, disruptions in supplies would cause an enormous increase in energy price and related costs such as insurance and shipping. This would indirectly impact inflation and prices worldwide from the US to Japan.

According to the experts, Iran can employ unmanned drones, such as the Shahed series, to target specific shipping routes or infrastructure in the strait. It may also attempt to use naval vessels to physically obstruct passage through the strait.

Ironically, the one country in the region that would face no direct consequences from a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is Israel. All of its estimated consumption of 220,000 barrels of crude a day comes via the Mediterranean, from countries including Azerbaijan (exported via the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Turkiye to the eastern Mediterranean), the US, Brazil, Gabon and Nigeria.

Opinion

This section contains relevant reference points, placed in (Opinion field)

The capability to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz is one thing, a full closure is quite another, as it would harm Iran’s own economy given that it relies on the waterway for its oil exports.

History teaches that shutting off the flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf is far easier said than achieved. The first country to attempt to prevent oil exports from the Gulf was Britain, which in 1951 blockaded exports from the Abadan refinery at the head of the Gulf in response to the Iranian government’s decision to nationalize the country’s oil industry.

The motive was purely financial. In 1933 Britain, in the shape of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., a forerunner of today’s BP, had won a lopsided oil concession from the Iranian government and was reluctant to give it up.

The blockade did not last — impoverished post-war Britain needed Abadan’s oil as badly as Iran — but the consequences of Britain’s actions are arguably still being felt today.

The very existence of the current Iranian regime is a consequence of the 1953 coup jointly engineered by Britain and the US, which overthrew then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, architect of the oil nationalization plan, and set Iran on the path to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The first modern blockade of oil shipments in the Gulf happened the following year, when Saddam Hussein, hoping to take advantage of the disruption caused by the revolution and the ousting of the shah, attacked Iran, triggering the disastrous eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

Still equipped with the shah’s US-supplied and trained air force and navy, Iran’s first reaction was successfully to blockade Iraqi warships and oil tankers in Umm Qasr, Iraq’s only deep-water seaport.

Iraqi aircraft began attacking Iranian shipping in the Gulf, provoking an Iranian response that focused initially on neutral ships bringing supplies to Iraq via Kuwait, a development that soon escalated into attacks by both sides on shipping of all flags.

The first tanker to be hit was a Turkish ship bombed by Iraqi aircraft on May 30, 1982, while loading at Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminal. The first to be declared a total loss was a Greek tanker, struck by an Iraqi Exocet missile on Dec. 18, 1982.

In terms of lives lost and ships damaged or destroyed, the so-called Tanker War was an extremely costly episode, which caused a temporary sharp rise in oil prices. By the time it ended in 1987, more than 450 ships from 15 countries had been attacked, two-thirds of them by Iraq, and 400 crew members of many nationalities had been killed.

Among the dead were 37 American sailors. On May 17, 1987, American frigate the USS Stark, patrolling in the Gulf midway between Qatar and the Iranian coast, was hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage jet.

But at no point throughout the Tanker War was the flow of oil out through the Strait of Hormuz seriously disrupted.

“Iran couldn’t fully close the strait even in the 1980s,” said Sir John Jenkins, former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

“It’s true that in those days the UK and others had a significant mine-sweeping capacity, which we lack today. But even if Iran laid mines again or interfered with shipping in the strait in other ways it will almost certainly draw in US maritime forces from the 5th Fleet (based in Bahrain) and perhaps air assets too.

“Also, attempting to close Hormuz will hit their own significant illegal oil trade.”

Regardless, the Iranians “will be very tempted to do this. But it is a delicate calculation — doing enough to get Russia and in particular China involved in support of de-escalation but not enough to provoke US action, effectively on the side of Israel,” Jenkins said.

In an analysis published in February last year, following an uptick in maritime aggression by Iran in and around the Strait of Hormuz, the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank, concluded that because 76 percent of the crude oil that passes through it is destined for Asian markets, “as one of Tehran’s sole remaining allies, it would not be in China’s best interest for the strait to fully close.”

Lessons learned during the 1980s Tanker War are relevant today. In the wake of that conflict, an analysis by the Strauss Center for International Security and Law offered a cool-headed assessment of the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz to any attempt at enforced closure by Iran.

“Our research and analysis reveals significant limits to Iran’s ability to materially reduce the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz for a sustained period of time,” the report, published in 2008, said.

“We find that a large-scale Iranian campaign would yield about a 5 percent chance of stopping each tanker’s transit with small boat suicide attacks and a roughly 12 percent chance of stopping each tanker’s transit with volleys of anti-ship cruise missiles.”

Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a temporary sharp rise in insurance premiums and the price of crude oil.

“But the Tanker War did not significantly disrupt oil shipments … Even at its most intense point, it failed to disrupt more than 2 percent of ships passing through the Gulf,” the report said.

The bottom line, it said, “is that if a disruption to oil flows were to occur, the world oil market retains built in mechanisms to assuage initial effects. And since the long-term disruption of the strait, according to our campaign analysis, is highly improbable, assuaging initial effects might be all we need.

“Panic, therefore, is unnecessary.”

Israel’s critics say it already has much to answer for in unleashing its unilateral assault on Iran. Netanyahu has been claiming for years that Iran was “only months away” from producing a nuclear weapon and his claim that that is the case now has no more credibility than before.

“Benjamin Netanyahu has started a war with Iran that has no justification,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy at Washington think tank the Cato Institute.

Friday’s opening attacks overtook US President Donald Trump’s statement earlier that same day that “the United States is committed to a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear issue.”

“Iran was not on the precipice of acquiring nuclear weapons,” Logan said. “It had not thrown out IAEA inspectors, from whom all information about the Iran nuclear program flowed. It had not enriched uranium to weapons-grade.”

Netanyahu’s true motives in launching his attack at this time are not hard for political observers to divine.

He has successfully derailed US-Iranian nuclear talks — ongoing negotiations, due to have been continued on Sunday in Oman, were canceled.

The attack has also caused the postponement of the three-day joint Saudi-French Gaza peace summit at the UN, which had been due to begin on Tuesday, with the issue of Palestinian sovereignty high on the agenda — anathema to Netanyahu’s right-wing, anti-two-state government.

“Israel has the right to choose its own foreign policy,” Logan said.

But “at the same time, it has the responsibility to bear the costs of that policy.”
 

 


Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak: Only full-scale war or new deal can stop Iran’s nuclear program

Updated 15 June 2025
Follow

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak: Only full-scale war or new deal can stop Iran’s nuclear program

  • Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Barak said Israel’s ability to hold back Tehran’s program was limited
  • Barak said that while military strikes were “problematic,” Israel viewed the action as justified

LONDON: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has warned that military action by Israel alone will not be enough to significantly delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, describing the Islamic republic as a “threshold nuclear power.”

Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Barak said that Israel’s ability to hold back Tehran’s program was limited.

“In my judgment, it’s not a secret that Israel alone cannot delay the nuclear program of Iran by a significant time period. Probably several weeks, probably a month, but even the US cannot delay them by more than a few months,” he said.

“It doesn’t mean that immediately they will have (a nuclear weapon), probably they still have to complete certain weaponization, or probably create a crude nuclear device to explode it somewhere in the desert to show the whole world where they are.”

Barak said that while military strikes were “problematic,” Israel viewed the action as justified.

“Instead of sitting idle, Israel feels that they have to do something. Probably together with the Americans we can do more.”

The former premier said that stopping Iran’s progress would require either a major diplomatic breakthrough or a regime change.

“My judgment is that because Iran is already what’s called a threshold nuclear power, the only way to block it is either to impose upon it a convincing new agreement or alternatively a full-scale war to topple down the regime,” he said.

“That’s something that together with the United States we can do.”

But he said he did not believe Washington had the appetite for such a move.

“I don’t believe that any American president, neither Trump or any one of his predecessors, would have decided to do that.”

Israel unleashed airstrikes across Iran for a third day on Sunday and threatened even greater force as some Iranian missiles fired in retaliation evaded Israeli air defenses to strike buildings in the heart of the country.

Israeli emergency services said at least 10 people had been killed in the Iranian attacks, while officials in Iran said that at least 128 people had been killed by Israel’s salvos.


Qatari foreign minister discusses Iran-Israel strikes in calls with UAE, UK counterparts

Updated 15 June 2025
Follow

Qatari foreign minister discusses Iran-Israel strikes in calls with UAE, UK counterparts

  • Minister’s message confirms Doha’s condemnation of the Israeli attack
  • Qatar collaborating with partners to promote dialogue in pursuit of a diplomatic solution

LONDON: Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani, Qatar’s foreign minister, spoke with his Emirati and British counterparts in separate calls on Sunday to address the escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran.

Sheikh Mohammed and his UAE counterpart, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, discussed the Israeli attack on Iran, which began on Friday morning.

The Qatari foreign minister reiterated Doha’s condemnation of the Israeli attack, which violates Iran’s sovereignty and security and is a clear violation of the principles of international law, the Qatar News Agency reported.

Sheikh Mohammed had a separate conversation on Sunday with UK Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lammy. During this call, he said that the ongoing Israeli violations and attacks in the region are undermining peace efforts and could lead to a broader regional conflict, the QNA added.

He emphasized the need for diplomatic efforts, saying that Qatar is collaborating with partners to promote dialogue and enhance security and peace in the region and worldwide.


Turkish president discusses Israel-Iran strikes with Oman’s sultan, Kuwait’s emir

Updated 15 June 2025
Follow

Turkish president discusses Israel-Iran strikes with Oman’s sultan, Kuwait’s emir

  • Leaders stress importance of de-escalation, halting aggression, resolving differences through diplomatic means

LONDON: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed developments in the Middle East during separate phone calls on Sunday with the Sultan of Oman Haitham bin Tariq, and the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Meshal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.

Erdogan discussed with the Omani sultan the Israeli strikes against Iran, which began on Friday morning, and their “worrying repercussions” for the region, the Oman News Agency reported.

The parties stressed the importance of dialogue and diplomacy and a return to the negotiating table to settle conflicts and prevent the escalation of crises in the region.

The ONA reported that they exchanged views on maintaining security and stability in accordance with international law.

Erdogan and the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Meshal also discussed the rapid developments in the Middle East and the conflict between “the friendly Islamic Republic of Iran and the brutal Israeli entity,” the Kuwait News Agency reported.

In addition, both leaders renewed their condemnation of the ongoing Israeli strikes in the Gaza Strip, where at least 54,000 Palestinians have been killed since late 2023. They emphasized the importance of de-escalating tensions, halting aggression, and resolving differences through diplomatic means in the region, the KUNA added.


MP calls out lack of bomb shelters in Arab-Israeli communities

Updated 15 June 2025
Follow

MP calls out lack of bomb shelters in Arab-Israeli communities

JERUSALEM: Ayman Odeh, an Israeli member of parliament of Palestinian descent, accused the government on Sunday of failing to provide Arab-Israeli communities with enough shelters after an Iranian missile killed four people in the city of Tamra.

“The state, unfortunately, still distinguishes between blood and blood,” Odeh lamented on X, after touring the city of 37,000 predominantly Arab residents.

A house there was destroyed by a missile launched by Iran overnight in response to Israel’s unprecedented attacks on the Islamic republic’s military and nuclear sites.

“Four civilians were killed yesterday: Manar Al-Qassem Abu Al-Hija Khatib (39), her two daughters Hala (13) and Shada (20), and their relative Manar Diab Khatib (41),” Odeh said, adding that “dozens more” were wounded

Cars and buildings were also damaged by the strike on the community in the Israeli region of Galilee, an AFP journalist at the scene reported.

“Tamra is not a village. It is a city without public shelters,” Odeh said, adding that this was the case for 60 percent of “local authorities” — the Israeli term for communities not officially registered as cities, many of which are Arab-Israeli.

Arab-Israelis are Palestinians who remained in what is now Israel after its creation in 1948, and represent about 20 percent of the country’s population.

The community frequently professes to face discrimination from Israel’s Jewish majority.

With Israel and Iran engaged in their most intense confrontation ever, Odeh, a communist MP for over 10 years, warned of “a threat of unprecedented destruction (that) will not distinguish” between Arabs and Jews.

He also accused the government of “neglect” toward citizens of Palestinian descent.

A video shared on social media Sunday night caused outrage after showing families apparently rejoicing in Hebrew as missiles fell on Tamra.

In some Arab neighborhoods, missiles launched toward Israel have also been welcomed with joy, AFP journalists reported.