Frankly Speaking: The view from within the Palestinian Authority

Short Url
Updated 20 April 2025
Follow

Frankly Speaking: The view from within the Palestinian Authority

  • Varsen Aghabekian, Palestinian minister of state for foreign affairs and expatriates, says Israel enjoys immunity, has no intention of stopping war in Gaza
  • Warns of regional escalation if lack of accountability persists, insists the Arab League’s peace and reconstruction plan remains the best path forward

RIYADH: As Gaza reels from an unrelenting conflict that has killed tens of thousands and left its infrastructure in ruins, Dr. Varsen Aghabekian, Palestinian minister of state for foreign affairs and expatriates, says Israel has no intention of stopping what she describes as a genocidal war — and continues to act with impunity. 

Speaking on the Arab News weekly current affairs program “Frankly Speaking,” Aghabekian urged the international community to step in and halt the offensive, which she said has turned Gaza into a killing field.

“What can be done is a stopping of this genocidal war,” she said. “This impunity, which Israel has been enjoying for a long time, only begets more violence. And today, we see only destruction and killing of more civilians in Gaza.”

Aid to Gaza has been blocked for over a month and a half, and more than 60,000 children face malnutrition, according to international aid agencies. “It’s time to say enough is enough and halt this aggression — this genocidal war with the increasing brutality by the day on Gaza,” she said.

Aghabekian believes the collapse of the ceasefire agreement earlier this year was inevitable, given that Israel’s political and military leadership has made no secret of its broader intentions.

“The ceasefire deal will continue to fall apart because Israel has no intention of stopping this war,” she said. “Its defense minister, Israel Katz, said the other day: ‘We don’t intend to even leave Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria.’ These are very clear messages that this war will continue and will only bring more disaster to the Palestinians in Gaza — and probably the region at large.”

In the face of proposals from foreign powers such as the Trump administration to resettle Palestinians or repurpose Gaza for tourism, Aghabekian maintains that only plans rooted in justice and dignity will succeed.

“We know that the US has unwavering support for the Israelis,” she said. “Any plan for Gaza or the Palestinians must respect the dignity and the rights of the Palestinian people. Any other plan will not work and it will not bring peace to the region.”




Varsen Aghabekian says Israel has no intention of stopping the Gaza war and continues to act with impunity. (AN Photo)

A sustainable peace, she says, depends on international recognition of Palestinian rights. “These rights, as I said, are enshrined in the division plan in 1948. The plan set two states. One state is on the ground today. Now it’s time to materialize the second state,” she said.

She added that the Palestinian state has already gained recognition from 149 countries and has UN observer status. “This is not a contested land; this is an occupied land,” she said. “It is the land of the State of Palestine.”

During his last administration, US President Donald Trump championed normalization agreements between Arab states and Israel under the Abraham Accords. Despite acknowledging the widespread pessimism about his return to the White House, Aghabekian said she remains cautiously optimistic.

“If President Trump wants to forge peace and he wants to leave a legacy of peace, then that peace has a framework and it entails the respect and the rightful rights of the Palestinians,” she told Katie Jensen, host of “Frankly Speaking.”

“So, I remain hopeful that this will get to the table of President Trump and the ears of President Trump, and he sees that the future of the Middle East includes the rights of the Palestinians on their state as enshrined in international law.”

Her comments come as Israeli strikes on Gaza continue to spark international outrage. A recent attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital on Palm Sunday forced patients into the streets. Israel claimed the site was being used as a Hamas command center.

“The genocidal war in Gaza is not justified in any way you look at it,” Aghabekian said. “And bombing a hospital that is partially operating and part of a system that has been devastated in the last 19 months is not justified by any means. Bombing a Christian hospital on a Palm Sunday is extremely telling.”

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza came in retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern Israel, which killed more than 1,200 people and saw another 250 taken hostage.

In 18 months, the war has killed at least 51,065 people, according to Gaza health officials. Last week, Hamas formally rejected Israel’s latest ceasefire proposal, saying it was ready to negotiate a deal that would see the release of all 59 hostages it is still holding, 24 of whom are believed to be alive, in return for an end to the war. Israel had offered a 45-day ceasefire in return for the release of 10 hostages.

Aghabekian said the continued killings of Palestinian civilians — including aid workers — in Gaza are a stark indicator of unchecked brutality. “Even after the ceasefire, we have seen that over 2,000 Palestinians have been killed, and these Palestinians are civilians; they have absolutely nothing to do with Hamas,” she said. “Today, nothing has been done because everything passes with impunity.”




Smoke rises from Gaza after an air strike, as seen from the Israeli side of the border, April 20, 2025. (Reuters)

Efforts to establish peace through regional diplomacy are ongoing. Aghabekian pointed to a three-stage Gaza reconstruction plan presented by the Arab League and backed by the Islamic world and parts of Europe. But she acknowledged the resistance it faces, particularly from the US and Israel.

“We have to continue using our diplomatic efforts,” she said. “We know that this military route is getting us nowhere. And our military efforts are directed at mobilizing the international community with several ventures today on ending occupation. We have the forthcoming international conference, spearheaded by France and Saudi Arabia, to take place in New York mid-year. And we have the global alliance on the materialization of the State of Palestine. And we will continue our efforts on the recognition of Palestine and the full membership efforts, as well as our efforts with international organizations, such as the Human Rights Council and UNESCO.”

Despite the challenges, she sees momentum building. “We’ve seen that in the latest summit, and we are seeing support and unity from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). We’ve seen unity from European countries and others giving us positive vibes about the plan and the possibility of sustaining that plan in the future,” she said. “This is the only plan today on the table that may move us forward. It is very much — there’s a consensus on it, and it is in line with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.”

Still, the obstacles remain formidable. Israel’s latest ceasefire proposal reportedly calls for the disarming of Hamas and the release of all living hostages. Aghabekian warned such conditions are unrealistic given the devastation Palestinians have endured.

“A durable ceasefire entails, of course, meeting the demands of both parties, but today, the Palestinians have been crushed for the last 19 months,” she said. “A durable peace should bring them an opening of the borders, feeding the people, starting immediate relief on the ground, and doing whatever it takes to have this genocidal war stop. We hope that reason prevails on all sides, and we reach the stage today before tomorrow.”

Addressing criticism about the Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy, especially in Gaza, she acknowledged that ongoing hardships and political stagnation have eroded public trust.

“If we see something moving on the political track, people will start realizing that there is a hope for the future,” she said. “And today, whoever is responsible or who has the mandate on the occupied State of Palestine is the Palestinian Authority. And that authority needs to be empowered to be able to meet the needs of its people.”

The Palestine Liberation Organization, she said, remains the umbrella under which all factions must gather if unity is to be achieved. “Anyone can join the PLO, but you need to accept what the PLO stands for, accept agreements signed by the PLO, and accept the political vision of the PLO,” she said.

Asked whether ordinary Palestinians still have confidence in the PLO, Aghabekian said that trust is conditional. “I think that confidence can fluctuate based on what is happening on the ground,” she said. “And, as I said earlier, if people see something moving in terms of the vision of the PLO on a free Palestine, a sovereign Palestine, the liberation of the Palestinian people, bringing people a better future soon, then people will rally behind the PLO, and the PLO can look inwards and think of reform of the PLO.”




Speaking on the Arab News weekly current affairs program “Frankly Speaking,” Aghabekian urged the international community to step in and halt the offensive in Gaza. (AN Photo)

Turning to the West Bank, she expressed alarm at the scale of ongoing settlement expansion. “We’ve seen more and more land grab, we’ve seen increased brutality, we’ve been seeing increased violations on the ground, withholding of our tax money, displacement of people, attacks on UNRWA and refugee camps, grabbing of more land for agricultural herding — and this is something new for the Palestinians,” she said.

“There is entrenchment and emboldening of occupation on all levels.”

She called for greater pressure on Israel to comply with international law. “Statements are void if no actual measures are taken on the ground,” she said. “What needs to be done is holding Israel to account.”

Citing hundreds of UN resolutions and a landmark International Court of Justice opinion calling for the end of Israel’s occupation, she said enforcement mechanisms are long overdue.

“There are steps that are doable now in terms of what do we do with settler violence, with the settlers who are sitting on occupied stolen land. What do we do with settlement products? How do we deal with settlers who have dual citizenship. How do we deal with arms sent to Israel or sold to Israel?” Aghabekian said, adding that it was time for the international community to show its teeth.

While warning of the risk of a third intifada, she said the PA leadership is focused on avoiding further civilian casualties. “We do not want to transfer what is happening in Gaza to the West Bank, and partly it is already being transferred,” she said. “So, the leadership needs to spare the lives of the people.”

 

 

Aghabekian said the ICJ ruling provides a legal basis for action. “It has told the whole world that this is not a contested territory, this is an occupied territory, and this Israeli belligerent occupation needs to be dismantled,” she said. “There are steps that are doable.”

The PA is also preparing for governance in Gaza, should the violence end. “The Palestinian Authority is doing its homework and it is preparing and ready to shoulder its responsibilities in Gaza,” Aghabekian said. “There is a plan accepted by 57 countries for Gaza’s rehabilitation, immediate relief and reconstruction. And we hope that we are enabled to start working on that plan.”

However, she said implementation hinges on external support. “Those plans need billions of dollars, they need the empowerment of the Palestinian Authority in terms of actually practicing governance on the ground.”

Asked whether Israel or its allies might eventually accept a modified version of the Arab League’s plan, Aghabekian said all parties must be willing to talk. “It’s a give-and-take thing,” she said. “In the final analysis, what we want is to reach the goal of stopping this genocidal war and letting aid move in and for us to be able to start our relief and construction efforts. If this needs further discussion, I think we’re open for discussion.”

But the human toll continues to mount. “Palestinians will continue to lose their lives because Israel has no intent on stopping this war,” she said. “There is no justification for the continuing of the war, and an agreement can be reached if there is genuine intent.”

 


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.