Memory is a funny thing, especially when it's filtered through the grainy lens of a 2001 television broadcast. If you were around when the towers fell, you probably remember the shock. Then came the anger. And for many in the West, that anger found a specific target when news clips surfaced showing Palestinians celebrate 9 11 in the streets.
It felt like a gut punch.
But history is rarely as simple as a ten-second soundbite. Twenty-five years later, we can finally look at those images without the raw, blinding emotion of the immediate aftermath. Honestly, the story of those celebrations—who was there, why they did it, and how the media handled it—is a masterclass in how information becomes a weapon. It wasn’t just "everyone" cheering. It also wasn't "no one." The truth sits in that uncomfortable middle ground that most people ignore because it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
The Footage That Shook the World
On September 11, 2001, as the world watched the smoke rise over Lower Manhattan, the Associated Press and Reuters began circulating footage from East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank. You know the clip. It usually shows a group of people, including women in hijabs and young men, cheering, whistling, and occasionally handing out sweets.
It went viral before "going viral" was even a term.
The impact was instantaneous. In the United States, it fueled a narrative that the entire Palestinian population was gleeful about American deaths. This single reel of film became the primary lens through which millions of Americans viewed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the next decade.
But here’s the thing: scale matters.
Reports from journalists on the ground, including those from The Guardian and The New York Times, later clarified that these gatherings were relatively small. We’re talking about dozens or perhaps a few hundred people in specific pockets like Nablus or East Jerusalem. In a population of millions, that’s a data point, not a consensus. Yet, when you put a camera in front of twenty people cheering, it fills the entire frame. It feels like a sea of people.
📖 Related: Weather Forecast Lockport NY: Why Today’s Snow Isn’t Just Hype
Was the Footage Faked?
There is a long-standing urban legend that the footage was actually from the 1990s. People claimed it showed Palestinians celebrating something else entirely and was just "re-aired" to make them look bad.
That is false.
The footage was real. It was shot on September 11, 2001. Multiple news agencies confirmed the metadata and the timing. However, there was a legitimate controversy regarding how the footage was obtained. In Nablus, a cameraman working for the Associated Press was reportedly threatened by local Palestinian gunmen who didn't want the footage released. They knew, even in the heat of the moment, that these images would be a public relations disaster for their cause.
The Political Backlash and Arafat’s Blood
While those small groups were cheering, the Palestinian leadership was in a state of absolute panic. Yasser Arafat, then the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), knew exactly what those images of Palestinians celebrate 9 11 would do to his standing in Washington.
He didn't just issue a statement. He went for the ultimate photo op.
Arafat was filmed at a hospital in Gaza donating blood for the American victims. He looked somber. He called the attacks a "terrible crime." His administration scrambled to suppress the street celebrations, with Palestinian police even breaking up small rallies to prevent more footage from leaking out.
It was a bizarre split-screen reality. On one side, you had a small segment of the "street" reacting to what they saw as a blow against a superpower that funded their occupiers. On the other, you had a political elite desperately trying to convince the world they weren't the "bad guys."
👉 See also: Economics Related News Articles: What the 2026 Headlines Actually Mean for Your Wallet
Why Would Anyone Cheer?
To understand the reaction, you have to look at the atmosphere in 2001. The Second Intifada was in full swing. Violence was a daily occurrence. Many Palestinians felt that the United States wasn't an honest broker but rather the bankroller of the Israeli military.
For those few who celebrated, it wasn't necessarily about a love for Al-Qaeda. Most probably didn't even know who Osama bin Laden was at that moment. It was the "enemy of my enemy" logic. It was the sight of a powerful entity being brought low. It’s a grim human impulse that isn't unique to any one culture, but in the context of 2001, it was catastrophic for the Palestinian image.
Media Ethics and the "Echo" Effect
There's a concept in journalism called "proportionality." If 95% of a population is silent or horrified, but 5% is dancing, what do you show?
News likes movement. News likes noise. Silence doesn't make for good TV.
By focusing so heavily on the fact that some Palestinians celebrate 9 11, the media created an "echo" effect. It suggested a monolith. It ignored the Palestinian university students who held candlelit vigils. It ignored the official mourning periods declared in certain municipalities.
Interestingly, a similar phenomenon happened within Israel and the U.S. when fringe groups would celebrate the deaths of "enemies." The difference is that those groups are usually labeled as "extremists" or "outliers." In the case of the 9/11 celebrations, the outliers were used to define the whole.
The Impact on the "War on Terror"
The legacy of those 2001 clips lived on long after the debris was cleared from Ground Zero. It was used by pundits and politicians to justify a harder line against Palestinian aspirations. It basically served as a visual shorthand for "they hate us."
✨ Don't miss: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
You can see the ripples of this even today. Whenever there is a flare-up in the Middle East, those old, grainy clips of the 2001 celebrations often resurface on social media. They are used to shut down nuance. They are used to remind people of a moment of perceived betrayal.
Digging Into the Details: What the Surveys Said
If you look at polling data from the time—specifically from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR)—the picture gets even more complicated. While many Palestinians expressed horror at the loss of civilian life, there was a high degree of skepticism about U.S. foreign policy.
- A large majority condemned the killing of civilians.
- A significant portion felt the U.S. "deserved" a wake-up call regarding its Middle East policy.
- Almost no one supported the Al-Qaeda ideology of a global caliphate.
This nuance was completely lost in the 24-hour news cycle. People don't want to hear that someone is "sad about the deaths but angry at the government." They want to know if you're with us or against us.
How to Verify Historical Media Claims
In an era of deepfakes and AI-generated history, looking back at the 2001 celebrations requires a sharp eye. If you are researching this or similar historical events, you've got to look past the viral clip.
First, check the source. Was it a primary news agency like AP or Reuters? In this case, yes. Second, look for the counter-narrative. Were there other things happening at the same time? Also yes—the vigils and the official condemnations. Third, look at the scale. Was it a "million-man march" or a corner in Nablus?
History is a collection of fragments. If you only pick up the sharpest, most jagged pieces, you're going to get cut.
Actionable Steps for Understanding Complicated History
- Seek Out Raw Footage: Don't just watch the edited YouTube "tribute" or "critique." Find the original raw feeds if possible. Look at the background. How many people are actually there? Is it the same ten people being filmed from three different angles?
- Cross-Reference Regional Reports: Read what local journalists wrote at the time. They often have context that international reporters, who just flew in for the day, completely miss.
- Check Polling Data: Look at organizations like Pew Research or the PCPSR. Feelings are hard to quantify, but professional polling provides a better yardstick than a TV camera.
- Distinguish Between People and Government: This is the big one. The actions of a crowd in the street rarely reflect the strategic goals of a government, and the statements of a government rarely reflect the heart of every citizen.
The story of how Palestinians celebrate 9 11 is ultimately a story about the power of the image. It reminds us that while a picture might be worth a thousand words, it doesn't always tell the whole story. It tells a story. And in the heat of a global tragedy, that distinction often gets buried under the rubble. By looking at the events with modern eyes, we can acknowledge that while those celebrations did happen, they were a fragment of a much larger, much sadder, and much more complex reality.
Understanding this doesn't mean you have to excuse the celebrations. It just means you're choosing to see the full picture instead of the one designed to make you angry. That's how we move from reactive consumption to actual historical literacy.
To truly understand the geopolitical shifts of that era, one should look into the subsequent "Roadmap for Peace" and how the optics of 2001 influenced the Bush administration's approach to the West Bank. The shift from Clinton-era engagement to post-9/11 skepticism was fueled, in no small part, by the very images we've discussed. Use archival databases like the New York Times Article Archive or the Jewish Virtual Library to see how the narrative evolved month-by-month following the attacks. This provides a clearer view of how "optics" become "policy."