Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, February 20, 2015

02/20 Links Pt1: Glick: Netanyahu’s true electoral rival; White House 'Concerned' PA May Disappear

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Netanyahu’s true electoral rival

Obama’s insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic State’s ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.
Most of the coverage of Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal Obama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech – which will be devoted to the threat posed by radical Islam – will be no less devastating to Obama. Obama’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and racism.
It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or Obama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.
Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, Obama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.

A speech by Caroline Glick (in English) and a promotion for her new book "Annex it Now" (h/t Bob Knot)

Sarah Honig: Variation of the Bird-Jew theme

In his autobiography, legendary Yiddish author Shalom Aleichem recounts a harrowing story his grandfather had told him about “the bird-Jew.”
That was how the grandfather called Noah, a pious Jewish innkeeper who lived in constant dread of his Russian landlord, the village squire. Trembling, Noah headed for the manor to renew his lease. His timing was off, because the courtyard was full of festive guests ready to go hunting.
The squire, in a jovial mood, agreed to extend the agreement if Noah would climb the stable roof and pretend to be a bird – so he can shoot him. Fearful of angering the nobleman, Noah obsequiously did his bidding. He clambered up as ordered, bent forward, flung his arms sideways and assumed a birdlike pose. At that instant the squire fired and Noah fell, as any slain bird would.

Although realizing he’s about to be put to death anyway, the bird-Jew played along with his executioner, still absurdly terrified of what might happen if he didn’t. This is the cringing mentality, the fear of giving offense to one’s mortal enemies, which Zionism was established to eradicate.
But not with full success, it seems.

Phillips Warns of 'Civilizational Battle' Between Islam and the West

In a visit to California this week, British journalist and author Melanie Phillips stated the very thing that leaders of the western world have refused to say, and have gone to particularly great lengths to avoid.
In a lecture on “The Paris Massacres and the Freedom of Speech,” Phillips singled out Islam as being the root cause of the violent extremism in the Paris and Copenhagen attacks, and warned that radical ideologies stemming from the interpretation of the religion’s teachings are a direct threat to western values and the civilization as a whole.
“The real point is that the attack on freedom of speech is part of a religious war of conquest being waged against the free world….It’s a civilizational battle,” Phillips said as she addressed a jam-packed audience at the University of Redlands on Monday.
“ISIS has identified itself as Islamic in everything that it does. To say that it is not Islam is just completely absurd….To deny that it is rooted in Islamic thought is a terrible mistake,” Phillips added.

From Bloomberg:

The Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization should pay a group of terrorism victims more than $350 million in damages, an amount that would be tripled to more than $1 billion, their lawyer told a U.S. jury at the end of a five-week trial.

The two organizations aided six bombing and shooting attacks on U.S. citizens in Israel from 2002 and 2004 by providing money, explosives, training and personnel, a lawyer for 10 families said in his closing argument to Manhattan federal jurors Thursday. He argued they’re liable under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which provides for triple damages.

“Money is oxygen for terrorists,” Kent Yalowitz told jurors in the case, which was filed in 2004. “Take away their money by making them pay their fair share for what they did.”

Family members who were in the courtroom wept quietly as Yalowitz detailed the physical and emotional injuries suffered by victims of the attacks, which killed a total of 33 and wounded more than 450. At least one juror wiped away tears while listening.

Yalowitz told jurors that Palestinian Authority officials sanctioned terrorist attacks and promoted officers who carried them out, often posthumously. Funds were also provided to jailed terrorists and to the families of suicide bombers, he said.
\
The Palestinian groups claimed they aren’t responsible for the unapproved acts of low-level employees. They denied that senior officials, including Yasser Arafat, the deceased PLO chairman, aided the terrorist organizations Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in carrying out attacks.

The PA is very nervous:

Palestinian officials are nervously watching a landmark terrorism trial in the United States, brought by victims of Palestinian suicide bombings and shootings aimed at civilians. They fear a negative verdict could hurt their international image at a time when they are preparing to press war crimes charges against Israel.

Although the cases are not directly linked, a ruling against the Palestinian Authority in New York federal court threatens to undermine Palestinian efforts to rally international support for a brewing battle at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. With American plaintiffs seeking billions of dollars in damages, it could also deliver a tough financial blow to the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority refused to comment on the lawsuit. But several senior Palestinian officials said the case is being closely watched in Ramallah and acknowledged they are worried about the outcome. The officials spoke anonymously on the advice of their lawyers.

Courthouse News mentions one of the pieces of PLO evidence:

The U.S. government's PLO Compliance Report, known as PLOCCA, stopped short of drawing a firm link between Arafat's organizations and the attacks.

"There is no conclusive evidence that the senior leaderships of the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization were involved in planning or approving specific acts of violence," the report said.

Bit for a lawsuit, you don't need conclusive evidence, only a preponderance of evidence. And that same 2003 report provides it:

In fact, there is strong evidence that. some members of the PA security forces were allowed to continue serving even though their participation in terrorist incidents was well known. ...Moreover, some senior PLO and PA leaders did little to prevent - and in some cases encouraged - acts of violence and an atmosphere of incitement to violence in the Palestinian media and through the public statements of Palestinian officials....[T]hey failed consistently to condemn attacks on Israeli settlers and soldiers in the occupied territories. This omission amounted to tacit support for such attacks. For example, one high-ranking PA official referred to suicide bombing as "the highest. form of national struggle" in an interview with the al-Jazeera television station. The PA subsequently took no action to discipline the individual or to repudiate his statement. According to the Israeli press, the PA Interior Minister publicly said that while the PA opposed killing civilians it "is not against military operations." The Minister went on to say that settlers should not be considered civilians.

The last PLOCCA report discussed direct payments from the PA to Fatah party activists, some of whom were deeply involved in the ongoing violence. We believe such payments continued during this reporting period.

A snowman terrorist on the Temple Mount this morning (UPDATE)

See how respectful Muslims are of Judaism's holiest place:

Given all the snowballs placed on the arms and ground, it appears to be a celebration of throwing rocks at Jews.

Especially repugnant given that terror-victim Adele Biton, critically injured from stones, died this week.

(UPDATE): Here is more respect being show this morning (h/t Bob K)

Two years ago they preferred snow-rockets.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post interviews Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence, who explains in very clear language the reasons that Israel has broken so publicly with Washington:

“From the very beginning, we made it clear we had reservations about the goal of the negotiations,” he explained. “We thought the goal should be to get rid of the Iranian nuclear threat, not verify or inspect it.”

Steinitz, who helps oversee Iran strategy for Netanyahu, said he understands the United States wants to tie Iran’s hands for a decade until a new generation takes power there. But he warns: “You’re saying, okay, in 10 or 12 years Iran might be a different country.” This is “dangerous” because it ignores that Iran is “thinking like an old-fashioned superpower.”

Netanyahu’s skepticism reached a tipping point last month when he concluded that the United States had offered so many concessions to Iran that any deal reached would be bad for Israel. He broke with Obama, first in a private phone call Jan. 12, and then in his public acceptance of an offer by GOP House Speaker John Boehner to address Congress on March 3 and, in effect, lobby against the deal.

The administration argues that the pact taking shape, although imperfect, is preferable to any realistic alternative. It would limit the Iranian program and allow careful monitoring of its actions. Angered by what it sees as Netanyahu’s efforts to sabotage the agreement, the administration decided in early February to limit the information it shared with Israel about its bargaining with Iran.
...
Despite Netanyahu’s view that it was a “great mistake” to accept any Iranian enrichment, Steinitz said that “we got the impression that it might be symbolic. The initial figure [discussed by the United States and its negotiating partners] was ‘a few hundred centrifuges.’ ” Now, he said, the United States is contemplating “thousands.” According to Israeli press reports, the United States has offered to allow Iran to operate at least 6,500 centrifuges.

Steinitz didn’t dispute the U.S. argument that what matters is a package that includes the number and performance levels of the permitted centrifuges, the extent of dismantlement of non-permitted centrifuges and the size of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. “Breakout time is an equation with four variables,” he said.

“The temptation [for Iran] is not now but in two or three or four years, when the West is preoccupied with other crises,” he added. Steinitz said that if Iran chose to “sneak out” at such a moment, it would take the United States and its allies months to determine the pact had been violated, and another six months to form a coalition for sanctions or other decisive action. By then, it might be too late.

Steinitz said the Israeli government understands the U.S. goal of a 10- to 15-year duration for the agreement, which would constrain Iran into what’s likely to be the next generation after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is 75. But here again, he dissented.

“I understand the logic, but I disagree,” Steinitz said. What the United States is saying to Iran, in effect, is “if you agree to freeze for 10 years, that’s enough for us.” But that won’t work for Israel. “To believe that in the next decade there will be a democratic change in leadership and that Iran won’t threaten the U.S. or Israel anymore, I think this is too speculative.”

Steinitz concluded the conversation with an emphatic warning: “Iran is part of the problem and not part of the solution — unless you think Iran dominating the Middle East is the solution.”

Ignatius' takeaway from this conversation is as instructive as the entire argument Steinitz gave:

People who think that a nuclear deal with Iran is desirable, as I do, need to be able to answer Steinitz’s critique.

Ignatius cannot find a single hole in Steinitz' points against a deal as it is structured now. But his response isn't an intellectually honest one.

If Israel is right, the proper response is to scuttle the bad deal, not to find more justifications for it.

Ignatius is saying that that the deal is sacred and someone needs to come up with plausible sounding responses to defend it so that he- and by extension, all of Obama's supporters for a deal - don't feel like idiots. This shows that supporters of the deal are impervious to facts and logic; they have made an emotional decision and not an objective one.

David Ignatius is admitting explicitly that no argument, no matter how correct, can shake his belief that a nuclear deal with Iran - one that allows Iran to build a bomb or three before the West can mount an effective response - is better than none. He is not the only one with this logical blind spot.

And that is the problem.

(h/t David G)

Obama bends over backwards to deny the truth about Islamic terrorism

President Obama's speech on Thursday at the at the "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism" had little to do with countering extremism. Instead, it concentrated on a theory that is provably false: that violent extremism is the result of Western policies and attitudes, not the Middle Eastern mindset.

His fatal assumption is that Middle East Muslims think the same way that everyone else in the world does. When terrorists and their apologists say that they are violent because of Western polices, he believes them, instead of being skeptical of the words of terrorists.

While we are used to his naivete, it is still stunning that he is building his anti-terror strategy on believing the lies of the terrorists.

We must address the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances. As I said yesterday, poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist, any more than poverty alone causes someone to become a criminal. There are millions, billions of people who are poor and are law-abiding and peaceful and tolerant, and are trying to advance their lives and the opportunities for their families.

But when people -- especially young people -- feel entirely trapped in impoverished communities, where there is no order and no path for advancement, where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support families, and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption -- that feeds instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment. And we have seen that across the Middle East and we've seen it across North Africa. So if we’re serious about countering violent extremism, we have to get serious about confronting these economic grievances.

...We have to address the political grievances that terrorists exploit. Again, there is not a single perfect causal link, but the link is undeniable. When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied -- particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines -- when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit.

...And finally, we have to ensure that our diverse societies truly welcome and respect people of all faiths and backgrounds, and leaders set the tone on this issue.

Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL peddle the lie that some of our countries are hostile to Muslims. Meanwhile, we’ve also seen, most recently in Europe, a rise in inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases, anti-Muslim sentiment or anti-immigrant sentiment. When people spew hatred towards others -- because of their faith or because they’re immigrants -- it feeds into terrorist narratives. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society in which they reside, it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey. And we can’t allow cycles of suspicions to tear at the fabric of our countries.

In Europe, there are 2.5 million Indians, 2 million Armenians, 2 million Kurds, 1 million Chinese, half a million Filipinos. They live in the same societies as the Arabs and other Muslims in Europe. They have the same challenges. Yet for some strange reason, all these groups that suffer the same discrimination and the same political impotence and the same economic disadvantages as the Muslims do not join "violent extremist" groups.

If Obama's logic holds, then why do the terrorists, by and large, all say they subscribe to only one faith that we are assured has nothing to do with the violence?

I am not saying that Islam itself causes violence. But there is something that attracts millions of Muslims worldwide to extremist positions, that is apparently missing in all other belief systems. And none of Obama's theories fit that simple fact.

I think the answer can be found in the Graeme Wood article I highlighted earlier this week.

Islam has never officially reformed since it was founded. There is no solid theological basis to say that the things that Mohammed allowed - slavery, beheadings, crucifixions - are no longer permitted. ISIS' theology attracts people because it claims to be pure, original Islam, and that position cannot be argued with using authentic Islamic texts. There are ways to slowly evolve the religion baked into Christianity and even Orthodox Judaism, but there is no such mechanism in Islam.

Indeed, Islam is the problem because it never formally left the seventh century. Muslim moderates are Muslim heretics and Muslim literalists are Muslim terrorists (or supporters.)

This is not a problem that the West can solve by taking the blame for the terror. Of course there shouldn't be discrimination against Muslims and they should be encouraged to integrate into Western society and adopt Western mindsets, but that will do nothing to solve the real problem.

What the West can do is to ensure ISIS and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and the Taliban and Islamic Jihad and Boko Haram lose all their battles decisively, and painfully. Muslims are attracted to "the strong horse" and when these terror organizations are perceived as victors is when recruitment soars. Only by pulling all the stops can the West re-assert its clear military dominance, and that would discourage recruits to Islamist organizations.

Plenty of suicide bombers have had university educations. It is way past time to blame poverty and discrimination for terrorism. The answers can be found in original Quranic Islam and in the psychology of the Middle East peoples.

(h/t Irene)

02/19 Links Pt2: Muhammad Zoabi on Voice of Israel; Matti Friedman's BICOM speech

From Ian:

Muhammad Zoabi. The Arab Teenager. The Zionist Activist. The Human Being (h/t IsraellyCool)

Amb. Prosor: what can students do to face one of Israel's greatest challenges?

Matti Friedman's speech to the BICOM annual dinner

I got the news in real time while sitting in a doctor’s waiting room: the feverishly-awaited State Comptroller’s report on the expenditures of the Prime Minister’s residences had been released, and a woman seated across the room was smacking her lips reading numbers from her smartphone to her husband: “75 thousand shekels for cleaning,” she smacked. “And all that take-out food! Can you believe it? Those two are living like a king and queen, aren’t they?”

Welcome to the surreal Israeli election campaign, in which there are no real issues except the absolute conviction of the out-of-power Left that the world is upside down and can only be righted by them replacing the present government, and the fact that many people really don’t like the Prime Minister. Or his wife. Especially his wife.

None of his opponents can explain how they would solve the multiple security issues on Israel’s borders with Egypt, Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria any better than Netanyahu. And probably they wouldn’t even be that much more compliant with their ‘friend’ Obama on the Palestinian issue when push came to shove (although one never knows, and I hope we don’t find out). They also talk a lot about ‘social issues’, by which they mean that the cost of living is high and there are too many poor people, and it is all the Prime Minister’s fault. And probably that of his over-spending wife.

Different newspapers take different approaches to explaining their dislike of the Prime Minister. Ha’aretz publishes variations of the same thing over and over: how the immoral occupation will make us an apartheid state if we don’t act soon and get rid of the PM, as if there is any imaginable way Israel can leave the territories without inviting Hamas to be a next-door neighbor to our airport.

Yediot Acharonot, on the other hand, prefers to go directly to the root of the problem: reliable sources have reported that Mrs. Netanyahu may have recycled deposit bottles and kept the money (on the other hand, she may not have). It is also an opportunity to remind everyone that former workers in the PM’s residence have accused her of being rude and demanding, as well as to publish any unflattering pictures of her that they may have around.

Lately we have been hearing the theme that the PM has ‘wrecked the relationship’ with the US by conspiring with Republicans to speak to Congress against Obama’s wishes. In fact, the relationship, such as it was, suffered when Netanyahu refused to be a good puppet and follow orders, usually relating to concessions to the PLO in the forever-fruitless negotiations process. Obama then responded with calculated snubs, such as the May 2010 incident in which Netanyahu and his aides were left sitting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House while Obama went to dinner.

The Obama Administration will not be able to have a good relationship with Netanyahu, or indeed with any Israeli Prime Minister who is not an out-and-out traitor, for multiple reasons. The most important is that it has adopted a policy of rapprochement with Iran, which includes accepting it as a nuclear-weapons threshold state (and it will soon drop the ‘threshold’ qualification). Israel’s view, of course, is that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear capability. Period.

On the Palestinian issue, Obama wants a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the territories, also something Israel cannot accept. There is the continuing disagreement about how Israel is permitted to respond in self-defense to attacks on its citizens. Finally, there is the hard-to-understand but persistent support by the administration for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Possibly the White House’s dislike of Netanyahu is being translated into action now, as the V15 campaign (a supposedly ‘non-partisan’ effort to defeat the PM — try figuring that out) is ramping up in Israel, with the participation of veterans of Obama’s campaigns, and funds which come from left-wing sources in the US and even from the US State Department. The campaign is very Obama — lots of young people relying on slogans like ‘hope and change’ — almost embarrassingly content-free.

It would be a mistake to discount V15’s possible effectiveness despite its apparent silliness. The idea seems to be primarily to identify people who might vote against Netanyahu but are normally unlikely to vote and to get them to the polls, a technique that worked effectively for Obama with young and minority voters.

And here is why the campaign stops being surreal and gets very real. The Left wants to win badly, very badly. How far will they go? Consider this: even if the misleadingly-named “Zionist Union” gets a few more seats in the Knesset than Netanyahu’s Likud, they will not be able to form a coalition since the normally right-wing bloc of parties is larger than those that would join with the Left.

Unless, for the first time in Israel’s history, they ask the Arab parties to join them.

Because of a change in the election law that raised the percentage of votes needed for a party to enter the Knesset, the various Arab parties joined together in a Joint Arab List which is currently polling 12 mandates. Historically, neither the Zionist parties nor the Arabs have agreed for Arab parties to join the government. But if they did, and if some of the more ‘opportunist’ of the center parties joined them, there could be a massive upset. A revolution.

Note that if every eligible Arab in Israel voted for the Arab list it would theoretically get 25 mandates, so there is great potential in a get-out-the-vote operation.

This is only one scenario. Powerful forces are at work behind the scenes in this election, with money coming from Europe as well as America. And it isn’t over until it’s over.

Vic Rosenthal lives in Israel and blogs at abuyehuda.com.

Introducing a new EoZ columnist, Vic Rosenthal

I am proud to add a new writer to the EoZ team, Vic Rosenthal.

Vic lived on a kibbutz in Israel with his family for 9 years during the 1980s. They returned to the US, where he and his wife started a business. But after 26 years, and after two of their children returned to Israel "just for army service" and ended up staying, they sold their home, car and business and returned home for good.

Vic has been blogging since 2006, because "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those that own one." (A. J. Liebling) He is well known for his former excellent blog, Fresno Zionism, as well as his new blog he started upon returning to Israel, called Abu Yehuda.

He will be writing weekly articles for EoZ.

Welcome, Vic!

02/19 Links Pt1: Is Israel the Problem, or Are Jews the Problem?; Matt Lee embarrasses Jen Psaki again

From Ian:

Ben Shapiro: Is Israel the Problem, or Are Jews the Problem?

But undoubtedly, European anti-Semites will now claim that Netanyahu's comments simply demonstrate why Europe must force out its Jews: because Israel is just so awful. That, at least, is what a German court in the city of Wuppertal concluded after convicting two German Palestinians of setting fire to a synagogue. The Wuppertal court stated that the men were simply attempting to bring "attention to the Gaza conflict." In other words, Jews are fair game because of Israel.
But it's precisely the reverse that is true: Israel is fair game because it is Jewish. This is the dirty little secret of anti-Israel policy: It is almost entirely anti-Semitic policy. That is why Muslims attack Jewish synagogues in Paris during the Gaza war: because Israel is a stand-in for the Jews, not the other way around. Were Israel a Muslim country, the rest of the world would see it as a beacon of light and hope for the future of an entire religion. Because it is Jewish, Muslims target it for destruction, and the rest of the world tut-tuts Israel's nasty habit of attempting to survive. The extra-American world hates Israel because it is Jewish. It does not hate Jews because of Israel. Israel is merely a convenient excuse.
Ironically, radical Muslims, in targeting Jews throughout the world, reinforce the necessity of a state of Israel. Their argument seems to be that Israel is an unnecessary Jewish nationalist cancer; to prove that argument, they suggest killing Jews all over the planet, leaving no place safe for Jews except for Israel.
And so Jews go to Israel by the droves. European governments can rip Netanyahu all they want for his supposedly brusque dismissal of European tolerance, but that supposed tolerance means less and less when Swedish Jews abandon entire cities as the authorities make way for radical Muslims. European governments can condemn the Gaza war, but Jews see that war for what it was: an exercise in Jewish self-preservation, with the Europeans once again attempting to prevent such self-preservation.
Unlike the Europeans, Americans continue to side with Israel because America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. America embraces Judaism, and so it embraces Israel, not the other way around. The formula is simple: Love Jews; love Israel. Hate Jews; hate Israel. Opposing Israeli action may not be anti-Semitism, but it sure does have a funny habit of backing the agenda of anti-Semites.

The Real Threat to Europe

Commentators in Europe voicing opinions on the terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in Paris, reverentially discussed the motivation of the terrorists, but showed distressingly little understanding of the meaning of jihad.
Europe, hedonist and dishonest, is apparently willing to cut a deal with any violent dictator, including the most potentially violent: a nuclear-threshold Iran.
To understand the fate awaiting Europe, it is necessary to listen seriously to what the upper echelons of Islam say to each other about their intentions -- in Arabic. These messages are quite different from those on Western television. What they say to each other is that the mission of Islam is to lead the whole world and eradicate all other religions, as they have been made irrelevant by the Qur'an.
Charlie Hebdo's cover after the attacks illustrates the very weakness exploited by the Islamists. The cover shown Muhammad, with a tear, aligning himself with humanism. To every Muslim on the planet, it shouted France's weakness, its increasing surrender to the Islamist threat, and the growing strength of Islam.
The real threat to Europe does not come from local Muslims who went to fight in the ranks of ISIS. The real threat comes from Muslims already in the enclaves in Europe. Their doctrine appears openly and without reservation, in books and on websites. It is spread in local languages in mosques by the imams in their communities. These communities command immigration; then the forming of enclaves in the host country, then the eventual violent takeover of the host.

AP's Matt Lee Stings Jen Psaki For Clumsy Attempt To Explain Why Kerry Isn't Speaking AT AIPAC

If there is a Matt Lee Fan Club, I want to join! Today Jen Psaki made a clumsy attempt to answer why Secretary of State Kerry wont be going to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and AP reporter Matt Lee let her "have it" in his own unique way.
It started when a reporter asked if Kerry’s absence from AIPAC had anything to do with the controversy over the Netanyahu speech to congress and that Bibi will also be speaking at AIPAC. Psaki replied that Kerry doesn’t ‘speak to the group every year and someone will fill in for him this year.
Psaki: …we have a trip we’re working on for early March, late February…”
Lee: It’s funny because the Vice President also had some unspecified travel plans that would prevent him from being at Congress to prevent him from hearing the Prime Minister’s speech. Is everyone fleeing?
Psaki: Well given we’ve all spent days if not weeks on a plane, I don’t think it should surprise anyone that the chief diplomat might be overseas, but…”
Lee: Well yeah, but it just seems to be a little unusual that both the Secretary of State and the Vice President have determined right now that they’re going to be out of town... or out of the country.
[Doing her best Jon Lovitz] Psaki answered: I wouldn’t look at it in those terms. I believe the Vice President is attending an inauguration for… uh… that new government of Panama, I believe, I can’t remember the specifics…. I expect we’ll have a presentation there.”
The First Reporter Asked: So we shouldn’t see this as a snub because the Prime Minister will be addressing said conference?
Lee: I just remember being with the Secretary at the inauguration of the Panamian Prime Minister a few months ago,” Lee said with emphasis.
Psaki (beginning to look annoyed): Perhaps that’s not the right information. I’m sure you can check the Secretary’s schedule on his website.”
Lee: (going in for the kill) Might you invent a country that he could go to if there aren’t any available?

From Ma'an:

Thirty-three sheep were killed by stray dogs on a farm in the village of Qarawat Bani Hussan west of Salfit on Wednesday, local farmers said.

Owner of the farm, Mahmoud Marie, told Ma'an that six stray dogs attacked his farm, killing the sheep in their pen.

Marie told Ma'an that each of the sheep is worth around 1,000 shekels ($260), meaning that the incident cost him nearly $8,600.

He called upon the Palestinian Minister of Agriculture and the veterinary services to solve the problem of stray dogs in the region.

Marie argued that the reason there are so many stray dogs in the area is that settlers bring them by car and leave them in the area, though this allegation could not be verified.

Who needs verification? PA president Mahmoud Abbas has stated that settlers release trained dogs to attack Palestinian farmers (along with wild pigs, of course.) To date, no mainstream news outlet has reported on how Abbas publicly repeats delusional stories.

It's funny that Ma'an even mentions that the accusation isn't verified. It routinely publishes false accusations without bothering to do the most basic fact checking.

"Bibi is much more dangerous than
a couple of nuclear bombs"

There is plenty to fisk in Peter Beinart's Ha'aretz article criticizing Elie Wiesel for defending Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress. But for today, let's look at only one aspect.

Last week, The New York Times and Washington Post ran an open letter by Wiesel supporting Benjamin Netanyahu’s forthcoming speech to Congress. In it, Wiesel makes two assertions, neither of which he makes any effort to prove. The first is that the United States and Iran are on the verge of “a terrible deal.” What makes the deal, which has not even been struck, “terrible?” Wiesel doesn’t say.

The second is that a nuclear Iran would likely mean “‘the annihilation and destruction’ of Israel.” This, too, requires evidence that Wiesel does not provide. After all, Benny Gantz, who just retired as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, has argued that while an Iranian nuke would be dangerous, “The Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.”

One of his predecessors in that job, Dan Halutz, has said that, “Iran poses a serious threat but not an existential one.” Earlier this month, former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy added that, “I think it is a terrible mistake to use the term ‘existential threat’ because I do not believe there is an existential threat to Israel.”

The Gantz quote was from 2012, where he argued not that Iran wouldn't use a nuclear bomb against Israel, but that Iran wouldn't try to build one to begin with. Since then we have seen countless times how Iran had hidden its nuclear weapons program and simultaneously has expanded its building of rockets whose only purpose is to deliver such a bomb, so his "rational" statement has been overtaken by facts.

Let's look at exactly what Ephraim Halevy said:

EH:I have always said that it is bad thing to use the terms ‘Holocaust’ and ‘existential threat’…

AJ: Why?

EH: Because we are not in a Holocaust situation. Then, six million Jews were herded into compounds and exterminated. And this can never happen again, certainly not in Israel. We have a very effective defence system. If you say there is a danger of a Holocaust it’s like saying the IDF is of no consequence. The IDF is here not only to prevent a Holocaust but to prevent an atmosphere of fear that we can ever be on the verge of a Holocaust. That’s exactly why we build up our defence and our intelligence community. Both serve the purpose of negating the idea of a future Holocaust. There cannot be another Holocaust.

Also, I think it is a terrible mistake to use the term ‘existential threat’ because I do not believe there is an existential threat to Israel. I think the Iranians can cause us a lot of damage, if they succeed in one way or another to launch a nuclear device which will actually hit the ground here in Israel. But this in itself would not bring the State of Israel to an end. I also think that it is a terrible mistake to tell your enemy – in this case, the Iranians – ‘you are an existential threat to Israel, we the Israelis believe that you have the power to destroy us.’ It’s almost inviting them to do so, because they will say, ‘If the Israelis themselves believe that they are vulnerable and can be destroyed then that is sufficient basis to go and do it. Don’t you think so?’

Halevy is saying two things: that a nuclear bomb that actually hits Israel would not destroy Israel completely, and that using the term "existential threat" is a bad strategy because it might encourage Iran (that "rational actor" as Beinart claims) to nuke Israel.

Elie Wiesel may be engaging in a little hyperbole in saying that a bomb that would kill, say, a half million people or so will annihilate Israel. But he is talking from the perspective of a Holocaust survivor who wants to do everything in his power to stop the incineration of hundreds of thousands of his people and the slow radiation death of many more. That is a supremely moral position.

Beinart, on the other hand, hates the current elected Israeli government so much that he is willing to take the position that the murder of hundreds of thousands of Israelis is really not that big a deal just to criticize a human rights icon for daring to speak out forcefully in favor of Bibi's defending the lives of his people.

How sick is that?

Beinart shows here that - like other Ha'aretz writers - his Bibi Derangement Syndrome makes him sound less rational than Iran's leaders. The hate for Netanyahu has become so absurd that the most mainstream of all possible Zionist positions - never allow another Holocaust, encourage Aliyah, defend Israel's security - have become the target of attack simply because Bibi advocates them. What little intellectual honesty the Haaretz crowd ever had has been replaced with rabid hate.

And Western liberals still believe that it represents a mainstream Israeli viewpoint.