Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

11/17 Links Pt1: First, They Came for the Jews; France and Israel: Obama’s Double Standard

From Ian:

The last time Islamic State terrorists rampaged through Paris back in January, one of their principal targets was the Jews. The other two parties attacked, Charlie Hebdo and the police, may have instantiated, respectively, unbridled free expression and the law upon which Western civilization relies, but the Jews, who were attacked in the mundanity of a kosher supermarket, represented something just as profound.
The prosperity of the Jews is taken as an affront to radical Islam, as it was to Christianity in bygone eras. But the Jews represent something to Europe, too. Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, acknowledged this when he declared in an impassioned speech in Parliament following the attacks that “when the Jews of France are attacked, France is attacked, the conscience of humanity is attacked.” And in an interview just prior to the attacks, he already declaimed that if the Jews leave, “France will no longer be France.”
Some Europeans may disagree with Valls and find themselves not hugely bothered that the Jews are attacked for being Jews. But, following the attacks in Paris last week, it should at least be obvious to them that the Jews are in one respect just being attacked first: European Jews are the canary in the coal mine. Years of anti-Semitic assaults in France – leading to the exodus of French Jewry to which Valls was referring in the interview – preceded the January attacks. But whereas those January attacks deliberately targeted the Jews and, with the exception of Charlie Hebdo and the police, largely ignored everyone else, the attacks in Paris this past Friday did not discriminate. The terrorists, so far as we know, were not after free speech or authority as such, but everyone. Europeans should, therefore, be more concerned when their Jews are attacked, because first they come for the Jews, and then they come for everybody else.

Col Kemp: Islamic State could attack Britain any time – and the impact would be catastrophic

Ex-Cobra Intelligence Group Chairman also believes a stronger military presence in the UK is becoming an increasingly necessary deterrent
As they did in Paris on Friday , Islamic State terrorists could attack the UK at any time.
Are we ready?
Our intelligence services do a superb job and have disrupted many attacks planned against us by Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State . Many jihadists are in jail. But their challenge is enormous.
Andrew Parker , Director General of MI5, recently warned that there are over 3,000 Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks in the UK.
Few attacks are conducted by terrorists who are completely unknown to our intelligence services. It appears some of those involved in the Paris attacks were on the radar screen of French intelligence.

Caroline Glick: Radical Islam – the invisible enemy

As the cleaning crews were mopping the dried blood from the stage and the seats of the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, a depressing act appeared on stage in distant Iowa.
Saturday night the three contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination took to the stage in Iowa for a debate. The moderator asked them whether they would be willing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the ideology motivating Islamic terrorists to massacre innocents. All refused.
Like her former boss, US President Barack Obama, former secretary of state and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton not only refused to accept the relevance of the term. Clinton refused to acknowledge what radical Islam stands for.
She merely noted some of what it rejects.
In her words, “I think this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.”
Her opponents agreed with her.

Most Palestinians want a new intifada, and a plurality want it to be violent

A new poll from the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows that there is widespread support for the current knifing and other violent attacks, and the majority of Palestinians want a third intifada.

50.4% of the Palestinian people support the outbreak of a third intifada, while 35.2% oppose it.

And if one breaks out, 42.1% are “in favor of a violent uprising”, 29.9% said they were ”in favor of a peaceful, non-violent, popular uprising”, , and only 27.8% said:”not in favor of either of them”.

A plurality also say that West Bank Arabs should carry weapons.

"The member of the politburo of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahhar, said in a statement that the opportunity of an outbreak of a third intifada is available, and that in a likely more violent manner than that of second intifada, stressing that the only solution for defending al-Aqsa is that the citizens of the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem should carry weapons. Do you support this statement or not?” 45.8% said:”Yes, I support it”, 29.7% said:”I oppose it”.

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 11 years and over 22,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Last week, the leftist British group Yachad released a poll of British Jews which received wide coverage. Its main findings are summarized by The Guardian:

75% of British Jews agree that “the expansion of settlements on the West Bank is a major obstacle to peace”, and 68% have a “sense of despair” whenever new expansion is approved.
73% believe Israel’s approach to peace is damaging its standing in the world.
71% see the two-state solution as the only way Israel can achieve peace.
72% reject the statement that “the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a land of their own”.
62% support ceding territory to achieve peace, but that falls to 50% if withdrawal is seen as posing a risk to Israel’s security.
47% see the Israeli government as “constantly creating obstacles to avoid engaging in the peace process” (32% disagreed).

UK Media Watch noted how the questions in the poll themselves were biased, but there is a far more fundamental problem with the sampling methodology itself.

Over 50% of the respondents were chosen this way (page 50):

A common method for recruiting a sample from an inaccessible population is to identify a group of individuals from the population and invite them to recruit other members who will both complete the questionnaire and invite still others to do the same. ‘Snowballing’ methods of this kind are capable of achieving relatively high response rates because of the element of personal contact, but they run the risk of (i) recruiting an uncontrolled and potentially unrepresentative sample, and (ii) allowing abuse by vested interest groups who may submit multiple responses or circulate links to large numbers of people within that interest group.

In order to mitigate these risks, we developed a discriminative snowballing methodology with the following features:

(i) a group of 72 initial contacts (seeds) was selected by the research team and advisory group such that the group was roughly representative of the Jewish community as a whole with respect to synagogue affiliation, age and geographical location.

(ii) each seed was then asked to send invitations by email to between 10 and 40 of their Jewish contacts asking them to participate; each contact received a personal and unique code that could only be used once (phase 1).

(iii) the phase 1 recipients, in addition to being asked to complete the survey themselves, were provided with three additional unique codes and asked to send those to Jewish contacts of their own (phase 2). We limited the number to three to prevent blanket responding.

(iv) the phase 2 recipients were also asked to send links to up to three contacts using the unique links that were displayed on screen on completion of the survey (phase 3). This methodology generated 568 responses, of which 444 were generated at phase 1 and 124 at phases 2 and 3

So the advisory group chose the initial seed which then recruited the remainder of the 568.

Who was on the advisory group?

10 of them are listed in the paper, and Jonathan Hoffman identified nine of the ten as leftists.

It is of course likely that the leftist group would recruit like-minded friends, who would again do the same in their next pass. Meaning that fully 50% of the respondents to this poll are from a likely biased set.

Like J-Street in the US, Yachad commissioned this poll to confirm their own attitudes towards Israel and to find - or create the illusion of - widespread criticism of the Jewish state that mirrors their attitudes. Which is exactly what happened.

How many supporters of Likud do you think would be in the initial 72 people chosen by this leftist "advisory panel?" Yet two thirds of British Jews who expressed an opinion said before the Israeli elections, that they would vote for Netanyahu if they were Israeli!

This is not just shoddy - this is deceptive.

UPDATE: As I mention in the comments, there is a very easy way to discover whether the people selected by the advisory group and then snowballed from there have the same opinions with the other half of those polled, whose methodology of selection seemed reasonably sound (at least in comparison.) Publish the results. If I am wrong, I will retract; if I am right and the results are significantly different, Yachad will issue an apology. Deal?

UPDATE 2: The report itself shows that the bias existed;

As predicted, the panel sample [145 people - EoZ] was the least close match; it under-represented younger Jews and to a lesser extent those with postgraduate degrees. These deviations would have shifted the findings in a hawkish direction. The snowball sample [568 people - EoZ] over-represented Jews with a left-leaning political stance and those with post-graduate qualifications; this would have produced a dovish bias. The DJN sample, as expected, was the closest match to the population profile; it slightly underrepresented members of central Orthodox synagogues and slightly over-represented older respondents; these two biases would have tended to neutralize one another in terms of any overall bias towards hawkish or dovish views.

So the pollsters admit that half the respondents held over-represented left leaning views!

The report then claims that it used weighting to eliminate the bias, but the weighting as to make the respondents fit better into the synagogue affiliation and age groups of the overall population.. But the left-leaning bias that they admit was not compensated for; they make the assumption that post-graduates will bring more post-graduates into the poll but not that people who are politically to the left would be far more likely to have friends who think the way they do.

And this footnote is interesting:

Since it is impossible to determine which sample is the most representative, and to what extent each one departs from representativeness, there is no rational basis for weighting the samples relative to one another

Yet they made the stated assumption throughout that the DJN sample was the closest, demographically, to the Jewish population as a whole. That means that they are effectively giving four times the weight to the left-leaning snowball sample than to the (supposedly) right-leaning panel sample.

Again, the only way to figure this out is to see the actual numbers and the specific formulas they used to supposedly reduce bias.

UPDATE 3: I am hearing that I am wrong - the data is similar between the snowballed sample and the rest. Will update when I get the details.

UPDATE 4/RETRACTION: Jonathan Hoffman contacted the pollsters and they took my challenge. The snowball and non-snowball halves had similar views on Israel, so in this case snowballing didn't majorly affect the responses except in a couple of specific questions.

I thank Stephen Miller for doing this analysis.

If I may interpret the differences between the groups, the "snowball" group seems to be more actively engaged in the issue of Israel than the other groups. They aren't more "hawkish" by any means but they are more supportive of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish country than the population at large and proud of Israel's achievements just as they are more supportive of a Palestinian state.

Media gives more credence to Raqqa as ISIS' "capital" than Jerusalem as Israel's capital

From The Daily Beast:

From The Daily Caller:

From The Guardian:

Yet the media will never say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital!

Most of the articles about Raqqa from major news organizations refer to it as ISIS "de facto" capital of the Islamic State - an entire country that doesn't exist.

This is still far ahead of how they refer to Jerusalem, either flatly saying that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel or saying things like Reuters' boilerplate: "Israel regards all Jerusalem, including the predominantly Arab east captured and annexed in 1967, as its 'indivisible capital' - a claim not recognized internationally."

Calling the city that houses Israel's parliament and Prime Minister isn't enough to even call it a "de facto" capital. Jerusalem is only at best "claimed" by Israel while Raqqa is indeed ISIS' "de facto" capital.

(h/t Nathan)

Pals criticize store surveillance cameras - because they can be used to identify terrorists

Palestinian shop owners, like shopkeepers around the world, use surveillance cameras to deter and identify shoplifters.

But Palestine Today reports that some officials are saying that shopkeepers should take their cameras down.

The reason? Because Israeli forces sometime use the footage to identify "resistance activities" and they arrest people as a result!

In recent months, we are told, Israeli forces managed to arrest dozens of people based on information found on the surveillance videos, in east Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank.

Alaa al-Rimawi, an expert on this topic, says that having cameras pointing in the direction of the street provides a treasure trove of information about young men throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Another official said that "We know that the purpose of these cameras is to protect shops from theft," but because they are under occupation, and the occupation will benefit from the cameras so it is better not to use them.

He added, that "we as Palestinians are in an exceptional situation, we must put the national interest for private interests."

The idea of discouraging kids from throwing stones and firebombs at Jews doesn't occur to them.

11/16 Links Pt2: Hungary rejects EU's labeling rules; We are all fighting like Israel now

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: The ‘true origins’ of the E.U.’s Israel labeling policy

In other words, the E.U. has transformed “origin” rules that are universally interpreted as being about place to being about people. This goes far beyond correcting any alleged confusion about whether the Golan Heights is in Israel, to providing a uniquely discriminatory interpretation of “true origin” in origin-labeling requirements.
One might add the guidelines appear internally inconsistent as well. The test to apply is whether an area is “part of the … territory” of the labeling state. Yet they approve “Palestine” labels while not suggesting that Palestine is a state at all, and thus has no territory. Moreover, it seems to exclude West Jerusalem from the scope of the guidelines, though clearly the E.U. position is that is not part of the territory of Israel. All this is bound to be very confusing to consumers.
To be sure, many people who oppose Israel’s presence in the West Bank may not care about the singularity of this rule; they will be happy with measures intended to discourage Israel’s presence. But just as the policy is not really about geographic labeling, it is also not about the peace process or a Palestinian state. The rule applies in full to the Golan Heights. So Israel is presumably also being pushed to return this area to one of the competing Syrian regimes — the al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State or the Assad regime. The absurdity of such a policy suggests that the E.U. move is motivated more out of generalized hostility to Israel than concrete policy disagreements.
Any sympathy the European Union may have generated among most dovish Israelis with its West Bank labeling is lost by its extension of these rules to the Golan.

In Israel, Hungary’s FM says his country opposes settlement labels

Hungary opposes the introduction of special labels for products made in Israeli settlements, the country’s foreign minister said Monday, calling it “irrational” and arguing that it hurts efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Last week, the European Union, of which Hungary is a member, published guidelines on how member states should label certain products made by Israelis beyond the country’s internationally recognized borders.
“We do not support that decision,” declared Péter Szijjártó, also Hungary’s trade minister, who is currently visiting Israel. “It is an inefficient instrument. It is irrational and does not contribute to a solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], but causes damage.”

We are all fighting like Israel now

Just as Israel follows the movements of Hamas commanders in Gaza, so Jihadi John will have been tracked for months before the missile fell from the sky. Some of that surveillance may have been done electronically, but it must be assumed that the terrorist was wise enough to make life difficult for his pursuers by dumping his smartphone and laptop.
In Gaza, Israel supplements high-tech surveillance with a network of informers. America and Britain will be trying to do the same in Raqqa and the rest of Isil-controlled Syria. The aim will be to keep the likes of Jihadi John under the surveillance of human or electronic eyes as close to constantly as possible.
The goal will be to identify the fleeting opportunity – probably measured only in minutes – when the target can be killed without innocent civilians being harmed. So it is not good enough to discover where someone like Jihadi John happens to sleep, or where he guards hostages. In each of these locations, a drone strike would also kill those unfortunate enough to be nearby.
The best option is to strike when the quarry happens to be in a small and enclosed space, either alone or accompanied by those who share his notoriety. This explains why targets are often killed in cars. Jihadi John appears to have been dispatched as he entered a vehicle shortly before midnight - when the street around him was probably empty.
But the success of operations of this kind depends on speed. As soon as the target steps into the car, he must be spotted and this information relayed to a command centre. A drone then has to be placed on station - all within minutes. If a decision is taken to fire a missile, this will be only the final act of a long drama.
The network that is capable of gathering this information will probably rely on human agents as much as electronic surveillance.
There was a time when the Western world, including America, would publicly condemn Israel’s assassinations of Hamas commanders in Gaza. Today, by contrast, the US and its allies are assembling their own version of Israel’s system of retribution. There is a reason for that change. Israeli commanders always point out that the Middle East is “a bad neighbourhood” in which tough choices are an unpalatable necessity. The global reach of Islamic extremism, however, means Western leaders too now feel they can and must strike the same hard headed posture they once professed to spurn. (h/t Effect)

The New Israel Fund and those who support them are helping terrorists

Israel National News reported, as did all of Israeli media, that the Palestinian Arab terrorist who killed a Jewish father and son Friday was turned in by his own father and brother to Israeli security services – they admitted that were concerned that if they did not, their homes would be destroyed.
Israeli security forces arrested the suspected murderer, who killed 40-year old Yaakov Litman and his 18-year old son Netanel who were en route to a pre-wedding celebration (Sarah, Yaakov's daughter and Netanel's sister, was to be married this Tuesday. The wedding has been postponed).
Even for Israeli security, this was a quick feat – and it saved who knows how many lives, time and resources for security – and it happened because Israel’s policy of destroying the homes of terrorists works. It scared the father and brother of an Islamic Jihad would-be-martyr.
The suicide terrorist commits suicide – and he needs to know a price will be paid by those left behind.
Israel saves human lives – and deters jihadists by letting them know their families' homes will be the price paid for their acts. Each demolition is vetted by the courts, even though that means a delay.
And while Israeli soldiers protect Israel, and most American Jews stand with Israel, there remain those who fund the legal battles of the families of terrorists who wish to prevent this deterrent from being used.
Can there be a clearer example of standing with terrorists?

Today, in honor of yesterday's anniversary of "Palestine's independence" declared in 1988 in Algeria, schoolchildren in the territories are being encouraged by the Education Ministry to wear the symbol of Palestinian resistance, the keffiyeh.

This photo was taken at a school in Bethlehem where boys who bothered to bring their keffiyehs to school raised them in the air. It looks like no more than 15% of the boys actually brought in their keffiyehs, forcing the photographer to pose them with 2-3 boys per scarf.

The press release from the Education Ministry emphasizes that the keffiyeh symbolizes "resistance," although they claim that they are referring to studying as a form of resistance.

It is interesting that even education must be demanded through the prism of fighting Israel, as opposed to teaching kids that study is its own reward.

In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, France, it has becoming increasingly more clearer to me that Hollande’s administration has from the beginning been responsible for enabling terror in France under his leadership. I believe he has had the best intentions of liberte, egalite - but without securite, law and order, a country cannot protect its citizens against the worldwide terror leftwing leaders refuse to acknowledge.

When the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks happened, Prime Minister Vals gave a scathing speech in the French Parliament against antisemitism.

Sure, it paid us the appropriate lip service at the appropriate time, but what good did it do in the long run? It brought a huge population of French Jews to Israel and thank G-d they’re here. The Jews of France fled into the arms of Nefesh B’nefesh/Jewish Agency and brought their brains, talent and businesses with them into the loving arms of Israel.

Some of these new olim that arrived shortly before I did are very close friends of mine through the Hebrew Ulpan we attend together. They will reiterate time and again, “France has given up on protecting us.” Hollande may have asked French Jews to heed his call to stay; to ignore Netenyahu’s plea to make aliyah to Israel, but those words fell on deaf ears in February 2015.

So, who’s next in the European Union? Who is taking bets on which country will next be targeted? Germany? England? Ireland? Sweden? Who in European leadership is willing to say enough after creating an environment for terrorists to inflict one bloodbath after another all in the name of open borders, political correctness, tolerance and a false sense of co-existence all in the greater good of socialist policies? And finally, the icing on the cake: Who in the European leadership is willing to admit terrorism in their own diminishing countries has nothing to do with the non creation of a two state final solution and destruction of Israel? Had they been paying attention to the increase of radicalism in their own countries, instead of attempting to ghetto-ize Israel into the creation of a 23rd Arab State, more people would be alive today.

Instead of taking measures to ensure security in France, Hollande and his Foreign Minister have made their cabinet’s sole mission to create a 23rd Arab state inside borders. Below is a compiled time table dating back to 2013 over France’s race to decrease Israel’s existence:

November 2013 Holllande declared a demand for a two state solution and a complete halt to settlement activity during a speech at the Knesset.
November 2014 Fabius called for an international Israel-Palestinian peace conference. Laughable. He presented a two year deadline to jump start peace talks.
August 2014 The war Hamas has launched on Israel is raging and we were fighting for our existence. Laurent Fabius demanded a cease-fire, and a two state solution following his demands. His claim was that only a two state solution will bring peace and security for two peoples living side by side. Also included was a complete withdrawal of our military from Gaza.
April 2015 France launched a bid to pass a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood at the UN Security council.
May 2015 France lowers the bar to an 18 month deadline for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
June 2015 France wants a bigger role in peace efforts in Israel.
October 2015 France invites 19 other countries including the Arab League on how to implement the final solution of Israel.

Enter the third intifada and the lead up to the latest wave of terror in Paris. Are you seeing the big picture? Two horrific attacks of brutal terror have taken place under Hollande’s hard left government that refuses to learn the lessons of the past. They welcomed in the brutal dictatorship of Nazism and today Islamo-Fascism is occupying its cities, towns and neighborhoods. Hollande implemented a curfew. The first one since 1944. Chilling.

A weary, defeated, dejected Hollande press conference gave a dire warning to those responsible. I believe he means it. The problem is his refusal to uphold this common sense approach at all times. Focus on your country, man. Hollande, create a two state solution in your neighborhood if you want that 23rd Arab state invented.

Until you recognize the power keg of radical Islamofascists and their lust for blood in the western way of life, more French citizens will die. With France’s demands of a two state solution, they are not living up to their standards of Western society. Yes, Israel and France share a western way of living with freedom and democracy. When Hollande realizes that a two state solution would virtually end our freedoms in Israel, only then will he truly understand that the terror that has rooted itself in France is blind to skin color, gender and sexual orientation. Maybe then he’ll begin the slow and painful process that the only thing socialism reigns is the road to utter destruction. For now, we pray for better days to come to France, to stay out of Jewish affairs and a more Reaganesque leader for the citizens of France.

Who will be next, please?

11/16 Links Pt1: Col. Kemp: This is no time for fear. Islamic State must be crushed; Fighting for freedom

From Ian:

Col. Kemp: This is no time for fear. Islamic State must be crushed

It is imperative that France does not succumb to the fear that cowed the Spanish electorate. They should immediately intensify air attacks in Iraq and Syria. But this is not enough. Isis must be eradicated and France cannot do it alone, or with the coalition that has won limited success with half-hearted attacks.
After 9/11 the US invoked Article 5 of the Nato treaty, which calls on every member to aid a nation under armed attack. As Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, said this weekend: “We have been hit by an act of war, organised methodically by a terrorist, jihadist army.”
Now is the time for concerted Nato action to eradicate Isis. Nato, and its regional allies, must deploy powerful ground and air forces against Isis strongholds in Syria and Iraq.
If the West fails to act decisively, Isis will continue to gain in strength in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. It will continue to recruit and train jihadists from around the world, some of whom will travel to western countries to attack us.
Opinion polls reveal the frightening extent of support for Isis among Muslims everywhere. In the terms used by Osama bin Laden, Isis is the “strong horse”, making a heroic — and successful — stand against the West and apostate Muslim nations.
This support is vital to Isis’s international recruitment as well as its capability to strike at the West. The weakness of Isis must be demonstrated by overwhelming force, and jihadists who wish to destroy our societies shown that we will still fight for our values and freedoms.

JPost Editorial: Fighting for freedom

The terrorists who indiscriminately massacred innocent Parisians on Friday are seeking specific concessions. But France cannot cave in to these demands. Muslim zealots want to establish a medieval caliphate in place of France’s famed democracy. The liberty, equality and fraternity that protect the artistic expression of publications such as Charlie Hebdo or performers such as the Eagles of Death Metal offend the zealots. But France would cease to be France if it abandoned these principles to appease them.
Applying similar logic to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would result in equally ridiculous conclusions. Palestinians are angry because their repeated attempts – aided by the combined armies of Arab countries or via terrorism – to destroy the Jewish state have failed. But if Israel were to give the Palestinians what they want, Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state: The “right of return” for millions of Palestinians would endanger the Jewish majority within the pre-1967 lines; a hostile Palestinian state would be established along difficult-to-defend borders that would enable West Bank Palestinians to continue their terrorist attacks as Hamas has done from the Gaza Strip, which Israel evacuated in 2005.
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out, there is a common thread connecting the horrific attacks in Paris to Israel’s fight against Islamic terrorism.
“I expect [international] support for Israel when it fights terrorism,” Netanyahu said after the Paris attacks. “Just as Israel supports France and other countries.... You can’t say these are the good terrorists and these are the bad terrorists.
All terrorists are bad.”
There can be no compromise with the likes of ISIS, Hamas or Hezbollah, because compromise means forfeiting the freedoms that make life worth living. The only choice is to fight.

Douglas Murray: Nine conclusions not to draw from the Paris attacks

A huge number of nonsense goes around after atrocities like those in Paris. The media and social media are full of them. I thought it might be helpful to list the worst.

‘This attack has nothing to do with Islam’: obviously not true. See here.

‘Islam means peace’: Very obviously not true. Incidentally the word actually means ‘submission’. Again see here.

‘This attack was an attack on Islam’: No. It was an attack on the people of Paris who were going to watch a football match or a concert or eating in a restaurant.

‘MuslimsAreNotTerrorists’: Today’s leading hashtag on Twitter. Again, clearly wrong. While nobody thinks all Muslims are terrorists all the terrorists detonating at the moment are Muslims.

‘The vast majority of Muslims condemn actions like this’ / ‘How insulting to expect Muslims to condemn such atrocities’: A poll carried out after the last terrorist attacks in Paris in January found that 27pc of British Muslims felt “some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks” with a further 10pc saying they weren’t sure or wouldn’t say. Sure 68pc agreed that acts of violence against those who publish images of Mohammed can “never be justified”, and that’s a majority. But that 27pc is a problem, no?

The cycle of violence - between Paris and Raqqa

Here is the text of a New York Times editorial from October 15, entitled "The Cycle of Violence in Israel," slightly changed to reflect the current cycle of violence. I'm sure that everything they said then applies now as well.

The latest wave of violence that has spread through Paris and Raqqa is both new and terribly familiar. What is new is that ISIS has claimed responsibility, and not one of the many other Muslim groups with grievances against the West.

But there are also the frightening echoes of events past — the spreading rings of attacks and reprisals; and the fearful knowledge that this could be only the beginning.

So far, the series of bombing and shooting attacks that have left at least 127 French people, along with unknowable number of victims of French reprisal raids in Syria, is not on the scale of the events of 9/11 and Western attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. But what these attacks demonstrate is that a new generation of Muslims are ready to turn to suicidal violence.

France has every right to defend its citizens, and it should. But breaking these cycles of violence will require more than self-defense. It will require creating and recognizing an independent ISIS-controlled state alongside a France whose right to exist is fully acknowledged by all Muslim extremists. In the heat of the shootings, bombings, and air raids, it is not an argument that can be expected to find many supporters on either side.

The sight of young ISIS members who were small children during 9/11 and the wars it spawned attacking French people today with suicide vests should be sufficiently terrifying to both their intended victims and their own parents, as well as to Mr. Hollande and Mr. Baghdadi, to try to reach a peace agreement as soon as possible.

The cost of violence is known to both sides; so is the template for peace: There’s no shortage of road maps on how to do it. And after all this time, it should be clear that a peace agreement is the only chance the French and jihadis have to stop the cycles of shootings, suicide bombings, retaliatory air raids and fear.

As goes Molenbeek, so goes Europe

The Paris attack investigation is now centering on the suburb of Molenbeek in Belgium:

With a history of hard-line Islamist preachers, and teeming with poverty and guns, the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek is once again the focus of investigations following the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.

In the wake of Friday’s mass attacks in Paris, Belgian authorities are asking what makes the narrow, terraced streets of Molenbeek different from a thousand similar neighbourhoods across Europe.

Three themes emerge as Molenbeek is again in a spotlight of Islamist violence, home not just to militants among Belgium’s own half a million Muslims but, it seems, for French radicals seeking a convenient, discreet base to lie low, plan and arm before striking their homeland across the border.

The first is the difficulties faced by security services amid tensions between the country’s French- and Dutch-speaking halves. Then there is the country’s long history as a hub for fundamentalist preachers from the Gulf, and finally, its thriving black market in automatic rifles of the kind used in Paris.

Two of the attackers who killed more than 130 people, 270 km (170 miles) away in Paris on Friday night were Frenchmen residing in Belgium. Belgian police raided Molenbeek addresses and seven people have been arrested in Belgium over the Paris attacks.

The New Antisemite site shows that the Molenbeek used to be a Jewish area. You can guess what happened:

In 2008, the Flemish magazine Dag Allemaal reported the 'youths' in Molenbeek shouted in the streets "The Jews are our worst enemies". Jews owned shops for many years along the Prado Street and Chaussée de Gand. But, with the exception of a furniture store, by 2008, they had all vanished. And nobody cared.

The author of the article was turned down when he tried to interview the former Molenbeek Jewish merchants. They feared reprisals. One, René (not his real name) agreed to speak on condition that no pictures were taken and that he could not be identified.

In 2008, René closed his hair salon at Chaussée de Gand. There were a string of violent incidents. It started with "dirty kike" and other anti-Semitic graffiti on the facade. The worst are the 'youths' between 12 and 20 years. They shout in the streets that Jews are their worst enemies.

The campaign of hatred and intimidation waged against René culminated in a raid. Six 'youths' stormed into the salon shouting "dirty kike", breaking his equipment and punching him on the face.

After they left, René called the police. An hour later the 'youths' came back to "punish" him and smashed all the mirrors. In 35 years of hard work René had build up a loyal client base, but understandably customers were frightened by the violence and stopped coming.  René had no choice but to wind down the business.

To add insult to injury former Molenbeek mayor, Philippe Moureaux (Socialist francophone), complained in 2009, that Belgian Jews "deny Muslims right to diversity".(Note: "Diversity" in this sense means "multiculturalism".)

Sound familiar? Muslim terrorists in training harass the Jews, and the authorities and police do nothing because, well, they are only Jews, and they sort of deserve it, because they own the media or because of "occupation" or they are socialists or they are capitalists or they complain too much when they are attacked or because they aren't nice enough to the people who are threatening them.

So the Jews finally leave, and the Muslim thugs need a new target for their hate - I'm sorry, they need a new creative outlet to direct their energies towards.

It always starts with the Jews. The people behind the assassination of Meir Kahane in 1990 were also involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a link that could have saved lives had investigators had been more energetic in tracking down the leads.

So suddenly Molenbeek is in the headlines. If it would have been in the headlines in 2008 then perhaps the Paris attacks would not have been possible.

Those who believe that they are safe because the terrorists are only targeting Jews get reminded every once in a while that Jews are just the canary in the coal mine.

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah cartoon blames Jews for Paris

The official Fatah Facebook page these cartoons in the wake of Paris.

The first is merely accusing Israel of partnering with ISIS on the attacks:

The second has the same theme, but this time it accuses Jews of the terror attack:

Here is an older cartoon from Fatehmedia.ps showing a Jew using a menorah to ignite a Palestinian baby:

We've seen a similar theme as Fatah blamed all Jews for the death of the Dawabshe baby:

The official PA daily Al Hayat al Jadida also used the menorah theme to indicate that Jews own the media, in this cartoon about how Arab countries aren't condemning Jews visiting the Temple Mount:

Again, this is not Islamic Jihad or Hamas. This is the ruling party of the PA that the world community has decided is far more moderate and peace-minded than the Israeli government.

It isn't just incitement. It is Jew-hatred.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)