Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, September 18, 2008

13 weeks in a row

For the thirteenth consecutive week, Palestinian Arabs have managed to kill each other in far greater numbers than the evil IDF has managed to kill them.

The score this week (Thursday-Wednesday) is 20-1, based on my tracking PalArab self-death and the PCHR tracking of those killed by the IDF.

So is Hamas guilty of "genocide"?

One of the joys of being a blogger is when others recognize your hard work in breaking stories.

One of the disappointments is when so-called "journalists" just steal from you and take credit for your hard work.

Last week, I noted that Lauren Booth compared Gaza to concentration camps and Darfur - on the same day that I saw multiple pictures of a huge Iftar feast being thrown by Islamic Jihad for journalists. These pictures were published on the pro-Islamic Jihad Palestine Press Agency website (to which I gave credit and linked.)

Yesterday, the Jerusalem Post noticed the exact same thing (as well as some details that other bloggers had mentioned, like her shopping in a well-stocked grocery store in Gaza, something you would be a bit hard-pressed to find in Buchenwald.) They even published one of the pictures I found.

Strangely, they didn't give credit to where they found it.

I commented about this fascinating coincidence in their comments section. We'll see if they own up, or if they have fewer journalistic ethics than the Christian Zionist site Israel Today (which did something similar and then apologized and corrected it.)

(Thanks to Israellycool for noticing this!)

UPDATE: The JPost did not print my comment (and this article is currently the most-commented article on the site), so I emailed their editors this letter:

It appears that one of your reporters took some material from my website. See http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/09/jerusalem-post-rips-off-elder.html for details.

I mentioned this in the comments of the offending article but my comment wasn't published.

Please acknowledge and comment. I may not be a paid journalist but I work hard discovering and writing original material and I would appreciate having common courtesy extended.

Feel free to peruse my blog and I would be thrilled if my many scoops would be published in JPost, but just give me credit.

Thanks

If I get a reply, I'll print it.

Bragging about killing civilians

Hamas' Al Qassam website, in English, has an article where they detail the adventures of a terror cell based in Nablus that managed to survive for four years before Israel discovered and arrested them.

The heroes of Hamas whine that other terror groups, specifically Fatah's Al Aqsa Brigades, took credit for their attacks.

Then, in an aside, they blow up the Western liberal myth of how poverty creates terror, by saying that

The unit consisted of five members from the city of Nablus, they met together and pledged to inflicting the Zionist enemy, they choose the path of resistance despite their families were in a good situation, money.

They then go into details of their attacks, where they claim they managed to kill 3 "Zionists."

For example:

The two mujahedeen who dressed the Zionist military uniforms directed to the place of implementation and put a "Stop" on the side street, a vehicle belonged to the Zionist settlers came towards the fake barrier. The Zionist car eased its speed. One of the Mujahedeen approached from the car and rained it with bullets.

For those who see a moral equivalence between Israel and terrorists, notice how they brag that they dress in the uniforms of the enemy (a violation of Geneva Conventions) and that they shoot at civilians (another violation.) Their goal is, of course, to maximize civilians deaths while the IDF goal is obviously to minimize said deaths. Yet this context and motivation is often lost among those who pretend that both sides are equally culpable.

More "martyrs"

As I mentioned last night, there was a fatal tunnel collapse yesterday in Gaza. Now we know that two were killed. It is interesting that Ma'an refers to them as "civilians."

Palestine Press Agency says that there are six missing in a second tunnel collapse.

In addition, a Hamas member was killed while performing a "military maneuver" in Khan Younis.

Our 2008 PalArab self-death count has now risen to 183.

Peaceful PalArab evening

Two car bombs were discovered in Gaza, and Hamas is warning that more might be coming. One had 150 kg of explosives, which would have caused many casualties. The Doghmush clan is suspected.

A 31-year old who worked in "military intelligence" in Gaza was kidnapped, tortured and killed.

Another tunnel collapse, this one seems to have had several victims but the details aren't yet known.

Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades called on its members in the West Bank to resist arrest by the PA security forces "by all means," which means we might be seeing more deaths on the other side of Palestan.

The 2008 PalArab self-death count is now at 181.

Dirty political campaigns? You ain't seen nothin'.

Every time I see someone whine about how underhanded and dirty one side or the other is playing in this election, I have to laugh. Here is a short history of dirty tricks and insults that previous presidential elections have enjoyed, from a New York Times interview with an author on this topic last year:

Q: You describe the intense mudslinging that went on during the 19th century, with accusations being thrown around of infidelity, substance abuse, cross dressing, and treason, among others. Has campaigning gotten any more civilized over time? How have mudslinging and other forms of negative campaigning evolved throughout U.S. history?

A: I think the mudslinging definitely is still a big part of our election process, but it’s less broad and vulgar. For instance, there is less aimed at other people’s physical attributes. The 19th century was very big on that. In the election of 1800, one of the dirtiest in American history, the venomous hack writer James Callendar (secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson) assailed then-President John Adams as a “repulsive pedant” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character,” whatever that means. Later in the 19th century, Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing women’s corsets (by Davy Crockett, no less) and James Buchanan (who had a congenital condition that caused his head to tilt to the left) was accused of have unsuccessfully tried to hang himself. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln reportedly had stinky feet.

The 20th century began this way; at the 1912 Republican National Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar, cheerfully referred to William Howard Taft, the sitting President and Roosevelt’s former vice president, as “a rat in a corner.” (The rodent motif is popular — FDR liked to call Alf Landon, his 1936 opponent, “the White Mouse who wants to live in the White House.”) You won’t find this kind of thing out in the open too much today, although you still see it in some of the nastier primary campaigns, such as the hatchet job done on John McCain in 2000 by his fellow Republicans.

Q: What role did the media play in early elections? What was the relationship between journalists and presidential candidates? How did it change over time?

A: The first attack I found against a newspaper came in 1800, when a Federalist poet decided that his party’s defeat at the hands of the Republicans could be blamed entirely on the media. He penned this bit of doggerel.

And lo! In meretricious dress
Forth comes a strumpet called “THE PRESS.”
Whose haggard, unrequested charms
Rush into every blaggard’s arms.

In early American elections, newspapers — then the only form of media around — played a huge role. Papers were unabashed party cheerleaders, rooting openly for their candidates and leading the way in smearing the candidate of the opposing party. Being trashed by a 19th century newspaper was no joke. They really sank their teeth into you. Even no less an authority than the New York Times was guilty of this. In the epic William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan contest of 1896, the Times, which supported McKinley, published a series of articles in which prominent alienists discussed quite seriously whether Bryan was crazy. One expert wrote: “I don’t think Bryan is ordinarily crazy … but I should like to examine him as a degenerate.”

By the latter part of the 20th century, this type of blatant electioneering for candidates had pretty much died out, although newspapers obviously still have their preferences. But certain television networks and talk radio shows, on both sides, have taken up the slack with a vengeance, and I think they are just as influential among voters as the old party newspapers were.

Q: What was the ugliest campaign in history?

A: So many dirty elections, so little time… There have been stolen elections (the Rutherford Hayes - Samuel Tilden contest in 1876 was certainly stolen by Republicans in the South, a foreshadowing of 2000, and the Democrats may have altered the vote enough in Cook County in 1960 to let John Kennedy beat Richard Nixon). But “ugly” has a different connotation. I would have to say that 1964 was the ugliest presidential contest I have researched. President Lyndon Johnson, seeking his first elective term after taking over for the assassinated JFK, set out not just to defeat Goldwater, but to destroy him and create a huge mandate for himself.

Not that destroying Goldwater, who believed that field commanders should be given tactical nuclear weapons, was all that difficult. But Johnson’s dirty tricks were at least as bad as those of Nixon’s Watergate bagmen eight years later. He created a top secret after-hours group known as the “anti-campaign” and “the five o’clock club.” These sixteen political operatives, in close contact with the White House, set out to influence the perception of Goldwater in America’s popular culture. They put out a Goldwater joke book entitled You Can Die Laughing. They even created a children’s coloring book, in which your little one could happily color pictures of Goldwater dressed in the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.

This committee also wrote letters to columnist Ann Landers purporting to be from ordinary citizens terrified of the prospect of a Goldwater presidency. And they sent CIA agent E. Howard Hunt to infiltrate Goldwater campaign headquarters, posing as a volunteer, where he gained access to advance copies of Goldwater speeches and fed them to the White House, causing Goldwater to complain that whenever he put forth an initiative, the White House immediately trumped it.

But perhaps the ugliest thing about the 1964 election was Johnson’s treatment of the press. He remarked to an aide that “reporters are puppets,” and had his people feed them misleading information about the Goldwater campaign. One White House aide wrote a secret memo saying, “It might be healthy to get some respected columnist to give wider circulation to adverse Goldwater impact on the stock market.” A well-known financial columnist was then influenced into writing two columns on that very topic.

The author goes on to say that "This was perhaps the last election in which the media could be so easily manipulated," but I think it is possible that the media can still be manipulated this way - as long as the manipulation corresponds to the already-existing prejudices of the reporter.

Oh, by the way: IAEA finds Iran worked on nuclear missiles

No reason to make a big deal out of this or anything, though:

The U.N. nuclear monitoring agency shared new photos and documents purporting to show that Iran tried to refit its main long-distance missile to carry a nuclear payload, said diplomats who attended the meeting Tuesday.
Responding to the presentation to the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a senior U.S. envoy said the information was compelling evidence against the Islamic Republic. His Iranian counterpart said the material shown was fabricated.
The presentation "showed board members for the first time photographs and documents of work undertaken in Iran on the redesigning of the Shahab-3 missile to carry what would appear to be a nuclear weapon," said Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA. He said the senior IAEA official doing the briefing "told us that information they have is very credible."

I'm sure that Iran can be set straight if we only talk to them.

Quick PalArab news roundup

Another member of the Doghmush family died from his wounds in the Hamas raid two nights ago. The 2008 PalArab self-death count is at 180.

As far as I know, this was the last major militant clan in Gaza, sort of aligned with the Army of Islam, and right now Hamas is cooperating with Islamic Jihad and the PRC (and, to a lesser extent, Al Aqsa.) There is no credible threat to Hamas' power at the moment in Gaza.

Civil service workers in Gaza plan to strike on Sunday in solidarity with striking teachers and doctors. Unlike the doctors' strike, the civil service strikes seem to be purely politically motivated and a last-gasp power play by Fatah.

Hamas leaders plan to meet with the Egyptian Minister of Intelligence in the next month.

Israel is today resuming its shipments of food and supplies to Gaza after suspending it in reaction to the Qassam attack over the weekend.

A new poll in Gaza finds that 48% of Gazans would like to emigrate and 55% feel that they are less safe after Hamas' coup than they were before.

Studies at al-Azhar University in Gaza were suspended today; no reason given.

Hamas' gluttony - and Israel's complicity

An amazing article in a leading Arab newspaper, by its editor.

A few days ago, a striking statement was made by Palestinian sources in Damascus through Asharq Al-Awsat, suggesting that the Hamas Islamic movement is financially thriving.

At a time when the people of Gaza were left without a loaf of bread, Hamas was paying approximately 18,000 militants who are associated with the movement- what amounts to 16 million dollars a month.

This statement comes at a time when United Nations Special Humanitarian Envoy, Mr. Abdulaziz Arrukban, highlighted to the Kuwaiti "Alqabas" newspaper the tragic Palestinian humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, and how 60 percent of the population survives on 1.5 dollars per day, while 80 percent solely depend on aid for survival.

This is a puzzling matter; who should we believe? The UN special envoy speaking of a tragic situation in Gaza, or rival Palestinian sects accusing the brotherhood movement of financial gluttony?

Bewildered by the conflicting statements of Hamas's opponents and the international envoy, I came across a statement by the official spokesman of the Al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas movement, which helped put things nicely into perspective.

Abu Obaida, spokesperson of the Al Qassam Brigades revealed that his group has developed into an army similar to major professional armies, in terms of the level of preparation and precision, which was achieved by the recruitment of many of Gaza's youths; the movement continues to recruit youth and develop its capabilities and its fighters.

So how can there be talk of lifting the Gaza siege and relieving the distress of its people, while Hamas concentrates all its efforts on recruiting and providing for its thousands of fighters. It is clear that Hamas's priority is to look after its militants, at the expense of Gaza's people and their suffering! Isn't this a deliberate exploitation of their humanitarian suffering, their poverty and need?

This also raises a pressing question regarding the ceasefire which Hamas committed to with Israel. Was it to relieve the suffering of Gaza's people and bring some order to their lives after a long period of agony? or was it a chance by Hamas to exploit and consolidate its coup against the Palestinian Authority, as well as suppressing their opponents in Gaza by firing them from their jobs in education, healthcare and other institutions in Gaza in an effort to impose its brotherhood's ideology?!

Aside from the movement's power reinforcement in Gaza, it is obvious that the Hamas truce (as I mentioned in a previous article) comes with the instructions of keeping a low profile in Lebanon, Gaza, and other places, while all considerations indicate that Hamas's Leaders last concern is the Gaza people's suffering.

Hamas has learned nothing from its past mistakes, and will reverse its coup and its dividing of the Palestinian front. Equally, it is not concerned with the suffering of Gaza's people, while their talk of dialogue and negotiations with Fatah is disingenuous and merely a time-stalling tactic.

However, Hamas and its policies are not to be blamed, but those who fund it, and support it politically. They are the beneficiaries of the Palestinian cause and partners in the suffering of Gaza's people.

Ironically, this leading Arab editor is more hawkish concerning Hamas than Israel is. An intriguing analysis of Jordan's newfound interest in Hamas from JCPA says that Israel is partially at fault:

According to leading Jordanian columnist Muhammad Hussein al-Mu'mini, writing in the mainstream Jordanian daily al-Ghad, "the problem began when Israel made the tahdiya [calm] agreement with Hamas after conducting negotiations with them through the Egyptians as if Hamas is a sovereign political entity."3 Al-Mu'mini also noted, "the tahdiya caused great embarrassment to the PA and the moderate Arab countries, even to the international community that put Hamas in siege." Israel, he said, "exploded the policy of isolating Hamas."

Israel's regional policies have thrown Jordan off balance. Mu'mini noted that in the prisoner deal with Hizbullah, Israel "sharpened Hizbullah's spear and gave it both international and Lebanese legitimacy. It would have been better to hand the prisoners to the Lebanese government." There was a Jordanian aspect to the deal with Hizbullah, as Israel also agreed to hand over to Hizbullah the bodies of Jordanians. According to Mu'mini, this was an "extreme provocation to Jordanian diplomacy." He explained that, "There is a peace accord with Jordan giving Jordan and Israel the legal cover for the exchange of the dead prisoners' bodies." If Israel, for pragmatic reasons, finds it appropriate to engage with Hamas, why shouldn't Jordan do the same?

Additionally, Gilad Shalit's family is also accusing Israel of coddling Hamas:

The parents of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit demanded Tuesday that Israel stop funneling funds to Gaza and convene a cabinet meeting which would discuss their son's abduction. Should their demand be turned down, they threatened, they would petition the High Court of Justice.

The demand was made in a letter sent by the lawyers of Aviva and Noam Shalit to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

Noam Shalit told Ynet that "the ongoing funds transfer to Hamas constitutes a clearly unreasonable policy on the part of the State."

According to Shalit, "This is not about the funding of bread and milk, this is about funding given by the State to essentially keep Hamas in power."

.. According to Shalit, despite Israel's generous policy towards Hamas, the organization has halted the talks for Shalit's release, even during the ceasefire in Gaza.

Hamas may declare independence in 2009

Firas Press quotes sources close to Hamas that the terror group may declare Gaza an independent state next year:

A source close to Hamas said that there is a desire for Hamas to declare an independent Palestinian state in Gaza after 9/1/2009, which ends the period of [Mahmoud Abbas'] presidential term. ...Hamas' reasona re that Gaza has no Israeli soldiers and thus this would be a first stage to liberate the rest of the occupied Palestinian state.

The source hinted that Hamas ...wants to declare the state on any piece of land,..and it would take this step with the blessing of Iran and the State of Qatar. And Iran will recognize that State, as well as Syria, and Qatar is likely to recognize the State in the future.

With this step after Hamas had declared full independence it will be able to hold presidential and legislative elections in the Gaza Strip as an independent Palestinian state...

The source and that this is the reason that Hamas accepted the degrading calm [with Israel] - to achieve the dream state of Hamas.

This sounds a little fishy, as the source is seemingly not from Hamas itself. Some other parts of the story sounded a little "off," but it is possible that there is some thinking along these lines by Hamas or Iran.

No worries: PalArab terrorists never heard of Paul McCartney

From WorldNetDaily:

There is no credible threat against Paul McCartney ahead of his concert this month in Tel Aviv, according to a terrorism expert and author who called Palestinian terrorists about the former Beatle today.

An Islamic militant leader in Lebanon had warned McCartney could be the target of a suicide bombing unless he canceled his first concert in Israel, scheduled for Sept. 25, Britain's Sunday Express reported this weekend.

But Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief and author of the book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," said in response to the threat he called senior leaders from every major Palestinian terror organization, and not one had heard of McCartney or the Beatles.

Klein said he proceeded to sing to the terrorists top Beatles songs, including "Yesterday," "Let It Be" and "She Loves You," but the tunes didn't ring a bell for a single one.

"I don't know any of this," said Muhammad Abdel-Al, spokesman and senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror group.

Abu Ahmed, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza, told Klein, "We don't know these Beatles."

Ala Senakreh, chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank city of Nablus, told Klein he, too, is unfamiliar with the star singer and his former group.

"Listen, I have a friend at the University [of Nablus]. I can call him. Maybe he knows of McCartney," Senakreh told Klein.

Senakreh recently was granted amnesty in a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Klein said he also called members of Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and a lesser-known group, the Army of Islam. Those terrorists also drew blanks when asked if they were familiar with McCartney.

While the terrorists may not have heard of McCartney, Klein wrote in one chapter of his book Palestinian terrorists he interviewed all had recognized Madonna and Britney Spears. One terrorist threatened to "cut the heads" of Madonna and Spears for spreading Satanic culture. "If I meet these whores I will have the honor – I repeat, I will have the honor – to be the first one to cut the heads off Madonna and Britney Spears if they will keep spreading their satanic culture against Islam," said the Committees' spokesman Abdel-Al.

Maybe I'm amazed.

Maybe not.

Notable

David Bedein: Genesis of an Anti-Semitic State (h/t Callie)

Clifford D. May: Confused 'plot' lines

Shrinkwrapped: Sense of humor in American politics

Sultan Knish: How post-Zionism became anti-Zionism

Mordechai Kedar: The Myth of Al Aqsa

By the way, in that last article I wrote Kedar an email:

Thanks for your article in YNet about the Muslim political uses of Jerusalem.

I was wondering if you could clear something up for me, though. You said:

"He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel."

My understanding was that traditionally the Al Buraq wall was considered either the eastern or southern walls (see here: http://www.likud.nl/press37.html) and that the idea of the Western wall being al-Buraq was pretty much made up by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s in order to stop the Jews from using it for prayer. I have said so on my blog .

Could you please clarify if you have evidence that the Western Wall was ever identified as Al-Buraq?

I have not yet received a reply, unfortunately.

Americans traditionally don't like US Senators for President

One fascinating tidbit from this election that I have not seen anyone really expound upon: this year the US will elect a sitting Senator as President for the first time since 1960, and only the second time ever!

Here is a brief chart showing the highest previous office held by every President since 1904:

2000	George W. Bush	Governor
1992	Bill Clinton	Governor
1988	George HW Bush	VP
1980	Ronald Reagan	Governor
1976	Jimmy Carter	Governor
1968	Richard Nixon	VP
1964	Lyndon Johnson	VP/Pres
1960	John F Kennedy	Senator
1952	Dwight D Eisenhower	General
1948	Harry S Truman	VP/Pres
1932	FDR	Governor
1928	Herbert Hoover	Sec'y of Commerce
1924	Calvin Coolidge	VP
1920	Warren Harding	Senator
1912	Woodrow Wilson	Governor
1908	William H Taft	Sec'y of War
1904	Theodore Roosevelt	VP/Pres

Harding was the first sitting senator to ever become President.

With the exception of Nixon, all vice presidents who became president were incumbents (at least in this time period.)

It appears that Americans trust governors far, far more as leaders than they do senators. The numbers seem to indicate an almost visceral distaste for senators - when senators go up against governors,

This could partially explain the appeal of Sarah Palin - even though she is a first-term governor, so were Jimmy Carter and FDR (although they were in office longer.) Americans seem to trust governors more with the presidency than they do Washington insiders; I believe that Harding was the only senator to ever defeat a governor for president.

How the UN lies

The UN "Human Rights" Commission, in its zeal to demonize Israel, has resorted to yet another bald-faced lie.

Buried in the latest report they've issued - saying that the accidental shelling of Beit Hanoun may be a war crime - they say flatly that Gaza is "occupied" by Israel.

As evidence, they bring a footnote:

Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda, International Court of Justice, 2005, paras. 173 174.

I could not find the full ICJ court ruling in this case online, but there is a comprehensive summary in an ICJ press release. Here is the relevant section:

The Court then considers the question as to whether or not Uganda was an occupying Power in the parts of the Congolese territory where its troops were present at the relevant time. It observes that, under customary international law, territory is considered to be occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and that the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. In the present case, it has before it evidence sufficient to prove that Uganda established and exercised authority in Ituri (a new province created in June 1999 by the commander of the Ugandan forces in the DRC) as an occupying Power.

I did find part of Paragraph 173 mentioned above:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State, the military forces of which are present on the territory of another State as a result of an intervention, is an "occupying Power" in the meaning of the term as understood in the jus in bello, the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the said authority was in fact established and exercised by the intervening State in the areas in question. In the present case the Court will need to satisfy itself that the Ugandan armed forces in the DRC were not only stationed in particular locations but also that they had substituted their own authority for that of the Congolese Government.

By the ICJ's definition, which is consistent with the Hague definition as well as the apparent Geneva definition, Israel is certainly not occupying Gaza! The reason that the ICJ recognizes parts of Congo under Ugandan occupation is because Uganda created the province and managed its day to day activities.

So when the UN is calling Gaza "occupied," it is consciously relying on a footnote in an irrelevant ICJ ruling as "proof," knowing that nobody will actually research this claim and call them on it. They are not only lying, but they are being doubly deceptive by obscuring the source for their statement. (And they have used this same ruse before. In that case they also buttressed their arguments by footnoting a paper written by a highly partisan Gaza advocacy group, and ignored any legal arguments made by others that show otherwise, thus again proving the UN's mendacity.)

The UNHRC is emotionally tied to the idea of Israeli "occupation," and they have no qualms about twisting the truth - and the law - in order to maintain that fiction. Conversely, while Hamas is unquestionably the effective controller of Gaza nowadays, the UN refuses to give them any legal responsibility for their war crimes, using the same bizarre reasoning that a country outside of Gaza that has partial control over one of its borders has more responsibility than the group that has seized day-to-day control, including the police, the schools, the hospitals and the judicial system.

Grim milestone

The number of dead in Gaza City from the overnight Hamas attacks on the Doghmush clan has risen to 12, and the 2008 self-death count rises to 177.

This marks the 1000th Palestinian Arab violently killed by PalArab actions since I started counting in late June, 2006.

I started this count at the outset of Operation Summer Rains, to counterbalance the incessant MSM counts that were fashionable at the time of the number of Palestinian Arabs killed by Israel since the intifada began. My methodology has stayed the same, with the main gray area being which tunnel deaths to count.

UPDATE: Speaking of...another tunnel collapse, one dead. 178.

UPDATE 2: Man stabbed to death in Hebron. 179.