Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 03, 2011

A "spontaneous" rally in Iran

For humor, it's really hard to beat the Iranian FARS news agency.

Here's a short article from today:

Scores of Iranian students staged a rally in front of the UN office in Tehran to protest at the massacre of peaceful protestors in Bahrain and Yemen other Islamic countries in the region.

The students chanted various slogans such as 'Allaho Akbar', 'Down with the USA', 'Down with the Zionist regime' to voice their support for people in Bahrain and other Islamic countries.

The protesting students asked UN and the international community to take legal measures against the ongoing crimes in Bahrain and other Islamic countries.

Iranians from all walks of life have staged numerous rallies during the last few weeks to shout their support for the popular uprisings in the Middle-East and North Africa and to condemn suppression of peaceful protests by dictatorial regimes in the region.

How exactly does chanting "Down with the USA" and "Down with the Zionist regime" show support for Bahrainis?

And why, one wonders, are there no rallies in Iran to support the Syrians against their oppressive regime that is killing them by the hundreds?

Lebanese "Naksa" rallies canceled

From AP:

Palestinian organizers in Lebanon who had planned a march to the border with Israel early next week say they have canceled it.

The organizers say that Sunday's planned march marking the 1967 Arab-Israeli war's anniversary would be replaced by strikes across all 12 of Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps.

Now Lebanon adds:

On Friday, the event was cancelled because the army had yet to grant protesters permission to approach the border, possibly as a result of the violence at last month’s rally there.

I had reported that this seemed likely yesterday.

Meanwhile....strikes in Lebanon to protest Israel?

Works for me. They can do that every day. I'm sure it will help the Lebanese to love their Palestinian Arab "guests" even more than they already do.

Idiotic analogy of the day

From Bob Burnett in the HuffPo:

Since 1948, when the United States recognized the state of Israel, twelve US presidents have shaken the hands of Israeli leaders and pledged "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." Sadly, this once happy marriage is in trouble. It's time for the US to reconsider its commitment to Israel.

During the last week of May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, making visible the cracks in the US-Israel marriage that had long been apparent to diplomatic observers.

The analogy is ridiculous - unless you are dying to see a "divorce."

Israel and the US have common interests and goals. They have more in common, in fact, than the US has with most countries. That's what makes them allies!

Allies are not "married" to each other. The US does not always agree with its other allies in Europe and North America, and has serious disagreements with its putative Arab and Islamic allies in the Middle East.

If Israel is "married" to the US, then are Canada and Great Britain jilted lovers?

By framing the straw man argument in such a fashion, Burnett sets up his "solution" - divorce.

The US is in the position of a husband who, after a long relationship, finds that he and his wife have grown apart. Is it better to separate and face lives of painful isolation or should the couple stay together for "appearances"? That's the dilemma America faces. Our marriage with Israel no longer works. The policies of the current Israeli government are detrimental to the best interests of the United States.

Of course, Burnett came up with his "solution" before he came up with any of his "evidence" - tedious, tendentious arguments that note that Israel and the US sometimes disagree. As if that never happened before: US/Israeli relations were much worse in 1956 and in 1981.

There is another illuminative angle to this article. If you actually accept Burnett's stupid analogy, it tells us a lot about Burnett.

From Burnett's perspective, he must believe that the US would be better served by "marrying" someone else. Who might that be? People who openly insult the US all the time? An Arab world whose alliance with America is based on backing the strong horse rather than any shared values?

We also learn that Burnett's concept of marriage is very skewed. If one is to believe Burnett's analogy, then the wife in the marriage must always do what the husband wants, or else he will divorce her.

This is not marriage - it is slavery.

If Burnett's real-life marriage is anything like his published ideas about marriage, I feel very sorry for his wife.

Reports: 67 more killed in Hama, Syria today (UPDATE: 130 killed)

Al Arabiya reports that at least 67 demonstrators were killed in Syria today when Syrian security forces opened fire on crowds of protesters in Hama.

There were many protests throughout Syria today, but the Hama rally was much larger than usual: more than 50,000 people were there.

There were reports of protesters being killed in other sections of Syria as well: 8 in Al Joura, several in Aleppo, one in Homs. The rallies also reportedly reached Damascus.

UPDATE: New reports say 130 killed, 350 injured in Hama - the site where some 20,000 people were wiped out in 1982.

Latest Latma (6/3/11)

A little Palestinian Arab history lesson....

Intra-Hamas split seems to widen

Palestine Press Agency quotes London-based Al Hayat that the much reported split between the Gaza leaders of Hamas and the Damascus political leadership continues to widen.

The latest salvo, according to the report, comes from Khaled Meshal, who heard that his Gaza rival Mahmoud al-Zahar was going to meet with a Swiss group. Meshal told the Swiss that Zahar does not represent Hamas, but only the Damascus leadership does.

Meshal then went on to deny that there was any split in Hamas.

If Hamas can't even gets its own act together, how real can the "unification" with Fatah be?

Michael Totten in Hebron

Earlier this week Michael Totten wrote a nice article about the Jews of Hebron, from a perspective that one rarely sees in the general media. Here's a part:

Last summer I visited Hebron, one of the darkest and most hate-stricken cities in the West Bank, a place most tourists visiting the Holy Land for a sun-drenched Levantine holiday would not dream of setting foot. Six years ago I took my mother to Beirut and even down to Beaufort Castle overlooking Hezbollahland and the Israeli border area, but I would not take her to Hebron. This is a city where a few hundred Jewish “settlers” make their home at the bottom of valley surrounded by Palestinians who have been trying, sometimes violently, to drive them out for a very long time.

Eve Harow drove me there. She works as a professional tour guide and knows the area well.

“Hebron’s a tough place,” she said. “I could never live there.” She agreed, however, to take me in her car.

Eve is a tough lady, but Hebron is tougher. She, too, lives in a settlement in the West Bank, not in Hebron, but in a “mainstream” one, Efrat, a small California-style town in the Gush Etzion bloc that functions more or less as a suburb of Jerusalem. You can drive from one to the other in just a few minutes.

‘What do you think of Hebron?” I said to Eve as we headed south out of Jerusalem. Like so much of the Middle East, it’s a problem without a solution that makes me want to throw my hands in the air and give up.

“It’s a microcosm of the Middle East,” she said. “It really is. There are a few Jews and a lot of Arabs. If Jews are not allowed to live there because they were once driven out, then that validates the ethnic cleansing of 1948. Ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter who is the focus. We didn’t throw the Arabs out when we came back in 1967 even though they thought we would.”

Most communication between humans is non-verbal. It’s conveyed through body language and is the same across cultures. I wasn’t imagining the hatred directed at me from some of the Palestinian men on that road. It was obvious.

I am not paranoid around Arabs, not after having lived in an Arab country. Nor am I paranoid around Palestinians. I’ve met too many to count in Israel and was never once stared at in a hostile manner in Ramallah, perhaps because it was obvious, at least to some, that I was American and not Israeli, at least while I was walking around and talking to people. On my way into Hebron, however, no one could have known that I was American. Thanks to the plates on Eve’s car and the glass between me and them, they naturally assumed I was Israeli. And I felt their hatred as though it were heat.

Just a few weeks after I left, several Israeli civilians in a car much like Eve’s—including a pregnant woman—were shot to death on that very road by Palestinian gunmen.

he introduced me to David Wilder, a spokesperson for Hebron’s Jewish community. He grew up in New Jersey, but has lived in Israel for 35 years. He first visited during a one-year program in college and said it changed his life, so he came back after he graduated and has been there ever since.

“When we came back in 1967,” he said, “we had reasonable relations between Jews and Arabs again. There were business relationships, personal relationships. We could walk around the city unarmed and there were no problems. Things weren’t all lovey-dovey, but people got along. Things started to change in a bad way during the first Intifada in the late 1980s. The PLO began rounding up Arabs who were seen talking to Jews and accusing them of being collaborators, so pretty soon the Arabs stopped talking to us.”

While it’s not true that the first Intifada consisted entirely of civil disobedience and rock throwing, the second Intifada was nevertheless much worse than the first. The second consisted almost entirely of suicide bombings and rifle attacks. The road from Jerusalem to Gush Etzion was ferociously dangerous, but Hebron degenerated into a war zone.

“They shot at us for two and a half years from the hills around us,” David said.

“What did they use?” I said. “Sniper rifles? Regular rifles?”

“They shot at us with both,” he said. “A sniper shot and killed a baby in the head right on this street. They shot into my apartment a number of times. We warned during the Oslo Accords that if Arafat was given control of the hills around us that we would be shot at. People said we were panicking, that we were hysterical, but we were right.”

Totten received complaints about this piece, especially about not mentioning Baruch Goldstein's massacre in Hebron and not demonizing the Jewish "settlers" he interviewed. So he wrote a follow-up where he regrets the omission of Goldstein, but he puts it in the correct context:

Jewish terrorism doesn’t take up a large space in my consciousness for a reason that I trust is obvious—it’s rare. Goldstein shocked and appalled almost every Jew in the world when he murdered those people. One of their own became a full-blown no-way-to-whitewash-it mass-murdering terrorist. He was killed when some of his would-be victims beat him to death, but had he survived, the Israelis would have thrown him in a cage and left him there for the rest of his days.

All cultures produce murderers, all cultures produce political extremists, and all cultures produce individuals who combine the two into deadly concoctions. Israeli society, though, does a pretty good job policing these people and ensuring that their following is both miniscule and marginalized. So I’m not particularly concerned about the moral health of Israeli society, and I’m entirely unconvinced that the defective people it does produce are numerous or dangerous enough to prevent peace in the Middle East.

Palestinian society produces far more violent extremists, and they hold a massive amount of power in Palestinian politics. There is no getting around this. Hamas rules the entire Gaza Strip with an iron fist and is now part of a “national unity government” with Fatah, a party founded by Yasser Arafat that has no shortage of terrorists among its own ranks.

The Sunni and Shia militias that engaged in murderous sectarian “cleansing” operations against each other in Iraq were more or less equivalent morally, so I described them as such when I filed reports from Baghdad. The violent Israeli settlers in Hebron—and there are some—in no way compare to the Palestinian terrorist organizations that waged such massive and relentless campaigns of mass murder that it took the powerful Israeli army years to put them down.

There’s a serious asymmetry between the two sides, and that’s why I don’t place an equal amount of emphasis on the amount of criminal violence each side commits. Jews and Israelis everywhere recoil in horror from the likes of Baruch Goldstein, but public squares in Palestinian cities are named after suicide bombers and other killers of innocents.

I am well aware of the caricature of Israeli settlers as bigoted thugs, and I’m likewise aware that some of them fit that description. Some have attacked not only their Palestinian neighbors, but also Israeli soldiers.

The two Israelis I interviewed, though, don’t fit that description. I hardly know David Wilder, but we talked for an hour on tape and he didn’t say anything racist or brutal. I’m courteous enough not to libel him as a bigot just because he’s a spokesperson for Jews living in Hebron. I may not have gone to journalism school, but I’m pretty sure the demands of my profession don’t require me to do such a thing.

And I personally know Eve Harow well enough that I can say with confidence that she’s not a bigoted thug. I can’t very well denounce her as one just because that’s a fashionable stereotype I’m obligated to feed.

Read both of the articles to see what the mainstream media doesn't dare to touch.

Syrian children talk about the massacres

A very emotional video that was uploaded by a Syrian dissident whose Twitter handle is 3ayeef, translated into English:

The very last quote, even if it is from a child, is most interesting.

Is Israel enforcing a de facto no-fly zone over Syria?

(h/t IsraelMuse)

Who's lying - Ban Ki Moon or the PLO? (Or both?)

JPost reports:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Thursday voiced his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but said that the matter is in the hands of the UN General Assembly, Palestinian Authority officials quoted him as saying.

The officials said that the secretary-general, who met with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Rome, also expressed hope that members of the UN would show understanding for the Palestinian statehood bid.

The UN website says:

The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority.

The Secretary-General expressed his concern at the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process, but said that he had been encouraged by the vision laid out in U.S. President Obama's recent speech on the Middle East.

President Abbas briefed the Secretary-General on efforts to form a new Palestinian Government. The Secretary-General noted that Palestinian reconciliation should be based on PLO commitments and Quartet principles. He said the reconciliation effort should be given a chance.

The Secretary-General said achieving the goal of an independent, viable Palestinian state was long overdue. The Secretary-General thanked President Abbas for outlining Palestinian thoughts and plans on working toward statehood and on what was required for a return to negotiations.

The Secretary-General stressed that now, more than ever, it was important that the Palestinians and Israel engage in real, genuine and meaningful negotiations. The Secretary-General said he knew it was the Palestinian National Authority's priority to return to negotiating table.

So did Ban Ki-Moon say that "the matter was in the hands of the UN General Assembly"? The UNGA cannot establish a state and it seems unlikely that Ki-Moon would say otherwise. The UN press release certainly says nothing of the sort.

On the other hand, Ki-Moon is clearly lying when he says that it is "the Palestinian National Authority's priority to return to negotiating table." This entire UN exercise is their attempt to avoid going to the negotiating table.

Furthermore, the UN press release implies that the PNA has been doing negotiations, when in fact it is the PLO that has been - the PNA is strictly limited to domestic governing, not foreign affairs. When Abbas meets with internationals, it is as a representative of the PLO, not the president of the PA.

So to answer the question - both of them are liars.

(h/t Mike)

The best one-state solution (Andrew Klavan)

Give the entire Middle East to Israel!

Funny - and yet true:

If this goes viral, Arabs will believe that this is a real plan. Should be fun.

(h/t guy)

Links

Slate: The Persistence of Hate

Video: The rabbi and the paratroopers (taking care of soldiers during the Lebanon war)

Lots of blogs have been following the ban on Israeli books in the Scottish town of West Dunbartonshire. Israellycool has had a bunch of posts, The Muqata is organizing a counter-boycott of Scotch whiskey, and the idiotic comments of one of the council members made it into YNet.

Spengler on the upcoming Arab economic meltdown.

A long and depressing article in Commentary by Daniel Gordis on how young rabbis are being "even-handed." When the supposed leaders of a people cannot see the difference between their own people and the enemy, we are in serious trouble.

Hamas' leader again makes some comments that are hardly peaceful. But, then again, Fatah isn't much different.

The IDF holds races. The real, running kind.

After lots of criticism, an LGBT center in New York decides not to host any groups who deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

(h/t Cheryl and lots of people whose names I didn't save, sorry)

"Peace" protesters proud to call themselves "warriors"

The month-long saga of the Malaysian "aid" ship to Gaza is finally winding down...but not without one more illuminating fact.

Although the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) Malaysia failed in its mission to send humanitarian aid right to the people of Gaza, it is proud of having broken Israel's illegal seige of Gazan waters.

PGPF chairman Tan Sri Norian Mai said this success was meaningful for PGPF, apart from the spirit and courage of those onboard the cargo ship MV Finch carrying the humanitarian aid, regarding them as warriors.

"Although this mission cannot be said to be 100 per cent successful, it managed to break Israel's illegal seige as the ship managed to enter the Gazan waters before being stopped by the Israeli navy," he told reporters at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport, here, Wednesday.

Dr Siti Hasmah said her husband, former premier and PGPF president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, was proud of all the mission volunteers and thanked them for their sacrifice.

"Dr Mahathir is unable to be present here to welcome home the heroes today, but he wishes to congratulate and thank them for their sacrifice....he's very proud of these warriors.

"Peace" activists proudly calling themselves "warriors"?

It's also funny how no matter what happens, these anti-Israel agitators will pretend to have won. If Israel had stopped the ship further out to sea, they would claim "piracy." When done closer in, they claim "victory."

(h/t Mike)

Egyptian town wants to stop Jewish pilgrimage to rabbi's grave

From The Egyptian Gazette:

Residents of el-Behira Governorate in the Nile Delta vowed Thursday to prevent thousands of Jews, who arrive en masse at the tiny village of Demito near Damanhour City, 50 km southeast of Alexandria, every year during the last week of each December to attend the birthday celebrations of Abu Hasira, a Moroccan Jewish holy man, who was buried there some 150 years ago.

"After the January 25 revolution, which toppled over the Hosni Mubarak regime, the Jews will not be allowed to enter Demito any more and endanger the public morals and hurt the feelings of its 5,000 residents," Moustafa Rasslan, a lawyer, said.

He called on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has been ruling the country since February 11, to enforce a 2001 court ruling that compelled the Culture Ministry, responsible for the site where the annual gathering takes place in late December and early January, to cancel the Abu Hasira celebrations all together.

"If the SCAF does not enforce the ruling, Damito residents will not allow the Jews come to their village to attend the week-long Abu Hasira Mulid (festival), where they used to behave in a way that contradicts Islamic traditions and public morals under the very nose of security officials of the ousted regime," he said.

Although Damityoo residents insist that they have nothing against Jews , they insist that the Jews and Israelis should feel ashamed of themselves to visit their village while they are oppressing the Palestinians.

A female residents said that the Jews drink alcohol, which is forbidden in Islam, to be blessed as part of their veneration of the rabbi.

"The Jewish visitors usually get drunk and engage in obscene dancing during the celebrations," the woman, who asked not to be identified, said, demanding that the Abu Hasira festival should be cancelled after the revolution and the deposing of Mubarak, whom she dismissed as Israel's friend.

Damito dwellers, led by lawyer Rasslan, have officially requested the SCAF to stop the festival because of their discontent about the Jews' misconduct.

They have also demanded that the Essam Sharf Government to move Abu Hasira's remains to Israel and change the name of their village from Damito to Mohamed el-Dura, the Palestinian young boy whom Israeli forces shot to death in cold blood during the second Intifada eleven years ago.

It's not like they don't like Jews, Allah forbid. They just to ban them from their town. You can't call that anti-semitism!

Here's a video of the "drunken" revelry and "obscene dancing" that they are complaining about, that was embedded on Arab sites last January:

And then, as an afterthought, the article says:

Recently, there has been an unconfirmed report that the secret Egyptian security agents have foiled a bid by some anti-Israel activists from vandalizing the Abu Hasira Shrine.

No security official was immediately available to confirm or deny this report.

In fact, Shorouk News reported two weeks ago:

Hundreds of students from the University of Damanhur and a coalition of youth on Saturday held a peaceful march to the tomb of Abu Hatezira to denounce the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and to show solidarity with the third Palestinian Intifada, and the rejection of the establishment of the alleged birth of Abuhetzeira in Damanhour.

The march began in front of the college at the University of Damanhur and then walked around the streets, and stopped at the bridge leading to the Abu Rish Dmitoh village is located the tomb of Abu Hatzeira, and afterwards security forces prevented them from entering the village.

The students burned the Israeli flag, and carried a sign saying "The Zionists will not enter," in reference to repeated visits by Israeli tourists each year to the shrine of Abuhatzeira. The students chanted slogans condemning the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and calls for halt attacks on the Gaza Strip, and unify the Arab countries to restore the occupied Arab territories, and stop the various forms of normalization with Israel including natural gas, and the expulsion of its ambassador from Egypt.

So Egyptians decide to protestagainst Israel's existence at a shrine that has nothing to do with Israel and only has religious significance. A shrine that they want to remove from their midst.

But don't say they hate Jews!

(h/t Vicious Babushka)

Watch out for those "artificial quakes"!

From Iran's FARS "news" agency:

A prominent Palestinian activist cautioned on Wednesday that the Zionist regime of Israel is likely to attempt to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque through an artificial earthquake, and urged all Islamic countries to show an immediate and strong reaction to the Israeli plans against the first Muslim Keble.

"The Zionist regime authorities may find control over the Al Aqsa Mosque or issue the order for its destruction through an artificial quake which now seems to be the case, given the Zionists' continued diggings and excavation operations under the Al Aqsa Mosque," Khater noted.

You would think that they could come up with something more original. Aftrall, the "artificial quake" threat has been around for years.

In 2009, an "expert on Israeli affairs" said that Israel was going to create an earthquake in the Negev or the Red Sea in order to destroy Al Aqsa.

And a Hamas MP made the same accusation in 2007.

Come on, Arabs, come up with something more imaginative!

Maybe the Egyptian sharks can grow legs from Israeli genetic engineering and strap on bomb belts when they come to visit the mosque disguised as tourists? Or Israel might release Zionist gophers to eat away at the foundations of the mosque. Maybe some super-secret Joo-Rays are being shot, right now, at the Dome of the Rock with the intent to burn a six-pointed star into the dome which will turn it into a synagogue!

Recycling the old 'artificial earthquake" story? I'm deeply disappointed.

A thorough explanation of UCU's latest attempt to legitimize Israel bashing

The British University and College Union (UCU) last week voted to reject the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia definition of anti-semitism.

The EUMC working definition includes specific ways that criticism of Israel is in fact anti-semitic.

Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity....

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

The virulently anti-Zionist UCU rejects this definition:

Congress notes with concern that the so-called 'EUMC working definition of antisemitism', while not adopted by the EU or the UK government and having no official status, is being used by bodies such as the NUS and local student unions in relation to activities on campus.

Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus.

Congress resolves:

that UCU will make no use of the EUMC definition (e.g. in educating members or dealing with internal complaints)

that UCU will dissociate itself from the EUMC definition in any public discussion on the matter in which UCU is involved

that UCU will campaign for open debate on campus concerning Israel's past history and current policy, while continuing to combat all forms of racial or religious discrimination.

Even though the EUCM was careful to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-semitic criticism of Israel, the UCU rejects that distinction - it claims that all criticism of Israel is in fact legitimate, no matter the context.

Ben Gidley at Dissent Magazine goes into great depth on why unions needs to define concepts like racism and anti-semitism - and why the UCU is completely wrong (and disingenuous) in its attempt to pretend that it is impossible for criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic.

The entire article is worth reading. Its conclusion:

For the union to disassociate itself from the working definition in any public discussion of anti-Semitism is beyond ridiculous. It means insisting that all of the organizations that do take the working definition seriously—the Community Security Trust (CST), which monitors anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom; the NUS; the Union of Jewish Students; the Fundamental Rights Agency; the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe—are dismissed in advance. It undermines their work on anti-Semitism, and it undermines their vital work on anti-Roma racism, Islamophobia, and other racisms.

In the workplace, as the CST’s director writes, this “will serve to (even) further alienate Jews from the union; and it will make it (even) harder for anti-Semitism to be raised there as a matter of concern....[I]t carries the implication that people who complain about anti-Semitism in any Israel-related context are likely to be a bunch of liars, dancing to a pre-ordained tune.”

As an academic who studies racism, I find it bizarre that my union cannot accept that there is even the faintest possibility that institutional racism might exist in our own ranks, even after a series of clearly documented incidents and a shocking number of resignations by Jewish members who perceive it as such. This motion, if passed, [it was passed - EoZ] will in fact legitimate racism in the union and stop any allegation of anti-Semitism—in debates or in the workplace—from being taken seriously. That the motion will be tabled in a session entitled “Campaigning for equality” is ironic, but the irony tastes bitter indeed.

(h/t Adam and Zach N. via Facebook)