Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Chanukah first night video: Six13 - Chanukah (Shake It Off) + bonus

They weren't the only one with that idea.

Jordanian paranoia over "Jewish state" bill

When Jordanian politicians say they are against the proposed "Jewish state" law in Israel, they aren't saying that because they love Palestinian Arabs.

They are saying it because they hate them.

From Al Monitor/Ammon News:

Former Prime Minister Taher al-Masri wrote in the daily Al Ghad on Dec. 7 that if Israel adopts the law it will “deliver a painful blow to the concept of peace entailed in the 1994 Wadi Araba peace treaty while revealing its true position on a final settlement to the Palestinian problem.” He added that the proposed law is a direct threat to Jordan’s national security.

Masri [="Egyptian" - EoZ], viewed by many as the titular head of Jordanians of Palestinian origin, said that the Nationality Law may cause the transfer of 1.8 million Palestinians to Jordan. He added that Jordan stands to be a casualty of this law...

Adnan Abu Odeh, former chief of the Royal Court, agrees. He told Al-Monitor that passing the law would mean that Israel’s Arab minority, and all other non-Jews, “will be second-class citizens in Israel and will be threatened with transfer.” He added, “Jordan faces two challenges — demographic and geographic.”

“Transferring Israel’s Arabs to the Palestinian territories, as recently suggested by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, will surely be followed by a mass exodus to Jordan.”

Forget that the idea that Israel will expel its Arab population is ridiculous.

Here we have a Palestinian "leader" in Jordan arguing against Jordan allowing those poor, stateless Palestinians to live there!

He really cares about his people, doesn't he?

Of course, major parts of Jordan are actually in "historic Palestine." - if your definition of historic Palestine goes back over a hundred years. For reasons never quite explained, the supposed Palestinians who say they have been there since ancient times never claim eastern Palestine anymore.

If they would, then Jordanians would have reason to be paranoid.

Report: European Court of Justice to reconsider whether Hamas is a terror group (update 2)

Israel's Channel 10 international affairs reporter tweets:

Channel 10 TV: EU DIPLOMATS BRIEFED THAT ECHR RULING REMOVES HAMAS FROM LIST OF TERROR ORGANIZATIONS. DECISION TO BE PUBLISHED TOMORROW.
— Nadav Eyal (@NadavEyalDesk) December 16, 2014

I couldn't find any document listing terror groups on the webpage of the European Court of Human Rights. The only mention I saw of Hamas was peripheral to a discussion of hate speech.

However, 124News reports:

The European Court of Justice is due to debate whether placing Hamas placed on the list of terror organizations was done according to procedure or whether it should be voided.

This makes more sense, the ECJ does have Hamas listed on a terror list from 2010.

Eyal clarified:

@ngomonitor It argued that legally the process was flawed since it was based on American fact sheet. The EU will receive time to re-present.
— Nadav Eyal (@NadavEyalDesk) December 16, 2014

Apparently, Hamas filed a motion to be removed from this list, and the ECJ agreed that the methodology it used to place it on the list was not as rigorous as they would prefer.

If this is true, it is ironic that such a decision may be made the very week that the group publicly held a burning of a stereotypical Jew, and a model of the Jewish Temple, in effigy.

And Hamas also declared this weekend in no uncertain terms that they want to increase the amount of terror attacks against Israel.

So if the ECJ really decides that Hamas is not a terror group, they are about as useless a symbol of "human rights" as one can imagine.

(h/t Gidon Shaviv et. al.)

UPDATE: Here's the case:

Action brought on 12 September 2010 — Hamas v Council
(Case T-400/10)
(2010/C 317/60)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)
Defendants: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
— Annul Council Act C 188/13 of 13 July 2010;
— annul Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP of 12 July 2010;
— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010
of 12 July 2010;
— order the Council to pay all the costs and expenses.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Act 2010/C 188/09, (1) of Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP (2) and also Council Implementing Regulation No 610/2010, (3) in so far as the applicant’s name was retained on the list of persons,

UPDATE 2: Hamas was removed from the blacklist, on a "technicality." They have three months to decide whether to reclassify Hamas as a terror organization.

12/16 Links Pt1: Abbas’ advisor: All of “Palestine” will “return” to Palestinians ‎through "resistance"

From Ian:

Abbas’ advisor: All of “Palestine” will “return” to Palestinians ‎through "resistance"

In his latest sermon, Mahmoud Abbas' advisor on Religious and Islamic Affairs stated that "all our occupied land, all our rights in Palestine... our ancestors' legacy - all of it will return to us even if it takes time." Since the Palestinian Authority claims historical rights to all of Israel, by referring to "our ancestors' legacy" returning, Abbas' advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash is assuring Palestinians that Israel's demise is assured.
Palestinian Media Watch reported that Al-Habbash gave a speech about the same them in October, when he taught that accepting Israel's existence is "prohibited" under Islamic law:
"The entire land of Palestine (i.e., includes all of Israel) is waqf (an inalienable religious endowment in Islamic law) and is blessed land... It is prohibited to sell, bestow ownership or facilitate the occupation of even a millimeter of it."[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 22, 2014]
In the current sermon, he explained that violence is one of the tools that the PA will use against Israel: "In terms of resistance - all options are on the table."

Abbas advisor: "In terms of resistance, all options are on the table"

Did Fatah call for assassination of Israeli minister?

Fatah’s military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, publicized a call “to respond in kind” to what they called the “assassination of [PA] Minister Ziad Abu Ein.” Calling to “respond in kind” to what Fatah calls an “assassination” of a Palestinian minister could be interpreted as a call to assassinate an Israeli minister.
Abu Ein collapsed and died of a heart attack during a demonstration against Israel last week. The Israeli coroner reported he died of a “stress-induced heart attack” while the Palestinian coroner said the heart attack “was caused by injury” a few minutes after a heated exchange with an Israeli soldier, in which the soldier had grabbed his neck.
Palestinian Media Watch has documented that the Palestinian Authority political establishment has decided to call his death “murder.”
Fatah’s military wing released this statement yesterday calling to “respond in kind”:
“Fatah’s military wing, the Al-Aqsa [Martyrs’] Brigades, called on its members in the West Bank to respond to the assassination of Minister Ziad Abu Ein.
In a statement, it said: ‘We call on the Al-Aqsa Brigades in the West Bank to respond in kind to the cowardly assassination crime,’ noting that Palestine would be liberated through the barrel of the rifle.
In addition, it demanded the cessation of all security cooperation with this treacherous enemy, and called on the masses of the Palestinian people to expand the Intifada and the resistance to the occupation.” [Ma'an (independent Palestinian news agency) Dec. 10, 2014]

False Symmetries and “Cycle of Violence” Fantasies in the Middle East

Arab terrorism is not caused by Israeli “occupation” but rather by the removal of Israeli occupation. The “Palestinians” have about as legitimate a claim to statehood and independence as did the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia. Granting “Palestinians” independence will have precisely the same effect as did the granting “self-determination” to the Sudeten Germans. The only reason Arabs demand that the “Palestinians” be granted a state is in order to use it to launch an all-out war of annihilation and terror against what would be the rump Israel.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is NOT an apartheid regime. The only Arabs in the Middle East enjoying human rights are those living under Israeli rule. The treatment of Arabs by Israel is at least a thousand times better than the treatment of Arabs by Arab regimes. The “stateless Palestinians” are Arabs, and Arabs control 22 states. No one is stopping any Arabs uncomfortable about living in a Jewish state from moving to any of those 22 states and taking all their assets and wealth with them. The Middle East conflict is about injustices perpetrated by Arabs against Jews and not the other way around.
None of this belies the possibility that if one seeks hard enough one can find incidents in which some Jews behave badly towards some Arabs. Just as Hershel Grynszpan may have murdered the wrong German. But that hardly makes the Middle East conflict a symmetric cycle of violence and injustice. There were a handful of white slaves owned by slaveholders in the American south before the Civil War and there were small numbers of black slave-owners. Using that to paint pre-Emancipation slavery as a symmetry of black and white slaves with black and white slave-owners would of course by an obscenity. Use of the assassination of vom Rath to create fictional symmetry would be even worse. But nothing can compete with the malicious, repugnant, and perfidious distortion of the Middle East conflict by the media as a symmetric conflict and a cycle of violence. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, in a video interview, admits that Hamas' role in the second intifada of suicide bombings and other terror attacks was done with the blessings of Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat.

In a video interview, Zahar says that Arafat gave Hamas the green light to launch terror attacks after the failure of the Camp David summit in 2000 - not after Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

Some Hamas leaders thought that this was one of Arafat's tricks to entrap Hamas and give information to Israel about them, but others were convinced when Arafat transferred RPGs to them. The cooperation was given the code name "Ammar al-Mukhtar."

(Zahar also claims to have met Yitzchak Rabin along with a Fatah official during the Oslo process, and that it was a awkward meeting because it was about security cooperation with Israel which Hamas had no interest in.)

From Sulayman Ushayhib Ali Al-Faqir, writing in Jordanian site Assawsana:

On every Friday, in all the (Hashemite) Kingdom’s mosques, at the end of every Friday sermon, we hear the dear preachers say “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who follow them/are friends with them”.

Truth be told, I have some reservations regarding this saying, but I think that we are cursing the Muslims and the Arabs.

When we interpret this sentence, cursing those who support/are friends with/allied with the Jews – well, we (Jordan) and some (Arab) countries have a peace treaty (with Israel). Therefore we must not curse ourselves, while we have diplomatic and trade ties (with Israel), security exchange (of information) and private visits.

As for the word “Jews”: it is the group that is now centered in the state of the Israeli entity in plundered Palestine. As for the word “muwalaa” (being friends with, allied to, close to), it means that you are friends with/allied with/close to them (the Jews) because of their deeds and their conduct, and you are content with their killing (of Arabs), their loathsome crimes against the Palestinian people, and we are silent in the face of crimes being committed from time to time against the innocent (Palestinian) people, who have no weapons and no state.

I hereby ask the Minister of Religious Endowments to instruct the dear preachers to change the sentence (“Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who follow them/are friends with them”) and say instead “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews because of their deeds”.

Every Friday, in every Jordanian mosque, there are calls for genocide against Jews! And the article implies that this is a decision from a Jordanian government minister!

In some science-fiction, alternate universes, this might be considered newsworthy.

A Google search of the phrase "اللهم عليك باليهود ومن ولاهم" "Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who are associated with them," gets 31,000 hits.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

Hamas adds taxes to dozens of goods that come from the PA

The Gaza version of the Ministry of Finance, using PA letterhead, announced that it was adding taxes to 50 types of goods that are being imported from the West Bank through Kerem Shalom.

For example, a 15 shekel tax is being imposed on each kilo of honey.

It sure sounds like Hamas hasn't taken this "unity" thing that seriously, doesn't it?

Joseph Levine is an awful human being

What makes someone an awful human being? Apparently, this is a philosophical question.

Joseph Levine, a professor of philosophy writing in the New York Times, chooses to use his rhetorical abilities to defend the tweets of Steven Salaita.

He writes (I apologize for quoting such a lengthy excerpt, but it is necessary):

While many of Salaita’s critics in the media accused him of anti-Semitism, the main issue seems to be — at least in the language of the university’s explanation of it’s action — whether Salaita’s tweets violated a norm of “civility” that is supposed to govern academic and political dispute (at least within the academy). I am not concerned here with the question of whether or not it was right to rescind the offer; to my mind, it was wrong — a straightforward violation of intellectual and academic freedom. Rather, I want to explore the notion of “civility,” particularly as it relates to one of the controversial tweets.

Here is the tweet in question:

Let’s cut to the chase: If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human being.
11:46 PM – 8 Jul 2014

At that point, Israel had begun intensive bombing of Gaza, and quite a few civilians had been killed, including children. (By the time a cease-fire went into effect in late August, according to the United Nations, more than 2,100 Palestinians had been killed, over two-thirds of them civilians, among whom almost 500 were children; 11,000 Palestinians were wounded, 20,000 homes were destroyed, and 500,000 people over all were displaced. During this period 70 Israelis were killed, 64 of whom were soldiers, and one of whom was a child.) So, was this tweet an illegitimate breach of civility? I believe not in the end, yet I must confess to some initial ambivalence on the question. Here is how I resolved that ambivalence.

First, let’s separate some issues. One question concerns a moral evaluation of Israel’s actions themselves, and the other concerns an evaluation of the moral character of those who supported what Israel did. I myself am in complete agreement with Salaita about the first question. I can’t mount a full defense of this position here, but let me just say that careful attention to the actual sequence of events over the summer, alongside the vastly disproportionate violence visited on the trapped and totally vulnerable Gaza residents, renders the Israeli claim that they were acting in justifiable self-defense completely unreasonable. Note that holding and expressing that opinion was not by itself supposed to be a breach of civility. Rather, it was taking the next step and publicly indicting the moral character of those who supported the bombing that was the culprit.

Next, we need to determine whether what he said in the tweet is true — on the assumption, again, that the bombing was itself morally condemnable — and, in addition, whether it was a breach of civility to say it. Obviously, these two issues are intimately related. Imagine how you would react to someone who spouted overtly racist or anti-Semitic sentiments. Would civil engagement over the question be the appropriate response? Clearly, your judgment that you were dealing with a person of objectionable moral character would color your reaction as a decent person. Obviously, if Salaita had been tweeting instead about supporters of the 9/11 attacks as “awful human beings” no one would have been upset.

I locate the source of my initial ambivalence at precisely this point. While I shared his moral outrage at Israel’s actions, I balked at taking the next step and severely indicting the character of those who disagreed. I resolved my ambivalence by reasoning my way to the following twofold conclusion regarding the claim in the tweet: The claim itself is not true, but it ought to be, and that is the deeper truth that legitimates the breach of civility.

Why isn’t it true? Why doesn’t it follow from supporting morally monstrous actions that one is oneself a moral monster? Because the moral evaluation of character depends not only on what one does but also on the epistemic context in which one does it. In particular, we normally apply what we might call a “reasonable person” test. If a reasonable person, given the information available to her, including the evaluative perspectives available to her, could act a certain way, then even if what she does is in fact morally condemnable, that condemnation doesn’t carry over to her character as well.

By the information available I just mean the obvious — what she’s likely to know about the facts of the situation. But one brings more than just an opinion about the facts to bear in making a moral evaluation; one evaluates the facts from within a moral perspective, a system of values and a scheme of interpretation of the facts in light of those values. A person does not derive her moral perspective on her own, but develops it over time through her social interaction with parents, teachers, other role models and her wider social circle. This is why we judge racists today much more harshly than those who lived long ago; we expect more today.

Returning to Salaita’s tweet, we can now see why I claim it’s not true. Think about the average person who supported Israel’s attacks this summer. Someone who gets most of her information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the mainstream media, and generally identifies with the reigning ideology of current American political culture, will find severe moral condemnation of Israel’s actions difficult to accept. When most people around you, people who in their daily lives exhibit relatively virtuous character, espouse a certain point of view, it is difficult to entertain the possibility that they are radically mistaken. To the extent we take this into account, we are led to let people off the hook, at least with respect to our evaluation of their character.

But then this brings me to the second part of my answer: It ought to be true. Or rather, it ought to have been true, and I look forward to the day in which it is true. For if you let individuals off the hook in this case because they pass the reasonable person test, then you have to indict the social-political perspective from which such actions can seem moral and reasonable. No, these people aren’t awful, but what does it say about our society that we can support such an attack without being awful? What does it say that decent people can even entertain the kinds of excuses we hear (“but they were storing weapons near where those kids were playing”) without counting automatically as indecent?

...I can see two reasons for being so “uncivil” as to impugn his opponents’ moral character. First, there is just the need to express outrage at the state of our discussion on this matter. While the people targeted by the tweet are not actually awful human beings, it’s about time we came to generally see things from the perspective from which they certainly seem to be. Having to listen to justifications for bombing children can wear you down, even if you know very well where it’s all coming from.

But more important, expressing moral outrage in this way — intentionally breaching civility by refusing to merely engage in calm persuasion — is itself part of the very process by which social-political perspectives shift. If it ought to have been true that only awful human beings would support this attack, how do we move society toward that point? One way is reasoned argument, no doubt. But it’s also important to exhibit the perspective, and not just argue for it; to adopt the perspective and provocatively manifest how things look from within it. When you do that, something like Salaita’s controversial tweet is likely to come out.

I assert that by Levine's own definition, he is an awful human being and I am morally obligated to say so.

Let's look at Levine's example of a person who does not deserve to be treated civilly: "someone who spouted overtly racist or anti-Semitic sentiments." This is a person of objectionable moral character and therefore no longer deserves to be treated with respect, rather he should be treated with contempt.

I would submit that someone who lies about a group of people and builds an entire argument about why someone should hate them based on lies is essentially a bigot, and does not deserve to be treated with respect. Hence, it is proper to call him an awful human being.

Levine says "careful attention to the actual sequence of events over the summer, alongside the vastly disproportionate violence visited on the trapped and totally vulnerable Gaza residents, renders the Israeli claim that they were acting in justifiable self-defense completely unreasonable." Even if we accept that fact - and I most certainly do not - Levine has deceptively changed the parameters of the discussion from what a reasonable person might have known on the night of July 8 to what is known now.

On July 7, Gaza terror groups shot about 60 rockets into Israeli civilian areas. Hamas claimed responsibility for dozens of them, and other groups claimed the rest. (Israel had killed 8 terrorists overnight July 6-7.)

By the evening of July 8, Israel had responded vigorously, and killed about 20 people in Gaza. At the same time, Gaza groups increased their own rocket fire, and shot rockets towards Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as well.

This is what was known as of the evening of July 8. Clearly as of that moment, Israel's actions could not be called "vastly disproportionate violence" by any measure of the term.

Based on that information, which is the only information that was available, Salaita said that anyone who defends Israel is an awful human being. Levine is going beyond that, saying that anyone who doesn't think that such a person is an awful human being is lacking in moral character (or is, at best, brainwashed by the media - which is quite condescending.) He justifies this position not based on the state of knowledge as of the time of the tweet, but on his (still false) ex post facto feelings about the entire summer war.

Is this kind of deception that Levine is engaging in considered moral in his philosophical universe?

Given that he has not given any alternative action that Israel could do to defend itself, then we must conclude that Levine believes that:

A) Israel has no right to defend itself from rocket fire, and must allow its own citizens to be terrorized, injured and killed without response, and/or

B) Israeli actions are responsible for Hamas rocket fire, and Hamas has no responsibility for its choice to shoot rockets at Israeli civilians.

Both of those positions are fundamentally immoral.

For A), It is the basic duty of a state to defend its citizens, and it is immoral not to do so. For B), to regard Gaza militants as somehow lacking in normal human responsibility is to regard them as less than human, and therefore to be a bigot.

Since these are immoral positions, and as we have seen Levine is not above using irrelevant information to justify his position after the fact, Levine has proven himself to be an immoral person, and not deserving of respect. Or, in Salaita's words, he is an awful human being. And under Levine's rules I am obligated to say so.

Because I do not want to live in a world where Israelis, and only Israelis, are expected to stoically allow their friends and families to live under constant terror while their Jew-hating enemies plot to kill them. I do not want to live in a world where people with delusions of grandeur and in love with their own supposed philosophical brilliance resort to using deception to support their arguments because the actual arguments are so weak. I do not want to live in a world where philosophy professors assert in major newspapers, without the slightest actual knowledge, that the Israeli army chooses to target women and children just for the sheer hell of it. I do not want to live in a world where blowhards can simplify an entire war into a sickeningly biased narrative of one side firing huge weapons only at innocent civilians for no reason. Ignoring context and ignoring facts is what is immoral, and that must be denigrated.

Since that is the moral world that I want to live in, I must say that Joseph Levine is a sickening human being.

And by his own standards, he must support me saying so.

12/15 Links Pt2: Europeans Fund Anti-Israel Libels; The scholars who ban disagreement

From Ian:

Gerald Steinberg: Europeans Fund Anti-Israel Libels

There is a direct and causal connection between increased funding for political advocacy NGOs, mainstream media visibility, and support for the distorted Palestinian narrative. As a result of an increase in funds, Zochrot was able to go from a fringe group with virtually no impact to a major player, influencing others with its ideological and political perspective.
NGOs are important players in international politics and within the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular. In this case, Zochrot's ability to promote its agenda through the media and other venues is dependent on the funding it receives from foreign governments. This, coupled with unprofessional media reporting, promotes the group's propaganda and fuels the conflict.
Through the iNakba app, Zochrot gained a platform to promote a highly partisan, false perspective via journalists who accepted the narrative at face value and then acted as force multipliers for this agenda. This is the halo effect, in which the NGOs are perceived as reliable sources with moral authority and knowledge untainted by partisan politics at a time when they are actually partisan purveyors of a false historical narrative and executors of a political warfare that has reinforced Palestinian rejectionism and made peace ever more remote.

Elliott Abrams: The scholars who ban disagreement

The scholars defend themselves from criticism. They are moderates, you see:
"The … call for personal sanctions very specifically opposes wide boycott efforts and its backers are not worried about being lumped together with the BDS proponents who are widely regarded as working toward Israel's destruction. It is 'utterly different than anathematizing an entire category of persons like the academic boycott efforts,' Gitlin said. 'In this case there is a proper target, people whose activity is toxic and we think they need to be named.' 'This would provide a way of mobilizing votes against blanket boycotts but equally against the attempts to make the occupation irreversible,' Shafir said. 'It would allow us to find a place in the middle and remain distinguished from but remain part of the ongoing dialogue in a productive way that is protective of Israel's ties with the U.S., the world and liberal intellectuals.'"
They have a place in the middle, you see. "Liberal intellectuals" from Israel can travel, and this group of scholars will protect Israel's connection to liberal intellectuals around the world. Elected officials who do not share their liberal views (and actually may not even be liberal intellectuals at all!) have no such right to travel.
Nothing will come of this ludicrous idea, but it worth noting and thinking through. Here is a group of intellectuals who wish to apply this test to one single country on the face of the earth, Israel, a democracy -- but think themselves are in the "middle" and are "protective" of Israel.
As the saying goes, with friends like these …

UK: Hamas-linked Interpal Enjoys Mainstream Support

Oborne argues that working with Hamas is unavoidable: "it is almost impossible not to deal with Hamas, the ruling political party in the territory before the unity deal earlier this year, if you're a charity working there."
This claim, however, is demonstrably untrue. First, scores of British charities operate in the Gaza strip, but very few of their trustees find themselves starring in Hamas photo-shoots. Second, does having to "deal with Hamas" really include visits to the family homes and shrines of Hamas terrorist leaders?
In 2012, for instance, Essam Yusuf visited the homes of Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior Hamas leader who once promised he would "kill Jews everywhere;" and Sheikh Said Seyam, who commanded Hamas's Executive Force, a militia that tortured and murdered Palestinian supporters of Fatah during Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2006.
So what makes Oborne write a column for Britain's top-selling broadsheet in support of Interpal?
It is notable that just a few days before his Telegraph article, Oborne spoke at an event organized by Interpal to celebrate its 20th anniversary. His fellow speakers included Chris Gunness, the spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA]; Daud Abdullah, the former head of the Muslim Council of Britain; Oliver McTernan, a commentator who runs a pro-Hamas British group called Forward Thinking; and Jeremy Corbyn MP.
Among these speakers, there seems to have been a bit of mutual back-scratching. Interpal has pledged $500,000 for UNRWA, and Oliver McTernan and UNRWA were both quoted in defense of Interpal as part of Peter Oborne's Telegraph article. Jeremy Corbyn MP has sponsored and signed a number of Early Day Motions in parliament that praise Interpal for its "humanitarian work" and condemn the "damaging designation of Interpal" as a terror-support organization.

Our heroes at the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice are up on the latest technology. They even have an IT crime department where they jealously check out reports of bad behavior online and they swing into action.

From Arab News:

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Haia) has shut down 10,117 Twitter accounts during the year because of religious violations, its spokesman, Turki Al-Shulail, has revealed.

“Their users were committing religious and ethical violations. Haia blocked and arrested some of their owners. However, it was hard to follow all the accounts due to the advanced security used in this kind of social media,” he told the media.

“The IT crime department at Haia played a major role to close these accounts. Our unit is divided into two sections: The first receives reports and complaints from citizens and residents and the second one monitors and does follow-up operations through websites and software applications,” he pointed out.

Ahmed Al-Ahamri, a lawyer specialized in IT crimes told Arab News that Saudi law punishes IT-related crimes with prison sentences that may exceed five years as well as fines as high as SR3 million.

“The crimes include religious or moral violations via the Internet. The number of these accounts has increased during the last five years and there is a need to put an end to them and arrest the users who publish material against our religion and society,” he stressed.

Cairo police destroy "atheist cafe" as residents accuse it of Satanism

From Morocco World News, quoting Egypt's Youm7:

Egyptian police on Sunday reportedly destroyed a café of atheists in the Hay Al Abidine district in Cairo. During the destruction, residents who live near the café expressed their joy and denounced the atheists, local media reported.

Egypti’s Youm7 quoted the head of Hay Al Abidin Jamal Mohi as saying that the café was located on Avenue Al Falaki in downtown Cario, and “it was a resort for atheists and Satanists who were spreading wrong ideas about religion.”

Jamal Mohi went on to add that local authorities decided to destroy the café after they received many requests from residents who live the café.

“Residents said that each midnight, atheists and Satanists in the café would start performing sort of satanic rituals,” he explained.

Mohi also revealed that the local authorities destroyed the café amid local women’s ululations of joy.

On the other hand, decision to destroy the café angered some Egyptian social media activists, who condemned closing the café and considered it a violation of the freedom of beliefs.

Ayman Ramzy, an Egyptian atheist and social media activist, told El Wady News that that café does not impact the beliefs of the Egyptian citizens.

Ramzy went on to add that local authorities should worry about the critical issues that Egypt is facing, such as the growing number of homeless children, rather than violating the individual freedoms of Egyptian citizens.

He explained that the number of atheists is on the rise in Egypt due to the awareness of youth and the behavior of religious institutions.

It is worth mentioning that a recent study released by the Egyptian Dar al-Ifta (Fatwa House) revealed that Egypt has the highest number of atheists in the Islamic world, estimating their number at 866 people.

That "866" number is referenced in this related article:

No one in Egypt can agree on how many people live in Cairo, let alone the precise ratio of Muslims to Christians. But senior government clerics are quite sure of one thing: there are exactly 866 atheists in Egypt – roughly 0.00001% of the population.

This suspiciously precise figure means Egypt harbours the highest number of atheists in the Arab world, according to claims by Dar al-Ifta, an official wing of government that issues religious edicts, citing research released this week by a regional polling group. Morocco came in second, with supposedly only 325 atheists. Yemen is meant to have 32.

Religiosity is very high in Egypt, and across the Arab world. But the tiny estimates nevertheless prompted high amusement among atheists and secularists in Egypt, who say atheism is slowly on the rise. Even Dar al-Ifta’s definitions of atheism seemed comic. According to the clerics, atheists include not just unbelievers, but those who believe in a secular state, and Muslims who convert to other religions.

“They are in denial,” said Rabab Kamal, a spokesperson for The Secularists, a small but vocal group that lobbies for a secular state. “I could count more than that number of atheists at al-Azhar university alone,” she added, referencing the Cairo-based institution that is widely regarded as the seat of global Sunni learning.

“In pragmatic terms, you can’t make scientific studies about how many atheists or agnostics there are – we’re in a country where talking about ideology other than Islam is a stigma.”

Dar al-Ifta clerics say the number of atheists in Egypt is a dangerous development that should “set alarm bells ringing” – a stance that may surprise outsiders who imagined last year’s overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood constituted a stepping stone towards a secular state.

Wishful thinking again trumps reality in the Middle East.

(h/t Bob Knot)

12/15 Links Pt1: Police foil ‘pregnant’ suicide bomber plot; Islamic Terrorist Siege in Sydney Ends

From Ian:

Shin Bet, police foil ‘pregnant’ suicide bomber plot in Tel Aviv

A Palestinian terror cell planning a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv and other attacks was thwarted over the last several months, the Shin Bet security service said Monday.
Five suspects hailing from Jenin and the village Attil in the Tulkarem area of the West Bank planned to infiltrate into Israel by acquiring a permit for the female member of their group to receive medical care in Israel.
She was then to dress as a pregnant Jewish woman and detonate an explosive belt in Tel Aviv, the Shin Bet said in a statement.
The cell members admitted under Shin Bet interrogation to planning to carry out shooting attacks, detonate a mine next to a bus carrying soldiers, and kidnap a soldier as well, according to the internal security agency.
The five were arrested between October and November by IDF forces working with the Shin Bet and police, but the information was only cleared for release Monday.

HOSTAGE TAKING ENDS AS SYDNEY POLICE STORM CAFE AMID GUNFIRE

Police toting automatic weapons and lobbing flash grenades stormed a Sydney cafe early Tuesday, bringing to a dramatic end a 16-hour standoff in which a jihadist and murder suspect held an unknown number of hostages in a scene much of the world watched on television.
A series of explosions, believed to be gunshots and flash grenades, came just before 2:30 a.m. local time as several more hostages fled Lindt Chocolat Cafe, where a man identified as Man Haron Monis, an Iranian also known for sending hate mail to the families of fallen soldiers, was holed up with an unknown number of captives. The drama, which began early Monday, appeared to be coming to a dramatic resolution, as frenzied activity enveloped the scene that Australians had been watching on television for hours.
"Police and paramedics have stormed the building," the Sydney Morning Herald reported. "Dozens of continuous bangs and possibly gun shots have lit up the sky."
Several people were taken from the building on stretchers as an alarm rang and police in riot gear moved in and out of the shop, in the heart of Australia's largest city's business district. A bomb disposal robot was seen being deployed in the shop, though police said the standoff was over. It was not clear if anyone was killed or what had happened to the suspect. The handful of hostages seen fleeing as the explosions echoed through the predawn air followed escapes hours earlier by five captives.
Four of the hostages were seen being taken from the cafe on stretchers, while one received CPR at the scene, Sky News reports.

Speaking at Hamas' 27th anniversary parade, leading Hamas figure Khalil al-Hayya announced that Hamas would expand their "resistance" (meaning, terror) to the West Bank and Jerusalem.

During a speech that lasted over 30 minutes, al-Hayya said "We will do everything in our power to activate the resistance in Palestine, in the West bank and Jerusalem....Hamas, along with with the rest of the resistance factions, will activate the resistance in all of Palestine, and in the heart of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and will remain supporting Gaza until all of Palestine is liberated."

In other words, it was a Sunday in Gaza.

UPDATE: Even Russia Today noticed that Hamas called to destroy Israel.

BBC says that targeting Israelis disqualifies you from being a Jihadist (UPDATE)

The BBC reports:

The data gathered by the BBC found that 5,042 people were killed in 664 jihadist attacks across 14 countries - a daily average of 168 deaths, or seven every hour.

About 80% of the deaths came in just four countries - Iraq, Nigeria, Syria and Afghanistan, according to the study of media and civil society reports.

Iraq was the most dangerous place to be, with 1,770 deaths in 233 attacks, ranging from shootings to suicide bombings.

Civilians bore the brunt of the attacks with a total of 2,079 killed, followed by 1,723 military personnel.

The BBC lists 14 countries where Jihadists killed people.

Israel is not one of them.

So when Islamists kill people in churches or mosques, it is Jihad. But killing Jews worshiping in synagogues is
not.

The BBC offers their methodology:

While jihad is an Islamic concept which means ‘struggle’ and has both military and spiritual connotations, the term jihad-ism describes a political ideology; and while many Shia groups and individuals refer to themselves as ‘jihadists’ this count focuses on a particular movement categorised by Al Qaeda, its affiliates and those who subscribe to a similar philosophy.

 These jihadists believe that Islam is under attack – from the West, Israel, apostate Muslim rulers, and the Shiites –and that every Muslim must come to its defence.

 What differentiates jihadists from other groups and individuals that have justified violence in Islamic terms is their doctrine and long-term political vision. The jihadists’ aim is to create states or societies that are governed by an extremely narrow, puritanical interpretation of Sunni Islam known as Salafism (or Wahhabism).

 Salafi doctrine accounts for the jihadists’ aggressive hostility towards other sects and religions; their rejection ofman-made laws and democracy; and their enforcement of public morality, dress codes, and social norms.

 Many groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan – most prominently the Taliban – do not classify as Salafist or Wahhabist. They typically follow the Deobandi or Ahl e Hadith traditions, which are similar to Salafism in their emphasis on literalism and have developed more or less in parallel. For the purposes of this study we have included them as jihadist groups.

Some of the beliefs listed above are held by other Muslims but it is a combination of all of these beliefs along with the readiness to kill in the name of those ideas that defines jihadism in this count.

Only a minority of Sunni Muslims worldwide are Salafists, and only a small fraction of Salafists are jihadists. Jihadists,therefore, do not represent mainstream Islam, and their doctrine, views and methods are not shared by the vast majority of Muslims.

Pseudo-social science meets political correctness.

The BBC defines jihadism as Wahhabism/Salafism, except when they want to include others, but they certainly don't want to include Palestinian jihad groups - that's for sure.Above all, they don't want the readers to confuse legitimate jihad with violent jihad, or to mix up violent jihad against Jews with violent jihad against Christians and Muslims.

So we have a situation where a group whose nae is Islamic Jihad is not considered "jihadist."

We habe a situation where Hamas terrorists, who sign all of their press releases with "It is jihad, victory or martyrdom," are not considered jihadists.

Absurdly, the BBC pretends that the philosophy of the jihadists of Hamas who execute their enemies in the street and who slash the throats of Jews in a synagogue is somehow fundamentally different from the jihadists who are beheading people in Syria and Iraq. Sure they both want an Islamic caliphate that institutes Sharia law, and sure they want to kill the infidels and subdue the dhimmis, but, you know, Israel builds houses so they have a good reason to want to slash the necks of Jews.

It is obvious that the BBC created n arbitrary definition of jihadism in order to minimize the seeming threat of Islamists to the West and to exclude any Palestinian Arabs from the definition altogether, no matter what - even as they admit that jihadists hate Israel. And the fact that the BBC cannot face up to the real threat of Islamism even when purportedly doing research in the topic shows a great deal about how the fear of offending Muslims colors its reporting.

(h/t Stanley)

UPDATE: See also Israellycool.

One of the many offshoots of Fatah under the name of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has issued a statement denouncing Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.

In a statement released to Karama Press, the group said that "the era of Abbas defeats and setbacks must end" and called for him to leave the presidency.

"After a long silence and giving many opportunities after opportunities to Mahmoud Abbas, he has failed and foiled all national goals and demolished and destroyed and brought havoc and corruption and has accomplished only repeated defeats and divisions on the internal and external level," he statement said. It also decried the "obnoxious security coordination with the Zionist occupation" and the "construction of dictatorship and authoritarian rule at the expense of national institutions."

The statement accused Abbas of turning Fatah into his own "private company and ignoring its internal regulations and programs and the spirit of militancy."

The group went on to accuse Abbas of "treason and trafficking holy blood and suffering of our people to our cause."

I could not find this on any of the Al Aqsa Brigades webpages I follow, but there are quite a few groups under that name. There is always the possibility that this is a hoax, since the original statement is only electronic and anyone could have forged it easily. These things happen; there have been a number of false documents that Hamas and Fatah have each used against each other.

At least four of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades groups claimed credit for shooting rockets at Israel during the Gaza war.

The split in Fatah between Abbas and Mahmoud Dahlan, on the other hand, is quite real. Dahlan still has a serious base of support especially in Gaza - his people reportedly participated in the Hamas anniversary rally this weekend - even as he is accused of corruption and has been cut out of Fatah in the West Bank.