Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

02/17 Links Pt1: As Anti-Semitism returns, Obama remains ignorant; LATMA with English Subs!

From Ian:

Toddler injured in 2013 attack in critical condition

A 4-year-old girl seriously injured in a 2013 rock-throwing terror attack is fighting for her life, doctors said Tuesday.
Adele Bitton was readmitted to the Schneider’s Children’s Hospital in Petah Tikva earlier this week for pneumonia and on Tuesday, doctors said her condition was critical.
Bitton suffered a traumatic brain injury in March 2013 when Palestinians threw rocks at a car she was in near the West Bank settlement of Ariel, and has been largely unresponsive since then.
Medical staff at the hospital said Bitton’s condition deteriorated after developing respiratory complications from the lung infection. She was transferred to the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit where doctors are working to save her life.
Speaking to Channel 2 News, Bitton’s parents urged the public to pray for their daughter’s recovery, and said they were hoping for the same miracle that saved her life two years ago.

UPDATE: Toddler injured in 2013 attack dies of pneumonia

A 4-year-old girl seriously injured in a 2013 rock-throwing terror attack died on Tuesday afternoon from complications from pneumonia, a Petah Tikva hospital said.
“With great sadness we announce the passing of Adele Bitton, who passed away this evening despite doctors’ efforts to save her. We send our condolences to the family,” the Schneider’s Children’s Hospital said in a statement.
Medical staff at the hospital said Bitton’s condition deteriorated after developing respiratory complications from a lung infection. She was transferred to the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit Tuesday where doctors attempted to save her.

As anti-Semitism makes a comeback, Obama remains ignorant

The hostility of the intellectual elites to Israel encourages these terrorists as they plot further evil. The men of evil understand that only the Americans stand in their way of realizing the dream of the worldwide caliphate, and when the leader of the Americans isn’t even sure who the enemy is they rightly figure they have little to worry about.
The 8,000 Jews in Denmark deal with anti-Semitism every day, and the Danish government, full of the usual Scandinavian piety about its wonderfulness, grants millions of kroner to activists who disguise their hatred of Jews, and lecture the Israelis about how they deal with the real-world threats to Israeli survival.
The good news is that France, which has had a habit of sleepwalking through history, seems to have pinched itself awake. Since the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket attacks even the densest Frenchman can see that the Islamic radicals have him in their gunsights along with everyone else who doesn’t bow to Allah in the way of the 9th century. Prime Minister Manuel Valls has ordered the isolation of Muslim jihadis in prisons, increased spending on intelligence agencies and according security forces greater authority to monitor terrorist suspects on the Internet.
Mr. Obama wants more authority, too, but nobody in Congress can figure out why. He already has more authority than he’s willing to use. He could take to heart the admonition of Theodore Roosevelt: “I have a perfect horror of words that are not backed up by deeds.” So do we all.

We'll be the Judge, episode 2

The second episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, February 12, 2015. (h/t Ronin0948)

Throughout the years, Palestinian Arabs and their apologists have justified all of their acts of violence as "natural reactions" to things Israel does.

So it is no surprise that they are now pre-emptively justifying violence that they are planning to do as reactions:

Palestinian officials say the Israeli prime minister's plan to visit the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron is a "time bomb" that could drag the area into more violence and disorder.

Hebron's mayor, Kamel Hmeid, called upon the foreign ministers of six member countries in the Temporary International Presence in Hebron to hold an emergency meeting to protect residents from Benjamin Netanyahu's plans.

The visit to the Ibrahimi mosque, known to Jews as the Cave of the Patriarchs, will take place March 3, one week before the Israeli Knesset elections and close to the anniversary of the massacre in which 29 Palestinians were killed and dozens were injured when an Israeli settler opened fire at worshipers.

A Palestinian security source told Ma'an that "Netanyahu lit the wick of a big bomb in Hebron, and we do not know when or where it will explode."

"Residents of Hebron are preparing to commemorate the 21st memory of the Ibrahimi Mosque's massacre on Friday between the H1 and H2 parts of the Hebron," he added.

"Clashes with Israeli soldiers will surely erupt on contact points following the marches."

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added: "We expressed our fears of this visit to the Israeli side and we hold them responsible for the consequences."

Now, no one is saying that the Arabs of Hebron cannot hold peaceful demonstrations against Bibi.

However, this is not what they are planning. They are planning violence, and using that threat to try to stop Jews from visiting the second-holiest Jewish shrine.

I would be happier if Netanyahu visited Hebron more often and emphasized to the world its importance to Jews, rather than try to turn it into an elections stunt. This visit doesn't feel sincere. It very possibly will backfire on him in Israel.

Still, threats of violence are considered normal and indeed part of the fabric of PalArab society. It is something that is hardly worth mentioning anymore. And that, perhaps more than anything else, is what ends up hurting the Palestinian Arabs themselves - they proudly brag that they cannot act like adults, and the world treats them that way.

Saudi preacher proves the Earth doesn't rotate (video)

"We Muslims also have theories and brains!"

Fanatical Israel-hater Richard Falk interviews another Israel-hater, William Schabas, as they commiserate over how unfair it is that Schabas' bias derailed his heading his pulpit to demonize Israel.

Schabas proves his unsuitability by pretending that his hiding of his financial deal with the PLO is no problem, and that its exposure is the real crime:

Falk: Were you not aware when you were approached that these issues of supposed ‘conflict of interest’ would be used to challenge your credibility in a defamatory manner? Was the decisive factor the unanticipated response of the President of the Human Rights Council to the contention about your consultancy with the PLO on Palestinian statehood?

Schabas: There had been calls for me to resign from the moment I accepted the mandate in early August 2014. I did not ignore them but I concluded that they were not substantial. I do not think that I was biased or that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. The allegation about the legal opinion I delivered to the PLO in October 2012 only emerged in late January. It seems the Israeli ambassador raised this informally with the President of the Human Rights Council who then drew it to my attention and asked me to explain, which I did. Subsequently, Israel made a formal complaint. The President proposed that legal advice from the United Nations in New York be requested in order to determine the procedure to follow in examining the complaint. The five-member Bureau of the Council agreed to this. Within minutes of its decision, I submitted my resignation.

There was no "allegation," Schabas admits that he was paid by the PLO for legal work. He says it "only emerged in late January" - which means that he knowingly withheld that information. And he argues that he is the wronged party here.

But this part of the interview is far more damning:

Falk: In retrospect, do you find any substance to the charges of bias or conflict of interest? How can one be both an expert on this subject-matter and not have some pre-existing opinions? Should not the proper test be one of professionalism and objectivity with respect to the evidence and applicable law? For instance, would a person who had been critical of Nazism or apartheid be rendered unfit to investigate allegations of crimes against humanity or racism?

Schabas: ...Your reference to a person with views on Nazism is of interest because this was precisely the argument raised by Eichmann against the Israeli judges. There was never any suggestion that the three judges, all of them German Jews, did not have strong views about the Holocaust. It was assumed that they did. How could that not be the case? The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that professional judges would set aside their opinions and judge in an impartial manner.

This comparison is obscene. Eichamann's lawyer didn't accuse the judges of partiality based on any specific statements any of them made about Eichmann or the Holocaust - he just said that they were biased because they were Jews.

Furthermore, the Israeli justice system has rules and legal procedures to help ensure impartiality during a trial. There is a framework in place. The Eichmann trial was public so anyone could see if the judges were acting unprofessionally. Eichmann had a lawyer and any bias during the trial would be public record.

But for the UNHRC commissions of inquiry, Schabas makes his own rules. His "trial" - which is what it is - is conducted in secret. Israel doesn't have a lawyer defending it in the UNHRC commission. The entire process is a black box selected facts and accusations enter and a report is the result. We have no idea what evidence is accepted and what is dismissed, which testimony is considered reliable and which is belittled. There is every opportunity for members of the commission to inject bias in every step of the process. Their protests that they can "set aside" their biases are meaningless because there are no checks and balances.

It is most telling that both Falk and Schabas enthusiastically embrace a false equivalence of Israel and Nazi war criminals. Schabas doesn't even inject the mildest caveat that there is no comparison between the two.

Which tells you all you need to know about his utter unsuitability to chair a supposedly impartial commission.

(h/t Anne)

Important article in The Atlantic: "What ISIS Really Wants"

Graeme Wood at The Atlantic has written a 10,000 word article that describes in detail the underlying ideological and religious thinking behind IS. He says, correctly, that unless the West understands it, there is no way to defeat it.

But as you read it, you see that outside of military annihilation, there is no way to defeat it anyway (although Wood thinks that containment can work over time, causing new recruits to become disillusioned at the failure of the caliphate to continuously expand.)

One major point is that their leaders are not crazy. Their beliefs are consistent and if you are willing to listen to them, they will tell you their strategy and tactics.

The ideological purity of the Islamic State has one compensating virtue: it allows us to predict some of the group’s actions. Osama bin Laden was seldom predictable. He ended his first television interview cryptically. CNN’s Peter Arnett asked him, “What are your future plans?” Bin Laden replied, “You’ll see them and hear about them in the media, God willing.” By contrast, the Islamic State boasts openly about its plans—not all of them, but enough so that by listening carefully, we can deduce how it intends to govern and expand.

In London, Choudary and his students provided detailed descriptions of how the Islamic State must conduct its foreign policy, now that it is a caliphate. It has already taken up what Islamic law refers to as “offensive jihad,” the forcible expansion into countries that are ruled by non-Muslims. “Hitherto, we were just defending ourselves,” Choudary said; without a caliphate, offensive jihad is an inapplicable concept. But the waging of war to expand the caliphate is an essential duty of the caliph.

Choudary took pains to present the laws of war under which the Islamic State operates as policies of mercy rather than of brutality. He told me the state has an obligation to terrorize its enemies—a holy order to scare the shit out of them with beheadings and crucifixions and enslavement of women and children, because doing so hastens victory and avoids prolonged conflict.

Choudary’s colleague Abu Baraa explained that Islamic law permits only temporary peace treaties, lasting no longer than a decade. Similarly, accepting any border is anathema, as stated by the Prophet and echoed in the Islamic State’s propaganda videos. If the caliph consents to a longer-term peace or permanent border, he will be in error. Temporary peace treaties are renewable, but may not be applied to all enemies at once: the caliph must wage jihad at least once a year. He may not rest, or he will fall into a state of sin.

Another, which I believe that Wood downplays, is that IS cannot be stopped by religious arguments - because their entire point is to bring Islam back to the 7th century, back to Mohammed's own practices. And any Muslim who argues that Mohammed's methods don't apply nowadays cannot win an argument against IS:

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.

Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

The Islamic State’s ideology exerts powerful sway over a certain subset of the population. Life’s hypocrisies and inconsistencies vanish in its face. Musa Cerantonio and the Salafis I met in London are unstumpable: no question I posed left them stuttering. They lectured me garrulously and, if one accepts their premises, convincingly. To call them un-Islamic appears, to me, to invite them into an argument that they would win. If they had been froth-spewing maniacs, I might be able to predict that their movement would burn out as the psychopaths detonated themselves or became drone-splats, one by one. But these men spoke with an academic precision that put me in mind of a good graduate seminar. I even enjoyed their company, and that frightened me as much as anything else.

The author underplays the appeal of a non-hypocritical Islam, when Islam itself has no theological alternative to believing that Mohammed was the perfect prophet and example to mankind. Young people who embrace Islam will be far more likely to choose the strain that is the most internally consistent, and as it stands, that is IS.

Wood brings a single counterexample of Salafis, who also believe in Islamic purity with the same fervor, but also believe that the time to bring in that era is not yet here:

There is, however, another strand of Islam that offers a hard-line alternative to the Islamic State—just as uncompromising, but with opposite conclusions. This strand has proved appealing to many Muslims cursed or blessed with a psychological longing to see every jot and tittle of the holy texts implemented as they were in the earliest days of Islam. Islamic State supporters know how to react to Muslims who ignore parts of the Koran: with takfir and ridicule. But they also know that some other Muslims read the Koran as assiduously as they do, and pose a real ideological threat.

Baghdadi is Salafi. The term Salafi has been villainized, in part because authentic villains have ridden into battle waving the Salafi banner. But most Salafis are not jihadists, and most adhere to sects that reject the Islamic State. They are, as Haykel notes, committed to expanding Dar al-Islam, the land of Islam, even, perhaps, with the implementation of monstrous practices such as slavery and amputation—but at some future point. Their first priority is personal purification and religious observance, and they believe anything that thwarts those goals—such as causing war or unrest that would disrupt lives and prayer and scholarship—is forbidden.

But these types of Salafists are unlikely to be dragged into an theological battle with IS, because it would ultimately become a political battle and these "quiet" Salafis are not equipped to fight on that battlefield.

This is an important article, well worth reading.

02/16 Links Pt2: Prosor: Behind the Curtain at the Theater of the Absurd; J Street Needs to Stop Lying

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: The Palestinians' EU-Funded Campaign Against Israel

Abbas and his "moderate" Fatah faction have not only failed to prepare their people for peace with Israel; they continue to whip up anti-Israel sentiment among Palestinians and other Arabs. If Abbas and Fatah have already determined that many Israelis are "war criminals" who also poisoned Yasser Arafat, how can they ever return to any negotiating table with Israel? How will they then justify to their people that they agreed to resume peace talks with "war criminals?"
Fatah's anti-Israel incitement and campaign to delegitimize and isolate Israel has made it unsafe even for Palestinian children to play soccer with Israelis. Under the current circumstances, it has also become dangerous for Israeli peace activists to visit Ramallah and meet Palestinian colleagues.
The EU leaders who met with Abbas last week are either unaware of the anti-Israel incitement by his Fatah faction or simply prefer to bury their heads in the sand. In both cases, the EU is not helping advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to this anti-Israel campaign, and is generously funding it through dozens of NGOs in the Palestinian territories.

Indyk: Get ready for UNSC resolution proposed not by Palestinians, but int'l community

If a government emerges after the election that does not launch a diplomatic initiative or opposes a Palestinian state, Israel will likely face a UN Security Council resolution proposed by all permanent members designed to “lay out the principles of a two state solution,” Martin Indyk said Monday.
Indyk, who was the US special envoy to last year's failed Israeli-Palestinian talks, said at the annual Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) conference in Tel Aviv that he expected this alternative would be “against Israel's will.'
Indyk, currently vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, has been involved in the diplomatic process since the Oslo period. After he stepped down over the summer following the collapse of the negotiations, he did little to hide his position that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was largely responsible for the breakdown of the talks.
“If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two state solution, then there is a way forward,” Indyk said. “It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab peace initiative, to find a way to provide the Palestinians both with an Egyptian-Jordanian anchor, and the political cover of the Arab peace initiative.”
Indyk said that in this arrangement there would have to be a “freeze for a freeze:” an Israeli freeze of settlement activity, and a freeze of Palestinian international activity against Israel.

Ron Prosor: Behind the Curtain at the Theater of the Absurd

As Israel's ambassador to the United Nations (UN), I have a front row seat to the world's foremost theater of the absurd. This fall, the UN will celebrate its 70thanniversary. In honor of New York's longest running production, I offer here a synopsis of the most recent drama and a special glimpse behind-the-scenes.
In Act I, the despots seized control of the General Assembly. The very nations undermining international peace were elected to the UN bodies responsible for maintaining global security.
In Act II, the world's most notorious human rights abusers commandeered the Human Rights Council. My stomach has churned as I have listened to the mass-murdering dictatorships that jail journalists and persecute political opponents cynically pontificate about the virtues of a free press and the sanctity of free and fair elections.
Now it seems we have arrived at the curtain call. The world's terrorists have been invited onstage and given a starring role.

Israeli Ambassador Warns: Hamas Rearming, Rapidly

Prosor also wrote that the terrorist organization is actively restoring its terror tunnels designed to target Israeli civilians, urging the global community to act quickly to prevent another outburst of hostilities.
Hamas "is preparing to attack through rearming, rebuilding its terrorist infrastructure and clarifying its commitment to war against Israel," Prosor warned in the letter. "Hamas is working around the clock to restore its weapons manufacturing capabilities and its military capabilities. It is determined to attack Israel from land, air and sea."
Prosor referred in part to Hamas "test launches" of rockets off the Gaza coast last month.
"Rather than rebuild Gaza, Hamas is busy boosting its terrorist infrastructure," he warned. "Over the past two months, it shot some 90 rockets into the Mediterranean Sea."
Hamas "has worked tirelessly to rebuild its terror tunnels," Prosor warns. "These tunnels are used for infiltration into Israel and to attack Israeli civilians."

17 "journalists" killed in Gaza: 8 members of terror groups, 2 not killed by Israel, zero real journalists targeted

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center released its English report on the purported 17 journalists killed in Gaza last summer, and describes each of the circumstances.

The examination revealed that almost half (eight out of 17) were names of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist operatives, or were journalists who worked for the Hamas media.

More than one third (six) of the media personnel on the list were killed while reporting from the battlefield

At least two of the media personnel on the list were not killed by the IDF. They were an Italian AP photojournalist and his translator, who were killed during one of the ceasefires while covering Gaza police engineers defusing unexploded ordnance in a location where there were no IDF soldiers (and Israel was not held responsible for their deaths). It is possible that others on the list were not killed by the IDF but the ITIC cannot prove it (that would necessitate thorough examinations of the events on the ground and comparisons with Palestinian reports in each case).

The findings of the examination indicate that the Palestinian list of 17 journalists killed during Operation Protective Edge was manipulative: it integrated names of civilians with names of terrorist operatives who served in information and media capacities. It incorporated the names of those who did in fact cover the fighting as correspondents and those who were killed randomly and were not serving as correspondents. It integrated those who were killed by the IDF in error with those in whose deaths the IDF had no involvement whatsoever. The objective was to give credence to the false claim that Israel deliberately killed a large number of media personnel and therefore was guilty of "crimes" for which the Palestinians demand the "murderers" be tried in international criminal courts. Manipulating the list of Palestinian journalists killed in Operation Protective Edge is another example of Hamas-led Palestinian tactics of deceit and fraud (as proved by the ITIC's findings of the examination of the lists of Palestinian fatalities). Thus, distorting the truth about the Palestinians killed in Operation Protective Edge has become a propaganda weapon in the Palestinian political, propaganda and legal war being waged against the State of Israel.

What else is new?

Here is the Hamas "journalist" that we've discussed before, Abdullah Murtaja.

Time for the 2015 series of"Apartheid Week?" posters!

My "Apartheid?" poster series has been viewed over 180,000 times .

Send your ideas to me for this year's series. Here's the first:

02/16 Links Pt1: The EU’s new normal: Kill free speech, kill the Jews; Nothing Random Here

From Ian:

Defiant Mother Who Hosted Bat-Mitzva as Terror Struck Copenhagen Synagogue Recounts Harrowing Ordeal – ‘No One Can Tell Me Where I Can Live My Jewish Life’ (INTERVIEW)

Mette Bentow, the mother whose daughter’s bat-mitzva was cut short by the terror attack at the Copenhagen synagogue late last night, sounded a defiant tone in an interview with The Algemeiner on Sunday, in which she recounted her harrowing experiences of the past 24 hours.
“No one can tell me where I can live my Jewish life,” she insisted strongly, even as she admitted, “I don’t know if there will be a Danish Jewish life” for her children to live there.
“We were celebrating the bat-mitzva of our daughter Hannah and due to heightened security in Copenhagen, there were extra security personnel on the ground, both from the Jewish community but also from the police,” Bentow recounted. ”There were armed police officers, which is not a usual sight in Copenhagen.”
“We were having a wonderful party until 20 minutes to one in the morning, when one of the Jewish security guards asked us to go downstairs to the basement, and, after a short while, he took my husband aside, who has a security background, briefed him on what had happened, and gave him a radio. We then proceeded into a security room, a panic room where we were left.”
Bentow said that no gunshots were heard by guests at the party “because we were listening to music, we were dancing and the community center is behind the synagogue itself, so we didn’t hear anything.”

Douglas Murray: How many more terror attacks until we have a serious discussion about offending religions?

Another week and another completely random attack by a gunman hunting down cartoonists before inexplicably heading to the local synagogue. My guess is that events in Copenhagen yesterday have already been put down in many quarters to what President Obama describes as ‘a random bunch of folks’ being targeted by somebody who has ‘misunderstood’ what every Western leader agrees is an entirely peaceful and harmless religious tradition.
As it happens, I know the people who put together the Lars Vilks committee and had a number of friends who were in the room in Copenhagen yesterday when the gunman attacked. One of them wrote a brief account of events for us here yesterday. Of course at a time like this it is appropriate to stress how brave these individuals are. And they most certainly are. But what is more striking to me are two things.
The first is that supporting an artist in 21st century Europe should have become a brave thing to do and that a conversation about free speech in Europe in 2015 should have — and need — substantial police protection. Today’s UK newspapers refer to Vilks as ‘controversial.’ But Vilks wouldn’t be ‘controversial’ if almost the entirety of the Western media and the political and arts establishments had not in recent years abandoned their principles and chosen to avoid mentioning anything negative or worthy of satire in one single religion. The jihadists just want to kill Lars Vilks. It was the Western media and political class that made him ‘controversial’.
And then there is the second point — which is how many attacks like yesterday’s have to happen before there is a semblance of serious discussion around all this? A few years ago when the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed in Paris the French Foreign Minister said about drawing cartoons of Mohammed and thus potentially ‘insulting’ Islam: ‘Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?’ My reply to which is ‘Who made our societies into this powder-keg apparently able to catch fire at any moment?’

Tom Gross Nothing Random Here

Yesterday evening’s Copenhagen synagogue shooting is yet another attack on Jews as Jews -- just as we have witnessed such attacks at the Toulouse Jewish primary school, the Brussels Jewish museum, the Paris kosher supermarket, the firebombing of the synagogue in the German city of Wuppertal, and at many other places in recent years, from the Jewish communal centres in Mumbai and Casablanca, to the ancient synagogues in Istanbul and Jerba.
Nothing Random Here
Yet only last week President Obama and his spokespeople were suggesting that it was just some kind of “random” accident that Jews were being killed.
The Obama team has consistently demonstrated a willful lack of understanding about the nature of Islamism, about anti-Semitism, and about the intentions of the Islamic revolutionary government in Iran. They seem more interested in disparaging the prime minister of America’s ally Israel than in preventing the regime in Tehran going nuclear – a regime which has already de facto taken control of large swathes of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. Its terrorist actions outside the Middle East spread to, among other places, Thailand, Bulgaria (where Jewish tourists were blown up in 2012) and Argentina, where 85 people were murdered at the AMIA Jewish centre in Buenos Aires. Only last month an Iranian diplomat in Montevideo was expelled from Uruguay for planting a bomb designed to kill Jews. (This foiled attack was barely reported on outside the Uruguayan and Israeli media.)
As Middle East scholar Bassam Tawil wrote last week: “Does Obama really want his legacy to be, ‘The president who was an even bigger fool than Neville Chamberlain’?”

From The Jewish News (UK):

Southampton University Law School is to host a major international conference on the “legality, validity and legitimacy” of Israel “given the urgent need to respond to persistent Palestinian suffering.”

For three days in April, academics will flock to discuss the “problems associated with the creation and nature of the Jewish state itself and the status of Jerusalem.”

The conference will explore “the relatedness of the suffering and injustice in Palestine to the foundation and protection of a state of such nature,” asking what role international law should play in the situation.

Event literature says the subject is a “marginalised debate” needing a “legal analysis of the manner by which the State of Israel came into existence as well as what kind of state it is”.

Organised by Prof. Oren Ben-Dor, a former Israeli who has previously called Israel an “arrogant self-righteous Zionist entity,” the event promises “public debate without partisanship.”

Nah, no partisanship in a conference that "debates" whether a single state has a right to exist.

The conference literature shows that it isn't necessarily demonizing Israel out, oh no.

This conference seeks to analyse the challenge posed to international law by the Jewish State of Israel and the whole of historic Palestine – the area to the west side of River Jordan that includes both what is now the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967.

I wish someone would show me a map of historic Palestine that fits those boundaries that is more than 100 years old. Really, there's an entire university filled with scholars there, one of them must have seen a map of this historic land once upon a time, right?

For its initial existence, the State of Israel has depended on a unilateral declaration of statehood in addition to both the expulsion (some would say the ethnic cleansing) of large numbers of non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs in 1947-49 and the prevention of their return. Furthermore, the Jewish nature of the state has profoundly affected the economic, constitutional, political and social life of those non-Jewish Arabs who were allowed to stay.

Yes, let's frame the conference by insisting on producing lies that underpin the entire debate - and then hold a "non-partisan" debate!

Given the urgency of responding to – indeed the urgent responsibility to answer for and to avert - the persistent suffering in historic Palestine, it is time to give a scholarly, academic platform to the exploration of pervasive disagreements regarding the legitimacy in international law of the Jewish State and the status of Jerusalem.

Nope, still don't see any partisanship here. Perfectly scholarly and impartial.

The conference and the book of its proceedings will be dedicated to Henry Cattan (1906-1992), a leading Palestinian international lawyer, indeed a legal prophet, who long ago mounted a challenge to the validity of the state of Israel and the legal and moral authority of those institutions that brought it about.

Still can't find any bias here.

[D]ebates will ensue as to whether there is any ground to hold the State of Israel as exceptional in comparison with other unjust regimes...

Everything looks perfectly non-partisan.

By the way, guess who the other "unjust regimes" are? The United States and Australia!

To sum up: we have a conference that pretends to question whether Israel has the right to exist altogether, a question never asked of other states, Its conclusions are foregone. It frames its "debate" based on obvious lies. It pretends to be impartial when its own words prove that the entire conference is based not on scholarship but on pure hate with a shiny surface of pseudo-scholarship.

And no one in academia (outside of "Zionists" who are of course not nearly as impartial as these professors pretend to be) seems even slightly embarrassed by this sham.

Terrorist mother lovingly prepares her son for killing Jews (photo essay)

This photo essay from Islamic Jihad's Al Quds Brigades website shows a mother preparing her son's uniform and weapon to avenge other terror members of their family killed by Israel.

Some 365 refugees from Syria's Yarmouk camp, including many of Palestinian ancestry, who reached Cyprus by boat last year, had been staying in a refugee camp near Nicosia.

Earlier this month, Cyprus closed the camp.

The government offered them 500 euros for each adult, 200 euros for each child and a temporary tourist visa.

Kokkinotrimithia camp was a temporary one that was supported by EU funds, and the migrants were supposed to have been processed by December 26th. They were given an extension until 17th January for humanitarian reasons but then the camp was finally shut down on February 3rd, said Mr. Hadjimichail. The refugees had been taken at least 15 times to the ministry in order to decide their status, he said. Two-thirds of the refugees had been processed, with a significant number moved to Kofinou refugee asylum centre and the rest leaving the island, according to the official. The remainder will have to apply for asylum, for resident's permits or stay in Cyprus illegally, he said.

Neither the interior ministry nor the civil defence organisations know where the migrants have gone or how to contact them.

The refugees were essentially left on the streets. Many are now staying in a church in Strovolos.

Here are real refugees, not the fake ones in UNRWA camps. They need clothing and food and shelter.

All the NGOs who pretend to care about Palestinian Arabs were silent when they became homeless again two weeks ago.

If only they could find a way to blame Jews for their plight, then the money would pour in to help these people.

Top Ten Results of Palestinian Investigation into NC Murders

From Reuters:

The Palestinian government on Saturday condemned as "terrorism" the killings of three young Palestinian-Americans in North Carolina and called on U.S. authorities to include its investigators in the probe.

Police have charged a neighbor with Tuesday's shooting in the town of Chapel Hill of Deah Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister Razan Abu-Salha, 19, saying the incident followed a dispute over parking.

But investigators said they were also looking into whether the suspect, Craig Stephen Hicks, was motivated by hatred toward the victims because they were Muslim.

Branding Hicks "an American extremist and hateful racist", the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said the incident suggested a rise in dangerous discrimination against American Muslims.

"We consider it a serious indication of the growth of racism and religious extremism which is a direct threat to the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens who follow the Islamic faith," the ministry said in a statement.

It called for "a serious investigation and the involvement of Palestinian investigators to clarify the circumstances of these assassinations and premeditated murders" in Chapel Hill.

Really? Palestinian Authority "experts" want to investigate the murders?

Given their track record of investigations, that would be interesting indeed.

Here are the top ten findings likely to be discovered by "objective" Palestinian Authority investigators:

The bullets were made out of depleted uranium
The apartment complex is an illegal settlement for all non-Muslims who live there
Hicks blanketed the area with white phosphorus
Four Korans were stepped on and burned and spat upon during the murders
Trained wild boars and dogs attacked the victims
Mohammed cartoons were posted on street signs outside the victims' apartment
The parking space had belonged to the victims for 8000 years
Hicks is, of course, really a Jew and a Zionist

And he owns a bank, two newspapers and a Hollywood studio

Two words: Polonium poisoning

10 hours of walking in Paris as a Jew (video)

(h/t Yenta)

Reuters has an article about how many countries, particularly Muslim countries but also China, are not allowing "Fifty Shades of Grey" to be screened.

It then includes this:

It is unclear whether "Fifty Shades" will be shown in India or throughout the Middle East. Only Lebanon is scheduled to show it.

According to IMDB, the movie opened in Israel along with most of the rest of the world.

As is often the case, Reuters is saying that Israel is not part of the Middle East.

This subtly feeds into the myth that Israel doesn't belong where it is, that it is an anomaly that needs to be removed.

Just some more every day anti-Israel media bias.