Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, November 23, 2015

Hollande STILL wants Syrian refugees to resettle in France (Estee Hart)

After last week’s latest round of terror attacks in Paris, France, Hollande issued a harsh response to ISIS by sending French fighter jets to strike their strongholds in Syria. After what looked like a strong leader-like response, Hollande declared “life must go on” and France will accept 30,000 more Syrian refugees. He has certainly made it clear that his bleeding leftist heart will continue to accept the inevitable; more terrorism to hit the country.

ISIS issued a world wide threat for Sunday and even more attacks to come in the European Union. So, has Hollande lost his mind descending deeper into liberal madness or is he just that out of touch with reality? Like Obama, Francois Hollande is so blinded by ideology that he is mentally unable to make a rational decision unless sympathy, empathy and compassion for what could be a potentially disastrous move for the safety and security of French citizens. What’s a few dead French citizens in the name of tolerance of those seeking the entire destruction of the West sneaking in under the perfect cover?

President Hollande, when terrorists say they are going to kill you, you take them at their word instead of trying to figure out what it is they’re really trying to say. Sir, ISIS terrorists posing as helpless, needy, displaced people got into France and murdered more of your citizens than Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cache.

His comrades in the EU continue to insist the terror attack in Paris is due in large part because of the Palestinian issue. Hollande’s silence in denying this speaks volumes. He’s lucky his friends are circling the wagons for him.

When you closed your borders, the world applauded you. Now you are re-opening them? How did you do such a fast U-turn descending further away from the strength you exhibited just a few days ago? And yet, his leftist ideology clouds his judgement by allowing more potential danger into his country. One has to wonder if the biggest advocate of no borders anywhere, George Soros, is pulling Hollande’s strings in the background.

Breitbart uncovered that the Soros funded group, Open Society has launched its own efforts to keep the revolving door of Syrian refugees flowing. The same George Soros who supports and funds J-Street, which fights the democratically elected Israeli government. Is the same happening in France? Is George Soros helping to dismantle the West? It is and has been the sole trait of Soros to want to change the fabric of societies and cultures he sees as oppressive and illegitimate in terms of traditional values deemed precious to the western way of freedom and democracy. The left hates the police, but they love a police state that limits freedom. They also love throwing each other under the bus to advance their sinister cause of equal outcome.

Francoise Hollande may have destroyed what could have been a promising career or not. Chances are he could enjoy a promotion in the Mideast Quartet once he helps #Marinelepen2017 hwin the next election. Either way, I doubt we'll ever see the last of him.

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

11/23 Links Pt1: Will the Threat From ISIS End the Double Standard on Israel?; Unspeakable Kerry

From Ian:

Will the Threat From ISIS End the Double Standard on Israel?

The first post-Paris terror incident in France was the stabbing of an Orthodox Jewish teacher by an ISIS sympathizer. The world reacted with a collective yawn.
In the Jewish state, a year and a day after two Palestinians used meat cleavers to literally butcher Rabbis at prayer in a Jerusalem Synagogue, terrorists murdered Jews at prayer in Tel Aviv and gunned down an American Yeshiva student and two Israelis on a West Bank road. Much of the reportage defaulted to the “cycle of violence” in the Holy Land and listed statistics of how many died on “both sides.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu wrote on Facebook: “Behind these terrorist attacks stands radical Islam, which seeks to destroy us, the same radical Islam that struck in Paris and threatens all of Europe. Whoever condemned the attacks in France needs to condemn the attacks in Israel. It’s the same terror. Whoever does not do this is a hypocrite and blind.”
But while leaders quietly appreciate the real-time intelligence Israel is providing to France and the media dutifully reported that Israeli radar was the first to detect evidence that a bomb brought down the Russian jet over Sinai, sympathy for Israelis cut down by terrorist is rarely expressed and Palestinian terrorism is rarely condemned.
The war on terror is indivisible. After France’s 11/13, the world has another opportunity to launch a global action plan.
A key starting point is to reject the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” mantra that provides moral cover for those who direct or benefit from terrorism. It has worked especially well for Palestinian leaders. Why stop terror, when millions keep flowing in from donor nations, when human rights NGOs maintain a stoic silence when Jewish blood flows and when diplomatic legitimacy continues to expand?
Hopefully, ISIS will disappear at some point. But if the scourge of our time is to defeated, civilized civilized people must set a single standard in the war to eradicate terrorism. Otherwise, new deadly acronyms of terror will emerge. And we and our children will be no safer.

David Horovitz: Beating the Islamist death cult

As we watch all those Palestinian kids’ TV shows urging Jew-killing, read the Fatah and Hamas calls to murder, see the mothers and fathers of the daily murderers hailing their “martyred” children, the last thing we’re saying is, Let’s entrust these people with full sovereignty, so that they can more easily fulfill their stated ambition of pushing us into the sea. As we guard against them, all our differences — the arguments over settlements, over how to maintain a Jewish-democratic Israel, over what more we can do to create an environment more likely to encourage moderation — are simply overwhelmed and rendered irrelevant.
For now, Israelis are having to adjust their daily lives, to minimize their vulnerability, to guard against the banal norm of relaxing when out and about. More security forces are being deployed. The intelligence hierarchies are working overtime.
None of which constitutes a means of defanging Islamist terrorism at its source. For that — precisely as with the mass terror onslaught in Paris 10 days ago, and the dire ongoing threat of further Islamist terror coming West — what’s needed is concerted action at the grassroots.
When people come at you with a gun or a knife or scissors or bombs or their car, you had better stop them first. Ideally, you’ll identify and thwart them before they set out. The fight needs to be physically taken to the enemy. But it also needs to be waged educationally — in the schools and the mosques and online. The advocates and apologists must be afforded no tolerance.
We’ll not beat the many-headed Islamist terror monster until that ostensible religious imperative is shattered — until radical Islam, that is, is exposed, marginalized and ultimately defeated as the murderous death cult it is.

Elliott Abrams: Unspeakable Kerry

It seems that to Kerry, when people kill journalists and Jews, that is not an attack on “everything that we do stand for,” whereas attacking a restaurant and stadium and a concert hall is. A bit odd: Do we stand for good food and sports and music more than we stand for freedom of the press and freedom of religion? Kerry seems confused here, but we get the point. He is saying that it’s understandable when people murder innocents because they have a particular reason to be mad at them, but now the terrorists are attacking all of us. He contrasts, perhaps without even knowing what he was saying, last “Friday night when people were going about their normal business” with that other Friday night in January, when some people were instead out preparing for Shabbat.
Few of us are cartoonists and few of us shop in kosher delis, but any of us at all might be a target now. So now to Kerry this is an attack on everything we do stand for, which apparently may not include protecting religious minorities and journalists, who perhaps are to blame in some sense for their own troubles. Somehow it is far worse in his mind to attack “all sense of nationhood and nation-state.” This is bizarre in the extreme. When Jews are attacked we all know why, but when France is attacked, well, that is simply unspeakable.
In October 1980, there was another terrorist attack on Paris. The synagogue on the Rue Copernic was bombed while it was packed with Jewish worshipers. Four people were killed and 46 wounded. Prime Minister Raymond Barre said on television the next day, “This odious bombing wanted to strike Jews who were going to the synagogue and it hit innocent French people who crossed Rue Copernic.”
Kerry is regarded as an enlightened man and without bigotry or prejudice of any kind, which makes his remarks all the more interesting. If his language was incoherent at times, his thoughts were not, and they are remarkably close to those of Barre and to his distinction between Jews and “innocent” Frenchmen. The November 13 attacks, Kerry appears to be thinking, are more terrible than the January attacks because those shootings hit Jews and cartoonists, but these hit, as Barre would have put it, “innocent French people”—people like you and me going to dinner or a concert. This is a statement not of solidarity with targeted victim groups but of distancing from them, and as such it is an immoral and disgusting position. Kerry’s Harvard statement blaming (nonexistent) Israeli settlement expansion for Palestinian stabbing attacks is equally offensive. That this is the thinking of the American secretary of state during a period of rising terrorism, especially against Jews, is almost unbelievable.

Thanks to @Amnesty and @HRW, the US is surrendering to ISIS

There was a bombshell (so to speak) article in the Washington Free Beacon last week:

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

[A] Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.

“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”

Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.

“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from Desert Storm to the present.”

This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.

“Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”

Obama is the first head of state in history to engage in a war where the rules of war have been created not by generals but by so-called "human rights groups."

We've looked at international law as it is actually written, not as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty choose ti interpret it. The laws of armed conflict allow a nation at war to minimize civilians casualties but many military targets are valuable enough that unwanted civilian casualties become a necessary evil.

To mandate that a war must be waged where there are zero civilian casualties is to surrender that war.

US armed forces manuals and statements are consistent with international law. One recent example is the US Naval Handbook (2007):

The principle of proportionality is directly linked to the principle of distinction. While distinction is concerned with focusing the scope and means of attack so as to cause the least amount of damage to protected persons and property, proportionality is concerned with weighing the military advantage one expects to gain against the unavoidable and incidental loss to civilians and civilian property that will result from the attack. The principle of proportionality requires the commander to conduct a balancing test to determine if the incidental injury, including death to civilians and damage to civilian objects, is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.

It is not unlawful to cause incidental injury to civilians, or collateral damage to civilian objects, during an attack upon a legitimate military objective. The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental injury or collateral damage must not, however, be excessive in light of the military advantage expected to be gained. A military objective within a city, town, or village may, however, be bombarded if required for the submission of the enemy with the minimum expenditure of time, life, and physical resources. The anticipated incidental injury to civilians, or collateral damage to civilian objects, must not be excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated by the attack.

Death and injury to civilians and civilian objects are to be avoided as much as possible without sacrificing the military advantage to be gained by attacking the enemy forces. The person that makes this decision, under international law, is the military commander of the operation, with the best information he or she has at the time. It is not a head of state with no military experience.

The laws of armed conflict were written very carefully to allow states to wage war while minimizing civilian casualties. By choosing to use an interpretation of the LOAC that no military commander would ever use, Obama has given ISIS the ability to easily shield its targets from any US attack.

Chances are pretty good that the criticism that HRW and Amnesty routinely hurl at Israel for adhering to the laws of war as they were written is part of Obama's disastrous decision to abandon those laws in favor of the terrorists.

This is a recipe for national suicide. Maybe not from ISIS, but you can be sure that Russia and China and North Korea are carefully calibrating what they could do to win a possible war with the US one day, and this policy of surrender in the face of potential civilian casualties would give them a huge advantage.

(h/t JE Dyer)

Israeli media are reporting that Israel is implementing a plan to severely limit the number of Jews who can visit the Temple Mount, while imposing no such restrictions on non-Jewish tourists or Muslims.

According to the story, Jews who want to visit their holiest site must register head of time with Israeli authorities. Only two sets of Jews are allowed to visit - a limit of 45 in one morning group and 15 in an afternoon group, so no more than 60 can visit on any day.

Notices of the new policy were posted at the Rambam (Moroccan) gate that non-Muslims use.

The official reason being given is that this is to maintain the security of Jews visiting the Temple Mount.

This is as blatant anti-Jewish discrimination as one can imagine. And it is being done by Israel.

Under these rules, I would not have been able to create my video tour of the Temple Mount, where I was able to ascend with a group of only three Jews and we had freedom to (generally) go at our own pace.

By contrast, 25,000 Muslims visited the Temple Mount last Friday.

Muslims are seeing the plan as a plot to eventually ban Muslims from the area during those two times.

Here is video of Jews "storming" the Temple Mount yesterday to "provoke the feelings" of Muslims who are harassing them.

#

UPDATE: Israeli authorities deny that there will be any limits on the amount of Jews who can visit.:

לא תהיה הגבלה מראש על מספר המבקרים בהר הבית.המשטרה תעשה כל שביכולתה כדי לאפשר כניסה ולאבטח כמה שיותר מבקרים במהלך שעות הפתיחה של ההר.
— גלעד ארדן (@giladerdan1) November 23, 2015

"Murdered in cold blood" vs. "heroic operation"

Yesterday, there was a distinct difference of reporting in Arabic on the 16-year old girl who was killed while trying to stab Jews at the Hawara checkpoint.

Fatah, and later the PA itself, said that the shooting was a "war crime" and that the Israelis planted the knife.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned killing Qatannani and a taxi driver near Jericho who was identified as Sahdi Khasib.

The ministry’s press release said, “This phenomenon has become clear to everyone; any settler has to only shout the word ‘terrorist’ before Israeli soldiers open fire immediately at any Palestinian without investigating the accuracy of settlers’ allegations.”

“Every time, the same kind of knife is placed next to the body of killed Palestinians; as if every Palestinian who attempts to stab an Israeli buys or has the same knife.”

The ministry affirmed it will intensify efforts to highlight this ‘radical phenomenon’ and expose the deception behind it.

The PA foreign ministry of course is concerned with the message that gets out to the world. But internally, news media like Palestine Today praised the attacks, interviewing the father of the girl who said that she had talked about doing exactly that, asking which knives in the house were the sharpest and saying she wanted her organs donated.

Today we are seeing the same phenomenon with the stabbing attack by two Arab women in Jerusalem who attacked shoppers - including a 70-year old Arab mistaken for a Jew - at the famous Machane Yehuda market (a previous location of terror attacks which is west of the Green Line.) Both were shot, one died.

Fatah says they were shot "in cold blood."

Palestine Today calls it a "heroic operation," lauding the wounds that they managed to inflict on the shoppers.

You know which meme will be pushed by the PA's foreign ministry.

EU panic:"They used to only target Jews, but now they are going after us normal people!"

From The Guardian:

Europe’s de facto capital faces an unprecedented security lockdown this week after Belgian authorities imposed a slew of safety-first measures to prevent a “serious and imminent” terrorist attack.

Schools, universities and kindergartens will be shut on Monday and the metro, shuttered all weekend, will remain closed, as counter-terrorist forces intensify their search for a network of Islamist militants involved in the Paris attacks.

On Sunday soldiers patrolled the streets with armoured vehicles outside the main stations and in public spaces.

...Geens, the justice minister, said that the Paris attacks had shown that the profile of potential targets had changed.

“It’s no longer synagogues or the Jewish museums or police stations, it’s mass gatherings and public places.”

Now that it isn't only Jews being targeted, we have to get serious about security!

Arab media claim Netanyahu called all Muslims "animals"

Arab media is filled with accusations that Binyamin Netanyahu called all Muslims "dangerous animals."

Here is what he really said:

It’s difficult for civilized men and women to recognize that our cities, our airways, sometimes our waterways are prowled by beasts that devour the innocent in their way. And the forces of civilization, when they realize the severity of this problem, have no option but to unite very clearly and defeat these beasts.

The beasts increasingly have a name - it is radical Islam. That is what is doing the killing, the murder, the rape, the burning, the beheadings. We must stand together and fight together militant Islam. The people of Israel grieve with you, the people of Israel stand with you. Now and always.

In his talk at the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference that same day, Netanyahi also made clear that he distinguishes between Muslims and radical Islam.

The Arab sites are lying and they know they are lying.

But they reported the lies anyway. Al Wafd posted a followup story where readers reacted to the lie by cursing Israelis.

Egyptian TV even had a professor at Al Azhar University respond to the false report by calling Jews "serpents and sons of snakes."

This is deliberate incitement.

At least one English language Palestinian news site, Palestine News Network, repeated the lie, and also linked back to a similar lie claiming that Naftali Bennett had said that "we should have killed more Arabs." Yet they show the video where he clearly says that he says that "it's too bad that we didn't eliminate more terrorists."

Again, this is incitement meant to get Arabs angry and to attack Jews.

11/22 Links: 3 Americans Killed By Muslim Terrorists In Israel In Last 6 Weeks; Obama Says Nothing

From Ian:

Three American Citizens Killed By Muslim Terrorists In Israel In Last Six Weeks; Obama Says Nothing

Barack Obama and his administration do not care about Jews.
It doesn’t matter whether the Jews are European or Israeli or American. Jews can be conveniently excised from the category “Westerner,” Obama has found – and he’s been eagerly putting that newfound knowledge to use.
The latest victim of the Obama administration’s egregious Jew-hatred is 18-year-old American citizen Ezra Schwartz. Schwartz, from Sharon, Massachusetts, was visiting Israel; while there, he was delivering care packages to Israeli troops when his car got caught in a traffic jam. That’s when a Palestinian terrorist opened fire with an automatic weapon before ramming another car with his own. Schwartz was killed.
The Obama State Department has yet to issue a statement specifically on Schwartz’s death. Instead, they issued their general statement essentially condemning both sides. “We condemn these terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in the strongest possible terms,” said State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez. “As we’ve made clear, we remain deeply concerned about the situation, and continue to urge all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and prevent actions that would further escalate tensions.”
The Obama administration’s unwillingness to mention Schwartz’s citizenship follows hard on the heels of the Obama administration’s complete silence on the terrorist murder of dual Israeli-American citizen Richard Lakin, a peace activist from Newton, Massachusetts. He was shot in the head, stabbed in the face, and then stabbed in the head by two Muslims aboard a bus. He died in late October.
On October 6, the State Department confirmed that Palestinian Hamas terrorists murdered American citizen Eitam Henkin, along with his wife, in front of their children. This merited no special attention from the Obama administration.

Days later, US condemns Ezra Schwartz's murder

US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and the US State Department condemned the murder of 18-year-old American citizen Ezra Schwartz late Friday night, more than 24 hours after he was killed in a Palestinian terror attack in Gush Etzion.
"As Shabbat begins, we mourn with the family and friends of Ezra Schwartz z"l, an American citizen murdered yesterday in a terrorist attack," Shapiro posted, at 4:35 pm Friday local time. "Our thoughts and prayers are with them, and with the families of the other victims of yesterday's attacks. May God bring them comfort."
The US State Department, too, released a late condemnation seven hours later - tweeting footage of spokesman John Kirby speaking on US Secretary of State John Kerry's behalf.

The Best Way to Remember the Holocaust is by Bringing Muslims to Kill American Jews

The dumbest "refugees" meme the left has rolled out to date are the comparisons between the Holocaust refugee policies of FDR that kept out Jews and political leaders today who want to take genuine Christian and Yazidi refugees instead of fake economic Muslim migrants who pose serious terrorism threats.
Living in New York City, I've lost count of the number of Muslim terror plots against synagogues since 9/11. The previous Paris attack by Muslims targeted a Jewish supermarket. (Or as Obama put it, "random folks in a deli.")
Sure it's #NotAllMuslims. It's just enough of them that this behavior repeats itself time and time again. Until you end up with European cities like Malmo where there are so many Muslims that the Jews have to flee.
Because Muslims don't like non-Muslims and really don't like Jews.
Theologically, Islam is violently anti-Semitic. Mohammed's final command was the ethnic cleansing of Jews. The shout Allahu Akbar originated from one of his massacres of Jews.
It's that simple. Muslims hate Jews. Bringing more Muslims to America makes the country more anti-Semitic. It promotes violence against Jews and harassment of Jews.

PreOccupiedTerritory: ‘Islamophobia Airlines’ To Compete With El Al On Security (satire)

Heightened tensions in recent weeks over Islamic terrorism has air travelers opting for carriers with greater security wherever possible, making Israel’s flag carrier El Al poised to take advantage of the climate, as it enjoys a reputation as the world’s safest airline. However, a new upstart company aims to go El Al one better by playing specifically on the fear of Islamic terrorism, hoping to capitalize on increased American and European unease over sharing a flight with people of Middle Eastern appearance. Islamophobia Airlines is scheduled to offer its first flights at the end of the month, offering trips between New York and Paris, New York and London, and New York and Brussels.
While aviation security experts have long touted El Al’s multi-layer approach to security, which includes extensive passenger profiling, Islamophobia Airlines plans to adopt an even stricter standard, and will not grant boarding privileges to anyone with an Arabic-sounding last name, swarthy looks, or citizenship in any country between Morocco and Indonesia, other than Israel. It will also exclude anyone in traditional Islamic dress, or anything easily mistaken for it. In so doing, Islamophobia Airlines will compete with El Al for transatlantic passengers, though not on flights that go directly to or from Tel Aviv.
If all goes well, says Islamophobia Airlines CEO Getta Gripp, the carrier will expand service to destinations within the continental US by next summer. “We know that the Transportation Security Administration here in the US goes to great lengths to help protect airline passengers,” she said, “but it remains clear that many people would prefer some extra security, and we provide that by eliminating a priori an entire demographic that has proved especially problematic in terms of air travel safety in the last 45-50 years. No offense to the creators and users of technology – and of course we will avail ourselves of the most advanced equipment – but the human factor is the most important one in protecting our passengers, and that is where we will have an advantage.”

(h/t Meryl)

Hey Democrats,

If you want to hold the presidency in the next election go with a Hillary-Bernie ticket.

Barring any unforeseeable political catastrophes Hill-Bern could very well stomp all over any potential Republican challenger.

The Republicans - unless I am sadly mistaken, which is a distinct possibility - have no one.

Who?

Trump?

I like Donald Trump for the entertainment value and the fact that he seems like enough of a maniac that he might support US military interests abroad. I think that he would support American allies... like... ya know... Israel. And I believe that he might actually fight the Islamic State.

If by some miracle Donald Trump gets elected the President of the United States my prediction is that popcorn sales in the USA will skyrocket.

Carson?

I think that he is a highly intelligent person who probably has the finest of intentions and if I needed a neurologist - which I probably do - then he would be my guy. I think that he would be a friend to Israel and a thoughtful President of the United States.

The thing of it is, though, sometimes I have difficulty sleeping at night. I used to use a white noise machine to carry me into sleepy time. Now I use tapes of Ben Carson speeches.

Rubio?

He's barely out of short pants. And I do not think that he is a very good friend of many of my friends in the Bay Area. But, then, those friends are not necessarily friends of Israel, either.

My suspicion is that he may have a better shot the next time around.

Maybe. But I am not writing him off this cycle.

Cruz?

Give me a break.

The man has zero chance.

He is a friend of Israel, though.

That and five bucks will get him virtually nothing.

Jeb?

He's coming out swinging far too late. We all thought that he was napping. Most people do not believe his heart is in it. I predicted him as the natural Republican candidate. A more intelligent and sophisticated version of his younger brother but, at this point, I definitely do not see him gaining the nomination.

He blew his opportunity.

Fiorina?

She is an exceedingly intelligent woman. I have not investigated her closely on the issues, in part because she strikes me as a long-shot. If you bet on Fiorina and win you'll get paid off handsomely, but the odds are against you. I still want to keep an eye on her though.

Were I sitting across from her at the poker table I would not take her lightly.

But can any of these people beat Hillary-Bernie?

American Jews would flock to that ticket... like progressive-left Canadian Geese. I've found geese before and I can find them again! We know where the geese are! They congregate near ponds!

{It's not rocket science.}

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

Father proud of terrorist daughter - but Arab media says Jews planted her knife (UPDATE)

This morning:

Citizens and security forces killed a female Palestinian terrorist who attempted to knife Israelis as they waited by a bus stop and a hitch-hiking post, near the Hawara checkpoint just outside the city of Nablus in the West Bank on Sunday.

Among them was former Samaria Council head Gershon Mesika, who ran over the terrorist with his car.
...
Avigail Shomriyah, 21, said that she had been at the bus stop attempting to hitch a ride to her college, when the terrorist attempted to stab her.

“I turned around and saw a terrorist with a large knife and murderous looking eyes. It was a very large knife. I ran in the direction of the soldiers, she ran after me. Then Gershon ran her over. Then they shot her,” Shomriya said.

Here is a photo showing her knife::

Shehab News Agency shows this photo and says that the Israelis planted the knife.

Fatah's Facebook page placed this cartoon next to the photo:

Fatah also quotes an anonymous "eyewitness" claiming that the girl was just trying to cross the street when the "settler" ran over her and that Israeli soldiers planted the knife.

However, the terrorist's father freely admits that she wanted to kill Jews. "Thank God my daughter has done what needs to be done ... I am very proud of her," he said.

The father, who has been imprisoned in Israel, says that his daughter would ask which are the "best knives in the house" for an attack. Her brother also says that she would watch the news with him and say that she wanted to stab Jews.

It is always interesting to see how the stories change in the immediate aftermath of an attack as Palestinians try to figure out which narrative is better for them:- innocent victims or proud terrorists.

The same Fatah page tells its readers to murder the Jew who saved lives by running her over:

UPDATE:

Father of 16 year old girl killed today near Nablus: My daughter planned the attack. She asked to donate her organs https://t.co/tJDOUg6TW8
— Khaled Abu Toameh (@KhaledAbuToameh) November 22, 2015

(h/t Yenta)

Video of Jew attempting to say "Shema" on Temple Mount today

Today:

Best EoZ posts of the week

"Why do they hate us?"

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah says Paris terrorists are just like Israelis, blames "occupation" for attacks

Things the French can do that Israelis cannot

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

Gaza parties and weddings now feature celebrations of knife attacks

Palestinian media calls all murdered Israelis "settlers"

Amnesty is against incitement to violence - unless it is incitement to murder Jews

Which EU statement condemning attacks on civilians shows more emotion?

Also, this article from April received many hits this week:

NYT and WSJ headline bias, and the underlying anti-Arab racism of the media

This

11/21 Links: 4 wounded in stabbing attack in Kiryat Gat; Israeli killed in Mali terror attack

From Ian:

Teen girl among 4 wounded in stabbing attack in Kiryat Gat

A 13-year-old girl was among four people stabbed in a terror attack in the southern Israeli city of Kiryat Gat on Saturday evening, Israel Police reported.
A manhunt is currently underway for at least one assailant who stabbed the four people in a rampage beginning outside a soccer stadium in the city, before fleeing the area.
The attacker is believed to have been injured after being hit by a car while fleeing, according to Hebrew media reports.
Police were looking into the possibility that there was more than one assailant. A police helicopter arrived on the scene to aid in the search.
“It appears as though there was one attacker, but we always investigate the possibility that others were involved,” police spokeswoman Luba Samri told The Times of Israel
Residents of Kiryat Gat have been told to stay indoors for the moment, police said.

Douglas Murray: Of Two Minds About a Singular Peril

Two parts of the same brain. The first tells us that to be properly “European” we must allow anyone who wants to come here to come here; we must be against borders and for multiculturalism. The other part of the brain watches and waits. It can see that the new arrivals are not only coming in unprecedented numbers but are bringing unprecedented problems. The first part of the brain pretends they will assimilate and that given time Islam will go through its own “reformation”. The second part of the brain starts to realise that we may not have that time.
What will be the long-term effects of this? I would suggest that, as noted scholar of Islam Daniel Pipes has pointed out, the European publics will migrate further and further to the political right. And in reaction the European political class will migrate further and further to the left. You can already see it. In Sweden one liberal newspaper editor responded to the latest polling triumphs by the until-recently pariah Sweden Democrats by saying that he would be happy to flood Sweden with ISIS fighters in order to punish the Swedish electorate for voting for the Sweden Democrats. That isn’t such an unusual instinct. It is the same instinct that made one female refugee aid-worker and her colleagues hush up her recent rape at the hands of some recent arrivals. They feared that mentioning the rape might exacerbate anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe. This instinct fears that the European publics are far-Right extremists just waiting to break out, and the sad irony is that only by treating them in such a way for such a long time could anyone ever make them so.
The part of our brain that has fallen for the myths all these years has pushed restrictions on speech and behaviour and it is pushing them now. Sitting beside Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN lunch the other week in New York, Chancellor Merkel was heard by a microphone that was still live asking Zuckerberg what he was doing to stop Europeans writing anti-immigration things on Facebook. “We’re working on it,” was his reply.
And so we see the manner in which our continent will blow—restricting legitimate concerns and dismissing honest fears as dishonest bigotries. The only good news is that this suicidal part of our European mind, which has been the dominant part for several decades now, is beginning to lose ground to the part of the brain that still has some survival instinct. Perhaps it will succeed in wrestling back our collective mind. Perhaps it will be too late. What is certain is that after the dead of Paris are mourned the European publics will ask of their politicians why they have spent years setting the scene for just such attacks to happen. After the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo’s offices the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, criticised the magazine’s publication of cartoons of Mohammed, saying, “Is it really sensible to pour oil on the fire?”
The European publics are beginning to ask, “Who made our societies into this fire?” There will be many physical casualties to come. But the next political casualties should be the entire political class who fed us lies for years because they themselves would not face up to some bitter truths.

Maajid Nawaz: ISIS Is Just One of a Full-Blown Global Jihadist Insurgency

As for my fellow Muslims, many have pushed back against the call to address Islamism head on and refute it by asking why they should apologize for something that they have little or nothing to do with. Again, this is an incredibly unhelpful and inconsistent rebuttal to what is everyone’s social duty. Just as we Muslims expect others to speak up and defend us against anti-Muslim bigotry—even, and especially if, they are not Muslim—likewise we must speak up against Islamist theocracy. It is not only our duty but the least we can do to reciprocate the solidarity we rightly expect from our fellow citizens.
Our political leaders have been restricting the definition of this problem to whichever jihadist group is causing them the biggest headache at the present time, while ignoring the fact that they are all borne of the same Islamist ideology. Before ISIS emerged, the U.S. State Department strangely took to naming the problem “al Qaeda-inspired extremism,” even though it was not al Qaeda that inspired the radicalism. Rather, Islamist extremism inspired al Qaeda. And in turn, ISIS did not radicalize those 6,000 European Muslims who have traveled to join them, nor the thousands of supporters the French now say they are monitoring.
This did not happened overnight and could not have emerged from a vacuum. ISIS propaganda is good, but not that good. No, decades of Islamist propaganda in communities had already primed these young Muslims to yearn for a theocratic caliphate. When surveyed, 33 percent of British Muslims expressed a desire to resurrect a caliphate. ISIS simply plucked the low-hanging fruit, which had been seeded long ago by various Islamist groups, and it will now require decades of community resilience to push back. But we cannot even begin to do so until we recognize the problem for what it is. Welcome to the full-blown global jihadist insurgency.

11/20 Links Pt2: Glick: Who is being delusional?; Oslo is Over; No Labels for Occupied Catalonia?

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Who is being delusional?

Following the interview’s broadcast, Lavie countered that if Abbas were truly interested in establishing an independent Palestinian state, he wouldn’t have cared about the political fortunes of the Israeli prime minister. He would have taken the offer and run, knowing that, as Olmert said, the likelihood that he’d get a similar offer in the next 50 years was nonexistent.
The most notable reaction to Abbas’s admission was the reaction that never came. The Israeli Left had no reaction to his interview.
Abbas is the hero of the Left.
He is their partner. He is their moderate. He is their man of peace. Abbas is the Palestinian leader to whom every leftist politician worth his snuff, from opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog to the Meretz Knesset faction make regular pilgrimages to prove their devotion to peace.
Their man in Ramallah received the most radical offer ever to see the light of day. And rather than accept it, he rejected it out of hand and refused to meet with Olmert ever again, and he openly admits it.
The Left’s non-response is not surprising. Abbas’s decision to end all speculation about whether or not he is a man of peace is merely the latest blow reality has cast on their two-state formula.
The Left’s policy of land for peace failed more than 15 years ago when Abbas’s boss, Yasser Arafat, preferred war to peace and initiated the worst campaign of terrorism that Israel had ever experienced.
Yet for the last 15 years, the Israeli “peace camp” has never wavered in its view that, despite it all, Israel must rid itself of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Brooke Goldstein: Oslo is Over

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants the Oslo Accords to be annulled. We should give him what he wants.
Mr. Abbas declared his intention to annul the agreements after promising a “bombshell” in his speech to the UN General Assembly last month. Abbas claimed he would use “all peaceful and legal means” to end the peace process immediately.
His first step? Incitement to genocide.
“[The] Al-Aqsa [mosque on the Temple Mount] is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” Mr. Abbas declared on Palestinian Authority TV. “They [Jews] have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet.” Thus began what some consider to be the third Palestinian Intifada, or violent uprising. Mr. Abbas continued, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.”
Prior to the signing of Oslo I in 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was a designated terror organization in the United States and Israel. Established to fight a guerilla war against the Jewish state, its governing document — the Palestine National Charter — called for Israel’s destruction. Member organizations of the PLO were responsible for bombings, hijackings, and the notorious 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes. The PLO’s main political faction, Fatah, led by PLO founder Yasser Arafat, carried out numerous acts of terror killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. The PLO was declassified as a terror group in 1994, only after the international community recognized the Oslo process as the path to Arab-Israeli peace.
Now that Mr. Abbas wants to end Oslo, he may get more that he bargained for. With the dissolution of the agreement, the PLO could return to its pre-1993 designation as a terrorist organization. As a result, funds would no longer flow from U.S. Treasury coffers and taxes would no longer be distributed to Palestinian officials through Israeli banks or customs unions. Under Executive Order 12947, individuals or entities attempting to transfer money to “foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process”—such as the PLO—would be liable under federal laws criminalizing the provision of material support to terrorism.

Compromise for Now, the End of Israel for Later

Against the bloody background of stabbings and other deadly violence in Israel and the West Bank, Daniel Polisar’s thorough analysis of Palestinian polling data, “What Do Palestinians Want?,” makes essential reading for anyone interested in more than just the grim daily headlines. His central point—that the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have long supported “armed struggle” against Israelis—is not only accurate but a fact regularly distorted by media focus on the seemingly “individual” nature of today’s terrorist incidents. Polisar’s conclusions, moreover, are well grounded in exhaustive research into the mounds of survey data that have piled up ever since the first Oslo accords of 1993—which is when I myself started to work with Palestinian colleagues in launching the first scientific polls of the Palestinian population.
Rather than repeating Polisar’s findings, I’d like to begin with a few observations and quibbles, then introduce some recent findings, mainly from a poll I conducted in June, and conclude with what I hope to see in Polisar’s larger study-in-progress on this subject.
First, quibbles. On the basis of survey results and other data, I believe that the reality is in some ways better than Polisar judges and in some ways worse. Better: there is rich evidence that the Palestinian public, when presented with a “package deal,” is considerably more inclined to accept compromise with Israel than when issues are viewed in isolation. This applies even to the most contentious issues like the future of Jerusalem, the “right of return,” or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Worse: Polisar accepts the notion that most Palestinians support violence in spite of Mahmoud Abbas’s steady and repeated opposition to it. In fact, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders consistently send a mixed message on this key issue, opposing violence in the abstract while continuing to glorify individual terrorists in official statements, ceremonies, and the media.