Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, November 23, 2017

11/23 Links Pt1: Kuwaiti writer: There is no 'Palestine' and no occupation; Israel's Red Lines on Iran's Foothold in Syria

From Ian:

Alan Dershowitz: How Ten Dem (Dumb) Members of Congress Encourage the Use of Child Terrorists

In a desperate effort to justify her proposed legislation Congresswoman McCollum argued that, "peace can only be achieved by respecting human rights, especially the rights of children." McCollum's hypocrisy in this context is palpable. She claims to be an advocate for "the rights of children." Yet the Congresswoman refuses to acknowledge or condemn the Palestinian leadership for perpetrating acts of child abuse by recruiting children to commit terror attacks on Jewish women and children. She expressed no outrage when members of the Palestinian leadership have been caught posting material on social media inciting and encouraging young Palestinians to go out onto the streets and stab Israelis. McCollum failed to protest when Hamas set up training camps — under the mantra "Vanguards of Liberation" — aimed at training children as young as 15 to use weapons against Israel, or when children in Gaza were crushed to death when the terror tunnels they were recruited to build by the Hamas leadership, collapsed on their bodies.

So I ask: what do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 or 14 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would they protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not. No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists. Israel has a right — according to international law — to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, even those committed by young Palestinians. Indeed, it has an obligation to do so.

If Israel were to be punished for trying to protect its citizens from teenage terrorists, it would further incentivize terrorist leaders to keep using children in pursuit of their key objective: wiping the Israel off the map. Meanwhile, rather than condemning the abhorrent and unlawful use of children as pawns in this deadly process, this group chose to single out only the nation-state of the Jewish people for punishment, as it tries to protect its own citizens from indiscriminate terror attacks. People of good faith on both sides of the aisle should call out this double standard for what it really is: an attack on Jewish victims of teenage terrorism and their state. For shame on this group of biased anti-Israel "progressive" Democrats, which include the following members of Congress: Mark Pocan (WI), Earl Blumenauer (OR), André Carson (IN), John Conyers, Jr. (MI), Danny K. Davis (IL), Peter A. DeFazio (OR), Raul Grijalva, Luis V. Gutiérrez (AZ), and Chellie Pingree (ME). They give a bad name to the Democratic Party, to the Progressive Caucus and to Congress.

MEMRI: Kuwaiti Writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: Israel Is a Legitimate State, Not an Occupier; There Was No Palestine; I Support Israel-Gulf-U.S. Alliance to Annihilate Hizbullah

Kuwaiti writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq said that Israel was an independent and legitimate sovereign state and that there was no occupation, but instead, "a people returning to its promised land." "When the State of Israel was established in 1948, there was no state called 'Palestine,'" said Al-Hadlaq. He recalled that he had once written: "I wished that we could be like the people of the State of Israel, who rallied, down to the very last one, to defend a single Israeli soldier." In the interview, which was broadcast by the Kuwaiti Alrai TV channel on November 19, Al-Hadlaq further said that he believed in peaceful coexistence with Israel and envisioned a three-way alliance of Israel, the Arab Gulf states, and America "in order to annihilate Hizbullah beyond resurrection." The interview caused an uproar in the Arab media and social networks.

Host: "What is Israel? What does it represent? Is it a state? A group? A terrorist organization? An entity? How can we define it before we go into our topic of discussion?"

Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: "Like it or not, Israel is an independent sovereign state. It exists, and it has a seat at the United Nations, and most peace-loving and democratic countries recognize it. The group of states that do not recognize Israel are the countries of tyranny and oppression. For example, North Korea does not recognize Israel, but this does nothing to detract from Israel or from the fact of its existence, whether we like it or not. The State of Israel has scientific centers and universities the likes of which even the oldest and most powerful Arab countries lack. So Israel is a state and not a terror organization. As I was saying, it is an independent country..."

Host: "Is it a legitimate country?"

Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: "Yes, it is legitimate. It received its legitimacy from the United Nations.

"My colleague called Israel 'a plundering entity,' but this may be refuted both in terms of religion and politics."

Host: "In what way?"

Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: "From the religious perspective, Quranic verse 5:21 proves that the Israelites have the right to the Holy Land. Allah says: 'When Moses said to his people... Oh my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you.' So Allah assigned that land to them, and they did not plunder it. The plundering entity is whoever was there before the arrival of the Israelites. Therefore, I do not go for obsolete slogans and terms like 'Zionist plundering entity,' and so on. The fact that I am an Arab should by no means prevent me from recognizing Israel. I recognize Israel as a state and as a fact of reality, without denying my Arab identity and affiliation."

Guest: "I don't know... Let's determine the frame of discussion. Is Palestine and its occupation an Arab cause or a religious one?"

Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: "There is no occupation. There is a people returning to its promised land.

PMW: PA educator praises “blood of Martyrs” in broadcast on school radio

On the annual day celebrating the Arab headdress, the keffiyeh, the director of the Qalqilya district Directorate of Education - which is a branch of the PA Ministry of Education - told Palestinian teenage girls that the blood of "Martyrs" is "the purest." His statement was broadcast on the school radio:

"Fahmawi reviewed the symbolism of the Palestinian keffiyeh... and added that the Palestinian keffiyeh has been colored with the purest blood, the blood of the Martyrs (Shahids) of Palestine during their resistance to the occupation, and the keffiyeh has become the shroud of the Palestinian fighter who has sacrificed his soul for the homeland."
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 17, 2017]

This glorification of Martyrdom-death to Palestinian youth is in line with general PA education as Palestinian Media Watch has detailed in its report PA Education - A Recipe for Hate and Terror.

Two days ago, PMW reported on similar praise for "Martyrs' blood" expressed by parents of dead terrorists at another PA school.

The school at which the PA educator spoke of "Martyrs' blood" is named after terrorist Abu Ali Iyad who was appointed head of Fatah military operations in 1966 and was responsible for several terror attacks. The attacks included a bombing in the town of Beit Yosef in northern Israel on April 25, 1966 (injuring 3 people), and placing bombs in the town of Margaliot in northern Israel on July 19, 1966. He was killed in 1971 in Jordan by the Jordanian army when it forced Fatah members out of the country.

This past Sunday, I went to hear Jere Van Dyk speak at an event sponsored by the Algemeiner.

Jere Van Dyk is a journalist and author who has been a consultant for CBS news on Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda. In 2008, he was captured by the Taliban. He has written about his experience and spoken about it. When he spoke on Sunday about it with Dovid Efune, the editor-in-chief of the Algemeiner, the title of his talk was "From Daniel Pearl to Steven Sotloff - Jews and Political Kidnapping."

Jere Van Dyk. Screenshot

The main focus of his talk that night was Daniel Pearl, and in his book THE TRADE: My Journey Into the Labyrinth of Political Kidnapping goes into more detail.

By The Trade, Van Dyk refers to political kidnapping that has been honed and perfected

The Trade is the new cold, cruel weapon of modern warfare, like drones with no visible pilot, a barter process without official structures, a new criminal enterprise, a form of terror open to anyone...The Trade is a weapon for the poor and the weak, like suicide bombing, against the strong. It exists from the Philippines to the Sahara, and it is growing, part of the kidnap and ransom business. It coarsens everyone. [page 386]

He writes that kidnappings per se in the modern era started in 1985 with the Hezbollah kidnapping of Terry Anderson in Lebanon. In that incident, there was no ransom demand. Instead, his captors used him as a political pawn against the US. Anderson was released in 1991.

Sometimes the kidnappers use their hostages to coerce action.
Other times they demand a ransom, such as money.
The ransom could also be weapons.
Hezbollah, which used Anderson as a protest against US action, has also used kidnap victims as protection -- as they did after sending suicide bombers to murder US troops.

The political kidnappings Van Dyk writes about, and which he himself experienced, were in the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- areas that we would not normally expect Jews to be found. Yet we know that Jews have in fact been kidnapped and executed by these terrorist groups.

Among those who have been kidnapped and killed are Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Warren Weinstein (killed in an American air strike) and Steven Sotloff -- all of whom were Jewish.

Was that the reason they were kidnapped and killed?

In 2010, after giving a talk, Van Dyk was approached and asked, “Do you think you would have survived if you were Jewish?...You were the next person after Daniel Pearl and he was Jewish.” The question came from Dovid Efune, the editor at the Algemeiner. At the time, Van Dyk had no answer. But he does offer one now.

Daniel Pearl was kidnapped on January 23, 2002.

Daniel Pearl. Source: Wikipedia.
Used under fair use

According to Vanity Fair, as part of the strategy to get him released, US media organizations agreed not to reveal that Pearl was Jewish so as not to put his life in danger. That secrecy didn't last long:

But on January 30, Danny's Jewishness leaked. In a story in The News, Kamran Khan, the paper's chief investigative reporter, wrote that "some Pakistani security officials — not familiar with the worth of solid investigative reporting in the international media — are privately searching for answers as to why a Jewish American reporter was exceeding 'his limits' to investigate [a] Pakistani religious group. [emphasis added]"

...Khan's revelations stunned colleagues. But there was no wondering about the source of his information: he was well known for his contacts at the highest levels of the ISI [Pakistan's intelligence agency].

The same morning Khan's story appeared, the kidnappers released a second note, changing Danny's supposed spying affiliation from the C.I.A. to the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service

A connection between the terrorists and Pakistan would also explain why, besides demanding the release of Pakistani al-Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Pearl's kidnappers also demanded the US deliver the F-16's Pakistan had ordered in the early 1990's in a deal that was eventually cancelled, in response to Pakistan's continuing efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

The kidnappers wouldn't care about those F-16's being delivered to Pakistan.
But the ISI would.

On January 29, before the leak, it was already being reported that US intelligence officials believed that the Pakistan's ISI was involved in Pearl's abduction.

But why should Pakistan care about Daniel Pearl, whether he was Jewish or that his father was Israeli?

Van Dyk believes the answer is Azerbaijan:

In Pakistan, the Trade is not just about money, but part of the quiet war, I believe, that Pakistan feels compelled to lead. More than once, I heard in Pakistan that it was afraid that the Israelis would attack Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, from their secret base in Azerbaijan. That is why, I realized later, the Taliban I met with high in the mountains south of Tora Bora, said, for the first time, that the Taliban would go anywhere, “even Azerbaijan.” I wondered then how they even knew where that secret Israeli base was. I believed one reason why I survived, and Daniel Pearl, Adam Gadahn, and Warren Weinstein did not, was because I wasn’t Jewish. Because of the visceral fear of Israel among some members of the Pakistani security apparatus, a Jewish journalist or a Jewish kidnap victim is always more vulnerable than a non-Jew. [page 343]

As he put it in another interview, “kidnapping is not done in a vacuum” -- there is state involvement. The states back up these terrorist groups for their own geopolitical reasons.

The terrorist group that killed Pearl is identified as Al-Qaeda, and used the beheading of Daniel Pearl, in part, to again make itself known to the world. That would explain, Van Dyk believes, why Pearl was executed in a matter of days while Warren Weinstein, who was kidnapped in April 2011, was held for years till he was accidentally killed by US forces in January 2015. Al-Qaeda didn't need to prove themselves.

Yet, while he discusses the question whether Daniel Pearl was murdered because he was Jewish, Van Dyk does not suggest that Daniel Pearl -- or anyone else -- was actually abducted because they were Jewish.

But that doesn't make those areas any safer, neither for Jews nor for anybody else as long as The Trade flourishes.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Israelis, Muslim Brotherhood members and Iranians attend conference in Doha

Israeli venture capitalist and former Knesset member Erel Mergalit participated in a conference in Doha a couple of weeks ago entitled "Enriching the Middle East's Economic Future Conference." It appears that he even spoke there:

He posted this photo:

The person on the right of the photo, seemingly oblivious to the Jew next to him, is Rafiq Abdel Salam Al-Kaidi of the Ennahda (Muslim Brotherhood) Movement in Tunisia and brother-in-law of that movement's leader in Tunisia.

Now he is in hot water for "normalizing" relations with Israel.

Brotherhood members in Tunisia are angry at al-Kaidi and investigating his crime of sitting next to an Israeli. the leadership said that he attended the conference in a personal capacity, not as a representative of the group, and he didn't check out whether any hated Zionists would be attending.

The Brotherhood tried to downplay this, saying that he didn't know who he was sitting next to.

Well-informed sources in the Tunisian Ennahda movement said that they would have an internal inquiry into the matter. Knowingly attending a conference with a Zionist would represent a departure from "the principles and positions of the movement."

The Ninth Conference of the Ennahda Movement held in July 2012 stressed the need for what it called "criminalization of normalization," saying that that the Palestinian issue "remains a central issue of the nation."

But from Margalit's photos, it looks like another enemy of Israel attended the conference where he spoke. He took this shot of the place-card of an Iranian attendee.

Any way you look at it, Israel is indeed becoming slowly more and more accepted at conferences like these. And the people screaming about it look more and more like idiots.

When mainstream Arabs are more accepting of Israel's existence in public, and cooperating more closely with Israel in private, the BDS movement must be panicking. After all, how can they complain about British rock stars visiting Israel when the Arab world itself is happily accepting Israel's help?

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Rabbis who hate Israel are welcome to visit the Palestinian Authority

Who says the Palestinian Authority is antisemitic? They love Jews who hate Israel!

The PA's official news agency Wafa reports on a meeting between Abbas' office and a group which may be "Rabbis for Human Rights" but is translated from Arabic as being "Rabbis for Peace," which I have not heard of. I didn't find mention of the visit on the Rabbis for Human Rights social media. Perhaps there is another obscure "peace" group.

The Secretary General of the Presidency, Tayeb Abdul Rahim, received a delegation from the "Rabbis for Peace" movement at the presidential headquarters, in cooperation with the Coordination Committee of the Israeli Community.

Yes, the PA has a committee with that name - specifically to help anti-Israel Israelis. Maintaining such contacts is enshrined in the Fatah platform.

The delegation presented a petition signed by 50 rabbis demanding the end of the occupation and independence for the Palestinian people, and the provision of conditions for a return to negotiations.

The meeting was attended by a group of legal judges and representatives of the Office of the Chief Justice and Endowments.

Abdel Rahim spoke of the need to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state on the borders of June 4, with Jerusalem as its capital. He praised the activity of the group of rabbis in order to achieve peace, which is in Israel's interest as it is in the Palestinian interest.

I don't know what the proper transliteration fo this "rabbi"'s name is. Lipschutz?

Rabbi Levitsch said that he is ashamed of the Israeli society, which tends to extremism and called for the need to cooperate with the Palestinian leadership, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, who believes in a true and just peace for his people..

One of the members of the delegation presented a plaque with some verse in Hebrew and Arabic.

These are the Israelis that Abbas and his team are happy to meet.

ــــــــــ

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Spare me the false outrage over Tzipi Hotovely's remarks about Jewish Americans

Ron Kampeas, Washington bureau chief of JTA, indignantly tweets:

.@TzipiHotovely calls US Jews "people that never send their children to fight for their country," classic anti-Semitic trope. Off the top of my head there are 6 ex-Jewish servicemen just among those running for office. https://t.co/47uckZxa8y
— (((Ron Kampeas))) (@kampeas) November 22, 2017

JTA reported her words in a bit more context, where Hotovely was describing one fo the reasons for a divide in attitudes between US and Israeli Jews:

“The other issue is not understanding the complexity of the region,” she said. “People that never send their children to fight for their country, most of the Jews don’t have children serving as soldiers, going to the Marines, going to Afghanistan, or to Iraq. Most of them are having quite convenient lives. They don’t feel how it feels to be attacked by rockets, and I think part of it is to actually experience what Israel is dealing with on a daily basis.”

It is antisemitic to note that most Jews don't serve in the US military?

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation: There were, in 2009, just 4,515 Jewish soldiers in the US military. If you assume 5 million Jews in the US and each household having 4 people on the average, that means that about 1 in 270 US Jewish households have a soldier now. Multiply that by 10 or so to account for vets, and I think it would be generous to say that 1 in 25 American Jewish families have a soldier or vet as members.

The military experience is foreign to most American Jews. This is not a controversial position to take, Ron Kampeas knows this as well as anyone.

It is one thing to misrepresent what Hotovely said. It is despicable to imply that her reasonable observation about most American Jews is antisemitic.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/22 Links Pt2: Richard Millett: Banksy-inspired film that demonises Jews is shown at SOAS; Defending Antisemites, Rutgers President Takes Aim at The Algemeiner

From Ian:

Richard Millett: Banksy-inspired film that demonises Jews is shown at SOAS.

Jews are about to be demonised in the soon to be released From Balfour To Banksy, a new documentary film by Martin Buckley. In it Jews are portrayed as Nazis, thieves and thinking they’re the superior race.

Buckley is ex-BBC and now senior lecturer in journalism at Southampton Solent University. In From Balfour To Banksy, which was shown at SOAS on Monday night, he interviews Palestinians living next to Israel’s security wall. His cameraman/editor is Alexander Wilks, a 23-year-old graduate just out of film school. The producer is Miranda Pinch, a Christian-believing Jewish woman.

Soon into the film we hear a Palestinian describe Gaza as a “child concentration camp”. This evokes the image of Jews as Nazis.

We are also sold the lie that “Jewish-only highways feed the settlements”. Then, after more accusations that Israel is an “apartheid state”, Buckley says:

“It’s surely amazing that Israel, built by the survivors of Hitler’s Holocaust, could be accused of the notorious human rights violation that scars South Africa. But for over a decade critics outside and inside Israel, Jews as well as Arabs, have been accusing Israel’s right-wing governments of practising apartheid. Shocking as the accusation of apartheid is it has serious formal backing.”

In Jerusalem Buckley then finds a Jewish-Israeli family who invite him over for dinner. One of the family members tells Buckley that Israeli children are taught in school: “We are the chosen ones, everyone else is beneath us.” This false accusation is an antisemitic trope.

The scene moves to Tel Aviv where we are told “Palestinians have lived for hundreds of years”, eventhough Tel Aviv was founded in 1909. Buckley interviews Palestinian students at Tel Aviv University. The claim is made that TAU is built over a Palestinian village.

IsraellyCool: Deconstructing From Balfour to Banksy: “From Balfour to Bigots”

Like A State of Terror, the makers of this film will want to make it an icon of ‘human rights’, to be shown to young people at institutes of learning worldwide. So it’s important to deconstruct it in detail. The footage is accompanied by interviews conducted by Martin Buckley who is ex-BBC. See his Facebook page for a clue as to where he stands on Israel:

(The film also includes an irrelevant dig at Brexit supporters by Buckley…). I didn’t manage to write down the names of all the interviewees but they included: Sut Jhally, Lucas al-Zouaghi (not sure this is spelt correctly, I couldn’t find his name using Google), Robert Cohen, Edra Gluckman (Women In Black) , Raed Sadeh, Terry Boullata, Mahmoud Muna, Ofra Yeshua-Lyth, Fida Jiryis and Sir Vincent Fean. Plus a young Palestinian called Georgina (not a common Arab name) who clearly attends a good school in East Jerusalem and was clearly coached.

‘Israel has committed genocide and theft’ – Jhall
‘Child concentration camp’ (referring to Gaza) – al-Zouaghi
‘Illegal settlements; Jewish only highways’ – Buckley
(No Court has ever ruled them illegal. The ICJ did but it’s not a proper Court. Those roads can be used by any citizen of Israel regardless of religion – the rule is for security).
‘The settlements are illegal according to the Geneva Convention’ – Cohen.
(Wrong. The Convention refers to forced transfer. No Jew in Judea/Samaria was ‘forced ‘ to move there).
‘Israel’s policies are relentlessly anti-Palestinian’ – Buckley
(Nonsense. The Palestinian leadership consistently refuses peace offers)
‘The Wall is ineffective – kids jump over it’ – Sadeh
(Obvious nonsense)
‘Jews are forcing their way back into the City [Hebron] because they feel they have a historic right to do so’ – Ofra Yeshua-Lyth
(Hebron has a long and rich Jewish history and is the site of the oldest Jewish community in the world).

Dore Gold: Is It True the UN Created Israel? 70 Years since UN General Assembly Resolution 181

It is often incorrectly asserted that the United Nations created the State of Israel by means of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, what is also known as the Partition Plan, which was adopted on November 29, 1947, 70 years ago. That is completely untrue.

UN Resolution 181 called explicitly for an independent Jewish state alongside of an Arab state and provided international legitimacy for the Jewish claim to statehood. It was a morally significant action, but like all UN General Assembly resolutions, it was not legally binding.

What established Israel was not the action of the UN. What actually established Israel was the Declaration of Independence by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, on May 15, 1948. To this day, what establishes states are not actions in the UN, despite what Mahmoud Abbas might hope.

When I served as Israel's ambassador to the UN, a campaign began which called for reviving Resolution 181, led by the Palestinian UN Observer, Nasser al-Qudwa. At the time, Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon said to me, "Go back to Ben-Gurion's speech in the Knesset from December 1949."

When Arab armies converged on the nascent State of Israel, put Jerusalem under siege, and bombarded the Old City with artillery, the UN did nothing. As Ben-Gurion told the Israeli Knesset in December 1949, "The UN didn't lift a finger."

Ben-Gurion declared, "We cannot regard the decision of the 29th of November 1947 as being possessed of any further moral force since the UN did not succeed in implementing its own decisions." Eight days later he moved the capital of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem just as the Jewish state was being reborn.

Intimate that once, a long time ago, a senator or celebrity touched someone inappropriately or without permission and the media is on it like white on rice and #MeToo hashtags on Twitter. Refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and you lose everything you own. Get shot at by a white officer for robbing a convenience store while black, you spawn an entire movement and Beyoncé will dance your story at halftime.

But at Rutgers, professors who hate Israel and the Jews are free to use the classroom to spout their lies and their hate and if Jewish students speak out, they're told it's "free speech." They're told they have no recourse. They must put up and shut up.

Now it's important to note that in the U.S., there has been a huge spike—a 67% increase—in antisemitic incidents this past year compared with 2016. Note too, that Rutgers has the largest percentage of Jewish students of all U.S. campuses. Depending on whether those Jewish students are New Jersey residents or from out of state, their parents may be paying upwards of $15,000 for them to be taught to hate Israel and to be ashamed of being Jewish.

An exaggeration, you say? Let's take a look.

We've got microbiology professor Michael Chikindas, exposed by Israellycool's Aussie Dave, for posting antisemitic cartoons and sentiments worthy of Der Stürmer. Chikindas is not just a Jew-hater, he also seems to be insane. The things he writes! From Algemeiner:

Chikindas [published] multiple posts referring to women — including Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Culture Minister Miri Regev, First Lady Melania Trump, and President Donald Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka Trump — as “b**ches” and in some cases “sl*ts.”

After sharing an article claiming to expose the “global elite,” he wrote, “These jewish motherf*****s do not control me. They can go and f**k each other in their fat a***s — you see, I really do not have anything to loose (sic), hence nothing to be controlled.”

Antisemitic image posted on Facebook by Rutgers University professor Michael Chikindas (photo credit: Michael Chikindas, Facebook)

I don't know about you, but I would not want this insane Jew-hater (who cannot spell) anywhere near my children. I certainly would not want to pay $15k for the privilege of having my children sit in his classroom where he might spout who knows what ugliness! To use a Jewish expression, "Feh!"

Michael Chakindas

But Chikindas is just one of Rutgers Jew-hating academics. There's also Jasbir Puar, an associate professor of women’s and gender studies at Rutgers. Puar has accused Israel of genocide; of mining organs for scientific research; and has called for "armed resistance," which, of course, is code for "kill the Jews." Puar also said we Jews use the Holocaust to "hijack the discourse" of "Palestinian trauma."

Jasbir Puar

There's a third poisoner of young minds at Rutgers, and that is Mazen Adi, who, for the paltry sum of $15K or so, will lecture your children on international criminal law and anti-corruption. Perfect, coming from a guy who represented the Bashar Assad regime in the UN. While he was at the UN, Adi said that Israel targeted civilians, trafficked in children's organs, and buried enemy soldiers alive. He called Syria, on the other hand, a "trailblazer" in the fight against terrorism, and told everyone how Assad was committed to a peaceful resolution to the conflict (like chemical attacks on civilians??). Adi is said to have spoken of Arab terror in class, calling it a legitimate form of "resistance" (more code for "kill the Jews") to Israeli "occupation."

Mazen Adi

Israellycool exposed Chikindas, and Algemeiner then reported the story. That made people aware of what is going on at Rutgers, helped amplify this horrible thing: that these three dishonest, nay EVIL, people who lust for Jewish blood have reached the highest level of academia and are teaching your children (for which parents, many of them Jewish, are paying a fortune). Perhaps as a result of this bit of media "noise," a town hall meeting was facilitated by the Rutgers student government. The students were addressed by the president of Rutgers, Robert Barchi.

And what did Barchi do? He denigrated Algemeiner, which wasn't even the original source of the story (that would be Israellycool). He lectured the frightened, offended, angry Jewish students on free speech. Something that just would not have happened had the professors in question disparaged black people, for instance, or gays.

No.

Had that been the case, there would have been no conversation about free speech. Indeed, Chikindas, Puar, and Adi would be gone, kaput, past tense. There would be hashtags to tweet, the students offered safe spaces.

But there are no safe spaces for Jews.

At least not at Rutgers, where the largest concentration of American Jews pay through the nose, for "higher" education.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Renewable Energy Orgs Hail Pact To Heat Russian Homes With Palestinian Hot Air (PreOccupied Teritory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Moscow, November 22 - Environmental groups welcomed the announcement today of an agreement between Russia and the Palestinian Authority to provide the former with a large supply of hot air with which to heat residences and workplaces this winter.

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other prominent ecology-minded organizations called the pilot arrangement a step in the right direction and a smart economic move by both parties, and characterized it as a welcome precedent in the ongoing global campaign to reduce dependence on non-renewable fuel sources that damage the environment.

The organizations issued a joint statement Monday praising the deal, which calls for the Palestinians to supply Russian energy companies for the next two years with 350 million cubic meters of hot air, a resource that Palestinians have rendered effectively inexhaustible. In exchange, Russia will pay the equivalent of US $2 billion. That quantity will offset Russian fossil fuel expenditures by several hundred billion rubles, according to estimates, and will provide a boost to a Palestinian economy that struggles to produce much of value.

"We hope this arrangement becomes a model that gets implemented elsewhere," read the statement. "Palestinian hot air production has long sufficed to meet the wintertime heating needs of numerous countries; the main impediment has been a lack of creative thinking. We foresee this welcome development undergoing adaptation for many other potential clients." Important potential clients include China, whose billion-plus population requires immense heating expenditures that have also wreaked havoc on the environment.

Analysts note that Palestinians have made previous attempts to export renewables, with mixed success. "The last several decades have seen the Palestinians introduce renewable technologies that got swiftly adopted by others," noted Mideast commerce expert Albiyeh Shaheed. "But not until this agreement has their innovativeness shown real profit potential. Airplane hijackings, stabbing sprees, vehicular terrorism - others were quick to copy the technology, even though Palestinians were the first to popularize it. The new hot air deal finally means some economic reward for Palestinian efforts."

"Of course the reward will accrue to Abbas and his cronies," added Shaheed, referring to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "But let's also keep in mind that Palestinian production of hot air is also concentrated in the circles surrounding the president, so the typical fleecing of the Palestinian public so the leadership can line their pockets is less pronounced in this case."

Israeli representatives voiced support for the deal. "Anything that strengthens the Palestinian economy is good for stability," declared Ministry of Trade spokesman Avir Ham. "It's helpful to remove all that hot air from around here in any case, because its accumulation contributes to global warming, and no one wants that."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/22 Links Pt1: Parents of "Martyrs": "The blood... made gardens bloom"; John Kerry’s Mideast idiocy

From Ian:

Girl injured in 2011 Jerusalem bombing dies of her wounds

A woman who was wounded as a girl in a March 2011 bombing in Jerusalem succumbed to her wounds Wednesday, after more than six years in a coma.

Hodaya Asulin had been heading home to the Mevo Horon settlement when a bomb hidden in a backpack exploded at a bus stop outside the Jerusalem International Convention Center.

The blast killed British national Mary Jean Gardner and injured dozens of passersby.

In November 2013, a military court in the West Bank sentenced Palestinian Hussein Ali Qawasmeh to life in prison for orchestrating the terror bombing.

Asulin, who was 14 at the time of the attack, had been unconscious for the six and a half years since, receiving round-the-clock care from family, friends and volunteers.

She succumbed to her wounds early in the morning at the Hadassah Hospital Ein Kerem in Jerusalem

“Her fight for her life inspired people to do so much good over these past six and a half years. It’s impossible to describe,” her uncle Rafi Asulin told The Times of Israel.

NY Post Editorial: John Kerry’s Mideast idiocy

Recordings have just surfaced of a speech the then-secretary of state gave in Dubai last December — where he explained that the failure to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is . . . Israel’s fault.

“The Palestinians have done an extraordinary job of remaining committed to nonviolence,” he said — ignoring that fact that the Palestinian Authority rewards terrorists (“martyrs”) and their survivors with cash stipends and has its schools teach Jew-hatred.

And Hamas, which rules Gaza and is now once again partnering with the PA’s Fatah leadership, doesn’t even pretend to believe in nonviolence: It’s dedicated to Israel’s destruction and to atrocities against Jews.

Kerry also complained that “the majority of the Cabinet currently in the Israeli government has publicly declared they are not ever for a Palestinian state.” Actually, most simply won’t support one as long as Palestinians refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

The secretary even managed to ignore his own experience: Kerry spent months wringing concessions out of Israel for a possible peace deal — only to have PA chief Mahmoud Abbas reject the draft out of hand, and refuse further negotiations.

Sadly, President Barack Obama fully shared Kerry’s “up is down” denial of reality. No wonder their leadership left the world in such a mess.

PMW: Proud Palestinian parents of "Martyrs": "The blood... made gardens bloom"

A private university in Ramallah held a memorial for five student terrorists who died as "Martyrs." At the event, a mother of one of the terrorists spoke on behalf of the families and stated:

"The blood of the Martyrs has watered the ground and made gardens bloom"
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 20, 2017]

The official PA daily further reported that she "expressed pride at being the mother of a Martyr who did not hesitate to sacrifice his blood and soul for his homeland and people."

Likewise a father of one of the terrorists "emphasized that the blood of the Martyrs is a beacon that lights the path to liberation and freedom."

Coordinator of the Fatah Shabiba Student Movement at Modern University College Hussein Ajouli "repeated the commitment and loyalty to... the blood of our people's Martyrs, among them the Martyrs of Modern University College who have ascended [to Heaven] in defense of the honor and for the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and Palestine." Fatah official Jamal Muhaisen was also present at the event.

Among the five terrorists, one attempted to ram his car into Israeli soldiers, another stabbed and wounded an Israeli soldier, and a third attempted to stab an Israeli soldier. The fourth was injured during a confrontation with Israeli security forces and later died of his wounds, while the fifth died of a fatal disease after being released from an Israeli prison.

From European Jewish News:

BRUSSELS---The European parliament has endorsed a proposal of its president, Antonio Tajani, to systematically deny access to all persons, groups, or entities involved in terrorist acts.

The decision followed a complaint by several MEPs after Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled, a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was invited last September to speak in the European Parliament at a conference hosted by two Spanish far-left MEPs. She used that platform to praise extremist violence and demonize Jews. She glorified terrorism and trivialized the Holocaust. "Don’t you see a similarity between Nazi actions and Zionist actions in Gaza?," she declared. "While the Nazis were tried in Nuremberg, no one has ever tried the Zionists," she said.

‘’The European Parliament’s Bureau unanimously endorsed the President’s proposal to systematically deny access to all persons, groups, or entities involved in terrorist acts, as listed in the annexed Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426,’’ the parliament's Directorate General fo Security and Safety said in an information notice.

‘’In view of that decision, and in the context of combatting terrorism, Members of the European Parliament and Political Groups are requested not to invite persons listed in the Council Decision or individuals representing entities or groups on that list, nor to facilitate their access to Parliament. In addition, these persons, entities, and groups may not be promoted through audio-visual presentations or other events on Parliament’s premises.’’

‘’I am happy that we have eventually established what should have been obvious before!,“ commented Czech MEP Tomas Zdechovský (European People's Party, EPP) who was the initiator of the complaints to President Tajani.

''The Council may adopt some amendments now, so we can be sure the situation with Leila Khaled will not happen again,“ Zdechovsky added.

The question is why they allowed her to begin with.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, has an article that claims that Israel is violating the terms of UN Security Council resolution 242 which was passed on November 22,1967. It is nonsense, but that's never stopped them before.

The most contentious piece of the resolution is, of course, the deliberate omission of the word "the" from the call of "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

Interestingly, it includes an Arabic translation of the resolution that accurately translates that part without the "the."

In the debate before and after the vote, delegates to the UN Security Council were quite aware of the missing "the" and the implication that Israel would not have to withdraw from all the territories. The Syrian representative denounced the resolution for exactly that reason. The Russian and French delegates said that they choose to interpret it as if the "the" was there. The British delegate, Lord Caradon, who drafted the resolution, was insistent that the resolution's wording was exactly what was intended.

Here is what Israeli foreign minister* Abba Eban said. It is remarkable how much of it applies today.

I regret that this meeting should have begun with the statement that we heard from the representative of Syria. On his interpretation of the resolution I have nothing to say, but on his comments on my country's policy I must say a few words.

The Syrian utterance speaks for itself; it was a hymn of hate and aggression trumpeted by the Government which, more than any other, was responsible for disrupting the tranquility of the Middle East in 1966 and 1967. The Syrian representative has repeated the revolting attempt to hang the odious Nazi label on the only people that sustained the full brunt and fury of Nazism without interruption or compromise for all the twelve Nazi years. What a sorry spectacle it is to see a tribunal of peace thus transformed into an arena of hate.

The policy of the Israel Government and nation remains as it was when I formulated it in the Security Council on 13 and 16 November [1375th and 1379th meetings], namely that we shall respect and fully maintain the situation embodied in the cease-fire agreements until it is succeeded by peace treaties between Israel and the Arab States ending the state of war, establishing agreed, recognized and secure territorial boundaries, guaranteeing free navigation for all shipping, including that of Israel, in all the waterways leading to and from the Red Sea, committing all signatories to the permanent and mutual recognition and respect of the sovereignty, security and national identity of all Middle Eastern States, and ensuring a stable and mutually guaranteed security. Such a peace settlement, directly negotiated and contractually confirmed, would create conditions in which refugee problems could be justly and effectively solved through international and regional co-operation.

Those are our aims and positions. They emerge from five months of international discussion, unchanged, unprejudiced and intact. It is now understood as axiomatic that movement from the cease-fire lines can be envisaged only in the framework of a lasting peace establishing recognized and secure boundaries.

The time has come to adapt the Middle Eastern situation to the general principles and concepts which regulate the international order. Let us be done, after nineteen years, with truces, armistices and "demarcation lines based on military considerations" which leave territorial problems unsolved. The relations between States in the Middle East for nineteen years have been fragile, anomalous, indeterminate and unresolved. The hour is ripe for building a stable and durable edifice within which the peoples of the eastern Mediterranean can pursue their separate national vocations and their common regional destiny. The tensions and rancours of the past cannot be ended overnight, but if the relations of States in the Middle East are contained in a permanent and contractually binding framework the patient task of reconciliation can go forward.

The Security Council, like the General Assembly, has consistently refused to endorse proposals which would have sought a return to the ambiguity, vulnerability and insecurity in which we have lived for nineteen years. It has now adopted a resolution of which the central and primary affirmation is the need for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace" based on secure and recognized boundaries. There is a clear understanding that it is only within the establishment of permanent peace with secure and recognized boundaries that other principles can be given effect. As my delegation and others have stated, the establishment for the first time of agreed and secure boundaries as part of a peace settlement is the only key which can unlock the present situation and set on foot a momentum of constructive and peaceful progress. As the representative of the United Kingdom indicated in his address on 16 November, the action to be taken must be within the framework of a permanent peace and of secure and recognized boundaries. It has been pointed out in the Security Council, and it is stated in the 1949 Agreements, that the armistice demarcation lines have never been regarded as boundaries so that, as the representative of the United States has said, the boundaries between Israel and her neighbors: "must be mutually worked out and recognized by the parties themselves as part of the peace-making process" [1377th meeting, para. 65].

We continue to believe that the States of the region, in direct negotiation with each other, have the sovereign responsibility for shaping their common future. It is the duty of international agencies at the behest of the parties to act in the measure that agreement can be promoted and a mutually accepted settlement can be advanced. We do not believe that Member States have the right to refuse direct negotiation with those to whom they address their claims. It is only when they come together that the Arab States and Israel will reveal the full potentialities of a peaceful settlement.

There were proposals, including those submitted by three Powers and then by the Soviet Union, which failed to win the necessary support because they rested in our view on the wrong premise that a solution could be formed on the basis of a return to the situation of 4 June. We hold that that premise has no logical or moral international basis. Similarly, the failure to understand that Israel's action last June was a response to aggression has prevented certain Governments from keeping pace with the development of international thinking. Israel notes, however, that recent Soviet statements and drafts reflect an understanding that the establishment of peace requires, amongst other things, an explicit respect of Israel's national identity and international rights.

I also note that the Soviet text [S/8253], like that of the United States [S/8229], included a reference to the need for curbing the destructive and wasteful arms race. I hope that the absence of this provision in the text on which the Council has voted does not mean that that objective will be lost from sight.

The termination of this debate takes us into a new phase, of which the center lies not here in New York, but in the Middle East. What will henceforward be decisive is not the particular words of an enabling resolution, but the spirit and attitude and policies of the Middle Eastern States. One of the points most strongly emphasized around this table and in all the exchanges which I and my associates have been privileged to have with representatives of Member States is that the only peace that can be established in the Middle East is one that the Governments of the Middle East build together. Peace can grow by agreement. It cannot be imposed. Our Governments in the area must look more and more towards each other. For it is only from each other that they can obtain the satisfaction of their most vital need, the need of peace.

I reiterate that in negotiations with our neighbors we shall present a concrete vision of peace. Before saying what that vision is, I should like to make one comment on the course of this debate with special reference to the remarks of the Indian representative. The establishment of a peace settlement, including secure and recognized boundaries, is quite different from what he had been proposing, namely, withdrawal, without final peace, to demarcation lines. The representative of India has now sought to interpret the resolution in the image of his own wishes. For us, the resolution says what it says. It does not say that which it has specifically and consciously avoided saying.

Thus, if the representative of India is in any predicament, he should not escape it by reading into a text adjectives and place-names which do not occur in the text. He must know that the crucial specifications to which he referred were discussed at length in consultations and deliberately and not accidentally excluded in order to be non-prejudicial to the negotiating position of all parties. The important words in most languages are short words, and every word, long or short, which is not in the text, is not there because it was deliberately concluded that it should not be there.

I have said that we would, in peace negotiations, present a vision and a program of peace. I draw attention to the ideas which I proposed to the General Assembly at its 1577th meeting on 3 October 1967 under the heading of an "agenda for peace". In direct negotiation, we would seek the discussion of juridical problems, including the establishment of peace treaties instead of cease-fire or armistice lines; security and territorial problems, including the establishment of permanent and agreed frontiers of peace and security; population problems, involving regional effort and international co-operation to resolve the problems of displaced populations created by wars and perpetuated by belligerency; economic questions, including the replacement of blockades and boycotts by intense economic co-operation; communications problems, including the opening of the Middle East to a free and normal flow of commerce; cultural and scientific problems, involving an attempt to substitute the best traditions of Arab-Jewish co-operation for the recent tensions and disputes, thus ending the epoch of alienation and hostility.

These are the horizons to which we shall address ourselves. For all the States and peoples of the Middle East, they hold the promise of a new and better age.

Syria responded:

Mr. TOMEH (Syria): The test of the success or failure of any major resolution can be measured only by its results. The future will prove whether or not the resolution adopted today will secure the cause of peace in the Middle East
I have listened very carefully to Mr. Eban's statement and his interpretation of the resolution, but not equally so to the acrimonious part about Syria, which is to be expected. His interpretation of the withdrawal only confirms, but in a very roundabout way, the full intent of Israel to consolidate its gains as a result of its aggression, which was amply explained in my statement to the Council. Again, the words spoken are denied by the intent expressed and the deed achieved. I should have liked Mr. Eban to have denied some of the facts and occurrences which I brought out in my statement. However, it is to be noted that the following sentence occurred in Mr. Eban's statement: "Peace... cannot be imposed" [supra, para. 92]. I should like to quote what I said in my statement about peace, which was the following: "A lasting peace cannot be imposed by force. One does not open the way for it by seizing another's property and demanding certain concessions before that property is given back to its legal, lawful Owner." [supra, para. 25.] Mr. Eban went on to attribute aggressive acts and intentions to Syria, I need not go into the details of what happened on 7 April 1967, which we put before the Council when an attack was perpetrated against Syria, and which included seven sorties by the Israel air force, with a battle ensuing that took place over Damascus, the capital of Syria.
Finally and briefly I should like to comment on the description given by Mr. Eban of my statement as a "hymn of hate" [supra, para. 83]. That is really an amazing interpretation because, reduced to its basic principles, my statement invokes two of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill"; and "Thou shalt not covet" other people's property. That two of the Ten Commandments should be interpreted as a "hymn of hate" is really beyond my understanding, but the twisting of words and meanings can result in anything. We condemn killing and the stealing of other people's property most strongly and most vehemently, whether it has been committed by Nazi Germany against the innocent Jews, the French, the Danes or the people of any other country which it occupied, just as we condemn it most strongly and vehemently when it is committed by the Israelis against the Arabs--by Dayan and Begin and justified by Mr. Eban.

And Eban responded to him again:

Mr. EBAN (Israel): I do not propose to maintain the discussion with the representative of Syria, except to say that if he is interested in the document of Hebrew literature to which he referred I recommend that he should not stop short with two commandments but should also study the statement "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor", because the quotations which he put in my mouth were not there.
I intervene for another purpose, which is to say that I am communicating to my Government for its consideration nothing except the original English text of the draft resolution as presented by the original sponsor on 16 November. Having studied that text, document S/8247, my Government will determine its attitude to the Security Council's resolution in the light of its own policy, which is as I have stated it.

(h/t zee for correction)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Here is an entire alphabet book that is a more accurate depiction of the "P is for Palestine" children's book that was in the news recently.

A is for Arab, that's what we were called
Before we made up the Palestinian myth to the world.

B is for Bomb, to blow up some Jews
That's how we manage to stay in the news.

C is for Car-rammings, a more recent mission
A great way to kill without using ammunition.

D is for Dhimmi, both Christians and Jews
Second class citizens in Islamic rules

E is for Everything, from the river to the sea
Until we gain it all we'll pretend we're not free

F is for Fatah, our "moderate"side
In Arabic we show that in English we lied

G is for Grenade, we don't want to brag
But we love them so much they are on the Fatah flag

H is for Hummus, a food we pretend
To have invented. (For political ends.)

I is for Incitement, which we learned from our fathers
We teach our kids to want to be martyrs

J is for Jesus, who in our opinion
Was the first martyr who was Palestinian

K is for Kidnapping, which we try hard to do
Because 1000 of our fighters is worth only one Jew.

L is for Love, but not for a wife
Because we love death as others love life

M is for massacres, at Munich and Ma'alot
And Dalal Mughrabi murdering kids on the Coastal Road

N is for Never, our slogan for years
Never agree to peace if we shed enough crocodile tears

O is for Occupation, we complain all the time
(but we believe Jews are "settlers" inside the Green Line)

P is for peace, (which we can't pronounce)
The PLO Phased Plan to end Israel we never renounced

Q is for Qassam, our rockets are great
When they land on Jewish schools - we celebrate

R is for Rocks, to aim at Jews' heads
Candy for all if they - or our kids - end up dead

S is for Suicide Bomb, and we're proud to state
That this is a field in which we innovate

T is for Tunnels, we spend millions on
Our kids dig them up from dusk until dawn

U is for UNRWA, which puts food on our plates
And their schools teach us to continue to hate

V is for Victory, even though we always lose
But we pretend we won, to fool leftist Jews

W is for What We Want the two state solution to do:
One state for the Arabs - and the other one too.

X is for eXactly how much we don't care
To reach a peace agreement that leaves Israel there

Y is for Years that we don't have a state
We could have had several - but we'd rather hate

Z is for Zero - the chances that we'll
Elect a real leader who'll make peace with Israel

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/21 Links Pt2: Indoctrinating US children against Israel; Charles Manson vs. Ahlam Tamimi: Who's more monstrous?

From Ian:

College to host Linda Sarsour at 'women of color' conference

Mount Holyoke College will host a leadership conference next semester exclusively for “women of color,” featuring known anti-Zionist Linda Sarsour.

Sarsour, one of several leaders behind the record-setting Women’s March in Washington D.C., allegedly supports the implementation of Sharia Law, endorsed the throwing of rocks at Israeli cars, and even called Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu “a waste of a human being.”

"If students do not show up and claim space, they are making a choice and sending a message that they don’t need it."

The 2018 Women of Color Trailblazers Leadership Conference will be open to students and community members and will ultimately “provide a space to celebrate the lives and accomplishments of women of color.”

The conference will be keynoted by the founders of the anti-Trump Women’s March, including Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, and Sarsour, a frequent critic of Israel whom many people consider to be anti-Semitic.

In the spirit of inclusivity, the event is open to “all individuals (from ages 4 and up) who self- identify as women of color,” according to its event page. No men of color, nor white women, will be permitted to attend.

New School under fire for putting Linda Sarsour on anti-Semitism panel

A private university in New York City is hosting a panel on combating anti-Semitism -- but there's at least one glaring problem, according to critics: an avowed anti-Zionist protester is among the so-called experts.

Brooklyn-born Muslim activist Linda Sarsour is set to be a panelist at the New School's Nov. 28 event, "Anti-Semitism and the Struggle for Justice."

Sarsour has previously said “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” has lauded National of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan and objected to the Jewish right to return to Israel.

Further, the event, which is moderated by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, appears to reject anti-Semitism while also exhibiting an anti-Israel stance.

“When anti-Semitism is redefined as criticism of Israel, critics of Israeli policy become accused and targeted more than the growing far-right,” the event description reads.

The New School, which says it was founded on principles of tolerance, social justice, and free intellectual exchange, told Fox News, in a statement, the school has “been contacted by several individuals who have expressed their concerns about the university’s participation.”

The New York Post Editorial Board labeled the event an Orwellian “fake panel...meant to promote Israel-bashing.”

The Jerusalem Post Editorial Board slammed it as “a forum of ‘antisemites on antisemitism’” that “makes as much sense as a KKK forum on civil rights.”

Mass-murdering Charles Manson and mass-murdering Ahlam Tamimi: Who's more monstrous?

Manson's conviction arose from the murders of nine people. By comparison, our daughter's murderer was convicted in an Israeli court - after confessing to all the charges - of the murder of fifteen people. (A sixteenth person, a young mother, has been comatose from the moment of the Sbarro pizzeria explosion more than 16 years ago until today.) Tamimi has said for the record that she wished the toll were higher.

Like Manson, Ahlam Tamimi is a woman with a mission. But unlike Manson, she never needed to ask for parole which, in any event, the court which tried and sentenced her strongly recommended should be perpetually refused. But she walked free anyway, thanks to the catastrophic Gilad Shalit Deal of 2011 ["19-Oct-11: Haaretz: Shalit prisoner swap marks 'colossal failure' for mother of Israeli bombing victim"]. And did we mention that she is regarded as a national hero throughout the Arab world? And had her own TV program to propagate her values throughout the Arabic-speaking world from January 2012 until September 2016? (The program continues but she is no longer its presenter.)

Living free as a bird in Amman, Jordan, where she was born and where her family lives, she has happily (very happily) boasted of the central role she took in the planning and execution of the Sbarro pizzeria massacre. She has spoken of the pride she felt when fleeing the scene of the massacre that awful day, in the company of exultant fellow Arabs who were elated by the fresh news of a massacre in the center of Jerusalem. She has said on camera that she wished she could have told them it was she who did it.

She presented the evening news a few hours later on a Palestinian Arab television station in Ramallah called Istiklal, opening naturally enough with big news of a "resistance" activity in "Occupied Jerusalem" and the many dead Jews, especially the many dead Jewish children. How that evil creature's heart must have soared.

No wonder no one takes Palestinian leaders seriously

From Haaretz:

The Trump administration is reconsidering its position on closing the Palestinian mission in Washington, said Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki on Tuesday morning.
The Trump administration began to reconsider the move following threats by the Palestinian Authority’s leadership that Ramallah would cut its ties with Washington, Maliki told the official Voice of Palestine radio station.

Notice that Maliki isn't saying that he negotiated with the US. He claims that the US caved to Palestinian threats.

Whether it is true or not, it shows exactly how Palestinians - and Arabs at large - have related to the West for over a century. "Do what we say or else!"

But look at this reaction to the US idea of closing the mission.

Fatah leader Raafat Alian called on Arab and Islamic countries to take a serious and clear stance against the recent US threat to close the offices of the PLO in Washington.
Alian said in a press statement on Tuesday that this political blackmail is contrary to all conventions and international laws and resolutions related to the Palestinian issue and the peace process in general.

Really? It is against international laws and conventions? Can he name one?

It isn't like the world doesn't notice these kind of idiocy, threats and lies. It is that no one expects any better from the Palestinians.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.