Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Time's Tony Karon relieved Breivik hates anti-Zionist Jews like him

Time magazine's Tony Karon looks at Anders Breivik's manifesto, and is happy that he isn't one of those Jews who Breivik admires:

Clearly, though, Breivik confines his philo-Semitism to Zionists, who he sees as fellow conservative nationalists in the war against Islam. As for the rest, adherents of multiculturalism, their fate should be the same as any other "traitors" to his Judeo-Christian Crusade.

"Never target a jew because he is a Jew," Breivik writes, "but rather because he is a ... traitor."

So Breivik doesn't hate all Jews. But he certainly hates most of us:

"So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the [Nazis]."

Of course, many right-wing Jews, while abhorring the terrorist violence used by the Breivik, nonetheless share his aversion to Islam and to multiculturalism....And some Zionist conservatives, while unreservedly condemning Breivik's action, were also concerned to prevent it from obscuring an underlying message they support....

Breivik and Bin Laden may seem like polar opposites, but in the end they're reading off the same "clash of cultures" script. It's a script in which, Breivik acknowledges, the majority of Jews -- and of Europeans -- want no part.

And conservative, Zionist Jews, Karon implies, share the same hateful ideology that Breivik and Bin Laden espouse.

This is a transparent attempt by Karon to paint Zionist Jews with the same brush as a mass murderer, and it is disgusting.

Karon of course is not alone - plenty of people are trying mightily to place Breivik among their enemies so they can feel better about themselves - but this is a particularly sickening essay that is meant to distinguish between the "good" anti-Zionist Jews (like Karon, naturally) and the abhorrent Zionists.

Indeed, Breivik wants to see liberal Jews destroyed, and that is disgusting. But Karon wants to see conservative Jews destroyed.

And if there is a cause-and-effect between articles written by right-wing conservative Jews and the actions of a madman, as Karon falsely implies, then Karon has just written justification for the next terror attack targeting Israeli or Zionist Jewish interests by the next madman.

His essay is at least as inciting as those he disparages.

Iranian swimmer suffers from pre-emptive Jew-cooties

From AP:

The Iranian swimmer who withdrew from a heat featuring an Israeli at the world championships maintains the move was not political.

"My flight was exactly the day before my race, so I was so tired and drowsy. Because I had to wait for my visa," Mohammed Alirezaei told The Associated Press two days after not starting a 100-meter breaststroke heat including Gal Nevo of Israel.

Speaking after completing his 50 breaststroke heat Tuesday, Alirezaei added that he had "no problem" competing against Israeli athletes, saying he did so at junior worlds.

However, Alirezaei also pulled out of an event against another Israeli, Tom Beeri, in the 100 breaststroke at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The International Olympic Committee accepted the explanation then that he was ill.

Alirezaei said the fact that both withdrawals came against Israelis was merely a coincidence.

Asked about the latest withdrawal, IOC president Jacques Rogge told the AP on Monday: "I'm sure knowing the rules of FINA, the athletes will have to explain why and that most likely the athletes will have to come up with very good reasons."

Is it merely a coincidence that Alirezaei always feels ill before competing against Israelis?

Or is this proof that time itself is an construct, and Israeli athletes can retroactively make him sick by planning to be in the room with him the next day?

Or perhaps the Mossad, fearful of losing face against the superior Iranian athletes, work overtime to shoot their patented Joo-Rays to their enemies ahead of time?

All of these are plausible, especially to the rules committee members. What certainly cannot be true is that Alirezaei withdrew for political reasons.

As was reported in the Iranian media:

A member of the Iranian swimming team at the Shanghai FINA World Championships refused to contest a heat because of the presence of an Israeli athlete.

Mohammed Alirezaei refused to compete in the 100-meter breaststroke race at the world swimming contest. Gal Nevo of Israel had been due to swim in the same race.

Alirezaei had also pulled out of an event against another Israeli, Tom Beeri, in the 100-meter breaststroke race at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Iranian athletes have on various occasions shown strong support for the oppressed Palestinians nation by withdrawing from matches and games where Israeli sportspeople are present as well.

Chairman of Iran's National Olympic Committee Mohammad Ali Abadi said in an interview last year that Iranian sports organizations follow the government's policy towards the 'Zionist regime (Israel) and boycott all competitions in which Israeli athletes are present.

Nah, that's just posturing. He really, really was sick.

Video - 10 Unknown West Bank facts

This cute video has been going around...

Hamas having problems paying salaries too

It is not only the PA that suffers from a cash crunch. From JPost:

Hamas also seems to be facing a financial crisis and, like the Palestinian Authority, has not been able to pay full salaries to its civil servants in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas legislator Yahya Musa called on the Hamas government to “be frank with the people and tell them the truth about the financial situation.”

Musa expressed concern over the Hamas government’s failure to pay full salaries to its employees for the last few months.

“If there’s a financial crisis, then the government should say so,” Musa said. “And if there isn’t a crisis, the government should quickly pay full salaries to all its workers.”

Sources in the Gaza Strip said that because of the financial crisis, the Hamas government has in recent months paid only half salaries to its employees.

Ismail Mahfouz, a senior official with the Hamas-run Ministry of Finance, denied that his government was facing a financial crisis. He said that the delay in paying the salaries was due to lack of cash in the hands of the government.

Here is the Arabic article that this seems to be based on.

Some NGOs in Gaza may suspend operations due to Hamas audit

From IRIN, July 19:

Various international NGOs working in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) have questioned a demand by the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip to audit their books, saying the move could jeorpardize vital operations.

“We have nothing to hide but obviously there are concerns about what other information they may want to look at or have access to, including beneficiary lists and contact details for staff, which are normally kept in HR folders,” said one aid agency employee who requested anonymity.

According to aid workers, the motives behind the audit are unclear, particularly as the suspension of several major agencies in Gaza would place greater humanitarian responsibility on the shoulders of the Hamas authorities.

Some suspect the demand could be a pre-emptive move by Hamas to begin collecting income tax from agency staff in Gaza. Currently, under a presidential decree from Ramallah, Gaza humanitarian staff do not pay income tax.

Aid workers also say agreeing to the request would break the “no contact” policy held by some NGOs funded by governments, including the US, that list Hamas as a “terrorist” organization.

Should a compromise fail to be reached by 25 July, when the audit of many offices is scheduled to take place, at least 18 aid agencies are preparing to suspend their activities in the Gaza Strip, cutting off more than US$135million per year in aid, well-placed sources told IRIN.

At least 80 international agencies operate in Gaza, but due to the sensitivity of the situation, few will publicly disclose whether they have agreed to the audit or not.

It is now past the deadline, but I have not heard anything.

(h/t DF)

Norway remains utterly, hopelessly clueless (updated)

From JTA:

Norway's ambassador to Israel drew distinctions between the Oslo and Utoeya massacres and Palestinian terrorism.

Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."

While Sevje voiced sympathy for Israeli terror victims, having experienced "the inferno" of such attacks during his posting, he saw little chance of Norway reviewing its Middle East policies.

"We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel," he said. "Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo."

I wonder, Mr. Sevje, does Hezbollah exist because of "occupation" as well? Because Israel isn't occupying any Lebanese territory, and yet Hezbollah still threatens Israel. Explicitly.

Does Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror exist because of the "occupation?" Because their leaders say that they are against the existence of Israel altogether. Explicitly.

Are Hamas rocket attacks against southern Israeli communities because of "occupation?" Because they accelerated after Israel evicted all Jewish families from the area. If "occupation" causes terror, wouldn't one expect the attacks to disappear when the occupation disappears?

Is Fatah's history of terror because of the "occupation?" Because Fatah was founded before 1967. And their logo still shows a map of "Palestine" that insists that Palestine is on both sides of the Green Line.

Was the terror attack against the AMIA in Argentina, an attack roughly as deadly as the ones in Oslo, because of "occupation?" Because it is hard to imagine how an attack thousands of miles away is related to that.

Are the Palestinian Arabs who chant at rallies "Palestine is our country, and Jews are our dogs" referring to the areas on the Jordanian side of the "Green Line"?

Was the Ghriba synagogue bombing in Tunisia in 2002 because of "occupation?" Because it was, you know, a synagogue.

Were the hundreds of attacks against Israel before 1967, before anyone ever heard of "occupation," because of "occupation"?

Do the Muslim students in Norway who routinely express admiration for Hitler because he killed Jews - documented in a 2010 Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation report - say that because of the "occupation?"

Did an Iranian general, just recently, call to destroy Israel altogether because of his opposition to "occupation?"

As an ambassador, you must be a bright guy, so I'm certain you can explain exactly how "occupation" is the common thread that runs through all these examples. Please, enlighten us with your astounding Norwegian wisdom.

(h/t AB)

UPDATE: The ambassador has sent out a complaint to Ma'ariv, where the interview was first published:

I spoke to your journalist off the record with a clear condition that any quotes would be sent to me for my approval. The interview, however, was printed without me having been presented with the quotes. This goes against the journalistic norms that I am used to both from this country and other postings, and I do not find it acceptable.

Regarding the substance of the interview, there are several problems and inaccuracies in the text. The most important one is this: When asked whether the terror attack in Norway would change Norwegian perception of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I told your journalist that many Norwegians would see terror actions in Israel in the context of both the occupation and religious extremism, and that this would not change after what happened at Utoya.

I did not seek to convey any personal or governmental position regarding the motivation behind terror attacks against Israel, nor to compare terror attacks in Israel and Norway. The Norwegian position has always been, as rightly stated in your article, that terror, regardless of motivation, is unacceptable.

It does not sound like he is denying the quote, although he is changing "we Norwegians" to "many Norwegians." It would be interesting to see how Ma'ariv responds.

(h/t Naftali)

So what's the deal with the Lebanon/Israel maritime dispute?

Now Lebanon had a good article on the basics of what looks to become a major issue between Israel and Lebanon:

At issue now between Lebanon and Israel is where their maritime borders should be fixed. Along the coast, the countries more or less agree where the line should start, but out in the Mediterranean, there is serious bickering. Lebanon wants to use Point 23 (see graphic) as the border’s southern limit, whereas Israel wants to use Point 1, several kilometers north of Point 23.

Lebanon, however, finds itself in a bit of a quandary. In 2007, Lebanon inked a deal with Cyprus on their mutual maritime boundaries. In that agreement, which was never ratified by Lebanon’s parliament and is therefore not in force, the two countries decided that the southern limit of the maritime border should be Point 1.

Mohammad Kabbani, head of parliament’s Public Works and Energy Committee, told NOW Lebanon that using Point 1 was a mistake. The agreement with Cyprus, he said, was supposed to be written in a way that left Lebanon’s southern boundary open for negotiation. Lebanon’s parliament never ratified the agreement for fear of angering Turkey, which occupies part of Cyprus and does not think the Cypriot government has the right to be negotiating such deals.

With the Cyprus agreement shelved, in both July and October 2010, Lebanon sent maps and coordinates to the UN (in line with UNCLOS) stating that the southern limit of its EEZ is Point 23.

Kabbani dismissed the idea that Lebanon sought to use the “facts on the ground” created by Israeli licensing to set the border. He maintains that Point 23 is the proper point to use, and added that a group of experts are still working with Lebanese authorities to finalize the boundary. Kabbani said there is some talk of the border possibly being still further south of Point 23.

Israel, for its part, signed an agreement with Cyprus in December 2010 defining their undersea borders, using Point 1 as the northernmost limit of Israel’s EEZ. The countries ratified the agreement, and it went into force in February 2011. Lebanon soon cried foul, and in June 2011, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour sent a letter to the UN calling the Israel-Cyprus agreement into question.

Today Israel is holding fast to Point 1 as the basis of a border, pointing to Lebanon’s agreement with Cyprus.

Over at Qifa Nakbi's blog, he summarizes this and the comments are fascinating.

He drew this map showing the disputed area:

And a commenter found this similar map that was printed at Makor Rishon:

The disputed area is roughly 1000 square kilometers.

This map shows that the current areas of Israeli exploration, drilling and most of their known reserves are well within an undisputed Israeli zone.

Globes notes this the issue is being greatly exaggerated:

However, the entire story has been taken out of all proportion. Even if the UN were to adopt the Lebanese version of the maritime border, there would be no serious harm to Israel's exploration licenses in the region.

A professional Israeli source that examined the border route under contention said that it involved the northern extremes of the Alon and Ruth licenses, in the northern part of Israel's licenses region. As far as is known, in these areas there are several structures that might contain gas or oil, but these structures are relatively small, and are not top of the agenda of Noble Energy Inc. (NYSE: NBL) and Delek Group Ltd. (TASE: DLEKG) who own the licenses.

The only fallout from moving the Israel Lebanon maritime border south would thus be in the Ruth and Alon gas and oil fields, if there are discoveries in these licenses, and if they spill over the border into Lebanon. If that is the case then development of these fields, which are far from the top of the agenda, would be delayed.

So is it a big deal? Lebanon sure is posturing as if it is. The Shi'ite speaker of Lebanon's parliament was quite aggressive:

Speaker Nabih Berri said in an interview with As-Safir newspaper published on Tuesday that those who oppose Hezbollah’s weapons should stand by it at this time, especially because of the oil exploration file that “is a priority to all Lebanese.”

“The value of oil reserves, which fluctuates between $200 billion and $300 billion, is enough to pay off the public debt and move Lebanon into a stage of economic and financial affluence,” he added.

One of the commenters at Nabki's blog wrote an article about this issue a year ago, and quotes himself:

As the above map shows, the Tamar1 find is within Israel’s territorial exclusive economic zone. That is not an issue. The real problem arises if the Lebanese can show that a natural gas/oil field spans the territorial boundaries of the two states. In that case what is the accepted international procedure for determining who gets what?

Interestingly enough and maybe even surprising to some, there is no single standard principle. There are two principles:

(1) The Right Of Capture principle says that each side is permitted to lift as much as it can on its side of the border. This principle is in effect all throughout the state of Texas but more importantly it is what governs the relationship between the US and Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico.

(2) Both sides of the dispute would resort to international arbitration.

Keeping in mind that Lebanon and Israel are in a state of war and given that the Israeli side has already started the exploration and the construction of the required infrastructure which of the above two principles is going to apply if Lebanon can demonstrate that there are natural resources that span the internationally recognized boundary? You have guessed it, The Right of Capture is most likely to be applied.

In other words, if Lebanon was smart, they would be trying to work with Israel to demarcate the borders, as they are way behind in exploration and construction.

If it wasn't for the fact that Lebanon is now politically and militarily controlled by a terrorist group, this could have been a way to actually forge a peace agreement between the two states. Imagine a Mediterranean natural gas equivalent to OPEC!

Alas.

UNIFIL troops attacked

From Naharnet:

Three French soldiers serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) were wounded on Tuesday in a blast targeting their vehicle in the southern coastal city of Sidon, Agence France Presse reported.

The blast took place at the southern entrance of the city, an army spokesman told AFP.

Only two days ago, the Lebanese Army pledged to protect UNIFIL forces:

Lebanese army commander General Jean Kahwaji warned that France and other countries that are part of UNIFIL have fears regarding their abilities to carry out their tasks in South Lebanon, and their desire to strengthen the Lebanese army’s role, the National News Agency reported on Sunday.

During a meeting held in his honor in France, Kahwaji added that the Lebanese army will confront any attempt to harm UNIFIL.

Of course, Hezbollah restricts what the LAF can do in southern Lebanon.

Since they have their own army.

That is not happy with UNIFIL.

(h/t T34)

Is J-Street aiding the PA in its September UN stunt?

From Aaron Klein at WorldNetDaily, July 13:

The left-wing Jewish lobby J Street has been aiding the Palestinian Authority in its bid to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state at the United Nations, according to PA officials speaking to WND.

The officials said J Street has been helping the PA to set up Capitol Hill meetings with mostly Democratic lawmakers in a search for diplomatic support for their U.N. statehood move. Israel strongly opposes the plan to unilaterally declare a state in September.

J Street did not return WND email and phone requests for comment.

Strangely, the J-Street site is silent on the matter. My request for them to clarify went unanswered.

However, in a fawning interview of Jeremy Ben Ami, Michael Omer-Man writes that J-Street opposes the unilateral statehood bid:

In addition to not involving itself in Israel’s internal politics, J Street also opposes outside pressure on the Jewish state to make peace. [!!!!! - EoZ] J Street, Ben-Ami said, also opposes the Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood in the United Nations this September. He described a scenario where Palestinians’ false expectations and ultimate let-down upon declaration of statehood could lead to renewed violence.

“We are not in favor of UN action, we’re trying to put it off,” he explained. “We’re trying to avoid [it] and we’re trying to advocate for the US to do things that will avoid [Palestinian statehood recognition] coming to a UN vote.”

That's not exactly a condemnation of the statehood bid - one that attempts to take the Temple Mount, Western Wall and the entire Old City out of Jewish hands. It sounds more like J-Street wants to fine-tune how and when the PLO should stake their claim.

But if we are to believe Jeremy Ben-Ami, the WND report is not true. I believe, however, that it is entirely possible that J-Street is consulting with the PLO on strategy, and that the PLO calls up J-Street to arrange meetings.

J-Street's official position on Jerusalem is that it should be negotiated - but J-Street does not advocate that it should be recognized today as Israel's capital.

(The worst part of the article was where Omer-Man claims, falsely, that J-Street's position is virtually identical to Kadima and Labor. It isn't, and the Palestine Papers show that Kadima was way to the right of J-Street.)

The news about the small golden bell, possibly from a tunic worn by a high priest during the Second Temple period that was discovered in the sewage tunnel near the City of David, has angered Palestinian Arabs as the wire services have picked it up.

Various Arabic media are noting the story by quoting a Silwan official as saying that this "underlines the efforts of the occupation and the extremist Jewish groups to falsify history and planting Jewish history forged in the region."

But I thought that biblical history is Palestinian history as well!

Hamas increasing control of tunnel trade

Palestine Today reports that Hamas security forces have been active today in the vicinity of the Rafah tunnels - and even filling some of them in.

Sources say that Hamas wants to limit the kinds of items allowed in, and to increase "quality control" of smuggled items. The main purpose seems to be for Hamas to ensure that all goods that are smuggled in are taxed properly, as they are putting fences up around the tunnel areas so they can inspect the contents of all trucks exiting the area.

Hamas claims there are no honor killings!

Reuters reports:

Most safe-houses in the Gaza Strip are meant to provide protection for armed militants on Israel's target list. Now Gaza is offering protected shelter to battered Palestinian women.

Its lone women's safe-house, opened two months ago, has had eight clients, all guarded by police from the Islamist Hamas movement that runs the enclave and enforces a conservative though not radical Muslim religious code.

So-called 'honour killings' are rare but not unknown among religious Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, and like every society it is not immune to wife-beating.

"In 2010 there was no record of killing under the motive of family honor and this is a positive development," said Huda Naeem, a Hamas lawmaker who backed the safe house as a way station for women at risk within their own families.

And of course Reuters believes her.

Assuming she is only referring to Gaza "honor killings," I know of specific cases in April and July in Gaza. (There were many more in the West Bank.) And, as Reuters goes on to say later:

Sobheya Joma, a woman lawyer at the Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR), said there was no way to know for sure if honor killings were really eradicated.

"The ICHR is worried because it has recently noticed that some deaths were listed as unexplained or accidental," Joma told Reuters in her Gaza city office.

Reuters being Reuters, of course, they need to blame Israel for some of the women being beaten by their husbands in Gaza:

At one stage, women under risk were transferred to the other Palestinian Territory - the West Bank - where they could be kept safe from angry relatives.

But it is now virtually impossible for Gazans to get to the West Bank because of an Israeli blockade, which is vigorously imposed following repeated Hamas attacks on the Jewish state.

That awful Israeli policy allows Gaza husbands to beat their wives!

(h/t jzaik)

Hamas executes two "collaborators"

From Ma'an:

The government in the Gaza Strip announced Tuesday that two residents accused of collaborating with the Israeli occupation have been executed.

Hamas officials told Reuters the two men, a father and son, had confessed to providing intelligence that helped Israel track down Palestinians including Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, who was killed in a 2004 airstrike on his car.

One of the crimes they were convicted of is that they "weakened the morale and spirit of resistance of the Palestinian people."

PCHR notes:

[T]he ratification of death sentences is an exclusive power of the President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) under the Code of Criminal Procedures (3) of 2001; the implementation of any death sentences without the President's ratification constitutes a violation of the law and constitution. PCHR stresses that the ratification of such sentences is necessary especially following signing the Palestinian reconciliation agreement in May 2011.

So this is not only Hamas' attempt to scare potential "collaborators." It is also a slap in the face of the "unity" agreement.

Hamas is telling Abbas, quite plainly, that they do not recognize his authority or position at all.

The last time Hamas executed a "collaborator" was only hours before the "unity" agreement was signed. This is the first time Hamas has openly ignored this PA law since the agreement.

Erekat's threats of the day

His lies are getting surreal:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat vigorously condemned both Israel and the United States during a briefing to over 90 Palestinian envoys in Istanbul on Sunday, saying the Oslo process was on the verge of failure.

Erekat said that if the United States continued to stymie the Palestinian efforts to get a state recognized by the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority should be dismantled.

"If the United States wants the Palestinian Authority to continue to exist, then the price is the establishment of a Palestinian state in keeping with the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital," Erekat told the envoys, according to a transcript of his remarks that appeared in the Al-Ayam newspaper.

"But if the United States vetoes accepting Palestine to the United Nations in the Security Council, uses its financial aid to the PA as political blackmail and leaves Israel as the source of authority, then in my opinion, the PA must cease to exist."

The very definition of the Palestinian Authority is an interim organization that only handles administrative, internal affairs until a final status agreement.

In other words, by definition, the PA will cease to exist anyway the minute a Palestinian Arab state would be established!

Moreover, Erekat is saying that Oslo is "on the verge of failure" if the US doesn't acquiesce to ripping up Oslo itself by bypassing any negotiations and giving the PLO everything it demands, at Israel's expense.

Erekat is threatening the US by saying that the PA should cease to exist unless the US allows it to cease to exist, and that Oslo will fail unless the US supports destroying Oslo.

Lewis Carroll couldn't come up with a character to say something so absurd.

Beyond that, his threat is a veiled threat to start a new intifada, because if the PA internal security (which employs tens of thousands) disappears, all those "policemen" will seek to use their American weapons in other ways, just as they did in 2001. This has been the usual modus operandi among Palestinian Arab leaders since 1920: "Give us what we want or terror will magically break out." They have always acted more like the mob than like political leaders when dealing with other countries.

What a peaceful guy!

(h/t DF)

Hezbollah blames Norway massacres on...well, take a guess

From the Daily Star (Lebanon):

Hezbollah condemned Monday the recent attack in Norway that left at least 76 dead as “proof” of the racism of Zionist culture.“

"The terrorist act committed by a right-wing extremist, who supports Zionists in Norway, is additional proof that the culture stemming from the Zionist enemy, or ideas that support it, is deeply tied to the racism of its leadership,” a statement released by the party said.

Hezbollah’s statement said “Zionist terrorism” poses a danger to Palestinians and Arabs as well as to Europeans and warned against “attempts to overlook terrorism tied to Zionism.”

“Concerning this assault, standards differ within the international community and positions are taken based on the identity of those accused of terrorism. If they were Muslims, then their culture and society would be condemned, whereas if they were close to Zionists, justifications and excuses would be sought,” it added.

Hezbollah said attempts to overlook the incident’s link to Zionist terrorism would encourage further attacks.

Hezbollah's Al Manar TV added:

The motive that urged the “Christian” fanatic to launch terror attacks in Norway was the source of terror in the world, Israel; and so, the first European country to declare the recognition of an independent Palestinian State and the right for Palestinians to have a good livelihood, was the first to witness a deadly terror attack since decades.

Beside the pro-Palestinian events, investigations revealed that Breivak was against “Muslim Domination in Europe”, and a supporter of Zionism. Furthermore, he was an admirer of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman.

The extremist criminal was reportedly labeled as a “Shabbath Goy”: Hebrew for a non-Jewish individual who assists the Jews in performing an act that is forbidden for Jewish individuals according to their biblical law.

That last bit comes from rabid anti-semite Gilad Atzmon in a bizarre rant he penned earlier today.

If Hezbollah and their buddy Atzmon would try to create a list of bad things that Jews aren't responsible for, they'd be done in time for brunch.