Netanyahu's Christmas Greeting 2012

Via Linkmaster Smith:

Counterterror Agents Monitored Occupy Movement

At the New York Times, "F.B.I. Counterterrorism Agents Monitored Occupy Movement, Records Show."

The were considered domestic terrorists. You think?

Chuck Hagel Under Fire as Possible Defense Sec. Nominee

It's no surprise that he's O's favorite for Defense. They're like brothers in their Israel bashing.

The New York Times reports, "Comments on Israel by Top Contender for Defense Secretary Are Scrutinized."

And see Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal, "Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem."

Also at Pamela's, "Jew-Hater for Defense?"

New SIOA Ads Going Up December 17th

Pamela reports on the latest dhimmi backlash, "NY OBSERVER: QURAN ADS DEBUT IN NY 'PAMELA GELLER IS AT IT AGAIN'." The ads will run with a disclaimer, as noted at the Observer (via Memeorandum):

The MTA’s new disclaimer policy came in September of this year following an incident in which protestor Mona Eltahawy, 45, was filmed spray-painting another AFDI advertisement, which equated Muslims with savages.

The ad stated: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It added, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” in between two Stars of David.

Ms. Eltahawy was arrested, and every single advertisement in the series was defaced by the end of the day—a fact that did not go unnoticed. The MTA addressed the issue of salacious advertising at its monthly board meeting. The MTA had previously tried to amend its advertising guidelines so it could refuse “demeaning” ads, a rule that would prohibit “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation,” but that modification was deemed unconstitutional. With its hands tied, it opted to include a disclaimer on ads that expressed a particular viewpoint on “political, religious or moral issues or related matters.”

“A cost of opening our ad space to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public concern is that we cannot readily close that space to certain advertisements on account of their expression of divisive or even venomous messages,” the MTA’s statement at the time read. “The answer to distasteful and uncivil speech is more, and more civilized, speech.”

Following the September incident, Ms. Geller has been busy crafting new advertisements for her campaign beginning December 17. The new ads will be plastered across at least 50 different locations, the MTA confirmed, the result of an ad buy worth more than $10,000.

“I refuse to abridge my free speech so as to appease savages,” Ms. Geller told The Observer. “Thousands of anti-Israel ads have run across the city and not one has been defaced. My ads, 10 went up in New York City, and they were destroyed in hours. You don’t agree with me, fine, run an ad. I have no problem with other people’s ideas.”

She is prepared, however, for the people who disagree with her to take out their frustration on her ads. This time around, she printed twice as many.

That's quite the comment section Pamela's got going over there. I just find it too perfect that we've got all this controversy over a simple message like Pamela's, but when anti-Israel ads run, there's never a problem. One more anecdotal piece of evidence on the left's free speech jihad. Indeed, "The Animal" attacks Pamela as an "extremist," then exhorts its readers, "you know what to do." That is progressivism for you, perfectly.

Dancing Around Genocide

From David Feith, at the Wall Street Journal:

Is promoting genocide a human-rights violation? You might think that's an easy question. But it isn't at Human Rights Watch, where a bitter debate is raging over how to describe Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel. The infighting reveals a peculiar standard regarding dictatorships and human rights and especially the Jewish state.

Human Rights Watch is the George Soros-funded operation that has outsize influence in governments, newsrooms and classrooms world-wide. Some at the nonprofit want to denounce Iran's regime for inciting genocide. "Sitting still while Iran claims a 'justification to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel' . . . is a position unworthy of our great organization," Sid Sheinberg, the group's vice chairman, wrote to colleagues in a recent email.

But Executive Director Kenneth Roth, who runs the nonprofit, strenuously disagrees.

Asked in 2010 about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel "must be wiped off the map," Mr. Roth suggested that the Iranian president has been misunderstood. "There was a real question as to whether he actually said that," Mr. Roth told The New Republic, because the Persian language lacks an idiom for wiping off the map. Then again, Mr. Ahmadinejad's own English-language website translated his words that way, and the main alternative translation—"eliminated from the pages of history"—is no more benign. Nor is Mr. Ahmadinejad an outlier in the regime. Iran's top military officer declared earlier this year that "the Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

Mr. Roth's main claim is legalistic: Iran's rhetoric doesn't qualify as "incitement"—which is illegal under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948—but amounts merely to "advocacy," which is legal.

"The theory" to which Human Rights Watch subscribes, he has written in internal emails, "is that in the case of advocacy, however hateful, there is time to dissuade—to rebut speech with speech—whereas in the case of incitement, the action being urged is so imminently connected to the speech in question that there is no time to dissuade. Incitement must be suppressed because it is tantamount to action."

Mr. Roth added in another email: "Many of [Iran's] statements are certainly reprehensible, but they are not incitement to genocide. No one has acted on them."

A ghoulish imitation of human being, that Kenneth Roth. But continue reading.

And human rights? Not if you're Jewish according to the left's human rights policeman. Just watch your back, Jewish or not. Progressives have their knives out.

Cheering U.N. Palestine Vote, Synagogue Tests Its Members

At the New York Times:

Congregation B’nai Jeshurun, a large synagogue on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, is known for its charismatic rabbis, its energetic and highly musical worship, and its liberal stances on social causes.

But on Friday, when its rabbis and lay leaders sent out an e-mail enthusiastically supporting the vote by the United Nations to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state, the statement was more than even some of its famously liberal congregants could stomach.

“The vote at the U.N. yesterday is a great moment for us as citizens of the world,” said the e-mail, which was sent to all congregants. “This is an opportunity to celebrate the process that allows a nation to come forward and ask for recognition.”

The statement, at a time when the United Nations’ vote was opposed by the governments of the United States and Israel, as well as by the leadership of many American Jewish organizations, reflected a divide among American Jews and a willingness to publicly disagree with Israel.

Clergy at several Jewish congregations have, in various ways, spoken out sympathetically about the United Nations’ vote. But B’nai Jeshurun stood out because of its size and prominence, and reaction from congregants was swift. Allan Ripp, a member, said he and his wife were appalled.

“We are just sort of in a state of shock,” he said. “It’s not as if we don’t support a two-state solution, but to say with such a warm embrace — it is like a high-five to the P.L.O., and that has left us numb.”

Other congregants, however, said it was a bold move that they welcomed.

“I thought it was very courageous of them,” said Gil Kulick, a congregant. “I think as of late there has been a reluctance to speak out on this issue,” he added, “and that’s why I was really delighted that they chose to take a strong unequivocal stand.”

American Jews have long had a vigorous, and sometimes vitriolic, debate about the positions of the Israeli government and the peace process with the Palestinians. But the tendency has been to keep critical views within the fold.

“At most times we impose a kind of discipline upon ourselves — nobody imposes it on us — particularly on a matter that the Israeli government has asked for unanimous support from the Jewish community,” said Samuel Norich, the publisher of The Forward, a Jewish affairs weekly based in New York. “When they speak out, that is rare,” Mr. Norich said of mainstream congregations.

Gary Rosenblatt, the editor and publisher of The Jewish Week, the largest-circulation Jewish newspaper in the country, said, “I think the sense of a need for a unified front in the American Jewish community is breaking down.”

Well, the times they are a-changin'.

But RTWT, via Theo Spark, "USA Jews Don't Have Israel's Back..." (Actually, I think progressive Jews don't have Israel's back. Conservative Jews are at the ramparts of freedom for the West.)

Alanis Morissette in Israel

She's almost up there with Johnny Lydon, who basically told the "Palestinians" to f-ck off a couple of years ago.

At Twitchy, "Singer Alanis Morissette defies boycott, threats over Israel concert."

VIDEO: Via Legal Insurrection, "Alanis is Canadian for courage."

'Nothing better illustrates the argument that the “left” hates Israel far more than they care about the Palestinians...'

At Augean Stables, "The “how would you like it if we said that about you?” meme: Reflections on Rudoren’s FB Page."

The strong empirical evidence from many independent sources (cited by a number of commenters at Rudoren’s page in this thread) including Gazan, is that Hamas uses their own people as human shields and tries to benefit from the misery they inflict on their own people by blaming Israel. They even brag about it.

'The ideology of Islamism has been on the rise for generations and now aims to expropriate the Arab Spring...'

From Charles Hill, at The Caravan, "World Order in the Age of Obama" (via WSJ):

The ideology of Islamism has been on the rise for generations and now aims to expropriate the Arab Spring. The ambitions of the1979 Iranian Revolution and Sunni fanaticism are transmogrifying into the kind of major religious war that the Treaty of Westphalia sought to forestall.

Thucydides traced the war that ruined ancient Greece to Sparta’s fear that Athens’ growing power was crossing the line where it would be impossible to contain. Israel faces that threat from Iran, as today’s international structures for the maintenance of international security have failed to halt Iran’s drive, propelled by religious ideology, to possess nuclear weapons. Israel, bereft of its traditional sense of American support, is making ready to act against Iran’s menace to its existence. President Obama’s priority must repair relations with Israel by visiting the Jewish state and convincing its leaders that the U.S. understands Israel’s uniquely dangerous position.

And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare. The enemies of world order translate the American election results into the lexicon of abdication, telling themselves that their time has come: there is a world to be gained.

Only America’s return to world leadership can halt this deterioration. “Sequestration” will relegate the U.S. to a second rate power and must be reversed to enable American strength and diplomacy to be employed in tandem. Without this the prediction of a Kepler for today must be grim. As the biographer of Augustus Caesar wrote in the years just before the Second World War, “Once again the crust of civilization has worn thin, and beneath can be heard the muttering of primeval fires. Once again many accepted principles of government have been overthrown, and the world has become a laboratory where immature and feverish minds experiment with unknown forces. Once again problems cannot be comfortably limited, for science has brought the nations into an uneasy bondage to each other.”

In this maelstrom lie opportunities not for idealism but for the cold, austere use of power, soft and hard, in order to, as Augustus was advised, teach the arts of peace to all. The old platforms for the region, including the “peace process,” are gone. New structures must be built and only the US can lead the construction job. Peace is not at hand, but statesmen can see the possibility of laying foundations for a new Middle East in Syria-Lebanon, Egypt-Gaza, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and even, should we finally get serious, in Iran.

U.N. Gives Palestinians 'State' Status

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Nearly 140 countries voted in the U.N. on Thursday to recognize the Palestinian territories as a "nonmember observer state" over the strenuous objections of Israel and the U.S., marking a milestone with potentially far-reaching consequences for the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

The 138-9 vote, with 41 abstentions, came on the 65th anniversary of the assembly's resolution calling for the partition of British mandate Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

The new status, which is akin to the Vatican's own stature in the world body, marked a rare victory for the Fatah party's diplomatic path toward statehood after its rival Hamas's military strategy had taken the spotlight during the recent Gaza conflict.

Palestinians in the West Bank city of Ramallah, who were crowded around outdoor television screens during the vote in New York erupted into applause, whistles and hugs, as some people fired guns into the air and beeped car horns in celebration.

"We didn't come here seeking to delegitimize a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine," Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, told the assembly to a standing ovation.

The immediate question was whether the vote spurs or further delays the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians that Israel says are needed to finalize the status of the West Bank and Gaza territories.

While Mr. Abbas argued the vote would create the momentum to resume moribund talks, the U.S. and Israel denounced the vote as a "unilateral" move in the multilateral assembly.

"Today's unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles to peace," said U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice. "No resolution can create a state where none exists."

She added, "Palestinians will wake up tomorrow and find that little has changed saved the prospect of direct talks have receded."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the vote as an empty gesture that makes little difference for Palestinians, and makes peace prospects more remote.

"The decision at the U.N. today won't change a thing on the ground,'' he said prior to the vote. "Peace will be reached through agreements reached between Jerusalem and Ramallah, and not through declarations passed at the U.N.''

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "“defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda”."

Professor Julien Bauer, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Targeted With Anti-Semitic Vandalism

The tolerant pro-Palestinian left.

At National Post, "Pro-Israel professor’s Montreal office door sprayed with anti-Semitic graffiti."

Iran Shipping Rockets to Gaza

At the Times of Israel, "Fresh shipment of Iranian-made rockets reportedly already en route to Gaza":

Less than a week after the conclusion of Operation Pillar of Defense, and with Hamas boasting of an imminent increase in military aid from Iran, Israeli satellites have spotted a ship at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas being loaded with rockets and other military supplies ostensibly bound for Gaza, the British Sunday Times reported.

The report cites Israeli intelligence sources who surmised that the cargo, loaded a week ago, would be shipped to Sudan and from there smuggled over land to Gaza.

According to the report, the cargo may include Fajr-5 rockets of the likes already fired by Hamas during the recent conflict, and whose stocks were reportedly depleted by Israeli bombings. Also possibly included: components of Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which could be stationed in Sudan and used as a direct threat to Israel.

“With a lot of effort, Iran has skillfully built a strategic arm pointing at Israel from the south,” an Israeli source was quoted as saying.

Egypt's Islamist Coup

At WSJ:

The Egyptian revolution took another bad turn Thursday, as President Mohamed Morsi gave himself dictatorial powers over the legislature and courts. The world has feared that the Muslim Brotherhood would favor one-man, one-vote, once, and the Morsi coup is an ominous sign.

"The people wanted me to be the guardian of these steps in this phase," Reuters quoted Mr. Morsi as saying on Friday. "I don't like and don't want—and there is no need—to use exceptional measures. But those who are trying to gnaw the bones of the nation" must be "held accountable."

Mr. Morsi says his diktat will merely last as long as it takes the country to adopt a new constitution, which is what authoritarians always say. They claim to be a necessary step on the way to democracy, but democracy never arrives. Mr. Morsi's rationalization is that he must have this power to "protect the revolution," as if the demonstrators who deposed Hosni Mubarak in 2011 merely wanted another Mubarak with a beard and prayer rug. Mr. Morsi is claiming more power than Mr. Mubarak ever had.

Egyptians took to the street on Friday in protest, sometimes violently, and nearly every other major political leader denounced the putsch. That includes Abdel Monheim Aboul Fotouh, a former Muslim Brotherhood leader and presidential candidate. The violence is regrettable, but the protests may be the only way Egyptians can prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from becoming their new dictators.

The Brotherhood doesn't control the military or Ministry of Interior, yet neither one is going to rush to defend a more liberal Egyptian state. The military's main goal is to protect its role in government and its economic interests, and the Brotherhood's draft constitution puts the military outside of civilian control.

As long as Mr. Morsi doesn't challenge those interests, the military and police may let him control the courts, the media and the legislature. This is a recipe for rule a la Pakistan, with an increasingly Islamist state but the military and intelligence services as an independent power. The immediate losers will be Egypt's liberals and the Western journalists who inhaled the vapors of Tahrir Square. But whatever Mr. Morsi intends, the Pakistan model is not a recipe for a more stable Egypt.

Mr. Morsi's coup is also awkward for the Obama Administration, which had been praising the Egyptian in media backgrounders for his role in brokering the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Mr. Morsi was hailed as a moderate statesman. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had barely left Cairo before Mr. Morsi made his move. He may have figured that all the praise made it easier for him to grab more power.

It's awkward alright.

The administration basically installed the Muslim Brotherhood and now Morsi's making a bid for the region's pan-Islamist leader to rival even Iran's influence. You get what you bargain for, I guess. And boy, did Obama ever bargain for his Muslim Brothers!

RELATED: From David Goldman, "Obama Legitimizes Morsi’s Protection Racket."

Protesters Storm Muslim Brotherhood Headquarters in Alexandria

The opposition to the Morsi coup is pretty widespread.

See, "Protests rock Egypt after Morsi seizes new powers."

More: "Morsy reassures Egyptians as protests grow."

Protests Against Mohammed Morsi

AT Telegraph UK, "Violence breaks out across Egypt as protesters decry Mohammed Morsi's constitutional 'coup'":

Violence broke out in cities across Egypt yesterday (Friday) as demonstrators took to the streets and besieged Muslim Brotherhood offices in anger at authoritarian new powers seized by President Mohammed Morsi.

Headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political front, the Freedom and Justice Party, were ransacked and burned in Alexandria, Port Said and Ismailiya. Protesters described Mr Morsi as “Egypt’s new pharaoh” and said his declaration on Thursday night was a “constitutional coup”.

In Cairo, the biggest demonstrations for months filled Tahrir Square, reviving the spirit and chants of last year’s revolution against the country’s former leader, ex-President Hosni Mubarak. “Out, out,” the crowd chanted. The people want the downfall of the regime.”

Mr Morsi publicly defended his decision to make his decrees unchallengeable by law as necessary to complete Egypt’s transformation. He told a crowd of supporters gathered in front of the presidential palace that he was trying to stop a “minority” trying to “block the revolution”.

He also alleged that money stolen under the old regime was being used to fund new protests, including by "thugs" - a politically loaded term suggesting that the pro-democracy protesters were the same as Mr Mubarak's hired henchmen.

"There are weevils eating away at the nation of Egypt," he told them, insisting that he by contrast, was trying to assure "political stability, social stability and economic stability".

"I have always been, and still am, and will always be, God willing, with the pulse of the people, what the people want, with clear legitimacy," he said.

Mr Morsi, fresh from his success in negotiating a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday night, made the unexpected announcement of his new powers on Thursday.

As noted earlier, developments in Egypt are of huge, structural significance and will have deep impact on U.S. foreign policy. I'll have more later, but meanwhile check out Barry Rubin, "News Flash: Egypt’s Islamist President Assumes Dictatorial Powers." (Via Memeorandum.)

Mohammed Morsi Appoints Himself 'Egypt's New Pharaoh'

This is not a joke.

At Telegraph UK, "Mohammed Morsi grants himself sweeping new powers in wake of Gaza."

And Twitchy, "President of Egypt grants himself dictatorial powers."

There's a longer clip here.

And check the Los Angeles Times, "Mideast shifts may weaken Iran's pull with Palestinians":

CAIRO — Iran for years has supplied Hamas with weapons as part of its own struggle against Israel, but the conflict in the Gaza Strip reveals a shift in regional dynamics that may diminish Tehran's influence with Palestinian militant groups and strengthen the hand of Egypt.

The longer-range missiles fired by Hamas over the last week — believed to be modifications of Iran's Fajr 5 missiles — startled Israel by landing near Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. A front-page story in Iran's conservative daily, Kayhan, boasted: "The missiles of resistance worked." Tehran would not confirm the weapons' origin, except to say it sent rocket "technology" to Hamas.

Instead, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters: "What is important is that the people of Palestine must be equipped to defend themselves, and it is the responsibility of all countries to defend the rights of the people of Palestine."

But the Gaza fighting erupted during a new era in the Middle East brought about by the rise of Islamist governments, notably in Egypt, that have replaced pro-Western autocrats. The political catharsis has spurred anti-Americanism, which Iran relishes, but it also has upset Tehran's regional designs.

In Syria — which along with the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah has been Iran's proxy opposing Israel — a revolt inspired by the "Arab Spring" could force President Bashar Assad from power and bring in a government less friendly to Tehran. Hamas angered Iran by opposing Tehran's continued support of Assad and siding with the Syrian rebels, who are mostly fellow Sunni Muslims.

Iran's immediate concern in Gaza is keeping Hamas from strengthening its ties to Arab capitals. This may be difficult, as evidenced by the fact that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which inspired the founding of Hamas and now is in charge of the Egyptian government, played a key role in brokering the cease-fire announced Wednesday.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is likely to press the militant group not to further agitate the region — and Egypt's many domestic problems — with sustained violence against Israel. But Egypt has been criticized for tacitly arming Hamas by not tightening its border with Gaza to stop weapons smugglers from Libya and Sudan.

"The Iranians [had] better understand the paradigm is shifting in the Middle East," said Nabil Fahmy, former Egyptian ambassador to the U.S. and founding dean of the School of Public Affairs at the American University in Cairo. "Hamas needs Cairo tremendously. It really has no other interlocutor to deal with Israel."

But he added that the region is so fluid and unsettled that it is too early to predict winners and losers: "If there are peaceful resolutions, this will lead to a reduced Iranian role. If, on the other hand, you have an increased use of violence," he said, "then ultimately any player that has been supportive of a more aggressive posture will gain ground."

This reminds me of Henry Kissinger in early 2011: "Kissinger on Egypt: 'Classic Pattern of Revolution'."

The Times of Israel is also reporting that Israel ruled out a ground invasion to prevent the possibility of a collapse of regional peace agreements and the emergence of a three-front war. See: "TV report: Warnings that peace deals with Egypt, Jordan could collapse led Israel to end Hamas assault with no ground offensive."

Big changes. All while President Obama's busy pardoning turkeys. He's so insignificant in the global sweep of things, and so wrong. So deeply wrong. Americans will be choking on some of the biggest buyers remorse ever.

More on all of this later ...

'This is how you change the culture and the narrative...'

From Pamela Geller, "IBD Editorial: 'Israel Vs. Hamas is Civilization Vs. Savagery'."

Pamela's doing the most vital work ever, fighting against the maul of progressive evil. She writes:

More proof that we are right and we are righteous, and that our ads, despite the bloody howls from evildoers and the useful idiots in their service, are essential. We hit a nerve. And why? Because the enemedia so furiously spins an anti-human, anti-goodness narrative that the truth is a shock to the senses. But good people respond to it. Applaud it. Want it. Which is why we were able to raise the money to take the campaign nationwide. From San Francisco to NY, DC, Portland, Chicago, Denver .... you made that happen.

This is how you change the culture and the narrative. This is how you defeat the forces of evil in the information battle-space. This is how you begin to win.

Check the link for more.

Pamela posts this from IBD, "Israel Vs. Hamas is Civilization Vs. Savagery":

Celebration within Gaza after the bombing of a bus filled with innocent Israeli civilians is an object lesson on the so-called Palestine question. Those who would celebrate such a cowardly act are savages.

No one can imagine Washington's troops firing shots to celebrate a supporter of American independence trying to kill a group of Royalist civilians. During the Cold War, U.S. support for Lech Walesa's Solidarity would have dried up if he handed out candy after a Polish nationalist targeted, say, innocent Muscovites going to work.

We may live in a complex world, but evil is identifiable even when its practitioners claim their cause is good.

The gunfire across Gaza celebrating an explosion on a bus in central Tel Aviv on Wednesday is evil. And the Iranian-backed Hamas' rulers praising the bombing, which injured 15 passengers, is evil. "Hamas blesses the attack in Tel Aviv and sees it as a natural response to the Israeli massacres ... in Gaza," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters.

The "Israeli massacres," i.e. self-defensive airstrikes, are exactly how the U.S. would react if, let's say, Mexico were doing to us what Hamas has been doing to Israel: firing hundreds of rockets into populated areas.

It is, in fact, what any civilized nation would be doing.

Continue reading.

IMAGE CREDIT: Blazing Cat Fur.

Can I Still Keep Kicking You in the Balls Without You Retaliating?

This is LOL material, via Bruce Kesler at Maggie's Farm.

How the New York Times Covers Evil

From Dennis Prager, at National Review:

The way in which the New York Times reports good vs. evil is one of the most important stories of our time.

Take the war between Israel and Hamas that is taking place right now.

This war is as morally clear as wars get. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating the Jewish state. It runs a theocratic totalitarian state in Gaza, with no individual liberty, and no freedom of speech or press. In a nutshell, Hamas is a violent, fascistic organization.

Israel, meanwhile, is one the world’s most humane states — not to mention a democracy that is so tolerant that Arab members of its parliament are free to express admiration for Hamas.

Over the past decade, Hamas had launched thousands of rockets into Israel with one aim: to kill and maim as many Israeli citizens as possible — Israelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Finally, Israel responded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief organizer of Hamas’s violence — the Hamas “military commander” as he was known among Palestinians.

The next day, three more Israelis were killed by rockets.

Then Hamas targeted Tel Aviv, Israel’s most densely populated region, and Israel shelled Hamas rocket-launching sites.

In other words, an evil entity made war on a peaceful, decent entity, and the latter responded.

How has the New York Times reported this?

On Friday, on its front page, the Times featured two three-column-wide photos. The top one was of Gaza Muslim mourners alongside the dead body of al-Jabari. The photo below was of Israeli Jews mourning alongside the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.

What possible reason could there be for the New York Times to give identical space to these two pictures? One of the dead, after all, was a murderer, and the other was one of his victims.

The most plausible reason is that the Times wanted to depict through pictures a sort of moral equivalence: Look, sophisticated Times readers! Virtually identical scenes of death and mourning on both sides of the conflict. How tragic.

If one had no idea what had triggered this war, one would read and see the Times coverage and conclude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.

This is the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media’s approach...

Still more at the link.

Gaza is the Epicenter of Jew Hatred

A profound commentary, from Glenn Beck:

Via Caroline Glick, "The liberal anti-Semitic projection syndrome."