Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, October 08, 2015

.@UNRWA employee posts cartoon showing Palestinians hanging a religious Jew (update)

UNRWA employee Musallem Salem posted this cartoon promoting Palestinian unity - by showing two Palestinians representing Gaza and the West Bank working together to kill a Jew:

"The gun unites us"

Yesterday, he shared this video on Facebook showing an old woman taking stones that were being distributed and throwing them towards an unseen target, presumably soldiers.

Other ways that he violates UNRWA's published standards of neutrality include this poster lionizing all major Palestinian terror groups, also posted yesterday:

(H/t Ibn Boutros)

UPDATE: The page was taken down. The Whack a Mole game continues - I find stuff, they make it disappear without admitting anything is wrong.

Jared Malsin has just been named Time magazine's Middle East bureau chief.

Malsin used to be editor at Ma'an, and he was denied entry to Israel after a vacation in 2010. The reasons given were, according to Ma'an:

1) Refusal to cooperate
2) Lying to border officials
3) Reasons for arriving unclear
4) Violated visa terms
5) Entered Israel by means of lies

Journalist organizations all assumed that this was a cover for Israeli attempts to stifle free speech.

Malsin is clearly biased against Israel. For example, this 2007 Ma'an article "Grief for the victims of September 11th, and all those that followed" equates Palestinians with 9/11 victims.

Although the Palestinian Authority condemned the September 11th attacks, with elderly Palestinian President Yasser Arafat donating blood to help the victims in New York and Washington, the years since the attacks have seen conditions in the Occupied Territories worsen significantly, in part due to the ideological thrust of the United States' "war on terrorism," which saw terrorism not as the product of historical and political forces, but rather some kind of cultural dysfunction, a racial defect most often described as "Islamic extremism."

"Terrorism knows no geographical boundaries," said former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a speech on September 11th, 2002: "Bin Laden's suicide terror, the terrorism of Hamas, Tanzim and Hizbullah, the terrorism engineered by the Palestinian Authority, Saddam Hussein's involvement in and support for Palestinian terrorism, and the terrorist networks directed by Iran are all inseparable components of that same axis of evil which threatens peace and stability everywhere in the world."

With the political cover provided by the doctrine of the "war on terrorism," Palestinians have endured an intensification of Israel's policies: raids and incursions, assassinations, house demolitions, the construction of settlements, and the erection of the illegal separation barrier.

Yes, according to Malsin, there was never a violent Palestinian intifada, no suicide bombings on pizza shops and discos and buses. Israel just used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Arabs for no reason.

After Ma'an, Malsin has written for The Guardian, VICE and Electronic Intifada with pieces in the NYT and Columbia Journalism Review. One EI piece praises terrorists:

Few other words shut down critical thought as completely as the word “terrorist.” Few other labels are so morally loaded, so totalizing, so antithetical to reasoned, measured debate. Almost no other term evokes such facile, muddled thinking.

Thus, when a local leader of Islamic Jihad and three other Palestinian “terrorists” were killed by Israeli special forces in Bethlehem on Wednesday night, 12 March, few outside of Palestine will mourn their deaths.

In the eyes of many in Israel, Europe and North America, another menace has been eliminated. Mohammad Shehadah, Issa Marzouq, Imad al-Kamel, and Ahmad Balboul will likely be remembered as murderous scum.

In Palestine, however, and in Bethlehem in particular, these men, and the event of their deaths, will be remembered differently.

The assassinations had resulted in a moment of terror, and then sadness. Shehadah and his comrades had visited my office hours before they were killed. Their cousins are my coworkers. After speaking to those who knew them, my impression is that they were decent people, activists who, their tactics aside, took extraordinary risks to fight for the ideal of freedom.

"Their tactics aside"? Malsin justified any and all terror attacks as long as they can be considered to be "fighting for the ideal of freedom."

Besides, Shehadeh has hardly only a "local leader" of Islamic Jihad. He had been a top terrorist since the beginning of the second intifada, involved in several terror attacks that killed Israelis, and he seems to have been an important conduit between Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad - his body was covered in a Hezbollah flag for his funeral.

On the plus side, Malsin does not suffer from the obsession with Israel that so many journalists have. His articles show that he is aware of the wider Middle East and he has written pieces about Libya, Bahrain, ISIS and many from his more recent stint in Egypt.

He may be biased against Israel but I do not see in him the Israel-derangement syndrome that others have, including Time's Karl Vick. Even when at Ma'an he had stories that were critical of the PA, which most journalists avoid.

So while Malsin will certainly not be a fair reporter concerning Israel, he might actually improve Time's Middle East coverage.

Faint praise, I know.

EoZ available for speaking engagements

If you are in the New York City/New Jersey area and would like to have me speak to your group, drop me a line!

I have spoken on topics like New Media and the Gaza War, Hasbara 2.0, How to Counter Anti-Israel Arguments, What is Needed to Win the Information War, and more.

But I would also be happy to speak about the outrages done by UNRWA, HRW and/or Amnesty; media bias, Arab antisemitism, or any number of topics I have covered on the website.

(I also won't say no to those who want to use me as a scholar in residence at some kosher holiday resort in some exotic locale :)

The main ground rule is no photos or video allowed.

If you are interested, feel free to contact me via email at
elder -at- elderofziyon -dot com.

Alas, I fear he’s in no position to answer me! A clergymen’s son, Captain W.H.C Thring (1873-1949) was a clever and capable British naval officer who retired from the active list in 1911. The following year he joined the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) as assistant to that force’s founder, Rear-Admiral (Sir) William Creswell. Given his expertise in gunnery and strategy combined with his foresight and industry, he did much to strengthen the RAN’s preparedness for the conflict that broke out in 1914. During the First World War he was pivotal in the administration of the RAN, moving back to Britain in 1920 as this country’s naval liaison officer with the Admiralty in London, a post he held until 1922.

The other day, being a naval history buff, I stumbled upon an article by Captain Thring published in February 1923 in the Naval Review, the highly respected and scholarly organ of the UK-based Naval Society. It was an article in an “Outlines of History” series he wrote on trade routes. On page 24 we read, inter alia: “England fought Spain in the 16th century, the Dutch in the 17th and the French in the 18th, emerging the sea carriers for the world. Under the Tudors England had developed into a nation with definite aims which were shared by her rulers; in this England was ahead of her rivals. The French suffered from oppression, monarchical wars and revolution; they did not shake off the personal rule of their monarchs until 1789, and then went to such excesses that they destroyed the best elements in the nation. Italy and Germany were divided; the Dutch suffered from corruption; Spain was torn by the Inquisition and by expelling the Jews and Moors lost their workers. The Jews formed the mercantile class in Spain and the Moors were the agricultural workers; the Spaniards themselves never succeeded in filling the vacant places. England's insular position gave her protection, she had a comparatively good political constitution and her merchants developed trade on broad lines. ….”

So far so good, I guess. But then we’re told, in a footnote on the same page: ‘These “Jews” were probably, like the commercial Jews of other parts of Europe, descendants of Phoenician and Carthaginian colonists who had adopted the Jewish religion, and had become known as Jews in order to escape from persecution by the Romans.’

So there we have it, a mirror image of the “Khazars” allegation that antisemites love to trot out in relation to the origins of Ashkenazi Jewry.

I don’t know enough about Thring to ascertain his attitude to Jews, or to hazard a guess concerning his receptivity, or otherwise, to the antisemitism that was swirling at the time he wrote that article, when Jews were widely seen as agents of Bolshevism. On the face of it, there appears to be nothing sinister in his straightforwardly-presented though unexpected remarks. He seems to have no agenda, and those remarks surely lack the malice inherent in, for example, John Harvey’s notorious claims about Jews in The Plantagenets (first published in 1948, reprinted 1972) which implicitly justify the medieval ritual murder charge. I doubt that Thring was trying to undermine Jewish claims on Eretz Israel. But I wonder where his assertions originated. Has anyone encountered such allegations before, and if so, in what source[s]? I’ve asked around, and nobody seems to have any idea.

This source seems to agree, although I could not access the footnote 13 that it referenced - EoZ

10/07 Links Pt2: What If Israel Had Given Up the Golan Heights?; Howard Stern lashes Roger Waters

From Ian:

Aaron David Miller: What If Israel Had Given Up the Golan Heights? A Lesson for Syria’s Crisis

As Syria continues to be ravaged with no signs that the end of its crisis will produce a unified and stable (let alone pro-Western) Arab state, I wonder from time to time what would have happened had U.S. efforts succeeded in negotiating an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement in the 1990s.
For me, this is more than a remote thought experiment. For almost two decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, I was part of a U.S. negotiating team that tried to reach such a deal. But had we succeeded, the results might have been catastrophic for Israel and for the U.S.
Interest in an Israeli-Syrian peace deal was bipartisan: U.S. presidents including Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush expressed varying degrees of interest. So did Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Several U.S. presidents and Israeli leaders were fascinated with longtime Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and considered him a strategic thinker with whom one might do business. The collapse of the Soviet Union generated some interest from Mr. Assad in looking to the U.S. as a possible partner.
Rarely did we hear from Israeli leaders or focus ourselves on the prospect that an Israeli-Syrian accord might be at risk if instability in Syria led to a change in regime. This concern was prevalent generally as Israelis did peace deals with other Arab leaders. But fear of instability in the Arab world didn’t stop Menachem Begin from returning Sinai to Egypt; it didn’t stop Mr. Rabin from concluding a peace deal with Jordan’s King Hussein; nor did it prevent the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. And with Hafez Assad there was an assumption–warranted at the time–that his brutality in suppressing dissent and his track record–governing longer than all of Syria’s previous leaders combined since independence in 1946–would somehow guarantee stability. Rarely has a political judgment been more wrongheaded.

Will Obama Back a Palestinian State?

Indeed, there is little doubt about where Obama stands. Upon entering office, Obama made Israeli-Palestinian peace a priority but, by shredding previous White House commitments and insisting on a freeze on natural growth within disputed areas of Jerusalem, he gave Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas an excuse to walk away from talks. In effect, Obama acted more as Jerusalem’s municipal zoning commissioner than as leader of the free world. In the years since, he has become positively petulant if not unhinged toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. There was the “hot-mic” incident and the over-the-top reaction to Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. (Democratic complaints that Netanyahu lobbied Congress hold little water, as the British, French, and German ambassadors did as well; complaints that Netanyahu should not have criticized White House policy while in the United States are hypocritical as well, given that Obama criticized the sitting Australian government’s climate policy while in Australia). New reports suggest Obama brushed off Senate Minority leader Harry Reid’s request that he give members of his own party assurances that he would support Israel at the United Nations, and Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power’s decision to miss Netanyahu’s UN speech was simply rude (as was their underlings’ refusal to applaud). If Obama acted so unpresidential and petulant before, how might he act when he no longer has to worry about how unilateral action might impact other agendas back home? Perhaps it’s time to recognize the real possibility that Obama will support any UN Security Council binding initiative to recognize a Palestinian state and impose borders. Power, after all, had once recommended doing just that and then utilizing U.S. troops to make it a reality.
The question now is less whether Obama might try to create such a state as a fait accompli and allow others to pick up the pieces, and more what the U.S. Congress might do to dissuade Obama from doing so. Rhetoric alone will not do the trick. It is clear that Obama does not respect Congress, nor care about its input. Frankly, the Congress has neither given the White House nor the State Department reason to respect it.
Now is the time for Congress to lay out consequences for any unilateral action: Freezing confirmations, slashing funding, forbidding any aid and assistance to any Palestinian entity until it reaffirms Oslo, and constraining the State Department’s worst instincts to relieve Palestinians of accountability, as it did with the PLO Commitments Compliance Act in the late 1980s. Diplomats might whine, but their recent performance as well as the disdain Kerry’s crew has shown for Congress suggests that the U.S. would suffer little from constraining State Department functions. The alternative is not only the creation of a new state that refuses to recognize its neighbor, but one which would quickly become a satellite of Iran, a sponsor of terrorism, and guarantee a devastating war rather than usher in any peace.

Inside Story - Is Israel Maintaining the Status Quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque?

Middle East Forum director Gregg Roman appeared on Al-Jazeera English on October 6, alongside Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada, and Ian Black, the Middle East editor of the Guardian newspaper, to discuss the recent tensions at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Excerpt
Abunimah: With all respect, I don't agree with Ian Black that these things are irreconcilable. If it were a matter of access for religious communities, as he said, that has been managed for centuries. Muslims, Christians, and Jews had access to Jerusalem. What is causing the problem is Israel's violent and aggressive colonization of Jerusalem ...
moderator: Ok, Gregg, I want to bring you in here ...
Abunimah (interrupting): ... and more broadly the West Bank. And it's claim that it alone should control everything.
moderator: If we could just let Gregg respond to your fears. Are they realistic? Is the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque imminent with the arrival of these Jewish settler groups, these Jewish activist groups, coming onto the compound ...
Abunimah (interrupting): I didn't say imminent
moderator: Ok, but is it a possibility, then?
Roman: It's not a possibility, Mr. Abunimah sounds more like a spokesman for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad when he uses these vile accusations of the "judaization" of Jerusalem. The fact ...

Inside Story - Is Israel maintaining the status quo at al-Aqsa Mosque?

Another UNRWA employee enamored of Hitler

We've seen quite a few of these - UNRWA employees who post (almost invariably fake) quotes from Adolf Hitler, whom they clearly believe is worth learning from.

This one comes from UNRWA employee Hamza al-Khalili:

The "quote" says ""If you tell someone a secret, you are giving him an arrow that he might shoot you with some day".

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

ICC Finds Stabbing Random Jews Legal Under International Law (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

The Hague, Netherlands, October 7 - The International Criminal Court formalized today what many analysts have long assumed to be accepted International Law, ruling that the stabbing of Jews is a legitimate and legal act when undertaken to express political, social, economic, philosophical, religious, ethnic, or personal grievances.

The ruling comes after months of investigation into what the United Nations Security Council called "the situation in Palestine" following last year's Israel-Hamas war that killed more than 1,500 people. While most experts took for granted that the Court would adopt the position of most UN members, namely that any form of killing Jews, especially Israelis, constitutes an acceptable form of protest, some analysts thought the ICC would only narrowly examine the 50-day conflict. Instead, the Court adopted a broad ruling to apply to all situations, deciding that states and non-state actors alike are within their legal rights to foment, implement, incite, or otherwise engage in attacks on Jews using sharp objects.

Implications of the ruling include a potentially lightened docket for the Court in coming years, according to legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich. "By opening this legal avenue of recourse for Palestinians, either as 'lone wolf' stabbers or as part of organized terrorist operations, the Court has essentially told them exactly what to do to attain their aspirations while remaining within the boundaries of international law and whatever Laws of Armed Conflict may apply," he explained. "In one fell swoop, the ICC has both made its own work easier and endorsed policies that Palestinian entities are already favorably-disposed to pursue, basically guaranteeing that those entities will elect to engage in stabbing activities rather than more legally questionable methods such as rocket fire on Israeli civilian communities that might hit non-Jews."

Other experts noted that the Court had already shown its willingness to tackle cases with far-reaching implications. In a landmark case earlier this year, the ICC overturned the Nuremberg convictions of several prominent Nazi war criminals. That ruling turned on the specific observation that it would constitute a double standard to hold Nazi officials responsible for ethnic cleansing in Europe, yet insist that Jews must be removed from areas they inhabit in the Middle East. However, the implications of that decision were not lost on the justices, says commentator Hugh Manreitswacz.

"The Nuremberg decision this past February may have focused on the posthumous exoneration of various German officials, but the judges well knew that they were also condoning the killing and persecution of Jews," he explained. "This subsequent ruling illustrates exactly that point. I think we can expect future cases to further expand on what the Court deems permissible methods for getting rid of Jews, and we should anticipate specific treatment of shooting at motorists, bombing buses, firing bullets or anti-tank missiles at school buses, vehicular homicide, and Molotov cocktails, just to name a few."

10/07 Links Pt1: Abbas Calls for Murder, Palestinians Attack; Jerusalem Mayor – Armed and Dangerous

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Abbas Calls for Murder, Palestinians Attack

The terrorists did not need permission from Hamas leaders to murder the first Jews they ran into. The inflammatory rhetoric of Abbas and Palestinian Authority (PA) officials and media outlets was sufficient to drive any Palestinian to go out and murder Jews.
Instead of condemning the murder of the Jews, the PA denounced Israel for killing the two Palestinians who carried out the Jerusalem attacks.
The Palestinian Authority and its leaders are in no position today to condemn the murder of any Jews, simply because the PA itself has been encouraging such terrorist attacks through its ceaseless campaign of incitement against Israel.
The PA is playing a double game: it tells the world that it wants peace and coexistence with Israel; meanwhile it incites Palestinians against Israel, driving some to set out with guns and knives to murder Jews.
Although Abbas has repeatedly stated during the past few years that he does not want another intifada against Israel, his statements and actions show that he is doing his utmost to spark another wave of violence, in order to invite international pressure on Israel.

A Method Behind Palestinian Madness

This slow buildup to a third intifada is about anti-Jewish hate not complaints over settlements or borders. It also shows that any further Obama administration pressure on Israel to further empower Abbas — whose own Fatah Party was behind the shooting of the Henkins — would also be madness. Just as Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 enabled Hamas to create a terror base there, so, too, would any retreats from the West Bank make possible the establishment of more safe havens for terrorists. Though neither side wants the status quo, such an alternative is unthinkable.
The Obama administration continues to push for more “daylight” between its stance and that of Israel and snubs Netanyahu while refusing to condemn Abbas or to respond to the killings of Jews with anything more than mealy-mouthed statements urging both sides to show restraint. But that’s exactly what Abbas is counting on as he subtly orchestrates a wave of bloody terrorism. Abbas also knows that international indifference to the murder of Jews fueled by anti-Semitism continues to work in his favor to create more pressure on Israel rather than on the Palestinians. The only way to halt the bloodshed is an unambiguous American stance in favor of Israel’s right to take tough action to suppress terrorism and a clear statement to Abbas to either accept Netanyahu’s offer of talks without preconditions or to forget about further U.S. backing.
Unfortunately, Abbas knows that Obama is more interested in his feud with Netanyahu and appeasement of Iran than in standing with democratic Israel against terrorist murderers. That means the blame for the rising toll of bloodshed from Palestinian terrorism in the coming week will belong as much to an indifferent Obama as it does to Abbas.

NY Post Ed: Israel-bashing just came back to haunt the State Deptartment

The administration has called the attack a tragic mistake. But Lee recalled Israel’s August 2014 shelling of a UN school in Gaza — which State immediately labeled “disgraceful,” adding: “The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.”
Lee asked: Does that policy still hold?
Toner was at a complete loss. He haltingly apologized for the loss of life, stressed that the United States avoids civilian casualties, said any further comment would be “too much speculation” and begged Lee to “give me a pass [while] we wait for the investigation to run its course.”
That’s a pretty reasonable position, actually. But it flies in the face of last year’s instantaneous criticism of Israel — made long before any investigation had even begun.
Enemies like the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah quite intentionally hide among civilians, using them as human shields.
Innocents die in all wars — but the fog of war is rarely more dense than when the other side is deliberately trying to make you kill civilians.
Israel’s known that for a long time — and now the Obama administration is painfully coming to learn it, too.

This is called a "peaceful demonstration" according to the Palestinian Authority

The PA's official Wafa news agency has a photo essay entitled "Israeli army suppress a peaceful demonstration condemning violations against Al-Aqsa and the holy sites near the Kalandia crossing 10-6-2015."

Here is every image they showed of the "peaceful demonstration:"

When will the world realize that when Palestinian officials use words like "peaceful demonstration" (and "storming Al Aqsa" and dozens of other stock phrases) they are lying through their teeth?

Here is video of the same riots:

And this video of the riots from a distance shows that ordinary Palestinian Arabs, only meters away from the stone throwing, are not the least bit concerned that the supposedly trigger-happy Israeli forces will do anything to them:

There's also this interesting tidbit from The Guardian showing that the PA is solidly behind the riots:

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has warned Palestinians not to fall into the trap of “militarising” the current escalation of violence as confrontations with Israeli security forces appeared to spread on Tuesday.

“We don’t want a military and security escalation with Israel,” Abbas said at a meeting of Palestinian officials, according to the official news agency Wafa. “We are telling our security forces, our political movements, that we do not want an escalation, but that we want to protect ourselves.”

Although Abbas’s comments were initially interpreted as an indication he was moving to calm the situation – amid reports that Israeli and Palestinian security officials planned to meet on Tuesday evening – a Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) statement issued later seemed to undermine those hopes.

“Saluting the masses of Palestinians who are confronting the occupation,” the statement said, before calling on Palestinians to “unite for an act of national defence”.

TOI reports:

A teenage Palestinian woman stabbed an Israeli man near the Lions’ Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem on Wednesday morning and was then shot at the scene.

She was shot by her victim, who was stabbed in the back, police said.

“Upon arriving, I saw two patients,” MDA paramedic Aharon Adler told The Times of Israel. “One of them, an approximately 30-year-old male with stab wounds to his upper body, fully conscious; alongside him, a young woman with gunshot wounds. According to him, she came up and stabbed him twice from behind. And then she was shot.

“Her condition was worse than his,” he added.

Arab media immediately went into denial, but they couldn't quite make up their minds as to how to lie about this.

Ma'an Arabic quotes one of those famous "eyewitnesses" who says that the woman had no knife at all and the "settler" attacked her and then shot her.

Palestine Press Agency, without elaborating, claims in its headline that "settler tried to rape a girl" and also that she had no weapon.

The lie that will likely win the battle is from Palestine Today, which claims (again according to "eyewitnesses") that the "settler" tried to remove the girl's hijab. She responded by lightly stabbing him and then he had the excuse he wanted to shoot and kill her.

Other variants say that he tried to remove her hijab but she wasn't armed but he shot her when she fought back.

Expect the English language pro-jihad sites like Electronic Intifada to christen one of these stories as the official one any minute now.

Egyptians angry over TV news ticker calling murdered Jews "martyrs"

Egyptian satellite channel CBC has come under attack for how it described Jews murdered in Jerusalem.

The news ticker says "Martyrdom of settlers and wounding of two others as well as the death of the attacker in Jerusalem."

Many newspaper articles and social media lit up with anger at Egyptian TV daring to call innocent Jews who were murdered "martyrs" and the Arab attacker as merely "dead."

The TV network apologized for the error, but that is not enough for the angry Arabs who are convinced that the Egyptian government is tilting towards the Jews and against the heroes who murder them.

The irony, of course, is that by definition practically no Arabs are "martyrs" but the innocent Jews being slaughtered really are. Martyrdom applies to those murdered because of their faith, and as we have seen, the Jews being stabbed and run over are chosen purely because they are Jews, not because they are "Zionists" or "Israelis" or "settlers."

Unfortunately, Jews are uncomfortable using an accurate term for their martyrs and they cede the emotional language to those who wholeheartedly support the murderers. And the casual news consumer is more sympathetic to stories that use emotional language.

Don't worry, though: one Israeli publication freely uses the word "martyr":

Martyrs are not heroes because they died, but rather because their humanity is manifested in their dreams, their connection to the land, their resilience in holding on to life in the face of oppression... The martyrs were not born to take part in a project of martyrdom, they were born to take part in the project called life. They sanctify life by sacrificing themselves for it.

Sorry - this is the anti-Israel +972 magazine, and they are talking about Arabs as well, not Jews. Ultra-left publications like +972 doesn't give a damn about Jews who are murdered except to use them as an excuse to bash Jews. But Arabs who are unfortunately killed while rioting are "martyrs."

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

Disgusting Arab video encouraging murdering Jews

This seems to have been released today, reportedly from Gaza. It shows an Arab youth who murders two stereotypical Jews, one in Chassidic dress and the other wearing a tallit (Jewish prayer shawl.)

It is as pure an example of incitement and antisemitism as you can imagine.

It is apparently from Hamas.