Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Blame The JOOOOS! "Moderate" Palestinian Authority Says Jews Behind Charlie Hebdo Attack



As translated by Palestinian Media Watch, columnists writing for the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida are claiming that the Israeli

Mossad was behind the massacre at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo.  A poll published in the Palestinian newspaper Ma'an News suggests that up to 84% of Palestinians believe that Israel was the source of the attack.

As an example, one of the columns exposed by Palwatch was written by a regular Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist, Muwaffaq Matar and published on January 15th:
[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, together with [other] Israeli leaders, is now walking in the footsteps of the first leaders of the Zionist project, who invented, created and funded the terror against the Jews in Europe, particularly in Germany, and in the Arab world. These leaders carried out [terror] operations against Jewish citizens who had been living securely in Arab and European countries, and contributed to the increase in Nazi aggression against Jews in Germany and Europe. It was they who, with their own hands, ignited the spark of the Holocaust in order to accelerate the Zionist-Jewish invasion of Palestine, and enable them [the Jews] to settle [there].

Over the next few days, the death of the officer in charge of investigating the attacks of the terrorists, who perpetrated crimes against humanity, against the French journalists and citizens, may well be revealed to have been murder, rather than suicide - for he had [discovered] the first threads of the plot leading back to Netanyahu's Mossad (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) - [the same Netanyahu] who wishes to realize the myth of the "Jewishness of Israel" even at the expense of new victims among the citizens of European countries.

Similarly, Netanyahu and [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Liberman had been yearning to take revenge on the European governments and parliaments for their conduct - in particular on the French policy - because of their positions on the Palestinian cause and their support for the decision to end the Israeli occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Columns such as the above are having their affect. Ma'an News a daily paper unaffiliated with any of the Palestinian political parties published a poll indicating Palestinian citizens believe the Charlie Hebdo attack was suspicious and was probably executed by Israel. Most probably a direct result of the incitement published in the official Palestinian government newspaper:
Ma'an poll: 85% think Israel behind the murder of French [citizens] in Paris:

"The overwhelming majority believe that the murders of the French [citizens] in Paris were suspicious operations, and that Israel may be behind them.

In a survey conducted by [the independent Palestinian news agency] Ma'an, in which 6,090 people participated over the course of the week, the majority of the participants - 84.4%, or 5,142 people - thought that the operation (i.e., terror attack) was suspicious, and that Israel may be behind it. Only 8.7%, or 531 out of 6,090 participants, believed that the murder of the French [citizens] in Paris was a natural result of the spread of Islamic extremism in Europe.

6.8%, or 417 participants, said they did not know whether the murders of the French [citizens] in France were suspicious, whether Israel is behind them, or whether they are the result of the spread of Islamic extremism in Europe.
This is just one example of the incitement coming from the Palestinian Authority controlled media. Instead of being peacemakers they are teaching hate. There will never be peace until the Palestinians stop creating more anger and distrust.

17 comments:

Jeff Dunetz said...

For one to argue that the original authors of the Constitution could not have possibly anticipated its "extended use" to protect same-sex marriage, is to assume they were lacking in their understanding of just how many situations this law might apply to. This is a subjective argument. It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court not to reason subjectively, but objectively when deciding whether or not the 14th amendment protects equally same-sex marriage, as it does heterosexual marriage. From the straight reading of the amendment, the answer can only be objectively yes, it does protect individuals right to marry, regardless of the sex of the parties desiring to marry. This is why the supreme Court will predictably rule that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected. This ruling would recognize and respect the power of the Constitution to protect the interests of ALL US citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, and other demography.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Our Constitution was/is based on God's holy word and the only reason perversion is not mentioned directly in it, is because our forefathers never envisioned our Nation ever being forced to accept it! But the fact still remains, in God's eyes perversion has always been an abomination and always will be! Homosexuality and same sex marriage is an abomination.....PERIOD!!!!

Jeff Dunetz said...

I first subscribed to your website BECAUSE it was called yidwithlid. MAZEL TOV. Just want to add that your articles are truly professional investigative journalism. You've come a long way, my friend. I read everything on your site and will continue to do so. Toda raba.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Of course Bibi had to go. It's obama who needs to leave. If Netanyahu can be re-elected and put up with another two years of our traitor-in-chief, we will become Israel's again - especially if we are smart enough to elect a republican president.

Jeff Dunetz said...

"Race is an accidental quality of a marriage partner; sex is an essential quality, bound up in the natural complementarity of men and women."

None of the 50 states' marriage laws mentions sex or natural complementarity. So whatever definition of marriage you happen to be describing has nothing to do with civil marriage.

The U.S. Constitution applies to gay Americans -- and since it's abundantly clear that states don't have a rational basis why they need to prevent gay couples from being able to marry, same-sex marriage will be law of the land in a few months.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Our founding fathers never envisioned black people being free, or women being equal to men in society, or interracial marriage, or a black man becoming president, so I'm not sure what your point is. They also made it crystal clear that our country was founded on the separation of church and state. So, no, the Constitution is not based on the word of God.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Happy Blogiversary! Hope there are many more to come.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Please show me in "The Constitution" where it states "Separation of Church and State". Hint: Its not in there!

Jeff Dunetz said...

One of thousands of articles on the subject:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/07/we-are-not-a-christian-nation/#.VMjdEMaW6N8

Jeff Dunetz said...

Sorry my friend, you are absolutely wrong and are part of the problem in our Nation, that is not only driven by stupidity but is being taken over by perverts and illegals....who are all dummycratic voters!

Jeff Dunetz said...

How about instead: A BIBLICAL LOOK at the Constitution's Position on Homosexual "Marriage"

Most conservative patriots (including most conservative Christians) would agree that constitutionally this issue is one for the States to decide. WHAT? Are you kidding me?

This issue was already decided before time by the only one with the innate authority to do so: Our Creator and Sovereign, identified in the Bible as Yahweh. To do anything other than to recognize His determination on this issue is to reject His sovereignty.

Whether left to the federal supreme court, the state supreme courts, the federal or state "legislatures," or the people by vote is merely a contemporary instance of every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25. In other words, it's a case of rank humanism, which is merely a contemporary form of Baalism.

For more, see blog article "Could You be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/could-you-be-a-disciple-of-baal-and-not-know-it/.

Also, online Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html.

Jeff Dunetz said...

The reason state laws make no mention natural complimentarity, is because it was impossible for the logical minds of our founding fathers to even perceive the absurdity of anyone even expressing the desire to wed someone of the same sex.

Jeff Dunetz said...

So what you're saying is that this recent issue about a woman wanting to marry her father (which our founding fathers never envisioned) is legitimate based on the argument that they are both adults and "love each other" and it is nobody else's business what goes on behind closed doors, Correct?

Jeff Dunetz said...

The U.S. Supreme Court quit ruling on the Constitution years ago . They continually rule on ever advancing Prior Precedent. Which is destroying the Constitution and Bill of rights. They now mean whatever the government wants them to mean, dam what the State's and People believe. I have no dought that this court will join the HomoFascist and leagilize homosexual marriage.After all two of the Justices are already performing Homosexual unions. The article V convention is the only thing that can save the constitution from these Fascist, the legislature refuses to do so.

Jeff Dunetz said...

A BIBLICAL LOOK at the Constitution's Position on Homosexual "Marriage"

Most conservative patriots (including most conservative Christians) would agree that constitutionally this issue is one for the States to decide. WHAT? Are you kidding me?

This issue was already decided before time by the only one with the innate authority to do so: Our Creator and Sovereign, identified in the Bible as Yahweh. To do anything other than to recognize His determination on this issue is to reject His sovereignty.

Whether left to the federal supreme court, the state supreme courts, the federal or state "legislatures," or the people by vote is merely a contemporary instance of every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25. In other words, it's a case of rank humanism, which is merely a contemporary form of Baalism.

For more, see blog article "Could You be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?" Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to title.



Also, online Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation" of "Bible Law vs. the
United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" on our Online Books page, on our main site.

Jeff Dunetz said...

States don't have a rational basis to prevent a father from marrying his son, or sisters marrying, or a man from marrying multiple women, a woman from marrying multiple men, or a host of other unions that are currently illegal. Are you saying those laws should be done away with as well?

Jeff Dunetz said...

Bottom line is that homosexuality has never been proved to be genetic in any scientific test, and in fact, many have left the homo lifestyle and married and had children the natural way. Without scientific proof to the contrary, gay sex is just an aberrant behavior, but one that can be resisted and another choice made, much like other sexual sins - adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc., etc. There is no precedent for granting equal protection before the law . . . for a behavior. The myth that a person has no choice in their sexual activity (not attraction) is an oft told lie - shoved down our throats year after year, in media, news, politics, sit-coms, movies so that it has now become big-hearted and compassionate to agree to the gays' claims, and bigoted to rely on facts. The fact is, many gays desire to quit that lifestyle and have done so. Look up ex-gay testimonies - they are wonderful.