Sunday, November 23, 2014

Lies and The "Stupids" Keep Swallowing! Obama An Embarrassment! Continued Yellow Journalism From NYT's Reporters!

Obama maintains after 6 yeas it was time for him to show compassion  and how much  he cares about Mexican children.

Prior to this act of questionable constitutionality it has been  revealed Obama relied upon Jonathan Gruber to impose Obamacare on the 'stupids.'

I submit Obama continues to believe American voters are stupid because he continues to sell his lies in the belief  Americans will continue to buy.

Certainly Obama is correct in one respect.  The press and media continue to buy whatever Obama serves as evidenced by their willingness to ignore  Jonathan Gruber's video revelations.

Then we have the alleged tax cheat and avowed racist, Al Sharpton, becoming a key White House advisor. Further evidence Obama cares not a whit how he has besmirched The Oval Office, while claiming there is not a 'smidgin' of evidence the IRS sought to take freedoms away from tax payers. Yet, this same IRS cannot collect a dime from Sharpton. More lies the 'stupids' are expected to swallow?

Yes, Obama has transformed our nation,by acting unilaterally after pronouncing  such actions were those of a king and in defiance of the constitution. Another lie!

This 'stupid' has been unwilling to buy Obama's lies from the git go and I continue to challenge Obama's veracity at every opportunity.

Apparently in the recent election many more 'stupids' finally came to a comparable conclusion. However, Obama is unwilling to embrace their message and rejects the 'separation of powers' clause because it would mean something he is incapable of doing - being honest, telling the truth and working with others. Why?  Because Obama enjoys the power of going it alone and proving how 'stupid' we truly are.

More lies: Left click on -   New Tab
Drop an anti-Semitic pebble in the water and it makes wider and wider concentric circles.

Just this past week a lawyer friend of my son in Pittsburgh was on a public bus, wearing a 'kepah' and he was attacked by an Arab passenger. The driver and several passengers threw the Arab off the bus. They should have held him for the police.

It is hard not to paint a whole society when there is such a profusion of Arabs and Muslims who are engaged in terrorism and encouraged by Westerners who sit silently by and an American president who is sympathetic and incapable of seeing with clear eyes.

Obama is an embarrassment.  His wife may now feel proud to be an American  but she too  is  an embarrassment.(See 1 below.)

and see three repeats from former memos ( See 1a,1b and 1c below.)
The fix is in? (See 2 below.)
The New York Times seems to have a goal, ie, continue to print false stories that support Palestinian hate so NYT's reporters have  more news to fill their yellow journal pages. (See 3 below.)

Anti-Semitism Creeps Into Europe's Daily Routines

Signs for Continent's Jews Are Not Goo

Fighting the Trend: A rally against anti-Semitism in Berlin this past September.
Fighting the Trend: A rally against anti-Semitism in Berlin this past September.

Ten years ago the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe convened a conference on European anti-Semitism. Last week it met to assess what had happened in the past decade. The signs are not good.

While a good part of the meeting was dedicated to official presentations by the participating nations, it was what one heard in the hallway over coffee that was most significant. At one point the White House delegation, of which I was part, met with representatives of an array of European Jewish communities. What we heard left me shaken.

We knew about the murders in the Brussels Jewish museum, the children gunned down on the Toulouse schoolyard, the fate of Ilan Halimi, a young French Jew who had been lured by a group of Muslims who then held him captive, tortured and eventually murdered him. We were aware of the violent demonstrations, assaults on synagogues, and the aggressive rhetoric — including “Jews to the gas” — that had occurred in various European cities. We anticipated that this would be our informants’ main concern.

While they certainly worried about this type of violence, what weighed upon them more was a “changed daily routine” that leaves them feeling “under threat.” Schools and Jewish institutions are under heavy guard. While this reassured some people, other parents described how, when they deposit their children at the Jewish schools and see the visibly armed guards protecting the site, rather than feeling reassured, they are reminded of the Toulouse schoolyard and the murdered children.

But in addition to the physical assault another attack is occurring. But for the fact that it does not take lives or break bones (no small thing), its long-term consequences may be more profound. Jews face an inner spiritual and psychological assault. Young people described being Jewish as having become a negative, a burden. “We are continuously on the defensive. It’s depressing.” Guy, a young Dutchman, recalled that not long ago a bunch of his Jewish friends gathered to celebrate his birthday. “What,” he asked us with an ironic smile, “do a group of young men talk about when they gather to drink beer and enjoy themselves? The Holocaust, anti-Semitism, and insecurity.”

In certain countries children who attend Jewish schools are warned — if not “forbidden” — from wearing anything that would single them out as Jews. No school insignias on the book bags, no school symbols on their jackets, no kippot. Nothing.

Many Jews feel abandoned by former allies. Jewish groups, both on campus and in the broader community, have long participated in coalitions of human rights organizations. “The problem is,” a young Belgian Jew observed, “that these human rights groups don’t consider Jews to be ‘victims.’ We may not face job discrimination. But we face violence.” Even after four Jews were murdered at the Brussels Jewish museum, some European human rights activists dismissed anti-Semitism as “only words” and of no real importance. Some of their colleagues even suggested that this all happened “because of Israel,” i.e. it was justified. “In short,” one young woman observed, “we have no allies.”

Why is this happening? There are multiple reasons. Much of the overt expressions of hostility come from a growing Muslim population. Their hostility towards Jews is directly linked to their hostility towards Israel. For them Jews, Israelis, and Zionists are all the same. Their hostility has long predated the Gaza conflict. But they are not the only source. There are right wing national parties, such as the Golden Dawn in Greece, which fall back on traditional hostility towards Jews. But there are also the European cultural elites, most of whom have remained decidedly silent as this scourge grows. Situated on the political left, they are critical of Israel and have conflated anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hostility. They seem unconcerned that segments of Europe are on the path to once again becoming Judenrein. One would think that but seventy years after the Holocaust the possibility would horrify them.

Some Jews, unsure that they have a “future” in Europe are leaving countries where generations of their families have lived. They head to Israel, London, the United States, and Canada. Their friends predict: “They will never come back. “

Many will probably stay put — emigrating is not an easy task — but will become “invisible Jews.” Young Jews repeatedly spoke of their contemporaries who “are going underground.” Students feel it increasingly uncomfortable to say “I’m Jewish.” They disengage from campus Jewish life.

Over the past two decades there has been a resurgence of Jewish life in much of Europe. Jewish cultural celebrations, schools, kindergartens, camps, and learning festivals have multiplied. Many are flourishing but, as one American who has lived in Germany for over thirty years observed, “if this atmosphere continues it will undo all these good things.” Recently her eleven-year-old daughter saw a man at a bus stop. His attire made it clear that he was a Jew. Turning to her mother, she announced: “He can’t walk around that way.” When her mother assured her that it was his right to wear whatever he wanted, the daughter insisted that he should not do it because “it’s not safe.”

When your young children understand that it is not safe for them to express who they are, the future is not bright.

Deborah E. Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. She chairs the US Holocaust Museum’s Committee on

olocaust Denial and State-Sponsored ​Anti​s​emitism. She was a member of the Presidential delegation to the OSCE Conference last week in Berlin.

1a)   Michelle Obama and the Why of Ferguson, Missouri
It’s difficult to imagine a sadder state of affairs than political figures suggesting that any constituent group must adhere to a predetermined ideology without question, preaching that the flock should unquestionably follow a political party’s whims in lockstep.  We all know such a thing be an anathema among free-thinking people, don’t we? 

This is a trait of past civilizations that we often ridicule and lament, having the benefit of hindsight and the blessings of Western concepts of morality.  How, indeed, did Germans fall under the Nazi spell?  When, exactly, did the Khmer Rouge accept their roles as enforcers of party-line groupthink to the extent that they would murder their own countrymen for a lack of faith in the Communist regime?  At what moment did Mao’s subjects sacrifice their own right to human choice such that millions perished under the yoke of communalist agricultural revolution called the “Great Leap Forward?”

These are all enduring questions in our effort to dissect political dysfunction and the nature of humankind.  But I would offer this: we need not look at history.  Look at our current First Lady to see such methods of indoctrination at work.
Before this month’s election, Michelle Obama beseeched an audience to vote along party lines, “no matter who’s on the ballot.” “It’s not about that person on the ballot,” she said.  “It’s about you, and for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on regardless of who said what or did this, that shouldn’t even come into the equation.”

As the television audience to whom she directed these comments is primarily composed of blacks, we can safely infer that she meant blacks should think and act of one mind, and march to the polls and vote Democrat at her behest.  Or at the very least, the color of their skin alone should compel them to do so.  That is a suggestion that should be pretty ridiculous if you consider in most other contexts.

Imagine that I were to suggest that all other Anglo-Hispanic Americans, be they from California, Maine, or anywhere in that broad space between, are singularly tied to my personal experience in such a way that despite having shared little or no common experience with me beyond our ethnic and racial background, we are bound by a singular expression of thought and action.  Then imagine that I tell you that you should vote Republican, because anyone in that racial category should always vote for Republicans at all costs, regardless of which politician is on the ballot, irrespective of the party’s track record, and oblivious to what Republican politicians have expressed to be the intended consequence of their having a future mandate.

If you listened to me and unthinkingly voted Republican on the weight of my plea, you wouldn’t be acting on your own volition.  You would be acting in accordance to my will, because you have surrendered your right to think for yourself and have put your faith in a political machine.
In a nutshell, that is how individualism dies, and collectivist ambition prevails -- through the invention and exploitation of identity groups which elites insist must define one’s thoughts and expression.  One’s supposed inclusion with this preset identity group must necessarily forbid any individual expression to the contrary -- a message usually delivered by charismatic mediums. 
Such are the sly seductions which have infected our culture in recent decades, and these leftist seductions -- not institutional white racism -- are the culprit that keeps Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a world where men are judged “by the content of their character” and not by the “color of their skin” just out of reach.  Democrats outwardly claim to desire Dr. King’s post-racial world, yet they deny it an existence and smother his dream by relentlessly clinging to racial identities and fomenting racial animus.  They disseminate theories about a society which is motivated by strangling black ambition and success, even as a black man and a black woman hold the two highest-of-high profile positions within that very society.  Some among Michelle’s target audience have the good sense to recognize the hypocrisy in Democrats sermonizing about the curse of poverty among black demographics from their lavish pulpit.  But tragically, most just take Michelle Obama’s plea to heart, and focus on the supposed microcosms of institutional racism against blacks -- like black people are supposed to do, as I’m sure Michelle would argue. 

And like marionettes on strings, the rabid flock, influenced by the attack-politics of Democrats and media race-hustlers, has descended upon Ferguson, Missouri, undoubtedly driven at some level by delusions of grandeur about it being this generation’s Selma, Alabama.   Some are there to profit and/or grow the brand (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the deceased Michael Brown’s family, et al), while some are there to simply break things, steal stuff, and hurt people, disguising their selfish aggression and desire for attention as festering anger about racism, or something like that.  And undeterred by the onslaught of released evidence which suggests that Michael Brown’s death at the hands of Darren Wilson was not a simple matter of a teen with his hands up gunned down by a murderous officer as the popular narrative suggests, and despite the results of a grand jury investigation which angry black mobs will likely find disagreeable in any event, Democrats and the media will report the profiteering, arson, thievery, and violence that will ensue in Ferguson as if it has anything to do at all with Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, and nothing to do with the incendiary and dangerous rhetoric that Democrats have delivered leading up to and surrounding the incident which brought all of it about.
Yes, Ferguson is indeed a microcosm of a deeply rooted societal disease.  But it’s certainly not white racism.

1b) Executive Amnesty: Will We Allow One Man to Fundamentally Transform America?

After six years of putting up with his eldest son actively working with those crazy racist white folks in the Tea Party against the first black president, my 86-year-old black dad has finally begun to understand why.
A lifelong Democrat, Dad contributed to the GOP shocking victory in Maryland by voting Republican in the 2014 midterm.  It has taken me six years to convince Dad that conservatism is much better for everyone than liberalism.  Dad is old-school, with basic beliefs.  Democrats are for the working-class little guy.  Republicans are for the rich.  Oh, and Republicans are also racists.

So you can imagine the challenges I faced trying to re-educate him.  Dad believed that the Tea Party was racist because he heard it on CNN.  I said, “Dad, I travel the country on the Tea Party Express tour bus.  And they allow me to sit up front.  However, I prefer riding in the back, because there is a large TV back there, and I can watch all the football games.”  Dad chuckled.

I know what you are thinking: Lloyd, why haven't you turned your dad on to Fox News?  I have tried.  I do not know why he rejects Fox and conservative talk radio.  Still, I am working on it, folks.  I am working on it.
With the biased MSM as his main news source, Dad is a low-info voter.  I have been working on Dad, educating him one issue at a time.  Dad is a good guy, warm and compassionate.  I am trying to get him to use his common sense and instincts for right and wrong rather than getting caught up in the Democrats' and MSM's emotional, manipulative spin on issues.

We chatted about illegal immigration.  Dad has been a Christian pastor for over 50 years.  He is still the pastor of four churches; driving several miles to visit the sick and shut-ins.

Dad, remember when Mom used to get annoyed at people who used you and your church?”  Dad chuckled.  I do not recall Dad ever turning away anyone in need.

Mom was frustrated with people who did not want to contribute in any way to Dad's ministry – never attending a single service or listening to a sermon.  All they were interested in was the freebies available at the church: food, clothing, and so on.  They wanted Rev. “My-cus-sin” (Marcus) – never did get his name right – to perform their weddings and funerals for free.  They expected Dad to show up at their homes or hospitals in the middle of the night in times of crisis, despite never once setting foot in Dad's church.  Still, Dad faithfully did it all.  He was functioning on a higher level – the level of God's love.

I told Dad that the illegals flooding across our borders have the same we're-just-here-to-take mindset that frustrated Mom.  They do not want to assimilate.  Heck, they could not give a rat's derrière about what it means to be an American.  Illegals proudly fly their Mexican flag and are offended when our kids wear American flag t-shirts to school on Cinco de Mayo.  Illegals receive entitlements unavailable to U.S. citizens.  They have no desire, nor is there a pressing need for them, to learn English.

While liberals claim that poor humble illegals are quaking in their boots “hiding in the shadows,” illegals are boldly and arrogantly protesting in our streets, demanding entitlements and that they not be deported.  Illegals claim a moral right to be in our country, while blatantly breaking and ignoring our laws.

The spin promoted from the bully pulpits of the MSM and White House is that anyone who does not turn a blind eye to illegals breaking our laws, making demands, and abusing our system is a hard-hearted racist.

Meanwhile, a mysterious polio-like illness has paralyzed 75 kids across America.  The rare Enterovirus D68 is causing an outbreak across 45 states, sickening nearly 700 – mostly children.  Illegal alien minors are also spreading dengue fever, swine flu, tuberculosis, and possibly Ebola.  Obama's open border policy has delivered over 300,000 illegals; 75,000 of them are children who directly entered schools across Americawithout proper examinations and so on. 

It has been exposed that many of the illegals are gang members and drug dealers.

As inconceivable as this is to imagine, it does appear that one man, exploiting the historical aspect of his presidency to break the law at will, may be allowed to fundamentally transform America.  Obama via executive order will grant amnesty to 5 million illegals, plus the 75,000 children who invaded our country and their parents.
If Republicans do not stop Obama's insanity, one characterless, out-of-control, arrogant, evil liar will fundamentally transform America.  That is totally unacceptable.

Years ago, I wrote a satirical article to illustrate illegal immigration and how we are expected to deal with it.  I was shocked that many people thought my fictional scenario was true.  Their reaction spoke to how crazy, brain-dead, and emotion-driven the topic of illegal immigration has become, and what people think of our government.
In my parable, I came home to discover that a family had taken up residency in my backyard storage shed.  Displaying remarkable arrogance and a sense of entitlement, the squatters refused to leave, arguing that they were simply seeking a better life.  Their TV, computers, etc. were powered with an electrical cord plugged into the exterior outlet of my home.

Infuriated, I asked the police and City Hall to remove the trespassers from my property.  Upon local government discovering the race of my invaders, I was accused of being selfish and cruel, and of using the law to hide my hateful racism.  Suddenly, I began witnessing a migration of my trespassers' relatives and friends into my backyard, littering my property with tents, makeshift shelters, and old vehicles.

The city cited me for numerous code violations, which included all the dangerous electric cords and bizarre hook-ups into my electrical power source.  I was ordered to immediately upgrade my electrical power to meet the needs of my current and potential new residents. 

From that point in my imaginary tale, the pandering to my trespassers by my local government got even more outrageous.  You get the idea.  Folks, this is exactly what is happening in our national home, America.  Illegals are showing up and making outrageous demands.  The Obama administration is siding with them.  The reality of the situation is just that simple.

Imagine Jeopardy game show host Alex Trebek saying, “The lawless man who fundamentally transformed America.”  If we do not politically stop him, the correct Final Jeopardy question will be, “Who is Barack Hussein Obama?”

In his fine post on last night’s speech, Jonathan wrote, “But President Obama has made that impossible by firing the first shot in a political war intended to further polarize the nation. Nothing could be more cynical or less high-minded.”

This is not incidental damage to our republic.

There is such a thing as a nation’s political and civic culture. Ours is in some disrepair right now. This isn’t the only time that’s been the case, for sure. Politics in a free society–any free society–guarantees some amount of division and polarization. But beyond a certain point it’s not normative or healthy; and if there are large, difficult problems that need to be addressed, as is now the case, the political system has to work. Right now it’s not.

Why it’s not is a complicated matter. But there’s no question that President Obama bears a great deal of the responsibility for our political distemper. His announcement last night that he’s going to employ means that he himself deemed to be lawless and unconstitutional, in order to get his way on immigration, is guaranteed to further roil our politics. Indeed, it may well have been done in part to do just that. Whatever his motivations, Mr. Obama has taken an unprecedented step that will further split apart not just our two parties but our nation.

It’s worth reminding ourselves, then, that when he first ran for president, Mr. Obama not only promised to place greater limits on executive power; he also promised to “turn the page” on the “old politics” of division and anger. He would end a politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” He would help us to “rediscover our bonds to each other and … get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” His election, he informed us, was a sign we had “chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”

“I will listen to you,” Obama said on a stage in Grant Park on the night of his election, “especially when we disagree.” And on the day of his inauguration he came to proclaim “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Yet here we are, six years later, with a president who has caused greater division and conflict, who has deepened public cynicism, and who has chosen–eagerly and gleefully chosen–conflict and discord over unity of purpose. This may not be the worst sin of the Obama era, but it ranks quite high on the list.

Other presidents have made mistakes, and some have committed impeachable offenses. But I would be hard-pressed to name a president who has so selfishly and narcissistically injured our constitutional order and political culture. The baleful effects of the Obama presidency are now nearly incalculable.
2) BREAKING: West About to Cave on Key Iranian Demand

The deadline for the talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1 is now less than two days away.

As the time nears for either the ability to announce an "historic agreement" about nuclear weapons with Iran or failure on yet another front, there are reports of an alarming shift in the wind blowing out of the west: a growing inclination to allow Iran to avoid admitting "possible military dimensions" (PMD) of its nuclear program in order to have a historic agreement.

Many news outlets are referring to the condition as merely a "mea culpa" demand, useful only as a tool to humiliate Iran. The suggestion is that the PMD requirement should be relaxed in order to allow Iran to "save face."

Others, including former members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, have warned that allowing Iran to evade the requirement now, and easing sanctions without securing an agreement from the ayatollahs to acknowledge the PMD of its nuclear program will sabotage any chance of future verification programs.

From the beginning of his administration, U.S. President Barack Obama has soothed potential detractors with his assurance that he would force full Iranian disclosure. "Iran is on notice," the president said in September of 2009, "they are going to have to come clean."

Less than two years ago Secretary of State John Kerry reinforced the president's longstanding demand, stating that "the president has made it definitive" that the Islamic Republic needs to answer all "questions surrounding Iran's nuclear program."

But it isn't just that the U.S. president  - indeed, the entire Western diplomatic effort - has rested on the need for Iran to come clean about its past that makes the PMD absolutely essential. Rather, allowing Iran to evade full cooperation with the IAEA inquiries would neuter any ability of the west to measure what kinds of progress Iran is making with respect to its nuclear program.

This point was made forcefully in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this past spring, "Making Iran Come Clean About Its Nukes." David Albright, a former Iraq U.N. inspector, and Bruno Tertrais, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, were unequivocal about the need for Iran to address the questions it has been evading by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency about its nuclear weapons development.
To be credible, a final agreement must ensure that any effort by Tehran to construct a bomb would be sufficiently time-consuming and detectable that the international community could act decisively to prevent Iran from succeeding. It is critical to know whether the Islamic Republic had a nuclear-weapons program in the past, how far the work on warheads advanced and whether it continues. Without clear answers to these questions, outsiders will be unable to determine how fast the Iranian regime could construct either a crude nuclear-test device or a deliverable weapon if it chose to renege on an agreement.
Without the essential benchmark information provided by PMD disclosure, any information going forward would be virtually meaningless.

The experts asked the world to consider why anyone should believe that if Iran is given a free pass now to evade questions about its weapons program when "biting" sanctions on its oil exports and financial transactions are in place, how could there be any hope of forcing the Islamic Republic to answer those questions later, after sanctions are lifted?

"Washington and the Europeans have arrived at a critical juncture. If the West fails to demand that Iran verifiably fess up to the military dimensions of its nuclear program, the odds are good that Ayatollah Khamenei would be able to build the bomb without fear of discovery," Albright and Tertrais wrote.

So if the PMD information really is so essential, why would the West agree to give up on this issue?

The answer is, the appearance of a deal may have become more important than the content of the deal. And the Iranians are fully aware of this.

Iran has already drawn its line in the sand. "PMD is out of question. It cannot be discussed," was the quote by an Iranian official in the Reuters article.

And the West has not lately been quite as vigilant about insisting its own lines in the sand are not re-drawn by its enemies.

About the Author: Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the US correspondent for The Jewish Press. 

Israel is not only still reeling from the horror of a Palestinian terror attack on a Jerusalem synagogue earlier this week. Almost as shocking is the spectacle of hatred in Arab neighborhoods and cities in Jerusalem, the West Bank Gaza in which the two terrorists that hacked and shot four Jews praying and a Druze policeman are being treated as heroes. Yet the crime as well as the sometimes-violent demonstrations of glee and laudatory statements from Palestinian leaders about the murder of civilians has been largely treated in the Western media as just another unfortunate tit-for-tat between two warring peoples. Even worse, the motivation for terror attacks as well as the applause they generate is being represented as a function of Palestinian complaints about settlements, alleged discrimination or funding issues. But, as this report from the Times of Israel tracing the events of the last week shows, the explanations offered by the New York Times, to choose just the most egregious example of distorted coverage, are completely missing the madness that is driving the conflict.

As the Times of Israel reports, the genesis of the synagogue attack and its violent aftermath may have been fueled in no small part by false reports about the murder of a Palestinian bus driver. The man was found hanged in his bus and both Israeli and Palestinian coroners ruled that the death was obviously a suicide. But in the hothouse Palestinian rumor mill in which conspiracy theories about alleged Jewish atrocities are the coin of the realm, this, along with wild claims about Israeli “violation of women at al-Aksa” was enough to send two men into a synagogue to murder and untold thousands of their compatriots into the streets to support their crime.

This is a significant fact because Western journalists, such as the New York Times’ Jodi Rudoren, have been seeking to explain the atrocity and the support for it by linking it to critiques of Israeli policies about allowing Jews to move to parts of Jerusalem or municipal funding policies that may short change Arabs. I have already critiqued Rudoren’s reporting in terms of its misperceptions about what is negotiable in the conflict as well as her false claims of moral equivalence about attacks on houses of worship. Our Seth Mandel also touched on these issues as well as Rudoren’s claims that her critics are biased.

But the big picture here is not so much the poor performance of the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief as it is the failure by her paper and most other mainstream publishing outlets to delve deeper into the real roots of Palestinian anger. By choosing to obsess over policy questions that dovetail with Obama administration complaints about Israel’s government, Rudoren ignored the mania of hate that seems to bubble up from the Palestinian street. That not only fails to explain what sends Palestinians out to slaughter Jews or to cheer such actions, it also demonstrates a lack of understanding as to why the conflict as a whole is so impervious to solutions.

If Palestinian leaders have consistently and repeatedly rejected Israeli peace offers throughout the last 15 years and, indeed, all chances at territorial compromise dating back to the 1930s, it is because their political culture is still driven by the same factors that led to the Har Nof massacre this week as well as the pogroms of 1929 and 1936 that were similarly motivated by false rumors about Jewish activity on the Temple Mount. It’s not just that Palestinians have had hatred for Jews driven into them by their leaders and media for a century, it’s that their view of the conflict is one that is rooted in belief that Jews are an enemy that must be driven from the land.

Israelis and their government are not perfect but the willingness of Palestinians to believe any tall tale about Jewish crimes has little to do with the Netanyahu government’s policies and everything to do with a variant of Jew hatred that has found a home in the Middle East in the last 100 years. While it is possible to talk about what Israel might do to appease their antagonists’ ambitions in order to promote peace, it is this virus of anti-Semitism that must be addressed if any Palestinian leader will ever have the courage to sign a peace deal with the Israelis that will recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders might be drawn.

The lunacy that leads to blood-soaked bodies lying on a synagogue floor begins with this hate and paranoia that has driven itself deep into the psyche of the Palestinian imagination. It is the same psychosis that allows Palestinian Authority media and officials to promote conspiracy theories and praise terrorists. So long as even a supposed moderate such as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas can call a terrorist murderer a “martyr” who went straight to heaven, why should we be surprised that Jerusalem and West Bank Arabs think the Jews are raping Muslims on the Temple Mount or murdering bus drivers, even though these are imaginary crimes?

So long as mainstream media outlets ignore the truth about Palestinian politics and terror, it is also no surprise that their coverage of the conflict tells us more about their biases than anything happening on the ground.