Two Orthodox Jewish men were stabbed in fairly rapid succession, yet the British press first called these attacks “random,” and the perpetrator is not being charged with a hate crime. See if you can guess the probable faith of the perpetrator.

A man has been charged following a double knife attack on two Orthodox Jews in Golders Green.

Mohamed Jama Ahmed, 37, of North Circular Road, Cricklewood, was arrested after two stabbings which happened just meters apart in roads off Golders Green Road on Friday.

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said the attacks, which happened at around 6pm, appear to have been random and unprovoked, but were not being treated as faith hate crimes.

Officers were alerted to a 47-year-old man in The Drive who was suffering from stab wounds to his arm and chest.

While at the scene, police were informed that a 43-year-old man had been stabbed in nearby Beverley Gardens.

Yes, the attacks were meters apart, and “random and unprovoked,” but the British police—who charged a British television station with race hate for running a program that showed the anti-British, anti-Semitic, and anti-infidel attitudes of radical Islamists in British mosques—can’t seem to bring themselves to discover a faith-based motivation for an attack on two religious Jews. I guess they must have been attacked on the day they didn’t dress as religious Jews. Or maybe the British police are of the opinion that it’s anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism, motivating the attacker.

Here’s another whitewashing:

The 37-year-old was arrested after two men were attacked within minutes of each other in Golders Green, north-west London.

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said detectives are keeping an open mind about the stabbings.

But she added that the attacks, which took place on Friday at about 6pm, were not being treated as faith hate crimes.

Amazing how the U.K. simply cannot call an anti-Semitic attack an anti-Semitic attack. No wonder anti-Semitism is on the rise in the U.K.

There’s a new paper in town!

ONE of the Middle East’s wealthiest ruling families has a new asset: The National, a newspaper that promises independence from its royal owners.The paper, an English-language daily based in Abu Dhabi, published its first issue on April 17, under close scrutiny in the Middle East and abroad. With its pledge to emulate Western newspaper standards and to “help society evolve,” The National is an anomaly in the Middle East, where most media are tightly controlled by the government.

“We aim to produce an excellent newspaper out of the region” that will set a new standard for other publications to aspire to, said Hassan M. Fattah, the deputy editor, who was a correspondent for The New York Times in the Middle East before joining The National. “Being government-owned does not equal being government-run,” he said. “There are no ministers sitting in my office” telling the paper what to write.

Western newspaper standards?

The National, which aims at expatriate and local professionals in Abu Dhabi, has published a few articles with criticisms of the region, like one about severely overcrowded private schools, which limit companies’ abilities to attract new people. It has also printed controversial opinion pieces, one asking Arabs to welcome Jewish investors to the region and another warning that Emirate culture is disappearing.

Is encouraging Jewish investment controversial in the West?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

It looks like Shaul Mofaz is openly declaring that the Golan Heights needs to stay exactly as it is right now: Under Israeli control.

Giving Syria the Golan Heights will mean bringing Iran there as well, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said overnight Monday after meeting in Washington with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[...] “I can only say one thing about that: Due to the fact that there is a strengthening of the radical axis, and Syria is a very central and dominant component of the radical axis, any handover of the Golan Heights to them means Iranians in the Golan Heights.”

“We must take this under consideration, not as a statement that creates headlines, but as an issue that will become very tangible and real,” he added. “Just as today the Iranians have a foothold in southern Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip, they will have one in the Golan Heights.”

Yes.

“This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make peace with the Syrians in the future, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk to the Syrians, but in this reality the Golan Heights is a strategic asset for Israel and handing it over to the Syrians is tantamount to handing it to the Iranians.”

And yes again. Let’s not forget that Syria regularly attacked Israel from the Golan.

From 1948-67, when Syria controlled the Golan Heights, it used the area as a military stronghold from which its troops randomly sniped at Israeli civilians in the Huleh Valley below, forcing children living on kibbutzim to sleep in bomb shelters. In addition, many roads in northern Israel could be crossed only after probing by mine-detection vehicles. In late 1966, a youth was blown to pieces by a mine while playing football near the Lebanon border. In some cases, attacks were carried out by Yasir Arafat’s Fatah, which Syria allowed to operate from its territory.

Israel’s options for countering the Syrian attacks were constrained by the geography of the Heights. “Counterbattery fires were limited by the lack of observation from the Huleh Valley; air attacks were degraded by well-dug-in Syrian positions with strong overhead cover, and a ground attack against the positions…would require major forces with the attendant risks of heavy casualties and severe political repercussions,” U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Irving Heymont observed.

Israel repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire. For example, Israel went to the UN in October 1966 to demand a halt to the Fatah attacks. The response from Damascus was defiant. “It is not our duty to stop them, but to encourage and strengthen them,” the Syrian ambassador responded. Nothing was done to stop Syria’s aggression. A mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the UN when it retaliated. “As far as the Security Council was officially concerned,” historian Netanel Lorch wrote, “there was an open season for killing Israelis on their own territory.”

After the Six-Day War began, the Syrian air force attempted to bomb oil refineries in Haifa. While Israel was fighting in the Sinai and West Bank, Syrian artillery bombarded Israeli forces in the eastern Galilee, and armored units fired on villages in the Huleh Valley below the Golan Heights.

Sure. Let’s hand the Golan back to Syria. They’ve proven themselves eminently trustworthy. It’s not like they’re trying to build nuclear weapons on the sly or anything like that. Oh, wait. Yes they are.

A suspected Syrian reactor bombed by Israel had the capacity to produce enough nuclear material to fuel one to two weapons a year, CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Monday.

Hayden said the plutonium reactor was within weeks or months of completion when it was destroyed in an air strike last September 6, and within a year of entering operation it could have produced enough material for at least one weapon.

“In the course of a year after they got full up, they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons,” Hayden told reporters after a speech.

And then there’s this spin by the UN:

A diplomat close to the UN nuclear watchdog and outside analysts have said the US disclosure did not amount to proof of an illicit arms program because there was no sign of a reprocessing plant needed to convert spent fuel from the plant into bomb-grade plutonium.

Hm. Can we think of a country that Syria is currently allied with that would have the plant necessary to do the reprocessing once the Syrians had the nuclear fuel? Let’s think. Hm. Starts with “I” and ends with “ran.” That’s right. Iran. The same people who will show up in the Golan Heights if Israel gives it back now.

Shire Network News is up, and I have a piece in this week regarding the Syrian “peace” overtures.

It’s a full house this week; Doug and Damian have commentary as well. Tom’s interview is with Barry Rubin of the GLORIA Center.

Throughout the day Reuters reported:

Israeli fire hit a house in the Gaza Strip on Monday while a family was eating breakfast, killing six Palestinians, including four children and their mother, residents and medical officials said.

Elder of Ziyon and Israelly Cool! followed the story and did a little research over the course of the day and showed that there was some doubt that it was “Israeli fire” that hit the house.

Israelly Cool!:

What I am not seeing in the mainstream media is this version reported in the Jerusalem Post (hat tip: Shy Guy):The Palestinian mother and her four children who were killed Monday during IDF ops in Beit Hanun were not hit by a tank shell but rather were killed when ammunition carried by gunmen exploded, Army Radio quoted an IDF source as saying.

Elder of Ziyon:

After reading the IDF explanation as well as the PCHR preliminary investigation into the deaths of the mother and four daughters this morning, I am convinced that the IDF version is correct - the IDF shot a missile at two terrorists who were outside the Abu Meatak home, and the explosives that at least one was carrying exploded, killing most of the family.

I’d add that Elder of Ziyon did not just rely on the IDF report.

The NY Times managed to acknowledge the Israeli version of the deaths.

The Israelis said they shot a missile from the air that hit two armed men who were carrying heavy explosives, which blew apart the family’s house behind them. Palestinian witnesses said they believed an Israeli tank shell or a missile from a drone flew into the small house, killing the four as they were eating breakfast. Two other children from the same family were badly wounded and hospitalized.

The Washington Post does too:

Israeli military officials said the blast was caused by explosives that the two gunmen were carrying in backpacks. But Gazan medical officials said the Israeli fire had directly struck the one-story, corrugated metal home of the Abu Meiteg family as the children and their mother began to eat breakfast.The children ranged in age from 1 1/2 to 5. The blast also killed a teenager passing by the home, and the Israeli military said he may have been one of the targeted gunmen.

The Post also takes care to acknowledge the sixth death. (Israel claimed to have killed the two gunmen, so the death toll should be seven not six. Or was the teenager double counted.)

The Post also gives some context:

The attack took place in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, a frequent launching area for rockets targeting southern Israel. The Israeli military said 18 rockets and more than a dozen mortar shells were fired from Gaza on Monday, adding to a tally that stands at more than 1,600 for the year. One Israeli home was damaged by the attacks, but they caused no serious injuries.

But Reuters is less a news agency than a mouthpiece for Hamas.

The game is up so what does Reuters report?

Palestinians carry the bodies of four children and their mother during their funeral in the northern Gaza Strip April 28, 2008.

That’s the complete report. Instead of reporting that there was any doubt about the circumstances surrounding their deaths, Reuters doesn’t leave us with any hints that their earlier assertion was mistaken or incomplete.

UPDATE: Crossing the Rubicon points out that Andrew Sullivan is doing all he can to promote Hamas without context too. Utterly irresponsible.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.