Boykot Israel? Ja’øh, gør I bare det…

Antisemitisme, Campusradikalisme, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on September 2, 2014 at 9:29 am

Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post

The supermarket skirmishes over the Palestine dispute, most of which occurred in Europe, target retailers who carry Israeli products, and even kosher foods produced domestically. The U.K.’s Tesco supermarket chain saw a mob of protesters ransack a store, clearing shelves of Israeli products and demanding the chain cease doing business with Israel. To avoid that fate, a London supermarket, this one belonging to the Sainsbury chain, pre-emptively stripped its shelves of kosher products, including those produced in Britain. In the U.K., the police recognize many of the anti-Israel protesters — they’re the same ones who show up at anti-fracking rallies.

In North America, anti-Israel protesters use barcode-reading smartphone apps to identify Israel-related products. These free apps, first developed by young leftists to target products that contribute to the bottom line of the conservative Koch brothers (Dixie cups and Stainmaster carpets are among the offenders), also help consumers boycott companies over causes now in vogue, such as the labelling of GMO foods.

Solomon er ikke imponeret over resultaterne over denne antisemitisme (som han med rette mener der er tale om), da Israels produkter er højteknologiske og uundværlige (Google, Intel, USB stick og sådan). Adam Reuter fra Ynet News tager den jødehadende boykot kampagne endnu mere roligt

Let’s start with the conclusion: Israeli exports are not affected by the present economic boycott, nor will they be affected in the future. This is not because certain European consumer groups and the like are not trying – it is because the unique nature of Israel’s exports simply does not allow for it. It’s a logical concept on paper, but simply does not hold water in reality.

The most obvious example of how the boycott concept is unsustainable is Israel’s trade relations with Turkey. In 2010, after Cast Lead, and the Mavi Marmara incident in particular, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (who is now trying to change the laws in his country in order to become something akin to a sultan) demanded a boycott of Israel at every opportunity.

And lo and behold - just the opposite has happened. Trade relations with Turkey, both exports and imports, have jumped dramatically and are now at the highest level – and almost 100% rise since 2009, long before the Mavi Marmara.

Og det er fordi…

Israel’s exports are driven by thousands of companies of all kinds, with the most diverse ownership and in a wide variety of markets, albeit with a low international profile. There is no Israeli company that is considered a global brand, and hence could be used as a clear indicator.

Many Israeli companies operate in niche areas, as an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) or as subsidiaries of foreign multinationals.

In addition, Israeli exports are almost never sold to the end consumer. In fact, this is the case for about 95 percent of Israel’s exports, almost all of which are involved in business-to-business (B2B) trade with the large international corporations who are only interested in the best product or service at the most competitive price.

With all due respect to what is happening there, the attacks in Gaza are not a consideration in the cold world of business, nor is really of any interest.

Og tak for det for som man kan læse på Forbes, ville det være en ulykke for de syge, hvis antisemitismen fik held med sit foretagende skriver From the Grapevine

The global health technology industry is booming as population levels and life expectancies increase around the world. Forbes recently named its picks for the top-10 most important health companies, from a start-up that enables doctors to provide patients with personalized instructions via easy-to-understand videos, to a  robotic exoskeleton that helps people with spinal cord injuries to walk. Five of the 10 companies have ties to Israel.

“It’s amazing that Israel – a country of only 8 million people – produces so many leading health technology companies,” David E. Williams, president of the the U.S.-based Health Business Group, told From the Grapevine.

“Israel’s highly educated technical and medical workers are reared in a society that prizes problem solving and innovation and that places tremendous value on curing illness and saving lives,” Williams added. “These conditions have generated a virtuous cycle that draws venture capital and contributes to a rich ecosystem that speeds innovation, lowers costs, and increases the likelihood for companies to succeed.”

Det er jo den gamle klassiker; når antisemitten bliver syg trygler han om at få en jødisk læge.

Venstrefløjen plaget af uerkendt indsigt

Dansk Folkepartis Søren Espersen mener ifølge Information at “Det var en fejl at invadere Irak og styrte landets diktator, Saddam Hussein”

»Saddam Hussein er i forhold til det her langt at foretrække. Men det er altid et spørgsmål om, at mellem to onder vælger man det mindste. Det er ikke, fordi jeg holder af Saddam Hussein. Men det er så langt at foretrække, at han sad i Baghdad i dag end de andre,« siger Dansk Folkepartis udenrigsordfører, som tidligere også har fortrudt til sin støtte til interventionen i Libyen.

Højrefløjen må leve med at de nok foretog et konkret fejlskøn da de væltede Saddam og troede at de kunne hjælpe arabiske muslimer ind i demokratiets lyksaligheder. Det var en konkret fejl i en konkret situation. Men for venstrefløjen tegner der sig en erkendelse der kan true deres verdensbillede. Om man skulle have invaderet Irak eller ej så er de neokonservatives optimistiske eksperiment for alle til skue. Nogle kulturer er blot ikke til at redde. Nogle kulturer vil ikke det bedste for dem selv eller for deres børn - og derfor vil de heller ikke os noget godt. Nogle kulturer kan kun håbe på en brutal tyran der kan holde de folkelige grusonheder i ave.

»Jeg kan ikke følge Espersen i, at valget står mellem diktatorer eller kaos. Den præmis accepterer jeg ikke. Når jeg for eksempel kigger på Tunesien – og andre lande som har været gennem en demokratisk proces – så er det rigtigt, at det aldrig er nogen enkel proces. Nogle steder er der kaotiske tilstande. Men det er jo ikke, fordi de lande er begyndt at forfølge demokratiske drømme og mål. Det skyldes, at der er meget, meget stærke kræfter – som vil være der under alle omstændigheder – der er interesseret i at fremme interne modsætninger mellem shia- og sunnimuslimer,« siger Martin Lidegaard.

En anden af de daværende krigsmodstandere, SF’s daværende formand og nuværende forsvarsordfører, Holger K. Nielsen, er enig:

»Selv om Irak-krigen har været en katastrofe, så anerkender jeg ikke Søren Espersens præmis: Det var måden, man fjernede Saddam Hussein på, som vi var imod. Hvis USA i stedet havde brugt lige så mange penge på at støtte oppositionen til Saddam Hussein, som på krigen, kunne resultatet være blevet et andet.«

Men ak for d’herrer Lidegaard og Nielsen, det var ikke amerikanernes håndtering eller tonen i debatten, der fik Irak til at gå i opløsning, det var irakkerne selv. Nu, uden en tyran, overladt til sig selv og deres manglende evne til empati og selvkontrol, forfalder de til deres kulturelle og religiøse balast og slagter lystigt løs på hinanden.

Og denne frustration gentager sig i kommentarerne, der i sin særlige blanding af amerikanerhad, anti-kapitalisme, antisemitisme og konspirationsteorier fremtvinger indsigter, som endnu har til gode at blive taget alvorligt. En Carsten Hansen siger det resigneret ligeud

Kan det konstateres at repræsentanter fra den yderste venstrefløj er ganske enige med DF i denne sag.

At Mellemøstlige befolkninger er bedre tjent med at leve i diktaturer ?

Ja, det er den sørgelige sandhed. Frø af ugræs skal slås og holdes nede, som Brian Larsen tørt konstaterer ”Ja, Irak var langt bedre tjent med Saddam. Godt han kan indrømme det.” Carsten Hansen kommer dog igen med en nuancering

Men er det sandheden, at befolkningerne ikke ønsker demokrati ?
Eller er det ikke nærmere store mindretal blandt befolkningerne der er tilpas voldelige og sekteriske nok til, at de ikke ønsker at dele magten ?.
Mon ikke langt de de fleste almindelige mennesker ønsker fred og frihed ?

Her rammer Hansen noget centralt. Irak har haft høje stemmeprocenter og de første valg blev afholdt med stor succes trods trusler fra jihadister og gamle Saddam loyalister. Men det ændrer ikke ved regnestykket. Den muslimske og arabiske kultur fremmer ikke kollektiv mindelighed og tøjler ikke den mørkeste grusomhed. Dens ære-skam dynamik gør det til den største kæps rige, hvor brutalitet er det eneste argument der kan ræsonnere. En sørgelig præmis, men det er sandheden uagtet, hvad Lidegaard og Nielsen vil anderkende og acceptere. En anden kommenterer

Fejlen var at invasionen var “ulovlig”, og at man for at tilgodese Tyrkiets undertrykkelse af kurderne ikke opdelte Irak i 3 dele.

Ulovlig i citationstegn? Åbenbart, ja endda selvfølgelig, er succes monokulturel og fiasko multikulturel. Også Kjeld Hansen har et skarpt blik for kulturens betydning for et samfunds succes

For en gangsskyld vil jeg give DF ret. Hele mellemøsten har andre traditioner og værdier, samt en anden kulturel baggrund end det demokratiske vesten. Man gør ikke et land demokratisk ved at fjerne en diktator. Det er en proces, som kan tage mange årtier.

- Og hvem siger resten af verden absolut vil leve som i USA og Europa?

I øvrigt, så har en supermagt som USA kun forsøgt, at ubrede demokrati med uset militær magt i egen interesse. Ikke for at gøre noget godt for landets befolkning. Og hver gang USA er gået i krig for frihedens skyld som det hedder, har det altid været mod mindre velbeslåede lande med et svagt og delvis forsvarsløst militært.

Jeg tog det sidste afsnit med fordi det er så morsomt når folk ikke ved, hvad de selv skriver. Hvilke lande kunne USA gå i krig med, der ikke var dem økonomisk og militært underlegne? Espen Bøghs logik bliver også svigtet af hans indgroede fjendebilleder i denne Mabuselignende rablen

Diktatorer sidder oftest kun så længe de lever, og kommer der en ny diktator, - “der om man så må sige samler landet igen”.

Saddam Husseins søn/sønner kunne selvfølgelig efterfølge ham, men sjældent går det godt ret længe, da kun få accepterer dette i inderkredsen eller udefra.

Nordkorea er nærmet undtagelsen der bekræfter reglen, men lykkeligt er det næppe, selvom der hersker nærmest gude- eller kultstatus omkring lederen, - som reelt selv er fange af fortiden u nutiden.

Så efter en diktator kommer blot en ny diktator, hvilket Amerika burde have lært fra Iran, hvor de for øvrigt engang tidligere valgte at fjerne en demokratisk valgt præsident, og indsætte Shahen af Persien, Mohammed Reza Palevi, som var amerikansk marionet, der med sit tyranniske hemmelige politi, SAVAK, knægtede enhver form for demokratisk tale eller det der blot lignede.

Den demokratisk valgte præsident, havde nok været bedre i demokratisk henseende end for Irak, men den historie fik vi aldrig grundet Amerikansk undergravende indblanding dengang.

Med Shahen ude af billedet, kom ayatollah Khomeini tilbage fra Frankrig, som have lagt hus til denne religiøse fanatiker, hvilket adskillige vestlige lande som regel plejer at gøre.

Anders Fogh Rasmussens udtalelser er på randen af vanvid, og demonstrerer helt klart, at manden ikke selv mener eller tror han kan tage fejl, og derfor gemmer sig bagved, at give skylden for det kaos der nu er til Irakerne selv, ved at frikende den Amerikanske indsats.

Imidlertid er der kaos i Irak skabt netop af den Amerikanske intervention, og den måde Amerikanerne har håndteret situationen på igennem hele perioden, og samtidig brugt uanede summer af dollars på falsk loyalitet til de forkerte.

Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadaffi og deres lige var ikke engle på jorden, og skal ikke forsvares i den anledning eller på nogen måde, men tilstanden var dog stabil, og vist var det hemmelige politi og dets metoder ækle, men det blev jo ikke nævneværdigt bedre med al Maliki og hans slæng.

I dag er der så kaos i Irak, Libyen, Afghanistan m.m. som vesten har ansvaret for efter deres afprøvning af de seneste og mest moderne våben, så vesten kunne demonstrere sin overlegne våbenmagt og strategier for krigsførelse, - og Ih hvor er vi dog imponeret af os selv her bagefter, men vi er også samtidig uskyldige, for vi ville jo det gode!

Også Kurt Loftkjær lufter sin uerkendte indsigt når han postulerer at…

….demokrati ikke indføres med indsatstyrker og anden tvang. Det kræver hårdt arbejde og velvilje.

Det er meget optimistisk at tro, at Vesten kan rykke ind i Mellemøsten med de grænser, som opstod på baggrund af europæiske koloniherres opdeling af området for egen vindings skyld og uden hensyn til områdets stammefolk og religioner. Et område som kun få fra den vestlige kultur forstår eller har forsøgt at forstå.

Jeg hørte efter 1. Golfkrig en irakisk kvinde udtrykke betænkelighed over tanken om at fjerne Saddam Hussein. Efter hendes opfattelse havde han på flere områder sikret kvinder et bedre liv, end de ville kunne opnå i andre dele af Mellemøsten.

Igen; Velvilje har de lokale ikke; anklagen mod grænser der ikke tager hensyn til folkeslag og religioner er en anklage mod det multietniske/kulturelle/religiøse og resultet er at kun vold ved Saddam kunne sikre kvinderne en tålelig tilværelse. Det samme når Bob Jensen frem til før sin kulturelt selvhadende tirade

sadam hussein gav kvinder lige rettigheder med mænd, lavede et fremragende undervisnings - og sundhedssystem. han byggese et sekulært samfund i stedet for et bygget på religiøs fundamentalisme. selv om han heller ikke forbød religion. Han var en brutal diktator, fordi han vidste, at kun eh hård hånd kunne holde de modstridende religøse faktioner i ave, som landet havde med at gøre som resultat af de europæiske stormagters ignorante opdeling af mellemøsten omkring første verdenskrig.
Det er helt bestemt aldrig godt med en diktator. men det er såmænd heller ikke så skidegodt med en neoliberal regering, som skider hul i den brede befolknings behov og ønsker…

Og der stopper vi så før idiosynkrasierne løber løbsk. Saddam stod i modsætning til den folkelige kultur, i modsætning til multikulturen og islam (selvfølgelig kaldet religiøs fundamentalisme) og dette kunne kun holdes i ave ved vold. Så Espersen indrømmer en fejl, men den fejl har har revet afsløret venstrefløjens illusoriske verdensbillede og efterladt den forpint af sine kognitive dissonanser.

Muslimsk klangbund

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Diverse, Irak, Jihad, Kalifatet, Kristenforfølgelse, Muslimer, Syrien, Terror, islam — Drokles on August 26, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Daniel Greenfield skriver så rigtigt at det der er galt med ISIS er det der er galt med islam.

Wahhabi armies have been attacking Iraq in order to wipe out Shiites for over two hundred years. One of the more notably brutal attacks took place during the administration of President Thomas Jefferson.

That same year the Marine Corps saw action against the Barbary Pirates and West Point opened, but even Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Howard Zinn chiming via Ouija board would have trouble blaming the Wahhabi assault on the Iraqi city of Kerbala in 1802 on the United States or an oil pipeline.

(…)

The media finds it convenient to depict the rise of newly extremist groups being radicalized by American foreign policy, Israeli blockades or Danish cartoons. A closer look however shows us that these groups did not become radicalized, rather they increased their capabilities.

ISIS understood from the very beginning that targeting Shiites and later Kurds would give it more appeal to Sunni Arabs inside Iraq and around the Persian Gulf. Bin Laden tried to rally Muslims by attacking America. ISIS has rallied Muslims by killing Shiites, Kurds, Christians and anyone else it can find.

Every news report insists that ISIS is an extreme outlier, but if that were really true then it would not have been able to conquer sizable chunks of Iraq and Syria. ISIS became huge and powerful because its ideology drew the most fighters and the most financial support. ISIS is powerful because it’s popular.ISIS has become more popular and more powerful than Al Qaeda because Muslims hate other Muslims even more than they hate America. Media reports treat ISIS as an outside force that inexplicably rolls across Iraq and terrorizes everyone in its path. In reality, it’s the public face of a Sunni coalition. When ISIS massacres Yazidis, it’s not just following an ideology; it’s giving Sunni Arabs what they want.Jamal Jamir, a surviving Yazidi, told CNN that his Arab neighbors had joined in the killing.

I stedet for at citere Jamal Jamir i CNN, så er her en tilsvarende historie fra Sabah Hajji Hassan på Yahoo News om at islam er, hvor der er muslimer

Yazidis fleeing a jihadist onslaught in northern Iraq say neighbours took up arms alongside their attackers, informing on members of the religious minority and helping the militants take over.

“The (non-Iraqi) jihadists were Afghans, Bosnians, Arabs and even Americans and British fighters,” said Sabah Hajji Hassan, a 68-year-old Yazidi who managed to flee the bloody offensive by the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group.

“But the worst killings came from the people living among us, our (Sunni) Muslim neighbours.”

“The Metwet, Khawata and Kejala tribes — they were all our neighbours. But they joined the IS, took heavy weapons from them, and informed on who was Yazidi and who was not. Our neighbours made the IS takeover possible,” the distraught white-bearded Hassan said.

Og de kristnes erfaringer er de samme

En chokerende rejse - Hanna Ziadeh og det arabiske efterår

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Diverse, Kristenforfølgelse, Muslimer, Sharia, Syrien, Terror, Tyrkiet, islam — Drokles on August 24, 2014 at 8:33 am

Jeg beskrev denne glimrende dokumentar sidste år og havde et par kommentarer til nogle meget sigende billeder, som Ziadehs fotograf fangede. Men jeg havde ikke mulighed for at vise filmen før nu

Israel er islams banesår

Arabere, Diverse, Hamas, Historie, Iran, Israel, Jihad, Muslimer, Sharia, Terror, UNWRA, islam — Drokles on August 22, 2014 at 3:01 am

Har De nogensinde tænkt, hvorfor Israel fylder så meget i det muslimske og muslimsk-arabiske sind? Hvorfor der altid er mindst en større terrororganisation, med det eneste formål at udslette Israel og som nyder bredt sympati. Hvorfor muslimske ledere altid kan bortlede folkets utilfredshed med tale om Israel snarlige udslettelse? Og hvis de slutter fred, hvorfor de straks søges myrdet? Hvorfor tilsyneladende sekulære muslimske akademikere kan bebrejde Israels eksistens for den arabiske og muslimske verdens sørgelige tilstand? Hvorfor der aldrig er en fredsløsning som er realistisk? Ja, hvor araberne altid ender med at forkaste alle delingsforslag? Hvorfor de palæstinensiske arabere vedbliver med at være flygtninge  i flere genrationer (havde UNWRA styret Danmark ville Brødrene Price bo i det asylcenter, hvor de var vokset op). Hvad det betyder når Hamas leder Khaled Mash’al i 2006 i en moske i Damaskus sagde ”Før end Israel dør må det ydmyges!”?

Richard Landes skriver i Tablet Magazine fremragende om hvorledes muslimske araberes ære og skam begreber har fanget dem i en ‘følelsesmæssig katastrofe’

In order to understand the role of hard zero-sum, honor-shame concerns in the attitude of Arabs toward Israel, one must first understand the role of the Jew in the Muslim Arab honor-group. For the 13 centuries before Zionism, Jews had been subject to a political status in Muslim lands specifically designed around issues of honor (to Muslims) and shame (to Jews). Jews were dhimmi, “protected” from Muslim violence by their acceptance of daily public degradation and legal inferiority. Noted Chateaubriand in the 19th century: “Special target of all [Muslim and Christian] contempt, the Jews lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows. … Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty.”

For more than a millennium, Arab and Muslim honor resided, among other places, in their domination and humiliation of their dhimmi—and when the occasional reformer equalized their legal status, he struck a heavy blow to Muslim honor. Noted a British envoy on the impact of Muhammad Ali’s reforms: “The Mussulmans … deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over & against the other sects. … A Mussulman … believes and maintains that a Christian—& still more a Jew—is an inferior being to himself.”

To say that to the honor-driven Arab and Muslim political player, in the 20th century as in the 10th century, the very prospect of an autonomous Jewish political entity is a blasphemy against Islam, and an insult to Arab virility, is not to say that every period of Muslim rule involved deliberate humiliation of dhimmi. Nor is it to say that all Arabs think like this. On the contrary, this kind of testosterone-fueled, authoritarian discourse imposes its interpretation of “honor” on the entire community, often violently. Thus, while some Arabs in 1948 Palestine may have viewed the prospect of Jewish sovereignty as a valuable opportunity, the Arab leadership and “street” agreed that for the sake of Arab honor Israel must be destroyed and that those who disagreed were traitors to the Arab cause.

Worse: The threat to Arab honor did not come from a worthy foe, like the Western Christians, but by from Jews, traditionally the most passive, abject, cowardly of the populations over which Muslims ruled. As the Athenians explained to the Melians in the 5th century B.C.E.:

One is not so much frightened of being conquered by a power which rules over others, as Sparta does, as of what would happen if a ruling power is attacked and defeated by its own subjects.

So, the prospect of an independent state of should-be dhimmis struck Arab leaders as more than humiliating. It endangered all Islam. Thus Rahman Azzam Pasha, the head of the newly formed Arab League, spoke for his “honor group” when he threatened that “if the Zionists dare establish a state, the massacres we would unleash would dwarf anything which Genghis Khan and Hitler perpetrated.” As the Armenians had discovered a generation earlier, the mere suspicion of rebellion could engender massacres.

The loss in 1948, therefore, constituted the most catastrophic possible outcome for this honor-group: Seven Arab armies, representing the honor of hundreds of thousands of Arabs (and Muslims), were defeated by less than a million Jews, the surviving remnant of the most devastating and efficient genocide in history. To fall to people so low on the scale that it is dishonorable even to fight them—nothing could be more devastating. And this humiliating event occurred on center stage of the new postwar global community, before whom the Arab league representatives had openly bragged about their upcoming slaughters. In the history of a global public, never has any single and so huge a group suffered so much dishonor and shame in the eyes of so great an audience.

So, alongside the nakba (catastrophe) that struck hundreds of thousands of the Arab inhabitants of the former British Mandate Palestine, we find yet another, much greater psychological catastrophe that struck the entire Arab world and especially its leaders: a humiliation so immense that Arab political culture and discourse could not absorb it. Initially, the refugees used the term nakba to reproach the Arab leaders who started and lost the war that so hurt them. In a culture less obsessed by honor and more open to self-criticism, this might have led to the replacement of political elites with leaders more inclined to move ahead with positive-sum games of the global politics of the United Nations and the Marshall Plan. But when appearances matter above all, any public criticism shames the nation, the people, and the leaders.

Instead, in a state of intense humiliation and impotence on the world stage, the Arab leadership chose denial—the Jews did not, could not, have not won. The war was not—could never—be over until victory. If the refugees from this Zionist aggression disappeared, absorbed by their brethren in the lands to which they fled, this would acknowledge the intolerable: that Israel had won. And so, driven by rage and denial, the Arab honor group redoubled the catastrophe of its own refugees: They made them suffer in camps, frozen in time at the moment of the humiliation, waiting and fighting to reverse that Zionist victory that could not be acknowledged. The continued suffering of these sacrificial victims on the altar of Arab pride called out to the Arab world for vengeance against the Jews. In the meantime, wherever Muslims held power, they drove their Jews out as a preliminary act of revenge.

The Arab leadership’s interpretation of honor had them responding to the loss of their own hard zero-sum game—we’re going to massacre them—by adopting a negative-sum strategy. Damaging the Israeli “other” became paramount, no matter how much that effort might hurt Arabs, especially Palestinians. “No recognition, no negotiations, no peace.” No Israel. Sooner leave millions of Muslims under Jewish rule than negotiate a solution. Sooner die than live humiliated. Sooner commit suicide to kill Jews than make peace with them.

Læs den hele, det er en af de bedste artikler om, hvad der kaldes Israel-Palæstina konflikten. Og fordi Israels triumferende eksistens er så smertelig så kan man jo nyde de 6 herlige dage i Juni 1967

NB: Dokumentaren herover burde også læse Landes Ære-skam analyse. Så vil den bedre forstå, hvorfor Israel stod i vejen for Nassers pan-arabisme, hvorfor Syrien havde en hær kun opsat på at udrydde Israel og hvorfor den arabiske verden blev traumatiseret af nederlaget. Og den vil forstå, hvorfor de der ville have fred ikke havde en chance.

Venstrefløjen kan ikke genkende en bankerot ideologi

ISIS islamisk sanktionerede slagtning af den amerikanske journalist rummer et opkog af de seneste årtiers møde med islam. Islaem er som islam er, du må tage hele pakken. Men vi i vesten, eller det vil sige de pludrende klasser, bedrager sig selv og en farlig stor del af befolkningen ved at betragte islam som en eksotisk projektion af egen ønsketænkning. Først er der den stakkels journalist, som bedrog sig selv da han drog afsted for at formidle en større forståelse for islam og ISIS bevæggrunde. Frontpage Magazine afstod fra at tale pænt om de døde og gennemgik Foleys tweets

Foley came to Syria to support the Sunni Islamist rebels against the Syrian government. He was a vehement advocate and while he didn’t necessarily side with any single group, he echoed the one sided narrative rather than telling the truth about the Islamists. His Twitter feed was full of urgings to arm the Jihadists.

Meanwhile he sneered at America’s War on Terror.

He cheered on the Sunni Muslim terrorists fighting to ethnically cleanse the Christians of Aleppo. In the conflict between Israel and Hamas, his tweets and retweets were chock full of pro-Sunni Syrian terrorist propaganda.

When Newsweek’s Muslim Rage cover story came out, Foley mocked it too. Raging Muslims. How silly and Islamophobic.

Som om det ikke var nok, så viser det sig (måske) at Foley blev taget til fange af de mennesker vores kære ledere havde knyttet håb og penge til, skriver International Business Times

According to Syrian sources who have worked previously to locate and rescue kidnapped journalists in Syria, American journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by Islamic State in a video the militant group made public on Tuesday, was most likely used by another guerrilla group as a token of allegiance to ISIS.

According to those sources, Foley was in the hands of the Dawood Bridgade, a group that was originally aligned with relatively moderate opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army, but recently pledged allegiance to ISIS.

The International Business Times reported last month that activists on the ground near Al Bab, Syria, said that the Dawood Brigade, which now consists of about 1,000 people, defected from the Free Syrian Army and moved on to Raqqa to join ISIS. The group arrived in Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold, in a convoy of more than 100 vehicles.

USAs præsident Barak Hussein Obama kunne have sagt noget fornuftigt da han slog fat at “ISIL has no ideology of any value for human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt”, men havde allerede undergravet fornuften med den absurde omend sædvanlige apologi

ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. And no faith teaches massacres on innocents. No just god will stand for, what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.

Muslimer og kun muslimer over hele verden strømmer til ISIS med de samme korancitater med tilskyndende råb fra ummaen - men skam få den der kunne tænke at det havde noget med islam at gøre. David Trads gjorde på sin Facebook profil i vanlig perfid stil Fathi El-Abeds vanvid rangen stridig ved at give Hamas åndsfæller ISIS syndsforladelse og pege på

Billedet til venstre er fra Islamisk Stats henrettelse af en amerikansk journalist. Billedet til højre er fra USAs ydmygelser af muslimske fanger i Abu Ghraib. Begge fotos illustrerer grove krænkelser af individer.

Modbydelig opførsel avler endnu flere modbydeligheder - og vi burde tænke over, om vores stiltiende accept af Vestens krigsovergreb mod muslimer i de forløbne mange år står i vejen for for en løsning på vanviddet.

Vi burde i hvert fald ikke bringe os i en situation, hvor vi selv står langt fra de værdier, som vi - med rette - blir forargede over, at andre bryder. Lad os sikre, at vi altid står for det gode eksempel. Aldrig det forkastelige.

Den eneste tvivl, der findes i islam er graden af grusomhed, der er en ret der skal nydes, som en canadisk imam ifølge Tarek Fatah forklarede sine spirituelle tilhørere.

Elefanter i rummet

Diverse — Drokles on August 20, 2014 at 4:42 am

Hver dag konfronteres man med politikere og journalister der taler omkring virkelige problemer uden at nævne dem med et ord. Som den engelske formand for the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, der forleden hævdede at man ville ophidse moderate muslimer, hvis man underviste i engelske værdier i skolen. Ikke et ord om at muslimer selv i deres moderate repræsentation i så fald stod i en fjendtlig modsætning til England og dets liberale og nationale værdier. At englænderne ikke kan være englændere i deres eget land. Ja, end ikke en refleksion over hvad islam egentlig er når man har en betegnelse som moderate muslimer.

Måske var det ikke en elefant i rummet da den engelske premierminister David Cameron i sine bizarre lykønskninger til muslimerne som de gik i gang med ramadanen nævnte deres uvurderlige bidrag til friheden, som de gjorde ved i tusindvis at tjene som soldater for det britiske imperium under 1. Verdenskrig. Som bekendt var briterne og de allierede i krig med selveste det muslimske kalifat Osmannerriget. Men det var svært at overse  diskriminationsforsker Mira Skadegaard Thorsens elefant fra en kronik i Politiken. Her harcelerede hun over den strukturelle daglige diskrimination og her er præsentationen af indvandrere særligt vigtig: ”Ind i mellem ses ’solstrålehistorier’ som alene opnår nyhedsværdi, fordi de er med til at bekræfte den gældende negative norm; de fungerer som undtagelser.” Ikke et ord om virkeligheden.

Så meget har man mistet sansen for ordenes betydning at Jyllands-Posten føler det helt logisk i en overskrift at påstå at “Danskere hylder rabiat bevægelse på sociale medier“. Den rabiate bevægelse er den muslimske ISIS, der hæger rundt i Irak og Syrien for tiden. Danskerne er muslimer med dansk pas. ISIS er sunni muslimer og myrder løs på ikke-muslimer for ikke at være muslimer og på shiamuslimer for ikke at være rigtige muslimer. Det er en muslimsk debat der har raset i mere end 1.300 år og nu igen truer den for alvor med at bryde ud i et større opgør. Men mens alle alarmer blinker viderebringer medierne de glade håbe om at “Stormoske i København forener trosretninger” og fremfører imamens ord som var det noget værd

- I vores hellige koran er det nævnt sort på hvidt, at vi skal samarbejde og især med de kristne, som også er bogens folk, også jøder som også er bogens folk, som har hellige skrifter fra Gud. Vi har mange fællesskaber.

Hver gang en journalist hører nogen udtale sig om begrænsede mængder burde spørgsmålet “hvad med resten?” komme som skidt fra en spædekalv. Så mester, hvad med de der ikke er Bogens Folk? Her er vi henvist for vores licenspenge til selv at grave i muslimernes hellige skrifter og kan i koranen læse

Sura 9 (Omvendelse) vers 29: Bekæmp dem, som ikke tror på Allah og den yderste dag, og som ikke forbyder, hvad Allah og Hans udsending forbyder; og blandt dem, der har fået Skriften, skal I bekæmpe dem, der ikke bekender sig til den sande religion, indtil de kuet er rede til at betale skat!

10468679_767170613322658_2946661217333261086_n

Nogle gange stikker virkeligheden dog hovedet frem så ingen kan undgå at påtale det som da talsmanden for den nye stormoske i København udtalte sig negativt om homoseksuelle. Homoseksuelle er de godes darling for tiden, symbolet på europas frisind og så gør det mindre at moskeen, muslimsk som den er, også går ind for dødsstraf for apostasi. Ej heller påtalte nogle af de gode kvinder kønsopdelingen, hvor kvinderne er henvist til en afskærmet afdeling.

BT fik, hvad de kaldte “en velintegreret pakistaner” til at oversætte en imam ved en anden moske

For øjnene af 500-600 troende muslimer samlet til fredagsbøn i Islamisk Kulturcenter på Horsebakken i København, gik deres åndelige overhoved, imamen Farouk Sultan, amok i en rus af trusler om mord, bål og brand. Målet for imamens religiøse raseri var den herboende redaktør af den dansk-pakistanske avis Lahore, Mohammed Hanif Chaudry fra Søborg. Imam Farouk Sultans besked til Chaudry var klar og tydelig: Chaudry er en “kætter, en forfører og Satan selv”. Bed om tilgivelse eller risikér at blive dræbt og brændt foran forsamlingen. Samtidig opfordrede imamen under bønnen forrige fredag sin menighed til at brænde og boykotte avisen, og for at lægge vægt bag sine ord lod imamen sine ophidsede tilhængere afbrænde eksemplarer af Lahore foran forsamlingen. Det var som scener fra “fatwaen” mod den dødsdømte forfatter Salman Rushdie. To dage senere, sidste søndag, blev de samme dødstrusler udspredt i radioprogrammet, Aap ki Awaz, der sendte en båndoptagelse fra moskeen. Programmet hører under urdu-redaktionen på Radio Storkøbenhavn, der ejes af LO.

Såeh, hvad med menigheden? Hvorledes reagerede de? Og hvad kan man dog tolke, om noget overhovedet, ud af at radioprogrammet Aap ki Awaz sendte en båndoptagelse fra moskeen to dage senere? For det er historien om en imam og ikke historien om den voksende minoritet af muslimer der underminerer vores samfund.

Den historie får man bagvendt når man i Jyllands-Posten kan læse Rune Selsing skrive “Palæstinenserne udgør en stemme i debatten, som er umulig at ignorere” i et ellers forrygende indlæg. Selsings politikenske parafrase fanger ufrivilligt at palæstinenserne, som alle muslimer, ikke er demokrater men stemmer en bloc, på hvad der gavner islams og palæstinensernes sag. Ingen deling efter overbevisning thi islam tåler ingen deling.

Og netop dyrkelsen af palæstinensersagen bringer antisemitismen frem i lyset. Den konservative Rasmus Jarlov proklamnerede en kalotmarch med udgangspunkt i en muslimbelastet del i København efter en journalist iført kalot havde følt sig truet. Medlem af Nørrebro Lokaludvalg  Uzma Ahmed Andresen advarede på sin egen bagvendte måde mod den multietniske kruttønde således ifølge Danmarks Radio

- Jeg frygter, at demonstrationen er en konfliktoptrapning, og at der er nogle enkeltpersoner, der reagerer på den provokation, der ligger i det, og at det kommer til at tegne et billede af, at Nørrebro er et sted, der er i oprør, siger hun.

Efterfølgende var Uzma Ahmed Andresen ifølge Modkraftmeget lettet” “over, at arrangementet forløb uden problemer“. Den 90 år gamle jøde Svend Allan Horwitz mente i Berlingske Tidende ligeledes at en kalot march vil være at “hælde benzin på bålet” samtidig med at han benægter at der nogensinde havde eksisteret et bål, med denne forrygende sætning

“Jeg har aldrig i mit liv oplevet antisemitisme. Heller ikke dengang i 1943, da mine danske landsmænd hjalp mig til Sverige.”

Og som om det ikke var nok, så leverede hr Horwitz endnu et pragteksemplar

Og pludselig, efter vi har brugt så mange år på at få religionen ud af de offentlige rum, bliver en hovedbeklædning gjort til et vigtigt og stort problem

Men ingen kan skyde sig selv i foden som ‘nydanskere’, som man kunne se et forrygende eksempel på i BT

- De siger, de vil have indvandrere i politiet, men jeg tror dem ikke. Hvis det virkelig var tilfældet, måtte de acceptere små ting i straffeattesten, for jeg kender ikke mange indvandrere, som ikke har lavet et eller andet galt på et tidspunkt, siger Rames, der i går blev fyret med 700 andre medarbejdere fra Danish Crown i Grindsted.

Vise ord.

19.999.995 flere huller og så er det hele slut!

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on August 15, 2014 at 12:16 pm

Jyllands-Posten indleder en artikel om den kommende dommedag med “Det er ikke bare gas, men en alvorlig sag, lyder advarslen fra flere klimaforskere” lige under overskriften “Sibiriske kratere er “Jorden der prutter”

Flere og flere forskere er nu enige om, at de store huller, hvoraf det største vurderes til at være mellem 60 og 70 meter i diameter, er dannet, fordi permafrosten i undergrunden er smeltet. Når permafrosten smelter, udløser den de gasser, der også har været frosset ned i undergrunden. Naturgasserne udløser derpå deres energi op gennem jordskorpen i eksplosioner, der skaber “huller” i overfladen.

ok-krater

Mellem sin fortsatte tale om prutter, citerer artiklen alarmerede forskere: “Environmental Defense Fund kalder undergrunden i Arktis for “en tidsindstillet bombe” for vores klima” og det er “endnu mere alarmerende end asteroidenedslag“. Men skønt man har fundet en håndfuld huller i jorden, så skal man måske alligevel tøve med at gå i panik. Bloggen Real Climate drives af kerneforskerne bag IPCC

Siberia has explosion holes in it that smell like methane, and there are newly found bubbles of methane in the Arctic Ocean. As a result, journalists are contacting me assuming that the Arctic Methane Apocalypse has begun. However, as a climate scientist I remain much more concerned about the fossil fuel industry than I am about Arctic methane. Short answer: It would take about 20,000,000 such eruptions within a few years to generate the standard Arctic Methane Apocalypse that people have been talking about.

Rart at vide at der trods alt er grænser for vanviddet.

FNs krig mod Israel II

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, Muslimer, Terror, UNWRA, islam — Drokles on August 13, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Hamas har trygt overladt undervisningen af gazanerne til UNWRA, der med mere en 10.000 ansatte driver 245 skoler for 232.000 elever i sikker tiltro til at deres islamiske budskab nok skal blive indoktrineret. Vi har set, hvorledes 3 af disse FN drevne skoler i Gaza er afsløret i at opbevare Hamas våben, der blev leveret tilbage til, hvad de kaldte de rette myndigheder - altså Hamas. Og vi har set Hamas affyre raketter fra FN skoler og hvorledes en massakre blev fabrikeret på en af disse skoler da IDF straffede et par terrorister, der affyrede raketter mod Israel lige uden for skolen. Det hele som om UNWRA og Hamas er smeltet sammen. Det er i hvert fald Daniel Greenfields påstand på bloggen Sultan Knish, og det er svært at være andet end enig med ham

If an organization consists largely of Hamas members who use it pursue Hamas goals, then the organization is Hamas.

The UNRWA is Hamas.

Hamas use of the UNRWA as its public face is a war crime, but terrorists commit war crimes without a second thought. But the UN and the UNRWA are complicit in the war crime by allowing Hamas to go on exploiting the UN brand. It’s unfortunately commonplace for humanitarian organizations in war zones to collaborate with terrorists and guerrillas in one form or another. But the UNRWA isn’t just paying money to Hamas in exchange for being allowed to operate, the way that many groups in war zones do, it has allowed Hamas to turn its operations in Gaza into an extension of the terrorist group.

Hamas is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It’s against the law for the United States to fund it. By funding the UNRWA, the United States is paying Hamas and participating in its war crimes. Using civilian and humanitarian facilities for military purposes is a war crime. Using them to stage attacks against civilians by attackers out of uniform adds further crimes to the total.

The United States provided $130 million to the UNRWA in 2013.The UNRWA’s continued operations in Gaza would not be viable without American funding. Congressional investigations and condemnations have led to nothing. The UNRWA has adopted neutrality policies, but it has refused to put up a firewall between it and Hamas. And it can’t, because it has become an arm of Hamas.

When Kerry visited Gaza in 2009, the UNRWA’s Gaza chief passed along a letter to him from Hamas. The incident showed that not only was the locally recruited staff working for Hamas, but the UNRWA leadership was clearly cooperating with the terrorist group.

The original “refugees” that the UNRWA was set up to cater to are for the most part dead. The UNRWA has become another UN boondoggle funding a welfare state for “refugee camps” that are older, bigger and more developed than many Middle Eastern cities.

Meanwhile the UNRWA has become the public face of Hamas.

UNRWA staff act as terrorists when they use UNRWA facilities for military purposes, but then switch back to UNRWA when Israel fights back. Hamas carries out attacks. The UNRWA demands ceasefires. Hamas uses UNRWA schools and the UNRWA denounces Israel when an attack happens.

Den 23. juli besluttede FNs Mennskerettighedsråd at nedsætte en kommission til at undersøge Israels angivelige krigsforbrydelser. Den 3 mand store kommission skal bestå blandt andre af professor i international lov, forelæser ved Middlesex University og internationalt alment respekteret ekspert i menneskerettigheder, folkemord og dødsstraf Mr William Schabas. Schabas kvalificerede sig givetvis ved for et år siden at udtale at den person han helst så anklaget for krigsforbrydelser var Benjamin Netanyahu. Dette baseret på Goldstonerapporten, FNs smædeskrift mod Israel efter Operation Cast Lead, hvor Netanyahu ikke var premierminister

ISIS er hvor muslimer er

Der skal være en klangbund for den slags.  ISIS har truet med at indtage Tyrkiet og det er der måske flere tyrkere, som vil foretrække. I hvert fald kan man i Istanbul allerede købe merchandise både ved en bod

isid-fatih-manset

Og i en forretning

ve-isid-istanbul-da-4504770

Også i London blafrer ISIS flag

the-isis-flag-outside-the-011

En nonne rev dog ISIS flaget ned. Og journalisten Ted Jeory fortæller The Express, hvorledes venstrefløjsere er bekymret for islams omdømme

I WAS told this morning by a community activist in east London to be kind in this article to the Bengali Muslim youths who threatened violence last night…and who told me to “F*** off Jew, you’re not welcome here.”

Der bliver meget for venstrefløjen at skulle bortforklare den kommende tid. ISIS i Holland

Danmarks Radio rapporterer at der også skulle være ISIS tilhængere i Malaysia og Indonesien, der blandt andet vil sprænge et Carlsberg bryggeri i luften. Danmarks Radio er lidt usikre på deres kilder, men det er Tarek Fatah ikke, der mener at vide at disse friske unge mænd er ISIS Indonesien

I Tyskland, hvor muslimer gik løs på yazidier, er aviserne ifølge Gatestone Institute chokerede

“Never before have the sympathizers of Islamic terror appeared so openly in Germany.” — Editorial, Westfalen-Blatt.

“Anyone who thought the civil war in Syria or the barbarity of the Islamic State in Iraq does not affect us, you are wrong.” — Editorial, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

“IS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Boko Haram—these four groups are the linchpins of the attempt to bomb an unstoppable modernity back into the Middle Ages.” — Editorial, Westfalen-Blatt.

“The religions of the world are increasingly being misused for ideological struggles and excesses of violence between people of different faiths. Religions are never violent per se, but the market criers of violence are using them to promote their own interests.” — Editorial, Neue Westfälische.

isis-suppporters-germany-ip

Og fra Toronto, hvor en anti-ISIS demonstration blev imødegået af en Hama sympatisører, blot for lige at markere at det er den samme

I Danmark kom ISIS sympatisører blot tilfældigt forbi en anti-ISIS demonstration på Christiansborg Slotsplads og måtte betale prisen

Og i Danmark kan man ifølge Uriasposten også købe smart merchandise til støtte for ISIS

alidaghimhumanitaer2014

Måske er det ikke gået helt op for dem at sløjfen også er en Jesusfisk. I Norge (via Snaphanen)

Dette er blot samlet af, hvad jeg er stødt på, men sympatien findes grangiveligt i hele umma’en. ISIS’ grusomheder genrejser islams potens og det varmer de fleste muslimske hjerter.

Journalistisk antisemitisme

Antisemitisme, Danmarks Radio, Diverse, Israel, Pressen — Drokles on August 9, 2014 at 1:01 am

Leo McKinstry skriver i The Express at der bliver en dyr regning at betale for at have støttet Hamas

This populist anti-Israeli posturing is dangerous. It shows not the slightest grasp of the reality of Islamist aggression in the Middle East and the depth of the challenge that Israel faces.

In practice denouncing the Jewish state means siding with the malevolent, murderous forces of jihadism, a stance that not only represents a complete inversion of morality but a ­suicidal disdain for the interests of western civilisation.

Det er let for journalister at tolke situationen i Mellemøsten. Uanset hvem der gør hvad er det Israels skyld. Hamas brød våbenhvilen (igen) og genoptog deres raket- og morterbombardement af Israel.

Politiken skriver “Israel bomber Gaza igen

EkstraBladet skriver “Israel har genoptaget angreb i Gaza

Danmarks Radio skriver “Israel har genoptaget luftbombardementerne af Gaza, efter tre dage lang våbenhvile løb ud fredag morgen.

Jyllands-Posten skriver “Israel har angrebet Gaza City i et luftangreb

BT skriver: “Blodig hævn: Israelsk luftangreb koster 10 årig dreng livet

Mediefallit

Arabere, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, Muslimer, Pressen, Terror, islam — Drokles on August 7, 2014 at 8:41 am

Hver gang Israel slår igen mod de terrororganisationer, som har svoret at udslette Israel med alle jøderne, adopterer medier og politikere terroristernes løgne helt ukritisk. Hvis palæstinensiske ‘kilder’ taler om massakrer, ja så rapporterer medierne om massakrer og inviterer eksperter til at gætte på, hvor længe Israel og sekundært USA kan holde til verdenssamfundets pres.

Man holder sig ikke i skindet til den gamle sang om at sandheden er det første offer i en krig. Man ser ikke på erfaringer man allerede har fra, hvem der er troværdige og hvem der har det som sit mål at lyve. Man har ingen opfattelse af at den ene part er et retssamfund mens den anden er en terrororganisation. Man ser ikke på modus operandi, at det er israelerne der tager det på sig, hvilket er helt unikt i militærhistorien, at advare fjendens civile, mens Hamas bevidst og ganske stolt praler af at skubbe deres civile foran sig. Ingen historie om at Hamas modus operandi er krigsforbrydelser.

Man stiller ikke Unwra til ansvar for at det er deres ambulancer der bruges til at fragte terrorister rundt til nye positioner, at deres skoler bruges som våbenlagre og deres hospitaler som hovedkvarter. Ingen scoop historie om FN som krigsforbryder. Og man foretager intet research, intet som helst der kunne retfærdiggøre en femmer i mediestøtte.

Douglas Murray undrer sig i Spectator over at journalister i Gaza end ikke oplyser deres publikum om forbehold

I wonder if any readers have an answer to this question: Has anybody, throughout this whole conflict around Gaza, heard any reporter inside Gaza, at any time, preface or conclude their remarks with ‘reporting from Gaza, under Hamas government reporting restrictions’?  I don’t watch television news all the time and so may have missed it, but I don’t think I have heard this said even once.

Which is strange. When reporting from a dictatorship like Gaza it used to be the norm that reporters would preface or conclude any report with some variant of this formula.  Doing so was a neat way to send the warning to viewers that you were reporting from a place where the authorities were censoring what you could say.

Before the 2003 war in Iraq, for instance, reporters broadcasting for television or radio from inside Iraq nearly always made reference to the fact that they were reporting under restrictions imposed on them by Saddam Hussein’s government. This often meant a Hussein goon was standing nearby checking that nothing untoward was said.

Daniel Schwammenthal tilføjer i The Commentator sarkastisk

In many ways, CCTV coverage of the conflict without the networks’ editorial picture selection and emotional but information-lacking voice-overs would probably do a better job at informing the public.

Yes, we would still see the destruction caused by Israeli shelling but the CCTV cameras would also catch Hamas terrorists firing from civilian areas, show how the IDF is dropping leaflets warning civilians ahead of bombings and broadcast how civilians are used as human shields — all important elements of this war usually missing from the coverage.

En del af forklaringen på fordrejningerne finder Schwammenthal i frygt for Hamas

On Tuesday, Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati sent out the following tweet: “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”

Despite the fact that Hamas rockets have a high rate of misfiring and civilians are often caught in the middle of intense urban warfare, every Palestinian civilian casualty is automatically assumed to have been caused by Israel. And so when a strike killed several children in Shati refugee camp, the media rushed to blame Israel even though the IDF said it did not target this site.

Israel’s investigation concluded that a Palestinian rocket fell short, and instead of killing their intended civilian targets in Israel, killed the Palestinian civilians.

Mr. Barbati’s reporting not only supports Israel’s version of the events, it raises a far greater question. Are foreign journalists working under the constant threat from Hamas and thus “self-censoring” themselves? Is this why we don’t see coverage of Hamas terrorists firing rockets from civilian areas, the use of human shields and other war crimes?

Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abou Dagga, for example, wrote an article for French newspaper Libération, published July 23, detailing how Hamas intimidated him, forcing him to leave Gaza, and how Hamas terrorists use a section of Shifa hospital, just a few meters from the emergency room, as their offices, confirm the earlier Washington Post story.

The next day, Mr. Dagga asked Libération to remove his article from their website, apparently out of fear for his family still in Gaza. Other Western journalists have been caught removing Hamas-critical tweets without explanation while others have been prevented by Hamas from leaving Gaza.

Sandheden vil, trods mediernes almene vrangvilje, altså ud og hurrah for inderne

Og hurrah for franskmændene

Ang proportionalitet

Akademia, Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Hamas, Israel, Muslimer, Pressen, Terror, islam — Drokles on August 7, 2014 at 8:25 am

Der er en besynderlig tendens blandt politikere og journalister til at tale om proportionalitet, hver gang Israel prygler muslimske terrorister til alles bedste. Proportionalitet forstår de gammel testamenteligt, som øje for øje, tand for tand - at Israel kun skal besvare Hamas raketter så langt som disse rent faktisk skader Israel (men ikke gengældt mod palæstinensiske civile, for så er der tale om krigsforbrydelser). Men faktisk ligner proportionalitet i krig mere Chicago metoden, som gamle Sean Connery gør rede for

Gangstere og terrorister forstår kun stokken! Shoshana Bryen uddyber lidt mere fagligt proportionalitetsbegrebet for Gatestone Institute

Finally, Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex (UK) wrote about the concept of “military necessity.”

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning.

What constitutes a military objective will change during the course of a conflict. As some military objectives are destroyed, the enemy will use other installations for the same purpose, thereby making them military objectives and their attack justifiable under military necessity. There is a similarly variable effect on the determination of proportionality. The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage - often civilian casualties - which will be “justified” or “necessary.

Civilian casualties are much to be mourned, but what becomes clear – absent the propaganda element or a shaky notion of sportsmanship – is that Israel has the right and indeed the obligation to defend its people, has the right to “win” the war of self-defense that it is fighting, and has taken account of the requirements of international law regarding “proportionality” and “military necessity.” This, coupled with the willingness of Israel to accept the Egyptian-sponsored ceasefire, acceptance of a UN-sponsored humanitarian truce, and the continued provision of food, medicine, and electricity to the residents of Gaza, should help erase the “buts” of fair-minded people.

Send them to the morgue!

Nyhedskrigen mod Israel

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, FN, Hamas, Historie, Israel, Muslimer, Pressen, Terror, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

Memri har samlet nogle uddrag fra Hamas pressestrategi

“Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. Don’t forget to always add ‘innocent civilian’ or ‘innocent citizen’ in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.

“Begin [your reports of] news of resistance actions with the phrase ‘In response to the cruel Israeli attack,’ and conclude with the phrase ‘This many people have been martyred since Israel launched its aggression against Gaza.’ Be sure to always perpetuate the principle of ‘the role of the occupation is attack, and we in Palestine are fulfilling [the role of] the reaction.’

“Beware of spreading rumors from Israeli spokesmen, particularly those that harm the home front. Be wary regarding accepting the occupation’s version [of events]. You must always cast doubts on this [version], disprove it, and treat it as false.

“Avoid publishing pictures of rockets fired into Israel from [Gaza] city centers. This [would] provide a pretext for attacking residential areas in the Gaza Strip. Do not publish or share photos or video clips showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [forces] in Gaza.

“To the administrators of news pages on Facebook: Do not publish close-ups of masked men with heavy weapons, so that your page will not be shut down [by Facebook] on the claim that you are inciting violence. In your coverage, be sure that you say: ‘The locally manufactured shells fired by the resistance are a natural response to the Israeli occupation that deliberately fires rockets against civilians in the West Bank and Gaza’…”

Resultatet kan man se og høre i de fleste medier, en ofte ukritisk kolportering af Hamas påstande, mistænkeliggørelse af Israel og direkte udeladelser af afgørende oplysninger og sammenhænge. BBC Watch giver et uddybende eksempel på, hvorledes Hamas terminologi glider ind i nyhedsformidlingen

Over the past week or so, the BBC has put considerable effort into amplifying and promoting Hamas’ main pre-condition for a ceasefire: the removal of border restrictions imposed by Egypt and Israel in response to terrorism against their citizens carried out by terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip. Documentation of some of those BBC efforts can be seen here, here, here and here.

In the past few days, however, we have seen a shift in the BBC’s approach to the topic. No longer content with ‘merely’ providing context-free advertisement for the demands of a proscribed terror organisation, the BBC has now adopted that organisation’s terminology, ditching its former use of the phrase “economic blockade” for the inaccurate and partial term “siege”.

Here is a screenshot from the July 28th edition of BBC Two’s flagship news and current affairs programme ‘Newsnight’.

Screenshot Newsnight 28 7  siege

One presumes that the BBC is familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is its definition of a siege:

“A military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.”

A besieging army does not ensure and facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid including food and medical supplies to those it surrounds. It does not supply them with 50% of their electricity supply, with oil and diesel or with cooking gas. It does not help them export their produce and give their farmers agricultural training. It does not evacuate their sick and treat them – sometimes at its own expense – in its own hospitals.

Israel of course does all of the above – and more – and critically, Israel’s aim is not to compel “those inside to surrender”, but to prevent in as far as is possible the flow of weapons and dual-use goods which can be used to manufacture weapons into the Gaza Strip because for fourteen years its own civilians have been under attack by terrorist organisations located there.

Vi ser ingen Hamas krigere og hører kun om civile dødsfald i forbindelse med israelske bombardementer og efterlades med et indtryk af de israelske styrker som unødigt agressive. Modus operandi er et ukendt begreb og Hamas ønske om at ville udslette Israel optræder højest som et kuriosum. Men Hamas modus operandi med menneskeskjold har betydning for antallet af dræbte civile palæstinensere og ingen hær har som den israelske gjort så meget for at mindske lidelserne for modpartens civile. Det er den samme historie, hver gang Israel tager et opgør med de terrororganisationer, der har svoret massedrab på jøderne. Medierne svømmer over med Hamas eller Hezbollahs hysteri om massakrer på palæstinensiske civile og fordømmelserne regner ned over Israel. Meget senere når regnskabet gøres op har det ikke mediernes eller politikernes interesse at Israel har været udsat for et justitsmord. Og for hver gang lægges der lidt til det stigende endnu diffuse jødehad på venstrefløjen.

2014_07_20_human_shields_on_hamas_orders

Hamas brug af menneskeskjolde og uklare skelnen mellem civile og krigere udsætter selvfølgelig civile for livsfare. Og det er en krigsforbrydelse. Det er ligeledes en krigsforbrydelse at bruge hospitaler, skoler og FN faciliteter som affyringsramper for raketangreb da det gør dem til legale militære mål.

10349952_10153421042882316_6612714454851359235_n-1

(Videoen kan ses her, men uden undertekster og her affyrer Hamas en raket bag en journalist, der skynder sig væk, da området derved er gjort til et militært mål)

Men Mange af de civile der bliver ramt af krigen rammes af Hamas skødesløse omgang med våben og menneskeliv. Algemeiners Dovid Efune vurderer at 25% af Hamas raketter falder ned i Gaza

As many as 25 percent of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel in the current Israel-Hamas war don’t make it out of Gaza and strike civilians inside the coastal enclave, Algemeiner Editor Dovid Efune asserted in an interview on Real News TV on Friday.

Asked about an explosion at a UN school on Thursday, which killed at least 15, according to Gazan reports, Efune pointed to the IDF’s claim that the source of the munition may have been Hamas.

Algemeiner skriver ligeledes om hvorledes journalister bliver udnyttet eller intimideret til at være en del af Hamas propaganda maskine

Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”

On Twitter, Barbati, Jerusalem Correspondent for Radio Popolare Milano, and a former reporter for Sky Italia, in Beijing, said, “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday [yesterday] in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”

He said, “@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.”

On Tuesday, the IDF released aerial photos showing how a rocket from Gaza targeting Israel hit the Shati camp, run by the UNRWA, and Al Shifa Hospital, which has become a de-facto Hamas headquarters, against international rules of war.

Barbati said he was unable to speak about the Al Shifa hit, but he was certain that it was a Hamas rocket that hit the Shati camp, and a witness saw militants rushing to clean the debris.

Thomas Wictor har foretaget et glimrende stykke research, som medierne ikke har villet besvære sig med, på en anden påstået massakre ved Shijaiyah markedsplads og konkluderer ganske overbevisende at dødsfaldende skyldtes Hamas omgang med egne raketter

That burning warehouse was full of Hamas rockets. The series of concussions you hear are secondary explosions, not the primary explosions of aerial munitions. When you bomb a warehouse full of fueled rockets, each rocket will explode separately. What happened was the empty marketplace next to the burning warehouse became the set for a Pallywood production, but then the rockets started exploding, killing and maiming the people who tried to exploit this situation.

I know they’re secondary explosions because they’re causing no destruction. No fountains of earth or clouds of dust appear with each loud BOOM! And the Palestinians also sent out a photo of what they called an “unexploded Israeli missile” from this incident.

Missile

It’s not. The size would mean that it was an MK-84 2000-lb. general-purpose bomb, but those have casings that are cast in one piece. This “munition” has a welded-on nose cone. You can clearly see the the weld line, part of it in white. Therefore it’s not Israeli. It’s a prop for sympathetic or coerced photographers.

UPDATE

A reader tipped me off that a nearly identical photo was published on July 14, 2014.

Getty_images

That means this object has nothing whatsoever to do with the events of July 30, 2014. Note the spurious caption. Great work, Getty Images!

This next bit of video is very gruesome, but it shows that I’m right. You don’t have to watch it because I’ve isolated the relevant evidence that this damage was caused by Hamas rockets exploding. Read the description below the video first.

It contains footage of a man whose face, arms, torso, and legs are burned black. If you click the image, it’s pixelated so that you can’t see the terrible details.

burned

His legs are also broken. The only thing that could’ve done all that was an exploding rocket that smashed into him and doused him in burning fuel.

WARNING! WARNING! CONJECTURE AHEAD!

He has rolled trouser legs, indicating that he’s a Salafist Wahabbist. He may be a Hamas operative who was blown out of the warehouse and across the street.

Here’s more evidence that part of a burning rocket shooting along the wall wreaked all that havoc. First, we see the body of Rani Rayan, marked with the green arrow.

Rani_Rayan.3

We’re told that he was killed by an aerial munition, but the paramedic sitting up next to him is alive. Also, look at all the shoes lying around, and remember that most people were injured in the feet, ankles, shins, and lower body.

Next, the fronts of the two ambulances.

damaged_ambulances

Why would the fronts be shattered if the air strike happened behind the ambulances, as the videos show? Here’s the answer, which also explains why the bystanders turned on the water. Look at the smoke stain and holes in the wall, marked with a green arrow.

smoke

They’re from a Hamas rocket fuel tank. Because it was a tank, it contained no shrapnel. The fuel ignited in the warehouse, causing the tank to shoot like a torpedo across the street. It struck and killed Rani Rayan, breaking his legs. Please forgive the awful image, but it proves that I’m right. He has no shrapnel injuries, only badly broken legs.

Rani_Rayan.4

The fuel tank then exploded on the ground in the corner of the courtyard, blowing off everybody’s shoes and injuring them in the lower extremities. It turned each stone and piece of trash into a low-flying projectile.

All the videos to which I’ve linked are heavily edited to persuade viewers that this was an air strike on ambulances, but when the people trying to deceive you don’t know about military or technical matters, they make mistakes.

One of the secondary explosions was caught on film, at 2:03. You can hear the explosion and see the puff of smoke from the rocket blowing up.

So: the open-air market was closed, not crowded or busy. Israel had declared a ceasefire that did not include Shijaiyah, because Hamas kept firing rockets from that neighborhood. The Israelis struck a warehouse, not the market. Their intelligence was good; the fourteen secondary explosions show that the warehouse was full of rockets. The Palestinians showed up to create propaganda. They brought ambulances and frantic paramedics, but their inhuman leaders hadn’t told them that the warehouse was a giant bomb waiting to go off.

The rockets exploded, Hamas got its faked atrocity video, and the stenographers of the western media dutifully wrote what they were told.

Does it matter to anybody that the whole thing is a lie from top to bottom?

Update

The Telegraph article has very high-quality video that allowed me to garner further proof that this was a self-inflicted massacre.

First, you can see Rani Rayan a second before his death. He’s marked with the green arrow.

Explosion1.

The moment the explosion happens, every person nearby has his feet knocked out from under him.

Explosion.2

All those men are airborne, their legs having been hit with and forced backward by a pressure wave only a few inches above the ground. The first explosion sounds like a pulse-jet engine: preh-keh-ka-boom. That’s the noise of a large, hard object clattering down the cinder-block wall.

It was an exploding Hamas rocket fuel tank that killed and injured these people. I have no doubt.

Der henvises til Pallywood og nedenstående film fra 2009 viser, hvordan en israelsk massakre oftest bliver til

Obama om at forsvare sig mod terror

Diverse, Obama, Socialdemokratiet, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 30, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Socialdemokraterne i Norden er oprørte over at Helle Thorning Schmidt ikke vil være med til fordømme Israel for at forsvare sig selv. Lad derfor modtager af Nobels Fredspris og den ubestridte dronekonge Barak Hussein Obama forklare hvorfor det er en uæstetisk nødvendighed, men en nødvendig ikke desto mindre, at forsvare sit land mod terror ifølge The New Yorker

“I think any President should be troubled by any war or any kinetic action that leads to death,” Obama told me when I brought up Yousafzai’s remarks. “The way I’ve thought about this issue is, I have a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans—killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes. That’s not speculation. It’s their explicit agenda.”

Obama said that, if terrorists can be captured and prosecuted, “that’s always my preference. If we can’t, I cannot stand by and do nothing. They operate in places where oftentimes we cannot reach them, or the countries are either unwilling or unable to capture them in partnership with us. And that then narrows my options: we can simply be on defense and try to harden our defense. But in this day and age that’s of limited—well, that’s insufficient. We can say to those countries, as my predecessor did, if you are harboring terrorists, we will hold you accountable—in which case, we could be fighting a lot of wars around the world. And, statistically, it is indisputable that the costs in terms of not only our men and women in uniform but also innocent civilians would be much higher. Or, where possible, we can take targeted strikes, understanding that anytime you take a military strike there are risks involved. What I’ve tried to do is to tighten the process so much and limit the risks of civilian casualties so much that we have the least fallout from those actions. But it’s not perfect.”

It is far from that. In December, an American drone flying above Al Bayda province, in Yemen, fired on what U.S. intelligence believed was a column of Al Qaeda fighters. The “column” was in fact a wedding party; twelve people were killed, and fifteen were seriously injured. Some of the victims, if not all, were civilians. This was no aberration. In Yemen and Pakistan, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, American drones have killed between some four hundred and a thousand civilians—a civilian-to-combatant ratio that could be as high as one to three. Obama has never made it clear how the vast populations outraged and perhaps radicalized by such remote-control mayhem might figure into his calculations about American security.

“Look, you wrestle with it,” Obama said. “And those who have questioned our drone policy are doing exactly what should be done in a democracy—asking some tough questions. The only time I get frustrated is when folks act like it’s not complicated and there aren’t some real tough decisions, and are sanctimonious, as if somehow these aren’t complicated questions. Listen, as I have often said to my national-security team, I didn’t run for office so that I could go around blowing things up.”

Nemlig sosser, en nations ret og vilje til at forsvare sig selv må i bryde lidt mere med.

FN er tabt

Den ædle ide om et FN der bedre kunne løse internationale stridigheder i mindelighed er degenereret i samme takt som dets rettigheds aktivisme er øget. Samtidig har især venstrefløjen dyrket en irrationel ide om at det diplomatiske maskineri udgjorde en moralsk målestok. Men alt har en ende og FN overspiller i stigende grad sine kort, som  Anne Bayefsky skriver i Jerusalem Post

The Obama administration voted against – after joining and legitimizing the virulently anti-Jewish Council for the past five years, and now feigning disappointment for American cameras.

The Europeans abstained because they did not want to upset their violent Muslim minorities, and with their sordid past, the resolution’s message wasn’t too foreign in any case. A few cowardly countries that Israelis have magnanimously befriended over the years also abstained.

But the majority of the UN world cheered – literally. Speakers during the procession of hatemongers at the Council were greeted with applause.

(…)

The feeding frenzy that followed her at the UN’s highest human rights body was raw unadulterated antisemitism. It was a verbal blitz timed to coincide with the blitz of Hamas rocket attacks that Israelis were experiencing from the skies. The Council session revealed – for the umpteenth time – that these offensives are a continuation of the rejection of a Jewish state, period. Or in the words of Palestinian foreign minister Riyad Maliki himself at the Council, first came the “Israeli atrocities of 1948.” Maliki went on to charge Israel with having “exterminated” Palestinians. His language included: “the smell of death is pursuing Palestinian children because of Israel…who have transformed children into shreds…while they tried to escape the machinery of death.”

Over and over again the despicable antisemitic analogy of Israelis to Nazis was repeated, along with maniacal claims from a parade of human rights abusers. Algeria said “Gaza is a concentration camp.” Sudan said Israel had a “policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide.” Iran claimed Israel was engaged in “massacres and crimes against humanity.” Venezuela said “Israel seeks to exterminate the Palestinian people.” Tunisia said “Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism and is acting in Gaza like the Nazis.” And then there were charges of “barbaric, inhuman acts,” “heinous massacres,” and “crimes unparalleled in recent history.”

In the end, the Human Rights Council’s resolution “deplores” and “condemns in the strongest terms” Israel’s “grave,” “widespread, systematic, and gross” “violations of human rights.” The word “Hamas” is never mentioned.

And the UN launched a second Goldstone-like inquiry – another “human rights” investigation into “violations of law in the occupied Palestinian territory” – not Israeli territory of course.

(…)

The UN is lost. It is not too late for America.

Denne forelæsning fra 2010 fortæller netop Anne Bayefsky om degenereringen af Menneskerettighedsrådet

Much to the dismay of people in actual need of human rights protection, the UN’s Human Rights Council have been hijacked by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) — an organization of 56 Muslim countries who use Islamophobia to justify terrorism, while undermine the fight for human rights in Muslim countries and making sure Muslim countries and Islam will always be above criticism while of course blaming all the ills and injustice in the world on the western non-Muslim world and particularly the United States and Israel.

In this video, Anne Bayefsky, discussed the U.N.’s Racism Conference (Durban Conference), the invention “Islamophobia” as means to justify terror. And the intense lobbying by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) for the issues of “Islamophobia” and “oppression” of Muslims ONLY by non-Muslims to be the prominent focus of the UN’s agenda in general and the Human Rights commission in particular. And the war (which they have won) to ensure that a prohibition against “Islamophobia” will be endorsed by the world community as the newest international human right issue and the equivalent of anti-Semitism.

Borrowing from Wikipedia:

“According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism.[3] UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council’s president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[4][5][6] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration”.

Nu er FN aktivt med i krig mod Israel. Som de leverer Hamas våbenlagre tilbage til Hamas kører de også deres krigere rundt i FN ambulancer

Nyheder

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, Erdogan, Israel, Jihad, Muslimer, Pressen, Syrien, Terror, Tyrkiet, islam — Drokles on July 28, 2014 at 2:35 am

Man ser døde børn på TV og masser af kaos på hospitalerne, der er fyldt med ophidsede mænd uden nogen funktion andet end at gå i vejen og stresse de ansatte. Men man ser aldrig Hamas krigere.

Og i National Review skriver Jonah Goldberg at Hamas truer journalister til ikke at skrive når de observerer skoler og sygehuse blive brugt som affyringsramper.

Now, I understand why Gaza doesn’t want journalists reporting the truth — that Hamas is using innocent Palestinians as human shields and bloody props. But the fabrication charge is something different. If it’s not true, then the reporters are helping Hamas by giving the IDF bad intel. In a normal war, it’s helpful when the enemy thinks you are firing from someplace you’re not. Of course, this isn’t a normal war. It’s mass terror-theater and millions of useful idiots are falling for it.

Israel has reportedly discovered at least 30 tunnels, and has destroyed several of them by employing bulldozers. IDF excavation of the tunnels has resulted in the seizure of tons of Hamas supplies, as well as the discovery of plans for future operations. Clearly, the network of tunnels — using hundreds of tons of concrete that might otherwise have been used by the Palestinians for building homes, shopping malls, parks, schools, hospitals and libraries — indicates that Hamas had been preparing for an ongoing conflict for at least a year. According to the reports, each tunnel has arteries, veins, offshoots, and offshoots of the offshoots in intricate and complex arrangements. As one Israeli spokesman said, “There are two Gazas, one above ground and one below ground: an underground terrorist city.”

Og så lægges der ikke så meget vægt på andre nyheder. Jeg tænker ikke så meget på det surrelle kalifat, som vel er årets nyskabelse, eller Assads tøndebombninger af civile, Ebola og Boka Haram epidemierne og den slags. Jeg tænker på nyheder om Gaza konflikten der ikke indeholder jøder, som at den ægyptiske hær også smadrer palæstinensiske tunneller, som Daily Star skriver

Egypt’s army said Sunday that it had destroyed 13 more tunnels connecting the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip, taking to 1,639 the overall number it has laid waste to.

Cairo has poured troops into the peninsula to counter a rising insurgency since the ouster of President Mohammad Morsi last year, and its security operation involves the destruction of these tunnels.

Hamas, which is the main power in Gaza, reportedly uses the tunnels to smuggle arms, food and money into the blockaded coastal enclave.

Israel has been waging a military offensive on Gaza since July 8 to halt rocket fire, and it launched a ground assault on July 17 aimed at destroying the network of tunnels.

Ved at have for mange nyheder om Ægyptens ageren overfor deres arabiske brødre fjerner man nemlig fokus på jødestaten Israel, som man også minder om at Gaza ikke er omgivet af Israel alene. Og man taler heller så meget om det kontroversielle i at NATO landet og EU aspiranten er en del af Hamas modus operandi ved at fabrikere flere civile ofre som The Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch skriver

CNN Turkey is reporting in Turkish that the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) is recruiting “human shields” to serve in the  Gaza conflict and that 73 people including 38 women have already registered.

report report authored by the GMBDW editor looked at the role of IHH as the lead organization for the June 2010 Gaza Flotilla that was involved in a violent altercation with Israeli naval forces.

Hamas ryster på hånden

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, Jihad, Muslimer, islam — Drokles on July 28, 2014 at 1:50 am

Når man læser Fatih El-Abeds Facebook profil er det som at læse komiske Ali. 14. juli skriver han: “”Iron – Dome” og det store israelske bedrag” og fortsætter ufrivilligt med at uddybe, hvorfor Israel alligevel skal føle sin sikkerhed truet af Hamas raketter

Det mest pinlige kom til udtryk for et par dage siden da raketter fra Gaza mod den israelske hovedstad Tel Aviv blev vist LIVE på samtlige israelske TV kanaler.

Her kunne et samlet sikkerhedskommentator korps konstatere følgende: jamen det virker jo IKKE og det hele er tilsyneladende et stort cirkus der alene har til hensigt ikke alene at give falsk tryghed til det israelske publikum fra Netanyahu og den rabiate regering han står i spidsen for.

Denne omvende logik optræder jævnligt, som da han dagen før gjorde følgende status: “1320 israelske bombetogter over Gaza….171 dræbte palæstinensere…over 1050 sårede” uden at tænke på at de tal udhuler hans konstante påstande om massakrer, krigsforbrydelser og uhørt brutalitet. Men det er rollen som komiske Ali jeg skal bruge til at spinde en ende over.

17. Juli tolker han indsættelsen af landtropper således:

NU har Israels opgivet.

Efter 10 dages lange og massive bomberdement fra land, vand og luften af den smalle, belejret og gennem bombede Gaza stribe UDEN at knække palæstinenserne…så går den israelske besættelseshær til fase 2..

En landoffensiv

22. juli skriver han: “En israelsk soldat er taget til fange” og fortsætter hoverende

Ydmygelsen er total for den arrogante og brutale israelske besættelseshær og nu kan forhåbentlig flere tusinde palæstinensiske fanger i de israelske fængsler gøre sig håb om at se friheds lys inden længe.

Og i samme ånd fejrede Hamas det således

Ja, det er vel så funky de bliver. Samme dag havde han talt paranoidt om at “Go ´morgen Danmark begik en “KÆMPE fejl”" ved at lade Yahaya Hassan tale om Gaza i stedet for det planlagte knækprosa manden ellers har skabt sig et navn på.

23. Juli skriver han: “Endnu et historisk nederlag for Israel” og uddyber at “Israel [har] tabt. STORT.

“I disse timer forsøger Israel at skabe sig en ”sejr” på papiret eftersom det historiske nederlag på slagmarken Gaza er en realitet…

I disse timer forsøger Israel at skabe sig en ”sejre” ved at bombe løs mens palæstinenserne hverken er knækket, blevet trætte eller har opgivet…og faktisk tværtimod

I disse timer forsøger Israel at skabe sig en ”sejr” ved at bilde sin offentlighed i at den massive kritik fra de israelske mediere og kommentatorer for dette ugennemtænkte militære eventyr mod den forarmet og smalle Gaza Stribe er alene udtryk for partipolitiske ”fnid og fnadder”…

Ja, Israel har allerede tabt…”

25. Juli skriver han: “Israels nederlag er en kendsgerning men overgrebet fortsætter og intensiveres.”

Men Israel ser ikke ud til at være knækket, i krise eller på sammenbruddets rand. Forleden kunne fredsfløjen kun samle få tusinde demonstranter og de måtte endda afbryde deres demonstration på grund af Hamas raket angreb.

I stedet viser Hamas tegn på stress, som Avi Issacharoff skriver i Times of Israel

A statement Sunday by Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri accepting a 24-hour humanitarian truce marks the first indication that Hamas is starting to break. There’s no surrender and white-flag-waving, but the message is a sign of significant distress.

Contrary to what Israel has been trying to argue for 20 days, Hamas has not shown any signs of real weakness until now. The organization has continued firing rockets at Israel and has relentlessly tried to carry out attacks on Israeli soil.

But something has changed over the last few days. The group’s political leaders sound different, less decisive, less fiery. On Wednesday, politburo chief Khaled Mashaal said (from Qatar) that he would rather die than have the blockade continue, but the very next day, he changed his tune when it came to American assurances. And on Sunday, all this reached a tipping point.

(…)

Given the dire situation on the ground when Israel offered to extend Saturday’s humanitarian truce through Sunday, it’s safe to deduce that too many Palestinians did not like the organization’s initial negative reaction.

The cracks in Hamas’s stance are not coincidental or surprising. It’s a process that took a few days — more or less since Israel’s massive attack on Gaza City’s Shejaiya neighborhood.

The heavy strikes on the homes in the Hamas stronghold raised support for Hamas to a peak, but it could only go downhill from there. The group, despite its promises, did not have any extraordinary military achievements to champion amid the destruction.

One of its dramatic failures, from its point of view, was the whole affair with the supposedly kidnapped soldier Oron Shaul, who was formally declared by the IDF dead late last week.

Et andet tegn er henrettelser af deres egne, som Aaron Klein skriver i WND (via Elder of Ziyon)

The sources, close to both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad groups, told WND that most of the extra-judicial killings of suspected collaborators took place during a brief “humanitarian” cease-fire four days ago.

The so-called collaborators were accused of leading Israeli troops to smuggling tunnels and providing intelligence on Hamas’ infrastructure inside Gazan cities.

The sources said Hamas publicly blamed the killings of the Palestinian suspects on Israel, claiming the civilians were murdered Sunday during an Israel Defense Forces “massacre” in the Shujaiyeh neighborhood of the Gaza Strip.

The sources further said the civilian suspects murdered by Hamas were publicly celebrated by Hamas as martyrs killed by the Jewish state.

Så man skal ikke forvente at Israel vil lade sig trække rundt i manegen af Obamas Broderskabs inficerede administration. http://www.timesofisrael.com/john-kerry-the-betrayal/

Man kan ikke forhandle sin egen undergang

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, Muslimer, Terror, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 27, 2014 at 8:36 pm

skriver meget rigtigt i Toronto Sun at Hamas er sindssyge. Eller, det er ikke rigtigt, Hamas er blot rettroende muslimer, men nuvel

The following quotations are all taken from [Hamas charter]:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized.”

“The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur’an is its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

“Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Israel is an Islamic Waqf, consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“Initiatives and so-called peaceful resolutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement … There is no solution for the Palestinian question, except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time …”

“The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion … It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and the Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.”

“Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. May the cowards never sleep.”

“Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason and cursed be he who does that … There is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion.”

Som man kan se optræder jøde og zionist synonymt. Al tale om at Hamas er imod et bestemt politik eller blot reagerer på noget konkret som Israel har gjort er altså forkert. Hamas er en terror organisation, der kun har til formål at slå jøder ihjel fordi de er jøder. Og for ligesom at understrege det for de tungnemme så måtte en fredsdemonstration på Rabin pladsen evakueres da Hamas beskød

Slogans chanted by the protesters included “Stop the war,” “Bring the soldiers back home” and “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies,” Channel 2 reported.

Channel 2 noted that prominent left-wing party Meretz as well as the Peace Now organization had opted not to take part in the rally, with the TV report speculating that the protesters may fall to the left of those groups on the political spectrum.

The demonstrations were cut short when Hamas unilaterally ended a humanitarian truce with Israel and resumed rocket-fire from Gaza.

Wakey, wakey venstresnoede jøder.

Proportionalitet kun for Israel

Et FN organ fordømmer Israel for krigsforbrydelser og manglende proportionalitet skriver Danmarks Radio

FN’s menneskerettighedschef, Navi Pillay, siger i en FN-debat, at der er en stor mulighed for, at Israel bryder folkeretten i Gaza og måske begår krigsforbrydelser.

Pillay siger, at drabene på civile i Gaza - og navnligt drab på børn - vækker bekymring og sår tvivl om, de forholdsregler israelerne tager for at skåne de civile.

Hun siger samtidig, at der mangler proportionalitet i de israelske reaktioner på palæstinensiske islamisters angreb.

Klogeligt har Israel svaret at rådet kan rende og slå knald. Ironisk er det FN, der snarere er skyldig i krigsforbrydelser ved at overdrage de våben Hamas har opbevaret på FNs skoler i Gaza tilbage til netop Hamas og altså således bevæbnet er terrororganisation. I kommentarfeltet på et godt indlæg på 180 Grader skrives der så rigtigt

Hamas (…) lyver rutinemæssigt. Under kampene i 2009 kunne en håndfuld bloggere for eksempel dokumentere, at tæt på 400 arabere som medierne købte som “civile” faktisk var terrorister. Halvandet år efter kampene var ovre indrømmede Hamas´ indenrigsminister da også, at godt halvdelen af de dræbte var terrorister - selv om de under kampene påstod, det næsten kun var civile, der blev dræbt. De er endda ret åbne omkring, at de lyver. På Hamas´ indenrigsministeriums hjemmeside er der en vejledning for pro-Hamas-aktivister i, hvordan man lyver. Uanset hvem der bliver dræbt i Gaza, så skal folk altid kalde dem “uskyldige civile” eller “uskyldige borgere”.

Det samme var tilfældet under antiterror-operationen i Libanon i 2006. Hezbollah påstod, at de skam kun havde mistet 60 mand, selv om enhver der gad tælle antallet af begravelser af Hezbollah-folk i pressen kunne se, at det var større. Efter krigen, da man ikke behøvede lave skrækhistorier om civile ofre, indrømmed Hezbollah, at de havde mistet 250 mand. Hezbollah løj altså om, at et par hundrede af deres terrorister var civile, og så ser man bort fra at stort set ingen andre end Hezbollah selv tror på tallet 250. Libanesiske myndigheder og FN mente, tallet nærmere var 500. Israel angav antallet af dræbte Hezbollah-folk til mellem 6 og 800, og fortalte at de havde navn og adresse på over 500 af dem. Det er ca halvdelen af de dræbte. Indtil videre ser billedet ud til at være det samme i Gaza.

Dertil kommer selvfølgelig, at ingen nogensinde stiller spørgsmålstegn ved, om det nu også faktisk er Israel, der har ansvaret for alle civile ofre. Israel fører ret detaljerede statistikker over, hvor mange raketter der ender i Israel. I Gaza er der tilsvarende organisationer, der tæller hvor mange raketter der faktisk bliver affyret. Det sjove er så, at de to tal langt fra er de samme - hundredevis af raketter bliver affyret, men rammer aldrig Israel. Hvad mon de så rammer? Et oplagt gæt kunne være “civile arabere, som Hamas så kan påstå blev dræbt af Israel”.

Det er det faktuelle når vi taler tabstal. Men det er om proportionalitet det skal handle, et ord, som mange politikere også herhjemme misforstår, men gerne gør brug af i falsk forventing om at de får dem til at fremstå klogere. Shoshana gennemgår proportional krigsførelse på Gatestone Institute

Prof. Horst Fischer, Academic Director of the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum in Germany, and Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, wrote in The Crimes of War Project:

The principle of proportionality is embedded in almost every national legal system and underlies the international legal order. Its function in domestic law is to relate means to ends… In the conduct of war, when a party commits a lawful attack against a military objective, the principle of proportionality also comes into play whenever there is collateral damage, that is, civilian casualties or damage to a non-military objective… attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated.

Exactly as Israel does when it aborts missions after finding civilians used as human shields on rooftops.

The Council on Foreign Relations notes:

According to the doctrine, a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante.

What constitutes status quo ante for Israel may be debatable – but surely a return to the period before 75% of Israel’s citizens were terrorized by random rocket fire should be an acceptable definition.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in 2006 published an open letter containing his findings. Included was this section on proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).

Og man kan derfor kun være enig med Israels ambassadør i USA, når han plæderer for at Israels tilbageholdenhed burde udløse Nobels Fredspris. Fra Times of Israel

“Some are shamelessly accusing Israel of genocide and would put us in the dock for war crimes,” Dermer said. “But the truth is that the Israeli Defense Forces should be given the Nobel Peace Prize… a Nobel Peace Prize for fighting with unimaginable restraint.”

Dermer’s comments followed a statement issued by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who on Sunday said that the IDF is the “most humane and bravest army in the world.”

During World War II, the British army responded to German attacks with the “carpet bombing of German cities,” Dermer said. While he was unwilling to criticize the United Kingdom for doing so, he continued, “at the same time, I will not accept, and no one should accept, criticism of Israel for acting with restraint that has not been shown and would not be shown by any nation on earth. I especially will not tolerate criticism of my country at a time when Israeli soldiers are dying so that innocent Palestinians can live.”

USA tæppebombede også i Vietnam. Og igen i Irak da Saddams Republikanske Garde fik et pulver af en anden verden. Og Danmark deltog stolt da mægtige NATO bombede vores vilje igennem på Serbiens bekostning. Og igen i Irak. Og Afghanistan. Og Libyen. Og ingen ved hvor mange vi har dræbt. Osv. osv. Men vi er jo heller ikke jøder.

Det er araberne heller ikke, når de myrder løs på hinanden. Jordan dræbte flere palæstinensere da de fordrev PLO fra deres land, Kuwaitiske militser dræbte 4-5.000 palæstinensere  da de fordrev 200.000 af deres tidligere fremmedarbejdere, en besk kommentar til Arafats moralske alliance med Saddam Hussein. Osv. osv.

Proportionalitet er kun for Israel og er et stykke af den anti-semitiske fortælling, der bid for bid dehumaniserer jøderne. Alan M Dershowitz skriver i Gatestone Institute

The media’s exclusive focus on the death toll in Gaza—without explaining that it is largely Hamas’ fault and part of its media strategy—incites hatred and anti-Semitism around the world. It has incited violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in many cities. Much of this violence comes from radicals on the hard left and from radical Islamists. But a recent incident in Italy shows that bigoted hate can come from the mouths of intellectuals as well as the fists of rabble rousers. Gianni Vattimo, who has been called Italy’s most famous philosopher, recently announced that he would personally, “like to shoot those bastard Zionists,” calling them “a bit worse than the Nazis”. He said he was planning to launch a fundraising campaign to buy better rockets for Hamas so that this Jew-hating group can kill more Zionists, by which he means Jewish Israelis. He urged European volunteers to join Hamas and fight alongside of them against Israel, as volunteers fought against Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

It is a crime under the law of the United States and several European countries to provide material support to designated terrorist groups, of which Hamas is one. Vattimo has committed this crime and might well be banned from travel to the United States and other countries or arrested if he travels to countries that have such laws.

The media has a moral obligation to tell the whole truth when it shows the pictures of the dead and counts the bodies on each side. If it fails in this obligation, it becomes complicit in the sins and crimes of bigots such as Vattimo and in the war crimes of Hamas.

Jeg rystes stadigt mere af mediernes korte hukommelse. Det er som indlægget på 180 Grader skrev det samme hver eneste gang. Hamas lyver, der gør Israel ikke. Det er hver gang kun Israel, der afkræves proportionalitet. Og det er hver gang Israel der beskyldes for krigsforbrydelse. Dershowitz har ret, medierne er enablere af Hamas’ krigsforbrydelser og af at styrke den anti-semitiske fortælling for venstrefløjen.

Next Page »

no prescription buy viagra
Monokultur kører på WordPress