Kort dokumentar om Obamas forhold til Israel

Obama kan ikke lide Israel, det er næppe nogen hemmelighed.

Den arabiske verden knækker under vægten af kognitiv dissonans

Der har den seneste tid været flere gode artikler om den arabiske verdens store krise. Det man optimistisk kaldte for et forår har helt mistet en årstidbetegnelse thi en sådan vil ikke være dækkende. En vinter er jo kun en periode, men flere ser ikke nogen umiddelbar ende på den spiral af kaos, som araberne ser ud til at blive trukket ned i. Den libanesiske Hisham Melhem skrev den glimrende artikel Barbarians Within Our Gates for Politico Magazine

Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism—the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition—than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Every hope of modern Arab history has been betrayed. The promise of political empowerment, the return of politics, the restoration of human dignity heralded by the season of Arab uprisings in their early heydays—all has given way to civil wars, ethnic, sectarian and regional divisions and the reassertion of absolutism, both in its military and atavistic forms. With the dubious exception of the antiquated monarchies and emirates of the Gulf—which for the moment are holding out against the tide of chaos—and possibly Tunisia, there is no recognizable legitimacy left in the Arab world.

Is it any surprise that, like the vermin that take over a ruined city, the heirs to this self-destroyed civilization should be the nihilistic thugs of the Islamic State? And that there is no one else who can clean up the vast mess we Arabs have made of our world but the Americans and Western countries?

No one paradigm or one theory can explain what went wrong in the Arab world in the last century. There is no obvious set of reasons for the colossal failures of all the ideologies and political movements that swept the Arab region: Arab nationalism, in its Baathist and Nasserite forms; various Islamist movements; Arab socialism; the rentier state and rapacious monopolies, leaving in their wake a string of broken societies. No one theory can explain the marginalization of Egypt, once the center of political and cultural gravity in the Arab East, and its brief and tumultuous experimentation with peaceful political change before it reverted back to military rule.

Nor is the notion of “ancient sectarian hatreds” adequate to explain the frightening reality that along a front stretching from Basra at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Beirut on the Mediterranean there exists an almost continuous bloodletting between Sunni and Shia—the public manifestation of an epic geopolitical battle for power and control pitting Iran, the Shia powerhouse, against Saudi Arabia, the Sunni powerhouse, and their proxies.

There is no one single overarching explanation for that tapestry of horrors in Syria and Iraq, where in the last five years more than a quarter of a million people perished, where famed cities like Aleppo, Homs and Mosul were visited by the modern terror of Assad’s chemical weapons and the brutal violence of the Islamic State. How could Syria tear itself apart and become—like Spain in the 1930s—the arena for Arabs and Muslims to re-fight their old civil wars? The war waged by the Syrian regime against civilians in opposition areas combined the use of Scud missiles, anti-personnel barrel bombs as well as medieval tactics against towns and neighborhoods such as siege and starvation. For the first time since the First World War, Syrians were dying of malnutrition and hunger.

(…)

A byproduct of the depredation of the national security state and resurgent Islamism has been the slow death of the cosmopolitanism that distinguished great Middle Eastern cities like Alexandria, Beirut, Cairo and Damascus. Alexandria was once a center of learning and multicultural delights (by night, Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad, “it was a sort of reminiscence of Paris”). Today Alexandria is a hotbed of political Islam, now that the once large Greek-Egyptian community has fled along with the other non-Arab and non-Muslim communities. Beirut, once the most liberal city in the Levant, is struggling to maintain a modicum of openness and tolerance while being pushed by Hezbollah to become a Tehran on the Med. Over the last few decades, Islamists across the region have encouraged—and pressured—women to wear veils, men to show signs of religiosity, and subtly and not-so-subtly intimidated non-conformist intellectuals and artists. Egypt today is bereft of good universities and research centers, while publishing unreadable newspapers peddling xenophobia and hyper-nationalism. Cairo no longer produces the kind of daring and creative cinema that pioneers like the critically acclaimed director Youssef Chahine made for more than 60 years. Egyptian society today cannot tolerate a literary and intellectual figure like Taha Hussein, who towered over Arab intellectual life from the 1920s until his death in 1973, because of his skepticism about Islam. Egyptian society cannot reconcile itself today to the great diva Asmahan (1917-1944) singing to her lover that “my soul, my heart, and my body are in your hand.” In the Egypt of today, a chanteuse like Asmahan would be hounded and banished from the country.

***

The jihadists of the Islamic State, in other words, did not emerge from nowhere. They climbed out of a rotting, empty hulk—what was left of a broken-down civilization. They are a gruesome manifestation of a deeper malady afflicting Arab political culture, which was stagnant, repressive and patriarchal after the decades of authoritarian rule that led to the disastrous defeat in the 1967 war with Israel. That defeat sounded the death knell of Arab nationalism and the resurgence of political Islam, which projected itself as the alternative to the more secular ideologies that had dominated the Arab republics since the Second World War. If Arab decline was the problem, then “Islam is the solution,” the Islamists said—and they believed it.

At their core, both political currents—Arab nationalism and Islamism—are driven by atavistic impulses and a regressive outlook on life that is grounded in a mostly mythologized past. Many Islamists, including Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (the wellspring of such groups)—whether they say it explicitly or hint at it—are still on a ceaseless quest to resurrect the old Ottoman Caliphate. Still more radical types—the Salafists—yearn for a return to the puritanical days of Prophet Muhammad and his companions. For most Islamists, democracy means only majoritarian rule, and the rule of sharia law, which codifies gender inequality and discrimination against non-Muslims.

And let’s face the grim truth: There is no evidence whatever that Islam in its various political forms is compatible with modern democracy. From Afghanistan under the Taliban to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and from Iran to Sudan, there is no Islamist entity that can be said to be democratic, just or a practitioner of good governance.

Men det er Raymond Ibrahims fremragende artikel Islams Protestant Reformation fra Juni måned for Frontpage Magazine, som leverer en en dyster forklaring for hele den muslimske verden, nemlig at den er ved at knække over under presset for sin egen kognitive dissonans.

Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures.  The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world.  Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).

Jalving skrev under blandt andet denne inspiration den glimrende advarsel til Vesten at nissen flytter med i Efter Os Syndfloden.

Men nu ser vi den. Vi ser, at det hele er noget lort på de kanter. Og vi ser noget andet og endnu værre – for os: At vi ikke evner at forvare os mod opløsningen af den arabiske civilisation. Deres ødelæggelse kan blive vores ødelæggelse. Vi importerer den nemlig.

Her tænker jeg ikke kun på de varme lande som arnested for radikalisme og jihad. Det er næsten for banalt, her er dagens episode. Næ, jeg tænker naturligvis også på den voksende strøm af flygtninge og asylansøgere, der vandrer mod Europa – og for de flestes vedkommende – kommer frem og opnår en eller anden ret til at være her – på de europæiske skatteyderes regning.

(…)

Hvem skal redde araberne fra sig selv?

Hvorfor peger flaskehalsen på os? Hvorfor er det ikke kinesernes opgave, de er trods alt de kommende, globale magthavere? Hvorfor kigger ingen på Latinamerikas ansvar, de vil for helvede også gerne handle med araberne? Hvorfor kan Putin køre friløb? Og mere graverende: Hvorfor er det ikke araberne, der løser arabernes selvskabte problemer?

Du ved godt hvorfor. Det er kun i Vesten, at vi har fået den tro, at vi og ingen andre kan løse alverdens problemer lige fra nødhjælp til geopolitik. Det er os, dvs. vores nedarvede humanisme, der i generationer har ledt Vesten på vildspor og skabt en grænseløs, universel samvittighed hinsides alle sociale konsekvenser i hjemlandene og gjort menneskerettighedskonventioner til guddommelige anvisninger.

Dér ligger hunden begravet, og det er på tide at sige det ligeud, som det er: Det er os selv, ikke araberne, der har gjort den kroniske arabiske borgerkrig til USA’s, Storbritanniens, Australiens, Canadas, Hollands, Sveriges og Danmarks evige problem. Vi vil og skal hjælpe, koste hvad det koste vil, herunder vores egen deroute.

Deroute er egentlig for venligt et udtryk. Det er ikke alene den arabiske civilisation, der forsvinder for øjnene af os, men tillige vores egen kultur, der synker sammen i bestræbelsen på at spille Jesus, imens vi tillader, at arabere, der tydeligvis ikke vil Danmark eller det land, der har givet dem eller deres forældre en ny chance, huserer som grever og baroner på gader og stræder og opfører sig, som var de herrer i vores hus.

Mærk dig disse dage, det er dage, der forandrer verden, herunder din egen. Tiderne skifter, jeg siger det bare.

Ingen milde sæder kommer af disse tiders skiften dog.

Husker du? Irving Jensen og Søren Espersen om det arabiske forår 2011

Akademia, Arabere, Arabiske forår, Iran, Muslimer, islam — Drokles on September 11, 2014 at 10:10 am

Løftet direkte fra Søren Espersens Facebookprofil, en DR2 debat mellem Irving Jensen og Espersen selv. Irving Jensen og demokratiregalierne er et monument over akademisk degeneration.

Dokumentar - Meeting ISIL

Press TV er en iransk TV station, så man skal se ‘dokumentaren’ med øje for propaganda interesser. Dog er det alligevel et kig bag facaden

To learn who these people are, what they are fighting for, and who funds them, PRESS TV goes deep into their camps and brings you face to face interviews and exclusive footage. Many of those who were initially infatuated by the group’s promise of justice seem to be horrified and utterly disillusioned today.

Everyone who is not us is the enemy and should be branded as infidel. This seems to be the prevailing ideology of the extreme Takfiri terrorists known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Their aim is said to be the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. Shias, Christians, Sunnis, Yazidies, and whomsoever who dares to question them or raise his voice of dissent are persecuted under their highly distorted version of Islamic Sharia. Gruesome be-headings, crucifixions and mass executions are openly carried out under their iconic black flag which is more like a modern day equivalent of a Jolly Roger. At times, it seems like their victims are whoever who is unlucky enough to be in their path during their killing sprees. And yet they know how to manipulate social media and have succeeded in brainwashing some to join them in their “fight for justice”.

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.

Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

5. og sidste del af Vice News serie om kalifatet

On August 8, nearly three years after the United States pulled out of Iraq, President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes to commence on Islamic State positions in northern Iraq, as the group’s fighters advanced towards the Kurdish capital of Erbil. For six weeks prior to the strikes the Islamic State made stunning gains within Iraq, effectively dismantling the border with Syria and defeating the Iraqi army with little in the way to stop them.

In the final installment of VICE News’ unprecedented look inside the Islamic State, reporter Medyan Dairieh journeys 200 miles from the the group’s power base in the Syrian city of Raqqa to the border with Iraq. There, after defeating the Iraqi army manning the checkpoint, Islamic State fighters work further to bulldoze the border.

As they clear apart a barrier that divided Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters declare an end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a nearly 100-year-old pact between France and Britain that divided up the Middle East. For now, that area between Iraq and Syria is part of a new territory: the Islamic State.

Click here to watch all 5 Parts of The Islamic State: bit.ly/1sDag1c

Og her er filmen så i fuld længde

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

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress