Den lange march gennem FNs institutioner

Tidligere kortavarig  Knessetmedlem for Arbejderpartiet Einat Wilf forsøgte med lidt optimisme ovenpå FNs resolution 2334, der delegitimerer alt israelsk udenfor 1967 ‘grænsen’, inklusiv Øst-Jerusalem med Grædemuren og det gamle jødiske kvarter. Wilf påpegede at resolutionen ved sin skelnen mellem bosættelser og selve Israel “essentially clarifying the absolute legality of the territory of Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem”. Optimismen slutter vi af med, men først til Caroline Glieck der i Jerusalem Post skriver om de palæstinensiske araberes diplomatiske svikmølle

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

Anne Bayefsky, der tidligere så glimrende har beskrevet FNs konstante krig mod Israel, skriver på Fox News

The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

Abbas ser frem til at kunne stille israelske sikkerhedsstyrker for den International Krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Elder Of Ziyon mindede med et par gamle avisudklip om arabernes jødefri ønske for ‘Palæstina’. Men videre og måske mere foruroligende skriver Bayefsky

At its core, this UN move is a head-on assault on American democracy. President Obama knew full well he did not have Congressional support for the Iran deal, so he went straight to the Security Council first. Likewise, he knew that there would have been overwhelming Congressional opposition to this resolution, so he carefully planned his stealth attack.

He waited until Congress was not in session. Members of his administration made periodic suggestions that nothing had been decided. There were occasional head fakes that he was “leaning” against it. He produced smiling photo-ops from a Hawaiian golf course with no obvious major foreign policy moves minutes away. Holiday time-outs were in full-swing across the country. And then he pounced, giving Israel virtually no notice of his intent not to veto.

Profound betrayal of a true democratic friend of the United States is the only possible description.

FN taler ikke om Yemen og den slags får Charles Krauthammer at foreslå at USA burde stoppe med at være vært for FN og omdanne FN-bygningen til ejerlejligheder. Og netop Trump er optimismen

Boykot Israel, mærk jøden

BDS bevægelsen har kronede dage. Den tilbyder på samme måde som klimahysteriet, den gængse venstrefløjser et pseudo problem at engagere sig i så man kan undgå at se realiteterne i øjnene lidt endnu. BDS står for Boycut, Divest, Sanction og er rettet imod Israel - selvfølgelig. Herunder er en lille film, hvor man kan se hvilket sentiment, der er kernen i bevægelsen, hvor blindt hadet til Israel er og hvor dybt det ligger

A few months ago, Israeli TV News anchor Dany Cushmaro, travelled to US campuses to meet with anti-Israel activists and see how they campaign against Israel.

The interviews were revealing: Watch

Selv feministiske akademikere vil boykotte Israel i solidaritet med deres arabiske søstre, skriver The Daily Beast. Herunder en repræsentant for den jødisk-amerikanske gruppe CODEPINK, der er taget til Israel for at boykotte Israel

codepink1-boykotter-israel-i-israel

Adrienne Yaron skrev i Jerusalem Post at “BDS demonstrations are an opportunity for them to spew anti-Semitic vitriol and express their vicious hatred of the Jewish state. BDS’ only real power is in propagating its hateful ideology”. Realiteterne er nemlig, at der ikke er tale om en real eller realistisk boykot, fordi ingen vil boykotte nyttig viden, avanceret teknologi eller livsvigtig medicin. Og, forsætter Yaron med at forklare…

BDS’ own website only instructs its supporters to boycott “fresh produce, Ahava, and Sodastream.” Ahava and Sodastream are both great companies, but they hardly constitute a major percentage of Israel’s export sales. Moreover, these two companies probably benefit by increased sales from Israel supporters because they are the only two individually-named targets of the boycott movement. As for “fresh produce”, this stopped being a major export of Israel decades ago. Fresh fruits and vegetables now constitute only about 3.6% of Israel’s total exports. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of Israel’s fresh vegetable market is to Russia - a nation that has shown little interest in the boycott bandwagon and a lot of interest in feeding its population. Both India and China have also been steadily growing their market share for Israeli produce, and there is little doubt than any sales drop in Europe will be outbalanced by an increase from these giants.

So in fact, all the huffing and puffing of the anti-Israel “BDS” crowd is nothing more than hot air. The BDS movement has not, and will never have, any significant economic effect on Israel’s overall economy, because Israel’s economy is grounded in products and services that effectively cannot be boycotted. In fact, financial analysts are predicting Israel’s economy will grow more than any other developed country in 2016. Even these academic association resolutions are hypocritical and phony. If you read the texts of them, they specifically allow for “individual members” to continue working with “individual Israeli scholars” - in other words, these hypocritical professors don’t actually have to give up anything, or stop any research projects with Israelis. They make their nasty, defamatory statement, and continue business with their Israeli colleagues as usual.

Denne hadefulde ideologi blomstrer i EU (også herhjemme, men ikke i Tjekkiet) som Caroline Glick skriver i Jerusalem Post

Take for instance the timing of the EU’s first official act of open economic warfare against Israel.

On July 29, 2013 US Secretary of State John Kerry brought the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams together in Washington to officially launch a new round of peace talks.

The same day, the EU announced that starting at the beginning of 2014, it would be ending all joint projects with and all funding from the EU and its member governments of Israeli entities located or operating in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights. The only exceptions to the funding and cooperation ban were Israeli organizations working to harm Israeli control over the areas, and non-Jewish Israeli entities.

The message was obvious. As far as Europe is concerned, “the peace process,” isn’t a means to achieve peace. It is a means of criminalizing Israel.

This week’s labeling guidelines were no surprise. They were promised two years ago.  We have also known for years, that neither the funding ban nor the product labeling are ends to themselves.

In May 2013, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linus Linkevicius told the Jerusalem Post that the labeling policy is merely a preparatory step on the road towards implementing the EU’s ultimate objective: a full economic boycott of Israel.

(…)

Then there are the NGOs.

As NGO Monitor President Prof. Gerald Steinberg has been demonstrating for more than a decade, Europe uses NGO’s registered in Israel to advance its aggressive policies against Israel. The EU and its member states use these groups to get Israeli cover for their anti-Israel policies. They pay them to produce films and publish reports slandering Israel and calling for a boycott of its economy and the isolation of its government and citizens. The EU and its members then use these products they ordered and paid for as “proof” of Israeli criminality, which in turn justifies their aggression against the Jewish state.

Take Ir Amim for instance. Ir Amim works to deny the legitimacy of Israeli control over unified Jerusalem. In 2014 it received funding from the EU, and the governments of Holland, Norway and Sweden.

In 2010, the group called on the US government to cut off diplomatic ties with Israel or, at a minimum end its foreign aid to the Jewish state. Ir Amim supported and defended Britain’s decision to prohibit the Tourism Ministry from noting that the Western Wall is in Israel.

What all this boils down to is the plain fact that the EU is waging a political and economic war against Israel that is based on a comprehensive, well-conceived strategy that uses the EU’s strengths to their best advantage.

(…)

Consider the timing of this week’s announcement. The EU chose to announce it is labeling Jewish products the same week that we commemorate Kristallnacht – the 1938 pogrom which marked the official beginning of the Holocaust.

For many Europeans, no doubt the timing was fortuitous rather than ironic.

In Sweden, out of “concern for their members’ safety,” Jewish groups were barred from participating in official Kristallnacht commemorations.

Then there are the Netherlands.

MK Hanin Zoabi, who can’t open her mouth without slandering Israel, was invited to deliver remarks at a Kristallnacht remembrance ceremony in Amsterdam. No doubt the organizers knew what they were going to get when they called her. Zoabi compared Israel to Nazi Germany for them.

For an ever growing number of Europeans, castigating Israel as the new Nazi Germany means absolution for the crime of the Holocaust. By transforming the Jews into Nazis, Europeans can shrug their shoulders at the fact that most of the nations of Europe collaborated with the Germans in their genocide of European Jewry.

Og, tilføjede Eugene Kontorovich i New York Times 13 november, så er EUs mærkningsordning endda i strid med EUs egne principper

What has largely escaped notice is that the labeling policy violates the European Union’s own express policy on such issues. The commission primarily justifies labeling as a necessary tool to provide consumers with the information that it does not regard the territories “as part of Israel.” However, European Union and national authorities that have addressed the issue have clearly ruled that special labeling is not required in such situations — neither for consumer protection nor to reflect the European Union’s view of the underlying sovereign status of territories.

Thus the European Union allows Morocco — which has extensive trade ties with Europe, but has occupied Western Sahara since 1975, and populated it heavily with settlers — to export products from its occupied territory labeled “Made in Morocco.” When challenged, the commission formally declared that labeling such goods as “made in” Morocco is not misleading, and is consistent with European trade agreements.

Also, European courts have considered the consumer protection rationale specifically in the context of Israeli products, and rejected it. Just last year, the British Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving Ahava beauty products produced in the West Bank, that “there was no basis for saying that the average consumer would be misled” by a “Made in Israel” label. The court held that such labeling was not deceptive as a matter of both British and European Union law.

The problem is not that the European Union fails to live up to its standards in some cases, like that of Morocco. Rather, in these other cases the union explicitly denies the existence of these standards. Such inconsistency is not just hypocrisy. It is a legal violation in its own right. The European Union’s foundational treaties require regulatory “consistency.” And discrimination against trading partners represents a core violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other treaties of the World Trade Organization, as the law professor Avi Bell and I have shown in detail in a recent paper. The union’s labeling guidelines are manifestly discriminatory, as they apply only to Israel.

The World Trade Organization treaties establish the legal framework for international commerce. Under the W.T.O.’s nondiscrimination requirement, it is impermissible to apply trade rules and restrictions to some member countries and not to others. And the W.T.O.’s protections apply not just to a country’s sovereign territory, but also to areas of its “international responsibility,” such as occupied territories. The United States, with international approval, received the benefit of its international trade treaties even in territories it occupied in World War II, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, where it made no claim of sovereignty. There is nothing novel about a country’s receiving full trade rights for nonsovereign areas under its administration.

The United States has a great deal riding on the integrity of the international trading system. But the European Union labeling threatens to establish a precedent that would allow politicization of the system, undermining United States economic interests in broad and unpredictable ways. Thus it is not surprising that earlier this year, the United States passed a law opposing such European Union measures against Israel.

Making special rules for Israel has the undesired effect of reducing Israel’s incentives to take international law seriously: If the goal posts can be moved, there is less reason to play the game. As a putative role model for international law, the European Union’s greatest weapon is its probity and consistency. By damaging that, it harms its ability to set the global agenda.

Men hvad er principper mellem lumre jødehadere?

Sofies Verden

Da Sofie var barn legede hun “som oftest fattige gadebørn i Indien eller forældreløse børnehjemsbørn og til fastelavn var vi sigøjner, tiggerpige eller klædt ud som afrikaner”. Det har gjort hende “nysgerrig og interesseret i verden” og “bedre til at navigerer i en mangfoldig og flerkulturel sammenhæng” fortæller hun i indlægget “ER JEG RACIST FORDI JEG GODT KAN LIDE SKIPPERMIX?“, hvor hun ganske klogt advarer mod at “fjerne maskerne fra Skippermixen eller censurerer ord som ’neger’ fra gamle børnebøger” fordi det også vil fjerne nærværet af “Danmarks øvrige kolonisthistorie og rolle som imperialistisk slavehandler”.

En god ven gjorde mig opmærksom på Sofie Viborg Jensen fordi hun havde haft et indlæg i Politiken, som man mindst skal være en hardcore Politikenlæser for at forstå.

Jeg er ikke sikker på, at jeg har lyst til at flytte hjem til Danmark igen, når min uddannelse i Sverige er færdig om et par år.

Jeg har ellers altid drømt om at flytte tilbage til Svendborg, tættere på min familie og mine venner, få børn og måske gå ind i lokalpolitik. Tja, som tingene ser ud nu, kunne jeg nok ikke engang få min kæreste med hjem, hvis jeg ville, for han er nemlig ikkevestlig.

Jeg har ellers altid keret mig om samfundet, jeg har altid været engageret. Jeg læser velfærdspolitik på universitetet, fordi jeg gerne vil gøre en forskel for de svageste i samfundet. Men dansk politik har bogstavlig talt fordrevet mig, radikaliseret mig, frataget mig håbet og lysten til at tage ansvar. Så måske jeg også bare skulle smides ud af landet? Jeg er ikke sikker på, at jeg passer ind længere. Jeg er ikke sikker på, at jeg gider mere.

Er det ikke smukt? Alt der er galt med Danmark skriver nu fra helvedes forgård at hun nu ikke ved om hun også orker at komme tilbage for at fortsætte at ødelægge Danmark når ingen synes at være taknemmelige. Åh, og så noget om racister, hjerterum , vores værdier og et Danmark, der er revet væk under hende.

Ikke at det skal handle om andet end Sofies Verden, men Roald Als illustration skal lige med, da den fløj under radaren efter den famøse tegning af Inger Støjberg der hænger flygtninge på sit juletræ (hvor hun rettere skulle afbilledes, som en der døller danskerne i søvn med store ord, mens hun lukker muslimske terrorister ind i Danmark)

roald-als

Danske politikere udøver direkte og med glæde fysisk vold mod en muslim

Tilbage til Sofies blogunivers, Meningsdanner Mod Diskrimination, hvor hun præsenterer sig således

“Jeg elsker at vende spørgsmål på hovedet og finde alternative vinklinger på komplekse problemstillinger. Jeg beskæftiger mig især med spørgsmål om identitetspolitik og hvidhedsnormer i en post-kolonistisk teoretisk kontekst, men jeg synes også det er vigtigt at diskuterer sådan nogle ting i sin hverdag og kigge ud over teoribøgerne. Jeg elsker at kigge indad og bringe mine egne erfaringer og historier i spil og jeg synes det er vigtigt at forsøge at gøre den offentlige debat mere nuanceret.”

Jamen det er fint at stille spørgsmål, men nogle spørgsmål er bedre end andre. Og det er fint at kunne vende spørgsmål på hovedet, men det er ikke det samme som at vende op og ned på alle ting. Når teoribøgerne handler om identitetspolitik og hvidhedsnormer i en postkolonialistisk kontekst skal man ikke kigge udover, men helt væk. Og man skal kun kigge indad og bringe egne erfaringer og historier i spil, hvis det giver mening - ellers befamler man sig selv på sit studieobjekts bekostning. Og det fører ikke til nogen nuancering af debatten, men til kvindesludder.

I hendes video “En fortælling om at være nysgerrig” finder Sofie sig stående islamisk kønsopdelt i en bank i Gaza.

I denne korte video fortæller jeg om min oplevelse af strukturel sexisme i en bank i Gaza, og om hvor svært det kan være at navigerer i en fremmed kultur. Det er en historie om vigtigheden af at være nysgerrig og still spørgsmål.

Jeg har lige været i Gaza og der havde jeg en lidt besynderlig oplevelse første gang jeg skulle i banken for at hæve en arbejdscheck. Jeg gik derind med min lokale kvindelig kollega, og det er sådan en stor bank, ligesom vi kender det hjemme fra [Øhrm, det udbombede Gaza] og da vi kom derind, der var der ligesom to køer. Den ene kø kun med kvinder og den anden kø kun med mænd. Og vi stiller os så over i den her kvindekø og der er en masse forskellige kvinder, nogle med tørklæder, nogle uden tørklæde og så nogle der er helt dækket til og jeg er umiddelbart den eneste sådan hvide, som er udlænding - ligner det i hvert fald.

Og jo mindre den der kø ovre ved mændene bliver, jo mere tænker jeg bare sådan.. What? altså. Hvorfor skal vi stå herovre? Især fordi receptionisten ovre i den anden kø faktisk også er en kvinde. Og efter tid, hvor man ligesom står - og det virker også som om de andre kvinder synes det er lidt mærkeligt - så overvejer jeg om jeg skal stille mig over i den der kø ovre ved mændene, fordi det vil gå meget hurtigere. Men jeg tænker samtidig, at hvad er det for et signal , at så springer jeg jo på en eller manden måde alle de andre kvinder over og vil det være… For mig, der ender jeg med at blive i køen fordi jeg synes at det var et underligt statement, at så skal jeg, som hvid kvinde, springe hele køen over og så have særbehandling, eller hvad?

Jeg vælger at blive i køen og istedet for så får jeg en helt vildt god snak med min kollega og de andre kvinder om hvorfor er det sådan her. Og vi finder ud af at de synes også det er vildt frustrerende[!], men at der er nogle andre kulturelle normer og nogle andre, sådanøh måder at gøre tingene på. Og det synes jeg var en spændende situation og faktisk så tror jeg at jeg ville gøre det igen på den måde fordi jeg synes at det er vigtigt at være nysgerrig og stille spørgsmål og nogle gange lægge sin egn kulturelle ballast lidt til side og så prøve at forstå det samfund man er en del af. Uden nødvendigvis at synes det er rigtigt så synes jeg i hvert fald at det var en god måde at lære noget på og være nysgerrig på.

Sofie er en typiske venstrefløjser, en velmenende narcissist. For muligvis vil hun gerne afhjælpe et udvalgt, et nøje udvalgt, folks lidelser, men i bund og grund kan hun ikke andet end at bruge dem til at spejle sig selv. Det handler om, hvorledes hun har det med at blive konfronteret med kvindeundertrykkelse, ikke om undertrykkelse. Når det kommer til danskerne vil hun i Politiken dog ikke “lægge sin egn kulturelle ballast lidt til side og så prøve at forstå det samfund man er en del af”, men stempler rask væk forskelbehandling af medborgere og ikke-medborgere som racistisk.

Hun er hurtigt opmærksom på at kønsopdelingen i banken betyder at kvinder diskrimineres med en ringere behandling, men hun bringer sin egen person og sin hvidhed i spil ved at hun potentielt kunne springe over i mændenes kø og hvad er nu det for en følelse? De andre kvinder finder forskelsbehandlingen “vildt frustrerende” og det er deres hverdag. Ja ikke blot det, men forskelsbehandlingen stopper moske ikke for enden af køen. Hvad nu hvis den gennemsyrer samfundet, fra sex til samfund? Og at kvinden er taberen hver gang. At det er således et islamisk samfund ser ud, at det hvad dansk politik præges af i stigende (men alt for lille) grad.

Jeg skærer altid folks ‘øh’ fra når jeg transskriberer for det handler om at gengive folks mening loyalt, men jeg beholdt det ‘øh’, hvor hun taler om “andre kulturelle normer og nogle andre, sådanøh måder at gøre tingene på” fordi jeg kraftigt mistænker hende for, med vilje og forsæt, lige dér at censurere ordet islam. At hun netop undgik det ord, islam, hendes hjerne korrekt og umiddelbart havde stillet først i hendes mund at rulle ud. Så der er et ideologisk aspekt også, i hendes lille historie, der ikke handler om hende selv eller om kønsdiskriminering. Hun beskriver nøjagtigt en normal islamisk adfærd, kønsdiskrimination, og sætter det i direkte og korrekt forbindelse med islamisk tøj, da hun beskriver hvorledes hendes kvindekø er klædt - endda med en beskrivende gestik, hvor hun nævner de “der er helt dækket til”. Og det ideologiske aspekt er det multietniske samfund, som omfatter hendes ikke-vestlige mand. Hun har så at sige parret sig med sine teoribøger og udlever på mikroplan det samfund hun ser ikke kan realiseres, for hun ikke “synes det er rigtigt”, når hun lærer om værdierne i “fremmed kultur”.

Hele hendes nuanceringsprojekt har fuldstændigt frataget hende evnerne til, med Reagans ord, at se, hvad hun ser.

Glædelig Jul fra mere end et overdrev

Blot et lille stemningsbillede af Julen som den også tager sig ud i medierne, lidt satire og Bachs Jule-oratorium, som man burde gå direkte til og springe resten over.

Politikens Kultur sektion siger Fuck Julen på forsiden og i BT kan man læse at kulturforsker Rune Klingenberg Hansen, der viser sig kun at være “Ph.d.-studerende ved institut for kultur og identitet ved RUC” mener at løgnen om julamanden må stoppe fordi “[d]et kan give børn en dårlig oplevelse, når de finder ud af, at julemanden ikke eksisterer”. Religionshistoriker Jakob Skovgaard-Petersen mener pludselig godt at man kan lede alt muligt konkret ud af de islamiske tekster på Danmarks Radio, og slår fast at “Maria er Koranens vigtigste kvindeskikkelse (…) noget særligt”.

Men selv om Gud har dekreteret hans undfangelse, er Jesus alligevel bare et menneske og ikke Guds søn. Det er en grundlæggende teologisk forskel mellem islam og kristendommen.

Anderledes er det med Maria. Her er der nogenlunde overensstemmelse mellem den muslimske og kristne forståelse om de centrale punkter: jomfrufødsel, nedkomst, flugt til Egypten.

(…)

Ligesom i kristendommen er Maria den ubesmittede kvinde, som Gud kontaktede og gjorde til redskab i sin store plan. Men fra sin mihrab har hun allerede længe forinden været i nær kontakt med Gud i sin bøn. Det gør hende til et fromhedsideal, særligt for unge piger, hvor profetens koner kan være det for den gifte kvindelige muslim.

Petersen, skrev en ven nedstemt, “fortier alle forskellene mellem hhv. “Isa” og Jesus. Han døde ikke på korset, korset er blasfemisk afgudsdyrkelse, treenighedslæren er “shirk”, polyteisme, Bibelen og Toraen er senere forfalskninger der dækker over at Jesus og de jødiske profeter var troende muslimer osv.” En anden kandidat til titlen som den vigtigste kvindeskikkelse i islam er selvfølgelig Aisha, der måske ikke gav Jesus liv, men var Muhammeds yndlingskone og et 9 årigt barn da han voldtog hende første gang. Hmm, en mor til en af mange underordnede profeter over for det perfekte menneskes yndling.

Eksemplet Aisha har gjort børneægteskaber til en systemisk plage for muslimske piger så kunne man ikke forvente at eksemplet Maryam – eller Maria – vil gøre det muligt for muslimer at fejre jul? Hans Hauge spørger, lidt i samme ånd hvorfor muslimer i Danmark…

…ikke bare selv holder jul, for hvis det ikke er en kristen fest, kunne han jo gøre det. Hvorfor synger han ikke »Højt fra træets grønne top« eller »Nu er det jul igen«. Disse sange er renset for religion. Er de ikke? Hvorfor spiser muslimer ikke and, rødkål, brunede kartofler, hvide kartofler og risalamande med svensk kirsebærsovs fra en karton? Der er intet kristeligt ved en and. Er der?

Jeg spørger igen: Hvorfor fejrer muslimer ikke dansk jul? Jesus er for dem en profet. De kender Jomfru Maria og Kong David. Hvad er problemet? Kunne muslimerne ikke gøre som de 90 procent af danskerne, der er bedøvende ligeglade med Jesus, men som alligevel fejrer jul? De lidt mere kulturelt interesserede går endda i kirke juleaften, for det er så hyggeligt. (Det er det nu ikke. Der er altid for mange larmende børn med, og salmerne er dårlige).

3 lande, alle tilfældigvis muslimske, har just forbudt fejring af Jul og på Filippinerne gik muslimer til jule-angreb på kristne bønder og myrdede mindst 7. Hmm, måske fordi Maryam ikke er Maria når man ser på forskellene. Så tilbage til Aisha, den rene vare der danner Allahdommelig præcedens for køb og salg af børnesexslaver.

Og så er der fakta og Fathi El-Abed. På sin Facebook-side havde den herboende palæstinensiske vrøvlemaskine postet følgende billeder

maria-og-sikkerhedsmurenmaria-og-sikkerhedsmuren-ii

Og konfronteret af en Facebook ven med den detalje at Jesus var jøde argumenterer Fathi

“Jesus blev født i Palæstina og dermed var/er palæstinenser - MEN han havde jødedommen som religion og dermed jøde. Nationlitet er en ting og religion er anden”

Eller også, og dette er jo bare en vild tanke, er jøderne de egentlige palæstinensere. Og hvorfor mon Josef og Maria flygter til Israel? Eller rettere, hvad flygter familien Jesus fra i El-Abeds verden? I hvert fald er de kristne i dag næsten helt fordrevet fra Betlehem af muslimske troende. Og der er heller ingen jøder tilbage i Jesus fødeby.

Nej, Fathi var ikke satiren, den kan man læse fra Katherine Timpfs hånd, som hun hjælper venstrefløjen med at problematisere endnu flere julesange end den racistiske White Christmas og date-rape sangen Baby It’s Cold Outside

1. ”Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way.”
What’s with this song making people feel like they have to “jingle all the way”? I mean, seriously? People need to know that they have the right revoke their consent to jingle at any moment, even if they’ve already starting jingling, and even if the person they’re jingling with is someone they’ve jingled with before.
2. ”Gone away is the bluebird Here to stay is the new bird.”
So just because someone is “blue,” he or she should expect to be replaced? In case you don’t get it, the use of “bluebird” here clearly refers to “bird suffering from depression or mental illness.” People suffering from mental illness indeed often are pushed “away” due to the inherent discrimination against them in our society, and to sing about it in some cute little song as if it’s not a serious problem is disgusting.
You may think that I’m looking too much into this — but please don’t let the fact that I’m a woman make you think that I must be wrong. Rather, the fact that I’m a woman means that I must be right, and that asking me for any further evidence or clarification would be sexist and oppressive.
(…)
6. “Have a holly jolly Christmas And when you walk down the street Say hello to friends you know And everyone you meet”
More P.C. Culture Rachel Dolezal: ‘Race Is Not Real’ Republicans Need to Identify What They’re Fighting Against: Leftism Scalia’s Detractors Don’t Care about the Fate of Minority Students Okay, “Holly Jolly Christmas” — have you ever thought that one of the people on the street might be a woman who does not want to be said “hello” to? (Yes, women are people too. I know that’s hard for some of you to understand.)
Look: Just because a woman is walking down the street does not mean that it is acceptable for you to talk to her. We may be a bit far off from ending street harassment, but the least we can do is stop letting men use “Christmas” as an excuse to abuse people in this way. Ladies, let’s tell these dudes that — holidays or not — they’re just going to have to get their holly jollies elsewhere!

Og så musikken

Glædelig hvid og kristen Jul

Perspektivet i den palæstinensiske helstat

SF’eren Fathi El-Abed er en aktiv herre på Facebook, hvor han hver dag fortæller helt udokumenterede historier om både den uniformerede og civile israelske besættelsesmagts mord på og kidnapninger af palæstinensiske mænd, kvinder og børn. Faktaresistensen hos ham og hans følge af muslimer og venstrefløjsere overlever selv videodokumentation af at de palæstinensiske ofre viser sig at være attentatmænd, -kvinder og børn, der bliver skudt eller på anden måde nedlagt i selvforsvar og at de sjældent dør. Så naturligvis optræder han ofte i medierne som ekspert i Mellemøsten.

Og naturligvis lægger dagbladet Information - “Protestadresse for Antisemitisme” - spalteplads til et revisionistisk opkast fra hans hånd, hvor han begræder delingen af Palæstina for 60 år siden. Hans historiesyn jeg har en del indvendinger imod, men hvad der slog mig som en selvstændig pointe er, at han ikke nævner Israel med et ord. Denne manglende anerkendelse af Israels eksistens stikker dybt i det arabisk-muslimske sind, som man kan læse Bassam Tawil skriver for Gatestone Institute

A public opinion poll published last week refutes Abbas’s claim that Palestinians are committing terrorist attacks out of “despair and frustration.” The poll, conducted by the Watan Center for Studies and Research, found that 48% of the Palestinians interviewed believe that the real goal of the “intifada” is to “liberate all of Palestine.” In other words, approximately half of Palestinians believe that the goal of the “intifada” should lead to the destruction of Israel.

What is notable, is that only 11% of respondents said that the true goal of the “intifada” should be to “liberate” only those territories captured by Israel in 1967. Another 12% of Palestinians said they believe that the goal of the “intifada” was to release prisoners held by Israel.

The results of the poll, which covered 1,167 Palestinians above the age of 18, show that a majority of Palestinians continue to seek the destruction of Israel. The poll shows that only a few Palestinians see only the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem as the future Palestinian state. They want the “intifada” to replace Israel with a Palestinian state — preferably, one that now would be ruled by Hamas and jihadi organizations such as Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

These Palestinians do not see a difference between, say, Ma’aleh Adumim, a “settlement” on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and any city inside Israel. One only needs to look at reports in the Palestinian media to see that Tel Aviv, Rishon Lezion, Kiryat Gat and Ra’anana are all considered “settlements.” These reports also show that Palestinians do not see a difference between a Jew living in the West Bank and Israel — instead, they are all depicted as “settlers” and “colonialists.”

None of the Palestinians interviewed for the poll complained about “despair and frustration,” or the lack of a “political horizon.” Obviously, they are driven by hatred for Jews and Israel. They do not, however, have a problem with “settlements” or “poor living conditions.” They have a problem with Israel’s existence. A majority believes that Israel can — and should — be destroyed. They are not, as Palestinian leaders claim, seeking a two-state solution.

According to the poll, more than 75% of Palestinians support the use of violence against Israel. More than 44% of respondents support the use of firearms against Israel; 18% are in favor of using knives to kill Jews, and another 14% would like to see Palestinians use stones. This contradicts Abbas’s claim that the Palestinians want a “peaceful and popular” uprising.

Another noteworthy finding of the poll is that 72% of Palestinians want the current “intifada” to continue.

Men det er ikke blot et spørgsmål om landegrænser, det er et spørgsmål om jøden, som nogle kvalitative interviews kan supplere de kvantitative meningsmålinger

Alle de gange araberne sagde nej til delingsforslag sagde de nej til Israels eksistens. Landflygtighed er ikke katastrofen, Israels eksistens er. Og 60 år efter Israels oprettelse kan Fathi El-Abed end ikke få ordet over sine fingre.

En Hamas TV-dramatisering af en terrorhandling viser knivens centrale rolle for en rituel slagtning af jøder

Denne video fra Hamas er en dramatisering af et af de mange terrorhandlinger der rammer Israel i disse tider.

Folk som de ca tusind antisemitter, der var samlet på Rådhuspladsen i weekenden og Torben Lund, tror moske at knive er de afmægtiges våben, ja for Margrethe Auken vil det sikkert være pap-knive, imod Israels teknologiske overmagt. Og at der på den måde er en hvis retfærdighed i terror.

Men kniven er symbolsk og angrebene er rituelle. Af samme grund som Islamisk Stat skærer halsen over på deres fjender trods et anseeligt våbenlager og nok teknologisk viden til at lave “russervogne”. Brændstof savner de jo ikke på de kanter. Svaret leverede en imam da nogle lod sig forarge over at han korrekt citerede fra koranen, der er det skriftlige grundlag for den i Danmark fuldt anerkendte religion islam. Jøder er efterkommere af aber og svin. Og der er ikke tale om et darwinistisk klarsyn, men om en grundlæggende karakteristik af det folk, der har byttet om på ordene og som ikke kan holde aftaler (især ikke fordi Muhammed ændrede aftalen undervejs og huggede 6-900 jøder for fode og solgte det dobbelte antal fra som slaver, men lad det nu ligge).

Jøderne er altså at betragte som dyr og endda urene dyr af slagsen. Det var derfor den moderate leder Mahmoud Abbas sagde at jøderne skulle holde deres ulækre fødder væk fra Al-Aqsa moskeen i sin hyldest til de mange terrorister. Og dyr slagter man. Derfor har kun den ene terrorist en pistol, som han bruger til at holde passagerne stangen, mens den anden terrorist går løs på passagerne med en kniv, en efter en.

Knivtemaet i den igangværende terrorbølge er altså rituelt fordi blodet skal spildes korrekt for det tabte land. Det tabte land er ikke et spørgsmål om grænser og bosættelser og andet pjat, som mange danskere tror fordi det er de eneste konflikter de kender til hjemme i andelsforeningen. Det tabte land er Israel, om det så kun var en matrikel. Det handler ikke om 800.000 arabere man i 1968 fandt ud af at kalde palæstinensere fordi man fandt at vesten bedre forstod nationale konflikter og at blod og jord hører sammen. 800.000 jøder blev ligeledes fordrevet fra de arabiske lande, men mens de blev borgere i Israel fraskrev Ægypten og Jordan sig deres egen befolkning i Gaza og Vestbredden ved at opgive kravet til jorden araberne stod på.

For Israels eksistens er den endelige ydmygelse af islam, da de beskidte jøder pludselig ikke var dhimmi, som det jo står skrevet de skal være, men derimod herrer i eget hus. Det er det der er Nahkba, katastrofen, som der har traumatiseret den muslimske sjæl.

Familien fra Nabi Saleh

tamimi-throw1

Ovenfor ses lillebror Tamimi, af nogle kendt som Yonis the Menace, kaste en af de sten, som han blev forsøgt tilbageholdt for. Kvinder i hans familie og hans storesøter Ahed Tamimi, også kendt som Shirley Temper, forsvarede ham så teatralsk at verdenspressen fik sin historie om den israelske overmagts træden stakkels palæstinensiske kvinder og børn under fode. Far Tamimi stod og filmede hele optrinnet, mens vestlig journalister fotograferede på livet løs. Men, det gik op for nogle aviser at de var blevet castet i en Pallywoodpoduktion og den gode historie blev knap så god. Venstreorienterede Mondoweis skriver i sit defensorat for Pallywood familien Tamimi fra Nabi Saleh

No doubt the Tamimi’s are getting famous. But that is because they refuse to stop protesting the theft of their village land and spring. Denied any means of self defense, they dare to expose the world to the reality of their lives while the cameras are rolling. They have no guns or bombs, they fight with media and exposure. But the scenes they record are very real. And the whole point is to capture the violence they face, as a matter of routine, on camera. Rosa Parks also planned her heroic action on a Montgomery bus in 1955. But was it staged? Of course not.

Denne Rosa Parks sammenligning skal gøre det ud for et ræsonnement, men er falsk i sin opbygning. Tamimi familien eksponerer ikke en vold, men gør derimod at for at fremprovokere en voldelig reaktion. Eric Cortellessa var til stede og har i Times of Israel følgende beskrivelse af det rituelle hysteri.

Once I arrived at the demonstrators’ rendezvous, I asked someone standing next to me what to expect from the impending protest.

“We’ll start marching down the road, then the army will be waiting for us. Once we get to a certain point, they’ll start throwing tear gas at us, then kids will start throwing rocks at them on top of the hill,” he said. “And then it will go back and forth like that.

“And we’ll take lots of pictures,” he added.

At 1:06 p.m., the demonstration began in earnest, when the participants marched a few hundred meters down the road toward the soldiers, who formed a barricade. I couldn’t tell what came first, stone throwing or tear gas grenades, but soon there was a cacophony of both. As I was taking photographs, some of the tear gas hurled at the crowd got in my eyes.

“Don’t touch them,” someone told me. “The sting will fade, just wait it out.”

Meanwhile kids started running up a brown hill to throw more rocks at the soldiers, some with slingshots, some with their hands.

At one point the demonstrators blocked the road. Little kids, under the leadership of the adolescents, began to take large rocks and line them up in the middle of the street.

“They are blocking the army’s jeeps from driving up the road to come from behind later,” someone told me.

The protest then shifted to an adjacent hill, where adolescents and younger children threw more rocks at soldiers as adult villagers and activists watched and cheered.

And then, suddenly, people started screaming. A team of soldiers had rushed the demonstrators from behind to start making arrests. At the same time, other soldiers ran up from the bottom of the hill and grabbed one of the adolescents.

A partially masked soldier with a rifle in his hand was chasing a younger boy whose arm was in a cast. I ran toward the fracas just as the soldier picked up the boy, grabbed him by the neck and pressed him against a rock, putting him in a chokehold while he lay on top of him. A young girl, Ahed Tamimi, the boy’s 15-year-old sister, then ran to the scene and began yelling and crying, pleading with the soldier to let him go.

Everyone who had a camera ran to the scene, too, with photographers and videographers forming a half-circle around the melee. At that point, the soldier must have realized that whatever he chose to do would live beyond that moment.

An older female villager — Nariman Tamimi, the boy’s mother — came from behind the soldier and began pulling him off the boy. The soldier screamed for help as more people joined the effort. He then tried simultaneously to pin the boy down and fight off everyone else. The young girl bit his hand when he tried to grab her by the neck. Everyone around him then started to hit the soldier on the head.

Finally, his commander came and extricated him from the imbroglio.

Before walking away, the soldier dropped a tear gas grenade where all the people were gathered. I ran to spare my eyes from the stinging, and by the time I reached a far enough vantage point to look back, people were carrying the boy back to his home in the village.

The soldier and his commander had left without making the arrest.

Ten minutes later, almost all of the demonstrators were outside the boy’s home. Someone from the Palestine Red Crescent Society was making calls about two other demonstrators who had been detained. While the boy was lying down, people tried to comfort him and see if he was all right.

The Red Crescent worker then showed the boy pictures he took of the incident. “Good job,” he told the child. He then got up to talk with other activists and journalists about getting to Ramallah and disseminating the photos and video.

“We got them,” he said.

Bloggen Legal Insurrection har foretaget lidt rutineresearch på Tamimi familien, som medierne både udenlands og herhjemme ikke synes at ville vægte

There is no doubt that Bassem Tamimi is also very proud of his own dutiful children: after claiming in a recent FB post – uncharacteristically without any photographic evidence whatsoever – that “the IOF attacked the village of Nabi Saleh” and that his son Mohammad “was injured and broke his arm” during the resulting “clashes”, Bassem Tamimi posted several older photos and, calling his 11-year-old son “my hero,” encouraged him to “keep strong.”

A few weeks earlier, he also proudly shared an album of over 200 photos documenting the widely admired exploits of his daughter Ahed. This album is very worthwhile viewing, as the huge number of images that go back a few years provide an excellent documentation of the grooming of the photogenic Ahed for use in confronting Israeli soldiers for the cameras from an early age.

Both Bassem Tamimi and his wife Nariman also expressed their approval and admiration when Ahed posted the photo (above) that showed her throwing stones at (unseen) Israeli soldiers. Nariman Tamimi praised the image of her daughter as “awesome” (automatic translation from Arabic), while Bassem Tamimi posted an approving comment that, according to the somewhat garbled automatic translation, includes praise for her stone-throwing and “resistance.”

Og stenkastning er ikke så uskyldigt, som det fremgår af medierne. Der er israelske børn, der bliver myrdet på den konto og forleden var det nær blevet til 5 studenter oveni, hvad en anstændig palæstinenser ikke reddet dem, fra sin hob af naboer.

Gensyn med Shirley Temper

BT kolporterer en alt for typisk Pallywood-historie i gårsdagens avis

Det kan ligne scener fra en film. Men den følgende billedserie er et autentisk og skræmmende indblik i konflikten mellem Israel og Palæstina.

Billederne viser, hvordan en palæstinensisk dreng til at begynde med bliver pågrebet af en Israelsk soldat på voldsom vis. Han er en del af en gruppe palæstinensiske borgere, der protesterer mod et jødisk indtog i landsbyen Nabi Saleh, der ligger tæt ved den palæstinensiske by Ramallah. Byen ligger på Vestbredden og er under israelsk besættelse.

pallywood

pallywood-ii

Ja, det kan ligne scener fra en film fordi det næsten er en film. Det er i hvert fald film. Foran en håndfuld fotografer kaster medlemmer af den Pallywoodske familie Tamimi sig hysterisk over en israelsk soldat og pressen har den historie, den så tålmodig har ventet på; en israelsk undertrykkers overgreb på en lille dreng med armen i gips. Og kvinder og børn kommer drengen til undsætning. Mod den retfærdige harme kommer ondskaben til kort.

Men hvorfor den israelske soldat havde forvildet sig ensom ind i denne hvepserede fortæller hverken billederne eller BT. Og, ja, der var en ganske konkret grund der rakte ud over jødens iboende ondskab. Den lille dreng med armen i gips, havde kastet sten på de israelske soldater med sin fri arm

shirley-temper

Det bliver tydeligt for enhver, der ser de mange levende billeder, der også florerer, at soldaten udviser bemærkelsesværdig tilbageholdenhed, som var han dybt venstreorienteret. Den israelske kulturminister Miri Regev, mente at den israelske soldat burde have brugt sit våben. Ja selv araberne var overraskede over den israelske soldats tilbageholdenhed, skriver Jewish Press

Ahmed Elsayed wrote: “When I saw an Arab child dying of hunger and another drowning in the sea and the fish eat it when he escapes death to the West …. I became convinced that the worst thing produced by the Arab countries are the Arab rulers.”

Ahmed Issa: “Many commentaries say ‘The Israeli soldier is kinder than Arab soldiers,’ and this is true. But don’t forget that the Arab soldier follows the orders of tyrannical Arab leaders, and he’s not interested in his image, while Israel markets itself to the West as a bastion of democracy and human rights, and every Israeli soldier has a thousand faces: in front of the camera and behind the camera.”

Tita: “If it had happened in Egypt, they would have shot that boy with live ammunition instead of being so considerate.”

Amin: “Honest to God, it’s a shame that women are fighting and the men look on.”

Osama: “Note how although he had a weapon, and although he is a soldier of the Zionist entity, he did not shoot him in the head. Imagine the same thing [happening] in Arab countries, how our people would have acted…

Der var, som sagt tale om en designet photo-opportunity fra gamle Pallywood kendinge og den unge u-erfarne soldat røg i med begge ben. Pigen med den pink t-shirt hedder Ahed Tamimi og er også kendt som Shirley Temper. Hun er en ung talentfuld opvigler, hyldet af de palæstinensiske myndigheder

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-08-31-kl-093507

Hun har også vundet en civil courage pris (en anerkendelse Younis the Menace vist nok endnu har til gode)

ahed-tamimi-shirley-temper

Det lignede næsten scener fra en film fordi det var lige så kunstigt som en film. BT ignorerer, hvad der stirrer på dem, af en eller anden grund. Af samme grund bliver man også forstemt over den aggressive overskrift ligeledes i BT “Israel forbyder Heinz at kalde ketchup for ketchup”. Israel igen som handlende agens, når sagen synes at være at Heinz ikke lever op til israelske kvalitetskrav.

Hvor tids jødehad

Så salonfähig er antisemitismen at BBC oversætter palæstinensisk jødehad til had mod Israel. Og hvad der ligger bag at direktøren for det Sergei Ustinov, grundlægger og direktør for Museet for jødisk historie i Rusland, er blevet skud i Moskva, hvor der bor 2 mill. muslimer, kan man indtil videre kun gisne om. Douglas Murray skrev i Gatestone Institute

In London, we have had Israeli orchestras, theatre companies and even string quartets howled down by mobs during performances, and Israeli-performed shows cancelled because the venues hosting them just do not want the bother. Last year, the Tricycle Theatre in London refused to proceed with a festival of “Jewish” culture because a tiny proportion of the festival’s funding was coming from the Israeli embassy in London.

The campaign is obviously organized. The same names crop up again and again. Little, if any, rigour is paid to whether the signatories of such letters even do what they say do, or have opinions worthy of any note. Beneath the barely-built veneer of “professionals objecting to something in their own profession,” is just the same tiny number of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish obsessives. A sprinkling of “as a Jew” Jews, like Margolyes, help, of course. But the aim is clear. These people, step by step, want to make every expression of Israeli and Jewish cultural life subject to their idea of how a nation under constant threat of terrorist bombardment should behave. They denounce Israel as a militaristic society and then attempt to outlaw every non-militaristic cultural and artistic expression from that society.

It is the bigotry of our time. And if unchecked, it will lead in the same direction as it historically has done.

City Journal skriver om Tuvia Tenenboms bog Catch The Jew!, en satirisk udhængning af antisemistismen bag den vestlige palæstinenserindstri. Tennembom er tysk jøde, der optræder, som naiv tysk journalist i Gaza, Israel og Vestbredden får han en del sandheder at vide om de vestlige donorer og ngo’ers anti-israelske engagement

In his tour d’horizon of the Palestinian territories, Tenenbom uncovers the fact that there are almost 300 pro-Palestinian foreign NGOs working (that is, agitating) in the West Bank and another hundred in Gaza, most financed by German taxpayers. Moreover, aid to the Palestinians by the European Union and the United Nations is the highest, per capita, in the world. Which might explain why, as Tenenbom keeps noticing all over the West Bank, so many Palestinian officials and activists are driving Mercedes.

(…)

Relying on his unconventional journalistic techniques, Tenenbom elicits a string of unguarded comments from the activists who work so diligently to keep the narrative of Palestinian suffering in the news. He opens a unique window allowing us to see how the victims’ game works in Palestine. For example, the popular Palestinian leader Jibril Rajoub—with the help of willing European collaborators—succeeds in staging a series of morality plays that perpetuate the big lie about his people’s historical innocence and unique suffering. Rajoub lets Tobi the German in on one such full-scale operatic production in the West Bank village of Bi’lin. With compliant Western reporters told where and when to gather, Palestinian youths comes on stage and, on cue, begin stoning Israeli soldiers. The soldiers ignore the “youths,” but the stones get larger and they eventually respond. The self-righteous Western reporters now have their “story” of Israeli violence for the day. Moreover, the event is filmed for a documentary by an Israeli leftist financed by (what else?) a German NGO. Tenenbom knows something about theater, and his satirical account of this staged episode is as priceless as it is depressing.

Tenenbom’s method produces pure satiric gold, as when the wife of an American rabbi who heads a one-man organization called “Rabbis for Human Rights” (financed by a European NGO) can’t contain herself and admits to Tenenbom: “You can’t change him. Being a human rights activist in our time is to be a persona, not a philosophy; it’s a fad, it’s a fashion. A human rights activist does not look for facts or logic; it’s about a certain dress code, ‘cool’ clothing, about language, diction, expressions and certain manners. No facts will persuade him.”

Another highlight of the book is Tenenbom’s visit—arranged by a European NGO—to an inverted Potemkin village of Bedouin encampments in the Negev. In the original historical version of the Potemkin tall tale, the Russian Czar created a few model villages with false facades to convince Western visitors that all was well within the empire. In the twenty-first century version of the tale perfected by anti-Israel NGOs, the technique is to make Palestinian and Bedouin villages look as awful as possible on the outside even when they are relatively well off on the inside. After all, it can never be admitted that the Palestinian people, despite their suffering at the hands of the Jews, constitute the most prosperous Arab community (with the exception of the oil-rich Gulf monarchies) in the Middle East.

To Catch A Jew bliver næppe læst i den arabiske verden heller. Alene fordi arabere hader at læse.

Monokultur kører på WordPress