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.
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
Sådan så Berlingske Tidendes, nu et par uger gamle kampagne ud og der medfulgte et interview med jordemoderen, der skulle uddybe nuanceringen af debatten. Er det en flygtning, islamist, eller jordemoder vi ser? Kasper Støvring spurgte på Facebook “Men hvad nu, hvis kvinden er alle tre ting? Det er da også en overraskende nuancering.”. For som det blev suppleret af flere, så er der ingen modsætning mellem islamisme, terrorisme og uddannelse og et eksempel blev hentet fra Uriasposten.
Men også et andet eksempel, som vi har været glade for på Monokultur, blev hentet frem. Douglas Murray beskrev nemlig for et par år siden, muslimen lidt mere nuanceret i forbindelse med nogle obligatoriske anti-israelske demonstrationer, han havde observeret i London, på baggrund af at Israel frækt igen-igen nægtede at lade sig ydmyge
I have watched them a bit in recent days, watched the contorted hatred on their faces as they scream at the embassy and then watched their friendly sociability as the headscarfed women are driven away by their menfolk, often with their children in tow — a family day outing in “diverse” modern London. Behind their smiles and the increasingly competent public relations that the pro-Hamas faction is managing in Britain, it is possible for some people to forget that what brings these people out is one simple thing: a hatred of the Jewish state and a desire to see it annihilated by the terrorists of Hamas or anyone else at hand.
Lene Kattrup havde mange gode indvendinger til dette stykke 80er propaganda, men jeg vil frem een, som ofte er fremdraget her på Monokultur, fordi det fremhæver den selvmodsigelse, der er indbygget i det multikulturelle narrativ
Overskriften (som er valgt af journalisten) er “Flygtning? Islamist? Jordemoder: »Selv om jeg ikke er streng, er jeg glad for mit tørklæde«.
Det synes jeg er en ”formindskende” og/eller misvisende omtale af hendes forhold til tørklædet og til den religion eller religiøse ideologi, som det islamiske tørklæde normalt er et symbol på, og som det sandsynligvis også repræsenterer for denne kvinde. For Soheila Azimi forklarer, at hvis hun havde skullet afføre sig det i arbejdstiden (men selvfølgelig kunne tage det på, straks hun fik fri), så ville hun have sagt sit job op. Dette fortæller os jo, at hun ikke kun er ” glad for tørklædet” som der står, og hun er jo så faktisk ”streng” på dette punkt. Det er en mulighed for, at hun bærer det for at vise, at hun går ind for sharialoven som lov. Lad læseren få lov til at tænke selv, ville jeg sige til journalisten og til Berlingske. Hvis journalisten var dygtig, kunne man jo have spurgt Soheila Azimi om det. Det ville have være klogt, men det tør journalisten måske ikke?
Nemlig. Der er ingen tvang i islam, men jeg skal have mit tørklæde på. Og hvad skal jeg mere…
Man behøver ikke at være et geni for at tænke at de mange angreb fra ‘ensomme ulve’ er inspireret af den seneste palæstinensiske terrorbølge mod Israel. Men det er ikke, hvad man ser i medierne, der er kriminelt forsigtige med at præsentere udviklingen som den tager sig ud. Paul Joseph Watson giver en glimrende gennemgang
Barak Hussein Obama repræsenterer en ide om at man ikke blot kan påvirke virkeligheden, men ændre den til sit eget billede, ved at italesætte den anderledes. På Breitbart kan man se ‘White House press secretary’ Josh Earnest forsvare ideen om at forfølge en politik ud fra en forvrænget virkelighed overfor Fox News Martha MacCallum
MACCALLUM: You mentioned earlier today you believe it’s a narrative battle we’re fighting. I think that for people who have shrapnel in their shoulders this morning—they might have a hard time accepting that—that it is a narrative battle we’re fighting against ISIS. Explain what you meant by that?
EARNEST: I meant very specifically, Martha, we’re taking fight to them on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The president has organized an international coalition—5,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria last couple years. What is important in the context of political debate is to remember ISIL is trying to assert a narrative, that they represent the religion of Islam in a war against the west and in a war against the United States. That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true. That is bankrupt ideology they are trying to wrap in the cloak of Islam. And to suggest that somehow we should treat Muslims differently or suspect them as terrorists just because of their religion…
MACCALLUM: Nobody is talking about that.
EARNEST: We certainly have heard that inflammatory rhetoric from Republicans.
MACCALLUM: We’re not talking about that here.
EARNEST: This is the context that I was asked the question about the ISIL narrative earlier today. it is important we don’t play into the narrative. Too many Republicans are willing to do…
MACCALLUM: This is the ISIS narrative. This is what they said in their recent publication. ISIS states that disbelievers should be slain wherever they may be. This includes the businessman riding to work in the taxi cab, young adults in engaged in sports activities in park, the old men waiting in line and buying a sandwich, striking terror into the hearts of all non-believers, Muslims and non-Muslims is the Muslim duty. So what people have a hard time with you know—you have to take them at their word they mean to do what they say because we see it happening here in the United States. So, it feels sometimes like the White House doesn’t like to make the connection between those two things. Is that wrong?
EARNEST: Well I think we’ve been quite clear. The president has demonstrated, you don’t have to take my word for it. The president demonstrated seriousness, which he has taken this fight to ISIL.
Den forestilling har forplantet sig i efterretningstjenesterne. FBI havde en mistanke om at muslimen Omar Mateen skulle realisere sin muslimske tro, men stoppede efterforskningen efter 10 måneder fordi hans radikalisering så ud til at være et resultat af “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith”. Omar Mateen gik senere ind på en bøssebar i Orlando og myrdede 49 mennesker.
Den mistænkte for bomberne i New York og Jersey, Ahmad Rahami, har tidligere sagsøgt det lokale politi, som han hævdede diskriminerede og forfulgte ham ifølge Daily Mail.
Tidligere udenrigsminister Mogen Lykketoft og nuværende blev bedt om at tale imod antisemitisme og bashede derfor Israel
When Israel, the U.S. and Canada hosted a forum on anti-Semitism at the U.N, the General Assembly president, former Danish foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, spoke of Israeli “oppression” of the Palestinians.
Musikeren og produceren Brian Eno, der støtter Boykot, Divest, Sanction bevægelsen imod Israels eksistens, fik kvababbelse, da det kom ham for øre, at en israelsk dansetrup dansede til hans musik, skriver Jewish Standard
In a letter to the dance company and its choreographer, Ohad Naharin, Eno said he was not aware until last week that Batsheva used his work.
“(T)hough in one way I’m flattered that you chose my music for your work, I’m afraid it creates a serious conflict for me,” he wrote.
“To my understanding, the Israeli Embassy (and therefore the Israeli government) will be sponsoring the upcoming performances, and, given that I’ve been supporting the BDS campaign for several years now, this is an unacceptable prospect for me.”
Eno condemned “the demolition of Palestinian homes and confiscation of Palestinian land” and the lack of “any attempt to limit settler activity in any way.”
“I am trying to understand the difficulties that must face any Israeli artist now – and in particular ones like yourselves who have shown some sympathy to the Palestinian cause,” he wrote. But the bottom line, Eno said in the letter, is “I don’t want my music to be licensed for any event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy.”
Og det mindede en god ven om en tid, førend verdens 1,5 mia. muslimer blev regnet som et sårbart mindretal, hvor Brian Eno ikke var optaget af kampagner mod verdens 5 mio. israelere. I 1981 indspillede Eno, sammen med musikeren David Byrne, pladen “My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, der samplede tv-prædikanter, arabiske sangere m.m. Et af numrene var Qu’ran, der satte dyster musik til koranrecitation. Fedt nummer. De fik så en henvendelse fra British Council of Muslims, der førte til at nummeret blev erstattet med et andet på cd-udgaven.”
Og et par gyldne ord fra Brian Eno
““I think we’re about ready for a new feeling to enter music. I think that will come from the Arabic world.””
““I’d love it if American kids were listening to Muslim music.””
“I want people to know that as hard as [these racist incidents] are on me, they don’t come even close to things we’ve seen like the shooting in North Carolina or the rhetoric around the Khan family at the DNC. It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.”
Vores øjeblik er muslimernes øjeblik, øjeblikket, hvor de præsenterer deres sag, som er islam, mens påstår at repræsentere hvad de kalder deres land, USA. Den bronzevindende atlet var rent faktisk tæt på at have den ære at bære Stars and Stripes ved åbningsceremonien, trods sin marginale sport. Og alligevel er USA hende imod, for alt er imod muslimerne. Og det er dette budskab, der skal masseres ind i den vestlige psyke.
Men det skal blive endnu mere plat. Den Olympiske Komite krævede ved forrige OL at Saudiarabien også stillede med kvindelige atleter, hvis ikke hele landet skulle udelukkes. Saudernes forfængelighed overvandt deres kvindehad, men de stillede også modbetingelser. Således skulle deres kvindelige judokæmper, der kun havde øvet denne disciplin i selvforsvar med sin far(host, host), have lov til at stille i hijab selv om det stred imod reglerne for sportens dresscode. Og hun skulle have lov til at optræde i det Sorte Bælte selv om hun højst kunne gøre sig fortjent til det Blå. Judoforbundet sagde først nej, men et kompromis blev fundet som der altid bliver fundet når det drejer sig om islamiske krav: Saudieren fik lov til at have hijab mod til gengæld også at få lov til at stille op i det Sorte Bælte.
Også en kvindelig saudisk 400 meter løber stillede op og selv om hun knap kunne løbe distancen blev hun behandlet som en stor helt for hendes brud på saudiske kønsroller. Og ikke et ord blev der nævnt om islam i de danske medier, næh, fænomenet var patriarkalsk kultur, der stadig var fremherskende i Saudiarabien. I år er der endnu flere hijabber med, der ikke kan vinde, knap nok konkurrere. Det er heller ikke meningen, de er med til ære for den vestlige verden, der åbenbart hungrer efter billeder af hvor frigjort man kan være når man aldrig kan optræde udenfor sin religiøse dresscode.
Og det ser så tåbeligt ud, som det lyder
Fremvisningen af den muslimske klædedragt på verdenscenen handler på ingen måde om at emancipere, eller anden form for empowermentshalløj, kvinden hjemme i muslimland. Det er alene rettet mod vesten, at bilde os ind at kvinden i den muslimske verden er lige så fri til at løbe som den vestlige kvinde. Ironien i at saudiske hijabber ikke må køre bil, er indtil videre helt tabt for medierne, der stiller indlysende tåbelige spørgsmål
Svaret er lige for. Den undertrykte er den der ikke kan skifte klædedragt efter forgodtbefindende. Men ikke for de sludrende klasser
Signe Vahlun, næstforkvinde i Dansk Kvindesamfund, er en af dem, der faktisk ser noget positivt i billedet af de to kvinder i nærkamp ved nettet. »Et fantastisk billede, som viser to engagerede sportsudøvere,« siger hun og fortsætter:
»For mig viser det diversitet og mangfoldighed blandt de kvinder, som deltager i OL. Jeg er faktisk ret begejstret for det og finder påstandene om undertrykkelse i overkanten.«
Hun hæfter sig ved, at reglen om, at spilledragten i beachvolley indtil OL i London skulle være en bikini, også kan ses som undertrykkelse.
»Det bryder dette billede med. Det viser, at begge dele er muligt,« siger Signe Vahlun.
Lidt på samme hold er Khaterah Parwani, der ud over at blande sig i debatten også arbejder for at hjælpe kvinder fri af vold, undertrykkelse og religiøs social kontrol i Exitcirklen.
»Det er svært at forestille sig kvinder kaste sig frådende ud i en debat, hvor de kræver sportsmænd iført noget bestemt tøj. Enten tangatrusser, lange bukser eller noget helt tredje. Jeg kan blive stiktosset over, at mænd i den grad blander sig. Det gjorde de jo også, da kravet om bikini til beachvolleykampe blev ophævet,« siger hun, der ikke vil tage konkret stilling til, hvem af de to kvinder der er mest undertrykt. Eller fri.
»Det giver jo ingen mening, for jeg kender dem ikke. Det kan jo være, at kvinden med meget tøj på føler sig bedst tilpas sådan, og at kvinden i badedragt hader det. Det kan også være omvendt, men vi aner det ikke, og undertrykkelse handler om at gøre noget mod sin vilje,« siger Khaterah Parwani.
Hjemme i muslimland kunne billedet se således ud
Men maskerne falder alligevel hos muslimerne, når det mindste pres melder sig. Den ægyptiske judokæmper Islam El Shahaby nægtede ikke blot at give hånd, men forlod helt sporten, efter at have tabt til en israeler, skrev Times of Israel
Some elements of the Egyptian media were furious Friday at the judoka for losing to an Israeli, Army Radio said. The outlets blamed Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi for El Shahaby’s appearance at the fight itself.
The 32-year-old Egyptian, a world championship medalist in 2010, had faced pressure on social media and from hardline Islamist groups in his homeland to withdraw from the match.
Messner said that the fact that the Egyptian actually turned up for the match signaled “a big improvement” in the Arab states’ attitude to Israeli athletes at the Olympics.
“In the past, it is not sure that a fight between those two athletes would have taken place. This is already a big improvement that Arabic countries accept to be opposed to Israel,” he said.
Islam lover muslimen herredømmet over den ydmygede jøde. At tabe til en jøde, der endda er herre i sit eget hus, Israel, er en smertelig kognitiv dissonans.
Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?
Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism
First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.
Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.
Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.
Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…
Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?
Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.
The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”
Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.
Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag
Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.
Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.
Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”
He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.
The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.
Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.
Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.
En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus
On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.
Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.
SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.
In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.
Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør
Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?
During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.
A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.
The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.
After the war
The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.
The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.
Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.
Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.
The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.
More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.
On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.
The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.
The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.
Man kunne tro at Donald Trump var arketypen, eller en lidt vulgær variant, af den amerikanske drøm, men i New Yorker kunne jeg læse at Obama mente at Trump er uamerikansk. Kristeligt Dagblad assisterede min bedagede forståelse det amerikanske og præsenterede “det nye USA der hepper på Hillary Clinton”
Demokraternes præsidentkandidat skal samle et kludetæppe af mindretal for at vinde over Donald Trumps hvide vælgere ved USA’s valg i november
Det Demokratiske Partis nye ansigt er folk som Zak Davidson fra Columbia, Ohio. En hvid, veluddannet ateist på bare 22 år.
Det er 64-årige Norma Davenport, der har levet hele sit liv i et traditionelt afroamerikansk arbejderkvarter i Philadelphia.
Det er den homoseksuelle flådeveteran Ron Helms og hans jødiske veninde Joanne Goodwin fra Florida.
Og det er Sue Langley fra Virginia, der for 34 år siden immigrerede fra Thailand til USA med sine forældre.
Og det nye USA ser sådan her ud
At råbe “Intifada! Intifada!” og “Death to the USA!” mens man brænder israelske flag er i sandhed langt fra, hvad den negerlignende Steven W Trasher kalder “a rabid, dwindling and angry white electorate” af Trump støtter. Trasher er bange for at de rabiate, svindende, vrede hvide vælgere er nok til at bringe Trump til Det Hvide Hus til november fordi Hillary ikke kan begejstre, “just watch Hillary Clinton being booed at her own party convention”. Den slags intern dissens får man ikke indtrykket af i medierne, især ikke de danske, men Townhall forsøgte at opgøre omfanget af udvandringen fra konventet, da Hillary blev nomineret
The level of media bias in reporting the Democratic National Convention is as high as I have ever seen outside of North Korea and the old Soviet bloc. The GOP convention was declared a disaster many times during its four-day run, but the DNC, reeling from revelations of the rigging of the primary contests, is getting far more benign descriptors, as the media avert their eyes from unpleasant realities.
Among the most unpleasant realities for Democrats and the media is the anger of Bernie supporters now that it is clear the campaign into which they threw their hearts and souls was fixed all along. Somehow, that anger must be minimized, trivialized, and eventually extinguished if Donald Trump is to be stopped. And in the eyes of the media, that threat is so overwhelming that no restraints whatsoever are justified in making the case against him as propagandists rather than honest observers and reporters.
So the focus last night at the DNC was “history being made,” (no Y chromosomes at the top of the ticket) and a soft focus look at Hillary’s record as a left wing activist using children as a front for demanding leftist policies and selected aspects of her personal relationship with Bill Clinton, the most popular living Democrat (if you ask Democrats).
As propaganda, it was skillful.
Godt dog at ISIS overhovedet blev nævnt for ifølge Breitbart blev det eller jihad eller terror slet ikke nævnt på konventets første dag. Til gengæld blev andendagen åbnet med af islamisten Sherman Jackson, der mener, om ikke sit, så hvad islam lærer ham om del af det nye USA der er homosexuelle, jøder etc. Man skal helst ikke nævne islam, ifølge Obama, ikke blot fordi det er “offensive to Muslims”, men “the kinds of rhetoric that we’ve heard too often, from Mr. Trump and others, is ultimately helping do ISIL’s work for us”. Omvendt med Hillary “She will stand up to ISIS”, som Martin O’Malley (ham er der spræl i) uambitiøst erklærede. Men at stå op imod ISIS er alt man tør på et demokratisk konvent, hvor al tale om faktisk at bekæmpe kalifatet fører til protester fra salen.
Muslimer i Europa råber Allahu Akbar mens de stikker folk ned på gaden, kører dem ihjel eller hugger deres hoveder af. De har muslimer gjort længe i Israel
Men inden muslimernes opførsel blev så spektakulær at den ikke længere kunne skjules, skosede europærere Israel for ikke at være eftergivende nok. Når muslimer myrdede jøder var der jo nok en god grund til det - det er der jo altid. Mosaic Magazine mindede forleden om et af de mange europæiske hyklerier når det drejer sig om Israel
Yesterday, when an Afghan migrant and Islamic State devotee in Germany began attacking commuters on a busy train, he was quickly shot and killed by security. Similarly, the horrific truck attack last week in Nice was only brought to an end when the French police shot and killed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who also appears to have been linked with ISIS.
When comparable knife attacks and car rammings have happened in Israel, security forces there acted similarly. Of course, on many occasions, Israel’s border police and army have managed to shoot and merely disable assailants. But when that has not been possible, Palestinian attackers have been shot and killed in an effort to save the lives of Israeli civilians in immediate harm’s way. It would seem morally obvious that sometimes this is what has to be done to bring a terror assault to the swiftest possible conclusion.
Yet Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom had an objection to Israelis defending themselves in this way. In January, when allegations were made in the Swedish parliament that Israel was perpetrating “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian attackers, Wallstrom gave credence to these allegations. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said. By the same standard, we should now expect to hear Sweden’s foreign ministry call upon their French and German neighbors to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which the German train and Nice attackers were killed.
Wallstrom’s talk of bringing about “possible accountability” is especially galling. The notion that it is members of Israel’s security forces who should be interrogated and punished for acting to neutralize a terror threat is an unspeakable moral inversion. But, of course, in the event that there was serious reason to believe that wrongdoing had been committed by a member of the security services then that would be a legal matter.
Der er nu ikke noget der ikke er for ‘galling’ for EU, som Evelyn Gordon skriver
Following last week’s terror attack in Nice, a Belgian Jewish organization issued a highly unusual statement charging that, had European media not spent months “ignoring” Palestinian terror against Israel out of “political correctness,” the idea of a truck being used as a weapon wouldn’t have come as such a shock. But it now turns out that European officials did something much worse than merely ignoring Palestinian attacks: They issued a 39-page report, signed by almost every EU country, blaming these attacks on “the occupation” rather than the terrorists. The obvious corollary was that European countries had no reason to fear similar attacks and, therefore, they didn’t bother taking precautions that could have greatly reduced the casualties.
The most shocking part of the Nice attack was how high those casualties were: The truck driver managed to kill 84 people before he was stopped. By comparison, as the New York Times reported on Monday, Israel has suffered at least 32 car-ramming attacks since last October, yet all these attacks combined have killed exactly two people (shootings and stabbings are much deadlier). Granted, most involved private cars, but even attacks using buses or heavy construction vehicles never approached the scale of Nice’s casualties. The deadliest ramming attack in Israel’s history, in 2001, killed eight.
Now consider the abovementioned EU document, first reported in the EUobserver last Friday, and its implications for both those counterterrorism techniques. The document is an internal assessment of the wave of Palestinian terror that began last October, written by EU diplomats in the region and endorsed in December 2015 by all EU countries with “embassies in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” the EUobserver said.
And what did it conclude? That the attacks were due to “the Israeli occupation… and a long-standing policy of political, economic and social marginalisation of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” to “deep frustration amongst Palestinians over the effects of the occupation, and a lack of hope that a negotiated solution can bring it to an end.” This, the report asserted, was “the heart of the matter”; factors like rampant Palestinian incitement and widespread Islamist sentiment, if they were mentioned at all, were evidently dismissed as unimportant.
The report’s first implication is obvious: If Palestinian attacks stem primarily from “the occupation,” there’s no reason to think anything similar could happen in Europe, which isn’t occupying anyone (at least in its own view; Islamists might not agree). Consequently, there’s also no need to learn from Israel’s methods of dealing with such attacks.
In contrast, had EU diplomats understood the major role played by Palestinian incitement—for instance, the endless Internet memes urging Palestinians to stab, run over and otherwise kill Jews, complete with detailed instructions on how to do so—they might have realized that similar propaganda put out by Islamic State, urging people to use similar techniques against Westerners, could have a similar effect. Had they understood the role played by Islamist sentiments—fully 89 percent of Palestinians supported a Sharia-based state in a Pew poll last year, one of the highest rates in the world—they might have realized that similar sentiments among some European Muslims posed a similar threat. And had they realized all this, the crowds in Nice might not have been left virtually unprotected.
No less telling, however, was the report’s explanation for Israel’s relatively low death toll. Rather than crediting the Israeli police for managing to stop most of the attacks quickly, before they had claimed many victims, it accused them of “excessive use of force… possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.”
If the EU’s consensus position is that shooting terrorists in mid-rampage constitutes “excessive use of force,” European policemen may understandably hesitate to do the same. In Nice, for instance, the rampage continued for two kilometers while policemen reportedly “ran 200 meters behind the truck trying to stop it”; the police caught up only when a civilian jumped into the truck’s cab and wrestled the driver, slowing him down. Yet even then, an eyewitness said, “They kept yelling at him and when he did not step out – they saw him from the window taking his gun out.” Only then did they open fire.
Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.
Før ramte terror mest jøder og blasfemikere, men nu rammer det uden at diskriminere. Hmm, måske der efterhånden er nogle europæere, der skylder Israel mere end en undskyldning.
Her er en tanke. Som muslimer fortsætter med at myrde europæere og som det politiske landskab nok (og forhåbentligvis) kommer til at ændre sig vil forståelsen for Israels problemer sandsynligvis udvikle sig i en mere solidarisk retning for den europæiske offentlighed. På Jerusalem Post kan man læse at Israels næste krig “will be far more brutal” end den seneste for 10 år siden. Hvis Israel til den tid ikke skal bekymre sig om europæernes fine fornemmelser til den tid, står Hezbollah til en giga røvfuld - just saying.
Jon Stewart var god til det, Trevor Noah er det ikke. Satire er svært fordi det er indhold og ikke blot en ironisk form. Men når man driver et dagligt satire-program bliver presset på at finde nok satirisk materiale oftest så stort at man alt for ofte presser det materiale man nu engang har ind i den opøvede ironiske form. Og dette bliver uhæderlighed.
Noget af det sjoveste er at udstille repræsentanter for sine idiosynkrasier så alle kan svælge i, hvor tåbelige og usammenhængende de er. Men det kræver at man finder dem. Hvis ikke man finder dem, men i stedet er så uheldig at rende ind i intelligente velovervejede mennesker lidende af en anden politisk observans end ens egen må man manipulere med sit offer. Ved det republikanske konvent faldt en medarbejder fra Breitbart over en sådan manipulation i sin skabelse
A crew from The Daily Show — which plunged in the ratings after Trevor Noah took over as host— set up outside the event and approached people as they left the party, asking them for interviews.
At 12:30 a.m., Pollak was leaving the party when The Daily Show approached. “I was on the phone anyway,” Pollak recalled, “so I ignored them, but then I saw them pulling someone aside, so I stopped to watch.” The Breitbart senior editor-at-large ended his call, and turned on his video camera.
The Daily Show didn’t like that. Their attempt to stop Pollak wasn’t funny, and included physical intimidation and a blatant disregard for the First Amendment.
“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.
“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.
“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”
The actions of the thugs from The Daily Show are shocking, and they rip the lid off the real purpose off the show: political propaganda disguised as entertainment. They weren’t trying to hide their “jokes” but were trying to keep their dwindling viewership from seeing how they make the sausage.
It’s as ugly as (insert politically incorrect Leslie Jones joke here) — and it’s no laughing matter.
Men metoden er ikke ny og den er ikke opfundet at Trevor Noah. Daily Shows Jon Stewart var dygtigere end Noah, men han kunne også lyve om virkeligheden for at passe sin ironiske form og lefle for sine tilhængeres idiosynkrasier. Og Stewart er et rimeligt præcist udtryk for hvorledes en stor del af venstrefløjen ræsonnerer, undvigende virkeligheden uden at stå til regnskab, som Daniel Greenfield skrev i Frontpage Magazine
It was Bush’s victory that took a flailing cable show hosted by an irritating little standup comedian with more neurotic tics than a flea-bitten Woody Allen and turned him into the voice of liberalism. Stewart’s nervous smirk and his passive aggressive mockery became the zeitgeist of urban Democrats nervously responding to Bush’s popularity and the rise of American patriotism after September 11.
The Democratic Party was out of ideas. The politicians who would become some of Bush’s most fevered critics were still following the president’s cues. A newly serious America was confronting a world war.
Stewart’s disingenuousness, veering from ironic detachment to self-righteous hectoring, undermined real sincerity with fake sincerity. The Daily Show’s audience of hipster yuppies cheered their newfound faith in sincere cynicism while the calculated ironic distance of his comedy kept him safe from critics. Even while he attacked the media’s dishonesty, his own routine was the most dishonest of them all.
His fake news was real news, biased and spun with punch lines. It was fake news that was real and just as fake as the rest of the news. The truth was that the lie was still a lie.
What Stewart offered a party dragged down by a morose Gore and Kerry was the promise of cool. Their former figurehead had started out playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show only to decay into a bloated red-faced mess. With towers burning and wars rising, Stewart was to be their bridge to a cooler and younger 21st century that an aging Democratic Party no longer seemed able to grapple with.
Jon Stewart didn’t actually have cool, but he could offer it up inversely by way of mockery. Like a school paper’s drama critic, he might not be cool, but by railing against others, he could deny coolness to them.
What Stewart offered Democrats was an evasive viewpoint without accountability. And nothing quite appeals to the cowardly instincts of a political hack like being able to take a political position without being held accountable for it. But it was Obama who truly embraced politics without accountability, transforming every issue into a joke or referencing it back to his own biography.
While he may have come out on the stage with a unique personal story, what kept Obama competitive was his skill at refracting everything through layers of irony and self-awareness. His approach was to borrow Stewart’s own routine without any of its ambiguity. Stewart’s pretense of triangulation became Obama’s obsession with turning his radical left-wing politics into an imaginary middle ground.
Stewart and Obama had come out of a political movement trying to respond to September 11 without having the first idea how to do so. Stewart’s comedy paved the way for minimizing the threat while inflating the absurdity of those trying to fight it. It is an approach that Obama continues to embrace.
Generation X cynicism fused with millennial brand awareness to create a political monster who might not be able to lie to the people all the time, but who cynically made the existence of his lies irrelevant.
Stewart’s Daily Show had offered an antidote to the Bush era of patriotism, sincerity and decency. Its antidote was passive aggressive ridicule and political satire as sincerity. After the Bush era ended, Stewart and his fellow comedians had little left to do except take on the job of defending Obama, while occasionally critiquing him. They had become the official court jesters of the Democratic Party.
Et eksempel. Under Israels seneste krig med terror-regimet Hamas i Gazastriben latterliggjorde Stewart Israel for ikke at beskytte fjendens civilbefolkning helt lige så meget som sin egen civilbefolkning. Som David Horovitz beskrev i Times of Israel
Stewart: “Both sides are engaging in aerial bombardment, but one side appears to be bomb-better-at it. (Studio laughter at the wordplay.) Most Hamas rockets are neutralized by Israel’s Iron Dome technology, and Israeli citizens can even now download a warning app. (Cut to clip of Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer explaining how Israelis can know where and when they’re being attacked.) So Israelis seem to have a high-tech, smart-phone alert system.”
Let me see if I understand the point he’s making here: Having falsely implied that Israel is as keen on killing as Hamas is, Stewart now seems to be criticizing Israel for not being as vulnerable as Hamas would like it to be to those Hamas rockets that are sent to kill us. He seems to be bashing us for having those tech smarts. It’s a bad thing that we developed a unique, astonishing Iron Dome missile defense system, without which hundreds of us would be dead? It’s a bad thing that we developed an app to warn us that the rockets designed to kill our citizens are heading this way?
Stewart: “How are the Gazans notified? (Cut to a clip explaining that Israel carries out “a small mortar explosion” on the roof of a building that is to be bombed “which serves as an Israeli warning of an upcoming airstrike.” Back to Stewart.) “Hmmm. So the Israeli military warns Gaza residents of imminent bombing (pause for comedic effect), with a smaller warning bombing! (Laughter). An amuse-boom, if you will.” (Studio laughter, clapping, cheering.)
What’s my problem with that bit (once I’ve registered the witty play on amuse-bouche). Oh, where to start? Stewart fails to explain which buildings in Gaza are being targeted: This is not the mirror image of Hamas’s arbitrary rocket attacks on any and every Israeli target. These are Israeli airstrikes on Gaza homes where Israel says terror chiefs live, where weaponry is stored, from where rockets are fired.
Furthermore, whereas Hamas, out to kill, does not generally warn Israel of imminent rocket attacks (thus rendering every missile fired at Israel from Gaza “a crime against humanity,” according to the Palestinian Authority’s own UN representative), Israel, trying not to kill noncombatants, fires that warning mortar shell to alert civilians — even though it knows this is more than likely to lead to the terrorist fleeing. Would Stewart rather Israel not warn Gazans that, in its efforts to prevent rocket fire on its civilians, it is about to strike back?
Mark Levin luftede dengang også sin harme over Stewarts manipulerede virkelighed.
Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.
Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed
When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.
But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.
Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.
The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.
Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”
In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.
Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”
Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.
Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.
For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.
The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.
Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”
Safe Spaces gælder selvfølgelig ikke jøder på de amerikanske campus. Forklædt som Israel-kritik, ender debat-arrangementer eller foredrag om Israel ofte i mod-demonstrationer, mødeterror og uroligheder. På Algemeiner kan man læse om hvorledes venstrefløjen retfærdiggør sin mentalitet
Members of two prominent student groups who took part in a violent protest against a pro-Israel event at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) are attempting to justify their actions, following intense backlash and calls for legal action against them.
UCI’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) each released separate statements defending their sponsorship of and participation in the demonstration against a Student’s Supporting Israel (SSI) event featuring Israel Defense Forces (IDF) veterans and the screening of a movie about the army.
As The Algemeiner reported, anti-Israel students at UCI blockaded attendees. One female student was harassed and chased, to the point that she was forced to flee and take refuge inside a nearby building. Police were eventually called in, but allowed the protest to continue. Protesters shouted ,“Long live the intifada,” “f*** the police,” “displacing people since ‘48/ there’s nothing here to celebrate” and “all white people need to die.”
SJP said they were “wholly justified” in protesting the SSI event, because “the presence of the IDF, better known as Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), and police threatened our coalition of Arab, Jewish, Black, Latinx, API, undocumented, trans, and queer students and the greater activist community. Our demonstration was held to protest the presence of military and police forces on campus, which threaten the lives of Black and Brown people every day.”
Bombarderet med had til Israel fra pressionsgrupper, undervisere og medier, skrider morgendagens elites, de studerene, opfattelse af moral ad absurdum
Donald Trumps mådeholdende kommentarer til den islamiske invasion er blevet beskyldt for meget. Blandt andet at den opvigler had blandt muslimer til USA, hvor ISIS, der ikke har noget med islam at gøre, bruger Trumps udtalelser til at rekruttere muslimer. Det viste sig at ISIS ikke fandt Trump nævneværdig og i stedet koncentrerede sin vrede over de seneste amerikanske præsidenter, ‘horekarlen’ Bill Clinton og ‘løgneren’ George W Bush samt den siddende præsident Barak Hussein Obama.
Trump blev også beskyldt for at opvirgle had mod muslimer i USA og være årsag til hadforbrydelser. I modsætning til muslimsk terror, som ingen kan konkludere på da det ikke er tydeligt hvilke socialpsykologiske dynamikker, der skaber den slags frustrationer, så er negativ omtale af muslimsk terror med dil at skabe denne kunstige dikotomi mellem vestlig frihed og sharia, hvilket altså fører Johnny Redneck lige ud i et orgie af hadforbrydelser. En af disse had-forbrydelser blev tilsyneladen begået af den 35 årige Michael Scott Wolfe, der med en machette hakkede ind i en moske, hvor han efterlod bacon. En anden forbrydelse, der fik megen omtale, var ildspåsættelsen af en moske i Texas. Det viste sig at være en muslim, der stod bag.
Men muslimer frygter back-lash, at de bliver straffet for, hvad enkelte af deres troende kammerater har fundet på. Selv efter to muslimers massemord på en firma-julefrokost i San Bernadino var frygten, hvad andre dog ikke måtte tænke om dem. A.J. Caschetta skrev om back-lash industrien 17 december i Middle East Forum
The history of the looming anti-Muslim backlash that never arrives is instructive. Logically, the original post-9/11 anti-Muslim backlash should have been the largest and most ferocious of the various backlashes, and indeed George W. Bush, members of his administration and members of Congress frequently warned Americans not to blame all Muslims for the acts committed by Al-Qaeda.
Even an anti-Israel leftist like Rachel Corrie Award recipient Delinda C. Hanley recognizes that there was no post-9/11 backlash. Writing in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Hanley gushed: “As a result of the effective campaign undertaken by America’s leaders, non-governmental organizations and the media, a backlash that, in many nations, might have turned into a bloodbath was averted and, indeed, transformed into a celebration of diversity.”
The group known as Human Rights Watch however tells a different tale. It documents in the same era a series of attacks amounting to “a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions believed to be Arab or Muslim.” The numbers are notable either for the “ferocity and extent” as HRW puts it, or for the remarkable calm they convey compared to the predicted carnage. For instance the 17-fold increase in anti-Muslim incidents sounds more alarming than the fact that there were 28 such events in 2000 compared with 481 in 2001.
It gets more interesting when one reads that these numbers include behavior ranging from “verbal taunts to employment discrimination to airport profiling to hate crimes.” Since no actual numbers are listed for specific “crimes” one might suspect that there are far more verbal taunts than hate crimes among the 481.
Men industrier kan ikke levere, hvis ikke nogen vil aftage deres produkter og det vil venstrefløjen hellere end gerne. På Gatestone Institute kan man læse, hvorledes arbejdet skrider frem med at forbyde islamkritik i USA
Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.
The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.
The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”
What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).
“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”
Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?
Så muslimer er en særlig følsom gruppe. Jøder, derimod, er anderledes robuste, hvis man skal følge Facebooks logik (set hos Elder of Ziyon)
I januar så vi først det chokerende attentat mod det franske satireblad i Paris, og godt en måned senere oplevede vi så det dobbelte attentat i Krudttønden og ved Synagogen i Krystalgade i København. To danskere mistede livet, og vi sad alle tilbage med chokket og forfærdelsen – terroren var nået til os.
Et os og et dem. Og hvem er det? To danskere mistede livet. det er os, for vi så det chokerende og vi oplevede det selv og sad forfærdede tilbage. Omar døde også. Han er terroren. Han er terroren.
Åh jo, så gik Prins Henrik på pension, hvilket var den store nyhed for formiddagspressen. En af Prinsgemalens arbejdsopgaver var tilsyneladende at sortere Hendes Majestæt Dronningens talepapirer, en opgave Hendes Majestæt Dronnningen åbenlyst for første gang selv skulle klare.
Igen i år stod en imam for en del af nytårgudstjenesten. Det er lidt besynderligt fordi det kun er nytår efter den kristne kalender, som er en rimelig tilnærmning af Jordens rotation om Solen, mens den muslimske kalender er sat efter Månens faser. Og det er lidt besynderligt fordi en Gudstjeneste betyder at man tjener Gud og Gud er ikke Allah. Besynderligt var det også, men desværre ikke overraskende, at ingen reagerede da imamen sagde “De bedste af Jer, er dem der frygter Allah.“, som Uriaspostens Kim Møller fangede. Men ikke biskoppen, der sagde “Når vi indleder 2016 med bønnen Fadervor, øver vi os i at sige ‘vi’ og ikke ‘dem’.” Hmm, men de der frygter Allah er alligevel de bedste, om de så skal sætte et hoved på en stage for at hamre den pointe hjem.
Vi har en statsminister, der frem for rettidigt omhu kringler med den kortsigtede udvikling på bekostning af fremtiden, stadigt krejlende den danske offentlighed fri af de tydeligste konsekvenser. Statsministeren sagde, ja hvad sagde statministeren egentlig? Noget med at terroristerne ville vinde, hvis vi begyndte at frygte dem, for deres formål var at “Trække falske skillelinjer. Mellem Vesten og islam.” Jeg troede ellers målet var at pointere at “De bedste af Jer, er dem der frygter Allah“.
Og så sagde han at alle skal passe på vores land og skitserede han så hvorfor denne regering, som jeg ikke vil kalde landsforræddere da det er forbudt, ikke har tænkt sig at følge den opfordring
Vi kan ikke åbne Danmark for alle. Vi kan heller ikke vende ryggen til og hygge os i smug. Jeg vil kæmpe for at lede Danmark gennem migrations- og flygtningekrisen på en måde, så vi kan kende vores land, mens krisen står på - og genkende det, når vi er igennem. Med vores økonomi, vores sammenhængskraft og vores værdier i behold. For lad os være ærlige over for hinanden - vi er udfordret:
Så vi lukker så mange ind der skal til for at ødelægge landet, hvorefter denne generation skal kunne se sig selv i øjnene og sig, vi gjorde hvad vi kunne. Det hedder at “holde antallet af asylansøgere på et fornuftigt niveau.” Vores efterkommere vil have arvet et Libanon i mange generationer. For selv om statsministeren luftede grænsekontrol mod Tyskland når Sverige strammer deres grænsekontrol, så er regeringen fokus et: “Vi vil sikre ro. Vi vil sikre orden.” Ikke sikre lov. Ikke sikre Danmark. Politiet eskorterer flygtningene, spyttemænd spottes, regeringen tvinger migranter ud i alle egne af landet, så ingen går ram forbi af den nye orden. Og det hele sker under rolige forhold, så Løkke og Stampe kan se hinanden i øjnene, deres selvbilleder bevaret. Der er mere end to ‘dem og os’.
I den franske by Valence blev en ‘bilist’ skudt og såret, da han forsøgte at køre fire soldater ned, der besynderligt nok var udkommanderet til at bevogte en moske. I München blev togstationer evakuerede, da Politiet advarede om forestående terrorangreb. Men det er også alt det tyske politi vil advare om, skriver Bild ifølge Daily Mail, da den ikke vil skræmme folk unødigt om den bølge af kriminalitet, der skylder over Tyskland under navnet syriske flygtninge. I Bruxelles afblæste byens borgmester “den planlagte festivitas”, der sidste år havde deltagelse af 100.000 mennesker “da det ifølge myndighedernes skøn [var] for risikabelt”, skriver Danmarks Radio. Velkommen til en ny normal. Europa er nu i en permanent terrortistand, som Israel har været i mange år
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
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.
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.
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
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!
Ideen om en et-stats løsning på konflikten mellem araberne og israelerne er en antisemitisk drøm, der er ganske comme il-faut på venstrefløjen. Ideen er selvfølgelig udslettelse af den jødiske stat, mens man benægter det uundgåelige folkemord på jøderne, araberne straks vil forsøge Rwanda-style. Erik Kristensen formulerede sidste år på Modkraft denne drøm således
Men siden 1999 har der været en bred debat mellem både jødiske og palæstinensiske intellektuelle, aktivister og politikere om en en-stats-løsning, der skulle bygge på lige rettigheder for alle etniske, religiøse og nationale grupper i hele området, der i dag omfatter Israel og den påtænkte palæstinensiske stat (Vestbredden og Gaza). Det skulle være en sekulær stat, der sikrede fuldstændig lighed for loven, mindretalsbeskyttelse og individuelle frihedsrettigheder. En sådan stat kan tage mange forskellige former – en forenet stat, forskellige varianter af en føderation eller en israelsk-palæstinensisk konføderation.
Den store fordel ved en sådan løsning ville være at den ville kunne dæmpe de etniske og religiøse spændinger. Den ville løse det store palæstinensiske problem, ved at få samlet de to store grupper af palæstinensere, der i dag lever i Israel og på Vestbredden og Gaza. Den ville kunne stille jøder og palæstinensere lige som befolkningsgrupper ved at give både jøder og palæstinensere ret til at vende tilbage til den nye israelske-palæstinensiske stat.
Opgivelse af ideen om en jødisk stat
Forudsætningen for en sådan stat vil være at jøderne vil acceptere at de bliver et mindretal en i sådan demokratisk stat, at de opgiver forestillingen om at de skal bo en i en særlig jødisk stat.
Forestillingen om en særlig jødisk stat, som mange jøder kalder jødisk og demokratisk er meget problematisk og vil ikke kunne holde i fremtiden. For det første er det problematisk at definere en stat etnisk og religiøst. Det skaber et etnokrati, der giver en etnisk-religiøs gruppe særlige privilegier. Allerede i dag udgør palæstinenserne ca. 20 % af Israels befolkning. I 2030 vil det være 1/3 del. Hertil kommer at ca. 30 procent af den israelske befolk i dag kalder sig agnostikere. Er den israelske stat ikke en stat for dem? Man ville jo ikke kunne finde på at kalde USA en hvid eller en kristen stat.Mange vil sige, at jøderne i Israel aldrig vil opgave forestillingen om en særlig jødisk stat. Måske går der lang tid.
Måske helvede skal fryse til først. Den seneste arabiske terrorbølge mod Israel og jøder i Israel kører på 3. måned. Ægget af islam i al almindelighed og deres ledere, kaster forskellige fortrinsvis yngre muslimer sig morderisk over tilfældige jøder. Oftest foregår attentaterne med kniv for den rituelle slagteaspekts effekt, men også ved at køre folk ihjel med en bil.
Det er arabernes terrorkampagne, der slagter hele ideen om al sameksistens mellem muslimer og jøder, ved at lade terrorbølgen være ultimativt civil. Ingen jøde kan være i nærheden af en muslim uden at foretage en konstant trusselvurdering og holde sig i alarmberedskab. Ingen kan sidde i bussen, stå i en kø eller sende sine børn i skole og være tryg ved de muslimske medborgere. Enhver muslim er bogstaveligt talt og ganske reelt en potentiel terrorrist, der uanset fremtoning, køn og alder pludselig kan stikke dig og dine børn ihjel. Denne kampagne søger definitivt og helt ned på mikroplan, at skære ethvert bånd over til en fælles menneskelig samhørighed.
Og det skal nok lykkes, for det er ikke de få der ødelægger det for de mange. Det er den arabiske muslim flest blandt de, der kalder sig palæstinensere viser en ny undersøgelse ifølge Palestinian Media Watch, der ønsker død over jøden
Following almost three months of Palestinian riots, violence and deadly terror attacks against Israelis, 2/3 (67%) of Palestinians are in favor of stabbing attacks against Israelis and almost the same amount are in favor of “an armed intifada.”
Although most Palestinians support “the use of knives,” almost half (47%) of Palestinians believe the PA’s libel that Israel fabricates the stabbing attacks and that “those who were shot have not stabbed or were not attempting to stab Israelis.” However, 51% do believe that “most… have in fact stabbed or were attempting to stab Israelis.”
These opinions were revealed in a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between Dec. 10-12, 2015 (see below). Summing up the results, PSR remarked that “the ‘Oslo generation’ of youth between the ages of 18 and 22 are the most supportive of an armed intifada and stabbings and the least supportive of the two-state solution.”
Denne kvantitative undersøgelse kan suppleres med nogle kvalitative interviews. Corey Gil-Shuster spørger arabere, hvad der skal ske med jøderne, hvis de for magt som de har agt. Lidt nølende men med indlysende logik fortæller araberne, hvorledes der ikke er plads til jøder i Israel. De høflige taler om fordrivelse, de ærlige ikke.
Venstrefløjen er fuldt ud klar over disse realiteter - og den har sin dagsorden.
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.
Jeg har ikke regnet anti-semitismen som en egentligt fænomen blandt danskerne fordi man så sjældent, hvis nogensinde støder på egentlige jødefjendske ytringer. Jeg har haft den opfattelse, at så langt der er tale om egentlig anti-semitisme, som næsten udelukkende er begrænset til, venstrefløjen, så var den et udtryk for en ide om jøden og israelerene. At den anti-semitiske politik og retorik, er konsekvensen af en fortælling som venstrefløjen dyrker, måske mere af tradition. Jovist er venstrefløjen til tider ganske løssluppen med etnisk og religiøs essensialisme når man taler jøder og Israel med dem i trygge rammer, noget som offentligt mest skinner igennem som Israel-kritik, det enestående begreb der savner nationale modstykker som Saudiarabien-kritik og Gambia-kritik. Men at der ikke i nævneværdig udstrækning (og Anne Grethe Holmsgaard er ikke nævneværdig) eksisterer noget personligt eller grundlæggende emotionelt motiv, som farver synet på jøder endsige den enkelte jøde.
Men som venstrefløjens dans med den muslimske indvandring de importere som et nyt proletariat synes deres kamp mod Israel at blive stadigt mere intens og blind. En lille del af det er at skrive jøden ud af historien om jødeforfølgelse. Et eksempel man kunne nævne var Fredsringen om synagogen i København. En muslimsk ung mand havde på baggrund af sin muslimske tro set sig bitter på jøderne, kontraktbrydende, ordombyttende aber og svin, og forsøgt sig med en massakre. En heltemodig vagt blev dræbt da han sikrede resten af forsamlingen kunne få fred. Men Fredsringen handlede om at sætte muslimerne i rollen som ofre for dårlig presse. Med kun en håndfuld muslimske piger i tørklæde med kraft nok til at simulere interesse for en løs ide om samhørighed agerede venstrefløjen potemkinkulisse så ringen kunne sluttes.
Åh, og så blev der lagt blomster for Omar, for han var jo også et menneske, skønt hans venner sparkede dem væk igen, da hans dødssted ikke skulle besudles af kuffar traditioner. Men det det handlede om for venstrefløjen var at bruge jødeforfølgelse til at pleje deres egen lille Hassan.
Og nu vil Enhedslisten og Radikale Venstre så skrive jøderne ud af deres egen historie, når de tænder et lys for flygtninge
Nazisterne forfølgelse af mennesker, der ikke passede ind i det ariske samfund må aldrig glemmes.
Derimod må jødeforfølgelsen som et specifikt fænomen gerne glemmes. For anden tolkning kan man ikke komme til. Krystalnatten handlede KUN om jøder.Og som Krystalnatten kun handlede om jøder skal det måske lige med, at ildsjæl og næstforkvinde i Exitcirklen Khaterah Parwanis arbejde med afradikalisering af unge KUN handler om muslimer.
Hvis jeg må give et godt råd til det yderste venstre; hvis i vil markere forfølgelse af alle de af os, der ikke passer ind i en eller anden overordnet ideologi, så lav en Gulag-dag eller en sharia-dag, hvor alle demokrater kan blæse tyranniet den lange march. Og insister på ytringsfriheden og afskaf blasfemi- og racisme paragrafferne.
Den glimrende Honest Reporting, der har som sit formål at imødegå den bølge af løgne der skyller fra medierne, leverer et grotesk eksempel fra det amerikanske delvist offentligt finasierede NPR (National Public Radio)
In Harris’s report for the October 13 edition of All Things Considered, she interviews Qassam Badran, the father of Ishaq Badran, a Palestinian teenage terrorist shot dead after stabbing and wounding two Israelis in Jerusalem. Harris asks Qassam what motivated his son to carry out the attack:
BADRAN: (Through interpreter) The video that bothered him most was of a woman who was stripped of her headscarf before she was killed in the Old City. He showed it to his mom, saying, look at those cowardly Jews; look what they’re doing to our women.
Badran was referring to a video of Shoruq Dwayat, a Palestinian woman who stabbed an Israeli Jew. The wounded victim managed to shoot Dwayat. Palestinian social media has spread the unsubstantiated rumor that Israeli settlers removed Dwayat’s headscarf.
Leaving unchallenged Badran’s claim that Dwayat had been killed by Israelis, Harris only seconds later says:
I also visited the home of the family of the girl in the video that made Ishaq upset. Shoruq Dwayat is injured and in Israeli custody.
That’s correct – Shoruq Dwayat is alive as confirmed by her family in the NPR report.
Ægyptisk-palæstinensiske Ayman Mohyeldin rapporterer fra amerikanske MSNBC live umiddelbart efter en terrordåd. Han fortæller seerne at han var vidne og ikke så den unge palæstinenser være bevæbnet, men som alligevel blev skudt, da han løb ned af nogle trapper. Men den unge palæstinenser var bevæbnet med en kniv og studieværten må afbryde Mohoyledin og fortæller at MSNBC nu viser et billede af den unge palæstinenser, der er iklædt camouflage tøj, med en kniv i hånden.
Uanfægtet af korrektionen tweetede Mohyeldin straks efter dette interview “I just witnessed the shooting of a man running down the stairs towards Damascus gate before being gunned down”. MSNBC lavede også en fadæse, da de viste dette billede over hvor meget land Israel, som en anden kræftsvulst, havde ædt gennem årene af den selvstændige nation Palæstina
Den fejl indrømmede MSNBC også efterfølgende. Men med mængden og dybden af løgne for fordrejninger i medierne er det besynderligt at det ikke har en selvstændig plads for kritiske journalister - for de findes vel?