Forleden havde Rune Engelbrecht Larsen en dramatisk overskrift på et blogindlæg: “Søren Espersens forvirrede bombeiver” (Senere konkluderede han nonchalant “hvis et missil rammer Libyens diktator, skal ingen heller høre et ondt ord for dét.“). Engelbrecht havde bidt sig fast i at Espersen havde polemiseret over bomberesolutionen, der er formuleret til fordel for at beskytte civile mod nedslagtninger og konsekvent af den logik åbnet for muligheden af at vi så kunne komme til at skulle bombe oprørerne, hvis de fik agt, som de havde magt. Og det var slemt for oprørerne er de gode mennesker vi ikke aner en bjælde om.

Det er ikke første gang, at Dansk Folkeparti har vist sig som de mest vrangvillige iagttagere af revolutionerne i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika. Den ene diktator efter den anden, der i årevis har tjent som bekvemme skræmme-billeder på ‘den islamiske verden’ og dens totalitære islæt, haster det pludselig ikke så meget at komme af med alligevel.

Man ville gerne bombe løs og invadere Irak, hvor tykke krigsløgne drev ned af manipulerede taler og resulterede i propagandaen om fatamorgana-masseødelæggelsesvåben - men at risikere at store dele af de arabiske befolkninger selv får held med (og hjælp til) at smide deres tyranner på porten, har ganske åbenlyst fået partiet til at gemme den symbolske ‘friheds-fane’ langt væk i partikontorets kælderrum.

Tankevækkende.

Det er desværre ikke tankevækkende for Larsen, at han var og er modstander af Irakkrigen, mens han gerne hopper ud i det ukendte når det gælder Libyen. Det var vel heller ikke forventeligt for satanister ser vel en dyd i kun at se splinten i broders øje. I går havde Larsen så en mere principiel argumentation for krig mod Libyen (som man også savnede fra ham under Irakdebatten).

Skal man blande sig, hvis naboen råber og skriger ad sin kone? Det kommer vel an på så meget. Hvis han banker hende eller åbenlyst truer med at gøre det? Selvfølgelig.

Der vil imidlertid altid være en gråzone, hvor noget taler for og noget taler imod at gribe ind. Nogle gange forværrer vi alt ved at blande os, andre gange løser vi nogle af problemerne.

En forenklet makroversion af et ’tilsvarende’ dilemma er vel, hvorvidt og hvordan Vesten bør gribe ind over for arabiske diktatorer.

Altid godt at bruge hustruvold, som eksempel på retfærdiggørelse af selv at udøve vold. Og ganske passende nu vi taler om libyere ag andre arabere i øvrigt. Fra VG

Rapporter fra Kirkens Nødhjelp på grensen til Libya forteller rystende beretninger om kvinner som voldtas og mishandles på sin vei over grensen.

- Vi er svært bekymret for kvinner og barn på flukt både inne i Libya og ut av landet. Vi har allerede fått rapporter om voldtekter av kvinner som krysser grensen fra Libya, sier generalsekretær Atle Sommerfeldt i Kirkens Nødhjelp til VG Nett.

Han forteller at de nordafrikanske landene er preget av store kjønnsulikheter og diskriminering av kvinner på bakgrunn av kulturelle og religiøse lover og praksiser.

(…)

- I tillegg er kvinner alene på flukt internt eller over grensen til Libya fritt vilt. Mennene kan ikke lenger beskytte dem og soldater, opprørsgrupper, grensevakter, politi eller andre flyktninger har få skrupler med å utnytte og voldta jenter og kvinner på flukt, sier Sommerfeldt.

Sådan er de altså alle sammen så, hvad kønskamp angår er arabisk magtskifte ligegyldigt. Men tilbage til Engelbrecht Larsen

Gadaffi har som så mange andre diktatorer været om ikke en kær, så dog en belejlig ven af Vesten i de senere år, hvorfor de samme magter, der nu kvitterer med bombefly, selvfølgelig også bærer et medansvar for hans brutale undertrykkelse. Ingen tvivl om, at stabilitet snarere end frihed langt hen ad vejen er nøgleordet, når den vestlige Mellemøstenpolitiks dobbeltmoral skal gøres op - stabile olieleverancer, stabile bolværk imod flygtninge og stabile militærbaser gør en række tyranner til allierede.

Larsen fordømmer altså at man væltede Saddam, som han nu fordømmer at man ikke væltede Gadaffi. Hvis ikke man kan indføre demokrati med militær magt, som Larsen har ytret ganske højlydt ganske længe, hvilket regimeskifte frembringer vi så? Ikke et demokratisk ifølge Rune Engelbrecht Larsen og da han også ser stabilitet, som noget vestligt snavs er håbet måske mange års blodig kaos?

Fra New York Times

As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”

There is a battle consuming Egypt about the direction of its revolution, and the military council that is now running the country is sending contradictory signals. On Wednesday, the council endorsed a plan to outlaw demonstrations and sit-ins. Then, a few hours later, the public prosecutor announced that the former interior minister and other security officials would be charged in the killings of hundreds during the protests.

Egyptians are searching for signs of clarity in such declarations, hoping to discern the direction of a state led by a secretive military council brought to power by a revolution based on demands for democracy, rule of law and an end to corruption.

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

Artiklen hæfter sig ved nogle ildevarslende tegn på Broderskabets overtagelse af “revolutionen”, hvor de dukker op i lidt for prominent selskab eller som medskribenter på forfatningsudkast. Men mest af alt at det første parlamentsvalg hastes igennem, hvilket giver de to bedst organiserede grupper, Mubaraks gamle socialdemokratiske parti og selvfølgelig Broderskabet en klar fordel, som Kirsten Stilt uddyber ligeledes i New York Times

The youth movement and others who are seeking deeper reforms face a nearly impossible task in the coming months. In the short time before the parliamentary elections take place, they must prepare themselves to compete nationwide against two powerful and entrenched groups: the National Democratic Party (N.D.P.) and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The N.D.P., while re-forming under a new name, will continue to utilize the same structures of power and patronage that it enjoyed as the ruling party during Mubarak’s regime. The Muslim Brotherhood, a longstanding religious-political movement, has now formed the Justice and Freedom Party, which will operate through the Brotherhood’s deep channels of support all over the country.

The N.D.P. and the Muslim Brotherhood now share many common goals. Both sought to hold parliamentary elections quickly, which gives them a distinct advantage over the youth and others who led the revolution. With a stunning display of organization, the revolutionaries sparked and led a widespread movement that brought down the regime. They were not organized political actors prior to that time, however, and this is the source of their problem today.

Det har været en bemærkelsesværdig oplevelse at følge dækning af den ægyptiske udvikling i de danske medier, hvor Broderskabet måske er blevet nævnt, men helst ikke medregnet, som en potent medspiller i det ægyptiske samfund. Endda har man oplevet flere kommentatorer og især politikere på venstrefløjen gøre moral ud af simple magtanalyser, der indeholdt Broderskabet. Det var onde tanker. Men Broderskabet er ikke blot en stærk organisation man skal tage hensyn til, men et udtryk for en del af den ægyptiske folkelighed, der ikke hviler på den form for progressivitet, der har udviklet demonstranternes mobiltelefoner og andet Twitteri. Det er en folkelighed blandt mange bagstræberiske værdier bl.a. af mandschauvenisme.

Da den amerikanske reporter Lara Logan blev overfaldet og seksuelt forulempet af de tilstedeværende mænd på Tahirpladsen blev det i første omgang udlagt, som et enkeltstående tilfælde (selv om det var spektakulært omstændighederne taget i betragtning). For på kvindernes internationale Kampdag stak den ægyptiske folkesjæl igen ansigtet frem da en gruppe kvinder ville markere sig. Fra Christian Science Monitor

But almost immediately, they were outnumbered and beset upon by men who gathered. Some of the men were from the protesters’ encampment in the middle of the square.

Dozens of women engaged in arguments with the men, who said that women had enough rights already; that now was not the time to demand inclusion; or that Islam does not allow a woman to become president. Some of the men were polite; many were aggressive. Soon, a large group gathered in front of the protest, shouting it down with insults. A sheikh from Al Azhar was hoisted on mens’ shoulders, chanting against the women.

“Go home, go wash clothes,” yelled some of the men. “You are not married; go find a husband.” Others said, “This is against Islam.” To the men demonstrating with the women, they yelled “Shame on you!”

Suddenly, the men decided the women had been there long enough. Yelling, they rushed aggressively upon the protest, pushing violently through the rows of women. The women scattered. Eyewitnesses said they saw three women being chased by the crowd. A surge of men followed them, and Army officers fired shots into the air to make the men retreat.

The men took over the raised platform where the women had held their demonstration, as many of the women trembled in rage. During the melee, one of the attacking men groped Fatima Mansour, a college student who wore purple for International Women’s Day and argued eloquently with a man who said it was unIslamic for a woman to become president, quoting the Quran back at him. Sexual harassment is a common indignity for women in Cairo, though it virtually disappeared during the first few days of the uprising.

Det er tydeligt at det Muslimske Broderskab ikke begrænser sig til en enkelt organisation, som det også er tydeligt at broderskab i den muslimske forståelse ikke er udstrakt til søskende generelt. Det var i hvert fald næppe den stemning Villy Søvndal befamlede da han euforisk besøgte Tahirpladsen. Det var mere, som SF og venstrefløjen generelt nok mest ønsketænkning. Så lad os andre om de onde tanker.

Fremragende kronik af Bent Jensen i Jyllands-Posten.

Danmark er et selvstændigt land. Det lærte vi i skolen, i gymnasiet og på universitetet. Men nu er det åbenbart, at Danmarks selvstændighed på selv de mest basale områder er en by i Rusland. Danske politikere i de fleste partier siger, at Danmark først og fremmest skal overholde nogle ”internationale konventioner”, som ingen nogensinde har hørt om, og som befolkningen aldrig er blevet bedt om at tage stilling til. De har levet deres skjulte liv, men hives nu efter behov frem med alvorsmine for at tæske befolkningen på plads.

Seneste tæskekonvention siger - siger politikerne - at flere hundrede palæstinensere uden videre formaliteter har krav på at få dansk statsborgerskab. Nogle af dem kan end ikke bestå den mest simple danskprøve, de fleste er ikke selvforsørgende, og mange har begået grov kriminalitet - men det er uden betydning.

I 1980′erne fik flere hundrede palæstinensere ved særlov og uden om alle normale procedurer statsborgerskab. Omkring halvdelen af dem begik sidenhen kriminalitet, og en stor del endte på permanent forsørgelse. Danske trækdyr betaler hver dag for denne kriminelle særlov. Dansk selvstændighed er en kulisse.

Men sig ikke at vi ikke var advaret.

Zenia Stampe kan, som få,  vrøvle i rå mængder. Et festligt eksempel fra hendes seneste postering er hendes formidable afsluttende afskydning af sin egen fod

I min barndom var det østblokken, vi var bange for. Dengang mine bedste- og oldeforældre var børn, var det tyskerne, de var bange for. I de sidste ti år har det været Mellemøsten. Men nu er der udsigt til, at endnu et fjendebillede krakelerer.

Bum! Og væk er foden. Ja, der var skam mange, der var bange for tyskerne op til både 1, og 2. Verdenskrig og som på sin vis så noget af denne frygt delvis bekræftet af verdenskrigenes generelle blodbad og lidt også af Holocaust. Dog ikke de radikale, som mere var slået af forbløffelse og beundring. Og der var også de af os, der sad lidt mere uroligt på stolen under den Kolde Krig end de radikale, der sad i dyb koncentration over fodnoterne. Fjendebillederne krakkelerede dog ikke så meget, som de blev banket sønder og sammen eller for kommunismens vedkommende kollapsede under vægten af egne indbyggede modsætninger - hvilket vel var lidt ironisk.

Inden da har hun følgende teologiske overvejelse

Det komiske er, at højrefløjens tågehorn selv kalder sig kristne, men samtidig afviser at stå på mål for den kristne bibels tekster. De kalder Koranen barbarisk og islam for en lovreligion, men vil ikke forklare deres forhold til, at Biblens moselove sanktionerer salg af faderens egne døtre til slaveri (2. mosebog 21:7); etniske udrensninger (2. mosebog 34:11-14); folkedrab (3. mosebog 26:7-8); samt en nærmest uendelig række af opfordringer til at stene forskellige lovovertrædere til døde. For eksempel skal en søn stenes, hvis han er en drukkenbolt (5. mosebog 21:18-21).

Moseloven! Skide godt Zenia, du rykker for vildt. Det kan selvfølgelig undre at Zenia vedbliver med at gentage den slags ævl når forskellen på og essensen af Gammel og Ny Testamente nu gennem mange år er banket ind ikke mindst på Zenias egen blog. Men hvad der kan undre en endnu mere er at mange af hendes læsere giver hende ret og brokker sig over at hendes kritikere ikke forholder sig til hendes skarpsindige analyser. Når elever kan være så tungnemme er det ikke svært at forstå forne tiders skolelærere afmægtige svung med spanskrøret. Hvad andet kan man da stille op?

I en anmeldelse af af den israelske historiker Ilan Pappes bog Det moderne Palæstinas historie kalder Anders Jerichow Pappe for “en fortræffelig historiker” og “grundig og kildebevidst.”. Sandt er det i hvert fald at Pappe er en favorit blandt tidens pseudointellektuelle antisemitter, som der jo findes i rå mængder på venstrefløjen. Pappe citeres også flittigt på flere danske blogs (ingen nævnt, ingen glemt). Men Pappe er først og fremmest propagandist, hvad han ikke engang lægger skjul på, og en simpel løgner. Historikeren Benny Morris tegner i The New Republic (en artikel det virkeligt er værd at læse i sin helhed) et Penkowa-lignende portræt af Pappe

Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case. An apt illustration of this delinquency is Efraim Karsh, in Palestine Betrayed. At one point he tells us, quoting a news report from the Palestine Post, that the Palestinian Arab masses actually welcomed the UN partition resolution of November 1947, which posited the establishment of a Jewish state side by side with a Palestine Arab state, when a thousand other pieces of evidence—Haganah intelligence reports, newspapers, monitored Arab radio broadcasts, and the simple fact that Palestine’s Arabs went to war to stymie that resolution—tell us, with overwhelming persuasiveness, the exact opposite.

But Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence. Consider his handling of the Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s. Pappe writes of the “Nabi Musa” riots in April 1920: “The [British] Palin Commission … reported that the Jewish presence in the country was provoking the Arab population and was the cause of the riots.” He also quotes at length Musa Kazim al-Husayni, the clan’s leading notable at the time, to the effect that “it was not the [Arab] Hebronites who had started the riots but the Jews.” But the (never published) “Report of the Court of Inquiry [it was not a “Commission”] Convened by Order of H.E. the High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief, Dated the 12th Day of April, 1920,” while forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby accurately reflecting the prevailing views in the British military government that ruled Palestine until mid-1920, flatly and strikingly charged the Arabs with responsibility for the bloodshed. The team chaired by Major-General P.C. Palin wrote that “it is perfectly clear that with … few exceptions the Jews were the sufferers, and were, moreover, the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.” The inquiry pointed out that whereas 216 Jews were killed or injured, the British security forces and the Jews, in defending themselves or in retaliatory attacks, caused only twenty-five Arab casualties.

The bottom line of the Palin report of July 1, 1920, was that the Arabs “not entirely” unreasonably feared Jewish immigration and eventual political and economic domination, and that the Zionists had occasionally acted with “indiscretion” and political aggressiveness. At the same time, the report continued, in its complex account of the causes of the crisis, the British, too, through their “nonfulfillment” of promises, had contributed to Arab “alienation and exasperation,” as had deliberate incitement by various Arab leaders and journalists. Taken together, these were the wellsprings of the Arabs’ “panic” and rage. But it was the Arabs—the report concluded—who had resorted to murderous violence and attacked the Jews in “treacherous and cowardly” fashion. The picture painted by the Palin inquiry, despite its clear anti-Zionist bias, was far more complicated, nuanced, and balanced than that conveyed in Pappe’s “history.”

About the 1929 “Temple Mount” riots, which included two large-scale massacres of Jews, in Hebron and in Safed, Pappe writes: “The opposite camp, Zionist and British, was no less ruthless [than the Arabs]. In Jaffa a Jewish mob murdered seven Palestinians.” Actually, there were no massacres of Arabs by Jews, though a number of Arabs were killed when Jews defended themselves or retaliated after Arab violence. Pappe adds that the British “Shaw Commission,” so-called because it was chaired by Sir Walter Shaw (a former chief justice of the Straits Settlements), which investigated the riots, “upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause … was twelve years of pro-Zionist [British] policy.’”

It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell? The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.” The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.” The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.” But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report. In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?

Actually, the thrust of the “Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August, 1929,” which appeared in 1930, is completely contrary to what Pappe asserts (though it does list some non-lethal Jewish provocations—peaceful demonstrations, a newspaper article—as among the immediate triggers of the eruption of the Arab violence). The report states: “The fundamental cause, without which in our opinion disturbances either would not have occurred or would have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future.” As to the riots themselves, the report states: “The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August [the start of the riots] was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established.” The disturbances “took the form, for the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property…. In a few instances, Jews attacked Arabs and destroyed Arab property. These attacks, though inexcusable, were in most cases in retaliation for wrongs already committed by Arabs in the neighborhood in which the Jewish attacks occurred.”

Pappe repeatedly asserts, in order to demonstrate an Arab readiness for conciliation, that the Palestinian leadership in 1920-1922, including Hajj Amin, was “ambiguous” about Zionism and “was willing to compromise.” This is nonsense. Indeed, Hajj Amin was tried and convicted in absentia by a British court for helping to incite the murderous riots of April 1920.

To the deliberate slanting of history Pappe adds a profound ignorance of basic facts. Together these sins and deficiencies render his “histories” worthless as representations of the past, though they are important as documents in the current political and historiographic disputations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pappe’s grasp of the facts of World War I, for example, is weak in the extreme. He writes that the “Ottoman entry into the war was triggered by an incident in the Black Sea in December 1914.” In fact, the Ottoman Empire joined World War I with Russia’s declaration of war on Constantinople on November 1, following the bombardment of Sevastopol on October 29 by the Turkish cruiser “Yavuz Sultan Selim,” which was really the German cruiser Goeben manned by fez-wearing German sailors. Pappe tells us that Hajj Amin was commissioned as an officer in the Ottoman 46th division, at first serving as “assistant division commander to the governor of Smyrna,” thereby betraying his ignorance of the relevant Ottoman administrative and military structures (lieutenants are not “assistant division commanders”). Pappe maintains that Jamal Pasha’s Fourth Army “had failed to cross the Sinai Peninsula” in World War I—but the Turks crossed the peninsula and fought the British on the banks of the Suez Canal on February 2-4, 1915, and in their second invasion of Egypt, in August 1916, they reached Romani, just short of the canal. Pappe maintains that Allenby’s conquest of Jerusalem in December 1917 “concluded the [British] campaign in the Levant,” but of course it didn’t: Allenby’s army went on, in 1918, to conquer the rest of Palestine and Syria. Pappe notes that “the text of the Balfour Declaration remained unpublished” until February 1920, but it was published already in 1917. He refers to Raghib Nashashibi in 1923 as “a member of parliament”—what parliament?

Some of Pappe’s “historical” assertions are, quite obviously, politically motivated, but they are mistakes nonetheless. He refers to “statements made by Jewish and Zionist leaders about the need to build the ‘Third Temple.’” Husaynis often leveled that charge against the Jews, in order to incite the Muslim masses. But which important Zionist leader in the 1920s advocated the construction of a Third Temple? None whom I can name. Later Pappe reinforces this lie by remarking that “Palestinian historiography, including recent work that draws on newly revealed materials, suggests that the mufti’s concern was not baseless, and that there really was a Jewish plan to seize the entire Haram [Temple Mount].” Pappe offers no evidence for this extraordinary assertion.

Fortræffelig, grundig og kildebevidst? På skole- og gymnasielærernes foretrukne infosite Leksikon.org er man i hvert fald af den opfattelse. Her kan man læse ganske injurierende om Herbert Pundiks rolle som krigsforbryder under Israels selvstændighedskrig under overskriften “Historien indhenter «eksperten»” baseret på Pappes forskning.

I 2006 udgav Pundik sin selvbiografi «Det er ikke nok at overleve», hvor han bl.a. fortæller om sin deltagelse i krigen mod palæstinenserne. Han ankom til Palæstina 6. maj 1948 og gjorde tjeneste i Aleksandrinobrigaden. En af de palæstinensiske landsbyer han fortæller om i bogen er Tantura, der lå på kysten mellem Tel Aviv og Jaffa. Han skriver herom:

Da vi ankom til Tantura … var indbyggerne flygtet i deres fiskerbåde, og landsbyen var folketom. Soldaterne der var kommet før os, havde travlt med at tømme husene for de ejendele, araberne havde efterladt. Tantura var en fattig by, og der var ikke meget at stjæle. Senge, skabe og nogle tæpper (…) Vores opgave var at søge efter våben i landsbyen. Vi gik fra hus til hus, rodede rundt efter gemmesteder.

Pundik fortæller videre at en gammel palæstinenser var blevet efterladt, og en sergent var i færd med at tortere ham, mens han afhørte ham om skjulte våben, som den gamle ikke kendte noget til. Manden var skræmt fra vid og sans og blodet løb ned af hans ansigt.

Med denne beretning om krigen skrev Pundik sig ind i den traditionelle israelske mytologi, hvor palæstinenserne forlod deres land af egen fri vilje. Denne myte stemmer blot ikke med den faktuelle historie. Palæstinenserne omtaler selv 1948-49 som «Nakba» (katastrofen), hvor 6-800.000 palæstinenserne blev etnisk udrenset - dræbt eller drevet på flugt. I 1980′erne gav det israelske militær israelske historikere adgang til deres arkiver, og historikerne opdagede nu at den israelske mytos var en løgn. Det var den palæstinensiske historie, der i store træk var korrekt.

En af de israelere der fik adgang til de militære arkiver var den fremtrædende historikere Ilan Pappe. Han skriver i sin bog The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine om Aleksandronibrigaden, at den havde til opgave at «rense» de palæstinensiske byer øst og nord for Tel Aviv. Derefter blev den beordret til at bevæge sig mod nord og sammen med andre enheder affolke den palæstinensiske kystlinie hele vejen op til Jaffa.

Aleksandronibrigaden «rensede» i sidste halvdel af maj - hvor Pundik altså gjorde tjeneste i den - adskillige landsbyer. Nogle få gjorde så kraftig modstand at de måtte opgives i første omgang, men de blev «rensede» i juli. Pappe fortæller bl.a. følgende om hændelserne:

Tantura var en af de største landsbyer som lå ved Middelhavskysten syd for Jaffa. Den havde ca. 1500 indbyggere som levede af fiskeri, landbrug og arbejde i Jaffa. Natten til den 22. maj blev den angrebet af Aleksandronibrigaden. Beboerne gjorde modstand. Der var skyderi fra husene, hvilket gjorde soldaterne rasende. Efter at landsbyboerne havde overgivet sig, drog soldaterne gennem landsbyen og skød folkene inde i husene og på gaderne i en sand blodrus. Indbyggerne blev tvunget ned på stranden. Mænd blev adskilt fra kvinder, og kvinderne blev tvunget til en nærliggende landsby, Furaydis. Mændene blev tvunget til at sætte sig ned og vente på at en efterretningsofficer, Shinson Mashvitz, som boede i bosættelsen Givat Ada i nærheden skulle ankomme.

Mashvitz ankom sammen med en kollaboratør, som havde en hætte over hovedet, og som udpegede nogle af mændene. De udpegede blev ført tilbage til landsbyen og henrettet. Disse mænd var opført i «landsbykartoteket», som var udfærdiget af Jewish Agency for hver eneste landsby i Palæstina. Det var mænd som havde deltaget i palæstinensernes oprør 1936-39, havde deltaget i angreb på zionisterne, havde kontakt til muftien eller andre forhold.

Men disse var ikke de eneste der blev henrettet. Nogle blev afhørt om et større våbendepot, som zionisterne mente skulle befinde sig i byen. Våbendepotet eksisterede imidlertid ikke, og da de afhørte ikke kunne svare blev de skudt på stedet.

De fleste henrettelser skete på stranden og ville være, fortsat hvis ikke folk fra den nærliggende kibbutz Zikhron Yakov var ankommet, og deres leder Yacobo Epstein havde stoppet henrettelserne.

Nogle af de overlevende fra massakren i Tantura bori dag i flygtningelejren Yarmuk i Syrien, og har stadig svære traumer efter deres oplevelser. Flere af dem har fortalt om begivenhederne, og deres beretninger gengives i Pappes bog. De angiver antallet af henrettede til mellem 90 og 125.

Pundik fortæller om to andre landsbyer foruden Tantura. Det drejer sig om Rosh-ha-Ayin og Majdal Zedek, som begge lå i det område der iflg. FN’s delingsplan for Palæstina skulle havde været en del af den palæstinensiske stat. De blev erobret af israelske styrker 11-12. juli 1948 og etnisk rensede. Pundik må enten have fortrængt sin deltagelse i de etniske udrensninger eller fortier den.

Det eneste, der forties er venstrefløjens åbenlyse antisemtisme. Afsløringer af, hvad der virkeligt skete dengang er altid en god historie, men problemet med den slags “nye historikere” er at tidshorisonten er mands minde og dette minde er svært at slette i et åbent samfund. Myter og løgne har derfor ikke gode kår, men enhver tid præger selvfølgelig tolkningen af moral og væsentlighed. Men der fremkommer ikke nyt materiale, der kan revolutionere den store historie . Højst noget, der kan bidrage til mindre kapitlers afklaring. Herhjemme kender vi gennem de seneste par årtier mange forsøg på at beskrive Danmarks beskidte rolle under besættelsen. Alt fra tvangsarbejde, politisk registrering, grådige fiskere og landmænd henover våbenproduktion og entreprenørvirksomhed for værnemagten til danskerne behandling af tyske flygtninge ved krigens slutning og lægeforeningens følgende prioritering af medicin tages med jævne mellemrum op i et forsøg på at gøre Danmark til en skurk på linje med Tyskland (og med flygtningehistorierne endda med tyskerne, som ofre for danskerne). Historierne er gerne ude af proportion og ændrer intet ved det afgørende billede af at det var Tyskland der indvaderede os for at gøre en ende på os som folk med en historie og forsøgte i samme moment at ombringe alle danske jøder. De stedse oikobober, som der er mange af på Danmarks Radio, som altid frembringer en dokumentarfilm hopper dog gladeligt på limpinden og tror hvergang at en interessant nuancering af et enkelt aspekt er en rygende pistol.

Så meget desto værre er det for Israel, hvis eksistensberettigelse konstant drages i tvivl. At tro at man kan finde et dokument, der afslører alle kendte historiske kilder, som ligegyldigt er i bedste fald idiotisk. Men med den iver man kaster sig over folk, som revisionisten Pappe og lignende ligner antisemitisk ønsketænkning. Benny Morris tager i New Republic artiklen Leksikon.org historien om Tantura under behandling

In March 1998, a Haifa University student named Teddy Katz submitted a 211-page master’s thesis titled “The Exodus of Arabs from Villages at the Foot of Southern Mount Carmel in 1948.” It dealt specifically with the fate of two villages, Umm al-Zinat, on the Carmel, and Tantura, on the Mediterranean coast south of Haifa. The main focus was on Tantura. There, argued Katz, a middle-aged kibbutznik and a peace activist, the 33rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade of the Haganah, the main Jewish militia that in the spring of 1948 was transformed into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), on the morning of May 23 massacred about 250 unarmed villagers after conquering the village the night before. Katz described a systematic Nazi-style slaughter of groups of young men shot and dumped into trenches dug by other Arabs who were themselves subsequently shot, while the village’s women and children sat on a beach a few yards away.

Katz had been supervised by a Haifa University historian named Kais Firro, and had been encouraged in his research by Pappe, who served as his spiritual guide. The student had based his thesis on extensive interviews with refugees from Tantura who lived in the West Bank and in Israel, and with veterans of the Alexandroni Brigade. He had not worked in the Haganah or IDF archives, and his massacre story was based on no documentation, Israeli, British, or Arab.

The thesis was awarded a 97 by Firro, a Druze historian, and by two other professors, an Ottomanist and a social scientist—none of them experts on the 1948 war; and in June 2000, Katz was awarded an M.A. “with distinction.” But by then the trouble had already started. In January 2000, the Israeli daily Maariv published a long magazine piece based on the Katz thesis, and on fresh interviews with some of Katz’s interviewees, that in effect supported the massacre allegation. Alexandroni veterans complained, and the following month Maariv published a second piece quoting the veterans at length, in effect denying the massacre allegation. In both pieces, the veterans had denied that a massacre had occurred of the type Katz and some of his Arab interviewees alleged (though some had hinted at “dark deeds” having taken place).

Meanwhile the Alexandroni veterans hired a lawyer (a left-winger who had represented Peace Now in several cases) and sued Katz for libel. Going through Katz’s taped interviews and his thesis, the lawyer, Giora Erdinast, discovered a series of distortions, discrepancies, and outright inventions. When the court was presented with these findings, Katz broke down—some said he suffered a nervous breakdown or a minor stroke—and agreed to recant: “I did not mean to say that there had been a massacre in Tantura…. Today I say there was no massacre at Tantura.” This was in effect accepted by the court as its ruling, and Katz was ordered to publish his recantation. He never did (it was eventually published by the Alexandroni veterans). Instead he recanted his recantation and appealed to Israel’s Supreme Court. But the high court upheld the lower court’s decision.

Parallel to this process, under pressure from several professors, the University of Haifa established a committee to review Katz’s thesis and evidence. It, too, discovered distortions and discrepancies. In his thesis Katz had “quoted” passages that did not appear in his interview tapes. The university annulled the thesis, but allowed Katz to submit a revised version. In September 2002, Katz resubmitted his thesis, now expanded to 568 pages. Again, inexplicably, he was supervised by Firro. He corrected the misquotations but he remained unrepentant: the Alexandroni troops, he still claimed, had massacred dozens, perhaps hundreds, at Tantura on May 23, 1948.

The university appointed a committee of five examiners. But again it bungled the matter. Two of them were clearly not experts on 1948, and two of the others had a few years earlier published (along with a third historian) an apologetic book effectively clearing the IDF of a massacre in Lydda during the 1948 war. Three of the examiners gave the thesis less than a 75, effectively failing it. The university authorities then compromised again and awarded Katz an M.A.—but of the “non-research” variety, preventing him from pushing on to a Ph.D. within its precincts.

Both times around, Katz had produced a poor piece of work. But this did not mean that there had been no massacre in Tantura. I decided to look into the matter myself, starting with the archives. I found that there is no evidence in the available documentation to show that there was a large-scale or systematic massacre in Tantura. And this is strange, indeed unique, if such a massacre had occurred, because in the case of all the other known massacres of Arabs that occurred in 1948, there is some sort of written corroborative evidence—an IDF report; a British, American, or United Nations cable; a monitored Arab radio transmission. About some of the Israeli massacres—Deir Yassin in April 1948, Dawayima and Eilaboun in October 1948—there are multiple and detailed reports in available Israeli, British, and United Nations documentation. (In recent months the IDF archive has inexplicably and illogically re-classified much of the Deir Yassin material that was open to researchers in the early 2000s.)

Regarding Tantura, there is written evidence that there were small-scale atrocities during and perhaps after the conquest of the village, including the shooting of a handful of captured Arab snipers. And one IDF document, from June 1948, obliquely speaks about an act of “sabotage” in the village, without further explication. But no document even obliquely mentions a “massacre.” There is not a single piece of written evidence from 1948 asserting a large-scale massacre (and 250 dead would have constituted the largest massacre to have occurred in the 1948 war).

Hvis det drejer sig om bevidst at fordreje sine kilder er Pappe fortræffelig. Pappes sensationelle historieskrivning, der er et opgør med en gigantisk zionistisk løgn/myte, som Israel har spundet om sig selv og resten af verden ind, i lægger sig i flugt med venstrefløjens nedarvede anelser om jøder og dermed Israel, som dem der lyver os andre noget i øret.

Er der noget værre end debat når man bare skal løse et problem? “Klimadebat forhindrer os i at handle” hedder en overskrift på Videnskab.dk og her argumenteres der med sin egen indforståede forudsætning

»Når vi taler om klima på den måde, hvor det bliver til kontrovers frem for konsensus, resulterer det i en handlingslammelse; vi tror, at vi ikke kan ændre noget uden først at ændre på alt, og det kan vi ikke overskue,« siger Lars Kjerulf Petersen, seniorforsker ved Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, der har forsket i retorik og sprogbrug omkring klima og miljø.

(…)

I Danmark er skepsissen over for klima ikke så udbredt som i USA, og blandt politikere har de fleste anerkendt, at klimaudfordringen er reel nok. Alligevel går klimadiskussionen i høj grad stadigvæk på, OM der er et problem, frem for, hvad der skal gøres ved det.

Blandt andet hos Dansk Folkeparti høster man stemmer på at være skeptiske. Og det er problematisk, mener Lars Kjerulf Petersen.

Kommer der ikke en konsensus omkring klimaudfordringen, vil det ramme samfundet senere hen. For uenigheden forhindrer debatten om praktiske tiltag, der kan afhjælpe de stigende problemer.

Samtidig bidrager den fortsatte uenighed til den følelse af handlingslammelse, som mange borgere oplever på grund af klimadiskussionens retorik. Men følelsen af handlingslammelse kommer lige så meget fra klimaudfordringens omfang og rækkevidde.

“Well I think all right thinking people are wrong!” Sådan er det besværlige demokrati desværre. Når vi nu godt ved, hvad der er rigtigt, godt og nødvendigt så hindres et ordentligt konsensus af de skidderrikker, der er uenige. Og det er et problem. Men det er endnu værre i USA! Godt at vide. Men hvad skal man dog gøre?

»Det saglige indhold skal i fokus. Det er vigtigt at slå fast, at der er et problem, som skal anerkendes. Men i et sprog, der tror på, at udfordringen kan overkommes,« fortæller Lars Kjerulf Petersen.

Samtidig efterlyser han, at klimadebatten flytter ind i nogle andre arenaer. Hidtil har den kun befundet sig på nyhedernes flade, men Lars Kjerulf Petersen vil have den ind i fiktionen og i de rådgivningsudsendelser på TV, der er blevet så populære de senere år.

»Vi har brug for nogle rollemodeller, der ikke er afdankede hippier eller frelste, men almindelige kvinder og mænd, der beviser, at klimaudfordringen kan løftes,« siger han.

For nu at blive ved det saglige indhold så gennemgår fysikeren Richard Muller i nedenstående forelæsning bl.a. hvor meget fiktionen i første omgang er flyttet ind i beviserne

Hele forelæsningen kan ses her. Men som sagt skulle det ikke handle om den satans debat når vi uanset de plantede beviser genkender en skurk når vi ser en. Og Google tager debatten ind eller rettere ud af de gængse arenaer. Fra Solve Climate News (via Watts Up With That)

Climate change skeptics who have created a political megaphone in Washington may finally meet their match in the world’s largest search engine.

Google.org, the technology giant’s philanthropic arm, has hand-picked a team of 21 fellows working in climate research to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated to the public and lawmakers through new media.

“We are seeing very clearly with climate change that our policy choices are currently not grounded in knowledge and understanding,” said Paul Higgins, a Google fellow and an associate policy director for the American Meteorological Society.

(…)

“People who are opposed to regulation … [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They’re trying to prove that there is an argument going on,” he said. “They’re just trying to create noise.”

Higgins of AMS said that depending on their political beliefs, lawmakers have used skepticism or affirmation of climate science to stall or advance progress on partisan policy issues — such as the EPA’s “tailoring” rules or cap-and-trade schemes for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

For him, passing or rejecting the House amendments is less important than whether lawmakers actually understand climate science and are thoughtfully considering the risks of inaction.

“If we were well informed as a society — and if policymakers were well informed — then they would be taking the risk that climate change should be taken seriously.”

Higgins pointed out that the Google fellowship is geared just as much toward influencing those who believe that climate change poses serious consequences, but may not yet grasp the science.

(…)

Throughout the year, the Google fellows will sharpen their new media skills, learn data-sharing technologies and improve communication strategies to lend a more accessible approach to climate science.

Following a workshop in June, fellows will have the chance to apply for grants to support projects fostering scientific dialogue. Future participants will take on other socially relevant topics tied to science and the environment.

“The public’s understanding of science across all disciplines is extremely low, because the scientific community is really siloed from the community in general,” Amy Luers, Google’s senior environment program manager, told SolveClimate News.

“If the scientists understand [data] in a different way than the public does, it is impossible to see how this information is going to be integrated in the way it needs to be to make policy and management decisions,” she said.

Liberal rubbish!

Jordskælvet i Japan har, som måske bekendt efterladt et atomkraftværk i en noget kritisk tilstand. Og bortset fra at nogle har set jordskælvet, som endnu et tegn på global opvarmning så har reaktionerne selvfølgelig fåret debatten om atomkraft og sikkerhed til at blusse op igen. Ulykken i Japan kan være afgørende for debatten, men der vil ikke helt være tale om et “make or break” for atomkraftteknologiens fremtid.

For det første er teknologien alt for rationel til at lade ligge på grund af noget vesterlandsk hysteri og en eventuel ulykke vil blot sinke en masse projekter i vores del af verden. For det andet er ulykken udløst af en ekstrem og udefrakommende faktor - et kæmpe jordskævl og efterfølgende en kæmpe tsunami. Men hvis japanerne formår at holde atomulykke fra døren vil a-kraften have bestået en gevaldig og helt urimelig prøve, for hvad ville alternative have været? En læser på Pajamas Media giver et bud

If the tsunami had hit a solar farm instead, “10,000’s of Lbs of lead and cadmium telluride would have been swept into the Sea of Japan poisoning just about everything”.

Den tanke vil næppe dominere debatten i øjeblikket, hvor Merkel - baseret på de japanske jordskævlserfaringer tyskerne aldrig vil gøre sig - vil slukke en række atomkraftværker. Men ulykken i Japan er uheldig i mere end en forstand. Fra Slate

Japan’s plants were designed to withstand quakes and tsunamis, but not a combination of this magnitude. At the affected facilities, the quake knocked out the primary cooling systems, and the tsunami wiped out the backup diesel generators. Then a valve malfunction thwarted efforts to pump water into one of the reactors. Everything that could go wrong did.

Despite this, the reactor containers have held firm. The explosions around them have blown outward, relieving pressure, as designed. Meanwhile, plant operators, deprived of their primary and secondary power sources for cooling the cores, have tapped batteries and deployed alternate generators. To relieve pressure, they’ve released vapor. And in some cases, they’ve pumped seawater and boric acid into the reactors, destroying them to protect the public. Cooling systems are back online at two previously impaired reactors, and a backup pump has averted cooling problems at a third plant.

The reactor where the crisis began, Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1, is one of Japan’s oldest. It was two weeks from its 40-year expiration date when the quake hit. Similar plants in the United States have been upgraded to ensure that in the event of power failure, water can still be pumped in to cool them. And nuclear plants are indisputably getting safer. Since 1990, worker radiation exposure and automatic reactor shutdowns worldwide have declined by a factor of three. According to an analysis last year by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, plants being constructed by today’s standards are 1,600 times safer than early nuclear plants, in terms of the predicted frequency of a large radiation leak. Even if a reactor core is damaged, as in Japan, the NEA report notes that today, “the probability of a release to the environment is about ten times less than that of core damage,” thanks to improvements in fuel, circuits, and containment.

Mon ikke japanerne med deres lange erfaring med jordskælv har en del ekspertise at trække på? Men har iranerne også det? Fra Bloomberg

A shattered cooling pump at Iran’s only civilian nuclear-power reactor, forcing a shutdown during its initial start-up phase, has renewed safety concerns about the hybrid Russian-German power plant on the Persian Gulf coast.

The 1000-megawatt power plant at Bushehr combines a German- designed plant begun under the rule of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1970’s and Russian technology installed over the last decade. Safety questions have raised concern among some nuclear-power experts and in neighboring countries such as Kuwait, which is vulnerable in the event of a radiation leak since it is downwind about 170 miles (275 kilometers).

(…)

Nuclear experts cite potential safety issues due to the hybrid design, Iranian nuclear inexperience, the Islamic state’s reluctance to join international safety monitoring programs, and the unknown reliability of some of the original components.

(…)

Bushehr also sits at the junction of three tectonic plates, raising concerns that an earthquake could damage the plant and crack its containment dome, or disrupt the electrical supply needed to keep it safe, said Dr. Jassem al-Awadi, a geologist at the University of Kuwait. Bushehr was hit with a 4.6 magnitude temblor in 2002.

En trøst for iranerne og deres naboer er at konsekvenserne af radioaktiv stråling og nedfald fra atomulykker er stærkt overdrevne i den offentlige debat, som Spiegel fortæller.

Groups of researchers have set up shop at all of the sites of nuclear accidents or major nuclear contamination. They work at Hanford (where the United States began producing plutonium in 1944), they conduct studies in the English town of Sellafield (where a contaminated cloud escaped from the chimney in 1957), and they study the fates of former East German uranium mineworkers in the states of Saxony and Thuringia. New mortality rates have now been compiled for all of these groups of individuals at risk. Surprisingly, the highest mortality rates were found among the East German mineworkers.

In Hiroshima, on the other hand, radioactivity claimed surprisingly few human lives. Experts now know exactly what happened in the first hours, days and weeks after the devastating atomic explosion. Almost all of Hiroshima’s 140,000 victims died quickly. Either they were crushed immediately by the shock wave, or they died within the next few days of acute burns.

But the notorious radiation sickness — a gradual ailment that leads to certain death for anyone exposed to radiation levels of 6 Gray or higher — was rare. The reason is that Little Boy simply did not produce enough radioactivity. But what about the long-term consequences? Didn’t the radiation work like a time bomb in the body?

To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.

Today, 60 years later, the study’s results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

• 87 died of leukemia;

• 440 died of tumors;

• and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.

• In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.

Such statistics have attracted little notice so far. The numbers cited in schoolbooks are much higher. According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, 105,000 people died of the “long-term consequences of radiation.”

Miners in an East German uranium mine were heavily exposed to radon. ”For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated the health risks of radioactivity,” says Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist. “But contrary to widespread opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands.”

Especially surprising, though, is that the stories of birth defects in newborns are also pure fantasy. The press has repeatedly embellished photos of a destroyed Hiroshima with those of deformed children, children without eyes or with three arms. In reality, there hasn’t been a single study that provides evidence of an elevated rate of birth defects.

A final attempt to establish a connection is currently underway in Japan. The study includes 3,600 people who were unborn fetuses in their mothers’ wombs on that horrific day in August 1945. But it too has failed to furnish any evidence of elevated chromosomal abnormality.

In Germany, where nuclear fears have coalesced with the fear of dying forests and mad cow disease into a general psychosis of threat, the degree of concern over nuclear radiation remains high. To this day, some are so fearful about the long-term effects of fallout from Chernobyl that they refuse to eat mushrooms from Bavaria. Even 20 years ago such behavior would not have made sense.

Officially 47 people — members of the emergency rescue crews — died in Chernobyl from exposure to lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough. “But overall the amount of radiation that escaped was simply too low to claim large numbers of victims,” explains Kellerer.

The iodine 131 that escaped from the reactor did end up causing severe health problems in Ukraine. It settled on meadows in the form of a fine dust, passing through the food chain, from grass to cows to milk, and eventually accumulating in the thyroid glands of children. About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died — thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on.

Eller “More people died at Chappaquiddick than 3 Mile Island”, som et valgkampsslogan angiveligt engang lød.

Fra Politiken

England er mit andet hjem.

Jeg har i mere end 30 år været lykkeligt gift med en englænder. Det selvfølgelige dagligsprog i mit hjem er engelsk. Vi får hyppige besøg fra vor store engelske familie – og vi er på den anden side ustandselig i England.

Indimellem er vi nødt til at køre i bil derover, så vi kan få fyldt bagagerummet med PG-tea, mintsauce, custardpowder, mincemeat, John Smith-bitter, stuffing og xmas-cake …

Jo, jeg elsker England! Så meget mere smertefuldt er det for mig at ane, at det bliver England, som kommer til at gennemleve den næste borgerkrig i et europæisk land. Jeg sanser i luften vreden, uforsonligheden – hadet på begge sider i den konflikt, der er på vej, og det gør mig trist at tænke på, at man ikke i tide tog sagen alvorligt.

Og når volden rammer gaden vil Politikensegmentet stadig høre de samme toner

Der synes at være generel enighed om at den danske EU klimakommisær Connie Hedegaard er så dygtig, så dygtig. Måske, men at hun virker, som en der i hvert fald læser lektier og således er velforberedt på arbejdets forudsigelige udfordringer er måske point scoret på den billige baggrund, der synes at være vores sande ledere, folkene i kommissionen. James Delingpole gør i Telegraph opmærksom på et morsomt interview - som Delingpole mener kandiderer til det bedste interview overhovedet - med Jill Duggan

Is this the best five minutes of radio in the history of broadcasting? I think it might be. Have a listen and judge for yourself.

It’s an Australian interview with Jill Duggan, a British woman who you almost certainly won’t have heard of, but who yet holds the economic future of an entire continent in her grasp. As an expert on carbon markets for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action, Duggan will help mastermind the EU’s bold – and massively expensive – plans to reduce Europe’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. In the process she will of course destroy every last vestige of 550 million people’s economic future: but until now – as is evident from her stumbling and surprise – no one has really called her on it.

(…)

First, they ask, what the expected cost is of this grand Europe-wide scheme to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Duggan says she doesn’t have a figure. So her interviewers put to her the estimate by (non-sceptic) Richard Tol: $250 billion.

Next they ask what she hopes to achieve by spending all this money. What will be the reduction in global temperatures? Duggan again isn’t quite sure but knows that “the models show” that in order to have an even chance of lowering temperatures by 2 per cent CO2 emissions must be reduced by 50 per cent by 2050. Duggan then concedes that this will not be possible if the EU nations act unilaterally since they only contribute 14 per cent of total global carbon emissions.

Her interviewers try again. Does Duggan know what the estimated effect on global temperatures will be if Europe goes it alone in its carbon emissions reduction campaign? Her interviewers tell her 0.05 degrees C by 2100.

“You’re in charge of a massive programme to rejig an economy and you don’t know what it costs and you don’t know what it will achieve,” says Bolt.

Duggan changes tack. She claims that “a million” green jobs have been created in Germany; and that many hundreds of thousands of green jobs are going to be created in Britain. “Really?” wonders Bolt. That would seem to contradict the real world evidence which shows that, far from creating jobs, government “investment” in renewable energy is in fact destroying jobs in the real economy.

Og jeg må tilføje at heller ikke jeg kan stå for at Duggan imødegår interviewerens referencer til de undersøgelser, der hidtil er lavet over de reelle konsekvenser med at man altid kan finde modeller og undersøgelser, der siger alt muligt. Sikke et forsvar for hendes eget udvalg af modeller og undersøgelser. At de virkelige erfaringer så går hende imod er selvfølgelig irrelevant, som det at vide, hvad man overhovedet foretager sig og hvorfor. Bare sagen er god og intet er, som bekendt, bedre end at redde Jorden fra en federe sommerferie.

Enlig svale gør jo ingen sommer og en idiot i toppen af systemet fortæller intet om dets gestalt. Men alligevel - i forbindelse med det seneste jordskælv i Japan udtrykker kommisær af EESC Staffan Nilsson sin dybeste medfølese, uvidenhed og usmagelighed med denne officielle udtalelse

On behalf of the EESC, I should like to express my sympathy with all the families of the victims in Japan. We stand shoulder to shoulder with all the people now struggling with the unfolding devastating effects of the earthquake in the Pacific region.

(…)

The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity – not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do.

Yes, japserne skal høre om klimaforandringer midt denne svære tid. Det er som at se Jehovas Vidner tudse rundt på hospitalsgangene i et kreativt forsøg på at arrangere rettelser i de potentielt døendes testamenter. Om sammenkædningen mellem jordskælv og klimaforandringer skyldes at Japan ikke vil forlænge Kyoto-protokollen ved jeg ikke, men den er i hvert fald ikke gængs videnskab - endnu. Måske den kære kommisær vil støtte oprørerne i Libyen med samme taktfuldhed? Og hvorfor stoppe der? Biluheld er vel en advarsel om at vores kostvaner er uhensigtmæssige og retfærdiggør en fedtskat og et fiberfradrag.

Man må spørge, som Nigel Farage “Who are you? Who voted for you? And what mechanism do the people of Europe have to remove you?”

Måske kan vi se frem til en geopolitisk gamechanger for det viser sig tilsyneladende at Israel sidder på gigantiske naturgas og olieforekomster. Fra Jerusalem Post

First, the gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean, which began to produce commercial quantities of natural gas in 2004, are generally well-known. The Tamar field, which should begin production in 2013, is expected to supply all of Israel’s domestic requirements for at least 20 years. The Economist suggested in November 2010 that the recently discovered Leviathan field, which has twice the gas of Tamar, could be completely devoted to exports.

All the undersea gas fields together have about 25 trillion cubic feet of gas, but the potential for further discoveries is considerably greater, given that the US Geological Survey estimates that there are 122 trillion cubic feet of gas in the whole Levant Basin, most of which is within Israel’s jurisdiction.

After the Leviathan discovery these numbers could go up further. Perhaps for that reason, Greece has been talking to Israel about creating a transportation hub for distributing gas throughout Europe from the Eastern Mediterranean that will come from undersea pipelines.

What is less well-known, but even more dramatic, is the work being done on this country’s oil shale. The British-based World Energy Council reported in November 2010 that Israel had oil shale from which it is possible to extract the equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil. Yet these numbers are currently undergoing a major revision internationally.

A new assessment was released late last year by Dr. Yuval Bartov, chief geologist for Israel Energy Initiatives, at the yearly symposium of the prestigious Colorado School of Mines. He presented data that our oil shale reserves are actually the equivalent of 250 billion barrels (that compares with 260 billion barrels in the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).

Independent oil industry analysts have been carefully looking at the shale, and have not refuted these findings. As a consequence of these new estimates, we may emerge as the third largest deposit of oil shale, after the US and China.

OIL SHALE mining used to be a dirty business that used up tremendous amounts of water and energy.

Yet new technologies, being developed for Israeli shale, seek to separate the oil from the shale rock 300 meters underground; these techniques actually produce water, rather than use it up.

Det betyder dog først og fremmest at den i forvejen udskældte olieindustri vil blive endnu mere dæmoniseret af venstrefløjen nu når den også kan assoscieres med jøder. De vil argumentere at Israel mere end noget andet land står bag klimaforandringer. Og det vil vel næppe hjælpe jøderne at adoptere Obama’s retorik “Climate-change! Yes we can!”. Men ikke desto mindre, olie er magt og jo mere andre får del i den jo mindre er der tilbage til araberne og iranerne. Spændende om de i så fald vil udvikle højteknologi, som modsvar.

Fra Washington Times

Yesterday, National Public Radio President and CEO Vivian Schiller took to the National Press Club’s stage to make the case to save the generous taxpayer funding of the left-leaning radio network. Today, her effort may collapse at the hands of the same journo-activist who lay waste to ACORN with little more than a camera and a pimp outfit.

The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket has obtained the complete 2-hour video of the latest sting by James O’Keefe’s organization in which a representative of the pro-Sharia, but entirely fictitious ,“Muslim Education Action Center” sits down with NPR’s chief fundraiser, Ron Schiller (no relation to Vivian), for a two-hour lunch at Cafe Milano. Mr. Schiller allegedly agreed to the meeting in the hopes of landing a large donation from the group that told Mr. Schiller it had ties to the violent Muslim Brotherhood. 

 The Washington Times’ Water Cooler blog’s exclusive excerpts from the video reveal a culture in public broadcasting where firing Juan Williams isn’t debatable, the Tea Party is obviously racist, conservative activists aren’t real Christians and America’s uneducated have too much political power.

p>

Og så blev der fulgt op med en afdækning af, hvorledes klimadebatten skal vinkles, igen mens man åd. Fra Washington Times

Senior Vice President of NPR Ron Schiller met with individuals he believed to be potential donors. However, undercover video was running during this meeting. In the following clip, Mr. Schiller and his co-worker Betsy Liley describe how NPR covers those who deny climate change is happening.

Ms. Liley talks about a donor who would only give to NPR if the outlet did not talk to those who believe climate change is not happening:

“This funder said to us, ‘ you know you would like us to support your environmental coverage, but we really don’t want to give you money if you’re going to talk to the people who think climate change is not happening,’” Ms. Liley recounted.

Konsensus er et selvforstærkende begreb. Hvad der i en periode er et flertal glider med ideologisk iver over i uomgængelig sandhed, der implicit kriminaliserer skepsis.

I en tale til Max-Planck-Gesellschaft sagde den tidligere vesttyske kansler ifølge Global Warming Foundation bl.a

In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are also concerned, at the same time, by the phenomenon of global warming and its alleged consequences. We know that there have always been naturally occurring ice ages and warm periods; what we don’t know is how significant the human-induced contribution to present and future global warming is and will be.

The climate policy adopted by many governments is still in its infancy. The publications provided by an international group of scientists (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) have encountered skepticism, especially since some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger). In any case, some governments’ publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed.

It seems to me that the time has come that one of our top scientific organisations should scrutinise, under the microscope, the work of the IPCC, in a critical and realistical way, and then present the resulting conclusions to the German public in a comprehensible manner.

Det er selvfølgelig en hyggelig tanke at Schmidt stadig er i blandt os, men problemet med klimapanelet er at dets opgave ikke er videnskabelig, men politisk at finde argumenter til at reducere menneskets udledning af CO2. At de fremlagte beviser er tyndbenede og i enkelte tilfælde konstruerede er blot, hvad anstrengelserne kunne blive til. Eller med IPCCs egen formand Rajendra Pachauri egne ord, som de faldt i et interview med Times of India

Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making.

De har gjort, hvad de blev bedt om så godt de kunne.

Rasmus Grue Christensen, Sekretariatschef fra Ungdommens Røde Kors relativiserer uhæmmet i Weekendavisen den 4. marts:

Når man vil levere nuancer i tidens klaustrofobiske værdidebatklima, synes man tvunget til at slå korsets tegn inden ordet kan flyde. Derfor: Jeg har naturligvis ingen som helst sympatier for Hamas. Tværtimod. Men når Klaus Wivel og Frederik Stjernfelt i forskellige artikler i Weekendavisen postulerer, at Hamas benyttede valgsejren i de besatte områder til straks at demontere det palæstinensiske demokrati og kuppe sig til magten i Gaza, er det udtryk for en tendentiøs forsimpling. Historien rummer mellemregninger og et mere ubestemt facit om politisk islam og demokrati. Hamas vandt det palæstinensiske parlamentsvalg i begyndelsen af 2006 blandt andet på krav om mindre korruption. I stedet for at forsøge at engagere og styrke de moderate kræfter i Hamas besluttede Israel og det internationale samfund uden tøven at straffe den nyvalgte regering med økonomiske sanktioner, arrestationer af politikere, yderligere restriktioner af palæstinensernes bevægelsesfrihed samt leverancer af våben, kapital og træning til den sekulære oppositions sikkerhedsstyrker. Resultatet blev en komplet forkrøblet regering, en intern styrkelse af de radikale kræfter i Hamas samt voksende konfrontationer mellem de palæstinensiske partier. Da den økonomiske krise og Fatahs militære oprustning blev helt åbenlys, iværksatte Hamas i juni 2007 en bestialsk militær magtovertagelse i Gaza. Som reaktion har Fatah og PLO marginaliseret Hamas på Vestbredden. Der knytter sig store udfordringer til det Muslimske Broderskabs engagement i det politiske liv i Mellemøsten. Men man kan ikke anvende de palæstinensiske erfaringer fra 2006-7 – hvor broderskabet ellers fik deres debut på de bonede regeringsgulve – som en indikation. Hamas fik aldrig en reel mulighed for at regere og dermed verificere eller falsificere antagelsen om de islamiske partiers forstenede autoritanisme. The judge is still out. Banaliseringer hjælper os ikke i dilemmaerne om politisk islam og demokrati.

Stormagterne og Israel besluttede i 2006 at indføre sanktioner mod terrororganisationen Hamas. En velovervejet beslutning og al snak om at alliere sig med de ”moderate kræfter” i Hamas er en politisk dødssejler, lige så vel som det er ubegribeligt at man skulle støtte de moderate kræfter i Den Lysende Sti eller i blandt Khmer Rouge. Myten er at Palæstinenserne kunne skabe et bæredygtigt samfund, hvis omstændighederne var bedre. Og med bedre menes ideelle. For er omstændighederne ikke ideelle, foreligger der en undskyldning for at bruge vold, tortur og undertrykkelse, og omstændighederne er aldrig ideelle. Sådan er palæstinensen. Og jo,- antagelsen om forstenet autoritarisme blev bekræftet. Både Fatah og Hamas smed hinandens tilhængere ud fra tagene på de højeste bygninger i Gaza i månederne efter valget. Et demokrati eller andet styre skal ikke bedømmes på den måde det agerer under gunstige forhold, men hvordan styret agerer under pres. Faktum er at palæstinenserne ikke kan eller vil finde et rum hvor politisk uenighed kan eksistere.
Hvor vidt der findes “… et ubestemt facit om politisk islam og demokrati” afhænger af om man kan deducere logisk (bemærk tautologien “politisk islam”). Eller om man gider læse koranen. Alle islamiske tænkere som vil inkorporere demokratiet ender altid med en hybrid der ikke er demokrati, men et skamdemokrati. Den store islamiske tænker Mawdudi kaldte sin version af “politisk islam” for et teo-demokrati, men det skulle også være et kalifat; altså et skamdemokrati.

Her er en lille mellemregning. Husk det er meget kompliceret.

The judge is still out indeed!

Venstrefløjens Hamas vandt valget i det absolut mest demokratiske valg i Mellemøsten (Israel undtaget da de slet ikke burde eksistere) og straks skød valgsejren ind og smed deres politiske modstandere ud af deres kontorer - gennem vinduet rent faktisk. Men der er også en økonomi af forvalte og det er dyrt at undertrykke sin egen befolkning. Fra Ma’an News Agency

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — The Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are at loggerheads again after the Palestinian Monetary Authority accused security forces in Gaza of robbing a bank.

The PMA announced Thursday that all banks in the Gaza Strip would close following a robbery at the Palestine Investment Bank in Gaza City.

Authority deputy Muhammad Manasreh told Ma’an that Gaza government officials stole $340,000 from the bank over two days.

On Tuesday, an official from the Hamas-led Ministry of Interior seized $90,000 from the bank by force after bank employees refused to honor a check due to insufficient funds in the account, Manasreh said.

The following day, the same official tried to cash a check for $250,000. Again, bank staff refused to honor the check due to insufficient funds. An argument erupted and cashiers called senior Hamas officials who failed to resolve the dispute, the PMA official added.

He said the bank was later raided by armed government security forces who seized $250,000.

Måske det skulle være S-SF’s plan B efter valget?

Nu ledes Danmark officielt kun af mennesker, der aldrig er blevet opdraget af deres forældre til at fungere i livet, men i stedet socialiseret ind i institutioner for at kunne orientere sig i det pædagogisk ideologiske univers. Det fremgår så tydeligt af den måde vi håndterer pirater på ifølge Jyllands-Posten

Danske krigsskibe medbringer bedetæpper og koraner, så tilbageholdte pirater kan udøve deres religion.

Jamen, ville de fleste af os sikkert indvende og pege på pædofeten Muhammeds plyndringer af de mekkanske karavaner, var det ikke netop deres røverreligion, som fik dem tilbageholdt i første omgang? Hvad blev der af kølhalning (på en supertanker helst), at gå planken ud, den nihalede kat og hængning i rånokken? Alle gode og gennemprøvede pædagogiske øvelser, der var virket så fint da vi opbyggede civilisationen.

Man går dog med til at bygge nogle fængsler (åbne velsagtens, med faste luderbesøg og fri i weekenden) så man har et sted at gøre af dem og et sted, hvor socialpædagogerne og sagsbehandlerne bedre kan mødes i nærheden af en kaffemaskine. Fra Jyllands-Posten

Efter tre års forgæves kamp mod piraterne fra Somalia giver juristerne nu grønt lys for byggeriet af to nye piratfængsler. Danmark er klar med penge.

Ja det er vi altid klar med penge. For vi regner altid med at det er naboens, der er tale om eller i det mindste de få, der stadig er ansat i det privete. Bliver det mere dansk, end altid at være klar med pengene? Flere hænder, mere i løn, mere i bistand, mere velfærd, de rige skal betale, mindre hjerne, gerningsmænd er de sande ofre…

Praktisk taget sakset fra Elder Of Zion. Stifteren af menneskerettighedsorganisationen Human Rights Watch (HRW) Robert L Bernstein har stiftet en ny menneskerettighedsorganisation Advanced Human Rights (AHR).

AHR will return to the fundamentals of human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  CyberDissidents.org and Straight Talk on Human Rights, a new platform for common sense analysis, will form the initial programs of AHR.

“We will focus on women’s rights and free speech,” Bernstein noted.  ”These two rights—the spearhead of most totalitarian repression—are so important because where they are absent, achieving the other very important human rights is practically impossible.  We will, of course, go into closed societies.”

“Now that these closed societies are exploding,” he continued, “they will need every ounce of the human rights community’s attention so that we don’t have another Iran.”

Og som en smækken med døren overfor hans tidligere organisation udtaler Bernstein videre.

Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide. I understand giving hate speech a lot of latitude in an open society where it is sure to be criticized - but in a closed society it goes unanswered and encouraged by the government, governments that control all the media.

If I’ve misinterpreted the positions of these human rights organizations, I’m happy to be corrected.

Human Rights Watch believes it is its job to protect civilians on both sides in a war. This is where we really disagree. In the Israel-Palestine conflict they cannot protect either side for reasons Colonel Kemp will address. Worse, their methodology which is to analyze a war after it is over is flawed and in my view its staff has little knowledge of the realities of asymmetric war and makes accusations of war crimes where others would understand the sad collateral damage of war. In the Israel-Palestine war, it seems to me, the Israelis are usually the party accused. Hamas, I believe, is fighting a war of attrition, and doesn’t subscribe to the Geneva conventions etc. I will leave the rest to Colonel Kemp.

The other reasons why a new organization is desirable will be spelled out in the near future when we will issue what I would call a “white paper” outlining them. We will then move on in our own way, leaving open societies to fend for themselves most of the time. When we are critical, we will note that while open societies must maintain the highest standards, even when they slip, they start from a much higher standard. In judging open societies you can be sure there will be more than one judge.

Held og lykke med det projekt.

The New Yorker havde for et par måneder siden en rasende interessant artikel om videnskabelige bevisers skrøbelighed. Man har gennem længere tid registreret det foruroligende fænomen, at videnskabelige beviser kan forsvinde over tid efterhånden, som man udfører flere forsøg. Artiklen fokuserer især på medicinske forsøg, hvor en ny generation af psykofarmaka tegnede en revolution inden for behandlingen af sindslidelser, men efterhånden, som flere forsøg blev lavet dalede de ellers lovende resultater, forsøg for forsøg indtil de nye midler ikke var stort bedre end de gamle.

This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades.

(…)

According to Ioannidis, the main problem is that too many researchers engage in what he calls “significance chasing,” or finding ways to interpret the data so that it passes the statistical test of significance—the ninety-five-per-cent boundary invented by Ronald Fisher. “The scientists are so eager to pass this magical test that they start playing around with the numbers, trying to find anything that seems worthy,” Ioannidis says. In recent years, Ioannidis has become increasingly blunt about the pervasiveness of the problem. One of his most cited papers has a deliberately provocative title: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. “It feels good to validate a hypothesis,” Ioannidis said. “It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that’s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven”—he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins—“you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.”

That’s why Schooler argues that scientists need to become more rigorous about data collection before they publish. “We’re wasting too much time chasing after bad studies and underpowered experiments,” he says. The current “obsession” with replicability distracts from the real problem, which is faulty design. He notes that nobody even tries to replicate most science papers—there are simply too many. (According to Nature, a third of all studies never even get cited, let alone repeated.) “I’ve learned the hard way to be exceedingly careful,” Schooler says. “Every researcher should have to spell out, in advance, how many subjects they’re going to use, and what exactly they’re testing, and what constitutes a sufficient level of proof. We have the tools to be much more transparent about our experiments.”

In a forthcoming paper, Schooler recommends the establishment of an open-source database, in which researchers are required to outline their planned investigations and document all their results. “I think this would provide a huge increase in access to scientific work and give us a much better way to judge the quality of an experiment,” Schooler says. “It would help us finally deal with all these issues that the decline effect is exposing.”

(…)

While Karl Popper imagined falsification occurring with a single, definitive experiment—Galileo refuted Aristotelian mechanics in an afternoon—the process turns out to be much messier than that. Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. Verbal overshadowing might exhibit the decline effect, but it remains extensively relied upon within the field. The same holds for any number of phenomena, from the disappearing benefits of second-generation antipsychotics to the weak coupling ratio exhibited by decaying neutrons, which appears to have fallen by more than ten standard deviations between 1969 and 2001. Even the law of gravity hasn’t always been perfect at predicting real-world phenomena. (In one test, physicists measuring gravity by means of deep boreholes in the Nevada desert found a two-and-a-half-per-cent discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the actual data.) Despite these findings, second-generation antipsychotics are still widely prescribed, and our model of the neutron hasn’t changed. The law of gravity remains the same.

Jeg kan ikke lade være med at tænke på klimadebatten i denne sammenhæng. Vores lidt uheldige evne til ubevidst at konstruere den virkelighed vi gerne vil bekræfte forklarer måske hvorfor nogle tror på en klimakatastrofe. Eller måske forklarer det, hvorfor vi er nogle der afviser det. Men det forklarer i hvert fald, hvorfor debatten er så ophedet og fronterne så stejle.

Mere vigtigt bærer det først og fremmest en advarsel til politikerne om ikke at lade sig rive med af, hvad der meget vel kan være en bogstavtro tro på videnskabens evne til at lede os. Som artiklen slutter “When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe”. Og for de, der går med hovedet oppe i røven er enden altid nær. Videnskab er en søgen og ikke en sandhed og jeg vil op til og hen over weekenden komme med et par opfølgende posteringer dels for at uddybe denne pointe og dels fordi jeg har en barnlig lyst til at lave “en serie artikler”. Hele New Yorker-artikelen kan selvfølgelig varmt anbefales.

Og hvorfor havde Danmark en Michael Laudrup?