Konfliktens rod

Antisemitisme, Forbrydelse og straf, Israel, islam — Drokles on April 13, 2009 at 12:47 am

Caroline Glick skriver indsigtsfuldt i Jerusalem Post om et grufuldt drab på en jødisk dreng i Bat Ayin

We were not supposed to see Shlomo Nativ’s name in the newspapers. At least, we weren’t supposed to know who he was for several years. He was just a 13-year-old boy. He was loved by his family and friends. He had brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents. His life was not our business. And, to a certain extent, now that it is over, it still shouldn’t concern us.

What should concern us is his death. Nativ was murdered last Thursday at the hands of a Palestinian ax murderer just a few meters from his home in Bat Ayin. And his death should interest us for what it teaches us, first of all about the nature of the Middle East and Israel’s place in it.

The mainstream media in Europe and the US and even here maintain that Nativ’s death tells us little we didn’t already “know” if we are right-thinking people. By this view of things, the cold-blooded terrorist murder of civilians - even of children - is to be expected when the victims in question are Israeli Jews who live beyond the 1949 armistice lines. It isn’t nice. It isn’t pleasant to say. But as far as the right-thinking people of the Western media are concerned, Israeli Jews like Nativ, who live in Gush Etzion in Judea, are simply asking to be murdered.

Today, the media’s view is shared by both European governments and the Obama administration. For years now the Europeans have accepted the legally unsupportable Arab claim that all Jewish presence in areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines is illegal. Since 1993, supported by the Israeli Left, the US government has gradually moved toward adopting this view. And today this view stands at the center of President Barack Obama’s emerging policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

At base, this view assumes two things. First, it assumes that the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the absence of Palestinian statehood, and therefore the solution is the establishment of a Palestinian state. The second thing it assumes is that the Palestinian demand that any territory that Israel transfers to Palestinian control must first be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence is completely innocent and acceptable.


Shlomo Nativ’s murder shows clearly that Obama and his supporters are viewing the Arab conflict with Israel through a distorted lens. Their interpretation of both the nature of the conflict and its likely resolution are wrong.

IT TAKES A CERTAIN type of person to hack a child to death with an ax. In the case at hand, Nativ’s murderer actually tried to kill seven-year-old Yair Gamliel as well. But unlike Nativ, the first grader managed to escape with a fractured skull.

Nativ of course was not the first child to be brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ish-Ran were also 13 when they were stoned to death by a mob as they gathered wood for a bonfire in 2001. In 2003 five-month-old Shaked Avraham was shot in her crib by a Palestinian terrorist who pushed his way into her home. In 2002 five-year-old Matan Ohayon, four-year-old Noam Ohayon and their mother Revital Ohayon were murdered in their home in Kibbutz Metzer.

And the list goes on and on and on.

It takes a special type of person to murder a child. And it takes a special type of society to support such behavior. Palestinian society is a special society. It has become routine, indeed it has become expected that in the aftermath of successful murders of Israelis - including children - Palestinians distribute candy in public celebrations. In 2002 for instance, when word got out about the terrorist who barged into Nina Kardashov’s bat mitzva party in Hadera and massacred six people, the masses took to the streets in neighboring Tulkarm to celebrate. That particular attack was carried out by a Fatah terrorist employed by the US-trained Palestinian Authority security forces. The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the IDF now reportedly believe that Nativ was also murdered by a Fatah terrorist.

TO CELEBRATE the terrorist murder of children and to glorify child murderers as heroes is to celebrate and glorify the nullification of life - or at least the life of the target society. This is the case because at the most basic philosophical level, children represent the notion that life is intrinsically valuable. Since children haven’t yet had the chance to accomplish great and lasting things for humanity, all they can give us is the promise of a future.

The fact that Palestinian terrorists target children specifically - both inside and outside the 1949 lines - and that Palestinian society celebrates their murder tells us that the two foundational assumptions upon which Obama and his supporters base their policies toward Israel and the Middle East are false. It is not the absence of a Palestinian state that stands at the root of the conflict, and it is not the presence of Israeli communities, or “settlements,” beyond the 1949 armistice lines that renders the conflict intractable.

Instead, the root of the conflict is the Arab world’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist - regardless of its size. And the reason the conflict is intractable is because hatred of Israel and Jews is so deep and endemic in both Palestinian society and the wider Arab world that they view the very existence of Jews - including Jewish children - in Israel as an unacceptable affront to their sensibilities. Indeed, the Jewish presence both within and beyond the 1949 armistice lines is so unacceptable that murdering Jews at every opportunity is perceived as an acceptable and indeed heroic undertaking.

Det arabiske had er selvfølgelig ikke grundet i situationen i Israel, men i deres kultur og religion, som deres medier giver en præcis og nøgtern spejling af (hvad ellers?)

Desværre er realiteterne så grufulde at tænke på for det moderne civiliserede menneske (som Holocaust også blev forkastet af mange indtil beviserne var overvældene) og Caroline Glick konstaterer bittert

The answer unfortunately is that in their actions, Obama, his colleagues and supporters are not motivated by facts. Instead they are motivated by a desire to ignore the facts. They wish to believe that the existence of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria is a primary obstacle to peace because doing so allows them to ignore the fact that the reason there is no peace is because Palestinians and their Arab and Iranian brethren refuse to peacefully coexist with Israel regardless of its size. Accepting such bitter realities would make it impossible for them to move forward with their agenda of appeasing the Arab world because it would force them to acknowledge that the Arab world is unappeasable.

Hvis Obama vitterlig er en mand uden substans bliver hans bevæggrunde det, som mediebilledet beskriver. David Horovitz beskriver - ligeledes  i Jerusalem Post - de sørgelige realiteter for det perspektiv på baggrund af de mange løgne, der blev spredt om den israelske hær efter deres eminente aktion i Gaza.

Protecting Israel cannot now be achieved by walls and fences and defensive measures; the rockets have to be stopped at source - and the source of the rockets, as ruthlessly determined by the Palestinians who manufacture and launch them, lies in the heart of the civilian populace. By cynical design, those who would kill our citizens thus ensure that their people are killed when we try to thwart the attacks - so that we are forced to fight not only to protect ourselves, but to protect our good name and our legitimacy as we do so.

This creates a somewhat complex reality - in which war footage and death tolls emphatically do not tell the full story of our conflicts, and yet that story is told, and is misunderstood, largely in a mix of misleading images and statistics. Still, internalizing the true picture - of an Israeli nation seeking to defend itself against a cynical, dishonest Palestinian terror leadership whose religiously inspired loathing for us far outweighs its concerns for the well-being of its own people - is not impossibly challenging, not for those with the earnest will to look a little more carefully.

Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s turn-of-the-year military effort to halt the rocket fire from Gaza, however, seems to have marked something of a turning point as regards the willingness to look a little more carefully, to probe beyond the daily images of war and the casualty tolls.

Indeed, the furor surrounding purported testimonies from a small group of soldiers back from the war - the soldiers whose stories were compiled by the Rabin pre-army program’s Danny Zamir - would suggest that a growing proportion even of our own people, we Israelis, are losing the capacity to distinguish between what we know from our own experiences to be true or credible and what others would have the world believe about us.


FROM ISRAEL’S front-pages, in the sadly predictable rat-pack world of what passes for global journalism these days, Zamir’s compilation became the most prominent story on earth for a few days - headlining major newspapers, leading global newscasts, demolishing yet more of Israel’s legitimacy, turning Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s insistence that the IDF is a “moral army” into an international bad joke. This newspaper, when news broke of the Rabin academy graduates’ “testimonies,” sought to measure their credibility by traditional journalistic standards. How dependable was the source? Were the testifying soldiers named? Could they be contacted to verify their accounts?By definition, such assessments have to be made rapidly, decisions taken against the pressures of deadlines, and all newspapers inevitably get some of them wrong. But since the soldiers themselves were not named and not contactable, and since doubts about the accuracy of their accounts surfaced almost immediately, it was rapidly decided to carry those initial stories on the inside pages of the paper.Danny Zamir’s unexpected declaration to this newspaper on Tuesday that he had been horrified by the worldwide controversy sparked by his soldiers’ accounts was, to put it mildly, hard to reconcile with his earlier stance and expressions. Now, Zamir says that the IDF “tried to protect civilians in the most crowded place in the world. There were no orders to kill civilians or any summary executions or things like that. There were problems, but problems the army can deal with.”The narrow focus in his own op-ed article (reprinted on Tuesday in the Post) on The New York Times in particular and the international media in general is disingenuous, too; it was parts of the Hebrew media, notably Haaretz and Ma’ariv, that first splashed the damming accusations he had compiled of permissive rules of engagement producing specific incidents in which civilians were deliberately shot dead. It was a Haaretz reporter who flatly stated that “the soldiers are not lying, for the simple reason that they have no reason to… This is what the soldiers, from their point of view, saw in Gaza.”Except, it turns out, they didn’t. Their “testimony” was hearsay, and untrue.FROM ISRAEL’S front-pages, in the sadly predictable rat-pack world of what passes for global journalism these days, Zamir’s compilation became the most prominent story on earth for a few days - headlining major newspapers, leading global newscasts, demolishing yet more of Israel’s legitimacy, turning Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s insistence that the IDF is a “moral army” into an international bad joke.

With newspapers closing down, resources evaporating and reporters’ buckling under ever-heavier pressures of work, it should be understood, there is no profound process of evaluation that determines whether a story like this will dominate the global agenda. What happens, rather, is that a hostile-to-Israel story in the Hebrew press is deemed credible simply by virtue of its having appeared in the Hebrew press: The Israelis are saying nasty stuff about themselves. Networks such as Al-Jazeera have an ideological interest in pumping up any such stories. Rival networks don’t want to be left behind. Once the story is running on TV, in turn, the print news agencies feel obligated to cover it, because otherwise their clients will complain that it’s on TV but not on the wires. Hey presto. World headlines.  

 The highly dubious nature of this and certain other items that made world headlines relating to the Gaza conflict, I have been told, prompted considerable unrest in the newsrooms of several international news organizations, with some staffers loudly protesting the apparent suspension of more rigorous journalistic standards - to no avail and, I suspect, to no lasting effect.

 Entirely unsurprisingly, infinitely less global media attention has attended Zamir’s contention to the Post this week that “the international media turned the IDF into war criminals,” that he had no way of knowing whether the alleged shooting incidents ever took place, and that “Operation Cast Lead was justified; the IDF worked in a surgical manner. Unfortunately, in these types of operations, civilians will be killed.”


Begge artikler bør læses i sin helhed. Under operation Cast Lead i Gaza blev denne video cirkuleret rundt for at vise følgerne af et israelsk angreb

Videoen er i virkeligheden fra 2005 og viser følgerne af en Hamas-parade, der gik frygtelig galt, da nogle af de fremviste bomber eksploderede ved en fejl.

3 Kommentarer »

  1. Jeg skriver nu det ilde hørte.

    Kravet om en palæstinensisk STAT var fra begyndelsen en politisk urimelighed vendt mod de overlevende fra Europas gaskamre og lige fra begyndelsen kunstigt skabt i et ældgammelt uudslukkeligt fjendskab vendt mod jøder.

    Pointen skulle være urimeligheden i, at jøder efter så mange generationer, og blot fordi de var uønskede i Europa. kunne finde på noget så uhyrligt som at vende tilbage til Zion, deres udgangspunkt - et for den tid både jødisk og arabisk beboet område.

    Derfor opstod et tilsvarende politisk-arabisk krav om en stat for palæstina-arabere da også tidligt, men FØRST EFTER at Jøder for alvor begyndte at interessere sig for et hjemland og efter den delvist mislykkede tyske Endlösung og forstærket i kølvandet på dannelsen af staten Israel.

    Der har fra begyndelsen udelukkende været tale om et palæstinensisk statskrav som et fjendtligt modtræk til den jødiske Home-land tanke og senere statsdannelse i Mellemøsten i det uindbydende, sure område, hvor ellers kun få fattige arabere boede kummerligt i det nærmest ubeboelige, usunde, enten sumpede eller udtørrede, udpinte, forarmede og sygdomsbefængte landområde, som ingen før 1900 regnede for specielt beboeligt. Derfor interesserede ingen fornuftige sig heller for det område eller anså det for specielt beboeligt eller umagen værd at kaste sine penge efter før 1900.

    Ønsker man at danne sig et indtryk af, hvordan området dengang så ud, altså før israelerne kom til, lignede det i nogen grad det afsvedne område på vestbredden, som palæstina-araberne stadig ikke har formået at gøre noget særligt frugtbart ved.

    Fra at være totalt ligegyldigt blev området imidlertid forvandlet til verdens navle i samme øjeblik, jøderne besluttede at afslutte diasporaen og fremsatte ønsker om at ‘vende hjem’.

    Af samme grund som ingen mellemøstlig stat ville afgive territorium til en jøde og finde sig i en Israelsk stat uden at gøre krav på en tilsvarende arabisk modstat, ville man heller ikke integrere de senere såkaldt fordrevne palæstinensere i de omkringliggende samfund. I stedet fastholdt man palæstina-araberne i såkaldte flygtningelejre (egtl. blot jordanere på denne side Jordan-floden/transjordanere boede på den anden side i det nuværende Jordan). Man havde politisk brug for de i realiteten relativt få flygtninge, hvoraf de fleste havde forladt deres hjem på opfordring af deres politiske ledere. Disse ledere havde brug for, at de flyttede sig, inden jøderne blev smidt i havet, således at derboende arabere ikke kom i vejen for de arabiske hære, når angrebet på staten Israel satte ind. Det angreb kom kort tid efter, blev blodigt, men slog fejl.

    Holocaust var en industrialiseret nazistisk opfindelse, men araberne samarbejdede med begejstring og gør åbenlyst stadig, hvad de kan for at fuldende, hvad Hitler-Tyskland påbegyndte. Der er således ingen arabisk ende på den trods alt forbigående tyske ondskab fra dengang. Det hele er fra begyndelsen politisk og demografisk orkestreret med henblik på, at palæstina-araberne skulle blive så mange, at den jødiske stat ville bryde sammen under vægten af de fordrevnes efterkommere. Men man har derudover altid med forkærlighed slået jøder ihjel i Arabistan, og man gør det fortsat. At ikke alle jøder er døde endnu skyldes udelukkende, at araberne endnu ikke har haft kræfter til at gøre alvor af deres forsæt.

    Fri mig fra det sludder, man altid hører om, at der kun er tale om arabisk retorik og nødvendig afledning af de arabiske befolkningers opmærksomhed på indrepolitisk elendighed. Det erklærede mål er, fra mere eller mindre skjult til åbenlyst, at jøderne skal forsvinde.

    Man kan roligt tage arabernes retorik for pålydende, som man kunne tage Hitlers retorik for pålydende. Det er den samme.

    Jeg har ingen grund til at male Fanden på væggen. Jeg har ingen personlig grund til at frygte Israels udsættelse, for jeg sidder trygt og godt på min stol i et smørhul højt mod Nord.
    Indoktrinering og dens virkning derimod kender jeg til, og den er den samme overalt i Verden, uanset om den udøves i Hitler-Tyskland eller Arabistan.

    Har israelske soldater forløbet sig i Ghaza er det utilgiveligt, men jeg forstår dem godt, og ingen myndighed i noget land ville kunne forhindre sine tropper i at begå grusomheder under omstændigheder som dem, vi her taler om.

    Med venlig hilsen.

    Comment by Emeritus — April 13, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
  2. Beklager to læseforstyrrende fejl:
    I mit femtesidste afsnit, som begynder med ‘Holocaust’ findes et uheldigt skift fra nutid til datid.
    I fjerde linje burde have stået ‘…Det hele VAR fra begyndelsen…’ og ikke ‘…ER fra begyndelsen…’

    I næstsidste afsnit anden linje endvidere stavefejlen ‘…ingen personlig grund til at frygte for Israels uds le ttelse…’!

    Med venlig hilsen

    Comment by Emeritus — April 13, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
  3. Faktisk blev identiteten “palæstinenser” opfundet til lejligheden, som modsvar til zionismen. Men den slog ikke igennem før i tiden efter Israels oprettelse og mest efter 1967. Ellers opfattede forlk sig som arabere eller tilhørende en klan eller familie eller landsby.

    Comment by Drokles — April 14, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress