Red Admin

Diverse — Drokles on December 15, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Det gælder selvfølgelig om at fjerne Trump fra posten som USAs præsident, skrev Andrew C. McCarthy tidligere på måneden. Efterforskningen af Trumps valgkampsmaskine påståede samarbejde med “russerne” bygger ikke på en forudsætning om noget konkret, endsige kriminelt og den øverst ansvarlige Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein har ikke defineret noget forhold, der stiller ham inhabil. Ledende efterforsker Mueller har fået carte blanche til blot at rode i alle præsidentkandidat Trumps mænds snavsede undertøj.

It started out as a fishing expedition, under the vaporous heading of “collusion,” into “contacts” between Russian officials and Trump associates — notwithstanding that collusion is not conspiracy and that it was perfectly legal for Trump associates to have contacts with Russia (just like Clinton associates did). It was to be expected that the Trump campaign and transition would have such contacts once it was apparent that Trump could well become — and did in fact become — the next president of the United States.

Only one conceivable crime could have arisen out of the “collusion” that was the pretext for Mueller’s probe: the knowing complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s hacking of Democratic email accounts. Of course, there was never evidence of such a scheme . . . but why should that matter? The point here was to have the theater of an investigation run by a prosecutor — the rest is just details.

See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements.

McCarthy mener at det er oplagt, at efterforskning er en hævn fra den tidligere præsident og hans administration; dels for at folket havde forkastet Obamas politiske diskurs, dels fordi Trump ville rulle Obamas politik tilbage. Derfor gik den afgående administrations sidste politiske taktik på to ben; dels skulle Trumps præsidentskab de-legitimeres ved fortællingen om den russiske indblanding og Trumps angivelige medskyldighed, dels kastede man grus i det diplomatiske maskineri ved at afvige fra gængs politik og afstå fra at beskytte Israel mod FNs Sikkerhedsråds urimelige resolution, der erklærede af Judæa, Samaria og Østjerusalem er arabisk og at jøderne ikke har noget krav derpå. ““Stay strong Israel. January 20th is fast approaching!” tweetede Trump opmuntrende.

Trumps sikkerhedsrådgiver in spe Michael Flynn tog i overgangsperioden kontakt til den russiske ambassadør Sergei Kislyak for at klargøre at Trumps politik var at beskytte Israel mod Sikkerhedsrådet og gerne så at Rusland stemte imod resolutionen eller i det mindste udskød afstemningen til Trumps administration var blevet indsat så de kunne nedlægge veto. Flynn talte også med Kislyak om den eskalerende diplomatiske krise, som fortællingen om Ruslands kapring af det amerikanske demokrati havde medført (det er jo trods alt en fortælling, som beskylder en fremmed atommagt for noget nær en krigshandling) og forsikrede at Trumps administration ville fare med lempe, hvis Ruslamd udviste tilbageholdenhed.

Kislyak var under overvågning, så FBI har kendt til Flynns kontakt og møder med den russiske ambassadør. Alligevel udspørger de ham om det og kan derfor bevise at han lyver, da han, måske påvirket af ikke at give den mindste indrømmelse til den på det tidspunkt hysteriske russer-fortælling. Dette, mener McCarthy, sker for dels at straffe ham og inddirekte Trumps administration for at underminere Obama adminstration ens forrædderi af Israel, dels at forstærke russer-fortællingen og knytte den til de sanktioner man havde indført mod Rusland, hvilket ville binde Trumps hænder i forholdet til Rusland.

Muellers efterforskning sker ikke i god tro, konkluderer McCarthy, “It is the exploitation of the executive’s intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement powers in order to (a) criminalize Trump political policies with which the Obama administration disagreed and (b) frame Clinton’s electoral defeat as the product of a traitorous scheme rather than a rejection of Democratic-party priorities”.

Med disse politisk betændte forudsætninger var det ikke overraskende da Washington Post og New York Times, ingen fans af Trump, afslørede, at en af Muellers efterforskere havde stærke anti-Trump meninger. Disse havde han udvekslet via sms med sin elskerinde, sammen med pro-Hillary Clinton meninger, hvilket var blevet opdaget af hans arbejdsgiver Mueller, der derpå havde fyret ham, for at foregribe spekulationer om partiskhed i efterforskningen.

Pajamas Media giver smagsprøver på nogle af de udvekslede beskeder mellem Strzok og hans elskerinde Lisa Page, der ikke efterlader megen tvivl om han stærke meninger. Trump var ““loathsome human being,” “an idiot,” “awful,” and a “douche,”” og han betroede Page at han havde spist middag med en ligesindet kollega og talt om Trump tilhængere; som han mente at kunne lugte We both hate everyone and everything”. Meninger har du dog lov at have, selv som offentligt ansat, men…

In a text some are calling a “smoking gun,” Page linked to a New York Times article and said: “maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.”

Strzok replied: “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”

Men alt dette skete i sommer og oplysningerne skulle presse ud af et modvilligt FBI og justitsministerium af Senatets høring. Muellers talsmand forsikrede, at efterforskeren Peter Strzok ikke havde foretaget sig noget ulovligt med sine meninger, men, spekulerede flere medier, hvorfor så fyre ham og hvorfor holde det hemmeligt?

Og det viste sig da også at historien om Strzok var interessant for andet end Trump-had og utroskab, da Strzok ikke blot havde haft en ledende rolle i de indledende undersøgelser om eventuelt samarbejde mellem Trump-kampagnen og russerne, da FBIs chef hed James Comey, han ledte også efterforskningen mod Hillary Clinton i sagen om hendes emails. Strzok var med til at afhøre Clinton og ændrede den juridiske formulering ‘grossly negligent’, som er et strafbart forhold, til lægmandsudtrykket ‘extremely careless’ i FBIs endelige rapport.

Men Strzok er kun et symptom på at noget er ‘gået skrækkeligt galt’ med Muellers grasserende efterforskning. Det er uklart om efterforskningen af Trump og hans kampagnestab er blevet til på baggrund af Steele rapporten - den private efterforskning af Donald Trump, som Hillarys valg-kampagne fik lavet på bestilling hos den tidligere britiske efterretningsagent Richard Steele og som påstod at Trump betalte prostituerede for at tisse i hotelsenge, som Obamas havde sovet i. Det er til gengæld klart at der har afsløret sig interesser for at inkriminere Trumps medarbejdere i offentligheden ved at lække oplysninger til pressen om mistanker og kommende sigtelser.

Den slags er hvad man må forvente, skriver Victor Davis Hanson, når man propper sin kommision med medarbejdere med en stærk antipati imod Trump.

Efterforskningens raison d’etre kom i stand efter at den foregående FBI direktør, som Trump havde fyret, lækkede private noter til pressen i håb om at de ville kaste tilstrække med offentlig mistanke til at ’special efterforsker’ mod Trump, til trods for at Trump ikke var under nogen mistanke - ifølge Comey selv. Og heldigt for Comey lykkedes hans plan så godt at det blev hans bedste ven Robert Mueller, der skulle lede efterforskningen, der nu er muteret til også at dreje som om ‘obstruction of justice’ - hvilket er ironisk da FBI selv står anklaget for ‘obstruction of Congress’.

Mueller er republikaner, men 8 af de 15 hovedefterforskere han udvalgte, havde doneret penge til Hillarys valgkamp, og 6 af dem havde været involveret i efterforskningen af Hillarys e-mail ‘matter’. Og alle kom de fra Washington DC, en by der er ganske fjendtligt indstillet overfor Trump.

Og eksempler på inhabilitet grundet politiske antipatier er mange. En anden af Muellers efterforskere, havde i en privat email rost en højtstående embedsmand i justitsministeriet for ikke at gennemføre Trumps ordre. “Jeg er så stolt, i ærefrygt’ havde han benovet skrevet. En tredie burde have erklæret sig selv inhabil da hun havde arbejdet på at imødegå Trumps politik, som hun også var juridisk rådgiver for Clinton Foundation og selvfølgelig bidragsyder til Clintons valgkamp. En fjerde havde kontakter med det firma, der hyrede Steele til at undersøge Trump i første omgang. En femte havde ydet juridisk bistand til en Hillary Clinton medarbejder, der havde forsøgt at slette bevismateriale imod Clinton i e-mailsagen ved at smadre hendes Blackberries med en hammer.

Der er næppe tale om forbrydelser i øvrigt, siger juraprofessor Alan Dershowitz, men etiske overtrædelser, som justitsministeriet må undersøge. Men selv om “Washington is an incestuous place” har de mange strå knækket kamelens ryg, mener Hanson. Trump bør dog ikke fyre Mueller eller påvirke hans undersøgelse, argumenterer Hanson videre, for den ser ud til at begrave sig selv i sine egne skandaler

Indeed, the only remaining trajectory by which Mueller and his investigators can escape with their reputations intact is to dismiss those staff attorneys who have exhibited clear anti-Trump political sympathies, reboot the investigation, and then focus on what now seems the most likely criminal conduct: Russian and Clinton-campaign collusion in the creation of the anti-Trump Fusion GPS dossier and later possible U.S. government participation in the dissemination of it. If such a fraudulent document was used to gain court approval to surveil Trump associates, and under such cover to unmask and leak names of private  U.S. citizens — at first to warp a U.S. election, and then later to thwart the work of an incoming elected administration — then Mueller will be tasked with getting to the bottom of one of the greatest political scandals in recent U.S. history. Indeed, his legacy may not be that he welcomed in known pro-Clinton, anti-Trump attorneys to investigate the Trump 2016 campaign where there was little likelihood of criminality, but that he ignored the most egregious case of government wrongdoing in the last half-century.

“Vi er et folk der har en stat” udtrykte Reagan sin skepsis mod det nødvendige onde i en centralmagt og mindede videre advarende om “det ikke en stat, der har et folk!” Men for embedsmænd i USA er det åbenbart modsat.

Adam Holm har internaliseret Katastrofen

Diverse — Drokles on December 9, 2017 at 7:42 am

Adam Holm, det pæne og ellers så fornuftige menneske, havde “brugt det forgangne døgn på at gispe efter vejret” over den frygtelige nyhed at anerkender det basale faktum, at Jerusalem er Israels. “Donald Trump er gal” indledte han derfor et ophidset Facebook opslag, hvori han argumenterede for at Trumps beslutning var “monumentalt forrykt”, et udtryk for hans “åbenlyse foragt for fakta og historisk indsigt”, som efterlod indtrykket af “en geopolitisk terminator”.

Blæse vær med advarslerne fra arabiske allierede, FN, EU, Vatikanet og et hav af forstandige Mellemøstkendere, deriblandt folk med jødiske rødder og tilknytning til Israel. Never mind, at USA endegyldigt lukker og slukker for muligheden af en genoptaget fredsproces; til helvede med årtiers forståelse for palæstinensernes, ja hele den islamiske verdens særlige sensitivitet i forhold til Al-Aqsa-moskéen, og glem de vældige politiske og sikkerhedsmæssige spændinger, der knytter sig til spørgsmålet om Jerusalems status.

Men ifølge et populært mem, som tilskrives Einstein, så er galskab forventningen om forskellige resultater ved at gentage de samme handlinger. Araberne har aldrig indgået en fred de ikke var tæsket til og ‘palæstinenserne’ har bare aldrig sagt ja til noget løsningsforslag og derfor fylder de nu op på omstridt land. Ved at ligge under for frygten for arabisk-muslimsk vrede og afstå fra at anerkende Jerusalem som Israels hovedstad, skriver Middle East Forum, har man blot tilskyndet “unrealistic hopes among Palestinians that rejectionism will pay off“.

With the peace process at an impasse of their own making, Palestinian leaders have in recent years launched an aggressive campaign to delegitimize Israel in international fora, culminating in a burgeoning Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in the West, a UNESCO resolution last year minimizing Jewish connections to the Temple Mount, and a UN Security Council resolution(2334) months later that effectively declared Israel claims in disputed East Jerusalem null and void. Instead of pursuing a peaceful path to statehood, they have incited violence against Israel, while trying to persuade the rest of the world to recognize Palestinian statehood in the absence of peace.

The success of these endeavors partly reflects the growing dependence of European left-wing political parties on Muslim immigrant votes, according to MEF Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow Michel Gurfinkiel.However, MEF Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow Efraim Inbar argues that many in the West “simply do not want the Jews to have full control over the eternal city.” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who made an unprecedented visit to Jerusalem last July, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose foreign ministry officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem in April, apparently felt no such taboo.

The Obama administration’s turn against Israel gave an enormous boost to the delegitimation campaign. “Years of hostile U.S. actions under the Obama administration, from the Iran nuclear dealto UNSCR 2334, have emboldened Israel’s enemies to believe that they can win the public relations war against the Jewish state,” wrote Roman shortly after Trump’s inauguration. “Together with Israel, the Trump administration must now convince them that they have lost.”

Der er altså også forstandige Mellemøstkendere, der bifalder Trumps træk og ikke, som EU og Vatikanet frygter deres arabiske allierede. Som Yoram Ettinger, der i Algemeiner giver 7 grunde til at Trump gjorde det rigtige, ved at efterkomme den amerikanske Kongres vedtagelse fra 1995. Udover at demonstrere overfor araberne at man ikke ligger under for deres trusler og at vold ikke fører noget med sig så giver man omverden en mulighed for at skelne mellem udenrigsministeriet på den ene side og flertallet af amerikanere, Kongressen og præsidenten på den anden

4. Palestinian terrorism and hate-education were fueled by the December 1988 US recognition of the PLO, the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. On the other hand, the 2011 US veto of a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel’s settlements policy was not followed by anti-US terrorism — contrary to assessments made by the State Department.

5. The non-implementation of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act has not advanced the peace process; instead, it has radicalized Arab expectations and undermined the US posture of deterrence, which is critical for US national security and global order.

Trump ved, som Yoram Hazony skriver, at man ikke får fred bare ved at ydmyge Israel. “For nearly seven decades, the state of Israel has endured an unusual humiliation: Alone among the nations of the world, it has been denied the sovereign right to determine its own capital“indleder han sin artikel i Wall Street Journal og bifalder den observation at det kun har ægget arabernes modstand, ikke blot mod fred, men Israels eksistens.

We have been warned by enemies and by friends that this historic moment will be met with violence. That is quite possible. Every significant step in the return of the Jews to Israel and Jerusalem since the Balfour Declaration has been met with acts of vengeance. But if this pattern has a clear lesson for us, it is this: If the American administration holds firm, this storm will pass.

Med det forbehold at Holm udtrykker sin forfærdelse i et Facebook opdatering, givet skrevet i al hast, da han trækker den psykiatriske diagnose af Trump tilbage i sidste afsnit, så er det stadigt påfaldende at der ikke leveres et eneste argument imod at behandle Israel, som man bahandler ikke blot ethvert andet civiliseret land, men selv groteske regimer. At henvise til at Trump er i dissens i forhold til et hurtigt opstillet konsensus er næsten i sig selv et selvmål. Og listen er tillige pinlig, når man påstår at Trump foragter historisk indsigt. Trump har nemlig indsigt, den eneste der tæller og altid har gjort det i Mellemøsten og det er ikke servile skåltaler i Cairo, det er magt! Hvem har den største kæp and ‘belive Trump, there is no problem!’

Og hvilken indsigt nævner Holm så? FN, hvor de arabiske allierede sammen resten af den islamiske verdens særlige sensitivitet samlebåndsfordømmer Israel med EUs forskræmte indsigtsfulde hjælp? Og hvilken indsigt har Vatikanets teologer pludseligt fået i realpolitik? Det er alle politiske entiteter, som Trump, der handler i politiske interesser ud fra givne præmisser. Og disse er lige blevet ændret.

Og som alle politiske entiteter er også eksperter af vidt forskellige overbevisninger, som jeg just har givet eksempler på. Generelt er jeg skeptisk overfor eksperter, der antager at den nuværende situation er den naturlige og endelige, thi historien kommer altid som den største overraskelse for dem. Havde den forstandige Mellemøstekspertise forventet Det Arabiske Forår? Da de fik reorienteret sig, havde de forventet Det Muslimske Broderskabs sejr over den progressive ‘Twitter-’ og Facebookgeneration’? Hvad laver Sovjetologerne idag? Hvad sagde Balkaneksperterne før borgerkrigen?

I sin kvababbelse over handlekraft, skønt kun symbolsk, forholder Holm sig ikke til et eneste relevant spørgsmål. Hvor længe endnu skal Israel ydmyges og behandles som en paria forend freden sænker sig? Hvad har araberne ud af at opføre sig ordentligt når de belønnes for larm og spetakler?

Selv om man ikke kan kræve den store analyse af en Facebook opdatering, afslører Holms hurtige skriv, endda åbenbart tilblevet i en emotionel tilstand, hans instinktive forståelse af Verden omkring ham. En forståelse af konsensus. Hjælp, Trump er anderledes, Trump ændrer en politisk retning, der ikke har virket i 70 år. Holm skuffer, når han trods sit sædvanligvis fordomsfrie intellekt og store viden ligger underdrejet den muslimske fortælling ved at sætte “hele den islamiske verdens særlige sensitivitet” over kendsgerninger. At han henviser til en fredsprocess efter hundrede år med entydige pal-arabisk afslag på alle forslag udviser han den europæiske elites særlige naivisme i forhold til kultursammenstødet. Et arabisk narrativ har overtaget et vestligt intellekt.

Mueller maler helt ad helvede til

Diverse — Drokles on December 2, 2017 at 3:36 pm

Tidligere FBI direktør James Comey var skadefro, da han tweetede “But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” - et citat fra Biblen. Jep, specialundersøger Robert Mueller har sigtet Trumps tidligere kampagnechef og sikkerhedsrådgiver Michael Flynn for at lyve om sin kontakt til den russiske ambassadør Sergei Kislyak. Og Flynn har erklæret sig skyldig.

Spørgsmålene er mange, hvor højt op i hierakiet var man klar over dette, på hvis initiativ tog Flynn kontakt osv, hvilket fører til den oplagte domino spekulation “That Mueller would treat Flynn as someone worth flipping, presumably in pursuit of a bigger case, is, to say the least, suggestive.” som The New Yorker udtrykker det. Mon ikke, “Julen kommer tidligt i år” for venstrefløjen.

Og dog.

Det fremgår måske ikke så klart, når man læser de danske medier, eller de venstreorienterede medier de skriver af efter (”New York Times skriver, at retsdokumenterne fra i dag sætter spørgsmålstegn ved, præcis hvor meget Donald Trump vidste om Flynns samarbejde med russerne” skriver Danmarks Radio), men Flynns kontakt til den russiske ambassadør “was not illegal, and it was not “collusion” som David French skriver i National Review med påmindelsen, at den givne kontakt skete i december 2016, måneden efter Trump havde vundet præsidentvalget

First, the statement says that the day after President Obama announced sanctions in response to Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, Flynn called a “senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (PTT)” who was with other “senior members of the PTT” at Mar-a-Lago. On the call, Flynn and the “senior official” said that they did not want Russia to “escalate the situation.” Flynn called the Russian ambassador “immediately after” his call with the senior official to communicate the incoming administration’s request. The next day, Putin announced that Russia would not retaliate against the United States, and the Russian ambassador later informed Flynn that Putin had decided not to retaliate in response to his request.

Second, the statement also says that Flynn initiated contact with Russia and other foreign governments in an effort to influence a U.N. Security Council vote on an Egyptian resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn made these calls at the behest of a “very senior member” of the PTT. In this instance, Flynn was unsuccessful. The Russian ambassador told Flynn that “Russia would not vote against the resolution.”

Third, the statement briefly outlines false statements Flynn made about his relationship with the government of Turkey. These false statements appear unrelated to any dealings with Russia, in any capacity.

Flynns forbindelse til Tyrkiet drejer sig blandt andet om at han skulle deltage i et komplot, der skulle kidnappe Gülen, Erdogan store ‘interne’ fjende(!).

Andrew C McCarthy forklarer ligeledes i National Review, at når man skal få dominobrikkerne til at falde, skal man have sit vidne til at erklære sig skyldig i en sammensværgelse for at bevise at en sådan fandt sted. Først derefter går man videre med at føre sag mod den næste i hierakiet. Men…

That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency.

To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

French konkluderer da derfor også

So, at the end of the day, we may well end up with multiple senior members of the administration facing prison time for covering up no crime and no collusion, just contacts. If that’s justice, it’s a form of justice that will leave no one standing on the political high ground and partisans on both sides seething with rage and bitterness.

Mueller har ikke fået til opgave at finde noget kriminelt, men blot al sammenhæng mellem Rusland, russere og Trump og hans stab. Medierne har forvirret sig selv med gummibegreber som samarbejde/collusion med russerne. Ingen ved, hvad de vil sige andet end at den lover en forjættende udfrielse fra den virkelighed der volder dem så mange smerter.

“An insult to the intelligence of the world”

Diverse — Drokles on January 6, 2017 at 5:43 am

Det kaldte Charles Krauthammer Obamas medvirken til at FNs Sikkerhedsråd vedtog at Judæa og Samaria inklusiv Jerusalems gamle jødiske kvarter med jødernes største helligdom faktisk tilhører araberne. “It’s as if the UN passed a resolution declaring Mecca and Medina to be sovereign Jewish or Christian territory,” fortsatte han og i National Review perspektiverede han, at alle jøder, der bor eller arbejder i Øst-Jerusalem nu er internationale pariaer og han mindede om at Abbas allerede har truet enhver israelsk soldat med blive stævnet til den internationale krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Og så spørger Krauthammer:

What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

Medlem af PLOs styregruppe Mustafa Barghouti sagde ærligt “Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would deny the right of the Palestinian people who are citizens of Israel and that is totally unacceptable. Israel cannot be a Jewish and a democratic state at the same time” ifølge Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post citerer også Abbas for bramfrit at love et jødefrit Palæstina: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands“.

Med det in mente kunne man læse at den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry (der selv tjener på besat land) mente ligesom at Israel kunne være både jødisk og demokratisk - man måtte opgive en af delene.

Andrew C McCarty undrede sig da også over, at USA selv har været med til at formulere både Afghnaistans og Iraks forfatninger. I den afghanske slås det fast at “Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state” og “No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan“. Og i Iraks forfatning er “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation” 0g “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established”. Begge disse forfatninger indeholder ligeledes paragraffer, der udtrykkeligt stipulerer at ingen antidemokratisk lov må vedtages.

Så islam går hånd i hånd med demokrati, mens jødedommen er dens modsætning. På den præmis virker det jo selvfølgelig logisk, at man ingen skrupler støtter palæstinensernes ambitioner om etnisk udrensning, mens Israel skal opgive land og enten demokrati eller identitet.

munir

Herover ansvarlig for Fatahs medier Munir Aljagub, med en tegning der viser hvorledes fred mellem Fatah og Hamas er et våben til at likvidere Israel (Elder Of Ziyon).

På selveste CNN kaldte Mark Goldfeder Obamas inddirekte støtte til FNs ‘landgrab in Israel‘ for “a cowardly move of a lame-duck politician” og hyklerisk da Obama selv overfor FN havde sagt at “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations”. Og så minder Goldfeder om at Sikkerhedsrådets resolutioner ikke er det samme som international lov og fortæller historien om Israels juridiske tilblivelse

In 1922 the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine established an area (which included the West Bank) to be a national home for the Jewish people. Article 6 of the mandate explicitly encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.” (”The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”)

When the United Nations was formed it affirmed existing arrangements of this nature, and after Britain announced that it would leave the area, the United Nations proposed a partition plan that was not accepted by the relevant sovereign parties, (because the Arab world rejected it) leaving the Mandate lines unrevised.

Scholars such as Eugene Kontorovich and Abraham Bell have noted that under the international legal principle of Uti possidetis juris, “widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization,” emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries, and thus international law clearly dictates that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. Israel thus has title to the land.

When Israel declared independence in 1948 it was immediately attacked by five Arab nations. The United Nations blamed the Arabs for the violence and aggression meant to undermine the Resolution and forcefully take land, and the Spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee readily agreed.

If there was ever an occupation of Palestinian territory under international law, it happened between 1948 and 1967, when two of the invading Arab armies, Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip) occupied territory that they had taken through aggressive action — the kind of aggressive action that the new Resolution explicitly reminds us is forbidden under international law.

This was, of course, territory that was part of the Mandate for Palestine and therefore rightfully under Israeli title: from 1949 to 1967, Jordan and Egypt literally occupied Palestine. The Green Line was drawn for no other reason than to mark off on a map how far the two invading armies had managed to get. The armistice agreements themselves state that these were not ever meant to be actual borders. Thus to give meaning under international law to these ‘pre-67 lines’ is, ironically, to retroactively ratify aggression against the mandate and support occupation.

Dette land fik israelerne tilbage da de ved “defensive re-conquest” vandt over araberne i 6-Dages Krigen. En mere udførlig gennemgang af Artikel 80 leverer Daniel Horowitz, der kalder ideen om et besat Palæstina for fake news og råder den kommende præsident Donald Trump til at stoppe med forfølge ambitionen om endnu en arabisk-palæstinensisk stat.

“Stay strong Israel. January 20th is fast approaching”!

Trumps ‘big stick’!

“Occasional perceived craziness is a plus in both poker and high-stakes geostrategic diplomacy” siger Victor Davis Hanson i en afklædning af Obama-doktrinen på National Review.

hold-on-israel

Det meste af pressen er bekymrede over Donald Trumps manglende politiske erfaring og hans påståede ukendskab til Verden udenfor amerikanske realityshows tegner en udenrigspolitik der vil krabbe ubehjælpsomt mod krig og kaos. I den virkelige store Verden er der ikke plads til store armbevægelser og spontane Twitterkommentarer. Hans forgænger, Verdensmanden med de mange oprindelser, som han ikke helt ville vide af alligevel, forstod den fine balance på den internationale scene. Trump er elefanten i glasbutikken og allerede i overgangen mellem de to regeringer skaber Trumps ‘kontraordrer’ da også problemer, skiver bl.a Wall Street Journal.

De tog også anstød af at Trump passer sin twitter-konto og sin takke-turne og kun sparsomt deltager i de sikkerhedspolitiske møder. “I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years” forklarede han Fox News sin ‘efter-behov’ tilgang.

Trump er ikke en mad-man, men han har en rem af huden - og der lyttes til Trump.  Af alt, hvad der kommer ud af munden på ham så ved man det er alvor når han trækker en rød streg. Alan Dershowitz skriver i Algemeiner at Trump havde ret i at blande sig i Obamas svigt af Israel, da FNs sikkerhedsråd besluttede at gøre bl.a Østjerusalem til palæstinensisk territorium

The effect, therefore of the Obama decision to push for, and abstain from, a vote on this resolution is to deliberately tie the hands of the president’s successors, in particular President-elect Trump. That is why Trump did the right thing in reaction to Obama’s provocation. Had the lame-duck president not tried to tie the incoming president’s hands, Trump would not have intervened at this time. But if Trump had not urged the Egyptians to withdraw the resolution, he would have made it far more difficult for himself to try to bring about a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border to be sacrosanct, and any building behind those boarders to be illegal, would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.

Det har han gjort siden valget til kommende præsident og med god effekt. Eric Fernstrohm, der har været rådgiver for Mitt Romney, skriver om Trumps ‘can-do’ tilgang i Boston Globe

Trump has turned out to be the most energetic president-elect America has seen in a long time, intervening to save jobs and contain federal spending. Like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump is using the megaphone of his bully pulpit to get results.

He rescued 1,000 jobs by dangling tax incentives and the threat of retaliatory tariffs to convince air conditioning company Carrier not to move production from Indiana to Mexico. Democrats quibble over the number of jobs saved, but there’s no escaping the symbolism: Trump is on the side of workers, not big corporations.

Now there’s talk of a Trump effect, as more companies fearful of Trump’s “big stick” think twice about outsourcing American jobs.

Bill Ford, the chairman at Ford Motor Co., called Trump after the election to say the automaker changed its mind about moving some vehicle production offshore. Trump also said he lobbied Apple CEO Tim Cook about bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

“One of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam, and going to the places that you go to, you’re making your product right here,” Trump said he told Cook, according to a post-election interview with The New York Times.

Trump’s preinaugural swagger goes beyond the jobs front.

After Trump complained about the price tag for building the next Air Force One, the CEO of Boeing promised to limit costs. Trump put health care companies on notice that he wants drug prices, a major factor in exploding Medicare costs, to come down. His targeting of “out of control” overruns in the construction of F-35 fighter jets suggests defense contractors will feel the lash.

Trump may not get everything he wants, but if the transition is any indication, he seems to understand what his opponents do not. His success will hinge on jobs and bringing change to Washington, not how often he meets with intelligence briefers.

Og han ser ud til at få europæerne til at tage mere ansvar for eget forsvar. Den store kæp er mere end blot en sjofel reference til et af primærvalgenes lavpandede disputter, det er sikkerhedspolitik på det mest basale plan.

Derfor var hans nonchalante omtale af atomvåben under valgkampen også god sikkerhedspolitik og som skabt til en tid, hvor Verden ikke længere hviler nogenlunde trygt i at USA er den store hegemon. Ja, han var villig til at bruge atomvåben, hvis det lignede en god løsning - hvad ellers havde man dem for? Chokeret prøvede journalisten at finde en undtagelse i Trumps vanvid og spurgte om han også ville bruge atomvåben mod problemer i Europa

“Europe is a big place!” konstaterede Trump uden omsorg for pæne menneskers blodtryk og ængstelser - han talte heller ikke til dem.
Oliver og Obama, med sin fejlslagne (jeg lader tvivlen komme ham til gode) politik, kan gøre sig lystige alt det de vil. De er ikke relevante, de tabte valget og Trump bruger ikke deres medier til at tale med sine tilhængere. Trump talte til alle despoter og røvhuller ude den store verden, der har lært at grine ad Obamas svaghed og USA fald fra tronen. trump fortalte at når han kommer til, så har han allerede mandat i det amerikanske folk til at slå på gummen hvor han finder det for godt.
Det vidner om stor politisk indsigt at føre stormagtspolitik allerede inden man er valgt. Hillary gjorde det modsatte. Hun pustede sig op overfor vælgerne, mens hun legede med tanken om at gå i krig med Rusland.

Den lange march gennem FNs institutioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jøderne stjæler Julen - ifølge Danmarks Radio

Diverse — Drokles on December 25, 2016 at 9:23 am

jc3b8derne-stjc3a6ler-julen

NGO Monitor ser nærmere på det besynderlige fænomen man ser i medierne med gode kristne, der undertrykkes af Israels besættelsesmagt, som var de gemene arabere

As in previous years (see NGO Monitor reports for 201520142013, 2012), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and well-known charities have been exploiting the Christmas season to demonize Israel and work against peace.

Groups such as the World Council of ChurchesSabeel, Kairos Palestine, PAX ChristiWi’amChrist at the Checkpoint, and Amos Trust are again using religious and holiday themes to demonize Israel. These groups draw comparisons between the historic times of Jesus and current times, in attempts to equate the actions of the Israeli government and evil regimes of the past.

These holiday messages and “Christmas alerts” generally omit any reference to Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens, placing sole blame on Israel for the ongoing conflict. These groups condemn the security barrier near Bethlehem, while omitting the wave of Palestinian terror originating from this area.

The abuse of Christmas messages is part of a broad international campaign of political warfare targeting Israel in some churches and related charities. Many of these groups promote theological “supersessionism,” which claims that “the church has permanently replaced Israel in God’s plan.”

With this abuse of holiday and religious symbols, these NGOs and charities that claim to promote moral agendas are not offering messages of peace and good cheer. Rather, their messages of intolerance exacerbate an already polarized and violent conflict.

Jeg ved ikke om følgende DR indslag viser World Council of ChurchesSabeel, Kairos Palestine, PAX ChristiWi’amChrist at the CheckpointAmos Trust eller noget andet, men det lugter ikke som nogle fisk Jesus ville bespise nogen med

Dine licenspenge “omit any reference to Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens, placing sole blame on Israel for the ongoing conflict (…) omitting the wave of Palestinian terror originating from this area”.

Glædelig Hannukah til jøderne - I får brug for det

Jeg troede Julens absurditet var Prins Charles, der vil have at englænderne vil bruge Julen ikke til at tænke på “Lord our savior” men at tænke på Muhammed, fordi pædofeten var nødt til at emigrere til Medina for at finde sin frihed. Den frihed benyttede han, som bekendt for alle andre end Charles, til at etablere en intolerant stat, slagte de jøder han ikke solgte fra som slaver og alle sine kritikere, førend han vendte tilbage og erobrede Mekka. Ja, det er værd at tænke når man slipper hans følgere løs i Europa.

Men desværre er Charles afsindighed overgået af rigtig politik ved Obama, der har tilladt at FN definerer Tempelbjerget inklusiv Grædemuren som tilhørende araberne. Ben Shapiro skriver

Just in time for Chanukah, President Barack Obama has unleashed all the anti-Jewish fury of his administration on the state of Israel. According to a senior Israeli official, both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been pushing a United Nations resolution behind the scenes that would essentially declare East Jerusalem, which includes the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount, non-Jewish territory off limits to Israel, as well as labeling any Jew living outside the pre-1967 armistice lines illegitimate.

The draft resolution is an utter rejection of Judaism’s claims to Jerusalem – a historical absurdity, since the only reason anyone cares about the spot is because of Judaism’s claims to it, which predated any Muslim claims by well over a millennium. It rejects Israel’s ability to defend itself by maintaining territory outside the “Auschwitz borders” of pre-1967 Israel. It ignores international law – the resolution says that Israel is occupying “Palestinian territory,” which makes no historical sense given the fact that there was never any sovereign Palestine, that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded prior to 1967 and called for the full destruction of the state of Israel (as indeed, the Palestinian governing organizations continue to do), and that Israel’s enemies never agreed to any international agreement granting them sovereignty over the territory. Essentially, the UN calls for all areas outside the pre-1967 lines, which would include East Jerusalem, to become Judenrein.

This isn’t a major shock from the Obama administration, which has a long, inglorious history of Jew-hating activity when it comes to Israel. This is the same administration that signed an Iran deal that puts Israel’s very existence in jeopardy, that forced Israel to apologize for attempting to blockade arms shipments to the terrorist group Hamas, that tried to stymie Israel’s ability to defend herself during a rocket war with Hamas, that pressures Israel consistently to make concessions to would-be Jew-murderers, that goes silent when American Jews are killed in Israel, that funds a terrorist unity government.

Mark Levin tweetedeIt appears anti-Semite Obama is working with the extremist Palestinians, and using the Israel-hating UN, to undermine our ally Israel“. Og i The Weely Standard skriver Elliot Abrams at Obama har tilladt FN at vedtage “a nasty and harmful anti-Israel resolution

Just weeks before leaving office, he could not resist the opportunity to take one more swipe at Israel—and to do real harm. So he will leave with his record on Israel in ruins, and he will leave Democrats even worse off.

It’s pretty clear that he does not care. Obama has gotten himself elected twice, the second time by a decreased margin (the only time a president has been reelected by fewer votes than in his first term), but he has laid waste to his party. In the House, the Senate, the state governorships, and the state legislatures, the Democrats have suffered loss after loss. Today’s anti-Israel action will further damage the Democratic party, by driving some Jews if not toward the Republicans then at least away from the Democrats and toward neutrality. Donald Trump’s clear statement on Thursday that he favored a veto, Netanyahu’s fervent pleas for one, and the Egyptian action in postponing the vote show where Obama stood: not with Israel, not even with Egypt, but with the Palestinians. Pleas for a veto from Democrats in Congress were ignored by the White House.

Does the resolution matter? It does. The text declares that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” This may turn both settlers—even those in major blocs like Maale Adumim, that everyone knows Israel will keep in any peace deal—and Israeli officials into criminals in some countries, subject to prosecution there or in the International Criminal Court. The text demands “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Now add this wording to the previous line and it means that even construction in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City is “a flagrant violation under international law.” The resolution also “calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.

Yet Barack Obama thought this was all fine and refused to veto.

National Review forsøger at forstå omfanget af resolutionen og spørger “If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem, is he or she now a criminal? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals?“. Abrams spørger “The remaining question is whether Jewish leaders and Democratic politicians who vouched for Obama and defended him for eight years will now tell the truth”. Jonah Goldberg skriver i samme ånd at “Obama has just thrown [liberal Jews and other supporters of Israel] under the bus” med sit forræderi og blandt Obamas egne partikammerater er der også vrede, skriver The Tower. I det venstreorienterede jødiske Tablet Magazine skriver Lee Smith at “The lame-duck president is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure

In a sense, the UN vote is a perfect bookend to Obama’s Presidency. A man who came to office promising to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel, has done exactly that by breaking with decades of American policy. It is also seeking—contrary to established tradition and practice, which strictly prohibit such lame-duck actions—to tie the hands of the next White House, which has already made its pro-Israel posture clear.

No doubt that many of those critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship will defend and applaud the administration’s action, even as the effects of the resolution are obscene. So what if it enshrines in international law the fact that Jews can’t build homes or have sovereign access to their holy sites in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people for more than 3000 years? Israel, as Kerry said, is too prosperous to care about peace with the Palestinians. Maybe some hardship will shake some sense into the Jewish State—which after all, could easily have made a just and secure peace with the Palestinian leadership at any time over the past two decades, if that’s what it wanted to do. Accounts to the contrary, from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, say, or left-wing Israeli politicians like former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the late Shimon Peres, are simply propaganda generated by the pro-Israel Lobby, whose wings the President has thankfully clipped.

But the Obama Administration’s abstention isn’t just about Israel or bilateral relations with a vital partner in a key region. It’s also about the prestige of the United States and its power—the power, for instance, undergirding international institutions like the United Nations. Consider how the Obama Administration has used the UN the last several years—to legalize the nuclear program of Iran, a state sponsor of terror, and make it illegal for Jews to build in their historical homeland. In Turtle Bay, the White House partners with sclerotic socialist kleptocracies like Venezuela in order to punish allies, like Israel. Is this American moral leadership? For Sean Penn, maybe.

Det er Jul og der er håb. Om mindre end en måned træder en mand ind som ny amerikansk præsident

trump-forsvarer-israel

Within a couple of hours, Egypt withdrew the resolution, at least temporarily, and its president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, called Mr. Trump to discuss how “to establish true peace in the Middle East,” according to an aide to the president-elect.

Skrev New York Times og selv Charles Krauthammer var imponeret. Resolution blev kørt igennem alligevel da alle, med Tom Lehrers ord, hader jøderne.

Den vandrende muslim

Donald Trumps mådeholdende kommentarer til den islamiske invasion er blevet beskyldt for meget. Blandt andet at den opvigler had blandt muslimer til USA, hvor ISIS, der ikke har noget med islam at gøre, bruger Trumps udtalelser til at rekruttere muslimer. Det viste sig at ISIS ikke fandt Trump nævneværdig og i stedet koncentrerede sin vrede over de seneste amerikanske præsidenter, ‘horekarlen’ Bill Clinton og ‘løgneren’ George W Bush samt den siddende præsident Barak Hussein Obama.

Trump blev også beskyldt for at opvirgle had mod muslimer i USA og være årsag til hadforbrydelser. I modsætning til muslimsk terror, som ingen kan konkludere på da det ikke er tydeligt hvilke socialpsykologiske dynamikker, der skaber den slags frustrationer, så er negativ omtale af muslimsk terror med dil at skabe denne kunstige dikotomi mellem vestlig frihed og sharia, hvilket altså fører Johnny Redneck lige ud i et orgie af hadforbrydelser. En af disse had-forbrydelser blev tilsyneladen begået af den 35 årige Michael Scott Wolfe, der med en machette hakkede ind i en moske, hvor han efterlod bacon. En anden forbrydelse, der fik megen omtale, var ildspåsættelsen af en moske i Texas. Det viste sig at være en muslim, der stod bag.

Men muslimer frygter back-lash, at de bliver straffet for, hvad enkelte af deres troende kammerater har fundet på. Selv efter to muslimers massemord på en firma-julefrokost i San Bernadino var frygten, hvad andre dog ikke måtte tænke om dem. A.J. Caschetta skrev om back-lash industrien 17 december i Middle East Forum

The history of the looming anti-Muslim backlash that never arrives is instructive. Logically, the original post-9/11 anti-Muslim backlash should have been the largest and most ferocious of the various backlashes, and indeed George W. Bush, members of his administration and members of Congress frequently warned Americans not to blame all Muslims for the acts committed by Al-Qaeda.

Even an anti-Israel leftist like Rachel Corrie Award recipient Delinda C. Hanley recognizes that there was no post-9/11 backlash. Writing in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Hanley gushed: “As a result of the effective campaign undertaken by America’s leaders, non-governmental organizations and the media, a backlash that, in many nations, might have turned into a bloodbath was averted and, indeed, transformed into a celebration of diversity.”

The group known as Human Rights Watch however tells a different tale. It documents in the same era a series of attacks amounting to “a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions believed to be Arab or Muslim.” The numbers are notable either for the “ferocity and extent” as HRW puts it, or for the remarkable calm they convey compared to the predicted carnage. For instance the 17-fold increase in anti-Muslim incidents sounds more alarming than the fact that there were 28 such events in 2000 compared with 481 in 2001.

It gets more interesting when one reads that these numbers include behavior ranging from “verbal taunts to employment discrimination to airport profiling to hate crimes.” Since no actual numbers are listed for specific “crimes” one might suspect that there are far more verbal taunts than hate crimes among the 481.

Men industrier kan ikke levere, hvis ikke nogen vil aftage deres produkter og det vil venstrefløjen hellere end gerne. På Gatestone Institute kan man læse, hvorledes arbejdet skrider frem med at forbyde islamkritik i USA

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.

The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).

(…)

Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”

Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?

Så muslimer er en særlig følsom gruppe. Jøder, derimod, er anderledes robuste, hvis man skal følge Facebooks logik (set hos Elder of Ziyon)

Boykot Israel, mærk jøden

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

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

The interviews were revealing: Watch

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

codepink1-boykotter-israel-i-israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

Then there are the NGOs.

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

Then there are the Netherlands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men hvad er principper mellem lumre jødehadere?

Fred i vor tid, død over Amerika!

Atomaftalen med Iran er måske ikke en garanti for fred i vor tid, men måske i stedet “Fred i vor tid!”. I hvert fald ser den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry ud til at have fået betænkeligheder ved at Irans indgroede had til Den Store Satan USA, der skal DØ! sammen med Israel oma. ikke forsvundetReuters skriver

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

Mere hos Memri. Bruce Thorntorn i Frontpage Magazine at atomatalen med Iran er en katastrofe

We also know who bears the responsibility for this fiasco––Barack Obama. Historically ignorant and terminally narcissistic, Obama has all the superstitions and delusions of the progressive elite. And one of the most persistent and hoary of those beliefs is the fetish of diplomacy as a means to resolve disputes without force.

We must remember that Obama pointedly ran on the promise to “reinvigorate” American diplomacy. This trope was in fact a way to run against George Bush, whom the Dems and the media had caricatured as a “cowboy” with an itchy trigger finger, a gunslinger scornful of diplomacy and multilateralism. That charge was a lie––Bush wasted several months on diplomacy in an unsuccessful attempt to get the U.N.’s sanction for the war, even though the U.S. Congress had approved it, Hussein was in gross violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and the U.N. already has passed 17 Security Council resolutions, all of which Hussein had violated.

Yet the narrative that Bush had “failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war,” as then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle put it, lived on. For the progressives committed to crypto-pacifism and to the belief that America is a guilty aggressor, the story was too politically useful. Obama, one of the most programmatic progressives in the Senate, embodied all those superstitions. As senator he continually criticized the war in Iraq, scorned the ultimately successful “surge” of troops in 2007 as a “reckless escalation” and a “mistake,” and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008.

As a presidential candidate, his whole foreign policy was predicated on his being the “anti-Bush” who would “reinvigorate diplomacy” and initiate “engagement” with all our enemies in order to defuse conflict and create peace. As president, Obama has been true to his word. He has apologized, groveled, bowed to potentates, “reset” relations with our rivals, shaken hands with thugs, and now talked Iran into being a nuclear power. As for “peace,” it is nowhere to be found as violence and atrocities multiply from Ukraine to Yemen, Tunisia to Afghanistan.

(…)

The belief that words alone can transcend this eternal truth of human nature––a belief deeply engrained in the mentality of our leaders and foreign policy establishment–– led to the disaster of World War II, and will despite this lesson of history lead to a lesser, but still dangerous, disaster.

But there is yet another factor in this debacle that must be acknowledged: the tendency of democracies to privilege short-term comfort over long-term threats. In democracies the use of force must have the assent of the voters, who in the U.S. every 2 years hold leaders accountable at the ballot box. Setbacks, mistakes, atrocities, casualties, and all the other unfortunately eternal contingencies of mass violence try the patience of voters, and citizen control of the military gives them a means of expressing their impatience or anger. As de Tocqueville recognized more than 150 years ago, “The people are more apt to feel than to reason; and if their present sufferings are great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be forgotten.” That pretty much sums up America’s response so far to Obama’s agreement.

Charles Krauthammer har et glimrende indlæg i Telegraph

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

(…)

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

Men det går fra farce til skandale. Obama underløber kongressen for at få sin aftale istand

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

“The astonishing thing, which no one has pointed out”, skriver den ægyptiske Imad Al-Din Adib, der sammenligner Iran-aftalen med Chamberlains München-aftale “is that even if Iran complies to the letter with the 85 sections of the agreement, the agreement itself, once its 10-year duration is up, allows [Iran] to produce a nuclear bomb in the 11th year.”

Kommentarer på Uriasposten og Snaphanen vs Fathi El-Abeds FB profil

Diverse — Drokles on December 14, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Katrine Winkel Holm anmeldte Krasniks bog Fucking Jøde, og hendes ord er så meget bedre end mine, så jeg vil planke ud over al anstændighed

I dag kan Krasnik ikke færdes på ydre Nørrebro. Alt det får Krasnik til at konstatere, at der faktisk findes antisemitisme i Danmark og at det er et ”uskyldstab af dimensioner”.

I betragtning af, at denne konstatering er selve baggrunden for bogen, er det forbløffende at det lykkes Krasnik at skrive 300 sider uden at diagnostisere roden til det nye jødehad.

Det skyldes ikke kun, at bogen i et vist omfang består af genoptryk af gamle artikler og kronikker.

Man sporer også en markant uvilje mod at søge til bunds i problemet.

Ikke på noget tidspunkt kobles det nye jødehad direkte sammen med den voksende muslimske befolkningsgruppe i Europa. Ikke på noget tidspunkt fordyber Krasnik sig i islams institutionaliserede jødehad, der sanktioneres af Koranens abe-og-svin-betegnelerne for ”yahud”.

Hvis det sker, sker det på floromvunden, politisk korrekt vis.

”Meningsmålinger blandt europæerne afslører konstante og også voksende fordomme mod jøder”, hedder det f.eks. et sted. Men Krasnik spørger ikke, hvilke europæerere, der nærer fordomme mod jøder – og om det overhovedet er europæiske ”europæere”.

(…)

Og selvfølgelig er det interessant, at Krasnik kan fremvise eksempler på modbydelige kommentarer i overlæge Morten Frischs kommentarfelt på Facebook, men viser det, at forbudskampagnen er drevet af antisemistisme? Nej, det er for overfølsomt og simpelthen forkert.

(…)

Og sandelig om ikke Krasnik kan afsløre for den undrende læser, at det ikke mindst er i Trykkefrihedsselskabets og Snaphanens kommentatorspor, at antisemtismen florerer!

”De første tegn på at antisemitismen i Danmark nok ikke bare er en filial af Mellemøstkonflikten” finder han efter Hedegaard-interviewet i Snaphanens, Uriaspostens, Mikael Jalvings og Trykkefriheds kommentatorspor.

Her er det, man må spørge sig selv, om Krasnik mon selv tror på det billede, han tegner. Ved den erklærede zionist ikke, at de sider, han forsøger at shame som vækststeder for antisemitisme hører til landet mest Israel-loyale?

Jo, der har været et par smagløse kommentarer, også på denne side, da bølgerne gik højt efter Krasniks Hedegaard-interview, men havde Krasnik læst på lektien ville han vide, at Trykkefrihed’s redaktører, bl.a. undertegnede, gik klart i rette med dem.

Og, alene forsøgsvis, at parallelisere de par af kommentarsporets dumme udsagn med det nye voldsparate jødehad, der udgår fra den nye og voksende muslimske befolkning i Europa vidner om en rystende mangel på proportionssans og dybde.

Se også Uriasposten og Snaphanen. Krasnik er uhæderlig og retter bevidst og ondsindet bager for smed. Uriaspostens Møller og Snaphanens Steen er blandt de hæderligste mennesker man kan forestille. Det behøver man ikke være venner med dem (som jeg bryster mig af at være) for at forvisse sig om, det kan enhver læse af deres skriverier. Men som uafhængige blogge er de tilstrækkeligt obskure til at de kan forsvare deres renomme og med islamkritisk fokus er de forhåndsdefamerede som rabiate.

Jeg har tidligere gjort mig morsom over dagbladet Informations læseres lumre antisemitisme i en postering om Ahmedinejad, en om antisemistisme på venstrefløjen og et om Aia Fog. Også Politikens læsere kan være med når det handler om Lykketoft og Stampe. Krasnik kender grangiveligt de to medier, men drager dem ikke til ansvar for deres læseres udgydelser. Ja, antisemitismen kommer fra muslimer og i en lummer form fra venstrefløjen og den præger medierne. For eksempel Krasniks nuværende Danmarks Radio, hvor Israel var skurken i en historien om palæstinensisk homoforfølgelse.

Arabere, muslimer, medier er alt jeg behøver for at lave en overgang til nattens prokrastinering, lørdag 13/12. Fathi El-Abed, ofte brugt kommentator i de fleste medier, mener i en Facebook opdatering, at et syreangreb på en israelsk jødisk familie har fået for megen dækning i danske medier.

Børge Andersen ISRAEL STYRER ALLE MEDIER I VESTEN … dec 2010
.
Israel vil ansætte op mod 1000 danskere som meningsagenter.
De skal forbedre Israels anseelse herhjemme.
Ud over Danmark er det bl.a. Storbritannien, Italien, Frankrig,
Spanien, Tyskland, Holland og Norge, som i sidste uge modtog en fax, der
udstikker de basale retningslinjer i den nye kampagne.
dec 2010
http://www.information.dk/telegram/252701

17 hrs · Edited · Like · 23

(…)

Mohamad R Zah Martin Wenkens kan du komme med beviser at jøder bliv gasset i Polen eller andre steder? Det tvivler jeg stærkt på, alt det som vi har lært i skolerne kan ikke være andet end bullshit, da det hele er basseret på KUN 2 øjenvidneberetninger som gav beskrivelser som slet ikke hang sammen. Der blev aldrig fundet knogler eller rester på nære hår som var klippet. Ingen dokumenter, intet. Jeg siger KAN fordi efter jeg har lavet en del research så er jeg slet ikke overbevist at holocaust er faktisk sket, men meget peger på at det var krig propaganda og ikke andet. Ikke at Jøder ikke blev behandlet dårligt under krigen og blev sat i kampe, men at de blev gasset er jo en hel anden historie. Så ja medmindre du kan komme med klare beviser på at det er sket så vil jeg ikke tro på at det er sket eller ikke sket. Hvis du bare prøver at lave lidt research på nettet så vil du selv blive i tvivl…

16 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

(…)

Anne Ulrich Aamand Hvorfor saboterede zionisterne ikke jernbanesporene ind til KZ- lejrene ? Hvorfor bombede zionisterne ikke lejrene og befriede deres jødiske medmennesker ? Hvorfor dit og hvorfor dat ? Fordi zionisterne havde en drøm om en jødisk stat kun for udvalgte jøder og ligesom Abraham var klar til at ofre sin søn Isak, fordi han hørte stemmer ( man ved vist ikke hvad Isak’s mor mente om den sag) så ofrer zionisterne gerne deres egne for at gøre guden Mammon tilfreds - den gud som afleverede Palæstina til zionisterne og smed palæstinenserne op på et bål som stadig ryger.
16 hrs · Like · 3

(…)

Mohamad R Zah Nils det behøver jeg ikke, jeg har set videoer som beviser at det der blev beskrevet af vidner hang slet ikke sammen, så igen stop med at være naiv og tro på alt hvad de har fortalt os: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Kl6RHKIQk
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
(…)
Anny Sax Kære Fathi El-Abed - Jeg vil meget gerne have din kommentar til Mohamed R Zah skiblerier…..
————
Mohamad R Zah Martin Wenkens kan du komme med beviser at jøder bliv gasset i Polen eller andre steder? Det tvivler jeg stærkt på, alt det som vi har lært i skolerne kan ikke være andet end bullshit, da det hele er basseret på KUN 2 øjenvidneberetninger som gav beskrivelser som slet ikke hang sammen. Der blev aldrig fundet knogler eller rester på nære hår som var klippet. Ingen dokumenter, intet. Jeg siger KAN fordi efter jeg har lavet en del research så er jeg slet ikke overbevist at holocaust er faktisk sket, men meget peger på at det var krig propaganda og ikke andet. Ikke at Jøder ikke blev behandlet dårligt under krigen og blev sat i kampe, men at de blev gasset er jo en hel anden historie. Så ja medmindre du kan komme med klare beviser på at det er sket så vil jeg ikke tro på at det er sket eller ikke sket. Hvis du bare prøver at lave lidt research på nettet så vil du selv blive i tvivl…
43 min. · Redigeret · Synes godt om · 3
——
På forhånd tak…….
16 hrs · Like · 6
(…)
Jørgen Garp Fathi El-Abed Selv om det kan være meget anstrengende at følge indslag af notoriske israelske ‘løgnhalse’ som Martin Wenkens, så tjener du din sag meget dårligt ved at tillade Mohammed R Sahs Holocaust benægtende udgydelser på din tråd. Luk ham ned!

15 hrs · Edited · Like · 5
(…)
Peter Kocsis Det har vakt stor forargelse, at en person på debatten har sat spørsgmålstegn ved Holocust. Imidlertid mener jeg ,at så længe den officielle Israel og dets talsmænd her på bloggen systematisk selv benægter Naqbaen, så er en benægtelse af Holocaust i diskussionen selvfølgelig ligeså legitim . Når en bøddel ikke vil respekterer ofrenes smertepunkter som bødlen selv har skabt, skal ofrene jo selvfølgelig heller ikke respektere bødlens af andre bødler skabte smertepunkter. Først den dag da Israel ikke blot anerkender og undskylder Naqbaen men også ,som FN resolutionen fra 1948 kræver, lader de fordrevne flygtninge vende tilbage til deres hjem eller hvis de ikke ønsker det, lade dem få erstatning, vil man kunne kræve ,at Holocaust anerkendes af alle og først da vil man kunne forarges over at dette ikke sker.
9 hrs · Like · 3
(…)
Ahmed M Hamze Firoozeh Bazrafkan din lille klamme luder.. skyd dig selv din klamme kælling.. håber du får et langt liv..

Det er værd at bemærke at holocaustbenægtelse får likes.

FN er tabt

Den ædle ide om et FN der bedre kunne løse internationale stridigheder i mindelighed er degenereret i samme takt som dets rettigheds aktivisme er øget. Samtidig har især venstrefløjen dyrket en irrationel ide om at det diplomatiske maskineri udgjorde en moralsk målestok. Men alt har en ende og FN overspiller i stigende grad sine kort, som  Anne Bayefsky skriver i Jerusalem Post

The Obama administration voted against – after joining and legitimizing the virulently anti-Jewish Council for the past five years, and now feigning disappointment for American cameras.

The Europeans abstained because they did not want to upset their violent Muslim minorities, and with their sordid past, the resolution’s message wasn’t too foreign in any case. A few cowardly countries that Israelis have magnanimously befriended over the years also abstained.

But the majority of the UN world cheered – literally. Speakers during the procession of hatemongers at the Council were greeted with applause.

(…)

The feeding frenzy that followed her at the UN’s highest human rights body was raw unadulterated antisemitism. It was a verbal blitz timed to coincide with the blitz of Hamas rocket attacks that Israelis were experiencing from the skies. The Council session revealed – for the umpteenth time – that these offensives are a continuation of the rejection of a Jewish state, period. Or in the words of Palestinian foreign minister Riyad Maliki himself at the Council, first came the “Israeli atrocities of 1948.” Maliki went on to charge Israel with having “exterminated” Palestinians. His language included: “the smell of death is pursuing Palestinian children because of Israel…who have transformed children into shreds…while they tried to escape the machinery of death.”

Over and over again the despicable antisemitic analogy of Israelis to Nazis was repeated, along with maniacal claims from a parade of human rights abusers. Algeria said “Gaza is a concentration camp.” Sudan said Israel had a “policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide.” Iran claimed Israel was engaged in “massacres and crimes against humanity.” Venezuela said “Israel seeks to exterminate the Palestinian people.” Tunisia said “Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism and is acting in Gaza like the Nazis.” And then there were charges of “barbaric, inhuman acts,” “heinous massacres,” and “crimes unparalleled in recent history.”

In the end, the Human Rights Council’s resolution “deplores” and “condemns in the strongest terms” Israel’s “grave,” “widespread, systematic, and gross” “violations of human rights.” The word “Hamas” is never mentioned.

And the UN launched a second Goldstone-like inquiry – another “human rights” investigation into “violations of law in the occupied Palestinian territory” – not Israeli territory of course.

(…)

The UN is lost. It is not too late for America.

Denne forelæsning fra 2010 fortæller netop Anne Bayefsky om degenereringen af Menneskerettighedsrådet

Much to the dismay of people in actual need of human rights protection, the UN’s Human Rights Council have been hijacked by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) — an organization of 56 Muslim countries who use Islamophobia to justify terrorism, while undermine the fight for human rights in Muslim countries and making sure Muslim countries and Islam will always be above criticism while of course blaming all the ills and injustice in the world on the western non-Muslim world and particularly the United States and Israel.

In this video, Anne Bayefsky, discussed the U.N.’s Racism Conference (Durban Conference), the invention “Islamophobia” as means to justify terror. And the intense lobbying by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) for the issues of “Islamophobia” and “oppression” of Muslims ONLY by non-Muslims to be the prominent focus of the UN’s agenda in general and the Human Rights commission in particular. And the war (which they have won) to ensure that a prohibition against “Islamophobia” will be endorsed by the world community as the newest international human right issue and the equivalent of anti-Semitism.

Borrowing from Wikipedia:

“According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism.[3] UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council’s president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[4][5][6] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration”.

Nu er FN aktivt med i krig mod Israel. Som de leverer Hamas våbenlagre tilbage til Hamas kører de også deres krigere rundt i FN ambulancer

Man kan ikke forhandle sin egen undergang

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, Muslimer, Terror, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 27, 2014 at 8:36 pm

skriver meget rigtigt i Toronto Sun at Hamas er sindssyge. Eller, det er ikke rigtigt, Hamas er blot rettroende muslimer, men nuvel

The following quotations are all taken from [Hamas charter]:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized.”

“The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur’an is its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

“Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Israel is an Islamic Waqf, consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“Initiatives and so-called peaceful resolutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement … There is no solution for the Palestinian question, except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time …”

“The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion … It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and the Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.”

“Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. May the cowards never sleep.”

“Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason and cursed be he who does that … There is no way out except by concentrating all powers and energies to face this Nazi, vicious Tatar invasion.”

Som man kan se optræder jøde og zionist synonymt. Al tale om at Hamas er imod et bestemt politik eller blot reagerer på noget konkret som Israel har gjort er altså forkert. Hamas er en terror organisation, der kun har til formål at slå jøder ihjel fordi de er jøder. Og for ligesom at understrege det for de tungnemme så måtte en fredsdemonstration på Rabin pladsen evakueres da Hamas beskød

Slogans chanted by the protesters included “Stop the war,” “Bring the soldiers back home” and “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies,” Channel 2 reported.

Channel 2 noted that prominent left-wing party Meretz as well as the Peace Now organization had opted not to take part in the rally, with the TV report speculating that the protesters may fall to the left of those groups on the political spectrum.

The demonstrations were cut short when Hamas unilaterally ended a humanitarian truce with Israel and resumed rocket-fire from Gaza.

Wakey, wakey venstresnoede jøder.

Stryg til en antisemitisk kandestøber

Diverse — Drokles on March 22, 2011 at 7:03 pm

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.

Præst læser teksten for palæstinenserne

Diverse — Drokles on July 31, 2009 at 12:25 am

Fra Kristeligt Dagblad

Hvorfor er det så vigtigt for Israel at blive anerkendt?

Svaret er givet i FN’s resolution 181 af 29. november 1947, hvor der på det tidspunkt var 57 medlemslande. Her stemte kun 13 lande imod, mens 33 lande stemte for, og 11 lande undlod at stemme. Resolutionen påbød såvel palæstinensere som jøder at oprette hver sin selvstændige, demokratiske stat, som gensidigt skulle anerkende den anden part og således leve i fredelig “sameksistens”.

Palæstinenserne har aldrig villet anerkende denne FN-resolution, og det er årsagen til, at der ikke findes en såkaldt palæstinensisk stat i dag. Hvis de havde rettet sig efter FN’s resolution 181, kunne de have haft det land, der er tildelt dem, og det kan de også i dag, men det vil de ikke, fordi de ikke ønsker, at der skal være en jødisk stat!

Israel anerkendte resolutionen, selvom den syntes uretfærdig og meget vanskelig at gennemføre. For det første var allerede 77 procent af mandatet: “Det hellige Land” givet som et emirat til Abdullah Hussein, og det blev senere til Transjordanien (på den anden side af Jordan) og nu kongeriget Jordan, så her har de såkaldte palæstinensere et af deres i alt 14 hjemlande.

Herligt og resten kan anbefales.

Tabstal fra Gaza

Israel — Drokles on May 8, 2009 at 1:04 am

I Weekendavisen i forrige uge skrev under overskriften “Besat af Israel”

Hver gang FNs næsten 200 medlemsstater mødes for at vedtage kritiske landeresolutioner - i Generalforsamlingen i New York eller Menneskerettighedsrådet i Genève - drejer cirka halvdelen af dem sig om kritik af Israels fremfærd i Mellemøsten. Israel kaldes aggressiv, krigerisk, kolonialistisk, racistisk. Sådan har det været siden slutningen af 1960erne. Her har de arabiske, afrikanske og socialistiske lande udgjort en permanent stemmeblok i FN . Med lejlighedsvis støtte fra Vesteuropa.

Det er også derfor, at netop palæstinenserne er blevet verdensorganisationens »udvalgte folk«. Det viser sig på mange måder: Palæstinenserne er for eksempel det folk, der per indbygger får mest økonomisk støtte af FN . Samtidig har palæstinenserne en speciel FN -organisation oprettet kun for at hjælpe dem, forkortet UNWRA. Og de er tilmed det eneste folk, der har en særlig årlig FN -dag, den 29. november, der hvert år bliver fejret i FN som »international solidaritetsdag for det palæstinensiske folk«.

Under Durban 2-konferencen oplevede Weekendavisen også flere gange, at FN -diplomater nærmest per automatpilot slog over i Israel -kritik, når vi havde talt sammen et par minutter. Et enkelt eksempel: Da vi drak kaffe med Namibias FN -ambassadør og en sydafrikansk FN -ansat, spurgte vi om deres syn på Irans præsident Ahmadinejads tale på FN -konferencen og svaret lød: »Det er jo en sag med flere aspekter.« Derefter tavshed. Og så: »Hele problemstillingen skyldes også Israels besættelser af Palæstina.« Snakker man længe nok med folk her i FN , viser det sig, at de er besatte af Israel .

Derfor er det også logisk, at Israel , som det eneste land, har fået sin egen skurke-planche sat op på den lange kantinegang i Palais des Nations, hvor alle mødes hver dag. Israel -aversionerne samler og integrerer.

Det er en skam. Tænk over, hvor meget den batalje i årtier har skygget for langt blodigere konflikter: Darfur. Rwanda. Tibet . Somalia. Zimbabwe. Tjetjenien. Burma. You name it! Disse undertrykte befolkninger er de store tabere i den særlige »opmærksomhedsøkonomi«, som regulerer FN -apparatet.

(…)

Måske skulle man se på, hvor mange ofre der har været i den israelsk-arabiske konflikt siden 1948. Svaret er cirka 60.000. Det er naturligvis mange, men tallet sygner hen, når man ser på klodens mange andre konflikter. I flæng kan man (i cirkatal) nævne disse myrderier:

- Den algeriske borgerkrig i 1990erne: 100.000 døde.

- Folkemordet i Darfur: 300.000 døde.

- Den somaliske borgerkrig: En halv million døde.

- Saddam Husseins folkemord: En halv million døde.

- Iran-Irak-krigen: 1 million døde.

- Folkemordet i Rwanda: 1 million døde.

Det store fokus på Israels fremfærd trækker selvfølgelig FNs opmærksomhed væk fra disse langt større problemer og lidelser. Sådan er den opmærksomhedsøkonomiske logik.

Hvad med, at FN begyndte at opfatte Israel som et mere normalt land? Et land, for eksempel på linje med Argentina, der også har været i krig for ikke så længe siden, der også har problemer med menneskerettighederne, der også med jævne mellemrum vælger tåbelige politikere. Men sådan en Israel -normalisering har desværre nok lange udsigter.

Det er da heller ikke kun i FN -systemet, at Israel og Palæstina optager sindene. For eksempel viste en EU-måling for nogle år siden, at Israel indtager førstepladsen på europæernes liste over »Trusler imod verdensfreden«. Så besættelsen af Israel er udbredt langt ud over FN -systemet.

Møllen stopper aldrig, som her demonstreret i Kristeligt Dagblad

I januar i år bombede og invaderede israelske styrker Gaza-striben i 22 dage, efter at Hamas i årevis havde bombet israelske byer med raketangreb.

Følgerne i Gaza lød på mere end 1000 dræbte civile palæstinensere og mange tusinde hjemløse.

FN har siden efterforsket den israelske invasion, og ifølge en ny rapport har israelske styrker i seks ud af ni efterforskede tilfælde det fulde ansvar for, at civile er blevet dræbt eller såret. Vel at mærke mens de civile søgte beskyttelse i FN-bygninger. Det reporterer BBC.

Heldigvis er, der små lys i mørket. Observants Henrik Krog gennemgår i et gæsteindlæg på Uriasposten tabstallene fra Israels strålende aktion i Gaza

Som med en lignende opgørelse for den israelske anti-terror aktion i Libanon i sommeren 2006 lider denne under, at man ikke har offentliggjort listerne med hvem man har identificeret som terrorister, og samtidig styrkes den arabiske side af, at man netop har offentliggjort sådanne lister over “civile” og “militante” - PCHR´s findes her. At kunne identificere offeret giver altid en sag større vægt.

De sidste par uger har denne styrke imidlertid vist sig at være en endda ret kraftig svaghed - den har nemlig sat ganske almindelige mennesker som dig og mig istand til selv at skille skæg fra snot. Klikker man ind på listen opdager man for eksempel død # 586, Mohammed Ibrahim Abu Sha’ar, der er blandt de afdøde, som PCHR kalder for “civile”. Kigger man på mandens arbejde, så angives det som “Policeman/member of the al-Qassam Brigades”. al-Qassem Brigaderne er terror-gruppen Hamas´ væbnede gren - den hob mordere, der står for at slå så mange civile jøder som muligt ihjel. At være medlem af en terror-gruppe - en “militant” organisation - er selve definitionen på at være “militant”. Det er bare ikke nok for PCHR og dermed medierne.

Går man uden for PCHR´s lister bliver billedet imidlertid meget værre. I efterhånden et par uger har en gruppe aktivister fra blandt andet bloggene Elder of Ziyon og Bottled Poetry og terror-databasen PTWatch kryds-checket PCHR´s lister med de lister over “martyrer”, som de arabiske terror-organisationer selv har lagt ud. De lagde ud med al-Qassem Brigaderne, hvis engelske site idag lister 14 “martyrer” fra Støbt Bly. 

Læs den hele (måske på Observant, der lidt sært henviser til eget gæsteindlæg)

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.

Informations læsere

Antisemitisme, Forbrydelse og straf, Israel, Multikultur, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on January 19, 2009 at 5:48 am

Antisemitismen stortrives på venstrefløjen, men fordi den ikke er en formuleret del af ideologien(erne) tror de fleste fløjsere sig fri for den slags primitive idiosynkrasier. Den er ellers let at konstatere f.eks. i det intense og urimelige fokus på Israel, hvis hver og eneste handling granskes nidkært uden hensyn til kontekst og historie. Hverken Kina, Saudi-Arabien, Burma, Nordkorea, Congo, Sudan, Syrien, Cuba eller noget land er så foragtede hos venstrefløjen, som Israel. Israel står ikke blot til ansvar for egne handlinger, men også for de handlinger, der er vendt imod Israel. Terror og gentagne forsøg på udslettelse ser venstrefløjen ikke, som Israels sørgelige vilkår, men derimod, som beviser for Israels forbrydelser, der naturligt genererer had. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Og jøden er bare fordømt for ulykke er kun interessant, hvis der er jøder indblandet. Empatien for det palæstinensiske folks lidelser er kun aktuelle så langt de angår Israel. Derfor berøres undertrykkelsen af palæstinensere i andre arabiske lande ikke, som at Ægypten har lukket deres del af grænsen til Gaza. Heller ikke engang palæstinensernes slavelignende forhold i Saudi-Arabien, hvor kvinder holdes, som kvæg interesserer den røstrømpede venstrefløj.

USA kræves altid på banen i Israel/palæstina konflikten, men træffes en forkert beslutning i venstrefløjens øjne taler de straks om den israelske lobby eller endda mere frit om den jødiske lobby, som ophav til miseren. At der er jøder, der fra et skjul styrer verdens mægtigste mand ved at hviske ham ting i øret og manipulere ham til beslutninger han ellers ikke ville træffe er temaet i det groteske falsum Zions Vises Protokoller. I det lys er det særligt farligt at så mange vesterlændinge mener at verdensfreden trues af konflikten mellem Israel og palæstinenserne fordi at den underliggende konklusion er at det så nok er jødernes eksistens, der står i vejen for en ny og bedre verdensorden.

Information har en artikel om antisemitismen i Europa og endda i dagens Danmark. Her hedder det blandt andet

Siden begyndelsen på den israelske offensiv i Gaza for to uger siden har der været rapporter om vold mod jøder og attentater mod jødiske institutioner i en lang række vesteuropæiske lande. I Stor-britannien, Belgien og Tyskland har der været brand-attentater mod jødiske synagoger. Efter attentatet mod synagogen i Toulouse i forrige uge udtalte den franske præsident, Nicolas Sarkozy, at Frankrig “ikke vil acceptere, at internationale konflikter muterer til vold mellem forskellige befolkningsgrupper i det franske samfund”.

I Danmark blev to jødiske mænd beskudt i et indkøbscenter i Odense mellem jul og nytår, og sidste lørdag blev en demonstration på Rådhuspladsen i København for Israels ret til selvforsvar, som var arrangeret af Dansk Zionistforbund, chikaneret af Hamas-sympatisører:

“Vi kan ikke leve i den forestilling, at Danmark er et eventyrland. Vi er en del af det internationale samfund på godt og ondt,” udtaler overrabbiner Bent Lexner.

Overrabbineren beklager, at danske jøder ikke fortæller mere åbent om deres problemer:

“Jødiske familier vil gerne leve anonymt. De tør ikke stille op i medierne og fortælle om deres oplevelser med chikane. Vi har et fodboldhold, der må spille under politibeskyttelse. Vores børn bliver chikaneret, når de går fra skole. Det er den situation, som vi lever i og med. Og spørgsmålet er så, hvordan vi kan ændre det,” siger Bent Lexner.

(…)

Når situationen i Mellemøsten spidser til, oplever vi også en radikalisering af muslimske miljøer i Danmark,” siger Finn Schwarz, som dog ikke mener, at klimaet for nuværende er det rette til øget dialog mellem jøder og muslimer i Danmark:

“Jeg tror, at vi skal vente, indtil konflikten i Gaza er slut. Vi må først finde ud af, hvem vi skal snakke med, og hvem der vil snakke med os.”

Traditionen tro blandes nogle europæiske befolkningers holdning til jøder sammen med deres holdning til muslimer et sted i artiklen, mens holdningen til alle andre sjovt nok ignoreres. Men det får ligge til en anden gang. Det er trods alt tydeligt at den muslimske indvandring er en indvandring af antisemitisme. Og det er tydeligt at den antisemitisme ikke blot er uigennemtænkt vrangvillighed blandt enkelte særlinge, men religiøst og ideologisk had der fordrer agressiv adfærd, hvor mindelserne om nazismen springer i øjnene. F.eks. når demonstrationen til fordel for Israel kun kunne foregå med massiv politibeskyttelse og hvor den ulovlige “moddemonstration”, slyngede nazistiske slagord og trusler ud mod jøderne og vel at mærke ikke fra Johnni fra Greve, men danske muslimer og enkelte autonome. Moddemonstration blev sigende for dagens Danmark ikke opløst, men holdt hen til pro-Israel demonstrationen var færdig. Derefter fik den lov at indtage Rådhuspladsen da politiet ikke ville skabe unødige konfrontationer. Gadens parlament sætter dagsordenen, men hos Informations læsere konkluderer man anderledes

Hvis Det Mosaiske Troessamfund vil hetzen til livs, ville et sted at starte være med det politiske etablissements dæmonisering af sagens parter. Det bør stå rimelig klart, at den retorik vi hører fra eksempelvis DFs Søren Espersen vil positionere israelere (og i befolkningens øjne, desværre, dermed jøder) i modsætningsforhold til andre religiøse og politiske overbevisninger.

Det er Søren Espersen, der er skyldig.

Hans Jørgen Lassen

Schwarz siger til Information:“Mit indtryk er, at mange har været udsat for ubehagelige bemærkninger, og at rigtig mange er bekymret for situationen.”

Hertil kan man blot sige:

“Mit indtryk er, at mange palæstinensere har været udsat for bomber og granater, og at mere end 1000 er blevet myrdet.”

Er der blevet myrdet mere end 1000 palæstinensere i Danmark?

Tja, DF står jo hårdt og fast på at yttringsfriheden er uantastbar og alt skal kunne hånes, nedgøres, fornærmes. Hvorfor er det så lige dem og deres følgesvende der nu mokker sig over Israel- og jødekritiske yttringer?

“Dræb jøderne” og “heil Hitler” er jødekritik.

De israelske - og de danske med - er da vist hverken en sårbar eller udsat minoritet. Tværtimod, er de særdeles magtfulde.Hvis nogen er sårbare og udsatte, så er det da palæstinenserne i Gaza - så sårbare, at inden for kort tid er 1.100 døde af det, og over 5000 sårede.

Jøderne i Danmark er særdeles magtfulde og deres sikkerhed i Danmark skal betænkes i lyset af situationen i Gaza.

Jens H.:“jagtet vildt”… Man skulle tro der gik lynchmobs igennem gader, anholdt enhver med hvad de holder for jødisk-etniske kendetegn, hev bukserne ned på tilsvarende for at se om tilsvarende er omskåren og så fandt det nærmeste træ og et stykke reb.

Og det der med “særbar og udsat minoritet” indgår desværre ikke i den hellige yttringsfrihed.

Man skulle tro artiklens indhold var sandt og at trusler ikke er en del af ytringsfriheden.

Det må for Guds skyld ikke slippe ud. Hele min opfattelse af verden og hele min identitet vil ligge i ruiner af denne vigtige og relevante oplysning.

En opblussen af ‘jødehad’ i Europa en forudsigelig følge af Zionisternes fremfærd i Gaza og deres propaganda der forsøger at miskreditere al kritik som ‘antisemitisk’.
Det er således ironisk nok Zionisterne, og ikke Irans præsident, der reducere Holucaust til en myte i stedet for at være en advarsel om konsekvensen af folkemord.
Det er Zionisterne der er skyld i forvekslingen af anti-zionisme og anti-semitisme.

Roden skal findes blandt jøderne.

Heilene Islamofacister på Rådhuspladsen, er ikke noget der klæder vores land, ligeså lidt som Dansk folkepartis populistiske støtten op om Israel.

Dansk Folkeparti sidestilles med nazisme.

@Frank PedersenIngen land kan slagte så mange børn og kvinder i så kort tid, bruge forbudte våben imod civil befolkning, ignorere FN resolutioner, udsulte,ydmyge… en hel befolkning, ekspropriere deres land….og alligevel slippe ustraffet fra det!!
Nu er det på tide at sætte Israel, og for den sags skyld de vestlige regeringer for deres støtte, på terrorlisten.

Ja, hvem andre end jøderne? At de civile tabe er historisk lave for en væbnet konflikt og at 1.100 til 1.300 døde også er lavt i betragtning af konfliktens intensitet og varighed har ingen betydning for deres billede af begivenhederne. I øvrigt tales, der intenst om boykot af israelske varer, som der også hersker enighed om at “muren er kendt ulovlig” af den israelske højesteret, hvilket får en til at kalde Israel for en fasciststat. Der findes selvfølgelig ingen lov, der forbyder Israel at bygge en mur langs grænsen, men der findes en lov om at man ikke må overskride grænsen, hvilket er noget ganske andet. En mener ganske surrealistisk at den israelske hær ikke må advare beboere i et hus før de bomber det for “Israel må ikke opfordre en befolkning til at flytte sig for at det kan føre krig der. Står direkte i Geneve-Konventionerne.” og en anden mener oven i købet at var han palæstinenser og blev advaret ved flyveblade at han “..snarere ville opfatte dem som provokerende og hånlige..” Ak ja.

—————————————————————-

Bohemian Rhasody har en glimrende gennemgang af det samme tema, som det varmt kan anbefales at læse

Jagten på Ikonet

Diverse — Drokles on January 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Det er vigtigt med et godt ikon, hvis man vil huske verden på sin sag. Nogen opstår tilfældigt fordi et kamera fanger øjeblikket.

tiananmensquarejune51989.jpg

Andre konstrueres fordi kameramanden gerne vil være berømt.

14462da0-a324-f122-0da7ece6d019876a-1.jpg

Andre konstrueres fordi man har brug for det.

image.jpg

Andre fordi psykopati kan være salonfähig med de rette floskler og et kønt ansigt

che-guevara.jpg

Hvad mener de om dette fra Kristeligt Dagblad?

191550_411_800.jpg

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress