https://www.facebook.com/share/rSYYtvo7yukqimZh/
Dagens FB-sitat:
"Barth Eide bruker ordene internt fordrevne om
libanesere som flykter fra Israels reaksjon på raketter fra Hizbollah.
Men de opp mot 80.000 Israelerne som har måttet forlate sine
hjem i nord Israel, sier han at de har valgt å bo midlertidig sør i Israel.
Det er noe med språket hans, ordene, som dehumaniserer
jøder.
Espen Barth Eide er en stor belastning på AP regjeringen.
Ikke rart han blir nektet innreise til Israel.
Men det er ikke bare ham.
Det er regjeringen Støre som står bak dette.
Denne utopiske drømmen om en tostatsløsning som verken
palestinere eller israelere vil ha.
Freds-nasjonen Norge lizzom." Eirek
Sandnes på egen vegg.
https://www.facebook.com/share/un7eWvx6nEHBv97w/
"For unge jenter i Pakistan, kristne og hindu, er det
ikke trygt å tro! Over 1000 jenter blir årlig kidnappet, tvangskonvertert og
giftet bort til sine kidnappere", Stefanusalliansen.
Kommentar: Kidnappere … ! Hindu eller kristne kidnappere?
Forutsettes det at Stefanus selvsagt mener muslimske kidnappere? Hvorfor nevnes
i så fall ikke dette? Og hvorfor skulle noen legge ut dette sitatet på sin
face?
Mysterium – er til for å forbli mysterium. Men forklaringen
er kanskje fobi? For kidnappere?
-
https://www.document.no/2024/08/22/krf-et-parti-uten-identitet-og-mal/
Kristelig Folkeparti er i krise. Spørsmålet er om vi bør bli
overrasket, partiet har nemlig i flere år prøvd å ri flere hester samtidig, noe
som sjelden vil ende godt.
I utgangspunktet var KrF et parti der man var enige i verdispørsmål,
som også ble oppfattet som kjernesakene, mens man var uenige i økonomisk
politikk. Det ble hevdet at partiet derfor måtte forstås som et sentrumsparti,
men allikevel borgerlig. Ikke fordi partiets medlemmer var uinteressert i
økonomisk politikk, sosialismen ble kontant avvist, men fordi man ikke ville
splitte partiet. … man prøvde å løse utfordringen med vakre ord som nestekjærlighet
og ønsket om et varmt samfunn. …
I 2018 prøvde daværende partileder Knut Arild Hareide å
løse denne konflikten da han tvang partiet til å velge enten venstresiden
eller høyresiden … han ønsket et samarbeid med venstresiden, … og partiet
fikk ny leder i Kjell Ingolf Ropstad. …
… partiets blå side, med Olaug Bollestad i spissen fra 2021,
var mer liberale enn de fleste var forberedt på, noe som innebar at det vokste
fram nye konfliktlinjer som om mulig splitter partiet enda mer.
… Men selv om det er klart for alle at dette innebærer
politiske veivalg, er KrF et parti der man ikke offentlig diskuterer person og
politikk. Konservative medlemmer som ikke blir valgt til verv, får alltid vite
at deres konservative standpunkt ikke er et problem, det er alltid andre
forhold som blir vektlagt. I KrF løses politisk uenighet med å henstille til
partilojalitet. … Partiet som en stor organisasjon i Kristen-Norge ble
viktigere enn politikken. Budskapet var alltid tydelig: Det var en kristen
plikt å støtte KrF i verdikampen. Utfordringen var at tidligere klart definerte
verdispørsmål ble erstattet med ulne slagord som nestekjærlighet, et samfunn
med plass til alle og rettferdighet.
… Olaug Bollestad gikk ut og sa at de som tar vanskelige
valg, «aldri, aldri, aldri» vil bli møtt med fordømmelse fra henne og KrF. I
forkant av Bollestads uttalelse hadde KrFU-leder Rasmus Hadle Bjuland sagt at
han «har landet på at jeg ønsker å anerkjenne dagens abortlov og heller kjempe
mot en utvidelse av dagens lov, der debatten nå står». Og når Olaug Bollestad i
tillegg valgte å delta i pride-parade …
Standpunkt som tidligere holdt partiet sammen, ble nå åpent
utfordret, uten at det medførte en reell debatt. Budskapet var at i KrF var det
plass til alle, uansett hvem du er, og det opplevdes som et stort paradoks at
et parti som var opptatt av å riste av seg stempelet som en menighet, minnet
stadig mer om nettopp dét. …
Men politiske partier er ikke menigheter med plass til alle,
og hva vi er vitne til, minner om det som fant sted i 1971 da den borgerlige
regjeringen gikk av. …
Dagens krise i KrF handler om langt mer enn personlige
konflikter. Hva vi er vitne til, er et parti i oppløsning på grunn av
politiske uenigheter som aldri har blitt skikkelig drøftet og avklart. KrF er
blitt et parti uten en samlende identitet og politisk plattform, der den
viktigste funksjonen til medlemmer og velgere har blitt å ta vare på partiet
som en arbeidsplass og karrierevei.
Kommentar: Hva med forholdet til islam som forklaring på KrF’s
forsvinningsnummer?
Se bla denne:
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/02/krf-og-det-muslimske-brorskapet.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/11/islamsk-folkeparti-eller-kristelig.html
La oss ta en kikk på KrF og hvordan partiet definerer seg –
fullstendig - negativt i forhold kristendommen. Vi stiller noen enkle spørsmål
til partiet, (det er gjort før, se under):
1. Tror KrF, og avisene Vårt Land og Dagen, at Koranen er
Guds sanne Ord? (Hvis det fins ord fra Allah i Koranen som kan sies å være
identiske med Guds ord i Bibelen, kan da Krf og disse avisene eventuelt
dokumentere dette med eksempler?
2. Tror KrF, og avisene Vårt Land og Dagen at den guden som
muslimene tilber, Allah, er den eneste sanne Gud? (Kan de forresten svare på om
det fins flere sanne guder?).
3. Tror KrF, og avisene Vårt Land og Dagen at Yahweh og
Allah er samme Gud, eller vet de ikke noe om det, eller kanskje viktigere: Tør
de ikke si noe om det? Eller bare vil de bare – av en eller annen for
dem vektig grunn - ikke svare på spørsmålet? (I så fall: Hvorfor? Finnes det
helt andre grunner til eller forklaringer på at de eventuelt ikke vil svare?
Vil de f eks si og svare at det f eks er upassende eller usømmelig å svare på
slike spørsmål og at det ikke tjener noens sak og posisjon?).
4. Tror KrF, og avisene Vårt Land og Dagen at gode, fromt
troende muslimer kommer inn i Guds rike, eller inn i den himmel som forespeiles
de frelste i den judeokristne Bibel? Tror KrF, og avisene Vårt Land og Dagen
med andre ord at kristne kommer til himmelen sammen med sant muslimske Allah-
troende, hvis begge «fyller vilkårene»?
Så vidt jeg vet, er disse eller tilsvarende spørsmålene tidligere
rettet til KrF’s styre eller partiledelse uten at partiet den gang ville svare
konkret. KrF svarte noe sånt som at KrF er et politisk parti og ingen instans
for teologisk analyse. I svaret ble den som stilte spørsmålet henvist til andre
«instanser», uten å presisere hvilke.
Kommentar: Et parti som nekter seg selv og andre å få svar
på visse fundamentale spørsmål, er dødt for
gå til helvete, for å si det på folkemunne. Det gjelder selvsagt ikke
bare KrF.
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2018/08/kjrlighet-er-gud-om-bl-bekkevoll.html
At kristne går inn for å redusere kristendommen til noe
ukjennelig og skremmende, går kanskje mest tydelig frem her:
HRS er en blogg som sprer rasisme, islamofobi, hat og
konspirasjonsteorier primært rettet mot muslimer har hatt denne forslagsretten,
skriver han i Utrop
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/02/simen-bondevik-hater-han-hrs.html
Følgende linker kan du selvsagt hoppe over på egne risiki:
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2016/01/selbekk-bondevik-stre-og-stoltenberg.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/02/ofres-na-frankrike-pa-frihetens-alter.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/07/mer-om-brenning-og-f-eks-simen-bondevik.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/06/fascistoide-kristne-og-human-etikere.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2018/11/asia-bibi-islamofobi-selvdestruksjon-og.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2014/01/viktig-melding-islamofobi-ingen-sykdom.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/05/lei-av-lars-gule-vager-du-hviske-det.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/08/tidens-doulogi-et-symptom-i-og-med.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/10/thes-islamofobi.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/04/skal-vi-snart-bli-kvitt-islamofobien.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/05/om-dhimmipsykologi-islamofobi-og-bl.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/09/erdogan-i-fn-islamofobi-er.html
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/11/nar-demografi-og-islamofobi-blir.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/03/islamofobien-som-splitter-kristne-na-i.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/05/biden-pluss-hjerte-erdogan-sant.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/08/kritikk-skal-vre-et-alvorlig.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/10/kolberg-og-bjerkholt-karakterdrap-ikke.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2013/11/moren-en-av-oss.html
Nylig kom Jyllands-Posten med en nedslående meningsmåling. Den viste
blant annet at hver syvende danske mener at Hamas sitt terrorangrep, som altså
var den største massakren på jøder siden Holocaust, var berettiget, mens mer
enn hver tredje muslim i Danmark mener det samme. Blant unge muslimer mener
hele 41 prosent angrepet var berettiget, mens opp mot halvparten, 44 prosent,
sympatiserer med terrororganisasjonen Hamas.
Det er nok en meningsmåling som gjør vondt for statsminister
Frederiksen.
https://www.rights.no/2024/10/hvis-frihet-demokrati-og-menneskerettigheter-betyr-noe/
Vi må videre,
stadig lengre vekk, og stadig nærmere:
https://www.document.no/2020/06/27/vil-rettsstaten-overleve-islamisering-av-politi-og-rettsvesen/
KrFs Olaug Bollestad sier til Vårt Land at hun er positiv
til å åpne opp for bruk av hijab i norsk politi og rettsvesen. Hijab-forslaget
er ett av flere som er kommet inn i arbeidet med nytt partiprogram for KrF før
neste års stortingsvalg. Ifølge avisen Dagen foreslår utvalget som har jobbet
med fagområdet at politi og fagdommere skal få bruke religiøse
symboler/hodeplagg som en del av uniformen.
Olaug Bollestad sier at for mange er hijab en viktig del av
troen, og at hun er åpen for at vi skal ha plass for at folk kan vise sin tro.
… Hva Olaug Bollestad egentlig sier, er at det er
akseptabelt dersom hele politiet og rettsvesenet fylles opp med hijabkledde
muslimske kvinner. Det kan nemlig ikke være slik at det bare er ok med én
muslimsk kvinne med hijab på ett politikammer, det må være ok med en
fullstendig islamisering.
For det andre må vi forstå at en hijab representerer en
underkastelse av islams lov, sharia, samt et menneskesyn som er kristendommen
fremmed. I en tid hvor rasismekortet brukes altfor ofte, er det relevant å
bruke det i en analyse av islam. Med tanke på islams rangering av mennesker ut
fra deres tro, der polyteister fortjener døden og jøder
fremstilles som et folk som fortjener ydmykelse, skam og fordømmelse, bør
ikke muslimer bli overrasket når det blir hevdet at islam fremmer rasistisk
tenkning.
… Olaug Bollestad og et utvalg i KrF åpnet opp for en
islamisering av politiet og domstolene.
En innvending mot denne frykten er at den bygger på en
generalisering, at ikke alle muslimer har dette menneskesynet, og at en god
integrering vil motvirke radikalisering.
… Det bør for eksempel være lov til å stille spørsmål om hva
KrF mener om kvinners rettssikkerhet med et islamisert politi og rettsvesen.
Vi bør også være skeptiske overfor islam av mer
grunnleggende årsaker. Islam bygger på en virkelighetsforståelse der objektiv
moral, fri vilje og samvittighet er fraværende, og der sekulær lovgivning ikke
kan komme i strid med islams rett, noe som bryter fullstendig med den
forståelsen vestlig strafferett legger til grunn. …
-
Her kommer noe som Fosli legger ut på sin Face, helidg vis:
https://www.facebook.com/share/Jb9Ruv4b3Z3FzyY8/, Morten
Lilleøren
ptsSdrenooa071th54240tam0hi6 i1gh8a99a483184ua49hlc0605ai89u
·
Islam, islamisme og anti-semittisme. Teser:
1. Islam er anti-jødisk fra 622 og utover.
2. Dette medførte at jødene i 1300 år hadde en annenrangs og
undertrykt status i dar al-islam. Av og til noen pogromer, men mest ydmykelser.
(For skikkelige pogromer i tidlig tid, se for eksempel almohadenes historie).
3. Denne statusen delte de med kristne, den kalles dhimma.
4. Dhimmi-statusen ble fjernet i 1856 i det ottomanske
riket. I praksis vedvarte den en god del lenger rundt om.
5 Statusen innebar også en viss form for ‘beskyttelse’, lik
mafia-praksisen som er velkjent fra Syd-Italia. De store pogromene kom altså
etter 1856 – og de rammet i første omgang den kristne minoriteten i muslimske
områder: Folkemordet på armenerne begynner vel nå å bli kjent, men ta også med
grekerne og assyrerne. Først når dette i all hovedsak var ‘unnagjort’ kom turen
til jødene.
6. Det er i kjølvannet av sammenbruddet til det ottomanske
riket at islamismen vokser fram.
7. Islamismen er et forsøk på å modernisere islam – ved å
vende tilbake til det opprinnelige: Den egne betegnelsen islamister bruker, er
salafiyya – å vende tilbake til forfedrene, islam slik den ble utøvd på
profetens tid.
8. Muhammed hadde en rekke sammenstøt med jøder. Derfor er
det mange jødefiendtlige skriftsteder både i koranen og hadith, samt at sira
inneholder skildringer av en rekke slike hendelser.
9. Nesten som en sideeffekt av islamismen kommer dermed
dette anti-jødiske materialet i forgrunnen igjen.
10. Siden det inntrer samtidig med en jødisk
frigjøringsprosess i hele den muslimske verden etter 1856, forsterkes
betydningen av disse skriftstedene. Det tilspisses ytterligere når
innvandringen til det palestinske området tar til: Den jødiske innvandringen er
for øvrig ikke den eneste til området: Også store grupper muslimer strømmer til
området i tida før og etter 1900.
11. Stormuftien av Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, ble en
sentralgestalt for hele utviklinga fra 1920 og utover. Han ble mufti i 1921 og
leder av det muslimske høye råd i palestinsk område i 1922. I nærmere tre tiår
var han den sentrale palestinske ideolog og politiker – til dels i tett
samarbeid med Det Muslimske Brorskapet. Sammen arbeider de for en salafistisk
forståelse av islam, for kalifatets gjenopprettelse og et samfunn basert på
sharia. Fra 1941 til 1945 bodde han i Tyskland og samarbeidet tett med nassene.
PÅ høyt plan. Møtte blant annet Adolf. I 1946 kom han tilbake til Midt-Østen og
tok igjen ledelsen blant palestinerne.
12. For disse islamistene var (og er) det jødefiendtlige
innholdet i koranen og sunna dagsaktuelt: De hadde/har naboskap til en stadig
voksende jødisk befolkning.
13. Både Brorskapet og stormuftien svermet for Hitlers
politikk. Både fører-prinsippet (kalifatet!) og anti-semittismen hadde de
felles.
14. I utgangspunktet er ikke nassene begeistret for dette:
de er rasistisk innstilte også mot arabere, og anti-religiøse.
15. Dessuten vil de bli kvitt jødene i Tyskland. Derfor får
en god del jøder utreise – til Palestina.
16. Dette endrer seg i 1936, da Peel-kommisjonen foreslår at
det opprettes en jødisk stat. Dette anses som svært uønsket blant naziene – en
slik stat vil bli noe a la hva Vatikanstaten er for katolikker for jøder rundt
om i verden. Deres politiske mål var faktisk å utrydde jødene. Da kunne de ikke
få et slikt fyrtårn.
17. Dette endrer et av ståstedene i nassenes politikk, og
fra nå av støttes islamistene økonomisk, organisatorisk og politisk.
18. Dermed forsterkes også anti-semittismen i islamismen.
Dette kommer tydelig fram i Amin al-Husseinis skrift 'Islam og Judaisme' fra
1937.
19.Her fins alle de særtrekk av jødefiendtlig karakter som
vi også i ettertid kan gjenfinne hos palestinerne.
20. Ingenting som kommer seinere har endret akkurat dette.
Staten Israel, befolkningsutskiftinga, grenseutvidelsen i 1967 - ikke noe av
dette har endret noe grunnleggende i det politiske ståstedet til islamistene.
Det er beviselig at de ville at dette området skulle være jødefritt allerede i
1937. Dvs. de ville det også tidligere. Men det fins overbevisende skriftlig
belegg fra det året.
21. Jødefiendtligheten i islamismen forties også av
akademikere som skriver om islamismen. Selv om islamistene selv åpent omtaler
sin anti-semittisme – se for eksempel – Sayyid Qutb ‘Our Struggle Against the
Jews’ (1951), Hamas charter fra 1988 eller Khomeinis uttalelser om jøder og
Israel i løpet av sitt liv - kan for eksempel Bjørn Olav Utvik forfatte en
nesten fire hundre siders monografi om «Islamismen» uten å nevne den tilhørende
anti-semittismen med ett ord.
22. Denne fortielsen har igjen medført at det i for eksempel
den norske offentligheten ikke eksisterer en forståelse av islamismens særegne
anti-semittisme. Når den så kommer til overflaten hos diverse islamister,
vender disse kommentatorene seg bare vekk – rett nok passelig ubehagelig
berørt. For så å komme opp til overflaten igjen noe seinere, med et narrativ om
at det fins en form for post-islamisme som har likhetstrekk med for eksempel
indremisjonen. Mens jødefiendtligheten er glemt.
23. Om de ikke vender seg bort, kan denne anti-semittismen
omfortolkes til anti-sionisme og anti-imperialisme.
24 Sionismen slutter da samtidig å være en (i hovedsak)
sekulær jødisk nasjonalisme, og forstås som et imperialistisk, kolonialistisk
prosjekt. En av betingelsene for en slik forståelse, er selvsagt at
islamistenes ståsted må ha oppstått ETTER at staten Israel ble opprettet. Det
gjorde den ikke.
Ergo viser denne oversikten at historienarrativet til de
anti-imperialistiske palestinavennene er et kontrafaktisk ståsted: Islamismens
anti-semittisme oppsto før staten Israel. Islamisme er ikke en
anti-imperialistisk ideologi, snarere tvert om: Idet den er tilbakeskuende til
en islamsk gullalder, er det ikke bare kalifatet, men også territoriet - islams
største utstrekning - som skal gjenopprettes. Det er altså ikke bare 'From the
river to the sea' som gjelder: Det er India, al-Andalus og Balkan. Og mye mer:
Nok en gang ser vi et eksempel på orwellsk nytale: Det som etter den iranske
revolusjonen ofte har blitt omtalt som anti-imperialisme er det motsatte: Det
er en imperialistisk ideologi.
(Dette er en noe omarbeidet kommentar fra en annen tråd)
Bilde: Godt eksempel på det kontrafaktiske narrativets
disipler som nå også marsjerer i gatene i Europa:
-
Se denne,
for å få med deg litt – mer: https://jihadwatch.org/2024/10/abbe-pierre-and-palestine
Abbé Pierre and ‘Palestine’:
Abbé Pierre has been, until very recently, a revered figure
in France, where he spent much of his life helping the poor. He was born as
Henri Marie Joseph Grouès in 1912, into a family of rich silk merchants in
Lyon. In 1928, at 16, he made the decision to join a monastic order, but he had
to wait until he was seventeen and a half to fulfill this ambition. In 1931,
Grouès entered the Capuchin Order, renouncing his inheritance and offering all
his possessions to charity.
He became a Capuchin monk, and made the care of the poor his
vocation. He worked in the Resistance during the German Occupation of France.
It was then that he adopted four different pseudonyms to evade the Gestapo; one
of them — Abbé Pierre — stuck. In 1949, he founded Emmaus in France — it soon
expanded around the world as Emmaus International — which was dedicated to
improving the lot of the most vulnerable people in society, by providing
housing for the homeless, the disabled, and refugees. In 1954, Abbé Pierre
first gained national attention by persuading the French government to pass a
law forbidding landlords from evicting tenants during the winter.
He set up a series of Emmaus stores, where people could
donate household goods — furniture, linens, utensils, candle holders, ceramics,
tools, everything you can imagine. Those goods, in turn, would be cleaned up
and put on sale at modest prices. The amounts brought in by the Emmaus stores
are then spent on support for the poor, especially the homeless, providing both
temporary shelter and longer-term affordable housing, help with vocational
training and job placement, and a steady support system for those who are
alone, disabled or addicted. There are 425 local branches of Emmaus worldwide,
in 41 countries, and many thousands of Emmaus stores all over the world.
Because of his work setting up Emmaus, and for being a
staunch advocate for the poor, Abbé Pierre was for a long time been the most
admired man in France. His funeral in 2007 was attended by the Great and Good
of France, including then-President Jacques Chirac, former President Valéry
Giscard d’Estaing, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, and many other high
officials and clerics.
But there is a fly in this ointment. When it came to Israel,
Abbé Pierre’s warm heart turned cold. Despite his work in the Resistance, which
included helping a Jewish couple escape from the Gestapo, he had no sympathy
for the embattled Jewish state. He did not understand that the Arab aim was to
destroy Israel, and replace it with a twenty-third Arab state. The
Palestinians, being in his eyes the weaker party, naturally attracted his
sympathy, for he “was always on the side of the weak.” He apparently forgot
that the Palestinians have twenty-two Arab states, and another three dozen
non-Arab Muslim countries staunchly behind them, offering financial,
diplomatic, and in some cases, military support, as in the wars of 1948, 1967,
and 1973.
So I was pleased to see that the Great Man, with his
Palestinian sympathies, has posthumously had his reputation undone, beyond
repair. For it turns out he was a serious sexual abuser of both women and
girls. As the head of Emmaus International, delegate-general Adrien Chaboche,
said recently, that image of Abbé Pierre had now changed beyond recognition.
“From now on,” he said, “Abbé Pierre – for everyone, and especially for the
people that have been victims of violence – is the picture of a sexual
predator.”
Twenty-four women have so far come forward with allegations
of sexual assault and harassment against the man born as Henri Grouès, accusing
the once-celebrated priest of non-consensual kissing, forced fellatio, rape and
sexual contact with children, including 17 new allegations released as part of
a new report published in July 2024
Many of his victims were minors. The youngest was eight
years old at the time the abuse occurred.
Portraits, statues, and frescoes of Abbé Pierre in France
are now being taken down and destroyed. His name has been erased from Emmaus
stores and logos, from street signs, from schools, from prizes. The Abbé Pierre
Foundation is to change its name, and the Abbé Pierre memorial center in
Esteville, Normandy, where the late monk resided for many years, will close
permanently.
We can only hope that that embarrassed distancing from this
sexual predator will extend to include his ill-informed and unpleasant views on
Israel and the Palestinians.
Og denne:
https://jihadwatch.org/2024/10/five-lies-about-the-holocaust-and-the-palestinians
Five Lies About the Holocaust and the ‘Palestinians’:
In 1993, Abbé Pierre gave an interview, saying that it was
Catholic Christians who committed the Holocaust, and who gave Palestine to the
Jews because they were ashamed of what they did. A staunch supporter of the
Palestinian cause, Abbé Pierre said Christians made the Muslims, who did
nothing to the Jews, pay the price of Hitler’s actions. “Not a single Muslim
had participated in the Holocaust, nor had any responsibility. And we deceived
the Palestinians,’ he said. ‘We lied to them.’”
Let’s take those assertions one by one.
First, It was not “Catholic Christians” who committed
the Holocaust, but the Nazis, most of whom were of Lutheran background, and who
can hardly be called “Christians” in any reasonable sense of that word.
Second, no one “gave” Palestine to the Jews. The Jews had
been living in the Land of Israel uninterruptedly for 3500 years. It is where
Jewish history was made. The League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine
recognized that historic claim, and urged that the Mandatary, Great Britain,
“facilitate Jewish immigration” to the land and “encourage close Jewish
settlement on the land.” Jewish immigrants returned to the Land of Israel, to
settle on both “state and waste” lands and on land they bought — at exorbitant prices
— from Arab and Turkish landowners. After 1949, they continued to buy land and
also took over lands that been abandoned by Arabs who had heeded broadcasts to
leave Mandatory Palestine/Israel while the war was going on, assured that they
would soon return with the victorious Arab armies. It didn’t turn out that way.
Third, the Jews of Israel have repeatedly had to fight to
keep their land from those who would destroy them. They fought three wars for
their very survival, in 1948, 1967, and 1973. The Israelis are fighting a
fourth such war for their survival today, a seven-front war in Gaza, the West
Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran. Many Israelis have died in defense
of their land. Their blood, like that of the Maccabees thousands of years ago,
is on the title deed.
Fourth, Abbé Pierre claimed that “not a single Muslim had
participated in the Holocaust, nor had any responsibility.” What could he have
been thinking? Had he forgotten that the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Hajj
Amin el-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin, met with Hitler and
congratulated him on how he was dealing with the Jews, visited Auschwitz with
his friend Adolf Eichmann, made broadcasts in Arabic on behalf of the Nazis
throughout the war, and recruited several battalions of Bosnian Muslims to
serve in the Waffen-SS, where they helped round up and murder Jews? Husseini
was not the only Arab leader to spend the war years in Berlin broadcasting
pro-Nazi propaganda to Arab audiences in the Middle East. So did the former
Iraqi prime minister Rashid Ali al-Kailani, and the Syrian guerrilla leader
Fawzi al-Qawuqji.
Fifth, Abbé Pierre claimed that “we” — the Western powers
“deceived the Palestinians. We lied to them.” How did the Western world
“deceive the Palestinian Arabs”? They were well-treated by the West; it was the
Jews who were ill-treated by the Western powers. The “Palestinians” in 1921
were handed all of Palestine east of the Jordan River, 78% of the territory
that had originally been intended to be part of the Mandate for Palestine, and
thus to become part of a future Jewish state. Instead, that territory was
handed over to the Hashemite Emir Abdullah, so that he would have a state of
his own, just like his younger brother Feisal, whom the British had put on the
throne of Iraq.
Western Palestine thus became the Emirate of Transjordan
(and in 1946 turned into the Arab Kingdom of Jordan). The Jews protested
against this betrayal, but to no avail. And later on, the British would ignore
their solemn obligations as holders of the Mandate, and instead of “encouraging
Jewish immigration” and “facilitating close Jewish settlement on the land” they
tried to prevent Jews from coming to Mandatory Palestine. They prevented ships
loaded with Jewish refugees from disembarking in Palestine before and during
the war, when up to a million might have been saved; after the war they
continued to keep boats carrying Jews, fresh out of concentration and DP camps,
from landing in Palestine. In fact, in 1939 the British government’s infamous
White Paper limited the number of Jews allowed into Mandatory Palestine to
15,000 a year for five years, after which the Arabs could exercise a veto —
meaning, of course, that no more Jews would be allowed into Palestine. None of
that appears to have made an impression on Abbé Pierre. But it should make an
impression on us.
https://jihadwatch.org/2024/10/erdogan-the-only-step-to-stop-israels-arrogance-and-state-terrorism-is-the-alliance-of-islamic-countries
Og her kommer: Erdogan: ‘The only step to stop Israel’s
arrogance and state terrorism is the alliance of Islamic countries’
Erdogan may be right, for the only thing that is the root of
the burning hatred of Israel is the Islamic principle “Drive them out from
where they drove you out” (Qur’an 2:191). The Israelis did not in fact drive
the Arabs out, but that is the prevailing myth. The conflict has everything to
do with Islam, and so Erdogan’s call is completely reasonable within that
context. Western policymakers and foreign policy analysts, however, will
continue to ignore the pivotal role of Islam in the conflict.
“A year of Israel’s onslaught: Türkiye stands firm with
Palestine,” by Didenur Daştan, Daily Sabah, October 6, 2024:
Israel’s devastating war on Gaza has marked its first and
bitter anniversary despite international calls for an urgent cease-fire.
NATO member Türkiye has been a traditional ally to Palestine
but the more brutal Israeli attacks became, the harsher Ankara has made its
criticism in the past year. It has condemned what it calls genocide, halted all
trade with Israel and applied to join a genocide case against Israel at the
World Court, which Israel rejects.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan says he is sad to see Muslim
countries failing to take a more active stance against Israel, urging them to
take economic, diplomatic and political measures to pressure Tel Aviv into
accepting a cease-fire.
In addition to delivering humanitarian aid, his government
has sought to rally international organizations, including the United Nations,
NATO and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to both restrain Israel
and encourage cooperation between Palestinian factions, most notably between
Hamas and the Fatah movement.
“Going back over the last year, starting with Erdoğan’s
speech at the U.N. General Assembly, we can see that these efforts were
obstructed by especially the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council’s attitude and
unfortunately the desired results weren’t achieved,” said Çağrı Erhan, the
rector of Altınbaş University and a member of the Turkish Presidency’s Security
and Foreign Policies Council.
Against these odds, Türkiye continues its diplomatic blitz
on the issue. “Despite being left out of cease-fire negotiations Türkiye has
maintained close contact with brokers Egypt and Qatar while trying to motivate
Hamas for a possible cease-fire through its bilateral dialogue channel with its
political leadership,” explained Haydar Oruç, a Middle East researcher who
previously served as Levant Expert at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies
(ORSAM).
Erhan points out that one of the most important efforts
Türkiye has made was bringing together Palestinian factions for a united front.
“Ankara has made several pushes to that end, especially before (Hamas leader)
Ismail Haniyeh was killed but following his assassination Türkiye is now taking
various facilitative steps for a rapprochement between Hamas and the Fatah
movement, especially following Mahmoud Abbas’ visit to Ankara in August,” Erhan
said.
Türkiye also stresses the importance of the unity of
countries, especially Arab and Muslim countries to stop Israeli aggression.
“Islamic countries should wake up, see the peril and increase the cooperation.
All Islamic countries should adopt a common stance against the Israeli
occupation. The only step to stop Israel’s arrogance, banditry and state
terrorism is the alliance of Islamic countries,” President Erdoğan said in
September….
Og hva
med denne, hvis et alvor går opp?
https://jihadwatch.org/2024/10/hamas-top-dog-khaled-mashal-we-are-suffering-but-it-is-all-for-the-sake-of-allah-we-want-jihad-with-weapons
Hamas top dog Khaled Mashal: ‘We are suffering, but it is
all for the sake of Allah. We want jihad with weapons.’
Mashal once again demonstrates that he sees the conflict
solely in Islamic terms. Western analysts and policymakers don’t care, and have
never studied the implications of this.
“Leader Of Hamas Abroad Khaled Mashal On Anniversary Of
October 7 Attack: Our Losses Are Tactical, Whereas Our Enemy’s Losses Are
Strategic; Jihad With Money Is No Longer Enough, Muslims Should Wage Jihad With
Weapons,” MEMRI, October 7, 2024:
Khaled Mashal, leader of Hamas abroad, said in an October 7,
2024 address to the Kuala Lumpur Forum, which was aired on Al-Jazeera Network
(Qatar), that the Palestinian losses since the October 7, 2023 attack have been
“tactical,” whereas the enemy’s losses are strategic. He explained that while
Hamas’s losses have been “tremendous and painful,” they will lead them to
“great horizons, whereas the enemy’s losses will lead to annihilation. Mashal
continued to call upon Muslims worldwide to “open new fronts” and join the
Jihad with money as well as weapons and sacrifice of life.
Khaled Mashal: “Our losses are tactical, whereas our enemy’s
losses are strategic. This is a fact.
[…]
“Our losses are tactical – pain and death, which is
martyrdom. We are suffering, but it is all for the sake of Allah.
[…]
“Today, we are making tremendous and painful sacrifices, but
they will lead to great horizons, inshallah. As for our enemy, its losses are
strategic.
[…]
“The enemy is losing its strategic path, and is accelerating
its certain annihilation. It has lost on all levels. In addition, all Muslim
and non-Muslim nations, throughout history, had to pay steep prices.
The resistance axis has joined us, and we are thankful for
that, but today, the rest of the forces of our nation need to do two things:
They should open new fronts for the resistance. This is the duty of Jihad. The
second thing is that we need to open new political and legal fronts. We should
persecute this entity on the international level.
[…]
“Jihad by money is great, but it is no longer enough. We
want Jihad with weapons and the [sacrifice] of lives. We should open additional
fronts. The enemy is fighting us everywhere, and we should fight it the way it
fights us.”
Her er vi inne på noe, vi nærmer oss (Greenfield):
https://www.frontpagemag.com/all-americas-problems-are-leftist-problems/
The problem with solving problems is that once they are
solved, no one needs the solver anymore. The better kinds of problems are
recurring problems that ensure customer retention, employing plumbers,
locksmiths and police officers, but the best kind are the completely unsolvable
problems.
And those are the only kinds of problems that the Left wants
to solve.
Given enough human ingenuity and technological development,
most problems can concievably be addressed and that is why the Left has to
contrive to make them unsolvable by either causing the problem (homelessness),
defining it in such a way that it is inherently unsolvable (equity), defining
the inappropriate problem while obscuring the actual problem (gun violence) or
inventing fake problems (global warming) that can never be solved because they
don’t exist in the first place.
Why create unsolvable problems? They’re a virtually infinite
source of money and power.
The Left came into being by defining inequality as its
signature problem. Since inequality is a factor of human nature and every
attempt to solve it involves creating more inequality, it was the perfect
unsolvable problem. But the primal leftist error was defining inequality in
social and economic terms. Growing technology and social mobility made both
social and economic inequality managable even as leftits were building up a
full head of steam, toppling governments and setting off revolutions.
(Manageable is a long way from the equity ideal, but it’s
all most people actually want from life.)
Eventually, by default, the only ‘unequal’ people left to
advocate for were the dysfunctional whose lives could not be improved through
their own efforts. Criminals, addicts, the lazy and those with poor impulse
control became the last outpost of the working class proliteriat who would not
work.
The working class who would not work became the new vanguard
of the revolution. The wealthy student revolutionaries who also didn’t
want to work went to war against society on its behalf. Along the way they lost
the working class who did want to work and never looked back. The working class
who would work became the new bourguese and the enemy of the non-working
working class.
The social and economic theories of socialism depended on
the idea that there were no individuals, only societies, and that individual
dysfunction was really social dysfunction. The worse the individual, the worse
the society. Solve the society and the criminals and junkies would become
research chemists. And they would be if only society were not
holding back their potential through systemic oppression.
Eventually the worst human beings on earth, serial killers,
crackheads and terrorists, came to embody the leftist mission of expopsing
their crimes as an expression of society’s seamy underbelly. The more evil the
crime, the more it testified to the evils of the society that had brought it
about. Those who were guiltiest were the most innocent among us because they
had suffered the most at the hands of society. And those who were innocent were
evil because their lack of crimes showed their complicity in an oppressive system.
If they were truly innocent, they would also be criminals or terrorists.
In this way, good became evil, and evil became good. The
problem of making good into evil had been solved long ago in the Garden of
Eden, but the problem of turning evil into good was unsolvable on the leftist
terms of blaming society while denying individual accountability.
Crime and terrorism became unsolvable problems because no
matter how much leftists punished society by freeing criminals and turning
countries over to terrorists, things never got any better.
The unsolvable problem that could never be solved went on
being unsolved. Endless billions of dollars were thrown at the problem of
giving evil everything it wanted so that it would turn into good.
It never worked and evil took over instead. Some leftists
had desired this very outcome. Others were too foolish to understand the
inevitable outcome of their adopted worldview. Most were happy to have an
unsolvable problem whose solving could consume the resources of the entire
planet for a billion years without doing anything except making the problem
endlessly worse.
The Left’s problems are unsolvable because they are
misstated to align with a simple ideological formula which always assumes that
all problems are caused by those with power, that power is defined in economic
terms and that the solution to those problems is the transfer of power away
from those with money to leftists who will use the money to solve all the
problems that they caused.
In short, industries are to be broken up and transformed
into governmental organizations.
Whether it’s changes in the weather, school shootings or
drug addicts lying in the street, the formula demands variations on the same
solution. An industry, real estate, firearms manufacturers or oil companies,
are scapegoated, followed by demands that the industry be regulated, banned and
otherwise subsumed by the government. None of this has any hope of
changing the amount of bums on the street, crazies in schools or the
temperature outside, but it does transfer massive amounts of wealth and power
from one group to another. And that is all that the Left ever really does.
The one thing that the Left will never do is solve a
problem. It however excels at creating them. If there is a problem out there,
it will do everything within its power to make it worse by rejecting the
obvious root causes and insisting that all the efforts must be directed at its
ideological formula which very often has the added side effect of juicing
whatever the root cause is. Faced with crime, it insists on freeing criminals,
with homelessness, it subsidizes it, with school shootings carried out by suicidal
fame-hungry teens, it talks of them endlessly and makes them as famous as they
could ever hope to be.
Are terrorists unleashing violence? The only thing to do is
throw billions of dollars and enough territory at them so they can build a
state. Is there economic inequality? Drive out businesses. Have people lost
good work habits? Subsidize them so that they never learn those habits. Is
there gun violence? Make sure that only the criminals have guns and have
nothing to fear from the police.
And so the unsolvable problems thrive among feudal leftist
outposts of urban human misery.
Eventually the problem ceases to be the problem and the Left
becomes the problem. The Left claims that it knows the only way to solve all
our problems, but it’s the Left that is creating our problems.
And there is no way to solve all of our problems except by
defeating the Left.
In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically
flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held
in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually
approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,”
please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not
re-post the same comment.
Den
følgende er etter min mening grunnleggende, - hvorfor unngår man eller
bortforklarer dette? Noe jeg selv har forsøkt å formulere gjentatte ganger her
på bloggen? - og det er nettopp her vi kan øyne bedre enn de fleste andre
steder hvor vi er på vei, samtidig som vi glemmer og hater eller forakter oss
selv, og oppfordres til det av vår begredelige elite: Vi tar ikke religion på
alvor – og dette vil selvsagt straffe seg, grundig:
Av Bruce Thornton:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-danger-of-the-secularist-sensibility/
Last week, Israel’s Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, wrote
an op-ed for the New York Times asking the question, “What were
Hamas’s leaders hoping for, and what are Iran’s leaders seeking to achieve?”
The answer began with a conversation that revealed the central problem with the
West’s understanding of Islamic jihadism, one that still vitiates our foreign
policy and plans for dealing with Muslim aggressors: our modernist inability to
take religion seriously.
“What the Israeli military and political establishment
failed to understand,” Gantz writes, “in part, was the extent to which Hamas
was driven by the goal of waging religious war. ‘The intel was there, but I
underestimated the jihadi component of Hamas’s and Sinwar’s calculus,’ a senior
Israel Defense Forces intelligence commander told me early in the war,
referring to Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader.”
This mistake in divining the motives of militant Islam marks
the U.S. conflict with Iran and its revolution and “goal of waging religious
war.” For example, in 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran to
direct the revolution, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski, as David Farber reported, in a meeting with Carter “soft-pedaled
the specific threat of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ to American interests.”
Brzezinski also viewed the revolution with Western eyes. The religious revolution
would falter, he argued, and require secular technocrats and experts, which
would dilute and marginalize the clerics.
In an even greater failure of imagination and projection of
Western principles, Brzezinski advised that the U.S. should “pursue
relations with individual Muslim countries on the basis of shared interests,
but our emphasis on moral as well as material values, our support for a world
of diversity, and our commitment to social justice should place us in a strong
position to deepen our dialogue with the Muslim world.”
These sentiments are an object lesson in the dangers of
reducing other cultures’ beliefs and understanding to our own. No one with
any knowledge of Islam’s doctrines and history would counsel establishing a
“meeting of the minds” with orthodox Muslims––followers of a faith guided by
sharia law bestowed by Allah–– by bringing up a liberal Western idea like
“social justice,” or our foundational principle of the separation of church and
state. The wages of such naïveté are glaringly obvious in the current ghastly
mayhem and aggression wielded by Iran and its jihadist proxies.
Other features of Islam alien to the West have likewise been
serially ignored or distorted by Western foreign policy mavens. Most important
is the role of orthodox Islam in explaining the global ummah’s subjection to
the West and its culture that the faithful see as heathenish and hedonistic. As
Bernard Lewis points out, “From the beginning of Western penetration in the
world of Islam, until our own day, the most characteristic, significant, and
original political and intellectual responses to that penetration have been
Islamic. They have been concerned with the problems of the faith and community
overwhelmed by infidels.”
The solution is a renewal of traditional Islamic doctrines,
and waging jihad to recover the faith’s lost glory. This response includes
restoring the Islamic faith’s lost dominance. Thus, the Ayatollah Khomeini
warned, “We shall export our revolution to the whole world,” and jihad will be
waged “[u]ntil the cry ‘There is no God but Allah’ resounds over the whole
world.” Decades earlier, Hassan al Banna, who founded the jihadist Muslim
Brotherhood in 1928, wrote, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be
dominated, to impose its laws on all nations, and to extend its power to the
entire planet.”
Fellow Muslim Brother Sayyid Qutb––whom writer Lee
Smith called “Osama bin Laden’s intellectual godfather” –– fleshes out al
Banna’s vision of Islam’s purpose: “Islam came into this world to establish
Allah’s rule on Allah’s earth, to invite all people toward the worship of
Allah. . .This Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its
path so that it may address human reason and intuition with no interference and
opposition from political systems,” an obvious rationale for jihad, conquest,
and occupation.
Today’s Western nations who ignore these motives, or
prioritize instead Western ideas––like national self-determination, individual
rights, education, equality of the sexes, or religious tolerance––will reap the
wages of our arrogance starkly obvious in the depredations of Iran and its
proxies.
Moreover, Muslims’ mission to make Islam triumph throughout
the world is frankly imperialistic, a smear for jihadists only when used
against the West, whose cognitive elites consider the word an expletive. It’s
one of the most toxic examples of Western oikophobia, its fashionable
self-loathing and pretensions to intellectual sophistication when denigrating
their own civilizations. But as historian Ephraim Karsh writes, (NB: Vår hjemlige Lars Gule nikket faktisk aksepterende i en
viss sammenheng overfor Karsh).
Muslim conquerors and occupiers for centuries “acted in a
typically imperialist fashion from the start, subjugating indigenous
populations, colonizing their lands, and expropriating their wealth, resources,
and labor.”
Next, unlike in the West, where two centuries of
secularization has left our institutions and politics nearly bereft of
religious passions or ideas, “In most Islamic countries,” Bernard Lewis writes,
“religion remains a major political factor,” for “most Muslim countries are
still profoundly Muslim, in a way and in a sense that most Christian countries
are no longer Christian . . . in no Christian country at the present time, can
religious leaders count on the degree of belief and participation that remains
normal in the Muslim lands . . . Christian clergy do not exercise or even claim
the kind of public authority that is still normal and accepted in most Muslim
countries.”
This contrast reveals the danger of secularism in the
conflict between the West and Islam, particularly as an impediment to
understanding our adversary’s spiritual motives and aims. Instead, we look to
material causes or psychological explanations whose roots lie in the material
world, and reduce spiritual causes to neuroses.
Factors other than secularism have contributed to the West’s
willful blindness to Islam’s doctrines that animate jihadist aggression. By the
early 20th Century, Islam, the faith that dominated the West for
centuries, was now subordinated to the West and its superior technologies and
weapons. Islam faded in importance, and did not occupy the West’s attention as
it once did when for a thousand years it invaded, conquered, plundered, and
occupied large tracts of European territory.
In the Thirties, Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc wrote about
this amnesia: “Millions of modern people . . . have forgotten all about Islam.
They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is
decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not
concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which
our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the
future as it has been in the past. . . The final fruit of this tenacity, the
second period of Islamic power, may be delayed —but I doubt whether it can be
permanently postponed.”
The vacuum of our historical memory of Islam, its doctrines,
and its domination of the Mediterranean littoral, has been filled with
interpretations and distortions of Islam that reflect our secularism and goods
like political freedom and equality, concepts that have a different meaning in
Islamic cultures, which is why jihadist theorists like Qutb called them “the
debris of the man-made traditions of several generations,” and the Muslim
community has been “crushed under the weight of those false laws and customs
which are not even remotely related to the Islamic teachings.”
It is a testimony to Israel’s status as a Western nation
that, as some Israelis think, such amnesia about the nature of Islam has led to
the current war against Iran and its proxies. Despite the jihadist success on
9/11, we Americans still appease the jihadists, supported and financed by Iran,
who are continuing to pursue our destruction––which Iran’s imminent possession
of nuclear weapons will certainly make possible. Let’s hope we don’t have to
learn that lesson the way Israel has–– by horrific experience.
In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically
flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held
in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually
approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,”
please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not
re-post the same comment.
Denne er –
også - dyp og derfor sårt tiltrengt anbefalelsesverdig:
https://www.rights.no/2024/10/et-glimt-av-hvordan-holocaust-kunne-skje/
Et glimt av hvordan Holocaust kunne skje, Julie Dahle:
Gårdagens markering av den svarte Shabbat, oktobermassakren,
fikk meg til å tenke på en bok jeg var veldig opptatt av som ung; Gregory
Batesons Mind and Nature. Bateson var i sin tid en ganske banebrytende
tenker og er i ettertid kjent for blant annet å ha utviklet teorier innen
evolusjonsbiologi, psykiatri og selve kommunikasjonsfeltet. Bateson hevdet at
alt er kommunikasjon. Brevet du ikke sendte er kommunikasjon, blikket du ikke
hever i møte med en annen er kommunikasjon, det du ikke sier er et like sterkt
budskap som det du sier høyt, kroppsspråket ditt er kommunikasjon. Han var
opptatt av det implisitte kontra det eksplisitte og spesielt opptatt av
metakommunikasjon.
Uten at jeg skal bevege meg inn i de dypeste av
kommunikasjonsteoriens irrganger, er dagen i går, 7. oktober, en studie i
kommunikasjon i seg selv. Og mye handlet om nettopp hva som ble sagt og hva som
ikke ble sagt.
Adri tie, aldri glemme – unntatt jøder
«Til alle som har mistet livet til rasismen og
høyreekstremismen. Til alle som har fått kjenne på kroppen konsekvensene av at
ord blir til handling. For dere lover vi ikke ett minutts stillhet, men et liv
i kamp». Slik innledes AUFs bok Aldri tie, aldri glemme, utgitt ti år
etter 22. juli-terroren.
Etter et terrorangrep mot jøder som krysser av på alle
punkter på listen, ties det. Det er helt taust, ikke bare ett minutt, men
totalt.
På sidene til AUF på Facebook er ikke terroren nevnt med et
ord. Det synes helt absurd at et ungdomsparti som ble så hardt rammet, som så
inderlig kjenner terrorens konsekvenser på kroppen, ikke evner å sympatisere
med andre terrorofre. Kampen mot terroren skulle være AUFs varemerke, deres
kampsak. Og så er de tause.
Noen mer rasistisk motivert terrorhandling enn
terrorangrepet på jøder for ett år siden skal godt gjøres å komme opp med. De
ble angrepet av terrororganisasjoner som har jødeutslettelse som mandat. Hamas,
Islamsk Jihad og Hizbollah vil alle renske ut Israel. Judenfrei. Det bør ringe
noen bjeller hos mennesker som frykter nazisme.
Hamed Abdel-Samad påpeker det åpenbare i sin bok Den
islamske fascismen, og det er intet nytt: Politisk islam er nettopp
høyreekstrem, den er voldelig, etnosentristisk og fordrer en totalitær
samfunnsorden. Det er islamismen, den politiske religiøse ideologien som er den
høyreekstreme elefanten i rommet, inkludert sitt iboende jødehat.
På AUFs sider på Facebook er det altså taust, selv om jødene
markerte et traume som var 15 ganger Utøya, både i antall drepte og i ren
bestialitet. Det synes underlig og påfallende lite solidarisk med en av Norges
minste minoritetsgrupper. Jødenes traume, med helt åpenbare paralleller til
deres eget traume, forbigås i stillhet.
Muslimhat
Taushet fra ungdomspartiet er en form for kommunikasjon. Den
er tydelig, og jeg vil anta den er ekstremt merkbar for den jødiske
minoriteten. Og stort bedre ble det ikke kommunisert fra «de voksne» i
Arbeiderpartiet. Med åpenbart innøvde talepunkter om antisemittisme – og
muslimhat – gjennomførte statsminister Jonas Gahr Støre gårsdagen. Det var
ubehagelig å se på og å lytte til. Han holdt tale i synagogen. Selv ikke i synagogen var det fritt for
påstander om muslimhat.
Leder i Det mosaiske trossamfunn, Ronen Bahar, viste hvordan
også han kan kunsten å kommunisere. Han henvendte seg til kongefamiliens
representanter.
– Vi setter veldig stor pris på at kongen og kronprinsen er
sammen med oss her i dag.
– Vi er takknemlige for at kongen bryr seg.
Ordene vitner om at det implisitte ofte er like viktig i
kommunikasjon som det eksplisitte. Jeg vil håpe og anta at Støre selv kunne
kjenne på at det var en vesentlig forskjell mellom hvem som ble uttalt å ha
vært støttende og hvem som ikke ble nevnt. Bak ordene ligger en historie om et
Utenriksdepartement som anbefalte kongen å ikke kondolere Israel for ett
år siden. Men uuttalt ligger også en historie om at kongen har uttrykt sin
støtte på andre måter – i motsetning til en regjeringsleder og en regjering som
har gjort sitt beste for å vanne ut betydningen av terrorangrepet.
I Dagsnytt 18 fortsatte Støre med talepunktene.
Norsk-israelske Louise Kahn var hentet inn i studio. Hvor ensomt det må føles å
være jøde i Norge i dag ble til fulle illustrert av henne. Alene måtte hun
løfte fram NRKs politisk skjevvektede historiefortelling, alene måtte hun
konfrontere Støre med den manglende forståelsen og støtten til jødene. Hun var
forbilledlig klar og tydelig, med blikket rettet mot statsministeren mens hun
snakket. Støre på sin side var ikke spesielt lydhør. Bit merke i ordvalget:
– Markeringen i synagogen var for å gi uttrykk for en
solidaritet med folk i Norge som føler utrygghet. Vi skal ikke ha Midtøstens
konflikter inn her. De er ansvarlige i en kompleks sammenheng der nede, men her
så skal vi ha ansvaret for at unge jøder skal gå på skole og delta i
samfunnslivet og være trygge. Det er et ansvar vi har sammen. Og det å stå opp
mot det som måtte være av, øh, jøde…, øh, jødehat som du beskriver,
muslimfiendtlighet, denne typen kraftige holdninger mot folk, hva de tror på,
hvem de er, det har vi ansvar for å stå opp mot sammen.
«Folk som føler utrygghet» der altså, og påfølgende en
sidestilling mellom hvilken utrygghet henholdsvis jøder og muslimer lever med i
dagens Norge. Og dette er hva statsministeren velger å kommunisere direkte til
jødene og direkte utad til det norske folk på en dag som markerer et
terrorangrep med nær 1.200 bestialsk henrettede. Det er grovt.
Louise Kahn kritiserte forøvrig også NRKs dekning, men ble
øyeblikkelig avfeid av programlederen. På en dag da NRK valgte å minnes
terrorangrepet mot jødene med bilder av knuste bygninger og skadde barn i Gaza.
Alt er kommunikasjon.
Høyrelederen og folkeretten
I anledning dagen hadde også Høyre-leder Erna Solberg tatt
til tastaturet. Resultatet er en tekst som ser ut som den er klekket ut på AUFs
sommerleir. Traumet som fortsatt blender er overskriften på teksten i
Nettavisen.
Israels raseri er forståelig, men ikke akseptabelt eller
produktivt. Mitt ønske er at israelere, libanesere og palestinere skal få leve
sine liv uten frykt for bomber og terror. For at det skal kunne skje, må også
Israel se klart og endre sin fremferd.
Ord har betydning. «Raseri» er valgt med omhu, men noe
mindre passende beskrivelse av Israel generelt eller jøder spesielt, skal godt
gjøres å finne. Hvem beskrivelsen reelt sett passer på, er
terrororganisasjonene Israel kjemper mot. Solberg holder seg heller ikke for
god til å sette opp den samme falske balansen som Støre når hun skriver:
Det mosaiske trossamfunn rapporterer om at norske jøder
føler seg utrygge og at de unnlater å bruke jødiske symboler. HL-senterets
kartlegging av nordmenns holdninger til jøder og muslimer i januar i år viser
en økning i antisemittiske holdninger. Negative holdninger til muslimer ligger
stabilt, og høyere enn negative holdninger til jøder. Vi må stå sammen mot
antisemittisme og muslimfiendtlighet. I Norge skal alle føle seg trygge.
Høyre-lederen avdekker også svært manglende kunnskaper om
krigens folkerett. Det er ingen som foreløpig vet hvorvidt krigføringen Israel
bedriver ikke er forholdsmessig, og Solberg tar tilsynelatende utgangspunkt i
Hamas’ drapstall som ikke skiller mellom stridende og sivile overhodet. Ei
heller forholder Solberg seg til at Israel kjemper på urbant nivå mot
motstandere som ikke nøler med å ta i bruk både sivil infrastruktur og eget
folks sivile.
Dessverre viser Israel igjen manglende respekt for
folkeretten. De sivile tapstallene er altfor høye. Å detonere eksplosiver i
personsøkere og walkietalkier er spektakulært, men rammer selvfølgelig helt
vilkårlig. Uskyldige barn ble drept.
Hizbollah utgjør en mye mer formidabel motstander enn Hamas.
Israelske bomber kan ikke utslette verken Hamas eller Hizbollah, og heller ikke
ideene de står for.
I lys av det kolossale traumet 7. oktober var, er Israels
raseri forståelig. Men det er verken akseptabelt eller produktivt.
Mer målrettet – og strategisk vellykket – enn å detonere
bomber i terroristenes lommer kan ikke krigshandlinger gjennomføres, og heller
ikke personsøkerangrepene kan Solberg vite hvorvidt er i strid med folkeretten.
Det Solberg kunne visst, som leder av et påstått konservativt parti, er at
eliminering av terrorister ikke utelukkende er i Israels interesse, men også i
resten av den vestlige verdens interesse. Det disse menneskene er i stand til
viste de 7. oktober, uansett hvor omfattende virkelighetsredigering Solberg og
Støre bedriver i etterkant.
Unnlates
Det som unnlates fra historiefortellingen er det viktigste:
Israels krigføring beskytter den vestlige sivilisasjonen. I krig dør sivile.
Det synes hårreisende å sette fram et krav om at Israel som det eneste av
verdens land, skal klare å totalt unngå sivile dødsfall.
Kanskje Støre og Solberg kunne samles i en liten
kollokviegruppe og studere hva David Barnea, sjef for Mossad, faktisk utretter
mens intellektuelle sofaslitere i Norge skal forstå krig og fred og sånn?
Mens verden av og til får et glimt inn i den hemmelige
verdenen der Barnea og hans spioner opererer, er det langt flere Iran-sponsede
terrorhendelser som er hindret av Mossad, enn det verden får et glimt av.
I september 2023 avslørte Barnea i en tale ved Reichman
University at Mossad hadde hindret imponerende 27 globale terrorhendelser i
fremmede land som Iran hadde planlagt mot jøder og israelere.
At dette tallet ikke bare har doblet seg, men at Barnea og
Mossad har holdt tritt i å hindre Teherans eskalerende ambisjoner om å skade
jøder, viser de enorme ressursene han har lagt ned i oppdraget.
Under Barneas ansettelsesperiode fra april til juni 2022 tok
Mossad offentlig æren for å ha bortført Mansour Rasouli fra den islamske
revolusjonsvaktkorpset Global Terrorist Unit 840, der de ga ut videoopptak av
ham der han tilsto å planlegge terrorplott mot jøder i Tyrkia; Mossad ble
beskyldt av Iran for terrorisme og for å ha drept rundt et dusin atomforskere.
I juni 2023 avslørte Mossad at de hadde hindret et iransk
terrorangrep på jøder på Kypros ved å kidnappe angrepets «mastermind» fra
iransk territorium.
Utenfor Iran drepte Mossad, ifølge utenlandske kilder,
Sayyed Razi Mousavi i desember 2023 og Mohammad Reza Zahedi 1. april, begge
topp IRGC -sjefer i Damaskus.
31. juli sist sommer opplyste Iran at elimineringen av Hamas
politiske sjef Ismail Haniyeh var begått av Mossad.
I april truet Iran offentlig med å krysse terskelen og
utvikle atomvåpen hvis Israel ville våge å angripe Teherans atomfasiliteter.
The Jerusam Post opplysninger tilsier at Mossad så at den islamske republikkens
offentlige trussel som en potensiell game changer, og demonstrerte at Iran ble
enda farligere og aggressiv på atomvåpenarenaen.
Snarere enn å fordømme det demokratiet som arbeider for å
knuse terror og et mullahstyrt Iran med islamske imperiedrømmer, velger
brorparten av våre hjemlige politiske partier å fordømme Israel. Det er et
underlig stykke kommunikasjon som bedrives, men det må på alle måter
kategoriseres som villet politikk.
Når regjeringen Støre varsler økte midler til forsvaret
samtidig som beskjeden til det norske folk er at det israelske demokratiet er
nær demoniske, er det fristende å spørre hvilke verdier et opprustet forsvar er
tenkt å forsvare.
Israel kjemper på mange fronter, men de bekjemper altså
terror, der organisasjonene Hamas og Hizbollah ikke utgjør Irans fulle arsenal.
Som vår etterretningsveteran presiserer, er elitestyrken Quds
«spesialoperatører og de som får tjeneste der er å sammenligne med de som i sin
tid var med i Leibstandarte AH i SS. Bare de mest ariske, ideologisk fanatiske,
lojale og fysisk sterke får bli med. Unødvendig å påpeke at listen er svært høy
for å bli tatt opp.»
Som sekulære, vestlige medborgere ønsker vi da som samfunn å
støtte Israel i å eliminere slike aktører snarere enn å falle for
palestinaindustriens retorikk?
Parallellen
Krimjournalist Øyvind Thuestad var tilstede foran Stortinget
i går. Han oppsummerte slik:
Se for deg følgende:
Det er 22. juli 2012, ettårsdagen for terroren i Oslo og på
Utøya.
Foran Stortinget arrangeres minnemarkering over de døde. Folk har samlet seg i
sorg og sympati. Det er en preget flokk, noen gråter.
Få meter unna må store politistyrker til for å holde Breivik-sympatisører på
avstand. De er aggressive, skriker og skråler, bruker megafon og slår på
metallstenger så det ljomer over Eidsvolls plass.
De forstyrrer minnestunden i hele den klokketimen den pågår.
Forsøker så godt de kan å overdøve talerne, inkludert politikerne Hans Olav
Syversen (KrF) Himanshu Gulati (Frp) og Ola Borten Moe (Sp).
Det er helt utenkelig, ikke sant?
Og likevel ikke.
For dette er en beskrivelse av hva som skjedde på Eidsvolls
plass i kveld.
Det var ikke ettårsmarkeringen for Utøya, men for 7. oktober. En terroraksjon
med ca 15 ganger flere dødsofre enn 22. juli.
En stille markering, helt uten brodd mot noen. Uten hatske utfall mot noen.
Vi var samlet for å minnes 1.200 ofre. For å vise
solidaritet med ofrene, gislene, og deres pårørende. Med Israel. Og med den
lille kretsen av norske jøder som holder ut her, til tross for kraftig økende
jødehat også i Norge.
Flokken som stod i Spikersuppa, viftet med palestinske flagg
og skrek seg hese, var ikke Breivik-sympatisører, de var «palestinaaktivister»:
– From
the river to the sea!
Det var fullstendig uvirkelig.
I Bergen oppstod samme kveld en truende situasjon da
«palestinaaktivister» brøt betingelsene for sin tillatelse til å demonstrere og
beveget seg i retning Festplassen, hvor det også der pågikk en minnemarkering
for ofrene for 7. oktober.
Kontant reaksjon fra politiet i Bergen, som dannet en menneskelig barrikade,
stanset de aggressive «motdemonstrantene».
*
Minnemarkeringen foran Stortinget var over. Jeg gikk hjemover, tung til sinns.
Etter 22. juli lyktes vi i å stå sammen mot terroren.
Den tiden er definitivt forbi.
Vi er i en samfunnssituasjon der våre ledende politikere
nøler med å gi jødene uforbeholden støtte på en minnemarkering for terror. Når
de også nøler med å kritisere totalitære regimer og deres innvandrede
meningsfeller, har de gjort seg utilgjengelige for den tidligere etterstrebede
demokratiske samtalen og meningsbrytingen. De kommuniserer på en måte som
forvrenger virkeligheten.
I går var eksemplene på taushet, relativisering og manglende
empati så mange at man med enkelhet kunne føle et glimt av hvordan Holocaust
kunne skje. Man kan ikke sidestille påstått norsk hat mot muslimer med den
verste nedslaktingen av jøder siden Holocaust. Det er nettopp en slik
sammenstilling poltikerne kommuniserte utad i går – og da har jeg ikke engang
gått inn på de Hamas-hyllende skattefinansierte muslimske aktørene.
Og jeg tenker på Felmming Rose som skrev i Taushetens
tyranni at Holocaust kunne skje fordi folk ikke kunne
ytre seg fritt. Da kunne folk nettopp ytret seg kritisk til nazistenes ord og
handlinger. Han tenkte på den stilltiende passiviteten også, der ingen vil si
noe av frykt for represalier eller stempling eller utstøtelse. Norske
politikere bør være tydelige. Terror er grusomt. Terror er aldri relativt.
Terror skal ikke nedtones og «forstås i kontekst». Det er løgn – også den
løgnen beviselig, for som en jødisk venn beskrev det i går, gikk jødene aldri
til kollektivt, jublende terrorangrep mot tyskerne etter krigen.
Alt er kommunikasjon. Også det du ikke sier kommuniserer et
tydelig budskap.
Se denne:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/28/the-death-of-hassan-nasrallah-shows-why-this-is-a-just-war/
The death of Hassan Nasrallah shows why this is a just
war Daniel Ben-Ami:
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, was killed last
night in an Israeli air strike on Beirut, as part of its ongoing offensive in
southern Lebanon.
Nasrallah’s death exposes the glaring omission in most of
the media coverage of the conflict. Few outlets seem willing to recognise the
fact that Israel faces an annihilationist threat from the Iran-backed terrorist
group and its Islamist allies.
At best, media reports will acknowledge that Hezbollah has
fired thousands of missiles into northern Israel since 8 October 2023, the day after the Hamas pogrom. This
of course is why Israel has had to evacuate 60,000 of its citizens from its northern communities. In
rare instances, the media might mention that Hezbollah has flagrantly flouted a
UN
resolution to stay at least 12 miles from Israel’s border. But Israel’s
deeper motivations for its conflict with Hezbollah and allied Islamist groups
are rarely taken seriously.
Instead, the media paint a picture of Israel as a malign,
irrational actor wilfully slaughtering innocent civilians. This is demonstrated
most clearly on Al-Jazeera, an international TV channel based in Qatar. It
consistently portrays Israel as indiscriminately attacking Palestinian and
Lebanese people, seemingly just for the sake of it. The BBC and Sky are not far
behind when it comes to the demonisation of Israel.
The annihilationist stance of Israel’s Islamist opponents ought
to be hard to ignore. The absence of discussion about it is one of the
strangest aspects of the coverage of Israel’s wars. Hezbollah, literally the
‘party of god’, is very open about its ultimate aim. Its foundational document,
the 1985 ‘Open Letter’, states that:
‘Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states
that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands
wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people.
Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We
recognise no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements, whether
separate or consolidated.’
Here Hezbollah states that its goal is the obliteration of
Israel, the ‘Zionist entity’. This is not a statement about Lebanese
sovereignty, or a call for Palestinians’ freedom. Hezbollah has no interest in
either concept. Rather, it frames its project in terms of the umma, the
global Muslim political community.
Although this programme is almost 40 years old, the leaders
of Hezbollah have made countless
similar statements over the years. In July this year, the late Nasrallah
repeated a common Islamist metaphor when he called Israel a ‘cancerous tumour that must be eradicated’.
All of this is in line with the sentiments expressed by
other Islamist groups, from Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen to their
principal backers, Iran. In this, they all follow the precepts of Islamism, a reactionary
political movement that first emerged in Egypt in the 1920s. According to one
of its foundational ideologues, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), Islamists are locked in a struggle
against the cosmic Satanic evil of the Jews. He wrote this in a 1950 pamphlet
tellingly entitled, Our Fight with the Jews. Ali Khamenei, the current
supreme leader of Iran, translated four of Qutb’s works into Farsi. Although Qutb
was an Egyptian Sunni and Khamenei is Shia, as is Hezbollah, the anti-Semitic
core of Islamist politics is common to all of these groups.
Islamists are more than willing to turn this
exterminationist theory into practice. Indeed, Hamas’s pogrom in southern
Israel on 7 October 2023 was at least partially inspired by a similar Hezbollah plan to attack northern
Israel. There is also evidence to suggest that Hezbollah would have launched a
ground offensive after the Hamas attack if Israel had not mobilised its reserve
forces so quickly.
Hezbollah has a formidable military capacity to back up its
anti-Semitic aims. It is probably best seen as a terrorist organisation with the capabilities of a regular
army. A July study by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies
estimated that Hezbollah’s main arsenal ‘consists of at least 150,000 missiles,
rockets, and other lethal weapons, including hundreds of precision-guided
medium- and long-range missiles, covering Israel’s entire populated areas’.
Israel’s recent offensive will have reduced Hezbollah’s capacity and wiped out
many of its leaders, but it likely still remains a potent threat. Earlier this
week, Hezbollah sought to show onlookers its continued strength by launching
its first ballistic missile attack on Tel Aviv.
Hezbollah has other substantial military capacities, too.
One report, published in July by the Britain Israel Communications and Research
Centre (BICOM), estimated that Hezbollah has about 45,000 fighters, of whom
5,000 have completed advanced training in Iran.
Some claim that Hezbollah only emerged as a movement in
response to an earlier Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982. This is
partly true. But its advent has to be understood in the context of what an
Israeli historian, Yigal Kipnis, has recently called ‘the long war in Lebanon’.
Lebanon is a nation that has long suffered from having a
weak central state. This has always allowed non-state actors to flourish. So
it’s true that Hezbollah, rooted in Lebanon’s Shia minority, formed partly as a
response to Israel’s invasion in 1982. But in the years prior to Hezbollah’s
emergence, Israel was still facing a threat from groups operating from within
Lebanon. In particular, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), with
support from the hundreds of thousands in refugee camps in the region, had been
using Lebanon as a base to launch frequent attacks on Israel.
These long-running conflicts shouldn’t be a surprise.
Throughout Israel’s history, it has been a relatively small state surrounded by
hostile actors who refuse to accept its existence. Some now argue that Israel
is fighting a war on as many as seven fronts. According to a report in Foreign Policy, ‘that war involves Hamas and other
militant groups in Gaza; Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Houthis in Yemen; various
Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria; Tehran’s efforts to arm Palestinian
militants in the West Bank; and Iran itself, which directly attacked Israel for
the first time in April’.
Israel is surrounded by enemies committed to its
destruction. While much of the media downplay or refuse to acknowledge their
annihilationist intent, Israel cannot afford to be so complacent. In this
tragic conflict, the threat to Israel is existential.
Få med deg denne også:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/en/news/397254
In 633 CE, a year after Muhammad’s death, the commander of
the new Muslim armies wrote a letter to the Persian emperor, Yazdegerd III, the
last king of the great Sassanid dynasty.
“Submit,” Khalid ibn al-Walid declared, “or you will be
conquered by men who love death as you love life.”
To the emperor, the general must have seemed like a madman.
How could the Persian Empire, standing for more than 400 years, be threatened
by those who love death?
“We love death more than you love
life”.
These words are still dogma for Muslims at war with the West
and Israel, from Osama bin Laden to Ayatollah Khamenei. Words that seem like
delirium to the eyes of Westerners educated to live in a safe space, who, faced
with Islamic fundamentalism, delude themselves into thinking that the world is
all like their placid next door neighbor and who identify the enemy in those
neighbors who have retained the ability to smell danger and sound the alarm.
Undoubtedly, like today's woke Westerners, that Persian
emperor laughed at the letter from the Muslim general al-Walid, but within 20
years he was ousted from the throne, hunted down and massacred. If a barbaric
but well-disciplined force that “loves death as we love life” could do it in
the 7th century by converting the Persians to Islam, why not in the 21st?
The now deceased head of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah used the
same phrase to explain why Hezbollah is destined to prevail: “The Jews love
life, so that is what we will take away from them. We will win, because they
love life and we love death”.
This time Nasrallah found death in his bunker, built among
Lebanese civilians who he has always been ready to sacrifice in large numbers.
After learning of the death of a son, Ismail Haniyeh, leader
of Hamas, thought it appropriate to publish a photo of himself with his wife
smiling and making the victory sign.
Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that
“the use of even one atomic bomb against Israel would completely destroy the
country,” while if Israel used the atomic bomb “it would only succeed in
hurting the Islamic world.”
After spending ten days in Iraq and Syria with the Islamic
State, Jürgen Todenhöfer, a German journalist, gave a summary of their
ideology. “One day we will conquer Europe, the question is not if we will do
it, but when, for us it is obvious,” a German jihadist speaking on behalf of
the ISIS command told him. “Our expansion will be perpetual and the Europeans
must know that when we come, it will not be beautiful, it will be with our
weapons, and those who do not convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax will be
killed.”
"And if they refuse to convert," Todenhöfer asked?
“150 million, 200 million or 500 million, it doesn’t matter. We will kill them
all,” the jihadist replied. “They are preparing for the greatest religious
cleansing in history,” the German journalist concludes.
We did not take ISIS seriously and we saw how it ended.
We cannot understand what is happening unless we delve into
the theological realm. They are asking for the death of Jews and Christians,
not “Palestinian Arab rights”.
In this war between lovers of the civilization of life and
apologists of death, the radical Islamist today delights in the sobs of the
Western white man and the woke indulgence for the bloody extortions of the
“noble savage”. Just look at how the Western mainstream media portrayed
Nasrallah: it looked as though Mother Teresa of Beirut had died. So the human
shield strategy works wonderfully.
“It is like the desire of a powerful faction in the West
exhausted by life and longing for one last time to feel something similar to
life, the redemption that culminates in the coup de grace. It was inevitable
that they would oppose the Jews, who chose life instead of death”.
This is how Lee Smith explains the Western love for Hamas
and Hezbollah.
This is a war and wars end in victory or defeat and there
are two ways in which the war of radical Islam against the West could end. So
either we raise the white flag on what remains of our culture and freedom, we
rely on absolute and woke relativism that is a friend of scoundrels, on weak
and fanatic multiculturalism and on the care of the UN. Along with that we
abandon Israel, we face a massive reaction, made up of attacks and blackmail,
we prepare for the Iranian atomic bomb and then that of the others. It will be
the dance party of the defeated.
Or we hold on.
But are we Westerners still capable of holding on? Do we
still love the civilization of life more than they love death to the point of
defending it tooth and nail from our enemies?
Og hva ikke med denne?: https://www.frontpagemag.com/palestinian-lies-and-the-truth/
Hillel Frisch several years ago exposed the lies the
Palestinians tell themselves, and others. His piece, which can be found here, is enduringly relevant.
As they [the Palestinians] vilify Israel for its supposed
treatment of Muslims regarding the Temple Mount, they stress that hundreds of
thousands of Muslim worshippers have come to protect the site in past years—a
fact documented by Palestinian-supported media sites. But if Israel is so
intolerant and harsh toward Muslim worship, how are these hundreds of thousands
managing to assemble in the area?”
Another contradiction. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have
intermittently come to “protect” the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) from
non-existent Israeli impingements on Muslim worshippers. But Frisch asks
pointedly: how is that possible when the Palestinians tell us that the Israelis
severely restrict those same Muslim worshippers? There are no restrictions on
how Muslims conduct their worship. Before October 7, there were, at times of
great tension, some age restrictions put temporarily in place by the Israelis,
to prevent the younger, and historically more violent, Muslim males from
entering the Temple Mount, where they have been known to attack Jewish visitors
and to throw rocks down on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below. But as
soon as the tension lifted, so did that temporary restriction.
And as they vilify Israel for religious intolerance, the
P.A., Hamas and most of the other factions cannot stand the sight of religious
Jews visiting the Temple Mount or praying and sharing the space with Muslim
worshippers. At the graves of the Patriarchs in Hebron, the Palestinians often
describe visits by Jews to the site as “pollution” (tadnis) by “herds of
settlers.” Simultaneously, the P.A. and Hamas take pride in the innate
tolerance of Islam, Islamic society and the many and varied Islamic entities of
the past.”
It is the Israeli Jews who bend over backwards to
accommodate the intolerant Palestinian Muslims. Israeli law forbids Jews from
saying prayers – or even silently mouthing prayers – on the Temple Mount. No
religious literature of any kind can be brought by Jews onto the site. Thus are
Jews severely restricted in their religious observances – there are none
allowed — even at the holiest site of Judaism, so as not to offend the volatile
and violent Muslims.
At the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, the second holiest
site in Judaism, when the Muslims held the city between 1949 and 1967, no Jews
were allowed to visit. Now that Jews control the site, it is open to people of
all faiths. The Jews continue to be vilified by the Palestinians for daring to
exercise their right to visit the site. And several years ago, when the Israeli
government announced it was building an elevator that would permit the
disabled, elderly, and pregnant – who formerly were unable to visit the site as
they could not climb the stairs – to now be able to do so, the Palestinians
raised holy hell, claiming that this elevator, which is also to be used by
Muslims, was part of a plot to take over the Cave of the Patriarchs for the
exclusive use of Jews. No matter how many times the Israeli government
explained that the elevator was to be used by people of all faiths, the
Palestinians continued to insist otherwise.
Here is Hillel Frisch again. Once again, he wrote this
several years before the October 7 attacks, but nevertheless, his point is
important for the present situation:
Israel is accused of laying siege to Gaza to destroy its
economic and demographic foundations. At the same time, Hamas threatens Israel
with rockets if it does not extend more power lines to the Strip to meet its
growing energy demands. If Israel is attempting to impoverish Gaza, how is it
that there is so much demand for energy? And if Hamas has liberated Gaza from
the Israeli yoke, why does it want to increase its dependence on a state (to
control coronavirus, to get hospital treatment for family members of Hamas
officials, and so on) whose destruction it seeks to the point of threatening
terrorism if it refuses such dependence?…
Not only did Israel not wish to destroy Gaza’s economy, but
it was Israel that sent Mossad chief Yossi Cohen several times to Qatar to ask
the Qataris to renew their financial aid for Gaza, which before October 7
amounted to $30 million a month. Israel had become the chief fundraiser for
Gaza, though that was something Hamas preferred not be known. Israel did not
wish to impoverish Gaza, because if its economy collapsed, it would lead to
chaos and violence that Israel will have to deal with; the Israelis did not
want to have to re-enter Gaza if they can possibly help it. Of course, the
October 7 attacks made that re-entry unavoidable. Meanwhile, Palestinians who
had unusually difficult-to-treat diseases were accepted in Israeli hospitals.
Even Hamas leaders, the same ones who denounced Israelis as monsters, had their
own relatives treated in Israeli hospitals, where they knew they would receive
excellent treatment. A good example of this occurred in 2014. Shortly after a
50-day war between Hamas and Israel had ended, the late Hamas leader Ismail
Haniyeh had his daughter sent for treatment to Israel’s Ichilov Hospital for an
undisclosed ailment. Haniyeh, who spent his days and nights denouncing Israelis
as murderers, knew perfectly well that his daughter would receive the best
possible medical attention from the Israelis, and she did.
The Palestinians should learn from the master of this
technique. Goebbels’ evil, triumphant as it seemed in the 1930s and early
1940s, was nevertheless short-lived. Somehow, truth prevails in the end.
It was not the “truth” that prevailed over Goebbels’ lies,
but the armed might of the U.S., the U.K., and Russia that undid him and the
regime he served. Now it looks as if the same fate has come for the leadership
of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Og – at vi orker - ?
https://www.frontpagemag.com/afghans-in-germany-yearning-to-islamize-the-land/
Now, Afghans who have claimed to be “refugees” in order to
be admitted to Germany — even though they share the Taliban’s extreme ideology
and are in no danger of persecution back in Afghanistan — have been found to be
plotting against those who so kindly, and foolishly, took them in. More on
these Afghan migrants in Germany, their determination to spread an extremist
version of Islam, and their online threats to kill Germans who do not convert
to Islam, can be found here: “‘If Germany becomes Islamic, everything will be
very good,’ says the Afghan,” translated from “„Wenn Deutschland islamisch
wird, dann wird alles sehr gut werden“, sagt der Afghane,” Welt, August 30, 2024 (thanks to Medforth):
According to an RTL investigation, a group of Afghan
migrants is deliberately spreading Islamist propaganda. The videos are also
being filmed in German inner cities. In videos, the young men threaten violence
against “enemies of Islam.”
They pose in paramilitary outfits and carry knives, call
themselves “King of Munich” and think Sharia law is good: According to an
investigation by the RTL program “Extra,” young migrants from Afghanistan are
spreading radical Islamic ideas, even though they are supposedly seeking
protection from the Taliban in Germany.
Again, these “asylum seekers” — really, economic migrants —
share the Taliban’s views and are in no danger of persecution in Afghanistan.
They are lying to the German immigration authorities, who until now still fail
to realize that these people do not differ one whit in their ideology from the
primitive Taliban fighters they claim to be fleeing.
The videos are said to have been made not in Afghanistan,
Syria or Turkey, but in Germany – for example in inner cities, asylum centers
or Bavarian parks, according to the article.
When the RTL reporters investigated the videos, they said
they discovered a broad network of like-minded people that stretched as far as
France. Videos from this group included threats to “cut off heads” and attack
the “enemies of Islam,” if necessary with explosives on the body.
These Afghans in Germany who made videos threatening to “cut
off the heads” of the German Infidels who provided them with “refuge” (that
they did not need) and a vast cornucopia of benefits were — what’s an
understated way to put it? — “ungrateful.” In fact, their behavior was
monstrous — threatening to cut off the heads of those Germans who did not
accept Islam.
When reporter Liv von Boetticher tracked down one of the
Afghan TikTok users in a park and spoke to him, the Afghan did not deny his
support for the Taliban’s values. “The Islamic Emirate of the Taliban is
definitely better. There is no more war, no more theft. Nothing. If thieves are
caught, their hands are cut off.”
If this so-called “refugee” says that “the Emirate of the
Taliban is definitely better” than Germany, the obvious question looms: why in
god’s name are you still in Germany? Why haven’t the authorities deported you
back to Afghanistan, if you obviously have no fears? Does the German government
care to explain itself?
The migrants came to Germany for economic reasons, it is
said. The young men even support a caliphate in Germany: “If Germany becomes
and remains Islamic, then everything will be very good,” one of them is quoted
as saying.
They like their lives of leisure in Germany, that housing,
medical care, education, family allowances, and unemployment benefits that make
life so very pleasant, but there is just one thing lacking: Islam doesn’t yet
dominate throughout the land. And that’s a pity, because only in a society
where Islam rules can those Afghan “refugees” be truly happy. Again, one wants
to ask: isn’t Afghanistan the place now most fully governed according to
Islamic principles, where a Muslim can be truly happy, and wouldn’t it make
sense for those craving a country that is submissive to Islam, to move back to
Jalalabad, and Kandahar, and Kabul? Oh, but of course, there are all those
benefits we receive from the Infidel Germans. Can’t give those up. So we’ll
just have to work on Islamizing Germany.
The extremism expert Ahmad Mansur sees an underestimated
danger in these young migrants: “These are people who are very close to
extremism, to Islamism,” explains Mansur in the article. “The attitudes with
which they approach the majority society in Germany, in Europe, are very
hostile.”
These men “grew up with an understanding of Islam that is
actually much closer to that of the Taliban” than to that of modern Islam,
explains Mansur. What we see here is a “lifestyle Islamism. Men who live out
their masculinity in a very toxic, very patriarchal way.”…
Issa Al Hassan, who murdered three Germans, had long been
due to be deported, but some legal maneuvering by his lawyers — the authorities
had apparently “let deadlines pass” — allowed him to remain. And the result was
three dead Germans.
“We have now reached the point where even the last person in
the federal government must understand that things cannot continue like this,”
CDU General Secretary Carsten Linnemann is quoted as saying in the RTL report.
The Federal Police Union also speaks of a “loss of control” at the German
borders that must be remedied.
Issa al-Hassan’s case should at the very least lead to more
government support — more police, more prosecutors, more immigration judges,
more deportation trials — to make sure that once a Muslim has lost his appeal
to remain, he is not allowed to continue living in the country, but must
immediately be deported to his country of origin. No further excuses, no
further delays. Who should be deported? Anyone who entered the country
illegally. Anyone convicted of a crime, however small. Anyone who has committed
fraud to obtain more benefits than he, or she, is entitled to under the law.
Anyone who has been found to make threats on social media against Christians or
Jews or generic “Infidels.” Anyone expressing support for Muslim terrorists
anywhere in the world. All of them — Sofort Raus! Out Immediately! That
will remove a significant number of the Muslims, and not only the Afghans among
them, who are now in Germany. And even those not deported at this first culling
will be shaking in their boots at this distinct change in the political
atmosphere, the implacable determination of the German people and government to
undo what Merkel so foolishly did; these Muslims will now be wondering whether,
and when, they too will be sent packing, back to whatever Muslim hellhole they
once inhabited.
Prager, er, som alltid, meget poengtert og klartenkt
eller snartenkt, eller begge deler, alltid:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/people-hate-those-who-fight-evil-far-more-than-those-who-are-evil/
I realized something very important about the human
condition when I was in high school.
I realized that people tend to hate those who fight evil far
more than they hate those engaged in doing evil.
What made me come to this conclusion was the way in which
many people reacted to communism and to anti-communism.
To my amazement, a great many people — specifically, all
leftists and many, though not all, liberals — hated anti-communists far more
than they hated communism.
Because of my early preoccupation with good and evil,
already in high school, I hated communism. How could one not, I wondered. Along
with Nazism, it was the great evil of the 20th century. Needless to say, as a
Jew and as a human, I hated Nazism. But as I was born after Nazism was
vanquished, the great evil of my time was communism.
Communists murdered about 100 million people — all
noncombatants and all innocent. Stalin murdered about 30 million people,
including 5 million Ukrainians by starvation (in just two years: 1932-33). Mao
killed about 60 million people. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge (Red Cambodians)
killed about 3 million people, one in every four Cambodians, between 1975 and
1979. The North Korean communist regime killed between 2 million and 3 million
people, not including another million killed in the Korean War started by the
North Korean communists.
For every one of the 100 million killed by communists, add
at least a dozen more people — family and friends — who were terribly and
permanently affected by the death of their family member or friend. Then add
another billion whose lives were ruined by having to live in a communist
totalitarian state: their poverty, their loss of fundamental human rights, and
their loss of dignity.
You would think that anyone with a functioning conscience
and with any degree of compassion would hate communism. But that was not the
case. Indeed, there were many people throughout the non-communist world who
supported communism. And there was an even larger number of people who hated
anti-communists, dismissing them as “Cold Warriors,” “warmongers,”
“red-baiters,” etc.
At the present time, we are again witnessing this phenomenon
— hatred of those who oppose evil rather than of those who do evil — with
regard to Israel and its enemies. And on a far greater level. Israel is hated
by individuals and governments throughout the world. Israel is the most reviled
country at the United Nations as well as in Western media and, of course, in
universities.
Israel is a liberal democracy with an independent judiciary,
independent opposition press, and equal rights for women, gays and its Arab
population (20% of the Israeli population). Its enemies — the Iranian regime,
Hamas and Hezbollah — allow no such freedoms to those under their control. More
relevantly, their primary goal — indeed, their stated reason for being — is to
wipe out Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. Hamas and Hezbollah have built
nothing, absolutely nothing, in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively. They exist
solely to commit genocide against Israel and its Jews.
Why did so many people hate anti-communists more than
communism? And why do even more people hate Israel more than Iran, Hamas and
Hezbollah?
The general reason is that it is emotionally and
psychologically difficult for most people to stare evil in the face. Evil is
widely described as “dark.” But it is not dark; it is easy to look into the
dark. What is far harder to look at is blinding bright light. Perhaps that is
why Lucifer, the original name of the Christian devil, comes from the word
“light.”
Why this is so — why people will not call evil “evil” — is
probably related to a lack of courage. Once one declares something evil, one is
morally bound to resist it, and people fear resisting evil. The fools who mock
Christianity — whether through a work of “art” like “Piss Christ” (a crucifix
in a jar of urine), or the Paris Olympics opening ceremony that mocked the Last
Supper, or the Los Angeles Dodgers honoring the “Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence” (men in drag dressed as nuns) — would never mock Islam. They fear
Muslim wrath; they do not fear Christian wrath. Yet Islamic wrath has done and
is doing far more evil in our time than Christian wrath.
And there is one additional reason for hating Israel — one
that is specific to Israel — rather than those who seek to exterminate Israel:
Jew-hatred, better known as antisemitism. The people who introduced a judging
God and gave the world the Ten Commandments have been hated for thousands of
years. Not those who systematically violate those commandments.
In order to eliminate spam comments that have historically
flooded our comments section, comments containing certain keywords will be held
in a moderation queue. All comments by legitimate commenters will be manually
approved by a member of our team. If your comment is “Awaiting Moderation,”
please give us up to 24 hours to manually approve your comment. Please do not
re-post the same comment.
Mer
Greenfield, alltid filosofisk relevant:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/only-tyrants-fear-free-speech/
“It’s really hard to govern today,” former Climate Czar John
Kerry complained at the World Economic Forum. “The referees we used to have to
determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated,
to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their
news, for their information.”
And when it comes to a source that Kerry, the WEF and their
political allies don’t like, “our First Amendment stands as a major block to be
able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence”.
Four years ago, Obama offered
a similar complaint that, “if we do not have the capacity to distinguish
what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas
doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.” Obama and Kerry’s
definition of democracy is a system where everyone agrees on what’s true and
what isn’t.
This regime of facts was very much on display when ABC News
moderators crudely intervened in the last presidential debate to support their
chosen candidate. CBS News was barred from having its moderators intervene
directly in the debate and instead resorted to showing promos for its website
where its activist reporters will ‘fact check’ the vice presidential
candidates.
Having debates is a curious thing under a government of
facts whose premise, as Kerry and Obama argued, is that there is nothing to
debate. Candidates for public office can state their views only to have the
public be told which of those views is correct and which is wrong.
And then it’s the moderators and the agenda they represent
that is really running the country.
Obama argued that there can be no democracy where there are
disputes, but it’s actually the other way around, where there are no disputes,
there is no democracy. The greater the disputes, the greater the democracy. The
fewer the disputes, the less democracy there is.
Democrats claim to want to uphold democracy. They chant
about the power of the people. But if what they really want is to implement the
popular view, why are they so terrified of it?
The problem, as Kerry and many others have already
explained, is that they are not doing what the people want, but convincing the
people to want whatever the government does. Their version of democracy
requires harnessing the will of the people and then disregarding it where it
differs from their will. There’s a name for that sort of thing and it isn’t
democracy.
Democracies can be justified by the will of the people but
tyrannies rely on some abstract virtue. In a secular society where religion is
a diminishing force, Democrats claim that their tyranny is based on the
absolute truth of their beliefs as proven by science, by experts and the facts.
Both science and facts however arise from a trial and error process not
authoritarian assertion.
What the Democrats offer isn’t democracy, nor is it science:
it’s dogma propping up a tyranny.
Scientists and democracy proponents don’t fear dissenting
ideas. Democrats and tyrants do.
Ever since Hillary lost the election, Kerry has been the
latest in a long line of Democrats complaining about social media. “”The
dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing,” he
moaned at the WEF because it undermines any governing consensus.
“The First Amendment doesn’t require private companies to
provide a platform for any view that is out there. At the end of the day, we’re
going to have to find a combination of government regulations and corporate
practices that address this,” Obama had threatened.
A year later the Biden administration was regularly
intimidating Facebook and Twitter into taking down speech, including jokes,
that it found objectionable in the name of fighting misinformation.
California’s Gov. Newsom just signed bills into law cracking
down on AI generated memes. Congressional Democrats are mulling new forms of
action over what they call ‘deepfakes’. These serial tech panics invariably
relate to speech and the empowerment of individuals to dissent from whatever
artificial consensus has been imposed on the public by the authorities.
The common denominator is a fear of ideas. If speech is
decentralized then it can’t be controlled. And if speech can’t be controlled
then, as Kerry put it, governance is impossible.
The purpose of government then becomes to control speech by
controlling technology.
Big Tech monopolies that centralize technology allow for
direct integration with the state. Wealthy Democrat donors fund media outlets
which act as official censors through their ‘fact-checking’ operations. Tech
platforms are pressured by the government into censoring whatever the media
objects to and paying the media for the privilege of its censorship.
Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and Mark Zuckerberg’s
disinterest in continuing to prop up Facebook censorship have crippled the
technological end of the public-private censorship regime which has infuriated
not only Kerry but many other members of his political movement.
NBC News claims that “misinformation” about the election is
“running rampant” on Facebook. Misinformation, disinformation, deepfakes and
other similarly constructed terms treat speech as a dangerous thing.
Misinformation “spreads” like a virus, it “runs rampant” until it’s censored.
Its existence threatens the governing consensus through which the regime rules
the people.
The obsession with stamping out “misinformation” has so
overridden the liberal DNA of free speech that the ACLU now fights
‘misinformation’ rather than upholding free speech and PEN America urges that
it is “important to correct misleading or false information”. It’s important
because by controlling information, their political allies and agenda control
the people.
John Kerry has a point. It’s hard to govern when everyone is
free to speak their mind. That’s why America was a bold experiment in freedom
whose purpose was to be hard to govern. Americans being hard to govern is not,
as Obama and Kerry think, a bug, but a feature.
Pundits have been complaining that America is ungovernable
not just for the last twenty years, but the last two hundred years, and being
ungovernable is what makes us a free people. In the haze of trigger warnings,
warning labels, hate speech mandates and speech crackdowns, it becomes all too
easy to forget that free speech is our natural birthright as Americans.
And the establishment wants us to trade that birthright for
some fact checking pottage.
European powers were terrified of a country where anyone
could say anything. And they still are. Because a country where people are free
to say anything is also free to do anything.
America’s accomplishments would not have been possible
without its freedoms.
The war on speech is always carried on in the name of some
imaginary crisis, hate, social justice or climate change, that requires the
government to override those freedoms. Kerry and Obama object to allowing
people to debate whether the crisis is real because the crisis is the source of
their totalitarian powers. And if they lose the debate then they lose their
tyranny.
Og:
https://www.document.no/2024/10/07/pro-palestinere-lager-kvalm-politiet-ber-miff-avslutte-markering/
Våger vi
å tenke?:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-year-of-hatred/
Monday marks the first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 jihad
massacre, in which Hamas operatives brutally murdered 1,200 Israelis. It is
hard to imagine that only a year has passed since then, as the world has been
utterly transformed since the Hamas paragliders landed amid revelers at the
Nova Music Festival, and rampaged through the surrounding areas, kidnapping
numerous Israelis and murdering even more. Almost immediately, the left’s
well-oiled victimhood propaganda machine swung into action, beginning a barrage
of lies and distortions that one year later has made Israel more isolated on
the global stage than it has been since the founding of the modern state of
Israel in 1948.
It was easy to get the impression that the propaganda
initiative was ready to go, just waiting for a trigger. The massacre of
innocent Israelis may have seemed to be an unlikely trigger for an attempt to
turn the entire world against Israel, but as it happened, the moment was right,
and there was an unholy convergence of dark forces that were quickly able to
make it seem as if the Israelis had murdered 1,200 “Palestinians” on Oct. 7,
and not the other way around.
The first of these forces were the cadres of student
activists who began to agitate for “Palestinians,” and in an increasingly open
manner for Hamas itself and other jihad terror organizations, on campuses all
across the country. These miseducated and self-righteous students had been
skillfully and thoroughly propagandized, courtesy of the leftist professors who
dominate virtually every college and university in the nation.
In that sense, the post-Oct. 7 propaganda war actually began
in the 1960s, with the left’s Long March through the Institutions that
transformed our nation’s colleges and universities from institutions of higher
learning to the radioactive wastelands of far-left indoctrination and
propaganda that they are today. When the Oct. 7 massacres happened, these
thoroughly propagandized students, generously financed through unseen sources,
were ready with claims that Israel was an illegitimate “settler-colonialist” entity,
an apartheid state, an occupying power, and so on and on.
That deftly turned the attention away from what Hamas had
done on Oct. 7, and focused it on what the Israelis were supposedly doing to
the “Palestinians.” Oct. 7 then became an understandable incidence of an
oppressed people lashing out at their oppressor. Never mind that it was all
nonsense and falsehood. Never mind that in Israel, non-Jews have full equality
of rights, and that Israel is the only state that has any legitimate legal
claim to the territory it is supposed to be “occupying.”
Never mind that the Jews are the actual indigenous people of
the area, and the Arabs are the actual “settler-colonialists.” All of that and
much more had been deliberately withheld or obfuscated in the classes the
students who filled the campus encampments had attended. They were dutiful bots
of the anti-Israel propaganda machine in service of the jihad against
Israel,while thinking they were on the side of justice and righteousness.
Hamas did its part by publishing demonstrably false casualty figures of “Palestinians” in
Gaza. The establishment media did its part by repeating those casualty figures
as if they were reliable. Even the UN published them without any warnings,
caveats, or clear indication of their source. Israel, went the claim, had
committed Oct. 7 massacres for years before Hamas carried out its own, and was
still doing so. Here again, none of this was true, but after all these years of
leftist media propaganda and miseducation, a significant segment of the
American people are just as incapable as college and university students of
winnowing out truth from falsehood and recognizing propaganda for what it is.
Then there was the Biden-Harris regime, with Old Joe and
then Kamala Harris in a tight race with the left’s foremost figure of evil,
Donald Trump. The party’s far-left base has been in a state of perpetual rage
ever since Oct. 7, because even though the Biden-Harris regime has financed the
jihad against Israel by sending $10 billion to Iran and one billion to Gaza,
the likes of Rashida Tlaib and Nihad Awad of the Hamas-linked Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have repeatedly demanded that the betrayal of
Israel be more comprehensive and thoroughgoing. They have threatened to bolt
from the Democrats’ shaky coalition if they don’t get this full betrayal.
That could cost Kamala Harris Michigan and Minnesota, and
the election. As a result, first Biden and then Harris have cravenly endorsed
and parroted the Hamas propaganda, and striven mightily to stymie Israel’s war
effort and make sure it loses.
And so one year after Oct. 7, Israel’s foremost ally hates
it, the rest of the world hates it, and only the hated state is standing
against the bloodthirsty forces of jihad that, although Biden and Harris remain
indifferent (at best) to the fact, hate the U.S. as much as they hate Israel,
and will target us next. When these jihad forces do strike the U.S. directly,
Harris will likely be ready with a fine package of aid for them.
-
https://www.rights.no/2024/10/nyttige-idioter-for-diktatoriske-regimer/
Nyttige idioter for diktatoriske regimer, Rita
Karlsen:
Ung og dum? Det er vanskelig å forstå hvordan unge mennesker
på 1970-tallet drømte om voldelige revolusjoner og fungerte som nyttige idioter
for diktatoriske regimer, men nå ser vi det skje igjen. Og dessverre er det
bare ikke de selvgode og allvitende unge mennesker som bærer på slike drømmer.
Vår egen regjering – anført av utenriksministeren – fremstår også som nyttige
idioter for islamske fundamentalister, om enn de ikke fremsnakker voldelige
revolusjoner. Det gjør derimot mange av pro-palestinerne, uten at så mange tar
til motmæle.
Gufset fra fortiden
En som har grublet litt på samtiden opp mot fortiden etter
at Hamas groteske terrorangrep på israelere, er den danse journalisten Jacob
Rosenkrands. Han forteller at Gaza-krigen har skapt en polarisering og
radikalisering som bringer tilbake minner fra det voldelige 1970-tallet, med
Vietnamkrigen, Rote Armee Fraktions terror i Vest-Tyskland, kapringer med
«partisanene» i PFLP og Folketfronten for Palestinas Befrielse i hovedrollene.
Man kan sikkert kritiserer Israel for mye, krig er ikke
akkurat en lek, men man virkelig lure på hvorfor tortur, død og ødeleggelser
får noen til å støtte bevegelser hvor modus operandi nettopp er vold og terror.
Rosenkrands forteller at da han som journalist i Danmarks
Radio jaktet på lignende temaer i 2010, ble belært at «det var en annen tid den
gang». Han måtte forstå at det var «særlige historiske omstendigheter» som fikk
DR-profiler til å «beskrive DDR og Kina som mønstersamfunn, kalle Saigons fall
til kommunistene for en befrielse og rasjonalisere Rote Armee Fraktions
terrorhandlinger».
Han kjøpte argumentasjonen i lang tid, men senere sto det
krystallklart at de sosialistiske samfunnsmodellene var undertrykkende og
uønsket i egne befolkninger. Og Warszawapakten var ikke en
forsvarsallianse, slik deler av fredsbevegelsen mente, den hadde konkrete
angrepsplaner.
Det er med denne bakgrunn at deler av venstrefløyen kom til
å fremstå som nyttige idioter, sier Rosenkrands, og legger til at heldigvis har
flere av dem gjort opp for seg, både med koblingene til diktaturer og den
voldsberedskapen som fantes i miljøet. «Men i kjølvannet av 7. oktober
2023 marsjerer de nyttige idiotene igjen», fastslår han, og viser konkret til
mange pro-palestinademonstrasjonene rundt omkring i Vest-Europa.
I Oslo har Palestinakomiteen meldt at de skal demonstrere
foran Utenriksdepartementet på ettårsdagen for Hamas-terroren mot Israel. Som
vi har omtalt tidligere er å «velge dagen for jødenes verste
kollektive traume siden Holocaust ikke bare uverdig, det er grotesk».
Folkedrap-fokuset
Siden terrorangrepet i Israel 7. oktober skal mer enn 40.000
palestinere dødd i nådeløse gjengjeldelsesangrep, som gjentatte ganger er blitt
møtt med den samme anklagen om folkemord. En anklage om at Israel med sine
handlinger reelt har til hensikt å utslette den palestinske befolkningen i Gaza
en gang for alle. Dette er en anklage som vi må forvente at Palestinakomiteens
tilhengere vil gjenta i dag.
Men det er slik, som Berlingske meldte for et par dager
siden, at det er ikke folkedrap at tusener av uskyldige, herunder barn, blir
drept i gjentatte bombardementer av Gaza. «Det er iskald jus, og sett fra et
strengt juridisk synspunkt er det særlig en bestemt terskel som skal
overskrides» hvis en skal snakke om folkemord.
FNs folkemordskonvensjon, vedtatt i kjølvannet av
Holocaust, definerer folkemord som drap eller andre handlinger ment å forårsake
fysisk ødeleggelse med sikte på å ødelegge, helt eller delvis, en nasjonal,
etnisk, rasemessig eller religiøs gruppe.
– Rettens forklaring på folkemord er at gjerningspersoner
nekter en gruppe retten til å eksistere som gruppe, sier professor emeritus og
tidligere dommer ved FNs krigsforbryterdomstol for Rwanda og det tidligere
Jugoslavia, Frederik Harhoff til Berlingske.
Det avgjørende er hensikten. Men det er her
propalestinerne og andre har bestemt seg for å kjenne sannheten – mens de selv
uttaler seg langt tettere opp mot folkemordanklager enn hva de beskylder Israel
for. «From the river to the sea» har et klart budskap, selv om mange ønsker å romantisere
det.
– Hvis man vil anta at Israel er ansvarlig for at det
begås folkemord, skal det fremlegges bevis på at Israel har som forsett å nekte
palestinerne eksistens som gruppe i Gaza. Det vil avhenge av bevisene som blir
lagt frem under saken ved den internasjonale domstolen i Haag, fortsetter
Harhoff.
Det viktigste – og det kanskje vanskeligste – å bevise, er
nettopp hensikten. Den kan ha kommet til uttrykk direkte i tale eller kanskje
sågar i skrift, men som oftest vil man måtte bevise at den anklagedes
handlinger ikke kan tolkes på noen annen måte enn at hensikten var eller er å
utrydde en gruppe fra jordens overflate.
Marc Schack, førsteamanuensis i internasjonal rett ved
Københavns Universitet, påpeker til avisen at man i prinsippet kan uttrykke
intensjon ved å uttale intensjon, men i hovedsak er det et atferdsmønster man
ser på. «Det skal være atferd som samlet sett gir et bilde som kun kan
forstås som folkemordshensikt.»
Juridiske utfordringer
Som kjent har Sør-Afrika anklaget Israel for folkemord, som
vi har hevdet ligner mest på et et planlagt, bevisst politisk spill. Og som vi også har
omtalt, så ni måneder etter å ha fremmet saken for Den internasjonale domstolen
i Haag, jobber Sør-Afrika med å forlenge fristen for å fremlegge bevis. Her pekte vi på
at «Stopp folkemordet» har vært blant pro-palestinaaktivistenes aller mest
brukte slagord, og at utenriksminister Espen Barth Eide (Ap) satt harmdirrende
i studio i mai på NRKs Politisk kvarter og påsto at Israels angrep på
Rafah var «i direkte strid med det Den internasjonale domstolen (ICJ) har
pålagt Israel å gjøre».
Det er ikke riktig, og det tjener ingen å smøre så tjukt på.
Krigen i Midtøsten er altfor alvorlig til at man ikke skal forholde seg kritisk
til alle parter, og i alle fall ikke underslå islamske fundamentalister
groteske fremferd. Ikke minst er det vesentlig, slik som vi har beskrevet tidligere i dag, å merke seg at den islamske
imperialismen av idag likner bemerkelsesverdig mye på den islamske
imperialismen slik den så ut i middelalderen.
I første omgang har domstolen ICJ tatt stilling til om
anklagen om folkemord er plausibel, noe som krever langt lavere bevisbyrde enn
påstanden om folkemord. 15 av de 17 dommerne konkluderte med at bevisene i den 84 sider lange tiltalen var sterke nok til at en rekke
midlertidige tiltak kunne iverksettes mot Israel. Men både Marc Schack og
Frederik Harhoff undrer seg over det store fokuset på folkemord, som for
eksempel er hovedfokus for pro-palestinske demonstrasjoner. For selv om det er
vanskelig å bevise at Israels fremferd er folkemord, betyr det ikke at Israels
handlinger ikke er alvorlige, sier de.
– Jeg tror det er fordi folk tror det er folkemord
eller ingenting. Men når man for eksempel teppebomber et område på den måten
Israel tilsynelatende gjør, risikerer man å bevege seg mot en krigsforbrytelse,
og den bredere krigføringen kan også være en forbrytelse mot menneskeheten i
form av en bevisst storskala angrep mot sivile, sier Marc Schack.
Mens Den internasjonale domstolen kun kan avgjøre saker
mellom stater, så kan Den internasjonale straffedomstolen (ICC) straffeforfølge
og straffe individer som bryter krigsreglene. På bakgrunn av tunge bevis har
hovedanklager ved Den internasjonale straffedomstolen, Karim Khan, tatt det
drastiske skrittet å be domstolen utstede arrestordre for partene i krigen.
Aktor mener det er tunge bevis for at tre Hamas-ledere og
Israels statsminister, Benjamin Netanyahu, og hans forsvarsminister, Yoav
Gallant, har begått krigsforbrytelser og forbrytelser mot menneskeheten. Men
Khans anmodning har også ført til internasjonal splittelse. I tillegg rettes det spørsmål om
en rekke prinsipielle juridiske problemer mot Khan ønske, som for eksempel om
man i det hele tatt kan bruke paragrafer som forholder seg til internasjonal
væpnet konflikt i en krig mellom Israel og Hamas, der sistnevnte tross alt ikke
er en stat.
Så kan man selvsagt kritisere Israel for å kanskje overtre
krigens lover, men det unnskylder ikke Hamas eller andre militante islamske
fundamentalister for ikke å ivareta egen sivilbefolkning, når de feigt gjemmer
seg bak kvinner og barn, som den danske statsminister Mette Frederiksen
klokkeklart har uttalt.
Hat som forener
På tvers av land ser vi en woke venstrefløy som slår seg
sammen med fundamentalistiske islamske krefter. Hatet mot Israel ser ut til å
forene dem, men ellers er det vanskelig å se logikken, slik Jacob Rosenkrands
uttrykker det. Det er som om man undrer seg om det er noen logikk, kanskje
bortsett fra Gaza-krigen har gitt dem en ny renessanse. For de høres ut som et
ekko av fortidens militante venstrefløy.
Som vi tidligere har sitert ekstremismeforsker Lorenzo Vidino på:
– Det har overrasket meg hvor utbredt aksepten av
antisemittisme og vold og åpen støtte til Hamas har blitt i sirkler som ellers
ville si at en sending på Fox News kan regnes som terrorisme, sier han og peker
på paradokset i at den aggressive og høylytte pro-palestinske aktivismen kommer
fra miljøer som ellers har snakket om inkludering og «safe spaces», og at ord
kan være «vold».
– Det eskalerte veldig raskt, sannsynligvis fordi det har
vært så lite motstand. Mange har vært veldig tolerante overfor ting som ikke
ville blitt tolerert hvis de hadde kommet fra noe annet miljø, sier han, og
peker blant annet på universitetenes dreining inn i identitetspolitikken.
Når Palestinakomiteen i dag demonstrerer får de neppe noen
kritiske spørsmål om samfunnsmodellen Hamas står for i Gaza, inkludert
behandlingen av kvinner og homofile. Og hvem vil påpeke at militante, islamske
fundamentalister har bevist med en rekke terrorangrep at de ønsker død og
ødeleggelse, ikke bare mot Israel, men også mot demokratiske samfunn i Europa?
spør Rosenkrands.
Imens kan vi ikke annet enn å frykte for jødenes sikkerhet,
både her og i resten av Europa. Og vi kan med bekymring registrere den stadig
mer giftige debatten, den økte polariseringen og den fremvoksende
radikaliseringen. Og er det én ting vi vet; alt kan bli verre. Så vi kan bare
takke Israel for å stå i frontlinjen for demokratiet.
