Av og til kan det være lærerikt å eksperimentere litt med
tekster og særlig å skifte ut visse ord i teksten med et annet ord og da helst
et ord som betyr noe annet, men som likevel utvider forståelsen av teksten og i
det hele tatt forutsetningne for å forstå hva saken egentlig dreier seg om. Det kan da vise seg at forfatteren
av teksten bruker vikarierende argumentasjon: det blir argumenter mot noe som
egentlig er noe annet og mer viktig for forfatteren enn det leseren skal
forledes til å tro. Man tror at man er god, men er i virkeligheten bare innbilt god.
Slik også med tekster av «det norske bispekollegium» som nylig
har gått hardt ut med et dirkete angrep på det de presiserer og forsikre om er «kristensionisme».
Men som ikke er det.
I virkeligheten er det Israel «kollegiet» angriper, bare
sekundært kristensionistene. Og dette vil fremgå av den teksten jeg legger inn
her, hvor jeg har skiftet ut «kristensionismen» med ordet Israel. Man får da et
klart uttrykk for hva «kollegiet» egentlig mener, men ikke tør å si høyt, feige og
servile som de alltid er, overfor «det» man vet, og uvederheftige intellektuelt,
slik jeg ser det.
Kollegiet består av servilt betinget emosjonelt korrekte posører som tenker omtrent slik Prager formulerer det og illustrerer i denne lille snutten, som treffer spikeren på hodet, så det nesten gjør vondt: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/prager-u-video-how-left-sees-world-power-race-and-prager-university/
De som vil oppleve Prager som «barnslig» her, tar feil. Det er de han kritiserer som er barnslige. De tenker virkelig slik Prager forteller de gjør. Jeg har ingen problemer med å være enig i fremstillingen, i sin hovedsak. De mennesker – the left – som «tenker» slik, og som jeg har skrevet mye om her på bloggen tenker SAP, som jeg sier, og ikke religico-religico. (Se tidl. Artikler). De havner in principium dermed automatisk på det nivået Prager beskriver: Det er ikke bare politisk korrekte, de gjør seg emosjonelt korrekte og det er flere hakk verre og mye vanskelige å frigjøre seg fra enn det rent «politisk korrekte», et felt hvor man tross alt bør forvente at det kan diskutere rasjonelt eller rasjonalt og ikke bare «fobisk», dvs irrasjonalt.
Bispene er på ville veier, men skjønner det ikke. De lar seg
styre av de emosjonelt korrekte og klarer derfor ikke å forholde seg til
virkeligheten på en rasjonell måte, og heller ikke til rasjonelt tenkende og
virkelig sannhetssøkende mennesker.
Vi har tidligere omtalt saken her:
http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/11/kirken-og-islamo-sionismen-en-grov.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/10/gyrid-gunnes-sionismen-apartheid-her-og.html
Man skulle nesten tro at kollegiet hadde gjort seg frivillig til løpergutter for applikasjon av Irans shia-muslimske styre som mener det har en plikt til - ifølge myten - å jobbe for at islams Jesus skal komme tilbake så snart som mulig, før armageddon, slik at de kristne og vel også Israel og jødene skal nedkjempes. Selvsagt ser bispene bare den ene siden av dette: Det er kristensionistene som vil angripe Iran, slik at armageddon kan fremskyndes "etter mytens befaling". Og dette er "forferdelig" i minst av biskopenes øyne.
Så til saken, som viser at det er Israel bispene primært
angriper, og ikke «sionistene», mennesker biskopene da bruker kynisk i sitt
eget halv- eller helbevisst hykleriske og kyniske dobbeltspill:
Skrevet av: Bispemøtet i
Den norske kirke, fre 16. okt. 2020:
Bispemøtet
finner kristensionisme teologisk og menneskerettslig uholdbart.
Situasjonen i Israel og Palestina er dypt bekymringsfull. En
rettferdig og bærekraftig fredsløsning som respekterer internasjonal lov,
ivaretar sikkerheten og rettighetene for begge folk, syns mer urealistisk enn
på lenge.
Kirkeledere i Jerusalem har bedt verdens kirker og det
internasjonale samfunnet om å legge press på Israel (partene)
for å forhandle fram en rettferdig fredsløsning og få slutt på den ulovlige
okkupasjonen og forskjellsbehandlingen av innbyggerne.
Israel («Sionisme») er et vidt begrep. Det finnes noen grupper som betegnes som israelvenner («kristensionister») fordi de med begrunnelse i særegne bibelfortolkninger støtter staten Israels ekspansjonspolitikk. Selv om de tilhører kristne kirker, lytter de ikke til appeller fra lokale kirker i
Israel (kristensionismen)
har et spesielt historiesyn med apokalyptiske endetidsforventninger, der ISRAEL
(de) risikerer å redusere jødene til instrument i et frelsesteologisk skjema.
Israel (De) har en
politisk teologi som ignorerer internasjonal lov og menneskerettigheter.
Direkte eller indirekte motarbeider Israel (de)
forsøk på å skape rettferdig fred. Israel
(Disse gruppene) er særlig store i USA, men finnes også i vårt eget land.
Det er uenighet om hvordan landløftene i Bibelen skal
fortolkes. Men vi finner det uholdbart å fortolke Bibelen uten henblikk på de
etiske konsekvensene. Det er problematisk å lese gamle profetier slik at Israel
(alle politiske hendelser) i dag er forutbestemt av Gud. (Israel kan med
andre ord ikke være forutbestemt av Gud ifølge bispekollegiet).
Israel (Da … )
fratar (fratas) mennesker ansvaret for historien samtidig som Gud reduseres.
Ikke minst vanskeliggjør Israel (kristensionismen) situasjonen for kirkene i
Palestina og Israel. Dette kaller på antipati mot Israel (solidaritet)
fra Den norske kirke.
Bispemøtet finner det uholdbart å bruke Bibelen til å forsvare
Israels undertrykkelse og menneskerettighetsbrudd (legitimere
undertrykkelse eller menneskerettighetsbrudd), eller til å tilkjenne ulik grad
av menneskeverd til ulike grupper mennesker.
Løftene i Det gamle testamente som omhandler det jødiske folk og landet, kan ikke brukes til å legitimere Israel og at palestinere drives fra sine hjem eller fratas sine rettigheter. De har også sin historie i landet og hører hjemme der.
Bispemøtet finner derfor Israels eksistens (kristensionisme teologisk og menneskerettslig) uholdbart.
Kirken har mye å svare for når det gjelder sin antijødiske historie. I oppgjør med kirkelig og europeisk antisemittisme har kirken ønsket å utvikle et solidarisk forhold til det jødiske folk. Dette står ikke i motsetning til å engasjere seg for palestineres rettigheter.
Flere bispedømmer i Den norske kirke har vennskapsavtaler med ELCJHL (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land). Bispemøtet ønsker at Den norske kirke aktivt skal støtte dette arbeidet (mot Israel og sionismen) videre.
Den norske kirke må fortsatt søke dialog med jøder om hvordan vi som troende kan bidra til rettferdig fred (med palestinerne og alle de som går mot Israel og sionistne) i området.
https://www.dagen.no/meninger/debatt/2020-10-16/Uttalelse-om-kristensionisme-945855.html-
Legger så ved en interssant artikkel hentet fra nettet,
for deretter å legge inn en del relevante funn og fakta:
Equating Zionism With White Supremacy in the Age of Trump
The newest
thrust in the campus tactical assault against Israel. Mon Dec 14, 2020 , Richard L. Cravatts
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of 'Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews'.
Nazifying ideological opponents is a tactic that campus anti-Israel groups and individuals have long used as part of the ongoing cognitive war against Israel, in which Zionism is racism, Israelis are the new Nazis, Gaza is equivalent to the Warsaw Ghetto, Israel is committing genocide against the guiltless Palestinians (a “Holocaust in the Holy Land,” as one student event called it), and the Star of David of the Israeli flag is regularly manipulated to incorporate a swastika.
This intellectually destructive behavior is nothing new for these anti-Israel activists; what is new is that they made a tactical pivot after the election of Donald Trump, choosing to join the chorus of shrill voices accusing the White House, conservatives, Republicans, and even white people in general of being a new incarnation of racists, fascists, and white supremacists, emboldened and given influence by the Trump administration’s alleged racist and xenophobic ideology.
This newest thrust in their tactical assault against Israel, using the hysteria about a phantom alt-right infecting government and academia to justify a more aggressive bludgeoning of the Jewish state, means that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and other radical campus groups and individuals have felt no compunction at all in increasing the tenor and intensity of their tactical assault on Israel and using the current political climate to reinforce a new slur—white supremacy—against it.
Some of that tactical poison flows to campuses through The U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), a coalition of hundreds of organizations that “is ‘at the very heart’ of the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement’s efforts to isolate Israel in the U.S,” and which provides resources for radical student groups such as SJP. “Since Trump came to power, we have seen a very open alliance between Zionists and white supremacists,” the organization’s website announces definitively. “This alliance becomes all the clearer when we look at the shared histories and values of the United States and Israel,” since “Both the United States and Israel are European settler colonial states built on the exclusionary ideology of white supremacy,” and “Zionism and the US empire, both manifestations of white supremacy, collaborate closely to achieve shared goals.”
Apparently, this toxic view has taken hold on university campuses. At the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign’s SJP chapter, for example, this hateful ideology was on full display when, in a September 2017 Facebook post, the group announced that since “there is no room for fascists, white supremacists, or Zionists at UIUC,” they had organized a rally called “Smashing Fascism: Radical Resistance Against White Supremacy.” It would hopefully occur to any sentient being that characterizing Zionists as keeping company with or in fact being fascists and white supremacists is not only a historically grotesque notion, it would also seem to be self-contradictory.
And this assumption is dangerous because, if it is accepted by other leftist and radical campus groups, it will mean that, as the UN infamously achieved in 1975, Zionism again will be equivalent to racism, and any supporters of Israel can thereby be condemned and thrown into that ideological bucket of white supremacists, racists, and neo-Nazis that now seem to so animate the imaginations of Democrats, liberals, and marginalized and oppressed minorities.
A student-published “disorientation guide” for entering freshman at Tufts University in that post-election year echoed the same perverse theme: the guide not only disingenuously described the Tufts University Hillel of “exploiting Black voices” for inviting the parents of Trayvon Martin to discuss “gun violence,” but also, more egregiously, accused Tuft’s Hillel of being an organization that supports a “white supremacist state”— namely Israel.
In 2019, in a paean to the intersectionality of oppression that currently animates progressive thought, two student groups, Claremont Students for Justice in Palestine and Claremont Prison Abolition, hosted an event to investigate the specious “ties between the cause for Prison Abolition and Palestinian liberation.” Attempting to create a uniting of oppression, the event promised to “move through the Palestinian liberation movement and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)'s rejection of Zionism in order to unmask the white supremacist and settler colonial projects that have worked to maintain Black and Brown bodies in bondage both domestically and internationally.”
In 2019, Rabab Abdulhadi, the troublesome and eternally anti-Israel associate professor and director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies (AMED) program at San Francisco State University, was delivering a guest lecture at UCLA. Abdulhadi, it will be remembered, was embroiled in controversy this year for a planned, though eventually canceled, virtual speaking appearance by Leila Khaled, a terrorist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, whose resume includes her role in the 1969 hijacking of an Israel-bound plane and her arrest the following year during a failed hijacking of an El Al flight.
At UCLA, Abdulhadi was at her hate-Israel best, claiming, according to a Jewish student attending the talk, “that those who support Israel want to ethnically cleanse the Middle East and those affiliated with Israel and pro-Israel organizations are white supremacists.” Abdulhadi apparently doubled down on the white supremacy slur against Zionism and the Jewish state, as she has undeterred in her personal jihad against the Jewish state, asserting that Rep. Ilhan Omar is “attacked by AIPAC and all these pro-Israel organizations because [she is] Muslim,” and that the United States and Israel have “shared values” of “killing people, colonialism and white supremacy."
In a June 2020 online debate sponsored by Canada’s York University, associate professor Faisal Bhabha, who teaches at the university's Osgoode Hall Law School, after asserting that “Zionism isn’t about self-determination, it’s about Jewish supremacy” and being challenged for that thought by another panelist, doubled down on his toxic views, stating definitively that “I’m equating white supremacy with Jewish supremacy.”
Columbia University, of course, has been a well-spring of anti-Israel scholarship and invective, particularly emanating from the university’s anti-colonial, anti-Israel, anti-Western, and often anti-Semitic Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies. In 2018, Columbia’s Middle East Institute, Columbia/Barnard JVP, and other progressive groups co-sponsored a conference which announced it would on the first day have as its topic “On the Palestine Exception (with some thoughts concerning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Zionism in the academy),” but it became clear that the actual purpose of the event was to demonize Zionism and the Jewish state yet again. The event ludicrously tried to conflate Zionism with white supremacy, even linking it to Islamophobia and other bigotry. “[T]here is the little-known ZionistNazi alliance to rid Germany of its Jewish population . . ,” a description read. “Richard Spencer is, therefore, hardly an aberration in linking the basic precepts of Zionism to the White Supremacist desire of a white ethno-state . . . . The link between White Supremacy, male chauvinism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Zionism is clearer than ever.”
The year before, as part of the annual “Israeli Apartheid Week” hate-fest, Columbia’s chapter of SJP held a subtlety-entitled event, “Zionists are Racists.” The description for the event resurrected the long-discredited slur from the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, the odious resolution that declared “Zionism is Racism.” “With the support of newly liberated African nations,” the description read, “the bill recognized the supremacist ideology of the Israeli nation-state that had predicated its settler colony upon racial apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Come learn about Israel’s racist and imperialist policies and... discuss what the BDS struggle looks from the perspective of South Africa.”
These perpetrators of this unrelenting anti-Israel agitation have been leading a virulent campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel for years now, and it is astonishing that radical groups and individuals ignore all the factual and shameful chronology (of which they have been central fomenters and cheerleaders in the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign), and instead are trying to promote the fantasy that, not only do Zionism and Israel embody and perpetrate white supremacy themselves, the true threat to Jewish students and other Israel supporters, they contend, is from the Left’s perennial boogeymen, the lunatic fringe of white power extremists who these willfully-blind activists believe, and want others to believe, are the chief perpetrators of anti-Jewish bigotry.
It is no surprise, obviously, that when campuses attempt to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism, the anti-Israel crowd is the first to reject its use and complain about being unfairly targeted for being the bigots they actually are, precisely because much of their behavior and speech conforms to some of the definition’s criteria. Some of those points include, for instance, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” and “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”—all of which accurately describe the intention and effect of this anti-Israel activism, and particularly the base charge that the entire Zionist endeavor is a racist one, and that Israelis, in their treatment of the long-aggrieved Palestinians, have become white supremacists, virtual Nazis, themselves as a result.
“If you cannot answer a man’s argument,” Oscar Wilde once quipped, “do not panic. You can always call him names.” The cognitive war against Israel has employed many toxic ideological tactics and name-calling in the past, and the current charge against the Jewish state of being a well-spring of white supremacy is the latest in the unrelenting effort to libel, slander, and make an eternal pariah of the Jew of nations, Israel.
2012
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination censured Israel in 2012 for implementing “two entirely separate legal systems and sets of institutions for Jewish communities grouped in illegal settlements on the one hand and Palestinian populations living in Palestinian towns and villages on the other hand ...
https://waronwant.org/israeli-apartheid-factsheet
Israel and the apartheid analogy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Israel and the apartheid analogy is criticism of Israel charging that Israel has practiced a system akin to apartheid against Palestinians in its occupation of the West Bank.[1] Some commentators extend the analogy to include treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, describing their status as second-class citizens.[9] The analogy has been asserted by scholars, United Nations investigators,[10] the African National Congress (ANC),[11] human rights group[12][13] and by several Israeli former politicians.[14] Proponents of the analogy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including the ID system; Israeli settlements; separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian citizens around many of these settlements; Israeli military checkpoints; marriage law; the West Bank barrier; use of Palestinians as cheaper labour; Palestinian West Bank exclaves; and inequities in infrastructure, legal rights (e.g. "Enclave law"), and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories, resemble some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, contrary to international law.[15]
Critics of the analogy argue that the comparison is factually and morally[16] inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel.[17][18][19] Opponents of the analogy also assert that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not part of sovereign Israel. They argue that though the internal free movement of Palestinians is heavily regulated by the Israeli government, the territories are governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas government in Gaza, so they cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa. Proponents compare the occupied territories to the Bantustans set up within South Africa, which were also classified as "self-governing" or "independent".[20][21]
The Washington Post suggests that Israeli law is the same for Jewish citizens and other Israeli citizens, with no explicit distinction between race, creed or sex, whereas South Africa enshrined racial segregation policies in law.[24] However, others believe that certain laws do explicitly or implicitly discriminate on the basis of creed or race, in effect privileging Jewish citizens and disadvantaging non-Jewish, and particularly Arab, citizens of the state. These include the Law of Return, the Ban on Family Unification, and many laws regarding security, land and planning, citizenship, political representation in the Knesset (legislature), education and culture. The Nation-State Bill, which has been met with worldwide condemnation, has also been compared by members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), opposition MPs, and other Arab and Jewish Israelis, to an "apartheid law".[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] On 12 December 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination decided that it has jurisdiction to investigate a complaint by the State of Palestine against Israel for breaches of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.[32][33][34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/countering_the_apartheid_slander/
Resolution 3379
The 1975 Resolution 3379, which determined that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" was revoked by Resolution 4686 in 1991. Twenty-five states voted against this revocation, twenty-one of which have predominantly Muslim inhabitants. During the first-ever conference on antisemitism at the UN, in 2004, Kofi Annan said that the UN record on antisemitism had sometimes fallen short of the institution's ideals, and that he was glad that the "especially unfortunate" 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism had been rescinded.[181]
The "Zionism is a form of racism" concept reappeared in 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban. Zouheir Hamdan (Lebanon) claimed that "One (Israeli) minister described the Palestinians as serpents, and said they reproduced like ants. Another minister proposed that Palestinians in Israel be marked with yellow cards".[182] A draft resolution denounced the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority.".[183] The draft was removed following the departure of the US and Canadian delegates. General Assembly President Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann repeated the accusation in a speech during the 2008 International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.[184]
On January 24, 2008, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour welcomed[185] the entry into force of the Arab Charter on Human Rights which states: "Article 2(3) All forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occupation and domination constitute an impediment to human dignity and a major barrier to the exercise of the fundamental rights of peoples; all such practices must be condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination."[186]
Arbour subsequently distanced herself from some aspects of the charter.[187] The charter is listed in the web site of her office, among texts adopted by international groups aimed at promoting and consolidating democracy[188]
Direct involvement of UN personnel in conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_United_Nations#Resolution_3379
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar