Emosjonene som nekter seg og andre - bl a kristne - å se ...

 

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 20^th 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.