Krigen på Gaza

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 08 Jan 2009, 12:45

Roots of the Gaza Conflict
By Nonie Darwish | Thursday, January 08, 2009 ... AD1C939D9B

With the explosive current events in Gaza, the world needs to understand the roots of this eternal conflict, otherwise we are all kidding ourselves with hopes of peace.

For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediteranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.

Understanding the reasons why the Palestinians chose violence over peace requires connecting the dots from the behavior of Muslim states back to the laws of Islam: Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):

"A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land." (Shafii Law o25.0 to o25.9).

Sharia law# o25.9 states:

"(When the caliph appoints a ruler on a region, his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients."


"The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax provided he has first invited them to enter Islam or pay Jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High Chapter 9 verse 29)."

Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said "jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah."

One of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Sheikh Maolana Maududi said:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and states around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.

No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individual as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law.

Muslim leaders who dare to go against this theology are called traitors and puppets of the ‘Great Satan’ West. That is a description that no Muslim leader wants to be labeled with. When president Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, he told his confidants that he knew he was signing his own death warrant. He understood that under Sharia he must have permanent war with non-Muslim Israel.

How can a Muslim leader or individual avoid the hundreds of Quran and Hadith commandments to Muslims to kill Jews and Christians? Q 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Q 9:5: "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them". Q47.4: "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads."

A Muslim leader cannot face his devout Muslim subjects after making a decision to engage in friendship and peace with Jews. Mosques all over the Middle East, after all, recite Mohammed’s commandment to Muslims:

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" (Sahih Muslim 41:6985, also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177)

This Hadith, issued by Mohammad, makes a whole group of people illegal to exist. It was issued in the 7th century, not after the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. It is not a response to modern-day grievances; it is a permanent commandment.

Many Muslims claim that Arabs and Jews lived well together for many years before 1948. But that claim ignores the fact that Jews had to live as ‘dhimmies’ under Islamic Law and were never allowed to rule themselves separate of the Islamic Sharia. When Muslims were weak they often treated their dhimmi subjects well and ignored the commandments to kill, subjugate and humiliate them. But Jew hatred is intrinsic to Islamic scriptures that do not permit reformation under the penalty of death.

This is the real basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict: not a conflict over land or occupation, but a divine obligation to destroy neighboring (non-Muslim) Israel, where Jews are no longer dhimmis but are free to rule themselves. We cannot ignore the root of the problem in Muslim scriptures. That is the true force behind the hate and propaganda Jihadist machine against Jews in the Muslim world.

Some Muslims tell me that they don’t believe in Sharia and question why am I making a big deal about it. My answer is that Sharia is the law of the land in 54 Muslim countries and many Muslim groups are demanding Sharia in the West. In 1990, 45 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Human Rights Declaration which stated that Sharia has supremacy over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Muslim world must look within to its sacred laws, scriptures, sermons, teaching and preaching, and reform the obstacles for peace that have condemned them to a permanent state of jihad. The non-Muslim world must have no illusions.

Nonie Darwish is an American of Arab/Moslem origin. A freelance writer and public speaker, she runs the website
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Roots of the Gaza Conflict

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 08 Jan 2009, 13:25

Mark Steyn: Gaza has its version of rocket scientists
Westerners seem to expect more civilized behavior from Israel than from its adversaries.
Mark Steyn ... president#

So how was your holiday season? Over in Gaza, whether or not they're putting the Christ back in Christmas, they're certainly putting the crucifixion back in Easter. According to the London-based Arabic newspaper al Hayat, on Dec. 23 Hamas legislators voted to introduce Sharia – Islamic law – to the Palestinian territories, including crucifixion. So next time you're visiting what my childhood books still quaintly called "the Holy Land" the re-enactments might be especially lifelike.

The following day, Christmas Eve, Samuel Huntington died at his home at Martha's Vineyard. A decade and a half ago, in his most famous book "The Clash Of Civilizations," professor Huntington argued that Western elites' view of man as homo economicuswas reductive and misleading – that cultural identity is a more profound behavioral indicator than lazy assumptions about the universal appeal of Western-style economic liberty and the benefits it brings.

Very few of us want to believe this thesis.

"The great majority of Palestinian people," Condi Rice, the secretary of state, said to commentator Cal Thomas a couple of years back, "they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."

Thomas asked a sharp follow-up: "Do you think this or do you know this?"

"Well, I think I know it," said Secretary Rice.

"You think you know it?"

"I think I know it."

I think she knows she doesn't know it. But in the modern world there is no diplomatic vocabulary for the kind of cultural fault line represented by the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so even a smart thinker like Dr. Rice can only frame it as an issue of economic and educational opportunity. Of course, there are plenty of Palestinians like the ones the secretary of state described: You meet them living as doctors and lawyers in Los Angeles and Montreal and Geneva … but not, on the whole, in Gaza.

In Gaza, they don't vote for Hamas because they want access to university education. Or, if they do, it's to get Junior into the Saudi-funded, Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, where majoring in rocket science involves making one and firing it at the Zionist Entity. In 2007, as part of their attempt to recover Gaza from Hamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets at the university, as well as seven Iranian military trainers.

At a certain unspoken level, we understand that the Huntington thesis is right, and the Rice view is wishful thinking. After all, when French President Sarkozy and other European critics bemoan Israel's "disproportionate" response, what really are they saying? That they expect better from the despised Jews than from Hamas. That they regard Israel as a Western society bound by civilized norms, whereas any old barbarism issuing forth from Gaza is to be excused on grounds of "desperation."

Hence, this slightly surreal headline from The New York Times: "Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, But Offers Gaza Aid." For whatever that's worth. Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, a young Palestinian woman who received considerate and exemplary treatment at an Israeli hospital in Beersheba, returned to that same hospital packed with explosives in order to blow herself up and kill the doctors and nurses who restored her to health. Well, what do you expect? It's "desperation" born of "poverty" and "occupation."

If it was, it would be easy to fix. But what if it's not? What if it's about something more primal than land borders and economic aid?

A couple of days after Hamas voted to restore crucifixion to the Holy Land, their patron in Tehran (and their primary source of "aid") put in an appearance on British TV. As multicultural "balance" to Her Majesty The Queen's traditional Christmas message, the TV network Channel 4 invited President Ahmadinejad to give an alternative Yuletide address on the grounds that it was a valuable public service to let viewers hear him "speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."

In fact, as Caroline Glick pointed out in The Jerusalem Post, the great man "speaks for himself" all the time – when he's at the United Nations, calling on all countries to submit to Islam; when he's presiding over his international conference of Holocaust deniers; when he's calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" – or (in his more "moderate" moments) relocated to a couple of provinces of Germany and Austria. Caroline Glick forbore to mention that, according to President Ahmadinejad's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, his geopolitical strategy is based on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" – the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states, Canada and New Zealand, all the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," Mr. Abbassi said in 2005. "England's demise is on our agenda."

So when Britain's Channel 4 says that we don't get the chance to see these fellows speak for themselves, it would be more accurate to say that they speak for themselves incessantly but the louder they speak the more we put our hands over our ears and go "Nya nya, can't hear you." We do this in part because, if you're as invested as most Western elites are in the idea that all anyone wants is to go to university, get a steady job and settle down in a nice house in the suburbs, a statement such as "England's demise is on our agenda" becomes almost literally untranslatable. When President Ahmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map, we deplore him as a genocidal fantasist. But maybe he's a genocidal realist, and we're the fantasists.

The civilizational clashes of professor Huntington's book are not inevitable. Culture is not immutable. But changing culture is tough and thankless and something the West no longer has the stomach for. Unfortunately, the Saudis do, and so do the Iranians. And not just in Gaza but elsewhere the trend is away from "moderation" and toward something fiercer and ever more implacable.

To be fair to President Ahmadinejad's hosts at Channel 4, the "department that will take care of England" probably doesn't get the lion's share of the funding in Tehran. On the other hand, when Hashemi Rafsanjani describes the Zionist Entity as "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb," that sounds rather more specific, if not teetering alarmingly on the "disproportionate." Unlike its international critics in North America and Europe, Israel has no margin for error.
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Roots of the Gaza Conflict

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 08 Jan 2009, 17:38 ... 2FShowFull

Our World: Iran's Gazan diversion?

Since the IDF commenced its ground operations in Gaza on Saturday night, I have been hungrily eyeing my hat.

On Friday I argued that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government is following the same defeatist strategy in Gaza today that the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government followed in Lebanon two and a half years ago. In 2006, the government supported a cease-fire that empowered outside actors - in that case the UN and Europe - to enforce an arms embargo against Hizbullah and to act as Israel's surrogate in preventing Hizbullah from reasserting control over South Lebanon.

In the event, as government critics like myself warned at the time, these outside actors have done nothing of the sort. The European commanded UNIFIL force in Lebanon has instead acted as a shield defending Hizbullah from Israel. Under UNIFIL's blind eye, Iran and Syria have tripled the size of Hizbullah's pre-war missile arsenal. And Hizbullah has taken full control over some 130 villages along the border.

In a similar fashion, today the government is insisting on the establishment of an international monitoring force, comprised perhaps of Egyptian, Israeli, Fatah-affiliated Palestinian, American and European officials that will monitor Gaza's border with Egypt and somehow prevent weapons smuggling. Like the cease-fire deal in Lebanon, this plan does not foresee the toppling of the Hamas regime in Gaza or the destruction of its military capacity. It ignores the fact that similar, already existing, theoretically friendly monitoring forces - like the US-commanded Multi-National Force Observers in the Sinai - have done nothing to prevent or even keep tabs on weapons transfers to Hamas.

STILL, IN spite of the government's continued diplomatic incompetence, there are reasons to think that Israel may emerge the perceived victor in the current campaign against Hamas (and I will be forced to eat my hat). The first is that Gaza is relatively easier to control as a battle space than Lebanon. Unlike the situation in Lebanon, IDF forces in Gaza have the ability to isolate Hamas from all outside assistance. The IDF's current siege of Gaza City, its control over northern Gaza, its naval quarantine of the coast and its bombardment and isolation of the border zone with Egypt could cause Hamas to sue for a cease-fire on less than victorious terms.

Indeed, this may already be happening. Hamas's leaders are reportedly hiding in hospitals - cynically using the sick as human shields. And on Monday morning, Hamas's leadership in Damascus sent representatives to their new arch-enemy Egypt to begin discussing cease-fire terms. Taken together, these moves could indicate that Hamas is collapsing. But they could also indicate that Hamas is opting to fight another day while assuming that Israel will agree to let it do so.

THE SECOND reason that it is possible that Hamas may be defeated is because much to everyone's surprise, Iran may have decided to let Hamas lose.

Here it is important to note that the war today, like the war in 2006, is a war between Israel and Iran. Like Hizbullah, Hamas is an Iranian proxy. And just as was the case in 2006, Iran was instrumental in inciting the current war.

Iran prepared Hamas for this war. It used Hamas's six-month cease-fire with Israel to double both the range and the size of Hamas's missile arsenal. It trained Hamas's 20,000-man army for this war. And as the six months drew to a close, Iran incited Hamas to attack.

So too, in 2006, Iran incited Hamas to attack Israel. That war, now known as the Second Lebanon War, was actually a two-front war that began in Gaza. Ordered by Iran, it was Hamas that started the war when its forces (together with allied forces in Fatah), attacked the IDF position at Kerem Shalom on June 25, 2006 and kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Schalit. Israel fought a limited war against Iran's Palestinian proxies in Gaza for 17 days before the country's attention moved to the North after Hizbullah attacked an IDF position along the border and abducted Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

Israel's leaders today warn against a possible Hizbullah attack. In the North, municipalities are readying bomb shelters and air raid sirens ahead of such a possibility. Most of the IDF reservists called up over the weekend are being sent to the North ahead of a possible Hizbullah attack.

But in contrast to the situation in 2006, today Iran seems to have little interest in expanding the war and so saving Hamas from military defeat and humiliation. Speaking on Hizbullah's Al Manar television network on Sunday, Saeed Jalili, the head of Iran's National Security Council, its chief nuclear negotiator and a close advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, essentially told Hamas that it is on its own.

In his words, "We believe that the great popular solidarity with the Palestinian people as expressed all over the world should reflect on the will of the Arab and Islamic countries and other countries that have an independent will so that these will move in a concerted, cooperative, and cohesive manner to draft a collective initiative that can achieve two main things as an inevitable first step. These are putting an immediate end to aggression and second breaking the siege and quickly securing humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza." In other words, Iran's response to its great enemy's the war against its proxy is to suggest forming a commission.

There are many possible explanations for Iran's actions. First there is the fact that war is an expensive proposition and Iran today is in trouble on that score. In the summer of 2006, oil cost nearly $80 a barrel. Today it is being traded at $46 a barrel. Iran revised its 2009 budget downward on Monday based on the assumption that oil will average $37 a barrel in 2009.

Over the past several months, Iran has been begging OPEC to cut back supply quotas to jack up the price of oil. But, perhaps in the interest of weakening Iran, Saudi Arabia has consistently refused Iran's requests. To date, OPEC's cutbacks in supply have been far too small to offset the decrease in demand. And the loss of billions in oil revenues may simply have priced Iran out of running a two-front terror war.


Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg simon 09 Jan 2009, 17:03

La oss ikke fokusere for mye på Hamas. Hamas er bare den siste i rekken av totalitære, morderiske grupper som stammer fra Palestinaarabiske områder.
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg QIQrrr 09 Jan 2009, 18:51


    Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, a radical Marxist who openly supports Hamas and the 9/11 hijackers, is seen once again in this CNN video about the death of a “freelance cameraman’s” brother in Gaza — and the footage in the hospital room was very likely staged for propaganda effect - A Staged Scene in a Gaza Hospital?
Det forundrer meg absolutt ikke.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 11 Jan 2009, 13:43 ... tid=550146

Forsker: - Krig øker fredsmulighetene

(VG Nett)Konflikten i Midtøsten kan ikke løses uten at de to sidene får kriget ferdig, mener utenriksforsker.

«Bare la dem slåss» er en velkjent kommentar over norske middagsbord til den evige konflikten i Midtøsten. Nå har det fatalistiske argumentet fått akademisk tyngde. Lørdag gikk utenriksforsker Asle Toje fra BI ut i Vårt Land med en brannfakkel i Midtøsten-debatten.

Ifølge BI-forskeren er de vitenskapelige funnene er helt entydige. I en konflikt hvor en får en meglet fred midt i krigshandlingene er sjansene for permanent fred bare rundt 15 prosent. Med militær seier til den ene parten øker den til 50 prosent.

- Når du ser på forskningen er det rent statistisk større sjanse for at en konflikt blir løst når en av partene har vunnet eller den andre parten har blødd så kraftig at de har kommet frem til at de ikke kan oppnå seier på slagmarken og derfor går til forhandlingsbordet, sier Toje til VG Nett.

Bakgrunn:Derfor er det krig

- Partene vil ikke ha kompromisser

Bi-forskeren mener dette er grunnen til at mange internasjonale aktøerer ikke vil ta med ildtang i kruttønna Israel og Hamas.

- Jeg forsøker ikke å være normativ, men å forklare hvorfor ikke flere investerer politisk kapital i en konflikt som de fleste beslutningstakere ser at ennå ikke har nådd punktet hvor partene er villige til å inngå kompromisser.

Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg simon 11 Jan 2009, 15:58

Uten å gjøre krav på for mye saklighet her, så finner jeg denne setningen ustyrtelig morsom :)

Mellem skrev:Se også Bård Vegar Solhjell og Audun Lysbakken og Paven og Kåre Willoch og Jimmy Carter. ... penge.html

forøvrig mange interessante poster hos Mellem: ... il-et.html
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Demian 11 Jan 2009, 17:12

simon skrev:forøvrig mange interessante poster hos Mellem:

Blitt sosialantropolog på dine eldre dager, Simon? : -)
Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers?
Innlegg: 326
Registrert: 25 Aug 2006, 11:10
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg simon 11 Jan 2009, 17:22

Demian skrev:Blitt sosialantropolog på dine eldre dager, Simon? : -)

:) Noe sånt, kanskje. Men nei, det er nokså interessant å se hvordan de oppegående delene av venstresida tenker og resonnerer. Han er ikke blant de rabiat-gærne, men tilhører det statsbærende parti, som for tiden finner det for godt å gå i tospann (trespann?) med de rabiate. Det er befriende med motstandere du kans snakke med uten at skjellsordene hagler. Man kan i verste fall oppnå dialog.
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Per Anton Rønning 11 Jan 2009, 23:08


Venstresiden kommer stadig trekkende med Israels disproporsjonale gjengjeldelse mot Hamas i Gaza. Dette er sikkert å forstå slik at noen skarve raketter mot israelske sivile mål umulig kan
rettferdiggjøre et fullskala militært angrep fra en overlegen krigsmakt.
Siden norske journalister i all hovedsak er duster er det ingen som stiller spørsmålet: "Hva synes du ville være en passende respons mot Hamas angrep"? I så fall måtte norske journalister også pushe kolleger som begår ulike såkalte kommentarer (egentlig propagandainnlegg pro palestinerne), og det kan vi ikke ha. Fraværet av kritisk journalistikk er total. For ikke å snakke om intelligent journalistikk.
Men så plutselig dukker det opp et unntak. Dagsavisen fredag 5/1-09 publiserer en kronikk,
ikke av noen norsk kommentator naturligvis, for den er skrevet av filosofen Andre Gluksmann, velkjent fra miljøet kalt "de nye filosofene" i Frankrike på 70-tallet.

Han sier kort og godt at det ikke er ute av proporsjoner å ville overleve, og mener den internasjonale opinion at Israel skulle la være å utnytte sin tekniske overlegenhet og gjengjelde med samme våpen som Hamas gjør ?

Gluksmann peker på at enhver konflikt er disproporsjonal av natur. Man er ikke motstandere om man er enige om bruken av kampmidler og de mål man kjemper om å oppnå. Når det er snakk om konflikt har man en reell uoverensstemmelse, og da vil partene utnytte egne fordeler og motstanderens svakheter. Derfor er det nokså selvsagt at Israel utnytter sim militære overlegenhet for å nå målene. Når Hamas bruker befolkningen som levende skjold mot israelske angrep er det nettopp for å utnytte en svakhet i vestlig opinion som er svært fokusert på at krigføring ikke må ramme sivile. Dette håper man skal lede til press mot Israel om å gå forsiktigere til verks, og aller helst avblåse hele krigen. Det har selvsagt en grunn når man stadig terper på begrepet "humanitær katastofe", i håp om at dette skal treffe opinionen i solar plexus.

Det er kanskje på tide å ta et oppgjør med myten om at en krig ikke angår sivile, at den kun hører hjemme ute på den vide sletten der troppene marsjerer mot hverandre og avfyrer sine kanoner og musketter. Dette er en virkelighet som ikke eksisterer, så hvorfor tenke som om den ekesisterte? Det kan ikke være tvil om at sivilbefrolkningen er en viktig faktor i enhver krig. Det er her man finner støtte for eller motstand mot fortsatt krigføring, og sivilbefolkningen kan understøtte hærstyrkene på mange måter uten å være direkte involvert i kamp. Ikke minst når det gjelder å produsere ressurser i form av forsyninger, transport og nye våpen kommer man ikke langt uten de sivile. For kampmoralen til styrkene er også befolkningens moralske støtte av avgjørende betytdning. Derfor er denne fokus på de sivile kontraproduktivt, og dette vet venstresiden. Derfor utnytter de sivile tap (spesielt kvinner og barn) for alt hva det er verd i propagandaen mot Israel. Eller mot USA i Vitetnamkrigen eller Irak-krigen.
Det faktiske forhold er at sivilbefolkningen må smake krigens redsler de også og ikke opphøyes til noen hellig ku, dersom krigen skal vinnes.
Poenget for Israel er å få slutt på de stadige angrepene mot sivile mål i Israel (som venstresiden bare skyndsomt nevner, og nærmest unnskylder).
Faktum er at Hamas vant valget blant palestinerne, og da har et flertall av disse de facto stemt på en politikk som eksplisitt går ut på å utslette staten Israel. Dette er noe de etter min mening bør få smake den fulle konsekvens av.

Men media mesker seg. TV-bildene fra Gaza skal vise hvordan Isael "overdriver", reportasjene snakker om massakrer og total krig. Dog snakker man ikke om "fokemord",
- vi hadde "folkemordet i Jenin" som endte med 60 døde, og som dermed er en pompøs overdrivelse. Man har kanskje ikke lyst å ta opp konkurransen med seg selv når det gjelder slik pompøsitet?
Men under det hele lurer et forsøk på å plante en spesifikk forestilling: Konflikten har en gitt "normaltilstand" som venstresiden selvsagt ikke vil si hva er, men som Israels hær bringer ut av balanse i egen favør. I stedet får man inntrykk av at Israel helst burde svare med dårlige raketter og steinkasting, for å være "proporsjonale". Eller skulle man vente til Hamas har kommet opp på samme ildkraft som en selv med hjelp fra Iran, Syria osv. får de går til angrep? Neppe trolig.

Men hva er egentlig proporsjonalitet i denne konflikten - om vi ser på intensjonene, eller målsettingene? Israel har ingen intensjon ut over å bli latt i fred for de stadige angrepene.
Hamas derimot har erklært at Israel skal slettes fra kartet. Dersom Israel skulle bringe sine mål eller intensjoner opp på Hamas' nivå, kommer vi rett og slett ikke utenom en massiv etnisk rensing i Gaza. Det er vel ingen tvil om at Hamas mener alvor, og at de vil gjennomføre sine forsetter den dagen de evt. er i stand til det. Hvorfor snakker ikke venstresiden mer om dette enn de gjør? Jeg tror det er lett å forstå. De vil "drepe jødene", for de har alltid hatet og vil alltid hate de som er mer suksessfulle enn dem selv. Jødene er definitivt mer suksessfulle, man kan jo bare sammenligne de områdene der det bor jøder med områder der det bor arabere. Det er "Edens have" stilt opp mot tørr ørkenen. Det er driftighet stilt opp mot inkompetente dåsemikler og døgenikter. Da de første norske kontingentene dro til Libanon i sin tid og kom tilbake, ble jeg gjort obs. på denne påtagelige forskjellen mellom målbevissthet og driftighet og apati og inkompetanse.
Så hvis venstresiden stadig skal ile til og dyrke taperne, er det igrunnen ikke rart at de velger å støtte muhammedanerne *).


*) Jeg kaller dem ikke lenger muslimer, jeg ønsker å levere en maksimal fornærmelse mot folk jeg kun har forakt til overs for. Å kalle en muslim for muhammedaner er det samme som å si at de er tilhengere av en fysisk person, i stedet for fantasifiguren Allah.
Av og til får man slike behov for å markere. :mrgreen:
I've always found that the speed of the boss is the speed of the team.
Lee Iacocca
Per Anton Rønning
Innlegg: 3322
Registrert: 09 Sep 2003, 08:54
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 13 Jan 2009, 19:45 ... k/4363232/

Danmarks statsminister forsvarer Israels offensiv

Danmarks statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen forsvarer Israels militære operasjoner i Gaza. Opposisjonen raser, og tusenvis av dansker demonstrerer mot israelernes offensiv.

Fogh sa på sin ukentlige pressekonferanse tirsdag at kritikken mot Israel er ensidig. Også motparten Hamas har ansvar for at kamphandlingene blir stoppet og en holdbar våpenhvile kommer i stand, framholdt den danske regjeringssjefen.

Opposisjonspartiene til venstre for sentrum er harme på Fogh. - Det israelerne gjør, er helt uten proporsjoner, og det er merkelig at statsministeren ikke kan støtte sin egen utenriksminister i denne saken, sa sosialdemokraten Mogens Lykketoft tirsdag.

Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Onarki 13 Jan 2009, 20:34

Jeg fikk følgende saftige artikkel inn på forsiden av VG i dag. Flere tusen mennesker har lest den så langt:
Innlegg: 2249
Registrert: 03 Apr 2005, 14:13

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Skatteflyktning 13 Jan 2009, 20:55

DLF forsetter sin ukritiske linje mht Israel ser jeg.

For en litt anderledes loesning:
Innlegg: 1036
Registrert: 24 Mai 2008, 21:02

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 14 Jan 2009, 09:32

En grei oppsummering fra Pravda ... 6-israel-0

Israel does not suffer from international isolation

Israel is cleansing Gaza of terrorists. The Jewish State has launched the ground operation after a series of air strikes. It has become obvious by now that Israel intends to bring the operation to a close despite numerous international protests. The prime goal of the operation is to overturn the Hamas movement. In the meantime, the cleansing of the terrorist stronghold is good for everyone.

Israel is determined to finally destroy the terrorist cradle in the Gaza Strip and to overturn the power of Hamas, which originally intended to wipe the State of Israel off the map.

It goes without saying that it will take quite a time for the operation to end. Numerous protests from the international community and the followers of Arab terrorists do not stop Israel. Even the legendary Israeli tolerance has its limits. One may wonder how much tolerance the United States would have if the country were attacked from Mexico, for example. It would not last for an hour, of course.

The Israeli tolerance was lasting for seven years. It has been 18 months since the time when Hamas toppled Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and came to power in the Gaza Strip. Hamas Islamites have considerably improved their previous positions in the struggle against the “Zionist aggressor” since that time.

The missile attacks of the Israeli territory began in 2001. Hamas was gradually increasing the number of its attacks against Israel, and the cup has been finally filled. Terrorists do not know what peace is. They only understand the language of bullets.

The terrorist enclave has been split into five resistance centers since the beginning of the ground operation in the Gaza Strip. Gaza City, the stronghold of Islamism and terrorism, with its Qassam-making factories and terrorist training camps, is the major one of them.

The Gaza Strip continues its missile fire against Israel, but the shells mostly fall down in the desert causing no damage to Israel. The Israeli Army has blocked Gaza with the help of Egypt not to let terrorist leaders either escape or receive reinforcement from the outside.

Foreign journalists and human rights activists were not allowed to enter the combat area, although Hamas originally planned to use them in the informational war against Israel. Israel wins the war in all directions so far. The terrorists have failed to make an aggressor of Israel too.

Israel uses high precision weapons to destroy terrorist bunkers. Islamists often guise their armament depots to children’s schools, mosques and even kindergartens. Even if such bunkers are destroyed, Palestine makes it look like the extermination of innocent people.

It is worthy of note that Iran does not hurry to unleash a war against Israel in spite of the fact that the Iranian leader is known for his open anti-Israeli remarks. The Arab unity has vanished. There were numerous protests against the actions of the Israeli administration in Gaza, but they all ended. Neither the United States nor the European Union condemn Israel. French President Nicolas Sarkozy virtually supports the Israeli ground operation for he said that the operation was a result of Hamas’s actions. Israel does not suffer from the international isolation at all.
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Krigen på Gaza

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 14 Jan 2009, 09:37

Skatteflyktning skrev:DLF forsetter sin ukritiske linje mht Israel ser jeg.

For en litt anderledes lesning:

Anarkisten Rothbard (mises-insttuttet er i stor grad på linje med Rothbard) jublet da kommunistene vant i Vietnam fordi da ble det én stat mindre i verden - Nord-Vietnam overtok da Sør-Vietnam og to stater ble til én: en stor kommuniststat. Tidligere var det en liten kommuniststat og en stat som forsøket å bli vestlig, noe som ifølge Rothbard var verre enn å ha en stor kommuniststat.
Vegard Martinsen
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07


Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 4 gjester