2
registrerede somo
,(1 usynlig),
509
gæster og
40
søgemaskiner online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Skribent: Ipso Facto
Emne: Re: EURABISKE BORGERKRIGE?
|
Hej Ransom!
Som supplement til den i øvrigt korrekte historiske redegørelse og dokumentation som Borad har fremlagt for at tydeliggøre hvori løgnen om eksistensen af et selvstændigt folkeslag kaldet ”palæstinensere” der har historisk hjemstavnsret til Palæstina, dvs. det historiske Israel, ønsker jeg yderligere at dokumentere hvordan, hvornår og hvorfor konceptet om et ”palæstinensisk folk” opstod og opnåede udbredelse og generel anerkendelse samt politisk accept.
Indtil begyndelsen af 1970erne var forestillingen om et selvstændigt ”palæstinensisk folk” som en selvstændig etnisk gruppe adskilt fra en større Arabiske Nation stadig ikke klart formuleret. Artikel 1 i den reviderede Palæstinensiske Nationale erklæring fra 1968 fastslår:
”Palæstina er hjemland for det arabisk palæstinensiske folk; det er en udelelig part af det arabiske hjemland og det palæstinensiske folk er en integreret del af den arabiske nation”.
Ligeledes taler erklæringen fra konferencen i Algier i 1973 og efterfølgende erklæringer om at den ”arabiske nation” er fast besluttet på at generhverve DETS territorier. Israels landområde blev ikke betragtet som knyttet til en særskilt palæstinensisk nationalitet, men til en global arabisk nation, hvis medlemmer understøttede deres brødre i Palæstina.
Skabelsen af et ”palæstinensisk folk” ex nihilo efter den arabiske olieembargo i 1973 blev ledsaget af en europæisk politik som understøttede de legitime rettigheder af dette nye palæstinensiske folk hvis rettigheder ikke blot var ækvivalente med, men endog stod over dem som israelerne nød.
På et topmøde i Bruxelles med deltagelse af de 9 EF landes statsledere den 6. november 1973 udsendtes en fælles resolution med udgangspunkt i afhængigheden af arabisk olie. Denne resolution var fuldstændig på linie med den fransk-arabiske politik over for Israel.
Bruxelles erklæringen føjede tre nye punkter til EFs politik over for staten Israel:
1) Afvisning af at kunne erhverve territorium ved hjælp af magt, hvilket allerede var fastslået i FN resolution 242.
2) Krav om at Israel skal trække sig tilbage til våbenstilstandslinierne fra 1949.
3) At ”palæstinensernes legitime rettigheder” skal inkluderes i ehver definition af fred i Mellemøsten.
Interessant nok har Al Queda for nyligt rettet kritik mod det Palæstinensiske Hjemmestyre for at tænke i nationalistiske baner frem for at se sig selv som en del af den arabiske globale umma.
Det palæstinensiske folk med en tilhørende palæstinensisk nationalitet og et tilknyttet territorium er således en ren konstruktion der skulle tjene et politisk formål i den jihad muslimer har ført mod den jødiske stat siden dens oprettelse i 1948/49. Rent teologisk betragtes jøderne i Israel som oprørske dhimmier som det er enhver rettroende muslims pligt atter at bringe under islams overhøjhed ved hjælp af jihad.
Forfatteren Fitgerald skriver i en artikel på Dhimmi Watch fra 29. november 2007 følgende om den kreative konstrution af ”det palæstinensiske folk” og dets rettigheder:
“A Jihad Watch reader recently took issue with my noting that the world had never heard of the “Palestinian” nationality before the 1960s: "‘You are absolutely wrong on all counts. First of all there was never any Palestine to begin with... so who exactly do you mean by Palestinians?' There were also no "Israelis" as such until Israel was officially created. Both identities are constructed ones. Again, so what?
In the end, they're fighting over land. If either side wanted peace, they'd have it by now. As it is, there are people on both sides who have profited, and continue to profit, from the continuation of hostilities."
No, but the word "Palestinians" and the invention of the "Palestinian people" was a deliberate construct. It did not begin right away. It was not the term used, ever since there were Arabs in what Western Christendom called "Palestine." The local Arabs never used the phrase until after the defeat in the Six-Day War. And then, having jettisoned Shukairy a few years before, the Arabs collectively decided, with a little help from public-relations advisers in the West, to thoroughly redo their presentation.
The most important thing was to redefine the conflict. No longer are all those Arabs against a tiny Jewish state. No. Now, by an act of optical illusion, the tiny Jewish state would be transformed into a vast empire, this Greater Israel. Why, the same BBC newscasters who routinely refer to Lebanon as that "tiny country" and to Jordan as that "tiny country" -- I hear it all the time -- for some reason never use that epithet with Israel. Never. Not once. Yet that Greater Israel, even if it came into being, would be all of the size of Massachusetts, and less than one one-thousandth the size of the Arab states.
But the absurdities pile up. It was time to rename the local Arabs, both those in the territories won by Israel that were part of the original Palestine Mandate (Gaza, the "West Bank" -- quondam Judea and Samaria) and those who had been called simply, and a bit too easily, "Arab refugees" -- by every single Arab spokesman at the U.N., the Arab League, and elsewhere. These were the people living in those villages (always described as "refugee camps," though some are full-fledged cities, and all have stores and built-up areas; these are not tent cities, the kind of thing that refugees in Darfur must endure) in Jordan, Lebanon, and so on.
The term "Israeli" was not deliberately invented to score political points. Far from it. The Jews of Israel are really what is in play here, the survival of a Jewish state, of the right of the Jews to have a state.
It is absurd to equate the deliberate and sinister creation of this fake "Palestinianidentity" (google "Zohair Mohsen" and "Palestinian people" for more) for political ends, with the simple term "Israeli" to describe those who are citizens of the state of Israel.
So let's do it otherwise. Let's, more truthfully, talk about Arabs and Jews. Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. Do the Jews who come from the Middle East have a right to a state?
Remember, a million of them in 1948, having endured for centuries the life of dhimmis under Muslim rule (save in those places, such as North Africa, where the brief rule by European powers led to Jewish emancipation from the burden of living under Shari'a -- thanks in Algeria to the loi Cremieux of 1870), left the Arab countries where they had lived, and most fled to the state of Israel. Do the Jews have a right to a state, a state that can be defended against permanent Muslim aggression, or do they not?
And as for the local Arabs, their numbers have been exaggerated -- few bother to consult the Ottoman cadastral or demographic records, such as they are, in pronouncing on the subject of "Palestine," and fewer still put that "Palestine" and the non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities of the Middle East into their proper light, their proper perspective. Do the Kurds also, now is perhaps the time to add, have a right to an independent state? And Lebanon, by rights, should remain a haven, a final haven, for the Arabic-using Christians -- not all, by a long shot, are Arabs -- in the Middle East. …
Hele artiklen kan læses på dette link: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018964.php#comments
Hilsen Ipso Facto
Ref.: Bat Ye’or: EURABIA – The Euro-Arab Axis, 2006, side 48/50.
|
|
|
|