Sunday, 19 March 2017

Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible and me too

Muslims love lies. They will cling to any absurdity to confirm that their faith is true.

A Muslim sent me the following video to prove that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible.

I watched it and I felt sorry how these people are gullible and naïf.

The claim is that the chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, mentions Muhammad.

The chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, does not mention Muhammad. The Hebrew word mahamaddim that occurs in this verse means “delights,” “delightfulnesses” and it has nothing to do with Muhammad.

Using the same absurd reasoning that Muslims use to prove the Bible mentions Muhammad by name I have found that the Bible in many places mentions me by name too. In fact there are hundreds of references to my names, Ali and Sina in the Bible. In the following biblical verses I have highlighted my name for all the doubters to see.

Genesis 45:26 They told him, “Joseph is still alive!

Colossians 1:21  And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind

Exodus 19:20
And the LORD came down upon Mount Sinai, 

There you have it. If Muhammad is mentioned once in the entire Bible, my both names are mentioned hundreds of times. That is not all, I can find my name mentioned in pretty much every book written. Is this a miracle or what?

This is how Muhammad is mentioned in the verse 5:16 of the Song of Songs. Do you see how pathetic Muslims can be? Are these people not embarassed? All the so called miracles of Islam are of this kind.

The verse does not talk about Muhammad any more than the above verses talk about me. The translation of the verse is:

his mouth is sweets                             Hkw mmtqym
and all of him is delights                     wklw mHmdym
this is my love                                     zh dwdy
and this is my darling                          wzh r`y
daughters of Jerusalem                        bnwt yrwshlm

Here is how responds to this inane claim.

The Hebrew word mHmdym is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name).

The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, “the desire of thine eyes”) it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel’s wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.

In Arabic many words are formed from the same root, but they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad’s name occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi ‘lalamin (“Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds”). In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur’an, because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read ” the Romans have been overcome,” where Arabic dictionaries give “Rum” as if derived from the root “ram”. This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgment.

A newsgroup article in regard to that:

Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child’s play. Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word [Hmd], there are of course several other similar occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures. The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary lists…
Hmd (yHmwd) p                     covet, lust after
Hmd z                                     delight, loviness
Hmdh n                                   desire, object of desire
Hmdnwt                                  covetousness, lustfulness

It is also interesting to note: Many Muslims are “outraged” that something like the Song of Songs by Solomon which is a love song and sometimes very open in its erotic language could be part of the Word of God, the Bible. But then, they completely “forget” this argument and try to find in the middle of this very same love poem expressing this woman’s desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6. The argument goes: This should not be in the Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad nevertheless.

A further problem is that even though Muslims need to find Muhammad mentioned because the Qur’an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this verse wouldn’t help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur’an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.



Sexual Perversity of the Muslim Mind

By M. A. Khan                  

Muslim men’s sexual attitude is so perverse that they think they can even eye-rape women. While we can’t probably ever comprehend how that is possible, but we can discern why they may entertain such perverse thinking…

On many occasions, I have received emails from Muslims—apparently well-educated ones, who write good English and live in Western countries—justifying the Islamic tradition of wearing veils on the ground that it helps women avoid “eye-rape” by strangers. Following is such a letter written by one Farrukh Abidi, apparently incensed by the outcome of a recent Angus Reid poll, which found most Quebecers and Canadians agree that women wearing the niqab or burqa should not receive government services, hospital care or university instruction. Abidi wrote:

Assalamu alaikum
There is no surprise if non Muslim countries ban hijab or niqab since they are non-Muslim, they don’t care what Islamic values are, real surprise is that majority of Muslims women don’t practice niqab or even hijab, and majority of Muslim men don’t care if their wives practice this important order of Allah or not. There are hundreds of Muslim families where we won’t find any single home or person, who cares about niqab or hijab.
Not only that but Muslim women now have taken a further step, which is nakedness, women wearing half sleeves which is very common, many women wear semi-naked saarhi (especially in India/Pakistan), many women now don’t put the cloth sheet on their body so part of their chest stays naked.
Surprise is, Muslim men even don’t realize or don’t care that when their wives go out in this condition then unlimited men get aroused by watching their naked body parts, especially in non-Muslim countries, there are Christian, Jews, Hindus, Sikh, rapists, alcoholic, gangsters, street bums, homo sexual and all kind of people see them and get aroused and enjoy the view then day dream while thinking about these Muslim women and girls.
Can you imagine what is the level of ghaira of these Muslim men? Majority of Muslims men unknowingly are making it easy for unlimited and all kind of men to enjoy and get aroused and pleasure with their wives by allowing them to live without hijab or with nakedness cloths.
Women don’t really understand the nature of men so they wear naked kind of cloths without knowing that unlimited and all kind of men are enjoying with them.
I know some of them purposely not practicing hijab to attract men, but the fact is, women listen to their husbands, if husbands help and encourage their wives then I believe 90% of married women will start practicing hijab.
Those Muslim women who are not practicing proper hijab, they are not living respectful life, they choose disrespectful life just to please their husbands, why won’t they choose respectful life if their husbands pleased with that?
The thing that really surprises me is that how Muslim men tolerate such a disturbing condition of their wives?
With this all around the Muslim world, Muslim’s act surprised and complain “Why non-Muslim countries are not treating us nicely and fairly.”
Why would they? Do we give any importance to Islamic values?
Farrukh Abidi

I will discuss only the Muslim idea of how a woman, not covered head-to-toe with black robes, can be eye-raped—i.e. sexually enjoyed simply by looking at them—by strangers.

Although Muslims accuse (as Abidi has done) non-Muslims of having such a perverse sexual attitude, it actually exposes the underlying thinking of their own that one can rape a woman just by looking at her exposed face, legs, hands or a bit of her breast. Having been a Muslim for 35 years, I would not be surprised.

Mumin Salih, a Syrian-born Arab and ex-Muslim, has quite correctly outlined the Muslim sexual attitude as thus:

The culture of strict sexual segregation practiced in the Gulf States, and some other Muslim countries, make some Muslims behave like wild sexual beasts. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the mere sight of a woman’s leg can be sexually-arousing experience to men. Women without total coverings were described by Australian Imam, Taj al-Hilaly, as uncovered meat; in other words, mouth-watering meals to would-be predators.

I have known how young Muslims in Islamic countries experience a rush of adrenaline and blood down their body to their male instrument, when they, by chance, happen to see the shoulder-ribbon of a girl’s bra, accidentally exposed. This would tell well what kind of experience Muslim men may have when they see women with exposed thighs or part of the teat. Let me tell from my experience that, despite Muslims’ saintly façade, they are most crazy about watching porn.

Men from conservative social backgrounds, where mixing of men and women are relatively restricted as Muslim societies are and takes pride in, are likely to feel sexual excitement more easily when they spot a girl’s body-parts a little exposed.

But this maniac sexual attitude is also shaped by how a society or its religious faith looks at sex and women. We humans are capable of being charitable like the legendary philanthropist Hatim Ta’i, but can also be robbers, plunderers and looters like his contemporary Prophet Muhammad (Muhammad had attacked the Ta’i community, plundered it and forced Hatim’s children to embrace Islam). Our attitude toward various aspect and issues of life is shaped by how we groom it, based on our social and ethical outlook.

Muslims can surely be as best as their Prophet was, given that Muhammad is seen as an ideal human example for Muslims to follow in all aspects of life at all times. Let me cite this Sunnah of the Prophet, which would explain why Muslims in particular entertain such perverse attitude toward women and sex.

The Prophet was once visiting his adopted son Zayd, when he was away. When he called Zayd, his newly-married wife Zainab answered from inside their ramshackle house that Zayd was away. But Muhammad could not hold his curiosity. Instead of walking straight back home, he peeped into the house. And there he saw Zainab, his daughter-in-law, in flimsy dress on a hot summer day of Arabia. Muhammad was awe-struck by the attractive near-naked body of beautiful Zaynab, and went away saying: “Praise be to Allah, who can change how the heart feels”.

What came next would dismay any decent mind, although Muslims hold it as sacred tradition of the Prophet worth emulating forever. While a decent father-in-law would walk away feeling ashamed of making the mistake of peeping in, Muhammad probably experienced the greatest rush of adrenaline in his body ever by the alluring sight of young and beautiful Zainab’s sexy body.
And how did he control his once-in-a-life-time arousal? Here’s probably the story:

Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3240:
Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

While a connection of this story to Zainab hasn’t probably been made in Islamic literature, it is more than certain that this was the aftermath of the prophet’s memorable encounter with Zainab, unless the Prophet was in the habit of going around and peeping into the privacy of women in Medina (That would make him an even worse pervert, wouldn’t it?). Interestingly, he took his wife of the same name to bed to cool his arousal by semi-naked Zainab. Was he fantasizing, while cooling his hard-on, as if he was doing it with his daughter-in-law Zainab?

Apart from this, we know the prophet’s extremely perverse sexual infatuation: His engagement in unrestricted polygamy, his infatuation for little Aisha and thighing upon her until she turned nine and ready for vaginal penetration, his capturing of infidel women in war and taking the prettiest in the lot to bed on the same night, and his sending of his wife Asma to her father Omar’s house lying that Omar had called her to discuss something so that he could sleep with slave-girl Maria in Asma’s bed.

And in the present case, Muhammad’s encounter with Zainab did not end there. He played all kinds of tricks, even called down help from Allah to discredit the rather noble Arab tradition of adoption in Islam, so that he could make Zainab, his adopted son’s wife, his own wife, which was deemed immoral in the then Arab society.

When this prophet hold the image of perfection in sexual activity and attitude for all times in the Muslim mind, it is easy to understand why Muslim men feel that it is possible—or they are capable to be accurate—to eye-rape a liberally-dressed woman, as if they experience orgasm as they see a women pass by with her leg, hand, face or a bit of cleavage exposed.

While above-mentioned hadith explain the prophet’s sexual perversity, it also clearly shows what a wife is for to her husband in Islam. He came back home with an intense sexual arousal after seeing semi-naked woman in the neighbourhood, and his wife at home must help cool down his sexual urge for the neighbourhood woman immediately and with no question asked. And here we are infidels, we have to be mindful of the wish of the wife if she is in a mood to do it; and quite often she is tired, not in a mood, etc. etc. And under the same situation, if we would demand sex, we will surely be thrown out forever.

When this sexual perversity and that the thinking that women are nothing but a tool for men’s sexual enjoyment form the foundation of sexual ethics of a society or people, it is not difficult to grasp why Muslims can think that they can rape a woman just by looking at exposed parts of her body. This perverse sexual ethics also explain as to why Muslims in the West, despite being exposed to liberal culture like other immigrants such as Hindus from India (who gradually turn liberal), fail to change their attitude and behavior toward sex and women.

It is a fact that Muslims’ perverse sexual attitude makes women—howsoever decently dressed—victim of sexual assault in bazaars, streets, shopping malls and any crowded place in Muslim countries. And they fail to change this attitude, groomed by sacred tradition, toward women even after coming the West; they engage in the same kind of sexual behaviors—violent molestation and rapes of women—at every opportunity. One may recall high rates of rapes of white women in Muslin neighborhoods in Sydney, Malmo (Sweden) and other Muslim-dominated areas in Western countries. Some Muslim clerics have even proudly supported those rapes, calling the liberally-dressed women “uncovered meats” on offer, and therefore the true offenders. And if you are Muslim insider and have met Muslim men gossiping, you will find that such a line of thinking is widespread among them: Those flimsily-dressed kuffar women are nothing better than whores and quite deserve to be raped.

Now, readers should have no difficulty in understanding why Muslim men think that they can rape a woman by just looking at the exposed parts of her body.

M. A. Khan is the author of “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialiam, and Slavery”


Bon Jovi Islam: Senator Lieberman is Livin’ on a Prayer

Andrew McCarthy                                             

We’ve tried “radical Islam,” “extremist Islam,” “fundamentalist Islam,” and “sharia Islam.” Inevitably, political correctness gave us “political Islam.” Now, ironically, under the guise of correcting an even worse case of political correctness, comes what we might call “Bon Jovi Islam.” Its proponent, Sen. Joe Lieberman, is halfway there and livin’ on a prayer.

Sen. Lieberman’s Wall Street Journal essay “Who’s the Enemy in the War on Terror?” gets it halfway right. He is justifiably dismayed over the Obama administration’s whitewashing of the Islamist part of Islamist terror. The president, he elaborates, “rightly reaffirms that America remains a nation at war,” but self-defeatingly “refuses to identify our enemy.” For Lieberman, the administration’s preferred claim that we are at war with “violent extremism,” is absurd.
Our foe, in truth, is a particular, identifiable component of the Muslim world.

All exactly right…except that Lieberman proceeds to do the very thing he accuses Obama of doing: miniaturizing the threat. The enemy, he pronounces, is “violent Islamist extremism.” He diagnoses its cause to be “a terrorist political ideology” that “exploits” what most Muslims, according to Lieberman, understand to be “the enormous difference between their faith” and this ideology’s tenets.

“Exploits” is a telling choice of words. Lieberman mines it from the Bush administration’s 2006 National Security Strategy — the framework Obama has rejected because it dared utter the I-word. The senator recounts that President Bush identified the enemy as “the transnational terrorists [who] exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision.”

Yet the Bush administration didn’t always frame it that way. Bush officials were wont to say that those wily terrorists were “perverting” or “twisting” or outright “lying” about Muslim scripture in order to justify their atrocities. The apotheosis of this relentlessly optimistic vision came in 2008, when the dreamy side of the Bush house elbowed aside more clear-eyed critics and declared a jihad on “jihad” — the word. Admonishing us that we must no longer invoke “jihad” to describe jihadist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security rationalized that “many so-called ‘Islamic’ terrorist groups [so-called?] twistand exploitthe tenets of Islam to justify violence.” As I countered at the time (and rehearse in my new book, The Grand Jihad):

The Koran...commands, in Sura 9:123 (to take just one of many examples), “O ye who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto him.” What part of that does DHS suppose needs to be “twisted” by terrorists in order to gull fellow Muslims into believing Islam commands Muslims to “fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you”?

I was far from the only one who complained. Since then, “twist,” “pervert,” and “lie” have faded from government’s Islamophilic vocabulary. So we’re left with “exploit.” Except there’s a problem for Senator Lieberman: You can only exploit something that’s actually there. It only made sense for the Islamophiles to use “exploit” when they were also alleging that Islamist claims about Muslim doctrine were fabrications.
But those claims are real. If, as Lieberman maintains, terrorists are able to “exploit . . . Islam to serve a violent political vision,” it is because Islamic doctrine does, in fact, support a violent political vision. This doesn’t mean there can’t be competing interpretations. Jihadists, however, are not making theirs up — it’s in the scriptures.

More significantly, violence is not the principal concern here, though it is certainly the immediate one. Our real challenge is that, violent or not, Islamic doctrine constitutes a political vision. That is, Islam is not a mere religion as we understand the concept in the West — a set of spiritual guidelines that are denied governing authority in what is a separate, secular realm. Mainstream Islam calls for a comprehensive political, economic, legal, and social theocracy. Its spiritual elements are only a small part of the system, and it rejects the concept of divisibility between mosque and state.

Nor is it only terrorists who construe Islam this way — not by a long shot. Islamists have the full-throated support of Islam’s most influential clerical and jurisprudential authorities. These include the leading faculty at Egypt’s al-Azhar University, the seat of learning for Sunnis, who compose the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. To be sure, there is a vibrant debate in the ummah about terrorism, as such. That, in reality, is a debate about tactics. There is broad consensus about the strategic goal: Non-terrorist Muslims substantially agree with the terrorists that Islam commands the establishment of sharia societies.

Senator Lieberman claims that, for most Muslims, there is an “enormous difference between their faith and the terrorist political ideology that has exploited it.”
That is not true. There are differences about terrorism, but there is a broad accord when it comes to the political ideology. The mainstream of Islam — by no means all Muslims, but many Muslims, including many of the most influential — is convinced that America is the problem in the world. A great number of Muslims in America — again not all, but many — believes that the U.S. should be a sharia society, notwithstanding sharia’s core differences with our culture of freedom based on individual liberty.

Even with respect to terrorism, it is not accurate to say there is “enormous” disagreement between the mass of Muslims and the terrorists. The difference is narrow and nuanced. The argument is over whether terrorism in America, as opposed to outside America, is counterproductive.

The Muslim Brotherhood, backed by billions of Saudi petrodollars, has spent half a century building an aggressive Islamist infrastructure here. It is led by the Muslim Students Associations (more than 600 chapters in the U.S. and Canada), the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim American Society, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and similar groups.
It is making ample progress marching sharia through our institutions. Hence, the argument: Many Muslims — including many who’ve lionized Osama bin Laden in the past, or rationalized his atrocities as being, in the final analysis, America’s fault — now think violence in the United States is unnecessary. They see it as objectionable, because it has killed Muslims indiscriminately, and as unproductive, because it is apt to rouse Americans to roll back sharia’s gains. These Muslims agree that America deserves its comeuppance, but they believe there are more effective ways than terrorism to bring that about.

The primary threat this cabal poses in our homeland is not violence, as Lieberman posits. It is sabotage. Don’t take my word for it: The Muslim Brotherhood itself put the matter bluntly in a 1991 internal memorandum: The organization and its satellites are engaged in a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” Theirs is not only, or even principally, a “violent political ideology.” It is a political ideology aiming to supplant us, by hook or by crook. The question of violent or non-violent means is tactical, and it is secondary.

Moreover, outside the United States, there is broad Muslim support — not unanimous, but broad — for terrorism against Israel and against Americans operating in Muslim countries. Taking their cues from al-Azhar and other influential centers, millions of Muslims deny that those mass murders are “terrorism” at all; they call it “resistance.” That’s why they can look you in the eye and say they “condemn terrorism,” though you can never get them to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah by name. Those terrorist organizations now claim democratic legitimacy because Muslims — not just terrorists, but rank-and-file Muslims — flocked to the polls in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories to vote for them, just as millions of Muslims in Iraq have voted for the Islamist parties that canoodle with Iran and Hezbollah while slamming us and ostracizing Israel.

Senator Lieberman is to be applauded for criticizing the Obama administration’s refusal to come to terms with the Islamist enemy. Still, despite chastising the president for violating Sun Tzu’s axiom that “the first rule in war is to know your enemy so you can defeat it,” Lieberman, too, is in violation when he fails to acknowledge that violence isn’t the half of the civilizational challenge we face.

The senator, furthermore, is livin’ on a prayer in insisting that there is a thriving, preponderant, moderate Islam. He declares:

There is no question that violent Islamist extremists seek to provoke a “clash of civilizations,” and that we must discredit this hateful lie.
We must encourage and empower the non-violent Muslim majority to raise their voices to condemn the Islamist extremist ideology as a desecration of Islam, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims and people of other faiths. How can we expect those Muslims to have the courage to stand and do that if we are unwilling to define and describe the enemy as dramatically different from them?

If only wishing could make it so. Though there is a non-violent Muslim majority, in the sense that most Muslims would not commit terrorist acts, that majority does not condemn what Lieberman calls “the Islamist extremist ideology.” Far from thinking it a “desecration of Islam,” they agree with it. They don’t agree with the violence in America. But maybe we should ask Israel — a state made a pariah for defending itself against a ceaseless terrorist onslaught — if the world’s Muslims are condemning Hamas or rising up in its support. Maybe we should ask the al-Azhar faculty what its response was when Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and the world’s most influential Sunni cleric, issued fatwas approving suicide bombings in Israel and the killing of American troops in Iraq.

In the real world, with the real Islam, Israel is isolated because Muslims globally support Hamas’s cause and increasingly goad the West into going along. The al-Azhar faculty rallied behind Qaradawi because mainstream Islam views efforts to implant Western notions and institutions in Muslim countries as affronts that must be met with violence until the Westerners leave, even if the Westerners believe they are doing humanitarian work to help Muslims. One senses that Senator Lieberman understands these unhappy truths. Why else would he take pains to note that terrorists have murdered “innocent Muslims”? The sad fact is that the murder of innocent non-Muslims is not enough to move the ummah.

Halfway there and livin’ on a prayer won’t work. A dominant, Westernized, post-sharia Islamic ideology will not suddenly emerge just because we’d like it to. As might have been said by Dean Acheson, whom Senator Lieberman admiringly quotes, pretending otherwise won’t make us inoffensive to our enemies or able to protect our freedom. Contributor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and most recently The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. He blogs at National Review Online’s The Corner.



Turkish Delight – But not for the Oppressed

Victor Sharpe

In 1974, a flotilla set sail from Turkey. No, it wasn’t destined for the Gaza coast carrying thugs and jihadists masquerading as human rights activists – as ill armed Israeli commandos discovered to their cost. No, this was a flotilla of naval ships sailing towards Cyprus as a full fledged invasion force, illegally employing U.S. arms and equipment.
Later, after Greek Cypriot resistance had been crushed in the north of the island, Turkish forces began to ethnically cleanse almost half of the island from its Greek population, The Turkish military employed hundreds of U.S. tanks and airplanes and 35,000 ground troops, with the result being a land grab by Turkey of 37.3% of Cyprus. Turkey later sent additional flotillas to the island; ships containing 150,00 Turkish settlers who proceeded to colonize the land after some 200,000 Greeks had been driven out and made into refugees.
The capital city of Cyprus, Nicosia, remains today a city divided with barbed wire marking the border like an ugly scar. Though relatively quiet today, pockmarks still cover the walls where bullets struck civilians and snipers held sway. This was how Jerusalem and its Jewish residents also suffered during the illegal Jordanian occupation from 1948 until 1967. This division of the city left its eastern half and the biblical and ancestral Jewish homeland of Judea and Samaria, known by the world as the West Bank, under Arab occupation.
In 1948, the Jewish population of Jerusalem’s Old City were expelled by the British officered Jordanian Arab Legion. Only in 1967 were they able to reclaim their homes throughout the eastern half of the Holy City and in the ravaged Jewish Quarter after Israel was forced to fight a defensive war against Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Fifty seven ancient synagogues were desecrated by the Arabs and Jewish gravestones in the Mount of Olives were torn up and used as latrines by the Arab Legion.
Just as now Nicosia is a city divided against itself, so too was Jerusalem before its liberation and reunification. In Cyprus, churches were desecrated and left in ruins. Cyprus and Israel both now endure Turkish aggression. Turkey, with its new found Islamic triumphalism and alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, has become a threat to the Jewish state and has become even more obdurate towards any hope of a peaceful settlement with the Greeks in divided Cyprus.
It is interesting to note that just as Britain held and abused the terms of the Palestine Mandate conferred upon it with the express agreement to establish within much of its borders a Jewish National Home, so too did Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus.  Its use of the terms Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot came to be viewed as a classic “divide and rule” tactic.
Britain and the U.S. helped formulate in the United Nations what became known as the Annan Plan, named for the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. But this plan was grossly unfair to the Greek population of the island. Most problematic was the document’s inability or unwillingness to address the core issue: Turkey’s original and premeditated invasion and aggression.
During their reign, the Ottoman Turks occupied vast areas of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Greece including Cyprus. They held their empire from 1517 to 1917 and in that time, as Islamic states have always done to their non-Muslim populations, treated them as dhimmis; discriminated against, second class citizens.
Throughout the long years of occupation, the dhimmis often suffered  horrendous crimes committed against them, including in Cyprus. For example, massacres of Cypriot civilians occurred throughout the island and in the city of Famagusta a  massacre of the Greek Christian population broke out with the public hanging of Archbishop Kyprianos, three Bishops and Greek Cypriot dignitaries in Nicosia.
Many Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens with no right to hold office in the Ottoman state. They were discriminated against and forced to pay the jizya, the onerous tax paid by all “infidels” to the Muslim authorities. It was, and remains in some Muslim territories, a veritable protection racket enshrined in Sharia law.
Some Jews who faced expulsion or conversion in Spain and Portugal during the Catholic Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492 and thereafter, converted in mass public events to remain in the Iberian peninsula. However, most retained in secret their Jewish faith in order to retain their beliefs. Similarly, many Greek Christians in the mainland and in Cyprus converted to Islam but secretly these “Linovamvakoi” continued to worship in underground churches and keep Greek culture alive.
In 1978, the Turks sold Cyprus to the British in order to replenish their dwindling financial reserves. Turkey was already fast becoming known as the “sick man of Europe” and would later ally itself with Germany during the First World War, resulting in the destruction of the Ottoman Turkish empire and the liberation of vast territories - including the liberation in 1917 of Jerusalem.
The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ended any notion of a legitimate Turkish claim to the overwhelmingly Greek populated island. After World War 2, many British territories began to seek their independence from the Crown. In 1947, the Indian sub-continent was partitioned between the largely Hindu state of India and a smaller bifurcated Islamic state of East and West Pakistan. The result was a bloody conflict between the two religions. East Pakistan later became present day Bangladesh.
In Mandatory Palestine, a territory which had never existed in all of recorded history as an independent, and certainly not an Arab independent state, the Jewish community had supported Britain during the war against Nazi Germany, but had also struggled for its own independence in the tiny territory left to them after Britain’s earlier betrayal of the Mandate in 1921/22. In this, Britain arbitrarily removed from the Mandate all the relatively vast territory east of the River Jordan up to the borders of the newly formed Iraqi state and created yet another artificial Arab state – now known as the Kingdom of Jordan.
The Cypriot people also demanded to be freed of the British yoke following the example of other Crown Colonies and territories. But Turkey reneged on the earlier treaties and a campaign of violence and a land grab was instituted, funded by Turkey.
Cyprus finally gained its independence from Britain on 16th August 1960. In December 1963, Turkey sent commandos into northern Cyprus. Despite UN and international condemnation, Turkey mounted indiscriminate air strikes using chemical weapons and napalm on civilians. And in 1974, we know what took place – a full scale Turkish invasion.
In a moral world it would be eloquent justice for flotillas containing true humanitarians to sail towards Turkey to publicly demand restoration of the national integrity of Cyprus and removal of all Turkish military occupation; of the rights of the Kurdish people for an independent State of Kurdistan; of full admittance of the horrors perpetrated against the Armenian people; and for Turkey to come to its senses regarding the embattled State of Israel by accepting the Jewish state’s inalienable right to defend itself against Arab and Islamist aggression emanating from Gaza.
To this day Turkey is ratcheting up its Islamic ambition to restore the old hateful Ottoman Turkish empire and Caliphate instead of showing any remorse for the atrocities that it and the Ottoman Empire perpetrated against the occupied non-Muslim peoples. It refuses more than ever any recognition or acknowledgment of its crimes against humanity in the past and in the present.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, the United Nations, and a deeply immoral world looks on in silence as yet another flotilla of lies and violence prepares to set sail from Turkey and Iran to create a maritime pipeline of advanced and ever lethal missiles for Hamas in Gaza to use against Israeli civilians. Contributor Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volumes One and Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

Der Islam und die nützlichen Idioten ‎

Türkei und Iran haben sich verbündet, um den Nahen Osten zu beherrschen. Doch die Friedensaktivisten durchschauen diese Strategie nicht.


Es ist ein faszinierendes Phänomen: Warum verbünden sich Menschen und Organisationen, die sich progressiv nennen, mit reaktionären Muslimen?

Progressive und Reaktionäre haben eine Gruppierung gegründet, die sich „Free Gaza“ nennt, um die Bewohner Gazas mit „humanitären Gütern“ zu versorgen – nun ja, Gaza ist bereits frei. 2005 ist die israelische Herrschaft über Gaza zu Ende gegangen. Und Bedarf für humanitäre Hilfe gibt es nicht. Jeden Tag transportieren Dutzende Lastwagen vier- bis fünfmal mehr humanitäre Güter nach Gaza als die „Flotte“.
Die Bevölkerung Gazas jedoch hat sich in demokratischen Wahlen für eine Partei entschieden, deren Existenz sich auf ihren Judenhass gründet, und Israel will verhindern, dass die Hamas an schwere Waffen kommt und Bunker baut, wie die Hisbollah im Libanon, weshalb es eine israelische Blockade für „strategische Güter“ gibt. So einfach ist das. Die Tatsache, dass Gaza komplett „judenrein“ ist, ist der Hamas nicht genug.
Sie will, dass auch das Territorium Israels „judenrein“ ist. Niemand in Gaza muss verhungern, anders als in Darfur oder dem Kongo. Gaza ist frei, nutzt diese Freiheit jedoch, um israelische Dörfer mit Terror zu überziehen.

Legitimer Kampf

Anders als Gaza ist Tschetschenien nicht frei, aber die Progressiven hassen Israel mehr als Russland. Die Russen haben den legitimen Kampf der Tschetschenen grausamer niedergeschlagen als die Israelis die Palästinenser je behandelt haben. Und die Kurden? Es gibt keinen kurdischen Staat, obwohl die Kurden einen gründen wollen. Türken und Iraker haben den Kurden weit Schlimmeres zugefügt als Israel jemals den Palästinensern – dennoch findet sich kein Anzeichen, dass die Progressiven die Russen oder die Türken oder die irakischen Araber hassten.
Keine der westlich-progressiven Gruppen, die „Free Gaza“ unterstützen, würden je in einem arabischen Land, in der Türkei, Gaza oder der Westbank toleriert – in Israel hingegen sind sie es. Nichtsdestotrotz haben die Progressiven die palästinensische Sache über jede andere Sache gestellt, obwohl sich das Leiden der Palästinenser im Vergleich zu anderem Leid in Asien oder Afrika sehr in Grenzen hält.
Spielen solche Fakten eine Rolle? Nein. Es geht allein um die eigene Ideologie. Hier kommen noch ein paar weitere Tatsachen. Schauen wir uns die Rate der Kindersterblichkeit in Gaza an. Es handelt sich dabei um eine Schlüsselzahl, da sie viel über Hygiene, Ernährung und medizinische Versorgung aussagt. In Gaza liegt die Kindersterblichkeit bei 17,71 von 1000. Im Vergleich zu westlichen Ländern ist das hoch. Im Vergleich zu Ägypten ist es niedrig. Ägyptens Rate liegt bei 26,2. Und wie sieht es mit der Kindersterblichkeit in der Türkei aus? Nun, die liegt bei 24,84. In der Türkei sterben mehr Neugeborene als in Gaza!
Noch ein Fakt. Das Bevölkerungswachstum. Würde Israel den Arabern in Gaza wirklich die Ernährung verweigern, müsste die Bevölkerungszahl dramatisch abnehmen. Doch das Bevölkerungswachstum in Gaza beträgt 3,29 Prozent. Es ist eines der höchsten der Welt. In Ägypten, dessen Bevölkerungszahl auch explodiert, beträgt es 1,997 Prozent.
Und die Lebenserwartung? In Gaza beträgt sie 73,68 Jahre. In Ägypten 72,4 Jahre. Und in der Türkei, dem neuen Schutzherrn Gazas, sind es 72,23 Jahre. Im Durchschnitt leben die Menschen in Gaza ein Jahr und vier Monate länger als die Menschen in der Türkei, und in Gaza geborene Babys haben eine größere Chance zu überleben, als Kinder, die in der Türkei zur Welt kommen.
Sollten die Israelis die Palästinenser töten wollen, sollten sie ihnen das Leben verkürzen und vergällen wollen, dann machen sie etwas falsch. Sie lassen sie länger leben, als die Türken leben.

Israel ist ein freiheitliches Land

Noch einmal: Warum hassen Progressive Israel mehr als sie, zum Beispiel, den Sudan hassen Einer der Gründe muss sein: Israel ist ein starkes Argument gegen den kulturellen Relativismus. Israel hat eine freie Presse, Männer und Frauen haben die gleichen Rechte, es herrscht Versammlungsfreiheit – Beweise für die Überlegenheit westlicher Kultur. Progressive hassen Israel, weil das Land in einem Meer muslimischer Rückständigkeit traditionelle europäische Werte repräsentiert.
Zudem ist Israel der Körper, der jene nicht greifbare Ethnizität beherbergt, mit der der Westen seit dem Mittelalter ringt: der Judaismus, diese eigentümliche Kraft, die als arrogant, überholt, tribal, widerwärtig und zugleich begehrt gilt. Doch es gibt noch mehr Gründe, warum die Progressiven Israel hassen.
Tatsächlich ist, was an Bord der „Free Gaza“-Schiffe geschah, nicht böser als die Folgen amerikanischer Drohnenangriffe im Irak oder in Pakistan – die Zahl unschuldiger ziviler Opfer infolge kollateraler Schäden ist dort viel höher. Anfang Mai tötete die chinesische Bereitschaftspolizei 140 Muslime. Die Welt wurde darüber nicht einmal informiert. Im Irak wurden, einen Monat vor der Aktion der Gaza-Flotte, fast 500 Muslime bei Explosionen getötet. Und was ist mit den Kurden? Hunderttausende Kurden wurden von Arabern und Türken und Iranern massakriert – ihr Schicksal erregt das westliche Gemüt nicht.
Das Problem für viele Juden ist, dass sich die Progressiven des 21. Jahrhunderts und ihre Aversion gegen die jüdische Ethnizität von den Antisemiten der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts nicht mehr unterscheiden lassen. Deren Slogan war: Schickt die Juden nach Palästina. Jetzt sagen die Progressiven: Schmeißt die Juden raus aus Palästina.
Die Progressiven sind nützliche Idioten, gefangen in einem komplexen geopolitischen Spiel. Ein Spiel, dessen Herren Türken und Iraner sind.

Die Mullahs sind von den Juden besessen

Die islamistischen Perser, die Mullahs, haben sich gleich mit Beginn der Khomeini-Revolution bemüht, Öl ins Feuer des islamischen Judenhasses zu gießen. Israels Existenz stellt für den Iran keine Bedrohung dar – verglichen mit dem Iran ist es ein kleines Land mit einer winzigen Bevölkerung. Doch die Mullahs sind von den Juden besessen.
Die zweite Stufe ist das Auftauchen terroristischer Organisationen wie al Qaida. Ihr Ziel war, die nepotistischen Tyranneien der arabischen Welt abzusetzen und durch islamistische Theokratien zu ersetzen. Die Islamisten begannen ihren Kampf gegen die korrupten, ungläubigen Kollaborateure des Westens, die Ursache der anhaltenden Unterlegenheit der islamischen „ummah“.
Diese Islamisten sind die direkten Nachfolger breiterer sunnitisch-islamischer Bewegungen wie der Muslimbruderschaft, die die herrschenden Eliten der arabischen Welt gewaltsam unterdrückt hatten. Diese Gruppen können entsetzliches Leid verursachen, sind aber nicht in der Lage gewesen, einen bedeutenden arabischen Nationalstaat unter ihre Kontrolle zu bringen und können gewiss nicht den Westen in die Knie zwingen.
Die dritte und vielleicht überraschendste Entwicklung nimmt derzeit in der Türkei ihren Lauf. Eine schleichende islamistische Revolution, sorgfältig vorbereitet von Islamisten in Designeranzügen, unternimmt den Versuch, die Errungenschaften der kemalistischen Revolution von 1922 rückgängig zu machen und sie durch eine Orthodoxie zu ersetzen. Die Islamisten der AKP versuchen, die alte Herrlichkeit des Ottomanenreiches wiederherzustellen.

Die neue Orthodoxie

Jahrhunderte lang stand das Ottomanische Imperium für die Oberhoheit des Islam über die Welt. An seiner Spitze stand ein Kalif, eine Art Papst mit unbeschränkter Macht. Abu Bakr, der Schwiegervater des Propheten Mohammed, war der erste Kalif. Der letzte, Abdülmecit II., wurde 1924 abgesetzt, nachdem es im Anschluss an die demütigende Niederlage im Ersten Weltkrieg zur säkularen Revolution der Jungtürken gekommen war. Ob die türkischen Islamisten heimlich von der Wiederherstellung des Kalifats träumen, ist unklar.
Weder die Türkei noch der Iran, beides nicht-arabische Länder mit einer Jahrhunderte alten Abneigung gegen Araber, haben Grund, sich von Israel bedroht zu fühlen oder eine besondere Sympathie für die Palästinenser zu hegen. Israel spielt für die langfristigen Pläne weder der Türkei noch des Iran eine Rolle. In Wahrheit ist der Iran am Schicksal arabischer und sunnitischer Palästinenser nicht interessiert.
Er hat allein Augen für die reichen Ölvorkommen im nördlichen Teil der arabischen Halbinsel, wo eine mehrheitlich schiitische Bevölkerung von sunnitischen Saudis regiert wird. Das Nukleararsenal, an dem die Mullahs arbeiten, soll als Schirm dienen, diese Region zu kontrollieren, und sich in erst in zweiter gegen Israel richten, die Heimat der jüdischen Erzfeinde des Propheten, die von heiligem islamischen Boden vertrieben werden müssen.

Die Juden waren die Erzfeinde Mohammeds

Israels Untergang ist eine religiöse Pflicht; die Juden waren die Erzfeinde des Propheten, und es wäre großartig, sie endgültig zu vertreiben. Friedensaktivisten sangen auf ihrem türkischen Schiff: „Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Juden, Mohammeds Armee wird wiederkehren.“ Islamischen Texten zufolge, ließ Mohammed in Khaybar jeden Juden töten, mit der Ausnahme einiger Frauen, unter denen eine wunderschön war und die er sich als persönliche Sexsklavin nahm.
Und wovon träumen die türkischen Islamisten? Ihr Ehrgeiz ist kaum weniger beeindruckend als der des Iran. Montag, der 31. Mai, wird als dramatischer Wendepunkt in die Geschichte eingehen: Die Türkei hat Ägypten die Führung der sunnitischen Welt entrissen. Über Nacht.
Die Flotte, beladen mit angeblichen humanitärer Hilfsgütern, angeführt von einer türkisch-islamistischen Organisation mit engen Verbindungen zur türkischen Regierung – und teils mit nützlichen Idioten aus dem Westen bemannt, die kaum eine Vorstellung hatten, auf was sie sich da einließen – war der Eröffnungszug einer meisterlichen Strategie. Eine Win-Win-Eröffnung. Hätten die Schiffe Gaza erreicht, wäre das ein türkischer Sieg gewesen.
Im Fall einer gewaltsamen Auseinandersetzung wäre sich die türkische Nation einig in ihrer Trauer um die Opfer und ihrer Wut auf Israel, während westliche Medien sich über die unverhältnismäßigen Verbrechen der Juden aufregen würden. So konnte sich die Türkei von Israel lossagen und sich als Führer der sunnitischen Welt neu erfinden.

Instanbul regiert Araber

Die Gaza-Flotte muss in Kairo und anderen arabischen Hauptstädten hektische Beratungen ausgelöst haben. Die Araber wurden über viele Jahrhunderte von Istanbul aus regiert, sie wissen, wozu die ottomanischen Türken fähig sind. Insbesondere die offene Unterstützung der extremistischen Hamas durch die Türkei ist ein direkter Affront gegen Ägyptens Machthaber, die die Muslimbruderschaft seit den Fünfzigerjahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts verfolgt haben. Dass die Türkei das Symbol des palästinensischen Opfers radikal an sich gerissen hat, markiert einen scharfen Einschnitt in die geopolitische Landschaft des Nahen Ostens. Mit einem einzigen Zug hat sich das Zentrum der sunnitischen Welt von Kairo nach Ankara verlagert.
In den Turkmenen und Aseri Zentralasiens haben die Türken natürliche Verbündete. Dort gibt es reiche Ölvorkommen. Wahrscheinlich haben die türkischen und iranischen Islamisten sich bereits auf ihre jeweiligen Einflusssphären geeinigt. Während der Iran den Blick nach Süden richtet und in den östlichen Irak, interessieren sich die Türken für die dicht besiedelten sunnitischen Zentren des Mittelmeers und Zentralasien.
Worauf sich der Iran und die Türkei in Sachen Irak und Afghanistan geeinigt haben, bleibt unklar, doch die Folgen ihrer neuen Allianz werden bald zu spüren sein. Der neue islamische Mensch wird in der Türkei und dem Iran entstehen. Er wird die Werkzeuge, die er vom Westen übernommen hat, gebrauchen, um seine Herrschaft über die Welt auszudehnen. Unterdessen hat ein unentschiedenes, schwankendes Amerika keine Antwort auf die Herausforderung durch diese Koalition.
Die türkischen Islamisten legen, von palästinensischen Aktivisten und nützlichen Idioten aus dem Westen unterstützt, eine bemerkenswerte Geschicklichkeit an den Tag. Unter den bewundernden Blicken der türkischen Regierung werden sie Israel weiter provozieren. Ziel ist, eine Intervention der türkischen Marine zu erzwingen, gefolgt von der Armee. Das ist der ideale Weg, sämtliche Teile der türkischen Gesellschaft zu vereinen und das türkische Militär zu entsäkularisieren, die einzige bedeutende Kraft in der türkischen Gesellschaft, die die Träume der Islamisten platzen lassen könnte.

Gaza hat mit brutalen Juden nichts zu tun

Um es klar zu machen: Das Gaza-Spektakel hat mit Frieden, hungrigen Palästinensern und brutalen Juden nichts zu tun. Es handelt sich um Phase eins von etwas völlig anderem. Und ja, wir haben ein Problem: Denn westliche Länder, von Politik- und Medieneliten geführt, die in friedensorientierten Wohlfahrtstaaten aufgewachsen sind, sind gegen Kräfte wie diese machtlos – sie sind ja kaum in der Lage, die Gefahr zu erkennen.
Westliche Politiker und Diplomaten sind nicht dafür ausgebildet, mit den ausgekochten Söhnen Istanbuls und Teherans zu verhandeln, diesen erfahrenen Verschwörern, Manipulatoren, Lügnern, Intriganten. Die Gefahr für den Westen besteht nicht in der muslimischen Immigration nach Europa oder dem Terror von al Qaida; sie besteht in der Koalition zweier islamischer Regime, die islamofaschistisch sind. Es wird nicht lange dauern, bis sie Atomwaffen haben.

Noch einmal: Woher der Hass der Progressiven auf Israel?

Keine andere Gruppe armer oder unterdrückter Muslime ist für die Progressiven von Interesse. Sie interessieren sich allein für die Opfer der Juden. Die Ironie ist: Die Palästinenser werden in den arabischen und islamischen Ländern nicht besonders geschätzt. Sie werden als unzuverlässige Söldner abqualifiziert, deren schimpfliche Niederlagen der arabischen Nation Schande machen. Nationalisten, Islamisten und Tyrannen haben sich ihrer auf zynische Weise bedient, jeder hatte sein eigenes Motiv, die unerträgliche Überlegenheit der Juden in Israel als Strich durch die eigene Rechnung darzustellen.
Die Blutbäder von Sabra und Shatilah von 1982, in Wirklichkeit innerarabische Massaker, wurden so auf atemberaubende Weise zu einem Werkzeug der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit für die Palästinenser und ihre linken Unterstützer aus Europa. Es war Jassir Arafats Genie, das den palästinensischen Kampf in neomarxistische und antiimperialistische Rhetorik umdeutete. Er schuf einen neuen Kontext für sein Volk: den Kampf gegen Kolonialismus und Rassismus.
Er war ein klassischer korrupter Warlord mit einem bemerkenswerten Talent für das Spiel mit den Medien und den Politikern des Westens. Den Progressiven wurden die Palästinenser so zu ihren liebsten, exemplarischen Opfern eines von Israel verkörperten Imperialismus und Kolonialismus. Das ist die erste der beiden hauptsächlichen Erklärungen für den Hass der Progressiven. Der zweite folgt.
Der entstehenden Symbolik der Palästinenser als Opfer eines westlichen Imperialismus wurde in Europa die beißende Symbolik des Holocaust hinzugefügt – die Europäer hatten die Schuld für die Vernichtung der Juden Europas lang genug getragen und begannen, sich nach einer historischer Entlastung zu sehnen. Die kam in Form einer militärischen Aggression Israels, die ab einem bestimmten Augenblick per Definition unverhältnismäßig war, auch wenn die Gewalt mit der sich Araber und Muslime gegenseitig angriffen – und noch immer angreifen – weit destruktiver und blutiger war.

Arabische Regime verweigern Völkern Rechte

Doch die Europäer konnten die Chance, die Juden zu diffamieren, nicht ungenutzt lassen. Die arabischen Regime verweigern ihren Völkern mindestens ebenso viele Rechte wie die Juden den Palästinensern – und von den Katastrophen in Darfur oder dem Kongo ist hier nicht einmal die Rede –, doch solche Nuancen waren nicht so wichtig.
In den Augen progressiver Europäer wurde der israelisch-palästinensische Konflikt zum unvergleichlichen Konflikt, zum einzigartigen Phänomen der Schaffung palästinensischer Opfer durch europäische Opfer, was die Last des ordinären europäischen Massenmords an den Juden zu mindern schien. Was immer die israelischen Juden taten, es war verführerisch, im nahöstlichen Dschungel nach jüdischer Schuld zu suchen.
Einem palästinensischen Opfer in jüdischer Hand, Terroristen eingeschlossen, wurde eine Bedeutung beigemessen, die kein anderes Opfer auf der Welt hätte erlangen können. Das Unrecht, das den Juden angetan wurde, wird aufgewogen mit dem Unrecht, das die Juden den Palästinensern antun.
Angesichts der jüngsten massiven Angriffe auf das Existenzrecht Israels wird deutlich, dass es unter Europäern ein großes Bedürfnis gibt, die Juden Mörder zu nennen – deshalb sind die Palästinenser als Opfer der Juden wichtiger als die zahllosen muslimischen Opfer muslimischer Extremisten, deshalb werden Millionen anderer Muslime, die unter schlechteren Bedingungen als die Palästinenser leben, in den Medien mit keinem Wort erwähnt, deshalb werden israelische Militäraktionen am liebsten mit dem Wort „Nazi“ versehen.
Nennt man die Israelis Nazis, werden die eigentlichen Nazis legitimiert. Es macht den Eindruck, als wollten die Europäer, von den Progressiven angeführt, dass die Araber den Job zu Ende bringen. Schluss mit den Juden. Es ist, was es ist – wir erleben Europas Befreiung von der Hinterlassenschaft des Holocaust.

Was tun mit den Türken?

Wenn die Islamisten ihren Ehrgeiz befriedigen, wenn es den Türken und der Grünen Bewegung im Iran misslingt, Freiheit und Moderne zu verteidigen, werden selbst die blinden Progressiven aus dem Westen dem Tanz nicht entkommen, wie sehr sie die Islamisten auch unterstützt und ihnen den symbolische Nutzbarmachung der Palästinenser erleichtert haben mögen.
Montag, der 31. Mai veränderte alles. Die Europäische Union sieht sich an ihren Grenzen einem grimmigen islamistischen Gegner gegenüber. Genau wie in den arabischen Hauptstädten haben in denen der EU die Energiesparlampen in den Außenministerien bis in den Morgen gebrannt – was tun mit den Türken? Der Zorn der EU auf Israel ist nichts als eine optische Täuschung. Die politischen Eliten wissen, was geschehen ist: Die Türkei hat sich mit dem Iran verbündet.
Und Russland und China? Diese beiden alten Nationen, von zynischen Eliten regiert, gestatten den iranischen und türkischen Islamisten ihr Spiel gern, schwächt es doch ganz bestimmt den Westen. Die einzige Macht, die in der Lage ist, Einfluss auf das Ergebnis dieses Spiels der Islamisten zu nehmen, die Vereinigten Staaten, wird derzeit von einem Mann geführt, der in progressiven Kreisen aufgewachsen ist, in denen traditionelle Machtpolitik ebenso verunglimpft wird wie ein angeblich imperialistisches, kolonialistisches Israel – er ist ein Produkt akademischer Zirkel, die sich allumfassenden Illusionen über die regulierende Rolle, die internationale Organisationen wir die Vereinten Nationen spielen sollten, hingeben.
Was wir in Gaza beobachten, ist die vollendete Inszenierung eines meisterhaften islamistischen Theaterstücks. Und die Empörung der Medien markiert das nächste Kapitel in der langen Geschichte des europäischen Judenhasses. Es ist wieder salonfähig, Antisemit zu sein. Das ist nur der Anfang von Schlimmerem.
Leon de Winter ist Schriftsteller. Er lebt in den Niederlanden und den USA. Zuletzt erschien sein Roman „Das Recht auf Rückkehr“.