Uri Elitzur om (folke)krigens moral

Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
Oberst John Chivington, 1st Colorado Volunteer Regiment of Cavalry.

Jeg stiftede første gang bekendtskab med den såkaldte Sand Creek-massakre i 1864 i den nuværende amerikanske delstat Colorado, da jeg som knægt så det blodige, amerikanske melodrama Soldier Blue.

Ikke længe efter læste jeg Dee Browns stærkt oikofobiske bestseller Begrav mit hjerte ved Wounded Knee og havde nær selv konverteret til den i bogstaveligste forstand røde fortolkning af anden halvdel af det nittende århundredes indianerkrige.

Men takket være bl.a. Edward S. Ellis’ fremragende indianerromaner og J.P. Dunns klassiske to-bindsværk Rødhuder og Blegansigter. Indianerkrigene i det vestlige Amerika og deres baggrund havde jeg trods 1970’ernes kvælende kulturmarxisme en klar fornemmelse af, at indianerne lang fra selv havde været engle.

Jeg kom til at rænke på Oberst Chivington og den såkaldte massakre ved Sand Creek her i dag, da jeg i det kulturmarxistiske hoforgan Information kunne læse, at Israel har fået sig en justitsminister som organet tydeligvis ikke kan lide. Grunden er bl.a., at hun – 39-årige kønne Ayelet Shaked – en gang på Facebook har bragt en tekst om ‘krigens moral’, skrevet af den nu afdøde, prominente nybyggerleder Uri Elitzur.

Nedenfor kan I læse teksten i sin helhed. Den blev oprindeligt skrevet på hebraisk og jeg garanterer ikke pålideligheden af den engelske oversættelse:

The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

***

(Lad mig lige understrege, at bortset fra Begrav mit hjerte ved Wounded Knee, som mig bekendt er den eneste danske oversættelse af Dee Browns mange værker, så kan jeg kun sige det bedste om hans forfatterskab.)

Dette indlæg blev udgivet i Demografi. Bogmærk permalinket.

2 svar til Uri Elitzur om (folke)krigens moral

  1. S. Poulsen siger:

    “en klar fornemmelse af, at indianerne langt fra selv havde været engle”.

    Selvfølgelig var indianerne ikke engle – det er der ingen mennesker der er. Indianerne forsvarede deres land, som fremmede indvandrere stjal fra dem – ligesom indvandrere er godt i gang med at stjæle vores land. Når man forsvarer sit folk og sit land vil der altid opstå grusomheder – det kan ikke undgås

    • Martin Kasler siger:

      Vi er ikke uenige. Min pointe var blot, at i værker som Soldier Blue og Begrav mit hjerte ved Wounded Knee skildres den hvide mand som en ren djævel uden at medtage, at indianerne selv var ekstremt grusomme, både mod de hvide og mod hinanden.

Skriv et svar

Udfyld dine oplysninger nedenfor eller klik på et ikon for at logge ind:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterer med din WordPress.com konto. Log Out / Skift )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med din Twitter konto. Log Out / Skift )

Facebook photo

Du kommenterer med din Facebook konto. Log Out / Skift )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med din Google+ konto. Log Out / Skift )

Connecting to %s