Thread by @dikgaj

a curious phenomenon recently came to notice: EAPPI, Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine & Israel eappi.org/en/about but more revealing in eappi.org/en/about/Media….

An excellent legal defense that deflects and offloads any responsibility for dissimulation or lying on the part of the visa applicant away from the organization behind the initiative itself. Plausible deniability. Something to learn from.

This is a very curious advisory and somewhat clashes with claimed purpose of "monitoring": how do u monitor violence by Israelis if u withdraw from any confrontational situation? The reason becomes clear later. It gives excuse to selectively record "violence" only from "Israel".

Note clarification "to withdraw from the situation" which implies "companion" can simply remove self frm the spot & therefore has no further responsibility to record the violence by Palestinians. Its typically "unsafe" to ask jihadis to refrain from violence so no need to do so.

Again a superb legal disjunction of responsibility for actions of companions that can be passed off as "individual" and plausible deniability. A very interesting tactic fervently smelling of legal obfuscation.

Again tactical denial. Note again the ingenious deflection and detachment of responsibility. Superb.

If any "contact" is "incidental" why affirm that ISM proclaims formal "non-violence" while ngo-monitor.org/ngos/internati… "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent& violent…nonviolence is not enough..Yes, people will get killed& injured,”

Note that "end of Israeli occupation" apparently is not a "political objective"& working towards it by highlighting/propagnadizing is also declared not to be "political". Thus political "posturing/aims" r deftly compacted into non-neutrality on "humanitarian" 'laws". More later.

Given the elaborate tactical denial and plausible deniability elements built into the programme, its simply saying they dont recognize nations resisting jihad their right to stop infiltration aimed at jihadi victory/separatism. Model is being tested on other countries too.

Note the very careful legal foxtrot: the companions don't "seek" confrontation, that means any confrontation that might happen will be deemed to be the "other side's" responsibility or intolerance.

What "monitoring" of human rights violations at the "wall" were being done by companions escorting Palestinian presumably Muslim "children" there? What shd the Jews assembled there make of the purpose of a rep from an org which only reports on Israeli violence& not Palestinian?

With so many "Jewish" pro-Palestinian orgs apparently listed on its site as being coordinating/complementary - why could not a "Jew" hold the role of "local coordinator" jointly with a "Palestinian"?

Again apparently the "end to the occupation" and "implementation of the two-state solution" is not a "political programme" the org is working towards. Note how "political programmes" in favour of chosen identities can be deftly dressed up as "humanitarian" ones.

Note that what it promises is a claim of future Palestinian jihad's supposed non-jihadi behaviour - something it will not and can never guarantee once the sovereignty is afforded so Muslim nations/orgs can support Palestinian jihad more openly.

This obfuscation of the "preparation" aspect should be familiar to Indians at the receiving end.

Essentially, what is "hate speech/legitimate criticism" will be determined by the org as per its sweet will and needs, just as is the norm in general on any criticism of Islam/muslim as "hate speech" while any bashing of "non-muslims" obstructing jihad is "legitimate criticism".

A long seq of tweets: but ppl shd try and learn from their methods and who is standing behind on what formal logic and pretensions in promoting the geo-political ambitions of forces behind jihad in ME and Asia. This is just a method being experimented on now.

Note that these orgs dont show such "determination" in sending companions to "monitor" jihadi imposition of "humanitarianism" on non-Muslims where Islam "occupies" the land. It didnt send companions to protect Yazidis or Hindus in Pak/BD.

These orgs only work from within non-Muslim democracies to further jihadi aims of separatism and gaining Islamic territory at the expense of non-Muslims to be followed by forced conversion/genocide of remaining non-Muslims, and finally even extinction of their local "churches".

The fact that local churches in Islam dominated "humanitarian" nations dont even dare to invite "companions", raises some intriguing questions about underlying drives in European churches: is their real hatred on Asiatic "churches" as strong as their hatred of the "pagan"?