880 Takiyya, op zijn joods.

De grootscheepse moslim-bashing campagne - een joods initiatief, en grotendeels door joden uitgevoerd-  heeft Takiyya tot een veel gebruikt begrip gemaakt.
Een moslim mag zijn geloofverzwijgen als dat beter is voor hem of voor het geloof.

In het jodendom kent men het begrip Darkei Shalom,
Volgens Yossi Gurvitz betekent dit dat joden zich aardig gedragen zolang ze niet de absolute macht hebben.  Maar als ze die absolute macht wèl hebben, dan mogen ze zich gedragen zoals God hen toestaat:  als heer en meester over de niet-joden die eigenlijk niet eens mens zijn.  Elke joodzal 5000 slaven hebben.
Hij mag kinderen doden als hij vermoed dat ze zich later tegen de joden zullen keren:  het idee van pre-emptive strike:  staat iemand je in de weg,  maak hem koud, terwijll je beweert dat je ddit wel moest doen omdat hij het anders in de toekomst bij jou zou doen.

In 2001 verscheen een boek, War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition. 
dat nu 148 $ kost op  Amazon.  
Hier de tekst van Dov Zakheim over DarkeiShalom. 
( Zoals die in dat boek staat) 
Ook een manier om bepaalde teksten binnen de eigen kring te houden

Ik heb de tekst hieronder weergegeven: 

Peace, Halakhah and International Relations

The notion of “peace” has itself become a highly charged political term in Jewish circles. Although it is nominally the objective of all Israelis, and of Jews everywhere, “peace” as it applies to the Middle East conflict in particular – the major preoccupation of world Jewry – tends to be associated with the political Left in Israel. “Peace” stands in contrast to “land,” when discussed in the context of the formula known as “land for peace.” In turn, “land” has become increasingly identified with the political Right, most notably the religious politi-cal Right, which stridently argues against the cession of as much as a millimeter of Eretz Yisrael.
It should be noted that halakhic discourses relating to peace often do so under the rubric of darkei shalom, literally “the ways of peace.” 
With respect to intra-Jewish relations, the principle is applied to varied contexts ranging from aliyot for Kohanim on Shabbat and Yom Tov, to laws relating to Eruvin, public works, and neighbors.2

When applied to Jewish relations with non-Jews, darkei shalom mandates, among other things, that non-Jews benefit equally from various Jewish charitable activities and that non-Jews be treated with the same basic courtesy as Jews.3 

Decisors and scholars are divided over whether the principle of darkei shalom has been expanded to non-Jews for reasons of Jewish self-protection,
or at least self-interest,
or as a result of more uni-versal ethical considerations.
Some, like Gerald Blidstein, argue that darkei shalom must be understood in terms of “human mutuality. It is unfair, ugly and eventually impossible to make claims on society without feeling part of it and making one’s contribution.” In his view, understanding “the ways of peace” as a reflection of mutual commit-ments stands in contrast to what he terms the “cynical explanation” that focuses on Jewish self-interest.4

On the other hand, cynical or not, the explanation of “ways of peace” based on Jewish self-interest is one that continues to resonate in contemporary halakhic literature.

For example, in discussing whether a Jewish taxi driver must compensate his non-Jewish coun-terpart for damages caused in an accident, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, when still residing in Johannesburg,5
argued that the primary crite-rion is whether the non-Jewish taxi driver is aware that his vehicle was damaged by a Jew. If he knows this was the case, the Jew must pay damages, so as to avoid creating a hillul Hashem,
desecration of G-d’s name.
If the non-Jew is unaware that the Jew was the actual cause of the accident, however, Rabbi Sternbuch ruled that there is no need for the Jew to pay anything, 
since there is no “desecration of Hashem.” 6

Throughout his discussion, Rabbi Sternbuch makes no mention of darkei shalom.
Moreover, he evidently sees no parallel between the case he addressed and the opinion expressed by the Ran, Semag, Bah, Shakh, Gra and Taz among others that, for reasons of darkei shalom, one visits the non-Jewish sick even if they are not in the same sick bay as Jews who are ill.7
Rabbi Sternbuch’s reasoning clearly implies that if the non-Jew was not aware that Jews were paying sick visits, there would be no need to visit him. In both cases, the inherent obligation to society at large is not what matters; in his view, differ-ent values are at play with respect to either hillulHashem or darkei shalom. This approach is consistent with perspectives on coexistence that fundamentally view non-Jewish neighbors as a necessary evil to be endured and to be mollified by acts that foster darkei shalom,until the coming of the Messiah.Whatever its underlying rationale, darkei shalom does not appear to address “peace” in terms that relate to contemporary international affairs. Despite its implications for wider communal relations, its dictates focus primarily on interactions between in-dividuals. In contrast, national policy in a democratically elected government (and, studies have shown, even in totalitarian regimes) must harmonize, and often adjudicate, among conflicting group interests and objectives. Halakhah itself recognizes the difference between individual and state action – even if the actions are seem-ingly identical – and legislates accordingly. For example, “private” conquest of territory, such as King David’s conquest of Syria, does not sanctify that territory; communal conquest does.8Halakhah is not without guidelines for the pursuit of peace between Jewry and non-Jewish nations, however, nor does it ig-nore issues arising from Biblical mandates for peaceful coexistence with other nations. Laws affecting a fully sovereign Jewish state are grounded in Biblical pronouncements about the initial conquest of Canaan and the establishment of a monarchy. Samuel, Kingsand Chronicles outline additional precedents. In addition, Ta n a k h  offers both a few cases of apparent reconciliation and coexistence with individuals whom the Talmud sees as representatives of other enemy nations, as well as laws regarding the immunity of certain nations from attack by a Jewish state.
A second set of guidelines reflected the minority status of Jews both in their own land and elsewhere. These guidelines, initially propagated in the Talmud and expanded upon over the centuries, were designed to protect the community in an alien, and usually hostile, environment. For the majority of Jewry, it was just such an environment that they encountered wherever they happened to reside.Throughout their history, Jews were either a sovereign or sub-ject people. For the most part, certainly for the past two millenia, it was the latter condition that defined their existence. Thus, halakhic pronouncements about sovereign Jewish policy and international relations, including those relating to war and peace, were fundamen-tally hypothetical. On the other hand, halakhic principles relating to Jewish communal relations with non-Jews were grounded in reality.Since 1948, an ever-increasing number of Jews have lived in a sovereign state of their own. As a result, for the first time in two mil-lennia, Halakhah is providing practical guidance on inter-communal relations to Jews who now constitute a majority in their own land. In particular, rulings regarding the religious status of Christians and Muslims have a direct impact on questions not only regarding rights of residency, but also on “their eligibility for social welfare and health benefits, educational assistance and the like.”9Nevertheless, it is arguable that the State of Israel’s sovereignty is not absolute. While Israeli Jews are a free, majority people, Israel itself is not an independent international actor. To the extent that it is not, halakhic pronouncements that continue to govern Jewish relations with non-Jews, particularly those outside Israel, may have more to offer contemporary Israeli national security and foreign policy.In theory, many of the norms that condition Israel’s pursuit of “peace” and of peaceful coexistence should apply to the international policies of other states. “Peace” is an absolute value; it represents one of G-d’s names. As will be shown, however, the Biblical approach to peace, and subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic elaboration of that approach, has many features that are unique to Israel. Only insofar as “peace” can be understood beyond those features might the halakhic context provide guidelines for the pursuit of peace on the part of non-Jewish states