Freitag, 30. November 2012

Palästina in den Vereinten Nationen

65 Jahre nach der Verabschiedung der UN-Teilungsresolution 181 vom 29. November 1947 ist Palästina wieder als Staat in die Vereinten Nationen zurückgekehrt, zwar noch nicht als Vollmitglied, weil die USA beim ersten Antrag ihr Veto im Sicherheitsrat angekündigt hatten, aber als „Nicht-Mitglied-Staat“, über den die UN-Generalversammlung eigenmächtig entscheiden konnte. Dieser Beobachterstatus entspricht dem des Vatikan-Staates.

Das Ergebnis der Abstimmung in der UN-Generalversammlung war überwältigend: 138 Ja-Stimmen. 

Folgende 41 Staaten enthielten sich der Stimme und haben damit demonstriert, dass sie wenig Politik tauglich sind: Albanien, Andorra, Australien, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnien-Herzegowina, Bulgarien, Deutschland, Estland, Fidschi, Großbritannien, Guatemala, Haiti, Kamerun, Kolumbien, Kongo, Kroatien, Lettland, Litauen, Malawi, Mazedonien, Moldau, Monaco, Mongolei, Montenegro, Niederlande, Papua-Neuguinea, Paraguay, Polen, Ruanda, Rumänien, Samoa, San Marino, Singapur, Slowakei, Slowenien, Südkorea, Togo, Tonga, Ungarn, Vanuatu. 

Fünf Länder nahmen an der Abstimmung gar nicht erst teil.

Neun Staaten stimmten dagegen: Israel, Kanada, Palau, Panama, Nauru, Mikronesien, Marshallinseln, Tschechien, USA. 

Das Votum in der UN-Generalversammlung hat gezeigt, wie isoliert die USA und Israel in der UNO sind. Dies ist wenig überraschend, stimmen doch die USA immer so ab, wie Israel es will. Das Votum von Kanadas erzkonservativer Regierung überrascht nicht: ebenso wenig wie das der üblichen „Großmächte“ aus der Südsee oder des neokonservativen Tschechien. Das Abstimmungsverhalten der EU-Staaten hat jedem Beobachter vor Augen geführt, dass diese Staaten-Gemeinschaft als relevanter Akteur in den internationalen Beziehungen ausfällt.

Die  Abstimmung machte darüber hinaus auch deutlich, wer zur Verweigerungsfront gehört und sich als friedensunwillig erweist: Israel und die USA. Wer das Buch „Israeli Rejectionism“ kennt, weiß, dass nicht die Araber es sind, die „never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity“, wie es einst der ehemalige israelische Außenminister Abba Eban so plastisch, jedoch irreführend, formuliert hat, sondern die diversen israelischen Regierung, die gemäß der Meinung der Autoren niemals ein Interesse an einer friedlichen Einigung mit den Palästinensern hatten. “Our position is that Israel was never primarily interested in establishing peace with its neighbors unless such a peace was totally on its own terms”, schreiben die Auoren/innen auf Seite 11.

In völliger Verachtung der Vereinten Nationen erklärte Israels Ministerpräsident, dass das UN-Votum „bedeutungslos“ sei: „“This is a meaningless resolution that won’t change anything on the ground. No Palestinian state will arise without an arrangement ensuring the security of Israeli citizens.” Und weiter fügte er hinzu: “The way to peace between Jerusalem and Ramallah is through direct negotiations without preconditions, not unilateral decisions at the UN.” Netanyahu vergaß hinzuzufügen, dass es die israelischen Regierung sind, die durch ihre permanenten „einseitigen Entscheidungen“ ihre expansive Kolonisierungspolitik sei 1967 vorantreiben, insbesondere aber in eklatanter Verletzung der „Prinzipienerklärung“ vom September 1993, in der es ausdrücklich heißt, dass keine Seite den Status einseitig verändern dürfe. 

Netanyahu gehört mit seinen Äußerungen noch zu den „gemäßigten“ Politikern in Israel. So hat Innenminister Eli Yishai vor dem Überfall auf den Gaza-Streifen erklärt, man müsse die Palästinenser zurück ins Mittelalter bomben, dann hätte Israel für die nächsten 40 Jahre Ruhe. Oder der Sohn des ehemaligen Ministerpräsidenten Ariel Sharon, der gefordert hat, Gaza platt zu machen. Oder Transportminister Israel Katz: „Es gibt keine Unschuldigen in Gaza. Mäht sie nieder.“ Dieser Extremismus wird durch Umfragen unter der israelischen Bevölkerung gestützt. Stimmen der Vernunft sind eher rar gesät, wie die des ehemaligen israelischen Botschafters in Deutschland, Avi Primor, der nach dem Angriff auf den Gaza-Streifen in einer deutschen Talkshow gefordert hat, mit der Hamas zu verhandeln.

Im so genannten Friedensprozess sind die Palästinenser der „Palästinensischen Autorität“ von den diversen israelischen Regierungen offensichtlich politisch getäuscht worden, wie dies der ehemalige Botschafter Palästinas in Deutschland, Abdallah Frangi, formuliert hat, oder sie waren einfach nur politisch naive und haben sich eingebildet, Israel würde ihnen einen „Staat“ geben. Niemals hat auch nur ein einziger israelischer Politiker während der Phase des „Friedensprozesses“ von einen palästinensischen „Staat“ gesprochen. Der ehemalige Meretz-Abgeordnete Yossi Sarid hat es besonders treffend formuliert: Wenn die Palästinenser dieses Gebilde „Staat“ nennen wollen, könnten sie dies tun! 

Es sei daran erinnert, dass Netanyahus ehemaliger Parteifreund und Ministerpräsident Yitzhak Shamir nach seiner Wahlniederlage gegen Yitzhak Rabin 1992 gesagt hat, dass die Israelis und Palästinenser noch zehn Jahre in Washington verhandeln hätten können, ohne zu einem Ergebnis zu kommen. Diese Voraussage ist nicht nur eingetreten, sondern sie wurde fast um weitere zehn Jahre übertroffen! Wenn jetzt von Seiten der israelischen Regierung oder ihrer Cheerleader im Westen weiter auf dem endlose„Friedensprozess“ beharrt und eine Wiederaufnahme von „Friedens“-Verhandlungen gefordert wird, gibt es in einigen Jahren nur noch ein „Palästina“, das „Ghetto-ähnlichen Slums“ gleicht wie der Gaza-Streifen. 

Nach dem jüngsten Überfall der israelischen Armee auf den Gaza-Streifen ist die politische Bedeutungslosigkeit von „Präsident“ Mahmoud Abbas für alle sichtbar geworden. Er sollte die Gelegenheit nutzen, um aus dem Prestigegewinn vor der UNO politisches Kapital zu schlagen. Da er über keinerlei politische Legitimität mehr verfügt - seit 2009 ist seine Präsidentschaft abgelaufen - sollte er nicht wieder in fruchtlose „Friedens“-Verhandlungen eintreten. Wie die „Palestine papers“ zeigen, verlangt die israelische Regierung nichts weniger als die Kapitulation der Palästinenser gegenüber Israel. Saeb Erekat drückte dies wie folgt aus: „The only thing I can’t do is convert to Zionism.“ Seine damalige Verhandlungspartnerin auf israelischer Seite war keine geringere als die als “politische Taube” geltende Zivi Livni. Darüber hinaus sollte die über Einhundert-jährige historische und politische Erfahrung mit dem Zionismus die Palästinenser lehren, dass es mit dieser Ideologie wahrscheinlich keinen Kompromiss geben kann. 

Nach diesem diplomatischen Erfolg sollte die “Palästinensische Autorität“ umgehend folgende Maßnahmen ergreifen, wie sie Francis Boyle, Professor für Völkerrecht an der Universität von Illinois und Autor des Buches „Palestine, Palestinians. and international law“, formuliert hat. Eine solche „Legal intifadah“ könnte dazu führen, dass aller Welt vor Augen geführt wird, wie völkerrechtswidrig und Menschen verachtend die israelische Besatzungspolitik seit 45 Jahren ist. Auch könnte die „Palästinensische Autorität“ jetzt diejenigen Politiker juristisch zur Rechenschaft ziehen, die für das Massaker um die Jahreswende 2008/09 an der Zivilbevölkerung im Gaza-Streifen verantwortlich waren (1 400 tote Palästinenser, davon über zwei Drittel Frauen und Kinder, inklusive der horrenden Verwüstungen ziviler Einrichtungen). Der Goldstone-Bericht und die Berichte anderer Menschenrechtsorganisationen, wie z. B. Human Rights Watch oder Amnesty international, bilden dafür eine fundierte Grundlage.

Jetzt einer Wiederaufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen zwischen Israel und Mahmoud Abbas das Wort zu reden, zeugt von politischer Naivität und Geschichtsvergessenheit, wenn man die politische Irrelevanz der "Palästinensischen Autorität" beim letzten Waffengang Israels gegen die Hamas im Gaza-Streifen betrachtet. Weitsichtige Israeli fordern schon seit langem, in Verhandlungen mit den relevanten Kräften in Palästina einzutreten.

Veröffentlicht hier.

Dienstag, 27. November 2012

Wer ist der Antisemit: Jakob Augstein oder Henryk M. Broder?

Der „Spiegel“ scheint heil froh gewesen zu sein, dass er seinen „Star“-Journalisten los geworden ist, und die „Welt“ ist überaus glücklich darüber, dass sie ihn "einkaufen" konnte. Auf „Welt“-Niveau war kein besserer zu finden als HMB.  So darf er seinem Hobby nachgehen und Andersdenkende versuchen, politisch zur Strecke zu bringen, die er für „Antisemiten“ hält. Dieses Mal hat er sich den Sohn des legendären Spiegel-Gründers, Rudolf Augstein, als Jagdopfer ausgesucht, was nur allgemeines Gelächter oder beredtes Schweigen ausgelöst hat. Es scheint, als könne noch nicht einmal der Zentralrat darüber lachen. Er kennt ja seinen schrägen Pappenheimer. 

Jakob Augstein hat nicht nur die intellektuelle Unabhängigkeit, um über die israelischen Verbrechen gegenüber dem palästinensischen Volk oder über die Gefahr der Trivialisierung des Antisemitismus so zu schreiben, wie es eigentlich alle Journalisten in Deutschland tun sollten, sondern er ist darüber hinaus auch finanziell unabhängig, also nicht einzuschüchtern oder gar zu erpressen. 

HMB kann also schreinen so laut  er will, außer einigen verwirrten Lobbyisten wird ihn niemand zur Kenntnis nehmen. Wie eine Zeitung, die als seriös betrachtet werden will, solch einen degoutanten Artikel veröffentlichen kann, scheint nur mit ihrem vorauseilenden Gehorsam gegenüber Israel und den USA erklärbar zu sein. Sich mit diesem Kommentar intellektuell auseinanderzusetzen, würde bedeuten, Perlen vor die Säue zu werfen. 

Diese Pseudodebatte zeigt, wie realitätsblind ein Teil des deutschen publizistischen Establishments ist. Was HMB hier betreibt, ist die Verniedlichung des virulenten Antisemitismus in weiten Kreisen der bundesrepublikanischen Bevölkerung. Betreibt er nicht durch seine maßlos überzogenen Attacken, die völlig aus der Luft gegriffen sind, gegen einfach nur denkende Journalisten das wirkliche Geschäft der Antisemiten? Gibt es in der Chefetage des Springerkonzerns niemanden, der ihm den Persilschein entzieht? Oder ist es vielleicht sogar die Politik dieses Medienkonzerns, einen Kritiker der israelischen Unterdrückungspolitik gegenüber den Palästinensern nach dem anderen als „Antisemiten“ öffentlich an den Pranger zu stellen? 

Die bundesrepublikanische Medienklasse sollte einmal über das Faktum nachdenken, warum ein Nicht-Semit (HMB) einen Journalisten, der nur seiner alltägliche Pflicht zur Information der Öffentlichkeit nachgeht, einen ‚“Antisemiten“ nennen darf, nur weil dieser die Regierungspolitik Israels und ihre Verstöße gegen Völker- und Menschenrechte erwähnt oder die Inflationierung des Antisemitismusvorwurfes beklagt? Dieser ganze alltägliche Wahnsinn ist nur möglich, weil die mediale Klasse keine Zivilcourage besitzt. Sie sollte den Journalisten in die Zirkusmanege schicken, in der er all die „Antisemiten“ zu politisch korrekten Neutra dressieren könnte. Wer hier tatsächlich den Antisemitismus fördert, darüber haben sich die Leserinnen und Leser schon lange ein Urteil gebildet.

Montag, 26. November 2012

Palestine’s Liberation from the „Palestinian Authority“

Photo credits: Carlos Latuff
To liberate the Palestinian people from Israel’s occupation is as important as liberating them from their own so-called Palestinian Authority (PA). The latest conflict between Israel and Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, could not have shown better the needlessness of this collaborationist body. “President” Mahmoud Abbas, whose term has expired in 2009, was sitting in his armchair giving meaningless and helpless statements about the bombing of the people in the Gaza Strip. The relevant party in Palestine is not the PA anymore but Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement). It seems the Israeli leadership has finally grasped this fact after the balance of power has shifted away from Israeli domination over the Arab regimes. According to Richard Falk, the murderous attacks could mark the turning point in the relations between Israel and Palestine. 

Some parts of the Israeli leadership are pragmatic and have shown in the past that they are willing to negotiate even with the devil, when it serves their national interest. The once who have not understood it are the politicians from Europe and the bunch of Israel lobbyists in the US Congress. Instead of going to the only democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people who are imprisoned in Gaza, they went on a pilgrimage to Ramallah to the comedian “President”. He should fulfill his last duty and bring the request to upgrade the status of Palestine before the UN General Assembly as a “non-member state” and then disappear with his entourage to Jordan, where they live anyway.

The US and its European clients should finally jettison the Israeli rhetoric about Hamas as a “terrorist organization”. This has never been further away from the truth as the books of Khaled Hroub, a secular Palestinian academic who lives in the United Kingdom, show. How could it happen that the US Empire and its European clients have been so apolitical and could take over Israel’s definition of Hamas as a terrorist organization so uncritically? Thereby, they made themselves politically hogtie and became dependent on the whims of the Israeli government. This has nothing to do with politics of sovereign states but rather with those of banana republics. 

Now it’s the situation that the US and Europe should open an unbiased dialogue with Hamas. It could be an eye-opener to them to see how pragmatic their leadership is and how legitimate their political claims are. They will hear nothing about the “destruction of Israel” or “driving the Jews into the sea” and other political baloney. What they want is their own state according to the UN Partition Resolution from November 29, 1947. Furthermore, they want to live in dignity and in freedom. They want to travel anywhere in the world like Israelis do, and they want to return to their homeland like any other citizens in the world. Before this can be translated into reality, Hamas must reform its Charter thoroughly and get rid of its anti-Jewish rhetoric and its anti-Semitic clichés. 

The Israeli government should finally leave the still occupied Gaza Strip and lift the siege. Perhaps it is unknown to the public that the Israeli occupying forces hold with the wired-in Gaza Strip a so-called security zone. Before the attack they wanted even to expand it to one kilometer. Taking the size of the Strip into account this would have reduced the already tiny Strip to a “Ghetto-like open-air prison”. It should be clear that Hamas was not excited about this. 

It should go without saying that democratic governments should ideally start negotiations only with democratically legitimized counterparts. I regret to say that in Palestine this classification can only be attributed to Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas should have long left office, he has no legitimacy anymore. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was appointed by Abbas after the legitimate government was driven out of office at US and Israel’s behest. In the meantime leading Israeli politicians like Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman have called Abbas the biggest obstacle to peace! Speaking of the so-called peace process the Western powers should end this charade immediately and start from scratch; this time with the right partners. 

It’s now also the time to talk about the fabric of the State of Israel and its contradictions that are ignored by the West. First of all, there is the self-proclaimed “Jewish and democratic” character of Israel. Many Israeli intellectuals like Abraham Burg, the former speaker of the Knesset, called this rightly an “oxymoron” – a contradiction in terms. A society that follows an ethnically based value system can’t be a democratic one; it’s a democracy sui generis. Secondly, Israel is often accused of being an “Apartheid state” like South Africa once was. Israel is not South Africa but has established a special system, which British journalist Ben White termed “Israeli Apartheid”. It degrades its Palestinian citizens on a “legal basis” to a second-class status. Thirdly, the West should reject Israel’s claim to the West Bank and the rest of occupied Palestine based on the bible, which was constructed by Zionist myth-builders. The Old Testament contains religious fairytales that are only relevant to people who believe in it; it can’t be used as a blue-print to colonize a territory of another people in the 21 Century anymore. Like Israeli historian Shlomo Sand has shown in his books “The Invention of the Jewish People” and the “Invention of Eretz Israel”, both events lack any historical basis. Fourthly, Western powers have to make it clear to the Israeli government that it has to comply with international law and the international agreed upon human rights standards. Each subsequent contravention undermines the credibility of the West and harms its interests. Fifthly, Israel has to open its nuclear installations for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and should sign the “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”. And finally, the Israeli government should stop its colonization program of the West Bank and repatriate the settlers to Israel proper.

The West now has a unique opportunity to make a U-turn in his disastrous Middle East policy, because the Israeli government has once again driven the country into the ground. Whether the upcoming Israel elections in January 2013 will bring a change of policy is rather unlikely. The shift to the extreme right is so strong that not even “liberal” parties won’t have the slightest chance, not to speak of the “left” or non-Zionist candidates. We have seen not only four more years in the US but we will also see four more years of the same in Israel. Four more years of the same in Palestine would be extremely detrimental to the Palestinian people that are why Mahmoud Abbas should step aside to make the way free to democratic elections.

First published here, here and here.

Dienstag, 20. November 2012

Israel: Perpetrator or self-proclaimed victim?

Besides the fighting between the Israeli army and Hamas (Islamist Resistance Movement) a “war of opinions” has broken out over the issue who’s the perpetrator and who is the victim. Western media outlets have already made up their mind and put the sole blame on Hamas. The Israeli military attacks against a defenseless population have been going on since 1948 and follow usually the same pattern, especially, after Israel occupied and colonized the rest of Palestine after 1967. The decades-long occupation is the real cause of the conflict. Would the Israeli government not object to the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, withdraw its troops and its colonizers from the occupied territories and let the Palestinians live their life in freedom, the conflict could be resolved in a minute. 

The population in the Gaza Strip has always been harder hit than the rest of the Palestinian people. The closure of the Strip, put in affect by the government of the late Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, hasn’t been lifted ever since. Even PLO chairman Yasser Arafat needed an Israel permit when leaving the imprisoned Strip. The strangulation of the people of Gaza got even more severe after Hamas took power in 2007, after a US and Israeli instigated coup led by their warlord Mohammed Dahlan failed. His collaboration with the occupation forces was notorious. 

Although, Hamas was the only democratically elected government in Palestine so far, they were stigmatized as a terrorist organization by Israel. The Israeli patron, the US, and its clients in Europe borrowed this Israeli classification. Having adopted this propaganda tool, they put themselves in political chains and became politically immobile. This holds also true for the actual Israeli attack. US President Barack Obama, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European political leaders put all the blame on Hamas, simultaneously stressing Israel’s right of self-defense. They have totally forgotten that Israel is an occupying power. None other than Noam Chomsky has pointed to this contradiction: “When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense.”

None of the political leaders have ever investigated the real causes that led to the Israeli onslaught. Like in December and January 2008/09, when Israel killed 1 400 people in Gaza, two-third of them women and children, or currently under the so-called military operation “Pillar of Defense” (!), none of these leaders are interested in the horrific circumstances that caused the fighting: Israel’s long-lasting occupation of Palestinian lands. 

In November 2008, after a long truce between Israel and Hamas, the Israeli military killed four Hamas militants without reason. After Hamas retaliated with home-made Kassam rockets, Israel started its brutal military assault called “operation cast lead”. The then little Bush called the result of the massacre an act of self-defense, and the just newly elected Obama played golf on Hawaii. This massacre took place before the upcoming Israeli elections. It’s like déjà vu again; on January 22, 2013 the Israelis are called to the polls again. Probably, this attack will boost the hawkish right-wing parties. This time again, the Israeli government broke the cease-fire. 

On November 13, 2012, Israel exerted pressure on Hamas, which led to a pre-formulated truce agreement; however, the assassination of Ahmed Jabari on 14 November 2012, head of the Hamas resistance forces, was the justification of Israel’s full-scale warfare. The script looked very familiar to the prelude of the massacre of 2008/09, and the consequences will be more of the same: death and destruction. 

One should never have any illusions about the “Nobel Peace Prize Laureate”. He is just a leader of an Empire. It makes no difference whether he is white, black, brown or yellow. He decides according to the rules that are set by political interest groups and the military and financial power agglomeration in the US. As predicated in an article after the US elections, his policy towards Israel would not change one jota. His support of Israel’s aggression is ironclad and wholeheartedly. And during his second term he might even start the long desired war against Iran. Why should a US President criticize Israel’s assassination policy while he presides personally over his own drone “kill list” and orders the killing of suspects in several countries on a daily basis? “Terrorists” and even American citizens are pulverized without due process. 

The Netanyahu government plays with the Obama administration cat and mouse. First, the forced colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was taken off the international agenda by the clamor over Iran’s alleged nuclear program. Second, the attack on the people of Gaza should foil the secret negotiations between the US and the Iranian government over the nuclear issue. Third, Netanyahu tries to undermine the bid of the Palestinian Authority to gain a better status at the United Nations by writing letters or making phone calls in order to pressure other heads of states not to dare to vote for the Palestinian motion. And finally, it gives the Palestinian a taste of what will come if they do not withdraw their request to the United Nations. This is contrary to American interests. Can an Empire allow a tiny client state to preside over its national interest and damage its credibility internationally? 

With its unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel’s occupation under the Geneva Convention did not end. According to international law, the Israeli government is still responsible for the well-being of the population in the occupied Gaza Strip. Instead bothering, the Israelis put them on a diet, which just prevents the population from starvation, and they are collectively punished by the siege by land, water and air. Or is Israel’s final goal to bomb the Gaza Strip into oblivion? At least, the statement made by Eli Yishai, Israel’s Minister of the Interior, could be understood like this:

“The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.” If that holds true we could see a fight between the Israeli version of “enlightenment” and the Palestinian “forces of darkness”. That the “sophisticated” West doesn’t reject this rhetoric nonsense outright should make the audience wonder. The future of the Near and the Middle East will be brighter than ever.

First published herehere and here.

Dienstag, 13. November 2012

President Obama: „The Best is yet to come“

Photo credits: Jousef Taha.
The American people have spoken: Four more years for the “Nobel Peace Prize Laureate”; they voted for cholera. In any country, policy can be sustained only if you’re a cynic: Look at the European Union, the United States, Russia, China, large parts of Africa, the Near and Middle East and what have you: Chaos all over the place, created by globalization, the distractive influence of the finance oligarchy and plaint politicians. They have long lost their sovereignty against powerful interest groups, and they are doing their bidding.

To recapitulate Obama’s political behavior during his first term, one should not expect too much of him foreign policy wise. Perhaps, we’ll get more of the same; inter alia, war against Iran. As a political opportunist, why should he change or should get into a senseless battle over the creation of a “Palestinian state”? Has he not capitulated to Netanyahu in his first term in office? Neither the Israeli leadership nor the US Congress, not to speak of the “Israel Lobby” wants an independent “State of Palestine” that deserves the name. The power configuration in Washington has not changed, too, and the next mid-term elections are imminent in two years. So, why engaging in a fight over an issue in which there is no pot to win? 

In a recent phone call between US-President Obama and Palestinian “President” Mahmoud Abbas, Obama voiced his opposition to the Palestinian bit at the United Nations to upgrade its status. If the train to the UN has already left “Ramallah Station” to ever reach Penn Station in Downtown New York City will be seen! The Obama administration has already blocked the Palestinian motion for full membership to the UN and it will also prevent enhancing the status of a “Palestinian State”. 

Theoretically, an enhanced status of the “State of Palestine” by the UN General Assembly would, at least, preserve a Two-state solution. Whether there will be a “state” or rather a collection of Bantustans will be seen in the future. The official Israeli maps do not even show Palestinian Bantustans. The occupied Westbank has vanished long ago from the screen of the Israeli political elite. All the more reason, therefore, that world public opinion upholds the UN resolutions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the resolutions, the Westbank, the Gaza-Strip, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are Occupied Territories. Any one-sided Israeli decisions that do not serve the indigenous people are null and void. 

To break new ground, the Palestinian people should start a new Intifada but not against Israel but against their own corrupt leadership in the Westbank and the Gaza Strip. The “Arab Spring uprisings” have shown that even long-time dictatorships cannot prevail against a people’s revolt. The Palestinian people deserve a better leadership that is democratically legitimized and has the guts to stand up against Israeli occupation and that is not bribable. Abbas and his cronies all have made their pile in Jordan and elsewhere. They don’t care about the guy on Main Street. Hasn’t the “President” of Palestine recently given up the right of return of his people by reducing “Palestine” only to the occupied Westbank? 

At the beginning of the 1990s, I wrote about the national aspirations of the Palestinians under the regime of Yasser Arafat that the Palestinian people need a Palestinian Nelson Mandela to get anywhere. I think that holds true up till now. Marwan Barghouti could be the one to lead Palestine to real independence. The old elites have had their days and must disappear from the political scene. They should not resume the humiliating negotiations but rather look at the actual map. Despite an ongoing “peace process” Palestine is disappearing. If a Palestinian leadership keeps “negotiating” for another 20 years there will be nothing left of Palestine. It seems that the Palestinians haven’t learned anything from the Zionist enterprise, which started at the end of the nineteenth Century and turned not only the political conditions but also the property situation upside down. 

The Palestinian leadership should not expect something of Europe and certainly nothing from US President Obama. Political changes in Palestine can be brought about only by the spirit of its own people under the leadership of a Palestinian Nelson Mandela. Could such a leader stop the disappearance of Palestine from the map?

First published hereherehere and here.

Freitag, 2. November 2012

The Making and Unmaking of a Zionist

How Israeli Zionist policy turns even true believers of Zionism into serious critics of this ideology can be studied by reading Antony Lerman’s book. As a teenager he wanted to live on a kibbutz and be part of a generation who intended to build a socialist society in Israel. In 1970, with the age of 24, he went to Israel, became a citizen of the State of Israel, and served in the army. Already in 1972, he returned to the UK in order to study for a university degree. In 1979, he began working as a researcher, writer and editor for an institute dealing with issues affecting Jews worldwide.

Lerman’s book tells the story of a young Zionist who started out as a 15-year old boy who lives home for a Zionist youth summer camp to become an Israeli citizen in 1970. But after a long journey he does not consider himself a Zionist anymore. “Having rejected the ethnocentricity of Zionism and the moral and practical implications of taking coercive, racist and illiberal measures to secure a state with a Jewish majority in perpetuity, I can no longer subscribe to a project the logical conclusion of which is to attain such a maximalist nationalist end. No people or state is obliged to follow a path laid down by the exponents of the most extreme interpretation of its national destiny.” (198) As a citizen of the UK, too, he calls himself British and English, but not a British and English nationalist. 

Over a period of over 30 years, the author became more deeply involved in communal and global Jewish politics, of which his involvement with Israel and Zionism was an integral part. Lerman founded a Jewish think tank and established a multi-million pound grant-making foundation that supported Jewish life in Europe. In 2006, he returned to head the think tank and found himself at the centre of polemical debates over the danger of “anti-Semitism” and the policies of the State of Israel. After a three-year struggle within the Jewish and pro-Israel establishment, Lerman resigned in frustration from the directorship in 2009. During this three-year period, the author’s view on Israel and Zionism changed gradually and dramatically. 

The author writes as an insider of the workings of organized Jewish communal life, the functioning of national and international Jewish political organizations and the Zionist movement. These different aspects give Lerman’s book a unique perspective. It is not an autobiography; he uses autobiographical aspects where it is necessary to add to the picture. He mentions other people only when their thoughts or statements appear central to his own story. 

Unsystematically, Lerman read many books by Zionist thinkers. He was impressed by the hard-headed, state-demanding political views of David Ben-Gurion. Three Zionist thinkers stood out against all others forming the ideology of the movement: Ber Borochov, A. D. Gordon and Berl Katznelson. The first fissures in his humanistic notion about Zionism occurred when a commanding officer addressed the soldiers who made a route march from their base to Hebron. He spoke in a steely voice using “extreme, demonizing language” when speaking about the “Arabs”, writes the author. Thus, their Uzi sub-machine guns were loaded with live ammunition. 

According to Lerman, leaving the kibbutz had more to do with using his brain than developing his brawn. He left Israel with a heavy-heart but out of personal considerations. “The stark fact is that the main reason for deciding to leave the kibbutz and Israel was to save our marriage.” (51) Despite having had already ideological scruples against Israel’s policy, personal motives predominated. The stigma of a ”yordim”, someone who “goes down”, hurt Lerman deeply. The strong desire of returning a later date was prevalent.

Back in the UK, the author took a job with the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Out of other job opportunities, he took a job with the JNF, which he considered a “soul-destroying compromise”. For almost 30 years, Lerman held different jobs at the highest levels of international Jewish political and intellectual life. In the 1990s, he founded the “Institute for Jewish Policy Research”, a Jewish think tank. The more he spoke out against the policy of the State of Israel towards the Palestinians, the more he became a target of Zionist extremists. Finally, he left the Institute. 

Over the years, Antony Lerman turned from a Zionist idealist into a Jewish intellectual. It took him quite a long time to discover that Zionist ideology has nothing to do with Judaism and Jewish ethic. The book many find many readers and inspire many others to start their conversion process from Zionism to Judaism.

First published here and here