Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2014

Flashpoint in Ukraine

The Ukrainian national elections have produced the expected results. The West-oriented parties won. Surprisingly, President Poroshenko's party and the party of the radical anti-Russian Yatsenyuk, the U.S. favorite, who carried a head-to-head-race, both ended up with 22 percent of the vote. They wish to lead Ukraine into the European Union and NATO as fast as possible. According to Western propaganda, this was a victory for freedom, democracy and free enterprise. The costs of this political mirage will have to be paid by ordinary folks. These elections won't stabilize the country because Russia's security concerns are still unmet. Although the book under review was published a few months ago, its contributions have not lost their topicality. The problems that the US created, are still unresolved. 

Stephen Lendman is a writer, syndicated columnist, and activist. He has been hosting since 2007 a regular newshour at The Progressive Radio Network. For his book, Lendman gathered former government officials, journalists, activists and academics known for their radical and competent critique of US foreign policy. These include Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras, Michael Parenti, Cynthia McKinney, Mahdi Nazemroaya, Michel Chossudovsky, John McMurtry, Matthew Witt, Jeffrey Sommers and others. Most contributions focus on the geopolitical aspects and the consequences of the takeover of Ukraine by the Western Alliance and its anti-Russian thrust. 

In his introductory remarks, Lendman called the Ukraine conflict "the most significant post-WW II geopolitical crisis.” He warned that “escalating it risks global conflict." To emphasize the historical significance of the US coup in Ukraine, he compares it with Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome. In Washington's expansionist strategy, the "17 Euro-zone countries represent its weakest links". If Ukraine is to join the European Union (EU) it would have to undergo severe structural economic changes that will be dictated by the EU, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the IMF troika. This will inevitably affect dramatically the living standards of the population, writes Lendman. He underlines the geostrategic importance of Ukraine with a quotation by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who once said: "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire." Lendman argues that Ukrainian Jews are threatened and that some have left the country: "Anti-Semitism is rife. Radical ultra-nationalism is virulent."

According to Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Treasury Secretary under President Reagan, Washington does not only set the world on a path of war but also endangers world peace by its recklessness. He lists contractual breaches by the Western Alliance compared to the agreements with the former Soviet Union: The US administration – with the consent of its NATO partners – expanded the Alliance into Eastern Europe, placed anti-ballistic missiles at the Russian border in Poland and withdrew from the ABM treaty. Beyond that, the West unleashed a propaganda war, blaming Putin for the entire crisis. But so far, the Russian government has not had to do anything except acquiesce to the self-determination of the people in the Russian areas of Ukraine, writes Roberts. "Without the cover provided by Europe, Washington's acts of aggression would result in war crime charges against the US government."

Just after Putin protected the Russian population in Crimea and the Eastern part of Ukraine from the putschists in Kiev, Washington imposed sanctions on Russia. "The Obama regime cites the 'success' of the financial and economic sanctions against Iran as a 'model' of what can be achieved with Russia", writes James Petras, also the author of the book "The Politics of Empire". The West calculates on a weak Russian response or even hopes for a capitulation. If neither materializes and Putin remains tough, the "polarized world will witness new class, national and regional conflicts", writes Petras.

Michel Chossudovsky, who runs the Global Research Centre in Montreal, argues that the union of Crimea with Russia redefines both the geography and the geopolitical chessboard in the Black Sea basin: "It constitutes a major setback for US-NATO whose longstanding objective has been to integrate Ukraine into NATO with a view to undermining Russia, while extending Western military presence in the Black sea basin." And Rick Rozoff, an anti-war activist, hints at the total encirclement of Russia by NATO, should Ukraine become a member state of the European Union. With a US-NATO client regime in place in Kiev, Ukraine will very likely become a gargantuan NATO forward base, writes Rozoff. 

Perhaps President Putin's speech at the annual conference of the Valdai club in Sochi may offer a way out of the impasse. Although he criticized the West sharply and called for a dialogue on a equal basis, he demanded of the West more respect of Russia's legitimate interests. According to Putin, the strategic interests of Russia and the United States overlap in many aspects. Putin called on the US to abandon the pursuit of dominance and imperial ambitions. The "pseudo-supremacy" of the United States results only in "chaos and blood. Interference and dictates of the United States do no good, but let conflicts escalate only further." In his speech, Putin clearly rejected a return to totalitarianism in Russia. This would only lead to a "dead end", he said. 

With this speech, Putin played the ball into the opponent's box. Now, the West and the newly elected Ukrainian parliament can choose between cooperation and confrontation. As the book shows, Western leaders are spoiling for a fight because they strive to extend the sphere of Western influence until the Russian border. The book’s contributions illuminate not only the background of the Ukraine conflict, but also the expansionist goals of the US-NATO alliance. "Flashpoint Ukraine" can therefore be highly recommended.

First published herehere and here

Freitag, 24. Oktober 2014

Israel: eine "kranke Gesellschaft"

Carlos Latuff: Collage-Ausschnitt.
Wenn das Staatsoberhaupt des Staates Israel, Reuven Rivlin, feststellt, dass die israelische Gesellschaft "krank" sei, dann muss es wohl stimmen. Spätestens jetzt müssten die Alarmglocken deutscher Antisemiten-Jäger schrillen, nach deren "Maßstäben" er wohl als "lupenreiner Antisemit" zu bezeichnen wäre. Darüber hinaus müsste er auf Empfehlung eines obskuren Antisemitismus-Experten aus Berlin auf die berühmt-berüchtigte Liste der Top-Antisemiten des Simon-Wiesenthal-Zentrums in Los Angeles kommen. 

Bei einer Veranstaltung der Israelischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zum Thema "Vom Hass des Fremden, zur Akzeptanz des Anderen" (From Hatred of the Stranger to Acceptance of the Other) diagnostizierte Reuven Rivlin  für Israel eine Epidemie der Gewalt, die "in alle Bereiche vorgedrungen" sei. "Es ist Zeit ehrlich zuzugeben, dass die israelische Gesellschaft krank ist und es unsere Pflicht ist, diese Krankheit zu behandeln", sagt Rivlin in Bezug auf das von der israelischen Armee angerichtet Massaker im Gaza-Streifen. "Die Epidemie der Gewalt ist nicht auf die eine oder andere Gruppe beschränkt, sie ist in alle Bereiche eingedrungen." "I’m not asking if they’ve forgotten how to be Jews, but if they’ve forgotten how to be decent human beings. Have they forgotten how to converse?” 

Jeder Kenner Israels, der nicht die rosarote Brille der Israelfans und der Philosemiten trägt, bezeichnet diese Gesellschaft und große Teile ihre politische Klasse als "paranoid". Wie sagte doch der indische Philosoph Jiddu Krishnamurti: "Es gibt keine Anzeichen von seelischer Gesundheit, sich an eine zutiefst gestörte Gesellschaft anpassen zu können." Diese Paranoia habe nicht nur Schrammen am Image Israels hinterlassen, wie Rivlin feststellte, sondern dem Staat das Image eines "Paria-Staates" innerhalb der Weltgemeinschaft verschafft. Der Rassismus der israelischen politischen und religiösen Klasse ist sprichwörtlich. 

Ein Staat, der alle völkerrechtlichen Normen verletzt und die Menschenrechte des palästinensischen Volkes mit Füßen tritt, Massaker an der Zivilbevölkerung des Gaza-Streifens verübt (2008/09=1 400 Tote; 2014 = 2 100 Tote) Zerstörungen größten Ausmaßes anrichtet, hat sich den Ruf eines "Paria-Staates" selbst erarbeitet. Nicht ohne Grund sind bereits über 30 000 Israelis nach Berlin ausgewandert, und es kommen mehr. Sie wollen nicht länger in einer jüdischen Demokratie leben, die von einer politischen und religiösen Klasse regiert wird, die das Land, nach Meinung zahlreicher israelischer Analysten, in den Abgrund und die totale Isolation führt. Wo aber Gefahr lauert, wächst das Rettende auch: die deutsche Staatsräson.

Erschienen hier.

Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014

"Neither a Burqa nor a Bikini"

Muslims are like any other people in the world and do not behave differently.
In this fine article by the Pakistani-born author, Zehra Mehdi-Barlas, who works as a media relations manager, she argues that ordinary Muslims live and behave the same way as all other people do. Constantly, the Western world denies the recognition of this fact and demands from the Muslims to "run to the rooftop every day with our first cup of coffee and scream out our condemnation". 

The so-called liberal West has to overcome its hung up on Islam and the Muslim people. The West is again ideology-obsessed with Islam as he has been with communism. Therefore, he fought the Vietnam War and now wages war against the Islamic world. It's true, in the Quran one can find text passages where war and violence have been mentioned. The overwhelming part of the book, however, deals with concepts of "peace and respect" for others, they far exceed the importance of war, writes the author. At the end of her article, Zehra Mehdi-Barlas poses a question to her Western audience: "Why don't you see us, the ones who are visible everywhere?"

Montag, 20. Oktober 2014

The Politics of Empire. The US, Israel and the Middle East

The Israeli military went again on a rampage against the ghettoized people in the Gaza strip. The last time, they “visited” the walled-in strip at the turn of the year 2008/09, they slaughtered 1 400 Palestinians. In 2014, they killed over 2 100 Palestinians, 80 per cent civilians, injured over 10 000, made over 300 000 homeless and ravaged the infrastructure. Israel’s patron, the US Empire, did not lift a finger in 2008/09; neither did it this time. This one-sided relationship is analyzed by James Petras, an award-winning author and Professor Emeritus, in a global geopolitical perspective. 

In 2000, "the imperial military and ideological apparatus for direct intervention was firmly in place." 9/11 seemed godsend. The objectives of the planned serial wars "were defined by their principal Zionist and militarists architects" as the following: First, "destroying regimes and states (that) have opposed Israel's annexation of Palestine." Secondly, "deposing regimes which promoted independent nationalist policies, opposing or threatening the Gulf puppet monarchist regimes and supporting anti-imperialist, secular or nationalist-Islamic movements around the world." 

Blinded by their imperial hubris, neither the Zionists nor the civilian militarists within the US administration anticipated prolonged national resistance from the attacked countries, writes Petras. The destruction of the entire political, administrative and military infrastructure by the US invaders and their willful European executioners created a "political vacuum", which was never a problem for the embedded Zionists in the US Administration, "since their ultimate goal was to devastate Israel's enemies". According to the author, under the Obama presidency, "a new 'cast' of embedded Zionists has emerged to target Iran and prepare the US for a new war on Israel's behalf". After Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before the UN General Assembly in September and his visit to the White House, 345 members of the US Congress signed a letter, in which they demanded from President Obama to remain tough with Iran. Netanyahu had raised the same demand from President Obama. It's the first time that US Members of Congress publicly oppose their own president while supporting the demands of a foreign government! 

The book is unique in providing an overall concept that links empire-building and foreign interventions to the domestic emergence of a police state, declining standards of living, advanced global spying on allies and adversaries, large scale commitments to wars in the Middle east to the detriment of major corporate interest, but for the benefit of its client State of Israel, and the power of a foreign state over US policy via its Zionist lobby. The question can be raised weather US foreign policy is bad for US corporations. Didn't Hulliburton make a fortune, when the George W. Bush and his neoconservative cronies attacked Iraq? 

According to Petras, the US is still inclined to advance its Empire, but the Obama Empire builders "have relied on a wider variety of interventions than their predecessor under George W. Bush". The Obama administration has shown more restraint in direct interventions and relies more on its "imperial European allies". For an aggressive continuation of Empire building, the current administration lacks domestic support, writes the author. The most serious obstacle, however, to effectively adapting to the current international realities "is the influential Israel-linked Zionist Power Configuration embedded in Congress, the Administration and the mass media. Zionists are deeply committed to pushing the US into more wars for Israel." Despite the "Zionist Power Configuration" (ZPC), Petras comes to the conclusion that the Obama Administration is less inclined to start large-scale military interventions and listens more to public opinion.

In this study, the author concentrates on US empire-building measures in the Middle East. Here, the ZPC comes into play. In this specific region, Zionist power has played an important role "in harnessing the US Empire to serving the regional power projections of Israel". According to Petras, this fact is underlined by "the importance of the domestic political power relations in shaping US imperial policy, the importance of military ideology over economic interests; and the role of 'dual citizens' with foreign allegiances in subverting a potentially democratic foreign policy". 

The study shows also that US empire-building efforts are not confined solely to the Middle East and to serve Israeli interests. It's a global US effort, but to advance its sphere of influence, for example, the US relies on its European allies like France and Great Britain to secure the realm in Africa. The overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya and the direct intervention of France in Mali or in the Central African Republic are cases in point.

Petras regards the Zionist lobby as the most important factor in shaping US foreign policy in the Middle East. This goes beyond the influence of AIPAC because there exists a whole string of pro-Israeli think tanks, a power configuration of 52 Jewish organizations, influential individuals in the media and the military, plus leverage over the US Congress. It seems as if the author overrates the influence of the Zionist lobby, which influences and even determines US foreign policy, downplaying US policies mainly affected by the military, financial and industrial elites. Globally, Israel performs a useful role for the US in the region. In case of emergency, Israel would safeguard the Jordanian or the Saudi regimes from being overthrown either by internal unrest or foreign intervention.

The author argues that the loss of trust between the power elite and the majority of the American people is one of the leading factors influencing US foreign policy. Together with the totally discredited US Congress, only 9 per cent have a positive view of the Congress, and the public's rejection of President Obama's militarist approach are important factors that hindered the US empire's determination for new wars. Despite this war-weariness, the war-mongering US Congress in close cooperation with the Zionist lobby pushes for a military confrontation with Iran, even though the negotiations between Iran and the five UN Security Council members plus Germany are heading in the right direction.

Although the geopolitical analysis of James Petras' newest book is convincing in many aspects, his focus on the Zionist Power Configuration and a subservient US Congress does not show the whole picture of US imperial interests. The domestic power configurations are more complex. For the political class of the United States, it would be a damning indictment, if Israel or its stakeholders would be the sole power brokers in terms of US foreign policy.

Whether the 21st century will be an American one, has to be seen, although, according to Petras, "there is no alternative imperial or modern anti-imperial tendency on the immediate horizon". Right now, the US makes more enemies than friends. Its new adventurism in Syria and Iraq may turn out to be even more disastrous for the US than the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Petras' book gives the readers an insight in the making of US foreign policy, which appears multifarious and determined by a power struggle between different elites.

First published here, herehere, here, here, here and here,

Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2014

Israels Schicksal. Wie der Zionismus seinen Untergang betreibt

Die rechtsnationalistische zionistische Regierung unter Netanyahu, Lieberman und Bennet fährt durch ihre aggressiv-kolonialistische Politik den Staat Israel gegen die Wand, wenn nicht sogar in den Abgrund, so kann man als Fazit das Buch von Moshe Zuckermann pointiert zusammenfassen. Dem Autor geht es um "Israel und seine Bereitschaft zum Frieden", "um das historische Projekt des Zionismus als ideologische Raison d'etre Israels" und letztendlich "um die Zukunft des zionistischen Israel." Nur durch die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung könne der Zionismus überleben. Ob dem Zionismus bereits sein Scheitern in die Wiege gelegt worden ist, oder ob das Scheitern des Projektes der Politik der politischen Klasse geschuldet ist, kann mit Zuckermann dahingehend beantwortet werden, dass die zionistische Ideologie historisch ausgedient hat. 

In dem Buch "Israeli Rejectionism" legen die beiden Autoren dar, dass die israelische politische Klasse niemals an Frieden interessiert war, beginnend von David Ben-Gurion, über Yitzhak Rabin bis hin zu Benyamin Netanyahu. Friede könne es nur zu israelischen Bedingungen geben, und zwar nur unter der Maßgabe einer bedingungslosen Kapitulation der Palästinenser, so die beiden Autoren. Über die israelischen "Friedensbemühungen" zu philosophieren, ist daher verlorene Liebesmüh. Auch Zuckermann schreibt: "Israel will den Frieden nicht. Es kann ihn nicht wollen, weil ein realer Frieden Israel den Abschied von einem tief eingefrästen Muster seines Selbstverständnisses, die Auflösung der Matrix seines ideologischen Selbstbildes abfordern würde." Etwas weniger gestelzt ausgedrückt heißt das, dass es keine Frieden in Israel und Palästina geben wird, solange die zionistische Ideologie die Staatsräson Israels bildet. 

Zuckermanns jüngster Essay ist ein Mixtum compositum von neuen Erkenntnissen und bereits publizierten Texten. Nach Ansicht des Autors steht die israelische Regierung vor der Wahl einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung oder eines bi-nationalen Staates, in dem endlich beide Völker gleiche Rechte genießen könnten. Als Alternative dazu könnte Israel ein "Apartheidstaat" werden, was aber von der "westlichen Welt längerfristig kaum akzeptiert werden könnte". Hat die so genannte westliche Welt bisher alle politischen Rechtsverstöße Israels nicht auch akzeptiert? Dem "Westen" ist schon immer eine Ausrede eingefallen, warum die israelische Regierung wider alle westlichen Werte handelt. War nicht Apartheid in Südafrika immer schon etwas anderes als "Apartheid" im Staate Israel? 

Die Politik der rechts-nationalistischen israelischen Regierung lässt sich nur dadurch konterkarieren, wenn alle Staaten der Weltstaatengemeinschaft den Staat Palästina bilateral völkerrechtlich anerkennen. Solange sich die US-Administration nicht von der Umklammerung der zionistischen Lobby befreien kann und die deutsche Bundesregierung weiterhin ihre singuläre "Staatsräson"-Politik pflegt, ist ein langfristiger Erfolg fraglich. Dass immer noch eine "Bevölkerungstransfer" im Sinne des rechtsextremen "Rabbiners" Meir Kahane von großen Teilen der israelischen Gesellschaft als realistische Option diskutiert wird, zeigt, in welcher "geistigen" Verfassung sich Teile der politischen Klasse dieses Landes befinden. Die Verweigerung einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung bedeute die "Beschleunigung des historischen Endes des zionistischen Projekts". Diese vorherrschende zionistische Ideologie könnte man auch als falsches Bewusstsein nach Zuckermann bezeichnen. 

Die heutige zionistische Ideologie besteht aus einem Sammelsurium ideologischer Versatzstücke, auf die der Autor hinweist. Wer auf den Glaubenssatz, dass man sich auf von Gott "verheißenem Land" befinde, braucht sich auch über die Widersprüche zu dieser Legende keine Rechenschaft abzulegen. Wer selbst noch nach der Shoah an der Doktrin festhalte, dass man sich in jeder Generation erhebe, "um uns zu vernichten" und nur Gott "uns rette vor ihnen", so Zuckermann, werde sich nicht so schnell von dieser Haltung abschrecken lassen, dass "alle Welt gegen uns" sei. Wie sehr sich die politische Klasse Israels von den Zielen des ursprünglichen Zionismus entfernt hat, scheint in den diversen Kapiteln immer wieder ansatzweise durch.

Der Ausgangspunkt und die Einsicht der Gründer des Zionismus war simpel: Der grassierende Antisemitismus im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert in Europa ließ nur eine Alternative möglich erscheinen, und zwar die Gründung eines "Judenstaates", wie es Theodor Herzl in seinem gleichnamigen politischen Pamphlet nannte. Dieser Staat sollte die Voraussetzung schaffen, dass das "jüdische Volk" gleichberechtigt neben den anderen Völkern leben konnte. Dass die dafür vorgesehene "Braut" bereits "mit einem anderen Mann verheiratet war", ignorierte man, obgleich den zionistischen Palästina-Kundschaftern dies bewusst war. Von einem "leeren Land" für ein Volk "ohne Land" konnte gar keine Rede sein. Das Besondere am Zionismus sei gewesen, dass der zu schaffende Staat bereits ideell existierte, bevor die materielle Basis seiner Verwirklichung vorhanden war und er territorial realisiert werden konnte , schreibt der Autor.

Zuckermann weist auf die Negation der Diaspora durch den Zionismus und ihre damit einhergehende "Ghettomentalität" hin. Der politische Zionismus sah sich selbst als ein Produkt europäischer Aufklärung. Das Niederreißen geistiger und materieller Mauern, in denen das diasporische Judentum eingeschlossen war, galt als ein Akt der Befreiung, schreibt der Autor. Man wollte sich auch gegenüber allem Nichtjüdischen öffnen. Wider der ursprünglichen Intention der zionistischen Bewegung hat sich Israel "eingemauert". Die Errichtung der Mauer diene als Schutz im Dienste einer expansiven Praxis, die sich mit der Verhinderung von Gewalt verschwistert habe und dadurch ein "funktionales Mittel der Praktizierung von Eroberungsgewalt" darstelle. 

Für Zuckermann führe letztendlich nichts an einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung vorbei, sie sei "unabdingbar", da jede andere Lösung, wie zum Beispiel die eines bi-nationalen Staates das Ende des zionistischen Projektes bedeuten würde. Damit drängt sich die Frage zwangsläufig auf, warum die politische Klasse Israels immer noch keinen Frieden mit den Palästinensern geschlossen hat. 

"Wenn ihr wollt, ist es kein Märchen." Diesem Slogan Herzls stellt Zuckermann ein Graffiti aus Tel Aviv gegenüber: "Wollt ihr nicht - dann eben nicht." Deutlicher lässt sich die Desillusionierung, die sich in Israel breitmacht, nicht auf den Punkt bringen. Das zionistische Projekt stand nach Meinung des Autors "immer schon auf unstetem Boden". Neben dem Sicherheitsaspekt, der durch die Geschichte mehr als deutlich untermauert wird (Opferrolle), existierte von Beginn an der "expansionistische Drang". Beide Aspekte, die Selbstviktimierung und der Expansionismus stünden in einem komplementären Verhältnis. 

Wer immer noch die Meinung vertritt, die politische Klasse Israels wolle Frieden, dem sei mit Zuckermann geantwortet: "Israel will den Frieden nicht." Die israelische politische Kultur kenne nur "Sicherheit" als Substanz ihrer Staatsräson. Auf die Frage nach dem Scheitern aller Friedensbemühungen der diversen israelischen Regierung drängt sich eine Antwort auf: "Israel kann nicht verwirklichen, was der Zionismus nie gewollt hat." 

Ein überaus nützliches Buch.

Das Buch von Moshe Zuckermann ist im ProMedia Verlag in Wien erschienen und kostet 17,90 Euro.

Erschienen auch hier

Dienstag, 14. Oktober 2014

Israelis kommen in Scharen nach Berlin

Israelis in Berlin.
Die Zahl der Israelis, die vom Zionismus und der paranoiden Politikerkaste des Landes die Nase voll haben und nach Berlin oder Deutschland auswandern, steigt stetig. Die Zahlen bewegen sich langsam aber stetig in Richtung 100 000. Nicht Krethi und Plethi emigrieren von Israel nach Deutschland, sondern es sind junge, gut ausgebildete Menschen, vorwiegend aus dem Technologiesektor, also ein Teil der Elite des Landes. An diesem Trend kann auch Deutschlands Ober-Zionist, der als Journalist und Hasbara-Beauftragter unterwegs ist, nichts ändern. 

Die Online-Zeitschrift "Der Semit - die andere jüdische Stimme" veröffentlichte einen über Facebook verbreiteten Aufruf eines Israelis, der von der Politik der politische Klasse in Israel frustriert ist und seinem Land den Rücken gekehrt hat. Es ist zu hoffen, dass sich weitere Zehntausende Israelis daran ein Beispiel nehmen. Vorsicht sei diesen Emigranten jedoch angeraten, weil die Gefahr besteht, dass ihre edlen Motive vom israelischen Auslandsgeheimdienst Mossad und dessen Sayanims in Deutschland diskreditiert und in ihr Gegenteil verkehrt werden.

Als negative Konsequenz dieser Auswanderung ist jedoch für Israel zu befürchten, dass noch mehr ideologisch-motivierte nationalistische Zionisten aus den USA oder Europa Aliya machen, wodurch die "Lebensqualität" der ursprünglichen Besitzer des Landes Palästina weiter eingeschränkt wird. Tatsächlich sind die jungen Israelis von der zionistischen Ideologie und deren Repräsentanten "fed up". Keiner von ihnen ist länger bereit, sich alle paar Jahre für einen neuen Krieg zur Unterdrückung eines kolonisierten Volkes missbrauchen zu lassen.

Oberflächlich betrachtet, kommen viele Israelis wegen der günstigeren Lebenshaltungskosten oder des besonderen Berliner Flairs nach Deutschland. Wie sagte doch einst der scheidende Berliner Regierende Bürgermeister: "Berlin ist arm, aber sexy"! Trotz aller politischen Unwägbarkeiten im Nahen Osten überwiegt bei den meisten Immigranten aus Israel jedoch der Karriere-Aspekt. "Start-up"-Unternehmen finden in Berlin optimale Bedingungen, weil die Stadt in technologischer Hinsicht noch nicht auf der Höhe der Zeit ist. Im High-Tech-Bereich sind die israelischen Unternehmensgründer allen anderen um Längen voraus. Für die israelischen Start-ups gilt nicht Wowereits angestaubter und frivoler Spruch über Berlin als "arm, aber sexy", sondern aus "erfolgreich und sexy" wird ein neudeutsch-israelischer Schuh daraus. Einige Unternehmen ziehen sogar Berlin gegenüber Tel Aviv als permanenten Standort vor.

Es wurde also höchste Zeit, dass der Regierende Bürgermeister seinen Ruhestand ins Berliner Milieu verlegt hat. Warum legt er nicht das Flughafenprojekt Berlin-Brandenburg in die Hände israelischer Start-up-Unternehmer, damit der Airport noch in diesem Jahrhundert fertiggestellt wird.

Erschienen hier.

Donnerstag, 9. Oktober 2014

US Vice President Joe Biden names the real Terror-supporting States

US VP Biden tells the truth!
What everyone knew already, who doesn't believe in the reporting of the corporate media, has now been confirmed by one of the highest US officials; U.S. vice president Joe Biden told students at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University that the main supporters of extremists and terrorists in Syria are close American allies. Listen to what Biden had to say.

“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria.” Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were “so determined to take down Assad” that they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad. “We could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria. “The outcome of such a policy now is more visible,” he said, as it turned out they supplied terrorists from Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda.and IS. Has Biden forgotten that the US has promoted the upgrading of the IS terrorists along with the Zionist political class in the US and in close cooperation with the right-wing US Senator John McCain and their ilk?

Immediately, these terror-supporting states, especially Turkey, called for an US "apology". And Joe Biden did indeed apologize for telling, perhaps for the first time in his political carrier, the truth about these hideous and rotten Islamic regimes. He also had to apologize to the UAE. How come that a nation, which pretends to have "God" on its side, apologizes for finally telling the truth about the real instigators of terrorism in Syria? Biden is further correct when saying: “America can't once again go in to Muslim nation and be the aggressor, it has to be led by Sunnis, to attack a Sunni organization (IS)." 

Why don't let the US do Saudi Arabia and the other Islamist regimes do the job in Syria themselves? The neoconservative Bush regime has already screwed up Afghanistan, Iraq and Obama Libya. Why should Obama pick the chestnuts out of the fire for regimes, which not only support terrorism, but also share not a single values with the US? If the strategy of bombing doesn't work, and it won't work, the Obama administration will get the blame. 

Hasn't the Saudi Arabian ambassador in the UK in an op-ed in the New York Times declared that Saudi Arabia would go it alone against Syria and Iran? The US should take the Saudis and the other Islamic regimes in word. Not one single American or European soldier is worth to die for these rotten regimes. And if IS takes Saudi Arabia, which their goal is, then so be it. The Saudis have nothing to offer than Oil, and IS also has to sell it. 

The most cynical among the "Friends of America" is Nato-ally Turkey. President Erdogan's hand-picked new Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, declared in an interview with CNN-front women Christiane Amanpour that turkey will not participate in the fight against IS as long as there is a comprehensive strategy, including a no-fly zone and the overthrow of the Assad regime. Therefore, the Turkish army stays at the border to Syria to watch calmly as the Kurdish town Kobani is taken by IS. With its ascended military power it would have been easy to stop the advance of IS. This cynical strategy of the Turkish government against the Kurds in Syria has led to considerable unrest in Turkey. From the beginning of the protest against Bashar al-Assad, Turkey was a transit country for weapons and foreign fighters. In addition, it served as a retreat for all sorts of terrorists. 

To point a finger at others, as Biden does, appears implausible because the US was informed about the machinations of its allies in Syria and has actively supported it by its intelligence. The US is as much as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Arab Emirates responsible for the terror against the Assad government. Without US approval, these states could not have afforded to conduct such a policy.

Despite its self-inflicted chaos, which geopolitical lessons should the United States draw from the attitude of their so-called friends and allies? First of all, they have to get rid of the undemocratic, fundamentalist and terror-supporting regimes of the Arab peninsula. 

Secondly, they have to support the creation of an independent "Kurdistan" and "Palestine". The Kurds and the Palestinians have been betrayed by Western imperialism. A US support for their legitimate rights and self-determination may be only a small political compensation. "Kurdistan" should encompass large parts of Turkey, parts of Syria, Iraq and Iran. By the way; the American political leadership should not forget that the United States of America emerged from an anti-colonial struggle. 

Thirdly, it's overdue to get tough with the Israeli government. The US has been supporting not only Israel's illegal occupation for the last 47 years at any cost, but also the continuation of the colonization of Palestinian land. Although the US sees itself as a guardian of international law and the rule of law in general, but in the case of Israel all these noble motives are set aside. The Israeli government can behave like a bully, while the international community stands idle. On top of it, the USA pays Israel annually at least three billion US-Dollars. The German government also supports the State of Israel with millions of Euros, which don't appear in the official budget plans, additionally, it provides military hardware like submarines that can be equipped with nuclear weapons or cruise missiles, officially for half prize, because the other half pays the German taxpayer. 

Fourthly, the US should support civil society and democratic groups in the Muslim world and pull away their protective hand over dictators. 

Fifthly, they should stop their policy of double standards, hypocrisy and brutal power politics. In the time of the internet, people can't be manipulated so easily by the corporate media, which have become mouthpieces of governments. 

Europe and the German government should not get involved in this phony "war on terror" against IS. The blowback will be harmful, despite, what all the so-called terror experts say.

First published here, herehere and here.

Mittwoch, 8. Oktober 2014

Die Nakba-Ausstellung

Die Nakba - die Geschichte von Flucht und Vertreibung der Palästinenser 1948.

Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2014

The truth about ISIS

The Syrian Girl.
In the Middle East, nothing happens without the invisible hand of the intelligence agencies. All of a sudden, in war-torn Syria and Iraq appeared an organization called ISIS or better known as IS (Islamic State) and overrun the US-trained Iraqi army in northern Iraq and conquered large parts of both countries in a breath. Wow! Neither the omniscient National Security Agency (NSA), not to speak of their intelligence acolytes in the region, have anticipated this group. Nobody should be surprised; it's their baby. 

The Western media do not report on the real facts on the ground. They do everything to support the US government's intention to keep the "War on Terror" going. That is why, new terrorist organizations must be invented and their threat to the West must be exaggerated in order to topple the Assad regime in Syria, which is the real aim of the coalition of the willing. Especially the new Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu called in an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN for a combined effort that should lead to the overthrow of the Assad regime. Instead of arming the so-called moderate rebels in Syria, the US administration should give the weapons directly to ISIS, because there are no moderate rebels in Syria. To get some insights into the machinations of Western and Middle Eastern intelligence organizations and what's going on in Syria watch this video with "The Syrian Girl".

President Obama: Before taking on ISIS, why don't you get tough with the Saudi Regime?

Courtesy of MWC News.
The beheading of Western hostages by the terrorists of ISIS or the Islamic State (IS) is vicious but not an unusual practice in countries considered close Western friends or allies. Take Saudi Arabia as an example, which is nearing the status of the State of Israel as an "indispensable" US ally. There exists, however, a significant difference between the two: Israel is considered a Jewish democracy or a democracy sui generis, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is the most fundamentalist, radical and gruesome Islamic regime the world has ever seen. How can the US be on good terms with both regimes, knowing, how nationalistic and racist the policy of the Israeli government is? 

The various US governments are well informed about the machinations of the radical Saudi Arabian regime. They took it gratefully, when it served their interests, when Western secret services together with the Saudis laid the foundations for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The American side is fully aware of the establishment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic schools worldwide and the indoctrination provided in these schools that serves to spread their Salafist and Wahhabite version of Islam. In addition to this ideological campaign, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic regimes on the Arabian Peninsula have invested billions of U.S. dollars in upgrading the Al-Nusra Front, IS and, on top of all that, to build a terrorist infrastructure against Syria and Iran, which they designate as enemies of Islam. These terror organizations kill all "infidels", including Shiite Muslims, but primarily Christians, Yazidis, Alevis and Kurds. They destroyed and expelled the ancient Christian community of Maaloula in Syria, and desecrated all their churches and monasteries. 

Al-Qaeda has been founded by the CIA, Hamas was tolerated by the Israeli intelligence, and al-Nusra Front and ISIS are creations of the Saudi, Qatari and American intelligence agencies. Not President Bashar al-Asad has to go, as President Obama used to say, but rather King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and his rotten ilk regimes on the Arabian peninsula. The Saudi regime is the spiritus rector of terrorism against Syrians. Speaking of beheadings: They are on the agenda in Saudi Arabia. This year, 30 people have been beheaded there. No Western outcry was heard. 

Cynically, one can distinguish between the legality of beheadings. Saudi beheadings are carried out under the rule of law (Sharia), although obscure, i.e. after a formal "trial", whereas the other beheadings are outright murders. Are Western victims worth more than Saudi Arabian? Capital punishment is to be opposed, but is not limited to Saudi Arabia. In many of US American states it's on the agenda, too. But crucifixions and beheadings are the trademark of ISIS. Why not attack the original first before one deals with the self-made copy. 

Saudi Arabia and the US have a long "friendship" that was very close during the reign of George W. Bush. The Saudi Ambassador, "Bandar Bush", was a frequent guest and political consultant at the White House. After leaving the US, he became chief of the Saudi intelligence. He was finally removed from office by the Saudi regime, after he went to Russia in order to bribe Russian president Vladimir Putin with a billion US dollar weapon deal and to threaten him to send terrorist to the Winter Olympics in Sochi if he does not withdraw his support for the Assad regime. 

After the Saudis and the other Islamist regimes have created terror groups like ISIS or al-Nusra Front in Syria and Iraq, why should the United States and some "willing" Western Allies pull the chestnuts out of the fire for these undemocratic and totalitarian regimes? The US administration should let the Saudis fight it alone, like the Saudi ambassador to Great Britain in an op-ed in the New York Times full-bodied announced. The used political rhetoric indicates that he even acts as a megaphone of the neocons, certain Zionist circles and their rubber stamps in the US Congress, which are very critical of Obama’s policy towards Syria and Iran. 

Much more important is that the US government comes to terms with Iran over the imaginary nuclear threat. The mullahs, in contrast to Saudi Arabia or even Netanyahu, represent the most reasonable and responsible-minded Muslim regime in the Middle East. They would be a great asset for US interest in the region, although the US administration can't be politically trusted by the Iranian mullahs. The Iranian government under President Mohammad Khatami have repeatedly extended the hand of reconciliation to the different US administrations, but the US has slapped on the outstretched hand. In order not to upset Binyamin Netanyahu, the Obama administration believes, despite all evidence, that Iran pursues a secret nuclear program.

On September 29, 2014, the Saudi Arabian human rights activist Samar Badawi testified before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to the situation of the role of women and that of human rights in general in Saudi Arabia. Martin Woker of the Swiss daily "Neue Zurcher Zeitung" conducted an interview with her, in which she described the dismal situation of women and human rights in here country. Although she knows that the Saudi regime may punish her for the outspokenness, she called a spade a spade. Her husband, the human rights lawyer Walid Abulkhair, was sentenced to 15 years in prison on tenuous charges. He was arrested on the basis of new anti-terror legislation. To the support of terrorism by the Saudi regime, she said the following: "They (meaning the regime) have created the 'Islamic State'. They are the major financiers of terror. They have imprisoned peaceful activists and sentenced them to years in prison. It is a natural thing that something like the IS emerges. The result of this violence is that violence. We, and with us all Saudi human rights organizations, reject violence." Why doesn't the Obama administration get rid of this evil and rotten Saudi regime?

First published here, herehere and here

Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2014

Netanyahu at the UN: Political Distortedness and Hypocrisy at its Best

Netanyahu's picture show at the UN. Courtesy of MWC News.
On behalf of the people of Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered one his usual political distorted sermons to the UN General Assembly. "The people of Israel pray for peace", said Netanyahu to an almost empty auditorium. Just after the "most moral army in the world" (Ehud Barak) slaughtered 2140 Palestinians, 80 per cent civilians, ravaged the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, made several hundred of thousands people homeless, and on top of it, the Israeli government wants to investigate its own war crimes! This is Chutzpah Israeli style. 

The Islamists wants to dominate the world. This cancer have to be removed, said the Prime Minister. "ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous creed." Hamas shares its global ambitions of his fellow Islamists. When it comes to their ultimate goals "Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas." All the different Islamists groups share the same fanatical ideology, so Netanyahu. 

Why has Netanyahu lost no word on the creation of ISIS by the CIA, the Pentagon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey? Why didn't he mention Israel's role in the creation of Hamas as a counterpart to the PLO? To eradicate ISIS, al-Nusra Front and their ilk the US and its client state in the Middle East must first topple the radical Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Arab Emirates. Netanyahu should have spoken about the real threat to the West, which these regimes pose. All around the world, the Saudis and Qataris finance all fundamentalist groups. The Saudis adhere to the same ideology like ISIS, al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaida. 

The identification of Hamas with ISIS was only the prelude to the final political crescendo of Netanyahu's speech: the demonization of Iran. The mullahs in Iran and their virtual nuclear arsenal have been his political fad for over 20 year. They do not represent a threat to world peace, in contrast to Israel that is equipped up to its ears with nuclear and biological weapons. Iran has none. 

The US wants to clear things up with Iran, which Netanyahu and the fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia try to discourage. In the long run, the geopolitical role of Iran is a thousand times more valuable than Israel and Saudi Arabia taken together. The US can no longer afford to be always identified with Islamic fundamentalist regimes and Zionist colonizers. None of them shares the values the US adheres to. Both states are a large liability for the geopolitical interests of the United States in the region and towards the Islamic world as a whole. Why not let these radical regimes go down the drain?

In contrast to Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas deliver a very courageous speech at the UN General Assembly that "offended" not only the Israeli government but also its protector, the US. Abbas made it clear that further negotiations are meaningless and that he will apply for membership in other UN organizations like the International Criminal Court. This is overdue in order to charge Israeli politicians of committing war crimes during the two last attacks on the Gaza Strip.

The world will watch whether Abbas has the courage to turn rhetoric into action.

First publieshed herehere and here.