Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel

Der jüdische Fundamentalismus in Israel hat seine Wurzeln in den orthodoxen Glaubensvorstellungen. Er übt einen verheerenden Einfluss auf alle Bereiche der israelischen Gesellschaft aus, insbesondere das Militär und die Politik. Jüdischer Fundamentalismus ist nichts ungewöhnliches, steht er doch neben christlichem, islamischem und hinduistischem Fundamentalismus. Im Westen wird der islamische Fundamentalismus jedoch geschmäht, jüdischer Fundamentalismus dagegen ignoriert. Dies trifft insbesondere auf die Berichterstattung westlicher Medien zu, die essentielle Fakten nicht berichten, sich einer oberflächlichen Analyse bedienen und folglich oft irreführend ist. Dagegen wird in der hebräischen Presse offen und sehr kritisch über diese innerisraelischen Missstände berichtet; der Duktus der Beiträge würde in anderen Medien als „antisemitisch“ inkriminiert werden.

Allen Fundamentalismen ist eine „goldene Zeit“ eigen, die es wiederherzustellen gilt. In der ersten Netanyahu-Regierung (1996-1999) trat das fundamentalistisch-nationalistische Phänomen bereits offen zutage. Heute ist es noch offensichtlicher durch die Regierungsbeteiligung der von Experten als rechtsextremistisch eingestuften Partei „Israel Beiteinu“. Der Wahlsieg Ehud Baraks 1999 hat die Brisanz des jüdischen Fundamentalismus für Beobachter Israels jedoch wieder in den Hintergrund treten lassen. Fälschlicherweise, wie die Autoren meinen. Für sie stellt der Fundamentalismus weiterhin eine ernste Gefahr für den demokratischen Bestand Israels dar. Diese Warnung der Autoren erhält eine zusätzliche Brisanz, weil Netanyahu 2009 wieder Regierungschef einer rechtsnationalistisch-religiös-fundamentalistischen Regierung geworden ist, die sich einen Außenminister leistet, der nach westeuropäischen demokratischen Standards andernorts keine Karriere gemacht hätte, obwohl auch in Europa und den USA die Wertmaßstäbe erodieren.

Jüdischer Fundamentalismus ist der Glaube, dass die jüdische Orthodoxie, die auf dem babylonischen Talmud, des talmudischen und halachischen Schrifttums beruht, noch gültig ist und ewig Gültigkeit beanspruchen wird. Die jüdischen Fundamentalisten glauben, dass das Alte Testament nur dann als autoritativ angesehen werden kann, wenn es anhand des talmudischen Schrifttums interpretiert wird.

Die Autoren vertreten die These, dass der jüdische Fundamentalismus nur dann zu verstehen ist, wenn man die historische Periode identifiziere, die die Fundamentalisten wiederherstellen wollen. Sie teilen die Geschichte des Judentums in vier Perioden ein. Die jüdischen Fundamentalisten haben die Zeit von 1550 bis 1750 als die „goldene Zeit“ des Judentums beschrieben, in der die große Mehrheit der Juden die Kabbala und ihre Regeln akzeptierte. Diese Ära sollte wiedererstehen.

In Israel gibt es eine große Anzahl von Fundamentalisten und Extremisten. Einer der ersten war der Rabbiner Abraham Kook, der „jüdische Überlegenheit“ predigte. "The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews - all of them in all different levels - is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle." Eines ihrer gemeinsamen Ziele sei die Errichtung des jüdischen Tempels auf dem Haram al-Sharif (Tempelberg). Wenn dies nicht zu erreichen sei, dann solle der Platz, auf dem die islamischen Heiligtümer - Felsendom und Al-Aksa-Moschee - stehen, von Besuchern freigehalten werden. Die Bedeutung des jüdischen Fundamentalismus lässt sich nach Ansicht der Autoren nur in dessen Beitrag zur Spaltung der israelischen Gesellschaft verstehen. Diese drücke sich insbesondere in der Tatsache aus, dass die Linke in Israel die Normalität anstrebt und wie jedes andere Volk leben will - dies ein zentrales Dogma des säkularen Zionismus - wohingegen die Rechte und die Fundamentalisten die Einzigartigkeit des jüdischen Volkes betonen und sich bewusst von anderen Völkern unterscheiden wollten. „Juden sind und können kein normales Volk sein. Ihre Einzigartigkeit beruht auf dem ewigen Bund mit Gott“, so Vertreter der Siedlerbewegung Gush Emunim (Block der Getreuen), der von Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook gegründet worden ist. Dies geht dann sogar soweit, dass aufgrund des „jüdischen Blutes“ Juden zu einer anderen Kategorie gehören als Nicht-Juden. „Für religiöse Juden hat das Blut eines Nicht-Juden keinen wirklichen Wert; für Vertreter des Likud besitzt es einen relativen“ so die Autoren. Die innerjüdische Diskussion, die von ranghohen Vertretern der Fundamentalisten wie Rabbi Ovadia Yoseph, dem geistigen Oberhaupt der Shas-Partei, und anderen Vertretern des religiösen Establishments und der Nationalreligiösen Partei (NRP) zu diesen Fragen geführt werden, mutet mehr als bizarr an. Die Autoren betonen mehrmals, dass sich diese Diskussion nie in der englischen Literatur wiederfinde bzw. im Ausland völlig unbekannt sei.

Das Buch bietet einen erstklassigen Überblick in die verschiedenen fundamentalistischen Strömungen wie der Haredim, die sich in aschkenasische (europäische) und sephardische (orientalische) Juden teilen, den Vertretern der NRP und des Gush Emunim. Des Weiteren werden die Bedeutung des Massenmörders Baruch Goldstein, der in der Ibrahim-Moschee in Hebron 29 betende Muslime niedermetzelte, und der religiöse Hintergrund des Attentates auf Ministerpräsident Yitzhak Rabin religiös eingeordnet. Beide politische Ereignisse seien ohne die religiöse Tradition der Bestrafung und Tötung von „Häretikern“ nicht zu verstehen.

Shahak und Mezvinsky haben ein provokantes und faszinierendes Buch geschrieben. Es erschließt dem Leser Bilder des Judentums und eines Teils der israelischen Gesellschaft, die nicht in das Wunschbild vieler Lobbyisten, Israelfans und politisch Naiver passen wollen. Vielleicht geben diesen "Fans" die Worte des langjährigen Autors des "Jerusalem Reports“ vom April 2001, Ze´ev Chafets, zu denken: „The Arabs can`t destroy Israel, but the rabbis can. The rabbis can do that by turning Israel into the kind of political entity that Jews lived in for 2,000 years, by turning it into a place governed by clerical law and clerical thinking which had become so backward and xenophobic that Israel wont`t be able to function as a state.” Das Buch ist unbequem, aber sehr erhellend. Eine Übersetzung ins Deutsche wäre sinnvoll. Oder soll auch dieses spannende und unbequeme Buch dem „Traumbild“ Israel geopferte werden und der „Schweigespirale“ in Deutschland anheimfallen?

Israel Shahak/Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, 2. Aufl., London 2010, Neuauflage 2004, (1999). Erschienen bei Pluto Press.

Der Außenminister

Über den Nahostkonflikt sind Bibliotheken gefüllt worden. Einer Lösung ist man dadurch aber keinen Millimeter näher gekommen. Nähert man sich ihm in der Form eines Schauspiels, erscheint er als ein einziges Polit-Drama. Insbesondere die Kritiklosigkeit Deutschlands gegenüber der israelischen Besatzungspolitik enthebt diesen Konflikt in transzendente Sphären. Hatte sich nicht Deutschland unter rot-grüner Herrschaft zum weltweiten Verteidiger der Menschenrechte erklärt? Diesen Widerspruch - verkörpert in der Person des deutschen Außenministers - beschreiben der emeritierte Politikwissenschaftler Kenneth Lewan und seine Gattin Hannelore in dem vorliegenden Schauspiel "Der Außenminister" formidabel. Dass dieses „Drama“ keine Bühne gefunden hat, verwundert nicht. Zutiefst haben sich Denkschablonen ins bundesrepublikanische Bewusstsein eingenistet, die an orwellsche und kafkaeske Zustände erinnern. Der Gipfel des Orwellismus ist erreicht, wenn eine acht Meter hohe Mauer als „Zaun“ oder „Barriere“ umdefiniert wird.

Die Geschichte beginnt mit einem Knaller und ist schnell erzählt: Anlässlich von Vorwürfen von Menschenrechtsverletzungen in den von Israel besetzten palästinensischen Gebieten reist ein deutscher Außenminister mit einem liberalen Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages, Frau Hanebüchen, nach Jerusalem, um sich vor Ort ein Bild zu machen. Bei ihrer Ankunft werden beide mit einem Aufmacher der „Jerusalem Post“ konfrontiert. „Zigeunerarmee in New York gelandet!“ Dem deutschen Außenminister wird überbracht, dass der „Außenminister des Zigeunerstaates“, Rheinhold Bamberger, auch in Jerusalem sei. Er begrüßt die beiden deutschen Politiker: „Guten Morgen! Welch ein Zufall! Diese Begegnung mit so hervorragenden Vertretern der deutschen Gesellschaft ist ein Glückstreffer für die Sinti und Roma. Das Glück bleibt uns treu!“ Worauf Frau Hanebüchen erwidert: „Herr Bamberger, wir sind völlig vor den Kopf gestoßen, wir sind ganz außer uns über diese Nachricht. Wir können nicht begreifen, warum die Sinti Deutschland verlassen haben.“ Daraufhin Bamberger: „Die Sinti haben Deutschland den Rücken gekehrt, weil es dort zu viele Leute gibt wie Sie!“ Bamberger beschwert sich über die unterschiedliche Behandlung der Sinti und Roma gegenüber der Bevorzugung der russisch-jüdischen Einwanderer nach Deutschland, worauf ihn der Außenminister schulmeistert: „Haben Sie sich je die Mühe gemacht, uns zu verstehen? Wir haben immer nur die besten Absichten. Wir sehen die Juden als würdige Vertreter aller Opfer des Nationalsozialismus. Was wir für die Juden und Israel getan haben, war stellvertretend für alle Naziopfer.“ Bamberger konfrontiert die beiden Deutschen mit einem Aufruf, in dem die Gründung eines „Zigeunerstaates“ begrüßt wird und fordert sie auf, diesen zu unterschreiben, was beide entrüstet zurückweisen. Um die Geschichte abzukürzen, zieht sich Bamberger seinen Bart vom Gesicht. Er war weder Bamberger noch Sinti oder Roma, sondern der palästinensische Arzt Said, und die „Jerusalem Post“ war eine Faksimile-Ausgabe. Unter Protestraufen wie „Gauner“ und „Falschspieler“ treten beide Deutschen von der Bühne ab.

Bei einer Veranstaltung, in der der Außenminister dem Bürgermeister der Stadt eine Auszeichnung verleiht, gerät dieser ins Schwärmen: „Für ein Land, das von Feinden umzingelt ist, ist Israels Gastfreundschaft überwältigend. Die Deutschen können viel von Ihnen lernen.“ Und über den Bürgermeister sagt er: „Sie setzen sich dafür ein, dass die Araber die gleichen Rechte haben wie die Juden in Ihrer Stadt. Sie machen große Anstrengungen, die Rückständigkeit Ihrer arabischen Mitbürger in Wirtschaft, Politik und Kultur zu überwinden. Sie geben uns Deutschen ein leuchtendes Beispiel dafür, wie man mit den Gastarbeitern umgehen sollte.“ Bei dieser Feier kommt es zu einer verbalen Auseinandersetzung zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern. Die Studentin Leyla Tawil wirft dem Bürgermeister u. a. vor, gar nichts für seine palästinensischen Bewohner getan zu haben. Und an den Außenminister gewandt, sagt sie: „Der Preis, den Sie dem Herrn Bürgermeister für seine Menschenliebe verleihen, ist nichts als ein Wahrzeichen Ihrer Heuchelei.“ Der Außenminister und Frau Hanebüchen sind entsetzt. „Unmöglich, diese Person!“, so der Außenminister. Und Frau Hanebüchen: „Es ist wirklich erstaunlich, wie hoch die Redefreiheit geachtet wird in diesem kleinen Land, das um sein Überleben kämpft. Sogar Staatszersetzende Verleumdungen werden geduldet.“

Das Stück wird in der Form einer Erzählung eines Israelis (Jacob, ein Beamter des israelischen Außenministeriums) ausgeführt, der über seine Wandlungen spricht, die er während des Ablaufs der Handlung durchmacht. Die Autoren/innen setzen sich mit dem Verhältnis Deutschlands zu Israel und den Palästinensern auseinander. Am Ende dieses Stückes erhält der deutsche Außenminister den Doktor honoris causa verliehen. In seiner Dankesrede geht er auf die Lage der Menschenrechte in Israel ein. Er habe einen Todesfall durch scharfe Munition erlebt, einen zweiten durch den Einsatz eines Schlagstocks und mehrere Verletzte, vorwiegend beim Einsatz von Tränengas.

"Das sind schon Gründe für Sorgen. Bedenken wir: Zwei Völker kämpfen um dasselbe Land. Es sind umstrittene Gebiete. Die arabischen Bewohner versuchen, die jüdischen Siedler zu vertreiben. Aber wie? Nicht durch friedliche Gespräche, nicht mittels unserer gut gemeinten Vermittlungsversuche. Nein' Sie reizen die jungen, unerfahrenen Soldaten, indem sie Steine auf sie werfen. Die Gewalt geht immer von ihnen aus. Ich habe selbst diese hasserfüllte Verachtung in den Augen der jungen Araber gesehen. Keine Frage: Schießereien sind bedauerlich. Der Fall Israel ist jedoch etwas Besonderes." Der Außenminister spricht sich die Versöhnung beider Völker aus und gibt den Ratschlag: „Nicht das Erinnern, sondern das Vergessen ist das Geheimnis der Versöhnung, jedenfalls was diesen Konflikt betrifft.“ Bei der Verleihung der Urkunde betont der Rektor die hohen Maßstäbe, die an eine solche Auszeichnung angelegt werden. Bei erwiesener „Unwürdigkeit“ wie z. B. „Vertrauensbruch“ könne der Titel wieder aberkannt werden. "Ich bin aber überzeugt, dass Sie uns die Treue halten werden", so der Rektor zum Außenminister.

Das Schauspiel endet mit einem Dialog zwischen Said und Jacob. Said ist empört über die Bombardierung des Gaza-Streifens. Jacob erzählt ihm, dass das deutsche Kanzleramt gerade eine Verlautbarung folgenden Inhalts herausgegeben hat: „Israel verteidigt sich“, „Die Hamas trägt die alleinige Schuld.“ Beide kommen durch ein Zitat eines Rabbiners über den Zionismus auf diese Ideologie zu sprechen und Jacob erklärt Said, dass man Israels Verhalten gegenüber den Palästinensern nur dann verstehen könne, wenn man diese Ideologie immer wieder vor Augen habe. Da nur Antizionisten über diese Ideologie schrieben, würde immer wieder behauptet, dass „Antizionismus das Gleiche ist wie Antisemitismus“. Das Drama endet mit einer Umarmung zwischen Said und Jacob, der ihm den Grund seiner Quittierung des diplomatischen Dienstes mitteilt: „Ich kann diesem Staat nicht mehr dienen, solange er ist, was er ist.“

Die Autoren/innen haben die Sprache der unterschiedlichen Figuren sehr genau charakterisiert: Heuchelei, Zynismus, Verzweifelung, Hoffnung und Galgenhumor sind die hervorstechenden Merkmale. Vielleicht findet sich doch ein mutiger Regisseur, der diesem Schauspiel seine Bühne zur Verfügung stellt.

Der Außenminister. Ein Schauspiel von Kenneth und Hannelore Lewan, 50 Seiten, Selbstverlag 2010.

In memoriam Israel Shahak

Israel Shahak passed away on July 2, 2001 at the age of 68. Born in Warsaw on April 28, 1933 he survived the Nazi atrocities in the Warsaw ghetto and Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. In 1945 he emigrated to Palestine at the time of the British Mandate (now Israel). He was a humanist, a live-long human rights activist. For many years he was chairman of the Israeli Human Rights League and consistently criticized Zionism, Israel`s policy towards the Palastinians, the reactionary elements in Jewish religion, and Jewish fundamentalism.

For Felicia Langer, the Israeli-German human rights lawyer, Shahak was a “Yeseyahu Leibowitz only without religion”. Both persons can be regarded as Israel´s last prophets. Ms. Langer, Vice President under Shahak`s chairmanship of the Israeli Human Rights League, said in an interview with me that Shahak was the „most couragous intellectual, a very close friend with deep insights in the situation than many others. Although he specialized in biochemistry, he was an avid reader. He loved liturature. He was devoid of prejudices.“

Shahak was a person with strong convictions. He rejected the Israeli-centered remembrance of the Holocaust; for him the remembrance should be universal. Consequently, he opposed racism, oppression, and any form of discrimination. Until his death, he citicised Israeli treatment not only of its own Palestinian citizens but also of the inhumane treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Israel Shahak´s perception of Israel and its political make-up is well documented in his books „Jewish History, Jewish Religion“, „Open Secrets“, and „Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel“ (all published by Pluto Press), the latter written with Norton Mezvinsky. In these books he unfolds a picture of Israel that is unfamiliar in the West, especially in the United States of America. Shahak was also famous for his so-called „Shahak papers“, which contained translations from the Hebrew press.

I met Israel Shahak for the first time at the end of 1997 in Jerusalem. We kept in touch until his death. When his book „Jewish History, Jewish Religion“ was supposed to be published by a doubious German publisher, I warned him not to go ahead. His answer was: „I don´t care (who is publishing my book), the main point is, that it is published in German.“ The Book was ignored in Germany. Luckily, it was republished last year (2009) by the Melzer Publications in heir series „Edition Semit“.

I conducted the following interview with Israel Shahak in English shortly before the State of Israel turned 50. It was partly published in German in the Austrian journal „International“ under the title: „Arafat ist ein Diktator“ (Arafat is a dictator). At that time, Binyamin Netanyahu was, like now, Israel´s Prime Minister. What Shahak said 13 years ago could have been said yesterday. In remembrance of the nineth anniversary of Shahak´s death, I decided to publish the whole interview in English in order to make it available to a global audience.

Ludwig Watzal: Professor Shahak, you belong to the very few people in Israel who have levelled a radical critique of their own country, of Palestinians and especially of Yassir Arafat. What are the reasons for it?

Israel Shahak: Yes, I will explain, but before doing so, let me say that yesterday I attended a meeting of about 800 left-leaning intellectuals in Tel Aviv. All of them were critical of my country and the majority of them, I would say 600, were critical of Arafat. You see, I am not alone. The reason for my critique is very simple. Regarding my country, I think that Zionism is a form of racism. For many years I have been claiming that it is a mirror image of anti-Semitism. While any anti-Semitism is based on denying the humanity and dignity of Jews, Zionism is grounded on discrimination and of fostering hatred and suspicion towards all non-Jews. This suspicion is not directed at Arabs for being Arabs but rather at non-Jews, Arab and non-Arab, and no one who reads the Hebrew media can, in my opoinion, escape from this conclusion. As regards Arafat, he is a dictator. Arafat is a stooge in the hands of Israel and the United States, whose role is to ensure stability in the Palestinian street, to maintainPalestinians passiv while they are being exploited and oppressed.

In your publications you have always been very critical of the Zionist ideology. Is it only because of its racist aspects or did other elements lead you to oppose it?

I always start with a Jewish critique of Zionism, which I consider more important. I must say, than the harm done unto the Palestinians. Zionism should be criticised even the Jewish state had been established on a desert island without harming anybody. The reason is that a state based on the concept of religious, racial or national purity, should be criticised. The aim of Zionism, as Zionists themselves said, and believe me, I have read all the founding fathers of Zionism, was to establish a purely Jewish state. This aim was defended with particular zeal by labour (left) Zionists. Now, I think that a state should be open. I say that a state which did not harm anybody should receive a certain number, increasing number of strangers, of people who are persecuted and who are oppressed who seek asylum and so on. Israel should not be purely Jewish and should accept non-Jewish immigrants.

Do you think that Zionism achieved its goal to establish a normal nation state for the Jewish people?

Yes and no. I think that it has reached its goal to establish a state for Israeli Jews but in the process Israeli Jews differed from other Jews. I think that Israeli Jews are by now a nation of its own. When Israeli Jews immigrate to the United States - as half a million of them already did - they keep themselves apart of the American Jewish community. In fact, they like feel more affinity towards non-Jewish Americans than towards the American Jews. Similarily, they demand from Jews who immigrate to Israel to became Israelis, i. e. to adopt Israeli customs. Those who fail to do so are resented in a slightly xenophobic attitude that you find in Germany. Say, towards Germans coming from abroad. I think the Zionist project has succeeded but by irony of history it has created something else, not a Jewish state but an Israeli Jewish state.

Are you satisfied with your present government? What do you like and what do you dislike?

I am never satisfied with any government. First, I believe that the attitude to all governments would be that they are the lesser evil, meaning no government is good, but we can have a government which is not so bad as others. Secondly, I cannot be satisfied with any Zionistic government because I consider them all as discriminatory. Having said this, the present government is in my view not as bad as the government of Rabin and Peres.The reason is that it is a right-wing government. This means that it is treated with distrust by the entire world and by half of the Israeli people who watch it carefully. In fact it steals less Palestinian land than the government of Rabin and Peres. The Labour government was able to confiscate any amount of Palestinian land and claim it is for the sake of peace. Sadly this claim was largely believed. The great point in Netanyahu´s favor is that no one will believe anything he is going to say. He therefore can rob and inflict much less harm than the previous government. This is the main point in his favour. Another point in his favour is that Likud made peace with Egypt and gave all of Sinai back. Although Likud invaded Lebanon, peace with Egypt is in my opinion more important. Many more people were killed in our wars with Egypt than in our invasion of Lebanon. And the democratization of Israeli society for both Arabs and Jews took greater strides under Likud than under Labour. I will give you only one example. You must have heard about the “Land´s day”, celebrated by Israeli Arabs. Rabin confiscated a lot of land. One of Begin`s first legislative acts was to put an end to the confiscation of land owned by Israeli Arabs and only permit such conviscation in the occupied territories. Under the principle of lesser evil this is good.

Is the present government not dominated by religious people?

I am disappointed about the general increase in the power of religious parties. I am very much afraid of one particular party among them, namely the National Religious Party (NRP=Mafdal L.W.) which I consider different and worse than the Shas or the small Ashkenasi orthodox party. I am very much afraid about the particular parties. Under Labour it would be the same. This religious trend that I very much oppose and very much fear which exist anyhow.

Why are you so afraid of the Mafdal-Party?

Because it is a messianic party, i. e. it promotes the idea that we are in the time of redemption. The world is changing and Messiah and God will immediately appear. Therefore, we do have to do acts which are justified in their view by the hope that God will intervene in our favour. As the German saying goes: “Gott mit uns”. The crusaders, too, said “God (is) with us”. This is a most dangerous slogan because it can justify everything. Mafdal is the only party in which members propose establishing of a religious state in which Talmudic laws will replace secular law. In addition, a strong and growing constituency in this party is pushing for building the Third Temple. This would require the destruction of the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It would lead to a conflict with the entire Islamic world, a conflict of global dimensions. My “fight” with the two other religious parties is similar to that with the secular parties. I must add that I don´t share the leftist Israeli incitement against the religious party Shas. Although I oppose Shas on many aspects, Shas is nevertheless an ordinary Israeli party playing within a system of give and take. You will not find Shas people (pestering and intimidating Palestinians) in Hebron. The most fanatic Jews who live inside Hebron are members of the National Religious Party.

You have been criticising the Jewish religion, especially after the massacre committed by Baruch Goldstein in Hebron. You argued that this deed could not be understood without taking religion into consideration. Could you explain?

I am criticising the Jewish religion before I criticise Zionism. But after the murder of Rabin by Yigal Amir it is clear. If you examine the extreme policies of the state of Israel you will find that they can only be carried by religious Jews of messianic variety. Neither secular people nor members of Shas will agree with those policies, or least to the extent to carrying them out. If you don´t treat the settlements as one unity, and this against my principles, even in a thing which is evil you have still to divide it to two categories and to see what is better what is worse. Among the settlements there are several in the middle of Hebron, in settlement Nezarim in the Gaza Strip where 120 Jewish settlers live along hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Obviously, these settlements can not be treated in the same way as many other settlements. You will find that the extremist settlement (those established as provocations) are only religious. No secular Jew will live in these settlements. This shows the extreme fanaticism of those people. They will literally disregard even realism for their evil settling purposes.

Is there a link between the Jewish religion and a kind of latent racism against Gojim (non-Jews) in Israel?

Not latent. The racism here in Israel where we Jews are a majority is part of everyday life. The hatred is directed against foreign workers. The reasons for the hatred of non-Arabs and Gentiles (Gojim) are expressed openly because the foreigners are small communities and Israel is not afraid of war with Romania or the Philippines. Government ministers, media workers and religious leaders (rabbis) are on record saying that we don´t want Romanians here because our daughters may fall in love with a Romanian and marry him. You are surely familiar with this kind of racist argument in your country. It is pure hatred for its own sake. It is quite clear here that most of the Jews hate Gentiles and the more they are influenced by religion, the greater the hatred.

There is also a connection between the degree of hatred and religion.

Obviously, there is not only a connection: it emanates from the Jewish religion. In my book “Jewish History, Jewish Religion” I show that if these laws were obeyed and internalised for hundreds of years they must be a source of hatred. Jews are justified in saying that Catholic laws and holy writings are a source of hatred against Jews. I agree that they are a source of hatred, but Jewish laws and legends much worse in my opinion must be a source of hatred.

Were you surprised that a religious Jew killed Rabin?

I predicted it. I was of the two people who predicted that a religious Jew will not assassinate but will try to assassinate Rabin. The other was Yehosohavat Harkabi, the former chief of military intelligence. I will make to you also another prediction, namely that there will be an attempt by a religious Jew to try to assassinate Netanyahu (Here Prof. Shahak erred L.W.).

I always thought that Rabin was a very good Prime Minister for the settlers. He was the personification of security per se. He did not want to dismantle settlements after the Goldstein massacre in Hebron. What´s your opinion on that?

He was more interested in symbols than reality. Everything you said is true but he also used to continiously insult the settlers. He used to say to them: you are not crucial for security. He used to say that if it`s necessary to make peace, he will accept that a Jew will require a visa to go to Gush Etzion, which is an important group of settlements near Jerusalem. The first thing I emphasised to you about messianic Jews is that they are not as much interested in reality as in redemption. Yigal Amir and people like him do not appreciate the fact that the Oslo agreement is actually the greatest Zionist victory after 1948/49. They are outraged by the mere sight of a Palestinian flag, a symbol, being flown on the Holy Land. They think in religious terms. Let me give you a Christian-Muslim example: It would have been very convenient centuries ago, when trade relations flourished between Italian cities and Islamic countries, say Venice for example, that a mosque be built in Venice or Rome for Muslim traders. Yet no mosque was built until 20th century. Similarily, Saudis still stick to the principle that no Christian church be built on Saudi territory. You see, symbols are not only important to Jews.

Do you fear the rise of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel? Do you think that this kind of fundamentalism could endanger Israel`s security in the long run?

The answer is yes. There are two possible scenarios: The first is a civil war. A civil war is possible at any point, especially if there are no outside threats. But even without outside threats I think that civil war with Messianics is quite possible. The second scenario is even worse and it´s being debated in the Hebrew press for over a year. It is the scenario of a religious putsch. I must mention here that the number of Messianics within the armed forces, including officers and soldiers, is increasing rapidly because the Messianics, not other religious Jews, are the strongest militarist people in Israel. They educate their children for dedicated army service beyond the three obligatory years. They operate military-religious colleges in which people are formed from the beginning to serve as officers or soldiers in elite units. The percentage of Messianic trainees approaching 30 per cent in a given officer course. They are excellent soldiers, very dedicated from a military point of view. The army favours them. They may be tempted to undertake a military putsch which, from their ideological point of view, is becoming more and more accepted as a possibility.

Have they already reached the higher ranks of the officer corps?

In their ranks you don´t have yet a general. Admittedly. But the history proves military putches can also be undertaken by majors and colonels. You don´t need a general.

Does the present Israeli government undertake anything to stop the influx of national religious Jews into the army?

No. But we have an movement headed by retired officers from medium ranks to establish parallel. secular colleges for pre-military training in which secular youth will be given military training to counterbalance the influx of religious conscripts.

Do you think the secular part of Israeli society is strong enough to resist the influence of the national religious people?

At the moment, yes. But I cannot vouch what will happen in eight or ten years.

In which way did the Israeli society deal with this religious right-wing phenomenon after the killing of Rabin?

They did not deal at all with this phenomenon. This is one of the greatest treasonous acts in Israeli history. They attributed the murder till this very day to the right-wing as they defined it, that is anyone beyond the right wing of the Labour party, especially to Likud, to Netanyahu. They don´t focus on the group that actually educated Yigal Amir (Rabin`s murderer L.W.), namely the National Religious Party. It was not Likud that calles for the killing of the Prime Minister, but religious groups. So by spreading the blame, Labour increased substantially the danger. In this you have a very good German parallel, namely the behaviour of the Communist Party before the rise of Nazism in 1933. Instead to concentrate on Nazism, they fought the Social Democrats. The Israeli right-wing as a whole is not to blame for Rabin´s assassination but the national messianic education and the National Religious Party is.

You belong to the most severe critics of Zionism. So then, do you like the so-called post-Zionists?

No. I am anti-Zionist pure and simple.

Aren`t the post-Zionists also anti-Zionists?

It is a vage movement. I am saying that even the first Zionist were also members of an evil movement because they actually bought land in Palestine with the intention that it will belongs only to Jews. They actually proclaimed at the very beginning of the 20th century the principle of purely Jewish labor, requiring Jewish employers to hire only Jews and no others. This is plain racism to me.

Don´t the post-Zionist call Zionist historical myths into question?

This is true also about Zionism. We have a very positive movement of the “New Historians” who question the entire discourse on Jewish history, not only the last hundred years. This is a common phenomenon to great part of Israeli society and not limited to post-Zionism. There a very much dedicated Zionists who do the same. Benny Morris for example is a dedicated Zionist who wrote books which changed history of certain periods.

According to Moshe Zimmermann, Professor of European History at the Hebrew University, classical Zionism came to an end with the assassination of Rabin and the original enemies of classical Zionism, the ethnocentric version of Zionism, took over, and these are the real post-Zionists. What do you think of his thesis?

This is news for me. He must have argued it in German and not in Hebrew. Now that I hear it from you, I disagree with it. I think classical Zionism is continuing. It has strong Jewish enemies, namely the non-messianic religious parties. One of my points in favour of Shas against national religious parties is that Shas says openly “we are opposing Zionism” because Zionism is contrary to Jewish religion in its original form. They are very firm in their opposition to Zionism. Their position is used to slander and to attack them.

Let us switch to the German-Israeli relationship. Should this kind of relationship be normal like the relationship between France and Israel or is there something special to it?

There is nothing special to it, except for those who are Holocaust survivors. For them, the relations will not be special but maybe individual. I know people who dislike German culture. I not only like it but know it quite well. Between the two states, the relationship should be normal because Nazism is fundamentally not an anti-Jewish but universal and human phenomenon. The number of human beings, including Germans, who were killed because the Nazis were in power, is far greater than the number of killed Jews. Nazism can happen everywhere and anywhere including if Messianics will rule Israel. So the best way to prevent the recurrence of Nazism in any place on earth is to have normal relations with Germany.

How far in depth, should the Holocaust keep on influencing our bilateral relationship?

The memory of the Holocaust must be kept but it is a universal memory. Actually Israeli Jewish memories of Holocaust are centered on Poland. When they want to commemorate the Holocaust most Jews go to Poland simply because out of the six million Jews who were killed three million were Polish Jews and also others were brought to Poland to be killed.

What do you think of the German debate on building a holocaust monument?

If people want to built it, they should built it. Monuments are not important, nor are flags. Symbols are not important. To worship of symbols is the first step in becoming fanatical. It´s not an important question. The important matter for me is to dissociate Nazism from being a specific German issue and from German past. Nazism is not either connected with the Jewish past. It is part of a new movement, which in fact rejects Christian Europe. I always will continue to quote the following difference: Whatever Christianity or Islam did to Judaism they respected two principles: the first is that a Jew who converts to Christianity or Islam is immediately a brother. He can became an archbishop. This is a completely different attitude from the attitude of Nazis who not only exterminated converted Jews but stipulated that a Jew cannot change. The second principle is that all the other forms anti-Semitism, except the modern one, who begun in late 19th century and from which Nazim emerged, did not strive for the extermination of Jews but for their discrimination.

In Germany, a person who is critical on Israeli politics can get into deep trouble. Is it legitimate to differentiate between the Holocaust on the one hand and the policy of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians on the other? In Germany, there are always tendencies to justify the oppression of the Palestinians by invoking Holocaust. Should this not be seperated?

I believe, like my friend Noam Chomsky, in unlimited freedom of expression. States should not make laws against opinions, including those which I hate most. I think everything should be open to criticism and if you make one exception others will follow. It is totally legitimate to criticise Israel. Secondly, the Holocaust argument goes for me into a completely opposite direction. The Holocaust was possible only because the Germans did not know about the holocaust. Or as a matter of fact, not only the Germans but most of the world did not know the truth. The Nazis tried to hide the mass murder of mental patients and so on. The moment the Catholic and the Protestant clergy knew about the Holocaust, they protested and Hitler had to retreat on this point. It means that the greater defence against Nazism against all other atrocities is the right to know and the right to speak out. Our chief interest is not the commemoration of the Holocaust but the prevention of other Holocausts. You can prevent mass killings of people who are alive. Our best weapon against such dangers is to allow freedom of criticism about everything, including Israel.

Let us switch to the Oslo agreement. Do you think that this agreement could lead to a sovereign Palestinian state?

If you ask about how it will be called, yes, it may be called a Palestinian state in the way the Transkei was called a sovereign state of Transkei because among the benefits of the Netanyahu government is that he is more slavish to United States than any Israeli Prime Minister. When Bill Clinton will have re-emerged from his scandals and decide to put a pressure on Israel and demand that we will recognise something called a Palestinian state Netanyahu would be first to agree. If the president of the United States will give Netanyahu an order, the order will be obeyed. The president of the United States values Israel as a tool of America´s policy much more that he values Palestinians or all the Arab countries put together. The reason is that Israel is strong and rich. Israel`s GDP is 16,900 US-Dollars. It is even more than Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Israel has a very powerful military. In Israel, by law, a government can begin a war without permission of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament L. W.). Israel represent itself as guardian of stability in Middle East on behalf of the West. Can Arafat guarantee the stability of Middle East? What he can guarantee is the stability in his Palestinian enclaves. Obviously, an imperial power will consider Israel more valuble. Israel is extremely important for the geopolitical influence of the United States in the region. These two facts are more important than the Jewish or Israel lobby. It is very very improbable that America will put any real pressure on Israel. Whatever will be established by Arafat (in terms of a Palestinian state L.W), it will be a Transkei (a former South African bantustan state L.W.).

Do you think that the US needs Israel for the enforcement of its imperial (hegmonic) goals in the Middle East?

Yes, because the Israeli army is prepared, if necessary, to invade Saudi Arabia in order to defend the Saudi royal family. The Israeli army would be the quickest to achieve this goal. We cannot expect either the American Congress or the German Bundestag (Lower House of German Parliament L.W.) to approve sending troops only to suppress an internal revolution in Saudi Arabia. The Golf war was possible only because Saddam Hussein conquered a U. N. member state and and did not form a puppet government after conquest. He just declared the annexation of Kuwait. He did not behave in the style of the Soviet Union or the United States when they invade other countries. Imagine that the Soviet Union in 1956 would have annexed Hungary. If an internal revolution threathening crucial imperial interest in Arab countries will break out, it´s the Israeli army which will intervene.

Do you think that Arafat and his men are just a bunch of corrupt politicians living at the expense of their people?

Yes. Obviously, Arafat was not corrupt in 1965 and it can be debated when he actually became corrupt. I would put it from the time he ruled half of Lebanon in coalition with other powers. But what you said confirms to what he is now.

If this corruption and bad government continue, could it happen that there will be another popular uprising against Arafat? Or could the Palestinian people this time, together with the PNA, rise up against Israel?

I think that a popular uprising against Arafat will come. At the beginning, it will be a quasi chaotic uprising like the first Intifada. The intifada was not directed but it spread by simple imitation. I think that the same will happen to Arafat. Arafat`s regime is much stronger and much more cleverer that our regime of secret services in the territories. It has modern intelligence equipment and computers it received from America. One thing that in my opinion prevents revolutions on a global scale is the use of the computers in intelligence. Arafat has installed a computer system that collects personal data from almost everybody. Such form of total control was unknown 30 years ago. After all, he is a Palestinian dictator. And his people, gangsters as they are, are Palestinian gangsters. They cannot be substituted even by Italian gangster from the United States. Our Shabak (Israel´s national intelligence service L.W.) was not only evil but also incedibly stupid. They think they know all about Palestinians, wheras in fact, they really don´t know. Arafat is a clever gangster. He knows his own people very well and he knows also how to rule them. He is a despot; he is an oppressor, but he is a clever despot.

Next year, Israel will turn 50. What do you wish for your country?

A de-Zionisation, the removal of Apartheid and discrimination. For many years I have been saying that Israel is an Apartheid country that discriminates against non-Jews. The first thing I wish for Israel is that the official discrimination of all non-Jews cease. I am not a utopian. I mean legal discrimination and official oppression. I think that this would be good basis for a “cold peace” in the Middle East. I don´t expect a “warm peace” in the region based on love. I wish for a “cold peace” like, let us say, exists between Greece and Macedonia. They don´t like each other but they don´t make war. The first condition for this peace is de-Zionisation of Israel. Otherwise, a succession of wars is inevitable. I am also in favour of reducing the gap between rich and poor. The gap between rich and poor in Israel proper is much greater than in Germany. The formal legal discrimination between groups of people reminds me of the causes that brought the Holocaust. The first step of the Nazis was not to exterminate or anything of that kind but firing all officials who were Jews or converted Jews. Until that moment, they were German or Prussian patriots.

As a German, I can not go along with your views about the Holocaust. For me, it was a unique crime against European Jewry. For German ears it´s very provocative.

I am a moderat pessimist and I think that Ruanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia have shown that Holocaust can happen. It is only the existence of civilized imperial powers which prevent a Holocaust. If there will be no imperial power feeling responsible for the world, Holocaust is possible again.

Professor Shahak, Thank you very much for the interview.

Foto: Palästina-Portal.

First published: MWC News and Australia.to News.

"We have a very inadequate leadership"

Interview with Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom, Jerusalem.

What do you think of Israel´s handeling of the Gazean freedom flotillas?

Pretty bad. Excessive use of force. We have known this for a long time when it comes to demonstrations by Palestinians. This time it was an excessive and inapropriate use of force against Europeans and Internationals. There was a time, seven years ago, when Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall were killed. The people today did not do anything illegal. They tried to get into Gaza. These are terrible moments in Israeli society.

Do you think the Israeli government will get away with the murder of nine Turkish citizens?

Getting away with, depends on what kind of international penalty or repercussions there will be. The worsening of relations with Turky is a major mistake in terms of Israeli priorities and wether the people behind this decision will be prosecuted. I sort of doubt it. May be finally Israelis will be held accountable for crimes on the international levels. One of the likely repercussions from the global exposure of Israel`s harsh treatment (of Gaza) may be some easing of the blockade. The United States is serious when declaring that the situation in Gaza is unacceptable. One may wonder again whether Obama is just talking or whether will be actions. We will have towait and see.

In the view of the lame US American reaction concerning the murder of nine civilians and seeing how Vice President Joe Biden during his last visit to Israel was treated, can one expect some US pressure on Israel? Biden went out of his way, declaring in Israel as a Vice President of the United States of America: “Good to be at home”. This quote was not mentioned in the US media. On one hand, Obama said that the treatment was an offence to his country; on the other hand, there was the enormous pressure by public interest groups to downplay this incident as a disagreement among friends. Taking all this into account, do you think the US will come up with a tougher approach towards the Israeli government?

I think that the political courage Obama displayed in the beginning, as he tried to change the policies of the Clinton and Bush periods, have given way to reluctance. Once again in the case of the Gaza boats, you hear a more explicit statement from the White House, but I don´t know whether it will remain consistent. Personally I am very glad that the US joined the other 188 UN members in a vote to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. It is a departure from former US policy, which was completely supportive of Israel´s nuclear policy. It is a step away from that. My feelings are that Israel`s reckless reaction to the boats should make a lot of people very nervous, as well as the fact that Israel continues to posses atomic bombs. These are poor policy by Israel in terms of responding to a non-threat in case of the boats. Just imagine the reaction if there would have been a real threat from Iran. Bibi (Netanyahu) is talking about this for 15 years. It is his motto to beat this drum. It fits into the Israeli mentality that we are the victims, that we are threatened and all this stuff. The Israeli push to impose sanctions against Iran has suffered now a blow by this overreaction to the boats.

Let us get a little bit into psychology and look at the bombing of Lebanon in 2006, the “massacre” in Gaza in 2008 and 2009, and the recent attack against the International Solidarity Movement. Why does the Israeli government react to every crisis with such a great verocity?

The idea of always using force and to be the first of using force as a last resort, has to do with the identities of those who are in charge, the group of seven who make the decisions (the so-called security cabinet L. W.). Of those seven three were military comanders: Netanyahu, Yaalon, Barak, Lieberman an Yihsai are off-the-wall: they are people to whom you don´t want to give any power. We have a very inadequate leadership.

Has the reliance on force anything to do with the holocaust trauma?

There is an abnormal amout of fear. I think of the fear that is being manufactured from above. By this fear, any anger regarding what we suffered in the holocaust is redirected from Christian Europe to the Muslim Middle East. I think this is a manipulation. But I think also that Israelis are really afraid. The Palestinian resistance, which has also taken violent forms has been a catastrophe because it hardened Israeli attitude. Israelis are thus afraid to make any change, such as to relinquish any piece of land or accord the Palestinians any geographic adventage, even if they have a bad concience.

Do you think it is a good thing to keep the holocaust trauma as a political tool Israeli society or raising kids with these horrors?

I think you don´t can ignore the holocaust.

Surely not.

But I think Israelis teach the wrong lessons. The first of these wrong lessons is that the holocaust means “never again” to the Jews. It should be never again, period.

You certainly know Yehuda Elkana´s famous essay “The necessity to forget”, published in the Israeli daily “Haaretz” in March 2, 1988. Abi Melzer just published it again in the latest edition of “Der Semit”.

Good – good, good! It is an amazing piece.

I just red it before I came here. Elkana said that the Israeli should “learn to forget”. And he continued saying that it is “the greatest threat to the future of the state of Israel”. What do you think of it?

We have so many educational challenges. Israeli schools take upon themselves the obligation of raising soldiers. The schools have produced soldiers and it failed. I was involved in the early years of Yesh Gvul (There is a limit), which supported soldiers who refused to serve in Lebanon. I had to face the problem myself serving in Lebanon. I came to the conclusion that it is the government´s job to convince its citizenry if it´s going to fight a war, that it´s a necessary war. We have to believe in the necessity of the war. When the government fails, you can´t punish a person. It´s the government´s failure to convince them. The job of an educator is to help the students make good decisions based on morality and values and not blindly follow orders.

Do you accept Elkana´s recommendation?

Programmatically it´s impossible. You can´t forget the holocoust. It is a wish, he is saying. The holocaust hangs around our neck, but educationally, it must be dealt with it properly, not allow manipulation. We have to universalize it and stop saying: We are the victim and no one else is a victim. On the way to Germany I read a newspaper. A soldiers was quoted as saying “they are lynching us”. First of all, not a single soldier was killed. They captured three soldiers, they didn´t kill them. They interviewed this captain R. in hospital. They did not give his full name. He was saying that everybody who approached us wanted to kill us. This is a very subjective notion. This is the mentalitiy of “they are all against us”. Although you are heavely armed, you board a ship illegally and then say they want to kill us. How do you imagine the other person feels?

You are still a member of the organization “Rabbis for Human Rights”?

I am the loyal opposition. Lam in it and I don´t agree with much of it.

What is the difference between this organization and the other Jewish religious authorities? Why do you need a special organization that takes care of human rights? What about the official Jewish religious establishment? Don´t they care about Palestinian human rights? Don´t they live up to the Jewish humanitarian tradition to care about the other in one´s midst?

It should be. But obviously there was a need to make a statement. We are rabbis for human rights because the rabbinical establishment was not responding to this need. In fact, what it usually does, it serves Jewish interests. You can say in a vulgar sense that the rabbis were cheerleaders. During the attack against Gaza the army rabbis brought in other rabbis to whip up the troops` spirits, to tell the troops not to be merciful, to be brutal. Literally, this has been documented and reported. I think it takes some serious redirecting of their priorities to change the message. Meanwhile, the Rabbis of Human Rights is a very small minority. There are many Israels nevertheless, who are delighted or relieved that there is such a voice.

Isn´t there any criticism of the Israeli public towards statements of incitement against the Palestinian people made by“religious” officials?

People should remember that Israel is a very fragmented society. What unifies the Israeli public is the fear of Palestinians, a certain notion of selfishness, that this is ours, they shouldn´t be here, or they shouldn´t be given something at our expense. But internally there are deep divisions. One is the division between religious and non-religious society and plenty of issues that cause anger and resentment towards rabbis such as the fact that marriage is a religious monopoly. You can only marry according to religious law, otherwise you have to go to Cypres for a civil marriage. A Rabbi of Reform Judaism is not allowed to wed couples. Such a marriage is invalid.

Is the work of the Rabbis for Human Rights confined to Israel proper or is it aimed towards the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Are Rabbis for Human Rights just the good conscience of the Israeli society?

It started as an reaction towards the violation of human rights. Rabin gave the order to break the bones of the demonstrators in 1988. The intifada was what prompted us to stand up. We were also concerned with internal social and economic injustice, which had nothing to do with Palestinians, but the organization´s fame remains linked to the mistreatment of Palestinians because everbody says he or she is against poverty. For rabbis to speak about the rights of Palestinians is unusual when everything is polarized and Judaism is seen as revolving around the protection of Jewish privilege and not about the divine spark in human beings.

Do you consider Rabbis for Human Rights a Zionist organization?

It is definitely a Zionist organization. I think I am the only rabbi who has come out of the closet and says: I am not Zionist. It does not mean anything. It is anachronistic, it´s problematic, it´s a nice idea but it cannot be applied today without bringing with it discrimination and other abuses.

Do you consider yourself a non-Zionist, or an anti-Zionist?

It depends on my mood. I relate to my Zionist past as something which was naive. I am a little bit angry with my parents who raised me as a Zionist. They know that. I look at Zionism right now as a phase in Jewish life which I hope will be relegated to past and will not continue. And believe that some time in the future, hopefully not too long, Israelis will find the notion of Zionism to be not very useful or practical or helpful in solving their problems.

But the whole edifice of the state is constructed around this ideology. There are many critics of Zionism who just say that you have to get rid of Zionism, which will make it much easier to make peace with the Palestinians. They argue that Israel has to become a normal Western democratic state and must abolish all the laws that privilege Jewish Israelis over all non-Jews. None of the serious Zionist critics deny Israel´s right to exist, what they call into question is its Zionist character. For them the “dezionization” is the prerequiste for peace and peaceful coexistence in the region. Do you agree with these critics?

I think Zionism was fade as a unifying principle in Israel. Israeli Jewish population is split in two: the Zionist population and the non-Zionists or post-Zionists. The national religious public, who we call the “knitted kippah” public, I don´t see shedding off Zionism. Zionism stands for many different things. For example, it allows for such brutalities like the invasion of Gaza. In the secular part of Israeli society I see a gradual abandonment of Zionism. The schism of society has already begun. The Zionist dream is like the Islamic notion of this land as an Islamic possession. You feel it inside your heart and you raise your children that way. But what about the state? How is he going to function? The state of the Jewish people is something that is gone, it continuously creates friction between Jews and Palestinians. I want my Judaism to be established by my education and my culture and not by a state.

Critics argue that Israel can live without Zionism. It is like the ideology of capitalism. Originally, the idea of capitalism was derived from Protestantism. It´s value system is not needed for the functioning of the Western capitalist system anymore. The system runs by itself. Israel is 62 years old, it is well established in the international system, it has a huge military juggernaut, and it is extremely powerful. Does it still need the ideological Zionist fabric?

I agree with you that Israel is viable without Zionism and it would be much better off if Jews and Palestinians in Israel would work together in partnership and not have a situation where the Palestinians, who are 20 per cent of Israeli population, always feel marginalized and disenfranchised by calling Israel a Jewish state. I think that part of what´s needed to heel Israel is to get rid of the huge military you mentioned as a sign of strength. I think it´s a sign of weakness, it´s a sign of insecurity. This was exemplified by Israel´s reaction towards the flottilla.

You are also envolved in the inter-religious dialogue. Is this a trilateral debate? Or are these just Israeli intellectuals meeting and talking to their European counterparts? I think nobody cares in Israel about inter-religious dialogue. Is this impression correct?

Basically, I agree what you are saying. It does not reflect the grass roots. Don´t forget that the overwhelming majority of religious Jews are very right-wing in their outlook. They are not interested in it. They see it (inter-religous dialogue) as a kind of betrayal of their principles anyway. People who come to the inte-rreligious dialogue from the Jewish side tend to be liberal Jews or even people who arn´t even religious. You see mainly European and American Christians and on the Muslim side mainly sufis but they don´t represent the Muslim population. They represent a kind of New age thing, which is sweet. You do not talk about a meeting of equals. The Jewish side is dominant. The activities are very marginal. The saddest thing about inter-religious dialogue is that although it has the facade of being open spiritual, it is actually something that avoids really important moral issues because it is again structuallydominated by Jews with Palestinian tokenism. You come there as a token person, not really free to speak your mind. It is not the Judaism for which we took pride for tousends of years. It is what Marc Ellis calls “Constantinian Judaism”. Real Jewish life is about bringing in Sabbath. My Jewish life today was somehow trying to correct the drift of Judaism towards the overuse of force. What a difference. Religiously, the “us” was defined to keep the Sabbath. Today, the “us” is the help we ask for to help us come back to ourselves and behave like Mensch, like people and not like barbarians. What a different Judaism is this?

What is your solution to the conflict? Should it be a Jewish state besides a Palestinian state? Should it be a bi-national state? What do you think would be the best for both peoples?

The overwhelming majority of Israelis is for the continuation of Israel as a Jewish state. In reality it is not a Jewish state at all, nither in terms of its behavior, nor in terms of the prospects of remaining Jewish under conditions of democracy. There is an equal number of Jews and Palestinians in the area Israel controls. The Jews who invest their hope in continued Jewish domination are betraying Jewish morality. I think living together in one state is a better way to approach things than the dream and attempts to create two states. A two state solution is a delusion. A stable peace would require the right of return of the refugees. That bings us into a minority. For me it would be just fine.

Mr. Milgrom, thanks for the interview.

Jeremy Milgrom is a member of “Rabbis for Human Rights” and a participant in the inter-religious dialogue in Israel. He lives in Jerusalem.

The Interview was conducted by Ludwig Watzal, Journalist, Bonn, Germany.

Foto: Sylvia Tari, Cologne.

An abbreviated version was published in counterpunch.

Quicksand: America´s pursuit of power in the Middle East

“Quicksand” is a book that subjets “America´s pursuit of power in the Middle East”, so the subtitle of this outstanding work, to a sober scrutiny. Hundred years of US involvement in that region did not bear fruit for the United States of America. On the contrary, the US is disliked by almost everybody in the region, not because of its freedom, as US president George W. Bush naively claimed, but because its double standards regarding Israel and Saudi Arabia. The author holds that the various US administrations followed doctrines that did not match with reality in the region. Wawro, therefore, wants not only to find out when the US got involved in the Middle East but also how American decision makers felt and reacted at every critical juncture of America´s advance since this involvement. The author writes that our recent efforts to transform the Middle East have gone shockingly sour.

Geoffrey Wawro is a professor for Military History and director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas. He has hosted many programs on the History Channel and taught for several years at the US Naval War College. He received his PhD from Yale university.

The book shows how US foreign policy affects almost everybody in the world. It deals with US involvement in the Middle East from the period of Woddrow Wilson presidency to the present. “Quicksand” plays out between two pols: Israel and Saudi Arabia. The first is supported at any costs for domestic reasons, the later for it´s almost inexhaustable oil resurves. “The birth of Israel and the discovery of vast pools of oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s focused American attention on the Middle East as never before, and wove the Middle East into US domestic politics. American strategy in the Middle East has been muddled and confused over the years because it has been addressed politically, not strategically.”

At first sight, the explanation for the blind support to Israel seems astonishing and appears almost as a cliché: “Every president since Wilson has succumed to the bluster of the Israel Lobby.” Far from repeating a learned cliché, Wawro provides compelling evidence and arguments throughout the book that this exactly the case. Like him before, George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball showed in their book “The Passionate Attachment. America´s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present” that the various US administrations succumed to the pressure exerted by Israeli governments and their supporters in the US. Sadly, this book is missing in the bibliography.

The book starts with US support for Zionism and it´s aim to establish a “Jewish national home” in the homeland of another people, the Palestinians. Wawro mentions president Woddrow Wilson`s uneasiness with the concept of a Jewish state and its reservations towards its establishment because his “Fourteen Points could not be squared with plans by European Zionists to take over Arab land in Palestine, and ´assimilationist` Jews in America – as in Britain and Europe – feared and resented the idea of a Jewish state anyway, for it reinforced the cliché of the ´wandering Jew` by implaying that Jews were stateless.” Wilson was lobbied by Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis and other leading Zionists who used a familiar argument, namely, “that the Jewish state would be a vital US ally.”

The influence of what John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt called the “Israel Lobby”, runs through several chapters of “Quicksand” like a red thread. Since massive Jewish immigration at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century into the United States, all US governments have supported the Zionist cause and after 1948 the state of Israel. He cites, inter alia, the controversy between Secretary of State George Marshall and President Harry S. Truman about the Zionist project, whereby the latter explained to State department officals his conundrum: “I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousends who are anyious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousends of Arabs among my constituents.”

In chapter “Oil” the author shows how persistently King Ibn Saud opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Since the 1930s, the House of Saud had been denouncing the Zionists as “marauders” and “land grabbers”, and the Americans “had never won the Saudis over to Washington´s supportive position”. Having shown restraint toward Roosevelt and Churchill, Ibn Saud let go out bitterness at the American ambassador: “If America chooses in favor of the Jews, she will have repudiated her friendship with us, and it will be proof that America is content to see the annihliation of the Arab race.”

The author thinks that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was perhaps managable before World War II, but after the war, it became “utterly unmanageable”. One reason could lay in the permanent influence pro-Israeli pressure groups exerted upon the various US administrations. President Truman had his “White House backroom boys”, John F. Kennedy had a “White House desk-officer for Israel”. The British complained about the total apathy of the Johnson administration during the Six-day war, attributing it to the influence of the Rostow brothers who were close advisers on Israeli affairs.

The State department was always considered suspicions because of the influence of the so-called Arabists. This label would describe all who are critical of Israel´s international behavior. During the George W. Bush administration, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak critizised the State department for being too friendly to the Arab states. The necons fenced Bush in and told him that Israel and the US are on the forefront in the war on terrorism and represent therefore crucial allies. The books shows how obsessed the Bush-warriors got with this view.

Apart Israel, “Qicksand” demonstrates that almost all US administrations were driven by the ideology of “Oilism”, as a small chapter of the book indicates. Both Bush administrations were filled with individuals from Big Oil. The best known of those are Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice. A clear difference between these administrations was their approach towards the State of Israel. James Baker was said critical of Israel. Recent administrations have been extremely submissive to Israel, as reflected by the respective conduct of US Vice-President Joseph Biden and his Israeli hosts. While trying to appeal to Israel´s good will, saying: “Good to be at home!”, when arriving in Israel, Vice-President Joseph Biden was met by an anouncement by the Israeli government to further increase the illegal colonisation of East Jerusalem with 1,600 housing units, a policy contrary to US declared wishes. President Obama too, was brought in line, after he started demanding a total stop of Israel settlement policy. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu made Obama look like a fool when he presented himself at the anual AIPAC convention with his arms over Nancy Pelosi´s and Harry Reid´s shoulders. Did this scene not illustrate to President Obama that the Israeli prime minister had the US Congress in his pocket?

Secretary of State James Baker demonstrated a far tougher stance when dealing with Israel. He literally dragged the government of then Prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to the peace conference in Madrid in 1991. In a phone call, he reportedley told him: “When you are ready for peace give us a call”, and gave him State´s telephone number. Under the younger Bush nothing similar has happened. The Bush senior´s approach to Iraq after the Golf war was more level-headed. He stood up against all opposition when it came to what he considered as vital US American interests. Going all the way to Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein was not for him an option. At that time, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Norman Schwarzkopf then opposed regime change in Iraq, writes the author.

Geoffrey Wawro draws particular attention to a policy paper called “A Clean Break. A new strategy for securing the realm” written by Douglas Faith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser and his wife Meyrav, as a recipie for the first Netanyahu government to get rid of Saddam Hussein and stop the so-called peace process. They argued for the use of force instead of persuation. There radical ideas were introduced into the elaboration of US foreign policy when Perle and Faith became high-ranking officials in the Bush junior administration. From the first day of this administration, regime change in Iraq became its top priority. What distinguishes the older from the younger Bush was the latter´s affiliation with the Christian Right which had allied itself with the neocons and formed the “New Right”, writes the author.

Wawro describes in the Chapters “Ajax” and “Great Civilization” the US involvement in Iran and why it has failed. His concluding observations regarding Iran are very disappionting, they could have been written by one of the many biased pundits inside the Washington beltway. “The Iranian security forces today are taking their cues from the shah and SAVAK (the secret police of the shah regime L.W.); because the shah was so gentle, he fell.”

The author then surprisingly cites “Iran´s curious animosity toward Israel” – at the time of the Shah Iran and Israel were friends – “as it makes Israeli pre-emption or massive retaliation all but inevitable”. The author does not mention the US double standard towards Israel´s huge nuclear stockpile and Israel´s refusal to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). To show how dangerous the current Iranian president Ahmadinejad is, he quotes him as having said: “Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.” Wawro is apparently unaware that this quotation is false. The Iranian president said: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", as correctly cited by the New York Times of October 30, 2005. To call for Iran to become part of the solution and not part of the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan confuses cause and effect. Not Iran created the mess and must get out of these countries but the US occupier and its other “willing executioners”.

Summarizing the book, one can come to the conclusion that Israel is not an asset but rather a liabilty for US foreign police in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, commander of CENTCOM, hinted at a hearing before Congress to a central problem US troops are facing in the region. To get out of the Middle Eastern morass and became a real “honest broker”, the US must side with the “Wretched of the Earth”, the Palestinians, and ram through a fair agreement that must, inter alia, include a complete withdrawal from all territories occupied in 1967. It must ultimately lead to a viable state, not a bantustan. Wawro demonstated to what extent the Muslim mind is occupied by the Palestininan question. Ignoring it any longer, the US would have nowhere to go in the Middle East.

“Quicksand” narrates history in a lively manner. The book is impressively written and filled with a lot of references and quotas not only from archives but also from biographies of former politicians and works of other historians. However, the analytical side leaves to be desired. The book´s findings could partly be used as a guide to get out of the Middle Eastern quicksand. But all the indications amanating from Obama show that his administration is to weak to make a U-turn in America`s Middle Eastern policy. He may be regarded a “prisoner” of an imperial power structure that allows only those people to reach the White House who will serve the Empire`s interests. If the US don´t learn wickly, quicksand may turn into quagmire. Once you get stuck in it, you are lost. “Quicksand” could be an eye-opener to the more soberly thinking US American policy makers. A transaltion of the book in all major languages is highly recommended.

First published: MWC News, and here: Australia.to News.

Keine Piraterie, sondern ein "Aggressions-" und "Kriegsakt"

Interview mit der israelischen Menschenrechtsanwältin Lynda Brayer. Die Fragen stellte Ludwig Watzal, Bonn.

Was bedeutet nach Völkerrecht die gewaltsame Beschlagnahme von Schiffen unter türkischen oder anderen Flaggen in internationalen Gewässern, die humanitäre Güter und viele internationale Aktivisten zu den eingesperrten Menschen des Gazastreifens bringen wollten? War dies Piraterie? Ein „Kriegsverbrechen“ oder ein Akt von „Staatsterrorismus“?

Es war keine Piraterie, weil Piraterie von Personen begangen wird, um zu plündern. Man kann sagen, der Grund, weshalb ein Schiff angegriffen wird, besteht darin, dessen Kostbarkeiten zu rauben. Dies wird weder unter dem Schutz, noch unter der Federführung eines Staates ausgeführt.

Nach internationalem Recht stellen ein solcher Angriff, wenn er von einem Staat ausgeführt wird, einen Aggressions- und Kriegsakt dar. Gemäß den Gesetzen, die den Beginn eines Kriegs regeln und „ius ad bellum“ (Recht zum Krieg) genannt werden, im Gegensatz zu den humanitären oder Kriegsgesetzen, die "ius in bello" (Recht im Krieg) genannt werden und das Verhalten der Kombattanten im Krieg regeln, handelt es sich in diesem Falle um einen Kriegsakt.

Der Begriff „Terrorismus“ oder „Terrorist“ ist kein Rechtsbegriff! Das bedeutet, dass es keine gesetzlichen Vorschriften oder Verbote gibt, an die jeder der Akteure – ob Staat oder Einzelperson – als Terrorist - gebunden ist! Er ist ein Produkt der "agit-prop"(Agitationspropaganda) des Westens. Ich glaube, man hat ihn zur Delegitimierung des Guerilla-Kampfes nationalen Befreiungsbewegungen erfunden. Ich meine, man benutzte ihn z. B. im Hinblick auf die kenianische MauMau-Bewegung.

Das Problem ist, dass er zu einer extra-legalen Kategorie gehört. Es ist ein "privi-lege"(privates Gesetz)-Begriff - was bedeutet, er liegt außerhalb des Gesetzes. Wenn kein Gesetz "Terrorist" oder „Terrorismus" regelt, dann ist der Gebrauch (des Begriffs) und die Definition, wonach diese Aktionen "Terrorakte" sind und die Schritte, die gegen die willkürlich so definierten "Terrorakte" unternommen werden, willkürlich.

Wenn ein Staat außerhalb des Gesetzes handelt und Aggressionsakte begeht, handelt es sich dabei um Kriegsakte. Sie als Terrorakte zu definieren, bedeutet, ihre Bedeutung abzuschwächen. Dies betrifft Staaten. Wenn ein Staat gegen Terrorismus vorgeht, ist das Einzige, was er tut, zu zeigen und zu beweisen, dass Macht Recht ist! Wenn Personen schreckliche Taten begehen, können diese Taten Piraterie oder einfach Verbrechen sein.

Das Verwischen von Unterschieden, indem man nicht-gesetzliche Begriffe einführt, ist nur ein Vorteil für denjenigen, der sie eingeführt hat – der Westen. Es ist Teil eines Mechanismus, der erfunden wird, um eine materielle, militärische und wirtschaftliche Vormachtstellung über diejenigen auszuüben, deren Eigentum und Ressourcen man plündern will!

Kann das Töten von neun türkischen Bürgern – einer von ihnen besitzt einen US-amerikanischen Pass – als Mord gelten? Eine Person wurde vier Mal in den Kopf geschossen. Wer soll dafür zur Verantwortung gezogen werden?

Dies ist nicht nur ein Mord, sondern Aktionen wie diese auf hoher See bedeuten eine Kriegserklärung. Zweifelsohne kann der Staat, der diese ausführt, vor Gericht gestellt werden, oder sie können als Eröffnungssalve zum Krieg angesehen werden. Der angegriffene Staat darf sich selbst gegen den Staat, der den Mord verübt hat, verteidigen.

Es ist allgemein in Vergessenheit geraten, dass Israel eine Art "Tradition" im Entführen von Booten in internationalen Gewässern hat. Von 1984 bis 1987 hat die israelische Marine 14 Boote auf hoher See beschlagnahmt. Welche Reaktion wäre eigentlich von der internationalen Gemeinschaft auf diese Aktionen hin zu erwarten gewesen?

Ein Teil dieses Problems ist die so genannte "internationale Gemeinschaft". Was die USA und Europa angeht – sind sie größere Kriminelle und Gangster als Israel. Der Zweite und Dritte Welt weiß dies, hat jedoch nicht genügend Macht, um sie aufzuhalten! Übrigens, sehen Sie auf die amerikanische Bilanz!

Israel behauptet, es handele in Selbstverteidigung. Ergibt diese Behauptung irgendeinen Sinn?

Keineswegs. Sie wussten, womit die Schiffe beladen waren. Sie wussten, dass sie aufgrund deren Ladung inspiziert worden waren, insbesondere um zu sehen, ob Waffen an Bord waren. Schifffrachtbriefe sind vorhanden. Die Selbstverteidigungsbehauptung ist ein beständiger Teil der israelischen Propaganda-Maschinerie und muss als solche verstanden werden! Israel benimmt sich wie der kleine Junge, der die ganze Zeit "Wolf" schreit.

Manchmal behauptet Israel, dass der Gazastreifen nicht mehr besetzt und Israel nicht für das Wohl der dort lebenden Menschen verantwortlich sei. Andererseits blockiert Israel den Gazastreifen vom Land und von der See. Es scheint so, als ob die internationale Gemeinschaft alles hinnimmt, was Israel ihr präsentiert. Sollte es hinsichtlich der Schiffsentführung eine internationale Untersuchung, wie z. B. die Goldstone-Kommission geben, die einen Bericht über ein "Massaker" veröffentlichte, das Israel an den Menschen im Gazastreifen verübt hat?

Die Israelis bleiben der Kriegführende Besatzer. Das Problem bei Ihrer Frage ist, dass Sie nicht deutlich machen, oder nicht verstehen, dass Israel keine separate Entität ist! Es ist Agent des Imperialismus und internationalen Monopols des Kapitalismus im Nahen Osten. Es ist nur hier, um deren Interessen zu vertreten. Wenn es damit beginnt, deren Interessen zu schaden, zählt kein Holocaust und kein Bibeldiskurs mehr. Dies sind Geschichten und Sprüche, um den Hauptgrund des Vorhandenseins zu verbergen, – der den Kapitalisten ermöglicht, die Ressourcen der Region zu ihrem eigenen Wohl auszubeuten. Wer ist also die "internationale Gemeinschaft"? Ich glaube, dass sie beides ist, eine falsche und sehr irreführende Missdeutung.

Frau Brayer, vielen Dank für das Interview.

Lynda Brayer ist Anwältin für Menschenrechte, die sich auf Kriegs- und Völkerrecht spezialisiert hat und die Palästinenser vertritt. Sie lebt in Haifa, Israel. E-Mail: lyndabrayer@yahoo.com.

Foto: MWC News

Übersetzung ins Deutsche: Inga Gelsdorf, Bonn.

Erstveröffentlichung in Englisch hier.

It´s not piracy, it´s an "act of aggression", and an "act of war"

Interview with the Israeli human rights lawyer Ms Lynda Brayer, Haifa, Israel.

What do the forceful seizure of ships in international waters sailing under Turkish or other flags and carrying humanitarian goods and many international activists to the blockaded people of the Gaza Strip, constitute under international law? Was it piracy? A “war crime” or an “act of state terrorism”?

It was not piracy, because piracy is carried out by private individuals for the purpose of plunder. That is to say the purpose of attacking a ship is to take away its treasure. It is not carried out under the protection nor auspices of a State.

In international law such an attack when carried out by a state is an act of aggression, and an act of war. It is an act of war according to those laws which govern the opening of war which are called the ius ad bellum, as opposed to the humanitarian laws, or laws of war, which govern the conduct of war, the ius in bello.

The term “terrorism” or “terrorist” is not a legal term! What that means is that there are no legal prescriptions or proscriptions which bind any actor – state or individual – qua terrorists! It is a production of the agit-prop of the West. I believe it was invented to delegimize the guerilla fighting for national liberation. I think it was used against the Kenyan MauMau, for instance.

The problem is that it is an extra-legal category. It is a “privi – lege” term – that is, it is outside the law. Once no law governs “terrorist” or “terrorism” then its use, and the definition of which actions are “terrorist “ actions, and the moves taken against these arbitrarily defined “terrorist” actions, are arbitrarily taken. In other words, what is created is a completely lawless situation which by definition is arbitrary.

When a state acts outside the law and commits acts of aggression these are acts of war. To define them as “terrorist” acts, means to lessen their import. This applies to states. When a state acts against terrorism, the only thing it is doing is showing and proving that Macht ist Recht! If individuals commit terrible acts, it can be piracy or simply crimes.

The blurring of distinctions by introducing non-legal terms has only benefited those who introduced it - the West. It is part of the apparatus invented to impose physical and military and economic hegemony against those whose property/resources it wants to plunder!

Can the killing of nine Turkish citizens – one of them holding an US-American passport – be considered murder? One person was shot in the head four times. Who should be held responsible?

This is not only murder – but in the high seas acts like this do constitute acts of war ad bellum. And most definitely the State committing them can be put on trial, or it can be taken as the opening salvo of war and the responding state may defend itself against the State that committed that murder.

It is commonly forgotten that Israel has a kind of „tradition“ in sea jacking boats in international waters. From 1984 to 1987 the Israeli marine forcefully captured 14 boats on the high sea. What should have been the reaction of the international community towards these acts?

Part of the problem is the so-called “international community”. In the case of the USA and Europe – they are bigger criminals and gangsters than Israel. The Second and Third Worlds know about it but have no power to stop it! After all, look at the American record!

Israel claims it acted in self-defense. Does this claim makes any sense?

Not at all. They knew what was loaded onto the ships. They knew that they were inspected – for what was loaded, and particularly to see that there were no weapons. There are bills of lading. The self-defence assertion is a constant part of the Israeli propaganda machine and must be understood as such! Israel acts like the little boy who cried “wolf” all the time.

Sometimes Israel claims that the Gaza Strip is not occupied anymore and Israel is not responsible for the well being of the people living there. On the other hand, Israel blockades the Gaza Strip from sea and land. It seems as if the international community puts up with everything Israel presents to it. Should there be an international investigation into the seajacking like the Goldstone commission, which published a report on the „massacre“ Israel committed against the Gazan people?

Israeli remains the belligerent occupier. The problem with your question is that you do not make explicit, or do not understand, that Israel is not a seperate entity! It is an agent of imperialism, international monopoly capitalism in the Middle East. It is here only to protect those interests. If it begins to damage those interests, then no amount of holocaust or bible discourse, will count. Those are narratives and discourses to hide its basic raison-d'etre – which is to permit the capitalists to plunder the resources of the region for their own benefit. So who is the “international community”? I think that is both a wrong and very misleading misnomer.

Ms Brayer, thanks for the interview.

Lynda Brayer is a human rights lawyer who specialized in the laws of war and international law in representing Palestinians. She lives in Haifa. She can be reached at lyndabrayer@yahoo.com.
First published: MWC News.
Foto: MWC News.