Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2010

War and Empire. The American Way of Life

Der frühere US-Präsident Ronald Reagan hatte 1983 in einer Rede vor der „National Association of Evangelicals“ in Orlando, Florida, die ehemalige Sowjetunion als „evil empire“ (böses Imperium) bezeichnet. Nach der Lektüre des Buches von Paul L. Atwood können dem Leser berechtigte Zweifel darüber kommen, ob nicht mit dem „bösen Imperium“ auch die USA hätten gemeint sein können.

Die USA sind aus einem antikolonialen Aufstand gegen Großbritannien entstanden, haben sich aber im Laufe ihrer Geschichte zur größten imperialen Macht entwickelt, deren „way of life“ der Krieg sei, wie es der Autor nennt. Das imperiale Gehabe zeigt sich auch darin, dass die USA in zirka 141 Ländern Militärbasen unterhalten; die Vereinten Nationen zählen 191 Mitgliedstaaten. Die USA kontrollieren nicht nur die Weltmeere, sondern auch den Luft- und den Weltraum. Das Pentagon - das US-Verteidigungsministerium - plant in Zukunft nicht weniger als die „full-spectrum dominance“ jedes möglichen potentiellen Feindes.

Der paläokonservative Journalist und Publizist Patrick J. Buchanan beschreibt das imperiale Gehabe in seinem Beitrag „Liquidating the Empire“ wie folgt:: „While this worldwide archipelago of bases may have been necessary when we confronted a Sino-Soviet bloc spanning Eurasia from the Elbe to East China Sea, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons and driven by imperial ambition and ideological hatred of us, that is history now. It is preposterous to argue that all these bases are essential to our security. Indeed, our military presence, our endless wars, and our support of despotic regimes have made America, once the most admired of nations, almost everywhere resented and even hated.“

Paul L. Atwood, Senior Lecturer at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, macht deutlich, dass das Image, das die US-amerikanische politische Elite rhetorisch von ihrem Land zeichne, diametral den politischen Entscheidungen entgegen stünde. Nach dem patriotischen Selbstverständnis verstehen sich die US-Amerikaner als „Friedensapostel“, die nichts anderes wollten als „Kompromiss und Versöhnung“, und die ungleichen Kämpfe seinen nur Ausdruck eines nationalen Heldentums gegen das Übel in der Welt. Auch der Anspruch der US-amerikanischen Ideologie, das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung für alle universal zu verteidigen sowie die eigene Überzeugung, dass das Land „Prinzipien und Werte“ verkörpere, welche die einzige Hoffnung für eine rationale, geordnete, gerechte und friedliche Welt darstellten, nimmt jedes Kind in den USA mit der Muttermilch auf. Dagegen Atwood: „We refuse to believe that the American way of life is, and always has been, the way of war, conquest and empire.“ Schon die Eroberung des eigenen Kontinents geschah durch „aggression, extreme brutality, genocide and ´ethnic cleansing`“. Seitdem die USA nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zur mächtigsten Nation der Welt aufgestiegen seien, „haben sie Millionen abgeschlachtet (...) die überwältigende Mehrheit waren wehrlose Zivilisten“, so Atwood. Auch das „Neue Amerikanische Jahrhundert“, dass der neokonservativen Ideologie zugrunde liege, „depends on maintaining control of the critical fuel necessary to power the American economy and its massive military machine that now straddles the globe“.

Die US-Geschichte seit der Gründung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika liest sich wie eine Geschichte der Ausübung staatlicher Gewalt gegenüber denjenigen, die nicht nach der Pfeife der USA tanzen wollen. Im Kapitel „war on terror“ zeigt der Autor die intellektuellen Grundlagen des Krieges gegen den Terror und Amerikas Unterstützung desselben auf¸ dies schien in Ordnung zu sein, solange es gegen die sowjetischen Besatzer Afghanistans ging. Mit dem Einmarsch der Sowjetunion 1979 taten die USA alles, um der Sowjetunion ihr Vietnam zu bereiten, wie es der damalige Sicherheitsberater von US-Präsident Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, ausdrückte: „Now we can give the USSR its Vietnam War.“ Dazu war ihnen jedes Mittel recht. Der US-amerikanische Geheimdienst CIA rekrutierte aus allen muslimischen Ländern 50 000 „Jihadisten“, die man damals Mujahedin nannte, damit sie einen „heiligen Krieg“ gegen die „ungläubigen“ Sowjets führen sollten. Die Waffen erhielten sie über Pakistan aus den USA, inklusive der Luftabwehrraketen „Stinger“, die sich zum Alptraum der sowjetischen Hubschrauber entwickeln sollten. Was damals die gefeierten „Freiheitskämpfer“ waren, nennen heute die USA „Terroristen“. Kennen nicht auch die USA ein Widerstandsrecht gegen massive Ungerechtigkeit, wie es ihnen durch die Ideen Thomas Paines und Thomas Jeffersons in der US-amerikanischen Revolution überliefert worden ist? Haben sie dieses Recht bei ihrem Versuch, die Welt zu beherrschen, einfach nur vergessen? Vielen US-Amerikanern sei nicht bewusst, wie eng die Kooperation der USA mit den Taliban gewesen sein, bevor man sie von der Macht vertrieben habe

Die Rhetorik von Freiheit und Demokratie für Afghanistan oder den Iraq wird vom Autor ins Reich der Legenden verwiesen. Das primäre Ziel der Amerikaner sei „die Kontrolle der Chinesen und Russen“. Sofort nach dem Sturz der Taliban haben die USA Stützpunkabkommen mit Usbekistan und Kirgisien abgeschlossen, was China und Russland als einen unfreundlichen Akt angesehen haben. Den Chinesen solle der Zugang zum Erdöl verbaut werden, um sie nicht als Supermacht akzeptieren zu müssen.

Nach Meinung des Autors machten sich die US-Amerikaner etwas vor, wenn sie sich für ein „friedliebendes Volk halten, das bis zum Äußersten geht, um Gewalt zu vermeiden“. „War is the American way of life.“ Folglich habe der militärisch-industrielle Komplex ein eigennütziges Interesse an einem „permanent state of tension and preparation for war“. Ein solcher „National Security State“ verlange nach „Feinden“ und einem Mechanismus, solche immer wieder neu zu erschaffen, um weiter Aktionen im Namen der nationalen Sicherheit unternehmen zu können. „Terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States though another global war will be and the continued US armed intervention in the Muslim world shows every indication of promoting just that.“ Das Buch wird jedem Leser die Augen über die wahren Motive des letzten Imperiums öffnen.

The English review here.

Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010

Mythen des Zionismus (The Myth of Zionism)

Das spannende Buch von John Rose, Soziologe am Southwark College und an der London Metropolitan University, liegt jetzt auch in deutscher Übersetzung vor. Anstoß dazu gab ihm die unglaubliche Aussage des Ex-Ministerpräsidenten Ehud Barak, der behauptete, dass „das Lügen“ ein Wesenszug der arabischen Kultur sei. Der Autor behauptet, dass zionistische Politiker wie Barak ihre Ansprüche auf das Westjordanland hinter „religiösen Mythen“ verbergen; sie berufen sich auf „Sagen über das historische ´Land Israel`“. Die zentrale These von John Rose lautet, dass die zionistische Ideologie durch eine Anzahl von Mythen zusammengehalten werde. Der Autor ist mutig, dies zu konstatieren. Geradezu bescheiden formuliert er dagegen sein Anliegen: „Für mich war vordinglich, die Mythengebäude des Zionismus einzureißen.“ Zum Wesen der Wissenschaft gehört es, Mythen zu entzaubern. Dies kann aber bei der heutigen ideologisch aufgeheizten Debatte zu erheblichen Konsequenzen für denjenigen führen, die solche Thesen vertreten. Dies gilt insbesondere für die USA und Deutschland. Wenn die deutschsprachige Elite jemals dieses Buch lesen sollte, was nicht zu erwarten ist, werden stehen ihnen die Haare zu Berge. Nachdem Rose fast alles in Frage stellt, was der israelischen und der internationalen politischen Elite als „heilig“ gilt, zieht er folgendes Resümee für die Lösung des Nahostkonfliktes: „Der Zionismus ist das Problem, seine Beseitigung ist die Voraussetzung für Frieden im Nahen Osten und für die arabisch-jüdische Versöhnung in Palästina. Das ist die einzig mögliche Schlussfolgerung aus diesem Buch.“ Dieses Resümee können die Palästinenser bestimmt nachvollziehen, aber nur wenige in Deutschland oder den USA.

Rose teilt nicht die typisch westliche Ansicht, dass beide Auffassungen über das gleiche Land berechtigt seien: „Sie sind es nicht.“ Auch der US-Amerikaner Marc Ellis vertritt in seinem Buch „Out of the Ashes“ die These, dass der Zionismus das eigentliche Problem sei. Ellis hält den Zionismus nicht nur für eine Bedrohung für die Palästinenser, sondern auch für „die Zukunft des Judentums insgesamt“. Rose weist in diesem Zusammenhang auf den damaligen Rektor des Jüdischen Kollegs und heutigen Großrabbiner von Großbritannien, Jonathan Sacks, hin, der, weil er für Ellis Partei ergriffen hatte, „durch die starke Hand der britischen jüdisch-religiösen Orthodoxie mundtot gemacht“ worden sei.

Der Autor entzaubert alle Mythen des Zionismus. Was in den USA und Deutschland einem politischen Selbstmord gleichkommt und in Israel als staatsfeindlich angesehen wird, ist in Großbritannien scheinbar noch möglich. Rose trennt fein säuberlich die Fakten von der Fiktion und den Mythen, welche die zionistischen Repräsentanten vor der Staatsgründung und die israelischen Politiker danach gewebt haben. David Ben-Gurion, der erste Ministerpräsident Israels, sei der beste „Mythenbildner“ gewesen. Er habe biblische Terminologie benutzt, welche die Grundlage des Zionismus bilde. Heutzutage findet im Internet und auf der politischen Bühne eine intensive Debatte zwischen Apologeten und Kritikern des Zionismus statt. Rose gibt letzteren überzeugende Argumente an die Hand, welche erstere nur durch den Vorwurf des „Antisemitismus“ versuchen werden, zu „entkräften“. Dass Zionismus und Judentum sich wie Feuer und Wasser verhalten, hat Jacov M. Rabkin in seinem exzellenten Buch „A Threat From Within. A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism“ dargelegt.

Rose analysiert die jüdische Geschichte und die daraus abgeleitete Forderung auf Palästina. Er hält diesen historisch nicht für überzeugend begründet. Ebenso verhält es sich mit dem Anspruch auf das „Land Israel“, dies sei selbst ein „religiöser Mythos“. Der Mythos vom „Jüdischen Volk“ hat erst jüngst Shlomo Sand in seinem Buch „The Invention of the Jewish People“ wissenschaftlich begründet.

Der Autor legt einen bisher unbekannten Aspekt offen, und zwar den Widerstand der Bauern gegen die Enteignung ihres Landes. Nicht nur dieser Gesellschaftsschicht, sondern auch der palästinensischen Elite sei von Begin an klar gewesen, dass die Kolonisierung Palästinas zu ihren Lasten gehen würde. Dies Kolonisierung hat auch Dan Diner in seinen beiden ausgezeichneten Büchern nachgewiesen.

Bis heute wird von israelischer Seite versucht, die zionistische Landnahme Palästinas als etwas völlig anderes als eine Art der Kolonisierung darzustellen. Der Widerstandswille der Palästinenser gegen die israelische Landnahme sei bis heute ungebrochen, weil es um Gerechtigkeit und Wahrheit gehe. Der historischen Wahrheit zum Durchbruch zu verhelfen, ist ein zentrales Anliegen von John Rose. Ein beeindruckendes Werk, das vielleicht abfärben könnte auf die Eliten in Europa und den USA. Aber seine Ausführungen klingen für deutsche und US-amerikanische Ohren so unglaublich, dass ihnen nur das Argument „antisemitisch“ einfallen dürfte. Es ist zwar "intellektuell" dürftig, aber es scheint immer noch zu funktionieren. Dieses Buch sollte man unbedingt lesen.

The Second Palestinian Intifada

Der Kampf der Palästinenser um einen eigenen Staat ist nach der Spaltung zwischen Hamas und der PLO in einer Sackgasse gelandet. In diesem andauernden Kolonisierungsprozess ist es für eine Kolonialmacht von Vorteil, wenn die Kolonisierten uneins sind. Devide et impera funktioniert perfekt in Palästina. In zwei Aufständen, Intifada genannt, haben die Palästinenser vergeblich versucht, das Joch der israelischen Besetzung abzuschütteln. Insbesondere in der so genannten Al-Aqsa-Intifada haben sich die Spielregeln radikal verändert, schreibt Ramzy Baroud, ein Palästinenser der zweiten Generation, der in den USA als ausgewiesener Journalist lebt und für verschiedenen Medien schreibt; er ist auch Chefredakteur von „Palestine Chronicle“.

In der zweiten Intifada haben beide Parteien einen sehr hohen Preis bezahlt: 5.000 Palästinenser und 1.000 Israelis starben. Erstmalig haben sich zahlreiche junge Menschen als Ausdruck ihres „Widerstandes“ gegen die Besetzung freiwillig in die Luft gesprengt, dabei wurden viele unschuldige israelische Zivilisten getötet. Als eine Konsequenz begann Israel mit dem Bau einer acht Meter hohen Mauer in Ost Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Kalkilia und anderen Bevölkerungszentren. Der Rest Palästinas wurde durch den Bau eines Zaunes von Israel abgetrennt. Der Internationale Gerichtshof in Den Haag entschied in einem Urteil vom Juli 2004, dass der Verlauf der Grenzbefestigungen völkerrechtswidrig sei, da er erheblich von der Waffenstillstandslinie von 1949 abweiche, die als international anerkannte Grenze gilt. Israel ignorierte das Urteil und setzte den Bau der Sperranlagen fort.

In fünf Kapiteln beschreibt der Autor die verschieden Phasen der zweiten Intifada, beginnend mit den Gründen für deren Ausbruch. Innerhalb der palästinensischen Bevölkerung führte der Osloer Friedensprozess zu großen Frustrationen, weil dieser „Friedensprozess“ viel mit Prozess, aber wenig mit Frieden zu tun hatte. Einige Nahostexperten vertreten die Meinung, die Saat für die zweite Intifada sei mit der Vertreibung der israelischen Besatzungsarmee aus dem Südlibanon gelegt worden; im Mai 2000 ordnete Ehud Barak den überhasteten Abzug an. Hinzu kam die Enttäuschung über das so genannte „großzügigste Angebot“ von Barak in Camp David. Das Fass zum Überlaufen brachte der „Besuch“ Ariel Sharons auf dem Haram al-Sharif (Tempelberg) in Begleitung von 1 000 Polizisten. Der Aufstand wurde immer gewalttätiger, als israelische Polizisten 13 israelische Palästinenser bei einer Demonstration erschossen.

Baroud erwähnt den doppelten Standard des Westens in diesem Konflikt. Insbesondere die USA verschlössen ihre Augen vor den Gräueltaten der israelischen Armee in den besetzen Gebieten. „While the Sharon government was getting away with murder, in other places around the world war crimes were not always overlooked.“ Der Autor weist auf die Rolle Sharons als Kommandeur der berüchtigten Einheit 101 hin, die auf der angeblichen Suche nach palästinensischen „Terroristen“ in den Dörfern wehrlose Männer, Frauen und Kinder tötete. Von der „geteilten Verantwortung“ Sharons beim Massaker von Sabra und Shatilla 1982 in Beirut gar nicht zu reden, so Baroud. Unter der Sharon-Regierung wurde die zweite Intifada brutal niedergeschlagen und die Palästinensische Behörde in ihre Einzelteile zerlegt.

Der Autor erwähnt das Missmanagement, die Korruption und die schlechte Regierungsführung der palästinensischen Politiker, die ebenfalls zu Frustrationen innerhalb der Bevölkerung geführt haben. Bei der Frage des Widerstandes gegen die Besetzung vertritt Baroud eine klare Haltung. „Palestinian resistance factions must desist from targeting Israeli civilians, with or without an officially regotiated ceasefire, and regardless of the course of action chosen by Israel and its reckless government in response. This decision is imperative if the Palestinian struggle is to safeguard its historic values and uphold its moral preeminence.“ Für den Autor steht es außer Frage, dass die Palästinenser ein „legitimate right to self-defense, and the unequivocal right of riddling themselves of so lengthy and so vile an occupation“ haben. Aber es ist auch „imprudent for the occupied - who surely possesses the moral edge – to utilize the unmerited methods of the occupier“. Das Völkerrecht unterscheidet klar zwischen einer Besatzungsmacht und der Zivilbevölkerung. „If Palestinians waver from this critical line of reasoning, their historically virtuous struggle risks being diluted with moral corruption.“

Am Ende des Buches stellt der Autor Überlegungen über die „Essentials“ der Palästinenser an, die auf keinen Fall aufgegeben werden dürften. Ähnlich den Zionisten, so Baroud, müsste die palästinensische Führung ein klares Ziel vor Augen haben, und dies nicht nur in eine westliche, sondern als eine internationale Priorität verwandeln. Das Recht auf Rückkehr, zu diesem Zweck wurde die PLO gegründet, müsse der zentrale Fokus des palästinensischen Kampfes bilden. Auch die anderen „Essentials“ wie Ost-Jerusalem, Siedlungen oder der Grenzverlauf sollten als „nicht-verhandelbar“ gelten. Zu guter letzt werde die zweite Intifada allen Menschen mit Gewissen im Gedächtnis bleiben „as a fight for freedom, human rights, and justice“. Auch in der Zukunft bleibe der Volksaufstand eine Option.

Abgerundet wird das Buch durch das exzellente Vorwort von Kathleen und Bill Christison sowie durch die überzeugende Einleitung von Jennifer Loewenstein, einer US-amerikanischen Aktivistin und assoziierten Mitglieds im Middle East Studies Program der University of Wisconcin-Madison. Sie benutzen eine deutliche Sprache, um die Greueltaten der israelischen Besatzungsarmee zu beschreiben, die der palästinensischen Bevölkerung in der über 40-jährigen Besatzungsherrschaft zugefügt worden sind. Ein sehr überzeugendes Buch.

Samstag, 20. Februar 2010

The Myths of Zionism

The more one delves into the oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel the clearer the solution appears. John Rose’s book presents a realistic picture about the nature of Zionism. For him “Zionism is the problem; its removal is the precondition for peace in the Middle East. It is the precondition for Arab-Jewish reconciliation in Palestine. That is the only possible conclusion to this book.” This view is shared by other intellectuals, including Joel Kovel, Norman G. Finkelstein, Jacqueline Rose, Uri Davis and many others. Zionism is held together by a series of myths, “(a) package of false notions, which undermine its claims on the Jewish religion and Jewish history, its rationale as a response to Europe’s Anti-Semitism, and above all its justification for its aggressive and very dangerous political posturing in the land of Palestine.”

Rose states openly his goal: „My main concern has been only to demolish Zionism’s mythical history.“ From a scientific point of view, this is a foregone conclusion but from a political standpoint, such an approach can be dangerous. So-called friends of Israel around the world attack and stigmatize anybody who criticizes the brutal policy of Israeli governments as an anti-Semite. Hate campaigns are pursued against almost anybody in the West who dares to criticize Israel’s brutal actions against helpless people. Even U.N. Expert Judge Goldstone, a Jew who is an ardent Zionist, is accused of “anti-Semitism”. Israel’s President Shimon Peres and his underlings have levelled derogatory accusations against Goldstone because he just did his job in writing a report about the Israeli onslaught against the defenceless civilian population of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians, however, understand Rose’s realistic view of Zionism. For them this ideology and its practical implementation has caused the loss of their homeland, dispossession, deaths, exile and almost the total destruction of their society. The Western alliance refrains from criticizing Israel, although that State treats purported Western values with contempt.

John Rose teaches sociology at Southwark College and in the London Metropolitan University. He differentiates between facts and fiction and exposes the myths woven by the Zionists since the establishment of the State of Israel until today. For Rose, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, was Zionists’ master “myth-maker”. Ben Gurion’s belief system provides an “unparalleled insight into Zionist myth-making”. Ben-Gurion substituted Zionism as a Messianic movement for the Messiah-as-a-Person: “Hence the redemption of mankind is to be preceded by the redemption of the Jewish people, restored to their own Land.” Martin Buber and Yesha’ayahu Leibowitz, both Zionists, were appalled at the way Ben-Gurion manipulated the Jewish religion for narrow political ends, says the author. They were not the only ones appalled by Ben-Gurion’s methods, but the entire Jewish Orthodoxy that at that time viewed Zionism as heresy. The Canadian historian Yacov M. Rabkin has convincingly demonstrated in his groundbreaking book “A Threat From Within. A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism”, that Zionism is actually a negation of Judaism. He sees Judaism and Zionism as oil and water. He therefore advances all the arguments, which traditional Judaism has put forward against Zionism.

The author analyses Jewish history and the consequences for Palestine. He contends that the Jewish claim on Palestine is not well founded. The term “Eretz Israel” is also, according to him, a “religious myth”. Rose shows that from its early days, not only Palestinian farmers but also by intellectuals resisted Zionist colonisation. They and the Palestinian bourgeoisie knew already then that Zionism was to their detriment. This resistance against occupation continues because the struggle of the Palestinian people is grounded on the quest for justice and for historical truth. Rose’s central aim is to shed light on the real nature of Zionism. It is an impressive book that hopefully will affect the perception of European and American elites.

Mittwoch, 10. Februar 2010

The Second Palestinian Intifada

The Palestinian struggle towards statehood came to a dead end with Hamas seizing power in the Gaza Strip and Fatah dominating the Westbank. During an ongoing colonial process it is beneficial to the colonizer that the colonized are divided among themselves. Divide et impera works perfectly in Palestine. So far, the Palestinians have in two uprisings, termed Intifada's tried to get rid of Israeli occupation. Both Intifada's failed. The last Intifada particularly, the so-called Al-Aqsa-Intifada, changed the rules of the game, argues Ramzy Baroud, a young Palestinian of the second generation, who lives in the United States of America. He is a prolific journalist and the Editor-in-Chief of „Palestine Chronicle“.

In the second Palestinian uprising both parties paid a very high price. 5,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis died. For the first time, many young Palestinians were voluntarily blowing themselves up as an act of resistance. Israel used this situation to justify the construction of an eight-meter high wall through parts of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and other populated areas, and the rest of Palestine was fenced in. Another, undeclared, reason for these measures was to annex some fertile areas of the Western bank into Israel. In July 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the construction of the wall was a violation of international law because it deviated from the officially recognized ceasefire line of 1949. Israel, which was not subject to any sanctions, disregarded this judgment and kept on building the fence.

In five chapters the author describes the different phases of the uprising, beginning with the reasons why it broke out. There was wide spread disappointment with the so-called Oslo peace process, that remained a process but brought no justice and no peace. Some argue that the seeds of the second Intifada were sown in May 2000 when the Lebanese Hezbollah drove the Israeli occupation army out of Southern Lebanon, which it occupied for 18 long years. Frustration over the allegedly generous offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David and the provocative of the Temple Mount by Ariel Sharon, who was accompanied by a thousand policemen, were the final straw. The uprising turned even more violent when the Israeli police shot dead 13 Palestinian protesters from inside Israel.

Baroud highlights the double standard according to which the West deals with this conflict. The US particularly disregards Israeli atrocities: „While the Sharon government was getting away with murder, in other places around the world war crimes were not always overlooked.“ For example, Sharon was commanding the infamous Unit 101, which ransacked Palestinian villages for alleged „terrorists“, but instead they were killing defenseless men, women, and children. Not to speak of Sharon's „shared responsibility“ in the carnage of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982. Sharon was Israel´s Prime Minister during the second Intifada and responsible for the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority and the vandalism commited by the Israeli army in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

The author also mentions the mismanagement, corruption, and failure of good governance by Palestinian politicians that caused widespread frustrations among the Palestinian people. On the question of resistance against occupation the author is very clear: „Palestinian resistance factions must desist from targeting Israeli civilians, with or without an officially negotiated ceasefire, and regardless of the course of action chosen by Israel and its reckless government in response. This decision is imperative if the Palestinian struggle is to safeguard its historic values and uphold its moral preeminence.“ For Baroud, there is no question that the Palestinians have the „legitimate right to self-defense, and the unequivocal right of riddling themselves of so lengthy and so vile an occupation“. But it is also „imprudent for the occupied - who surely possesses the moral edge – to utilize the unmerited methods of the occupier“. International law makes a clear distinction between the occupying military forces and civilians. Baroud accordingly warns: „If Palestinians waver from this critical line of reasoning, their historically virtuous struggle risks being diluted with moral corruption.“

The author closes his interesting description of the second Intifada by hinting at essentials, which he insists the Palestinian leadership should uphold. Like the Zionists, the Palestinians must have a clear idea of their final aim, which has then to be transformed not only into a Western, but also into an international priority. The right to return (of Palestinian displaced persons), for which the PLO was founded, must be the cornerstone of the Palestinian struggle. All the other essentials like East Jerusalem, borders, and settlements ought to remain „non-negotiable“. Last but not least, the second Intifada will always be remembered by all people of conscience „as a fight for freedom, human rights, and justice“. For the future, popular resistance will always be an option, writes Baroud.

The book is topped off with an excellent foreword by Kathleen and Bill Christison and an intriguing introduction by Jennifer Loewenstein, a US-American political activist and a faculty associate in the Middle East Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Their texts use the appropriate language to describe the horrors brought upon the Palestinian people by a forty-year-old brutal Israeli occupation. A very convincing book.

Dienstag, 9. Februar 2010

Tackling America´s Toughest Questions

The war against Afghanistan is illegal, affirms Francis A. Boyle, law professor at the University of Illinios in Champaign. The author belongs to the peace camp in the United States and is one of most outspoken and prolific critics of George W. Bush´s presidency. He is one of the few defenders of the rule of law against the numerous apologists of the "law of the jungle" in the so-called war on terror.

In his newest book, Boyle provides a compilation of interviews he had accorded to alternative media, where he tackled America´s thorniest questions. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration initiated many policies that impinged on the rule of law. The author criticizes not only „the global war on terrorism“ but also US-President Bush´s massive assaults on international law, human and civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution, as well as the detention center in Guantanamo Bay and its kangaroo courts, torture scandals, „extraordinary renditions“, the attack on Iraq, spying on the American people, and the threatened war against Iran. Together with Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle tried to rally support to impeach President Bush because the „Bushists“ have turned the sacred rule of law topsy-turvy. This attempt finally failed due to lack of support of the Democartic party in Congress.

Beside interviews the book also contains articles in which Boyle clarifies his position concerning the war against Afghanistan and the concept of humanitarian intervention. In the first article the author demonstrates the illegality of the war against Afghanistan. He points out that Bush did not get a clear legal mandate for this war. He failed to get a formal declaration of war from the US Congress. The U. N. Security Council did not authorize the use of force against Afghanistan. NATO's invocation of article 5 of the Nato Treaty was totally bogus because Afghanistan did not attack the US. According to Boyle, the war against that country is „an armed aggression“ according to international law, and thus there is no „basis in law" for the war against Afghanistan.

In his second article on the question of "humanitarian intervention" the author deconstructs this allegedly charitable endeavor by the international community as a „pretext for aggression“. One of the hallmarks of the Clinton administration, so Boyle, was "its manipulation of the doctrine of ´humanitarian intervention` and of ´humanitarianism`in order to justify its illegal, aggressive, and imperialist interventions around the world.“ This doctrine, says Boyle, „is a fraud and a joke“ because it is used to intervene in and occupy poor states of the South in order „to steal their natural resources“. For the author, the US and the Nato alliance „have been behind the most of the major atrocities and catastophes in the modern world“. They constitue an „Axis of Genocide“, so Boyle. Thus „humanity bears a ´responsibility to protect` the very future existence of the world from the United States and Nato.“

The many interviews and the articles give the readers an insight into the unlawful undertakings of the United States under George W. Bush. Almost all of these illegal policies have been continued by the Obama administration. Readers should not be surprised that Obama´s policy appears as a Bush-light version. The book offers a devastating but substantiated critique of American domestic and foreign policy which affects all the countries of the world. For the European peace camp it should be a must read.

Samstag, 6. Februar 2010

The Myths of Liberal Zionism

The book deals with the deep contradictions within Israeli society, the fact that a large majority of the population supports the brutal oppression of the Palestinian people, and the role of Israeli intellectuals and their counterparts in the West, particularly in France, in justifying the ongoing colonial endeavour in Palestine and in the “Greater Middle East”. By stigmatizing an anti-racist attitude these “liberal" intellectuals try to delegitimize any criticism of atrocities the West has wrought upon the people of the East, the Muslims.

After Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, the Jewish state was designed as a Western bulwark against the „barbarians“ of the East. The „normalization of the Jews“, so the Zionist reasoning, meant going to the Orient, the East and establish their own state. “The colonized Jews now tried to free themselves by colonizing others“, writes the author. This kind of thought finds its famous expression in Ehud Barak´s characterization of Israel as a „villa in the jungle“.

According to Yitzhak Laor, a famous Israeli poet, novelist and political activist, „Liberal Zionism“ is a myth and a contradiction in terms because Israeli „liberal Zionists“ believe that millions of Palestinians can be removed from their land, denied their human rights, fenced in so-called homelands or in a “huge ghetto“ (Y. L.), and even killed in the name of the state.

The majority of Israelis see themselves als „Westerners“ and therefore part of the West. The creation of a „New Man“ which finds its expression in the „sabra“ cult, can teach much about the „ideological makeup of the new Jewish society“ that settled in Palestine, so the author. Laor describes some traits of this „New Man“: courage and sacrifice, boldness and arrogance („Israeli chutzpah“). Furthermore, the „sabra“ is described as „a victim of circumstances, or a victim of cruelty of the generation before him, or the curelty of Jewish history. In short, he was expected to be cruel, yet his cruelty was forgiven ´in advance` for he was the historical answer to the riddle of Jewish history.“ This image has hardly changed over the generations. Laor cites Israeli literature in which „the others“ are described as the “ugly ones” from the Middle East, the Mizrahim or Oriental Jews, or the Holocaust survivor who was designated as a „podgy bald man“, or as a „despicable crook“.Central to Israeli ideology was the metamorphosis of the Jew from a non-Westerner to a Westerner candidate, so Laor. Despite this transformation process which Laor views as a fantasy, Israel can't be viewed as a Western country because 60 per cent of its population are Mizrahi Jews originating from various Arab countries. Speaking of „native culture“ the real natives, the Palestinians, are not subject of debate but rather the „sabra“ as a starting point of „civilization“ allegedly connecting directly back to biblical times, so the Israelis argumentation.

According to Laor, there exists a „us/them“-relationship between Israel and Europe which has evolved in the last decade. „Israel is quite a hit in Europe.“ Israelis are living in an imaginary West, but the West sees Israelis as part of themselves. Laor calls this relationship „a late version of pieds noirs“. (The term charaterized the withe french settlers and the Arab Jews in Algieria L. W.). According to the author, this European identification with the Israelis works even better with the „Holocaust culture“ that offers the new European „a better version of his own identity vis-à-vis the colonial past and the `postcolonial` present“. Israel apparently won the hearts and minds of public opinion in the West through a special use of “tarnished colonial sentiments” as one provocative thesis of the autor has it. Israel is, according to Laor, Europe's periphery, the last outpost facing „the Barbarians". The criteria of what is „Western“ have always been based on „borders of white and/or Western Christiantity“. So, Israel is part of the West only according to „this very definition of Europe“. For Laor, it is nearly impossible to determine where Jewish Israel ends and the Arab world begins. The dividing line runs not between West and non-West, Palestinians and Jews, but traverses the Jewish people, as a people, or as a nation. Even the Jews from Europe were never made part of the Christian West even do to the nationalization the Jewish people underwent did make „us“ Westernes, so the author.

In chapter one „The Shoah belongs to us“ Laor states that Germany has provided the darkest chapter in its history to become the symbol of the new European identity: Holocaust Remembrance Day. It was invoked on January 27, 1996 by the President of Germany, Roman Herzog. „The Jewish genocide has since had a universal place in Western culture, as if this narrative had been there from the start.“ The author asks why Auschwitz was chosen as the symbol for this genocide and not Bergen-Belsen, which is at least located in Germany. Laor mentions that also the Nazis relegated the worst atrocities and horrors to an area outside the homeland, far to the East among the „inferior Slavs”. Perhaps Laor does not know that Auschwitz was in Upper Silesia which belonged to the German Reich. A new chracteristic of the „new culture of philosemitismi” is the attempt to forge a German „Judeo-Christian“ identity of which the „Rabin“ and „Ben-Gurion“- streets are the obvious signs in many German cities. I think here Laor is overstreching the argument, because Rabin and Ben-Gurion are not connected to the Holocaust, and it seems that this street-naming affair is a parochial one. This „bogus Judeo-Christian tradition does not correspond to any concrete history; it is an ideological invention invoked against Islam, in which the Jew plays the role of the imaginary other“, so Laor. For the author, this newly constructed past serves as a cover for a new Islamophobia which recalls attitudes that Europe once displayed towards Jews. The message is clear: the Muslims must modernize, they must become „like everybody else“, like Europeans. For the new Europe, the commemoration of the Jewish genocide sacralizes new Europe´s liberal-humanist tolerance of „the Other (who is like us)“ and helps to redefine „the Other (which is different from us)“ in terms of Muslim fundamentalism, writes the author. One of the main protagonists of this „ideology of exclusion“ is the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper „Ha'aretz“ he denied that the Holocaust could be put on par with the slave trade. Finkielkraut says that „the Holocaust alone can provide the definition of evil". In that interview he condemned the „ideology of anti-racism“ in the following terms: „The generous notion of the struggle against racism has been terribly transformed into a false ideology. Anti-racism will be to the 21st century what Communism was to the 20th: a source of violence.“ Finkielkraut further differenciates between Western democracies and their Holocaust remembrance, on the one hand, and the „continuers of Auschwitz“, namely non-democratic regimes, on the other. On this base the new „ideology of exclusion“ was formed, which can be used as a justification to violate „the rights of others“.

In the chapter „The Right of Return (of the colonial)“, the author brings into the picture three main representatives of the „Israeli peace camp“: Amoz Oz, David Grossmann and A. B. Yehoshua. They not only contribute to the demonisation of the Palestinian cause, but also promote Israel's wish to be part of the West and reap the benefits of the growing islamophobia in Europe. Laor reveals the hypocrisies and fantasies that make up this love-affair between „liberal Zionists“ and their European supporters. This was particularly obvious after the failure of the Camp David negotiations in July 2000, when together with Ehud Barak, then Israel´s prime minister, they put all the blame on Yassir Arafat, whereas the negotiations failed due to Barak´s intransigence. Barak´s „generous offer“ at the time was revealed as a hoax. Yet European media and politicians fell for it. „The authentic dimension of Oz´s fervor, apart from his total identification with (General) Ehud Barak, is his deep hatred toward the Palestinian desire and struggle," so Laor. Laor explains Oz´s anti-Muslim and anti-Arab images as an appeal to old Western colonial sentiments. The disdain toward Arabs and Muslims is interpreted by Laor as „the return to the colonial”. In an interview with „Ha'aretz“ from November 2005 he showed that he is “intellectually” not far from Le Pen. Laor writes about the French philosopher: „The hapless Finkielkraut (...) drowned in his own identification with Israel and said out loud what he was meant to have kept to himself. He 'felt at home' talking to the Israelis – about the Holocaust and his own history, and about Muslims and Africans, and Jews, and of course the West, the great defender of tolerance.“ The author continues: „Tragically enough, all too many Jews have taken up this dirty gauntlet, to express the old racism with a new form of invented history: 'the Judeo-Christian tradition', with one common enemy – Islam.“ The Right of Return of the Palestinians was transformed by Oz, Grossmann and Jehoshua into an existential argument which was eagerly taken up by their French counterparts like Bernard-Henri Levy and others and used in France to promote a „racist fear of immigrants“.

Beside the deconstruction of Amos Oz, Laor dedicates a special chapter to A. B. Yehoshua, a well known Israeli novelist and essayist, who is a Mizrahi Jew who (apparently) disdains his own background. Oz, Grossman and Yehoshua belong in Europa to the “good Israeli guys”. But in Europe Yehoshua is not known for his hate of the East and his Mizrahi background, writes the author. He supported all Israeli wars, but what Laor found remarkable, was the brutality of Yehoshua's language. Thus, on the war against Lebanon in July 2006, Yeshoshua said in Ha'aretz: „Finally we've got a just war, so we don't need to gnaw it too much until it becomes unjust.“ Over 1.000 Lebanese were killed and tens of thousends were made homeless. In an interview with Ha'aretz on March 18, 2004, titled „A nation that knows no bounds", before the publication of his book Mission of the Human Resource Man, the following parts (in italic) were redacted from the English version of the newspaper: „It´s possible that there will be a war with the Palestinians. (...) Because after we remove the settlements and after we stop being an occupation army, all the rules of war will be different. We will exercise our full force. We will not have to run around looking for this terrorist or that instigator – we will make use of force against an entire population. We will use total force. Because from the minute we withdrew I don´t even want to know their names, I don´t want any personal relations with them.“ Laor cites quite a bit of the interview and asks at the end: „Would it be wrong to suggest that this is a fascist text?“ The real subject of this chapter is the deep hatred of Arabs that is found among Mizrahi Jews of which Yehoshua is a famous representative. The term Mizrahi ("oriental") was incidentally created after the birth of Israel in 1948. The newly created state defined the Jews from Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Iraq etc. within an older colonial discourse as Mizrahim ("orientals") – that is, in line with the prevailing division in the Western mind: East for Islam versus West for Christianity, so Laor.

Laor delivered a broadside against the so-called liberal Zionist´s, especially A. B. Yehoshua and Amos Oz who, according to Laor, try hard to get some day the Nobel Prize in Literature. Having deconstructed Oz's work and deprived him of the mystique that surrounds him in the West, the Nobel Committee might think twice before presenting this prestigious award to him.

In lieu of a conclusion Laor quotes a scene from Hanoch Levin´s play „Those who walk in the darkness“. Levin understood that the Israeli fantasy about the West is a wet dream. This reveals itself in the following scene:

Lazan Thought: I hang around Luxembourg and Saint Germain, sit in Café de Flore and Brasserie Lipp, sleep at the Hotel Passy, will die in Neuilly, and will be buried in Père Lachaise. And you?

Ass Thought: We live in the gutter ...

Herring Thought: And will be buried in the sewer ...

Ass Thought: But dreaming of Paris.

But at the end I do object at the notion that Israel is not perceived as part of the West like Yitzhak Laor is arguing. Although Israel is not located in Europe it is culturally considered by the political elite as part of Europe in every way. It also takes part in all European sporting events (being that Israel was banned from the Asian sporting events by the Arab states). This has led to Israel virtually becoming part of Europe. In the past several years some Israeli ministers have expressed that they would like to see Israel in the EU. Not to mention that leaders of the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Italy have publicly announced their support and hope that Israel will become an EU member. Most recently Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who visited Israel in February of 2010 said that his "greatest desire" is to see Israel join the European Union. It seems that the intellectual world is totally different from the political one.

Reading the book was a real treat. A translation into German is a must. Perhaps it will bring some light into the darkness.

Yitzhak Laor, The Myths of Liberal Zionism, Verso, London 2009, p. 162, € 23,99.

Published also in: The Palestine Chronicle.