Dienstag, 30. November 2010

Jimmy Carter: Palästina. Frieden nicht Apartheid

Als das Buch des 39. US-Präsidenten Jimmy Carter auf den US-amerikanischen Büchermarkt kam, brach ein Sturm der Entrüstung los, entfacht von einer „Israellobby“ (Mearsheimer/Walt), deren Parteigänger das Bewusstsein der US-Amerikaner durch eine einseitige Berichterstattung in allen wichtigen Medien über den Nahen Osten auf Klippschulniveau halten. Um diesen Einfluss auf den US-Kongress zu verdeutlichen, kursiert in den USA ein schlechter Witz: Sollte AIPAC, dies ist die angeblich einflussreichste „Israellobby“ neben unzähligen anderen, feststellen, dass die Zehn Gebote „antisemitisch“ seien, werden die Mitglieder des US-Kongresses zu 95 Prozent einer Gesetzesvorlage zustimmen, diese zu verbieten!

Jimmy Carter ist der einzige US-Präsident, der in Bezug auf den Nahen Osten etwas Positives vorzuweisen hat. Er war der erste, der die Frage der Menschenrechte zu einem zentralen Anliegen US-amerikanischer Außenpolitik erhoben hat, wofür er sehr viel Spott von so genannten Experten und zynischen Analysten zu ertragen hatte. Der Friedensvertrag zwischen Israel und Ägypten ist sein Werk. Er war der letzte „ehrliche Makler“ zwischen den verfeindeten Kontrahenten. Alle folgenden Präsidenten spielen die Rolle des „unehrlichen Maklers“, da sie die Seite der israelischen Besatzungsmacht in diesem Konflikt vertreten. US-Präsident Barack Hussein Obama ist der tragischste von allen, weil er versucht hat, den kolonisierten Palästinensern eine Stimme zu geben. Kurzerhand wurde er von Israels Ministerpräsidenten Benyamin Netanyahu eines Besseren belehrt; er knickte ein und leistete Abbitte und Tributzahlungen in Form von Stealth-Bombern, die dazu dienen könnten, Irans Nukleareinrichtungen anzugreifen, ohne unterwegs auftanken zu müssen.

Vergleicht man die Analyse Carters mit anderen, so ist festzuhalten, dass sie, was die Ergebnisse betrifft, nicht besonders Israelkritisch ist. Der Titel des Buches trifft jedoch den Nagel auf den Kopf: Selbst vernünftige israelische Politiker pfeifen es wie Spatzen von den Dächern: Frieden und Zweistaatenlösung für Palästina oder „Apartheid“ in Israel. Es gibt andere Publikationen, die das israelische politische System bereits eindeutig als „Apartheid“ klassifiziert haben. Das jüngste ist das Buch des britischen Journalisten Ben White „Israeli Apartheid“.

Jimmy Carter hat eigentlich nur das Selbstverständliche niedergeschrieben, und dies noch mit sehr viel Empathie für Israel, gleichwohl wurde er von der „Israellobby“ fast gekreuzigt, weil er die Verantwortung für den Konflikt nicht gleichmäßig auf beide Seiten verteilt habe. Dies ist kein „Argument“, sondern eine politische Unverschämtheit. Die israelische Besatzungsmacht - durch ihre völkerrechtswidrige Besetzung des palästinensischen Heimatlandes - ist diejenige, die seit 43 Jahren die Existenzgrundlagen eines Volkes, das seit tausenden von Jahren in dieser Region lebt, zerstört. Das Buch verdient eine große Verbreitung, ganz im Gegensatz zu Bushs Pamphlet über seine Menschenverachtende Kriegspolitik gegen die Völker Afghanistans und Iraks.

Erschienen im Melzer Verlag.

Mittwoch, 24. November 2010

President Obama: the appeaser

What happened to the only “hyper power” as the former French FM Hubert Vedrine once called the United States of America under the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama? In Roman times, the colonies had to pay tribute to the Roman emperor. Today, it is the other way around. A US client state, called Israel, asks the US empire to pay tribute, some call it bribe, for a three month extension of a so-called settlement freeze in Israel`s ongoing colonization process of Palestinian land. Obama makes not only a fool of himself but also shows where the center of real power rests. But this kind of charade has been going on for over 62 years, with total complicity of the US. George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball have documented in their book “The Passionate Attachment” that the US has been compromised every time over the supposed interest of Israel vs. those of the US. The killing of 34 crew members of the USS Liberty during the 1967 war by the Israeli air force was never investigated by the US. This imbalance of interest to the disadvantage of the US continues to the present day, and it gets worse.

Under the Obama presidency, this circus reached its peak. The US president groveled before Benjamin Netanyahu and pleaded desperately for a three-month “settlement freeze”. Obama went out of his way. He did not only offer to deliver stealth bombers worth three billion US-dollars to Israel but also promised to veto all upcoming UN Security Council resolutions which might be critical of Israel’s aggressive policy, if Israel would just delay its illegal settlement project for another three month period – East Jerusalem not included. Besides this self-abandonment of the Obama administration, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu demands even more: he asks for the release of the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who serves in the U.S. a life sentence for betrayal of secrets to Israel. What kind of chutzpah is that? But Obama appears not only desperate but already so weak that he might succumb to this impudence, too. Not even Bill Clinton gave in to such a political blackmail.

Does Obama really think that such an act of self-denial will stop Netanyahu from humiliating the US even further? Vice President Joseph Biden – not to speak of Congress members - has already demonstrated that he is an obedient servant of the Israel Lobby. Finally, Netanyahu will accept Obama´s tribute graciously and magnanimously. Perhaps Obama´s self-humiliation serves even a political purpose? Did not the princes of darkness advise the Obama administration to attack Iran in order to win a second term? Does Obama promise Israel stealth bombers so it could attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? These warplanes do not have to be refueled on their mission to Iran. Now, the veto guarantee of any resolution by the UN Security Council critical of Israel makes sense. Obama is here playing a devilish game. Has the American administration already forgotten what General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen had said about the connection between America’s problems in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s continued occupation and mistreatment of the Palestinian people? What will happen to the American forces if the US turns Israel loose against Iran?

A three month freeze of settlement construction is a joke. It does not mean anything to the Israeli government. After this period colonization of occupied land will continue unabated. What about “president” Abbas and his cronies? They are tragic figures, too, but through their own fault. Even if they would proclaim a Palestinian state, the US will veto it and Western allied states will follow suit. When the Palestinians enter into negotiations with Israel they will achieve nothing. A colonial occupier has never made voluntarily concessions to the colonized. Have the “Wretched of the Earth” forgotten what Frantz Fanon wrote some 40 years ago? On the Palestinian stage they just play the second act of “Black Skin, White Masks”; this time the ridiculous actors are Palestinians. Do they never wake up? Don´t they have some self esteem? The Palestinians can´t get their freedom in a sleeping coach.

First published here and here.

Dienstag, 23. November 2010

Ben White, Israeli Apartheid. A Beginner´s Guide

The current Israeli government supports actively a defamation campaign against the so-called delegitimizers of the State of Israel, namely those who criticize Israel´s behavior as an occupying power and it´s constant violation of human rights and international law. The Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery named in his article “The Protocols of the Elders of Anti-Zion” the real “conspirators”: Israel´s minister of foreign affairs, the minister of defense, and the minister for domestic affairs, all Israeli citizens. Through their political decisions they effectively “delegitimize” Israel´s status in the international community.

At this point, the book “Israeli Apartheid” comes into play. Ben White, a British journalist and writer specializing in Palestine and Israel, sheds some more light on the alleged comparison between the South African Model of Apartheid with the State of Israel. This equation is the most fiercely resisted by the Israeli government. Israeli leaders consider such “delegitimizers” as irrelevant because they represent politicians of a society which have not only many political problems, but also psychological ones. Yet a society which is armed to the teeth with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and the best US made conventional weaponry (Israel), which sees itself as the “victim”, has a real problem.

Ben White, and John Dugard in his foreword, emphasize that Israel is not South Africa. They acknowledge major differences as well as similarities. That is why White designates it “Israeli Apartheid”, i. e. an Israeli sui generis “Apartheid”, so to speak. In Israel there has never been the sort of petty Apartheid as was practiced in South Africa, where “blacks” could not sit on the same benches as “whites”, or use the same toilets or buses. In Israel, Palestinians and Jews use the same buses, beaches, clinics, cafes, and soccer fields, and attend the same universities. The British journalist Jonathan Cook completely agrees with White, but adds one significant point overlooked by White: “In one instance (“Israeli Apartheid” L. W.) is explicit in this petty way — and this is when Jews and Palestinians enter and leave the country through the border crossings and through Ben Gurion international airport. Here the façade is removed and the different status of citizenship enjoyed by Jews and Palestinians is fully on show.”

White mentions the very close and intense relationship between Israel and white racist South Africa. John Dugard, the UN Human Rights Rapporteur and South African professor and apartheid expert, said that “Israel´s laws and practices in the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories L. W.) certainly resemble aspects of apartheid.” Neither Dugard nor White equates Israel with South Africa. One major difference is the role of a white minority over a sizable black majority. He hints at another major difference: “While in apartheid South Africa, the settlers `exploited` the ´ labor power` of the dispossessed natives, in the case of Israel, the native population was to be eliminated; exterminated or expelled rather than exploited. It could be said that Zionism has been worse for the indigenous population than apartheid was in South Africa – Israel needs the land, but without people.” The real aim of labor Zionism is that it aimed at “segregating” Jews from Arabs, and ultimately driving it away, but certainly not “exterminating” it.

The book is divided into three parts: the first one focuses on the state of Israel and the Palestinian catastrophe which is called “al-Nakbah”, the second one centers around “Israeli Apartheid”, and the third tends towards peace or opposition to “Israeli Apartheid”. The book closes with a very useful section containing frequently asked questions, a glossary, and an “Israeli Apartheid” Timeline.

We shall not focus on the first chapter because the history of the conflict is well known. The second chapter is more interesting because Israel regards and defines itself as a state of people the majority of which is not living within its borders. This chapter describes how “Israeli Apartheid” has been preserved for over 60 years in Israel proper and the OPT. According to White, Israel is not a state of all its citizens in sense Great Britain, France or the USA, but rather a state for “some” of its citizens. “Israel is in many respects admirably democratic”, yet there is a fundamental contradiction at its core. This contradiction between “Jewish and democratic” is revealed by the distinction made in Israeli law between citizenship and nationality. White writes that all Israeli citizens (Citizenship= “ezra`hut”) posses in theory equal rights. But only its Jewish citizens have rights as nationals (Nationality= “le´um”). “The whole purpose of political Zionism is a state of the Jewish nation”, writes White. And a court ruling in 1970 declared that there “is no Israeli nation that exists separately from a Jewish nation”, referring to world-wide Jewry. According to the author, a “Jewish democracy”, as Israel describes itself, is thus a contradiction in terms.

There are two major laws which define the boundaries of discrimination: the Absentee Property Law and the Law of Return. The latter is designated as Israel´s one of its Basic Laws. Basic Laws serve in Israel as a substitute for a constitution. The Law of Return declares the state as the “national home for all Jewish people the world over”. The implication of this law is that all Jews everywhere can become or are regarded as potential Israeli citizens by right. Almost as important is the Absentee Property Law of 1950 which declared land to be “abandoned” if its owners or tenants were absent in the period between November 29, 1947 and May 15, 1948, even for one day from areas under the control of Jewish armed forces. This affected all Palestinians who fled or were driven out by force by the Jewish militias or later by the Israeli army, including those who fled to areas that were later annexed to Israel. This latter group is designated in Israeli legal parlance as “Present Absentees”. In 1953, the Israeli parliament passed the Land Acquisition Law that confirmed the government´s title to the land classified as “absentee” land, writes White. To control the remaining Palestinians in Israel and provide justification for land confiscation, the Israeli government enacted “the Defense (Emergency) Regulations” law that imposed martial law until 1966 over 85 per cent of the Palestinians who remained under Israeli jurisdiction.

According to White, “The legal infrastructure of Israeli apartheid is more sophisticated and complicated than that of apartheid South Africa.” The author mentions the important role played by “National Institutions” in Israel and the key legal distinction between “Jews” and “non-Jews” in Israel that “is rarely explicitly stated in the text of Knesset legislation”. Instead, a “two-tier structure” exists that “has preserved the veil of ambiguity over Israel apartheid legislation for over half a century”. The first tier is composed by Zionist institutions – the Jewish National Fund (JNF), the World Zionist Organization (WZO) and the Jewish Agency (JA) – which all exist for the explicit benefit of Jews. The second tier is the way in which these institutions are “incorporated into the body of the laws of the State of Israel, and in particular, the body of strategic legislation governing land tenure”. The author has demonstrates that these organizations have assigned responsibilities and authority normally reserved for the government.

The land ownership laws make life for the Palestinians in Israel proper very hard. They can´t not only not buy land but they also get hardly any building permits, which causes Palestinians to live in very crowded space which farces many to emigrate. As a case in point stands the town of Nazareth in the Galilee: In 1948, 15 000 people were living in the town, today the number rose to 60 000 within the city limits. On a hill overlooking Nazareth, the “sun town” Nazareth Illit was established for Israeli Jews. Not only do Israeli Palestinians live “as second-class citizens in terms of land ownership and development budgets” but they are also considered “to be a danger” to Israeli society. Palestinians are referred to as the “demographic threat”. White hints at another curiosity: there are even Israeli Palestinians living a “legal invisibility”: their dwellings are deemed “invisible”; these are unrecognized villages and “present absentees”. The author sums up his analyses with the following proposition: “The open racism faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel is simply a result of the central contradiction inherent in the idea of a `Jewish democratic` state.”

The occupation regime manifests itself through massive and enduring violations of human rights and international law. As for specifics, the author mentions the settlements, land theft, the “bypass roads” that may only be used by Israelis, the checkpoints that dot the entire OPT, general closures of the OPT from the outside world, the “Separation Wall” determined as illegal by the International Court of Justice, Israeli unilateral control of ground-water resources, administrative detention of thousands of Palestinians, systemic maltreatment and torture, a policy of house demolitions, the occupation of East Jerusalem, the extreme fragmentation of the OPT and general military brutality. The author regards all of these measures as “part of a systematic policy to consolidate and enforce Israeli apartheid in the territories”.

The last of White´s book provides an overview of local and international forces that resist and oppose “Israeli Apartheid”. He cannot imagine a future based on injustice and domination and calls therefore for “dismantling Israeli apartheid and guaranteeing the collective and individual rights of all the peoples of Palestine/Israel”. For him, the biggest obstacle to a just peace is the “persisting Zionist mindset”. Even the most “liberal” Israeli politicians have, in his view, maintained and strengthened this oppressive system, “ensuring that the Palestinian people remain scattered, denationalized and dispossessed”.

Ben White is not as outspoken as Uri Davis who has written the book “Apartheid Israel” in which he challenged the Zionist ideology head-on. Nonetheless, White´s book gives a thorough analysis of the discriminatory structure of Israel´s political system, which is hardly acknowledged in the West, or which Western political elites don´t want to acknowledge, let alone talk about. The author highlights painful issues which must be addressed by Israeli society in order to lead the country into the future of a democratic state for all its inhabitants.

First published here and here.

Montag, 15. November 2010

A swansong of Obama´s Presidency

The mid-term elections in November were like a doomsday for Obama - the coffin nail of his presidency. President Obama started out with good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. In terms of foreign policy he failed in every respect. Perhaps it was not his fault, because he is a “prisoner” not only of the Military-Industrial-Complex but is also haunted by the “Israel Lobby” and by radical and extremist elements of the neoconservative right and Christian fundamentalists, the so-called Armageddon Christians. Tragically, he looks like the former US-President Jimmy Carter when he was in office –the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance. Although Carter lost out to Ronald Reagan, he gained an unimaginable reputation in the following years. Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize at the height of George W. Bush´s irrational “war on terror”.

Why is President Obama a tragic figure? The simple answer is he is not White. The defamation of Obama by the Tea-party movement, a racist WASP middle-class undertaking and by other right-wing “intellectuals” and “think-tanks” and the forces of darkness, such as the Becks and their ilk, will bring him down in the remaining two years. He won't achieve anything any more. His only achievement could be to avoid an attack against Iran.

No US President has ever been so humiliated by an Israeli Prime Minster as Obama has. The tail-wagging of the dog was never more obvious as under the Biden/Obama presidency. A US Vice-President who has worked throughout his senatorial tenure for Israel's interests and who declared at his last Israel visit, “good, to be at home”, after which he was slapped on the face by Netanyahu, might perhaps serve the wrong country. Biden is the one, who despite his constant humiliation by the Israeli government, argues that the US and Israeli interests are identical. Or in his own words: “There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.” Does he really mean what he says? His confusion and ignorance is reflected by his statement to Charlie Rose, in which he credited Ehud Barak for pulling out the Israeli occupying forces from Gaza in 2005, an event that actually happened under Ariel Sharon, the then Prime Minister of Israel.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were not the only to have argued that Israel is a liability to US foreign policy interests. George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball in their book “The Passionate Attachment” did it more thoroughly and subtly. The Balls demonstrate in their excellent book that the US succumbed to Israeli pressure from the start of their bilateral relationship. Why should the Biden/Obama presidency be different? When General David Petraeus warned that Israel´s occupation of Palestine did endanger the life of US troops in their neo-colonialist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, his warning was immediately overridden by the “Israel Lobby”. Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullan had to backtrack.

Barack Obama's nice speeches to the Muslim world in Cairo and Jakarta were not followed by deeds. The war against Islam and the Muslim world continues unabated. There is even some crazy advice from two US-American extremists who wrote that Obama should attack Iran in order to save his presidency. Perhaps this could work but for what political prize? These people and the neoconservative “princes of darkness” always wanted to create chaos in order to rise like an American-Israel phoenix from the Ashes. Michael Ledeen, one of them, talks about “creative destruction” as a fundamental American value.

“Dear Mr. President”, if you want to bring the American empire down follow their advice. If you want to gain a second term, indict Bush and Cheney and the ilk for not only committing crimes against humanity but also for violating the US constitution. Pull out the US occupying forces from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and cut the enormous financial support for Israel´s continued occupation of Palestinian land. If you are not able to do this, just step down in order to save your face and to work hard for the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize which was awarded to you in positive anticipation.

First published here and here.

Mittwoch, 10. November 2010

Bush´s Decision Points: a book of fairytales

Die Weltöffentlichkeit schien nicht gerade auf die Memoiren des 43. US-Präsidenten George W. Bush gewartet zu haben. So wurde die Erwartungshaltung auch nicht enttäuscht. Diese Erinnerungen sind das Papier nicht Wert, auf dem sie gedruckt worden sind. Denn was Bush dort zum Besten gibt, ist nur ein kleiner Ausschnitt der politischen Realität seiner Präsidentschaft. So wie seine achtjährige Regierungszeit von ideologischen Zerrbildern bestimmt war, so sollen seine Erinnerungen diese jetzt weißwaschen. So simpel sein Weltbild ist, so einfach sind auch seine Ausführungen. Dieser Präsident, der die USA in zwei Kriege geführt hat und über die überfallenen Länder Elend, Chaos, Tod und Verderben gebracht hat, ist sich keiner Fehler bewusst. Nur seine Enttäuschung ist gelieben, dass man im Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden hat. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn´t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

Die Folter von angeblich Verdächtigen durch „waterboarding“ und anderer Grausamkeiten in den Kerkern in Irak und Afghanistan war nach Bush „damn right“. Auch sein Vize-Präsident Dick Cheney hatte sich schon vor Monaten öffentlich als ein starker Befürworter dieser Foltermethode geoutet.“I was a big supporter of waterboarding“, so Cheney auf ABC News im Februar 2010. Eine Anklage nach Sektion 2340 A des US-amerikanischen Strafgesetzbuches wäre längst fällig gewesen. Nach Bushs Lesart ist das Gefangenenlager auf Kuba eine Art Fünf-Sterne-Wellness-Hotel. Wenn es dort so erholsam für die Gefangenen ist, warum machen Bush und Cheney nicht einmal dort eine Woche auf Kosten der US-Regierung Erholungsurlaub, inklusive „waterboarding“ versteht sich? Da das simulierte Ertrinken nach Bush „keine Dauerschäden“ hinterlasse und sehr „effektiv“ sei, sollte diese Methode doch in den US-amerikanischen „Verhörkanon“ aufgenommen werden.

Bush präsentiert seine Sicht der Dinge selbstgerecht. Das Problem ist jedoch, dass die Fakten ihnen im Wege stehen. Er betreibt massiv Legendenbildung, damit spätere Historikergenerationen seine verheerende Präsidentschaft in einem besseren Licht erscheinen lassen können. Dass 9/11 seiner Präsidentschaft einen „Sinn“ gegeben hat, ist nicht zu bezweifeln. Über seine apokalyptischen und transzendenten Eingebungen, die seine Entscheidungen mitbestimmt haben, schweigt er; auch über den lange vor 9/11 geplanten Überfall auf den Irak. Was Bushs Irak-Überfall für das Land und die Menschen bedeutet, kann er in dem Buch „Erasing Iraq“ des australischen Journalisten Michael Ottermann nachlesen.

Wie er denn die völlige Verwüstung des Irak zu einer „Erfolgsgeschichte“ erklärt. Bushs Memoiren belegen einen Realitätsverlust, den auch schon seine Präsidentschaft ausgezeichnet hatte. Dass Bush den deutschen Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder quasi als Lügner hinstellt, weil er ihn angeblich getäuscht habe, und sich nicht an dem völkerrechtswidrigen Überfall auf den Irak beteiligt hat, zeugt von Bushs einfach gesticktem Weltbild. Der Alt-Kanzler hat Bushs Version umgehend als unwahr zurückgewiesen. Selbst wenn Schröder Ende Januar 2002 im Weißen Haus Bush indirekt eine Zusage für den „cakewalk“ gegeben haben sollte, so stellte sich schon im Laufe des Jahres 2002 immer deutlicher heraus, dass alle US-amerikanischen Begründungen für einen Überfall konstruiert worden waren. Im Gegensatz zum Ex-Kanzler überhäuft Bush seinen „Pudel“, den britischen Ex-Premier Tony Blair, mit Nettigkeiten.

Bush schreibt auch, dass er dem damaligen israelischen Ministerpräsidenten Ehud Olmert kein grünes Licht zur Bombardierung einer angeblichen syrischen Nuklearanlage gegeben habe, aber Olmert habe getan, was er für die Sicherheit Israel tun musste. Bushs Nichtzustimmung hatte keinerlei Folgen für Israel. Welche Schlüsse könnte eine israelische Regierung aus dieser Haltung in Bezug auf eine mögliche Attacke gegen Irans Atomindustrie ziehen?

Bush lässt die Leserinnen und Leser auch an viel Persönlichem teilhaben, was ihn sympathisch macht. Auch wie er mit seinen Schwächen und Fehlern umgeht, könnte vermuten lassen, dass er auch bei ernsten Dingen eine gewisse Nonchalance an den Tag gelegt hat, davon ausgenommen selbstverständlich die 9/11-Anschläge. Memoiren bringen es mit sich, dass sie ein geschöntes Bild einer Präsidentschaft der Nachwelt vermitteln sollen, und davon bietet das Bush-Buch eine große Anzahl. Ein wertloses Buch, dass aber viel über einen irrational handelten Präsidenten aussagt. Dass viele US-Amerikaner auch noch 35 $ für diese Fairytales ausgeben, ist das Bemerkenswerteste, aber überraschend ist es wirklich nicht. Von einer Übersetzung in andere Sprachen ist abzuraten, weil man diese konstruierte "Wahrheit" nicht unbedingt wissen braucht.