Israels Weg in den Faschismus // Deutsche Steuermilliarden fuer Israels Massenvernichtungswaffen

von G.Lange » Mittwoch, 12. Mai 2004




* Der Weg in den Faschismus
* Israeli minister wants Arabs expelled
* Unterstützung für Israel
* Schlag in Sharons Kontor
Gaza-Referendum der Likud-Partei
* Israelis better at manipulating media



Der Weg in den Faschismus

11.05.2004

Wie der arabische Sender Al-Jazeera am Sonntag berichtete, hat
der israelische Verkehrsminister Avigdor Lieberman endgültig
alle Zweifel über seine politische Gesinnung ausgeräumt.

In einem Interview des Radiosenders des israelischen Militärs,
Galei Tzahal, am Sonntag sagte er, daß die "Araber Israels" - die
fast 20 Prozent der Bevölkerung Israels ausmachen - des Landes
verwiesen werden sollten, wenn der Staat Palästina geschaffen
werden und die israelischen "Siedlungen" in der besetzten West
Bank und dem Gaza-Streifen "abgebaut" würden. Er lebt selbst in
der "Siedlung" Nokdim in der West Bank.

Er deutete an, daß die Anwesenheit einer großen nichtjüdischen
Minderheit die "jüdische Identität" und die "ethnische Reinheit"
Israels gefährde.

Lieberman ist Gründer der rechtsgerichteten Partei Yisrael Beiteinu,
die sich später mit weiteren ebenfalls rechten Parteien zur Partei
National Union - Yisrael Beiteinu zusammenschloß. Diese Partei
hat die Gründung eines palästinensischen Staates immer angelehnt
und sich für einen "freiwilligen Transfer" der Palästinenser nach
Jordanien ausgesprochen.

Trotz dieser Aussagen Liebermans wollte sich die israelische
Regierung unter Ministerpräsident Ariel Sharon nicht von ihm
und seinen Ansichten distanzieren.

Amira Dotan, eine Sprecherin des israelischen Außenministeriums,
sagte gegenüber Al-Jazeera, daß ethnische Säuberungen nicht "die
Politik der Regierung" seien. "Ich weiß nicht, warum er diese
Dinge gesagt hat. Er ist ein freier Mann, er hat das Recht, seine
Ansichten auszudrücken", sagte sie.

Arabische Mitglieder des israelischen Parlaments reagierten
hingegen wütend auf diese "Ansichten". So nannte Ahmad Tibi
Lieberman einen "vollwertigen Faschisten".

"Er ist nicht nur ein Faschist. Die gesamte politische Atmosphäre
in Israel bietet ein sehr gutes Umfeld für das Wachsen und Gedeihen
von Faschismus. Deshalb wird Übelkeit erregenden Erklärungen wie
jenen nicht widersprochen", sagte er.

Yossi Sarad von der Meretz-Partei beschuldigte Lieberman
"Faschisten in anderen Ländern und zu anderen Zeiten nachzuahmen".
Ein derartiger Vergleich ist bisher zwar sicherlich noch nicht
angebracht, andererseits wäre Lieberman nach derartigen Äußerungen
in anderen Demokratien sicherlich zum sofortigen Rücktritt
gezwungen gewesen, um "den Anfängen zu wehren" - auch wenn hier
kaum noch von "Anfängen" die Rede sein kann.

Tatsächlich scheint weniger Liebermans Äußerung als vielmehr die
Tatsache, daß diese nicht zu sofortigen Konsequenzen geführt hat,
ein deutliches Licht auf die derzeitige israelische Regierung zu
werfen. Allerdings haben auch schon andere mehr als fragwürdige
Handlungen Liebermans jegliche Konsequenzen vermissen lassen.

http://www.freace.de/artikel/200405/110504a.html

* * *

Israeli minister wants Arabs expelled

By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank

An Israeli cabinet minister has called for the expulsion of about
1.3 million Palestinian citizens of Israel who constitute nearly
one fifth of the state's population.

Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman said during an interview
with the Israeli army radio (Gali Tzahal) on Sunday the "Arabs of
Israel" should be expelled if a Palestinian state was established
and Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip
were dismantled.

Lieberman, a former Moldovan immigrant who arrived in Israel in
1978, suggested that the existence of a large non-Jewish minority
in Israel threatened the "Jewish identity" and "ethnic purity" of
Israel.

But his explicitly racist remarks raised no ire in the Israeli
political establishment.

Israeli officials, from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
downward, refused to condemn the remarks, suggesting a sympathy
with Lieberman's ideas.

'Free man'

Amira Dotan, a spokeswoman for the Israeli foreign ministry,
told Aljazeera.net ethnic cleansing was not "the policy of
the government".

"I do not know what made him say these things. He is a free man;
he has the right to express his views."

When reminded it was not the first time Lieberman made such
racist statements, Dotan said even government ministers had
the right to voice nonconformist views.

Asked why such provocative statements go unchallenged in a country
that claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, Dotan
evaded the subject, arguing that Sharon had promised to allocate
additional funds for Israel's Arab sector.

'Fascism'

Lieberman's remarks drew angry reactions from some of the leaders
of Israel's Arab community. Arab Knesset member Ahmad Tibi called
Lieberman a "full fledged fascist".

"He is not the only fascist. The entire political atmosphere in
Israel provides a most suitable environment for the growth and
prosperity of fascism. This is why sickening statements as such
go unchallenged."

Tibi blamed the international community, especially the United
States and Europe, for their "obscene double-standards toward
Israeli fascism".

"A few years ago, Europe moved swiftly to silence and isolate
[Austrian nationalist leader Jorg] Haidar for his alleged anti-
Jewish remarks.

"Here in Israel we have government ministers who routinely make
brazenly racist and fascist remarks about the Palestinians ...
and the EU is saying nothing and doing nothing," he said.

Growing trend

On why Israeli civil society does not condemn such anti-democratic
attitudes, Tibi said a sizeable segment of the Israeli Jewish
society had already drifted to jingoistic and religious fascism.

"Many Israeli Jews are already inured to Lieberman's way of
thinking. I expect that these fascist trends will continue
to grow." Tibi's views are corroborated by a number of peace-
oriented Israelis.

Yossi Sarid, a leader of the centre-Left Meretz Party, accused
Lieberman of "emulating fascists in other lands and other times".

"His (Lieberman's) remarks are reminiscent of other people and
other lands which ultimately led to the annihilation of millions
of Jews," said Sarid.

Another Arab member of the Israeli parliament reminded the
international community, "Arabs of Israel are probably the
most persecuted minority in the world."

"It is this fascist mentality that makes the Israeli government
destroy our homes, confiscate our land and spray our fields with
pesticides - and then they unashamedly tell the world that they
are the only democracy in the Middle East," said Talab al-Sanai.

He described Lieberman's remarks as "the epitome [of] the iceberg
of fascism in this country".

"Lieberman came from Moldova in 1978 and he is telling the
Palestinians who have been living here from antiquity that
they don't have the right to be here. Can you think of a
more brazen obscenity?"

Notorious

Lieberman's racism has been well known for many years. A few
years ago he called for the bombing of the Aswan Dam in Egypt,
the Presidential palace in Damascus and Iran's nuclear facilities.

He also called for executing Arab Knesset members Tibi and Muhammad
Baraka by a firing squad for supporting Palestinian rights and
calling for ending the Israeli occupation.

In 2002, he urged the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to carry
out "wholesale killings" of Palestinian civilians in order to force
them to flee to Jordan and other neighbouring Arab countries.

"At 8:00 am, we'll bomb the commercial centers; at noon, we'll bomb
their gas stations and at two o'clock we'll bomb the banks - Then
we keep the border crossing open," Lieberman was quoted as saying
during a cabinet session.

Upset by his remarks, Israeli opposition leader and then Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres reportedly looked at Lieberman, telling him -
"and at 6:00 pm, you'll receive an invitation to the international
Tribunal in the Hague".

Lieberman now lives at the settlement of Nikodem in the northern
West Bank, built on a piece of land, which he and other immigrants
from the former Soviet Union had seized from Palestinian villagers.

Aljazeera

Sunday 09 May 2004, 20:28 Makka Time, 17:28 GMT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FED27702-1D56-4699-
8BC1-3415D354D3B6.htm

* * *

Unterstützung für Israel

Israels Staatspräsident Moshe Katzav kritisierte die EU ob ihrer
mangelnden solidarischen Unterstützung mit Israel. Katzav forderte
in einem Gespräch mit der F.A.Z. eine schärfere Haltung und Ver-
urteilung des palästinensischen Terrors seitens der EU (F.A.Z. vom
30. April): Man darf nicht vergessen, daß wir, die Israelis, seit
dreieinhalb Jahren unter schrecklichem, brutalem Terrorismus der
Palästinenser leiden, und wir spüren hier keine europäische Soli-
darität für dieses Leid; wir können sie nicht fühlen.

Der israelische Staatspräsident, der sich auf einer "OSZE-Konferenz
zur Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus" in Berlin aufhielt, hat ver-
gessen, sich bei der Bundesregierung für die drei Dolphin-U-Boote
zu bedanken, die unmittelbar nach der Lieferung (1999 und 2000) mit
nuklearen Harpoor-Flugkörpern bestückt wurden. Katzav bleibt weiter-
hin den Dank an die deutschen Steuerzahler schuldig, die von den
Gesamtkosten dieser drei U-Boote in Höhe von 1,28 Milliarden Mark
den Löwenanteil von 1,1 Milliarden Mark übernahmen. Israels Staats-
präsident vergaß ebenfalls, sich bei Schröder und Fischer für
Panzerteile und gepanzerte Fahrzeuge im Wert von 346,4 Millionen
Mark zu bedanken: jene Panzer und Fahrzeuge, die in Gaza und im
Westjordanland Häuser von palästinensischen Familien niederschießen
und über sie Leid und Tod bringen. Jene Panzer und gepanzerten
Fahrzeuge, die die Gebäude der Autonomiebehörde nahezu völlig platt
gewalzt haben. Der in Iran geborene Katzav hat in Berlin auch ver-
gessen, der Bundesregierung den Dank Israels für die deutschen
Scharfschützengewehre der Typen SP66 und SR86 auszusprechen. Das
sind jene Scharfschützengewehre, mit denen die Regierung Scharon
unter anderem ihre Politik der "gezielten Tötung" erfolgreich durch-
führt. Moshe Katzav hätte sich in Berlin vor allem bei Bundes-
außenminister Fischer bedanken müssen, der bei jedem Raketenanschlag
Israels auf palästinensische Führer auf das legitime Recht Israels
auf Selbstverteidigung hinweist, Israel zur Besonnenheit rät, ohne
im geringsten wortwörtlich diese Morde zu verurteilen.

Dr. Behrouz Khosrozadeh, Göttingen

aus: FAZ,. v. 11. Mai. 2004

* * *

Schlag in Sharons Kontor
Gaza-Referendum der Likud-Partei

Ludwig Watzal

Die Mitglieder des Likud haben ihrem Vorsitzenden eine schallende
Ohrfeige verpasst, die recht schmerzhaft gewesen sein dürfte. Die
Radikalen in der Regierungspartei konnten ihre Anhänger mobili-
sieren. Das Argument, ein Abzug aus dem Gaza-Streifen fördere
den "Terrorismus", war für viele einleuchtend. Ob nicht eher die
Siedlungen Ursache des palästinensischen Widerstandes sind, scheint
keinem in den Sinn gekommen zu sein. Warum aber soll die Zukunft
von sechs Millionen Israelis von einigen Extremisten bestimmt
werden? Insofern war die Likud-interne Abstimmung eine Farce. Viel
sinnvoller wäre ein nationales Referendum über die Auflösung aller
Siedlungen gewesen. Nur dürfte für Ariel Sharon, den Schirmherren
des kolonialistischen Siedlungsprojektes, schon jeder Gedanke an
einen vollständigen Rückzug schizophrene Züge tragen.

Noch in der Endphase der Regierung Barak hatte er seine Siedler-
freunde aufgerufen, "jeden freien Hügel in der Westbank" zu
besetzen. Und noch vor Wochen hatte die Siedlung Netzarim für
Sharon den gleichen Stellenwert wie Tel Aviv. Ob nun aus dem Gaza-
Rückzug überhaupt etwas wird, ist auf jeden Fall wieder offen.

Sharons Niederlage trifft auch George Bush, der sich mit seiner
Parteinahme für den israelischen Premier weit aus dem Fenster
gelehnt und die eigenen nationalen Interessen mit den israelischen
in Deckung gebracht hatte. Ein Schulterschluss mit Sharon, der
die drei anderen Mitglieder des Nahostquartetts - die EU, UNO und
Russland - in beträchtliche Verlegenheit brachte. Nur der deutsche
Außenminister konnte dieser Demütigung etwas Positives abgewinnen.
Tatsächlich tendiert der politische Einfluss des Quartetts mehr
denn je gegen Null, da für Ariel Sharon nur das Weiße Haus relevant
ist.

Nichtsdestotrotz sollte man ihm raten, von seinem Siedlungskolo-
nialismus Abschied zu nehmen und sich staatsmännisch zu verhalten
wie weiland David Ben-Gurion zum Wohle Israels. Er könnte offensiv
mit dem Votum der eigenen Partei umgehen und zurücktreten - oder
sich zumindest von den extremistischen Ministern seines Kabinetts
trennen. Eine Regierung der nationalen Einheit mit der Arbeits- und
der liberalen Shinui-Partei scheint nicht ausgeschlossen. Shimon
Peres hat sich dafür schon mehrfach angebiedert. Die Arbeitspartei
als Ganzes sollte diesen Schritt allerdings genau überlegen, hat
doch das Likud-Referendum auch gezeigt, dass es bei der Rechten
nicht einmal die Bereitschaft gibt, eine Handvoll unbedeutender
Camps in einem Wüstenstreifen aufzugeben. Was würde erst geschehen,
wenn Beit El, Ofra oder Ariel in der Westbank zur Disposition
stünden? Der ideale Ort für die 7.000 Siedler des Gaza-Streifens
wäre die Negev-Wüste, die sie zum Blühen bringen und damit einen
zionistischen Mythos beleben könnten. Das müsste doch in der
israelischen Gesellschaft konsensfähig sein.

Freitag 20, v. 07.05.04

http://www.freitag.de/2004/20/04200202.php

* * *

Israelis better at manipulating media

By Dr Toine Van Teeffele

As a guide and consultant living in Bethlehem, Palestine, I have
regularly coordinated visits for groups of Westerners coming to
see Palestinian reality with their own eyes.

Almost always those visitors felt afterwards that what they saw did
not correspond with the image of Palestine they had before. Somehow
the impact and scope of occupation were never really understood
except after experiencing it first hand.

Why? Lots of causes are at play here, but perhaps none is so
important as the influence of the media. I think three main factors
have to be considered to understand the impact of the western media
on the popular image of occupied Palestine (the West Bank, East
Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip):

* The work situation and cultural background of Western
journalists working in Palestine and Israel
* The presentation of the news about the region, and
* The boundaries of the debate within the media.

A journalist's job

It is a journalist's job to collect facts and interpretations. In
the case of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, it is regrettable to
note that from the first days of the occupation in 1967 few western
journalists had the will or opportunity to live for a prolonged
time in a Palestinian town such as Ram Allah or Gaza.

The large majority of local correspondents preferred to stay in
Israel, West Jerusalem and sometimes in Arab East Jerusalem as
their base for work, limiting their direct coverage of Palestinian
affairs to brief outings to the central West Bank. They thus
developed a rather fragmentary knowledge of Palestinian society
under occupation and little understanding of the various social
and political contexts in which Palestinians tried to pursue
their lives despite the oppression.

This situation has not changed. During the second Intifada (from
September 2000) it became impossible for almost all Israelis,
including the great majority of Israeli journalists, to travel or
stay in the West Bank and Gaza. Foreign TV crews became dependent
upon Palestinian support staff who were often unable to travel
freely in the occupied territories, while international crews had
to acquire work permits.

Dangerous assignments

Moreover, it became quite dangerous to visit areas of tension,
especially after the Israeli army increasingly harassed and shot
at journalists, Palestinian and international alike. Further,
the Israeli army began to systematically close off areas to
foreigners and journalists, such as during the prolonged curfews
of the Palestinian cities in 2002-2003.

Nevertheless, despite these limiting circumstances, it still remains,
in principle, possible for foreign journalists to travel and live
in the Palestinian areas, a choice only a shrinking number has made.
So their access to the ongoing events of the Intifada and to the
Palestinian interpretations of the contexts in which the present-day
events occur, remains limited.

To take one example: Western journalists are more quickly on the
scene when a Palestinian attack against Israelis happens in the
streets of Jerusalem than when Palestinians are killed in a clash
in Hebron. Consequently, the reporting on Palestinian victims lacks
the salience, immediacy, drama and contextualisation characteristic
for the reporting of attacks on Israelis.

Apart from issues of access and presence, one also has to take into
account the cultural background of the western journalists, who are
often more familiar with modern Israeli life (including the Hebrew
language, in the case of the Israeli or Jewish journalists who
report for international media), than with the Palestinian or Arab
way of life.

Stereotypical reports

It is hard to imagine that this does not have an influence upon
the subjects and ways of reporting. On an analytic level, it is
not uncommon to see that journalists resort to well-known and
stereotypical labels such as "fanaticism", "fundamentalism",
"tribalism", and "Islam" as all-encompassing explanation schemes
for ongoing violent events on the Palestinian side, and neglect
the detailed influences of occupation, domination, history, and
local or personal context they would have better known when living
there.

It is also safe to say that journalists take interpretations of the
Israeli government and army more seriously - although not at face
value - than official or unofficial Palestinian comments.

A French Channel 2 journalist observed: "When the Palestinians
exaggerate or lie, it is apparent almost immediately. The lie
is raw and it is basic. Israel's lies are much cleverer, more
sophisticated. When an Israeli government official provides
information, it seems to come from a think tank that has decided
to offer its own brand of media 'spin'." [Palestine-Israel
Journal, Vol. 10, no. 2, pp.19-20].

The official Israeli PR is also logistically better equipped and
better staffed in terms of checking out or following up stories
than the Palestinian PR, which has only recently become more
helpful, and then primarily at the NGO level (compare the increasing
professionalism of media services such as the Jerusalem Media and
Communication Center and the Palestine Monitor).

Moreover, Arab newspapers appear only in Arabic while some major
Israeli newspapers (Jerusalem Post, Haaretz) appear in English,
thus allowing for a daily stream of Israeli-oriented reports and
analyses easily accessible through the internet.

In fact, most western journalists are more familiar with the
realities of occupation through the critical accounts of the
Israeli Haaretz journalists Amira Hass and Gideon Levi than
through accounts from the Palestinian or Arab press.

The final edit

The journalists in the field are only partially responsible for
how their accounts appear in the press or on the screen. The final,
edited accounts tend to further filter out elements that challenge
the expectations of western readers, advertisers and political
elites.

There have been several pieces of research by organisations such
as FAIR, the International Press Institute and the Electronic
Intifada about selectivity and bias in western (especially
American) media reports of violence by Israelis and Palestinians.
Palestinian victims are less (and less prominently) reported than
Israeli victims. (Compare the tendency in the western media to
report about a period of "calm" when there are no Israeli victims
while there may at the same time be scores of Palestinian victims.)

Israeli actions of violence are more often described in terms of a
neutral or routine operation of a state army and also as a response
to Palestinian violence ("retaliation" and the use of the Israeli
term "Israeli Defence Forces" or "security forces" instead of, for
instance, "Israeli army").

Palestinian violence is dramatised and looks somehow aggressive by
nature. On the other hand, the structural violence and illegitimacy
of the occupation is less emphasised in most western accounts.
Mainstream news media refer to the settlements which are part of
"greater Jerusalem" as "neighbourhoods", while - importantly - most
accounts, especially in the US, employ terms such as "disputed
territories" or "the [Palestinian] territories" rather than "the
occupied [Palestinian] territories" or "occupied Palestine" when
referring to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Such linguistic representations of the conflict steer the reader's
or viewer's attributions of blame and cause-effect relationships,
in other words their interpretations and viewpoints of the conflict.

Viewpoints

The media also provide space to more elaborate viewpoints through
their op-ed pages, background interviews, or in solicited comments
from experts, spokespersons, or the public.

What range of viewpoints is allowed for? There seem to be three
major paradigms that appear in the opinion pages or programmes of
the western media with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:

a) Israelis have the right to security and Palestinian violence
against Israel is illegitimate;

b) the conflict represents a vicious circle of violence that has
to be broken down through negotiations and mediation;

c) the conflict is essentially one between an unlawful occupation
and an occupied, unprotected people.

Most western opinion, I suspect, can be placed, with fluctuations,
within the continuum between a and b, whereas opinions on the
continuum between b and c are less available, especially in the US.

This limitation has to do with the familiar causes that in general
prevent an open democratic debate: the closeness of the mainstream
American media to political elites, the concern for the acquisition
of adverts, and the impact of a celebratory group of conservative
opinion-leaders within the prestigious media.

In the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, an influential role
in the opinion business is also played by Israeli hasbara (state
propaganda).

Camp David coverage

For instance, after the breakdown of the negotiations at Camp
David in summer 2000, and the beginning of the subsequent
Intifada, Israeli media specialists undertook a concerted effort
to disseminate a narrative which foregrounded on the one hand
Israeli generosity in the negotiations (on Jerusalem especially)
and on the other hand the supposed betrayal by Arafat who was
presented as a conspirator whipping up an armed insurrection.

Significantly, the story undermined the Palestinian narrative
in so far as that the Palestinian demands were presented as
unreasonable (rather than justified by international law) while
the reason for rebellion was considered not to be located in
the difficult circumstances of occupation but in the dictatorial
powers of one person. The same applies to the identification of
Arafat with Saddam Hussein by many opinion leaders in the media.

So the general conclusion must be that the mainstream western media,
even more so in the US, do not provide an empathetic, coherent,
insightful, factual, contextualised and detailed account of the
Palestinian narrative as rooted in the daily life under occupation
and arising out of a collective longing and striving for freedom
in a national state.

Obviously, the power of the media is such that an underdeveloped
representation of the Palestinian story influences politics.
Having international law and a worldwide consensus about the need
for a Palestinian state on one's side is not enough when the main
influential political actors and their audiences do not fully
understand one's basic narrative.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr Toine van Teeffelen received his PhD in discourse analysis
from the University of Amsterdam on the subject of images of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict in western popular literature. He
presently is an educational consultant as well as a representative
of peace movements in Palestine. His letters from Bethlehem are
distributed by, among others, the Electronic Intifada.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Monday 08 December 2003, 19:07 Makka Time, 16:07 GMT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0944B35C-4811-4F44-
88EF-F96684DF85F7.htm

http://www.palaestina-stimme.de/index.html http://www.pchrgaza.org/
http://www.arabmail.de/deutsch.html http://www.palaestinaonline.de/
http://www.alaqsaintifada.org/ http://www.palestinemonitor.org/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/palestine2000/pages/start.php
http://www.electronicintifada.net/new.html http://www.watzal.com/
http://www.freunde-palaestinas.de/ http://www.intifada.com/
http://www.ipc-ps.info/ http://www.lawsociety.org/
http://www.friedenjetzt.ch/ http://www.palis-tine.com/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/alburaq/index.php http://www.addameer.org/
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<
>> Further Informations about Iraq and Palestine:
>> GIV-Archiv: http://www.giv-archiv.de http://www.giv-seiten.de.tt
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/index.html http://giv-seiten.de
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.irak.de.cx/index.html
>> http://home.arcor.de/ge.lange/Menue/www.giv-archiv.de/index.html
>> http://soziales.freepage.de/irak/index.htm
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<

* * * * *






If you have any questions, you can contact us: admin#mofeel.net     Spam Report