April 30, 2003
A Letter from Saddam Hussein to the Iraqi People and the Arab Nation

Kleiner Scherz in den Mai...?

Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI Special Dispatch - 30. April 2003

The London Arabic-language daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, known for its ideological
affinity with the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, published a
letter, allegedly from Saddam addressed to the Iraqi people and the Arab
nation on the occasion of his birthday, April 28. According to the paper,
"sources close to Saddam confirmed the authenticity of his handwriting and
signature and noted that the conditions of his hiding place do not currently
permit more than a written letter, for security reasons." The paper also
published a picture of the first lines of the letter, and of Saddam
Hussein's signature on it. In the letter Saddam calls upon the Iraqi people
to set aside the differences between Shiites and Sunnis and concentrate on
'fighting the occupation'. He claims that the defeat was caused by betrayal
and calls for boycotting the American administration in Iraq. Following is
the letter in its entirety: 1

In the name of Allah,
the Compassionate, the Merciful:
'Indeed, [before the battle began] they swore an oath to Allah that they
would not turn back in flight, and an oath to Allah must needs be answered
for2

Iraq, April 28, 2003
"From Saddam Hussein to the Great Iraqi People, and the Sons of the Arab and
Islamic Nation, and men of honor everywhere: Peace be upon you, and Allah's
mercy and blessings."

'This Is No Victory As Long as There is Resistance In Your Hearts'

"Just as Hulagu entered Baghdad, so did the criminal Bush enter Baghdad,
with the help of [traitor from within] 'Alqami3 - indeed, even more than one
'Alqami."

"They did not vanquish you, you who refuse to accept occupation and
humiliation, and you, who have Arabism and Islam in your hearts and minds,
[they did not defeat you] except through treachery."

"By Allah, this is no victory, as long as there is resistance in your
hearts."

"What we used to say has now become fact. We do not live in peace and
security as long as the monstrous Zionist entity is on our Arab land, and
therefore there should be no split in the unity of Arab struggle."

"Oh sons of our great people, rise up against the occupier and do not put
your trust in those who speak of Sunnis and Shiites, because the only
problem that the homeland, your great Iraq, is experiencing now is
occupation."

"There are no priorities [now] other than the expulsion of the cowardly,
murderous infidel occupier. No honorable hand would be extended to shake
his, except that of traitors and collaborators."

"I say to you that all the countries surrounding you are against your
resistance - but Allah is with you, because you are fighting disbelief and
defending your rights."

'The traitors have allowed themselves to proclaim their treachery, although
this is a shameful thing. You should now proclaim your rejection of the
occupier for the sake of the great Iraq and the nation, and for Islam and
humanity."

"Iraq shall triumph, and with it the sons of the nation and men of honor. We
shall restore the archeological artifacts they stole, and we shall rebuild
Iraq, that they want to divide into separate parts, may Allah bring shame
upon them."

Palaces Not Registered In My Name - I Moved to a Small House Long Ago

"Saddam had no property registered in his own name and I challenge anyone to
prove that the palaces were not registered in the name of the Iraqi state. I
abandoned them long ago and went to live in a small house."

"Forget everything and resist occupation. The sinful error begins when there
are priorities other than the occupier and his expulsion. Remember that they
aspire to bring in the conflicting parties so that your Iraq will remain
weak, so they can plunder it as they have been doing."

"Your party, the party of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath, is proud that it has
not it did not extended its hands to the Zionist enemy and did not make
concessions to the cowardly American or British aggressor."

"Whoever stands against Iraq and plots against it shall not enjoy peace
relying on American support."

"Blessings to every man of the resistance, every honorable Iraqi citizen,
and to every woman, child, and elderly person in our great Iraq."

"Unite and the enemy will flee from you, and with him the traitors that
entered with him."

"Know that he who came with the invading forces and he whose planes flew in
order to kill you will not send you anything but poison."

"Allah willing, the day of liberation and victory will come, for us, for the
nation, and for Islam above all else. This time, as always when right
triumphs, the days to come will be better."

"Safeguard your property, your departments, and your schools, and boycott
the occupier. Boycott him, as this is your duty towards Islam, the religion,
and the homeland."

"Long Live Great Iraq and its people"
"Long Live Palestine, free and Arab from the river to the sea,"
"Allah Akbar"
"Disgrace upon the despicable ones."

"Saddam Hussein
26 Safar, 1424
April 28, 2003"

Endnotes:
1 Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), April 29, 2003. Subheadings added by MEMRI.
2 Koran 33 (Chapter Al-Ahzab):15
3 Muhammad Al-Din ibn Al-'Alqami was the vizier of the last Abassid caliph
Al-Mu'tasim. Ibn Al-'Alqami reportedly assisted the Mongol army led by
Hulago to take Baghdad in 1258.

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 06:42 EM
Democracy Holds Little Allure in the Muslim World

www.truthout.org

By Jonathan Raban
The Seattle Times
Go to Original
Sunday 27 April 2003

Whatever its immediate apparent outcome, the war on Iraq represents a catastrophic breakdown of the British and American imagination. We've utterly failed to comprehend the character of the people whose lands we have invaded, and for that we're likely to find ourselves paying a price beside which the body count on both sides in the Iraqi conflict will seem trifling.

Passionate ideologues are incurious by nature and have no time for obstructive details. It's impossible to think of Paul Wolfowitz curling up for the evening with Edward Said's "Orientalism," or the novels of Naguib Mahfouz, or "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," or the letters of Gertrude Bell, or the recently published, knotty, often opaque, but useful book by Lawrence Rosen, "The Culture of Islam," based on Rosen's anthropological fieldwork in Morocco, or Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones." Yet these, and a dozen other titles, should have been required reading for anyone setting out on such an ambitious liberal-imperial project to inflict freedom and democracy by force on the Arab world.

The single most important thing that Wolfowitz might have learned is that in Arabia words like "self," "community," "brotherhood" and "nation" do not mean what he believes them to mean. When the deputy secretary of defense thinks of his own self, he - like I, and, probably, like you - envisages an interiorized, secret entity whose true workings are hidden from public view. Masks, roles, personae (like being deputy secretary for defense) mediate between this inner self and the other people with whom it comes into contact. The post-Enlightenment, post-Romantic self with its autonomous, subjective world is a Western construct, and quite different from the self as it is conceived in Islam.

Muslims put an overwhelming stress on the idea of the individual as a social being. The self exists as the sum of its interactions with others. Lawrence Rosen puts it like this: "The configuration of one's bonds of obligation define who a person is... the self is not an artefact of interior construction but an unavoidably public act."

Broadly speaking, who you are is: whom you know, who depends on you, and to whom you owe allegiance - a visible web of relationships that can be mapped and enumerated. Just as the person is public, so is the public personal. We're dealing here with a world in which a commitment to, say, Palestine, or to the people of Iraq, can be a defining constituent of the self in a way that Westerners don't easily understand.

The recent demonstrations against the U.S. and Britain on the streets of Cairo, Amman, Sana'a and Islamabad may look deceptively like their counterparts in Athens, Hamburg, London and New York, but their content is importantly different. What they register is not the vicarious outrage of the anti-war protests in the West but a sense of intense personal injury and affront, a violation of the self. Next time, look closely at the faces on the screen: If their expressions appear to be those of people seen in the act of being raped, or stabbed, that is perhaps closer than we can imagine to how they actually feel.

The idea of the body is central here.

On the Web site of Khilafah.com, a London-based magazine, Yusuf Patel writes: "The Islamic Ummah is manifesting her deep feeling for a part of her body, which is in the process of being severed." It would be a great mistake to read this as mere metaphor or rhetorical flourish. Ummah is sometimes defined as the community, sometimes the nation, sometimes the body of Muslim believers around the globe, and it has a physical reality, without parallel in any other religion, that is nowhere better expressed than in the five daily times of prayer.

The observant believer turns to the Ka'aba in Mecca, which houses the great black meteorite said to be the remnant of the shrine given to Abraham by the angel Gabreel, and prostrates himself before Allah at Shorooq (sunrise), Zuhr (noon), Asr (mid-afternoon), Maghreb (sunset) and Isha (night). These times are calculated to the nearest minute, according to the believer's longitude and latitude, with the same astronomical precision required for sextant-navigation. (The crescent moon is the symbol of Islam for good reason: the Islamic calendar, with its dates for events like the Hajj and Ramadan, is lunar, not solar.) Prayer times are published in local newspapers and can be found online, and for believers far from the nearest mosque a $25 Azan clock can be programmed to do the job of the muezzin. So, as the world turns, the entire Ummah goes down on its knees in a never-ending wave of synchronized prayer, and the believers can be seen as the moving parts of a universal Islamic chronometer.

In prayer, the self and its appetites are surrendered to God, in imitation of the Prophet Mohammed, the "slave of Allah." There are strict instructions as to what to do with the body on these occasions. Each prayer-time should be preceded by ritual ablutions. Then, for the act of prostration, and the declaration of "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), the knees must touch the ground before the hands, the fingers and toes must point toward Mecca, and the fingers must not be separated. Forehead, nose, both hands, both knees and the soles of all the toes must be in contact with the ground. The body of the individual believer, identical in its posture to the bodies of all other believers, becomes one with the Ummah, the body of the Islamic community on Earth. The abdication of self five times a day, in the company of the faithful millions, is a stern reminder that "self-sufficient" is one of the essential and exclusive attributes of Allah, mentioned many times in the Koran. Human beings exist only in their dependency on each other and on their God.

The physical character of this is unique to Islam. Jewry and Christendom have nothing like it. The Ummah, a body literally made up of bodies, has a corporeal substance that is in dramatic contrast to the airy, arbitrary, dissolving and reconstituting nations of Arabia. To see the invasion of Iraq as a brutal assault on the Ummah, and therefore on one's own person, is not the far-fetched thought in the Islamic world that it would be in the West.

During the invasion, the Jordan Times - like every other newspaper in the region - carried front-page color pictures of civilians wounded or killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Government censorship being what it is, the photographs could afford to be more eloquent and candid than the stories printed beneath them. On April 2, the picture was of an Iraqi father in a dusty gray jellaba, arms spread wide, screaming at the sky in grief, while at his feet, in a single bare-wood open coffin, lay huddled the three small, bloodied bodies of his children. His rage and despair can be seen exactly mirrored in the faces of Egyptian demonstrators in Tahrir Square, as the Ummah bewails the injuries inflicted on it by the Western invaders. Geographical distance from the site of the invasion hardly seems to dull the impact of this bodily assault.

It's no wonder that the call of the Ummah effortlessly transcends the flimsy national boundaries of the Middle East - those lines of colonial convenience, drawn in the sand by the British and the French 80 years ago. Wolfowitz repeatedly promises to "respect the territorial integrity" of Iraq. But integrity is precisely what Iraq's arbitrary borders have always lacked: One might as well talk about respecting the integrity of a chainsaw, a pair of trousers and a cherry pie.

When the British cobbled together Iraq out of three provinces of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, they were deliberately fractionalizing and diluting two of the three main demographic groups. It made good colonial sense to split up the ever-troublesome Kurds (Sunni Muslims, but not Arabs) between Syria, Turkey, Persia and Iraq. Equally, the Shi'as had to be prevented from dominating the new state. In her letters home, Gertrude Bell described the Shi'as as, variously, "grimly devout," "violent and intractable," "extremist," "fanatical and conservative."

By contrast, the Baghdad Sunnis were seen as generally docile, forward-looking and pro-British. A representative democracy was out of the question, because the majority Shi'as would promptly hijack it. Bell wrote: "I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority, otherwise you'll have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil."

(Wolfowitz, please note. Out of the lawless turmoil of liberated Iraq there emerged one image of placid civil order: a photo, taken on Friday, April 11, and published in The New York Times, showing some 700 Basra Shi'as seated in neatly serried rows outside their damaged mosque, listening to a sermon. This in a city otherwise then given over to riot, looting and murder. The contrast between the power of the occupiers and the power of the ayatollahs could not have been more forcefully stated.)

Bell and her colleagues sent for Faisal - son of the emir of Mecca - who had already had a go at being king of Syria before the French deposed him. As a member of the Hashemite family, direct descendants of the prophet, Faisal, though a Sunni, was acceptable to the Shi'as. So the perils of democracy were neatly circumvented. Bell again:
"Lord! They do talk tosh. One of the subjects that even the best of (the Arabs) are fond of expatiating upon is the crying need for democracy in Iraq - al damokratiyah, you find it on every page. I let them run on, knowing full well that Faisal intends to be king in fact, not merely in name, and he is quite right."

From the start, the unwieldy assemblage of Iraq needed not a government but a ruler. When monarchy failed, tyranny of a peculiarly Middle Eastern kind took over. Lawrence Rosen interestingly asserts that the idea of "state," in the Western sense of a complex machinery of government independent of the person of the ruler, barely exists in the Arab world, because an entity as abstract and impersonal as a state cannot be credited with those "bonds of obligation" that define and constitute the Islamic self.

This is borne out by fundamentalist Web sites that warn their followers not to vote in Western elections for fear of committing the sin of shirk, or blasphemy: to show allegiance to a secular state, instead of to the Ummah and to Allah, is to worship a false god. The typical Arab ruler is likely to echo Louis XIV: The state, such as it is, is him - a warlord-like figure on a grand scale, with an army and a secret police at his disposal, like Nasser, Hafez al-Assad, King Saud, or Saddam Hussein. For the individual strong man, even a secular one, is compatible with strict Islamist teaching in a way that a strong secular state is definitely not.

In the case of Iraq, arrogant colonial mapmaking happened to conspire with Islamic tradition to create a state that would permanently tremble on the verge of anarchy, or at least of violent partition into a Kurdistan to the north, a Shi'ite theocracy to the south, and a Sunni-led secular statelet in the middle with Baghdad as its capital. That Iraq still conforms - just - to its 1921 borders is a tribute to the extraordinary power and brutality of Saddam Hussein.

Yet, Wolfowitz singled out this state-that-never-should-have-been for his breathtakingly bold experiment in enforced American-style democracy. On April 6, he went the rounds of the Sunday-morning talk shows to "warn" the nation that it might take "more than six months" to get Iraqi democracy up and running. He should be so lucky. What seems to be happening now is that, as American troops take full possession of Iraq, they're beginning to find out - in Baghdad, Ur, Karbala, Mosul - that the country they invaded has effectively ceased to exist.

A longer version of this article was published April 19 in the Guardian newspaper of London, http://www.guardian.co.uk/.

Jonathan Raban's new book, "Waxwings," a novel set in Seattle, will be published by Pantheon in September. His other books include "Bad Land" (1996) and "Passage to Juneau" (1999).

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:50 FM
White House Threatens Belgium over War Crimes Prosecution

www.truthout.org


By Justin Webb
BBC
Go to Original
Tuesday 29 April 2003


The Bush administration has reacted angrily to suggestions that General Tommy Franks, the commander of the US-led war in Iraq, might be charged with war crimes.

A Belgian lawyer says he is preparing a case that could see General Franks charged under a law which allows the prosecution of non-Belgian citizens for war crimes.

The most famous such case was brought against the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and caused deep strains in the relationship between Belgium and Israel.

If this prosecution goes ahead, Bush administration officials are making it plain they will regard it as a major diplomatic incident - an example of political harassment.

A senior administration official warned that even the issuing of indictments would result in what he called "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium.

The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said the Belgian authorities should act early to prevent such consequences.

"We believe the Belgian Government needs to be diligent in taking steps to prevent abuse of the legal system for political ends," he said.

The row erupted after a Brussels lawyer gave an interview to American newspapers in which he said he was aiming to file a case next week on behalf of 10 Iraqi civilians alleging among other things that General Franks did nothing to stop the looting of hospitals in Baghdad and that coalition forces fired on an ambulance.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:40 FM
Paul Krugman: Matters of Emphasis

www.truthout.org

New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 29 April 2003

We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that - and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.

Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions - not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization - the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS - called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year - a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true - we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement - if it is ever announced - that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing - and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished - not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat - just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy - aren't we?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:35 FM
April 29, 2003
An Israeli Arab Initiative to Visit Auschwitz

Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI Special Dispatch - 28. April 2003

By Aluma Solnick*

Background
Over the past few months, a group of Arab and Jewish shapers of public
opinion from Israel have been holding a seminar on the Holocaust, which is
to culminate in a visit to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps in May 2003.
The participants are to meet there with a delegation from France that will
include Jewish and Muslim community leaders.

The initiative is the brainchild of Archimandrite Emil Shofani, of the Greek
Catholic church in the Galilee, who is also the principal of the Al-Mutran
(St. Joseph) High School in Nazareth.

In early February 2003, the Arab-Israeli initiative published a communiqué
called "Remembering the Pain For the Sake of Peace." It read in part: "We
the undersigned, a group of Arab citizens in Israel, fear the deterioration
of relations between Arabs and Jews in our land... relations that have been
characterized largely by great fear of the other and by nationalistic
seclusion. Out of human responsibility, and in the belief that it is
possible to change the atmosphere of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, we are
initiating this human initiative. We seek to feel the pain of the other
side. The two peoples cannot abandon the path of bloodshed unless each
understands and internalizes the pain of the other, and the fears of the
other that pushed them to the line of fire, conflict, and war. Understanding
this principle, we have decided to delve deeply into history and swim in the
Jewish past. We wish to learn and know the suffering, difficulties, torment,
and destruction... to identify with and to express, with all our strength,
solidarity with the Jews."(1)

This will not be the first trip by non-Jewish Israelis to the death camps of
Europe; some Arab Members of the Knesset and public figures have already
paid visits. In 1996, Deputy Health Minister Nawaf Masalhah lit a memorial
torch at a Holocaust Day ceremony held at Birkenau. In April 2000, MK Hashem
Muhammid participated in a trip organized by Israel's Foreign Affairs and
Defense Committee to the death camps, and in May 2000, MK Sheikh Tawfiq
Al-Khattib participated in the "March of Life" from Auschwitz to
Birkenau.(2)

Reactions to the Initiative

The initiative faced some criticism from the Arab public. The former
spokesman of the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, Dr. 'Attallah Hanna, declared
a counter-initiative: Dozens of Palestinian Muslim and Christian figures
would visit the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon at the same time
as Shoufani and his group were at Auschwitz-Birkenau, "as a message to the
world that the real tragedy is that of the Palestinian people." He said, "It
would be appropriate if a group that wanted to understand the suffering of
the Jews listened first to the pain of its own people and its suffering in
the shadow of the occupation."(3)

In the Israeli-Arab National Democratic Alliance (Balad) Party weekly Fasel
Al-Maqal, Elias Khalil wrote, "The initiative will not lead to any notable
positive change in the essence of relations between the State of Israel and
the Palestinian residents of the country... because the active body in these
relations is the State of Israel and its institutions, and the essence of
the relations is not connected to the level of the Palestinians' recognition
of [Jewish] history or the extent of their identification with the Jewish
'victim' in the world."

According to Khalil, "Our national interest as a people is to separate, as
much as possible, the burning problems of our people from the suffering of
the Jews in other places in the world, the apex of which was the European
Holocaust. It is our obligation to release the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
from the burden of the Nazi Holocaust in Europe, so that our problems will
not be dwarfed beside their Holocaust..."

"The Jewish identity has a number of characteristics, and among these is the
Nazi Holocaust. But this identity also includes repeated aggressive wars,
expropriation of lands, and violence towards the Palestinian people. These
aspects [of the Jewish identity] which concern us make it more difficult for
us to separate one aspect of the Israeli Jewish identity from another.
Furthermore, why must I identify with a specific element of all the elements
of their identity, while they act tirelessly to eradicate or falsify
mine?"(4)

The Initiative Supports Israeli Propaganda

Journalist Emir Makhoul took issue with the declaration by the Arab
participants in the initiative that they sought "to understand the suffering
[of the Jews] and its influence on the Jewish people, which has led it to
live in constant fear of the other," because, he said, it reinforces the
Zionist approach that uses the Jewish victim to justify Israel's aggressive
policy. According to him, "The Jews' feeling of fear is the result of the
racist and imperialistic nature of Israel and the result of the occupation,
the settlements, and the repression and humiliation of the Palestinian
people. Historically, the [fear] stems from the State of Israel's arising as
a colonialist entity on the ruins of the Palestinian people... The Zionist
enterprise uses [the Holocaust] to justify Israel's crimes today... In my
opinion, Israel can use a project of this sort to reinforce the victim
psychology in Israeli society much more than we can use it to bring about
openness in Israeli society, or any change [towards Palestinians] at all in
it."(5)

Tamim Mansour, a high school teacher in the city of Tira and lecturer at
Beit Berel College in Kfar Saba, Israel, had in the past criticized
Al-Khattib for joining the delegation to Auschwitz. He had said that in this
way, Al-Khattib aided Israeli propaganda and world Zionism, which every year
stages shows of "weeping and wailing in the camps to cover up their sins,
past and present, towards the Palestinian people."(6)

Mansour also opposes the initiative now underway. He said, "My opposition
does not of course mean that I am in favor of the Nazis... I think that to
travel now to Auschwitz means giving tools to Israeli propaganda. I do not
remember that I saw a Jewish leader, from the Left or the Right, visiting
Sabra and Shatilla or one of the cemeteries full of the corpses of
Palestinians. Enough leaders in the world show solidarity with the Jewish
people in all things connected to the Holocaust, and I think that the Jews
have exploited them well and circulated it as a clearly political matter,
and done many terrible things in the name of the Holocaust. They built a
country here at the expense of the Palestinian people because of the
Holocaust, so I don't have to identify with them... Obviously, it is also a
matter of timing. The timing now is very bad, because the Jews do not
recognize the suffering of the Palestinian people, and the repression and
occupation become worse every day."(7)

The More You Understand the Jews, the More You Must Justify Israel

Author and critic Antoine Shalhat strongly objected to the initiative, and
suggested another way of addressing the Holocaust. He said, "Some of the
initiative's planners play no role in political parties or any other
cultural arena, and therefore seek a role and tools for action. Addressing
the matter of the Holocaust now is a game in the court of the other, on his
terms and without the ability to influence. It also constitutes a
reinforcement of the legitimacy connecting the establishment of Israel with
what happened in Europe. The Holocaust must be handled differently. It must
be taught in an historical framework, without connecting it to the
establishment of the Hebrew state, as this connection is Zionist and must be
discussed [independently], morally, politically, and historically... What is
demanded now is that the strong Jewish side recognizes the catastrophe [of
the 1948 war] as a Palestinian tragedy and implements what stems from this
recognition."(8)

MK 'Azmi Bishara, who visited concentration camps during his Ph.D. studies
in Germany, had mixed emotions about the initiative: "If this interest is a
genuine and honest desire to know about the historical and collective memory
of the majority in the state in which we live, I think it is good. Anything
like this is welcome. The problem is that I am a little skeptical. I fear,
for example, that there is here an attempt to be 'okay' - as if this in
itself would open the Jews' heart and influence their public opinion, [and
they] will begin to take an interest in us the moment they see that we are
taking an interest in them."

"The problem is that it is not proven that talking more [about], and taking
greater interest in, the Jews' pain increases the Jews' sensitivity to other
peoples. To date, when other peoples took an interest in the Holocaust, the
result was that Israel turned this opportunity into an instrument. A
situation arose in which the more you understand the history of the
persecution of the Jews [the more] you must justify and understand Israel
and its behavior today. This is what they call instrumentalization of the
Holocaust. There are two great crimes regarding the Holocaust - denying it
and [using it] as it is being used. Both contain an element of denial,
because as soon as you compare the Holocaust to anything, you also dwarf
it."(9)

A Patriotic Arab Act

In an attempt to prevent misunderstandings about the initiative, one of its
active participants, journalist Nazir Majali, former editor of the Communist
paper Al-Ittihad, embarked upon an explanatory campaign in Egypt. He met
with shapers of public opinion and explained that this was neither
"Zioniziation" of the Arab-Israelis nor obsequiousness, but a patriotic Arab
act of the first order, aimed at showing Arab humanity. He said that most of
the people with whom he had met gave the plan their blessing, and that Arab
League Secretary Amr Moussa said it was very important and that as far as
the Arab world was concerned, it was even self-evident. He also promised
that were the participants to be attacked when the delegation set out, he
would issue a call for public support.

Association of Arab Authors in Israel Chairman Mahmoud 'Ali Taha rejected
the claim that such visits could not be carried out "while the Israeli
government was committing crimes in the Palestinian territories." He said,
"like the enlightened world was against the Nazis, we too can be against
them, and can identify with the victim. We are not playing into the hands of
anyone, certainly not Israeli propaganda. When I identify with the victim, I
bring out the humanity within me, and I don't do it in order to receive
anything. "(10)

Scrapped: An Initiative to Include Holocaust Studies in the Palestinian
Curriculum

The criticism of the Israeli Arab initiative to visit Auschwitz bore some
similarities to criticism of a project, launched in 2000, initiated by
then-Palestinian Planning and International Cooperation Deputy Minister Anis
Al-Qaq. Al-Qaq had proposed including Holocaust studies in the Palestinian
curriculum.

In a symposium held in Nicosia, Cyprus in April 2000, Palestinians and
Israelis discussed "How to Strengthen Peace through Education."
Representatives from Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia were also present.
Heading the Israeli delegation was then-Minister of Education Yossi Sarid,
and the Palestinian delegation was led by Al-Qaq.

Al-Qaq stated at the symposium that he was "interested in teaching the
history of the Holocaust in Arab and Palestinian schools... I believe that
Palestine and the entire Arab world need to learn about the Holocaust, and
therefore this subject should be included in the school curriculum."(11)

The idea was never implemented, but Al-Qaq's statements sparked outrage in
Palestinian intellectual circles. Dr. Musa Al-Zu'but, Chairman of the
Education Committee of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) said,
"There will be no attempt to include the history of the Holocaust in the
Palestinian curriculum. It is the Palestinian Legislative Council that
determined the general framework [of the school curriculum] by law. The
Council in general, and the Education Committee in particular, monitor what
is being learned in the framework of the curriculum, and examine whether
anything contradicts or harms Palestinian history."

Al-Zu'but continued, "The Holocaust has been inflated so as to show the Jews
as victims of a great injustice, in order to justify [the claim] that
Palestine is necessary as a homeland for them, and to give them the right to
demand compensation. When the history of the Holocaust is taught [in the
Palestinian schools], it must be explained to the pupils that the Holocaust
was significantly inflated and that we, the Palestinians, were forced to
live with its results: Our country, Palestine, was lost and was occupied by
Israel. It is better to teach the pupils about what is happening to our
people."

Al-Zu'but expressed his hope that Al-Qaq had intended that schools teach
that the Holocaust was blown out of proportion. He concluded by saying, "We
[the Palestinians] have no interest in teaching the Holocaust. If the
purpose is to express sympathy, this is useless to us, since we are the ones
who suffered from its outcome."(12)

'Teaching the Holocaust Endangers the Developing Palestinian Mentality'

PLC Political Committee Chairman Ziyad Abu Amr said that in any event, "the
study of this subject must not be mandatory. All those who have studied the
history of the Holocaust in the past have reached different conclusions.
Why, then, must we require our pupils to read the history, heritage, and
experience of the Jews? We are in dire need of reading our own heritage and
history. Likewise, the relationship between us and them must first of all be
rehabilitated by their recognition of our people's full rights. The
fundamental problems between us and them have not been solved, and I do not
believe that this is the time to program our children and the pupils of our
schools by teaching them Jewish history in general, not only the
Holocaust."(13)

PLC member and Fatah leader Hatem Abd Al-Qader said that teaching the
Holocaust in Palestinian schools "is a great danger to the developing
Palestinian mentality. It would be dangerous to change the Palestinian
curriculum in such a direction. The Jews should first learn about our
disaster, the massacres, the murder, and the exile, because this disaster is
still alive. As for the so-called Holocaust, it has already been moved into
the museum of history."

Abd Al-Qader added, "We cannot abolish the historic Palestinian dream, even
if we remove it from the official Palestinian rhetoric... This land was
promised to us by Allah, while it was promised to the Jews by Balfour. If
such a decision [about teaching the Holocaust] is carried out, it will
undoubtedly ruin the Palestinian dream and aspirations. It will entirely
obliterate the past, present, and future of the Palestinians. We in the
Legislative Council will oppose any experiment that might harm the mind, the
identity, and the historic roots of the Palestinians."(14)

'We are More Entitled than the Jews to the Support of All the Nations'

Palestinian historian Dr. Isam Sisalem, who has in the past denied that
there were gas chambers in the Nazi death camps, stated: "We as Palestinians
condemn the indiscriminate killing of many people by the Germans, but we
cannot allow the killing of the Jews to be used to oppress another nation,
namely the Palestinians. The Nuremberg courts exploited [Jewish] lies to
divide Palestine, claiming that the Jewish community had suffered
annihilation and was in need of a homeland in which to settle. What
interests us, however, is our own people, who suffered from the exile and
destruction of thousands of its people. We are more entitled [than the Jews]
to the support of all of the nations."

Dr. Sisalem said that since the Stockholm International Forum on the
Holocaust in January 2000, which stated that all European countries should
include the history of the Holocaust in their curricula, the Western media
has lied about and exaggerated the Holocaust. He said, "The Zionist movement
exploited it in order to cover up its loathsome crimes in Palestine. It also
continues to extort the European states to this very day. The truth is that
the Zionist leaders negotiated with the Nazis and signed agreements with
them under which many Jews were expelled to Palestine. They also agreed that
the property of the Jews would not be harmed, and in exchange the Zionist
movement would provide the Germans with thousands of trucks for use on the
Russian front."(15)

Palestinian intellectual Abdallah Horani said about the initiative: "I don't
think that Israel and the Zionist movement need the efforts and voices of
the Palestinians to spread the false story of the Holocaust. There are those
whose loyalty to Israel and their volunteerism for its sake are greater than
their loyalty to the national and pan-Arab cause. Instead of talking about
the false Holocaust, Al-Qaq should have monitored the doubts [about it],
which are gaining momentum in the international arena and among leading
European intellectuals. He should have spoken about the massacres
perpetrated by the Israelis against the defenseless Palestinian people,
which wherever it may be, still suffers from the cruel Zionist terror."

Al-Horani added that Al-Qaq's statements "remind him of those who
'volunteered' to refrain from talking about the return of the [Palestinian]
refugees to the land from which they were driven in 1948. These statements
come in the framework of what is known as the 'culture of peace,' which is
supported by the U.S., which maintains hegemony in the region. The goal of
this 'culture of peace' is to propagate the American interpretation of
globalization, which means capitulating to America's conditions - and thus
to Israel's conditions. The meaning of this globalization is also to
eradicate the memory of the nations, efface their national heritage and
history, [and neutralize] any resistance to foreign ideological or cultural
invasion."(16)

Leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement in Gaza Sheik Nafez 'Azzam,
said in reaction to Al-Qaq's statements, "It is inconceivable that a nation
would respect its murderers and the robbers of its rights and its land. Why
do people speak only of the Jewish victims of World War II, without a word
about our own victims and martyrs?! We must first and foremost teach our
children of the catastrophes carried out by the Jews that afflicted and are
still afflicting us. We must teach them the history of this conflict, which
symbolizes the great wrong done to the Palestinian people, on the background
of the silence and conspiracy to which most of the world's governments are
party."

'Azzam stated, "Whoever gambles on brainwashing is bound to fail... Such a
program will have no influence on the formation of the minds of the sons of
the [Islamic] nation. The intention to teach the Holocaust in Palestinian
schools contradicts the natural order of the universe."(17)

'It is Unfair to Diminish the Importance of the Persecution Suffered by the
Jews, but...'

In contrast, Sheik Jamal Mansour, a Hamas leader, said, "It is unfair to
deny the Holocaust or to diminish the importance of the persecution suffered
by the Jews. We must clearly condemn it and stand by the oppressed - whoever
they may be - and against the oppressor." However, Sheik Mansour explained
that the problem lies with "the West, which takes a rigid stance when it
comes to the history of the Jews with the Nazis, and compels all governments
and peoples to teach a single history of the Holocaust. In addition, the
West uses Zionist historians to establish this [narrative] and turn it into
an axiom that cannot be questioned."

"At the same time, they want us to forget all the massacres, the tens of
thousands of victims, the millions of exiles, our confiscated land, our
occupied land, and our blood which continues to be spilled... The Jews have
mobilized the so-called free and civilized world to subjugate its victims,
apologize for their history, and to undertake [to ensure] their well-being
and their strength in the future - all because of one crazy man who was an
enemy to the entire world, not only the Jews, and who murdered 20 million
Russians with his own hands."(18)

*Aluma Solnick is a Research Associate with MEMRI.

Endnotes:
(1) Haaretz (Israel), February 5, 2003.
(2) When asked about his impressions of the visit, Al-Khattib said he had a
broad point of view that wasn't restricted to scheming against the Jewish
people. He rejected the statement that participation in such delegations was
out of the question because the Jews were committing similar crimes against
the Palestinian people, and explained that he had participated in the
delegation for humanitarian and cultural reasons, but was opposed to how the
Jews' tragedy was being used in Europe "to legitimize the acts taking place
today in the West Bank, Gaza, and within Israel." See Kul Al-Arabi (Israel),
May 5, 2000.
(3) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (London), February 27, 2003.
(4) Faisal Al-Maqal (Israel), March 7, 2003.
(5) Al-Mash'had Al-Asra'ili, supplement in Al-Ayyam (Palestinian Authority),
February 11, 2003.
(6) Faisal Al-Maqal (Israel), April 28, 2003.
(7) Haaretz (Israel), February 5, 2003.
(8) Al-Hayat (Palestinian Authority), February 11, 2003.
(9) Haaretz (Israel), February 5, 2003.
(10) Haaretz (Israel), February 5, 2002.
(11) Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), April 11, 2000.
(12) Al-Risala (Palestinian Authority), April 13, 2000.
(13) Al-Risala (Palestinian Authority), April 13, 2000.
(14) Al-Istiqlal (Palestinian Authority), April 20, 2000.
(15) Al-Risala (Palestinian Authority), April 13, 2000.
(16) Al-Istiqlal (Palestinian Authority), April 20, 2000.
(17) Al-Istiqlal (Palestinian Authority), April 20, 2000.
(18) Al-Risala (Palestinian Authority), April 13, 2000.

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:09 FM
Der Euro als Wunderwaffe

www.telepolis.de

Bernd Kling 28.04.2003
Ein Umstieg vom Petro-Dollar zum Petro-Euro könnte die Weltordnung verändern

"Wann werden wir Öl in Euros bezahlen?" fragt auch Faisal Islam im Wirtschaftsteil des Oberserver. Er führt aus, dass die üblichen wirtschaftlichen Regeln für die USA außer Kraft gesetzt sind durch die internationale Rolle des Dollars. Denn etwa drei Billionen Dollar sind weltweit in Umlauf und ermöglichen den USA ihr praktisch permanentes Handelsdefizit. Zwei Drittel des Welthandels werden in Dollar abgewickelt. Zwei Drittel der Devisenreserven der Zentralbanken in aller Welt lauten ebenfalls auf die grünen Scheine.

Die meisten Länder benötigen Dollars, um Öl zu kaufen. Die Öl-Exporteure halten aus diesem Grund Milliarden der Währung, in der sie bezahlt werden, als Währungsreserve. Für sie besteht praktisch auch kein Währungsrisiko, wenn sie diese Petro-Dollar gleich wieder in die US-Wirtschaft investieren. So brauchen die USA dann ständig nur weiter Geld zu drucken wie eine Art von Schuldscheinen, um sich damit Steuererleichterungen, erhöhte Militärausgaben und wachsenden Konsum zugleich leisten zu können, ohne dadurch Inflation oder eine Rückforderung der Schulden befürchten zu müssen. Als Hüter der weltweiten Währung können sie im Notfall jederzeit den Dollar abwerten und die Exporteure anderer Länder für ihre angewachsenen wirtschaftlichen Probleme bezahlen lassen."


Der Artikel

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:02 FM
April 28, 2003
Uri Avnery: Don't Envy Abu-Mazen

26.4.03
GUSH SHALOM - pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 http://www.gush-shalom.org

My first impression of Abu-Mazen was of a serious,
methodical, somewhat aloof introvert. He reminded me
of a high-school principal, very different from Arafat,
the impulsive extrovert, prone to personal gestures,
exuding warmth to all around him.

I met Abu-Mazen for the first time some 28 years
ago. We were secretly in Tunis to meet Yasser Arafat.
There were three of us: Matti Peled, a general in the
reserves, Ya'acov Arnon, a former Director General of
the Treasury and I. We met Abu-Mazen first to prepare
practical proposals for joint actions, to be put before
the "Old Man", as Arafat - then 54 - was called.

I had first heard mention of the name Abu-Mazen
nine years earlier, with my first secret contacts with
senior PLO officials. They told me that the Fatah
leadership had appointed a committee of three for
contacts with Israelis. They were the "three Abus" (as I
called them): Abu-Amar (Yasser Arafat), Abu-Iyad
(Salah Halaf) and Abu-Mazen (Mahmud Abbas).

Abu-Mazen was directly responsible for the contacts
that started in 1974. At the first stage, they were
conducted with me personally, but, from the autumn of
1976 on, the Israeli partner was the "Israeli Council for
Israeli-Palestinian Peace". The Palestinians who met us
were Sa'id Hamami and Issam Sartawi - who were both
murdered by the Iraqi-supported Palestinian arch-
terrorist, Abu-Nidal, a mortal enemy of Arafat.

When Arafat and Abu-Mazen were both present at
meetings with us, I got a clear picture of their mutual
standing. The detailed discussions were conducted by
Abu-Mazen, who had a good knowledge of things
Israeli, but it was Arafat who, in the end, made the
decisions. More than once I had the impression that the
senior PLO leaders were quite content to leave to
Arafat the responsibility for the courageous,
dangerous and unpopular decisions that led up to the
agreement with Israel.

Now there is a new situation. Arafat has agreed to
appoint Abu-Mazen Prime Minister. (The very fact that
the whole world, and Israel too, have welcomed the
Palestinian "government" and "Prime Minister" is a big
step towards the establishment of the State of
Palestine. In Oslo Israel still strenuously resisted terms
like "President", "government" and "parliament" for
the Palestinians.)

Abu-Mazen has taken upon himself a great
responsibility vis-a-vis his own people and the world.
He has put himself in a well-nigh impossible position.
Sharon & Co. demand that he first of all put an end
to "terrorism" ("armed struggle" in Palestinian
parlance), liquidate the "terrorist organizations" collect
their arms and prevent "incitement". Only after the
successful completion of all this can real negotiations
begin. Freezing the construction of settlements, of
course, should not even be mentioned at this stage.
The Palestinian public, on the other hand, demands
that first of all the Israeli army should leave the
Palestinian towns, stopping "targeted assassinations",
settlement activity, the demolition of homes and all
other acts of oppression, and start real negotiations for
the establishment of the State of Palestine.
This threatens to become a deadlock.

If the US and Europe exert massive pressure on
Sharon, the way they have put massive pressure on
Arafat, the deadlock might be broken. The Israeli army
would withdraw, the situation in the Palestinian
territories would change completely, the Palestinians
would be able to breathe again and Abu-Mazen would
appear as a leader who had already attained a great
achievement. The popularity of the extreme
organizations would decline.

Even if this happened, Abu-Mazen could not dream
of making mass arrests, destroying the organizations
and confiscating their weapons. There is nothing the
Palestinians fear more than fratricidal war. However,
the pressure of Palestinian public opinion would lead,
at least, to an effective armistice. Even the extreme
organizations are sensitive to the attitudes of their
public - if it wants quiet, there will be quiet. That has
already happened in the first period after the Oslo
agreement.

Let's assume that this happens. The attacks stop
almost completely (there will always be some
individuals and local groups who feel they have to act
on their own). The Abu-Mazen government functions
well in the Palestinian towns and villages. Then what?

After the publication of the Road Map, Sharon will
propose dozens of "corrections". Even now the "map"
is strongly tilted towards Sharon. While the
Palestinians gave up 78% of the country in Oslo and
accepted the remaining 22% for building their own
state, and have declared that they want to live in
peaceful co-existence with Israel, Sharon talks about
"painful concessions" without spelling out what he
really means.

If Sharon's "corrections" are even partly accepted,
the plan will lose most of what content it still has. Abu-
Mazen will stand there with empty hands, the
negotiations will stagnate as in previous rounds.
Gradually, the Palestinians will be forced to the
conclusion that they can achieve nothing without
violence, the fighting organizations will regain the
initiative and the armed struggle will resume.
Sharon and Bush will blame the Palestinians, of
course. They will say that Abu-Mazen "has not
delivered the goods". The Palestinians, for their part,
will say that Abu-Mazen is naive, that he has fallen into
an American-Israeli trap. He will resign, Arafat's
prestige will rise to new heights.

The next chapter can be foreseen. The Christian
fundamentalists and Zionist neo-cons, who control
Washington at this time, will demand that Sharon be
given a free hand. The Palestinians will embark on the
third intifada, more extreme than the two before. Blood
and fire and columns of smoke.

It could be different. For example: the US stops
treating the Quartet with contempt, pressure is put on
Sharon, Bush is not reelected, the negotiations bear
fruit, the peace camp wins in Israel, the Palestinian
state is founded in peace.

In the Holy Land, miracles have happened before.
But in the meantime, don't envy Abu-Mazen.

--
A map of the separation wall:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/hebrew.html
http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/index.html (English)

--
Did you know (y)our protest was succesful?
BBC was brought back to the Israeli screens.

--
Our site:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/ (òáøéú)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html (English)

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 01:19 EM
Kampf gegen die Transfer-Mauer

von Tanya Reinhart
ZNet 24.04.2003
http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm

Anmerkung: Die Bewohner von Mas'ha u. Bidia haben in ihrem Kampf um ihr Land u. ihre Existenz (beides durch die Apartheid-Mauer bedroht) entlang des Pfads der Bulldozer ein Zeltcamp errichtet. Auch Israelis u. internationale Aktivisten beteiligen sich daran. Das Camp will ein Zeichen des Protests setzen gegen die Landaneignung im Zusammenhang mit der Mauer. Wir suchen noch Leute, die zu uns ins Zeltcamp kommen wollen u. abwechselnd - tagsüber oder nachts - im Camp bleiben. Das Lager dient zudem als Info- Center - Gäste willkommen. Kontakt (Jonathan) unter: Tel.: 972 66 327 736 u. E-mail: cat@squat.net 'Activists Against the transfer Wall'.

An einem heißen Tag im Juni 2002 kamen israelische Bulldozer auf das Land von Salem, nördlich von Dschenin. Sie fingen an, die Bäume zu entwurzeln u. das Land einzuebnen - in Vorbereitung einer 8 Meter hohen Betonmauer, die die seit 1967 besetzten palästinensischen Gebiete von Israel separieren soll. In Israel glaubt die Öffentlichkeit fälschlicherweise, diese Maßnahme sei einzig dazu gedacht, die Spannungen zu entschärfen bzw. den Terror zu verhindern u. so dem israelischen Volk neue Sicherheit zu geben. Viele glauben zudem, die Mauer werde auf der 'Grünen Linie' (Grenzlinie von 1967) errichtet u. könne so zur Grundlage einer neuen Grenze mit den besetzten Gebieten werden - wenn Israel sich denn aus den Gebieten zurückzieht. Nichts ist weiter von der Wahrheit entfernt als diese Annahme.

Anläßlich eines Treffens des (damaligen) israelischen Kabinetts am 23. Juni 2002 wurde der Zaunentwurf (Mauer) abgesegnet. Damals protestierte der damalige Außenminister Shimon Peres, "dieser Plan würde effektiv bedeuten, dass Israel etwa 22 Prozent der Westbank annektiert" (Ha'aretz, Gideon Alon, 24. Juni 2002). Sowohl auf westlicher Seite ("Saumlinie") des Zauns als auch auf östlicher (entlang des Jordan) würden einige palästinensische Gebiete durch den Zaun von der Westbank abgeschnitten. Auf westlicher Seite schneidet der Zaun tief in palästinensisches Gebiet ein. Zweck ist es, jüdische Siedlungen wie Alfei Menashe, Elkana u. Ariel auf die israelische Seite des Zauns zu ziehen. Nur in wenigen Sektionen stimmt der Zaunverlauf mit der 'Grünen Linie' überein. Aber selbst in diesen Fällen hat man noch beschlossen, eine zweite Barriere, ein paar Kilometer nach Osten eingerückt, zu installieren. Der sich windende Verlauf des Zauns führt mancherort zu einer Art Schlinge, die palästinensische Städte u. Dörfer einschließt u. ihnen nur einen einzigen Ausgang gewährt. Auf diese Weise würden durch die neue Mauer Städte u. Dörfer voneinander abgetrennt - und zwar permanent. Diese Ortschaften würden zu isolierten Enklaven mutieren. Noch etwas kommt hinzu: In den meisten Gebieten in Zaunnähe würden die Dörfer von ihren Ackerflächen abgeschnitten - von der landwirtschaftlich genutzten Fläche, von der diese Dörfer ja leben. Laut Schätzungen von B'tselem würde die Mauer mindestens 210 000 Palästinenser in 67 Dörfern u. Städten unmittelbar in ihrer Existenz bedrohen (http://www.btselem.org/Download/2003_Behind_The_Barrier_Heb.doc).

Insgesamt 5 Enklaven mit palästinensischen Dörfern wären zwischen Zaun u. 'Grüner Linie' eingekesselt. Diese Enklaven wären sowohl voneinander als auch vom Rest der Westbank abgeschnitten - wahre Gefängnisse also. In diese Kategorie fallen insgesamt 13 Dörfer mit 11 700 Bewohnern (und ich spreche hier von Zaunsegmenten, wie sie vorgesehen waren, noch ehe der Zaun auf Druck der (jüdischen) Siedler auch Ariel Immanuel u. Kdumim einschließen sollte). Den Palästinensern wird versprochen, man werde Tore u. Checkpoints einrichten, sodass Bewohner, die von ihren Ländereien abgeschnitten sind, diese trotzdem weiter erreichen könnten. Aber aus alter wie neuer Erfahrung wissen wir, dass das Passieren eines Checkpoints nicht zuletzt von der Willkür der dortigen Soldaten abhängt. Die Soldaten halten sich nicht an feste Regeln - jedenfalls an keine, die den Palästinensern geläufig sind. Oft werden Palästinenser, die an einer Straßensperre vorbei wollen, stundenlang festgehalten. Die Soldaten konfiszieren ihnen die Ausweise, die Autoschlüssel, ja selbst die Autos. Zudem ist anzunehmen, dass es für das Passieren der (angeblichen) Zauntore einer speziellen Genehmigung der israelischen Behörden bedürfen wird.

Die Ländereien von Mas'ha

Am 23. April 2003 kamen die Bulldozer im Dorf Mas'ha an. Das Dorf liegt nahe der israelischen Siedlung Elkana. Eigentlich läge diese Siedlung etwa 7 km von der 'Grünen Linie' entfernt. Aber mittlerweile wurde die Zaunroute, auf die man sich beim Kabinettstreffen am 24. Juni 2002 geeinigt hatte, ja verändert, sodass nun auch Elkana auf israelischer Seite liegen soll. Und jetzt sind die Bulldozer also dabei, das Dorf Mas'ha von dessen einzig verbliebener Erwerbsquelle (nach zweieinhalb Jahren Abriegelung) abzutrennen: 98 Prozent des Lands, das zu Mas'ha gehört, soll der israelischen Zaunseite zugeschlagen werden - besser gesagt, soll es zwischen Zaun u. 'Grüner Linie' verschwinden. Auch vom Dorf Bidia Sanniriya u. weiteren Dörfern der Region sollen tausende Dunams Land verlorengehen. Abgesehen von dem Land, das den Dörfern entzogen werden soll, wird der Zaun auch noch die Straße zwischen Dschenin u. Ramallah unterbrechen. Ein Segment der Straße soll auf israelischer Zaunseite liegen. Auf die Art kann man die palästinensischen Enklaven noch effizienter voneinander isolieren.

Aber Gier nach Land ist nicht der einzige Grund, weshalb die Bulldozer nach Bidia u. Mas'ha kamen. Die Ländereien dieser Dörfer liegen ausgerechnet über dem westlichen Bereich des Gebirgs-Grundwasserbassins (ein riesiges Wasserreservoir, das in der Westbank entspringt; dessen Wasser fließen aber auch unterirdisch bis nach Zentral-Israel hinein). Von jenen 600 Millionen Kubikmetern Wasser, die jährlich aus dem Gebirgsreservoir entnommen werden können, nimmt Israel in seinen verschiedenen Gebieten etwa 500 Millionen für sich in Anspruch. Die Kontrolle über diese Wasserressourcen zu behalten, war immer eines der Hauptmotive für die Aufrechterhaltung der israelischen Besatzung. So wurden in den 70gern die ersten (jüdischen) Siedlungen durch die damaligen israelischen Arbeitspartei-Regierungen ausgerechnet in Gebieten genehmigt, die als "kritisch" in Bezug auf Bohrungen eingestuft wurden. Eine dieser Siedlungen war Elkana. Zu ihrer Errichtung trug ein Plan bei, der irreführend Plan zum 'Schutze der Ressourcen des Yarkon' hieß. Seit der Okkupation im Jahr 1967 hat Israel den Palästinensern verboten, neue Brunnen zu graben. Im Gebiet um Mas'ha u. Bidia sowie in jenen Ländereien, die man inzwischen von Kalkilia u. Tul Karem abgetrennt hat, gibt es jedoch noch viele Brunnen, die bereits vor 1967 in Betrieb waren. Ihre Nutzung reduziert die Wassermenge, die Israel für sich entziehen kann, vielleicht um eine kleine Menge. Aus der Abtrennung dieser Dörfer von ihren Brunnen verspricht sich Israel daher einen doppelten Vorteil: Zum einen Kontrolle über die Wasserreserven, zum andern können die Dörfer so ihrer Existenzgrundlage beraubt werden. Dadurch werden die Dorfbewohner zum Exodus gezwungen. Seit Juni 2002 sind bereits 4 000 Bewohner aus der Gegend von Kalkilia abgewandert. Auf die Art bedeutet der Zaun 'stiller Transfer'. Machen wir uns klar - dieser Zaun hat nichts mit Frieden oder Sicherheit zu tun. Transfer, Gier nach Land u. Kontrolle über die Wasserressourcen - das ist der wahre Treibstoff für die Bulldozer der Israelis.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 01:07 EM
April 26, 2003
BBC Director General Strikes Out At US Media

Material veröffentlicht auf
www.truthout.org

Matt Wells
The Guardian
Go to Original

Friday 25 April 2003

The BBC director general, Greg Dyke, yesterday laid out the case for the impartiality of broadcast news in Britain as against the "unquestioning" attitude of US networks, and warned the government not to allow the "Americanisation" of the British media.
In characteristically blunt fashion, Mr Dyke said he was surprised at the "committed political position" of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel, and "shocked" to discover that the biggest radio group in the US was using its stations to organise pro-war rallies.

He urged the government to think carefully about its proposals to liberalise media ownership laws in Britain. "We must ensure that we don't become Americanised," he said in a speech at Goldsmith's College in London yesterday.

Mr Dyke directed much of his ammunition against the global media giant Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 radio stations in the US, many of which took a staunchly pro-war line.

"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in the United States was using its airwaves to organise pro-war rallies," said Mr Dyke, who is also the BBC's editor-in-chief. "We are even more shocked to discover that the same group wants to become a big radio player in the UK."

In the communications bill currently going through the House of Lords, the government plans to deregulate ownership laws, allowing foreign companies like Clear Channel to own commercial radio licences in Britain.

Clear Channel is known for syndicating much of its output between its stations, and concerns have been raised about the threat to diversity.

Mr Dyke warned that deregulation also raised questions about impartiality: since the September 11 attacks, a gap had opened up between the definitions of impartiality on either side of the Atlantic.

"Maybe it was always like this and the requirements of impartiality in the UK were always different to those in the USA, but that's not how I remember it," he said. "Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war."

He criticised Fox News for its pro-Bush stance, which has helped it overtake CNN as the most popular news network in the US.

"Commercial pressures may tempt others to follow the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism, but for the BBC this would be a terrible mistake. If, over time, we lost the trust of our audiences, there is no point in the BBC," said Mr Dyke.

He speculated that the patriotism of the US networks had been driven by the fragmentation of the US media.

"Many of the large television news organisations in the States are no longer profitable or confident of their future. The effect of this fragmentation is to make government - the White House and the Pentagon - all-powerful, with no news operation strong enough or brave enough to stand up against it.

Mr Dyke rejected accusations that the BBC, which has spent between £7m and £8m on the war, had been soft on Saddam Hussein, insisting the corporation's commitment to "independence and impartiality" was "absolute." He said it was "absurd" to suggest journalists in Baghdad were "Saddam's stooges", and singled out correspondents Andrew Gilligan, Rageh Omaar and John Simpson for having brought home the "reality" of war.

"Governments have as much right as anyone else to put pressure on the BBC," he said. "It's only a problem if the BBC caves in."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Go to Original


Turner Calls Rival Media Mogul Murdoch 'Warmonger'
By Duncan Martell
Reuters

Friday 25 April 2003

SAN FRANCISCO - Ted Turner said on Thursday too few people owned too many media organizations and called rival media baron Rupert Murdoch a warmonger for what he said was Murdoch's promotion of the U.S. war in Iraq.

"He's a warmonger," Turner said in an evening speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco of Murdoch, whose News Corp. Ltd. owns the fast-growing Fox News Channel. "He promoted it."

Fox News Channel has been the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, trumping AOL Time Warner Inc.'s CNN, which Turner started more than two decades ago and came to prominence with its blanket coverage of the 1991 Gulf War.

Asked by an audience member for his thoughts on Fox's larger ratings share than CNN's, Turner said, "Just because your ratings are bigger doesn't mean you're better."

"It's not how big you are, it's how good you are that really counts," Turner said, drawing hoots from the audience.

Turner, who has pledged to give $1 billion to the United Nations and is a vocal proponent of population control and nuclear-arms elimination, criticized the concentration of ownership of the vast majority of U.S. television networks, radio and TV stations and newspapers in a few corporations.

"The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much," Turner said.

Asked whether he would again try to launch a new network, Turner, who is the vice chairman of AOL Time Warner and has been critical of the merger of AOL and TimeWarner, said: "No. I think the space is filled with the people already there.

FIVE COMPANIES

"There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy."

Earlier on Thursday, BBC Director General Greg Dyke said U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media.

Dyke singled out for criticism Fox News Channel and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest operator of radio stations in the United States.

"Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference.

After Turner's initial remarks, the moderator for the question and answer session noted that Turner would not be able to comment on the ongoing federal investigations into AOL Time Warner.

The moderator had scarcely finished her statement when he leaned into the microphone and said: "I can say one thing. As the largest shareholder and the biggest shareholder (of the company), it's been brutal."

Turner said he also liked bison.

"I got 35,000 of them," Turner said in response to a question about bison. "I do eat them. You've got to eat."

The final question of the evening to Turner: What will be his epitaph.

"I have nothing more to say," Turner said. "And that's what it is."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:03 FM
WEED - Einladung

Bittte die Links in diesem Beitrag per "Copy and paste" selber in den Browser einfügen. mail stammt von WEED - Weltwirtschaft, Ökologie & Entwicklung e.V.
www.www-online.org

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde,
liebe Empfänger/innen der "weed-news",

die nachfolgende Kongress-Ankündigung und Einladung senden wir Ihnen / Euch zur Kenntnisnahme.
Anmeldungen bitte NICHT an WEED, sondern an die angegebene Email-Adresse (ebw@ebw-regensburg.de) oder über die genannte Website.

Viele Grüße

WEED e.V.
Torstr. 154
10115 Berlin

******************
E-mail-rundbrief

Konzern Europa? - Kongress für eine gerechtere Welt

Liebe Leute,

anbei erhaltet Ihr eine beinahe vollständige, aber hoch komprimierte Vorstellung des Regensburger Frühlingskongress "Konzern Europa? - Kongress für eine gerechtere Welt" vom 15.-18.5. Das Programm ist sehr abwechslungsreich und geht enorm in die Tiefe. Bitte macht den Kongress in Euren Bekanntenkreisen publik.

ANMELDESCHLUSS: 30.4.
Online-Anmeldung unter http://www-attac-kongress.uni-regensburg.de
(Achtung: www-attac ... ist kein Tippfehler!)

Die Mail besteht aus:

1) Der Kurzvorstellung
2) Einem Anmeldeschnipsel
3) Einem Materialbestellungsschnipsel
4) Sonstiges: Viel Raum für Vernetzungstreffen
******************
1) Das Evangelische Bildungswerk hat in zusammenarbeit mit Attac
Regensburg und Attac Freising und vielen weiteren Helfer(organisationen)
einen überregionalen Frühlingskongress unter dem Motto "Konzern Europa?"
zusammengestellt (15.-18.5. in Regensburg). Einige Beispiele aus dem
reichhaltigen Programm mit über 70 Workshops und Vorträgen:

* Macht der Konzerne: zunehmende Bankenmacht, Transnationale Konzerne
und EU-Politik, Mikronetzwerke der Machteliten und Krieg?, Tierschutz
und Konzerne, UN - Konzerne - Christl. Rechte? Mit: M. Wendler, J.H.
Krysmanski, E. Wesselius, P. v. Bogendorff.

* Reichtum und Armut: Armut und Reichtum in der BRD - Neoliberalismus
als Quelle sozialer Ungleichheit, Ethisches Investment und
Entwicklung (Oikokredit) Steuergerechtigkeit - Einkommensverteilung in
der Bundesrepublik, was soll der Sozialneid? Mit C. Butterwegge, M.
Huber, C. Schäfer, A. v. Guttenberg

* Krieg und Frieden: Zur neuen Kriegstrategie der USA, Kultur des
Friedens:
Künstlerreise nach Bagdad, die Entwicklung von Kosovo bis Afghanistan,
Mut zu Widerspruch, Friedenserziehung. Mit: H.-P. Dürr, H.-J.
Krysmanski, H. Dietrich, H. Hänsel, A. Roßbach-Mendl, R. Strodel.

* WTO & GATS: Aufbau, GATS und Demokratie, GATS und Kultur, GATS und
Entwicklungsländer und: macht GATS krank? Mit: O. Moldenhauer, T.
Fritz, P. Wahl, H. Klimenta. Hier auch ein Workshop über die
Agrarpolitik von WTO und EU

* Finanzmärkte: Veranstaltungen zum Aufbau, Tobin-Tax, Steuerflucht,
Geldwäsche, die
Rolle der EU, kommunale Finanzkatastrophe und eine Diskussion über die
sinnvolle Positionierung der globalisierungskritischen Bewegung. Mit
E. Altvater, J. Huffschmid, G. Obermair, P. Waldow, S. Giegold.

* Migration: EU-Asylpolitik, Praktiken zur Asylbewerberabwehr, Alltag von
Asylbewerbern, Vorstellung eines internationalen Flüchtling-Netzwerks.
mit: H. Kopp, K. Kopp, F. Burschel, I. Osaren, G. Streitberger

* Europa: Institutionen, EU-Sozialpolitik, Vorstellung des EU-Konvents,
Probleme der EU-Osterweiterung, Krieg & Wirtschaft, Diskrepanzen
EU-USA. Mit: F. Thies, A. Wilhelm, A. Karrass, J. Möller, K. Warter,
S. Lindner

* Arbeit in Nord und Süd: Ausbeutung von ArbeitnehmerInnen in
Billiglohnländern,
selbstverwaltete Betriebe, Wanderarbeit in Europa, Lügen über
"Arbeitsmärkte", Labels wie CleanClothesCampaign. Mit: M. Pflaum, J.
Kerschensteiner, N. Cyrus, J. Ludsteck, M. Wendl.

* Alternative Modelle: Es geht um Durchsetzungsstrategien Erneuerbare
Energien,
regionale Kreislaufwirtschaften, die Schumacher-Gesellschaft wird
vorgestellt, über "glückliche Arbeitslose" soll diskutiert werden -
und das Geld- und Zinssystem wird kritisch beleuchtet werden. Mit: T.
Seltmann, G. Paoli, R. Börger, U. Helfert, E. Schrimpff, H.
Beiersdorf.

Weiterhin gibt es nebst einem umfangreichen Kulturprogramm incl. WTO-
Fußball-Cup, Bands und DJs Veranstaltungen zu Methodik wie
Kampagnenmanagement, Kamerakurs, Kreative Public Relations, und auch
Sachen zu Wirtschaftethik und eine Kritik der Neoklassik. Und das ist
immer noch nur eine Auswahl. An den Abenden haben wir drei große
Veranstaltungen mit sehr kompetenten und auch bekannten Persönlichkeiten
organisiert, etwa mit Hans-Peter Dürr. Und auch Leute von Attac
Österreiche, Schweiz und Tschechien sind dabei.

Weitere Infos unter http://www-attac-kongress.uni-regensburg.de/ [das ,-`
nach "www" ist kein Tippfehler!] der exakte Zeitplan mit Beschreibung
aller 70 Workshops findet sich unter:
http://www-attac-kongress.uni-regensburg.de/Termine/ablauf.phtml

(dort auch online-anmeldung möglich)

----------------------------------------------------------------

2) ANMELDUNGSSCHNIPSEL (Anmeldeschluss ist der 30.4.)
Anmeldung an: ebw@ebw-regensburg.de
Vorname:
Name:
Straße:
Wohnort:
Telefon:
E-Mail:

Den Kongressbeitrag von 40 Euro (erm. 30 Euro) kann von meinem Konto
Konto: BLZ: bei: abgebucht werden.

...oder an Evangelisches Bildungswerk Regensburg
Am Ölberg 2, 93047 Regensburg
----------------------------------------------------

3) Bitte helft uns, den Kongress überregional bekannt zu machen, z. B.
durch Werbung in Eurer Gruppe (foreward...).

Natürlich haben wir Ankündigungsfaltblätter und Plakate zum Kongress
produziert. Die Plakate und Faltblätter kosten jeweils 0,10 ?. Dies sind
die uns entstehenden Kosten. Die Bezahlung ist freiwillig.

Ich bestelle: _______ Exemplare des Faltblatts
und _______ Exemplare des Plakats.

Name:
Anschrift:
Plz, Ort:

Bitte senden an: ebw@ebw-regensburg.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------

4) WICHTIG:
Wir wollen die Idee der "Vernetzung" nicht nur von Attac-Gruppen sondern
von möglichst vielen Gruppen mit ähnlichen Zielen voranbringen. Deshalb
ist sehr viel Raum eingeplant für Vernetzungstreffen aller interessierter.
Wir erhoffen uns eine breite Beteiligung an diesem Angebot und an einem
aus unserer Sicht hoch sinnvollen Informationsaustausch zwischen den
Aktiven. Weitere Infos bei/über: thomas.duermeier@stud.uni-regensburg.de

------------------------------------------------------------------

Supergrüße,
Harald Klimenta


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Auf zum Regensburg-Kongress vom 15.-18. Mai!
über 70 Workshops u. viel Kultur
Infos: www.attac.de/regensburg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Harald Klimenta
Holzgartenstr. 66 +++ 93059 Regensburg
Büro: 0941-6904605
Tel./AB/Fax: 0941-449331
Mobile: 0179-9435863
E-Mail: harald.klimenta@web.de
WWW: http://www.attac.de/sozsich/harry

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:48 FM
Al-Ahram: "Der Irak: Das neue Problem der OPEC"

Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI Special Dispatch - 24. April 2003

Die regierungsnahe ägyptische Tageszeitung al-Ahram veröffentlichte in ihrer Ausgabe vom 22. April 2003 einen Kommentar zu den Hintergründen des von der OPEC einberufenen Krisentreffens, das heute in Wien stattfinden wird. (1)
Dabei geht es vor allem um die Festlegung der Politik nach dem Ende des Krieges im Irak und der absehbaren Wiederaufnahme der irakischen Erdölförderung:

"Zu einer Dringlichkeitssitzung kommt die OPEC [am Donnerstag, 24. April 2003] zusammen, um über eine Senkung der [Öl-] Förderung nach dem Ende des Krieges im Irak zu beraten. Anders als erwartet hatte der Krieg nicht zu einem Anstieg der Preise geführt, stattdessen begannen diese wenige Tage vor dem Beginn des Krieges zu sinken. Die Senkung der Preise wird auf über 27% gegenüber den Preisen für ein Barrel Öl zwei Wochen vor Kriegsbeginn geschätzt. Dennoch haben sich die Öl-Einnahmen der ölexportierenden Länder im ersten Quartal nicht gegenüber dem Vorjahr verschlechtert. Trotz des Preisrückganges im letzten Monat liegt der durchschnittliche Preis im ersten Quartal des laufenden Jahres weiterhin über jenem in der gleichen Perioden des vergangenen Jahres. Zusammen mit dem Anstieg der geförderten Mengen ist dies der Grund für den Anstieg der Öleinnahmen im Vergleich zum Vorjahr.

Das wesentliche Problem, mit dem die OPEC konfrontiert ist, bleibt die Frage der Ölförderung des Iraks. Es ist nicht genau bekannt, wann und mit welchem Volumen die USA die Wiederaufnahme der Förderung anstreben. Trotz zahlreicher Hinweise aus amerikanischen Kreisen in den letzten zwei Wochen, nach denen sich der Beginn der Förderung aufgrund der notwendigen Wiederherrichtung der Ölfelder noch einige Monate hinziehen wird, sprechen die kursierenden Erklärungen von einer Dauer, die zwei Monate nicht überschreiten wird. Sollte die OPEC also die Senkung ihrer Förderung beschließen, könnte die irakische Förderung zur selben Zeit auf den Markt zurückkehren.

Bezüglich des Förderungsvolumens hieß es in amerikanischen Stellungnahmen, man werde etwa zwei Jahre benötigen, um ein tägliches Förderungsniveau von 3
Millionen Barrel pro Tag zu erreichen. Der US-amerikanische Vizepräsident Dick Cheney erklärte hingegen in einer Rede am Tag des Einzuges der amerikanischen Truppen in Bagdad, die irakische Förderung werde bereits zum
Ende des laufenden Jahres drei Millionen Barrel pro Tag betragen.

Wenngleich der Krieg den Öleinnahmen der Länder der Region bisher nicht geschadet hat, so ist doch sicher, dass die Ergebnisse der nahen Zukunft
anders aussehen werden, und zwar insbesondere dann, wenn sich die amerikanischen Vorstellungen über die Ölproduktion des Iraks bewahrheiten sollten und der Irak aus der OPEC ausscheidet. Dies wäre ein großer Nachteil für die Ölpreise und schließlich mittelfristig für die Einnahmen aller erdölfördernden Länder, besonders für die Länder der Golfregion."

(1) Vgl. auch MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis - 10. April 2003 "The War in Iraq
and the Future of OPEC", www.memri.de.

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:42 FM
Ostermarschrede von Tobias Pflüger

Weiterleitung einer mail der attac-Liste "Globuk" (Globalisierung und Krieg):

Liebe/r Leser/in!

Offiziell ist der Krieg gegen den Irak zu Ende. Die Ostermärsche waren
auch aufgrund des Endes der Bombardierungen des Iraks nicht so
hervorragend besucht, wie mancherorts erwartet worden war. Dennoch waren
die Teilnehmer/innenzahlen nicht schlecht. Es gab vor allem an mehr
Orten Ostermärsche als im Jahr zuvor. Wir freuen uns, dass die Themen,
die uns wichtig waren und sind, wie die Kritik an der weiteren
Herausbildung einer Gegenmacht Europäische Union und an den in
Erarbeitung befindlichen "Verteidigungspolitischen Richtlinien", in
denen nach Angaben des Bundeswehr-Generalinspekteurs das
Präventivkriegskonzept enthalten sein soll, bei den Reden der
Ostermärsche gewichtige Rollen gespielt haben.

Wir schicken heute anbei die Ostermarschrede von Tobias Pflüger in
Konstanz, mit Zwischenbilanz des Irakkrieges und Ausblick.

Außerdem finden sich anbei Links zu vielen neuen Texten auf der
IMI-Homepage, darunter die Rede von Till Gocht beim Ostermarsch in Mainz
und Frankfurt-Bockenheim, ein Interview in NGO-Online.de zur Situation
nach den Bomben, ein Interview in der Jungen Welt: "Deutsche
Kollateralgewinne: Militärmacht Kerneuropa?", weitere Interviews in der
Raumzeit (Nürnberg), in der Kölner Stadtrevue, und eine ganze Reihe von
IMI-Standpunkten und Presseberichten.

---------------------------


Rede von Tobias Pflüger, Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V.
beim internationalen Ostermarsch in Konstanz, Bodensee am 19.04.2003

Abschrift des Mitschnittes

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, ich freue mich, dass wir heute so viele
sind, obwohl es heißt, dass der Krieg offiziell zu Ende sei. Das zeigt
auch, dass wir nicht nur gegen diesen Krieg demonstrieren, sondern dass
wir demonstrieren gegen Krieg als Mittel der Politik. (Beifall) Und ich
freue mich auf einem internationalen Ostermarsch zu sprechen, weil ich
denke, was wir in Zukunft brauchen, ist noch mehr internationale
Zusammenarbeit von unten. (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, es wird uns das Bild vermittelt, im Irak
würden die Menschen die Besatzer begrüßen. Gestern gab es eine große
Demonstration, bei der Leute im Irak gefordert haben: "Besatzer raus!"
Ich kann mich dem nur anschließen: Auch wir als Antikriegs- und
Friedensbewegung fordern: Besatzungstruppen raus aus dem Irak! (Starker
Beifall)

Wir können inzwischen so etwas wie eine Zwischenbilanz dieses Krieges
ziehen, dieser Krieg ist nämlich nicht zu Ende: Es gab ca. 2.000 tote
Zivilsten, davon 12 Journalisten, wovon wir wissen, dass zumindest die,
die am zweitletzten Tag des Bombenkrieges umgebracht worden sind, dass
das aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach, bewusste Abschüsse waren, es gab ca.
10.000 z.T. schwer Verletzte unter der Zivilbevölkerung. Und es gab ca.
8.000 tote irakische Soldaten, wenn nicht deutlich mehr. Und es wurde
sehr viel an wertvollen Kulturgütern zerstört, in bisher ungeahnten
Ausmaß. Für mich ist es ein typisches Zeichen, wie diejenigen, die
dieses Land bombardiert und erobert haben, mit diesen Kulturgütern
umgegangen sind. Es ist offensichtlich das, was die Regierungen dieser
Länder unter Zivilisation verstehen. Wenn man Ölministerien schützen
kann, aber Museen nicht, zeigt das, wo die Prioritäten liegen, und es
zeigt, dass wir recht hatten, als wir gesagt haben, dieser Krieg wird
auch geführt, weil es ein Krieg ist, um den Zugangs zum Öl. (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, wir haben davor gewarnt, dass dieser
Krieg einen Dominoeffekt auslösen wird. Auch dies zeigt sich, dass
dieser Hinweis berechtigt war, kaum war der Irak erobert, war das
nächste Ziel ins Visier genommen. Wir sagen von hier aus ganz klar:
Lasst die Finger von Syrien! (Heftiger Beifall)

Wir erinnern uns, dieser Krieg wurde begründet, weil es angeblich darum
ging, Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak zu zerstören. In einem Brief an
einen befreundeten us-amerikanischen Journalisten schreibt die deutsche
Regierung am 09. April, also während des Krieges: "Die Bundesregierung
bedauert, dass der Weg der friedlichen Abrüstung des Irak nicht weiter
verfolgt werden konnte." Joschka Fischer, der deutsche Außenminister,
bezeichnet diesen Krieg als einen "Abrüstungskrieg". Nein. Es ging nie
um Massenvernichtungswaffen! Sondern es ging darum, eine andere
Hegemonialordnung in dieser Region zu installieren, und es ging um den
Zugang zu Öl, und es ging um den Test der neuen Nationalen
Sicherheitsstrategie der USA mit dem sogenannten Präventivkriegskonzept.
(Starker Beifall)

Herr Fischer sie haben einfach nicht recht, wenn sie davon reden, dieser
Krieg sei ein Abrüstungskrieg. Nein, dieser Krieg war barbarisch, und
dieser Krieg hat die Zivilbevölkerung getroffen. Dieser Krieg hat mit
Abrüstung nun wirklich gar nicht zu tun! (Starker Beifall) [Die Fähre
auf dem Bodensee hubt laut] Offensichtlich sieht das die Fähre auch
so... (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, uns wurden Bilder gezeigt, von
Iraker/innen, die gejubelt haben, als Saddam Hussein gestürzt wurde. Wir
begrüßen, dass der Diktator Saddam Hussein nicht mehr an der Macht ist.
Nur und das will ich sehr deutlich sagen: Bei dem Sturz von Saddam
Hussein jubeln Millionen, doch gäbe es einen Bush nicht, würde die ganze
Welt jubeln. (Heftiger Beifall und Jubel).

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, doch das Problem ist tiefergehender, das
Problem ist nicht allein Herr Bush, das Problem ist auch Herr Blair, und
das Problem sind auch Herr Schröder und Herr Fischer (Starker Beifall).

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, die deutsche Regierung war ja offiziell
gegen diesen Krieg. Doch was diese deutsche Regierung gemacht hat, ist
eine Doppelstrategie zu fahren, nämlich diplomatisch gegen diesen Krieg
zu sein, und im militärischen Bereich alles dafür zu tun, damit dieser
Krieg funktioniert hat. Ein Großteil der kriegsnotwendigen Transporte
lief über Deutschland, über Frankfurt Airbase, Ramstein, Spangdahlem,
und über die Häfen von Bremen, Bremerhaven, Hamburg, Emden, Nordenham,
usw. Wir haben immer und immer wieder kritisiert, dass die deutsche
Regierung nur gesagt hat, sie sei gegen diesen Krieg, und wir haben
immer und immer wieder gefordert, sie solle diesen kriegskritischen
Worten auch endlich Taten folgen lassen. (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, man fragt sich ja, warum die deutsche
Regierung gegen den Krieg geredet hat und gleichzeitig den Krieg
wesentlich ermöglicht hat. Dahinter steht - und das ist inzwischen für
immer mehr Menschen offensichtlich - ein Konzept: Dieses Konzept ist
eine Doppelstrategie, die einerseits zum Ziel hat, dass die deutsche
Regierung und deutsche Firmen auch mit beteiligt werden, beim
sogenannten Nachkriegsirak und bei der Vergabe von Wiederaufbauprojekten
im Irak und dass andererseits derzeit die deutsche Regierung zusammen
mit der französischen Regierung dabei ist, einen Gegen-Militärmacht
Europäische Union weiter zu betreiben..

Herr Rogowski vom Bundesverband der Industrie in Deutschland (BDI) hat
formuliert, dass er fordert, dass auch deutsche Firmen jetzt Aufträge
bekommen sollen, Friedrich Merz von der CDU hat gesagt, wir sind gerne
beim Aufbau dabei, wenn auch deutsche Firmen Gewinne machen, Wolfgang
Thierse hat sich dem angeschlossen. Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, es
ist nicht allzu konsequent, wenn man sagt, man ist gegen einen Krieg,
aber nachher will man dann doch davon profitieren. (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, Gerhard Schröder und Jacques Chirac sind
gerade gemeinsam mit der belgischen Regierung dabei die Situation, die
sich während der Vorbereitung des Irakkrieges ergeben hat, auszunutzen.
Gerhard Schröder hat in der ZEIT ein Interview gegeben, in dem er sagt,
wenn man selbstständig agiert, dann müsse man auch bereit sein, mehr
Geld in Militär und Rüstung zu stecken. Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde,
im Moment sind diese Herren Chirac und Schröder dabei, gemeinsam eine
EU-Interventionstruppe aufzubauen mit 60.000 Mann, davon 18.000 aus
Deutschland. Und es gibt einen Sondergipfel am 29. April, wo die
französische, die deutsche und die belgische Regierung gemeinsam
überlegen, wie sie eine Gegenmilitärmacht EU weiter ausbauen können. Sie
wollen dort ihre militärischen und Rüstungs-Aktivitäten besser
koordinieren. Ich sage von hier aus: Wir wollen weder eine Weltmacht
USA, noch eine Weltmacht Europäische Union (Heftiger Beifall). Und,
liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, wir wollen natürlich schon gar keine neue
Weltmacht Deutschland (Beifall).

Und wenn ich nun bei Deutschland angelangt bin, dann können wir uns
anschauen, was in Deutschland derzeit diskutiert wird, dort wird
diskutiert, das sogenannte neue Bundeswehrkonzept, das der deutsche
Verteidigungsminister Peter Struck vorgestellt hat mit dem Satz:
"Deutsche Sicherheit wird auch am Hindukusch verteidigt." Dies ist ein
Bruch dessen was im Grundgesetz festgeschrieben war. "Der Bund stellt
Streitkräfte zur Verteidigung auf". Und was Peter Struck hier vor hat,
ist nichts anderes als expansive Politik, und diese lehnen wir ganz klar
ab! (Heftiger Beifall)

Peter Struck hat auch angekündigt, dass es neue "verteidigungspolitische
Richtlinien" geben wird. Und der Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr,
Wolfgang Scheiderhan, hat mitgeteilt, was in diesen
"verteidigungspolitischen Richtlinien" drin stehen soll. Er teilte mit,
Teil dieser "verteidigungspolitischen Richtlinien", die die Grundlage
für die Bundeswehr und damit für die Militärpolitik Deutschlands sind,
Teil dieser "verteidigungspolitischen Richtlinien" soll das sogenannte
Präventivkriegskonzept werden. D.h. genau dieses Konzept, was jetzt mit
dem Irakkrieg getestet wurde, dieses Präventivkriegskonzept soll in
Zukunft auch ab Mai in Deutschland gelten. Wir wollen weder ein
Präventivkriegskonzept in den USA, noch ein Präventivkriegskonzept in
Deutschland! (Heftiger Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, der deutsche Kanzler hat ein Programm
vorgestellt und wird einen Sonderparteitag durchführen, bei dem er eine
Vertrauensfrage - nach bewährten Muster - stellen wird, bei der es darum
gehen wird, ob die Sozialdemokraten das Sozialabbau-Programm, das er
vorgelegt hat, mit unterstützen. Für mich gehört die Frage von
Sozialabbau und die Frage von Krieg und Frieden wesentlich zusammen. Es
ist nicht ganz von ungefähr, dass der einzige Haushaltstitel, der
derzeit nicht gekürzt wird, in Deutschland der Militärhaushalt ist und
gleichzeitig im Sozialbereich zusammengestrichen wird. Wir sagen ganz
klar: Wir lehnen dieses Sozialabbauprogramm von Schröder ab! (Starker
Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, wenn Krieg geführt wird, werden an der
Heimatfront Grundrechte eingeschränkt. Wir wollen nicht dass Grundrechte
eingeschränkt werden, dass Menschen entweder in den USA aber auch hier
in Deutschland mit Repressionen überzogen werden, nur weil sie z.B.
muslimischen Glaubens sind oder arabischer Herkunft. Wir lehnen diesen
Abbau von Grundrechten ab. (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, ich denke, das Problem ist nicht allein
die US-Regierung, das Problem ist die Politik, die in allen westlichen
Staaten gemacht wird, nämlich eine Politik, die auf Kosten der Menschen
im Süden geht. Und es ist zentral, dass die Antikriegs- und
Friedensbewegung sich zusammengeschlossen hat mit den
globalisierungskritischen Gruppen, und gemeinsam sagen wir: eine andere
Welt ist nicht nur möglich, eine andere Welt ist - vor allem wenn wir an
die Menschen im Süden denken - andere Welt ist dringend nötig . (Beifall)

Zentral dabei ist, nicht auf Regierungen zu vertrauen, sondern von unten
Druck aufzubauen, denn wer auf Regierungen vertraut und sich verlässt,
der ist verlassen. (Beifall)

Liebe Freundinnen und Freunde, wir brauchen ein internationales Bündnis
von unten, von der Friedensbewegung, von der Antikriegsbewegung, von
sozialen Gruppen, von Gewerkschaften, von kirchlichen Gruppen und von
globalisierungskritischen Gruppen. Wir müssen gemeinsam von unten Druck
machen, um gegen diese ungerechte Weltwirtschaft, die wir hier haben,
Druck auszuüben. Und ich denke, das Europäische Sozialforum in Florenz,
das die Idee hatte für die großen weltweiten Demonstrationen am 15.
Februar, war dazu ein erster Schritt. Und genau diese Bewegungen von
unten müssen wir fortsetzen, ob nun aktuell auf ein Land Bomben geworfen
werden oder nicht. Und deshalb ist es so wichtig, dass die Ostermärsche
stark besucht werden, auch wenn im Moment gerade keine Bomben fallen.

Was wir erleben ist ein permanenter Krieg, ein permanenter Krieg der
Staaten des Nordens gegen die Menschen im Süden. Wir sind solidarisch
mit den Menschen im Süden. Und wir lehnen diese permanente Kriegspolitik
sowohl der USA als auch der anderen westlichen Staaten entschieden ab.
Vielen Dank. (Starker Beifall)

---------------------------
IMI-Homepage: http://www.imi-online.de


Material-, Bestell- und Download-Liste der IMI-Standpunkte 2003
IMI-Standpunkte 2003
http://www.imi-online.de/2003.php3?id=368
Stand: 24.04.2003
24.4.2003, IMI


IMI-Standpunkt 2003/042, ISSN 1611-2725
Rede von Tobias Pflüger, Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V.
beim internationalen Ostermarsch in Konstanz, Bodensee am 19.04.2003
http://www.imi-online.de/2003.php3?id=550
24.4.2003, Tobias Pflüger


IMI-Standpunkt 2003/041, ISSN 1611-2725
Ostermarschrede von Till Gocht (Informationsstelle Militarisierung e.V.)
19.04.2003 Mainz, 21.04.2003 Frankfurt-Bockenheim
http://www.imi-online.de/2003.php3?id=529
23.4.2003, Till Gocht

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:40 FM
Scandal-hit US firm wins key contracts

Antony Barnett
Sunday April 13, 2003
The Observer

A US military contractor accused of human rights violations has won a multi-million-dollar contract to police post-Saddam Iraq, The Observer can reveal.
DynCorp, which has donated more than £100,000 to the Republican Party, began recruiting for a private police force in Iraq last week on behalf of the US State Department.

The awarding of such a sensitive contract to DynCorp has caused consternation in some circles over the company's policing record. A British employment tribunal recently forced DynCorp to pay £110,000 in compensation to a UN police officer it unfairly sacked in Bosnia for whistleblowing on DynCorp colleagues involved in an illegal sex ring.

Der Artikel

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:30 FM
April 25, 2003
Interview mit Syriens Botschafter

Die Frage nach dem Existenzrecht Israels wird trotz eindringlicher Nachfrage nicht von Syriens Botschafter Mohammed Walid Hezbor beantwortet.

Artikel in Spiegel online:
"Sie wollen den Nahen Osten destabilisieren"

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:21 FM
Uri Avnery: Abu 1 gegen Abu 2

www.uri-avnery.de
Uri Avnery ist israelischer Friedensaktivist und Mitgründer der kleinen israelischen Friedensbewegung Gush Shalom (beim Klicken auf den Link erscheint "Zeichensatz laden - einfach abbrechen!)

Der Streit zwischen Abu 1 und Abu 2 – zwischen Abu Amar und Abu Mazen – ist keine persönliche Angelegenheit, wie es von Journalisten in Israel und in aller Welt dargestellt wird. Natürlich spielen die Egos beider Persönlichkeiten eine Rolle wie in allen politischen Kämpfen. Aber die Kontroverse selbst liegt viel tiefer. Sie reflektiert die einmalige Situation des palästinensischen Volkes.
Ein Palästinenser der oberen Klasse definierte dies im israelischen Fernsehen dieser Woche folgendermaßen: „Der Schritt von der Kultur der Revolution zur Kultur eines Staates“. Womit er sagen wollte: der Befreiungskrieg der Palästinenser ist ans Ende gekommen, und nun ist es an der Zeit, die Angelegenheiten des Staates in Ordnung zu bringen. Deshalb muss Arafat (Abu-Amar), der ersteres vertritt, gehen und Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), der das zweite darstellt, die Amtsgewalt übernehmen.

Keine Beschreibung könnte von der Realität weiter entfernt sein. Der palästinensische Befreiungskrieg ist im Augenblick auf seinem Höhepunkt. Vielleicht ist er niemals in einem kritischeren Stadium gewesen. Die Palästinenser sind mit existentieller Bedrohung konfrontiert: ethnischer Säuberung (was man in Israel mit „Transfer“ umschreibt) oder Gefangenschaft in ohnmächtigen Enklaven im Stile von Bantustans.

Wie kann diese Illusion entstehen, dass der nationale Kampf vorüber und die Zeit gekommen sei, sich mit Verwaltungsdingen zu befassen?

Der Artikel

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:54 FM
April 24, 2003
Die Invasion der Täufer

Telepolis:

Michaela Simon 24.04.2003
In einer Hand ein Glas Wasser, in der anderen die Bibel, welcher "befreite" Iraker könnte da widerstehen?

Den Glauben teilen und ihn anderen bringen: Charles Stanleys Predigten werden von seiner 40 Millionen Dollar schweren Organisation In Touch Ministries in vierzehn Sprachen übersetzt, in die ganze Welt gesendet und scheuen nicht das politische Engagement.

Im Februar ereiferte er sich mit "Eine Nation im Krieg" für den Feldzug seines Präsidenten, eine Rede, die auch in arabischen Ländern wie Libyen und Iran gehört werden konnte. Fortan wird auch im Irak seine Stimme ertönen, doch konservative Fundamentalisten eilen auch persönlich auf den neuen Markplatz der christlichen Ideologie, die Koffer voller missionarischer Absichten. Wie Geier kreisen radikale christliche Heilsbringer über dem zerstörten Land.

Der Artikel

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:48 FM
Irakische Antiquität auf US-Flughafen beschlagnahmt

Spiegel online:

Mindestens ein Kunstwerk aus einem geplünderten irakischen Museum ist an einem amerikanischen Flughafen gefunden worden, berichtet das FBI. Experten vermuten, dass einige Plünderer im Irak von internationalen Sammlern beauftragt wurden.


Der Artikel

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 11:35 FM
April 23, 2003
Sachen gibts...!

Da schau ich mir doch mal zum Spass den Verlauf in meinem Browser an - und was finde ich da?

An meinem Computer soll heute morgen ein e-mail-account abgefragt worden sein mit der Adresse:

AstridC@t-online.de

Nun habe ich weder eine e-mail-Adresse mit diesem Namen, geschweige denn diesen account abgerufen. Und t-online als Provider habe ich auch nicht.

Kann mir jemand vielleicht eine plausible Erklärung liefern?
Ich verstehe es jedenfalls (bis jetzt?) nicht.

Viele Grüsse
Astrid Haarland

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 01:11 EM
Verzweiflung der Freiheit oder Macht der Bilder?

In der Frankfurter Rundschau denkt der serbische Schriftsteller Bora Cosic ausführlich über die Iraker nach, die in einem "neugewonnenen Akt der Freiheit" Saddam Husseins Statue zum Einsturz brachten. Allzu viele Iraker waren es jedoch nicht, die die Statue zu Fall brachten, wie die Weitwinkelaufnahme der Nachrichtenagentur Reuters beweist. In ihrem Weblog zeigt die Netzkünstlerin Gertrud Schrenk die Aufnahme, der Link auf das Original ist leider nicht mehr erreichbar.

weblog von Gertrud Schrenk, Eintrag vom 12.04.03

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 10:55 FM
April 19, 2003
Der Fluch der Stunde Null

www.sueddeutsche.de

Die ersten Bestandsaufnahmen der Schäden im Irakischen Nationalmuseum zeigen, dass die Plünderer mit System zu Werk gegangen sind

"Die Plünderungen vom April 2003 sind die größte kulturelle Katastrophe, die seit der Zerstörung Bagdads im Mongolensturm 1258 über das Zweistromland kam. Damals wurde Bagdad, die Hauptstadt des islamischen Weltreiches, vollkommen zerstört – und ausgeplündert. Das Gedächtnis einer ganzen Epoche wurde ausgelöscht. Der Schaden, der in den vergangenen Wochen entstand, ist wahrscheinlich noch größer: Dokumente der vielen Stadtkulturen, welche jahrtausendelang das Zweistromland geprägt haben, wurden vernichtet ...

Die Plünderer Bagdads werden kaum zu fassen sein. Man muss also nach denen fragen, welche die Plünderungen zugelassen haben. Die irakischen Wissenschaftler hoffen auf Hilfe aus Europa – und aus Amerika. Schließlich ist das Irakische Nationalmuseum auch ein Stück westlicher Kolonialgeschichte. Als die Briten im Ersten Weltkrieg 1917 nach Bagdad kamen, reiste in ihrem Tross auch die Abenteurerin und Arabienkennerin Gertrude Bell mit. Gertrude Bell starb 1927 in Bagdad; ihr Grab ist dort noch heute auf dem protestantischen Friedhof zu sehen. Eines der letzten Projekte von Gertrude Bell war das Sammeln von archäologischen Funden aus dem Zweistromland: Gertrude Bell wollte den Grundstock für ein Irakisches Nationalmuseum legen."


Der ganze Artikel

Posted by Astrid Haarland at 03:39 EM
April 18, 2003
Neu

uns hat's die Datenbank zerschossen (provider pfui) - deswegen ein Neuanfang ;-)
Die alten Einträge sind hier >>> zu finden.

na dann...

Posted by Gertrud Schrenk at 11:28 FM