Das deutsche Schweigen über Israel und sein Preis


Omri Boehm

9. März 2015 in der New York Times

https://www.facebook.com/akirakimail/posts/867205806654882?pnref=story

I.
 Schauen Sie sich die Medien in fast jedem Land an irgendeinem Tag an und Sie werden sehen, dass es keinen Mangel an Meinungen über Israel und seine Politik gibt. Wenn also eine respektierte Person des öffentlichen Lebens sich weigert, seine eigene Meinung mitzuteilen, ist es wichtig, das zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.

In einem ausführlichen Interview, das er der israelischen Tageszeitung Haaretz 2012 gab, wurde der deutsche Philosoph Jürgen Habermas nach seiner Meinung über die Israelische Politik gefragt. Seine Antwort war, dass während „die gegenwärtige Situation und die Methoden der israelischen Regierung… eine Art politischer Evaluation“ erforderten, dies nicht „die Aufgabe eines privaten deutschen Bürgers (seiner) Generation (sei).“ (Hervorhebung von mir).

Wenn Intellektuelle wie Jürgen Habermas und Günter Grass es nicht schaffen, sich zu äußern, dann geraten sie in eine geläufige und gefährliche Falle.
Die Abneigung deutscher Intellektueller, kritisch über Israel zu sprechen, ist natürlich verständlich. Viele würden zustimmen, dass es in diesem Fall nur angemessen sei, einen Kommentar abzulehnen – die deutsche Verantwortung für die Verbrechen des Holocaust lasse es so erscheinen. Offensichtlich spricht Habermas’ Schweigen für viele andere Intellektuelle, einschließlich solche, die jüngeren Generationen angehören.

Dennoch, das Problem mit Habermas’ Antwort gegenüber Haaretz und die Haltung, die sich darin verkörpert ist, dass Habermas in Wirklichkeit überhaupt nicht viel von einem privaten deutschen Bürger hat: Wenn die Quintessenz des öffentlichen Intellektuellen Zuflucht im Privaten sucht; wenn der Begründer eines philosophischen Zweigs, der sich Diskursethik nennt, sich zu sprechen weigert, hat das theoretische und politische Konsequenzen. Das Schweigen selbst ist hier ein Sprechakt und allerdings ein äußerst öffentlicher.

Um die Bedeutung dieses Schweigens zu verstehen, muss man auf Kants Begriff der Aufklärung zurückgehen. In seiner gut bekannten Abhandlung von 1784 “Was ist Aufklärung?” definiert Kant die Aufklärung als “Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst-verschuldeten Unmündigkeit”, einem Wachstumsprozess, der darin besteht, den “Mut” zu finden, selbständig zu denken. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht, für sich selbst oder alleine zu denken. Im Gegenteil besteht Kant darauf, dass der Gebrauch "des eigenen Verstandes" nur aufgrund eines “öffentlichen Gebrauchs der eigenen Vernunft” in mindestens zwei aufeinander bezogenen Arten möglich ist.

Erstens muss man, in der Absicht selbständig zu denken, danach streben, die Perspektive der eigenen Abhängigkeiten zu transzendieren – persönliche, geschichtliche, berufliche, bürgerliche – und versuchen, aus einem kosmopolitischen „Standpunkt aller anderen“ zu urteilen. Zweitens, und eng damit verbunden ist die Idee, dass für sich selbst zu denken nur möglich ist, wenn man laut denkt. Wir wären nicht in der Lage „viel“ zu denken oder allzu „korrekt“, schreibt Kant, wenn wir nicht miteinander denken würden „mit anderen, mit denen wir kommunizieren.“ Unsere eigene Perspektive zu transzendieren aber hängt davon ab, unsere Meinungen dem Urteil der „gesamten lesenden Öffentlichkeit mitzuteilen – danach strebend, durch die öffentliche Debatte eine Vereinbarung „universeller menschlicher Vernunft (zu erreichen), in der „jeder seine eigene Meinung hat.“

Einer von Habermas’ einflussreichsten Lehrern, der Philosoph und Musikwissenschaftler Theodor Adorno, übernahm diese Formulierung 1959 in einer Vorlesung als er sagte, dass Aufklärung darin bestehe, der Verwendung des „zerstörerischen Worts „als“ zu widerstehen.“ Wir begegnen diesem Wort, erklärt er, wenn „Menschen in einer Diskussion sagen ‚als Deutscher kann ich nicht akzeptieren, dass…’ oder ‚als Christ habe ich auf diese und jene Weise zu reagieren.“

Die Konsequenzen, die das für die israelische Frage hat, sind leicht zu überschauen. Ein Deutscher, der sich weigert, israelisches Verhalten zu kommentieren – den persönlichen Verpflichtungen treu bleibend, die durch seine deutsche Vergangenheit erzeugt wurden – verweigert nahezu buchstäblich die Haltung der Aufklärung im Hinblick darauf, jüdische Angelegenheiten anzusprechen.

Dies ist eine Position, die die meisten deutschen Intellektuellen möglicherweise lieber vermeiden würden; und es wäre ein Fehler – einer freudschen Analyse wert – zu behaupten, dass, im Fall eines Deutschen, der einen Juden kritisiert, es einen Sinn ergeben könnte, eine Ausnahme in Kants Idee zuzugestehen. Exakt deswegen, weil Denken im Sinne der Aufklärung schon in seinen frühesten Anfängen von seiner Verbindung zum Antisemitismus verfolgt wurde – besonders deswegen, weil es oft versucht war, die Juden und ihre Tradition als sein mythisches „Anderes“ zu behandeln – gerät die Unterdrückung öffentlicher Kritik des jüdischen Staats auf gefährliche Weise in eine bekannte Falle. Die Aufgabe deutscher Intellektueller – wenn überhaupt, dann wegen der deutschen Geschichte und nicht ihrer zum Trotz – ist die, Israel im Bereich öffentlicher vernünftiger Diskussion zu erfassen; und genau gesagt, es nicht in irgendeinen metaphysischen Bereich einzuschließen, über den, wie Wittgenstein sagen würde „man schweigend hinweggehen muss.“

Das wird nirgends deutlicher als in Habermas’ eigenem Denken. Diskursethik wurde als heldenhaftes intellektuelles Bestreben entwickelt, aufgeklärtes Denken aus den Trümmern des Dritten Reichs zu bergen – um damit Kants Ideal öffentlichen Denkens als Entgegnung zu Heideggers Idee persönlicher Authentizität anzubieten. Diese Rückkehr zu Kant wird nicht erreicht sein, bevor deutsche Intellektuelle nicht den Mut finden, über Israel zu sprechen und zu denken. Historisch gesprochen, mag dies nichts weniger sein als der ultimative Test aufgeklärten Denkens selbst.

II.

Nun denken Sie an den Fall eines anderen von Deutschlands prominenten Intellektuellen – den mit dem Nobelpreis geehrten Schriftsteller und Dichter Günter Grass. „Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes“ schrieb er in einem nun verrufenen Gedicht „Was gesagt werden muss“, „dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat, empfinde ich als belastende Lüge“. Und er setzt fort: „Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land/ das von ureigenen Verbrechen/ die ohne Vergleich sind/ Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird(…)/ ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
geliefert werden soll (…)/ sage ich, was gesagt werden muß…“

Als Habermas in seinem Interview mit Haaretz nach Grass’ Gedicht gefragt wurde, antwortete er, dass er keine „vernünftige Erklärung“ für ein solches Verhalten erkennen könne. „Es besteht nicht der geringste Zweifel daran, dass Günter Grass kein Antisemit ist“, betonte Habermas; „aber“ wiederholte er seine frühere Aussage, „es gibt Dinge, die Deutsche unserer Generation nicht sagen sollten.“

Das ist wohl zu großzügig. Entgegen seinem Titel sagt „Was gesagt werden muss“ wenig, wenn überhaupt irgendetwas, über Israel. Schmerzlich an Grass’ Intervention ist nicht der Inhalt, aber die Form: Das Gedicht klagt über Schweigen aber bricht es nicht; Grass verdammt die Selbstzensur derer, die davor Angst haben, Antisemiten genannt zu werden, aber dann erliegt er dieser – hat nicht den Mut, den jüdischen Staat mit den einfachen Mitteln einer gewöhnlichen Diskussion anzusprechen. Das Ergebnis ist eine nutzlose Kritik Israels, aber ein sehr effektives Verbreiten von Abneigung. Habermas’ Schweigen über Israel schafft es zwar nicht, kritischer zu sein, aber poetischer.

Unter den gegebenen Umständen indes, ist der Preis des Schweigens zu hoch. In einer Zeit, in der Israels Premierminister zynisch die Erinnerung an den Holocaust missbraucht um politisch zu punkten – die Farce begann 2006, als er sagte, dass „es das Jahr 1938 sei und Iran sei Deutschland“, und sie tauchte letzte Woche wieder auf, als Premierminister Benjamin Netanjahu zum Kongress der Vereinigten Staaten sprach – und wenn Elie Wiesel, der Netzanjahu zum Kongress begleitete, als Vertreter einer mächtigen Siedlerorganisation auftritt, sind vernünftige, ethische Stimmen und nicht Schweigen vonnöten.

Nach 48 Jahren militärischer Besatzung, acht Jahren Belagerungszustand in Gaza und mehr als 2000 durch Israel getöteten Palästinensern gerade erst vergangenen Sommer, unterstützen deutsche Intellektuelle, die nicht sprechen, faktisch einige Aussagen, die sie eindeutig besser ablehnen sollten. Zum Beispiel, dass ihre Geschichte sie mit den Juden verbindet – repräsentiert durch den israelischen Staat – nicht mit dem universellen Humanismus. Es gibt eine vernünftige Antwort auf diese Behauptung, und die ist, dass Deutsche beiden gegenüber verbunden sind, und dass darin kein Gegensatz liegt. Aber man kann diese gesunde Position nur dann guter Hoffnung unterstützen, wenn man die Verletzung internationaler Gesetze und Menschenrechte durch Israel verurteilt, auf diese Weise eine Position einnehmend, die sowohl die Ideale des Humanismus als auch die Juden unterstützt. Wenn man darin versagt, über Israels Vergehen zu sprechen, wird Deutschland nicht nur darin versagen, seinen Verantwortlichkeiten gerecht zu werden, sondern es untergräbt den Holocaust als signifikante politische Vergangenheit.

Es wäre albern für einen Israeli meiner Generation, die Angst zu unterschätzen, der deutsche Intellektuelle begegnen müssen, wenn sie gegen Israel Stellung beziehen. Aber wenn aufgeklärtes Denken als politische Antwort auf Deutschlands Vergangenheit wirken kann, muss Mut dafür gefunden werden, diese Angst zu überwinden. Das Schweigen über Israel zu wahren ist an diesem Punkt weder der richtige Weg, noch ist es ein effektiver Weg um der Geschichte des Holocaust gerecht zu werden.

Omri Boehm ist Assistenzprofessor für Philosophie an der New School for Social Research (New York City). Er ist der Autor von “The Binding of Isaac: A Religious Model of Disobedience” und, erst kürzlich, “Kant’s Critique of Spinoza.”

Originalbeitrag: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/…/should-germans-sta…/…

Übersetzung: M. Brunken

The German Silence on Israel, and Its Cost

By OMRI BOEHM 

MARCH 9, 2015

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/should-germans-stay-silent-on-israel/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

I.
Look at the media in nearly any country on any given day and you will find that there is no shortage of opinions on Israel and its policies. So when a respected public figure declines to share his own, it’s worth taking note.

In an extensive interview given in 2012 to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas was asked for his opinion about Israeli politics. His answer was that while “the present situation and the policies of the Israeli government” do require a “political kind of evaluation,” this is not “the business of a private German citizen of my generation.” (my emphasis).

When intellectuals like Jürgen Habermas and Günter Grass fail to speak out, they are stepping into a familiar, and dangerous, trap.

The reluctance of German intellectuals to speak critically about Israel is, of course, under-standable. Many would agree that refusing to comment in this case is only appropriate — German responsibility for the crimes of the Holocaust would make it so. Evidently, Haber-mas’s silence speaks for many other intellectuals, including ones who belong to younger generations.

Still, the problem with Habermas’s answer to Haaretz and the stance it represents is that, in fact, Habermas is not much of a private German citizen at all: when the quintessential public intellectual seeks refuge in privacy; when the founder of a branch of philosophy called dis-course ethics refuses to speak, there are theoretical and political consequences. Silence here is itself a speech act, and a very public one indeed.

In order to understand the meaning of this silence, it is necessary to go back to Kant’s concept of enlightenment. In his well-known essay from 1784 — “What Is Enlightenment?” — Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity,” a process of growing up that consists in finding the “courage” to think for oneself. That does not mean, however, to think by oneself, or alone. On the contrary, Kant insists that using one’s “own understanding” is possible only through a “public use of one’s reason,” in at least two interrelated ways.

First, in order to think for oneself one must strive to transcend the perspective of one’s private commitments — personal, historical, professional, civic — and attempt to judge from the cos-mopolitan “standpoint of everybody else.” Second, and closely related, is the idea that thin-king for oneself is possible only by thinking aloud. We would not be able to think very “much” or all too “correctly,” Kant writes, if we would not think together “with others with whom we communicate.” Transcending our private perspective thus depends on submitting our opinions to the judgment of the “entire reading public” — striving to reach, through pub-lic debate, an agreement of “universal human reason in which each has his own say.”

One of Habermas’s most influential teachers, the philosopher and musicologist Theodor Adorno, captured this notion in a 1959 lecture when he said that enlightenment consisted of resisting the use of the “disastrous word ‘as.’” We encounter that word, he explains, when “people say in the course of a discussion, ‘As a German, I cannot accept that …’ or ‘As a Christian, I must react in such-and-such a way.’”

The consequences to the Israel question can be easily overlooked. A German refusing to comment about Israeli conduct — remaining true to the private commitments generated by his German past — is quite literally refusing to assume the stance of enlightenment when addres-sing Jewish affairs.

This is a position that most German intellectuals would probably like to avoid; and it would be a mistake — worthy of a Freudian analysis — to suggest that, for the case of a German criticizing a Jew, it makes sense to admit an exception to Kant’s idea. Exactly because from its earliest beginnings enlightenment thinking was haunted by its relation to anti-Semitism — that is, especially because it was often tempted to treat the Jews and their tradition as Enligh-tenment’s mythical “other” — repressing public criticism of the Jewish State is dangerously stepping into a familiar trap. The task of German intellectuals — if anything, because of Ger-man history and not despite it — is to engage Israel in the realm of public rational discussion; exactly not restrict it to some metaphysical realm about which, as Wittgenstein would say, “one must pass over in silence.”

This is nowhere clearer than in Habermas’s own thinking. Discourse ethics was developed as a heroic intellectual effort to salvage enlightenment thinking from the ruins of the Third Reich — to offer Kant’s ideal of public reasoning in response to Heidegger’s idea of private authen-ticity. This return to Kant will not be achieved before German intellectuals find the courage to think and speak about Israel. Historically speaking, this may be nothing less than the ultimate test of enlightenment thinking itself.

II.

Now consider the case of another of Germany’s prominent intellectuals — the Nobel Prize-winning novelist and poet Günter Grass. “This general silence on the facts,” he wrote in a now infamous poem, “What Must Be Said,” “before which my own silence has bowed/seems to me a troubling, enforced lie…” And he continues: “But now that my own country/ brought in time after time/ for questioning about its own crimes/ profound and beyond compare/ has delivered yet another submarine to Israel…/ I’ll say what must be said…”

When asked about Grass’s poem in his Haaretz interview, Habermas replied that he could see no “reasonable excuse” for such a behavior. “There is not the slightest doubt that Günter Grass is not an anti-Semite,” Habermas emphasized; “but,” repeating his earlier statement, “there are things that Germans of our generation should not say.”

Arguably, this is too generous. Despite its title, “What Must Be Said” says little about Israel if anything at all. What is distressing about Grass’s intervention is not the content but the form: the poem complains about silence but does not break it; Grass condemns the self-censorship of those who fear to be called anti-Semites but then succumbs to it — doesn’t have the cou-rage to address the Jewish State with the straightforward means of ordinary discussion. The result is a useless critique of Israel but a rather effective spreading of resentment. Habermas’s silence about Israel manages to be not just more critical, but more poetic.

Under the circumstances, however, the price of silence is too high. In a time when Israel’s own prime minister cynically abuses the memory of the Holocaust to score political points — the farce started in 2006, when he stated that “the year is 1938 and Iran is Germany,” and resurfaced last week when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress — and when Elie Wiesel, who accompanied Netanyahu to Congress, serves as chairman of a powerful settlers’ organization, rational, ethical voices, not silence, are needed.
After 48 years of military occupation, eight years of siege on Gaza and more than 2,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces just this past summer, German intellectuals who do not speak are de facto endorsing several propositions that they should very much like to deny. For example, that their history as Germans commits them to the Jews — represented by the State of Israel — not to universal humanism. There is a sensible answer to this claim, which is that Germans are committed to both, and that there’s no contradiction. But one can endorse this healthy proposition in good faith only by condemning Israel’s international law and human rights violations, thus taking a position that supports both humanism’s ideals and the Jews. By failing to speak out against Israel’s violations, Germany will not only fail to meet its own res-ponsibilities; it will undermine the Holocaust as a politically significant past.

It would be foolish for an Israeli of my generation to underestimate the anxiety that German intellectuals must face when taking a stand about Israel. But if enlightenment thinking can function as a political answer to Germany’s past, courage must be found to overcome this anxiety. Keeping silent about Israel at this point is not the right way, nor is it an effective way, to do justice to the history of the Holocaust.

Omri Boehm is an assistant professor of philosophy at the New School for Social Research. He is the author of “The Binding of Isaac: A Religious Model of Disobedience” and, most recently, “Kant’s Critique of Spinoza.

Netanyahu deserves the Israeli people, and they deserve him

If after everything, the Israeli phoenix succeeded in rising from the ashes and getting reelected, something is truly broken, possibly beyond repair.

By Gideon Levy

Mar. 18, 2015, http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.647555

The first conclusion that arose just minutes after the announcement of the exit polls was particularly discouraging: The nation must be replaced. Not another election for the country's leadership, but general elections to choose a new Israeli people – immediately. The country urgently needs that. It won’t be able to stand another term for Benjamin Netanyahu, who emerged last night as the man who will form the next government.

If after six years of nothing, if after six years of sowing fear and anxiety, hatred and despair, this is the nation's choice, then it is very ill indeed. If after everything that has been revealed in recent months, if after everything that has been written and said, if after all this, the Israeli phoenix succeeded in rising from the ashes and getting reelected, if after all this the Israeli people chose him to lead for another four years, something is truly broken, possibly beyond repair.

Netanyahu deserves the Israeli people and they deserve him. The results are indicative of the direction the country is headed: A significant proportion of Israelis has finally grown detached from reality. This is the result of years' worth of brainwashing and incitement. These Israelis voted for the man who will lead the United States to adopt harsh measures against Israel, for the man whom the world long ago grew sick of. They voted for the man who admitted to having duped half the world during his Bar-Ilan speech; now he has torn off his mask and dis-avowed those words once and for all. Israel said "yes" to the man who said "no" to a Palesti-nian state. Dear Likud voters, what the hell do you say "yes" to? Another 50 years of occupa-tion and ostracism? Do you really believe in that?

On Tuesday the foundations were laid for the apartheid state that is to come. If Netanyahu succeeds in forming the next government in his spirit and image, then the two-state solution will finally be buried and the struggle over the character of a binational state will begin. If Netanyahu is the next prime minister, then Israel has not only divorced the peace process, but also the world. Piss off, dear world, we're on our own. Please don't interfere, we're asleep, the people are with Netanyahu. The Palestinians can warm the benches at the International Crimi-nal Court at The Hague, the Israel boycotters can swing into high gear and Gaza can wait for the next cruel attack by the Israeli army.

The battle for all these has yet to be officially decided. The next prime minister will be crowned by Moshe Kahlon and the heads of other small parties. At the time of this writing, Kahlon has yet to declare his intention. The ball is in these parties' court; they will decide if Netanyahu continues. Most of them despise him, but it's doubtful whether they will have the courage to turn their backs on the public. That will be their test. That will be the test of their courage and integrity. Moshe Kahlon and Aryeh Dery, do you truly believe Netanyahu is better than Isaac Herzog for the society and social welfare you purport to care for? Does the country's decent and courageous president, Reuven Rivlin, believe Netanyahu will be a better prime minister than Herzog? There is a lot resting on his shoulders now – but the fact that a figure like Netanyahu and a party like Likud succeeded in maintaining power as the country's leading faction already says a great deal.

Netanyahu is threatening to surpass David Ben-Gurion as Israel's longest running leader. He is already in second place, and yet it's hard to think of one significant achievement on his part. The list of damage he has done is long. But he is the nation's, or much of the nation's, chosen one. That choice must be respected, even if it makes it difficult to hope for a good outcome. The only consolation is that another Netanyahu term will prompt the world to act. That possi-bility is our only refuge.

Gideon Levy tweets at @levy_haaretz

Israel: What Now, Bibi? — Early Election Takeaways

By Noam Sheizaf

Global Research, March 18, 2015

+972 Magazine

Region: Middle East & North Africa

 0 

  1  0 

 

  3

Benjamin Netanyahu gives a victory speech on election night, March 18, 2015. (Photo: +972 Magazine)

Netanyahu picked a fight with a sitting U.S. president and declared there will never be a Palestinian State. It might have helped him squeeze out another election victory, but where is Israel heading?

The Likud and Labor (The Zionist Camp) are tied with 27 seats, but Benjamin Netanyahu has way more paths to bring together the 61 seats necessary for forming a government, and another term for himself. That’s the bottom line of the exit polls published by the Israeli TV channels as the polling stations closed on Tuesday night. Netanyahu and his party members are celebrating, and Bibi is already testing the waters with potential coalition partners.

(Update: Early Wednesday morning, with over 90 percent of votes counted, Netanyahu took a large lead with 30 seats to the Zionist Camp’s 24. Read more here.)

Netanyahu was able to surge in the last few days, following a desperate – and at times, racist –campaign that warned right-wing voters of a “left-wing government backed by the Arabs.” On election day, he published a Facebook status declaring that “Arabs are heading to the polls in masses” and called for his supporters to rush and save the Right from losing power. This was a prime minister warning that his own citizens are voting. But in Netanyahu’s rhetoric, Palestinians were never really citizens anyway, even those who have Israeli identity cards; he sees himself as the leader of the Jewish people, not of Israelis.

The warnings worked. Other right-wing parties hemorrhage support – Bennett and the settlers dropped to eight seats in the exit polls (they had 12 until now), Liberman dropped five, and the far-right Yahad party probably didn’t even make it in. But Likud rose from 20-21 seats to 27-28, and the Right, along with the ultra-Orthodox parties and Moshe Kahlon’s centrist party has about 64 seats. Despite all the recent drama, there wasn’t much movement between the political blocs, compared to 2013 (61:59) or 2009 (65:55).

Sixty-four seats doesn’t constitute a huge majority, but it’s enough for a stable government – as long as Kahlon doesn’t pull any surprises and refuse Bibi’s offer (it’s highly unlikely). Netanyahu will probably try to have a larger majority by inviting Labor or Yair Lapid to join, but whether they do or not, they won’t be able to deny him the victory. Assuming there are no major changes when the final results are in, Bibi will probably remain Israel’s prime minister – for the third consecutive time, and the fourth altogether.

The big question is – to what end? Netanyahu may have won a major victory – he destroyed the opposition on the right and he will once again lead a big party – but he ran a nasty campaign that alienated major parts of the public. He put himself in a diplomatic corner on Iran andcommitted to never permit the creation of a Palestinian state. What now, Bibi?

In the final days of the campaign, Netanyahu said twice that there will be no Palestinian state – not on his watch. But what alternative Bibi is offering? In two years, Israel will mark 50 years of military control over the lives of millions of Palestinians. The international community is more vocal in its demands for change, and the Palestinian Authority is more desperate than ever. Netanyahu won’t be able to blame the PA for the failure of the ever-lasting peace process when he himself declares that no matter what the Palestinians do, they will never gain their independence, nor will they become full citizens of Israel.

There is symbolic significance to the fact that Netanyahu openly campaigned on his opposition to Palestinian statehood. It means that he is backed by a majority of Israeli voters, and an absolute majority of the Jewish vote. There needs to be, and I think there will be, a debate on the implications of this decision by the Jewish public. For years we have been hearing that Israel will either end the occupation or cease to be a democracy. Could it be that the Jewish public has made its choice?

There is also the problem of picking a fight with an American president on his signature foreign policy issue. Netanyahu pretty much made it clear in Washington that he has no alternatives to offer on the deal with Iran, but that he will still do everything in his power to prevent it. Not only is the conflict with the White House is far from over, Bibi will need to decide what to do if and when a deal does go through. Tonight I really don’t know where Bibi is heading, and for that matter — Israel.

A couple of side notes following the exit polls:

The Joint List. The combined list of Palestinian parties known as the Joint List is now the third-largest party in the Knesset. If Labor enters the government, the Joint List could even assume the formal role of the leader of the opposition. The Palestinian parties were hoping to gain more from this situation – they would have been in a better bargaining position had Herzog ended up with a clear path to a majority – but this is still a significant development.

Will the unified list survive? There are major challenges ahead, for example, over whether to support Herzog’s bid for the premiership in consultations with the president next week. This is part of the larger dilemma the list faces surrounding any possible cooperation with other (lefty, but Zionist) parties. There are two distinct approaches on this question that split the four factions that make up the Joint List. In fact, it won’t be that surprising if the list breaks up over this very question, which touches on the deepest conflicts in the political identity of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Meretz. The small liberal party seemed to have survived this campaign, which almost saw it eliminated as lefty voters turned to Herzog in order to increase the chances of toppling Netanyahu. The exit polls give Meretz five seats, as oppose to the six they have now. But the campaign revealed deeper problems with Meretz, which can’t seem to break out of its small circle of core supporters, most of them centered in and around Tel Aviv. Squeezed between “The Zionist Camp” and the Palestinian list, Meretz’s fate is but another symbol for the grim state of affair in the Jewish left.

Terrorism is “Made in the USA”. The Global War on Terrorism is a Fabrication, A Big Lie EDITOR'S CHOICE | 15.03.2015 | 14:39   Prominent academic and author Dr Michel Chossudovsky warned that the so-called war on terrorism is a front to propagate America’s global hegemony and create a New World Order. Dr Chossudovsky said terrorism is made in the US and that terrorists are not the product of the Muslim world. According to him, the US global war on terrorism was used to enact anti-terrorism laws that demonised Muslims in the Western world and created Islamophobia. Elaborating on his argument, Dr Chossudovsky said that NATO was responsible for recruiting members of the Islamic state while Israel is funding “global jihad elements inside Syria”. Dr Chossudovsky, who is also the founder of the Centre for Research and Globalisation, further emphasised that the global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity. Echoing Dr Chossudovsky’s arguments, Malaysia’s prominent political scientist, Islamic reformist and activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that the US has always manipulated religion to further its global hegemony on sovereign states. globalresearch.ca

Kiev Shifts Goalposts as Merkel Skews Wide

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 18.03.2015 | 00:00

Kiev President Petro Poroshenko unveiled a new dimension of international sanctions against Russia this week, while being royally entertained by German leaders in Berlin. The oligarch-turned-politician now wants the Western allies of the Kiev regime to boycott the 2018 World Cup Finals to held in Russia.  Such a ban on the world’s premier sporting event would be a first, given that the soccer tournament – the globe’s most widely followed sports spectacle, exceeding even the Olympics – has never been boycotted before. Since its inception in 1930, the four-yearly FIFA World Cup has only been cancelled twice – in 1942 and 1946 due to the Second World War. But it has never been subject to an international boycott.  Now the chocolate-tycoon Poroshenko wants to change all that by calling on the Western sponsors of his regime to not show up in Moscow for the World Cup in three years’ time. «The whole world needs to understand that Russia is waging war against Ukraine», Poroshenko told his German hosts, adding that «tens of thousands» of Russian troops are in his country.  Poroshenko and his reactionary Kiev regime – which seized power in February last year in a Western-backed violent coup against a constitutionally elected government – have shown themselves to be shameless purveyors of the most outlandish claims over the Ukraine crisis. Their relentless assertions of Russian aggression – always cited without the slightest evidence – are gladly broadcast by the US-led NATO military alliance, Western governments and Western news media. Although the Berlin government has recently adopted a more wary attitude toward this «dangerous propaganda» – it still indulges the Kiev warmongering, as can be seen by the way Poroshenko and his reckless anti-Russian rhetoric were entertained in Berlin this week.  The latest call from Kiev to boycott the Russia World Cup is rather appropriate because the Poroshenko-led regime has become something of «star team» in shifting the goalposts on any given political matter – most pointedly on the month-old Minsk ceasefire deal.  While being received with full military honours at Berlin’s Bellevue Palace by German President Joachim Gauck, Poroshenko declared with stupendous cynicism that «no there was no alternative to the Minsk ceasefire». The ceasefire was brokered last month by Russian President Vladimir Putin, along with German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande. It came into effect on February 15, primarily in the form of a truce, but also with certain other political provisions, such as autonomy for the breakaway eastern Donbas regions of mainly ethnic Russian people, who refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the Nazi-adulating Kiev junta. Well, if there is no alternative to Minsk, as the Kiev figurehead leader appears to assert, why then is his regime violating the deal at every turn? Or, to use the football analogy, moving the goalposts all over the place. On March 14, that date was set out by the Minsk accord – and signed up to by the Kiev regime – as the deadline for special political status to be assigned to the Donbas self-proclaimed people’s republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR). Kiev agreed at Minsk to concede political autonomy for the breakaway regions by March 14. The date came and went this week, yet the Kiev parliament is only now debating a move to grant «special status" that is conditional on all sorts of new provisos, such as disarmament and disbandment of the self-defence militia, whom Kiev labels as «terrorists». This is not what the Minsk documents specify.  DPR and LPR spokesmen Denis Pushilin and Vladislav Deneigo this week noted that the failure to implement regional autonomy – a key aspect of the ceasefire accord – is a «crude violation of the Minsk agreement». Russia’s Foreign Ministry has previously called on the Kiev regime to open dialogue with the separatist leaders and to consult over the political future of the southeastern regions. But Kiev obdurately refuses to engage in any political dialogue with the Donbas leaders. This preclusion of consultation is in itself a violation of the terms of the Minks deal that, again, the Kiev regime signed up to in the Belarus capital last month. Other goalposts that have been moved by the Western-backed Kiev regime since the signing of Minsk include: Systematic breach of ceasefire: while the heavy artillery bombardment of cities and towns in Donetsk and Luhansk by Kiev’s forces may have largely ceased, there has been continual sporadic firing across the warring Contact Line. DPR spokesman Eduard Basurin said this week: «Sporadic fire on our militia has never ceased since February 15. No ceasefire has ever been reached since the Minsk agreement supposedly came into force.» On the other hand, Kiev claims that it is the rebels who have breached the ceasefire, citing 68 of its soldiers killed over the last four weeks. However, if that is the case then what is Kiev’s heavy artillery still in place for, while the militias have reportedly withdrawn theirs, as under the ceasefire terms? Kiev’s heavy weapons remain in conflict zone: according to several Donbas sources, at least 20 per cent of Kiev’s heavy artillery remains in place in the vicinity of the Contact Line. Under the terms of Minsk, all such high-calibre munitions were to have been withdrawn. Not only that, but Kiev’s remaining artillery has been carrying out live-fire drills near the Contact Line. One such place is near the rebel-held town of Gorlovka where over 100 civilians, including children, have been killed over the past year from Kiev’s indiscriminate shelling. Residents say that the ongoing live-fire drills is a form of psychological terror used by the Kiev regime. A third violation of Minsk that Kiev has actively pursued is the ongoing economic blockade of the Donbas region. If anything, the Kiev regime seems to be tightening the embargo with the further cutting off of pensions and other state finances, gas supplies, communication networks and the restricted movement of civilians in and out of the region.  It should be noted that these violations are not just breaches of the Minsk accord; they constitute ongoing war crimes committed by the Kiev regime against the civilian Donbas population.  Lastly, while Poroshenko is vowing the upholding of Minsk, his regime is set to receive US and British military trainers this month to begin «war games» in Ukraine. Also an IMF loan to Kiev of $17 billion disbursed a first tranche of $5 billion this week. The IMF is in effect financing a warring party. This raises the suspicion that the Kiev regime only engaged in apparently signing up to Minsk last month in order to buy itself a political cover to access IMF funds to shore up its crumbling finances. With billions of dollars now flowing into Kiev, how long before it resumes its war of aggression on the Donbas? The question is: what are the German and French governments doing about this systematic goalpost shifting by their sponsored regime in Kiev? They are supposed to be guarantors of the Minsk accord to ensure all parties abide by the terms. What is the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) doing about it? The OSCE is charged with ensuring compliance of the ceasefire, yet when it comes to the above transgressions by Kiev, the organisation appears to turn a blind eye. This week as Chancellor Merkel feted Poroshenko in Berlin, along with German President Gauck, she enjoined his cynical words that there is «no alternative to Minsk». Merkel also warned that there could be further European Union sanctions imposed on Russia – if Moscow does not fulfil the terms of the accord!  Can you believe the audacity? Poroshenko accuses Russia of waging war on Ukraine, and he maintains – against all the evidence – that the Kiev regime is living up to every aspect of Minsk. Merkel, by his side, dignifies this absurd nonsense by adding that «pro-Russian separatists» have not yet fully complied. «There are considerable shortcomings in the separatists' compliance with the withdrawal of heavy weapons», she said. And all the while the talk is on what further punitive measures might be slapped on Russia.  Then the Chocolate King seemed to go too far in his deranged thinking, even for his craven sponsor in Berlin, when he called for the boycott of the 2018 World Cup in Russia.  Merkel pulled the reins on that unhinged idea, saying: «I am concentrating on the year 2015. We already have our hands full of things to do, firstly to implement the Minsk package», she added. (Maybe the soccer-loving chancellor has a bet on current world champions Germany wining the tournament for a fifth time in Moscow and hence her baulking at the chance.) Shifting goalposts to 2018 is certainly not a feasible solution to find an urgent peace settlement to a conflict that threatens to engulf, not only Ukraine, but the wider Eurasian continent. Neither is shifting goalposts in the present. To that end, Merkel and other European leaders need to focus on who exactly is the party that is openly undermining the political process in Ukraine, and to stop tilting at windmills in Moscow.  Unfortunately, the prognosis is that if Merkel cannot see the glaring truth of the situation by now and how the Kiev regime is an incendiary time-bomb for EU-Russia relations, then there is not much hope of the chancellor ever coming to a realistic political position on Ukraine. How can she not see that the Ukrainian time-bomb has been planted by Washington, aimed precisely at destroying European-Russian relations? Even with a proverbial penalty kick at an empty goal, the chancellor of Europe’s most powerful state still manages to miss the obvious and skews her aim over the crossbar. And, grimly, that means the outlook for further conflict is not good.

Tags: European Union Germany Ukraine Merkel Poroshenko

Source:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/03/18/kiev-shifts-goalposts-as-merkel-skews-wide.html