Thursday, February 6, 2014

Ja, zu den olympischen Winterspielen in Sotschi, Nein zum revitalisierten Geist von München!

Die olympische Idee soll leben, sie soll leben in Sotschi und soll gute Früchte tragen.

Der Austragungsort ist symbolträchtig. Ist es doch Russland und seiner klugen Führung im September vergangenen Jahres insbesondere zu verdanken, dass die Kriegszone in Nahost nicht noch unheilvoller ausgeweitet wurde. Bereits das doppelte Veto von China und Russland im UN-Sicherheitsrat hat nach der schlimmen Entwicklung in Libyen dazu beigetragen, dem Hegemon die Grenzen spürbar zu zeigen. Syrien hält trotz hoher Opferzahlen und trotz entsetzlicher Verwüstungen, die dem schönen Land zugefügt wurden, stand, nicht zuletzt dank Russland.

Die zum Kriege treibenden Kräfte, die nun in München dieser Tage erneut ihre ihre wahre Natur demonstriert haben, waren darob begreiflicherweise verbittert. Sie hetzen insbesondere gegen den Repräsentanten jenes Staates, der ihnen - durch kluge Diplomatie  - ihre Grenzen vor Augen geführt hat.

Sie rütteln an der Leine in der Ukraine und an vielen anderen Orten der Welt, aber sie haben die Kraft nicht mehr ihrem Muskelspiel genügend Drohgewalt zu verleihen. Die Zukunft gehört jenen Kräften, die für eine multipolare Weltordnung eintreten, die für nationale Souveränität und sich  für das in der UN-Charta  und den Folgekonventionen verbriefte Völkerrecht einsetzen.

Freuen wir uns also mit den Russen und den Sportlern aus aller Welt auf die Winterspiele  und wünschen wir auch  der sie begleitenden Diplomatie gutes Gelingen. 

Destructive Blog-Intervention, But We Won't Give In!

For more than 24 hours this Blog was inaccessible and seemed to have completely disappeared. But we will not be discouraged. Our endeavor remains to contribute  to a more peaceful and therefore viable world for every human being.

We will continue to warn against the harmful road our political leaders have set foot on in Munic under the label "security". We will say NO to the harmful words our President Joachim Gauck  chose to send into the world a week ago, we will say No to his militaristic breach of the German constitution. 

Together with 2/3 of the German citizens we will say No to more global  "military engagement", We do not agree to help out the decaying US hegemony nor do we share the interests of the big internationals to govern the world. 

We will say NO to feeding even more into the army and into  neglecting our cities and communities .

Other than our head of state and the entire leadership we say Yes to  successful Olympic Winter Games in Sochi. We will say Yes to the peaceful encounters between heads of states who do not share the German quasi boycott . We are looking forward to  the Russian leader's  first meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and President of Tajikistan Emomali Rakhmon.  We also welcome Putin 's  talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev and some other foreign leaders. 

We wish with all our hearts that the games will go ahead  under a peaceful star and that terrorist evil doers will not get a chance to disturb.

Hopefully there will be positive impulses on all levels to come from the Caucasus region in the days to come.

Nach unserem Grundgesetz haben Sie “dem Frieden zu dienen”, Herr Herr Bundespräsident, Jürgen Todenhöfer


Jürgen Todenhöfer – Offener Brief an Joachim Gauck



(Foto: Jürgen Todenhöfer)
Ich dokumentiere hier einen offenen Brief des bekannten Publizisten und Friedensaktivisten Jürgen Todenhöfer an den Bundespräsidenten:

LIEBER HERR BUNDESPRÄSIDENT, Sie fordern, dass Deutschland mehr Verantwortung in der Welt übernimmt. Auch militärisch. Wissen Sie wirklich, wovon Sie reden? Ich bezweifle es und habe daher vier Vorschläge:

1.Ein Besuch im syrischen Aleppo oder in Homs. Damit Sie einmal persönlich erleben, was Krieg bedeutet.
2.Vier Wochen Patrouillenfahrt mit unseren Soldaten in afghanischen Kampfgebieten. Sie dürfen auch Ihre Kinder oder Enkel schicken.
3.Ein Besuch eines Krankenhauses in Pakistan, Somalia oder im Yemen – bei unschuldigen Opfern amerikanischer Drohnenangriffe.
4.Ein Besuch des deutschen Soldatenfriedhofes El Alamein in Ägypten. Dort liegen seit 70 Jahren 4.800 deutsche Soldaten begraben. Manche waren erst 17. Kein Bundespräsident hat sie je besucht.

Nach unserem Grundgesetz haben Sie “dem Frieden zu dienen”. Angriffskriege sind nach Artikel 26 verfassungswidrig und strafbar. Krieg ist grundsätzlich nur zur Verteidigung zulässig. Sagen Sie jetzt nicht, unsere Sicherheit werde auch in Afrika verteidigt. So etwas ähnliches hatten wir schon mal. 100.000 Afghanen haben diesen Unsinn mit dem Leben bezahlt.
Wie kommt es, dass ausgerechnet Sie als Bundespräsident nach all den Kriegstragödien unseres Landes schon wieder deutsche Militäreinsätze fordern? Es stimmt, wir müssen mehr Verantwortung in der Welt übernehmen. Aber doch nicht für Kriege, sondern für den Frieden! Als ehrlicher Makler. Das sollte unsere Rolle sein. Und auch Ihre.
Ihr Jürgen Todenhöfer

PS: Mir ist ein Präsident lieber, der sich auf dem Oktoberfest von Freunden einladen läßt, als einer der schon wieder deutsche Soldaten ins Feuer schicken will. Von seinem sicheren Büro aus. Fast bekomme ich Sehnsucht nach Wulff. Der wollte Menschen integrieren, nicht erschlagen.
Quelle: Jürgen Todenhöfer

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

"Time To End Israel's Gaza Blockade" PROMI-Letter to the Guardian


Time to end Israel's Gaza blockade
An Israeli tank patrols the Gaza border. British parliamentarians are calling for an end to the blockade that started five years ago. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images
Today marks five years since the Israeli military launched missile and ground attacks on Gaza, which Israel named Operation Cast Lead. According to the UN, 1,383 Palestinians died as a result, including 333 children.
And what of the survivors? For the 1.7 million living in the tiny Gaza Strip, life has become increasingly desperate because of Israel's continuing blockade, backed by Egypt and with no effective challenge from governments around the world. The blockade has brought electricity cuts of 16 hours a day, which means the only street lights visible at night have been those from Israel's nearby towns. The electricity shortages have severely affected almost all essential services, including health, water, sanitation and schooling. With waste plants not operating, Palestinian children have been wading through freezing sewage to attend school. The terrible floods in Gaza brought the promise of increased electricity supplies for a few weeks, but the international community must demand that supply is constant and permanent.
This blockade has also resulted in unacceptable limits on personal freedom. Most Palestinians are prevented from travelling outside Gaza, an area of 139 sq miles: about the same size, but much more densely populated, as Newcastle. It is deplorable for us to allow this continuing collective punishment against Palestinians in Gaza. We urge the UK government to take immediate action to bring an end to the blockade on Gaza.

Baroness Blackstone, Peter Bottomley MP, Richard Burden MP,Martin Caton MP, Katy Clark MP, Michael Connarty MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Alex Cunningham MP, Lord Dubs, Mark Durkan MP,Lord Dykes, John Hemming MP, Julian Huppert MP, Lord Hylton,Hugh Lanning, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Lord Judd, Caroline Lucas MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman MP, George Mudie MP, Grahame Morris MP, Sandra Osborne MP, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Rt Hon Dame Joan Ruddock MP, Andy Slaughter MP, Baroness Tonge,Yasmin Qureshi MP, David Ward MP, Mike Weir MP


Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Nein zu Rüstungs- und Militärforschung an der TU-Berlin - Ja zu BDS!

Handala Berlin
Handala Berlin4. Februar 14:20
Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2014, 10:00 Uhr in Berlin:
TU Hauptgebäude, Straße des 17. Juni 135, U-Bfh. Ernst-Reuter-Platz
Beitrag auf Facebook anzeigen · E-Mail-Einstellungen bearbeiten · Antworte auf diese E-Mail, um einen Kommentar hinzuzufügen.

What’s Wrong With BDS, after all? By Avraham Burg in HAARETZ

Israel will be helpless when the discourse moves from who’s stronger/tougher/more resilient to a discourse on rights and values.

Feb. 3, 2014

Talk of sanctions has been filling the air lately. Israelis, as always, are certain that the whole world is against us (psycho-national nonsense that will be more broadly discussed here in the future), and that all the world’s overt and covert conspiracies are focused solely on us – out of hatred and anti-Semitism, of course.

Few notice the wonderful paradox whereby official Israel, together with mobilized world Jewry, fights the scourge of sanctions by whining and screaming anti-Semitism, Holocaust and Jew-hatred in chorus. Yet in the very same breath these exact same people utilize any possible tool to advance and intensify the sanctions against Iran, as they did against Hamas until recently. And with useful diplomatic hypocrisy they make every effort not to hurt Syria’s Bashar Assad too much, or Egypt, or another few corrupt targets of Israel’s foreign policy.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is gaining momentum and is approaching the turning point (rather slowly, it must be said) in which the civic action from below will meet the official policies of governments and parliaments from above, and sanctions against Israel will become a fait accompli. Israel’s finance minister is troubled by the economic consequences, while the American secretary of state is trying to protect us from international isolation. Research institutions are already mapping out their boycotts and sanctions while offering avenues for formulating appropriate Israeli policies. The media are also making their serious or frenzied contributions. Among all this talk, what is conspicuously missing is a real discussion of the ethical meaning of sanctions and their alternatives.

Personally I’m a man of dialogue and believe that a boycott – any boycott – is not a legitimate tool. When my prime minister leaves the room as the Iranian president is speaking, I can’t decide whether he’s an idiot or just being childish, but what’s clear is that he doesn’t represent me at all. I believe in peace and I have no doubt that proper (if pointed) dialogue with the Palestinians will in the end bring two achievements: peace, and the end to the boycotts, ostracism and isolation under discussion. It’s the same with the Iranians, and even with Danny Danon.

But those who don’t want peace, or who want it but don’t trust the partner, or who want and trust but don’t have the public courage to stand up to the enemies of peace among us, must ask themselves different questions altogether. It’s clear that there’s a connection between the diplomatic reality and its economic manifestations. It’s permissible – despite the evil and folly of that approach – to decide that it’s worth holding the occupied territories, if only because at this point the price of international isolation or the harm done to the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. Israeli is not so terrible. After all, in the end, national policy is a system of constantly balancing risks and rewards, and for now – they say – the risks are tolerable.

But everyone else – the political impotents or the merely indifferent – needs a different approach. Put yourselves for a minute in the Palestinians’ place and try to understand what Israel “allows them” and consider what you would do in their position. A violent Palestinian rebellion? No way! Totally out of the question, not least because it will be put down by a much more violent force. (It’s an undeniable fact that more innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israel than innocent Israelis killed by Palestinians). A diplomatic agreement? You’ve made Naftali Bennett’s rear end and Benjamin Netanyahu’s lost senses laugh. So then what? Nothing? Should they just say thank you and shut up? Would we remain silent and capitulate unconditionally if we were in their place?

Suddenly it turns out that the boycott movement is not just an annoying effort to hit Israelis in the pocket, but a bold and innovative attempt to achieve real diplomatic gains. And in the areas in which I firmly believe require dialogue and solutions: an end to the occupation, the destruction of the separation barrier, recognition of the rights and equality of Israel’s Palestinian citizens, and a solution to the refugee problem. It’s a local and international expression of a totally different type of Palestinian struggle, something new and not so familiar to us – nonviolent resistance. Is that also forbidden?

What emerges from all this is that of all the alternatives being suggested – as if anyone is asking us or has to care what we think – boycotts and sanctions are actually the most kosher. Silencing and repression are bad, and violence is worse. Compared to either method, nonviolent resistance and an unarmed popular uprising don’t sound so bad. The truth is that not all of their people are behind this (just like not all of our people support us), but the direction being outlined is clear, convincing and threatening. Deep down I’m convinced that the tough State of Israel has a response to any expression of force it may face. But it will remain helpless when confronted by a civil rebellion that moves the discourse from who’s stronger/tougher/more resilient to a discourse on rights and values. For this we have no answer.

What will the politicians and soldiers of the racist separation do on Hebron’s Shuhada Street, which is closed to Palestinians, if a thousand kids come with their bikes, soccer balls and cameras and ask to play on the street in front of their homes – a basic right of any normal child on any street in the world? What will be the response of the Sensible One if the parents of those children, along with hundreds or thousands of other people (me and my family among them) come to the wall of the Palestinian ghetto (known euphemistically as the separation barrier) and hold a vigil there before the international media, under clouds of tear gas, until it comes down?

The answer is clear. On the very day that nonviolence becomes Palestine’s official policy, Israel’s violent occupation policy is over. The current hysteria over boycotts and sanctions testifies to this.

Avraham Burg is former speaker of the Knesset.

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

"Why Israel Fears the Boycott" NEW YORK TIMES - Sunday Review -


 Op-Ed Contributor
By OMAR BARGHOUTI

JAN. 31, 2014

JERUSALEM — IF Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempts to revive talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority fail because of Israel’s continuing construction of illegal settlements, the Israeli government is likely to face an international boycott “on steroids,” as Mr. Kerry warned last August.

These days, Israel seems as terrified by the “exponential” growth of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (or B.D.S.) movement as it is by Iran’s rising clout in the region. Last June, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu effectively declared B.D.S. a strategic threat. Calling it the “delegitimization” movement, he assigned the overall responsibility for fighting it to his Strategic Affairs Ministry. But B.D.S. doesn’t pose an existential threat to Israel; it poses a serious challenge to Israel’s system of oppression of the Palestinian people, which is the root cause of its growing worldwide isolation.

The Israeli government’s view of B.D.S. as a strategic threat reveals its heightened anxiety at the movement’s recent spread into the mainstream. It also reflects the failure of the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s well-endowed “Brand Israel” campaign, which reduces B.D.S. to an image problem and employs culture as a propaganda tool, sending well-known Israeli figures around the world to show Israel’s prettier face.

Begun in 2005 by the largest trade union federations and organizations in Palestinian society, B.D.S. calls for ending Israel’s 1967 occupation, “recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality,” and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes and lands from which they were forcibly displaced and dispossessed in 1948.

Why should Israel, a nuclear power with a strong economy, feel so vulnerable to a nonviolent human rights movement?

Israel is deeply apprehensive about the increasing number of American Jews who vocally oppose its policies — especially those who are joining or leading B.D.S. campaigns. It also perceives as a profound threat the rising dissent among prominent Jewish figures who reject its tendency to speak on their behalf, challenge its claim to be the “national home” of all Jews, or raise the inherent conflict between its ethno-religious self-definition and its claim to democracy. What I. F. Stone prophetically wrote about Israel back in 1967, that it was “creating a kind of moral schizophrenia in world Jewry” because of its “racial and exclusionist” ideal, is no longer beyond the pale.

Israel is also threatened by the effectiveness of the nonviolent strategies used by the B.D.S. movement, including its Israeli component, and by the negative impact they have had on Israel’s standing in world public opinion. As one Israeli military commander said in the context of suppressing Palestinian popular resistance to the occupation, “We don’t do Gandhi very well.”

The landslide vote by the American Studies Association in December to endorse an academic boycott of Israel, coming on the heels of a similar decision by the Association for Asian-American Studies, among others, as well as divestment votes by several university student councils, proves that B.D.S. is no longer a taboo in the United States.

The movement’s economic impact is also becoming evident. The recent decision by the $200 billion Dutch pension fund PGGM to divest from the five largest Israeli banks because of their involvement in occupied Palestinian territory has sent shock waves through the Israeli establishment.

To underscore the “existential” danger that B.D.S. poses, Israel and its lobby groups often invoke the smear of anti-Semitism, despite the unequivocal, consistent position of the movement against all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. This unfounded allegation is intended to intimidate into silence those who criticize Israel and to conflate such criticism with anti-Jewish racism.

Arguing that boycotting Israel is intrinsically anti-Semitic is not only false, but it also presumes that Israel and “the Jews” are one and the same. This is as absurd and bigoted as claiming that a boycott of a self-defined Islamic state like Saudi Arabia, say, because of its horrific human rights record, would of necessity be Islamophobic.

The B.D.S. movement’s call for full equality in law and policies for the Palestinian citizens of Israel is particularly troubling for Israel because it raises questions about its self-definition as an exclusionary Jewish state. Israel considers any challenge to what even the Department of State has criticized as its system of “institutional, legal and societal discrimination” against its Palestinian citizens as an “existential threat,” partially because of the apartheid image that this challenge evokes.

Tellingly, the Supreme Court recently rejected an attempt by Israeli liberals to have their nationality or ethnicity listed simply as “Israeli” in the national population registry (which has categories like Jew, Arab, Druse, etc.). The court found that doing so would be a serious threat to Israel’s founding identity as a Jewish state for the Jewish people.

Israel remains the only country on earth that does not recognize its own nationality, as that would theoretically avail equal rights to all its citizens, undermining its “ethnocratic” identity. The claim that B.D.S., a nonviolent movement anchored in universal principles of human rights, aims to “destroy” Israel must be understood in this context.

Would justice and equal rights for all really destroy Israel? Did equality destroy the American South? Or South Africa? Certainly, it destroyed the discriminatory racial order that had prevailed in both places, but it did not destroy the people or the country.

Likewise, only Israel’s unjust order is threatened by boycotts, divestment and sanctions.

Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights activist and the author of “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights.”

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/opinion/sunday/why-the-boycott-movement-scares-israel.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0



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

Everything about this list:

To unsubscribe, send mail to:

To subscribe, send mail to:
epalestine-subscribe@lists.riseup.net