Fischer, die CIA und die Aktenlage

Mehr als 17 Jahre nach seinem Einzug in den Bundestag im Frühjahr 1983 wird Joschka Fischer noch einmal durchleuchtet – als ob in dieser Hinsicht seinerzeit rein gar nichts geschehen wäre. Gab es damals nicht besorgte Anfragen aus drei Fraktionen bei Bundestagspräsident Rainer Barzel, ob man denn Fischer und seine dubiosen Freunde, einige von ihnen Ex-Maoisten, in den Verteidigungsausschuss lassen könne oder gar in das Gremium, das die Geheimdienste kontrolliert?Als die Grünen in den Bundestag kamen, durchforstete man alle verfügbaren Akten über die linksradikale Szene, vor allem auch Dossiers der CIA über die Frankfurter Gruppen, zu denen Joschka Fischer bis Mitte der siebziger Jahre gehört hatte. Das Kanzleramt leistete durch seinen Chef Waldemar Schreckenberger Hilfe.Es kam ziemlich rasch eine ausreichende Entwarnung hinsichtlich Joschka Fischers. Bei zwei anderen Grünen gab es starke Bedenken. Einer der beiden war der später durch Freitod verstorbene Bundeswehrgeneral a. D. Bastian, der nie ganz geklärte Verbindungen zu sowjetischen Militärs hatte, die in der Kampagne “Gegen den Atomkrieg” mitmachten – auf Veranlassung des von Helsinki aus arbeitenden Weltfriedensrats.Die Frankfurter Szene hatte die Amerikaner und Israelis schon von 1965 an so interessiert wie die Berliner Linke, denn zu den Angriffszielen zählten Anlagen der US-Armee, und ab 1972 gab es in Frankfurt zunehmend Verbindungen zwischen palästinensischen und deutschen Terroristen. Diesen Verbindungen galt zeitweise sogar das Hauptinteresse der CIA.US-Kasernen wurden damals blockiert, publizistische Verteidiger der USA gerieten unter Telefonterror und andere Bedrohungen. Außerdem war durch Austausch zwischen den Nachrichtendiensten des Westens bekannt geworden, dass die DDR Millionendevisenbeträge in die Apo schleuste. Ich höre noch 1967 Innenminister Paul Lücke fluchen: “Das bezahlen wir alles mit unseren Autobahngebühren!” Die DDR bezahlte auch eines der wichtigsten Szeneblätter, “Konkret”. Die Stasi zog Fäden im sozialistischen Studentenverband SDS und in zeitweise rund 15 universitären Studentenvertretungen.Die deutschen und alliierten Geheimdienste hatten die Linksradikalen immer aus zwei Gründen im Fadenkreuz: wegen der Gefährdung der Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und ihrer Alliierten und wegen der Instrumentalisierung eines Teiles linksradikaler Gruppen durch die DDR. Deutsche, Amerikaner und Israelis hatten und haben daher zum Beispiel riesige Foto- und Videoarchive von Straßenkämpfen, gegen welche die Fotos, die nun seit Wochen herumgezeigt werden, nur Schnipsel sind. Gerade in Frankfurt wurde gesammelt, mit und ohne Zusammenarbeit mit dem damaligen Polizeipräsidenten Knut Müller.Die Analytiker waren schon 1975 davon überzeugt, dass sich vor allem Fischer und Daniel Cohn-Bendit “unter Selbstgefährdung” von der Gewalt verabschiedet hatten. Derselben Meinung waren schon früher die Franzosen, welche Daniel Cohn-Bendit jahrelang Tag und Nacht beschattet hatten. Sie kamen zu der klugen Erkenntnis, dass bei den Prominenten der Sorbonne-Szene stets nur Jean-Paul Sartre und dessen Clique Gewalt predigte, nicht aber Cohn-Bendit, jedenfalls nach der Besetzung des Odéon-Theaters.Vor den Ex-Spontis und Ex-Genossen Fischers, die jetzt mit “Material” vorstellig werden (und zum Teil fettes Honorar fordern), hat Peter Boenisch mit Recht gewarnt. Als Fischer 1985 Minister in Wiesbaden wurde, gab es durchaus die gleichen “Erkenntnisse” wie heute. Holger Börner stand vor der Vereidigung Fischers dieselbe präzise Aufklärung über Fischer zur Verfügung wie 1983 den Spitzen des Bundestages.Warum schweigen so viele, die längst wissen, wie das Leben des Joschka Fischer ablief? Sie sind ja nicht alle tot wie Ignatz Bubis, der mir drei Jahre vor seinem Tod sagte, Fischer habe total mit seiner Vergangenheit gebrochen. Bubis war als Immobilienmakler Angriffsziel von Fischers “Putzgruppe” im Westend gewesen.Man muss es deutlich sagen: Ein Teil der linksradikalen Frankfurter ließ sich seit Apo-Tagen von der palästinensischen Connection am Main gegen deutsche und amerikanische Juden aufhetzen. Der Ausstieg Fischers aus der Gewalt und seine Freundschaft mit “Danny” Cohn-Bendit hat auch hier seine Gründe, und es ist gewiss kein Zufall, dass der Kontakt zu dem in Frankreich untergetauchten Terroristen Hans-Joachim Klein über den französischen jüdischen Publizisten und Philosophen André Glucksmann lief. Fischer sagte öffentlich, wie entsetzt er war, als deutsche Terroristen die Passagiere eines entführten Flugzeuges in Juden und Nichtjuden “selektierten”. Kann das ein FDP-Fraktionsführer wie Wolfgang Gerhardt, der Bubis gut kannte, mit kühlem Verstand richtig einordnen?Es waren Experten, die Fischers Ausstieg observierten und besorgten Bonnern bestätigten, ihr “Objekt” sei “clean”. Zwei Beamte der gut besetzte Bonner CIA-Gruppe, die nach 1966 die linke Szene observieren ließen, waren übrigens überaus deutschfreundliche Juden. Da sie zum Thema Fischer nicht selbst reden können und dürfen, muss man heute als einer sprechen, der mit ihnen von einer deutschen politischen Position aus vertrauensvoll zusammenarbeiten konnte.

Jürgen Wahl, Publizist, war von 1966 bis 1968 Persönlicher Referent des CDU-Bundesgeschäftsführers und späteren CDU-Generalsekretärs Bruno Heck. 

Quelle: Welt 5.2.01

Historiker: Darum plante mein Vater das Wiesn-Attentat

Andreas Kramer spricht im AZ-Interview über die Hintergründe von 1980: „Mein Vater hat Gundolf Köhler angeworben und die Bombe gebaut.“

von Helmut Reister, 05.05.2013

München – Der Duisburger Historiker Andreas Kramer (49) sorgte mit einer spektakulären Aussage in einem Prozess in Luxemburg für Aufsehen. Das Oktoberfest-Attentat im September 1980, bei dem 13 Menschen ums Leben kamen und mehr als 200 verletzt wurden, sei von seinem Vater geplant worden. Er habe zusammen mit Gundolf Köhler (21) auch die Bombe gebaut. Der AZ gab er ein exklusives Interview.
Der Duisburger Historiker Andreas Kramer packt aus: Sein Vater, sagt er, war maßgeblich am Wiesn-Attentat beteiligt. Foto: Helmut Reister

Der Duisburger Historiker Andreas Kramer packt aus: Sein Vater, sagt er, war maßgeblich am Wiesn-Attentat beteiligt.Foto: Helmut Reister


AZ: Herr Kramer, Sie haben vor Gericht unter Eid ausgesagt, dass der Geheimdienst hinter dem Bombenanschlag auf das Münchner Oktoberfest steckt. Sind Sie sich da ganz sicher?
ANDREAS KRAMER: Natürlich bin ich mir sicher, sonst würde ich so einen schweren Vorwurf nicht erheben. Es war mein Vater, der maßgeblich daran beteiligt war. Er hat es mir selbst erzählt.

Den offiziellen Ermittlungen zufolge war es aber der Geologie-Student Gundolf Köhler, der die Bombe zündete. Und er soll aus eigenem Antrieb und alleine gehandelt haben.
Die offizielle Darstellung, an der es ohnehin genügend Zweifel gibt, ist ein Märchen. Der Terrorakt war eine gezielte und lange vorbereitete Aktion des Bundesnachrichtendienstes, für den mein Vater gearbeitet hat und in dessen Auftrag er auch gehandelt hat.

Ihr Vater war doch Offizier der Bundeswehr.

Das Eine schließt das Andere ja nicht aus. Seine Beschäftigung bei der Bundeswehr war eine perfekte Tarnung. Ab Mitte der 60er Jahre war er aber in erster Linie Agent des BND.

Welche Gründe kann es denn geben, dass der BND einen Terrorakt – und dazu noch diesen Ausmaßes – verübt? Das ergibt doch keinen Sinn.
Das ergibt schon einen Sinn, wenn man sich mit den politischen Hintergründen dieser Zeit beschäftigt. Das Schlüsselwort dafür lautet „Gladio“. Durch Untersuchungen in anderen Ländern, vor allem in Italien, weiß man inzwischen, dass unter Federführung der CIA und unter Einbindung europäischer Geheimdienste nach dem Krieg ein geheimes paramilitärisches Netzwerk in verschiedenen Ländern Europas errichtet wurde.

Welchen Zweck sollte denn so eine Organisation haben?
Die Italiener schufen dafür den Begriff „Strategie der Spannung“. Mit Terrorakten sollte die Bevölkerung verunsichert werden und den Ruf nach einem starken Staat fördern. Dahinter steckte in Zeiten des Kalten Krieges die Angst vor zunehmendem Einfluss des Kommunismus in Europa. Das sollte unter allen Umständen verhindert werden. Auch mit Gewalt.

Und das funktionierte?
Am Beispiel Italiens wurde das ja deutlich genug, wie inzwischen feststeht. Eine Vielzahl von Anschlägen, die zunächst linken Extremisten wie den Roten Brigaden in die Schuhe geschoben wurden, entpuppten sich später als Inzenierungen staatlicher Stellen, die mit Faschisten und Kriminellen zusammenarbeiteten. Diese Strategie wurde auch in Deutschland betrieben. Mein Vater, der enge Kontakte zu Geheimdiensten in anderen Ländern unterhielt, spielte dabei eine maßgebliche und sehr aktive Rolle.

Wie sah diese Rolle genau aus?
Er beschaffte über die Bundeswehr große Mengen an Kriegsmaterial. Schusswaffen, Granaten, Panzerfäuste, Sprengstoff. Das wurde in geheimen, meist unterirdischen Lagern versteckt und sollte bei einer Invasion der Sowjetunion den Gladio-Truppen für Sabotageakte zur Verfügung stehen. Mein Vater betreute, so viel ich von ihm weiß, mindestens 50 solcher Lager.

Von unterirdischen Waffenlagern bis zum Attentat auf dem Oktoberfest ist aber ein langer Weg. Wie passt das de
nn zusammen?

Das passt sehr gut zusammen. Die Gladio-Truppen bestanden zu einem erheblichen Teil aus Neonazis und Rechtsextremisten. Gundolf Köhler, der Bombenleger von München und in der rechtsradikalen Szene eng vernetzt, war von meinem Vater angeworben worden. Er hat sich mehrmals mit ihm an seinem Wohnort in Donaueschingen getroffen, er hat die Komponenten für die Bombe besorgt, er hat sie zusammen mit Gundolf Köhler und einigen anderen Geheimdienstmitarbeitern gebaut.

Ihr Vater hat die Bombe gebaut? Und er hat auch gewusst, wofür sie eingesetzt werden sollte?
Ja. Die Vorbereitungen für den Anschlag haben eineinhalb Jahre gedauert. Genau genommen wurden in einer Garage in Donaueschingen sogar drei Bomben gebaut. Eine wurde bei einem Test gezündet, eine andere in München verwendet. Was mit der dritten Bombe geschah, weiß ich nicht.

Und das geschah mit Billigung des Bundesnachrichtendienstes? Oder handelte Ihr Vater nach eigener Überzeugung abseits der Befehlskette?
Das geschah nicht nur mit Billigung, sondern im Auftrag höchster Militär- und Geheimdienstkreise. Gladio war ja eine Organisation, die von der Nato eingefädelt worden war.

Die Existenz von Gladio wurde erst in diesem Jahrtausend überhaupt der Öffentlichkeit bekannt. Die Bundesregierung, die sich in Zusammenhang mit dem Bestehen von Gladio sehr zurückhaltend geäußert hat, erklärte aber, dass die Waffenlager schon zu Beginn der 70er Jahre aufgelöst worden sind und Gladio danach keine weiteren nennenswerten Aktivitäten entwickelte.
Das ist schlichtweg falsch. Zu dieser Zeit ging es ja erst richtig los.

War ihr Vater ein Nazi?
Nein, ein Nazi war er nicht. Er war sicherlich politisch sehr rechts stehend, der NPD nahe. Und er ordnete sich den Befehlsstrukturen, die bei der Bundeswehr und den Geheimdiensten bestehen, vorbehaltlos unter.

Ihren Schilderungen zufolge muss er aber völlig skrupellos gewesen sein, wenn er an den Planungen des Oktoberfestanschlags und am Bau der Bombe in dieser Form beteiligt war.
Mein Vater war ein Mörder. Skrupellosigkeit ist da wahrscheinlich eine Voraussetzung. Ich weiß nur, dass ihn die schrecklichen Folgen des Attentats hinterher sehr bewusst geworden sind. „Das habe ich nicht gewollt“, hat er mir gesagt. Eine Entschuldigung dafür gibt es aber natürlich letztendlich nicht.

Ihr Vater hat Sie über seine Tätigkeit, um es sehr neutral auszudrücken, ins Vertrauen gezogen. War das nicht sehr belastend für Sie?
Als die Bombe in München hoch ging, war ich 17 und habe das ganze Ausmaß und die Hintergründe sicherlich nicht erkannt. Aber dass er dadurch zum Mörder geworden ist, war mir klar. Das hat sich natürlich auch auf unser Verhältnis ausgewirkt – und ich wusste nicht, wie ich damit umgehen sollte.

Haben Sie daran gedacht, sich an die Polizei oder die Staatsanwaltschaft zu wenden?
Daran gedacht habe ich schon. Aber wer hätte mir, einem Jugendlichen, unter diesen Umständen schon geglaubt?

Hat das Münchner Attentat ihren Vater letztendlich verändert?
Welche Auswirkungen in seiner Psyche dadurch ausgelöst wurden, kann ich nur sehr schwer beurteilen. Nach außen hin war nichts Gravierendes erkennbar. Er hat ja auch weitergemacht. In Luxemburg findet zur Zeit der Prozess gegen zwei ehemalige Elite-Polizisten statt, die für rund 20 Bombenanschläge Mitte der 80er Jahre verantwortlich gemacht werden. Auch in diesem Fall zog mein Vater im Hintergrund maßgeblich die Fäden. Ich bin dazu ja als Zeuge unter Eid ausführlich vernommen worden.

Haben Sie jetzt nach Ihrer Aussage und den schweren Vorwürfen gegen die Geheimdienste Angst? Angst um ihr Leben?
Es hat in Zusammenhang mit dem Oktoberfest-Attentat und Gladio merkwürdige Todesfälle gegeben. Daran denke ich natürlich. Aber das hält mich nicht davon ab, die Wahrheit zu sagen.

Quelle

„Mein Vater hat Tote einkalkuliert“

Andreas Kramer sagt, Einheiten der Nato seien beim Attentat aufs Oktoberfest 1980 dabei gewesen. Er erzählt von seinem Vater, einem Elitesoldaten und Sprengmeister.

VON AMBROS WAIBEL

Es ist der 27. September 1980, 7.15 Uhr. Meine Mutter, meine Brüder und ich sitzen beim Frühstück in München-Schwabing. Ich bin seit drei Tagen 12 Jahre alt und schlecht gelaunt: Meine Freunde sind am Tag zuvor aufs Oktoberfest gegangen – nur ich muss warten, bis die Familie hingeht. Wie immer hören wir Bayern 3, wie immer ist es losgegangen mit Cat Stevens’ „Morning has broken“. Aber sonst ist heute alles anders.

Zwischen hektischen Stimmen aus dem Radio, meiner Mutter, die aufhört, die Haferflocken zu rühren, und meinen Brüdern, die sich nicht mehr gegenseitig ärgern, begreife ich: Eine Bombe ist hochgegangen. Was ist mit meinen Freunden? Wer tut so was? Ich lerne das Wort „perfide“ – meine Mutter wiederholt es immer wieder.

Und während es derzeit in München, beim NSU-Prozess, wieder um Perfides geht, hat der Historiker Andreas Kramer in Luxemburg vor Gericht und mir am Telefon seine Version der Hintergründe des Attentats erzählt. Kramer ist aufgeregt, wir sprechen lange. Am Ende bin ich erschöpft. Ich denke an den Morgen des 27. September. Andreas Kramer sollte zu Wort kommen.

taz: Herr Kramer, Sie haben beim „Bombenleger“-Prozess in Luxemburg unter Eid ausgesagt, Ihr Vater habe den Sprengstoff für den Anschlag auf das Oktoberfest 1980 geliefert. Und das im Auftrag der geheimen „Gladio/Stay behind“-Truppe der Nato. Wie kommen Sie zu dieser Aussage?

Andreas Kramer: Mein Vater war „Gladio/Stay behind“-Offizier mit dem Codenamen „Cello“ und Mitarbeiter des BND, von dem er 1965 angeworben wurde. Er hat offiziell im Rang eines Hauptmanns als Logistiker in der Abteilung G4 des Streitkräfteamts der Bundeswehr, das zum Bundesverteidigungsministerium in Bonn gehörte, gedient.

Mein Vater leitete mehr als
50 Materiallager der Nato-Geheimarmee in Deutschland. Eines davon war das Lager Uelzen, das 1981 entdeckt wurde. Mein Vater wollte mich als Operationsleiter für „Gladio/Stay behind“-Einsätze aufbauen und hat mit mir die Fernsehbeiträge, welche die Anschläge in Deutschland, also München, und Italien, also der in Bologna am 2. August 1980, betrafen, besprochen und analysiert. Ich habe ihm damals kritische Fragen gestellt, um Informationen über den Zweck dieser Anschläge zu gewinnen.

Warum sollte ein Geheimagent mit seinem halbwüchsigen Sohn über solche Dinge sprechen?

Mein Vater konnte niemandem trauen, er hatte keine Freunde. Ich war sein ältester Sohn. Niemand hätte mir 1980 geglaubt, wenn ich mit den brisanten Informationen, die ich besaß, an die Öffentlichkeit gegangen wäre. Und er hat mich bedroht: „Wenn du was erzählst, Junge, bist du dran!“

Ihr Vater war ein Offizier mit rechtsradikalen Ansichten im Dienst der Bundeswehr und des BND?

Ja. Aber er war von seiner Ausbildung her hoch intellektuell, er hatte moralische und humanistische Prinzipien, die er aber spätestens nach dem Attentat in München aufgegeben hat. Das klingt merkwürdig. Aber mein Vater war eben eine sehr widersprüchliche Persönlichkeit. Er war ein Elitesoldat – Panzeraufklärer, Heeresbergführer, Fallschirmspringer und Sprengmeister. Was mein Vater anpackte, gelang ihm. Trotzdem sind die von ihm begangenen Straftaten durch nichts zu rechtfertigen.

Was wollte der BND konkret von Ihrem Vater?

Man suchte Offiziere, die in der Lage waren, bestimmte Logistikaufgaben für „Gladio/Stay behind“ zu erfüllen – da war er die ideale Besetzung. Mein Vater war unter anderem der direkte Vorgesetzte von Heinz Lembke …

 ein deutscher Neonazi mit Verbindungen zur „Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann“, der einen Tag vor seiner Vernehmung wegen möglicher Verwicklung in das Münchner Attentat erhängt in seiner Zelle aufgefunden wurde.

Genau, den hat mein Vater angeworben und als Führungsoffizier angeleitet.

Haben Sie dazu schriftliche Aufzeichnungen? Oder beruhen Ihre Behauptungen nur auf mündlichen Aussagen Ihres Vaters Ihnen gegenüber?

Ich weiß, dass der BND solche Aufzeichnungen besitzt. Mein Vater hat davon gesprochen.

Zur Zeit des Attentats auf das Oktoberfest haben Sie in Bonn gelebt?

Ja. Mein Vater arbeitete offiziell als Hauptmann im Streitkräfteamt. Er muss trotz der Ministerialzulage ein höheres Gehalt bezogen haben, denn meine Mutter sprach immer in Bezug auf meinen Vater von einem „Hauptmann de luxe“. Das konnte ich später anhand der Unterlagen, die mir vorliegen, feststellen. Er bezog ein weiteres Gehalt vom BND. Mein Vater war ständig unterwegs – in geheimer Mission.

Wann ist Ihr Vater bei der Bundeswehr ausgeschieden?

1989. Er hat aber für den BND weitergearbeitet.

Was spielte Ihr Vater Ihrer Meinung nach für eine Rolle beim Münchner Attentat?

Er hat zur „Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann“ und zu Gundolf Köhler, dem späteren Attentäter, Kontakt aufgenommen, schon bevor diese 1980 vom damaligen Innenminister Gerhart Baum verboten wurde. Die Vorbereitungen für das Attentat begannen 1979.

Und als was hat er sich dort präsentiert?

Als alter Kamerad, als einer mit Verbindungen, der bereit wäre den Jungs zu helfen, wenn sie mal was richtig Großes durchziehen wollten. Der BND gab dem Anschlag auf das Münchener Oktoberfest 1980 intern den Codenamen „Operation Werwolf“, benannt nach dem SS-Sonderkommando „Werwolf“, das im Zweiten Weltkrieg hinter den feindlichen Linien Attentate und Sabotageakte verübte.

Was soll die strategische Absicht der Bombe gewesen sein?

Der Einsatz der Bombe sollte dazu beitragen, dass in der westdeutschen Bevölkerung eine Stimmung erzeugt wurde, die eine politische Abwahl der Regierung von Kanzler Helmut Schmidt herbeiführte. Franz Josef Strauß stand schon als Kanzlerkandidat der CSU bereit. In Westdeutschland wurde die klassische „Strategie der Spannung“, wie etwa auch in Italien, angewendet.

Woher soll der Sprengstoff für die Bombe gekommen sein?

Aus verschiedenen Nato-Depots. Die Bombe durfte ja nicht professionell gebaut wirken.

Ist das Attentat dann nach Plan Ihres Vaters verlaufen?

Mein Vater hat Todesopfer mit einkalkuliert. Er hatte ja die Bombe mit Köhler und weiteren BND-Agenten in einer Garage in Donaueschingen gebaut. Als mein Vater am Abend des 26. September im Fernsehen sah, was er angerichtet hatte, sagte er zu mir, das habe er nicht gewollt.

Worüber war er denn betrübt?

Er hat mit 10 bis 50 Menschen gerechnet, die Schaden nehmen. Aber nicht mit 13 Toten und über 200 zum Teil schwer Verletzten.

Warum gehen Sie erst jetzt an die Öffentlichkeit?

Weil die Opfer des Münchner Attentats bis heute nicht die Unterstützung vonseiten des Staates bekommen haben, die sie verdienen.

Ihre Geschichte klingt recht abenteuerlich.

Ich bin Historiker und nur an Fakten interessiert. Diejenigen, die meine Äußerungen als abenteuerlich abtun, sollen Akten beibringen und zur Aufklärung beitragen.

Ist infolge Ihrer Aussagen jemand juristisch gegen Sie vorgegangen?

Nein, bis jetzt noch nicht. Die deutschen Behörden täten gut daran, mich bei meiner Aufklärungsarbeit aktiv zu unterstützen.

Am Dienstag widmete „Kulturzeit“ auf 3sat Andreas Kramer und dem Komplex „Gladio/Stay behind“ einen Beitrag. Die Sendung ist unter www.3sat.de/kulturzeit abrufbar


Arien für Arier? Einspruch gegen den Wagner-Kult

„Dass man sich in Deutschland über Wagner betrügt, befremdet mich nicht,“ notierte Friedrich Nietzsche vor 125 Jahren. „Die Deutschen haben sich einen Wagner zurechtgemacht, den sie verehren können: … sie sind damit dankbar, dass sie missverstehn.“[1] Selten war Nietzsches Beobachtung so zutreffend wie heute, im „Richard-Wagner-Jahr 2013“.

Richard Wagner im Jahr 1871

Richard Wagner im Jahr 1871

Am 22. Mai, dem 200. Geburtstag des Komponisten, möchte man einen der wirkungsmächtigsten Antisemiten des 19. Jahrhunderts mit Sonderbriefmarken, Zehn-Euro-Münzen, Denkmalenthüllungen und Festveranstaltungen ehren.

Die meisten Wagner-Verehrer ignorieren seinen Judenhass, weil sie ihr Bild vom Genie nicht beschmutzen und ihr heiliges Wagner Unser nicht infrage stellen wollen. Sie schwören auf „die Droge Wagner“ und folgen allzu gern der Empfehlung des Politikwissenschaftlers Udo Bermbach, Wagner „nur als Künstler (zu) nehmen“ und „seine Weltanschauung in die Versenkung (zu) bringen“.[2]

Wenn die Judenfeindschaft des „Meisters“ doch einmal zur Sprache kommt, wird sie als Marotte behandelt, die ein bisschen peinlich und merkwürdig, aber durchaus nicht ernst zu nehmen sei, beruhe sie doch darauf, dass – so „Wagner-Experte“ Joachim Köhler -, „zwei Konkurrenten erfolgreicher waren als er. Wagner wollte sich an den beiden rächen“[3]

In Wirklichkeit – daran lässt die Antisemitismusforschung keinen Zweifel – bildeten die Schriften Richard Wagners das Scharnier, das die christliche Judenfeindschaft der Vergangenheit mit dem rassistischen Antisemitismus der Zukunft verband.

Alle Juden … verbrennen

Wagner war eben nicht nur Komponist, sondern auch ein Schriftsteller, der zehn Bände mit Aufsätzen über Kunst, Politik, Religion und Gesellschaft hinterließ. Er verstand sich als Revolutionär, der ein neues musikalisches Universum schuf, um es in den Dienst seiner Erneuerungsidee zu stellen, einer Idee, die für Juden nur eine einzige Perspektive versprach: den Untergang.

Wagners Antisemitismus hob sich von den damals gängigen Vorurteilen deutlich ab, waren doch die Juden zwischen 1850 und 1870 in Deutschland emanzipiert und relativ akzeptiert. Als Wagner 1869 die Neuauflage seiner 1850 anonym publizierten Schrift „Das Judenthum und die Musik“ herausbrachte, provozierte dies nicht weniger als 170 veröffentlichte Proteste und Angriffe; in mehreren Städten pfiff man Aufführungen der „Meistersänger“ wegen ihrer judenfeindlichen Anspielungen aus.[4] Doch Wagner ließ nicht locker.

Er war es, der den bösartigen Begriff von der „Verjudung“ erfand [5] – ein Wort mit Folgen, das sich wie ein Giftpfeil in das Bewusstsein seiner Zeitgenossen bohrte und dort ein Bedrohungsgefühl entfaltete, dass es vorher so nicht gab.

Wagners Judenfeindschaft war revolutionär. Sein revoltierender Geist und sein antisemitisches Ressentiment standen nicht im Widerspruch, wie es Wagner-Apologeten gern behaupten, sondern gehörten zusammen. „Der Jude“, schrieb Wagner 1850, „herrscht und wird solange herrschen, als das Geld die Macht bleibt, vor welcher all unser Tun und Treiben seine Kraft verliert.“[6] Folgerichtig sah er im „Untergang“ der Juden das Mittel, die „deutsche“ Kunst von Geldherrschaft und Egoismus zu befreien.

Seine Judenfeindschaft war brutal: 1869 schlug Wagner einer konsternierten Öffentlichkeit die „gewaltsame Auswerfung des zersetzenden fremden Elementes“ vor.[7] Er freute sich, als er von den antijüdischen Pogromen in Russland erfuhr und äußerte „in heftigem Scherz“ – so der Tagebucheintrag seiner Frau Cosima – den Wunsch, „es sollten alle Juden bei einer Aufführung des ,Nathan‘ verbrennen.“[8]

Und seine Judenfeindschaft war rassistisch: Der geniale Komponist bestand auf naturgegebenen Unterschieden zwischen Nichtjuden und Juden, die er mit „Würmern“, „Ratten“, „Mäusen“, „Warzen“ oder „Trichinen“ verglich. 1881 schrieb er König Ludwig II., „dass ich die jüdische Race für den geborenen Feind der reinen Menschheit und alles Edlen in ihr halt.“[9]

Vom Schriftsteller Arthur de Gobineau, der 1881 in Bayreuth weilte, übernahm Wagner zusätzlich das Phantasma von der arischen Rasse. Im selben Jahr notierte Wagner die Erkenntnis, „dass das menschliche Geschlecht aus unausgleichbar ungleichen Rassen besteht und dass die edelste derselben die unedleren wohl beherrschen, durch Vermischung sie aber sich nicht gleich, sondern sich selbst nur unedler machen konnte.“[10] Er griff damit den Nürnberger Gesetzen „zur Reinhaltung des deutschen Blutes“ vor, die Adolf Hitler 1935 in der
Stadt der „Meistersänger“ verabschieden ließ.

Richard Wagner gelang es wie kaum einem zweiten, diesen Rassismus und die fundamentale Entgegensetzung von „deutsch“ und „jüdisch“ im Bildungsbürgertum zu verankern. Er galt auch deshalb als einer der Gründungsväter der antisemitischen Parteien, die 1879 im Deutschen Reich an Boden gewannen, und rühmte sich dieser Rolle noch zu Lebzeiten mit Stolz.

Es war dieser Antisemitismus, der Siegfried Wagner und Houston Stewart Chamberlain, den Sohn und den Schwiegersohn des Komponisten, 1923 dazu brachte, in Hitler den Retter Deutschlands zu sehen. Im Hass auf alles Jüdische sahen sich die Wagner-Familie veranlasst, die Bayreuther Festspiele bis 1944 als Hitler-Festspiele zu zelebrieren. Im Gegenzug verwandelte „der Führer“ Deutschland in eine Wagner-Oper – von der wundersamen Ankunft des „Lohengrin“ über den entschlossenen Griff zum Siegfried-Schwert bis zur „Feuerkur“ der Götterdämmerung .[11]

Gewiss, Richard Wagner hinterließ unterschiedliche Spuren. Seine Musik war revolutionär und hat Komponisten wie Mahler, Schönberg oder Schostakowitsch inspiriert. Was aber sagt es über uns selbst, wenn wir jene eine Spur, die Richard Wagner und den Holocaust verbindet, mit Sondermünzen und Sonderbriefmarken überkleistern?

Wagner gibt uns Hoffnung

Wie sich die Deutschen ihren Wagner zurechtmachen, zeigt beispielhaft die Sendereihe über Wagners „Ring der Nibelungen“, deren letzter Teil am Samstag auf 3sat lief.

„Wagner ist konstruktiv“, erläutert hier der Pianist Stefan Mickisch und verweist als Beleg auf den Dur-Akkord am Ende der „Walküre“. „Wagner gibt Lösungen, gibt Antworten. Er will eine Verbesserung haben. … Wagner gibt uns Hoffnung.“ Der Politikwissenschaftler Udo Bermbach präsentiert den Antisemiten als „radikalen Aufklärer“ und Vorkämpfer für „Selbstbestimmung, Freiheit, Emanzipation“. Er erklärt den erzreaktionären Chauvinisten gar zu „einem der erste Feministen“. Der Schriftsteller Friedrich Dieckmann schließlich stilisiert Wagners „Walkürenritt“ – ein martialisches Musikstück, mit dem die Nazis in den NS-Wochenschauen ihre Luftangriffe zu untermalen pflegten –zur „Antikriegs-Musik“: „Dahinter steckt ein Friedenskonzept“.[12]

Die "Droge Wagner" im Wandel der Zeit.

Die “Droge Wagner” im Wandel der Zeit.

Der wagnersche Antisemitismus springt aber gerade bei diesem Nibelungen-Zyklus ins Auge und ins Ohr. „Der Gold raffende, unsichtbar-anonyme, ausbeutende Alberich, der achselzuckende, geschwätzige, von Selbstlob und Tücke überfließende Mime – all die Zurückgewiesenen in Wagners Werk sind Judenkarikaturen“, sagt Theodor W. Adorno.[13] Gleichzeitig, so schreibt Paul Lawrence Rose in seinem Buch „Richard Wagner und der Antisemitismus“, gemahnen die habgierigen Nibelungenbrüder „allein schon durch die Art ihres Gesangs an das…, was Wagner im ,Judenthum in der Musik‘ ,die semitische Aussprechweise‘ genannt und als ,zischenden, schrillenden, summsenden und murksenden Lautausdruck‘ beschrieben hat.“[14]

Gleichwohl hat die 3sat-Sendereihe jedweden Hinweis auf die antijüdische Dimension des Werkes verbannt. So beraubt man den „Ring“ um einen wesentlichen Teil seiner Zweideutigkeit und Komplexität, ein Verfahren, das nicht nur wissenschaftlich und moralisch fragwürdig ist, sondern zutiefst provinziell.

Hermetisch koppelt sich der nationale Diskurs von der internationalen Diskussion, die weitaus genauer und differenzierter geführt wird, ab. International renommierte Wagner-Forscher wie Marc A. Weiner, Paul Lawrence Rose, Barry Millington und Saul Friedländer, aber auch deutsche Wagner-Kritiker wie Hartmut Zelinksy, Ulrich Drüner, Anette Hein, Gottfried Wagner und Jens Malte Fischer kommen in den Medien und bei den wissenschaftlichen Konferenzen dieses Wagner-Jahres nicht vor.

Gottfried Wagner, Urenkel von Richard und Sohn des früheren Festspielleiters Wolfgang Wagner, hat in seinem gerade erschienenen Buch „Richard Wagner – Ein Minenfeld“ glücklicherweise einen Kontrapunkt gesetzt und den ebenso geist- wie gedankenlosen Kult des „Richard-Wagner-Jahres 2013“ seziert: „Statt die Realität zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, verschanzt man sich hinter Wagners Musik und verleugnet ihren ideologischen, menschenverachtenden Kontext.“[15]

Bayreuth vertuscht

Mit dieser Davon-wollen-wir-jetzt-endlich-mal-nichts-mehr wissen-Haltung knüpfen die Wagner-Verehrer an die jahrzehntealte Praxis der Verdrängung in Bayreuth an. Hier hatte man schon 1946 die Chance verpasst, mit der Nazi-Vergangenheit des Hauses Wahnfried aufzuräumen. Damals wollten die US-amerikanischen Besatzungskräfte die einzige Hitler-Gegnerin der Wagnerfamilie – Wagner-Enkelin Friedelind – zur Leiterin der Festspiele machen. Statt Friedelind na
hmen die langjährigen Hitler-Protegés Wieland und Wolfang das Heft in die Hand, um Wagners Weltanschauung und die seiner Nachkommen „in die Versenkung (zu) bringen“. So erbaten sie sie 1951 bei der Neueröffnung der Festspiele per Aushang, von „Debatten politischer Art auf dem Festspielhügel freundlichst absehen zu wollen.“

Eine zweite Chance, über die Gottfried Wagners neues Buch berichtet, wurde 1975 vertan. Damals provozierte Richards Schwiegertochter Winifred einen Skandal, als sie in einem Interview Adolf Hitler anpries und ihre jahrzehntelange Freundschaft mit ihm verteidigte. Dies löste auch innerhalb der Wagner-Familie Auseinandersetzungen aus. Doch war man sich „in einem Punkt einig: dass die belastenden Dokumente aus der Nazizeit dem Image der Familie schadeten. Noch im selben Sommer schaffte die Wagner-Urenkelin Amélie Lafferentz-Hohmann … den Großteil der brisanten Dokumente aus dem Haus und brachte sie“, um sie dem Zugriff der Öffentlichkeit zu entziehen, „in ihre Wohnung nach München“.[16]

2008 bot der Rücktritt des Festspielleiters Wolfgang Wagner erneut die Chance einer Erneuerung. Mit der Bewerbung von Nike Wagner und Gerard Mortier lag diese Option auf dem Tisch. Doch erneut wurde mit Ernennung der Töchter Wolfgang Wagners zu dessen Nachfolgerinnen die konservative Lösung gewählt. Dass der Öffentlichkeit zentrale Quellen zum Thema „Bayreuth und Nationalsozialismus“ bis heute vorenthalten werden – darunter möglicherweise ein Briefwechsel, den Hitler zwischen 1923 und 1944 mit Winifred, Wieland und Wolfgang geführt haben soll – ist skandalös.

Anstatt im Wagnerjahr zu fragen, warum der Bund, das Land Bayern und die Stadt Bayreuth den Festspielbetrieb trotz dieser Vertuschungspraxis mit rund sieben Millionen Euro jährlich unterstützt 17, setzen prominente Wagnerianer die Praxis der Verdrängung auf ihre Art und Weise fort.

Dabei steht der der musik-historische Rang der Wagnerschen Bühnenwerke ohnehin außer Frage! Auch dann, wenn man Antisemitismus in seinen Werken erkennt, lassen diese sich genießen – reflektiert genießen. Zurzeit aber wird die Frage, wie die Judenfeindschaft des Komponisten die Musik und die Figuren seiner Opern prägt, nicht einmal gestellt. Im Wagner-Jahr 2013 ist die intellektuelle Rezeption seiner Werke durch das Konzept Droge ersetzt.

Wagner selbst hatte dies so gewollt. Er wollte mit seiner Musik, wie er schrieb, „alles hinweg(schwemmen), was zum Wahn der Persönlichkeit gehört, und nur den wunderbar erhabenen Seufzer des Ohnmachtsbekenntnisses“ übriglassen.“[18]

Friedrich Nietzsche aber gab sich damit nur vorübergehend zufrieden. „Solange man noch kindlich ist und Wagnerianer dazu, hält man Wagner … für einen Großgrundbesitzer im Reich des Klangs. … Doch schon im Sommer 1876 … nahm ich bei mir von Wagner Abschied. … Seitdem Wagner in Deutschland war, kondeszendierte er Schritt für Schritt zu allem, was ich verachte – selbst zum Antisemitismus. Es war in der Tat damals höchste Zeit, Abschied zu nehmen.“[19]

*Dieser Artikel ist leicht gekürzt und ohne Fußnoten zuerst in der “Welt am Sonntag” erschienen. Mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Matthias Küntzel hier veröffentlicht.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Friedrich Nietzsche, Der Fall Wagner, in ders., Das Hauptwerk, Band 4, München (nymphenburger) 1994, S. 190.

[2] So Udo Bermbach in der TV-Sendung „Kulturzeit“ (3sat), 17. Januar 2013. „Die Droge Wagner“, lautete die Schlagzeile des Titelblattes der ZEIT vom 3. Januar 2013, „Wer sich auf Richard Wagners Musik einlässt, verfällt ihr. Warum?“

[3] So Köhler auf der „Spiegel TV“ DVD „Richard Wagner“, die dem Schwerpunktheft des „Spiegel“ über Wagner (Nr. 14, 30. März 2013) beilag. Köhler veröffentlichte 1997, im Kontext der Goldhagen-Debatte, ein grobschlächtiges Buch mit dem Titel „Wagners Hitler. Der Prophet und sein Vollstrecker“, in dem er den Komponisten als den „Auftraggeber“ Hitlers bezeichnete (S. 385). Hitler „musste die Juden hassen, weil er den Mann liebte, der die Juden hasste.“ (S. 415) Kurz darauf wandelte sich Köhler vom schärfsten Wagner-„Kritiker“ zu dessen eifrigstem Jünger und veröffentlichte 2001 das Buch „Der letzte der Titanen“, eine schwulstige Hagiographie („Mit Wagners tiefem Es begann die Schöpfung und die Welt hob an zu singen“, S. 415).Dass der „Spiegel“ für seine Print- und TV-Ausgabe ausgerechnet diesen Autor als wichtigsten „Experten“ recycelt, kennzeichnet die Situation.

[4] Steven M. Lowenstein, Paul Mendes-Flohr, Peter Pulzer und Monika Richarz, Deutsch-jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit, Bd. III, München(Beck) 2000, S. 195. Eine Auswahl jener Anti-Wagnerproteste findet sich im Dokumentenanhang der Studie von Jens Malte Fischer, Richard Wagners ,Das Judentum in der Musik‘ Frankfurt/M. (Insel Verlag) 2000.

[5] Steven M. Lowenstein et. al., a.a.O., Bd. IV, S. 236.

[6] Jens Malte Fischer, a.a.O., S. 44. „Die Emanzipation vom Schacher und vom Geld, also vom praktischen, realen Judentum wäre die Selbstemanzipation unserer Zeit“, hatte sechs Jahre zuvor Karl Marx in seine Frühschrift „Zur Judenfrage“ postuliert, ein Text, den Wagner, Fischer zufolge, gekannt haben soll. (Ebd.)

[7] So im Schlussabsatz der Neuveröffentlichung von „Das Judenthum in der Musik“ von 1869, zit. nach Jens Malte Fischer, a.a.O., der Wagners Pamphlet in den Versionen von 1850 und 1869 dokumentiert.

[8] Anette Hein, ,Es ist viel ,Hitler‘ in Wagner‘. Rassismus und antisemitische Deutschtumsideologie in den ,Bayreuther Blättern‘ (1878-1938), Tübingen (Max Niemeyer Verlag) 1996, S. 113 sowie Paul Lawrence Rose, Richard Wagner und der Antisemitismus, Zürich/München (Pendo) 1992, S. 272.

[9] Brief Wagners an König Ludwig II. vom 22. November 1881, zit. nach Paul Lawrence Rose, a.a.O., S. 188.

[10] R. Wagner in: Heldentum und Christentum (1881), zit. nach Winfried Schüler, Der Bayreuther Kre
is von seiner Entstehung bis zum Ausgang der wilhelminischen Ära. Wagnerkult und Kulturreform im Geiste völkischer Weltanschauung, Münster (Verlag Aschendorf) 1971, S. 238.

[11] „Zum zweiten Mal soll aus Deutschland eine Wagner-Oper werden“, schrieb Carl von Ossietzky hellsichtig am 21. Februar 1933 in einer der letzten Ausgaben der „Weltbühne“. „Siegmund und Sieglinde, Wotan, Hunding, Alberich und der ganze Walkürenchor und die Rheintöchter dazu sind – Heiajaheia! Wallalaleia heiajahei! – über Nacht hereingebrochen mit der Forderung, über Leiber und Seelen zu herrschen.“ (C. v. Ossietzky, Richard Wagner, in: Die Weltbühne, XXIX. Jahrgang, 21. Februar 1933, Nummer 8, S. 285) Mit „feuerkur“ meinte Wagner die Niederbrennung von Paris. „Mit völligster besonnenheit“, schrieb er am 22. Oktober 1850 in einem Brief an Theodor Uhlig, „und ohne allen schwindel versichere ich Dir, dass ich an keine andere revolution mehr glaube, als an die, die mit dem Niederbrande von Paris beginnt … Starker Nerven wird es bedürfen, und nur wirkliche menschen werden es überleben, d.h. solche, die durch die Noth und das großartigste Entsetzen erst zu menschen geworden sind. Laß einmal sehen, wie wir uns nach dieser feuerkur wiederfinden.“ (Zit. nach Hartmut Zelinsky, Die ,feuerkur‘ des Richard Wagner oder die ,neue religion“ der ,Erlösung‘ durch ,Vernichtung‘, in: Heinz-Klaus Metzger und Rainer Riehn, Richard Wagner. Wie antisemitisch darf ein Künstler sein? Musik-Konzepte; Heft 5, Juli 1978, S. 93.) 2013 griff die „Zeit“ Wagners „feuerkur“ als Erlösungssymbol wieder auf: „Ganz oder gar nicht, ja oder nein, lautet die Devise … 2013 dürfte sie das Zeug zu jener utopischen ,Feuerkur‘ haben (im reinigenden, durchaus militanten und jedenfalls kunstübergreifenden Sinn), die Wagner sich einst von der Gründung der Bayreuther Festspiele versprach. In Zeiten wie den unsrigen, in denen die Gestaltung von Gesellschaft zunehmend mit dem Buhlen um Mehrheiten verwechselt wird und politische Machtsicherheit bedeutet, sich schadlos aus allem herauszuhalten, könnte uns der Umgang mit Wagner zu einer neuen Entschiedenheit verhelfen. An seinem Werk könnten wir üben … wieder Partei zu ergreifen, mit Herz und Hirn ein Bekenntnis abzulegen.“ (Christine Lemke-Matwey, Der Seelenfänger, in: Die Zeit, 2. Januar 2013)

[12] Die Zitate stammen aus Folge II „Die Walküre“ der vierteiligen TV-Serie „Wagner: Der Ring“ vom 13. April 2013. Selbst in der ergänzenden Dokumentation über „Hitler und der Wagnerclan“, die 3sat am 7. April 2013 ausstrahlte, kam ein kritisches Wort über Richard Wagner nicht vor.

[13] Theodor W. Adorno, Versuch über Wagner, in: ders., Gesammelte Schriften Band 13, Frankfurt/M. (Suhrkamp) 1971, S. 21.

[14] Paul Lawrence Rose, Richard Wagner und der Antisemitismus, Zürich/München (Pendo) 1992, S. 261.

[15] Gottfried Wagner, Du sollst keine anderen Götter haben neben mir. Richard Wagner – Ein Minenfeld, München (Propyläen) 2013, S. 169.

[16] Gottfried Wagner, a.a.O., S. 262.

[17] Gottfried Wagner, a.a.O., S. 266.

[18] Hartmut Zelinisky, Verfall, Vernichtung, Weltentrückung. Richard Wagners antisemitische Werk-Idee als Kunstreligion und Zivilisationskritik und ihre Verbreitung bis 1933, in: Saul Friedländer und Jörn Rüsen (Hg.), Richard Wagner im Dritten Reich, München (Beck) 2000, S. 310.

[19] Friedrich Nietzsche, a.a.O., S. 200 und 242.

Quelle08. MAI 2013

Rethinking Israel-Palestine: Beyond Bantustans, Beyond Reservations

As President Barack Obama embarks on his listening tour in the Middle East, he is likely to witness the impact of two decades of the Oslo peace process. Twenty years, dozens of summits and millions of dollars have brought Palestinians and Israel no closer to establishing a viable peace.

The US-brokered agreement has been associated with a mantra of establishing two states for two peoples, living side by side. In fact, Israel has existed as a state since 1948 and Palestinians have remained internally displaced within that state, exiled from it and occupied by it in adjacent territories. More significantly, Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Palestinians, Israeli citizens and stateless civilians alike, are inextricably populated throughout a single territorial entity under Israeli control. The call for two states is really a call for the separation of two populations based on ethno-national homogeneity. The proposal has failed, not just because of a lack of accountability, but because it is fundamentally flawed. Like prescribing aspirin to deal with cancer, Oslo offered truncated self-rule as a prescription for Jewish-Israeli settler-colonialism and domination.

Much like Marcus Garvey’s proposition in response to the Black Question in the United States, Zionists insisted upon the creation of a Jewish homeland in response to systemic anti-Semitism in Europe. The horror of the European Holocaust catalyzed the Zionist option and has, since then, eclipsed all other responses to institutionalized and ethnic-based bigotry. It has thus been excruciatingly difficult, if not impossible, to critique Jewish-Zionist domination in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) without falling prey to accusations of anti-Semitism. Fundamentally, however, both the opposition to anti-Semitism as well as to Jewish-Israeli privilege is rooted in an anti-domination discourse.

Establishing a Demographic Majority

Due to the insistence upon maintaining a Jewish demographic majority, Israel’s establishment and maintenance has necessitated the ongoing forced displacement of Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Well before Israel’s establishment, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s chief architect and two-time prime minister, said that in order to be successful, Jews must comprise 80 percent of the population, hardly a plausible ratio in light of a vibrant Palestinian society in 1948. As put by the Israeli historian Benny Morris during an interview discussing his book,The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited,

Ben Gurion…understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst…that has to be clear, it’s impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen there.

And so based on that vision, Zionists demolished 531 Arab villages and expelled some 700,000 Palestinians from what is today Israel proper. The “problem,” so to speak, is that Zionist forces did not expel all Palestinians. Instead, the 100,000 Palestinians remaining within Israel at the conclusion of the 1948 war today constitute a 1.2 million-person population, approximately 20 percent of Israel’s total population.

Had Israel declared its borders along the 1949 armistice line, maintaining an 80 percent demographic balance may have been possible. Israel, however, has never declared any borders and, in accordance with a plan first elaborated by Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon immediately after the 1967 war, it has steadily expanded into the rest of Mandate Palestine, home now to 4 million Palestinians.

As of October 2012, the balance of Jews to non-Jews throughout Israel and the OPT was approximately 5.9 million Jewish Israelis, including the settler population, and 6.1 million Palestinians.

At this juncture, Israel could abandon its commitment to a Jewish demographic majority and establish a state for all its citizens without distinction to religion. Its leaders and supporters reject this pluralistic, democratic option outright and equate it with the destruction of Israel.

Alternatively, Israel could annex the territories and impose an apartheid regime, wherein a minority rules over the majority. Israeli leaders reject this option but, notably, a significant majority of Israelis support it, as revealed by an October 2012 poll published in Haaretz. Although Israel refuses to formally acknowledge it, this reality currently exists as a matter of fact.

Perhaps Israel’s best option for preserving a Jewish demographic majority is the establishment of a Palestinian state and the de jure establishment of international borders—the choice it abandoned more than four decades ago. Indeed, this option has received the most fervent support from the international community and the formal Palestinian leadership, represented by the Palestinian Authority, as well as Israel’s most strident supporters.

Nevertheless, Israel has obliterated the two-state option since the signing of Oslo in 1993. It sanctioned, funded and encouraged, as a matter of national policy, the growth of the settler population in the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, from 200,000 to nearly 600,000. It built 85 percent of the separation barrier on occupied West Bank land, circumscribing its largest settlement blocs and effectively confiscating 13 percent of the territory. Rather than prepare Area C (62 percent of the West Bank, now under interim Israeli civil and military jurisdiction) for Palestinian control, it has entrenched its settlement-colonial enterprise. Israel’s siege has exacerbated the cultural, social and national distance between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And its intense Judaization campaign in East Jerusalem has accelerated the ethnic cleansing of Palestin
ians there, hardly preparing it to become the independent capital of the future Palestinian state.

For liberal Zionists who believe that the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state and the protection of Palestinian dignity and freedom are compatible, this predicament is especially curious—why would Israel sabotage its best available option? Crudely put, because Israel’s preferred option is the one that it has always pursued: the establishment of absolute control over Palestinians as a fragmented and dispensable underclass, without distinction to their status as citizens of Israel or civilians under occupation.

Zionists did not historically conceive of Palestinians as a national polity entitled to self-determination; they were not considered a “people” at all. Palestinian self-representation, resistance and international recognition, however, have forced even the most ardent Zionists to reconsider this proposition. Notwithstanding their accepted standing as a people today, Israel continues to deal with Mandate Palestine’s non-Jewish indigenous population as a demographic, national and cultural impediment to its settler-colonial project rather than a constituent or future neighbor.

Ethno-National Domination

Upon its establishment, Israel passed a series of laws that privileged its Jewish inhabitants and further dispossessed and marginalized its non-Jewish indigenous population. Two laws are particularly relevant: the Citizenship Law (1952) bifurcated Jewish nationality from Israeli citizenship and denationalized the Palestinian population. In doing so, the state instantly created a two-tiered system of rights: one available for Jews, who could be both nationals and citizens, and one for non-Jews, who could be citizens only. The Law of Return (1950) extended the right to Israeli citizenship and associated state benefits to any Jewish person, now a Jewish national as well, anywhere in the world.

Together these laws ensured that Jewish persons who lived beyond Israel’s boundaries and had no relationship to it had more rights than the state’s own non-Jewish Palestinian citizens, even when their meager numbers did not constitute one-fifth of Israel’s population, as they do today. Not only was a nascent Israel cementing its Jewish demographic majority, but by instituting a series of similar laws, it also preserved Jewish political, social and economic privilege.

Notwithstanding the significant demographic majority of Jews to non-Jews within Israel proper, Israel has treated its Palestinian citizens as a fifth column. The State Department’s 2005 Annual Human Rights Report notes that there is

institutionalized legal and societal discrimination against Israel’s Christian, Muslim and Druze citizens. The government does not provide Israeli Arabs with the same quality of education, housing, employment and social services as Jews.

In addition to their socioeconomic subjugation, Israel has also worked to thwart the national identity of, and social solidarity among, its minority and indigenous Palestinian population.

In furtherance of its demographic priorities, some of these Israeli policies have had the express purpose of reducing the size of its Palestinian population. The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), better known as the Ban on Family Reunification, for example, prohibits the adjustment of status and acquisition of citizenship among spouses from the Occupied Palestinian Territory and “enemy states,” not coincidentally all the states with a high concentration of Palestinians: Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq. In its January 2012 decision upholding the law, the Israeli High Court of Justice explained, “human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.”

But the threat is not just numeric; it is just as much about competing narratives and memory. At stake is the state’s own national mythology.

In 2011, Israel passed the State Budget Law Amendment. Popularly known as the Nakba Law, it penalizes, by revoking state funding, any institution that either challenges Israel’s founding as a Jewish and democratic state or commemorates Israel’s Independence Day as one of mourning or loss. The threat any such commemoration poses is a challenge to Israel’s narrative of righteous conception.

The Prawer Plan, named after its author, former deputy chair of the National Security Council Ehud Prawer, seeks to forcibly displace up to 70,000 Palestinian Bedouins from their homes and communities in the Negev Desert to urban townships to make room for Jewish-only settlements and a forest. The plan, approved in September 2011, has no demographic impact, as these Palestinians are already Israeli citizens. It does, however, violently sever these Bedouin communities from their agricultural livelihoods and centuries-long association with that particular land.

Similarly, in 2001 the High Court of Justice rejected an appeal from internally displaced Palestinians to return to the villages of Ikrit and Kafr Bir’im, near the Lebanon border, from which they were forcibly displaced in 1948. Like the Negev-based Palestinians, these Palestinians are Israeli citizens and therefore pose no demographic threat. In fact, they currently live only miles away from their demolished villages. Their return to them only threatens a Zionist narrative that Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land. To further the erasure, Israel plans on building Jewish settlements where these communities once lived.

Israel’s land and housing planning policies in the Galilee demonstrate that the threat is not just about demographics and memory but the cohesion of Palestinians within the state, and the potential for Palestinian nationalism. In Nazareth, home to 80,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel, bidding rights for public building opportunities are reserved for citizens who have completed military service. This excludes nearly all of Nazareth’s Palestinian population, who do not serve in the Israeli military for historical and political reasons. In other Galilee cities, “Admissions Committees” can legally exclude Palestinians from their residential communities for being “socially unsuitable” based on their race or national origin alone. Together with its policy of Jewish settlement expansion within Israel as well as a matrix of similarly discriminatory urban planning laws, Israel forces its Palestinian citizens to live in noncontiguous ghettos throughout the state.

Palestinian refugees fundamentally disrupt these national goals: their return would shatter Israel’s Jewish majority, their presence is a living testament of Palestinian narrative and memory, and their historical claims dislocate the ghettoization of Palestinians within Israel today. The absence of refugees, however, does not reverse Israel’s policies aimed at diminishing the number of Palestinians, concentrating them geographically and separating them from one another.

Abandoning the right of return for refugees in this context is therefore not “pragmatic” at all. Refugees are not the impediment to establishing a viable peace; its most formidable impediment is Israel’s insistence upon Jewish primacy throughout Israel and the OPT.

Inadequate Remedies

A Palestinian state is hardly adequate to remedy these conditions. At best, it responds to Israel’s hegemonic ambitions by establishing an Arab Muslim and Christian corollary where Palestinians can assert their own ethno-national dominance. It disregards the broader Palestinian question, which stems from their forced displacement, exile and occupation. In contrast to the international enthusiasm today for a Palestinian state, in 1976 the UN General Assembly, in response to the establishment of Transkei, a self-governing authority within the South African Republic, passed Resolution 31/6 A, which condemned

the establishment of bantustans as designed to consolidate the inhuman policies ofapartheid, to destroy the territorial integrity of the country, to perpetuate white minority domination and to dispossess the African people of South Africa of their inalienable rights.

Even a single democratic, secular state without a concomitant anti-domination movement will not suffice to remedy these conditions. Irrespective of the number of states, the goal should be to dismantle those institutions that confer privilege to any particular ethnic, religious or national group. As indicated by the outstanding poverty gaps between blacks and whites in South Africa after the nominal end of apartheid in the early 1990s, this must include more than a simple removal of discriminatory laws. Transitional justice must feature rehabilitative policies as well. Equality under the law alone will do little to alleviate the criminalization of minority, indigenous communities, as indicated in the United States by the striking proportion of incarcerated Native Americans in the states where their numbers are still significant. To adequately remedy institutionalized discrimination and subjugation, reformed state institutions should also be imbued with an ethos of socioeconomic dignity for all its citizens and residents.

Failure to do so in Israel and the OPT will likely result in the de facto ghettoization, systematic impoverishment and criminalization of Palestinians regardless of their pre-existing status as citizens, civilians or refugees. Under such circumstances, in a one-state solution, their condition would be like Native American reservations, and in a two-state solution, they will be like South African bantustans. Both ought to be rejected in favor of a democratic and dignified one-state formula as only the first step.

Source: The Nation   

Als Muslime und Juden eine Symbiose eingingen


Unlängst verschreckte der pakistanische Atomphysiker Pervez Hoodbhoy westliche
Islam-Versteher mit einer provokanten
These
: Muslimische Gesellschaften seien kollektiv gescheitert. Als
Begründung führte der international bekannte Gelehrte an, dass Muslime seit
tausend Jahren keinerlei bedeutende Erfindung gemacht hätten. Die muslimischen
Fanatiker der Gegenwart steckten seiner Meinung nach gedanklich immer noch im
12. Jahrhundert fest.


Die Spätblüte: Als letztes islamisches Reich auf der Iberischen Halbinsel ging Granada (das Foto zeigt den Palast Alhambra) an die Christen verloren
Alhambra in Granada

Wenn
es nur so wäre. Denn damals bot ausgerechnet ein Land ein Gegenbeispiel, das
heute zur westlichen Welt gehört: Spanien. In dessen südlichen Teilen blühte
bis zum 12. Jahrhundert noch eine Wissenskultur, die zur Weltspitze gehörte.
Mehr noch: Sie gründete sich auf die Zusammenarbeit zwischen zwei
Weltreligionen, die heute als Antipoden gelten: Islam und Judentum. Der
Niedergang von al-Andalus, wie seine Bewohner das maurische Spanien nannten,
besorgte die Reconquista. Im Zuge der christlichen Rückeroberung schwand ein
“goldenes Zeitalter” dahin.

Dass
es ab 711 hatte entstehen können, verdankte die Iberische Halbinsel dem Islam.
Von Nordafrika aus begann seine Gotteskrieger den Kampf gegen die christlichen
Westgoten, die sich in den Trümmern des Imperiums eingerichtet hatten. Es
dauerte nicht lange, da waren sie unterworfen. Damit aber wurden die Juden von
den drückenden Lasten befreit, die die Germanen ihnen zuvor aufgebürdet hatten.


Symbole guter muslimisch-jüdischer Zusammenarbeit in al-Andalus: Der muslimische Arzt und Philosoph Averroës (l.; 1126-1198) und sein jüdischer Kollege Maimonides (um 1135-1204)
Der muslimische Arzt und Philosoph Averroës (l.; 1126-1198) und sein jüdischer Kollege Maimonides (um 1135-1204)

In
den Konzilien von Toledo 589 bis 694 hatten die Westgoten-Könige mehrere
Gesetze erlassen, welche auf eine stufenweise Vertreibung der damals in ihrem
Reich lebenden Juden zielten: zunächst das Verbot der Mischehe mit Christen,
dann hohe “Judensteuern”, die jüdische Händler zahlen mussten und
schließlich eine systematische Versklavung der Erwachsenen und Verschleppung
ihrer Kinder, um sie im christlichen Glauben zu erziehen.


Bald stand der größte Teil der Halbinsel unter muslimischer Herrschaft.

Algebra,
Alkalien, Alkohol

Daher
war es nicht verwunderlich, dass viele Juden die muslimischen Eroberer Anfang
des 8. Jahrhunderts als Befreier begrüßten und sie vielerorts unterstützten.
Al-Andalus entwickelte sich so in der Folgezeit zu einem Zentrum muslimischer
und jüdischer Gelehrsamkeit. Verfolgte Juden aus ganz Europa sowie aus
Nordafrika und sogar dem Orient soll es damals auf die Iberische Halbinsel
gezogen haben.

Wissenschaftliche,
oft auf antike griechische Werke aufgebaute Errungenschaften von Weltrang aus
dieser Zeit auf Gebieten der Astronomie, der Mathematik, der Philosophie, der
Chemie und der Medizin sind teilweise heute noch an arabischen Vorsilben (al-) von
Fachgebieten und Stoffen erkennbar. Etwa Algebra, Alchemie, Alkalien und
Alkohol.

Besonders das von Abd-ar Rahmann III.
gegründete Kalifat von Córdoba von 929 bis 1031 markierte eine fruchtbare
Epoche dieses “Goldenen Zeitalters” in al-Andalus. Der amerikanische Historiker David Levering Lewis behauptet
in seinem Buch “God’s Crucible” sogar, dass die Dynastie der
Omayyaden das wahre Erbe des untergegangenen, wissenschaftlich hochstehenden
römischen Imperiums verkörperten.

Diese Ommayaden waren von ihren
innermuslimischen Gegnern, den Abbasiden, 750 im Nordirak beinahe vernichtend
geschlagen worden, konnten aber in al-Andalus von 756 bis 1031 zunächst
als Emire, dann als Kalifen eine letzte Machtbasis sichern und ausbauen. Die
siegreichen Abbasiden, die von Bagdad aus als Kalifen den Orient beherrschten,
hielten es mit den Wissenschaften übrigens ähnlich. Sie folgten dem Grundsatz:
“Die Tinte des Gelehrten ist heiliger als das Blut der Märtyrer.”
Eine Devise, die heutige Fanatiker offenbar vergessen haben.



Um 710 setzte erstmals ein muslimisches Heer über die Meerenge von Gibraltar über. Ein Jahr später wurde der Felsen erobert und blieb bis 1492 in maurischer Hand.
Um 710 setzte erstmals ein muslimisches Heer an der Meerenge von Gibraltar über. Ein Jahr später wurde der Felsen erobert und blieb bis 1492 in maurischer Hand.


Gegen
die Finsternis des Mittelalters

Den
gebildeten Bewohnern von al-Andalus, von dessen vielleicht sieben Millionen
Einwohnern im Jahr 1000 fünf Millionen zum Islam konvertierte Christen gewesen
sein sollen, stellt Levering Lewis die christianisierten Barbaren im Norden
gegenüber, die nach dem Fall des weströmischen Reiches Europa verwüstet hätten.
Hätten die Franken den Vorstoß der Muslime nicht gestoppt, hätten sie Europa
beizeiten durch die Finsternis des Mittelalters führen können.

Allerdings
hat dieses Bild von einem “glänzenden “Garten” (Heinrich Heine)
intellektueller Libertät Widerspruch provoziert. So bedeutete die religiöse
Toleranz der islamischen Welt stets: Duldung nach vorheriger Unterwerfung. Das
hieß, wie der britische Historiker Bernard Lewis ausführt, höhere Steuern für
Juden und Christen und optische Diskriminierung, etwa durch einen
“Zunnar”-Gürtel.

Auch
der Historiker Nikolas Jaspert kritisiert den Mythos des blühenden,
friedlichen, toleranten al-Andalus. So verbrannten die aus Nordafrika im 12.
Jahrhundert in al-Andalus einfallenden streng muslimischen Almohaden zahlreiche
Bücher. Werke großer Gelehrter aus Córdoba wie die des Muslim Ibn Ruschd und
des Juden Musa ibn Maimun, heute bekannt als Averroës und Maimonides, waren
darunter. Diese beiden Philosophen-Ärzte markierten den Höhepunkt der
muslimisch-jüdischen Hochkultur in al-Andalus. Sie mussten vor den Almohaden,
den berberischen “Bekennern der Einheit Gottes”, fliehen.

Maimonides
entzog sich den Zwangsbekehrungen der Fanatiker, indem er nach Ägypten entwich.
Averroës, der dem Islam “rein und vollständig die Wissenschaft” geben
wollte und Schriften von Aristoteles ins Arabische übersetzte, setzte sich als
alter Mann nach Nordafrika ab, wo er 1198 in Marrakesch starb. Vielleicht
beginnt mit seinem Tod tatsächlich die von Pervez Hoodbhoy beklagte Dunkelheit.


Als letztes Zentrum widerstand Granada den Eroberungszügen der Christen.
Granada: die Alhambra als letzte Bastion

Mit
dem Feuer der Inquisition

Dabei
war die “Reconquista”, die christliche Rückeroberung der Iberischen
Halbinsel, zu dieser Zeit bereits voll im Gange. Die christlichen Reiche waren
immer weiter erstarkt und hatten die Muslime im Laufe der Jahrhunderte
kontinuierlich zurückgedrängt. Schließlich wehte im Jahr 1492 wieder ein Kreuz
über Granada, 781 Jahre nachdem der Berber Tariq ibn Ziyad die Westgoten
angegriffen hatte. Nach zehnjähriger Belagerung der granadischen Festung
Alhambra ergab sich der letzte Emir von Granada dem kastilisch-aragonischen
Königspaar Ferdinand I. und Isabella II.


Das Ende des maurischen Spanien: Muhammad XII. übergibt 1492 die Schlüssel Granadas an die Katholischen Könige Isabella I. von Kastilien und Ferdinand II. von Aragón
Muhammad XII. übergibt 1492 die Schlüssel Granadas an die Katholischen Könige Isabella I. von Kastilien und Ferdinand II. von Aragón

Muslime
und Juden mussten in der Folge die katholischen Reiche Kastilien und Aragon
verlassen oder zum Christentum konvertieren. Und der christliche Terror der
Inquisition unter Großinquisitor Tomás de Torquemada sollte seine volle Wucht
entfalten. Besonders die konvertierten Juden litten darunter. Viele von ihnen
wurden bei den sogenannten “Autodafés” bei lebendigem Leib auf Scheiterhaufen
verbrannt, verdächtigt, immer noch dem jüdischen Glauben der Vorväter
anzuhängen.

Mit
der abgeschlossenen “Reconquista” wurden dann für Kastilien und
Aragon Geldmittel und Ressourcen frei, um einen Wendepunkt der Weltgeschichte
zu ermöglichen: Die Atlantik-Überquerung des Christoph Kolumbus nach Indien,
die ungeplant in Amerika ende sollte. Und die konvertierten Muslime,
“Moriscos” genannt, wurden letztendlich nach Nordafrika vertrieben.
So meldete König Philipp III. 1609 dem Papst im Rom: Das christliche Werk sei
getan und der Unglauben in Spanien besiegt – ein religiös-fanatischer Akt, der
eine jahrhundertealte Wissenskultur endgültig zu Grabe trug.


Die große Moschee von Córdoba hat sich in der christlichen Kathedrale erhalten, die als Siegesmonument nach der Reconquista darüber erbaut wurde.
Die große Moschee von Córdoba hat sich in der christlichen Kathedrale erhalten, die als Siegesmonument nach der Reconquista darüber erbaut wurde.


Heute gehört Gibraltar Großbritannien und den Berberaffen, die britische Soldaten im 18. Jahrhundert importierten.
Berber-Affen in Gibraltar, von britischen Soldaten im 18. Jahrhundert importiert

SourceWelt 23.04.13

LEBANON AND ISRAEL

BBC Media coverage of Israel’s occupation and now withdrawal from the South Lebanon Security Zone, and her replacement by triumphant Hizbollah fighters, while ‘happy villagers’ returned to their homes has generally portrayed Israel as an illegal occupying force. It was not explained why thousands of Lebanese have been fleeing into Israel before the advancing Hizbollah Lebanon’s tragic history since 1970, and more particularly since Israel’s entry into Lebanon during the Peace 
for Galilee operation in the Spring of 1982, has been grossly misrepresented by the western media. Sometimes this misrepresentation was because sympathetic journalists in Beirut were murdered by the PLO, sometimes because accurate reporting was not judged to be good copy by their western editors. 6
The level of deliberate distortion was almost unique. A typical example was recorded by one TV viewer who said: “On TV news I saw that Israel had almost completely destroyed Nabatiye. Then I went to Lebanon and saw Nabatiye. Yes, a few buildings were destroyed and weeds were growing inside. – these buildings had been destroyed during the past seven years by the civil war and the PLO (and not by Israel).” The International Red Cross initially claimed that 10,000 civilians had been killed or wounded in southern Lebanon following Israel’s action in June 1982. Lebanese Mayors and Government doctors gave a figure of around 460 dead and 1,100 wounded. 4
Countless other examples from the western media indicated a cynical disregard for reporting 
accuracy. Up to 1982 the PLO had been developing Lebanon as a base for international terrorism, with many training schools for terrorists from all over the world being located in refugee camps in S.Lebanon 1 .
Not only did the PLO store their arms in civilian schools, hospitals and homes as a matter of policy, but vast quantities of armaments were found in the coastal cities of Damour, Tyre and Sidon, some in vast underground tunnels, and enough to equip an estimated 250,000 troops. 2
A full coverage of the events leading up to and following Israel’s entry into Lebanon would be, and is, the subject of books. So much however is forgotten that a few facts need to be re-established.
The PLO having been driven out of Jordan in 1970 and having made its home in Lebanon in effect set up a ‘state within a state’. Even prior to this Syria had been brutally pursuing her policy of expanding her rule into Lebanon so that by 1982 she controlled almost 65% of the country. Only the Christian community, who had a share in the government, stood in the way of total Syrian control and therefore Syria was slowly exerting brutal pressure on the Christians 3
The PLO during their occupation between 1975 and 1982 terrorised the Christians of south Lebanon, even exceeding what the Nazis did in their brutality. A PLO film showed young terrorists wearing Palestinian head scarves throwing babies into the air and shooting them as they fell. The full record of their treatment of Christian civilians is so horrific that it is hardly suitable to print 2, 7. The Israelis put an end to this brutal PLO oppression so that they were received as liberators, and women and girls said that for the first time in 8 years they could walk the streets without purposely making themselves look ugly. 
I visited southern Lebanon in June 1982 as part of a journalistic team and saw the Israeli solders being received with rejoicing and with flowers and heard expressions of gratitude to Israel. U.S Representative Charles Wilson (who had no previous record of support of Israel), after visiting S.Lebanon in July 1982 was recorded as saying: “The News media have failed in not indicating the genuine joy of the Lebanese in being freed by Israel from the PLO.” 4 
There were many examples of Israeli soldiers risking their lives to safeguard the lives of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, a policy sometimes taken advantage of by the PLO so that Israeli soldiers fell into ambushes with civilians used as a bait, suffering injury and death as a result. 15
The record of Israel’s involvement in Lebanon has, by all reasonable standards, been benevolent. Long before June 1982, Israel was helping Christians of Southern Lebanon. In the 1970s, in response to a perceived need of the inhabitants of S.Lebanon, Israel opened a crossing point near Metulla through which Lebanese could enter Israel for medical treatment and go to work in Israel. Called the “Good Fence”, thousands crossed daily into Israel to work. 
Up to 1981 some 160,000 residents of S.Lebanon had received medical treatment from Israeli doctors at the border and those requiring further treatment were taken to Israeli hospitals. Also up to 1981 some 8,000 Lebanese villagers had crossed daily to work in Israel, receiving the same wages as their Israeli counterparts.
After June 1982 Israel Government funds subsidised the work of 15 hospitals in the Tyre and Sidon areas, while some Lebanese patients were taken to Israeli hospital to be treated freely at a cost averaging £20,000 per day 5. Israel’s troops distributed tons of food to the people, with Israeli soldiers even sharing their rations with the children.
The hospital in Marjayoun (a mainly Maronite-Christian village and the headquarters of the SLA) was rehabilitated by Israel in 1985 and almost entirely funded by Israeli money to serve the S. Lebanese people. A dental clinic was located here in which Beverley Timgren, a Canadian Dental hygienist, supported from time to time by CFI, worked tirelessly.
Christians should remember the motto of the militant Palestinian-Islamic factions: “On the Sabbath we kill Jews and on Sunday we kill Christians”, as written on the walls of S.Lebanese houses. Indeed, before the Six Day war in 1967, the cry was heard throughout the Arab world, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.” The same cry is still widely proclaimed. Those fleeing from S.Lebanon into Israel know this too well.7,8
Hizbollah’s recent treatment of the Christians of Lebanon is illustrated first by an account from the beginning of this year.“During the evening of 3rd January 2000, the naked body of a 60 year-old Maronite nun from Kfarchima in East Beirut was found lying near the Science Faculty between Hadeth and Kfarchima. According to unconfirmed security reports issued shortly after the discovery, Sister Antoinette Zaidan had been raped and then strangled by Islamic militants on her way home to the local convent. On the same day, two Christian women in the village of Kfar Abou in north Lebanon were massacred by the Islamic group ‘‘Al-Takfir Wal Higra’’. The victims were Salwa Yazbek and her pregnant daughter-in-law, Sarah Yazbek. The militants beheaded Sarah and then dismembered her body.” 9
As of now recent reports say:
“Despite the allegations by the Lebanese regime, its President Emile Lahoud, and the assurances of the United Nations and Western Governments that “all measures will be taken to insure security in the southern Lebanese enclave, Hizbollah started the cleansing of Christians. Underground sources confirmed this afternoon that Hizbollah armed men kidnapped and executed two Christian men in the town of Qolaia: Akl Mussa and Merhi Khoury. In Ain Ebel, Hizbollah kidnapped Nicholas Haddad and Atallah al Hasrouni. 
Hizbollah armed elements destroyed the statue of Major Saad Haddad (in Marjayoun), the Christian founder of the enclave. Lebanon Bulletin’s delegates reported that Hizbollah’s militiamen desecrated Christian raveyards in several Christian towns and villages. Hundred young men and women are reported to be hiding in the valleys.” 10
“Hizbollah terrorists took an unknown number of SLA soldiers to the roofs of houses in villages in the former security zone and shot them to death. A senior officer in the northern command confirmed the reports. According to
Lebanese Army sources, two-thirds of SLA fighters – over 1,600 fighters – did not come to Israel, but rather turned themselves in to Lebanese forces or terrorist organisations. 11 Many Israeli organisations have offered their services to the Lebanese refugees – including the opening of eight medical clinics, youth activities, and more. Kibbutz Gesher HaZiv has absorbed 120 families. The IDF estimates that a total of 6,000 south Lebanese will arrive in Israel, although many of them will ultimately not remain in Israel. Housing has already been found for many of the refugees, but another temporary camp has been set up near Korazim, north-west of the Kinneret. A small demonstration was held this afternoon outside Defence Ministry offices, against what the protestors called the ‘abandonment’ of the SLA.” 12
Let us remember that the complaint of Lebanese Maronite Christian leaders was that when the Christians were in dire straits in the early 1980s their pleas for assistance fell on deaf ears in Europe, and the official churches of the West said and did nothing. “The Israeli government and Israeli people were the only ones who responded to our pleas for assistance.” (Chamille Chamoun, former President of Lebanon) 13
. “No one came to our help except God – and Israel.” 14 The least we can do is to pray that Israel will do all she can to receive and help such who have fled for refuge, and ourselves to understand.
References
1. David Pileggi Background Information for Operation Cedars of Lebanon June 1982 p.14-15 (ICEJ)
2. Gary Bergel Operation Cedars of Lebanon – A Report for Prayer p.2-3 (Intercessors for America)
3. David Pileggi op cit p.4
4. Despatch from Jerusalem (Ed. Dave Foster) Autumn 1982
5. Ibid
6. Frank Gervasi Media Coverage: The War in Lebanon Center for International Security, Washington D.C.
7. Ludwig Schneider Lebanon’s Bells are Ringing Again Sept 1982
8. David Pileggi op cit p.1
9. Christian Solidarity Worldwide quoted by Lebanon 
Bulletin, January 7, 2000
10. Lebanon Bulletin May 24, 2000 World Lebanese Organisation (www.wlo-usa.org)
11. Arutz Sheva News Service May 24, 2000)
12. Ibid
13. David Pileggi op cit p.9
14. Gary Bergel op cit p.1
15. John Laffin The Desperate War British Army Review April 1983 Derek White 27 May 2000
Further current information can be obtained from: The World Lebanese Organisation www.wlo-usa.org Embassy of Lebanon Source

International Terror and Antisemitism − Two Modern Day Curses: Is there a Connection?

ANTI-BASED COALITIONS OF THE 1970s−80s

Racist and antisemitic preconceptions were influential factors predisposing some terrorist leaders at both ends of the European political spectrum − the radical left and the radical right − to espouse a policy of cooperation with Palestinian organizations and/or to carry out attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets. This trend was particularly evident in the case of the German Red Army Faction (Rote Armee Fraktion − RAF) and the Revolutionary Cells (Revolutionare Zellen − RZ), whose leaders attempted to legitimize their anti-Jewish attacks by incorporating antisemitic themes into their ideological and strategic tracts.[2]

The RAF document expressing support for the Black September terrorist attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 illustrates this trend. The operation was described as “an anti-fascist act [intended] to wipe out the memory… of the 1936 [Berlin] Olympics,Auschwitz, and Kristallnacht.” Further, Israel was blamed for the death of the athletes, as the Nazis were blamed for the death of the Jews.[3]

Horst Mahler, a RAF leader who wrote the above-mentioned document in jail, argued:

Macabre as it may seem, Zionism has become the heir of German fascism, by cruelly ousting the Palestinian people from its land, where it has been living for thousands of years.[4]

He insisted that any guilt feelings the organization might harbor toward the Jews should not blind it to the evils of “Zionist fascist aggression.” It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that years later Mahler crossed the lines to the far right and became a militant Holocaust denier.[5] In November 1999, at a meeting of Austrian extreme rightists, he spoke of the necessity of freeing Germany from “Judischen Prinzipien,” and from “Jewish money worship.” When asked in an interview about his transition from the extreme left to the extreme right, he said that his beliefs had not basically changed, since the enemy remained the same.[6]

RAF and RZ terrorists were involved in that period in some of the most lethal attacks against Jews and Israelis, including the attempt to blow up an El Al plane over Nairobi in 1975, the hijacking of an Air France plane to Entebbe, and the explosion of a bomb in a passenger’s luggage at Lod airport in 1976.

In 1969, a small anarchist movement, the Tupamaros-West Berlin (TW) attempted unsuccessfully to blow up the main synagogue inWest Berlin on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, as a token of solidarity with the Palestinians. Members of TW claimed that the events of Kristallnacht were being re-enacted daily by the Zionists in the occupied territories, in refugee camps, and in Israeli jails.

German terrorist Hans Joachim Klein, who subsequently recanted, was shocked when he heard that his RZ comrades involved in the hijacking of the Air France plane to Entebbe had separated the Jewish passengers from the non-Jewish ones. For him, this act was reminiscent of Nazi ‘selections’ in Auschwitz. Klein considered the two German terrorists who had participated in the Entebbe operation more antisemitic than Wadi` Haddad, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) operational division, because they planned to assassinate Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.[7]

Similarly, the radical French leftist group Action Directe (AD) attempted to justify a series of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks in Paris in 1982 by comparing IDF actions against Palestinian units in Lebanon to Nazi and fascist actions; accordingly, the group set up ‘Jewish combatant units’ to fight ‘the Zionist state’ and the interests of the Zionist-Jewish lobby in France.[8] A leading AD terrorist, the rabidly antisemitic Marc Frérot asked the head of his organization for permission to “blow himself up together with the Jewish scum in the attack against the Leumi Bank, as an act of human dignity.” During his second trial in October 1992, he ranted against the “Jewish lobby” for rulingFrance since 1981 through the Socialists.

By contrast, Italian radical left organizations rejected the cheap brand of antisemitism espoused by their German and French counterparts. The strongly ideological Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse – BR), avoided antisemitic expressions when explaining its pro-Palestinian strategy or justifying its political and strateg
ic opposition to Israeli policy in the Middle East.

In addition to antisemitism, solidarity between Italian radical right-wing organizations and Palestinian organizations was based on contradictory ideological considerations: identification with Third World liberation movements opposed to American imperialism and admiration for certain aspects of Islam, fueled by historical memories of cooperation between the Italian fascist and Palestinian national movements in the 1930s−40s.

In Italy and Germany antisemitism served in the 1970s–80s as a powerful cementing force between radical right-wing organizations and Islamists. The founders of the Italian revolutionary/nationalist organizations maintained close ties with the Khomeinist regime in Iran and admired the Lebanese Hizballah and the Algerian FIS (Islamic Salvation Front). Most of their publications were financed by Iran.

Although antisemitism was a basic component of the pro-Palestinian or pro-Islamic attitudes of Italian ultra-rightist organizations, it was never translated into physical attacks against local Jews or against Israelis. Perhaps the differing policies of the Italian, and the German organizations were historically and culturally determined – like those of their respective countries toward Jews during World War II.[9]

The Palestinian organizations’ usage of antisemitic images in their propaganda played a significant role in entrenching such motifs in the anti-Zionist ideology of the radical left. Historian of Islam and the Middle East Bernard Lewis attributes the radicalization of antisemitic attitudes in the Arab world to the 1956 Sinai campaign and the 1967 Six Day War. After these events, the Arabs and the Palestinians sought to justify their ignominious defeat by ‘little Israel’ and ‘the cowardly Jews’, as they had previously been depicted in the Arab media. Since there was no rational explanation for the defeat, they had to look beyond the bounds of reason; hence, the growth of Arab antisemitic literature.[10]

Hence, it suited Palestinian organizations to recruit radical German left-wing organizations to attack Zionists and Jews. Similarly, Fatahhad no scruples about cooperating with the neo-Nazi Hoffmann Military Sports Group (Hoffmann Wehrsportgruppe – HW) or allowing members of the group to train in Fatah camps in Lebanon, despite the fact that simultaneously it was fostering close ties with the Communist bloc and with revolutionary left-wing movements throughout the world.[11]

Palestinian nationalists from Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP-GC) of Ahmad JibrilFatah – Revolutionary Command of Sabri al-Banna (Abu-Nidal − ANO) and even the Marxist-Leninist PFLP of George Habash all perpetrated murderous attacks against Jewish interests worldwide, targeting schools, synagogues, restaurants, shops, banks and commercial companies in Paris, Antwerp, Rome, Istanbul and many other places.[12] Perhaps the bloodiest of these incidents was the killing of 22 Jews at the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul on 6 September 1986 by ANO terrorists,[13] 17 years before Turkish Islamists linked to al-Qa`ida bombed it again, in November 2003.[14]

 

ISLAMIST ANTISEMITISM AND THE KHOMEINIST REVOLUTION SINCE 1979[15]

Islamic tradition provides the soil on which Islamist antisemitism has taken root. The spiritual mentor of Hizballah in LebanonShaykhMuhammad Husayn Fadlalla, declared that, “in the vocabulary of the Qur’an, Islamists have much of what they need to awaken the consciousness of Muslims because the Qur’an speaks about the Jews in a negative way, concerning both their historical conduct and future schemes.”[16]

For Muslim fundamentalists, Jews have come to represent an ‘eternal enemy’ of Islam since their intrigues against the Prophet in seventh century Arabia. According to Sayyid Qutb, the ideologue of modern radical Sun
ni Islamism, Jews invented the modern doctrines of ‘atheistic materialism’ (communism, psychoanalysis and sociology) in order to destroy the Islamic creed. However, fundamentalists blended their religious judeophobia with modern Western motifs of racist and political antisemitism, principally, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which provides a complete conspiracy theory of history in which satanic Jews strive relentlessly for world domination.[17] Both Saudi Arabia and Iranhave published millions of copies of the Protocols in dozens of languages and contributed to the spread of antisemitism not only in the Muslim world but practically worldwide.

In their eyes, the loss of Muslim territories (wakf) as well as the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem during the Six Day War is viewed by Muslims with a sense of degradation, injustice and anger among Muslims, which have greatly intensified the demonization of Zionism and the Jews. As a result, fundamentalists now posit the conflict in terms of a struggle between Islam and the Jews – with a new vision of the Jews and of Israel as the supreme enemy and an existential threat.[18] Simultaneously, Israel is seen as a surrogate of Western neo-colonialism and its continued existence in the heart of Muslim territory as a permanent reminder of their inferiority.[19]

 

Shi`a Terrorism

The Khomeinist doctrine on which Iran’s religious regime is based requires the destruction of Israel: the closest ally of the United States in the region, “the lesser Satan,” implanted on sacred Arab and Muslim soil, and “the state of the infidel Jews that humiliates Islam, the Qur’an, the government of Islam, and the nation of Islam.”[20]

Using virulently antisemitic language, Ayatollah Khomeini regarded the Jews as an integral part of Western culture, the complete antithesis of Islamic culture, and its most dangerous ideological enemy. Khomeini claimed the Jews were preventing Islam from expanding worldwide. However, Khomeini did not act against Iranian Jews, accepting their status as a protected minority under a Muslim government.[21]

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and after its victory over Iraq in the first Gulf War, the United States emerged as the only world superpower, determined to lay the foundations of a New World Order based on democratic and liberal values. One of its first moves toward the implementation of this new order was sponsoring the political peace process in the Middle East at the Madrid Conference in October 1991.

Iran perceived the peace process as a threat to its ideological and strategic interests. A peace agreement would entail recognition ofIsrael as a legitimate state in the Middle East; it would consolidate moderate Arab regimes but endanger radical Islamic allied movements such as Hizballah and lead to isolation of Iran regionally as well as ideologically.

Iran immediately convened a conference in Tehran, parallel to the Madrid event, reuniting all terrorist and radical organizations that were hostile to negotiations with Israel and were ready to continue the struggle under Iranian leadership. At the close of the conference, the regime made the strategic decision to support the ‘Palestinian resistance’ on the humanitarian, financial, political and military level.[22] The struggle in support of Palestine is thus one of the few areas where Iran’s ideological/revolutionary goals overlap its national/pragmatic interests. The decisions taken at that conference continue to be implemented today and explain the massive support, both direct and indirect, for the various Palestinian terrorist organizations.

This backing has included the escalation of weapons supplies to Hizballah, and financial support and training of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorists in camps in Iran and in Hizballah’s camps in Lebanon. The climax of this subversive Iranian activity occurred during February-March 1996, when suicide terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas and the PIJ practically brought the political process between< st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel and the Palestinian Authority to a halt and caused the fall of the Labor government led by Shimon Peres.

On the anti-Jewish front, the Iranian attitude has been more cautious. The Iranian regime is aware of the sensitivity of public opinion in the West, particularly the United States, to violent activity against Jews and Jewish communities. Thus it has preferred to strike covertly, through its proxies. Hizballah operatives, with the support of Iran’s intelligence network, carried out the bombing of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) building in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 18 July 1994, killing 85 persons and wounding 151 − the most deadly terrorist attack in the history of the South American continent.

On 25 October 2006, Argentinean Attorney General Dr. Alberto Nisman, presented the findings of the special team which investigated the attack. The report proved unequivocally that the decision to blow up the building was taken by the “highest instances of the Iranian government” and that the Iranians had asked Hizballah, to carry out the attack. On 9 November, Judge Corral adopted the attorney general’s recommendations and issued international warrants for the arrest of leaders of the former Iranian government: President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, Minister of Intelligence and Security Ali Fallahijan, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar VelayatiMohsen Rezai, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Qods Force, and Mohsen Rabbani, Iranian cultural attaché in 1994 in Buenos Aires. Also indicted was Imad Moughnieh, head of Hizballah’s External Security Service in 1994, and now military deputy to Hizballah Secretary General HassanNasrallah.[23]

A principal arena of Iranian terrorist activity has been Turkey, where Iran has supported Sunni Turkish Islamist groups in their attacks against Jewish sites, such as the Neve Shalom synagogue (March 1992), as well as against leading members of the community such as businessman Jack Kamhi (January 1993) and Prof. Yuda Yurum, president of the Jewish community in Ankara (June 1995). Iran has striven to weaken the secular Turkish regime, which views assaults on Jewish and Israeli targets on its soil as a threat to its stability.[24]

 

Sunni Terrorism

The first terrorist attack in the US by militants of a radical Sunni group under the leadership of Egyptian Shaykh Omar Abdul Rahman was the assassination of the Jewish extremist rabbi Meir Kahana in New York in 1990. On 26 February 1993 they carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York. Following the arrest of members of this group in the wake of that bombing, it was revealed that they had also been planning to attack Jewish and American targets. These included planting a large bomb in the NY diamond sector, where many Jews live and work, attacking a Jewish summer camp in the Catskill mountains, and assassinating prominent Jewish and pro-Israeli personalities (such as Senator Alfonse Marcello D’Amato) as well as the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Gad Yaakovi.[25]

In early 1994, the Algerian Groupe Armé Islamique (GIA) published a virulently antisemitic and anti-Zionist manifesto in Sweden, where it had its headquarters at the time. It accused the Jews and Zionists of responsibility for the tragic situation in Algeria. At the time there were 30–40 Jews living in Algeria.[26] This organization attempted to bomb a synagogue in Lyons, France, on 24 December 1994 as well as a Jewish school there in September 1995 (injuring several people), and sent a letter bomb to the editor of a Jewish paper in December 1996.

In his 1996 Declaration of War `Usama bin Laden, leader of what would later become known as the al-Qa`ida organization, stated:[27]

I feel still the pain [of the loss] of Al Quds [Jerusalem] in my internal organs. That loss is like a burning fire in my intestines… My Muslim Brothers of The World: Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places [Saudi Arabia] are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy your enemy and their enemy the Americans and the Israelis.

Bin Laden, however, virtually ignored
the Palestinian issue until the war in Afghanistan and was criticized in this regard.[28] Other Sunni terrorists were more active: the Jaysh Muhammad group, for example, planned to attack Jewish and Israeli tourists in Amman as well as visitors to Moses’ tomb on Mt. Nebo in December 1999 as part of ‘the millennium plot’.[29]

The 1998 fatwa of the umbrella organization created by bin Laden, the World Islamic Front against Jews and Crusaders (WIF), links its hatred of the US to that of Israel and the Jews:[30]

If the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as IraqSaudi ArabiaEgypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Even before the 9/11 al-Qa`ida attacks, an antisemitic trend had emerged among Chechen Islamist militants and their Afghani veteran allies, following the failed attack by Chechen guerrillas in Dagestan in August 1999 and the defeat by Russian troops of the Islamist forces that had ruled Chechnya since 1996. As of January 2000, the main Islamist website supporting the propaganda war of the radical Chechens stepped up its antisemitic messages. “America’s Jewish Secretary of State, Madeline Albright,” was accused of paying little attention to the plight of the innocent Chechens; The “Dunma [sic]” Jews were accused of attempting “to rule Turkey through their lap dog generals”; “Jewish fascists” controlling the Western media were “intensify[ing] the campaign to tarnish the image of Muslims.” This drive culminated in March 2000 when the Jews, accused of aiding the Russian war machine directly, were threatened with retaliation.[31]

 

ANTI-JEWISH AND ANTI-ISRAEL TERRORISM IN THE WAKE

OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

In spite of repeated threats of bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other al-Qa`ida spokespersons to hit the heart of the United States and the Western world, from the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan until the Madrid bombings in March 2004, terrorist attacks targeted Muslim countries (and Muslim communities such as Mombasa, Kenya). Local or regional groups affiliated with al-Qa`ida were primarily responsible for these operations. These included Salafi factions in Tunisia and Morocco; Yemeni Islamists; and the Indonesian Jemaah Islamiyya. Only the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia in May 2003 were apparently related directly to al-Qa`ida. Notably, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, the economies of all these countries or communities (Djerba, Bali, CasablancaIstanbulMombassa) were heavily dependent on tourism.

 

Al-Qa`ida Plays the Palestinian Card[32]

Until his ouster from Afghanistan in winter 2001/2, the heart of the struggle for bin Laden was the US presence on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, which he saw as the bridgehead of a corruptive non-Muslim culture. A predominant strategic goal can be traced in bin Laden’s public statements and declarations: the expulsion of the American presence − both military and civilian − from Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region. Bin Laden and the WIF, the organization he created, could not forget what they saw as crimes and wrongs done to the Muslim nation: “the blood spilled in Palestine and Iraq…. the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon… and the massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Assam, the Philippines, FataniOgadin, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnia, and in Bosnia-Herzegovina.”[33] Yet, as noted, the Palestinian issue was given no special prominence. According to Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi, bin Laden “has been criticized in the Arab world for focusing on such places as Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and [he] is therefore starting to concentrate more on the Palestinian issue.”[34]

Following the destruction of al-Qa`ida’s bases in Afghanistan, the group’s leaders bin Laden and al-Zawahiri increasingly referred to the Palestinian issue as a top priority in the videos and audios they released; in parallel, there was a sharp escalation in attacks by jihadist groups against Jewish and Israeli targets.

The first major attack after the invasion was the suicide bombing on 11 April 2002 outside a historic synagogue in DjerbaTunisia. The 16 dead included 11 Germans, one French citizen, and three Tunisians. Twenty-six German tourists were injured. The Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites claimed responsibility. On 16 May 2003, 15 suicide bombers attacked five targets in CasablancaMorocco, killing 43 persons and wounding 100. These were a Spanish restaurant, a Jewish community center, a Jewish cemetery, a hotel, and the Belgian consulate. The Moroccan government blamed the Islamist al-Assirat al-Moustaquim (the Righteous Path), but foreign commentators suspected an al-Qa`ida link.

On 15 November 2003, two suicide truck bombs exploded outside the Neve Shalom and Beth Israel synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 persons and wounding at least another 300. The initial claim of responsibility came from a Turkish militant group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front, but Turkish authorities assumed an al-Qa`ida connection.

On 28 November 2002, at least 15 people died in the first suicide attack by al-Qa`ida against an Israeli target: an Israeli-owned hotel inMombassaKenya. A large part of the Paradise Hotel was reduced to rubble and nine Kenyans and three Israelis were killed. A parallel attempt to fire two missiles at an Israeli holiday jet (a Boeing 757 of Arkia airline carrying 261 passengers) that had taken off from the city’s airport failed.

This sudden interest in Jewish and Israeli targets seems to have been a consequence of the attempts of al-Qa`ida and its associated groups to jump on the bandwagon of what was considered at that stage to be a very successful violent uprising (the second intifada) byHamas, the PIJ and other Palestinian groups. While this activity enabled them to claim support for the Palestinian people, it also generated an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel terrorist campaign which would win solidarity from the Arab and Muslim masses and possibly attract young recruits to their ranks. More recently, in August 2005, four cruise ships carrying 3,500 Israeli tourists scheduled to dock at the Mediterranean Turkish resort of Antalya were rerouted to the island of Cyprus by the Israeli authorities due to fear of a terrorist attack. A Syrian citizen named Louai Sakra was arrested for plotting to slam speedboats packed with explosives into the cruise ships.

 

New ‘Anti-Global’ Alliances

The strategic choices of radical groups and movements active in the global arena today can be traced back to the model of the 1970s and 1980s. The actors during that period chose certain conflict areas as rallying points for solidarity, cooperation and coalition building: the US war in Vietnam and the armed struggle of the Palestinians against Israel (waged mainly through terrorist means). Revolutionary leftist organizations, nationalist and even radical rightist groups vilified and sometimes attacked the US, Western countries and NATO for the war inVietnam and supported the Palestinians in their fight against Israel.[35]

Collaboration between the various groups as well as with the ‘victims’ was expressed through a flood of propaganda and information activity, including demonstrations and flyers, conferences, seminars, and publications.

A similar pattern was revived in the wake of the US-led coalition ‘war on terrorism’ following the 9/11 attacks, and intensified with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Palestinian issue has re-emerged forcefully since the collapse in October 2000 of the peace process, to which radical Islamists factions and their radical leftist and rightist supporters were in any case strongly opposed. The violent second intifadawas then launched concurrently by all Palestinian political movements and terrorist groups.[36]

The main players opposing or fighting the US, the coalition countries, Israel, and NATO belong to several ideological trends:

 

·        Among radical leftist groups, anarchists are potentially the most dangerous because some could escalate from diffuse violence to terrorism.

The Italian Red Brigades, under the new names Partito Comunista Combattente (BR-PCC) and Nuclei Territoriali Anti-imperialisti (NTA), appealed to revolutionaries of the world to join Islamist terrorism and saluted “the heroic action of al-Qa`ida against American imperialism.” In a document of March 2003 claiming responsibility for the assassination of the advisor to Minister of Labor Massimo D’Antona, Nadia Desdemona Lioce, one of the organization’s intellectuals, invited the “Arab and Islamic masses… expropriated and humiliated, natural allies of the metropolitan proletarian” to “take up arms at the heart of a unique and international axis at the side of the anti-imperialist FrontCombattant in the face of a new offensive by bourgeois government.” Lioce saw in “the Zionist-American aggression against Iraq… an imperialist will to cut down the principal obstacle to Zionist hegemony” and “to annihilate the Palestinian resistance.” The Red Brigades appealed during the war to the regime of Saddam, to “counter by all means Israeli-Anglo-American aims.”[37]

 

·        Radical rightist groups[38]

The leader of the English neo-Nazi movement, David Myatt (now Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt) appealed to all enemies of the Zionists to embrace jihad, the “true martial religion,” which would “most effectively fight against the Jews and the Americans.”[39]

David Duke, American white supremacist and founder of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), attacked Christian evangelists who support Israel and explained why Islam is closer to Christianity.

The truth is that there is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity. That would be like saying Satanic-Christianity…. Interestingly enough, Islam is much closer to Christianity than Judaism. The truth is that although Moslems do not share all Christian beliefs, Islam is far closer to Christianity than Judaism. I already quoted the obscene attacks made on Jesus Christ by the Jewish Talmud. How many American Christians even realize that the Holy Qur’an of Islam actually defends Jesus Christ and His mother Mary from the hateful slanders of Judaism?[40]

David Duke was an active participant in the Iranian-sponsored conference on Holocaust denial in December 2006.

 

·        Anti-globalization and radical single issue groups (social welfare, ecology, human rights, immigration, racism)

Having ‘discovered’ anti-Zionism, the anti-globalization movement seems to have diverted its attention from ‘globalization’/’capitalism’ toIsrael and Palestine. In Italy, the center of the movement, leading anti-globalization organizations such as Ya Basta called, on 1 March 2002, for a boycott of Israeli products. Eight days later some 100,000 anti-globalization activists demonstrated in Rome “to support the intifada.” When the demonstration passed through the Jewish quarter, they shouted curses against the Jews.

 

Anti-Global Conferences

On 17-19 September 2004, activists held an ‘International Strategy Meeting’ in Beirut under the title “Where Next for the Global Anti-War and Anti-Globalization Movements?” The main conveners were Focus on the Global South (Thailand) and the Civilian Campaign for Protection of Palestinian People (France). Some 300 individuals from 50 countries participated in the conference, representing various anti-war coalitions, social movements, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other groups.[41]

Arab sponsors included progressive, secular and Islamist groups, such as Hizballah, the Lebanese Communist Party, and the Progressive Socialist Party of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. The decision to hold the meeting in the Middle East was part of a conscious effort to build closer links with anti-war and anti-corporate globalization activists in the region. Hizballah was described as “one of the leading welcoming organizations [and] an example of successful, targeted, and organized resistance.” Among other topics, there were debates about suicide bombing and the relative importance of local versus Middle Eastern struggles.

The goal of the conference was to highlight the Iraqi and Palestinian struggles in international solidarity work because, as one delegate put it, they are “fighting for the rest of us on the frontline of the global war; thus they should be garnering our priority support as a matter of strategy.”[42]

In light of the above, it seems that at least some important elements of the anti-globalization movement, which incorporates a wide range of disparate groups and interests, now seem willing to seek solidarity and cooperation with radical Islamist organizations and to accept their use of suicide terrorism. Superficially, these groups seem to be collaborating with each other increasingly, as is evident from the level of propaganda activity and extremist Internet use.[43]

A radical rightist anarchist website explains the rationale of this pragmatic approach:

Unity around simple, achievable strategies and objectives pushes preoccupation with theoretical niceties aside and focuses on areas where anti-Establishment activists from different backgrounds can work together in a rewarding way. If two people or groups from very different theoretical backgrounds can cooperate to achieve a goal that is useful to both of them, this increases the resource base of both groups and widens the armoury of strategies open to each.[44]

The European Marxist-Islamist coalition does not offer a coherent political platform. Its ideology is based on three themes: hatred of theUnited States, wiping Israel off the map, and the anticipated collapse of the global economic system. Europe’s hard-core left sees Muslims as the new under-class on the continent. “Are these not the new slaves?” asks Olivier Besanconneau, leader of the French Trotskyites. “Is it not natural that they should unite with the working class to destroy the capitalist system?” The French radical left alliance of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) and the Workers’ Struggle (LO) group counts on Islamist militants to help it win seats in the European Parliament.Arlette Laguillere, the “pasionaria [sic] of the Workers’ Struggle,” claims that “the struggle for Palestine” is now an integral part of the “global proletarian revolution.”[45]

Carlos Ramirez Ilitch, the notorious international terrorist ‘the Jackal’, who led numerous terrorist attacks in the 1970s in the ranks of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, perhaps best exemplifies the old/new alliances. Carlos was the main recruiter of German antisemitic radical leftists for PFLP’s terrorist operations during the 1970s. He was extradited from Sudan to France only in 1995. During his trial in 1997, he made many references to the ‘Jewish conspiracy’. In 2003 he published a book in French to announce his conversion to Islam and to present his strategy for “the destruction of the United States through an orchestrated and persistent campaign of terror.” EntitledRevolutionary Islam, the book urges “all revolutionaries, including those of the left, even atheists,” to accept the leadership of Islamists such as Usama bin Laden and so help turn Afghanistan and Iraq into the “graveyards of American imperialism.”[46]

Carlos’s book demons
trates how one ideology can serve as the antecedent to another, seemingly its opposite. Just as Carlos’s father made Marxist-Leninist ideology his religion, so Carlos turned his new religion into the ideology of ‘revolutionary Islam’. Carlos urges Islamist groups to conclude alliances with all radical elements, including Maoists and nationalists, in a joint campaign against the United States. Carlos claims Islam is the only force capable of persuading large numbers of people to become ‘volunteers’ for suicide attacks against the US. “Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US,” he says.[47]

The Islamists, for their part, are attracted to the European radical left because of its professed hatred of the United States and Israel. “We say to anyone who hates the Americans and wants to throw the Jews out of Palestineahlan wa sahlan [welcome],” declared Abu Hamzaal-Masri, the British Islamist ideologue awaiting extradition to the US on various criminal charges. “The Prophet teaches that we could ally ourselves even with the atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy.” The first al-Qa`ida leader to advocate a leftist-Islamist alliance against Western democracies was Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy. In a message to al-Qa`ida sympathizers in Britain in August 2002, he also urged them to seek allies among “any movement that opposes America, even atheists.”[48]

Kaide, a magazine of the radical Turkish Islamist organization IBDA-C, even maintained that Subcomandante Marcos (aka DelegadoZero), leader of the Mexican Zapatistas in the Chapas province, had converted to Islam. IBDA-C claimed the group was in contact with Marcos and had provided him with books written by their leader, Salih Mirzabeyoglu. “The public must prepare for surprising developments regarding Marcos, the brave commander of the Zapatistas, after Carlos ‘the Jackal’,” the magazine declared.[49]

The second war in Lebanon triggered another ‘strategic conference’, sponsored by Hizballah, from 16 to 19 November 2006. The Beirut International Conference, organized by the Center for Strategic Studies of Hizballah, headed by Dr. Ali Fayyad, was attended by more than 450 political, ideological, academic and media representatives of political parties, trade unions and civil organizations from over 34 countries. Delegates from the European left and anti-war movements came from FranceUKGreeceBelgiumSwitzerlandSpainTurkeyDenmark,Germany and Italy. There were also participants from Asia, including the Philippines and India, while Mexico was represented by the Zapatista Movement.

The main objectives of this meeting were to establish a process which would “create an active lasting collaboration between all international anti-imperialist groups at future events and improve the resistance capacity and strategy to face any new imperial attacks.” An additional goal was “to support the resistance in Lebanon [and] the steadfastness against the Zionist aggression.” It also discussed setting up a ‘strategy group’ to “address the current issues and show the willingness to meet the needs of the challenge and to draw lessons from the Israeli aggression, exploring the nature of its relation to other forms of aggression in the region.[sic]”[50]

 

MAJOR ANTI-JEWISH ATTACKS FOILED OR FAILED SINCE 9/11

Twelve men suspected of belonging to an ‘Arab-Mujahedeen network’ in Germany were apprehended in April 2002. This Palestinian-Jordanian group had been drafting plans for strikes against Israeli or Jewish institutions in Germany and, according to Interior Minister Otto Schily, the arrests were a milestone in Germany’s campaign against terrorism.[51]

In 2003 the German police foiled another plot to bomb a ceremony at a new Munich synagogue when they arrested at least ten neo-Nazis, including the well-known extremist Martin Wiese. Police seized 1.7 kilograms of TNT, 14 kilograms of explosives and two hand grenades. Bavarian Interior Minister Guenther Beckstein said they had also found a ‘hit list’ detailing other potential targets, including severalMunich mosques, a Greek school and an unspecified Italian facility.[52]

In June 2005 an Antwerp court sentenced, in absentia, a 22-year-old Moroccan man identified only as Chbaba B., to six months imprisonment. Confronting a Jewish man in Statiestraat on 7 June 2004, the suspect had said: “I am Palestinian and I want to kill all the Jews.” He then brandished a knife in front of the victim. The Antwerp court ruled that B. was driven by deep contempt and by feelings of hostility to Jewish people. It was the first time that such a case of antisemitism had led to a trial and a conviction in Belgium.[53]

In August 2005 a Pakistani national identified as Hamad Riaz Samana, 21, of Los Angeles, was arrested in connection with an investigation of a possible terrorist plot targeting nearly two dozen locations in Southern California. The counter-terrorism case began whenLevar Haney Washington, 25, and Gregory Vernon Patterson, 21, were arrested by police in connection with a string of gas station robberies between 30 May and 3 July. In their apartment in Los Angeles detectives discovered the addresses of two synagogues, the Israeli consulate and the El Al Israel Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport, among others, as well as bulletproof vests and jihadist material. The case has opened a new and troubling front for counter-terrorism officials because of a possible connection to a radical form of Islam practiced by a group called Jamiyyat Ul Islam Is Saheeh (Assembly of Authentic Islam). While little is known publicly about the JIS, as intelligence officials call it, the group has been around for several years and has adherents at Folsom State Prison. No connection between the men arrested in Los Angeles and any overseas terror network was found.[54]

In November 2005, an al-Qa`ida-linked Algerian terror cell was broken up by Italian police. The group had been planning to carry out attacks on targets in OsloNorway, including the city’s main synagogue. Anne Sender, president of Norway’s Jewish community, was informed by the local authorities shortly after the suspects were arrested that there had been a credible terrorist threat against the synagogue.[55]

In September 2006, four terrorists were arrested in Norway following a shooting at the Oslo Mosaic Religious Community’s synagogue. The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) charged a 29-year-old man of Pakistani origin (held briefly in Germany in June 2006 on suspicion of planning a terrorist act against the World Cup), a 28-year-old Norwegian-Pakistani, a 28-year-old Norwegian of ‘foreign’ origin, and a 26-year-old Norwegian (the son of an employee at the royal court) with “organizing an act of terrorism.” Israel’s ambassador Miryam Shomrat was also a target of the four suspects, who discussed beheading her.[56]

A month later an Islamist plot was uncovered to kidnap and kill Jews in Prague. According to unidentified intelligence sources, the terrorists had intended to hold the captives in a Prague synagogue, while the press reported that they had planned to make broad demands which they knew could not be met, and would then blow up the building, killing all those inside.[57]

In Venezuela, a group of fanatic followers of President Hugo Chavez fired at the Sheik Ibrahim Bin Abdulaziz Al-Ibrahim mosque inCaracas, killing Omar Medina, its 58-year-old guard. Since the gang shouted “Death to the Jews” during the attack, it was considered an antisemitic attack: they simply con
founded the mosque with a Jewish synagogue, their real objective. No Islamic institution in Venezuelaprotested the attack, knowing the real targets were Jews.[58]

The recent wave of antisemitism in Venezuela was analyzed at a conference on the Middle East conflict organized by Venezuela‘s Jewish community in Caracas in September 2006. Some participants feared that Chavez’s verbal attacks on Israel might lead to physical attacks on Venezuelan Jews. In fact, antisemitic graffiti had already been appearing on the Mariperez Synagogue with increasing frequency. According to Jewish activists, the official and pro-government media were responsible for inciting the wave of antisemitism. Chavez’s failure to rebuke the media and the graffiti scribblers, they asserted, represented the crux of the problem. In meetings between Jewish leaders and high level government officials, including Chavez himself, the government claimed its hands were tied. “We’ll do what we can, but we can’t deny people freedom of speech” was that response.[59]

Further, the antisemitic and anti-Israel atmosphere aroused in the country by Chavez’s alliance with the rogue regimes of Iran and Syriahas radicalized leftist groups, transforming them into ‘Hezbollah Venezuela’.

 

The Case of ‘Hezbollah America Latina’

A website presenting itself as “the mouthpiece of Hezbollah Latin America,” in Spanish and Chapateka (a mixture of the Indian Maya language and ancient Spanish), became active on the net in summer 2006.[60] Although the website claims the organization operates in Argentina,ChileColombiaEl Salvador and Mexico, the backbone is Hezbollah Venezuela. Calling itself Autonomia Islamica Wayuu (after a tribe living in the Guajira Peninsula of Venezuela and Colombia), it is headed by Teodoro Rafael Darnott, leader of the Latin American ‘network’. The second most active group appears to be in Argentina, while the other organizations appear to be practically inactive.[61]

Rather unusually, Hezbollah Venezuela began in 1999 as a Wayuu community project for micro farming, in an area northwest ofMaracaiboVenezuela. The leader of the small group, Teodoro Rafael Darnott, was a member of the tribe. Darnott traces the origins of Hezbollah Venezuela to a small Marxist faction, the Guaicaipuro Movement for National Liberation (Proyecto Movimiento Guaicaipuro por laLiberación Nacional − MGLN), which struggled against oppression of the poor indigenous peasants in the Valle de Caracas region. Darnottpresented himself as Commander Teodoro, clearly emulating Mexican guerrilla leader Subcomandante Marcos. The MGLN could not withstand the pressure of the security forces and were forced to retreat to Colombia. After five years they returned to Venezuela and became Hezbollah, without a clear explanation for this metamorphosis.[62]

The group’s identification with the so-called Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela is significant. In one of its ideological editorials, the group expresses enormous respect and appreciation for the achievements of Hugo Chavez’s regime:

Hezbollah America Latina respects the Venezuelan revolutionary process, supports the policies of this process concerning the social benefices for the poor and the anti-Zionist and anti-American policy of this revolution.[63]

However, the group does not accept the Socialist ideology, not because they oppose it, but because Hezbollah’s philosophy is “theocratic and obeys divine rules.”

On 23 October 2006, local police found two explosive devices near the US embassy in CaracasVenezuela. One of the bombs was found in a box containing leaflets referring to the Lebanese Hizballah. The police arrested Jose Miguel Rojas Espinoza, a 26-year-old student of the state-run Bolivarian University. “The idea was apparently to create alarm and publicize a message,” a police spokesman told reporters. The second device may have been intended to explode near the Israeli embassy but the suspect got nervous and dropped it near the American embassy. On 25 October an organization calling itself Hezbollah Latin America took responsibility for the aborted attack on their website and promised they would stage similar ones, in order to publicize the organization. The website presented Rojas as “the brother mujahedeen, the first example of dignity and struggle in the cause of Allah, the first prisoner of the revolutionary Islamic movement Hezbollah Venezuela.” Since the group had already threatened on its website on 18 August 2006 to explode a “non-lethal device,” it is surprising that no one appears to have taken any notice. The target mentioned in the August threat was “an ally of the US in a Latin American city” (presumably Israel), and the attack was intended to launch the “beginning of the war against imperialism and Zionism” and to demonstrate “solidarity with the Lebanese Hizballah after the July war in Lebanon.”

Hezbollah Argentina, as revealed on its website, is strikingly different from Hezbollah Venezuela. While the Venezuelan group originates among indigenous Wayuu Indians and is characterized by a strong leftist background and revolutionary rhetoric, the Argentinean group appears to include a mixture of radical rightist and leftist populist elements, and maintains close relations with the local Arab Shi’a community and the Iranian regime.[64]

The rightist influence is clear in the antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American articles of Norberto Ceresole, including, “Falsification of the Argentinean Reality in the Geopolitical Space of Jewish Terrorism,” and “Attacks in Buenos Aires a Product of the Infiltration of Jewish Fundamentalism into the Service of Israeli Counter-Espionage.” In fact, on the Hezbollah Argentina website, some photos from the suicide bombings at the Israeli Embassy (1992) and the Jewish Community AMIA building (1994) are sub-titled “Jewish Terrorism.” Interestingly, theCeresole texts were probably downloaded straight from the antisemitic website of Radio Islam.[65]

Norberto Rafael Ceresole was an Argentinean sociologist and political scientist (died 2003), identified with Peronism. Originally active in the 1970s in the left-wing Argentinean terrorist groups ERP (Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo) and Montoneros, he became a neo-fascist, an antisemite, a Holocaust denier and viscerally anti-Israel. He was an adviser to leftists, as well as radical rightist politicians and military leaders in his country (such as Aldo Rico, Raúl de Sagastizabal and Mohamed Seineldín (aka ‘Carapintada’) as well as across Latin America. According to his own account, Ceresole made contact with the Iranian regime immediately after the bombing of the Jewish AMIA building in 1994, which he blamed on the Jews and the Israeli secret services. Ceresole visited Iran and Lebanon, where he met “an important, intelligent Arab movement, a patriotic group active in Southern Lebanon.”

In a letter to his “Iranian friends,” Ceresole tried to prove that there is a parallel between the Shi`a faith and what he calls “minority, pre-conciliar traditional Catholicism” (pre-Vatican II Council), which is theologically irreconcilable with Judaism. Ceresole considers Iran since the Khomeini revolution to be “the center of resistance to Jewish aggression” and the only state that has supplanted “the secular Arab resistance” in fighting the Jewish state. According to Ceresole, many would like to see the Iranian “counterstrategy” not only resist Israeli aggression but destroy “every piece of it,” one by one. Moreover, Ceresole states, “the struggle against the Jewish state cannot be circumscribed geographically only to the Middle East.”

The more popular leftist trend is present in the cooperation of Hezbollah Argentina with Quebracho, a small Argentinean militant group. The Patriotic Revolutionary Movement (Movimiento Patriótico Revolucionario − MPR) Quebracho claims to be a political organization fighting for “a socially just, economically independent and politically sovereign country” for the “national anti-imperialist revolution.” Quebrachomilitants refuse to define themselves as leftist or rightist. They consider themselves “revolutionary patriots” in the framework of the Latin American liberation struggle “in which the national struggle has, however, a preeminent place.” The enemies of Quebracho are “imperialism and the great capital: the big financial monopolies, the IMF, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the US, the EU, Japan and Israel, among others [sic].” The group stresses its cooperation with the Hogar Árabe Argentino organization (Arab Argentinean Dwelling) ofBerisso and the Asociación Argentino Islámica (Islamic Association of Argentina − ASAI) of La Plata, which they consider to be “permanently attacked by the Zionists.” Quebracho also expresses solidarity with the struggle of the Lebanese Hizballah and the Lebanese and Palestinian people against “terrorist attacks of Israel and the genocide of thousands of their people.”[66]

Although Hezbollah Venezuela’s first terrorist attempt might have been intended for propaganda purposes, several worrying aspects should be stressed. The permissive atmosphere prevailing in Venezuela could send a message to the group and to more dangerous terrorist organizations that their activities on Latin American soil or from Latin American territory would be tolerated, or even politically condoned.

 

the specter of the Iranian nuclear threat

Since October 2005 Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has targeted Israel obsessively in his speeches, presenting his vision of a world without Israel or the United States and urging that Israel be wiped off the map. At the “World without Zionism” conference held in Tehran in October 2005 Ahmadinejad portrayed Israel and Zionism as the spearhead of the West against the Islamic nation and emphasized the need to eradicate Israel.

During the Islamic Conference Organization meeting in Mecca in December 2005 Ahmadinejad complained that since the West was responsible “for what some describe as the Holocaust,” no one should demand that the Palestinians pay the price.

Ahmadinejad’s advocacy of Holocaust denial is neither a new nor a uniquely personal obsession, but an intensification of prevalent themes in Islamic Iran’s ideological discourse. He seeks to restore the regime’s revolutionary goals and ideals and advance Iranian hegemony in the Middle East using anti-Zionism and Holocaust denial as principal pillars of his policy.[67]

It should be stressed that this Iranian campaign has been orchestrated against the background of Tehran’s continuing support for Hizballah and Hamas, the two Islamist organizations which though not capable of destroying Israel themselves, are gradually undermining through terrorism any glimmer of hope in the negotiating process between Israel and the Palestinians; it has helped radicalize the Palestinian Authority due to Hamas’ victory in the January 2006 elections and sparked the July 2006 crisis with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by the two organizations which led to the Second Lebanon war.

The major threat of the Tehran regime, however, lies in its nuclear ambitions. The first prominent leader of the Islamic Republic who openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish state was [former] Iranian President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani in December 2001 who told the crowd at traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.[68]

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world [sic].

Ahmadinejad cleverly employs a selected set of issues to escalate international tensions, Iran’s nuclear build-up being the starting point of this strategy. The ‘Jewish factor’ includes both Israel’s security and the Holocaust as two extremely sensitive aspects defining Tehran’s relations with the US and with Europe.[69] The Iranian president’s threats are not merely rhetoric but represent a clear danger to the very existence of Israel, the only country targeted for a nuclear holocaust. For the moment there is no indication that international pressure or even sanctions would be effective. Thus, the pres
ident of a rich, powerful country openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, therefore completing the act that he claims did not happen in Europe.[70]

The comparison between Ahmadinejad and Hitler is analyzed by political scientist Waller R. Newell against the background of the ideological effects of Heideggerian Iranian philosopher Ali Shariati. Largely thanks to Shariati’s influence, the ideology that prevailed with Khomeini’s assumption of power was an Islam distorted by European left-wing existentialism and the romanticizing of violence. According to Newell, Shariati:

secularized the messianic strain that distinguishes Shiism from mainstream Islam and made it the vehicle for Heideggerian existentialist commitment, resolve, and willpower on behalf of the oppressed people. Messianism became the impetus for collective political struggle.[71]

 

CONCLUSION

There is a growing trend of solidarity between leftist, Marxist, anti-globalization and even rightist elements with Islamists. The fact that the Lebanese Hizballah sponsored two strategic conferences of anti-globalization groups and movements in Beirut (September 2004 and November 2006) is an indicator of this potentially dangerous coalition for the future.

The ‘globalization’ of the threat to Jews and Jewish communities is perhaps best expressed by Michel Wieviorka, a leading French sociologist, whom I take the liberty of citing extensively in closing my essay[72]:

To say that hatred of the Jews is ‘global’ is to admit that it is at the same time worldwide, transnational and local, and to recognize a link between its more general, universal, aspects and a specific limited situation. It is, for instance, to think of an attempt to set alight a synagogue in a Parisian neighborhood taking into account local, international, mainly Middle Eastern facts.

The globalization of antisemitism lies in a double compression, of time and space. It amalgamates elements that originate in historically distinct surroundings. Everything can be found there: accusations of ritual crimes, as in the darkest times of anti-Jewish Christian Europe; references based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this invention of the tsarist regime at the beginning of the 20th century; classic themes of modern racial antisemitism and Nazism; revisionism and denial of the Holocaust and the gas chambers at Auschwitz; denunciation of the Shoah-business to enrich Jews; or the more recent accusation that antisemitism is the result of lobbying activity in favor of Israel.

Globalization owes much to electronic technologies, which permit the instantaneous diffusion of propaganda texts, sounds and images through television and the Internet.

Finally, globalization of antisemitism has a center, the Middle East, and more precisely the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: it organizes itself around the negation of the State of Israel.

According to Newell, “in Ahmadinejad’s flirtation with a nuclear Armageddon, the destruction of Israel plays the same role that the Nazis assigned to the destruction of European Jewry,” and Ahmadinejad’s promises of “a world without Zionism” must be taken quite literally and cannot be ignored.[73]

Thus, the use of terrorism in all its forms is allied with the threat of nuclear destruction in order to achieve the same goal: not only negation of the state of the Jewish people but its physical annihilation as a state of free people.

 



[*] Ely Karmon is a Senior Research Scholar, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), HerzlyiaIsrael.



[1] This article is based on a keynote address at the Zionist Federation of Australia plenary conference in Melbourne, 28 Aug. 2005.

[2] Ely KarmonCoalitions of Terrorist Organizations: Revolutionaries, Nationalists and Islamists (Leiden, 2005).

[3] “The Black September Operation in Munich: The Strategy of the Anti-imperialist Struggle,” published in late 1972, in Texte der RAF, pp. 411−47. .

[4] See quotation from his speech shortly before his trial in CONTROinformazione 1−2 (Feb.-March 1974), p. 26.

[5] In March 2001 Mahler published on the Internet a fiercely antisemitic article, “Discovery of God instead of Jewish Hatred,” which was to be presented at the Conference of Revisionist Historians in Beirut, Lebanon on 3 April 2001 (subsequently prohibited by the Lebanese government). See the article in German Lecture Series on the Final Solution of the Jewish Question at www.regmeister.net/h_mahler.htm.

[6] Roni Stauber, “Continuity and Change: Extreme Right Perceptions of Zionism,” in Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1999/2000, Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University, at www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw99-2000/stauber.htm.

id=”edn7″>

[7] Ely KarmonCoalitions of Terrorist Organizations, pp. 43, 47. Antisemitism among German terrorists was reportedly so deeply entrenched that they could not even bear to hear anyone whistling the theme tune of the film Exodus. In contrast, the Palestinians were far more tolerant.

[8] In fact, the AD had no ‘Jewish fighters unit’. The only Jewish AD militant identified, Michel Azeroual, was opposed to attacking Jewish targets. He later abandoned the organization.

[9] In this context, it is important to stress that Mussolini’s fascist regime was ambivalent toward the Jews and Judaism, and that antisemitism was not a sine qua non of its original fascist ideology. Two leading researchers, Renzo de Felice and Meir Michaelis, concluded that 1938 was a turning point as far as anti-Jewish policy and racist legislation were concerned, and that this was triggered mainly by the political pressures of the Rome-Berlin axis. See Renzo De FeliceStoria degli ebrei italiani sotto il fascismo 3rd ed. (Torino, 1977) and Meir MichaelisMussolini and the Jews: German-Italian Relations and the Jewish Question in Italy, 1922−1945, Institute of Jewish Affairs, London (Oxford, 1978). Even during the fascist Salo republic under German occupation, the Italian regime tried – albeit unsuccessfully – to prevent the implementation of the Final Solution on the Jews of Italy. The disparity between the Germans and the Italians on racist issues was particularly evident in their policy toward the Jews in occupied countries. The Italian army refrained from harming Jews in the countries it subjugated, at least until Italysurrendered to the Allies in September 1943. See MichaelisMussolini and the Jews, pp. 346 and 458, and Daniel CarpiBetween Mussolini and Hitler: The Jews and the Italian Authorities in France and Tunisia, Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry, Series 17, (University Press of New England, 1994).

[10] Lewis traced the roots of modern antisemitism in the Muslim and Arab world back to the nineteenth and twentieth century Christian empires, whose influence spread to theOttoman Empire. See Bernard Lewis, “Antisemitism in the Arab and Islamic World,” in Yehuda Bauer (ed.), Present-Day Antisemitism (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 61−6.

[11] Paul Wilkinson, The New Fascists (London, 1982), pp. 76, 101.

[12] UK Community Security Trust, “Terrorist Incidents against Jewish Communities and Israeli Citizens Abroad, 1968–2003,” 2004, athttp://www.thecst.org.uk/downloads/Terrorist_Incidents_ Report.pdf.

[13] Two ANO terrorists attacked the synagogue with grenades and machine guns, killing 22 members of the congregation and injuring four others during Shabbat morning prayers. Both attackers subsequently killed themselves after detonating belts containing explosives. Six years later, on 1 March 1992, two hand grenades were thrown into the entrance of the Neve Shalom Synagogue in Istanbul during the course of a wedding, injuring a man nearby. Members of Turkish Hizballah were later tried and convicted of the attack.

[14] Twenty-three people were killed and three hundred injured in consecutive car bomb attacks on the Neve Shalom and Beth Israel synagogues during Shabbat morning services. Although the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders Front initially claimed responsibility, al-Qa`ida subsequently admitted that it had carried out the attack.

[15] See also Ely Karmon, “Radical Islamic Groups and Anti-Jewish Terrorism,” in Dina Porat and Roni Stauber (eds.), Antisemitism and Terror (Tel Aviv University, 2003), pp.150−63.

[16] Cited by Martin Kramer, in “The Salience of Islamic Antisemitism,” a lecture presented at the Institute of Jewish Affairs in London and published in its IJA Reports 2 (Oct. 1995).

[17] Robert S. Wistrich, “Muslim Antisemitism: A Clear and Present Danger,” American Jewish Committee Publications, at www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=503&pid=1196.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Magnus Ranstorp, “Terrorism in the Name of Religion,” Journal of International Affairs 1 (Summer 1996), pp. 41−62, atwww.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS%20364%20Terrorism%20course%20folder/ranstorp_terrorism_in_the_nameof_ religion.htm.

[20] Ayatollah Khomeini in a speech given at Najaf, 19 Feb. 1978, cited by Amnon Nezer in Skira Hodshit (Tel Aviv, March 1998; in Hebrew), p. 28.

[21] Interview with Meir Litvak, “Post-Holocaust and Antisemitism. The Development of Arab Antisemitism,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 5 (2 Feb., 2003), athttp://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-5.htm.

[22] Elie Rekhess, “The Terrorist Connection − Iran, the Islamic Jihad and Hamas,” Justice (Tel Aviv) (May 1995), p. 4.

[23] “Argentina accuses Iran of responsibility for the Hizballah terrorist attack which destroyed the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, 1994,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (CSS), 14 Nov. 2006, at http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/ eng_n/html/argentina _amia_e.htm.

[24] Ely Karmon, “Radical Islamist Movements in Turkey,” in Barry Rubin (ed.), Revolutionaries and Reformers. Contemporary Islamic Movements in the Middle East (State University of New York Press, 2003), pp. 41−67.

[25] El Sayyid A. Nosair, an American of Egyptian origin killed Kahana on 5 Nov. 1990. Police found in his home a list of Jewish public figures. However he was acquitted by the jury. Nosair was accused of this murder only after he was arrested for his involvement with the Islamist terrorist group under the leadership of Shaykh Abdul Rahman, responsible for the bombing of the WTC in 1993.

[26] Abdelkader(?), “About the Zionist Campaign against the Islamic Revolution in Algeria: A Statement by GIA (the Algerian Armed Movement),” Radio Islam manifest, 3−4 (1994; in Swedish). Radio Islam was a Swedish radio station, now a website, allegedly dedicated to “the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people against Israel,” and currently one of the most radical right-wing antisemitic websites on the net, espousing Holocaust denial and praising Adolf Hitler and Nazism.

[27] Osama bin Laden, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places, 1996,” MidEastWeb, athttp://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm.

[28] See Ely Karmon, “Terrorism a la Bin Laden is not a Peace Process Problem,” PolicyWatch 347 (Oct. 1998), Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

[29] The terrorist organization al-Qa’ida encouraged attacks against Jordan and the United States on or around 1 January 2000. Although some attacks were planned, there is no evidence that they were coordinated in any way. Two of them were foiled by law enforcement agencies and a third was aborted after a mistake occurred.

[30] “Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. World Islamic Front Statement,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4993-2001Sep21?language=printer. On 22 February 1998 Usama bin Laden announced the creation in Pakistan of the World Islamic Front for the Struggle against the Jews and Crusaders(WIF), in association with radical groups from Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Other signatories to the February statement were: Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Egyptian Jihad; Rifai Taha, head of the Egyptian Islamic Group; Mir Hamza, secretary-general of Pakistan’s Ulema Society (Jamaat-ul-Ulema-i-Pakistan); Fazlur Rahman Khalil, chief ofHarkat-ul-Ansar (HuA) in Pakistan; and Shaykh Abd al-Salam Muhammad Khan, leader of the Jihad movement of Bangladesh.

[31] “Oh you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians as friends and protectors, they [Jews and Christians] are friends and protectors of each other, whomsoever takes them as friends and protectors is one of them.” [Quran 5:51] Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiya said: “Whosoever takes wala from a Jew is in turn a Jew himself, whomsoever takes wala from a Christian is in turn a Christian himself.” These citations are taken from one of the 18 mirror English and multilingual websites http://www.kavkaz.com/belonging to Chechen Islamist militants active before 9/11.

[32] Ely Karmon, “Who Bombed Northern Israel? Al-Qaida and Palestine,” 1 Jan. 2006, ICT website, athttp://www.instituteforcounterterrorism.org/apage/printv/5203.php.

[33] Osama bin Laden, Declaration of War.

[34] Karmon, “Terrorism a la Bin Laden is not a Peace Process Problem.”

[35] KarmonCoalitions of Terrorist Organizations, pp.71−2.

[36] Ely Karmon“The Middle East, Iraq, Palestine − Arenas for Radical and Anti-Globalization Groups Activity,” paper presented at the NATO ARW (Advanced Research Workshop) on Terrorism and Communications – Countering the Terrorist Information Cycle, Smolenice, Slovakia, 8–11 April 2005 (forthcoming in a NATO book).

[37] Alexandre dell Valle, “The Reds, The Browns and the Greens or the Convergence of Totalitarianisms,” 6 Dec. 2004, athttp://www.alexandredelvalle.com/publications.php? id_art=131.

[38] For instance in the 1970s and 1980s some Italian rightist terrorists and German radicals supported the Palestinians and even the Iranian Khomeinist regime; the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing in 1995 was a clear act of terror by rightist elements against the democratic liberal system in the US.

[39] dell Valle, “The Reds, The Browns and the Greens.”

[40] “Evangelicals Who Serve the Anti-Christ!” David Duke Online Radio Report, 25 Jan. 2003, at http://www.davidduke.com/wp-print.php?p=100.

[41] This paragraph is based on Ely Karmon, “Hizballah and the Antiglobalization Movement: A New Coalition?” PolicyWatch 949 (27 Jan. 2005), Washington Institute for Near East Policy, at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2244.

[42] Report on “Where Next for the Global Anti-War and Anti-Globalization Movements?” conference in Beirut, 17-19 Sept. 2004. Prepared by Iraq Solidarity Project, a grassroots collective based in Montreal, Canada, at , 18 Oct. 2004.

[43] Gabriel Weimann, “www.terror.net − How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet,” United States Institute of Peace Reports, Special Report No. 116 (March 2004), athttp://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr116.pdf, and David Talbot, “Terror’s Server,” TechnologyReview.com (Feb. 2005), athttp://www.technologyreview.com/printer_ friendly_article.aspx?id=14150.

[44] D. E. Michael, “Unity In Diversity. The Strategy of Divide Et Impera,” national-anarchist campaign, at www.folkandfaith.com/articles/divide.shtml.

id=”edn45″>

[45] Amir Taheri, “The Black-Red Alliance,” Jerusalem Post, 10 June 2004. See also Jean-Yves Camus, “The French Left and Political Islam: Secularism versus the Temptation of an Alliance,” at http://antisemitism.tau.ac.il/asw2005/camus.html.

[46] Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, dit Carlos (avec Jean-Michel Vernochet), L’islam revolutionnaire (Monaco, 2003).

[47] Ibid., pp. 89-97.

[48] Taheri“The Black-Red Alliance.”

[49] “Kaide (‘Al-Qa’ida’), magazine published openly in Turkey,” MEMRI Special Dispatch Series No. 951, 7 Aug. 2005.

[50] Mukhtar Kabar, “Beirut Conference Shows International Solidarity,” Respect website, 9 Dec, 2006, at http://www.respectcoalition.org/2006/news.php?ite=1274.

[51] NYT, 5 Sept. 2002.

[52] Associated Press, 16 Sept. 2003.

[53] Dhimmi Watch, 25 June 2005, at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/.

[54] Greg Krikorian, “Arrest Made in Possible Terror Plot,” Los Angeles Times, 16 Aug. 2005.

[55] 12 Sept.

[56] Yossi Lempkowicz, “Israeli Embassy Target of Oslo Synagogue Attackers,” European Jewish Press, 22 Sept.at http://ejpress.org/article/news/10914.

[57] “Czech Terror Alert. Plot Against Jews Reported in Prague,” Spiegel Online, 6 Oct.2006, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,441131,00.html.

[58] See Wenceslao Cruz Blanco, “La mezquita atacada en Venezuela,” Nuncamas website, 16 Oct. 2006, athttp://www.barinas.net.ve/nuncamas/index_nuncamas.php?p=75&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more75.

[59] Jose Orozco, “Venezuelan Jews Fear Chavez-Iran Ties,” Jerusalem Post, 19 Sept. 2006.

[61] The citations from the different websites belonging to Hezbollah Latino America were translated from Spanish to English by this author.

[63] Hezbollah Venezuela, “Nuestra posición oficial respecto a la revolución venezolana. Editorial,” 3 Aug. 2006.

[64] On Hezbollah Argentina, see Karmon, “Hezbollah America Latina,”

[66] See note 57.

[67] Meir Litvak, “What Is behind Iran’s Advocacy of Holocaust Denial?” The Center for Iranian Studies (CIS), Tel Aviv University, Iranian Pulse No. 3, 11 Sept. 2006.

[68] “Rafsanjani Says Muslims Should Use Nuclear Weapon against Israel,“ Iran Press Service, at http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm.

[69] Nicola Pedde, “Iran’s Nuclear Gamble,” Analisis Del Real Instituto Elcano, 7 Aug. 2006, athttp://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/analisis/1023/1023_Pedde_Iran_Nuclear_Gamble.pdf.

[70] Amnon Rubinstein, “Iran: Suicide Bombing as a National Strategy,” Haaretz, 19 May 2006.

[71] Waller R. Newell, “Why Is Ahmadinejad Smiling? The Intellectual Sources of His Apocalyptic Vision,” Weekly Standard 5, 16 Oct. 2006.

[72] Michel Wieviorka, “La logique ‘globale’ de l’antisemitisme aujourd’hui,” www.gauches.net; author’s translation.

[73] Waller R. Newell, “Why Is Ahmadinejad Smiling?”

Source: Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University

The “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” has always been a jihad

The “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” has always been a jihad, relentlessly fomented and supported by the entire global Muslim umma since just after the Balfour Declaration.

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The Congressional Record contains a statement of support from New York Rep. Walter Chandler which includes an observation, about “Turkish and Arab agitators… preaching a kind of holy war [jihad] against…the Jews” of Palestine. Earlier, in 1921, leaders of the Indian Khilafat (Caliphate) movement made clear at conferences held in India that Islamic suzerainty must prevail over all of historical Palestine. And in 1920, at the local level, within British controlled Palestine, Musa Kazem el-Husseini, former governor of Jaffa during the final years of Ottoman rule, and president of the Arab (primarily Muslim) Palestinian Congress, in a letter to the British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuels, demanded restoration of the Sharia—which had only been fully abrogated two years earlier when Britain ended four centuries of Ottoman Muslim rule of Palestine—stating that this Religious Law, was “… engraved in the very hearts of the Arabs and has been assimilated in their customs and that has been applied …in the modern [Arab] states…” During this same era within Palestine, a strong Arab Muslim irredentist current –epitomized by both Hajj Amin el-Husseini and shortly afterward, Izz ad din al-Qassam—promulgated the forcible restoration of Sharia-mandated dhimmitude via jihad.

The 1948, 1956, and 1973 wars—and every other conflagration in which Israel has been embroiled ever since—have all been manifestations of the ceaseless jihad imperative to destroy the “Zionist entity.”

Consider two fatwas, both published January 5, 1956 by then-Grand Mufti of Egypt Sheikh Hasan Ma’moun and another by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Sunni Islam’s de facto Vatican, Al Azhar University, representing all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. [English translation from State Department Telegram 1763/ Embassy (Cairo) Telegram 1256 D441214] Theserulings — issued nine months before the 1956 Sinai War, and while Israel existed within the 1949 armistice borders — elaborated the following key initial point: that all of historical Palestine — modern Jordan, Israel, and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza — having been conquered by jihad, was a permanent possession of the global Muslim umma (community), “fay territory” — booty or spoils — to be governed eternally by Islamic Law.

The January 1956 Al Azhar fatwas’ language and arguments are indistinguishable from those employed by current Egyptian President Morsi, or Hamas (in its Covenant), revealing the same conjoined motivations of jihad and conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred:

Muslims cannot conclude peace with those Jews who have usurped the territory of Palestine and attacked its people and their property in any manner which allows the Jews to continue as a state in that sacred Muslim territory … [as] Jews have taken a part of Palestine and there established their non-Islamic government and have also evacuated from that part most of its Muslim inhabitants … Jihad … to restore the country to its people … is the duty of all Muslims, not just those who can undertake it. And since all Islamic countries constitute the abode of every Muslim, the Jihad is imperative for both the Muslims inhabiting the territory attacked, and Muslims everywhere else because even though some sections have not been attacked directly, the attack nevertheless took place on a part of the Muslim territory which is a legitimate residence for any Muslim … Everyone knows that from the early days of Islam to the present day the Jews have been plotting against Islam and Muslims and the Islamic homeland. They do not propose to be content with the attack they made on Palestine and Al Aqsa Mosque, but they plan for the possession of all Islamic territories from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Bat Ye’or, n
oting
 the ceaseless calls for jihad in Palestine during modern times, from 1920 through to the present era, observed that jihad remained,

…the main cause of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Since Israelis are to be regarded, perforce, only as a religious community, their national characteristics—a geographical territory related to a past history, a system of legislation, a specific language and culture—are consequently denied. The “Arab” character of the Palestinian territory is inherent in the logic of jihad. Having become fay territory by conquest (i.e., “taken from an infidel people”), it must remain within the dar al-Islam. The State of Israel, established on this fay territory, is consequently illegal.

And she concluded:

Israel represents the successful national liberation of a dhimmi civilization. On a territory formerly Arabized by the jihad and the dhimma, a pre-Islamic language, culture, topographical geography, and national institutions have been restored to life. This reversed the process of centuries in which the cultural, social and political structures of the indigenous population of Palestine were destroyed. In 1974, Abu Iyad, second-in-command to Arafat in the Fatah hierarchy, announced: “We intend to struggle so that our Palestinian homeland does not become a new Andalusia.” The comparison of Andalusia to Palestine was not fortuitous since both countries were Arabized, and then de-Arabized by a pre-Arabic culture.

Excerpt from Dr. Andrew Bostom, The Unbearable Lightness of Alan Dershowitz, 30 April 2013

Source