NRhZ "Die letzten Opfer Hitlers - Freiburger Konferenz im Rahmen der Palästina-Tage 2011"

http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=16966


Von Anneliese Fikentscher und Andreas Neumann



Am 10. Jahrestag der Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 fand im Rahmen der Palästina-Tage in Freiburg die Konferenz "Palästina, Israel, Deutschland - Grenzen der offenen Diskussion" statt. Sie hatte bereits im Vorfeld die Wogen hochschlagen lassen. Das breite Spektrum der Hilfstruppen des Zionismus war - teils verdeckt aus dem Hintergrund - aktiv, um die Konferenz zu torpedieren, Referenten und Moderatoren von der Teilnahme abzubringen. Doch die Konferenz hat stattgefunden. Und sie hat in einem Maß gedankliche Impulse gegeben, wie das selten ist.
 
Zu den Referenten gehörten Persönlichkeiten aus mehreren Ländern: Alan Hart aus England, ein ehemaliger ITN- und BBC-Korrespondent; Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, deutsche Publizistin und Tochter von Heinz Galinski, dem verstorbenen Vorsitzenden des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland; Gilad Atzmon, in Israel geborener, britischer Jazzmusiker und Schriftsteller; Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool, Spezialist für internationale Medien von der Universität London; Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo, palästinensischer US-Amerikaner, geboren in einem Flüchtlingslager in Jerusalem; Ibrahim el-Zayat, Professor für Islamische Studien; Sameh Habeeb, palästinensischer Journalist aus dem Gaza-Streifen, und Ken O´Keefe, irisch-amerikanischer Aktivist und US-Marinesoldat im Golfkrieg 1991.




Manipulierte Lügengebilde

Dr. Gabi Weber vom Café Palestine, das Veranstalter der Konferenz war, stellte zu Beginn die Verbindung zu dem außergewöhnlichen Tag her, an dem die Konferenz stattfand: „Am 10. Jahrestag der tragischen Ereignisse des 11. September 2001... steht fest, dass 9/11 eine Ära nicht enden wollender, von der NATO und den USA finanzierter Kriege eingeleitet hat - mit Hunderttausenden unschuldig getöteter Menschen... In vielen Ländern weltweit führte und führt der angebliche Krieg gegen den Terror zu immer mehr staatlicher Überwachung..., zur Kriminalisierung des Kampfes um Gerechtigkeit und dazu, dass man uns vorschreiben möchte, was wir zu denken und zu glauben haben... Der durch einzelne Staaten verursachte Terror in Form endloser, ressourcenorientierter Kriege scheint keine Grenzen mehr zu kennen. Das für alle Menschen eigentlich gültige Menschenrecht der Meinungsfreiheit und freier Meinungsäußerung wird zunehmend limitiert. Diese Konferenz ist aus dem tiefen Wunsch heraus entstanden, die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit, denen wir alle unterliegen und die dazu führen, dass wir uns in manipulierten Lügengebilden zu verstricken drohen, aufzuzeigen.“


Der thematische Bogen war weit gespannt. Im Fokus stand die Rolle Israels für den Frieden in der Region und in der Welt wie auch unsere Rolle in diesem Zusammenhang.


Alan Hart sieht in Israel einen Maßstab, an dem man alle Juden zu beurteilen pflegt: „Israel als jüdischer Staat ist ein Beispiel für den jüdischen Charakter... Es wäre eine tragische Ironie, wenn der jüdische Staat, der das Problem des Antisemitismus zu lösen beabsichtigte, zu einem Faktor würde, Antisemitismus entstehen zu lassen. Israelis müssen sich bewusst sein, dass der Preis für ihr Fehlverhalten nicht nur von ihnen sondern von allen Juden auf der Welt bezahlt werden muß...“

„Problem Nummer eins ist, dass aufgrund der Furcht einflössenden Macht und des Einflusses der zionistischen Lobby..., unsere Führer und ihre Regierungen nie ihren Einfluss, den sie haben, nutzen, um zu bewirken oder versuchen zu bewirken, dass Israel wirklich Frieden will... Kein amerikanischer Präsident wird jemals frei sein, seinen Einfluss, den er hat, zu nutzen und zu bewirken oder versuchen zu bewirken, dass Israel wirklich Frieden will... Problem Nummer zwei ist, dass die Bürger, Wähler der westlichen Nationen, insbesondere Amerikaner, zu uninformiert und desinformiert sind... Durch die Mitschuld der Mainstream-Medien sind sie konditioniert worden von der zionistischen Propaganda, die Version der Geschichte zu glauben, die einfach nicht wahr ist.“


 Ein gemeinsamer Staat mit Gleichheit für Alle

Zum Abschluss seiner Rede formulierte Alan Hart die Vision für die Zukunft von Palästinensern und Israelis: „Ich glaube wahrlich, dass - allgemein betrachtet - die Juden die intellektuelle Elite der westlichen Welt und die Palästinenser bei weitem die intellektuelle Elite der arabischen Welt sind. Was diese beiden Völker in Frieden und Partnerschaft zusammen tun könnten, vorzugsweise in EINEM (gemeinsamen) STAAT mit Gleichheit für Alle, ist der Stoff, aus dem wirkliche Träume gemacht sind...“



Evelyn Hecht-Galinski sieht die historische Dimension der israelischen Politik schonungslos: „Die Zionisten und jüdischen Einwanderer scherten sich von Beginn an nicht darum, ob dort Palästinenser lebten. Die zionistische Ideologie dachte nie daran, mit den Nachbarn in Eintracht zu leben, sondern verachtete oder negierte diese Ureinwohner.“


Und auch sie orientierte wie Alan Hart auf eine echte, humanistischem Denken verbundene Vision einer Zukunft von Palästinensern und Israelis in einem gemeinsamen Staat, indem sie fragte: „Warum hält man in der Öffentlichkeit und den Medien immer noch am Mantra der Zweistaatenlösung fest? Warum erkennen wir nicht alle inzwischen, dass diese durch die Politik Israels, der USA und unsere Hilfe zu einer Farce geworden ist? Ist nicht Südafrika an seiner Apartheidpolitik letztendlich gescheitert? Israel ist ein Apartheidstaat, mit einer Apartheidmauer.“ (Ihren vollständigen Vortrag finden Sie in dieser NRhZ- Ausgabe.)



Und was ist mit Euch, meine lieben Deutschen?

Gilad Atzmon referierte über „Geschichte, Wahrheit und Integrität“. Für ihn, der am Vorabend der Konferenz ein Konzert gegeben und damit für ein unvergleichliches kulturelles Ereignis in der Stadt Freiburg gesorgt hatte, ist die Freiheit des Menschen und die Freiheit seines Denkens eine unverzichtbarer Errungenschaft, die nicht preisgegeben werden darf. Als in Israel geborener, britischer Jazzmusiker und Schriftsteller lässt er sich trotz aller Anfeindungen nicht davon abhalten, das zu reflektieren und kritisch zu beleuchten, worin er groß geworden ist.

Auftritt von Vertretern des US-israelischen Imperialismus während der Palästina-Tage. Gilad Atzmon stellt sich ihnen in den Weg, weil er in ihnen Neonazis erkennt.


„Wenngleich die zionistische Ideologie sich als eine historische Erzählung präsentiert, habe ich viele Jahre gebraucht zu begreifen, dass Zionismus, jüdische Identität, Politik und Ideologie, tatsächlich ein grober, unverblümter Angriff auf die Geschichte waren... Zionismus imitiert in der Tat einen historischen Diskurs. In der Praxis widersetzt sich Zionismus... jeglicher Form historischer Diskussion. Auf diese Weise sind diejenigen, die den Zionisten und den politischen jüdischen Ideologien folgen, verdammt, sich von Humanismus, Menschlichkeit und ethischem Verhalten wegtreiben zu lassen. Solch eine Erklärung mag ein Licht werfen auf das kriminelle israelische Verhalten und die jüdische Unterstützung für Israel.“

„Es ist der Mangel an einem echten historischen Diskurs, der England und Amerika davon abhält, ihre Zukunft, Gegenwart und Vergangenheit zu verstehen. Wie im Fall der jüdischen 'Geschichte', bestehen amerikanische und britische Politiker auf einer banalen, binären, simplifizierenden Darstellung des Zweiten Weltkriegs, des Kalten Krieges, des Islam und der Ereignisse des 11. September. Tragischerweise sind der anglo-amerikanische Völkermord im Irak und in Afghanistan, der 'Krieg gegen den Terror' eine Fortführung unserer selbst auferlegten Blindheit. Seitdem England und Amerika versäumt haben, die notwendige Botschaft der Massaker in Hamburg, Dresden, Nagasaki und Hiroshima zu begreifen, gab es nichts, was den englisch-sprachigen Imperialismus aufhalten konnte, ähnliche Verbrechen in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan und Irak zu begehen.“


Palästinenser: die letzten Opfer Hitlers


„Und was ist mit Euch, meine lieben Deutschen?“, fuhr Gilad Atzmon fort. „Was ist mit Eurer Vergangenheit? Seid Ihr frei, in Eure Vergangenheit zu blicken und Euer Verständnis umzubilden...? Ich denke nicht. Eure Geschichte - oder zumindest einige Kapitel Eurer Geschichte - sind versiegelt durch einige drakonische Gesetze. Folglich versucht Eure jüngere Generation nicht, die wahre ethische Bedeutung des Holocaust zu begreifen. Klar, Deutsche verstehen nicht, dass die Palästinenser tatsächlich die letzten Opfer Hitlers sind, denn ohne Hitler gäbe es keinen jüdischen Staat. Eure jüngere Generation versteht nicht, dass die Palästinenser gewiss Opfer einer Nazi-ähnlichen Ideologie sind, die sowohl rassistisch als auch expansionistisch ist.“


„Lasst mich Euch einen Rat geben, wenn Ihr Euch für irgendetwas, was mit der Vergangenheit zu tun hat, schuldig fühlt: Es sollten die Palästinenser sein, denen Ihr beistehen solltet. Die Tatsache, dass Deutschland den Bezug zu seiner Vergangenheit verloren hat, erklärt ohne Frage die Komplizenschaft deutscher Politiker mit den zionistischen Verbrechen. Es erklärt gewiss, warum Eure Regierung Israel von Zeit zu Zeit mit Atom-U-Booten beliefert. Aber es erklärt auch, warum Ihr ruhig bleibt, wenn Ihr herausfindet, dass Yad Vashem auf Land errichtet wurde, das 1948 gestohlen wurde.“


„Aber es geht nicht nur um Israel, Zionismus, England, Amerika und Deutschland. Lasst uns uns selbst betrachten, die Unterstützer von Gerechtigkeit in Palästina. Sogar in unserer Bewegung haben wir einige zerstörerische Elemente, die darauf bestehen, dass wir nicht wagen dürfen, unsere Vergangenheit zu berühren. In den letzten Monaten wurden das Café Palestine und die Organisatoren dieser Konferenz von einigen etablierten Teilen innerhalb der jüdischen 'anti'-zionistischen Bewegung unerbittlichen Angriffen ausgesetzt. Sie verlangten, dass die Konferenz mich fallen lassen sollte, weil ich ein 'Holocaust-Leugner' sei. Nutzlos zu sagen, dass ich nie den Holocaust geleugnet habe...“


Gegen die Versiegelung der Geschichte

Gilad Atzmon schloß mit einer Art Grundsatzerklärung: „Ich bestehe jedoch darauf..., dass Geschichte ein offener Diskurs bleiben muss, Gegenstand von Änderungen und Überarbeitung. Ich lehne jeden Versuch ab, die Vergangenheit zu versiegeln, ob es sich um die Nakba, den Holocaust oder den armenischen Völkermord handelt. Ich bin überzeugt, dass ein organisches und 'elastisches' Verständnis der Vergangenheit das wahre Wesen eines humanistischen Diskurses, eines humanistischen Universalismus und einer humanistischen Ethik ist.“

„Ich weiß eindeutig nicht, wie Israel vor sich selbst zu retten ist. Ich weiß nicht, wie jüdische Anti-Zionisten von ihrer jüdisch-zentrierten Ideologie zu befreien sind. Aber soweit Amerika, England, Deutschland, der Westen und wir hier heute betroffen sind, ist alles, was wir zu tun haben, zurückzukehren zu unseren wertvollen Werten der Offenheit. Wir müssen uns wegbewegen von einem restriktiven, monolithischen Jerusalem und den ethischen Geist eines pluralistischen Athen wiederbeleben.“

 Die Fakten sehen


Das abschließende Referat der Konferenz hielt Ken O’Keefe. Er schlug den entscheidenden Bogen von den globalen Machtfragen hin zur speziellen Situation in Palästina. Es dürfe nicht sein, dass wir die Fakten aus den Augen verlieren. Es sei schließlich die Zukunft unseres Planeten und der menschlichen Existenz, die auf dem Spiel stehe. Fast spielend schaffte er den Bezug zu dem Ereignis herzustellen, das sich am 11. September 2011 zum zehnten Mal jährte. Für ihn ist es keine Frage: Die Operation 9/11, die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001, waren eine False-Flag-Operation, ein Inside-Job. Er sieht dieses Ereignis als Lackmus-Test, bei dem sich herausstellt, wer uns die Wahrheit sagt und wer nicht. Wenn wir auch nicht genau wissen, wie die Operation im einzelnen durchgeführt werden konnte, wissen wir doch, wer die größte Motivation hatte, solch eine Tat zu begehen, wer am ehesten in Lage war, sie durchzuführen.


Ken O’Keefe ließ den Zuhörern keine Illusion darüber, wer die eigentlich Machthaber der westlichen Welt sind, welchen Charakter sie haben und mit welchen Methoden sie operieren. Er sprach von denen, die faktisch die Banken, die Finanzen, die Medien und Regierungen kontrollieren und steuern. Er bezeichnete sie als vollkommen verrückt. Diejenigen, die einen Atomkrieg mit der Schaffung von unterirdischen Städten für das Überleben einer Elite planen, würden kaum davor zurückschrecken, ihre Ziele mithilfe von False-Flag-Operationen zu verfolgen. Diese Leute, die als Menschen bezeichnet würden, handelten nicht wie Menschen. Sie benutzten Politiker wie Marionetten. Und ihnen zu Diensten stünden Journalisten der Mainstream-Medien, die sich ihnen gegenüber prostituierten und im Auftrag die gewünschte Propaganda verbreiteten. Ein Ziel nach dem anderen werde als Feindbild, als "boogey man enemy", als schwarzer Mann und Horrorfigur aufgebaut, um dagegen Krieg führen zu können. Ken O’Keefe's Frage: wer der nächste "boogey man" sein werde. Iran vielleicht? Und er stellte sich die passende False-Flag-Operation vor: z.B. Raketen auf Tel Aviv – angeblich abgeschossen vom Iran. „Was wird dann passieren?“



Er sei Vater, habe zwei Kinder. Das sei der Grund, weshalb er sich mit diesen Dingen beschäftige, erklärte er. Er wolle sich und uns schützen. Wir müssten uns der Gefahren bewusst sein, sonst würde dieses wunderschöne Geschenk Erde, dieses Paradies Erde zerstört. „How fucking stupid is that?“ Wie verdammt idiotisch ist das! „We must face the facts!“ Wir müssen uns den Fakten stellen!! Und dann kam er auf Palästina, auf Gaza zu sprechen, wo er „gesegnete sechs Monate“ verbringen konnte...


Ken O’Keefe ist Überlebender des israelischen Massakers vom vergangenen Jahr auf der Mavi-Marmara, einem der türkischen Schiffe der Flotille mit Hilfsgütern für Gaza. Als solcher wurde er am 23.6.2010 in der BBC-Fernsehsendung 'Hardtalk' interviewt und bewieis dabei seine Fähigkeit, Klartext zu reden und sich nicht aufs Glatteis führen zu lassen. Trotz des permanenten Versuchs, ihn aus der Fassung zu bringen und ihn mit der israelischen Propaganda zu konfrontieren, ließ er sich nicht davon abhalten zu sagen, was ihm wichtig war. Das Interview wurde mehrfach mit israelischem Videomaterial unterlegt, aus dem die Behauptung abgeleitet wurde, die israelischen Soldaten hätten auf dem Schiff in Notwehr gehandelt. Ken O’Keefe ließ sich dadurch nicht irritieren. Er sagte mit aller Deutlichkeit, dass es sich um einen Angriff des israelischen Militärs in internationalen Gewässern gehandelt habe. Und er wies darauf hin, dass die israelische Seite wieder und wieder Lügen verbreite.


Was die Situation insgesamt betreffe, unterstütze er ohne jeden Vorbehalt das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung. Als Bürger von Palästina, Irak oder Afghanistan würde er sich ohne jeden Zweifel in den bewaffneten Widerstand einbringen. Und wenn er Bürger der USA oder Großbritanniens wäre und jemand von irgendwo auf der Welt käme und ihm sein Land stehlen und seine Familie töten würde, würde er sein Land selbstverständlich verteidigen. So würde sich jedes Land verhalten. Solange es den Zionismus und die damit verbundene Apartheid gebe, sehe er keinen Unterschied zwischen Hamas und Nelson Mandela. Gegen Ende des Interviews wollte die Interviewerin Ken O’Keefe mit der Frage nageln, was er nun mit seinem "anger" (Zorn) in Zukunft machen wolle. Er konterte souverän und treffend mit der Korrektur "anger - based on love" (Zorn - basierend auf Liebe).





Verordnete Grenzen des Denkens durchbrechen


Ken O’Keefe gehört neben Gilad Atzmon sicherlich zu denen, die die üblichen verordneten Grenzen des Denkens weit überschreiten. Das muss nicht jeder (unmittelbar) nachvollziehen können. Aber es sind entscheidende Impulse, die sie uns geben, die unsere Gedankenwelt bereichern und dazu beitragen, uns dazu zu bringen, die Verhältnisse nicht einfach hinzunehmen, den Versuchen, unser Denken zu manipulieren, standzuhalten und allen Widrigkeiten zum Trotz für eine gerechte Welt zu kämpfen. Gilad Atzmon bezeichnete die Palästinenser als die letzten Opfer Hitlers. Doch die Konferenz machte auch klar, dass auch wir Gefahr laufen, zu den letzten Opfern Hitlers zu gehören, indem wir uns von interessengelenkten Interpreten unserer Geschichte das Denken diktieren lassen und uns verleiten lassen, den Blick in einer vorbestimmten Weise zurück zu richten, anstatt die Lehren aus der Geschichte zu ziehen und verantwortungsbewusst die aktuellen Gefahren und die großen Verbrecher, die heute die globale Macht in Händen halten, als solche zu erkennen und zu bekämpfen. (PK)




Buchhinweis:


Im Herbst erscheinen im Melzer-Verlag die dreibändige Buchpublikation „Zionismus – Der wahre Feind der Juden“ von Alan Hart und im Palmyra-Verlag das Buch „Das elfte Gebot: Israel darf alles – Klartext über Antisemitismus und Israelkritik“ von Evelyn Hecht-Galinski. Bei zero-books ist das englischsprachige Buch „The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics“ von Gilad Atzmon erschienen.


Online-Flyer Nr. 320 vom 21.09.2011

Cafe Palestine Freiburg-Vorschau Herbst 2011

GILAD ATZMON "THE OPEN SOCIETY AND IT´S ENEMY FROM WITHIN"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNngjZ1COJA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-open-society-and-its-enemy-within.html



STATEMENT OF IJAN (International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network) regarding Freiburg Confernce. Classification: TOXIC MATERIAL
http://www.ijsn.net/679/


Answer from Dr. Gabi Weber, sent to IJAN on October 5tj 2011.
Obviously IJAN didn´t publish this answer on their homepage. Until now people who dare to read and spread texts of Gilad Atzmon are embarassed by so-called "Anti-Zionists".



Betreff: Re: In response to Atzmon's video

Datum: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:49:22 +0200

Von: Dr. Gabi Weber

An: ijsn@ijsn.net



Good evening "International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network",


thank you for your email and the statement you sent me, as well as ....
.........

In Gilad Atzmon´s video nobody accused Hajo G. Meyer personally that he "caved into relentless pressure from anyone". Gilad Atzmon simply said that "S. K. and M. L. were relentlessly putting pressure on some of our panelists". What you forgot to mention is that Hajo G. Meyer was - initially - provided with wrong quotes of Gilad Atzmon´s texts. And you also forgot to mention that Mr. Meyer never accused G. Atzmon of being a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.


Interesting that you talk about "growing numbers of those refusing to share a platform with Gilad Atzmon". Is four or five persons a "growing number"?


By chance I know, that Ghada Karmi was abroad for several weeks and could not be part of the panel in London.


Also by chance I was participating at Stuttgart conference last year. Ali Abunimah expressed his opinion about what Mr. Atzmon had said the day before and that he didn´t agree with it. Is this "to dissociate"? http://vodpod.com/watch/5048037-ali-abunimah-palstinakonferenz-in-stuttgart-am-28-november-2010.


Heidar Eid didn´t refer to Atzmon´s adress publicly. He gave his speech on Friday, 26th of November. Gilad Atzmon was on the panel on Saturday, 27th.

To call Gilad Atzmon an "anti-semitic ideologue and promoter of holocaust denial" is insulting, defamatory and condemnable.

Could you please provide us with the true sources of your quotes? Actually it is Karl Marx who said “Jewishness is capitalism and vice versa” and not Gilad Atzmon. You find these words in "The Jewish Question", written in 1843 by Karl Marx.


As much as I would expect you to be more familiar with Jewish dissent culture, I expect you, who accuse Gilad Atzmon of being an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, to REALLY read his texts.


Taking quotes out of context, forging them, putting sentences together in a different order as the original one is simply pathetic. Spreading this kind of material is unaccountable.


If you really shared the "collective responsability with those committed to a more just and humane world" you would never act like Israeli Hasbara agents.

 Kind regards

Dr. Gabi Weber, Freiburg



P.S. Below you find some of the endorsements of Gilad Atzmon´s new book. I guess that compared to this impressing number of adademics, journalists, activists and thinkers, the "growing number of those refusing to share a platform with Atzmon" you are referring to is quite miserable.


http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-wandering-who-is-out-this-week.html

"Gilad Atzmon decided to open Pandora’s Box, and ignite a debate that has been frustratingly dormant for too long. His experiences are most authentic, views are hard-hitting, and, at times, provocative. It must be read and discussed." Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle

"A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely." Professor Richard Falk

"Essential to an understanding of Jewish identity politics and the role they play on the world stage." Professor John J. Mearsheimer

"Atzmon’s insight into the organism created by the Zionist movement is explosive." Professor William A. Cook

"A pioneering work that deserves to be read and Gilad Atzmon is brave to write this book!" Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo

“Gilad's escape from spiritual claustrophobia towards a free and open humanitarianism is fearless” Robert Wyatt

“In his inimitable deadpan style, Atzmon identifies the abscess in the Jewish wisdom tooth – exilic tribalism – and pulls it out. Ouch!” Eric Walberg, Al Aharam Weekly

“It is more than an academic exercise. It is a revelation!” Lauren Booth, Press TV

"A brilliant analysis that makes what appear to be contradictions in Jewish identity based political behavior not only comprehensible but predictable." Jeff Blankfort

"Atzmon has the courage - so profoundly lacking among Western intellectuals" Professor James Petras

“Having known Gilad for 25 years, I read the book in English, I heard it in Hebrew and reflected on it in Arabic. Gilad Atzmon is astonishingly courageous” Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool

“Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual.” Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice

“Gilad Atzmon is the Moses of our time, calling all of us out of the Egypt of our boneheaded nationalisms and racialisms and exceptionalisms and chosen-people-isms toward some form of humanistic universalism.” Dr. Kevin Barrett

"Perhaps only a musician could have written this sensitive, perceptive lament over how so many Jews, believing themselves to be doing 'what is good for the Jews,' have managed to carve the heart out of the Palestinian nation and make this tragedy look like the natural order of things." Kathleen Christison

“Gilad's The Wandering Who? would have been a welcome delight to Albert Einstein just as it will be the irritating nemesis for Abe Foxman ideologues.” Dr. Paul Balles

“A book that will shake up a few people….” Gordon Duff

“Engaging, provocative and persuasive.’ Jeff Gates

“When you finish reading this book, you may likely as well see a different face in the mirror.” Professor Garrison Fewell

“The Wandering Who deconstructs the unique political identity that shapes the reality of the Jewish Nation and the crimes committed in its name. As a non-Jew, I found it illuminating!” Sameh Habeeb, Palestine Telegraph

“The Last Jewish Prophet” Professor William T. Hathaway

"Atzmon is an iconoclast.” Dr. Paul Larudee

“Like all truth tellers of any merit Atzmon can expect the wrath of the powers that be and their minions as a reward for what he is exposing. People like Atzmon will have played a vital role in saving us from ourselves if indeed we do manage to survive. Love and respect to my brother Gilad Atzmon.” Ken O’Keefe

“The magical and yet extremely subtle gift that Gilad Atzmon offers through his personal journes in The Wandering Who? is the wisdom of disillusionment.” Shahram Vahdany, MWC News

“Atzmon's writing respects no sacred cows. His wit is biting, his insight and logic compelling.” Richard A. Siegel

“Sometimes a brash, abrasive provocateur is what is required as a catalyst for genuine debate.” Sunny Singh
 "This is a very perceptive and instructive book" Roy Ratcliffe

BEGRÜßUNG DR. GABI WEBER, KONFERENZ IN FREIBURG AM 11.9.11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGpgiDJ3I-U&feature=related



BEGRÜßUNG DR. GABI WEBER


Guten Morgen, meine Damen und Herren,



im Namen des Cafe Palestine Freiburg möchte ich Sie ganz herzlich zu unserer Konferenz Palästina, Israel, Deutschland – Grenzen der offenen Diskussion begrüßen.


Mein Name ist Gabi Weber. Ich habe vor eineinhalb Jahren gemeinsam mit Annie Sauerland das Freiburger Cafe Palestine in Anlehnung an das Café Palestine in Zürich gegründet.


Viele von Ihnen sind von weither angereist. Wir haben Teilnehmer aus Israel, aus den USA, aus Frankreich, England, der Schweiz usw. usw. Ihnen allen und natürlich auch unseren deutschen Besuchern danken wir, dass Sie gekommen sind.


Es ist mir eine große Ehre, Ihnen die besonderen Gäste des heutigen Tages vorstellen zu dürfen:

Evelyn Hecht-Galinski aus Marzell


Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo aus Dallas


Gilad Atzmon aus London


Ibrahim El-Zayat aus Köln


Sameh Habeeb aus Gaza, London


Alan Hart aus London


Ken O´Keefe aus London


Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool aus Cambridge


Und Ramzy Baroud aus Seattle, der heute leider nicht persönlich anwesend sein kann – uns aber eine Videobotschaft geschickt hat.


Dear Ramzy, I hope that you will see the video of this conference and would like to let you know that we really regret that you cannot be with us. Thank you so much for your important contribution on video. We hope to see you in Germany next year.


Unsere Graphikdesigner


Viq Ali aus Wien, der uns die Konferenz –und Konzertposter designed hat


David Borrington aus London, der in Anlehnung an die Reden, unglaubliche Graphiken hergestellt hat


Unsere Moderatoren


Ulrike Vestring aus Bonn


Dr. Lüdke vom Arnold-Bergsträsser-Institut Freiburg


Prof. Dr. Dr. Uhde von der katholischen Fakultät der Universität Freiburg


Unsere Übersetzer


Ulla Philips-Heck aus Freiburg


Timothy Slater aus Augsburg


Projekte werden vorgestellt von


Stefanie Landgraf, FrauenWegeNahost, Hans von Wedemeyer, Marcello Faraggi.


Ich danke Ihnen allen im Namen des Cafe Palestine Freiburg von ganzem Herzen, dass Sie hier sind.


Ich möchte unseren Filmemacher Gerd Münzner aus Ludwigsburg begrüßen, der die heutige Veranstaltung aufzeichnen und in den nächsten Tagen online stellen wird. Außerdem wird die Konferenz vom jordanischen TV-Sender 7Stars TV über NileSat ausgestrahlt werden.


Jamal Inan ist mit seiner Gruppe für Ihr leibliches Wohl zuständig. Auch ihn begrüße ich ganz herzlich.






Am 10. Jahrestag der tragischen Ereignisse des 11.September 2001, die zu viele Menschenleben in den USA forderten, steht fest, dass 911 eine Ära nicht enden wollender von der NATO und den USA finanzierter Kriege eingeleitet hat - mit Hunderttausenden unschuldig getöteter Menschen, begleitet von wirtschaftlichem Chaos, zunehmender Armut und Manipulationen der Finanzsysteme. In vielen Ländern weltweit führte und führt der angebliche Krieg gegen den Terror zu immer mehr staatlicher Überwachung, zu immer autoritäreren Staatssystemen, zu Einschränkungen der bürgerlichen Rechte, zur Kriminalisierung des Kampfes um Gerechtigkeit und dazu, dass man uns vorschreiben möchte, was wir zu denken und zu glauben haben.


Nachdem alte Feindbilder nicht mehr herhalten konnten, wurden neue Feindbilder geschaffen, die unter anderem zur Folge hatten und noch haben, dass Menschen aufgrund ihrer Religionszugehörigkeit und/oder ihrer Staatsangehörigkeit durch Geheimdienste und andere staatliche Apparate entführt, gefangen genommen, misshandelt, gefoltert und getötet werden. Der durch einzelne Staaten verursachte Terror in Form endloser, ressourcenorientierter Kriege scheint keine Grenzen mehr zu kennen.


Das für alle Menschen eigentlich gültige Menschenrecht der Meinungsfreiheit und freier Meinungsäußerung wird zunehmend limitiert.


Diese Konferenz ist aus dem tiefen Wunsch heraus entstanden, die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit, denen wir alle unterliegen und die dazu führen, dass wir uns in manipulierten Lügengebilden zu verstricken drohen, aufzuzeigen und wenn möglich, auch Lösungen zu finden.


Um diesem hochkomplexen Thema gerecht zu werden ist es uns gelungen, ein Podium von außergewöhnlichen Referentinnen und Referenten zusammen zu stellen.


Wir alle, von unserem jungen palästinensischen Musiker angefangen ( der gestern Abend ein unglaubliches Konzert mit Gilad Atzmon gegeben hat), über unsere Graphikdesigner, über jeden einzelnen Teilnehmer dieses Podiums bis zu uns als Veranstalterinnen, wurden in übelster Weise beschimpft, beleidigt und in Verruf gebracht. Für einige unserer Gäste gehören Morddrohungen zwischenzeitlich schon fast zum Tagesgeschäft.


Trotzdem sind wir alle hier, um entgegen des Drucks von außen, für unser aller Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit einzustehen. Ich kann guten Gewissens behaupten, dass Sie heute einige der mutigsten Menschen, denen ich je begegnet bin, hören werden.


Egal welcher persönlichen Ansicht Sie/wir über die Ursachen der tragischen Anschläge vor 10 Jahren auch sein mögen, so bin ich mir sicher, dass uns alle ein Gedanke eint:


Jeder einzelne Mensch, der am 11.9.2001 oder in einem danach begonnenen Anti-Terror-Krieg getötet wurde, jeder Entführte, jeder Gefolterte, jeder Hungernde auf dieser Welt ist einer zu viel.


In jedem von uns steckt Potential, sich nicht länger mit diesen Zuständen zufrieden zu geben. Jeder hat Fähigkeiten, die helfen können, diese Welt ein kleines Stückchen besser zu machen. Jeder von uns kann dazu beitragen, dass weniger Ungerechtigkeit auf unserem Planeten herrscht. Wir sind alle verantwortlich.


Im Gedenken an die am 11.September 2001 und danach getöteten Menschen möchte ich Sie bitten, sich zu erheben und eine Schweigeminute einzulegen.


Zum Ablauf …….

DR. SAMIR ABED-RABBO AT FREIBURG CONFERENCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbtL8AlZTRM

Civil Liberties in the aftermath of Sept. 11


Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo

 

The attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 by Muslim Individuals was a criminal act that had profound implications for the Muslims, the United States and the world. My contention is that the Muslim/Arab community in the west as a whole has been subjected to extrajudicial measures and is paying a heavy price for the criminality of the few. But this is not the subject of my talk. I was asked to speak about Civil liberties in the US in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and I shall oblige.


Prior to delving into the essence of my subject, I would like to make this damming observation: The Bush administration which was caught napping by al-Quaida, rather than engaging in an honest or serious study of what went wrong it opted to deconstruct the very civil liberties enshrined in the American constitutional. Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the USA said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” To that I add, there should be no tradeoff between civil liberties and security. Those who advocate for security over liberties are giving those behind such violent attacks a victory over our way of life! Now let me turn to my presentation.


Civil Liberties as enshrined in the US Constitution

 The United States Constitution was written in 1789 and ratified by the original 13 States within two years thereafter. This written document establishes the structure and powers of the US government, the relationship between the Federal and states governments, and enumerates the liberties and rights vested in the people.


The original constitution includes one major right that is considered the corner stone of civil liberties: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This concept was written into the text of the US Constitution to preserve the basic legal right of individuals to be free from unlawful imprisonment, except only during the most extraordinary national emergencies, even greater than "war" or hostile attack. The government has to show that it is following the law, when it arrests, detains or imprisons People for reasons of state security during ‘Rebellion or Invasion.” In the last 222 yrs. this writ was suspended during the civil war and again after Sept. 11, 2001.


The most important legal protections of individuals' civil liberties in America are found in the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first five are part of the first 10 Amendments that are known as the Bill of Rights and were adopted in 1791. The 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War in 1868. These Amendments include the following rights:


The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


The Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”


The Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”


The Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”


The Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."






The Threats to Civil Liberties in the aftermath of Sept. 11


In the aftermath of September 11, the Bush Administration became extremely involved in spearheading the attack on and the erosion of all the above legal rights and protections.


Starting with the USA PATRIOT ACT, the Bush Administration was essentially engaged in a grab for police powers that have been sought and rejected long before September 11, 2001. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress with no time for most legislators to read its provisions before voting on it. There was no debate and no demonstration that this statute would cure any of the specific law enforcement problems that enabled the 9-11 attacks (such as lax airport security and the failure to keep track of known terrorist suspects who entered the USA after they were identified). Rather, it was a case of "do something, anything," regardless of the monumental human and civil rights issues at stake. When a bipartisan group of Representatives offered an alternative bill that received some actual debate, it was almost immediately voted down in favor of the administration's "PATRIOT Act".



What did this panic button legislation do? There are four major inroads it made into previously well-established legal rights. The four areas are:


The first is secrecy: it provides for secret "sneak and peak" searches, secrecy of government and legal case information, secret evidence, and secretly collected personal information. On June 18, 2003, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the government's power to withhold information about those thousands of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians it secretly detained for months in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. As the Sixth Circuit Appellate Judge Damon Keith said in a case involving secret immigration hearings, "Democracies die behind closed doors."


The second area is the criminalization of dissent: This was already well underway before 9-11, in the series of massive confrontations between the anti-globalization movement and the instruments of government as in Seattle in November of 1999. After the attack of 9-11, guilt by association, deportation and exclusion of foreigners based only on membership in suspect groups, increased penalties for donating money for humanitarian purposes through the wrong organizations, and the overnight creation of a new category of "domestic terrorist" groups, took on a vigorous new life in government circles. The tragic consequences for First Amendment freedom of association, as well as Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process, are increasingly glaring us in the face.






A third major area is the balance of powers upon which the American model of constitutional liberty theoretically rests: The authority of courts as a check on unaccountable powers by the Legislative and Executive branches has traditionally been the last resort for protecting American liberties. The USA PATRIOT Act limits courts' authority to issue warrants, limits appeals, and limits the basis for constitutional challenges to executive branch at overreaching. Congress of course, simply abdicated its power, leading directly to the establishment of executive branch supremacy in this crisis. Some of the first major tests of this fundamental deconstructing of government powers came in the Habeas Corpus cases filed on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals held, in another split 2-1 decision, that they are outside federal judicial jurisdiction, and thus effectively without enforceable legal rights.


The fourth major area is in the lowering of protections against criminal investigation: The long-established distinction between law enforcement and intelligence operations has been eliminated in cases involving suspected or alleged terrorism, opening the door to systematic abuses. The requirement of probable cause for initiating an investigation, tapping phones, monitoring internet and e-mail use, and other intrusive police actions has been eliminated in such cases, opening the door wide open to police confrontation and harassment of dissidents, and leading to continually escalating politicization of "law enforcement" in the name of fighting terrorism.


This civil liberties crisis does not end with the USA PATRIOT Act. A series of executive orders, Department of Justice Regulations, and government memos have allowed the executive branch to extend its power even further, without being effectively challenged by the other branches of government or the People. On September 21, 2001, the Chief Immigration Judge issued a memo closing certain immigration hearings to the public. On October 31 the Justice Department issued regulations for detaining people on Attorney General Ashcroft's sole discretion, a provision that was severely abused in practice by extended periods of detention. Prosecutors and prison officials began to monitor attorney/client communications without judicial authorization, and commenced a prosecution of Attorney Lynne Stewart for her statements and actions in representing a convicted terrorist, sending a clear message to other lawyers about the consequences of defending fundamental rights of suspects. The previous Freedom of Information Act presumptions were reversed, so that if any reason was articulated to withhold documents, they would not be provided. All of this was accomplished without any judicial or legislative action at all, by the mere stroke of a bureaucratic pen.


The case of military commissions established by executive order for those arrested abroad deserves attention. The original proposal for such tribunals was completely lawless. It provided for execution without appeal, without a unanimous decision of military judges, and without any right to counsel of one's choice. The most severe deficiencies in these regulations were modified after a public outcry. However the military commissions set up retained the option to use secret evidence, and with the ruling that the camps in Guantanamo Bay are outside federal courts' jurisdiction, the imminent prospect of secret military trials and summary executions there cannot be ruled out.






In the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11 the immigration authorities went into high gear. They interviewed thousands of Arabs and Muslims, including interrogation about visa status that in some cases led to deportation. They asked questions about religious and political beliefs. They discovered no significant information about terrorism whatsoever in this orgy of racial profiling. The government abused the material witness statute to detain innocent immigrants, who may have had some incidental contact with either the 9-11 hijackers or some other suspects, for prolonged periods. Most notoriously, approximately 2000 People were swiftly "disappeared" in secrecy, and the government refused to release information about them to their families or attorneys. This was the program recently upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the government aggressively moved to "seize and freeze" the assets of numerous suspected "terrorist organizations," without any distinction between legal functions and activities these organizations may be engaged in fighting anywhere in the world, especially of course in the Middle East.


Even the issue of torture has been raised, with psychological pressure placed on family members, physical mistreatment of immigrants in custody who were never even charged with any crime, deportation to other countries that are known to practice torture systematically, and respectable academic discussions of hypothetical circumstances--such as where it might lead authorities to a "ticking bomb"--when torture could allegedly be justified. The Independent newspaper in the United Kingdom recently published a shocking investigative report on the use of what authorities call "torture lite" at the US Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Techniques such as binding prisoners in awkward and painful positions, forcing them to wear hoods, sleep deprivation, 24-hour lighting, and withholding painkillers are being systematically used at an unspecified number of secret CIA detention centers for terrorist suspects. What may be even more shocking is the fact that US officials are more or less openly bragging about it. "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time," one reportedly told the Independent, "you probably aren't doing your job."



In conclusion


In conclusion, what is happening is a comprehensive government campaign to undermine constitutional civil liberties. The government’s onslaught on political dissent and free speech; spying on groups and organizations without probable cause to believe they are engaged in any criminal activity; targeting of people because of their beliefs, speech and associations; suspending of due process; and practicing torturing, people will not be able to defend themselves. When the government is allowed the opportunity to use evidence obtained throw torture; of dubious quality; and free from challenge, the cause of liberties is not served. Those alarmed with government overreaching need to re-examine the relationship between the people and government. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”


Thank you!

GILAD ATZMON AT FREIBURG CONFERENCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idRXaZ3frXk


Being in Time in Freiburg



Gilad Atzmon



Dear ladies and gentlemen.



I will begin my talk with an unusual confession. Though I was born in Israel, in the first thirty years of my life I did not know much about the Nakba, the brutal and racially driven ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in 1948 by the newly born Israeli State. My peers and myself knew about a single massacre, namely, Deir Yassin but we were not at all familiar with the vast scale of atrocities committed by our grandparents. We believed that the Palestinians had voluntarily fled. We were told that they had run away and we did not find any reason to doubt that this had indeed been the case.

Let me tell you that in all my years in Israel, I have never heard the word Nakba spoken. This may sound pathetic, or even absurd to you -- but what about you? Shouldn’t you also ask yourself -- when was the first time you heard the word Nakba? Perhaps you can also try to recall when this word settled comfortably into your lexicon. Let me help you here -- I have carried out a little research amongst my European and American Palestinian solidarity friends, and most of them had only heard the word Nakba for the first time, just a few short years ago, whilst others admitted that they had only started to use the word themselves three or four years ago.

But isn’t that a slightly strange state of affairs? After all, the Nakba took place more than six decades ago. How is it that only recently it found its way into our symbolic order?


The answer is, in some respects, quite a straightforward one: to be in the world means to be subject to changes and transformations. It entails grasping and reassessing the past through different present realisations. History is shaped and re-shaped as we proceed in time. Accordingly, we seem to understand the Palestinian expulsion and plight through our current understanding of Israeli brutality: In the light of the destruction Israel left behind in Lebanon in 2006, followed by our witnessing of the genocidal crimes performed in Gaza in ‘Operation Cast Lead’, and observing the footage of the IDF execution of peace activists on the Mavi Marmara -- we have subsequently, managed to amend our picture of the scale of the 1948 Palestinian tragedy. As we grasp more fully what the Israelis are capable of -- we are also able to re-construct our vision of Israel’s ‘original sin’ i.e. the Nakba. We are able to empathise more deeply with the expelled Palestinians of 1948 via our current evolving comprehension of Israel, the Israeli, ‘Israeli-ness’, Jewish nationalism, global Zionism, and the relentless Israeli lobby.

The meaning and significance of it becomes clearer -- the past is far from being a precisely sealed off set of events with a fixed meaning, pre-decided for us by a fixed viewpoint and then closed off from further debate. Instead, our understanding of the past is shaped and transformed, constantly, as we progress and grow in knowledge and experience. And, as much as our current reality is shaped by our world vision -- our past too, is shaped, re-shaped, viewed and re-viewed by the narratives we happen to follow at any given time.

This is the true meaning of ‘being in time’; this is the essence of temporality, and this is what historical thinking is all about. People possess the capacity to ‘think historically’-- to be transformed by the past -- but also to allow the past to be constantly shaped, and re-shaped, as they proceed towards the unknown.



Deir Yassin Remembered

But here is an interesting set of historical anecdotes that deserve our attention: Indeed, one may be left perplexed on learning that -- just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz in 1945 -- the newly-formed Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of the indigenous population of Palestine (1948). Just five years after the defeat of Nazism -- the Jewish state brought to life racially-discriminatory return laws in order to prevent the 1948 Palestinian refugees from coming back to their cities, villages, fields and orchards. These laws, still in place today, were not categorically different from the notorious Nuremberg race Laws. One may also be totally perplexed to find out that Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust Museum, is located on the confiscated land of a Palestinian village Ein Karem, next door to Deir Yassin, which is probably the ultimate symbol of the Palestinian Shoa.

One may wonder what is the root cause of this unique institutional lack of compassion that has been exhibited and maintained by Israel and Israelis for decades. One might expect that Jews, having been victims of oppression and discrimination themselves, would locate themselves at the forefront of the battle against evil and racism. One might expect the victims of discrimination to resist inflicting pain on others.


Yet, some deeper and far more general questions come to mind here -- how is it that the Jewish political and ideological discourse fails so badly to draw the obvious and necessary moral lessons from history and Jewish history in particular? How is it that in spite of ‘Jewish history’ appearing to be an endless tale of Jewish suffering, the Jewish State is so blind to the suffering it inflicts on others?


On the face of it, what we see here is a form of alienation from historical thinking. Israeli historian Shlomo Sand has noted that Rabbinical Judaism could be realised as an attempt to replace historical thinking: instead of history, the Torah provided Rabbinical Judaism with a spiritually-driven plot. It conveyed an image of purpose and fate. However, things changed in the 19th century. Due to the rapid emancipation of European Jewry together with the rise of nationalism and the spirit of Enlightenment, assimilated European Jews felt bound to redefine their beginnings in secular, national and rational terms. This is when Jews ‘invented’ themselves as ‘people’ and as a ‘class’: like other European nations, Jews felt the urge to posses a coherent narrative about themselves and their history.


Inventing history is not a crime – people and nations often do it. Yet, in spite of the rapid process of assimilation, Jewish secular ideology and politics failed to encompass the real meaning of historical thought and historical understanding. Indeed, the assimilated secular Jew was very successful in dropping God and other religious identifiers. And yet, at least politically, the assimilated Jew failed to replace divinity with an alternative Jewish anthropocentric secular ethical and metaphysical realisation.


Temporality and Alienation

I only recently understood that the ‘Jewish Identity political discourse’ is not only foreign to history; not only is it actually antagonistic towards historical thinking, but it is also detached from the notion of temporality.

Temporality is inherent to the human condition: ‘To be’ is ‘to be in time’. Whether we like it or not, we are doomed to be hung between the past that is drifting away into the void, and the unknown that proceeds towards us from the future.

Through the present, the so-called ‘here and now’, we meditate on that which has passed away. Occasionally we hope for forgiveness; and sometimes we are cheered by a pleasing memory. At other times we become angry with ourselves for not having reacted appropriately at some moment in our past. And from time to time we may recall a sensation of love.

In the present we can also envisage the future, and in the awareness of that presence we may sense the fear of the unknown. But we can also experience waves of happiness and optimism when the future seems to smile at us.

More often than not, we draw lessons from the past. But far more crucially important and interesting perhaps, is the idea that an imaginary future can easily re-write, or even re shape the past.

I will try to elucidate this subtle idea through a simple and hypothetical yet horrifying war scenario:

For instance, we can easily envisage a horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ attack on Iran could escalate into a disastrous nuclear conflict, in which tens of millions of people in the Middle East and Europe would perish.


I would guess that amongst the few survivors of such a nightmarish imaginary scenario, some may be bold enough to say what they ‘really think’ of the Jewish state and its inherent murderous tendencies.

The above is obviously a horrific fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrendous development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran.

But as we know, this hardly happens -- Israeli officials threaten to flatten and nuke Iran all too often.


Seemingly, Israelis and Zionists around the world fail to see their own actions within a historical perspective or context. They fail to look at their actions in terms of their consequences. From an ethical perspective, the above ‘imaginary’ scenario could or should prevent Israel from even contemplating any attack on Iran. Yet, what we see in practice is the complete opposite: Israel wouldn’t miss an opportunity to threaten Iran.


My explanation is simple. The Jewish political and ideological discourse is foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blind to the consequences of its actions; it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Within the Jewish political discourse the time arrow is a one-way road. It goes forward, yet it never turns the other way. There is never an attempt to revise the past in the light of a possible future. Instead of temporality, Israel thinks in terms of an extended present.

But Israel is just part of the problem. The Jewish lobby is also blinded to the immanent disaster it brings on Diaspora Jews. Like Israel, the lobby only thinks in terms of short term gain. It seeks more and more power. It never looks back , and neither does it regret.


To sum up, the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is ‘elastic’. The notion of temporality allows the time arrow to move in both directions. From the past, forward, but also, from the (imaginary) future, backward. Temporality allows the past to be shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to re-think the past. Ethics is bounded with temporality, for ethics is the ability to judge and reflect on issues that transcend beyond the ‘here and now’. To think ethically is to produce a principled judgment that stands the test of time.



Looking at the Past

To a significant extent then, the ability to revise one’s perspective on, and understanding of the past, is the true essence of historical thinking -- it allows us to reshape our comprehension of the past through an awareness of an imaginary future perspective, and vice versa. To think historically becomes a meaningful event once our past experience allows us to foresee a better future.

Revisionism then, is imbued in the deepest possible understanding of temporality, and therefore inherent to humanity and humanism. And it is obvious that those who oppose proper and open historical debate are operating not only against the foundations of humanism, but also against ethics.


And yet, in Israel some lawmakers insist that commemoration and historical debate of the Nakba should become illegal. And, interestingly enough, Jewish anti Zionists also oppose any attempt to deconstruct or revise Jewish past. I, for instance, have been criticised recently for being an ‘anti Semite’ for suggesting that Zionism is not colonialism. In case you do not know, this conference was under severe pressure mounted by some leading Jewish anti Zionists who insisted on preventing any discussion about the history of Jewish suffering.


But I guess that it is pretty clear by now that my philosophical outlook is not very flattering to Jewish political and ideological discourse. Yet, the truth must be spoken: Jewish political discourse openly opposes any form of revisionism. Jewish politics is there to fix and cement a narrative and terminology.


Though the Zionist ideology presents itself as a historical narrative, it took me many years to grasp that Zionism, Jewish identity politics and ideology were actually crude, blunt assaults on history, the notion of history and temporality. Zionism, in fact, only mimics an historical discourse. In practice, Zionism like other forms of Jewish political discourse, defies any form of historical discussion. Thus, those who follow the Zionist and Jewish political ideologies are doomed to drift away from humanism, humanity and ethical conduct. Such an explanation may throw light on Israeli criminal conduct and Jewish institutional support for Israel.




Self-Reflection Is Overdue


Inventing a past, as Shlomo Sand suggests, is not the most worrying issue when it comes to Israel and Zionism. People and nations do tend to invent their past.


However, celebrating one’s phantasmic past at the expense of others is obviously a concerning ethical issue. But in the case of Israel the problem goes deeper. It is the attempt to seal the yesterdays that led to the collective ethical collapse of Israel and its supporting crowd.


However, as much as I enjoy bashing Israel and Zionism, I will also have to ask you to self-reflect. Sadly enough, Israel is not alone. As tragic as it appears to be, America and Britain also managed to willingly give up on temporality. It is the lack of true historical discourse that stopped Britain and America from understanding their future, present and past. As in the case of Jewish ‘history’, American and British politicians insist on a banal, binary and simplistic historic tale regarding WWII, The Cold War, Islam, and the events of 9/11. Tragically, the criminal Anglo-American genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, AKA ‘The War against Terror’, is a continuation of our self-inflicted blindness. Since Britain and America failed to grasp the necessary message from the massacres in Hamburg and Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there was nothing that could stop English-speaking imperialism from committing similar crimes in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.


And what about you, my dearest Germans. What about your past? Are you free to look into your past and to re-shape your understanding of it as you move along? I don’t think so. Your history, or at least some chapters of it, are sealed by some draconian laws. Consequently, you younger generation do not attempt to grasp the true ethical meaning of the holocaust. Clearly, Germans do not understand that the Palestinians are actually the last victims of Hitler, for without Hitler, there wouldn’t be a Jewish State. Your young generations fail to see that the Palestinians are certainly victims of a Nazi-like ideology, which is both racist and expansionist. Let me also advise you, if any of you feel guilty about anything to do with your past, it should be the Palestinians whom you should care for. The fact that Germany is detached from its past clearly explains German political complicity in the Zionist crime. It certainly explains why your government provides Israel with a nuclear submarine every so often. But it also explains why you may remain silent when you find out that Yad Vashem is built on Palestinian land stolen in 1948.


But it isn’t just Israel, Zionism, Britain, America and Germany. Let us look at ourselves, the supporters of Justice in Palestine. Even within our movement, we have some destructive elements who insist that we shouldn’t dare to touch our past: in the last month, Café Palestine Freiburg and the organiser of this conference were subjected to relentless attack by some established elements within the Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist movement. They were demanding that the conference should drop me because I am a ‘holocaust denier’. Needless to say, I have never denied the Holocaust. I also find the notion of ‘holocaust denial’ to be meaningless, and on the verge of idiotic.


However, I do indeed insist, as I did here today, that history must remain an open discourse, subject to changes and revision, I oppose any attempt to seal the past, whether it is the Nakba, Holocaust, or the Armenian genocide. I am convinced that an organic and ‘elastic’ understanding of the past is the true essence of a humanist discourse, universalism and ethics.

I clearly don’t know how to save Israel from itself, I do not know how to liberate Jewish anti Zionists from their Judeo centric ideology; but as far as America, Britain, Germany, the West, and us here today are concerned, all we have to do is to revert to our precious values of openness.


We must drift away from a restrictive, monolithic Jerusalem, and reinstate the ethical spirit of pluralist Athens





Gilad Atzmon's new book- The Wandering Who? can be pre-ordered on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk



http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-being-in-time.html#entry12839287

RAMZY BAROUD FOR FREIBURG CONFERENCE 11/9/11

The Gaza Story: Challenging History through Narration





By Ramzy Baroud



To truly appreciate the situation in Gaza – whether the suffering, the struggle, or the steadfastness and the resistance – the Gaza story would have to be placed within its proper context, as an essentially Palestinian story, of historical and political dimensions that surpass the current geographic and political boundaries, demarcated by mainstream media and official narrators. The common failure to truly understand Gaza within an appropriate context is largely based on who is telling the story, how it is told, what is included and what is omitted.


Here is an alternative attempt at understanding.

 Challenging History


When American historian Howard Zinn passed away on January 27, 2010, he left behind a legacy that redefined our relationship to history altogether.



Professor Zinn dared to challenge the way history was told and written. In fact he went as far as to defy the conventional construction of historical discourses through the pen of victor or of elites who earned the right of narration though their might, power and affluence.

This kind of history might be considered accurate insofar as it reflects a self-seeking and self-righteous interpretation of the world by a very small number of people. But it is also highly inaccurate when taking into account the vast majority of peoples everywhere.

The oppressor is the one who often articulates his relationship to the oppressed, the colonialist to the colonized, and the slave-master to the slave. The readings of such relationships are fairly predictable.

Even valiant histories that most of us embrace and welcome, such as those celebrating the legacy of human rights, equality and freedom left behind by Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela still tend to be selective at times. Martin Luther King’s vision might have prevailed, but some tend to limit their admiration to his ‘I have a dream’ speech. The civil rights hero was an ardent anti-war champion as well, but that is often relegated as non-essential history. Malcolm X is often dismissed altogether, despite the fact that his self-assertive words have reached the hearts and minds of millions of black people throughout the United States, and many more millions around the world. His speech was in fact so radical that it could not be ‘sanitized’ or reinterpreted in any controllable way. Mandela, the freedom fighter, is celebrated with endless accolades by the very foes that branded him a terrorist. Of course, his insistence on his people’s rights to armed struggle is not to be discussed. It is too flammable a subject to even mention at a time when anyone who dares wield a gun against the self-designated champions of ‘democracy’ gets automatically classified a terrorist.

Therefore, Zinn’s peoples’ histories of the United States and of the world have represented a milestone in historical narration.


As a Palestinian writer who is fond with such luminaries, I too felt the need to provide an alternative reading of history, in this case, Palestinian history. I envisioned, with much hesitation, a book that serves as a people’s history of Palestine. I felt that I have earned the right to present such a possible version of history, being the son of Palestinian refugees, who lost everything and were exiled to live dismal lives in a Gaza refugee camp. I am the descendant of ‘peasants’ – Fellahin – whose odyssey of pain, struggle, but also heroic resistance is constantly misrepresented, distorted, and at times overlooked altogether.


It was the death of my father (while under siege in Gaza) that finally compelled me to translate my yearning into a book. My Father was a Freedom Fighter, Gaza’s Untold Story offered a version of Palestinian history that was not told by an Israeli narrator – sympathetic or otherwise – and neither was it an elitist account, as often presented by Palestinian writers. The idea was to give a human face to all the statistics, maps and figures.


History cannot be classified by good vs. bad, heroes vs. villains, moderates vs. extremists. No matter how wicked, bloody or despicable, history also tends to follow rational patterns, predictable courses. By understanding the rationale behind historical dialectics, one can achieve more than a simple understanding of what took place in the past; it also becomes possible to chart fairly reasonable understanding of what lies ahead.


Perhaps one of the worse aspects of today’s detached and alienating media is its production of history - and thus characterization of the present - as based on simple terminology. This gives the illusion of being informative, but actually manages to contribute very little to our understanding of the world at large.

Such oversimplifications are dangerous because they produce an erroneous understanding of the world, which in turn compels misguided actions.

For these reasons, it is incumbent upon us to try to discover alternative meanings and readings of history. To start, we could try offering historical perspectives which try to see the world from the viewpoint of the oppressed – the refugees, the fellahin who have been denied, amongst many rights, the right to tell their own story.

This view is not a sentimental one. Far from it. An elitist historical narrative is maybe the dominant one, but it is not always the elites who influence the course of history. History is also shaped by collective movements, actions and popular struggles. By denying this fact, one denies the ability of the collective to affect change. In the case of Palestinians, they are often presented as hapless multitudes, passive victims without a will of their own. This is of course a mistaken perception; the Palestinians’ conflict with Israel has lasted this long only because of their unwillingness to accept injustice, and their refusal to submit to oppression. Israel’s lethal weapons might have changed the landscape of Gaza and Palestine, but the will of Gazans and Palestinians are what have shaped the landscape of Palestine’s history.


Touring with My Father was a Freedom Fighter in South Africa, months after the release of the original English version of the book, was a most intense experience. It was in this country that freedom fighters once rose to fight oppression, challenging and eventually defeating Apartheid. My father, the refugee of Gaza has suddenly been accepted unconditionally by a people of a land thousands of miles away. The notion of ‘people’s history’ can be powerful because it extends beyond boundaries, and expands beyond ideologies and prejudices. In that narrative, Palestinians, South Africans, Native Americans and many others find themselves the sons and daughters of one collective history, one oppressive legacy, but also part of an active community of numerous freedom fighters, who dared to challenge and sometimes even change the face of history.



Resistance as a Culture



One of the concepts that were largely defaced as a result of the flawed understanding of history is the concept of resistance. Deliberately fallacious, self-serving definitions left “resistance’ wide open to all sorts of interpretations, that change and fluctuate depending on who is resisting whom, in which period or political context, and again, on the narrator.

But unlike the current prevailing definitions, resistance is not a band of armed men hell-bent on wreaking havoc. It is not a cell of terrorists scheming ways to detonate buildings.

True resistance is a culture.


It is a collective retort to oppression.


Understanding the real nature of resistance, however, is not easy. No newsbyte could be thorough enough to explain why people, as a people, resist. Even if such an arduous task was possible, the news might not want to convey it, as it would directly clash with mainstream interpretations of violence and non-violent resistance. The Afghanistan story must remain committed to the same language: al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Lebanon must be represented in terms of a menacing Iran-backed Hizbullah. Palestine’s Hamas must be forever shown as a militant group sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state. Any attempt at offering an alternative reading is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists and justifying violence.

The deliberate conflation and misuse of terminology has made it almost impossible to understand, and thus to actually resolve bloody conflicts.

Even those who purport to sympathize with resisting nations often contribute to the confusion. Activists from Western countries tend to follow an academic comprehension of what is happening in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Thus certain ideas are perpetuated: suicide bombings bad, non-violent resistance good; Hamas rockets bad, slingshots good; armed resistance bad, vigils in front of Red Cross offices good. Many activists will quote Martin Luther King Jr., but not Malcolm X. They will infuse a selective understanding of Gandhi, but never of Guevara. This supposedly ‘strategic’ discourse has robbed many of what could be a precious understanding of resistance – as both concept and culture.


Between the reductionst mainstream understanding of resistance as violent and terrorist and the ‘alternative’ defacing of an inspiring and compelling cultural experience, resistance as a culture is lost. The two overriding definitions offer no more than narrow depictions. Both render those attempting to relay the viewpoint of the resisting culture as almost always on the defensive. Thus we repeatedly hear the same statements: no, we are not terrorists; no, we are not violent, we actually have a rich culture of non-violent resistance; no, Hamas is not affiliated with al-Qaeda; no, Hizbullah is not an Iranian agent. Ironically, Israeli writers, intellectuals and academicians own up to much less than their Palestinian counterparts, although the former tend to defend aggression and the latter defend, or at least try to explain their resistance to aggression. Also ironic is the fact that instead of seeking to understand why people resist, many wish to debate about how to suppress their resistance.


By resistance as a culture, I am referencing Edward Said’s elucidation of “culture (as) a way of fighting against extinction and obliteration.” When cultures resist, they don’t scheme and play politics. Nor do they sadistically brutalize. Their decisions as to whether to engage in armed struggle or to employ non-violent methods, whether to target civilians or not, whether to conspire with foreign elements or not are all purely strategic. They are hardly of direct relevance to the concept or resistance itself. Mixing between the two suggests is manipulative or plain ignorant.

If resistance is “the action of opposing something that you disapprove or disagree with”, then a culture of resistance is what occurs when an entire culture reaches this collective decision to oppose that disagreeable element - often a foreign occupation. The decision is not a calculated one. It is engendered through a long process in which self-awareness, self-assertion, tradition, collective experiences, symbols and many more factors interact in specific ways. This might be new to the wealth of that culture’s past experiences, but it is very much an internal process.

It’s almost like a chemical reaction, but even more complex since it isn’t always easy to separate its elements. Thus it is also not easy to fully comprehend, and, in the case of an invading army, it is not easily suppressed. This is how I tried to explain the first Palestinian uprising of 1987, which I lived in its entirely in Gaza:

“It’s not easy to isolate specific dates and events that spark popular revolutions. Genuine collective rebellion cannot be rationalized though a coherent line of logic that elapses time and space; its rather a culmination of experiences that unite the individual to the collective, their conscious and subconscious, their relationships with their immediate surroundings and with that which is not so immediate, all colliding and exploding into a fury that cannot be suppressed.” (My Father Was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story)

Foreign occupiers tend to fight popular resistance through several means. One includes a varied amount of violence aiming to disorient, destroy and rebuild a nation to any desired image (read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine). Another strategy is to weaken the very components that give a culture its unique identity and inner strengths – and thus defuse the culture’s ability to resist. The former requires firepower, while the latter can be achieved through soft means of control. Many ‘third world’ nations that boast of their sovereignty and independence might in fact be very much occupied, but due to their fragmented and overpowered cultures – through globalization, for example - they are unable to comprehend the extent of their tragedy and dependency. Others, who might effectively be occupied, often possess a culture of resistance that makes it impossible for their occupiers to achieve any of their desired objectives.

In Gaza, Palestine, while the media speaks endlessly of rockets and Israeli security, and debates who is really responsible for holding Palestinians in the strip hostage, no heed is paid to the little children living in tents by the ruins of homes they lost in the latest Israeli onslaught. These kids participate in the same culture of resistance that Gaza has witnessed over the course of six decades. In their notebooks they draw fighters with guns, kids with slingshots, women with flags, as well as menacing Israeli tanks and warplanes, graves dotted with the word ‘martyr’, and destroyed homes. Throughout, the word ‘victory’ is persistently used.

If we keep all of this in mind, one is likely to find a need to reexamine the Gaza story altogether, replacing the selective history that we know, whether sympathetic or otherwise, with a wider, more inclusive understanding that goes beyond the familiar dates, names and events, to an appreciation of the very Palestinian individual in Gaza, who existed prior to Fatah and Hamas, to the siege and the rockets, the elections of 2006 or even Oslo of 1993.

If we follow that line of logic, then the story will certainly be traced to its true origins, and that is the Palestinian Nakba of 1947-48.

But even the Nakba history would have to be retold for it was not merely that of suffering, Arab disadvantage, fragmentation and international betrayal, but that of resistance as well.




Conclusion


Although there is a constant attempt at reducing major events to specific names and dates – for example, first Intifada is attributed to (or ‘blamed’ on) specific individuals seen as the ‘masterminds’ of the popular uprising – the fact is, it was not the elites, but the collective will of the Palestinian people that shaped their history of resistance. It doesn’t mean that some, in fact many have tried to co-opt, deceive, crush or manipulate the Palestinian masses, with a certain degree of success, but ultimately, it has been the Palestinian people who have shaped this history. Without them the elites had nothing but mere slogans and afford nothing but empty promises.


As cliché as this may sound, it’s the power of the people, the Palestinian people who has defeated every attempt at canceling and undermining Palestinian rights and freedom. It’s the Palestinian people that we celebrate, with whom we stand in everlasting solidarity, and along with whom we will carry on with the fight, until freedom and victory are proudly and decisively achieved.


- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.