ON THE TRACK OF THE SZ (1)
The SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG is one of the biggest and established newspapers in Germany. It is often regarded to be left, a bit like the FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU, and rather not conservative, like the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG or DIE WELT. Yet the political positions today are a bit blurred, and some people even talk about an identity crisis in parts of the German press.
Let's take a look at the Middle East coverage as an example. In today's edition of the SZ, the war in the Middle East was the central subject. Page 2 was full of it, a comment on the 4, the 7 also full of it, al-Qaida articles on the 9 and the 11, and finally a mini article on the Saramago scandal. How does the SZ handle this subject?
It can be said that the SZ reportet on the Middle East issue in a very balanced way. It summarized all the different points of view, of Sharon, of Arafat, the Saudis, Mubarak, the Americans etc., and then it judged on all these opinions very even, e.g. in the comment by Herr Heiko Flottau, who says that the PLO had recognized Israel in 1988, and the Arab states did the same in Madrid 1991:
"Both declarations were tied to the condition that Israel leaves the occupied territories of 1967, according to the UN resolutions. Instead, and breaking international law, Israel built settlements in those areas, which it was to give back to the Palestinians. Israel must confront itself with the reproach that it did not take the 'land for freedom' plan seriously.
Then immediately follows the sentence: "However, the fact that the region is once more standing at the abyss, is also the fault of the Palestinians. Yasir Arafat failed to stop the development of terrorism in autumn 2000."
Maybe here we get a little closer to the problem which came up in the previous statement. Concerning the Middle East issue, the SZ seems to have difficulties to come up with an opinion of its own and to represent it. Israel here is only criticized, when the Palestinians are criticized to the same amount. The SZ does not care about the fact that the criticizm towards Israel is grounded in international law. This is so, because it has been so all the time, and because the other newspapers and politicians do not care, either. Israel ranks higher than the UN.
The Americans are not criticized too much in the SZ, either, when they want to make war. Today in the SZ there was a photograph of Saddam Hussein directly above one of Mohammed Atta. The message is clear: when the Americans want to attack Iraq, the SZ will not stand in their way. This also became noticable in the mentioned comment by Herr Flottau.
Then Saramago. It is amazing how small this issue is kept by the German press. But this will be a statement of its own. With these indications, I hope to have been instrumental for the SZ. The problem is not solved yet, but we seem to be on a good track. (March 27, 2002)
"SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG"
Some Anis Online readers might have wondered, whether the SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG has replied to the rhymed Bamboo "WELTTAG WAR DER POESIE", which commented on an SZ article. Well, they did reply. Herr Gerd Sowein from the readers' mail editorial was friendly enough to find the time for a short answer. He wrote me on the 25th: "Thank you very much for the transmission of your poem. Sorry we cannot put it up, because we do not print poetry from readers - otherwise we couldn't escape the inundation. We beg your pardon."
Well dear Herr Sowein, you don't have to apologize for that! Of course I understand that you must escape the inundation, everybody must. But why by all means did you write me in a way that it looks like a refusal? I mean, you could also have written: "Thank you very much for the transmission of your poem. It's cool." That would have been something completeley different from "sorry", wouldn't it, Herr Sowein? Or didn't you like it? Well alright then, why didn't you tell me, if you spent a stamp, anyway? Now you gave me a sorry and a pardon, and I don't know what to do with it. What can I do with a sorry?
It appears to me that you have some kind of problem. I am sorry for that. Here is something I can offer you: I will read the SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG for a spell every day now, and then we take a look together to find out about this problem of yours. Shall we do it this way? No, you don't have to thank me, it's my pleasure. (March 27, 2002)
"Nobody loves the whip, but everybody loves the whip man"
(The Book Of Games)
UN/SYRIA
Yesterday night, the UN Security Council met on an initiative of the USA to pass UN resolution 1397, which calls for a cessation of all violence in the Middle East and for a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. All the 15 member states agreed to the resolution, with the only abstention from Syria. Syria stands for the "Arab Group" in the Security Councel and had proposed a different text, whereafter the US has prevailed with its own suggestion. What does the resolution say, and what do the Syrians hold against it? I got myself the respective texts from the UN (www.un.org) and compared them:
Resolution 1397 consists of an introduction and four points: it demands immediate cessation of all violence, it calls upon both parties to implement the plans of Tenet and Mitchell, it supports Kofi Annan's interference, and it decides to remain seized of the matter. The introduction covers, among other things, the relevance of resolutions 242 (from 1967) and 338 (from 1973), as well as a welcoming of the contribution of the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
The Syrians, on the other hand, criticize that Israel is not condemned for its killings, despite the fact that the Arabs showed flexibility. They also speak about ca. 2000 imprisoned Palestinians, who are treated inhumanely. In their opinion, the UN document is weak, because it does not deal with the root question, i.e. the occupation. Moreover, the realization of earlier resolutions are to be demanded from Israel more intensely. The Arab party also regretted the lack of mentioning both the Madrid Conference, which dealt with a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and the Forth Geneva Convention for the protection of civilians.
It cannot be derived from the UN document that the UN demands a Palestinian state, as is the headline of the FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU today ("dpa issue of the day"). The Council "affirms the vision of two States Israel and Palestine", so it says in the headline, but this is all on that matter. Sadly. Yet the world mostly is content with it, apparently also the Palestinians. My opinion is that, since all these people have met in the middle of the night in order to write a resolution, they really could have supplied the world with some more substance. Apart from the isolated word "Palestine", this resolution in my view is - despite all goodwill - an impression of 338, which in turn is an impression of 242. Clear words are another thing, and the realization of clear words are again another thing.
NB: Resolution 242 says: security for all states in the region, Israel's withdrawal from all the territories occupied in 1967, solution of the refugee issue, demilitarized zones, and a special representative appointed by the UN to report on the progress of things. 242 is the most important basis of all modern Middle East politics. Resolution 338 does not provide many new aspects. It mostly served to remind of resolution 242, and to give it more emphasis in the context of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. (March 13, 2002)
ZIONISM
Zionism is often referred to and justified as a means of defense against anti-Semitism. In this essay, I want to juxtapose the main competing opinions and definitions within the context of the anti-Semitism debate.
The origin of the concept "anti-Semitism" is: against the Semites. That would include the Arabs and the Ethiopians, but not the Iranians, the Turks, and the Indians. In everyday language it means: against Jews. Anti-Semitism is taboo in Germany, even more than anti-Americanism. The concepts "anti-Arabism" or "anti-Germanism" on the other hand are hardly used. There is also a controversial "anti-Zionism". Out of a newspaper I got a photo with an orthodox Jew wearing a sign that reads: "End of Zionism is peace".
Here is an example for the controversy of the concept of Zionism, out of an online newspaper. It is a reaction to the anti-racism conference in Durban shortly before September the Eleventh:
"Israel like many other countries is extremely alarmed about the repeated attempts to reintroduce the language of the reprehensible equation ‚Zionism=racism' in the texts - a formula which declares Israel's right of self government to be illegitimate." (Source in German: http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/2001/08/zionismus.htm)
The idea of Zionism is basing on the source in the Old Testament in which God is said to have made the Jews his chosen people which are to reach the Promised Land, Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and, in connection with this, salvation.
It was Theodor Herzl who made it a political concept 1897 in the Basle Program: "Zionism aims at the creation of a publically and legally secured homeland for those Jews, who cannot or do not want to assimilate in their current residences." (Translated from German).
"With the proclamation of the State of Israel on March 14, 1948", writes the German newspaper DIE WELT today, "the aim of Zionism and Herzl's vision were reached. Yet the movement did not end after that, because the aims of Zionism also included the preservation of the status quo, cultural aspects, and the reanimation of the Hebrew language."
One could perhaps call this assessment of DIE WELT the mainstream self-understanding of Zionism today. Opposed to them there is the group of the so-called post-Zionists, like the above introduced gentleman with the sign, who are of the opinion that Israel should give up the historical burdens. At the Israeli Ministry of Education I found the supplement: "In the opinion of others it is the aim of post-Zionism in this debate to put an end to the Jewish character of the State of Israel and to take over the appearance of a secular, democratic state." (Source in German: http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/german/act/06.html).
The same source offers a contemporary self-definition: "A selected team of teachers with their pupils in Denmark School in Jerusalem tried to work out a general definition of Zionism. Here is their proposal: 'Zionism supports the sovereignty of the Jewish people in Eretz Israel and regards those, who are committed to it to be obliged to take part in this noble enterprise." So they want sovereignty. Maybe in a kind of way that the Saudi Prince has recently offered. International recognition. I am not sure in how far the concept "Eretz Israel" is defined.
Zionism is viewed very differently in the Arab League and other representatives of the Arab and the Muslim World. It is seen as an ideology which places the rights of the Jews above the rights of other peoples. In respect to its legal claim of superiority which is solely based on their being Jewish, Zionism can be regarded to be arrogant and even racist, for instance when it comes to regarding the rights of the Palestinians as God-given rights of minor importance. This is something different from humanism. In a resolution from 1975, The UN had called Zionism "a form of racism and race discrimination", which was dropped again in 1991.
On the mentioned anti-racism conference in Durban, the latent conflict between adherents and opponents of Zionism came to the surface. Obviously, the issues of Zionism and anti-Semitism were virulent just before the terrible assault. And today, six months after September 11, the war in Palestine and Israel broke out again, too. Amnesty International wrote about Durban:
"US Minister of Foreign Affairs Powell had cancelled his participation before the begin of the meeting in Durban because of 'insulting language about Israel' in the preparation documents. (...) Subject of the argument was the intention of the Arab states to equate Zionism and racism in the final declaration. 'Zionism' is a generic concept that describes the political and social movement for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. It grew in the last century under the permanent danger of anti-Semitism. The Arabs associate the concept mostly with violent confiscation of land and expulsion. They call Israel's measures against the Palestinians racist. When the Arab states demanded Islarel's condemnation as a racist state in the final declaration, and as Zionism and racism were equated in a provisional version of the document, Israel and the United States drew their delegations back from Durban already on September 3." (German Source: http://anklagen-online.de/artikel/artikel2.html)
As soon as somebody (in Germany) talks about anti-Semitism, the Jews, and Zionism, a lot of emotions and taboos are touched, as can be seen for instance in a sentence of the German newspaper FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU in today's edition:
"The anti-Semitism research very deliberately follows the different anti-Semitic lines of argumentation. The most recent form is this: ‚Nobody here dares to criticize Israel. Because the Jews profit from the German feeling of guilt." (in an interview with Schimon Stein).
But the debate is important now. What does Zionism want, and what did it want before? This I want to know from the Zionists, from the Israelis, and from the Jews. They are the ones to be asked at this stage. Why can they not invalidate the suspicions? There must be something to it, when even my Geman standard dictionary of foreign words (DUDEN, 1990) defines:
"Zionism: a) Jewish movement with the aim to create a national state for Jews in Palestine; b) political tendency in Israel today and in the Jewish people all over the world which pursues or agrees to a policy that is limiting the (homeland) rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine (and a policy of augmentation of the Israeli territory to the debit of the Arab neighbor states.)" (March 09, 2002)
"Hush, my darling, don't weep, my darling, the Zion sleeps tonight"
(Free adaption after an African lullaby)
"DIE ZEIT"
In my statement DREAMS (TRÄUME) from February 1st I have citicized an article (by Maybrit Illner) in the German weekly newspaper DIE ZEIT, which I want to correct today. In the current issue there writes the known TV news journalist Uli Wickert in the series "I have a dream" and this contribution I like very much, because Herr Wickert in the essay meets Robespierre in a dream and tries to convince him not to introduce the guillotine. The time before that it was also rather good. I also did not know in the beginning that it is a series to begin with.
In former times I was not so fond of DIE ZEIT. But lately I observe myself buying it more often than His Majesty DER SPIEGEL who at the moment does so boring things as to interview Charlton Heston. Also in the current edition of DIE ZEIT there is an article about my favorite professor from Birzeit University in Palestine, the political scientist Saleh Abdel Jawad. We met a few times and I appreciate him personally as well as politically very much. Despite the tragic circumstances considering the Israelis who went mad now it is nice to see a recent photo of his with an astonishing article next to it. My regards to DIE ZEIT. (March 09, 2002)
NB on Dec. 02, 2002: Much has happened since...
