Gewalt-Zionismus und der Frieden
Anis Hamadeh - 09.12.2002
Noch immer suchen wir Wege heraus aus dem Kampf zwischen den Israelis und den Palästinensern. Warum ist dieser Konflikt so komplex? Warum zerrinnt der Frieden - den wir alle am Nötigsten brauchen - zwischen unseren Händen wie Sand, so dass wir ihn nie berühren können? Sich wiederholende Gewalt ist das, was wir stattdessen sehen.
Es hatte einige frische Hoffnungen gegeben, als der saudische Kronprinz im Namen der Araber erklärte, dass Israel von seinen Nachbarn als Staat akzeptiert werden würde. Die Weltgemeinschaft erkannte diese Geste an, indem sie sie in einer der letzten UN-Resolutionen über Israel erwähnte, diejenige, in der auch das Wort "Palästina" erscheint. Zudem haben 58 renommierte palästinensische Persönlichkeiten am 20. Juni einen dringenden Appell in der al-Quds-Zeitung unterschrieben, um die Selbstmordanschläge zu stoppen. Und es gab und gibt organisierte Muslime in der ganzen Welt, die sich für den Frieden aussprechen und die Gewalt ablehnen. Es sind viele, und sie sind leicht zu googeln. Und was ist mit Israel?
Im Jahr 2002 waren die offiziellen Israelis nicht übermäßig überzeugend in der Friedens-Frage. Israel hat bewiesen, dass es mehr "politische" Macht hat als die Palästinenser, aber Frieden? "Wir müssen uns verteidigen", sagen sie. "Die Selbstmordattentäter!" Es ist eine groteske Szene, in der ein hochgerüsteter und militärischer Riese weint wie ein unwissendes Kind, weil angeblich alle gegen ihn sind. Wenn er es Antisemitismus nennt und auf seine schwere Vergangenheit verweist.
In der psychischen Realität des offiziellen Israel ist der Zweite Weltkrieg nicht vorbei. Die Jagd auf Antisemiten und das allgemeine Gefühl der Unsicherheit und Erniedrigung führen zu Verhaltensweisen, die nahelegen, dass Israel und die Juden noch immer mit den Nazis leben und gegen sie kämpfen. Bevor Israels Präsident Katzav nach Deutschland kam um nach Panzern gegen die "Terroristen" zu fragen, sagte er: "Wer wie das jüdische Volk einmal mit heißem Wasser verbrüht wurde, wird vorsichtig, wenn sich das Wasser wieder erwärmt." (Hamburger Morgenpost, heute). Er würde niemals annehmen, dass Israel selbst der Wasserkocher sein könnte... Und jeder Deutsche kennt die Zahl von den berühmten 20 Prozent antisemitismus-anfälliger Bürger. Es wäre vielleicht eine gute Idee, wenn sich die Tatsache durchsetzen würde, dass der Krieg zu Ende ist und dass die Nazis 1945 geschlagen wurden. Und dass es tatsächlich auch auch andere Gründe als den Antisemitismus gibt, wenn mancher Israel gegenüber skeptisch ist, und Juden gegenüber, in ihrer Kapazität als deren Konstituenten und Unterstützer. Zum Beispiel den Zionismus.
Das Wort "Zionismus" erscheint kaum einmal in den Medien, besonders in Deutschland. Das ist interessant, denn der Zionismus ist eine der wichtigsten politischen Kräfte in der Welt, und das würde niemand bestreiten. Bis 1948 bedeutete "Zionismus" die Errichtung einer Heimstätte in Palästina für die Juden. Als der Staat errichtet war, sagten einige Juden, dass sie nun den Zionismus nicht mehr brauchen würden, während andere ihn neu definierten und sagten: Wir brauchen den Zionismus, um diesen Staat zu beschützen, und um ihm eine Kultur zu geben.
Es ist schwierig, den Zionismus zu kritisieren, weil er zur Identität einer früheren Opfergruppe gehört. Es gibt viele Juden in der ganzen Welt, die sich als Zionisten fühlen, ohne gegen die Palästinenser sein zu wollen. Sie sehen nicht den Gewalt-Zionismus mit seinem von der Regierung angeordneten Erschießen von Menschen, Zerstören von Häusern und Anbringen von Zeichen auf der Haut von Palästinensern. Sie sehen nicht die aktuellen Pläne ethnischer Säuberung und die Erstickung innerer friedlicher Opposition. Sie wissen nichts über Yoni Ben Artzi und Uri Ya'acobi, die den Dienst in der IOF (Israel Offense Force) verweigerten und jetzt dafür im Gefängnis sind!
Der Zionismus ist über Jahrzehnte höchst umstritten, und selbst die Vereinten Nationen hatten über mehrere Jahre behauptet, dass er rassistisch sei. Auch die Konferenz in Durban kurz vor dem Elften September zeigte die tiefen Gräben zwischen den Nationen in dieser Frage. Als nicht-westliche Völker haben die Araber und Muslime eine andere Einstellung hinsichtlich des Zionismus und Israels und der Juden in ihrer Kapazität als seine Konstituenten und Unterstützer. Die Araber haben den Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht angefangen, das waren die Nazis. Es war ein westlicher Weltkrieg, und er hinterließ ein Gefühl von Schuld und Bedauern hinsichtlich der Opfer des Holocaust.
Gewalt-Zionismus ist eine Sache, die existiert, und die überwunden werden muss. Er kann keinesfalls mit dem Sicherheitsaspekt gerechtfertigt werden, denn Gewalt provoziert per Definition Gegengewalt und zerstört daher die Sicherheit, anstatt sie herzustellen. Und viele von denen, die heute des Antisemitismus verdächtig gemacht werden, sind lediglich gegen den Gewalt-Zionismus, dieses Ding, über das niemand reden möchte, und das kontinuierlich Palästinenser tötet und die Araber und Muslime bedroht. Wenn du für den Frieden bist, kannst du nicht für den Gewalt-Zionismus sein, einfach wegen seiner Gewalttätigkeit. Das hat nichts mit dem Judentum zu tun. Heute kann "Zionismus" im inner-jüdischen Diskurs zweierlei bedeuten: Es kann bedeuten, ein anständiger Israeli zu sein und die noble Sache zu unterstützen, und es kann rassistische und brutale Gewalt bedeuten, mit dem traumatischen Ziel, vor Hitler und den Nazis und den Antisemiten sicher zu sein.
Solange es hier keine scharfe Trennung gibt, wird Israel unfähig sein, die Gewalt zu beenden und zu wirklichen Friedensbemühungen beizutragen. Die Medien, die über diesen Punkt nicht berichten, unterstützen den Krieg und werden für jeden einzelnen Artikel und jedes Feature verantwortlich sein, in dem rassistische Gewalt nicht beim Namen genannt wird. Und Politiker, die heute gewalttätigen jüdischen Gruppen Geld geben, werden danach gefragt werden.
Violent Zionism and Peace
Anis Hamadeh - 09 December 2002
We are still searching for ways out of the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why is this conflict so complex? Why does peace - the thing we all need the most - slip through our hands like sand, so we can never touch it? Repetitive violence is what we see instead.
There had been some fresh hopes when the Saudi Crown Prince declared in the name of the Arabs that Israel will be accepted as a state by its neighbors. The world community had acknowledged this gesture by mentioning it in one of the last UN resolutions about Israel, the one in which the word "Palestine" also appears. Moreover, 58 renowned Palestinian personalities had signed an urgent appeal in al-Quds newspaper on June 20 to stop suicide bombings. And there were and are organized Muslims all over the world who call for peace and who reject violence. They are many and they are easy to google. And what about Israel?
In the year 2002, the official Israelis have not been too convincing, where peace is concerned. Israel has proven that it has more "political" power than the Palestinians, but peace? "We must defend ourselves", is what they are saying. "The suicide bombers!" It is a grotesque scene in which a highly armed and military giant cries like an ignorant child, because everybody allegedly is against him. When he calls it anti-Semitism and refers to his difficult past.
In the psychic reality of the official Israel World War II is not over. The hunt for anti-Semites and the feeling of general insecurity and humiliation lead to patterns of behavior indicating that Israel and the Jews are still living with the Nazis and fighting them. Before Israel's president Katzav came to Germany to ask for tanks against the "terrorists", he said: "Who once had been burnt with hot water, like the Jewish people, becomes cautious, when the water gets warm again." (Hamburger Morgenpost today). He would never assume that Israel itself could be the boiler... And every German knows the figure of the famous 20 per cent. who are anti-Semitism prone. So maybe it would be a good idea if we make clear
that the war is over and that the Nazis were beaten in 1945. And that there are even reasons other than anti-Semitism, if some people are sceptical about Israel and about Jews in their capacities as its constituents and supporters. Zionism, for example.
The word "Zionism" hardly occurs in the media, especially in Germany. This is interesting, because Zionism is one of the major political forces in the world, and nobody would deny that. Until 1948, "Zionism" meant the building of a homeland in Palestine for the Jews. When the state was built, some Jews said that they don't need no more Zionism, while others redefined it and said: we need Zionism to protect this state and to give it a culture.
It is difficult to criticize Zionism, because it belongs to the identity of a former victim group. There are many Jews all over the world who feel to be Zionists without feeling to be against Palestinians. They don't see the violent Zionism with its governmental shooting of people, demolishing of houses, or attaching signs to the skins of Palestinians, they don't see the current plans of ethnic cleansing and of stifling the peaceful opposition. They know nothing about Yoni Ben Artzi and Uri Ya'acobi who refused to serve in the IOF and who are in prison for that right now!
Zionism has been highly controversial for decades, and even the United Nations for several years had claimed that it is racist. The Durban conference shortly before September 11 also showed the huge gap between the nations in this question. As non-Westerners, Arab and Muslim countries have a different attitude toward criticizing Zionism and Israel and the Jews in their capacities as its constituents and supporters. The Arabs did not start World War II, the Nazis did. It was a western World War, and it had left a feeling of guilt and regret toward the victims of the Holocaust.
Violent Zionism is something that exists and something that must be overcome. It can by no means be justified by the security aspect, because violence provokes counter-violence by definition and thus destroys the security instead of producing it. And many of those, who today are made suspects of anti-Semitism, are solely against violent Zionism, this thing that nobody wants to talk about and that kills Palestinians and threatens the Arabs and Muslims on a regular basis. If you are for peace, you cannot be for violent Zionism, simply because of its violence. This has nothing to do with Judaism. Today, "Zionism" in the inner-Jewish discourse can mean both: it can mean to be a decent Israeli and supporter of the noble cause and it can mean racist and brutal violence with the traumatic aim of being secure of Hitler and the Nazis and the anti-Semites.
As long as there is no sharp distinction here, Israel will be unable to stop the violence and to contribute to the real peace efforts. The media, which do not cover this point, are supporting the war, and will be responsible for every single article and feature in which racist violence is not called by its name. And politicians, who today give money to violent Jewish groups, will be asked about that.
Sind Palästinenser antisemitisch?
Anis Hamadeh - 26.10.2002
Es ist nicht so ganz einfach, Palästinenser in Deutschland zu sein. Noch ist es einfach, pro-palästinensisch in Deutschland zu sein. Es ist leicht verdächtig, denn pro-palästinensisch ist nah an anti-israelisch, und anti-israelisch scheint für einige Leute nah bei antisemitisch zu liegen. Der Fall des Abgeordneten Jamal Karsli zeigt, dass es gegen die "politische Hygiene" sein kann, wie der frühere nordrhein-westfälische Ministerpräsident und jetzige Superminister Wolfgang Clement schimpfte. Dieser Ausdruck wurde auch von den Nazis gegen die Juden verwendet ("Rassenhygiene"), jedoch war Clements Äußerung pro-jüdisch, sodass er per Definition kein Nazi sein kann.
Der Antisemitismus-Verdacht kann jemanden aus der Gesellschaft herausbringen. Karsli ist heute draußen, Möllemann ist draußen, und es gibt heute keinen prominenten Politiker in Deutschland, den man pro-palästinensisch nennen könnte. Sogar die Grande Dame der liberalen Partei, Frau Hildegard Hamm-Brücher, hat die FDP jetzt verlassen wegen "anti-israelischer" Taten des früheren FDP-Vizes Möllemann, wie sie in einem TV-Interview bei "Beckmann" explizit gesagt hat. Der frühere Kanzler Helmut Schmidt und der jetzt in den Ruhestand getretene populäre frühere Minister Norbert Blüm waren die einzigen anderen prominenten Politiker, die in den letzten Monaten deutlich israel-kritische Bemerkungen in die Presse brachten, beide ältere, unberührbare Staatsmänner. Frau Däubler-Gmelin andererseits hat soeben ihr Ministerium wegen einer anti-amerikanischen Äußerung verloren.
Palästinenser sind faktisch Semiten, wie die anderen Araber und wie Juden und wie Äthiopier. In der Alltagssprache bedeutet "antisemitisch": "anti-jüdisch". Aus irgendwelchen Gründen wird es vermieden, "jüdisch" zu sagen. Vielleicht aus Bescheidenheit, ich weiß es nicht. Für die Deutschen ist es jedenfalls wichtig zu zeigen, dass sie aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg gelernt haben, dass Juden keine geringeren Menschen sind als Deutsche oder Arier. Die Deutschen fürchten, zu wiederholen, was die Nazis mit ihrem anti-jüdischen Rassismus getan haben. Daher gehört die Loyalität zu den USA und zu Israel zu den Prinzipien der deutschen Außenpolitik, in allen politischen Parteien und in der Presse.
Wenn deutsche PolitikerInnen pro-palästinensisch wären, und wenn sie mit den Palästinensern mitfühlen würden, würden sie auch die jahrzehntelange Besatzung fühlen, die Erniedrigung und den Verlust. Sie würden auch die Wut der Palästinenser spüren, darüber, dass sie wie zweitklassige Menschen behandelt werden, nicht wert, gleich zu sein mit den anderen Völkern in der Welt. Im Krieg zwischen Israel und Palästina würden diese Politiker eher auf der Seite der Palästinenser stehen. Aber ist das erlaubt? Sie wären nicht nur pro-palästinensisch, sie wären auch anti-israelisch. Um dies alles zu vermeiden, haben die meisten Deutschen entschieden, die Sache lieber zu ignorieren und sich mit anderen Dingen zu beschäftigen, die nicht zum Assoziationsfeld des Antisemitismus gehören, zu dem für einige Leute offenbar auch die Palästinenser, die Araber und die Muslime zu rechnen sind.
Die Hamburger Morgenpost (Mopo) ist die zweitgrößte Boulevard-Zeitung in Deutschland. Gestern titelte sie auf der Frontseite in großen Buchstaben: "Washington: Heckenschütze ist ein Muslim - Muhammad der Sniper" (und darunter: "Moskau: Gotteskrieger überfallen Musical"). Der erste Gedanke, den ich hatte, als ich die Nachricht sah, war: Scheibe, ein Schwarzer! Mein zweiter Gedanke war: Scheibe, ein Muslim! Millionen Leute in Deutschland haben diese Überschriften gelesen, was werden sie denken? Werden sie denken, dass Muslime eine radikale Tendenz haben, und dass da etwas mit dem Islam nicht stimmen kann, wenn die Muslime all diese Dinge tun: Elfter September und Schuhbomber und Bali und Haifa Tel Aviv und Irak und Moskau? Ob solche Verallgemeinerungen nun fair oder unfair sind, viele Zeitungsleser werden sagen: Aber das haben doch die getan, oder nicht? Die Muslime. Denn es waren alles Muslime. Na also.
Interessanterweise zählt niemand den prozentualen Anteil von Christen an kriminellen Delikten und Gewalt... Als nach dem Elften September einige deutsche Geistliche wie Hans-Jochen Jaschke in Hamburg und Hans-Christian Knuth in Schleswig die Gewalt gegen Afghanistan in ihrer Eigenschaft als Bischöfe verteidigten, hat niemand etwas Schlechtes über das Christentum im allgemeinen gedacht. Vielleicht liegt das auch daran, dass sich Christen weniger miteinander identifizieren können, und dass sie diese muslimische Leidenschaft mit einem wütenden oder gar eifersüchtigen Auge betrachten. Ich weiß es nicht. Aber zurück zur Mopo: Wäre der Heckenschütze ein Jude gewesen, hätte Chefredakteur Josef Depenbrok dann getitelt: "Heckenschütze ist ein Jude - Moses der Heckenschütze"? Ganz gewiss nicht, es wäre antisemitisch. Indem er aber schrieb: "Heckenschütze ist ein Muslim", hat Depenbrock eben doch gesagt: "Heckenschütze ist ein Jude", denn er hat gesagt: "Heckenschütze ist definiert durch die Zugehörigkeit zu einer (verdächtigen) religiösen Gruppe". Die Botschaft "Heckenschütze ist ein Muslim" hat die Konnotation von "Die Juden haben Jesus umgebracht": Wer behauptet, dass die Muslime zum Terrorismus tendieren, ist so schlau wie jemand, der behauptet, die Juden tendierten dazu, die Medien zu kontrollieren.
Ungerechtigkeit und Rassismus stammen aus Situationen, nicht aus bestimmten Gruppen. Als die Nazis die Juden umgebracht haben, haben sie das allen Menschen angetan, als die Terroristen die Leute aus dem WTC umgebracht haben, haben sie das allen Menschen angetan, und wenn die Israelis die Palästinenser besetzen, dann tun sie das allen Menschen an. Es kann nur ein gemeinsames Maß geben. Auch ist es wichtig zu überlegen, wer für Gewalt verantwortlich gemacht werden kann. Eine Religion kann nicht verantwortlich gemacht werden, noch eine Stadt, eine Familie oder eine Rasse. Regierungen können verantwortlich gemacht werden, Politiker und Journalisten, Unterstützer und gewalttätige Gruppen können verantwortlich gemacht werden. Was Deutschland angeht: Solange in den Schulen nichts über die arabische Geschichte erzählt wird und der Islam nicht in einer Art integriert wird, dass klar ist, dass er zur Weltkultur gehört, wird es sicherlich gemeine Vorurteile und Verallgemeinerungen im Stil der Mopo geben. Und es wird ein Volk geben, dem die Deutschen nicht zuhören können. Und sie werden zu den Palästinensern sagen: Hört zu Leute, kommt uns bitte nicht zu nah. Wenn ihr zu nah kommt, könnten wir in Gefahr geraten, mit euch zu fühlen. Und wir sind nicht sicher, ob wir das dürfen. Es könnte..., naja, wisst ihr, es könnte anti-..., nun, ihr versteht schon, was ich sagen will.
Are Palestinians anti-Semitic?
Anis Hamadeh - 26 October 2002
It is not so easy to be Palestinian in Germany. Neither is it easy to be pro-Palestinian in Germany. It is slightly suspicious, for pro-Palestinian is close to anti-Israel, and anti-Israel for some people seems to be close to meaning anti-Semitic. The case of the German legislator Jamal Karsli shows that it can be against the "political hygiene", as former North-Rhine Westfalia's prime minister, and now super-minister in the new government, Wolfgang Clement, scolded. This term, by the way, was also used by the Nazis against Jews ("race hygiene"), but Clement's utterance was pro-Jewish so that he cannot be a Nazi by definition.
To be suspected of anti-Semitism is something that can bring you out of the society. Karsli is out today, Moellemann is out, and there is no prominent politician in Germany today who could be called pro-Palestinian. Even the grande Dame of the liberal party, Frau Hildegard Hamm-Bruecher, has left her party now, because former FDP leader Moellemann was being "anti-Israel", as she explicitly said in a recent TV interview, at "Beckmann". Ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt and now retired popular former minister Norbert Bluem were the only other celebrities during the past months who had clear Israel-critical remarks in the press, both untouchable elder statesmen. Frau Daeubler-Gmelin, on the other hand, just lost her ministry because of an anti-American utterance.
Palestinians factually are Semites, like the other Arabs, and like Jews and like Ethiopians. In usual language, "anti-Semitic" means: "anti-Jewish". For some reason, people avoid to say "Jewish". Maybe it is modesty, I don't know. For the Germans, however, it is important to show that they have learnt out of World War II that Jews are no lesser human beings than Germans or Aryans. Germans are afraid of repeating what the Nazis did with their anti-Jewish racism. This is why loyalty to the USA and to Israel belongs to the principles of German foreign policy, in all political parties and in the press.
If a German politician was pro-Palestinian, and if they felt with the Palestinians, they would feel the decade-long occupation, humiliation and loss, and they would also sense the anger of the Palestinians who are treated like second-class humans, not worth to be equal with other peoples in the world. In the war between Israel and Palestine, these politicians would rather stand on the side of the Palestinians. But is this allowed? They would not only be pro-Palestinian, they would be anti-Israel. To avoid all this, most Germans have decided to rather ignore the subject matter and to talk about other things that are not connected to the association field of anti-Semitism to which for some people apparently also belong the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the Muslims.
The Hamburger Morgenpost (Mopo) is the second largest tabloid in Germany. Yesterday it said on the front page in bold letters: "Washington: Sniper is a Muslim - Muhammad the Sniper" (and below that: "Moscow: Warriors of God raid Musical"). The first thought I had when I saw the news was: shoot, he's black! My second thought was: shoot, he's a Muslim! Millions of people in Germany read these headlines, what will they think? Will they think that Muslims have a radical tendency, and that there must be something wrong with Islam if the Muslims are doing all these things: September 11 and shoe-bomber and Bali and Haifa Tel Aviv and Iraq and sniper and Moscow? Whether generalizations are fair or not, many newspaper readers will say: they did all this, didn't they? The Muslims. Because they were all Muslims. There you are.
Interestingly, hardly anybody counts the percentage of Christians in criminals and criminal affairs... When after September 11 some German clerics like Hans-Jochen Jaschke in Hamburg and Hans-Christian Knuth in Schleswig defended the violence against Afghanistan in their capacities as bishops, nobody thought badly of Christianity itself, or of the Christians. Maybe this is also because Christians identify with each other less, and that they see this Muslim passion with an angry or even jealous eye. I don't know. But back to the Mopo: had the sniper been a Jew, would chief editor Josef Depenbrok have titled: "Sniper is a Jew - Moses the Sniper"? Positively not, it would have been anti-Semitic. But by writing "Sniper is a Muslim" Depenbrock actually did say: "Sniper is a Jew", because he said: "Sniper is defined by belonging to a (suspicious) religious group". The message "Sniper is a Muslim" has the connotation that "The Jews killed Jesus" has. Who claims that the Muslims tend to be terrorists is as smart as someone who claims that the Jews tend to control the media.
Injustice and racism are due to situations, not to particular groups. When the Nazis killed the Jews they did this to all humans, and when the terrorists killed the people from the WTC they did this to all humans, and when the Israelis occupy the Palestinians, then they do this to all humans. There can only be one standard. It is also essential to consider who can be made responsible for violence. A religion cannot be made resonsible, neither can a city, a family, or a race. Governments can be made responsible, politicians and journalists, supporters and violent groups can be made responsible. Concerning Germany, as long as the schools don't teach about Arab history and integrate Islam in a way that acknowledges its participation in world culture, there will certainly remain mean prejudices and generalizations of the Mopo kind. And there will be one people that the Germans cannot listen to. And they will say to the Palestinians: Look guys, please don't come too close. If you come too close, then maybe we will feel with you. And we are not sure if this is allowed to us. It could be..., well, you know, it could be anti-..., well, I'm sure you can understand what I am trying to say.
Transcending Anger - Rock'n'Roll Revisited
Anis Hamadeh, 23 Oct. 02
Vince Everett sang "Young and Beautiful" in a night-club. It was the most tender love song by the most beautiful voice known in 1957. One of the customers though, an ignorant man who kept whispering into the ear of a much too young girl who was with him at the table, distracted the singer on stage with obnoxious laughing intervals. Vince finally jumped off the stage, went to this man with fiery eyes, imitated his goat-like noises, and smashed the guitar right on the table!
This is a scene from a 20th Century-Fox picture starring Elvis Presley in his third movie, in black and white, "Jailhouse Rock". Elvis was called "The Singing James Dean" for this. It was the age of the Angry Young Men, it was the age of early rock'n'roll.
When Vince smashed the guitar he lived his anger. He was really angry, because he had created such a wonderful and magic atmosphere of love with his very song, and the goat destroyed this dream without any right. From the point-of-view of the goat, however, things look much differently: it was his lucky evening. He had his arms around this chick after a tiresome working day, and of course he had a drink or two. Why else would you enter a night-club? The singing, well, somebody was singing, could be the radio. The goat did not give his attention to Vince Everett, he had that girl and a good time, and what do you want?
If we asked Professor Johan Galtung about this manifestation of anger, he would probably smile. But what about Vince? Was he right? It was a natural and sponteneous reaction and he surely felt better after he did it. The goat did not get hurt physically, nor the poor chick, but they got shocked, which actually was in the intention of the enervated singer. It was better than shooting the goat, but still the guitar was broken and the dream also. So Vince did not win this. He hardly had a chance to win, anyway, for the dream had already been broken without that he could have prevented it. The tender is so easily disturbed. Had Vince just stopped singing and had he simply pointed to the laughing man in silence with his finger, maybe the enchanted audience would have begged him to start from the beginning and to give encores. Did you ever hear the song "Young and Beautiful"? But I admit that I also like the smashing bit...
To transcend anger is a complicated thing, because human blood gets hot sometimes. Bob Dylan found a way, you can ask him. John Lennon even found a better way. Lennon was the true rock'n'roller, he wrote it, he sang it, and he did it in the road. More so than Elvis. But it was Lennon who said: "Before Elvis there was nothing", and he knew what he was talking about.
Anger is the primary cause of destruction. It can lead to wars and all kinds of violence. Anger is due to physical and to psychic pain, to loss, fear, lack of respect, jealousy, Sharon, exhaustion, injustice, hatred, treason, loneliness, pressure, disappointments, and the United Nations. There is hardly a way that we could escape the emotional state of anger in our daily lives, and maybe it is best to analyze how we talk about anger, like Professor George Lakoff from Berkeley did, in order to understand anger. But how can we deal with it, how can we transcend anger, without destroying or violating things? Art, humor, and diplomatic conflict settlement systems are usual and good answers, but not easy to define. Remember that we still have no valid definition of terrorism until today.
I suppose that subtlety is the best way to get rid of anger without causing too much damage. Smashing a guitar is more subtle than smashing the goat, and the above suggested solution is even more subtle. Another subtle method to transcend anger and violence is rock'n'roll music itself, and this is why we revisit it. Elvis represented male and female, black and white, soft and hard, control and passion, and Elvis was the first to have achieved this worldwide, and he did a brilliant job, because he united the world. It was his publicity that stilled his anger in his formative years. John Lennon from the Beatles then was the one who politically transcended anger in his rock'n'roll, and we miss him today, because he surely could help to heal the planet. Elvis's and Lennon's rock'n'roll simply overpowered the establishment. They created energetic non-violent situations and their weapon was that many people love rock'n'roll music.
Rock'n'roll died three times: in 1959 with Buddy Holly's death, in 1969 with Sharon Tate's death and with Elvis's death in 1977, when punk said that Elvis was a monster and that life has no meaning. Ever since, people have believed that rock'n'roll was a fashion or an era from the past, full of pathos and ridiculously acting heros, and that is was a lie because of the materialistic side of the show. But when John wrote "Revolution" he wrote rock'n'roll, and he knew that, because he felt it. The song is genuine and can inherently be understood as being genuine. That people would make commerce with it, even John himself, has nothing to do with that.
The materialistic side of rock'n'roll altogether rather seems to be a sort of children's ailment, caused by the loss of former values like obedience and force and by gaining freedom and fun as new values through the creation of rock'n'roll and pop. But rock'n'roll is by no means dead, and this is what this article wants to say. You can ask Bjoerk and she will tell you that rock'n'roll music until today, if you like it, and if you feel it, you can't help but move to it.
The Palestinian Lobby and Cooperation
by Anis Hamadeh - 03.09.02
There is a war going on in the Middle East, it is the war between occupying Israel and occupied Palestine. This war has been going on since, say, 1967. A long long time. What is it that keeps on feeding this war, although everybody seems to be so tired of it? There surely are several different reasons.
One is that many Jews do not feel to be suffiently acknowledged as victims of the Holocaust. They could never understand (and who could?) the Nazi perpetrators, because the Nazis themselves did not want to know about the Holocaust. So these Jews will have to resort to other means to find out who the Nazis were and feel what they felt: for example, by becoming perpetrators themselves. It is the Palestinians, by the way, who are the scapegoat here.
But what about the Palestinians? If it was true what they are saying, why don’t they carry their point with the Israelis, with the Arabs, and with the world? I think they have no common aim, only a common enemy. If you ask them about Palestine, they will tell you about Israel. So they don’t have to confront themselves with their own deficiencies. The Palestinians have been victims for a long time, and many of them enjoy this status, because it makes self-criticism superfluous. But in this way they give the Jews and Israelis, respectively, exactly what they want: their undivided attention. Instead of telling them: “Look, go to the Germans and tell the Germans”, the Palestinians supply the Israelis with both: the victim role they need for their own perpetrator role, and a 100% attention.
There is one thing that the Israelis have what the Palestinians don’t have: the Israelis stick together. They stick together because they had a Holocaust together. It is unimaginable how this will bring a people together. Maybe the Israelis even want to show this to their Palestinians, and want to kill them into such a situation. There is hardly a way how a Jew could be cold towards the suffering of another Jew. And be it the way that a man called “Leibele” did it in the classic German Ralph Giordano documentary film “Israel, for heaven sake, Israel”. Leibele resortet to scratching his own toes until they were dripping blood so that people would come and care for him. And they accepted this game with a conspirative smile: “He just needs some attention, you know.”
The Palestinian lobby lacks the ability of cooperation, because they rarely talk about Palestine. They are too busy with the Israelis. Moreover, greater parts of the Palestinian society are authoritarian. I often made the experience that even main Palestinian organisations do not encourage cooperation.
Activist friends are globally making the same experience. I have good practical examples, but I was ordered not to mention them. Pity. Anyway, the established Palestinian lobby is doing a bad job, Ladies and Gentleman, and we need some change here. There are far more young Palestinians than old Palestinians and we cannot ignore this fact. I have made experiences of different kinds and I know that there is a potential. Had we a common aim and not only a common enemy.
This hypersensitivity and over-eagerness to sue people is distorting the discourse at the expense of the Palestinians. Small wonder that Germans, for example, are afraid of criticizing Israel, if they have to deal with such overreactions. Let us also remember the recent problems of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, the founder of which, Uri Avnery, who I presently hold in high esteem, is being pushed on the pages of AKdH (and many other Jewish Internet sites) almost as an alibi. When Gush Shalom circulated a brochure among Israeli soldiers in which they talked tacheles (i.e.
straight), the Israeli public reacted in a similar manner to AKdH: of course you may criticize, but not so far that it could bring about real changes!
It is sad that good men like brother Sami Althof, for whom I had a lot of good feelings, do not have the courage to have a consequential opinion. If he only pumped up Sharon once in a way he did with Latuff! Where is the sense of proportionality? The deeper reason for the anti-anti-Semitic howling and the resort to law suits is that many Jews do not consider themselves to be sufficiently acknowledged as victims of the Holocaust, an argument which surely has a point to it, because Germany - as is known, has not come to terms with its past. The lack of identity among the Jews, which
is common knowledge for activists like Althof, is bridged by this; a substitutional home is created through merely building an antithesis to others (right-wing extremists, racists, anti-Semites, Palestinians). The Palestinians frequently are not much better; however, it is not the Palestinians who occupy Israel, but it is the Israelis who occupy Palestine. This is often forgotten.
Sami Althof's unwillingly comical comment on this criticizm, which he made in an email, is that hypersensitivity is "an old anti-Semitic stereotype of mind". I rest my case.
This text is a published article here: 
