Schlaglicht Israel Nr. 10/10 Aktuelles aus israelischen Tageszeitungen 17. Mai – 01. Juni 2010 1. Militäreinsatz gegen internationalen Schiffskonvoi Mindestens neun Aktivisten wurden bei einem Militäreinsatz der israelischen Armee gegen einen internationalen Schiffskonvoi, der Hilfsgüter in den Gazastreifen bringen sollte, getötet. Bereits im Vorfeld wurde in den israelischen Medien intensiv diskutiert, wie mit der„Friedens-Flottille“, deren deklariertes Ziel es war, die israelische Blockade des Gazastreifens zu durchbrechen, umzugehen sei. Die Olmert-Regierung gewährte in der Vergangenheit mehrmals Schiffen den Zugang, die amtierende Regierung jedoch hatte im Vorjahr ein Schiff an der Landung gehindert. Israel hatte mehrmals angeboten, die Hilfsgüter im Hafen von Ashdod zu entladen und sie dann in den GazaStreifen zu transportieren. Dies war von den Organisatoren der Aktion abgelehnt worden. Vertreter der israelischen betonen in ihren Stellungnahmen, dass die israelischen Soldaten in Selbstverteidigung gehandelt hätten. Sie seien auf einem der sechs Schiffe von gewaltbereiten Aktivisten mit Eisenstangen, Schleudern und anderen Waffen angegriffen worden und hätten erst daraufhin das Feuer eröffnet. Im Ausland wurde der israelische Militäreinsatz stark kritisiert. Insbesondere die Türkei, unter deren Flagge das größte der Schiffe fuhr und aus der ein Großteil der Aktivisten stammt, verurteilte Israel scharf. Auch bei den Toten handelt es sich offenbar größtenteils um türkische Staatsbürger. Ankara rief den türkischen Botschafter aus Israel zurück. In Istanbul und anderen europäischen Großstädten und im Nahen Osten kam es zu Demonstrationen gegen das israelische Vorgehen. Fiasco on the high seas “With a single foolish move, the Israeli cabinet cast the Muslim Brotherhood in the role of the victim and the Israel Navy as the villain and simultaneously opened European, Turkish, Arab, Palestinian and internal Israeli fronts. In so doing, Israel is serving Hamas' interests better than Hamas itself has ever done.[…] Perhaps the most troubling question in the wake of this fiasco on the high sea is this: Who is navigating our ship of state, and toward what catastrophe are the captains of this ship of fools steering us?” Ari Shavit, HAA 01.06.10 Ending Israel’s losing streak “Obviously the fact that the mission ended with at least six soldiers wounded and at least 10 Hamas supporters dead makes clear that there were significant failures in both the IDF’s training for and execution of the mission.[…] Israel is the target of a massive information war, unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds. […] It is clear that the information strategy for contending with the flotilla was ill-conceived. Rather than attack Turkey for its facilitation of terrorism, and openly prepare charge sheets against the flotilla’s organizers, crew and passengers for their facilitation of terrorism in breach of both domestic law and international law, the information efforts were largely concentrated on irrelevancies.[…] Israel is the target of a massive information war. For it to win this war, it needs to counter its enemies’ lies with the truth.[…] Israel is the frontline of the free world. Its ability to defend itself and deter its foes is the single most important guarantee of international peace.” Caroline Glick, JPO 01.06.10 1

Like a puppet on a string “No explanation can justify or white-wash the crime committed here, nor is there any excuse for the stupidity with which the government and the army acted.[…] A small Turkish organization imbued with religious fanaticism and hostility toward Israel[…] dragged Israel into a trap precisely because it knew exactly how Israel would respond – like a puppet on a string.[…] Through a combination of enormous military force and fatal error in predicting the level of resistance, [Israel] killed and wounded civilians.[…] Israel’s action yesterday was a natural outgrowth of its shameful and prolonged blockade on Gaza.[…] It has been failing for four years already. In other words, it is not only immoral, it is also impractical. Indeed, it is making the whole situation even worse, as we can see at this very moment, and doing mortal damage to Israel as well.” David Grossman, HAA 01.06.10 Predictable Israeli fiasco “The Gaza-bound protestors would not dare behave that way vis-à-vis the Turkish, American, or even Italian Navy. Despite Israel’s immense power, the Jewish State repeatedly finds itself in situations where it refrains from using its force wisely.[…] [Barak ordered] the IDF to adopt an impossible policy: Stopping the flotilla using force, while doing it without using force. We see the result before us now.[…] He feared the images, and therefore ordered the takeover to get underway at early morning hours, much before the ships crossed into Gaza’s territorial waters.[…] The approach chosen by Barak is weak and conveys a sense of a weakness.[…] When Israel conveys a sense of weakness is it any wonder that a mob would charge at a commando and attempt to lynch him?[…] Israel loses its deterrent power, Israeli troops are perceived as weak, and when they encounter real distress the immediate response is the utilization of violence that makes us look very bad.[…] However, it’s not too late yet. Netanyahu can announce the immediate dismissal of Ehud Barak. He is at fault for the incident. Netanyahu can also announce a change in Barak’s policy of a Gaza blockade: A final and real disengagement from the Gaza Strip.” Avi Trengo, JED 31.05.10 Peace activists? More like“peace” militants “As expected, the provocation mounted by Muslim organizations in association with‘peace activists’ was successful beyond their wildest dreams: There were casualties. They can now continue pointing the finger at Israel and blaming it for everything under the sun.[…] The humanitarian supplies brought on board were just a ploy to hide their avowed objective.[…] The militants were not interested in any humanitarian operation. They wanted to carry out their joint Arab-European propaganda offensive against Israel in order to delegitimize the Jewish state, deepen its isolation and provoke an international outcry.[…] Did Israel have a choice? It had to stop the flotilla since no one knew who the people on the ships were and what exactly they carried. Had the ships been allowed to go through, others would have followed, perhaps bringing weapons(and who knows, maybe terrorists) to Hamas.” Zvi Mazel, JPO 01.06.10 Israel walked straight into the trap “We can go on shouting that there were not peace activists waiting on the boat but thugs looking for a fight. That may be right but the game being played today is for the hearts of viewers and decision makers in the world's capitals, and claims based on facts, regretfully, are not relevant.[…] The person winning the points in this contest is not the person that is right but the person who produces the most convincing pictures and voices. This principle was known before the flotilla set sail but despite that Israel walked straight into the trap.[…] Why did the political echelon send the best of our boys onto boats packed with 600 activists armed with TV cameras and satellite phones? Did the commandos of the 13th squadron believe that they could neutralize Al Jazeera's correspondents?[…] And why were these soldiers ordered to board the boat instead of just surrounding it at sea until the international media lost interest and they were forced to return to the port from which they embarked? The media strategy that should have guided the decision makers in Jerusalem should have been to avoid contact between the soldiers and the boats' passengers at any price. Because this was not done the other side has won a propaganda victory.” Jacky Hougy, GLO 31.05.10 2

The rush to judgement “Although so much remained to be clarified, there could be no doubt that the injury and loss of life was a premeditated act not by Israeli armed forces, who had been repeatedly told to exercise restraint, but by those on the Mavi Marmara. Nonetheless, unsurprisingly, much of the international community rushed to pass judgment, and found Israel guilty.[…] What happened on the Mavi Marmara was tragic. But it did not justify the international response.[…] Confronted with such violence when they had been expecting non-violent protests, or at worst, low-level clashes, it is doubtful that the soldiers of any of the nations that rushed to criticize Israel would have acted any differently. Indeed, it is likely that the consequences would have been considerably worse.” JPO 01.06.10 Editorial The price of flawed policy “The grave political damage caused by the confrontation is all too clear. Relations with Turkey will probably deteriorate further[…]. The proximity talks with the Palestinians[…] will have trouble proceeding.[…] Europe and the United States will not be able to let Israel get away with a mere reprimand.[…] Someone must be held responsible for this disgraceful failure. There is no way to convince Israel's citizens and its friends around the world that Israel regrets the confrontation and its results, and is learning from its errors, other than setting up a state inquiry committee to investigate the decision-making process, and to decide who should pay for this dangerous policy.” HAA 01.06.10 Editorial A war for world’s future “It is clear to anyone with eyes in their head that the battle taking place off the Gaza shore is in fact a clash between an Islamist coalition which Turkey attempts to head – and which includes Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah on one hand – and forces with a liberal Western orientation, represented by Israel, on the other hand. This fight isn’t about Gaza. The battle is about the future of the Middle East: Will it be a future where the existing political order is maintained, or will radical Islamic forces rise and replace the current order, as already happened in Lebanon and in Turkey.” Mordechai Kedar, JED 31.05.10 2. Israels Linke Mit der Intention die israelische Linke wieder zu beleben, veröffentlichten der Dramatiker Shmuel Hasfari und der Anwalt Eldad Yaniv im September 2009 ihr Manifest„Die Nationale Linke, ein erster Entwurf“. Darin zielen sie darauf ab eine neue zionistische und soziale Bewegung ins Leben zu rufen, um so eine Alternative für linke Politik in Israel zu entwickeln. Schwerpunktmäßig will sich die Bewegung mit dem jüdischen und demokratischen Charakter des Staates Israel, dem Rückzug aus den besetzten palästinensischen Gebieten und mit sozialer Gerechtigkeit auseinandersetzen. Die Bewegung der„Nationalen Linken“ organisierte jetzt in Kooperation mit anderen linken Organisationen eine Demonstration in Jerusalem. In dieser wurde zu einem Ende der Siedlungstätigkeit im Westjordanland und zur Rückkehr zum sozialen Zionismus aufgerufen. Etwa 2000 Menschen nahmen an der Veranstaltung in Jerusalem teil. Demonstrating love “I was pleased to see that what remains of the Israeli Left gathered on May 15 for a rally in Jerusalem to voice support for the Jewish state and reclaim Zionism as being more than the domain of right-wing, religious settlers, as the stereotype has it. […] Nonetheless, one placard captured on news footage caused me to do a double take:‘Bara[c]k Obama: Please force peace on us.’[…] It was a direct plea to the leader of the US, who, no matter how serious the issue in the global scheme of things, will not be the one who actually has to live with the consequences.[…] The growing trend for Jewish organizations to urge greater international pressure[…] is always done in the name of liberal values while trampling on one of the most basic rights of all – for a country’s citizens to democratically determine their own future.[…] That there are still people on the Left who care enough to rally on a Saturday night is a positive sign for all of us. The calls for international intervention, on the other hand, are not progressive but defeatist. It is legitimate to want change, but the pressure should come from within.” Liat Collins, JPO 23.05.10 Zionists are not tattletales “The public[…] certainly does not share the joy with which the radical left welcomes the American 3

dictates. It disdains this left, whose campaign over the years[…] encourages alienation from parts of the homeland. For these reasons and others, fewer than 1,000 people[…] turned out for the leftist‘mass demonstration’ under the slogan‘Zionists, not settlers.’[…] The leftist coalition that organized the rally[…] broadcast hatred, alienation and denunciation. Hatred and excoriation were woven into almost every section of the‘manifesto’ of the‘national left,’ initiated by Eldad Yaniv and Shmuel Hasfari, first and foremost against the settlers.[…] That is the face of the left. And because of it[…] all the leftist groups together, with massive media encouragement, failed to produce much of a rally whose declared goal, said its organizers, was to be the beginning of a revolution.” Israel Harel, HAA 20.05.10 A glossary of newspeak slogans “It was sweet solace for the soul to learn that some on the entrenched Left still retain a smidgeon of hankering for the Zionist fold.[…] So it was with genuine joy that many of us received the news of initiatives to purportedly back away from postmodern/post-Zionist excesses and return to the patriotic middle ground that was historically the solid power base of this country’s Labor-Left. We sincerely yearned to applaud the renascent National Left[…]. But then came the pitifully under-attended but grossly over-hyped rally in Jerusalem which let the mangy cat out of the bag. These Peace Now/Labor/Meretz activists weren’t changing course.[…] The goal was to convince the Zionist majority that the Left is its sole true expression. The idea was to parade leftist dogmas as indispensable Zionist creeds.[…] These supposedly Zionist leftists weren’t joining the Zionist majority; they were out to transform that majority in their image. Anyone who dissents from their compulsory definition of Zionism – a far cry from Berl Katznelson, David Ben-Gurion and even Meir Ya’ari and Ya’acov Hazan – is pilloried as a heretic.” Sarah Honig, JPO 28.05.10 This is not Zionism “It appears that the main effort undertaken by organizers of the display[…] was to focus on demonizing the settlements. The messages they conveyed suffered from little contemplation, absence of logic, and dishonesty.[…] As long as the radical left continues to lie to itself this way, its objective won’t be achieved. The goal of the leftists in Saturday’s rally was to shift the leftist ideology back towards the center of the political spectrum and to draw the Left-Center camp that turned rightist along with reality. However, the means chosen by leftist leaders contradict their own interest.[…] For example,[…] Jerusalem should be the capital of two peoples. So partitioning our capital is about Zionism?[…] Those who object to Jews residing in Zion are not deserving of being called‘Zionists,’ period.[…] Yet many of Saturday’s protestors certainly forgot that Zionism views the state as Jewish. Aspiring for a‘state of all its citizens’ on the ruins of the Jewish State is not Zionism.[…] As one who espouses humanistic values, I would like to see a real Zionist Left in Israel. A leftist camp that resembles the historic Mapai party more than it does the Adalah organization; a leftist camp that will also sanctify matters of education and welfare and not only the industry of hatred towards settlers.” Assaf Wohl, JED 17.05.10 Left fighting for Israel “We don't hate. We cry. We're crying for our beloved Israel.[…] We told leftist protestors that our generation can no longer dodge its duties. That we have to assume responsibility and return to Zionism: End the occupation, with an agreement or without one, with a partner or without one, and rebuild a model society here. We will not allow the wonder established here by our grandmothers and grandfathers to drown in the sea.[…] We also leveled criticism at our own leftist camp.[…] The leftist camp which had become confused and embarrassed, and which in recent years escaped to the hollow and false centrist womb.[…] Zionism is first and foremost a Jewish home for the Jewish people, in a sovereign state with recognized borders. We shall defend our borders from within our borders. In order for this to happen, the Left needs to go back to being Zionist – in order to be big and broad and just, in order to resettle in the hearts of Israelis, and in order to defeat the Right, which in recent years had become post-Zionistic; a rightist camp that wants one state – a capitalistic and piggish one – between the River and Sea.” Eldad Yaniv, JED 20.05.10 4

Zionists are not racists “We came wearing white shirts and waving Israeli flags and placards saying‘Zionists, not settlers,’ and we sang‘Hatikva.’[…] This infuriated[the rightists]. The national flag and anthem have been the exclusive property of the right for years. That is why they won the elections. But the right is not the‘national camp’; it's the binational camp. The national camp is the left, which wants to get out of the territories.[…] When[the rightists] establish settlements, they are undermining the Jewish state's sovereignty and its internationally recognized borders, and aiding the Palestinians in perpetuating an Arab majority. And they are thereby fostering the declaration of a binational state.[…] Zionists are not settlers. Zionists are not racists. Let the Zionists return to their own borders.” Eldad Yaniv, HAA 25.05.10 Liberal Zionism “Until a few decades ago, discussion between the different streams of Zionism was still possible. Now, alas, the self-appointed representatives of the Zionist cause- primarily from the right- make it seem as if Zionism requires blind allegiance to Israeli governments; that a Zionist is someone who admires Jewish power, whatever form it takes; and that Zionism requires shutting off your critical faculties.[…] Liberal Zionism rejects the panicky call for a unified voice of all Jews and the frightened outcries not to wash Israel's dirty linen in front of the gentiles.[…] And it categorically rejects the demand that the policies of Israeli governments and the actions of Israeli government officials must be supported, even if they are destructive, inhuman and short-sighted. […] Liberal Zionism will give the majority of the young generation of Jews, both in Israel and the Diaspora, a way to express their identity and their love for what Israel could be without being stifled by right-wingers with totalitarian leanings.” Carlo Strenger, HAA 26.05.10 3. Die Brasilien-Türkei-IranVereinbarung Überraschend verkündete die iranische Regierung Mitte Mai die Unterzeichnung einer Vereinbarung zum iranischen Nuklearprogramm, die mit Hilfe des brasilianischen Präsidenten Luiz Inacio da Silva und des türkischen Regierungschefs Recep Tayyip Erdogan zustande kam. Die Vereinbarung ähnelt einem Kompromissvorschlag, der bereits 2009 von der IAEO unterbreitet wurde und vorsieht, dass der Iran 1200 kg Uran im Ausland anreichert, um im Gegenzug dafür Brennstoff für Forschungszwecke zu erhalten. Allerdings verpflichtet die Vereinbarung Teheran nicht dazu, die Urananreicherung ganz einzustellen. Außerdem wird davon ausgegangen, dass der Iran inzwischen über weit größere Mengen an Uran verfügt als im Vorjahr, womit weitere Bestände im Land verbleiben würden. Angesichts dieser Mängel äußerten die USA und andere westliche Länder Zweifel, ob die Vereinbarung einen Fortschritt darstellt. Gleichzeitig verkündete US-Außenministerin Hillary Clinton schon 24 Stunden nach Bekanntwerden der Vereinbarung, dass die Veto-Mächte des UNSicherheitsrats sich auf einen neuen Resolutionsentwurf für Sanktionen gegen den Iran geeinigt hätten. Don’t get excited by deal “The seemingly dramatic agreement we were just informed of, which emerged from Iran’s talks with world powers, will not prompt a solution to the crisis, or the disappearance of the danger of a nuclear bomb at the hands of the Ayatollah regime.[…] [It] will somewhat delay the international sanctions against them, grant them a bonus in the public opinion theater, and mostly provide an alibi for the Russians and Chinese to maintain excellent economic ties with Tehran.[…] Indeed, this is just part of the ongoing ritual of Iranian maneuvers aimed at buying time in order to get as close as possible to the bomb.” Ronen Bergmann, JED 18.05.10 The fruits of weakness “The deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined US efforts to curb Iran’s program.[…] It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost in lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a US president given to apologies and appeasement.” C. Krauthammer, JPO 23.05.10 5

Iranian ploy backfires “Iran thought that bringing in Turkey and Brazil in an effort to resolve the disagreement would crush the American initiative or at least sabotage it, yet in practice the deal may prompt the opposite result. The Iranian ploy is so transparent and crude that nobody in the world buys into it, with the exception of its own initiators and Iran supporters worldwide. Moreover, the Great Powers are infuriated that second-tier states such as Turkey and Brazil are trying to dictate the terms to them. It’s also possible that the latest ploy was simply the last straw.[…] Obama is facing a challenge to his nuclear strategy, his international leadership, and his ability to manage crises. He has an opportunity to boost America’s status in the world in general, and in the Middle East in particular. The question is whether he’ll be wise enough to take advantage of it.” Eytan Gilboa, JED 21.05.10 “Nach dem Abkommen, das in Teheran unterzeichnet wurde, ist es schwierig, das weitere amerikanische Verhalten abzuschätzen. Europa und die USA werden sich zu einer Reaktion gezwungen sehen und ihre Reaktion wird zeigen, ob sie noch in der Lage sind, internationale Maßnahmen anzuführen.[…] Es häufen sich die Anzeichen dafür, dass Israel letzten Endes eine schwere, doch unvermeindliche Entscheidung wird treffen müssen. Das Zögern der amerikanischen Regierung in Hinblick auf das Abkommen verringert die Aussichten auf scharfe Sanktionen[…]. Wird das überraschende Abkommen Türkei-IranBrasilien die Amerikaner zu energischen Aktionen treiben oder wird es ein schlagender Beweis für ihre Schwäche werden?“ Yakov Amirdror, IHY 24.05.10 N. Korea, S. Korea, Israel and Iran „Brazil and Turkey’s deal to enrich uranium for Iran wrecks any chance that the US will gain its soughtfor unanimity in the Security Council against Iran. Even if the sanctions resolution passes, it will be Pyrrhic victory for the US that will have destroyed its credibility as a negotiator with its allies and its enemies alike.[…] Given the new deal’s similarity to the offer Obama made the Iranians last year, the administration will have great difficulty discrediting it or even providing a coherent explanation for its opposition to the deal.” Caroline Glick, JPO 21.05.10 Iran’s safety belt “In October 2009, when it was proposed that Iran replace its enriched uranium stockpile with nuclear fuel rods, no one publicly demanded that the exchange be conditioned on Iran ceasing to enrich uranium independently.[…] We can assume that had Iran accepted the Western proposal, thereby signing on to the same things agreed on in the deal with Turkey, the world would have been thrilled, praising Barack Obama's diplomatic skills and describing Iran's surrender to Western pressure as a miracle. Except the Iranian regime decided to grant the ‘diplomatic gift’ to Turkey and Brazil, not the United States- that's why there has been an outrage.[…] Instead of accepting the deal between Iran and Turkey[…] and continuing to threaten sanctions unless Iran ceased to enrich uranium, a new proposal is being formulated whose goals will not likely be achieved and which may torpedo the agreement with Turkey.[…] The more problematic result of these events is that after the blow Obama struck at the exchange deal, it is doubtful whether there is room for any sort of dialogue between him and the Iranian regime.[…] Lacking any other worthy alternative, there is no reason not to try out the Turkish option.” Zvi Bar’el, HAA 23.05.10 Ängste und Lügen „Das Regime in Teheran ist panisch, es hat Todesängste vor Sanktionen und vor internationaler Isolation.[…] Warum hat sich der Iran der Türkei und Brasilien angeschlossen? Weil diese Staaten in der Fantasiewelt Ahmadinejads eine wichtige Rolle spielen, einer Welt ohne Westen und ohne die USA, einer Welt, in der der Iran und die Dritte Welt die Führung übernommen haben.[…] Niemand nimmt das kuriose Abkommen Ernst.[…] Scharfe Sanktionen gegen den Iran werden mit Sicherheit erfolgen.“ Guy Bachor, JED 27.05.10 A small but important step „After several months of efforts, the U.S. administration has put together a new outline of sanctions against Iran, which is to be submitted to the UN Security Council for approval. The United States agreed to water down its initial demands in order to obtain support from Russia and China on imposing harsher measures against Iran if the Islamic Republic continues advancing its nuclear program.[…] 6

Still, the resolution sets before Iran a united front of world powers, who have overcome their differences and neutralized Iran's efforts to take advantage of the growing competition between the United States and China.[…] The message has been received in Tehran- which had tried to foil the sanctions' formulation by reaching an agreement with Brazil and Turkey to enrich uranium outside Iran. The Americans found this last-minute agreement unsatisfactory and continued in their efforts to propose harsher sanctions.[…] Although Israel finds the sanctions to be brought before the Security Council far from satisfactory, the agreement reached by the world powers is extremely important.” HAA 21.05.10 Editorial 4. Einreiseverweigerung für Noam Chomsky Am 16. Mai wurde der prominente Linguist und Israelkritiker Noam Chomsky von Israel an der Einreise in die Palästinensischen Autonomiegebiete gehindert. Der Amerikaner war von Jordanien aus angereist, um einen Vortrag an der palästinensischen Birzeit Universität zu halten. Israelische Grenzbeamte verweigerten ihm jedoch die Einreise. Ein Regierungssprecher bezeichnete den Vorfall später als Missverständnis und beteuerte, Chomsky würde bei einem erneuten Versuch, das Westjordanland zu besuchen, nicht aufgehalten werden. Chomsky entschied sich jedoch, seinen Vortrag per Videokonferenz zu halten. Indes befürworteten mehrere Knessetabgeordnete, dass der jüdischamerikanische Linke nicht ins Land gelassen wurde. Dies ist nicht das erste Mal in den letzten Wochen, dass Israel einem bekannten ausländischen Aktivisten die Einreise verwehrt. Bereits im April war dem spanischen Clown Ivan Prado die Einreise und Teilnahme an einem Festival in Ramallah verweigert worden. Fearing the other “The decision to expel Professor Noam Chomsky from the West Bank border crossing in order to prevent him from delivering a lecture at Birzeit University is a foolish act in a frequent series of recent follies. Put together, they may mark the end of Israel as a law-abiding and freedom-loving state, or at least place a large question mark over this notion.[…] In Israel our government has already started to threaten the freedom, or at least the freedom of those perceived as‘others.’[…] Meanwhile, our courts issue gag orders routinely and without much thought, possibly in order to cover the shame. We even expelled clowns who wished to arrive at a festival in Ramallah because we are scared.[…] For that reason, it would not be exaggerated to say that the decision to silence Professor Noam Chomsky is an attempt to put an end to freedom in the State of Israel. I am not referring to the foolishness inherent in providing ammunition for those who argue that Israel is fascist, but rather, to the fear that we may indeed be in the process of becoming that way.” Boaz Okon, JED 17.05.10 Declaring war on the intellect “The government's outrageous treatment of those with the audacity to criticize its policies has reached new heights. Israel looks like a bully who has been insulted by a superior intellect and is now trying to fight it, arrest it and expel it.[…] ‘Israel,’ Chomsky was informed,‘doesn't like what you say.’ Is this a reasonable pretext for a democratic state to detain someone for questioning or hold him up at the border? And who is this‘Israel’ that doesn't like what Chomsky says? The general public? The Interior Ministry?[…] Interior Minister Eli Yishai and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should apologize to Chomsky and make sure that he is allowed to move freely around Israel and throughout the West Bank, including Bir Zeit University.” HAA 18.05.10 Editorial Badge of honor for Israel “Quite a few freedom of speech fans, champions of democracy, and other people detached from the realities of our life and convinced that Birzeit University is located in Switzerland stood up to fight on behalf of Professor Noam Chomsky, who was prevented from entering Israel.[…] There is no doubt that freedom of speech is a basic democratic right.[…][But] where is the borderline between democracy and suicidal tendencies? Between freedom of speech and reckless abandon? […] Had Israel allowed him to enter, this would have been interpreted in Ramallah, Gaza, Damascus, and Tehran as yet another sign that Israel is no longer able to produce antibodies against the internal erosion wrought upon us by the Left and threatening to rot the Center as well. The‘entry banned’ seal 7

stamped in his passport is a badge of honor for Israel. It’s proof that there are some people among us who still hold on to their survival instincts.” Arieh Eldad, JED 19.05.10 The value of free speech “Chomsky, who in the 1970s publicly defended French neo-Nazi Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson, represents a particularly pernicious strain of anti-Zionism. He embodies the‘proud to be ashamed to be a Jew’ figure, so unfortunately rampant in recent years in certain academic circles. […] Any country with a healthy instinct for survival would want to protect itself against the likes of him. And it is not inconceivable that his opinions, expressed among Palestinians, could lead to violence.[…] Nevertheless, blocking free speech is the wrong approach. That freedom is too precious to sacrifice in circumstances such as this one. If Chomsky had been allowed to pass freely[…] his visit would have received just a fraction of the media attention he ended up enjoying.[…] But more substantively, Chomsky should be allowed to voice his crackpot claims[…] so they can be scrutinized for their veracity and logic, or lack thereof. The marketplace of ideas should be open to Chomsky and others like him. In the end, reason will win out.” JPO 21.05.10 Editorial Stranger than fiction “Nobody in his right mind can claim that Chomsky represents a security threat to Israel. He’s 81 years old. He is not a specialist on armed insurrection, and he has never called for violence against Israel.[…] He is even against an academic boycott of Israel’s universities – a rather popular cause of the European left in recent years.[…] I have never heard of a democratic state denying entry to thinkers[…] who neither call for violence or break local or international law. So what on earth is happening to Israel?[…] Israel is currently fighting international calls to boycott Israeli universities and academics. Does anybody think that denying entry to Chomsky will strengthen our case? If anything, barring Chomsky gives ammunition to those who say that Israel is infringing on academic freedom in the Palestinian Authority, and that a boycott against its universities is therefore justified.” Carlo Strenger, HAA 17.05.10 5. Medienquerschnitt Die Vielfalt der in Israel relevanten Themen kann in einem Medienspiegel nicht umfassend wiedergegeben werden. Um den deutschen LeserInnen dennoch einen Einblick in das breite Themenspektrum, das in den Medien behandelt wird, zu gewähren, veröffentlichen wir in dieser Schlaglichtausgabe wieder eine kleine Auswahl an Themen, die in den letzten Wochen die israelische Gesellschaft bewegten. Über eine Gesetzesinitiative, die es erlauben würde, die Behandlung von Hamas-Angehörigen in israelischen Gefängnissen zu verschärfen: The overdue Shalit bill „Regardless of whether taking away their TV remote controls or their capacity to maximize their academic potential brings Schalit’s release closer, it is frankly offensive that Hamas inmates should enjoy such perks at a time when Schalit’s Hamas captors have failed for almost four years to so much as confirm his well-being, and when they continue to flout international humanitarian laws – notably by refusing to allow the Red Cross to visit him.[…] A democracy’s strength derives from its insistence on those freedoms, those moralities that are denied those who must live under the rule of the likes of Hamas. In the case of Schalit, an attempt to apply pressure to his captors by denying Hamas inmates benefits and opportunities that Israel has no moral obligation to provide, while remaining thoroughly committed to the provisions of international law on the treatment of prisoners, represents a belated correction of balance.” JPO 25.05.10 Editorial Make them beg for deal “The only way to prompt a fundamental change in the static situation of the Gilad Shalit affair is to press the prisoners so that they in turn press their leaders. With the exception of very basic humanitarian rights, there is no reason why Hamas terrorists will be granted any extras during their detainment.[…] The High Court of Justice must go as far as possible here. Israel must change its attitude and make the other side become the one wanting a deal; make them beg for a deal to be finalized.” Hanoch Daum, JED 24.05.10 8

Über den Boykott von Elvis Costello und anderer Musikern, die sich dazu entschieden, Konzerte in Israel abzusagen: Elvis, you are singing for the rejectionists “I don’t know who you think you’re helping, but it’s certainly not the innocent Palestinians with whom you claim to identify, the relative moderates who want our current fragile negotiations to bear fruit. The way to do your bit for them would have been to play in Ramallah as well as Caesarea. True, when Leonard Cohen offered to do just that last year, Palestinian rejectionists made sure he was thwarted. Unlike you, however, he had the wisdom to go ahead with his Israel appearance, and strike a small blow against those who oppose compromise and reconciliation, a small blow against the blind-alley rejectionism that you have foolishly chosen to empower.” David Horovitz, JPO 21.05.10 Elvis Costello’s hypocrisy “I feel no anger towards artists who are unwilling to perform in Israel.[…] Israel is indeed home to ongoing occupation and human rights are indeed methodically violated on a daily basis; regrettably, there is no single act by an artist or group of artists, or art consumers that can change the situation despite the efforts and good will. If there’s an infuriating aspect in the acts of Costello, Carlos Santana, and Gil Scott-Heron, it has to do with the decision to perform, only to call it off later. After all, the occupation and oppression did not start all of a sudden, exactly in the period between the start of ticket sales and the show, right?[…] The belated discovery of the local reality shows that the boycotters-cancellers actually have no ongoing interest in the state of human rights around here, but rather, a momentary interest in a politically correct label. In simple language we can refer to this as ‘hypocrisy’, and it is possible and necessary to condemn the boycotters-cancellers for their limited opinionating.” Ariana Melamed, JED 18.05.10 HAA= Haaretz HZO= Ha Tzofe IHY= Israeli HaYom JED= Jedioth Ahronoth JPO= Jerusalem Post MAA= Maariv GLO= Globes Die Artikel aus IHY wurden dem Medienspiegel der Deutschen Botschaft Israel entnommen. Veröffentlicht am: 02. Juni 2010 Verantwortlich: Dr. Ralf Hexel, Leiter der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel Redaktion: Maike Harel Niko Pewesin Homepage: www.fes.org.il Email: fes@fes.org.il 9