« This Will Never See the Light of Day in the German Media | Main | Sueddeutsche Zeitung: Bush the Underestimated Messiah in Mickey Mouse Ears »

Comments

It's not "Herren" which would translate into "Sirs" but "Herrn" which translates into "Master" and nothing else. "Herrn" does never translate into "Patriarch" btw, only "Herr" could be translated into Patriarch if the context is right, e.g. in "Der Herr des Hauses".

This article is about as racist as the usual insults from American Liberals ( black and white) against black Conservatives when they call them "House Slaves" or " Uncle Tom ". This is a different form of racism, they don't hate them because they're black, they hate them because they are Conservatives, despite the fact that they're black. Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes and others are dangerous for the liberals because they don't fit in the "racist white men" category. For some strange reason the left wingers think black people owe them something, for a long time they counted on the black vote and in exchange they were pandering to the minorities with all kind of social programs and affirmative action. But now there is an intelligent and educated black woman like Condi Rice and she is a conservative and not some civil rights activist. A women who could be a role model for other black people and a deadly threat to the liberal agenda. So what can they ( the liberals ) do, they have to portray this woman as the servant of the evil white man and as a traitor to her own race.

For a site allowing very abusive and insulting comments AGAINST the German media you sure have a low tolerance threshold for different opinions, as the deletion of my former note proved. I'm even less impressed now. (Note from David: Check our comment policy, Mentar)

I'll repeat my three questions:

1) About Rice being a loyal yay-sayer: When did Rice _ever_ contradict Bush, showing something like an opinion independent from his?

2) Do you seriously contest that Bush has justified his politics MULTIPLE times with a reference to god? And that Bush officially declared freedom to be god's gift to humanity which he feels bound to spread?

3) Where was Rice's color or gender an issue in the article?

Off topic, but Britain seems to have its own Abu Ghraib now:
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/news/2005/01/19/irak__folter__briten/irak__folter__briten__schockfotos.html

So, this is exactly the same situation: Soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. And these are pictures that look shockingly familiar. But I wonder whether they will also receive the same treatment.

Yeah, there will be new headlines "Blair under pressure". (After all, he is Bush's poodle!) But will there also be a "Spiegel" cover? Will there be a discussion about what brutal and brainless monsters British soldiers are? How Britain has lost its values? And will we see these pictures for months and months and months and be told how they discredit everything that Britain stands for?

@ Mentar

1) Show me instances where Joschka Fischer has openly contradicted Schröder in public. Is he "the voice of his master" because he is mostly loyal to his boss? Has any German newspaper ever written such things about any German politician, as loyal to his boss as some of them may have been? And do those journalists know what is happening behind closed doors? Is it necessarily a bad thing to send a single, clear message in front of the public, while perhaps debating in private?

2) Would you be so kind as to show me one single U.S. president who did not frequently refer to God, who didn't believe in America's mission to spread freedom and who didn't think that freedom was God-given and universal?

And isn't there some document called "Declaration of Independence" (which you may have heard of) that says the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Is that evil wacko fundamentalism? I don't see the point. Is Mr. Bush "evil" because he is a man of faith? Is Chancellor Schröder "good" because he refused to add "so help me God" to his oath of office? What is bad about believing that freedom is God-given and universal and wanting to liberate people from oppression?

3) If the master/slave-rhetoric isn't enough for you, I don't know what proof you need.

From the same people who murdered my grandma and 5-year old aunt in cold blood...

Thank God we now live in America!

This article came out of a geramn magazine. Why does racism surprise us? The entire nation of germany is racist. It's about "white power" and all that to this day. It's funny to watch european cling to each other--they need an entire continent to compete against the USA--and they are basically drowning each other in their own ignorance. Funny--60 years ago europeans were killing each other in war, but it seems today they will kill each other with their love for each other. Hehehehe!

1) Excuse me?? Like a few dozen times? Please don't get this wrong, but you can't know too much about German politics, because Fischer is from a different party than Schroeder, and there are regular rifts when it comes to policies. Especially 1-2 years ago they have been disagreeing about almost every important decision. That's not uncommon in German ruling coalitions.

2) My point is that Bush is most definitely the president which has been embracing the most christian-fundamental approach in the recent history. His faith is a major part of his image. Even recently he went on record that for himself, he could not imagine anyone doing his job without a strong link to god. Also, Bush has constantly promoted judges who are known to are strong "in faith". In all science matters, he has preferred appointing people with restrictive religious views over those who had better scientific skills in their area. Yes, Bush is a fundamentalist. Is that evil? Not necessarily, but it's a dangerous thing, especially when it's mixed with missionary zeal. We've seen it in action.

3) Look up "racism" in a dictionary. You'll find out that it has something to do with "race", not being subservient. And that Condi has proven to be the latter has been fairly evident.

I'll readily concede that the picture is highly provocative, and arguably tasteless. It's not racist though. And the message conveyed by it - that Condi is first and foremost a loyal follower of her superior, is hardly to be questioned. There were tons of opportunities to have a different standpoint to Bush's highly questionable politics. People like Powell did this. Condi didn't have the guts for that, she just spouted the party line. ALL the time.

1) Ahem. I *am* German. And I am a student of political science, concentrating on foreign policy. And I couldn't tell more than one or two serious cases of open disagreement between Schröder and Fischer (Schröder's "German way" being among them). And I think that, too, was more a matter of style (Fischer definitely is the better diplomat of the two) than of substance.

2) Have a close look at Nobel peace prize laureate Jimmy Carter and you will be shocked to see how strongly religious he was. Or take Ronald Reagan. Take FDR's central speeches and prayers during World War II. They are as religious as you can get. You would call them "fundamentalist". They aren't.

When Bush says that he can't imagine someone being President without a raltion to God, I think it's obvious for every not particularly ill-meaning person to understand what he means. It's not the easiest job in the world, especially if one is vilifief like Bush is and is confronted with such difficult times as he is. His faith gives him the strength he needs to be able to do his job. So what?

As regards judges, Bush has always stressed that religious credentials are *not* what makes him decide whom to pick. You may not believe this and you may be right, but I would still like to see proof that Bush picked the judges he picked for religious reasons and not because he believed them to be able to do a good job. Religious people can do a good job, too, you know?

3) I'd say that slavery is racism. Talking of a "master" and implicant Condi Rice to be a "servant" is using the language of slavery. That's plain racism to me.

Mentar,

You forgot Jimmy Carter. An no I have not seen any split with the red=greens on issues of foriegn policy. The topic is foriegn policy not internal domestic policy.

As you seem to know less about American government you should know the national security advisor is not required to be approved by the Senate. There is a special relationship between the NSA and the President. That was one of the issues about Dr Rice testifying before the 9 11 Commission; to insure this relationship remainded intact not only for President Bush but for those Presidents who followed him.

As for Freedom, just who do you think gives it. For germans it has to be either GOD or the US. Have your pick!

The germans surely did not obtain it on their own.

@Gabi: Du schriebst als erstes "... Beweise aktuell greifbar sind, daß es keine Folter war und schon gar keine systematische" und zum Schluss "der Folterskandal, der keiner war". Du verneinst also zunächst die Folter, wodurch es dann auch gar keinen Folterskandal mehr geben kann. Aber selbst wenn Du "nur" einen Folterskandal verneinst, so habe ich doch ausführlich dargelegt, weshalb ich denke, dass es für mich trotzdem eindeutig einer war.

@'beimami' und der Rest, nochmals, da Ihr das ja offensichtlich nicht verstehen wollt: ich habe mich mit meinem ersten Beitrag ganz konkret auf Gabis Kommentar bezogen, die Abu Ghraib hier zu diesem Stern-Artikel als erste erwähnt hat. Darauf und auf nichts anderes habe ich reagiert und werde sowas auch weiterhin tun, auch wenn mein Kommentar dann nichts mehr mit dem entsprechenden Artikel zu tun haben sollte.
Nicht ich habe übrigens Ray diese Diskussion aufgezwungen, sondern er reagierte auf meine an Gabi gerichtete Nachfrage, indem er meine hier geäußerte Meinung zu diskreditieren versuchte (mit den Worten "Angry Left", "Your goal is not the truth", "political crusade motivated by hatred"), ohne jedoch auf die von mir angesprochenen Punkte einzugehen, sondern plötzlich von Abu Ghraib abzulenken, worauf ich mich einzig und allein bezogen habe. Und um auf Rays Bemerkung einzugehen: natürlich komme ich immer wieder hierher, denn ich möchte die Meinung vieler verschiedener Leute erfahren, um mir hinterher meine eigene zu bilden oder bereits gefestigte Standpunkte von mir zu hinterfragen. Ich bezeichne eine solche Meinungsbildung als offen. Dass man hier allerdings gerne diffamiert wird, wenn man etwas schreibt, dass nicht in Euer Weltbild passt, sollte Euch selbst zu denken geben.


Ich werde mich allerdings hüten, mich nun zum Stern-Artikel zu äußern, weil ich ja vorher von anderen Dingen gesprochen habe und ich Eure Aufmerksamkeit nicht noch weiter strapazieren kann.


@Ariks: "Herren" and "Herrn" are both forms of "Herr" and I don't know of any distinction between both of them. One needs to get the exact meaning out of the context. "Herr" could mean different things as boss, gent, gentleman, lord, master or mister. Most of the times "Herr" translates to the last, i.e. "I'd like to talk to Mr. Smith." <-> "Ich wuerde gern mit Herrn Smith sprechen."
Although, I'm sure the Stern-journalists did not mean "Mr." when writing their article.


@Amihasser: Weltweit nennt man so Leute wie Dich Idioten!

@ Mentar

Btw:

That Bush is such an evil fundamentalist probably also explains why he gained so strongly on his 2000 result among Catholics, Jews and non-churchgoers. They're all evil evangelical fundmentalists in reality, too! (Or was that success of Bush's due to evil fear-mongering? Or Diebold voting machines?)

Congratulations, Ray!
Your article made it in the selection at www.realclearpolitics.com (a daily read of mine).
Glad to see you there.

@joe and wuldorblogger: You already gave the best example yourself. The "German Way" was highly contested. Also, who decided that we were talking about foreign politics only? But even if I accept your convenient restriction, the fact remains that I can't remember a SINGLE instance in which Rice publically offered a differing opinion than Bush's. Can you? It sure doesn't look like it.

So you're saying that in her function as national security advisor Rice wouldn't have been in a POSITION to offer differing points of views? You can't possibly be serious. This would have been her goddamn duty. The hilarious thing is that as far as we know, she didn't offer any real views of her own IN NONOFFICIAL talks. Face it, people. Yay-sayer.

Jimmy Carter is probably correct, I guess I should have clarified "recent" history. I'd prefer to debate about timeframes when I was actively following politics myself, and that would begin with Reagan. From him onward, Bush was clearly the biggest fundamentalist.

wuldorblogger: Bush makes alot of claims. No child left behind etc, don't get me started on his CLAIMS. Fact is that his nominations always fit the religious profile. Remember the famous bible quote: An ihren Taten werdet ihr sie erkennen. (You'll recognize them by their deeds - dunno the official English version) And hell yes, you CAN recognize Bush by what he DOES, not by what he talks.

And joe, your quote would have been okay if you had said "who GAVE it". The way you worded it is beyond arrogant.

@wuldorblogger: Since you ask me, the main reason in my opinion was that he gained because he tickled the American pride the best - to be the strongest and bravest, and always victorious. Many Americans were convinced that he was the "steadfast" one who would stay the course until victory. Kerry was a pale candidate who many people didn't sufficiently trust to stay the course. In a way it's divine justice that he will be the one to pull back the troops in 2006 - and not Kerry.

Mentar,

Yes it was arrogant and I DO NOT WANT YOU TO FORGET WHO DID. You seem to from time to time. *LOL* doesn't that just piss you off beyond words.

In fact, want to name one nation germany gave freedom to? I for some reason cannot think of a single one. Can you?

As stated the discussions between the NSA and the President are not open to public discussion. So who knows what she did or did not do.

To follow you line of thinking.

"Everyone knows it was the US that was responsible for the exinction of the dinosaurs. They could have stopped the asteroid but didn't. Have they denied it? No. Have they shown any proof of their innocence? No. Why? Because IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL

Klink your nick has changed but your logic has not.

@joe: It seems that you believe me to be someone else, otherwise I'd probably be annoyed about your silly attempts to put words into my mouth which I never said. This is the first time I'm posting here, following a link from Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Arrogance and glee mix well, you're giving a very good impression of exactly the type of American who is getting increasingly isolated in the world. The funny thing is that I've always been very appreciative and pro-American in political discussions in the past. All it took was Bush and his bunch of cronies who represent the ugly and dangerous America to alter this perception. But you're currently in the process of learning the hard way where this leads.

And of course the national advisor can offer positions which differ from the (usually pentagon-dominated) official version. Also, take Bob Woodward's book which was very indepth due to Bush's explicit approval. Except for a few run-ins with Rummy about who had which authority to mess things up, she did never do something like Powell a'la "Are you certain you want to do this, Mr President? You will own this place."

Well, whatever. The voice of reason is leaving, and the rest is in agreement. Happy new world.

@ mentar

That still doesn't explain why Bush won especially among Catholics, Jews, and non-churchgoers whereas his overall results among Protestants was, to my knowledge, even a little worse than in 2000. Not exactly the result you would expect for an evangelical "fundamentalist".

About Joschka and Gerd: Nice try to dodge that one, in affirming the one example I found myself. And as I said, that was no major disagreement in my eyes, either. Both were against the Iraq war, only that Fischer was somewhat more diplomatic. Yes, Bild wrote that they shouted at each other. Do I believe Bild? I don't know. But what about controversial questions like Russia or China where a green minister should be disgusted by the chancellor's policies that ignore human rights for the sake of profit? No diagreement there, whatsoever. Starting EU membership negotiations with Turkey? Adopting the EU constitution? The Kyoto Protocol? A permanent UNSC seat? German troops to Afghanistan? The Kosovo war - without UNSC approval and against the Green's pacifist dogma? Those were all important questions, many of them highly controversial in Germany. Have Schröder and Fischer openly disagreed on a single of them? Face it. Yay-sayer.

Excluding Jimmy Carter from "recent history" is quite a funny thing to do. That's less than thirty years ago. There's just three presidents between him and Bush 43. And Reagan wasn't that unreligious, either. I'd say that Clinton - although even he did stress his faith repeatedly - is more of an exception than Bush when it comes to faith.

As regards Bush's "claims" that you reject, I am in no position to judge "No Child Left Behind" (which, as far as I know, also is a bipartisan effort to a large extent). I also can't claim to have perfect insight into what the judges Bush nominated have done in every instance. I haven't heard any voices claiming they were not fit for their job, though, although some people certainly criticized one decision or the other. And I don't see any problem with Bush picking conservative (and, oh my God yes, religious) judges, when Clinton could pick liberal ones. Conservatives certainly aren't satisfied with the decisions of liberal judges and vice versa. This time around, it's the conservative's turn. The next democratic president can change that when a new vacancy arises. So what? That's democracy! It's not like Bush were installing a theocracy and abandoning democratic change. When the majority of Americans is fed up with the Republicans or the judges they pick or the decisions these judges make, they can cast their vote accordingly. They didn't this time. That's the will of the people. So get over it.

I wonder if any of the Bush the Christian Crusader people are willing to bet me that the word "God" is said less at Bush's 2nd Inaugural then in Lincoln's speech? From Lincoln's:

The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

What a Republican religious zealot!! At least he didn't say "Bring it on" when addressing the fight to end slavery...

I was wondering if a Stern believer could tell me of an example of a "non-godly mission" or when a politician has been applauded by the Stern with "non-godly mission" actually used?

I have made good friends playing an online game with Europeans since 2000. We are friendly enough to make jokes about politics without too much anger, but nothing gets to them like telling them something this site has posted. One even used the term "enemy" to describe this site. So from an ignorant, English-only speaking, crusading American---THANKS FOR THE SITE!

Einfache Aufgabe für linksradikale Weltverbesserer.

Ordne die Begriffe 1 bis 3 je einmal den Szenarien A, B und C zu.

1) Folter
2) Demütigung
3) Völkermord

A) Giftgasangrif auf kurdische Dörfer
B) Unterhosse auf dem Kopf tragen
C) Mit dem Auto durch die Stadt fahren und einen Menschen mit einem Seil hinterherschleifen.

I am sure the germans support this position by the EU.

While off topic... it is interesting so much for the compassion of the EU. Never let anything get in the way of making a euro

Tsunami-hit Thais told: Buy six planes or face EU tariffs

FRASER NELSON
POLITICAL EDITOR


TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.

The demand will come as a deep embarrassment to Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner, whose officials started the negotiation before the disaster struck Thailand - killing tens of thousands of people and damaging its economy.

While aid workers from across Europe are helping to rebuild Thai livelihoods, trade officials in Brussels are concluding a jets-for-prawns deal, which they had hoped to announce next month.

As the world’s largest producer of prawns, Thailand has become so efficient that its wares are half the price of those caught by Norway, the main EU prawn producer.

I liked Reinhardt's comment "puts a drag on her ability to contextualize and understand the assymetrical diplomatic and military stasis." How are you claiming to measure or judge such a high-flown sentiment? Answer: you can't. It's just flowery crap, a posited etiology for a disease whose symptoms you haven't yet identified.

Actually, you *can* measure and judge it. Specifically, referring to the state of the post-9/11 world as "assymetrical diplomatic and military stasis" is so laughably inaccurate that you can judge it to be complete nonsense.

It seems that Reinhardt is unaware of the meaning of the word 'stasis'.

@Reinhardt, Freundchin!

"Rice's accomplishments and her contributions as an academic to the body of knowledge prior to entering private business and public service are less than impressive. She'd published few papers of lasting value, and her field of expertise, US/Soviet relations, puts a drag on her ability to contextualize and understand the asymmetrical diplomatic and military stasis of the post 9/11 world--and her inability to focus on al Qaeda before 9/11/01, as the record demonstrates, only further suggests her unsuitability for high post."

What Ivory League faculty do you belong to? I would just assume that you must belong to a top University in order for you to make such a judgmental comment on Ms. Rice's career.

Truth of the matter, she was Provost of Stanford University before she accepted her position as Bush's national security advisor. In this capacity, she would discipline academic light weights like yourself who would defame the contributions of a fellow faculty members. She would also discipline you for you racism.

Ms Rice worked for three other presidents before working for George Bush. She is internationally known as an expert on Russian affairs.

Compare her curriculum vitae to German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who's only academic accomplishment was to hit a German policeman with a Molotov cocktail. Ditto other German big name politicians. Gerhard Schroeder was a hack in the SPD before he became a governor of Baden Wurtemburg. Green Party guru Daniel Cohen-Bennit's academic contribution is a poem exalting the joys of having sex with a 6 year-old boy.

Another point of interest is to compare the English Wikapedia bio with the German one. Both bios emphasize that Ms. Rice studied under Czech diplomat and academic Josef Korbel. What the German version conspicuously fails to mention is Korbel was Madeline Albright's father. What, she was tutored by the same person who tutored Clinton's foreign minister?

@zeta,
ich schrieb: "BTW, Abu Ghraib ist kein Thema mehr, solange die Beweise aktuell greifbar sind, daß es keine Folter war und schon gar keine systematische"

Du machst daraus, daß ich eine Aussage über die Folter gemacht habe. Das habe ich an der Stelle immer noch noch. Ich denke mal, daß Deutsch nicht deine Muttersprache ist, dann ist es natürlich schwer, genau in der Sprache zu sein.

Was du machst, machen im übrigen viele Journalisten. sie sind schlampig mit der Sprache, ungenau, Zitate werden verzerrt, was du mir unterstellen willst, habe ich in diesem Posting nicht gesagt.

Bleib doch bei dem, was ich schreibe und sage.

Tenor meines postings war die Berichterstattung N A C H dem Abu Graib Prozeß.

Es erfolgte keine Verurteilung wegen Folter. Ist das richtig?

Meine Meinung, ob das Folter ist, habe ich in diesem Posting nicht dargelegt.

Du hast mein Posting jetzt zweimal falsch gelesen. Versuch es ein drittes Mal. Daß du mein Zitat bewußt verfälschst und wegläßt, daß Abu Graib kein Thema mehr ist, solange ... finde ich schon nahe am Lügen, lieber Zeta. Ich glaube, du hast wohl zu schnell reagiert, als du mein Posting überflogen hast, reflexartig abgespult, was du über Abu Ghraib denkst bzw. was du irgendwo gelesen hast und als so toll empfunden hast, daß du es übernommen hast. Du bist glaube ich, Amerikaner, der gut Deutsch schreibt. Da liegt sicher der Fehler. Und so kam es zu deinem Irrtum. Aber als du noch einmal nachgelesen hast, hast du entdeckt, daß ich es gerade nicht gesagt habe und jetzt willst du andere hier täuschen, indem du mich wieder falsch zitierst.

Das ist nicht schön, zeta. Deine bewußten Täsuchungen über meine Postings zeigen etwas über dich. Denk mal drüber nach.

Excerpt from my letter to Ambassador Dan Coats:

"Unfortunately I am too angry at „Stern“-correspondent Katja Gloger to be able to write a good letter. Besides English is not my mother tongue.

Hiermit bitte ich Sie, Strafanzeige gegen die „Stern“-Korrespondentin Katja Gloger zu erstatten, weil sie die designierte US-Aussenministerin Condoleezza Rice in ihrem „Die Stimme ihres Herrn“ betitelten Artikel (http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/index.html?id=535283&nv=hp_rt_al) rassistisch und sexistisch diskriminiert.

Ein Blog-Besucher namens Roland ist der Ansicht, dass das erste Foto zu diesem Artikel „doch wohl ein Bezug“ zu einer bekannten Werbeanzeige ist: „Ein HUND sitzt da!!!!!!!! „His Master’s voice“ Die Stimme ihres [sic!] Herrn.“ Auf dem zuerst erwähnten Foto sieht man US-Präsident George W. Bush, dessen schwarzen Hund Barney und dessen nationale Sicherheitsberaterin Condoleezza Rice, die ihm folgen. Ich bin wie Roland der Auffasung, dass die Plazierung des Fotos unter der Überschrift „Die Stimme ihres Herrn“ (“Her master’s voice“) „strafrechtlich relevant“ ist. Nobody is allowed to compare a black woman with a dog. „Stern“-correspondent Katja Gloger wrote like a Nazi almost sixty years after the end of WWII. Someone must bring her to justice for her racist statements. I ask you to not let Ms. Gloger get away with them. You mustn‘t tolerate her despicable behaviour. We have got the right to fight racism. Please defend your superior-to-be from Katja Gloger. Mr. Ambassador, on David Kaspar’s website (http://medienkritik.typepad.com) you will find a copy of said photograph.

A reply is requested."

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush said in an interview with NBC News when asked if he would rule out the potential for military action against Iran "if it continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program."

Bush-Gegner bauen aus allgemeinen Sätzen Bushs Psyeudo-Skandale auf. Daß militärische Aktionen immer die letzte Option ist, ist doch eine ganz klare Aussage.

Bush kann sagen, was er will, seine Gegner werden und wollen es immer mißverstehen.

Das ist heute Morgen Nr. 1 in den Hauptnachrichten. Das sagt doch etwas über unseren Journalismus!

Die wirkliche Gefahr ist der Iran. Diese Gefahr muß gebannt werden. Wo ist verantworlicher Journalissmus. SChäuble hat klug geantwortet, aber die RotGrünen fangen schon wieder an, aus Nebensätzen eine Aussage zu politisch höchst brisanten Themen zu machen.

Ich finde das gefährlich. Dumme Politiker und Journalisten schwächen Deutschland und die USA.

Daß die Politiker sich dazu überhaupt öffentlich äußern, statt den Journalisten einmal zu sagen, daß dies kein politisches Programm zum Iran war/ist, das man schon gar nicht öffentlich diskutiert, erstaunt mich schon sehr.

was hier auf alles in diesen artikel hinein hineininterpretiert wird ist schon erstaunlich. sicherlich kann man sich ueber den geschmack der aufmachung streiten, aber wo ist er "sexistisch" oder gar "rasistisch"? in deutschland ist es ueblich personen die keine eigene meinung haben oder alles machen was man ihnen sagt als "hund" oder "huendchen" zu bezeichnen. auch blair wurde als "schoßhund" von bush im irak-konflikt bezeichnet, und der ist bekanntlicherweise weder schwarz noch weiblich!

You go! Scuderia Austria Preach it! Sorry I don't know the German for that particular phrase but i wish I did.

Everyone should know "His Master's Voice." Stern knew exaclty what it was doing, the Ba****ds.

Reinhardt, I'd like to see Baggy Maddy's credentials to be Sec of State or that zombie, Warren Christopher.

Condi 2008

@zeta
Du hast natürlich recht, dass Du auf eine Bemerkung von Gabi reagiert hast.
Wie das auch sei, ich würde Deine Meinung zu dem Stern Artikel trotzdem gern hören. Sei nicht so scheu.

@Roland
Ich bin ganz Deiner Meinung, was die strafrechtliche Relevanz angeht. Hätte Bild einen ähnlichen Artikel über eine deutsche Politikerin türkischer Absammung gedruckt, so würden wir mit Sicherheit einen Prozeß sehen.

@All
For historical reasons, freedom of speech is somewhat more restricted in Germany than in the US. If a German reporter had printed a similar article about a female German politician of turkish descent, he/she might very well face criminal prosecution.


On a lighter and way off topic note: Good thing my anti-American neighbor isn't putting Sterns in my mailbox. I've figured out how to stop the flow of Der Spiegels and rant letters I had been receiving from him in my mailbox. I've taken the neighbor's beloved Der Spiegels hostage and will return then to him at a day and time of my choosing. In a Frankonia Jagd bag [he's also anti-gun]. The flow of Der Spiegels and rant letters has now been halted.

Sadly, across Europe the media is now run and staffed by people for whom the only "truth" is the Socialist dogma of the 50's and 60's, it must be said, backed up very ably by the anti-government and anti-military outpourings from Hollywood.

Research what Bush, Rice or any other American actually thinks and says - you must be joking, we don't really want to know, it might destroy our comfortable little preconceptions.

@Gabi
Du hast Recht, meine Reflexe sind einfach zu stark, wenn ich soetwas von Dir lese. Allerdings kannst Du Dir sicher sein, dass ich Beiträge, auf die ich mich beziehe, nicht nur überfliege. Deine Vermutung ist übrigens falsch, ich bin Deutscher. Wäre ich Amerikaner, würde ich hier Texte öfter auch auf englisch verfassen.
Mag ja sein, dass meine Deutschkenntnisse nicht ausreichen mögen, um Deine Sätze so zu verstehen, wie Du sie meinst, aber die Möglichkeit besteht, dass das nicht nur an mir liegt. Um Dir meine Gedankengänge näher zu bringen und damit Du mich vielleicht aufklären kannst, wo denn mein Fehler liegen soll:

Du schriebst: "BTW, Abu Ghraib ist kein Thema mehr, solange die Beweise aktuell greifbar sind, daß es keine Folter war und schon gar keine systematische."

Ich mache daraus, dass Abu Ghraib für die Presse uninteressant ist, solange Deiner Meinung nach momentan Beweise existieren, dass es keine (systematische) Folter war. Für mich bedeutet das eine Leugnung der Folter in Abu Ghraib, denn Du verneinst eindeutig, dass man die Vorfälle als Folter bezeichnen kann. Diese (meine) Interpretation Deines Satzes unterstützt Du weiterhin durch folgende Aussage:

"Es erfolgte keine Verurteilung wegen Folter. Ist das richtig?"

Denn das ist nicht richtig. Graner wurde wegen physischer, psychischer und sexueller Mißhandlungen verurteilt. Nach der UN-Anti-Folterkonvention ist Folter jede Handlung, durch die einer Person vorsätzlich große körperliche oder seelische Schmerzen oder Leiden zugefügt werden, zum Beispiel um von ihr oder einem Dritten eine Aussage oder ein Geständnis zu erlangen, um sie für eine tatsächlich oder mutmaßlich von ihr oder einem Dritten begangene Tat zu bestrafen oder um sie oder einen Dritten einzuschüchtern oder zu nötigen, oder aus einem anderen, auf irgendeiner Art von Diskriminierung beruhenden Grund, wenn diese Schmerzen oder Leiden von einem Angehörigen des öffentlichen Dienstes oder einer anderen in amtlicher Eigenschaft handelnden Person, auf deren Veranlassung oder mit deren ausdrücklichem oder stillschweigendem Einverständnis verursacht werden. Der Ausdruck umfasst nicht Schmerzen oder Leiden, die sich lediglich aus gesetzlich zulässigen Sanktionen ergeben, dazu gehören oder damit verbunden sind. Graners Taten, für die er verurteilt wurde, gehören demnach eindeutig in diese Kategorie, sind also als Folter zu bezeichnen. Dass er nicht explizit wegen "Folter" verurteilt wurde, hat nichts zu bedeuten - diesen Straftatbestand gibt es so in Deutschland z.B. auch nicht.

Um auch weiterhin bei dem zu bleiben, was Du geschrieben hast, heißt es in Deinem ersten Kommentar:

"Diese neue Entwicklung ist genauso gefährlich und überflüssig wie der Folterskandal, der keiner war."

Mensch, was war es denn dann? Selbst FoxNews nennt es "prison abuse scandal" - nur Du nicht? Sind Deine Deutschkenntnisse ausreichend um zu begreifen, was Du selbst sagst?


Und wenn Du immer noch der Meinung bist, dass ich Dein Posting zum wiederholten Mal falsch gelesen hab, dann würde ich doch gerne wissen, was die anderen Leser hier aus Deinem Beitrag machen. Mir bewusste Täuschungen vorzuwerfen ist ebenso nicht die feine englische...

@zeta
Struck: ein deutscher Soldat foltert nicht...
Ein bisschen selbstgerecht, oder?

This is a nice speech from Condi from a few years ago and from it a fitting quote:

" There is an understandable tendency to look back on America's experience in post-War Germany and see only the successes. But as some of you here today surely remember, the road we traveled was very difficult. 1945 through 1947 was an especially challenging period. Germany was not immediately stable or prosperous. SS officers -- called "werewolves" -- engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them -- much like today's Baathist and Fedayeen remnants.

It is also true that democracy is not easy. Its institutions are not the natural embodiment of human nature. And our own history should remind us that the union of democratic principle and practice is always a work in progress. When the Founding Fathers said "We the People," they did not mean me. My ancestors were considered three-fifths of a person.

Knowing the difficulties of America's own history, we should always be humble in singing freedom's praises. But America's voice should never waver in speaking out on the side of people seeking freedom.

And the people of the Middle East share the desire for freedom. We have an opportunity -- and an obligation -- to help them turn this desire into reality. And we must work with others to create a world where terror is shunned and hope is the provenance of every living human. That is the security challenge -- and moral mission -- of our time. "


That first line "There is an understandable tendency to look back on America's experience in post-War Germany and see only the successes" is quoted a lot by groups that could roughly be described as the "anti-German" crowd for example INIPA and I think its quite fitting here. I dont think that America can include the German media in its present state as "one of the successes", especially not the Stern.

Although the article might not be prosecutable I cannot see how it can be argued that there isnt any racist undertone here. There could have been lots of different captions used for this picture but they chose this one and of course they are aware of America´s history of slavery and the image such a caption would throw up. Bush, then the dog and then Condi - Service of her master. This is "absichtlich" planned and done on purpose.

It made me think of when i was visiting London with an american friend who had been living here in Berlin and eastern Europe for a while. I wanted to see my family and she tagged along. We went up to London and she was amazed to see coloured people, people of ethnic minorities and different religions all living and working together. She had forgotten that feeling in her time in Berlin. It reminded her of back in the states rather in Germany where the "immigrants" (3rd generation) are rarely seen outside of falafel shops or late opening mini markets. Its an exaggeration of course but there is truth in it. Black women dont wear suits, dont have laptops and dont work in offices at high positions in Berlin. I am not saying that there is no racism or sexism in the work market in the UK or USA but compare it to Germany, where especially in the east the term "Neger" is still acceptable among 40yr olds.(Is this generally so for Germany or have i just been in the wrong bits?)

No wonder the Stern can only grasp this as a PR measure. In attacking Condi the Stern reveals more about itself and its readership´s opinions that it does about the USA. Condi has this position not because she is a token coloured woman but because she is as clued up as you can get on the subject matter required and she agrees with the President because he chose her as an advisor and she advises him! That is after all the job of a president to listen to his advisors views and then make decisions. Her job is to give him advice and then stand by his decisions. Why is that so hard to grasp?

@ zeta: well done. Ich kann Gabi’ s Posting auch nicht anders interpretieren.
@ alle: ein wenig Selbstkritik und Gelassenheit kann auch diesem Forum nicht schaden. Gerade als Amerikafan und Bushsympathisant muss es möglich sein, konkrete Handlungen und Entscheidung seiner Regierung zu kritisieren und diese Meinung hier, gerade hier, zu äußern ohne sofort als ‘angry left’ abgestempelt zu werden. Kein Land ist perfekt und jede Regierung macht Fehler.
Es kommt auf die Kritik an, der es, wie wir hier tagtäglich sehen können, in den meisten deutschen Medien an Sachlichkeit und Konstruktivität fehlt, und der die Fähigkeit abhanden gekommen ist, sich selbst zu reflektieren. Ich hoffe, dass sich dieses Forum daran kein Beispiel nimmt. Das wäre mehr als schade.

@zeta und ania

ein bißchen mehr Selbstkritik und Gelassenheit. Was soll eure Aufregung? Cool bleiben.

@Americanhater

The Ape, The Dog and the 5$ Slut. Your Dad, Mom and Sister?

@ania
Look at the previous post from Amihasser (I hope it doesn't get removed) and you don't have to wonder why people react so quickly with terms like "angry left." In fact, anyone who spends time around the German left knows that anger is an understatement when it comes to the US - seething rage is the more accurate term. Fortunately, they are not in a position to act out on their anger.

Compared to the Stern article, I find that most (Amihasser is an exception) posters here are very reasonable. There may be an occasional insult, or attempt to avoid an argument by labelling a commenter one of the "angry left" or such, but that is a part of normal political discourse; often more a sign of intellectual laziness than personal animosity. And sometimes it is the appropriate argument (see Amihasser).


Now that its taboo to do these things to Jews in the German media I suppose that denigrating black american's is the next best thing

Pretty sad that this type of thing sells so well in Germany

Pogue,

It is a culture thing.

@ beiami:

I agree with your opinion on amihasser, but as you are saying yourself he is luckily rather an exception in this forum that I tended to overlook. I am annoyed with the ongoing anti-US propaganda in Europe myself and therefore enjoy reading the postings in this forum. I am worried though that there is no space for criticising specific actions taken by the US only because the US are under constant attack from the European left/European media. It has to be possible to make a point against a specific action taken by Bush’ s government without being automatically labelled as ‘angry left’.

ania,
I can agree with that.. in my opinion the critics have become like the boy who cries wolf too often..
people stop taking it seriously.
For example, Michael Moore has done a tremendous disservice with his film of innuendo and half truth..
btw I USED to consider myself a lifelong democrat, voted for W in 2004. Kerry was the worse candidate i have seen in my lifetime bar none.

Well this new poll from the BBC is perhaps just Bush bashing BUT as its a foreign policy issue then it fits in nicely with this thread:

" More than half of people surveyed in a BBC World Service poll say the re-election of US President George W Bush has made the world more dangerous.

Only three countries - India, Poland and the Philippines - out of 21 polled believed the world was now safer.

The survey found that 47% of the 21,953 people questioned now see US influence in the world as largely negative, and view Americans negatively as well.

None of the countries polled supported contributing their troops to Iraq.

"This is quite a grim picture for the US," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), which carried out the poll with GlobeScan.

"Negative feelings about Bush are high and are generalising to the American people who re-elected him." "


So no doubt there when the old "I am not ant-American I just disagree with the current govt and their policies not the people" argument comes out that this includes over half of US voters too now!!!


Here the same survey in the Europe section:

"Most Europeans surveyed in a BBC World Service poll were not encouraged by the re-election of George W Bush.

In the major countries of western Europe - Germany, France and the UK - clear majorities say his re-election is negative for global security.

Smaller majorities say their overall view of US influence in the world is mainly negative as well.

The Italians are split, mainly negative about Mr Bush, mainly positive about US influence in general.

The only European country to buck the trend completely is Poland, one of the new members of the European Union, where both Mr Bush and the US get positive marks."


Well done Poland.


And here some expensive BBC graphs! with the results which show:

that for the great ally Germany *drum roll* 14% found the Bush reelection positive for "peace and security" and a massive 77% found it negative. This compares to France 13 / 75, Russia 16 / 39 and China 27 / 56 resp!!!!


Of course the other countries are WTFs? too and the BBC shouldnt be off the hook for setting up this question BUT How can Germany think less of the re-election of Bush than the Chinese? Could we safely say that media bias and anti-American sentiment might play a role here?

@andy
right on about the chinese.. wwas reading in the economist that the taiwan situation could flare up.
If the weapons embargo against China is lifted and there is military involvement by the US to defend Taiwan and American soldiers are killed using European weapons, you can kiss the transatlantic alliance good bye...
But then again, no European would be concerned about THAT

Mal was anderes: Stimmt es eigendlich, dass in den USA schöpfungsgeschichte gleichauf mit der evolutionstheorie gelehrt wird? Treff immer wieder Leute, die das behaupten (Präsident Bush hat das angeblich veranlasst, aber sind nicht auch die Staaten für Bildung zuständig???)

I totally agree that people can vigorously debate and protest George W. Bush without being members of what I call the "Angry Left." I myself do not agree with certain policies or arguments advocated by Bush. I am just so overwhelmed by the incredible bias and flat-out hatred in the German media that those things take a backseat to this larger problem. The German media is greatly contributing to the rapid deterioration of positive transatlantic relations because it won't even present reality to the German public.

The problem with many of Bush's opponents (the ones I consider members of the Angry Left) is that they have absolutely no interest in debating the ideas. It is about vilification and defamation. Bush has to be made into an evil, stupid cowboy. This is particularly true in the German media. It is not about fairly presenting both sides of the argument and allowing the reader to decide. It is about pushing one dominant point of view on the reader and spinning the facts to one end: Bush is bad.

---Ray D.

Markus,
was meinst du konkret? Den Religionsunterricht? Ich habe es auch in einer deutschen Schule gelernt und zwar im Religionsunterricht, daß der Mensch von Adam und Eva abstammt. Mein Lehrer hat mir nichts davon gesagt, daß dies falsch sei. Das war in den 60gern. Mein Sohn hat nicht am Religionsunterricht teilgenommen, so daß ich nicht weiß, was heute gelehrt wird. Was sagen deutsche Religionslehrer? Weiß das jemand? Das soll doch sicher verglichen werden, oder nicht?

@Amihasser
Du schreibst auch hier.

@Ray D.
Oh yeah. Vilification of Bush is a major passtime for the German left - when they are not vilifying America and Americans in general. Many are like certain zealous Christians we all run across now and then, who simply can't talk about anything else. It is astounding how deeply ingrained the "Bush is stupid" meme is in their reality. I used to have fun injecting innocent little questions into such conversations when they occurred within my range of hearing; phrases like, "Doesn't Bush have an MBA from Harvard?" Have you ever heard a piglet stuck in a fence. What a blast!

P.S. If someone wants say I am doing the bashing or being unfair now, well, I say no way, I am simply responding to some of the hysterical nonsense I see, read and hear nearly every day. In fact, I actually get along quite well with some of the people I am talking about here. It's surreal in some ways; as long as you don't violate their Leftist faith and rather incoherent anti-Americanism (many have studied or vacationed there), there is no problem whatsoever. Kind of like some more strident Christians, I guess.

@Markus
Bush hat wenig damit zu tun. Es gibt seit langem eine bestimmte Gruppe von treuen Gläubigen, die Religionsunterricht in amerikanishen Schulen erzwingen wollen. Sie versuchen die Schöpfungsgeschichte als Wissenschaft darzustellen, und behaupten dann, dass alle Theorien belehrt werden müssen - akademische Freiheit und so. Es kann schon sein, dass sie sich durch die Wiederwahl von Bush ermütigt fühlen, aber ich bezweifle, dass sie ernsthafte Unterstützung von Bush bekommen werden. Das gesagt, es gibt schon Religionsunterricht in deutschen Schulen, und allenfalls in deutschen Kindergärten, also ist es etwas daneben, die USA deswegen zu kritisieren.

Lesenswert!

http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1922434

derStandard.at: In den Diskussionen zum „neuen“ Antisemitismus kommt immer wieder auch die Linke in die Kritik. Zu Recht?

Schiedel: Auf jeden Fall! Weite Teile der Linken, wollen in ihrer bedingungslosen! Solidarität mit den PalästinenserInnen die Veränderung in der palästinensischen Gesellschaft nicht sehen. Sie machen noch heute auf Palästinasolidarität wie in den 70 Jahren, wo es unter sehr großer Anstrengung vielleicht ja noch möglich war, einen Link zu linker Theorie und Praxis finden. Aber heute? Hamas und andere antisemitische Terrorbanden haben mit „links“ gar nichts mehr zu tun. Trotzdem halten viele Linke an ihrer bedingungslosen Solidarität mit den PalästinenserInnen fest, das heißt auch mit der Intifada, auch mit der Hamas, mit dem Suicide-Bombing, der systematischen Ermordung von israelischen ZivilistInnen. Nicht nur Rechtsextreme suchen das Bündnis mit Islamisten, auch manche Linke reihen sich ein in die „globale Intifada“. Andere gehen zwar nicht so weit, wehren aber jede Kritik am politischen Islam und seinen terroristischen Praxen als „rassistisch“ ab.

derStandard.at: Wie kann nun das Verhältnis von Antisemitismus und dem Nahost-Konflikt charakterisiert werden?

Schiedel: Der Antisemitismus strukturiert bewusst oder unbewusst die Wahrnehmung dieses Konfliktes. Zudem kann sich die Enkelgeneration über die Feindschaft zu Israel mit den Großeltern aussöhnen, ohne am antifaschistischen Selbstbild zweifeln zu müssen. Oft ist also der eigene Antisemitismus und nicht das Mitleid mit den PalästinenserInnen das Handlungsmotiv. Wenn es nicht so wäre, dann könnte sich der Protest nicht nur ausschließlich gegen Israel richten, sondern er müsste sich auch gegen viele arabische Nachbarn wenden, wie Jordanien oder Syrien. Denn dort dienen die nach wie vor in Flüchtlingslagern zusammengepferchten PalästinenserInnen als Faustpfand. Die wenigsten wissen, dass seit 1948 weniger PalästinenserInnen durch "israelische" Hand, wenn man so sagen will, gestorben sind als durch "arabische".

derStandard.at: Wo liegt nun die Grenze zwischen „berechtigter Kritik an Israel“ und dem Antisemitismus?

Schiedel: Grundsätzlich ist es relativ einfach, diese Grenze zu bestimmen: Es geht um den Unterschied zwischen Kritik und Ressentiment. Rational nachvollziehbare Kritik kann per definitionem nie antisemitisch sein. Denn sie hat ja die Realität zum Gegenstand, eine Realität, die vielleicht falsch gesehen wird, aber auch in den verzerrtesten Formen ihrer Wahrnehmung noch verhandelbar ist. Das Ressentiment und der Antisemitismus im Besonderen ist eine Wahnidee. Der wahnhafte Charakter ist dabei ganz zentral, denn dieser stellt das genaue Gegenteil von Kritik dar. Ein Ressentiment ist nicht mehr verhandelbar, es ist nur mehr denunzierbar. Mit KritikerInnen Israels kann mensch sich auseinandersetzen, mit jemandem, der die Realität nicht anerkennen will, jedoch nicht. Nach 1945 wurde vielerorts getuschelt: „Man darf ja nix mehr über Juden sagen“. Heute heißt es, auch im aufgeklärten, linksliberalen Milieu: „Man darf ja nix mehr über Israel sagen“ oder „Jeder der Israel kritisiert, wird zum Antisemiten erklärt“. In beiden Fällen handelt es sich um Rationalisierungen der antisemitischen Paranoia.

derStandard.at: Gibt es ein Beispiel für ein „gängiges“ Ressentiment in diesem Zusammenhang?

Schiedel: Nehmen wir etwa die Berichterstattung zu Jenin, die medial und von palästinensischer Propaganda vermittelte Wahrnehmung der Kämpfe in diesem Flüchtlingslager. Diese waren ja der Auslöser für eine antisemitische Gewaltwelle in Europa, vor allem in Frankreich und England. Gegenüber der falschen Rede von einem „Kriegsverbrechen“ oder „Massaker“ an palästinensischen ZivilistInnen steht der Report von Human Rights Watch, der von Gefechten zwischen auch auf palästinensischer Seite in der Mehrzahl bewaffneten Personen spricht, aber nicht von einem Massaker. Wenn (österreichische) Medien und diverse politische Gruppierungen der Rechten wie der Linken bis heute an der „Massaker-Theorie“ festhalten, dann widerspricht das den Tatsachen. Das ist schlicht ein Ressentiment.

derStandard.at: Kommen wir zurück zur Rolle von Linken in antisemitischen Diskursen. Der Präsident der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde, Ariel Muzicant, wies jüngst darauf hin, dass auch von der globalisierungskritischen Bewegung immer wieder antisemitische Töne zu vernehmen sind. Wie bewerten Sie diesen Aspekt?

Schiedel: Leider muss ich hier dem Herrn Präsidenten Muzicant Recht geben. Dort, wo sich diese Bewegung antizionistisch gebärdet, wo Israel das Existenzrecht als jüdischer Staat abgesprochen und das antisemitische Suicide Bombing als „Widerstand“ abgefeiert wird, steckt sie schon tief im antisemitischen Sumpf. Dazu kommt eine oft falsche und oberflächliche Kritik der Globalisierung, die zumindest strukturell antisemitisch ist. Denn in ihrer Sucht nach massenwirksamen und einfachen Erklärungen macht diese Bewegung in weiten Teilen aus komplexen ökonomischen und sozialen Prozessen eine eindeutige Strategie von konkret benannten Bösewichten. Von dieser Personalisierung ist es dann nicht mehr weit zum Verschwörungsmythos, der auch ohne die Erwähnung des Feindbildes „Jude“ antisemitisch ist.

Ähnlich der maschinenstürmenden Linken vor Marx ist auch die heutige Linke nach Marx großteils nicht in der Lage, den Wandel der Verhältnisse richtig zu begreifen. So wie damals findet auch heute der Antisemitismus über eine spontane oder verkürzte Kritik am Kapitalismus Eingang in linke Diskurse. Anstatt gegen den Kapitalismus kämpfen viele gegen das „internationale Finanzkapital“. Wie Rechtsextreme spalten sie die Einheit von Produktion und Zirkulation demagogisch auf und versuchen, das „schaffende“ gegen das „raffende“ Kapital auszuspielen. Grundsätzlich scheint es tatsächlich so zu sein, dass der Antisemitismus immer dann an Boden gewinnt, wenn Menschen nicht in der Lage oder willens sind, die Verhältnisse zu durchschauen. Darin liegt leider die Stärke des Antisemitismus als „Alltagsreligion“, ein Begriff, der von Detlev Claussen geprägt wurde: Er erlaubt es, die Welt aus einem einzigen Punkt zu erklären, dort Sinn zu stiften, wo keiner ist.

derStandard.at: Stellt sich die globalisierungskritische Bewegung diesem Problem?

Schiedel: Leider tut sie das viel zu wenig. Der Selbstkritik hinderlich ist der linke Mythos, wonach der Antisemitismus, der nur auf seine rassistischen und eliminatorischen Artikulationsformen reduziert wird, ein originär rechtes Phänomen sei. Dadurch machen sich viele Linke immun gegen Kritik, indem sie sagen, dass sie als Linke ja gar nicht antisemitisch sein können.

Verschärfend kommt dann noch die positiv gesehene Spontaneität der Bewegung selbst dazu. Wenn oppositionelle Bewegungen sich vor allem in Spontaneität erschöpfen, haben wir es erfahrungsgemäß immer rasch mit Antisemitismus zu tun. Es gibt aber auch Teile der globalisierungskritischen Bewegung, wo Analyse, Diskussion und Rationalität im Vordergrund stehen, doch damit lassen sich keine Massendemonstrationen, oder Bewegungshappenings wie in Bombay, wo es mehr um Stimmungen geht, organisieren. Dort wo Stimmungen und Gefühle im Zentrum stehen, ist das Ressentiment nie weit. Daher bräuchte diese Bewegung auch außerhalb kleiner Diskussionszirkel schleunigst so etwas wie eine reformulierte Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Wie die historische Linke kann sie sich nur so von ihrem antisemitischen Geburtsmakel befreien. Bezugnehmend auf den Zusammenhang von undurchschauter Herrschaft und Antisemitismus bringt dies Detlev Claussen auf den Punkt: „Erst wenn die Menschen die Gesellschaft richtig wahrnehmen, werden sie auch die Juden richtig wahrnehmen.“

STANDARD: Gibt es Kontakte zwischen der extremen Rechten und radikalen Islamisten in Frankreich im Sinne gemeinsamer Feindbilder: Israel, Vereinigte Staaten?

Finkielkraut: Die gibt es eher zwischen der extremen Linken und radikalen Islamisten. (DER STANDARD, Print-Ausgabe, 19. 1. 2005)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31