Iraqi Journalist, 3 Year Old Son Murdered

(By Ray D.)

Brutal Murder of Iraqi Journalist and Toddler Son Not Front Page News in Germany

These days, mere allegations suffice as front-page stories in the German media provided, of course, they involve some allegation of American wrong-doing. Take, for example, the allegations that a German citizen was kidnapped in the Balkans and flown to Afghanistan. Or take any story in which a US soldier is so much as accused of abusing someone. It's automatically front-page news on SPIEGEL and Stern even if it has no solid factual basis.

But guess what doesn't qualify as front-page news?: The brutal assassination of a pro-American Iraqi journalist and his three year old son. This simply wouldn't fit into the German media's view of Iraq. How could any Iraqi, after all, support the United States and democracy and reject Al-Jazeera and European relativism? How could it be that someone would be willing to face death for these causes?

Rest in Peace: Hussein Khazaal Died Fighting Terrorists and Al-Jazeera's Hate-America Propaganda. His three-year old son was also gunned down and died on the way to the hospital.

Hussein Khazaal's murder will not be widely reported in the German media because he proved, in life and in death, that the European "elites" were wrong about the Iraqi people. Had we listened to them, Saddam Hussein would still be shoveling people like Mr. Khazaal into mass graves by the scores. Now only angry outcasts of the Baathist regime and a handful of Islamic fanatics continue to murder the innocent. But, as the Iraqi people proved on election day, the days of the terrorists and of the Saddam assassins are numbered. And the Iraqi people cannot be ignored forever.

The irony of it all is this: After World War II, many believed that Germans were incapable of democracy. The German people proved them wrong. Yet today, many of the same Germans look down on the Iraqi people and condescendingly declare that they are incapable of democracy and that they are doomed to a fundamentalist state. Perhaps Germany has become so bogged-down in a sense of collective pessimism that it is difficult for most of the people to imagine the power of hope and freedom in Iraq today. Perhaps it has become difficult for them to comprehend someone as brave as Hussein Khazaal.

Comments

[Ray D.]

@ g-punkt:

Where did we ever say anything negative about Iraqis (other than Saddam and his thugs) on this blog g-punkt??? We have had nothing but positive things to say about the Iraqi people who so long suffered under Saddam. I challenge you to find one single negative thing that David or I have written. You should know by now: What some anonymous person writes in the comments section is not the view of this blog.

The evil Europeans who refused to drop bombs on them

Oh that's right, our lucid, all-knowing European friends who wanted to leave the Iraqis in "peace"...meaning they wanted to leave them to Saddam, the mass graves, the torture chambers and the rape rooms. How generous and enlightened!

---Ray D.

[jane m]

I'm reading this blog for several months and have never seen this ethnic slur "sandn****r" until posted above. I'm not acquainted with anyone who even knows this word. Is it a Euro term for Arabs?

And g-punkt, the point of the post is that German media make little mention of an heroic Iraqi journalist who is killed by terrorists for working for the opposing pro-American media while they shout uncorroborated rumors about Amrican abuse or faults from the rooftops. Fair and balanced? I don't think so.

Note from Ray D.: Jane is referring to a comment that has since been erased due to bad language and threats.

[Ray D.]

@ g-punkt:

Please point out any comments left on this blog with the term "sandn****r" and they will be erased immediately. We don't accept that kind of language on our site and if we see it, we will erase it.

---Ray D.

[Ray D.]

So you would call centuries of monarchy and feudalism and one failed revolution in 1848 "democratic experience"? As far as I can tell, the Weimar Republic was the only "democratic experience" in Germany before WWII, and that wasn't "more than a hundred years" before the war.

What experience exactly are you talking about? I think this is the sort of "Herrenmenschen" attitude that some Germans have just beneath the surface (but don't like to admit) that is leading them to look down on the Iraqis (who they assume deep-down to be inferior...)

[Tony Artaud]

classy

[Jewels (AKA Julian)]

g-punkt:

I've been creeping around this blog fro some time and have never seen the phrase 'sandnigger' used once. I'd like to see an example of it being used by someone here before you come in spouting.

As to Germans still being Nazis, thats a canard I'm not even going to touch. But my family is much smaller because of the National Socialists. We just got the last of them out of Germany last year because of rising anti-semitic activity in Europe in general.

We did this dance once. We won't do it again.

[Mike H.]

Well we now know where the term came from. g-punk, and it's an excellent way to do it, claim it came from someone else while introducing it. This is in fact the way our racists do it. Do you go to classes for that g-punk? You've learned well.

[w]

they're all racist who can scarcely believe that the Arab is capable of democratic government

[fuchur]

I´m not even going to bother with gpunkt.
But since Ray mentioned it: IMHO German traditions of democracy indeed start long before the Weimar Republic. Already the Kaiserreich was actually a democracy (incidentally, I came across it´s constitution not to long ago in an old school book). At least Bavaria and Prussia had had parliaments before the Kaiserreich was proclaimed (no clue when/why the parliaments were installed- maybe a reaction to the failed revolution of 1848?).
Personally, I see tendencies to democracy already in the organization of many of the old German city states, where rich citizens and the guilds were a power the aristocracy had to recon with.

[fuchur]

@niko
ROFL

[fuchur]

Regarding Hussein Khazaal:
FAZ mentions his death, but makes his killed son 10 years old. I guess they got this from AP or Reuters!?
So why did this not make front page? Well, I just did a quick check at iraqthemodel. They don´t mention him at all.

[Amani]

It is on Spiegel. You have to look under the videos. They don't have their own article. Maybe you should say yet next time.

[Phil]

It's not 'front page' at CNN either. But maybe I went on their site too late

[Brock Landers]

In my experience, living in several countries in Europe - including Germany - many, or most, Europeans, including Germans, have difficulty believing that people of Third-World Countries - be it in the Middle East, or Latin America, or Africa - are capable of having truly democratic regimes. So it's no surprise about the Iraqis.

[George M]

I once saw the term "sand ***" written as graffiti at a large university men's room 20 years ago.

That was a time when spoiled Saudis were the big men on campus, driving around the University in their Mercedes 550 SLs. They were the only people who used and could afford cell phones back then.

Remarkably, ever since 9/11, I have never heard or seen the term "sand ***" spoken or written.

I have read this blog for over a year. I have never read that term used in this blog.

[Jeff]

@ Fuchur

I have had this conversation with you before.

1) Weimar was ruled by decree by Bruening. Truly democratic government under Weimar lasted about 10 years.

2) Yes, the Kaiserreich had a parliamentary system based on an extensive suffrage. However, the Reichstag had very limited powers, Prussia was overweighted, etc. Now it would not be fair to compare any political system of 1900 to one of 2000. And certainly the German political system was more democratic in 1900 than that of Russia. It was not as democratic as that of France. So I think it is fair to say that Germany had limited experience of democratic and constitutional government between 1871 and 1928. (At one time, I could have been far more specific about the politics of the Kaiserreich, but I have got old and forgetful.)

3) There were various constitutional governments in pre-Imperial Germany. They were weak relative to the princes. Bismark came to power (1864?) in Prussia by undercutting the power of the Prussian estates. Prior to 1848, they were even weaker. In no case were they democratic (although they may have been representative of Junkers, Burgers, etc.)

4) The German cities of the Middle Ages were not democratic at all. Example: after the revolution of 1408 in Luebeck, merchants and rentiers were entitled to only half the seats on the city council. In other words, they had a veto. However, the revolution was suppressed in 1416. In Koln, the Richerzeche ruled the town until a revolution of 1396. In fact the history of the Hansa towns, the German towns I know most about, was filled with continual outbreaks of violence against the patriciate that dominated the towns.

Now I am a banker in the middle of the US, and I know this. It is depressing that a German knows so little of German history.

[Jeff]

Note to David and Ray

You need to get a resident historian of Germany. I can't keep making these corrections about the historical record. I have forgotten 90% of what I once knew about the topic.

[Ray D.]

@ Phil:

Yes, it was on CNN's homepage.

As for my comments on Germans. I said "some" Germans. Not "all" Germans. That is an important difference.

Living in Nurnberg, I have heard racist and condescending comments towards non-Germans (aka die Ausländer) more times than I can count. I have heard the terms Scheiss-(insert Eastern European nationality here) more times than I can count.

Numerous people have told me that Iraqis can't live in democracy because they don't have the German culture, because they are Muslims, etc. One time on a train a lady told me:

"In Germany you are either German or not German. And if you are not German, the darker your skin, the lower down you are in the society."

No one on the train said a word.

Another lady proclaimed to me on a train how she disliked Jews. Again, no one said a word. I heard another guy talking about how evil America was and how they were attacking Afghanistan just to build an oil pipeline. And these are not isolated incidents...I've heard this sort of thing over and over again.

I am also still amazed at the fact that you can look at the Nurnberger Nachrichten classifieds and see ads for apartments that say "German family only". And we are living in 2005. So don't tell me that Germany is a land free of racism. I know better. That's not to say America is free of racism, it just means Germans have the same problem.

---Ray D.

[Phil]

@ Ray D.,

I think you wanted to address someone else with that post. I have only stated that the article wasn't 'front-page' news at CNN.

[Phil]

But as you are posting this to me: You are right. Germany is not free of racism and Anti-Semitism. Last summer I spoke to an old man on the beach who referred to Ignaz Bubis and Paul Spiegel as pimps. It's sick.

Here in the UK, anti-semitism seems to be far more prominent on the left and in Muslim communities than in conservative circles. Just as sick.

[Ray D.]

David and I have decided to erase g-punkt's comments containing offensive terms and threats.

[Ray D.]

@ Phil,

Phil, I meant to say that the article was on the top of CNN's homepage and clearly featured on the front-page. That is how I first learned about it.

[WhatDoIKnow]

I have no doubt that g, deep in his heart, doesn't believe in the American myth claiming that all people want to live in freedom in a democracy. He knows for a fact that this American propaganda doesn't apply to the Irakis. Democracy is a Western disease, that shouldn't contaminate the Middle East. g is beyond pathetic and he is in a majority in Germany.

see ads for apartments that say "German family only"

There are many Germans who consider foreigners, especially those coming from East of Germany, to be some sort of "Untermenschen". Not in an Adolf sense, but definitely in a discriminatory and rassistic way. When I moved from Germany to the US, one of the last things the German landlord said to us (with bitterness) was that it's a pitty that we leave, those Ausländer(foreigners) are taking over Germany and the nice people are leaving. Well, I guess I should be happy about that. Even though I am also an Ausländer in Germany, it looks like I made it: I was considered an "insider", qualified for living in Germany as part of the "better" race. Other than that, the landlord was a really nice guy, if somewhat unreliable (oooops, I forgot what F. Potente said, LA people are unreliable, not Germans).

[amiexpat]

@Ray D./David

I have emailed you several times.. I would like to do a money transfer to support your blog..
but I have never gotten an answer.
love your blog..
please contact me.
btw.. you had a quote of Fischer defending the Kosovo war and then you compared it to Iraq.
I cannot find it, and it was such a classic.

[Pogue]

While Germany makes a good and relevant example of a people who many said could not be democratic in 1945 - Japan is much better

And as thin as the examples of German democracy before 1945 are - they are virtually non-existant for Japan

Added to the fact that the Japanese were viewed as "different" and not suited to democracy

So much for that idea

[WhatDoIKnow]

LOL :-)))

I always had a feeling that David & Ray are trying to destroy the wonderful U.S.-German/EU-friendship. I think they are part of the secret world government. (By the way, how could I get a job with the secret government? Do you pay taxes if you work for them? If someone asks you where you work, what do yo tell them? I work for the...secret world government. No, since it's secret you can't tell them. I don't know, many questions and no answers... This only proves the existence of this dreaded government.)

Funny posting, g :-)) You've either got some very deeeeep issues, dude, or you're 12 years old. If you're 12, go back to bad. If you're over 12, this blog can't really help you, it's not a substitute for therapy.

[Schakal]

Aww, David and Ray, I was wanting to answer that posting from g-punkt...

I'm sure he'll keep reading this blog, even if he decides not to comment anymore. Some of us appreciated some of his postings, even though (or perhaps exactly because) he had very divergent opinions. He just has to learn to use arguments instead of insults, try to back his statements with facts, and to keep the discussion somewhat civilized.

If I understood what he was implying, and he feels cornered by Americans (which is by the way not true and completely missing the point), then he should try his luck at the German Medienkritik.
With a fresh start there and bringing up intelligent points, I'm sure he'll enjoy the discussions a lot more.

[WhatDoIKnow]

@Niko

Desinformation ??? Really ??? Woooow! I'd heard this word before, so that's what it means. Desinformation = Quoting the German media. OK.
So, quoting the German media when it desinforms the Germans is in itself desinformation. Ahhhh, I'm lost... I'm not good material for a conspiracy theorist.

[Simon]

Al-Jazeera and its comrades are talking about "martyrs" (i.e. terrorists) all the time. They have distorted the original idea of the martyr beyond recognition.
Don't forget to honor the real martyrs: Those who died when excercising their right to vote, those who died when helping to build democracy in Iraq (coalition forces, Iraqi national guard etc) and finally Hussein Khazaal, martyr for a free Iraq. Its men like him who make a difference.

[PacRim Jim]

Apropos Japan, Germany, and democracy. Neither country has shown that it would fight a bloody war to remain free. Too, their liberty varies in proportion to their economies. The better the latter, the more free. First depression, they both will revert to autocratic character. Democracy may cover their skins, but it's not in their blood.

[Brock Landers]

To call Germany in the period of 1871-1918 a "democracy" is inaccurate. It did have an elected parliament that had to approve laws and the budget. It approved laws, but could not propose them.

The cabinet - the Chancellor and the ministers - was appointed and dismissed by the Kaiser without the need for approval from parliament. The Kaiser could appoint and fire the Chancellor at will. The Kaiser alone commanded the army and could declare war.

So it was by no means a democracy as, at the time, the US, Britain or France. It was a constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy and debate was free in parliament, yes. But it was well understood that the real power was wielded by the Kaiser and the Chancellor - just remember that it was Bismarck who wrote the constitution.

That is precisely the reason why the Weimar constitution still left vast "emergency" powers to the President - because a strong executive was what they were used to.

Japan's constitution of 1889 followed closely the Bismarck constitution but it actually led to quite strong party politics and parliamentary discussion in the period 1890-1920, precisely because the executive - formally headed by the Emperor - lacked cohesion as in Germany.

I'd say that it is inaccurate to say that Germany and Japan had *no* experience of democracy since there was at least the experience of an elected parliament with open debate and the power to approve laws, but due to their fully unelected executives it is equally inaccurate to call them democracies. They were constitutional monarchies, as Britain already in the 18th century.

And, of course, at war they became military dicatorships.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, the evidence is ambiguous.

[Joe N.]

Funny thing about German non-reporting - they had no difficulty repeating an outrage staged by France TF 2 television where they staged the filming of a father and son being shot in the West Bank... What next? Making rock throwing an Olympic event? Hit a jew, and get 100 points?

[Gabi]

French attitudes to Israel:
Insights of Shoah director Claude Lanzmann

Published: 4 February 2005
Briefing Number 132

Claude Lanzmann is the French film director who, 20 years ago, made the renowned film Shoah - an overwhelmingly powerful oral history of the Holocaust. Today, Lanzmann edits a French literary journal, and is a well-known figure on the international cultural scene.

On 21 January 2005 he gave an interview with the Jerusalem Post in which he discussed French attitudes towards Israel and Jews. Here we highlight six of Lanzmann’s insights:

* Ariel Sharon is so demonised by French observers that they are blinded to the far-reaching changes which have taken place in his political thinking

* Palestinian self-criticism of the intifada, including by their current leader Mahmoud Abbas, has been completely ignored by the French

* The European left is more intellectually rigid and inflexible in its attitudes towards Israel than members of North African communities in France (eg from Morocco or Algeria)

* Anti-semitism is more deeply rooted in the extreme left in France than among Muslims in France

* Mainstream French media ignore the context for Israel’s actions and present a distorted image of Israelis, as killers

* The French Government condemns anti-semitism as a reflex reaction, but people are no longer shocked

Here are each of Lanzmann’s insights in turn.

http://www.beyondimages.info/

[Gabi]

Charles Krauthammer:

"The Palestinians see the strategic option of terror gradually disappearing. Moreover, Israel's successful military offensive demonstrated to the Palestinians that the premise of the second intifadeh - that a demoralized and terrorized Israel would essentially surrender - is false.

Will they not try another intifadeh in the future? They might. But now they know the cost will be enormous. And the Israelis do not break.

Of course, at some point Hamas and the other terror groups will surely try to destroy the ceasefire. It could happen tomorrow. At that point Abbas - and the Palestinians as a national community - will have to decide whether to take them on. If they do, they will have their state. If they don't, they are back on the road map to ruin."

Originally published on February 11, 2005

German media don't understand that Israel is defending himself. They called Sharon the real terrorist and never realized that the terror was not the answer on occupation, that the Palestinian chose the terror as an option and not as a last option.

The evil of terror is so terrible that German media cannot realize that there are people who choose to use terror just as an option. They think people cannot be that bad. They are wrong, people are that bad.

German media do not report the Palestinian terror what happened since tuesday because they are not interested in reporting the truth that Palestinians broke the cease fire. The truth is never enough when it comes to Israel and the US.

Two revoltes in prisons of South America. Some articles in our media but is there an outcry because of the situation in the prisons? Is anybody interested in the situation of these prisoners? Pictures how they live or try to live?

[Gabi]

This is good:

"This is how Israel has been depicted for its policies following the outbreak of Palestinian violence in September 2000.

The demonic image of Israel has been promoted by Western reporters and critics who routinely attribute cruel and inhumane motives to Israel. This depiction is reinforced by selective and often outright misleading reporting of events on the ground. The method of those who demonise Israel has various components:-

* when in doubt about what Israel did – condemn it nonetheless

* when the facts are hazy – assume the worst about Israel

* when Israeli spokesmen deny allegations – don’t believe them

* when the Palestinians claim appalling things about Israel – accept their claims at face value (and rebroadcast them)

* when Israel’s actions have a context – describe the action without the context

* when Israel carries out humanitarian projects to benefit Palestinians – ignore the projects.

In this Briefing we highlight several of the most commonly mentioned “demonic” accusations against Israel. ..."

More here

[racker]

@Gabi
"They called Sharon the real terrorist"
Who and when did german media call Sharon REAL TERRORIST.......show me those articles please!!

[Gabi]

»Für mich ist der größte Terrorist Israels Präsident Scharon«

Google mal selbst, wenn du Zweifel hast.

[Gabi]

Terrorist, Kriegsverbrecher sind wohl die schlimmsten Schimpfwörter, mit denen man Scharon betitelt, die Abwehrmaßnahmen der israelischen Soldaten werden terroristisch genannt. Glaubst du das nicht? Kannst du Deutsch lesen?

[martin]

Gaby sorry... I have only found something on the webside from a very little left party. ( die rote fahne) That is very funny. Sorry.

An to other discussion here.
I think the us-american citizen should be look to her own history. Was the USA all the time a real democrat state? Has all citizen the right to vote all the time? Was the land empty when the first european immigrated?

What happen with the Indians? Has they say: "Hello and welcome my friends. Yes you can all get the land, kill us, put us in reservation?"

We here in germany has have a barbarian time until 33-45. I know that and I thank all Countries who fight against this regime. I know that the Nazi don't come above us, they come from the people. I know my response that it will never be again here in germany. I know my history.

Know you yours?

[Gabi]

Martin,
my husband is half native American. He is a very proud American! Both sides of his families are proud Americans. Imagine this!

[martin]

Gabi, das eine schliesst ja das andere nicht aus.

[racker]

@Gabi
kein einziges seriöses medium hat sharon als Terrorist bezeichnet. ich habe nur artikel gefunden in denen palästinenser oder andere einzelne personen (meist arabischer herkunft) dies tun!
Zeige mir nur einen artikel einer seriösen zeitung die sharon als terroristen schimpft und ich werde dir glauben, ansonsten stellst du hier nur dumme behauptungen auf die genau in deine sicht passen!

[Chomskybot]

When "ordinary" Iraqi civilians are murdered, Medienkritik complains that the german media show only the killing and never any positive developments in Iraq.
Now, with an "important" Iraqi murdered, Medienkritik complains that this murder doesn't get enough attention. A rather strange reaction.
You can't have it both ways...

[Gabi]

Racker,
Herr Raddatz sagt es auch so wie ich. Ich habe unzählige Kommentare gelesen, die Sharon so darstellen, daß er Terror anwende. Wie kann dir das entgegensein? Was empört dich daran so? Präzisiere mal, worum es dir geht.

Überzogene Kritik an Israel und Idealisierung der PLO

Unreflektierte Sympathie des Westens für Arafat dient dem Islamismus
Demonstranten in Lille präsentieren am 11. April Israels Premier Scharon als messerwetzenden Schlachter Foto: dpa
Von Hans-Peter Raddatz

Die jüngste Eskalation der Gewalt im Nahen Osten wird von vielen politischen Verantwortlichen in Europa mit zunehmend anti-israelischen Tönen begleitet. Die Berichterstattung vieler Medien, die seit langem auf Seiten der "Sache Palästinas" steht, nimmt zuweilen propagandistische Züge an. Immer mehr erscheint Israel als "Terrorstaat", der eine "Vernichtungsstrategie" betreibe und Unschuldige nicht verschone. Zur Besonnenheit mahnende Analysen, die Todesfälle von Kindern als zynische Propaganda enttarnen, welche von den Palästinensern selbst inszeniert und von Arafat unterstützt wurde, werden beiseite geschoben. Nicht den israelischen, sondern nur den palästinensischen Opfern galt die Aufmerksamkeit.

Um Ostern herum trat diese Entwicklung aus der verbalen in die aktive Handlungsphase. Frankreich mit seinen großen jüdischen und muslimischen Gemeinden schälte sich als idealer Kampfplatz von Stellvertreterkriegen für die Sache Palästinas heraus. Eine Welle konzertierter Gewalt, in der Synagogen und Schulbusse in Flammen aufgingen, überzog das Land. In England wurden Signale gesetzt, indem die ehrwürdige Oxford-Universität den New Yorker Scharfmacher J. Massad zu einer Vorlesung über "Zionismus und Jüdische Vorherrschaft" lud, in der Israel als "rassistischer Staat" dargestellt wurde, der "kein Recht auf Existenz" habe.

Was Deutschland betrifft, so gibt es hier eine lange Tradition der Solidarität mit der Sache Palästinas, in der sich nicht nur die Vermischung von Anti-Zionismus und Kapitalismus-Kritik, sondern auch ein gestörtes Verhältnis zur Gewalt zeigt. So ist bis heute weit gehend unreflektiert geblieben, dass die deutschen Terroristen von der "Rote Armee Fraktion" enge Verbindungen zur Terrorszene der PLO unterhielten und dass RAF-Sympathisanten in den 70er und 80er Jahren für die PLO auf die Straße gingen. Auch ist in Deutschland kaum bekannt, dass Jassir Arafat mit der im Jahre 1964 gegründeten PLO zwei Jahrzehnte später - mehrheitlich aus Schutzgelderpressung sowie Drogen- und Waffenhandel - ein Vermögen "erwirtschaftete", das Kapitalerträge von rund 500 Millionen US-Dollar abwarf, also bei 5 Milliarden Dollar lag. Der Umsatz dieses Konzerns politisierter Kriminalität wurde von der renommierten Rand-Corporation zum Ende der 80er Jahre auf 6 Milliarden US-Dollar geschätzt, zum Ende der 90er Jahre auf 10 Milliarden.

In den stehenden Ovationen, die die UNO-Delegierten dem PLO-Führer schon 1974 - in Ansehen zahlreicher Attentate und Flugzeugentführungen - zollten, spiegelten sich sowohl pragmatischer "Respekt" vor einer Organisation wachsenden Einflusses, als auch das schlechte Gewissen, schon bei der Gründung Israels Konzepte der Friedenssicherung versäumt zu haben. Hier war eine Kraft herangereift, die von der überaus komplexen Spannung zwischen Islam und westlicher Welt in zweierlei Hinsicht profitieren konnte. Zum einen spielte Arafat die westlichen Politiker und Kirchenleute - er ist eine der am häufigsten empfangenen Persönlichkeiten im Vatikan - gegeneinander aus, indem er sie mit der latenten Terrordrohung in einen surrealen Wettbewerb um "Toleranz und Frieden" zwang. Zum anderen bot sich ihm in Gestalt der islamischen Gewaltregimes ein williges Spielmaterial, das sich Arafats ständigen Finanzforderungen beugte, weil die "Sache Palästinas" nahezu unbeschränkten Propagandaraum eröffnete.

Die PLO konnte sich zu einem kriminellen Politkonzern entwickeln, weil sie wichtigen Zwecken dieser beider Machtebenen dient. Je klarer sich die militärische Überlegenheit Israels zeigte, desto ungenierter konnte Arafat mit der ideologischen Zuneigung des Westens und dessen Faszination durch die Gewalt kokettieren, desto sicherer waren ihm auch die Sympathien der islamischen Despoten. Denn diese konnten ihre Probleme an der eigenen Heimatfront umso komfortabler lösen, je weiter sich die Lösung der Palästinafrage in eine diffuse Zukunft verschob: Was auch immer den Mächtigen des Islam vorgeworfen wurde - Schuld waren jedes Mal der israelische "Feind" oder seine "Agenten", die es zu bekämpfen galt und deren Existenz die Entwicklung des eigenen Landes angeblich behinderte.

Eine möglichst menschenunwürdige Existenzform der Palästinenser ist also im Sinne der Mächtigen. Der PLO-Terror hat sich von Beginn an auch nach innen gerichtet, gegen die Entwicklung politisch-rechtsstaatlicher Strukturen und damit gegen jeden, der "Säkularismus und Demokratie" (die nominellen Gründungsziele der Organisation) anstrebte. Zwischen 1965 und 1990 hat dieser gegen die eigenen Leute gerichtete Terror, an dem natürlich auch Abspaltungen wie Hamas und Dschihad teilnahmen, etwa 35.000 Palästinenser das Leben gekostet.

Obwohl all dies in Deutschland ignoriert worden ist, kam es hier bisher noch nicht zu jenen Ausbrüchen des unverhüllten Antisemitismus, wie sie nun in Frankreich und England erkennbar geworden sind. Gleichwohl: entgegen bestehenden Verträgen werden Waffenlieferungen an Israel blockiert, und der FDP-Politiker Jürgen Möllemann, nebenbei Vorsitzender der Deutsch-Arabischen Gesellschaft, hat im Nahost-Blatt Sharq al-Ausat am 14. April erklärt, Israel verübe Staatsterror gegen die Palästinenser und er empfehle, alle wirtschaftliche und militärische Unterstützung einzustellen.

Zu dieser unreflektiert proislamischen Haltung passt, dass seit dem 11. September der "Zentralrat der Muslime" in der Öffentlichkeit als allein authentische Repräsentation des Islam in Deutschland gilt. Dabei ist diese Organisation bislang den Beweis schuldig geblieben, dass sie mehr als 2 Prozent der hier lebenden Muslime vertritt und keine Kontakte zu jenen radikalen Kräften unterhält, welche auf die enormen Finanzmittel der Islamische Weltliga aus dem orthodoxen Petro-Islam zurückgreifen und mit der "Islamischen Legion" in Verbindung stehen. Hierbei handelt es sich um das globale Terrornetz, das sich als neue Gesamtheit islamistischer Organisationen um den Globus legt - mit Deutschland als bevorzugtem Raum der Terror-Vorbereitung.

Die Al Kaida des Osama Bin Laden, die nach wie vor in aller Munde ist, bildet hierbei lediglich ein geeignetes Objekt öffentlicher Ablenkung, das den Blick auf das eigentliche Problem versperrt: ein Netz islamischer Aktivisten, dessen hocheffiziente und jederzeit an jedem Ort aktivierbare Teilnehmerzahl von Experten auf mindestens 200.000 geschätzt wird - als zwangläufiges, hartnäckig verharmlostes Ergebnis von inzwischen 20-jähriger Ausbildungsarbeit in den Terrorstaaten. Der Islam, der laut westlichem Proislamismus "tolerant und vom Islamismus zu trennen" ist, entwickelt sich zum globalen Problem, indem er im Begriff ist, der wirtschaftlichen Globalisierung nun eine terrorfähige Substruktur einzuweben. Wer jetzt nicht bereit ist, in die deutsche Verantwortung für Israel einzutreten, enthüllt ein halbes Jahrhundert intensiver Schulddiskussion als leeres Gerede, das schon unter der ersten ernsthaften Belastungsprobe versagt.

Hans-Peter Raddatz ist Orientalist und Volkswirt. Er ist Ko-Autor der "Encyclopaedia of Islam". Zuletzt erschien sein Buch "Von Gott zu Allah? Christentum und Islam in der liberalen Fortschrittsgesellschaft" (Herbig)

[Tyranno]

Can anyone explain to me the difference between how the Palestinians portray the Jews in all their medias and school books, and the way Germany and France portray America in all of theirs?

Tyranno

[Gabi]

Racker,
Jürgen Möllemann hat Israel als Terrorstaat bezeichnet.

[Ray D.]

@ Chomskybot,

Yes, why does the German media show all of the killing except when the person killed was a journalist who supported the USA and was fighting for democracy in Iraq? That is what we don't get either.

Why is it that when a journalist is killed by US troops (almost always as part of an accident), we never hear the end of it...yet when an Iraqi journalist supporting the US is brutally gunned down by terrorists along with his three year old son its not a big news topic? One word: bias.

---Ray D.

[Gabi an Racker]

Racker,
ist der WDR seriös genug?
Die Verteidigungsmaßnahmen Israels werden als GEGENTERROR bezeichnet.

Nahost: Israel muß jetzt den Anfang vom Ende der Besatzung einläuten

Carsten Kühntopp

Nach rund vier Jahren Terror und Gegenterror sind beide Völker müde. Für die Palästinenser ist das Joch unter der Militärbesatzung so hart geworden, dass sie nur noch eines wollen: Endlich wieder atmen, endlich wieder leben, leben so, wie sie vor der Intifada gelebt haben. Ironie der Geschichte: Die Zustände, die damals zum Ausbruch des Aufstands führten, gelten mittlerweile wieder als erstrebenswert.

Der WDR ist nicht für die Inhalte fremder Seiten verantwortlich, die Sie über einen Link erreichen

Copyright 2005 Westdeutscher Rundfunk Koeln
2005 Westdeutscher Rundfunk
Stand: 10.02.2005 10:23

http://www.wdr.de/radio/wdr2/tagheute/standpunkt_050208.html