Call for action:


http://www.ei-ie.org/en/urgentactionappeal/show.php?id=12&country=iran

Die katholische (assyrisch - babylonisch) Familie Shamoun ist momentan
akut von der Abschiebung nach Syrien bedroht -in ein Land, in dem sie
aus religiösen Gründen verfolgt wird.

In Deutschland lebt die Familie seit mehreren Jahren getrennt voneinander.
Die Mutter lebt mit zwei Kindern ( 18 und 16) in Kempten und der Vater
wohnt mit einer Tochter ( 20 Jahre) in Freudenstadt. Eine
Familienzusammenführung ist seit zwei Jahren nicht möglich, da sie die von den
zuständigen Behörden beharrlich verweigert wird.

Seit zwei Jahren erhält die Mutter kein Taschengeld, da sie keinen Pass von der Syrischen Botschaft erhält und daher als "sans papier" behandelt wird. Paul ist vor kurzem 18 geworden, als Geburttagsgeschenk von den Behörden erhielt er
eine Ausreiseaufforderung sowie die Androhung des Taschengeldentzugs aus
den gleichen Gründen wie bei der Mutter.

Also fehlt es an allen Ecken und Enden, und die Möglichkeiten Familie Shamoun zu unterstützen sind zahlreich.

Hier gibt es eine Online-Petition zum Wohle der Shamouns:


http://jogspace.net/online-petitionen.html

Während am Wochenende der kläglich in die Hose gegangenen Demo einer rechtspopulistischen Möchtegernpartei zu Köln großes Medienecho zuteil wurde, hat man eine andere Veranstaltung, die gleichzeitig in Köln stattfand praktisch völlig ignoriert: Die Kundgebung gegen politisch motivierte Hinrichtungen in Kurdistan-Iran. Schade drum.

Von Uri Avnery bekam ich eine Mail zur aktuellen innenpolitischen Situation in Israel, deren Inhalt ich hier einfach mal kommentarlos veröffentliche - interessant ist der Beitrag allemal.


Tzipi's Choice

AS AN ISRAELI, I am ashamed. An incumbent Prime
Minister has been compelled to resign because of
personal corruption. How awful!

As an Israeli, I am proud. An incumbent Prime
Minister has been compelled to resign because of
personal corruption. How wonderful!

Compelled not by a revolution, not by a military
coup, not by rioting in the streets, not by the
machinations of a rival party. But by the normal
processes of the law enforcement agencies, the
free media and public opinion.

In this sordid affair, democracy has triumphed.
In his delightful little book, "The Trial of
Socrates", I. F. Stone (a man I knew and greatly
admired) defined the peaceful removal of a
political leader as a hallmark of democracy.
Socrates advocated a dictatorship by the man of
"knowledge". Stone laid great stress on the fact
that there would have been no way to remove such
a ruler in case of necessity.

IN ANCIENT Athens, major leaders were elected by
all those with full citizenship (about half the
free citizens, and slaves, of course, were
excluded). Less prominent officials were
appointed by lot - the theory being that all full
citizens are equally qualified to conduct the
affairs of state. Sometimes I think that this may
not be such a bad idea.

However, the Kadima party thinks otherwise. On
Wednesday, the party's rank and file will elect
Ehud Olmert's replacement as Party Chairman, who
will then almost automatically become Prime
Minister, unless he or she fails to put together
a governing coalition - in which case new
elections will take place, probably at the
beginning of 2009. Until then Olmert would still
act as a lame duck Prime Minister.

The real choice is between two candidates: Tzipi
Livni and Shaul Mofaz. They could hardly be more
different.

First of all, because it is Man against Woman.
For the first time in Israeli history, there is a
straight confrontation between the genders. (When
the late unlamented Golda Meir was appointed
Prime Minister in 1969, after the sudden death of
Levy Eshkol, she had no competitors.)

Their background reflects the two extremes of
Jewish Israeli society; Mofaz is an "Oriental",
born in Iran, an outsider. Livni is a native-born
Ashkenazi Israeli, an insider. She is also a
"princess" - her father was a leader of the Irgun
underground and (like Olmert's father) a member
of the Knesset.

But the real difference is between the forces they represent.

AS A professional soldier, Shaul Mofaz represents
the force that has dominated Israel from its very
beginning: the "security establishment".

This vast complex has unmatched political,
economic and ideological power. Since all major
political parties have degenerated into cynical
trade unions of party hacks, without an ideology
or any real political program, the army is now,
in my view, the only real party in Israel.

It is not the Turkish army or the Pakistani army.
It is an instrument of a democratic system, fully
obedient to the civil authority. But behind this
façade it is much more: it is an economic empire
that consumes by far the largest share of the
annual budget, a pressure group, a political
lobby, an ideological center.

It is, in a way, a religion - with Security as
its only god and the high command as its
priesthood. Nothing trumps Security in Israel,
and when its name is mentioned, everything else
is forgotten. Hear oh Israel, Security thy God,
Security is One.

Like almost any religion, it is connected with
huge economic interests. The "security" industry,
with its production of weapons and other military
equipment, plays a central role in the Israeli
economy and in its exports, turning the twenty or
so tycoons who dominate our economy into natural
allies of the generals. Dwight Eisenhower would
recognize the pattern.

The immeasurable impact on political
decision-making of the "security establishment" -
the armed forces, the General Security Service
(Shin Bet), the Mossad and the police - is
underlined by the fact that the Chief of Staff
takes part in all cabinet meetings. He never
dictates to the government - perish the thought!
- but it would be a very brave politician indeed
who contradicted "the considered opinion of the
army".

Since Israel was born in war and has been in a
state of war ever since, there is hardly any area
of Israeli life that does not lie within the
scope of Security. And in security matters, it is
of course the security chiefs whose opinions are
decisive. Also, the army is the sole ruler of the
occupied territories (as, indeed, demanded by
international law).

In this connection, the settlers must be
considered. They are an immensely strong pressure
group. While many of them have established their
settlements "illegally", no settler would be
where he is today if he had not been put there by
the army. In many places, the symbiosis between
settler and soldier is so perfect that they are
one and the same: many army officers are settlers
themselves.

FOR A nation at war, it is natural that the army
also shapes the national ideology. The media are
willing, indeed eager, collaborators. Peace is a
silly concept for effete, weak-kneed wimps. It is
also, of course, a complete and dangerous
illusion.

All this is reinforced by an immense network of
ex-officers, the "ex" being only formal. With a
few honorable exceptions, all ex-army officers
belong to the same club and hold the same
beliefs. Since the army looks after its own,
senior officers who leave the army in their
middle 40s, as is usual, generally find high
positions in industry, the public services or the
political parties - extending the army's "sphere
of influence".

What this means is that very many people have -
mildly put - a vested interest in the absence of
peace.

Shaul Mofaz personifies all of this. He belongs
to this complex, he made his career there as a
general, chief of Staff and Minister of Defense.
No one has ever heard him voice an original
thought - his whole mental world is shaped by the
army. In all his jobs he has been reliable and
diligent mediocrity.

When he had finished his army career and was
looking for political opportunities, he had -
like many of his predecessors - no party
preference. Such a person can easily find his
place in Labor, the Likud or Kadima, not to
mention the radical right. The Likud offered the
best prospects at that moment. When his way there
was blocked, he jumped at the very last second
onto Ariel Sharon's bandwagon - 24 hours after
solemnly promising that he would never, but
never, entertain such a treacherous thought.

MILITARY DOMINANCE of Israeli affairs has one
hidden effect: it excludes women. The macho,
he-man atmosphere of the army has no place for
them.

This was brought up some years ago by a feminist
group called New Profile, which declared its goal
to be the de-militarization of Israeli society.
Perhaps by accident, it is this group which the
Attorney General decided to prosecute this week
for anti-army activities, inciting against
joining the army, helping draft evaders, advising
potential recruits to pose as mental cases and
such.

Livni is not just a Foreign Minister, a job
traditionally despised by the Security
Establishment, but also a Civilian and, even
worse, a Woman. That is what makes this choice so
tempting.

In public, the two candidates say almost the
same. They repeat the usual mantras. But there
are the (almost) hidden agendas.

There is the racist angle, the sin that does not
dare speak its name. Like the race factor in the
US elections, the "ethnic" factor may play a far
bigger role here than we like to admit. Orientals
tend to vote for Mofaz, Europeans - Ashkenazis -
for Livni.

There is the gender factor. Women may tend to vote for one of their own.

And there is the military factor: a vote for
Livni is - consciously or mostly unconsciously -
a vote against the military domination of our
lives.

What kind of states(wo)man would a Prime Minister
Tzipi Livni be? No one can know, perhaps not even
she herself. Her basic mental world is
right-wing. Her world view is centered around the
concept of a Jewish State. Jewish in the old
Jabotinsky way of thinking: not In a religious
sense (Jabotinsky was quite secular) but in a
19th century nationalistic one. That could lead
to peace based on a sincere belief in the
two-state concept (to which Mofaz, too, pays lip
service). But I would not count on it.

Mofaz we know. Livni we don't know. That may lead
some Kadima members on Wednesday to vote for
Livni.