- Marcus Faber (FDP),
the new Chairman of the Bundestag's Defense Committee since 12 June
2024, took aim at Rolf Mützenich: “I have not yet heard any statement
from Mr Mützenich on Putin's medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad.”[25] This probably refers to the Iskander ballistic missiles, which can be armed both conventionally and with nuclear weapons. The
fact that Mützenich does not comment on this could be related to the
fact that these missiles, although not in the Kaliningrad area, already
existed completely unchallenged at a time when the INF Treaty had not
yet been torpedoed: with their range of up to 500 kilometers, no one
even in the USA would have thought of talking about medium-range
missiles at that time. Such
missiles were only moved to Kaliningrad when American missile defense
systems of the Aegis Ashore type began to take shape in Poland, which
from the Russian point of view were also strategically offensive[26] and could therefore be deactivated in the event of war. -
Finally, politicians and the media in Germany like to repeatedly invoke
the horror scenario that Moscow could use Iskander to launch a nuclear
attack on Berlin. Even
if it is little consolation, the nuclear weapons expert Otfried
Nassauer, who unfortunately died far too early, had already determined
years ago in collaboration with the Danish expert Hans Kristensen,
Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of
American Scientists, that Iskander missiles could at best reach
Eberswalde even from the south-westernmost tip of Kaliningrad.
- The Berliner Zeitung reported in its print edition of July 29, 2024, citing dpa
in an article entitled “Putin threatens to respond”: “Russian warships
could [...] also be equipped with missiles in response [to the
deployment of US medium-range weapons in Germany - W.S.].” However, the fact is - dpa here, dpa
there - that Russia has had Kalibr sea-based cruise missiles, which can
be equipped with conventional or nuclear weapons, since 2012. In
2015, these weapons were used for the first time - from the Caspian Sea
against targets in Syria, where Moscow's intervention became a decisive
factor in thwarting the attempted coup d'état by the Syrian opposition
against the Assad regime, which was massively supported by the USA and
other NATO states. At the time, Putin praised the “high-tech, high-precision, modern” weapons. The
missiles had flown over a distance of 1500 kilometers and at an
altitude of between 80 and 1300 meters, changing their flight direction
147 times. In
a television interview, the Russian president said: “It is one thing to
know at an expert level that Russia has such weapons, and quite another
to be convinced that, firstly, they actually exist, that they are
manufactured by our arms industry, secondly, that they are of high
quality, thirdly, that there are people who can use them efficiently,
and fourthly, that Russia is also prepared to use them.”[27]
- Claudia Major
and other proponents of the deployment emphasize that the new US
delivery systems, which are to come to Germany from 2026, will not be
nuclear, but (merely?) conventional weapons.[28] Is this supposed to reassure? Unfortunately, there is no reason to do so, at least with regard to the Tomahawks. If
the worst comes to the worst, it would be impossible for Russia to
determine how cruise missiles of this type are armed - conventionally or
with nuclear weapons. It is therefore highly likely that any counter-strike launched before the cruise missiles hit would be a worst-case scenario. However,
Major's speculation that NATO will have “additional options for
escalation management below the nuclear threshold thanks to these
conventional systems” from 2026 could prove to be a suicidal
miscalculation in an emergency.
Moscow had already made it clear a few years ago that such a risk exists when the USA began to replace the large-caliber W76-1 warheads (explosive power: 90 kilotons) on individual strategic delivery systems - sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Trident type - with tactical W76-2s with comparatively low explosive power (estimated at eight kilotons[29]). [30] (This was first done in 2019 on the USS Tennessee, a nuclear-powered carrier submarine.[31]) Early warning systems could not distinguish whether a strategic carrier system - as an exception, so to speak - was “only” carrying a tactical warhead.[32] - Wolfgang Richter,
a former Bundeswehr colonel who worked for the SWP for several years
and currently at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, has presented
the most profound assessment of the US-German deployment coup to date. It is publicly accessible, so only three of his central statements are reproduced here, which Richter also underpins in detail:
First - The deployment of long-range US medium-range weapons in Germany would have “the potential to alter the strategic balance between the US and Russia, significantly reduce the chances of reviving nuclear arms control and further intensify the political and military confrontation between NATO and Russia.”[33]
Secondly - “With the bilateral deployment notification, Germany is deviating for the first time from its traditional course of not allowing itself to be singularized and sharing the risks of politically sensitive and momentous decisions with other allies.”[34]
Thirdly - “It also remains unclear how the authority to command the deployment of conventional long-range weapons from Germany with strategic effects in Russia is to be regulated in future. Will their deployment remain a purely national decision of the USA, will Germany have a say, or should their deployment only take place in an alliance context and after an alliance vote? Should the former rule apply, Germany would have its fate at the mercy of the strategic interests and decisions of the USA in the event of a conflict."[35] - By Milan Nowak
- [This article posted on August 22, 2024 is
translated from the German on the Internet,
https://www.isw-muenchen.de/online-publikationen/texte-artikel/5285-marxistische-selbstverstaendigung-wege-des-antifaschismus-2.]
Rocket roulette
by Wolfgang Schwarz
[This
article posted on 8/12/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet, https://das-blaettchen.de/2024/08/raketenroulette-69602.html.]
Government expects understanding
As many as 47 percent of Germans
that the US cruise missiles
increase the risk of a conflict with Russia.
Only 17% believe their lives will be safer.
Focus, 30/2024
So far, Scholz's turnaround
has manifested itself in an exorbitant increase in German arms spending
and an accompanying increase in the general militarization of the
country[1],
which follows the motto issued by Federal Defence Minister Pistorius as
early as 2023, sanctioned by the Chancellor and reaffirmed by Pistorius
in the Bundestag on 5 June 2024: “We must be ready for war by 2029."[2] Moreover, the turning point
is manifested in billions of taxpayers' money being squandered on aid
to Ukraine, which appears to be primarily aimed at wearing out Russia's
military and economic resources in the long term rather than ending the
war as quickly as possible.[3]
Recently, the turning point has also been defined as follows: While
the stationing of US medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe,
which took place in the early 1980s, not only required a unanimous
decision by the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
the so-called NATO Double-Track Decision of December 12, 1979[4], but for Germany, moreover, a separate majority decision by the Bundestag on 22. November
1983 in order to actually begin deployment just days later, this time a
decision by the US government, nodded off by the Chancellor and
announced at a press conference on the fringes of the most recent NATO
summit, which took place in Washington from July 9 to 11, 2024, was
sufficient: Three types of ground-based US long-range weapons are to be stationed in Germany from 2026: Tomahawk
cruise missiles, Standard Missile 6/SM-6 (in the surface-to-surface
missile version) and hypersonic missiles currently still under
development (presumably of the Dark Eagle type).[5]
Vasily Kashin, Director of the Moscow-based Center for Comprehensive
European and International Studies, CCEIS, attributes a range of 3,000
kilometers to the latter.[6] Unit numbers have not yet been mentioned. The
current announcement was not accompanied by a parallel offer to
negotiate with Moscow, as was the case with the NATO Dual-Track
Decision. This time, the other NATO states were left out of the loop, as was the Bundestag.
In contrast to the reporting in some media, which spoke of a merely temporary deployment of the US systems,[7]
the US-German statement reads: “The United States will begin episodic
deployments of its Multi-Domain Task Force long-range fire capabilities
in Germany in 2026 as part of the planning for a permanent deployment of these capabilities in the future (emphasis added - W.S.)”[8].
Former SPD chairman Norbert Walter-Borjans expressed his astonishment on Deutschlandfunk radio
that, despite this far-reaching security policy decision taken
single-handedly by the Federal Chancellor - in a quasi lord of the manor
manner - “there is [...] a frightening silence throughout society”[9]. Walter-Borjans'
perception is certainly correct when it comes to the public, especially
when looking back at the powerful peace movement[10]
that formed at the beginning of the 1980s against the double decision,
but this is precisely what the savvy political professional Scholz may
have soberly calculated: In
a society for which seamlessly merging crises in central areas of life
have been the normal state of affairs for years, tying up and sapping
energy, accompanied by daily reports of war in neighboring regions
(Ukraine, Middle East), the announcement of the deployment of a few more
missiles aimed at Russia will not draw anyone out from behind the
stove. Not
even if a few lonely criers in the wilderness make themselves heard -
once again the SPD parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag, Rolf
Mützenich: “It is not clear to me [...] why Germany alone should deploy
such systems. I have always understood burden-sharing to mean something else."[11]
Others,
however, are not holding back with their unconditional approval of the
planned missile deployment, including once again leading Greens. First and foremost, as the Tagesschau
reported, “Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock [...] has defended the
planned stationing of long-range US missiles in Germany against
criticism”[12]. And “Federal Economics Minister Habeck”, according to Deutschlandfunk radio, “described the decision as necessary, even if he does not take armament lightly.”[13]
The
reaction from Moscow to the current deployment decision was prompt and
made it clear what the most serious consequences of implementing the
decision would be. In
his speech at the naval parade in Saint Petersburg on July 28,
President Putin explained that US systems in Germany would make
important Russian state and military facilities and industrial companies
vulnerable to attack, with the US missiles only needing around ten
minutes to reach their targets in Russia[14].
Putin was obviously referring to the announced Dark Eagle[15] hypersonic weapons, which are supposed to operate at a speed of Mach 5[16] and would thus bring back a situation like the one that already existed in 1983 with the Pershing II deployment: According
to experts, an extremely shortened warning time invites the systems in
question to be pre-emptively switched off in an escalating crisis
situation. The
Erhard-Eppler-Kreis probably had this context in mind when it made its
statement: it was “about nothing less than the question of whether our
densely populated country could become the target of a nuclear first
strike”[17]. Such
an attack would, of course, be highly contrary to international law,
but the question itself would, in retrospect, be of academic importance
for Germany at best. We can therefore only agree with Wolfgang Richter's assessment: The deployment decision “changes Germany's strategic situation”[18].
However, even renowned German security experts are no strangers to the idea of pre-emptive strikes. Just
a few days after the current deployment announcement, Claudia Major
from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) -
which claims to be the think tank of the German government and the
Bundestag - made the following statement in a plea published by Handelsblatt
under the apodictic headline “Europe needs the US medium-range
missiles”: “In an emergency, NATO states must also be able to attack
themselves, for example to destroy Russian missile capabilities before
they can attack NATO territory and to destroy Russian military targets,
such as command centers. “[19]
It also seems somewhat strange in this context when Chrismon,
the magazine of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), of all places,
has a private lecturer at the Bundeswehr University in Munich warn
against “disinformation slingers”, to which the author of this article
would probably also belong, who “are now [...] unnecessarily persuading
people to fear nuclear death”[20]. On
the other hand - if one takes into account the centuries-long blessing
of weapons and war campaigns by officials of Christian churches ...
Alternatively,
Moscow could largely automate the launch of a counter-attack in the
event of an attack - pre-emptively quasi à la Major with the future US
systems from Germany - and thus ensure that a military response takes
place before the first enemy missiles hit. Such considerations were repeatedly discussed by Western experts during the first Cold War under terms such as launch on warning and launch under attack - including the associated risks. For
example, in the event of an automated counter-strike, there would be
virtually no human intervention options left to prevent a cascading
sequence of events leading to a nuclear apocalypse in the event of a
false alarm - as happened on September 25, 1983 in a combat command
center of the Soviet early warning system at the time[21].
It is obvious that with launch on warning or launch under attack, the risk of a nuclear war between Russia and the West could also increase significantly beyond the current level.
The
fact that Russia will not limit its countermeasures to Germany and
Western Europe was already indicated by the Russian media on July 12,
when they reminded Vasily Kashin that “we should not forget the
statements of the top Russian military leadership” that “if missiles
appear near our borders, we will symmetrically create an additional
pressure point near the United States”[22]. A
remark made by Donald Trump at the Republican Convention held in
Milwaukee from July 15-18, 2024, fits into this context: “Russian
warships and nuclear submarines are operating just 60 miles off the
coast of Cuba. Did you know that?"[23]
This remark apparently referred to the fact that three battleships and a
nuclear-powered submarine from the Russian navy had paid an official
visit to Havana in June. However, they were not carrying nuclear weapons, as Cuban authorities assured.
For his part, Putin emphasized in his aforementioned speech in St. Petersburg, according to RT DE:
“Russia will react in the same way depending on the actions of the US
and ‘its satellites in Europe and other regions of the world’.”[24]
*
Finally, some comments in the debate to date on the US-German deployment announcement:
However, the latter would not be a novelty. Germany
has already been in this situation for decades - through its so-called
nuclear sharing: the provision of German fighter bombers as delivery
systems for US nuclear bombs, the deployment of which is decided solely
in Washington[36].
PS:
Also during the NATO summit in Washington, the defense ministers of
Germany, France, Italy and Poland signed a declaration of intent to
develop weapons that can precisely hit enemy targets at depth. Specifically,
this involves a land-based stand-off weapon with a range of up to 2000
kilometers that can be deployed not least from mobile platforms. This
so-called LCM (Land Cruise Missile System) is to be derived in part
from cruise missiles that have already been developed, such as those
used by France on warships and by Germany using aircraft[37].
[1] - For more detailed information, see Bulletins 4/2024 and 9/2024.
[2] - German Bundestag, Documents 2024 - accessed on 08/08/2024.
[3]
- How else could the peculiarity of the German government's policy be
interpreted, on the one hand contributing the main share of Western aid
to Ukraine alongside the USA and on the other hand financially enabling
tens of thousands of male Ukrainian refugees in this country to evade
their compulsory military service at home?
[4]
- The decision provided for the stationing of new land-based US
medium-range nuclear systems in Western Europe: 464 Tomahawk cruise
missiles (range up to 2500 kilometers) and 108 Pershing II ballistic
missiles (range up to 1800 kilometers). The
cruise missiles were deployed in Belgium, the FRG, Great Britain, Italy
and the Netherlands; the Pershing IIs were intended exclusively for the
FRG.
All systems could reach targets in the former Soviet Union. The
Pershing-II, with its ability to take out Soviet military and political
command and control centers as far as Moscow with a warning time of
well under ten minutes, was not only classified by Moscow as a
first-strike weapon to prevent the USSR from launching a devastating
counter-attack in time in the event of a surprise nuclear attack by the
USA, i.e. to nullify Moscow's previously assured second-strike
capability. At the time, Moscow did not have comparable military capabilities vis-à-vis the USA.
At
the same time, the NATO Double-Track Decision included an offer to the
USSR to enter into arms limitation and disarmament negotiations on
land-based medium-range weapons and, in the event of a treaty agreement,
to re-examine NATO's need for rearmament.
Corresponding Soviet-American negotiations did take place, but were unsuccessful. Deployment began at the end of 1983.
With the Soviet-American INF Treaty of December 8, 1987, a double zero solution was finally agreed: The
land-based medium-range weapons of both sides with a range of 500 to
5000 kilometers were completely disarmed, and corresponding systems were
banned worldwide for both sides.
At that time, however, the USA also had Tomahawk air- and sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles. These were neither the subject of the INF Treaty nor of later Russian-American arms control and disarmament agreements.
[5] - Cf. Joint Statement from United States and Germany on Long-Range Fires Deployment in Germany, whitehouse.gov., July 10, 2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[6] - Cf. Alyona Zadoroshnaya: Russia is forced to create a pressure point near the USA, RT DE, July 12, 2024 - accessed on August 7, 2024.
[7] - For example, the Berliner Zeitung (online), 11.07.2024 - accessed on 07.08.2024.
[8] - Joint Statement from United States and Germany ..., op. cit.
[9] - Walter-Borjans (SPD): Die Debatte über die Stationierung von US-Raketen führen, Deutschlandfunk, 30.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[10]
- Exactly one month before the Bundestag's stationing decision, on 22
October 1983, the peace movement mobilized hundreds of thousands of
protesters from all sections of the population in Bonn's Hofgarten and a
total of 1.3 million people nationwide on that day. Cf. “22. November 1983: Bundestag confirms decision on NATO Double-Track Decision”, Federal Agency for Civic Education, 21.11.2018 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[11] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung (online), 20.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[12] - Tagesschau (online) 21.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[13] - Deutschlandfunk (online), 15.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[14] - Cf. “Putin announces Russia's reaction to US long-range missiles in Germany”, RT DE, 28.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[15] - For more details on this weapon system, see Wolfgang Richter: Stationierung von U.S. Mittelstreckenraketen in Deutschland, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, July 2024, p. 3 - accessed on 08.08.2024
[16] - Cf. David Wright / Cameron Tracy: Hypersonic weapons are mediocre. It's time to stop wasting money on them, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 12, 2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[17] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung (online), 29.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[18] - Wolfgang Richter, op. cit. p. 2.
[19] - Claudia Major: Europe needs the US medium-range missiles, Handelsblatt (online), 19.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[20] - Constantin Lummitsch: “Sahra Wagenknecht und die AfD schüren falsche Ängste”, Chrismon (online), 17.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
[21]
- In an interview in 2013, the officer on duty at the time, Colonel
Stanislav Petrov, described the specific course of events at the Soviet
command and control center on 25 September 1983: “The alarm went off at
around 0.15 a.m., completely unexpectedly. We had often rehearsed this, but now it was serious. All
the festive lights came on, the sirens blared and the screens flashed
in big red letters: 'Missile launch with maximum probability'. It was a shock, like a bolt from the blue. I
was the duty officer, the oldest and highest ranking, the others were
junior officers who were responsible for arming the missiles. They were confused and looked at me. They were all waiting for my decision. [...] I doubted the information. The computer reported a single missile. We had expected the enemy to strike massively. The American hawks have said this often enough: we will strike first, if necessary, with a mass launch. This would destroy about half of the Soviet population and important infrastructure. [...] I made my first report after two minutes. I had that much time to analyze the situation. I
reported a false alarm, and while I was still on the phone with the
General Staff, the computer reported a second missile launch and then a
third, fourth and fifth. The siren went off again, which my superior heard directly over the phone. But I said: “This is also a false alarm. I'll clarify what's happening here and then get back to you. [...] 17 minutes later, the radar systems reported that there were no missiles approaching. [...]
After three and a half months, we found out that the observation
satellites had probably interpreted sunbeams reflecting off the earth's
surface as a missile launch, and over an American military base of all
places. Such blinding [...] by the sun was extremely unlikely, but not impossible.” (Stefan Locke: “Der rote Knopf hat nie funktioniert”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 18.02.2013 - accessed on 07.08.2024.)
[22] - Quoted from Alyona Zadoroshnaya, op. cit.
[23] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung, July 27/28, 2024, p, 23.
[24] - “Putin announces Russia's reaction ...”, op. cit.
[25] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung, July 30, 2024, p. 13.
[26] - See in detail Blättchen 4/2019 and Blättchen 5/2019.
[27] - Quoted from Julia Smirnova: Russland nutzt Syrien als Testgebiet für neue Waffen, Die Welt, 14.10.2015 -
accessed on 08.08.2024. - A few years later, the USA used a
nuclear-armed land-based Kalibr version as a pretext to terminate the
INF Treaty. They claimed that the cruise missile had a range of more than 500 kilometers and was therefore a violation of the treaty. Russia repeatedly denied this, but only offered an on-site inspection after some hesitation. The USA did not respond ...
[28] - See Claudia Major, op. cit.
[29] - See Hans M. Kristensen / Matt Korda: Nuclear Notebook - United States nuclear weapons, 2023, thebulletin.org, January 16, 2023 - accessed 08.08.2024.
[30] - See in detail Blättchen 4/2020.
[31] - See Hans M. Kristensen / Matt Korda, op. cit.
[32] - See in detail Blättchen 4/2020.
[33] - Wolfgang Richter, op. cit. p. 2.
[34] - Ibid, p. 8.
[35] - Ibid, p. 9.
[36] - See in detail Blättchen 11/2020.
[37] - Cf. Thomas Gutschker: Eine neue Waffe, die Moskau treffen könnte, faz.net, 11.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024 - and Markus Fasse: Raketen-Alternative zum “Tomahawk”, Handelsblatt (online), 16.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.
Paths of anti-fascism. Marxist study week 2024
Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt discussed causes and the fight against right-wing developments in the EU, Germany and America
Background: Right-wing development
Fascism researcher Reinhard Opitz wrote in his essay “What is right-wing? What are right-wing tendencies?”, which appearedin the second issue of Marxistische Blätterin
1980 , that ‘left-wing movements or forces’ are those that ‘push
towards the next objectively possible degree of realization of democracy
at their time or work towards it selectively’.
Right-wing
movements or forces, on the other hand, are those that “push back
behind the relative historical degree of realization of democracy
already achieved at their time or even just the scope for articulation
of democratic (left-wing) forces”.
Two questions also arise acutely for the left here:
What are the causes of the development of the right?
And how can Marxists not only analyze them, but also combat them?
An
attempt to find adequate answers to these questions was made by the
Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt am Main from August 12 to 15 with over
50 participants. Since 2008, the conference has been organized by the journal Marxistische Erneuerung, the Heinz Jung Foundation and the Institute for Social-Ecological Economic Research, isw. The conference kicked off on Monday last week with a panel discussing historical legal developments.
Stefan Bollinger looked back more than 100 years and spoke about the counter-revolution from 1848/49 to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Frank Deppe looked at the Weimar Republic and Silvia Gingold spoke about renazification in West Germany from 1945 and the occupational bans that affected her. Protests and solidarity committees demanded democratic rights for those affected. However, according to Gingold, the danger of occupational bans still exists today. She
referred to the ongoing repression against Palestine solidarity and the
peace movement as well as the Ministry of the Interior's plans to ban
“extremists” and “enemies of the constitution” from practicing their
professions. The only effective protection of the constitution, said Gingold, was a broad democratic public.
Philipp
Becher, following fascism researcher Reinhard Opitz, recognized the
shift to the right as an expression of an integration crisis in
bourgeois society. The
liaison between capitalism and parliamentary democracy is not a
historically normal case, the class rule of the bourgeoisie is not bound
to any form of state, he explained and reminded the audience that
democratic elements of bourgeois society are fought for and realized by
the labour movement. In an alliance with social liberals, it was important to “seize every seed” - but to maintain one's independence as a Marxist.
Another panel dealt with international legal developments.
Ingar
Solty interpreted the rise of the “Bonapartist” Donald Trump as the
result of a hegemony crisis in the USA, which has its economic basis in
the impoverishment of broad sections of the population since the Volcker
Shock in 1978. Trump's possible re-election would mean an intensified authoritarian restructuring of the state. Sabine
Kebir pointed out the political flexibility of Italy's head of
government Giorgia Meloni, who is cleverly maneuvering within the EU,
but is also strictly Atlanticist against Russia and China. In
return for her loyalty to foreign policy, the EU and the USA gave her
free rein in Italy against the welfare state, women's rights and
refugees.
Andrés
Musacchio explained the rise of Argentinian President Javier Milei as a
result of the weakness of a crisis-ridden but also inconsistent
Peronist left and an economic elite interested in capital flight and
selling out. Milei is rapidly destroying social, scientific and cultural institutions while expanding the military and the police. Cornelia Hildebrandt gave an overview of legal developments in the EU.
Gerd Wiegel explained the causes and dimensions of the development of the right in Germany.
Andreas
Fisahn discussed the role of the bourgeois right in the fight against
fascism, specifically on the basis of the debate about an AfD ban and
legal remedies against its Thuringian state and parliamentary group
leader Björn Höcke. Working
groups dealt with topics including political education in the fight
against the right, the fight for a humane asylum policy and the question
of a new popular front strategy.
A final plenary session with Violetta Bock, Andrea Hornung and Wiegel discussed current ways of anti-fascist politics.
The Marxist study week was praised by the participants as insightful. The analysis of anti-feminist forces would have been a good addition, as was noted by the participants. In addition, the economic causes should be examined more closely. The presentation of the next issue of the journal Marxistische Erneuerung on September 29 on the topic of “Zeitenwende: Authoritarian capitalism - FRG economy under the pressure of geopolitical machinations” will follow on from this.
In its presentation, the Socialist Democratic Student Association recalled a quote from Bert Brecht's “Life of Galileo”:
“When truth is too weak to defend itself, it must go on the attack.”
The betrayed people
The fate of the Palestinians can be compared to that of the North American Indians. Those who were not expelled remained as the “underclass” in their own country. Part 1 of 2.
“There is no Palestinian people,” said former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The political background to this statement seems clear. Where there is “no one”, you can settle with confidence. And
if there are somehow people in the coveted territory, they don't have
to be taken so seriously or even recognized as equals. The
regret of Western countries over the ongoing expulsion, subjugation and
discrimination of Palestinians by the “Jewish state” has always been
limited. In
fact, the Palestinians have all the characteristics of a separate
people: their own traditional territory, culture and language. In historical considerations, it is usually mentioned in a double pack: “Israel/Palestine”. It is time to tell the eventful history of this people before ever larger parts of it perish in a hail of bombs.
[This article posted on 8/22/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/das-betrogene-volk.]
“From sea to shining sea” - sound familiar?
This phrase is part of the American dream of “manifest, irrevocable destiny”! “Manifest
Destiny” was a term coined by the journalist John O'Sullivan in the
mid-19th century to legitimize the expansion of America by settlers from
east to west, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, which began in the
early 19th century (1).
“‘All
men are created equal’, this famous sentence from the American
Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, was revolutionary in the
age of feudalism and colonialism (...) They committed themselves to
human rights, the separation of powers and democracy - a highlight of
the Enlightenment.”
But
land hunger and finally gold drove away and cheated the indigenous
population of all promises and treaties and finally almost completely
destroyed them despite fierce resistance, an “ethnocide” (2).
Were
the Palestinians just lucky that the fraud against them only took place
in the 20th century and was not so easy to carry out in the face of
global international public opinion and a few enshrined global “human
rights”?
Did
all barriers of morality and humanity have to be torn down
internationally in order to make the crime in Gaza possible in the 21st
century?
Jeshajahu
Leibowitz, professor at the University of Jerusalem and editor of the
Hebrew Encyclopaedia, whom Ezer Weizmann called “one of the greatest
personalities in the life of the Jewish people (...) for many in Israel
as the spiritual conscience”, judges the saying “There is no Palestinian
people” coined by Golda Meir, the former Israeli foreign minister and
prime minister, and repeated to this day: “This is genocide!”
And regarding the Jewish claim to the land, Leibowitz asks: Is the “... the
covenant between God and Abraham described in the 15th chapter of the
book of Genesis, which includes the promise of land” be considered ‘a
historical fact’ today? and concludes:
“Four
Tannaim and Amoraim hold the opinion that, of course, the gift of land
had already been redeemed for the sake of the merits of the forefathers
and had thus expired” (3).
So is the “Manifest Destiny” of the Jewish people “from the sea to the river” deniable?
The Israeli founding fraud - not the first
The “Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948” states, among other things, analogously as above:
“It will guarantee to all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race or sex, social and political equality” (4).
None of this has been fulfilled to date, on the contrary.
Until
1967, the entire remaining Palestinian population in Israel was under a
military regime and has been subjected to extensive discrimination ever
since: as Palestinians, as “non-Jews” and as Arabs, they are
second-class citizens.
The
greatest betrayal of the promise made in the constitution is the
systematic expropriation of Palestinian property, above all their
private and communal ownership of land and soil, down to a few percent. The
continued “land hunger” of the State of Israel now extends - as claimed
more than a hundred years ago - “from the sea to the river”, now
fulfilled in 1967 by the military occupation of East Jerusalem,
including the Old City and the West Bank, all the way to the Jordan
River (5).
A look at the history of the beginnings.
Fundamental events before and during the First World War
These were turbulent times at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries: The
power struggle of the major industrialized nations on European soil for
global access to the land, people and resources of the old empires in
Eastern Europe and the Middle East leads to the First World War; the
United States of America intervenes in world affairs for the first time
and has been involved ever since; Colonial
peoples and the many nations under the old empires, Tsarist Russia, the
Habsburg Danube Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire strive for independence
and nation-statehood; the Russian Revolution, the founding of the
League of Nations and the peace negotiations of the victorious powers in
Versailles herald a turning point - with promises, disappointments and
ultimately new sources of conflict. It is the time of modern nation-state movements.
From subject to citizen
"For centuries, many peoples in Europe had often not only been distributed, but also lived under distributed rule. The
transformation of popular consciousness into national consciousness is
to be seen as a consequence of the modern development of society in the
social, cultural, legal, economic and political spheres" (6).
Among
the peoples striving for independence at that time were the Palestinian
people - in line with the peoples and nations of the other Arab
territories of the Ottoman Empire: Greater Syria, which at that time
comprised today's Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in addition to Palestine.
Weaknesses, missed opportunities and hopes
Contrary
to the general Western and above all Zionist view, the Palestinian
people also possess the typical characteristics of a separate people. They
have lived for centuries in a definable area, the “Holy Land”, and feel
that they belong to it; they have their own language, Palestinian
Arabic with various dialects; and they have a folk art that belongs only
to them.
Palestinian personalities, religious, political and cultural, can be traced back a long time (7).
The region of Palestine at the end of the 19th century
Palestine, the “Holy Land”, is part of the “Levant” and the “Fertile Crescent”. For
thousands of years, the “Holy Land” has been a coveted transit area for
European, Arab and Far Eastern peoples, a land bridge between Europe
and the Middle and Far East. They have all left their mark there. Since the Arab conquest in the 7th century, Palestine has been part of the Arab cultural area.
From
1516 until the end of the First World War, i.e. for four centuries, the
area of Palestine belonged to the Ottoman Empire as “Greater Syria”,
with increasing autonomy as an Arab province, combined with Syria and
Lebanon as well as today's Jordan, then Trans-Jordan. It
became a territory of today's size through the definition of the
British Mandate by the League of Nations “from the Middle Sea to the
Jordan River”.
As
the “Holy Land of Palestine, the region of origin of the three
Abrahamic religions, it has been a pilgrimage destination for believers
from Europe, Africa and the Middle and Far East for centuries. Cities
such as Nablus, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Hebron and above all Jerusalem
became popular places of early pilgrimage tourism for Jews, Christians
and Muslims. Some
of these pilgrims and dreamers stayed, as evidenced by the various
neighborhoods in the historic Old City of Jerusalem, the African, the
Armenian, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Jewish and so
on.
In
the 19th century, the Palestinians were predominantly Muslim, with
larger proportions of Christians, especially in the cities of Jerusalem,
Bethlehem and Nazareth, and a small proportion of remaining non-Zionist
Jews, especially in the Galilee and Jerusalem, Mizrahi as they are
distinctively called in Israel. They
were considered Palestinians until the end of the Ottoman Empire and
were all Ottoman citizens, regardless of their religion, most of whom
had lived in the Holy Land for centuries (8).
Economic, social and political life
At
the end of the 19th century, Palestine was once again a prosperous
country, exporting mainly agricultural goods and already integrated into
the world market. The famous Jaffa oranges, figs, olives and wheat were exported to Europe from the international ports of Jaffa, Haifa and Akka. Dates from Gaza competed successfully with those from Jidda or Doha. The
“Baedeker” of 1912, for example, expressly praised the “fertility of
many regions with their orange groves, olive plantations and grain
fields” in Palestine. Even before the First World War, the export of oranges to Europe reached 1,608,570 crates worth 297,700 pounds” (9).
Jerusalem,
the social and religious center, was and still is a transshipment point
for all kinds of luxury products from the neighboring Arab countries,
from the entire “Orient”. In
the bazaars of the Old City, interested traders or curious visitors can
find everything their heart desires: silk fabrics from Damascus,
daggers from Yemen, the finest camel leather from Saudi Arabia and, of
course, products from local crafts, for example pottery and glassware
from Hebron, the famous olive soap from Nablus, woven baskets,
embroidery and woven goods from the rural markets of the Bedouins and
villagers (10).
Palestine was rural until the beginning of the 20th century.
Socially
and legally, the rural area was dominated by so-called “absentee
landlords” and politically represented by a small urban elite, the
“notables”, in the old large cities of Gaza, Akka, Jerusalem, Bethlehem,
Nablus or Hebron. These
were extended families such as the Husayni, Nashashibi, Dajani, Abd
al-Hadi, Tuqan, Nabulsi, Khoury, Tamimi, Khatib, Ja'bari, Masri, Kan'an,
Shaq'a, Barghouthi, Shawwa, Rayyes, Khalidis and others who, like the
Khalidis for example, can trace their Jerusalem presence and importance
back to pre-Ottoman times. They
held the central posts of the Ottoman administration in Palestine and
were in charge of Islamic institutions, from the Mufti to the mosques,
the “Auqaf”, the authority of Muslim land ownership and the “Zakkat”,
i.e. the distribution of charitable donations. They also sent deputies to the later parliament in Istanbul. They were the recognized representatives of the people without a mandate, mediating between the people and the authorities.
Only
in the up-and-coming coastal towns of Haifa, Jaffa and Akka had an
independent merchant bourgeoisie and an urban working class emerged by
the end of the century. Modernity
had arrived here, with books and newspapers, clubs, cinemas, theaters
and salons, and the national question in particular was already the
subject of articles and debates.
However,
the majority of the elites still saw themselves as being tied to the
Ottoman Empire, from which security and order had emanated for more than
400 years and from which they had always benefited. Their cultural identity was Arab and the Muslim majority felt that they belonged to the Ummah, the global Muslim community.
After
the end of the Ottoman Empire and the seizure of the land by the
European powers and the Zionist movement, the pre-modern social
structure and the elite tied to the authorities in particular became the
weakness of the Palestinian people in the struggle for independence and
statehood (11).
Palestinian folk art
Palestinian embroidery is unique and inimitable!
The finest embroidery adorns the women's traditional costumes made from home-spun and hand-dyed silk or wool. Every region, indeed almost every village, has developed its own unique shapes and colors. From a distance, anyone on the street can tell you where this woman on the opposite side with her typical dress comes from. In
Ramallah, for example, the women embroider black and white linen fabric
in cross-stitch, while in Bethlehem it is customary to use cord stitch,
and so on (12).
Moreover,
only in Palestine were and are there typical songs, dances such as
“dabke” or dishes such as “maqlube”, the “upside-down” or “zataar” made
from the local wild thyme. Typical dialects point to their places of origin. The
“distinguished” Jerusalemites simply omit the “Qaf”, “Al Quds”, “The
Holy One”, the Arabic name for Jerusalem in their dialect is Al Uds,
while in Gaza the Q is pronounced as a hard G, so it becomes “Al
Guddes”; west of Bethlehem, endings with -ki like -ci become ch, as in
Italian with Medici or as in Crete with Theodorakis, “kif halik?”, “Wie
gehts?” becomes “tschief halitsch?” and so on.
The
“Palestinian Hikaye”, “Narrated history, especially of women”, has been
registered by UNESCO as intangible cultural heritage under the number
0124 (13).
The influence of Europe and the arrival of modernity
None
of the Christian sections are missing, at least in Jerusalem, with a
monastery or a church - and a diplomatic representation “to protect
their pilgrims”. The
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem, with its
various sections, altars and underground vaults, reflects this diversity
of faiths, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Armenian and so on,
especially at Easter - and also their disunity.
In the 19th century, however, religion no longer plays a role. Since
the slowly declining star of the Ottoman Empire (“The Sick Man on the
Bosphorus”), countless European institutions, especially in Jerusalem,
have been bustling about in the “Holy Land” alongside the embassies.
The “Orient” has long been the object of European attempts to exert influence. The Suez Canal accelerated world trade and England was interested in a secure land bridge to British India. The oil in Iran and Iraq was also a lure. There is still no talk of gas under the Mediterranean coast.
The modernization of land law demanded by the foreign powers became a key. Muslim
endowment land, “Waqf”, which still prevails to a large extent in the
Old City of Jerusalem, for example, could not be sold. With
the general modernization and especially the Land Code of 1858, a
cadastralization of land ownership slowly began and, in addition, the
acquisition of so-called “state land” was also possible for non-Muslims,
i.e. foreigners. Due
to this modernization and the new law, the city and the country “owe”
facilities such as hospitals, schools, archaeological research
facilities and even the post office to the English, Germans, French or
Italians, even the Americans of the time.
Palestinian
society also benefited from these diverse institutions in the late 19th
century, as the Ottoman government now established secular schools and
various educational institutions. After
all, this gave many circles access to a modern education system in
contrast to Islamic and Koranic schools, even if not all citizens (14).
When
the Old City of Jerusalem could no longer cope with the growth in
population and economy, new modern residential areas were built in the
“New City” to the west of the Old City at the turn of the century and
the wealthy moved out of the Old City and into villas in the style of
the new era. Bauhaus and Art Deco are popular.
European political ideas, desires and demands for independence and democracy also move in. In
addition to the salons and clubs mentioned above, the first national
organizations emerge, such as the first Palestinian women's organization
in Akka in 1903. However,
these are often branches of the Arab parties that emerge in Istanbul,
which, like the Patriotic Society based in Jerusalem in 1908, are often a
branch of the Patriotic Ottoman Party (CUP), which represents Muslims,
Christians and (Ottoman/Mizrahi) Jews together and takes a secular
stance; a Palestinian youth organization also emerges in 1910. Most of these parties and associations still saw themselves as Arab national movements within the Ottoman Empire. A small communist party was also founded, in which non-Zionist Jews and Arabs were united.
Even
the young generation of notable families took part in the congresses in
Damascus on the question of independence and separation from the
Ottoman Empire.
In particular, newspapers such as Al Quds in Jerusalem, Al Najah in Nablus, Al Muqtabas in Akka, Filistin in Jaffa, Al Carmel in Haifa and so on spread the debate on the national question. The
visible beginnings of Zionist immigration, land purchases and colonies
are thematized as a threat to Palestinian national development. Corresponding
petitions are submitted, representatives of various cities and regions
speak in Istanbul, and a first formal debate on the dangers of Zionism
is held in parliament. Restrictions
on the purchase of land by non-Ottoman Jews and protection against the
sell-out and expropriation of entire village communities were repeatedly
discussed. Reports of clashes between Palestinian farmers and new Jewish colonists are increasing everywhere.
The government does react: with increased taxes on new purchases. In
addition, it prevents the sale by auction of public, state-owned land,
which had been customary until then, and restricts Jewish immigration
and the granting of Ottoman citizenship.
In
1911, Najib Nasser publishes the first analysis in Arabic on the
subject of “Zionism, its history, its aims and its significance for
Palestine”. Aref al Aref, the editor of the newspaper Filistin writes on January 25, 1913:
“If
the present state of affairs continues, Zionism will take over the rule
of our entire country, village by village, town by town, and tomorrow
all of Jerusalem will be sold.”
With
the beginning of the First World War and the entry of the Ottoman
Empire in August 1914 on the side of Germany, however, there was no
longer any pardon for “apostates”. Arab
nationalists, including Palestinian representatives, members of the
Decentralization Party, who had demanded the separation of the Arab
territories from the Ottoman Empire in 1912, were publicly hanged, such
as Salim Ahmed Abdul Hadi from Jenin in Beirut in 1915 or the Mufti of
Gaza at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City (15).
Conclusion
The
identity of the Palestinians is a product of the era of the declining
Ottoman Empire and the growing desire for independence throughout the
Arab part of the empire. Everything
intensified with the emergence of Zionism, the first waves of
immigration, the first land purchases, settlers and colonies.
However,
the Palestinians are not yet sufficiently organized to meet the major
challenges that lie ahead of them, are divided about where the journey
can take them, are dependent on the hierarchical structures and the
elites, and have little political training. They
were faced with increasing paternalism from European powers and a
strong, well-organized and politically experienced Zionist movement -
without the corresponding opportunities to make an impact. The
systematic deception of the Palestinian people by the world powers,
England, the dependent Arab states and Zionism began with the First
World War.
Part 2 deals with the development of Zionism.
No comments:
Post a Comment