Die Israel-Lobby - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[GasGerd]

Höchst interessant was Mearsheimer und Walt da recherchiert haben.

Der Irak-Krieg, angezettelt von einflussreichen amerikanischen Juden?

[BarnyXXL]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.015.115 von GasGerd am 16.10.07 03:59:04

Mal sehen, wie lange es dauert, bis hier die Nazi-Keule geschwungen wird !

[diggit]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.017.123 von BarnyXXL am 16.10.07 08:34:55

Ihr mit eurer Judenphobie.

Köstlich.

[GasGerd]

John J. Mearsheimer (* im Dezember 1947 in New York, Stadtteil Brooklyn) ist Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der University of Chicago.
John Mearsheimer gehörte ab 1964 der US Army an und studierte 1966-1970 an der United States Military Academy in West Point. Es folgten ein Master-Abschluß im Fach Internationale Beziehungen an der University of Southern California und 1980 die Promotion an der Cornell University.

Seit 1982 ist er an der University of Chicago tätig, seit 1987 als ordentlicher Professor für Politikwissenschaft.

Er gilt als einer der bedeutendsten Vertreter der Theorie des Neoliberalismus in den Internationalen Beziehungen.

Stephen Martin Walt (* 2. Juli, 1955) ist ein US-amerikanischer Professor für internationale Beziehungen an der John F. Kennedy School of Government der Harvard Universität.

Er studierte zuerst an der Stanford University International Relations und schloss diesen Studiengang 1977 mit dem B.A., welchen er mit Auszeichnung bestand, ab. Danach führte er sein Studium des Faches Political Science an der University of California in Berkeley fort. Dort schloss er 1978 erst mit dem M.A., und im gleichen Fach im Jahr 1983 mit dem Ph.D. ab. Nachdem er seinen Master bestanden hatte, arbeitete er bereits für das Center for Naval Analyses, sowie für das Center for Science and International Affairs der Harvard University. Stephen M. Walt hat in seiner Laufbahn als Universitätsprofessor bisher schon an der Princeton University (1984-1989) sowie an der University of Chicago (1989-1999) gelehrt. Er unterrichtet seitdem als Professor of International Affairs an der John F. Kennedy School of Government der Harvard University. Für sein erstes Buch „The Origins of Alliances“ erhielt er 1988 den Edgar S. Furniss National Security Book Award. Außerdem erhielt er eine Auszeichnung für seine sehr guten Leistungen als Professor, das Certificate of Distinction in Teaching des Committee on Undergraduate Education der Harvard University.

[GasGerd]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.017.300 von diggit am 16.10.07 08:47:24

Immerhin teilen wir unsere "Phobie" mit mindestens zwei angesehenen US-Politprofessoren.

[HeiligerStrohsack]

Ein plump eröffneter Thread erfährt die übliche, plumpe Pauschalverunklimpfung EineandereMeinungHabender.

Und am Schluss wird der Thread wieder von einem Mod gelöscht, weil ihm die eine oder andere Meinung nicht passt ..

[diggit]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.017.555 von GasGerd am 16.10.07 09:01:56

Und nun fühlst du dich gesund, oder wie?

[RizzoRazzo]

Das hat schon ein spezielles "Gschmäckle", wenn ein GasGerd was über Juden schreibt. Jedenfalls umweht ein leichter Gasgeruch diesen Thread.

[diggit]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.017.750 von HeiligerStrohsack am 16.10.07 09:10:33

schaut mal,
wenn ihr ungestört über Juden lästern wollt, dann gibt es im Internet sicher eine ganze Menge Seiten wo ihr auf Gleichgesinnte trefft und euch gegenseitig auf die Schulter klopfen könnt.
Es muss doch nicht immer WO sein.

[HeiligerStrohsack]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.018.106 von diggit am 16.10.07 09:27:06

was lässt dich vermuten, dass ich die meinung vom thread-eröffner teile? mir gehen nur leute wie du und er auf den wecker ..

[GasGerd]

Beiträge zum Thema

[HeiligerStrohsack]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.018.322 von GasGerd am 16.10.07 09:38:20

wie wäre es denn, wenn du als thread-eröffner mal den 1. brächtest?

[diggit]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.018.156 von HeiligerStrohsack am 16.10.07 09:29:12

ok

[GasGerd]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.018.348 von HeiligerStrohsack am 16.10.07 09:39:34

Gerne:

Der frühere US-Botschafter Edward Peck, der jetzt am Independent Institute tätig ist, schrieb:

"Der erwartete Tsunami von wütenden Reaktionen – welche den Bericht verdammten, deren Autoren verteufelten und bestritten, dass es eine solche Lobby gäbe – bestätigte sowohl die Existenz dieser Lobby und dessen aggressive, durchdringende Präsenz."

und

"Meinungen unterscheiden sich über die langfristigen Kosten und Vorteile für beide Nationen, doch die Ansichten der Lobby wurden zur Basis der amerikanischen Nahostpolitik."

Rupert Cornwell begrüßte in der britischen Zeitung The Independent eine Debatte über Amerikas Unterstützung für Israel, und bezichtigte die “jüdische Lobby der "Unterdrückung einer ernsten Debatte über die amerikanischen Beziehungen mit Israel" und eine "Verschmelzung des israelischen Konflikts mit den Palästinensern mit dem amerikanischen Krieg gegen den Terrorismus".

Tony Judt, ein Historiker der New York University in der New York Times:

"Es wird den künftigen Generationen von Amerikanern nicht selbstverständlich vorkommen, weshalb die imperiale Macht und das internationale Ansehen der Vereinigten Staaten so eng verbündet sind mit diesem kleinen, kontroversen 'Vasallen (client state)' am Mittelmeer."

Ein ehemalige höherer Beamter der CIA, Michael Scheuer, der heute für CBS News die Terrorismuslage analysiert, zu National Public Radio:

„Sie [Mearsheimer und Walt] sollten Anerkennung erhalten für ihren Mut, überhaupt eine Arbeit über dieses Thema zu verfassen. Ich hoffe, sie fahren fort und nehmen sich die saudische Lobby vor, welche für die USA vielleicht gefährlicher ist als die israelische Lobby.“

Zbigniew Brzezinski, früherer Sicherheitsberater Jimmy Carters, schrieb:

"Die massive Hilfe an Israel ist effektiv eine Riesensubvention (entitlement), welche relativ wohlhabende Israelis zulasten der amerikanischen Steuerzahler bereichert. Weil Geld ersetzbar ist [und umgeleitet werden kann], finanzieren diese Hilfsgelder genau jene Siedlungen, welche die USA ablehnen und die dem Friedensprozess im Weg stehen."


Quelle: Wikipedia

[Cashlover]

wer hat denn von der Beseitigung des Irak als stärkste Militärmacht in der Region am meisten profitiert?


Nicht für die Amerikaner, sondern für Israel war der Irak eine Bedrohung.

[Scheinewald]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.017.555 von GasGerd am 16.10.07 09:01:56

Argumentation "ad hominem" war schon immer die Billigste und gleichzeitig eine der Schwächsten überhaupt. Vor allem wenn es sich bei den homini um pseudointellektuelle Authoritäten wie US-Professoren handelt.

MfG, Scheinew ld

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.018.156 von HeiligerStrohsack am 16.10.07 09:29:12

"Israel Lobby" Redux
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, September 04, 2007

It’s not every day that a book is discredited by the simple act of its publication. But that’s precisely what will happen with the release this week of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, an expanded version of the now-notorious London Review of Books essay by professors-turned-provocateurs John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard‘s Kennedy School of Government.


In the original essay, it may remembered, the authors leveled the sensational charge that Israel’s supporters in the United States, when not manipulating American foreign policy to Israel’s advantage and wrenching the country into the Iraq war, posed a terrible threat to American democracy. Lurking behind every curtain, the “Israel Lobby“ was guilty not only of “silencing skeptics” – presumably like Mearsheimer and Walt – but also of stifling debate about Israel in Congress and thereby subverting the “entire process of democratic deliberation.” Truly, this was a force to be reckoned with.


So, one can’t help but wonder: How is it that this all-effecting lobby, with infinite powers of intimidation at its disposal, has nonetheless failed to prevent the publication of a nearly 500-page tome that purports to expose its sinister doings? To those with a less conspiratorial cast of mind than the authors, the answer seems fairly obvious. There is not now nor has there ever been an omnipotent “Israel Lobby.” Of course, there are pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And yes, these groups do influence American foreign policy. In this respect, they are no different than the Saudi lobby, which has bent American policy to the benefit of a famously corrupt and terrorism-sponsoring monarchy, though neither Mearsheimer nor Walt shows any interest in the subject.


What AIPAC demonstrably is not is an author and arbitrator of American foreign policy. Indeed, that would be an impossible role to play for an organization whose supporters run the ideological gamut from Howard Dean and Barack Obama to John Bolton and Dick Cheney. To suggest that AIPAC sets foreign policy is thus no more plausible than the authors’ initial claim, eerily reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism and noticeably stricken from their new book, that AIPAC is a “de facto agent for a foreign government.”


But grant the authors this much: Strong, if by no means unwavering, support Israel has for several decades been a feature of American foreign policy. However, unless one is prepared to believe that the nearly 60 percent of Americans, whom polls show sympathize with the Jewish state over her Arab neighbors, are witless pawns of scheming lobbyists, the notion that American foreign policy has been shanghaied into serving Israel first sounds like so much wild-eyed paranoia. An unfriendly observer might even suggest that to the extent that Mearsheimer and Walt are defying a broad American consensus in favor of supporting Israel, it is they who are the real enemies of “democratic deliberation.” In a society that rightly values dissent, that would be grossly unfair. It would also be a more accurate reading of political reality than anything you are likely to find in The Israel Lobby.


For all the flaws of its argument, the book is not so easily dismissed. As academics in two of the country’s more esteemed universities, Mearsheimer and Walt naturally benefit from the prestige of their profession and lend credibility to the consortium of cranks who have long singled out Israel and her supporters as a malign influence on American policymaking. Raving about the “Zionist Occupied Government,” David Duke – a declared fan of The Israel Lobby, as it happens – could easily be dismissed as a demented bigot. Ex-Congressman Paul Findley and ex-Ambassador Andrew Kilgore, who saw the hand of the “Jewish lobby” behind their career disappointments, could be pegged as embittered politicians with axes to grind. Pat Buchanan, in laying the first Gulf War to the charge of “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States,” could be seen with equal justice as a marginal figure with no significant constituency. In The Israel Lobby, the preoccupations of this political fringe have been culled from the ideological wilderness and repackaged as reputable scholarship. Conspiracy-mongering has gone mainstream.


In this sense, Mearsheimer and Walt are merely ambassadors for conventional academic wisdom. Best known for its association with Middle East Studies departments, hysteria about Israel and her supporters (Jewish and otherwise) has become a stock theme in academia. DePaul University’s Norman Finkelstein, for instance, has made a dubious career of calumniating “American Jewish elites” for forging a lasting alliance with Israel – an unforgivable offense for a man who considers early Zionist settlers “racists” and the nation they created an “apartheid” state. Similarly, the dean of academic radicalism, Noam Chomsky, has long reviled both Israel and all those who dare to speak in her defense, even devoting a book, Fateful Triangle, to attacking Israel’s supporters. (In the book’s foreword, the late Edward Said praised Chomsky for depicting the PLO and Arabs generally as the victims of a “profoundly inhuman, cynical and deliberately cruel” Israel.) More recently, their ranks have been joined by British historian Tony Judt. In 2005, Judt wrote in the Nation that to “say that Israel and its lobbyists have an excessive and disastrous influence on the policies of the world's superpower is a statement of fact,” a claim that nicely illustrated Judt’s ignorance of both politics and rhetoric.


To appreciate how Mearsheimer and Walt conceived their argument in The Israel Lobby, and to get a sense of their scholarly standards, consider this: Their text contains no interviews with members of the “Israel Lobby,” the government, or the national media that the lobby is alleged to have in its pocket. Instead, it draws for its substance on, among other secondary sources, the polemics of Norman Finkelstein, Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, and Tony Judt’s essay in the Nation. An undergraduate history major would properly be flunked for submitting such a hack job. It says nothing good about the worlds of publishing and academia that Mearsheimer and Walt got a book contract instead.


Ultimately, the fact that the “Israel Lobby” is mostly fiction should upset no one more than the authors themselves. At least if there were a group capable of silencing all disagreement, they might have been spared a great deal of embarrassment.
-------------------------------------------

[GasGerd]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.019.268 von Scheinewald am 16.10.07 10:22:05

Na ja, ein deutscher, altlastgeschwängerter-68er-Politologe wäre natürlich niemals zu solchen Erkenntnissen gekommen.

Und falls wider Erwarten doch, er hätte sie nie publiziert bzw. niemanden in D gefunden, der es druckt/publiziert.

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.019.082 von Cashlover am 16.10.07 10:15:12

George P. Schultz, who served as the United States Secretary of Labor from 1969 to 1970, as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 to 1974, and as the U.S. Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989, wrote in the U.S. News and World Report: "Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous 'lobby' ought to spend some time dealing with them. For example, my decision to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat after he met certain conditions evoked a wide spectrum of responses from the government of Israel, its political parties, and American Jewish groups who weighed in on one side or the other. ... The United States supports Israel not because of favoritism based on political pressure or influence but because the American people, and their leaders, say that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just. ... So, on every level, those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily — sometimes with lies — to win America's support."[88]

In a review in the Chicago Sun-Times: "It's no secret that the Israeli lobby has a record of success... Yet, no other interest group is so frequently singled out for harsh scrutiny, as if somehow laboring on Israel's behalf turns out to be working against America's best interests. ... Forget the dynamics of radical Islamism, Arab resentment of the West and other complexities of international affairs. Just change U.S. policy toward Israel and the world will be a happier place for America. Two intellectuals at two of our best universities have reduced international relations to that." Huntley said the authors' discrediting of certain sources proved "a bias against Israel so deep seated that it defies reality."[89]

Rob Eshman, editor-in-chief of the Jewish Journal wrote "Five years ago, before the start of the Iraq War, I wrote an editorial titled 'The Jewish War.' If the Iraq War is a disaster, I wrote, mainstream voices will start blaming the Jews... Guess what? It's time to get off the couch. ... (It is not an exaggeration to say that in the view of the authors, the whole thing is Israel's fault, aided and abetted by the American Jewish Israel lobby and their puppets in the Congress and the White House. Five decades of Arab rejectionism and Palestinian terror, Yasser Arafat's torpedoing of the Oslo accords, a majority American and Israeli Jewish support for land-for-peace deals -- none of this matters.) ... The authors take pains -- well, four pages -- to note that Jews are loyal Americans and that their lobbying is legal, like that of other special interest groups... But these pages, which may as well have been titled, "Hey, Some of Our Best Friends Are Jewish," are contradicted time and again in the authors' selective re-telling of the events leading up the Iraq War.[90]

In a review in Newsday: "From a couple of prominent political scientists, you'd expect a close analysis of particular pro-Israel organizations (for example, AIPAC) and fresh research into how they exercise influence. But the footnotes, which draw heavily from books and newspaper articles, reveal that the authors have not really done interviews with people presumably belonging to the "lobby," nor gotten access to internal documents. At the same time, they are wedded to the notion that the U.S. and Israel have distinct national interests - with the American interest defined, more or less, as sustained access to Middle Eastern oil. They reject the idea that Iraq was occupied in pursuit of oil." McLemee also criticized the authors' definition of the Israel lobby and their allegation of its role in the occupation of Iraq.[91]

In a review in the Los Angeles Times: "Anyone familiar with the tortured history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have a hard time recognizing the history Mearsheimer and Walt rehearse. Every hoary old Israeli atrocity tale is trotted out, and the long story of Palestinian terrorism is rendered entirely as a reaction to Israeli oppression. The failure of every peace negotiation is attributed to Israeli deviousness under the shield of the American Israel lobby. There is nothing here of Palestinian corruption, division and duplicity or even of this unhappy people's inability to provide a reliable secular partner with whom peace can be negotiated... At times, the authors simply contradict themselves, asserting -- rather remarkably -- at one point that the United States has nothing to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran and, at another, that the dangerous prospect of a nuke-equipped Tehran is the Israel lobby's fault. Similarly, they write, Al Qaeda would hammer its swords into ploughshares and Osama bin Laden would lay down with the lamb if only the United States would come out from under Israel's thrall and create by coercion a Palestinian state... (You'd never guess from the Mearsheimer-Walt analysis that many people in this country support Israel precisely because they admire it as a brave, dynamic and democratic society.) ... In fact, if you accept the analysis put forward in this book, it's impossible not to conclude that the United States was, in fact, tricked into a disastrous war in Iraq by a domestic Fifth Column and that the ranks of that subversive formation are filled with Jews, their friends and willing dupes."[92]

In a review in the Denver Post, Richard Cohen writes, "By the time I put down the book, occasional critic of Israel though I be, I was ready to burst into 'Hatikvah,' the Israeli national anthem. ... Where Israel is wrong, they say so. But where Israel is right, they are somehow silent. By the time you finish the book, you almost have to wonder why anyone in their right mind could find any reason to admire or like Israel. ... They had an observation worth making and a position worth debating. But their argument is so dry, so one-sided — an Israel lobby that leads America around by the nose — they suggest that not only do they not know Israel, they don't know America, either."[93]

Wikipedia

[kaktus7]

Was komisch ist:

Viele konservative Amis sind antisemitisch aber sehr proisraelisch.

Viele progressive Deutsche sind antiisraelisch aber nicht antisemitisch.

[diggit]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.022.553 von kaktus7 am 16.10.07 13:12:01

..und die meisten Volldeppen sehen sich als progressive Deutsche...

[HeiligerStrohsack]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.022.625 von diggit am 16.10.07 13:17:15

naja, nur weil man die Grünen wählt, ist man ja nicht gleich ein Volldepp .. aber vielleicht hast du ja recht ..

[shitpalaver]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.022.625 von diggit am 16.10.07 13:17:15

hab dich eigentlich sehr oft als progressiv empfunden,sehe aber jetzt welch geisteskraft in dir steckt.

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.022.553 von kaktus7 am 16.10.07 13:12:01

Was nicht unbedingt komisch ist:

Viele "progressive" Amis sind antiisraelisch und antisemitisch

Viele konservative Deutsche sind proisraelisch und nicht antisemitisch (wie die meisten konservativen Amis übrigens )

[timekiller]

Dä Jodn!

[AdHick]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[spicault]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.031.117 von AdHick am 16.10.07 19:48:44

The 'Israel Lobby' Myth
By George P. Shultz
Posted September 9, 2007

Israel is a free, democratic, open, and relentlessly self-analytical place. To hear harsh criticism of Israel's policies and leaders, listen to the Israelis. So questioning Israel for its actions is legitimate, but lies are something else. Throughout human history, they have been used not only to vilify but to establish a basis for cruel and inhuman acts. The catalog of lies about Jews is long and astonishingly crude, matched only by the suffering that has followed their promulgation.

Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what might be called the "badlands," a place where those who should be regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats, targets, all-purpose objects of blame.

In America, we protect all speech, even the most hurtful lies. We allow a virtual free-for-all by which laws are adopted, enforced, and interpreted. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent yearly to influence this process; thousands of groups vie for influence. Among these are Jewish groups that have come under renewed criticism for being part of an all-powerful "Israel lobby," most notably in a book published this week by Profs. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

Jewish groups are influential. They also largely agree that the United States should support Israel. But the notion that they have anything like a uniform agenda and that U.S. policy in Israel and the Middle East is the result of this influence is simply wrong.

One choice. Some critics seem overly impressed with the way of thinking that says to itself, "Since there is a huge Arab Islamic world out there with all the oil, and it is opposed to this tiny little Israel with no natural resources, then realistically the United States has to be on the Arab side and against Israel on every issue, and since this isn't the case, there must be some underhanded Jewish plot at work." This is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple.

Another tried and true method for damaging the well-being and security of the Jewish people and the State of Israel is a dangerously false analogy. Witness former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine — Peace Not Apartheid. Here the association on the one hand is between Israel's existentially threatened position and the measures it has taken to protect its population from terrorist attacks, driven by an ideology bent on the complete eradication of the State of Israel, and, on the other, the racist oppression of South Africa's black population by the white Boer regime.

The tendency of mind that lies behind such repulsive analogies remains and is reinforced by the former president's views, spread across his book, which come down on the anti-Israel side of every case. These false analogies stir up and lend legitimacy to more widely based movements that take the same dangerous direction.

Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous "lobby" ought to spend some time dealing with them. For example, my decision to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat after he met certain conditions evoked a wide spectrum of responses from the government of Israel, its political parties, and American Jewish groups who weighed in on one side or the other. Other examples in which the United States rejected Israel's view of an issue, or the view of the American Jewish community, include the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and President Reagan's decision to go to the cemetery at Bitburg, Germany.

The United States supports Israel not because of favoritism based on political pressure or influence but because the American people, and their leaders, say that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just.

We are a great nation. Mostly, we make good decisions. We are not babes in the woods. We act in our own interests. And when we mistakenly conclude from time to time — as we will — that an action or policy is in America's interest, we must take responsibility for the mistake.

So, on every level, those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily — sometimes with lies — to win America's support.

George Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. This is excerpted from his introduction to The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham Foxman (Palgrave Macmillan).

US News and World Report

[kaktus7]

Was komisch ist:

Viele konservative Amis sind antisemitisch aber sehr proisraelisch.
Kenne selber welche.

Viele progressive Deutsche sind antiisraelisch aber nicht antisemitisch.
Bin selber einer.

Spekulative Schlussfolgerung:
Konservative Amis unterstützen Israel, weil
1: Die machen Jobs, die USA nicht dort erledigen kann.
2: Gibt immer einen Vorwand um Araber zu deckeln.
3: Sie wollen nicht dass die ganzen Israelis nach USA kommen, weil jüdisch.
4: Durch die Unterstützung eines jüdischen Staates ist man gegen den Vorwurf des Antisemitismus gefeit, auch wenn man keinen Juden in seinem Country Club möchte, geschweige denn als Schwiegersohn.

[shitpalaver]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 32.064.233 von kaktus7 am 18.10.07 13:39:11

sehr gut erkannt.

[timekiller]

Ich verstehe an der ganzen Sache eines nicht:

Warum soll es verboten sein, antisemitisch zu sein?

Letztlich ist es doch meine private Meinung, die unter dem Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit steht.

Meinungsfreiheit ist ein Bestandteil der Demokratie.



Ich kenne keinen Juden persönlich, aber mir gefällt es nicht, wenn Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit angegriffen werden.

Ich bin auch gegen Meinungsfreiheit um jeden Preis, z.B. Gewaltvideos, Pornos im TV...

Aber wenn jemand eine Meinung über eine Sache hat, dann darf ihm diese Meinung nicht verboten werden, weil wir uns sonst nicht in einer Demokratie, sondern in einer Diktatur befinden.