I first thought I would agree with most of what Wengraf said - till reading the last paragraph (thanx, Gabor, it nearly escaped my notice). Reading this paragraph, however, and in particular the answer of Mr. Roos I must say that this debate is going to far. It is a very often used practice of antisemits to compare Israel and/or the Jews with the Nazis. And this is absolutely unacceptable antisemitism. In fact, this is not the new antisemtism or better, in Tanguieff's terms judéophobie, but old standard antisemitism. Just to reiterate: the Jews didn't commit permanently terrorist attacks against the Germans - and were exterminated. The terrorism of the Palestinians was their strategy to avoid a peace settlement twice, once under Peres - the terrorism brought Netanjahu as Prime minister, the second time under Barak: the terrorist attacks led to the landslight victory of Sharon.
Unlike Nazi-Germany Israel is a democracy; by the way, with Israeli Arab deputies in the Knesset. Was that the case in Nazi Germany?
One can easily condemn the occupation policy of Israel like all traditional occupation policies (similar policies were used by the British in Palestine in former times)without referring to the Nazi politics. In this respect, and only in this respect, Baruch is wrong: One cannot compare the Israeli policy with the Nazi politics in the slavonic areas they occupied as they had plans to exterminate the Slavonic nations as well. No one can claim that even Sharon intends to exterminate the Palestinians.
Antisemitism, Lasalle noted in the 19th century, is the class struggle of the stupid bloke. The new antisemitism is, apparently the anti-imperialism of the dull sociologists.
Roanld J Pohoryles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the
Social Sciences (IFS-ICCR-CIR)
Vienna Office:
Schottenfeldgasse 69/1; A-1070 Vienna
Tel: +43.1.524 13 93-111
Fax: +43.1.524 13 93-200
Paris Office:
91, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré; F-75008 Paris
Tel: +33.1.44 71-3567
Fax: +33.1.44 71-3568
Email: [log in to unmask]
Internet: www.iccr-international.org
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tom Wengraf [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Februar 2002 22:57
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: small distinctions?
> If you
>don't like Sharon's policy, it doesn't mean that this is not a war and
>databases aren't and aren't to be utilised as strategic, intelligence
>and military sources. And in a war everybody must take a position on one
>of the sides.
No! There are a whole variety of wars going on, and most of them do not
require us to take a position "behind" one side or another. Many
contemporary wars are three-or-more sided, by the way. The whole blackmail
of the Cold War and of World Bullies is to force everybody to become
unconditional supporters of one or other -- hopefully the most powerful --
and then call on them to cease all criticism of that 'strongest side' for
fear of being called a 'traitor' ('terrorist') and treated as one. Indeed,
a much more credible (or at least equally credible position) might be that
in most wars (not all), everyone ought to take a position against the
continuation of the war.
>This is a global war and as times go on, neutrality and
>moralizing looses its place, even in the circles of highly educated
>sociologists as well.
Should we all have backed one side or the other in the First World War?
The need for us to avoid 'crowd fever' and 'choose your sides for total
liquidationist war' GROWS as war hysteria and psychological warfare for one
more final solution in what is heralded as "the" global war ("The War to
End all Wars" is an old slogan) between supposed Totally Good and supposed
Totally Evil is intensified by the regimes and interests that want such a
mobilisation.
>(3) Dear sociologists, please utilise as many databases as possible but
>don't think the way you collect and/or utilise them is value free. It is
>not. And if it is a criterion of morality, democracy and peace to make
>databases that are accessible to everybody, don't say "it was financed
>by the European Union". - So what? What about the media databases
>sponsored by anybody that show and teach young Palestinians how to
>commit suicide actions? Shouldn't we protest against the Palestinian
>utilising of welfare-state electronic products and PR skills for such
>goals? Of course as - let's say - sociologists of communications?
Is it 'morally' better for Israelis to be taught to commit
murder-without-personal-risk actions from helicopter gunships or for
Palestinians to be taught to commit
murder-with-personal-death-as-invariable-effect in bus queues?
The kill-rate between the high-technology US-backed Israelis and the
low-technology US-opposed Palestinians is very clearly to the disadvantage
of the Palestinians.
Value-freedom is not possible, but value-reflexivity on the basis of a
value-commitment to the equal humanity of all humans I think is; and
'highly educated sociologists' should struggle to avoid 'ethnic-tribal'
bias especially in times of high-technology state terror against those
without a state, such as the Nazi State against the Jews, or the Israeli
State against the Palestinians.
<http://www.sagepub.co.uk/shopping/Detail.asp?id=4813>
is where you'll find
details of my doing-quite-well textbook (Sage 2001)
'Qualitative Research Interviewing: biographic narrative and
semi-structured method'
|
