PI met with public diplomacy expert Melody Sucharewicz (photo) for an interview in Tel Aviv last Tuesday. Melody is fluent in English, Hebrew, German, French as well as Italian. She seeks to show the true side of Israel using watertight argumentation, affable openness and lively charm, especially to people in Europe. In Germany, she became known above all for ‘causing distress’ to Middle East expert, Peter Scholl-Latour, by use of intelligent and competent argumentation.

Melody, what do you think of Benjamin Netanyahu?

Politicians don’t act in a vacuum. They are always under political pressure, and in the case of Israel, facing constant geopolitical threats. Netanyahu is under pressure by his right-wing coalition. He is committed to bring peace to Israel. His interview with Larry King after the meeting with Barack Obama last week, is a clear indication for this. He wants peace for Israel and stands behind the idea of a Palestinian State.

Would another government have reacted any better to the Gaza Flotilla?

A political leader unfortunately is not an avatar that can be patched together with ideal qualities and superior powers, there is no such thing as an ideal prime minister. Besides Netanyahu there are no real alternatives at the moment. The current political leadership in Israel is not ideal, but they struggle with most complicated circumstances.

What do you think of the Two-State Solution?

A Palestinian state is inevitable for both sides; most people in Israel wish the Palestinians their own country, whatever the motivation may be. Any alternative would lead to catastrophe for the Jewish State.

Fatah and Hamas fight each other. Is a solution even feasible?

That is a problem. An agreement between Abbas and Netanyahu would be possible, if Abbas would finally agree to engage in direct talks, but whatever the outcome, Hamas won’t accept it. A two-state solution would only be practical in the West Bank. But Gaza would remain unchanged — a danger for Israel and for the Palestinians there, thus not a feasible solution. In theory, an economic confederation between the West Bank, Israel and Jordan would be an option. The contrast between a legitimate, economically flourishing Palestinian state in the West bank, and a terror regime in Gaza that undermines any flourishing but misery, would be immense. In fact, it already is. The question is whether the Palestinians in Gaza would then gather the strength and determination necessary to ‘disarm’ Hamas and its terror against its own people.

The blockade on Gaza is not implemented as collective punishment as some ‘human rights’ organizations like to claim. It is meant to block the establishment of a terror base, to limit the threat against Israeli civilians. Hamas established a terror regime based on dictatorship and oppression. They have an Islamic moral police like in Iran. Christians are murdered if they don’t convert to Islam. Fatah members are lynched and thrown off roofs. But that doesn’t seem to interest the ‘human rights activists.’ The misery in Gaza is not the result of Israeli policy.

As long as Hamas functions as a proxy for Iran, doesn’t accept the existence of Israel, and demands that Sharia rules the world, a solution is unfeasible.

Even though some dubious media and NGOs like to present it otherwise, Israel’s Gaza policy is anything but ‘imperialistically’ motivated — why would Ariel Sharon have gone through the trouble of disengaging out of Gaza in 2005?

What do you think of the Israel policy of US President Barack Obama?

So far, Obama’s policy hasn’t been too effective. His strategic paradigm shift towards appeasement hasn’t been fruitful, and at the same time it had a counterproductive impact on US relations with Israel. Obama’s inaugural address in Cairo contained some problematic allusions. He – hopefully unintentionally – set equal the meaning of the Holocaust for the Jews with the meaning of the establishment of the State of Israel for the Palestinians. Taking into account this speech’s main target audience, this was as dangerous as absurd a euphemism. It legitimizes the fight against Israel by radical elements in the Arab world. The reason for this problematic stance is probably a mixture between Obama’s ‘socialization’ into the Middle East conflict via questionable ‘agents’ such as his ex-pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright and his desire to effectively appease the Muslim world.

However, the last meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was a good one and gives reason for optimism. It looks like Obama’s positions towards Israel and his potential influence on the conflict is taking a refreshingly constructive turn.

How do you assess the Iranian threat?

The Iranian threat is serious. Israel, Europe and the US cannot afford a nuclear Ayatollah regime under Ahmadinejad. Diplomatic dialog should not become a goal in itself. If it leads to nothing — and currently, this is what it looks like despite the new sanctions — then Plan B is necessary.

Whether a military intervention by Israel is possible? Anything is possible if Israel finds itself in a situation of existential threat, which a nuclear Iran would imply. We hope this will not happen.

At least the Ayatollah regime’s ambitions are transparent. For Ahmadinejad, Hamas and the remaining fundamentalist club, the annihilation of Israel is only an intermediate goal. In the minds of these lunatics world peace is secure once Sharia rules all over the globe, then Christians and Jews may coexist in safety – as subordinates.

What do you say about the resolution by the German Bundestag that Israel must give up the Gaza blockade?

Like many others, I was perplexed. Some of the parliamentarians’ quotes surprised me too. More than anything, there was a lot of self-satisfaction about the unusually unanimous vote of all four fractions. Was this a constructive contribution to the Middle East conflict? No. It strengthens Hamas and other radical groups that instrumentalize the ‘photogenic’ situation of the Palestinians in Gaza to delegitimize Israel. This brings neither peace nor freedom to the Palestinians.

The resolution is probably the result of the usual information vacuum: Israel doesn’t perform fast or well enough when it comes to reflecting the reality. Any Bundestag member who would have sat in a helicopter above the Mavi Marmara and seen how a mob of 40 terrorists with iron rods and knives attacked the Israeli soldiers, and how the soldiers received the command to shoot only when three of them were almost lynched to death; had this same parliamentarian further seen the videos in which members of the Turkish mob declared their chief objective in this trip with broad smiles and gleaming eyes, namely to die as Shahids for Allah – then most likely this very fellow would not have voted for the resolution.

It is similar with the immediate call to end the blockade of the Gaza Strip. This is an easy thing to demand when one lives in peaceful Germany and has never been paid a visit by Qassam rockets or bloodthirsty suicide attackers. Criticism, especially by an important ally like Germany, is important — when it is constructive, fair and based on detailed, balanced facts. I doubt that all of these criteria were fulfilled in this resolution. For example, it demands an improvement of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but not the release of Gilad Shalit, or even improvement of his ‘humanitarian situation’, through access by the Red Cross. Also, the question remains why the Bundestag, of all relevant foreign affairs events, singles out Israel’s Gaza policy.

Could Israel fill the information vacuum by documenting even more aggressively and with communicating even more evidence?

Of course. The vacuum is our deficit. Politically, too, Israel must adapt to the YouTube, Facebook and Twitter age, where information is wrapped into sound bites that travel the world at the speed of light. Consequently, the genuineness of contents is often compromised— this age is the paradise of the propagandists. But not for the only Western democracy that has been facing geopolitical threats since its existence. The priority of the Israeli governments has always been military defense, the protection of its civilian population. The fact that the media war is no less a strategic threat is now slowly catching on. This is a quite late but crucial paradigm shift.

Israel still lacks the necessary infrastructure for relevant videos, images and information to be proactively transmitted by good spokespeople. Furthermore, Israel won’t compromise its moral standards as a democratic Jewish state to score public opinion points. Israel will never ‘sell’ photos of its children that were mutilated or killed by Hamas terror, or like Hezbollah did in 2006, direct children and women to pose as ‘freshly shot’ extras in different settings. An example of the cynical use of human life for hate propaganda is the story of Mohammad al Dura. Fortunately, this will never be the case in Israel.

Reality is on Israel’s side, it just needs to be transmitted. This doesn’t imply that every political decision is the right one; however, we should keep in mind the context in which these decisions are made. I grew up in Munich and know how difficult it is to imagine within this green, pristine, peaceful safe haven how it feels to be surrounded by Islamic terror organizations. Only he who experienced a cruel terror attack in close proximity, or once had to run for his life into a bunker, can understand the insane situation Israelis have been living in and Israeli governments have been operating in for over 60 years.

Why aren’t foreign journalists even taken along to incidents like the storming of the Gaza flotilla?

Foreign journalists are often not taken along for security reasons. There were foreign journalists on the navy vessels surrounding the flotilla, but — since they needed to stay in a safe zone they could not see what was happening way up on the ship’s deck.

Other countries are not under such extreme scrutiny concerning possible ‘misbehaviors’

Yes, in Sudan hundred thousands of people are slaughtered by Islamists, but the human rights activists have nothing to say about it, same with the persecution of the Baha’i or the mutilation of women in Iran. The ‘human rights activists’ don’t say one word about it. But the naked, last resort self-defense of Israeli soldiers against a band of bloodthirsty Jihadists turns into a world-wide scandal. Is this not a perversion of reality? Israel, o Israel, how could you? Same with the UN Human Rights Council whose biased Israel obsession is so counterproductive, whereas a constructive, balanced facts-driven version of this institution would be so crucial.

Are pro-Israeli demonstrations — for example in Germany — even noticed in Israel?

Pro-Israel demonstrations still are not yet sufficiently noticed in Israel. At the Israel demo on June 13th in Berlin, I heard unbelievably touching words of support. People who proactively inform themselves, who acquire knowledge and understand the situation in depth, who support Israel with their hearts and minds as the only democracy in the Middle East. They are extremely important — for Israel and for Germany. In times like these, inspite of all strength, Israelis feel threatened – not just in terms of security, but also by public opinion. I wish every single Israeli would know what kind of important support PI, for example, grants. And I don’t say that to flatter: The moral support though the systematic exposure of crucial facts by PI is remarkable. For Israel is as threatened as misunderstood.

The greatest crime committed by obsessive and uninformed Israel critics is that they polarize only further. Instead of European student groups, for example, joining forces to make a constructive contribution, by encouraging understanding between Israeli and Palestinian students, many students fall victim to propaganda campaigns that turn peace into utopia. Here, the easiest solution simply isn’t a solution. The majority of European youth had the luxury to grow up in complete peace. With this luxury comes a moral responsibility of engaging in building bridges in conflict regions, rather than destroying them.

Is there a question you wanted to be asked for a while, but weren’t asked by me today?

Yes, there is such a question. What is Israel really like, and what do I love about it.

What is Israel like? What do you love about it?

It’s a combination of elements that make everyday life an inspiration. I grew up in a very privileged way in Munich. I had fantastic friends, a great school, lived in peace and knew no problems. Since I got to know Israel — and this has nothing to do with Zionism — I fell in love. I love the Mediterranean, in spite of the current jellyfish invasion (Paul, call back your cousins!), I love Jaffa, this Ottoman pearl, and I find living together with Israeli Arabs exciting.

I grew up with a self-created image of Israel as a small paradise. Living here, with the painful experiences of the second intifada, wars and constant threats, this paradise image crumbled, it even seems cynical. My greatest wish is to experience this Israel, already exploding of lust for live, creativity and innovation, in total peace. As the paradise I’ve been carrying in my heart since I was a child. This requires the release of Gilad Shalit.

In the meantime, support like the courageous work of PI, is like oxygen to us.

Melody Sucharewicz, we cordially thank for this interview. We wish you and Israel all the best and God’s blessings.

(Photo credit: Metin Cherasi / Translation: Anders Denken)

PI met with public diplomacy expert Melody Sucharewicz (photo) for an interview in Tel Aviv last Tuesday. Melody is fluent in English, Hebrew, German, French as well as Italian. She seeks to show the true side of Israel using watertight argumentation, affable openness and lively charm, especially to people in Europe. In Germany, she ...

PI, 15. Jul 2010 |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | post a comment    
Kategorie: "Palestine", EU, Human Rights, Israel, Terror, USA, West;

 Loading ...

look up...