Wednesday, December 22, 2010

KröschtDag göttlech...oder éischter mënschlech?


Desen Text hun ech un d'Dagespress gescheckt. Et ass eng reduzzéiert Versioun vun engem Text vum Dr Laurent Schley op www.aha.lu 
pol
____________________________________________________________________


Krëschtdag steet virun der Dir, an domat eng Zäit, wou  Vertrieder vun der kathoulescher Kiirch alt rem behapten, dass d’Gebuert vum Jesuskëndchen e Grond ass, fir sech ze besënnen. Si behapten mat hirem Culot, dass et giff hellefen, de Mönsch méi an den Zentrum vum Liewen ze setzen, andeem een sech Gedanke giff machen, iwer dat Kêndchen, dat do virun 2000 Joer ouni Sex entstanen soll sin.

T'ass scho verreckt: dodurch, dass mir un sou Märercher gleewen, solle mer de Mënsch, seng Wessenschaft an d'Opklärung rem méi wichteg huelen!

Wann een d'Geschicht - di beweisbar Geschicht vun der Mënschheet - kuckt, ass Krëschtdag deen Dag, wou bei villen Völker d’WanterSonneWend, de Solistice gefeiert gouf. D'Krëschtentum huet -well et hinnen an de Krom gepasst huet, deen Dag quasi gekidnappt a mecht zanter hir, wi wann si dat erfonnt hätten. Wi wann dat WanterFest emmer eppes Krëschtleches gewiescht wir!

Egal wéi, misst een dach mengen, dat wann de Mënsch net an den Abseits gerode soll, een sech soll op de Mënsch konzentréieren; an net op imaginär Götter!!

D'Humanisten konzentréiren sech op de Mënsch! Sie -zB mir bei AHA! - setzen sech an, fir Opklärung, fir Toleranz a fir aner wichteg Werter. Si weisen dat ee kann e gudde Mensch sin, ouni sech vun engem erfonnte Gott a senge Paschtéier leeden ze lossen! Si sin selbstverständlech fir d'Rechter vun de Fraen, den Homosexuellen an hun dobei oft a vill missen gerad géint de Katholizismus ukämpfen! Erbattert kämpfen!

Keen huet de Monopol op eist Wanterfest och wa mer et aus Routine "Krëschtdag" nennen! E Mensch dé net gleeweg ass kann a soll di him wichteg Deeg feieren, wéi an ob hee wöllt. Mat an ouni Kadoen, Treipen a Gänsen!

Dese kurzen Message hun ech op en mi ausféierlechen Text baséiert, den op www.aha.lu ze liesen ass. Do ass nach méi gudd Lecture fir des besennlech Zeit!

Di Feierdeeg si fir mech a mengesgleichen d'Gelegenheet, de Wanter ze feieren; di kurz Deeg a laang Nuechten, d' Keelt an hoffentlech de Schnéi! Ee freedegt Fest wou ee mat senger Famill zesummenkënnt, di een mat klenge Kadoen begleckt, ee Fest, wat ee genéisst mat guddem Iessen an Drenken, a mat Musek di engem och wirklech gefällt!

A bei all dem steet eben net en erfonnten MärcheKëndchen oder e Gott am Mettelpunkt. Do steet eendeiteg dee formidablen Mönsch am Mëttelpunkt, deen et wirklech gëtt, mat all senger Freed a sengem Misär, senge Stärkten a senge Fehler!

Schéi Krëschtdeeg!
WirtzePol (pol@wirtz.com)

Monday, December 20, 2010

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Double standards: Israel's megafire and Gaza


Diana Buttu and other qualified international observers look at how us - Europe and US - help depending on who is in trouble in the Middle East.
This is not about  historic backgrounds of the the conflict, but about 41 civilians killed here by an unfortunate forestfire, and 1300 civilians kilkled in Gaza by the Israeli forces.


Both Israel and Palestine are our partners. Spend some time reading how we helped where.
Pol

____________________________________________________________________


Haifa's fire and the world's double standards 
Diana Buttu

With several international aircraft maneuvering the skies, the scene resembled a synchronized air show with airplanes diving and peaking in perfect tune. Bright yellow fire-extinguishing aircraft ascended sharply among the green pine trees spraying bright orange fire retardant and in the distance the yellow and red flames of the Carmel fire danced. Israelis of all walks descended upon Danya--a posh Haifa neighborhood--to witness what many Israeli onlookers called the "rescue operation". Fathers graciously pointed out to their young children where each of the aircraft originated (France, the United States, Sweden et cetera) while others criticized the Israeli government for not having enough materials and equipment to extinguish a fire of this magnitude. "I hope that they learn some lessons," remarked one onlooker, presumably referring to the Israeli government.

But as I watched the fire rage, listened to endless statements of support from the international community, including no less than US President Barack Obama and the Palestinian Authority, I could not help but think about the world's many double standards--even as they relate to disasters. Don't misunderstand me: Haifa is no less dear to me (or to any Palestinian) than any of its current residents. But Gaza is also valuable to me.
Where were the international forces--those belonging to Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Jordan, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and particularly the United States--when Israel brutally set Gaza ablaze two years ago this month killing not 41 but more than 1,400 civilians? Where were these same countries when Israeli forces, using illegally banned weaponry, similarly devastated Lebanon four years ago? Where were the beautiful airplanes in the sky maneuvering to try to stop Israel's man-made disaster? The only airplanes we saw then were the ones that destroyed nearly 60,000 Palestinian homes and factories, completely decimating 3,500 structures; aircraft drones designed to terrorize 1.5 million Palestinians; and aircraft designed to plunge Gaza into perpetual darkness or ensure that thousands are without a clean water supply. 


Why then the different treatment? Perhaps the difference is that it is easier and "less controversial" to rush to extinguish fires that threaten trees than fires that threaten people. But if that were the case, where were all of these countries this week (and virtually every other week) when Israeli settlers once again set olive groves and other Palestinian trees ablaze? Where was the fire retardant material? The fire-fighters? Where were the Israeli fire rescue teams rushing in support of Palestinians just as Palestinian firefighters rushed in their support? Lest I appear "ungrateful" I must note that more than five billion dollars from the international community were pledged to Gaza's reconstruction to clean up the mess that Israel created (with a parenthetical note that two years later the situation in Gaza is no better, owing to Israel's continued siege).

Back to the Israeli onlooker--indeed there are many lessons to be learned. Israel has undoubtedly learned that it is better at setting other nations on fire than at extinguishing its own fires and that lighters are more devastating than Qassams and Katyushas. One can dream that Israel will learn that those in glass houses should not throw stones. But as is often the case, Israel will simply take away what it needs to boost its rescue services before it sets another country aflame. It is hoped that Israel has learned that non-indigenous objects--such as pine trees planted in place of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages such as at-Tira and Ayn Hawd--do not survive well in the Middle East (though looking at the latest settlement announcements, it is clear that this message about non-indigenous objects has not yet registered).

For Palestinians, there are also lessons. We cannot take comfort in outward statements decrying Israel's actions, in the face of a history of warm relations. For example, despite Israel's point- blank killing of Turkish activists aboard the Gaza-bound flotilla in May this year, Turkey is once again cozying up to Israel--just as it cozied up to Israel in the aftermath of Israel's brutal attack on Gaza in order to purchase Israeli military equipment.

But if there is one fundamental lesson that all parties have learned it is this: the different treatment between the international "rescue" of Israel and the lack of similar aid to Palestinians has little to do with trees, nature or the environment. Rather, the international community will always rush to Israel's side when it is on fire, but will never stop Israel from setting others aflame.-Published 16/12/2010 ©bitterlemons-international.org

Diana Buttu is a human rights lawyer and a former legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team.

The sparks that light the fires 
 Chuck Freilich
The flames in one of Israel's most beautiful areas were extinguished a week ago, but decades will be needed to restore the environmental devastation. Neither Israel nor the Middle East has decades to deal with its problems. The Middle East is smoldering, on the verge of a conflagration.

The good news is that Israel was given a badly needed wake-up call and its grossly insufficient firefighting capabilities will finally get a major upgrade. The bad news, as in 2006, is that the wake-up was needed to begin with and required numerous fatalities. Usually, only two or three people have to die before the government finally deals with some major danger, such as "red" roads or railroad crossings.

The even worse news is that we may badly need the improved firefighting and other civil preparedness capabilities in the coming years. In the three primary scenarios for military conflict in the coming years--a further round with Hizballah, a strike against Iran and renewed strife with the Palestinians--the home front is likely to be hit hard.

Hizballah now has approximately 45,000 rockets, a vast arsenal dwarfing the 13,000 it had in 2006, of which 4000 were actually fired. If a similar ratio is maintained next time, Israel could face a barrage of 15,000 rockets or more. If just some of these cause fires, the recent blaze may pale in comparison. The next round with Hizballah is probably just a question of timing; the current flap in Lebanon over the international investigative tribunal may provide the spark that lights that fire.

Significant international sanctions have been imposed on Iran. No one, however, the Obama administration included, truly believes that sanctions will stop Iran's nuclear program. Sometime in the next few years, we will face a moment of reckoning. Computer viruses and other means can delay this, but a military strike may still prove necessary and could cause massive retaliation against Israel. Further Iranian progress toward a bomb, let alone a declaration thereof, may provide the spark that lights that fire.

With the peace process deeply mired in a mutual lack of vision and leadership, renewed confrontation with the Palestinians may also be near. Some warn of a third intifada, probably an over-hyped threat; why should the Palestinians resort to such drastic means when one piece of charcoal, carelessly thrown in a forest, causes such destruction? An outrage committed by the radicals on either side, a single Qassam rocket that hits a school or playground, could provide the spark that lights that fire.

Various intra- and inter-Arab developments could do so as well, e.g., the ongoing Sunni-Shiite enmity, including the Sunni Arabs' deep fear of Iranian hegemony and nuclear weapons. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will soon face critical processes of succession, which could lead to domestic instability and even to their transformation into radical Islamist states. Both have large armies equipped with the very latest American weaponry, which could fall into radical hands, and Egypt could rejoin the war-fighting camp. Lebanon may still come apart. The West Bank and Gaza will likely remain divided for years, the PA may be taken over by Hamas, or collapse due to its own lack of legitimacy. Iraq may implode, or fragment, following the final American withdrawal. The future of the regimes in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan is similarly unclear. The burgeoning populations of the region, including a huge youth bulge, are increasingly confronting the combustible mixture of an absence of economic opportunity, political freedom and social restrictions.

The tragic fire in Israel almost begs the question; so what's new? Time and again, we encounter the same decision-making pathologies; the same focus on the immediate future, without long-term planning and preparations; ministries that operate as autonomous fiefdoms, rather than an integrative cabinet; coalition maintenance above all else; crisis management and improvisation. Decisions are taken but not implemented, such as 100 million shekels budgeted for firefighting half a year ago because "everyone knew" it was the weak link in emergency preparedness, but not allocated. Our leaders continually refuse to take responsibility.

In the absence of a concept, languages lack words. It is thus not entirely surprising that Hebrew lacks a recognized word for "accountability". Sticklers will note that a new word, "akhrayutiut", has begun making the rounds. Much like the concept itself, however, it has yet to take hold.

It is time for both Israel's leaders and the region's to be held accountable. We cannot afford too many more fires.

The only glimmer of hope is that the skeptics who view Israel as a "nation dwelling alone" in a hostile world were once again proven wrong. Eighteen countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and the Palestinians, sent emergency firefighting assistance. If and when we finally succeed in extinguishing the flames of the conflict, we will find that we have far more friends than we knew.- Published 16/12/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Chuck Freilich was a deputy national security advisor in Israel and is now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and an adjunct professor at Harvard, NYU, Tel Aviv University and the Herzlia Interdisciplinary Center. His book on national security decision-making processes in Israel will be published in the coming months.

Disaster Politics
 Peter Lagerquist
Among organizations and people who make emergency relief their business, it has long been a truism that natural disasters are in the final analysis not nature-made. Nature throws up problems; a lack of preparedness turns these problems into disasters. Occasionally, this connection works itself into national media narratives. In the US, in 2005, the story of Hurricane Katrina became not one of random, elemental tragedy, but the incompetence of local and federal authorities, at the apex of which sat President George W. Bush.

Bush's popularity was by then already declining, and in responding to the calamity, his characteristically breezy political style only reinforced perceptions that the US was in increasingly clumsy hands. Politically, then, Katrina was a natural disaster chiefly in the sense that nature became a stage on which prevailing political anxieties and debates could play themselves out, and underlying political stakes be brought into focus.

Something similar could be said for the forest fires that ravaged Israel's northern Carmel Mountain this December, and--in terms of their significance to the Israeli political scene--also the regional ramifications of this natural disaster. The crucial difference is that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not George W. Bush, and presides over a very different political landscape from the former US president.

The Carmel fires have been roundly pounced upon by the Israeli media as a sign of lacking governmental preparedness. Few commentators have failed to bemoan that a state that possesses the world's third largest air force owns not a single firefighting aircraft, but had to rely first on underequipped private contractors, then on assistance from an array of friendly and not-so-friendly governments, including Turkey and the Palestinian Authority, to combat the fires.

Predictably, such concerns have been explicitly paired with anxieties about Israel's "home front" vulnerabilities in a war with Iran and/or its Hizballah ally. This war looms as a near certainty in national political discourse, yet as such also raises the specter of renewed rocketing of Israel's heartlands, as endured during the 2006 Lebanon conflict. Many voices in the public arena have been quick to ask whether Israel is ready to commence round two of this battle. Tellingly, however, few have questioned whether this round can be avoided in the first instance. In this context, it is the political competency of the government, not its policies, that has come into focus.

The fact that the disrepair of Israel's firefighting capabilities is the legacy of several successive governments has absolved Netanyahu of much blame, according to at least half of all Israelis sampled in one post-conflagration poll. This has in turn extended questions of competency beyond that of any one particular party to Israel's political culture more broadly, literally transforming the disaster into an atmospheric issue. "The wind, it seems, is the only thing directing anything in this country," quipped Ma'ariv commentator Ben Caspit, in a comment on the progress of the Carmel fires.

Yet Netanyahu has also done his part to re-instill confidence in his own credibility. His political vulnerability ahead of the fires lay in attempting to be all things to all sides of his fractious political coalition, as well as to the Obama administration. In acceding to a settlement freeze, no matter how gutted of any import, he had alienated right-wing constituents. In not extending the freeze, or casting Israel into momentary international isolation over the Gaza blockade--as well as confrontation with former ally Turkey--he would have worried a more centrist crowd. Having finally forced Washington to abandon its demands that he extend the freeze, however, Netanyahu found himself in a new position: having faced down the US president, he could well afford to accept the help of firefighters from Bulgaria.




Indeed, as a disaster statesman, calling in assistance from over a score of different countries, Netanyahu has also done some to dispel domestic fears of isolation in the international arena. The Carmel fires offered Turkey a chance to dampen the flames of post Mavi Marmara acrimony, and Netanyahu the opening to offer compensation to the families of Turkish activists killed on the ship. Though neither of these gestures may ultimately prove transformative, they reveal that a deeper political dynamic is at work in this relationship. Turkey may not need Israel as much as Israel needs Turkey, but neither is it in Ankara's interest to sustain an open rift with Tel Aviv, and as such also incur the further displeasure of the US.

In the final, and perhaps most poignant analysis, the Carmel disaster also provided Netanyahu with a chance to rehearse and reinvigorate a distinctive national political style, adaptable from Dwight D. Eisenhower as "if a problem cannot be solved, militarize it." Amidst a national media coverage that portrayed Israeli fire-spraying aeronauts "as if they were combat pilots on duty", he announced the formation of an IAF squadron of specialized aircraft to subdue any future fires, reaffirming faith in the ability of military hardware to solve complex crises. By the middle of the month, opinion polls gave him 60-80 percent approval ratings, with a majority of Israelis being impressed by his leadership during the national crisis. Unlike Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2006, of course, Netanyahu also benefited from the inevitability of success in this "home front" battle, however costly the price paid. Unlike Hizballah, a forest fire will always, eventually, extinguish itself.-Published 16/12/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Peter Lagerquist is a writer and occasional political consultant. He has written about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for Le Monde Diplomatique, the Journal of Palestine Studies, the Guardian and the New York Times, among other publications.

Turkey-Israel: searching for a magic formula 
 Soli Ozel
The deadly forest fire on Mount Carmel presented a timely opportunity for the Turkish and Israeli governments to climb down from their crisis mode and look for an opening to start the normalization of their relations. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan swiftly decided to send two firefighting aircraft to Israel as his "humanitarian and Islamic duty". Rising to the occasion, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called his Turkish counterpart to show his appreciation, and at the site of the blaze personally thanked Turkish firefighters.

With the theatrics of the situation well taken care of, the two sides in short order sent their representatives to Geneva to look for ways to break the impasse they have found themselves in since the end of May. Relations hit a breaking point when the Israeli military attacked an aid flotilla in international waters and killed nine Turks (one of them an American citizen) after it encountered resistance by activists on the flagship Mavi Marmara.

The Israeli side argued that this was an act of self-defense and that the primary instigator of the flotilla was an Islamist organization whose members had at the very least dubious affiliations. The Turkish side, on the other hand, insists on the illegality of the attack since it took place in international waters, accuses Israel of violating international conventions and laws in the way it treated the detainees, and demands both an official apology and indemnity for the victims of the raid.

So far, a judicious report by the UN Human Rights Council has provided strong support for the Turkish case. A commission brought together by the secretary general of the UN is also working on a report that is already overdue mainly because of Israeli lethargy and foot dragging.

Although the gestures by the two parties came rapidly and the Geneva talks immediately convened (they were later suspended), a problem remains. How do you come up with a magic formula for a conflict-resolving statement that gives two diametrically opposed messages so that both parties can save face? Turkey will not be satisfied unless it receives an apology for the death of its citizens. Israel is officially hesitant even to express regret.

This is the impasse in the troubled, edgy and acerbic Turkish-Israeli relationship.

If the formula can be found, then the parties may turn to their publics, boast of their victory and go back to reasonably civil relations, even if the intimacy that obtained during the heyday of their relations is likely never to be recovered. Indeed, the degree of commonality of interests that existed in the context of the mid-1990s between the two countries is no more.

On the most critical issues of the Middle Eastern regional order, the two capitals do not see eye to eye. Turkey's preference is almost exclusively for non-belligerence in solving the problems of the region. It is committed to a two-state solution and strongly opposes Israeli settlement activities, not to mention Israel's policy toward Gaza. On Iran, it steadfastly opposes the military option. Therefore Turkey is at odds with Israel, even though it may not like a nuclear Iran or an Iran that makes its strategic peace with the United States any better than Israel.

What developments since the Carmel fire demonstrate, however, is the existence of a political will on the part of both prime ministers to forge ahead, break the impasse and move on. Turkey is interested in not having Israel as a thorn in its side, especially when this concerns its relations with the US. Israel values the Turkish connection, is interested in normalizing relations and wishes to have an agreement so that Turkey can help indemnify its military against lawsuits that might result from the findings of the report of the secretary general's commission.

Many observers wanted to invest the forest fire with the kind of psychological breakthrough that the earthquakes in Turkey and Greece in 1999 proved to be. Although there is no denying the importance of the psychological dimension, that was not the only reason for Turkish-Greek relations to take a turn for the better. There were already political developments and a fairly well advanced rapprochement at both the political and societal levels that provided the basis for that breakthrough.

In the Israeli-Turkish case as well, I would argue that political expediency plays an important role in Erdogan's apparent readiness to jump on the opportunity provided by the fire. While Erdogan was taking this critical step, his party members were accusing Israel of being the mastermind behind the Wikileaks scandal that they saw as a plot to embarrass and weaken the AKP government.

For Turkey, the falling out with Israel and the populist rhetoric used in the wake of the flotilla incident have proved to be pretty costly in terms of its relations with Washington. Combined with the shock and fury engendered by the Turkish vote against the new Iran sanctions package at the UN Security Council, Turkish-American relations have soured significantly.

Erdogan's meeting with US President Barack Obama in Toronto during the G-20 summit was reportedly testy. In the US Congress, anti-Turkish sentiment rose to new heights. The Israeli lobby that long acted as Turkey's reliable ally in Congress and in American public opinion turned decisively anti- Turkish and engaged in a defamation campaign against the AKP government. All this resurrected the tired talk about Turkey's changing axis because of the Islamization of its foreign policy. It became quite clear to the Turkish authorities that so long as the row with Israel continued, relations with the United States could not be put on the right track.

Israel and Turkey look at the Middle Eastern regional order from very different perspectives. The Turkish military no longer calls the shots in determining the course of these relations. Public opinion, which will remain anti-Israel as long as the Palestinian issue is not resolved, influences policy-makers. At the same time, there are now strong constituencies that prefer a more cautious and moderate course in the conduct of policy toward Israel.

So if the magic formula is found, one can expect correct if not cordial relations between Israel and Turkey. This will get Israel off the hook on the flotilla affair and relieve Turkey of the pressures of an antagonistic and influential lobby in Washington. Based on the overwhelmingly positive reaction of the Israeli public and the media to Turkish assistance during the fire, such a development may also lead to a return to the trends of pre-flotilla days in societal relations.- Published 16/12/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org 

Soli Ozel is a lecturer at Kadir Has University and a columnist for Haberturk newspaper.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Treipen


I have been asked by Steffani for a typical recipe of a classical old Luxembourg Christmas menu.  I talked to her about Treipen. Here's what I said:
Hi Steffani,

There is no typical dish for Christmas day. But there is a tradition that comes from days when this country was living on farming and very poor.  It runs under the name of Treipen.
In old days, when Christmas in Luxembourg was more a religious, catholic event, people went to a midnight mass on Christmas Eve. When they arrived home, they fried prepared Treipen in a pan, untill they burst open and served them, at 1 in the morning with Tirtech (potato cake with SauerKraut - cabbage) and often some  apple-pie.
I found the following recipe in English on http://pastjourneys.com/TasteofLuxembourg.aspx  Many former Luxembourg families live in Chicago area in US and have Treipen Festival there.
 Nowadays, Treipen are primarily eaten in the very local  restaurants in Luxembourg and some of them (EMS near station, Maison des Brasseurs) are famous for them.
____
Treipen (Blood Sausage)

1 gallon blood
30 lb. pork roast
5 average-size heads cabbage
5 sliced loaves dry bread
12 peeled medium onions
14 T. salt
6 - 8 T. pepper
1 cup boene kreitchen (savory)

Cook the meat.  Cool it and soak the bread in the broth.  Chop the onions and saute them.  Take the meat off the bones and cut in small pieces.  Add the salt, pepper and BouneKreitchen.  Grind all.  Warm the blood.  Mix it in last.  Put in casings.  Simmer the treipen about 15 minutes in salt water until it comes to the surface.  Take out and cool.  A broomstick between 2 chairs works for cooling.  Freeze.

To serve, fry in grease, or bake in the oven for 45 to 60 minutes.  When the Treipen break open in the pan, they are best!!

If hogs heads are used, do not use the ears.

Monday, October 25, 2010

En Dokter probéiert z'erklären !

Et ass jo erfreelech wéi et um Internet awer nach och bei eeschten Themen funbktioéiert.
Do huet sech endlech en gewessen Laurent Kohl (warscheinlech e Mediziner) der Saach ugeholl, a gewisen wéi een sech uleed fir eppes enner d'Leid ze brengen.  
Och wann dat a sech gudd funktionéiert (ech eleng hun de Breif iwer Niuecht 14 mol kritt(!) an en lo a mein Spamfuilter gesat., dann ass den Contenu awer nach weider neischt wi eng Preuve dass di Hären an Dammen Medizinner rose sin mam Mars di Barto, hirem Medizinner.
An dass och ech Medizinner ouni Temesta net roueg a beduecht ass, wann e verirgert ass.
(Just déi zwee di se op d'Tele schecken, schengen virdrun eng Temesta geschleckt ze hun :-) !)

Ech hu lo hei probéiert z'analiséiren, an dobei fonnt dass och an desem Bréif wirklech wéineg Contenu dran ass.
(Roud den Text, schwarz meng Bemirkungen)
ech informéieren iech mol heimat firop dass ab e Freiden den 22. Oktober
2010 d'Dokteren am ganze Land wärten streiken. Daat wärt folgendermossen
oflaafen: ab e Freiden sin ALL RDV déi een bei engem Dokter hat net méi
gülteg (ob Praxis oder Spidol), d'Praxen sin eenheetlech just nach mueres
op vun 8h bis 13h an daat och OUNI RDV. Wann also e Problem ass dann soll
een mueres bei den Dokter goen. D'Urgencen an de Spideeler laafen ganz
normal, déi déi eng wiirklech medezinesch Urgence sin, déi gin natiirlech
firgeholl!
...ok, dat wesse mer su lues!

Ech wollt vun deser Geleenheet profitéieren, fir mol e puer Explikatiounen
Ganz Gudd, well dat huet soss nach kee ferdegbruecht
ze gin, firwaat d'Dokteren iwwerhaapt streiken (an desem Fall heescht et
eigentlech ,manner schaafen'), an firwaat et och fir iech wichtegt ass als
Patient, dass mir daat do maachen. Et get keen Dokter deen daat gären
mecht, mee eisen Här Minister léisst keng Diskussiounen zou
1)       Dokteren wellen de libre choix vum Patient bäibehalen
d.h. dass
de Patient wielen kann wéini a wou hien bei waat fir en Dokter geet. De
Minister well daat ofschafen: hien wellt dass dir fir éischt bei e
Generalist gitt ier der bei de Spezialist gitt soss kritt der just nach en
Deel oder guer näischt méi rem vun der Krankekees. En plus riskéieren
Patienten net méi bei deen Spezialist ze goen wou se wellen, mee bei deen
deen se firgeschriwwe kréien..
Gudd, dat ass een Argument. Dat éischt.
Ma ass dat et wert, dass dofir lo all d'Patienten enner starken Drock gesat gin ???
2)       Eise Minister well lo selwer ufänken Medezin ze maachen: daat
heescht konkret, dass bei verschiddene Krankheeten hien décidéiert (huet)
wéini der bei waat fir en Dokter ze goen hutt, soss get et erem Manner
Suen zréck. Sou wäit ech wees léen d'Unien nach emmer fest wéilaang een
muss studéieren fir Medezin ze maachen; obé, eise Minister schéint an de
leschte Méint e medezinesche Crash-Kursus-Studium absolvéiert ze hun fir
daat alles ze kennen. Et ass dann un de Leit fir ze wielen wiem een elo
méi medezinescht Vertrauen schénkt: dem Dokter oder dem
Crash-Kursus-Spezialist.
Bis lo emmer nach nemmen een Argument. Dat hei ass just Gesteppels.

3)       Eise Minister ass gutt am Manipuléieren an am Leit hannergoen:
säin Projet de Loi deen hien gemaach huet (bzw gemaach kritt huet) ass vun
der AMMD (=association des médecins et médecins-dentistes) korrigéiert
gin, d.h. d'Sicht vun de Leit déi um Terrain selwer schaffen ass mat
abezun an duergestallt gin; dass déi ,Korrektioun' dem Minister net an all
Punkt ging gefalen schéint mer realistesch ze sin. Wann awer de Minister
hingeet an GUER NAISCHT DOVUN BAIBEHAELT waat Dokteren empfehlen (an daat
enner anerem wou een am System Suen kéint aspueren) an dann och nach
groussarteg um Radio zielt, Zitat: 'Ech sin den Dokteren awer schon
entgéint komm a méng Dier steht wäit op', dann mengen ech, schwätzt daat
fir sech.
Bis lo emmer nach nemmen een Argument. Dat hei ass just Gesteppels.
4)       Dem Minister séng Reform ass EXKLUSIV vun Net-Medeziner op Been
gestallt gin: vun Leit also déi vun Tuten a Blosen eng Ahnung hun, awer
net vun Medezin. Wann dir also an Zukunft wellt behandelt gin no engem
System deen vun engem Jurist an engem Physiker (sorry wann elo Leit daat
hei liesen, déi daat geléiert hun) obgesaat gin ass (an daat ass nunmol
d'Realitéit),
dann musst dir dem Minister är Gléckwensch iwwerbréngen.
Bis lo emmer nach nemmen een Argument. Dat hei ass just Gesteppels.
5)       Dem Minister séng Iddi geet an Richtung Verstaatlechung vun der
Medezin d.h. hien bestemmt waat Dokteren maachen (oder och net). Daat ass
net kompatibel mat enger liberaler Medezin (déi et bis elo nach emmer gin
ass an déi et och an deenen aanere Länner get). Liberal heescht: ech kann
méng Medezin décidéieren an de Patient kann décidéieren bei waat fir en
Dokter hien geet. Bei Verstaatlechung ass daat net méi gin mee
d'Verantwortung
d.h. wann eppes medezinesch schief geet, dann ass awer net de Minister
verantwortlech mee den Dokter natiirlech (ajo ech hat vergiess ze soen,
dass een beim medezinesche Crashkursus keen Eid brauch ofzeléen..:-).
Neischt Klores wat mam Projet de Loi ze din huet!
Bis lo emmer nach nemmen een Argument. Dat hei ass just Gesteppels.
Am Kloertext heescht daat: wann ech keng Medezin méi ka maachen, déi ech
als Doktor ob deen eenzelnen individuell ofstemmen kann, dann geet
d'Qualitéit
vun ménger Medezin d'Baach of (woubäi ech net wees, wéi laang d'Baach
iwwerhaapt ass.).
Dat klengt jo gudd a richteg.Ma et ass nach emmer nemmen Allgemenges, a keen Argument géint ee präzise Punkz vun dem Projet de Loi!
Bis lo emmer nach nemmen een Argument. Dat hei ass just Gesteppels.
Ech hoffen heimadder, dass dir e bessen Verständnis fir de Chaos kritt,
deen riskéiert an den nächsten Deeg (an Wochen??) op iech duer ze kommen,
mee et ass déi eenzeg Manéier déi elo nach bleiwt, fir dass öffentlech
sech jiddereen Gedanken driwwer mecht wéi een sech säin Gesondheetsystem
an Zukunft firstelle wellt. Wann der iech elo Gedanken iwwert de
Gesondheetssystem an Zukunft maacht, dann ass den Zweck vun deser Mail
erfellt!!
Insgesamt fannen ech nemmen dat wat an Deitschland "AllgemeinPlätze" genannt get. Trotz villen Ausdreck wi Hoffnung, gudde Wellen asw, fannen ech hei nemmen een Argument, wat derwert wir ze diskutéiren. Dat eischt douewen.
Et kann dach awer net senn, dass dat di eenzeg Argumenter sin, fir hei am Land all dee Chaos eropzeruffen?
Hun d'Dokteren néirenst hir Commentairen zum Projet de Loi, Punkt fir Punkt veröffentlicht? 
Aou wi eis Mediziner sech an der Oeffentlechkeet präsentéiren, kann ech nemmen feststellen dass op Manst déi un hirer Spëtzt, FachIdioten sin. Also Leit di méiglecherweis ganz vill vun der Medizin verstinn, a vleicht nach vun hire Segelbooter, awer soss eben weltfremd sin.
Ech fannen et wir un der Zeit, dass die Vernünfteg ennert hinnen, sech och su lues zu Wurt melden!
Ech schléisse mech gären dem Laurent Kohl (Dr?) senge Wönsch un:
An desem Senn nach e schéinen Daag an hoffentlech gitt der net krank..
Kohl Laurent
P.S. der dierft des Mail roueg als Explikatioun vun der Gesondheetsreform
un Kollegen, Frenn, Familien etc weiderleeden.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

DokteschStreik ???

Ech si net gescheit genuch fir ze verstoen, virwat d'Dokteren streiken! Ech net!

Ech hun hir Gespréicher an der Press an op der Tele vefollegt. An ech hu lo och den Projet de Loi gelies, em deen et geet! - Neen, net alles, ma dach zimlech grendlech iwerflunn.   An et schengt mir en ausféierlech préparéierten Text ze sin, de mir no gesondem MenscheVerstand ausgeseit.  Ech kennen ausserdem de Mars di Bartholomeo als en éierleche, gudd Motivéierten Tipp mat gesondem MenscheVerstand. An ech kennen och der Dokteren, di sou equipéiert sin.
Ech weess awer och dass et wéineg Berufsstänn get,(ausser weitgehend eisen Lehrer di sech "Professer" nennen), di sou weit vun dem normale Birger a senger Alldeeglechkeet ewech bewegen.
Secher get et do Ausnahmen: ech hu mer sou eng Doktesch erausgesicht. An ech kennen och anerer vun der gudder Zort. Ech hun awer nach net nogefrot, ob déi streiken.

Ech well awer e ganz klore Statement machen:

D'Dokteren hun entweder komplett Onrecht an deser Saach, 
oder se machen eng extrem schlecht Kommunikatioun!



En haarsträubend Beispill vu geschter Metteg:

Venezia- net recherchéiert, awer gelieft (a schnell opgeschriwen)



Mei Frend Henri Juda hat v¡roan e poar Wochen iwer Facebook matkréit, dass ich fär e Poar Deeg zu Venedig war. Et hoat mich do oagemailt a gesot: ich bestoade mich demnächst ("den alen Esel":pol)  an ich wollt d'Hochzeitsräs op Venedig machen. Hoas aou Tuyauen wat een deser Deeg do su machen a losse soll?
Ech hoa natirlich mat JO geentwert. A wi den Heng lo schliesslich ge-skyped hott fir ze soen di Hochzeit weer vollbracht (sicher prachtvoll wi di Braut!), hoanich mich lo droagemach fär mein Venedig Notizen erauszehollen a geschriwen...


Dobei se mein Fangeren mer alt erem fortgelaf an ich hoffen dass di zwee dat do önnen su richtig genéissen!


Ma et ass mer du och d'Iddi komm, mei SChrieb hei ze parken. Su ka vleicht deen een oder aneren Frend oder Friend  sich eppes eraushollen.
Et koast neist, ma ich gin och kän Garantie a kän KaskoVersecherung.  Lei mein Skype Echange mam Heng:






[10/22/10 10:42:53] Pol Wirtz: Salut cher Henri,  wini ass dann de grussen Daag??
[10/22/10 10:46:13] Pol Wirtz: Zu Venedig wollt ech der just soen: et gin iwerall Barock Concert'en annoncéiert an di meescht dovun isn vum Niveau C-D.  Mir waren awer och op engem, deen ganz gudd war a echer och mengem Papp dem Albert gefall hätt. Ech beschafen der d'Coordonnéen asap.
[10/23/10 3:32:06] Henri Juda: bonjour Pol. Hochzeit war den 20.10.2010 um 10h20 .
[10/23/10 3:33:49] Henri Juda: merci fir all nötzlech Informatiounen. mir wollten den Samsdech mettech an den Fenice goen. wei geet dat mat den Ticketen ? hun et net färdech bruecht iwer internet ze kaafen.
[10/23/10 3:37:21] Henri Juda: par ailleurs : fleien mat der ryanair a kommen speid owes ze Treviso un. mir wollten nach e puer Deech do an der Geigend bleiwen an mir hun wölles en Auto ze lounen de mer dann ze Mestre geifen ofgin. Geet dat ? oder ass et besser den Auto eröm no 7 Deech ze Treviso ofzegin an de Parking fir dei 3 Deech ze Venedig ze bezuelen ? oder get et en aaneren Trick ?
[10/23/10 13:49:41] Pol Wirtz: Bonjour dir zwee! A nach mol alles Guddes.
Watr den Hotel ugeet, recommandéiren ech e mettel-prächtegen Hotel Bella Venezia. www.hotelbellavenezia.com Dé leit just an der Mett tescht den zwee zentrale Punkten : de Piazza San Marco an der RialtoBreck.
A mengen Noten steet kurz a knapp (in line mat menge Präferenzen :-) :


Poor Wifi, pleasant room, pleasant breakfast, poor reception 
Insgesamt ganz propper a confortable, fir Venedig preiswert.


[10/23/10 13:53:05] Pol Wirtz: Ref Auto: do fannen ech dat Bescht den Auto vis-à-vis vun der Gare zu Mestre an engem Parkhaus um 5.Stack ze lossen. Dat war preislech ok an huet secher ausgesin (obschon du hues jo net dein Auto :-) !  Wanns de Zeit hues zu Mestre, as de Parking allerdengs eng oder zwou Strossen (Quartiéen) mi weit och mi genschteg...

[10/23/10 13:58:19] Pol Wirtz: Zu den Fenice ticket'en: Book tickets for opera in Venice directy in Italy and save money!   hun ech lo just gelies.      An d'Kees ass emmer 1 Stonn virun der Virstellung op - am Prinzip och fir Verkaf.   Wat ech awer giff virschlon ass dass de entweder am Hotel, sou fréi wi méiglechs beim Concierge réservéiers, oder am groussen Office du Tourisme: déi hun efficasse service op der Seit San Marco - do wu d'Vaporetto'en fortfuren. Opgepasst: wanns de do erakenns ass meeschtens eng net lang me lues Schlang. A wanns de dann ukenns, soen se der d'Ticket'en wiren ouni Schlang lenkls (p.rapport Entrée) am Fong. An do geet et da ganz séier...
[10/23/10 13:59:46] Pol Wirtz: Ref Vaporetto'en: ech giff iech och recommandéiren eng Kart MultiCourse ze kafen op Basis vun de Stonne wous de do bass 24, 48, 72.   Dat ass praktesch, well dir werd wuel heefeg op di Booter op an of sprangen...
[10/23/10 14:03:23] Pol Wirtz: Eng vun den Tourist Traps as a mengen Aen d'Visite op der Glas-Insel Murano oder och Burano.  Etr get och GlasManufakturen zu Venedig selwer. Zu Muralt ass alles clever opgemach: super Figuren, super opgemach, eleren "ganz sérieuxen Italienesche Baron" den iech a Costume, Cravate a CravatteNol beréit. Ganz gediegen. A wanns de dann eng Kreditkart weis, gin se sou nerveux a freedeg geckeg, dass de spéitstens da weess, dass de ugeschas gi bass.
[10/23/10 14:08:11] Pol Wirtz: Iwregens irgeren se sech permanent iwer di schlecht Copien di lo a Far East gemach, an dann importéiert gin fir zu Venedig als Munrano Glas verkaaf ze gin! D'Wourecht ass awer dass och d'"Manufakturen" vu Murano vill a FernOst mache lossen an da selwer an der Fabrik verkafen.     Mir ware mol an sou enger Fabrik: Marco Polo.    Den Hotel huet dat arrangéiert (gratis!!!  ). Mir goufen zu 4 mat engem Wassertaxi ofgeholl an iwer d'Wasser gehuscht bis an d'Fabrik.     Do hu se (datr hu mer herno Frenn gesot) nemme een klengen Uewen fir Tousten. Deen ass zwar wéinigstens 250 Joer al an et geseit impressionnant aus.   Awer hannendrun ass nemme mi Ausstellung a Vente. "Paese potemchinese": Potemkinische Dörfer in fatto!
[10/23/10 14:08:52] Pol Wirtz: Ah an dann nach: jo mir hun trotz allem eng Figure an eng Vas kaf :-(   Honte!
[10/23/10 14:17:06] Pol Wirtz: Ech hun do nach eng sausympatesch Enoteca mat excellente Weiner (am beschten du sees dolce, duro, frescho asw wats de wells. My preferred as e "Primitivo" oder e Nero Davola aus dem Mezzogiorno. Geféierlech. Bannendran klitzekleng, awer eng sympa Terasse am Häffchen, if weather permits.
[10/23/10 14:21:26] Pol Wirtz: Di Enoteca heescht an ass och Osteria  "i rustheghi"   Du kriss su eng Zort venezianesch geherzt Finger Sandwiches do z'iessen. An du keefs der se een an noach een, wis de grad Loscht hues.        Wanns de awer do am Eck eng kleng lokal "Geheim"adress fir non touristy -- oder less touristy -- Kascht a Stemmung: da géi aus dem Bou (Bogen) vum u Rustighi eraus, dréin no lenks an da no 5 Meter no rechts. Do op der Kreizung also 7 m vum Bou ewech  (???? geht et ???) ass lenls e klitzeklengt Lokal, dem sei Noam mer entgeet...   Excellent!!!   Typesch!!! AOK!
[10/23/10 14:27:25] Pol Wirtz: E sympa Quartier to hang around ass och de Campo San Bartolomio San Marco .
[10/23/10 14:32:18] Pol Wirtz: DAnn get de Benor gelueft mat senge selwergemachte Masken (hee léisst een gäre nokucken a sengem klenge Shop Campo San Bartolomio San Marco www.benor-masks.com.    An eng richteg italienesch al Wasserglace (su wi de Marmann's Al se neft dem Cine Plaza zu Eechternoach gemacht hot) get et nach  wanns de vu8m Benor seim MaskeButtik 20 Meter langst seinMauer weiter (Richtung SanMarco) gees an da no lenks dréis. Do kennt no ca 50 Meter e kläne Glacebutek (nemme bessi mi gruss wi dem GlassenAnsch sein!!)   Ich wäs net mi wi en häscht (Giuseppe??) oder so. He micht se a verkäft se selwer. An en hot sich e Noam gemach (weltweit, wann aen di vergilbte Presseartikele kuckt) mat verschiddene GeméissGlassen. My preferred: Fior di Latte )wi iwerall an Italien).
[10/23/10 14:34:03] Pol Wirtz: An da feelt mer noach an dass ich och schu mol e flotten Owend am VeniceJazzClub hat. Ouni Gewähr nituirlich d'Gruppe changéiren dauernd.
[10/23/10 14:40:21] Pol Wirtz: Am Kader vun der Biennale de l'architecture kanns de d'Hapausstellungen am Giardino Biennale kucke goen, ma verléier kän Zeit de Letzeburger Pavillon an der Casa de Duca (um Canale Grande) ze séichen. Dat Haus (flotte kläne Palazzo) gehéiert em alen Letzeburger, den et alt deelweis dem Letzeburger Staat zur Verfügung stellt.  Fir Architektur net derwert. Do henkt eng deck Eisebomm fir Haiser ofzerappen, an dat impressionnantst "Ausstelklungssteck" ass e Grupp vun ca 200 Tasen Villeroy et Boch (Net den sympateschsten Deel vun der Letzeburger Kultur!!). Fir de bezug zu Italien waren se viru Wochen all mat Espresso ( Café!) gefellt gin. Den Espresso as bei meim Besuch allerdengs hallef verdempt an ghenkt nach su schmiereg un den Tasen. Di pur Guardien'en di eise reiche Ministere de la Culture zur Verfügung stellt fir do ze beroden an opzepassen, sen awer warscheinlech an der falscher Gewerkschaft, fir do mol d'Spull ze machen :-)
[10/23/10 14:41:36] Pol Wirtz: Voilà. Wis de geseis hun ich alt erem iwer dem Schreiwen Freed kréit an hun vill mi geschriewen wi geplangt. Profitéiert. Genéisst. Losst eech dreiwen. A get dem Pech eng Chance, fir och zu Venedig mol eppes falsch ze machen!
[10/23/10 14:54:07] Pol Wirtz: (Ech huelen un du hues neischt dergéint, wann ech des Recommandatiounen lo och mei Blog setzen. Onkomplett. Net recherchéiert- awer erleeft - kann e vleicht och anere Friends en Denscht leeschten!
(Meng Texter sin iwregens wi meeschtens och net iwerliess- also voll TippFehler (ka mer keng Privatsekretaerin mi leeschten, an hun keng Zeit méi fir sou Detailler) -   Kriis vu 2010!!)
Ciao belli


Pol

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Zousätzlech religiéis Feierdeeg - vum Mady Delvaux ???


Wann d'Sozialisten eis lo awer nach weider religiéis Feierdeeg beschaffen!!!

Do zirkuliéiert deser Deeg e Bréif durch d'Letzeburger Internet den sech driwer irgert, dass d'Mady Delvaux, eis LSAP Unterrichtsministesch  gären hätt, dass zwee moslemesch Feierdeeg (den 27. an 28.November) d'Schoulmeeschteren durch d'Fanger kucken, wann dann moslemesch Kanner net an d'Schoul kommen. Di zwee Deeg wiren Moslemesch Feierdeeg!!!
Wa lo awer schon d'LSAP d'Religioun nach méi déif an eise Schoulen verankere well, da soll dach der Deiwel (an de Romain Durlet) se huelen!!

Mer hu jo nu wirklech genuch mat denen chreschtlechen Feierdeeg hei zu Letzeburg.  Et geet dermat un dass entgéint all Iddi vun Trennung vu Kirch a Staat, eise National Feiedrdag offiziell bei engem TeDeum an der Kathedral gefeiert muss ginn.

Ausserdem hu mer su Deeg wi Pengschten an Ouschteren, wu et bei denen weitaus meeschten vun eis nemmen em d'Fréijohr an evenzuell em PicNic oder en kleng Vakanz geet. An dann sin do di zwou Himmelfarten, wu dach och kee mi weess wen dann lo a,  wofir en sech vertikal aus dem Steps gemach huet.

A lo kennt eis dann grad aus dem sozialéisteschen Eck, iwer d'Erzéiungsministesch Mady Delvaux op spatzen Zéiwen eng "genial" Iddi entgéint: zur henneschter Dir eran sollen do Enn November nach zwee Deeg "aus Respekt" virun enger weiderer Religioun , den Muslemen hir Kanner dirfen "feieren"!  

Wi mer de Metteg bei Desch driwer geschwat hun, sot hei en 13 jähregen Bouff "da gin ech och Moslem"!!

Dir wesst net wi lächerlech der all sid mat ärem mangelnden Courage fir sou ze funktionéiren, wi et eech den LSAP bal all Joer als Opdrag gidd: vu wegen fir eng Trennung vu Kirch a Staat.

Ech kann nemmen nach hoffen, dass d'Mady Delvaux sech kategoresch vun Alledem distanzéiert!
Soss kann ech nemme soen: hu dir se da nach all??


_____
Well net jidereen den ausféierleche Bréif kritt, den deser Deeg - vu Leid di ech net kennen - am Internet verbreed get, stellen ech en hei ouni weidere Commentair an d'Netz; et ass just ze soen, dass di länger Intro net wirklech zur Saach beidreet. Eng Reih vun onnetzen Iwerléungen an desem Bréif hun ech lo mol ganz kleng hei eragesat:

 "Zwee nei Feierdeeg hei zu Lëtzebuerg?


  Ausnamsweis machen ech mengem Ierger Loft an der Sprooch déi meng Elteren mir bäibruecht hunn an dat ass Lëtzebuergesch, obwuel et hei zu Lëtzebuerg zur Gewunnecht gin ass sech mëndlech wéi schrëftlech an iergend enger Friemsprooch auszedrécken, éischter wéi op Lëtzebuergesch. Firwat? Ma well mir als Lëtzebuerger an engem klenge Land wéi eisem geléiert goufen Rücksicht ze huelen op déi aner, sech unzepassen an sech a méi wéi nëmmen enger Sprooch fléissend kënnen auszedrécken.

  
  Am Prinzip ass dat jo eng nobel a luewenswert Astellung, an huet dozou gefouert, dass eng Onmass Fransousen joerelaang bei eis schaffe kommen ouni och nëmmen déi klengsten Ustrengung ze machen fir e puer vun de wichtegsten Ëmgangsformen an der Sprooch vun dem Land ze léieren wou en seng Sue verdinge kënnt. Firwat sollten Sie sech ustrengen eis Sprooch ze léieren, wou sie et dach vun eis sou liicht gemaach kréien? Eis Politiker rullen hinnen de rouden Teppech aus, fir Sie op Lëtzbuerg ze kréien, Sie kréien an allen erdenkleche Sproochen all wichteg Informatiounen an de Grapp gedréckt, fir dass Sie nëmmen kee Lëtzebuerger mussen ëm Rot froen, fir gewuer ze gin wou d'Krankekess ass a wéi en sech muss uleeën fir Chômage ze kréien. Dat selwecht gëllt fir vill Däitscher, Belsch, Portugiesen an neierdéngs och Matbierger vum Balkan. Et ass hei net meng Absicht pauschal all auslännesch Matbierger an een Dëppen ze geheien, ech wëll villméi e puer Situatiounen uschwätzen, déi mat den Hoer erbäi gezun sinn.
  
  Déi italienesch Migranten waren déi éischt déi virun méi wéi 100 Joer a grousser Zuel op Lëtzebuerg koumen, fir hei ze wunnen, ze liewen an ze schaffen. Sie sinn zu enger Zäit komm, wou d'Lëtzebuerger am allgemengen an och d'Politiker vun deemols de Kapp nach op der Plaz haten wou en higehéiert - op de Schëlleren. Haut kritt en vun Dag zu Dag ëmmer méi den Androck verschidden Leit wieren vum Lemmes gebass, wéissten nët méi wou se hierkommen. Den Italiener sin deemools keng sou Gonschten erwisen ginn, et gouf eng "Vogel friss oder stirb"


   Politik bedriwen, déi d'Migranten sou ze soen gezwongen huet sech unzepassen. Hier Kanner sinn an d'Schoul komm, sie hu probéiert mat ze schwammen, ze verstoen an sie hunn séier verstan, dass Sie besser haten eis Sprooch ze léieren, fir hei zu Lëtzebuerg kënnen ze iwerliewen.

  Et sinn deemools keng Elterenversammlungen an 3 verschidden Sproochen ugebuede ginn, et sinn och keng deier héichglanz Brochuren gedréckt ginn, déi de Migrantekanner d'Vokablen, d'Verben a sonstegt Léierinhalter an hirer Mammesprooch, wéi um sëlwer Plateau zerwéiert hunn.


  Ech héieren elo schon d'Kommentaren vun der Asti a vun anere "Guddmënschen", déi kommen a mat Sätz ronderëm sech geheien, wou Wieder dra fierkommen wéi - Rassist, Diskriminatioun, Gläichberechtegung, Rechter fir Auslänner, Integratioun a.s.w. Sie hu Recht, well wann Sie sech nët ganz fréi schon fir d'Rechter vun de Migranten agesaat hätten, da wieren mir haut nët do wou mer sinn.


  Ma wou si mer dann eigentlech!?

  An denen allermeeschten Geschäfter, muss en all Sproochen beherrschen, ausser Lëtzebuergësch, obwuel a leschter Zäit en Trend sech bemierkbar mecht, den weist, dass verschidden Patron?en sech dofir asetzen, dass hier auslännesch Ugestallten e bësse Lëtzebuergesch léieren. Et ass nie ze spéit fir eppes gudd ze machen.

  Dass mer am Sënn vun enger gréisstméiglechster Gerechtegkeet probéieren eisen auslänneschen Matbierger d'Liewen hei zu Lëtzebuerg sou liicht wéi méiglech ze man, dat ass novollzéibar. De Staat finanzéiert eng intensiv Integratiounspolitik an d'Äntwert ass oft: "Mer huelen wat de Sozialstaat eis bidd, mee et kann keen eis forcéieren eis ze integréieren!?" oder anescht ausgedréckt: "Mir wëllen eis zwar nët integréieren, mee mir hunn awer Rechter, zumindest déi selwecht Rechter wéi d'Lëtzebuerger, an deelweis esouguer méi Rechter!?"


  Neierdéngs därfen eenzel auslännesch Schüler an der Primärschoul, pardon an der Grondschoul, wann se grouss sproochlech Problemer hunn, esouguer eng Sprooch ewechloossen, an dat mam offiziellen Segen vun der Madame Delvaux. Dass kee Mënsch esou eng Moossnam eeschtlech fir sech oder säi Kand beansprucht, dat ass wuel kloer, mee huet jeemools e lëtzebuerger Schüler de sproochlech Problemer hat einfach duerften eng Sprooch ewegloossen? Nee, hien huet d'Schouljoer nach eng Kéier gemach a geléiert, dass een sech muss ustrengen!

  Lëtzebuerg gëllt nach ëmmer zu bal 98 % als réimesch-katoulescht Land an dat bréngt mat sech, dass mir zu Lëtzebuerg ganz bestëmmten festgeluechten Feierdeeg hun, déi all Lëtzebuerger därfte bekannt sinn. Neierdéngs gëtt et nach 2 weider Feierdeeg déi bis haut keen kannt huet, an zwar den 27. an 28. November. Do ass e verleet ze froen: "A wat fir een Hellegen gëtt dann do gefeiert?"


  D'Educatiounsministesch, d'Madame Delvaux perséinlech huet e Bréif erausginn, wou am ganze Land d'Léierpersonal an der Grondschoul opgefuedert gëtt, de 27. an 28. November d'Feelen an der Schoul vu Kanner, déi der musulmanescher Gemeinschaft ugehéieren, ze entschëllegen an ze akzeptéieren! Et handelt sech bei denen zwee Deeg ëm e wichtegt reliéist Fest an der musulmanescher Gemeinschaft, an zwar ass et d?Fest vum "Aid - la fête du sacrifice d'Abraham.
  

  Reliounsfräiheet ass e grousse Privileg, den Generatiounen vu Leit virun eis nët haten a mir mussen eis dofir asetzen, dass all Mënsch en onufechtbart Recht op Reliounsfräiheet huet, an trotzdem huet de Bréif vum 12. November 2009 vun der Madame Delvaux e ganz batteren Bäigeschmaach.


  Relioun ass prinzipiell eng Privatsaach, obwuel an eise Schoulen nach ëmmer Relioun als Fach ugebueden gëtt. Leit aus musulmanesche Länner kommen aus fräie Stécker op Lëtzebuerg, an Sie hunn d'Recht hire Glawen ze liewen sou wéi hier Relioun dat viergesäit. All klengt Kand weess, dass et heescht: "Andere Länder - andere Sitten" soubal een a friem Länner geet. Néierens gëtt et déi Situatioun, dass ech meng Sitten a Gebräicher an der Waliss ka mathuelen, an an der Friemt dann en Usproch drop därf stellen.


  Dass Musulmanen, kee Schwéngefleesch iessen ass jiddwerengem bekannt, mee dass et an de Schoulen haut de Brauch ass, dass bei de Schnéiklassen, bei Grillfester oder soss schouleschen Ausflich, speziell gekacht gëtt fir musulmanesch Kanner, dat grenzt u pure Luxus, besonnësch dann wann net-musulmanesch Kanner kommen an sech beschwéieren, dass de Schwéngsschnëtzel zéi ass wéi eng Masette a froen fir den méi zarten Kallefsschnëtzel därfen z'iessen. Sie kréien dat nët erlaabt, ganz einfach wëll dann jiddwereen de besseren Kallefsschnëtzel giff iessen, mee déi sinn leider ofgezielt a fir déi musulmanesch Schüler reservéiert! Dat ass keen Eenzelfall a gëtt ze bedenken!


Feierdeeg si gesetzlech festgeluecht a jiddwereen ass virum Gesetz gläich gestallt. Et wier interessant der Madame Delvaux hir éierlech Argumentatioun ze héieren, firwat dass elo esou eng Ausnam gemach soll ginn. Kommen déi musulmanesch Schüler de 6. Dezember, op Christihimmelfahrt an de fräien Oktav-Pilgerdag an d'Schoul sëtzen oder sinn sie dann och fräi? Firwat hunn déi italienesch Kanner kee Recht de 6. Januar doheem ze bleiwen fir d'Fest vun der Epifania ze feieren? an Italien e gesetzleche Feierdag? Firwat därfen déi italienësch a portugiesësch Kanner nët doheem bleiwen fir den 8. Dezember d'Fest vun der Immacolata ze feieren, an hire Länner e gesetzleche Feierdaag zu Éieren vun der Maria Empfängnis. Dëst nëmmen fir e puer Beispiller ze nennen.

  
  All net-musulmanesch Schüler kréie vun der Madame Delvaux also net d'Recht den nächsten 27. an 28. November an der Schoul ze feelen. Wat ass wa Kanner do sinn déi e Monni, e Cousin oder soss e Familljemember hunn, den der musulmanescher Gemeinschaft ugehéiert? Wann dann an der Famill gefeiert gëtt, därf dat Kand dann nët un dem wichtegen Fest deelhuelen? a mat wat fir enger Rechtfäerdegung, wëllt Dir Mme Delvaux esou engem net-musulmanesche Kand dat verbidden? A wann och net, wou ass hei eng Grenz ze zéien. Wann op eemol all Kand an sengem familiären Ëmfeld e Musulman huet, den dat Fest feiert, da kënne mer vläicht am Sënn vun enger grousser religiéiser a kultureller länneriwergräifender Integratiounspolitik direkt d'Schoulen hei zu Lëtzebuerg de kommenden 27. an 28. November zou machen. Wann dat musulmanescht Kand hei zu Lëtzebuerg nieft sengen offiziellen Feierdeeg och nach de Kleeschen, d'Krëschtkëndchen an all aner Helleger därf matfeieren, firwat sollen eis chrëschtlech-katoulësch Kanner nët och d'Recht hun d'Fest vum Abraham sengem Sacrifice matzefeieren.


  Affaire à suivre?

  Jerry Colbach "

PS vum Pol:   ech kenne weder de Jerry Colbach, nach di Persoun, di mir dese Mail zougescheckt huet.  Ech hun awer anzweschen festgestallt, dass en a grousser "Oplaag" am Internett diffuséiert get.

test

testblogstuff

Monday, July 12, 2010

US and Israel back in hugging mode ?




AN ISRAELI VIEW Living on borrowed time
by Alon Pinkas

In romantic terms, the July 6 meeting in the White House between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was a combination of "it's not you, it's me" and "let's hug it out." Both phrases are understated versions of the more lurid and moist descriptions of the encounter in the Israeli media.
A meeting proclaimed, before it took place, to be "doomed to succeed" because of shared political interests, ostensibly lived up to the hype. But so did the previous meetings, almost all of which were declared to be pre-programmed to fail. They, too, lived up to their expectations and facilitated what some see as an unprecedented and wide divergence of interests and policy between the two allies.
But much like the application of those one-liners to the realm of love and relationships, the meeting was all about excuses, denial, winning time, respite and expediency. It does not seem as if the meeting was genuinely about substance. Time magazine's Massimo Calabresi savvily depicted the meeting as "false intimacy". Was it false? Not entirely. Was it real? Not really.
Reconciling these two answers involves a basic mutual misreading. Netanyahu has never understood that Obama wants to be a great president. Obama is not your vanilla American politician. He is not interested in being merely a good or adequate president, one of the (roughly) 39 ordinary presidents, but one of the (arguably) four great presidents of the 43 who preceded him. Obama wants to be remembered in the same historic breath as Washington, Lincoln, F.D. Roosevelt and Truman.
Getting an Israeli-Palestinian deal, Obama believes, will tick off a box on the application form for joining that prestigious club. Obama is the first president to define resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of a US national security interest. The US will not only serve as intermediary or facilitator, but it has a vested interest in an agreement. The absence of an agreement, as General David Petraeus said in Senate testimony in March, creates challenges to US interests. Thus, Israel is not accommodating to the broader interests of its superpower benefactor.
Obama, for his part, has never really understood the toll that life in a permanent state of war in the Middle East exacts on Israelis. They are disillusioned, cynical, distrustful, bitter and apprehensive about their Palestinian neighbors. Cerebrally and viscerally, Israelis know Obama is right. But they feel more comfortable within the confines of Netanyahu's "they are all out to get us" attitude.
Yet this does not fully explain the discord between the two. In recent months, Netanyahu allegedly argued that Obama was inherently hostile toward him, unsympathetic toward Israel and in fact represented a major shift in US-Israel relations and was the embodiment of abuse of an ally. If Netanyahu was right, then his statement after this last visit that Obama is a great friend of Israel who understands Israel's security predicaments and concerns is disingenuous. Either you were wrong in interpreting and understanding the US for a year-and-a-half, or, conversely, you are grossly exaggerating the significance of last week's love-fest in the Oval Office.
The meeting was, with the limited perspective of less than a week, an exercise in practical political realism. Given the last 18 months of misperceptions, melodramatic statements, acrimony and the free exchange of insults, realism is quite an achievement. Given the quality of US-Israel relations over the last 30-40 years, that we actually have to devote articles to one meeting is a serious underachievement.
There are two distinct levels and aspects through which the meeting should be analyzed. The first is how it relates to the US-Israel relationship. The second level pertains to the consequences such a "positive, warm and cordial" meeting has on the immediate (weeks) and medium-range (months) future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Israelis were pampered with 16 consecutive years of the Clinton and Bush administrations--with all due respect to the differences in historical and peace process context--showering them with weekly love letters. The unsentimental Obama brought to the forefront the core issue of whether Israel has turned from "asset" to "liability". To think that such a profound and fundamental shift is at all possible overnight and could be caused by one individual, even if he is the president of the United States, is both shallow and delusional. The issue deserves ample but separate attention. Suffice it to say that Israel was never the asset it thought it was and most certainly is not the liability some detractors portray it as becoming. The US and Israel have forged a very unique relationship, but the concepts of "asset" and "liability" are not intrinsic to it.
From an American policy point of view, cornering Netanyahu and exposing him as a non-partner was counterproductive, although the prime minister did his best--unintentionally perhaps--to vindicate those who didn't like him in Washington. Obama's idea last week was to press the restart button and treat Netanyahu as an ally in order to co-opt him into a serious peace process. If there are differences between us, goes the Obama logic, they are clearly substantive, not personal. If Netanyahu is incapable of or unwilling to engage, we'll take it from there.
The Obama grand strategy is to get Israelis and Palestinians to agree to a Clinton parameters-like framework. This would comprise a demilitarized Palestinian state on approximately 90-95 percent of the West Bank, with the three major settlement blocs incorporated into Israel in exchange for agreed-upon land swaps in compensation. Settlements situated east of the border will be dismantled gradually or be allowed to live under Palestinian sovereignty. Israel will maintain a military presence along the Jordan River for an agreed period of time. The "Right of Return" of Palestinian refugees will be fulfilled only in the newly-established Palestinian state. And Jerusalem will not be divided but most of Arab East Jerusalem will be Palestinian and a mechanism for joint sovereignty over parts of the Old City will be constructed.
The one potentially major outcome of the meeting is that if Obama finds out that Israel and/or the Palestinians are consistently intransigent, the Clinton parameters will soon become the "Obama vision". When that happens, no one will remember how great last week's meeting was.- Published 12/7/2010 © bitterlemons.org
Alon Pinkas is president of the US-Israel Institute at the Rabin Center and former consul-general of Israel in New York.