The following is an editorial written by WJC Executive Vice President Maram Stern, which originally appeared in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
The scandal at Jewrovision has made it clear that we have a problem. I do not want to discuss here the question of whether booing an invited guest is an expression of democracy in action or bad manners. Nor is the question whether Claudia Roth is an antisemite; of course she is not. Nor is it a question of denying that the German government is an important partner for the Jewish community in Germany, including in the fight against antisemitism.
Our problem is that the discussion about antisemitism has largely degenerated into a debate. Whether Achilles Mbembe, the IHRA definition of antisemitism, Michael Rothberg and Anthony Dirk Moses, the question of the Holocaust and colonialism, or the Documenta - there were and are plenty of reasons for dispute, but dialogue promoting understanding is unfortunately far too rare. We do not conduct a conversation with each other with the goal of better understanding antisemitism. We do not follow Karl Popper's maxim, "admitting that I may be wrong, that you may be right, and that together we may get to the truth."
Rather, it is far too often a matter of discrediting the other. But since no one likes to be discredited, the debate increasingly takes place within each group, rather than between groups. If perhaps not for the debate about antisemitism as a whole, this finding at least applies to the most controversial topic: Israel, or more precisely to the question of when criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
On the one hand, even the most strident opponents of Israel's occupation policies, as long as they are serious, cannot deny that antisemites often criticize Israel but mean Jews. On the other hand, it is of course legitimate to criticize the Israeli government - certain aspects of Israeli policy, especially settlement construction and occupation - without being antisemitic.
But forgoing genuine dialogue is fatal. For one thing, a free society needs free speech and the free exchange of ideas like the air we breathe. The idea that certain (constitutional) opinions are being suppressed, as often claimed in the above-mentioned debates, must be unbearable for any democrat. On the other hand, without an understanding of what is antisemitic and what is not, we cannot fight antisemitism. But combating it is not just my personal life mission; it must be a top priority in any open society. Throughout history, Jews have been the proverbial canaries in the coal mine: when Jews are discriminated against and threatened, it is usually a sign that worse is to come; hostility toward Jews can thus be seen as a measure of a society's tolerance.
Unfortunately, what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography applies to antisemitism: "I know it when I see it." This was his way of avoiding the task of a precise definition when he had to decide whether the film "Les amants" should be banned because of obscene content. As nice as this bon mot is, it is of little help in cases of doubt. And it is the same with antisemitism. There are clear cases and those that are controversial.
Unfortunately, the many attempts to define antisemitism do not change this. The best known of them, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), has eleven examples directly attached to it, which already show how difficult it is to define it clearly. But even the examples are not so clear, which is one of the reasons why the definition itself has been criticized. One issue that has been raised – also by renowned antisemitism researchers - is that permissible criticism of Israeli policy can be improperly branded as antisemitic.
The IHRA definition is the best we have. For one thing, the very discussion of the statements themselves shows that only through conversation can we deepen and broaden understanding about antisemitism. For another, all of these efforts are driven by the desire to be able to clearly name and combat antisemitism. Under these conditions, I was happy to participate in the discussion. Refusing to discuss the issue, on the other hand, will only lead to Israel critics and defenders retreating deeper into their respective echo chambers, where they will reinforce their arguments, even though I would argue that combating antisemitism is a common concern.
A second area of conflict has arisen in recent years with the dispute over the connection between the Holocaust and colonialism and the question of whether and how the Holocaust differs from colonial genocides. As a layperson, I do not want to interfere in this discussion; my primary concern here is also to call for a calming of the debate. There is no doubt that the European colonial crimes were not even discussed in public for far too long and that the dimensions are probably not known to most Germans even today. Various reasons may be responsible for this: the sheer scale of the six million murders, the fact that German colonial policy was forced to end with the end of World War I and thus well before the heyday of decolonization, or perhaps the peripheral location of the colonies from a European perspective. I do not want to exclude the possibility that racism also played a role. In any case, I understand the call to focus more on colonial crimes, and this will undoubtedly change our perspective on the Holocaust. Like any other scientific gain in knowledge, this is to be welcomed.
At the very least, I do not see in it the danger that the Nazi extermination of the Jews will be banished from public memory; on the one hand, because I continue to recognize significant differences between the Holocaust and colonial crimes, but also other genocides, and on the other, because Germans now have a special responsibility for their own history. For German history, however, the Shoah represents the lowest, most gruesome point. Even in the hypothetical case that historians would come across a genocide of comparable scale, which would have been carried out in a similarly targeted manner only for the sake of extermination, this would not change the German obligation to face its own past and to keep alive the memory of the extermination of the Jews. I expect this clear commitment from German politicians as well.
This also applies to Germany's attitude toward Israel. Israel is not a reaction to the Holocaust. Zionism emerged as early as the 19th century as a response to thousands of years of hostility towards Jews in Christian Europe. Efforts to establish a Jewish state in British Mandate Palestine were already in full swing even before Hitler became Reich Chancellor. Germany's special responsibility for this state, however, stems from the Holocaust. For Israel is and remains the life insurance of all Jews worldwide against renewed persecution and annihilation. And nothing has made the importance of such life insurance clearer than the Holocaust. This obligation does not mean, of course, that we approve of everything Israel does. Accordingly, however, German criticism of Israel is possible without denying Germany's obligation to the Jewish state.
Conversely, it is of course also possible to criticize Germany's Israel policy without having to relativize the Holocaust as one of many colonial crimes in order to do so, as the Australian historian Moses, for example, suggests in his pamphlet The Catechism of the Germans.
Germany’s commitment to Israel must remain unaffected by the question of whether Israel itself was or is a colonial project. This is also the subject of heated debate, and in this regard, too, I would advise a certain amount of equanimity. For even someone who answers the question positively is not yet an antisemite. Prominent Zionists such as Theodor Herzl or Ze'ev Jabotinskij themselves placed Zionism in the vicinity of colonialism, and many serious scholars see the Zionist settlement of Palestine as an example of settler colonialism. Other experts, on the other hand, point to the differences between Zionism and other colonial movements: the close, three-thousand-year relationship of the Jews to the land, the continuous Jewish settlement, the lack of colonial power. This, too, must be open to factual and scholarly discussion. In order not to cross the line into antisemitism, however, two principles seem necessary to me: First, the special mission that Israel fulfills as the life insurance of the Jews to this day should be just as little forgotten as the prehistory of the founding of the state, the millennia of hostility towards Jews from which Zionism offered protection.
On the other hand, a critical reappraisal of Israel's history must not be accompanied by the delegitimization of its existence today. Seventy-five years after its founding, the question is academic as to whether there would have been meaningful alternatives to its founding, for example in the form of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state. Nor can the reference to crimes committed in the course of its founding, such as the expulsion of parts of the Palestinian population, be inferred to mean that the state should not exist. Israel is by no means the only state that owes its existence to war. Germany, as is well known, would not exist without the wars of unification. Belarus and Ukraine, on the other hand, owe their current western borders to the Hitler-Stalin Pact, probably one of the most perfidious treaties of modern times. Nevertheless, no one in their right mind would question these borders today. Even in the case of the classic settler colonies of Canada, Australia and the United States, no one is seriously calling for an end to their existence. There is no question that the actions of these settlers were in part genocidal in character, which even the harshest critics cannot accuse Israel of.
I do not understand why Israel, of all countries, is the focus of criticism. Of course, it makes sense to me that Middle East experts, peace activists, foundation representatives and diplomats on the ground, as well as Israelis and Palestinians themselves, should focus on this conflict. But why Israel, of all places, has to become the point of contention between the global South and North is beyond me. Nevertheless, I do not want my lack of understanding to drive the accusation of antisemitism.
The most controversial case in recent years, which has repeatedly been used to criticize Claudia Roth, is the BDS movement, which is critical of Israel. The abbreviation stands for Boycott, Divestment, Sanction, and as the name suggests, it is about a far-reaching boycott of Israel intended to achieve three goals: The end of the occupation, full and effective equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the full right of return for all Palestinian refugees from Israel's War of Independence as well as their descendants. To be clear, none of these demands are antisemitic. Certainly, the right of return for all Palestinians is completely impractical. It would destroy the Jewish character of Israel; no Israeli government will ever go along with it. And I, too, reject it. But: I understand the pain of losing one's homeland and the desire to make amends for injustices experienced; nevertheless, another solution must be found for this. Impracticality, is, however, far from being antisemitism.
The fact that their goals themselves are not yet antisemitic does not absolve BDS of responsibility, however. Again: The movement's supporters have to put up with the question of why they are making the world's only Jewish state, of all places, the object of their calls for a boycott. No matter how critical one may be of parts of Israeli policy, it cannot be claimed with the best will in the world that the government in Jerusalem is the worst on the planet and that the situation of the Palestinians is more unbearable than that of the North Koreans, Syrians or Uyghurs in China, to name just a few examples. Now I fully understand why a Palestinian's protest is primarily directed against Israel.
In the case of Germans, Americans and French, on the other hand, just as in the case of people from the "Global South," I cannot shake off the suspicion that antisemitism could play a role, at least. My suspicion is strengthened by the fact that there are indeed numerous and obvious antisemites united under the umbrella of BDS. The singer Roger Waters is one particularly prominent example; the writer Alice Walker, who believes Jewish reptilian creatures rule the world, is another. Unfortunately, they are by no means the only ones. Without much effort, one can find memes on the Internet depicting Israel as a Jew with fangs, demonizing it as a child murderer, or comparing it to the Nazis, all under the BDS logo. BDS is not a central organization, and its leadership professes to reject antisemitism. However, they do not seem to put much effort into enforcing this rejection within their own ranks. Even the prominent placement of Rogers Waters and Alice Walker on the organization's central homepage does not testify to an attempt to clearly distance themselves from antisemitism. On the contrary, there are many under the umbrella who disguise their hatred of Jews as criticism of Israel. This is a good example of how far-reaching criticism of Israel, which in theory can be completely free of hostility to Jews, unfortunately very often slides into antisemitism in practice.
Nevertheless, I would never think of making blanket statements accusing every BDS supporter of antisemitic motives. That's why I also understand Roth and other politicians for whom the Bundestag's anti-BDS resolution went too far, even though I myself welcomed it at the time and continue to think it was right. But I understand the argument that one should also seek dialogue with those whose opinion one does not share. I also don't think much of combing through the resume of every participant in a panel event to see if she or he has made a positive statement about BDS at some point. And of course it would be absurd if a German university were not allowed to organize a guest lecture by Judith Butler just because she still supports BDS, for she is certainly not an antisemite. Antisemites, however, must not be offered a podium, of course. And because BDS is at least dangerously close to antisemitism, one should at least look carefully before inviting proponents of this movement. If one had done that, we would probably have been spared the Documenta debacle. In any case, the alarm bells have rung loudly enough.
I assume that the disputes will increase. The perspective of the global South is likely to push increasingly into the discussion, quite rightly. At the same time, there is currently little prospect of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, the current Israeli government's policies are likely to move further away from such a conflict resolution. And unfortunately, antisemitism in Germany will remain with us. For this very reason, however, we must try to conduct these discussions in a way that is tough on substance, but moderate in tone and without seeking to discredit the other party. However, this presupposes a willingness to engage in dialogue on all sides. In concrete terms, this means, on the one hand, being careful when dealing with accusations of antisemitism and, on the other hand, taking these accusations seriously when they are made. For example, I had sympathy for those who found the reference to Mbembe's previous support of BDS insufficient as a justification for disinviting him. But I would have been pleased if they had taken seriously the critical questions that were raised regarding passages in his texts that sounded clearly antisemitic.
This is even more true of Documenta. After the appearance of pictures showing Jews with snaggleteeth, pig's snouts, SS runes and Israeli soldiers with hooked noses, I would have expected those responsible to take decisive action. That would have been the moment to make clear that this form of alleged "criticism of Israel" was blatantly antisemitic and therefore unacceptable. Instead, there was prevarication. Ruangrupa, the artists' collective responsible for the exhibit, rejected a proposal to consult a group of experts on antisemitism as an infringement on the group’s artistic freedom and ultimately an expression of Western racism. And the Documenta search committee backed these absurd remarks. To this day, I hope for a plan that will ensure the scandal does not reoccur.
Without a consensus that, with all openness to dialogue, the threshold to antisemitism must not be crossed, no dialogue can work. Where exactly this threshold lies must be debated and determined in each individual case. That it does represent a red line, on the other hand, should be clear to everyone.
