“Never Again is now - to protect, sustain and strengthen Jewish life in Germany” is the title of the resolution passed by the German Bundestag last november. This resolution- which received wide support from all mainstream parties- aims to express the commitment of the German establishment parties regarding Germany’s historical responsibility towards the Jewish people. While not legally binding, it bears the danger of using antisemitism as a political tool, harming the struggle against antisemitism in Germany.
A core tenet of the modern German identity is the “memory culture” (Erinnerungskultur), in which Germany perceives itself as the bearer of a special responsibility toward the Jewish people. This perception of historical responsibility expresses itself in the German-Israeli relationship, in which Germany considers support of Israel as its “reason of state” (Staatsräson). This mindset has been exemplified throughout Israel’s war in Gaza. For these reasons, the escalations in the Middle East have caused massive polarisation within the German discourse.
The antisemitism resolution calls authorities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism has already been adopted as the official definition of antisemitism by the government and the Bundestag, and many other academic, political and cultural institutions followed suit.
The IHRA definition, however, often conflates antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies towards Palestinians. The IHRA definition provides 11 examples for antisemitism, 7 of which refer to Israel. That creates an unproportional link between antisemitism and criticism of Israel, overseeing other forms of antisemitism such as that of the far-right. Two examples of this definition are especially concerning. Firstly, the IHRA definition conflates claiming “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” with denial of Israel’s right to self-determination. Opening the door to criticisms of Israel, ones alleging apartheid and systemic racism in the occupied Palestinian territories to be labeled as anti semitic. Secondly, the IHRA definition includes claiming “double standards” while criticising Israel antisemitic. It seems an impractical requirement to criticize all wrongs prior to criticizing Israel. For these reasons the legal use of the IHRA-definition among scholars is highly contested, even one of its main drafters openly opposed adopting it as a legally binding definition.
Consequences of irresponsible use of the IHRA definition have already occurred.
The drama surrounding the documentary “No Other Land” in the Berlinale film festival makes for a good case study. This film by Israeli journalist Yuval Avraham and Palestinian activist Basel Adra, documents the Israeli settlement expansion on the South Hebron hills in the West Bank- where Adra lives. In the award ceremony speech, Avraham referred to the situation in the West Bank as “Apartheid”.
Additionally, Adra called the then ongoing war in Gaza a “genocide”. Both claims are well-founded with evidence, nonetheless the antisemitism resolution refers to this incident specifically as an example of antisemitism in the arts and culture. The IHRA definition mixes antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel so coarsely, causing even Israelis to be considered by Germans antisemites.
This poses the risk of Germany politicizing the fight against antisemitism for its own interests. The antisemitism resolution could indirectly grant extraordinary powers to state authorities in the name of fighting antisemitism. The resolution speaks of exmatriculation of students at public universities, conditioning of state-funding to cultural institutions, and conditioning of residency status based on IHRA definition-inspired guidelines. Above all, the resolution creates the false notion that antisemitism is not a European and German phenomenon that Germany must overcome, but rather a fundamentally Arab-Muslim issue, imported to Germany through immigration. With the far-right AfD on the rise, whose top figures are antisemites and holocaust deniers, this historically revisionist notion could have drastic consequences.
The fight against antisemitism is too vital to be misused. To combat antisemitism effectively, a clear distinction must be made between harsh but legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and antisemitic traits intertwined in the Israel/Palestine discourse. Evidently the Israeli state commits clear war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as apartheid and allegedly genocide. Attributing those crimes to some malicious and unique “Jewish” character and holding Jews and Israeli citizens collectively accountable to the crimes of the Israeli state- is antisemitic. The current discourse, especially in Germany, fails to understand this crucial distinction. Falsely labling speech as antisemitism is extremely harmful to combating antisemitism.
The adoption of a new definition for antisemitism, critically distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic talking points, is therefore necessary for effectively fighting antisemitism. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) was written by experts in response to the problems and misuse of the IHRA-definition and offers a comparable definition. Unlike IHRA, which incorporates vague terms and opens the door for censorship, the JDA definition clearly distincts between legitimate criticism of Israel and Israel-related antisemitism, also providing elaborated examples. Both definitions consider, for example, holding Jews collectively responsible for the conduct of Israel as antisemitism. The JDA definition however cites explicitly that evidence based criticism of Israel as a state or Zionism as a political ideology is not antisemitic and rejects the controversial “double standards” clause.
If Germany wants to answer its historical responsibility towards the Jewish people, it is vital to reconsider the antisemitism resolution and their approach towards antisemitism. It is possible and necessary to combat antisemitism without suppressing democratic rights for short-term political goals.
Follow the comments:
|
