“He’s a liar, a tragic case”

2023-08-15 17:25:09

After the self-disclosure of the author Fabian Wolff, Philipp Peyman Engel, head of the service at the Jewish General, was with his comment “The Costume Jew” one of the first to speak up. Among other things, it explained why there had been a scandal between Wolff and the Jewish General in 2015 – and how the editors had found out about Wolff’s fraudulent identity a few years later.

In an interview with the Berliner Zeitung, Engel reopened the Wolff case.

Mr. Engel, for years the author Fabian Wolff was able to pose as a Jewish sympathizer of the Israel boycott movement Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). He published successfully in several German media, including the Jüdische Allgemeine until 2015. Now he has admitted that he is not Jewish at all. How did he get this far?

First let me be clear that Wolff wasn’t always who he is today. When he started publishing texts at the Jewish General thirteen years ago, he was – unlike today – not a politically radical author, he mainly wrote about cultural topics. Over time, however, so-called criticism of Israel became an obsession for him, he fantasized about “ethnic cleansing” in Israel to suit the target group and developed a downright hatred of the Jewish state while issuing a kosher certificate to the anti-Semitic BDS movement. In 2015 there was a break with our editorial team.

Ad | Scroll to read more

What happened?

He publicly accused our editorial team of racism because we also reported on Muslim anti-Semitism in the course of the anti-Semitic protest wave after the Gaza war – just as we also shed light on anti-Semitism from the right, left or from the middle class. In doing so, he hit the mark with those who trivialize Israel-related anti-Semitism. From then on he filled a niche in the market for several media.

In what way?

In the editorial offices of some German daily and weekly newspapers, Jews are all too often asked to be authors when it comes to Israel. As if only Jews were allowed to criticize the policies of the Israeli government. The fact that criticism is not the problem, but hate speech against the Jewish state, unfortunately, the editors do not come to this blind spot. So one thing led to another. It was probably said: “Let’s ask Fabian Wolff as an author on the subject of Israel, he’s a Jew.” It doesn’t matter at all that Wolff has never been to Israel and has no idea what he’s saying. Wolff worked all the more on the legend surrounding his Jewish identity in order to be able to appear as a key witness against Israel. Two years ago, this culminated in his essay “Only in Germany”in which he appeared as a “Jew in Germany” – but spread positions that are absolutely marginal in the Jewish community in this country.

For example?

In it, he accused the Germans of an exaggerated love for Israel and dangerously downplayed Israel-related and Muslim anti-Semitism. He also came out as a signatory to the “Initiative Weltoffenheit GG 5.3” – a network of enemies of Israel who sympathize with the Israel boycott movement BDS.

Photo: Marco Limberg

To person

Philipp Peyman Engel was born in the Ruhr area in 1983 and grew up in the Jewish community in Dortmund. During his studies he wrote for magazines, daily newspapers and several Jewish publications. He has been an editor at the Jewish General since 2014. He was in charge of the feuilleton there for several years and is now the head of the department. The Jewish General Weekly Newspaper is published by the Central Council of Jews.

A few weeks ago, Zeit Online published Wolff’s 70,000-character letter of confession “My life as a son”, in which he had forestalled his exposure through other media. You responded with a comment in which you wrote that the Jewish General had evidence of Wolff’s identity fraud as early as 2021. And referred to a dossier that Wolff’s ex-girlfriend Helen R., who has since died, had sent to the editors. At that time, however, the Jewish General decided against publishing it. Would you have acted differently today?

Today at least I would decide differently. From what we hear, Wolff – despite his constant lies – is very stable. At that time, we all had the case of 2019 in mind, when the mirror exposed the blogger Marie Sophie Hingst as a costume Jew. She then took her own life. We were very worried that something like this could happen again. We couldn’t be ethically responsible for that. At the same time, after we received the 2021 dossier, we talked about it with editors from other newspapers.

For what purpose?

We wanted to protect our fellow journalists from Wolff. Larger editorial offices also had the advantage that they could have protected Wolff, but could also have confronted him with the allegations. Apparently that didn’t happen: Wolff was allowed to continue publishing cheerfully until the end, even with Zeit Online.

After a wave of public criticism, the editors are now rowing back and letting the readers know in their fact check that they would not have published the essays “Only in Germany” and “My Life as a Son” with today’s knowledge. Is that enough of an apology?

No. That should only be the beginning of an internal editorial work-up. Because what Zeit Online revealed in the fact check also reads like a documentation of their editorial failure. As we learn, Helen R. had also sought contact at the time. She contacted an editor at Zeit privately twice and failed both times: first in 2017, then in 2022. Instead of following up on her tip or at least passing it on to her colleagues at Zeit Online, he is said to have asked Helen R. to contact Zeit to report online. So Helen R’s hint is silted up. Incidentally, the colleagues from Zeit Online also contacted me for their fact check. The whole research made a disorganized impression on me.

Why did the editors of Zeit Online contact you?

Because the colleagues on the Wolff cause had not yet researched anything. That was two weeks before the fact check was published. They asked me to forward the information I have on the case to them. I know of two or three other Zeit editors who also had this information about Wolff. Perhaps they hadn’t consulted with their colleagues or didn’t even know about their research. Apparently, the editorial offices are so big and so badly networked that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. That would at least be a benevolent interpretation.

And what if it really had been?

Then that speaks volumes about how disorganized the editorial team was in the Wolff case. Especially since the question arises: Letting the deceiver write a 70,000-character essay is as if Spiegel had decided at the time to be the first to go public with an essay by Claas Relotius. That’s very questionable. When I then also read in Der Spiegel that the text was enthusiastically called a “document of contemporary history” by the Zeit online editors, I am at a loss for words.

As a result of the Zeit online research, Wolff became more and more entangled in excuses and contradictions as soon as he was confronted with the allegations. This meticulous fact check also showed that.

Yes. Fabian Wolff has often told me that he grew up Jewish as a child. In conversations with other Jews and non-Jews in Berlin, he also regularly asserted this. These statements by Wolff contradict his assertion in the Zeit online essay that he only found out about his alleged Jewishness when he was 18. The fact that Fabian Wolff, pointed out to this fundamental contradiction by the Zeit online fact checkers, replies that even as a child people talked about the Jewish, once again proves the Fabian Wolff principle: 1) Lies. 2) Stumbling when questioned and proven otherwise. 3) Citing more lies as protection. He also had to sheepishly admit to Der Spiegel that he lied again. Contrary to what was claimed, he was not in the USA after the publication of his Zeit-Online text, but in Germany. He’s a liar, a tragic case.

Did a certain amount of anti-Semitism play a role in Wolff’s identification with “Jewishness”?

That’s not an easy question. I would therefore first like to answer them only indirectly. The Judaist Barbara Steiner has done extensive research on “Fake Jews” and has dealt with it a lot. She said im Interview with the Jewish General, Fabian Wolff is the anti-Semite he never wanted to be. And he did so precisely by “disguising himself” as a Jew, aggressively dismissing Jews with different attitudes towards Israel and agitating against the Jewish state. In this respect, I would answer the question with yes and adapt Barbara Steiner’s sentence to my own, slightly modified: Although he didn’t want to, he became the Israel-related anti-Semite that he never wanted to be.

The Wolff case has now also caused high political waves: This is what Felix Klein, the federal government’s anti-Semitism commissioner, said. The former Green Party politician Volker Beck also made a statement on this case – Beck is now President of the German-Israeli Society. Finally, the Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor also commented. Isn’t that a level too high? After all, this is only about one individual.

I do not think so. Of course you can say: Who is this young Berlin teacher Fabian Wolff, who tells fairy tales from the Arabian Nights in his free time? But you shouldn’t underestimate the reach Wolff had: his online essay “Only in Germany” was read well over a hundred thousand times, it was translated into English, so that it was also received internationally. The non-Jewish German educated middle class read and received this text, in which Wolff had given the anti-Semitic BDS movement his kosher stamp. This is a fire hazard. In this respect, it is completely correct that those named are now also speaking up.

Do we have to assume that this will not be the last case of this kind?

I am convinced of that. Where there is a demand for Jewish “Israel critics”, we can assume that one or the other Israel hater could acquire a false Jewish identity in the future.