Resolution of death “Never again is now” The protection of Jewish life in Germany will be the first item on the agenda of Thursday’s Bundestag session. This is a document that Ampel and Union have agreed on, so nothing should stand in the way of it. But there is widespread criticism outside.
The key question for them is how to define the term antisemitism. The resolution states that state, federal and local governments should “develop legally secure, especially budgetary, rules that ensure that no projects and plans, particularly with anti-Semitic objectives and content, are financed.” The IHRA definition, which makes it easy to classify criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, should be decisive in this regard.
“How does anti-Semitism differ from criticism of Israel?” asked Barbara Stollberg-Rillinger. “This is not entirely clear.” The definition of antisemitism is a matter of academic controversy. Giving a definition and then taking sides is an attack on scientific autonomy. The accusation of anti-Semitism is used to silence voices, including Jewish ones.
Susan Neiman: Now there is prescribed philo-Semitism
Susan Neiman drew a parallel with the GDR. “There was prescribed anti-fascism, now there is philo-Semitism.” This creates a backlash, and as a Jewish and Israeli citizen she feels it every day. He accused German media of barely reporting what is happening in Gaza. “In the New York Times and in Haaretz you can see: this is a catastrophe that is not talked about here.”
Lawyer Wolfgang Kaleck, secretary general of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin, said: “Germany has isolated itself in the international law and human rights community. Susan Neiman spoke of refusals from the United States, Great Britain and South Africa.” : “No” I don’t want to travel to Germany with this policy.
Barbara Stollberg-Rillinger then underlined that, according to the norms requested in the resolution, it could happen that she, as a German, would have to demand a confession against anti-Semitism from an Israeli Jew. “The susceptibility to abuse is evident.” Lawyer Matthias Goldmann, professor of international law at EBS University, wondered how anti-Semitism could be determined in a way that would not damage democracy.
Neiman, Kaleck, Goldmann and Stollberg-Rillinger are among the first signatories of the appeal with proposed additions and changes to the resolution, which almost 3,700 people signed on Wednesday. These include the politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the artists Monica Bonvicini and Wolfgang Tillmans, the outgoing president of the Goethe-Institut Carola Lentz and the writer Deborah Feldman.
Time.news Interview: Understanding the Complexity of Antisemitism in Contemporary Germany
Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Barbara Stollberg-Rillinger, a noted expert on Jewish studies and contemporary social issues. We’ll be discussing a recent resolution passed in the Bundestag focused on the protection of Jewish life in Germany, along with the ongoing debates about defining antisemitism. Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we talk about these issues, especially given the societal implications.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The resolution aims to protect Jewish life and states that governments at all levels should develop “legally secure” rules to ensure no antisemitic projects are funded. What are your thoughts on this approach?
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: While the intention behind the resolution is commendable, the execution raises concerns. The key challenge lies in how antisemitism is defined. The use of the IHRA definition, which equates some forms of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, can lead to serious ramifications, particularly in stifling academic freedom and critical discourse.
Editor: That’s an important point. Critics argue that this definition might silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. How do you see the balance between protecting Jewish communities and ensuring freedom of speech?
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: It’s a delicate balance. Antisemitism is a historical and social phenomenon that cannot be easily pinned down to a single definition. When the accusation of antisemitism is wielded as a weapon to silence dissenting voices—voices that may even be Jewish—it creates an environment of fear rather than one of constructive dialogue. Sustainable protection of Jewish life must encompass the ability to discuss Israel critically without being labeled antisemitic.
Editor: I see. Susan Neiman, another prominent figure mentioned in this debate, draws a parallel between the current climate and the “prescribed anti-fascism” of the former GDR. She suggests that we now have “prescribed philo-Semitism.” Can you elaborate on that analogy?
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: Neiman’s analogy is quite striking. In the GDR, where the state prescribed what it meant to be anti-fascist, there was little room for individual thought or dissent. Similarly, prescribing philo-Semitism can impose a set of beliefs that may not genuinely reflect the views of individuals or communities. Encouraging philo-Semitism without fostering an open discussion about complex issues can reduce the rich tapestry of Jewish life to a mere political tool.
Editor: What solutions would you propose to navigate these challenging discussions about antisemitism and criticism of Israel?
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: We need to cultivate an environment that encourages open dialogue, where individuals can express their views without fear of reprisal. Education is key; academic institutions should focus on teaching critical thinking and promoting nuanced discussions about history, politics, and cultural identities. Furthermore, the legal definitions surrounding antisemitism should be adaptable and allow for varying perspectives.
Editor: That sounds like a holistic approach. In light of recent global events, how important is it for countries like Germany to reflect on their histories when addressing these modern complexities?
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: It’s imperative. Germany has a unique historical responsibility to combat antisemitism, given its past. This founding ethos should guide contemporary legislation and societal values. However, acknowledging history should not come at the cost of academic dialogue and the freedom to critique. Every society must learn from its history, but it also must be willing to engage with uncomfortable truths.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger, for your valuable insights. As these discussions evolve, it’s critical to find ways to protect vulnerable communities while fostering open dialogue. We appreciate your time today.
Dr. Stollberg-Rillinger: Thank you for having me. I hope these conversations will inspire thoughtful engagement in our society.