On Saturday, dozens of German and Austrian cultural institutions, influential culture organizers and some journalists issued a ‘Statement by German cultural institutions on the parliamentary BDS resolution by the Bundestag’.
The statement noted among else:
It is unproductive, even detrimental to the democratic public sphere to exclude vital voices from critical dialogue, as occurred in the debate surrounding Achille Mbembe earlier this year. Germany‘s historical responsibility should not lead to a general delegitimization of other historical experiences of violence and oppression, neither morally nor politically.
The statement refers to the resolution passed by the German Bundestag in May last year, which condemned the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. The resolution stated that “the pattern of argument and methods of the BDS movement are anti-Semitic”.
Like the notorious IHRA ‘definition of antisemitism’, the German resolution sought to demonize critics of Israel as antisemites. Predictably, this brought with it an avalanche of McCarthyite accusations against anyone remotely connected with the BDS call. One of the more reported high-profile cases last year was that of distinguished professor Achille Mbembe, who was booked to speak at the Ruhrtriennale Festival. The witch hunt against Mbembe was ostensibly based on the fact that he once made a vague comparison between Israeli practices and South African Apartheid. The witch hunt became grotesque, and calls were echoed even in the Jerusalem Post for the firing of the festival director, Stephanie Carp, who tried to point out, apparently in vain, that Mbembe would “not deal with Israel and the Middle East conflict” in his talk.
The German witch hunt
Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported on this witch hunt in conjunction with the recent statement, and the title is stating it clearly:
In Germany, a Witch Hunt Is Raging Against Critics of Israel. Cultural Leaders Have Had Enough.
The piece is a long essay by Itay Mashiach, exposing many of the individual stories of those who have been targeted for supposed antisemitism, including Israeli Jews. Stephanie Carp is cited in that piece, recalling the effect of the campaign to tarnish her as an antisemite by extension. Carp was targeted by Josef Schuster, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, who called for her dismissal. Carp:
Josef Schuster is the highest moral instance in the German guilt narrative. If he says someone is antisemitic, and should not serve as an artistic director, that is something you cannot ignore.
The witch hunt caused great fear in her colleagues:
Colleagues are scared to be seen with me, to be close to me. Some people have said that if I were on a podium, they wouldn’t want to be there with me – not because they really think I’m antisemitic, but because they fear for their own careers. Even colleagues I know very well.
And she came to doubt her own conscience:
I sat on the train and thought, ‘Scheisse’ [shit], I made a mistake. Maybe I am antisemitic and don’t yet know it. I felt truly awful. I thought that maybe there was something in the Germans, in my generation, something that was repressed and is now emerging.
A decent person would sort of want to reach out and say “no, Mrs. Carp, you’re OK. Don’t listen to those gobshites, that’s just what they want you to feel”. But the weight of the “anti-Semite” accusation in Germany is very heavy.
This went on and on, until those many cultural leaders decided to at least talk about it among themselves.
Haaretz reports about how they gathered in secrecy, and you would think they were planning some revolution:
During the past year, the heads of the central cultural organizations in Germany met once a month – in absolute secrecy – to discuss the situation that had emerged. They saw the topic before them as being connected to no less than German democracy and the freedom of artistic and academic expression. The meetings were frequently tempestuous and in some cases went on into the night. Thanks to the secrecy, and with cooperation between the directors, as well as the broad backing of the institutions they direct, the participants had the opportunity to address the subject freely for the first time.
Their statement is being widely reported about, for example by New York Times and Al Jazeera, but here I have to spoil the party.
The party spoiler: the statement rejects BDS
Half way down the statement letter, this comes in:
We reject the BDS boycott of Israel since we consider cultural and scientific exchange to be essential. At the same time, we consider the logic of counter-boycott, triggered by the parliamentary anti-BDS resolution, to be dangerous. By invoking this resolution, accusations of anti-Semitism are being misused to push aside important voices and to distort critical positions.
This is really a negative bombshell. It is unsurprisingly the part that is immediately being highlighted in the above mentioned reports.
Cultural boycott
Let’s look at that argument, the one about “cultural and scientific exchange” being “essential”. When you compare this to Apartheid South Africa around 1980, the academic and cultural boycott was considered an integral part of the pressure against South Africa, and it was even endorsed by the international community in the form of the UN-led boycott. Resolution 35/206 stated: “The United Nations General Assembly makes the request to all states to prevent all cultural, academic, sporting and other exchanges with South Africa. This is also an appeal to writers, artists, musicians and other personalities to boycott South Africa. It urges all academic and cultural institutions to terminate all links with South Africa.” Some broke it, often for exorbitant sums – like Frank Sinatra performing in Sun City for $2 million. But eventually, it became too toxic to play for Apartheid, and they stopped. Anyone calling those who observed the boycott “anti-white” is today reduced to the racist dustbin of history – unlike today, where those saying “antisemite” are still considered respectable leaders by many.
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (part of the BDS movement) was founded in 2004, and it notes complicity of Israeli cultural and academic institutions in the “system of oppression that has denied Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law, or has hampered their exercise of these rights, including freedom of movement and freedom of expression”. Israeli academic institutions are intrinsically, systemically and directly involved in Israeli military development which targets Palestinians, as PACBI also mentions.
The PACBI campaign is, however, even more nuanced in its targeting than the boycott campaign against South African Apartheid was. PACBI:
“The cultural boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa has been a major source of inspiration in formulating the Palestinian boycott calls and their criteria, despite some crucial differences. In particular, the Palestinian boycott, unlike the South African cultural boycott, is institutional and does not target individuals as such.”
And that’s actually generous, because according to many South African leaders who have experienced South African Apartheid, the Israeli version is actually worse. But Israel-apologists will never be thankful, if they can call you an antisemite instead.
Safety over solidarity
So why did those cultural leaders have to reject the Palestinian call for a boycott in their rejection of the German witch hunt? On the face of it, it is their current conviction, that their cultural and academic exchanges are more “essential” than Palestinian rights. But it may be that they simply fear, like so many other Germans, the label of “antisemitic”, and seek to keep themselves in the safe zone by rejecting BDS – the “only game in town” as Israeli Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy once wrote. And if you reject the only game in town, what you’re really left with is just words.
The German (and Austrian) cultural leaders are unfortunately only trying to break a glass ceiling in the current German relativity of things, where you can’t say a word of critique about Israel, or even associate with a person who has, without being labelled an antisemite. That may be noble within that German paradigm of political oppression on behalf of the famous “special relationship” and the “Holocaust guilt” which is being actively promoted by Israel (even by its diplomatic officials’ own admission). But that’s like calling for freedom to roam the prison yard, rather than being held in the cell, while the Palestinians are being held in solitary confinement. It’s calling for freedom of expression for the privileged, while rejecting the call for freedom of the oppressed. And maybe that’s as far as they feel they can go in Germany these days, who knows – but it’s not really solidarity with the oppressed. I can understand that it must be frustrating to be called an antisemite for merely entertaining the idea that Palestinians should be liberated – but that frustration is but an extension of the real problem, and that is, that Palestinians are actually being oppressed, and Germany is protecting Israel from being pressed to stop it.
So many words have been said about Israeli violations – none of it has really helped. So many resolutions calling for action have been issued by the international community, the UN – Israeli impunity remained. That’s why the BDS campaign arose – because the Israeli colonialist oppression had no end in sight – not even with the notorious “peace process”, which served as a means of consolidating Israeli control and making Palestine “less than a state”, as even the peace-processor Rabin called it two months before he was murdered. Israel was creating Bantustans, while the world was calling it peace. That’s why BDS is the only game in town.
The German (and Austrian) cultural leaders are right to insist upon freedom of expression here, but they should also actively extend their plea to embrace Palestinians. Otherwise, this becomes a mere first world problem.
Anyone who makes an accusation of anti-Semitism should need to justify that accusation with solid evidence of an animosity toward ALL Jews. Criticism of Israeli actions, by itself, is OBVIOUSLY not such evidence. Intentional false accusations of anti-Semitism should be considered as slander and libel.
With Germans it is not only fear for career and reputation but also self-doubt, the suspicion that they really might be ‘unconsciously’ anti-Semitic. Where does this come from? They share the negative connotations that still accompany the very word ‘German,’ the baseless guilt for what some of their ancestors did long before they were even born. They have internalized anti-German racism — one of the forms of racism that still have to be acknowledged and tackled. Until they are released from self-hatred they will remain in thrall to Zionism. They — all of us — must deeply absorb the understanding that atrocities are perpetrated not by nations but by organized political movements. The Holocaust is the work not of ‘the Germans’ but of transnational fascism. Just as the Nakba is the work not of ‘the Jews’ but of Zionism.
I would like to tell these people — don’t care so much about what others think of you, care about what you think of yourself. You know your motives better than anyone else. You know that you are not anti-Semitic, shrug off those who say you are, they do not know you, And as for career, why do you imagine that your career is so precious? Germany has a social safety net. If you get fired and cannot find another job you won’t starve, you will still have access to healthcare. You’ll survive. And the more people speak up the harder it will be to punish them. But if you allow yourself to be intimidated out of fear for your career, the time will come, perhaps quite soon, when you will have cause to fear for your lives!
Making it illegal to DISCUSS an idea, ANY idea, is a hallmark of totalitarianism. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me” is a practical, common sense standard. Institutionalizing freedom of speech in the Constitutional bedrock of our law was a monumental step forward for humanity. Anyone attempting to force thought by forcing silence MUST have their motives examined very closely.
Last century it was the Jews who were persecuted. This century it is Muslims. Haven’t we learned anything???
To say that this is an incisive exposition of a profound, pervasive and sinister exercise of the politics of smear would be an understatement. Bravo! Would you please submit this to the NYT, WaPo, AP and Reuters for mass distribution? Oh, and Cc Keir Starmer for good measure…