Middle East: Israel and Palestine: Afterwards there is silence

Yes, you can say it like this: “The point at which criticism of concrete Israeli policies turns into anti-Semitism is a central point of contention in current debates.” There should now be one more debate in Hamburg that was advertised with these words. Under the title “Israel-related anti-Semitism? — History and Present of Anti-Zionist Protests” invited the Hamburg Institute for Social Research (HIS) together with the Frankfurt Anne Frank Educational Center to a discussion event. “Especially in Germany,” the organizers said, “debates – on the left, right and in the center – are constantly being held about these connections.”

How were these “connections” discussed during the course of the event? Moderated by Wolfgang Knöbel (HIS director), a conversation was to take place between the HIS patron Jan Philipp Reemtsma and Meron Mendel, the director of the educational institution. At the same time, the event was advertised on the invitation flyer with the slogan “The HIS discusses”. A discussion presupposes that different points of view on the issues being discussed are first presented against each other in order to then find out who is right or who is possibly wrong. That – and this was shown by the largely harmonious course of the conversation – was neither the concern nor the passion of the speakers mentioned, who were politely questioned by moderator Knöbel and told what they had already written on the subject in several books. At the beginning of his remarks, the moderator had already laughingly pointed out that this was also a “promotional event” for the books of the two participants in the discussion.

In the conversation, Reemtsma noted the term “Israel-related anti-Semitism” as “strange.” When discussing the policies of Turkish President Erdoğan or French President Macron, “criticism of Turkey” or “criticism of France” are completely unknown concepts. Instead, the term “criticism of Israel” only invites the state in question to be accused of not being a normal state and so on. Here, Reemtsma unfortunately left it open which state in the world, with its specific founding history, could be considered “normal,” so to speak; West FRG, which emerged from Trizonesia, is certainly not.

Both interlocutors also rejected the term “settler colonialism” to describe Israel as a state. Mendel asked to which country should the Jews, who had long been expelled from Europe or Arab countries under death threats, return? When it comes to the Israel boycott, the interviewees spoke about different experiences. Reemtsma still remembered being informed at the end of the 1980s by activists from the squats on Hamburg’s Hafenstrasse in connection with the Israel boycott wall slogan, in which Israel was written in quotation marks, that he was an “intellectual” in the Basically, he could have no idea about the “Palestinian people”. As a result, this struck him as very, as he put it in a somewhat worn-out tone, “nationalistic.”

Mendel talked about his wonderful experience when, in the early 1990s, he hitchhiked from southern Israel to the first McDonald’s branch in the north of the country to have a snack with friends. Due to the boycott of many Arab countries at the time, a large number of multinational companies avoided investing in Israel. This boycott came to an end during the Oslo peace process in the mid-1990s. How Israel’s gross national product doubled during the period of the Arab boycott. Mendel showed understanding for boycotting products from the occupied territories, but made it clear how painful the direct effects of the boycott are today, even for those forces in Israel who are working towards a progressive solution to the completely messy situation on site.

In the course of his further remarks, Mendel also made a peace proposal for the region: giving up the claim to the right of return for Palestinians, returning the occupied territories to the Palestinians, a two-state solution. This resulted in a mutual nod of approval at the front of the podium. Then the conversation was over and moderator Knöbel wanted to open the room to questions from the audience. Nobody answered. After a short pause, the moderator added that criticism could also be formulated – there was still silence. The advantage of silence, especially on this topic, is that no one says anything wrong.

It was only when Knöbel, after another short break, suggested that “co-presentations” could also be given, that I took the floor: One criticism of the course of the event was that both interlocutors unfortunately did not mention the religious dimension, especially in relation to “settler colonialism”. I thought the matter had been appealed. In the current conflict, “religious idiots” are united in the dance of death with the cutthroats from Hamas as well as with the Jewish settlers. Reemtsma couldn’t do anything with this objection. Mendel took the opportunity to concisely describe the significant influence of religious people on Israeli society and pointed out how nationalism is also being usurped by religious people in other areas of the world – with dramatic consequences.

Either way: the course of the event at HIS showed that the event itself was not conceived as a critical one. Where the previously known conditions in the Israel/Palestine region are evidently completely out of control, people have contented themselves with dealing with the complex of questions arising from the old Federal Republic in a calming manner. And this old order is clearly blind to a whole range of pressing questions. Where there is no criticism at all, let alone a reflection on what disturbs, offends and initially leaves you speechless about the laughter on Berlin’s Sonnenallee on October 7th, for example, you can only do so at the end of a friendly conversation between institute directors be silent.