The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Saarland Deserves So Much Better

The Anatomy of a Cancellation


26/03/2024

It remains incredibly saddening and highly distressing to watch ongoing developments in the so-called ‘Breitz Afair,’ knowing that Saarland has done nothing to deserve the farce that is continuing to unfold around the cancellation of my exhibition late last year; a cancellation that was the result of poorly informed, hasty and damaging decision-making by individuals who really should have known better. Whether Andrea Jahn’s decision to step back from both of her official positions in Saarland—as director of the Saarlandmuseum and as chairperson of the Saarland Cultural Heritage Foundation (SSK)—was forced on her by Christine Streichert-Clivot, Saarland’s Minister of Culture and Education, or not — Jahn’s departure will do nothing to repair the significant harm that has been done to the reputation of Saarbrücken as a cultural city over recent months.

Streichert-Clivot will no doubt continue to be haunted by the legacy she has carved out for herself. She is likely to go down in history as the first Minister of Culture to preside over the cancellation of a major exhibition by a Jewish artist at a German museum since the Nazi era—without legal grounds or due process, and with utter disregard for the German Constitution. It seems to matter to the Minister very little — as she continues to systematically destroy her own credibility—that she is also dragging the city of Saarbrücken and its cultural institutions into a deeper and deeper state of disgrace and disrepute. In the very conspicuous absence of Andrea Jahn from public discourse over the last few months (Jahn has only given a single public interview in relation to the cancellation of the exhibition, in which she clumsily contradicted herself), Streichert-Clivot has prominently and enthusiastically lead the SSK’s baseless and slanderous attacks on my integrity and reputation. The Minister has zealously denounced me as a threat to Jewish life in a variety of public statements, as well as via two long interviews in the Saarbrücker Zeitung (on both of these occasions conveniently and cynically failing to acknowledge that I am Jewish myself).

How convenient it is for Andrea Jahn to now be able to walk away from the shameful fiasco that she ultimately chose to endorse, presumably with a financial settlement that will be generous enough to offer her an incentive to continue claiming that she “was always in support of the cancellation of the exhibition,” although there is extensive and conclusive evidence to suggest that Jahn neither made the decision to cancel the exhibition, nor supported it (until long after it had been announced). Information provided by Andrea Jahn confirms, that at the time that the SSK rushed their first sloppily written press release to the Saarbrücker Zeitung on 24 November 2023 (in order to publicly announce the cancellation of the exhibition), Jahn was not aware that the decision had been finalised (this had, it would appear, occurred without her involvement). If we take Andrea Jahn at her written word, the SSK’s initial press release was sent to the Saarbrücker Zeitung without her knowledge or approval. After a panicky meeting of the SSK on 22 November 2023, it took less than 48 hours for the foundation to cancel an exhibition that had been in preparation for over three years. I was not given the chance to state my case or defend my position in advance of the cancellation. The decision was made on the basis of a highly defamatory article in the press (which the relevant newspaper was later forced to revise by court order, after being challenged legally). Although the SSK has never been able to produce evidence of the “BDS letter” that I am alleged to have signed (this is one of several charges that were levelled against me), Streichert-Clivot continues to insist—in a manner that can only be described as increasingly unhinged and Kafkaesque—that I will remain a persona non grata until I have withdrawn my signature from this imaginary letter. You cannot make it up

As Jahn moves on from Saarbrücken, departing what can best be described as a political and cultural debacle, she leaves behind a museum that will need to slowly rebuild its reputation as a serious cultural institution. She also takes leave from a cultural community that has no good reason to believe that its Minister of Culture and Education can be trusted to defend freedom of expression or freedom of political opinion, basic civil rights that are enshrined in the German Constitution. Such rights — which Streichert-Clivot appears to hold in shockingly low regard—are essential when it comes to nurturing culture and education in healthy democratic societies. When these rights are curtailed or repressed, meaningful debate and discourse cannot flourish. The Minister of Culture—as we have seen over recent months—is not particularly fond of debate and discourse. She is most comfortable when those who do not agree with her can be bullied into silence and/or submission, making it possible for her to push through her own dogmatic opinions without having to accommodate the opinions of others or answer inconvenient or challenging questions:

Jahn has confirmed (in writing) that Streichert-Clivot prohibited her from giving interviews in the days following the cancellation of my exhibition and sought to exert control over her public communications. She has described Streichert-Clivot (again, in writing) as having been driven by fear as she rushed to frame a Jewish artist— whose opinions are neither violent, nor contrary to German law or the German Constitution—as an enemy of Israel. Although Jahn very much “wanted to be heard” and “to express her point of view,” she claims that Streichert-Clivot was reluctant to allow such possibilities. Realising that there was no other way to save her job, Jahn eventually resigned herself—in her single televised interview—to obediently performing a mantra-like script that sounded suspiciously like it had been written by her superior, Streichert-Clivot.

Shortly before abandoning her efforts to reverse the cancellation of my exhibition on 28 November 2023, Jahn sent me a final frustrated message, in which she declared that “her opinion had been pushed aside,” that “she was not in charge,” and that she unfortunately “had no power whatsoever.” Streichert-Clivot—whose official mandate it is to encourage and nurture healthy democratic discourse (as a Minister of Culture and Education)—has since systematically stifled every attempt made by the cultural community of Saarbrücken to invite me into public dialogue in relation to the cancellation of my exhibition and/or the work that I was supposed to exhibit at the Saarlandmuseum (work which has absolutely nothing to do with Israel-Palestine or Jewishness). The Minister of Culture is clearly scared to be in dialogue with me, although I have no political power or authority, and although I do not bite. I would, in fact, be perfectly willing to participate in a civil debate with either Streichert-Clivot or Jahn (if, that is, Jahn were to be granted permission to speak in public). Most recently, Streichert-Clivot has ignored an invitation from Die Zeit — a prominent national newspaper — to be in public dialogue with me. One can literally smell her fear all the way from Berlin. This is a Minister of Culture who is absolutely terrified of being confronted by curators and artists. She understands that taking either seriously would mean having to listen to and accommodate views other than her own.

My sincere gratitude goes out to Saarland’s cultural community, which has extended intense solidarity to me for months on end, vocally opposing the cancellation of my exhibition via an endless stream of supportive messages, and via no less than three publicly circulated open letters. Saarland’s cultural community deserves a Minister of Culture who cares about democratic exchange and freedom of expression. Instead, the community must continue to endure a Minister of Culture who has bought shame and disgrace to Saarbrücken and who has made the Saarlandmuseum a subject of intense criticism and derision across the German press landscape, as well as in the pages of over a hundred international newspapers—including the New York Times, Le Monde, The Washington Post and The Guardian.

What artist with a serious international reputation would want to exhibit at the Saarlandmuseum in the future, knowing that Streichert-Clivot will be ready to pounce and denounce, should their opinions fail to align with her own worldview? What artist could comfortably enter into collaboration with the Saarlandmuseum knowing that the institution expected this artist to work on an exhibition in good faith for three years without a contract, despite repeated requests (on at least five occasions) that a formal agreement be put in place? The invoice that my studio sent to the Saarlandmuseum on 19 December 2023—when I was still naïvely assuming that the museum might want to acknowledge and honour the three years of labour that I had invested in the exhibition (particularly since there had been no legal grounds for the cancellation)—remains completely ignored as of today’s date. This is an institution that—although it had already publicly promoted my exhibition (both on its website and in the press) and although all final decisions for the exhibition had already been made (via a series of meetings and approximately 200 e-mails) — has chosen instead to repeatedly attack my reputation over months, and to send me away with zero financial compensation. Apparently, the Minister of Culture does not see any value whatsoever in artistic labour. Given the public availability of this knowledge, what self-respecting artist would invest trust in the Saarlandmuseum? What curator or museum director would want to work under Streichert-Clivot, having observed the minister’s cynical perfection of the art of political and ideological interference in the cultural programming of Saarland’s flagship cultural institution?

Does anybody other than Streichert-Clivot honestly believe that the Minister’s tawdry defamatory campaign against me over the last few months, has been effective in making Jewish lives safer? Does anybody wonder how it is that the Minister was able to so accurately and speedily detect my virulent antisemitism, given that I have been warmly embedded and respected within Jewish community for over fifty years? For some reason, the Jewish people who I’ve lived and worked amongst over the last half a century have been too naïve to realise just how grotesque a Jew-hater I am. They clearly lack Streichert-Clivot’s fine feeling and expertise when it comes to such matters. What could they have been thinking—the Jewish Museum in New York, the Jewish Museum in Berlin, the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco and the Centre for Contemporary Art in Tel Aviv—when they invited this monster to exhibit her work prominently within their walls? The two Jewish-owned galleries who have represented my work over the last decade, are also clearly clueless when it comes to detecting dangerous Jew-haters such as myself. Both galleries ignorantly insist on continuing to represent my work, even after Streichert-Clivot’s denunciatory campaign. Just a couple of days before the SSK decided to de-platform and de-fund me (due to my allegedly antisemitic ways), I was standing on a podium in Oslo, delivering the keynote lecture at a symposium titled ‘Exploring Art and Perpetrator Memory.’ The symposium was focused on how we remember the Holocaust. It was put together by three Holocaust memorial centres, each located on the site of a former concentration camp (the Herinneringscentrum Kamp Westerbork in the Netherlands, the Gedenkstätte Bergen-Belsen in Germany and the Falstad Centre in Norway). But what would such institutions and experts know about antisemitism? Until Streichert-Clivot came along, thousands of unsuspecting and inattentive Jews, Israelis and Holocaust experts had somehow managed to overlook the ominous threat that I represent.

Is there anybody in the good city of Saarbrücken who truly believes that deplatforming and de-funding progressive Jewish individuals who happen to be critical of Netanyahu’s far right government, is the most meaningful and effective way to go about combatting escalating threats to Jewish life in the country that was responsible for murdering six million European Jews in the recent historical past? Should inhabitants of a democracy like Germany be entitled to criticize a far-right government that includes politicians who openly espouse genocidal rhetoric and proudly describe themselves as fascist, homophobic and racist; or should we just do away with freedom of opinion and let the German state tell us all exactly what to think?

Soon after the very public cancellation of my exhibition at the Saarlandmuseum, I was contacted by several other German museums that wanted to let me know that they viewed the cancellation of the exhibition as a shameful mistake. One by one, they confirmed that they would be continuing to display and support my work. These institutions included the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin, Fotografiska Berlin (a private museum financed by a Jewish-German collector), the Haus-am-Lützowplatz in Berlin, the Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen and the Felix-Nussbaum-Haus in Osnabrück (a museum built by the Jewish architect Daniel Libeskind in memory of a Jewish artist who was murdered in Auschwitz). Strangely, none of these institutions felt the need to deny me a platform for my artistic work or to erode my artistic income on the basis of my political views, despite their awareness of Streichert-Clivot’s public and vicious attempts to undermine me as an artist and a human being.

Meanwhile, on my last visit to Saarbrücken in late 2022, the Saarlandmuseum was still proudly flaunting paintings by Emil Nolde, without commenting on the fact that the artist is known to have been a member of the Nazi Party who went out of his way to ingratiate himself to Hitler’s genocidal regime. The museum also continues to unquestioningly promote work by Jonathan Meese, a German artist who is notorious for wearing Nazi insignia and performing the Hitler salute. It would appear that antisemitic sentiments and symbols are kosher and acceptable at the Saarlandmuseum, so long as these are channelled by non-Jewish German artists. Jewish artists, on the other hand, must be heavily censured and side-lined for daring to hold political views that contradict those of Saarland’s self-righteous and opportunistic Minister of Culture, a self-appointed expert in keeping Saarland’s cultural institutions safe from progressive Jewish thinkers who dare to see the world other than she does.

The provinciality and ignorance of Minister Streichert-Clivot can best be described as a regrettable burden to Saarland’s excellent institutions and an insult to Saarland’s vibrant and tolerant cultural communities. We can only collectively hope that Saarland’s next Minister of Culture will be somebody who is actually interested in creating space for cultural engagement and open dialogue, rather than another pettyminded bureaucrat who specialises in expelling artists from museums and shutting down democratic discourse.

This article first appeared in German in the Saarbrücker Zeitung on 18th March 2024. Reproduced with permission

Social Movements in the Face of Milei’s Government

Javier Milei’s government in Argentina is the latest attempt of the global right to exert its power. But it can be stopped


25/03/2024

Opinion Article by Cecilia and Darío from Bloque Latinoamericano Berlin

The world has paid close attention to the first months of Javier Milei’s government in Argentina. At one level, Milei is part of a new generation of ultra-right leaders along with Trump in the US, Meloni in Italy, Bukele in El Salvador and Bolsonaro in Brazil, among others. At the same time, he constitutes an extreme example, going a little further and potentially extending the boundaries of possibility for the international Right. In earlier articles on this site we analysed the measures Milei’s government has applied, or tried to apply, in its first weeks, and the economic impacts, such as hyperinflation or austerity policies, deepening the social and economic crisis in Argentina. We also described how distinct political sectors are positioning themselves in relation to these measures, and the nature of political resistance.

In this article we focus on social movements—key factors in Argentinian politics for over 20 years—during these first months under Milei. We speak with comrades who build resistance every day through the Front of Organisations in Struggle (FOL) to understand their perspectives and experiences.

Milei: violent with the poor, submissive before corporations

In his drive to ensure that everything should be determined by the market, Milei is not only trying to destroy or defund all areas of the state linked to social and labour policies, but also to break up another of the fundamental support structures for working people’s lives: social movements.

“Milei’s policy towards social movements is one of total confrontation with the objective of destroying them. His principle argument is that the movements are intermediaries or ‘CEOs’ of poverty, which themselves benefit from the misery of our people. This argument is intended to hide the fact that it’s these movements which give practical responses to the social necessities for supporting working people over the past two decades,” says an FOL comrade.

Arising during the profound crisis of 2001, the movements have since taken a central role in working class districts across the whole country. This role goes far beyond offering access to basic rights such as food, education, healthcare and work. The presence of the movements plays a part in community cohesion through solidarity and social support.

Through defunding, intimidation, persecution and media vilification, Milei clearly has a systematic plan against social organisations and working-class politics. Some examples of this include:

  • The protocol drawn up by the Ministry of Security to prevent street mobilisations; permitting, among other things, that repressive forces act without the authorisation from a judge
  • Ending all food provisions for almost 40,000 communal workers’ dining halls across the whole country which feed more than 4 million people every day, the great majority children
  • Defunding the urban integration social fund, responsible for improving the quality of life in the poorest districts by introducing basic services such as running water and sewers
  • A media campaign to discredit those who receive and manage social plans
  • Closure of the biggest social security and labour programme, “Enhancing Work”, which bolstered the incomes of 1,400,000 people

So why does Milei show such malice against popular organisations? An obvious reason is that, from his perspective, they represent a distortion of the free play of supply and demand, which according to neoliberal theory is the best possible way to allocate resources. But there are reasons to believe that his motivation goes beyond this, and is aimed at destroying collective forms of life and resistance.

It was the social movements and organisations on the Left which orchestrated the first mobilisation against the Milei government’s policies and forced the abandonment of Minister of Security Patricia Bullrich’s indiscriminate repression policy. Social movements also played a key role during Macri’s government, successfully mobilising against policies such as reform of the pension system or cuts in public spending on social services, which would have severely impacted the most vulnerable social groups.

Milei’s political objective is to “reset” community networks in Argentina, sweeping away a consensus established decades ago on the roles played by the state and social movements to guarantee rights  for society’s most marginalised.

“The government knows that the popular movements can lead resistance to it, and therefore it aims to break us up and eliminate us as actors in the territory,” say FOL comrades. “This will leave fertile ground for the advance of narco-trafficking, as has happened more in other Latin American countries than in Argentina, where the narcos establish themselves forcefully in working-class districts as a group that can give some sort of response to the urgent necessities of social assistance.”

“For a world where we are socially equal, humanly different, and totally free”: the FOL as an example

With the aim of giving a concrete and tangible form to the discussion around social movements, we spoke with FOL comrades about the work they have been doing for more than 15 years, and how they are responding to the current situation.

The FOL was founded in 2006 by activists in Greater Buenos Aires in the course of the struggle against unemployment and poverty. In this sense it forms part of the wider “picket movement”, the name given to a new type of movement which arose from unemployed workers’ organisations and adopted a new method—the blocking of roads, or “picketing”. Over the years the FOL defined itself as a movement which undertakes complex territorial work—this means taking on the problems of working class districts, in different spheres of life: housing, work, gender, children, education, environment and more.

This work enables the construction of popular power from below in a struggle for the delivery of concrete necessities in the here and now, and at the same time the construction of “a world where we are socially equal, humanly different and totally free”. This quote from Rosa Luxemburg, which the FOL adopted as its slogan, is more relevant than ever, as the idea of freedom is being appropriated by the right.

The construction of popular power is illustrated in FOL’s framework in different ways, for example:

  • Different initiatives promoting self-managed work, which allows those participating not only to create their own sources of work but also to take ownership of its value, as is the case with construction squads formed by women, in textile production groups, or in the production and distribution of agro-ecological products.
  • The Picket University is a space of popular education for the social movements, in which comrades from across the country collectively develop the different types of knowledge necessary for social transformation
  • The People’s Gardens, student support initiatives and the “popular baccalaureate” guarantee access to education
  • The improvement of working-class districts, recycling initiatives and the cleanup of contaminated streams guarantee access to a sustainable environment
  • Embodiment of the struggle against patriarchy by supporting those affected by gender-based violence and through the establishment of women’s assemblies

In order to measure up to the current situation, the FOL proposes reinforcing its presence across the country with specific tools needed to deliver necessities. It has also decided on, as its central guideline, “a policy of unity across the whole spectrum of social movements, including with those with whom we’ve had differences in the past, in order to form a united front against government attacks” an FOL comrade says.

Confronting Milei is an international task

As stated at the above, Milei is today one of the most extreme expressions of the global Right. Whatever he manages to achieve in Argentina will be incorporated into a playbook of extremist and repressive neoliberalism internationally. The support of institutional and ideological allies at the international level, such as the investment fund Blackrock, Elon Musk, or the International Monetary Fund, indicate that this battle is not only critical for Argentina but also for the centres of global power.

Argentina has been characterised historically through its extensive social organising and a high level of trade union membership relative to international statistics. This has enabled working people, even in situations of poverty, to retain access to acquired rights and to defend their community forms of living. “We believe”, say FOL comrades “that big capital intends, through these ultra-neoliberal, fascist and conservative governments to change the rules of the game, showing the world that it’s possible to smash the working class anywhere, even in Argentina. This is something that we cannot allow.”

It is critical to understand the new Right’s project through a global lens that shows the importance of spreading information on the resistance to Milei’s government throughout the Left at local, regional and international levels. Opposition to Bolsonaro in Brazil and in the region is an example of how this is possible, as the slogan “Not him” echoed around the world as the actions of his government were internationally scrutinised.

How can an internationalist resistance to Milei in Argentina be constructed? Ideas include:

  • Exposing, via social networks and media coverage, the social impact of Milei’s policies; above all, the concrete experiences of organisation and self-governance of the social movements which are under threat can increase the political cost to the government should it proceed with these measures
  • Constructing a wide network of civilian organisations in different parts of the world could enable the denunciation of violations of human rights (such as the removal of food from dining halls, or of medicines from people with terminal illnesses) and help protect the physical and legal safety of social movement participants
  • Mobilising financial resources can help ensure the continuity of structures which guarantee access to basic necessities for the most vulnerable sectors, as state financial support is abruptly removed
  • Constructing spaces of interaction between Latin American and European Lefts, in a horizontal, non-paternalistic form, is key in securing mutual support for local centres of resistance against the attacks of the global Right. 

This article originally appeared in Spanish on the Bloque Latinoamericano Website. Translation: Ian Perry. Reproduced with permission.

++ BREAKING NEWS ++ Court decision in favour of Oyoun confirms our integrity and ends defamation

Court rules that claims made in the Tagesspiegel are false


Press Release from oyoun – Berlin, 25.3.2024

We are delighted to announce that the Berlin Regional Court has ruled in Oyoun’s favour in the preliminary injunction proceedings against the Tagesspiegel. This decision represents a victory for credibility and sends a clear signal about the dangers based on unfounded allegations.

The court ruled that the Tagesspiegel may no longer publish three of the claims it stated in an article dated 20 February 2024.

In particular, it found that the allegation that the Senate favoured Oyoun due to family ties was unfounded. The allegations regarding alleged antisemitic incidents at Oyoun were also found to be unfounded.

This decision confirms the integrity of Oyoun and marks an important victory against defamation.

In light of this court decision, we would like to emphasise that Oyoun has always sought an open dialogue with the media and promoted fair reporting. Although Oyoun has been exonerated of false accusations, it will take some time to fully restore its reputation. This decision emphasises the importance of a fair and impartial legal system that respects the presumption of innocence and delivers just verdicts.

We would like to thank our lawyers – Laaser law firm for arts and creative sector – for their successful and conscientious legal representation and look forward to continuing our work without the shadow of defamation.

For further information or queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Press contact: Louna Sbou, Wayra Schübel – kommunikation@oyoun.de

HANDS OFF STUDENT RIGHTS: Campaign Against Forced Exmatriculation

Demonstration: Rotes Rathaus, Tuesday 26th March, midday


The Berlin Senate plans to tighten the Higher Education Act, despite widespread opposition from the student body. The introduction of forced exmatriculation as a disciplinary measure, outlined in the proposed Paragraph 16, not only marks a return to pre-2021 disciplinary regulations, comparable to other federal states, but represents a significant escalation with far-reaching encroachments on the freedom of students. Originally introduced in the context of the 1968 movement, disciplinary regulations were aimed at suppressing protests and student politicization. Now, this repressive instrument is being resurrected by the governing parties CDU and SPD, instigated by the far-right AFD. Given the political shift to the right and the constriction of critical voices, this development is extremely concerning.

The proposed law includes a range of disciplinary measures, from mild warnings to expulsion. The severity of the penalty is determined by a disciplinary committee whose composition, procedures, and transparency are not stipulated by law. The vague criteria and discretionary power of the disciplinary committee could lead to severe consequences for minor violations, such as hanging posters or disrupting classes. While the Senate claims these measures aim to protect students, discrimination is not punishable by exmatriculation among the listed offenses. With this symbolic policy, the government coalition is unmistakably signaling opposition to a politicized and democratic university, opening the door to discrimination against marginalized and/or dissenting students. We condemn this course of action and demand the retraction of the proposed measures.

We recognize that these disciplinary regulations will affect us all, regardless of our political activities as students: from educational strikes to climate protests, event disruptions, and the public denouncement of right-wing or abusive professors, as well as solidarity with Palestine. The threat of expulsion not only puts freedom of expression at risk, but also jeopardizes the safety of many, especially international students. It threatens not only our academic careers but also our livelihoods, jobs, residences, and visa statuses in Germany. The climate of fear and intimidation created by the mere possibility of expulsion is an attempt to intimidate politically active students. 

Support our campaign against forced exmatriculation: Hands off student rights and come to our Protest on Tuesday the 26.03. at 12:00 infront of the Rote Rathaus!

Expansion of the Zone of Taboo

The German definition of “antisemitism” harms open debate and excludes foreign and Jewish Artists and Intellectuals


24/03/2024

“The Ghetto is being liquidated” wrote Masha Gessen regarding Israel’s conduct of war in Gaza. Here in Germany, this sentence, which appeared in the New Yorker magazine, led to a scandal. For in Germany, we have a very far-reaching understanding of everything that one may – or may not –  say with respect to Israel.

The corridor of opinion is becoming increasingly narrow. It could become even worse if Culture Secretary Claudia Roth bows to the pressure which has risen after the Berlinale. It is a bad sign that the Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor praised her and the Culture Minister because they want to place arts promotion under suspicion of “antisemitism”.

Since 2017, Germany has relied on an antisemitism definition which is propagated by the Israeli government. It was declared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Critics complain that it stamps justified criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and worry that it opens the way to arbitrariness from the authorities. They point suspiciously to Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán who happily accepted the IHRA definition.

People like Gessen, who compare Israel’s actions with Nazi crimes, are antisemitic according to the IHRA definition. Full stop. Gessen comes from a Jewish family of Holocaust survivors and did not want to trivialise non-German Nazi crimes. Rather Gessen and others wanted to ‘de-normalise’  Israeli war crimes. and show them to be the scandal they are. But the IHRA definition is clumsy and cannot deal with such differences. For this reason, overwhelmingly Jewish authors and experts drew up an alternative text in 2021 – the Jerusalem Declaration – a definition which strictly differentiates between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.

Nazi comparisons are not per se taboo

In Germany, the IHRA definition has by now acquired a quasi-official status. The German government recommends using it in the education of school students and adults, in justice, administration and the police. Five years ago, the University Chancellors’ Conference adopted it. Using the IHRA definition as a framework, the Bundestag passed its controversial BDS resolution in 2019. Then, it was said that calls to boycott Israel evoked “the worst phase of German history” – a comparison with the Nazis which, remarkably, received little criticism.

But Nazi comparisons are not per se taboo in Germany. If Putin or Erdoğan are compared with Hitler, few people are enraged. If Israel’s prime minister Netanyahu equates Hamas with the Nazis, Israel’s UN ambassador wears a yellow Star or the spokesperson of the Israeli army describes the Hamas massacre as a “mini-Holocaust”, they can find advocates here in Germany.

Such double standards have increased. Interior minister Nancy Faeser banned the Palestinian slogan “From the River to the Sea”. Head of the Green Party, Robert Habeck – even called the slogan an “extermination fantasy”. The number of registered antisemitic crimes has also risen as a result, because the authorities have decided to strictly pursue such slogans. But what, then, does this say about the almost identically sounding formulation in the founding programme of Netanyahu’s Likud party, which since 1977 makes a claim for a larger Israel from the Mediterranean to the river Jordan?

Which words are still permitted?

The German permanent outrage about politically apparently incorrect criticism of Israel leads to the taboo zone becoming even larger. If someone on a demonstration calls “Kindermörder Israel” (child murderer Israel), some will immediately call the police. But which words are appropriate to denounce Israel’s actions in the Gaza strip – which have taken the lives of more children as all wars together in the last 4 years? The destruction of Gaza is unprecedented. But says the German state – don’t dare call it a “war of extermination”!

Recently, some have even maintained that red palms – a universal symbol for someone with “blood on their hands” means something quite different in Israel than in the rest of the world. This madness is even propagated by serious feature writers.

Cultural-intellectual provincialisation

Germans have the reputation of being a people of know-it-alls and thought police. Zealous “antisemitism” hunters like Volker Beck confirm this cliché. In the culture scene, this has led to a climate of fear and (self) censorship. This affects above all foreign – and often Jewish – artists and intellectuals.

The Saarland museum cancelled a planned exhibition by the South African Jewish artist Candice Breitz. A lecture tour by the 88-year old Holocaust survivor Marione Ingram in her home city of Hamburg was cancelled. The list could go on and on. Meanwhile, Elon Musk can share as many antisemitic conspiracy theories on X as he wants. When he visits Berlin, the mayor stands up for a selfie with him.

World-class intellectuals, like Achille Mbembe, Judith Butler, however, have been staying clear of Germany for a long time. The US artist Laurie Anderson withdrew from a guest professorship at the Folkwang Universität der Künste in Essen. This year’s Biennale for contemporary photography was cancelled. The future of documenta is unclear. And who still wants to come to Berlinale, and be accused afterwards of being an antisemite? The German magazines like Bild Zeitung and right wing blogs don’t care, they just fuel a moral panic.

According to an Allensbach survey from last year, only 40 per cent of Germans still believe that they can freely express their opinions, and stated that they restrained themselves because of this. The exceptions from this rule are ‘Greens’ and ‘academics’. Maybe there is a connection between the toxic antisemitism debate in this country and willingness to freely voice opinions. The climate now intimidates many people.

This article first appeared in German in the taz newspaper. Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission.