Friend or Foe?
Jewish Self-Degradation and its Misuse by Anti-Semites in Contemporary Germany
Susanne Urban
| |
The classic phenomenon of anti-Semitism is taking a
new shape. The old one still exists, this I name co-existence... To
assert: anti-Semitism, included in...anti-Zionism like the thunder storm
is part of the cloud, is again respectable... But: a respectable
anti-Semitism is not possible.1 |
Rewriting History
Germany, because of its special history as
prime perpetrator, is a country in which the number of memorial sites, plaques
of remembrance and Jewish museums is – compared to other European countries,
exceptional. A Holocaust memorial in Berlin will be opened soon.2
It should not be forgotten, “Germany is most active in promoting Holocaust
education for which there is a very good reason... The Holocaust today serves as
a symbol for what we ought to oppose: racism, genocide, mass murder, ethnic
hatred, ethnic cleansing, anti-Semitism and group hatred.”3
The formal and political opposition to all
this is linked to the German past, but it is no obstacle to be anti-Zionistic
and therefore anti-Semitic. This refers to problems linked to recent Holocaust
education in Germany. Textbooks in schools have for decades, depended on Jewish
clichés and stereotypes.
But above all the trend of
self-victimization of Germany itself has to be mentioned, which is, and will be,
followed by a rewriting of the history of World War II. The worst case will lead
to a minimization of the Shoah. The most important forerunner of those
German “New Historians” is Joerg Friedrich who has published two best-selling
books on the allied bombings of Germany.4 In
Friedrich’s publication entitled, Brandstaetten, Germans are definitely
depicted as victims. The book contains horrible images; burnt bodies and
destroyed cities evoke similarities to the Warsaw Ghetto after its liquidation
and pictures from extermination camps. Friedrich declared: “Churchill was the
greatest child-slaughterer of all time. He slaughtered 76.000 children” – and
Friedrich stated that, yes, he himself is a revisionist.
There
is a trend toward Germany’s self-reconciliation. Debates on
history divide Germans no longer. On the contrary, they bring Leftists and
Rightists and the generations together.
But the rising lack of interest towards the
Shoah is not only based on rewriting history. It is even based on a
lesson Germany and the Germans had – so they say – learned out of World War II
and the Shoah. Military actions to restrain or detach totalitarian and
terrorist regimes or Islamic fundamentalism like in Afghanistan and Iraq are –
especially if they are carried out by the USA, Great Britain or Israel –
condemned by a majority of the German public. Terrorist movements like ETA, the
IRA or Palestinian terror groups are not judged the same way. Israelis and “the”
Jews are confronted with the indictment of despised “immoral behavior of the
former victims”. In other words: Israel and the Jews have not learned their
lesson out of the Shoah whereas Germans have done their homework.
To deflect the suspicion of being
anti-Semitic, the attacks against Israel are flanked by the “mantra” that
because of the Shoah Germany has to side with today’s victims – and
therefore Palestinians in general. The best maneuver is doubtless to quote
Jewish and/or Israeli witnesses to underline the anti-Zionistic opinion.
Anti-Semitism is flanked by Jewish self-degradation. Germany has learned its
lesson thoroughly.
Contemporary Anti-Semitism
5
The federal office for protecting the
constitution (Bundesamt fuer Verfassungsschutz) recorded more than 1,400
anti-Semitic crimes in 2001.6 The numbers
confirm a steady rise, i.e. a 100% increase for Berlin.
In 2002, anti-Semitism became an issue for
the first time in a post-war Germany election campaign, based on attacks by the
liberal FDP against Israel, Ariel Sharon and Michel Friedman, a representative
of Jews in Germany.
In April 2002, a survey by the Sigmund
Freud Institute in Frankfurt/Main and the University of Leipzig confirmed a new
height of anti-Semitism. Twenty percent of the respondents agreed “that Jews are
to blame for the major conflicts in the world” and another 26% share this
opinion to a certain extent.7
In May 2002, Der Spiegel, a weekly
magazine, printed a survey by NFO-Infratest in which 25% agreed: “What the State
of Israel does to the Palestinians is no different than what the Nazis did
during the Third Reich to the Jews.”8
Representative studies estimate open anti-Semitism at
around 23% while hidden anti-Semitism exists in between 30-40% of the German
public.9
In 2002, The European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in Vienna and the Centre for Research on
Anti-Semitism at the Technical University, Berlin University, began research on
the “Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union (EU) – First Semester
2002”. In October 2003, the report was handed over to the EU. In January 2004,
the final report with some additions was in the hands of the EUMC, which kept
the study – with the knowledge and affirmation of the EU – under lock and key.
The research states that not only the “familiar” threat by “ordinary” right-wing
anti-Semitism is obvious. Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups are backbones of
contemporary anti-Semitism, too. Furthermore, leftist groups and
globalization-fighters like ATTAC were described as more or less anti-Semitic.10
The EUMC criticized the study very vaguely: “There was a problem defining
anti-Semitism. The definition was too complicated.”
The “Eurobarometer”,
published in October 2003, dealt with the relation between the European Union,
the Iraq, terrorism and peace strategies.11 To
extract very few data: In the EU a majority of 86% support close relations and
exchanges between European and Arabic countries, as answers to question 7b
prove. In Germany 85% support this.
Question no. 10: “For each of the following
countries, tell me if, in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to peace in
the world?” Referring to Israel 59% of EU citizens agreed, at the top was the
Netherlands with 74%. In Germany 65% hold this opinion. Israel as the largest
threat for peace was followed by three countries which had to share the second
place: Iran, North Korea and the USA (all mentioned with 53%).
In recent years, the European Union has frequently chosen to take
pro-Arab positions in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The undemocratic
character of the Arab world is intentionally ignored, as is support for terror
among sizeable sectors of Palestinian society. On the other hand, moral
condemnation of Israel has often been stressed beyond all reason by European
politicians and media. Although the Europeans are followers, rather than
leaders, they have been playing an important role in the defamation process.12
Nota bene: The journalist Amira
Hass, one of the Leftists who is used as a witness for German anti-Zionism,
wrote in a supplement in Ha’aretz in April 2004 on anti-Semitism in Germany.13
Hass admires how intensively Germany has dealt with its past. Anti-Semitism
exists, but does not seem to be an actual menace. Amira Hass glosses over the
rise of anti-Semitism. As anti-Zionistic Germans choose Israelis and Jews to
testify to their positions Amira Hass had chosen some “proper” witnesses and
some whose statements were somehow, as it seems, selected to testify that there
is no real threat. Amira Hass has done a poor job.
Some
of My Best Friends are Jews...
Germans who attack Israel and cross the
thin red line from criticism to anti-Semitism would never describe themselves as
anti-Semites. They try to hide behind the cloak of anti-Zionism and indicate the
UN resolution No. 3379 which, in November 1975, condemned Zionism as a form of
racism.
Anti-Zionists use anti-Semitic terminology
in their so-called critique and compare Israel more or less openly to Nazi
Germany and therefore Israelis to the Nazis. Through this sham, Israel is
“Nazified” and becomes a symbol of evil in the world.14
The best means to assure that it is no
anti-Semitism in the “criticism” of Israel is to quote or interview Israeli
and/or Diaspora Jews who underline the self-same attitude – Jewish witnesses are
taken to court against Israel.
Beloved and Used
Avi Primor, Israel’s Ambassador in Germany
from 1993 to 1999, was, from the beginning, a beloved one. He speaks excellent
German and has German roots. His “mantra”, which seems somehow naïve, was,
throughout the years, that “Germany is the most important partner for Israel in
second place after the USA”, and that there is “no alternative to the peace
process”. These sentences have been heard in countless lectures, speeches and
panel discussions in public, on TV and in radio broadcasts. As a result, Germans
adored him each day a bit more. They felt important as partners of Israel and
“peaceniks” who should give advice to the Israelis.
Avi Primor is not a self-hating Israeli or
Jew but his statements are misused as well. He is on air and on the screen in
Germany every time a terror attack in Israel or a military action in the
Territories takes place. Primor loves the audience and it seems that he does not
recognize that he is being used. His last book, Terror as an Excuse. The
Language of Violence,15 was reviewed
enthusiastically. The comparison of the South African apartheid regime and the
Homelands for Blacks with the situation in the Territories has been adopted
constantly. Not only Nazism, but even Apartheid, as another symbol of terror and
violation of human rights, are “bestsellers” in humiliating Israel.
One of Primor’s recent appearances was on
March 23, 2004 on the “Deutschlandradio”, after Sheikh Yassin’s
execution. In advance, the presenter, Stefan Heinlein, told the audience:
The attack was set at dawn and the victim in the wheelchair
didn’t have any chance. Three rockets fired by Israeli fighting helicopters
killed the founder of Hamas, Sheikh Yassin, and with him already the last
spark of hope for a peaceful future in the Near East. The answer of the
terrorist organization Hamas will be awaited soon.16
It was clear: Israel committed a crime
against humanity. What Hamas and therefore Sheikh Yassin are responsible
for, was not mentioned. Primor did not react to this opening in his first
answer.
In contrast to his successor, Ambassador
Shimon Stein, Avi Primor tells the people what they like. He does not hurt
anyone, he nearly never contradicts and is very smooth in his opinion, while
Stein does not hide his contempt for the existing anti-Zionistic positions in
the German public and media.
In one review of Primor’s newest book the
author mentioned Primor’s problem: “In Germany this [anti-Israeli] critic is
often nothing more than an outlet to get rid of [our] own past and to express
anti-Semitism in the disguise of anti-Zionism. Primor does not want to face this
problem sufficiently.”17
ATTAC
– Attacking Whom?
ATTAC is a leftist group operating around
the world against globalization which gained public interest and support after
9/11. In France and Germany, ATTAC was reproached in spring 2003 for
anti-Semitic and anti-Zionistic tendencies. ATTAC replied with a resolution:
The positions of ATTAC are not anti-Semitic...the basis of the
position of ATTAC Germany towards the Palestine problem is the paper published
in 2002 and its aim to secure...international justice... The fight against
neo-liberal globalization...is inseparably linked with the fight for peace,
human rights and political self-determination of the Palestinians. ...We
acknowledge the right to offer resistance, but we reject the dreadful suicide
bombings... Our attitude towards the unsolved Palestine question is based on the
consideration of each and every Resolution which has passed the UN.18
On its
homepage, ATTAC presents a section,
“Reader: Peace in Israel and Palestine”.19 The
first article of April 2004 says: “End the occupation of Palestinian territories
by Israel! Keep human rights in Palestine and Israel!” In the fourth place,
Yassir Arafat speaks out: “The Palestinian vision of peace”. He is followed by
the “B’Tselem Report” from a left-wing “peace-keeping center in Bethlehem” and
by Uri Avnery’s outcry, “We are the real patriots!”.
Above and beyond using Arafat on its
homepage, ATTAC uses Israeli witnesses like Uri Avnery, Lev Grinberg and Michel
Warschawski to underline its own position.
Networking Against Israel
The internet is an incredible playground
for anti-Zionistic opinions.
The German left-wing website,
ZNet20 is,
in its own words, the talking head of “Classlessness”, “Justice”, “Feminism”,
“Equity” and “Solidarity”. Its topics include “Terrorism and War”, “Media”,
“Globalization”, “Near and Middle East”, “Latin America” and other regions. In
the list of contributors of articles, Uri Avnery, Amira Hass and Noam Chomsky,
all appear.
ZNet is linked to ATTAC and other leftist groups as well as to
Pax Christi and peace movements at German universities. It is one of the
largest and most professional German websites and is used as reference material
at universities for political education.
Noam Chomsky and his numerous articles are
presented in the “Chomsky Archive” as verifications for Israel’s brutality.
Chomsky wrote (on February 23, 2004) in “A Wall as a Weapon”21:
“...Only a few would neglect Israel’s right of defending its citizens against
terrorism...and to build even a security rampart, if this would be a suitable
measure.” Chomsky explains in the next paragraph:
This rampart is actually taking land away from the Palestinians.
And it helps – as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described
Israel’s war of “policycide” [which means “genocide through politics”,
Susanne Urban] against the Palestinians – to transform Palestinian
communities into dungeons. Compared with them, the Bantustans in South Africa
seemed to be symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.
Chomsky quotes other popular Israeli
anti-Zionists and, to underline matters, let Amira Hass speak who wrote in
Ha’aretz that “hidden behind security considerations and the so-called
neutral language of military instructions, the gate of expulsion is wide open.”
This will satisfy German readers especially because of victims’ solidarity –
between Germans who were expelled after World War II and the Palestinians. It
should not be forgotten that anti-Zionism is now dressed up as a fight against
Apartheid.
An article written by Amira Hass, herself
for Ha’aretz on March 24, 2004, entitled, “Again a Red Line was Crossed”,
was translated and published on
ZNet.22 To
be sure, Hass’ two books, Drinking the Sea Out in Gaza and Report Out
of Ramallah, which were published in Germany in February 2003 and February
2004, are bestsellers.
At the end of March 2004,
ZNet published the article “As on
Tiananmen”23 from Yediot Aharanot
written by Tanya Reinhart24:
Palestinian farmers, whose land was taken away, are sitting on
the earth in front of bulldozers; together with the Israeli opponents of the
wall... The Israeli army fires at the people who sit on the ground like the
Chinese did on the. The Israeli army blocks every Palestinian possibility to
passive resistance. With the arrogant liquidation of a leader and therefore a
symbol – as he is leaving the mosque – the army causes a new wave of terror and
violence.
In another article, written on October 31,
2003, by B. Michael25 for Yediot Aharonot
entitled, “On the Wall of Apartheid”, the author stated, “In the region around
Jerusalem the fence is absolutely chaotic... As if a blind sadist who has
Parkinson’s disease has marked its course.” He adds: “This is the secret of the
fence: no security, nothing at all. Not war against terror but war against
reason. A creeping Naqba, a slow strangulation.”
Lev Grinberg, political sociologist at Ben
Gurion University in Beersheva, has written exclusively for
ZNet on “Symbolic Genocide”26:
The murder of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by the Israeli government is
only part of a larger action which is planned by the Israeli government and what
can be described as symbolic genocide. Unable to rehabilitate from the Holocaust
trauma and caused by the feeling of being insecure the Jewish people, the latest
victims of a genocide, [sic] carry out a genocide against the Palestinians at
the moment. The world will not allow complete genocide, and instead of this it
is symbolic genocide.
Most paragraphs of Grinberg’s text are
nothing more than the usual anti-Zionistic lines, but this prologue will testify
to every anti-Zionist in Germany that the Shoah is nothing except what
happened solely to the Jews. The “Nazification” of Israel has thereby been
accomplished.
Michel Warschawski, former head of the
Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem is as corroded by self-degradation
as Grinberg. He has published several articles on “Nazi methods” used by Israel,
but his explanation why “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism”,27
is exceptional:
Anti-Semitism for sure is something like racism because it
neglects the other one, the Jew, in his identity and existence... But
Anti-Zionism is “only” a way to express the opposition towards Israeli politics
because it does not attack a group of human beings.
In his opinion a semantic shift from
anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism does not exist. Warschawski has concluded: “The
anti-racist and anti-colonial leftist movement must not prove its struggles
against the anti-Semitic plague. The fight against it will be much more
effective as it argues more obviously and less ambiguously against Israeli war
crimes and its colonization politics.”
Warschawski can be compared to Felicia
Langer. Langer can rely on her huge audience in Germany. Langer and the famous
Uri Avnery were amongst the first Jews/Israelis in Germany who propagated
anti-Zionism.
The
Jewish Friend who Points Out Jewish Foes
Uri Avnery, known as a former MK, founder
of Gush Shalom, the leftist publication, Haolam Hazeh and, to sum it up,
as an Israeli anti-Zionist, certainly has more followers in Germany than in
Israel itself (not to speak about his Palestinian friends). He is Israeli and
Jewish and even German-rooted – a perfect witness for anti-Zionists, leftists
and “peaceniks” in Germany. Importantly, even right-wing intellectuals have
explored his work.
Avnery has received several awards in
Germany, i.e. the Erich Maria Remarque Prize (in 1995), the Aachener Peace Prize
(in 1997), the Alternative Nobel Prize (in 2001), the Carl von Ossietzky Prize
(in 2002).
Avnery’s latest books in the German
language were published by the leftist Dietz Verlag (1988 and 1991) and
the Palmyra-Verlag (1995, 1996, 2003). The owner of Palmyra-Verlag,
Georg Stein, named its program “From Arafat to Zappa”.28
Books on the Middle East focus on the Palestinians. Authors are Uri Avnery,
Amnon Kapeliuk, Edward W. Said. A so-called “Encyclopedia of the Near East” was
written by a Professor of Oriental Studies from Hamburg University and an
Iranian scientist which tells enough about the “objectivity” of this
encyclopedia.
Back to Avnery: He presents his life and
work and texts through a German website,29
which is under another address available in Hebrew and English. One text which
ranks among the most distributed and quoted in Germany is “Twelve Usual Lies”30
on the Camp David negotiations in 2000. Avnery has written there, on the
lynching of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah:
In a confrontation like this one, each side points to the
atrocities committed by the other, “forgetting” the atrocities committed by his
own side. Israel points to the horrible lynching, the Palestinians point to the
killing of 12-years old Muhammad al-Dira in the arms of his father and the
brain-killing bullets used by Israel army snipers against stone-throwing
children.31
Avnery did not deign to tell his readers
that the fault for the death of the Arab child lay not with the Israeli Army but
the Palestinians who shot him.32
Another paragraph dealt with those young
suicide bombers and stone-throwing protesters whose parents are proud of their
children’s “martyrdom”:
This is a horrendous accusation, betraying an obnoxious racism...
In the struggle waged by our underground organizations before 1948 and during
our War of Independence, boys and girls played an important part. The arms
training of Palestinian boys is no different from the training of our own Gadna
youth battalions... When a people fights for its very existence and freedom, its
youth cannot but take part. (I joined the Irgun, defined by the British as a
terrorist organization, at the age of 14 and a half. By the age of 15 I carried
guns.) It is an illusion to think that Palestinian parents can restrain their
children from going out into the street and throwing stones, when they live
under a cruel occupation and their brothers and sisters provide examples of
heroism and self-sacrifice. It is natural for the Palestinian people to be proud
of them...
Another article, published after Sheikh Yassin’s death,
puts Jews before 1948 and Palestinians today side by side33:
In the hearts of hundreds of thousands of children in the
Palestinian territories and the Arab countries, this murder has raised a storm
of rage and thirst for revenge, together with feelings of frustration and
humiliation in view of the impotence of the Arab world. This will produce not
only thousands of new potential suicide bombers inside the country, but also
tens of thousands of volunteers for the radical Islamic organizations throughout
the Arab world... Here, too, a parallel with the Hebrew underground presents
itself. In a certain phase of the fight against the British, there was much
unrest among the members of the Haganah, the semi-official underground army of
the Zionist leadership (comparable to Fatah today).
Such thoughts are, by the way, not really
original, because they are more and more common in German anti-Zionism. Prof.
Udo Steinbach, Director of the Orient Institute in Hamburg, misused the 60th
anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising on January 6, 2003 in Bad Salzgitter
at a reception of the Protestant church, during his speech on Islamic terror:
We have to think about what we are defining as terror. As we see
Israeli tanks driving through Palestinian villages where desperate people defend
themselves with stones, we have to ask by bearing in mind Warsaw and the revolt
of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto – was this terror, too?34
This thought was followed by more attacks
against Israel. Not a single protest was heard out of the audience of around 200
people.
Avnery is a steady interview-partner in the magazine,
Der Spiegel35 which was and is still today
known for its anti-Israeli position.
Last but not least, Avnery was interviewed
by the weekly, Junge Freiheit in May 2002. This extreme right-wing
newspaper calls students to denounce activities against right-wing groups in
their schools and on campuses. Junge Freiheit was scrutinized by the
Office for the Protection of the Constitution in several federal states in
Germany. Actions to obtain injunctions, brought by the editors of the paper,
were rejected. The weekly is clearly described as following extreme right-wing
positions. The paper and its contributors can be identified with anti-liberal
positions as well as with a nationalism which advocates ethnic separation, based
on racial grounds. Advertising in the paper shows the linkage to intellectual
neo-Nazi publications. Nevertheless, Avnery gave an interview under the heading:
“We Don’t Want to Play a Particular Role.”36
The first and, for sure most prominent question Avnery has to answer, was on the
possibility of criticizing Israel. Avnery answered: “One might not only
criticize Israel, one has to! It is an expression of anti-Semitism if one deals
with us in a special way.” Avnery used in this context the word “Sonderbehandlung”,
which cannot be translated in its whole meaning. During the Shoah it was
the paraphrase for the extermination of Jews.
Avnery states in the interview: “To equate
critics against Israel with anti-Semitism means to name the political opponents
of Sharon, anti-Semites.” In his eyes, anti-Semitism is simple “mental illness,
which can be recognized instinctively”.
Avnery underlined: “Germany has not
overcome its Nazi past by now, and this explains the unhealthy situation which
makes it impossible to discuss the Palestine conflict in a normal way.” He
continues, “anti-Semitism is not a real threat in today’s Europe.” His
followers, no matter if right-wing or leftist anti-Zionists, will appreciate
this!
Conclusion
Jewish self-degradation and self-hate feed
countless websites, articles, leaflets, discussion groups and the public in
Germany.
It can be stated that German anti-Zionism –
as it seems, either from left to right– tries to get the “kosher stamp” by
quoting above all Israeli or Jewish journalists and historians like Norman
Finkelstein – who is much more popular than serious historians. Avi Primor is
used more or less through his naivety.
It is surprising that it is somehow
misjudging to blame “New Historians” in Israel as the most active anti-Zionists
who feed anti-Semitism in Germany. Representatives of this paradigm include,
Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Moshe Zimmermann and Benny Morris – because
of Morris’ new opinion on the actual situation in Israel and the Palestinians he
is judged now as a conservative “Refusenik”.
Despite the fact that the “New Historians”
are seen as a threat to Zionism on the basis of the State of Israel in Israel
itself, their influence on the European or Israeli public is not as widespread
as supposed. Their books are discussed mainly by an academic, well-read
minority. They are, in general, not quoted in everyday reports on Israeli
politics and society. Their opinions appear perhaps in extended analyses in
Feuilleton or supplements of German newspapers. From time to time they write on
Israeli politics for leftist and liberal newspapers like Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
But neither Benny Morris nor Tom Segev are as popular as Uri Avnery or Felicia
Langer. It is easier to listen to or to read the words from Avnery et al. than
an academic hypothesis.
The German media has a huge influence on
the opinion and on the development of anti-Zionistic views. This is backed by
several analyses on German reports on Israel and the Palestinians.37
The reports on Israel and the Palestinians are in their majority, as the studies
show, full of more or less subtle criticism of Israel and pro-Palestinian
positions. This is obvious, above all, in photo and film reports which show
“David against Goliath” – stone-throwing, running children against Israeli
tanks, etc. A chronological reverse of events is common, to report first about
Israeli military actions and afterwards the terror attack against Israeli
civilians is mentioned.
The “Institute for Empiric Media Research”
in Cologne concluded from its study, that it is an essential media effect to
show Israel in the role of the aggressor who uses military power.
In the context of this renewed defamation, one should remember
that the Nazis started out with trying to “kill the Jews with words” in the days
of the Weimar Republic. Their propaganda managed to install a virulent
anti-Semitism in much wider circles of European society than had been the case
formerly. Even some of their opponents shared these attitudes toward the Jews.
After the Nazis’ rise to power in 1933, the verbal attacks were followed by
financial despoilment and, later, by the physical destruction of the Jews. Thus,
assessing moral attitudes in Europe toward the Jews in the past decades has
become an important Jewish public affairs issue.38
Endnotes
|
The author wishes to acknowledge and thank
Dr. Laurence Weinbaum for his assistance.
|
|
1 |
Jean Amery, “Der
ehrbare Antisemit”, Die Zeit, July 25, 1969. |
|
2 |
Der
Denkmalstreit – das Denkmal? Die Debatte um das Denkmal fuer die
ermordeten Juden Europas. Eine Dokumentation, Guenter Heimrod and
Horst Seferens (eds.), Berlin: Philo-Verlag 1999. |
|
3 |
“From Propagating Myths to Research: Preparing for Holocaust Education. An
Interview with Yehuda Bauer”, Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism,
No.3, December 1, 2002, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, p. 1. |
|
4 |
Joerg
Friedrich, Der Brand – Deutschland im Bombenkrieg, Berlin:
Propylaeen Verlag, 2002; Joerg Friedrich, Brandstaetten, Berlin:
Propylaeen Verlag, 2003. |
|
5 |
In the context
of this article only a brief overview on current anti-Semitism in Germany
can be given. |
|
6 |
Most of the
data is based on the research done by the Stephen-Roth Institute/Tel Aviv
University. <http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/germany.htm>. |
|
7 |
Elmar Braehler
and Horst Eberhard Richter, “Politische Einstellungen in Deutschland.
Einstellungen zu Juden, Amerikanern und Arabern”, Results of a
representative survey in Spring 2002. Press conference at the Sigmund
Freud Institute in Frankfurt/Main, June 14, 2002. |
|
8 |
Der Spiegel,
May 2002. |
|
9 |
“Unser
Verhaeltnis zu den Juden”, (A Survey by FORSA), Stern, No. 48,
2003. |
|
10 |
The study was
available in English, <http://www.heute.t-online.de/ZDFheute/artikel/30/0,1367,POL-0-2086878,00.html>.
The EUMC website presents the study and some additional material, <http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=1>. |
|
11 |
The opinion
poll of Eurobarometer in October 2003 is available in English: <http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/flash/fl151_iraq_full_report.pdf>. |
|
12 |
Manfred
Gerstenfeld, “Europe’s Moral Attitudes Toward the Holocaust in Light of
the Current Defamation of Israel”, Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, No.
475, April 01, 2002, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, p. 2. |
|
13 |
Amira Hass,
“The Victimhood Contest”, Ha’aretz Supplement: “The State
of the Jews”, April 05, 2004, pp. 11-16. |
|
14 |
Jean
Améry, “Die Linke und der Zionismus”,
Tribuene, No. 32, Frankfurt/Main: Tribuene Verlag, 1969, p.
3419-3422; Thomas Haury, Antisemitismus von links.
Kommunistische Ideologie, Nationalismus und Antizionismus in der fruehen
DDR, Hamburg: Hamburger Edition 2003;
Frank Stern, Im Anfang war Auschwitz. Antisemitismus und
Philosemitismus im deutschen Nachkrieg, Gerlingen: Bleicher 1991.
|
|
15 |
Avi Primor,
Terror als Vorwand. Die Sprache der Gewalt, Duesseldorf, second
edition: Droste 2004. |
|
16 |
“Interview
with Avi Primor”, Deutschlandfunk, March 23, 2004. |
|
17 |
Max Brym, “Avi
Primor: Terror als Vorwand”, review from March 18, 2004, <http://www.hagalil.com/buecher.judentum.de/sonstiges/primor.htm>. |
|
18 |
Erklaerung
des Attac-Ratschlages zu Antisemitismus und zum Nahostkonflikt, Aachen,
October 19, 2003, leaflet and <http://www.attac.de/globkrieg/gegen-antisemitismus.php>. |
|
19 |
See <http://www.attac.de/globkrieg/reader/index.htm>. |
|
20 |
See <http://www.zmag.de>. |
|
21 |
Quotations are
from: Noam Chomsky, “Eine Mauer als Waffe”, Znet, February 23,
2004, <http://www.zmag.de>.
(On the Website, use the “Search” tool to get to the article. |
|
22 |
Amira Hass, “Erneut
wurde eine rote Linie ueberschritten”, Ha’aretz, translated
for: Znet, March 24, 2004, <http://www.zmag.de>. |
|
23 |
Tiennamen was
the place in Beijing where in 1988 students and other protestors were
killed by the Chinese Army. |
|
24 |
Quotations are
from: Tanya Reinhart, “Wie auf dem Platz des himmlischen Friedens”,
Yediot Aharonot, translated for: Znet, March 30, 2004, <http://www.zmag.de>. |
|
25 |
Quotations are
from: B. Michael, “Ueber die Apartheidmauer”, Yediot Aharonot
translated for: Znet, March 23, 2004, <http://www.zmag.de>. |
|
26 |
Quotations are
from: Lev Grinberg, “Symbolischer Voelkermord”, in: Znet, March 23,
2004, <http://www.zmag.de>. |
|
27 |
Michel
Warschawski, “Antizionismus ist nicht Antisemitismus”, Sand im
Getriebe, Nr. 21, n.d. or Sozialistische Zeitung, September
2002. Links: <http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org>;
<http://www.alternativenews.org>.
|
|
28 |
Information on
the Palmyra-Verlag and its program: <http://www.palmyra-verlag.de>. |
|
29 |
See <http://www.uri-avnery.de>. |
|
30 |
The articles
have various titles in German and English issues. |
|
31 |
See <http://www.uri-avnery.de>,
then search: “Zwoelf konventionelle Luegen”. |
|
32 |
A documentary
was made on this, Esther Schapira, Das Rote Quadrat: Drei Kugeln und
ein totes Kind, Hessischer Rundfunk 2002, first screened on March 18,
2002 in the ARD. Schapira was threatened by many Muslin groups after the
first screening. |
|
33 |
See <http://www.uri-avnery.de>,
then search: “Drei Generaele, ein Maertyrer”. |
|
34 |
Quotation by
journalists, available through the Jewish web site <http://www.hagalil.com/>
in 2003. |
|
35 |
Available
online, Uri Avnery, “Scharon, a deliberate fanatic”, Der Spiegel,
December 2001, <http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,173799,00.html>.
|
|
36 |
Uri Avnery, “Wir
wollen keine Sonderrolle”, Junge Freiheit, Mai 31, 2002. The
quotes are taken from the Internet version, <http://www.jf-archiv.de/archiv02/232yy09.htm>. |
|
37 |
There were
some analyses, by Medientenor, published in Tribuene,
No 162, Frankfurt/Main: Tribuene Verlag,
2002, p.93ff. Another research was done by the Duisburger
Institut fuer Sprach- und Sozialforschung (DISS) on behalf of the
German office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and published in
2002. Between December 9 and 10, 2002 the “Bundeszentrale
fuer politische Bildung”
invited to a conference under the heading: “Learn to be suspicious against
pictures” which dealt with the media reports on Israel and the
Palestinians. The
Bundeszentrale
presented its own study, “Nahostberichterstattung in den
Hauptnachrichten des deutschen Fernsehens”, <http://www.bpb.de>. |
|
38 |
Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Europe’s Moral
Attitudes toward the Holocaust in Light of the Current Defamation of
Israel”, Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, No. 475, April 01, 2002,
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, p. 3. |
