28.03.24
Editorial note
Tel Aviv University emeritus Professor Moshe Zuckermann was finally defined as an Antisemite. IAM often reported on Zuckermann, so it came as little surprise that his activity was labeled antisemitic.
Recently, Zuckermann was scheduled to appear at an event held by the Heilbronn Adult Education Center (VHS Heilbronn) in Germany. However, when the organizers asked the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany about Zuckermann, they pulled out because of concerns that “intense criticism was expected.” They were told that Zuckermann is “highly controversial” due to his position on Israel. He once spoke at a BDS event and would claim that there is “fundamentally an apartheid against non-Jews” in Israel. According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization with 35 Member Countries founded in 1998, this is considered “anti-Semitic.” The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism was adopted by Germany in 2017.
The German-Israeli Society (DIG) was the first to raise concerns about Zuckermann because of his support of the BDS movement. According to DIG, Zuckermann’s support for the BDS movement violated the 2019 Bundestag resolution prohibiting the use of public funds to finance initiatives that call for a boycott of Israel. As a result, the higher education center withdrew its support, and the meeting was moved to another location.
It is interesting in this context to present the exchange of emails pertaining to the case. Leonard B. Kaminski, Personal Advisor to the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Anti-Semitism wrote in an email in response to the inquiry about Zuckermann: “Dear Mr. Hawighorst, Thank you very much for your inquiry to Commissioner Dr. Klein, on whose behalf I am answering you. Moshe Zuckermann is indeed highly controversial because of his positions on Israel. Specifically, for example, he was invited as a speaker to an event organized by BDS in 2022. He also holds the view that there is fundamentally apartheid against non-Jews in Israel. This is a position that would have to be considered anti-Semitic according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which is endorsed by the federal government. Now there is no ban on inviting such controversial people. At the same time, democratic exchange also means that such an invitation must be expected to receive correspondingly intense criticism. Best regards, Leonard Kaminski.”
Zuckermann said in response to the allegations, “I am the son of Holocaust survivors, my parents were Auschwitz survivors, and then I have to let some German officials tell me that I am an anti-Semite because I criticize the country in where I live and, as a citizen of this country, I am also one I have a civil responsibility to criticize this country. For example, the 50-year-old, dehumanizing occupation regime that has existed in violation of international law is worthy of criticism. Every decent person has to become critical of this because a whole other People is being harassed. The mere fact that I take this out as a responsible citizen “Doing this here is seen by the Germans as an indication that I must be an anti-Semite.” He said in an interview.
Zuckermann added: “Why did the adult education center back down, even though they originally wanted to do the event with me? Because they are “afraid of being labeled anti-Semitic. The best way to silence people in Germany today and put a muzzle on them and to say: You’re anti-Semitic. And then it’s up to you how you manipulate them into anti-Semitism.” Zuckermann claims he has always criticized BDS but maintains that Israel is an apartheid state in the territories that have been occupied in violation of international law for 50 years. “Although Israel controls both the West Bank and the heartland of Israel, there are two justice systems. One is the civil justice system in Israel, and the other is the military justice system in the West Bank. There you go, two justice systems. That’s what you call apartheid.” He said.
However, contrary to Zuckermann’s denial of supporting BDS, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), a group that defends and empowers advocates for Palestinian rights across Europe through legal means, published in 2020, an Expert Opinion by M. Zuckerman on the Right to Boycott, where Zuckermann stated: “I am emeritus professor at the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University, Israel. I have taught history and philosophy of the humanities, social sciences and cultural sciences, including German history of the humanities, at this institute. Among other things, I have published on German-Jewish history, on Zionism and antisemitism, and have lectured and written extensively on antisemitism and the public debate on Israel and its politics in Germany. Mr. Ahmed Abed asked me to prepare an expert opinion on a case he is currently representing against the City of Bonn. I would like to emphasize and explain three things with this expert opinion: (1) that the decision ‘There is no place in Bonn for the anti-Semitic BDS movement’ taken by the City of Bonn on 14.5.2019 incorrectly equates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism; (2) that BDS is a non-violent movement that protests against human rights violations in Israel/Palestine and has expressed its strong opposition to ‘all forms of racism, including antisemitism’; (3) that the application of the Decision has an adverse effect on the legitimate and urgent debate on violations of human rights and international law in Israel/Palestine, thus disregarding and undermining the right to freedom of expression as formulated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees ‘the reception and dissemination of information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers’.”
Never to miss an opportunity to publicize his views, Zuckermann published an article in the German media. He wrote, “Now I can boast of having been officially defined as anti-Semitic by the German government.”
Zuckermann should be aware that the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is based on the speech content alone. The ethnic background of the person, even if he is the son of Holocaust survivors, does not matter, and neither do other personal characteristics. The IHRA Definition is also clear that legitimate criticism of Israel is not a form of antisemitism. Unfortunately, Zuckermann is one of several Israeli scholars who use their taxpayer-supported academic position to harshly attack Israel. As IAM frequently reported, they are highly sought after by pro-Palestinian advocates.
IAM will report on Zuckermann in due course.
For the German government, even the Israeli sociologist Moshe Zuckermann “has anti-Semitic positions”
First the criticisms of the Israeli director, Yuval Abraham guilty of having denounced “apartheid” against the Palestinians during the Berlin Film Festival, now the accuse Of antisemitism (also by the German government) are revolts Israeli sociologist and professor emeritus of history and philosophy at Tel Aviv University, Moshe Zuckermann.
As he says the poster Zuckermann – signatory of the Jerusalem Declaration on anti-Semitism – was the subject of attacks by German-Israeli Society and the personal advisor of Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Anti-Semitism which the Israeli sociologist defined as “very controversial” and that his critical position towards the policies of the Tel Aviv government “should be considered anti-Semite according to the definition of anti-Semitism approved by the German government and defined by the IHRA”.
It all started from the invitation addressed to Moshe Zuckermann from Heilbronn Peace Council for a demonstration on the situation in Israel and Palestine organized with the local Popular University (Vhs), in the latter’s headquarters. The criticisms raised by German-Israeli Society (Dig) – who accuses Zuckermann of being a supporter of movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (Bds) to Israel – led to the moving of the meeting to another location and the withdrawal of the University’s participation in the event. For the DIG, in fact, the scholar’s support for the movement violates the 2019 Bundestag resolution which provides for the ban on financing with public funds initiatives that call for a boycott of Israel.
The university also requested information from the Ministry of the Interior. Hence came the statement from the personal advisor to the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish life in Germany and the fight against anti-Semitism who, defining Zuckermann as “controversial” and with positions that “should be defined ANTISEMITIC“, remember however that “there is no prohibition to invite such controversial people.” Councilor who also recalls that Zuckermann “claims that there is ‘apartheid’ in Israel” and that in 2022 he was invited to speak at an event of the BDS movement.
“Now I can boast of having been officially defined as anti-Semitic by the German government“, replied the Israeli sociologist. Moshe Zuckermann also recalled that what is under accusation are not his positions on Jews or Judaism but on Israel and that since he is a citizen of that State he has the right to take even contrary positions on his actions.
“Accusation of anti-Semitism has become a political weapon”, says Moshe Zuckermann after denunciation by German government commissioner
Due to an email from Felix Klein’s office, the adult education centre withdrew from a talk with the renowned Israeli professor Moshe Zuckermann. He therefore criticised German solidarity with Israel.
The persecution of Israeli intellectuals in Germany has gained another facet: The Heilbronn chapter of the German-Israeli Society (DIG) tried to prevent a lecture by the renowned author and academic Moshe Zuckermann in Heilbronn and was partially successful. An event on the conflict between Israel and Palestine originally planned together with the Adult Education Centre (VHS) for 12 March had to be held by the Peace Council alone at another location in Heilbronn.
Zuckermann publicised the incident in an article on the blog “Overton” at the weekend, writing: “I can now boast that I have been officially declared an anti-Semite by the German government.”
The reason for the relocation was an email from the office of German anti-Semitism commissioner Felix Klein to the VHS. Leonard Kaminski, chairman of the Israel-solidarity lobby organisation “Werteinitiative” until 2023 and now Klein’s personal advisor, denounced Zuckermann as “highly controversial due to his positions on Israel” and made false accusations. Zuckermann quotes the email in full in his article.
The message from the office of the anti-Semitism commissioner to the VHS was triggered by an allegation made in Heilbronn by the DIG, which also acts as a lobby organisation, that Zuckermann openly promotes the BDS boycott movement. Unsettled by this, the VHS sent a request for information to the Federal Ministry of the Interior and asked, among other things: “Are you aware of any statements by Z. that have demonstrably left the protected area of freedom of expression and turned into violations of legal interests?”
Until 2018, Zuckermann was Professor of Philosophy and History of Humanities and Social Sciences at Tel Aviv University, where he grew up as the son of Polish-Jewish Holocaust survivors. In his younger years, he described himself as a left-wing Zionist, but abandoned the ideology after the first Lebanon war. As the editor of many books on the Holocaust, the politics of remembrance and anti-Semitism, Zuckermann still intervenes in debates in Germany and Israel today.
In his writings, Zuckermann also criticises the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The email from Felix Klein’s office also contained a misrepresentation in this regard: It stated that the professor “also holds the view that apartheid against non-Jews prevails in Israel as a matter of principle”. However, he only uses the word for the West Bank, Zuckermann tells “nd”. In the heartland of Israel, too, hey says, the Palestinians have been second-class citizens since the state was founded in 1948.
The VHS received the response to the request for information from the Ministry of the Interior directly from Klein’s office. It also claims that Zuckermann spoke as a speaker at an event organised by the BDS boycott movement in 2022. However, BDS was not even discussed there, Zuckermann explained when asked by “nd”. He also considers the campaign to be fundamentally wrong, as it is not effective and therefore does not really serve the fight against the occupation.
“In Germany, the accusation of anti-Semitism has become a political weapon,” says Zuckermann about the claims. “The moment they risk being accused of anti-Semitism, people fall silent. This is what Felix Klein has been given the mandate for.”
Peter Ullrich, anti-Semitism researcher at the Technical University of Berlin, takes a similar view: “Criticism of anti-Semitism in Germany has gone off the rails, partly because it is almost only interested in criticism related to Israel. This certainly exists, but the accusation is used in a completely marginalised way. Felix Klein is an exponent of this,” says Ullrich to “nd”.
Zuckermann considers the philo-Semitism expressed by Klein & Co. to be anti-Semitic itself: “In purely scientific terms, anti-Semitism and philo-Semitism stem from the same resentment; in both cases, ‘the Jews’ are abstracted. Either they are demonised or they are all referred to as Einstein. Every German who is unreflectively in solidarity with Israel therefore also harbours a bit of anti-Semitism.”
Published in German in „nd“
(Google Translate)
On (not only) our own behalf
The DIG tried to thwart an event with me in Heilbronn. In doing so, I earned myself an official classification from the German federal government as an anti-Semite .
A few weeks ago I was invited by the Heilbronn Peace Council to an event that was to take place on Tuesday, March 12th. A lecture was planned followed by a discussion, which should include an explanation of the current situation in Israel/Palestine, an analysis of the history of the conflict and a discussion of future perspectives and possible solutions.
Originally, this event was planned to be jointly sponsored by the Heilbronn Adult Education Center (VHS) and the Heilbronn Peace Council and to be held in the VHS rooms. But then, shortly before the event date, it was announced that the Heilbronn Peace Council would be holding this event under its own sponsorship in the Heilbronn youth hostel, Paula-Fuchs-Allee 3. You can take part either in person or online.
What happened? The German-Israeli Society (DIG) Heilbronn criticized the event “towards third parties”. Among other things, it was explained that the speaker openly supported and promoted the BDS boycott movement. Furthermore, with the event, the VHS violated the Bundestag’s resolution of May 2019, which demanded that projects that call for a boycott of Israel or support the BDS movement should not be financially supported.
The VHS commented: “Unfortunately, the DIG never directly approached the VHS Heilbronn with its criticism. No evidence was provided to support the allegations made. The VHS researched the speaker in advance. No reliable findings in the sense of the allegations made emerged. However, since a final review was not possible in such a short time and a factual and objective exchange could not be expected, the VHS canceled the co-organizer as a precautionary measure. A legal review has been initiated.”
On March 7th, the VHS contacted the Ministry of the Interior and Homeland with the following request about me: “Do you or your office have reliable information that Z. belongs to the BDS movement or is actively promoting goals that persecuted the BDS movement? Are you aware of Z.’s statements that demonstrably leave the scope of protection of freedom of expression and turn into violations of legal interests? Background: The VHS Heilbronn planned a VA with Z. and is exposed to harsh criticism from the DIG. Our own research did not provide any reliable evidence in advance. A similar request is being made to the anti-Semitism commissioner in Baden-Württemberg.”
I don’t know what the inquiry to the Baden-Württemberg anti-Semitism commissioner revealed. On the other hand, the VHS, represented by Mr. Peter Hawighorst, received the following notice from Leonard B. Kaminski, Personal Advisor to the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Anti-Semitism (Dr. Felix Klein):
Dear Mr. Hawighorst,
Thank you very much for your inquiry to Commissioner Dr. Klein, on whose behalf I am answering you.
Moshe Zuckermann is indeed highly controversial because of his positions on Israel. Specifically, for example, he was invited as a speaker to an event organized by BDS in 2022. He also holds the view that there is fundamentally apartheid against non-Jews in Israel. This is a position that would have to be considered anti-Semitic according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which is endorsed by the federal government.
Now there is no ban on inviting such controversial people. At the same time, democratic exchange also means that such an invitation must be expected to receive correspondingly intense criticism.
Best regards
Leonard Kaminski
So I can now boast that I have been officially declared an anti-Semite by the German federal government. One could simply dismiss this – what does the German federal government, including its “anti-Semitism commissioner”, understand about anti-Semitism? But then the verdict is left hanging in the air: the German ruling institution has deemed the Jew Moshe Zuckermann to be an anti-Semite. Not that I can do anything about it, but I still think some things to clarify or clarify are appropriate. So here are some notes on the farce.
Fear of accusations of anti-Semitism or mandatory solidarity with Israel?
I don’t want to say a word about the DIG here. It is primarily (and has been for years) an offshoot of the Israeli Hasbara (propaganda), although it believes itself to be responsible “for promoting bilateral relations between Germany and Israel in the areas of civil society, culture and science”. I cannot remember her ever commenting competently on the internal conflicts and discourses in Israel, let alone on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, it is important to ask what serious reason the VHS saw for making the inquiry about me to the Ministry of the Interior. Just because the DIG didn’t like planning an event with me? Before the DIG got involved based on its interests (and entirely in the spirit of its propaganda function), the VHS had no problem with me as a speaker. Was anticipatory obedience at work? Or something that is much more symptomatic of the German sensitivities regarding the “bilateral relations between Germany and Israel”: pure fear of the accusation of anti-Semitism, which for a long time now hardly concerns real anti-Semitism in Germany, but rather, if at all, mandatory Israel solidarity, regardless of the question of what kind of Israel one is showing solidarity with.
So let’s go through the answer of the Federal Republic’s anti-Semitism commissioner (or his personal advisor) word for word.
[…] Thank you very much for your inquiry to Commissioner Dr. Klein, on whose behalf I am answering you.
Why the heartfelt thanks? It may be that it is a polite expression. But why does the office actually thank you for making a request within the office’s area of competence? It is reasonable to assume that the representative is grateful for having received confirmation of the rationale of his (ultimately unnecessary) office through the request. Because why is there no federal commissioner for xenophobia, Islamophobia or (comprehensively) racism? The German anti-Semitism neuralgia has to do with the catastrophic history of Germans and Jews in the 20th century (and can still be seen as comprehensible). But is anti-Semitism so acute in today’s Germany that a separate representative is needed to combat it? Or is there something else underlying it? More about that in a moment.
Judaism, Zionism and Israel are three different categories
Moshe Zuckermann is indeed highly controversial because of his positions on Israel .
Being controversial can be a credit to you. The question, however, is: controversial with whom? The answer to this is already contained indirectly in the sentence quoted: It is my positions on Israel , not on Jews or Judaism, that make me controversial among friends of Israel. Now I am an Israeli citizen and, like every responsible citizen, I have not only the right but also the civic duty to take a position towards the state in which I live. If necessary, this includes critical positions that may not be acceptable to the DIG or the anti-Semitism commissioner.
But what this has to do with anti-Semitism is incomprehensible. Because the Federal Commissioner and his personal advisor should finally understand that Judaism, Zionism and Israel are three different categories that can be linked together (for ideological reasons), but do not have to be ; Accordingly, it follows that anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel must be kept apart. Remember that not all Jews are Zionists, not all Zionists are Israelis, and not all Israelis are Jews. But those who use such polemical defamation (as Leonard Kaminski does) apparently do not even think that one can be anti-Zionist without anti-Semitism and critical of Israel without anti-Zionism; yes, that one can even be a supporter of Israel and Zionism, but at the same time be anti-Semitic. It becomes particularly bad when, in this context, non-Jews accuse Jews of anti-Semitism, and certain Jews have no other choice than to resort to the perfidiousness of accusing Jews critical of Israel (even Jewish Israelis) of “Jewish self-hatred.” By the way, this is a well-known tactic of the Israeli Hasbara.
Apartheid and definition of anti-Semitism
Specifically, for example, he was invited as a speaker to an event organized by BDS in 2022.
I attended a conference in 2022. BDS was not discussed in it, and in any case I did not speak on this topic at that conference. Guilty by association? Is Kaminski serious? Is that all he has to say? I am not thinking of providing “evidence” here that not only do I not support BDS, but I have also questioned its political effectiveness in writing. I definitely don’t want to honor Kaminski and his ideological foster father Klein. But if that is the level of research carried out by the Federal Commissioner’s personal advisor, then one can only answer: The content of the accusation against me is fictitious and a lie. Of course, I myself have been boycotting products from Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank for over forty years.
He also holds the view that there is fundamentally apartheid against non-Jews in Israel.
Incorrect! I am of the opinion that Israel is practicing apartheid in the occupied areas of the West Bank. Prove to me that this is not the case. Israel has two justice systems – one for citizens of the Israeli state and a system of military justice in the occupied territories. Apartheid! There are plenty of separate roads for Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank. Apartheid! This is particularly blatantly the case in Hebron (Sigmar Gabriel himself said this after a visit to the city, before he had to backtrack due to political pressure).
I could now make a long list of terrible apartheid measures against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. But why? Klein, Kaminski and the DIG know a priori that there is and cannot be apartheid in Israel/Palestine. And what that means “apartheid against non-Jews” will still have to be explained to me. However, it can be claimed that the Arabs living in Israel are disadvantaged and discriminated against as second-class citizens without being accused of anti-Semitism. But how should Klein and Kaminski, who work in Berlin, know that?
This is a position that would have to be considered anti-Semitic according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which is endorsed by the federal government.
How nice! The Israeli government could not have done the ideologically indoctrinated German solidarity with Israel a greater favor when it pushed for this paragraph to be included in the IHRA definition. I myself adhere to the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism (which I myself co-signed). This opposes the postulate of “Israel-related anti-Semitism”, the questionable conceptual, theoretical and historical basis of which I have already indicated above.
The federal government is entitled to commit itself to the IHRA definition, even though it inevitably gets caught up in contradictions. But under no circumstances should it presume to use this precarious definition as a weapon to combat anti-Semitism. Because not only does it not combat the real anti-Semitism in society, it also results in the outrageous nonsense that Klein & Kaminski formulated against me.
Now there is no ban on inviting such controversial people. At the same time, democratic exchange also means that such an invitation must be expected to receive correspondingly intense criticism.
How nice that there is no ban on “inviting such controversial people”. Truly, one can only be grateful in the face of such generosity. But if “such an invitation must also be expected to receive correspondingly intense criticism,” then the question arises, where exactly does the “intense criticism” end and the political harassment begin? Are room bans included? And can one also take this opportunity to claim that this is not a question of democratic exchange, but of political persecution?
It would be desirable for the “intensive criticism” to finally become aware of what has been going on in Israel in recent years, especially last year and currently. And it would be time for it to take a position on the barbarism of the Israeli occupation, which has been carried out by Israel for over half a century and which has violated international law. Because if DIG, Felix Klein and Leonard Kaminski is all that the much-vaunted German “reappraisal of the past” has achieved, then things are in extremely poor shape for them.
Expert Opinion by M. Zuckerman on the Right to Boycott
I am emeritus professor at the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University, Israel. I have taught history and philosophy of the humanities, social sciences and cultural sciences, including German history of the humanities, at this institute. Among other things, I have published on German-Jewish history, on Zionism and antisemitism, and have lectured and written extensively on antisemitism and the public debate on Israel and its politics in Germany.
Mr. Ahmed Abed asked me to prepare an expert opinion on a case he is currently representing against the City of Bonn. I would like to emphasize and explain three things with this expert opinion: (1) that the decision “There is no place in Bonn for the anti-Semitic BDS movement” taken by the City of Bonn on 14.5.2019 incorrectly equates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism; (2) that BDS is a non-violent movement that protests against human rights violations in Israel/Palestine and has expressed its strong opposition to “all forms of racism, including antisemitism”; (3) that the application of the Decision has an adverse effect on the legitimate and urgent debate on violations of human rights and international law in Israel/Palestine, thus disregarding and undermining the right to freedom of expression as formulated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees “the reception and dissemination of information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers”.”
Read the expert opinion [German]
israel-academia-monitor.com 