The Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Berlin announced Tuesday that the BDS movement has been classified as “unconstitutional.”
The head of the office, Michael Fischer, explained that the movement’s status in Berlin’s antisemitic and anti-Israel landscape has significantly strengthened over the past year.
Fischer clarified that BDS’s ideology is based on “explicit denial of Israel’s right to exist.” According to him, BDS activity goes beyond boycotting cultural events or Israeli economic products. “The goal is to make the existence of Israel impossible in the international context. It is aimed at its destruction,” Fischer stated.
Irrespective of everything else, the very beginning of the article is already wrong and sensationalist: The Verfassungschutz doesn’t outlaw stuff, they have no power to do so. What them classifying things means is that they have an easier time justifying covert information gathering, inserting moles etc.
They have no executive powers whatsoever, all they’re doing is collecting information and writing reports.
…also, the report doesn’t mention anything about “unconstitutional”. Here it is, 2024 one, page 30, BDS is listed under “Extremist organisations with near-east relation”.
Keep on pressuring. Anti genocide is not anti semitic. Remove the politicians who are pro genocide. Do not repeat 1940
there are anti-semetic people among the anti-genocide people, I don’t know enough about BDS in Germany to say but we should be careful to allow anti-semetic thinking (both from the islamic side as the neo-nazi side) to get a foot in de door through the anti-genocide protests. totally agree with you on everything you say though, don’t get me wrong.
You are right on that.
Just from the polemic style and tagesspiegel it was clear that it must have been from Sebastian Leber.
Am Alexanderplatz forderten sie mehrfach den Boykott israelischer Waren. Klingt für viele nach „Deutsche! Wehrt euch! Kauft nicht bei Juden!“
He equates Israel with all Jews, which has antisemitic connotations.
Sie wollten bloß die israelische Apartheid abschaffen.
Äh, Apartheid?
He thinks that calling Israel an Apartheid state would be antisemitic. That aged like milk.
Zu seinen Kernforderungen gehört, dass alle palästinensischen Flüchtlinge nach Israel zurückkehren dürfen, dazu deren Kinder, Enkel und Urenkel. Ein solches Rückkehrrecht wäre weltweit einmalig. Israels Juden wären fortan in der Minderheit. Ob dieser Staat dann noch Israel heißen könne, müsse die neue Mehrheit entscheiden, sagt Deeg. Als Europäer solle man sich da nicht einmischen.
He claims that a right of return for forcefully displaced people would be “globally unique”. In fact it is an “inalienable right” by the UN resolution 3236. Also he then says that this would put Jews into a minority in Israel. He then suggests that this would be an existential threat to Israel. However he does not bother to consider what this means about the kind of state Israel is.
Die führenden Köpfe sagen ganz offen, dass sie keine zwei Staaten, also Israel neben Palästina, dulden werden. Dass der Judenstaat verschwinden muss und es dann nur noch einen Staat Palästina gibt.
“The leading heads” he claims, without noting who exactly that is supposed to be. This is in stark contrast to all the people he names by full name in the article. Also calling Israel “Judenstaat” - “The state of the Jews” rings racist/antisemitic. A more neutral formulation would be “jüdischer Staat” - “Jewish state”.
Wenn die BDS-Mitglieder Israel einen „Apartheidstaat“ nennen, meinen sie nicht etwa Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Westjordanland. Sie glauben, dass der Staat auch die 20 Prozent seiner eigenen Bürger, die arabischstämmig sind, als Menschen zweiter Klasse behandle.
He claims that Palestinian Israelis would not be discriminated against in Israel, despite that being well reported.
I will provide an excerpt from Amnesty International
Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise about 19% of the population, face many forms of institutionalized discrimination. In 2018, discrimination against Palestinians was crystallized in a constitutional law which, for the first time, enshrined Israel exclusively as the “nation state of the Jewish people”. The law also promotes the building of Jewish settlements and downgrades Arabic’s status as an official language.
The report documents how Palestinians are effectively blocked from leasing on 80% of Israel’s state land, as a result of racist land seizures and a web of discriminatory laws on land allocation, planning and zoning.
The situation in the Negev/Naqab region of southern Israel is a prime example of how Israel’s planning and building policies intentionally exclude Palestinians. Since 1948 Israeli authorities have adopted various policies to “Judaize” the Negev/Naqab, including designating large areas as nature reserves or military firing zones, and setting targets for increasing the Jewish population. This has had devastating consequences for the tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins who live in the region.
Thirty-five Bedouin villages, home to about 68,000 people, are currently “unrecognized” by Israel, which means they are cut off from the national electricity and water supply and targeted for repeated demolitions. As the villages have no official status, their residents also face restrictions on political participation and are excluded from the healthcare and education systems. These conditions have coerced many into leaving their homes and villages, in what amounts to forcible transfer.
Leber wents on to equate these people with terrorists by claiming:
In den allermeisten Gesetzen werden Religion oder Ethnie gar nicht erwähnt, sie gelten für jeden Staatsbürger gleichermaßen. Zum Beispiel die Sicherheitsgesetze, die Terroranschläge verhindern sollen. Israelgegner argumentieren nun, solche Anschläge würden statistisch gesehen häufiger von Nichtjuden als von Juden verübt - deshalb seien Maßnahmen dagegen rassistisch.
“Most laws dont mention religion or ethnicity, they apply to everyone equally. For example security laws to prevent terror attacks. Enemies of Israel argue these would be committed more often by non Jews than Jews, which is why the measure would be racist.”
Again he provides no information who those “enemies of Israel” are supposed to be that made these claims according to Leber.
So assuming what Leber quotes in individuals to be true, there would be some things to legitimately criticise. However Leber is known to polemizise and violate journalistic standards, including disrespecting his source. He claimed a different Berlin newspaper had altered an interview with Roger Waters to make him look better. In the process he leaked confidential communications. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/roger-waters-so-verzerrt-der-tagesspiegel-die-wahrheit-li.2200289
Otherwise he is busy bringing hot takes on social media to generate outrage. He is presented as an expert on the left, antisemitism and Israel. His “non fiction books” as an author are books like “33 Men report from heart-wreaking rebuffs, embarassing losses and reciprocated feelings”, “Partying for advanced learners” and “Ernie vs. Bert and 99 other duels.”
Leber is a clown, who realized that with polemics around Israel/Palestine he can get attention while enjoying the backing of the political mainstream. His “journalism” remains lackluster and anything he writes needs to be taken not with a big grain of salt, but with a bag of salt.
In that case it’s a no no. But at the same time, Germany has been going after people who are just pro Palestine.
For all those english speaking people here: The “Office for the protection of the constitution in Berlin” is the Landesverfassungsschutz Berlin. First of all: Nothing is really happening here, BDS is not banned. The Verfassungsschutz (as problematic as he is) is just reporting on groups who have anticonstitutional goals.
You can download the report here:
https://www.berlin.de/sen/inneres/verfassungsschutz/publikationen/verfassungsschutzberichte/
This is the part on BDS:
Translation:
The aim of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) campaign is to “end the occupation” of “all Arab lands” by Israel “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands”)40, i.e. ultimately the abolition of the Israeli state. The binding ideological leitmotif of the network behind the BDS campaign is thus the negation of Israel’s right to exist. The instrument of the comprehensive boycott aims to inflict considerable damage on the state and the population that is equated with it. For one of the conceptual masterminds of the BDS campaign, the duo-listic contrast between the Israeli “oppressive regime” on the one hand and “almost the entire Palestinian population” on the other is at the heart of the Middle East conflict, whereby Israel is unilaterally assigned the role of being solely responsible for the conflict.41 At its core, the BDS campaign aims to demonize and delegitimize Israel. Hostility towards Israel is a key element of the Berlin BDS network. Its supporters and supporters reject Israel’s right to exist. On the internet, for example, some of them called for an “intifada” or the “annihilation of the Zionists” .42 For years, they have been involved in individual boycott campaigns, such as against , a sporting goods manufacturer accused of collaborating with of the Israeli soccer league.43 Finally, Berlin BDS supporters justified and/or glorified the terrorist attack by HAMAS on October 7, 2023.44 In official statements, the attack was described as a “liberation struggle against settler colonialism” or welcomed as an escape from the “open-air prison” Gaza.45 They were also an integral part of the anti-Israel scene, which was responsible for a large number of anti-Israel events. They initiated and organized these events in alliances with left-wing extremist and Islamist groups, such as the VPNK. Signs with stereotypical anti-Jewish imagery were repeatedly displayed at these events. Speakers from the BDS campaign denied the brutal dimension of the terror of 7 October 2023. At a demonstration on 2 March under the slogan “Solidarity with Palestine” , a BDS speaker also openly explained that the slogan “From the river to the sea […]” undoubtedly meant the ‘abolition’ of the “colonial project” of Israel.
In the following, I use the Jerusalem definition of Antisemitism: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).”
The aim of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) campaign is to “end the occupation” of “all Arab lands” by Israel “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands”) 40, i.e. ultimately the abolition of the Israeli state.
A good faith and strictly textual reading of these aims could just be understood to mean the occupation of the 1967 territories, a perfectly legitimate political goal. The ultimate abolition of the Israeli state is a bad faith interpretation. But also, even if it were an actual political goal, it’s not antisemitic. In a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives, with full and equal rights with citizens of other religions, just like they do in many Western countries and like other ethnic groups (e.g. the Québécois, the Waloons, or the Catalonians) do in other countries. If the authors of this text cannot imagine this to be feasible, that is just a failure of their own moral ambition, and potentially also an internalized bias and racism against Arabs and Muslims, imagining them incapable of being co-equal citizens of democratic liberal republics.
The binding ideological leitmotif of the network behind the BDS campaign is thus the negation of Israel’s right to exist.
States don’t have the right to exist. Greece, Germany, Canada, the Soviet Union, or the Byzantine Empire don’t have the right to exist. The people living in states have the right to live and the right to self-determination, and so obviously do Israeli and Jewish people. But states are social constructs that don’t have inalienable rights. See above how the goal of a bi- or pluri-national democratic liberal successor state can guarantee these rights to all people, including of course to Jews and Israelis.
The instrument of the comprehensive boycott aims to inflict considerable damage on the state and the population that is equated with it.
It’s a non-violent and non-coercive campaign. It tries to convince people to apply economic pressure. It does not compel anyone to do anything. Boycotts are legitimate non-violent pressure tactics. In this particular case, the BDS campaign has been specifically a call from Palestinian Civil Society, as a way for people to peacefully apply pressure to Israel to end their oppression. It’s not antisemitic, because it does not target Jews as such, it targets Israeli institutions and corporations to try to influence their behaviour, a perfectly legitimate political objective. It also does not single out Israel, since it is specifically a project initiated by a population that Israel oppresses. It would be absurd to claim that Tibetan calls to apply pressure to China «single out China». It’s specifically the issue that affects them.
For one of the conceptual masterminds of the BDS campaign, the duo-listic contrast between the Israeli “oppressive regime” on the one hand and “almost the entire Palestinian population” on the other is at the heart of the Middle East conflict, whereby Israel is unilaterally assigned the role of being solely responsible for the conflict.41
The language of “conceptual masterminds” reveals extreme bias. Multiple reputable human rights organizations have documented the oppressive regime inflicted on the occupied Palestinian population. Pointing this out is not antisemitic. Furthermore, assigning the sole responsibility for the conflict to Israel is not in itself antisemitic. It is a political assessment about the actions of a polity that has nothing to do with the Jewish character of the polity.
At its core, the BDS campaign aims to demonize and delegitimize Israel. Hostility towards Israel is a key element of the Berlin BDS network.
That again is an extremely bad faith interpretation of the campaign’s intents and is by no means an objective assessment. Hostility towards Israel is not antisemitic, in this context because it is not driven by its Jewish character but by its actions and its impact on the lives of the oppressed people that this campaign is seeking to give voice to. A good faith interpretation of the group’s aim would be that if Israel were to cease its oppressive policies and adopt a policy of Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations towards the Palestinians, the hostility would gradually disappear.
Its supporters and supporters reject Israel’s right to exist.
See my previous point.
On the internet, for example, some of them called for an “intifada” or the “annihilation of the Zionists” .42
An intifada is a violent resistance movement. According to international law, that Germany ostensibly accepts, Palestinians as an occupied people have the right to armed resistance against occupation, within the confines of international law. And of course, antisemitism has nothing to do with violent resistance against occupation. The “annihilation of the Zionists” line is of course problematic. But it is given out of context, and as seen above, this institution seems to be taking the worst bad faith interpretations of the positions of the group. I therefore reserve final judgement, as some contexts might make this line more specific (such as for example if by “Zionists” they mean active duty soldiers, engaged in battle). That said, I would also caution that mean things that some people with questionable links to the organization say online is not serious grounds for condemning an entire organization.
For years, they have been involved in individual boycott campaigns, such as against , a sporting goods manufacturer accused of collaborating with of the Israeli soccer league.
This follows from their mandate. This is a non-violent pressure tactic aimed at changing behaviour, not at violence. See also previous comments.
Finally, Berlin BDS supporters justified and/or glorified the terrorist attack by HAMAS on October 7, 2023.44 In official statements, the attack was described as a “liberation struggle against settler colonialism” or welcomed as an escape from the “open-air prison” Gaza.45
Let us unpack this. Calling Israeli domination settler colonialism is not antisemitism. Calling Gaza an open air prison is not antisemitism. Calling something a “liberation struggle” in and of itself is not necessarily justification or glorification, if read in good faith it can be just an accurate description of an event. The October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas involved hideous atrocities and crimes against innocent people. Two things can be true: those are hideous crimes against humanity that should be persecuted to the fullest extent under international law AND they are a (very very dark, criminal, and disgusting) page in a long struggle for liberation. Such contradictions are not unknown to history. Nat Turner’s Rebellion was part of the wider anti-slavery liberation struggle, even if it involved hideous atrocities and crimes. The fall of Tripolitsa involved hideous crimes by the Greeks against the Ottoman civilian population, and was at the same time part of the Greek liberation struggle. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hideous crimes against humanity, and at the same time part of the global antifascist struggle. Identifying this deplorable acts as parts of a larger liberation struggle does not take away anything from their absolute horror.
But, regardless, it is intellectually dishonest to characterize the (hideous) October 7th attack specifically as “antisemitic”. The criminal perpetrators were not motivated by hatred of jews as being jews, but by hatred of Israelis as being occupiers. I.e., not hatred for what they are but what they do. Obviously it was blind hatred directed at innocent people who didn’t “do” anything of course, and as I’ve mentioned multiple times a hideous crimes against humanity. But it is good to be careful about what we call antisemitic.
They were also an integral part of the anti-Israel scene, which was responsible for a large number of anti-Israel events.
Being anti-Israel is not being antisemitic in itself, especially since this is a group motivated by opposition to Israeli policy, employing a non-violent, non-coercive tactic to change Israeli policy.
They initiated and organized these events in alliances with left-wing extremist and Islamist groups, such as the VPNK.
I don’t know what the VPNK is, and search does not bring anything up. Still, left-wing and islamist is not the same as antisemitic.
Signs with stereotypical anti-Jewish imagery were repeatedly displayed at these events.
That is of course deplorable. Given however the bad faith misinterpratations I have seen in the rest of the text, I would like to see specifically what they are talking about. Greta Thunberg was accused of promoting antisemitic imagery for example, and it was ridiculous.
Speakers from the BDS campaign denied the brutal dimension of the terror of 7 October 2023.
That is of course deplorable. But callousness itself is not antisemitic.
At a demonstration on 2 March under the slogan “Solidarity with Palestine” , a BDS speaker also openly explained that the slogan “From the river to the sea […]” undoubtedly meant the ‘abolition’ of the “colonial project” of Israel.___
As explained above, this is not an antisemitic political goal, to the degree that what is envisioned is a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, and where Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives.
I don’t know what the VPNK is, and search does not bring anything up. Still, left-wing and islamist is not the same as antisemitic.
It’s in the report, “Vereinigtes Palästinensisches Nationalkomitee”, “United Palestinian National Committee” it’s a joint org of Hamas and PFLP in Berlin. A union of Islamists and Tankies, how charming.
In a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives, with full and equal rights with citizens of other religions, just like they do in many Western countries and like other ethnic groups
Zionists reject this on its face and claim a pluralist society of Arabs, Christians, Persians, Africans, and Jews living together would constitute a defacto genocide of “pure” Jewish culture and heritage.
That’s the nut of the conflict. When you have a population that has bought into the lie that it’s “We have to genocide them before they can genocide us”, you don’t have any diplomatic room for a pluralist society.
We’re seeing the same shit happening in South Africa, what with Trump pumping up the hysteria around anti-white racism. These are ethnic nationalists. They refuse to believe that an egalitarian society can peacefully exist. Ethnic cohorts must be at conflict with one another, and we will either see this expressed through neighboring homogeneous states at war or as egalitarian states plagued by crime and civil strife.
So we’ve got a US government that is attempting to purge itself of “illegal” non-white residents. We’ve got a South African state that Trump is demanding self-segregate in order to appease ethnic-European landlords. And we’ve got an Israeli state that is trying to wipe Arabs off their corner of the map.
As melchior has posted below: BDS Berlin is actually arguing that shouting “I hate Jews” and “Jews are shit” is not antisemitic. BDS Berlin supporters attacked politicians. Stolpersteine (monuments for holocaust victims) were graffitied with “BDS”. They’ve attacked critics violently. So whatever you are writing or whatever you think about BDS worldwide, those guys and girls from BDS Berlin are violent antisemitic idiots. People like them are fueling the hate in the middle east and not aiming for peace
With the only one quoting this from personal interviews being Sebastian Leber who is known to polemizise and violate journalistic standards. Also in the same article he brushes away any critic on Israel, including the critic of Apartheid. He does not make any remarks as to which role the quoted person would play in the organization.
Hey Saleh,
if multiple organizations and newspapers are saying that some organization is problematic, it might simply be true. It doesn’t help to attack the credibility of journalists if they are writing things you do not want to accept.
So let’s take this 148 page report about BDS antisemitism with lots of examples for violence on BDS protests and let’s see how you want to discredit the authors:
https://report-antisemitism.de/documents/2024-03-14_Antisemitismus-bei-BDS.pdf
(and my whole point is: Palestine has too many false friends. With antisemitic fuckwits on their side, they won’t win. There won’t be peace. Hamas sympathizers on the streets will kill public support. All those brainrot antisemitic accounts coming here on every Israel post will not lead to a peaceful middle east, it will lead to the opposite. Even murdering every Jew in Israel and founding a Palestine from river to the sea will not lead to a peaceful middle east. The solution is not supporting groups like those here)
Sebastian Leber is not a credible source as pointed out. Pointing out the credibility of a source is relevant and providing better sources is necessary. For journalists and historians critique of sources is one of the key aspects of their work. In that sense your argument of rebuking false friends should equally be applied to Leber as he is discrediting the fight against antisemitism.
Employing that source critique should also apply to RIAS, who published your source. RIAS says on their website that they work closely with the “Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland”, which morphed over the past decades to become radically pro Israel. Among other things it published an “opinion peace” in its “Jüdische Allgemeine” paper which claimed “The civillians in Gaza aren’t innocent” and justified the murder of civilians. It backtracked and published a reaction by a Jewish German journalist who asked how they could come to “elevate this inhumane (menschenverachtend) polemic into the paper”.
RIAS uses the IHRA Definition and considers calling Israel an Apartheid state as antisemitic, as it would delegitimize Israel. The ICJ is therefore antisemitic as it concluded that Israel is violating the prohibition of Apartheid or Racial seggregation.
https://report-antisemitism.de/documents/25-06-24_RIAS_Bund_Jahresbericht_2023.pdf
P 17:
Beispielsweise fand Anfang April in Flensburg eine Versammlung anlässlich des sogenannten Tag des Bodens10 statt. Dort sprach ein Redner von 75 Jahren Apartheid in Israel – einer Israel delegitimierenden und damit antisemitischen Aussage.
P 18:
Im Vergleich zum Vorjahr gab es auch deutlich mehr Vorfälle an öffentlichen Gebäuden. Dies erklärt sich zum Teil durch Israelflaggen, die nach dem 7. Oktober an vielen Rathäusern gehisst wurden und anschließend gestohlen oder beschädigt wurden.
While Israel is mass murdering civilians damaging Israeli flags that are presented at German public buildings is considered “antisemitic” by the RIAS.
Just a few paragraphs earlier:
Eine Gruppe von 23 Personen, durch ihre Kippot als jüdisch erkennbar, lief durch einen Park, als zwei Männer ihnen von einer Parkbank aus mehrmals „Free Falastin [Palästina]“ hinterherriefen. Dadurch setzten sie die jüdischen Betroffenen mit dem Staat Israel gleich und machten sie für dessen Handlungen verantwortlich
So RIAS acknowledges that conflating Judaism and Israel is antisemitic, but at the same time does not employ this standards to themselves.
P31
Unter den antisemitischen Vorfällen, die eindeutig einem politischen Hintergrund zugeordnet werden konnten, war der antiisraelische Aktivismus 2023 erstmals die häufigste Kategorie. Dazu rechnet RIAS Vorfälle, bei denen die israelfeindliche Motivation eindeutig gegenüber einem anderen politischen Hintergrund über- wiegt – etwa einem links-antiimperialistischen oder einem islamisch-islamistischen. Dazu zählen beispielsweise säkulare palästinensische Gruppen sowie Unter- stützer_innen antisemitischer Boykottkampagnen gegen den jüdischen Staat Israel. 2023 ordnete RIAS insgesamt 595 antisemitische Vorfälle oder 12 % aller Vorfälle dem politischen Hintergrund des antiisraelischen Aktivismus zu. 2022 waren es nur 6 % aller Vorfälle.
Here the circle closes. By considering boycott calls towards Israel as antisemitic a large swath of people and demonstrations can be deligitmized as antisemitic. Again this logic includes the ICJ who made it clear that any economic activity that helps facilitate the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel must be stopped.
Auf der Bühne war auf einem Transparent unter anderem zu lesen „75 Jahre Israel = 75 Jahre Apartheid, Kolonialismus und Vertrei- bung der Palästinenser“. Ein_e Redner_in sprach davon, dass Israel kein Existenz- recht habe und dass es auf einem Genozid, der Nakba, aufgebaut sei.
Again, calling out the Nakba as ethnic cleansing or genocidal and the seizure of territory by force as colonialism is apparently antisemitic to RIAS.
P 38
Den 7. Oktober als Gelegenheitsstruktur19 kennzeichnet, dass die Terrorangriffe und Massaker an sich ein Ereignis extremer Gewalt mit genozidalem Charakter sind und sich dies in der Folge qualitativ und quantitativ auf antisemitische Vorfälle in Deutschland auswirkte.
The 07. October 2023 is considered an “even of extreme violence with genocidal Character” by RIAS. In the same report that is saying that calling Israel an Apartheid state or genocidal is antisemitic.
P 42
Mitunter beförderte die mediale Berichterstattung über das Kriegs- geschehen die Mobilisierung. Das geschah auch durch die Verbreitung von Falsch- informationen: So konnte RIAS einen sprunghaften Anstieg von antisemitischen Versammlungen feststellen, nachdem am 17. Oktober auch öffentlich-rechtliche Medien ungeprüft eine Darstellung der Hamas verbreitet hatten. Sie behauptete, dass eine israelische Rakete das Al-Ahli-Krankenhaus in Gaza-Stadt getroffen und 500 Menschen getötet habe.
RIAS accuses German public broadcasters as “distributing fake-information”. It further claims Hamas would have spread fake-information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion
Journalist David Zweig reported that widely reported claims in Western media that a Ministry of Health spokesperson claimed 500 had been killed appear to have originated from a mistranslation of an Al-Jazeera Arabic tweet, which correctly translated claimed over 500 total victims or casualties, not 500 or anywhere near 500 killed.[8][9]
As for the discussion about the origin of the attack, for which after a lot of back and forth an Israeli fragmentation bomb is identified as the likely source, RIAS just cuts this short, assuming the attribution to Israel to be “fake-information”.
P 44
Mit Beginn der militärischen Reaktion Israels wurde vermehrt der Vorwurf verbreitet, Israel begehe einen Genozid an den Palästinenser_innen. RIAS erfasst diesen Vorwurf nicht per se als antisemitischen Vorfall, sondern nur, wenn er in einem bestimmten Kontext erfolgt. Dieser ergibt sich beispielsweise durch eine Relativierung der Schoa oder eine Gleichsetzung des israelischen Vorgehens mit dem Nationalsozialismus, etwa in der Parole „One genocide does not justify another one“.
So RIAS claims to not consider calling out genocide as antisemitic per se, despite giving examples where they do not explain why it would be antisemitic in this context. In the particular example given now "One genocide does not justify another one“ is considered as equating the it with the Holocaust. This is frankly absurd. Especially since the attacks of October 7, but also before Israel is constantly referring to the Holocaust as a key justification for its attacks and oppression against Palestinians and many more people in neighboring countries.
Auch die Parole „Kindermörder Israel“, die an die antijudaistische Ritualmord- legende anschließt und den Staat Israel delegitimiert,
Calling Israel a murderer of children is considered antisemitic by RIAS. The UN just reported that in the next days 14,000 Babies in Gaza will be killed by starvation unless the blockade is lifted. Even the Israeli opposition is now crying out the “murder of babies as a hobby.”
Now to get to the BDS report of RIAS:
P 4 preamble
Ein Akt genozidaler Gewalt. Die von den Hamas-Terroristen mit GoPro-Kameras aufgezeichneten und mitunter über die Mobiltelefone ihrer Opfer verbreiteten Gräueltaten zielten darauf ab, Jüdinnen_Juden weltweit in Angst und Schrecken zu versetzen.
“An act of genocidal violence … the distributed videos of heinous acts aim at instilling fear in Jews worldwide”
This decontextualizes the attacks and motivations of Hamas, who employ acts of terror but whose actions are targeted at achieving their political goals in regards to Israel/Palestine. Hamas is often likened to Al-Quaida or ISIS, i.e. by Netanyahu, to create an idea of it being a threat to western countries.
Während die Hamas-Terroristen in den Kibbuzim im Süden Israels morden, veröffentlicht der Twitter-Kanal der weltweiten BDS-Kampagne: „Escalate all BDS campaigns now!“ Schon am 8. Oktober werden die Massaker der Hamas von der deutschen BDS-Kampagne als „schlagkräftiger bewaffneter Aufstand“ bezeichnet und es werden konkrete Boykott-Maßnahmen empfohlen, So soll sich für die Schaffung „Apartheid-freie[r] Zone[n]“ und für die Beendigung aller „Beziehungen mit Apartheid Israel und den Unternehmen, die an seinem Unterdrückungssystem beteiligt sind“ eingesetzt werden.1
P 49 that is linkes as source:
Noch am Tag des 7. Oktober 2023, als die Kämpfe mit den Terroristen der Hamas im Süden Israels noch andauerten, veröffentlichte das BNC ein Statement zu den Massakern.120 Am selben Tag lieferte die zentrale Kampagnenwebseite in Deutsch- land eine eigene Übersetzung dieses Statements.
From the source linked in the report:
Die BDS-Bewegung verurteilt die Regierungen des kolonialen Westens aufs Schärfste dafür, dass sie sich wieder einmal heuchlerisch auf die Seite von Apartheid Israel stellen und dessen irreführende Chronologie der aktuellen Gewalt“ übernehmen, als ob alles heute Morgen mit dem schlagkräftigen bewaffneten Aufstand der unterdrückten Palästinenser*innen in Gaza begonnen hätte. Diese verzerrte Chronologie soll den Beginn und die Eskalation der jahrzehntelangen kolonialen Gewalt des Unterdrückers verschleiern.
RIAS ignores the context that in the morning of the 07. October it was only known that the border wall and army stations have been overrun, which is covered by the right of people to resist their occupation and needs to be differentiated from terrorist attacks on civilians, for which evidence emerged during the day. Also note RIAS mixing 07. and 08. October. This can happen as a tipo but should not, as the chronology is crucial here to see what is legitimate and what is terror sympathy.
EDIT: i realized this will get way too long. I will see if i will make the analysis in a seperate form and link the article for interested readers.
P 12
Frage, ob die BDS-Kampagne antisemitisch sei, eindeutig mit ja.20 Laut den Autoren ließe sich das mit gängigen Definitionen von israelbezogenem Antisemitismus begründen, aber auch dadurch, dass die Boykottkampagne ein „fundamentaler Angriff“ auf „eines der wichtigsten Symbole zeitgenössischen jüdischen Lebens“ sei – nämlich auf den Staat Israel.
Here the RIAS is employing the IHRA definition as the “go to definition”. They earlier mentioned the existence of the JDA but didn’t consider that by the JDA definition this book might fall apart. Again Israel is considered to be “one of the most important Symbols of current jewish Life” which is blurring the lines between Judaism and Israel and excludes antizionist Jews.
P 13 for the state of the German academic debate
Zudem haben zahlreiche zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen die Frage des Anti- semitismus im BDS-Netzwerk untersucht.30 Im Gegensatz dazu sind Untersuchungen, die keine oder nur wenige Hinweise für Antisemitismus in den Argumentationen und Methoden der BDS-Kampagne feststellen können, in deutschsprachigen aka- demischen Veröffentlichungen eher selten zu finden.31 Im Ergebnis ist die Position, die BDS-Kampagne sei vielleicht zu kritisieren, aber nicht per se antisemitisch, aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht vor allem eine Behauptung, aber nicht durch aktuelle Antisemitismusforschung unterfüttert.
RIAS is focusing solely on the German academic debate and marking it as indicative of the global academic debate as a whole.
The sources they quote:
24 Julia Bernstein: Israelbezogener Antisemitismus. Erkennen – Handeln – Vorbeugen. Weinheim 2021, S. 51ff.
Das lässt schon ersichtlich werden: Die „Israelkritik“ ist der zeitgemäße Ausdruck des Antisemitismus, mit ihr wird heutzutage die Judenfeindschaft legitimiert
Um zentrale Fehlannahmen und Mythen über Israel als Akteur im Nahost- konflikt zu entkräften, wird deshalb rekonstruiert, dass es sich um einen Israel aufgezwungenen Konflikt handelt, der seinen Ursprung an der Absicht, Israel zu zerstören hat, und dessen Entwicklung eben vom Antisemitismus bestimmt worden ist.
So by this academics idea Israel is the victim, not the perpetrator of violence in the Middle East. With the genocidal statements we have heard en masse since October 7, but also before from Israeli politics this discredits this source in my eyes.
31 Diese Position findet sich etwa bei Muriel Asseburg: Die deutsche Kontroverse um die BDS-Bewegung. In: Wolfgang Benz (Hrsg.): Streitfall Antisemitismus. Anspruch auf Deutungsmacht und politische Interessen. Berlin 2020; Tsafrir Cohen/Katja Hermann /Florian Weis: Die Kampagne „Boykott, Des- investitionen und Sanktionen“. Hintergründe, Ziele und Methoden. https://www.rosalux.de/ fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Artikel/15-21_Onl-Publ_Die_Kampagne.pdf (09.03.2023).
I’d like to positively point out for RIAS that they mentioned Asseburg. In an Interview a few month before October 7 2023 she stated that the current state of oppression is unsustainable and will lead to an escalation of violence.
P14
Es gibt durchaus wissen- schaftliche Argumente, die gegen eine pauschale Bewertung der BDS-Kam- pagne als antisemitisch vorgebracht werden. Diese sollen in den folgenden Kapiteln dargestellt werden. Dennoch ist der zuweilen kolportierte Eindruck falsch, dass eine „differenziertere Betrachtungsweise“ bezüglich der Frage von Antisemitismus im BDS-Netzwerk zu einer äquidistanten Position zwischen BDS-Befürworter_innen und Kritiker_innen führe.35 Die vorliegende Publikation zeigt vielmehr: Wer sich differenziert mit der Geschichte, den Akteur_innen, den Forderungen und den Hand lungen der BDS-Kampagne auseinandersetzt und dabei auch die Perspektiven von Jüdinnen_Juden berücksichtigt, kommt eher zu dem Schluss, „die Methoden und Argumentationsmuster“ von BDS durchaus als antisemitisch anzusehen.
This is the key thesis of RIAS in the publication.
“There is indeed scientific arguments against a general evaluation of BDS as antisemitic… However the impression would be wrong that a “differentiating approach” towards antisemitism in the BDS network would lead to an equal distance between BDS approvers and critics. This publication will show that those who look with differentiation at the history, actors, demands and acts of BDS and includes Jewish perspectives will gravitate to the conclusion that the methods and argumentations of BDS are indeed to be seen as antisemitic.”
We need to dissect this. By looking at the campaign as a whole the conclusion of RIAS is that the methods and argumentations of BDS are indeed antisemitic. So not the methods and argumentations are evidence of the antisemitism of the campain being antisemitic, but rather the campaign by antisemitic is evidence of the antisemitism of the methods and argumentations.
The question is which methods and argumentations exactly RIAS considers to be proven antisemitic by their publication. Does it extent to boycotts as a whole or is it more specific?
For this i’d like to point towards the ICJ rulings again, who demand to end all economic activities (and other activities) that help Israel facilitate its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Further we need to remember that the ICJ rules Israel in violation of the prohibition of Apartheid and racial segregation. This creates an upper ceiling of how far RIAS can go without discrediting itself. If RIAS goes beyond that, they position themselves against international law as it is interpreted by the ICJ who is the recognized authority for doing that.
Lets dive in:
P 17
Erstens ist es wichtig, bei der Debatte über Antisemitismus im Zusammenhang mit der BDS-Kampagne auch tatsächlich und konkret über das BDS-Netzwerk und seine Kampagne zu sprechen. Das BDS-Netzwerk ist keine beliebige Boykott- kampagne gegen Israel. Es handelt sich vielmehr um spezifische Akteur_innen, die mit der Bezugnahme auf BDS konkrete Forderungen und Statements formulieren und auf vielfältige Weise zur Tat schreiten. Was im Folgenden über die BDS-Kam- pagne gesagt wird, muss nicht zwangsläufig für andere Boykottkampagnen gelten – diese können womöglich andere Ziele, Methoden oder Argumentationen verfolgen und verwenden
This alludes to the question raised above. RIAS acknowledges that boycott is not automatically equal to the BDS campaign. We will see how this plays out in the further parts of the publication.
Zweitens ist das BDS-Netzwerk ein globales Phänomen. Für die Debatte in Deutsch- land sollte vor allem das Agieren der BDS-Kampagne in Deutschland und Europa relevant sein. Dennoch sind Äußerungen und Forderungen von Akteur_innen in den besetzten palästinensischen Gebieten und im Gazastreifen für diese Debatte relevant, vor allem, weil sie in Deutschland und Europa aufgegriffen werden und sich BDS-Aktivist_innen affirmativ auf sie beziehen. In der Debatte um Antisemi- tismus und die BDS-Kampagne sollte der Fokus aber stets beim Antisemitismus in Deutschland und Europa liegen und nicht bei unterschiedlichen Positionen zum arabisch-israelischen Konflikt.
RIAS acknowledges BDS to be a global phenomenon. It says that the debate in Germany should be focused on Germany and Europe, while taking statements from Palestinians into account. They then limit again that the question of Antisemitism in the BDS campaign should be focused on Germany and Europe and not look at “different positions on the “arab-israeli” conflict.” Note that they refer to “occupied Palestinian territories and the Gaza strip”. This is in contradiction to the ICJ ruling that Gaza is also occupied by Israel by exerting the control over all land, sea and air borders of Gaza even before the ground invasion since October 2023.
Es lässt sich in der Regel schwer sagen, ob eine Person sich unbedacht und ohne entsprechende Intentionen antisemitisch äußert oder ob sie über ein geschlossenes antisemitisches Weltbild verfügt und dieses bewusst verbreitet. Gegenstand der Auseinandersetzungen sollte eine inter- subjektiv nachvollziehbare Bewertung von Äußerungen und Handlungen sein. Diese ermöglicht eine Beurteilung des BDS-Netzwerks und seiner Kampagne.
RIAS acknowledges the difficulty of concluding from an individual to a group and therefore needs to see a consistency between statements and actions and the build this into a larger context.
P 19 - P 22
RIAS draws on the history of the term “apartheid state” and boycott demands. RIAS suggests that these are antisemitic by giving examples of these preceeding the 1967 war and subsequent occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Westbank. However the Nakba and the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is not mentioned as a source of calling Israel an “apartheid state” or accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”
P 23
Dennoch ist es wichtig zu betonen, dass es sich hierbei um eine Assoziation handelt und nicht um eine Gleichsetzung der BDS-Bewegung mit dem NS-Boykott. Eine solche Assoziation ist aus den genannten Gründen durchaus nachvollziehbar – erst recht für Betroffene von aktuellem Antisemitismus oder für Überlebende der Schoa und deren Nachkommen. Zugleich ist zu beachten, dass es auch völlig losge- löst vom Nationalsozialismus eine Geschichte politischer Boykotte als Protestform gibt. […]
RIAS acknowledges that equating the NS-boycotts against Jews and BDS-boycotts is wrong, despite a lack of sensibility of the boycott movement according to RIAS. This brings us back to Leber, who makes this equation in his polemic.
Shouting “I hate Jews” and “Jews are shit” is antisemitic by definition. The other behaviours you’re describing are also deplorable.
Note however, what I am debating here is not their actions as such. I am attacking the rationale presented by the «Office for the protection of the constitution in Berlin» in its condemnation of the group.
Those guys and girls might be antisemitic idiots, but they are private individuals. On the other hand, the «Office» is a public institution and the rationale it employs is such that even if those guys and girls had conducted themselves extremely carefully, correctly and politely, the «Office» could have still used the same rationale to condemn them.
This state institution is outlining a rationale for proscribing any protest group that would share the political goals of those guys and girls, even if it might completely eschew their tactics.
This rationale makes impossible a future, non-extremist BDS group from pursuing a BDS campaign as such.
And, to quote Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” In its rationale, the «Office» is revealing itself to hold a deep and rabid anti-Palestinian bias, that is profoundly unacceptable for a liberal European democracy.
According to the Jerusalem Post:
The intelligence document cited examples of BDS that were widely condemned as antisemitic by German politicians and experts in the field of antisemitism. One of the outbreaks of BDS-animated antisemitism outlined was the storming of an Israel event at Humboldt University. At least three highly aggressive pro-BDS activists lashed out at Israeli survivor of the Holocaust Deborah Weinstein and MK Aliza Lavie (Yesh Atid) who participated at the event titled: Life in Israel – Terror, Bias and the Chances for Peace.
Among the audience were at least three BDS activists: Stavit Sinai (an Israeli Jewish university lecturer), Ronnie Barkan (an Israeli Jewish math teacher) and Majed Abusalama (a Gaza Palestinian born in the Jabalia refugee camp, shot in a leg by an Israeli soldier during a nonviolent protest[8]). According to Michael Spaney from DIG, “several minutes” or “about 10 minutes” into Aliza Lavie’s lecture, one of the activists started shouting at her before being removed from the hall, and then two others started speaking and/or shouting against Lavie and against Israel before being removed too. The activists were accusing Israel of apartheid and accusing Israel, and Aliza Lavie specifically, of war crimes in Gaza. Lavie said the activists told her “the blood of the Gaza Strip is on your hands” and called the politician a “child murderer” (a reference to the 2014 bombardment and airstrikes in Gaza). Lavie and her group reportedly left the hall through a back exit to avoid a group of about 20 protesters at the main entrance.[4][5][9] Describing the way the activists were removed from the hall by DIG members, Michael Spaney from DIG said they were “nicely maneuvered out” of the hall (though they were “lashing out”), while the BDS activists said Stavit Sinai was punched in the face.[1][2] Ronnie Barkan said that a video shown to the judge during the trial showed the moment Sinai was punched.[3]
So basically, actions by 2 ISRAELI JEWS (and an actual victimized Palestinian) are used as evidence of antisemitism.
Yet another case of German bureaucrats lecturing Jewish people about what is and what isn’t antisemitism. Picking good and bad Jews, which is of course …antisemitism.
Reminds me of this quote:
There is, as the Israeli-born architect and academic Eyal Weizman has acidly put it, a certain irony in “being lectured [on how to be properly Jewish] by the children and grandchildren of the perpetrators who murdered our families and who now dare to tell us that we are antisemitic”.
Shame on German institutions for their betrayal of both anti-zionist Jews and of course of Palestinians, victims of countless crimes against humanity that Germany turns a blind eye to. Shame, shame, shame.
The head of the German Israeli Society DIG - Volker Beck demanded in an interview in January 2024 as the head of the DIG that aid to Gaza should be weaponized to press free hostages.
“Müssen die Lieferung von Hilfsgütern stärker mit der Befreiung von Geiseln verbinden”
The DIG recently sparked controversy as a restaurant catering at one of their events serving a drink “Watermelon meets Zion” with watermelon “shredded, pureéd and hacked”. The poster shows a lion with an Israeli flag and watermelons with faces in the background.
The DIG said it felt sorry and can see why people felt offended although the poster would be “obvious satire”.
I don’t see how that’s relevant.
Describing the way the activists were removed from the hall by DIG members, Michael Spaney from DIG said they were “nicely maneuvered out” of the hall (though they were “lashing out”), while the BDS activists said Stavit Sinai was punched in the face.[1][2] Ronnie Barkan said that a video shown to the judge during the trial showed the moment Sinai was punched.[3]
DIG is accused by the Jewish antizionist protestors to have assaulted them. I provided context that over the last year and a half they have been advocating or being apologetic towards violence and calls of violence. So them punching antizionist Jews seems plausible to me, for which i added the context.
I see, thanks. Do Kahanists have such free reign in Germany? That’s troubling to read.
I dont think that there is ideological ties to these. What we have in Germany is a very problematic amalgamation of a few ideologies.
First of all it is important to understand that Antisemitism has been alive and well in Germany past World War II. The proclaimed “Memory Culture” only started to gain traction in the West in the 80s. In the former GDR there was much more “Memory Culture” but it revolved around overemphasizing the struggle of communists and other political antifascists, who were one of the many groups mass murdered in the concentration camps. for the first 30 or so years after the war, the tactic was to largely just be silent about the past.
When Germany reunited it was met with a lot of fear by surrounding countries that Germany could become not only powerful but also hostile and imperialist against its neighbors again. To improve the image of a peaceful nation Germany embraced the narrative of the “memory culture”. A country that has worked through its past and learned from it. This narrative was especially important as the economic consequences of the reunification served as a breeding ground for militant Neonazis who committed Pogroms against migrants and other attacks and were quite visible inside Germany. Meanwhile there was one big issue. There was hardly any Jewish people left in Germany. Still today there is approx. 200.000 Jewish people, less than 0.3 % of the total population and among them many people with Israel-German dual nationality. So German politics looked towards the state of Israel to grant them the rubber-stamp of having adorned for the past.
From there on the Israeli influence on the Jewish society in Germany grew and politics increasingly looked to embrace Israel as evidence of having adorned for the past.
Over the past 15 years or so a new aspect came in. By ramping up racism against Arabs in Israel, but also in all of the western world it became attractive in Germany to create the narrative of “imported Antisemitism”. This is especially embraced by the right and far-right, who are looking to free themselves of the “inherited guilt”. By making “the Arab” the source of Antisemitism in the public discourse Germans could legitimize their racism and free themselves of their guilt. “See it is them who are the Antisemites, not us!”. For Israel this served a similar purpose. By making the Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general “Antisemites” questions about the legitimacy of opposition to Israel could be silenced. There would be no need to look into the veracity of statements like accusing Israel of apartheid. That statement is simply antisemitic and expression of evil, no need to look further…
Finally this morphes into Fascists like the AfD embracing Israel as it servers to justify ethno-nationalism. It also serves to attack progressive political movements from the left as “antisemitic” for not being in blind support of Israel. This helps to circumvent questions of the imperial history of Germany, Germanies other genocides and of course the question of colonial dimensions to Israels expansionism, the interest of weapons manufacturers in perpetual war and the broader context of Western geopolitics in the Middle East.
Here you can see a banner that is showing it quite well imo. The subtext reads “against left, right and islamist antisemitism”. They put “left” first as this seems to be more important than the “right”. Meanwhile Antisemitic crime, especially violent crime in Germany is largely perpetuated by the far right, such as a terror attack on a Synagogue in 2019.
If you put these pieces together, you can see why German politics are so hellbent on doubling down for Israel. They would have to leave their Lalaland in which Germany is the good guys. They would need to face the rising Fascism in Germany and relate it to their own policies and acknowledged how they enable it themselves. They would have to acknowledge how they attacked Jewish people who oppose Israel and they would need to acknowledge that they never made Germany a safe and welcoming place for Jewish people.
Criticising Berlin for forbidding hatred against jews is a new height of stupidity.
Israel exists, just accept that
“Just accept that a genocidal country exist”. What a pos
The account I’m responding to is a 3h old troll sock puppet. Don’t feed the troll.
In the US, many laws have been passed, and more proposed, to punish entities who boycott Israel. Entities being individuals, corporations, cities & towns, etc.
And you know what I say to that as an American? I will boycott whoever the fuck I please, whenever I please, for any reason or none at all as I see fit. And if corporations are people too, my friend, then they have the right as well to self-determine who they’ll buy from and who they won’t. And while we’re at it, so do municipalities, and private clubs, any other collection of people singular or plural.
I find such craven obeisance in service of Israel to be personally offensive, and any American who pays attention to how Israel actually behaves with their own two eyes is likely to come to the same conclusion if they are confronted with the issue and think about it for five seconds.
Anyway, that may be a factor behind loud support of boycotting Israel from random American leftoids.
BDS of South African apartheid set a precedent that shook white nationalists to their bones.
We’re watching the modern western liberal consensus on free markets collapse under the weight of a few Palestinian activists saying “Sell your soda stream stock to oppose genocide”. Now it’s going to be illegal to divest from Israeli private business because… Israel exists? Because ethno-nationalism is a natural right?
The fascist project of national ethnic purity seems to be as alive in Berlin today as it was 70 years ago.
Berlin just going full fash. How 1930s of them.
