German-Israeli Friendship – a Chimera?
Estranged Friends? - Israeli and German Perceptions of State, Nation, Force. Conference in Berlin, February 16th -17th, 2012.
No, German-Israeli relations have never been harmonious or untroubled - not today, nor in the past. Already at the time of the restitution agreement between Adenauer and Ben-Gurion, part of the German public responded with skepticism or forthright hostility. In the years following 1967 Israel has become one of the most unpopular countries of the world for the German left. This thesis by Michael Wolffsohn caused few opposition and no comments. It was his way of characterizing the relations between both countries. But what is the nature of German-Israeli relations beneath their official surface? In his opening remarks Ralf Fuecks pointed at a picture of Israel which has lately become increasingly gloomy even in traditionally Israel friendly, liberal left circles. The occupation, settlement policy, the attitude towards Israel's Arab minority and blatant militarism constitute Israeli society in the eyes of many Germans. Other aspects, Israel's lively civil society and the country's cultural diversity, remain unnoticed.
However, German-Israeli relations strike a German nerve (The reason for this and its connection to German remembering deserve a conference of their own):
The conference "Estranged Friends" was attended by more than 400 participants. Until the end of the event there has been no free seat in the Heinrich Boell Foundation's big auditorium. The conference did not focus on the Middle East conflict. Instead it strove to clarify a few fundamental misunderstandings based, according to the conference's initial premise, on the history of both countries, on their different geographic location and their social developments within the last 60 years. Which concepts of state exist in both countries? What governs the relationship between state and religion? How do both states deal with military force? How does the state respond to challenges of cultural diversity under the conditions of transnational migration and immigration? In other words, not mainly contemporary questions or concurrencies were at issue. The focus was on the political consequences of different mentalities.
The conference's leitmotif as it proofed to develop in the course of the debates was: Does Europe and its history offer possible approaches to the problems Israel faces today?
Micha Brumlik created the foundation for discussion. He described German nation building as a process towards secularization. Romantic Nationalism, as he phrased it, of the 19th and 20th century and its idea of the people based on ethnicity were overcome after 1945. Germany was pressured to face its Nazi crimes. This led to the concept of a state dominated by the universal Western values of the Enlightenment. Such a state strives to create a society of the future where everyone can live within its boundaries. Israel, however, continues to adhere to Romantic Nationalism according to Brumlik.
Both Israeli speakers agreed to the exemplary role of the European Enlightenment. Nitzan Horowitz, Member of Parliament for Israel's Meretz party, pleaded for Israel's transformation into a modern state. Carlo Strenger, journalist and psychoanalyst, insisted on a common European heritage which Israel is part of due to its commitment to freedom, human rights and the principle of equality. This also reflected the consensus which prevailed on the podium.
The discussion on force and the perception of use of force in both societies turned out to be more controversial. At the outset of his lecture Shimon Stein, former Israeli ambassador to Germany, searched for the foundations of the relationship: Will German-Israeli relations, due to opposite experiences, withstand pressure - in the case of war with Iran for example? Omid Nouripour argued that politics have had priority over the military in German political conduct and been the foundation of German foreign policy, which as he argued, assumedly will also apply to Israel. Israeli historian Gadi Algazi depicted Israel's internal and external political situation. Israel, he said, has a colonial regime, while Germany and other European countries were diagnosed as post-colonial states. He denounced Israel's occupation and nuclear policy. Stein confronted this picture with his realpolitik view. He agreed with Michael Wolffsohn and called German Israeli friendship an elite project. In fact, how would Germany respond to an Israeli attack on Iran? Can Germany really understand Israel's position which is characterized by a threat to its very existence? The collapse of civilization (Shoah) as sole reference, says Stein, is no substitute for substantiated interest driven politics.
Ralf Fuecks referred to Germany’s basic motif: The war experiences during the Second World War which had created this consensus in German society. These German positions are opposed by Israel's historical experience which expresses itself in an attitude of never more, of never wanting to be defenseless again. Israel's collective security includes nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons as reassurance for the country's existence is understandable and hardly surprising. As an answer to the country's security needs, Israel might consider membership in a supranational alliance such as NATO, according to Fuecks.
A third panel dealt with multiculturalism and confronted cultural pluralism. Diagnosing Germany, Claus Leggewie believes that the latter has become trivial for Germany. Ethnicity as nationally binding link has been substituted by earlier non-political constituents. The cry for a leitkultur, a mainstream culture, which evokes foreignness and (cultural) otherness, has taken its place. Germany has, by becoming a country of immigration, discovered itself. Claus Leggewie agreed with Micha Brumlik's perception of German Church Law which has created a balance between politics and law on the one and religious conviction on the other side. Rainer Ohliger (Network Migration in Europe) pointed at conflicting developments in Germany. Even though nationality and religion mark today's identity, Germany remains a classic nation state in 19th century terms. Israel, on the contrary, practices a regime of inclusion and exclusion based on ethnic belonging and perceives itself at the same time as a liberal state.
Yossi Yonah, expert on multiculturalism, spoke of responsive multiculturalism: Israel reacts pragmatically to the challenges of migration. In his mind, the dilemma between the Jewish character of the state and democracy cannot be solved. Israel has adopted the European idea of nation and never completely overcome its traumatic adaptation to Europe. In opposition to previous speakers Yossi Yonah favors the transcendence of nationalism and is concerned that Israel might pursue its own expulsion from the Middle East.
Muhammed Jabali, the only Arab Israeli speaker, clearly criticized the concept of the conference: The perception of Israeli society had been monolithic, while segregation based on colonial structures is part of Israeli reality. At the same time he stressed growing cosmopolitism and its opportunities which are shared by a growing number of Israelis. As many of his generation he perceives himself as part of the Arab world as well as Israel to which he is connected by social networks and media.
The conference, of course, had its political recommendations.
It began in the evening with discussions on a changing Middle East. Colette Avital, former Member of Parliament for Israel's Labor party, pointed at Israel's changed security situation due to toppled surrounding regimes. It is about time, so Colette Avital, Israel turns its back on indifference and perceives these developments as an opportunity. With respect to internal politics, Israel as a state of law is in danger. Since 1967 Israel has experienced a messianic movement which justifies the settling activities and settlers' claims to the holy sites. Colette Avital demanded Europe's recognition of a Palestinian state. There will be no two-state solution without this recognition, and only Europe is able to prepare the ground.
Sylke Tempel, on the other hand, believes that it does not make sense to put pressure on Israel's current government. Present German-Israeli relations are rather superficial. On the German side there is few understanding for possible long term repercussions of the Israeli Palestinian conflict: In Israel lives a generation which does not know life without this conflict. Israel can only partly be seen as functioning democracy. Shimon Stein pragmatic politician underlined the importance of common interests. Israel should, he stated, make more serious attempts to reach agreements with Arab States, especially concerning questions of stability and prosperity. Present experiences with strategic relations to the Egyptian government have proven the importance of such accords.
During the final session Naomi Chazan drew an impressive scenario of Israel's current problems: She believes that her country is in a crucial period of its history. Ultra-national circles have gained majority while the democratic left has become a minority. "This is the most antidemocratic moment in the entire history of my country" was her assessment of the situation. She called last summer's social protests a political awakening which gave ground for hopes of a strengthening civil society.
Ulrich Preuss, an expert in constitutional law from Berlin, was the last speaker of the conference. He expected Israel to turn into a completely normal nation according to European standards. He did not share the fears of Israel as an endangered democracy. A country is democratic if it is correcting its own course which is the case in Israel. The call for a cosmopolitan Israeli society is preposterous. It misinterprets the country's seemingly normal situation and underestimates the threat by its neighbors which create a state of emergency. Due to changes of the system of international relations also Ulrich Preuss recommends Israel's membership in supranational associations, preferable NATO and EU.
In conclusion, the conference provided an opportunity to reflect on Israel's quo vadis. Europe as role model and leitmotif remained unchallenged. This might be intellectually dissatisfying, but seems to describe the current situation shared by the Israelis – with a few exceptions - who had been invited to this conference.
To see all conference photos please click here