The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism

Schlagwort: Iran

Freiheit für Nazila Maroofian und alle politischen Gefangenen im Iran

Von Dr. phil. Clemens Heni, 01. September 2023

Die kurdisch-iranische Journalistin und Studentin Nazila Maroofian wurde erneut vom islamistischen Regime in Teheran festgenommen. Sie ist bekannt für ihre Kritik am Kopftuchzwang im Iran. Erst vor wenigen Tagen war sie aus der Haft entlassen worden, um nun wiederum inhaftiert worden zu sein, aus niederen, politischen Beweggründen.

Es braucht massivsten Druck auf das iranische Regime, die Bundesregierung sollte die diplomatischen Beziehungen zu diesem diktatorischen, islamistischen Regime einstellen und in den Vereinten Nationan (UN), der Europäischen Union (EU) und allen möglichen anderen Gremien sich für die Freilassung von Maroofian und allen anderen politischen Gefangenen im Iran einsetzen.

Wir wissen, dass weder das Atomprogramm des antisemitischen und antizionistischen Regimes im Iran noch die Frauenverachtung der Mullahs Deutschland irgendwie bewegten, dieses Land zu isolieren. Daher braucht es den Druck der Presse und der Straße.

Screenshot, https://twitter.com/maroofian_n?lang=de

Jenseits von Ausnahmezustand und Verschwörungswahnsinn: Kritiker*innen der Corona-Massenhysterie aller Länder vereinigt euch

Von Dr. phil. Clemens Heni, 20. März 2020

 

Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland steht 75 Jahre nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs und der Befreiung Europas vom Nationalsozialismus am Abgrund, das Ende der Demokratie ist sichtbar. Das liegt daran, dass eine Naturwissenschaftlerin Bundeskanzlerin ist, die wie eine Getriebene einem einzigen Institut – dem Robert-Koch-Institut in Berlin – Folge leistet und aufgehört hat, kritisch zu reflektieren.

Naturwissenschaften sind sehr wichtig – aber in der Gesellschaft braucht es mindestens genauso stark die Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften, die die Politik mitbestimmen müssen, wenn eine Demokratie nicht Gefahr laufen will, ein technokratischer Polizeistaat zu werden.

Es wird so getan, als müsste alles – wirklich alles – getan werden, um vor allem alte und kranke Menschen zu schützen. Das Coronavirus hat in Italien Menschen getötet, die im Schnitt 79,5 Jahre alt und massiv vorerkrankt waren. Das ist schrecklich, zeigt aber auch, dass es eine sehr spezifische Gruppe von Menschen trifft und gerade nicht die Pest ist, die teils 30 Prozent der Bevölkerung Europas im Mittelalter hinwegraffte, und zwar unterschiedslos welchen Alters.

Dass es angeblich um den Schutz von besonders bedrohten Menschen geht, ist zudem eine Lüge. Darauf weisen nun zwei Jura-Professoren in der FAZ hin, Florian Meinel von der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin und Christoph Möllers von der Universität Würzburg:

„So ist auch der Konsens, Alte und Vulnerable vor dem Virus zu schützen, weniger unschuldig, als er klingt. Eine vergleichbare individuelle und vor allem ökonomische Opferbereitschaft gab und gibt es weder zur Eindämmung der Erderwärmung und der HIV-Epidemie noch zur Rettung von Flüchtlingen und der Reduzierung von Verkehrstoten.“

Auch für Allergiker*innen gibt es keine Hilfen, es ist eine schleichende Krankheit, chronisch, aber nicht weniger tödlich als dieses Virus, betrifft zudem viele Millionen Menschen, die häufig nicht mal 79,5 Jahre alt werden. Und wir wissen, dass z.B. Ambrosia durch den Verkehr und die Umweltbelastung noch aggressiver wird.

Ebenfalls in der FAZ im Feuilleton analysiert der Jurist Hinnerk Wißmann von der Universität Münster:

„Wir müssen nicht nur unsere Gesundheit, sondern auch unsere Freiheit verteidigen.“

Er unterstreicht, dass eine Gesellschaft völlig in sich zerfällt, in eine Monade, wie man geschichtsphilosophisch sagen könnte, wo nur noch einzelne Gruppen oder das nackte Individuum existieren, aber keine Gesellschaft mehr. Vor allem wird klar gesagt, was wichtig ist und was eigentlich unnötig ist. Buchläden, Kneipen, Schulen, Universitäten sind verzichtbar, nur Teile der Verwaltung, vor allem aber die Polizei und die Krankenhäuser sind wichtig. Das ist Element eines Polizeistaats und keiner parlamentarischen Demokratie. Wißmann betont, dass ein Seuchen-Notstand oder Ausnahmezustand in einer sehr kleinen lokalen Situation möglich ist, aber niemals auf staatlicher oder jetzt gar fast weltweiter suprastaatlicher Ebene.

Wie Meinel und Möllers betonen, ist das größte Problem beim „Ausnahmezustand“ nicht der Zeitpunkt, ihn zu verhängen, „sondern darin, ihn zu beenden“. Sie sehen eine extreme Gefährdung der Demokratie, die sich via Ausnahmezustand selbst ein Misstrauensvotum ausspräche.

Eine ganz ähnliche Gefahr für die Demokratie sieht der Historiker René Schlott vom Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam. In einem Gespräch mit dem Radiosender WDR 5, „Neugier genügt“, ist er fassungslos, wie heutzutage von Technokraten Politik gemacht wird, wie Virologen quasi alle politischen Entscheidungen nicht nur beeinflussen, sondern festlegen – und Soziologen oder Politikwissenschaftler*innen und Philosoph*innen und Jurist*innen keinerlei Mitsprache haben. Es wird so getan, als ob nur die Medizin entscheiden könne, was eine Gesellschaft braucht. Dabei kann die ganze Gesellschaft zerstört werden, wenn wegen einiger Tausend Toten in Europa (in Deutschland bislang unter 50) die Grundrechte von 80 Millionen – bzw. ganz Europas, der ganzen USA etc. pp. – außer Kraft gesetzt werden. Dass aufgrund dieser Ausgehverbote und ausgerufenen Katastrophenfälle viel Tausende, Zehntausende, Hunderttausende schwer kranke Menschen, die z.B. psychisch sehr labil sind, in den Suizid, in die völlig Vereinsamung und Isolation oder den wirtschaftlichen Bankrott (egal wie hoch die Rettungspakete sind) getrieben werden, dass Menschen, die regelmäßig Physiotherapie benötigen, um am Leben gehalten zu werden, viele Wochen oder gar Monate einfach dem Verfall hingegeben werden, dass Kindern und Schüler*innen gesagt wird, es ist nicht so wichtig, ob ihr was lernt und gemeinsam was lernt, es gibt doch das Internet und Aufgaben kann man auch alleine zu Hause machen: das alles zerstört jede demokratische Vereinbarung, auf der unsere westlichen Gesellschaften basieren.

Denn alle wissen: dieses Virus ist nicht gefährlicher als die schleichende Zerstörung der Natur, die Milliarden Menschen bedroht, und nicht nur ein paar Tausende.

Dazu kommen die extrem rechten, autoritären Maßnahmen des Technikfaschismus, das Sammeln und Benutzen aller Handydaten von Menschen, die im Verdacht stehen, mit Corona-Infizierten Kontakt gehabt zu haben, wie auch das Einfordern von Blockwartmentalität, wie wir es heute noch aus China kennen. Deutschland ist aber nicht China.

China wiederum, wie ein Sprecher des dortigen Außenministeriums, fantasiert, die USA stünden hinter dem Virus und wollen China schaden. Solcher Verschwörungswahnsinn kommt in anderer Form auch im Iran, der Türkei oder in Russland vor. Schon wird der Coronavirus, sein Entstehen und die Verbreitung etc. antisemitisch gedeutet.

Selbst hierzulande als Linke bekannte Leute werden jetzt zu autoritären Demokratiegefährdern und werfen Kritikern der Massenhysterie vor, die alten oder kranken Menschen zu gefährden – der Publizist Sascha Lobo spricht als Kritiker der Hysterie von „Vernunftpanik“. Es gibt bei sehr vielen Menschen in der Bundesrepublik, von Österreich oder Frankreich ganz zu schweigen, ein sehr großes Bedürfnis nach dem starken Führer. Das zeigt auf nie gekannte Weise seit 1945, wie wenig der demokratische Aushandlungsprozess verinnerlicht wurde.

Es muss jetzt um eine gesellschaftliche Diskussion gehen, die den geplanten Ausnahmezustand zurückweist und bekämpft. Andernfalls wird die Demokratie in ihren Grundfesten zerstört. Schon jetzt wissen die extremen Rechten wie autoritären Linken, dass es von heute auf morgen möglich ist, alle Theater zu schließen, Demonstrationen zu verbieten, das Asylrecht auszusetzen (also grundgesetzwidrig zu handeln) und Menschen zu Hause einzusperren und nur zum Einkaufen unter Polizeischutz raus zu lassen. Das hat alles gar nichts mit der angeblichen Sorge um die Alten und Kranken zu tun, sondern mit der Vorliebe für autoritäres undemokratisches Verhalten.

Es muss jetzt um Gelassenheit, Ruhe und Besonnenheit gehen, vor allem aber um menschliche Solidarität und demokratisches Handeln.

Ein finnischer Fußballer mit Anstand, ein vulgärer Bayern-Star und eine lächelnde Professorin der FU Berlin in Teheran

Von Dr. phil. Clemens Heni, 9. Januar 2019

Im Januar 2019 weigert sich der finnische Fußball-Nationalspieler Riku Riski zu einem Trainingslager der finnischen Nationalmannschaft nach Katar zu fliegen. Das ist ein herausragendes, ja fast einzigartiges Beispiel für einen selbst denkenden Leistungssportler und für Kritik an einem menschenverachtenden Regime. Riski riskiert damit seine weitere Karriere in der Nationalmannschaft. Er zeigt Anstand und ist angewidert von den vielen Toten, die schon jetzt auf den unsäglichen Baustellen zur geplanten Fußball WM 2022 unter den Augen der fußballgeilen westlichen Welt in Katar zu beklagen sind. Von der Korruption in der FIFA, den TV-Werbeverträgen der kapitalistischen Welt, der Ignoranz der kulturindustriell verblödeten Massen zu sich zu-Tode-arbeitenden asiatischen Arbeitern in Katar ist es nur ein Mausklick.

Der Autor der Zeitung Freitag, Timo al-Faroog, ist ganz begeistert über kopftuchtragende Frauen in Schweden, wie er nach Ankunft eines Fluges mit dem „garantiert judenreinen Unternehmen Qatar Airways von Doha“ in Stockholm schrieb, wie das Blog tw24 sarkastisch kommentiert. Katar is also en vogue.

Es wundert daher nicht, dass dem FC Bayern München diese Baustellen-Toten nichts ausmachen und er auch dieses Jahr in der islamistischen, mörderischen BaustellenHölle von Katar sein Trainingslager bezieht. München hat auch einen Franck Ribéry, der zusammen mit seiner Frau einem Sohn den Namen „Saif al-Islam“ oder auf Deutsch „Schwert des Islam“ gab (was unter Kindesmisshandlung fallen sollte). Angesichts von Kritik an seinem Verzehr von einem goldblattverzierten Steak für 1200€ in einem Restaurant pöbelt er auf vulgärste Weise, betont auch hier seine fanatische muslimische Religiosität und zeigt auf unfassbare Art und Weise, was für Vergewaltigungsfantasien er hat (Ribéry schrieb auf Twitter auf Französisch, Übersetzung und Text von n-tv):

„‘Beginnen wir mit den Neidern und Hatern, die durch ein löchriges Kondom entstanden sein müssen: F**** eure Mütter, eure Großmütter und euren gesamten Stammbaum.‘ Er schulde den Menschen überhaupt nichts, schrieb er weiter und fügte an, dass er seinen Erfolg vor allem Gott, sich selbst und seinen Vertrauten, die an ihn geglaubt haben, zu verdanken habe“.

Der Bayern-„Star“ zeigt sich als Wiederholungstäter (vor Jahren hatte er mit einer minderjährigen Prostituierten Sex, in Frankreich darf er laut einem Gerichtsurteil als „Abschaum“ bezeichnet werden). Dass ein solcher Typ wöchentlich im Fernsehen zu sehen ist und weder die Fans des FC Bayern Anstand haben und seinen Rauswurf fordern mit hunderten Transparenten vor jedem Spiel, verwundert nicht und schockiert doch. Auch die ARD Sportschau oder das ZDF Sportstudio zeigen Bilder dieses Typen weiterhin einfach so.

Niemand hat den Anstand oder Mut, Auftritte von Franck Ribéry zu zensieren, weil Männer mit solchen Gewaltfantasien nichts in der Öffentlichkeit, schon gleich gar nicht im Massenmedium Fernsehen, im Internet oder im Stadion zu suchen haben.

Blick zurück in den Februar 2018. Anfang Februar 2018 erhielt die Professorin für Arabistik an der Freien Universität Berlin, Regula Forster, den Preis für das „Buch des Jahres“ der Islamischen Republik Iran. Die Tehran Times war ganz begeistert und zeigt die lachende verschleierte Forster und den schelmisch grinsenden Hasan Rouhani, den iranischen Präsidenten, der einen großen Coup gelandet hat.

Die Freie Universität war stolz wie selten und postete ein Bild der Preisübergabe auf der offiziellen Seite der FU Berlin auf Englisch und Deutsch.

Screenshot

Was sagt Amnesty International über den Iran 2017/18?

„Gewalttaten gegen Frauen und Mädchen, wie häusliche Gewalt und Früh- und Zwangsverheiratungen, waren weit verbreitet und wurden nicht geahndet. Geschlechtsspezifische Gewalt war weiterhin nicht strafbar. Ein entsprechender Gesetzentwurf war seit 2012 anhängig. Das gesetzliche Heiratsalter für Mädchen lag nach wie vor bei 13 Jahren. Väter und Großväter konnten bei Gericht eine Erlaubnis einholen, wenn sie Mädchen noch früher verheiraten wollten.

Der Wächterrat ließ keine der 137 Frauen, die bei der Präsidentschaftswahl antreten wollten, für eine Kandidatur zu. Nach der Wahl berief Präsident Rohani keine Frau in sein Kabinett, trotz entsprechender Forderungen aus der Zivilgesellschaft.

Aufgrund des gesetzlichen Zwangs, ein Kopftuch (Hidschab) zu tragen, standen Frauen im Visier von Polizei und paramilitärischen Kräften. Sie wurden schikaniert und festgenommen, wenn Haarsträhnen unter ihrem Kopftuch hervorschauten, wenn sie stark geschminkt waren oder enganliegende Kleidung trugen. Frauen, die sich gegen die Kopftuchpflicht einsetzten, wurden Opfer staatlich unterstützter Verleumdungskampagnen.“

Es ist also wie ein Hohn auf die Frauen im Iran, wenn Regula Forster dort einen Preis empfängt. Mehr noch:

„Gerichte verhängten in zahlreichen Fällen Amputationsstrafen, die vom Obersten Gerichtshof bestätigt wurden. Im April amputierte man Hamid Moinee in Schiraz (Provinz Fars) eine Hand und richtete ihn zehn Tage später hin. Er war wegen Mordes und Raubes schuldig gesprochen worden. Es gab mindestens vier weitere Amputationen wegen Raubes. Die Behörden vollstreckten auch erniedrigende Strafen. So wurden im April 2017 drei Männer, denen Entführung und andere Straftaten vorgeworfen wurden, durch die Straßen von Dehloran (Provinz Ilam) getrieben. Ihre Hände waren gefesselt, und sie trugen Wasserkannen um den Hals, die zur Toilettenspülung benutzt wurden. Im Juli wurden acht Männer in Pakdasht (Provinz Teheran) auf ähnliche Weise gedemütigt. Im Mai 2017 verurteilte ein Strafgericht in der Hauptstadt Teheran eine Frau wegen einer außerehelichen Beziehung zu zwei Jahren Leichenwaschung und 74 Peitschenhieben. Der Mann wurde zu 99 Peitschenhieben verurteilt.“

2017 gab es über 507 Hinrichtungen im Iran. In Deutschland ist die Todesstrafe verpönt.

Was sagt Forster ihren Kindern, mit denen sie so peinlich wirbt auf der Seite der FU, so als ob es irgend eine Bedeutung hätte, ob eine Wissenschaftlerin oder Arabistin Kinder hat oder nicht? Da lacht also Regula Forster herzlich in Teheran und empfängt als Arabistin einen Preis des Iran. Auch der Antisemitismus von Rouhani stört sie demnach überhaupt nicht, denn Rouhani ist berüchtigt, Israel wiederholt als „Krebsgeschwür“ bezeichnet zu haben.

Es ist ein weiterer Tiefpunkt der Wissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik, dass eine führende Universität wie die FU Berlin die Verleihung eines Preises aus den blutbeschmierten Händen des Iran an eine Forscherin nicht nur hinnimmt, sondern feiert.

Auch jene Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die in der Habilitationskommission für das nun vom islamistischen Regime in Teheran gepriesene Buch saßen, haben sich meiner Kenntnis nach weder von Regula Forster noch ihrem skandalösen Auftritt bei Rouhani distanziert:

„Gudrun Krämer, Birgit Krawietz, Renate Jacobi, Gotthard Strohmaier, Almut-Barbara Renger, Uwe Puschner, Montserrat Rabadán, Victoria Mummelthei“.

Forsters Arbeit handelt vom „Dialog“ in arabischen Quellen zumal des Mittelalters – „Wissensvermittlung im Gespräch. Eine Studie zu klassisch-arabischen Dialogen“ (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017). Wie zynisch muss eine Forscherin sein, die ein autoritäres Regime, das gegen Dialog ist und zumal westliche Forschung diffamiert und höchstens als notwendig für den Bau einer Atombombe anwendet, hofiert?

Forster tut so, als sei sie für den Dialog, ob das nun die von ihr untersuchten arabischen Quellen hergeben, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. Doch so zu tun, als ob frau offen, tolerant, gar wissenschaftsfreundlich sei, und dann in ein hardcore antiintellektuelles, autoritär-faschistoides, religiös fanatisches, islamistisches, freie Wissenschaft bekämpfendes, frauenverachtendes, antisemitisches und den Dialog mit den Gegnerinnen und Gegnern des Jihad im Iran und außerhalb des Iran nicht nur nicht suchendes, sondern Kritiker*innen einsperrendes, folterndes und ermordendes Regime zu fahren und sich selbst zu verschleiern, also zu islamisieren – das ist an Zynismus und brutalem Verhalten schwerlich zu überbieten.

Aber das ist Mainstream an europäischen Universitäten, Regula Forster ist ja weiterhin völlig anerkannt – und das ist der Skandal. Was sagen die Studierenden an der FU dazu, jedenfalls jene Arabistik-Studierenden, die keine Islamist*innen sind? Was sagen Pädagogik-Studentinnen dazu, wenn sie wissen, dass Frauen im Iran nur unter Lebensgefahr ohne Schleier herumlaufen können?

Namentlich Gudrun Krämers pro-islamistische Ideologie habe ich am Beispiel ihrer Rezeption eines führenden sunnitischen Agitatoren, der besonders aggressiv antisemitisch ist, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, schon vor Jahren analysiert und kritisiert.

Es wundert nicht, dass Forster, die auch an der Birzeit Universität im Westjordanland war (die keine Juden oder jüdische Israelis einstellt, nicht mal Kritiker*innen der Besatzung der Westbank) und offenkundig eine Nähe zu antiisraelischen Kaderschmieden sucht, keine Kritik erfährt, immerhin ist Krämer eine sehr bekannte, ebenfalls preisgekrönte Professorin der FU Berlin.

Was lernen wir daraus? Der finnische Fußballer Riku Riski ist geradezu ein Held, obwohl er doch nur das Allerselbstverständlichste getan hat: Er hat gezeigt, dass er Anstand hat und Menschenrechtsverletzungen nicht einfach so weglächelt. Er ist angewidert von den Hunderten Toten auf den Baustellen in Katar.

Er hat womöglich auch eine Distanz zur Ideologie eines islamistischen Landes wie Katar, wo Yusuf al-Qaradawi seit Jahrzehnten ungestört seine Hetze verbreiten konnte und kann und von deutschen Islamforscherinnen ganz entzückt als „Global Mufti“ und quasi Popstar gefeiert wird (vor Jahren dankte al-Qaradawi Hitler für den Holocaust; Bettina Gräf, eine Schülerin von Gudrun Krämer, hat kurz vor Weihnachten 2005 ihren Helden al-Qaradawi in Doha, der Hauptstadt Katars, getroffen).

Was ist ein Land wie der Iran wert, wo an keiner einzigen Universität in Philosophie, Pädagogik oder einem anderen geistes- oder sozialwissenschaftlichen Studienfach ein Kurs über „Nietzsches Kritik am Christentum, am deutschen Antisemitismus und an Theodor Fritsch[i] mit Bezug zur Kritik am Antisemitismus der Islamischen Republik Iran“ angeboten werden kann? Was hält Forster von der Freiheit der Wissenschaft? Warum hofiert sie ein Land, das diese Freiheit mit Füßen tritt?

Die wenigsten Wissenschaftler*innen oder Fußballer haben Anstand und würden ihre Karriere wegen der Kritik an einem menschenverachtenden Regime aufs Spiel setzen, Kritik üben und sich dissident verhalten. Riku Riski ist eine rühmliche Ausnahme.

 

[i] Siehe dazu Christian Niemeyer, „Auf die Schiffe, Ihr Philosophen!“ Friedrich Nietzsche und die Abgründe des Geistes (Freiburg: Karl Alber, erscheint Frühjahr 2019).

©ClemensHeni

„Gaza sieht immer mehr wie ein KZ aus“ – Obskurer Islamforscher zu Gast bei der Uni Osnabrück

Von Clemens Heni und Michael Kreutz

Dieser Text erschien zuerst auf Ruhrbarone

Im Jahr 2015 gab es alleine in Frankreich zwei islamistisch motivierte Massaker mit fast 150 Toten, am 7. bzw. 9. Januar in der Redaktion der Satirezeitschrift Charlie Hebdo in Paris bzw. einem jüdischen Supermarkt und am 13. November im Club Bataclan, mehreren Cafés sowie am Stade de France, wo gerade ein Fußballfreundschaftsspiel zwischen Frankreich und Deutschland stattfand. Daraufhin wurde wenige Tage später erstmals in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik aus Terrorangst ein Fußballspiel der deutschen Nationalmannschaft in Hannover abgesagt.

Doch all diese spezifisch mit dem Islamismus und Jihadismus zusammenhängenden Ereignisse führen eben in der Wissenschaft, der Islamforschung wie der Islamischen Theologie, offenbar weiterhin kaum dazu, Kritik am Islamismus und Antisemitismus zu üben. So wird der Präsident der Uni Osnabrück, Prof. Wolfgang Lücke, am 14. Januar 2016 die Konferenz „Antimuslimischer Rassismus und Islamfeindlichkeit in Deutschland und Europa“ begrüßen. Es ist eine dreitägige, große Konferenz mit über vierzig Referentinnen und Referenten, organisiert vom Institut für Islamische Theologie der Uni Osnabrück und finanziert vom Niedersächsischen Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur, dem Graduiertenkolleg Islamische Theologie sowie der Bundesregierung und dem Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.

Hier kommt eine Opferhaltung zum Ausdruck, die den Islamisten letztlich nur in die Hände spielt. Kein einziger Vortrag ist der jihadistischen und islamistischen Gewalt und Ideologie gewidmet. Sicher, angesichts eines unübersehbaren rassistischen Klimas in Deutschland, von Pegida über die AfD bis hin zu Neonazis, die Brandanschläge auf Flüchtlingsunterkünfte verüben, ist eine Kritik am Rassismus notwendig. Doch was soll „antimuslimischer Rassismus“ sein? Rechtspopulisten mögen ein besonderes Problem mit dem Islam haben, allgemein hetzen sie aber gegen die Zuwanderung insgesamt. Sie wollen ein völkisch homogenes Deutschland.

Der eigentliche Skandal der Konferenz ist der Hauptredner, der amerikanische Islam- und Nahostforscher John L. Esposito, Jg. 1940. Er hat einen von Saudi-Arabien (mit)finanzierten Lehrstuhl und ist einer der umstrittensten Nahostforscher in Amerika. Acht Jahre ist es her, seitdem der amerikanische Nahostkenner Martin Kramer darauf hingewiesen hat, dass mit den Berechnungen bezüglich der Zahl von radikalisierten Muslimen von John Esposito etwas faul ist.

Demnach hatte Esposito eigene Umfragen unter Muslimen dahingehend interpretiert, dass nur 7% der Befragten als radikalisiert bezeichnet werden können. So gering nämlich sei der Anteil derer, die der Aussage zustimmen, dass die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 „völlig gerechtfertigt“ seien. Dabei fiel aber unter den Tisch, dass anderthalb Jahre zuvor Esposito und seine Co-Autorin auch solche Befragten zu den Radikalisierten zählten, die der Aussage zustimmten, dass die Anschläge „weitgehend gerechtfertigt“ seien. Viele von denen, die vorher noch als radikal gegolten hatten, wurden plötzlich zu Moderaten verklärt.

Selbst Islamisten, die in der Forschung für ihre gefährliche Ideologie seit Jahren analysiert und kritisiert werden, wie die Gülen-Bewegung, Tariq Ramadan aus der Schweiz, Yusuf al-Qaradawi aus Katar oder Mustafa Ceric aus Bosnien werden von Esposito als wunderbare Beispiele für einen „moderaten“ Islamismus betrachtet. Doch es gibt keinen „moderaten“ Islamismus, wie schon der Politik- und Islamwissenschaftler Bassam Tibi in einer Kritik an Esposito vor Jahren betonte. Ein Yusuf al-Qaradawi, der Selbstmordattentate gegen Israelis für religiös rechtmäßig erklärt, wird nicht dadurch moderat, dass er ihre Durchführung auch Frauen ohne Erlaubnis ihrer Väter oder Ehemänner zubilligt!

In seinen Büchern und Texten zeigt sich die ganze Ideologie von John Esposito. Für ihn ist der islamische „Fundamentalismus“ im Iran, dem zigtausende Menschen zum Opfer gefallen sind, das gleiche wie ein christlicher in den USA, der reaktionär sein mag, aber nicht mörderisch ist. Ebenso verglich er George W. Bush mit dem Dschihadisten, Massenmörder und Mastermind des 11. September 2001, Osama bin Laden. Solche Vergleiche mögen im Westen in manchen Kreisen populär sein, sie sind aber grundfalsch, weil beide Personen für entgegengesetzte Werte stehen.

In seinem Buch „The Future of Islam“ (Die Zukunft des Islam) von 2010 vergleicht Esposito die Situation im Gazastreifen mit KZs und somit Israel mit Nazis – eine klare antisemitische Diffamierung, nach Definition des amerikanischen Außenministeriums und der internationalen Antisemitismusforschung.

Mehr noch: im August 2014 beschuldigte Esposito auf Twitter den Holocaustüberlebenden Elie Wiesel, dieser spiele angesichts der Ereignisse in Gaza eine „Holocausts-Trumpfkarte“ aus. Wiesel hatte zu Recht betont, dass die islamistische Terrororganisation Hamas endlich aufhören solle, Kinder als Schutzschilde zu missbrauchen. Er wies darauf hin, dass Juden schon vor über 3500 Jahren dem Menschenopfer eine Absage erteilt hatten und solche Praktiken für einen zivilisatorischen Rückfall hielten. Für Esposito aber war das kein Grund nachzuhaken, sondern Anlass zur Diffamierung. So reden in Deutschland üblicherweise nur Neonazis und extreme Rechte.

Schließlich hat Esposito in seinem Buch „Die Zukunft des Islam“ auch dem ehemaligen Präsidenten des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz, Peter Frisch, ohne jeden Beleg (!) die Aussage unterstellt, „Muslime wollen die Welt beherrschen“. Solche Aussagen wie auch andere Verdrehungen in seiner Darstellung disqualifizieren Esposito als Redner. Frisch hat das Behauptete aber nicht nur nicht gesagt, sondern sich dezidiert dagegen gewandt, Muslime zu diffamieren. Davor warnt er nachdrücklich. Esposito dagegen versucht eine deutsche Bundesbehörde, die den Islamismus beobachtet und vor ihm warnt, zu diskreditieren.

Wollen der Präsident der Uni Osnabrück, die über vierzig Referentinnen und Referenten wie auch die involvierten Landes- wie Bundesministerien einer solchen Rabulistik, diesem Antisemitismus und dieser Verharmlosung des Islamismus wirklich Vorschub leisten?

 

Clemens Heni Nassau Inn Princeton 05252009

Dr. phil. Clemens Heni

Dr. phil. Clemens Heni ist Politikwissenschaftler und Direktor des Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA)

 

 

 

 

michael_kreutz_dgrau

Dr. phil. Michael Kreutz

Dr. phil. Michael Kreutz ist Arabist und Islamwissenschaftler in Münster

Does Germany need just another Islamist, anti-Israel and antisemitic infusion by John L. Esposito?

By Clemens Heni

First published on CampusWatch

75 year old John L. Esposito, Georgetown University’s Director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., will be the keynote speaker of a big conference in Germany, Jan 14–16, 2016, about „anti-Muslim racism and hostility towards Islam in Germany and Europe.“

The conference will take place at the University of Osnabrück in the North-West of Germany, over forty speakers are invited to speak. The event is organized by the “Center for Islamic Theology,” and supported by the German Federal Government and its Ministry of Education and Research, Lower Saxony’s Ministry for Research and Culture, and the Post Graduate Program Islamic Theology.

This Center for Islamic Theology is headed by Bülent Ucar, who is the main organizer of the event alongside with his co-worker, Nina Mühe, an anthropologist and Islamic studies scholar known for her attack on Berlin’s Anti-Hijab Law in classroom. Mühe is a former fellow at a German branch of George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Obviously, attacks like the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher supermarket massacre in Paris in January 2015 are a “reason” for many academics in the humanities and social sciences to focus on an alleged “anti-Muslim racism‟ and not on Jihad, Islamism, Muslim anti-Semitism and Muslim terrorists. This is mainstream in Europe and the Western world ever since 9/11. We are facing in part a racist and nationalist climate in Germany, indeed. But this has nothing to do with the rejection of most academics in the field of Islamic Studies to deal, let alone fight Islamism in all its forms. The true antifascism of the 21st century deals with both the neo-Nazi and Islamist threats.

In his book “Who Speaks for Islam?” (2007, together with Dalia Mogahed), Esposito used the equivalence of anti-Semitism and “Islamophobia.” In his distorted view, Jews aren’t but a “religion” and just one of two “religions with Semitic origins.” In fact, hatred of Jews is a worldwide ideology, while “Islamophobia” is rather an invention by some specific circles, namely Iran and Islamist organizations and their followers.

In “Who Speaks for Islam,” the authors defame Islamic Studies scholar Daniel Pipes of being “anti-Muslim,” intentionally distorting his well-known and long-time distinction between Islam as religion and Islamism as an ideology, or between moderate and radical Muslims. More recently, Esposito also started to defame Egypts’s anti-Muslim-Brotherhood stance and started his „Brigde Initiative,“ dedicated to the analysis of „Islamophobia“ and the defamation of all critics of jihad and Islamism.

Esposito is fascinated by the “Iranian Revolution” from 1979, as can be seen in his edited volume “The Iranian Revolution. Its Global Impact” (1990) and his chapter “The Iranian Revolution. A Ten-Year Perspective,” where he also emphasized the outreach of Iranian style Islamism to Muslims outside Iran. In 2010, he co-edited the volume “Islam and Peacebuilding. Gülen Movements Initiates,” where he promotes the Islamist approach of Fethullah Gülen and frames him as a kind of Islamic version of German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Both share a “similar belief in mutual understanding, dialogue and optimism,” murmurs Esposito.

This “optimism” (a nice word for the spread of Islamism, no?) can also be seen in the work of leading Sunni cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, another protagonist of Esposito. In his book “The Future of Islam” (2010), the Saudi (Prince Alwaleed) funded scholar says, al-Qaradawi “claims that everything is acceptable (halal) unless proven forbidden (haram).” This makes him a moderate according to Esposito and his German colleagues Gudrun Krämer and Bettina Gräf. Gräf co-edited a book, “The Global Mufti,” with pieces by another Georgetown academic, Barbara Freyer-Stowasser (1935–2012), about “gender equality” in a fatwa about female suiciding bombing against Israel by al-Qaradawi.

In “The Future of Islam,” Esposito also invokes an equivalence between Islamic and Western “fundamentalism,” taking Ronald Reagan and the Iranian Revolution as examples, he also compares George W. Bush to Osama Bin Laden. This cultural relativist approach is well known. But jihad and the rule of religion (Islamism) is not the same as whatever democratic government in the US, Britain or Germany and France etc. does. Mustafa Ceric, former Grand Mufti of Sarajevo, is another Islamist portrayed as kosher, by Esposito. Ceric once went to the Auschwitz Memorial site, not to remember the Shoah but rather to invoke the Muslims-are-the-new-Jews-analogy. Ceric has also been criticized for his ties to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, among other Islamist aspects of his approach.

Finally, Esposito refers to German security expert and former head (1996–2000) of the “Federal Agency for the Protection of the Constitution,” Peter Frisch. In his 2010 book (finished in 2009), Esposito writes about Frisch as if he was head of that important institution in 2009, which is a minor problem compared to the lie, the Georgetown scholar spreads about Frisch. Esposito writes: “In Germany, Peter Frisch, head of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution), has repeatedly asserted, ‘Muslims want to rule the world.’” He does not quote form a single article by Frisch. In 2001, after 9/11, Frisch argued against the defamation of all Muslims. In 1997, Frisch argued against the rise of Islamism and the reluctance in Germany to even deal with that problem. To my knowledge, he never said that all Muslims want to rule the world. This reproach is rather a lie, invented by Esposito – who runs short to substantiate his claim. But Esposito is obviously not interested in research and quotes.

August 5, 2014, during the latest Gaza War, John L. Esposito tweeted the following: “Elie Wiesel plays the Holocaust trump card in Gaza” and links to an antisemitic homepage – “Mondoweiss.” Wiesel had said, that Jews stopped using children as sacrifices some 3500 years ago, Hamas should stop it now, too. Truly a correct statement, taken the fact that Hamas is verifiably known for abusing children and others as human shields. For Esposito this was just another reason to defame Israel and make fun of the Shoah and a Holocaust survivor.

Esposito compares Israel to Nazis, uses even more antisemitic language, promotes Islamists as possible allies and defames German officials, who headed federal offices in the fight against Jihad and Islamism.

Are these enough reasons for the Jewish Museum Berlin’s Yasemin Shooman, the mainstream weekly “Die Zeit” and its author Yassin Musharbash, the left-green-wing daily “taz” and its Daniel Bax, scholars like Andreas Zick from Bielefeld University, who even sits on Board of the US based “Journal for the Study of Antisemitism” (JSA), or historian Wolfgang Benz, former head of the “Center for Research on Antisemitism” at Technical University Berlin, dozens of other scholars, activists and authors, the Government of Lower Saxony and the German Federal Government to support and join such an event?

 

Dr. Clemens Heni is a political scientist, the author of five books, including “Antisemitism: A Specific Phenomenon. Holocaust Trivialization – Islamism – Post-colonial and Cosmopolitan anti-Zionism” (Berlin 2013, 648 pages), “Schadenfreude. Islamic Studies and Antisemitism in Germany after 9/11” (2011, in German, 410 pages) and the director of the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA), www.bicsa.org

The ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen) invites Hamid Dabashi and embraces his hatred of Israel

By Dr. Clemens Heni, Director, The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA), www.bicsa.org

Updated Nov 25, 2015: the WZB does not organize the event, they just „host“ it, we were told.

 

German-Iranian relations are on a new high after the Iran-Deal from July 2015. Calls for the destruction of Israel do not irritate German ministers Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Foreign Minister) or Sigmar Gabriel (Minister of Economy and Energy, as well as Vice-Chancellor and head of the Social Democratic Party, SPD). On November 26, the ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen or Institute for Foreign Relations) will held a symposium in Berlin on “The Future of European-Iranian Cultural Relations“.

 

Representative of the Green Party of Iran in Germany, Dr. Kazem Moussavi, known for his criticism of the Iranian regime, of Islamism and antisemitism, alerted us about that event. He mentions the involvement of Hamid Dabashi at that event, organized by the ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen) and hosted by the mainstream Berlin Social Science Center (WZB). The following gives you an inside view about that speaker. Dabashi is not just known as a supporter of former SS-man, anti-Zionist and Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature, Günter Grass (1927–2015). His hatred of the Jewish state goes much deeper and has Islamic theological implications. It is remarkable that this kind of hatred of Israel is now mainstream in Germany, again, and framed as the “future of European-Iranian cultural relations.”

ifa organizes and WZB hosts event with Hamid Dabashi

A[1] scholar from Columbia University in New York City, Hamid Dabashi, professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature,[2] who was an old friend and colleague of Edward Said (1935–2003), supports German anti-Zionist Günter Grass. His statement is interesting because Dabashi is a scholarly voice against Israel, a man who is more sophisticated in his hatred of Israel than are others in the field. He is published by mainstream publishing houses, and employed by a famous university. In his support of Grass Dabashi wrote:

“Given the history that culminated in the Jewish Holocaust, Jews around the globe, including Israel, have every right to get agitated with a prominent German public intellectual lecturing them about violence. But Zionism is chiefly responsible for having wasted the moral authority of the Jewish Holocaust – through what Norman Finkelstein has aptly called ‘the Holocaust Industry’ – on establishing a racist apartheid state called ‘Israel’ – a colonial settlement as a haven for the victims of a whole history of European anti-Semitism, on the broken back of a people who had nothing to do with that travesty. With a leading German public intellectual openly criticising Israel, pointing to European hypocrisy, and blaming his own country for aiding and abetting in the aggressive militarisation of the Jewish state – a gushing wound is opened that implicates both Europe and the colonial settlement that in more than one sense is its own creation. In two specific terms, both as a haven for the victims of the Jewish Holocaust and as the legacy of European colonialism, Israel reflects back on its European pedigree.”[3]

Dabashi is not only endorsing hatred of Zionism and the state of Israel. He is also distorting history and equates the Holocaust with European colonialism; this is a trope, which does not hold scholarly standards. Instead of analyzing the faults and mistakes of the post-colonial worlds, Dabashi is portraying the entire non-Western world as a victim of imperialism, capitalism, and the United States, Christianity, and particular Israel. Arabs, who are part of the self-declared group of victims of history, collaborated with Nazi Germany; Dabashi ignores this. He also ignores the expulsion of some 650,000 Jews (or more) from Arab countries after 1948. Finally he ignores, for example, Arab slave trade since the medieval times and the racist view of blacks by Arabs[4] – such analysis would not fit in the pro-Muslim account of this Columbia professor.

The ignoring and rejection of the specificity of the Holocaust, the uniqueness of the Shoah, as well as the ignorance of the specific German condition and the history of antisemitism, as I analyzed it vis-à-vis the anti-Jewish motifs Ahasver, Mammon, and Moloch from the 17th centuries until today, is the ground from which Dabashi rumbles:

“It was Aimé Césaire who in his Discourse sur le colonialisme/
Discourse on Colonialism
(1955) argued that the Jewish Holocaust was not an aberration in European history. Rather, Europeans actually perpetrated similar crimes against humanity on the colonised world at large. With German atrocities during the Holocaust, Europeans tasted a concentrated dose of the structural violence they had perpetrated upon the world at large. Colonialism and the Holocaust were thus the two sides of the same coin: the aggressive transmutation of defenceless human beings into instruments of power – into disposable ‘things’. Long before the Jewish Holocaust, the world Europeans had conquered and colonised was the testing ground of that barbaric violence they had termed the ‘civilising mission of the white man’.”[5]

In 2006, Dabashi edited a book on Palestinian films based on a film festival at Columbia University in 2003.[6] Said himself gave a lecture at this event.[7] In his introduction, Dabashi equated Israel with European colonialism, as well as with South African Apartheid:

“At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Israel has mutated into a military machine no longer even true to the original design of pioneering Zionists in the nineteenth century, who dreamt of an exclusively Jewish state. Today, Israel is a military camp completely given over to the imperial designs of the United States. Most cases of colonialism have ended in indignity: the French packed up and left Algeria, the Italians Libya, the British India, so did the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the Belgians, and the Dutch. Those such as the Afrikaners who did not leave and stayed put with a shameless insistence on apartheid were finally swept away by the force of history, and had to abandon their racist practices and concede to the will of the nation they had subjugated. But the Zionists remain. The fact that Jewish communities have lived in Palestine since time immemorial is as much an excuse for the formation of a Jewish State in Palestine as the equally historical presence of Muslim or Christian Palestinians is an excuse for the creation of an Islamic or Christian republic. Palestine belong to Palestinians – whether Jews, Christians, or Muslims.”[8]

This is the same antisemitic argumentation we know from his support for Grass in 2012. In 2008, Dabashi published a book on Islamic Liberation Theology. Resisting the Empire.[9] Dabashi has an Iranian-American background and is pleading for a renewal of Islamic thinking. He opposes Islamism as we know it, and says that Islamism started in the early 19th century and came to end (unhappily) with the Islamic Revolution in Iran 1979.[10] The “Islamic Revolution” is a “failure”[11] to him; the binary opposition of West versus Islam no longer exists in his view. Therefore, Muslims and all others need to look for another solution for how to fight the “empire:”

“Today Muslims, as do millions of other people around the globe who do not confess their faith but share their fate, face an incessantly globalized empire whose amorphous shape has not yet allowed for an articulated response. The task ahead of us, Muslim or otherwise, is to articulate and historicize the contours of that response.”[12]

For him, like Giorgio Agamben (and other followers of Michel Foucault),[13] the 9/11-attacks and the US response are equally “terrorizing,” a term he uses for the “US military campaigns” after 9/11.[14] Dabashi admits that the 9/11 attacks were “barbaric and senseless act of violence.”[15] Dabashi, though, sees a potential “revolutionary” element in groups like Hezballah or Hamas.[16] He fears, though, that they ‘just’ aim at Israel, while he envisages a worldwide revolution based on the overcoming of the “empire,” read: American hegemony. He was a very close ally of Edward Said and tries to write “Orientalism” in the “post-9/11-syndrome”, or “Post-Orientalism.”[17]

 

It is worth quoting to get an inside view what Dabashi thinks about our time and a ‘Muslim awakening:’

“I propose that resisting a US-inspired globalized empire requires a radical thinking of the very notion of ideology – whether in its secular or theological variations. Neither anti-colonial nationalism, nor Soviet-style socialism, nor indeed nativist grassroots ideologies such as Islamic ideology of the last 200 years in Muslim countries or its Christian version the liberation theology of the last quarter of the century in Latin America is capable of mobilizing and sustaining enough revolutionary synergy to resist this predatory empire.”[18]

As a more sophisticated version, Dabashi promotes a non-essen­tialist version of a ‘revolutionary movement.’ Although a Muslim himself, seeking for Islamic rule, he seems to be relatively open to other anti-American coalition partners, too. His postmodern idea of the self is not based on an Islamist version of ideology we know from sharia-style Islamists like al-Qaradawi. Dabashi is against sharia law and strict rules: instead, he wants to initiate a world-wide movement aiming at the US and Israel (and the West, like the UK, although for him they are in fact already “dead,”), without being stuck in the exclusiveness of traditional Islamist wings of the political spectrum. Dabashi’s nice looking ideology propagates violence in words opposite to death:

“In terms of any liberation theology (Christian or Islamic), no such resistance can any longer be in terms of a singular ideology embedded in a medieval theology, or an ideologically updated version of it to resist a center-based ‘Western’ empire, or else through spectacular acts of senseless and iconic violence. Precisely because the nature and disposition of this failing empire, like the operation of the capital it wants to control, is amorphous, then resistance to it must be in terms of ideological guerrilla operations – light weight, regional, cross-cultural, non-essentialist, and if it be in theological terms then in terms that account for the existence of alterity in the world, that is to say of veritable theological incongruities – in principal a radically counter-authentic notion of ideologies, revolutions, and revolutionaries. The ethics of this theology is other-based, not self-based, Levinasian rather than Husserlian – its ethics, in Levinas’ words, is ‘otherwise than being or beyond essence.’ It does not authenticate itself. It embraces its own otherwise. The worst revolutionaries of this generation would be the authentic revolutionaries – the best ones are the syncretic, those who think, in Gianni Vattimo’s words, with an ‘il pensiero debole’ – with weak thoughts, and always breaking through the colonially manufactured boundaries of dividing thoughts and sentiments to rule people and their destinies.”[19]

Such ‘ethics’ include the murder of Jews, if we take into account the support of Hany Abu Assad’s film in 2005, Paradise Now. This film was in the making while Dabashi was working on his book on the film festival about Palestinian films. German and Austrian TV program Kulturzeit (culture time), made by mainstream TV journalist Gert Scobel, a Christian theologian, propagated the film. Scobel met with Abu Assad and they had quite a “funny time” when talking about suicide bombers in the making – Abu Assad says in an interview with Scobel that the “reality” of making the film “was even funnier” as seen in the highly pro-suicide-bombing film. I criticized the film and his German/Austrian fans in 2005.[20]

 

Applying Levinas or antisemite Gianni Vattimo and philosophical terms of revolution and non authenticity, as Dabashi does, facing the other in oneself is just the postmodern version of highly authentic Jew-hatred and antisemitism, aiming at the Jewish state of Israel. This becomes crystal clear in Dabashi’s book in 2008:

“The principal ally of this Christian empire is an avowedly Jewish state called Israel. The Christian empire and the Jewish state have collectively decided to call their mutual nemesis ‘Islamism.’ There is an Islamic republic in the immediate vicinity of this Jewish state that is both its mirror image in religious fanaticism and the locus classicus of this apparition they call Islamism.”[21]

Dabashi pretends to be anti-Ahmadinejad, and perhaps he is in a way indeed against him. However, he portrays the Iranian President as just another victim of the United States.[22]

 

Dabashi’s anti-Zionism is remarkable: well-educated, he implicitly equates Holocaust denial with Holocaust remembrance, the killing of homosexuals with giving shelter to Muslim and Arab homosexuals, the killing of opposition politicians and activists with the holding of uncounted rallies in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and throughout Israel. Democracy and change of government, separation of executive, judicial, and legislative power in Israel therefore is the same as the wali al-faqih in Iran.[23] This post-modern or ‘Islamic liberation theological’ thinking is beyond reality but fashionable. Grass also equates Iran with Israel, seeing Israel as the bigger and real threat to world peace. Therefore, Dabashi is a philosophical and political ally of Grass, and vice versa, regardless of the fact that social democrat Grass probably won’t share the world wide revolutionary movement Dabashi aims to initiate. But hatred of Jews in Israel is a common ground to start collaborating.

There is a highly Islamic way of thinking in Dabashi, based on Christian and Islamic ideas of global reconciliation and redemption.

“To reach for the enduring foundations of this liberation theology, the current condition of Islam as a moral and intellectual heritage must be linked to its premodern cosmopolitan disposition, which from the rise of the Abbasids in the middle of the eighth century to the demise of the Ottomans early in the twentieth has been the single most abiding characteristics of Muslim societies. Definitive to that polyvocal cosmopolitanism is a catholicity of learning, a multiplicity of legitimate discourses of authority that precisely in their multifaceted and contradictory dispositions have constituted the syncretic disposition of Islamic polyvocal culture. Rooted in that cosmopolitanism, Islam in its globalized disposition will have no discursive or institutional fears to be creatively conversant with a variety of (so-called sacred or secular, modern or premodern) cultures and disposition.”[24]

Dabashi is arguing in favor of nice-looking ‘cosmopolitan’ revolution, including cultural diversity – and likewise genocidal threats against the state of Israel, embedded in cotton balls. He is following the concept of worldwide revolution on which Khomeini built up Iranian, Islamist, anti-Israel and anti-Western agitation, including the collaboration with non-Muslim forces. “Polyvocal cosmopolitanism” sounds great, though the result is anti-Jewish action against Israel. In the name of religion and cosmopolitanism, hatred of Jews as Zionists prevails:

“The collective impact of all these developments will ultimately result in the active and creative integration of Islam and Muslim communities into global, transnational, liberation movements that will collectively resist the predatory US (or any other) empire. Beyond the classical mode of Islamism as experienced in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and beyond spectacular acts of senseless violence, there must be a mode of liberation theology that, closer to the roots of its metaphysics of salvation, is a theodicy that will have to embrace the extended shadows of the faith and thus engendering a mode of cultural cosmopolitanism that is the only way to combat the Christian empire and the Jewish state by a mode of theology that reestablishes its roots in the moral authority of Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike.”[25]

This is nothing but the “cultural cosmopolitan” way to endorse violence against Zionists. Dabashi is maybe a particularly interesting supporter of Nobel Prize Laureate Günter Grass. Both seek to destabilize and then destroy the Jewish state of Israel, Grass implicitly, Dabashi completely shamelessly. His open words of incitement to destroy Israel have been distributed by a leading publishing house, Routledge, and not a minor, hardcore left-wing extremist one like Verso, where his other book about embracing Arab violence against Jews in Israel was published two years earlier.

Now, a leading academic and political institution in Germany, the ifa (Institute for Foreign Affairs) organizes – and the WZB (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin) or Berlin Social Science Center is the host -, an event with someone like Hamid Dabashi and gives him a podium. This fits perfectly in the pro-Iranian politics of the German government.

Inviting a person like Dabashi, though, indicates an endorsement of modern Jew-hatred which is the defamation of the Jewish state of Israel. Is this Germany, again?

 

[1] This article is a chapter in Clemens Heni (2013): Antisemitism: A Specific Phenomenon. Holocaust Trivialization – Islamism – Post-colonial and Cosmopolitan anti-Zionism, 406–415.

[2] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mesaas/faculty/directory/dabashi.html (visited July 5, 2012).

[3] Hamid Dabashi (2012): “Günter Grass, Israel and the crime of poetry. In his poem, Nobel laureate Günter Grass criticises Israel and condemns German arms sales to the Jewish state,” April 10, 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/
opinion/2012/04/2012498535088416.html (visited May 6, 2012).

[4] See N’Diaye, Tidiane (2010): Der verschleierte Völkermord. Die Geschichte des muslimischen Sklavenhandels in Afrika, Reinbek: Rowohlt (first published 2008 in French).

[5] Dabashi 2012.

[6] Hamid Dabashi (ed.) (2006): Dreams of a Nation, London/New York: Verso.

[7] Edward Said (2006): “Preface,” in: Dabashi (ed.), 1–5. This is the “text of the keynote speech that Edward Said delivered at the opening night of our Dreams of a Nation: A Palestinian Film Festival, on 24 January 2003 at the Roome Arledge Cinema, Lerner Hall, Columbia University, New York,” ibid., 1.

[8] Hamid Dabashi (2006a): “Introduction,” in: Dabashi (ed.), 7–22, 10. Another highly troubling thing is the involvement of a leading American University (Ivy League), Columbia University. Dabashi is well aware of the importance of such support and acknowledges it. While high-profile scholarship against antisemitism like at YIISA, Yale University, was shut down by Yale University, antisemitic propaganda against the Jewish State of Israel is not just tolerated or accepted, it is even supported. Dabashi expresses his gratitude: “I thank all my distinguished colleagues at Columbia University who defied the atmosphere of fear and intimidation generated against us and joined our initial conference that we had organized in conjunction with the festival. Lila Abu-Lughod, Coco Fusco, Stathis Gourgouris, Joseph Massad, Rosalind Morris, Richard Pena, James Schamus, and Gayatri Spivak were exemplary models of courage in lending our festival the authority of their good names and being instrumental in making our event possible. We will never forget their noble stand for the indomitable cause of justice under very hostile circumstances. Under the terrorizing condition of post-9/11 New York – where street hugs, neo-con charlatans and hazardous millionaires have had a rendezvous with power – we were all put to test, and precious few of us passed the historical trial. I am particularly grateful to my dear friend and distinguished colleague Jonathan Cole, then our courageous Provost, for having withstood extraordinary pressure to safeguard our academic freedom. His untimely departure from that crucial post was tragic, and he is sorely missed at Columbia’s helm. (…) As in many other instances, the late Edward W. Said (1935–2003) was the principal inspiration behind the idea of this film festival and the project it commenced,” Hamid Dabashi (2006b): “Acknowledgments,” in: Dabashi (ed.), 209–213, 211.

[9] Hamid Dabashi (2008): Islamic Liberation Theology. Resisting the empire, London/New York: Routledge.

[10] Dabashi 2008, 3.

[11] Dabashi 2008, 3.

[12] Dabashi 2008, 56.

[13] He refers positively to Agamben and Foucault, Dabashi 2008.

[14] Dabashi 2008, 1.

[15] Dabashi 2008, 9.

[16] Dabashi 2008, 15.

[17] Hamid Dabashi (2009): Post-Orientalism. Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, xi. The book is dedicated “To the Memory of Edward Said,” “Cherished Colleague, Fallen Friend, Enduring Comrade.” Dabashi is looking for a “new organic intellectual,” ibid., 231, which is an abhorrent use of the term intellectual, taking into account the huge amount of bigotry and hatred towards America, the West, and particularly Israel, which can be found in the writing of Dabashi, for example in his book in support of the “Green Revolution” in Iran 2009. He is thrilled by overthrowing the Islamic Republic and wants the post-Islamist situation to be a source for anti-Zionist action, too: Hamid Dabashi (2010): The Green Revolution. Edited with an introduction by Navid Nizadfar, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 153–159. Nizadfar is a pseudonym.

[18] Dabashi 2008, 13.

[19] Dabashi 2008, 14–15.

[20] Clemens Heni (2005): “‘Und glaub mir, die Wirklichkeit ist noch viel lustiger’: Gert Scobel und Hany Abu-Assad verstehen sich,” February 18, 2005, http:
//www.hagalil.com/archiv/2005/02/scobel.htm (visited May 6, 2012).

[21] Dabashi 2008, 9.

[22] “The more fiercely Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Afghanistan were depicted as principal targets of the War on Terror, the shorter the historical memory necessary to sustain the delusion. Two years after Bin Laden and Afghanistan came Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and after another two years Ahmadinejad and Iran. Fabricating successive enemies thus became the principal modus operandi of the empire: one to two wars per presidential election,” Hamid Dabashi (2011): Brown Skin, White Masks, London/Black Point/Winnipeg: Pluto Press and Fernwood Press, 68.

[23] Robert Wistrich takes this principle as an example to draw a line from Platonic philosophy to Iranian style Islamist jurisprudence, Robert S. Wistrich (2010): A Lethal Obsession. Antisemitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad, New York: Random House, 880.

[24] Dabashi 2008, 265.

[25] Dabashi 2008, 265.

Huge event at Mount Scopus honors leading researcher on antisemitism

By Dr. Clemens Heni, Director, The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA)

 

25–28 May, 2014, Israel’s biggest and one of the biggest conferences world-wide ever on the topic of antisemitism was held at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, on the occasion of the retirement of historian Robert Solomon Wistrich. The International Conference was entitled “Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, Delegitimizing Israel.”

view-from-4th-floor-HU_0

(View from the Maiersdorf Faculty Club over Jerusalem*)

The location was beautifully chosen. From the terrace of the Maiersdorf Faculty Club, where the event was held, one has a stunning view over Jerusalem. On the other side of Mount Scopus, just a five minute walk away at the gorgeous Amphitheatre, one looks out over the Judean Mountains and desert up to the Dead Sea and Jordan.

campus-2-2_0

(Hebrew University, Campus, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem*)

Robert Wistrich is the author of 17 books and the editor of 12. His work has been translated in many languages. He published over 350 articles between 1973 and 2011 – you find a complete list of his writings from 1973 through 2011 in the German edition of his Muslim Antisemitism, published in 2011 by Berlin based publishing house Edition Critic.

(Prof. Robert S. Wistrich’s German edition of his bestseller brochure from 2002 with the American Jewish Committee on Muslim Antisemitism, published in December 2011 with Berlin based publishing house Edition Critic)

I know of no other scholar who has such a record and continued reflection on antisemitism, the “longest hatred” and “lethal obsession,” as Robert frames it very precisely. His first article was published in 1973 about “Karl Marx, German Socialists and the Jewish Question.”

(Amphitheatre, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus)

Wistrich is known for “stepping back” and looking at the big picture, as he emphasized during his long talk at the conference. He focused on Jewish anti-Zionism, starting with famous Austrian literary critic Karl Kraus. The outstanding nature of Robert’s scholarship became again obvious during his presentation: like almost no one else he is able to jump from 19th century Jewish anti-Zionism and Reform Judaism to Judith Butler and Noam Chomsky’s 21st century Jewish anti-Zionism. He is not drawing direct lines and is very well aware of the differences between Hannah Arendt and Judith Butler, for example. The latter needs the German-Jewish thinker to bolster her own anti-Zionism. Arendt’s criticism of the nation-state, though, is indeed dangerous when it comes to the Jewish state. Still, this might differ from the very outspoken hatred of Zionism known from many Jewish-Austrian thinkers through the 1930s and that of the Butlers, Chomskys or even Finkelsteins of our time.

Robert_Wistrich_at_the_SICSA_International_Conference_2014_in_Jerusalem_0

 

(Prof. Robert S. Wistrich during his presentation at the SICSA conference, Tuesday, 27 May, 2014)

Robert Wistrich dedicated several of his books to his mother Sabina. She made aliyah age 100 in 2010. When asked at Ben-Gurion Airport if she was so fascinated about Zionism to make aliyah at that age, she said: “No, I just want to see the book of my son. That is the reason I came to Israel.” She was thinking of her son’s comprehensive history of antisemitism, A Lethal Obsession. Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad, a 1184-page volume, published that year.

Robert Wistrich’s research can be put in five categories:

1)       The Left and Antisemitism

2)       Jewish History

3)       Hitler, National Socialism and the Holocaust/Shoah

4)       Theories and the analysis of antisemitism and anti-Zionism

5)       Muslim antisemitism

Contrary to many, Robert sees Friedrich Nietzsche in the most positive sense of the word as the most anti-German philosopher ever. Nietzsche was not a forerunner of fascism and Nazism. Instead, he embraced the Old Testament and the Jewish “naiveté of the strong heart.” One of the best talks at the huge conference was given by Margaret Brearley (not only because of her wonderful British accent). She dealt with German anti-Jewish esoteric and occult or paganist thinking from Friedrich Schiller through German romanticism and Schopenhauer.

Robert Wistrich was born in April 1945 in Kazakhstan. His father, Jacob Wistreich, a former member of Hashomer Hatzair, was displaced by Stalin (I do intentionally not use the word „deported“ as this means in German to be deported to a Holocaust site). This displacement by Stalin saved his life. Robert Wistrich lost half of his family in the Shoah.

Robert grew up in England, learning Polish, French, then English, German and Hebrew. He also knows or can read and listen to several other languages, including Yiddish, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, Italian, Spanish, Latin, Dutch, and Arabic. His focus on Jewish history in Habsburg Austria is of tremendous importance. For example, he analyzed in his 1985 study Hitler’s Apocalypse the antisemitism of Hitler, including the time before 1914. Hitler lived in Vienna from 1907 until 1913. I mentioned this during my presentation at the conference, as we are increasingly facing scholars and authors who distort Hitler’s antisemitism. Take Brendan Simms from Cambridge, England, as an example. He argued in 2014 in an article for International Affairs that the First World War made Hitler an anti-English soldier. Only later did he become antisemitic, according to Simms. The same holds for American journalist Jonah Goldberg (National Review Online) who claims that Hitler was a leftist and “socialist” as he writes in his truly troubling and barely scholarly book Liberal Fascism. I emphasized that the notion that Hitler was left is utterly wrong. For example, “German Socialism,” as we call it, was based on private property and capitalism. The core of this “German Socialism” was hatred of Jews and the creation of the “people’s community” or Volksgemeinschaft in German. Hitler was an antisemite and the most far right politician ever. He was not an anticapitalist and not a “man of the left.”

At least in passing I could mention that there were Marxist (and later post-Marxist) pro-Israel scholars. Take Leo Löwenthal, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno and Critical Theory as an example. Most pro-Israel scholars and authors in America, the UK, South Africa, Australia and Israel think a priori that Critical Theory is anti-Zionist. That is not the case. But one has to be able to read German to discover the truth behind the origins of Critical Theory, founded in 1937 by Max Horkheimer. He had to struggle with Zionism, but supported Israel. He was aware of the Nasserist and Egyptian threat in the 1950s, for example. I have just published a comprehensive study on the topic of Critical Theory and Israel.

Gershom Scholem, one of the most famous Israeli and Hebrew University professors ever, became a political Zionist by the mid 1930s, turning his back on the “Brit Shalom” period of 1925–1933, based on binationalism and rather cultural Zionism. In my talk, I focused on scholars like Christian Wiese from Frankfurt University who embraces the binational ideology of Hans Kohn. In 2006, Wiese went so far as to quote from one of the most absurd anti-Zionist books so far, Jacqueline Rose’s Question of Zion from 2005. In that book, Rose wrote that Hitler was perhaps inspired to write Mein Kampf and Theodor Herzl to write Der Judenstaat at the very same concert of Wagner music. The problem is that Herzl finished his manuscript in May 1895. Hitler was born in 1889 and was never in France until 1940 when he conquered the country with the German Wehrmacht. Wiese quoted from the very chapter (pages 58–107) in Rose’s book where this antisemitic fantasy of the Hitler/Herzl association by the same taste in music appeared. Finally, I analyzed the scholarly shortcomings of Yale historian Timothy Snyder in his study Bloodlands, which distorts Auschwitz and the Shoah. I also emphasized his close relationship with anti-Zionist Tony Judt. Likewise I criticized Yale’s Seyla Benhabib and her defamation of Israel in 2010. Then, I mentioned troubling tropes in contemporary scholarship in postcolonial studies that distort the history of the Shoah.

At the conference at SICSA there were almost 40 speakers and presentations from four continents (America, Europe, Africa, Asia). Rabbi Abraham Cooper from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles analyzed the shocking new wave of anti-circumcision and anti-kosher-slaughtering discourse all over Europe, including Germany. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin dealt with the BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement in California at the huge University of California (state sponsored) educational system. New York’s Ben Cohen with his deep “Alabama” English accent (that remark was funny, as his accent obviously is British) focused on some core features of today’s antisemitism. He distinguishes between historical German “bierkeller” antisemitism and today’s “bistro” antisemitism. Rude agitation and the defamation of Jews as Jews were replaced in many western societies by the more sophisticated version of 21st century anti-Zionist antisemitism. Stephen Norwood showed the overlapping of left-wing and right-wing antisemitism in the United States. He also emphasized that there was significant support in the American Catholic mainstream and the Church during the 1930s and World War II for far-right Jew-hatred like that of Catholic priest Charles Coughlin.

A very few presentations, though, gave several people pause. One speaker said that there is “no Palestinian people” – who, then, should acknowledge the Jewish state, one must ask. Another speaker went so far as to say that the “West Bank is temporarily occupied by the Palestinians.” This was portrayed as supposedly pro-Israel. In fact, it is damaging the Israeli society from within the pro-Israel camp. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year said that a future Palestinian state in the territories should think about including Jewish citizens. In fact, since 1948, Israel has some 20% Arab and Muslim citizens as well. Why is everybody a priori thinking of a Palestinian state with no Jews? Today, some 20% Jews are living in parts of the disputed territories. Daniel Pipes wrote about Netanyahu’s “master stroke.” Although I was not able to attend all presentations I did not hear people discussing that idea. This master stroke by Netanyahu includes the acceptance of Jews living in Judea and Samaria and in an Arab state. That would be a signal to the entire Arab and Muslim worlds that Jews are accepted as citizens and are not the “sons of pigs and apes” as the antisemitic discourse in parts of the Arab world always suggests.

Another speaker at the conference said that Norwegian killer Breivik is a criminal, “but” he killed “socialist anti-Zionists and possible future anti-Zionists.” This was shocking not just to me and I left the room soon after.

Jusos

 

 

 

Another speaker stressed that EUrope is already “Islamized” which was a rather racist comment and had nothing to do with a specific criticism of Islamism, Jihad and Muslim antisemitism. One speaker said that Islam as such is the reason for antisemitism and every single (believing) Muslim will become an antisemite sooner or later. Jihadists and Islamists are antisemites today, other Muslims will become antisemitic later. This is of course not the case. Take groups like British Muslims for Israel as an example, among many other pro-Israel Muslims. They are a tiny and oppressed minority in the Muslim community, but they exist. Or look at people like Irshad Manji, known for her modern translation of the Quran. She is pro-Western, pro-Israel and anti-Islamist. The ontologization of Muslims as “the enemy” sooner or later has of course to be rejected.

In addition, I would state: In May 2014, American anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller and her allies started an ad campaign in New York City. They show the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, talking to Hitler in November 1941. It is tremendously important to focus on that alliance, indeed. But what does the ad say? On the right side of that big picture one can read “Islamic Jew-hatred: It’s in the Quran”:

 

This reminds me, sarcastically, of leading Sunni Islamist Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He said in January 2009 on TV that Allah installed Hitler to “punish the Jews.” This Holocaust affirmation is unbelievable. Geller, who is of course pro-Israel and against antisemitism and Jihad, now insinuates that not just the Mufti but also Hitler was inspired by the Quran. The Quran and Islamic Jew-hatred was first and then came Hitler. This is also distorting the history of Islamism as a modern phenomenon in the Muslim world. To claim that today’s Islamist antisemitism is in the Quran – and promoting this ideology with a picture of Hitler – denies or obfuscates the very history of Islamism.

In addition, it also obfuscates the history of Austrian and German modern antisemitism that lead to the Shoah. Islamism is a very modern ideology, as historian and Islamic studies scholar, president of the Middle East Forum (MEF) in Philadelphia, Daniel Pipes, tirelessly emphasizes. Take Hassan al-Banna’s founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Egypt as a kind of starting point for 20th century modern Islamism as a mass movement. Old Islamic Jew-hatred rather resembled Christian Jew-hatred, and is distinct from German eliminationist antisemitism during Nazi Germany and the Shoah. Pipes is also always emphasizing the historical and political difference between Islam and Islamism, take 1798 as a starting point for the demise of the Muslim world and the emergence of Islamist ideology.

Holocaust remembrance is used as a tool to fight the Jewish state. This was a core message of one the most fascinating greeting remarks at the gala dinner at the first evening of the conference by Canadian scholar in law and politician, Irvin Cotler. He is known worldwide for his fight against antisemitism and he is using law to fight Jew-hatred like the incitement to genocide by Iran. Cotler focused on the supposedly well-meaning and for sure more sophisticated anti-Zionist activists of today. They say that the Holocaust was a horrible crime, like South-African apartheid. At this point I ignore the Holocaust distorting aspects of that very comparison or equation, by the way. For liberals in particular Israel has become in some respects the new “Apartheid State” or even “Nazi State.” And here is what Irvin Cotler emphasized: IF Israel is an apartheid state or even a Nazi state people have to fight it. The terms apartheid state and Nazi state are not just meant to defame the entire project of a Jewish state. It calls liberals, leftists and all other people of “good will” to arms, according to Cotler. Anti-Zionist antisemitism is seen by those activists as a form of “anti-fascism.” There is a moral “necessity” to be anti-fascist and therefore today “anti-Israel,” as those people insinuate. Cotler’s vibrant and impressive remarks were a model for the entire conference. People truly feel good to fight Israel as this is seen in their delusional worldview as an act of “anti-fascism.” Cotler grasped and criticized that ideology splendidly.

British legal scholar Lesley Klaff showed the mainstreaming of “Holocaust inversion” in the UK, using the example of the Liberal Democratic Party’s MP David Ward. Since 2010, the Liberal Democratic Party is a coalition partner of the British government under the Conservative Party’s leadership of Prime Minister David Cameron.

Political scientist Matthias Küntzel from Hamburg analyzed the failure of the international community to deal with the antisemitism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime. Meir Litvak from Tel Aviv University also dealt with Iranian anti-Zionist antisemitism. However, Litvak also said that Iran is much more a rational country and not driven by Islamist messianism, as some might think. Esther Webman focused on aspects of the Arab antisemitic discourse, including Holocaust denial. Milton Shain from Cape Town, South Africa, focused on left-wing and Muslim anti-Zionist activism in the former apartheid state.

Historian Laurence Weinbaum from the World Jewish Congress (WJC) in Jerusalem spoke about Polish antisemitism in recent decades and the failure of Poland to deal with its involvement in the Shoah and with its own Jew-hatred before and after 1945. At the end of the day, though, the glass of water is rather “half full” and not “half empty,” Weinbaum said, given the fact that Poland is the first country of the former East Bloc that tries to deal emphatically with antisemitism and its own history, thanks in particular to the scholarship of Jan Tomasz Gross. Sarah Fainberg and Samuel Barnai dealt with Russian antisemitism and anti-Zionism, like far-right groups that embrace Nazi antisemitism and the “8. SS Division Florian Geyer” which has supporters among hardcore antisemitic (and anti-Western) groups in today’s Russia, as Barnai showed in his vibrant talk. Fainberg underlined that it is very difficult to take sides in the current crisis in Ukraine. For sure Russia has to be criticized for its policies, but Ukraine is not just a victim: the conflict is much more troubling. Particularly when it comes to antisemitism, this becomes obvious. In addition one could say: take Stepan Bandera statues and pro-OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) propaganda during the uprising this year at the Maidan and in many parts of Ukraine as examples. Russian antisemitism and anti-Western ideology is also very troubling and not every Russian criticism of “fascist” tendencies and antisemitism in Ukraine is necessarily honest in nature, given similar tendencies in Russia which are not condemned by the Kremlin.

French philosopher Shmuel Trigano gave yet another proof of his deep insights in contemporary antisemitic tropes in philosophy, including post-modernism. Trigano frames contemporary antisemitism as disguised as “philosemitism,” which is in fact true. Remember Cotler’s focus on Holocaust remembrance and its abuse by anti-Zionists. Historian Dina Porat underlined the importance of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism. She knows that this was never a legal document. However, it is important, according to Porat, to have a document that states, for example, that comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany are not criticism of Israel but antisemitism.

One of the highlights of the conference was for sure the talk by Indiana Professor emeritus in Jewish Studies, Alvin Rosenfeld. He dealt with the reactions – today we would say “shitstorm” – on his world-famous brochure “Progressive” Jewish Thought and the new antisemitism from 2006, published by the American Jewish Committee (AJC). In his monograph Rosenfeld analyzed Jewish anti-Zionist thought, including Jacqueline Rose, Michael Neumann and Tony Judt. The New York Times set the pace for the denunciation of Rosenfeld’s masterpiece. Several authors criticized terms and events that Rosenfeld did not even mention in his piece, like the “Iraq War” or terms like “liberals” or “the liberals.”

Finally, there was a small concert for the conference participants at the Botanical Garden at Hebrew University. The four Israeli Irish folk musicians, among them a kind of young Jerusalem version of Paul Simon, gave the participants a wonderful rest. The place was other-worldly, typical Jerusalem stones surrounded by trees and flowers. At some point, a bird joined the concert. Before, the visit of the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis I, in the Middle East, could not overshadow the fantastic experience at Mount Scopus.

The entire conference was just possible thanks to the support by the Knapp Foundation, New York, and Charles Knapp, who also gave a powerful greeting address at the very beginning of the event and thanked all participants at the very end of the gathering with an exceptional statement: we, the speakers, shall keep on doing our research the way we do it and the way he witnessed it. This would be like a “thank you” to him…

In addition, Felix and Daniel Posen were supporters of SICSA and the event. I was a happy Felix Posen Fellow of SICSA in 2003 and 2004, after having been a speaker at Robert’s first international conference as new head of SICSA in December 2002.

Many conference participants said that they are looking forward to the future work of the honoree. His focus on the “longest hatred” paved the way for many scholars in recent decades. People who know the current situation among research centers on antisemitism world-wide are aware of the fact that this is an exception from the rule. It was a privilege for all speakers and participants to share their views on antisemitism, anti-Judaism and the delegitimization of Israel with the historian of antisemitism of our time.

However, we have to be realistic. Future generations of scholars even in Israel are not necessarily very much involved in the study of antisemitism. Nor are they known for a vibrant Zionist approach… Time will tell what research in antisemitism will look like in the years to come. Perhaps this conference was the peak of an entire generation or even several generations of scholars in antisemitism, headed by Robert Solomon Wistrich.

(Backcover of the German edition of Robert S. Wistrich’s Muslim Antisemitism, Dec. 2011)

 

* Many thanks to Lesley for sharing these pics with me and for her encouragement; as ever, I would like to equally thank Leslie for her editing; finally and in addition, the support and encouragement in recent days by friends and colleagues from around the world was wonderful, thanks so much to Simon, Steffi, Elena, Peter, Thomas, Milton, Jonathan and Neil.

Präsentiert von WordPress & Theme erstellt von Anders Norén

Cookie Consent mit Real Cookie Banner