In a recent article in one of the biggest German weekly newspapers Die Welt about the resignation of Jewish Museum’s Director Peter Schäfer, the author cites B'nai B'rith International's criticism of the position and statements of the museum. Talmud-Gelehrte sind zwar notorisch streitfreudig, wenn es um die Auslegung religiöser Schriften geht, aber vielleicht auch deshalb in tagespolitischen Fragen eher zurückhaltend. Deshalb war es eine Sensation, als 45 Talmud-Gelehrte einen offenen Brief unterschrieben, in dem sie eine „wachsende Zensur und die Einschränkung der Redefreiheit“ in Deutschland
beklagten. Anlass war der Rücktritt eines der Ihren – des deutschen Talmud-Gelehrten Peter Schäfer – als Direktor des Jüdischen Museums Berlin (JMB). Einer der Urheber des Briefs, Ishay Rosen Zvi von der Universität Tel Aviv, nannte es „empörend“, dass Schäfer Antisemitismus vorgeworfen worden sei. „Blood libel“ gegen Schäfer? Zwar hat wohl niemand diesen Vorwurf erhoben, doch Zvi ging weiter und sprach von einer „blood libel“ gegen Schäfer. Unter „blood libel“ versteht man die Lüge, die Juden würden das Blut geschächteter christlicher Kinder benutzen, um ihre Pessach-Matzen zu backen. Eine Verleumdung, die im Mittelalter immer wieder zu mörderischen Pogromen führte. Die Gleichsetzung der vor allem von jüdischen Organisationen wie dem Zentralrat oder B’nai B’rith erhobenen Kritik an Schäfer mit dem Judenhass christlicher Fanatiker ist so absurd, dass man an Zvis akademischer Qualifikation noch mehr zweifeln muss als an seiner politischen Urteilskraft. Aber sie ist kennzeichnend für die Bitterkeit, die – so scheint es zumindest – Schäfer selbst in die Auseinandersetzung um seinen Rücktritt getragen hat. In einer von über 370 Wissenschaftlern aus aller Welt unterzeichneten Erklärung wird nämlich von einer „erzwungenen Demission“ des Direktors gesprochen. Wenn Schäfer zum Rücktritt gezwungen wurde, dann hätte das nur Monika Grütters tun können. Als Staatsministerin für Kultur und Medien führt sie den Vorsitz im Stiftungsrat, der das Museum kontrollieren soll. Sollte Grütters dem Direktor den Rücktritt nahegelegt haben, dann kann nur Schäfer das wissen und weitergetragen haben. Die 370 Gelehrten reden auch von „Lügen“ und „falschen Anschuldigungen“ gegen Schäfer. Die gleiche Formulierung findet sich im Brief des Vorsitzenden des Vereins der Freunde des Museums, Walter Kuna an alle Vereinsmitglieder. Das ist eine Praxis des Generalverdachts gegen Kritiker, die so empörend ist, wie es die – unbelegte – erzwungene Demission des Direktors wäre. Nur eine Person wurde gefeuert Tatsächlich ist nur eine Person am JMB gefeuert worden, und zwar Pressesprecherin Katharina Schmidt-Narischkin. Jahrelang hat sie loyal ihren Chef abgeschirmt und verteidigt. Kein Akademiker hat gegen diesen Willkürakt protestiert, der für den im JMB herrschende autoritären Stil typisch ist, dem sich viele Mitarbeiter – allen voran Programmdirektorin Léontine Meijer-van Mensch – durch Weggang entzogen haben. Als Ergebnis bleibt die Dauerausstellung geschlossen, das geplante Kindermuseum unfertig, die Akademie des Museums ohne Führung. Und wenn es um falsche Anschuldigungen geht, so muss vor allem die Unterstellung genannt werden, Benjamin Netanjahu habe bei Angela Merkel interveniert, was letztlich zu Schäfers „erzwungener Demission“ geführt habe. Eine Falschmeldung, die eine Zeitung von der anderen abschreibt, ohne die Quelle zu prüfen: Ein Artikel in der israelischen „Haaretz“, die ihrerseits einen Artikel der Berliner „taz“ überinterpretierte und mit einer irreführenden Überschrift versah. Tatsächlich fand im Rahmen der deutsch-israelischen Regierungskonsultationen Ende 2018 ein Austausch von „Non-Papers“ statt. Das ist ein üblicher Vorgang, bei dem eine Seite die andere ausdrücklich unterhalb der Ebene offizieller Noten oder diplomatischer Demarchen auf bestimmte Sorgen aufmerksam macht – etwa auf die Geschichtsdarstellung in Schulbüchern oder die Unterbesetzung einer Konsulatsabteilung. In einem dieser Non-Papers, das ein Mitarbeiter des Auswärtigen Amts an die „taz“ durchstach, äußerte die israelische Seite ihr Befremden über die Jerusalem-Ausstellung des JMB, die nicht nur nach ihrer Meinung das jüdische Narrativ unzureichend berücksichtigte. Staatsministerin Grütters hat sich dieser Kritik nicht angeschlossen. Sie hat die Ausstellung verteidigt und Schäfers Vertrag vier Monate nach der israelischen Intervention verlängert – was man als gezielte Brüskierung der Regierung Israels deuten könnte, aber kaum als Kotau vor Netanjahu. Bloße Fakten hindern aber keinen Netanjahu-Hasser daran, die Fake News zu verbreiten, der jüdische Staat bestimme die Personalpolitik im deutschen Kulturbetrieb. Weil sich der Zentralrat der Juden über einen Tweet des Museums empörte, in dem die Resolution des Bundestags zur antiisraelischen Boykottbewegung BDS kritisiert wird, beschimpfte Micha Brumlik den Zentralrat in der „taz“ als „Hofjuden“. Empörend ist dabei weniger, dass der emeritierte Professor der Erziehungswissenschaften den Zentralrat kritisiert, sondern dass er die Bundesrepublik mit einem feudalen Duodezfürstentum vergleicht. „Blick nach vorn richten“ Inzwischen hat der Stiftungsrat getagt und Worte gewählt, die auch für auslegungsfreudige Talmud-Gelehrte eindeutig sind: Es sei „einmal mehr deutlich geworden, dass gerade auch Juden sich in der Arbeit des JMB wiedererkennen müssen und die nicht jüdische Welt mehr über das Judentum erfährt. Aus Fehlern der Vergangenheit haben Prof. Schäfer und das Museum ihre Konsequenzen gezogen. Jetzt heißt es, den Blick nach vorn zu richten.“ Die Grammatik ist schief, die Aussage klar: Viele Juden in Deutschland haben sich im JMB nicht wiedererkannt. Die nicht jüdische Welt hat zu wenig über das Judentum erfahren. Deshalb musste Schäfer gehen. Bis zur Benennung eines neuen Direktors oder einer neuen Direktorin im Frühjahr 2020 soll eine „Vertrauensperson“ den Stiftungsrat „in konzeptionellen Fragen beraten“. An dieser Personalie wird man erkennen können, ob das JMB tatsächlich den Blick nach vorne richtet und sich das „J“ im Namen wieder verdienen will. In the wake of the 25th anniversary of the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, B'nai B'rith International CEO Daniel S. Mariaschin wrote an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post about the need for justice in this still-unresolved case. Next month will mark the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the AMIA building in Buenos Aires, which took the lives of 85 people and injured more than 300. The attack on the social services hub of the Argentine Jewish community remains the largest terrorist attack in Latin America. Memorial services marking a quarter century since the attack will begin this month.
To this day, justice has not been served to the victims and their families. For three years in the wake of the attack, the judge heading the inquiry produced 22 arrests – mostly Buenos Aires provincial policemen – and a trial that, in the end, amounted to nothing more than a diversionary wild goose chase. A representative of our organization attended every day of the nearly three-year trial. But the stench of a cover-up hovered over those proceedings. Not-guilty verdicts were handed down for those brought to trial, and the judge was later impeached for attempting to bribe a witness to give testimony incriminating police officers and for his general mishandling of the case. He was summarily removed from his post. But what did come out of early scrutiny of the attack was the unmistakable hand of the Iranian regime. At first, it was studied speculation, but by 2006, two prosecutors in the case officially put the finger on Tehran. Operatives connected to the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires were identified, but at that point, they all had made their way out of the country. The case was turned over to two new prosecutors, Alberto Nisman and Marcelo Martínez Burgos, who in 2007 brought the matter to Interpol. They had requested that “red notices,” or arrest warrants, be issued to nine suspects, including former Iranian president Ali Rafsanjani, former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati and former Iranian ambassador to Argentina Hadi Soleimanpour. Interpol’s executive committee let those three officials off the hook, choosing instead to issue notices for the other six suspects. Years passed, but Nisman, now working alone, pressed ahead. In 2015, he was ready to release evidence that a deal had been negotiated at the highest levels of the two governments, which would see Tehran deliver oil to Argentina in exchange for food, weapons and a pledge to convince Interpol to drop the red notices on the terrorist suspects. On the eve of this information being shared in the Argentine Congress, Nisman was found dead, from what the authorities called a suicide. Doubt immediately surfaced, given the nature of the charges Nisman was about to bring. Subsequently, the mysterious circumstances of Nisman’s death have become clarified, and evidence points to him having been murdered. THE AMIA CASE is only one in a litany of terrorist acts carried out on foreign soil by the Iranian regime. In 1992, in what foreshadowed the attack on the AMIA building two years later, a suicide bomber attacked the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 and injuring 242. Responsibility was claimed by the Islamic Jihad organization, a group believed to have ties to Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hezbollah. Also that year, three Iranian opposition leaders and their translator were killed at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin. The verdict in that case pointed to Iran’s highest officials – as believed to be the case in the AMIA bombing – having signed off on the attack. In 1996, in an attack on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, a truck bomb killed 19 American soldiers and a Saudi citizen, and nearly 500 people were injured. While credit was not claimed, it is widely and authoritatively believed that Hezbollah was behind the attack. Iran’s malign behavior operates on three fronts: its pursuit of nuclear weapons; its support for and use of terrorist proxies in the Middle East and beyond; and its serial abuse of human rights of women, adherents of the Baha’i faith, political dissenters, juvenile offenders and the LGBTQ community. The Trump administration has rightly pointed to serious omissions in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multi-lateral agreement meant to curb Iran’s nuclear program. But in bringing Iran to the table, the international community made a monumental error in judgment in not opening talks at the same time on the other two legs of Tehran’s destructive behavior. Had it done so, we might well have been able to shine a conclusive light on the activities of its agents in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994. Today, at the site of the AMIA bombing, there is a stunning memorial to those killed on that day 25 years ago, created by the Israeli artist Yaakov Agam. Perhaps more touching are the names of the victims listed at the site: professionals of Jewish organizations, office workers and people from the community who had come to seek assistance for one or another personal or family matter. A van packed with 600 pounds of explosives put an end to all of that, in seconds. The Iranians are still at it. They’ve provided Hezbollah with more than 100,000 rockets, and Hamas with many thousands. They work with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, and with North Korea. They have taken over Lebanon, have ensconced themselves in Syria and are meddling in Iraq, Yemen and the Eastern Mediterranean. Tehran has used the JCPOA as cover for its other nefarious activities. It has enjoyed impunity for far too long. Its decades-long record of promoting terrorism to advance its hegemonic objectives demands accountability and international opprobrium. That the European Union could not agree on designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization (it ultimately created the fiction of military and political “wings” of the organization so it could have it both ways) speaks to the failure of international will to confront the Iranian menace. In the meantime, a quarter century has passed without the perpetrators of the AMIA bombing and their sponsor being brought to account. For the sake of the victims and their families, is it too much to ask that justice be served? If we are to turn the tide on state sponsored terrorism, let it begin here – before the dust collects on memory while those who were responsible remain free. Jerusalem Post - Berlin Jewish Museum Director Resigns over Tweet Endorsing Antisemitic BDS6/17/2019 The Jerusalem Post quoted B'nai B'rith International President's Charles O. Kaufman's letter decrying the actions of the Jewish Museum Berlin's Director Peter Schäfer in its coverage of Schäfer's resignation from his post. The director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum, Peter Schäfer, announced his resignation on Friday “to avoid further damage,” a week after The Jerusalem Post first reported that the institution endorsed the BDS campaign on the museum’s Twitter feed.
“All those responsible must help ensure that the Jewish Museum Berlin can again concentrate on its important work in terms of content,” German Culture Minister Monika Grütters, who oversees the board of the museum foundation, said on Friday. Schäfer’s deputy, Martin Michaelis, will assume responsibility for running the museum until a successor can be hired. Pressure to remove Schäfer grew over the past week, and experts in the field of antisemitism told the Post that they implored Grütters to take action against Schäfer and the antisemitism scandals at the museum. “What’s crucial now is for the museum to identify leadership that commits to professionalism and the truth of sharing the long and rich Jewish life of Germany,” B’nai B’rith International president Charles O. Kaufman, who sent a letter last week to Schäfer about the museum’s anti-Israel direction, told the Post on Friday. “This museum must earn the name Jewish Museum, and in doing so, earn the trust of the country, Europe and all visitors from around the world. It must not immerse itself in politicizing history, stooping to propaganda, and worse, revisionism.” British journalist Tom Gross was invited to tour the museum by Schäfer’s office last year and expressed his dismay afterward at some of the anti-Israel political aspects he saw. “The important thing now, since the museum is currently replacing its permanent exhibit, due to reopen next year, is to make sure Schäfer’s replacement is someone who is more interested in remembering the enormous contributions of Berlin’s Jews to German and world history, and in accurately explaining the sheer sadistic horrors of the Holocaust, rather than engage in anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, extreme left-wing posturing,” Gross told the Post. Katharina Schmidt-Narischkin, spokeswoman for the museum, was summarily dismissed, according to a Munich-based media outlet. The paper reported that she had written the anti-Israel tweet. The Post asked Schmidt-Narischkin numerous times last week for a comment, but she declined to respond. The museum is widely considered a hot-bed of anti-Israel resentments. “Enough is enough,” said Dr. Josef Schuster, president of the nearly 100,000-member Central Council of Jews in Germany. “The Jewish Museum Berlin seems to be completely out of control. Under these circumstances, one has to think about whether the term ‘Jewish’ is still appropriate.” His comments came after the museum tweeted an article from a left-wing Berlin-based paper calling on the Bundestag to reverse its anti-BDS resolution, which classified BDS as antisemitism. The council added that the museum’s management “has lost the trust of the Jewish community in Germany.” Schuster said on Friday that Schäfer’s decision to toss in the towel was “an important step.” Schäfer has been facing criticism over the years for promoting a one-sided exhibit on Jerusalem that plays down the role of Jews in the city, according to critics. In March, Schäfer invited the antisemitic Iranian regime diplomat Seyed Ali Moujani to the museum. Ali Moujani used the meeting to promote the view that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Schäfer regretted the interaction last week, but in March he welcomed the anti-Israel tirade against the Jewish state. Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, first coined the phrase the “anti-Jewish Museum” in 2012 in connection with the institution hosting the pro-BDS academic Judith Butler, who promoted BDS at the museum in 2012, after having expressed support for the terrorist entities Hezbollah and Hamas in 2006. “Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important,” said Butler at the time. Jerusalem Post - German Antisemitism Commissioner Slams Berlin's Pro-BDS 'Anti-Jewish Museum'6/11/2019 The Jerusalem Post included excerpts from a letter to the Jewish Museum in Berlin from B'nai B'rith International President Charles O. Kaufman in its coverage of the museum's support for the BDS movement. Uwe Becker, commissioner of the Hessian federal state government for Jewish life and the fight against antisemitism, has blasted Berlin’s Jewish Museum for stoking an antisemitic boycott of the Jewish state.
In a written statement to The Jerusalem Post, Becker said on Sunday that “The Jewish Museum in Berlin obviously sees as its task to take a stand against Jewish life in our country and especially against Israel. The recent support for BDS is a disgrace! After a total single-sided exhibition about Jerusalem now another scandal. This is not a Jewish but an anti-Jewish Museum.” The Post obtained a letter from Charles O. Kaufman, president of B’nai B’rith International, to Peter Schäfer, the controversial director of the museum in Berlin. “It appears that the German propaganda machine of the 1930s lives,” Kaufman wrote on Sunday in the letter. “I became aware of your anti-Israel mission with your recent ‘Welcome to Jerusalem’ exhibit, an utter distortion of the capital of the Jewish State. Now with its pro-BDS message to Twitter followers, the Jewish Berlin Museum becomes the leading contender to be renamed the Insult to Injury Museum. This latest action from the ‘Jewish Berlin Museum’ is ridiculous if not shameful. BDS is an antisemitic movement that demonizes Israel, Jews and seeks to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Economic data shows that the BDS movement actually harms, not helps, the plight of the Palestinian people. It’s sad that this museum so miserably misses the mark time and again in telling the story of the Jewish people. Its work not only serves as an insult to Jews; it’s an insult to the intelligence of the German people.” The intense criticism directed at Schäfer’s alleged anti-Israel and anti-Jewish direction of the museum comes in response to a pro-BDS Tweet from the publicly-funded Jewish Museum on Thursday. The museum appeared to endorse an article in favor of reversing an anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) resolution passed by the German parliament last month. The museum tweeted to its 7,510 followers: “must read. The [anti-BDS resolution recently passed by Bundestag] decision of the parliamentarians does not continue to help in the fight against antisemitism: @tazgezwitscher on the accusation of 240 Jewish and Israeli academics to the Bundestag.” The museum’s tweet linked to an article sympathetic to the BDS movement that appeared in the left-wing paper taz, a paper that has been engulfed in antisemitism scandals over the years. Professor Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, tweeted on Sunday in response to a Post story about the BDS activity at the museum: “Demonization campaigns singling out Israel (BDS) are immoral, and propaganda promoted by jmberlin [Berlin Jewish Museum] from tazgezwitscher and 200 ‘intellectuals’ does not change that.” Steinberg first coined the phrase the “anti-Jewish Museum” in 2012 in connection with the museum hosting the pro-BDS academic Judith Butler. Butler promoted BDS at the museum in 2012, and expressed support for the terrorist entities Hezbollah and Hamas in 2006: “Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important,” said Butler. British journalist Tom Gross told the Post: “I was recently invited by the Berlin Jewish Museum director’s office to tour the museum’s current ‘Jerusalem’ exhibition. I was shocked by the prevalence of the anti-Zionist, often antisemitic, fringe Neturei Karta movement in the Jewish part of the exhibit. The hateful placards of this group (who have supported Holocaust deniers in Iran) were on display without any contrary explanation for museum goers of who they are.” He added: “When I expressed my dismay to the museum director’s office, even though they had invited me to the museum, they failed to respond. The Jerusalem exhibit presently dominates the museum since the permanent exhibition is closed for over a year while it is completely re-done. I just hope that when it reopens it will give an honest assessment of the Holocaust and antisemitism, and not some distorted version.” In March, Prof. Peter Schäfer, the non-Jewish director of the Jewish Museum, hosted a diplomat from the Islamic Republic of Iran, sparking widespread criticism for mainstreaming the Iranian regime’s genocidal antisemitism. “With the invitation, the Jewish Museum gives the Iranian Embassy the opportunity to make its antisemitic anti-Zionism part of the public debate,” said Stop The Bomb spokeswoman Ulrike Becker at the time. Katharina Schmidt-Narischkin, a spokeswoman for the museum, did not immediately respond to a Post query regarding the new wave of criticism facing the museum. Schmidt-Narischkin told the Post on Sunday that the museum rejects BDS. |
In the NewsB'nai B'rith International is the Global Voice of the Jewish Community. Archives
March 2021
All rights reserved. Stories are attributed to the original copyright holders.
Categories
All
|