Unfortunately Jews in Europe face a lot of backlash. A lot of it by the deliberate and constant equating of Judaism and Israel by Israeli lobby groups, politicians and classic antisemites. In Germany the government and some media outlets harass antizionist Jews.

We dont need to love any people beyond loving them as our neighbors. Singling out people to “love them” over other people also is a form of discrimination and othering. In Germany there is the term “philosemites” coined for people who make that absurd show of “loving Jews” typically also being rabidly pro-Israel.

We should just live in peace with people and enact specific protection against specific discrimination where necessary, but stop putting people on a pedestal.

That being said if your relationship to all people is that of “loving them” then it should apply to everyone.

Also “terrorists make money off aid” only works if aid is scarce. The entire “argument” is circular logic.

Because the company being complicit in serious crimes against humanity and war crimes is a work related issue. You know like your boss demanding you to be an accomplice in a crime is a work related issue and most likely you have signed somewhere that you would report any suspected criminal activity to HR or your higher ups. Problem is if these are part of the crime too.

If we lived in a world where there would be a rule of law thousands of Microsoft Employees would face life imprisonment for being accomplices to serious crimes.

Calling this out is definitely work related.

You claimed China would want to “destroy Europe”. Why would it want to destroy Europe? China is profiting of the war. War profiting is pretty common and extensively done by the US, EU and other global actors too. Doesn’t mean they want to destroy each other.

Also don’t you think it a bit weird to work towards economic cooperation if you would want to bomb the same place? Do you think China wants its hundreds of billions of assets in the EU being blown up?

EU makes full sanctions -> bans all ships carrying military and dual use goods from entering ports -> Option A Israel stops. Option B, EU countries agree on a military mission to force an aid corridor into Gaza by Sea. If Israel attacks, Nato article 5.

The idea that Israel would hold back and the US willing to double down and ramp up support and Israel somehow listening to the EU while doing the exact opposite of what is demanded is absurd. If the EU would get its shit together, the US and Israel would stand alone. The EU could get access to the surrounding countries and exert pressure to block US influence. Then the US would have to decide to go to WW3 against the EU to protect Israel? This wont happen.

This is appeasement nonsense. And it is in no way representing “adult” politics. Appeasement didnt work with South Africa. Appeasement didnt work before. Appeasement doesn’t work with Russia. Appeasement never works with fascists. The only thing that stops them is to take away any support they have.

And time is running out. We are looking at hundreds of thousands if not millions of people being genocided by starvation this year. There is nothing “adult” about watching a crime and not doing anything to stop it.

but as long as Germany stays a good cop the Israeli left still has an ally, is able to exert political pressure.

The Israeli left, who is persecuted in Germany, for instance by forcing Omri Boehm out of the Buchenwald liberation commemoration. Also “good cops” dont hand weapons to mass murder suspects.

Germany has demanded a pledge from Israel to only use it for actions compatible with international law. I know how that sounds, I know what you think about it: “Oh, interesting, they’re setting a trap”. (That is what you thought, didn’t you?).

It is more like “give me a pinky promise and i trust you. Just let me out of responsibility”. Also that radar is used to facilitate bomb and drone strikes. It doesn’t matter if it is not the explosive part of a weapon system that is delivered. Any military or dual use good is complicity.

It’s not like Israel wouldn’t be able to produce all the weapons they need to turn the whole of Palestine into mulch on their own, btw.

Except they didn’t because they couldn’t and mostly relied on foreign military aid. but even if they had the production capacities, they would need the raw materials. These again facilitate complicity.

Germany basically does this out of the recognition that Hezbollah etc. exist and would exploit Israeli weakness.

The Hezbollah that was pressured into a ceasefire through a heavy bombing campaign on Lebanon killing thousands of people at the time these new shipments were announced?

Also pick one. Either Israel can make all the stuff themselves or they need help. Both at the same time isnt possible.

Anniversary of 60 years of diplomatic relations, it had to be done.

No. Shaking hands with a wanted war criminal never has to be done. See Putin not being visited for the 80 years end of WW2. Unless you want Putin to be visited and his hands shook?

And btw can you explain what practical impact the “delay” has. The warrants are still out, they’re still not in custody.

Every month of earlier pressure means earlier sanctions means earlier end to the atrocities, means hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of people killed.

It is also completely insufficient, yes.

As has been all responses to German demands for the past two years. Remaining on the side of just making demands without exerting real pressure means to remain apathic to the atrocities committed at best, but very often complicit.

Why would China care more about Russia than good ties with the EU? Trump is alienating the EU, so the former western block is getting weaker. China has been successfully building the BRICS up to become more and more of an economic challenger to the NAFTA+EU+UK markets (broad category, i know). Right now China is in a trade war with the US. The more the countries attacked by the US band together, the stronger they can oppose the US.

China has strong incentives to strengthen economic ties with Europe. For that Europe needs to be wealthy enough to buy from China. At the same time the EU is not a military threat to China. With the recent escalation between India and Pakistan showing Chinese military jets to be competitive to supposedly modern french jets, China’s only military competitor in the world is the US. And the US is currently dismantling itself.

Finally China is getting payed quite well by Russia for its support. If Russia cannot deliver more, i am skeptical if China would continue that.

A lot of that is shitty for Europe, but i don’t see the intent of China to be to “destroy Europe”.

Germany kept sending arms to Israel. Among other things outgoing chancellor Scholz and his coalition had approved another 100 million € of weapons to Israel as late as October 2024.

The current chancellor announced that he wants Netanyahu to come to Germany and that he would find a way around the ICC arrest warrant, aka defy the rules based international order to host a suspected war criminal.

Just last week Germanies president was shaking hands with Netanyah in Israel. Germany is the only country siding with Israel in the genocide case at the ICJ. Germany delayed the ICC proceedings against Netanyahu, Gallant, Sinwar and Deif and Hanye with ridiculous arguments in their notes to the court. Just yesterday the German government in their press conference said that it was an “important and good step” that Israel allowed 9 trucks into Gaza. 9 trucks as the minimum to end starvation are 500 trucks a day.

Germany continues to support Israel financially, diplomatically and with weapons. The lip services are worthless, as the actions speak continued support.

Israel claims “warning shots”. Israel has been lying about countless attacks. For instance having brutally massacred 15 medics including executions at short range, where all of the claims later fell apart thanks to video evidence.

However this brutal murder apparently neither moved European countries seriously, nor did it move any relevant part of Israels society to stop this kind of acts.

How do the people being murdered by bombs and starvation and the announcements to ethnically cleanse Gaza or annihilate the population by the Israeli government fit into this?

Because you are insinuating that demanding to talk about and end the mass murder and ethnical cleansing of two million people means “being useful idiots” for Putin.

Also “Hamas started this war” is ignoring some 75 years of what happened before as well as the fact that Israel killed more than 200 Palestinians in 2023 before October. This ignores the ongoing ethnical cleansing and settlement occupation of the Westbank.

Finally Hezbollah for the longest time did not want go to full blown war with Israel, instead it only made token efforts and that front was ultimately escalated by Israel in September 2024 to distract from Gaza. If there would have been an actual coordination between Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis, they would have all struck together and Oct. 7 and things would have looked very differently.

Your theory is wrong and your suggestion that opposing crimes against humanity would make one “useful idiots” is morally deeply wrong.

European countries, especially Germany and the UK are mayor supporters of Israel and the support went on as the genocidal intent was made louder and louder by the Israeli government.

The UN says that within the next days 14,000 babies will be killed by starvation through the total aid blockade and hundreds of thousands of people are on the brink of starvation.

Again European countries support this or remain inactive about it. Suggesting now to “pause content” is quite unhinged. People are being subjected to the most heinous crimes and the only thing that can achieve a change is to keep up pressure, which starts by keeping to talk about it.

Instead demanding silence is morally wrong.

Is there a non hostile influence by foreign powers on domestic policies?

And by this logic we are already in World War III. Seems pretty calm still all things considered…

I dont think that there is ideological ties to these. What we have in Germany is a very problematic amalgamation of a few ideologies.

First of all it is important to understand that Antisemitism has been alive and well in Germany past World War II. The proclaimed “Memory Culture” only started to gain traction in the West in the 80s. In the former GDR there was much more “Memory Culture” but it revolved around overemphasizing the struggle of communists and other political antifascists, who were one of the many groups mass murdered in the concentration camps. for the first 30 or so years after the war, the tactic was to largely just be silent about the past.

When Germany reunited it was met with a lot of fear by surrounding countries that Germany could become not only powerful but also hostile and imperialist against its neighbors again. To improve the image of a peaceful nation Germany embraced the narrative of the “memory culture”. A country that has worked through its past and learned from it. This narrative was especially important as the economic consequences of the reunification served as a breeding ground for militant Neonazis who committed Pogroms against migrants and other attacks and were quite visible inside Germany. Meanwhile there was one big issue. There was hardly any Jewish people left in Germany. Still today there is approx. 200.000 Jewish people, less than 0.3 % of the total population and among them many people with Israel-German dual nationality. So German politics looked towards the state of Israel to grant them the rubber-stamp of having adorned for the past.

From there on the Israeli influence on the Jewish society in Germany grew and politics increasingly looked to embrace Israel as evidence of having adorned for the past.

Over the past 15 years or so a new aspect came in. By ramping up racism against Arabs in Israel, but also in all of the western world it became attractive in Germany to create the narrative of “imported Antisemitism”. This is especially embraced by the right and far-right, who are looking to free themselves of the “inherited guilt”. By making “the Arab” the source of Antisemitism in the public discourse Germans could legitimize their racism and free themselves of their guilt. “See it is them who are the Antisemites, not us!”. For Israel this served a similar purpose. By making the Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general “Antisemites” questions about the legitimacy of opposition to Israel could be silenced. There would be no need to look into the veracity of statements like accusing Israel of apartheid. That statement is simply antisemitic and expression of evil, no need to look further…

Finally this morphes into Fascists like the AfD embracing Israel as it servers to justify ethno-nationalism. It also serves to attack progressive political movements from the left as “antisemitic” for not being in blind support of Israel. This helps to circumvent questions of the imperial history of Germany, Germanies other genocides and of course the question of colonial dimensions to Israels expansionism, the interest of weapons manufacturers in perpetual war and the broader context of Western geopolitics in the Middle East.

Here you can see a banner that is showing it quite well imo. The subtext reads “against left, right and islamist antisemitism”. They put “left” first as this seems to be more important than the “right”. Meanwhile Antisemitic crime, especially violent crime in Germany is largely perpetuated by the far right, such as a terror attack on a Synagogue in 2019.

If you put these pieces together, you can see why German politics are so hellbent on doubling down for Israel. They would have to leave their Lalaland in which Germany is the good guys. They would need to face the rising Fascism in Germany and relate it to their own policies and acknowledged how they enable it themselves. They would have to acknowledge how they attacked Jewish people who oppose Israel and they would need to acknowledge that they never made Germany a safe and welcoming place for Jewish people.

Describing the way the activists were removed from the hall by DIG members, Michael Spaney from DIG said they were “nicely maneuvered out” of the hall (though they were “lashing out”), while the BDS activists said Stavit Sinai was punched in the face.[1][2] Ronnie Barkan said that a video shown to the judge during the trial showed the moment Sinai was punched.[3]

DIG is accused by the Jewish antizionist protestors to have assaulted them. I provided context that over the last year and a half they have been advocating or being apologetic towards violence and calls of violence. So them punching antizionist Jews seems plausible to me, for which i added the context.

They should also go against the weapons manufacturers enabling these attacks which are…

…in many cases themselves

EDIT: i realized this will get way too long. I will see if i will make the analysis in a seperate form and link the article for interested readers.

P 12

Frage, ob die BDS-Kampagne antisemitisch sei, eindeutig mit ja.20 Laut den Autoren ließe sich das mit gängigen Definitionen von israelbezogenem Antisemitismus begründen, aber auch dadurch, dass die Boykottkampagne ein „fundamentaler Angriff“ auf „eines der wichtigsten Symbole zeitgenössischen jüdischen Lebens“ sei – nämlich auf den Staat Israel.

Here the RIAS is employing the IHRA definition as the “go to definition”. They earlier mentioned the existence of the JDA but didn’t consider that by the JDA definition this book might fall apart. Again Israel is considered to be “one of the most important Symbols of current jewish Life” which is blurring the lines between Judaism and Israel and excludes antizionist Jews.

P 13 for the state of the German academic debate

Zudem haben zahlreiche zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen die Frage des Anti- semitismus im BDS-Netzwerk untersucht.30 Im Gegensatz dazu sind Untersuchungen, die keine oder nur wenige Hinweise für Antisemitismus in den Argumentationen und Methoden der BDS-Kampagne feststellen können, in deutschsprachigen aka- demischen Veröffentlichungen eher selten zu finden.31 Im Ergebnis ist die Position, die BDS-Kampagne sei vielleicht zu kritisieren, aber nicht per se antisemitisch, aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht vor allem eine Behauptung, aber nicht durch aktuelle Antisemitismusforschung unterfüttert.

RIAS is focusing solely on the German academic debate and marking it as indicative of the global academic debate as a whole.

The sources they quote:

24 Julia Bernstein: Israelbezogener Antisemitismus. Erkennen – Handeln – Vorbeugen. Weinheim 2021, S. 51ff.

From the Introduction

Das lässt schon ersichtlich werden: Die „Israelkritik“ ist der zeitgemäße Ausdruck des Antisemitismus, mit ihr wird heutzutage die Judenfeindschaft legitimiert

Um zentrale Fehlannahmen und Mythen über Israel als Akteur im Nahost- konflikt zu entkräften, wird deshalb rekonstruiert, dass es sich um einen Israel aufgezwungenen Konflikt handelt, der seinen Ursprung an der Absicht, Israel zu zerstören hat, und dessen Entwicklung eben vom Antisemitismus bestimmt worden ist.

So by this academics idea Israel is the victim, not the perpetrator of violence in the Middle East. With the genocidal statements we have heard en masse since October 7, but also before from Israeli politics this discredits this source in my eyes.

31 Diese Position findet sich etwa bei Muriel Asseburg: Die deutsche Kontroverse um die BDS-Bewegung. In: Wolfgang Benz (Hrsg.): Streitfall Antisemitismus. Anspruch auf Deutungsmacht und politische Interessen. Berlin 2020; Tsafrir Cohen/Katja Hermann /Florian Weis: Die Kampagne „Boykott, Des- investitionen und Sanktionen“. Hintergründe, Ziele und Methoden. https://www.rosalux.de/ fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Artikel/15-21_Onl-Publ_Die_Kampagne.pdf (09.03.2023).

I’d like to positively point out for RIAS that they mentioned Asseburg. In an Interview a few month before October 7 2023 she stated that the current state of oppression is unsustainable and will lead to an escalation of violence.

P14

Es gibt durchaus wissen- schaftliche Argumente, die gegen eine pauschale Bewertung der BDS-Kam- pagne als antisemitisch vorgebracht werden. Diese sollen in den folgenden Kapiteln dargestellt werden. Dennoch ist der zuweilen kolportierte Eindruck falsch, dass eine „differenziertere Betrachtungsweise“ bezüglich der Frage von Antisemitismus im BDS-Netzwerk zu einer äquidistanten Position zwischen BDS-Befürworter_innen und Kritiker_innen führe.35 Die vorliegende Publikation zeigt vielmehr: Wer sich differenziert mit der Geschichte, den Akteur_innen, den Forderungen und den Hand lungen der BDS-Kampagne auseinandersetzt und dabei auch die Perspektiven von Jüdinnen_Juden berücksichtigt, kommt eher zu dem Schluss, „die Methoden und Argumentationsmuster“ von BDS durchaus als antisemitisch anzusehen.

This is the key thesis of RIAS in the publication.

“There is indeed scientific arguments against a general evaluation of BDS as antisemitic… However the impression would be wrong that a “differentiating approach” towards antisemitism in the BDS network would lead to an equal distance between BDS approvers and critics. This publication will show that those who look with differentiation at the history, actors, demands and acts of BDS and includes Jewish perspectives will gravitate to the conclusion that the methods and argumentations of BDS are indeed to be seen as antisemitic.”

We need to dissect this. By looking at the campaign as a whole the conclusion of RIAS is that the methods and argumentations of BDS are indeed antisemitic. So not the methods and argumentations are evidence of the antisemitism of the campain being antisemitic, but rather the campaign by antisemitic is evidence of the antisemitism of the methods and argumentations.

The question is which methods and argumentations exactly RIAS considers to be proven antisemitic by their publication. Does it extent to boycotts as a whole or is it more specific?

For this i’d like to point towards the ICJ rulings again, who demand to end all economic activities (and other activities) that help Israel facilitate its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Further we need to remember that the ICJ rules Israel in violation of the prohibition of Apartheid and racial segregation. This creates an upper ceiling of how far RIAS can go without discrediting itself. If RIAS goes beyond that, they position themselves against international law as it is interpreted by the ICJ who is the recognized authority for doing that.

Lets dive in:

P 17

Erstens ist es wichtig, bei der Debatte über Antisemitismus im Zusammenhang mit der BDS-Kampagne auch tatsächlich und konkret über das BDS-Netzwerk und seine Kampagne zu sprechen. Das BDS-Netzwerk ist keine beliebige Boykott- kampagne gegen Israel. Es handelt sich vielmehr um spezifische Akteur_innen, die mit der Bezugnahme auf BDS konkrete Forderungen und Statements formulieren und auf vielfältige Weise zur Tat schreiten. Was im Folgenden über die BDS-Kam- pagne gesagt wird, muss nicht zwangsläufig für andere Boykottkampagnen gelten – diese können womöglich andere Ziele, Methoden oder Argumentationen verfolgen und verwenden

This alludes to the question raised above. RIAS acknowledges that boycott is not automatically equal to the BDS campaign. We will see how this plays out in the further parts of the publication.

Zweitens ist das BDS-Netzwerk ein globales Phänomen. Für die Debatte in Deutsch- land sollte vor allem das Agieren der BDS-Kampagne in Deutschland und Europa relevant sein. Dennoch sind Äußerungen und Forderungen von Akteur_innen in den besetzten palästinensischen Gebieten und im Gazastreifen für diese Debatte relevant, vor allem, weil sie in Deutschland und Europa aufgegriffen werden und sich BDS-Aktivist_innen affirmativ auf sie beziehen. In der Debatte um Antisemi- tismus und die BDS-Kampagne sollte der Fokus aber stets beim Antisemitismus in Deutschland und Europa liegen und nicht bei unterschiedlichen Positionen zum arabisch-israelischen Konflikt.

RIAS acknowledges BDS to be a global phenomenon. It says that the debate in Germany should be focused on Germany and Europe, while taking statements from Palestinians into account. They then limit again that the question of Antisemitism in the BDS campaign should be focused on Germany and Europe and not look at “different positions on the “arab-israeli” conflict.” Note that they refer to “occupied Palestinian territories and the Gaza strip”. This is in contradiction to the ICJ ruling that Gaza is also occupied by Israel by exerting the control over all land, sea and air borders of Gaza even before the ground invasion since October 2023.

Es lässt sich in der Regel schwer sagen, ob eine Person sich unbedacht und ohne entsprechende Intentionen antisemitisch äußert oder ob sie über ein geschlossenes antisemitisches Weltbild verfügt und dieses bewusst verbreitet. Gegenstand der Auseinandersetzungen sollte eine inter- subjektiv nachvollziehbare Bewertung von Äußerungen und Handlungen sein. Diese ermöglicht eine Beurteilung des BDS-Netzwerks und seiner Kampagne.

RIAS acknowledges the difficulty of concluding from an individual to a group and therefore needs to see a consistency between statements and actions and the build this into a larger context.

P 19 - P 22

RIAS draws on the history of the term “apartheid state” and boycott demands. RIAS suggests that these are antisemitic by giving examples of these preceeding the 1967 war and subsequent occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Westbank. However the Nakba and the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is not mentioned as a source of calling Israel an “apartheid state” or accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”

P 23

Dennoch ist es wichtig zu betonen, dass es sich hierbei um eine Assoziation handelt und nicht um eine Gleichsetzung der BDS-Bewegung mit dem NS-Boykott. Eine solche Assoziation ist aus den genannten Gründen durchaus nachvollziehbar – erst recht für Betroffene von aktuellem Antisemitismus oder für Überlebende der Schoa und deren Nachkommen. Zugleich ist zu beachten, dass es auch völlig losge- löst vom Nationalsozialismus eine Geschichte politischer Boykotte als Protestform gibt. […]

RIAS acknowledges that equating the NS-boycotts against Jews and BDS-boycotts is wrong, despite a lack of sensibility of the boycott movement according to RIAS. This brings us back to Leber, who makes this equation in his polemic.

Sebastian Leber is not a credible source as pointed out. Pointing out the credibility of a source is relevant and providing better sources is necessary. For journalists and historians critique of sources is one of the key aspects of their work. In that sense your argument of rebuking false friends should equally be applied to Leber as he is discrediting the fight against antisemitism.

Employing that source critique should also apply to RIAS, who published your source. RIAS says on their website that they work closely with the “Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland”, which morphed over the past decades to become radically pro Israel. Among other things it published an “opinion peace” in its “Jüdische Allgemeine” paper which claimed “The civillians in Gaza aren’t innocent” and justified the murder of civilians. It backtracked and published a reaction by a Jewish German journalist who asked how they could come to “elevate this inhumane (menschenverachtend) polemic into the paper”.

RIAS uses the IHRA Definition and considers calling Israel an Apartheid state as antisemitic, as it would delegitimize Israel. The ICJ is therefore antisemitic as it concluded that Israel is violating the prohibition of Apartheid or Racial seggregation.

https://report-antisemitism.de/documents/25-06-24_RIAS_Bund_Jahresbericht_2023.pdf

P 17:

Beispielsweise fand Anfang April in Flensburg eine Versammlung anlässlich des sogenannten Tag des Bodens10 statt. Dort sprach ein Redner von 75 Jahren Apartheid in Israel – einer Israel delegitimierenden und damit antisemitischen Aussage.

P 18:

Im Vergleich zum Vorjahr gab es auch deutlich mehr Vorfälle an öffentlichen Gebäuden. Dies erklärt sich zum Teil durch Israelflaggen, die nach dem 7. Oktober an vielen Rathäusern gehisst wurden und anschließend gestohlen oder beschädigt wurden.

While Israel is mass murdering civilians damaging Israeli flags that are presented at German public buildings is considered “antisemitic” by the RIAS.

Just a few paragraphs earlier:

Eine Gruppe von 23 Personen, durch ihre Kippot als jüdisch erkennbar, lief durch einen Park, als zwei Männer ihnen von einer Parkbank aus mehrmals „Free Falastin [Palästina]“ hinterherriefen. Dadurch setzten sie die jüdischen Betroffenen mit dem Staat Israel gleich und machten sie für dessen Handlungen verantwortlich

So RIAS acknowledges that conflating Judaism and Israel is antisemitic, but at the same time does not employ this standards to themselves.

P31

Unter den antisemitischen Vorfällen, die eindeutig einem politischen Hintergrund zugeordnet werden konnten, war der antiisraelische Aktivismus 2023 erstmals die häufigste Kategorie. Dazu rechnet RIAS Vorfälle, bei denen die israelfeindliche Motivation eindeutig gegenüber einem anderen politischen Hintergrund über- wiegt – etwa einem links-antiimperialistischen oder einem islamisch-islamistischen. Dazu zählen beispielsweise säkulare palästinensische Gruppen sowie Unter- stützer_innen antisemitischer Boykottkampagnen gegen den jüdischen Staat Israel. 2023 ordnete RIAS insgesamt 595 antisemitische Vorfälle oder 12 % aller Vorfälle dem politischen Hintergrund des antiisraelischen Aktivismus zu. 2022 waren es nur 6 % aller Vorfälle.

Here the circle closes. By considering boycott calls towards Israel as antisemitic a large swath of people and demonstrations can be deligitmized as antisemitic. Again this logic includes the ICJ who made it clear that any economic activity that helps facilitate the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel must be stopped.

Auf der Bühne war auf einem Transparent unter anderem zu lesen „75 Jahre Israel = 75 Jahre Apartheid, Kolonialismus und Vertrei- bung der Palästinenser“. Ein_e Redner_in sprach davon, dass Israel kein Existenz- recht habe und dass es auf einem Genozid, der Nakba, aufgebaut sei.

Again, calling out the Nakba as ethnic cleansing or genocidal and the seizure of territory by force as colonialism is apparently antisemitic to RIAS.

P 38

Den 7. Oktober als Gelegenheitsstruktur19 kennzeichnet, dass die Terrorangriffe und Massaker an sich ein Ereignis extremer Gewalt mit genozidalem Charakter sind und sich dies in der Folge qualitativ und quantitativ auf antisemitische Vorfälle in Deutschland auswirkte.

The 07. October 2023 is considered an “even of extreme violence with genocidal Character” by RIAS. In the same report that is saying that calling Israel an Apartheid state or genocidal is antisemitic.

P 42

Mitunter beförderte die mediale Berichterstattung über das Kriegs- geschehen die Mobilisierung. Das geschah auch durch die Verbreitung von Falsch- informationen: So konnte RIAS einen sprunghaften Anstieg von antisemitischen Versammlungen feststellen, nachdem am 17. Oktober auch öffentlich-rechtliche Medien ungeprüft eine Darstellung der Hamas verbreitet hatten. Sie behauptete, dass eine israelische Rakete das Al-Ahli-Krankenhaus in Gaza-Stadt getroffen und 500 Menschen getötet habe.

RIAS accuses German public broadcasters as “distributing fake-information”. It further claims Hamas would have spread fake-information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion

Journalist David Zweig reported that widely reported claims in Western media that a Ministry of Health spokesperson claimed 500 had been killed appear to have originated from a mistranslation of an Al-Jazeera Arabic tweet, which correctly translated claimed over 500 total victims or casualties, not 500 or anywhere near 500 killed.[8][9]

As for the discussion about the origin of the attack, for which after a lot of back and forth an Israeli fragmentation bomb is identified as the likely source, RIAS just cuts this short, assuming the attribution to Israel to be “fake-information”.

P 44

Mit Beginn der militärischen Reaktion Israels wurde vermehrt der Vorwurf verbreitet, Israel begehe einen Genozid an den Palästinenser_innen. RIAS erfasst diesen Vorwurf nicht per se als antisemitischen Vorfall, sondern nur, wenn er in einem bestimmten Kontext erfolgt. Dieser ergibt sich beispielsweise durch eine Relativierung der Schoa oder eine Gleichsetzung des israelischen Vorgehens mit dem Nationalsozialismus, etwa in der Parole „One genocide does not justify another one“.

So RIAS claims to not consider calling out genocide as antisemitic per se, despite giving examples where they do not explain why it would be antisemitic in this context. In the particular example given now "One genocide does not justify another one“ is considered as equating the it with the Holocaust. This is frankly absurd. Especially since the attacks of October 7, but also before Israel is constantly referring to the Holocaust as a key justification for its attacks and oppression against Palestinians and many more people in neighboring countries.

Auch die Parole „Kindermörder Israel“, die an die antijudaistische Ritualmord- legende anschließt und den Staat Israel delegitimiert,

Calling Israel a murderer of children is considered antisemitic by RIAS. The UN just reported that in the next days 14,000 Babies in Gaza will be killed by starvation unless the blockade is lifted. Even the Israeli opposition is now crying out the “murder of babies as a hobby.”

Now to get to the BDS report of RIAS:

P 4 preamble

Ein Akt genozidaler Gewalt. Die von den Hamas-Terroristen mit GoPro-Kameras aufgezeichneten und mitunter über die Mobiltelefone ihrer Opfer verbreiteten Gräueltaten zielten darauf ab, Jüdinnen_Juden weltweit in Angst und Schrecken zu versetzen.

“An act of genocidal violence … the distributed videos of heinous acts aim at instilling fear in Jews worldwide”

This decontextualizes the attacks and motivations of Hamas, who employ acts of terror but whose actions are targeted at achieving their political goals in regards to Israel/Palestine. Hamas is often likened to Al-Quaida or ISIS, i.e. by Netanyahu, to create an idea of it being a threat to western countries.

Während die Hamas-Terroristen in den Kibbuzim im Süden Israels morden, veröffentlicht der Twitter-Kanal der weltweiten BDS-Kampagne: „Escalate all BDS campaigns now!“ Schon am 8. Oktober werden die Massaker der Hamas von der deutschen BDS-Kampagne als „schlagkräftiger bewaffneter Aufstand“ bezeichnet und es werden konkrete Boykott-Maßnahmen empfohlen, So soll sich für die Schaffung „Apartheid-freie[r] Zone[n]“ und für die Beendigung aller „Beziehungen mit Apartheid Israel und den Unternehmen, die an seinem Unterdrückungssystem beteiligt sind“ eingesetzt werden.1

P 49 that is linkes as source:

Noch am Tag des 7. Oktober 2023, als die Kämpfe mit den Terroristen der Hamas im Süden Israels noch andauerten, veröffentlichte das BNC ein Statement zu den Massakern.120 Am selben Tag lieferte die zentrale Kampagnenwebseite in Deutsch- land eine eigene Übersetzung dieses Statements.

From the source linked in the report:

Die BDS-Bewegung verurteilt die Regierungen des kolonialen Westens aufs Schärfste dafür, dass sie sich wieder einmal heuchlerisch auf die Seite von Apartheid Israel stellen und dessen irreführende Chronologie der aktuellen Gewalt“ übernehmen, als ob alles heute Morgen mit dem schlagkräftigen bewaffneten Aufstand der unterdrückten Palästinenser*innen in Gaza begonnen hätte. Diese verzerrte Chronologie soll den Beginn und die Eskalation der jahrzehntelangen kolonialen Gewalt des Unterdrückers verschleiern.

RIAS ignores the context that in the morning of the 07. October it was only known that the border wall and army stations have been overrun, which is covered by the right of people to resist their occupation and needs to be differentiated from terrorist attacks on civilians, for which evidence emerged during the day. Also note RIAS mixing 07. and 08. October. This can happen as a tipo but should not, as the chronology is crucial here to see what is legitimate and what is terror sympathy.

The head of the German Israeli Society DIG - Volker Beck demanded in an interview in January 2024 as the head of the DIG that aid to Gaza should be weaponized to press free hostages.

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/video249532622/Gaza-Streifen-Muessen-die-Lieferung-von-Hilfsguetern-staerker-mit-der-Befreiung-von-Geiseln-verbinden.html

“Müssen die Lieferung von Hilfsgütern stärker mit der Befreiung von Geiseln verbinden”

The DIG recently sparked controversy as a restaurant catering at one of their events serving a drink “Watermelon meets Zion” with watermelon “shredded, pureéd and hacked”. The poster shows a lion with an Israeli flag and watermelons with faces in the background.

The DIG said it felt sorry and can see why people felt offended although the poster would be “obvious satire”.

With the only one quoting this from personal interviews being Sebastian Leber who is known to polemizise and violate journalistic standards. Also in the same article he brushes away any critic on Israel, including the critic of Apartheid. He does not make any remarks as to which role the quoted person would play in the organization.

https://feddit.org/post/12828383/6778065

Just from the polemic style and tagesspiegel it was clear that it must have been from Sebastian Leber.

Am Alexanderplatz forderten sie mehrfach den Boykott israelischer Waren. Klingt für viele nach „Deutsche! Wehrt euch! Kauft nicht bei Juden!“

He equates Israel with all Jews, which has antisemitic connotations.

Sie wollten bloß die israelische Apartheid abschaffen.

Äh, Apartheid?

He thinks that calling Israel an Apartheid state would be antisemitic. That aged like milk.

Zu seinen Kernforderungen gehört, dass alle palästinensischen Flüchtlinge nach Israel zurückkehren dürfen, dazu deren Kinder, Enkel und Urenkel. Ein solches Rückkehrrecht wäre weltweit einmalig. Israels Juden wären fortan in der Minderheit. Ob dieser Staat dann noch Israel heißen könne, müsse die neue Mehrheit entscheiden, sagt Deeg. Als Europäer solle man sich da nicht einmischen.

He claims that a right of return for forcefully displaced people would be “globally unique”. In fact it is an “inalienable right” by the UN resolution 3236. Also he then says that this would put Jews into a minority in Israel. He then suggests that this would be an existential threat to Israel. However he does not bother to consider what this means about the kind of state Israel is.

Die führenden Köpfe sagen ganz offen, dass sie keine zwei Staaten, also Israel neben Palästina, dulden werden. Dass der Judenstaat verschwinden muss und es dann nur noch einen Staat Palästina gibt.

“The leading heads” he claims, without noting who exactly that is supposed to be. This is in stark contrast to all the people he names by full name in the article. Also calling Israel “Judenstaat” - “The state of the Jews” rings racist/antisemitic. A more neutral formulation would be “jüdischer Staat” - “Jewish state”.

Wenn die BDS-Mitglieder Israel einen „Apartheidstaat“ nennen, meinen sie nicht etwa Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Westjordanland. Sie glauben, dass der Staat auch die 20 Prozent seiner eigenen Bürger, die arabischstämmig sind, als Menschen zweiter Klasse behandle.

He claims that Palestinian Israelis would not be discriminated against in Israel, despite that being well reported.

I will provide an excerpt from Amnesty International

Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise about 19% of the population, face many forms of institutionalized discrimination. In 2018, discrimination against Palestinians was crystallized in a constitutional law which, for the first time, enshrined Israel exclusively as the “nation state of the Jewish people”. The law also promotes the building of Jewish settlements and downgrades Arabic’s status as an official language.

The report documents how Palestinians are effectively blocked from leasing on 80% of Israel’s state land, as a result of racist land seizures and a web of discriminatory laws on land allocation, planning and zoning.

The situation in the Negev/Naqab region of southern Israel is a prime example of how Israel’s planning and building policies intentionally exclude Palestinians. Since 1948 Israeli authorities have adopted various policies to “Judaize” the Negev/Naqab, including designating large areas as nature reserves or military firing zones, and setting targets for increasing the Jewish population. This has had devastating consequences for the tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins who live in the region.

Thirty-five Bedouin villages, home to about 68,000 people, are currently “unrecognized” by Israel, which means they are cut off from the national electricity and water supply and targeted for repeated demolitions. As the villages have no official status, their residents also face restrictions on political participation and are excluded from the healthcare and education systems. These conditions have coerced many into leaving their homes and villages, in what amounts to forcible transfer.

Leber wents on to equate these people with terrorists by claiming:

In den allermeisten Gesetzen werden Religion oder Ethnie gar nicht erwähnt, sie gelten für jeden Staatsbürger gleichermaßen. Zum Beispiel die Sicherheitsgesetze, die Terroranschläge verhindern sollen. Israelgegner argumentieren nun, solche Anschläge würden statistisch gesehen häufiger von Nichtjuden als von Juden verübt - deshalb seien Maßnahmen dagegen rassistisch.

“Most laws dont mention religion or ethnicity, they apply to everyone equally. For example security laws to prevent terror attacks. Enemies of Israel argue these would be committed more often by non Jews than Jews, which is why the measure would be racist.”

Again he provides no information who those “enemies of Israel” are supposed to be that made these claims according to Leber.

So assuming what Leber quotes in individuals to be true, there would be some things to legitimately criticise. However Leber is known to polemizise and violate journalistic standards, including disrespecting his source. He claimed a different Berlin newspaper had altered an interview with Roger Waters to make him look better. In the process he leaked confidential communications. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/roger-waters-so-verzerrt-der-tagesspiegel-die-wahrheit-li.2200289

Otherwise he is busy bringing hot takes on social media to generate outrage. He is presented as an expert on the left, antisemitism and Israel. His “non fiction books” as an author are books like “33 Men report from heart-wreaking rebuffs, embarassing losses and reciprocated feelings”, “Partying for advanced learners” and “Ernie vs. Bert and 99 other duels.”

Leber is a clown, who realized that with polemics around Israel/Palestine he can get attention while enjoying the backing of the political mainstream. His “journalism” remains lackluster and anything he writes needs to be taken not with a big grain of salt, but with a bag of salt.