Interview with historian Amos Goldberg | War in Gaza: "It's not about Israel's 'right to exist' today"

The President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, recently declared that the Left Party, by adopting the "Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism" (JDA), is opening the door to left-wing antisemitism. What do you say to this as a historian and Holocaust researcher?

I would rather ignore Mr. Schuster's remark, which he hopefully regrets by now. The real question, in my view, is quite different: What is going on in Germany that such a baseless and irresponsible statement is simply accepted? How can a Jew accuse so many other Jews who support the Jerusalem Declaration of anti-Semitism? Mr. Schuster and the political discourse in Germany evidently distinguish between "good Jews" like Mr. Schuster and "bad Jews" like me—that is, between legitimate forms of Jewishness and false, illegitimate ones. I can tell you, however, that as a Jew and an Israeli—a country in which I have spent my entire life—I see my Jewish identity reflected in the values ​​of the Jerusalem Declaration, and I am not alone in this. 375 scholars—most of them Jews—have signed the JDA, and there are many Jews in Germany and around the world who think like us. And I don't need Mr. Schuster's permission to do so. In my view, by taking over the JDA, The Left Party has declared its commitment to the proud German-Jewish tradition of humanism and critical reflection, as represented by Hannah Arendt, Theodor W. Adorno, Kurt Tucholsky, and many others. As you probably know, we recently sent an open letter to The Left Party, signed by 50 scholars, most of them Jewish, in which we support the party's decision. Mr. Schuster represents a different Jewish tradition, one that is also legitimate, but far more conservative and reactionary.

The Israeli government supports the definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Why is this definitional dispute so important?

From an Israeli perspective, the function of the IHRA definition is to shield Israel from criticism. The Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir once put it this way: The IHRA definition is Israel's diplomatic "Iron Dome" (the Israeli air defense system, editor's note). Israel and its supporters have enormous difficulty justifying their policies against the Palestinians. Occupation, settlement construction, annexation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing by the state, army, and settlers, which have characterized the reality in the West Bank for years, or the genocidal killing of people like the one now in Gaza, cannot be justified by anything. Therefore, attempts are being made to redirect the debate to the question of antisemitism. Instead of talking about what is happening right now, we are discussing whether it is antisemitic to talk about what is happening right now. That is the great "success" of the IHRA definition. Otherwise, however, Israel doesn't give antisemitism much thought. On the contrary: The country willingly allies itself with the anti-Semitic parties of the global right, as long as they support Israel's policies. The first to defend Elon Musk after his Hitler salute was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And a month ago, Israel hosted the so-called "Conference to Combat Anti-Semitism" and invited such right-wing extremists that even unconditional Israel supporters Felix Klein and Volker Beck had to cancel their participation.

Today, Israel's "right to exist" is not at issue. The country has one of the most powerful armies in the world and currently has no enemies that could challenge its existence.

The debate repeatedly revolves around Israel's "right to exist"—meaning its existence as a majority-Jewish state. How important do you consider this concept? It emphasizes the protection of Jewish life, but obscures the debate about a plurinational state or the idea of ​​a confederation.

I have to disagree with you. Today, it's not about Israel's "right to exist." Israel exists and is stronger than ever. The country possesses one of the most powerful armies in the world and currently has no enemies that could challenge its existence. So, it's about something fundamentally different—namely, Israel's right to annex, occupy, kill, and violate international law. The Palestinians' right to exist, however, is under very real threat today. They are in danger of being killed or expelled; they live under occupation and apartheid, and are now suffering genocide. The "Jerusalem Declaration" allows us to openly discuss these pressing issues. The JDA also guarantees the full individual and collective rights of Jews in Israel. At the same time, however, it does not preclude the possibility of considering solutions to conflicts—including those that would require fundamental change in Israel. For example, the establishment of a single state for all people between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, or a Palestinian-Israeli confederation. This debate is more important today than ever. In contrast to the IHRA definition, the JDA does not criminalize these proposals as antisemitic.

You sharply criticized Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza early on. Now there's open debate about expelling the Palestinians. What's the goal of all this?

Based on the 1948 UN definition, I believe genocide is taking place in Gaza. There is also a growing consensus among historians and legal experts on this issue. Israel's prime minister and other prominent government officials have stated more than once that their goal is to render Gaza uninhabitable and expel as many of the remaining Palestinians as possible. Trump supported this with his "Riviera Plan." Unfortunately, Germany is enabling these crimes while simultaneously preaching "Never again."

In recent years, Israel has become closer to the fundamentalist Gulf despots. This doesn't seem to be a religious problem.

I'm no Middle East expert, but Saudi Arabia seems to have abandoned the idea of ​​normalizing relations with Israel, and for the US, normalization no longer seems to be a prerequisite for doing good business with the Gulf states. On the other hand, many Arab countries, and especially the Gulf states, have once again betrayed the Palestinians. It's difficult to predict where this will all lead.

As a Holocaust researcher and historian, you have spent your entire life dealing with German crimes against Jewish people. What is your lesson from this, and what should be emphasized in the German debate?

You really don't have to be a Holocaust expert to know what needs to be said today: "Stop this slaughter! Stop the starvation of children!" Stop the genocide! At least 143 Palestinians were killed in Gaza yesterday alone. These are simple human imperatives that should be taken for granted. But I still want to offer two answers: First, an international legal system was established after 1945 to prevent such atrocities. I expect Germany not to support Israel and Donald Trump's USA in their efforts to completely destroy this system. It is a disgrace when Chancellor Merz declares that he will find ways to invite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Berlin despite the ISGH arrest warrant. Germany has signed the Rome Statute and must arrest Netanyahu. I find the German government's behavior incomprehensible. My second answer has to do with the witnesses. One of the moral imperatives derived from Holocaust research is that we must listen to the victims. This is a universal moral obligation. We must listen to the Palestinian reports from Gaza, we must look at the horrific images, and we must respond to them. The Palestinian position should finally become an integral part of the public debate.