In agreement with us, a heavily abridged version was published in the TAZ on 04.10.2021: https://bit.ly/3l5wGsz There they are again, the reflexes. The journalist Nemi El-Hassan was to become the presenter of the renowned WDR science programme „Quarks“. When research revealed that in 2014 she had taken part in the notorious, antisemitic Al-Quds march, WDR put the personnel decision on hold and announced that it would examine the case calmly. Ms El-Hassan distanced herself from antisemitism, hatred and Islamism. She now emphasises that she is a different person. So far, so good. People can change and deserve second chances. However, as further research showed, El-Hassan was still liking and sharing problematic posts as late as September 2021.
No sooner had the accusations been published than the reflexes set in, and political actors began to view the situation through lenses tinted to their liking: the further to the right the actors stand, the clearer the El-Hassan case appears to them. To them the impossibility of integrating Muslims seems proven, and a good deal of other nonsense is proclaimed. Nuances and contradictions do not exist. The world is divided into good and evil. Beyond that, the opponents of public service broadcasting are celebrating the affair as a „systemic failure“ and proclaiming an Islamisation of German society which, admittedly, exists only in their imagination.
An altogether dangerous narrative that primarily serves the extreme right.But the reflexive reaction of her defenders followed hard on its heels as well. In an open letter, hundreds feel compelled to shift the discourse away from the actual subject: suddenly the focus of the debate is no longer the personnel policy of ZDF or WDR, or El-Hassan’s participation in an antisemitic demonstration and her anti-Israel statements, but rather that criticism of these is labelled as racist. Three things are thereby made more difficult.
First, the view of what would be necessary for a „second chance“; second, productive discussion about (Israel-)related antisemitism in (post-)migrant society is thereby rendered impossible. And third, the examination of whether Ms El-Hassan’s distancing and turning away is actually credible is thereby pre-empted.
We condemn in the strongest terms the fact that racist actors are abusing the discussion about Ms El-Hassan for their own purposes. But the letter of support is far more than an anti-racist solidarity campaign. This becomes clear when one takes a closer look at quite a few of the letter’s signatories: among them are open BDS supporters, avowed anti-Zionists and door-openers for political Islam. They are concerned with something else: rejecting justified criticism of antisemitic manifestations and normalising anti-Israel agitation.
Criticism from Jewish institutions, including from the Zentralrat der Juden, is discredited as a „right-wing campaign“ and pushed out of the (permissible) discourse. Instead of discussing the substance of Ms El-Hassan’s possible antisemitic attitudes, the discourse is raised to the meta-level of interpretive authority over antisemitism.
It is legitimate not to be a fan of Israeli politics. And we too, from the Jewish community, must acknowledge that in this case a woman with Palestinian roots carries within her experiences and narratives that are not ours. But there are limits. These begin at the latest (!) where the Jewish state is denied its right to exist or its security.
Ms El-Hassan moved and was active in an antisemitic and Islamist milieu. She has distanced herself from it. That is commendable and will have to be measured by her actions. But that also includes not allowing herself to be co-opted by any camp. And for the various participants in the debate the following applies: only when we discuss situations on their merits and do not reflexively understand them as proof of our own political world view do we have a chance of moving forward a step as a society.
Elio Adler
