We have followed with attention the dispute between Malca Goldstein-Wolf, several other actors and the Baden-Württemberg state commissioner against antisemitism Michael Blume on the various social media channels. In our view, the whole affair is unfortunately a prime example of an escalation of misunderstandings that run up against personal vulnerabilities and black boxes. All of this amplified by digital short messages with hashtags, and by outsiders on both sides „adding fuel to the fire“.
In her original posting, Ms Goldstein-Wolf drew an analogy between the means of combating antisemitism and the combating of drug consumption. She did so in order to draw critical attention to Mr Blume’s cooperation with JUMA and thus to the danger of legalistic Islamism.
Mr Blume takes the hashtags contained in it, „Muslimbrüder“ and „Chebli“, which referred to JUMA and its founder, and the analogy of „dealing“, to be aimed at himself and understands the whole as a scornful tweet and as demeaning, racist and conspiracy-theoretical metaphors, and even as an attack on his family.
Ms Goldstein-Wolf had, however, not placed Mr Blume in the vicinity of the Muslim Brotherhood, but JUMA. The hashtags did not refer to Mr Blume, but to JUMA. His marriage is nowhere mentioned, as was assumed by Mr Blume in this context. His family is at no point the subject of the discussion. Ms Goldstein-Wolf had wanted to draw attention – by means of the analogy „he sends a junkie to a dealer“ – to the fact that antisemitism cannot be combated with actors who themselves have problematic relations with milieus hostile to democracy and antisemitic milieus.
Mr Blume counters with “paid right-wing trolls” and „conspiracy theorists“ and thereby associates Ms Goldstein-Wolf with these.
He gets completely and emotionally carried away and avoids a factual discussion of the actual topic, namely JUMA, its connections and suitable means of combating antisemitism. This even goes so far that Mr Blume, in his tweet with the words „unclear religious affiliation“, takes up the questioning of Ms Goldstein-Wolf’s Jewishness by other persons as well, and likes a posting which in this context contains the expression „costume Jew“.
Ms Goldstein-Wolf’s Jewishness has no bearing whatsoever on the matter in substantive terms, and we condemn the discussion about it
In the underlying blog article by Mr Blume there follows, beneath the headline in which Eichmann is also mentioned, a text speaking out against antisemitism, on ethnonationalism, on the dangers of digitalised everyday conspiracy thinking, trolls and so on.
From the combination with the headline it is claimed by the Jerusalem Post – and up as far as the Wiesenthal Center – that Mr Blume „compares a Jew to a Nazi“.
From both it becomes apparent how pointlessly the matter has escalated, how bad it is for those personally affected, and what a windfall it is for all those who, as supposed advocates on both sides, may also be pursuing an agenda of their own.
Mr Blume has walked straight into the very trap he actually wanted to draw attention to with the „danger of digital brutalisation“. The breeding ground for it has grown in this dispute as well. Amid all his „I will not let anyone intimidate me“, he did indeed defend himself, but completely ignored the topic actually raised by Ms Goldstein-Wolf, or rather overlaid it with a different „theatre of action“.
Unfortunately we cannot contribute an impression of Mr Blume of our own, since he has so far not responded to our letter seeking contact of 16.10.2018.
But we do know one thing: it cannot go on like this. Both the office of the Baden-Württemberg state commissioner against antisemitism and the relationship of trust with the Jewish community are suffering damage. It would be for the office-holder to counteract this. Ms Goldstein-Wolf and he should be on the same side and combat antisemitism, not each other. The same applies mutatis mutandis to Mr Erken.
Mr Blume can of course defend himself against a tone he may perceive as inappropriate. But he is the professional and Ms Goldstein-Wolf is an activist. For a professional it is simply unworthy to escalate the situation further on Twitter and also through various likes of statements by other commentators.
We expect a debate that is conducted objectively and on substance, away from personal and public accusations. Part of this is that Mr Blume take a substantive position on Ms Goldstein-Wolf’s original point concerning JUMA.
Addendum:
Our concern was that both sides should take an inward step back and look at the matter with a little level-headed distance. Besides those directly affected, we also call on the many onlookers and those joining in to conduct themselves objectively and constructively. We have not taken part in a smear campaign against one side or the other, but have set out objectively where the communication was evidently misunderstood and thus went off the rails, and what in the respective statements and behaviour we criticise in this – and only this current – case. We expressly reject the interpretation that we are calling for Mr Blume’s resignation. If that were our opinion, we would have written it!
