As the discussion continues, we update this page from time to time.
Comment by Prof. Dr Thomas Fischer – retired Presiding Judge at the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) – to SPIEGEL:
The article was written by an investigative team of six journalists. One would expect that, apart from addresses, room numbers and times, rather more substance might be generated – if there were in fact anything to investigate or even to “reveal”. That, however, does not appear to me to be the case. The article remains vaguely denunciatory without ever explicitly saying what would actually be bad or reprehensible if the murky suspicions were true. Two associations with explicitly political aims do lobbying work in Berlin; some invited guests meet for this purpose “in a private house” (well I never!); members of the Bundestag or their party organisations receive small donations, properly recorded in the accounts (madness!). And in the end it even emerges that the associations may possibly have had a small success: incredible! That could never happen with respectable German industry associations – quite apart from the fact that they of course never ever hold dinners for “contact MPs” and multipliers, employ no politicians whatsoever as advisers, and address their donations exclusively to women’s shelters, Palestinian hospitals and members of parliament who ride bicycles!
Besides the emptiness of the report’s content, what is above all irritating is the sound of racist stereotypes. Sascha Lobo quoted Adorno’s sentence “Antisemitism is the rumour about the Jews” in his SPON column of 13 December 2017. I recommend reading that column again.
Thomas Fischer
Worth reading
Alex Feuerherdt on SPIEGEL’s reply: Facebook post
“AFFIRMATIVE FÜR DEUTSCHLAND”, article in Salonkolumnisten
Dr Alexander Kudascheff, former editor-in-chief of Deutsche Welle, letter to the editor to Spiegel
Prof. Gert Weisskirchen, member of the Deutscher Bundestag from 1976 to 2009 (SPD), and Dr Clemens Heni, political scientist: Wissenschaft und Publizistik als Kritik
This is precisely why our work matters.
In a piece of misleading journalism, SPIEGEL insinuates corruption, lobbying on Middle East policy and inappropriate interference by WerteInitiative in federal politics, and fuels conspiracy theories.
Articles such as this one in SPIEGEL show how urgently our work as an association is needed. As a civil-society Jewish voice in Germany, WerteInitiative works to strengthen the values of the free democratic basic order from a Jewish perspective. We do this out of a genuine self-interest: in the awareness that freedom, security and democracy cannot be taken for granted on the one hand, and on the other are the precondition for the continued existence of Jewish life in Germany. In doing so we work in the interest of our society as a whole and of our country. Nevertheless, the article virtually imputes to us that we have an agenda directed from Israel. We find this defamatory.
Yet our positions and my opinions as chairman of the association do not need to be researched investigatively; they have been publicly available to read, watch and hear for years: they are not lobbying for the Israeli government or its representatives. To insinuate this suspicion about us and about me is a defamation. About six weeks before the article appeared I was even awarded the title “Ambassador for Democracy and Tolerance” for my work and my positions on social issues by the alliance of the same name. It was set up by the Federal Ministries of the Interior and of Justice.
When we learned of SPIEGEL’s research, we responded with complete transparency – after all, we have nothing to hide. SPIEGEL sent these questions to us (WerteInitiative and Naffo) in a joint email for written answers. Here now are the answers in detail:
Network and influence
Question:
Naffo and WerteInitiative have built up very good contacts with members of the Bundestag from all parties (apart from the AfD) over the years. How influential is this network in your view?
Answer:
This is not a “network”. Both NAFFO and WerteInitiative have contacts with the policy specialists in the relevant fields (foreign policy / domestic policy) and meet them for talks, send them position papers or invite them to events on particular topics.
Fundraising dinner 2017
Question:
According to our information, at the end of May 2017 you sent out invitations from your WerteInitiative email address to a fundraising dinner that took place on the evening of 19 June 2017 at XXXXX in XXXXXX in Berlin-Dahlem. The following 6 members of the Bundestag were invited: Michaela Engelmeier, Thomas Feist, Fritz Felgentreu, Thorsten Frei, Roderich Kiesewetter and Jens Spahn. Is this account correct? If not, in which respects is it not?
Answer:
In June 2017 a dinner took place on the occasion of the forthcoming Bundestag election in September 2017. The venue was a private house; the host, who also paid for the dinner, is a private individual. It was not an event held by either of the two associations. As it was a private dinner, we will not comment on the address, the host or the private guests.
Question:
How were the members of the Bundestag selected?
Answer:
The purpose of the evening was to bring together politically interested Jewish citizens and federal politicians from different parties. The members of the Bundestag who were invited had in the past shown a high level of public commitment in the fight against antisemitism, extremism and other issues affecting social cohesion, and were therefore interesting interlocutors for the guests.
Questions:
According to our information, after sending the invitation you asked one or more of the invited members of the Bundestag to advocate certain positions, to address enquiries to particular bodies, or to raise WerteInitiative with third parties. Is this account correct? If not, in which respects is it not?
According to our information, after sending the invitation you asked one or more of the invited members of the Bundestag to raise publicly the matter of the antisemitism documentary that was not broadcast on ARTE, or to address enquiries about this to ARTE or WDR. Is this account correct? If not, in which respects is it not?
Answers:
This account is false. What is correct is that, independently of this event, we draw the attention of elected representatives to issues and circumstances that we consider relevant when there is occasion to do so. It is of course in our interest as WerteInitiative to become known to third parties as an interlocutor and thereby to spread our concern – the preservation of a free and democratic society. There was no connection with the invitation. Nor do we have any influence whatsoever over what politicians do with the information we pass on.
Online addition to this fact check:
I no longer recall whether, and if so which, members of the Bundestag made statements about the ARTE contribution that was initially not broadcast. But there certainly were some. After all, we are in contact with members of the Bundestag who recognise the scale of the issue of “antisemitism”, and we drew the attention of some of them to the case. Whoever then became active did so on their own initiative and not at our request. To construct, merely on the basis of a temporal connection between the dinner and the events of the day concerning the ARTE broadcast, a favour done by members of the Bundestag for WerteInitiative is an unsubstantiated, suggestive and false imputation. This is all the more so as the dinner took place on 19 June 2017 while we find corresponding tweets as early as the beginning of June.
Question:
According to our information, MP Roderich Kiesewetter did not attend the fundraising dinner. Asked why not, he told SPIEGEL that he had cancelled his attendance in advance on 3 June because his independence was very important to him. Did you receive this cancellation?
Answer:
Yes, we had received a cancellation from him.*
Question:
MP Kiesewetter also said that in his conviction his commitment to Israel is credible and sustainable only if he can carry out his work independently. Why did Kiesewetter regard his independence as being at risk had he attended the fundraising dinner?
Answer:
Neither NAFFO nor WerteInitiative has made donations to the members of parliament or to their local party branches or promised them donations. Neither association made any arrangements of any kind with the members of the Bundestag.
Why Mr Kiesewetter believed his independence was at risk is something you will have to ask Mr Kiesewetter.
Question:
According to our information, MP Kiesewetter received donations from people who were present at the fundraising dinner despite his cancellation. Is this account correct? If not, in which respects is it not? If so, why were donors not told that Mr Kiesewetter did not wish to receive donations?
Answer:
Neither WerteInitiative nor NAFFO has given donations to Mr Kiesewetter or to his district association.
Some members did, however, inform me of their intention to donate. Whether and in what amount this was actually carried out is not known to us. In Mr Kiesewetter’s case too, any campaign support was given not to him but to his district association.*
The very fact that Mr Kiesewetter’s district association received donations despite his absence is evidence of the unconditional nature of the contributions. To my knowledge, the prior consent of a district association is not required in order to receive support for election campaign financing.
Online addition:
In the aftermath of the dinner, some of the private participants were evidently impressed by the members of the Bundestag and made election campaign donations to the respective state or district associations of the parties. These were made legally, officially and against a donation receipt. They were – of course – not tied to any conditions or expectations or anything of the kind. Nor do we know in what “proportions” the individual parties used the money for the party campaign and for individual candidates’ campaigns. If, then, the local party branches of three such established members of parliament received donations totalling a four-figure or barely five-figure sum: is it not utterly absurd to believe that this could have influenced their voting behaviour, let alone that of the entire parliamentary group concerned?
To establish a connection between a dinner attended two years ago by three current members of the Bundestag and a Bundestag decision taken by a parliament that has since been newly elected is plainly far-fetched. At no time was there any attitude or statement of any kind to the effect that the individuals taking part expected something in return for their donations.
Nor have there at any time been donations from WerteInitiative to members of parliament or to parties.
And furthermore: we naturally work entirely independently of any Israeli bodies and in no way have the function of conducting “lobbying” in Germany for the Israeli government; we receive neither instructions nor requests, nor any financial support from Israel for our work.
Round table on the subject of BDS
Question:
On 8 May at 7.30 a.m. WerteInitiative invited guests to a round table at the Paul-Löbe-Haus. According to our information, MP Christian Schmidt complained there that WerteInitiative was interfering in the work of the Bundestag. Schmidt likewise criticised the
presence of the Federal Government’s Commissioner for Antisemitism, Felix Klein, as interference in the affairs of parliament. Several other members of the Bundestag shared Schmidt’s criticism. Is this account correct? If not, in which respects is it not? If so, how do you explain the members’ annoyance?
Answer:
We do not comment on statements by individual members of parliament during the round table. Our intention – which we communicated both beforehand and at the round table itself, before it began – was a) to set out the relevance of the subject of “BDS” for us as Jewish Germans and b) to explain that this subject is too important to be used for tactical manoeuvring between the parties. The participants (with the exception of MP Christian Schmidt, who joined at short notice and on his own initiative) were aware of the composition of the group in advance and no one had expressed any concerns in that regard. At no time was there any interference by the WI in the substantive affairs of parliament.
Our additional statement in the reply email to Spiegel:
You have asked many questions, which we have answered in the greatest detail. We therefore assume that you have put to us all the allegations and suspicions you have and have given us the opportunity to comment. Should any further points be unclear, we ask you to come back to us promptly by email so that we can answer in writing and you do not have to rely on speculation.
We are greatly disconcerted by the thrust of your research and your questions. They appear to follow a myth of the influence of Jewish capital on federal politics, for example in order to push through the policies of Netanyahu and/or Trump.
We are proud that our association has members who are politically engaged in various ways: through papers, letters, demonstrations or indeed through election campaign donations to parties of the centre. Donations to political parties are an essential component of party financing and are behaviour that society “wants”. How else can it be explained that such contributions are tax-deductible? To regard this as scandalous is the real scandal, because it resonates with conspiracy-theory imagery and antisemitic notions.
—
*My recollections and Mr Kiesewetter’s reconstruction of his cancellation of the fundraising dinner differed. We have therefore removed the diverging passages from the fact check. This does not, however, change our assessment of the matter.
Conclusion:
The research and the questions put to us already gave an inkling of the article’s “thrust”. The published article confirms that inkling: in many places unsubstantiated reporting of suspicion and the creation of appearances. It appears inconceivable to SPIEGEL that Jewish citizens should campaign authentically, with commitment and entirely lawfully for causes that benefit the general public.
The initial headline, since changed – “Lobbyismus im Bundestag: So steuern zwei Vereine die deutsche Nahostpolitik” (“Lobbying in the Bundestag: how two associations steer German Middle East policy”) – proves our impression: the classic image of the “Jewish world conspiracy” is being invoked.
The SPIEGEL article refers twice to my having resigned from the NAFFO board during the research, and suggests a connection between the resignation and the research. That is false. Spiegel is aware of my personal reasons for resigning, and in my message to the editor I asked that this situation be handled responsibly. Spiegel did the opposite and instead attempts to sell my personal reasons as part of a “scandal”.
We do not criticise the fact that Spiegel scrutinises our work as an association, but the way in which it does so: through framing with unsubstantiated assumptions and the suggestion of appearances, which serve typical antisemitic clichés.
The quotations from MP Nouripur and Graf v. Lambsdorff added by Spiegel do not show that WerteInitiative tried to influence the wording of the Bundestag resolution against the BDS campaign – quite the contrary. We would endorse these quotations at any time.
In addition, no meeting or conversation ever took place between Graf v. Lambsdorff and WerteInitiative and Mr Alexander Nick, who according to the reporting felt put under pressure
To construct out of our transparent reports on our website and in social media “of meetings with senior politicians from various parties” a “questionable” influence on members of the Bundestag going beyond an exchange on relevant political and social issues is quite simply false.
WerteInitiative and I will continue to work to ensure that politics and society are aware how fragile the ground of our democratic coexistence is. We will support those who stabilise this ground and criticise those who erode it. That is our mission as an association and that is my conviction as a citizen of this country.
Elio Adler and the board of WerteInitiative e.V.
