On 16 June 2018 we wrote, with regard to a commentary by the head of the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Ramallah, Bettina Marx, that the commentary amounted to the “full picture of antisemitism”. To this day there has been no reaction from the foundation, but there was one from Ms Marx’s following, who attacked us in at times highly insulting terms and thereby sought to put us under pressure. Ms Marx also instructed lawyers, who demanded a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause from us and applied for one in court. In this they failed, however, before the matter even came to a hearing. We thank the lawyer Nathan Gelbart for his able representation, and we continue to condemn the “full picture” that Ms Marx delivered in her commentary. A small extract of what Ms Marx’s following has to say. Any questions? Open letter to the Heinrich Böll Foundation
“There is plenty of Israeli criticism of Israel’s policies. There is so little criticism of and within the Arab states of their policies towards Israel.”
Heinrich Böll, 1978We call for the dismissal of Bettina Marx. This is no way to do politically responsible work!
Dear Dr Überschär, Ladies and Gentlemen, a new low point in the anti-Israeli positioning of the Heinrich Böll Foundation calls for a clear response. In her guest commentary for DW Deutsche Welle (http://www.dw.com/de/gastkommentar-pal%C3%A4stinenser-sind-am-tiefpunkt-angekommen/a-44130983) the head of the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Ramallah office, Ms Bettina Marx, revealed her deep-seated reservations about the State of Israel. Not only through linguistic agitation, but also through outright untruths and completely one-sided apportioning of blame, her article meets precisely the recognised 3D definition of antisemitism (delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards of judgement). Ms Marx begins by stating that in 1967 Israel “appropriated” the West Bank and Gaza – there is no mention of the fact that these territories had previously been “appropriated” and occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively in the course of a war of aggression, nor of the fact that international law is very explicit about how territories captured in defensive wars are to be dealt with. One may expect of a political commentary by the head of a foreign office of a German foundation that she is aware of the legal difference between an armistice line and a peace agreement (UN Resolution 242), and that she recalls who at the time rejected the Oslo peace offer (97 per cent of the disputed territories, no less, plus East Jerusalem as the capital) and instead unleashed an intifada. One may likewise expect her to be familiar with the arrangements governing the various zones (A, B and C) in the West Bank. The difficult tangle of building and planning in the West Bank, with settlements described as illegal by Palestinians and Israelis alike, is likewise nothing that would have fitted into Ms Marx’s one-sided line of argument. Instead it is claimed that a “Palestinian people” has existed for thousands of years, which demonstrably does not correspond to historical reality. Well into the 1960s, for example, it was the Jews living in Israel who were referred to as “the Palestinians”. That 75 per cent of the region of the same name is today called Jordan does not trouble Ms Marx either. There is no talk here of granting the Palestinians there rights or even a country of their own. Ms Marx prefers to imagine a “resistance enshrined in international law” – she appears to be unaware that Resolution 3379 was revoked as long ago as 1991 and was not binding under international law even before that – so that she can continue to act as though there had not been several peace offers from the Israeli side and their persistent rejection from the Arab side. Ms Marx is quite right in her finding that the Arab world in truth scarcely cares about the Palestinians any more; the war between Shi’ites and Sunnis is too pressing for anyone to want to engage with groupings that are tragically trapped in a narrative which makes coexistence and peace efforts impossible for them. But the thought that the conduct of the Palestinians themselves might be substantially responsible for the peace process receding ever further into the distance is evidently too far-fetched for Ms Marx. As for the “Israeli yoke” she proclaims, we would recommend studying the statistical data on where Arab people in the region fare better than average in terms of health, employment, social conditions, civil rights and life expectancy: in the West Bank and in Israel. Ms Marx does not mention with a single word that it is Hamas terror which often forces women and even children into the front lines of the fighting. That anyone who resists this may be thrown from a high-rise building or dragged along on a rope behind a motorbike. Not a word is said about the hundreds of incendiary devices flown across the border which cause dozens of square kilometres of Israeli farmland to burn, nor is the environmental disaster caused by thousands of burning car tyres deplored. The terrorists who advance at night into Israeli territory through purpose-built terror tunnels from Gaza and climb into children’s bedrooms to murder minors likewise do not feature. That Gaza now has not merely autonomy but a fully responsible government of its own and fixed borders – including, incidentally, with Egypt – is ignored by her, as is the fact that it is regularly this very government, Hamas, which storms into acts of war against Israel – and does so, as its own leaders have long since publicly admitted, in the desire to produce as many of its own civilian casualties as possible for propaganda purposes. Ms Marx is not interested in WHY the peace process is not taking place. The numerous statements by various Palestinian leaders, who stress again and again that nothing but the complete disappearance of the Jewish state could satisfy them, appear to her to be mere folklore – or, which would be worse still, justified. It is an open secret among all those closely familiar with the situation in the Middle East that, where Israel is concerned, the Heinrich Böll Foundation does not take its own mission statement – which proclaims the “defence of freedom, civil courage and militant tolerance” – entirely seriously. Rather than showing solidarity with the struggle for survival of the Jews, barely 0.2 per cent of humanity, against the hatred of almost a quarter of the world’s population, sole blame for the perpetual disputes is placed, in a highly one-sided manner, on Israel. This conduct has already earned the foundation critical mention in more than one political work. We ourselves also spoke out on this here last year: https://werteinitiative.de/anti-israelische-veranstaltung-…/
Why do we speak out on this as an association of Jewish Germans? We see how the perception of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis stirs emotions within Germany. And we also see how (mis)reporting in the media fuels precisely these emotions and strikes at us as Jews in the form of open antisemitism. A foundation financed, after all, with more than 60 million euros of German taxpayers’ money would do well to take the dictum of “friendship with Israel as a reason of state” at least seriously enough to try to employ staff who are reasonably balanced with regard to the conflict. Ms Marx’s article, however, oversteps every limit of an appropriate “expression of opinion”. We therefore expect the Heinrich Böll Foundation to draw the consequences and to remove Ms Marx from her post. We point out that we will communicate your reply publicly – unless you require otherwise of us. Personal contact details and signatures would be redacted in doing so. With kind regards, Sandra Kreisler and Dr Elio Adler, Chairman of the Board
Addendum:
Our letter to the Heinrich Böll Foundation contained a confusion of two documents. Correcting this confusion has not weakened our statement but, on the contrary, reinforced it: what was revoked was UN Resolution 3379, which described “Zionism” as a form of racial discrimination. UN Resolution 3246, from which Ms Marx derives the “right of resistance”, remains in force. But this derivation is wrong, as the Research Service of the Bundestag set out at length in 2010:
“Since then the peace process has advanced considerably, among other things through the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, the withdrawal of the permanent Israeli occupying forces from Gaza and the prospect of a two-state solution. If the ultima ratio character of a right of resistance is taken seriously, interim setbacks in the peace process cannot immediately give rise to a right of resistance either.”
https://www.bundestag.de/blob/413598/b29ee0b3a9442753bfcadbddd9401bf6/wd-2-029-10-pdf-data.pdf
