Addendum of 28 November 2023:
As early as 19 October 2021 we critically examined our then premature positioning (see below). The course of today’s trial has underlined that this was necessary. We have expressly apologised to the Marriott Hotel Leipzig.
Gil Ofarim brazenly lied to us all and in doing so caused great damage above all to all those who are serious about the fight against hatred of Jews. He must now take responsibility for his reckless behaviour. At the same time, we would once again like to emphasise expressly that this case must not mean that we disbelieve those affected by antisemitism and withdraw our solidarity from them.
Precisely at this time, in which we are experiencing a rapid rise in antisemitism in German society, raising awareness of and showing solidarity with those affected is more important than ever.
—
The Gil Ofarim affair moved us deeply from the outset. An antisemitic incident described emotionally and credibly, in full public view, in which no one appears to have intervened.
Moving above all because most of us know similar situations. After the artist had made the incident public, we acted in the way that was most obvious and that we still consider fundamentally right today: we declared our solidarity with the person affected.
Meanwhile there are indications that the story did not unfold exactly as the person affected initially described it. The case must therefore be analysed closely once again and, if necessary, reassessed.
In dealing with such situations, one principle is indispensable for us: in a society that lacks an awareness of how commonplace antisemitic incidents are, the person affected must be strengthened. This includes giving that person credence. But because this may subsequently turn out to be wrong, everyone – including us – should hold back with judgements and the demands derived from them.
To reverse the principle of „giving credence“ would mean that every incident would have to be documented with images, sound or witnesses. This would lead to an immense withdrawal of solidarity and would increase the pressure to justify themselves that those affected already face. People affected by antisemitism would be exposed to considerable doubt from the very beginning and would thus be even more inhibited about speaking about their experiences.
In the Ofarim case this means for us: we will await further findings and, regardless of their outcome, will do everything we can to prevent collateral damage to the credibility of victims of antisemitic incidents. And – hopefully – not allow ourselves to be carried away into premature judgements.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms the malicious glee and the at times brutal antisemitism that is now breaking over Mr Ofarim.
