“The Anti-Germans” – The Pro-Israel German Left

, June 30, 2009

Jewish Political Studies Review 21:1-2 (Spring 2009)

It is no secret that the German left’s outlook today is, and has been for some time, predominantly anti-Israel and anti-American. Far less well-known is the existence of a small but influential pro-Israel movement within the German left, a movement which challenges the existing anti-Israel consensus. The “Anti-German” Movement, as it is known, grew out of a communist student organization. In 1989 it finally emerged as a movement in its own right in opposition to German reunification. Fearing the emergence of a new fascism from the social and political dynamics of reunification, the Anti-Germans fight any manifestation of German nationalism, aligning themselves with the victims of Nazi Germany and their descendants. Likewise, seeing elements of German nationalism in the German Peace Movement, the Anti-Germans have become its strong opponents. During the 1990s the movement perceived modern-day German existence as dominated by dynamics between the state, economy, and society similar to those that led to National Socialism and the Holocaust. Today the Anti-Germans discern fascism and militant anti-Semitism as most apparent in Islamism and therefore strongly denounce militant political Islam. At the same time, they offer unconditional support for Israel, the Jews, and the U.S., in opposition to the dominant political discourse amongst the German public in general and the left in particular. Unable to form a mass movement or an organization large enough to take an active role in political life, the Anti-German Movement has become an influential publicist movement centered on several magazines and journals. As writers, social scientists, and journalists, Anti-Germans have been able to exert a growing impact on the left and on public opinion.

Ever since the emergence in 1968 of a “new left,” anti-Zionism has been an integral part of the creed of the German left. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the old union-oriented German left took a largely pro-Israel position. Yet in the second half of the sixties, under the influence of the protest movement against the Vietnam War and the reign of the ideologies of anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism amongst the student movements, the new left emerged. Prior to June 1967, there was still widespread sympathy for Israel. Following the Six-Day War, the tide turned completely: Israel was now identified with imperialism and placed in the same imperialist category as the U.S., which had already become the preferred object of hate among the protesting youth of Western Germany.

Thus in a strange twist, the student activists who had previously risen up against the suppressed Nazi-past of their elders now attributed their parents’ sins to the victims. They also associated these sins with the U.S., one of the nations central in defeating Nazi Germany, ending the Holocaust, and bringing democracy and prosperity to Western Germany. This psychological projection did (and does) serve to alleviate German guilt. However, while the student generation of 1968 could thus begin to make its peace with the generation of “perpetrators,” the victims were delegitimized and once more became threatened. Although continuing to identify with the murdered Jews and their culture, some of the militant generation of 1968 began to rise up against living Jews, resulting in attacks on Jewish targets, such as the failed plot to bomb the Berlin Jewish Community Center on 9 November 1969.

This process culminated with the turn of militant proponents of the new German left to international terrorism; in their fight against imperialism these militants cooperated closely with Palestinian terror groups, taking part in the hijacking of an Air France plane to Entebbe, Uganda in 1976. In fact, in an act reminiscent of the selections on the ramp at Auschwitz, a German terrorist divided the Jewish from the non-Jewish passengers. Despite the fact that this act sent profound shock waves through the German left, leading some to reconsider their anti-Israel bias, by the late 1970s Palästina-Solidarität and an anti-Zionist consensus had emerged amongst the new left.

A number of writers and observers, such as Jean Améry, Theodor W. Adorno, and Eike Geisel, identified this phenomenon at a relatively early stage. Yet it was the strong anti-Israel protest in Germany during the Lebanon War of 1982, including its numerous comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany, which sparked the first intense debate on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism within German left-wing groups. At first, the controversy took place largely within the intellectual circles of the left, reaching a wider audience with the publication in 1986 of Der ewige Antisemit by the journalist and writer Henryk Broder.[1] In numerous examples, Broder repeatedly drew attention to the emergence of a specific anti-Semitism of the left disguised as, and growing out of, anti-Zionism. While Broder’s book was a polemic, historian Dan Diner[2] and political scientist Andrei S. Markovits[3] wrote scholarly works on anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and other authors have since followed suit. Recently, Swiss historian Christina Spaeti described in a detailed study the very same development in Switzerland.[4] Similar studies also exist concerning Austria.[5] While the Anti-German Movement extends to Austria, with some leading Anti-German intellectuals residing in Vienna, Germany lies at the centre of the discussion in this article, since it is there that, since the early 1990s, the anti-Zionist consensus of the left has been challenged from within and the anti-Semitism of the left has become a hotly debated issue.

Origins-Against Reunification

The challenge to the anti-Zionist consensus of the left can be traced to events surrounding the German reunification in 1989, together with the growth of the so-called “Anti-German” Movement out of the Kommunistischer Bund (KB), a small communist student organization founded in 1971.[6] In opposition to other groups of the student left, the KB was financially and politically independent and not bound to any of the communist parties of Eastern Germany, the USSR, or China,[7] making possible a certain diversity of opinion within its ranks. It also differed from other groups in the negative view of German history that it took. In its Faschisierungs-These it looked upon the emergence of a new fascism as a realistic possibility, which could come about at any moment.

When, by 1985, this had not transpired and West Germany seemed to be a safe democracy, an argument broke out in the KB which tore it apart, a minority still regarding the emergence of a new fascism as a real possibility. With the arrival of reunification in 1989, the split in the KB intensified, the minority joining other groups such as the Hamburg Radical Left. By 1991, the KB had dissolved and the minority had left, reorganized, and renamed itself Group K. Members of this group included writers such as Jürgen Elsässer and Matthias Küntzel, who were to play an important role in the Anti-German Movement. Group K edited the Journal Bahamas[8] which, together with the magazines Jungle World[9] and Konkret,[10] became the central voice of the Anti-German and Anti-National Movements that grew out of, amongst others, the KB, Radical Left, and Group K.[11]

All of these groups opposed reunification. They called themselves Anti-German or Anti-National, adopting the slogan “Nie wieder Deutschland” or “never again Germany.” Due to the social and political dynamics which reunification appeared to unleash, as well as the disproportional geopolitical and economic weight a united Germany was believed to have in Europe, they feared the emergence of a new German Reich. The publisher Herbert Gremliza, who since 1974 has headed the monthly magazine Konkret, resigned from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) at the time. A strong opponent of all manifestations of German nationalism and patriotism, he was repulsed by the singing of the German national anthem by members of all of West Germany’s political parties in unison, including the Social Democrats, following the demolition of the Berlin Wall. It reminded him of the Social Democrats joining the National Socialists in singing the German national anthem in 1933, following Hitler’s declaration of his foreign policy.[12]

Thus came into being the Anti-Nationalist and Anti-German Left. Its members felt justified in their opposition to reunification by a rise in racist attacks following 1989 and a general increase in the strength of the extreme right. For them, reunification brought with it the danger that the latent fascism of the collective German identity, the Volksgemeinschaft, suppressed effectively by the Allies through measures of re-education and control after 1945, could now resurface again. To this day many Anti-Germans oppose any display of German national symbols, including the German national flag, even on such occasions as the Football World Cup Championship of 2006.

The Anti-German and Anti-National Movements first made their public appearance at two large demonstrations against reunification on 12 May 1990 and 3 November 1990. Whereas at the first some 14,000 people gathered in Frankfurt to protest against “German nationalism, the colonialization of Eastern Germany and the annexation of the GDR,”[13] the second demonstration’s slogan “Death Is a Master from Germany” attracted an attendance of only 8,000.[14]

This signaled the beginning of the end of the Anti-Germans as a mass political movement. They boycotted the first all-German elections held on 2 December 1990. In addition to this, when reunification progressed smoothly and did not lead to the establishment of a fascist entity, most adherents lost interest and left. Those who remained cited the discussions on Germany’s eastern borders and a rising anti-Semitism as their reasons for doing so. In their opposition to right wing activity the Anti-Germans subsequently became part of the Antifa, a loose network of the so-called autonomous, anti-fascistic left, most of whom in their fight against capitalism took to the occupation of empty houses (Hausbesetzungen) and demonstrations against, as well as street-battles with, extreme right skinheads and the extreme right wing National Democratic Party (NPD).

Support of Israel

A year later, during Operation Desert Storm (1991), the Anti-Germans and Anti-Nationals resurfaced as a political force on the left. Expressing unconditional support of Israel, they took a stand against the German Peace Movement. This movement had not reacted to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, yet hundreds of thousands protested against subsequent U.S. and allied intervention in the conflict. The Anti-Germans and Anti-Nationals, gathered around the magazine Konkret, considered the Peace Movement to be morally bankrupt. They favored the war and the restoration of international order as a measure against a totalitarian regime which reminded them of Nazi Germany. Likewise, they saw it as a monstrosity that German technology delivered to Iraq now threatened Israel, while the Peace Movement protested only against the military action which would remove a threat to Israel’s existence. Some of them saw in this Peace Movement a new manifestation of German nationalism.

However, not all favored the war against Saddam Hussein, fearing that even modest German participation in it could become a first step to “great power” politics which they would not support. The debate on support for the war out of historical responsibility for Israel led to further fragmentation of the Anti-Germans, by now a very small movement of intellectuals. Nevertheless, through the magazines Bahamas and Konkret their opinions continued to be heard.

In 1995 the movement again moved into political action. That year witnessed two national remembrance days: between 13 and 15 February reunited Germany commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of the destruction of Dresden by Allied bombers. Under the slogan “We Do Not Mourn,” the Anti-Nationals strongly opposed any commemoration which would, in their eyes, lead to a moral equation of the bombing with the Holocaust. They claimed that the destruction of Dresden had been a military necessity to defeat Nazism and liberate the concentration camps. In their view, therefore, it was necessary to defend the destruction of German cities in order to express solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust; for them, this was proof of a leftist conviction. A substantial number dissented and discussion of the position, which was, needless to say, rather unpopular amongst the general population, led to yet another split within the movement. The Autonomic and other Antifa groups, who wished to appeal to the German masses and did not think the Anti-National position would further this aim, parted company with the Anti-Germans and Anti-Nationals.

The fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War finally completed the break of the Anti-Germans with the majority of the German left. This once again marked the end of the Anti-Nationals and Anti-Germans as political movements for some time. Group K also dissolved. Despite a certain disdain for active politics after 1995,[15] the Anti-Nationals and Anti-Germans continued as academic movements, producing an impressive number of learned articles and statements. The magazine Bahamas continued to appear, forming a focal point for this intellectual movement

At the same time, the movement also gave itself an ideological and scientific basis in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School under Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer. Apart from its Marxist roots, this critical theory has also been shaped by psychoanalysis: differing uses of psychoanalytical categories may account for the varying results of the Anti-Germans’ social analysis. From this derives the relative unimportance attributed to (or the deferment of) economic questions in the political demands of the Anti-Germans, as well as their strong emphasis on criticism of ideology (Ideologiekritik). The influence of psychoanalysis within critical theory has had many ramifications for Anti-German thinking, including its notion of communism. In any case, the prominence of Marxist elements in Anti-German thinking continually diminished during the 1990s. While still envisioning some kind of ideal communist final stage for human history, many Anti-Germans actually came close to what might best be described as classical Western liberal thinking.

Goldhagen

It was on the basis of this rather academic and literary activity that the Anti-Germans reacted to the controversy over Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, which preoccupied the German public in 1996. The book put forward the theory that there was a specific German “eliminatory anti-Semitism” which made the Holocaust possible. When the book was published in Germany it caused ideological controversy amongst the Anti-German and Anti-National left, some members of which viewed the debate as a test case of quite how ready the left was to deal with the lessons of the Holocaust. Some stuck to Marxist models, judged by others as inherently anti-Semitic, while yet others tried to fit Goldhagen into postmodern theory.

The controversy within the Anti-Germans was accentuated by the publication of the book Goldhagen und die deutsche Linke by a group centered around Matthias Küntzel. This work attempted to analyze how Goldhagen’s thesis was received by the German left, if at all. Küntzel and his group came to the conclusion that the German left and the Anti-Germans had actually avoided dealing with Goldhagen’s central thesis, that the theoretical basis of Anti-German ideology could not explain the Holocaust. This caused an intense debate within the Anti-Germans which, for the most part, took place in the pages of the magazine Jungle World. Three factions emerged: one based on postmodern discourse theory, another on critical theory, and the third, which gathered around Küntzel, considered understanding the reasons for the Holocaust to be of great importance to the Anti-Germans. In their debates with orthodox Marxism and postmodernism, which were not restricted to the Goldhagen controversy, the Anti-Germans set themselves apart from the rest of the German left. The controversy also marked the departure from the movement of the faction that explained anti-Semitism through postmodern theory. This faction went on in 1997 to set up its own journal, 17°C, which deals almost exclusively with postmodern theory.

Return to Politics

Whatever remained of the Anti-National and Anti-German Movements returned to the political debate in 1999 when NATO went to war against Yugoslavia over the escalating situation in Kosovo. At first it seemed that the movement agreed in its opposition to this war. Yet all too soon a rift opened between the Anti-Nationals and the Anti-Germans. While the Anti-Germans called for solidarity with Yugoslavia, the Anti-Nationals opposed equally all participants in the war. Both Anti-Germans and Anti-Nationals held Germany’s early acceptance of Croatian independence responsible for the eruption of the Balkan wars. They alleged that Germany continued the Balkan policies of the Third Reich through its pro-Croatian and anti-Serbian policies. The Anti-Nationals went further, holding the regime of Slobodan Milosevic responsible for mayhem in the Balkans and expressing their opposition to all nationalisms, a position vehemently opposed by the Anti-Germans. The latter saw in the Kosovo crisis the return of the constellation of the Second World War. The author and journalist Jürgen Elsässer, a prominent proponent of the Anti-German Movement, even claimed that Germany was fighting against the victims of the Second World War: Yugoslavia and Israel were both created after the war by victims of the Germans. It was for this reason that the Anti-Germans felt the need to support them at any cost. Although the Anti-Nationals and the Anti-Germans parted company at this juncture, the basis for their strong support of Israel had been laid.

The Second Intifada and the Terror Attacks of 11 September 2001

With the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000, the attitude to Israel became central for the Anti-Germans, who by then had regrouped around the magazine Bahamas. In light of Palestinian terror attacks they urged solidarity with Israel. In Germany, they were the first to notice Arab anti-Semitism, which resembled the eliminatory anti-Semitism of the Nazis, stating that in it Israel faced one of the most aggressively anti-Jewish collectives in history.[16] They went on to argue that there should be no concessions to a voelkisch-islamist collective of Jew-haters.[17] On this basis the Anti-Germans criticized the peace process as a historical mistake. Within Germany, they were quite alone in this attitude. Their solidarity with Israel was a response to the German left’s “strong support for the [second] intifada” and “an anti-Zionist consensus formed from the political left to the political right” that they perceived as deeply anchored in German society.[18]

The attacks of 11 September 2001 added a pro-American stance to the outlook of the Anti-Germans. They were repulsed by the anti-Americanism conspiracy theories displayed in many German reactions to terror attacks, especially on the left. Anti-imperialist theory-blaming the U.S. and the West for the ills of the Third World-was refuted by the Anti-Germans. They saw the attacks as “fascist massacres” by “Islamofascists,” mainly motivated by anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.[19] Uniquely for leftists, the Anti-Germans explicitly supported the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Justus Wertmueller, the editor of Bahamas, explained the Anti-German position in the following manner: “the problem is still that German and Islamic resentments are identical: anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Semitic. German-Islamic friendship stems from the fact that the Germans recognize themselves in political Islam, because it is fascist and at the same time gives the impression of being an indigenous culture.”[20]

For the Anti-Germans, Islamism is the new fascism. German history has demonstrated that fascism must be fought without compromise. Likewise, the support of Israel as the refuge of the victims of the Holocaust must be unconditional. Together, the historical critique of Nazism and the view of Islamism as the new fascism explain the strong commitment of the Anti-Germans to Israel’s survival and its right to self-defense. These factors also explain why they perceive Israel (and Diaspora Jewry, for that matter) as extremely vulnerable. The Anti-Germans, in defining terror as a result of extremist ideology rather than socioeconomic conditions, in interpreting Islamism as “Islamofascism” and unconditionally opposing it and, last but not least, in their support for Israel, have become similar to American Neoconservatives; it even seems that they borrowed the term “Islamofascism” from that group. Similar to the American Neoconservatives, the Anti-Germans try to defend what they perceive as the positive products of a yet incomplete process of enlightenment against those forces which are attempting to “turn the clock back” and gravitate toward new forms of barbarism.

It was this line of thought that brought the Anti-Germans to support the second Gulf War in 2003, in complete opposition to the position of the German government and the majority of the German public. All Anti-Germans opposed the Peace Movement as deeply German, anti-Israel, anti-American and immoral-it remained silent on Saddam Hussein’s crimes, while exposing Israel to deadly danger.[21] Bahamas and Jungle Word fully supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Konkret was more ambivalent, although it did call for Saddam Hussein’s removal. The Anti-Germans perceived a clear and present danger for Israel’s existence in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s support of suicide bombers.

It was during the second Gulf War and its aftermath that the Anti-Germans caught public attention and became an influential force through the many articles, books, and journals that they published addressing subjects from Islamism to anti-Semitism. Anti-German groups sprung up throughout Germany and Austria. Increasing numbers of small (non-Jewish) groups waving Israel flags can be seen today at demonstrations, thereby redefining the Anti-Germans’ opposition to national symbols. Yet the most important legacy of the Anti-Germans has been to the writers and young scholars influenced by the movement. This influence pertains also to a broader intellectual public in Germany, Austria, and, to a lesser degree, Switzerland. The “ça ira” publishing house in Freiburg im Breisgau has published Anti-German texts. Hermann Gremliza has published a series of books criticizing general German attitudes and defending Israel, including Amerika, Dich hasst sich’s besser: Antiamerikanismus und Antisemitismus in Europa by Andrei S. Markovitz, as well as works by Thomas von der Sacken-Osten and Yaacov Lozowick, the former director of Yad Vashem’s archives. Matthias Küntzel’s book Djihad und Judenhass: Über den neuen antisemitischen Krieg, which focuses on Jihadist Ideology, has become essential reading. It was recently translated into English as Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11.

On 15 April 2008 Gregor Gysi, one of the heads of Die Linke, a merger of the West German extreme left and the PDS (successor to the East German Stalinist SED) warned of the dangers of the left’s anti-Zionism. Instead of one-sided support for the Palestinians, he called for solidarity with Israel.[22] For the extreme left this constitutes a change of paradigm, probably unthinkable without the relentless writing of the Anti-Germans. Gysi may to some extent have acted under pressure from a group within his party’s youth movement called BAK Shalom influenced by Anti-German thinking, as well as due to public criticism directed against the more hard-core anti-Zionist elements within the party. These hard-core anti-Zionist elements continue to play an important role within Die Linke.

A few days after Gysi’s warning, on 19 April 2008, Franziska Drohsel (28), the president of the Young Socialists (Jusos), the youth organization of the more mainstream SPD, sharply criticized the anti-Semitism of the left.[23] She attacked conspiracy theories and anti-Zionism, using the analysis developed by the Anti-Germans. Drohsel also asked the left to distance itself from Islamism and to fight actively against anti-Semitism. One may hope that the tide is now turning and that, due to the work of the Anti-Germans, the German left has become more sympathetic to Israel than it was in the past.

Conclusion

The Anti-German Movement remains small as a result of many fragmentations and ideological rifts and splits, yet not without influence. Its members will never constitute a political mass movement or form a big faction within one of the current two major parties of the German left. Precisely because of the many splits it has undergone, the Anti-German Movement, whose origins lie in one of the K-Groups, has become heterogeneous. It is comprised of former K-Group members, as well as Antifa-activists, certain “Autonome” writers and un-dogmatic left-wing students. At the same time, there have also been breakaway groups or individuals which would consider themselves as liberals in an Anglo-Saxon sense, while still retaining many of the Anti-German tenets, such as solidarity with Israel and the U.S., defense of liberal Western society, and anti-totalitarianism.

Despite the fragmentations which the movement has undergone, it has proven influential and has managed to change at least some attitudes in a country where, according to a recent poll, 77 percent see Israel as a threat to world peace. Nevertheless, while the Anti-Germans have had influence far beyond their small numbers due to the comparably high intellectual level of their leading thinkers, they remain a minority within the broader left. While they have had a positive effect on the German left in the past, this has been subject to certain limits. It is impossible to be certain if the influence of the Anti-Germans will be lasting, will expand further, or if the movement has already passed its zenith. However, the fact that it has produced a number of important intellectuals who, though no longer perceiving themselves as Anti-Germans, may shape public discourses in the years to come cannot be ignored.

*     *     *

Notes

[1]. Henryk Broder, Der ewige Antisemit: Über Sinn und Beständigkeit eines beständigen Gefühls (Berlin: Berliner Taschenbuch Verlag, 2005). [German]

[2]. Dan Diner, Feindbild Amerika: Über die Beständigkeit eines Ressentiments (München: Propyläen Verlag, 2002). [German]

[3]. Andrei S. Markovitz, Amerika, Dich hasst sich’s besser: Antiamerikanismus und Antisemitismus in Europa (Hamburg: Konkret, 2004). [German]

[4]. Christina Spaeti, Die schweizerische Linke und Israel: Israelbegeisterung, Antizionismus und Antisemitismus zwischen 1967 und 1991 (Essen: Klartext Verlag, 2006). [German]

[5]. Stephan Grigat, “‘Bestien in Menschengestalt’ Antisemitismus und Antizionismus in der österreichischen Linken,” Weg und Ziel 2 (1998) [German]; and Stephan Grigat, “Links und gegen Juden? Antisemitismus und Antizionismus in der österreichischen Linken,” DAVID 72 (March 2007), www.david.juden.at/kulturzeitschrift/70-75/72-grigat.htm (viewed last 11 May 2008).

[6]. Much of the following is based on the unpublished paper: Patrick Hagen, “Die Antideutschen und die Debatte der Linken über Israel,”Magisterarbeit am Forschungsinstitut für Politische Wissenschaft und europäische Fragen (University of Cologne, 2004). [German]

[7]. Ibid., 11.

[8]. www.redaktion-bahamas.org.

[9]. www.jungle-world.com.

[10]. www.konkret-verlage.de/kvv/kvv.php.

[11]. While Konkret was already an old magazine and Bahamas was founded after reunification, Jungle World first appeared in 1997, when journalists at the Junge Welt-a former East German daily-opposed their paper’s strict neo-Stalinist line. The split from the anti-imperialist Junge Welt occurred for a number of reasons, among which was Junge Welt’s attitude towards Israel. The journalists founded a new paper, choosing a name which mocked that of their former place of work. Although Jungle World would define itself as a publication that shows solidarity with Israel, it has also from time to time published articles of authors whose pro-Israel credentials can only be termed as dubious. One example would be the controversial dossier entitled “Schuld und Erinnerung,” published on 13 November 2002, that sparked a debate within Jungle World and the un-dogmatic left. Similarly, in some respects Konkret has been publishing a broad spectrum of left-wing opinions ranging from hard-core Anti-German positions to more orthodox left-wing and anti-American ones. The position of its editor Hermann Gremliza toward the U.S. is, for instance, by far not as positive as his attitude towards Israel.

[12]. Benjamin Weinthal, “Letter from Berlin: The anti-anti-Zionists,” Haaretz, 7 August 2007.

[13]. Patrick Hagen, “Die Antideutschen und die Debatte der Linken über Israel,” Magisterarbeit am Forschungsinstitut für Politische Wissenschaft und europäische Fragen (Unpublished paper, University of Cologne, 2004), 18. [German] Translation by the author.

[14]. “Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland”-refrain from the poem “Todesfuge” by Paul Celan, describing the Holocaust. [German]

[15]. Patrick Hagen, “Die Antideutschen und die Debatte der Linken über Israel,” Magisterarbeit am Forschungsinstitut für Politische Wissenschaft und europäische Fragen (Unpublished paper, University of Cologne, 2004), 29. [German]

[16]. Ibid., 45.

[17]. Ibid., 46.

[18]. Compare Benjamin Weinthal, “Letter from Berlin: The anti-anti-Zionists,” Haaretz, 7 August 2007.

[19]. Patrick Hagen, “Die Antideutschen und die Debatte der Linken über Israel,” 47.

[20]. Benjamin Weinthal, “Letter from Berlin: The anti-anti-Zionists.”

[21]. Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, “Kein Platz für Juden,” Konkret (December 2002): 24. [German]

[22]. Stefan Berg, “Gysi geisselt linken Antisemitismus,” Der Spiegel Online, 15 April 2008, www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,547564,00.html. [German]

[23]. Franziska Drohsel, “Juso-Chefin kritisiert linken Antisemitismus,” Die Welt Online, 19 April 2008, www.welt.de/meinung/article1916062/Juso-Chefin_kritisiert_linken_Antisemitismus.html. [German]

*     *     *

DR. SIMON ERLANGER is a journalist and historian. He was born in Switzerland in 1965 and educated in Basel and Jerusalem. A former employee of the Yad Vashem Archives in Jerusalem, he presently teaches Jewish history at the University of Lucerne. He also works as an editor for Telebasel, a television station for northwestern Switzerland.