Interview by Marc Berthold, November 2023
Marc Berthold: How was October 7 a turning point for you and for societies in Europe?
Daniel Cohn-Bendit: October 7 was a turning point for all of us. Nobody could have imagined that this kind of pogrom was possible. It was a turning point for Europe as a whole, and for Jews in Europe, albeit in different ways. Jews in Europe were once again reminded of their identity. Before that day, they didn’t have to be constantly mindful of their Jewish identity in their daily lives. And it was a turning point for Europe because the event made European societies realize just how divided they are. We are clashing over attitudes toward Israel, antisemitism, Palestine, and the Palestinians with an intensity that I did not expect.
Is there a chance for us to raise awareness in these pluralistic societies so we can fight racism and antisemitism together?
First of all, the depth of division in our societies is frightening. For instance, division runs so deep that on November 25, at a large protest to mark the International Day of Violence against Women, feminists were ousted from the march because they had called for solidarity with rape victims in Israel. Parts of our European societies are turning a blind eye to the suffering of the people in Israel after October 7. And there’s another thing I find unsettling, not just in a public context: Many Palestinians refuse to condemn Hamas. I believe we can only overcome antisemitism by making a concrete offer to solve the situation on the ground. And that can only be the two-state solution.
Boell.Thema: Europe – a Promise
This article is part of the Böll.Thema magazine. With this edition, we provide information about the history and future of the EU.
➤ Keep reading!
You also say that to overcome antisemitism and racism, everyone must be able to see the other side’s problems.
Yes. As a Jew or Israeli, I must acknowledge the Palestinians’ issues with the Nakba, which occurred in the wake of the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, and what it meant for the people. And as a Palestinian, I have to understand why the state of Israel came into being after the pogroms in Eastern Europe and after the Shoah. We can only overcome this division if we try to understand the other side’s point of view. Also, the fight against antisemitism, whether Christian or Muslim, is a long-term task. Hannah Arendt once said: “The only place where we can still be safe from antisemitism is the moon.” And perhaps that won’t be true for much longer either, since Elon Musk wants to fly to the moon.
To acknowledge the suffering of others: Why is that so difficult for both sides, even here in Europe?
Isn’t that odd, actually? Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed in Yemen, many of them women and children. In the spring of 2015, IS and Assad destroyed a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, killing thousands. No response. But when Muslims or Palestinians are killed by Israelis, there is outrage. This also has to do with the “anti-imperialist” and “anti-colonialist” thought patterns of the political left here in Europe, which go back to the 1950s.
In what direction should these thought patterns be modified?
The current dispute plainly confronts the political left with the question of what this anti-imperialist solidarity means for us. We, the left, stood in solidarity with Cuba, with Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. What became of it? A dictatorship. Vietnam, Vietcong? What became of it? A dictatorship. Nicaragua? A dictatorship. The challenge for left-wingers of all shades is to question their solidarity with armed struggles for freedom. Where did our thinking go wrong and why? What could we have done differently? And that’s why I advise everyone to re-read Camus in his confrontation with Sartre and see that the Algerian liberation movement also followed the pattern that led to dictatorship.
You are intimately familiar with the political left both in Germany and in France. Are there differences in their attitudes toward the conflict in the Middle East?
I believe that radical anti-Zionism, which can also breed antisemitism, is stronger in terms of numbers in France. In Germany, German history alone is enough to impose limits. But structurally, we have the same problems. I have the impression that Jews have a special position on the left, as in society at large, because they are difficult to grasp. And so an attitude has gradually developed that Jews are a nuisance. I think part of society even feels a secret, tacit sense of satisfaction: The Jews are always lecturing us and now they are experiencing what it’s like to be on the receiving end.
How can we enlist the support of Muslim and Arab populations to join the fight against antisemitism and racism without making them feel attacked or subject to blanket suspicion?
We are not trying to get the Muslim and Arab population to back Israel. We must first recognize how deep the rift is. We know how hard-hearted many Arabs are toward Jewish suffering. And we need to understand why. I believe it has developed from a sense of defeat among Muslims toward modernity; a feeling that they have succumbed to a “colonial power.” Though I think that in the case of Israel that doesn’t make any sense at all.
What can we do about it?
We have to ask ourselves: How can we create a situation in our everyday lives in Germany or France that enables us to have a different form of debate? How can we include the Islamic and Arab population in this debate? Both sides are struggling to articulate their sympathy, their horror, or their helplessness. Even in my private life, I have noticed that very few Muslims are prepared to articulate sympathy. And conversely, only a small minority of Jews can articulate their horror, their helplessness in the face of what is happening in Gaza at the moment. We have to break down these walls, we have to ask ourselves: Why are these attitudes so hardened? Otherwise, it won’t work.
The political right in Europe is focused solely on “imported antisemitism.” Have they forgotten their own antisemitism?
We must acknowledge that new right-wing leaders like Giorgia Meloni and Marine Le Pen are very skillful. And perhaps they even believe they have overcome antisemitism in their own history; and philosemitism on the right is, of course, a very useful vehicle for even more radical Islamophobia. But of course, antisemitism can also be found in their own parties. Here’s an interesting observation about the large-scale protests against antisemitism in Paris: Marine Le Pen was there, behind her two or three rows of her party members, but most members of the Rassemblement National were absent. In other words, a large part of the French, Italian, and German right wing remains antisemitic.
What role can the EU play in combating antisemitism and defending pluralistic immigration societies?
The way I see it, there are three levels of action: The first one is our attitude toward the Middle East conflict. The EU must radically throw its weight behind the two-state solution and try to enforce it. The second level is immigration and migration policy, which the EU must first figure out for itself. There must be a distinction between asylum and labor-based migration. The EU also needs immigration legislation. The economy at large, large corporations, small entrepreneurs, craftsmen, and agriculture all need workers. And this is an issue that can be addressed very well at the European level. Once a system is in place, we can have a very different debate about the issue of asylum seekers, which, as a matter of principle, cannot be capped with quotas. If we fail to do this, we will not change any of our misdirected debates in the EU.
You spoke of three levels ...
Yes, the third level is honesty. In France, there is a heated debate about legalizing illegal immigrants. Opponents say that it constitutes a pull factor, drawing more and more people into the country, and that we should instead be deporting more people. But does anyone really believe we can deport 300,000 people? Of course not. That argument is simply dishonest. In Germany, recent changes to immigration law may result in perhaps 600 additional deportations per year. You can see the scale of the problem. Also, the countries of repatriation are not cooperating at all! And there are many countries to which we cannot and do not want to repatriate people for humanitarian reasons. We need to discuss all these questions with honesty if we are to have a more rational debate about migration and refugees.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a Franco-German publicist and politician with Alliance 90/The Greens and Europe Ecology – The Greens. As a long-time member of the European Parliament, he has championed many Green and progressive issues. He continues to advocate for a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict.
Marc Berthold is Director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Paris Office. From 2011 to 2013, he headed the foundation’s Tel Aviv Office.