#Germany
#Buchenwald
#Remember
#Israel
#Genocide

This was done to commemorate the liberation on April 8, 2025!

"Look at Buchenwald"

>On the scandal of an unruly speech: Israel's ambassador prevented Omri Boehm from appearing at the memorial. Here, the philosopher speaks about it for the first time.

-an interview with Omri Boehm

DIE ZEIT: Mr. Boehm, you were supposed to speak at the Buchenwald Memorial and were disinvited due to political pressure. Were you aware that it would be a sensitive issue?

Omri Boehm: I was aware of the risk that political actors could unleash an artificial scandal. In times that must be described as "dark"—in the sense of Hannah Arendt—speaking is barely possible. And talking about memory is even less so.

ZEIT: And yet you accepted the invitation.

Boehm: Yes. Dark times aren't just bad times. They are times when public speaking no longer strengthens thought and enlightenment, but rather undermines it. In the climate that has emerged since October 7 and Israel's military intervention in Gaza, this darkness also threatens to undermine the commitment to remembering the Holocaust.

ZEIT: In what way?

Boehm: The significance of postwar remembrance culture has long been questioned internationally—and not only by radicals or anti-Semites. In light of Israel's actions in Gaza and the ambivalent German stance, many are beginning to ask, looking back, whether this culture of remembrance, as conceived from the beginning, isn't, at its core, a Western ideological project. And this is happening at a moment of profound tectonic shift. Europe is reeling: Nationalists are gaining influence and increasingly successfully portraying themselves as the true guardians of memory. No Jew with their eyes open can be naive enough not to recognize this.

ZEIT: The Israeli ambassador to Germany sees things differently. He accuses you of relativizing the Holocaust "under the guise of science."

Boehm: Some of the other allegations he has made in this context sufficiently demonstrate the seriousness of his statements.

ZEIT: And yet, you use terms that irritate many: You describe the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial as a "washing machine" for right-wing extremist politics. Isn't it understandable that Israeli representatives are outraged?

Boehm: Honestly, I don't think my terminology is particularly irritating. Even my most manipulative critics haven't been able to twist my words and get away with it so far. They won't succeed this time either. Anyone who has engaged with my work knows: I write as the grandson of Holocaust survivors to defend memory.

ZEIT: You not only quoted the term "washing machine," but used it.

Boehm: That's right. I referred to an article arguing that Yad Vashem could become a washing machine for right-wing radical history politics—and I pointed out that this process has long been underway. Even back then, populist nationalists like Viktor Orbán, Matteo Salvini, and Sebastian Kurz—to name just a few—were officially welcomed to the memorial. It is headed by a man who previously led the Israeli settler movement. Even more has happened since then: The Israeli minister officially responsible for combating antisemitism is now openly cooperating with European allies like Marine Le Pen and the Spanish far-right party Vox. There is a certain irony in the fact that the very people who represent a government that wants to fight antisemitism together with Le Pen are trying to construct a scandal around the word "washing machine." But instead of being outraged by this, we should ask: What can we do to fight for memory? For Yad Vashem?

Boehm: I accepted the invitation to Buchenwald because memory must be protected – in order to formulate a responsible alternative in the midst of this barely bearable political environment. One that stems from Jewish tradition and the spirit of the Enlightenment. And I brought my ten-year-old son from New York to tell him about the annihilation of his family in the Holocaust. And my father from Israel, who lost his grandparents in Theresienstadt and Auschwitz – and grew up with a mother who managed to escape at the last second in 1939.

ZEIT: Shouldn't the memorial and its director Jens-Christian Wagner have insisted on your speech, even against pressure from Israel?

Boehm: There's pressure, and there's pressure. Jens-Christian Wagner has done everything in his power. I respect him for his work and his integrity and look forward to our continued collaboration.

ZEIT: In your speech, which the Süddeutsche Zeitung has now published, you call for a change in the culture of remembrance. What exactly needs to change, in your opinion?

Boehm: Actually, I'm calling for a commitment to what was once its central promise. The difficulty lies in a fundamental tension. The international law that emerged after the war is based on a universalist promise: that all people deserve equal protection—born of the historical recognition that humanity is capable of radical destruction. At the same time, however, it is also an expression of memory: the Holocaust played a central role in raising the world community's awareness of this capacity for destruction. In this respect, international law expresses, albeit implicitly, a special commitment to Jewish history and thus also to Jewish sovereignty. This tension has led to the failure of precisely those institutions founded on universalism to protect the Palestinians. This is, to put it mildly, bad for the Palestinians. But in light of the destruction we are witnessing today, it also leads many to believe that the law itself—as an expression of this Western memory—is no longer law, but ideology.

"International law is not a suggestion. It is law."

ZEIT: You're talking about postcolonial criticism—the claim that the memory of the Holocaust is being used to suppress other memories. Such as the Nakba, the expulsion of the Palestinians during the founding of Israel?

Boehm: Yes. But let's be clear, since so much manipulation is at play: No one in their right mind can seriously believe that this implies the equivalence of the Nakba and the Holocaust. The task is to show that this law, despite its historical context, can be taken seriously as a law. And if we don't do this, we won't do justice to the memory of the Shoah either. In other words: To do justice to the memory of the unbearable historical context, we must respect that the law applies independently of it. For adherents of a new realism, it's convenient to portray this attempt as "moral radicalism."

ZEIT: In the debate about ethnic cleansing and a possible genocide in the Gaza war, you recently warned against using categories such as "genocide" or "crimes against humanity" as ideological weapons.

Boehm: I'm concerned that both sides often prioritize ideology over legality. On the one hand, there are those who use the term genocide to demonize Zionism itself and thus delegitimize any idea of ​​Jewish self-determination. Precisely those who, like me, strive for peace in a confederation must resolutely oppose this.

ZEIT: And the other side?

Boehm: The other side sees a state of Holocaust survivors as immune from such accusations by definition. Both attitudes are not only wrong, they are dangerous. Because they dehumanize – each in its own way. Anyone who portrays Zionism as genocidal in general dehumanizes Israelis. Anyone who absolves Israel of guilt from the outset deprives the Palestinians of the legal reality in which their suffering becomes visible and justiciable in the first place.

ZEIT: You insist on the integrity of the law, but this very law is increasingly eroding. Hungary has just withdrawn from the International Criminal Court. Orbán is receiving Netanyahu, even though there is an arrest warrant out for him.

Boehm: The fact that autocrats ignore the law is not an argument against the law. It's an argument to strengthen it.

ZEIT: CDU leader Friedrich Merz also apparently plans to invite Netanyahu to Germany.

Boehm: I hope it was a slip-up. And not the influence of neorealist doctrines, which we are now observing.

ZEIT: But if Netanyahu actually came, would Germany have to arrest him?
Boehm: International law is not a suggestion. It is law.

ZEIT: And yet today this law seems like a toothless tiger.

Boehm: I share this concern, but not entirely. The past few years have shown not only the failure of the law, but also its power. That's precisely why I say: Look at Buchenwald. The law has no power of its own. It only lives through those who defend it. Politicians, states, people – they all must understand that it is in their own best interest to strengthen the law. And that is also the answer to neorealism: The liberal world order was not a moral project of the naive. It was the result of a practical, painful learning process that many now seem to have forgotten.

ZEIT: Many scientists in the USA are currently considering emigrating to Europe.

Boehm: And for one simple reason: because Europe still offers an alternative to developments in the US. For now. But if Europe becomes a mere reflection, it will lose precisely this role.

ZEIT: You teach in New York. Are you considering leaving?

Boehm: Of course. We feel the pressure of a government that increasingly disregards the rule of law. This is now directly visible on American universities. And we see how quickly the situation can deteriorate. But that's precisely why it's important to stay. We haven't reached the point where it's too late yet. It's still worth fighting for these values.

https://archive.ph/IiAAD