It’s evening, I am watching the whole group cooking in a wonderful, creative and relaxed atmosphere. Although we had an interesting day with meetings in the chancellery, in the parliament and within ourselves, still I am moved by the intensive and emotional discussion we had yesterday afternoon between Israeli and German participants in the information centre of the Holocaust memorial and a dinner speech I held subsequently in the evening. Despite all the lectures, all the discussions since my youth, my student time and even during stages of my professional live, this rupture of civilization – as it was exactly coined in the exhibition – is still and will be also for the rest of my life beyond the limits of my comprehension.
But Israeli and Germans are not only bound by what happened in the past, they are all the more also bound by what they both appreciated much in their respective cultures: I am thinking especially of the joint appreciation of the word, of the language. This appreciation is deeply embedded in the Jewish tradition as well as in the German, especially protestant, culture. This appreciation of the word, the interpretation of language, the joy of formulation of thoughts does not only lay the foundation for a specific word-based culture, and furthermore, for an appreciation for resolving conflicts by a legal system that provide procedural and material rules, it also can also enable the people of both cultures make the Unspeakable speakeable, to make the respective feelings and perceptions at least understandable.
Sometimes, it is the debate itself that is debatable. (Copyright: M. Darchinger)
Today was mainly about the relationship between Germany and Israel: if German foreign policy in general and towards Israel in particular should be influenced by history or by cold political calculations. This is the question that needs to be put to both sides, and both sides have their different opinions influenced by a mixture between emotion and analytical assumptions. My personal feeling is that in the Israeli public there is an emotional expectation of an expression by Germans of their historical responsibility towards Israel – Israelis expect to see this responsibility translated into action. I believe that with the passage of time international relations will be built largely on values and interests and not on empathy and thus we need to reach a normalization of relations. I think that within the Israeli public there is an incorrect interpretation of German empathy and its translation into expectation of diplomatic action. Thus there is a disappointment amongst Israelis, a disappointment that could harm the bridge we are trying to build. My personal belief is that it will be correct if the Germans were more clear in this matter (because we as Israelis are not able to read between the lines): They need to tell us that in this matter the foreign policy of Germany is based on professional and interest-based calculation and not on empathy – which could be expressed through other channels. As an Israeli I don’t even want to depend on empathy, I want to depend on Israel itself, because this is the central idea of a state of the Jews, the state of Israel.
(Till and Gilad)
(Copyright: M. Darchinger)
