Voting for far-right parties against anti-Semitism – A bizarre trend in Germany
2023-11-29
Since the Hamas attack on Israel, the world seems to have come even further apart at the seams than before. For me, it is unimaginable how much suffering has taken place in so many families in recent weeks. I was shocked to see anti-Semitism boiling up again in so many European countries after the horrific attack by Hamas. In Germany, the number of anti-Semitic crimes recorded by the police has quadrupled in recent months. There are images such as those of Israel flags being set on fire, Stars of David being daubed on houses, insults on trains for speaking Hebrew or using some Yiddish words, and rabbis being insulted on the streets. Images and experiences that we all thought and hoped would never be seen here again.
At the same time, a bizarre trend can be seen in Germany: the strongest right-wing populist party in Germany, the AfD, speaks out as a „guardian of Jewish life in Germany“ and a „supporter of Israel“. Remember: This is a party in which many members openly admit to being Neo-Nazis and parts of which have been classified as right-wing extremist by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. In other words, a party in which many members and leading politicians downplay or even support the Holocaust.
I think that this must also be a mission of social psychology and political science these days, to investigate such paradoxes and to show possible solutions. It is all overly depressing that the German government has decided to drastically cut political education spending this year. At a time when democracy in Europe is in such a bad state, this is a fatal mistake.
Some thoughts about what I call “deliberative pacifism”
2022-09-19
Before I begin my comments, I must point out that I am not unbiased in this topic. My grandparents were born in Ukraine, my family has a long history of refugee experiences. Narratives that have been internalized since childhood.
I consider myself a peace-loving person. I want a world without war and violence. But I also think that everyone has a right to defend themselves from death. In recent weeks and months, I have repeatedly read statements, open letters and positions from social psychologists and peace researchers calling for Ukraine to capitulate and that more people would be protected in this way than otherwise. One of these calls that I found rhetorically particularly striking was titled „What would we do if we were Ukrainians today? Prepare for unarmed resistance and non-cooperation“ (2022-03-19) and was shared by resistance researcher Stellan Vinthagen, among others. The letter called for avoiding arming Ukraine and instead recommended Ukrainians to prepare for civil disobedience under Russian occupation.
I found this letter incredibly problematic, because I think it is very inappropriate for someone who is in a comparatively safe position and situation, far away from the fears and struggles which Ukrainians face every day, to say with certainty how he or she would behave if a war suddenly broke out on one’s doorstep and one’s self and family were at the threat of death from one to another day.
That’s why I thought a lot about my own identification as a pacifist. And I came to the conclusion that pacifism has limits for me, namely when one’s own life is massively threatened. I think that in such cases, as Article 51 of the UN Charter provides, one has a right to defend oneself and that this is not immoral.
This consideration has led me to distinguish two types of pacifism: Axiomatic pacifism and deliberative pacifism. Axiomatic pacifism assumes that violence is fundamentally an illegitimate mean and claims the non-use of violence regardless of the specific situation and context. Deliberative pacifism, on the other hand, claims that the use of violence should always be avoided, but is based on the assumption that violence is not illegitimate if it helps to defend oneself from death and life and limb would otherwise be threatened.
There is another consideration that stands with the abovementioned thoughts. I consider it naive to assume that civil disobedience as a mean of resistance will work successfully in any context. I agree that this measure is preferable to violence, but it must be recognized that the success of such measures depends on contextual factors – including how autocratic a political system is and what the penalties for civil disobedience are. But it is certainly not a self-defensive tool in extreme threat of death.