Merkel explains herself and Germany

T. Belman. This is an excellent interview. The questions were right on. I am not satisfied with Germany’s position on Iran’s intent to destroy Israel. She merely said,

“Iran’s stance towards Israel is unacceptable. We will say this again and again, loudly and clearly.” and “Iran must change its unacceptable stance towards Israel. I hope one day politicians who rule in Tehran will reach this conclusion. Until then, I see it as the German government’s duty to repeat this demand again and again. Beyond that I’m not interested in overstating Germany’s goal and abilities.”

How insipid is that.

‘We are not neutral’: Angela Merkel on Israeli-German relations
The world’s most powerful woman sits down for an interview ahead of annual meeting with Netanyahu and the 50th anniversary of Israeli-German relations.

By Eldad Beck, YNET

[…]

On May 12, 1965, the day diplomatic relations were established between West Germany and Israel, you yourself were 11 years old, living in East Germany. Did you feel something of the historical value of that day? How would you judge that historical development today?

“At the age of about 11, and as a former resident of East Germany, I did not yet take note of the establishment of diplomatic relations. At a later age, it became clear to me that East Germany, unlike West Germany, didn’t have relations with Israel. When I was working as a physicist I suffered from it, because I couldn’t order publications by Israeli scientists directly.

“We in the East didn’t have access to copy machines, so I asked an American scientist to send me copies of Israeli colleagues’ work. I was glad that after the wall fell the East German parliament, which was freely elected, chose to establish relations with Israel in 1990.”

On May 12, 2015, 50 years after the establishment of diplomatic relations between Germany and Israel, German pundits wrote of “a friendship in danger”, “German-Israeli a-symmetry”, and “the disappearance of German understanding of Israel”. Even German President Joachim Gauck expressed concern for the fact that nearly half of the German population holds a negative opinion of Israel. Do you share this concern? Do you feel danger as well? What can be done about it?

“Good relations require constant care; you have to speak with one another all the time, especially if there’s a difference of opinion. At the start of my term, I initiated the inter-governmental talks between Germany and Israel, which will take place next week for the sixth time. It’s an opportunity to talk in a very concrete way about wide aspects of our relations: For instance, the cooperation on scientific issues, the joint cultural work, the youth exchanges, and the development initiatives we’re implementing together in several countries.

“We are doing this out of an awareness for Germany’s constant responsibility for the fracturing of civilization in the time of the Holocaust and an awareness for the shared values and interests. Israel is a world leader in many areas, as an example I’ll mention the start-up culture, or the research area I’ve already mentioned – where a very tight cooperation exists with the German scientific world.”

“German-Israeli relations keep developing. Every time, we learn all over again that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. That’s the crucial point – even if we’re split on a few issues that have to do with the settlement policies, and even if we would have liked there to be a negotiation toward a two-state solution.”

Where exactly do you see the things Germany and Israel have in common?

“First and foremost, the values that Germany and Israel represent in the world unite us: Freedom, democracy, and human dignity – which apply to every man and woman. I see things in common with a lot of ventures, as well as the cooperation we have in the field of defense policy. However, the most important thing that unites us is of course the basic understanding of the individual’s dignity and his right to self-actualization. That’s what determines things to me.”

A number of polls show that between 40 percent and over 60 percent of Germans compare Israel’s actions regarding the Palestinians to the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews. How did we reach this situation, and what do you think of that comparison?

“The Holocaust as a systematic attempt to wipe out the Jews is a unique crime. This kind of comparison is totally wrong and incomprehensible.”

Where do you think the line that separates legitimate criticism of some of Israel’s actions and anti-Semitism?

“The lines are crossed where a criticism is used to delegitimize an entire people or group. I oppose – even in other contexts and in principle – generalizations that attribute certain character traits, usually bad ones, to entire peoples. Every person is unique. Every place has good and bad people, smart and dumb, nice and not nice, but each individual has a position and the right to respect, which is not to be touched.”

In Europe, but in America as well, there’s a movement that’s calling more and more loudly for a boycott on Israel. The American government passed an anti-boycott law last summer. Should there be anti-boycott laws in Germany and the European Union as well?

“In questions of trade, the European Union usually determines the direction of actions. If we want to change something, we have to get a majority for that. So, for example, there are questions of consumer protection at the European Union level that require labeling of products from certain places. That has nothing to do with a boycott. In principle, I’m not impressed at all by calls for boycotts.”

The German-Israeli committee for school textbook research recently published a study that says Israel’s image in German textbooks is very negative. The committee wrote that “The amazing thing is that since the first German-Israeli committee’s findings were published in 1985 – nothing has changed.” How can we change this situation?

“First of all, it’s good thing we have the Israeli-German textbook review committee, which pays attention to such things. If the study’s findings are correct, we can change something through co-writing text for schoolbooks, so they also give the Israeli perspective. We have very good experience with German-French history textbooks – it took a long time until we managed to arrive at an understanding about a shared perspective on historical events. It was a very instructive process; maybe we should think about outlining a similar process between our two countries.”

In your speech before the Knesset in 2008, you declared that “historical responsibility is part of my country’s raison d’être. For me as German Chancellor, therefore, Israel’s security will never be open to negotiation.” What does this mean on a practical level, and what will happen the day you stop serving as chancellor?

“Israel’s security was and Is a very important matter for every German chancellor – and so it will be in the future, too. My statement must be understood in a very comprehensive way. It is frequently reduced to the military aspect, but it refers to an entirely fundamental commitment to Israel’s security. We are certainly not neutral. I am working on instilling this recognition in the next generation of young people. I am similarly working to make the future generation’s young people to be aware of it.”

Does your statement have a military component?

It applies to Israel’s security in general. It cannot be reduced to only one area – but it’s impossible to skip any area.

A number of Israeli politicians compared the Vienna agreement with Iran to the Munich agreement of 1938. Are you insulted by this or do you understand such criticism? How can you reassure Israelis about Iran’s growing power in the region, while it still officially discusses Israel’s destruction?

“Iran’s stance towards Israel is unacceptable. We will say this again and again, loudly and clearly. The decisive question for us was whether signing the agreement would help regional security more than a situation without an agreement. At this point there are different assessments. Iran’s nuclear capabilities have considerably grown since 2005. We reached the conclusion that the development could be stopped for now – for a relatively long amount of time. For this reason, the agreement looked like a better option than rejecting it – and instead allowing Iran to continue developing a nuclear capability.

“I am mindful of Israel’s sensitivity about this topic and its lack of faith in Iran. After all, it is Israel that is directly threatened – but really all of us, the free world, are threatened by Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons. And anyway, regarding the agreement that was signed, I have a different assessment from that of the Israeli prime minister. I am interested in continuing to talk to one another but the advantages and disadvantages of the agreement. Even if I, like other partners, reached the conclusion that the pros outweigh the cone – I still cannot ignore the criticism leveled at the agreement. We do not have absolute certainty that Iran will truly take the path of transparency. In the event that Iran does not adhere to its commitment, the agreement allows for us to reinstate the sanctions.”

Do you see any possibility whatsoever for Germany to become a bridge between Iran and Israel?

“Iran must change its unacceptable stance towards Israel. I hope one day politicians who rule in Tehran will reach this conclusion. Until then, I see it as the German government’s duty to repeat this demand again and again. Beyond that I’m not interested in overstating Germany’s goal and abilities. And what’s more important is that we are not neutral, as I said.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are streaming from the Middle East into Europe, and particularly into Germany. You are interested in combating the root of the problem. Will you also do this through military intervention?

“In everything involving Syria, the first thing that must be found is a political framework to reach a solution. We have repeatedly learned in the past that military intervention without an accompanying political concept does not lead to success. For such a political framework, we need all the regional powers in addition to the United States and Russia. Germany will do its share according to its abilities. In the fight against ISIS< we have supplied weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga – for the first time to an area where there is an active conflict. In addition, we are training soldiers in Iraq against ISIS. The meaning of this is that we are already taking part militarily as part of the large coalition against ISIS terrorists. What will you say to people, including those in Israel, who are concerned that the massive wave of refugees will cause the Islamization of Germany and Europe?