Chosen and marginalized - The hatred of Jews in Europe

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Movie
Original title Chosen and marginalized - The hatred of Jews in Europe
Country of production Germany
Publishing year 2017
length 90 minutes
Rod
Director Joachim Schroeder
Sophie Hafner
production Joachim Schroeder
camera Matthias Benzing
cut Sophie Hafner

Chosen and marginalized - The hatred of Jews in Europe is a 90-minute documentary by Joachim Schroeder and Sophie Hafner from 2015/2016. It deals with current anti-Semitism primarily in Germany , France and the Israeli- occupied Palestinian Territories . The clients, the Franco-German television broadcaster Arte and the WDR , initially did not want to broadcast the film. The reasons given were deviations from the agreed broadcast concept and quality defects. After Bild.de had released the film for a day, Arte and Das Erste (for WDR) broadcast the film on June 21, 2017 in a commented version. In addition, the WDR offered a discussion program and a written “fact check”. The film and the client's approach were publicly controversial.

content

The film begins with a quote from a speech given by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the EU Parliament (August 2016): In it he claimed that Israeli rabbis had called on their government to poison the Palestinians' water. If there were peace between Israel and the Palestinians, there would be no more terror worldwide . The audience with the then Speaker of Parliament Martin Schulz applauded the speech. This is followed by a short story of European anti-Semitism from Christian anti-Judaism ( Martin Luther ) to representatives of the Enlightenment philosophy , Goethe , protagonists of German Romanticism ( Richard Wagner ) to National Socialism ( Julius Streicher ) and the Grand Mufti in Palestine, Mohammed Amin al, who was allied with the Nazi regime -Husseini . From there, the film pans into the present and shows right-wing, left-wing and Muslim anti-Semites, preachers and rap musicians who incite hatred and violence against Jews.

The main topic is the anti-Zionism of various groups. Scientists classify this as a form of anti-Semitism, because similarly aggressive and delegitimizing resentments are transferred to the State of Israel, mostly without explicitly mentioning Jews. The film shows that this demonization of the Jewish state unites many right, left and Muslims. He illustrates this like a road movie that leads through cities such as Brussels , Berlin , Stuttgart , Frankfurt am Main , Jerusalem , Gaza , Ariel , Ramallah , Paris and Sarcelles . Experts classify the quotes and clips. The recordings in the Middle East region are intended to clarify the whereabouts of European financial aid for Palestinians and show that these funds are also used for anti-Israeli propaganda. The representation of the Nakba in church NGOs is contrasted with the representation of the contemporary witness Rafi Eitan , who was the commander in Israel's war of independence in 1947/48 . According to him, the Arabs in Jaffa and Haifa left voluntarily because the Arab leaders had promised them to return after the victory over Israel. In some places, the Israeli army expelled Arabs who were involved in the war against Israel, but did not commit genocide .

Hamas officials and Palestinian students in Gaza and Ramallah who criticize their leadership and the corruption in their areas will also be interviewed. Believing Jews in Europe and the Middle East tell of anti-Semitic attacks, including physical attacks on Jewish students and street battles in front of synagogues . The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and international and church organizations that support them are broadly represented.

After the film was shown, the aid organizations Bread for the World and Misereor helped finance boycott campaigns against Israel. The European Union and the churches, together with the UN , are to provide 100 million euros in taxpayers' money each year for organizations that sometimes run anti-Israel campaigns.

production

In 2014 Joachim Schroeder submitted the first draft of a film about anti-Semitism in Europe to Sabine Rollberg , the head of the Arte editorial team at WDR, which he was planning to shoot with his Munich production company Preview Production . The Dutch publicist Leon de Winter was to lead through the film as a speaker. At the end of January 2015, the Arte editorial team rejected the film in a preliminary round in Strasbourg. Schroeder attributed this to the tense situation in France after the Islamist attack on Charlie Hebdo and the hostage-taking at the Porte de Vincennes and to reservations about Leon de Winter. The pro-Palestinian Internet source Electronic Intifada had rejected it as "Islamophobic".

Schroeder and Rollberg then changed the draft and suggested the Islamism expert Ahmad Mansour as a co-author, who, as an Arab Israeli living in Germany, should ensure a balanced representation. At a meeting with Arte director Marco Nassivera, he is said to have promoted an "open-ended" approach by the authors, because Arte in France was "squeezed between the Islamic and the Jewish lobby". In April 2015, the Arte management then approved the project with a narrow majority.

During the shooting, Mansour reduced his involvement to the function of a consultant who, among other things, established contacts for the filmmakers. Sophie Hafner, who, according to Schroeder, was involved from the start, became a co-author. Rollberg agreed to this change. The authors shot in Germany, France, Hungary, Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, among others. Because the focus was to be on anti-Zionism, the footage filmed in Hungary was omitted. Rough cut and scoring took place from October to December 2016. Then Rollberg accepted the film as the responsible editor. According to Schroeder, the technical acceptance was delayed because Arte did not deliver the French translation. Unofficially, the film was criticized as anti-Muslim, anti-Protestant and pro-Israel. Arte's program director, Alain Le Diberder, had canceled a meeting with Arte colleagues in Strasbourg initiated by Rollberg three days in advance . Both channels subsidized the production with a total of 165,000 euros.

Rejection

In the following months, Alain Le Diberder refused the broadcast internally, and from May 2017 also publicly: The film “only dealt with the issue of anti-Semitism in Europe very partially”. Artes program conference was illegally not informed about the change of co-author. The decision not to broadcast the film had nothing to do with an assessment of the quality and the “point of view” of the film. From May onwards, the WDR announced that there were no plans to broadcast the film: it did not contain a “cross-section of different European countries”, but rather the situation in Gaza and Israel. The order originally approved by Arte was “definitely not fulfilled”. Jörg Schönenborn (TV director) and Matthias Kremin (head of the culture and science department) referred to Diberder's decision-making authority, which WDR respects. They criticized the fact that the responsible editor Sabine Rollberg had accepted the film "like this and without further coordination". A commissioned production for Arte paid for with funds from WDR could not be used for a first broadcast on WDR. Diberder referred to the initial “negative vote of the French members of the program commission” and criticized the film's lack of “balance” and “multiperspectivity”.

On May 2, 2017, the historian Götz Aly made the process public and accused both channels of censorship . At Arte, he was verbally informed of the reasons for rejection: The film could not be shown because of the “terror situation in France”, was “anti-Protestant, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel” and not “open-ended”. In addition to Mansour, six anti-Semitism experts disagreed with the reasons for the rejection, including Monika Schwarz-Friesel interviewed in the film : “From the point of view of empirical research on anti-Semitism , the facts on current hostility towards Jews presented in this film reflect the situation very precisely. Anti-Jewish ideas have been spread for years, especially in their particularly frequent manifestation of anti-Israelism. “Arte has shown many one-sided, Israel-critical and anti-Israel programs without hesitation, but disqualifies a pro-Israeli film as dubious and thus shows double evaluation standards. Götz Aly praised the film as a "remarkable and extraordinarily multifaceted journalistic achievement". The intensive research gives it an "unusual power." The historian Michael Wolffsohn stated that it was "by far the best, the wisest and historically deepest, at the same time highly topical and true documentation on this topic that I have seen for a long time". Sabine Rollberg judged the film to be excellently researched, saturated with facts and told in a dramaturgically captivating way.

At the beginning of June 2017, however, Diberder confirmed: Because the film was made by a single author and largely takes place between Berlin and the Middle East, it does not correspond to the planned and agreed project. Kremin also stated that the film featured too few European countries and too much Palestine, so the result did not correspond to the “agreed service to be provided”. The WDR “does not want to expose itself to the accusation of financing WDR's own program at the expense of Arte.” Both clients disregarded the positive reports and refused to talk directly to the film authors.

The decision was heavily criticized in public. Josef Schuster , President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany , asked Arte in an open letter on June 6, 2017 to show the film. In view of the increasing anti-Semitism related to Israel, this is highly relevant and corresponds to the educational mandate of the public broadcasters. The stated reasons for rejection are incomprehensible. Charlotte Knobloch , President of the Israelite Religious Community in Bavaria, agreed to this demand. The reviewers confirmed the quality and relevance of the film and approved its broadcast. In his reply to Schuster on June 8, 2017, Diberder rejected the censorship charge and affirmed: The negative decision should "ensure editorial quality and responsibility". The WDR now stated that the journalistic quality of the film was doubted. It contains "numerous inaccuracies and factual assertions for which we must first understand the evidence". The editorial acceptance in the WDR "apparently did not meet the usual standards applicable in our company". After examining the evidence supporting the film's allegations and information, there might be an interest in publishing it.

Since May 2017, producer Joachim Schroeder publicly contradicted the reasons for the rejection: To portray Mansour's role change as a breach of contract and a reason for a lack of multiple perspectives is "silly". The fact that Arte assumes that only an Arab can problematize Muslim anti-Semitism is "racist". Probably Arte has a problem with the content of the presentation of anti-Zionism as a modern form of anti-Semitism. In the first draft approved by Arte, the focus had already been set on anti-Zionism and Israel and Palestine had been named as possible locations. In order to clarify the relevance of the project, the draft listed anti-Semitic incidents in many European countries, but did not promise a descriptive listing of such incidents. You didn't want to do a slide show or a PowerPoint presentation. As expected, the finished film deviated from the first draft because the findings of the research during the shooting were not yet certain when it was submitted. The research was time-consuming and costly. The film focuses on Germany and France and then tries to rebut the resentment portrayed. To do this, one also has to go to Israel and Palestine. The French Arte editorial team apparently mistakenly mistook Mansour for an Arab and judged it to be “paternalistic / racist”, with him as co-author, the film is multi-perspective. Mansour had notified Sabine Rollberg in writing that he was changing his position as a consultant: Her consent was sufficient. Mansour also wrote to Arte that the film with him as co-author instead of a consultant would have turned out just as well and would have to be broadcast. The film is not unbalanced, but allows many anti-Semites, experts and victims to have their say. How one can be “balanced” between victims and perpetrators when it comes to anti-Semitism is incomprehensible to him. Obviously, the clients rejected a pro-Jewish stance.

Charisma

On June 13, 2017, the news and entertainment portal Bild.de published the film for a period of 24 hours. Bild editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt justified this with the assumption that the film was not allowed to be shown because it was "politically unacceptable" in view of the facts shown. However, it is the "historical responsibility" to "counter" the social conditions with the publication. According to their own information, around 200,000 people clicked on the 24-hour film on Bild.de and YouTube .

On the same day, Arte stated in a press release that they had taken note of the publication by bild.de. “Even if this approach is strange, ARTE has no objection that the public can form its own judgment about the film. […] ARTE cannot and does not want to legitimize the film retrospectively through its own broadcast, as it deviates significantly from the agreed broadcast concept without ARTE being informed. ARTE cannot accept such an approach in this or any other case. The assumption that the film does not fit into the program for political reasons is simply absurd: the program proposal originally approved by the program conference explicitly provided for the topic of anti-Semitism hidden under the guise of criticism of Israel - in line with the editorial line of ARTE as a European broadcaster, but not close at hand East, but in Europe. ”Both channels waived a possible copyright lawsuit.

On June 16, 2017, the WDR announced that it would broadcast the film on the evening of June 21 on the ARD program Das Erste and then deal with the topic in the Maischberger discussion program . On June 20, Arte also decided to broadcast the documentary on the following day almost at the same time as ARD. The WDR stated that the producer had previously edited the documentation in eight places; The WDR provided them with “legally necessary additional comments” in order to protect the rights of third parties “who are attacked in the film but not - as journalistically required - are listened to.” WDR promptly published a “ fact check ” online with 29 points of criticism.

When it was first broadcast on ARD, the documentary reached 1.19 million viewers; 610,000 spectators saw the following discussion.

reception

The journalist Christian Bommarius judged in the Berliner Zeitung that the film was “a demanding, important contribution to the education about rampant anti-Semitism”. The documentation is "unbalanced in the best sense. It is unbalanced because it takes a firm stand against anti-Semitism. It is unbalanced in the best sense of the word because it allows left and right, Arab and European anti-Semites to have their say, who thus convict themselves as anti-Semites. ” Arno Frank (Spiegel Online) saw clear technical defects in the documentation. "As flawlessly some aspects are researched, other aspects are dealt with lightly." He criticized Bild.de for the publication of an unfinished work and rejected the censorship criticism against Arte. Mirna Funk ( Die Zeit ) criticized the film as "badly made and propagandistically structured". Peter Ullrich from the Center for Technology and Society at the TU Berlin rated the film as “badly made and misleading despite all the exciting details”. Ulrich Schmid ( Neue Zürcher Zeitung ) described the film as a nuisance; he was "one-sided, unintelligent and advocate". Shimon Stein , Israel's ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2007, wrote: “The documentation about hatred of Jews in Europe confuses criticism of Israel and hostility to Jews. In doing so, it misses the real problem: classic anti-Semitism. "

The German branch of the American Jewish Committee expressed criticism of the WDR's fact check . Above all, your spokeswoman saw clearly pro-Palestinian positions. He was "consistently tendentious" and "remarkably often casts doubt on the statements of people and institutions who campaigned for Jewish and Israeli interests". Clearly, "the efforts of the station to reproduce pro-Palestinian representations without comment." For example, a representative of the scientifically controversial Nakba exhibition on the Palestinian view of the founding of the Israeli state was given a lot of space without being discussed in the fact check. It offers "less well-founded insights than one-sided assessments". Julian Miller of the quotenmeter criticized the fact that the fact check was “more of an ideology check”, “for which no pretext is too good” to “relativize the authors' theses”. Frank Olbert ( Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger ) wrote that Schroeder's and Hafner's film was "carried by an outrage about an anti-Semitism that is also burgeoning in Germany and that demands clear words".

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Alan Posener : Does a film against anti-Semitism in Europe have to be pro-Jewish? In: Welt Online . 22nd June 2017.
  2. ↑ Michael Hanfeld: A necessary provocation. In: FAZ.NET . June 21, 2017.
  3. ↑ a b c d e Sensitive topic: A film about anti-Semitism that is not broadcast. In: epd media . 19th May 2017.
  4. ↑ Not a balanced film. In: Bayernkurier online . June 9, 2017.
  5. ↑ a b c Jan Grossarth: Arte and WDR pinch: How should one report on hatred of Jews? In: FAZ.NET . 3rd June 2017.
  6. ↑ Götz Aly: Arte prevents documentary on anti-Semitism. In: Berliner Zeitung online . 2nd May 2017.
  7. ↑ a b Arte - answer from the director. In: Jüdische Allgemeine online . June 8, 2017.
  8. ^ Blocked anti-Semitism documentary - Central Council of Jews calls for approval from ARD and ZDF. In: Spiegel Online . June 7, 2017.
  9. ^ Controversial production of the WDR. Why Arte should absolutely send the anti-Semitism documentary. In: Tagesspiegel Online , June 9, 2017.
  10. ^ Arte and WDR: Controversy over anti-Semitism documentary. In: Deutschlandfunk online . June 6, 2017.
  11. ↑ Julian Reichelt: BILD shows the documentary that ARTE does not want to show. In: Bild.de . June 13, 2017.
  12. ↑ Markus Ehrenberg, Joachim Huber: 200,000 see controversial anti-Semitism documentary. In: Tagesspiegel Online . June 14, 2017.
  13. ↑ Press statement on the documentation "Chosen and marginalized - The hatred of Jews in Europe". In: presseportal.de . June 13, 2017.
  14. ↑ Klara Niederbacher: Anti-Semitism documentary Arte and WDR do not want to sue against “Bild” publication. In: Berliner Zeitung online . June 14, 2017.
  15. ↑ "Chosen and marginalized - The hatred of Jews in Europe": The first shows ARTE documentary about anti-Semitism on Wednesday, June 21, 2017. In: presseportal.de . June 16, 2017.
  16. ↑ Caroline Fetscher: A serious problem - holterdipolter worked on. In: Tagesspiegel Online . June 21, 2017.
  17. ↑ ARTE takes over the program of “Das Erste” for the documentation Chosen and Excluded - The Hatred of Jews in Europe with subsequent discussion broadcast - delayed broadcast on June 21st from 11pm. In: Arte.tv . 20th June 2017.
  18. ↑ The entire fact check at a glance. In: Wdr.de . June 21, 2017.
  19. ↑ Michael Hanfeld: The smear theater of the week. In: FAZ.NET . June 24, 2017.
  20. ↑ Uwe Mantel: Little interest in anti-Semitism documentation and talk. In: DWDL.de . 22nd June 2017.
  21. ↑ Christian Bommarius: A documentary about anti-Semitism must provoke. In: Berliner Zeitung online . June 13, 2017.
  22. ↑ Arno Frank: TV documentary on anti-Semitism: With Elan into the minefield. In: Spiegel Online, June 14, 2017.
  23. ↑ Mirna Funk: Anti-Semitism? There is not any! In: Zeit Online . June 14, 2017.
  24. ↑ Peter Ullrich: A caricature image of the Middle East conflict that can hardly be surpassed. In: Neues Deutschland online . 15th June 2017.
  25. ↑ Ulrich Schmid: A problematic film - clichés do not serve the cause. In: Nzz.ch . 20th June 2017.
  26. ↑ Shimon Stein: Anti-Semitism: This enemy is on the right. In: Zeit Online . June 26, 2017.
  27. ^ Criticism of the WDR: “Playing down anti-Semitism”. In: Hamburger Abendblatt online . June 27, 2016.
  28. ↑ 360 degrees: “Chosen and marginalized”: No anti-Semitism, nowhere! In: quotenmeter.de . 23rd June 2017.
  29. ↑ Frank Olbert: Antisemitism - only with annotation apparatus . In: Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger . June 23, 2017, p. 20 ( ksta.de ).