Israel's right to exist

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The existence of Israel referred to in international law enshrined claim Israel on continued existence within internationally recognized borders and protection against the threatening attacks of all kinds, to all 193 of the United Nations (UN) as subjects of international law have recognized states.

The legal basis for founding the state was the League of Nations mandate for Palestine . Since Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, 160 UN member states recognized the state of Israel until 2016. Since the armistice of 1949, the Green Line has de facto formed Israel's external border. With the Resolution 242 of the UN Security 1967 Israel's right was confirmed to live in safe, negotiated limits. Some Arab states approved the resolution, thereby recognizing Israel's right to exist. For the majority of UN member states, recognition of Israel is a necessary condition for building a viable Palestinian state and for lasting peace in the region.

The neighboring states have tried to destroy the state of Israel in the Middle East conflict since 1948 with several wars of aggression . Currently, most of the organizations of the Palestinians , Syria , Iran , anti-Zionists and anti-Semites reject the State of Israel. They reject the demand to recognize his right to exist as a legitimation of an illegal occupation and annexation policy or continue to pursue the goal of destroying Israel.

Basics

State sovereignty

Codified international law, analogous to the fundamental right to life, has spoken of a right to exist since the 19th century, mostly in relation to nations . It then includes their common language and culture. Insofar as they organize themselves in nation states in accordance with the peoples' right to self-determination , the term refers to state sovereignty , which requires, among other things, a demarcated state territory, a common citizenship of the citizens and a state administration equipped with a monopoly of force and which includes their right to self-defense .

On January 6, 1916, the US Institute for International Law passed a declaration of principles based on the case law of British and US constitutional courts, which stated in the first sentence: “Every nation has the right to exist and to protect and to conserve its existence; but this right neither implies the right nor justifies the act of the state to protect itself or to conserve its existence by the commission of unlawful acts against others. "

These principles were incorporated into the founding charter of the League of Nations in 1919 and into the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 .

Balfour Declaration (1917)

Israel's founding of the state goes back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In it, Arthur Balfour , the then Foreign Minister of Great Britain , promised the British representative of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) Lord Rothschild in writing that his government would support the "establishment of a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine". In doing so, “nothing should happen that could question the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status of Jews in other countries [...].”

From 1915 onwards, in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence , Great Britain had also promised to help the Arabs in their quest for an independent state. Thereupon Hussein ibn Ali , the Sherif of Mecca , began the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire in June 1916 , which the British special envoy TE Lawrence led to victory. However, in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, Great Britain and France agreed to divide Palestine and parts of Syria among themselves. The agreement was not binding under international law, but helped determine the Middle East policy of both states after the First World War .

League of Nations mandate (1922)

On July 24, 1922, the League of Nations gave Great Britain the League of Nations mandate for Palestine , which had belonged to the Ottoman Empire until 1918. Its preamble contained the Balfour Declaration. By ratifying it, the League of Nations made it binding under international law. "In recognition of the historical link between the Jewish people and Palestine," Great Britain was now responsible for ensuring the establishment of the Jewish national homeland and the development of self-governing institutions, while at the same time guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of all inhabitants of Palestine, regardless of race or religion true.

The British mandate included what is now Israel, Jordan , the Gaza Strip , the West Bank and parts of the Golan Heights .

West Palestine according to the 1947 UN partition plan

UN Resolution 181 (1947)

After the beginning of the Arab uprising (1936–1939), the Peel Commission set up by the British mandate recommended in 1937 that Palestine should be divided into a Jewish and an Arab state. In order to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict in the British mandate of Palestine, a state commission appointed by the UN proposed the establishment of two independent states in 1947. On November 29, 1947, a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly adopted the UN Partition Plan for Palestine as Resolution 181.

Resolution 181 provided for an Israeli and an Arab state in Palestine as well as an extra-territorial district around Jerusalem administered by several UN states . It spoke of Israel as a "Jewish state", allowed a port for "substantial Jewish immigration" and stipulated boundaries, founding period, choice of citizenship and other transitional modalities for both states. It is therefore the legal basis for both the right to exist and the basis for pending peace treaties. Although the national territory assigned to Israel consisted largely of barren desert regions, was almost divided into three parts and did not include Jerusalem, the WZO gave up its previous claim to the entire area of ​​the Yishuv and approved the plan in 1946. The Arab representatives, on the other hand, rejected it and began armed attacks on Jewish settlers months before the decision.

State of Israel founded (1948)

Declaration of independence of May 14, 1948

The Israeli declaration of independence of May 14, 1948 justifies the establishment of the State of Israel with the emergence of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel and their national and religious identity formed there, which was beneficial to humanity (Art. 1), which lived in dispersion and exile (Heb . galuth ) held out the hope of the Jews for a return and restoration of their political freedom there (Art. 2), the immigration ( Aliyah ) of Jews in Palestine who had cultivated and civilized the settled land (Art. 3), the national movement of the Zionism , which proclaimed the right of Jews to their own land (Art. 4), the recognition of this right in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations mandate of 1922 (Art. 5), the Holocaust , which made the urgency of a homeland for persecuted Jews worldwide, so that the Jewish state is open to them (Art. 6), the Holocaust immigration that continued after 1945 against all opposition surviving Jews and other Jews to Israel who had affirmed their right to a life in dignity, freedom and a share of land there (Art. 7), the participation and death of Palestinian Jews in the struggle of the free peoples against National Socialism in World War II , which establishes their right to membership in the United Nations (Art. 8).

The National Council rejected the definition of the national borders according to the UN partition plan, which contained Ben Gurion's draft text. However, the declaration commits Israel to the UN Charter, human rights , peace, balance and cooperation with all of its neighbors. This state is intended to contribute to the permanent security of Jewish minorities in other states and the Jewish population in the country. For Israel, the right to exist includes democracy and national self-determination within the framework of international law, understood as the preservation of the Jewish identity that emerged from Jewish history.

Middle East conflict

Main article: Middle East conflict

Palestine War

Immediately after the declaration of independence, five Arab states opened the Palestinian war against Israel with the aim of destroying the new state. The United States de facto recognized Israel on May 14, 1948, and the Soviet Union de iure on May 18, 1948. Arms deliveries from the Eastern Bloc were crucial to Israel's victory over the Arab attackers. Since the UN partition plan and during the Palestine War, around 700,000 Arab Palestinians fled their places of origin for various reasons or were expelled and expropriated ( Nakba ). During and after the war, up to 900,000 Jews were expelled from Arab states and expropriated. Many of them came to Israel and were accepted there on an equal basis.

After the fighting ended, the UN General Assembly accepted Israel on March 11, 1949 as the 59th member state (UN Resolution 69). Up until then, most western states had recognized Israel or were doing so, the USA now also de iure and Switzerland . The Arab and mostly Islamic states refused to recognize Israel.

Course of the Green Line from 1949

The ceasefire agreement brokered by the UN in 1949 established the “Green Line” as the border between Israel and its neighboring states. After repelling the Arab attackers in 1949, Israel annexed the originally Arab territories of the western Galilee , the city of Acre and the northern Negev, and deposited them with the UN as new Israeli state territory. Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip , Jordan the West Bank with East Jerusalem .

UN resolution 242

See also: Israeli Peace Diplomacy after the Six Day War

In the 1967 Six Day War , Israel occupied Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the strategically important Golan Heights belonging to Syria. They should not be annexed, but rather serve as bargaining chips for negotiations with the war opponents. In July 1967, Israel offered land for peace . The Arab League then formulated the three categorical no's to peace, negotiations and the recognition of the Jewish state at a conference in Khartoum .

The United Nations Security Council passed UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 . This demanded Israel's withdrawal from previously occupied territories, the cessation of all warlike declarations and actions, the recognition of the sovereignty and integrity of all states in the region and a “just solution to the refugee problem”. This left indefinite when and from which areas Israel would have to withdraw and within which limits its integrity would be recognized. The resolution did not call for a Palestinian state or a right of return for refugees to Israel.

PLO program

The Palestinian National Council founded the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 and at that time passed the Palestinian National Charter, in which Palestine is declared the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinians and at the same time an inseparable part of the whole of Arabia (Art. 1). It laid claim to the entire former British mandate (Art. 2) and regarded the State of Israel as an illegal occupying power (Art. 4). All fathers born in Palestine before 1947 inherited the Palestinian identity to all their descendants (Art. 5). Only Jews who lived in Palestine before the “Zionist invasion” (until 1947) were also to be regarded as Palestinians after its liberation (Art. 6). Israel can only be eliminated through armed popular struggle (Art. 9), preferably with guerrilla methods (Art. 10). This struggle should be brought closer to all descendants of the displaced Palestinians through constant revolutionary education as a national identity (Article 7) and to all Arabs as a national duty. The aim is to "wipe out Zionism in Palestine" (Art. 15). There are no historical ties between Jews and Palestine (Art. 18). The UN Partition Plan of 1947, the founding of the State of Israel (Art. 19) and the Balfour Declaration (Art. 20) are completely illegal. These statements could only be changed by a two-thirds majority of all members of the Palestinian National Congress (Art. 33).

The PLO rejected UN resolution 242 by 1988 and demanded that Israel must first completely evacuate all occupied territories before it could be recognized and peace negotiated. With this unwillingness to negotiate and its security interests, Israel again justified that it would not vacate the territories occupied in 1967. Israel also refused to annex them in order not to make the people living there Israeli citizens in the long term.

Advances

In the 1970s, the attitude of the conflicting parties gradually changed. In 1973 Egypt and Syria accepted UN Security Council Resolution 338 and thus de facto Israel's existence. In 1974, before the UN , Yasser Arafat granted all Jewish Israelis the right to stay in their current homeland. As a result of the Yom Kippur War on May 31, 1974, Syria agreed on mutual troop unbundling with Israel and committed to later peace negotiations with Israel. Since it subsequently refused to recognize Israel before it evacuated the Golan, these did not come about.

In 1975, King Khalid of Saudi Arabia first offered to recognize Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders if Israel accepted a Palestinian state in the West Bank. The Saudi Prince Fahd repeated this offer in 1981 at the Arab Summit in Fez , but also demanded a right of return for the refugees or their financial compensation. The Arab summit participants initially rejected this proposal, but adopted it in 1982 and also demanded that Israel recognize the PLO leadership.

In 1979 Israel under Menachem Begin and Egypt under Anwar al-Sadat reached a bilateral agreement. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty established Israel's border with Egypt under international law, and Israel vacated the Sinai Peninsula. The PLO and the other states of the Arab League rejected this partial peace until 1993.

Oslo process

On November 15, 1988, the PLO proclaimed a sovereign Palestinian state under its leadership. In doing so, she referred to UN Resolution 181 of 1947: This formulated the international conditions for this state. At the end of 1988, the PLO leadership also recognized UN Resolution 242.

In August 1993, the PLO and Israel grew closer. Both sides first conducted secret talks and then recognized each other as legitimate negotiating partners in an exchange of letters. In Yasser Arafat's letter of September 9, 1993, the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace and security and UN resolutions 242 and 338. This officially ended the fighting and committed to negotiations with the aim of achieving lasting peace in the region. This enabled her to sign the Declaration of Principles on Temporary Self-Government three days later. The PLO charter remained unchanged, however.

Negotiations between Israel and Syria at the Madrid Conference in 1991 did not lead to any result. But the Oslo accords were followed in 1994 by the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty . As a result, Morocco and Tunisia recognized Israel and normalized their relations with him.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) reject the compromises agreed in the Oslo Accords from 1993 to 1995 as too accommodating and have therefore left the PLO.

Revision of the PLO Charter

On April 26, 1996, the 21st Palestinian National Council in Gaza , the highest legislative body of the Palestinians, elected for the first time in January, decided to remove all articles from the PLO charter that contradicted the agreements reached in the Oslo peace process since 1993. A legal committee should revise the charter and present it to the Central Council at the next meeting. However, the revised version remained unpublished. On December 10, 1998, 81 out of 95 members of the Palestinian Central Council voted for an amended charter without those passages that had denied Israel's right to exist since 1964 and called for its destruction. On December 14, 1998, a large majority of the approximately 1,000 delegates to the Palestinian National Council approved these changes.

The present US President Bill Clinton then emphasized the democratic right of self-determination of the Palestinians, for whom the door to peace with Israel is now open. Arafat, on the other hand, referred to new illegal Jewish settlements with which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was trying to hinder the peace process. The goal remains an independent Palestinian state within the borders of 1967 with a capital in East Jerusalem. However, Netanyahu had already definitely ruled out negotiations and stopped the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank, as the PLO continues to call for the destruction of Israel.

Camp David II

During the follow-up negotiations between Israel and the PLO in 2000 at Camp David , Ehud Barak offered Palestinian self-government in parts of East Jerusalem for the first time. These negotiations failed, especially over the question of who should administer the Temple Mount . In January 2001 in Taba Barak, who at that time no longer had a parliamentary majority in the Knesset , made even more extensive offers to the PLO: a. a full Palestinian administration of East Jerusalem and Israel renouncing military control of the Jordan Valley.

Israel's negotiations with Syria in the USA in March 2000 also narrowly failed because Barak wanted to evacuate the Golan but wanted to keep a narrow strip of water springs on the east bank of the Jordan.

Second intifada

The Second Intifada , which began in 2000, made the solution agreed in Oslo impossible. Barak was voted out. Terrorist attacks of the Fatah members of al-Aqsa Brigades and other Palestinian groups presented the recognition of Israel by the PLO into question. Israel's governments have since been unwilling to resume negotiations on a final settlement of the issues. In response, Tunisia and Morocco broke off political ties with Israel.

Hamas program

The Hamas was founded in 1988 as a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood founded and competition for ready to negotiate PLO. It wants to destroy the State of Israel completely, unconditionally and indefinitely. Their charter of August 18, 1988, which is still valid today , calls on all Muslims to perpetual violent jihad against all Jews. Islam will wipe out Israel as well as other unbelieving countries (preamble). Zionism is essentially expansive and wants to conquer all of Arabia, then the world, as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had revealed (Art. 2). Art. 22 takes further conspiracy theoretical motives from these : The Jews controlled the media with their wealth, directed revolutions, formed secret organizations everywhere to destroy social systems, were behind both world wars and were masterminds of every war in the world.

Hamas, however, strives to "unfold the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine" (Article 6). Only when all Muslims fought and killed the Jews will the last judgment come. This will complete the extermination of all Jews (Art. 7). Palestine is an eternal sacred property for all future generations of Muslims. You must never renounce either part or the whole (Art. 11). The jihad for his liberation is inevitable “in view of the robbery by the Jews” (Art. 15) and “the highest personal duty” for every Muslim in every place. International diplomacy and peace initiatives contradict this duty, are "a pure waste of time" and only turn infidels into mediators in Islamic countries (Art. 13). The peace agreement between Egypt and Israel was high treason against jihad against world Zionism. Hamas is his spearhead and vanguard whose struggle Islamic groups throughout the Arab world should emulate (Art. 32).

Accordingly, in October 1990, Hamas Flyer No. 65 called for the indiscriminate murder of Jews: Every Jew is a settler and it is our duty to kill him.

The combination of quotes from the Koran and the Hadith of El Bukhari ( Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me; come and kill him! ) With conspiracy-theoretical motifs from European anti-Semitism goes back to Sayyid Qutb .

Election of Hamas and unity government

In the run-up to the 2006 elections to the Palestinian Parliament, Hamas officials living abroad declared that the Charter's borrowings from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were nonsensical and would be revised. According to surveys by the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post , many Hamas activists were unaware of these anti-Semitic passages in their program or were interpreted as referring to Israelis, not Jews in general.

According to the January 2006 election manifesto, Hamas wanted to "eliminate the occupation" but did not speak of destroying Israel. Hamas spokesmen emphasized that the former is the immediate goal for the next four years, the latter remains the long-term goal. Hamas never considered changing or correcting its charter. Some candidates said that Hamas wanted as an interim solution a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital, the dismantling of Jewish settlements, a right of return for refugees and a right for Hamas to keep their weapons. This does not mean that the goal of liberating all of Palestine from Israeli occupation is abandoned. While some Hamas candidates strictly ruled out any negotiation with Israel, others made them dependent on serious Israeli offers of withdrawal. Third parties believed that negotiations about everyday supplies for the Palestinians, such as water and electricity, were conceivable.

After their election victory, the incumbent Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas tried to oblige Hamas to indirectly recognize Israel in order to avoid a civil war and to get international financial aid for his government again. In June 2006 he reached an agreement on 'national unity', which Western media interpreted as a breakthrough and recognition of Israel by Hamas. However, Hamas spokesmen made it clear that they see a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 only as an intermediate step towards the final elimination of Israel.

The program of the temporary unity government of the Palestinian Authority (PA) from March 2007 emphasized the right of the Palestinians to resist until the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, without defining it and without mentioning Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution agreed in Oslo.

Civil War and Division

There has been no joint Palestinian government since the battle for Gaza in June 2007 and the split between the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and the PLO-ruled West Bank. Israel lacks a negotiating partner for affiliation agreements that could implement the two-state solution agreed with the PLO in 1995. This fails because the current Hamas government in Gaza has just as little recognized these treaties as the presidency of Mahmud Abbas .

Hamas' adherence to the goal of destroying Israel, its claim to the whole of Palestine, its continued rocket attacks and their resumption after the expiry of a temporary ceasefire with Israel resulted in renewed military intervention by Israel in December 2008 with the aim of stopping attacks and arms smuggling by Hamas to weaken their infrastructure. Negotiation opportunities that tie in with compromises and proposals such as the roadmap that have already been reached have thus moved a long way off.

Iran

Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has denied the "Zionist regime" 's right to exist several times. The conflict intensified again when the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad publicly declared "a world without Zionism" a political goal in Tehran on November 2, 2005:

"... if someone [...] comes to recognize the Zionist regime - he should know that he will be burned in the fire of the Islamic community. [...] Whoever recognizes the existence of this regime is actually recognizing the defeat of the Islamic world. "

On May 8, 2008, the Iranian President reaffirmed his stance: The “Zionist regime” was a “stinking corpse” that could not be resuscitated. Everyone who takes part in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel should know that his name is listed as a Zionist criminal. The Zionist regime is approaching its extinction. It was founded as a puppet of jostling powers for their global arrogance. Every country in the region that supported the Zionist regime would burn in the fire of hatred of the people.

Iran and Syria also finance and support Hezbollah in Lebanon , which Israel fights from there with terrorist attacks and aims to destroy them. Their ideology is Shiite Islamism . Substantial segments of the population of Muslim states that have recognized Israel also continue to reject its existence.

Syria

Syria did not recognize Israel, but President Bashar al-Assad promised it in 2009:

“If the Israelis withdraw from the Golan, we will recognize them. First comes peace, then recognition, not the other way around. "

Syria offered asylum to the Hamasan leader Khalid Maschal, who was wanted by Israel as a murderer, between 2001 and 2012 and is a protector of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which refuses to renounce violence against Israel.

During the failed negotiations with Syria in 2000, Israel held out the prospect of a complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Today's governments of Israel do not feel bound by Barak's proposal, but rather make negotiations dependent on Syria ceasing to support terrorist organizations and recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Main points of contention

Limits

Israel's borders have been unclear since the Palestinian War, which ended without a peace agreement. The Israeli barricades , built in 2003 to ward off terrorist attacks and protect Jewish settlements , mostly run beyond the green line agreed in 1949 on West Bank territory and separate Palestinian settlements from one another. The Palestinians see this as another gradual annexation through the creation of irreversible facts.

Since February 2006, Israel closed the remaining border crossings to the Jordan Valley , so that around a third of the West Bank can effectively only be managed by Israelis.

Right of return for refugees

The United Nations Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA) defines Palestine refugees as “people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and their means of subsistence as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948. ”By resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1982, refugee status was also granted to all male descendants of the first generation of refugees, including those with Arab citizenship. With the descendants, around five million Palestinians are now entitled to UNRWA services. Their camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria have existed for decades. Their inhabitants were not integrated by these states and remained economically, legally and socially disadvantaged. The Palestinian organizations demand the right for them to return to their lost homeland.

Israel refuses to accept them in order to preserve its identity as a predominantly Jewish and democratic state, which grants its 20% Arab citizens the same rights, and instead strives for an internationally recognized two-state solution. If (2007) four million Palestinians were accepted, the almost four million Jewish Israelis would become a minority in their own state and lose their right to self-determination because the non-Jewish majority could change the constitution and dissolve Israel as a Jewish state .

In relation to the approximately 900,000 Jewish displaced persons from Arab countries, Israel has hardly ever tried to make politics or even to demand a right of return with the fate of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

Jerusalem

With the Jerusalem Law passed in 1980, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared Jerusalem the "indivisible capital". In addition, it continues to occupy all of Jerusalem and its surrounding area for strategic military reasons and to protect Jewish settlements there. The Palestinians claim at least East Jerusalem with the al-Aqsa Mosque as their capital.

Israeli settlement policy

Since the Six Day War, Jewish Israelis have set up 133 settlements with around 450,000 residents in the West Bank. From an Israeli point of view, these settlements are legal as Jordan illegally annexed the area in 1950. Therefore, Israel's 1967 invasion was not an occupation. For nationally religious Jews in particular, the settlements are legitimate occupation, for some are steps on the way to a Greater Israel . There are often armed clashes and massacres between them and Palestinians.

The Palestinians and most of the UN member states see the settlement policy as an ongoing illegal land occupation and an undermining of the self-government promised since 1947 in the Oslo Accords .

Positions not directly involved

German governments and parties

The Federal Republic of Germany recognized the State of Israel de facto in 1952 with the Luxembourg Agreement on Compensation for Holocaust Survivors, but de iure only recognized it in 1965 with the exchange of ambassadors. Konrad Adenauer emphasized in 1953 that “the way in which the Germans will behave towards the Jews will be the acid test of German democracy”. He did everything to “bring about a reconciliation between the Jewish people and the German people”. He justified this not only morally, but also with a "power of the Jews, even today, especially in America".

The GDR ignored Israel's claims for compensation, so that both states did not recognize each other. The federal government also continued to avoid recognition, as the Arab states threatened to recognize the GDR in this case because of the Hallstein Doctrine of 1955. Instead, it has been supplying weapons to Israel since the Suez Crisis in 1956. As a result, the willingness to establish official relationships grew there. But it was only when the weapons aid became known in 1964 and Egypt received the GDR State Council Chairman Walter Ulbricht in 1965 that Chancellor Ludwig Erhard was ready to change course. On May 12, 1965, he exchanged notes with Israel's Prime Minister Levi Eschkol . With the approval of the Knesset, the Federal Republic officially established diplomatic relations with Israel.

Every federal government and all parties represented in the German Bundestag today emphasize Israel's right to exist. They always justify this with Germany's special historical and moral responsibility to protect the survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants from any further genocide .

In 1985, Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker described the genocide of the Jews as "unprecedented". According to the politician of the Greens Joschka Fischer , von Weizsäcker's understanding of the state therefore included “not NATO , but Auschwitz as a raison d'etre ”. As Foreign Minister , Fischer stressed in the Bundestag on October 11, 2001 that because Germany wanted to secure Israel's right to exist, it would continue to do everything for a peace process in the Middle East. In connection with Germany's participation in the US war on terrorism , Fischer declared on December 12, 2001 that Germany had to prevent the destruction of Israel sought by Islamist terrorists “by all means”. On the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel in April 2005, Fischer affirmed that Israel's right to exist applies “unrestrictedly and unconditionally, it is not negotiable with anyone and forms the basis for the special relationship between our two countries.” This “cornerstone of German foreign policy” will exist stay.

All parliamentary groups at the time declared unanimously on December 13, 2005:

“The German Bundestag underlines once again Israel's right to exist. Israel must be able to live free from fear, terror and violence within internationally recognized borders. "

That is why they condemn "statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who both denies Israel's right to exist and denies the Holocaust ". This is not compatible with the norms of the international community or the historical experiences of the 20th and 21st centuries. It is welcomed that the federal government has opposed these statements and corresponding policies. She must continue to do this in the future.

Following the Hamas election victory in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated that the recognition of Israel was an “imperative” for the European Union to continue working with the Palestinian Authority. On May 5, 2006, she stressed before the American Jewish Committee that Germany's advocacy of Israel's right to exist was an “immovable constant of German foreign policy”. As long as Hamas does not recognize this right and does not "renounce violence", no contact will be made with it. In September 2006 she justified the decision to deploy Bundeswehr soldiers off the coast of Lebanon with the “special responsibility of Germany for Israel's right to exist”, including “responsibility for a peace solution in the entire region”. In her speech to the Knesset on May 14, 2008, she declared that protecting Israel's right to exist was a “reason of state” for Germany. During his state visit to Israel in May 2012, Federal President Joachim Gauck emphasized that Israel's right to exist was "decisive" for German politics, but said when asked that the word "reason of state" could still cause the Chancellor "enormous difficulties".

Bundestag President Norbert Lammert emphasized in 2008 that Israel's right to exist is non-negotiable.

Gregor Gysi , chairman of the Die Linke parliamentary group , said in a lecture on April 14, 2008: In order to be accepted back into the community of states, the Federal Republic had to show its credible renunciation of National Socialist ideas and therefore tried to maintain a good relationship with the State of Israel . Securing its livelihood, however, was not part of the founding consensus of the Federal Republic of Germany, but was “rather forced” under the political circumstances of the Cold War . The fact that so much is still being discussed about Israel's right to exist is incomprehensible in view of its UN membership. It is less about international law than about direct political issues in the Middle East conflict. For the left, this results in the task of “critical solidarity” with Israel, which does not conceal Israeli violations of international law. Israel must recognize a share of the responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. Recognizing Israel's right to exist is, however, "a necessary condition for the achievement of a stable peace solution".

The position of the German Federal Government is that normal, friendly relations between Germany and Iran can only exist if Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist.

Right-wing extremism

One constant of right-wing extremism has always been anti-Semitism. Building on conspiracy theories that blame the Jews for various national and global grievances, right-wing extremist groups and parties like the German NPD repeatedly refer to Israel as a state that - together with the supposedly Jewish-controlled USA - wants to enslave the world. Since calling for the annihilation of a state or an ethnic group is forbidden in Europe, right-wing extremists try to imply this. With questions like “Who is stopping Israel?”, Several right-wing extremist parties and groups published pamphlets and pamphlets in 2006 accusing Israel (and the US) of being the “number one aggressor” and of systematically exterminating the Arab population. At the same time, they see themselves as victims of an allegedly "Jewish-conditioned media dictatorship". "Criticism of Israel" is "prohibited under penalty of law" in Germany. The "criticism" of the NPD to Israel is usually made defamatory phrases: So then-NPD national chairman was Udo Voigt in July 2006 for sedition arrested after being on an anti-Israel demonstration together with about 50 neo-Nazis Israel - International Genocide Center had chanted.

Left-wing anti-Zionism

According to Lars Rensmann , Israel's right to exist from 1967 to the end of the 1980s was "primarily contested by representatives of the radical left". The “questioning of the Israeli state”, “anti-Zionism” and the categorical rejection and negative connotation of the term “Zionism” as “racism”, “imperialism” [and] “fascism” were “largely hegemonic” in the new and extreme left and one critical reflection on these points of view did not take place until the 1980s.

Many supporters of left groups see themselves as anti-Zionists. In response to accusations of anti-Semitism, they often emphasize the distinction between hostility towards Jews and hostility towards Israel. The striving of Zionism for a nation state is criticized while ignoring the Arab population who live or have lived in parts of the new state. Therefore, they often put Israel's right to exist in relation to “Palestinian international law”.

Some anti-Zionists place the Palestinians' liberation struggle in their world view of the struggle of the proletariat against "ruling capitalism ". Many left and right anti-Zionists see Israel as an outpost of the United States and as the main aggressor in the Middle East conflict.

Some groups officially classified as left-wing extremists in Germany , when they reject Israel, refer to the Palestinians' right to self-determination , which is to be given priority over the State of Israel, and to anti-Zionist or anti-imperialist positions.

Israeli and Jewish critics of Israel

Some ultra-Orthodox Jews , including those who live in Israel, reject the secular state of Israel because a Jewish state could and should only arise after the arrival of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple. You see in political Zionism a danger for the supposedly "true Judaism". This rejection began with the establishment of the World Zionist Organization . Part of the ultra-orthodox anti-Zionist spectrum is united in the Neturei Karta organization .

The Israeli author Uri Avnery asserted in 2007 that Israel's demand to recognize its right to exist was only a pretext to refuse to enter into honest peace negotiations with the Palestinian government and to dissuade the international community from recognizing it as legitimate negotiating partners. So far, Israel’s governments have not complied with the Oslo Accords, according to which Israel should finally fix its borders by 1999 at the latest. They had not even started negotiations on it, but relied on the Arabs to reject their other offers to negotiate as unacceptable. The US and EU demands that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist, end terrorist attacks and fulfill Israel’s treaties with the PLO are one-sided, as Israel has not yet defined its borders and does not have to recognize the right to exist as a Palestinian state. Hamas, on the other hand, agreed to a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders alongside Israel and declared itself ready from the outset to have this compromise confirmed by a referendum among the Palestinians. In fact, the founding charter of Hamas, which is still valid today, denies Israel's right to exist completely independently of its borders, makes repeated reference to the anti-Semitic inflammatory pamphlet Protocols of the Elders of Zion and declares the killing of Jews - not just Jewish citizens of Israel or Zionists - to be an absolute duty every Muslim.

Protestant churches

The Christian churches and denominations have redefined their relationship to Judaism and thus to the State of Israel since 1948. Many of them have also reflected on the founding of the state from a theological point of view and have made declarations on it since around 1970.

The World Council of Churches declared at its founding in Amsterdam in 1948, the State of Israel touching "the religious life of the world at heart." Apart from the right of all groups living in Palestine to live together peacefully, the churches have “the strict duty to pray and work for an order in Palestine that is as just as it can be in the midst of our human disorder”.

Many Lutheran churches took a late and ambivalent position on the State of Israel. The German Lutheran mission theologian Gerhard Jasper declared in 1953: Since Jesus Christ fulfilled the land promise to Abraham in a spiritual, not material sense, Christians should see no sign of God's faithfulness in the founding of Israel. Rather, this state is as much a sign of apostasy from God as wars and rumors of war. Only the church is the “true Israel”, its members have “become free from the earthly homeland of Israel”. Therefore, Christians would have to ask the Jews "whether perhaps the state of Israel is a new great temptation for Israel to pass God by." Neither assimilation nor Zionism are solutions for them, only their conversion :

"The Jews do not come to rest when they emigrate to the Holy Land, but by coming to Him ."

The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) dealt with its relationship to the “Jewish people” for the first time in 1964, but made no mention of the State of Israel. In 1982 he declared the weighing of Christian attitudes to the State of Israel to be a task for the future, tacitly assuming its right to exist politically.

On June 16, 1970, the Dutch Reformed Church was the first European church to unreservedly affirm Israel's existence. She commented on the violent circumstances of the founding of the state:

"But the Jewish people were no better than the other peoples from the start."

On May 24, 1975, the EKD Council declared in its first study, "Christians and Jews", which had been prepared for eight years:

“The return of many Jews to their country did not only take place under the pressure of a hostile environment, but was at the same time the realization of the longing for Zion that had been sustained over the millennia. [...] This is also important for Christians. After all the injustice done to Jews - especially by Germans - you have the obligation to recognize and support the UN resolution of 1947, which is valid under international law and which is supposed to enable Jews to live a secure life in their own state. At the same time, however, Christians must also emphatically advocate a proper balance between the legitimate claims of both the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews. "

The Evangelical Church Federation of Switzerland showed in May 1977 the disagreement of its members with regard to Israel. Some Christians see the fulfillment of biblical promises in this state, others only a problematic political act:

“As is so often the case in world history, in the course of this political development of a new state, the happiness of some has become the misfortune of others. In addition to concern for the Jewish people, we are depressed by concern for the Palestinian Arabs inside and outside Israel. "

In 1980, the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland was the first German Protestant regional church to affirm Israel as a “sign of God's loyalty to his people”, who had been permanently chosen to be God's people. This was followed by a series of similar regional church resolutions and the Reformed Covenant in September 1984. Israel's founding of the state confirmed God's loyalty to the biblical land promise and election of Israel:

“Because we, as Christians, have a special relationship with the Jewish people, we - mindful of our guilt - must stand up for the life of this people. […] We contradict all anti-Jewish efforts that problematize Israel's right to life. "

Many Protestant churches took the 40th anniversary of Israel on May 14, 1988 as an opportunity for positive statements. The following day the Evangelical Church in Baden declared, referring to the ongoing Middle East conflict, which was also tinged with interfaith:

“As Christians, we share responsibility for Israel. [...] The solution of these conflicts is only conceivable under the precondition of the recognition of Israel's right to exist as a state. "

In July 1988, the Episcopal Church (Anglicans) in the USA reiterated its 1979 statement about Israel's right to live as a free state within safe borders.

In 1998, positive explanations were less common. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria emphasized:

“Christians support the endeavors of the Jewish people for a secure existence in their own state. At the same time, they are concerned about a peace solution in the Middle East that includes the rights of the Palestinians and especially of the Christians among them and that guarantees peace, justice and security for all people living there. [...] Therefore we have to think more about how justice can be achieved in the region today without neglecting the necessary solidarity towards the Jewish people. "

The EKD Council carried out this reflection on March 14, 2000 with its third study “Christians and Jews”. He named as a Protestant consensus - not only from member churches of the EKD, but also from free churches - in Germany:

  • the uncompromising rejection of anti-Semitism
  • the admission of Christian co-responsibility and guilt for the Holocaust
  • the recognition of the indissoluble connection between Christians and Judaism
  • recognition of the permanent election of Israel
  • the affirmation of the State of Israel.

This challenged Christians to reflect on their relationship with the Jewish people. For the first time in almost two thousand years, Jewish interlocutors could face Christians there as a safe majority and represent their positions more impartially. On the other hand, the political dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbors often blocks the trialogue between the three Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For Arab Christians and Muslims who showed solidarity with the Palestinians' claim to the land, Israel's existence and politics are "the greatest obstacle on the way to a theological reorientation in view of Judaism".

Roman Catholic Church

Pope Pius X received Theodor Herzl in 1904 and refused his request for a land of Israel for the Jews persecuted in Europe. In the event of Jewish colonization in Palestine, the Vatican would strengthen the mission to the Jews there , since the Jews would not have recognized Jesus Christ. He also rejected a state of Israel politically. Accordingly, the Vatican tried to prevent the adoption of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine mandate of the League of Nations. He stressed the right of the Arab Palestinians to all of Palestine, without, however, advocating it diplomatically.

After 1945, the Vatican stuck to its rejection of political Zionism and only approved the UN partition plan of 1947 because of the international control of Jerusalem it provided for. Officially, he remained neutral and emphasized the rights of Jews, Christians and Arabs in the Holy Land alike, without favoring certain political conflict solutions. The declaration Nostra aetate of 1965, which first recognized Judaism as a special religion and root of the Church, made no statement about the State of Israel. Vatican declarations continued to speak of the "Holy Land" and avoided the state name Israel. An audience of Golda Meir with Paul VI. 1973 brought no rapprochement. In 1977 the Vatican criticized Israel's settlement policy in the territories occupied in 1967 and emphasized the right of the Palestinians to self-determination as a nation of their own. Pope John Paul II welcomed the Israeli-Egyptian partial peace in 1979 without mentioning Palestinian rights. He strictly rejected Israel's Jerusalem law of 1980, emphasized at a meeting with Yitzchak Shamir in 1982 that Israel had to involve the Palestinians in peace negotiations, and received PLO leader Arafat for a private audience after Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982. The Vatican's relations with Israel thus reached a low point.

In 1983 the bishops of Brazil condemned all forms of anti-Semitism and concluded: “We must recognize the right of Jews to a peaceful political existence in the country of their origin without injustice or violence against other peoples being allowed to result. For the Jewish people this right has become a reality with the existence of the State of Israel. "

The apostolic letter Redemptionis Anno by John Paul II first mentioned the State of Israel in 1984 and asked for the Israelis "the desired security and just rest" to which every people is entitled. On December 30, 1993, the Vatican concluded a basic treaty with Israel to establish diplomatic relations; In 1994 ambassadors were then exchanged. Rome and Jerusalem underlined the "unique nature" of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people and committed themselves to the recognition of freedom of religion and conscience, to the fight against anti-Semitism and to support peaceful solutions to state conflicts.

The Dabru Emet declaration of September 11, 2000 emphasized: “For Jews, the restoration of the State of Israel in the Promised Land is the most significant event since the Holocaust. [...] Many Christians support the State of Israel for reasons far deeper than just political ones . As Jews, we welcome this support. "

literature

  • Yaacov Lozowick : Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars . Doubleday, 2003, ISBN 0-385-50905-7 .
  • Walter Kickel: The promised land. The religious significance of the State of Israel from a Jewish and Christian perspective. Munich 1984.
  • Paul Charles Merkley: Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel. Montreal / Kingston 2001.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Nico Krisch: Self-defense and collective security. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg 2001, ISBN 3-540-42508-X , pp. 357ff.
  2. ^ L. Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh: International Law: A Treatise. Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 2006 reissue, ISBN 1-58477-609-9 , p. 193
  3. ↑ Christian Hauswaldt: The status of Palestine: an international legal investigation of the territorial status. Nomos, 2009, ISBN 3-8329-3843-5 , pp. 161-163.
  4. ↑ Ralph Gaebler, Alison Shea (Ed.): Sources of State Practice in International Law. 2nd revised edition, Brill / Nijhoff, Leiden 2014, ISBN 978-90-04-27222-4 , pp. 283 f.
  5. ↑ Penny Sinanoglou: Partitioning Palestine: British Policy Making at the End of Empire. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2019, ISBN 978-0-226-66578-8 , pp. 65ff.
  6. ↑ Ralph Gaebler, Alison Shea (Ed.): Sources of State Practice in International Law. Leiden 2014, p. 286
  7. ↑ Spencer C. Tucker (Ed.): Middle East Conflicts from Ancient Egypt to the 21st Century. An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-Clio, 2019, ISBN 978-1-4408-5352-4 , pp. 940f. ; Howard Grief: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law. Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem 2008, ISBN 978-965-7344-52-1 , pp. 153ff.
  8. ^ Israel Studies Volume 3, No. 2, Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Indiana University Press, 1998, pp. 195–197 and 237.
  9. ^ Bernard Reich: A Brief History of Israel. 2nd edition, Facts on File, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4381-0826-1 , pp. 44-50
  10. ↑ Jonathan Adelman: The Rise of Israel: A History of a Revolutionary State. Routledge, London 2008, ISBN 978-0-415-77510-6 , p. 184 and p. 193
  11. ^ Benny Morris: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, ISBN 978-0-521-00967-6 , pp. 65–308 (Chapters 3 and 4) and p. 589 (Conclusion)
  12. ↑ Muhammad Zia Abbas: Israel: The History and How Jews, Christians and Muslims Can Achieve Peace. iUniverse, 2007, ISBN 0-595-42619-0 , p. 91
  13. ↑ Stefan Talmon: Collective non-recognition of illegal states: Basics and legal consequences of an internationally coordinated sanction, illustrated using the example of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2006, ISBN 3-16-147981-5 , p. 550.
  14. ↑ Swiss Federal Archives: Proclamation of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948 ( Memento of March 2, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  15. ↑ Many Plans, No Success: Peace Plans for Israel
  16. ^ Michael Scott-Baumann: Access to History: Crisis in the Middle East: Israel and the Arab States 1945–2007. Hodder Education, 2009, ISBN 978-0-340-96658-7 , p. 52
  17. ^ The Palestinian National Charter of July 17, 1968
  18. ^ Moshe Aumann: Carta-Atlas zur Geschichte Israels , Jerusalem 1984, ISBN 965-220-064-6 , p. 41
  19. ↑ Reiner Nieswandt: Abrahams umkampfes Erbe , Stuttgart 1998, p. 116
  20. ↑ Hamburger Abendblatt No. 103, May 5, 1989, p. 2: PLO Charter ( Memento of July 29, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  21. ↑ Erhard Franz: The “Gaza-Jericho Agreement”. In: Middle East Yearbook 1993. Politics, Economy and Society in North Africa and the Near and Middle East. Springer, Wiesbaden 1994, ISBN 978-3-322-95968-3 , pp. 193f. and 219
  22. ↑ Jon Immanuel: The Palestinian Authority ( Memento of February 14, 2006 in the Internet Archive ), published by Anti Defamation (ADL), Commission of Bnai Brith Zurich, July 23, 2004 (pdf)
  23. ↑ HaGalil (December 11, 1998): A clear sign for peace: Majority for changes to the PLO charter was overwhelming!
  24. ↑ December 14, 1998: Today in Gaza: Palestinian National Council approves amendment of the PLO Charter
  25. ↑ Muriel Asseburg: On the way to a viable Palestinian state? In: Dietmar Herz u. a. (Ed.): The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Backgrounds, dimensions and perspectives. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden 2003, ISBN 3-515-08259-X , p. 132
  26. ^ Kassel Peace Council: Peace Talks - from Madrid to Geneva
  27. ↑ Morocco breaks off relations with Israel ( Memento from April 25, 2014 in the Internet Archive ), Handelsblatt on October 23, 2000
  28. ^ Tunisians against diplomatic relations with Israel , Israel today on July 11, 2011
  29. ^ HaGalil: Excerpts from the Hamas Charter of August 18, 1988 ; MEMRI: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas (Charter in English translation, February 14, 2006)
  30. ↑ a b Ulrich W. Sahm (ntv, Jerusalem February 26, 2006): Anti-Semitic content: Hamas charter newly translated
  31. ^ Matthias Küntzel (Jungle World, November 2002): Language of Destruction: Documents Sayyid Qutbs and Hamas
  32. ↑ MEMRI March 2, 2006: Hamas in the run-up to the elections: Pragmatism and extremism ( Memento of May 14, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
  33. ↑ News.at: Palestinians want to recognize Israel: Agreement on national unity
  34. ↑ Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post March 16, 2007: Strategic Ambiguity
  35. ↑ Süddeutsche Zeitung June 16, 2003: Planned for all eternity. The “Road Map” and its predecessors - Middle East peace plans since 1969
  36. ↑ Persian original of Ahmedi-Nedschad's speech of November 2, 2005 ( Memento of February 20, 2006 in the Internet Archive ). Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA).
  37. ↑ MEMRI translation Ahmedi-Nedschad's speech of November 2, 2005 ( Memento of January 8, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  38. ↑ Iran-President-Zionist Irna, May 8, 2008: Ahmadinejad calls Zionist regime a “stinking corpse” ( Memento of May 9, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
  39. ↑ Where's the outcry? In: Der Spiegel . No. 4 , 2009, p. 77 ff . ( online - January 19, 2009 , interview with Bashar al Assad).
  40. ^ Israel excludes Palestinians from fertile valley The Guardian , February 14, 2006
  41. ^ Daniel Pipes : (The Washington Times, February 29, 2012): "At some point all people will be refugees from Palestine"
  42. ↑ United Nations Aid for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East: Who We Are. (English)
  43. ↑ Olmert advertises partial withdrawal from the West Bank , Tagesschau (ARD). May 4, 2006. Archived from the original on July 28, 2010. Retrieved on February 23, 2014. 
  44. ^ Ha'aretz, July 21, 2006: The state says, Enough!
  45. ↑ Bernard Lewis (Die WELT, guest commentary, November 28, 2007): Fundamentals of Annapolis: Israel must live
  46. ^ Ronen Steinke: Jews of Arab origin: Expellees of the Orient. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. September 17, 2019, accessed October 18, 2019 .
  47. ↑ Israel Network: Settler growth rate has decreased . January 18, 2019, accessed October 17, 2019 .
  48. ↑ quoted from Inge Deutschkron, Israel und die Deutschen , Köln 1991, p. 65
  49. ^ Markus Weingardt: German Israel Policy : Stages and Continuities , in: From Politics and Contemporary History 15/2005
  50. ↑ "Closer to the Greens than Cabbage" . How the Federal President deals with politicians from all parties in Bonn, Spiegel No. 28, July 6, 1987
  51. ↑ Document archive Bundestag: Speech by Federal Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer on the current situation after the start of the operation against international terrorism in Afghanistan (October 11, 2001)
  52. ↑ Martin Kloke : 40 years of German-Israeli relations. Federal Agency for Civic Education, July 7, 2005, accessed December 4, 2012 . []
  53. ^ German Bundestag, Drucksache 16 /…, 16th electoral period: Motion by the CDU / CSU, SPD, FDP, DIE LINKE and BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN parliamentary groups: Israel's right to exist is a German obligation
  54. ^ USA trip: Merkel underscores Israel's right to exist , Stern, May 5, 2006
  55. ^ Gauck moves away from Merkel's raison d'état formula , Die Welt, May 29, 2012
  56. ↑ President of the Bundestag Lammert emphasizes Israel's right to exist
  57. ^ Gregor Gysi: The attitude of the German left to the State of Israel (Lecture on the event 60 years of Israel of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, April 14, 2008)
  58. ^ Sven Böll: Scandal during Gabriel's trip to Iran: Then just to the museum. In: Spiegel Online . October 4, 2016, accessed June 9, 2018 .
  59. ↑ http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/sigmar-gabriel-in-iran-abfuhr-aus-dem-iran/12083100-2.html
  60. ↑ Iran: Gabriel's visit to Tehran ends with a scandal. In: Zeit Online. October 4, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2017 .
  61. ↑ HaGalil, October 18, 2004: Review of Tobias Jaecker: New variants of an old pattern of interpretation: Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories after September 11th
  62. ↑ Netzeitung, July 23, 2006: NPD chief arrested for agitation against Israel ( Memento from December 28, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  63. ^ Lars Rensmann: Democracy and the Image of Jews - Anti-Semitism in the Political Culture of the Federal Republic of Germany , VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2004, p. 87
  64. ↑ Martin W. Kloke : Israel and the German Left , Haag and Herchen, Frankfurt, 1994, p. 133
  65. ↑ Klaus Lustig (SPD Karlsruhe 2007): Israel, hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism in the community hall of the Lutheran Lutheran congregation ( Memento from September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  66. ↑ Thomas Haury : On the logic of West German anti-Zionism
  67. ↑ Knut Mellenthin (Junge Welt, June 5, 2007): Permanent Aggressor - 40 years ago Israel attacked its neighboring states Egypt, Syria and Jordan. To this day, Tel Aviv threatens the entire Arab region with its armament
  68. ↑ Neturei Karta International: Theodor Herzl, Zionism, Jewish State, the Unfortunate Disaster of the Jewish People (June 26, 2004)
  69. ↑ Uri Avnery: Does an Indian have to recognize the right of the United States to exist? ( Memento of March 3, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  70. ↑ a b c d e f g h i quoted from Helmut Nausner: The Christians and the State of Israel . In: “Dialog - Du Siach” number 70, January 2008. Coordinating committee for Christian-Jewish cooperation, Vienna. Publisher: Coordinating Committee for Christian-Jewish Cooperation ISSN  1816-6431
  71. ↑ Gerhard Jasper: The community of Jesus and the people of Israel according to the final historical testimony of the New Testament (1953), quoted from Paul Gerhard Aring: Christliche Judenmission pp. 11–28
  72. ↑ Hans Erler, Ansgar Koschel (ed.): The dialogue between Jews and Christians: Attempts at the conversation after Auschwitz. Campus, Frankfurt am Main 1999, ISBN 3593363461 , p. 151
  73. ↑ Reiner Nieswandt: Abraham's Contested Legacy: Now I understand the conflict in Israel. Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 3460331828 , p. 195
  74. ↑ Reiner Nieswandt: Abraham's contested legacy. Stuttgart 1998, p. 202ff.
  75. ↑ Reinhard Neudecker: The many faces of the one God. Loyola University Press, 2009, ISBN 8876536469 , pp. 74f.
  76. ↑ Albrecht Lohrbächer (ed.): What Christians can learn from Judaism. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 978-3-17-018133-5 , p. 81f.
  77. ↑ Martin H. Jung: Christians and Jews: the history of their relationships. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2008, ISBN 3534191331 , p. 268.