The German question of Israel

Fifty years ago, Federal Germany and Israel mutually recognized each other as states. On the Jewish and Israeli side, the resumption of relations with the country that caused the Shoah is nevertheless a matter of “ miracle “, as historian Dan Diner defends.

The year 2015 is marked by the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel. There are many official commemorations and public events celebrating the “ miracle » what constitutes such an international gesture in view of the abyss which separates, in 1945, Germany, land of decision and establishment of the “ Final solution of the Jewish question » and the Jewish world, then Israel as the self-proclaimed representative of the Jewish people, after its creation in 1948. The subject has already been the subject of multiple publications, covering the prehistory of these relations and the general history of these relations since 1965. Some of these publications can be considered definitive. The subject is today reconsidered by historiography to illustrate the policies of reconciliation between former enemies, or the transition from enmity to friendship in relations between two countries.

Dan Diner, however, returns to the subject of German-Israeli relations, through a brief study which emerges from the study of mentalities. Director of the Simon Dubnov Institute in Leipzig, historian of ideas and recognized specialist in Jewish history and culture, among others, he focuses on an aspect often mentioned, but only touched upon by historiography: the “ German question for Israel “. Who in Israel participated in the debate when it came to knowing, at the turn of the 1940s and 1950s, whether to enter into negotiations with (West) Germany? ? What are the traditions carried by these personalities ? On the contrary, what innovations are they the inspirations for? ?

Diner offers an analysis of the state of mind of the main Jewish, Zionist and Israeli actors, in this particular constellation of the resumption of contact between the Jewish world and Israel, and Germany after 1945. This state of mind presents two contradictory components. On the one hand the weight of traditions, linked to the Jewish religion and the diaspora situation. On the other hand, the innovations which are necessary – or which we impose on ourselves – after the creation of the State of Israel which conquers the status of state interlocutor of another State, the FRG. In this, Diner presents a double rupture. One is – relatively – easy: the Zionists, then Israeli leaders, must get rid of their German influence. The other is less simple, but demanded at the highest point: we must break with the Jewish model of the diaspora, with its traditions and its inertia, to give birth to individual and collective behavior which corresponds to the demands of a new situation. , the existence of a State. Added to this double rupture is the need to overcome a taboo: this State, which wants to be the representative of the Jews, in particular the Jews who died in the Shoah, must, in the name of these victims and for its own good, enter into negotiations with West Germany, legal heir to the Third Reich, in order to obtain reparation.

To carry out its demonstration, Diner relies on two “ moments » symbolic: the debates in the Knesset from January 7 to 9, 1952 during which the opportunity to begin negotiations with Germany was discussed and the signing of the reparations agreement on September 10, 1952. We move from the to the banning of Germany by the diaspora and certain Israeli political and religious figures to the integration of Germany by Israeli reason of state.

The ceremony which takes place in Luxembourg represents a success: under the terms of the agreement, the FRG agrees to pay Israel a lump sum of $2.5 billion ; it also begins a procedure for paying compensation for the benefit of Jewish individuals, through a consortium of Jewish organizations (the Claims Conference). The operation is very sensitive. The signing took place on the sly, in an icy atmosphere: no speech was made, even if texts had been prepared. This silence, if not this embarrassment, is at the height of the tragedy. They are also an illustration of the strong Jewish reluctance and Israeli hesitation which preceded the decision to negotiate, then remained during the negotiation itself. We wanted to maintain distance, even if the Israeli negotiators are most often of German origin. ; avoid too close contact and the use of a common language. The photo of the ceremony demonstrates the preservation of a “ ritual distance “. It marks the break with tradition, and the continuation of the Zionist logic of breaking with the Jewish past. The act is an initiation ; he is the founder of a state habitus, and an identity, for Israelis as well as for West Germans.

Diner then explains the break that Zionist/Israeli leaders and their negotiators are making with Jewish tradition. He returns to the notion of “ terras de idolatria », applied at the time to Spain from which the Jews had been expelled (1492), and postponed until after the war with Germany. This declaration of infrequency has a religious origin: ostracism (herem). The proponents of tradition are keen to assimilate Germany to Amalek, the incarnation of the eternal desire for destruction threatening the Jewish people, who must therefore be ostracized from humanity. This is the case in Palestine/Israel, as in the diaspora (in 1948 the World Jewish Congress wanted to prohibit Jews from settling in Germany). But, just as Spain has never been the subject of such heremwhich only applies to individuals (Baruch Spinoza is undoubtedly the most famous victim), Germany will not be ostracized among nations, to the great dismay of religious radicals and the Israeli right. Certainly, Israeli passports from 1949 to 1956 bear the mention of universal validity, “ except for Germany “. But there are many possibilities to circumvent this avoidance, and Israelis continue to travel to Germany, although a project had once envisaged limiting their ability to leave their country.

The debate held in the “ Knesset arena ” at the beginning of January 1952 constitutes the apogee of a “ painful self-improvement » (p. 67). The confrontation takes place between parliamentarians and in the street, the surroundings of the single chamber being the site of riots of rare violence in Israeli political history. For opponents, the reasons are religious: texts and tradition oppose any contact with Israel’s enemies. They are also political: Begin uses moral arguments (not to negotiate with the devil) in his systematic opposition to Ben-Gurion, delivering virulent speeches to parliamentarians and his supporters gathered outside. ; others refuse the alignment with the Western camp that an agreement with the FRG. The spokesperson for the supporters within Ben-Gurion’s Mapai is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Moshe Sharett. The break with Jewish tradition is justified from several points of view, in a presentation, which Diner carefully retraces, eloquent of a state identity in the making. The primacy of Jewish tradition corresponds to a bygone time, that of the diaspora. And we know to what extent Zionism considers it vital to overcome what it perceives as an era of degeneration, itself considering itself its counterpoint, renaissance. There is an ambiguity there: taking its destiny into its own hands, assuming its state responsibility, Israel must go beyond the divine prohibition, arrogate to itself the rights of God to move in the direction of human justice. Refusing to allow Israel’s enemy to retain the property it has despoiled and therefore demanding reparation, the new State, willing to negotiate, does not in any way envisage that an agreement is synonymous with a pardon granted. to Germany, or recognition of a penance on his part which would have succeeded. More prosaically, Sharett, who notes that his opponents have in the past been able to violate their call to banish the enemies of the Jewish people, has in mind the vital nature of such negotiations: the material aid that could be obtained from the FRG must save Israel from a predicted economic rout.

An accomplished orator, incarnation of the new Israel, Sharett won his case: by 61 votes to 50, the Knesset approved the entry into negotiations on reparations. Debate means the defeat of those who look to the past and the victory of those in the present and the future, for the sake of Israel’s future. A fundamental step in the construction of the identity of the State, it illustrates the victory of reason of State over the diasporic mentality. For Israel, its significance is also a step forward on the path to its recognition as a subject of international law: taking up a collective Jewish claim, Israel can negotiate on behalf of the Jews. A bitter victory, because it was first impossible to defend the rights of the Jews, then the Jews themselves, before and during the Shoah. As Dan Diner finally shows, the work of destruction of the Shoah found a favorable counterpart in this decision: it revolutionized the collective identity and self-perception of the Jewish people.

Entering into negotiations with the FRGthen the conclusion of the reparations agreement clearly illustrate the transition from the prevalence of religion to its sidelining, or even its rejection, in Jewish, then Zionist and Israeli, political action. In this respect, Dan Diner’s demonstration, which draws on the most solid sources, is eloquent. No less eloquent yet remains ultimately the validity of its subtitle, with its eminently religious connotation and still current validity: the “ ritual distance » still seems to characterize German-Israeli relations, whatever degree of normality they may have achieved in the meantime.