Since (at least) 1948, there has been an ongoing struggle over the territorialisation of what was then called "the British Mandate of Palestine." History is not neutral, and it is important to recognize how interests shape narratives. While the Zionist narrative of the creation of the State of Israel is widely known, the narrative of the Nakba—the cost at which the State of Israel was established—is far less so. Even more absent from public discourse is the fact that the Nakba is not a singular event, but an ongoing process. Dialogue requires that we listen to all sides and all perspectives involved in a controversy, not just to one of the parties engaged in armed conflict—especially considering that the vast majority of victims are completely unarmed.
The public lecture by Ronnie Barkan offers an opportunity to learn from the perspective of someone who grew up in Israel but refused to adopt the Zionist narrative. In contrast to most of us—whose understanding of Zionism has been shaped by well-crafted and well-funded public relations efforts—Mr. Barkan is able to describe and explain how this narrative has been constructed both within Israeli society and on international platforms. This may also help us understand why, in the West, voices from and/or for Palestine are often marginalized or silenced altogether.
The history and narratives of Zionism and the historical unfolding of the Nakba are not merely academic issues; they have real-world consequences—not only in terms of military violence against Palestinians (especially refugees) in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Lebanon, and Syria, or the violent resistance by groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but also in the realms of economics, politics, and international law. Hidden behind the complexity of interests and claims lies a reality of industrialized militarism and militarized security. In this context, international law often plays a less significant role than we are led to believe. Crossovers between commercial and military interests frequently bypass legal and ethical considerations. These interests often thrive on escalation and conflict, rather than on diplomacy and de-escalation. Moreover, in zones where international law is not applied and human rights are not recognized, conditions can emerge that serve as living laboratories for the research and development of militarized securitization.
To understand why political establishments may prioritize interests over ethics is one thing; to understand how this affects all of us is another. This renders the silencing—or even criminalization—of voices from and/or for Palestine a pressing issue for the future of democracy, not only in Europe but worldwide. As a political system that claims to be grounded in international law, democracy cannot tolerate the imposition of conditions on universal human rights. For example, how do we in Germany interpret the first article of our constitution: Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar? Does this also apply to the people of Palestine? If so, what consequences does this have—for instance—for German foreign policy?
Einlass: ab 18.45 Uhr