A ‘model of reconciliation’? Fifty years of German–Israeli relations
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836717750200 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
750200CAC0010.1177/0010836717750200Cooperation and ConflictWittlinger
research-article2018
Article
Cooperation and Conflict
2018, Vol. 53(4) 507 –527
A ‘model of reconciliation’?
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Fifty years of German–Israeli
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836717750200
DOI: 10.1177/0010836717750200
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
relations
Ruth Wittlinger
Abstract
This article argues that German–Israeli reconciliation after 1945 has not been as exemplary as is
often suggested. Drawing on key aspects which emerge from a discussion of relevant concepts in
the first part of the article – transitional justice and reconciliation – it will show that Germany’s
memory culture, as evidenced in the elite discourse, has indeed developed in a way that points
to a successful reconciliation between the two countries. On the other hand, however, German
regret emerged only reluctantly, was by and large confined to West Germany, and took a long
time to establish itself formally, with emphasis on German suffering rather than suffering caused
by Germans always playing an important role in German collective memory after 1945. It will
also show that at grass-roots level, reconciliation between Germany and Israel is far from
unproblematic. Apart from providing a critical assessment of the reconciliation between Germany
and Israel after 1945, the article contributes to current academic literature on transitional justice,
reconciliation and the role of memory which suggests that even though commemoration and
micro-level reconciliation might be important, the geopolitical context in which reconciliation
takes place and strategic security considerations also play a significant role.
Keywords
German–Israeli relations, memory, transitional justice, reconciliation
Introduction
The assessment of German–Israeli relations on their fiftieth anniversary in 2015 by poli-
ticians as well as academics was largely a positive one. German Chancellor Angela
Merkel – not usually prone to using strong and emotive language – suggested that
German–Israeli relations can, ‘without exaggeration’, be described as a ‘miracle’ (2016).1
Equally positively, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, Israeli ambassador to Germany, asserted
Corresponding author:
Ruth Wittlinger, School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University, Elvet Hill Road,
Durham, DH1 3TU, UK.
Email: Ruth.wittlinger@durham.ac.uk
508
Cooperation and Conflict 53(4)
that the two countries ‘have made the impossible possible’, describing their relationship
as ‘unique’ (2015).
In a speech to the Bundestag on Germany’s National Day of Mourning (Volkstrauertag),
which commemorates victims of war and tyranny, on 16 November 2014, Avi Primor,
former Israeli ambassador to Germany, went as far as suggesting that as regards memory
and the examination of conscience, Germany ‘has indeed, with time, become a role
model, a worldwide role model’. He suggested that Germany’s memory culture provides
persuasive evidence for this claim:
But where else in the world have you ever seen a nation that builds memorials to commemorate
its own shame, to remember its own crimes and perpetuate the memory of its own national
disgrace. Until now only the Germans have done this. Truly exemplary!
This could easily be dismissed as ‘anniversary prose’ if academic assessments did not
strike a similarly positive note. Lily Gardner Feldman, a leading expert in the field, also
concludes, for example, that ‘[t]he transition in German–Israeli relations from enmity to
amity in less than a generation is nothing short of miraculous’ (2012: 182).
As Avi Primor’s remark suggests, the successful reconciliation of the two countries is
largely attributed to the way post-war (West) Germany has ‘dealt’ with its past. In par-
ticular, the memory culture that emerged in the Federal Republic as a response to the
Holocaust and the Second World War is often used as an ‘example of good practice’,
with its potential application to other post-conflict contexts also frequently discussed
(Art, 2006; Berger, 2013; Gardner Feldman, 2010). This article will take a more critical
stance and argue that these very positive assessments paper over significant cracks in the
memory culture that Germany has developed, as well as in the German–Israeli relation-
ship at societal level.
There is a considerable body of literature on the history of German–Israeli relations
(Diner, 2015; De Vita, 2015; Gardner Feldman, 1984; Kloke, 2015; Lavy, 1996; Stein
and Lewy, 2015), on aspects of transitional justice such as criminal prosecution and repa-
rations (Balabkins, 1971; Romeike, 2016), on the impact of the Holocaust on Jewish
historical consciousness and identity (Ofer, 2009, 2013; Segev, 2000; Yablonka, 1999)
and on debates about Germany’s Nazi past and its impact on German identity (Art, 2006;
Buruma, 1994; Giordano, 1987; Langenbacher, 2010; Maier, 1988; Niven, 2002;
Wittlinger, 2010). Since the 1990s, there has also been an increased focus on theoretical
discussions of concepts such as transitional justice and reconciliation (Buckley-Zistel et
al., 2014; Crocker, 1999; Daase, 2010; Dodds, 2012; Dwyer, 1999; Govier, 2006; Hamber
and Kelly, 2004; Lederach, 2013 [1997]; Little, 2011; Llewellyn and Philpott, 2014;
Porter, 2015; Rigby, 2001; Teitel, 2003). Interestingly, however, apart from very few
notable exceptions (Gardner Feldman, 2012; von Hindenburg, 2007), the German–Israeli
case has not received very much attention at all in the literature on transitional justice and
reconciliation.
By drawing on recent discussions of the key concepts and taking a fresh look at the
empirical evidence, this article assesses to what extent reconciliation between Germany
and Israel has indeed been successful. It argues that although the theoretical literature
helps to examine the dynamics between victims and perpetrators and the role of memory
Wittlinger
509
it very often neglects to take into account the post-conflict geopolitical context in which
reconciliation takes place as well as strategic security considerations which influence the
process, or, as Lily Gardner Feldman has described it, the influence of ‘mutual needs’ on
the process (Gardner Feldman, 1984: 49–86).
In order to provide a theoretical basis for the analysis, the first part of the article will
examine recent discussions of transitional justice and the role that is attributed to mem-
ory, commemoration and apologies in this process. The next section will examine differ-
ent conceptualisations of reconciliation which will provide the basis for an evaluation of
the German–Israeli case later on in the article. Following on from this, it will show that
Germany’s memory culture – as evidenced in the elite discourse – has indeed developed
in a way that points to a successful reconciliation between the two countries. The article
will then suggest, however, that German regret emerged rather reluctantly, took a long
time to establish itself formally and that emphasis on German suffering rather than suf-
fering caused by Germans has always played an important role in German collective
memory since 1945.
This will be followed by a discussion of what has happened at grass-roots level: the
fact that Holocaust education has played a crucial role in (West) Germany since 1945;
the way historical consciousness has been passed on to the next two generations of
Germans; the role of civil society in the reconciliation process, and the meaning of the
Holocaust for Israeli identity. This section will also examine recent survey data which
indicate that, on a societal level, reconciliation does not seem to have taken place.
Surprisingly – at least in the context of reconciliation after the Holocaust, however
–Germans are critical of Jews and Israel rather than vice versa. The article concludes that
even though reconciliation between Germany and Israel has been far from exemplary,
the two countries have nevertheless managed to build a relationship that has been mutu-
ally beneficial.
The aim of the article is twofold: in addition to providing a new and more critical
assessment of the reconciliation between Germany and Israel, it makes a contribution to
current academic literature on transitional justice, reconciliation and the role of memory
which suggests that even though commemoration and micro-level reconciliation might
be important, the geopolitical context in which reconciliation takes place and strategic
security considerations also play a significant role.
As Adrian Little has suggested, the ‘evaluation of theoretical devices, like reconcilia-
tion, needs to be deeply grounded in substantive contexts and the obstacles they involve –
an approach that has been somewhat lacking in normative approaches to the concept of
reconciliation’ (2011: 83). The German–Israeli case study of reconciliation provides rich
empirical material that covers a period of over 70 years and follows crimes which set a new
world standard in terms of evil and have been described as ‘humankind’s darkest hour’, the
‘world’s cruellest episode in history’ and the ‘modern era’s greatest calamity’.
There is no doubt that the German–Israeli example of reconciliation and the violence
that preceded it is unique. In contrast to other cases of transitional justice where recon-
ciliation was sought after a violent past, the Holocaust was planned and carried out by the
Nazi regime and also required the active –...
To continue reading
Request your trial