Stereo Mix

In this podcast, Paula discusses the discourse coalition surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict with a focus on Germany's role. She is not an expert but wants to raise awareness and challenge any forms of justification or silencing by the German discourse. She explores Germany's historical responsibility towards Israel and its impact on political discourse, media representation, and policy decisions. Paula uses discourse analysis to understand the narratives created by German and Israeli politicians. She identifies key themes such as historical responsibility and legitimizing phrases used by the German media. The analysis aims to unpack the storylines and metaphors used by actors and identify practices and institutionalization of these narratives. Hello everyone and welcome to my podcast. I'm Paula and today I want to discuss the discourse coalition surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict with a special focus on Germany's role. So now let's be clear and briefly reflect on my position. I'm not here as a student, I'm an expert. Hello everyone and welcome to my podcast. I'm Paula and today I want to discuss the discourse coalition surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict with a special focus on Germany's role. So now let's be clear and briefly reflect on my own position. I'm not here as an expert journalist or academic. I'm a student passionate about understanding and analyzing discourse. So my goal today isn't to contribute to the issue itself since it would exceed the framework of what we do in discourse analysis, but I want to raise awareness and challenge any forms of justification or silencing by the German discourse. So let's do it together. Hello everyone and welcome to my podcast. I'm Paula and today I want to discuss the discourse coalition surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict with a special focus on Germany's role. Now let me be clear and briefly reflect on my own position. I'm not here as an expert journalist or academic. I'm a student passionate about understanding and analyzing discourse and my goal today isn't to contribute to the issue itself since it would exceed the framework of what we do in discourse analysis, but I want to raise awareness and challenge any forms of justification or silencing by the German discourse. So let's do it together. To give a quick introduction, as you all know the humanitarian situation in Gaza is getting worse daily with people dying from bombings, poor living conditions, and starvation because of insufficient aid reaching the area. The discourse surrounding Israel's responsibilities and tension is immense and especially in Germany this conversation is particularly polarizing. A country that has once promised never again has firmly positioned itself alongside Israel and this stance has also led to practices such as banning pro-Palestine demonstrations and silencing pro-Palestinian voices on the grounds of anti-Semitism. These days in Germany any criticism towards Israel and its war against Gaza is considered anti-Semitic and treated as such. These days in Germany any criticism towards Israel and its war against Gaza is considered anti-Semitic and treated as such. These days in Germany any criticism towards Israel and its war against Gaza is considered anti-Semitic and treated as such. These days in Germany any criticism towards Israel and its war against Gaza is considered anti-Semitic and treated as such. These days in Germany any criticism towards Israel and its war against Gaza is considered anti-Semitic and treated as such. These days any criticism towards Israel and its war against Gaza is considered anti-Semitic and treated as such. Germany advocates its motto that the security of Israel is the reason of state, also called Staatsräson, driven by the attempt to fulfill its duties regarding the Holocaust. But it raises critical questions, what are the limits of this reason of state and how does it balance Israel's right to defend itself with Germany's unconditional support for a government that violates the human rights of Palestinians. So here I want to stress that criticizing Germany is essential because it is an actor that has a lot of influence on Israel and it is able to exert pressure. As Edward Said noted here, quote, we can't only, we can't show true solidarity if we don't criticize. As Edward Said noted here, quote, we can't only, we can't show true solidarity if we don't criticize. As Edward Said noted here, quote, we can't only, we can't show true solidarity if we don't criticize. Therefore my podcast will follow the main research question, how does Germany's historical responsibility towards Israel shape its political discourse, media representation and policy decisions in relation to Israel-Gaza conflict. Therefore my podcast will follow the main question, how does Israel, therefore my podcast will follow the main question of how does Germany's historical responsibility towards Israel shape its political discourse, media representation and policy decisions. Therefore my podcast will follow the main research question of how does Germany's historical responsibility towards Israel shape its political discourse, media representation and policy decisions in relation to the Israel-Gaza conflict. To give a quick overview of what to expect in the podcast, I will start by providing some historical context on the topic, this is followed by a methodology section, this is followed by a methodology section in which I explain discourse analysis and the coalition approach, afterwards we will dive into the analysis and in the end draw a conclusion that summarizes the key findings and answer my question. To begin with the historical context, the unique relationship between Germany-Israel is rooted in the Holocaust and Germany's moral obligation regarding Israel's security stems from the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis during the World War II and in the aftermath of these horrors many Jews fled from Germany and Europe to Palestine, particularly between 1918 and 1947. By 1952 Germany declared Israel's security as reason of state, as I mentioned before the Staatsräson and this concept suggests that Germany prioritizes Israel's security as a fundamental element of its own foreign policy, so since the attack there has been a near universal consensus in Germany supporting Israel, which is driven by the historical responsibility to fight anti-Semitism, this consensus also led to providing important military support to Israel, consistently backing Israel's right to defend itself. To begin with the historical context, the unique relationship between Germany-Israel is rooted in the Holocaust and Germany's moral obligation regarding Israel's security stems from the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis during the World War II and in the aftermath of these horrors many Jews fled from Germany and Europe to Palestine, particularly between 1918 and 1947. By 1952 Germany declared Israel's security as reason of state, the Staatsräson, and this concept suggests that Germany prioritizes Israel's security as a fundamental element of its own foreign policy, so since the attack there has been a near universal consensus in Germany supporting Israel, driven by the historical responsibility to fight anti-Semitism, the consensus has led to providing important military aid to Israel and consistently backing Israel's right to defend itself. In this podcast my goal is to unpack the narratives created by German and Israeli politicians regarding the Gaza conflict and here discourse analysis allows me to understand how certain ideas are presented as truth and specifically I want to look at discourse coalition. A discourse coalition is defined as a group of actors who, through shared practices, use a particular set of storylines over time. If that sounds a bit confusing, don't worry, I will break it down further. This approach helps to identify the key players in a discourse, such as politicians, and examine how their language actions and institutional practices interact, so it is especially useful for political debates where different actors share the same narrative. My analysis will follow a five-step approach and I will start by looking for key themes that appear throughout the data, here I primarily looked at discourse as statements and speeches by German and Israeli politicians, secondly I will explore discourse affinity, which analyzes how different statements share a common way of conceptualizing the world, further I will explore the storylines and metaphors used by these actors, and here storylines are ways for actors to impose their view of reality on others. At the same time I will identify the actors that are present, so who says what and to which discourse and storyline do they contribute, especially for our topic, this methodology allows us to identify the storylines that are produced by Germany, and additionally it enables me to identify practices that are enacted in relation to these storylines. Additionally it enables me to identify practices that are enacted in relation to these storylines, in my case practices include banning demonstrations of financial support for Israel, and finally I will also examine discourse structuration and institutionalization, which is the process by which a storyline becomes dominant and reinforced in institutions. So these concepts might seem complex now, but they will become a little bit clearer when we delve into the analysis. So let's now dive into the analysis, and I started by examining the key themes that emerge from the statements. The first theme that I want to pinpoint is the sense of historical responsibility, meaning that the support for Israel is often framed as moral imperative, for instance Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, often emphasizes that Germany's duty arising from the Holocaust to support Israel's security and existence. For example, Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, often emphasizes Germany's duty arising from the Holocaust to support Israel's security. For instance, Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, often emphasizes Germany's duty arising from the Holocaust to support Israel's security and existence. He stated, quote, there's only one place for Germany, which is side by side with Israel, and this sentiment is constantly echoed in statements from other German political figures and parties, and it strongly influences Germany's position and even leads to a bias in media portrayal, which leads me to the next theme. As I mentioned, it can be seen that German media uses legitimizing phrases when reporting on the conflict. It often refers to Israeli attacks as mere incidents, what means forfeit. For example, the ZDF Heute reports the high numbers of Palestinians casualties, which make up 95% of the victims since the 7th of October, but yet it frames Israeli victims more prominently. Similarly, Tagesschau discusses the historical ejection of Palestinians, but leaving out the violent causes leading to their displacement, and the journal Zeit goes even further by rationalizing attacks on civilian targets, arguing that in exceptional cases, attacks on civilian targets are justified, aligning with Scholz's claim that Israel has the right to defend itself. Another key theme is the delegitimizing of Palestinian narratives and actions. Here, the Christian Democratic Union, one of Germany's leading parties, denounced the Palestinian slogan, Free Palestine, linking it to terrorism. The party argues that it implies, quote, the extinction of the Jewish state, the only democracy in this region. And here, Friedrich Merz, the CDU leader, goes even further, stating that Germany could not accommodate more refugees from Gaza because, quote, we have enough anti-Semitic young men in this country. And this rhetoric not only dehumanizes the Palestinians, but it also frames them in a way that supports strict policies against Palestinians in Germany. Shifting to the Israeli perspective, we see similar narratives. The statements of Israeli politicians dehumanize Palestinians in the same way. Israeli politicians often use historical struggles to legitimize their actions. Israeli politicians often use historical struggles to legitimize their actions. Israeli politicians often use historical struggles to legitimize their actions. Israeli politicians often use historical struggles to legitimize their actions. Israeli politicians often use historical struggles to legitimize their actions. This framing matches the German political discourse and media, creating a coherent narrative. So, having identified these key themes, we can now move to the next step and analyze the discourse affinity, which means, although statements might differ in their origin, they contribute to the same argument. And the central argument we see repeated is that Israel has the right to defend itself. And the central argument we see repeated is that Israel has the right to defend itself. This claim is supported by various statements made by different actors. The first actor here is Olaf Scholz, and his statement is, quote, it is clear that Germany stands on Israel's side after the horrible attack by Hamas. The position of Scholz, he argues from a historical responsibility position and emphasizes Germany's duty to support Israel. This also perpetuates the position that Germany has an ongoing moral obligation to Israel. The second actor here is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israel Prime Minister, and by stating, the second actor here is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israel Prime Minister, and he states, quote, you must remember what Amalek has done to you, we remember and we are fighting. And his position here, Netanyahu, uses this historical struggle perspective, framing Israel's action as a fight for survival and integrity. This narrative presents Israel as a victim, fighting for existence and further justifying military action. And the third actor here is Friedrich Merz, the CDU leader, who is referring to Palestinian refugees as anti-Semitic men. And here, as a politician of the German Popular Party, he argues for protecting Germany's political climate. In this way, he frames the Palestinian refugees and indirectly supports Israel's security measures that align with the broader narrative of Israel's right to defend itself. This shared historical lens creates a discourse affinity linking past struggles to present-day actions. And having established an overview of the key actors, their statements, and the positions they argue from, we can see how these elements contribute to a discourse coalition. Now, let's delve into how language is used to construct certain truths, which is the central aspect of discourse analysis. Now, let's delve into how language is used to construct certain truths, and this is the central part of discourse analysis. So first, I want to pay attention to storylines and different discourses they add to. As already mentioned, Germany upholds dominant storylines about moral responsibility and historical guilt. For example, Olaf Scholz's statements center around the moral duty which evokes a sense of obligation deeply rooted in the historical guilt. For example, Olaf Scholz's statements center around the moral duty which evokes a sense of obligation deeply rooted in the historical guilt. On the other hand, Israel supports this duty by emphasizing the country's struggle to fight for its existence. Both contribute to the discourse coalition that can be called moral responsibility. There's another discourse that can be called security and survival, in which both actors frame the Palestinians as an existential threat. He uses the phrase, quote, we have always said never again and never again is now. This phrase evokes a sense of historical memory and urgency. Netanyahu uses the phrase, quote, we have always said never again and never again is now. This phrase evokes a sense of historical memory and urgency for Israel's current military actions as a part of the struggle for survival. This phrase evokes a sense of historical memory and urgency for Israel's current military actions as a part of the struggle for survival. As mentioned above, Benjamin Netanyahu refers to Amalek as the historical enemy of Israeli people that was described in the Bible. Here he contributes to the portrayal of Palestinians as an existential threat. And this existential threat narrative is extended by German politicians. And here the German politician Merz extends this existential threat narrative to Germany, implying that accepting more The German politician Merz extends this existential threat narrative to Germany, implying that accepting more The German politician Merz extends this existential threat narrative to Germany, implying that accepting more refugees from Gaza would increase anti-Semitism in Germany. The German storylines are clear. They are supported by metaphors, just as the one by Moshe Filin, a speaker of the Israeli parliament, who said, quote, Gaza needs to turn into Dresden. And to shortly conceptualize this metaphor, Dresden was heavily bombed during the Second World War, resulting in widespread destruction. The dominant storylines are clear. And they are supported by metaphors, just as the one by Moshe Filin, a speaker of the Israeli parliament, who said, quote, Gaza needs to turn into Dresden. To contextualize this metaphor, Dresden was heavily bombed during the Second World War, resulting in widespread destruction. By comparing Gaza to Dresden, Filin is calling for a similar level of destruction. The metaphor dehumanizes the population of Gaza and seeks to justify extreme military measures. In this regard, I also want to highlight the dehumanizing language that is used by several actors, especially Israeli politicians who use terms such as monsters and murderous enemy when referring to Palestinians. And this dehumanizing language has several effects. First, it reduces empathy for the population of Gaza. And secondly, it mobilizes the masses against the perceived common enemy and justifies oppression and violence. So, everything that I have found out so far leads to specific practices by key actors such as Germany that I want to identify now. The first practice that is also known in other parts of the world is the banning of pro-Palestine demos. However, Germany's justification for this practice comes from the assumption they would be anti-Semitic. And authorities argue that pro-Palestine demonstrations have the potential to escalate into anti-Semitic incidents and therefore threaten public safety. It is assumed that the participants question Israel's right to exist and this of course violates Germany's fundamental attitude. That means that banning pro-Palestine demonstrations is a part of a broader strategy to institutionalize support for Israel. A second practice is silencing Palestinian voices. And here, I want to mention the case of the Palestinian filmmaker Bayez Adra and the Israeli journalist Juvel Abraham who won two major prizes at the Palenal International Film Festival for the documentary No Other Land. The documentary deals with the settler violence and the removal of Palestinians from the West Bank villages. In their speech, Abraham described a situation of apartheid and called for a ceasefire in Gaza. It caused a heated debate among politicians, framing his speech as intolerable, shockingly one-sided. It caused a heated debate among politicians, framing his speech as intolerable. It caused a heated debate among politicians, framing his speech as, quote, shockingly one-sided and characterized by a deep hatred of Israel. Politicians from the Free Democracy Party, the FDP, even proposed that the film festival's state funding will be withdrawn, which would lead to an institutionalization of the silencing. This practice demonstrates how critical voices are suppressed to maintain a pro-Israel narrative. Furthermore, and the third practice that I identified, is that Germany has significantly increased Furthermore, and the third practice that I identified, is that Germany has significantly increased its arms export to Israel, a practice that aligns with the Just Cause Coalition advocating for Israel's right to self-defense. advocating for Israel's right to self-defense. Nicaragua had accused Germany of supporting this genocide, and the central argument here was that Israel is primarily using German weapons against the Gaza population, and it is even said that without German military aid, this war wouldn't even be possible to this extent. This practice reinforces Germany's perceived historical obligation to support Israel's security. The central argument here is that Israel is primarily using German weapons against the Gaza population, and it is said that without Germany's military aid, this war wouldn't even be possible to this extent. This practice reinforces Germany's perceived historical obligation to support Israel's security, and it is embedded in government decision-making, leading to an institutionalization of the support. The previously mentioned practices illustrate how the historical relationship between Germany and Israel significantly shaped the Just Cause in favor of Israel. By systematically banning demonstrations, silencing critical voices, and providing military support, Germany's pro-Israel stance becomes dominant and institutionalized. By systematically banning demonstrations, silencing critical voices, and providing military support, Germany's pro-Israel stance becomes dominant and institutionalized. In conclusion, my analysis reveals that Germany's historical responsibility towards Israel rooted in the Holocaust profoundly shapes its political discourse, media representation, and policy decision regarding the Israel-Gaza conflict. Regarding the political discourse, statements from politicians like Scholz emphasizing the moral imperative to support Israel. Further, media outlets show consistency in framing Israel as a victim, and policy decisions such as banning pro-Palestinian demonstrations or its unconditional support for Israel are often framed within the context of Germany's historical guilt and moral responsibility. However, Germany faces internal criticism regarding the boundaries of historical guilt and how much it should influence contemporary policy. This unbalanced stance overlooks Palestinian rights and complicates Germany's relationship with other nations. Further, the notion that Israel has the right to defend itself perpetuates a rhetoric that disregards decades of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The concept of the reason of state limits Germany's ability to adopt a different position and effectively supporting a regime that commits a genocide against the Palestinian people while actively stigmatizing criticism of Israeli practices and demanding national solidarity with Israel. We came to the end of this podcast and I want to thank you all for listening to this podcast. Stay tuned for more insightful discussions and until next time. We came to the end of this podcast and I want to thank you all for listening. Stay tuned for more insightful discussions and see you next time. However, Germany faces internal and external criticism regarding the boundaries of historical guilt and how much it should actually influence contemporary policy because this unbalanced stance overlooks Palestinian rights and even complicates Germany's relationship with other nations. Further, the notion that Israel has the right to defend itself perpetuates a rhetoric that disregards decades of apartheid and ethnic cleansing and the concept of reason of state limits Germany's ability to adopt a different position thereby it actively supports a regime that commits a genocide against the Palestinian people and actively stigmatizing and criminalizing criticism of Israeli practices.