After attacks like the one in Hanau, our solidarity must be with the victims. They deserve our attention – not the people who caused violence. A guest post.
At the end of February, this year exactly one week after the anniversary of Hanau, Jews all over the world celebrate Purim. In short, it is about the story of how an evil minister named Haman planned to plot to murder the Jews living in Persia. The king’s Jewish wife, Esther, and her uncle Mordechai managed to uncover the conspiracy. Every year when the story is told and the name Haman is read, everyone in attendance makes a noise. Haman’s name is to be blotted out for his wrongdoing. This creates an interesting dialectic, because reading the story also preserves the memory of him. You could say that the noise stands for the analysis. Haman’s name cannot be read without him, which prevents his heroization. We celebrate that we survived, knowing that the ideology behind the attempted pogrom persists.
This ideology was part of the worldview of the right-wing terrorist who murdered nine people in Hanau a year ago. His motivation was a racist, anti-Semitic and conspiracy ideological worldview. On the one hand, this attack is in line with other attacks, on the other hand, it stands out. Because unlike many other right-wing attacks, the names of the victims, i.e. Fatih Saraçoglu, Ferhat Unvar, Gökhan Gültekin, Hamza Kurtovic, Kaloyan Velkov, Mercedes Kierpacz, Sedat Gürbüz, Said Nesar Hashemi and Vili Viorel Paun, are known to many people. This fact is almost unique.
Reporting usually focuses on presenting the perpetrator and his motivation. All of Germany knows the name of the Islamist terrorist who committed the attack on Breitscheidplatz. His name is even used as a synonym for a committee of inquiry in the Bundestag, although it is mainly about the failure of the police and secret services that were unable to prevent the attack. This leads us to the names of the victims: Why did Anna and Georgiy Bagratuni, Sebastian Berlin, Nada Cizmar, Fabrizia Di Lorenzo, Dalia Elyakim, Christoph Herrlich, Klaus Jacob, Angelika Klösters, Dorit Krebs, Lukasz Urban and Peter Völker die, and why were almost 100 other people injured? Reporting that focuses on the perpetrator (name) deals less with the victims. But for the relatives of the victims in particular, the question of the security authorities’ mistakes, the question of the “why” of the attack is more important than a broad description of the perpetrator.
the authors
Ruben Gerczikow is Vice President of the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS). Monty Ott is a doctoral student and former chairman of Keshet Deutschland eV The two of them are involved in the Jewish media project “Laumer Lounge”.
–
The fact that the victims of Hanau are noticed throughout Germany is thanks to the commitment of those affected and the “February 19th Initiative”. The names and likenesses of the victims were widely distributed. This made it possible for far more people than usual to get to know them and to feel connected to them. The “October 9th Initiative”, which was founded after the anti-Semitic, racist and misogynous attack in Halle, also wanted to draw attention to the victims. On every day of the trial there was a banner in front of the courthouse in Magdeburg with the inscription “Solidarity with those affected – no stage for the perpetrator”. In addition, the images of Kevin Schwarze and Jana Lange, who murdered the Halle assassin after failing at the synagogue door, were omnipresent.
When we talk about terrorist attacks, we mostly talk about the perpetrators. Everyone knows their names. Far too little is spoken about the victims and bereaved. The analysis of the perpetrator is necessary where it can contribute to appropriate interventions in the future. It is necessary where information about the perpetrators reveals the structures and networks behind them.
But the sheer flood of information about the perpetrators serves at least inadvertently to make them heroic. Especially in right-wing extremist online subcultures, recognition and fame contribute to radicalization and imitation. It is not enough, however, to hold media professionals accountable. We have to question our own habits. Our solidarity must be with the victims. They deserve our attention and not the people who caused so much hatred and violence.
We shouldn’t be naive. Not writing a name will not solve the problem of anti-Semitism and racism. But pointing this out raises the important question of how we should deal with terrorism. We celebrate life, the perpetrators celebrate death. The focus should be on the memory of the people who were torn from life. This is the only way to create an awareness through which we can ultimately fight the conditions that make terrorism possible.
–
