• homoludens@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Ctrl+F didn’t turn up any results for your quote (“alleged”/“allegedly”) , and I’m not going to read the whole article searching for what you might have meant instead.

        • Saleh@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I am sorry. It was not mentioned in the article, but the podcast.

          Here is another interview where it is mentioned

          https://jacobin.com/2024/03/the-cost-of-germanys-guilt-politics

          Here is the “Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde” (complaint about the violation of duty by a public official) by the German Jewish Voice for Peace reacting to the attack by the anti antisemitism commissioner Michael Blume of the state Baden Wurtemmberg:

          https://www.juedische-stimme.de/dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde-gegen-den-antisemitismusbeauftragten-des-landes-bw-dr-michael-blume#_Toc76062334

          Here is the Tweet of Blume. His exact wording was “vorgeblich” which translates to “allegedly” but more in the sense of “pretending to be”.

          https://x.com/BlumeEvolution/status/1409466045987971076

          https://dict.leo.org/german-english/vorgeblich

          • homoludens@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            46 minutes ago

            Thanks!

            I think “vorgeblich” has some more nuance, as it does not say the claim is necessarily wrong (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/vorgeblich). But like I said in the other sub-thread: he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job). It’s still a different picture than one might imagine when hearing “German government officials are deciding whether you are jewish enough” (which is you didn’t write, but apparently was understood like that by other commenters).

          • homoludens@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            It’s not a source for a quote if the quote does not show up in the link.

            edit: the fact that this gets downvoted really says a lot about the quality of the discussion :D

            • azuth
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Blume was embroiled in a small scandal after he referred to Jüdische Stimme as “ostensibly Jewish” on Twitter

              Blume demurred, claiming that, while he was happy to accept anyone’s self-definition as Jewish as a matter of personal religious freedom, he was not sure whether the group’s members counted as members of the Jewish religious communities that are legal partners of the German state

              In Germany, membership in religious communities is regulated by state-designated institutions, meaning that to be officially Jewish, one must join the Jüdische Gemeinde, the state-affiliated Jewish community

              • homoludens@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.

                Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a “Glory to the resistance” demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.

                The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don’t have to adhere to these regulations.

                • azuth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  You could perhaps read the first part as that, a matter of % of Jewish people in an organization rather than one of ‘true’ Jewishness of the members identifying as Jews. Your reading is very generous to him.

                  But from the second commend it’s obvious it’s the latter. He is attacking the Jewishness of Jewish members of that organization. That he does it en mass does not make it better.

                  I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion. It is not relevant that it is wrong. The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.

                  • homoludens@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    54 minutes ago

                    Your reading is very generous to him.

                    Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.

                    I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.

                    Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.

                    It is not relevant that it is wrong.

                    If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.

                    The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.

                    Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.