According to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the lack of security gives rise to an ominous breeding ground for “fear that undermines trust and confidence”.
Now that our security is at risk, “freedom, democracy and the rule of law” are in jeopardy, Scholz concludes with solemn concern. “The [recent] knife attack against [a] young police officer [in Mannheim Germany, ] is the expression of a misanthropic ideology and radical Islamism,” and “there is only one term for it [according to Scholz]: terror.” 1 This explains why Scholz was not bothered by the approximately 8,950 2 instances of knife-related attacks in Germany for the year 2023, registered as dangerous, causing serious bodily harm, as according to his logic only knife attacks caused by “radical Islamism” can be classified as terror, justifying an exceptionally high level of indignation.
Judging by Scholz’s reaction, his main concern isn’t one isolated, howbeit tragic, knife attack in Mannheim that, according to him, was motivated by “radical Islamism”. 3 It seems as if those who condoned the attack are causing him even more of a headache, as he points out that he “can no longer tolerate terrorist crimes being celebrated.” 4 The Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer shares his concern when he expresses that the “glorification of terrrorism” [sic] represents sufficient grounds for deportation, including to Afghanistan and Syria, that ought to be considered as an option.
While the fervent zeal that Scholz and Nehammer demonstrate when it comes to tracking down individuals on social networks who condone or appear to celebrate the attack in Mannheim is commendable, it raises the question of how Nehammer and Scholz managed to overlook the grotesque glorification and celebration of terror inflicted by the Israeli army (IDF) on Gaza, brazenly displayed on social media, that is vastly more extreme and cruel, and has even been denounced by mainstream news outlets such as the New York Times 5 and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz 6.
Finally, one can only hope that someone on Nehammer’s advisory team will point out that he ought to be a little more cautious with his own approval of Israeli state terror, and perhaps avoid displaying it so openly, lest he one day becomes a victim of his own longed-for “legal options” that would enable his deportation to Afghanistan or Syria. However, he will most likely be spared this fate, as the expression ‘Israeli state terror’ is treated as a logical impossibility in Austrian and German political discourse, a category that can not exist. Even the critics, whatever pretence they adopt, have to adhere to the presuppositions that define the consensus that whatever Israel does is by definition in ‘defence of fundamental democratic and human rights’, or simply an act of ‘self-defence’.
In any case, no opportunity is squandered to sow fear and Islamophobia, as the tragic event in Mannheim 3 is being shamelessly abused by Scholz and Nehammer to create an image of Arab or Muslim terrorists lurking out there to kill us. Against this backdrop – in the name of ‘security’ – a climate is being cultivated with the intent aim to instil a desire for a powerful state capable of protecting its citizens from this manufactured threat of terror.
It is understood that in one’s own best interest, it is wise not to publicly question the expansion of state power in the name of security, as that has the potential of being interpreted as approval or, in the worst case, glorification of terror. In line with this doctrine, Olaf Scholz and Karl Nehammer are not only offering increased security by curtailing freedom of expression in lockstep with an increase in law and order 7 8 as a solution, they are also anticipating the answer to the vexing question of whom we ought to be protected from. If Nehammer and Scholz have their way, this ‘complex’ decision must firmly remain in the hands of a powerful state, to avoid straining citizens with such unpleasant and complex problems.
The most perfidious aspect about this incident is its exploitation as a distraction from Austria’s and Germany’s own complicity in genocide 9 10 through the much-vaunted but mostly wrongly attributed victim-perpetrator reversal 11 12. The aim is not difficult to discern for anyone who cares to look: the narrative that portrays Israel as the cradle of democracy in the Middle East that has fallen prey to Islamist terror is to be brought back to the forefront. The level of hypocrisy is once again 13 14 quite impressive, as the aim of such statements is to polarize society in order to suppress and dilute solidarity at all costs; and isn’t it precisely this polarization of society that Nehammer and Scholz constantly accuse the right-wing parties of?