As long as the aggressor was called NATO or the United States, the peace movement was always clear about who was good and who was bad. Now a long-suppressed fundamental conflict has re-emerged.

The peace movement has a problem, and not just with its double standards Photo: Olaf Schuelke/imago

In the midst of World War I, Stefan Zweig lamented “the almost devastating tragedy of pacifism, which never seems contemporary, superfluous in peace, crazy in war, impotent in peace and helpless in war.” In his words from 1917, the Austrian writer remembered Bertha von Suttner, who, despite all the hostility, did not shy away from “demanding the seemingly unattainable.” But her statement has lost none of its relevance to this day.

After the Russian attack on Ukraine two years ago, purely military thinking is also being reborn in the Federal Republic. It is an indisputable fact that massive rearmament is necessary. A social democratic defense minister wants Germany to return to “war conditions.” A Green Economy Minister meets with the heads of German defense companies to “exchange ideas on opportunities for innovation and acceleration in the defense industry.”

And one of the EU's leading liberal candidates promotes herself as “Grandma Courage”, something Bertolt Brecht would no doubt have found quite appropriate. At this time, a large peace movement as a warning voice would not be the worst thing. But the war in Ukraine did not give any significant impetus to the Easter marches. Instead, a long-suppressed fundamental conflict has re-emerged. Because the peace movement was never exclusively pacifist.

The different sides always agreed when it came – and not wrongly – against US imperialism and NATO. However, the reaction to military aggression that did not come from the West has not been equally clear in the past. Even now, a not insignificant part of the peace movement is clearly having difficulty condemning Russia's war without buts.

Obvious double standard

The double standard is evident: when the United States, Great Britain and a “coalition of the willing” invaded Iraq in 2003, violating international law, there was no doubt how to react: “We demand that Bush, Blair and all other people willing to go to war: Stop the war immediately! Invaders out of Iraq!”, was what could be read in the calls for the Easter march at that time. In today's calls, the demand for an immediate withdrawal of Putin's troops from Ukraine is largely in vain.

However, anyone who rejects this as something natural is only supposedly a lover of peace and is de facto on the side of the aggressor. It is completely clear that this is not a majority position in the peace movement, in which numerous people of the highest integrity continue to participate. But the strange ambivalence of many veteran activists when dealing with Russia has made calls for the Easter March seem so strange in many places. This creates a credibility problem.

“Our march is a good thing because it goes for a good cause,” says the best-known Easter march song, written in the early 1960s. Many people today doubt it and that has a negative impact on the number of participants. This year, probably a few more people will march on Easter in about 100 cities through Monday. The reason for this is the war in the Gaza Strip. Pro-Palestinian activists participate in demonstrations and rallies in numerous places.

He calls the Hamas bloodbath legitimate

There's nothing wrong with this, but it can sometimes lead to extremely problematic alliances. It is striking that many calls for the Easter March punish Israel's violent military reaction to the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, but the Islamist terrorist attack itself is not mentioned. The Leipzig example shows that this is no coincidence. Since 2008, the “Leipzig Against War” alliance has awarded a peace prize there during the Easter march.

This year the Leipzig pro-Palestinian group Handala was chosen, who – to put it carefully – unusually awarded a peace prize: Handala considers the bloodbath caused by Hamas a legitimate act of anti-colonial resistance: “The oppressed Palestinian population was freed from the siege of the occupying power.”

Words of sadness are sought in vain for the murdered Israelis. It seems that in some places the “minimum consensus” formulated in the Easter marches does not include basic humanist standards. That's fatal. Because there are dividing lines that should not be crossed.