By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An Israeli family attempting to book accommodation in Bavaria, Germany, received a discriminatory message stating “no Jews allowed.” This incident led to the hotel’s removal from Booking.com and an investigation by German authorities. While the hotel has since apologized, attributing the message to a misunderstanding amidst phishing attempts, the statement has drawn widespread condemnation, highlighting a concerning rise in antisemitism and evoking dark historical parallels. The event underscores the ongoing reality of discrimination faced by Jewish people and the need for accountability.
Read the original article here
It’s disheartening to hear about an Israeli family being denied access to a hotel in Bavaria with the message, “‘No Jews in our hotel.'” This incident, unfortunately, brings to mind a dark chapter of history, and the fact that such a sentiment could resurface in modern times, particularly in Germany, is deeply unsettling.
The hotel has since offered an apology, attributing the incident to concerns about fraudulent bookings and phishing attempts originating from Booking.com. They claimed to have mistakenly identified the Israeli family’s booking request as one of these fraudulent attempts. It’s reported that they reached out directly to the family, apologized, and even provided evidence of previous phishing incidents to explain their actions.
However, the question remains: how does an excuse about phishing attempts translate into a statement like, “Sorry, there are no Jews allowed in our hotel”? It’s a stark contrast, and many find it hard to reconcile the hotel’s explanation with the blatant antisemitism of the initial message. Some commenters sarcastically noted that Bavaria seems to be “keeping the old traditions alive,” which, of course, carries a heavy and disturbing implication.
The immediate reaction for many was disbelief and a strong condemnation of the act. There’s a sense that if the message had been framed as “No Israelis allowed,” the reaction might have been different, highlighting a perceived distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. This distinction, however, is often blurred, and the explicit targeting of a religious group over their nationality is a clear indicator of prejudice.
The history of Bavaria as a region with a significant antisemitic past is not lost on those commenting. The fact that this is a long-standing, family-owned hotel further fuels suspicion that an old, deeply ingrained sentiment might be resurfacing, especially given the recent normalization of hateful rhetoric around the world. The idea that the apology is merely a consequence of facing financial repercussions, coupled with a detached excuse, doesn’t quell the suspicion that the hotel owners might have simply been emboldened to express their true beliefs.
The ownership of the hotel, with Claudia Sperl-Vogl as the owner and her son Andreas Vogl operating it, has also been brought up. Andreas Vogl’s involvement in local politics adds another layer to the concern, suggesting that these sentiments might not be isolated to the hotel itself. The phrase, “Ahhh Bavaria. Some things never change eh,” encapsulates this feeling of historical repetition and disappointment.
It’s crucial to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and outright antisemitism. An action or protest based on valid criticism of Israel’s actions would not begin with a blanket refusal based on someone’s Jewish identity. This hotel’s response, however, was unequivocally discriminatory.
The speed at which history seems to repeat itself is a source of sadness and concern. The incident is seen as a dangerous way to fuel extremism. While many may disagree with the current Israeli government, this has no bearing on the average Israeli citizen or their religion. The failure to recognize this, and the conflation of nationality with religious identity, is a critical error. Some commenters humorously, yet pointedly, suggested the hotel owners were “dumb” for not specifying “No Israelis” instead of “No Jews.”
The incident evokes comparisons to the 1930s and 40s, with a sense of historical déjà vu. The remark about the “wheel turning full circle” is a poignant observation on how such prejudice can re-emerge. For Germans, like the commenter who expressed being appalled and apologized on behalf of their countrymen, this is a particularly shameful and deeply regrettable event.
Even something as simple as enjoying Bavarian cream is now overshadowed by the hotel’s discriminatory policy. The deliciousness of their products is deemed not worth the ethical compromise. The normalization of antisemitism in many Western states is a worrying trend, and people often fail to grasp the crucial distinction between Jewish people and the state of Israel.
Incidents like these, including physical attacks, unfortunately, reinforce Israel’s narrative about the necessity of a Jewish homeland for safety. Many believe that individuals use the situation in the Middle East as a pretext for their antisemitism, targeting Jewish people who have no direct connection to the conflict. There are calls for the hotel owners to be prosecuted, for the hotel to be boycotted, and for legal action to be taken, as the sentiment is considered a crime.
There was some initial confusion regarding the source of the message, with one comment pointing to a sign at a hotel in Kyrgyzstan and questioning the article’s credibility. However, further investigation through other sources, including a tweet by the affected family, provided proof of the message. This highlights the importance of verifying information and the potential for misleading narratives.
The resurfacing of such prejudice is met with a desire to “dig out my grandfather’s Ariernachweis,” a reference to the Nazi-era racial purity certificates, underscoring the gravity of the situation and its echoes of the past. The notion that the message was simply a joke or an excuse about being “out of juice” is met with derision, as it trivializes a deeply offensive act.
The idea of “oppressor versus the oppressed” is brought up, suggesting that a tragic past does not grant immunity from committing similar atrocities, nor does it serve as a moral compass. The country’s stance on freedom of speech, juxtaposed with arrests over the letter Z, is mentioned in passing, perhaps implying a selective application of principles. The comment about “remakes” and wanting “original content” sadly highlights how such hateful acts, while horrific, are not entirely novel.
The situation is sarcastically labeled as “sparkling antizionism,” and a jab is made about Berlin potentially hosting the Olympics again, a veiled reference to past historical events. The idea that the second time around was supposed to be a comedy is a dark, ironic observation. The insistence that this is simply protesting the Israeli government and not antisemitism is met with a definitive “/s,” indicating its insincerity.
The hotel’s excuse about phishing is met with a sarcastic twist: “Give a man a phish and he bans Jews for a day, teach a man to phish and he bans Jews for life.” The suggestion about them being “phishermen” is another dark jest.
A more balanced perspective suggests that the hotel might have assumed the booking from Israel was a phishing attempt and made the offensive remark to provoke them. However, even this excuse is not considered adequate. The critical point is that an antisemitic message was written and sent. It would have been more defensible, though still problematic, if the message had stated “bookings from Israel are not allowed.”
The ideal scenario, according to one commenter, would be to fire the employee responsible, refund the family, and offer them a complimentary stay. The sentiment is that the hotel is likely fabricating excuses to avoid consequences for their hateful actions. The reference to the hotel owners admitting that “we are only human and sometimes anger gets the best of us” is dismissed as a poor excuse.
The pervasive sentiment is that this is an unacceptable act. The excuse of “just Bavaria” and the desire to avoid lawsuits are seen as insufficient justifications. The comment linking the hotel owners to AfD voters suggests a political undercurrent to the prejudice. The idea that they thought someone was “making jokes” is also presented as a potential, though still unacceptable, explanation for how such a thing might have occurred.
The frustration with scam bookings is acknowledged as a potential contributor to the situation, perhaps leading to “edgy jokes” finding their way into cancellation forms. However, this doesn’t excuse the outcome. The final, bleak observation, “Great beer and even better anti-semitism,” encapsulates the deep disappointment and the perception that, in this instance, Bavaria’s hospitality has been soured by prejudice.