The Danish Library Association condemns Russia but stays silent on Israel. It is moral bankruptcy.

In February 2022, Danish cultural institutions reacted swiftly when Russia invaded Ukraine.

The Danish Library Association (DB) signed a European declaration condemning Russia’s invasion. DR and TV2 gathered millions of Danes in front of their screens for the broadcast “Together for Ukraine.” The Royal Theatre hosted “Gala for Ukraine.” The Organisation of Danish Museums (ODM) called for support for Ukrainian colleagues, while the Ministry of Culture allocated funds to UNESCO to protect Ukraine’s cultural heritage. In those moments, the institutions showed moral courage and conscience. Today, as Gaza is bombed to ruins, hospitals destroyed, and children starve to death, the same institutions remain silent. No condemnations. No galas. No national fundraisers. Gaza is the Holocaust of our time — a tragedy without parallel in modern history — and yet Denmark’s cultural institutions choose silence. When I asked the chairman of the Danish Library Association, Paw Østergaard Jensen, why, he replied that he had no intention of taking a stance on the war in his capacity as head of the country’s libraries. But this is not principled neutrality. For only two days after the invasion of Ukraine, the Danish Library Association did take a stance.

Neutrality as hypocrisy

Neutrality in the face of massacre is never neutral. As philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote: “He who remains silent when he should speak sides with the oppressor.” That the Danish Library Association and other institutions now hide behind a principle they themselves have already broken is hypocrisy — and morally, complicity. Frantz Fanon described colonialism’s legacy as a differentiated humanism: some lives are valued, others deemed replaceable. The same pattern repeats today. Ukrainian victims evoke empathy; Palestinian victims meet silence. This is the essence of structural racism. When DR, The Royal Theatre, and the Danish Library Association choose this selective empathy, they are shaping our collective consciousness. Cultural institutions are not just mirrors; they are teachers. When they mobilized for Ukraine, we learned that solidarity is a duty. When they fall silent on Gaza, we learn that some children’s lives do not count. When Danish cultural institutions remain silent, it serves as a moral cover for the political and economic reality in which Denmark exports weapons components to Israel — partly through mandatory contributions to the national pension fund ATP. Silence makes it easier to forget that, as a society and as citizens, we are already entangled in the machinery. We are not neutral spectators; we have been made participants. Here, the hypocrisy becomes unbearable: On the one hand, cultural institutions are presented as the conscience of democracy; on the other, their silence becomes tacit acceptance of policies that make Danes complicit in the massacres.

Blood on their hands

Libraries call themselves the heart of democracy. But a heart that beats only for some and not for others is not democracy’s heart — it is a heart of stone. When the Danish Library Association condemns Russia but remains silent on Israel, it is not neutrality — it is the active discrimination of human lives. It is moral bankruptcy. Let us be honest: When institutions that claim to defend truth, justice, and humanity choose silence in the face of massacre, they are not merely passive — they become complicit. Silence does not wash the blood from our hands; it only spreads it until it sticks to us all.

What are we teaching our children?

The consequences are most profound for Danish children. When they see DR unite the nation for Ukraine but remain silent on Gaza, they learn that some lives are worth more than others. When libraries choose silence, they learn that silence in the face of injustice is acceptable. When The Royal Theatre rises only for victims who look like us, they learn that solidarity depends on skin color, religion, and geography. Danish cultural institutions do not merely shape aesthetic taste — they shape morality. And today, they are planting a legacy where some children’s lives count and others can be erased in silence. That is a legacy no democratic cultural institution should be proud of.

Response from the Danish Library Association

Paw Østergaard Jensen, chairman of the Danish Library Association, responded in a written statement:

“As I told Ahmad, the Danish Library Association should not take political positions on this or other issues. The association is a consensus organization, focused solely on library policy. We work to ensure there is space for free debate and opinions of all kinds within the law. Personally, I have warned against letting the war in Ukraine lead to a form of cancel culture targeting Russian literature. Similarly, we are working to ensure that debates and events about the Middle East can be held freely. The association participated in taking a stance on the war in Ukraine only because that position reflected broad national consensus.”