One year after the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas, the outgoing 20th German Bundestag passed a resolution promising to protect, preserve, and strengthen Jewish life in Germany.
The revival of Jewish life after the Shoah is a great fortune for Germany. However, it is severely threatened due to a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents on streets, in subways, and at universities. The resolution expresses the duty to “acknowledge, make visible, preserve, and protect the diversity of Jewish life.”
Measured against this commitment, the specific actions proposed are oddly vague. While the motion addresses legal gaps in criminal liability, it does not specify which gaps or how they might be closed. There is also no substantial funding program in the Democracy Promotion Act targeting the growing anti-Semitism among migrants. Furthermore, there is no self-reflection on the type of mainstream anti-Semitism exemplified by former intelligence chief Hans Georg Maaßen’s comments about a “conspiracy of globalists.”
The motion becomes concrete only in two aspects. Firstly, it seeks to prevent funding for organizations and projects that “actively support the BDS movement.” It reaffirms the anti-BDS resolution of the Bundestag from 2019, even calling for its stricter implementation by the federal government. At the time, alongside me, 15 members of my parliamentary group did not support this resolution for good reasons (see link).
Secondly, the motion calls for the “political endorsement” of the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism. It demands that the federal government push for states and municipalities to use this definition as a basis for funding decisions.
This borders on encouraging civil disobedience. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition is an academic opinion. It stands alongside several other scholarly views, such as the “Jerusalem Declaration.” It is disputed among scholars and stakeholders. Making an opinion the basis for exclusionary decisions and funding approvals based on “political endorsement” by the Bundestag is unconstitutional. Opinions cannot justify restrictions on freedom of expression. Such a restriction would require a constitutionally sound law, something the authors of the resolution were aware of.
As the Bundestag’s own Scientific Service has stated: “Excluding BDS-affiliated individuals or groups based solely on expected unpopular expressions of opinion is incompatible with Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law” (see link). This legal opinion has also been reflected in rulings by courts such as the Bavarian Administrative Court.
When such measures are nonetheless adopted, it says a lot about the proponents of this new resolution. They offer a practical example of the application of the IHRA working definition, citing “major anti-Semitism scandals of recent years.” Notably, this does not include figures like the Aiwanger brothers or Maaßen, but rather events such as the “Berlinale in February 2024.”
At the Berlinale awards ceremony, an Israeli director, in reference to the situation his Palestinian co-director had to return to, stated: “This apartheid situation between us, this inequality, must end.” The Palestinian director had called for an end to arms deliveries to Israel. Another award winner spoke of a “genocide” in Gaza. One participant held up a sign demanding a ceasefire. One does not have to agree with these statements; one may hold different views or sharply criticize them. But none of this is anti-Semitic.
Large parts of Israel’s democratic opposition, including political parties, civil society groups, and even a former Attorney General, describe the situation in the internationally recognized (according to the International Court of Justice) illegally occupied territories as “apartheid.” Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are protesting for a ceasefire, a demand supported by a vast majority of United Nations member states. Although the International Court of Justice has not ruled on South Africa’s genocide claim against Israel, it has ordered Israel to take protective measures and allow more humanitarian aid to avoid genocide.
Is this really the “Berlin anti-Semitism scandal of February 2024”? It is hard to believe.
Anti-Semitism is not an opinion. Anti-Semitism is the Shoah, the massacre of October 7, the shots fired at the synagogue in Halle, and the appalling scenes currently unfolding in Amsterdam. It is anti-Semitism when Jews in Berlin, whether in Neukölln or at the Free University, are threatened, harassed, and assaulted. They are held accountable for the actions of the Israeli government simply because of their faith. This is anti-Semitism directed at Israel.
However, the fight against anti-Semitism requires a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of a government, such as Netanyahu’s.
Contrary to the implications made by many anti-Semites, it is not difficult to differentiate between anti-Semitism and criticism of a government. The claim that “the Jews want no Muslims between the river and the sea” is an anti-Semitic lie. In contrast, Haaretz’s statement that “if it looks like ethnic cleansing, then it is ethnic cleansing,” regarding the military actions in northern Gaza, is sharp criticism of Netanyahu.
Netanyahu’s government is responsible for the illegal occupation of the West Bank as well as the military actions in Gaza, which have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties. Large segments of the opposition in Israel accuse Netanyahu of having enabled the massacre of October 7 through his secret dealings with Hamas via Qatar.
In its first practical application, the Bundestag equates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism. By labeling such opinions as anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism is reduced to just another opinion—thereby relativizing and trivializing it.