Protection of Jewish life: Bundestag passes motion to combat anti-Semitism

In its first plenary session after the traffic light went out, the Bundestag passed a motion with the title “Never again is now: Protecting, preserving and strengthening Jewish life in Germany” with a large majority. The content of the application, which the SPD, Greens, FDP and Union developed together, is not legally binding, but is likely to have a political impact. As Bundestag President Bärbel Bas announced, the CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens and FDP as well as the AfD voted for him. The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) voted against this. The Left group abstained.

The motion makes it clear that there is no place for anti-Semitism “even in the ranks of art, culture and media,” said Michael Breilmann (CDU). He countered the accusation from scientists who particularly criticized the definition of anti-Semitism used therein.

Repressive options should be used consistently

The proposal from the SPD, Greens, FDP and Union aims to combat anti-Semitism. It calls for “closing gaps in the law and consistently exploiting repressive options,” particularly in criminal law as well as residence, asylum and nationality law. The four factions criticize a “relative approach and increased Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism” and call on the federal government to “actively support the existence and legitimate security interests of the State of Israel.” It should work towards states and municipalities to use the so-called IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as a decisive factor when making decisions, for example about funding certain projects.

Controversy over the definition of anti-Semitism

The definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) states, among other things, that manifestations of anti-Semitism “can also be directed against the State of Israel, which is understood as a Jewish collective.” The rector of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, said before the debate began that the IHRA definition was vague and “that makes it incredibly vulnerable to abuse.” The historian warned that the accusation of anti-Semitism is “excellently suited to silencing and defaming political opponents.”

The Green Party’s domestic politician Konstantin von Notz said in the debate that the IHRA definition would not be declared “absolute” in the application, but should be used as authoritative.

Beatrix von Storch (AfD) said that the application reflected her own party’s warnings about “imported anti-Semitism”. This is remarkable in an application co-initiated by the Greens. The adopted text states: “In recent months, the frightening extent of anti-Semitism has become clear, which is based on immigration from the countries of North Africa and the Near and Middle East, where anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel are widespread, also due to Islamist and anti-Israel state policies Indoctrination is widespread.”

Hakan Demir from the SPD, among others, is bothered by this passage. In the debate, he said that instead of naming people from certain regions across the board, it would be better to distinguish between democrats and anti-democrats.

At the same time, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and ethnic thinking are on the rise, the text of the application continues. Its authors also criticize a “relativizing approach and increasing Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism.”