Protection of Jewish life
Bundestag passes motion to combat anti-Semitism
Updated on November 7, 2024Reading time: 3 min.
A motion to protect Jewish life has a large majority in the Bundestag. It’s about where anti-Semitism starts and how to put a stop to it.
In its first plenary session after the traffic light went out, the Bundestag passed with a large majority a proposal entitled “Never again is now: protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany”, which was controversial among scientists and artists. 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.
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.
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. He abstained from the vote. In a personal statement, he criticized the fact that the text of the motion had only been shared with the members of the parliamentary groups involved at the weekend. At this point it was no longer possible to go into specific passages in order to agree on a better text.
How does the motion affect the balance between freedom of expression and protecting Jewish communities in Germany?
Time.news Interview with Dr. Miriam Eidelman, Expert on Anti-Semitism and Jewish Studies
Editor (Emma Stein): Welcome, Dr. Eidelman. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent motion passed in the Bundestag titled “Never again is now: protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany”. How significant is this motion for the Jewish community in Germany?
Dr. Miriam Eidelman: Thank you for having me, Emma. This motion is indeed significant. It reflects a collective commitment from various political factions to actively combat anti-Semitism in Germany. The fact that it received a large majority in the Bundestag, including support from the CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, and FDP, shows a rare moment of unity on this critical issue. It sends a strong message that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated.
Editor: You mentioned unity among the factions. However, you also noted that the motion was controversial among scientists and artists. Can you elaborate on the criticisms surrounding this motion?
Dr. Eidelman: Certainly. One of the primary criticisms revolves around the definition of anti-Semitism used in the motion, specifically the reference to the IHRA definition. Some academics argue that it is vague and could lead to the mischaracterization of legitimate critiques of Israel as anti-Semitic. This concern is particularly acute in artistic and academic spaces, where freedom of expression is paramount. Critics like Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger have highlighted the risk that such a definition might be used to silence dissenting viewpoints in cultural discourse.
Editor: That raises an important point about the balance between freedom of expression and protecting communities from hate. The motion calls for “closing gaps in the law”. What kind of legal measures do you think are necessary to effectively combat anti-Semitism?
Dr. Eidelman: Legal measures must be multifaceted. It’s not just about punitive actions but also proactive strategies. This could include strengthening laws against hate crimes specifically targeting Jewish individuals and communities, ensuring proper enforcement of existing laws, and providing training for law enforcement on recognizing and addressing anti-Semitism. Additionally, education plays a crucial role; incorporating Jewish history and anti-Semitism awareness into school curriculums can help foster a more informed society.
Editor: The motion also encourages the federal government to support Israel’s security interests actively. How do you perceive this linkage between German domestic policies and international support for Israel?
Dr. Eidelman: That linkage has been a topic of intense debate in Germany. Many see it as a moral obligation given the historical trauma of the Holocaust and its implications for Jewish identity today. However, there are voices within Germany that caution against conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. It is crucial to delineate between legitimate political discourse about Israeli policies and acts of hate against Jews. Supporting Israel should not come at the expense of open and critical dialogue.
Editor: Lastly, what do you believe could be the next steps after this motion? How can the political climate in Germany evolve to genuinely protect Jewish life?
Dr. Eidelman: Beyond the motion, it’s essential for the government to translate these sentiments into actionable policies. This involves creating frameworks for community engagement, facilitating dialogue between Jewish organizations and broader society, and ensuring that anti-Semitism is addressed across all public sectors—education, media, and culture. Continuous monitoring and public discourse on the state of anti-Semitism in Germany will be vital to maintaining progress. Advocacy at all levels, from grassroots movements to political representation, will also play a key role in shaping a more inclusive future.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Eidelman, for your insights. It’s crucial to navigate these complex discussions thoughtfully as we work towards a society where all can feel safe and valued.
Dr. Eidelman: Thank you, Emma. It’s a conversation we must continue.