Germany’s armed struggle against anti-Semitism undermines democracy

The German Bundestag is preparing to adopt a resolution entitled “Never again is now: Protecting, preserving and strengthening Jewish life in Germany”.

What sounds like a noble goal threatens to undermine the democratic fabric of our society, which is primarily designed to ensure the protection of vulnerable people.

The parliamentarians want to adopt the resolution before October 7 – a specific date for the vote has not yet been set – to send a sign of solidarity with Israel on the first anniversary of the Hamas attack.

This move has sparked a debate in Germany. Civil society groups, artists and scientists, including myself, have criticised the draft resolution in an open letter. We are particularly concerned about the threat it poses to freedom of expression and academic and artistic freedom, while at the same time failing to achieve the goal it rightly sets out to achieve.

The draft resolution recommends adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism as a benchmark for evaluating government funding applications and determining whether a project is anti-Semitic.

This is a cause for concern because the IHRA definition is broad and ambiguous, and criticism of Israeli policies can be labelled as anti-Semitic. Even Kenneth Stern, one of the definition’s original authors, has distanced himself from it, warning of the potential for political abuse and the risk of stifling legitimate debate.

The draft resolution proposes comprehensive measures ostensibly aimed at combating anti-Semitism as defined by the IHRA. It calls on the government to consider new steps to ensure that state funds are not “used for anti-Semitism” and suggests that funding requests from civil society groups should be closely scrutinised to prevent the spread of “anti-Semitic narratives”.

Hidden idea

Members of parliament from various parties have suggested that, if necessary, secret services could be involved in examining whether a project promotes anti-Semitism.

This is particularly worrying for several reasons. It exploits the important need to combat anti-Semitism with the possible ulterior motive of suppressing dissent. It could lead to funding for research and cultural work being allocated on the basis of one’s stance on Israeli policy.

Follow Middle East Eye’s live coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian war

This kind of ideological scrutiny is incompatible with academic freedom. Prescribing a definition of anti-Semitism that excludes criticism of Israeli policies would be detrimental to research.

At a time when Germany needs more, not less, knowledge about Israel, Palestine and the Middle East conflict, this resolution could deter scientists and artists from dealing with these issues for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.

By attempting to suppress criticism of Israeli policy at a time like this, Germany is becoming increasingly complicit in unspeakable war crimes.

In addition, the resolution calls on Parliament to take “repressive measures” in relation to residence, asylum, citizenship and criminal law to combat anti-Semitism. It states that anti-Semitic behaviour in academic environments should be punished, including in serious cases by excluding students.

If implemented, this would mean that people could lose their right to asylum, be denied citizenship or have their residence permit revoked if they express statements or actions that are considered anti-Semitic under the IHRA definition.

Students could be expelled from school if they organize protest camps in solidarity with Palestine; such gatherings are often denounced as anti-Semitic.

In fact, the draft resolution highlights a worrying trend: since October 7, it has become increasingly clear that our society lacks the ability to engage in controversial debates. The political response to such debates has therefore mainly been to ban, punish and criminalise dissenting opinions.

Opposite effect

While the draft resolution ostensibly aims to protect the diversity of Jewish life in Germany, it could achieve the opposite. Jewish artists and academics who have expressed solidarity with the Palestinians or criticized Israel’s war on Gaza face severe consequences, including contract terminations, revoked invitations to exhibitions and other forms of repression.

If the resolution is adopted in its current form, it would likely increase pressure on Israeli and Jewish voices that deviate from the official position of the German Bundestag.

A serious attempt to preserve and protect Jewish life and to celebrate the diversity of Jewish voices in Germany would begin with a democratization of government funding. For example, government funding for the Central Council of Jews, a socially conservative organization that supports the current Israeli government, has been increased from 13 million to 22 million euros ($24 million) for 2024.

In contrast, liberal Jewish groups critical of the Israeli government, such as the Jewish Voice for Just Peace in the Middle East, receive no state funding and face repression.

In March of this year, a state-owned bank froze the organization’s account, and last fall one of the group’s board members was briefly arrested in Berlin for carrying a sign reading “As a Jew and an Israeli: Stop the Genocide in Gaza.”

The draft resolution follows a major scandal surrounding academic freedom in Germany. Earlier this year, a group of academics, including myself, signed an open letter criticising the police’s eviction of a protest camp at the Free University of Berlin and calling for the protection of students’ right to peaceful protest.

The German Ministry of Education then accused the signatories of promoting violence and anti-Semitism. Leaked emails have since shown that the ministry is considering withdrawing funding from the academics who signed the letter, but the ministry later said there would be no further consequences.

Out of reach

These revelations have sent shockwaves through the scientific community, heightening fears that funding decisions may be influenced by political considerations rather than academic merit. The draft resolution further undermines confidence in the impartiality of government funding for science. This is particularly relevant in Germany, as scientists are increasingly dependent on third-party funding.

The draft resolution is proposed by the Greens, the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal Democrats. Given the recent successes of the far right in the state elections in eastern Germany, many had expected that threats to academic freedom, free speech and the arts would come primarily from the far right.

However, the past year has shown that many repressive measures are being pushed by parties in the political centre. The so-called democratic centre should be careful not to pave the way for the far right. Once established, mechanisms such as those proposed in the draft resolution could easily be used to target other political opponents.

The German political debate has lost touch with reality. A case in which Israel is accused of committing genocide in Gaza is currently pending before the International Court of Justice. The situation in Gaza is apocalyptic: tens of thousands of civilians are dead or missing, thousands of children are orphans and now run the risk of contracting polio.

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are being starved and there are numerous reports of physical and sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners.

By attempting to suppress public debate and urgently needed criticism of Israeli policies at times like these, Germany is increasingly making itself complicit in unspeakable war crimes and possible genocide.

Ultimately, the rason of state – the German “raison d’état,” which includes the protection of Israel as part of the atonement for past atrocities – in its current interpretation is incompatible with a modern democratic country.

If we want to be an open society and recognise our own diversity, we cannot cling to the raison d’état in its current form, which prevents us from recognising the suffering of all – denies their history and experiences – and thus promotes a perpetual cycle of violence.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.