Bundestag adopts motion to combat anti-Semitism
Published: Thursday, Nov 7th 2024, 13:10
Back to Live Feed
In its first plenary session following the "traffic light" exit, the Bundestag in Germany passed a motion by a large majority entitled "Never again is now: Protecting, preserving and strengthening Jewish life in Germany".
The content of the motion, which was jointly drafted by the SPD, Greens, FDP and CDU/CSU, 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 in favor. The left-wing nationalist alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) voted against. The group Die Linke abstained.
The motion makes it clear that there is no place for anti-Semitism "even in the ranks of art, culture and the media", said Michael Breilmann (CDU). He countered the accusation from academics who criticized the definition of anti-Semitism used in the motion.
Repressive options should be used consistently
The motion by the SPD, Greens, FDP and CDU/CSU aims to combat anti-Semitism. It calls for "loopholes in the law to be closed and repressive options to be consistently exploited", particularly in criminal law and in residence, asylum and citizenship law. The four parliamentary groups criticize a "relativizing approach and increasing Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism" and call on the German government to "actively stand up for the existence and legitimate security interests of the state of Israel". It should work towards ensuring that the so-called IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is used as a decisive factor when making decisions, for example regarding the funding of certain projects.
Controversy over 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 "this makes it incredibly open to abuse". The historian warned that the accusation of anti-Semitism was "an excellent way of silencing and defaming political opponents".
During the debate, Green Party interior politician Konstantin von Notz said that the IHRA definition was "not declared absolute" in the motion, but should be taken as authoritative.
Beatrix von Storch (AfD) said that the motion echoed her own party's warnings of "imported anti-Semitism". This is remarkable in a motion co-initiated by the Greens. The adopted text states: "In recent months, the alarming extent of anti-Semitism based on immigration from the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, in which anti-Semitism and hostility towards Israel are widespread, also due to Islamist and anti-Israeli state indoctrination, has become clear."
Hakan Demir from the SPD, among others, takes issue with this passage. During the debate, he said that instead of naming people from certain regions across the board, it would be better to differentiate between democrats and anti-democrats.
At the same time, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and nationalist thinking are on the rise, the text of the motion continues. Its authors also criticize a "relativizing approach and increasing Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism".
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic