Berlin and antisemitism

Antisemitic continuities

The resolution of the German Bundestag, which is to be rushed through parliament this week, aims to “effectively and enduringly combat antisemitism in our country”.[1] Antisemitism is indeed still widespread even in mainstream German society. This would possibly be less so if the Federal Republic, as it emerged from the war, had drawn a clear line between its leading personnel and the old Nazi antisemites. Instead of making a completely fresh start, Nazis often remained in office in West Germany after 1945. “The functional elites of the Hitler era” had “decisively shaped the Federal Republic project right into the 1970s,” noted the historian Norbert Frei in 2001 in his summary of comprehensive studies into the continuities of personnel in Federal German leadership positions.[2] This failure to break with the past even occurred at the highest levels of government. Take the example of Kurt Georg Kiesinger. He was a Nazi party member and rose to the rank of senior propagandist as head of the broadcasting policy department in von Ribbentrop’s foreign office in the years before 1945. Having then become a CDU party member in 1946, he enjoyed a successful post-war political career taking him to the highest position as Federal Chancellor in 1966. A portrait of Kiesinger, honouring his memory, still hangs in the gallery of chancellors on the first floor of the Berlin Chancellery.[3]

Criticism under suspicion

For decades in the young Federal Republic, opportunities to take determined action against antisemitism at both the political and the social level were ignored, if not openly thwarted. The approach to antisemitism now being adopted by today’s German Bundestag centres to a large extent on repression. The underlying concept of antisemitism is derived exclusively from a definition laid down by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA),[4] which is controversial as academic experts criticise a failure to differentiate. Nevertheless, the Federal Government officially recognised that definition in September 2017,[5] making it the conceptual basis for the work of the federal authorities, not least the work of the Federal Agency for Civic Education and, in particular, that of memorial sites and history museums. The official position is extraordinary inasmuch as it not only means that the state actively marginalises dissenting academic positions, an approach hardly compatible with tolerance and academic freedom, but also because the German government is broadening the definition of antisemitism still further by adding the following sentence: “Furthermore, the state of Israel, understood as a Jewish collective, can also be the target of such attacks.”[6] In everyday political life, this wording currently tends to cast a suspicion of antisemitism on almost every critical statement about Israel.

Exclusion and banning

In this respect, the consequences demanded by Bundestag in its draft resolution will have a serious impact. The resolution states, for instance, that “no organisations or projects that spread antisemitism should receive financial support.”[7] In practice, this means that any group or association that speaks out strongly against the policies of the state of Israel can be excluded from further allocation of state funding. This would apply to academic projects as well as projects in the broad field of art and culture. Schools and universities are required to take tough action against antisemitic incidents, not only by applying the domiciliary rights of an institution but also by resorting to exclusion from lessons or exmatriculation in higher education. So the IHRA definition and, above all, its extended German version, means that resolute criticism of Israeli government action can suffice for exclusions and bans. This repressive approach is also seen in the announcement that the German government is considering the banning of Israel-critical organisations and their activities. This is seen in the case of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, an international campaign that calls for boycotts against Israel in order to force its government to comply with international law: “a prohibition of BDS activities and organisation in Germany is being examined.”[8]

Special discrimination against migrants

Last but not least, repressive measures against antisemitism are also to be integrated into residence, asylum and citizenship laws. The Bundestag believes that this legislative step is necessary because “the alarming extent of antisemitism has recently become clear in connection with immigration from the countries of North Africa and the Middle East.”[9] Yet the Bundestag does not explain why it shouldn’t be legislatively sufficient to treat people of Arab origin – the direct target of the wording – according to the same legal criteria that apply in Germany to people of German descent. The threat, under residency laws, of withdrawing the right to live in Germany of people from the Arab world whose actions might fall under the IHRA definition and its German supplement amounts to special discrimination against immigrants.

The consequences

The consequences are far-reaching. If the resolution of the Bundestag were to be implemented in concrete laws, Germany would have to impose a boycott on, for instance, the publisher of the Israeli daily Haaretz, Amos Schocken. Schocken recently declared at a conference in London that he considers the Israeli government’s onslaught against Palestinians to be so dreadful that he sees no other remedy than the imposition of international sanctions, similar to the case of South Africa during apartheid.[10] If citizens of Israel living in Germany were to publicly agree with the Haaretz publisher they would possibly be guilty of violating the catch-all German version of the IHRA definition and could be threatened with deportation. If Jewish associations based in Germany were to join the BDS campaign – and there are some that have supported the campaign in the past – then they could be banned in Germany for the first time since 1945. Any cooperation between the German government agencies and Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch would be prohibited. These human rights organisations classify the discrimination against the Palestinian population in Israel and the West Bank as apartheid.[11]

Only Germany does not compensate

While this repressive climate threatens to take hold, Berlin continues to refuse payment of compensation to the surviving descendants of Jewish victims of National Socialism. A current example is Deutsche Bahn’s refusal to pay compensation for the deportation of Jews by rail to Nazi extermination camps. The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) and the Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) have accepted some responsibility for past involvement in deportations and paid at least symbolic sums to the descendants of the victims. Deutsche Bahn, solely owned by the Federal Republic of Germany – a country that presents itself as a champion in the struggle against antisemitism – has still paid nothing for the antisemitic mass crimes of its legal predecessor, the Reichsbahn.[12]

“The power of the Jews”

The fact that the Bundestag, with its new resolution, will effectively immunise Israel, a serial breaker of international law, against criticism is ultimately intended to strengthen Germany’s geostrategically motivated alliance with Israel.[13] It is an alliance built on the foundations laid by Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in the 1950s, as reported by german-foreign-policy.com.[14] On 4 January 1965, Adenauer remarked in a television interview that, “The power of the Jews even today, especially in America, should not be underestimated.” This power, Adenauer tried to explain, was the reason why he had “very consciously” put “all this energy ... into bringing about reconciliation between the Jewish people and the German people.”[15] This reference to a diffuse “power of the Jews” is actually an antisemitic code, and considered as such not only by the IHRA definition. To this day Adenauer is revered in Germany as the formative founding chancellor of the Federal Republic.

[1] Christoph Schult: Ampel und Union einigen sich auf Resolution gegen Antisemitismus. spiegel.de 01.11.2024.

[2] Norbert Frei: Hitlers Eliten nach 1945 – eine Bilanz. In: Norbert Frei (ed.): Hitlers Eliten nach 1945. Frankfurt am Main 2001.

[3] Kanzlergalerie. bundeskanzler.de.

[4] The definition runs, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The German government has added, “Furthermore, the state of Israel, being perceived as a Jewish collective, may be the target of such attacks.” Cf. IHRA-Definition. antisemitismusbeauftragter.de.

[5] Bundesregierung billigt neue Antisemitismus-Definition. faz.net 20.09.2017.

[6] IHRA-Definition. antisemitismusbeauftragter.de.

[7], [8], [9] Christoph Schult: Ampel und Union einigen sich auf Resolution gegen Antisemitismus. spiegel.de 01.11.2024.

[10] Patrick Wintour: London conference hears UK and Israeli criticism of conduct of Gaza war. theguardian.com 28.10.2024.

[11] Vgl. etwa: Human Rights Watch: A Threshold Crossed. Israeli Autorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution. hrw.org 27.04.2021. Amnesty International: Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity. amnesty.org 01.02.2022.

[12] See: Nur Deutschland entschädigt nicht.

[13] See: ‘In Germany’s national interest’.

[14] See: ‘In Germany’s national interest’ (II).

[15] Günter Gaus im Gespräch mit Konrad Adenauer. Broadcast on 04.01.1966 (ZDF). rbb-online.de.