A new German resolution seeks to deprive Israel critics of public money
Germany's ruling coalition government has finally agreed on a new antisemitism resolution after months of debate amongst German politicians and fears that it will silence critics of Israel.
The final draft of the resolution titled "Never Again is Now: Protecting, Preserving and Strengthening Jewish Life in Germany" was agreed upon last Friday by the coalition consisting of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the Green Party and the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), as well as the oppositional Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
The resolution will be introduced to parliament on 9 November when a vote will take place on its ratification.
Its main features are the prioritisation of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and the withholding of state funds for artistic and scientific endeavours from those who take part in boycotts of Israel.
Since 7 October 2023, when Hamas-led Palestinian fighters attacked southern Israel, the German government has been looking for new ways to reaffirm its support for Israel.
The original draft of the resolution was held up, as Germany's leading parties hammered out the wording of the text.
It was only in July this year that a first draft, agreed upon by all sides, was leaked to the German media outlet Die Zeit.
Despite criticism from Jewish and civil society groups since the leak of the first draft, there have been no meaningful changes in the final resolution.
The draft resolution stipulated that the award of public funding by the government is contingent on the recipient's de facto declaration of their recognition of the the existence of Israel.
It also based its idea of antisemitism on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel’s government and its politics of war with antisemitism.
While resolutions issued the Bundestag are not legally binding, they have strong political impact.
A Bundestag resolution from 2019, for example, stigmatises individuals and organisations who endorse the global BDS movement by branding them antisemitic, and has been repeatedly utilised as a basis for curtailing freedom of speech and violating other constitutional rights.
That resolution explicitely stated that state funding, as well as public facilities should no longer be made available to "organisations that issue antisemitic statements or question Israel's right to exist".
Federal states and local authorities were asked to follow the policy, which led many municipalities to follow suit and pass their own anti-BDS resolutions.
Munich's City Council, for example, banned any discussion of the BDS movement in municipal spaces.
The federal administrative court later found that Munich's city council violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Immediate criticism
The draft resolution in July drew immediate criticism from critics across German society, most prominently amongst a group of legal experts, lawyers, sociologists and politicians.
They raised concerns over the constitutional legality of the draft resolution and suggested that the resolution may lead to the “silencing of critical Jewish voices”.
Critics also suggested the resolution would affect “many Jewish scientists, writers and artists, in particular through the intertwining of antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policies".
In a letter titled "Suggestions for a Resolution'", the group offered 16 ideas to improve the resolution, including the acceptance of multiple competing definitions of antisemitism, as well as allowing for the plurality of opinion amongst Jews in Germany.
As things stand, Jewish critics of Israel would be subject to sanctions over their opposition to the state.
"Attempts to restrict Jews to a certain view or way of life and to present and address them as a homogeneous, uniform group are counterproductive and do not correspond to reality", the letter reads.
The group also suggested more financial support for Holocaust survivors, many of whom live in poverty, and emphasised the importance of independent research "particularly on antisemitism or the Middle East conflict".
"The idea of believing that the state can prevent antisemitism by imposing regulations on creative artists, for example by attaching conditions to the allocation of funding, is a fallacy," Olaf Zimmermann from the German Cultural Council told De Zeit.
The draft resolution was also referred to as “dangerous” by a group of Jewish artists who published an open letter.
Issued in September, signatories of the letter include 15 leading Israeli human rights organisations, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem.
The organisations expressed “great concern” over the Bundestag resolution’s implementation.
“We are deeply alarmed by the repressive character and divisive implications of a draft for this resolution, which has provoked fierce criticism from numerous scholars, artists and civil society organizations in Germany and would harm our organizations and human rights work”, the statement read.
Following the wave of criticism, the resolution was returned for further debate but the final version announced on 1 November deviated little from the original with barely any of the suggestions presented by the group of legal experts implemented.
No change
Under the resolution, anyone applying for public funding, whether it is cultural, academic, scientific,or artistic, will be assessed for "antimsemitic narratives".
In deciding whether someone is eligible for funding, other definitions of antisemitism are allowed, but the IHRA "should be taken as authoritative", the document reads.
“The German Bundestag reaffirms its decision to ensure that no organisations and projects are funded that spread antisemitism, question Israel's right to exist, call for a boycott of Israel, or actively support the BDS movement," the resolution says.
Several Germany news outlets, including Deutschlandfunk, Frankfurter Allgemeine and Die Zeit as well as Amnesty International reported that the resolution was worked on "in secret", behind closed doors.
Those drawing it up were a small circle of parliamentarians who did not disclose any information to the public.
Resolutions are usually drafted with the help of civil society organisations and groups concerned with the topic at hand.
Such groups are normally invited to speak in parliament to share opinions and insights. In the case of the most recent antisemitism resolution, no such measures were taken.
“Behind closed doors, MPs, ministers and party leaders are complaining about the pressure they have been under from various sides in recent months: from pro-Israeli lobby organisations, the Israeli embassy, and the Central Council of Jews on the one hand, and from lawyers, academics and artists on the other,” Germany’s leading public-broadcasting radio station Deutschlandfunk wrote in an editorial over the weekend.
“The debate has long been toxic. The fear of being defamed as an antisemite and Israel-hater by the Bild newspaper also has an effect in politics right up to the highest echelons,” it continued.
The final resolution identifies several groups purportedly responsible for the rise in antisemitism in Germany, namely "right-wing extremists, members of the Islamist milieus, as well left-wing anti-imperialists”.
It also explicitly cites “immigration from the countries of North Africa and the Middle East” as a driver of antisemitism, without providing figures and statistics.
The resolution also reaffirms Israel's "right to self-defence", and emphasises Israel's "legitimate security interests as a central principle of German foreign policy".
It also expresses it's support for a two-state solution as "the best chance for a viable peace solution".
The resolution comes amidst the US presidential election and while Germany's coalition partners tussle for influence in a power struggle over domestic issues that could bring down the government.
The consequences for Germany's cultural scene that might arise from the resolution are not difficult to imagine given the ongoing crackdown on criticism of Israel.
Germany's commitment to silencing voices critical of Israel has already led to cases of cultural censorship and the silencing of voices speaking out on Palestinian human rights.
Death threats
One notable example was the Berlinale controversy, when the documentary No Other Land, which was co-directed by Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers earned the best documentary award at Germany's largest annual film festival in February.
In his acceptance speech, Israeli co-director Yuval Abraham's spoke of an "apartheid-like situation", telling the audience that "in two days [me and co-director Basel Adra, a Palestinian] will go back to a land where we are not equal. I live under civilian law and Basil lives under military law. We live thirty minutes from one another."
The following day, the mayor of Berlin, Kai Wegner of the Christian Democratic Union, berated the winners for their "intolerable relativisation" and branded their speeches "antisemitic".
Joe Chialo, senator for cultural affairs, Melanie Kuhnemann-Grunow, spokesperson on media policy for the Social Democrats (SPD), and Daniela Billig, spokesperson on arts policy for the Greens in the Berlin parliament, scolded the festival for giving a platform to anti-Israel speeches.
Abraham later told The Guardian that he received death threats on social media and was branded as antisemitic by Israeli media, which cited German officials.
Abraham heavily criticised German officials, saying that the defamation he received at the hands of German officials devalues term "antisemitism" and puts Jewish lives in danger.