Angela Merkel blasts own party amid uproar over vote with far right
The move has plunged Germany even deeper into political turmoil, just weeks before national elections.
In a statement released by her office, Merkel - who led Germany between 2005 and 2021 - slammed the decision "to enable a majority with the votes of the AfD for the first time in a vote in the German Bundestag," the country's lower house of parliament.
After the breakdown of centre-left Chancellor Olaf Scholz's three-party coalition in November, CDU leader Friedrich Merz made a commitment to avoid passing measures with the help of the AfD, Merkel recalled.
"This proposal and the attitude associated with it were an expression of great national political responsibility, which I fully support," the former chancellor said.
Taboo broken
Migration has become the dominant theme in the German election campaign ahead of the vote on February 23 after a string of attacks attributed to suspects with migrant backgrounds.
On Wednesday, the CDU relied on support from the AfD to narrowly pass its non-binding five-point plan for a tougher migration policy through the Bundestag.
The move was extremely controversial, marking the first time the AfD have been relied upon to form a majority for a vote in the lower house.
Another vote on a CDU-backed package of migration policies is expected in parliament on Friday with concrete measures aimed at cracking down on asylum seekers entering the country.
The AfD and two minor opposition parties have signalled they will support the bill.
Vote stirs outrage
Wednesday's vote was widely seen as a major crack in the firewall mainstream German parties have maintained against the AfD, and was met with protests and sharp criticism from many.
A survivor of the Nazi's Auschwitz extermination camp, Eva Umlauf, penned an open letter to Merz that was published by the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper in which she implored the conservative leader to reverse course.
"Don't underestimate the right-wing extremists. Turn back on the path you took on Wednesday. Approach the other democratic parties, find compromises," wrote the 82-year-old Umlauf.
Another German Holocaust survivor, 99-year-old Albrecht Weinberg, vowed on Thursday to return the Federal Order of Merit medal he'd been awarded out of disgust.
Hundreds of German celebrities and film stars signed another open letter published in the German edition of Vogue magazine denouncing the vote as a "historic breach of a taboo."
"You are threatening to undermine fundamental rights with the help of right-wing extremists and are thus helping the AfD to gain influence and power," said the letter, which was addressed to the CDU and other mainstream parties that backed the motion.
Hungary's right-wing populist leader, Viktor Orbán, expressed his pleasure at the vote in a post on X. Orbán's government has faced repeated criticism over its harsh treatment of migrants.
"Good morning, Germany," Orbán wrote in German. He added in English, "Welcome to the club!"
Political showdown looms on Friday
Merz has so far vowed to put a package of asylum and migration legislation to a vote on Friday, and appears set to again pass the measures thanks to support from the AfD.
Scholz, whose key rival in the upcoming election is Merz, complained on ARD television that the CDU/CSU had broken with the consensus "that there is no cooperation between the democratic parties and the extreme right."
Merz has denied that the vote amounted to cooperation, and his party has repeatedly demanded that Scholz's centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) or the Greens, who are currently in a minority government, back their measures as well so that the votes of AfD lawmakers aren't decisive.
Merz told the Bild tabloid that he hopes "that the Greens and SPD will return to their senses" and support his hard-line migration proposals on Friday.
However, there were also louder warnings within the CDU not to accept the AfD's approval once again. Berlin Mayor Kai Wegener, for example, announced that Berlin would never support any law passed thanks to AfD votes with the city's seat on the Bundesrat, as the upper chamber of parliament is known.
Merkel rebuke a setback in campaign
The CDU's Merkel is sometimes viewed as a controversial figure within her own party, with many more conservative members staunch opponents of the open-door migration policy Merkel embraced in 2015.
But Merkel nonetheless remains the party's best-known figure, and during her career proved highly adept as winning over centrist and even left-leaning voters.
Merkel and Merz have long been rivals, and Merz withdrew from politics after Merkel pushed him aside from party leadership posts in the early 2000s. He returned to politics in 2018 and only claimed party leadership after Merkel's retirement in 2021.
The CDU's General Secretary Carsten Linnemann told the Rheinische Post newspaper that the party "values Angela Merkel and know her views on migration policy."
However, those who are in charge today must also react to the security situation and the "terrible events in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg," referring to recent deadly attacks in which migrants are the suspected culprits.
Jubilant AfD expect 'newage' in Germany politics
The sour mood in the CDU stood in sharp contrast on Thursday to the AfD, whose co-leader said the motion could bring a "new age" in German politics.
Tino Chrupalla told the rbb radio station that Germany expects a "shift in politics and migration," pointing to polls placing the AfD in second place on more than 20% of the vote.
He said 250,000 people are obliged to leave the country and should be taken into "protective custody," a Nazi-era term for rounding up political opponents without trial, before being deported.
Alice Weidel, the AfD's top candidate for the upcoming election, told dpa on Thursday that she was not surprised Merkel "is taking a swipe at her successor," and once again attacked Merkel's record on asylum and immigration.
Merkel had "initiated the loss of control at the borders in 2015 and wants nothing to change in this situation," Weidel said, accusing Merkel of making further contributions to "the dissolution of the once-proud conservative people's party."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
French court to decide if Assad can be stripped of immunity and tried for Syrian chemical attacks
Ruling could open door for prosecutions in other countries A ruling against Assad would be 'a huge victory for the victims,' said Mazen Darwish, president of the Syrian Center for Media which collected evidence of war crimes. 'It's not only about Syrians, this will open the door for the victims from any country and this will be the first time that a domestic investigative judge has the right to issue an arrest warrant for a president during his rule.' He said the ruling could enable his group to legally go after regime members, like launching a money laundering case against former Syrian Central Bank governor and Minister of Economy Adib Mayaleh, whose lawyers have argued he had immunity under international law. Advertisement For over 50 years, Syria was ruled by Hafez Assad and then his son Bashar. During the Arab Spring, rebellion broke out against their tyrannical rule in 2011 across the country of 23 million, igniting a brutal 13-year civil war that killed more than half a million people, according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights. Millions more fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Europe. The Assad dynasty manipulated sectarian tensions to stay in power, a legacy driving renewed violence in Syria against minority groups despite promises that the country's new leaders will carve out a political future for Syria that includes and represents all its communities. Advertisement The ruling stripping Assad's immunity could set a 'significant precedent' that 'could really set the stage for potentially for other cases in national jurisdictions that strike down immunities,' said Mariana Pena, a human rights lawyer at the Open Society Justice Initiative, which helped bring the case to court. As the International Criminal Court has issued arrests warrants for leaders accused of atrocities — like Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines — the French judges' ruling could empower the legal framework to prosecute not just deposed and exiled leaders but those currently in power. Assad allegedly bombed, tortured and gassed civilians The Syrian government denied in 2013 that it was behind the Ghouta attack, an accusation the opposition rejected as Assad's forces were the only side in the brutal civil war to possess sarin. The United States subsequently threatened military retaliation, but Washington settled for a deal with Moscow for Assad to give up his chemical weapons' stockpile. Assad survived more than a decade longer, aided militarily by Russia and Iranian-backed proxies. Activists and human rights group accuse him of using barrel bombs, torture, and massacres to crush opponents. But then in late 2024, a surprise assault by rebels swept into Aleppo and then Damascus, driving the dictator to flee for his ally Russia on Dec. 8, 2024. While Darwish and others plan to press Interpol and Russia to extradite him, they know it is unlikely. But an arrest warrant issued by France could lay the groundwork for the former dictator's trial in absentia or potential arrest if he travels outside Russia. Advertisement Any trial of Assad, whether in absentia or if he leaves Russia, would mean this evidence could then 'be brought to light,' Pena said, including an enormous trove of classified and secret evidence amassed by the judges during their investigations. Syrians often took great personal risk to gather evidence of war crimes. Darwish said that in the aftermath of a chlorine gas attack in Douma, for example, teams collected eyewitness testimonies, images of devastation, and soil samples. Others then tracked down and interviewed defectors to build a 'chain of command' for the regime's chemical weapons production and use. 'We link it directly to the president himself, Bashar al-Assad,' he said. Head of state immunity is 'almost taboo' Assad was relatively safe under international law. Heads of state could not be prosecuted for actions taken during their rule, a rule designed long ago to ease dialogue when leaders needed to travel the world to meet, said Jeanne Sulzer, a French lawyer who co-led the case against Assad for the 2013 chemical attack. She said that kind of immunity is 'almost a taboo' regardless of the weight of the charges. 'You have to wait until the person is not a sitting in office to be able to prosecute,' she said. But that protection has been whittled away over the years by courts ruling that the brutality of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Charles Taylor in Liberia, and Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia, to name just a few, merited a restructuring of the world's legal foundations, said James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative. Advertisement Ending impunity in Syria Syria today remains beholden to many awful legacies of the Assad dynasty. Poverty, sectarianism, destruction, and violence still haunt the Syrian Arab Republic. Damascus' new rulers are investigating nearly 300 people for crimes during several days of fighting on Syria's coast earlier this year. The interim authorities in Damascus have pledged to work with the United Nations on investigating further war crimes of the Assad regime and the civil war. The global chemical weapons watchdog has called on the new government of interim president Ahmad al-Sharaa to protect and dismantle Assad's stockpiles. Darwish is working on 29 cases against Assad and other regime figures who have fled to Russia, the Gulf, Lebanon and Europe. He said many Syrians hope Assad sits for a fair trial in Syria. 'It should be done in Damascus, but we need also a lot of guarantees that we will have a fair trial even for this suspect,' he said. His organization has already received requests to bring to court war crimes accusations against those involved in recent bloodshed in southern Syria. 'So anyone, whatever his name, or the regime, or their authority, we will keep fighting this type of crime,' Darwish said.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
A Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university's new definition of antisemitism
NEW YORK (AP) — For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt's book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,' to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas. But after Columbia's recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism , which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel's founding. For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. 'A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,' she told The Associated Press. 'I just don't see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.' Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts. Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, such as applying 'double standards' to Israel, comparing the country's policies to Nazism or describing its existence as 'a racist endeavor.' Ahead of a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities. While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack by President Donald Trump. For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel's founding amount to 'clear censorship,' which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits. 'We learn by making analogies,' Hirsch said. 'Now the university is saying that's off-limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?' A spokesperson for Columbia didn't respond to an emailed request for comment. The 'weaponization' of an educational framework When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he 'never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.' At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said. In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its 'weaponization' against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews. 'People who believe they're combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,' he said. 'But when used in this context, it's really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.' Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia's leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university's current interim president. The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for 'training and educational' purposes. Then last week, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing 'discriminatory intent.' 'The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community's understanding of modern antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move 'appalling,' predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing pro-Palestinian speech. Already, the university's disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups. 'With this new edict on IHRA, you're going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what's in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,' he said. 'That will undoubtedly harm the university.' Calls to 'self-terminate' Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests and coordinate antisemitism trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Earlier this week, the university suspended or expelled nearly 80 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said Columbia's actions were an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment. He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, which he said would 'provide clarity, transparency and standardization' to the university's effort to root out antisemitism. 'There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,' Marcus said. 'To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.' But Hirsch, the Columbia professor, said she was committed to continuing her long-standing study of genocides and their aftermath. Part of that work, she said, will involve talking to students about Israel's 'ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide' in Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have died, over half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. 'With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,' Hirsch said. 'If that's the case, I'll continue my work outside the university's gates.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
A Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university's new definition of antisemitism
NEW YORK — For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt's book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,' to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas. But after Columbia's recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism , which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel's founding. For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. 'A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,' she told The Associated Press. 'I just don't see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.' Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts. Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, such as applying 'double standards' to Israel, comparing the country's policies to Nazism or describing its existence as 'a racist endeavor.' Ahead of a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities. While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack by President Donald Trump. For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel's founding amount to 'clear censorship,' which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits. 'We learn by making analogies,' Hirsch said. 'Now the university is saying that's off-limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?' A spokesperson for Columbia didn't respond to an emailed request for comment. When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he 'never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.' At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said. In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its 'weaponization' against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews. 'People who believe they're combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,' he said. 'But when used in this context, it's really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.' Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia's leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university's current interim president. The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for 'training and educational' purposes. Then last week, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing 'discriminatory intent.' 'The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community's understanding of modern antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move 'appalling,' predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing pro-Palestinian speech. Already, the university's disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups. 'With this new edict on IHRA, you're going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what's in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,' he said. 'That will undoubtedly harm the university.' Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests and coordinate antisemitism trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Earlier this week, the university suspended or expelled nearly 80 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said Columbia's actions were an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment. He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, which he said would 'provide clarity, transparency and standardization' to the university's effort to root out antisemitism. 'There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,' Marcus said. 'To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.' But Hirsch, the Columbia professor, said she was committed to continuing her long-standing study of genocides and their aftermath. Part of that work, she said, will involve talking to students about Israel's 'ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide' in Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have died, over half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. 'With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,' Hirsch said. 'If that's the case, I'll continue my work outside the university's gates.'
