Germany is ‘importing' antisemitism, our leaders claim. Irony is not their strong point
The chancellor is not the only German politician to have made the dubious connection between foreigners and antisemitism. Hubert Aiwanger, the deputy premier of Bavaria, made headlines in 2023 when an antisemitic leaflet he was alleged to have written at school – better known as the Auschwitz pamphlet – came to light. Aiwanger denied writing the leaflet. Then his brother joined the fray, claiming authorship, and hardly anybody mentioned it again. However, it didn't stop Aiwanger from declaring later that year: 'We have imported antisemitism to Germany.'
How did 'imported antisemitism', a far-right anti-immigrant buzz phrase, make it into the political mainstream? After all, Germans didn't exactly need to import antisemitism. But this is the way we see it in Germany: if you haven't committed genocide you can't properly claim to be against it. I'm not making this up. You couldn't make it up. Indeed, the political scientist Esra Özyürek discusses the belief in her excellent 2023 book Subcontractors of Guilt.
The thinking behind it is that because of our history, we teach the next generation to make sure it will never happen again. At school we studied the Holocaust every year. We didn't learn to analyse antisemitism, but we learned to be very wary of it – or as the writer Max Czollek put it: 'Today Germans know mainly one thing about Jews: that they killed them.'
Immigrants to Germany need to know a bit more than that if they want to become German citizens. They need to know when the state of Israel was founded, and who is allowed to become a member of one of the 40 Maccabi sports clubs. If you're not born in Germany you have to prove you're not antisemitic by learning facts about Jewish people.
But even if you were born here, like me, the statistics still refer to you as an immigrant if one of your parents comes from a different country. And as such, you are viewed with suspicion when it comes to the antisemitism you may have 'imported'. During the last election, Merz suggested revoking German citizenship from dual nationals if they committed a crime. When asked if that meant, for example, getting on a bus without a ticket, he made it clear it related to antisemitism.
However, antisemitism is not a criminal offence in German law, so we see it everywhere. Jews have been arrested for holding up signs reading 'Jews against genocide'. An Irish protester was arrested in Berlin for speaking Irish at a demonstration for Palestine because the authorities did not have an Irish translator present to check if they were 'importing antisemitism' too. This has gone so far that the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner has reprimanded Germany for criminalising protest against the war in Gaza – including curtailing the use of Arabic at protests. In the end Merz didn't get his way, but he drove the message home: Germans like me with foreign heritage are Germans on trial.
In 2024 the German parliament adopted a controversial Never Again is Now resolution to fight antisemitism. One of the examples cited was the 'Berlinale scandal'. When No Other Land won the documentary award at the Berlin film festival, the Israeli film-maker Yuval Abraham called for an end to apartheid and his Palestinian co-director, Basel Adra, added that he found it very hard to celebrate 'when there are tens of thousands of my people being slaughtered and massacred by Israel in Gaza'. The outcry in Germany was so massive that the then culture minister, Claudia Roth, felt compelled to announce that she had only applauded the Israeli film-maker, not his Palestinian counterpart.
By contrast, the resolution made no mention of the 2019 Yom Kippur attack in Halle, in which a rightwing terrorist tried to break into a synagogue to commit a massacre (he failed to get inside, but killed two passersby). Nor did the resolution acknowledge the surely vital fact that 85% of all antisemitic violence in Germany is committed by rightwing perpetrators, and instead promised to combat antisemitism by 'exploiting repressive options' in asylum and citizenship law. In other words: they are the ones with the antisemitism problem, not us.
When I was at school we read Friedrich, a novel by Hans Peter Richter, with the motto: 'Back then it was the Jews, today it's Black people, tomorrow it might be the whites, the Christians or the civil servants.' We didn't think that all forms of racism were the same as Hitler's antisemitism, but this was how we understood 'never again'.
The problem with German exceptionalism is that it means we can't really learn from the Holocaust. In fact, in April a woman was fined €1,500 by a German court for holding up a sign outside a government building that read: 'Haven't we learned anything from the Holocaust?' That same week, the German legal system decided that shouting 'Piss off, foreigners! Germany for the Germans' wasn't a problem.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
A further irony is that many of the people accused of importing antisemitism into Germany may well have grandparents who fought for the allies against the Nazis. I wish we had learned about that at school. Just as I wish we'd teach children – and politicians – that the kind of eliminatory antisemitism that peaked during the Holocaust was a European phenomenon. That doesn't mean there is no antisemitism beyond Europe's borders, in the Arab world or otherwise, but it has a different history. Some antisemitic tropes, for example the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy, only found their way into the Levant during the second world war.
Perhaps it would be more correct to speak of exported antisemitism.
Mithu Sanyal is a novelist, academic, literary critic, columnist and broadcaster.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
James Cleverly's homecoming is shrewd move for Tories
A s the stepdaughter of a Yorkshire Tory MP, I was brought up on ill-attended speeches in village halls and constituency wine and cheese parties. Yet although conservatism is in my blood, I haven't even considered voting for it for a decade. The mess that David Cameron and his successors made first of the country's relationship with Europe and then of the party itself enraged me. With Kemi Badenoch's failure to find a way of countering Reform, I had come to the view that the party was on its last legs. But the return of James Cleverly to the front bench makes me wonder whether there might be life in the old dog yet. Badenoch's big decision is whether to copy Reform UK's fiscal irresponsibility and flag-waving nationalism or return to moderate, ideology-free conservatism. The political tide in America and Europe is pushing her in the former direction, as is the strongest character on her front bench, Robert Jenrick.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Putin is preparing for another invasion while Nato is fatally distracted
At the latest Nato summit in The Hague, the alliance announced that members had set a new target of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence and security by 2035. In part, this is likely to have been driven by a realisation that Trump envoy Steve Witkoff's shuttle diplomacy and Europe's denunciations of Vladimir Putin will not be enough to end the war in Ukraine. More fundamentally, however, members are waking up to the need to deter Russia from attacking a Nato country – which, according to Mark Rutte, the alliance's secretary-general, it could be ready to do within five years. As a military intelligence analyst specialising in Putin's thinking and Russian military strategy, I agree with Rutte's assessment about Russia's readiness for another offensive military campaign in just a few years. I'm less convinced that a Nato country is likely to be the Kremlin's next target, unless the alliance directly intervenes in Ukraine by deploying troops onto the battlefield. Nevertheless, what Nato does or doesn't do in the next few years could be highly significant in determining whether Putin decides to attack another post-Soviet state – such as Moldova. The problem is that increasing spending on defence and security-related areas will not do the trick on its own. Money and technology, the staples of the West's style of warfare, do not by themselves prevent or win wars. Strategy does. And a successful strategy must be based on a deep understanding of the opponent's way of war, addressing the key elements of its military planning. I briefed Nato members on Russia's war-fighting strategy in September 2013, just months prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea. Regrettably, no counter-strategy was developed by the Pentagon and its Nato counterparts. Hence Putin's invasions. Developed by the Russian General Staff and often dubbed 'asymmetric warfare', Russia's strategy borrows heavily from the classic works of the British strategist Sir Basil Liddell Hart. He advocated indirect methods of fighting the opponent, rather than the brute application of force. The centrepiece of this approach is to bypass the enemy's areas of strength and focus on exploiting weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Obviously, the war in Ukraine has developed into precisely the sort of conflict Russia seeks to avoid. But that doesn't mean that the Kremlin has fundamentally changed its approach to conflict, particularly when facing new opponents. Since Nato militaries are technologically superior to the Russian forces, Moscow knows it will have to rely on seizing the strategic initiative during the initial period of any future war. It will not be seeking a repeat of what has happened in Ukraine. Russian planners therefore envision undermining Nato's network-centric approach to war by disrupting its forces' 'kill chain', the process that enables military decision-making to detect, target, and destroy adversaries. This could be achieved by targeting, perhaps pre-emptively, the C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) and space systems on which Nato forces depend. So Nato members need to do more than spend money. They need to understand what the Russians consider to be the alliance's vulnerabilities, and take action to remove the Kremlin's incentive to exploit them. There are five principal areas that require action. 1. Secure space-related infrastructure Russia has a formidable arsenal of counter-space weapons, designed to degrade or destroy US and allied satellites. It includes GPS-jamming systems, lasers, orbital interceptors, and anti-satellite missiles. The US Office of the Director of National Intelligence warned in its 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that Russia is training its space forces, fielding new anti-satellite weapons, and is already using electronic warfare to counter Western assets. Moscow is also developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon as an anti-satellite capability. 2. Harden critical infrastructure against cyber attacks Russia has one of the world's most destructive arsenals of cyber weapons, a sophisticated doctrine, and advanced expertise. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment warned about Russia's repeated success in compromising sensitive targets for intelligence collection. Moscow is likely to already have access to critical infrastructure in the US and Europe. Moscow has a particular strength and practical experience in integrating cyber attacks with military operations in wartime. 3. Establish stronger protocols to guard undersea communications cables Russia's General Staff Main Directorate has a highly secretive deep sea research programme, known as GUGI. Moscow is highly likely to have put this expertise into practice, with several suspected sabotage operations of undersea cables in the Baltic Sea since the war in Ukraine began. A similar risk applies to energy pipelines. In October 2022, the UK Ministry of Defence acknowledged that a Royal Navy frigate was deployed to the North Sea to assist Norwegian forces in protecting gas pipelines, after the rupture of Nord Stream in the Baltic. 4. Bullet-proof against Russian espionage It hardly needs saying that Russia routinely infiltrates spies all across Europe and recruits locals to steal military, political, and economic secrets. But Moscow has also been able to insert intelligence operatives to conduct destabilisation operations, targeting critical infrastructure. Some estimates suggest that such sabotage operations almost quadrupled in number between 2023-24. Multiple arrests have taken place, including in Germany, Poland, and the UK. But the alliance must take a more pro-active approach, neutralising and disrupting Russia's espionage operations before they are able to do damage. 5. Establish advantage in total combat potential Having moved onto a war footing several years prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia now produces more ammunition in three months than Europe does in one year. Scaling up production of air defence systems, tanks, drones, and ammunition is imperative for Nato to catch up to Russia and restock its depleted arsenals. Weapons don't shoot themselves, however. The alliance must recruit, train, and equip a fighting force sufficient to change Putin's decision calculus. Moscow has been mobilising overtly and covertly throughout its three and a half year war in Ukraine. And on Tuesday, a bill was submitted to the State Duma introducing year-round conscription for military service. If approved and signed by Putin, the law will come into effect on Jan 1, 2026. In Europe, only a few countries have mandatory military service, and so far most of the others are not considering it. But in a war of attrition, such as the one Russia is fighting in Ukraine, the side that has more manpower is better positioned to win. The good news is that the alliance has time to get its act together to prevent another invasion. It would be tragic if the alliance fails to step up to the plate now, especially given the colossal price Ukraine is paying to defend itself against the Russians. Nato owes it to all those dead Ukrainians and their families to develop a viable counter-strategy to Putin's playbook. Rebekah Koffler is a strategic military intelligence analyst, formerly with the US Defense Intelligence Agency. She is the author of 'Putin's Playbook', Regnery 2021. Her next book 'Trump's Playbook' will be published later this year. Rebekah's podcast Trump's Playbook is running on her channel Censored But Not Silenced and is available on most social media platforms @Rebekah0132.
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
Zelenskiy introduces bill to 'uphold independence' of Ukraine's anti-graft bodies
KYIV, Ukraine, July 24 (Reuters) - President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Thursday submitted draft legislation to restore the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies, reversing course after an outburst of public criticism. Measures enacted earlier this week that established greater control by the prosecutor general, a political appointee, over the anti-corruption bureau NABU and the specialised prosecution unit SAPO had fuelled rare wartime protests and had thrown Kyiv's EU accession bid into question. The agencies said they had been involved in drafting the bill and urged parliament to hold a vote as soon as possible. "The bill, submitted by the president of Ukraine as urgent, restores all procedural powers and guarantees of independence to the NABU and SAPO," they said in a statement. Zelenskiy, whose image as a tireless leader of the three-year-old war against Russia's invasion has been tarnished by the controversy, said the text of the new bill is "well-balanced". He also said that the bill guarantees "reliable protection of the law enforcement system against any Russian influence", in an apparent move to justify the law hurriedly passed on Tuesday. On Monday, security forces arrested two anti-corruption officials on suspicion of ties to Russia and launched sweeping searches of other employees. Critics had decried the move to give a Zelenskiy-appointed prosecutor control over the agencies, saying it looked like political pressure on the agencies. After the law was adopted, Zelenskiy faced a severe backlash, with thousands of people joining protests across the country, even though public gatherings are restricted by martial law. "It is important that we respect the position of all Ukrainians and are grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine," Zelenskiy said. Ukraine's international allies also rushed with vocal criticism. The International Monetary Fund said the law, curbing the agencies' authority, would be "very problematic" for the war-torn country's macroeconomic stability and growth. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz both had calls with Zelenskiy on Thursday, offering their countries' expertise on the new bill. "I invited Germany to join the expert review of the bill. Friedrich assured me of readiness to assist," Zelenskiy said on X. Ruslan Stefanchuk, the chairman of parliament, said it would be considered at the next plenary session, although MPs were meant to start their summer holiday this week. Opposition lawmakers separately registered their own legislation to revoke the restrictive measures, which had been fast-tracked with help from Zelenskiy's ruling party. "They heroically solved the problems that they created just as heroically. Grand imitators," Yaroslav Zhelezniak, from the opposition Holos party, said on Telegram.
