BERLIN: The German parliament on Thursday overwhelmingly backed a resolution aimed at tackling a spike in anti-Semitism linked to the war in Gaza.
However, critics of the resolution — including voices from the Jewish community — say it could restrict artistic and academic freedom.
The text calls for a ban on public funding for any group “that spreads anti-Semitism, calls into question Israel’s right to exist or calls for a boycott of Israel.”
In cases of anti-Semitic acts in schools and universities, it calls for those responsible to be excluded from classes or even expelled.
The resolution was proposed and supported by MPs from the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the conservative CDU-CSU, the Greens and the liberal Free Democrats (FDP).
About 100 Jewish artists and intellectuals living in Germany said in a statement that the resolution would “weaken, rather than strengthen, the diversity of Jewish life in Germany by associating all Jews with the actions of the Israeli government.”
The general secretary of Amnesty International’s Germany chapter, Julia Duchrow, said that while Amnesty “explicitly welcomes the goal of adopting measures to fight anti-Semitism... the resolution adopted today not only fails to achieve this, it could lead to serious violations of basic human rights and legal uncertainty.”
“This resolution leaves space for abuse, criminalizes legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and serves the racist narrative of ‘imported anti-Semitism’,” she said.
In an open letter in October 2023, Amnesty and 103 other civil society organizations had warned against conflating anti-Semitism and criticism of the policies of the Israeli government.
“Branding legitimate criticism of Israel’s human right record as anti-Semitic also undermines the fight against genuine anti-Semitism,” they pointed out.
While also mentioning anti-Semitism from the far right and far left, the German parliament’s resolution says that “in recent months the alarming extent of anti-Semitism based on immigration from North Africa and the Middle East has become clear.”
This accusation against immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East — who could be Christian, Jewish or Muslim and might either support or oppose the policies of the Israeli government — was criticized by some in the Greens.
But it was backed by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), whose MPs also voted for the text.
AfD lawmaker Juergen Braun called “mass immigration... the central problem endangering Jewish life in Germany.”
The far-left Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) was the only party to vote against the resolution, with the other far-left Die Linke party abstaining.

WASHINGTON: A US military judge has reinstated plea agreements for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants, an official said Thursday, three months after the deals were scrapped by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
The agreements — which are understood to take the death penalty off the table — had triggered anger among some relatives of victims of the 2001 attacks, and Austin said that both they and the American public deserved to see the defendants stand trial.
“I can confirm that the military judge has ruled that the pretrial agreements for the three accused are valid and enforceable,” the US official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
The prosecution has the opportunity to appeal the decision, but it was not immediately clear if they would do so.
The plea deals with Mohammed and two alleged accomplices were announced in late July in a step that appeared to have moved their long-running cases toward resolution after years of being bogged down in pre-trial maneuverings while the defendants remained held at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba.
But Austin withdrew the agreements two days after they were announced, saying the decision should rest with him given its significance.
He subsequently told journalists that “the families of the victims, our service members and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out in this case.”
Much of the legal jousting surrounding the men’s cases has focused on whether they could be tried fairly after having undergone methodical torture at the hands of the CIA in the years after 9/11 — a thorny issue that the plea agreements would have avoided.