In this special edition, Staatsräson Monitor publishes, for the first time, a new policy paper by Diaspora Alliance, an international organization that fights antisemitism and its political misuse:

Confronting Antisemitism: Education and Transformation over Denunciation and Punishment (here in English, and hier in German).

Before we begin discussing the paper and conducting an interview with Prof. Stefanie Schüler-Springorum, here’s a kind request from professional readers:

If you use SRM in your work, please consider supporting it by becoming a paid subscriber. Over the past fourteen months, we have provided policymakers, journalists, and civil society actors with targeted analysis and counter-narratives of Israel-aligned advocacy in Germany, designed for direct use in briefings and reporting. SRM is an independent project with a small but growing base of paying subscribers, many of them professionals like you.

Subscribe now

Developed over several months with input from scholars, educators, lawyers and members of Berlin’s Jewish community, the DA paper proposes a substantially different framework for Berlin’s anti-antisemitism policy, shifting the emphasis from denunciation and criminalization toward education, prevention, transparency and concrete protection from harm.

The paper arrives at a particularly consequential moment. Berlin will elect a new House of Representatives on 20 September, with the race unusually open and Die Linke emerging as a serious contender to lead the next government. In the most recent BerlinTrend conducted by Infratest dimap for rbb, the Linke led with 22 percent, followed by the CDU at 20, the Greens at 17, the AfD at 16 and the SPD at 12. On these numbers, both a Linke-Greens-SPD coalition and a CDU-Greens-SPD coalition would be viable, and I would argue that the Greens would be potential kingmakers in forming the next government.

The paper is explicitly intended as a policy blueprint for the government that emerges from that election. For SRM, it also continues a discussion I raised in a recent taz op-ed. The Diaspora Alliance paper takes that critique further, asking what an alternative policy could actually look like. I discussed these questions with Prof. Stefanie Schüler-Springorum, one of Germany’s leading scholars of antisemitism and German-Jewish history. But before we get to the interview, I want to highlight only a few of the many recommendations the paper proposes:

• Establish permanent channels of communication with representatives of a range of communities and organizations. City personnel will be trained in mediation to assist in cases of non-violent political conflict.

• Invest in connecting Jewish and non-Jewish schools and in bridge-building between Jewish and migrant communities, through joint activities and projects.

• Make the monitoring of antisemitic incidents transparent and publicly accessible, distinguishing between cases of controversial speech, hate speech, discrimination, acts of vandalism, and physical assault, as well as between online and real-life locations.

• Not allow immigration authorities to condition naturalization on support for Israel.

• Anchor school curricula in the recognition of Berlin as a post-migration society, relying on Germany’s Basic Law as a solid foundation on which to resolve conflicts.

Schüler-Springorum has directed TU Berlin’s Center for Research on Antisemitism since 2011. Previously, she led Hamburg’s Institute for the History of German Jews, and was one of the experts informing the paper’s development.

1. Prof. Schüler-Springorum, I have argued previously in Staatsräson Monitor and in taz that German anti-antisemitism has increasingly become intertwined with Staatsräson, political interests, clientism, corruption, institutional patronage and a broader culture war, damaging the legitimacy and effectiveness of the fight against antisemitism itself. Diaspora Alliance‘s paper goes further, arguing that some current approaches may themselves reinforce antisemitic beliefs. How much of that diagnosis do you share, where would you qualify it, and how did German anti-antisemitism policy arrive at its present form?

   Entire books are currently being written about how we got to where we are today. But to put it briefly and to the point: the special relationship with the Jewish community in Germany and with Israel has gone through very different phases over the last 80 years and has always been shaped by political considerations. However, this does not mean that, over the years, this special relationship has not also been – and still is – a serious moral concern for many Germans, given Germany’s past. Perhaps the most drastic change of the last 10 years has been the narrowing of this special relationship down to what we now call the ‘fight against antisemitism’ – rather than, for example, an interest in Jewish culture and history. And this fight – whatever one may understand by it in specific terms – has been receiving massive financial support for a few years now – not just since 7 October. But since then, the usual quality criteria for state funding seem to have been completely thrown out of the window, as was evident from the Berlin funding scandal.

2. The paper makes one of its strongest and potentially most controversial claims: that frequent accusations of antisemitism, exceptional political treatment of Israel and policies justified in the name of protecting Jews can themselves reinforce perceptions of Jewish exceptionalism or exaggerated Jewish power. What would the mechanism be, and how strong is the empirical evidence that this is actually happening rather than merely a plausible risk?

   Diaspora Alliance’s report is, of course, deliberately worded very cautiously: the way in which the issue of anti-Semitism is discussed in public could reinforce existing anti-Semitic notions. And this caution is justified, because we simply have no studies proving that, for example, anyone became an anti-Semite as a result of the funding scandal. But that is not how anti-Semitism works either. For decades, researchers have agreed that anti-Semitism does not depend on the behavior of Jews, but rather represents a cultural pattern of interpreting the world that is deeply embedded in European culture. However, taking this seriously also means that the classic notions of Jewish power, money and influence exist as part of cultural knowledge and can, so to speak, be triggered by such incidents or by media coverage of Israel/Palestine – the problematic nature of which was recently demonstrated in detail by Fabian Goldmann in Jacobin. As I said, there are no studies on the effects of current anti-Semitism policies on anti-Semitism itself, but one can assume that it plays into the hands of staunch anti-Semites and, at the very least, unsettles others who may not even be concerned with these issues. Above all, however, the accusation of anti-Semitism has become a cheap tactic, and this means that in many cases it is no longer taken seriously. In my view, this is the most dangerous development.

3. Why is antisemitism attractive across such different social and political milieus, and how can policy address it as a society-wide problem without stigmatizing particular communities?

   Anti-Semitism, as I said, is an inherent part of European-Christian culture and is precisely so attractive – even without Christianity and not only in Europe – because it provides simple explanations for complex issues. Islam, as a religion, has generally had a more relaxed relationship with the two other monotheistic religions, and indeed, anti-Semitic ways of thinking were exported from Europe to the Islamic world through colonialism and nationalism. As we know, people with very different cultural backgrounds now live in our country, and it is time to once again recognize anti-Semitism as an issue for society as a whole, because the tendency to seek simple explanations for alarming global developments – climate change, artificial intelligence, growing social inequality – is unlikely to diminish in the coming years.

4. The paper offers examples in which antisemitic language is better addressed through education and dialogue. But where are the limits of that model?

   I am a huge advocate of the non-carceral measures against anti-Semitism proposed in this paper. This applies all the more in the field of education. When sanctions and intervention are necessary depends, particularly in this context, on age. But the most important thing here, too, is presumably equal treatment – in other words, ensuring that an anti-Semitic insult is not punished more severely than a racist, ableist or homophobic one.

5. The paper criticizes political patronage and calls for anti-antisemitism funding to become transparent, results-oriented and grounded in expertise. How can a new government reform this system without simply replacing one politically aligned network of organizations with another?

   Surely that shouldn’t even be a question in a country with a sophisticated system for funding science, culture and projects in the education sector! It’s about the proven qualifications of applicants, independent assessors or a balanced jury, plus – and this is very important – an evaluation of the whole process: in other words, whether the funds were used appropriately and whether the intended purpose of the application was fulfilled in terms of content. This is, of course, particularly difficult in the field we are discussing, because, particularly in the education sector, ‘results’ cannot be measured immediately. But a reflection on what has been achieved – or perhaps also on the problems encountered in the process – should certainly be part of the process.

6. Given how contested Israel-related antisemitism is, is politically neutral monitoring actually possible? If not, what safeguards can make classifications credible?

   No, I really do not believe that, at present – at least when it comes to Israel-related antisemitism – there can be any neutral monitoring; the atmosphere is far too heated and the preconceptions far too diverse for that. In the long run, however, this undermines the credibility of all these initiatives. As safeguards, therefore, we must insist on precisely what the DA paper also calls for: transparency and differentiation. As someone who was involved in drafting the JDA, it will come as no surprise that I consider it sensible for this and other alternatives to the IHRA to be taken into account when classifying incidents

7. If Germany’s historical responsibility should be understood in universal rather than primarily Israel-focused terms, what does that mean concretely for Jews in Germany and for German policy toward Israel?

   As a historian, I would say, first and foremost, that Germany has a particular responsibility to ensure that knowledge about the Nazi era in general – and the German mass murder of European Jews in particular – is passed on through education, remembrance projects and days of commemoration. As a citizen, I am an advocate of the universal approach enshrined in the Basic Law: naturally, Jewish men and women in Germany must be able to live in safety, but this naturally applies to all other minorities as well. And as far as Israel is concerned, I would like to see greater German support for all those forces in Israel that are campaigning for human and civil rights.

8. Does greater intra-Jewish diversity in Germany require stronger organization and funding for progressive voices? If so, what role should public or philanthropic funding play?

   Yes, of course, greater visibility of intra-Jewish diversity in Germany would be desirable, and naturally this can certainly be achieved more effectively with public or private funding

9. Final question - If the next Berlin government implemented only three recommendations from this paper, which would you consider the most important, and why?

   This is really very difficult, but I would probably opt for the following points:

   • A transparent, traceable and standardized monitoring system for antisemitism and other forms of group-focused hostility

   • Participatory and decentralized remembrance projects based in local and affected communities.

   • A shift away from repressive policies (including naturalization practices and plans for expatriation) towards de-escalation, conflict management and the strengthening of solidarity.

For more information about the policy document, please reach out to Diaspora Alliance at info@diasporaalliance.co

Subscribe now

Disclosure: I am a co-founding member of Israelis für Frieden, as are some members of Diaspora Alliance. Nonetheless, I wrote this article independently, and Diaspora Alliance had no editorial role in it.

Disclaimer: This newsletter is based on publicly available sources and, where indicated, on verified documents. Interpretations, evaluations, and conclusions reflect the editorial judgment of Staatsräson Monitor and are presented in good faith. Factual statements are attributed to sources wherever possible, while analytical and evaluative sections are explicitly identified as SRM’s assessment. Substantiated corrections or clarifications are welcome and will be published where appropriate.

Artificial intelligence tools may have assisted with grammar, translation, and legally cautious phrasing. All research, arguments, analysis, and conclusions are the author’s original work.

This edition of Staatsräson Monitor is different. Instead of the usual overview of recent lobbying, parliamentary activity, media narratives, and German-Israeli relations, I want to explain what sustained monitoring can produce.

A little less than a month ago, on July 6th, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation published my study, The Campaign against UNRWA and t…

Read more

Instead of combating Jew-hatred, conservative and liberal actors have instrumentalized anti-anti-Semitism for other purposes – with serious consequences.

This article first appeared in German in taz on June 30, 2026.

Subscribe now

Germany has a historical responsibility to combat antisemitism . Since October 7th, antisemitic attacks have risen…

Read more

photo credit: CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2024– Source: EP

This edition follows a widening contradiction: Israel is increasingly treated as a destabilizing actor across Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, yet diplomatic strain has not translated into real strategic distance. While criticism grows, European and U.S. defense ties, security frameworks, …

Read more

Read more

(Screenshot: The YouTube channel FactCheck_Daily, reportedly covertly launched by the IDF’s spokesperson unit)

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the headline above to view the complete edition

Amid a fragile and incomplete ceasefire with Iran and Lebanon, Israel is facing mounting international pressure, from ICC arrest warr…

Read more

(photo: Binnenhof, The Hague, Netherlands, Creative Commons)

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the headline above to view the complete edition

Amid a fragile ceasefire framework involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, later extended through a more demanding arrangement with Lebanon, Israel is facing growing diplomatic…

Read more

Photo: An explosion erupts following strikes near Azadi Tower close to Mehrabad international airport in Tehran, March 7, 2026

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the headline above to view the complete edition

As the war with Iran expands, German leaders are aligning themselves with Israel’s stated goals only in rhetorical te…

Read more

(photo credit: International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, © Torbjørn (Toby) Jørgensen, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.)

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the headline to view the complete edition

This edition examines how Germany’s debate on Israel and Palestine is increasingly filtered through a securitized and …

Read more

photo credit: Adobe Firefly (AI)

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the headline to view the complete edition

***Click here for This Edition’s Related Bundestag Policy Recommendations***

This edition at a glance

• Investigative reporting on ELNET and NAFFO has placed Israel-focused advocacy networks in Germany under unusually sha…

Read more

(photo: The Berlin building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Creative Commons)

Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has launched what Spiegel describes as the most far reaching restructuring of the Federal Foreign Office in decades. Germany’s ability to act as a stabilizing force in the Middle East is about to shift in ways that are not entirely comfortin…

Read more

(photo credit: Gift of the Givers)

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the headline to view the complete edition

In this edition of Staatsräson Monitor we describe how Germany boosts defense cooperation and lifts export limits while Gaza floods, settler violence rises, and rights vanish from the agenda.

• SRM Exclusive: Germany–I…

Read more

(screenshot from the Jung & Naiv coverage of Jenseits der Staatsraison)

Are you viewing this in your email? This is a preview - click on the photo to view the complete edition

***For policy actionable items related to this edition, click HERE***

As the first phase of the 20-point plan unfolds, advocacy in Germany against measures applying leverage on Israe…

Read more

UN Watch is a Geneva-based NGO founded in 1993 by former U.S. Ambassador Morris Abram. It states that its mission is to monitor UN compliance with the UN Charter and address what it perceives as anti-Israel bias. Historically, UN Watch had affiliations with Jewish organizations—the World Jewish Congress (EJC) until 2000 and the Ame…

Read more

(photo: an aerial view of Doha’s skyline during Israel’s attack)

Receiving SRM in your inbox? This is just a preview. Click the photo above to read the FULL edition.

***Press HERE for Bundestag related actionable items***

This edition features a comprehensive set of EXCLUSIVE reports on Israel-aligned advocacy groups and their post-Sommerloch activities.

• B…

Read more

***Click here for This Edition’s Related Bundestag Policy Reccomendations***

Following Chancellor Merz’s suspension of offensive arms exports to Israel, German-Israeli relations are seeing i…

Read more

(one of ELNET’s Arabic “Fragenmauer” campaign posters; U-Bahn Kurfürstendamm)

In this second edition of SRM, we discuss:

• NAFFO’s Bundestag event promotes controversial GHF proposals and calls to defund UNRWA, relying heavily on politicized sources closely aligned with Israel

• Amdaeu Antonio Stiftung attacks the UN, while citing similar biased sources

• Growing…

Read more

In this inaugural edition of SRM, we examine Germany’s evolving position on arms exports to Israel. While officials criticized the policy, it has remained in place despite 77% of the Geraman public supporting a suspension.

We also cover how, while the focus has shifted to the strike on Iran, civilians in Gaza continue to be killed with impunity, Israel-…

Read more

Subscribe now

Read more