​The dust has settled, and final votes are in.
 
First off, the good news: Election participation was over 50 percent, the highest in over 20 years, and the much-feared landslide victory of far-right and Eurosceptic parties has been, at least in part, avoided. Only Great Britain, France and Italy saw them take the lead. Young people, especially, overwhelmingly voted for pro-European parties.
 
Overall, there was no clear winner, no comprehensive E.U. picture for the total of 751 seats in the European Parliament: Germany, Austria and Greece saw Christian democratic parties in the lead. Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Sweden saw the resurgence of social democratic parties. National-conservatives won elections in Belgium and Poland, and liberal parties won Estonia, the Czech Republic and Denmark. The Greens were able to gain significantly overall and increase their seats in the European Parliament to 69, as did the liberal parties.
 
At the same time, the Christian-democratic and socialist center lost a combined 80 seats.  The consequent loss of the overall combined majority of their respective political groups, the European People’s party (EPP) and the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), in the European Parliament is historic and will make the obligatory approval by vote in the European Parliament of either one of their commission presidential candidates, Weber or Timmermans, that much more difficult. This makes the stronger Greens and Liberals the kingmakers in the upcoming path to staff not only the office of commission president, but also other top E.U. institutional posts, such as foreign affairs high commissioner, parliament president and individual commissioner posts.
 
The new big coalition of far-right national parties, such as France’s Rassemblement National or Germany’s AfD, which had already been proclaimed during the election campaign, could make them the third-strongest group inside the European parliament, with up to 112 seats.  If the existing conservative and Eurosceptic party ECR were to join, the new power group could reach up to 171 seats, thereby overtaking the EPP and S&D, which would be a serious game-changer. Fortunately, this is highly unlikely to happen.
 
When it comes to Jewish topics, both Timmermans and Weber would be good candidates and proven partners for the commission’s top job. Weber has been strongly dedicated to the fight against anti-Semitism as EPP group leader, even launching his current election campaign in Auschwitz to emphasize his commitment and historical responsibility to Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism.  Timmermans himself was responsible, as first vice president of the European Commission, for creating the crucial position of the E.U.’s Anti-Semitism Coordinator Katharina von Schnurbein, who was appointed by and reports directly to him.
 
But both might not make it, despite representing the two biggest political groups in the parliament, due to the lack of a combined majority. The current European commissioner for competition, the Danish Margrethe Vestager, who was also the lead candidate for the Liberals, has already started to strongly lobby and negotiate herself.
 
The impact on foreign policy, especially in regards to Israel and the Middle East peace process, but also Iran and the nuclear deal, is tough to predict at this point as well. There was overall strong support for Israel from right-wing conservative parties during the last mandate, and an often very critical, sometimes highly problematic position from Liberals and left-wing parties, including Greens.
​
The growth on both sides of the political spectrum could mean a further polarization on this subject matter. The Green Party, for example, has been pushing some troubling pro-BDS rhetoric and events during the last years. The only voices of reason within the group were often the group’s German members, who prevented these topics from tilting even further into one-sided bashing. The doubling in size of German members in the Green group gives way to hope that increased German representation will further affect the group’s Middle East agenda in a positive way down the road.
 
But ultimately, this is just the beginning of months-long backroom castings and negotiations between heads of states for the top E.U. jobs. Their predecessors will be officially replaced only at the end of October at the earliest.
Until then, we will see significant change in the political group landscape, with the Liberal Group ALDE being joined by Macron’s En Marche, and the far-right groups forming their new coalition. The question is whether the Hungarian Fidesz party will stay in the EPP group, or if the U.K.’s Eurosceptic UKIP party will be joining the new right-wing coalition. Both parties were the election winners in their respective countries, and their decisions about which groups to join could further significantly alter the outcome and fragile power balance.
 
All of this will further impact the distribution of not only the top commission jobs, but also the parliament president and relevant committee chairs, who can heavily steer the agenda-setting and legislation themselves.

​The upcoming European Parliament elections will be crucial.
 
Amidst the chaos and confusion of Brexit, the established political parties, such as the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D), are predicted to lose a significant amount of seats and, with them, their combined majority in Parliament.
 
Years after the so--called migration crisis, the established parties have still not found an answer to rising far-right, populist and anti-European movements that have significantly grown among almost all EU member states, taking the lead in polls in at least three: Italy, Poland and France.
 
This trend will have significant impact on the new European Parliament, which is being elected from May 23rd to May 26th across Europe and will have its constituent session in July of this year.
 
In addition to S&D and EPP losing their combined majority, far-right and nationalistic groups are predicted to double their seats yet again. It was just announced that some of these groups are planning to form a new coalition with parties ranging from the German Alternative for Germany to the Danish People’s Party to the Italian 5 Star Movement that will significantly increase their influence in the EU Parliament.
 
 
To make matters worse, the biggest group, EPP, is shrinking further, having just suspended Victor Orban’s Hungarian Fidesz party due to its anti-European and anti-Semitic campaigns, which might also put into jeopardy the nomination of Spitzenkandidat Manfred Weber as new commission president.
 
With the election campaigns just starting, politicians from centrist parties are calling for a doomsday vote, hysterically reiterating the importance of this vote as the year of destiny that will make or break the European Union. But one cannot ignore the strange feeling of having seen and heard all of this before:
 
The slogans and warnings were the same in 2014 during the last elections, when the campaign promises from the various parties were almost identical to the current ones.
 
The only thing that seems to have changed, besides the increased urgency of the surge in right-wing populist movements, is the fact that the political groups in the EU Parliament spent yet another five years unable or unwilling to address the urgent issues and present a proper alternative to rising populism, nationalism and, with it, also the terrifying rise of anti-Semitism across Europe.
 
It might look as if the EU has done quite a lot in the time between the 2014 elections and today, including creating the position of a special coordinator on combatting anti-Semitism, implementing a code of conduct with IT companies to tackle hate speech and anti-Semitism online, adopting an EU Parliament Anti-Semitism Resolution in 2017 and Council Declaration in 2018 and making combatting anti-Semitism a priority in the last two EU Council presidencies of Austria and Romania.
 
But despite all of these efforts, the phenomenon of anti-Semitism has nevertheless escalated across Europe. The 2018 EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency Report on Anti-Semitism is the undeniable proof for this devastating failure.
 
The fear is that this further shift to the right after the elections will also significantly threaten the already too-little and too-ineffective efforts against anti-Semitism on the EU level and in its member states.
The political power shift will have direct implications for the European Parliament committee chairs and the Parliament president and vice-presidents as well as the nomination and confirmation of EU commissioners.
Imagine what will happen if the relevant European Parliament committee for fundamental rights and combatting anti-Semitism, the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home affairs committee (LIBE), is chaired by a far-right nationalist member of parliament. Imagine having a xenophobic, populist justice commissioner a few months from now.
 
This is not doom-mongering, but is unfortunately a possible scenario that already exists in EU member states such as Austria, where all ministries relevant to Jewish issues are in the hands of the populist far-right FPÖ, a party with which the Israelite Community of Vienna rightfully refuses to engage.
 
And to complicate matters even further, the European heads of state have just decided in a special council meeting in Brussels that the U.K. will get yet another extension until Oct. 31, 2019, to sort out the messy Brexit negotiation gridlock, including full membership rights and obligations that will make them participate in the EU elections as well as negotiations for the upcoming EU budget and composition of the new EU commission should they be unable to leave beforehand by agreeing to the existing deal.
 
There is still so much to do to even slow down the ugly resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The last thing anyone needs is yet another deterioration of the political status quo in the EU that will make the fight against anti-Semitism even more difficult and might lock down the EU institutions altogether, thereby making them unable to protect what they were established to do: protecting and promoting the European values of fundamental rights for each and every one of its citizens. 

​“We have a glorious history and one, my dear friends that lasted a lot longer than those damn 12 years…yes, we plead guilty to our responsibility for the 12 years. But, dear friends, Hitler and the Nazis are just a speck of bird poop in over one thousand years of successful German history,” Alexander Gauland, leader of the German right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD), said during his party’s youth congress a few weeks ago.
 
Is this just a misunderstanding and quote taken out of context, as claimed by Gauland himself, or another consciously and carefully coded provocation?
 
The outcry among German media, politicians and Jewish communities was large, also because Gauland is a repeat offender, in line with many of his party colleagues, and has engaged in such belittling of the Holocaust and German Nazi past multiple times before. Among other things, he has claimed that, “We have the right to be proud of the achievements of German soldiers in the two world wars” and “the right, to not only taking back our homeland, but also our past…which does not relate to our identity nowadays anymore.”
 
Gauland and his party colleagues are engaging in the latter. It is a form of brinksmanship — a conscious strategy to corrode and alter our perception and position toward the Nazi genocide, and the 60 million people that died during the World War II era through calculated provocations. The aim is to gradually shift society’s off-limit taboo of belittling or even denying our historic responsibility in order to ultimately rewrite history, thereby reshaping German identity and national pride.
 
The aggressive and provocative rhetoric might be a rather new phenomenon, but the receptiveness among German voters — which amounts to a staggering 16 percent for the AfD according to recent polls — is pointing to a deeply rooted issue within German society: A long existing resentment and frustration towards the unbearable shame over the German crimes against humanity and the preposterous urge to finally be liberated from this overwhelming burden of history.
 
That is what Gauland is propagating with his provocative remarks. The urge to brush off the darkest time of history like bird poop.
 
A lack of German identity and a confused sense of nationality and belonging have been exacerbated by fear of the unknown and foreign that the turmoil resulting from the refugee crisis starting 2015 has created, and that, according to AfD’s far-right voices, will undermine the country’s democratic values, prosperity and security.
 
The AfD rhetoric is a direct reaction to these developments, fueling dangerous stereotypes and contributing to the new aggressive political climate.
 
Whether we like it or not, the AfD is a democratically elected political party, acting within the limits and by the rules of our constitution, at least until proven otherwise; the platform and space for it is being provided by our society at large and, since the last election, also by the German Bundestag, hosting 92 AfD Members as its third largest group, representing almost 6 million voters.
 
We must not continue the mistake of discounting all of them as a bunch of protest voters and Nazi ideologists. This would only be adding further fuel to the fire and play into their distorted victim self-perception.
 
Fighting right-wing tendencies that were deemed obsolete will demand an exhaustive reiterated reprocessing of our past and the identity built on that history.
 
The refusal until now of the mainstream political parties and a majority of German society to adequately confront our national past through drawing sustainable and inclusive lessons from it, has ultimately led to the vacuum that was filled by the AfD and their climate of hate. Instead of facilitating meaningful reflection, German Holocaust commemoration has solidified into annual rituals that silence the conscience without eliciting substantive change.
 
Yes, speeches such as Gauland’s are unbearable, especially for the Jewish communities in Germany, but at the same time provide a chance to reestablish basic societal norms and redefine the fundamental values that our democracy and society at large are built on and that we have mistakenly taken for granted.
 
We must address the fears and issues of AfD voters and provide better and, most importantly, constructive alternatives to the right-wing propaganda, conspiracy myths and Holocaust trivializing that are fueling racist and anti-Semitic hate speech in our society.
 
Refusing to address the underlying issues and only reacting to these trends with affected indignation does not solve the problem. But at the same time we must draw a clear line. Everyone has the right to one’s own opinion, but nobody has the right to deny or distort facts. Whoever is doing this is discouraging any foundation for discussion and debate, and has rightfully disqualified himself from the debate.
 
Especially the Jewish communities must not make the mistake of falling for the deceptive propaganda, that the fight against immigration and Islam, as well as the Islamization of our society, is the best protection for Jewish life in Germany. We must publicly denounce the instrumentalization of Jewish communities for anti-Muslim racism, parts of the AfD have tried to do.
 
Holocaust Remembrance and combating any form of discrimination and xenophobia is a responsibility of both the state institutions and civil society.
 
Already 10 years ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her B’nai B’rith gold medal recipient speech, what holds even truer in today’s political climate:
 
“Whoever is not standing up against Anti-Semitism and extremism, is losing not only his own freedom but jeopardizes the freedom of others. If education is not being perceived as the promotion of an inner conduct, then education fails its aim. Education doesn’t mean only a collection of historic facts, but the existence of a conscience based on it.”
 
Such a conduct must be reestablished from generation to generation.
 
Every generation afresh has the responsibility to defend its values time and again, which are founded on and drawn from a meaningful commemoration of the past. Whenever we believe that these values can be taken for granted and have become common knowledge, we will grow weak; our democracy will become an empty shell that can be subverted by radical tendencies.
 
Education is the commemoration of our past, but equally as important, the development of our common future.
 
The quintessence of meaningful Holocaust commemoration lies in an old Jewish proverb, that was also quoted by then German President Richard von Weizsäcker in his groundbreaking speech 1985 on the 40th anniversary of the end of the War World II, and that defines German Holocaust commemoration and responsibility still today: “Seeking to forget makes exile all the longer; the secret of redemption lies in remembrance.”
 

​I am German, I am Jewish, my Grandmother is a Schindler survivor.
 
Her fate living through the Holocaust has led me to my academic and professional career and is the driving motivation behind my work combating anti-Semitism and advocating for Holocaust remembrance in Europe as director of EU Affairs for B’nai B’rith International.
 
Jewish life has re-established itself among German society, but so has anti-Semitism, leaving German Jews more vulnerable and disillusioned than at any point since the Holocaust.
 
We should be proud and thankful about, as German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier rightfully called it the “undeserved present of having Jewish communities and culture among its midst despite the unbearable past.” But we should also feel ashamed about the undeniable fact that our society is unable to provide emotional and physical safety for its own Jewish citizens, about the despicable necessity for 24/7 police protection of Jewish kindergartens, schools and synagogues in Germany.
 
This has to be assessed as a devastating failure in the context of Germany’s historic responsibility of preventing anti-Semitism from ever spreading again.
 
Wehret den Anfängen - resist the beginnings, because “Never Again” means to prevent repeating our mistakes of the past. Not comprehending and implementing the actual message has turned the very essence of what Holocaust commemoration comprises to an emotive overused term with the rise of anti-Semitism as a direct consequence.
 
A commemorative culture is obsolete without raising sensitivity toward the actual symptoms that led to it in the first place and that needs to be used to establish guidelines to shape our future:
 
First we have to lay to rest the belief that this could never happen again, and accept the shameful reality that hate, discrimination and anti-Semitism once again has snuck its way into mainstream society, even into politics.
 
Udo Voigt, member of the neo-Nazi party NPD won a seat in 2014 and is currently representing Germany in the European Parliament, and the recent national elections saw the far-right Alternative for Germany, AfD win 92 seats to become the third largest political group in the Bundestag.
 
Along with it goes what already is happening in other European countries, pushed by their right-wing populist governments and parties: A re-narration of history through increasing denial of the past and connection to the crimes committed during the Holocaust.
 
In Hungary statues of Nazi collaborators are erected, Poland is adopting laws that criminalize any mentioning of Polish complicity to the Nazi genocide and now the last taboo of German society has been broken by members of the AfD.
 
At the forefront is the prominent AfD member Björn Höcke, who infamously called the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, that pays tribute to the 6 million murdered Jews in Europe, a “memorial of shame.” Or party leader Alexander Gauland, who proclaimed that Germans should “be proud of what {their} soldiers achieved in two world wars.” German police recorded 1,453 anti-Semitic incidents in 2017, among them 32 violent disorders and 160 malicious damages.
 
An overwhelming 90 percent are still registered as far-right motivated, only 25 incidents are considered religiously motivated anti-Semitism mostly from Muslim extremists and one single incident is believed to be left-wing motivated.
 
It is crucial to note that the dark figures (estimated numbers of unknown cases) are likely much higher, due to lack of reporting and comprehensive surveys but especially, because the escalation of anti-Semitically motivated incidents is so often wrongly labeled or not even registered as such at all.
 
In every case lacking a caught perpetrator, anti-Semitic incidences are automatically registered as right wing motivated. The figures therefore fail to recognize far-left anti-Semitism in all its forms but also the often violent escalation of imported Islamic anti-Semitism that is acted out completely detached from the Holocaust, and without any reference to Germany’s historic guilt or its special connection to the Jewish state of Israel and its security as a raison d'état  
 
Mainstream society, the judicial system, politicians and police often lack the sheer understanding of and education about anti-Semitism and its mutations.
 
Blatantly obvious anti-Semitic incidents such as the arson attack on the Wuppertal Synagogue in 2014 are not even recognized as such and consequently don’t end up in these official statistics, therefore leaving the Jewish community traumatized and in shock twice. First through the attack itself and inability of German authorities to neither prevent nor protect, and then again through the incomprehensible inability of a judge to connect the painfully obvious dots.
 
Equating the policies of the Israeli government with German Jews, holding them responsible for a conflict thousands of miles away and consequently attacking a Jewish community in Germany by throwing a firebomb on a synagogue, equals anti-Semitism in its purest form. There must not be any discussion or room for interpretation.
 
Because of instances such as the Wuppertal Synagogue arson attack, organizations combating anti-Semitism don’t have the luxury of raising awareness once a year; we have to deal with the hostile reality and its impact on Jewish communities every day.
 
I believe it is crucial to understand and acknowledge that anti-Semitism is not an extremist ideology, but a worrisome mainstream phenomenon that can be found in the midst of German society among all demographics and ages, in class rooms, rap music, football stadiums, among academics, media and online social networks.
 
The younger generation shall not feel ashamed or personally responsible for what happened. But it has an undeniable responsibility that grows out of Germany’s historical burden and does not vanish over time. And that is the obligation to protect and cherish Jewish life and culture in German society and not only combat, but eradicate any anti-Semitic tendencies.
                                                                                    
I believe that the underlying issue with German Holocaust commemoration lies in its discrepancy between the mutual omnipresent condemnation of the Holocaust and lack of actually addressing the cause of hate and evil in any way.
 
This discrepancy then serves as the breeding ground for a dichotomy in German society – that ubiquitous historic responsibility and guilt is able to exist in parallel to rising anti-Semitism.
 
Holocaust commemoration needs to serve as the foundation on which to build strategies to combat the virus.
 
If this foundation is an empty shell, motivated by guilt and forced societal obligation rather then individual willingness to ask the crucial questions of how and why, and consequently draw the painful lessons by learning from the past, the commemoration day becomes meaningless; and so is any politician’s repetitive reminder of “Never Again,” their many references to the historic responsibility and the emphasis on this apparent Judeo-Christian heritage.
 
But besides the moral impediment that grows out of Germany’s historic responsibility, it should be in everyone’s self interest to address anti-Semitism.
 
Such discrimination does not stop with the Jews – it corrupts and corrodes the very core of our democratic society as a whole.  Eradicating anti-Semitism should be an imperative in the name of modern civilized society.
 
One should not speak out against anti-Semitism because of a moral obligation to be a philo-Semite or friend of Israel, but for the simple reason alone that a fellow citizen and human being is harassed or attacked.
 
Jewish rights are human rights, and hate against Jews is hate against humanity.
 
This might sound overly simplistic, emotive and obvious, but is nevertheless not being implemented in our approach to tackling the issue, or in developing strategies to combat it.
 
Instead ant-Semitism has become so powerful that it outgrew the Jews and can function even without a single Jew actually being present.
 
Commemoration of the Holocaust needs to serve as a guideline and toolkit that works not only in the context of historic guilt. Remembrance, based on guilt alone, can become overwhelming and might even backfire to the extent of paralyzing individuals, national identity and society as a whole.  
 
Nazi Germany did not invent anti-Semitism, but it did invent the Final Solution, that culminated in the industrial murdering of 6 million Jews.
 
It is essential to focus on underlying structures, the root causes of the Holocaust and analyze accountability for the horrors of the past, while directly addressing current anti-Semitic sentiments in all layers of society and politics. This needs to happen in close cooperation with Jewish communities themselves but also by building coalitions between special coordinators inside government institutions, civil society and other minority groups that are discriminated against.
 
“We do not want to preserve our dismay, but draw lessons, that can provide guidance also for future generations,” then German President Roman Herzog urged while establishing the official commemoration day in 1996.
 
Holocaust remembrance is a responsibility and obligation of German society as a whole.  But so is the engagement in combating anti-Semitism, as emphasized by the German government’s recent anti-Semitism resolution that was adopted with large majority. The resolution reads in part:
 
“The German Bundestag is grateful, that Jewish life and culture exists after the national-socialist dictatorship and despite the Holocaust. Its existence is an enrichment to our society and, in light of our history, a special declaration of trust toward our democracy and state of law, that we want to live up to and have to be committed to forever.”
 
We must not destroy this trust, and cannot leave German Jewry alone in combating the re-emergence of mainstream anti-Semitism. We should protect and cherish Jewish life in Germany with everything we have, not only due to the moral obligation based on Holocaust commemoration or guilt, but because it elevates our democratic society, our dignity, common values and human rights as a whole.

​​Benjamin Nägele was named director of E.U. affairs for B’nai B’rith International in 2015. In this capacity he focuses on promoting EU-Israel relations and advocates for Jewish causes at the European institutions in Brussels. He previously worked as an EU affairs officer for B’nai B’rith International and as a policy advisor at the European Parliament. Click here to read more of his work.

On July 29, 2014 three Palestinians, according to their own testimony, highly intoxicated, filled six bottles with petrol and threw them against the synagogue in Wuppertal. One of the perpetrators was arrested on sight while filming the arriving firefighters and commentating in Arabic.
 
The district court of Wuppertal sentenced the three young men to suspended sentences for up to two years, largely due to the fact that they did not have a previous criminal record, the marginal damage at the synagogue and the fact that they were apologetic and covered for the caused damage.
 
More surprising than the verdict and mild punishment itself was the opinion given by the court: The judge ruled and sentenced the accused only for arson, believing the defendants claim that they did not have anything against Jews and just wanted to raise awareness of the war in Gaza, therefore ruling out any anti-Semitic motivation due to lack of evidence.
 
Unlike many European Union member-states, Germany does not explicitly punish hate crimes as such.  But it does allow for hate motivation to be taken into account in assessing sentences.
 
Following the ruling, an outcry went through the media and Jewish communities, especially the small community of Wuppertal. Most of them of Russian origin, they had escaped persecution and discrimination in the former Soviet Union and came to Germany in the ‘80s and ‘90s in the hope of a better life, now left in shock and traumatized.
 
The state of Germany and its police and judiciary had, as in many other cases over the summer and during anti-Israel demonstrations, abandoned their obligation to prevent or at least prosecute obvious anti-Semitic attacks and slander.
 
Once again shouts such as “Jews to the Gas” or “Kill the Jews” could be heard in the streets of major cities, without the police that accompanied the protestors making any attempt of holding the shouters responsible or stopping and prosecuting them.
 
But what’s even more worrisome and troubling than the misguided and flawed court ruling of 2015 is the confirmation, in second instance, by the higher district court and Judge Thomas Bittner, who ruled on an appeal on points of law by the prosecution. The court only slightly increased the sentence, again on parole, but followed the reasoning of the previous court decision:
 
“The attack on the Wuppertal synagogue cannot be defined as anti-Semitic, there is simply no proof for an anti-Semitic motivation,” states the official court ruling.
 
“Can there be a clearer indication for anti-Semitism than trying to burn down a synagogue?” rightfully asks Leonid Goldberg, the Jewish Community leader in Wuppertal, in an interview with German magazine Spiegel.
 
This was not an Israeli embassy, but a house of God, used by Jewish German citizens, not Israelis, to practice their faith. If one were to make up a textbook definition of anti-Zionism becoming anti-Semitic, this would be it.
 
The judge also missed out on the opportunity to respond to the summation of the prosecutor Kiskel, in which he stated that the attack was obviously anti-Semitic.

The now legally binding and confirmed regional court decision is a final confirmation of a clear case of German jurisprudence’ surrender towards anti-Semitic hate crimes motivated by a distain for the state of Israel.
 
A devastating and shocking signal to German Jews, not only due to the fact that a German synagogue was in flames once again (the original Wuppertal had been burned down during the infamous Kristallnacht) but for the incomprehensible court decision that refused to make the shockingly obvious connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

But this case just makes the real underlying problem obvious once again:

The lack of a working definition on anti-Semitism that encompasses all forms of old and new anti-Semitism, including forms of anti-Zionism, that can be used as a guideline and tool.

Another failed attempt to adopt such a definition had just been made by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) during its annual conference in Hamburg in December of 2016 (decisions are made unanimously, and out of the 57 member states only one, Russia, opposed the adoption).
 
Germany itself as rotating chair of the OSCE had prioritized and lobbied for the adoption of an anti-Semitism definition. The same definition which the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) had adopted already earlier this year, and which includes, among others, two paragraphs that would have helped the judge in Wuppertal to not make such a terrible mistake:

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
• Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property—such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries—are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Without such a definition, we are left with individual interpretations by overwhelmed members of politics, police and the judicial system, but also by the general public and media, that do not have the knowledge or sensitivity to make a judgment in this area. Worst case, it could end up resulting in such a flawed judgment that denies the anti-Semitic motivation behind a firebomb attack on a Jewish synagogue.
 
To be fair, the appeal on points of law was in regards to the length of the sentence, and not regarding a re-evaluation of the motivation behind the attack. The court in Wuppertal also did not, as claimed by the Jerusalem Post and other media articles, claim that the attack was a justified criticism of Israel, the contrary was the case: Judge Bittner recognized the heavy traumatization of the Jewish community and made clear that this was no juvenile prank but a serious crime.
 
He nevertheless did not follow the prosecutors demand for a sentence without parole. What the new appeal ruling also failed to do, despite getting a second chance to correct the terrible mistake of its predecessor, was point out the obvious anti-Semitic character of the attack and thereby send an urgently-needed, strong message to the Jewish community that the German judicial system is able to recognize and prosecute anti-Semitic incidents against its Jewish population.
 
Not once did Judge Bittner mention the word anti-Semitic in his ruling.
 
This case is another instance that proves and drives B'nai B'rith's work and engagement in pushing for an official definition on anti-Semitism to better protect our Jewish communities and prevent such attacks from not being labeled for what it really is: another shameful anti-Semitic attack on a Jewish community in Europe.