WerteInitiative – jüdisch-deutsche Positionen criticises the reasoning of the Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken with which an acquittal was upheld. The proceedings concerned Instagram stories in which the Israeli flag was shown with a swastika, thereby directly associating Israel with National Socialism. That a German court classifies such a depiction as criticism of the State of Israel that is in principle covered by freedom of expression sends a fatal signal.
This line of argument contradicts the political and social consensus in Germany as reflected in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. That definition expressly names comparisons between contemporary Israeli policy and the policy of the National Socialists as an example of Israel-related antisemitism – and precisely not as legitimate criticism. For equating the Jewish state with the Nazi regime demonises it by placing it morally on a par with the greatest crime against humanity in history and thereby delegitimises its existence.
Elio Adler, Chairman of WerteInitiative e.V.:
“It is disconcerting when a court chooses a line of argument that is barely compatible with the understanding of Israel-related antisemitism recognised by the Bundestag. Otherwise two contradictory standards arise in the way the state deals with antisemitism.”
Court shifts the red line
German courts in particular should be aware of the far-reaching implications of such equations. If the impression arises that they are legally and socially unobjectionable, the boundary of what is acceptable in public discourse shifts. Anyone who equates Israel with the Nazi regime declares the fight against the Jewish state to be a supposedly democratic duty. This logic fuels an antisemitic radicalisation that reaches new records in the crime statistics every year and increases the danger for Jews in Germany.
Of course a distinction must be made between criminal-law and social assessment: not every antisemitic statement fulfils the elements of a criminal offence. It must not follow from this, however, that such equations appear legitimate or harmless. We expect a legal-policy debate on how the German constitutional state deals with modern manifestations of antisemitism. Where the state seeks to combat antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition, its institutions must not at the same time relativise that definition’s central assessments.
Beck-aktuell reported on the case. You can find the article at this link: https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/olg-zweibruecken-1ors3srs7025-hakenkreuze-und-davidstern-freispruch-2026-07-29
