Paper short abstract

This paper examines the German parliament’s 2024 anti-anti-Semitism resolution as a form of anti-policy. I use ethnographic research with Jewish activists and right-wing politicians to argue that the resolution reveals continuities between liberal anti-politics and illiberal authoritarianism.

Paper long abstract

On November 7th, 2024, the German parliament passed an anti-anti-Semitism resolution titled, “Never Again is Now: Protecting, Preserving, and Strengthening Jewish Life in Germany.” Despite criticism from legal experts–one of whom referred to the resolution as a “practical impossibility” and “likely unconstitutional”--Human Rights NGOs, and academics, (many of them Jewish), the resolution passed with an overwhelming majority. Although constrained by the constitution, the resolution calls to “consistently utilize repressive measures to their fullest extent”. Throughout the resolution, anti-anti-Semitism is articulated as a vague, moralistic abstraction, functioning as a form of liberal anti-politics. Yet rather than foreclosing politics, this abstraction expands a political horizon in which repressive, majoritarian, and right-wing projects can be legitimated through appeals to minority protection. For many Jewish political activists and their right-wing interlocutors, the strength of the Bundestag resolution lies in this ambiguity: concrete manifestations of the resolution exist outside of constitutionalism and liberal-democratic norms. Drawing on ethnographic research with Jewish activists and their allies, I will analyze Germany’s anti-Semitism resolution as an act of anti-policy: both as anti-political moralism and as an authoritarian practice that discombobulates liberal politics. I argue that such ostensibly benign anti-political moves not only reinforce the violences of the liberal status quo but also actively invite political projects that exceed the normative limits of the liberal state. This dynamic is particularly salient for religious minorities, whose political engagements often unsettle dominant distinctions between liberal moralism and illiberal repression.