The Duty of the State
As leftists living in Germany — both Jewish and non-Jewish — we must counter the repressive form of anti-antisemitism that has become a consensus within the German political class, shaped by unwavering loyalty to Israel under Staatsräson and the anti-Muslim bias of European nativism. The current hegemonic use of antisemitism in Germany is a grave problem, fueling an authoritarian right-wing drift.
Furthermore, we should clearly distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The conflation between them is a rhetorical weapon that Israel’s nationalist governments have long promoted in the West, particularly in Germany, with great success. They do so while simultaneously cooperating with the genuinely antisemitic forces of the rising global far right. Leftists must propose an alternative conception of anti-antisemitism — one that is not primarily punitive but educational.
That said, I believe Towards a Non-Carceral Anti-Antisemitism presents two fundamental flaws in its analysis. First, the authors cite examples of carceral anti-antisemitism ranging from police violence against protesters to the cancellation of speaking opportunities, border controls, and the deployment of police forces to secure cultural events. When these measures operate within the logic of the German anti-antisemitism discourse — which defines pro-Palestinian speech as inherently antisemitic — they are unquestionably wrong. However, as practices, they are not all the same. Incarceration and deportation are dangerous, extreme measures. While we should reject the silencing of pro-Palestine speakers under the pretext of fighting antisemitism, we should not treat this silencing as equivalent to visa revocations or the arrest of activists. By conflating all these measures into a single logic, we risk weakening our ability to express outrage in the most extreme cases. This fosters a politics of constant disavowal and moral condemnation that is ultimately ineffective.
Moreover, I would hope that canceling speaking engagements for true antisemites — such as Holocaust deniers — would be broadly supported by both the left and liberal circles. I also assume there is widespread agreement that state power and legal measures should be used to prevent actual physical attacks on Jews or any other minority community. While these means carry coercive tendencies, they are not inherently the problem.
This brings me to my second and more significant critique of the text: its anti-state framing. The authors write, “drawing on state measures to combat antisemitism entails taking on the repressive, divisive, and racializing logics intrinsic to carceral mechanisms.” This presents a monolithic view of the state as purely repressive. I believe this perspective stems from US-based abolitionist thinking, which regards the American state — far more carceral than Germany’s today — as an entirely repressive institution. But the state, especially the German state, is more than its police. It also encompasses its schools, universities, welfare programs, and, in Germany, cultural institutions.
While rejecting state power entirely, the authors propose a community-based approach to combating antisemitism, including practices such as “calling in.” However, neither “calling in” nor “calling out” in community settings can replace the state’s role in addressing and dismantling dangerous ideologies such as antisemitism. Furthermore, community-centered approaches assume a pre-existing willingness within different communities to combat antisemitism — one that does not require intervention from above. This willingness may exist, but it also may not. If absent, should the state simply step aside?
The state has both a responsibility and a duty to protect its citizens, particularly minority groups. By outsourcing the fight against antisemitism exclusively to civil society, we are merely allowing the state to evade its obligations. Delegating these responsibilities to the “community” often serves as a form of privatization or an acquiescence to privatization. We should not adopt this model from our American comrades.
This is by no means an attempt to downplay the racist, violent, and carceral aspects of state power. However, these characteristics cannot justify the left abandoning the state as a tool for protecting people and combating racist ideologies.
Within the German state — its educational system and official narratives — there are elements of anti-antisemitism, anti-racism, and anti-fascism. These represent the salvageable aspects of German memory culture, and they are part of the state itself. For this reason, we should redouble our political struggle over the control of the state.
