Residents are outraged: the extreme measure against those who criticize Israel

In a quiet but particularly dramatic administrative move that is stirring up the political system in Berlin, a local politician is promoting an unprecedented move that is making waves throughout Germany. At the center of the storm is Hans Rehfeld, a member of the Berlin-Neuklan district council on behalf of the CDU party, who is in charge of health and welfare. Rehfeld (40) decided to use a heavy hand and set a clear red line: cutting budgets and freezing municipal support for social organizations where there is rhetoric defined as anti-Semitic or as an unjustified challenge to the right to exist of the State of Israel.

The new directive came into effect immediately and it concerns 40 financing approvals with a total value of approximately 5.13 million euros. The move directly affects 24 social organizations operating in the district, which operate services such as drug rehab centers, mental assistance projects, homeless shelters and community support centers. According to the new rules, any body that seeks to receive a municipal budget is required to officially commit to the definition of anti-Semitism of the “International Alliance for the Preservation of the Memory of the Holocaust” (IHRA), a definition adopted by the federal government in Germany in 2017. This definition states that anti-Semitism may also be directed towards the State of Israel when it is perceived as a Jewish collective, and explicitly states that a comparison between the current Israeli policy and that of the Nazi regime is considered a manifestation of anti-Semitism in any way.

What puts the organizations under deep pressure is the draconian scope of applicability of the section according to them: the obligation of compliance is not limited only to the project’s operating hours, but applies to “the general conduct of the recipient of the support”. This means that a social organization may lose its funding, and even be required to return funds retroactively, if its employees express or act contrary to the definition of the IHRA, even in the context of private events, political demonstrations outside working hours or in external publications. The district administration even refused to clarify whether specific complaints about anti-Semitic behavior in those organizations had been registered in the past, and sources in the district stated that they are not familiar with such incidents, which only increases the feeling among visitors that this is a punitive measure.

On the other hand, Rehfeld resolutely defends the move and clarifies that public funds must be committed to the values ​​of the constitution and human dignity. For him, it is impossible for an organization to show restraint within the framework of a funded project, while in the next room anti-Semitic propaganda is being spread. In response to the past attempts by the former holder of the culture portfolio in Berlin, Joe Cialo, to apply similar rules in the art sector, an attempt that failed and was canceled within three weeks due to fear of harming freedom of expression, Rehfeld emphasized that there is a fundamental difference: “This is not about the freedom of art and science, but about very specific social support services that must be accessible to everyone without discrimination. They must be tested according to different standards.”

Rehfeld’s decision immediately drew angry and divided reactions, especially from the left and green factions in Berlin, who accuse him of imposing a “silence order” for political reasons. Ahmed Abed, chairman of the “De Linka” faction (the left party) in the district council and a candidate for mayor in the upcoming Berlin elections (on September 20), sharply attacked the move in an interview with the Taz newspaper and claimed that it was a forceful attempt to silence critics of Israeli war crimes. Abed claimed that the undeclared decision is a “clearly undemocratic” march that openly presents the alliance of parties in the district with the right-wing government in Israel.

Abed himself caused a major diplomatic storm last October when he called the mayor of Bat Yam (Neuklan’s twin city), Zvika Brut, a “genocidal lunatic” during the latter’s visit to Germany. The confrontation became even more acute following the recent visit of the mayor of Neuklan, Martin Hickel (SPD) to Israel on the occasion of the Bat Yam 100-year celebrations, where he was photographed next to Brut and the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, whose office is actively promoting the adoption of the IHRA definition in the world.

The representatives of the Green Party also strongly protested the directive, claiming that the application of the IHRA definition creates deep legal uncertainty and insecurity for the social organizations, thus seriously harming the real fight against anti-Semitism. The Greens accused the CDU of an “instrumental approach” to the fight against anti-Semitism, and are using the law for political propaganda. They noted that “while excellent projects like the Kreuzberg initiative against anti-Semitism suffer from budget cuts, millions of euros earmarked for the fight against anti-Semitism are distributed forcefully and without professional examination by experts.” In addition, the opposition representatives claim that the definition of the IHRA is controversial with other academic definitions, such as the “Jerusalem Declaration” (JDA), and that clauses of this type have been rejected in the past by various legal courts in Germany due to infringement of freedom of expression.

This economic and political drama does not take place in a vacuum, but in the heart of one of the most complex and charged strongholds in Europe. The district of Neuklen, located in the south of Berlin, is recognized as a vibrant multicultural mosaic of immigrants, artists and long-time residents, but in recent years has become the main national focus in Germany in discussions about the failure of integration, religious extremism and the establishment of parallel societies. In the “Neuklen Dialogue for Integration” that took place recently at the town hall, under the title “The Muslim Brotherhood in Berlin”, many participants discussed the dangers inherent in political Islam.

In the central axis of the district, the famous Sonnenallee street, the reality on the ground is visible to the eye. Next to bakeries and Middle Eastern restaurants, many facades are decorated with Palestinian caps, flags and symbols, while some of the shops even have signs in Arabic that make it clear that Jews are not welcome there. Social activist and liberal lawyer Seyran Ateş points out that the more Arabic writing there is on storefronts, the stronger the nationalist and religious affinity. Etch warns that extremism permeates the education system in a serious way: girls in schools suffer bullying on religious grounds, receive derogatory nicknames such as “prostitute” due to western clothing, and small children become “religion enforcers” who exert heavy pressure on their friends to fast in Ramadan, phenomena that have led families to transfer their children to other schools.

The official data backs up the feeling of extremism: according to the unclassified intelligence report, the number of people defined as part of the Islamist spectrum in Berlin jumped to 2,590 people, an increase of about 20 percent in just five years. For comparison, the entire far-right scene in Berlin numbers only about 1,480 activists. Terrorism experts like Guido Steinberg make it clear that in Berlin there are “optimal conditions” for it to become the center of Islamism in Germany.

According to the data of the Ministry for the Protection of the Constitution in Berlin, Neuklen is under particularly close intelligence surveillance. Institutions associated with extremist currents operate in the district: the “Al-Nur” mosque, which was marked as a hotbed for Salafist activity, the Shiite “Imam Reza” mosque, where a memorial rally was held for Ali Khamenei and which came under criticism due to its ties to the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, and the “Dar es Salaam” mosque, which was also under intelligence surveillance. At the same time, central squares in the district such as Hermannplatz (Hermannplatz) became a regular scene for stormy pro-Palestinian demonstrations, in which open expressions of support for the terrorist organization Hamas and celebrations following the October 7 massacre were recorded.

Rehfeld’s decision now places Berlin in front of a decisive legal and political test. While the welfare organizations in Neuklen are required to sign the new annex already in the next round of budget approvals, the Berlin opposition and civil rights organizations are already working on petitions to the administrative court in order to block the directive, as happened to similar initiatives in the past. As the local elections in Berlin approach on September 20, the issue of budgeting in Neuklen turns from a local administrative move into a national political test: will the experience of the Berlin district stand the test of the local court and become a model for other authorities in Germany, or will it be disqualified again.