German Left Party turns to courts as political tensions intensify over antisemitism claims

In the highly charged atmosphere of German politics, legal disputes are increasingly replacing parliamentary debate as a primary method of political combat. Following the Berlin state election on September 20, the socialist Left Party has initiated legal action against senior figures from rival parties, alleging that their comments constituted defamation and damaged efforts to form a new coalition government.

The initial lawsuit stems from a brief exchange on a political talk show hosted by Maybrit Illner. After Illner corrected herself while stating that Left Party mayoral candidate Elif Eralp is not an antisemite, Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt of the Christian Social Union (CSU) remarked, “Na doch”—translating to “well, yes she is.” The Left Party’s legal team argued that this statement falsely implied Eralp identified as antisemitic and sought to undermine her integrity as a public official.

This legal maneuver is part of a broader wave of litigation involving the Left Party, which has faced intensified scrutiny from the center-right regarding alleged antisemitism within its ranks. This tension escalated during a campaign event in Berlin where a rapper chanted “Death to the IDF,” referring to the Israeli military. Additionally, Economy Minister Katherina Reiche drew criticism for describing the Left Party as “openly embracing antisemitism” in a speech that was subsequently shared on the Economy Ministry’s official Instagram account.

Legal experts note that the use of German Criminal Code sections 185, 186, and 187—covering insult, defamation, and intentional defamation—has become a frequent tactic in recent years. These statutes carry penalties ranging from fines to one year in imprisonment. However, media lawyer Christian Solmecke of WBS Legal indicated that such cases rarely succeed in court. He explained that prosecutors typically dismiss them due to insufficient grounds for suspicion, citing Constitutional Court precedent that political discourse requires a wider margin of permissible criticism than private interactions.

Felix Zimmermann, editor-in-chief of the Legal Tribune Online, emphasized that terms like “antisemitic” often constitute opinions rather than verifiable facts, particularly given the current diversity of definitions surrounding the term. Despite the low likelihood of legal victory, Solmecke described the practice as an effective public relations strategy, noting that the mere act of filing a complaint generates headlines independent of the judicial outcome.

Similar legal conflicts have marked other recent political episodes. In September 2025, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) filed defamation charges against Chancellor Friedrich Merz after he characterized the party’s remigration policies as “ethnic cleansing.” Earlier, the Berlin Green Party pursued hate speech charges against Merz regarding his comments on immigration, and the Alliance for Social Justice and Economic Reason (BSW) sued Green Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck in 2024 for accusing their party of employing internet “troll armies.” Habeck’s case was eventually dropped after he agreed to donate €12,000 to charity without admitting fault.

Zimmermann suggested that the Left Party’s lawsuits serve a strategic purpose, aiming to demonstrate that they will not accept antisemitism labels without a fight, thereby reinforcing Eralp’s commitment to Berlin’s Jewish community. He also highlighted a potential constitutional issue regarding Minister Reiche, whose use of the ministry’s official social media channels may violate the state’s duty of political neutrality. However, even if the Federal Constitutional Court were to rule in favor of the Left Party, the decision would likely arrive long after the completion of Berlin’s coalition negotiations, limiting its immediate political impact.