The Blogs: German Court: Antisemitism Is Not an Opinion, It’s a Crime!

In a landmark ruling that sends a clear message about Germany’s legal stance on antisemitism, a Berlin court has sentenced a 24-year-old former teaching student to three years in prison for brutally attacking a Jewish fellow student. The April 17, 2025 decision by the Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Berlin district court) is significant not just for its severity, exceeding prosecutors’ recommendations by eight months. It is also relevant with regard to the court’s unequivocal declaration that antisemitism is not a mere opinion, but a serious crime that undermines the very foundations of democratic society. (see here for Times of Israel coverage of the case)

As someone who has long advocated for stronger legal responses to antisemitism, I see this ruling as a watershed moment in Germany’s ongoing struggle to confront hatred against Jews. The case demonstrates that the German justice system is finally treating antisemitic violence with the seriousness it deserves, recognizing that such acts threaten not just individual victims but the entire social fabric.

The Attack and Its Aftermath

The case revolves around a vicious assault that took place on February 2, 2024, outside a bar in Berlin-Mitte. The victim, 30-year-old Lahav Shapira, was approached by fellow student Mustafa A., who first punched him in the face and then, after Shapira fell to the ground, delivered a powerful kick directly to his face.

The consequences were severe: Shapira suffered a complex midface fracture, a brain hemorrhage, and significant eye damage. Medical experts testified that while there was no “acute” danger to his life, such injuries were “potentially” life-threatening. Shapira spent four days in the hospital and required multiple surgeries.

What makes this case particularly poignant is Shapira’s family history. He is the grandson of Amitzur Shapira, an Israeli athletics coach who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. Lahav moved to Germany from Israel as a child with his mother, Tzipi Lev, and his brother Shahak, a well-known comedian and writer.

“We won’t be silent about this,” Shapira’s mother told Israeli media after the attack. “We already have a bloody history here, but I’m not afraid. I raised my sons to be proud of their Judaism and their Israeli identity. If we start to fear, we lose our right to exist.”

Not Just Any Assault: The Court’s Finding of Antisemitic Motivation

What elevates this case above a standard assault charge is the court’s determination that the attack was antisemitically motivated. This finding was critical to the sentencing and represents a significant precedent in German jurisprudence.

The background to the attack reveals its antisemitic nature. Prior to the assault, Shapira had been active in combating antisemitism at the Free University of Berlin, where both he and the attacker were studying to become teachers. As an administrator of a student WhatsApp group with 416 members, Shapira had deleted overtly antisemitic messages and removed members who posted such content. He had also torn down antisemitic posters on campus that were related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, including some from the organization “Young Struggle,” which the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency) monitors and which had described the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack as “an outbreak of the Palestinian people from the open-air prison of Gaza” [1] [2].

As the Legal Tribune Online reports, during the trial, the attacker claimed his actions were motivated merely by disagreement over Shapira’s moderation of the WhatsApp group and removal of what he termed “pro-Palestinian” content, framing it as a free speech issue. However, presiding judge Sahin Sezer dismissed this defense as “completely divorced from reality” (“vollkommen lebensfremd”). When the attacker claimed he had confronted Shapira about removing messages and members from the chat group, the judge asked pointedly: “And for that you punched him?!?”

The Evidence of Antisemitism

The court’s determination of antisemitic motivation relied on multiple lines of evidence that, when viewed comprehensively, painted a clear picture. These included [1] [2]:

Decorative items found in the attacker’s apartment that denied Israel’s right to exist, including a necklace and a poster showing only Palestinian markings on the territory of Israel-Palestine.
A video on the attacker’s phone in which an attacker’s friend referred to Shapira as a “Jewish son of a bitch” (“judenhurensohn”), with the message “musti beat the shit out of that Jewish son of a bitch“.
The attacker’s defense of messages that even his own lawyer described as “antisemitic garbage” (“übelster antisemitischer Unrat”) [1] [2].
The attacker’s opposition to Shapira’s removal of antisemitic posters on campus, including those from groups that legitimized the October 7 Hamas terror attacks and questioned Israel’s right to exist.

As Judge Sezer noted when evaluating the likelihood of an alternative explanation that would exonerate the defendant of antisemitic motivations: “Not very likely at all” (“Gar nicht mal so.“).

Court: Antisemitism is not protected by freedom of speech! Antisemitism is not an opinion!

Perhaps the most powerful moment in the verdict came when Judge Sezer explicitly declared: “Antisemitism is not an opinion!” (“Antisemitismus ist keine Meinung!”). This statement strikes at the heart of attempts to shield antisemitic expression behind claims of free speech or legitimate political discourse.

The distinction is crucial. In democratic societies, we value freedom of expression, including opinions that may be controversial or offensive. However, antisemitism – like other forms of hatred and discrimination – crosses a line from protected speech into harmful conduct that threatens the rights and safety of others. When the attacker claimed he was merely defending free speech by challenging Shapira’s moderation of antisemitic content, the court firmly rejected this distortion of democratic principles.

As the Court made clear, an administrator of a private chat group has every right to take action against hate speech, and Shapira’s efforts to moderate antisemitic content were entirely appropriate. Judge Sezer even expressed understanding for Shapira’s occasional harsh language toward those posting hateful content, noting it was “humanly understandable” given the “veritable hate campaign” directed against him as a Jew at the university.

The Significance of the Sentence

Section 46 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch)

The three-year prison sentence imposed on the attacker significantly exceeded the 28-month term sought by prosecutors. Judge Sezer acknowledged that such a severe sentence for a first-time offender might seem “draconian” and was difficult to reconcile with the goal of rehabilitation. However, he emphasized that the sentence was justified not only by the severity of the injuries inflicted but primarily by the antisemitic motivation behind the attack.

The judge explicitly cited two key factors that warranted this enhanced punishment:

Germany’s legal framework: In 2021, Germany amended Section 46 of its Criminal Code to explicitly include antisemitic motives as factors that increase penalties. This amendment sent “an important message to the Jewish community in Germany” and provided guidance for judges and prosecutors, as the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism, Dr. Felix Klein, pointed out.
General deterrence: The significant increase in antisemitic crimes since October 7, 2023, made it necessary to impose a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to others. The judge stated that such a harsh penalty was needed for reasons of “negative general prevention” (“negative Generalprävention”), meaning to discourage similar crimes.

Judge Sezer powerfully justifies the need for the deterrent effect of punishment and criminal prosecution with the statement: “Antisemitism strikes at the very foundation of our system of values“. The decision thus recognizes that antisemitic attacks harm not just individual victims but threaten the entire democratic order.

Germany’s Legal Framework Against Antisemitism

This case demonstrates the practical impact of Germany’s strengthened legal framework for combating antisemitism. In 2021, the German government, acting on recommendations from the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism, explicitly added the word “antisemitic” to Section 46 of the Criminal Code, which governs sentencing factors.

This amendment ensures that judges must consider antisemitic motivations as an aggravating factor when determining sentences. It represents part of Germany’s broader strategy against antisemitism, which includes both preventive measures and effective prosecution of antisemitic offenses.

Other key elements of Germany’s legal arsenal against antisemitism include:

Section 130 of the German Criminal Code, which prohibits incitement of the masses and can result in prison sentences of up to 5 years for statements that injure or demean people’s human dignity based on particular characteristics.
The prohibition of associations that promote antisemitism or other forms of hatred.
Extensive protective measures for Jewish institutions throughout Germany.

These legal tools reflect Germany’s recognition that, given its historical responsibility, it must take extraordinary measures to ensure that Jewish communities feel safe and protected.

The Broader Context: Rising Antisemitism Since October 7

The court’s decision comes amid a troubling surge in antisemitic incidents across Europe and globally since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. In Germany, this increase has been particularly concerning, given the country’s historical obligation to combat antisemitism in all its forms.

The case of Lahav Shapira illustrates how this broader climate has affected individual Jewish students. At the Free University of Berlin, tensions had been running high over the Israel-Hamas conflict, and Shapira had faced what the judge described as a “veritable hate campaign” for his efforts to combat antisemitism on campus. After the attack, the university imposed a ban on the perpetrator, who subsequently left his studies and moved to Munich.

This pattern of hostility toward Jewish students who speak out against antisemitism has been repeated on campuses worldwide. What makes the Berlin court’s ruling so significant is its unequivocal message that such targeting will be met with serious legal consequences.

Lahav Shapira’s Response: Relief and Vindication

Shahak Shapira’s Post on X, 10:26 PM, Apr 17, 2025

For Lahav Shapira and his family, the court’s acknowledgment of the antisemitic nature of the attack represented a crucial vindication. After the verdict, Shapira expressed relief that the process was over and that “the antisemitic motive was recognized“.

His brother, Shahak Shapira, wrote on Instagram and X: “The court declared the antisemitic motive proven beyond doubt. It’s a huge relief for us.” However, he also emphasized that more work remains to be done: “We’re not done yet. The university who put Jewish students in danger, hateful organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and Young Struggle who dehumanize and put a target on Jewish individuals, all the students who doxed their fellow students and called for violence upon them – I hope they will all get what they deserve. We will try.”

This sentiment reflects the broader challenge facing Jewish communities: while individual perpetrators may be held accountable, the institutional and cultural environments that foster antisemitism often remain inadequately addressed.

The Distinction Between Criticism of Israel and Antisemitism

One important aspect of this case is how it navigates the often-blurred line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and antisemitism. The court made clear that the posters torn down by Shapira were not merely expressions of political views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but contained content that delegitimized Israel’s very existence.

In his ruling, Judge Sezer described these materials as “the worst antisemitic garbage” (see above). These materials included posters i.e. showing maps where the territory of the State of Israel was marked only with the Palestinian flag. To the judge, the posters clearly “delegitimize the state of Israel and deny its right to exist“.

Photo: AdobeStock / Vitezslav Vylicil

This judicial determination powerfully reinforces Germany’s commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which Germany officially adopted in 2017 (cf. the IHRA Framework in my post “Antisemitism History I”). The IHRA definition explicitly identifies “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” as a potential manifestation of antisemitism. Under this framework, while criticism of Israel “similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” materials that question Israel’s fundamental right to exist clearly cross the critical line.

The court’s decision gives the IHRA definition a valuable practical judicial application. By classifying posters that erase Israel’s existence as antisemitic, Judge Sezer’s ruling aligns with what Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, described as combating “anti-Semitism dressed up as putative criticism of Israel” already in 2017. This strengthening of the IHRA framework through criminal jurisprudence is particularly significant at a time when antisemitism has been rising dramatically. While the IHRA definition itself is non-legally binding, this court ruling demonstrates how its principles can be effectively applied within Germany’s legal system, providing concrete consequences for antisemitic actions disguised as political speech.

The distinction between legitimate criticism and antisemitism is crucial. Legitimate criticism of specific Israeli government policies differs fundamentally from rhetoric that questions Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state or employs antisemitic tropes. The Berlin court’s decision reinforces this important boundary and, hopefully, gives real force to the IHRA framework, marking a step toward transforming it from an abstract definition into a practical tool within Germany’s criminal justice system.

Beyond Individual Justice: A Message to Society

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this ruling is its profound message to German society. Judge Sezer articulated with remarkable clarity that the sentence was intended not merely as a response to one man’s actions but as a definitive statement about fundamental democratic values that must be protected.

“Not only the co-plaintiff [= Lahav Shapira], but the free and democratic society as a whole was attacked,” the judge declared with conviction while explaining the verdict. This recognition – that antisemitism constitutes an assault on the very foundations of democratic coexistence – elevates the significance of this case far beyond an isolated act of violence. It situates the fight against antisemitism where it belongs: at the core of Germany’s constitutional commitment to human dignity and democratic principles.

The Berlin-Tiergarten District Court’s ruling stands as a powerful counterbalance to a problematic 2022 decision by the Stuttgart Administrative Court, which controversially held that “freedom of expression also protects antisemitic and anti-Israeli views”. That earlier ruling had been widely condemned by legal experts and Jewish organizations as a dangerous misinterpretation of Germany’s free speech protections. But by declaring unequivocally that “antisemitism is not protected by freedom of speech, antisemitism is not an opinion,” the Berlin court has provided a crucial corrective to any suggestion that antisemitic expression deserves constitutional protection in a society committed to democratic values and human dignity.

This judgment also aligns perfectly with Germany’s post-war concept of “Wehrhafte Demokratie”, a notion that is difficult to translate precisely into English, though it is most commonly rendered as “Militant Democracy” or, alternatively, “Defensive Democracy”. The Wehrhafte Demokratie follows the understanding that a democracy must possess the legal tools to defend itself against those who would exploit democratic freedoms to undermine the democratic order itself. The court has demonstrated that Germany’s commitment to free expression does not extend to speech that attacks the fundamental dignity of Jewish citizens and threatens the pluralistic foundation upon which democratic society stands.

Conclusion: A Landmark Legal Precedent in Combating Antisemitism in Germany?

Embed from Getty Images

As we witness alarming increases in antisemitism worldwide, the Berlin court’s ruling offers a model for how legal systems can respond effectively. By imposing a sentence that reflects the seriousness of antisemitically motivated violence, by explicitly naming antisemitism rather than obscuring it behind euphemisms, and by recognizing the threat such acts pose to the free and democratic society as a whole, the court has set an important precedent.

The message is clear: antisemitism is not a matter of controversy. It is not a matter of protected speech. Antisemitism a direct assault on the democratic principles that uphold human dignity, equality, and communal peace. Antisemitism is an attack on the fundamental values of a free and democratic society. Those who act on antisemitic hatred are not merely offenders against individuals; they are violators of the social fabric that binds diverse and pluralistic societies together. Those who act on antisemitic hatred will face serious consequences, not just because they harm individual victims, but because they threaten the peace and security of the whole free and democratic society.

For Jewish communities in Germany, this decision maybe signals a turning point – a moment in which the justice system hopefully no longer minimizes, excuses, or sanitizes antisemitic violence. While no verdict can undo the suffering endured by victims like Lahav Shapira, the formal recognition of antisemitic intent and the imposition of serious consequences are essential steps toward restoring trust, affirming accountability, and advancing justice that acknowledges antisemitism for what it truly is: a threat to the very foundations of a free and democratic society.

However, this watershed Berlin ruling will soon face another test. On April 28, 2025, just days from now, a court in Hamburg will render judgment in a case where a member of the German-Israeli Society was allegedly attacked by a woman in what appears to be another antisemitic assault. Albeit, it appears likely that – unlike in Berlin – the criminal offense of antisemitism as outlined in Section 46 of the German Criminal Code will not be applied in this case. According to current information, the public prosecutor has charged the defendant with insult, bodily harm, and property damage, but there has so far been no mention of an antisemitic motive in the legal sense. It remains to be seen how the Hamburg District Court will ultimately rule. Many Jewish and Israeli communities not only in Hamburg but across Germany are watching closely to see if the judiciary will consistently uphold the principle that antisemitism deserves serious legal consequences.

So, as we continue to face the challenge of rising antisemitism, may this Berlin case inspire other courts and institutions to take equally clear stands. The time for euphemisms and equivocation is over. The response must be unflinching, unequivocal, and grounded in the fundamental truth:

Antisemitism is not protected by freedom of speech!
Antisemitism is not an opinion!
Antisemitism is hatred.
Antisemitism must be confronted, prosecuted, and condemned – without reservation.