A Commitment Written Into Party Policy
The resolution was adopted after party leader Markus Söder's speech, according to the CSU's congress announcement. The party published the full document, whose title concerns defending democracy and freedom and shaping the future. That text provides a basis for assessing the commitment beyond statements made from the conference stage.
The Christian Social Union is the Bavarian partner of the Christian Democratic Union in Germany's conservative alliance. This is a party policy resolution. It is not a new law, a court ruling or an instruction binding the police, and it creates no additional criminal offense.
The opening section commits the party to resisting antisemitism, racism and attacks on human dignity. It describes belonging through respect for the legal order, responsibility and shared values, rather than ancestry alone. Protection of Jews is placed within a broader account of citizenship and equal rights.
The Same Test Across Political Camps
The most explicit passage on antisemitism appears in the discussion of radical parties. It says the radical left warrants the same critical examination as the radical right, adding that antisemitism permits no compromise. Political identity therefore supplies no exemption from the stated standard.
The document also draws a boundary against Islamist extremism alongside threats from the left and right. Its stated criteria concern human dignity, the rule of law and democratic government. It does not confine hostility toward Jews to the Middle East conflict or to a single migrant community.
A further passage says the CSU will not assemble political majorities at the cost of its principles or grant extremists legitimacy. That concerns political cooperation and conduct. Its practical significance will depend on subsequent party decisions; adoption alone does not demonstrate a change in conditions outside the congress.
Firm Positions Still Require Evidence
The resolution includes an explicit safeguard against indiscriminate labeling. It says a sharply expressed opinion is not necessarily extremist, and criticism of the state is not automatically undemocratic. The proposed assessment examines objectives, statements and conduct, with evidence required for the judgment.
That distinction sets a limit on how accusations should be used in political debate. The document neither supplies a new legal definition of antisemitism nor decides the status of every statement criticizing Israeli policy. It combines a political commitment with a requirement to substantiate claims about individuals.
On the AfD, the CSU rejects cooperation but also opposes pursuing a party ban. The document cites legal obstacles, an unpredictable timetable and the risk of giving the party a claimed martyr status. These are the CSU's positions, rather than judicial findings about the AfD's legal status.
The Alliance's Wider Position on Israel
The resolution follows a separate October 5, 2026, statement by CDU/CSU parliamentary foreign affairs spokesman Jürgen Hardt. He said Germany must support Israel's security against terrorist threats and backed further rapprochement between Israel and Muslim countries through the Abraham Accords.
That statement also supported a political future for Palestinians that would not endanger Israel and criticized settlement policy. It shows that backing Israel's security does not mean endorsing every Israeli government decision. The two documents differ in date, issuing body and status.
The new development is the adoption of a detailed congress resolution connecting opposition to antisemitism across political camps with a demand for evidence. It announces neither new crime figures nor additional protection funding. It establishes a public standard against which the party's future conduct can be assessed.
