The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Film Review – Not Just Your Picture

The story of Layla and Ramsis Kilani powerfully portrays the fraught experience of Palestinians in Germany and the indifference of the German state towards them.


02/08/2021

Not just your Picture is the story of Ramsis and Layla Kilani, Palestinian siblings from Siegen in Germany. It is just as much its the story of their father Ibrahim. Ibrahim left his home in Beit Lahiya, Gaza, to study architecture in Germany. In 2002, after he lost his job and his marriage collapsed, he returned to Gaza, married a local teacher, and had 5 more children. Ramsis and Layla – then 11 and 9 – remained with their mother in Germany. Outside skype calls, they never saw their father again.

Twelve years later, in 2014, the Gaza “war” broke out. This was not a war in any real sense, and largely consisted of Israeli planes bombing residential areas of Gaza. Among the many civilian victims were Ibrahim, his wife and 5 children, plus 4 other relatives, who were all killed in a bomb attack on July 21st.

The Kilani family in Siegen received a condolence letter from someone who works for the German Diplomatic Mission in Ramallah. The letter expressed the personal sympathy of the writer but was unofficial and not written in the name of the German State or any of its agencies. The German government has still not opened any investigation into the brutal death of a German citizen.

Not Just your Picture follows how Ramsis and Layla have come to terms with their father’s death and the indifference of the country in which they were born and raised. Ramsis consulted the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) about how he could sue the Israeli army. German politicians looked away as the legal process got bogged down in constitutional wrangling.

On a more personal level, he engaged himself with the radical left. Initially this not because of Palestine but for what he calls identitarian reasons – because the Left was anti-racist. He recalls with laughter the time he punched the one Nazi in the Siegen parliament, followed by confusion that part of the antifa scene was supporting his action by raising an Israel flag.

Ramsis explains that speaking out in public did not come naturally to him, but this responsibility has now been thrust upon him. We see him addressing a rally in Berlin on the anniversary of his father’s death, and speaking at the Institut du Monde Araba in France. He insists that he is not just speaking for his father and his family, but for the thousands of Palestinians in a similar situation.

Layla, in contrast, was less politically engaged, but still wanted to understand her father’s death. We see film footage of her visiting Palestine for the first time in 2017. This was an exchange programme organised by her University, so Ramsis couldn’t join her. She sees the benefits in this. Without the influence of her opinionated brother, she could get a clearer view for herself.

In Hebron she visits the infamous Shuhada Street to which Palestinians are denied access. Previously the street had been filled with Palestinian shops but it has now been taken over by settlers. The nearby school was also closed and is now a control centre for the Israeli army. Armed soldiers tell them that only the Europeans in their party may proceed – Palestinians (or, as the soldiers say, “Muslims”) are banned. They stick together and all turn around.

Back in Beit Lahiya, Ibrahim’s brother Saleh and his sister Khadija show us his abandoned house, then take us round his orchard. The trees have dried and there is little they can cultivate here, but they can’t bring themselves to come here since his death. As Khadija explains “every time we visit, we remember my brother. That’s why it’s been two years since we entered here.”

Both Ramsis and Layla talk about how it would be easier to shut up about their background. Talking about Palestine was even more difficult for their father who preferred to keep quiet and ignore any conflict. Layla explains that she used to introduce herself as an Arab to avoid being told that Palestine doesn’t exist. But her experiences have turned her into a proud and vocal Palestinian.

What is extraordinary about the Kilanis’ story is that it is not untypical. This is the experience of many Palestinians in Germany and throughout the world. It is contemporary history, and at the same time it is hidden, ignored. Neither Ramsis nor Layla has been able to visit their family or their father’s grave as they are denied entry into Gaza. They are not alone. Their story deserves to be told, but we must also act so that no more Palestinians must mourn the deaths of their families.

The German prémiere of Not Just Your Picture will be in the City Kino Wedding on Wednesday 4th August at 7pm. The film will be followed by a discussion with Layla and Ramsis Kilani plus directors Ann Paq and Dror Dayan.

‘We Are Close to a Majority for Expropriating Mega-Landlords’

Berlin housing activist Thom McGath says the referendum campaign to take 250,000 apartments into public ownership is on track


01/08/2021

Federico Fuentes (FF) interviews Thom McGath (TM)

Housing activists in Berlin have responded to a recent German court decision to strike down the state government’s rent cap by upping the ante, and calling for the expropriation of large housing corporations.

Having successfully collected hundreds of thousands of signatures, they have won the right to put this bold proposition to a referendum in September.

FF asks: For context, could you tell us how Berlin came to introduce a rent cap?

TA replies: Back in 2018, the Berlin government suggested it would be willing to explore the option of a rent cap. This responded to pressure from activists, following an unsuccessful referendum to introduce rent caps in 2015.

But it was our campaign for expropriation — which preceded the introduction of the rent cap — that really brought the topic to the fore. Within a few months of starting our campaign, the rent cap was introduced, in January 2020.

I would say that it would not have been possible without us. It was a response to or, at least, an attempt to appease, those who were making demands for expropriation.

What did the rent cap entail?

It meant rents were capped at 2019 levels and could not be raised for five years.

There were certain exceptions to the rules. For example, if you modernised or renovated the rental unit, you could increase the rent by about one euro per square metre. There were also allowances for a small increase after two years, but the increase could not be higher than inflation, which is about 1.2%.

On the other hand — and I think this was one of the more radical aspects of the cap — it also actively lowered rents based on how old the building was and the quality of amenities it provided. For example, whether it had things like central heating or not.

The government set an upper limit of €9.80 per square metre, which progressively dropped depending on the age and state of the apartment. This meant many renters saw massive decreases in their rent, in the order of 20‒30%.

This represented a very radical interference in the market.

Did the rent cap work?

Berlin’s rent cap provided a positive contrast to the failure of the rent brake [Federal Rent Control Act] introduced at the federal level in 2016, which limited rent rises to 15% every three years. During this time, Berlin was the only state to see rents drop, by about 11%.

But in the end, the federal rent brake was used by the Constitutional Court to overturn Berlin’s rent cap. The main issue raised in the court decision was that Berlin simply didn’t have the competency as a state to introduce such measures, given the federal government had already introduced restrictions.

In my opinion, rent caps work. The discussion on whether rent caps work or not is usually focused on the question of supply, which misses the whole point.

The argument is always that rent caps lead to shrinking apartment availability. This makes sense, because the research shows people stay in the same apartment for longer. But this is a positive thing, because it means people don’t have to move around so much, or are not being forced out due to rent rises, so that’s a positive.

One negative aspect of Berlin’s rent cap was that it excluded new buildings constructed after 2014. We saw a big explosion in rents in that segment. A lot of people who moved to the city were forced to that segment, as they couldn’t find anything else because people weren’t moving out.

In this regard, you must be a bit stricter with new buildings, while also building more public housing so that people can afford to move here.

But it’s important to note that we always saw the rent cap as a stop-gap measure. It was only set to last for five years and didn’t work to shift the structure of the existing market in favour of more not-for-profit models. We always said: “Ok, this is something that will last for five years, but what happens after that?”

For the Social Democrats, the main party in the governing coalition in Berlin, the answer was to just build more. But we said that was not enough.

Rather than campaign for restoring the rent cap, housing activists are setting up a campaign to expropriate housing corporations. Could you tell us why?

It’s important to start with the context of housing in Germany. The proportion of tenants is much higher in Germany than in most other countries. At the federal level, tenants make up 60% of the housing market. In Berlin, it’s about 85%.

This is largely because, for a very long time, there were certain regulations and policies in place that ensured rent was affordable. Up until about 1988, there was a not-for-profit housing law. That meant a certain amount of funding had to go to not-for-profit housing corporations or other not-for-profit models (such as cooperatives and state-owned housing).

But then we had a big wave of privatisation and neglect of the public housing sector. Institutional investors bought up a lot of expiring social and public housing units that were privatised in the wake of financial crises.

These companies entered the housing markets with the sole purpose of renting, as they realised it was much easier to make money from this if they could corner the rental market.

In Berlin, there was nothing in place to stop this happening. In fact, the government facilitated it through its privatisation of housing units, and the ease with which it allowed companies to inject international capital into the market.

These companies function as real estate investment trust funds that have concentrated a greater and greater share of housing in their hands. They get around taxes by buying up companies rather than the apartments themselves. This means they don’t have to pay any acquisition taxes or property taxes.

The result has been the rise of these huge housing companies. For example, Deutsche Wohnen has about 110,000 apartments and Vonovia has around 50,000. They are now planning to merge.

What impact would expropriating these companies have on the housing market?

We are proposing to expropriate all for-profit rental companies with 3,000 apartments or more and for these apartments to be put into public hands. We are also proposing to create a new institution to manage these apartments with built-in democratic structures — from building to neighbourhood to citywide councils. This will mean renters would be able to decide on things like investment in apartments that need modernisation and where utility costs are spent.

There are currently about 1.9 million units in Berlin, of which about 340,000 are public housing and 300,000 are owned by the tenants. Through this process we would bring another 250,000 apartments into public ownership.

This would remove a large proportion of the housing stock from the market and remove the incentive to speculate in the market. It would also push rents down, as private landlords would be forced to compete with more public housing.

Overall, it would place the not-for-profit model at the forefront of the housing market.

Can you give us a sense of the level of support for the campaign?

We have just finished the second round of signature collections and have moved onto the next level, which is the referendum. It will be put on the ballot at the state and federal elections on September 26.

I think we have had a huge impact in terms of public discourse. It’s been a top story around Germany for quite some months. All the political parties have had to take a position on it. A federal real estate industry group is trying to fund a $1.2 million euro campaign against us, so they are definitely scared of the ramifications of this campaign.

Our campaign broke the record for signatures for a referendum in Berlin. We submitted about 350,000 signatures, which shows not only the grassroots support for the campaign but also the desire for radical change among the public. Having successfully collected hundreds of thousands of signatures, they have won the right to put this bold proposition to a referendum in September

I would also say the polls have swung in our favour following the overturning of the rent cap. We saw a huge inflow of signatures in this period and, today, polls indicate that we almost have a majority of voters in favour of our proposal, roughly 49% in favour compared to 43% against.

Questions: Federico Fuentes for Green Left