The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Macron, Antisemitism and the Pro-Palestine Movement

Last Sunday 12th November, leaders of Macron’s governing party in France marched alongside fascists on a mass demonstration in Paris, pretending to oppose rising antisemitism, but in fact aiming at crippling the pro Palestine movement

John Mullen
14/11/2023

France has the biggest Jewish population in Europe – around half a million people – and prejudice against Jews is a very real thing here. Jean-Marie Le Pen built his National Front organization, with its fascist core, while insisting that the ovens of Auschwitz were “a detail of history” and while repeatedly making “jokes” implying he wanted the same fate to befall Jewish personalities who opposed him. Jordan Bardella, presently head of this organization (now called National Rally and with 88 Members of Parliament), insisted this week that Jean-Marie Le Pen was not antisemitic, and promised his party would march alongside Macron’s ministers against antisemitism, which he insists is to be blamed on French Muslims and left-wing activists.

Antisemitism in France

Violent antisemitism in France mostly comes from the far right, but not only. There have been a number of racist murders of Jews over the last twenty years, including the terrorist attack in 2014 on a kosher supermarket, which left four dead. In addition, polls show that up to a third of the population hold prejudices such as “Jews have too much power in the business world”.

Police figures say that there have been 1159 antisemitic offences (from insults to assaults) committed in France in the last month or so. Authorities give very few details. Some of these will be from the far right (swastikas were daubed on walls in the Southern town of Nice, while anti-Jewish and white power slogans were seen in Fresnes in the Paris suburbs). Some are certainly from people stupidly blaming Jews in general for Israel’s massacres, and some from reports to the police of pro-Palestine activity which is not in fact antisemitic at all. Darmanin, the Minister of the Interior has already declared that waving a Palestinian flag is an act of antisemitism, whilst even the respected newspaper Le Monde is saying that the slogan “From the river to the sea” is probably antisemitic!

It suits Macron to claim that the rise of antisemitic attacks, and not his government’s support for killing Gaza’s children, is the most important news story of the day. And there are regular attempts by Macron and other right wingers to blame French Arabs for antisemitism. This has obviously been made easier by the Jihadist anti-Jewish terrorist attacks, which in fact horrified French people of North African origin just like they horrified everyone else.

Unsurprisingly, when the government of Israel, and the French mass media, declare every day of the year that everything Israel does is in the name of all Jews everywhere, there are those who are foolish enough to believe them, and this can push uninformed people into antisemitic ideas. But France had no need of Arab immigration to see a strong current of antisemitic prejudice in the country. Antisemitism goes far back in French history, and the active involvement of the French state during the Second world war in the massacre of Jews turned a hateful trend into a murderous one. Even General de Gaulle could cheerfully express his antisemitism, declaring in the 1960s that the Jews “had always been a people of the elite, sure of itself and dominating”.

Today, the French state is cynically using the existence of antisemitism to strengthen support for Israel. At the same time Macron is welcoming fascist currents further into mainstream politics. For many right wingers, this is the first step to what they hope will be a future government alliance between right and far right.

Repression

It was in 2019 that Macron first declared that “antizionism is one of the modern forms of antisemitism”. The Macron government is determined today to smear the Palestine solidarity campaign as anti-Jewish, despite the large numbers of Jews active in it. Several demonstrations in Paris were banned, with the Paris police chief declaring that the danger of antisemitic slogans was too high. Once pro Palestine sentiment got even stronger, and the banned demonstrations had taken place anyway, the government authorized protests the following week. The result was huge demonstrations, without any antisemitic slogans (despite the right-wing press scouring the streets looking for them).

The repression continues though. The theatrical deportation of a Palestinian speaker, Mariam Abudaqa, is being organized. Activists putting up posters reading “stop the genocide” were arrested and kept in detention overnight last week. Then, in early November, some of Macron’s team came up with a cunning new plan: to have a big march, from the National Assembly to the Senate “against rising antisemitism”. The media jumped on the opportunity to denounce any organization not calling to join the march as Jew-haters.

The initial call to demonstrate around the country on Sunday 11 November, which was published by Macron’s team included the demand that Israeli hostages be freed, but said nothing about the massacres in Gaza. It claimed that “Islamists” were the main culprits carrying out attacks on Jews in France, but said nothing about islamophobia. The far-right organization “National Rally” unsurprisingly called at once its supporters to join the demonstration. And all the most prominent fascists in the country were suddenly moved to pour out their well-known empathy for Jewish people. Eric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella all marched in Paris on Sunday, scarcely able to believe the huge favour Macron’s team were doing for them by including them in this initiative.

The Left was under huge pressure to join the march in Paris. The Socialist Party, Communist Party and the Greens called to march but insisted there should be a “Republican barrier” to make sure that the far right would march separately (in fact an entirely impracticable proposal). The biggest radical Left organization, the France Insoumise (“France in Revolt”) decided not to join the demonstration. “Fighting against antisemitism and all forms of racism is not possible if marching alongside a party whose origins are in collaboration with the nazis”, the FI press release explained. Jean-Luc Mélenchon went even further declaring that it would be “a meeting point for those who support the massacre in Gaza”. The combative trade union confederation, the CGT (who recently invited the Palestinian ambassador to address their national council), rejected Macron’s march and called instead to join a long-planned weekday rally against antisemitism which coincided with the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Fortunately, on Sunday, large numbers of people understood the cynical manipulation. Only 7,000 joined the demonstration in Marseille, only 3,000 in Bordeaux, Lyon and Nice. In Paris, though, around a hundred thousand marched. No doubt most present had no intention of helping the fascists rehabilitate themselves, and the supporters of Israel’s massacres did not have the confidence to carry Israeli flags. The fascist contingent was disrupted briefly by a few dozen members of the Left Jewish group Golem, waving placards “We can see you, antisemites!”

It is no surprise that this collaboration with the fascists in smart suits of National Rally comes from a Macron government which last year announced the banning of the local antifascist grouping in Lyon, known under the acronym GALE, on the grounds that the group supported violent acts “against far-right activists and their property”, at the same time as it banned the CRI, a legal aid organization for victims of islamophobia.

Macron’s team aims at killing two birds with one stone – attacking the pro-Palestine movement and preparing the ground for future alliances with fascists. The demonstrations of the Palestine solidarity movement on 11 November, far more dynamic, is the sign that another option is possible, as long as most left activists do not fall into Macron’s carefully laid traps.

“Never Again is Now”

Speech by the chair of the Jüdische Stimme on the occasion of their twentieth anniversary

Wieland Hoban
13/11/2023

Dear guests,

Dear friends,

Dear members,

We are currently witnessing a genocide. In Gaza, 9,500 people have been killed by Israeli bombs, 4,000 of them children. The narrow enclave has been turned into a moon landscape and there is no refuge for the 2.3 million inhabitants – whether in schools, hospitals, mosques or churches. The justification used is the massacre by militias from Gaza who on 7th October attacked several villages in the South of Israel. In their reactions, Israelis politicians have clearly said that they wanted to destroy Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu referred to the Biblical figure of Amalek, the permanent enemy, who could only be disarmed by total destruction. And concrete plans of the Israeli government to displace the whole population of Gaza to Egypt have come to light.

By linking the discourse on migration with antisemitism, real fears felt by Jews were instrumentalised… an international conference on the questions of Germany’s culture of remembrance was cancelled by the Federal Agency for Civic Education. Critical figures in the political and cultural arena are being sacked or excluded. Tendencies which have been there for years have intensified.

If you have come to this meeting and know something about the work of the Jüdische Stimme, of course you know that this story did not begin on 7th October. You know that the blockade of the Gaza strip has made a normal life there impossible for 16 years. You know that in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it’s not just that even more settlements are being built, but also that settlers and the army are using even more everyday violence and eviction attempts up to and including pogroms against Palestinians. You know that within the official Israeli State territory, Palestinian citizens are living in even more danger and fear, on top of the legally prescribed and informal discrimination. You know that a life in peace with full rights is denied to millions more in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. You also know that most people in the large Palestinian diaspora, which is strongly represented in Germany and in Berlin, are not allowed to return to Palestine. And you know that all this goes back to the Nakba, the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from the end of 1947, which has never stopped, is being continued through the current genocide, and is barely recognised in the German public sphere.

How has the German public sphere reacted to the events of recent weeks? In Germany, many demonstrations were banned days before they were supposed to happen, above all here in Berlin, where the police acted with shocking brutality and implemented bans beyond the law. In the media the spectre of hordes of bloodthirsty Arabs and Muslims was evoked, who above all were portrayed as a danger to Jews, and it would be best if all were deported. Even the so-called social democrat Olaf Scholz was not ashamed to use such rhetoric. Demonstrations for Palestine and Gaza were often stamped as being “pro-Hamas”, and those that weren’t were alleged to contain mainly antisemitic tendencies. By linking the discourse on migration with antisemitism, real fears felt by Jews were instrumentalised – also by figures of the Jewish mainstream like Josef Schuster, president of the central council of Jews, who described the protesting and mourning people as “barbarians”. Space for discussion is becoming increasingly narrower: an international conference on the questions of Germany’s culture of remembrance was cancelled by the Federal Agency for Civic Education. Critical figures in the political and cultural arena are being sacked or excluded. Tendencies which have been there for years have intensified.

As we send a message that solidarity with Palestine does not contradict Judaism, and that Israel does not speak for all Jews, we use an authority of speaking which is not available to our Palestinian partners and friends or the people in Palestine.

Months ago, when we conceived the plan to organise an anniversary celebration, we asked ourselves whether this would be even appropriate – this is even more the case now. We asked ourselves whether it was defensible to speak about ourselves and our history for a whole evening, in light of the suffering and the thousands of dead and wounded, instead of concentrating on the people in Palestine. One member said, we could celebrate when our organisation is no longer needed. And yes, if there were no more sickness or injuries, we would not need any doctors or hospitals.

Marek Edelman, one of the leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and one of the few survivors once said: “to be a Jew means always to be with the oppressed, never with the oppressors”. I consider that in a way to be our guiding principle, although there are aspects which make our position more complicated. A significant part of our original strategy is that as Jews we stand by the Palestinians, so that the supposed contradiction between both these things, and the constantly present charge of antisemitism is refuted by our solidarity.

What does this mean for our role? As we send a message that solidarity with Palestine does not contradict Judaism, and that Israel does not speak for all Jews, we use an authority of speaking which is not available to our Palestinian partners and friends or the people in Palestine.

Our task must not just be to give a kosher stamp to other people, which shamefully is expected by the majority of society, nor to say “listen to us, we are Jews”. Our task must be to work with other groups in alliances, and to strengthen them so that they do not need this stamp.

A few months ago, I was with a Palestinian friend at a meeting with the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, who for years has been one of the most important writers and speakers around the subject of Palestine, among other things through his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. The talk was eloquent and incisive, full of facts without being too academic. My friend complained: “when an Israeli Jew says that, everybody listens. But when we say it, we’re anti-Semites.” And he is right. Although some people also call us antisemitic, and we are ostracized or ignored by the Jewish mainstream, we still get more of a hearing than the Palestinians. Not every demonstration that is registered by us is forbidden.

We use this small advantage, as do groups in other countries, like Jewish Voice for Peace in the USA or the international umbrella organisation European Jews for a Just Peace, so that our message is heard by those who do not want to hear Palestinian voices. We use our privilege – although at the same time we consolidate it. Our task must not just be to give a kosher stamp to other people, which shamefully is expected by the majority of society, nor to say “listen to us, we are Jews”. Our task must be to work with other groups in alliances, and to strengthen them so that they do not need this stamp. So that no-one even needs to argue that something is acceptable because Jews have signed off on it.

When I see how the genocide of the Roma and Sinti is barely mentioned – after it was first officially recognised in 1982, nearly 40 years after it happened – and that large parts of the German society is just not able to link the different forms of racism, including antisemitism, I am overcome with rage and sorrow. When I see how an inflated discourse about “Gender Gaga” leads to AfD posters on which the rainbow flag is combined with a triangle which looks like that used on a concentration camp uniform, then I have fear for all my queer friends and for my trans son. And when I see how little it costs to confront white conservative politicians with their past and perhaps present Nazi sympathies, that I know that the fight against antisemitism is a farce and that Germany was never de-Nazified. In a society where Fascists have been standing at over 20% in the polls for months, all minorities are threatened. Of course, Palestine remains our focus, as this movement is so urgently required, and faces such hostility. And because the German discourse of remembrance is used so insidiously against them, because the wrong lessons are mercilessly taken from the Holocaust. But our engagement in Palestine stands together with an engagement in many areas which are all connected.

I want to say something else about us, about our organisation, and about what we can maybe be. The last weeks have burdened us all in a way, meaning that that again and again we have reached our limits – not just as activists, but also our humanity and our psyche. And we are encouraged that we have experienced such solidarity and appreciation which has overwhelmed me. In a normal year, we receive a handful of applications to join. In the last three weeks, they were sometimes coming nearly every day. And what I always here from people who want to join us is that they feel frustrated and powerless, at the same time as suffering the German reason of state and the limitation within Jewish spaces. They hope that by joining – whether or not they really want to be active or just make a connection – they can contribute something so that they no longer feel alone.

If we can offer Jews a place where they have a connection to the larger movement, then this is also a function of a work which ultimately strengthens the fight for justice for Palestine and the solidarity with other groups. From my own experience, I can say that joining paved the way towards me becoming a committed activist, and allowed me to identify with my Judaism without inner conflict. We, and above all our Palestinian companions, will be time and again demonised and defamed, but together we are strong, and can help not just ourselves but also other people. Let us insist on this, however dark it becomes. It is a time when the masks drop and we see who stands for humanity, and who does not. “Never again” is now.

This speech was given in German at an event organised by the Jüdische Stimme at oyoun cultural centre on 4th November 2023. Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission.

Photo Gallery: Demonstrations in Berlin for Gaza, 11 November 2023

Oranienplatz to Mehringdamm

The Left Berlin
12/11/2023

Photos: Phil Butland, Paul Grasse, Regina Sternal, Trad (@illustradtion)

Because of the current level of repression in Berlin against Palestinians and their supporters, most faces have been pixellated.

“Firing somebody for using the term apartheid is really gaslighting”

Part Two of our interview with Udi Raz on being sacked by the Jewish Museum and building Palestine solidarity in German Universities

Phil Butland

Following last week’s interview with Udi Raz on 20 years Jüdische Stimme, the interview continues to talk about his personal engagement, including his recent sacking by the Jewish Museum

Hello again, Udi. You have just been sacked by the Jewish Museum. Why?

The official reason is that I used the term “apartheid”. The Jewish Museum say that this term is unacceptable. The head of the museum’s education department told me that that high school students who come to the museum cannot comprehend what apartheid means.

The thing is that I use so many terms that people don’t know. This is exactly the essence of working in an education institution such as a museum. Especially the Jewish Museum which offers information about which young people do not have the opportunity to inform themselves within this the school system in Germany.

You’d have thought that if people didn’t know what apartheid means, you should say more about it, not less

This is the thing. In fact, I always explain not only that, I expand. I always begin by asking the participants in my tour whether they can explain to the rest of us what apartheid means. I never had an experience when nobody knew what apartheid is. There is always somebody within the group who understands the concept, and can explain exactly where it comes from, the historical context, and even why it applies to the situation in the West Bank.

You could say that I’m actually going very easy with the definition when I apply it to the situation in Palestine. According to Amnesty International apartheid applies to the entire area that we call Palestine, or Israel. But in my tours, I talk specifically about the West Bank.

People who didn’t grow up in Germany, have difficulty understanding the German education system, and particularly how it talks about in the Middle East. What’s your experience from the people on the tours that you give? What do they know? And what don’t they know?

What they want to know is exactly what I tell them. They want to hear a story that connects the story of Germany, Israel and what Judaism means. And I always tell them the story of why I came to Berlin. I was born and raised in a city called Haifa. At this point, I raise the question: “Where is Haifa?” What for example, would you say?

I’d say it’s on the Mediterranean coast

It’s on the Mediterranean. Some people refer to this area as Palestine while others refer to it as Israel. I grew up in a city where many Palestinians and Jews lived together. Since a young age, it was very clear to me that the place where I’m living has more than one name and that is absolutely fine.

But there is a certain region within this area that is called the West Bank with cities such as Ramallah and Jenin. There most of the population understand themselves as Palestinians and are so understood by the régime that controls them. A minority of the people in the area are Jews who live in so-called settlements. Israeli laws apply to people in the settlements, while Palestinian people living the same area are subject to the military law of the State of Israel.

Different laws apply to Jews than to non-Jewish people. And this is precisely one of the characteristics that According to Amnesty International, classify this situation, as apartheid.

Amnesty applies the term apartheid to the whole area, not just the West Bank. Haifa is probably the most integrated city in the whole of Israel or 1948 Palestine? Is it right to use the term apartheid about Haifa as well?

That’s a good question, and I don’t know. I did not inform myself well enough about the condition of Palestinian population living in 48, which is definitely a deficit. But exactly for this reason, I don’t talk about what I don’t know. I talk in my tours only about what I know. And I can give you plenty of examples why the situation in the West Bank must be understood as apartheid. It’s not a question of interpretation. It’s a matter of international law.

And your sacking was specifically because you called the West Bank an apartheid area?

Exactly.

Do you know who was ultimately responsible for your sacking?

The final decision was made by the head of the Education Department, Diana Dressel. She told me very clearly in the last conversation that we had, that I received plenty of praise. She even forwarded me some of this positive feedback before they fired me.

In the meeting, when they decided to fire me, she mentioned that she has a dilemma. Because I received a lot of praise. She finds that the pedagogic work that I’m doing is extraordinary. But since I used the term apartheid, she cannot allow me to receive new bookings.

I am a freelancer working for the museum, not a direct employee, so I can only work when they book me.

Do you think this is a decision taken by the museum without outside influence?

I know there are other reasons why I was fired. I will not reveal them now. But I am working with a lawyer and we are considering what what to do with the internal information that I have.

How would you categorize the Jewish museum? It puts on good exhibitions, and in the book shop you can buy CDs by the anti-Zionist singer Daniel Kahn. And yet this is not the first incident like this. The director Peter Schäfer was forced to resign after the museum retweeted an open letter by Jewish scholars against the criminalisation of BDS, and Yossi Bartal, your colleague in the Jüdische Stimme also resigned

For a few years, the museum enjoyed a sense of ambivalence. But with each new scandal that unfolds, we understand better what sort of institution the Jewish Museum is, what ideology it serves, and which policy leads their decisions.

In this case, apartheid is acknowledged, by Amnesty International, Israeli human rights organisations, and even by Zionist generals, to describe the situation in the West Bank. Therefore we can say clearly that there is no doubt that the decision to fire somebody for using the term apartheid is really a manifestation of gaslighting.

It’s not the question of whether “Is this the reality or not?” It is whether you are allowed to perceive this reality as such – yourself or not.

And you see it as part of the rising repression in Germany in terms of demonstration bans and room bans?

Absolutely. This is the thing. The museum wishes to sell itself as a pluralistic place, especially in the sense of hosting a diversity of Jewish voices. But it fails to do this again and again and again. The tragic thing is that most of the people who make the decisions – of who works here? What exhibitions will be there? What installations will be there? – are not Jews themselves.

Non Jews are constructing for Jewish people what Judaism means, what Jews are allowed to say, what Jews are not allowed to say, what Jews are within, what Jews are without. The Jewish Museum is only one case. This is true also in cases of the so called ‘Commissioners for Jewish Life in Germany‘ and the ‘Fight against Antisemitism’. E.g. Felix Klein, Samuel Salzborn, Michael Blume, Uwe Becker, Ludwig Spaenle, and the list goes on.

How have people reacted to your sacking?

99% of the messages I receive are supportive. I think that the population living in Germany nowadays understand the hypocrisy of their leaders, who stand in solidarity with Israel. That is a racist state, that is now forcing millions of Palestinians to become refugees, once again, killing thousands of Palestinians, even killing Israelis, who are hostages by Hamas.

The Israeli government is willing to kill those hostages, rather than to find a humanitarian solution. This really breaks my heart. It is something I cannot accept. It’s not even open for discussion to me. This is a strategy that is purely racist. And it comes at the stage where this government is willing to sacrifice its own citizens, in order to maintain a sense of enmity. One that is arguably inherent to understanding how Jews and Muslims or Jews and Palestinians should live their life.

Is there any sort of campaign to get you reinstated. Do you want to be reinstated?

Yes. I understand the work in the Jewish Museum as essentially important. It is exactly this kind of work that in the long run really makes an impact. Because those people who listen to my stories, also become the generation who will be allowed to vote in Germany. And if they truly care about Jews who live in Germany, they should at least understand what is being done in the name of Judaism by the State of Israel, and how Germany currently not only neutralizes this racist ideology, but also supports it.

If someone reads this interview and wants to do something against your sacking what should they do?

There is a few different attempts I’m working on at the moment. One of them is a petition. Another one is a press release about how I understand the situation. And the third one is eventually to collect of donations to support me throughout this time, because I was very much dependent on this work. It was the main job I had in the last few months. This also emphasizes the financial violence Germany exercises against Jews living here. I will share more information on my social media. Please follow me there, this is already a meaningful support. Let us support each other.

How can people put pressure on the Jewish Museum? Financial support is essential. But that doesn’t put pressure by itself?

Write to the Jewish Museum. Insist to receive the answers that you deserve

Would a boycott would be a good idea?

The museum is free anyway. Everyone can can go there any time. I do think that the installations one can find there have value by themselves, and could even have more value with the correct mediation. I left a group of amazing guides behind me, who are still working there. And I don’t see a reason to assume that the guides, who are also my friends, will fail to do the important work that they already do. To these guides I send my best wishes because what they are doing is fundamentally important work.

It’s important to emphasize that the problem is with those who make the policy of what people are allowed to think, and to know. The problem is not with the individuals who carry out the education work despite such restrictions.

How’s the museum financed?

The museum is public foundation, financed by the German state. And the decision making is controlled by the German government and state officials.

Is there any way that people can put pressure on the board?

Insist on the service you deserve. Write to any individual at any institutional level who you recognize within the structure of the museum. Because this case raises many questions for those who understand themselves as taking part in a democratic system.

What is happening here is precisely the opposite of promoting democracy. It is silencing and censoring, actually preventing knowledge and the truth from being presented as such.

Can we go on to an initiative that you’ve been working on recently – discussing Palestine in Berlin Universities? You organized a meeting last week. How did that go?

Two weeks in a row we had meetings with dozens of students from different universities in Berlin and Potsdam. We are receiving so much feedback from students, but also from workers and professors, about people who are afraid to speak up, as soon as you move from the perception that Jewish lives matters to the idea that Palestinian lives matter too.

It comes to this. Once you insist that everybody who lives in the same region, should be perceived as an equal human being, then you are targeted by sanctions, boycott, divestment, you name it. People have already lost jobs, – not only me. This atmosphere of fear currently characterizes universities in Germany.

This has nothing to do with the notion of academic freedom. In fact, it’s dangerous, not only for people in university, but for the entire society. Because thinking critically is the essence of how a democratic state can thrive.

Who is involved at the moment?

The people who are involved in organizing are students from different levels - Bachelor students, Masters, PhDs. We also have the support of many professors, and people who work within the structure of the university, not just teachers, but also researchers and administrative staff. I cannot mention the names of these brave people, because we they deserve protection.

We have students from different universities. This includes, the FU, HU, TU, UDK, Hertie School, Alice Salomon Hochschule, Potsdam University, and Filmuni Babelsberg.

Presumably it’s not just about talking. What are you planning to do?

We have formulated a petition with very clear demands. We want to emphasize that the current situation in academia in Germany cannot proceed the way it does at the moment. It is rooted in a racist understanding of how we should perceive the world. We reject this. Instead, we want to reclaim the academic freedom which should belong to us according to basic German law.

What’s the mix of backgrounds of people involved?

It’s really mixed – Germans, Palestinians, Israelis, and students from other countries. It’s people who understand that Palestinian lives matter. This is something which is very human and basic to understand.

Last week, I met a group of about 20 Spanish socialists, a number of whom were in the German education system. They were completely frustrated. They said, we want to help the Palestinians, but don’t know what we can do here. How could people like this support your campaign?

First of all, write us, connect with us at studentscollectiveberlin@gmail.com or on Instagram. We are there not only to work outwards, but also to support each other. This is one of the very important goals of this network that we established. We understand the severe restriction of academic freedom at the moment, and the severe consequences of this. And we are there to support you. So join us you’re, not alone.

At the moment, we have a good overview about different manifestations of repression, against individuals who speak up for basic human rights. Contact us, and we will provide you with the information that you need. If you yourself experience repression, also contact us, because we are building an archive which is unfortunately growing bigger every day.

Could you give a couple of concrete examples of what and how academic freedom has been restricted?

One example is from the Berlin Graduate School Muslim Cultures and Societies to which I am now affiliated. Shortly after the events on the 7th October, we approached the head of our institution offering to organize a public panel discussion. We proposed, with other individuals, that I report from my own research work over the last four years.

Together with a group of students, we wanted to address the repression of Palestinian voices today in Germany. The Berliner police arrested people wearing the kuffiyah at that time. We especially wanted to address this at a graduate school which claims to address realities of Muslim cultures and societies. As a researcher myself, I saw myself responsible for bringing in voices from my fieldwork into this academic sphere. We suggested panellists from ‘Palestine Speaks‘ and the ‘Palästina Kampagne‘, two organisations which are doing amazing work at making living experiences of Palestinians visible.

We were shocked by the refusal from the head of our institution to allow such a panel discussion, arguing that this topic is too political at the moment. At the same time, the university to which this graduate school is affiliated published a statement, showing solidarity only with the Israeli victims of the attack on the 7th October. The thousands of Palestinians who were killed in the name of the Jewish State were completely ignored by the university. This is a reality that we cannot accept.

The most visible repression in the education system at the moment is in schools. You talked about the kuffeyah ban, which was actually a ban on all “Palestinian symbols”. This was mainly implemented in schools. There’s the case of a teacher hitting a child. You’re mainly based in the university. Are you able to link up with people in the school sector as well?

We wish to extend our network as widely as possible. The message must be to anyone who is now confronting this racist repression that you are not alone. Wherever you are – in university higher education or lower education – Organize. Ask around and see that you are not alone.

But be careful. Beware of possible risks. We understand how much power racist people have nowadays. In today’s Germany.

You’ve had 2 meetings so far. Are you planning further meetings?

We are going to meet regularly. The petition is only one thing that we’re planning at the moment. We also support different initiatives that are specific to different universities. We are a collective of collectives. We do what we can to support each other. There are also people who work independently. Whenever they need anything from us. We are there for them.

Are there any specific initiatives planned?

Yes. We are working demonstrations within the campus, organizing panel discussion, and broadening our network. You can see all the relevant updates on our Instagram page.

How can people can help you?

Spread the message, spread the word. Help us to get this petition to anyone who needs to know about it. If you sign anonymously, we understand that for some people this is all thats possible at the moment. But this is also a huge support. You can also mention, as you sign, why you chose to sign this anonymously. You see, unlike what Germany wishes you to think, your voice is valuable and it matters.

Citizenship Reform: Modernisation for some – for others, not so much

Germany’s new proposed citizenship laws are a step in the right direction, but fails to fully recognise the needs of non-Germans

Shav McKay
11/11/2023

As part of the governing coalition’s plans to reform immigration, the Ministry for Internal Affairs (Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat, BMI) headed by Nancy Faeser (SPD) published a draft of amendments to citizenship law on 23 August 23 2023. The BMI calls its plan a ‘modernisation of citizenship law’ with the purported intention of making Germany more attractive and welcoming to immigrants.

Presently, German citizenship law grants citizenship through five channels: birth (to at least one German parent), declaration, assumption in childhood, members of German minority groups abroad who re-settle in Germany, and naturalisation (Einbürgerung). The amendments to the current law mostly pertain to naturalisation—the process of assuming a new nationality as a foreign citizen, of which there are 11.6 million in Germany.

Under current law, citizenship by naturalisation is available to foreigners who have neither been convicted of nor are presently involved in prosecution for high-level criminal offences; have secured a place to live; and have achieved ‘integration into the German way of life’. They must also either have cohabitated with a German spouse for at least three years, or have lived in Germany for a minimum of 8 years, in that time posing no threat to public safety and order; present evidence of secure means to support themselves and any dependents without social assistance; give up prior citizenships; and demonstrate ‘sufficient knowledge’ of German language and civics.

Suggested amendments in the recently published draft include:

waiving citizenship tests and scaling back language proficiency requirements for former Gastarbeiter
automatic citizenship for children born in Germany provided at least one parent has lived in Germany for five years and has permanent residency
a shortened minimum residency from eight years to five
and, perhaps most eagerly anticipated of all, the right to dual citizenship.

Germany lags behind much of the world in its acceptance of multiple nationalities. According to Maastricht University’s Global Dual Citizenship Database, over 76% of nations have a positive policy toward plural citizenship. The database has documented a consistent increase in acceptance of multiple citizenship over the past several decades.

For many living in Germany, renouncing one’s original citizenship could pose an array of problems, such as endangering ease of contact with family and infringing upon a sense of personal identity.

While it is difficult to establish how many foreigners in Germany have abstained from naturalisation in favour of keeping their original citizenship, 5.3 million of them live in Germany long-term (i.e., at least ten years). One such individual is Berlin-based software tester Tekin. Despite a light but distinctly German Franconian accent, Tekin is a Turkish citizen.

‘I was born here, I went to school here, everything—despite that, I can’t vote. As soon as having a second passport is allowed, I’ll apply for it.’ Tekin has found the rise of the extreme right in Germany particularly distressing and is planning a two-month trip to Turkey to cope. ‘I feel so uneasy in Germany now. Every third person seems to be voting for the AfD and is therefore an incognito Nazi.’ An unwelcoming homeland and powerlessness to enact change democratically highlight the importance of both citizenships for Tekin.

Statista records Turkish nationals as the largest non-German minority in the nation at 1.5 million. If all 85 million people living in Germany had the right to vote, they would make up 1.8% of the voting population, with foreigners overall making up 14%.

Data on foreign nationals’ forecasted party alignment is scarce. However, a 2021 study in Duisburg found that German citizens with a Turkish background (either naturalised citizens or with at least one Turkish parent) were most likely to vote SPD (4% more so than those with no personal or familial immigration background). Participants also reported an incidence of voting for the Linke four times higher than that of those with no immigration background and a low incidence of voting for the AfD.

It remains to be seen how expedited naturalisation will be reflected in the German political landscape, but the represented parties shared their positions on the drafted amendments upon proposal this past May. From within the ruling coalition, the Green party hopes that the changes will make Germany a ‘more attractive’ immigration hub. The SPD placed emphasis on the need for double citizenship, while the FDP primarily cited the ostensible workforce crisis as a motivation for easing the path to citizenship.

The Linke notes that while immigration in Germany rises, naturalisation rates have stagnated. The party positions itself against exclusion from citizenship based on socioeconomic status, language skills, and civics tests, and stands behind implementing a right to dual citizenship.

To their point, applicants would not necessarily be denied citizenship for rightfully receiving social assistance. In addition, among the new amendments is the further reduction of the residency period from 5 to 3 years for ‘special integration efforts’ among which are listed excellent school achievement, C1 language knowledge, and volunteer efforts. Applicants are meant to meet conditions that are not imposed on ordinary Germans.

The BMI defines ‘integration’ as ‘a process with the goal of including all who live in Germany long term and legally in society…Immigrants have the obligation to learn the German language, to know, respect and follow the constitution and the law.’ It further states that integration gives immigrants the same chances and access to civil participation as native citizens.

The emphasis on ‘integration’ extends to the implementation of an Einbürgerungsfeier (citizenship ceremony). The Einbürgerungsfeier is one of several elements to the BMI’s new immigration package drawn from Canadian citizenship law. Canadian immigration policy awards points largely based on qualifications and existing job offers within Canada, but also deducts points for other factors such as age [1]. After five years, immigrants are permitted to apply for citizenship. The citizenship ceremony in Canada is a symbolic event at which successful applicants take an oath declaring their new citizenship.

Canada is far from a multicultural paradise, as was laid bare in past years when atrocities of residential schools were exposed to the world, and when right-wing demonstrations took hold during the pandemic. Yet, it does have some cultural advantages where Germany has deficits which may have been lost in translation during the BMI’s consultation on Canadian immigration policy, and which will be difficult to remedy with a state-mandated party.

95% of Canadians are non-indigenous and thus have a history of immigration. Canada is sometimes described as a cultural ‘mosaic’ to differentiate it from the US ‘melting pot’. If the US-American historical approach to immigration and naturalisation has been ‘anyone can become American’, Canada’s is ‘many different people are Canadian’. The elementary school curriculum in Ontario, Canada’s most populated province, prescribes the acknowledgement of Canada as a nation of immigrants and encourages students’ discussion of their own heritage and immigration history, where applicable. Global citizenry is introduced as a concept as early as age six, with asylum-seeking and immigration the following year. Cultural coexistence is not only an academic affair; an estimated 4.6 million Canadians speak a non-official language at home and around half of residents in Toronto, the nation’s largest city, are immigrants. Equivalent information is difficult to find in Germany, partly because of restrictive policies on data collection regarding race and cultural background.

Moreover, the recent quashing of demonstrations in support of Palestine call into question Germany’s preparedness as a society to welcome diversity. It raises concerns surrounding what actions could be seen as ‘failed integration’. Middle East Eye reported an estimate of up to 100,000 Palestinians and descendants in Germany with 25,000 in Berlin alone, making it home to one of the largest Palestinian diaspora outside the Middle East. Despite Palestinian families making up a significant minority in Germany, recent events have illuminated legislative and social rigidity regarding cultural acceptance. The keffiyeh, a scarf culturally significant to Palestinians, is banned in Berlin schools. In another incident, a dispute over a student bringing a Palestinian flag to school resulted in a teacher punching a 15-year-old student in the face.

A shortened wait before becoming a citizen and a positive policy move toward dual citizenship are encouraging and necessary changes. Nonetheless, as Berlin internationals watch increasingly unbridled oppression of free speech unfold in the streets, they may be forced to wonder if their resistance could prove burdensome on their pathway to citizenship. All the while, Faeser crams a mosaic of traffic onto a one-lane assimilation street—without the infrastructure to support Germany in integrating into a multicultural society, the nation is unlikely to become more welcoming and ‘attractive’ to non-German citizens through policy alone.

The draft is now in the Bundestag, where changes can be suggested. Official dates for the law to come into effect have yet to be announced, but the BMI projects it will be finished ‘in the first six months of 2024’.

Tekin eagerly awaits becoming a citizen of the country they call home, voicing frustration with their exclusion from politics. ‘It doesn’t matter what I achieve here, as long as I’m not German on paper, I can’t partake in decision-making. My future is in the hands of others. And it’s not looking good.’ Even in the best of cases, they have reservations about the social impact—or lack thereof—that a German passport will bring.

‘Germany doesn’t give me a feeling of belonging…even when I’m ‘‘officially’’ German, I’ll still be a foreigner to others, despite being born and raised here. And in Turkey, I’m an Almanci. I’m not a German in Germany, I’m not a Turk in Turkey—I’m Tekin.’

Footnotes

I, a Canadian citizen, scored 341 out of a possible 1200 points; 110 were due to being 28 years old.