The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: January 2024

Geert Wilders and the roots of resentment

Wilders’s election victory might seem shocking, but it is the natural response of a depoliticised society. A Dutch socialist writes


30/01/2024

Last November, Dutch Far-right anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders achieved a landslide election win with his PVV party. Far from a sudden shift to the right, this is just the natural response of a society that has been depoliticised and left out in the cold by decades of neoliberal policy. A diagnosis of this ‘’Dutch disease’’:

Nothing out of the ordinary

Geert Wilders and his “Party for Freedom” (Dutch: Partij voor de Vrijheid, or ‘’PVV’’) clinched the Dutch general elections on the 22nd of November, marking the biggest triumph for the infamous Islamophobe. The resounding victory – totalling 23.5% of the vote share – translates to a staggering 37 out of 150 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives. If he can successfully form a coalition government with the other right-wing parties, Wilders looks poised to get closer to government than ever. 

News headlines from all over the world expressed ‘’shock’’ at the PVV’s election victory, calling it an ‘’earthquake’’ and ‘’a dramatic result that will stun European politics’’. But we should know this victory is far from surprising. Zooming out even the slightest bit will help us understand PVV’s win. 

Geert Wilders is not the first European far-right populist to make a career out of racism, white nationalism, and Islamophobia – nor is he the first to be successful at it. And contrary to what some media outlets portray him as, Wilders is not an ‘’outsider’’.

No humble beginnings

The Geert Wilders we know today is a direct product of the Dutch political establishment. He started his political career in the late 80s with the liberal VVD party – one of the country’s most prominent parties of the last 50 years – and has been a member of parliament for 26 years. Some of his most formative years were spent as a foreign policy assistant to Frits Bolkestein, then-leader of the VVD. Bolkestein is known for having been one of the first Dutch politicians to drive a hard line on immigration, especially from Muslim-majority countries, and Wilders would follow in his mentor’s footsteps.

His work for Bolkestein allowed him to travel to such countries as Jordan, Egypt, Iran and Israel. These trips filled Wilders with distaste and hatred for Islam and Muslim-majority societies on the one hand, and reaffirmed his love for Israel, which he later called ‘’a beacon of freedom and of prosperity, surrounded by Islamic darkness.’’

In 2006, Wilders founded his own party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom, or PVV) after splitting off from the VVD, embittered over its acquiescence to Turkey joining the EU. Over the 18-year existence of the PVV, its political programme has largely remained unchanged. Wilders has always campaigned on a toxic combination of white nationalism, xenophobia, climate denial, racism, and anti-Islam rhetoric. His latest election programme foresaw a complete block of new asylum seekers and a ‘’restrictive immigration policy’’. Wilders wants to ban dual citizenship, detain and deport illegal immigrants, and withdraw the temporary residence permits of Syrian refugees, since ‘’parts of Syria are safe.’’ His campaign plans more or less propose a ban on Islamic life, stating: “the Netherlands is not an Islamic country: no Islamic schools, Korans and mosques.“ Wilders is most famous for his virulent statements on Islam, and produced a horrible short-film in 2006 that sought to expose the ‘’inherent violent nature of Islam’’. Speaking about the film, he said:

“Fitna is the last warning to the West. We can choose to pass freedom on to our children or allow our freedom to sink into a multicultural swamp.’’

Despite migration, law & order, and Islam being Wilders’ main themes, his socio-economic politics are perhaps of a different character than many expect. PVV’s most recent election programme foresees tax-cuts on groceries, shorter work weeks, raising minimum wages, lowering energy bills and taking money from ‘’unnecessary’’ climate plans. His ideas have always been much less developed than those of other Dutch parties – many of them are plainly unserious in their ambition – but some of those promises of material betterment have definitely resonated with parts of the Dutch working classes. Even if some of its social politics sound more progressive than the Dutch political centre, the PVV is an extreme-right wing party, and it knows what to use to appeal to broader sections of society. 

Though, at the beginning, the PVV did not garner the broader support from the Dutch conservative establishment that it sought. Its main strategist left the party after mere months and claimed that Wilders ‘’had a natural tendency towards fascism’’. His own brother described Wilders’ character as hard-headed and ‘’uncompromising’’. Something extremely odd, but perhaps not entirely unsurprising, then, is the fact that he is the only official member of the PVV. Unlike the rest of the political parties within the Dutch system, the PVV does not operate as a member-based party, granting Wilders complete authority over both the party’s structure and its programme. Despite this, the PVV has been a constant factor in the Dutch political landscape and has been successful to varying degrees over the six elections in which it has participated.

The roots of resentment

The fact that this toxic cocktail of hate has finally led to a big election victory in the Netherlands should not surprise anyone. As internationalist leftists, we know that the efficacy of such rhetoric has been proven time and again in different countries around the world. Perhaps, the persistent image of ‘’the progressive Netherlands’’ put out by the country’s decades of (neo)liberal governments – something most Dutch leftists have never truly believed in – has now definitively been shattered. The Netherlands, with its overly sober and technocratic political culture, may long have seemed immune from such extremism and borderline fascist ideologies, but why would it be?

If anything, it is precisely because of this overly technocratic and borderline emotionless political culture of the Netherlands that far-right, antidemocratic movements are able to flourish. Like in other European contexts, large parts of the Dutch working class are alienated, inflation has hit hard, and the cost of living has gone up massively in recent years. The housing market is in shambles; the average person is unable to buy a house and many struggle to pay rent in Dutch cities, making the Dutch housing market one of the most overpriced in Europe. On top of that, the Netherlands is internationally known as a tax haven for multinational companies, and ranks as one of the most unequal countries in the world in terms of wealth distribution.

For almost 50 years, the country has been ruled by varying coalitions of liberals and Christian democrats. These parties have pushed Calvinist neoliberal narratives of ‘’individual responsibility’’ that have penetrated every corner of Dutch society. Everyday issues such as healthcare, public transport, housing, stagnating salaries, and cost of living have been decontextualised and stripped of their inherently political nature. To top it all off, the Netherlands currently has its longest-serving prime minister ever, VVD’s Mark Rutte. For over 13 years, the robotic technocrat Rutte has overseen various privatisations, enacted austerity measures and further contributed to societal depoliticisation, all while raking in several major scandals.

Pair these facts with the complete abandonment of the working classes by Dutch leftist parties, who over the last decades have shamelessly internalised the dominant neoliberal narratives, and the utter refusal of ‘’the political centre’’ to ostracise the far-right, who instead normalised their rhetoric and talking points, and it becomes clear how Wilders was finally able to win.

Prime Minister Wilders

As this article is published, Geert Wilders is still in coalition talks with the right-wing agrarian BBB party, the liberal VVD party and the Christian democratic NSC party. If they form a coalition, what can we expect of the Netherlands in the next few years? 

Without a doubt, this right-wing coalition will further criminalise people who seek asylum and will try to decrease immigration as far as possible. Emboldened by the recent EU agreement which seeks to do just that, Wilders will be able to make work of his decade-old racist plans. He will still have to operate within the skeleton of a liberal democracy, but the societal narrative has been pushed so far to the right that his ideas are more palatable than ever. The previous government even collapsed over VVD’s anti-immigration stance; PM Mark Rutte blocked the possibility of family reunification for refugees, after his party had helped create an ‘’asylum crisis’’ with years of defunding and underfunding agencies responsible for the asylum process. Terrible conditions in shelters ensued, leading to an unprecedented first-time intervention by Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in the Netherlands, and countless media headlines that helped erode public support for welcoming migrants and asylum seekers. The tone was set, migration became a major theme in these latest elections, and Geert Wilders happens to more or less own this issue in Dutch politics. He will continue to do so and seek to implement his campaign promises with the help of his right-wing coalition partners.

In the short term, this coalition will also continue to cover for Israeli war crimes. The Dutch governments of recent decades have always supported the Israeli occupation and policies of ethnic cleansing, current PM Mark Rutte allegedly even asked his Foreign Ministry to ‘’cover Israeli war crimes’’, but no politician is as big of a cheerleader for Israel as Geert Wilders. Having visited Israel dozens of times, as well as  spending two years volunteering in an illegal settlement in the Occupied West Bank as a teenager, Wilders’ support for the Zionist entity is truly boundless. Like Trump did in 2017, Wilders wants the Dutch embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His fanatical love for Israel is inextricably linked to his hatred for Islam, in a 2010 speech he said: ‘’The future of the world hinges on Jerusalem. When Jerusalem falls, Athens, Rome, Paris, London and Washington will be next’’. Wilders openly supports the policy of increasing illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank – or ‘’Judea and Samaria’’ as he calls it – which is ‘’an integral part of the Jewish state.’’

Wilders is also notoriously well-connected with European autocrats and far-right actors like Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Alice Weidel, Santiago Abascal and Matteo Salvini. Potential prime minister Wilders will no doubt seek closer friendships with these leaders and their countries.

Within the Netherlands, the crises are likely to deepen. A right-wing coalition spearheaded by Geert Wilders and the PVV will not and cannot provide any real answers to the growing alienation of Dutch working classes and the depoliticisation of young people. Geert Wilders’ promises to the average Dutch citizen cannot and will not undo decades of privatisation and the neoliberal erosion of communities. His hateful rhetoric will likely embolden and mobilise extreme right-wing forces to come out of the woodwork and claim their space in the new Netherlands.

While Geert Wilders will not singlehandedly plunge the sober Netherlands into fascism, one thing is clear: his racist plans and anti-Islam rhetoric enjoy the broadest support ever. Although not surprising, his electoral victory is alarming in the context of a pan-European rise of far-right ideologies. It is time for those who so often preach about the values of ‘’liberal democracy’’ to defend it with all their might, and for leftists all over Europe to relentlessly push back against these hateful ideologies. We know the ‘’other’’ is not our enemy.

Between a Rock and a Staatsräson: What’s Up With German Media?

German coverage of Gaza has been substandard at best—is unconstitutional state pressure to blame?


28/01/2024

‘Freedom of the press and of reporting through radio and film broadcast are guaranteed. Censorship does not take place,’ asserts Article five of the German constitution. Supposedly this encodes journalistic freedom into the fabric of the Republic. Yet,  as politicians’ assertions of solidarity with Israel, German reporting on violence in Gaza, is either pro-Israel, or is timid and incomplete. Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in a much-praised speech on November 2nd, ‘The security of Israel is German reason-of-state (Staatsräson)’. Through omission, hesitation and manipulation approaching propaganda, some channels reflected his words clearly. But others seemed hindered by them and try to convey that there is more to the story without betraying where their sympathies lie.

Tagesspiegel is headquartered in Berlin. The outlet provides news both digitally and in print. Die Zeitungen, which monitors newspaper activity in Germany, ranks Tagesspiegel as the highest-quality regional paper in the country as reviewed by experts. However reporting on the Israel-Hamas conflict tends to concentrate on antisemitism, the Israeli hostages, local terrorism threats, and Israeli military activity. 

The 167,000-follower @tagesspiegel Instagram account underwent an apparent tone shift around mid-December, when content became more weighted in favour of Palestinian voices in Berlin and abroad. Posts included headlines like ‘Four in ten of those killed are children’; ‘The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is beyond all imagination’ overlaid on images of young boys among rubble; ‘Protests against Hamas in Gaza following the death of a teenager’; and a post highlighting the conflation of grief with ‘terrorism’ within Germany. These and others, appear to humanise Palestinian victims of the conflict and reflect support of their struggle. 

The social media presence contrasts with headlines on the Tagesspiegel homepage.  While the reporting illustrated in the above posts is also published on the site, it is interspersed among opinions such as the justification of Israeli attacks on non-military targets due to Hamas’ ‘Fusion with civilians’ and an article quoting Munich cardinal Reinhard Marx in a  headline suggesting Islam a whole be ‘stopped’.

A possible explanation for Tagesspiegel’s contradictory social media and homepage presence could be related to the age of readers in differing media. More than half of Instagram users in Germany are under  30, and TikTok has a particularly young user base. Those older than 30 use the Holocaust to base their views on the conflict or have oriented their opinions around violence during early 2000s which culminated in Israeli settlers’ withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. In contrast many of those under 30 likely encounter the conflict for the first time in the aftermath of October 7th. Crucially, civilian narratives out of Gaza now circulate on social media platforms such as Instagram and Tiktok and shape public opinion. “Curated” coverage allows the paper to drive positive engagement via @tagesspiegel while providing enough pro-Israel content on tagesspiegel.de to maintain the status quo. Thus they evade accusations of so-called ‘Anti-Israel antisemitism’.

Beyond local news, the nation’s most-viewed, most-trusted source Tagesschau (ARD) included consistent nightly reports for several weeks on the Hamas-Israel conflict in its 8pm segment. The 15-minute  broadcast attracts nearly 10 million viewers on an average night—a 34.5% share of the market. Notably, this cultural institution beloved by the German public was confronted with a decisive event several weeks ago when ARD’s own reporters in Israel were held and threatened by Israeli soldiers.

An article on their website called  the event ‘a clear attack on freedom of press’, and a corresponding instagram post received more than 250,000 likes and over 7,000 comments. Five days later, an interview was published on the Tagesschau website under the heading Journalists Are Obligated to Document Crimes. In the article, one of the affected journalists, Jan-Kristoph Kitzler, addressed Israeli campaigning to discredit foreign journalism.

In the weeks following Kitzler’s ordeal, Tagesschau 20 Uhr featured a series urging the public to critically engage with media surrounding the conflict. It illuminated reporters’ unique challenges in the area. For example, a story documenting journalist Mohammed Abusaif’s efforts to flee Gaza. Abusaif claimed that civilians keep a wide berth of journalists, as they are thought to be favoured targets by the Israeli military.  The broadcast  on the November 29th slot dedicated several minutes to address wartime media literacy. Moderator Judith Rackers said that images obtained during conflict are often supplied by the involved parties, ‘difficult to verify, and often false’. Her words reflected a press release from the Deutsche Journalisten-Verband (German Journalists’ Association or DJV). A clip of celebration during a hostage exchange authored by Hamas follows, after which an interviewed ARD fact-checker affirms that opponents in war ‘naturally want to show their side of the story’. 

As the broadcast cuts to the next clip, a voiceover claims that the same is true of Israel—that ‘selected’ journalists are accompanied by Israeli military personnel to document the war’s progression. The example in the clip, was originally from an American news agency. It traced the Al-Shaifa Hospital story. Israel justified bombing the hospital with claims that Hamas commando headquarters were concealed in tunnels beneath its foundation. The voiceover says that the military ‘wants to show evidence of a commando headquarters—journalists are shown tunnels and guns’. Following the footage, media scholar Steffen Siegel explains that the ‘great seductiveness’ of images is in their immediacy and the spontaneity with which the public reacts to them. 

Dedicating several minutes of a 15-minute programme to educating the public on media literacy following an ‘attack on journalistic freedom’ victimising colleagues, further coupled with the CBS Morning banner on footage of Al-Shaifa Hospital begs a question. Namely, is the nation’s most popular news source grappling with the line between the German state’s pro-Israel sensibilities and responsible reporting? Tagesschau coverage has reasonably sown distrust toward information transmitted via the IDF and of Israel’s motivations among viewers. However it remains a far cry from, for example, CNN reporting that openly questions the verity of IDF claims that a Hamas commando central was located beneath the Hospital.

While honest reporting on Gaza is in the interest of the German public and therefore the duty of public broadcasters, a wariness surrounding stories negatively reflecting on Israel leaves Tagesschau with few tools to represent the truth. Foregoing what should be abundant ground coverage for a media literacy lesson during their most precious time slot betrays ARD’s ambivalence. But, as with CBS footage of Al-Shaifa, the German media again looked to the USA following The New York Times’ report stating that Israel had received repeated prior warning of Hamas’ plans for attack. 

Source attribution is crucial to news media because the credibility of information depends on it. It also allows journalists to present information that they otherwise are not qualified to, separating the presentation from the realm of subjectivity and personal opinion. Their own convictions are muted and they are perceived as a neutral vessel for factual information. On December first, ARD newscaster Susanne Daubner introduced the NYT report with a question: ‘Did Hamas’ attack on Israel really come as a surprise?’ Because responsibility for the information lies elsewhere, her provocative intonation and the following discussion with Tel Aviv correspondent Christian Limpert received a degree of protection from accusations of anti-Israel bias.

Hiding behind Uncle Sam, appealing to viewers to cautiously consume the data they encounter—alludes to an unseen force restricting ARD’s coverage. With freedom of the press and from censorship enshrined in the constitution, what is the invisible rope tying the hands of German news coverage? According to some scholars, it’s the same Staatsräson Robert Habeck mentioned in his speech. 

A document published by the Bundestag late 2023 elaborates on German Staatsräson as an obligation to protect Jewish lives and to the security of Israel, assumed within the text to be interchangeable. It provides Staatsräson as justification for Germany’s vote against recognising Palestine as a UN-non-member observer state in 2012. The obligation to Israel’s security is categorised as an obligation to ‘facilitate a political environment which reduces tensions between Israel and neighbouring Arab countries.’ Closer analysis of Palestinian sovereignty as a threat to Israel is not presented in the document.

Deutschlandfunk, traditionally broadcasts through radio and other audio media but also summarises current events on its website. It has taken an interest in politicians deviating from the accepted pro-Israel doctrine. Opinions which include criticising Israel for having ‘no plan’ for its fight against Hamas; or United Nations General Secretary Antonio Guterres’ opposition to Israel’s actions and warnings against escalation. Early reporting lent significant attention to Israeli and international casualty numbers alongside the Palestinian civilian death toll; an IDF blunder resulting in the death of 13 hostages; collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza; collective punishment per the UNO; protest bans, as well as efforts against domestic antisemitism. Arguably Israel-sympathetic content appears to have dwindled with the war’s progression. 

The outlet tackles Staatsräson’s impact on the German media in an episode of their Breitband podcast. An expert guest interviewed on the podcast, was Meron Mendel, the Anne Frank Education Centre director, professor and historian. Mendel argues that while global news had the same point of origin on October 7th—the shock of Hamas’ attack—coverage in the US and much of the world has since developed in a direction unlikely to be followed by German coverage.

Mendel assessed the initial coverage worldwide portraying Israel as ‘victim’ and Hamas as the ‘perpetrator’, as an image that proved increasingly difficult to maintain. As Israel’s counter-offensive progressed, mounting civilian costs became incompatible with the idea that Israel was acting in self-defence. Turning to American media, he cites the Washington Post’s front-page dedication to images of Gazan child casualties, claiming that ‘such a strong gesture of empathy with Gazan civilians would be interpreted as anti-Israel’ in Germnay. Arguing the German media presents as much more reserved than its American counterpart.

Staatsräson is defined in the episode as either ‘the interests of the state bear importance above all others’ or is ‘a critical, unshakeable principle of the state’. On the latter definition, the German state holds Israel’s right to existence as inviolable and that ‘the security of Israel is the security of Germany’. Note that legal scholar Martin Morlok calls this use of the word a ‘terminological misnomer’. Staatsräson provides a foundation for a nation’s geopolitical handlings. The moderators posed the question, ‘does Staatsräson apply only to the state of Germany, or also to the German media?’

Mendel answered, ‘[the idea that a] government tell its people what to think is anti-democratic’; further, the term has no legal underpinning and is propagated by politicians without an understanding of its meaning or regard for the broader consequences of doing so.

These ‘broader consequences’ are evidenced in Axel-Springer Verlag. The owner of BILD, Welt, Politico, and several daily papers including Berliner Morgenpost among other outlets, declared itself  ‘unrestrictedly on Israel’s side’ and amended company policy It now demanded explicit support of ‘the state of Israel’s right to exist’, of employees. The move was praised by former Bundestag Member Jürgen Trittin (Die Grünen). In an interview with weekly newspaper Die Zeit Trittin said that so much should be expected of ‘every publishing house and every political party.’ His words prompted a statement from the DJV rejecting politicians’ attempts to intervene in ‘responsible reporting’. Even if no such demands have been made outside of the Axel-Springer family, the shadow cast by so-called Staatsräson on Germany’s most influential sources is inescapable, driving them to reserved and duplicitous coverage of Gaza.

Mendel acknowledges that the German media must be aware of the resonance that reporting could have with an antisemitic German public. Antisemitism had a clear foothold in German society prior to October 7th. The 2022 Leipzig Authoritarianism Study of more than 2.5 thousand participants found that more than a quarter at least partially agreed with the statement, ‘Even today Jewish influence is too strong’, while 23% said that Jewish people are fundamentally different and don’t ‘fit’ with German society, and a similar number saiod that Jewish people use ‘more tricks than others’ to ‘get what they want’. Audiences could therefore be primed to twist information into fuel for preexisting antisemitic beliefs. 

Material presented by Tagesschau, concern from the DJV and the content of the Breitband episode overlap in their message that the conflict requires extra care and meticulousness. Mendel’s proposed solution is to simply dedicate more time and pages to reporting on the conflict to avoid reanimating Germany’s fraught anti-Jewish history while also truthfully documenting atrocities in Gaza. In his own words: ‘German antisemitism is no reason not to broadcast civilian suffering—this obligation is essential to all reporting’.

“It’s so Berlin!” 2: “Cancelled Remains”

The second instalment in our series of photographs and cartoons about Berlin and Palestine.


27/01/2024

Following last week’s contribution “Blind Orders“, here are the latest works from Berlin-based Palestinian artists Rasha Al Jundi and Michael Jabareen.

Photo: Rasha Al-Jundi

 

Cartoon: Michael Jabareen

 

The art and cultural scene in Berlin specifically and in Germany as a whole, hasn’t been “Palestinian-friendly” for some time now, long before October 7th 2023. The loose use of the anti-Semitism card against Palestinian or pro-Palestinian culture creators by a curator, art space, event funder or biased politician has led to the cancellation of events or award ceremonies for those culture creators. In some cases, this madness has led to unfair legal action against the latter.

As struggling artists ourselves, we decided to take this issue up in this image, which includes a pair of white sneakers as the abandoned items.

Titled “Cancelled Remains”, this image features two of the most spotted wildlife dwellers in the urban landscape of Berlin. Rats and foxes blend into the general cultural sector of the city, taking up its typical arrogant attitude. The city’s art bosses rushed to cancel Palestinian and pro-Palestinian artists’ activities including talks and exhibitions (we don’t even know where to pitch any work in this hostile context).

At the time of writing this caption (31.12.2023), we had lost more than 22,000 Palestinians in occupied Palestine. Many of those lost lives were culture creators. In the midst of the genocide, a mother in besieged Gaza held up what remained of her killed son: his white shoes. She screamed in agony and kissed the shoes.

Now imagine her son was an artist and the “civilised” world held an exhibition of his remains for entertainment.

Image taken in Kreuzberg, Berlin (2023).

 

“It’s about making us all stronger and safer through collective action”

Interview with 2 members of the Arts and Culture Alliance Berlin (ACAB) about artistic freedom and Palestine in Berlin


26/01/2024

Note: This interview was carried out on Monday, 22nd January, the day in which the Berliner Senat announced its withdrawal of the “Anti-Discrimination” clause.

Hello, thanks for agreeing to talk to us. Could you explain a little about your organisation?

ACAB is an alliance of artists who came together in the past few months after the Hamas attacks in Israel and the subsequent genocidal bombing that began in Gaza. The cultural scene in Berlin was very, very quickly becoming even more sensitive, prone to censorship and repressive than it had already been. So we assembled a meeting and started working together.

ACAB stands for Arts and Culture Alliance Berlin. The main goal was to make sure that the most marginalised amongst our community of artists are not the ones who are being left behind in the struggle. Unfortunately, they have been the ones who have been feeling the brunt of the cultural repression that’s been playing out at the moment.

There’s been this idea that arts and culture somehow need this kind of political repression in a heavier way than other fields. There’s a displacement of actual fighting against fascism onto people who are trying to speak out against the genocide.

It’s been Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, and people who support Palestinian Liberation who are losing funding, being de-platformed, and generally being cancelled by the establishment arts scene in Germany. This is part of the concerted effort of Germany to stand fully behind Israel’s manipulative upside down claims to have a right to defend itself when defence has become an obliterative offence.

Because Germany seems to think that the issue with all of this is just Jews and not genocide, it is forbidding any kind of dissent from within the country. Anyone in culture who’s even potentially in support of Palestine is an antisemite. And because of the right wing idea that criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the entire spectrum of political actors are clamping down and silencing critiques of Israel.

Who is involved in ACAB?  

It’s an alliance of cultural workers. And that can be defined as broadly as possible – anyone who calls themself an artist. If you have a similar feeling to us, you are welcome to join.

We felt the need to organise on a more grassroots level than what was already established through organisations like the Bundesverband Bildender Künstlerinnen (BBK) – an official body that represents the interests of visual artists and who are also doing amazing work. We also saw the need to organise from an intersectional position that centres the politics of the artists who stand the most chance of being silenced right now and generally speaking, those are not German. There’s a rift that’s opening up between what Germans believe is a left-wing politic, and an actual representation of marginalised voices in this country.

We saw that yesterday [21st January] in the demo against the AfD, where the Palestinian bloc was attacked by people at that demo. There’s a constant struggle where the German Left is paralysed by not knowing how to avoid antisemitism while also avoiding anti-racism.

A lot of people have chosen to exclusively privilege antisemitism. But we’re trying to say that all of these forms of discrimination are intersectional and must be treated equally. We cannot allow right-wing violence, even if it’s done by someone who claims to be a victim such as the State of Israel. That’s something that seems very hard for Germans to understand right now.

Can we say something about the “anti-discrimination” clause? ACAB has now organised two demos outside the Berliner Abgeordnetehaus against the clause. What does it mean for artists who live in Berlin?

Much of Germany’s cultural sector is publicly funded. That means that tax money pays artistic labour, for the existence of artistic institutions, and for our studios to be subsidised. Much of the cultural sector comes from public funding.

Now the CDU is in power in Berlin and their senator has decided to impose an “anti-discrimination” clause to be added to all funding contracts. If you sign it, you must accept the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which states that critique of Israel is antisemitic.

I was reading the clause again last night to be sure about the wording. And there’s one line which says that you agree not to work with anyone who is suspected of working with extremist or terrorist groups. This is for me, very worrying.

That means that the definition of who gets labeled a terrorist or extremist organisation is left to the often biased opinions of public officials. Groups who support Palestinian solidarity would be much easier to define as a terrorist or extreme rather than a right-wing German group.

Were the clause to be put into effect, what kind of cultural scene would we have? We would have people who did not have any qualms in endorsing Israel’s actions, who are either pro-Zionist or simply ambivalent or indifferent to genocide. It would be a very, very different cultural scene than the one that we have.

We are not against actual anti-discrimination measures. We absolutely believe in anti-racism and anti-discrimination, but the most marginalised people must be safe. What we have seen uses the language of anti-discrimination, but the so-called “anti-antisemitism” measures are being used as a weapon against marginalised artists.

It’s important to say that we don’t think of artists being completely free of politics. We believe in freedom of speech only up until the point that it is not discriminatory to others. The far right has used the language of freedom of speech for decades. But when we talk about freedom of speech, we talk about freedom towards a liberatory critique of power.

Has there been a reaction from white German artists to the clause?

Of course. They’re trying to show their support. But it’s not universal, and there’s a bit of a tipping point around freedom of expression. Any artist worth their salt knows that you can’t do this.  You’re getting a lot more people who may not be so sure about Palestine or antisemitism, but they’re sure about freedom of expression.

They’ll distance themselves very carefully to try to feel like it’s not too close to what they feel uncomfortable with. But when it comes to freedom of expression, and what can be said and done as art, they know that if they endorse the censorship, they will lose their legitimacy as experts in culture.

More than other demographics, artists are internationally networked. And internationally, people on the Left have sympathy for Palestine. It’s different within Germany, where the Left is very confused right now. But internationally the Left is far more secure. In the art field itself, there is a larger sympathy for a pro-Palestinian position than outside. For German artists, that’s kind of alienating and a bit threatening.

How have cultural institutions reacted?

We need arts and culture platforms to be able to maintain spaces for freedom of speech and criticism. But the institutions across the board were silent or pro-Zionist even before the government proposed the discrimination clause. The spreadsheet “Index Palestine” has kept track of how cultural institutions were reacting, and almost all of them were completely silent while so many events were being cancelled, and artists were being de-platformed.

On top of that, they were checking our Facebook posts or Instagram posts. If the clause goes into effect, this will put the institutions in the position of deciding who they want to work with, and who’s a safe bet. This censorship enters into the institutions and makes artists choose between getting funding and solidarity.

This is very dangerous for art because everyone starts to surveil each other. Institutions can say: “Oh, you made a post, you signed a letter that somebody else in favour of BDS signed.” It gets very insecure very quickly, because art does not generate money on its own. We need funding. The cultural scene is very dependent on external sources of money.

In other countries, where art is entirely based on foundations and private funding, the people who are affiliated with Zionism are just pulling shows and withdrawing money. Here, where it’s coming from the public funding and the government, the abuses of power are very intense.

I’m quite bolstered in my optimism in knowing that the cultural scene of Berlin can’t happen without us. Further, we have a voice because of public money. This is why it just seemed so urgent and necessary to start organising.

It was announced in today’s demo that the clause has been withdrawn. How much do you know about why this has happened? Is this a permanent thing? What happens next?

Since we were outside at the demo, we didn’t get to watch the proceedings. I’m just going on what we heard from other people inside. We can accept this as a victory because whatever the plan was, it is now no longer. The plan has been put on hold or at least postponed.

But we will definitely continue organising. Artists have now been awarded funding for 2024. They are all organised and ready to fight the clause if it shows up in our contracts. We will keep going. I don’t think the fight is over.

We want to make sure that things don’t get worse. There’s always going to be more to work on. If we win the fight on the anti-discrimination clause, we have 4 million other things. There’s so much more to do. The fact that we’re organised and we’re finding each other and building trust with each other is always going to be a good thing, no matter what.

Do you think your demonstrations affected the decision? 

Definitely. The first demonstration was really impactful. By the time they got to today’s meeting, they would have already made the decisions. So I think today was much more symbolic. But it’s good that we did it anyway. There’s been a lot of work going on behind the scenes that has definitely shifted things. But it’s not the end.

Part of what we’re doing is just for us. We’re doing this to show each other that we stand up against this. We are all working as hard as we can to build the culture that we want in our communities. This is a really big step. We have this network now and we have accountability to each other.

Berlin’s art community is diverse. There’s some who are pro-Palestine, others who are not so pro-Palestine, but for free speech. Some artists support you, but are very wary of signing any open letter because they know that this could mean that they lose work or funding.

What can artists in Berlin do to support what you’re doing and what you’ll be doing in the future?

We have open meetings, they’re welcome to join us. There’s lots of work to be done. Argue with Germans. There’s a discursive shift that needs to happen around what is fascism and where their voices are needed. We need everybody to get into these conversations and try to sway public opinion. It’s gradual, it’s not like you just step out and you’re fully radicalised. You take steps towards feeling more secure in what you are comfortable committing to.

If people are scared of signing letters, I would say that the more people do it, the more safe we are all together. If 10,000 artists in Berlin sign a letter, they can’t cancel all of us. That’s what was also really encouraging about the most recent letter against the anti-discrimination clause. It had a very wide reach with 5,000 signatories. I don’t know how many working artists there are in Berlin, but that’s a good proportion.

You don’t have to do it alone. There are ways that you can contribute to struggles without having to put your name out there or having your face in the media. It’s about making us all stronger and safer through collective action. This has been our guiding light in the ACAB group.

Letter from the Editors, 25th January 2024

Eye Witness from Gaza speaks in Berlin


24/01/2024

Hello everyone,

Apologies to anyone who didn’t get the Newsletter last week. We are having technical problems with our server and a minority of readers didn’t receive anything last week. We apologise for this, and hope that the problem has now been fixed. Middle-term we are moving to more consistent software which will hopefully eradicate all problems.

This afternoon (Thursday), the Student Coalition Berlin is organising a meeeting with Dr Norman Finkelstein on A Critical Examination of the Role of German Academia in the Midst of Genocide. In this conversation with Prof. Finkelstein we will dive into the complex geopolitical landscape surrounding the ongoing and escalating genocide in Gaza. Germany’s continued unwavering support for Israel, stemming from both historical ties (Israel as Germany’s “Staatsräson”) as well as an ongoing commitment to “security”, is exemplified in Germany’s recent stance against South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice. The meeting starts at 6pm and can be viewed in person at Mozaik Centre, Grunewaldstraße 87, or online via Zoom. Follow the link for more information.

On Friday, theleftberlin is organising an Eye Witness Report from Gaza with Duha Almusaddar, Project Manger of the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung in Gaza. Duha recently left Gaza and will talk about the situation on ground. The meeting starts at 7pm, and will be taking place in Oyoun, Lucy Lameck-Straße 32. Please note that after the Berliner Senat evicted the Oyoun building, there will only be a limited number of chairs so come early to get a seat. Floor seating will also be available to latecomers. We want to organise a second event with Duha in February, with proper seating and translation into German.

This week’s demonstrations for Palestine include the following:

On Saturday evening, Indian socialists are showing the film Ram Ke Naam (In the Name of God). This Monday (22.01.2024), the Prime Minister of India inaugurated a grand temple — the Ram Mandir — in the north Indian city of Ayodhya. The temple stands exactly at the site of the destroyed Babri Masjid — a 400 year old heritage site and place of worship. The film documents this rallying of armed Hindu nationalist mobs, and the destruction of the mosque that followed. The film screening is in the Rosa Luxemburg Saal of Karl Liebknecht Haus on Rosa Luxemburg Platz.

As of this week, our weeklyPalestine Reading Group will be on alternate Sundays and Fridays at the AGIT offices, Nansenstraße 2. This is to accommodate people who could not make our previous regular date of Friday evenings. The next meeting is on Sunday, January 28th at 7pm. The subject is Post-colonialism, colonialism and settler colonialism. Follow the link to register and to find the recommended reading. We are currently running a poll to decide the subject of future reading groups. To join the poll, and to keep up-to-date with the latest from the Reading Group, you can join our Telegram group here.

On Monday, Moviemento is showing the film We Are Here – Young Gaza on Stage against the backdrop of the devastating war in Gaza. Especially now, we want to show people’s lives in Gaza, to give «Gaza» a face or in this particular case the many faces of the actors, their stories and their longing for a life in peace, security and dignity. The film, which was produced in cooperation with the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Palestine Office, is followed by a film talk with the director Sabrina Dittus and Ali Al-Hasani, a member of the theater ensemble from Gaza. Afterwards Duha Almussadar, RLS Palestine and Jordan Office programme manager (who is also speaking at theleftberlin meeting on Friday), will join us to speak about the current situation.

There is much more going on in Berlin. To find out what’s happening, go to our Events page. You can also see a shorter, but more detailed list of events in which we are directly involved in here.

A reminder that you have a week more to vote for the workshop that you want to have at the LINKE Berlin Internationals annual Summer Camp. This year’s Summer Camp will be on 29th-30th June in the Naturfreundehaus Hermsdorf, near Berlin. There will be keynote meetings from Ferat Kocak and activists from Italy and Poland on the rise of the far right in Europe, and Hossam el-Hamalawy and others on Palestine, the Arab States and the Arab Street. The voteends on January 31st. Survey results will be used to make a decision at the next LINKE Internationals open meeting on 5th February.

This week’s Campaign of the Week is Appointment in Samarra, a new blog by Berlin-based Egyptian journalist Simsim Abdo. Follow this link to subscribe.

If you are looking for Resources on Palestine, we have just set up a page with useful links. We will be continually updating the page, so if you would like to recommend other links, please contact us on team@theleftberlin.com.

In News from Berlin, hundreds of thousands demonstrate against the AfD – but the police exclude the Palestine block, Berlin politicians distance themselves from the AfD, and DJs boycott Berghain in solidarity with Palestine.

In News from Germany, massive rent rises in Bavaria, demonstrations against the far right are being registered every day throughout Germany, some German MPs join the call for a ceasefire in Gaza, and Hamburg stands up against right-wing extremism.

Read all about it in this week’s News from Berlin and Germany.

New on theleftberlin, Nathaniel Flakin argues that present government policy is paving the way to the rise of the far right, the Antifascist Music Alliance report on a possible culture boycott of Germany because of censorship on Palestine, we publish the first contribution to It’s So Berlin! – a photographic and cartoon intervention by Palestinian artists Rasha al-Jundi and Michael Jabareen, Sarah Adler interview Jewish anti-Zionist artists Joanna Rajkowska and Robert Yerachmiel Sniderman, we report on last week’s protests against anti-Palestine censorship outside the Gorki theatre, the Bloque Latinamericano explain what’s going on in Ecuador, and Dave Gilchrist looks at Germany, Gaza, and last-week’s massive demonstrations against the AfD.

Our Video of the Week is the recording of our meeting last week on Apartheid Israel with Nadija Samour (Palestinian lawyer), Patrick Bond (South African academic and activist) and Barbara Schreiner (South African activist and Executive Director of the Water Integrity Network). Click on the picture of the speakers below to view the video.

You can follow us on the following social media:

If you would like to contribute any articles or have any questions or criticisms about our work, please contact us at team@theleftberlin.com. And please do encourage your friends to subscribe to this Newsletter.

Keep on fighting,

The Left Berlin Editorial Board