The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

The philosemitic Delusions of Sascha Lobo

German star columnist and blogger is mindlessly repeating Israeli propaganda about antisemitism and Palestine


26/04/2024

Nuremberg, 2015: 400 audience members await the star speaker for the Forum Wellpappe at the Fachpack 2015, the annual conference of the German packaging industry. The guest speaker of the Corrugated Cardboard Association is Sascha Lobo, Germany’s digital expert, internet explainer, and “alpha blogger” about to enlighten manufacturers of corrugated cardboard why they need to be ready for the digital economy. The then 40-year old is still a sought after speaker for anything digital. He is the most prominent voice in Germany making a living of explaining to virtually anyone who will hire him the pitfalls and opportunities of the digital age. 

His appearance is rather unassuming. He could easily be mistaken for the president of the local community garden association if it weren’t for his trademark haircut, a pink-red mohawk. Extravagant personal branding seems to have always been the modus operandi of Lobo. Contemporaries of his younger years recount that he used to show up to parties with sunglasses on his face, fox pelt around his neck and cucumber in hand. The fox pelt to stand out, the cucumber as a prop to strike up conversations; whether it worked is not clear. After a brief stint as an unsuccessful digital advertising and PR-agency owner in the early 2000s, Lobo became a freelance marketing and strategy consultant, public speaker and book author. Since 2011 he is also a columnist for Der Spiegel, Germany’s biggest weekly news magazine, explaining the digital world to its readers.

In his role as columnist, Lobo slowly transitioned from a master of the digital to a jack of all trades as he began to write about anything that crossed his mind, often with a lot less or no expertise at all. No topic makes this more evident than the ten columns he has so far penned on Israel and Gaza since the 7th of October attack by Hamas. In short, his utterances and arguments are a string of copy and paste jobs of press releases from Israeli military or government spokespeople, decades old ahistorical and long disproven talking points gathered together from pamphlets of the Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft or the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, and an imagined Israel that only exists in a German happy-end-fantasy-world. In fact, there is no evidence that Lobo has ever engaged meaningfully with any scholarship or literature other than those sanctioned by the German state. 

In his first piece after the 7th October, he appeals to his readers that the attack on Israel does not need to be contextualised, and if they are in favour of BLM and against the AfD they also ought to support Israel unconditionally. Yet, the same piece argues that the growing extremism in Israeli society is caused by the permanent threat of Palestinian rocket attacks and not, for example, by the militarism required to maintain a 57-year occupation. The obvious question his own claim raises is one that is never asked, and much less answered: If the radicalisation of Israeli society is supposed to be the result of Palestinian attacks, then what forms of radicalisation would a decades long occupation and the creation of a ghetto cause among its victims? 

For Lobo it is clear: the hatred and violence displayed by Israelis and the state of Israel is a result of historical, geographical, and material conditions. The hate Palestinians have for Israel is inherent to who they are, it is part of their innateness and therefore unjustified bigotry. This becomes most apparent as every act of Palestinian resistance to occupation, peaceful or otherwise, is framed as being first and foremost motivated by a hatred of Jews, and therefore irrational, instead of a rational hatred for the occupation and those who enforce it.

The column titled “Hamas-Propaganda of Omission” devotes itself to the Palestinian victims of Israel’s attack on Gaza not in an empathetic way, but in one that questions the validity of the number of victims reported by the Gazan Health Ministry. While Lobo avoids openly calling the numbers false or fabricated, he instead frames the numbers of Palestinian casualties as Hamas propaganda which should not be trusted. However, in an unsurprising twist, the piece omits that the Gazan Health Ministry has been judged a reliable source not only by the UN and all major human rights groups for a long time, but by Israeli intelligence itself.

The same piece argues that the cutting off of water and electricity to Gaza by Israel is not a form of collective punishment or war crime, but merely a withdrawal of goodwill and voluntary help on the side of Israel to supply Gaza with water prior to the 7th of October. Because, according to Lobo’s expertise on the matter, Israel is not liable for the supply of water to Gaza despite the fact that Israel is the internationally recognised occupying force in control of the water supply. In fact, Israel is the internationally recognised occupying force in control of every aspect of life in Gaza and the West Bank. Ironically, through omission of well established facts, Lobo manages to convince himself that others are guilty of the propaganda of omission. It appears that every accusation he makes inadvertently turns into an unintended admission on his part. 

His most misanthropic column appeared in mid-February 2024, when in the midst of the Israel-made humanitarian catastrophe and emerging famine in Gaza, Lobo demanded the disbanding of UNRWA under the exasperated headline “Disband the Palestinian Relief Agency Already”. In it, he attests UNRWA to have overlapping interests with Hamas, although which interests exactly seems to be unclear. Neither does he provide evidence, except that of the notorious pro-Israel lobby group UN-Watch. He seems to care little that UNRWA is the only organisation in Gaza capable of stemming the tide of famine and further mass deaths if equipped appropriately and not targeted by the Israeli military. Lobo’s main grudge against UNRWA is that it is an institution which keeps the legal claims to the land by Palestinian refugees alive. 

If it were up to him, UNRWA would help Palestinian refugees assimilate into the societies of the surrounding states. Since Palestine is not an officially recognised state, Palestinians do not have an official passport which could prove their national identity. Admittedly, the Palestinian Authority does issue passports but they are essentially glorified travel permits which are only given to residents of Gaza and the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), granted they also have an Israeli issued ID. Without UNRWA, there is no internationally recognised body attesting that Palestinians as a whole exist. While the motivation behind Lobo’s demand to disband UNRWA might be superficially different from that of Netanyahu, the result will be what Netanyahu intends, the cultural destruction of the Palestinian diaspora as a recognised national group with legal rights and claims. To make matters worse, Lobo decided to publish this piece two weeks after the International Court of Justice ruled that there is a plausible case for genocide occuring in Gaza and therefore ordered Israel to implement measure for its prevention.

According to Lobo, anyone who points this out is motivated by antisemitism. Antisemitism is the driving force of Palestinian resistance to their occupation and victimisation. It is also the driving force of anyone who dares to demand the humanity and universal rights of Palestinians. Hence, Lobo has become over the last six months not only an expert on Palestine and Israel, but also on antisemitism. If someone sees antisemitism as the key motivator of every social phenomenon relating to Palestine, then antisemitism is everywhere, as Lobo assures his readers is the case:

“Hatred of Jews manages the incredible feat of hiding everywhere and appearing quite openly at the same time. New variants are constantly being added and ancient Jew-hatred practices are being reinterpreted: Nazi anti-Semitism, Islamist anti-Semitism, right-wing anti-Semitism, left-wing anti-Semitism, Christian anti-Semitism, Muslim anti-Semitism, ethnic anti-Semitism, post-colonial anti-Semitism, bourgeois anti-Semitism, woke anti-Semitism, conspiracy theory anti-Semitism, vulgar anti-capitalist antisemitism, pseudo-anti-racist anti-Semitism, intellectual anti-Semitism, accepting anti-Semitism, self-exoneration anti-Semitism and, among many others, the currently largest movement: Israel-related anti-Semitism. Often enriched with a new, well-known annihilative anti-Semitism.”

This proclamation does not only fearmonger an already anxious Jewish community, it also downplays right-wing antisemitism as merely one of a myriad of forms of antisemitism, despite it being by far the most common and violent form of antisemitism in Germany. Ultimately, this list is nothing but an admission that Lobo is willing to use Jewish fears and suffering to weaponize antisemitism for any issue that irks him, justified or not. 

Engaging with Lobo’s post 7th October oeuvre, it becomes clear that his primary objective is not the care for Jewish life, but protecting Israel from criticism. Lobo shows throughout his writing and podcast appearances that he seems to be incapable of distinguishing between Jews as individuals or communities and the state of Israel. It isn’t even clear if he acknowledges the existence of anti-zionist Jews. He betrays a worldview in which he projects the real, catastrophic victimisation of Europe’s Jews onto Israel, a nuclear armed state and regional military goliath. With this, he proclaims it as the victim no matter the circumstance, using his favourite phrase Täter-Opfer-Umkehr (perpetrator-victim-reversal). 

Two years before his death in 1969, Theodor Adorno attested that in German post-war society (he called it “post-hitlerian Germany”, although he was not entirely convinced by the truthfulness of his phrase) the philosemitism it developed in the wake of the Holocaust was nothing but the continuation of antisemitism, as it kept alive the dehumanisation of Jews. It is this philosemitism, the dehumanisation of Jews by elevating them to one dimensional, higher status objects who deserve protection because they are Jews and not because they are human beings, which is the metanarrative of Lobo’s writing. In fact this philosemitism is the metanarrative of most of the discourse on Palestine and Israel emanating from the German mainstream, and has replaced universalist values with particularist ones under the guise of fighting antisemitism. 

As a result, it not only positions Israel as the equivalent and sum of all Jews, but as a state under constant threat from annihilation, (i.e. another Holocaust) and in doing so justifies not only Israel’s existance as an ethnostate, but the inherent violence of such a state. The assumption that Jews can only be safe in an ethnostate that metes out violence onto others is an implicit and, from Lobo’s worldview where Israel is the eternal victim, paradoxical admission that Jews can only be safe if they become perpetrators of mass violence themselves. Yet, this mass violence has to be denied or whitewashed so as not to jeopardise the safety of Jews everywhere else and to uphold the victim status of a nuclear military power. A vicious, deadly cycle that leaves no soul unscathed. 

The acceptance of this cycle is slowly crumbling among western publics. In the global south it was never really accepted in the first place. Even in Germany, only two groups oppose putting pressure on Israel to end its war against Gaza, the proto-fascist AfD including its supporters, and liberal politics and media Meinungsmacher (thoughtleaders). Sascha Lobo is the archetype of those so-called liberals who pride themselves on their supposed anti-fascist, anti-racist and pro-LGBTQ+ credentials at home, yet increasingly turn fanatical in their support of Israel abroad. They deny the crimes of the Israeli regime while paradoxically demanding more in the name of fighting antisemitism. This is the obvious endpoint of a misguided and ultimately reactionary memory culture, which chooses particularism when it should have chosen universalism, and instead ends up cheering on genocide as the latest ritual of liberal Holocaust atonement. 

Letter from the Editors: 25th April 2024

International Workers’ Day


24/04/2024


The Camp for Gaza opposite the Bundestag has decided to stay for another week. You can find out more by joining the Telegram group Besetzung gegen Besatzung / Occupy Against Occupation. Or just bring your tent and join us! The camp is open to everyone with regular workshops and rallies, including a large rally planned for Saturday at 6pm.

The Arab Film Festival started yesterday and will continue until Tuesday. It’s been 15 years since “ALFILM, the Arab Film Festival of Berlin”, has been presenting Arab stories in German cinemas. ALFILM has offered German and non-Arab audiences in Germany the chance to have a different window into the Arab World through genuine storytelling. With its 15th edition, ALFILM is inviting you to reflect on the state of things today, to dare to be critical, to explore the power of your voice, to ensure that you are seen, but also to dream of a better tomorrow. One that will resist being crushed by oppressive forces, whichever and wherever they are.

This evening (Thursday) from 6pm, there will be a meeting: Yemen: From the Arab Spring to International Proxy War. In 2011, a broad coalition of thousands of Yemenis began taking to the streets of Yemeni cities to demand an end to the rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had governed the country for more than 30 years, and to advocate for improved living conditions, motivated by the hope-inspiring events of the Arab Spring. The political entanglements arising from these events contributed to the outbreak of a brutal international proxy war involving regional and global powers. Mohamed Al-Thawr, Reem Jarhum, and Feda Alkashi will meet for a discussion in “-r0g” located at Knobelsdorffstraße 22.

Also on Thursday evening at 6pm, there will be an Info and soli event for the Freeedom Flotilla, on the occasion of the departure of their “break the siege” mission. The coming Flotilla promises to be the biggest and most powerful yet, also because of the situation in Gaza. We will screen the documentary “The Truth: Lost at Sea”, about the 2010 Mavi Marmara mission. A guest speaker who participated in that very mission will be present to share his experience. Also we will have a short live stream with the ongoing mission and an open discussion. It’s in the Mozaik Center, located at Grunewaldstr. 87.

Thanks to everyone who attended our Political Walking Tour last week on Riots in Kreuzberg. So many people attended that some people agreed to pull out and join the tour next time it’s available–which, is this Friday. Revolutionary Berlin Tours have agreed to organise an extra tour just for you! It begins at Kottbusser Tor, at the corner of Admiralstraße, in front of Südblock at 17.30, and will finish near Schillingbrücke (next to Ostbahnhof) 2 hours later.

On Sunday, it’s the latest R2CKino film against gerntification. This month, we’ll screen the documentary, “A început ploaia/It started raining”. This film offers a touching testament to the everyday revolution of Roma people who are fighting forced evictions from the centre of Bucharest. The film follows the story of the Vulturilor 50 community, who lived on the street from September 2014 to June 2016 in order to fight against the eviction from their home, which enacted the longest and most visible protest for housing right in the history of contemporary Romania. The Event takes place in Bilgisaray, Oranienstraße 45, and starts at 5.30pm.

Also on Sunday marks the 79th anniversary of the liberation of Italy from Fascism, the Italian Association of Partisans hosts a celebration event. Like every year, there will be food and an afternoon program with music and amenities. Since the global situation has worsened since last year, the association has been one of the few pacifist voices in the Italian political and media landscape, which at the moment is dominated by the belligerent government coalition. Because of this anti-militarist and pacifist vocation, the organisation has been under attack since the start of the Ukraine war. The event starts at 12pm in “Clash”, located in Mehringhof at Gniesenaustraße 2a.

Sunday also sees our latest Palestine Reading Group. This week, we’re back in the Agit offices, Nansenstraße 2, and will be discussing The ICJ ruling and the limitations of international law. You can find the selected reading here. The Palestine Reading Group takes place every week, on either Friday or Sunday. Check the page of Events we organise for the coming dates and discussion topics. If you’d like to get more involved in the group, you can join our Telegram group and follow the channel Reading group. The Reading Group starts at 7pm, and there is a meeting for Moderators at 6.30pm open to everyone who’s interested.

Wednesday is International Workers’ Day, which is a bank holiday in Germany. There will be a trade union demo at 11am, starting at Keithstraße 1, additionally MyGrüni is organising a satirical demo in the Villa Quarter (meeting point: Johannaplatz at 1pm), and the Revolutionary 1st May demo will assemble at Südstern from 4.30pm. Meanwhile, all afternoon and into the evening a political festival will be held at Mariannenplatz in front of the Bethanien building. Visit our stall where you can meet members of the theleftberlin team, learn about our future Events, and buy Palestine-themed T-shirts and tote bags. We’ll be there from midday, with the stall officially opening at 1pm.

There is much more going on in Berlin this week. 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.

If you are looking for Resources on Palestine, we have 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. You can also find all the reading from our Palestine Reading Groups here. You can also visit the Palestine film evening every Wednesday at 8.30pm in Al Hamra. The title of the film is usually released too late for us to name it in this Newsletter, but you can stay informed by following Al Hamra on Instagram and facebook.

This week’s Campaign of the Week is Gewerkschafter_innen4Gaza  (trade unionists for Gaza). Get involved by signing up on the G4G website! We will launch our first canvassing action on 1 May or International Workers Day. Our campaign and website are freshly launched (and need updating still), so we are excited for any support to help make this a lasting campaign that speaks to a broader trade union audience, both domestically and internationally. On Sunday, 28 April from 11.00-13.00 we have an online Zoom call, if you are interested in participating, sign up on the website.

In News from Berlin, Berlin rents have increased by nearly 20% in the last year, and Tesla plans layoffs in Grünheide.

In News from Germany, AfD festival in Thüringen as the party moves further to the right, increase in right-wing extremism in schools, more Germans are for a speed limit, cannabis to be banned at railway stations, and Björn Höcke uses Nazi phrases in his election speeches.

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

New on theleftberlin, we interview Jara Nassar about the Camp for Gaza opposite the Bundestag, and Anna Younes about the erasure of Palestinian voices from Germany, Emily O’Sullivan accuses Germany of complicity in the destruction of Gaza, we publish a statement from the Frieda Frauenzentrum about 2 girls* centres closed because of private Instagram posts, Ilya Kharkow looks at the relevance today of the novels of Alan Sillitoe, we interview Zohar Chamberlain Regev, organiser of the new Freedom Flotilla, David P. Carroll wrote a poem for Gaza, Nathaniel Flakin looks at the ban on speaking and singing in Irish at the Camp for Gaza, and Noa Paul argues that new asylum laws will make life for refugees even worse.

This week’s Video of the Week is the panel discussion on state repression and cancellations of pro-palestinian voices in Berlin/Germany with Ghayath Almadhoun Udi Raz, and Nicky Böhm. The discussion was held in the Spore Initiative last week.

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

Consolidating fortress Europe: The EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum

Despite its claims, the recent reforms of CEAS will make conditions for asylum seekers much worse

On April 10th, the European Parliament voted in favor of the remaining 10 legislative pieces of the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum, meaning that the years-long reform process is done. All that’s needed is the Council of the EU’s approval, considered a formality. The pact is being sold by German chancellor Olaf Scholz as a “historic, indispensable step” improving the efficient management of migration and enhancing solidarity among member states while protecting migrants’ fundamental rights. In reality, it seeks to deter the immigration of racialized people by curtailing their rights, worsening their treatment, and increasing deportations, moving the EU border regime further towards the political agenda of the far-right. At the same time, it fails to address the actual (and extensive) shortcomings of the current migration and asylum system, and at best stands at odds with many of the EU member states fundamental rights obligations. This article is an attempt to explain how the pact came into existence, what it contains, why we should oppose it, and what can be done now to at least prevent its worst repercussions.

Background: The EU Rules on migration and asylum, the Pathway to the Reform, and the role of Germany

International and EU law differentiate between migration that is considered ‘forced’, thus of asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their home countries because of persecution, inhuman or degrading treatment, or other severe hardships, and ‘voluntary’ migration, hence of the migrants who move for other reasons, such as work or family. In the EU, the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees is governed under international and EU law to differentiate between migration that is considered ‘forced’ and that which is considered ‘voluntary’ when someone moves for work or family. In the EU, the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their home countries because of persecution, inhuman or degrading treatment, or other severe hardships is governed under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which was introduced in the late 1990s. CEAS regulates which country is responsible for processing an asylum application, the conditions for recognition as a refugee, and the reception conditions for asylum seekers and refugees.

The pact amends both CEAS and the rules regulating ‘voluntary’ migration. The reform process started in 2016 with the goal of distributing the responsibility for performing asylum procedures more equally between the member states after the previous rules had proven dysfunctional. The so-called Dublin Rules put the responsibility for processing asylum applications primarily on the countries of first entry, in effect the external border states like Italy and Greece. This partially led to the catastrophic reception conditions people on the move faced in places like the Greek islands, as other member states refused to take over responsibility for those seeking protection. After a year-long back-and-forth process between the negotiating parties that many considered would fail, the parties negotiated amendments and compromises which culminated in the consolidation of an agreement for the reform in 2023 and the Parliament’s vote in favor on the 10th of April 2024. The German government in principle supported the reform, as it reflects its interest in curbing so-called secondary migration, referring to the further movement of people arriving at the external borders continuing towards Germany and other countries without external EU borders. At the same time, it had sought to achieve some protection improvements in the 2023 negotiations for families with minor children, which mostly failed. In October 2023, Germany conceded to compromises on its proposals.

Unpacking the pact: What is in it, what is not?

The pact is made up of a highly-complex set of reforms and policies regarding immigration, asylum and deportation within the EU, governing what happens when a non-EU national reaches the territory of a member state. Officially, the pact comprises four pillars: secure external borders, efficient asylum procedures, a system of fair responsibility sharing between member states regarding the processing of asylum procedures, and partnerships with other countries to reduce migration towards the EU. An analysis of the different provisions, however, shows that the reform first and foremost aims at deterring “irregular” immigrants, hence those who want to enter the EU without prior permission, without actually rendering the system more fair or efficient. This becomes apparent in the pact’s main elements.

1) Difficult access to asylum procedures and focus on deportations

The core of the pact is the introduction of a new toughened common asylum procedure at the European borders applied to non-EU citizens arriving without entry requirements such as a visa. This new procedure risks curtailing several fundamental rights of asylum seekers and legal obligations of EU states, among others the individual right to asylum and the prohibition of pushbacks.

Under the new procedure, within seven days of arrival at an EU external border, people will undergo a screening process in a closed facility to establish their identities, before being directed to either a regular length asylum procedure, or an accelerated border procedure of 12 to 16 weeks. The accelerated border procedure aims at increasing deportations from the borders by leading those receiving a negative asylum decision directly to a “return procedure” (deportation). Further, during the screening, accelerated border, and return procedures, people will be considered not having entered the European territory (despite being physically there). With this so-called fiction of non-entry, member states claim to have less protection duties towards migrants. This practice is highly controversial in legal terms, but applied in the proposals, which stipulate that applicants can be held in conditions tantamount to detention during the procedures, with almost no exceptions for families with children and other vulnerable people. 

Most applicants could go through the accelerated border procedure, which is mandatory for those whose chances of being granted asylum are considered low because they come from countries with an EU average protection rate of less than 20% or are considered a risk, and which can be applied to almost anyone entering the country without the required entry documents. This means that thousands of people will be deprived of their freedom and will be stuck at the borders for months. Border procedures are already being used on the Greek hotspot islands, where the consequent prolonged de facto detention leads to immense physical and psychological harm.

These procedures undermine the right to asylum and risk a massive increase in illegal pushbacks, as the limited duration of the procedures hardly allows for a proper examination of asylum applications, and the direct transfer of rejected asylum seekers to the return procedure does not provide opportunity to effectively challenge negative asylum decisions and prevent deportations. Legal safeguards have also been reduced, with shortened appeal deadlines, which can be reduced even more in cases of “migratory pressure” such as when a non-EU country is considered using migration as a political tool. 

2) Maintenance of the border countries’ primary responsibility to process asylum applications

Despite the reform’s goal to achieve more equal responsibility sharing between EU member states, as mentioned previously, the criteria to determine the responsible member state remain widely the same, upholding the obligation of the country of first entry. Furthermore, the pact introduces a new mandatory solidarity mechanism to be activated when countries face “migratory pressure”, whereby the other member states must support this state. However, they can choose to do so by either relocating asylum seekers to their own territory, providing financial, operational, or technical support. Given the unwillingness of many EU countries to take in people on the move, the lack of mandatory relocation renders the chances of actual relocation and responsibility sharing very low.

3) Externalising European responsibilities and borders

The pact provides for further agreements with “third countries” (non-EU countries) in order to stem migration from and through these countries. This is in line with the recent increased efforts of the EU to conclude agreements with primarily African and Eastern European countries, shifting the responsibility to intercept people on the move to these countries in exchange for EU funds. In addition, the possibilities for deporting asylum seekers to third countries that are considered “safe” for them are being expanded. This practice, which is already applied within the framework of the EU’s cooperation with Turkey, has proven to be inhumane given the catastrophic reception conditions for many people in Turkey. The extension of this principle increases the risk that people will be deported to countries that are anything but safe for them.

4) Deterrence of ‘secondary migration’

As mentioned earlier, one of the main focuses of the pact is to stop migrants from moving within the EU. Next to the new border procedures, several amendments are supposed to further curb secondary migration, among others through the collection of sensitive data and the obligation for people who have been granted protection in one EU country to remain residing in that country. This means that recognised refugees are still allowed to travel within the EU for a certain time period, but may be sanctioned if overstaying the specified period. If contravened, member states could complicate access to long-term residence permits and impose temporary mobility restrictions.

5) Increased surveillance of people on the move 

In line with the overall trends of the increased surveillance and securitization, the pact increases member states’ ability to collect and preserve sensitive data of people on the move. Fingerprints, facial images and other biometrical data of asylum seekers will be collected during the screening, with the age threshold being lowered to six years. 

While the pact will surely deteriorate the living conditions of people on the move and increase their oppression and exploitability, the vagueness and complexity of the provisions render it difficult to predict the exact consequences. The ambiguity of the rules in itself exacerbates the described risks for migrants, as it leaves much room for interpretation to the implementing authorities.

What is happening now and what can be done against the pact?

After the council’s vote, member states have two years to implement the new rules. While many of the new rules seem unpractical, they will increase the EU’s oppression and exploitation of people on the move. At the same time, the extent of the consequences will depend on the implementation of the rules, and individual member states are still developing implementation plans. This means we should not stop mobilizing against it now – on the contrary, these plans should be accompanied by mass-scale protests and alternative proposals. There are many European and national/local movements who are already resisting, like Abolish Frontex and, in Germany, the Stop Geas Movement. Finally, mobilizations around the upcoming European Elections are important, as the Parliament will monitor the implementation of the new rules. Let’s #StopCEAS!

Dangerous Language Bans at Pro-Palestine Camp in Berlin

Gaeilge is an official EU language. Yet when Irish activists tried to speak it at a protest camp in Berlin, they were threatened with arrest

Berlin police have recently banned the use of the Irish language at a pro-Palestine protest camp. Gaeilge is the national language of the Republic of Ireland, and since 2007, it has been an official language of the EU as well. Last Friday, a new group called the Irish Bloc Berlin invited people to a cirocal comhrá, a conversation circle where people can practice a language that is notoriously unpronounceable for English speakers.

The cops informed them that flags, banners, speeches, chants, and songs in Irish were all prohibited. At the ongoing protest camp in front of the Reichstag, the police only allow German and English to be spoken – Arabic is permitted for a short window at 6pm. As the police confirmed to the Irish Independent, they ban languages they don’t understand, so they can check if anything illegal is being said.

Cops split the 40 or so Irish immigrants into smaller groups. Even after they been led away from the demonstration, officers continued to prohibit the use of Gaeilge. When the group left and sought shelter in a nearby museum, police followed them inside. They were not accused of any crime – besides speaking Irish without a permit.

This ban is disturbing for a number of reasons – and I have never encountered such a language ban before. Is Hebrew allowed at pro-Israel demonstrations? Shockingly, at the pro-Palestinian camp, even Hebrew is verboten.

Justice Minister Marco Buschmann said he looks forward to »the day when people can speak Hebrew on the street without fear.« How does he think Israelis feel when German officers in dark uniforms tell them they will be arrested for speaking their language? The police have violently attacked a number of Jews at the protest camp, knocking off kippahs with punches.

In a statement, the Irish Bloc wrote that »we as Irish people are all too familiar with having our language oppressed.« In the 19th century, Gaeilge was banned in schools by British colonial authorities, who ruled the island for 800 years. Today, about 40 percent of people in Ireland some Irish, but only 100.000 or so use it on a daily basis.

The Irish language became a symbol of the struggle for a Republic. Political prisoners learned and spoke Irish in British jails. Bobby Sands coined the battle cry »Tiocfaidh ár lá« (pronounced »chucky arlaw«), meaning “our day will come”. That’s why the ban on Irish, more than any other language, is ruffling feathers.

The Irish press is all over the story. Paul Murphy, a Teachta Dála or member of the Irish parliament, called this »disgraceful«: »This highlights the extreme lengths the German establishment is going to in their attempt to silence the Palestine-solidarity movement.« As Murphy explained to »nd«, »Irish people stand in solidarity with the Palestinians because of our own history of colonial oppression.«

Ireland served as an imperial laboratory where strategies of partition were first tested before being applied across the globe. Today, many former colonies are dealing with the bloody legacy of divide-and-rule policies. Due to this parallel history, Ireland has long been the most pro-Palestinian nation in Europe.

I also find this ban outrageous. I am one of 36 million Irish Americans – compared to just seven million Irish people on the island. I have never been to Ireland, and I have no idea where my ancestors were from, and even if you told me, I wouldn’t be able to find it on a map. Yet I sing all the old Irish rebel songs to my kid, and I can’t believe I can’t sing them in public.

Germany has been coming up with ever more absurd forms of repression against Palestine solidarity, such as banning Hebrew and disinvite Jewish professors. Yet this Irish language ban seems like the most ridiculous step yet.

This is a mirror of Nathaniel’s red flag column for Neues Deutschland. Reproduced with permission

Gewerkschafter*innen 4 Gaza

Trade Unionists for Gaza

Over the past months, several trade union members of IG Metall and ver.di decided to launch together a new campaign called Gewerkschafter*innen 4 Gaza (Trade unionists for 4 Gaza): 

Our 4 demands are bold, yet pragmatic, focusing on both the transnational and domestic spheres.

  1. Ban on weapons exports. Transnationally, Germany is the 2nd largest weapons exporter to the Israeli state (30%), followed by the United States (60%). Unfortunately too many of these weapons are built and transported by workers in Germany. Trade unions in Belgium have refused to be involved. There are pending lawsuits over Germany’s moral and legal liability in arms export.
  2. Ceasefire: Our sibling trade unions across the world (UNI Global; USA)  have called for an immediate cease fire. A ceasefire is not the end-goal, but it is the most urgent measure and a starting point.  
  3. Uphold civil liberties and political activities of workers and migrants within Germany. The overt repression and racist retaliation targeted participants of demonstrations, people’s livelihoods (recently Berlin women’s shelters – FRIEDA-Frauenzentrum were shut down), academic invites withdrawn, journalists arrested to name a few. Meanwhile, far-right wing candidates in Germany are growing in strength and numbers largely without opposition.
    More recently, ver.di union published a statement criticizing the exmatriculation laws that would create a double legal-system within universities, clearly targeting Palestine solidarity. This is in the right direction, and we need more concrete material support by trade unions to provide legal, material and social support for assembly.
  4. Open the conversation about Germany and civil society’s role: Most civil actors in Germany are hesitant to engage in this topic, either due to overt support for the Israeli state at worst, or because of a political climate where any dissenting voices fear political backlash. This is unfortunately true within our trade unions as well. We want to host public educational panels, speak at workers’ assemblies and continue the political education to show why this conversation cannot wait any longer. In addition to explicitly left trade union conferences/panels, we want to engage rank and file members in different workplaces. We have contacts with workers in hospitals, warehouses, tech companies, but have a lot more outreach to do.

This campaign is several years late, but we need to start somewhere. With 40 million workers in Germany (6 million union members) we have a lot of work to do. We need to find ways to creatively express external support/interest from individual trade union members, and collectively the positions of different labor bodies including Works/Staff Councils, union committees; and formal internal trade union structures like migrant and sector based committees. Like most of the demonstrations and support in the streets, there is a huge interest, but most people don’t have a venue/space to challenge the complicity of institutional actors. We hope this campaign will provide a platform to engage with trade unions as members. 

Get involved by signing up on our website! We will launch our first canvassing action on 1 May or International Workers Day. Our campaign and website are freshly launched (and need updating still), so we are excited for any support to help make this a lasting campaign that speaks to a broader trade union audience, domestically and internationally.

On Sunday, 28 April from 11:00-13:00 we have an online Zoom call, if you are interested in participating, sign up on the website.