The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: November 2024

Bana

Group for Peace and Development


06/11/2024

Bana Group for Peace and Development is a voluntary feminist non-governmental organisation founded in January 2017. We understand ourselves rather as a network of activists than an organisation, and we work on a consensus basis. Our members are from and based in various regions of Sudan, mostly marginalised communities: North Darfur, West Darfur, South Darfur, South Kordofan, West Kordofan, Blue Nile State, Red Sea State, El-Gezira State, White Nile State, Northern State, Khartoum State.

United as Bana Group, we remain characterized by diversity: We are from various social, economic and ethnic backgrounds, allowing our work to really address the needs and specific environments in the different regions of Sudan. As a grassroots civil society organisation, we connect different civil society initiatives from within Sudan and across borders – including the Sudanese diaspora. We believe that marginalized women don’t need to be represented by others, but they have the right to speak for themselves.

Currently, our work focuses on the empowerment of women – political, economic and social – through various feminist projects designed and implemented by the women members in our network.

Bana Group for Peace and Development started with a group of women coming together in 2017 in workshops about non-violence, digital security and problem analysis. We directly applied the gained knowledge by starting initiatives within our respective communities. Based on this experience, we decided jointly to form a group in the initial workshop “Point of Transformation” which was conducted in El-Geneina. The very beginning of our joint work as a group of activists was the research project Voices of the Margins which brought us again to learn and listen to each other despite our differences.

We seek to create an environment that supports women. We seek to rebuild and develop communities and revive peace values within them by linking war-affected communities in Sudan with each other.

Our mission

  • Spreading the concepts and values of peace
  • Working towards transitional justice for all
  • Supporting the democratic change in the country
  • Supporting women’s existence in the economic and political spheres and ensuring their participation in the peace processes and politics
  • Respecting diversity and spreading the culture of respecting others
  • Supporting women to express and speak up for themselves
  • Creating spaces to form feminist networks and foster solidarity among initiatives

Surveillance, Censorship, and Criminalization

Report from a meeting organised by the Arts & Culture Alliance Berlin (ACAB) about Germany’s proposed antisemitism resolution


Following the news last Friday, November 1st, of a second leak of the text of the Bundestag resolution ‘Never again is now: Protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany’, Arts & Culture Alliance Berlin and the cultural center Oyoun held an event under the name ‘Surveillance, Censorship, and Criminalization: An Emergency Public Reading and Discussion on the Leaked Bundestag Resolution’ to address the implications of the new policy, slated for a vote this week. Ostensibly aimed at safeguarding Jewish life in Germany, the resolution has faced severe backlash for what critics claim is a thinly veiled attempt to stifle dissent and criminalize criticism of the state of Israel. Despite the venue’s capacity limits, a crowd gathered beyond those registered, portraying the urgency and high public interest in the topic. In a climate of increased scrutiny by the mainstream media and a newly reinvigorated German McCarthyism, attendees were asked to refrain from recording video or audio to avoid hostile media infiltration, which has previously misrepresented such events. The discussion unfolded peacefully, with participants expressing deep concerns over the resolution’s potential impact on civil liberties and public discourse.

The resolution, signed by the Ampel coalition and the CDU/CSU, was initially leaked over the summer, sparking widespread criticism across Germany’s media and civil society. Condemned as unconstitutional, repressive, and contrary to international law, the resolution has been widely viewed as a perilous attack on freedom of expression, artistic and scientific freedom, and the right to political dissent. Many critics have pointed out that the document conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israeli policy, a move that threatens to undermine legitimate political expression. The issue was compounded by the fact that the resolution was drafted behind closed doors to avoid further leaks, excluding broad civil society input, as well as consultation with most Bundestag members, save for a single representative from each major party.

Sunday’s event opened with a reading of the English translation of the resolution by a prominent German actress, underscoring its vague and sweeping language. The document alleges that there is “an increasingly open and violent antisemitism in right-wing extremist and Islamist milieus as well as a relativizing approach and increasing Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist antisemitism” and warns of “the alarming extent of antisemitism based on immigration from North Africa and the Middle East, where antisemitism and hostility towards Israel are widespread, partly due to Islamist and anti-Israeli state indoctrination”. Critics, however, argued that these statements dangerously oversimplify and racialize complex issues, deflecting responsibility away from Germany’s own historical roots of antisemitism. Furthermore, by conflating antisemitism with any critique of Israel, the resolution appears to silence meaningful discourse about Israeli policies and the rights of Palestinians.

Following the reading, speakers, whom we have decided not to name for reasons of confidentiality, highlighted the resolution’s ambiguity and raised questions about its legal viability. As a non-binding resolution rather than a formal law, it will not undergo the constitutionally mandated legislative process, which means it will be challenging to contest in court despite its potentially unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of expression. Yet, state offices could invoke this resolution to justify punitive actions, exploiting its vague language while bypassing constitutional safeguards.

Speakers observed that the resolution seeks to redefine antisemitism in ways that link Jewish identity intrinsically to Israel, framing critiques of Israeli policies as attacks on Jewish people themselves. By presenting Israel as the “Jew among states” and implying that Jewish identity is inseparable from Zionist ideology, the resolution risks creating a climate where even non-violent opposition to Israeli state practices is viewed as antisemitic. As one speaker noted, this resolution is not about protecting Jewish life, but about conflating Jewish identity with Israeli nationalism, to suppress solidarity with Palestine.

The resolution’s emphasis on increased oversight in the arts and academia also raised significant concerns. It references recent controversies, such as those at Documenta 15 and the Berlinale, as justification for intensifying scrutiny and regulation within cultural and academic institutions. With proposals for “antisemitism-critical codes of conduct”, many fear that the resolution could stifle artistic freedom, limit public funding for projects deemed critical of Israel, and create a chilling effect in academic settings. Among the suggested measures is for universities to enforce “house rules” to deny entry or expel students and staff whose views are interpreted as antisemitic, and “to appoint antisemitism officers at universities across the board”—a troubling development for free speech in Germany’s institutions, given the arbitrariness with which these measures could be implemented.

The resolution also highlights antisemitism as stemming from immigration, particularly from North African and Middle Eastern communities, a framing that participants criticized as scapegoating. This language risks fueling xenophobic narratives, framing Muslim and Arab communities as inherently antisemitic and ignoring the German state’s own history of antisemitism. One panelist remarked that by placing blame on immigrant communities, Germany sidesteps its responsibility while reinforcing damaging stereotypes. The resolution’s portrayal of “Israel solidarity” as integral to Jewish identity disregards the diversity within Jewish communities, especially those who actively oppose the Israel’s policies toward Palestinians.

Concerns were expressed over how these narratives pit marginalized groups against each other, dividing communities and stifling solidarity. As the discussion progressed, the resolution was described as not only undermining Palestinian rights but also as a vehicle for Germany to “project blame onto the other” while shielding itself from critique. This tactic is a clear means to avoid confronting Germany’s complicity in contemporary international conflicts and human rights abuses and, more importantly, to avoid confronting its past.

In response to the resolution’s threat to freedom of expression, speakers emphasized the importance of continued resistance. Organizations such as the European Legal Support Center and 3EZWA were highlighted for their work monitoring discrimination against Palestine solidarity movements in Germany and for offering legal assistance. Others advocated for proactive steps, including disrupting institutional silence on the issue and increasing international visibility around Germany’s policies toward Palestine.

Another focal point of discussion was the need to hold German cultural and academic institutions accountable, especially regarding potential funding restrictions for projects perceived as critical of Israel. Among the suggested strategies were joining unions, participating in direct actions, and working within institutions to amplify dissenting voices, and demand transparency in funding and policy decisions.

As the event came to a close, it was clear that the Bundestag resolution represents more than a repressive undemocratic policy; it signals a deeper ideological struggle within Germany that has global implications. It is a measure that disproportionately targets migrant communities and minorities, who have been at the forefront of the protests from the beginning—in contrast to the German population, which is more reluctant to take to the streets in this regard. The even graver paradox is that, after the Palestinian and the Arab population, the main target is precisely a part of the Jewish community, which is leading various protest movements.

Hence the importance of continued resistance against state narratives that seek to equate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, emphasizing that solidarity with Palestine is not only a matter of social justice but a vital act of free expression. This is why we appeal not only to allies of the movement for freedom of the Palestinian people, but to anyone who believes in the values of the human, democratic, and civil rights of free expression, association, and protest. When rights are restricted to some, they are, in reality, restricted to all.

In a powerful closing statement, one speaker urged for a global response, highlighting that Germany cannot avoid international scrutiny. Just as apartheid South Africa faced worldwide condemnation, so must Israel’s actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the discriminatory and complicit policies of Germany.

News from Berlin and Germany, 6th November 2024

Weekly news round-up from Berlin and Germany


NEWS FROM BERLIN

VBB tickets expected to be 7.5% more expensive in 2025

Public transport tickets from the Berlin-Brandenburg Transport Association (VBB) will probably be around 7.5% more expensive in the new year, bringing a single journey in Berlin to almost four euros. The final decision on the price increase by the VBB Supervisory Board is still pending and expected in the coming weeks. When calculating the fares (the so-called VBB fare index), the development of the cost of living, electricity and fuel prices over the past 60 months is considered. Source: rbb

Warning strike at the rbb

The DJV and ver.di unions have called for a three-day warning strike at Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (rbb). As a result, there will be restrictions in the programmes. So far, rbb and the trade unions have not been able to reach an agreement on how to proceed with a collective bargaining agreement for freelance employees that has already been negotiated and with the upcoming collective bargaining negotiations for permanent and temporary employees. The trade unions are calling for the collective agreement to protect long-term freelance employees to be signed. They also reject rbb’s demand for wage freezes for salaries and fees in the current round of collective bargaining. Source: rbb

Amazon Tower in Berlin: a city for corporations

The angular, mirrored glass façade looms coldly over the otherwise rather vibrant architecture around Warschauer Brücke in Friedrichshain. Edge East Side Tower is the name of the tower in which the major corporation Amazon has rented space – or Amazon Tower for short. An alliance of climate, urban and rental policy initiatives is fighting against the company’s move into Friedrichshain and recently called for a demonstration. There are many reasons to be against the corporation: the working conditions, for example, and the company’s carbon footprint. However, the most obvious one here in Berlin is the criticism of gentrification. Source: nd

NEWS FROM GERMANY

No recession, but little relief, for German economy

Germany, Europe’s long-time powerhouse, has been struggling badly in the last years. Yet last week there was some room for positivity. The country managed 0.2% growth in the third quarter of 2024, beating pessimistic expectations which had forecast a contraction. This means that, despite the drop in the second quarter, Germany avoids slipping into recession, typically defined as two successive quarters of contraction. However, in keeping with the grim mood that has hung over the country, this week’s data drop revealed that the economy shrank 0.3% between April and June, a revision downwards from the previously recorded 0.1% drop. Source: dw

Antisemitism cannot be fought in this way

For a good year now, the Ampel parliamentary groups and the CDU/CSU have been negotiating what a joint resolution against anti-Semitism could look like. Since the first drafts began to make the rounds, criticism of the plan has become ever louder. A group of Jewish and non-Jewish academics have recently formulated a counterproposal, focusing on positive measures to support Jewish life. In an open letter submitted to taz, more than 600 signatories from politics, culture and society have come out in favour of this letter. Among them, there are for instance the Green politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and the climate activist Luisa Neubauer. Source: taz

Scholz meets NATO chief Rutte in Berlin

In Mark Rutte’s first official visit to Germany since becoming head of the trans-Atlantic defence alliance, the new NATO chief praised the country’s efforts to boost defence spending in recent years. At a press conference after the meeting, Rutte said German defense spending was still too low, despite recent increases. Germany is now investing 2% of its gross domestic product in defense for the first time in three decades, but all Allies need to invest more, according to Rutte. Of particular security concern for the NATO countries is the recent addition of North Korean soldiers to Russian troops fighting in Ukraine, marking a new escalation of the conflict. Source: dw

German government going into crisis mode

Give up or rescue what can still be saved? This is the choice faced by the Ampel coalition government, which has been in office for almost three years. Its three parties have always been at loggerheads because many of their core policies are substantially different. Currently, several closed-door meetings are to culminate in a session of coalition representatives on November 6. Then, for the first time in weeks, the leaders of all three parties and their parliamentary groups will be sitting at the same table. There is considerable time pressure, as the 2025 budget is due to be passed in the Bundestag at the end of November. Source: dw

The UK budget – not nearly as generous as it might seem

Under Britian’s new Labour government, healthcare remains underfunded


05/11/2024

While the recently published Darzi report laid the blame for the current failings of the NHS squarely with Conservative governments, the problems are now owned by Labour after their July election victory, and there is a pressing need for patients to see real improvements in services. Broad aims to utilise technology, shift care into the community and focus on prevention need clarification in terms of detailed plans for how things will be made better in practice. Campaigners have long been calling for a £20bn funding injection as a down payment on what is needed to start the process of repair. This demand was coupled with calls for a commitment to a publicly funded and provided NHS and fair pay settlements for staff. Darzi’s stark diagnosis of a critically ill service starved of funds also sets the scene for the government to prescribe necessary treatment, the details of which are expected to be set out in next spring’s 10 year plan.

The recent budget enables Labour to argue that it has started on the path of restoring NHS services, with one aim being a return to meeting NHS performance standards in the next five years. The NHS was a key issue in the election, and Labour is likely to be judged next time around on how much it has been able to deliver in terms of real progress. A major concern remains that unspecified ‘reform’ is being prioritised over greater investment, despite the fact that New Labour showed, the last time that Labour ‘saved the NHS’, that a sustained increase in funding was crucial to reducing waiting lists and improving public satisfaction. In addition, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, insists in the face of all evidence to the contrary that the private sector is there to help out and must play a key role in recovery.

What did the Budget promise?

The headlines for the NHS were an additional £22.6bn over the next two years for day-to-day spending, and a further £3.1bn capital over the same period. The government also announced that £1bn of the capital investment would be used to tackle the backlog of repairs and upgrades with a further £1.5bn for new beds in hospitals across the UK, around one million additional diagnostic tests, and new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres. This is aimed at reducing waiting lists (currently standing at nearly 8 million) and increasing numbers of hospital appointments and procedures in England by 40,000 per week (at present there are nearly two million weekly hospital appointments).

The £22.6bn will inevitably be eroded by pay settlements, by staff recruitment as the workforce plan is implemented and by inflation. Alarmingly, with an estimated current £4.8bn underfunded shortfall in NHS England revenue budget there will be no more money immediately available, despite the need to tackle a crisis that is seeing 14,000 avoidable deaths each year simply from delays in Emergency Departments. The £1bn of the capital funding for urgent repairs includes the seven hospitals in danger of collapse due to being constructed with Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete. These need rebuilding at an estimated average cost of £1bn each (as part of the much bigger but as yet unfunded New Hospitals Programme). £600m has been allocated for upgrades to 200 GP surgeries, and £70m for radiotherapy machines. Social care is to receive a paltry £600m, and like general practice, the sector will be hit by the rise in employer National Insurance contributions despite public services being protected from this. For GPs, also being hit by a 6.7% rise in minimum wage for practice staff, this seems inconsistent with Labour’s pledge to ‘bring back the family doctor’ (20% of practices closed between 2013 and 2023) and reduce pressure on hospitals.

How much extra funding does the NHS need?

Some figures give a sense of just how much money the NHS might need if our People’s Vision of a restored service based on its founding principles is to be achieved. In the decade preceding the pandemic, annual spending increases were significantly below the long-term historical average for nine subsequent years. As a consequences, the British Medical Association estimates that since 2009/10 there has been a £44.6bn cumulative underspend compared with historical funding settlements. The Health Foundation considers that to enable the NHS in England to meet growing demand and improve standards an additional £38bn funding each year until 2029/30 would be necessary. Lord Darzi identified a £37bn capital investment deficit compared with similar countries, and the NHS Confederation has been calling for an annual £6.4bn capital funding increase to ensure staff have the right tools and space to work effectively. There is currently a maintenance backlog of £13.8bn needed to bring NHS estates to an adequate condition.

A small step in the right direction

While welcoming the announcement of extra funding, it is crucial that this be invested in the NHS as a public service provider and not diverted to short term profit taking companies. Investment in social care and in rebuilding public health services should also be prioritised, and there must be a real cross departmental focus on reducing health inequalities by addressing the social determinants of health and the promotion of social justice. With climate change now the biggest threat to public health, it is lamentable that this hardly featured in the budget except for a welcome increase in air passenger duty for private jets.

The budget was a missed opportunity for wealth redistribution from rich to poor. A much needed tax on the very wealthy was avoided and a manifesto pledge to tax the huge profits made by private equity bosses was considerably watered down. This is despite government stating that money for investment in public services should come from those with the broadest shoulders. This is urgent given compelling evidence of how a failing NHS will lead to a failing economy. As Darzi said in a clear message to government, ‘It is not a question of whether we can afford the NHS. Rather, we cannot afford not to have the NHS, so it is imperative that we turn the situation around’.

So often complex accounting practices and shifting definitions of what constitutes NHS spending obscure the true financial state of the NHS and its funding needs, as well as how much of the money promised will translate into reality. While welcoming the budget as a small step in the right direction, the likely reality is that it will only help maintain services but not mean patients will see an improvement in care. If Darzi saw the NHS as a critically ill patient, then the journalist Frances Ryan is spot on to categorise the budget as ‘£22bn worth of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’. It raises questions as to just how committed Labour is to restoration of a publicly provided NHS. Much more will be needed to return it to healthy status, including a far greater commitment in the coming 10 year plan.

Statement by The Left Berlin on Die Linke

Why we are ending formal ties


The Left Berlin, which grew out of the Linke Berlin Internationals, decided on 14th October, 2024, to end formal ties with Die Linke. One reason for our decision – but not the only one – is the inability of Die Linke to fully condemn the genocide in Gaza, while simultaneously supporting pro-Israel demonstrations. As international socialists, we cannot accept such an approach.

Several of our allies also asked us to clarify our relationship with the party. They told us that they wanted a strong left party in Germany, but not at just any cost. One of the speakers at our recent Summer Camp, representing the French left party La France insoumise (LFI), argued that LFI should not work with Die Linke as long as it maintained its lack of support for Palestine.

This statement is an attempt to clarify our position, and to explain what we think has changed.

What is Die Linke and where did it come from?

Die Linke was formed in 2007 as a merger of the Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (Party of Democratic Socialism, PDS), the old communist party based mainly in the East, and the Arbeit und soziale Gerechtigkeit – Die Wahlalternative (Labour and Social Justice – The Electoral Alternative, WASG), a party set up by trade unionists in the West to fight the Agenda 2010 “reforms” implemented by the Red-Green government. One of its first acts was to support the mobilisation against the G8 summit in Heiligendamm.

Over the years, Die Linke has invested more in winning elections than in extra-parliamentary movements. For example, it has played little visible role in movements like Black Lives Matter and Fridays for Future. 

October 7th – a turning point

Whereas Die Linke has shown token support for campaigns like Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen (DWE), it has rarely actively supported the movement for a free Palestine. This is nothing new, but has become increasingly important after October 7th, 2023.

Following October 7th, Israel has conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing and extermination in Gaza that is unprecedented in this century, in addition to expanding its deliberate targeting and bombing of civilian targets to Lebanon and Iran. While the official reports indicate that at least 40,000 people have been killed by Israeli bombs in Gaza, substantiated estimates indicate that the human toll in Gaza since October 2023 is far higher than official reports, exceeding 118,000, an astonishing 5.4% of Gaza’s population.

While the near universal reaction by the international left has been to show solidarity with the Palestinian victims of Israel’s genocidal campaign, Die Linke’s response was to join the CDU and other mainstream German parties in calling a demonstration in support of Israel. On 12th October, Bundestag MPs — including those from Die Linke — voted unanimously to support Israel.

At its recent national conference, Linke delegates voted for a compromise resolution, which was slightly better than what preceded it, but was too little, too late. The resolution does call for an immediate ceasefire and refers to genocide, but it also falsely claims that the Palestinian resistance is driven by antisemitism, and clings to the illusion of a two-state “solution”, which is no longer an option, and arguably never was.

The Left Berlin responds

In response to Die Linke’s apparent support for genocide, The Left Berlin organised two well-attended meetings in November and December 2023, to discuss our relationship to the party. At these meetings, we made two decisions.

Firstly, we decided to organise most of our future events not with the Linke Berlin Internationals as we had done previously, but under the name The Left Berlin. The identification with Die Linke, even via the Internationals, was making it harder for us to relate to the solidarity movement.

Secondly, on the request of several internationals who were still party members, we decided that we should “stay and fight”, and keep our links with the party. This was not a final decision, and we agreed that we would review this relationship over time.

This was the background to our Summer Camp in September 2024, where many attendees asked us to clarify our relationship to the party. The feeling which many had held at the end of last year — that we could win the party for consistent solidarity with victims of genocide — had all but evaporated. This discussion led to the decision to cut all ties.

Recent developments

Since we took the decision to end formal ties with Die Linke, there have been a number of developments. First, the right wing Springer press have launched a concentrated attack on members of Die Linke who support Palestine. Articles in the Tagesspiegel and elsewhere have leveraged personal attacks on five party members, all of whom have worked with The Left Berlin to a greater or lesser extent. Curiously, the same articles attacked The Left Berlin, although we have never directly been part of the party.

As a result of this provocation, some members of Die Linke called for the expulsion of the activists under attack. We want to make it clear that we support the right of all five to remain in the party for as long as they want, and will continue to support their struggle against unjust expulsion.

At roughly the same time, a number of leading party members around former Berlin senator Klaus Lederer decided to leave the party because they didn’t think the party supported Israel enough. This has led some to believe that the party can finally be won to a pro-Palestine, pro-social movement position. We do not share this belief. 

As of writing this statement, Die Linke remains perhaps the only socialist party in the world which refuses to stand unequivocally on the side of the Palestinians. Die Linke has consistently refused to contend with the reality that Israel represents an imperialist project of occupation, colonialism and apartheid, and we feel that if the horrific events of the last 12 months have not persuaded the party to commit itself to principled socialist praxis, nothing will. The conduct of Die Linke over the past year will remain an unfortunate and deeply shameful reminder of the failure of the socialist scene in Germany for years to come.

Although we are formally breaking with the party, we will retain our contact with reliable Linke partners, such as Ferat Kocak and the International Department, as long as they continue to take a principled stance. We will continue to build social movements alongside party members. We will not, however, receive any financial support — whether direct or indirect — from Die Linke.

We would like to thank Die Linke for the solidarity and cooperation they have given us over the years, and we hope that they come around to a progressive position on the liberation of Palestine.