In May 2026 the Verfassungsschutz, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, released a report on what they described as pro-Palestinian secular extremism. It is difficult to take arguments presented in this report seriously due to its incoherent narrative and contradictions. But as it is produced by a security agency that wields massive power and control over many aspects of German life, a somewhat detailed look into some of the most preposterous claims and conclusions is necessary.
While this report was scandalized over the designation of a watermelon shaped map as an extremist symbol, the true scandal is the main message propagated by the report which is: fighting for equal rights for Palestinians is extremism.
While this has long been the position held by German institutions including politicians and the security apparatus, this report stands out due to the novel ways in which this message is being propagated.
A diverse secular movement
Prior to the growth of the Palestine solidarity movement in October 2023, it was very simple to throw any sort of pro-Palestine activism under the bus. It could simply be written off as dangerous Islamist extremism. If secular groups were involved, they were easy to repress since they were considered fringe groups. The German public has not moved when secular Palestinians or minority leftist groups are repressed. After all, the danger of being labeled an anti-semite looms over every German head.
The explosion of support for the Palestininans after the world witnessed the most documented genocide in modern history presented a new challenge for Germany’s politicians adamant on supporting Israel unconditionally even under the condition of genocide.
The Palestine movement that grew out of opposition to genocide is largely secular and diverse, with people from all over the world living in Berlin making their presence visible. Indeed, the opening lines of the report expresses that central problem clearly: “Secular pro-Palestinian extremism in this country is extremely heterogeneous and consists of various organizations, movements, networks and individuals.”
Indeed for a country that does not value diversity, the heterogeneous nature of the Palestine movement is perceived as a threat. We can see this same idea echoed by Germany’s current chancellor, Friederich Merz, when he complained about Germany’s “Stadtbild” (image of a city) due to the multiple protests. A variation of the phrase Strassenbild (image of a street) used by Goering in 1933 when he wanted to chastise German streets from lewdness and prostitution.
Alongside the usual groups of Palestinians and Arabs who have been protesting for a free Palestine, there is a large presence of secular Europeans and Latinos and a strong showing from the LGBTQ+ community.
Alongside them are Germany’s kryptonite, Jews, whom they claim to protect. Those anti-Zionist Jews, some of whom hold Israeli passports are completely ignored in this report and addressed separately as extremists in another report (p.280).
Rhetoric to Justify Repression
The Verfassungsschutz needs a stronger rhetoric to vilify Palestine solidarity beyond the continuous depiction of protests as Islamist or antisemitic. This comes after the failure of continuous attempts by German media to ignore the secular nature of the protests, as well as queer and Jewish presence. The German narrative was clearly countered by the images and videos flooding social media as anti-Zionist Jews were arrested and dragged alongside queer people who can be seen Palestine solidarity outfits and signs assaulted by police.
The report on secular pro Palestinian extremism is an attempt, not only to publish rhetoric, but to justify the suspension of civil liberties for those who dared to defy the utterly implausible logic of Germany’s Staatsräson. It places a larger swath of individuals under a different set of laws that violated their civil rights such as placing them under surveillance or violently assaulting them when they’re arrested, or, in the case of the Ulm 5, depriving them of the right to a fair trial and subjecting them to punitive measures even before a verdict by a court is passed down.
The most fundamental flaw and expression of racism is evident in the second sentence of the report.
“Besides organizations that have existed for decades and have been fighting for an independent Palestinian state for just as long, there are also groups that only emerged after the HAMAS terrorist attack against Israel on the 7th. formed in October 2023.”
The de facto vilification of organizations and classification as extremism is simply based on “fighting for an independent Palestinian state”. There is no attempt to cover up the outright opposition of the security apparatus to those fighting for an independent Palestinian state. This runs contrary to international law, enshrined in Germany’s constitution which this security apparatus is allegedly trying to protect.
The report acknowledges the situation on the ground, “pro-Palestinian protests in Germany developed extremely dynamically – mirroring the situation on the ground.” But it then expects people to forget about it, otherwise they can be labeled extremists: “Meanwhile, the involvement of activists–especially in Berlin–has become more sustained.”
In a country that claims to be a politically tolerant democracy, how can the sustenance of a movement–as the situation on ground worsens–be considered extremism by its domestic intelligence agency?
“A characteristic feature of this form of extremism is that Israeli policies and the actions of Israeli security forces towards the Palestinian population sometimes trigger strong negative emotions towards Israel among supporters (who are sometimes personally or family-affected).”
Furthermore, the report asks Palestinians to accept the misfortunes that affect their families while acknowledging it. The statement is clear, that if you are to be accepted by Germany as someone who isn’t an extremist you have to accept that your family is affected by genocide and apartheid and keep your mouth shut.
An Antisemitic Report
The report issued by the Verfassungsschutz is not just racist in denying Palestinians their human rights, but it is also antisemitic by the report’s own standards and admission.
There are two important footnotes included, which impute the report’s text itself to be antisemitic.
1 Even though Israel ascribes a Jewish character to itself with the Nation-State Law passed in 2018, Israel is by no means only inhabited by Jews, but by, for example, by Jews. also Christians, Muslims and Druze, who also hold Israeli citizenship. Therefore, a synonymization of „Jews“ and „Israel“ is not applicable.
4 The term “collective Jew” is used in anti-Semitic discourses to portray Jews as a homogeneous group with supposedly common characteristics and goals, instead of seeing them as individual people.
Throughout the report, the same anti-Semitic discourses warned about in footnotes 1 and 4 are what the Verfassungsschutz uses to prove that the secular pro-Palestine movement is extremist and antisemitic. For example when describing why “Baby Murder Israel” is antisemitic, the Verfassungsschutz insists that if protesters used the word “Israel”, then they must mean “Jews” even if they don’t use the term Jews. They insist that calling out Israel is antisemitic, because people must mean Jews. Such certainty of equating Israel to Jews in their accusations does not allow for a distinction between Israel and the “collective Jew”. Every example used by the Verfassungsschutz related to antisemitism are critiques of the Israeli government, Zionism and their behaviors and in every instance, the report concludes without evidence that Israel is criticized as the collective Jew. The report ends up using the same anti-Semitic discourse that it warns about in its own footnotes.
Examples of poor discourse in the report
The report is laden with inaccurate statements, antisemitism, racism, violations of principles of international law, historical inaccuracies and a juvenile attempt to turn inherent racism against Palestinians within German institutions into a discourse. I only pick a few examples but the full report is self explanatory for anyone with some understanding of history.
“Handala, First drawn cartoon character in 1969, representing the Palestinian resistance.”
Making the claim that Palestinian resistance is extremism violates international law that stipulates that occupied people have a right of armed resistance, and hence violating Germany’s own constitution which honors international law.
“Hamas Triangle.The symbol was originally used as a target marker in Hamas propaganda videos.
That’s not an accurate statement, it’s not a Hamas triangle, it has far more history and Hamas first used it to indicate an IED device and not a target.
“They support the movement’s call for „boycott, divestment and sanctions“ (BDS), which can be a characteristic of an extremist endeavor.”
Describing a call for boycotting Israel, a peaceful means of objecting to apartheid, ethnic cleansing and apartheid is considered by this report to be an extremist endeavor.
“Symbolism of a cut-open watermelon: The watermelon, in reference to the colors of the Palestinian flag, is a symbol of solidarity with Palestine. Here, the outline of the entire state of Israel is also depicted in the colors of the Palestinian flag (as a cut-open watermelon), thus denying Israel the right to exist.”
The reality is that Israel’s right to exist is simply a rhetorical device. No such right exists upon which to draw legal ramifications. It is understandable from a political propaganda perspective but not from a German institution that works under a legal framework. Besides, this right too falls under footnote 4, as it equates the existence of Israel to the existence of Jews and as we know now from the report itself, that equation is an antisemitic discourse.
The Elephant in the Room (or lack thereof)
Considering symbols and slogans sufficient to define a movement extremist is absurd for any democratic state. Yet what remains glaringly absent in a report by a security apparatus about extremism is any meaningful examples of violence or public threat. With such a large listing of signs and symbols, the report has not provided a single meaningful example of violence resulting from the large heterogeneous group they accuse of extremism. The report says, ‘In addition to numerous destructions and thefts of Israeli flags–for example, on public buildings–violent crimes such as assault and property damage occurred.’
The report treats assault and property damage as violent crimes in one breath and only as an afterthought to flags disappearing. It offers no evidence of a widespread nature of violence.
How can a report on extremism be hollow of any indications of real public danger or violence?
The real use of violence is by the police under the Verfassungsschutz supervision against the non-violent secular pro-Palestinian movement that they aim to demonize. It is the security apparatus with their documented methods of repression and suspension of civil liberties that are worthy of a report that labels them as extremist. If that report were to be written, it will not lack examples of violence, abuse of law and endangering public safety.
At a time where the rise of the far-right is accompanied by xenophobic discourse and attacks, how can a country with so much historic racism add fuel to the fire by claiming that some ambiguous symbols and slogans are enough to label people as extremist?
Conclusion
The report insists that even though the organizations and slogans name Israel as the perpetrator, they must have meant Jews. It says, “enmity towards Israel and a sometimes openly displayed Antisemitism unite the various organizations” and yet nowhere in the report is there a single example of the extension of criticism from Israel to Jews. Not one example makes the connection between the organizations and symbols they’ve designated as antisemitic by their own definition. On the contrary, it is the writers of the Verfassungsschutz report who have given us plenty of examples of the antisemitic discourse they warned against. Time and time again their accusations conflate Israel with the collective Jew.
The report maliciously ignores anti-Zionist Jews, some of whom make up an integral part of the pro Palestine secular movement in Germany, and instead prefers to use Israel as a stand-in term.
What the Verfassungsschutz report manages to do is to publish in great detail the inner workings of a flawed security apparatus that has, at other times, withheld crucial documents under the guise of national security. But in this particular instance we can clearly see the mediocrity of their reasoning to say the least. One wonders how many withheld internal documents with such seriously flawed reasoning, historicity and application of the constitutions have contributed to the unwarranted grave consequences for people victimized by the Verfassungsschutz malice or mediocrity.
If we are to be truthful, this document is a declaration of outright racism, a denial of Palestinians’ rights to resist their oppressors and criminalization of those who stand in solidarity against genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
If this was a paper produced by an undergrad student, one could have simply failed that student and moved on. But the ramifications for an entire populace who cannot unsee genocide is so much bigger than just shrugging off the report. This approach by Germany will cost people their freedom, their livelihood and their lives. As the far right rises, and indeed as the German populace gains more appetite for racism and double standards, this trajectory might cost Germans that aura of distance–that they’ve worked so hard to project–from their shameful history.
