The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

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. 

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


24/04/2024

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

Peace And Love For Palestine

A poem for Gaza


How can there be peace
When the Palestinians
Are dying and the little
Children are crying and
For harmony’s sake
It’s justice we seek
Not pain and heartache
And to ensure that rightness
Takes its peak
How can there be
Peace when Palestinians
Are sadly dying and my heart is crying
And I feel there pain and
Equality for all is meant
And I care for the suffering
And the dying
So everyone reach into your
Hearts and your souls
And pray for Palestine today
And may there be peace and justice
And let all the hatred be
Forever turned into love and peace.

“We refuse to coordinate with the same people who are committing genocide”

Interview with Zohar Chamberlain Regev about her participation in a mission to break the blockade in Gaza through the sea, organized by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition


23/04/2024

Interview by Angela Schuldt and Jav Chavis.

Can you tell us about the nature of your initiative? Which organization are you working with exactly?

So, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition is, as its name implies, a coalition of campaigns. It is not an organization in itself. We have campaigns in different countries, and some campaigns are actually not connected to one country only. There is a campaign in the United States, one in Canada, in Norway, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Turkey, New Zealand, Malaysia. What am I missing? South Africa, of course. And then there are partner organizations like in France or in Australia.

Then we have other groups in Gaza itself who are partnered with us, like ‘We Are Not Numbers’ – young journalists who tell the stories from Gaza. They have been doing this for quite a number of years. And, unfortunately, during this genocide, they have lost a lot of their members. And also, the ‘Union of Agricultural Work Committees’ (UAWC) in their branch in Gaza is partnered with us, and what we do is we challenge the illegal and inhuman Israeli blockade by nonviolent direct action at sea. So, we sail towards Gaza, something that should be not only allowed by international law, but is actually asked for right now by the International Court of Justice because we bring aid and aid should be allowed in.

Historically, our actions are met with a violent reaction from the occupier. They usually come towards our boats in international waters. They stop us. In 2010, they used live ammunition to shoot at people. They killed 10 activists on board and wounded 56 and then they always kidnap all of us, deport the international activists, accusing them of having entered Israeli illegally, and confiscate our boats.

Now you are putting together a new mission, and you’re sailing towards Gaza. There are many risks. But you also mentioned the legal situation. So, what do you think would be different this time? And how are you preparing for the possible challenges or even the violent responses that this can bring?

Well, we have been assessing the situation, actually since 2022, I guess, when this new Israeli government came into power and we thought that, you know, their reaction was quite unpredictable. Of course, what we see in Gaza now, a full-fledged genocide that’s been happening and televised and, you know, advertised all over the world. And then the international community seems unable or unwilling to stop this. That’s where we see our role as civil society organizations.

We are not connected with any government. We need to act. We need to do something because our brothers and sisters in Gaza are in desperate need, and we are aware of the dangers. We will proceed cautiously, we do not want to put our participants or our boats at risk, and yet we are fully backed, as I said, by international law, by decisions of international courts. What we do is completely legal and right and moral, and whatever reaction we are met with is not in our control.

We just have to do this.

How can you organize, especially now that we see that there are many governments supporting Israel? What are the reactions from some of these governments to the Flotilla?

We’re a civil society endeavour, and all this, all our actions are possible through donations from people, individuals all over the world. And the aid we get is basically things that are necessary in Gaza and that can be delivered as we plan to deliver them: by sea. We are aware that Gaza should not need aid. Without the occupation, without a blockade, Gaza should be perfectly capable of providing for its people, being part of Palestine, which is a very rich land. You know, we know of the natural resources, including natural gas, offshore of Gaza.

And they should be able to not only care for themselves, but prosper. What we do now is we deliver aid because there is a political, human-made catastrophe going on there, and it’s needed for people to survive. But we are also aware that whatever amount of aid we are capable to bring is nothing compared to all the aid that is waiting already in Rafah and in other places, which is being prevented from reaching the people, and this by the same people who are committing a genocide. These people have the intention of eliminating all life in Gaza.

There are other attempts, or other missions, delivering aid to Gaza. But these missions are coordinated with the occupier. And we saw what happened to the aid workers from World Central Kitchen who were bringing aid, and it was a very, how would I say it? A propaganda stunt. How they say, ‘Oh, look, we’re bringing aid’. ‘We’re building a temporary pier’. And then they kill these people who have been coordinating with them. We refuse to coordinate with the same people who are committing genocide, or with their allies.

This is the difference in what we do. And we have a long history of challenging Israel. And this radio communication that was also broadcast of, you know, the Israeli Navy allowing the boat to go through, and they say ‘You are entering an exclusion zone or a zone under maritime blockade, but we allow you exceptionally to go in’. The communication we always have with the Israeli Navy is ‘You are entering an exclusion zone’ or ‘a zone under maritime blockade’, and ‘we will stop you by all means necessary’. And we refuse this.

We don’t think Israel has a right to stop us. As I said, international law –decisions by international courts– support what we’re doing. Whether it’s dangerous or not is not because what we do is dangerous, but because of the reaction of the occupier. The Israeli government is intent on committing genocide. This is the problem, and this is what we should focus on.

We have been planning this for quite a number of months, but getting the boats and getting everything ready takes time. And so we are only sailing now, but we are not going to sail from very far away. People will be flown in, but the aid and the boats will be organized in the Mediterranean. So, actually, the sailing time is not so long. However, challenges with governments such as the US or Britain are big. I suppose that participants from those countries cannot expect much protection from their governments because of what we try to do. We bring aid, but we bring it accompanied by international observers.

Our participants who come from different countries are the protection for the aid to go in, because we expect those governments to actually take care of their own citizens and say Israel is not allowed to attack these civilians, they are only doing what’s right and are not any threat whatsoever to the state of Israel. The state of Israel has no right to attack a boat in international waters. This is an act of piracy. But we have seen what happens in Yemen when people are trying to actually uphold international law and try to prevent war crimes – they’re being bombed.

So, we do not know exactly what those powers, those allies that the occupier has, will do. We definitely have not heard any support from those governments, and actually members of our campaigns in the US are regularly being arrested while protesting in the US Congress against this genocide.

What is your motivation for doing this?

So, my personal story is that I am an Israeli. I was born in a Jewish family in Israel. So my motivation first of all as a human being, but also as an Israeli, is to do something against what my government is committing. You know, it has been a crime for many years, just look at Gaza. But what is happening right now is so unbelievably evil that I feel like I cannot sit at home and worry about a risk to me personally. And this is the conversation I’ve had with my mother. I understand her. She’s worried about me, but I say ‘every person in Gaza, whether they’re a child or an adult, has a mother or had a mother worried about them, and yet they are being slaughtered and starved to death, and we cannot just sit idle here’. I also have to say that from my own upbringing as an Israeli Jew I was taught by Holocaust survivors that the world was silent during the 2nd World War. We cannot do this, we cannot be silent, we cannot not do anything in our power to stop this. I can also say I live here in Germany, and the reason I have a German passport is because of my family history. This is the only reason. Germany gives an Israeli citizen a German passport because they are aware that they have a responsibility: because my grandparents were refugees. And yet Germany supports this. Most of the population in Gaza are refugees and their right to return to their home in historical Palestine is not recognized by Germany or any other power. My privilege and the fact that I can raise a voice, that I can do something, is my bigger motivation, because I say having this possibility, having the freedom to board a ship and to sail towards Gaza obliges me to do so.

And I cannot, sorry, I cannot speak about motivations of other people but I think most of the people who do this just try to save their own humanity. And the whole mission shows a great amount of international solidarity from the people involved from all different parts of the world.

Are there also connections or solidarity between other movements? From other causes related to issues in other countries that somehow show solidarity towards Gaza, to your cause and to the Flotilla?

Yes. Of course. Our struggle against injustice in Palestine is connected very strongly with Indigenous struggles around the world because what is happening in Palestine is actually not a war. It is a native population struggling against the settler colonialist project, which is the Zionist project aiming to eliminate the diversity of what Palestine used to be, replacing it with something only for Jews. And so, the Indigenous struggle is very important.

I can also see how it should be an environmental struggle because of the destruction, not only in Gaza, but everywhere. We can see, you know, ancient olive trees being burnt and uprooted. And in the West Bank as well, we see a devastation of the natural environment in Palestine due to this settler colonial project. Unfortunately, voices like that of Greta Thunberg, who tries to say that these struggles are connected, are being silenced, especially here in Germany.

Moreover, in the Mediterranean, where we sail, there are also a lot of missions to rescue refugees. And we do have a lot of connections with these missions. A lot of the people we count on are, for example, doubling up, working in both projects. And this is what I said, it’s so much a human cause, and people who are human right defenders should see that this is only part of the bigger struggle to respect and to maintain human rights.

And then also, because you told us that you are a German citizen already, and we have seen what happens, especially in a place like Germany where the label of antisemitism has been politically instrumentalized, how was it for you?

Well, I would like to say that it’s ridiculous. The antisemitism tagging is a cynical attempt by the Zionist regime to divert attention from its own crimes, from a systematic injustice, systematic discrimination that is based on racism, and trying to say that when you criticize this, you’re being antisemitic. Antisemitism is actually just one form of racism and should be fought against together with the anti-racist movement in general. It’s unbelievable, actually, that I’ve seen this in Berlin this last weekend [12-14 April 2024] when Jewish voices against the genocide are being silenced by the German police. Literally taking out the plug and taking away microphones from people who are trying to say this cannot be done in our name. But as I said, you know, the most important thing is to speak about what is actually happening in Palestine. Speak about the truth.

And every attempt to speak about the way Palestinians choose to resist, whether it’s through a completely non-violent call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, or if it’s popular resistance, like we see in the West Bank against the apartheid wall, or even armed struggle. All these things are legitimate under international law and instead of speaking about the reason these things exist there is an attempt to eliminate Palestinians from Palestine. And when they react, we cannot speak about their reaction without speaking about the root cause. Let’s speak about what Zionism has been doing in Palestine for over 100 years, and then we can analyze the best way to combat this. But it’s not for us to decide. It’s for the Palestinians to decide how they want to face this. And as you said, accusing Jews or even Palestinians of being antisemites is a contradiction in terms. We are semites. We are not self-hating. We do this out of love for our people. I do this because I love my family. I do this because I have friends in Israel, in Palestine, and I can see that what is going on there is not for the benefit of people. It may be for the benefit of arm dealers, of people who make money out of death, but not for the people themselves.

Do you feel your safety has been, anyhow, affected, since October 7?

I don’t appear so Jewish. I reverted to Islam about 2 years ago, and I wear a hijab. So, I think that if I experience discrimination at all, I experience it more because Islamophobia is actually making Muslims feel very, very unsafe. More than Jews who are a much smaller fraction of the population. I do understand that Jewish people may feel unsafe, but I would say again that the major cause for their insecurity is actually the acts of the Israeli government and the fact that it tries to present itself as the sole representative of Jews all over the world, which is causing this insecurity.

So, again, we go back to this argument of antisemitism. This is the problem of the definition of antisemitism by this international holocaust remembrance alliance (IHRA), where they try to stick together things that are legitimate criticisms of Israel with real acts of Jew hatred. And when you mix these two things up, you come up with a much greater incidence of antisemitism. If we separated these two things, we would see that though antisemitism may be a real problem, it should be combated in the frame of anti-racism and not in the frame of a state, doing what is illegitimate, illegal under international law, and that should be criticized and actually stopped and not supported as Germany does. And if Germany really wanted to support Jewish existence or human rights in general, it should be against what Israelis are doing exactly because of the German past and not try to say whatever Jews do, whether they commit genocide or just ethnic cleansing, this is okay because of whatever we did to Jews during the 2nd World War.

When was the last time that the Flotilla attempted to go to Gaza?

So, we sailed in 2018, and this was a long voyage. We sailed from Norway and Sweden. There were 4 boats involved, and we did a long tour of European ports. In the end, only 2 boats were able to sail the last stretch from Italy to Gaza, and we were stopped in international waters. I was on board one of the boats. We were taken by the Israeli Navy to the Israeli port of Ashdod and were processed as if we had entered Israeli illegally, even though they kidnapped us in international waters. They were very violent towards our captain. Other people on board suffered injuries and most of our belongings were stolen from us, including a bible from our ship doctor, doctor Sway, who is a British citizen.

We were planning to sail in 2020 and then we couldn’t do so because of Covid. And so, it has taken us a long time to prepare this next mission which will start in May. It’s called ‘For the Children of Gaza’. This genocide sort of forced us to do something, but also enabled us because there is so much international solidarity, so much awareness, so many people who are desperate to do something that we just felt we have to do whatever we can as soon as we can. And this is what this break-the-siege mission involves.

Probably you cannot give all the details, but what is planned? How many boats are sailing?

So, we have a number of boats. I cannot say exactly how many, but hopefully more than 3. We are still finalizing the details so we cannot say as yet the exact number. We did say that we have a cargo ship that carries 5,500 tons of aid. And there will be some aid also loaded on the boats that carry the international observers. As I said, we will sail from ports in the Mediterranean, but we cannot say yet which ports.

The sailing is not very long in time, but we will proceed cautiously. We will try to create enough momentum so that the international community comes to its senses and assures us that we will not be attacked by putting a diplomatic pressure on Israel.

What we’re doing is completely legal, moral, human, and we need all eyes on this. We reveal the information when we can reveal it, when there is something to say. We do not withhold information from the public. Media do not have to support what we’re doing, but we hope that they would like to cover it and to show the world the truth of what is happening. We, of course, need all eyes on our mission. This is the only guarantee, if there is a guarantee of our safety.

And how can people help?

We offer people a whole range of things that they can do. I invite people to go to our website. There is a section there saying, I want to help. And the basic thing is just to follow us on the website and on social media. We have several platforms that people can sign up to, follow, share, and spread the world as much as they can. We know that mainstream media is also complicit in this genocide. It shows some of what is happening, but it’s very, very biased in its portraying of what is going on, as if Israel is trying to defend itself, which is, of course, absolutely false. So, following us and spreading the word is one very, very important thing.

Also, we invite people to organize, to get in touch with their local campaigns, or to create new local campaigns. I’ve been trying very hard to get more organizations here in Germany to support this. And, you know, hopefully, this will be an incentive for people to reach out and say, we want to organize because we need a large network of people concerned with human rights to join forces, as we said, also with other topics, other issues, because it’s all one struggle. And together, we can actually make a difference.

Thank you very much for your time, really. We have the utmost respect for what you’re doing. We wish you the best. We will be following you and trying to organize, gather forces here in Berlin, to donate, to participate, to support you, on different social media platforms.

More Information: