The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

When a Zionist Riot is Reported as an Antisemitic Pogrom

What really happened in Amsterdam


10/11/2024

Something terrible happened in Amsterdam last Thursday, although if you just read the mainstream media, you’d be forgiven for not knowing exactly what that was. The liberal Guardian wrote that: “Amsterdam police have made more than 60 arrests after what authorities called “hateful antisemitic violence” against Israeli football fans.”

According to Amsterdam mayor, Femke Halsema: “Men on scooters crisscrossed the city looking for Israeli football fans. It was a hit and run. I can easily understand that this brings back memories of pogroms … Our city has been deeply damaged. Jewish culture has been deeply threatened. This is an outburst of antisemitism that I hope to never see again.”

Zionist writer Bari Weiss tweeted “There is a pogrom unfolding right now on the streets of Amsterdam.“ Ursula von der Leyen took a break from imposing austerity on Europe to say: “I am outraged by last night’s vile attacks targeting Israeli citizens in Amsterdam.” Germany’s hawkish Green foreign minister Annalena Baerbock tweeted: “The images out of Amsterdam are awful and deeply shameful for us in Europe, The outbreak of such violence against Jews breaks all boundaries. There is no justification for this.”

Needless to say, the German press joined in the pile on. A Welt report talked of “a pro-Palestinian mob”, which “hunted down Israeli fans”. Die Zeit quoted a Maccabi fan saying “Europe is no longer safe for us”, and even the liberal taz claimed that “Jew-haters see the sport as their battlefield”.

Israeli president Isaac Herzog tweeted: “We see with horror this morning, the shocking images and videos that since October 7th, we had hoped never to see again: an antisemitic pogrom currently taking place against Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and Israeli citizens in the heart of Amsterdam, Netherlands.”

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu compared the events to Kristallnacht, whose terrible anniversary we commemorated 2 days later. The pro-Israel “Combat Antisemitism Movement” called: “the vicious attacks against Israeli football fans in the streets of Amsterdam last night” a “new Kristallnacht.” CAM CEO Sacha Roytman said: “It’s time for Europe to get its act together and deal with the new Nazis as it did the old ones”.

What really happened

But who are the “new Nazis” in this story? Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters have a history of far right violence, of which more later. Israeli hooligans attacked a taxi driver before the game had even started. And the Jerusalem Post reported that a week earlier “a pro-Palestinian protester was reportedly attacked by Ajax fans.” 

In a video made on Friday, journalist Owen Jones was more blunt: “Yesterday, racist Israeli football thugs rioted in Amsterdam while publicly inciting genocide – a criminal act under the 1948 Genocide Convention.” 

The Middle East Eye said: “Israeli hooligans, supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football club, provoked clashes with Dutch youth in Amsterdam. They chanted anti-Arab slogans, tore down Palestinian flags, and ignored a minute of silence for the Spanish flood victims.”

Can I repeat that last bit in case you missed it. The minute of silence for the people who died in the floods in Valencia was constantly interrupted by fireworks and racist chants from Maccabi “supporters”.

Even the right wing Daily Mail reported that: “Israeli football hooligans tore down Palestine flags as they marched through Amsterdam in a Wednesday night of chaos ahead of Maccabi Tel Aviv‘s visit to Ajax. Videos show dozens of hooded figures dressed fully in black cheering and chanting ‘f*** you Palestine’” 

You can see a video of this incident here. Another video  has been posted of “fans” chanting “Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs”). At Tel Aviv airport, Maccabi fans were filmed chanting: “Why is school out in Gaza?  There are no children left there.” Commenting from Israel, soldier Mazal Ledri posted: “Don’t worry. The women and babies in Gaza will pay the price.”

Edward Ahmed Mitchell from the Council on American-Islamic Relations commented: “As a Black man from Georgia, I know that it would be widely condemned if a group of white supremacists marched through downtown Atlanta chanting ‘death to n—ers,’ attacking Black-owned businesses, and beating up Black residents. I also know that no one would pretend that Black victims who defended themselves from white supremacist violence were racists who had suddenly decided to attack random white people.”

Tagesschau apologises – sort of

Tagesschau, Germany’s main television news service, was forced to publish an apology: “the tagesschau edition of 8 November was subsequently edited. In an earlier version of the contribution on the violence in Amsterdam, pictures by @iAnnetnl were shown in the wrong context. These pictures do not show attacks on Israeli football fans. The pictures were replaced.”

Tagesschau did not tell its viewers what this “wrong context” was. After several news channels posted the video, claiming it was footage of Maccabi fans being attacked, iAnnetnl tweeted: “I am the creator of this video. 1. you are spreading fake news, this is a group of Maccabi supporters starting a fight and beating one Dutch man. 2. delete this content, I didn’t gave you permission.”

The video was removed, by Tagesschau at least, but they did not explain to their viewers how they had misrepresented the events. The damage was therefore already done. The video, containing the implication that Palestine supporters are to blame, is also still available in many influential media platforms.

After Tagesschau published its apology, iAnnetnl appealed to the media: “I would like you to do the same as Tagesschau. An apology, a removal of my footage and the truth. A few minutes of your precious time. Write down: Maccabi supporters attacked Amsterdam citizens in front of Central Station after the game. Journalism is about finding truth. Not about making money on a twist of the script. It’s time to show some respect to reality. That’s your job.”

Police protect the Nazis

While the hooligans were in Amsterdam, the local police showed the neutrality which we have come to expect. Over 60 people were arrested, but as the New Arab reports: “No Israelis were arrested, but were instead given close police protection and escorted to their accommodations.”

Bizarrely, Trouw newspaper wrote that “as far as [Amsterdam police chief Peter] Holla knows, there are no hostage-takings or kidnappings and there are currently no public order problems in the city.” It is not clear why Holla mentioned hostages and kidnappings, which were also brought up by at least one German news channel, as there is no sign that any were reported. But his statement served to intensify the climate of fear. 

An Al Jazeera report quoted Councilman Jazie Veldhuyzen as saying that Maccabi fans “began attacking houses of people in Amsterdam with Palestinian flags, so that’s actually where the violence started.  As a reaction, Amsterdammers mobilised themselves and countered the attacks that started on Wednesday by the Maccabi hooligans.” 

Vedhuyzen went on: “The mayor says the police did act, but I would say they acted not at the right moments. They acted only to protect the Maccabi hooligans when Amsterdammers stood up to defend their own people and defend their own houses. And this is when the police showed up to protect the Maccabi fans when they ran away after attacking people.”

People who oppose genocide were treated differently. The Guardian reports how Barbara Weenink, a Palestinian supporter in Amsterdam: “said she had found the behaviour of Israeli fans threatening. Weenink, who has demonstrated at pro-Palestine events, said she was warned not to go out with a keffiyeh on that evening.” 

A statement by The Black Archives in Amsterdam “Don’t Let the Government Gaslight you” said: “We, as TBA, had to warn our team members to cover signs of solidarity with Palestinian people such as buttons and keffiyehs. On the evening of the soccer match we met several people – especially Muslim women – who stated that they were afraid to walk around with a keffiyeh.💔 This should be unacceptable.”

Entirely predictable

The Dutch news channel NRC claimed: “the outbreak of violence came unexpectedly, despite weeks of risk analyses by the Amsterdam security triangle and the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV). They had previously judged that there was no concrete threat, not even in connection with the war in the Middle East.”

But it was not as if no-one saw this coming. Two days before the game, Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reported that “in addition to Maccabi’s regular security personnel, Mossad agents will join the team in Amsterdam.” Even before the game started, riot police were used to disperse a peaceful pro-Palestine demonstration, which had been banned by mayor Femke Halsema, former leader of the GroenLinks (now GroenLinks-PvdA).

A TikTok video released by the Jewish Anti-Zionist Network in Amsterdam said: “we knew that they were going to be violent, and we also knew that among the supporters, a lot of them are IDF soldiers who have on their Facebook footage of them being enlisted in the same army that’s committing genocide.”

Before the game was played, the Dutch BDS movement called on the game to be cancelled, saying: “less than 60 kilometers from the Maccabi stadium, a genocide is taking place, the most heinous war crimes, a record number of children killed and maimed, a deliberately caused famine, total lawlessness.”

Maccabi Tel Aviv – racist to the core

Thursday’s violence was not new for Maccabi supporters, who have a history of racism. +972 magazine reports: “the racist chanting in the stands; the fact that Maccabi’s “ultras” make sure to display excessive numbers of Israeli flags when playing [Palestinian club Bnei] Sakhnin; the hounding of their Arab players in recent years; and the management’s acceptance of the fans’ racist behavior: all this has generated a culture of racism at Maccabi Tel Aviv.”

According to socialism.ne: “the club organizes fundraisers and tributes to fallen IDF soldiers, and there are numerous photos of soldiers posing with Maccabi scarves among the ruins of Gaza. The Maccabi thugs assaulted a man in Athens in March this year because he was carrying a Palestinian flag.” 

Racism has been endemic at Maccabi for many years. Reporting a game in 2008, Jewish Chronicle reporter Larry Derfner acidly commented: “I suppose Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer fans should be congratulated for restraint. They didn’t start making monkey sounds — chanting “hoo-hoo-hoo” as loud as they could — at black players on the opposing team until one of them scored a goal.”

In 2014, the International Business Times recounted the experience of Maharan Radi, a Palestinian who used to play for Maccabi: “right-wing extremists invaded the pitch, insulting him and chanting “F*** the Arabs!” Some fans even spat at him … It is not the first time that Radi suffered a racist attack. Last year, bigoted football fans shouted anti-Muslim slurs during a game with Hapoel Tel Aviv, despite Radi scoring the second goal that secured Maccabi’s victory.”

In 2020, Deutsche Welle reported that members of Maccabi Tel Aviv ultra group Maccabi Fanatics “attacked anti-Netanyahu protesters with batons and broken bottles. Five people were injured as a result.” 

On a previous visit to the Netherlands, Maccabi fans sang a song called The Rape Song, which contains the following lyrics: “You’re the Arabs’ wh*res. We are ashamed of you. At the end of the day, Gate 5. We will f*ck you. We will f*ck you. And then we will drink your blood. In the town’s square we will hang every Communist who comes here. We will take your girls who love to party. When we’ll rape them we will shout. Today is death, Hapoel”

It’s not just about football

Those who say that this is just about football do not understand how a murderous ideology can take over a whole culture. The Yarmouk Stadium in occupied Gaza is currently being used as a detention and torture center. In the aftermath of the Amsterdam riots, Israel soldiers blew up homes in Gaza, publishing the statement: “We dedicate this explosion to all the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv. We’ll get to all of you, you sons of bitches.”

As Abed Abou Shhadeh argues: “The hooligans’ mindset aligns with the genocidal culture that has permeated Israeli society since 7 October 2023, allowing Israelis to imagine themselves as being above the law and morality – not only in Israel, but the world over. These fans are an expression of a culture that is not just prevalent among a handful of racists; rather, it has become routine in stadiums, with chants of “death to Arabs” or “may your village burn” often heard in Israel long before 7 October 2023.

Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg told Al Jazeera: “The fact that Israeli fans riot in the middle of Amsterdam, sing racist songs and climb the walls of homes to tear down Palestinian flags … is part of the Israeli condition at the moment: A complete detachment between actions and consequences.”

And yet the mainstream media and politicians continue to provide cover for such blatant racism, as noted by Marc Owen Jones: “The New York Times ran the headline, ‘Israeli soccer fans injured in attacks linked to antisemitism in Amsterdam,’ but the body article contained only verified evidence of anti-Arab racism. Its lede emphasized antisemitic motivation, while the body of the article cited footage by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans chanting anti-Arab and racist slogans – footage that the New York Times had actually verified. The only basis at the time for claiming antisemitism came from a single tweet by the Dutch prime minister, while the linked Amsterdam police’s own statement made no such attribution”

What now?

The Palestine Football Association notes that: “FIFA cannot currently ensure the safety and security of fans around matches including Israeli teams. A recent incident in Greece – where an Arab man was beaten unconscious by a group of Israeli supporters – illustrates the urgent need for intervention. The absence of accountability for such entrenched violence and normalized racism has only led to further unfortunate incidents, such as those in Amsterdam.”

This lack of safety has led the Jüdische Stimme (Jewish Voice for Peace) in Germany to issue a statement which concludes: “we can only hope that every invitation to an Israeli team is cancelled, that the football authorities sanction Israeli teams and that we all remember the Palestinian football players and trainers who Israel has killed and continues to kill, to bring the genocide to an end.”

A local woman interviewed by Middle East Eye said: “It is not about the Jewish people. It is about the occupation, the annexation, the breach of international law and the breach of human rights. That is why we are against Maccabi being invited to play here and I still cannot believe that they have been allowed to play.”

In 2022, within 4 days of the invasion of Ukraine, FIFA and UEFA banned all Russian teams from competing in their competitions. Thursday’s match should have never taken place in the first place. The bare minimum we should expect from the football authorities is the removal of all Israeli teams from international competitions – not just because of Thursday’s violence, but because of their complicity in genocide.

This is unlikely to happen without pressure from below. As DiEM25 commented: “What is curious is that actual right-wing extremist behaviour from football fans in Europe, like that of Italian club Lazio, who are renowned for blatant anti-Semitic actions, have never garnered comparable scrutiny from politicians or media outlets.” 

The protection of racist Israeli football fans is tied up with the support by Western governments and media for genocide. This means that any call for retribution against the violent racist hooligans is only part of the solution. We must destroy the ideology from which they emerged. We must continue to build an international movement which challenges Western support for murderous apartheid and enables Palestine finally to be free.

The Confused and Contradictory politics of Nico (1938-1988)

Radical Berlin in 12 Cemeteries – Cemetery 13


09/11/2024

Last year. I wrote a series of pen portraits about where radical activists and artists are buried in Berlin. One artist did not make the final cut. Nico’s life was too complicated and contradictory that I could not do her justice in 300 words. Moreover, I wondered, whether she was really of the Left. A longer article never got written – until now.

Upbringing and rise to fame

Nico (née Christa Päffgen) was born in Cologne in 1938. When her father was sent to fight in the Second World War, she moved with her mother to Lübbenau. After the war, they moved to the centre of Berlin, she remembers “a desert of bricks… seeing dead bodies lying in the rubble as I walked through a wilderness at the end of the street where we lived.”

Her father meanwhile was variously – shot by his fellow soldiers, or died in a Concentration Camp, or maybe after a brain injury he was institutionalised. All versions told by Nico herself, having a flexible relationship with the truth. 

Stories about her early childhood are equally vague. A friend, Jane Goldstraw recounts: “She told me that, when she was three years old during the war, she lived on a farm near a death camp, and she remembered treading over bodies. But there are conflicting stories.”

As a young woman, she gained jobs as a model for Elle, Esquire, and Vogue. She also got acting work. At 20, she was in a film with Mario Lanza, and in Fellini’s La Dolce Vita. In 1960, she joined Lee Strasberg’s Method School in New York, with Marilyn Monroe as a classmate.

Nico’s biography is peppered with references to famous men. She had an affair with Bob Dylan in 1964, who wrote Visions of Johanna about her. Then, she had a child with Alain Delon – or was it Brian Jones? The New Yorker claims that Leonard Cohen “began writing songs in hopes of seducing her.” Film maker John Waters asked her to play at his funeral.

Dylan led her to Pop Artist Andy Warhol who recruited her to the band the Velvet Underground. She sang lead vocals on 3 songs on The Velvet Underground and Nico, the 1967 album. Of it Brian Eno said: “only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band.”

Jim Morrison encouraged her to write her own songs. But at first, she sang songs exclusively by male writers like Lou Reed, Jackson Browne and Jim Morrison, saying “I thought men write songs and women sing them.”

In the 1970s she released a number of haunting albums, on which she sang and played harmonium. She then went out of fashion. She died in 1988 in the most un-rock star manner of having a brain aneurysm and falling off her bicycle.

Nico’s politics

Nico grew up in post-Nazi Germany, with all the implied shame. She invented a Turkish father, saying: “I do not wish to have any familiarity with the German people. I do not identify with them in any way, except their endurance… Turks are the new Jews of Germany.”

Later she claimed: “It was the time of imperialist war in Algeria, and my secret support was with the Arabs against the French Army, but I could not say this to my society friends, who were often the opposite, but I could say it in these clubs. I always dislike the invader and, of course, I am part Arab because of my father.” This story is slightly compromised by the fact that Nico’s actual father was a wealthy German brewer.

She became a heroin addict, but in the 1960s she rejected LSD, saying “Timothy Leary said ‘Drop Out’, and this was the solution in America. I didn’t like this alternative, because it doesn’t fight totalitarianism. It lets others fight for you while you are asleep”

She supported: “Andreas Baader, the Red Brigade (Italy) and the Catholics in Ireland (IRA), and there are others. That is the alternative that fights, not the alternative that says ‘Drop Out’… If I were not Nico I would be a terrorist.”

Most of these statements come from the same article and are difficult to corroborate. SInce Nico’s biographers were more interested in her famous lovers than in her politics (or her music), this does not mean that she did not say these things. But such comments do not sit easily with her later behaviour. 

Internalized Misogyny

Obviously much press coverage patronised Nico and dismissed her talents because of her gender. Jennifer Otter Bickerdicke says: “While her fellow Velvets, Lou Reed and John Cale, are called ‘American masters’, ‘poets’ and ‘legends’, Nico has been cast as a racist junkie who slept with myriad famous men.”

Did Nico internalise some of this misogyny? She is reported as saying: “Women are poison. If I wasn’t so special, I could hate myself,” and “Women are inferior,” adding that her only regret was being born a woman.”

Nico’s keyboard player Una Baines said: “I don’t think she’d have labelled herself a feminist because she hated any form of ideology. She did say her only regret was not being born a man. I think she wanted the same privileges and power that men have.”

As Baines makes clear, Nico’s statements do not necessarily confirm that she disliked women. Perhaps she was merely arguing that she, and we, lived in a society, where women are treated as second class citizens. Or, as Maxine Peake argued: “She said a few times that she wished she was a man, which came from the fact that as an artist she would have been more recognised.”

Nationalism

Another charge levelled against Nico is that she was a nationalist, possibly a Nazi. An NTS radio programme reported: “She had a definite Nordic Aryan streak, [the belief] that she was physically, spiritually and creatively superior, a view she appears to have continued to maintain throughout her later years. During a performance in Berlin, the audience rioted after Nico performed the German national anthem “Deutschlandlied”, including a verse omitted since 1945 for its nationalist associations.”

But as the NTS report notes, after singing the Deutschlandlied, “Nico dedicated this performance to militant Andreas Baader, leader of the anti-fascist Red Army Faction.” In another report, her manager, Nigel Bagley noted: “at one gig, she introduced Deutschland über Alles, saying: ‘My father was a homosexual and died in a concentration camp.’”

None of this excuses Nico’s behaviour which is, at best erratic and fuelled by drugs. But at worst she was behaving like punks like Sid Vicious and Siouxsie Sioux, who provocatively wore swastika t-shirts and arm bands. At a time when Nazis were growing in the UK, this was an incredibly stupid act, but it didn’t make them Nazis themselves.

Racism

But the charge which refuses to go away is the one of racism. This depends on some well-documented incidents. The first is her ongoing antisemitism towards her friend – record executive Danny Fields. Fields later recalled: “Every once in a while, there’d be something about Jews and I’d be, ‘But Nico, I’m Jewish,’ and she was like ‘Yes, yes, I don’t mean you.’ She had a definite Nordic Aryan streak, [the belief] that she was physically, spiritually and creatively superior.”

Rock journalist Lester Bangs reported that Nico “was just naive enough to explain to Mary Harron, in a recent interview in New Wave Rock, why she was dropped by Island Records: “I made a mistake. I said in Melody Maker to some interviewer that I didn’t like negroes. That’s all. They took it so personally . . . although it’s a whole different race. I mean, Bob Marley doesn’t resemble a negro, does he? … He’s an archetype of Jamaican … but with the features like white people. I don’t like the features. They’re so much like animals…. it’s cannibals, no?”

And then there is the incident at a party, recounted by Fields via Simon Reynolds: “Nico was, I dunno, feeling neglected, or drunk, but suddenly she said ‘I hate black people,’ and smashed a wineglass on the table and stuck it in the girl’s eye. There was lots of blood and screaming. Fortunately she just twisted it around her eye socket, so the glass never reached [the eye] but it’s not like she was being cautious.””

Nico’s explanation for this incident, for which, she claims, the Black Panthers put out a hit on her is “I was high on angel dust… then I had to leave the country.” This non-apology-apology is so often used by rock stars to excuse their excesses. It is no more defensible than David Bowie saying: “I believe Britain could benefit from a fascist leader.” Unlike Bowie, Nico is not known to have ever apologised.

Instead, she attributed her bigotry to having been raped at the age of 13 (or sometimes 15) by a black US American soldier. Brian Dillon reported in the New Yorker: “When Nico was thirteen, she said, she was raped by a U.S. Army sergeant who was hanged for the crime. She also said he was Black, a claim that has been cited by many, Nico included, to explain conduct, on her part, that can only be called racist.”

Her biographers disagree about the authenticity of the crime. Richard Witts claims that Nico was probably lying, as he couldn’t locate any record of the crime, trial, or execution. Jennifer Otter Bickerdike, argues that the need to avoid the “Soviet and American heroes who had defeated fascism” meant that such cases were routinely covered up.

But surely this argument misses the point. Whether or not the rape happened, using it to justify a hatred of all black people is hardly proof that Nico was not a racist. 

What does this have to do with Nico’s music?

Actually, very little. Good politics can inspire good music, but there is no direct relationship between the two. Wagner was a great composer and an antisemite, Ezra Pound a great poet and an antisemite. David Bowie produced some of his greatest works when he was calling for a new Hitler and raping under age girls. When he apologized for his Hitler statement, and called MTV out for racism, his music was much less spectacular.

Nico left  an astounding body of work. On top of the music, the films, and the modelling, she inspired a number of other artistic works – from the films Nico-Icon and Nico, 1988 to The Nico Project, a theatrical performance created by, and starring Maxine Peake.

After Nico died, many obituaries concentrated on the men in her life – not her undoubted talent. She is buried in one of Berlin’s most beautifully located cemeteries – Friedhof Grunewald-Forst near the Havel. Fans and admirers ensure that her grave is covered with photos and flowers.

Cogs and Wheels: Interlocking Institutions

A few weeks from now, Homayoun Sabetara, charged with human smuggling, will be released from prison. His case exemplifies the interplay between repressive organisations.


08/11/2024

Ruth Wilson Gilmore and numerous other abolitionist thinkers and activists identify the penal system’s central role as a necessary instrument in upholding a capitalist system. So-called ‘organised abandonment’, the systemic giving up on and neglect of people by the state, is an integral part of the penal system. When people lose their jobs, are thrown out of their homes or stuck at borders without documentation, their destinies are not isolated, but rather intertwined with the penal and regulatory systems that specifically limit the choice in action of those affected.

Institutions of ‘justice’—the police, courts and prisons, among others—enforce, regulate and administrate organised neglect.

The interlocking and mutual support these systems share is apparent in Homayoun Sabetara’s case; on August 25, 2021, after having fled Iran he was arrested by Greek police after crossing the Turkish border by car. His escape was meant to lead him to Berlin where his daughter lives. In a process that only lasted two hours, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for human smuggling on September 26, 2022. Since then, the 63-year-old Sabetara has been in prison in Trikala, Greece. Relatives, including his daughter Mahtab Homayoum, began a campaign called ‘Free Homayoun’ demanding his release and supporting him in his appeal process. The process ended on September 24th with a sentence reduction to seven years and four months. The court expressly recognised that Sabetara had not acted with the intent to profit and that there was no legal path of entry by which he could have reached his daughter. 

Isolation and False Security

The means of fighting so-called human smuggling, in which Homayoun has been caught, are part of an overarching European anti-migration policy. Embedded in this fight is a falsified debate about security; the ‘safety of one’s own people’ is constructed by deportations, Duldung [status preventing people from working], and the simultaneous criminalisation of migrants and massive investments in border protection companies such as Frontex.

The aim of such sham debates is to transfer systemic failure to the individual level and thus uphold the existing system by justifying a new definition of security. This security is not achieved through meeting fundamental needs like access to housing, food and clean water, participation in society, education and medical care, but rather through more police and fortified security checks. In 2023 alone, The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is said to have invested 845 million euro in these measures.

Those who happen to be at the wheel of a car with illegalised migrants in it when it is stopped by police is deemed the smuggler. The witnesses are other passengers or the intercepting police officers. This was also true in the case of Homayoun Sabetara. The charge against him was based on two witness statements—one from a police officer and one from a passenger in Sabetara’s car, which were taken upon arrest without a translator. These proceedings are not an isolated case. Harris Ladis, the lawyer defending Sabetara, described the police’s conduct as such: ‘The police make no attempt to cross examine or investigate witness accounts. To avoid too much hassle, they generally take a statement from just one passenger, who says, ‘‘He was driving when we arrived.’’ That’s enough to arrest someone and hand them over to the examining judge.’

Those who cannot sort out a lawyer for their trial don’t stand a chance in court when up against high criminal charges such as human trafficking, as in Sabetara’s case. His lawyer’s fees alone amounted to more than  15,000 Euro. Poverty means staying (longer) in prison.

The most frequent questions in court centred around Sabetara’s financial situation in Iran—what did he do for work? How much did he earn? The same questions were posed to his daughter. Did he send part of his earnings to Germany? How was she funding her life in Germany? How did her father pay for the journey? How much money did she send him? Did he have financial issues? Did he own a car? Or receive an inheritance? A house? So what about the house? Did he leave his possessions or the proceeds from the sale of his business behind? What did she study? Where did she work?

Defendants must constantly emphasise that they are not ‘poor’ or ‘uneducated’. Homazoun and Mahtab are no exception. In court they repeatedly had to talk about their careers and academic achievements in order to convince the judge that Sabetara’s detainment was unjust.

Research by Borderline Europe shows that court proceedings against so-called ‘smugglers’ have an average length of 37 minutes, while cases assigned to public defenders take 17. Borderline Europe’s shortest documented case was just 6 minutes long. These short cases are often unlawful and based on insufficient and questionable evidence, for example the statement of a single police officer or coast guard agent. In 68% of documented cases, those giving the statements were not even present in the courtroom. These proceedings decide destinies in a matter of minutes; on average, human smugglers are sentenced to 46 years in prison and fined 332,209 euro.

Homayoun Sabetara’s case also shows that prisoners must rely on help from outside the prison. They need someone who looks out for their care and health, procures needed medication and alerts the prison should they fall ill. Or someone to accompany them on their court date, send them money and offer support for their freedom. For those who have no one to see during visitor’s hours, prison becomes an even greater hell. Usually represented by a public defender, without an adequate interpreter, they are alone against a system that criminalised them from the beginning. 

The tough sentences that most often affect young prisoners without relatives are meant to act as a deterrent. Alone and abandoned, those who have neither the social nor economic capital to defend their rights are the ideal victims to substantiate the European security debate—criminals tasked with maintaining the true face of a ‘safe’ Europe. 

This article first appeared in German on the Anaylse & Kritik Website. Translation: Shav MacKay. Reproduced with permission.

“We should be part of the pro-Palestine movement, and we should support it.”

Interview with Martha Kleedorfer (Die Linke Berlin-Mitte)


06/11/2024

Thank you for talking to us, Martha. Could you quickly say who you are and what it is you do?

My name is Martha Kleedorfer, and I am the chairwoman of die Linke in the district of Berlin Mitte. Mitte consists of Wedding, Moabit, Tiergarten, Gesundbrunnen, and alt-Mitte. I work a lot on the topic of housing politics and am a member of the local parliament.

A lot has happened in die Linke in the last couple of weeks. Recently, die Linke Berlin had their conference and there was a big discussion about antisemitism. What exactly happened there?

First of all, we had a really good debate. For example, a trade unionist from Berlin-Brandenburg came to speak about strikes by educators, and that was really strong. We also discussed a couple of other topics. And then later that evening, there was a motion about antisemitism from some people, including Klaus Lederer.

They particularly wanted to discuss “left-wing antisemitism”, which has been a big topic in Germany ever since October 7 last year. Robert Habeck, a leading Green minister, has been talking about “left-wing antisemitism”, as if it is the most important topic. This is when the AfD, a fascist party, is polling around 20%. In some parts of Germany, like Saxony or Brandenburg, they are even stronger, with 30%.

We thought that this doesn’t serve as a good enough analysis, either of antisemitism, or of the war on Gaza, so we suggested some changes to the text. Most of these changes were accepted by a majority of party delegates.

Lederer and his group got very angry that the text had been changed, and left the conference. One of them showed her middle fingers to the conference. The changed text then did not get the two-thirds of the vote it needed to be passed.

For people who don’t know who he is, who is Klaus Lederer?

Klaus Lederer is a former leader of die Linke in Berlin. He was Berlin’s Senator for Culture for six years, I think, and he was one of the mayors of Berlin.

The big headlines after the conference said that you personally accused Lederer of relativizing the Holocaust. What was that about? 

One part of the text said that the Left should never underestimate the eliminatory antisemitism of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The term “eliminatory antisemitism” was first used by scientist Daniel Goldhagen in the 1990s. I don’t agree with Goldhagen’s ideas, but he proposed the idea that every German was an antisemite, and he used the term “eliminatory antisemitism” to characterize the German antisemitism which led to the Holocaust.

I don’t like this idea, but this is something which is being discussed in science and by historians.

There’s a very good book by Norman Finkelstein about Goldhagen’s thesis

I essentially said that I wouldn’t use that term that describes the genocide on Jews that Germans committed to characterize other groups. I said that, essentially, this is relativizing the Holocaust. I later even apologised for the very strong tone with which I said it, but they didn’t want to listen to that apology. 

A week after the Linke Berlin conference, the party had its national conference where there was another discussion on Palestine. How did that go?

After the Berlin Conference, everyone was very scared about the national conference, worrying that this would all blow up. So everyone was trying to be very precise and very calm. There was a weird atmosphere at the conference that evening. 

In the end, there was a compromise from the new chairperson, Jan Van Aken, who also lived in Tel Aviv for a couple of years and is very familiar with foreign policy. A majority of the conference voted for that compromise, and a lot of people were talking about Palestine in general. When we voted for the new party leadership, a lot of candidates were talking about the war on Gaza and Lebanon in their speeches.

What was in the compromise? Do you support it?

I voted for it at the conference, because I thought that at the end of the day it was a step in the right direction. For example, the text talks about the war on Gaza and Lebanon, and especially opposes that the German government is sending weapons to support Israel’s war. 

It also strongly rejected antisemitism. What was new was that it talked about the International Court of Justice saying that a genocide is about to happen. We were finally able to acknowledge that in that text, which contains the word “genocide”. This is quite new for die Linke, which is very reluctant when it comes to talking about Israel’s war in Gaza, and is mostly trying to use very soft terms to describe the outrageous war that is happening. 

So I thought that was a step in the right direction. At the same time, it was quite important for the part of die Linke that does not fully support the pro-Palestine movement that the part about antisemitism is in the text. It is right that there is no room for antisemitism in die Linke, but at the end of the day, they might use this to get people who they don’t like out of the party.

Nonetheless, significant parts of the Palestine movement point to die Linke supporting pro-Israel demos, and to various statements by Linke leaders, and say that even in the current compromise, die Linke is obsessed with a two-state solution – which is now dead – if it ever was a solution. They therefore argue that they don’t see die Linke as a partner. How would you address such concerns?

I do think that there’s a difference in what die Linke as a party says when it comes to the two-state solution. I also think that die Linke is one of only two major parties in Germany which doesn’t unconditionally support Israel. 

There is a gap between what we say and vote for when we meet as a conference, and what the party does at the end of the day. For example, when leaders of die Linke go to a pro-Israel demonstration, that is not part of what we want as a party, and what is in the party programme.

This is one of the biggest problems that I see. We as a party should play a bigger role in the pro-Palestinian movement. We should be part of the movement, and we should support it.

There is a difference with some groups like Palestine Speaks when it comes to how we think of Israel as a state, but what we as a party want at this point is to stop the war and a permanent ceasefire, and this is something we can fight for together with the movement.

One of the results of the National Conference was that a number of known pro-Israel people, including Klaus Lederer, left the party. Why did they do that? And how does this change the balance of forces?

One day after the National Conference, Henriette Quade, a member of die Linke in Sachsen-Anhalt and also a member of the Parliament there, left the party. I think it’s actually quite interesting, because she said she supports sending weapons to Israel, but somehow she didn’t know that die Linke is always against sending weapons into areas where there is a war. She realized that there’s a big difference between what she wants and what die Linke wants. So she left the party.

Two days later, Klaus Lederer and some other very prominent people from die Linke also left the party. It does hurt that members are leaving Die Linke. In their statement, they didn’t talk as much about the national conference as about die Linke in Berlin. They said that they can no longer advocate for “strategic orientation” in Die Linke Berlin. 

At the end of the day, it’s true, because the party has changed over the last couple of years. For example, when it comes to the unconditional support of a government that doesn’t change anything about the housing crisis in Berlin, I think there is a majority in die Linke in Berlin which does not fully support the politics of Klaus Lederer. I think there is a more nuanced part of die Linke which does not unconditionally support Israel anymore. That’s essentially why they left the party, I guess. 

They want to stay in the parliament for die Linke though.

Even though they’re not party members?

Exactly, and that is quite interesting, because exactly one year before they left, Sahra Wagenknecht and other members of die Linke in the Bundestag left the party, and everyone – including Klaus Lederer and others – were saying they should give back their seats in the parliament. And now they’re doing the same. Die Linke Berlin has said last year that members of Die Linke in parliament, who left the party should give back their seats and we are saying the same now.

One of the other things that’s been happening is that there’s been more than one article in the right wing Axel Springer press, which has been specifically attacking you and four Linke activists in Neukölln, including Ramsy Kilani and Ferat Kocak. And strangely, they’re also attacking The Left Berlin, which has nothing to do with die Linke. Who is behind these attacks and why? 

As I mentioned before, the Conservatives and bürgerliche Mitte [roughly speaking, the bourgeois middle of society] want to put pressure on the left for being, as they say, antisemitic, This is convenient for them, because it means that they don’t have to talk about the antisemitism that is happening on the right or the conservative parts of society.

So the Tagesspiegel and other journalists have been publishing those texts about us. At the end of the day, they don’t like left-wing politics, and they’re using every tool that they have. It’s very convenient to them that they think they can make this accusation of antisemitism against members of die Linke (which are not true), because at the end of the day, they want to destroy anti-capitalist politics.

Two of the people being accused – yourself and Ferat – are both trying to stand for parliament for die Linke at the next general election. Do you think you can rely on the support of the party?

Of course, there are people who have different opinions to what I said at the conference. But what die Linke in Mitte is saying is very clear. We have voted for proposals at our district conferences that are very clearly pro-Palestinian. What I say is backed by my party in my district, so I feel quite confident that it’s the right thing.

I live in Wedding, and when I walk around Wedding wearing a kuffiyah, I have so many nice conversations with my neighbors. And when I look around, there are so many apartments hanging Palestinian flags in this neighborhood. The working class lives here, and die Linke wants to make politics with the working class. It is the right thing to do to work together with the working class in our neighborhood, and this is exactly what we’re doing right now.

If you do get elected, MP, what do you think you can offer the working class of Wedding and Germany?

There is a huge problem here in Wedding that most of the people don’t actually vote. Even though many people have German citizenship, they don’t participate in elections. I think that’s because they don’t feel like any party is seeing their pain and anger, especially when it comes to Palestine and the way that German politics doesn’t acknowledge the suffering of Arabs.

What we want to do is to talk to our neighbours in this district. We want to give them a voice and not just be for them, but with them. This is exactly what you have to do, not just when we’re talking about Palestine, but also when we’re talking about rents and how inflation is going up, and how people can’t afford their lives any more. 

It is so important that someone is finally listening to them, and if we as die Linke will finally be able to support our neighbourhood in finding a voice, that is exactly what we want to do. 

How confident are you that die Linke can be an agent for change?

I think die Linke now has a chance to actually be the motor of change. When the party was founded in 2007 it was the voice of change when it came to fighting Agenda 2010, when working class people were being pressured. I really want to fight for die Linke coming back to that position. 

In the last couple of years, we were not able to do that because we weren’t able to speak clearly about imperialism, but also about all those mistakes that the government is making. But what we have to do is to criticize what the government is doing from a socialist perspective. There are multiple injustices which are happening, including the German support for the war on the people in Gaza and Lebanon. So I really do hope that now we are finding that clear voice again.

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.