The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

The AfD and Israel

The AfD is full of antisemites. Nonetheless, it fully supports Israel.

Isobel Knight
14/05/2024

The AfD’s support of Israel is hinged on hypocrisy. Despite their history of antisemitism and controversial foreign policy stances, on this topic, they seem to be in agreement with the coalition government. The reasons for this are multi-faceted, but ultimately boil down to their Islamophobic and anti-immigrant agenda; using the October 7th attack to further demonise Palestinian and Arab people, including those living in Germany.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz frequently reinforces his support of Israel, both through words and weaponry, and refers to the ‘Staatsräson’: the responsibility Germany has to protect the state of Israel after the Holocaust. Due to this concept, it may be considered too risky for any political parties to speak out about the genocide in Gaza, as there is a terrifying culture of censorship in contemporary German politics. Yet, the AfD’s support of Israel predates October 7th, for example, supporting Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital. (This support is not mutual; Israel has cut all ties with the AfD.)

Following Hamas’ October 7th attacks, Alexander Gauland (speaking as the honorary AfD chairman) said “The attack was not only aimed at the Jewish state, it was also aimed at us. Israel is the West in an environment that rejects and fights the West. When we stand with Israel, we are also defending our way of life”. This idea of ‘defending a way of life’ is common anti-immigrant rhetoric, and one the AfD frequently utilises to criticise immigration policy in Germany.

The AfD also submitted proposals in October to end financial donations to the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees. Following this, a press release from the Bundestag said “the SPD accused the AfD of using Hamas’ terror to fuel Islamophobia”, and also mentioned a representative of the Greens calling out the antisemitic comments made by AfD members, as well as contacts between party members and Iran (who support Hamas).

The AfD is notorious for intra-party division, with some members decidedly far-right, and others leaning to the more moderate, Eurosceptic right. Attitudes to Israel are no exception, with co-leader Tino Chrupalla condemning the October 7th attack, but calling for ‘de-escalation’, also saying ‘a viable solution for all sides must be the goal’. This Tweet was criticised by many within the AfD, particularly his use of the word ‘war dead’ for Israeli victims.

The AfD have a long track record of antisemitism and neo-Nazi affiliations, ranging from Björn Höcke’s use of a Nazi paramilitary slogan (‘Everything for Germany’), to Alice Weidel’s advisor Roland Hartwig attending a meeting in Potsdam with known neo-Nazi groups. Specifically in relation to memory culture, Höcke was critical of Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial, saying Germans are “the only people in the world to plant a monument of shame in the heart of its capital.” How can a party claim to care about Jewish citizens when they show such blatant disrespect toward those who were murdered during the Holocaust?

The AfD have caused huge controversy with their stances on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, saying Germany should stop sending weapons to support Ukraine, and maintaining close ties with Russia financially and politically. So, why are they toeing the line on this point, when it is clear they do not care about the safety of Jewish citizens, or about remembering the victims of the Holocaust? The answer is that it helps them further their (domestic) Innenpolitik agenda, utilising all possible avenues to justify their Islamophobic and anti-migrant stances.

A party that will so readily turn human lives into political pawns, atrocities into justification for bigotry, is a true danger to society, both in Germany and abroad. It is further proof that the AfD’s only real political convictions are fear-mongering and xenophobic hatred.

The Bookstore That Destroys Books

What is art worth if it doesn’t make the world a better place?

Ilya Kharkow

This is a story about how a bookstore in Ukraine robbed itself. What’s remarkable is that the perpetrator turned out to be the store’s administration. No, they didn’t steal profits; they did something worse. I should mention that this text is written not only by a writer but also by a book thief who also acts as a judge. Let me explain.

An object is never just an object; it’s always something more. For example, in Ukraine, due to the minimum wage being 200 euros and the average wage being 400, buying an iPhone is considered a luxury. When purchasing a phone that costs several times more than a monthly salary, a person is buying not only a phone but also status. An old apartment in the city center makes the tenant an appreciator of history, while an apartment in a new building makes them a fan of modern solutions. Sellers actively speculate on this.

It’s obvious that owning expensive things doesn’t change your social class, but it allows you to appear as if you belong to a different one. The ability to create the illusion of change is also a change. Rest assured, this idea has found its embodiment even in the cost of your sneakers.

When I was a student, I dreamed of getting a job at a bookstore. And I did. I worked there for only one day. Why did I quit? The thing is, I always saw books as guides to intimate places. In the bookstore, books were just products.

I don’t have a dad. I grew up in a mining town. I’m gay. This combination was enough for me to try alcohol at 13. Several of my friends committed suicide. Some died from drug problems. All of this prompted me to quit drinking by 17 and find the strength to go to university to study literature. No, books have never been just books for me. They’re both a guide and a compass, and a lover. But never a product.

I don’t understand those who don’t read books because they’re expensive. If I really need something, I’ll find a way to get it by any means necessary. That’s why I’ve stolen books. The same audacity applies to my dates. Can you imagine the nightmare that would unfold if you hinted at sex to the wrong guy in a post-Soviet mining town? Yep, shoes were thrown at me. But the risk of getting into trouble only made my dates more precious.

When I was a teen and didn’t have enough money for wine, I would read Marina Tsvetaeva’s poems to the shopkeepers, and they would agree to give me a discount. I loved reading poetry while getting drunk. Poems shouldn’t live only in auditoriums and libraries. A good poem is like a hammer, that’s why you need to proudly swing it on the nighttime street.

Thanks to the books of Henry Miller and Jean Genet, I started approaching sex differently. Remember, an object is never just an object? The same goes for sex. It’s one thing to have sex with someone who’s solely focused on the physical movements, and it’s a completely different experience to do it with someone who allows you to transcend boundaries through it.

In my novel THE INTIMATE SMELL OF THE MARINE, there’s a scene where the characters engage in sex without moving. It’s a damn revealing moment, but because of the lack of movement, this scene wouldn’t translate well into porn. And therein lies the advantage of books. With words, you can describe what can’t be captured by a camera, which is why the best books will never be adapted. That’s why readers are often disappointed by adaptations of their favorite books, with rare exceptions.

Books. Books. Books. To me, this word is as important as ‘commission’ is to an estate agent. Remove books from my life, and what remains? It’s thanks to dozens of novels and hundreds of short stories that I’ve adjusted my perspective in such a way that I see each day as art. Turning your life into art is simple. All it takes is to follow one rule – understand yourself. A book is the fastest path to that, albeit a rather painful one.

I’ve never bought books instead of food, but I’ve often had to save on food to buy a book. I buy books at least twice a month. Even while living abroad, I travel to Lithuania and Poland to buy books in Russian there. Now I pay double, and even triple, the price for books, but I still continue to buy them because there’s nothing more valuable to me than a book. So, the news I heard today really pissed me off – a bookstore robbed itself.

THE INTIMATE SMELL OF THE MARINE describes two guys living in a former brothel. I actually lived in a former brothel in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Occasionally, I would hold readings of my manuscripts there. The brothel was in a rough area, so I would meet guests at the bookstore, and when everyone was gathered, we would walk together for another 20 minutes to get there.

This was the very same bookstore that robbed itself. My friend used to work there. Near the checkout, there was a coffee machine, and my friend would make me crappy coffee for free. It was in this store that I bought Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf – later, this book became one of my favorites. Now, the management of this store has announced a promotion. Bring Russian-language books there for recycling and get a free coffee.

Should I bring them Steppenwolf? This is the store where I bought the Russian translation. Ukrainian-speaking people in Kharkiv are as rare as multiple orgasms in women. I’ve been reading in Russian all my life. Moreover, I write in Russian. My passport is filled out in 2 languages: Russian and Ukrainian. But the war has brought aggressive nationalism, which now goes so far as to send books for recycling. Should I bring them my manuscripts? How should a Russian-speaking writer feel towards his country when his country treats his language and work like this?

Despite having lived in Ukraine all my life, my native language is not Ukrainian but Russian. My family speaks Russian. My friends speak Russian. When I have sex or dream, it all happens in Russian. But does that mean I support the war? Why should the war, which has torn me from a peaceful life, also take away my language?

If I were to change my native language, then why Ukrainian? Ukrainian culture is as foreign to half of Ukraine’s population as German or any other culture. But if it’s time to change culture, then I’d prefer not to adopt Ukrainian culture, but German. Friedrich Nietzsche has long been an intimate friend; maybe it’s time to make it official? Or should I become French? I’ve spent so many nights in bed with Jean-Paul Sartre’s books that a genetic test would surely reveal kinship.

At some point, the Ukrainian government decided that this war wasn’t a war of democracy against autocracy, but a war between Russians and Ukrainians. Therein lies the root of the problem. But this problem has a history. For all 30 years of Ukraine’s independence, Ukrainian politicians governed the country by dividing it along linguistic lines. While residents of western and eastern Ukraine quarreled with each other, corruption did its work. During the war, they decided to use the same principle.

At least once a week, I come across news of domestic crimes based on linguistic grounds. The bookstore in Kharkiv – one of the most Russian-speaking cities in Ukraine. I wouldn’t go in there now, not for free coffee, not even if they gifted me their coffee machine. Anyway, why bother thinking about it when there’s a chance they wouldn’t let me in at all? No, I don’t want to live in a country that suggests recycling the meaning of life.

The primary goal of any bookstore is to sell books, but what is the point of books? As a writer, I can say that one of the goals I set when writing a book is something like this – to create meaning. A bookstore that proposes to destroy books based on the language they are printed in undermines the construction of meaning, and therefore robs itself. That’s why I don’t consider Ukraine my home, or myself a Ukrainian. Today the country is full of hatred. Hatred spreads easily, and never stops after hitting one target.

Today, books are the newest target.

This piece is a part of a series, The Mining Boy Notes, published on Mondays and authored by Ilya Kharkow, a writer from Ukraine. For more information about Ilya, see his website. You can support his work by buying him a coffee.

Forget securitisation of the academy, we are now fully militarised

Dutch Universities are waging war on their own students and Palestine activists

Eleri Connick
12/05/2024

Now as part of the staff team at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) who have begun archiving and analysing the huge collection of images, videos and witness testimonies from last week, the scenes from the University of Amsterdam’s campuses evoked images that seem as though they are imitations directly from Palestine. Bulldozers razing the students’ non-violent encampment, demolishing a treasure trove of literature in the students’ library. It was named after the martyred Palestinian writer and poet Refaat Alareer.

The targeting of a library is far from unique and serves as a reminder of the obliteration of Samir Mansour’s bookshop in Gaza in 2021. Whilst the demolition of the students’ tents symbolised the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF) continued destruction of homes in Palestine, most recently on May 9 in Wadi al-Khalil home to over 300 Palestinian-Bedouins.

Refaat Alareer library at the encampment on May 6

The disproportionate response of the Dutch Police to solidarity marches with the razed student encampment is like revisiting the IOF responses to the Great March of Return demonstrations in 2018. It has been terrifying to watch as a researcher of the UvA. Am I surprised? Unfortunately, no. What we are witnessing in the Netherlands, and in universities everywhere, is the securitisation and weaponization of academia.

However, the police riot at the University of Amsterdam seems to have taken us into the arena of a full militarization of the academy. It reveals how the administration’s continued notion of “safety of the university community” deflects attention away, from the ongoing genocide in Gaza. A genocide the University justifies and actively participates in through its ties with Israeli universities.

The University of Amsterdam peddles the false narrative that the University becomes an ‘unsafe’ space if Palestine is discussed. However, the “unsafe” unravelling in Amsterdam was a result of the CvB’s violent destruction of the non-violence encampment and refusal to negotiate the students’ demands with good faith. Instead, students, staff, and the public in Amsterdam were met with unprecedented levels of violence including beatings, pepper-spray and the unleashing police dogs. People in the peaceful support march or standing on the sidelines to document the excess violence were also aggressively beaten and shoved to the ground. Protesters have reported broken arms and cracked skulls, and much trauma – it is surprising amongst this much force that no student death was reported.

Police line up on Grimburgal awaiting telephone call from the CvB to enter the student occupation in the Amsterdam Academic Club on May 8

Why has the University Executive Board and the City’s Mayor set such a dangerous precedent and erosion of trust, using undercover police agents who even wore Palestinian Keffiyehs to create deliberate provocations. All this begs the question – whose ‘safety’ is the University trying to protect? In public statements,the university states they want to protect the safety of Jewish students and staff, who are – as they suggest – facing rising levels of antisemitism. Why, then, does the university board send in the police to violently crack down on a demonstration that was co-organized by Jewish students themselves? It seems safety now has everything to do with silencing dissent with Israel’s settler colonial project and economy of death.

Security and Zones of Danger

Securitisation in the university is often focused on research whereby, the research is increasingly framed as a security concern. This invokes extraordinary means and procedures in the name of security. We cannot overlook the racial and power aspect of this securitisation. Securitisation is structured not only by Eurocentrism but by whiteness, and the idea that only certain spaces or populations can enter into a “civilised dialogue”. Scholars and students at the University of Amsterdam are aware that the research “zones of danger” tend to be linked precisely to the political and diplomatic conditions of the Netherlands. Simply, research zones are classified based on the Dutch Foreign Office. This is crucial in understanding how the Executive Board at the University choose to turn their university into a battle ground instead of facing the cruel reality of their complicity in the repression of Palestinians.

The securitisation practice has long been problematic and many draw upon Edward Said’s classic Orientalism to discuss this problem, specifically the Western and white superiority it takes as its core. If securitisation were implemented “fairly” many would wonder why only after October 7, was it deemed “unsafe” for University of Amsterdam students to go on exchange to Israeli institutions: specifically the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, University of Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion University. The Executive Board write “None of these exchanges are currently active due to negative travel advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”.

May 9, solidarity march in response to police violence

Important here is to make readers aware of the “unsafe” nature of Hebrew University for one, since its inception. In 1948, the campus was treated as a military base for the Haganah paramilitary. It has continued to build more of its campuses on the ruins of the Palestinian village of Sheikh Bader, and up until writing, the Hebrew University’s water tower serves as a military lookout. Is that really a ‘safe’ campus for the University to send its students on exchange to? Every Israeli university plays an instrumental nation-building and violent role in the Settler Colonial state (see Maya Wind). Despite this, we see the CvB explicitly state that their notion of an “unsafe” campus is one based on the travel advice from the Dutch Government. A Dutch Government which is itself complicit in the Genocide through its export of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel.

Despite the unwarranted use of state violence imposed on students, staff, and the wider public this week in Amsterdam, will any University come out and say the city is no longer ‘safe?’ “No” – because it sits within such a white “liberal” European country. But were the same events to have happened in Amman or Rabat can we say for certain it would be the same response? I struggle to say “yes” – based on the deeply entrenched xenophobia and Islamophobia within the Netherlands.

It is increasingly clear in the last few months, that narratives and words, are victim to the university obsession with ‘safety’. In her book Erasing Palestine, Rebecca Ruth Gould writes “the role played by checkpoints in the realm of geopolitics is echoed in the realm of political debate by the IHRA definition of antisemitism: both dictate what can and cannot be said, not according to what is right or wrong, but according to who happens to be in power”. The IHRA definition has resulted in the weaponization of antisemitism to deny civil rights rather than fight against antisemitism because even Jewish students and staff have been wrongly labelled antisemitic by critiquing Israel.

Even more terrifying is that Mark Rutte (Dutch Prime Minister) argued on May 9 that the violent police response was necessary to protect “Dutch Jews” from being blamed for this “violence in Gaza”. This claim is both unjust and puts anti-Zionist, anti-genocide Jews at danger by labelling these individuals, of which many were present at the University encampment, as antisemitic. Similar arguments are used by the University Executive Board in their supposed ‘concern’ for Jewish students and staff. Such manipulation of concern for Jewish students and staff was made crystal clear in the lack of distress at a number being arrested on campus this week.

If we thought there was already a checkpoint created by IHRA definition of antisemitism on speech we were wrong. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on May 9 summoned the university vice chancellor to discuss the ‘unacceptable rise in antisemitism’, which illustrates that critics of the state of Israel will soon come under a full blockade. This blockade of acceptable speech seems designed to prevent the further spread of anti-genocide activism.

The University’s claim to care about safety is in reality a concern to maintain power. Power is embodied in the process of knowledge production at its sites of production. Unfortunately, this University would rather have riot police on campus than take action to radically transform the institution and dismantle settler-colonial power. Even more absurd is the University’s claim to ‘neutrality’. If the university is serious about its neutrality, how can it continue to work with institutions that are implicated to the genocide.

Instead, the University has decided it needs to make provisions for war, and more specifically prepare and approve violence on its students and staff. It has chosen not to cut ties. Just like the Palestinian movement, we are ready for this long battle. We are setting up archives to pursue legal claims against the University, police and municipality for repressive measures and state violence. Because ultimately, the Executive Board will soon come to realise that they are not the University. The University is made up of all of us, students and staff, and the will of the University will have its day.

May 9, police receive call from CvB to cross the barricade and violently evict the student occupation

Students and staff non-violently march Dutch police off UvA campus on May 7 in response to the violent demolition of the student encampment

The Palestine Conference and Die Linke: Those who stay silent are complicit

Die Linke once again fails to show solidarity with Palestine. The party cannot give state repression a free pass

Christine Buchholz
11/05/2024

It is a disgrace that no position against the banning of the Palestine Conference, against the repression of Palestine solidarity, and against the closure of two centers for girls and women, was taken at Die Linke’s Berlin state party congress on April 27^th. Based on dubious formal arguments, the motions committee recommended that delegates should not consider motions on this matter. Unfortunately, the majority accepted these arguments.

Members of Die Linke who want to contribute to the opposition against the bombing of Gaza, the starvation blockade and the expulsion of Palestinians and who want to broaden the movement, as well as all those who oppose the repression of the Palestine movement, should not allow their mouths to be shut and should become active now.

Die Linke and Palestine solidarity in Germany

The state party congress took place in Berlin on April 27^th. Members from various district organizations, particularly from Neukölln and Mitte, where there are clear grounds for resolutions on Palestine, submitted a motion that called on the Berlin organization and the parliamentary group to oppose the massive state repression and the unjustified, seemingly illegal, police measures taken against the organizers and participants of the Palestine Congress and against comrades and left-wing structures in Berlin who show solidarity with Palestine.

The motion called on the party and parliamentary group to commit to ending the stigmatization of the movement and to reviewing and lifting bans against Palestine Congress participants’ entry and activity in Germany.

In view of the pervasive bans against the use of spaces by Palestine solidarity campaigns, the motion called on Die Linke to “not only protect, but also facilitate spaces for left-wing and migrant self-organization, for example in the Tempelhof, Wedding and Neukölln districts. Locations for intercultural feminist social work with girls and young people and employees within them, for example in the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, must be protected from arbitrary repression, harassment and closure by the district council.”

The escalation of the repression

This motion was necessary because Die Linke Berlin – with the exception of individuals or party branches such as the Neukölln and Mitte district organization – had not taken a militant stance against the massive repression of the Palestine Congress and of a protest camp in front of the Bundestag.

Prominent party members, such as former senators and parliamentary group members Klaus Lederer and Elke Breitenbach, had even signed the appeal of the so-called “Alliance against Antisemitic Terror,” which accused the Palestine Conference of trivializing terror and of antisemitism. In doing so, they supported the smear campaign against the campaign and against the left-wing activists, both Palestinians and antizionist Jews, who organized the Conference. They also legitimized the authorities’ event and entry bans against the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and the physician Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah, who has for years been travelling to war zones to treat the wounded.

A further step in the escalation is the termination, after the congress, of two leisure centers for young women and girls by the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg youth office under the leadership of district councilor Max Kindler.

The aim is to silence solidarity with Palestine.

Individual representatives of Die Linke and individual branches have positioned themselves against this repressive policy. However, by refusing to take a unified and clear position at state level, Die Linke Berlin is giving the repressive policy a free pass.

There are now 35,000 dead in the Gaza Strip. The UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese says that the threshold of genocide has been reached. Anyone who remains silent in the face of the German government’s continuous, unqualified solidarity with Israel and the uninterrupted supply of weapons condones this injustice.

Those who are not resolutely against the criminalization of Palestine solidarity also condone this injustice.

Representatives of Die Linke, which sees itself as a “civil rights party,” know that repression and an expansion of state powers will be directed against other parts of the left or internationalist movements in the future.

Around the party congress, various parts of the left gave different reasons why the party should not take a position on the issue of Palestine solidarity: functionaries such as Klaus Lederer and Elke Breitenbach, as well as the district executive committee of Die Linke in Pankow agree with the agitation of the black-red Senate and of the Springer press about the alleged “antisemitic agitation” at the Conference – without providing any evidence.

Others believe that Die Linke should not comment on these “sensitive” issues because the question is too controversial within Die Linke’s membership and electorate, and the party should not appear divided. Finally, we also heard the argument that a state party conference does not adjudicate world politics.

All these justifications ultimately amount to the same thing: Die Linke should remain silent when basic democratic rights in Germany are suspended on a larger scale than at any time since 1989.

To date, Die Linke in Berlin has not yet found the courage to name the war crimes committed by the Israeli government as war crimes. In doing so, it is at best ambiguous about the most important global political crisis and the greatest war crimes of our time.

Commitment to solidarity is the order of the day

Just as Die Linke has rightly rejected attacks against its position on open borders and an anti-racist policy, it must again be courageous and take a stand. Otherwise, its election campaign slogans for peace will remain hollow platitudes. All members of Die Linke for whom the vital interests of people in Gaza and the basic democratic rights in Germany are more important than the party’s “raison d’être” should now oppose the refusal of the state party conference to take a stand and should take part in the upcoming protests against the war in Gaza.

It is time for all those in Die Linke who oppose repression to say it out loud. It is time to oppose the closure of the Frieda Women’s Center, to call for the lifting of entry bans and assembly bans, and to expand the protests against the bombing of Gaza and against German arms exports to Israel.

The next major Gaza demonstration will take place in Berlin on May 18^th. It is time to show our faces – against the war in Gaza, against German arms deliveries to Israel, against the state repression of the solidarity movement.

This article first appeared in German on the Sozialismus von Unten website. Translation: Andrei Belibou. Reproduced with permission

Destroying “the most beautiful profession”

Resignation Letter from the German Journalists’ Union / ver.di for its biased response to pro-Palestinian content

Olivia Giovetti
10/05/2024

To Mr. Jörg Reichel and Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft:

Please accept this letter as my resignation from the Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union/Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft.

This resignation is both effective immediately and long overdue. I imagine it will also come as no surprise to Mr. Reichel, given that he lambasted me on Twitter last month for my London Review of Books piece, “In Berlin,” which detailed (among other things) my being refused press entry to the Palestine Congress on April 12.

Mr. Reichel’s reaction to my piece, including his accusation that I peddled “conspiracy theories,” comes as no surprise. He has made his position on Palestine, and seemingly that of the DJU’s, quite clear over the last six months. He has called lawful and legitimate protests outside Axel Springer and Tagesspiegel’s offices “anti-press” and an “alarming attack on press freedom.” He has accused private individuals who refuse to be filmed by news crews at pro-Palestinian demonstrations of “obstructing press work,” even when those press outlets are reporting with clear bias and bad faith. He has supported members of the press who attend demonstrations as “private citizens,” attempt to provoke protesters, and turn those interactions into news-worthy accusations of violence or hate speech. He has supported reporters who use racist rhetoric and gross mischaracterizations of pro-Palestinian demonstrations as pro-Hamas and antisemitic. He has at times made allegations of the latter himself, seemingly solely on the basis that these demonstrations criticize the Israeli government and with a willful disregard for the fact that many of these marches and rallies are co-led by Jewish organizations. (Before Mr. Reichel accuses me of antisemitism as well, allow me to get this out of the way: I am Jewish.)

Both implicitly (through Mr. Reichel’s rebranding of his personal Twitter account as that of the DJU’s Berlin-Brandenburg chapter) and explicitly (through statements made on behalf of the DJU), it would seem that these are stances held by my union — if not the ver.di community at large. As a member, I can say I was never consulted on this. It seems like poor journalism to me to describe a peaceful protest outside of a newspaper office as authoritarian or the work of people spewing “radical anti-Israel and antisemitic” rhetoric.

The DJU’s website describes journalism as “the most beautiful [profession] in the world,” one that the Union advocates for and supports. I question this advocacy and support for “the most beautiful profession” when Mr. Reichel and the DJU characterize my reporting on rhe Palestine Congress, reporting that included both personal eyewitness experience and interviews with over a dozen people on Friday alone, as “conspiracy theory.”

I question that advocacy and support for “the most beautiful profession” when Mr. Reichel and the DJU call on the police to “protect journalists” when protesters stage a registered demonstration outside of a newspaper office, but remain selectively silent when journalists are barred from doing their work, pepper-sprayed, and assaulted by that same police force.

I question that advocacy and support for “the most beautiful profession” when Mr. Reichel and the DJU support reporters for Tagesspiegel, Bild, and Ruhrbarone, but choose to dismiss the experiences of other reporters because they do not conform to a shared political viewpoint.

I question that advocacy and support for “the most beautiful profession” when neither Mr. Reichel nor the DJU have commented on the 142 journalists in Gaza who have, as of May 8, been reported killed, injured, arrested, or otherwise missing in conflict—a number that the Committee to Protect Journalists says is likely underreported given the circumstances.

The DJU’s website also calls journalism “essential for a functioning democracy.” You seem to have forgotten that opposition is also essential for a functioning democracy. The very role of a journalist is at times to be that opposition; to say “not quite,” to hear the other side of a story, or to find the voices not represented among the majority. If the DJU is not only unwilling to entertain that notion, but to also attack its own members who form an opposition, then it seems clear to me that this union does not stand for “the most beautiful profession,” but rather the basest of autocracies.

Yours sincerely,

Olivia Giovetti