The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Catching fire

What is fuelling the collapse of diplomatic relations between Algeria and France?


16/02/2025

“Autopsy of a disillusionment”, a “passionate” or “tumultuous relationship”, “hysteria” — I could continue quoting the countless press articles, headlines and excerpts that describe the ongoing diplomatic escalation between France and Algeria. Interestingly enough, the verbiage that the French press and politicians use, when commenting on the diplomatic relations between France and Algeria, has very often been one of romance, reflecting a lingering Nostalgérie — a portmanteau of nostalgia and Algeria. What historian Benjamin Stora has called the “the worst crisis since independence” is simply the direct, logical consequence of geopolitical shifts, French governmental instability resulting in a clear and strong right-wing shift, and Algerian hypernationalism, bolstered by the authoritarian policies of the current government. This Nostalgérie is intricately connected to the underlying geopolitical dynamics at play, especially concerning how France addresses present tensions.

How has Macron’s recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara ignited never-ending escalation?

Macron’s first presidential mandate had aimed to define a new relationship with Algeria by addressing the horrors of colonialism and working towards a devoir de mémoire, a duty of memory. However, since the summer of 2024, tensions have been rising between the two, following Macron’s decision to break with decades-long official French position on Western Sahara — first by supporting the Moroccan autonomy plan for Western Sahara, and later by unequivocally affirming Morocco’s sovereignty over the disputed territory.

The Moroccan autonomy plan, proposed by the Kingdom in 2007, would deprive the Sahrawi people of their right to self-determination, securing Moroccan sovereignty over the region. In exchange, the Sahrawis would benefit from being granted limited regional autonomy over their already fragmented territory. Algeria, a historical ally of the Sahrawi struggle for independence, have long provided shelter to Sahrawi refugees and offered financial and logistical support to the Sahrawi national liberation front — the Polisario Front — for decades. The Polisario Front have sought self-determination for Western Sahara, mainly through armed struggle. As a response to Macron’s decision, Algeria have withdrawn their ambassador to France, qualifying their decision as “unacceptable”, and one that “only serves to extend the current impasse, and both justifies and bolsters the colonial fait accompli in this territory” 

Trying to contextualise the entire conflict around Western Sahara is beyond the scope of this article, but a brief outline goes as follows. Western Sahara has been subjected to various occupations and claims of sovereignty — primarily by Morocco and Mauritania — since the end of the Spanish occupation in 1975. This conflict ended up at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that same year, resulting in the ICJ rendering an Advisory Opinion addressing questions regarding the status of the land. While acknowledging that there were, “at the time of Spanish colonisation, legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara”, as well as “the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity”, the Court did not find “any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity”. The Court also affirmed that there was no reason to deprive the Sahrawi people from the application of the General Assembly’s 1960 resolution 1514 (XV) — especially from the perspective of their right of self-determination. 

Despite this legal opinion, both colonisers — Morocco and Mauritania — maintained their presence in the territory, transforming the land into a theatre of armed conflict, including between the Polisario Front and the occupying states. Mauritania withdrew from the territory in 1979 after signing a peace agreement with the Polisario Front, however, the war with Morocco continued, transformed into a low-intensity conflict, until the signing of a very fragile cease-fire in 1991. More recently, tensions have escalated again, following much commercial deal-making and diplomatic bargaining over the territory. Today, Morocco continue to occupy three-quarters of the land, and are on a quest to actively seek international recognition of their sovereignty over it. This question has also been crucial to Morocco’s diplomatic negotiations and strategies — particularly with France, but also with Israel. In 2020, Morocco normalised relations with the Zionist entity, in exchange for Israeli recognition of their sovereignty over the Sahrawi territory. This political maneuver was accompanied by a series of commercial, economic and strategic accords, some concerning the disputed territory. Amidst the ongoing genocide in Gaza, Morocco hosted the opening of a new Israeli drone site in Rabat. Rumours on social media claim that yet another such site is being built, this time on Sahrawi land. All in all, Macron’s declaration affirming the Moroccanness of Western Sahara did not come as a surprise, given the strong economic and commercial ties between Morocco and France, particularly surrounding the exploitation of Western Sahara’s rich natural resources, such as fishery products and phosphates — the latter of which Morocco also happen to be one of the world’s leading producers of, counting (of course) the EU amongst its top customers.

Why is France’s political instability and shift to the far-right necessary to mention?

To gain a clear vision of the dynamics at play in this diplomatic crisis, it is essential to understand France’s internal political chaos. Following the European elections last May, that led to a clear victory for the National Rally (RN), President Macron decided to surprise all 66 million French citizens by dissolving the National Assembly, plunging the country’s institutions into a crisis unprecedented in the history of the Fifth Republic.

Instead of following constitutional practice and appointing a Prime Minister from the leading coalition — the New Popular Front (NFP) — Macron decided to appoint first Michel Barnier, then François Bayrou to the post. Both politicians come from parties that did not have strong results in the elections. This move, rather, was aimed at pleasing the right — mostly the far-right RN — in order to prevent another vote of no confidence that would lead to the government’s implosion. 

Amongst these governmental figures, we have the pleasure to count M. Bruno Retailleau as the Minister of the Interior, who has been on a quest to antagonize Algeria, ruining the efforts of the actual Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, who has been attempting to de-escalate tensions between France and Algeria. This should not be very surprising, given Retailleau’s profile. Retailleau comes from the a very conservative section of French society: anti-migration, anti-abortion, a former advocate against same-sex marriage and — the cherry on top — a fervent glorifier of the French colonisation of Algeria. A true Frenchman, just the way we like them.

Amidst this diplomatic crisis, the minister has been in the media for his campaign to investigate, arrest and deport the Algerian influencers living in France who have been accused of promoting hatred and violence against France on social media. One of them, Boualem Naman, an Algerian citizen who has been living in France for 35 years (with a regular residence permit for the past 15 years) has been hit by a deportation order following statements that he made on social media, calling for the beating up of an Algerian citizen on Algerian soil. Algeria, however, have refused to admit him into their territory, sending him back to France. The Algerian authorities have argued that this deportation violated Naman’s right to defend himself, given that a legal action against him had already begun on French territory. Following this failed deportation, Retailleau has accused Algeria of trying to “humiliate France”. Algeria have responded that they are “not, in any way, engaged in a logic of escalation, provocation or humiliation”, claiming that the purpose of this expulsion was to “provide the nostalgic faction of France an opportunity to settle its scores with a sovereign and independent Algeria”.

Another hard blow for Retailleau was to follow, with the administrative tribunal of Melun later annulling Naman’s deportation order, arguing that the “urgent necessity” of his deportation was unjustified given his situation, and releasing him from detention. On top of this, the tribunal ordered the French State to pay M. Naman €1,200 as compensation for the financial damages. Feel free to laugh — I did too. Perhaps if Interior Minister Retailleau had been better informed about the legal framework and requirements around the deportation process, he could have avoided being humiliated once again, this time by French judges. 

Why is Boualem Sansal’s arrest worth mentioning?

As if tensions weren’t already high enough, the arrest of Algerian writer Boualem Sansal by Algerian authorities in November 2024, as soon as he touched down in Algiers International Airport, added fuel to the fire. Sansal was arrested on charges of “undermining the integrity of national territory”. Sansal is also a French citizen, granted citizenship in early 2024 by none other than President Macron himself. France has not suddenly become pro-migration — rather, Sansal`s case symbolises in many ways the strained dynamics between France and Algeria.

I was first introduced to Sansal’s oeuvre when my former French teacher, whose parents were pied-noirs — French settlers in Algeria during the colonial period — gifted me one of his books when I was 15. I remember her giving it to me to show me that colonialism wasn’t “all that bad”, and that it could have saved Algerians from the wave of Islamism that hit in the 90s. This might seem anecdotal, but it encapsulates what Sansal represents to many in France: a Moroccan Algerian man whose work has been catering to the French gaze, with writings and public statements glorifying colonialism, showing support to the Zionist entity, and to the irredentist ideology of Greater Morocco. This is precisely what led to him being arrested by Algerian authorities on the 21st of November, 2024. According to his defence team, he had been arrested specifically for statements he made to a French magazine in which he criticized the current, two century-old border between Algeria and Morocco, claiming that half of Western Algeria belonged and should belong to the Kingdom of Morocco. He also went on to say that the “Algerian regime invented the Polisario Front to destabilize Morocco”. He is currently detained on the charge of “undermining the integrity of national territory”, considered an act of terrorism under Article 87bis of Algeria’s penal code.

To be clear: his arrest, enforced disappearance, and detention for having expressed his views in a magazine should be denounced. Regardless of his politics — which are deeply problematic and factually untrue — this arrest shows, once again, the failure of the Algerian state to uphold and protect the right to the freedom of expression and opinion. The country has a well-documented history of repressing political opponents and critics of the government, as well as human rights defenders, all under the pretext of counterterrorism, precisely by using Article 87bis of the Algerian penal code. Many NGOs have been raising this issue for years now, especially since the peaceful Hirak protests of 2019, when Algerians took to the streets, demanding the departure of Abdelaziz Bouteflika, and for an end to the institutional corruption poisoning the country and its society. Both the Algerian and the French governments have been actively following Sansal’s arrest from up close. For President Macron, who has demanded the writer’s instant release, Algeria “dishonours itself” by detaining him. Algerian diplomacy has since qualified Macron’s statement as an “unacceptable interference in an internal Algerian matter”

In conclusion

At its core, this diplomatic crisis between France and Algeria highlights the lasting scars of colonialism, and the resurgence of a right wing (even far-right) neocolonial ideology — one that has been latent in France in the past decades, but that has slowly been returning to the forefront of the political agenda. Macron’s shift on Western Sahara, driven by economic and strategic interests, shows that he has privileged these interests over those of the Sahrawi people, and over choosing to continue down the path of reconciliation that France had begun with Algeria. Meanwhile, Algeria’s response — which highlights both hyper-nationalistic conviction and an increasingly repressive leadership — illustrates the fragility of the rule of law in the country. Ultimately, the stakes with this escalation extend far beyond endless press statements and provocations, to the very balance of power in North Africa between Algeria and Morocco: two countries that continue to let neocolonialism and imperialism divide them, all at the cost of a potentially united North African front.

How tech billionaires are quietly reshaping democracy

We need a collectice response to the way in which the rich are infuencing political discussion


15/02/2025

I recently listened to Joe Rogan’s podcast with Mark Zuckerberg and it got me thinking about the state of free speech, social media censorship, and how tech billionaires like Elon Musk influence public discourse. Their conversation touched on issues like government intervention in online platforms, the limits of censorship, and the broader political landscape. With everything happening in U.S. politics right now, especially with Musk’s recent statements and actions, I couldn’t help but reflect on how much power these figures hold over the way people think and engage with current events.

The American Dream teaches that the US is a place where anyone can succeed, no matter their background – only hard work matters. This belief shapes young adults before they even consider whether they are Democrats or Republicans. The problem in the US is in its values. The country glorifies success, wealth, and free speech. Naturally, this means people idolize multimillionaires like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos – ‘who have made it.’ But what happens when these people push a conservative agenda? That’s when critical thinking becomes essential.

For the next four years, it will be difficult to restrict hate speech when the president of a global superpower openly makes such remarks – such as criticizing diversity rules in army pilot recruitment – thereby setting an example of what is deemed acceptable.

The trend of selective censorship is not just about free speech online – it extends into the broader political landscape. For example, the recent comments by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who stated that women shouldn’t be in certain combat roles. Zuckerberg noted that a comment like that would have been censored on social media before and stated that something said in public should also be allowed on social media.

This is the exact risk of allowing extreme conservatives to hold power. When high-profile figures set an example, others follow. It becomes normalized. It’s natural that Meta will allow offensive speech if those in power are the very same problematic individuals who oppress others and seek control.

If a woman applies for a military position and isn’t qualified, she won’t get the job – just as a man applying for the same position wouldn’t get it if he wasn’t qualified. This should not be about gender, but about skills. Gender, background, race, or sexuality – none of these should be barriers to employment. Only skills should matter.

Zuckerberg claims that free speech has only been censored from one side. But why isn’t the other side facing the same restrictions? Could it be because liberals aren’t the ones trying to strip people of their rights, oppress marginalized groups, or spread hate speech? If Meta is truly committed to free expression, why does it shadow-ban accounts in the U.S. that provide information on abortion pills – especially when this shift conveniently follows Trump’s return to power, whose agenda openly targets reproductive rights?

Zuckerberg also stated: “The corporate world has been culturally neutralized. Some degree of masculine energy is beneficial, yet corporate culture is increasingly trying to move away from it. Environments that embrace aggression have their own merits and can be highly positive. The idea that ‘masculinity is bad, and we need to eliminate it’ is flawed.”

This argument lacks true strength. Masculinity and femininity are not opposing forces; corporate culture doesn’t need to erase masculinity – it needs balance. True strength lies in harmony; just as yin and yang complement each other, men need feminine energy to nurture, show kindness, and lead with empathy, while women benefit from masculine energy to pursue ambition, assert themselves, and thrive in competitive spaces. The goal should never be to eliminate one over the other but to create an environment where both energies coexist and empower success.

The fight over free speech isn’t just about what’s allowed on social media, it is about whose voices get silenced in the real world. And right now, one of the biggest political battles in the U.S. is over abortion rights. This debate isn’t just about policy; it’s about power and control. When immature, disrespectful figures gain power, we must think critically, question their opinions, and refuse to follow the herd. Whose power is truly threatened when a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body? The fight over abortion rights exposes deep hypocrisy – why is a woman’s bodily autonomy up for debate, but male reproductive choices are not? I saw a meme recently that was both funny and relevant: if God’s will is that abortions shouldn’t happen, then Viagra should also be banned – because an erection that doesn’t happen must also be God’s will.

Yet, there’s little to no discussion about holding men legally accountable when they pressure women into abortions. Why is it always the woman who faces judgment, while men’s actions are ignored? These double standards are everywhere, shaping laws that not only force children into families that never wanted them but also ignore the immense mental and emotional toll on women who are forced to carry pregnancies to term. This isn’t just about unwanted children – it’s about the well-being of the woman involved. So who actually benefits from these policies?

If the debate isn’t about human rights, let’s talk economics – banning abortion doesn’t just strip away choice, it creates a social and financial crisis. We would need more foster care systems for children whose parents couldn’t raise them, but more importantly, we would be ignoring the mental health crisis faced by women who are forced into motherhood against their will. Are they prepared to deal with the long-term psychological and societal consequences of these decisions?

There are countless reasons why people seek abortions, and every person has their own personal reason. They should have the right to act on it. If we talk so much about free speech, bodily autonomy should be an obvious right. The decision-makers in power aren’t making laws that violate human rights for themselves – straight cis men. Instead, these policies disproportionately target women, trans people, and other marginalized groups who don’t have the same political protection.

It feels like people like Musk mock the rest of us – ordinary people – by flaunting their power on social media. After a speech at Trump’s inauguration, he performed the “My heart to you” salute from the movie 300, fully aware of how it would be interpreted in today’s political climate. He doesn’t care. In fact, one could argue that he is fully aware of the consequences of performing a fascist salute in today’s political climate. How dangerous is it that someone like him – followed and admired by millions – makes this kind of behavior seem acceptable? Musk’s growing engagement with far-right ideologies has likely influenced people who were previously uninterested in politics or the AfD in Germany. By publicly supporting a far-right party and hosting discussions on his platform, he is actively shifting opinions.

People look up to figures like him the same way they do influencers. They follow their lead without examining the details. Now, billionaire influencers attract more attention than a jello pool stunt ever could. Phil Butland wrote a good article about fascism and how to combat it, and the only real answer is unity. People must rise up together against fascism and show that we do not accept it. We need to communicate openly – without blaming individuals – but explaining the consequences of, for example, voting for the AfD.

Billionaire influence isn’t just about wealth – it extends to shaping ideologies, normalizing extremism, and influencing elections. Few exemplify this more than Elon Musk, whose growing political alignment with the far right has real-world consequences. When billionaires control the platforms that dictate public discourse, they hold more power than elected officials in shaping the political landscape.

Senator Bernie Sanders has warned that the United States is rapidly becoming an oligarchy, where a handful of billionaires hold an unprecedented level of power over the economy, politics, and public discourse. “Never before in American history have so few billionaires, so few people, had so much wealth and so much power,” he stated. This growing concentration of influence is particularly evident in the tech industry, where figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg control platforms that shape global political conversations. When the same individuals who hold economic dominance also dictate what information is seen and censored, democracy itself is at risk. Their ability to influence elections, silence opposition, or amplify certain ideologies under the guise of “free speech” should be a cause for serious concern.

This is why Musk’s influence isn’t just about financial power – it’s about his ability to manipulate narratives and shift political norms. By publicly supporting a far-right party and hosting discussions on his platform, he is actively shaping opinions and encouraging extremism.

Right now, in the U.S., Republicans are the ‘cool party.’ It used to be the Democrats who held that status. Trump and his closest social media allies market themselves perfectly, creating an image that people want to be part of. In the past, Republicans were seen as old white men talking about tax cuts. Now they have Elon Musk or Joe Rogan advocating for them, and figures like JD Vance, who grew up in poverty and struggled with drug addiction. From following news and online discussions, it’s clear that Republican voices have reshaped their image, often driving political conversations in ways that make their movement feel more rebellious and aspirational. In a country where image matters more than substance, people want to be part of the ‘cool gang.

The way tech billionaires have reshaped political discourse is no accident – it’s a strategic shift that plays into the broader erosion of democratic values. Figures like Musk, Zuckerberg, and others don’t just control the platforms we use; they control the narratives that shape public perception. They determine what speech is amplified, what voices are silenced, and ultimately, what ideologies are normalized.

Democracy requires a balance of perspectives to find a middle ground. But democracy is not about oppressing minorities. If the future of political discourse is dictated by a handful of billionaires with their own agendas, where does that leave the rest of us?

It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of such concentrated influence, but that’s exactly what they want. The antidote isn’t disengagement – it’s collective action, critical thinking, and an unwavering commitment to democratic values. Tech billionaires may have the platforms, but we still have our voices.

Berlin’s Antideutsch Bars Love Israel but Don’t Like Jews

Interview with Yuval Carasso about Bajszel, ://about blank, and Syndikat, “antideutsch” spaces presenting themselves as victims of antisemitism but have a history of excluding and assaulting Jews.


14/02/2025

The sure sign of a leftist bar, cops sitting outside of Bajszel. Photo by the author.

A number of left-wing bars and youth clubs in Berlin have formed a coalition against “threats, violence, and boycott.” These are all non-Jewish, antideutsch spaces who claim that they are victims of antisemitic attacks because they have been criticized for supporting genocide. These “anticapitalist” spaces have been praised in the right-wing bourgeois press, while queer groups are boycotting them. The most strident antideutsch space is the bar Bajszel in Neukölln. Can you tell us about the last time you were at Bajszel?

In September 2023, I went to an event at Bajszel about Mythos#Israel1948. This pamphlet claims that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, the Nakba, is in fact a myth. The panel speakers, all non-Jewish, talked for about half an hour, and then a security guard approached me and told me to leave, accusing me of filming without permission. I wanted to say something before I left.

Why was it important for you to say something?

I know this reality up close. When they say there is no apartheid in Israel, I know from my own personal experience this isn’t true.

My grandmother was in Palestine during the Nakba. She saw firsthand how the Zionist dream that had been sold to her — the idea of “having our own state” — materialized as a mass ethnic cleansing. Growing up, she told me about the Palestinians being expelled from their land and remained deeply critical of Zionism.

I know the early reality of Zionism from my grandmother’s family. Her uncle, Enzo Sereni, was a Zionist leader in Palestine who founded a kibbutz. Before being murdered by the Nazis in the early 1940s, he opposed the emerging Zionist society, arguing that it was turning into a class-based structure of masters and slaves.

Her other uncle, Emilio Sereni, was a partisan, communist and an anti-Zionist — he became a leader of the Italian Communist Party and briefly served as a minister in the national government.

In a statement, the organizers said you were “aggressive” and “insulting.” I’ve seen a video of you. You spoke for about 30 seconds, and looked rather emotional, but also picked up your things and left peacefully. What happened then?

After I had left the hall and reached the corridor, accompanied by a security guard, two men attacked me. One of them was choking me while the other covered my eyes. Immediately after, they slammed me into the floor. They were police, but they hadn’t identified themselves as such.

A brief, emotional statement doesn’t seem like grounds for an assault. Were there any other Jewish people at the event?

After I left, when the audience had the chance to ask questions, Udi Raz asked if there were any Jewish people present. She was the only person who raised her hand. The only other Jews in the room were me, who had already been kicked out, and another person who left at the beginning because they felt uncomfortable with the ban on recording the event. 

It sounds like they expelled all Jews from their event about antisemitism. You were put on trial for resisting arrest in July 2024. How did that end?

The judge had already looked at video and audio recordings. He said that if the police didn’t have a good reason to detain me, they would be subject to an investigation. So the police officer who forced me to the ground declined to testify. I was declared not guilty of any wrongdoing. Among other things, the recordings raised serious doubts about the legality of the arrest.

So is that the end of things?

The police are investigating and I am waiting for the results.

This appears to be the worst attack on a Jewish person in Neukölln in many years. 

First, let me say that this is just a drop in the ocean of the violence against supporters of Palestine in Berlin — the vast majority of the police brutality is against Palestinians. 

Definitely. But the German cops also have a record of beating up Jews in the name of “fighting antisemitism.” Like at the eviction of the Humboldt University in Berlin, at least four Jewish students were assaulted — in the name of “protecting Jewish students,” of course. Anyway, did the owners of the bar reach out to you to apologize? Did the newspapers interview you? Any local politicians? What about all those Antisemitism Czars?  

The owners of Bajszel were supposed to come to the trial as witnesses, but they didn’t show up on two separate dates. They haven’t reached out to apologize. The only reporting was in English–language stories.

Have you experienced antisemitism in the Palestine solidarity movement in Berlin?

No, quite the opposite. Without the people from the solidarity movement, this experience would have been much harder for me. They supported me throughout. A brave woman whose family was expelled from Palestine during the Nakba followed me out to check on me and was interrogated by the police as a result. Other people offered support in court.

It seems that all these “left-wingspaces against antisemitism” have difficulties with Jews. When I asked Bajszel for comment about the assault on a Jewish person, they simply denied it. The club ://about blank advertised an event about left-wing antisemitism with no Jewish speakers, and denied entry to a number of Jewish activists. I was disappointed to see Syndikat has joined as well, I assumed they would express solidarity with an Israeli anarchist like you. Instead, their solidarity is for the German government. Have you had any other experiences with these “antideutsch” spaces?

When I spoke at the Anarchist Days Dresden in September of last year, people attacked the event online for inviting an “antisemite.” But the organizers stood with me, and there was no physical protest.

Free Palestine!

Text of the Palestine flyer that was distributed by die Linke Neukölln in the neighbourhood during the election campaign


13/02/2025

Stop the Genocide, Break the Silence 

The situation in Palestine is drastic. Since October 7th, 46,000 people have been killed, hundreds of thousands go hungry and the Gaza strip lies in ruins. The German government stays silent and continues to export weapons to Israel. Here in Neukölln, those who call attention to the situation are met with police and infringements on their civil rights. This is an attack on our fundamental rights. Here in Neukölln, we will not stay silent. Our history, our grief and anger must be heard. The occupation must end. We need a permanent ceasefire and an end to German weapons exports to Israel.

A Safe Stay for All

Many of our neighbours and friends have no permanent residence rights in Germany, living only with the threat of deportation temporarily suspended.  Despite living here for years, they can’t vote and thus can’t have an impact on the policies that influence their lives. As Leftists we demand that all those who have lived here for five years be granted the right to be citizens here, too, without having to give up their first citizenship. No one should be treated as a second class citizen in their own home. 

Against Anti-Muslim Racism

Our Muslim neighbours have been experiencing daily racism since before October 7th. Their shops are searched without reason, they are antagonised on the streets and their children face discrimination at school.  After October 7th, this structural racism only got worse. Police checks and surveillance increase and Muslim communities are seen as generally suspect. We have to fight back together. Neukölln is our home and we won’t allow our neighbours to live in fear. 

A Loud Voice Coming From Neukölln

Since before October 7th, I have been standing up for the rights of Palestinians and against anti-Muslim racism. I have criticised the occupation of the Palestinian territories and oppression of the Palestinian people through Israel’s politics. I have regularly questioned the situation of the Palestinians and consistently protested against the restriction of fundamental rights on the ground—as the only Berlin member of parliament doing so.  

Changing Politics for Neukölln and Palestine

My name is Ferat Koçak. My story is the story of many in Neukölln. My grandparents came from Anatolia to Germany in search of a better life. Money was always tight, but our family stayed strong together. My friends were Kurdish, Palestinian, Lebanese, Turkish, Polish, Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and German. Neukölln is our home. 

I am running for a seat in the Bundestag to change politics together, here at home. Even before election campaigns began, I rang 10,000 doorbells here in our neighbourhood. The concerns you shared with me on your doorsteps are the focus of my platform. Exploding rent prices, overflowing trains, increasing grocery costs and streets littered with trash affect us all. Many of you also reported constant worries about family and friends in Palestine. 

Stop By!

▶ Rally: ‘For a Just Peace in Palestine and Israel’ Saturday, 15. February, 2 PM, Spreebogenpark am Kanzleramt 

▶ Be Ferat’s Guest: Big winter festival with tasty food and good music. Sunday, 16. February, 2-6 PM . Kiezkapelle Hermannstr. 102

Let Francesca Albanese Speak at LMU!

Open letter from students and staff at Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich


11/02/2025

We, students and staff of Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, strongly oppose LMU’s decision to cancel Francesca Albanese’s lecture on international law which was scheduled to take place on February 16th at the LMU’s main building. 

As the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, Ms. Albanese’s work extends far beyond the current crisis in Gaza—it began long before the October 7th attacks and has consistently focused on upholding international law and humanitarian principles. Her efforts are critical in ensuring accountability and justice, particularly through the ICC and ICJ.

The cancellation sets a dangerous precedent for universities- one in which shunning international human rights lawyers and UN representatives becomes a reality and can be repeated. Article 5 of germanys constitution protects the freedom of “the arts and sciences, research and teaching”, and as a publicly funded university, the LMU, like all other German universities, must uphold the principle of academic freedom. Universities must remain bastions of free speech, and academic exchange cannot be subject to the whims of one administration or another. The academic integrity of the LMU is in jeopardy. 

We ask you to sign this petition, demanding that the LMU allows Francesca Albanese to hold her talk at the main building, in accordance with article 5 of the German constitution, and in accordance with the university’s own commitment to academic freedom and academic integrity. 

You can sign the petition and see a list of existing signatories here.

***This petition is managed by LMU staff and students. We will handle your data responsibly.**

Wir, Studierende Mitarbeiter:innen der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, wenden uns entschieden gegen die Entscheidung der LMU, die Vorlesung von Francesca Albanese zum Völkerrecht abzusagen, die für den 16. Februar im Hauptgebäude der LMU geplant war.

 Als UN-Sonderberichterstatterin für die palästinensischen Gebiete geht die Arbeit von Frau Albanese weit über die aktuelle Krise in Gaza hinaus – sie begann lange vor den Anschlägen vom 7. Oktober und konzentrierte sich stets auf die Einhaltung des Völkerrechts und humanitärer Grundsätze. Ihre Bemühungen sind von entscheidender Bedeutung für die Gewährleistung von Rechenschaftspflicht und Gerechtigkeit, insbesondere durch den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und den IGH.

Die Absage stellt einen gefährlichen Präzedenzfall für Universitäten dar – einen, bei dem die Ablehnung von internationalen Menschenrechtsanwält:innen und UN-Vertreter:innen zur Realität wird und sich wiederholen kann. Artikel 5 des deutschen Grundgesetzes besagt dass „Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei“, und als öffentlich finanzierte Universität muss die LMU, wie alle anderen deutschen Universitäten, das Prinzip der akademischen Freiheit aufrechterhalten. Universitäten müssen Bastionen der freien Meinungsäußerung bleiben, und der akademische Austausch darf nicht von den Launen der einen oder anderen Verwaltung abhängig gemacht werden. Die akademische Integrität der LMU ist in Gefahr. 

Wir bitten Sie, diese Petition zu unterzeichnen, in der wir fordern, dass die LMU Francesca Albanese erlaubt, ihren Vortrag im Hauptgebäude zu halten, in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 des deutschen Grundgesetzes und in Übereinstimmung mit der Verpflichtung der Universität selbst zur akademischen Freiheit und akademischen Integrität. 

Diese Petition wird von Mitarbeiter:innen und Studierenden der LMU verwaltet. Wir gehen verantwortungsvoll mit Ihren Daten um.