The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Correction and Contextualisation of my Proposed Expulsion from Die Linke

Ramsis Kilani responds to the allegations made against him in order to justify his expulsion from the left-wing party for his work in the Palestine-solidarity movement


23/11/2024

On 21st October, 2024, Katina Schubert and Martin Schirdewan started an expulsion procedure against me from the party Die Linke. They justified it by claiming I had breached the party’s principles, referring to passages about the two state solution and “Israel’s right to exist”.

I want to first make clear that I have never assumed to speak on behalf of the party Die Linke. Nonetheless, the attack on me and my positions is not surprising. Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, anti-war positions in the party have come increasingly under fire, and these conflicts have been publicly exploited. I would appreciate, on the other hand, a Die Linke which consistently stands against warmongering, militarism and rearmament, and doesn’t look away irrespective of the size of the media headwind.

As left-wing people, our position should be on the side of the oppressed and the victims of war and imperialism. We should show solidarity with the resistance against war, occupation and imperialism. This is the basis of my positions.

Unfortunately, the people proposing my expulsion have never tried to speak to me. Instead, Schubert, as former national party Chair, has already openly attacked me — simply a party member — in Der Spiegel even before the Party Conference. Since the Tagesspiegel has been reporting the expulsion procedure over the past weeks, I have decided to make my response to the expulsion proposal public. 

Rising Repression

The attempt to expel me is happening against the background of rising repression against Palestine solidarity in Germany. Government support of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the delivery of weapons stands in contradiction to opinion polls in which a majority of German society rejects sending weapons to Israel. The connections between Die Linke and the Palestine movement are being isolated.

As an activist and party member who is deeply anchored in the movement for Palestinian human rights, I am one of the targets of a media campaign against all anti-imperialist forces in Die Linke. This campaign must be seen in the context of the growing danger of war worldwide, German militarism and the Die Linke’s focus on the ability to form a coalition with the SPD and the Greens. Both outside and inside the party, pressure is being applied to remove positions of international solidarity against war and the arms race. This attack is an attack on everyone who is standing up for peace internationally. 

It is a disconcerting development that part of the party leadership is taking administrative measures instead of carrying out a political debate and asking for a personal explanation. That they want to exclude a simple party member through the use of set or merely claimed party positions, while other party members, party functionaries and elected officials regularly ignore the “No” to weapon delivery and conscription, reveals their double standards.

Democratic votes at the regional party conference in Berlin rejected positions which had tried to apply Nazi terminology to describe Hamas and Hisbollah. This resolution was composed fully without my assistance, despite what was claimed in the subsequent media campaign against me, which was fanned by Schubert. Part of the reformist wing of Die Linke left the party because it could not push through such positions, in order that they can sustain pressure from outside the party. In contravention of party decisions, they retained their parliamentary seats. 

The expulsion procedure also contained terms like “eliminatory antisemitism” and “pogrom” (one-sided excesses against oppressed, defeated minorities, tolerated or supported by state power), when referring to 7th October. This historical revisionist minority position, which infers a denial of colonialism, was never part of the principles of Die Linke, and so I could not have contravened these principles.

Neither do the people proposing my expulsion shy away from using quotes from my social media accounts which have been ripped out of context by a right wing witch hunt, like that of the Tagesspiegel. In their justification for my expulsion, they repeated these falsified quotes without checking them. The Tagespiegel has already had to correct some of their reports due to press laws.

Rebuttal

Here is my rebuttal of the allegations made in the expulsion application.

I reject the claim that I would relativise taking hostages as “teaching of ‘good manners”. On the contrary, I have argued against the relativisation of torture.

This claim is based on a falsified quote which does not exist and does not appear in any of the references listed in the proposal for my expulsion. In the real quote I argued against relativising a crime as grave as the torture of captives, and in particular of children. Such relativisation was made by someone else in the discussion.

I also stand against the kidnapping and torture of Palestinian children, which has been carried out for decades. I reject such tactics, irrespective of who is applying them. As I have personally worked with children in the West Bank, who were themselves the victims of torture, my intention was to answer a false claim, and to warn against arbitrarily trivialising and diluting the meaning of the term torture.

I am against all taking of civilian hostages, particularly of children. I welcomed the hostage swap of Israeli and Palestinian children, and support a full hostage swap. I stand wholeheartedly behind the support of the petition “For a just peace in Gaza” which was supported at the Die Linke national conference, and which calls for the release of all Israeli and Palestinian hostages and those who have been illegally imprisoned.

The reality of torture in the region is close to me. International human rights organisations have reported that the Palestinian children who were freed by the hostage swap were indeed the victims of systematic torture. This applies to nearly all of the on average 700 Palestinian children who are abducted and illegally imprisoned by Israel every year. 

Save the Children states that 86% of all Palestinian under-age prisoners report that they have been beaten. Nearly half (42%) have been injured at some point of their incarceration, including bullet wounds and broken bones. Some reports by international human rights organisations speak of sexualised violence and imprisonment in small cages. Studies document the torture of children, the youngest of whom is 11 years old, with the use of electroshocks, being beaten in the testicles and the head, etc. This sometimes leads to the lack of consciousness and even death.

The gruesome reality of torture in the region has been played down by false comparsions with the request to be quiet, to wait for others to take food, or to share your food with others. I do not dispute that being held hostage is a terrible experience which no child should go through. This applies to every case, even without torture.

I reject the unsubstantiated claim that I made the statement that the “status of soldier” justified crimes

The people proposing my expulsion try to make the impression, through cutting quotes in a way which distorts them, that I approved acts of violence against a female occupying soldier. This does not correspond to my opinion, nor have I written it anywhere. Rape is a crime in every circumstance.

The real context is that in reaction to a false claim in social media, I posted the correction that the story in question did not concern a civilian but an occupying soldier of the IDF who was captured after a battle in her military base Nahal Oz, from which the “remote-controlled occupation” of Gaza by military surveillance is organised. I wrote that the allegation of a possible rape should be examined by an “independent international commission”, but that Israel has refused to allow this.

Nowhere have I written that the rape of anyone under any conditions is legitimate. I reject this insubstantial and defamatory insinuation. Quite the reverse, immediately below the quote they took from me it is made clear: “if she was raped, this should be condemned in the most forthright terms — just as the proven Israeli group rape of Palestinians must be condemned.” I cannot be sure whether this part of the justification was deliberately omitted. At the very least, it reflects badly on the professionalism of the “research”.

I reject the suggestion that my fight for liberation “cannot be understood without the murder of Israelis”.

The people proposing my expulsion are here referring to a falsified published quote from a private chat which was distorted without my agreement in a right-wing media campaign against Die Linke, published in the Tagesspiegel. In truth, I argued that rather than individual killings, we should do more to build international support for an anti-colonial fight for liberation.

As a Marxist, I see individual killings as a misguided “false solution”, as I believe that real change needs something much more fundamental: namely, collective international support against colonial oppression and the structures of the capitalist system which stand behind it. I reject the insinuation made in the justification for my proposed expulsion that due to my perspective of collective and international structural changes, I would endorse individual killings.

This improper procedure has political aims. After I legally challenged the Tagesspiegel with legal support, they moved away from their original false quote and changed it. It is also worth noting that citations and distortions from private messages are illegal.

Nonetheless, the people who are proposing my expulsion are themselves working with falsified “direct quotations”. In addition, it is claimed, relating to a comment I made about 7th October, that “there is no mention of the innumerable civilians killed in the kibbuzim and at the Nova festival.” This fails to mention that my comment is in actual fact a recommendation of a video contribution by an Israeli who — in contradiction to this insinuation — deals with this and other questions in detail.

Conclusion

As a whole, the justification for my expulsion is based on selective and sometimes falsified quotes which have been ripped out of their context. It seems that the people proposing my expulsion are trying to discredit unpleasant, but legitimate and substantiated, opinions and comrades, and to spread a climate of intimidation.

At no point have I endorsed any war crime, nor have I “celebrated” one, or evaluated it as positive in any way. I have explained context, corrected incorrect assertions and used demonstrable facts in a discussion in the midst of war propaganda. 

If the simple mention of freely available facts has become grounds to bring a left-wing party to defamatory accusations and administrative expulsion attempts in order to push through someone’s own positions after they have been rejected by a democratic vote, then we in Die Linke have reached a bleak point.

We need to clarify whether for us as the left, human rights apply for everyone, independent of ethnicity and religion, and whether we as Die Linke support the secularisation and democratisation of Israel/Palestine or want to maintain the existing apartheid system and ethnic segregation.

I am for the complete secularisation and democratisation of the region and for a form of society without the system which currently exists in Israel/Palestine, and which all relevant human rights organisations refer to as apartheid in legal terms. I stand up for a society in which Palestinian and Jewish people are fully equal and enjoy the same rights.

International law allows the right to resist for a people under occupation. I find it gratifying that the main resolution passed by the National Conference of Die Linke also recognised Palestinians’ right to defend themselves. I believe that making this universal right dependent on the ethnicity or religion of the occupiers or the occupied is a racist position. The universal right to self-defence under occupation according to international law is also not just valid for people who share my socialist beliefs.

Nonetheless, I criticise non-socialist orientations, because their perspective of liberation is not integrated. I criticise a military strategy for the liberation of Palestine, as can be read in my article Strategies for liberation: old and new arguments in the Palestinian left. With regards to oppression, I am also critical of individual acts of violence, which offer no perspective for a solution. Instead I emphasise the necessity of international solidarity, support, and mass movements.

Despite this I can name, explain, and interpret cause and effect, without having to excuse or endorse anything. I agree with the Zionist movement (Theodor Herzl, Vladimir Zabotinsky, etc) when they describe themselves as “colonial” and when they call their own objective in the current Israeli Nation State Law as “colonisation”. I recognise that this colonial relationship is one of the root causes of the violence in the region, and I would like to see an end to this. Stating such facts in a sincere and measured debate using scientific criteria must be possible in left spaces without bureaucratic expulsions.

Katina Schubert and Martin Schirdewan, who are proposing my expulsion, seem to be contradicting this base of evidence, and instead want to describe the situation in the region in an unhistorical manner. Phrases like “exterminatory antisemitism” and “pogrom” move and simplify the debate into the realm of Nazi fascism.

With the belief in full democratisation, equality and for a peaceful and just cohabitation, I, like hundreds of other party members, support a position which diverges from the party program’s support for an ethnically segregated “Two State Solution”. This is no longer viable, as has been officially rejected by the Israeli government and senate, who have practically buried it, while government ministers have announced the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza following the official state annexation of East Jerusalem.

For many governments, the “Two State Solution” only serves as a meaningless phrase and fig leaf, used to dodge a confrontation of Israel’s right-wing government. An alternative which orientates itself on the local realities should be possible in a pluralistic left-wing party, and sustain a lively discussion. 

A resolution of the Die Linke Bundesaussschuss [federal committee] of 2015 said: “DIE LINKE stands up for a Two State arrangement, but finds that the debate about alternatives to this solution is legitimate”. If the people proposing my expulsion want to ignore this, they must consequently first be able to justify their basis for doing so.

My own background from Gaza, where an openly announced genocide, as confirmed by the United Nations, is taking place, was — like the loss of my own family by the Israeli army’s bombing of Gaza in 2014, and once more in the current genocidal war — at no point even mentioned in the proposal to expel me. This is a testament of an absolute lack of empathy for the victims of Israel’s politics of occupation and expulsion.

I reproach myself that in some contributions I underestimated the malice of actors, who intended to hurt me. But ultimately it is indefensible to use such a reversal of perpetrator and victim in order to make victims out of a media campaign which uses falsified quotes and unsubstantiated allegations against the culprits.

The witch hunt which has been kicked off against me has led to racist statements and threats against me, including demands for my deportation, and the defamation of my family members who were murdered by the Israeli army. The approach of the people proposing my expulsion stands as a cancellation of solidarity with the oppressed and left-wing principles.

This is a translated and shortened version of a text which was originally published in German. Translation: Phil Butland. Reproduced with permission.

The Occasional Knowledge-Hungry Shark

Two underwater telecables were cut in the Baltic Sea last Sunday. Who is to blame?


22/11/2024

The internet is under attack, and Western politicians have been quick to point their fingers in Putin’s general direction. Two underwater telecables in the Baltic Sea were cut Sunday night and Monday morning this week. One connected Lithuania to the Swedish island of Gotland, the other ran from Finland to Rostock in Germany. 

Despite few details, on Tuesday a statement by Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom claimed  — without specifically mentioning the cables — that, “Russia is systematically attacking European security architecture.” The German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius also stated that, “No one believes that these cables were cut accidentally.” He then added, apparently without a hint of irony, “We also have to assume, without knowing it yet, that it is sabotage.”

This is the third alleged attack in the Baltic Sea since the war between Russian and Ukraine began close to three years ago, the first two primarily targeting gas pipelines. It is unclear who carried out the first attack in September of 2022 on a pipeline built to carry Russian gas, but they succeeded in causing major damage. The Americans and the Russians have since blamed each other, although media reports from Germany’s investigation point towards a pro-Ukrainian group. 

The second attack in October 2023 was first denounced by Finland as having been caused by “outside activity”, and various European leaders hinted at Russian aggression, only for some awkward information to come to light: a Chinese tanker ship was apparently to blame. It seems to have dragged its anchor along the sea bed and damaged the pipeline, although it’s unclear whether this was due to incompetence or done on purpose.

Again this week, before events were clear, European leaders pointed to sabotage. The day following Pistorius’ bravado statements, it was reported that a Chinese bulk carrier was at the site of both breaches at approximately the times they took place. The signs are once again pointing to an accident, although as of the time of writing, neither the accidental nature nor the Chinese ship’s responsibility have been confirmed.

It would be far from the first time an undersea cable was damaged by accident. According to the telecom data provider TeleGeography, there are around 100 breaks per year, and around two thirds of these come from fishing boats trawling the ocean floor, or inconveniently placed anchors. Add to that natural wear and tear, earthquakes, and the occasional knowledge-hungry shark, and there’s little space left for international intrigue.

The spine of the internet

Underwater telecables are of major structural importance in the modern world, and so perhaps forgiveness can be extended to politicians who panic and point fingers at the possibility of attacks. They were originally used to transfer telegraphs, then telephone calls and now today the internet as well. The cables themselves, alongside fears surrounding them, have a long history — the first international treaty on the matter included the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires among its original signatories.

The underwater cables that carry phone calls and internet traffic are surprisingly thin, about the width of a medium carrot, although notably longer. Closer to shore, they are thicker due to increased protective layers. While the landing points are generally considered the most susceptible to attacks, actual attacks have tended to target sections deep underwater, where there are fewer witnesses or risk of escalation than would come with attacking infrastructure located on foreign soil.

During the Cold War, the Americans and the Soviets engaged in a back-and-forth which showed that the underwater sections of telecommunications cables were more than weak enough to be targeted. In 1959-60, five transatlantic cables near the USA were cut one after another, leading to accusations of foul play. The American Navy seized a Soviet fishing trawler which was at the site of each of the cuts, but were unable to prove its responsibility. Then, throughout the 1970s and 80s, the American National Security Agency spied on Soviet communications by having a submarine tap Soviet cables.

More recently, American and other Western political commentators have continuously raised concerns that these cables are a weak point. In 2015, Forbes ran an article titled, “How Bad Would It Be If The Russians Started Cutting Undersea Cables? Try Trillions In Damage”. In 2019, a NATO-associated journal published a detailed piece outlining the risk. Just this summer, the Financial Times published another article warning of the possibility of attacks. 

There is a slight irony here, as despite all the alarming articles, the 2019 piece still feels the need to offer what feels like fairly basic advice to those who run the supposedly high-risk landing ports: they should implement “perimeter fences”, “video surveillance cameras” and “guard[s]”.

There are admittedly some good reasons to be afraid. Even today, upwards of 95% of internet traffic is run through these cables, despite all the attention given to satellites. The WhatsApp messages you send from your phone to family or friends abroad go to the nearest cellphone tower, and then straight into a cable. Add in work emails, the recipe you looked up on an Indian website, the German website you used that has servers in the USA for whatever reason, and of course, trillions of dollars in digital transactions swirling around the globe; everything from grandma sending you birthday money to grandpa’s tax-dodging offshore accounts.

All this information is primarily run through undersea cables. As seen on this map, most places have enough cables that just cutting one would be more of a costly inconvenience than an economic and security crisis, as data could be re-routed through other cables with little or no noticeable loss in service. 

This is true of the current situation in the Baltic Sea, although Finnish users may find their internet slightly slower than normal. Some geographically remote places like Australia or Patagonia are exceptions, though. The Black Sea is also surprisingly sparse on cables.

Serious outages, even short ones, would prove costly to the financial markets, not to mention the cost of repairing the cables. But in times of war, any damages to communication lines could have costs ranging well beyond the economic, interrupting the flow of communications to military forces — not to mention the psychological impact such an attack would have. Youth across Europe have already been struggling with the rising costs of bread since Russia invaded Ukraine. How would they manage if Putin shut down their internet?

Privatisation and confused jurisdiction

Despite their importance and the long-standing international agreements relating to them, the actual jurisdiction over undersea cables is still quite confused. This is made worse by the fact that most of these cables are privately owned, a fact as unsurprising as it is depressing. Major corporations like Google are becoming increasingly responsible for them as well, with industry insiders claiming just last month that Meta has plans for a new around-the-world cable.

In the Baltic Sea breaches, the shorter Lithuania-Gotland cable belongs to the Swedish company Arelion. The other cable leading to Rostock was the 1173 km long “C-Lion1”, owned by the Finnish company Cinia and originally built in 2016. Cinia has said that a ship is being dispatched, and repairs should be completed before the end of the month. 

The muddled political jurisdiction was shown by the response to the alleged attack on the Finnish and Swedish companies. Both countries launched inquiries from their respective national investigative bodies, although the Finnish allowed the Swedes to take the lead. This was presumably because at least one (but seemingly both) of the cuts was close enough to Swedish shores to be in the Swedish Exclusive Economic Zone, as Cinia said in its statement. 

This left Germany (not to mention Lithuania) in the awkward position of wanting to be outraged by an attack on their internet infrastructure, but having nowhere to funnel this anger. It was, after all, an attack on a Finnish-owned cable on Swedish territory. The only impact it had on Germany was on its internet, leaving the state with no investigations to launch or other practical ways of showing displeasure. Pistorius had to make do with an accusatory and potentially embarrassing statement. If news comes out confirming that it was an accident due to the Chinese ship, he may end up hoping more damaged cables prevent the news from spreading this close to an election.

As mentioned above, whether Putin is behind these latest cuts or not, it certainly isn’t the first time European governments have too quickly accused Moscow, nor is undersea sabotage a new tactic. But while the ringing of war bells is a cause for concern, the largest threat to internet infrastructure over the long term may be massive corporations seizing control of our means of communication by building and purchasing the cables that connect the world. With the growing monopolisation of these cables, the main threat to the freedom of the internet may be on a Meta-level as well as a physical one.

Unframe Festival

A Weekend of Socialism, Culture, and Community


21/11/2024

This weekend, Berlin’s Oyoun transforms into a hub of resistance and creativity with the Unframe Festival, running from November 22 to 24. This three-day event brings together lectures, panel discussions, workshops, theatre, and film in German and English to tackle themes like decolonization, anti-capitalism, intersectionality, and collective liberation. Unframe provides a critical space for confronting systemic oppression while imagining alternative futures through knowledge and cultural expression.

In a world where authoritarianism is rising, and inequality continues to deepen, Unframe offers a platform for activists, thinkers, and artists to reflect, strategize, and inspire. Through its diverse programming, the festival blends political engagement with cultural exploration, creating an opportunity for meaningful dialogue and action.

Challenging Colonial Narratives and Historical Legacies

Unframe opens with discussions that confront the lasting impacts of colonialism and imperialism. One standout session is “Is German guilt to blame for the oppression of Palestinians?”, which examines how Germany’s historical reckoning with the Holocaust has shaped its policies toward Palestine. This deeply reflective lecture highlights the tensions between historical responsibility and current political realities, offering a thought-provoking start to the festival.

The theme of colonial legacies continues with “Das Gewicht der Wörter” (The Weight of Words), a panel on Saturday featuring Moshtari Hilal and Sinthujan Varatharajah. This session dives into how language is wielded as both a tool of oppression and a medium of resistance, inviting participants to rethink how narratives shape power dynamics.

On Sunday, “Antizionistische JüdInnen unter Generalverdacht” (Anti-Zionist Jews Under General Suspicion) addresses the challenges faced by Jewish voices critical of Zionism. This session sheds light on the stigmatization and marginalization of these perspectives, framing them as an essential part of global liberation movements. “Decolonial Jewish Diasporism” expands on this by imagining Jewish identity beyond nationalist frameworks, emphasizing solidarity with decolonial struggles worldwide.

Intersectionality in Action

A key strength of Unframe is its ability to connect struggles across race, gender, class, and geography, highlighting the systemic forces that shape oppression. On Saturday a panel “(Un)Democratic Mechanisms” explores how modern democracies often fail to serve marginalized communities. Featuring Pauline Jaeckels, Lucas Febraro, and Alexander Gorski, and moderated by James Jackson, the discussion critiques democratic structures and their inability to uphold civil liberties.

For those drawn to feminist critique, “Imperialer Feminismus – eine marxistische Analyse” (Imperial Feminism – A Marxist Analysis) on Friday offers a sharp analysis of how capitalist and imperialist frameworks co-opt feminist movements, undermining their transformative potential. This session provides a critical lens on how gender equality is often commodified within global systems of power.

Saturday also offers unique opportunities for collaboration and creativity through workshops. “Imaginative Justice” by Salma Said and Miriam Coretta Schulte stands out as it is conducted in three languages – English, German, and Arabic. This interactive session challenges participants to imagine a world free of borders, surveillance, and exclusion, blending accessibility with radical creativity. It exemplifies Unframe’s commitment to fostering inclusivity and collective participation.

Climate Justice and Resistance

The intersection of climate justice and anti-imperialism is another major theme at Unframe. On Saturday, “Klimagerechtigkeit, Antiimperialismus & die Klimabewegung” (Climate Justice, Anti-Imperialism, and the Climate Movement) critiques the neoliberal co-optation of climate activism. Speaker Hasan Özbay calls for a return to anti-imperialist principles, urging activists to address the global inequalities at the heart of the climate crisis.

On Sunday, the panel “The unity of our struggles, the diversity of our tactics” emphasizes the importance of solidarity across movements, focusing on the connections between environmental justice and liberation struggles worldwide.

Cultural Expression and Storytelling

Unframe’s cultural programming underscores the power of art and storytelling in resistance. The “Memories Carried” art exhibition runs throughout the weekend, showcasing works that explore themes of migration, displacement, and resilience. Guided tours provide deeper insights into the artists’ processes, making this an essential experience for attendees.

The festival also features a carefully curated selection of films. Friday’s screenings include “In Limbo” by Tutku Efe, a narrative on resilience after systemic destruction, and “Uncle, Give Me a Cigarette” by Jamen Abu-Khatir, which reflects on longing and loss amidst displacement. On Sunday, “Taste of Cement” by Ziad Kalthoum offers a visually stunning exploration of Syrian construction workers in Beirut, caught between rebuilding a foreign city and mourning the destruction of their homeland. The screening will be followed by a Q&A with Ziad.

Saturday’s “Bleib ängstlich – bleib sicher” (Stay Fearful – Stay Safe) combines German and English storytelling in an experimental theatrical performance. The show explores how fear shapes individual and collective identities, providing a powerful commentary on the ways we navigate security and uncertainty in modern life.

Why Unframe Matters

Unframe Festival stands out for its ability to weave together intellectual debate, grassroots activism, and cultural expression. Its programming not only confronts systemic injustices but also celebrates the resilience and creativity of those fighting for liberation. For someone like me, drawn to the intersections of politics, storytelling, and activism, sessions like “Das Gewicht der Wörter”, “Eye witness report from West Bank”, and “Imaginative Justice” exemplify the festival’s capacity to inspire and connect.

Whether you’re interested in the global implications of climate justice, the intricacies of democratic systems, or the role of art in resistance, Unframe has something to offer. It’s more than a festival – It’s a call to action, inviting us to imagine and work toward a better world. This weekend at Oyoun is an opportunity to learn, connect, and reflect on the movements shaping our future. Join the conversation and be part of the change.

For more information, visit their Instagram or official website.

Check the timetable here.

Film Review – No Other Land

Accusations of antisemitism are nonsense. This is a groundbreaking film


20/11/2024

Directors: Yuval Abraham, Basel Adra, Hamdan Ballal (Occupied Palestinian Territory, Norway).

Summer 2019, the West Bank. A line of bulldozers enters one of the villages belonging to the community of Masafer Yatta, South of Hebron. In a short space of time, they destroy some of the village’s stone houses. Local residents complain, but they are told by the soldiers accompanying the bulldozers that this is all legal, the houses are being removed to make way for a closed military training zone. The soldiers are armed and aggressive. The villagers are not.

Flash back 20 or more years to Basel Adra’s first memory. He was woken by a flashlight carried by an Israeli soldier coming to arrest his father, not for the first time. Within a couple of years, Basel was accompanying his activist parents on demos, and soon he was filming them. He first trained as a lawyer, but what can you do in the Israeli courts? He is now a social media activist who documents the daily brutalisation of Masafer Yatta by soldiers, tanks, and armed settlers.

Early on in the film, Basel meets Yuval Abraham, an anti-Zionist Israeli journalist. Many villagers are suspicious of Yuval – the only Israelis they have met so far have been those who terrorise them. But Basel and Yuval strike up a friendship. As well as documenting the horror of living in the West Bank, No Other Land also shows their growing Bromance. At one point, Basel jokingly suggests that they leave and go to the Maldives. At another, one asks the other when they are going to get married.

Such moments of levity stand in stark contrast to the random daily terror which is inflicted on the locals. One villager says that his family has lived here since the 1830s. This does nothing to stop Israeli soldiers razing people’s homes to the ground. Villagers are not allowed to rebuild them, as that would require a building permit. And to get a building permit you need to apply to an Israeli court. So they rebuild their homes at night until the bulldozers return. Many people are now forced to live in caves.

Basel asks Yuval why, unlike so many of his countrymen, he cares about basic human rights for Palestinians. Yuval attributes his activism to learning Arabic – something which caused the Israeli secret service to offer him a job, which he declined. Maybe Yuval’s radicalisation was down to more than just learning a language, but he has remained true to his beliefs. He spends increasing amounts of time in the village, helping rebuild buildings and trying to motivate himself to write more about the resistance.

The villages are filmed over a period of years, over which the Israelis – led by an obnoxious arsehole in mirrored sunglasses called Ilan – get increasingly confident. After a while, they do not just demolish homes, they confiscate building tools and even power generators. When one young man, Harun Abu Aram, tries to stop the soldiers taking away his generator, they shoot him in the neck, rendering him quadriplegic. They then tear down his home, forcing him to live in a cave. Harun later dies of his wounds.

We actually see the footage of the shooting of Harun, well some of it at least. As with much of the footage here, we first see an altercation filmed on handheld cameras, then the soldiers threatening the people taking the film. As the soldiers get more aggressive, we see more pictures of stony ground as the person holding the camera runs away. In this case, these pictures are accompanied by the sound of  a shot, followed by a woman screaming: “what have they done to my son?”

Many scenes remain uncommented, as there is honestly nothing to say. Children are first locked into their classrooms, then forced out at gunpoint. A playground is destroyed. Basel’s father is arrested and taken to a military prison – again. As a bulldozer approaches a house, a woman shouts out: “my daughters are still in there!” A soldier impassively says “doesn’t matter!” Even if the soldiers are just obeying orders, as they claim, there is no justification for such malevolent indifference.

Basel proudly tells the story of how his school was built – the only one in the village. Normally, any building works were disrupted by Israeli soldiers, but Basel’s mother had a plan. In the daytime, the women and children would work on the building site, and at night, the men would come out and get the job done. Surprisingly, the plan worked, and soon the school was built. Unsurprisingly, the Israelis condemned it to be torn down. And then Tony Blair arrived.

I hate to give any credit to the soulless war criminal, but for once Blair’s actions had a positive effect. He was in Masafer Yatta for just 7 minutes (we see footage of him surrounded by burly bodyguards), and yet his appearance shamed the Israeli government into letting the school stay. Basel ruefully says “This is a story about power.” Even this victory was short-lived. Later footage shows the school being demolished after the television cameras had moved elsewhere.

Basel teases Yuval for wanting a quick solution. When Yuval is worried that an article he wrote did not generate enough clicks, Basel replies: “You want the occupation to end in ten days, and then you go home … You have to get used to being a loser.” Basel accuses his friend of having too much enthusiasm. He says that Yuval thinks that this conflict can be solved by a nice article, but Basel has to live through all this and cannot afford such self-indulgence.

Earlier footage shows that Basel was not always so cynical. We see him early on saying that if his footage of Israeli atrocities could reach an international audience, maybe the US authorities would understand and get Israel to stop. Watching the film in late 2024, when the atrocities have become much worse and much more public, and the USA and Germany continue to fund the destruction, it is easy to understand why Basel has become much less hopeful of any diplomatic solution.

For most of the time, Basel is indefatigable, but occasionally he too feels defeated. At one point, he says he doesn’t want to end up like his father, not because he isn’t proud of his parents’ activism, but because he isn’t sure whether he has his father’s staying power. He considers stepping back from activism, as he is tired, and after his father’s arrest someone’s got to look after his petrol station (in truth, a single pump) and ensure that the family has the money it needs to survive.

You’d be forgiven for asking if Basel’s activism is worth it. We see several scenes of him telling IDF soldiers that he’s filming them, but they don’t care. They know the courts are on their side. In one scene, Basel shouts out that he has press ID, but this does not protect him from a vicious beating. And yet, however futile it may seem, Basel says that the fact that the villagers are still there is proof of their resilience. Their very existence is valid and necessary resistance.

Despite their camaraderie, the film shows the asymmetry of Basel and Yuval’s relationship. At the end of the day, Yuval can drive home and take a shower. Basel cannot do this for a number of reasons. Firstly, the authorities have banned cars with Palestinian number plates in Masafer Yatta. Secondly, Basel also has a personal driving ban. And even if he could drive away and leave his home, he would not get far because of the checkpoints. He certainly could not drive along the roads which only allow Israeli drivers.

Besides which, even taking a shower at home is becoming increasingly difficult. Emboldened by the previous repression and by a government – and a society – which supports them, Israeli soldiers destroy not just houses but all sources of water. Concrete is poured into the main well, hoses are chopped up, pipes and any other source of water are physically attacked. The villagers look on helplessly. One says “they are trying to starve us”. Or as Basel later says: “they destroy us slowly”.

If the constant attacks by soldiers aren’t enough, then the settlers arrive, armed with guns and baseball bats. Unlike the protesting Palestinians, the settlers are not attacked by the army – indeed we see soldiers accompanying them as they go on the rampage. In one of the final scenes, we see them shooting someone in the stomach, resulting in immediate death. A soldier watches on indulgently. We later learn that the victim was Basel’s cousin.

Why is all this happening? Why does Israel need to expel Palestinians from their traditional homelands? The official excuse is that the Israeli army needs room to train (how much space do you need to practise shooting unarmed civilians at point blank range?). We even see Israeli news coverage implying that the villagers are encroaching on military land – that is, that the army was always there and the villages which have existed since the early 19th Century are just a myth.

Towards the end of the film, leaked documents explain what is really going on. The expulsions are aimed at stopping “Arab expansion”. This is a topsy-turvy world in which “expansion” is used to describe staying where you are. The aim is to force the villagers into cities like Ramallah, where they are easier to control. And the sad fact is that these policies are starting to take effect. Later, we hear that many villagers cannot take any more brutality and have indeed moved out.

In amongst the grainy handheld footage, some scenes are beautifully shot, especially evening scenes from inside the village after the Israeli soldiers have gone. In the background, we see glorious landscapes, in the foreground ordinary people trying to get on with their lives in an impossible situation. If it wasn’t for the occupation, these lives could be idyllic. This film is about the relentlessness of the occupying forces but it is also about Palestinian indefatigability.

The film’s title is taken from what one of the villagers says to the soldiers who try to evict her from her home: “We have no other land.” And yet, I don’t know if it’s intentional, but it has a second meaning. Is there another country on Earth which could carry out such barbarities with impunity, while other governments, including our own, do not just ignore what is going on, but continue to provide Israel with the weapons and bulldozers used to destroy people’s lives?

Although No Other Land won both the jury and audience awards for Best Documentary at the Berlinale, it was recently used as the justification for a new “antisemitism resolution” passed by virtually all parties in the German Bundestag (the other justification was the Indonesian art collective Taring Padi, who exhibited at the most recent Documenta exhibition. In a country where the second most popular political party is full of fascists, it is not a good look to blame antisemitism on foreigners).

Before the film was screened today, a message from the cinema owners, Yorck Kinos, flashed up. It wasn’t on long enough for me to read it all, but it said something like: “we hope no Jews are offended by this film, blah blah, German history, blah blah, please don’t be antisemitic”. I don’t know whether the statement was voluntary or the result of government pressure, but the idea that your main take-home point from this film could be antisemitic says much more about Germany than about the film itself.

No Other Land was supposed to wrap in early October 2023. There is a cautionary post script in which we are told that since 7th October, things in the villages have got worse. But the villagers remain resilient. As Basel says, “We have to raise our voices, not be silent as if no human beings live here.” This film is part of this resistance, it allows us to hear the voices that are usually silenced, particularly in Germany. It isn’t showing in many cinemas, but the one I saw it in was full. Try and see it if you can.

Drowning in profits

Itziar Cedar analyses the capitalist causes & fascist effects of the storm system Dana that recently caused massive destruction and took many lives in Spain.


19/11/2024

Satellite view of the storm DANA over Valencia on 29 October at 6:30 a.m. EUMETSAT 2024, Wikimedia Commons

Did you hear the pig’s screams? They were on their way to the slaughterhouse when storm system Dana happened, forced to stay in the truck, in the middle of the flooded road, for hours, in these conditions, before getting their necks sliced (half of them died before getting there). Even in this extreme context, the death machine didn’t stop for them. Or the workers. 

After the tragic events that took place in Valencia, which Roser Gari Perez wrote about in her 4th of November article, the storm moved to the south of Spain, on November 13th, reaching Málaga, resulting, once again, in very serious risks for workers who were forced back to work in factories, supermarkets and train stations. The president and potential criminal of one of the main supermarket chains (Mercadona) decided once more not to close the stores despite the red alert announced in Malaga by the local authorities, and 2 weeks after directly harming his workers in Valencia. The workers from the public transport company Renfe, were also held back in their workplaces until 5pm, when stations where already closed and flooded, and the city practically collapsed, leaving them helpless and unable to reach their homes. Other big companies operated the same way, not allowing workers to leave or forcing them to move with their cars and trucks through the floods.

Paradoxically (or maybe not) the mayor of Malaga, from the conservative right-wing party (Partido Popular) announced that same day in the morning, that there was “no problem” and “no heavy rains happening”, and that he saw no reason to activate the emergency alert – statements that were contradicted by the streets full of water, the closed shops and the incidents reported by different emergency institutions. Hours after these words, the Malaga City Council had to fully activate the Municipal Emergency Plan, which had already been partially activated since the previous Tuesday. Let that sink in.

Regarding Dana in Valencia: another consequence of the political ineffectiveness and hate politics of right-wing and far-right governments, as in the case of Vox, has been the instrumentalization of racist campaigns in the midst of disaster. We know that fascism uses crisis contexts to spread its ideas, and in this case, Vox created an online fake news flow accusing the (already right-wing conservative populist racist government) of prioritizing aid to immigrants over support for those affected. Not only that, but they also spread digusting lies about migrants looting and robbing stores and supermarkets. Turns out, as seen in many videos, that the migrant community was unconditionally involved from the very first moment, in organising food, resources, rescue and cleaning teams, as in the case of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Alzira, which not only contributed in the forementioned tasks, but also housed a dozen volunteers and people who had lost their homes, allowing them to spend the night in the mosque. As Rashid Garbhi, the imam of the Centre stated  “we are involved in everything that has happened. We have no choice, it is our duty to help our brothers. We are part of the social network and we have to share the emotions and also the material and the spaces; we have to help in whatever way we can. We are all a family, we are part of this society and what happens here happens to us”.

How the Spanish central government is facing this whole situation is a critical question. One the one hand, its general lack of interest in stopping the development of intensive farming practices that are directly responsible for flooding, is politically motivated. The distribution of subsidies under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy favours large agribusiness while side-lining small-scale, traditional agriculture which operates with more sustainable methods, which mirrors, once again, how the State and big corporations are destroying working class lives from the core of the system. Julia Martínez Fernández, PhD in Biology and technical director of the New Water Culture Foundation states “…until recently, traditional agriculture included practices aimed to protect soil and water, such as plant covers, crop rotations, terrace cultivations and management of natural barriers.” She argues that it is frustrating to see how the popular viewpoint still portrays current farming practices as local, small and sustainable, when the reality is the complete opposite: it is large companies that dominate the sector and promote intensification. Martínez Fernández concludes “We need to rethink the model. There are many hidden costs that all citizens pay. Administrations cannot continue to look the other way”.

And speaking of looking away, another urgent matter that Pedro Sánchez and his big business friends are openly lying about is weapon exports to Israel. Last week, Sánchez made the following statement: “Since October 7 (2023), Spain has not exported any type of weapons or military equipment to Israel (…). I believe that it is urgent that, in light of everything that is happening in the Middle East, the International Community stops exporting arms to the Government of Israel”. It is not the first time that he instrumentalises the Palestinian cause to avoid losing votes and demobilise the Palestine solidarity movement, as the material reality of Spanish weapon trade with Israel does not reflect his words. A report of the Delàs Centre for Peace Studies entitled “Bu$in€ss as usual. Analysis of the Spanish arms trade in 2022-23 and arguments for an arms embargo on Israel”, published in July of this year, states that after October 7th, 2023 military exports to Israel have continued ranking Spain as the EU country with the 5th largest exports of weapons and munition to Israel after October 7th (with 1.1 million euros), and continues to do until today, with the complicity of a genocidal president who lies to the majority of the population who are against the illegal occupation of Palestine and genocide of the Palestinians.

In times of crisis, the interests of the ruling class become clear: profit over people, and empty rhetoric over change. The exploitation of workers during natural disasters, and the cruelty inflicted on humans and non-humans, are reminders of a system that dehumanizes the working class for the benefit of the few. Spanish political leaders, like Pedro Sánchez, publicly denounce violence while the country’s arms industry continues to profit from the blood of the people in Palestine, Western Sahara, Kurdistan, and Valencia, and all the countries that suffer the systemic violence of imperialism by the Spanish weapon industry. Such hypocrisy just proves the deep ties between government and corporate and imperial interests, teaching us that solidarity must go beyond identity politics and focus on the material conditions that exploit us all. We need a united front that rejects exploitation, imperialism, and the destruction of working-class lives both at home and abroad, and standing together against a system that prioritizes profit over everything else.