The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

30 October 1947 – Bertolt Brecht appears before the House Un-American Committee

This week in working class history

Phil Butland
28/10/2025

The United States ended the Second World War as the world’s strongest power, both economically and militarily, and was determined to maintain that dominance. Abroad, the “Truman Doctrine” allowed the Soviet Union to control Eastern Europe while Communist uprisings were crushed in Greece. At home, McCarthyism denied public-sector jobs to anyone suspected of being a Communist. Most famously, writers and directors in the Hollywood Ten were jailed and blacklisted from working in film for 13 years.

The Hollywood Ten were originally the Hollywood Nineteen, but only eleven people were called to trial. The eleventh was the left-wing German playwright Bertolt Brecht, who had fled from Hitler and eventually settled in Los Angeles in 1941. He wrote the screenplay for just one film, Hangmen Also Die. On 30 October 1947, Brecht appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the congressional body responsible for implementing McCarthyism. (You can see a recording of part of the hearing here.)

Although Brecht’s appearance before HUAC makes for compelling—often hilarious—theatre, it is also an example of how not to resist repression. Brecht did not confront McCarthy directly. Instead, his answers were riddled with the phrase “I don’t remember.” While his colleagues in the Hollywood Ten refused to testify, Brecht insisted that he had never been a member of the Communist Party in any country. Whether or not that was true is beside the point. Answering questions his colleagues had refused to address amounted to a form of scabbing.

In fact, Brecht’s individualistic resistance was typical of the protagonists in many of his plays—from Mother Courage to Galileo to Schweik in the Second World War. Each portrays persecuted individuals outwitting the authorities. Brecht later said he felt compelled to testify because he was not a US citizen, but it seems more likely that he chose the strategy with which he was most familiar. As he noted in his testimony, Brecht refrained from political activity during his six years in the United States.

We shouldn’t be too hard on Brecht. Many writers and workers in other industries lost their jobs in the McCarthy purges, and some were jailed. Given the balance of forces in 1950s America, Brecht’s choice was between self-preservation and persecution. The day after his testimony, he flew to East Germany, where the government had promised him his own theatre, the Berliner Ensemble. Despite some misgivings about East German “socialism,” he remained there until his death in 1956.

For Berliners who are interested in Brecht and McCarthy, I will be engaging with the subject more in my talk: Spartacus – the film that broke the McCarthy blacklist? on Sunday 2nd November at the Unframe festival.

Writers at The Berliner strike over censorship and pro-Israel ad

Writers at Berlin’s biggest English-language publication have called a strike over ad for the Nova festival exhibition

Johann Hölzen

On October 5, freelancers for the English-language magazine The Berliner went on strike after negotiations with management failed. The main point of contention was an ad promoting the Nova festival exhibition, a travelling show meant to portray the October 7 attack by Hamas on a music festival. As it avoids any mention of the genocide in Gaza, critics accuse it of being war propaganda.

This decision came after management had suppressed articles relating to Palestine for many months. While this editorial line was never formally stated, the magazine’s editor-in-chief repeatedly called for the need to remain “neutral.” This supposed neutrality was then breached by the Nova ads, while reports about Palestine demonstrations or repression in art spaces are forbidden. This comes in the context of the German and Berlin governments censoring speech about Palestine while promoting pro-Israeli propaganda.

Walter Crasshole, a queer columnist for the magazine, said: “In September 2024, I pitched a column about the Palestine/Israel conflict among queers in Berlin and was told no. I later got a private WhatsApp saying, ‘It’s an editorial decision above my pay grade, and I can’t really offer a specific explanation beyond that.’ That’s when I realized the subject was off-limits and that management had created real unease among the editorial team.”

On October 5, the ad was posted on The Berliner’s Instagram page. A member of the writing staff commented that the issue was not with the exhibit itself but rather “the hypocrisy in how this ad was pushed to the forefront after over a year of sidelining and ignoring reporting on Israel-Palestine. Surely if the idea were to ignore the issue simply, it would follow that we would also not publish the ad.”

The Berliner has no editorial statute. Employees of the magazine report that the owner, Yoram Roth, makes editorial decisions about what topics can be reported on. As one writer put it: “We were forbidden from writing certain stories. There was an explicit order: ‘no more Palestine.’ We tried to work around it at first, but the boundaries of what was acceptable kept tightening. For a while, culture was okay—but then we were told to remove events, demos, and exhibitions that mentioned Palestine. So, it became more and more restrictive.”

Roth is the owner of multiple cultural sites around Berlin, including Clärchens Ballhaus and the Fotografiska museum (as written about in this puff piece). In 2023, Spiegel magazine reported that he acquired a 2.5% stake (1.3 million euros) in Aliada, the parent company of the spyware firm Cytrox—which later became part of the Intellexa Alliance. That company provided spy software to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Libyan military dictator Khalifa Haftar, as well as to countries like Kazakhstan, Singapore, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The software was used to spy on journalists, creating a terrible conflict of interest for the owner of any publication.

When writing staff found out about the ad in early October, they organized a meeting with management. Together with the editor-in-chief, Jonny Tiernan, they called for the magazine to abandon these ads. They even offered to pay the fee out of their own salaries. However, management refused—and the resulting discussions made it clear that this was an ideological, not just a financial, decision. The people in charge were uninterested in the views of their entire workforce.

Shortly after the first Nova ad was posted, Tiernan emailed the freelancers about his efforts to mitigate the ad’s impact, which included labelling the post as an “advertisement” instead of an “ad” and withholding editorial coverage of the exhibition. The freelancers rejected these measures and went on strike on October 5, withdrawing their work from the November issue and launching a GoFundMe the next day to cover their lost income.

As of today, management maintains its opposition to any compromise or dialogue on the writers’ demands: ending the Nova festival exhibition ad campaign, removing all related ads, ensuring a transparent editorial policy, and clearly separating advertising from editorial content on the website. Independent, free, and unbiased journalism is more important than ever. The Berliner is one of Berlin’s few English-language magazines. In the strikers’ own words, “We want to put an end to the editorial interference that is weakening one of the city’s most vital independent media voices.” If you would like to support the strikers, click here.

White, green, or brown?

You are 21 years old, North African, with no money, no papers, and no contacts.

Simsim Abdo
25/10/2025

* this story is fictional, drawing inspiration from the real experiences of the boys in Kottbusser Tor. But for their safety, I share these fictional narratives instead of actual events.

Have you ever seen a group of 15+ police officers in riot gear slowly making their way through Kotti, parading a young Arab man in handcuffs? Let me share the truth behind this image.

You are 21 years old and arrive at Kotti from your home country in North Africa half a year ago, with no money, no papers, and no contacts. Here, you find the only community you can belong to, consisting of other vulnerable North African youth your age, all of whom have traveled similar horrific migrant routes. Like them, you survived dangerous journeys, including a boat ride that, by some miracle, didn’t capsize—or perhaps it did, and you were among the few survivors. You navigated through the infamous Balkan forests, where human traffickers lurk in every corner.

Germany was your dream destination, the last stop on a long list of countries you visited, where you were constantly hunted down and criminalized. Since arriving in Berlin, you have faced a bleak reality with very few opportunities to earn money, often resorting to selling drugs while being constantly on the run. You endure daily discrimination, face attacks from other criminals on the streets, sleep in the cold, and struggle to find places to shower, eat, and connect to the internet to reach your family. Despite these hardships, you still want to stay, hoping to get closer to the better life you believe Germany can offer. Yet, the constant threat of violent police arrests and the fear of deportation looms large.

Living under such harsh conditions day after day, you, like most of your friends, start taking drugs, beginning with some seemingly harmless pills that you and your friends sell on the streets. Unaware of its addictive and destructive nature, the pills give you a temporary escape from the anxiety and the stress that frequently overwhelms you.

Despite your difficult circumstances, young age, and limited education, you deeply believe that Palestine should be free. However, many Palestinians and Arabs in Berlin want to see you and your friends locked up in cages—criminalizing you, just as white Germans discriminate against Arabs and migrants. While this hurts you deeply, you never stop believing that Palestine should be free.

Palestine-solidarity stickers cover your phone. But after being arrested, beaten, and locked up in a location unknown to you, you will probably never see this phone again, nor will you retrieve any of the contacts and phone numbers saved on it. Because you don’t have papers, you will be kept in pre-trial detention until a court passes your verdict. Due to slow German bureaucracy, this could be a long wait—possibly in solitary confinement, or worse, in a prison filled with right-wing German inmates.

***

It is important that we—Arabs, migrants, pro-Palestine advocates—stand in solidarity with people in these circumstances. Here’s how you can start today:

Keep your camera ready at Kotti to film police arrests.
Thematize actions about Kotti Wache.
Donate to Kotti Cares.
Challenge racist comments about North Africans.
Spread the word.
Show them kindness and keep them in your thoughts.

For more information, pitching ideas, or giving feedback, contact kotticares10999@proton.me.

Ireland’s race for the Áras

In post-Higgins Ireland, politics feels drained of poetry, principle, and public passion

Ellen McBride
24/10/2025

On Friday, the 24th of October, Ireland will vote for its tenth President. Politician, poet, and sociologist Michael D. Higgins will be stepping down after his second term as head of state, a term he won in a landslide. Higgins has enjoyed broad public approval. Formerly a Labour Party TD, he leans firmly to the left, and his tenure has been marked by his advocacy for human rights, social justice, and cultural life. He’s not without his critics—nor should any public figure be—but he’s represented the “Land of Saints and Scholars” with a kind of benevolent charm the rest of the world assumes all Irish people possess: poetic, amiable, and chock-full of integrity.

In Ireland, Presidents do not wield sweeping political power. The office is largely ceremonial, far from the executive muscle of its American counterpart. But ceremonial does not mean irrelevant. Irish Presidents shape public discourse. They are moral weather vanes as much as constitutional figures. Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese both demonstrated this: Robinson championed women’s rights and global human rights long before such issues were politically comfortable, while McAleese’s emphasis on peace and reconciliation resonated deeply in post–Good Friday Agreement Ireland. Michael D., in his lilting way, set a tone for a more reflective, humane national identity. So while their powers are technically limited, their words and presence ripple through Ireland’s collective psyche.

This year’s race, however, feels stranger—a bit louder, a bit more online. For a brief, chaotic few weeks, Conor McGregor threatened to enter the race. The MMA fighter (who lost a civil rape case to Nikita Hand earlier this year) seemed to have found a kindred spirit in Donald Trump. Much like Trump, McGregor flirts with alt-right rhetoric, indulges racist dog whistles, and rails against “wokeism”. Blessedly, his presidential ambitions collapsed almost as soon as they began. He was never likely to secure the necessary nominations, but the idea of him bounding around the Áras was enough to make most people break into hives. His withdrawal likely owed more to public outrage than self-reflection, but at least the circus left town before it pitched a tent. I did, however, discover that Lord of the Dance Michael Flatley was briefly rumoured as a potential candidate. A Land of Riverdance sounds better than a Land of Rapists, at least.

With the ring cleared, the election has effectively become a two-horse race: independent left-winger Catherine Connolly and Fine Gael’s Heather Humphreys. Connolly, the more palatable of the two, comes across as principled but curiously flat. Her foreign policy stance begins and ends with “war is bad”—a sentiment few would dispute, but one that feels hollow without any plan for how to prevent or resolve conflict. It’s a familiar liberal affliction: the comfort of good intentions without the discomfort of detail.

Humphreys, by contrast, is more ideologically coherent but less ideologically appealing. To her credit, she’s been firm in describing Israel’s occupation of Gaza as genocide, but otherwise she remains a classic party-line operator. Her track record in Social Protection and Rural Affairs paints her as pragmatic, but hardly radical. Humphreys also has ties to the Orange Order via her husband and has refused to learn Irish despite previously serving as a Gaeltacht Minister.

Adding to the general sense of fatigue is the “Spoil the Vote” campaign, a small but vocal movement urging voters to deliberately invalidate their ballots as a protest against the perceived sameness of both leading candidates. It’s not so much anti-political as it is exhausted. The campaign has gained some traction online, tapping into a wider mood of apathy and frustration. Whether it’s a symbolic act of resistance or just disengagement by another name, it speaks to a growing sense that the system itself is no longer listening.

So where does that leave us? The pros and cons are thinly spread. Connolly represents authenticity and independence, but risks being ineffectual. Humphreys offers experience and competence, but is tethered to a party line that feels increasingly out of step with the electorate. Neither inspires much joy—and perhaps that’s the real story. Ireland has moved from a politics of poetry to a politics of paperwork.

As for the forecast, Connolly is expected to edge out Humphreys, and personally, I’m glad. There are worse things to be than ineffectual, and I would prefer a left-wing independent to take the helm than I would a Fine Gael candidate. That being said, the election feels flat, unmotivated, uninteresting. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a significant drop in voter turnout on Friday instead of mere vote-spoiling.

Still, it won’t be hard not to miss Michael D.—his measured poetry, his moral steadiness. Whoever replaces him will inherit not just the title, but the expectation of grace. That’s a tough act to follow, even without a UFC fighter in the wings.

The silent victim: Warfare’s enduring environmental scars across the Middle East

A comprehensive analysis of UN data and scientific studies reveals that the environmental damage from the ongoing military occupations will impact the region’s health and stability for generations

Hosein Pabarja
23/10/2025

The human cost of mass attacks is measured in lives lost and families displaced. However, a growing body of evidence from international organizations points to another, more enduring casualty: the environment. From the rubble-strewn landscape of Gaza to the fire-scorched lands of Lebanon and the industrial sites of Iran, military actions are unleashing long-term ecological disasters that poison the land, water, and air, threatening the foundation of life itself long after the fighting stops.

Gaza: An Unprecedented Environmental Collapse

In the Gaza Strip, the scale of environmental damage is so severe that experts are describing it as unprecedented.

A Toxic Tide of Rubble: The conflict has generated an estimated 50 to 61 million tons of debris, much of which contains hazardous materials like asbestos, unexploded ordnance, and human remains. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warns that clearing this rubble could take up to 14 years and poses a severe risk of contaminating soil and groundwater.

Systemic Water Contamination: The destruction of water and sanitation infrastructure has led to a catastrophic water crisis. With 85% of water facilities inoperable, over 100,000 cubic meters of raw or poorly treated sewage are being discharged into the Mediterranean Sea every day, polluting the coastline and the aquifer. This has left over 90% of Gaza’s water unfit for human consumption, creating a breeding ground for waterborne diseases.

Deliberate Destruction of Agriculture: Satellite data shows that the conflict has destroyed or damaged approximately 80% of Gaza’s tree cover, including thousands of olive trees, and over two-thirds of its cropland. This systematic destruction of farmland and orchards has not only wiped out food sovereignty but also stripped the land of its natural defenses against desertification.

A Massive Climate Footprint: The climate cost of the war is substantial. A study shared with The Guardian found that the long-term carbon footprint of the first 15 months of the conflict, including future reconstruction, could exceed 31 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent—more than the annual emissions of many individual countries.

A Regional Pattern of Environmental Damage

The environmental impact of conflict is not confined to Gaza. A similar pattern of ecological damage is evident across the region.

In Lebanon, Israeli military actions have caused widespread destruction. Satellite data shows over 10,800 hectares burned in southern Lebanon in 2024, an area four times the size of Beirut . The use of white phosphorus munitions has been documented, igniting hundreds of fires that have destroyed prime farmland and damaged forests. An attack on the Jiyeh power station in July 2024 also caused a 10,000-ton oil spill into the Mediterranean, creating a major marine disaster.

In Syria, a report from the Quneitra Governorate detailed the “complete destruction” of the 186-hectare Kodna Forest, a 40-year-old natural treasure, with total environmental damages estimated at over $100 million. Furthermore, inspectors found traces of anthropogenic uranium at a site bombed by Israel, raising concerns about long-term radiological and chemical contamination.

In Iran, even a short, 12-day war in 2025 had significant environmental consequences. Strikes on oil refineries and a gas depot in Tehran led to major fires, releasing an estimated 47,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases and nearly 579,000 kg of airborne toxins into the atmosphere. Attacks on nuclear facilities, including Natanz and Fordo, prompted warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about potential radiological contamination.

Legal Reckoning and a Long Road to Recovery

The systematic nature of the environmental destruction has led to calls for legal accountability. Research groups and Palestinian environmental organizations have called for the Israeli government to be investigated for the Rome Statute war crime of ecocide, which prohibits “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment“.

Recovery, however, will be a monumental task. A joint World Bank, UN, and EU assessment estimated that rebuilding Gaza would cost $53.2 billion over the next decade, with a significant portion needed for environmental recovery and restoring water and sanitation systems. As one expert starkly put it, the scale of destruction is such that Gaza’s environment may have been pushed to a point where it can no longer sustain life.

The environmental devastation documented across the Middle East serves as a stark reminder that the true cost of modern warfare is not only tallied in immediate casualties but in the prolonged, silent suffering of a poisoned ecosystem. Ensuring accountability and a clean, healthy environment for future generations must become a non-negotiable pillar of any lasting peace.