The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Month: October 2025

Germany’s historical responsibility is to defend all human rights and respect international law

Statement in court from a woman appealing her prosecution for Volksverhetzung


14/10/2025

In November 2023, a woman held a sign up outside the Bundestag asking if Germany had learned from the Holocaust and pointing out that 7,000 people had (by then) already died in Gaza. She was fined €1,600 and accused of Volksverhetzung – incitement.

Last week, on 1st October 2025, she was in court again, appealing that judgement. The judge threw out the case, pointing out that it was ridiculous that a law which was originally made to “stop class struggle” (his words), then later adapted in the 1960s and 1990s to counter a growing Nazi threat would be used in this case.

In court, the woman was allowed to make a statement. This is a translation of what she said.

Dear Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Prosecutor.

In April of this year, I appeared in court for the first time and had to answer for an act that not only was I morally convinced about, but also believed to be covered by freedom of expression. Now I am back in court, because after more than two years of brutal warfare and massacres that have claimed more than 67,000 Palestinian lives, I am more convinced than ever of the question I asked in November 2023. We need to critically examine the past, because what significance does our culture of remembrance have if it is meaningless for our present? It is noteworthy that my question about the lessons learned from the Holocaust was interpreted very narrowly by the court, even though there are many references and answers to this question in public discourse as Jewish author, journalist and lawyer Ronen Steinke points out. So how can it be that there can only be one acceptable answer to this complex question, especially in view of the political and social changes? And what does it mean when public, multi-perspective discussions on this topic are thus prohibited by law?

For me, one thing has always been clear: the Holocaust was a crime against humanity and the darkest chapter in German history, which we commemorate in many ways—and rightly so. However, I do not believe in a culture of remembrance that upholsters our current perspective and our actions in the present, or worse still, serves as a justification for the suffering of others.

Our past obliges us. It obliges us to stand up for human rights, equality and democracy and against violence, hatred and war. The Jewish American-German author Deborah Feldman expressed this publicly on 1 November 2023 with the following words:

“I firmly believe that there is only one legitimate lesson to be learned from the Holocaust, and that is the absolute and unconditional defense of human rights for all.”

Two days after the Hamas attack the Israel Defense Minister Yoav Galant stated there: “will be no power, no food, no water, no fuel” for the Gaza strip. Israel, he said, is “fighting human animals and acting accordingly”—a statement that is not only deeply dehumanizing, but also violates international law. In the first weeks of the war alone, there were several thousand civilian casualties—including several children. Schools, hospitals and civilian infrastructure was bombed. The humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip worsened with each passing week. Despite urgent warnings from numerous human rights organizations about a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip and reminders from UN experts to comply with international law, the German government approved and supported the Israeli government’s rigorous and brutal actions in the Gaza Strip.

While international media reported almost daily on the war and the immeasurable suffering and destruction in the Gaza Strip, the majority of German media remained silent or justified the Israeli army’s inhumane and violent actions. Politicians and government representatives, who had condemned Hamas’ attack on Israel in clear and unambiguous words found themselves shrouded themselves in a deep silence.

Even after the first attack on a hospital on 17th October 2023, and sick, injured and vulnerable civilians fell victim to the attacks, German politicians refrained from condemning practices that are questionable/illegitimate under international law.

I remember that day as if it were a live broadcast—a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in real time in the media. And yet all that remained was a feeling of powerlessness—the feeling of having to watch an act of horror without being able to do anything about it.

These images accompanied me every day and I asked myself: where is our voice? Why can’t we find clear words when it comes to alleged human rights and international law violations against Palestinians? Why this one-sidedness?

The early calls by UN experts for compliance with international law, a humanitarian ceasefire and a sustainable solution to the conflict remained largely unanswered.

I couldn’t understand why the German government paid such little attention to the UN’s demands and continued to give its unconditional support to the Israeli government. Particularly, due to Germany’s historical responsibility because of the Holocaust, advocating for the observance of human rights and international law would be logical.

Recent developments, such as the indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court, have shown me that my question was not exaggerated. It was an expression of genuine, well-founded concern.

They have reinforced my feeling that we—especially in Germany—have a responsibility to remain vigilant.

That is why I asked publicly: Have we learned nothing from the Holocaust?

I have, and continue to assume that the previous/first judgement is based on a misunderstanding of my appeal and that I am acting within the framework of our fundamental democratic rights when I use the Holocaust as a yardstick for other crimes against human and international law. Neither of my appeals is intended to trivialise the Holocaust. I have not made any statement as to whether the current events in Gaza can be compared to the Holocaust. Rather, in my appeal, I ask about the lessons of the Holocaust. These are the universal human rights for ALL. Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Every state is obliged not only to comply with international law, but also to work to ensure that other states comply with it. It is therefore our duty to stand up for human rights, regardless of who they are directed against.

Thank you for your attention.

Photo Gallery: United 4 Gaza

Demonstration from Brandenburger Tor to Alexanderplatz, 11 October 2025


13/10/2025

All photos: Cherry Adam

Photo Gallery: They Didn’t know we were seeds

All photos: Cherry Adam


All photos: Cherry Adam

France: Macronism unraveling

Interview with Susan Price on the deep political crisis in France


12/10/2025

President Emmanuel Macron stares, seemingly concerned, through a crowd.

Susan Price, from Australian activist journal Green Left Weekly, spoke to John Mullen, a revolutionary socialist activist in the Paris region, about the deep political crisis in France.

GLW: Why did right-wing French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu resign, less than a day after nominating his team of ministers, before then being reappointed PM three days later?

Since July 2024, after he lost the parliamentary elections, President Emmanuel Macron has been running an antidemocratic circus. Instead of appointing a prime minister from the largest group in the assembly—the left-wing alliance, New Popular Front, which has 193 out of 577 MPs—he has appointed a series of centre-right PMs. 

The first two—Michel Barnier and François Bayrou—each stumbled along for a few months. They relied on the fact that the far-right National Rally (with 123 MPs) and the generally social-liberal Socialist Party (with 68) would not support a vote of no confidence against Macron’s government, in the name of “stability.”

Macron’s minority governments have passed almost no new legislation over the past 15 months in the National Assembly. However, Macron’s ministers have had plenty of power, each in their own field, to ramp up repression against protesters and trade unions, attack immigrant rights and control the media agenda. This is partly why Macron is so scared of a left government with a radical left wing. 

So, when Bayrou lost a vote of confidence in September, he was replaced by Macron’s close ally, Lecornu. Lecornu made loud speeches about the importance of breaking with the past, and about the need for the French to learn the art of compromise. After three weeks of not appointing a cabinet, he admitted that his compromises in favour of left-wing ideas would not even include a modest wealth tax, nor withdrawing the hated law that last year raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. 

In early October, he named his team of ministers: all but a couple of them were the same ministers chosen by Bayrou and thrown out the previous month. But we didn’t really have time to protest, because just 14 hours after naming his cabinet—and in the face of already sharp rows within its ranks—the PM resigned. 

After Lecornu’s resignation, frantic talks between party leaders continued as Macron tasked him with a last-ditch attempt to find a basis for compromise, and a way of getting the national budget voted through before December 31. As part of this, Lecornu suggested that some of the vicious cuts in social budgets planned by his predecessor Bayrou would be abandoned. 

In a clownish move which left commentators stunned, Macron, failing after two days of talks to find a plan B, reappointed Lecornu to the position of PM on the 10th of October.

GLW: Is Macronism unravelling? 

Definitely. Aurore Bergé, spokesperson for the outgoing government, announced solemnly on October 8: “there is no question of the president resigning.” It is rarely a good sign when presidents need to have this kind of statement put out. A new major opinion poll in early October showed that only 14% of citizens have a positive opinion of Macron.

The situation is changing hour by hour, and prediction is a hazardous occupation. The new government is unlikely to last long. The 71 radical left France Insoumise (FI) MPs have signed a motion demanding Macron’s impeachment, citing his contempt for democratic process. A dozen Communist MPs and a dozen ecologists have also signed on. Perhaps more worrying for Macron, is that this week his own former PM Edouard Philippe also called on him to resign. 

GLW: How have the left forces reacted? 

Last year, in the face of the imminent threat of a fascist government, the entire left made an electoral alliance, based on a fairly radical program, and agreed on a joint candidate for Prime Minister, Lucie Castets.  Since then, the alliance has been in constant crisis, with the Socialist Party (PS) wanting out. The PS joined the alliance partly in the hope of regaining some of its legitimacy—which collapsed after Francois Hollande’s austerity presidency. This sent the PS vote down to about 6% in the 2017 presidential election. 

But PS leader Olivier Faure was begging Macron to be appointed PM this week, distancing himself eagerly from the FI and from the radical manifesto he had himself signed up to 15 months ago. He is hoping for a couple of concessions from Macron. There are rumours that the attack on the retirement age might be suspended, though right-wing parliamentary leaders insist this is unacceptable.

The FI is the most determined opposition to Macron, and has campaigned unceasingly on the question of Palestine (as I write four FI MPs have just left Israeli jails after having been kidnapped by Israel from Gaza flotilla boats). The Greens and Communists have more consistently opposed the government than the PS, but have jumped on every opportunity to denounce FI “extremism” or “irresponsibility,” and to build alliances excluding the FI, and even now they are not all calling for Macron to go. 

GLW: How are Macron’s supporters trying to present the situation?

Although the balance of forces in the country obliges TV and radio to regularly present long interviews with leaders of the ecologists, the FI, and the Communist Party, the media spend endless energy building confusion and reactionary narratives. This month they are arguing that France is on the verge of bankruptcy, that the situation is so grave that it is only common sense to unite the left and right behind Macron’s policies, and forget the idea of defending public service budgets or pensions. 

At the same time, there is a continuing smear campaign against Jean Luc Mélenchon and the FI, a campaign to which leaders of the soft left contribute. Socialist MP Jérôme Guedj called Mélenchon “an antisemitic bastard” from the stage of the PS party conference last June. The PS leadership did not object. 

GLW: Hundreds of thousands of people mobilised across France on September 10, September 18 and October 2 against the austerity budget. What social forces are being drawn into action and what challenges are facing the movement, including within the trade union sector? 

When political institutions are paralysed, strikes and street mobilisations are even more important than at other times. In recent weeks, we have seen trade-union-led mass strikes as well as grassroots direct actions set up by the “Blockade everything” (“Bloquons tout”) networks. The mobilisations use tactics such as wildcat occupations and blockades, which are reminiscent of the Yellow Vest(Gilets Jaunes) movement from 2018 to 2020. However, they have significant differences. They are less rooted in rural areas than the Yellow Vests. They are not yet as widespread, and the far-right has not been trying to infiltrate, as it did — initially with some success—into the Yellow Vests. 

The trade union days of action on September 18 and October 2 were big—with strikes and demonstrations in more than 200 towns. Nevertheless, the movement is being crippled by the horrendous tactics of the professional negotiators who lead the trade unions. 

Firstly, there was no national call from the trade union coordinating committee (intersyndicale) for September 10, because of the mistrust of union leaders with regard to the Blockade Everything actions. Then, after the success of September 18, rather than building on the dynamic, union leaders said they would give the government five days to respond, before calling a further day of action. But days of action every couple of weeks tend to dissipate combativity: there were 14 of them in the huge and eventually unsuccessful movement to defend pensions in 2023! 

Furthermore, the present showdown with the government had been predicted for many months, but no preparations were made by the national leaders for serious strike action. A general strike could have been built—the level of anger is sufficient—but was not. Some federations such as the CGT [General Confederation of Labour] and Solidaires are more combative than others, such as the CFDT (French Democratic Confederation of Labour). But, behind closed doors, the compromises reached in the intersyndicale mean that the whole strike movement moves, in practice, at the speed of the least combative organisation—however inspiring the radio interviews by CGT leader Sophie Binet might be.

GLW: What about the far-right National Rally? Is it trying to carve out its own space in this crisis? 

Yes, it is. The Rassemblement National [RN] candidate (in case of a presidential election), sharply-dressed young fascist, Jordan Bardella, is getting up to 30% in opinion polls. RN candidate Marine Le Pen got 13 million votes in 2022, and 11 million in the 2024 legislative elections, so it obviously represents a huge threat. The RN is far stronger in electoral terms than in the streets: there have been no mass far-right demonstrations for decades. But the power of the far-right has helped inspire recent governments to pass more racist and particularly Islamophobic laws and decrees. 

Having failed to maintain their initial influence on the Yellow Vest movement in 2018–19, partly because of their inability to denounce police violence, the fascists decided to concentrate ever more on a policy of respectability. Links with big business circles are still occasional but getting stronger all the time. 

The traditional right and the Macronists are divided on how to deal with RN. Most would prefer to win over its supporters with rabid anti-Muslim and anti-migrant measures but a growing minority would be open to an alliance with it. This week, Bardella called for a governmental alliance between his party and the traditional right-wing Republicans. This is not likely in the short term, but is a sign of the continued mainstreaming of fascism in France. 

In coming weeks we need strike movements that go further than most national union leaders want, as have been seen before, for example in 1995 and 2006. We also need to build the FI, and Marxist voices inside and around it. The régime’s crisis is far from over, there could easily be new elections before Christmas, and Macron’s obvious weakness could help encourage the majority of French citizens, who want a break with Macron, the president of the rich. 

John Mullen is a revolutionary socialist from the Paris region and a supporter of the France Insoumise. Visit his website at randombolshevik.org. This article was reprinted with his permission. Original interview here.

Palestine solidarity discussions in Johannesburg stress ongoing protest

Sumud Flotilla participant Mandla Mandela’s mandate should hit the ruling class in its wallet


11/10/2025

Will the Trump-Netanyahu deal at least pause the mass killing of Gazans? Maybe, and Gazans have every right to celebrate. But we have repeatedly learned how brief the reprieve can be. And once Hamas releases 20 living Israeli hostages and has no further internal leverage, can anyone trust Tel Aviv, Washington and the rest of the G7’s Axis of Genocide to allow sovereignty, reconstruction and an eventual liberatory process? Since the answer is obviously not, activists must not rest now.

Last week, the South African liberation leader Nelson Mandela’s grandson Mandla and five compatriots were kidnapped from the Sumud Flotilla’s ships of life by the Israeli military and taken to Ashdod. They were attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza –Ashdod is 20km north of Ashkelon, where ships of death berth to unload coal, which goes straight into the Rutenberg power plant’s furnaces, to empower the settler-colonial, apartheid economy.

Mandela and hundreds of others from the Sumud Flotilla were then tortured in a desert jail not far from Gaza. At a press conference at his October 9 homecoming at the OR Tambo Airport, Mandela made a call that should be repeated and repeated until it is heeded:

“We will not rest until the genocide has been brought to an end. But let us enforce the resolutions undertaken by the Hague Group. We want you to read what the Hague Group has put out. They have said that all companies that are complicit must be arrested, must be prosecuted and must be dealt with. Now we call on our government. As you have been able to take the apartheid Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC), we call on you to arrest all those that are complicit in fueling the genocide and selling coal to apartheid Israel. We call on the government with immediate effect to stop any coal that is being exported to apartheid Israel. We call on the government to ensure that all those that have participated in the genocide in apartheid Israel that have enabled the IOF to carry on its genocide and systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to be arrested and prosecuted.”

Mandela’s mandate must be taken seriously by local and international solidarity activists. For realistically, without much more intense pressure from all of us, we don’t expect South Africa’s (SA) President Cyril Ramaphosa to arrest the main Johannesburg residents complicit in coal sales to Israel., That is, his brother-in-law Patrice Motsepe of African Rainbow Minerals (whose co-owned Glencore coal mine has been shamelessly fuelling Israel since 2007); or Glencore senior independent director Gill Marcus( once Nelson Mandela’s spokesperson); or Swiss resident Gary Nagle, Glencore chief executive.

Ramaphosa himself was Glencore’s main partner in coal digging, before he became Deputy President in 2014. He helped the firm triple the price Eskom paid in the Eskom ‘War Room’ he ran in 2014-15, in very dubious ways. 

Relentless ships of death sail from SA

Ramaphosa won’t even halt the coal ships now on their way to empower Israel, including the Seafighter docking on October 10 at the main coal terminal, Richards Bay, en route undoubtedly to Ashkelon. Last week, another ship arrived in Ashkelon with South African fuel for Rutenberg on 1 October: Ernandin. And another, Navios Felix, is three weeks away from unloading more South African coal.

All carry 170,000 tonnes or more, and this supply allows the Israel Electric Corporation to generate nearly a fifth of the grid power used to oppress Palestine. Currently coal costs $83/tonne , so Glencore gains net profits of just $13 for each sold, due to $70/tonne production costs. But each tonne burned creates 2.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions. So these ships fuel both Israel’s genocide and climate crisis.

Indeed, at a ‘Social Cost of Carbon‘ of $1500/tonne, burning a typical large load causes $663 million in climate damage . Since the genocide began, the 22 ships carrying an average of 100,000 tonnes of South African coal each, resulted in CO2 emissions responsible for nearly $6 billion in future damage. The ICJ recently ruled these costs should be compensated for, as climate debt liabilities,.

Meanwhile, at current prices, Glencore’s profits are only $2 million for each 170,000 tonne load. Of that its Black Economic Empowerment partner Motsepe gets 23% of that, just i$470,000 per large shipload.

The SA government still fails to impose a meaningful carbon tax against coal mining and combustion; it’s only $0.40/tonne. If local activists can increase the costs to these firms, such trivial benefits will not be lucrative enough to continue thistravesty.

The SA Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Coalition holds regular pickets, including last Monday, at Glencore’s Johannesburg office, the largest source of the firm’s capital. Its stock market listing here is s one third larger than its London primary listing.

Protesters also traveled from Durban to Richards Bay Coal Terminal on September 24. And other Palestine activists have demonstrated en masse outside the South African trade ministry’s offices in Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town on August 21; at the Glencore office on May 28 and on August 22, 2024; as well as at Motsepe’s office on April 5.

International embarrassment is an important factor. As the Palestine Youth Movement argued in June:

“In addition to supporting settlement and military infrastructure, this energy supply also powers Israel’s complex artificial intelligence systems used to surveil and track the activities of all Palestinians in Gaza… Cutting South African coal supplies would have a tangible impact on Israel’s ability to sustain its war on Gaza – a measure that aligns with South Africa’s duty to employ all available means to prevent genocide.”

‘Hague Shmague’

The Hague Group promoted by Mandela is an encouraging initiative, though needs an accountability system. The group, founded on January 31, has a Progressive International secretariat.Itspledge that day was to “prevent the docking of vessels at any port… where there is a clear risk of the vessel being used to carry military fuel and weaponry to Israel.”

And on July 16, an emergency Hague Group meeting in Bogota passed a resolution committing that the eight signatory states – co-chaired by SA and Colombia – must:

“Prevent the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel… Prevent the transit, docking, and servicing of vessels at any port…. in all cases where there is a clear risk of the vessel being used to carry arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel.” 

Hague Group co-leader Gustavo Petro first tried to stop Glencore and Alabama-based Drummond exporting coal from Colombia in mid-2024. But at the Bogota meeting in July, he explained how his own country’s ‘white’ state officials had so far sabotaged his efforts, so he decisively prohibited exports the following month. That makes South Africa by far the lead coal supplier to Israel today.

Considerable anti-genocide rhetoric emanates from Pretoria’s, Ramaphosa and Ministers Parks Tau (trade), Barbara Creecy (transport), Dion George (environment), Ronald Lamola (international relations), Kgosientsho Ramokgopa (energy), Gwede Mantashe (minerals), and Enoch Godongwana (finance). Notwithstanding,all ignore their duties to stop the coal exports. They probably mutter two ghastly words we first heard from Tel Aviv after the ICJ ruled on the plausibility of genocide on 24 January 2024: “Hague Shmague.” 

In SA’s Parliament on September 26 2024, Tau replied to a small party (Al Jama-ah) regarding “mounting calls from social justice activists to stop trading coal with Israel.” Defending coal supplies to the genocidaires, Tau insisted: “Sanctions applied by one member against another in the absence of multilateral sanctions by the United Nations, would violate the World Trade Organisation principle of non-discrimination and would open the country to legal challenge.” 

Tau’s specious argument ignores widespread violations of WTO anti-tariff provisions by many governments, especially the U.S. He refuses to regulate a dangerous export, a tool commonly used by other trade ministers. Dangerous it is: combustion of coal is the main cause of the climate crisis, as well as of local mines’ deadly local pollution and degradation of land, air and water.

As the world’s largest commodity trader, Switzerland-based Glencore offers no apologies or rationale for fueling Israeli genocide and apartheid. In May 2024, at Glencore’s Annual General Meeting in Switzerland, a shareholder asked whether the firm is “conducting human rights assessments on the use of the coal you’re exporting to Israel to ensure that you’re not held liable”?

Board Chairman Kalidas Madhavpeddi replied, “The company supplies to many countries around the world and it’s almost impossible to tell you the answer to your question.” The shareholder followed up, “So you don’t check how the coal is being used?” Madhavpeddi replied: “Coal is used in power generation, that’s simple.”

The two Johannesburg-born Glencore directors at the AGM – Nagle and Marcus – were notably silent during the questioning. Nagle was formerly in charge of Glencore’s coal operations. Marcus was also Deputy Finance Minister, chair of ABSA Bank and Governor of the SA Reserve Bank and having served Glencore since 2018, she is the firm’s highest-ranking non-executive director.

The ceasefire deal’s many downsides

It’s likely this pause in the genocide will be understood, like the one earlier this year, as a short-term ruse so that Trump could pretend he had a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize, which was announced on October 10 (even though he had missed the 31 January nomination deadline). There are many flaws in the dirty deal, according to David Hearst of Middle East Eye:

  • There is no guarantee they have stopped ethnic cleansing and genocide; under this agreement, Israeli forces are not leaving the strip, and Netanyahu is the one who decides how quickly and how much of Gaza his forces hand over to the proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF). Netanyahu is also free to decide how much aid and reconstruction materials to send in. There is no timetable for such a withdrawal.
  • There is every guarantee that this postwar plan will stifle at birth Gaza reemerging under a Palestinian leadership of any kind. Under this plan, there is no role for any Palestinian leadership in the rebuilding of Gaza. Gaza is definitively split from the Occupied West Bank by this agreement and all thoughts of joining the two have been jettisoned.
  • The Palestinian Authority (PA) fares no better than Hamas or other factions. Already disarmed, the PA has to go further. According to Netanyahu’s remarks at the joint press conference, the PA has to drop its cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court (and the International Court of Justice); it has to stop paying the families of slain fighters; change the school curriculum and tame the media. And only then Israel will see.
  • None of the eight leaders, prime ministers or foreign ministers of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan consulted the Palestinians before agreeing to this plan. Just as the Palestinians have no agency in the authority that is about to be imposed on them in Gaza, they have had no say in devising a postwar plan.

So any solidarity activist who relaxes now is not taking these factors seriously. And even if the genocide is paused, apartheid continues in the West Bank. Hence the ICJ ruling (in July 2024) that states must halt “aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (OPT) continues to be violated. In September 2024, the United Nations General Assembly voted (124 for, 14 against) for states to “prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation” in the OPT.

Could BDS help end the genocide and other Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) attacks? A similar vulnerability occurred within SA’s own apartheid system forty years ago, in September 1985: financial sanctions caused such a squeeze that President PW Botha declared a debt default, imposed exchange controls and shut the stock market. Business leaders’ furious response included an urgent visit to Zambia to meet exiled African National Congress leaders.

South African whites fearful of further meltdown accepted ‘one person, one vote’ democracy in 1994. Because anti-apartheid sanctions had split white business away from the racist government, it had the most powerful, external, non-violent impact on ending this crime against humanity. (And U.S.-based General Motors even paid reparations for earnings in apartheid SA, as should Glencore-Motsepe for profits from Israeli-bound coal.)

The merits of SA’s own BDS success against racial apartheid forty years ago, and Pretoria’s January 2024 ICJ case against genocide, can never be forgotten. But the importance of the period ahead, is never to forget nor forgive genocide and apartheid profiteering, here in our wretched coal fields, or anywhere else.