The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

So, you’re a member of a foreign extremist organisation?

Don’t despair, Germany has a cure


07/07/2025

Alexander Dobrindt wearing glasses and a blue suit, standing in front of a blurred background with the logos of CDU and SPD partially visible.

Welcome.

I hate to break it to you, but if you’re reading this brochure, you are now a member of a foreign extremist organisation. This diagnosis might come as quite a shock. You might not even think of yourself as “foreign” or “extremist”—few people do. However, at least one in five people experience some form of Foreign Extremist Syndrome over the course of their lives.

Rest assured that, with the right help, many people with foreign extremism go on to lead rich and fulfilling lives: playing badminton, collecting stamps, shopping at H&M, all the things normal people do. The point is: foreign extremism is no longer a death sentence. At least, not now, not yet.

Why me?

Perhaps you’re asking, “Why me?” Well, why not you? Foreign Extremism touches people from all walks of life. For instance, last month Germany’s domestic spy agency listed the activist group “Jewish Voice for Just Peace in the Middle East” (Jewish Voice) as a “foreign extremist” organisation.

In fact, almost anyone can succumb to this dangerous malady. Except that, despite having the most baroque, violent imaginations and willingness to fund, cheerlead and even carry out acts of mutilation and killing, the German media and political class, the police, the weapons manufacturers, and the military, seem somehow immune to “extremism”.

Weird.

Well, there was that one chap—kooky moustache, liked to yell and gesticulate with his hands. But that was a long time ago. Those kinds of extremists are very much dead or completely cured. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Acceptance

The good news is: you can be cured too.

The first stage of getting healthy is acceptance. Look in the mirror at that hideously extreme and foreign face of yours and whisper, “I am a foreign extremist”.

Then self-isolate so that your disease does not rub off on other people. It would be courteous to inform your neighbours, your employer, your bank, the immigration office, anyone who needs to take the proper precautions. And if you don’t, perhaps the Bild Zeitung will do it for you, or some lonely creep with a camera, you know, the kind of guy who lurks on the perimeter of demonstrations pointing his big lens this way and that—I’m sure he’s willing to spread the word.

And don’t forget—self care is important. Run a bath, light some candles and take care of you, because when word gets around about your little pestilence, no one will go near you.

Getting healthy

The next step is to learn what “healthy” means. Like whiteness, healthy is ubiquitous, yet transparent and hard to grasp. Healthy is the radical center against which every other state is defined. The way things are supposed to be. It is therefore the complete opposite of everything you are. That’s the key.

So take out a piece of paper and make a list of all the things you like to do, the kinds of opinions you’re inclined to have, the sorts of lowlives and degenerates you like to hang out with, and just do the opposite.

1) Be generous to the genocidaires

Let’s take the example of Jewish Voice. First of all, I’m reading a lot of really unhealthy things on their Instagram account about the genocide in Gaza. This might be surprising to someone like you, but it is very foreign and utterly extremist to be against genocide. In order to be a good normie, you need to be in favour of genocide. Or simply willing to ponder the mysterious orb of genocide and mutter, “It’s complicated.” At the very least, deny that a genocide is happening. Hundreds of thousands of people simply vanishing for no apparent reason. Just like that.

Weird.

2) Embrace apartheid

So you think that an apartheid regime is bad—that it is somehow uncool to give one group rights based upon ethnicity, while saddling another group with an inferior set of rights. Darling, check your temperature. That must be the fever talking.

Dividing people by ethnicity is perfectly healthy. Germany does it all the time: dangling Damocletian swords above naturalised citizens at home while cheering on an ethnonationalist state in the Middle East. Remember, Germany has a special psychosis, I mean special responsibility, when it comes to the Jewish people. Just last week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz thanked Israel for doing the West’s “dirty work”. Perhaps he meant dirty wars. Egal.

3) Don’t be foreign (and keep your mouth shut)

Let’s look at the name “Jewish Voice” for a few more clues about how to expel the extremist virus. First, the “Voice” part: the opposite of using your voice is to keep your mouth shut—it’s a very healthy thing to do, not least because it keeps you safe from inhaling even more germs than are already coursing through your system.

And what about the “Jewish” part? I guess the opposite is … don’t be Jewish? But hang on, both the domestic spy agency and the Interior Minister accused Jewish Voice of being antisemitic. Hmmm, so that means you have to be both not Jewish and anti-antisemitic at the same time. Wait, my head is spinning like a dreidel. How do we square this?

Of course! Not being Jewish while accusing Jews of antisemitism? Well, that’s just being German!

Illness as teacher

They say that illness is a teacher, and now we know that the only cure for foreign extremism is to be German. But of course, you will never be German enough. So, run along, be a good foreigner and keep shtum about the massacres.

Otherwise, we’re watching.

“That flag will remain on stage until the people of Palestine are free”

An interview with James McGovern of ‘The Murder Capital’


06/07/2025

The Murder Capital had their show at Gretchen in Berlin canceled because they refused to take down their Palestine flag.

You were set to play in Berlin right? What happened?

We pulled into the Berlin venue, sometime in the early afternoon. We saw in the tech specs that it said “no flags”. So we had a discussion in the band about how to approach that. 

And, you know, we just said we wanted to approach it basically, obviously calmly. Whatever conversation came up, we didn’t expect much to come of it, to be honest. We didn’t think that – like the Palestinian flag with the current state of affairs – it would be an issue to have a  small flag on the stage. I was not like a big flag or anything like that. So, we just discussed this and then at 2:00 pm, did a soundcheck. That was fine. 

Then before 5 p.m., the venue brought it up. At which point our tour manager relayed to the show that our position was – the flag has been on our stage in every single show we’ve played this year on this tour. And the conversations went back and forth for a while and were sort of moralistic and things like that. And we just sort of knew where we stood. We asked like – sort of I suppose hypothetically – not that I wanted to move the flag, but I wanted to know if we could replace it with a ‘Free Palestine’ banner. The show rep was told no, by the venue owners. So it felt like it was going beyond national flags at that point. So the venue canceled the show and wouldn’t let us play with the flag there. And at that point, the venue owner went out and spoke to the crowds. I don’t think they treated us very well. And then they went to speak to the fans and so did we. 

And what was their official reasoning? 

It was this “no national flags” thing. There’s a part of me that can empathize with where they’re coming from on some level. But not on every level of the issue. Like they struck me as people who do care about what’s going on in the world. 

And you know they sort of stress that they put on events for Palestinian people and Israeli people and different things and, you know, they’re sort of trying to create an environment that looks after everyone. But I think there I disagree with them on some level – that like, no flags should be allowed in. And people have pulled up internet images of national flags being in their concerts before. It’s obviously just like flags that are contentious that they’re trying to avoid. 

So they express it like “no Irish flag”, “no German flags”. Like there’s no reason why we need to fly the Irish flag or the German flag in there. They’re trying to create this kind of idealistic space or whatever that’s void of all this stuff. But while they’re doing that, I think they’re creating more tension in my opinion. Like saying that the Palestinian people are happy to come in without their flag, it just feels like another little bit of censorship going on. There’s obviously an over-correction, in Germany, to protect Jewish people at all costs and that’s because of World War Two and, it still doesn’t make it right, though. So there’s a willingness to sort of protect Israel at all costs in Germany in some circles. 

And you were set to play in Cologne right? And so what happened there?

So we pulled up in the tour bus. We couldn’t even get in to use the toilet or have a shower or anything. And then they didn’t even let the fans know. So obviously not everyone’s looking at band social media all day or whatever. And so a few hundred fans turned up to the doors at 7 p.m. and we explained to them what was going on. So we put on another acoustic show that evening in a park nearby and it was great. And our fans are great and we spoke with them for a while. A lot of them were repeating the same message. That is “We feel so ashamed, so ashamed of Germany, so ashamed of this reaction”. It’s just kind of this, this, this shame and guilt going around and around again, another generation or generation, you know, and it’s just sad.

Why is it important to you to have this flag up?

In light of what’s happening, and also as an Irish band I think having the flag there is obviously more than just a flag at this point – because Israel is trying to eradicate those people from the earth.

And the Palestinians are still not getting aid. And having the flag on the stage is one of the ways in which we can keep the conversation at the forefront. And that’s the sort of platform that we have. And it’s a very human reaction to an atrocity.

So for us, the flag being there is a very small cry of help amidst a sea of millions of cries of help for these people. And we say a few words before one of the songs every night and, and that’s it.

The show isn’t centered around this or whatever. I don’t think it’s a radical move in any way. It just feels like a very human, human reaction to the situation.

How has your fans’ response been to this whole situation?

There has been an inundation of support, and just recognition of, that being the right sort of thing to do in the situation. We didn’t want to disappoint fans or anything like that, but I think fans of the band and real fans who know us, know that we’re not just going to talk when it comes to stuff. I’m sure there’s plenty of madness in those comment sections of Instagram though. I’m not going to read them.

Have you gotten any negative reactions? 

You know, there’ll always be a few people saying things like, you don’t give a shit about your fans or you don’t “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. . .” None of them understand or know us in any way, and we care deeply about our fans and respect them. And, you know, more than anything, what we want to do is play fucking rock and roll and get out there and get on the stage and like, that’s what we do, you know? 

Are you worried that this is going to happen more in the future? Has this happened anywhere else other than Germany?

No. There’s never been even a whisper of this anywhere else other than in Germany. And we also played in Munich the night before Berlin with no problem. We were quietly wondering what would happen when we got to Germany. 

There’s this kind of growing censorship of pro-Palestinian, bands, voices, everything. A lot of Irish bands and groups and people are very openly pro-Palestine, and have a shared history there. As a nation who was colonized and oppressed we sort of think it’s a natural sort of thing to empathize with anyone else who’s being oppressed or colonized us. The ‘Black and Tans’ militias that were in Ireland, you know, pushing people out of their homes, shooting people in stadiums, treating Irish people like dogs, basically like subhuman. It’s like the Black and Tans were sent straight to Palestine from Ireland. 

So those connections are very. . .  there’s a parallel history there. If you treat people as subhuman for long enough – they  start to act like it, you know. And that’s arguably what happened at times in Ireland as well, with the IRA, with the sort of atrocities there.

It’s hard to imagine 3 million people dying on such a small island. And it’s not that long ago, you know, so there’s just a very short history there. I know people who – like friends of mine who’ve been – like, vocal in supporting this cause for well over a decade. And in my memory. I’m still young. So, it’s been a talking point in Ireland for a long time. So I think it’s obviously all just coming to a head now, becoming a global story. But Irish people have been supporting the Palestinian people for a long time for this, October 7th situation.

If other venues say take the Palestine flag down, are you going to remove it? 

What I’ve said since then on stage is true. That flag will remain on stage until the people of Palestine are free.

Tracking the machinery of silencing

Inside the ELSC’s Index of Repression. Part 2


05/07/2025

In the first part of this conversation, we explored how state and institutional repression of Palestine solidarity in Germany operates. From sudden protest bans to the shifting legal justifications used to criminalise speech and silence dissent.

In part two, we go deeper into the machinery behind these tactics. Layla Katterman and Sophia Hoffinger of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) discuss the logic of lawfare, how repression spreads across borders, and what role the Index of Repression can play in strengthening resistance, not just in Germany, but across Europe. They also share ways people can support the work of documenting and confronting this growing wave of authoritarianism.


The Index refers to lawfare as a key tactic in the repression of Palestine solidarity. Can you explain what lawfare means in this context, and how lawfare groups or individuals operate in Germany and beyond?

Layla: Yes, of course. Lawfare refers to the use of legal forums for political purposes. It’s more about inflicting damage on a political opponent than actually winning a legal argument or presenting facts based on evidence.

Specifically, in the Index and in our work, we use the term lawfare to describe attacks that aim to silence and shut down the work of civil society organisations that support Palestinian rights, including humanitarian projects that provide support to people in Gaza. Lawfare mainly affects civil society organisations because they are registered legal entities, so they become the target.

Lawfare doesn’t always rely on clear legal grounds. Sometimes vague or non-binding policies are used in ways that give them legal weight. A good example is the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It’s not legally binding, but courts and institutions often treat it as if it were, using it to justify restrictions on Palestine advocacy. 

In Britain, there is a very well-known group called UK Lawyers for Israel, and this is basically their entire purpose. That is what they do. In Germany, it’s a bit different. A lot of the cases are brought forward by individuals who are using legal forums for political purposes. So while there is no one group here that does this in a concentrated way like in the UK, the state itself takes on that role.

For example, if someone posts “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” on social media and then receives a letter from the police, that means someone reported them. The police don’t have eyes on everyone, so it’s individuals or groups using lawfare tactics to report others. But here in Germany, you don’t need lawyers making up these arguments, because the state already uses those political points in its own legal interpretations.


Sophia: This also shows up in demonstrations, for example when police implement ad hoc bans. One moment the Keffiyeh is allowed, and then suddenly it’s banned. Or they ban a flag or a slogan. Someone gets taken away for saying something like Have we learned nothing from the Holocaust.” It’s not always individual police officers making it up. Often it comes from the public prosecutor’s office. Like Layla said, it is a form of state-led lawfare.

There are also lobby groups inside Parliament. One example is the Tikvah Institute, which is partly led by the current president of the German-Israeli Society, Volker Beck, and is officially registered in the Bundestag’s lobby group register.

They describe themselves as a research institute at the intersection of research and practice with the aim of ‘fighting antisemitism.’ One of the ways in which they pursue this goal is by  trying to develop legal strategies to criminalise what they call “Israel-related antisemitism”, which in practice often means Palestine advocacy.

Last year, for example, they organised a conference to discuss how Germany’s Criminal Code could be used and expanded to criminalise expressions of Palestine solidarity more effectively; including the slogan “From the river to the sea” and expressions that are aimed at denying Israel’s right to exist. Among the participants were members of civil society and lawyers, but also representatives of political parties, the Ministry of Interior, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Ministry of Justice. 

It’s interesting to see the kinds of proposals they make, like how to use Germany’s ‘reason of state’ to justify new legal restrictions, and what kind of audiences they have access to. In these spaces we can observe how new legal strategies and consensus are manufactured to criminalise Palestine advocacy. 

And what about the incidents where the state prosecutor suddenly bans a slogan on the day of a protest and people are arrested out of nowhere because of it. Do those arrests actually hold up in court?

Layla: I’d say it really depends on the judge. Especially whether they get all their sources from Wikipedia and BILD, or actually look into the case. 

But we do win most of these cases. They usually don’t have a solid legal basis but the bigger issue is that the prosecution now frames almost everything as a matter of public safety. And once something is treated as a security threat, everything else becomes secondary.

So for example, banning a language like Arabic at a protest, which has happened at several demonstrations, clearly has no legal ground. But it gets justified by saying that the police can’t tell if forbidden slogans are being chanted in Arabic because they don’t speak the language. So they ban it entirely and constitutional concerns fall by the wayside.

We’re seeing this public safety argument used more and more and it’s difficult to challenge.

Another good example is the Nakba demonstration ban. At first, the court overruled the restriction that said the protest had to be static. They said you can’t restrict a demonstration just because of fears that some individuals might commit offences. But then the police appealed, using new security arguments. They said they needed the protest to be static because they wouldn’t be able to reach or detain people otherwise. 

If we had more time, we probably could have appealed again and won. But that’s also the problem. These security arguments often come at the last minute, so there isn’t enough time to legally challenge them before the event takes place.


Sophia: You can really see that in our database. Especially after October 7, we saw a lot of protests that were first restricted, then the restrictions were overturned, and then the protests were banned again. Sometimes just five minutes after they started.

That puts everyone who shows up into a legal grey zone because suddenly they’re seen as breaking some new rule that was imposed on the spot. We’ve documented a lot of those kinds of incidents in the Index.

How do you see the role of the Index? Is it in itself a tool of resistance?

Sophia: I think the Index is about showing the different ways people continue to resist in Germany, but also elsewhere. It highlights the people who continue to stand with Palestinians and those resisting. It traces the dissenters and it exposes the ones who try to criminalise dissent in Germany again and again. So in that way, yes, it plays a role but I wouldn’t say it’s resistance in itself. I’d describe it more as a tool for accountability. 

Some people are starting to backtrack on what ‘reason of state’ means or doesn’t mean and maybe some of them are now quietly deleting their tweets from the last two years. But we have a record of how they contributed to repression and that’s part of what the Index is also for. It’s long term memory. 

At the same time, it also makes space to highlight those who haven’t been intimidated, who are still speaking up and making use of their right to dissent.

How do you see the Index contributing to transnational resistance and solidarity efforts across Europe and beyond?

Layla: I think one of the main ways the Index contributes to the resistance is by countering denial and invisibility. Often, what repression tries to do is make solidarity disappear. So part of the reason we made this database was to show that the cases we work on are not isolated. It’s structural and it’s transnational.

Next, we’re launching the same kind of database with UK data, then the Netherlands, and hopefully also expanding to Austria, Italy, and other countries across Europe. Because while the methods may look different or operate at different scales, they’re being used everywhere and these countries learn from each other. For example, the slogan “From the river to the sea” – once Germany banned it, we saw it start being discussed for bans in other places too.

What we’re tracking isn’t just repression of Palestine solidarity, it’s also a kind of panic. European governments aren’t used to such open dissent from their own official line on the genocide in Gaza — a line that denies the genocide and reflects their complicity in it. So we’re also seeing states learn from one another on how to control populations when their narratives no longer convince their citizens. 

So yes, we’re going to keep expanding the Index by adding incidents to the countries we’ve already published and build it out to include others. We want to expose how accusations of antisemitism, and support for terrorism, are being misused. We want to show how law itself is being politicised through lawfare to suppress dissent.

Sophia: And I think, just to add, the timeline we’re building across Europe also reflects this. We see repression intensify when people stand in solidarity, not only with Palestinians facing repression, but with Palestinians who are resisting that repression. These things aren’t happening in isolation. They don’t stop at the German border, or the borders of Europe. They’re directly connected to what’s happening in Palestine.

How do you imagine the Index functioning in five years’ time? What kind of role do you want it to play?

Layla: What we hope is that it becomes much more than just a list of cases. We want to add more functionalities, not just more countries, but more ways for people to use it. 

We want it to continue to be a living database. One that also highlights the work of other organisations, especially activists and grassroots groups who have done so much research and important work which often goes unnoticed.

We also want it to become a space where people can find the resources they need. To counter repression, document it while under pressure, and to actually analyse and understand what repression looks like in countries that call themselves democratic. Because often, when rights are violated in Europe, it doesn’t look like violence in the usual sense. It’s not always arrests or killings. It’s more subtle and it gets dismissed as isolated.

When people see repression happening in the Global South, they’re often quicker to name it for what it is. Here, there is doubt. So what we want to do is challenge that by showing patterns, adding analysis, expanding the database, and working more closely with other groups to build a shared infrastructure. Instead of everyone reinventing the wheel, we can join forces and build a European network that pushes back against repression wherever it’s happening and whoever it’s targeting.

Sophia: Yes, and while the Index focuses on repression of Palestine solidarity, we also hope it becomes a learning tool for other movements. Because the tactics used against this movement, while specific, are not unique. Repression doesn’t just affect one group or one cause. Other movements have been targeted in the past and current ones will be targeted in the future, so we want this to be part of a broader conversation. A tool for cross-movement learning.


There’s a recurring pattern of isolation and denial, where each act of repression is treated as an isolated incident. We saw this after the racist attack in Hanau, which prompted activists to popularise the slogan: “Hanau was no isolated case.” In response, the state framed the attack as the result of a few bad apples or individual failures to act on warning signs. That’s why exposing the systemic nature of repression, supported by long-term, in-depth research, is so important. It helps break through the pattern of doubt and enables other movements to recognize how these tactics operate across different contexts.

And finally, can people in Germany or across Europe support the work you’re doing?

Layla: Absolutely. There are many ways. One of the most important is simply reporting incidents to us. The more cases we receive, the stronger our research becomes and that helps us challenge repression, whether in court, through advocacy, or by building public pressure.


Also, the database is still a starting point. There’s so much more research that could be done. For example, someone might want to take our data and do a deep dive into how repression works in academia. The database can give them the quantitative base, and they could take it further with qualitative research. 

We really don’t claim to hold all the knowledge, and we’re very open to collaborations with others who want to explore the depth and context of these incidents more fully.

Sophia: None of this would be possible without the people who’ve reported to us and that takes courage. These are often very frightening, very painful experiences, so we rely on people continuing to speak up, to share what they’ve gone through, and to keep going out into the streets without being intimidated.


That doesn’t just help us, it’s central to everything we do, so we’d love to connect with more researchers, organisations, and movements who are doing similar work. There’s a lot of potential to develop this further, in ways we might not even be able to imagine yet.


Layla: Also, volunteers, we’re always looking for more support with monitoring. Whatever help people can give, we really welcome it. The database is just the tip of the iceberg and the majority of repression isn’t reported because most people don’t speak out. So the more support we have, the better we can uncover what’s happening, especially beyond Berlin. Also, if a lawyer reads the article, it would be great if they reach out too.

Our team is based in Berlin, and naturally our network is strongest there, but we want to expand much more across Germany and across Europe. Every bit of information helps make our work stronger. It helps us challenge repression and make it visible, so that people don’t just accept it as normal.

Academic hyperzionism

A radical critique of Ingo Elbe’s book “Antisemitism and Postcolonial Theory”

Vintage 1931 map of Palestine which has been subdivided by squares. Parts of it are demarcated as "international body"

This critique takes a radical postcolonial perspective, directly opposing the arguments made in the author’s book. Rather than providing a detailed analysis of the book’s content, this commentary aims to expose the underlying assumptions, distortions, and omissions that serve as key narrative strategies. We caution that readers seeking an in-depth examination of the book may not find this critique particularly useful; instead, it comments on the text as part of a broader attack on post-colonial scholars, showing that what is stated in those pages provides more information about the author and the intellectual climate in Germany than what is intended to be said about “others.”

Ingo Elbe’s Antisemitismus und postkoloniale Theorie was published in 2024, in the context of increasing global criticism of Israel’s policies and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. In Elbes’ 400-page book, he misrepresents reality by distorting facts and omitting critical aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This framing functions as an ideological defense, portraying postcolonial studies (PCS) as inherently anti-Semitic while deliberately overlooking Israel’s colonial occupation of Palestine.

This narrative is a deliberate distortion based on a selective omission, portraying the conflict in the Middle East as primarily racial and religious. Yet, this intentional oversight seems to be a key tactic, a framing that obscures the real cause of the struggle, which is territorial and therefore settler-colonial. In this frame, the author ignores that Palestinians, as occupied people, have a right to resist their colonial occupation, a stance even supported by a United Nations resolution (1973). Within the flawed logic that conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, the attacks on postcolonial scholars appear justified, and undermining the reality of colonial occupation paves the way for the series of fallacious arguments that the book advances. Now, let us examine some of the book’s main points.

I. There is no colonialism

By selectively choosing facts, images, and arguments from various contexts and debates among postcolonial theorists—from Latin America to the U.S. to Asia and Africa—the author attempts to lend credibility to his central accusation. However, this strategy is both deliberate and deeply flawed. It is concerning to see the repeated use of a familiar rhetorical pattern, where any critique of Israel is swiftly dismissed as antisemitic. This tactic, often employed by those who defend Israel unconditionally, deflects legitimate criticism by either ignoring it or misrepresenting it as an attack motivated by deep “hate against Jews.”

Elbe presents his book as an intellectual contribution, but its focus on labeling postcolonial scholars and activists who critique Israel’s colonial practices as “antisemites” makes it resemble a defamation campaign. Although Elbe invokes the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism to justify his criticism, acknowledging but not accepting the much more nuanced definition provided by the Jerusalem declaration as the basis for defining “antisemitism.” So, conflating such criticism with anti-Jewish hatred, he sets the groundwork for his fallacious argument.

As Moshe Zuckermann argues in Antisemit!: Ein Vorwurf als Herrschaftsinstrument, the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is not only intellectually dishonest but also misrepresents the perspectives of Jewish voices critical of Israel. Figures like Zuckermann, Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, and Noam Chomsky have long emphasized that criticism of Israel’s policies is not the same as antisemitism, and all of them have been labelled as “Antisemitic” or “self-hating jews.”

Following the same narrative, widely used in Europe and Germany to defend and justify Israel’s actions, lies at the core of Elbe’s argumentative structure. This can be represented as a syllogism of a logical chain of denialism of Israel’s colonial nature:

  • If Israel is not a colonial state, then it has not committed acts of apartheid or ethnic cleansing.
  • Therefore, any accusation of genocide against Israel can be dismissed as anti-Semitic.

This argument unravels when confronted with overwhelming evidence of Israel’s settler-colonial history, as documented by historians like Ilan Pappe, Rashid Khalidi, and many others. Pappe’s work reveals the systematic expulsion and erasure of Palestinians, directly contradicting Elbe’s claim that such accusations are merely continuations of “anti-Jewish traditions.” It seems that Germans, who have the opportunity to redefine history, prefer to distance themselves from their historical antisemitism and project it onto critics of Israel, the left, and Arab communities, as if there had never been antisemitism in Germany. As the author Esra Özyürek recently said in an interview:

“This accusation goes back to the idea that you are allowed into the social contract as long as you prove that you have learned lessons from the Nazi regime. How do you prove it? By showing you are philosemitic, which in the German context means claiming allegiance to Israel. By definition, those who don’t do that don’t deserve to be part of Germany. The idea that Muslims have different cultural ideas, which makes them not fit into German culture, has been around for a long time. Now the focus is on antisemitism. There is this feeling among the Right and also the Left, settled around the idea that Muslims do not deserve to be here because they are anti-Semitic.”

For many of these so-called anti-anti-semites, to protest against a genocide wouls make you an antisemite. Even the claim “a genocide is happening” is called antisemitic propaganda. Elbe’s denial of Israel’s genocide reaches its extreme, extending accusations of antisemitism even to allegations brought forth by South Africa in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The author writes, “The question arises whether the genocide accusation is not a continuation of the ritual murder and blood lie from the anti-Jewish tradition” (p. 25-26). Despite the “cautious,” question-like tone, the message of this sentence is clear: South Africa is commiting an antisemitic act by accusing Israel of genocide. This rhetorical tactic seeks to discredit criticism of Israel’s actions by framing them in a distorted historical narrative. In this strategy, denial and accusation work in tandem. 

II. Against academic “mainstream”

Elbe positions himself as a defender of academia, claiming to challenge a “mainstream” supposedly dominated by PCS. However, the notion that he is battling an “academic hegemony” is far from reality in Germany and elsewhere, where PCS has been under relentless attack. As Allana Lentin notes in Why Race Still Matters, the narrative that PCS has taken over academia is often used by right-wing intellectuals to undermine critiques of Western imperialism. Other titles in the tradition of “clashing of civilizations“ discuss the distrust of the West, describing it as “war against the West” or even as hatred towards the West. Moreover, Elbe’s self-victimization can be read as part of a larger ideological strategy, aligning his work with the defense of the Western historical legacy.

In Germany, Elbe’s claims of resisting academic orthodoxy ring especially hollow in view that pro-Palestinian voices are systematically silenced, and cast out of the academic circles, as the cases of Gassan Hage and Nancy Fraser make clear. Moreover, Elbe’s ideas align with the dominant political narrative that dismisses any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, while the tactic of self-victimization is less about defending academic integrity and more about reinforcing the power structures that postcolonial scholars aim to deconstruct. A clear example of how Elbe’s argument is received in Germany is its citation by far-right AFD politicians, who use his work to attack postcolonial theory and dispute Germany’s developmental programs, as well as the view of Israel as a colonial power. It is as if Germany is already seeing the first signs of a historical revisionism that will emerge in the coming years.

III. Against a “Manichean” worldview

Elbe accuses postcolonial scholars of promoting a Manichean worldview. While it is true that some scholars may overemphasize the crimes of European colonialism, his critique overlooks the fundamental purpose of postcolonial studies, which is to address both historical and ongoing injustices. As Pankaj Mishra argues, the legacy of colonialism continues to shape global power dynamics, reflected today in the unconditional support of Israel by this same “West,“ which makes PCS´s intellectual and political contributions crucial in challenging and exposing these enduring legacies.

Ironically, Elbe engages in a form of reverse Manicheanism, selectively attacking postcolonial scholars while ignoring critiques from Jewish intellectuals. Figures such as Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, and Norman Finkelstein have long critiqued Israel’s policies from a leftist, anti-Zionist perspective. Yet, Elbe’s oversimplification of “Jewishness” and how jews have to behave regarding Israel demonstrates his refusal to engage with the diversity of thought within the leftist tradition in general and PCS in particular. It highlights his ideological alignment with those who seek to protect Israel’s status as a Western ally and as an imperial protectorate.

IV. Hyperzionism

Elbe’s book reflects a significant fear among German “intellectuals” regarding the need to confront the legacy of their own hypocrisy and historical violence. As Rob Nixon discusses in Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, Western nations have long concealed the structural violence of their imperial and colonial pasts. Today, that legacy is starkly visible in the context of Gaza, the bombing campaign of Lebanon, and the recent war with Iran.

The recent statements by the new German chancellor, including “Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us,” are a perfect example of this imperialist alliance based on the continuous dehumanisation of the other, be they Palestinian, Yemeni, Iranian, or left-wing dissidents. Narratives like Elbe’s contribute to a broader ideological trend aimed at protecting Western interests, using intellectual discourse to maintain the neo-colonial and U.S. imperialist status quo.

Unsurprisingly, such views are prevalent within German academia, aiming to shape perspective of new generations of Germans in defense of the Western imperial legacy, warning against the “internal” and “external” threats, whether they be “hordes of immigrants” (from Arab countries seeking to enter Europe after their homelands have been destroyed), or the external threat from Russia. Apparently, Israel plays a leading role in this Western imperialist alliance against its “threats,” that the most warmongering German politicians and academics are unwilling to let it fall, showing a support that, due to its obvious hypocrisy and double standards, borders on the irrational and even fanatical.

This German hyper-Zionism, as Hans Kundnani describes it, even permeates leftist circles and the German Green Party. It is a strange nationalist tendency to perceive Israel as an improved version of the German self, a gross historical misrepresentation, particularly regarding the so-called Anti-Deutsch elements. For any outsider, it’s not easy to understand this strange kind of Freudian projection. 

Final words

Ultimately, Antisemitismus und postkoloniale Theorie is not to be taken seriously as an “academic contribution”; instead, it needs to be seen as a piece of ideological propaganda designed to defend Israel’s colonial policies and maintain the Western narrative of self-glorification while “the only democracy in the Middle East“ continues in genociding Palestinians and bombing their neighboring nations. As the world grapples with the realities of colonialism and the ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza, scholars like Elbe will find themselves increasingly isolated as their efforts to shield Israel and its ongoing crimes against humanity crumble under the weight of historical evidence and moral clarity. However, let’s be clear that this mixture of hyper-Zionism, contempt for historical facts, and moral panic, as Illan Pappe calls it, seems only possible in places like Germany.

Red Flag: Watermelons at the Fusion Festival

In his weekly column, Nathaniel Flakin examines Berlin’s favorite radical left festival and Palestinian solidarity


04/07/2025

Last weekend, the world’s media focused on Glastonbury. The Irish hip-hop group Kneecap was cut from the live broadcast due to their solidarity with Palestine — and the English punk band Bob Vylan electrified tens of thousands with chants of “Death, death to the IDF!” Keir Starmer called the chant “appalling” — a harsher condemnation than he has managed for 20 months of genocide in Gaza.

With everyone else watching Somerset, Berlin leftists kept their eyes on Lärz, a small town two hours north of Berlin. At a former Soviet air base, 70,000 people were trying to create “vacation communism” at the Fusion Festival. Both the tagesschau and the police reported nonchalantly that there were “no disturbances” — quite a contrast to the rote denunciations of “Israel hatred” at cultural events.

In Lärz, there were indeed watermelons, “Free Palestine” signs, and artists speaking out against genocide — but reporters simply didn’t see that, as they’re not allowed on the grounds. On Sunday, up to 150 people joined a pro-Palestine demonstration through Fusion.

A pro-Israel group calling itself “Fusionistas Against Antisemitism and Antizionism” brought together around 100 people and complained that their stall was banned. They refer to supposed “antisemitic incidents” at last year’s festival, but they are using the same distorted statistics as the German government — every time a non-Jewish supporter of Israel faces criticism for advocating war crimes, they declare themselves to be a “victim of antisemitism” — even when they’re attacking left-wing Jews

It seems rather absurd to present support for an apartheid state — the exact same position as CDU, AfD, Axel Springer, etc. — as part of a “pluralistic” and “non-hierarchical” left. Isn’t Zionism quite hierarchical when it comes to who can live in Palestine? But then the Antideutsche were always absurd.

Not a Bubble

At Fusion, as everywhere else, Zionists are losing ground as the whole world watches a genocide unfold live on their phones. I have written about Fusion again and again and again, and after a multi-year break (for… you know… reasons), I was able to return for nine hours on Sunday, and I brought my own “Fusion Fights Apartheid” shirt. The very first Fusion worker I met, while getting on the bus in Berlin, hugged me.

Fusion’s radical left politics are not overt — it’s more like a place for leftists to zone out and make some money. It’s basically a Soliparty at the neighborhood squat, but at a bafflingly enormous scale. And for the record: I have no problem with that! Leftists get stressed, and it’s ok for us to want to shut off our brains for a few days — even better if it’s with other leftists and for a good cause.

Yet as much as Fusion feels removed from the outside world — people waiting in line at the entrance will say “I’ll see you on the other side” — it is not actually a bubble. Its politics reflect those of the Berlin Left. At the moment, up to 80% of people in Germany reject weapons shipments for Israel, and even Die Linke (the Left Party), which historically defended Zionism, can now be seen at pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Muddled Statements

Last year, Fusion tried to strike a balance between the censorious demands of Germany’s “reason of state” and the left-wing views of their attendees, particularly the international ones. The organizers, Kulturkosmos, put out a statement demanding recognition of “Israel’s right to exist.” But as many people pointed out, leftists do not defend any state’s “right to exist,” and certainly not a settler-colonial state founded on the basis of ethnic cleansing. 

After lots of criticism and calls for a boycott, the Zentralkommittee published a follow-up acknowledging they had “written from our German perspective,” and should be clear about Israeli apartheid and genocide. The text was muddled, but it pointed in the right direction.

There was a subsequent call to double down on the boycott, but I think this was a mistake. While I understand everyone who doesn’t want to support events that are not 100% clear on Palestine, I think we should fight for all of our spaces. If Antideutsche are crying about being excluded, then we shouldn’t be simultaneously excluding ourselves.

There are many things to criticize about Fusion — it wouldn’t be a left-wing festival if we weren’t constantly arguing about it. It is indeed too white, too hetero, too German, and above all too cautious in its politics. It’s not a good look that Glastonbury, a commercial festival with liberal politics, had more to say than Fusion, for and by radical leftists. Yet people are learning and Fusion is changing — as evidenced by the many watermelons in Lärz.

Red Flag is a weekly column on Berlin politics that Nathaniel Flakin has been writing since 2020. After moving through different homes, it now appears at The Left Berlin.