The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Europe is preparing for war

Why anti-militarist ideals are more relevant than ever

Gabriel Helfenstein
04/10/2025

A crowd of soldiers stand in formation. A German flag flies overhead.

Fortress Europe is gearing up

In March, a bizarre video of Hadja Lahbib, the EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management went viral. In it, she shares the contents of her bag—filled with items needed to survive a crisis such as a lighter, a swiss army knife and canned food. The tone of the clip is whimsical, more like a Tik-Tok unboxing video than a warning about a future conflict.

In a similar, albeit slightly less cringey way, Sweden has distributed a brochure to help its citizens prepare for war and other emergencies. Finland and Norway have also issued crisis preparedness guides for their populations.

But it’s not just booklets and fun little comedy skits.

On July 18, 2025, the French Ministry of Health sent a letter to regional health agencies instructing hospitals to prepare for a potential major conflict by March 2026. In parallel, France will revamp the program of its “Defence and Citizenship Day” to include laser-tag exercises and training for military operations using virtual reality.

Poland has introduced mandatory firearms training for schoolchildren as young as 14, while Lithuania and Estonia are adding new programs that aim to teach children how to build and operate drones.

This is in line with the European Union’s initiative to establish a “drone wall” at its eastern borders.

An initiative proposed by Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the EU Commission, aims to mobilize up to €800 billion to strengthen Europe’s defence infrastructure. Interestingly, this initiative was called ReArm Europe before being rebranded as the less martial-sounding Readiness 2030.

Germany wants to be the strongest

In Germany as well, preparations are en marche. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz plans to make the Bundeswehr the “strongest conventional army in Europe.” In 2024, Germany’s military expenditure rose by 28 per cent to €77.6 billion, making it the world’s fourth-largest military spender. Military spending is planned to reach at least €152 billion by 2029.

Germany’s government has drafted a new military service law that should be implemented in 2026. Conscription will initially be voluntary. Crucially, however, it could become mandatory if needed: if too few people volunteer in a time of crisis, compulsory service could be reactivated—with simple parliamentary approval.

In recent months, high-ranking Bundeswehr officers have been visiting mayors and district administrators across Germany. Municipalities are being asked to prepare for the possibility of war by identifying key infrastructure such as bridges or emergency wells and planning for sabotage and attacks. Preparations also include restoring civil-protection facilities and bunkers as well as establishing evacuation plans. Some municipalities have already created secret committees to approve emergency administrative measures—though members of these committees report that they often lack the expertise required for the decisions they may be called upon to make.

Recently, a large-scale military exercise called “Red Storm Bravo” was held in Hamburg. The scenario simulated a Russian attack on the Baltic states, with NATO troops being transported via Hamburg’s port and infrastructure. The Bundeswehr also used mock demonstrators to train for the suppression of civilian protests against militarization.

All this takes place against the background of the so-called “Operation Deutschland” (OPLAN DEU). This Bundeswehr plan envisions Germany as a logistical hub for NATO operations in Europe and along its borders. In practice, this means facilitating the transport of NATO soldiers and military resources to Europe’s eastern borders, as well as the repatriation of troops and the wounded. Saxony and Thuringia, especially, will play a large role in this new war-ready Germany.

Climate activists are already warning that these war preparations could be exploited as an argument to push through unnecessary infrastructure projects, such as the A20, a highly controversial new highway in northern Germany.

The mood is setting in

As Victor Klemperer’s writings have shown, the Nazis didn’t just use violence and coercion to affirm their grip on power; they also reshaped everyday language to control thought.

“Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all.”

Victor Klemperer, Language of the Third Reich

In Germany a new word seems to be on every lips: “Kriegstüchtigkeit”—which can be roughly translated to “war-readiness.”

As always, this is more than just a word – its repeated use by politicians and the media is a form of propagandist poison. War is not just a single event to prepare for, it is an ongoing situation that requires the cooperation of a whole society. For war to happen, people must be ready to fight, while others must cheer for the soldiers—or at the very least look away. It requires a profound change in culture. This is especially true in Germany, where the post WW2 mindset has been characterized by a deep mistrust of militarism.

Here’s another word that German politicians and media like to throw around: “Zeitenwende.” This “change of time”—from anti-miltiarism to militarism—is something the state cannot do alone. It first needs to convince its citizens that preparation for war is necessary; that anything else would be foolish.

Even if only 20% of Germans say they would be ready to fight for their country, the idea that war is coming has already been normalized. Forty-one percent fear the outbreak of a third world war. Not everyone may be on board yet, but the subject is firmly on people’s minds—and repeated use of keywords like “Kriegstüchtigkeit” is often enough to make a partisan idea feel like a hard reality to be addressed.

Anti-militarism: now more than ever

In a time of perceived permacrisis, with a war-hardened Russia at our doorsteps, the rearmament of Europe might seem like a necessary step. But is it really the only option?

Anti-militarism has always had something of a bad reputation. It is seen as a naïve position to which leftists retreat out of tradition, not facing the realities of the world. Yet it is exactly when states threaten war, that anti-militarism is most relevant.

Of course, it’s easier to advocate for anti-militarism sitting at a desk in Berlin than out of Kiev, Riga, or Warsaw. But arguing that we need more weapons to protect ourselves against war is like arguing that the population of the US needs more guns to defend itself against school shooters. Capitalism and nation states have failed to build the world of peace and diplomacy we were promised. We should not believe that they will fix the mess they created by arming themselves once again.

Anti-militarism is not a single ideology, but a complex gradient of ideas. Anti-militarism doesn’t mean pacifism (which is itself a complex set of ideas). It doesn’t mean lying down and playing dead. It doesn’t necessarily mean non-violence at all costs, a position that has been criticised as a privilege of the white middle class. Some anti-militarists do support specific forms of violence—such as violent protest against state infrastructure or revolution against oppression.

Now more than ever, it’s important to remind ourselves that anti-militarism is a valid, effective and powerful position. Here’s a few key points that might help us remember why:

1 – War doesn’t work

Wars almost never end with a decisive victory—they drag along, destroying whole countries and the lives of countless people, leaving a trail of destruction and trauma that reverberates for generations, often without achieving their declared objectives.

A 2011 study surveyed 323 cases of violent and non-violent resistances and found that nonviolent resistance succeeds twice more often than violent resistance.

Additionally, the assumption that once war breaks out, diplomacy is no longer effective, is wrong. Analysis of wars in recent decades shows that only two out of ten interstate wars end in victory and defeat. Three out of ten peter out or simmer along without a clear outcome.

Meanwhile, 1 out of every 2 wars is ended through negotiations.

2 – War corrupts societies

Preparing for war always requires a deep transformation of society. It is not just the production of weapons, but also the production of a war mindset—the othering of an imagined enemy—and the acceleration of hierarchical state-building. States at war are more likely to infringe on human rights by implementing authoritarian policies justified by a state of emergency.

Every cent spent for war is a cent not spent on public health, education, or culture. Instead, it inflates the power of the military-industrial complex. As noted by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, a researcher on pacifism and nonviolence: “war economies become entrenched, generating their own self-reinforcing dynamics through well-oiled lobbying operations, revolving doors between the defence industry and policy-makers, funded collaborations with research institutes and universities, an appetite for cultural productions (such as films and series) shaped and censored by the defence establishment, and so on.”

According to Özlem Demirel, a representative of Die Linke at the European Parliament : “Under the guise of budgetary efficiency, we are currently witnessing an escalation of militarism. Each new joint structure serves as a pretext for additional investment, creating a spiral of expenditure that benefits only the military-industrial consortia. The supposed promised savings will turn out to be enormous costs for European taxpayers in the form of social cuts.”

3 – War leads to more war

More investment in military capabilities, even with the goal of “deterrence” poses serious risks. Chief among them are the dangers of a perpetual arms race and of escalation or miscalculation. This is especially worrying in the context of a potential war between nuclear powers, where a single miscalculation could lead to a world-ending conflict.

Moreover, the weapons built in Europe will not stay in Europe. Germany is the world’s fifth-largest arms exporter. German weapons, produced by the same companies that armed the Nazis, are found in many conflict zones around the globe, from Palestine to Yemen.

More weapons will always make the world a more dangerous place.

4 – War is avoidable

It is wrong to assume that individuals cannot influence foreign or peace policy. Peace policy can be shaped by public opinion, pressure groups, and social movements. This is especially true in Germany where the culture of anti-militarism has been strong since WW2.

An anti-militarism movement here doesn’t have to deconstruct an entrenched militarist mindset; it merely has to oppose the establishment of one and reaffirm to Germans why militarism is the wrong path.

Of course, there’s an argument to be made that what German society has long believed about itself is little more than smoke and mirrors. After all, this is the country that loudly vowed “never again” after the Holocaust, yet remains a staunch ally of Israel’s genocidal government. Still, compared to a country like France, Germany’s military since WWII has been weaker, less involved in military operations abroad, doesn’t possess nuclear weapons and, most importantly, is less embedded in the German national identity. Here, more than in France, there remains a greater potential for resistance: the chance to say no before it is too late.

What to do?

If you want a good place to start, you can join this protest.

You can also support the Rheinmetall Entwaffnen initiative. For more upcoming protests, this online map lists places of arms production in Germany as well as planned protests against militarisation.

Divided solidarity: The two Pro-Gaza marches in Berlin and the question of unity

Berlin’s split Gaza protests reveal tensions between mass mobilisation and autonomous radical organising

Rafael Sergi
03/10/2025

Last Saturday in Berlin, more than 100,000 people marched against the genocide in Gaza. The number, impressive and necessary, did not produce unity. Two parallel demonstrations took place in the city: Together for Gaza / All Eyes on Gaza, organised by members of the Palestinian community in Berlin, cultural figures, NGOs, and the German party Die Linke; and a self-organised rally by grassroots movements, including PA Allies and the Alliance of Internationalist Feminists, under the motto United for Liberation, Fight Normalization, which focused on radicalism and independence. This was not a minor organizational detail: the split reflects a political fracture running through the movement. The question is blunt: who benefits from this division?

Two demos, two logics

Together for Gaza set off from Neptunenbrunnen (Alexanderplatz) and culminated in the event All Eyes on Gaza at the Siegessäule. It was convened by members of Berlin’s Palestinian community alongside public figures such as Deborah Feldman and Michael Barenboim, and endorsed by Die Linke. The stage hosted speeches and musical performances, co-hosted by Palästinensische Gemeinde Deutschland, Eye4Palestine, Amnesty International Germany, and Medico International. It was a nationwide call to bring a broad front into the streets, reassuring people who had never protested before.

The second rally was called by grassroots movements, in particular PA Allies and the Alliance of Internationalist Feminists, the same groups that have consistently taken to the streets for two years against the genocide, met with relentless persecution by the police and the mainstream press. Their slogan was United for Liberation, Fight Normalization. Its route ran from Moritzplatz to Südstern, in Kreuzberg. Not a counter-event, but an assertion of autonomy.

The Together for Gaza platform articulated clear demands: the termination of all military cooperation with Israel, including transit and trade of weapons; an immediate and lasting ceasefire; unrestricted humanitarian access; an end to decades of illegal occupation and displacement; respect for international jurisdictions and enforcement of their decisions; release of Palestinian political prisoners and Israeli hostages; recognition of Palestinian self-determination; and protection of freedom of expression and protest in Germany. These are precise demands, rooted in urgency and international pressure: contingent objectives to halt the bombings, allow aid to enter, and reduce German complicity.

The two statements of the grassroots movements were equally plain but opposite in direction. “Unity” was called an illusion: silencing movements under the false claim of unity is a worn-out colonial tactic that separates the obedient from the aggressive. They lament the NGOisation: the transformation of struggle into a humanitarian project, the replacement of rage with the neutral language of human rights, and the belief that panels, conferences and reports cannot stop a genocide. “Human rights becomes the mask that makes pacification acceptable,” they wrote, “reducing genocide to a humanitarian crisis and colonisation to a dispute between two sides.”

They exposed media hypocrisy: the spotlight on white activists injured by police while Palestinian refugees remain invisible; the performative fury of NGOs that mobilise against the deportation of four European citizens while ignoring systematic deportations from the Global South. In short, they rejected pacification: the idea that institutional banners and mass optics can replace the slow, risky work of autonomous organisation. “Being among the masses is not inherently revolutionary,” they insisted; autonomy and clarity are what matter.

Both demonstrations originated within the Palestinian community in Berlin and Germany, which, like any community, is not monolithic. Legitimising one faction and delegitimising another reproduces the all-too-familiar dynamic of “divide and rule” in Germany, visible with the artificial division between “good Jews” and “bad Jews”, between those who align themselves with the pro-Zionist narrative and those who contest it. Repeating this pattern for Palestinians means playing the same political game that fragments solidarity.

The frustrations with the mass demonstration are understandable: many of the actors who participated had remained silent until recently; many have hesitated to use the term genocide to describe the situation; some diluted slogans such as “stop all wars” have appeared, flattening the well-defined roles of oppressors and oppressed into an immoral equivalence; some personalities who suddenly claimed visibility had previously been absent. These criticisms are real. Yet the purpose of a protest is not to demonstrate the ideological coherence of a movement, but to put pressure on politics. To intimidate power. To disrupt business as usual. To do so, numbers matter. On Saturday, those numbers were there.

The importance of a common front

When ideals harden into dogma and dialogue is cast aside, antagonism becomes an end in itself. That is not politics. It is political suicide. The constant hunt for enemies falls into the same trap.

Criticism of institutions and NGOs is not merely legitimate. It is necessary. Critique pushes organisations to expand their limits, prevents co-optation, forces accountability. But criticism must not automatically turn institutions into enemies. As Amnesty International’s president Agnès Callamard reminded, “NGOs do not stop genocide. Doctors don’t stop genocide. Human rights investigators don’t stop genocide. States stop genocide. Companies can stop genocide.” Governments and companies are the targets of pressure; NGOs, with all their flaws, are part of the infrastructure that can exert and sustain that pressure.

The same complexity applies to the United Nations. Yes, the UN is a device of Western state power with a long record of managing, not dismantling, imperial orders. Yet it remains the only global forum capable of projecting visibility at scale. It has repeatedly failed to prevent catastrophes. An alternative is urgently needed. Until then, using that window while continuing radical work from below is both pragmatic and necessary.

This logic extends to individuals. Francesca Albanese, criticised by one of the grassroots movements, operates within the structural limits of the UN, and still she has channelled the voices of millions, taking personal and professional risks. Of course she is not in Gaza; she does not endure bombardment. But she is an ally who amplifies visibility and hope. The same applies to Kitty O’Brien, beaten by police at a pro-Palestine rally, who also came under scrutiny: their injuries went viral because they’re white and European, and they’ve acknowledged that reality. Precisely because of that visibility, their wounded body exposed Germany’s police state and became a vehicle of attention and visibility. Treating such figures as categorical enemies is counterproductive; they are contingent allies who can shine light into systemic darkness.

Karl Marx’s conception of the united front is instructive: uniting for a common cause does not mean dissolving differences. A united front does not erase fault lines or tactical disagreements; it contains and recognises them. Struggles can run in parallel, sometimes irreconcilably, because they serve different purposes. Some wage institutional pressure, others build organisation from below; some push for immediate gains, others refuse to retreat from the horizon of total liberation. None of these paths are sufficient alone. Rejecting the need for a common front means abandoning the only instrument that can translate rage into political force: the capacity to strike together while remaining different.

Who benefits from division?

Not the Palestinian cause. Internal splits hand the state and mainstream media a perfect tool: depict one wing as undesirable and marginal, weaponise that image to criminalise the whole movement, and elevate “moderate” interlocutors to defuse pressure. The fracture often functions exactly as intended, to blunt the disruptive potential of protest.

Yet the mass demonstration was hardly distant from radical demands: it claimed a halt to the bombing, an end to arms trade, and recognition of occupation. These were contingent, winnable aims. People could have marched together to the point of convergence and then separated when demands diverged.

Organising also means educating, and education happens through dialogue. Bringing an autonomous bloc into a larger demo, with a real radical presence, could have been a strategy to win new adherents rather than to consolidate existing circles. Many arrived late and hid behind neutrality or the fatal rhetoric of “two sides.” Precisely for that reason, the mass demonstration was the terrain to push discourse, not to abandon with disdain.

The movement needs both rage and numbers. Prioritising ideological purity over political pressure will cost both. Prioritising numbers without political consciousness will cost its soul. Meanwhile, in Gaza, people are still dying from bombs, drones, and starvation. We cannot afford to squander time and energy on internecine purity tests. Walking together, step by step and as far as possible, will amplify pressure. And then, continue fighting separately where necessary, until total liberation is achieved.

Red Flag: Germany reintroducing conscription (really!)

In his weekly column, Nathaniel Flakin wonders: what could go wrong?

Nathaniel Flakin
01/10/2025

When you see headlines about Germany reintroducing conscription, you’ll be forgiven for thinking of Hitler’s 1935 Law on Building up the Wehrmacht. But we are talking about a completely different law on a “new, attractive military service” passed by the cabinet on August 27, with a Bundestag debate scheduled for October 9.

The Federal Republic of Germany has Wehrdienst in the constitution. Back in 2011, it was paused indefinitely. Now, the government wants hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers—and not nearly that many people are volunteering.

Starting on January 1 of next year, the Bundeswehr will send a questionnaire to every 18-year-old about their interest in the army. Men will be required to fill it out, while for women it remains optional. By summer of the following year, men will be required to go to a physical.

The draft law would allow the government to conscript people by decree. This would not require a “state of defense”—it would be enough if the government decides that they want more soldiers than they can convince to volunteer (and gets approval from the Bundestag).

So while people say this isn’t compulsory military service, it actually is—it’s a soft launch for conscription, laying the foundations for compulsion in the near future.

Popularity

Germany’s massive rearmament program is very popular, at least for the moment. One survey from the summer showed 70% in favor of increased military spending, and 59% in favor of conscription.

Yet there are caveats: Among 18- to 29-year-olds, so the people who are supposed to fight, only 29% are in favor. Why not conscript boomers instead?

When asked if they would personally take up arms to defend Germany if it was under attack, only 16% said “definitely” and 22% said “maybe.” A large majority says they would probably or definitely avoid any fighting.

The decision to spend half a trillion euros on weapons is leading to austerity across the board. In the coming years, we will see cuts in education, health care, wages, and pensions—transportation costs are already going up. But many of these attacks have not popped up in household budgets.

So people are in favor of vaguely defined “defense” as long as they don’t think they have to make any personal sacrifices for it. As living standards decline, however, people will start to wonder how much money they want to put into the pockets of Rheinmetall shareholders. (Look at the car party factory in Wedding being converted to weapons production—there will be another demonstration on October 12).

A history professor once told me that demographics put us in “post-heroic age.” When people used to have six or eight or ten children, sure, they might be willing to relinquish one or two of them to the “holy fatherland.” But with just one or two kids? Maybe not.

Liberals

What bothers me most right now is not the imperialist warmongers, from the CDU to the Green Party—they are doing their jobs for the ruling class, after all. I am more upset by liberal and even lefty friends repeating a watered-down version of the militarist propaganda. This goes from Heidi Reichinnek of Die Linke affirming that of course “the Bundeswehr needs to be better equipped” to Berlin magazines accepting the premise that we might get attacked by Russia any day.

I would encourage people to think of any previous war from the imperialist epoch. At the time, they were always sold as “defense” — and in retrospect, everyone recognizes pointless slaughter in the interests of war profiteers. As the joke goes, a liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current one.

The imperialist powers are locked in escalating conflicts for zones of influence. Governments talk about “freedom” or “democracy” or whatever, but it’s all about whose corporations get to control disputed territories in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, etc. That was the basis of the 20th century’s wars—and it’s the basis of the coming wars as well.

The very politicians who say they want to “defend” our “freedom” are cutting funding for our schools and hospitals, and having us beaten up when we express disagreement. The capitalist state is only there to defend the capitalists.

I am willing to fight—but not for a state that serves Nazi billionaires. I am willing to fight for my class, which is international.

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

Palestine: Why recognition comes too little, too late

On the costs of delayed and unsubstantial recognition

Remo

Western countries are finally recognizing Palestine as a state, but this overdue gesture falls short in two ways. It is too little, because Palestine has long met the criteria of statehood under international law. And it is too late, because decades of political hesitation—coupled with Israel’s relentless expansion of illegal settlements—have eroded the very possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

Too little: Palestine is already a state

International law has long provided the criteria for statehood. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 requires a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity for international relations. Palestine meets them all.

There is a permanent population of millions. There is a defined territory—even if its borders have been repeatedly violated since 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. There is a governing authority in Ramallah, with legislative, executive, and judicial organs, however constrained. And there is no denying the capacity to establish relations with other states: Palestine has been recognized by more than 150 UN member states and admitted as a non-member observer at the United Nations in 2012. The usual objection is that Palestine lacks “effective control” of its territory, but that is a consequence of occupation, not a disqualification from sovereignty. International law is explicit: occupation does not erase a state, it only suspends its ability to exercise authority. If it were otherwise, Kuwait would have ceased to exist when Iraq invaded in 1990, or France during Nazi occupation.

The international community has long recognized this reality in principle, but has failed in practice. In 1947, the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) explicitly envisaged two states which, as reaffirmed in numerous resolutions since, should exist “side by side”. It was never implemented, as intercommunal tensions in Mandatory Palestine escalated into open war between Arab and Jewish forces. The newborn State of Israel emerged from this conflict, while the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank came under Egyptian and Jordanian control, respectively. Over the decades, the Palestinian state was further smothered in its cradle, even as UN resolutions continued to accumulate. The General Assembly recognized the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination in the 1970s, and in 2012, Resolution 67/19 conferred non-member observer state status to Palestine. In other words: Palestine is a state by law and by fact. What international law has confirmed, politics has long denied, and that denial has carried a devastating cost.

Too late: the West looked away while the land was taken

For decades, Western governments declared support for a “two-state solution” while privileging their economic and diplomatic relations with Israel. During this time, Israel entrenched what it called “facts on the ground”, such as settlements, roads, and infrastructure deliberately built to reshape the territory and foreclose Palestinian sovereignty.

Settlements in the West Bank, deemed illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, now number in the hundreds. According to the United Nations, in 2024 there were approximately 700,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), spread across about 350 settlements.

Moreover, in 2002 Israel began building a separation wall. While justified by Israeli authorities as a security measure, large portions of this barrier cut deep into land internationally recognized as Palestinian, annexing farmland, separating villages from schools and medical facilities, and undermining contiguous Palestinian territorial integrity. In 2004, the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion declared that the parts of the Wall passing through occupied territory are illegal under international law because they violate, among other norms, the rights of property, freedom of movement, and the right to self-determination.

And now comes the E1 project: 3,400 to 3,500 housing units east of Jerusalem, designed to link the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim to the capital. This corridor would cut the West Bank in two, severing Ramallah from Bethlehem, making territorial contiguity geographically impossible and a Palestinian state less viable. These measures have not only fragmented Palestinian land, but also fractured the daily lives of its people—restricting movement, trade, and access to basic services. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has been explicit about its purpose: the plan, he declared, will “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

The project does not stand in isolation. It reflects a long-standing political vision. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly framed the West Bank as the ancestral land of the Jewish people, has declared at Ma’ale Adumim that “there will be no Palestinian state” because “this place belongs to us”. Such statements underscore that the settlement enterprise is not an accident of policy but a deliberate strategy to ensure that recognition of Palestinian statehood—whenever it comes—arrives too late to matter on the ground.

The West’s partial, and conditional, recognition, does not erase the decades when such statements went unchallenged and when settlement expansion proceeded unchecked. Words now cannot reclaim the territory that bulldozers and concrete walls have already reshaped.

The cost of delay

This hesitation has had two devastating consequences. First, for Palestinians, it has meant the steady erosion of their land and rights. Every new settlement, every demolished home, every olive grove seized has made statehood less feasible. In the West Bank, land is carved away settlement by settlement; in Gaza, life itself is starved out. Both dynamics serve the same purpose: to ensure that Palestinian sovereignty remains a right on paper but impossible in practice.

Second, the delay has corroded the authority of international law itself. If clear rules—against annexation, against settlement, against occupation—can be ignored for decades, then what remains of the global order? If law cannot defend Palestine, how can it defend Ukraine against Russian aggression or the Philippines against maritime encroachment? Selective enforcement makes law indistinguishable from politics.

The zebra in the room

For now, Palestine remains the zebra in the room—obvious to anyone who looks, yet officially unacknowledged. It was Benjamin Netanyahu, then opposition leader, admitting it more than three decades ago: “When you walk into the zoo and see an animal that looks like a horse and has black and white stripes, you do not need a sign to tell you this is a zebra. It is a zebra. When you read this agreement, even if the words a Palestinian state are not mentioned there, you do not need a sign; this is a Palestinian state.” The zebra is still there. What has changed is that the cage has grown tighter, and the stripes are harder to see under layers of concrete and barbed wire.

Recognition today is not meaningless. Symbols matter, and Palestinians deserve the validation of their rights. But it is also insufficient. Recognition risks becoming a symbol of the West’s guilty conscience—a gesture too little, too late, for a people whose statehood exists in law but is vanishing. Unless it is given substance, recognition will remain only another entry in the long catalogue of promises to the Palestinian people that history has left unfulfilled.

Freedom of Brutality by the German State.

When it comes to Palestine demos, the German police are out of control

Edy Green
30/09/2025

Over the last few years the German state has increased its levels of repression towards any form of Palestinian solidarity, as well as a disproportionate increase of targeting of Arabic and Muslim voices and persons. The police act with impunity in their arbitrary violence and scant regard for constitutional laws, often clashing with the high court’s ruling, yet facing zero consequences or accountability for their law breaking. The hostile and often false narratives of political leaders and the complicit media class create a falsified legitimacy for the draconian policing of those supporting Palestine, with ever increasing “new normal” levels of violence becoming established.

If we examine the European convention of human rights, articles: 8 (Right to Privacy), 10 (Freedom of Expression), and 11 (Freedom of Assembly & Association) are being ignored on a daily basis here in Germany. In early May 2024, the ELSC (European Legal Support Center), presented the first comprehensive Database of anti Palestinian repression in Europe. 2032 (recorded) incidents occurred between 2019 to 2025, of which 736 took place in Germany alone, with nearly half of those transpired in Berlin. Such serious breaches of European law occurred that the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, expressed his concern directly to German Interior Minister, Alexander Dobrindt, about the (lack of) Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly over protests related to Gaza in Germany.

O’Flaherty noted restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context in Germany, also citing reports of the police using excessive force against demonstrators, including minors.

Berlin has almost twice as many police officers as other EU and German cities, totalling 500-594 officers per 100,000. All the while Germany extols its virtues of being a progressive nation, yet in actuality operates as a state in which a highly militarised and violent police force faces zero accountability for injuring & brutalising its population, whilst disregarding constitutional fundamentals such as right to protest and freedom of opinion, often in the name of freedom of opinion.

One comrade recounts:

“After a demo in October I ended up being checked for internal bleeding and organ damage in hospital, after being beaten by multiple police simultaneously. They had started their attacks in the crowd, and I rushed to help someone I saw being kicked on the floor. I was attacked by multiple police officers, my arms were held by two, each using their free hands to punch my ribs, chest, and stomach repeatedly, whilst another held my head back in a pain grip, meaning I couldn’t physically move whilst getting beaten. I was detained, put in a van, and driven to a police station in Potsdam, where we were made to wait outside in the cold winter weather for about 30 minutes, until being processed and released, with no charges. My body was still in so much pain the next day that I went to hospital, where they examined me for organ damage and internal bleeding, using the CT scan, and I proceeded to fall into a state of shock, lasting several hours.

I have since recently returned to a hospital ward post police treatment, after a demo at Checkpoint Charlie, where I was punched several times in the neck and face by one policeman, 34311, smashing my glasses into my eyebrow, requiring stitches, and leaving me with migraines for several days. This same policeman, number 34311, is being charged by a group of lawyers called Advocardo, who specifically target police who do the most damage. They asked me to be a witness in that case, after seeing the video of this attack online.”

This is but one of many examples of the extent of violence, as well as the tactics employed: the “pain grip”, targeted pressuring of sensitive body parts to gain compliance, is directly learnt from the IDF, taught to police and militaries worldwide for extreme crowd control, the distressing result of which is that the restricted airways lead to the victim being rendered completely prone and vulnerable, easily led and subsequently beaten, without any opportunity for bracing for the assault, leading to increased damage inflicted.

These accounts will be portrayed by the German media as violence toward police, so registered by the police themselves, when it is the complete opposite. Even demonstrators who get carried away are recorded as perpetrators of violence. For example, the now infamous case of the Nakba stomping: the supposed breaking of one officer’s legs was entirely fabricated, and rejected by the courts upon review of video evidence. Yet the police and media sources who reported the falsehood were not held accountable.

Previous demonstrations impacting far more civil disruption were allowed to play out with minimal police interactions, and certainly no expectation or experience of unwarranted violence. Specifically, during Extinction Rebellion’s early actions, Potsdamer Platz was blocked in entirety from five a.m. to nine p.m., ending when Police (none in riot gear), peacefully removed protestors away into vans for processing. Years later, they escalated the repression of climate protests after it seemed the state became embarrassed by the lack of control over its infrastructure, leading to some scandal in the mainstream media at the heavy handed tactics, seemingly as it was imagery of white Germans being persecuted.

It is now guaranteed that at any given Palestinian demo, Police are dressed to oppress: full helmets, riot gear, and often sporting specific “self defence gloves” (sand filled for further damage inflicted, courts finding that use of these in extreme beatings could be considered attempted murder). At no point during any protest does it feel the police are there for anything but violence; they project their monopoly of it from the beginning, until enacting it after orders allow them to do so. They are the escalators, they are the instigators, they are the gatekeepers of violence, and everyone knows it.

Another comrade recounts :

“At the IQP (International Queer Pride), 2024, I was attacked from behind by the police and detained and booked, not formally arrested. I had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance afterwards, my most major injuries were two cracked kneecaps, a deep laceration on my arm that required stitches, and an almost broken arm that I had to keep in a cast for two weeks.

I still did not receive any charges a year later, so nothing to legally connect and report the attack by the police. “

Longer term realities of expressing opposition to genocide accrue state violence of different kinds, including but not limited to: job and home raids, deportations, targeted detainment and harassment, and online and infiltrating surveillance. One example was two Girls and Young Women shelters in Berlin being shut down, due to “hatred of Israel and antisemitism “. In actuality, staff members marched in support of Palestine, posted “banned” slogans on their private instagram pages, and appeared as speakers at the Palestine Congress, which was banned and shut down by German authorities on the orders of Berlin mayor Kai Wegner, the same man who said, “The Israeli flag will remain hanging on the Red City Hall until the last hostage is free—and nothing will change that”.

With Netanyahu’s current determination to get those hostages killed, it seems Germany is staying with Israel until it sinks into its future international ostracisation and legal prosecutions for the horror it is unleashing.

Giovanni Fassina, Director of the ELSC, noted:

“The audacity with which German authorities bend and undermine the law should not surprise us at this point. However, it remains shameful. We have witnessed this time and time again: German authorities are now routinely making up baseless accusations to justify increasingly harsh measures against the Palestine solidarity movement.

These increases and normalisations of authoritarian behaviour are of grave concern. The recently updated Weapons Act (WaffG) in June 2025 prohibits dangerous weapons being carried in public places, yet it allows the police to detain and search anyone they perceive as a risk. This brings about stop and search tactics, which unsurprisingly mainly affect young men of ethnic minority groups, as we have seen occur in the UK after similar laws were passed years ago. We can safely assume that wearing the Keffiyeh, or having any pro Palestine symbols (the ever dangerous watermelon), will allow the police to apply greater acts of intimidation & repression, they must be held accountable for their barbarism.