The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Charges are dropped against Palestinian couple raided by the police

Repression in Berlin – report #5


17/03/2026

In February 2025, after a five-minute court hearing, the case against a young Palestinian-American student was dropped: a case that had entangled her, as well as her Palestinian-German partner in a month-long campaign of targeted state violence and persecution.

Ten months earlier, the home of the couple was stormed at 6am by a the State Criminal Police Office (LKA), as well as forces from the Special Operations Unit (SEK). While the official pretext for the raid and subsequent court case was a Facebook post that read “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”, the case illustrates that rather than merely criminalising a slogan, the German state attempts to terrorise and intimidate those who publicly express dissent to the genocidal “Staatsräson” paradigm.

The investigation was triggered when a person, likely a neighbour, scanned the student’s facebook profile and reported her to the anti-discrimination office in Hesse called “Hessen gegen Hetze” (Hesse Against Agitation). This office escalated the case to the Frankfurt Public Prosecutor’s Office, who then forwarded it to Berlin.

After the raid the couple learned that then a three-month long investigation followed, in which they were never addressed to respond to accusations, which they first heard off when charges were read to them during the raid.

Moreover, files accessed by their lawyer showed that enquiries were made about both to all kinds of authorities: from regular police, the state resident’s registration, to enquiries to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz).

The student described the raid, which left her in utter disbelief of the disproportionate measures taken by the cops:

On 16 May 2024, at around 6 am, my husband and I were woken by a knock at the door. My husband quickly got up to see what the commotion was about. When he opened the door, police officers stormed in. I got up quickly and tried to shut the door. As I did so, two female officers burst in – I was half-naked! I was ordered to get dressed so they could take me to the living room.

Her partner, who was later also charged for the same slogan, as well as the alleged use of banned organisations and trespassing, relayed:

While two female police officers were in the room with my wife, supervising her as she got dressed, my details were being checked and I was made to wait in my own living room. When my wife was ready, she was sat down next to me, and we were finally told what was happening.

As it turned out in hindsight, the raid itself had also been thoroughly prepared, in a bizarre display of state power. Two days prior to it, the police came to the building, photographed the outside, the nameplate on the doorbell, the front door, letterbox, and wrote a report on how many entrances and exits the building had, the window facade, and other details. The Palestinian-German engineer described the absurdity:

Later, we found out that the police had frantically rung all the neighbours’ doorbells to get into the building. While they were knocking at our door, they had covered our peephole with black tape. It’s all pretty excessive for such an allegation.

The actual reason a judge signed this search warrant was that the police couldn’t definitively identify my wife from the profile pictures on Facebook. So nowadays, the police can conduct house searches just to establish someone’s identity.

The case, which culminated in the suspension of proceedings illustrates that state repression does not always aim for eventual conviction in court, as cops are well aware of the frequent insubstantiality of accusations. Instead, raids and the terror and intimidation they are supposed to inflict appear to be a goal in themselves.

However, in this case, as in many others, the accused continued their activism for Palestine unafraid, as reflected in the students’ statement:

Anyone else facing repression needs to speak out about it! And make sure you get good lawyers. Most of these allegations have no legal basis that would hold up in court. Keep fighting, and Free Palestine, forever and ever!

Ramadan behind bars

A fictional story inspired by the experiences of young North African men in Berlin


16/03/2026

Many arrive at Kottbusser Tor in Berlin either without documents or after their asylum has been rejected. With no legal means to earn money and their social benefits cut, they often end up surviving by selling drugs on the streets. During the processing of their asylum claims, they are housed in refugee camps known as ‘Wohnheime’. This story draws on those realities to follow one character’s journey through a system that too often leads from the Wohnheim to the pre-trial detention center at Moabit. For more of my work on this topic, please see here.

Throughout the year, the boys at Kotti will always talk about their wish to spend Ramadan out of jail. Especially those that experienced it inside. Twenty-eight-year-old Omar heard those stories and, as Ramadan was drawing closer, he, like the other boys, really prayed that he wouldn’t go to jail until the Holy month is over. Remembering this now makes him laugh. He has been held in pre-trial detention in Moabit’s correctional facility, Justizvollzugsanstalt Moabit, since November. Until now, there has been no decision regarding what he is accused of, and the court date remains undetermined.

He was calling his best friend Mohammad everyday when he first came to prison. But even that doesn’t comfort him anymore. He sits here locked up between four walls as he waits for Iftar; it must have been over a week since he last called Mohammad. He just doesn’t have the energy for anything anymore. The outside world seems so far, and sometimes calling reminds him of the isolation rather than breaks it.

Prior to coming here, he and Mohammad were inseparable. In fact, Omar was heading to Mohammad’s room to sleep over there when he got caught by the police. It was a random Thursday that seemed like any other Thursday. He called Mohammed to ask him which S-Bahn to take and quickly hung up on him to answer a call from his mum.

Everyone knows how close he is to his mum. She prays everyday that he will stay safe, she tells him. What she doesn’t tell him is that she prays to see him in person one last time before she dies. She is still grateful that now there is WhatsApp and video calls to stay in touch. She remembers the uncle that left to Europe when she was a child; no one ever saw his face again or even knew what he looked like after he left home. He would call his mother twice or three times a year, just to say a few words. The short, expensive call that was fraught with bad connection did nothing but make him feel more separated from his family. And those calls were the only connection that her grandmother and mother had with him. Now, with Omar unreachable in Moabit, that old, familiar feeling of a son being swallowed by Europe has returned, as sharp and as painful as her grandmother must have felt it.

Until that Thursday, this had not happened to her. Omar called her all the time. They were close in a way her grandmother never could be with her uncle. But this last call was quite short. He said he will call her back and quickly hung up. His number didn’t ring again. She knew something was wrong. She called his friend Mohammad over and over again but he didn’t dare to pick up before he could find out what had happened to his friend. It wasn’t until several days later that he picked up her call with some news. During those several days, she couldn’t eat or sleep or think of anything other than Omar.

Mohammad was waiting for the formal confirmation from the social worker, but deep inside he knew from the first minute that Omar had been taken by the police. This is the moment that Mohammad and Omar and all the other boys fear the most—the moment when they get stopped by the police in a busy S-Bahn station, get asked for the papers they don’t have, and get searched in front of everyone. The police make sure they don’t search in a discrete way. They are trained to turn the boys into a spectacle. It’s called the art of policing and law enforcement.

But still, for Omar, even when all hope disappeared on that day and he knew he would get taken to jail, he never imagined that he would be held without a trial date all the way to Ramadan, which is March. They didn’t catch him with anything on him and he wasn’t doing anything wrong other than just being in the station. So why would it take such a long time for them to determine the accusation and decide on a court date. He hasn’t even been assigned a social worker in jail, which means that people on the outside have no possibility to communicate with him. And that his only channel to the outside world is the phone number of his friend Mohammad, which he can only call if he has money left on his card. Omar keeps asking his lawyer, who was hired by his social worker, to find out when he will get some answers, but she just shrugs or tells him to wait. No one knows anything yet.

He keeps thinking of this over and over again. He is locked up 23 hours a day, so lots of time to think. One of his Arab cellmates say that Moabit detention is like a luxury hotel. But he doesn’t think so. In fact, he doesn’t like anything about it. Being locked up in here, his mind goes to places he never thought of before. And now that he has been fasting all alone here, and half of Ramadan is already behind him, he has started to lose his patience. The dark thoughts keep on increasing. This morning, he found himself wondering how long it would take for his mother to find out that sometimes he used to take Lyrica, the infamous anxiety pill that his mates at Kotti introduced him to. Would she find out that he even sells this stuff? Would she forgive him if she found out? How would he explain to her that there is no other way for him to make money. His Sozialleistung had been cut since he stopped going to his Wohnheim. He got too scared after the security woke up one of his mates at four a.m. and deported him. Even when he was still going regularly, the Sozialleistung was hardly enough for his basic needs.

These questions keep coming to his mind. Suddenly he gets all these feelings that he can no longer describe, feelings that are both heavy and strong, but he doesn’t know what to call them. Fear. Regret. Grief. Loneliness. He doesn’t even know or use those words. He heard others saying things like that since he came to Moabit. He even started to avoid calling his Mohammad because he doesn’t know what to say when his friend asks how he is doing.

He tries to remember his mum’s voice telling him to look for patience from within, and warning him of the pain of those who lose patience inside prison. He knows she is right, but he can’t take it anymore. Ramadan isn’t over yet. Half is behind him, half still ahead filled with uncertainties, like everything else in here.

He doesn’t know about the trial date. Doesn’t know if he’ll call Mohammad tomorrow. His mother’s messages pile up somewhere he can’t reach. And somewhere in Morocco, his mother sits with her phone in her hands, waiting. She thinks of her uncle again, of the grandmother who waited for calls that never came. She always thought technology would protect her from that fate.

In his cell, Omar doesn’t know she’s praying for him. But for a moment, the dark thoughts stop. He doesn’t know why. He only knows that tomorrow, maybe, he’ll try calling Mohammad.

Outside, the boys at Kotti are still talking, still praying they don’t end up here.

The End Times Holy War

Western imperialism has stopped even trying to plausibly justify its wars. We should be scared


15/03/2026

My father always reminded me to keep a “cool head and a warm heart.” Today, we are living through one of those moments when it is wise to apply that advice.

First, let us make a few things clear: the United States and Israel have once again violated every conceivable rule by launching their war against Iran. Once again, while negotiations were still underway, they attacked that country, flagrantly violating not only a nation’s sovereignty but also the international legal order. Yet, this should not surprise us if we look at the destruction in Gaza and the history of the United States, a nation so fond of war. We knew this would happen; the question was only when.

What we know so far is that Iran has struck hard against all U.S. military installations in the Persian Gulf. Despite Tehran being subjected to violent bombardment, it has proven capable of responding—and with unusual force. Once again, it seems the Americans underestimated their adversary, a clear sign of their arrogance and ignorance in failing to truly understand their enemy. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, as it had announced it would, and this is hitting the global economy hard. While lives are being lost in Iran, money is being lost in the United States (and a few lives as well). The cost of the war has already surpassed the staggering figure of 10,217,000,000 US dollars (last update 10.03.), and continues to rise every second, as indicated by the Iran War Cost Tracker website.

The battle is also being fought in the corporate media, which are striving to justify and cheer for this war as if it were inevitable. Western media outlets defend the criminal conduct of the aggressors while blaming the attacked party for responding. However, the manufacturing of consent for this war is rather weak. Twenty-two years ago, when the empire was preparing to invade Iraq, it made the effort to invent some excuse. Today, the justifications are ridiculous and reveal how little effort has been made to truly legitimize this war. What is the reason, the excuse, for this war? Regime Change or the Iranian ballistic missile program, or the threat of any use of uranium enrichment, or all of these? Recently, the historian Emmanuel Todd said in an interview: “The Western media system has become an empire of lies, incapable of describing reality.” Ultimately, the truth no longer matters. The empire has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for soft power, for international law, and for any commitment to truth. But when the empire believes its own lies, then you only have hubris.

We also knew who would support this new war and who would oppose it. True, European leaders always manage to surprise us with their extraordinary capacity for servility. This was to be expected from such lamentable figures as Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen. But not everyone in Europe is willing to twist the truth in the face of the obvious and kneel before Emperor Trump. Spain and Belgium seem to be exceptions, offering some condemnations. Meanwhile, the usual trio—the three stooges, Macron, Merz, and Starmer—compete to see who can demonstrate the greatest willingness to submit. All three leaders are ready to support U.S. logistics by allowing American forces to use military bases on their territory. That turns their countries into legitimate targets—or even makes them enter the war outright. Yet the supposed “unity” of Europe has been exposed as little more than a myth. This is illustrated by Chancellor Friedrich Merz agreeing with Trump that Spain should be punished for daring to contradict the American president’s will. It seems the empire increasingly demands that its vassals commit themselves more fully to its overseas wars. Those who wish to remain on the sidelines—or who still cite rules that this supposedly “civilized” world once claimed to respect—will become pariahs within an increasingly warlike and nihilistic Western alliance.

Western propaganda against Iran has been effective. Without defending the current regime in Tehran, we must reflect that many people accept this war simply because “the Iranian regime is bad.” Those who think this way have simply swallowed the entire narrative of Western propaganda, which absolves the true aggressors. It is as if we were to believe that the bombs now falling on civilians and defenseless children will somehow bring them salvation, freedom, and democracy. Gaza is destroyed with a death toll 50 percent higher than the official figure. Syria is now Balkanized after the overthrow of Assad, led by a former Al-Qaeda figure who now serves as a puppet of imperial power. We should not expect Iran’s story to end very differently if the regime falls. 

Consider the project of Greater Israel, which Netanyahu and his band of fanatics are constructing as a colonial project based on dispossession, genocide, and war. We already see this in Israel’s advances into Syrian territory, its incursions into Lebanon, and the looming illegal annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. When the criminals who give these military orders speak of democracy and women’s rights while dropping bombs, remember the million direct and indirect deaths that resulted from the Iraqi invasion. Iraq is a society that could indeed sing a tragic song about that fable of ‘democracy’. For this reason, I believe that those who defend this war care little about the people of Iran. Rather, they ride the wave of their own hatred toward the ayatollahs. That hatred may not be unfounded, but to believe that bombs dropped by an external power will be welcomed as liberation is mistaken. If you think so, then Western propaganda has succeeded, because in the end, we come to accept what should be utterly unacceptable.

Take a brief look at the history of the United States and its interventions, invasions, and regime-change operations around the world. We see that it has always been an empire addicted to war. War is what the empire knows how to do – destroy, deceive, kill, annihilate. That is not the same as winning. Has Israel “won” the war in Gaza? Undoubtedly, it has destroyed it, but it has not won the war. In fact, several analysts already suggest that the empire will lose this war because, for Iran, it is an existential conflict. Whereas for the United States, it is optional—just another war in its long historical repertoire.

Yet there are other issues that should keep us awake at night now that Pandora’s box—already described by some as the beginning of a third world war—has been opened. Strict censorship in Israel prevents the world from seeing how Iran is striking its cities, military, and logistical bases. But once Iran deploys its most modern arsenal and once the anti-aircraft batteries of the United States and Israel begin to run out, Israel may suffer far more severe damage. We should not forget that the political leadership governing “the only democracy in the Middle East” is deeply fanatical and messianic. In their mystical-religious delusion, one may reasonably fear that they might resort to the “Samson Option”. That is the nuclear option. With such individuals at the helm of a genocidal government, the worst can be expected when that wounded animal finds itself cornered.

But this religiosity is not limited to Israel. Political analyst Pascal Lottaz, who runs the discussion platform Neutrality Studies, warns that several members of the Trump administration frame this war in explicitly religious terms. High-ranking officials, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, are known for their radical Christianity. We know that the United States and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals are among the most openly declared allies of Zionism. They share a messianism and expectations of Armageddon. These Christian fundamentalists appear to conceive of this conflict as a holy war, in which the Armageddon they anticipate would herald the return of Christ. 

Last year, political analyst Naomi Klein spoke of “end-times fascism”, referring to the network of bunkers that technology magnates are building around the world. In other words, while these people push the world toward a greater conflagration, they also seek to shield themselves in case things go wrong. What do these ultra-billionaires know that we do not? Klein pointed to the strong alliance between the MAGA sector and the techno-feudalists—figures such as Peter Thiel—who have already demonstrated their contempt for the world and ordinary people. It is as if overnight we had awakened in a dystopian Mad Max world, where two parallel projects appear to converge: the fortified city of the hyper-wealthy and the world outside it. As Klein and Taylor wrote: 

“The start-up contingent clearly anticipates a future defined by crisis, scarcity, and collapse. Their high-tech private domains are essentially fortified escape capsules designed so that a small chosen group can enjoy every possible luxury and opportunity for human optimization, giving them and their descendants an advantage in an increasingly barbaric future. Put bluntly, the most powerful people in the world are preparing for the end of the world—an end they themselves are frantically accelerating.” (Klein & Taylor, 2025) These signs should alarm us. When fanatical and radical religious political figures lead what they call a “holy war” against “absolute evil,” we should not be surprised if these leaders are willing to set the entire world ablaze. A glance at the U.S. doctrine of nuclear warfare is enough to confirm that these people genuinely believe that a nuclear war can be won. We can only hope that the costs of this entire campaign become so immense for the political and financial class that these warlords ultimately decide to abort the mission. They will still declare victory, even if, strategically speaking, the United States and Israel have been defeated. Iran’s strategies appear to be effective in targeting both global oil flows and American assets in the region. While Iranians are being sacrificed, the empire collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, its unsustainable militarism, and its enduring arrogance.

Banning social media will not protect kids 

On why governments are restricting young people from online platforms


14/03/2026

Adult covering the eyes of two children who are holding a tablet.

Disregarding the diverse needs of children and teenagers, the Australian government legislated in November 2024 that all people under the age of 16 would be restricted from accessing social media platforms, such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube. 

Despite advice coming from within Australia and organisations like Amnesty International that a total ban on social media for under-16s may be detrimental for teenagers, many countries in Europe and globally are now also taking similar steps and initiating social media bans for minors. 

Germany’s conservative government passed a motion on February 21st to restrict access to social media platforms for users under the age of 14, and France’s leaders intend to have teenagers off social media by September 2026. Other European countries taking similar approaches include Spain, Norway, Greece, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands. MPs in the UK have recently rejected a proposed social media ban, but it is not off the cards completely. The European parliament has proposed ‘a harmonised EU digital minimum age of 16’ for access to social media platforms. India and Malaysia have also expressed plans to restrict children and teenagers from social media.  

Australia was not the first country, however, to tighten social media regulation for young people. Already in 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) introduced ‘minor mode’, which operates, not as a blanket ban, but as a system of tiered age restrictions based on the developmental stage of the child. For example, toddlers should only have access to audio-based content, whereas 12–16-year olds can access curated news, entertainment and education materials, including break reminders and time limits. 

China’s approach to regulation, in contrast to Australia’s, appears to be more in line with Amnesty International’s recommendation that ‘Rather than banning children and young people from social media’ there should be ‘strict regulation on platforms to better protect children’s privacy, right to peaceful assembly, right to health and freedom of expression’. 

So why are countries like India, Germany, France and so on, despite widespread contrary advice, now going full steam ahead with replicating an Australia-style social media ban, rather than China’s regulated social media usage? And what does such a ban even look like in comparison to the already-in-place, but ineffective, age restriction of 13 years? 

In Australia, under the law that came into effect in December 2025, the onus is now on social media platforms themselves, rather than on parents or children, to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that no users under the age of 16 can access their platforms. The law, however, does not stipulate what these steps should be. As such, platforms are implementing various age-verification methods in order to comply with the law. Meta, for example, is using selfie-based age recognition; TikTok is using existing account data to estimate age; and Snapchat and Youtube rely on user-declared data such as bank- or government-verified ID. 

There are a number of issues arising from the aforementioned age-verification methods. Inaccuracy, firstly, is a problem already encountered with the facial-recognition and user-data age assessment tools. Secondly, a potential breach of privacy and online rights occurs when users are required to declare age information using official IDs. 

While the Australian law prohibits the data that is collected for the purpose of verifying age to be used for any other reason, Tom Sulston from Digital Rights Watch Australia warns that data could easily be leaked onto the internet due to internet security flaws. Sulston also worries that being regularly asked for an ID can lead to the ‘proliferation of our private data’ and ‘inures us to the sense of always entering our ID’. Similarly, Dr. Stephan Dreyer from the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in Hamburg warns: ‘Age verification at scale requires either comprehensive control infrastructure or probabilistic profiling, with both approaches showing deep intrusions into the rights of all users.’

As I think many of us would agree, social media indeed poses serious dangers and challenges to all users, not just children. I, too, am suffocated by regret following an hour of doomscrolling; and my ability to concentrate seems to worsen day by day. The effect on one’s ability to think and concentrate is not the only recognised harm. Others include: exposure to adversarial speech, harassment, hate speech and doxing (which involves sharing a user’s personal information to encourage threats), as well as exposure to disinformation and misleading media such as deepfakes. That’s not a childhood I would like for my nieces or nephews, or any child or teenager. 

However, there are also a number of benefits of social media use that a total ban ignores. For some groups of young people, such as those living with disabilities or chronic illness, social media can provide important peer support that enhances wellbeing and connection. 

Amanda Lennestaal, a mother of three based in Sydney, Australia, has observed from her own experience that ‘for kids with disabilities, those online spaces are actually some of the most accessible social environments, where you don’t have the physical, sensory or even at times communication barriers.’ Since the ban took effect in Australia, her kids have lost an important place for social connection.

Moreover, if social media constitutes their primary form of communication, children who have emigrated to a new country with their family may also experience a sense of disconnection from their friends and family in their home country 

In 2024, a mental health hotline in the UK conducted a survey with its adolescent users about what they needed to cope with crises. The number one response? More opportunities for social connection. While not every child may rely on social media for social connection, it is clear that some do. Taking away an opportunity for this connection ignores the multiplicity of needs of children and may place vulnerable children more at risk than before the ban. 

Despite the benefits of social media for some young people, 66.98% of adults agree that to protect young people from online harms, people under the age of 16 years should not be allowed to have accounts on social media platforms, according to a survey conducted in Australia in December 2024. This result likely arises from people’s exasperation over the failure of governments to actively minimise digital harm and also from the moral panic surrounding social media use for children.

Societal panic about what is morally good or bad for children is not a recent phenomenon. New forms of media in particular are often seen as part of the moral corruption of youth: responsible for inciting violence, crime, sexual promiscuity, and disrespect for social conventions. Political actors like to exploit moral panics to prove to society how much they really care about young people. This case is no different. 

Last year, the series Adolescence hit the UK with a ‘wake up call’ about the dangers of online spaces—namely, the ‘manosphere’.  The series centred around the question of why 13-year-old Jamie would murder his female classmate. The UK’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, swiftly took advantage of the moral panic that followed the film, insisting that violence against girls is a ‘growing problem’ and we must do something to ‘tackle it’.

In addition, the moral panic about social media partially stems from Jonathan Haidt’s bestselling book The Anxious Generation. Haidt’s book has been described as ‘an urgent warning about the effect of digital tech on young mind’s’ and argues that smartphones are responsible for the huge decline in the mental health of young people, citing the increased anxiety, depression and suicide since 2010. 

We should be cautious when reading popular science books that lean into moral panic. Researchers at the University of Würzburg highlight a number of issues with The Anxious Generation. Haidt’s book, they argue, describes a situation that is specific to the USA and cannot be easily transferred to other contexts. Moreover, the researchers contend that other factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic situation, climate change, and crumbling healthcare systems may also impact a person’s mental wellbeing. It is disingenuous to place the sole blame of mental illness on social media use. 

According to research conducted by Rob Cover, Joel Humphries, Ingrid Richardson and Dan Harris, moral panic is typically based upon technological determinism, which suggests that ‘society, identities, culture, and individual practices are shaped by the use of and exposure to technologies, often in a way that perceives them as external to culture and the cause of sociocultural change—such as being seen as the cause of increased rates of poor mental health.’ This often leads to the restriction-based approach that is being implemented across the world at the moment in relation to social media. 

European leaders have demonstrated the tactical reaction of the political class to moral panic by claiming that the social media ban would be a way of ‘protecting’ young people from the harmful effects of social media. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for example, allegedly wants to prevent ‘personality defects and problems in the social behaviour of young people’ and his deputy Lars Klingbeil claimed: ‘Protecting young people from the flood of hatred and violence on social media is ‌a top priority.’ 

If you believed that capitalist governments cared about the welfare of children, you might be more inclined to believe that the proposed social media bans are being implemented to protect children; but after years of watching countries like Germany, Australia, the UK, India, and France support, fund and/or supply weapons to Israel as it carries out a genocide in Gaza and doing nothing as Israel directly targets children, you would be forgiven for believing otherwise. 

What then, if not to protect children, is the purpose of banning social media for young people? In Australia’s context, Eddy Jokovich and David Lewis write that the social media ban shows the government’s desire to appease powerful media conglomerates, particularly News Corporation, and to gain better control over the news and media that young people have access to.

A quantitative analysis conducted by The Intercept of the coverage of Gaza by the New York Times and other mainstream newspapers shows that these newspapers heavily favour Israel. For instance, the word ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1. Legacy media may not be making Western kids anxious and depressed, but by dehumanizing Palestinians, it generates consent for genocide. 

Meanwhile, social media has become a place where mainstream discourse can be challenged. Kareen Haddad argues that social media has been invaluable in reaching audiences in regards to the Palestinian liberation struggle and education about the genocide occurring. Haddad claims: ‘When the media we consume comes straight from the people being impacted, and not through channels which weaponise ‘objectivity’ to spread a certain agenda, it becomes much clearer to whom we owe our allyship’. This is dangerous to Western hegemony. 

Are capitalist governments afraid that young people will learn about the horrors their countries are funding and committing? Or that young people will feel empathy for the people the West has worked so hard to demonise? Are the ruling classes trying to prevent more adolescents like Greta Thunberg—who at age 15 in 2018 used social media to reach out to and interact with supporters and activists—from using social media as a tool to mobilise other teenagers and question the power structures that will determine their future? 

It could be argued that teenagers, once they turn 16, can still engage in political activities online. But until that age, children and teenagers will have scant access to media that is not state or billionaire approved. We often hear about the danger of disinformation online, but what about the bias from legacy media corporations? In Germany, this has dire consequences relating to the reinstatement of Wehrplicht (compulsory military service)—children must be informed from an early age about a duty that could see them sent off to die at war. It is well documented that German youth were a particular target of Nazi propaganda. We must not abandon children and teenagers to be propagandized by state or corporate-owned media.

Lenin once said: ‘Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.’ While we cannot rely on billionaire-owned social media platforms to inform our children, the platforms still offer some opportunity of sharing real human stories that challenge capitalist structures. We need to build and maintain alternatives to the current platforms, and strive for a path forward where we turn towards each other for strength and education.

Pedro Sánchez and No a la guerra

Spain begins to reckon with its role in the genocide of Palestinians


13/03/2026

The Spanish government’s decision not to allow US aircraft involved in the brutal bombing of Iran to use the two NATO military air bases on Spanish territory has been applauded by millions of people around the world. From the early days of the Zionist war against Iran in March 2026, as several European leaders kissed the boots of war criminals Trump and Netanyahu, Pedro Sánchez distanced himself from the position of Merz, Starmer and Macron—heads of state of nations that seem unable to accept the loss of their colonies and global relevance—and spoke of respect for international law and human lives, which he seemed to place above the economic and geopolitical interests that are clearly behind this war. Several other heads of state and representatives of Western institutions, including Macron and Starmer, who seem to have backtracked and no longer uncritically and publicly defend all the lies and excuses spouted by Trump and Netanyahu in this criminal war, have timidly joined in this defence of international law.

But this comes too late: the façade of the existence of impartial and universal international law and respect for it is one of the victims of the genocide in Gaza. And Pedro Sánchez and his government have also collaborated in this.

How else can we understand their allowing the genocidal US army to use NATO bases on Spanish territory from October 2023 to the end of September 2025?

Despite the Spanish government’s constant statements of concern for the Palestinian people and its supposed support, for two years it allowed the use of its air and naval bases to facilitate the genocide in Gaza, when—as we have now seen—it would have been enough to explain that Spain is sovereign and can control the use of NATO bases.

But why has it been so quick to refuse to collaborate in the war against Iran and so slow to stop the use of its bases for the genocide in Gaza? The answer is complicated, but we can  see several factors that have influenced this.

On the one hand, after two years of strong and constant mobilisation by the peoples of Spain in support of Palestine, the government declared late and poorly that it would no longer allow its bases to be used for genocide in Palestine. This position does not seem to have cost it any political capital at the national level and has placed it even more firmly in the international arena in the camp of Western leadership against genocide, which this government boasts about, while ignoring other governments such as South Africa, which has done more, earlier and better.

On the other hand, in recent months there have been several regional elections in different parts of Spain in which the parties that make up the government, the PSOE and Sumar, have fared badly. In both Extremadura and Aragon, the majority of votes went to the right-wing forces of the People’s Party (PP) and Vox, and something similar is predicted for the elections on 15 March 2026 in Castile and León. Faced with what appears to be a reactionary wave and with general elections just around the corner, it may be in the government’s interest to take a firm stand against the war in Iran, as the PSOE did back in 2003, when it was in opposition against the war in Iraq.

Let’s go back in time. In 2003, Spain, under the leadership of José María Aznar of the PP, occupied one of the two-year rotating seats on the UN Security Council, and the US needed its vote. The majority of Spanish society at that time (and now) opposed the war. Millions of people demonstrated for months in the streets of hundreds of cities and towns under the sloganNo a la guerra (No to war)”. At cultural events and award ceremonies, the most famous figures in Spanish culture declared their opposition to the PP government’s decision to go to war. But Aznar did not listen and instead, smoked cigars, with his feet up on the table at Bush’s ranch in Texas, and announced his support in Spanish with anembarrassing Yankee accent. Spain’s vote in favour of the Iraq war was bought with cigars and promises ofimmense profits, and was finalised at the famous Azores summit, where Bush Jr., Blair and Aznar signed away the lives of millions of people. Months later on 11 March 2004, Madrid suffered its worst terrorist attack in history, with 192 people losing their lives and thousands injured in the Atocha death trains. With elections a couple of days later, Aznar’s government did everything possible to make the Spanish population believe that it was ETA, knowing that if it surfaced  that it was  Al Qaeda that carried out the attacks, they would lose the elections. The lie could not withstand the weight of the truth, and the PSOE, under Zapatero, who had opposed the war outright—and in fact famously remained seated during the US military parade on Hispanic Heritage Day on 12 October 2003—won those elections.

By reviving thet “No a la guerra” slogan, Pedro Sánchez, a tremendously skilful politician, wants to remind us what happens when the right wins. A Spanish right, that even today, continues to lick the boots of the Americans.

But perhaps the most decisive factor is that Pedro Sánchez and his team, in contrast to certain American, Israeli and German leaders, may have a modicum of humanity, and are coming to regret their role in the genocide and extermination of entire peoples whose only sin in these Zionist wars is to have been the stewards of the resource-rich lands that these unscrupulous men wish claim as their own.