The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

The Confused and Contradictory politics of Nico (1938-1988)

Radical Berlin in 12 Cemeteries – Cemetery 13


09/11/2024

Last year. I wrote a series of pen portraits about where radical activists and artists are buried in Berlin. One artist did not make the final cut. Nico’s life was too complicated and contradictory that I could not do her justice in 300 words. Moreover, I wondered, whether she was really of the Left. A longer article never got written – until now.

Upbringing and rise to fame

Nico (née Christa Päffgen) was born in Cologne in 1938. When her father was sent to fight in the Second World War, she moved with her mother to Lübbenau. After the war, they moved to the centre of Berlin, she remembers “a desert of bricks… seeing dead bodies lying in the rubble as I walked through a wilderness at the end of the street where we lived.”

Her father meanwhile was variously – shot by his fellow soldiers, or died in a Concentration Camp, or maybe after a brain injury he was institutionalised. All versions told by Nico herself, having a flexible relationship with the truth. 

Stories about her early childhood are equally vague. A friend, Jane Goldstraw recounts: “She told me that, when she was three years old during the war, she lived on a farm near a death camp, and she remembered treading over bodies. But there are conflicting stories.”

As a young woman, she gained jobs as a model for Elle, Esquire, and Vogue. She also got acting work. At 20, she was in a film with Mario Lanza, and in Fellini’s La Dolce Vita. In 1960, she joined Lee Strasberg’s Method School in New York, with Marilyn Monroe as a classmate.

Nico’s biography is peppered with references to famous men. She had an affair with Bob Dylan in 1964, who wrote Visions of Johanna about her. Then, she had a child with Alain Delon – or was it Brian Jones? The New Yorker claims that Leonard Cohen “began writing songs in hopes of seducing her.” Film maker John Waters asked her to play at his funeral.

Dylan led her to Pop Artist Andy Warhol who recruited her to the band the Velvet Underground. She sang lead vocals on 3 songs on The Velvet Underground and Nico, the 1967 album. Of it Brian Eno said: “only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band.”

Jim Morrison encouraged her to write her own songs. But at first, she sang songs exclusively by male writers like Lou Reed, Jackson Browne and Jim Morrison, saying “I thought men write songs and women sing them.”

In the 1970s she released a number of haunting albums, on which she sang and played harmonium. She then went out of fashion. She died in 1988 in the most un-rock star manner of having a brain aneurysm and falling off her bicycle.

Nico’s politics

Nico grew up in post-Nazi Germany, with all the implied shame. She invented a Turkish father, saying: “I do not wish to have any familiarity with the German people. I do not identify with them in any way, except their endurance… Turks are the new Jews of Germany.”

Later she claimed: “It was the time of imperialist war in Algeria, and my secret support was with the Arabs against the French Army, but I could not say this to my society friends, who were often the opposite, but I could say it in these clubs. I always dislike the invader and, of course, I am part Arab because of my father.” This story is slightly compromised by the fact that Nico’s actual father was a wealthy German brewer.

She became a heroin addict, but in the 1960s she rejected LSD, saying “Timothy Leary said ‘Drop Out’, and this was the solution in America. I didn’t like this alternative, because it doesn’t fight totalitarianism. It lets others fight for you while you are asleep”

She supported: “Andreas Baader, the Red Brigade (Italy) and the Catholics in Ireland (IRA), and there are others. That is the alternative that fights, not the alternative that says ‘Drop Out’… If I were not Nico I would be a terrorist.”

Most of these statements come from the same article and are difficult to corroborate. SInce Nico’s biographers were more interested in her famous lovers than in her politics (or her music), this does not mean that she did not say these things. But such comments do not sit easily with her later behaviour. 

Internalized Misogyny

Obviously much press coverage patronised Nico and dismissed her talents because of her gender. Jennifer Otter Bickerdicke says: “While her fellow Velvets, Lou Reed and John Cale, are called ‘American masters’, ‘poets’ and ‘legends’, Nico has been cast as a racist junkie who slept with myriad famous men.”

Did Nico internalise some of this misogyny? She is reported as saying: “Women are poison. If I wasn’t so special, I could hate myself,” and “Women are inferior,” adding that her only regret was being born a woman.”

Nico’s keyboard player Una Baines said: “I don’t think she’d have labelled herself a feminist because she hated any form of ideology. She did say her only regret was not being born a man. I think she wanted the same privileges and power that men have.”

As Baines makes clear, Nico’s statements do not necessarily confirm that she disliked women. Perhaps she was merely arguing that she, and we, lived in a society, where women are treated as second class citizens. Or, as Maxine Peake argued: “She said a few times that she wished she was a man, which came from the fact that as an artist she would have been more recognised.”

Nationalism

Another charge levelled against Nico is that she was a nationalist, possibly a Nazi. An NTS radio programme reported: “She had a definite Nordic Aryan streak, [the belief] that she was physically, spiritually and creatively superior, a view she appears to have continued to maintain throughout her later years. During a performance in Berlin, the audience rioted after Nico performed the German national anthem “Deutschlandlied”, including a verse omitted since 1945 for its nationalist associations.”

But as the NTS report notes, after singing the Deutschlandlied, “Nico dedicated this performance to militant Andreas Baader, leader of the anti-fascist Red Army Faction.” In another report, her manager, Nigel Bagley noted: “at one gig, she introduced Deutschland über Alles, saying: ‘My father was a homosexual and died in a concentration camp.’”

None of this excuses Nico’s behaviour which is, at best erratic and fuelled by drugs. But at worst she was behaving like punks like Sid Vicious and Siouxsie Sioux, who provocatively wore swastika t-shirts and arm bands. At a time when Nazis were growing in the UK, this was an incredibly stupid act, but it didn’t make them Nazis themselves.

Racism

But the charge which refuses to go away is the one of racism. This depends on some well-documented incidents. The first is her ongoing antisemitism towards her friend – record executive Danny Fields. Fields later recalled: “Every once in a while, there’d be something about Jews and I’d be, ‘But Nico, I’m Jewish,’ and she was like ‘Yes, yes, I don’t mean you.’ She had a definite Nordic Aryan streak, [the belief] that she was physically, spiritually and creatively superior.”

Rock journalist Lester Bangs reported that Nico “was just naive enough to explain to Mary Harron, in a recent interview in New Wave Rock, why she was dropped by Island Records: “I made a mistake. I said in Melody Maker to some interviewer that I didn’t like negroes. That’s all. They took it so personally . . . although it’s a whole different race. I mean, Bob Marley doesn’t resemble a negro, does he? … He’s an archetype of Jamaican … but with the features like white people. I don’t like the features. They’re so much like animals…. it’s cannibals, no?”

And then there is the incident at a party, recounted by Fields via Simon Reynolds: “Nico was, I dunno, feeling neglected, or drunk, but suddenly she said ‘I hate black people,’ and smashed a wineglass on the table and stuck it in the girl’s eye. There was lots of blood and screaming. Fortunately she just twisted it around her eye socket, so the glass never reached [the eye] but it’s not like she was being cautious.””

Nico’s explanation for this incident, for which, she claims, the Black Panthers put out a hit on her is “I was high on angel dust… then I had to leave the country.” This non-apology-apology is so often used by rock stars to excuse their excesses. It is no more defensible than David Bowie saying: “I believe Britain could benefit from a fascist leader.” Unlike Bowie, Nico is not known to have ever apologised.

Instead, she attributed her bigotry to having been raped at the age of 13 (or sometimes 15) by a black US American soldier. Brian Dillon reported in the New Yorker: “When Nico was thirteen, she said, she was raped by a U.S. Army sergeant who was hanged for the crime. She also said he was Black, a claim that has been cited by many, Nico included, to explain conduct, on her part, that can only be called racist.”

Her biographers disagree about the authenticity of the crime. Richard Witts claims that Nico was probably lying, as he couldn’t locate any record of the crime, trial, or execution. Jennifer Otter Bickerdike, argues that the need to avoid the “Soviet and American heroes who had defeated fascism” meant that such cases were routinely covered up.

But surely this argument misses the point. Whether or not the rape happened, using it to justify a hatred of all black people is hardly proof that Nico was not a racist. 

What does this have to do with Nico’s music?

Actually, very little. Good politics can inspire good music, but there is no direct relationship between the two. Wagner was a great composer and an antisemite, Ezra Pound a great poet and an antisemite. David Bowie produced some of his greatest works when he was calling for a new Hitler and raping under age girls. When he apologized for his Hitler statement, and called MTV out for racism, his music was much less spectacular.

Nico left  an astounding body of work. On top of the music, the films, and the modelling, she inspired a number of other artistic works – from the films Nico-Icon and Nico, 1988 to The Nico Project, a theatrical performance created by, and starring Maxine Peake.

After Nico died, many obituaries concentrated on the men in her life – not her undoubted talent. She is buried in one of Berlin’s most beautifully located cemeteries – Friedhof Grunewald-Forst near the Havel. Fans and admirers ensure that her grave is covered with photos and flowers.

Cogs and Wheels: Interlocking Institutions

A few weeks from now, Homayoun Sabetara, charged with human smuggling, will be released from prison. His case exemplifies the interplay between repressive organisations.


08/11/2024

Ruth Wilson Gilmore and numerous other abolitionist thinkers and activists identify the penal system’s central role as a necessary instrument in upholding a capitalist system. So-called ‘organised abandonment’, the systemic giving up on and neglect of people by the state, is an integral part of the penal system. When people lose their jobs, are thrown out of their homes or stuck at borders without documentation, their destinies are not isolated, but rather intertwined with the penal and regulatory systems that specifically limit the choice in action of those affected.

Institutions of ‘justice’—the police, courts and prisons, among others—enforce, regulate and administrate organised neglect.

The interlocking and mutual support these systems share is apparent in Homayoun Sabetara’s case; on August 25, 2021, after having fled Iran he was arrested by Greek police after crossing the Turkish border by car. His escape was meant to lead him to Berlin where his daughter lives. In a process that only lasted two hours, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for human smuggling on September 26, 2022. Since then, the 63-year-old Sabetara has been in prison in Trikala, Greece. Relatives, including his daughter Mahtab Homayoum, began a campaign called ‘Free Homayoun’ demanding his release and supporting him in his appeal process. The process ended on September 24th with a sentence reduction to seven years and four months. The court expressly recognised that Sabetara had not acted with the intent to profit and that there was no legal path of entry by which he could have reached his daughter. 

Isolation and False Security

The means of fighting so-called human smuggling, in which Homayoun has been caught, are part of an overarching European anti-migration policy. Embedded in this fight is a falsified debate about security; the ‘safety of one’s own people’ is constructed by deportations, Duldung [status preventing people from working], and the simultaneous criminalisation of migrants and massive investments in border protection companies such as Frontex.

The aim of such sham debates is to transfer systemic failure to the individual level and thus uphold the existing system by justifying a new definition of security. This security is not achieved through meeting fundamental needs like access to housing, food and clean water, participation in society, education and medical care, but rather through more police and fortified security checks. In 2023 alone, The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) is said to have invested 845 million euro in these measures.

Those who happen to be at the wheel of a car with illegalised migrants in it when it is stopped by police is deemed the smuggler. The witnesses are other passengers or the intercepting police officers. This was also true in the case of Homayoun Sabetara. The charge against him was based on two witness statements—one from a police officer and one from a passenger in Sabetara’s car, which were taken upon arrest without a translator. These proceedings are not an isolated case. Harris Ladis, the lawyer defending Sabetara, described the police’s conduct as such: ‘The police make no attempt to cross examine or investigate witness accounts. To avoid too much hassle, they generally take a statement from just one passenger, who says, ‘‘He was driving when we arrived.’’ That’s enough to arrest someone and hand them over to the examining judge.’

Those who cannot sort out a lawyer for their trial don’t stand a chance in court when up against high criminal charges such as human trafficking, as in Sabetara’s case. His lawyer’s fees alone amounted to more than  15,000 Euro. Poverty means staying (longer) in prison.

The most frequent questions in court centred around Sabetara’s financial situation in Iran—what did he do for work? How much did he earn? The same questions were posed to his daughter. Did he send part of his earnings to Germany? How was she funding her life in Germany? How did her father pay for the journey? How much money did she send him? Did he have financial issues? Did he own a car? Or receive an inheritance? A house? So what about the house? Did he leave his possessions or the proceeds from the sale of his business behind? What did she study? Where did she work?

Defendants must constantly emphasise that they are not ‘poor’ or ‘uneducated’. Homazoun and Mahtab are no exception. In court they repeatedly had to talk about their careers and academic achievements in order to convince the judge that Sabetara’s detainment was unjust.

Research by Borderline Europe shows that court proceedings against so-called ‘smugglers’ have an average length of 37 minutes, while cases assigned to public defenders take 17. Borderline Europe’s shortest documented case was just 6 minutes long. These short cases are often unlawful and based on insufficient and questionable evidence, for example the statement of a single police officer or coast guard agent. In 68% of documented cases, those giving the statements were not even present in the courtroom. These proceedings decide destinies in a matter of minutes; on average, human smugglers are sentenced to 46 years in prison and fined 332,209 euro.

Homayoun Sabetara’s case also shows that prisoners must rely on help from outside the prison. They need someone who looks out for their care and health, procures needed medication and alerts the prison should they fall ill. Or someone to accompany them on their court date, send them money and offer support for their freedom. For those who have no one to see during visitor’s hours, prison becomes an even greater hell. Usually represented by a public defender, without an adequate interpreter, they are alone against a system that criminalised them from the beginning. 

The tough sentences that most often affect young prisoners without relatives are meant to act as a deterrent. Alone and abandoned, those who have neither the social nor economic capital to defend their rights are the ideal victims to substantiate the European security debate—criminals tasked with maintaining the true face of a ‘safe’ Europe. 

This article first appeared in German on the Anaylse & Kritik Website. Translation: Shav MacKay. Reproduced with permission.

“We should be part of the pro-Palestine movement, and we should support it.”

Interview with Martha Kleedorfer (Die Linke Berlin-Mitte)


06/11/2024

Thank you for talking to us, Martha. Could you quickly say who you are and what it is you do?

My name is Martha Kleedorfer, and I am the chairwoman of die Linke in the district of Berlin Mitte. Mitte consists of Wedding, Moabit, Tiergarten, Gesundbrunnen, and alt-Mitte. I work a lot on the topic of housing politics and am a member of the local parliament.

A lot has happened in die Linke in the last couple of weeks. Recently, die Linke Berlin had their conference and there was a big discussion about antisemitism. What exactly happened there?

First of all, we had a really good debate. For example, a trade unionist from Berlin-Brandenburg came to speak about strikes by educators, and that was really strong. We also discussed a couple of other topics. And then later that evening, there was a motion about antisemitism from some people, including Klaus Lederer.

They particularly wanted to discuss “left-wing antisemitism”, which has been a big topic in Germany ever since October 7 last year. Robert Habeck, a leading Green minister, has been talking about “left-wing antisemitism”, as if it is the most important topic. This is when the AfD, a fascist party, is polling around 20%. In some parts of Germany, like Saxony or Brandenburg, they are even stronger, with 30%.

We thought that this doesn’t serve as a good enough analysis, either of antisemitism, or of the war on Gaza, so we suggested some changes to the text. Most of these changes were accepted by a majority of party delegates.

Lederer and his group got very angry that the text had been changed, and left the conference. One of them showed her middle fingers to the conference. The changed text then did not get the two-thirds of the vote it needed to be passed.

For people who don’t know who he is, who is Klaus Lederer?

Klaus Lederer is a former leader of die Linke in Berlin. He was Berlin’s Senator for Culture for six years, I think, and he was one of the mayors of Berlin.

The big headlines after the conference said that you personally accused Lederer of relativizing the Holocaust. What was that about? 

One part of the text said that the Left should never underestimate the eliminatory antisemitism of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The term “eliminatory antisemitism” was first used by scientist Daniel Goldhagen in the 1990s. I don’t agree with Goldhagen’s ideas, but he proposed the idea that every German was an antisemite, and he used the term “eliminatory antisemitism” to characterize the German antisemitism which led to the Holocaust.

I don’t like this idea, but this is something which is being discussed in science and by historians.

There’s a very good book by Norman Finkelstein about Goldhagen’s thesis

I essentially said that I wouldn’t use that term that describes the genocide on Jews that Germans committed to characterize other groups. I said that, essentially, this is relativizing the Holocaust. I later even apologised for the very strong tone with which I said it, but they didn’t want to listen to that apology. 

A week after the Linke Berlin conference, the party had its national conference where there was another discussion on Palestine. How did that go?

After the Berlin Conference, everyone was very scared about the national conference, worrying that this would all blow up. So everyone was trying to be very precise and very calm. There was a weird atmosphere at the conference that evening. 

In the end, there was a compromise from the new chairperson, Jan Van Aken, who also lived in Tel Aviv for a couple of years and is very familiar with foreign policy. A majority of the conference voted for that compromise, and a lot of people were talking about Palestine in general. When we voted for the new party leadership, a lot of candidates were talking about the war on Gaza and Lebanon in their speeches.

What was in the compromise? Do you support it?

I voted for it at the conference, because I thought that at the end of the day it was a step in the right direction. For example, the text talks about the war on Gaza and Lebanon, and especially opposes that the German government is sending weapons to support Israel’s war. 

It also strongly rejected antisemitism. What was new was that it talked about the International Court of Justice saying that a genocide is about to happen. We were finally able to acknowledge that in that text, which contains the word “genocide”. This is quite new for die Linke, which is very reluctant when it comes to talking about Israel’s war in Gaza, and is mostly trying to use very soft terms to describe the outrageous war that is happening. 

So I thought that was a step in the right direction. At the same time, it was quite important for the part of die Linke that does not fully support the pro-Palestine movement that the part about antisemitism is in the text. It is right that there is no room for antisemitism in die Linke, but at the end of the day, they might use this to get people who they don’t like out of the party.

Nonetheless, significant parts of the Palestine movement point to die Linke supporting pro-Israel demos, and to various statements by Linke leaders, and say that even in the current compromise, die Linke is obsessed with a two-state solution – which is now dead – if it ever was a solution. They therefore argue that they don’t see die Linke as a partner. How would you address such concerns?

I do think that there’s a difference in what die Linke as a party says when it comes to the two-state solution. I also think that die Linke is one of only two major parties in Germany which doesn’t unconditionally support Israel. 

There is a gap between what we say and vote for when we meet as a conference, and what the party does at the end of the day. For example, when leaders of die Linke go to a pro-Israel demonstration, that is not part of what we want as a party, and what is in the party programme.

This is one of the biggest problems that I see. We as a party should play a bigger role in the pro-Palestinian movement. We should be part of the movement, and we should support it.

There is a difference with some groups like Palestine Speaks when it comes to how we think of Israel as a state, but what we as a party want at this point is to stop the war and a permanent ceasefire, and this is something we can fight for together with the movement.

One of the results of the National Conference was that a number of known pro-Israel people, including Klaus Lederer, left the party. Why did they do that? And how does this change the balance of forces?

One day after the National Conference, Henriette Quade, a member of die Linke in Sachsen-Anhalt and also a member of the Parliament there, left the party. I think it’s actually quite interesting, because she said she supports sending weapons to Israel, but somehow she didn’t know that die Linke is always against sending weapons into areas where there is a war. She realized that there’s a big difference between what she wants and what die Linke wants. So she left the party.

Two days later, Klaus Lederer and some other very prominent people from die Linke also left the party. It does hurt that members are leaving Die Linke. In their statement, they didn’t talk as much about the national conference as about die Linke in Berlin. They said that they can no longer advocate for “strategic orientation” in Die Linke Berlin. 

At the end of the day, it’s true, because the party has changed over the last couple of years. For example, when it comes to the unconditional support of a government that doesn’t change anything about the housing crisis in Berlin, I think there is a majority in die Linke in Berlin which does not fully support the politics of Klaus Lederer. I think there is a more nuanced part of die Linke which does not unconditionally support Israel anymore. That’s essentially why they left the party, I guess. 

They want to stay in the parliament for die Linke though.

Even though they’re not party members?

Exactly, and that is quite interesting, because exactly one year before they left, Sahra Wagenknecht and other members of die Linke in the Bundestag left the party, and everyone – including Klaus Lederer and others – were saying they should give back their seats in the parliament. And now they’re doing the same. Die Linke Berlin has said last year that members of Die Linke in parliament, who left the party should give back their seats and we are saying the same now.

One of the other things that’s been happening is that there’s been more than one article in the right wing Axel Springer press, which has been specifically attacking you and four Linke activists in Neukölln, including Ramsy Kilani and Ferat Kocak. And strangely, they’re also attacking The Left Berlin, which has nothing to do with die Linke. Who is behind these attacks and why? 

As I mentioned before, the Conservatives and bürgerliche Mitte [roughly speaking, the bourgeois middle of society] want to put pressure on the left for being, as they say, antisemitic, This is convenient for them, because it means that they don’t have to talk about the antisemitism that is happening on the right or the conservative parts of society.

So the Tagesspiegel and other journalists have been publishing those texts about us. At the end of the day, they don’t like left-wing politics, and they’re using every tool that they have. It’s very convenient to them that they think they can make this accusation of antisemitism against members of die Linke (which are not true), because at the end of the day, they want to destroy anti-capitalist politics.

Two of the people being accused – yourself and Ferat – are both trying to stand for parliament for die Linke at the next general election. Do you think you can rely on the support of the party?

Of course, there are people who have different opinions to what I said at the conference. But what die Linke in Mitte is saying is very clear. We have voted for proposals at our district conferences that are very clearly pro-Palestinian. What I say is backed by my party in my district, so I feel quite confident that it’s the right thing.

I live in Wedding, and when I walk around Wedding wearing a kuffiyah, I have so many nice conversations with my neighbors. And when I look around, there are so many apartments hanging Palestinian flags in this neighborhood. The working class lives here, and die Linke wants to make politics with the working class. It is the right thing to do to work together with the working class in our neighborhood, and this is exactly what we’re doing right now.

If you do get elected, MP, what do you think you can offer the working class of Wedding and Germany?

There is a huge problem here in Wedding that most of the people don’t actually vote. Even though many people have German citizenship, they don’t participate in elections. I think that’s because they don’t feel like any party is seeing their pain and anger, especially when it comes to Palestine and the way that German politics doesn’t acknowledge the suffering of Arabs.

What we want to do is to talk to our neighbours in this district. We want to give them a voice and not just be for them, but with them. This is exactly what you have to do, not just when we’re talking about Palestine, but also when we’re talking about rents and how inflation is going up, and how people can’t afford their lives any more. 

It is so important that someone is finally listening to them, and if we as die Linke will finally be able to support our neighbourhood in finding a voice, that is exactly what we want to do. 

How confident are you that die Linke can be an agent for change?

I think die Linke now has a chance to actually be the motor of change. When the party was founded in 2007 it was the voice of change when it came to fighting Agenda 2010, when working class people were being pressured. I really want to fight for die Linke coming back to that position. 

In the last couple of years, we were not able to do that because we weren’t able to speak clearly about imperialism, but also about all those mistakes that the government is making. But what we have to do is to criticize what the government is doing from a socialist perspective. There are multiple injustices which are happening, including the German support for the war on the people in Gaza and Lebanon. So I really do hope that now we are finding that clear voice again.

Surveillance, Censorship, and Criminalization

Report from a meeting organised by the Arts & Culture Alliance Berlin (ACAB) about Germany’s proposed antisemitism resolution


Following the news last Friday, November 1st, of a second leak of the text of the Bundestag resolution ‘Never again is now: Protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany’, Arts & Culture Alliance Berlin and the cultural center Oyoun held an event under the name ‘Surveillance, Censorship, and Criminalization: An Emergency Public Reading and Discussion on the Leaked Bundestag Resolution’ to address the implications of the new policy, slated for a vote this week. Ostensibly aimed at safeguarding Jewish life in Germany, the resolution has faced severe backlash for what critics claim is a thinly veiled attempt to stifle dissent and criminalize criticism of the state of Israel. Despite the venue’s capacity limits, a crowd gathered beyond those registered, portraying the urgency and high public interest in the topic. In a climate of increased scrutiny by the mainstream media and a newly reinvigorated German McCarthyism, attendees were asked to refrain from recording video or audio to avoid hostile media infiltration, which has previously misrepresented such events. The discussion unfolded peacefully, with participants expressing deep concerns over the resolution’s potential impact on civil liberties and public discourse.

The resolution, signed by the Ampel coalition and the CDU/CSU, was initially leaked over the summer, sparking widespread criticism across Germany’s media and civil society. Condemned as unconstitutional, repressive, and contrary to international law, the resolution has been widely viewed as a perilous attack on freedom of expression, artistic and scientific freedom, and the right to political dissent. Many critics have pointed out that the document conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israeli policy, a move that threatens to undermine legitimate political expression. The issue was compounded by the fact that the resolution was drafted behind closed doors to avoid further leaks, excluding broad civil society input, as well as consultation with most Bundestag members, save for a single representative from each major party.

Sunday’s event opened with a reading of the English translation of the resolution by a prominent German actress, underscoring its vague and sweeping language. The document alleges that there is “an increasingly open and violent antisemitism in right-wing extremist and Islamist milieus as well as a relativizing approach and increasing Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist antisemitism” and warns of “the alarming extent of antisemitism based on immigration from North Africa and the Middle East, where antisemitism and hostility towards Israel are widespread, partly due to Islamist and anti-Israeli state indoctrination”. Critics, however, argued that these statements dangerously oversimplify and racialize complex issues, deflecting responsibility away from Germany’s own historical roots of antisemitism. Furthermore, by conflating antisemitism with any critique of Israel, the resolution appears to silence meaningful discourse about Israeli policies and the rights of Palestinians.

Following the reading, speakers, whom we have decided not to name for reasons of confidentiality, highlighted the resolution’s ambiguity and raised questions about its legal viability. As a non-binding resolution rather than a formal law, it will not undergo the constitutionally mandated legislative process, which means it will be challenging to contest in court despite its potentially unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of expression. Yet, state offices could invoke this resolution to justify punitive actions, exploiting its vague language while bypassing constitutional safeguards.

Speakers observed that the resolution seeks to redefine antisemitism in ways that link Jewish identity intrinsically to Israel, framing critiques of Israeli policies as attacks on Jewish people themselves. By presenting Israel as the “Jew among states” and implying that Jewish identity is inseparable from Zionist ideology, the resolution risks creating a climate where even non-violent opposition to Israeli state practices is viewed as antisemitic. As one speaker noted, this resolution is not about protecting Jewish life, but about conflating Jewish identity with Israeli nationalism, to suppress solidarity with Palestine.

The resolution’s emphasis on increased oversight in the arts and academia also raised significant concerns. It references recent controversies, such as those at Documenta 15 and the Berlinale, as justification for intensifying scrutiny and regulation within cultural and academic institutions. With proposals for “antisemitism-critical codes of conduct”, many fear that the resolution could stifle artistic freedom, limit public funding for projects deemed critical of Israel, and create a chilling effect in academic settings. Among the suggested measures is for universities to enforce “house rules” to deny entry or expel students and staff whose views are interpreted as antisemitic, and “to appoint antisemitism officers at universities across the board”—a troubling development for free speech in Germany’s institutions, given the arbitrariness with which these measures could be implemented.

The resolution also highlights antisemitism as stemming from immigration, particularly from North African and Middle Eastern communities, a framing that participants criticized as scapegoating. This language risks fueling xenophobic narratives, framing Muslim and Arab communities as inherently antisemitic and ignoring the German state’s own history of antisemitism. One panelist remarked that by placing blame on immigrant communities, Germany sidesteps its responsibility while reinforcing damaging stereotypes. The resolution’s portrayal of “Israel solidarity” as integral to Jewish identity disregards the diversity within Jewish communities, especially those who actively oppose the Israel’s policies toward Palestinians.

Concerns were expressed over how these narratives pit marginalized groups against each other, dividing communities and stifling solidarity. As the discussion progressed, the resolution was described as not only undermining Palestinian rights but also as a vehicle for Germany to “project blame onto the other” while shielding itself from critique. This tactic is a clear means to avoid confronting Germany’s complicity in contemporary international conflicts and human rights abuses and, more importantly, to avoid confronting its past.

In response to the resolution’s threat to freedom of expression, speakers emphasized the importance of continued resistance. Organizations such as the European Legal Support Center and 3EZWA were highlighted for their work monitoring discrimination against Palestine solidarity movements in Germany and for offering legal assistance. Others advocated for proactive steps, including disrupting institutional silence on the issue and increasing international visibility around Germany’s policies toward Palestine.

Another focal point of discussion was the need to hold German cultural and academic institutions accountable, especially regarding potential funding restrictions for projects perceived as critical of Israel. Among the suggested strategies were joining unions, participating in direct actions, and working within institutions to amplify dissenting voices, and demand transparency in funding and policy decisions.

As the event came to a close, it was clear that the Bundestag resolution represents more than a repressive undemocratic policy; it signals a deeper ideological struggle within Germany that has global implications. It is a measure that disproportionately targets migrant communities and minorities, who have been at the forefront of the protests from the beginning—in contrast to the German population, which is more reluctant to take to the streets in this regard. The even graver paradox is that, after the Palestinian and the Arab population, the main target is precisely a part of the Jewish community, which is leading various protest movements.

Hence the importance of continued resistance against state narratives that seek to equate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, emphasizing that solidarity with Palestine is not only a matter of social justice but a vital act of free expression. This is why we appeal not only to allies of the movement for freedom of the Palestinian people, but to anyone who believes in the values of the human, democratic, and civil rights of free expression, association, and protest. When rights are restricted to some, they are, in reality, restricted to all.

In a powerful closing statement, one speaker urged for a global response, highlighting that Germany cannot avoid international scrutiny. Just as apartheid South Africa faced worldwide condemnation, so must Israel’s actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the discriminatory and complicit policies of Germany.

The UK budget – not nearly as generous as it might seem

Under Britian’s new Labour government, healthcare remains underfunded


05/11/2024

While the recently published Darzi report laid the blame for the current failings of the NHS squarely with Conservative governments, the problems are now owned by Labour after their July election victory, and there is a pressing need for patients to see real improvements in services. Broad aims to utilise technology, shift care into the community and focus on prevention need clarification in terms of detailed plans for how things will be made better in practice. Campaigners have long been calling for a £20bn funding injection as a down payment on what is needed to start the process of repair. This demand was coupled with calls for a commitment to a publicly funded and provided NHS and fair pay settlements for staff. Darzi’s stark diagnosis of a critically ill service starved of funds also sets the scene for the government to prescribe necessary treatment, the details of which are expected to be set out in next spring’s 10 year plan.

The recent budget enables Labour to argue that it has started on the path of restoring NHS services, with one aim being a return to meeting NHS performance standards in the next five years. The NHS was a key issue in the election, and Labour is likely to be judged next time around on how much it has been able to deliver in terms of real progress. A major concern remains that unspecified ‘reform’ is being prioritised over greater investment, despite the fact that New Labour showed, the last time that Labour ‘saved the NHS’, that a sustained increase in funding was crucial to reducing waiting lists and improving public satisfaction. In addition, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, insists in the face of all evidence to the contrary that the private sector is there to help out and must play a key role in recovery.

What did the Budget promise?

The headlines for the NHS were an additional £22.6bn over the next two years for day-to-day spending, and a further £3.1bn capital over the same period. The government also announced that £1bn of the capital investment would be used to tackle the backlog of repairs and upgrades with a further £1.5bn for new beds in hospitals across the UK, around one million additional diagnostic tests, and new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres. This is aimed at reducing waiting lists (currently standing at nearly 8 million) and increasing numbers of hospital appointments and procedures in England by 40,000 per week (at present there are nearly two million weekly hospital appointments).

The £22.6bn will inevitably be eroded by pay settlements, by staff recruitment as the workforce plan is implemented and by inflation. Alarmingly, with an estimated current £4.8bn underfunded shortfall in NHS England revenue budget there will be no more money immediately available, despite the need to tackle a crisis that is seeing 14,000 avoidable deaths each year simply from delays in Emergency Departments. The £1bn of the capital funding for urgent repairs includes the seven hospitals in danger of collapse due to being constructed with Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete. These need rebuilding at an estimated average cost of £1bn each (as part of the much bigger but as yet unfunded New Hospitals Programme). £600m has been allocated for upgrades to 200 GP surgeries, and £70m for radiotherapy machines. Social care is to receive a paltry £600m, and like general practice, the sector will be hit by the rise in employer National Insurance contributions despite public services being protected from this. For GPs, also being hit by a 6.7% rise in minimum wage for practice staff, this seems inconsistent with Labour’s pledge to ‘bring back the family doctor’ (20% of practices closed between 2013 and 2023) and reduce pressure on hospitals.

How much extra funding does the NHS need?

Some figures give a sense of just how much money the NHS might need if our People’s Vision of a restored service based on its founding principles is to be achieved. In the decade preceding the pandemic, annual spending increases were significantly below the long-term historical average for nine subsequent years. As a consequences, the British Medical Association estimates that since 2009/10 there has been a £44.6bn cumulative underspend compared with historical funding settlements. The Health Foundation considers that to enable the NHS in England to meet growing demand and improve standards an additional £38bn funding each year until 2029/30 would be necessary. Lord Darzi identified a £37bn capital investment deficit compared with similar countries, and the NHS Confederation has been calling for an annual £6.4bn capital funding increase to ensure staff have the right tools and space to work effectively. There is currently a maintenance backlog of £13.8bn needed to bring NHS estates to an adequate condition.

A small step in the right direction

While welcoming the announcement of extra funding, it is crucial that this be invested in the NHS as a public service provider and not diverted to short term profit taking companies. Investment in social care and in rebuilding public health services should also be prioritised, and there must be a real cross departmental focus on reducing health inequalities by addressing the social determinants of health and the promotion of social justice. With climate change now the biggest threat to public health, it is lamentable that this hardly featured in the budget except for a welcome increase in air passenger duty for private jets.

The budget was a missed opportunity for wealth redistribution from rich to poor. A much needed tax on the very wealthy was avoided and a manifesto pledge to tax the huge profits made by private equity bosses was considerably watered down. This is despite government stating that money for investment in public services should come from those with the broadest shoulders. This is urgent given compelling evidence of how a failing NHS will lead to a failing economy. As Darzi said in a clear message to government, ‘It is not a question of whether we can afford the NHS. Rather, we cannot afford not to have the NHS, so it is imperative that we turn the situation around’.

So often complex accounting practices and shifting definitions of what constitutes NHS spending obscure the true financial state of the NHS and its funding needs, as well as how much of the money promised will translate into reality. While welcoming the budget as a small step in the right direction, the likely reality is that it will only help maintain services but not mean patients will see an improvement in care. If Darzi saw the NHS as a critically ill patient, then the journalist Frances Ryan is spot on to categorise the budget as ‘£22bn worth of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’. It raises questions as to just how committed Labour is to restoration of a publicly provided NHS. Much more will be needed to return it to healthy status, including a far greater commitment in the coming 10 year plan.