The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Mr. Merz, your ‘dirty work’ has consequences – End support for Israeli war crimes now

Open Letter to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz


24/06/2025

This open letter was initiated by members of the Iranian diaspora

Dear Mr. Merz,

On the second day of the G7 summit, in an interview with ZDF – set against what the interviewer described as the “picturesque backdrop of the Rocky Mountains” – you commented on Israel’s attack on Iran with the words:

“This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us.”

At a time when terms such as antisemitism, self-defense, and human rights are increasingly devalued through their inflationary and instrumental misuse – rendering a number of minorities who are directly impacted by extremist ideology in Germany increasingly vulnerable – your choice of words is chillingly revealing. Your chosen words aptly indicate your willingness to cheer on the breaking of international law. The only ambiguity in your statement lies in your use of the pronoun, “us.” Whom exactly do you mean by “us,” Mr. Merz? Whose voices do you imagine that you represent via this hate-filled endorsement of the killing and displacement of innocent civilians?

Allow us to remind you of the preamble to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which declares Germany’s commitment to “promoting world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe.” The warfare that your statement supports falls far from supporting global peace. In this sense, how dare you assume that “we,” the German people and inhabitants of Germany, stand behind your belligerent words? Perhaps then, the “we” that you mention is a reference to the German government and other European states? If that is the case, then those governments must now be called upon to publicly respond to your statement.

Your choice of words warrants serious scrutiny, given the immense historical and moral implications. Referring to the deliberate killing of human beings as “work” – a term used for the production of goods or the provision of services – is nothing less than an act of linguistic dehumanization of the victims. The phrase “dirty work” troublingly echoes language formerly used by SS leadership: In his testimony before the Polish tribunal, the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höss, described the systematic extermination of human beings as a “task,” as necessary “work” to be carried out.

Mr. Merz, how convenient it is to have other parties carry out the “dirty work” for you at this moment in history without German hands having to be literally stained with blood! The “dirty work” is now carried out by the Israeli government at a comfortable distance. The resulting civilian deaths are cynically whitewashed via trivialization, omission, and selective reporting in mainstream media.

In your comment, you speak of the same Israeli government that has already been responsible for the deaths of over 55,000 people in Gaza, a government that should not be conflated with the civilian population of Israel, just as the current dictatorial regime in Iran cannot be conflated with Iranian civilians and just as German government policy vis-a-vis Israel-Palestine and the Middle East must be understood, at this moment in time, as distinct from the will of the German people.

You speak of the same Israeli government whose prime minister, on 21 November 2024, was issued with an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, a court whose authority your government seems increasingly unwilling to recognize. The Israeli government’s violations of international law were explicitly pointed out to you by Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Regrettably, it has become apparent that it is no longer necessary to adhere to and respect international law and basic humanitarian principles in order to hold high political office in Germany.

We, the undersigned, are Iranian citizens with German citizenship or residence status. We live, work, study and engage in social work here – as academics, doctors, nurses, artists, craftspeople, activists, teachers, childcare workers, engineers and others who contribute significantly to German society. What you refer to as “dirty work,” Mr. Merz, is a cruel euphemism for the murder and displacement of our family and friends in Iran. What you wish to sell to the German public as “targeted strikes on nuclear facilities” is, in reality, a bloody war carried out by a corrupt far-right government in the Middle East, under the guise of “self-defence.”

Our German, European and international colleagues, friends, and allies – many of whom have also signed this letter – are well informed about the crimes committed by the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. They are bearing direct witness to how deeply shaken, desperate and traumatized we are by a government which, at least before your tenure, appeared to want all who live in Germany represented. Your “dirty work,” as carried out by the Israeli government, is reviled not only by the deeply impacted civilians of Iran, but also by a great number of attentive Germans – some of whom have signed this letter.

We strongly urge you to immediately halt all arms exports to Israel and to issue a public apology for your hateful and degrading use of language. Let this letter be a reminder that we will continue to inform and educate the growing number of Germans who are deeply alarmed by the crimes that the Israeli government consistently perpetrates. We will continue to disseminate the images and reports that we receive directly from Iran and other contexts impacted by Israel’s indiscriminate violence. Be aware that those who have enabled or been complicit in this violence, including your government, will be held accountable for having directly or indirectly perpetuated the “dirty work” that you so callously evoked during your ZDF interview.

Sign here

You can find this Open Letter in German, English, and Farsi with a list of the existing signatories here.

1 July 2009: Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini

This week in working class history

On 1st July 2009, Marwa El-Sherbini was supposed to have her day in court. The previous year, El-Sherbini had asked Alexander Wiens to allow her son Mustafa to use a park swing. Wiens replied with Islamophobic abuse, calling her a “terrorist”, an “Islamist” and a “slut.” He threatened the then 2-year old Mustafa with violence. El-Sherwini sued Wiens for verbal abuse, and he was fined €780. On 1st July, El-Sherbini and Wiens met again in Dresden district court after he appealed the fine.

As El-Sherbini left the court, Wiens stabbed her at least 16 times with a 7-inch knife. She, and her unborn child, died immediately. When her husband Elwy tried to intervene, he was first stabbed by Wiens then shot in the leg and critically wounded by a policeman. As a result of the shooting, Elwy was in a coma for 2 days. Lawyer Nadja Samour told Al Jazeera: “once the security officer arrived, they saw of course a white man and a brown man fighting and the first reaction they have was to shoot the brown man.”

El-Sherbini’s murder took place at a time of rising racism and Islamophobia in Germany and elsewhere. The court case took place a few days after French president Nicolas Sarkozy had denounced the burka. The following year, former Berlin finance minister Thilo Sarrazin published his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab”. The book claimed that the education level of people from Turkey and Arab countries was damaging Germany, and ranted about “headscarf girls”.  The book sold 1½ million copies.

Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza has only made things worse. From October 7, 2023 to December 8, 2023, 142 anti-Islamic crimes were reported, 3 times more than the previous year. Women were affected in 62% of the cases. Marwa El-Sherbini’s murder should teach us that our different fights – against Islamophobia, against sexism, for Palestine – are intertwined, and that we cannot trust the German state to support us.

Anti-Trump United Front

The People of the USA are on the move


23/06/2025

Citizens of Chico line the streets near Fred David Municipal Center during the No Kings protest in Chico, California, on the morning of June 14, 2025

Many Marxist-Leninists in the USA have long called for a United Front (UF) of the People against the onslaught of fascism in the USA. That said, this was slow to come. Given the situation of the left in the USA currently, the UF was not ‘made’ by us. However, we must join it, now that one has arisen. Undoubtedly, the UF has made a resolute start.

Actions of the United Front to date

The general slogan of the UF, which became the name of the demonstrations themselves, is “No Kings”. The UF organised these protests because, as their website explains:

“They’ve defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services. 

“The flag doesn’t belong to President Trump. It belongs to us. We’re not watching history happen. We’re making it.

“On June 14th, we’re showing up everywhere he isn’t—to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.”

This coalition comprises numerous supporting groups. According to an article written by Ashley Ahn for the New York Times entitled “The No Kings protests were the work of hundreds of organizations” (June 14, 2025), these groups successfully led marches across the country:

“The No Kings protests sweeping the country Saturday were coordinated by more than 200 organizations, including political, environmental and labor advocacy groups, according to the demonstrators’ website. 

Among the most prominent organizers were progressive groups like 50501, Indivisible, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Many of the groups involved also helped plan the “Hands Off!” protests in April, which called on the Trump administration to stop threatening Social Security, health care and education.”

The UF faced down three very recent intimidations—and yet they still organised an impressive, visible, and large resistance across the country.

These three intimidations of the progressive and anti-racist movement were:

  1. The ICE crackdown urged on by Trump on the immigrant workers in the USA’s second largest city, Los Angeles (LA). See here.
  2. The military rally in Washington, DC, organised by the ever self-glorifying Trump, which consumed some $45 million. This was supposedly to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the US Army, which just happens to coincide with Trump’s 79th birthday. It consisted of marches of troops, weaponry, and military vehicles.
  3. The assassinations of the Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman of the Democratic Party and her husband at their home—which State Governor Tim Walz labelled as a “politically motivated assassination”. In addition to this, Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were shot at their home—but survived. The assassin was a man who owns a security agency and was dressed as a police officer, and was driving a “police” car. In his car, a hit list was found, which, among many names, included the “No Kings” demonstrations. The Minnesota organizers were concerned about this and cancelled protest marches. Even so, a large crowd arrived outside the State Capitol in St. Paul, Minnesota.

What do we know about the United Front?

The scale of their protests reflects that they have many origins in several progressive movements: 

“The protests this past week against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown included some organizations that had more explicit support for racial justice, Palestinian freedom and socialist politics, such as local chapters of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.”

There are two main organisers of the UF—the 50501 movement and Indivisible. Both started as online movements:

“Indivisible and 50501 were both created in response to President Trump’s policies. Indivisible started as an online document that provided guidance on how to organize locally and pressure elected officials to reject Mr. Trump’s policies. The 50501 movement grew from a Reddit community that was created on Jan. 25, days after Mr. Trump’s second inauguration. (Its name is short for “50 protests, 50 states, 1 movement”).”

The Welcome Guide of 50501 clarifies further:

“ 50501 is a national movement made up of everyday Americans who stand up for democracy and who stand up against the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration. The name 5051 stands for 50 states, 50 protests, 1 movement.” (p. 1/8)

The other main organiser is Indivisible:

“Indivisible has since expanded its reach to over 200,000 followers on Instagram; 50501 has more than 400,000 followers on the platform.

“The larger groups have helped mobilize protests since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s second term and focused on issues like mass layoffs in the government workforce and cuts to Medicaid …

“The demonstrations on Saturday were named No Kings to refer to what organizers see as authoritarian overreach by Mr. Trump and his administration.”

The coalitions involved in the UF include but are not limited to the following:

Build the Resistance, Unheard here, Voices of Florida. More listings of partner organisations can be found here

What is the United Front’s policy?

According to their own websites, they aim to mobilise the people of the working class against the Trump regime. They are explicitly a United Front and make it clear that they don’t have overall agreement on issues other than on Trump:

“Q: Why doesn’t 50501 have a “position” on certain topics?

“A: 50501 is a collection of people of differing, and sometimes opposing, ideals. Our people are from every background imaginable. Every political party, religion, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, age, ability, gender, and US state. We are everything from rich to poor, from rural to urban, from ex-maga to BLM. Everyone is here. We do not have “positions” on most topics because we contain a variety of positions. We chose to collaborate under our singular common goal: to end the executive overreach of the Trump Administration.

Collaboration does not mean we condone or endorse every single ideal held by the groups or individuals who cooperate with us. It simply means we work together to achieve our shared goal.” (The 50501 Movement Welcome Guide, p. 7/8

They eschew labels like “fascism”—or at least they do not use them in their published material—and they espouse a non-violent strategy:

“A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events.” (No Kings Website)

“50501 is a peaceful movement. Violence of any kind will not be tolerated.” (50501 Events)

“We are dedicated to promoting nonviolence in all aspects of our interactions, fostering a culture of respect, understanding, and peaceful conflict resolution.

“We believe that dialogue, empathy, and cooperation are essential in creating a safe and just environment for all.

“Through our actions and commitments, we strive to reject harm and build a community rooted in compassion and mutual respect.”(50501 Values)

Nonetheless, they proclaim:

“On June 14—Flag Day—President Trump wants tanks in the street and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday. A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn’t staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else.

“No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we’re taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like.

“We’re not gathering to feed his ego. We’re building a movement that leaves him behind.” (No Kings Website)

In lieu of a full programme, they state their aims are as follows:

“We call on our government to…

  • Uphold the Constitution.
  • End executive overreach.” (p. 1)

They define “executive overreach” as follows:

“Q: What does ‘Executive Overreach’ mean?

“A: ‘Executive’ refers to the executive branch of our government that includes the President, Vice President, the Cabinet, and various executive departments, agencies, boards, commissions, and committees. It is one of three branches of government that must be balanced in order for our country to function. “Overreach” refers to any actions that are beyond the scope of the executive branch as laid out in our Constitution. The Trump Administration has overextended the actions of the executive branch in ways that jeopardize American’s rights, civil liberties, and access to public services that we pay for with our taxes.” (p. 6) 

The word “movement” is repetitively emphasised, clarifying that it is not aiming at a single party:

“Q: What does ‘Movement’ mean?

A: 50501 is not an organization. It is not a company. It’s not a brand, club, or influencer. It is an agreed upon idea to end the executive overreach of the Trump Administration. Do not look to 50501 for leadership or permission to hold your own government accountable. The time has come for you to get involved. You are 50501. Together our voices cannot be ignored.” (p. 6)

In keeping with this, the movement’s leadership is somewhat opaque. To a degree, they fervently deny they have any leadership and affirm that they rely on “grassroots democracy”:

“The 50501 movement is a grassroots effort, meaning it’s powered by everyday people, not by politicians or political parties. Most of the work happens at the local level, where volunteers in local city or state groups organize protests, advertise events, and handle logistics. These local groups are the lifeblood of the movement and exist both online and in person.

“In addition to local-level organizing, national coordination between 50501 groups allows us to establish cohesive messaging, decide dates of action, and share resources. This coordination is decentralized, therefore, 50501 has no true leadership.

“50501 is not run by politicians or any political party. This Movement is beholden only to the everyday Americans who create, fund, and organize its actions and events. We, the American people, have banded together in the interest of a common goal; to end executive overreach and reject the authoritarian actions of the Trump Administration. We are not paid, or coerced into action. We are driven to act out of our sense of what is right: decency, democracy, and civil liberty for all people.” (p. 2) 

The actions they propose are:

“Take actions encouraged by the movement:

  • Call your congress-person.
  • Boycott companies that support the Trump Administration.
  • Go to town halls.
  • Run for local office.
  • Teach others about the 50501 movement.
  • Join our online and in-person protests.” (p. 4) 

Conclusions 

While the movement’s leadership is unclear to the Editors, it is very likely to be composed at the national level of a “Democratic Party” leadership.

At this critical juncture, the overall philosophy that is needed is one of a United Front. Lenin emphasized the necessity of United Front tactics in bringing about historic social change. He also cautioned that we must remain open to compromises and occasional changes in direction in order for the working class to take eventual steps forward towards real political power with and for the working class.

The present movement is both nascent and perhaps rather naive with regard to its objections and parameters. However, it is our opinion that all Marxist-Leninists should support it, and try to be perceived as helpful in leading it. Only this can turn the movement into a realisation that the UF’s current positions are inadequate, and that a movement to the socialist revolution is the only way forward.

Hari Kumar for MLRG.online

Photo Gallery – Unite for Gaza Demonstration

Bundestag to Potsdamer Plart. 21st June 2025


22/06/2025

Can solidarity go beyond the color line?

Building solidarity in Germany in times of genocide

During my time working at a company in Hamburg, I experienced an unsettling encounter that revealed deeper tensions beneath Germany’s polished surface of political correctness.

One morning, as I ate a croissant and drank coffee at my desk—an ordinary practice among colleagues—a colleague confronted me. Her initial critique of me having breakfast in the office might have been reasonable, but she soon curdled into something darker.

With palpable condescension, she declared: “Different countries have different norms. Some behaviors might be acceptable in China” (I am not from China, of course) —a revealing assumption.

Before I could respond, her tone shifted, laced with something darker:

“What you’re doing is extremely rude. You might not understand, and I am not even sure where you have gotten your education, but I do—as I was highly educated in Europe. My grandmother was educated with the Hitler’s  family.”

The casual invocation of that name stunned me. At this point, I almost shouted at her:

“Hey, If my breakfast disturbed you, you could have simply asked me to move. Instead, you’ve chosen to assert your supposed superiority based on your family’s ties to Nazis. Are you serious?”

Silence hung in the air, and she said. “Get out of this room!

The Paradox of German “Tolerance”

Having lived in the U.S. and Germany, I’ve faced racism in many forms, from micro aggressions to outright hostility. The true significance of this incident lay not in the individual’s racist remark, but in the system’s reaction.

When I reported the incident, my supervisor’s response arrived as a sterile rebuke: “I heard the incident. Such language that she made is not permitted in Germany.”  Not solidarity. Just policy enforcement—as if racism could be reduced to a terms-of-service violation.

Then came a colleague’s well-meaning but revealing attempt at comfort: “I’m sorry this happened to you—it’s so strange. Racism doesn’t exist in West Germany.” This was more than personal naivety; it unmasked an institutionalised delusion that prioritises bureaucratic distinctions over people’s actual experiences.

That encounter has stayed with me as emblematic of my early experiences in Germany: a society where history looms large yet remains clinically detached. One where people obsess over saying the correct thing but seldom interrogate why those words carry weight.

It forced me to reconsider some linguistic prohibitions: 

Do they truly provoke deeper reflection on meaning and context, or do they paralyze thought altogether? Are people avoiding certain words not out of understanding, but out of programmed obedience?

I write these words from Berlin, twenty months after the genocide in Gaza began—a genocide that has played out in real time, streamed live to the world, documented by both its perpetrators and its victims. The evidence is undeniable: every moment, every atrocity, digitally recorded. Every report from human rights organizations affirms what we already know—this is a genocide, declared as such in plain sight.

And yet, as this horror unfolds before the eyes of the world, we were forced to confront another grotesque reality: the staggering hypocrisy of Western governments and media. The German state and its press are in the forefront..

What proved most disquieting was the cognitive dissonance of some of the German Liberals.  They master the language of social justice while rationalizing Zionist colonialism. Their discourse, though polished, betrays a fundamental evasion. They champion solidarity in theory, yet refuse to practice it by reflecting the time and space they live in.

The Colonial Core of Zionism

Zionism, in practice, constitutes a settler-colonial enterprise. Its foundations were laid through the systematic dispossession of Palestinians, the expropriation of their lands, and the institutionalization of apartheid. The purported theological justification – this notion of ‘God gave us this land’ – is nothing but cynical artifice, a thin scriptural veneer over what is ultimately a project of territorial conquest.

The persistent framing of this occupation as a ‘multi faceted geopolitical issue’ speaks not to its actual nuance, but to Western complicity in maintaining structures of illegal occupation. What unfolds is not some unprecedented diplomatic quandary, but rather the oldest colonial narrative rewritten with contemporary military might. Germany, with its intimate familiarity with both colonial violence and genocide, requires no interpreter to comprehend this language of displacement and erasure.

Those who profess progressive ideals while accommodating this particular oppression participate in a profound moral contradiction. Authentic solidarity demands unflinching clarity – the courage to name oppression as oppression. Even when that recognition implicates our own historical narratives and present complicities.

For many Europeans, colonialism remains a comfortably distant sin, a historical wrong committed elsewhere, by some others. This delusion is precisely the problem. Colonialism was never merely a policy, it is a mindset. It begins with dehumanization,reducing people to obstacles.

Rewinding History: Europe’s Debt, Palestine’s Price

Oppression does not vanish; it merely relocates.The core issue persists today, regardless of what euphemisms we use to disguise it. Those who fancy themselves progressive must face an uncomfortable mirror: The same ideologies that fueled colonialism abroad mutate into fascism at home.

Let us confront the past with unflinching clarity. For centuries, Europeans – Germans most particularly and viciously – persecuted Jewish people, culminating in the industrialized horror of the Holocaust. Yet when Jewish survivors, shattered and stateless, sought refuge, Western nations, fully aware of the atrocities – shut their doors. Palestine was thus imposed as the “solution,” perpetuating a cruel irony.

What haunts Germany’s conscience is the unasked question. Namely, if its reckoning were genuine, why does Germany not pay off its own crime by offering its own land?

This is not atonement, but alchemy – transmuting German accountability into Palestinian subjugation. True repentance would mean bearing history’s weight directly, not displacing its violence onto other oppressed people.

The Hierarchy of Memories

Germany’s remembrance of different genocides is selective.The Holocaust’s Jewish victims occupy the center of German remembrance; the Roma, Sinti, disabled, and queer victims are footnotes. The genocide of the Nama and Herero in Namibia is treated as a historical curiosity. In Germany, public memory remains narrowly curated—other genocides fade into silence.

By enshrining the memory of one genocide while consigning others to oblivion, I cannot help but ask; does Germany truly reckon with its past for its action regardless of victims—or merely instrumentalize it? And what is this selective solidarity, if not racism rebranded as moral duty?

Today

Today, Gaza burns,its annihilation broadcast live to a watching world. Germany, whose factories once mass-produced genocide, now bankrolls its reproduction.

We can confront this together. Political consciousness is not a destination but a journey,one that demands we walk with open hands, ready to both release old certainties and grasp new understanding.

Our principles,no matter how passionately held, are not immune to the contradictions of state education and cultural conditioning.

The work of solidarity requires constant interrogation: Are my beliefs coherent, or have I internalized curated ideologies? Does my opposition to oppression extend universally, can a conscience be curated? Or does resistance stop where power begins?

Remember this. Eighty winters ago, Nazi Germany was crushed by Allied armies, not by German people’s resistance. Without their military loss, the regime could have endured indefinitely, sustained by public silence.

This very historical fact screams across the decades: violence unchecked becomes legacy. Complicity wears many masks—silence, equivocation, selective outrage—but its harvest is always the same. So I ask you today: Can your solidarity transcend the color line in the face of this genocide?