The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Fascism and the Far Right in Europe and the USA

Are Parties like the AfD the New Nazis?


25/01/2025

You know the meme: “everything I don’t like is woke”? Well, there’s a left wing version of this: “everything I don’t like is fascist”. So, Donald Trump is a fascist, Vladimir Putin is a fascist. . . my mum is a fascist if she asks me to clean up after me. The inflationary usage of the word fascism makes it a synonym for anything which is vaguely authoritarian. This makes it more difficult to identify the real fascists and what we specifically need to do to stop them.

In this article, I will look at some parties in Europe, and the USA, and ask how close they are to fascism. But before I do that, let me be clear what I mean by fascism. There are different definitions, but I find this quote, by Leon Trotsky, to provide a useful overview.

Traditionally, the core supporters of fascism are people who do not have trade unions or big capital to defend them. “Fascism unites and arms the scattered masses. Out of human dust, it organizes combat detachments. It thus gives the petty bourgeoisie the illusion of being an independent force.“ For this reason, fascism plays a particular emphasis on street mobilisations.

This raises a number of issues, I will answer some in this article and I hope to write more soon. For now it is important to say that fascism cannot be simply reduced to racism and authoritarianism. Its end goal is to overthrow the State, and to exterminate, not just people who do not conform to the fascists’ vision, but all opposition.

The US Republicans – A Party which tolerates Fascists in its ranks

While I do not agree with the claim that Donald Trump is a Fascist (yet), he has presided over a change in the Republican Party. In 2017, shortly after Trump was first sworn in as president, there was a “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville. This demonstration was dominated by Nazis, and demonstrators were filmed happily chanting “Jews will not replace us”.

In ‘How Charlottesville transformed the Republican Party’, Rafi Schwarz argues: “The Unite the Right attendees, a motley assortment of neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, and out-and-out white nationalists, had thrived in scattered pockets around the country for decades. That they existed was itself nothing new. What was new, however, was the GOP’s [Republican party’s] recognition of the nascent era of Trumpian conservatism as an opportunity to both cement and capitalize on those shared interests.”

Trump called the demonstrators “very fine people”. According to Schwarz this had “no lasting political consequences.” Schwarz’s conclusion is that after Charlottesville, “the party became a vehicle for enterprising politicians who tacitly condoned the vitriol to advance their own political careers, actively casting its net into the murky waters that they’d once kept at arms distance.”

Under Trump, the Republicans offer a home for Nazis, but the party remains fundamentally a conservative electoral party. Their aim is taking power through elections, not by overthrowing the state. For this reason, it would be a mistake to call the Republicans a fascist party.

Reform UK – A potential Fascist Party

Reform UK is a new formation, whose fate is not yet sealed. Like its predecessors UKIP and the Brexit party, it was originally founded to contest elections, to demand and defend Britain’s exit from the EU, and to profit from the collapse of the Conservative Party.

4 million people voted for Reform UK in last year’s UK election. Growing disappointment with Kier Starmer’s Labour government means that they have the potential to win many more. Particularly worrying was the role of Reform UK in last year’s racist riots organised by Nazis against refugee homes. Party leader Nigel Farage released a video, in which he said the riots were “nothing to what could happen over the course of the next few weeks.” Of Reform UK voters 21% supported the riots.

At the moment, Reform UK remains primarily a racist electoral party attempting to replace the Conservatives in parliament. But they are already using “anti-capitalist” right wing demagogy and are building relations with fascists in France and Germany. If Nazis are successful at taking over the streets, Reform UK could become quickly an organisation which colludes with, and provides a centre for them.

The electoral victory and the riots show the 2 directions in which Reform UK could develop. Do they want to build a parliamentary opposition then become a government party? Will they concentrate on street actions? Or will they – like some other European fascist parties – look for a third way which tries to combine both strategies?

Rassemblement National – Nazis through and through

Rassemblement National (RN) in France under Marine Le Pen has cultivated an image of being “only” right wing extremists who no longer have any connections with actual Nazis. In his recent obituary of Fascist leader Jean Marie Le Pen, John Mullen describes this as: “a determined and generally successful campaign of ‘image detoxification’ … Nazi links were to be more comprehensively hidden, even organizing street demonstrations was to be avoided.” 

Le Pen “expelled her father from the organization (since he would not give up his sarcastic-toned antisemitism) as well as some other open nazis. She instructed MPs to concentrate on respectability, and was eventually to be seen at pro-Israel ‘marches against antisemitism’ in 2023. Marine Le Pen’s femininity was also used to reassure voters that the old fascist values, generally associated with virility and masculinity, were no longer at the centre of the RN’s politics.” 

But the politics of the Le Pen family and their party remain the same. At the moment, they are concentrating on winning elections. But this is part of a longer term strategy of building a mass party with a Nazi nucleus.

This is not a new plan. In John’s obituary, he remembers the 1970s strategy of Jean-Marie’s Front National: “Its Nazi core was to be hidden, and election campaigns, instead of street fighting, were to be the priority. Expressing antisemitism was shelved, while anti-Arab racism and islamophobia became almost the sole focus. Finally, traditional racism based on fake theories of biological hierarchy was left behind, the new discourse being based on ‘incompatible’ cultures and the ‘war between civilizations’. ”

As I wrote previously: “A recent report found that at least fifteen deputies from Le Pen’s National Rally party have been part of a racist Facebook group for the last 7 years. Posts in the group include: ‘Go back to your coconut tree, bamboula’ or ‘You call that a human being? Even my dog ​​behaves better. They are really harmful, these Blacks.’ RN also maintains close but discrete links with the identitarian organisation Génération Identitaire.”

Where does the AfD fit into all this?

The AfD is no longer what it was. When it was founded in 2013, it was led by neo-liberal Eurosceptics who were not unlike Nigel Farage. These people, like Bernd Lucke (lead candidate in the 2014 EU elections), Frauke Petry or Jörg Meuthen (both national spokespeople) have either left the party or been expelled. The party is now run by hardcore Nazis.

But fascism is not a great vote winner, especially in Germany. AfD leader Alice Weidel recognises this, as a recent article in the British Guardian by Thomas Vorrever notes: “(She) has recently been attempting to rebrand the party’s image in a Marine Le Pen-like fashion.” Like her French compatriot and fellow-thinker, Weidel expresses horror at the charge of Nazism. She points out that she is a lesbian with a partner from Sri Lanka. In a recent interview with Elon Musk, she said that Hitler was “a communist”, while she is a conservative.

This strategy depends more on image than content. Katja Hoyer reports from the AfD’s recent conference that “she demanded ‘large-scale repatriations’ of foreigners, the demolition of Germany’s ‘windmills of shame’, and an end to ‘queer-woke insanity’. Despite her personal relationship, she was happy for the AfD to limit its definition of family to ‘father, mother and children’. With Weidel at the helm, the party has reached its most hardline stance to date.”

While Weidel is restoring the party’s tarnished image, the party wing “der Flügel”, led by the unapologetic fascist Björn Höcke, is gaining ground. Already over 100 hardcore Nazis work for the AfD in parliament. Höcke was the lead candidate in the recent local elections in Thüringen, where the AfD topped the polls with 34.3% of the vote. 

Even in regions where the AfD is perceived as being more moderate, fascists are in the leadership. In Bavaria, party leader Stephan Protschka was a member of der Flügel and is now the lead candidate. In Baden-Württemberg, the party is led by Weidel, who has started to radicalise her rhetoric, as we saw in her recent speech in Magdeburg which was followed by random attacks on local migrants. 

Under these conditions, it would be a mistake to differentiate too much between the “real Nazi” Höcke and the “more moderate” Weidel. Both Höcke and Weidel use slightly different strategies to carry out the same politics.

The New Strategy of European Fascists

In the wake of Le Pen’s success, some European fascists have followed her strategy of hiding their links with hardcore Nazis, gaining political respectability, and entering parliament. Giorgia Meloni is Italian president, one of the most powerful politicians in the Netherlands is Geert Wilders, and it looks like Austria is about to get a fascist Chancellor who has often been compared with Björn Höcke.

This means that we must fight the new fascists on two fronts. On the one hand, their street terror is real. The AfD has been uniting with street fighting Nazis – from PEGIDA to the hooligans in Magdeburg. They also used the reactionary Corona street demonstrations to disseminate conspiracy theories and Nazi propaganda.

At the same time, fascists in office also pose a dangerous threat. The AfD election manifesto calls for a return to nuclear energy, more border controls, and an almost complete ban on abortion. Policies like this have effects and victims, and must be resisted.

In areas where the AfD is most successful electorally, right wing terror has caused liberal and social democratic mayors to resign. AfD mayors are supporting increased repression. The AfD may not (yet) be building street troops like Hitler’s SA, but they are already creating a climate of fear on which they can build.

So how do we stop the fascists?

There is a popular German slogan: “fascism is not an opinion, but a crime”. While we should try and build divisions between the hardcore Nazis and their frustrated voters, we should not waste time trying to change the fascists’ minds.

Hitler said that mass mobilisations, like the Nuremberg rallies resulted in their participants being transformed “from a little worm into part of a large dragon.” Elsewhere, he said: “Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement.”

Just over 10 years ago, the largest fascist demonstration in Europe took place every year in Dresden. A broad alliance, Dresden Nazifrei, organised mass blockades in 2019, 2010, and 2011 which prevented the Nazis from marching. Their demonstration no longer takes place. Similarly, blockades at the AfD conferences in Essen and Riesa occupied spaces which fascists were trying to claim.

To stop the AfD, we need two things. The first is a broad movement. Street fights between small groups of fascists and lefties will not bring us much further. The successful Dresden blockades mobilised tens of thousands, including Bundestag President Wolfgang Thierse. At the same time, we must be prepared to confront the fascists, and to stop them being able to assemble.

The Left has a proud tradition of building broad anti-fascist movements under the slogan “They Shall Not Pass” – in Cable Street, in Lewisham, and in Dresden. On each of these occasions, other demonstrations took place at the other side of town under the argument that if you ignore the fascists, maybe they’ll go away. Especially in Germany, we should be aware of the fallacy of this sort of argument.

In Dresden we did manage to convince some people to visit the “popular” demos in the city centre and then join us on the barricades which stopped the Nazis from marching. We were friendly, but hard. Wherever the Nazis try to appear, we must be there first.

At the same time, fascists thrive on despair. One main reason for their growth is the collapse of the social democrats and Greens into supporting deportations and militarisation, and the inability of the parliamentary Left to effectively oppose this. Alongside denying the fascists any space, we must build credible alternatives for a better society. It’s time to organise.

Inside an Anti-Fascist Blockade

Report from the Blockade of the AfD Conference in Riesa

On 11 January, 15,000 people travelled from across Germany in at least 200 buses and more sold-out trains to protest the conference of the fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is polling second in the run-up to national elections next month.

After its conference in Essen last year was met with 70,000 anti-fascist demonstrators, the AfD this year moved its meeting to the regional town of Riesa, in Saxony, where the party received 38 percent of the vote in the 2024 state elections.

Fascists lead the AfD. Its unofficial “führer”, Björn Höcke, who has been convicted for using Nazi slogans at rallies, has long won the fight for control over the party. Research last year by Bavarian Broadcasting  found that the AfD employs more than 100 hardcore Nazis in the German parliament, including activists and organisers of street fighting groups.

The AfD dreams of a German ethnostate, to be realised through mass deportations of non-ethnic Germans. This plan to “return millions of foreigners to their homeland is no secret”, admitted AfD Brandenburg chair René Springer last year. “It is a promise.”

Indeed, Höcke boasts of projecting a “politics of well-tempered cruelty”.

Two anti-fascist campaigns organised the blockades in Riesa under the slogan “Prevent the AfD conference!” Aufstehen gegen Rassismus (Stand Up to Racism) is a historic campaign formally supported by the Social Democrats, Greens and trade unions; Widersetzen (Resist) was formed last year to organise the blockades of the AfD conference in Essen.

An important development this year was the formation of Studis gegen Rechts (Students Against the Right), which recently called mass student general meetings to oppose the AfD and mobilise for Riesa. Waiting for one of the dozens of buses from Berlin organised by the students, Phil Butland, a member of Socialism from Below and a contributor to The Left Berlin, said, “There were meetings at three Berlin universities where there were 4,000 at them [in total]. They were just student union meetings, but they were the biggest student union meetings in years.”

Similar meetings across the country attracted thousands more.

“Most, if not all, also passed a motion on Palestine at the same meeting”, Butland said. “I think people were mainly there for the AfD thing, but it shows how much things have shifted at German universities that people who weren’t there for Palestine voted for a pro-Palestine motion.”

Different parts of the demonstration were separated into “fingers” – smaller groups which concentrate on different areas, so as to occupy the police and let other fingers surge through. This is based on the “five-finger strategy” developed around the G8 protests in Heiligendamm, Eastern Germany, in 2007. Once its fleet of buses arrived, the Berlin “finger” was stopped by the police for over an hour.

As dawn broke, it finally began its march toward Riesa. A young, first-time protester said that he knew he had to go when he saw the blockades advertised. “[The AfD] stands against everything that I stand for … I’m scared of fascists, and even more scared of fascists that are successful with what they do”.

Amid economic stagnation, politics in Germany—and across Europe—have shifted sharply to the right. Racism has been used to paint refugees and immigrants, rather than bosses and landlords, as responsible for rising unemployment and rents.

It is not just the far right that is fuelling this shift. In 2023, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz argued for Germany to “finally deport on a mass scale”, and since his ruling coalition collapsed, all major parties apart from the crisis-ridden left-wing Die Linke (The Left) have begun a racist election campaign of which the AfD could be the primary beneficiaries. Prioritising campaigning for February’s snap election, however, Die Linke had a notably small presence in Riesa.

On the other hand, the trade unions were very visible. Germany’s second-largest union, ver.di, refunded half the cost of its members’ bus tickets and publicly promoted the blockades. There was even a small group called Tesla Auto Workers Against Fascism.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been promoting the AfD, but while he shared a livestream from inside the conference hall to his X account, outside, the Tesla workers who generate his wealth staffed the barricades.

After a couple of hours, sub-zero temperatures began to wear down the blockaders, but photos of a near-completely empty conference hall generated a triumphant mood. Unfortunately, this did not last long. Blockaders were cleared by police, who attacked with truncheons, pepper spray and dogs, Berlin’s Daily Newspaper reported. Nam Duy Nguyen, a Die Linke parliamentary observer, was beaten unconscious.

Protesters then marched through the town, carrying signs that read, “Björn Höcke is a Nazi” and “Stop the AfD-Nazis!” Ahmed Shah, a member of Socialism from Below and a longstanding anti-fascist campaigner said, “If Nazis march, and you don’t do anything, they grow […] So you have to act.”

With the fascist Freedom Party forming a government in neighbouring Austria and Donald Trump stepping into the White House, the far right is on the march. Days after its conference, the emboldened AfD distributed election flyers in the form of deportation tickets.

The blockades in Riesa were important, but more actions will be needed.

This article first appeared in Red Flag

A Nazi War Criminal Honored in Olaf Scholz’s Office

Hans Globke authored the Nazis’ Nuremberg Race Laws. His portrait still hangs in the Federal Chancellery. Is this what Olaf Scholz means when he says antisemitism has no place in Germany?


24/01/2025

Speaking in the German parliament, the Bundestag, Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that “antisemitism has no place in Germany.” He promised a “clear stand” against it, and at the time of the speech in late 2023, almost all pro-Palestinian demonstrations were prohibited. This principle does not seem to apply to his own office, however: a portrait of the Nazi war criminal Hans Globke hangs in the Federal Chancellery in Berlin.

It’s not that the painting has been overlooked in some dusty closet. After the war, Globke served as the head of West Germany’s Chancellery from 1953 to 1963, and today portraits of all former directors hang on a wall. Where exactly? The Chancellery only offers vague answers: “In a corridor in an administrative section.” What does the portrait look like? No answer.

Instead of removing this honor for an antisemitic “desk perpetrator” [someone who did the paperwork to administer genocide], the Chancellory had a “controversial discussion” and decided in 2020 to add a sign to the portrait so that observers could “independently evaluate Globke’s political biography,” in the words of a government spokesperson. The accompanying text ends with the words: “The legislation to which Hans Globke contributed formed the basis for the persecution, deportation, and murder of the German and European Jews as well as the Sinti and Roma.” 

The plaque is correct to say that Globke was “co-author of the first commentary on the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935” — but this only reflects a small part of his crimes. As early as 1932, as an official in the Prussian Interior Ministry, he issued a decree making it more difficult for Jewish people to change their names, so that their “blood lineage” could not be hidden. Later, under Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, Globke helped eliminate parliamentary democracy in Prussia. There is evidence that Globke was responsible for the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews from Greece. In short, he was among the people most centrally responsible for the Holocaust. 

According to the government spokesman, the painting implies no “judgement” of Globke. A peculiar understanding of how portraits work! With the same logic, they could hang a picture of former German chancellor Adolf Hitler right next to it – without any “judgement” of course, so that everyone could form their own opinion.


Impunity 

Globke was never brought to justice for his crimes. After the war, he continued his career as a government official, and was appointed head of the Chancellery in 1953. He was the “brown right hand” of the conservative West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer [brown being the color of the Nazis]. His boss justified this rehabilitation with the words: “One does not throw out dirty water as long as one doesn’t have any clean water!” Globke, in turn, helped numerous former Nazis in the Federal Republic of (West) Germany. As the historian and lawyer Klaus Bästlein told nd, Globke played a “significant role in the re-Nazification of the ministerial bureaucracy in Bonn,” the capital of West Germany. 

A criminal investigation into Globke was opened in Frankfurt in 1960, but closed under pressure from Adenauer. Since at least 1952, West German secret services had known that the war criminal Adolf Eichmann was hiding in Argentina. Whether Globke personally covered for this mass murderer has not yet been established. What is certain is that Eichmann had made incriminating statements about Globke which were suppressed on the initiative of the West German government and the CIA.

Globke supported the Reparations Agreement between West Germany and Israel. In the words of Pankaj Mishra, he became a symbol of German-Israel relations: “moral absolution of an insufficiently de-Nazified and still profoundly antisemitic Germany in return for cash and weapons.”


Trial

As a result of this impunity, both in the Federal Republic and in Israel, the German Democratic Republic (GDR or East Germany) took over the prosecution under the principle of universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. The GDR’s Supreme Court held a two-week trial in the summer of 1963, and sentenced Globke in absentia to life imprisonment. 

Bästlein analyzed the trial for his 2018 book Der Fall Globke (The Globke Case) and concluded that, although the trial was “conducted for reasons of propaganda and not prepared in accordance with the rule of law,” the verdict was nonetheless “legally flawless” and “based on international law.” Accusations of a “show trial” and “propaganda” are often raised — but the evidence is nevertheless clear.

At the time, the main East German newspaper Neues Deutschland described Globke as an “intellectual murderer of millions of Jews.” A few days before the trial, the newspaper quoted workers from the Leuna plant: “We simply cannot understand how such a bloodstained person can hold office in a state today.”

Today it is equally hard to understand. Accusations of antisemitism are leveled regularly against pro-Palestinian activists, even when they are Jewish. Yet when dealing with conservative German antisemites, leniency is the rule. In cases like those of Hans Globke, Heinrich Lummer, or Heinrich von Treitschke, we are told that a historical figure should not be reduced to their hatred against Jews. Bästlein is clear: “Globke was never a democrat nor a supporter of the values of [West Germany’s postwar] Basic Law.” That’s why a clear stand is called for in the Chancellery. 

This article was first published in German in nd, it was translated by the author.

Against the Weaponisation of Antisemitism to Impose Censorship in Education

Open Letter from Students and Educators


22/01/2025

If you’d like to sign the resolution, you can do so on this page.

We, the students, educators and workers of German colleges and universities, are alarmed by the resolution ‘Steadfastly Opposing Antisemitism and Israelphobia in Schools and Tertiary Education While Securing Free Space for Discourse’. Purportedly dedicated to fighting antisemitism, this resolution more so threatens the safety of students and calls  for the undermining of academic liberty as well as the autonomy of higher education institutions. 

We are in agreement with criticism from scientists, German antisemitism researchers, and international expert organisations and consequently oppose this resolution, together with its predictable and grave consequences for academic freedom and diversity of perspective. Furthermore, according to many legal experts, the resolution raises significant constitutional concerns.

On November 7, 2024, despite heavy criticism, the Bundestag passed a primary resolution under the title ‘Never again is now: Protect, Preserve and strengthen Jewish Life in Germany’ with majority favour in nearly all parties, including the AfD. A new resolution against antisemitism is now being proposed—one aimed at education facilities. It is projected to be put to vote at the end of January. 

The resolution feeds a distorted narrative that denigrates Palestine solidarity activism and undermines the role of the university as a place of open exchange and political debate. The resolution selectively cites studies from the University of Konstanz, omitting important findings that show antisemitism is lower among students than in the general population. It calls for “exchanges between universities and security authorities […] with intensity and regularity” (III.2), the expansion of legal measures and repressive tools, the strengthening of security measures and the expulsion of students who express undesirable views. According to the resolution, supporters of “the ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ movement (BDS for short) and similar movements […] must have no place in German educational and academic institutions” (III.10). The use of such imprecise language to define who should be excluded from German universities is alarming and extends the scope of state repression far beyond the pro-Palestinian student movement. Furthermore, the resolution isolates German universities from international partner institutions, puts them at odds with international law, undermines their credibility and risks global backlash.

The proposed resolution reinforces the very tools that have been and continue to be used to justify police violence against students and terminations of artists, lecturers, speakers, researchers and others for their political views.

In Gaza, all schools and universities have been bombed and literally destroyed by Israel since October 2023. Israel is responsible for the killing of countless students, researchers, artists, doctors and journalists in the Gaza Strip, which amounts to a scholasticide of the Palestinian education system. According to a special committee of the United Nations, Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, to which Germany is contributing with supplies of weapons, among other things. At the international level, Germany has therefore already been accused of complicity in the genocide and yet continues to defend Israel against relevant lawsuits before the International Court of Justice.

On a national level, in the name of supposedly protecting Jewish life in Germany, the state and institutions are increasingly using repressive measures and deterrence tactics against Palestine solidarity activists, including many Jewish people, undermining their freedom of opinion and political expression. The proposed resolution reinforces the very tools that have been and continue to be used to justify police violence against students and terminations of artists, lecturers, speakers, researchers and others for their political views. The Archive of Silence project documents cases of dismissals, firings, and other forms of repression of pro-Palestinian – including Jewish – voices.

The resolution undermines the meritocratic processes of funding allocation inherent in science by emphasizing that “federal funding is awarded exclusively on the basis of scientific excellence” and that “scientific excellence and anti-Semitism are mutually exclusive” (III.9). In doing so, it relies solely on the controversial definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Substantive criticism of the inaccuracy and documented misuse of this definition to discriminate against people on the basis of their political opinion is ignored. As a result, the release of federal funding is made dependent on the political views of the researchers, which is intended to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Freedom of research is incompatible with state control of research funding and the monitoring of private and political statements and activities. In spring 2024, for example, a girls’ club in Berlin was terminated without notice due to the political attitudes of its staff, while at the same time the BMBF investigated whether funding could be withdrawn from researchers who had spoken out against the criminalization of pro-Palestinian students. The actions of the minister in office at the time of the BMBF “Fördergate” scandal are explicitly welcomed in the draft resolution (I.), which is alarming.

The resolution expands the one-sided teaching of antisemitism and the state of Israel in the context of education about the Middle East, while excluding Palestine and Palestinians, who are only mentioned in the context of Hamas, as legitimate topics for teaching and research. The Beutelsbach Consensus, which was developed against the indoctrination of the Third Reich, stipulates that learners should have access to different perspectives on social and political issues and thus be able to think critically and form their own opinions. The one-sidedness in research and teaching propagated in the resolution contradicts independent, critical education that is free from political indoctrination.

For these reasons, we reject the resolution and call for an approach that respects different perspectives and preserves academic freedom.

Demands

We, the undersigned, call on university administrations, faculty leaders, student representatives, student initiatives and university staff to take a principled stance against the authoritarian threat posed by the suggested resolution.

We demand that the above-named parties:

  1. take a clear public stance against the resolution’s undermining of academic freedom, freedom of expression and violation of university autonomy.
  2. reject the use of the IHRA definition as the sole, official and legal definition of antisemitism at research and educational institutions.
  3. reject the call for increased securitization at universities through “close exchange with security authorities” (III.12.e) and carceral logics, including by establishing an anti-racism and anti-discrimination office and independent protocols for de-escalating conflicts without police presence.
  4. counter anti-Palestinian bias with balanced curricula that include Palestinian history at all levels of education, Palestinian knowledge production and teaching about Palestinians beyond their role as an occupied people.
  5. “advocate for research and teaching in accordance with international law and for consistent action in cases of non-compliance by universities, research institutes and other academic institutions” (quote from the working principles of the Alliance for Critical and Solidarity Science).

___________________________________________________________________________________

First signatories

Groups

Not In Our Name TU Berlin

Not In Our Name ASH Berlin

Not In Our Name UdK Berlin

Linksjugend [‘solid] Hessen

Linksjugend [‘solid] Fulda

DieLinke.SDS Fulda

DieLinke.SDS Marburg

Students for Palestine FU Berlin

Students for Palestine Hannover

Students for Palestine Würzburg

Students for Palestine Bonn

Students for Palestine Freiburg

Students for Palestine Halle

Students for Palestine Hamburg

Students for Palestine Münster

Students for Palestine Fulda

Students for Palestine Leipzig

Students for Palestine Darmstadt

Bündnis Palästinasolidarität Marburg

BAK Klassenkampf in der Linksjugend [‘solid]

Uni(te) for Pali, Bremen

Queer Liberational Action

Decolonize Charité Berlin

Ingolstadt Eichstätt for Palestine

Stand UP for Palestine

Kritische SKA, Leipzig

KIARA (Kritische Islamwissenschaftler*innen und Arabist*innen), Leipzig

Individuals (alphabetical order)

Enrica Audano, Universität Leipzig

Prof. Michael Barenboim, Barenboim-Said Akademie

Niklas Barth, Linke Frankfurt am Main

Prof. Dr. Christine Binzel, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg

Adam Broomberg, Künstler

Dr. Irene Brunotti, Universität Leipzig

Prof. Celine Condorelli

Dr. Mark Curran

Jasmin Daka

Prof. Dr. Dr. Donatella Della Porta, Scuola Normale Superiore

Anna Ehrenstein

Dr. Jannis Julien Grimm, Freie Universität Berlin

Hanna Hertel, Studentin, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Dr. Thomas Herzmark, Universität Göttingen

Dr. Angela Last

Lucilla Lepratti, Universität Leipzig

Dr. Lara Krause-Alzaidi, Universität Leipzig

Urs Kollhöfer, Mitglied im Landesvorstand der Linken Hessen

Urs Kroll, Student, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Dr. Nils Riecken, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Matthias Riedl, Mitglied im Landesvorstand der Linken Hessen

Prof. Dr. Marc Siegel, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Maxi Schulz, Student*in, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Prof. Dr. Hendrik Süß, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

Margarita Tsomou, Kuratorin

Laura Oettel, Studentin, Mitglied GEW Berlin

Antonia Marquardt, Jugendpolitische Sprecherin der Linken Hessen

Prof. Dr. Agata Lisiak, Bard College Berlin

Prof. Dr. Olaf Zenker, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Further supporters

  1. Prof. Dr. Schirin Amir-Moazami
  2. Elakoum Mounib 
  3. Prof. Dr. Michael Zander, Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal 
  4. Nasrin Karimi Rechtsanwältin
  5. Amanda Pope
  6. Norbert Lang, Journalist
  7. John Lütten, Universität Hamburg
  8. Prof. Dr. Robin Celikates, Freie Universität Berlin
  9. Julia Vogel
  10. Prof. Dr. Susanne Leeb, Kunsthistorikerin, Berlin/Lüneburg
  11. Aino Korvensyrjä, Freie Universität Berlin
  12. Dr. Carmen Becker
  13. Prof.Dr. Sabine Broeck, Universität Bremen
  14. Maher Ben Abdessalem
  15. PD Dr. Julia Vorhölter, Max Planck Institut für ethnologische Forschung
  16. Phillipp Slanina, Student
  17. Dr. Roy Karadag, Universität Bremen
  18. Prof. Dr. Manfred Liebel, Berlin/Potsdam
  19. Carla Schumann, Studentin, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
  20. Annefei Borgs-Uhlendorf
  21. Prof. Dr. Uli Beisel, Freie Universität Berlin
  22. Carolin Loysa, Freie Universität Berlin
  23. Jamal Sreiss
  24. Dr. Jeanne Féaux de la Croix
  25. Prof. Dr. Angela Harutyunyan, UdK Berlin
  26. Dr. Hanna Nieber, Max-Planck-Institut für ethnologische Forschung
  27. Kawthar El-Qasem, Düsseldorf
  28. Dr. Anne Menzel, Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg
  29. Yuri Kwon
  30. Dr. Jannik Schritt, Universität Göttingen
  31. Prof. Dr. Anika König, Freie Universität Berlin
  32. Linda Beck, Universität Göttingen
  33. Wolfgang Lörcher, DIE LINKE Fulda
  34. Leonie Benker, Freie Universität Berlin
  35. Dr. Mathias Delori, CNRS-Forscher, Centre Marc Bloch
  36. Prof. Dr. Alice von Bieberstein, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
  37. Nick Bley, Senator Universität Kassel
  38. Thomas Götzelmann, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
  39. Aaron Miller, Universität Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences
  40. Raphaël Grisey, Filmmacher
  41. Marina Luna, Free University Berlin
  42. Christin Sander, FU Berlin
  43. Dr. Philipp Zehmisch, Universität Heidelberg
  44. Dr. Nicole Wolf, Universität London und freiberufliche Dozentin Berlin
  45. Dr. Benjamin Schütze, Arnold Bergstraesser Institut (ABI) Freiburg
  46. Prof. Dr. Martin Sökefeld, LMU Müchen
  47. Pia Berghoff, Freie Universität Berlin
  48. Daniel Shuminov, Goethe Universität
  49. Dr. Bettina Gräf, LMU München
  50. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang M. Schröder, Universität Würzburg
  51. Mithu Sanyal, Schriftstellerin und Kulturwissenschaftlerin
  52. Prof.Dr. Rupa Viswanath, Universität Göttingen
  53. Alma Kulha
  54. Aseela Haque, Freie Universität Berlin
  55. Susanne Schultz, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
  56. Anil Shah, Universität Kassel
  57. Dr. Ximena Alba
  58. Marius Bickhardt (Centre Marc Bloch/Sciences Po Paris)
  59. Huan Chen, Universität Münster
  60. Prof. Dr. Dominik Mattes, Freie Universität Berlin
  61. Christian Strippel, Weizenbaum-Institut
  62. Anna Hofmann Fraktionsvorsitzende der Linken im Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf
  63. Laure Piguet, Centre Marc Bloch/Université de Fribourg
  64. Noémie Regnaut, Université Paris-Sorbonne Nouvelle – Centre Marc Bloch Berlin
  65. Anonym, Centre Marc Bloch/EHESS
  66. Dr. Déborah Brosteaux, Marc Bloch Zentrum (Berlin)
  67. Marianne Adam (Centre Marc Bloch/Université de Tours)
  68. Florian Muhl, Universität Hamburg
  69. Mareike Biesel, Universität Göttingen
  70. Karlotta Bahnsen, Freie Universität Berlin
  71. Layla Kiefel (Universität Konstanz, Centre Marc Bloch)
  72. Elfi Padovan Münchner Friedensbündnis
  73. Dr. Dörthe Engelcke, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
  74. Philipp Rauch, Student TU Darmstadt
  75. Rebeka Nasir, Studentin, Technische Universität Darmstadt
  76. Kaoutar H., Goethe Universität Frankfurt
  77. Leon Kianzad, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
  78. Christos Kourris, TU Dresden
  79. Claire van Loon, Studentin
  80. Anna Müller
  81. Miriam Bartelmann, Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut (ABI) Freiburg
  82. Luis Kliche Navas, Freie Universität Berlin
  83. Dr. Barbara Orth, IRS
  84. Dr. Tobias Schmitt, Universität Hamburg
  85. Ariane Alba Marquez, Bundesvorstand DieLinke.SDS, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
  86. Prod. Dr. Aram Ziai, Universität Kassel
  87. Nicholas Sagberger – Uni Regensburg
  88. Dr. Alix Winter, Centre Marc Bloch
  89. Willi Hertelt, Kurt-Tucholsky-Oberschule Berlin
  90. Layla Kiefel (Universität Konstanz, Centre Marc Bloch)
  91. Qusay, TU Darmstadt
  92. Christoph Maier, Uni Leipzig
  93. Mira Schmitz, MLU Halle-Wittenberg
  94. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Gabbert, Leibniz Universität Hannover
  95. Kim Lucht, FSU Jena
  96. Lea Berger
  97. Barbara Gamper, Künstlerin und Pädagogin
  98. Taosif Talukder, TU Darmstadt
  99. Dr. Christian Ambrosius, Freie Universität Berlin
  100. Jorinde Becker, Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
  101. Jared Cobain HGB Leipzig
  102. Anna Orinsky, European University Institute
  103. Prof. Dr. Johanna Schaffer,  Kunsthochschule Kassel
  104. Andreas Weiß, Köln
  105. Eliane Diur, Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
  106. Madlen Ernst, MERA25 Berlin
  107. Abdullah Rahhal – Die Linke Freiburg und Masterstudent Uni Freiburg
  108. Rana Brentjes
  109. Sonja Brentjes, Bergische Universität Wuppertall
  110. Mareike Biesel, Universität Göttingen
  111. Thomas Ruffmann, Kleve, Musiker, politischer Erwachsenenbildner
  112. Dr. Raquel Rojas, Freie Universität Berlin
  113. Tabea Knerner, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
  114. Sara Türen 
  115. Frank Madsen Journalist
  116. Prof Ramis Örlü, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Schweden
  117. Prof. Dr. Christin Bernhold, Universität Hamburg
  118. Jasmin Sarah Hahn, Freie Universität Berlin
  119. Anna-Lena Kutzki, HAW Hamburg
  120. Sonja Rohan, Freie Universität Berlin
  121. Janine Schneider
  122. Luise Dechow, Universität Hamburg
  123. Leyla Tewes
  124. Clemens Grünberger
  125. Samah Schmitt-Razzougui
  126. Verena Müllner
  127. Selim Heers, Universität Leipzig
  128. Hava Aras
  129. Ahmed Tarek Alahwal, Universität Freiburg
  130. Raina Ivanova
  131. Hiba Banat, Studentin
  132. Graciela Bach
  133. Candice Breitz
  134. Dagmar Kohlmeier, Masterstudentin, Universität Freiburg
  135. Felicia Schmidt, Berlin
  136. Bircan Sönmez, Mera25 NRW, Düsseldorf
  137. Guillaume Carpentier, Mera25
  138. Christian Suhr – About People Film Produktion
  139. Deniz Khalifé
  140. Adrian Khalifé
  141. Louay Khalifé
  142. Ilay Khalifé
  143. Isa Khalifé
  144. Ayesha Siddiqi-Sikora
  145. Nadia El-Ali, Freie Universität Berlin
  146. Peter Förster, AK Zivilklausel der Uni Köln, Student
  147. Luca Groß, SDS Frankfurt
  148. Franziska Hildebrandt, SDS Uni Hamburg
  149. Marlies Wehner, M.A., Fachstelle für interkulturelle Bildung und Beratung-FiBB e.V.
  150. Jasper Wittenburg 
  151. J. Kamo Anselm, UHH
  152. Emily Allegra Dreyfus, Filmuniversität Babelsberg
  153. Dr. David Jordan, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
  154. Prof. Dr. Claudius Zibrowius, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
  155. Artur Brückmann, Universität Hamburg
  156. Therese Friedemann
  157. Alp Kayserilioğlu, Universität Tübingen
  158. Peter Förster, AK Zivilklausel Uni Köln
  159. Eliaz Zeilmeir, Goethe Universität Frankfurt
  160. Rand Ashqar, Freiburg Universität
  161. Jean-Marie Yazbeck, Master Student University of Freiburg
  162. Anonym, Universität Freiburg
  163. Selma Härnqvist
  164. Muayad Chalabi, Technische Universität München
  165. Andrea Sittoni, LMU München
  166. Francisco Torres, Fraunhofer ISE
  167. Richard Lenerz, Universität Trier
  168. Lenna Fischer – Uni Hannover
  169. Jana Müller, Studentin
  170. Johannes Heißler, LMU München
  171. Lale Khoshnoud, Hochschule Hannover
  172. Eudy Mahlies, Universität Leipzig, Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS)
  173. Ingo Jäger, Bezirksratsherr Hannover Vahrenwald-List
  174. Marwan Abdelaal, Technische Universität München
  175. Michael Kreich
  176. Michelle Schinkel, Universität Konstanz
  177. Hanna Neghabian, SfP
  178. Gianluca Pagliaro, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics
  179. Miriam Bartelmann, Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut (ABI), Freiburg
  180. Björn Pohl
  181. Leonie Hiller
  182. Jasper Martins, Leibniz Universität Hannover
  183. Amir Raza (Albert Einstein Institute Hannover)
  184. Franziska Bax, Rachel Carson Center LMU München
  185. Mariel Bernnat, Universität Freiburg
  186. Lucia Grimm (Albert Ludwigs Universität Freiburg)
  187. Prof. Dr. Tahani Nadim
  188. Cora Orlando, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Further supporting groups

Bündnis Yousef Shaban

Estudantes por Justiça na Palestina (FCSH Nova, Portugal)

Students for Palestine Mainz

Sozialistisch-Demokratischer Studierendenverband (DieLinke.SDS)

Students for Palestine Frankfurt

Die Linke Hessen

Hochschule for Palestine Darmstadt

Studis gegen Rechts Leipzig

Fachschaftsrat Politikwissenschaft (Universität Leipzig)

Uni for Palestine Munich 

Linksjugend [‘solid] Leverkusen

Decolonise HU, Berlin

Is Elon Musk a Nazi?


21/01/2025

Of course he is. End of article.