The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Who Should Socialists Vote for in the Upcoming German Elections?

Polls predict a major shift to the right. Should socialists hold their noses and try to keep Die Linke in parliament? Nathaniel Flakin of Klasse Gegen Klasse makes the case for independent, working-class, revolutionary socialist candidacies.


31/01/2025

Photo from Klasse Gegen Klasse

The German elections on February 23 are set to produce the most right-wing Bundestag in at least a generation. The far-right AfD is currently above 20 percent in the polls, building on their victories in the fall and a bump from Elon Musk. Even more disturbingly, the conservative CDU, hovering around 30 percent, has adopted many of the AfD’s policies. On Wednesday, the CDU relied on the AfD’s votes to pass a Bundestag resolution attacking the right to asylum. Hundreds of thousands of people have been protesting against the Rechtsruck, the shift to the right — yet all major parties have responded by shifting to the right.

In this context, Die Linke, the reformist Left party, has been showing faint signs of life. After years of stagnation and decline, a certain sense of optimism has entered their ranks, as the most recent surveys put them at 5%, which is the threshold for getting seats in parliament. Five years ago, the party just barely squeezed in by winning three direct mandates. Could they just barely squeeze in again?

New Faces

The party has new faces like Ferat Koçak and Nam Duy Nguyen, who have both been attacked by police at antifascist mobilizations. Yet Die Linke’s campaign is not centered on popular young activists, but rather on three reformist politicians with long experiences of administering the capitalist state. Bodo Ramelow is the former prime minister of Thuringia, Dietmar Bartsch the leader of Die Linke’s parliamentary group, and Gregor Gysi is the party’s historical leader. All three of them — and really all top Die Linke representatives — have a long record of actively supporting Israeli apartheid.

Some of Die Linke’s most right-wing figures, such as Berlin’s former deputy mayor Klaus Lederer, left the party in a huff last October, accusing it of “antisemitism” for not being sufficiently supportive of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. (In reality, they were just looking for better career options, and some have already reappeared in the social democratic SPD) At the same time, Die Linke expelled the Palestinian activist Ramsis Kilani for his solidarity work. Under the new leadership of Ines Schwedter, former editor of Jacobin Germany, the party is trying to focus on economic issues while completely ignoring questions of imperialism.

Die Linke claims to have won 18,000 new members — which sounds like a lot, though this would only put them at 60,000, which is around what their membership had been 10 or 15 years ago. One does indeed see freshly organized young people knocking on doors. But this has a whiff of desperation — the last hope to keep someone vaguely left-wing in the Bundestag. Far from being a voice of fundamental opposition, the top candidates all aim to (re)join neoliberal government coalitions, where they can continue to carry out privatizations, deportations, and evictions, as Die Linke has done every day since its founding. In Saxony, for example, the party voted a CDU-SPD minority government into office.

We are told that a vote for Die Linke will “stop the right,” by making sure that someone, anyone in the Bundestag opposes the racist race-to-the-bottom that all other parties are engaged in. The problem, however, is that Die Linke has never consistently opposed racism. Ramelow and other “left” ministers have deported thousands of people, and will continue to do so if given the chance. When a party calling itself “The Left” claims that deportations are unavoidable and even necessary, this normalizes racism. Even worse, as Die Linke forms coalitions with the SPD and the Greens, and even makes deals with the CDU, this allows the far-right AfD to present itself as “alternative” to the all-party cartel. 

The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) is also no alternative. After their meteoric start in the summer, when they overtook Die Linke in the European and East German elections, Wagenknecht’s new party has been stuck at 5-6% in the polls. There are many reasons for this, such as the authoritarian structures that allow only a small percentage of their supporters to become party members. The main reason, though, is that the BSW has already joined coalition governments in two states — if they can govern alongside the CDU and the SPD, they cannot be an alternative to politics-as-usual.

At the moment, Wagenknecht is criticizing the CDU from the right, arguing that their proposals to stop migration do not go far enough. Paradoxically, she is the only major German politician speaking up about the atrocities in Gaza and calling for a ceasefire, which only highlights the eerie silence from Die Linke. 

Radical Left Resignation

How should socialists orient in this situation? It would be easy to latch onto Die Linke, hoping to win over those young people knocking on doors. This is what numerous groups from different revolutionary socialist traditions have done for the last 15 years. The problem is that this requires making excuses for the party’s constant betrayals. Many young activists join Die Linke only to turn away within a few months — and anticapitalist groups embedded in the party lose touch with them. Many working people do not feel represented at all in the political system, and have formed the basis of rebellions in a number of countries. A focus on Die Linke makes it impossible to address these sectors.

The last year saw something of an exodus of socialist groups from Die Linke — including, of course, The Left Berlin. After the network Marx21 split three ways a year ago, the section which was once the right wing of the network (which kept the name Marx21) continues to work in Die Linke. The left wing, called Revolutionäre Linke (RL), called for a clear break from the party. The center, Sozialismus von Unten (SvU), took a much more circuitous route to the exit, waiting almost a year before declaring they were leaving after Kilani’s expulsion in December. SvU’s most prominent face, former Die Linke MP Christine Buchholz, also announced her resignation — but her statement was far from a revolutionary break. She expressed her hope that Die Linke would return to “the strength of its early years” (when the party was part of multiple neoliberal governments!) and added she would “vote for Die Linke and encourage others to vote for it.”

RL and SvU have broken from Die Linke — yet still call on people to vote for the reformist party. Their “critical support” sounds more like resignation (you have to vote for someone!) than a revolutionary tactic. Both groups have called for voting for Die Linke “without illusions” (SvU uses the same formulation in an article in their print magazine that is not available online). Both claim that Die Linke will oppose racism if it gets into Bundestag, but as we’ve seen, that is an illusion.

Other groups like the SOL, the German section of the CWI, and the SAV, of the ISA, have dialed back from their long-term work in Die Linke over the last few years, yet are nonetheless campaigning for people to vote for the party. Their hypothesis is that Die Linke could be transformed into a fundamentally different party than it has been since its foundation. The GAM, the German section of the LFI, has not yet published a statement on the elections, but it seems likely they will yet again vote for Die Linke, as they have done for many years without joining the party. 

Independent Candidacies

We from Klasse Gegen Klasse have been arguing for socialists to present a revolutionary alternative in these elections. As a result, RIO (publisher of Klasse Gegen Klasse) and the RSO have joined forces to present independent, working-class candidates: Inés Heider and Franziska Thomas in Berlin, as well as Leonie Lieb in Munich. They have been running on a platform to stop the genocide in Gaza and expropriate big capitalists. Despite our extremely limited resources, the campaign has gotten a lot of positive responses: people are happy to hear that there are candidates who object to politicians’ obscene corruption and only want to take a workers’ wage.

This campaign is not limited to RIO and the RSO. It is an open proposal to the radical Left — especially RL, SvU, SOL, SAV, GAM, and similar groups — to work together so we can make our voices heard at a time when bourgeois society puts a special focus on politics. This isn’t just about running candidates, either: revolutionary socialists of different stripes can work together, without hiding their differences, to fight against the shift to the right. The election campaign has already worked to mobilized people to block the AfD conference in Riesa, for example.The small breaks away from Die Linke have been progressive — but it’s only half a break if these activists continue campaigning and voting for a reformist party that helps administer the capitalist state. As Rosa Luxemburg explained more than a century ago, reformists and revolutionaries have fundamentally different goals. The 15 years since the foundation of Die Linke have shown that revolutionaries do themselves no favors when they present themselves to the masses as the left wing of reformism. Instead, we need to do everything we can to use the elections to make sure that anticapitalist ideas become visible in the political superstructure.

Ceasefire now?

And what Trump has to do with it


29/01/2025

On Saturday January 11th, president-elect Donald Trump sent his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to have a chat with Netanyahu. It was widely reported that the Israeli PM’s aides informed Witkoff that he could not disturb Bibi with such a meeting, as it fell on the Sabbath day of rest. As reported by Haaretz, “Witkoff’s blunt reaction took them by surprise. He explained to them in salty English that Shabbat was of no interest to him. His message was loud and clear.” Netanyahu was going to discuss the ceasefire deal, or have hell to pay for it.

After negotiations in Doha that went down to the wire, a ceasefire agreement was finally achieved between Israel and Hamas — just in time for Trump’s inauguration. The ceasefire is at least ostensibly meant to achieve a lasting end to the Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip since the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Notably, this was something that the Biden administration lacked the backbone to accomplish, despite the fact that it was ever apparent that the genocide in Gaza wasn’t particularly good for US foreign interests. 

This shift in tone and change in tack between Biden and Trump on Gaza has been subject to much attention ever since. On the surface and with the help of Witkoff — a fellow billionaire and real-estate magnate with little experience in foreign diplomacy — Trump seemed to achieve the unachievable: successful negotiations between both parties and perhaps an end to the genocide, nearly 500 days after it began.

But being that Trump is no champion of the Palestinian people, we must interrogate his motivations for this in order to stay vigilant with regards to what is likely to come. 

The grand display of pressure on Israel

It is fairly well known that Trump is not the biggest fan of Netanyahu. Not long ago, he circulated a video on his Truth Social platform denigrating him, and complaining that Israel has consistently tried to lead the US into foreign conflicts on its behalf. The video features Jeffrey Sachs calling Netanyahu a “deep dark son of a bitch,” and when Trump was asked to comment on the guy, he very eloquently replied, “fuck him.” From Putin to Kim Jong Un, Trump has long made a big display of approaching foreign relations through cults of personality, so on the surface it would be easy to presume that this is playing a role in his dealings with Netanyahu as he begins his second term in office.

Moreover, as Ali Abunimah observes in a recent article for Electronic Intifada, “While Trump is often unpredictable and mercurial, a consistent aspect of his worldview is that he does not view America’s traditional ‘allies’ as anything more than client states who are taking advantage of American largesse.” For example, Abunimah recalls, “This was his view of NATO in his first term, when he accused Germany, supposedly the bedrock of the transatlantic security alliance, of ‘making a fortune’ off US troops stationed in the country. ‘Demanding billions from ostensible allies and partners, [Trump] thundered, ‘Why should we defend countries and not be reimbursed?’” It is indeed likely that Trump is viewing relations with Israel as a simple transaction — one where if the US is paying the bills, then it had better follow the orders. 

Yet, such explanations for why Trump pushed the ceasefire deal over the line can also be misleading. These tendencies have led some to conclude that Israel now has to contend with a dynamic with Washington that will be markedly distinct from what they enjoyed under the Biden administration. For instance, as the Guardian reported, “The Israeli prime minister is ‘scared’ of antagonising Trump, according to a European diplomat. […] ‘They’ve had maximum support during this war and what comes next is not so certain,’ the diplomat said. ‘They need to work with Trump now. At least in the beginning.’” 

Far more likely, the US establishment has been convinced for a long time that Israel is not going to win the war against Hamas. Trump may have the spine to put an end to it in a way that Biden — a lifelong Zionist himself — did not. However, it is also likely that both Trump and Netanyahu timed the ceasefire agreement in a way that would benefit them both. Trump could take credit as well and project an image of dominance and prestige, that he can add this to his legacy as the one who can push a deal to end the conflict in the Middle East. After all, as Giorgio Cafiero argues for The New Arab, “What Trump often did in his first term was broker relatively artificial deals and sell them as huge diplomatic accomplishments that brought about a type of ‘peace’ that no previous US administration achieved.” 

The real question, then, is what lies behind the political theatrics, and specifically, as Alice Speri reports for Al Jazeera, “what sort of reward Trump will be giving to the Israelis, and Netanyahu in particular, when they come to cash in.”

Picture: Maria Cofalka

“Deal of the Century” set to run amok

That question can be answered — at least in part — by Trump’s greenlight for Netanyahu to redirect his genocidal agenda on the West Bank. Upon taking office, Trump removed sanctions on Israeli settlers. We have also seen the usual Israeli expansionist psychosis released there — including aerial bombing and full-fledged military operations — particularly in historic sites of resistance like Jenin. Yet, it is likely that through his very lack of concern for the people of the Middle East, Trump underestimates the impacts of actions such as rewarding the Israelis with the West Bank, all while it resumes attacks on Lebanon and expands into Syrian territory.

Trump’s brazen shortsightedness becomes clear when we consider what is likely his central motivation for pushing a ceasefire in Gaza, where prestige and image cultivation are really only fringe benefits for a leader set on viewing other countries as clients and business partners, rather than doing politics with them. It is probable that Trump’s real agenda is to strive toward normalization between Israel and other countries in the Middle East to maximize business dealings with wealthy players in the region. 

This is a continuation of his business-forward approach during his last term. Back in 2020, he brokered the Abraham Accords, which functioned as a normalization deal between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. As Cafiero reports in the aforementioned article for The New Arab, “The new US national security advisor Mike Waltz said he has high hopes for the ‘next phase of the Abraham Accords’, with Israeli-Saudi normalisation a ‘huge priority’ for Trump’s administration.” As Cafiero puts it, “From Trump’s perspective, quiet fronts in Lebanon and Gaza are needed to convince the Saudi leadership to join the Abraham Accords.” 

Yet, this is unlikely to be successful for a number of key reasons overlooked by the myopia and entitlement ingrained in the US foreign policy agenda. For one, Saudi Arabia has far less incentive to normalize relations with Israel now that Iran has been significantly weakened due to successive blows to the Axis of Resistance and, therefore, its regional sphere of influence. Furthermore, the Israelis are unlikely to agree to further concessions, such as a pathway toward a two-state solution, that would make lasting peace in Palestine a reality, as this would be seen as a reward for the last 15 months of armed resistance. 

More than this, however, Trump’s lack of concern for the people in the region he is meddling in completely overlooks the element of public opinion. This is something that Saudi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) cannot do, considering that, according to a poll from late 2023, “96 percent of Saudis believed […] that all Arab states should sever ties with Israel in response to the aggression against Gaza.” MbS has seen his own popularity markedly rise in light of statements he has made in solidarity with the Palestinian people. To bypass all of this and sign onto the Abraham Accords could be both political and perhaps even literal suicide, as shown by the example of Egyptian President Anwar Saddat’s assassination after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. 

Public opinion: Israel’s Achilles heel 

By allowing Israel to continue its onslaught in the West Bank, not only is the US failing to contend with public opinion in attempting to broker a deal with the Saudis, but he is playing a dangerous game in the region more broadly. As Hearst contends, the US army “has so many assets and bases in the region which are supremely vulnerable to local public opinion of their host nation. […] Trump will not be in a position to ignore the collapse of Jordan if it happens. […] It would threaten the entire US military footprint in the region.” 

Jordan, a key site of US military presence in the Middle East, is also host to millions of Palestinian refugees, and the country shares a border with the West Bank itself. Particularly now that Trump is calling to “just clear out” Gaza via full-scale ethnic cleansing of the enclave, suggesting that neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt absorb the Gazan refugees. Both nations have already firmly rejected such a plan (not to mention, this form of forced displacement would also constitute a war crime.) Indeed, as Hearst argues, the Americans “see the region through the prism of Israel. America has always done this, but the myopia is even greater today.” No doubt, the shared tendency of the Israelis and the Americans to misread the Arabs constitutes what Hearst refers to as their Achilles heel.

Moreover, Israel’s own image in the eyes of the world is unlikely to recover for generations to come. In fact, as Abdaljawad Omar writes for Mondoweiss, “Israel’s most exceptional achievement lies not in securing victory but in showcasing unrelenting devastation—a capacity to destroy on an immense scale. This persistence in destruction, rather than achieving security, underscores the lengths to which Israel is willing—and permitted—to go. In this paradox lies its most profound failure: the collapse of its ethical narrative and the erosion of its moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world.” And even if the downfall of the Zionist project is imminent, as Ilan Pappé warns, its collapse will be its most violent phase. 

Taken together, it would be a grave mistake to regard Trump’s business-first presidency as ushering in any meaningful peace in the region, as his tendency to approach diplomacy, as a series of shortsighted deals brings any tenuous stability in the Middle East closer to a breaking point with each passing day. Therefore, even in light of the ceasefire agreement, we must remain focused and steadfast in our solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Copyright’s Discontents

How should Meta’s cynical use of Library Genesis inform political praxis?


Two fairly annoying events have heralded in the New Year. The first of these is that the Library Genesis project, an online repository of copies of books and academic articles, has been seeing major downtime, amidst rumours that they may shut down permanently. The second is the news that Meta, in training their Llama language model, had been using LibGen as a training corpus: a decision apparently approved by Zuckerberg himself. The idea of one of the wealthiest corporations in the world accessing literary, academic and scientific works for free, to feed into a sphere of technology that is already very divisive, has understandably upset a lot of people. What are we to make of this?

I shall begin by describing a phenomenon that has characterised the world economy since 2008—that of economic crisis. There are many theories of crisis within the broad spectrum of Marxian thought, as well as many intersections between them. For instance, some Marxists view the present crisis as a consequence of the tendency in the rate of profit to fall — which posits that as human labour comes to be replaced with machinery, a crisis of surplus value (and therefore profit) begins to emerge. Others disagree, viewing the lowered rate of profit as a symptom of overproduction, rather than the direct cause. Through this reading, the contradictions between the capitalist imperatives to produce commodities and to keep the costs of labour down end up cementing in a dynamic where production grows faster than consumption, leading to the production of commodities that cannot find buyers. These debates are as academically tedious as they are extensive; and some theorists, even when disagreeing about cause and effect, seem to agree about the visibility of multiple modes of crisis today. 

What does any of this have to do with generative AI? Regardless of what theory of crisis one subscribes to, our present reality is at least somewhat easier to characterise — capital today is simply unable (or unwilling) to find productive and profitable outlets for investment. The US and the EU, responding to the crisis of 2008 by opting for quantitative easing as monetary policy, have been begging capitalists to reverse this, to find some way out of crisis. Consequently, both venture capital and Big Tech have benefited immensely from the free money released into the financial system. They have put this money to good use by pumping it into tech platforms that act as unproductive, perennially loss-making middlemen; into outright scams like NFTs; and into the latest such iteration, generative AI. 

The abysmal profitability of many of these investment avenues has made it particularly urgent for capitalists to modify legislation, in order to cheapen the labour and resources that drive accumulation. Labour is thus rendered more “flexible” through being thrust out of the formal wage relationship; nature is transformed into fuel for production; social interaction is torn apart and reconstituted in ways that best suit the accumulation of data. Nowhere has this been more true than with generative AI, with its reliance on the Internet as a cheap source of mass training data for generative models; on low-wage annotators to align said models; and on immense amounts of energy, required both to train and deploy these models. 

Enter LibGen, or Library Genesis. LibGen, an online archive of literary and academic works—photocopied, scanned, manually transcribed—has been a source of much comfort and utility to the millions of users that frequent it for material. LibGen, as  this excellent history points out, emerged from a very particular milieu that existed in the Soviet Union. Driven by the desire for culture to be as accessible as possible, to enable “the cultural development of the masses”, books and literary works were kept very cheap; copyrights were often not recognised, particularly when authorising translations. At the same time, the Soviet bureaucracy’s widespread censorship of literary material led to the emergence of underground libraries, where readers would share, proliferate, and collect censored material. The obsession with collection, with hoarding, with the hungry archival of knowledge, all emerged from the knowledge that the state could render entire bodies of literature inaccessible. 

Given that the Internet has made LibGen a shade more accessible than Xerox-driven archiving in dingy Moscow cellars, it has seen multiple attacks over the years, including multiple lawsuits from publishers, academic or otherwise. But the Internet is rather hard to regulate; it isn’t hard to host mirrors for LibGen’s database, which isn’t even obscenely large—at around 30 terabytes, given a rough storage cost of €15/TB, the entire database would cost less than €500 to store. Based in Russia, LibGen is also rather good at hiding the individuals who run it, making individual retribution unlikely. This hasn’t stopped publishers from trying, and lawsuits and outages have been frequent; but the website continues to thrive, with frequent updates with new books, new URLs, and active peer-to-peer sharing.

Projects like LibGen tend to be somewhat controversial, especially amongst those of us who are (or who have friends who are) struggling writers or artists or musicians. In a world where this sort of piracy was the norm, the argument goes, there would be no way for these workers to ever make a living. We should be paying writers for their work; not doing so is theft, and what Meta are resorting to right now is precisely this—theft on a grand scale. How do we protect writers from this theft? The best method we have under the current system: copyright law. 

This argument is however rather defeatist, as well as detached from actually-existing copyright law. First, getting the obvious out of the way—piracy cannot be stopped, not without deeply authoritarian internet firewalls. Duplicating and sharing digital material is trivial, and attempts to slap on increasingly complex DRM instead end up becoming a nuisance to paying customers. With that out of the way, it is important to remember that capitalism is rather successful at creating schisms between workers. Copyright law achieves precisely this, by claiming to act as the last line of defence against the impoverishment of writers who are thrust into a dependence upon the invisible hand of the free market. It reifies writers and artists as property owners, and reifies their material interests as directly opposed to the cultural interests of the masses. This process has only grown stronger in the neoliberal period, which promises both greater immiseration and potentially greater payoffs, relying upon its ideological trappings to try and convince writers and artists that they are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires, rather than workers who deserve a living wage. We should be clear, however, that this is far from the only feasible way to ensure the reproduction of writers. Alternative models that work for both readers and writers are not impossible to imagine or achieve, even under capitalism. The academic model of state-guaranteed wages for open-access literary output, for instance, is one such actually-existing, semi-functional alternative.

Relying on copyright law, as it turns out, ends up being actively detrimental not just to consumers, but also to writers. As Cory Doctorow lucidly points out, by reinforcing the position of writers as businesses rather than as workers, we atomise them, giving them rights that can later trivially be bargained away from them. The function of publishing houses, the prime beneficiaries of this arrangement, has traditionally been to provide the fixed capital necessary for book printing, marketing, distribution, etc. In doing so, they have successfully cemented their position as mediators, giving them immense power over writers in a system that writers have little choice but to buy into. Publishers thus gain the ability to squeeze writers’ wages below their domestic minimum wage, or to outright ask writers to pay to publish. Nowhere has this parasitic tendency been more visible than in academia, where academics see nary a cent of the vast amounts of money that flow into the academic publishing houses that build enclosures around vast stores of knowledge that they played no role in creating. Above all, the construction and reinforcement of this regime of property rights serves only to enable the stunting of the cultural and material development of the masses—transforming the act of piracy into genuine political praxis. 

The birth of generative AI has highlighted the incredibly precarious nature of intellectual property rights, and how they have always served the accumulation of capital—with the interests of writers and academics themselves remaining an inconvenient afterthought. The law giveth and the law taketh away; and what we are witnessing today is precisely the law taking away, as these established relations see renegotiation in search of profit. Publishers, record labels, film studios and their ilk have been champing at the bit to sell their vast stores of media to generative AI firms (or, potentially, to train their own models). Meta’s turn to LibGen is rather amusing in this context. Had the countless petty lawsuits against LibGen actually succeeded at shutting it down, Meta could simply have paid publishing houses (and maybe an indirect pittance to writers), and achieved much the same result anyway. But they are fully aware that today, when capital is firmly fixated upon generative AI as the harbinger of a renewed capitalism, they needn’t even bother negotiating with yesterday’s capitalists. They will face at most a slap on their wrist for these very publicly acknowledged copyright violations. 

People’s annoyances with generative AI aren’t hard to understand. It is one of the most striking examples of the deskilling of labour in recent history, affecting hitherto well-compensated workers. The milieu in which it has emerged—the painfully cringe, Revenge of the Nerds-esque Leitkultur that permeates Silicon Valley—only rubs salt into this wound. But the substitution of writers with AI-generated slop is yet another step in the long history of the global devastation of skilled labour, and must be engaged with as such, rather than by getting lost in futile battles over property. Very few institutions are as deeply mutually imbricated with the capitalist mode of production as property rights are; they exist to serve the accumulation of capital, and can see rapid renegotiation when the site of accumulation shifts. This is precisely what is happening now, allowing Big Tech to ride roughshod over the interests of both writers and publishers. 

We must also remember that our concerns with these models lie not in how they are trained, but in how they are deployed. Academics have been working with human language data for decades. This is a good thing; the open availability of a myriad genres of language data have contributed immensely to research into linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, and so on. The open availability of literary and scientific works to the general public is also a good thing, unless we actively desire that the masses remain culturally, scientifically, and intellectually stunted.The use of machinery to deskill, discipline, and beat down labour is precisely that—an issue with how machinery is used. This process is fundamental to the capitalist mode of production, and must be framed as the assault on labour that it is, rather than relying on appeals to property rights. The use of generative AI to shed workers en masse must be fought through a principled Luddism; through an opposition to capital’s use of machinery to discipline and replace workers; and through building solidarities both with other workers and with the consumers of written text. More importantly, we must reject the cynical fiction that property rights are a necessary evil—and what better moment than now, when the Faustian bargain between artists and publishers has revealed itself to be entirely one-sided?

Against the Weaponisation of Antisemitism in Education 

Statement by several campaigning groups


28/01/2025

Deutsche Version folgt / German version follows

We, the cosigned groups, fully support the open letter by students and academics “Against the Weaponisation of Antisemitism to Impose Censorship in Education.”

We must stand united against censorship, state infringement on academic freedom, police violence on campuses, and racist discrimination in institutes of education. A new Bundestag resolution, which will be voted upon on January 29th, aims to enact and legitimize these policies in German schools and universities.

Over the last 15 months, attacks on freedom of expression, assembly, art, and academia have increased exponentially in Germany. They have been executed by the ruling political parties and prompted and applauded by the far right. Like the resolution passed in November, which similarly instrumentalizes antisemitism, this resolution is the work of SPD, Grüne, FDP and CDU parties, but will mostly profit the AfD.

Now these parties are once again set to vote together with the AfD to pass this new resolution. We hold every politician who votes “yes” accountable for their collaboration on the renewed rise to power of fascism in Germany.

The freedom to think differently must be protected at all costs. Education must be free from police interference and state doctrine. As a site of debate, learning, and questioning, universities have often been at the forefront of progressive politics. Education, just like culture, has become a target in the government’s efforts to control the narrative around Palestine/Israel. The resolution is another attempt to silence critical discourse around what UN agencies, all major human rights organisations, and hundreds of experts have acknowledged as genocide.

As we write this, the full text of the resolution is still not public. The very fact that these policies are being developed and passed through state protocols without civil society oversight is a sign of a slide into authoritarian politics. The resolution must be seen for its precise function: to create a political framework in which surveillance, repression and violence based on political opinion are made acceptable in institutions of education.

We call upon civil society and institutions to do everything in their power to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression.

  • Arts and Culture Alliance Berlin,
  • Students for Palestine Germany,
  • Jewish Solidarity Collective,
  • Eye4Palestine,
  • Jüdische Stimme,
  • Grieving Doves,
  • Jewish Bund,
  • Nakba 1948, 
  • Familien für Palästina,
  • Besetzung gegen Besatzung
  • JID Leipzig
  • The Left Berlin

Open Letter from Students and Educators

Gegen die Instrumentalisierung von Antisemitismus in der Bildung

Wir, die unterzeichnenden Gruppen, unterstützen den offenen Brief von Studierenden und Lehrenden gegen den Resolutionsentwurf  „​​​​​​​Antisemitismus und Israelfeindlichkeit an Schulen und Hochschulen entschlossen entgegentreten sowie den freien Diskursraum sichern“​​​​​​​.

Wir stehen gemeinsam gegen Zensur, staatliche Einschränkungen von Wissenschaftsfreiheit, Polizeigewalt auf dem Campus, und rassistischer Diskriminierung in Bildungseinrichtungen. Die neue Bundestagsresolution, über welche am 29. Januar abgestimmt werden soll, soll diese Vorgänge in deutschen Schulen und Universitäten durchsetzen und legitimieren. 

In den letzten 15 Monaten sind Angriffe auf Meinungs-, Versammlungs-, Kunst- und Wissenschaftsfreiheit in Deutschland exponentiell angestiegen. Sie wurden von den regierenden Parteien durchgeführt und von Rechtsaußen angestoßen und begrüßt. Genau wie die im November verabschiedete Resolution, die Antisemitismus für politische Zwecke instrumentalisiert, ist auch diese Resolution das Werk von SPD, Grüne, FDP und CDU, doch sie dient vor allem der AfD.

Nun werden die bürgerlichen Parteien wohl wieder gemeinsam mit der AfD für die neue Resolution stimmen. Wir machen jede*n Politiker*in, die/der mit Ja​​​​​​​​​​​​ stimmt, für die eigene Mitwirkung am erneuten Aufstieg des Faschismus in Deutschland verantwortlich.

Die Freiheit, anders zu denken, muss unbedingt beschützt werden. Bildung muss frei von polizeilicher Überwachung und Staatsdoktrin sein. Als Ort der Debatte, des Lernens, und des kritischen Hinterfragens waren Universitäten oft an der Speerspitze progressiver Politik. Bildung ist wie Kultur zu einer Zielscheibe der Regierung geworden, im Bemühen, das Narrativ um Palästina/Israel zu kontrollieren. Alle großen Menschenrechtsorganisationen, UN-Vertreter*innen sowie hunderte Expert*innen haben Israels Vorgehen in Gaza einen Genozid genannt – doch die deutsche Regierung versucht durch die Resolution, kritischen Diskurs darum zum Schweigen zu bringen.

Während wir dieses Statement verfassen, ist der aktuelle Text der Resolution immer noch nicht öffentlich. Die Tatsache, dass solche politischen Instrumente ohne zivilgesellschaftliche Kontrolle oder Transparenz entwickelt und beschlossen werden ist an sich ein klares Zeichen autoritärer Tendenzen. Die Resolution muss in ihrer spezifischen Funktion betrachtet werden: Sie soll eine politische Lage schaffen, in der Überwachung, Repression und Gewalt auf Basis politischer Überzeugungen in Bildungseinrichtungen gesellschaftlich akzeptabel werden.

Wir fordern die Zivilgesellschaft sowie Institutionen auf, alles in ihrer Macht stehende zu tun, um Wissenschafts- und Meinungsfreiheit zu schützen.

  • Arts and Culture Alliance Berlin,
  • Students for Palestine Germany,
  • Jewish Solidarity Collective,
  • Eye4Palestine,
  • Jüdische Stimme,
  • Grieving Doves,
  • Jewish Bund,
  • Nakba 1948, 
  • Familien für Palästina,
  • Besetzung gegen Besatzung
  • JID Leipzig
  • The Left Berlin

Offener Brief von Studierenden und Lehrenden

Gegen den Resolutionsentwurf “Antisemitismus und Israelfeindlichkeit an Schulen und Hochschulen entschlossen entgegentreten…”

Offener Brief von Studierenden und Lehrenden


This is the German version of an Open Letter which you can read here.

Wir, Studierende, Lehrende und Mitarbeitende an deutschen Hochschulen, sind alarmiert über die Resolution „Antisemitismus und Israelfeindlichkeit an Schulen und Hochschulen entschlossen entgegentreten sowie den freien Diskursraum sichern“. Vorgeblich der Antisemitismusbekämpfung gewidmet, stellt diese vielmehr eine Bedrohung für die Sicherheit von Schüler:innen und Student:innen dar und ruft zur Untergrabung der Wissenschaftsfreiheit und Hochschulautonomie auf. Wir schließen uns der Kritik von Wissenschaftler:innen, Antisemitismusforscher:innen aus Deutschland und internationaler Fachgesellschaften an und treten der Resolution mit ihren absehbaren und gravierenden Folgen für Wissenschaftsfreiheit und Perspektivenvielfalt entschieden entgegen. Auch mehreren Jurist:innen zufolge wirft die Resolution zahlreiche schwerwiegende verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken auf. 

Am 7. November 2024 hat der Deutsche Bundestag eine erste Resolution unter dem Titel „Nie wieder ist jetzt: Jüdisches Leben in Deutschland schützen, bewahren und stärken“ trotz heftiger Kritik, mit mehrheitlicher Zustimmung aus nahezu allen Parteien, inklusive der AfD, verabschiedet. Nun wurde eine weitere Resolution vorgelegt, die sich gegen Antisemitismus richtet – an Schulen und Hochschulen in Deutschland. Sie wird voraussichtlich Anfang Dezember zur Abstimmung eingereicht. 

Die Resolution nährt eine verzerrte Darstellung, die palästinasolidarischen Aktivismus verunglimpft, und untergräbt die Rolle der Universität als Ort des offenen Austauschs und der politischen Debatte1. Sie fordert den „Austausch zwischen Hochschulen und Sicherheitsbehörden […] in Intensität und Regelmäßigkeit“ (III.2), die Ausweitung rechtlicher Maßnahmen und repressiver Instrumente, die Verstärkung von Sicherheitsmaßnahmen und den Ausschluss von Studierenden, die unerwünschte Ansichten äußern. Laut der Resolution dürfen Unterstützer:innen “der ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’-Bewegung (abgekürzt BDS) sowie ähnlich gesinnte Bewegungen […] in deutschen Bildungs- und Wissenschaftseinrichtungen keinen Platz haben“ (III.10). Die Verwendung einer so unpräzisen Sprache, um festzulegen, wer von deutschen Universitäten ausgeschlossen werden soll, ist alarmierend und erweitert das Ausmaß staatlicher Repression weit über die pro-palästinensische Studierendenbewegung hinaus. Zudem isoliert die Resolution deutsche Universitäten von internationalen Partnerinstitutionen, setzt sie in Widerspruch zum internationalen Völkerrecht, untergräbt ihre Glaubwürdigkeit und riskiert weltweite Gegenreaktionen. 

In Gaza wurden alle Schulen und Universitäten seit Oktober 2023 durch Israel bombardiert und buchstäblich  zerstört. Israel ist für die Tötung unzähliger Studierender, Forschender, Künstler:innen, Ärzt:innen und Journalist:innen im Gazastreifen verantwortlich, was einem Scholastizid des palästinensischen Bildungswesens gleichkommt. Einem Sonderausschuss der Vereinten Nationen nach, entspricht das Vorgehen Israels in Gaza einem Völkermord, an dem sich Deutschland unter anderem mit Waffenlieferungen beteiligt. Auf internationaler Ebene wurde Deutschland deshalb bereits Mitschuld am Völkermord vorgeworfen und verteidigt Israel dennoch weiterhin gegen entsprechende Klagen vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof. 

Auf nationaler Ebene setzen der Staat und Institutionen, im Namen eines vermeintlichen Schutzes jüdischen Lebens in Deutschland, immer mehr repressive Maßnahmen und Abschreckungstaktiken gegen palästinasolidarische Personen ein, zu denen auch viele jüdische Personen zählen, und untergraben so ihre Meinungsfreiheit und ihr Recht auf politische Meinungsäußerung. Die vorgelegte Resolution stärkt genau diese Instrumente, die zur Rechtfertigung polizeilicher Gewalt gegen Student:innen sowie Kündigungen von Künstler:innen, Dozent:innen, Redner:innen, Forschenden und anderen aufgrund ihrer politischen Ansichten benutzt wurden und werden2. 

Die Resolution untergräbt die wissenschaftsimmanenten meritokratischen Prozesse der Fördermittelvergabe, indem sie betont, dass „Fördermittel des Bundes ausschließlich nach dem Maßstab der wissenschaftlichen Exzellenz vergeben werden“ und „wissenschaftliche Exzellenz und Antisemitismus einander ausschließen“ (III.9). Sie beruft sich dabei allein auf die umstrittene Antisemitismusdefinition der International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), die Kritik an Israel mit Antisemitismus gleichsetzt. Substanzielle Kritik an der Ungenauigkeit und dem dokumentierten Missbrauch dieser Definition zur Diskriminierung von Personen aufgrund ihrer politischen Meinung wird ignoriert. Folglich wird die Freigabe von Bundesmitteln von den politischen Ansichten der Wissenschaftler:innen abhängig gemacht, was legitime Kritik an der israelischen Politik zum Schweigen bringen soll. Die Freiheit der Forschung ist unvereinbar mit der staatlichen Kontrolle von Forschungsmittelvergaben und der Überwachung privater und politischer Äußerungen und Betätigungen3. 

Die Resolution weitet die einseitige Lehre über Antisemitismus und den Staat Israel im Rahmen der Bildung über den Nahen Osten aus, während sie Palästina und Palästinenser:innen, die nur im Rahmen der Hamas erwähnt werden, als legitime Themen der Lehre und Forschung ausklammert. Der Beutelsbacher Konsens, der gegen die Indoktrination aus dem Dritten Reich entwickelt wurde, sieht vor, dass Lernende Zugang zu verschiedenen Perspektiven auf gesellschaftliche und politische Fragen bekommen und somit in die Lage versetzt werden, kritisch zu denken und sich eine eigene Meinung zu bilden. Die in der Resolution propagierte Einseitigkeit in Forschung und Lehre widerspricht der unabhängigen, kritischen und von politischer Indoktrination freien Bildung. 

Wir lehnen die Resolution aus diesen Gründen ab und fordern einen Ansatz, der unterschiedliche Perspektiven respektiert und die Wissenschaftsfreiheit wahrt.

FORDERUNGEN

Wir, die Unterzeichnenden, fordern Universitätsverwaltungen, Fakultätsleitungen, Studierendenvertreter:innen, Studierendeninitiativen und Universitätsmitarbeitende auf, eine prinzipientreue Haltung gegen die autoritäre Bedrohung durch die vorgeschlagene Resolution einzunehmen. 

Wir fordern, dass die oben genannten Parteien 

  1. eine klare öffentliche Haltung gegen die Untergrabung der Wissenschaftsfreiheit, der Meinungsfreiheit und die Verletzung der Hochschulautonomie durch die Resolution einnehmen.
  2. die Verwendung der IHRA-Definition als alleinige, offizielle und rechtliche Definition von Antisemitismus an Forschungs- und Bildungseinrichtungen ablehnen.
  3. die Forderung nach verstärkter Versicherheitlichung an Hochschulen durch „engen Austausch mit den Sicherheitsbehörden“ (III.12.e) und karzerale Logiken ablehnen, in dem sie u.a. eine Antirassismus- und Antidiskriminierungsstelle einrichten und unabhängige Protokolle für die Deeskalation von Konflikten ohne Polizeipräsenz etablieren.
  4. der antipalästinensischen Voreingenommenheit mit ausgewogenen Lehrplänen begegnen, die palästinensische Geschichte auf allen Ebenen der Bildung, palästinensische Wissensproduktion und Lehre über Palästinenser:innen, die über ihre Rolle als besetztes Volk hinausgeht, einbeziehen.
  5. „eintreten für Forschung und Lehre im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht und für konsequentes Handeln bei Nichteinhaltung durch Universitäten, Forschungsinstitute und andere akademische Einrichtungen“ (Zitat aus den Arbeitsprinzipien der Allianz Kritische und Solidarische Wissenschaft).

Endnoten
1 In der Resolution werden selektiv Studien der Universität Konstanz zitiert, wobei wichtige Ergebnisse ausgelassen werden, die zeigen, dass der Antisemitismus unter Studierenden geringer ist als in der Allgemeinbevölkerung (Quelle). 

2 Das Projekt “Archive of Silence” dokumentiert Fälle von Kündigungen, Entladungen, und anderen Formen der Unterdrückung pro-palästinensischer – unter anderem jüdischer – Stimmen (Quelle) .

3 Im Frühjahr 2024 wurde beispielsweise ein Mädchentreff in Berlin aufgrund der politischen Einstellungen der Mitarbeitenden fristlos gekündigt (Quelle), gleichzeitig ließ das BMBF prüfen ob man Forscher:innen, die sich gegen die Kriminalisierung von propalästinensischen Studierenden geäußert hatten, die Fördermittel streichen könnte (Quelle). Das Vorgehen der zum Zeitpunkt des BMBF Skandals “Fördergate” amtierenden Ministerin wird im Resolutionsentwurf explizit begrüßt (I.), was alarmierend ist.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Erstunterzeichner:innen

Gruppen
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

Decolonize HU
Ingolstadt Eichstätt for Palestine
Stand UP for Palestine
Kritische SKA, Leipzig
KIARA (Kritische Islamwissenschaftler*innen und Arabist*innen), Leipzig

Einzelpersonen (alphabetisch)
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

Weitere Unterstützer:innen

  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
  189. Prof. Dr. Encarnacion Gutierrez Rodriguez, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
  190. Sören Horn, Kritische-Min-Studierende (Uni Hamburg) 

Weitere unterstützende Gruppen

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