Less than 10 years ago, Germany, and especially Berlin, was held up as a beacon of openness and inclusivity in a western world rocked by Brexit and Donald Trump. Angela Merkel’s decision to take in thousands of refugees displaced by the war in Syria boosted her country’s reputation in progressive circles, with many international artists and academics choosing to make the German capital their new home.
Yet the conflict in the Middle East is showing Germany in a new light, highlighting fissures in society and the arts world that until now had been easier to ignore.
I don’t doubt that they don’t know any nuance in anything that contains “From the river to the sea" but who was arrested for “Jews against genocide” and on what grounds?
Do you have a source for that?
For repression in Berlin in general:
https://jewishcurrents.org/an-anti-palestinian-crackdown-across-europe
Open letter of Jewish people condemning the supression by the German government, German and English Version:
https://taz.de/Offener-Brief-juedischer-Intellektueller/!5965154/
https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/freedom-for-the-one-who-thinks-differently/
Recent arrest of jewish activists for peace, German and English version:
https://www.juedische-stimme.de/stellungnahme-einer-jüdischen-stimme-aktivistin-nach-ihrer-verhaftung-bei-einer-demo
https://www.theleftberlin.com/police-brutality-at-palestine-solidarity-sit-in/
Sorry, but I couldn’t find a single reference to “Jews against genocide” in any of these.
Also, open letters and opinion peaces by activists are by definition not neutral sources.
I’m not saying that police are necessarily acting correctly, but do you have any evidence that someone was arrested for “Jews against genocide”?
https://twitter.com/derJamesJackson/status/1741488229201658142
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/germany-gaza-protests-crackdown
The problem is that German mainstream media is not covering these topics and had a ridicilous pro Israel bias until the last few weeks since it becomes impossible to ignore the deliberate starvation of people in Gaza and the continued genocidal rethoric of the Israeli government in regards to invading Rafah.
Well English media don’t seem to provide any proof for the original claim either.
Your first link shows a picture of a lady with a “Jews against genocide” sign flanked by two police officers.
I see no arrest and at least at that moment in time she is still allowed to show her sign.
Link two contains these passages:
Again, I’m not defending police here but the claim was that people were arrested, so I want to know who got arrested and for what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest
I think you might confuse it with detention, where the police would keep you in jail for a limited time.
As for who and what, from the article:
And this is indivative of the wider problem here. Police can harass and attack protests without having to uphold a legal standard. So even if there is no legal basis to what they do, just storming into the protest and dragging someone out is used as an intimidation and punishment without crime tactic. It is always a violent act where not only the person apprehended, but also the protestors around them are physically attacked.
I admit, it might be a language problem.
What does taking into custody mean then?
Is police taking someone aside for 2 minutes to ask some questions an arrest?
Because then I don’t understand the outcry over it, particularly compared to far more heavy-handed police action that definitely does happen every now and again.
Blogs, letters, and articles about letters are very weak sources. They’re on the level of opinions. Do you have anything better?
So you think the pictures and videos that show the speaking activist being detained by the Police have been staged with the police? You think that recognised organizations who rely on their tax exemption would make false allegations against the government that could deny their tax exempt status and practically kill their work through that?
Pictures and videos are evidence of a single event each, not evidence of systematic opression
Any organisation can make statements which can be argued to be statements of principle, of opinion, or similar, and not face any consequences. Tax-exempt status is removed if they start working for profit, not if they work in the direction of their political beliefs.
They can and will lose their tax exempt status or have it threatened if the government argues them to believe “extremist” for which false allegations would be an indication.
Losing the tax exempt status based on broad allegations have happened to the VVN-BdA the Association of people persecuted by the nazi regime, federation of antifascists. Based on it being mentioned in the “constitution protection report” of the interior intelligence in Bavaria the finance office of Berlin has revoked its tax exempt status in 2019. The organization was targeted as “leftist extremists” as they have a decisive anti-fascist stance, given that the organization has been founded by Holocaust survivors and their descendants are organized in it.
https://taz.de/Aberkennung-der-VVN-Gemeinnuetzigkeit/!5645383/
https://taz.de/VVN-BdA-wieder-voll-gemeinnuetzig/!5768978/
Considering not even the openly neonazi AfD are classified as extremist they can feel quite safe from that. Also, well done moving the goalposts.
The fact remains that expressing statements furthering their political interests carries zero consequences. Which is a good thing, without this democracy wouldn’t work. It also means that your sources are closer to opinions than to facts. Got any peer-reviewed studies perhaps?
except in many cases they are, and except the fact that this should be ringing alarm bells when left leaning organizations are targeted by the government. Taking their tax exempt status, like it was done with the VVN is a death sentence to non profit organizations.
Also how do you want to get peer reviewed studies about something that is happening right now and in that extent and with that attention since six months?
Yeah, only some of the Landesverbände, not the federal party - which is what really matters.
So would you say, there is as of yet insufficient evidence for a factual conclusion?