Response of studentsforpalestine

February 9th, 2024

Note of the editorial staff: Since the members of the group studentsforpalestine explicitly asked to remain anonymous we posed an additional question to them which inquired as to why they felt this way.  

1. Why are students who participated in the occupation hesitant or unwilling to share their identity?

The university has proven they will not protect their students who are critical of Israel and its ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. This was proven in how it unleashed an army of over 100 police officers to detain the students, as well as by fuelling the German media’s biased and negative coverage of our occupation. Moreover, Germany’s history of persecuting pro-Palestine activists has posed a danger to our students and their families. In the aftermath of the occupation and the negative coverage in German media, our members are being recognised and harassed on the streets of Berlin, pro-Israel critics are calling for our members to be exmatriculated, and our members’ faces are being disseminated without their permission on social media with threatening messages calling for their identities to be revealed. 

The university allowed our students to be torn apart in the media and refused to mention that even the police confirmed that no anti-Semitic incidents took place on 14.12. Instead, it released a biased statement smearing our occupation while the president gave interviews to German reporters about the perceived antisemitism that took place. The university dangerously failed to mention the fact that fellow Jewish students were among our organisers and speakers during the occupation. This angle would have complicated their position of “fighting anti-Semetism”. We believe that if it were actually fighting anti-Semetism, it would stop the ridiculous conflation of Zionism with Judaism, and acknowledge its Jewish students fighting for Palestinian liberation. In light of all of these threats to our students, especially to our Middle Eastern students and anti-Zionist Jewish students, it is self-explanatory that they would want to protect their safety that is being threatened in very tangible ways due to the university’s actions.

2. What is your assessment of the discourse at the FU before and since Oct. 7th? What, if anything, has changed until now?

The discourse on Palestine or the lack of it has always been strongly policed and monitored by the university. In a lecture organised autonomously by the university students, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, referred to this repression as ‘knowledge dictatorship’. The university has not organised one single event regarding this topic. Compared to two years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, the situation was very different - the university cut its ties with Russian institutes immediately, and organised events, lectures and seminars on this issue. This proves that the university must stay in line with strategic policies of the German government. Ukraine’s occupation is righteously condemned while Palestine’s occupation is silenced. 

Students efforts to raise the issue by protests lead to condemnations in media. The university did not defend its students from smear campaigns portraying students as Hamas supporters and Jew-haters. First events organised by the university will take place on January 25th and 26th - more than four months after the October 7th attacks. On the whole, the discourse before and after the October 7th has been strictly restricted and only possible if approved by the individual instructors in closed class rooms. The university fears an open dialogue and fact-based discussions. 

3. Are meaningful, constructive and respectful discussions regarding the topic of Palestine and Israel possible and accessible for all students, lecturers and staff of Freie Universität? Why or why not?

There are no and have been no public events on this topic. As mentioned, debates could and can only take place if authorised by the individual course instructors in closed class rooms. 

As a result,  students have been organising, for instance, lecture series. This project is run autonomously by ‘students from all different disciplines at HU & FU who are both deeply concerned about the unfolding events in Palestine*Israel and ongoing discourses and knowledge production about the event in Germany.’ The project is a great success, hosting leading scholars praised for their expertise on this topic.  

4. Freie Universität Berlin states that it offers a variety of ways, such as contact persons, debate forums and committees to engage in protests and make grievances heard. Why did the student group then choose to occupy lecture hall 1a in spite the existence of these spaces the university offers?

The university offers no such spaces despite proclaiming the opposite. In the email dated December 5, the university leadership assured that Freie Universität Berlin should be a safe and open space for discursive exchange, where all students and staff can feel secure regardless of their background or denomination. Our primary demand, to refrain from one-sided expressions of solidarity in the Gaza conflict, was not met by the university despite many protests and meetings with the university leadership including the president. This has been communicated in our press statements as well. 

Despite the prior assurances that space would be provided on campus for concerns related to Israel’s war on Gaza, we received only lip service and no concrete actions. It is our responsibility as students to draw attention to the disproportionate actions of the Israeli government and promote a balanced discourse. Due to insufficient media coverage and little attention in German politics regarding the disproportionate and criminal actions of the Israeli government against the Palestinians in Gaza according to international law and as documented by human rights organisations and the UN, public awareness of these events remains extremely limited. Even expressions of regret from the German political sphere seem to extend no further than mere statements.

The historical practice of the student body at FUB has shown that activists have taken similar measures in the past to draw attention to political events. However, the draconian measures taken against us after the Palestine occupation demonstrate that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict cannot be critically and freely discussed in the German context, violating the right to freedom of expression anchored in Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution.

In sum, we called on the university to:

i) Advocate for a permanent ceasefire;

ii) Promote a human rights and fact-based discourse on Palestine/Israel;

iii) Reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism and adopt a new definition crafted by the university;

iv) Develop a new social media statement condemning the violence and atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza and all of Palestine.

5. What student organisations and groups participated in the occupation?

Independents students who formed an initiative Students for Palestine, students supporting our partner notinourname_fu initiative, Studierenden Kollektiv, Waffen der Kritik and Young Struggle, Students Defend Kurdistan, @arbeiterinnenmacht and Zora.

Palestinian students invited to speak about their experiences at the campus co-organized by Pa_allies were prevented from doing so. Some of them were exposed to the police violence and were detained. We regret the turn of the events and eviction, especially because Palestinian voices were effectively silenced by the university. Time and again, public institutions resolved not only to silencing and prosecuting some of the most marginal voices in German society but also to the use of police brutality against them. The state and the university have confirmed that the racist, anti-Palestinian and anti-migrant ideologies are at the root of the public institutions. We condemn these actions and stand in solidarity with our Palestinian students. 

6. Why was the police called during the occupation of the lecture hall 1a?

Police were in fact called twice. During the first time, both police and university officials witnessed the counter-protesters assaulting our members and tearing down posters, as documented by video footage. Despite this, the University insisted on pushing for their admission into the occupied lecture hall. In exchange, the University said it would continue to allow the occupation. Police departed when we agreed against our better judgement.

As we expected, once inside the lecture hall, the counter-protesters continued their aggression — assaulting our members (including a Jewish student) once again, and again tearing down our posters. Again, this is documented by footage. This was indeed witnessed by a University anti-discrimination official inside the lecture theatre — who even requested the counter-protesters to leave. The University neglected mentioning this in any of its statements or media appearances (certainly, it would have brought on huge media criticism and attack). The counter-protesters simply refused the request, and the University officials took no further action. Yet by the logic that was deployed against us, was the University “anti-Semitic” for calling for them to leave?

The University cited these renewed disturbances inside the lecture hall as part of the reason for their calling of the police a second time. Yet it is the University that poured the fuel on the fire by combining the counter-protesters who had already displayed violence in the same space as the occupiers in an obviously high-tension and pressurised environment. Even from an apolitical point of view, this decision was reckless — and endangered students safety, including that of guest students. If they wanted, they could have provided a separate space for them. 

There is no chance that if the tables were turned, that the University would have pressed for the admission of pro-Palestinian counter-protesters if it was the other side that had undertaken an occupation and came under assault. In such a scenario, rather, it is very likely that police would have been called to immediately expel them from the vicinity of the space, if not arrest them. We made this point directly to the university vice-chancellors, and received no response. Similarly, there is also no chance that the police would have been called to evict an occupation held by supporters of Israel. We think this is quite clearly undisputable and isn’t the subject of any reasonable debate.

We should note that none of the counter-protesters were detained by the police — despite being the only ones who actually assaulted anyone and used hate speech (calling our members Nazis and terrorist sympathisers — combining anti-Semitism with Islamophobia) — and were even allowed to remain behind after the eviction. We later found out, after the eviction, that some of our banners that were left behind were vandalised.

Similarly, the University also did not press charges against any of them.

7. The occupation has been deemed as having held antisemitic sentiments. Could you elaborate what acts of antisemitism took place?

The only acts of anti-Semitism that may have taken place are those that targeted our Jewish students. One of our Jewish members was assaulted by the counter-protesters, as documented on footage. Furthermore, the counter-protesters described our members, who included Jewish students, as “Nazis”. We should note that we also had an Israeli panellist. None of this was mentioned by the University or in any media coverage, despite its possible legal implications.

As noted, the University already admitted that there was no discrimination in the entry of students on an ethnic or religious basis, and the police also reported no anti-Semitic incidents to have taken place. The University’s statement was titled “No room for anti-Semitism” — yet the actual content of the statement did not offer any proof for this implied allegation. We believe that the title of the statement was chosen as such because the University succumbed to political and media pressure.

8. How do you feel about the press statement published by the Freie Universität regarding the occupation?

As noted, the University’s press statement was deceptive and duplicitous, and betrayed the duty of care that the University has towards its students. It did so by promoting a false narrative that has since been jumped upon by various guiltwashing German media outlets. We should note here that most German media outlets who have reported on the occupation did not take any statements from our side (only relying on statements from the University and the counter-protesters), displaying a lack of the most basic principles of journalistic professionalism, while making libellous claims without any proof. Even from an apolitical point of view, the University’s actions were reckless and incompetent.

9. What have been the consequences for the students participating in the occupation?

21 of our students were detained and are awaiting charges, which the University has said it will proceed with pressing. These include international students whose residency status may be affected. We should note that there was racial profiling employed by the police in who they targeted. This included targeting international students who were bystanders, while excluding examples of European participants who were prominent. Ethnic minority students were also targeted. One international student was thrown against a police van, and another suffered injuries to their ribs.

Since then, some of our members have been recognised because of the media coverage and been harassed on the streets.

At a recent meeting with University officials, we made all this very clear in no uncertain terms (though being described as “emotional” in order to nullify our complaints), and our members received support from various Palestinian and minority students.

10. How have these events affected life on campus at the Freie Universität?

Many of our students no longer feel safe on campus. Our group has been consistently followed by counter-protesters whenever they assemble to hold basic organisational meetings. Police were called on another such occasion a week after the occupation, with footage taken and shown to the police that showed the counter-protesters following our members. We have also reported this to the university. We are awaiting to see if they will take any action to stop this harassment. We have little doubt that this behaviour would not be tolerated if the tables were turned.

11. How can those students who had occupied the lecture hall and the university meaningfully engage with one another regarding the issue of Palestine and Israel?

We have never closed the doors on engagement, and our members have held many meetings with University officials. Unfortunately, these have not resulted in significant progress.
 

12. Finally, is there anything you'd like our readers to know?

We would like to take the opportunity to assure our Jewish friends and students — including those who we may have political disagreements with — that we stand with them against the genuine rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes that is taking place in Berlin, and Germany more widely. We also want to emphasise that the German state and much of the media are not genuinely interested in combating discrimination. Rather, they are raising tensions in a divide-and-conquer policy that seeks to undermine the inter-communal solidarity that is necessary to fight anti-Semitism. We can see this in governmental statements that attempt to state that anti-Semitism is being imported by migrants. 

The purpose of this approach is to show that only the German state and the German nation can be trusted. Yet this is the same German state that allows far-right parties and German anti-Semites to organise, march, and run for elections. Their fundamental concern is not Jews or Palestinians: their fundamental concern is guiltwashing and to promote a concept of civilised German exceptionalism. In the process, Germany today is finding no problem in substituting one form of racism with another — showing clearly that it has not genuinely internalised the lessons of the past. 

This is what guiltwashing entails: a superficial posture that seeks to justify authoritarian policy today by claiming to address historical guilt. We should note however that this is not only a guilt pathology: it is also intentionally instrumentalised by the German state in its desire to remain a power. The manifestations of this is not restricted to Germany’s posture on Israel, but extends to Germany’s support for dictatorships throughout the Middle East. In other words, Germany’s support for Israel is part and parcel of a wider support for regional authoritarianism. 

Both Jews and Palestinians/Muslims are historical victim communities. The way forward lies in building bridges of solidarity, and being consistent in opposing human rights violations — no matter who carries them out. Far from singling out Israel, we have members who have opposed regional dictatorships that proclaim to be anti-Israel, such as in Syria and Iran. Just as Muslims fought against extremist movements that arose in countries like Iraq who proclaimed to speak in their name, this did not contradict them simultaneously opposing the rise of Islamophobia and foreign policy interventions, by the likes of the United States and Russia, that helped contribute to the situations of brutalisation and depravation that become a fertile breeding ground for extremism. Our Jewish allies in the movement are doing the same thing: refusing Israel’s attempts to speak in the name of Jews while it conducts war crimes, while also combating the rise in anti-Semitism. 

This is a difficult task — we are not going to pretend it’s not — and it’s made more difficult by institutional attempts to undermine these efforts. The duty of human rights advocates is to focus on the contexts that create the conditions for extremism — occupation, authoritarianism, and discrimination — as well as the ethics of movements that claim to arise in resistance. It is not to focus on one exclusively at the expense of the other, as German institutions are doing.

The empirical record today is clear. Israeli officials have declared the following: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible… It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being… involved” (Israel’s President). That Gaza would be turned into a “city of tents, with no buildings” (Israeli Defence Official). That the emphasis of the offensive would be “damage, not accuracy” (Israeli Defence Official). That water and power to the Gaza Strip would be cut because Israel was fighting “human animals” (Israel’s Defence Minister). That Israel should “blow up and flatten everything”, and use the nuclear weapon (Israel’s Heritage Minister). 

In other words, Israeli politicians have been explicit in statements that in any other context, would be seen as the type of rhetoric that has typically accompanied historical episode of genocide. Our academics know this full well. 

Since then, Israel has matched the rhetoric by breaking various records. More children killed than all conflicts since 2019. The most UN workers killed in any conflict. The most journalists killed than in any conflict on record. More civilians killed in one month than in a year of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As many tonnes of bombs as those dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Meanwhile, an investigation relying on IDF soldiers' testimonies found that the IDFs knows exactly how many civilians it kills in advance of operations, relying on AI to generate targets and widening targets to exclude military facilities. 

Taking the rhetorical intent and actions in totality, it is clear that the case that genocide is taking place in Gaza is strong. This is not said lightly. It is why South Africa has been able to build a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Germany, shamefully, has announced that it will defend Israel in this case. The lack of self-awareness to take this stance considering Germany’s history is, for lack of a better word, surreal. We have little doubt that within a few decades, looking back at this moment, many within Germany will ask: “How did we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past?”

Our academics who do not speak out or take action are betraying their vocational duty to speak the truth. They are either motivated by their own self-centred identity issues as Germans, or are prioritising their livelihoods and job security. They can choose their path, but history will judge them harshly.

Finally, we demand again and unanimously from Freie Universität Berlin:

1. A publicly effective expression of solidarity for the people in Gaza. The University should condemn the targeting of students and staff. By January 2nd, according to UN-relayed reports (OCHA), more than 4,119 students and 221 teachers have been killed in Gaza.

2. The withdrawal of criminal complaints against students

3. Comprehensive protection for pro-Palestinian students and faculty staff on campus. Many of them hold a precarious residence status. Therefore, the university’s actions directly endanger their lives.

4. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to be discarded and replaced by the Jerusalem Definition

5. To establish a Department of Palestine Studies under the control of Students

and Staff.

6. We demand both from the university and the German government not to speak in the name of the people, as this predominantly goes against the internationally unlawful atrocities of Israeli politics and calls for a ceasefire.

#notinourname and #ceasefirenow