Reign on Vendetta
Herrschaft auf Rachefeldzug
Artikel hören
The Palestine Solidarity harms state loyalty:
Why the Palestine movement is such a thorn in the side of the German state, why some protests are tolerated and others are not, and how Berlin simply deports defiant demonstrators.
Reminder: The words marked in red are links leading to corresponding Kritikpunkt articles.
We recommend reading or listening to our latest post “The Death of Hegemony beforehand, as it deals more closely with the theoretical aspects of capitalist hegemony, which are also practically discussed in this post.
Regarding the topic of Palestine, we have a whole category worth exploring; specifically, we recommend “Resistance and Terror” (about the classification of Hamas and the logic behind its existence), “Capital Attacks Gaza” (about the logic behind US policy towards Palestine and why Germany is involved), and “Before October 7” (a comprehensive account of Israel’s formation, Palestinian resistance, and Zionism).
The German and allied capital see themselves still threatened by the shared guilt of the massacre in Gaza, risking losing the loyalty of a significant part of the population.
Since solidarity with the Palestinian people goes far beyond the usual, strongly leftist segments of society, the German state is compelled to respond with unknown severity against its opponents of state raison d’être.
The policies of the Federal Republic regarding disloyalty read like a perversion of Popper’s Tolerance Paradox: A capitalist society can only be tolerant as long as tolerance does not threaten its own interests.
While past social unrest in the FRG mostly remained within specific political and societal niches, the massacre in Gaza provides such an astonishing amount of footage, victim statements, and data that resistance against it even reaches large parts of the otherwise apolitical population.
If this were about the conflict in Ukraine, which initially triggered similar reactions, it would not bother the German state either; but it is about an issue that not only threatens the interests of German capital, but also risks causing a break with the identification with rule.
For a modern bourgeois state to function, its citizens must align their interests with those of the ruling class.
This works quite well in the FRG: When the authorities talk about the GDP rising or falling, it is seen as “good” or “bad” for society as a whole.
When authorities claim that defending German democracy in Ukraine, it is accepted – the interests of the state appear as the interests of the individual.
If there is a rupture in this equivalence of interests, the bourgeois state faces a major problem.
Because upon such a rupture, many consequences follow – and if the individual completely breaks with the idea that this state represents their interests, they might commit treason.
So after nearly 500 days of shared responsibility for the genocide in Gaza, the German state turns up the means to secure loyalty.
Occupations and Protests
Like many other universities worldwide, the Free University of Berlin (FU) was partially occupied last summer to draw media attention to the massacre in Gaza and, in the case of FU, to denounce the tolerance of genocide (in the sense of academic cooperation with Israeli universities).
Protests were set up in May and June on campus and at the Henry Ford Building, a “Student Palestinian Committee” was founded, and media campaigns highlighted Germany’s complicity in the Gaza genocide.
After the encampments ended, around 40 students briefly attempted to occupy the FU Berlin presidium building in October 2024.
On October 17, at midday, students already inside the building called on all staff to leave.
They hung a banner stating that “if police enter the building (…) the technology” would be destroyed.
One university staff member threatened the students of the General Student Committee (AStA) that they should “just wait” until they are “exmatriculated.”
Within minutes, police arrived, entering the building without coordination with AStA representatives.
About 30 of the occupying students fled the presidium, one was “brutally thrown to the ground” by three officers – demo paramedics treated the injured.
Some bourgeois media report that university staff were “physically attacked” during the occupation (BZ) – this claim comes directly from FU, which from the start refused to seriously address the demands and cooperated with police and “rule of law” to break the protests.
There is no evidence for the claims of injured staff; the protesting students deny any physical violence besides police brutality.
The FU AStA reported on October 29 that no staff members reported “physical violence against them.”
Coverage repeatedly mentioned “several people injured” (RBB), without noting that injuries were on the protesters’ side.
Lost Culture
Before describing the dramatic consequences of the occupation, one thing must be clarified: Until a few years ago, university occupations—often much more dramatic than the failed occupation in October—were simply part of university politics.
In 2009, following the Bologna Process, university spaces across Germany (and beyond) were occupied for weeks to protest the restructuring of the university system.
In Berlin (FU, HU, TU), Cologne (University of Cologne), Munich (LMU, TU), Marburg, Leipzig, and many other universities, lecture halls, libraries, and rectorates were occupied—what were the consequences? Minimal.
Over the months, more than 60 university spaces were occupied; only in four cases (Münster, Bonn, Frankfurt, Heidelberg) did police evictions occur, and nearly all criminal charges for trespassing were dropped.
The few convictions that resulted led to no more than a fine.[1]
The protests and university occupations in October 2022 in Göttingen, Duisburg, Marburg, Karlsruhe, or Erlangen, under the movement “End Fossil: Occupy!”, also led in some cases to criminal charges for trespassing (e.g., at Goethe University Frankfurt), but otherwise, no legal consequences followed—based on available information, no convictions resulted.
These occupations, along with anti-nuclear protests, Iraq war occupations, and even the year-long “UniMut” occupation at FU, share a key feature: they do not pose a risk to general identification with the German state.
A occupation, a movement, or any protest that does not carry the risk of external mass identification with the movement’s goals (if these oppose state interests) does not justify extensive criminal or police measures, as reports of police violence and disproportionate criminal prosecution can weaken external identification with the state.
And even this high level of rejection hardly threatened a break with German interests.
The images of horror from Gaza are now everywhere, just as the images of US destruction in Afghanistan were in 2009.
The Federal Republic did not see Afghanistan’s security as a state raison d’être—Germany turns this genocide into its own, and the narrative of the rule of law (which is largely a hollow construct) loses credibility as current policy exposes colonial and power-political continuities.
State Raison d’Être Deportation
What are the consequences of the FU occupation last October?
Four of the demonstrators involved, who are not German citizens, are to be deported for participating in the occupation.
Specifically, since they are two Irish, one Polish, and one US-American, in the case of EU citizens, this is referred to as “loss of free movement,” rather than deportation (about the absurdity of deportation: “Deportations and Refugees“).
The four solidarists are accused of “threatening university staff and destroying office technology,” “resisting enforcement officers,” and “using forbidden symbols and slogans.”
Of course, an antisemitism accusation related to the forbidden slogans cannot be missing – the accused deny any connection.
The four affected state in a written statement: “Our expulsion is politically motivated.” It is described as an attempt to intimidate the entire movement. “Police violence goes hand in hand with this repressive interpretation of migration law to silence pro-Palestinian voices.” They also emphasize that they have not been criminally convicted.
The lawyer for two of the accused, Alexander Gorski, confirmed this. He also sees a political motivation behind the expulsion. (rbb24)
What is especially absurd is that none of the four have been convicted so far.
In accordance with the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” per Article 11 of the Human Rights Convention, this deportation, if actually carried out, would be a serious violation of human rights:
“I consider these decisions to be clearly unlawful and see them as a political attempt to attack the Palestinian movement through migration law,” lawyer Gorski told Junge Welt. “What’s new is that our clients are being accused without evidence of spreading antisemitism and indirectly supporting Hamas. Furthermore, the concept of national interest is being used (…) The rationale is not a legal term but a political one. And this already reveals the political nature of these proceedings.”
Regarding the absurdity of it all, Gorski said: “According to the files, there was pressure from the Berlin Senate Department of the Interior to issue these decisions, although the State Immigration Office had legal concerns regarding EU citizens—which we as lawyers share.”
In short, the Berlin government is trying with all its might, however absurd it may seem, to break the Palestine-solidarity movement—though again, the question remains: what would that accomplish?
Christian Hochgrebe, the State Secretary for the Interior of Berlin, simply commented: “We cannot tolerate such things and do not want to.”
What exactly cannot be tolerated? The attempted occupation of FU? As previously explained, university occupations once belonged to university politics and were tolerated.
Property damage? Should these four demonstrators be deported for property damage?
Of course not.
The FRG (Federal Republic of Germany) is in a bind; on one side, it has a growing Palestine-solidarity movement with a politicizing youth that risks breaking the identification with Germany, and on the other side, it cannot abandon its interests in Gaza.
A rupture with Israel, with the rationale of this state, would be a rupture with US capital, with geopolitical interests in the Middle East, and with capitalist logic—this genocide is not an unintended byproduct of Israel, it is its core.
If the FRG continues to use such extraordinary repression against the Palestine-solidarity movement, it also risks drawing further attention to Germany’s shared guilt in the Gaza massacre.
Solidarity with the four activists and all other resistors.
The integration of youth into the existing system can only be achieved through their decapitation.
[1] After extensive research, we can only conclude that there is no evidence of convictions; there are no reports, statements, or publicly accessible judgments indicating such.