Debatte

  • En
  • De

    • Category: Drop

    • Academic freedom – for whom, for what, and to what end?

      Köppert, Katrin: “Für eine radikale Imagination von Wissenschaft” [For a radical imagination of scholarship], Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, 17 (2025), Nr. 2, pp. 140-144, http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/24183.

      Peters, Kathrin: “Kritik der Wissenschaftsfreiheit” [Critique of academic freedom], Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft, 17 (2025), Nr. 2, pp. 135-139, http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/24182.

      What does it mean when there is so much talk about academic freedom at the moment? Who uses the term and for what purposes? To whom does this freedom apply? Who is not being considered, what is not being thought about? In the Zeitschrift für Medienwissenschaft (Journal of Media Studies), Katrin Köppert and Kathrin Peters have published contributions to the debate that take the reactions of universities to the genocidal war in Gaza as a starting point for problematizing the discourse on academic freedom.

      Katrin Köppert argues that responding to the curtailment of academic spaces by defending academic freedom is futile. Against the backdrop of Black Radical Thought, the call for freedom must first acknowledge the problem of a real existing lack of freedom. Rinaldo Walcott has described Black emancipation as something that has not yet happened. Following Walcott’s thinking, the plea for academic freedom should be replaced by the demand for a radical imagination of scholarship.

      ↗ https://mediarep.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ddba5814-7f36-486e-b0cb-7745e6a735ca/content

      Kathrin Peters also takes issue with focusing solely on academic freedom. She sees the relationship between scholarship and politics as intertwined since the dawn of science. The call for academic neutrality is therefore political in itself, as it ignores the fact that even the perception of a problem as a problem can never be neutral. Against this backdrop, the debate on academic freedom that has erupted in response to protests in solidarity with Palestine at universities is proving to be a deflection. As justified as doubts about whether academic freedom has always been protected by the state may be in individual cases, these debates also serve to divert analytical attention away from pressing questions—questions about where racism and anti-Semitism begin and end, or about the so-called German culture of remembrance. Above all, however, the debates obscure the situation in Gaza, which is what the protesters want to draw attention to in the first place.

      ↗ https://mediarep.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f29c8fb2-cd66-40d5-8301-efa6d8336fa5/content

    • Media analysis: Hierarchies of death

      Jannis Grimm, Justus Könneker, Mariam Salehi: “Hierarchies in death: coverage of Palestinian and Israeli victims in the context of October 7 and the war on Gaza”, Peacebuilding, Oktober 4, 2025, 1-16.

      It is not really surprising, but nevertheless very important that it has been worked out with an open question and methodologically sound: Jannis Grimm, Justus Könneker, and Mariam Salehi can show that German media coverage of Palestinian and Israeli fatalities after October 7, 2023, was highly asymmetrical. The article, published in the interdisciplinary journal Peacebuilding, is based on a systematic, comparative frame analysis of reporting in five major German daily newspapers in the first six weeks after the Hamas massacre and the start of Israel’s genocidal campaign against Gaza. Methodologically, it is based on similar studies of reporting in the English-language press; such an analysis had hitherto been lacking for the German media landscape.

      Based on the work of Judith Butler (in particular her 2009 book Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?), they show that and how German media coverage contributes to the unequal mournability of life. While Israeli deaths were portrayed with dignity and empathy and could be publicly mourned, Palestinian deaths were and continue to be dehumanized in the reporting, and their violent deaths are framed as inevitable or even justified.

      ↗ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21647259.2025.2569080#d1e668

    • “Never again” must apply universally

      Schwarz, Alexander: “Scheitern in Gaza” [Failure in Gaza], südlink 213, 6-7.

      “Anyone who says ‘never again’ must mean ‘for everyone’ […],” writes Alexander Schwarz in his article. However, according to Schwarz, the German government insists on a raison d’état (Staatsräson) that is limited to unconditional solidarity with Israel. He points to the loss of credibility in view of the double standards that can be observed in the (lack of) application of international law, for example with regard to Ukraine – and the consequences for a rule-based world order and the principle of equality before the law: “Anyone who deliberately breaks with these principles places themselves outside the community of values to which they belong.” Domestically, too, the damage to the democratic framework is evident in the state repression of pro-Palestinian protests and the accompanying violation of rights guaranteed by the constitution.

      For Schwarz, “Staatsräson” must be framed by legal principles and doctrine, provided that one considers it a legitimate doctrine at all (cf. e.g. Andreas Engelmann, Über die erstaunliche Rückkehr der Staatsräson im Gewand der Moral y, Etos, August 22, 2024, for whom “[t]he concept of raison d’état […] only makes sense if it stands for interests that legitimize disregard for law and order. Otherwise, the state could simply abide by law and order.”): “It is not a question of ‘Staaträson’ or international law’, but of a ‘Staatsräson’ in conformity with international law.” Meanwhile Germany’s silence on crimes under international law and its supply of weapons to Israel damage the fundamental principles of the international legal order.

      In his article in the magazine südlink, Schwarz emphasizes the urgency of universal application of the law – “Now is the time to defend the principles of Nuremberg.”

      In this context, the repeated refusal of German courts to provide legal protection against German arms deliveries, with fatal consequences for the Palestinian civilian population, should also be pointed out; as well as the expert paper presented by Schwarz, among others, at the Federal Press Conference on October 2, 2025 “Beyond ‘Staatsräson’: How to reconcile historical responsibility, strategic interests, and international law. Expert paper for a change in Middle East policy.”

      ↗ https://www.ecchr.eu/publikation/scheitern-in-gaza

    • Political conditions for the possibility of science

      Hanna Pfeifer: Die Verantwortung der Wissenschaft [The responsibility of science], Der Wiarda-Blog, October 4, 2025.

      Hanna Pfeifer’s guest contribution on the question of how political science is and should be is a response to the FAZ article “Role reversal of activists and anti-academics” by Austrian sociologist Alexander Bogner and Swiss historian Caspar Hirschi, who advocate for a strict separation of roles between science and political activism. Their intervention was prompted by the International Sociological Association’s decision to suspend the institutional membership of the Israeli Sociological Association for failing to distance itself from the Israeli military’s crimes against Palestinians in Gaza. Pfeifer counters the authors’ demand for a separation of roles between science and activism by arguing that “science must ensure the preservation of its own creative conditions” and must therefore advocate “for democratic institutions, the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms, and the protection of equal human dignity.” She adds that, in any case, science cannot be expected to “stand idly by and watch its own existence being undermined.”

      ↗ https://www.jmwiarda.de/index.php/blog/2025/10/04/die-verantwortung-der-wissenschaft

    • Ruling by the German Federal Constitutional Court with Implications for Arms Deliveries to Israel

      González Hauck, Sué; Theilen, Jens T.: “Vertrauen und Vertretbarkeit: Das Ramstein-Urteil und seine Folgen für Waffenlieferungen an Israel” [Trust and accountability: The Ramstein ruling and its implications for arms deliveries to Israel], Verfassungsblog, 7/21/2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/ramstein-voelkerrecht-verantwortung/.

      In their analysis on the “Verfassungsblog”, Sué González Hauck and Jens Theilen begin by identifying the judgment’s problems. The Federal Constitutional Court does make it clear that Germany may have a duty, based in fundamental rights und the German constitution, to protect persons in third countries in the event of attacks by allied states. One of the prerequisites for this is a systematic violation of international law by the attacker. However, the Federal Constitutional Court uses an overly flexible standard to assess whether such a violation exists: any alternative readings of international law must be untenable within the bounds of legal reasoning. On this basis, it concludes that Germany has no duty to protect people in Yemen from the US drone attacks and that supporting the US attacks from German soil is lawful.

      The flexibility inherent in this approach to international law has consequences: The Federal Constitutional Court’s handling of the tenability test means that it adopts those discursive frames that are hegemonic in Germany and in countries allied with Germany almost unquestioningly. Judith Butler’s analysis of “frames of war” has already shown that human lives are assigned different values and that some human lives do not count. The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court adopts these “frames of war” of the current hegemonic discourse by implicitly constructing people in Yemen as the legitimate target of violence.

      Butler’s analysis and other works on anti-Palestinian racism show that, within such frames, Palestinian life in particular does not count. The decisive factor for court proceedings concerning the supply of weapons to Israel will therefore be the extent to which the courts can free themselves from these frames. Despite the sobering outcome of the case concerning US drone attacks in Yemen, González Hauck and Theilen also see reference points in the judgment for those court proceedings challenging German support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. The idea of a constitutional duty to protect persons abroad in the event of attacks by other states at least offers a legal foothold to oppose German arms deliveries to Israel – because Israel’s systematic violations of international law, well documented by international courts and organisations, go beyond even the permissive limits of “tenability” as developed by the Federal Constitutional Court.

      These questions remain relevant – despite the recent announcement that Germany will no longer issue export permits for military equipments that may be used in Gaza. This decision comes much too late, does not cover exports under already issued permits and in any case only concerns part of the arms deliveries to Israel. The court proceedings against the supply of weapons to Israel will continue.

      ↗ DOI: 10.59704/eca51e26067a2044

    • Dossier on the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)

      Peter Ullrich: Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, in: Themenportal Europäische Geschichte, 2025, www.europa.clio-online.de/essay/id/fdae-154267.

      The definition of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) cannot be understood without its much more influential counterpart, the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), that it responded to. That is why this dossier actually deals with both: with their backgrounds and objectives, their structures and specific provisions, and their examples and explanations, “with the aim of making it at least conceivable to ground the general, predominantly highly emotional discussion.”

      The dossier describes the JDA’s main achievement as differentiating and delimiting the phenomena that can be described as antisemitic, in line with a measurable definition. This makes it possible to identify the manifestations of Israel-related antisemitism in their respective contexts, without precipitous closures. According to the JDA, only phenomena that are directed against Jews and Judaism as such, in whatever context, are antisemitic per se. In addition, there are phenomena that are not antisemitic per se but can be antisemitic depending on the context. The JDA demands that in the case of statements and actions that are not antisemitic per se, the anti-Jewish intent must be proven based on knowledge of the context and cannot simply be asserted. “This conceptual tool for clarifying gray areas in the discourse on Israel-related antisemitism cannot be praised highly enough,” the dossier states. The JDA does recognize that Israel-related phenomena can be antisemitic per se in any given context, for example when classic antisemitic stereotypes are applied to Israel or when Jews are being held liable for actions of the State of Israel. But denying Israel’s right to exist is not antisemitic in every context. The researchers involved in the JDA struggled for a long time to reach a common position before agreeing on the following wording: it is antisemitic to “deny Jews in the State of Israel the right to live collectively and individually in accordance with the principle of equality” – not to challenge any state’s existence.

      This is in stark contrast to the IHRA definition. Although the IHRA definition also states that the “overall context” must be taken into account when assessing antisemitism, it does not seek to narrow down the group of phenomena to be considered antisemitic, but rather to broaden it. The examples given in the IHRA definition also include statements that are not directed against Jews in every context, but should, in every context and always, be considered antisemitic; first and foremost the denial of Israel’s right to exist. According to the IHRA definition, boycott movements such as BDS are also always to be classified as antisemitic, regardless of their actual objective, e.g., when they react to human rights violations.

      The dossier counters criticism of the JDA definition that it allegedly sets too high a bar for classifying “worldview-based anti-Zionism as antisemitic” and argues that these are questions of degree that can only be answered in a differentiated manner. And it suggests that it is also researchers involved in the JDA who are affected by the consequences of the IHRA definition, namely those who speak out “against the concrete form of the Zionist movement and statehood” of Israel. These researchers, too, are exposed to accusations of “worldview-based anti-Zionism,” which, in cases of doubt, is considered antisemitic under the IHRA definition. However, the antisemitism accusation prevents serious engagement with the context that led these researchers to their position. Here one can clearly see the fundamental asymmetry between these two definitions and the resulting problems for their academic discussion and their (legal) application.

      ↗ www.europa.clio-online.de/essay/id/fdae-154267

    • Wrong signals: State visit to Israel in sight of genocide

      Dörthe Engelcke/Elad Lapidot/Alex Müller: Steinmeier in Israel: Zu Besuch bei einem Angeklagten [Steinmeier in Israel: Visiting an accused man], taz, May 14, 2025.

      The state visit with military honors for Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Berlin and the subsequent visit by German President Steinmeier to Israel are emblematic of the double standards of German foreign policy—and of the cowardice of German politicians in clearly naming Israeli war crimes for what they are. Federal President Steinmeier described the foundation of German-Israeli relations as “deep and sustainable.” It carries “the memory of the past as well as the shared values of two liberal democracies based on the rule of law” (translated by the editors). These statements reveal the extent of Germany’s denial of reality. While a trapped, starving, and traumatized civilian population continues to be systematically wiped out in Gaza, Germany celebrates 60 years of diplomatic relations with hollow symbolic gestures, photo opportunities, and demonstrative displays of friendship. At this point in time, this visit can hardly be understood as anything other than diplomatic backing for the genocide of the Palestinian people.

      The 60th anniversary of German-Israeli relations could have been commemorated differently. There was an alternative to this grotesque spectacle. The German president could have met with critical academics, journalists, and representatives of civil society who are coming under increasing pressure in Israel. That would have been a symbolic gesture that Germany supports those voices that stand up for democracy, human rights, and peace. Instead, what remains is a missed opportunity—and the depressing realization that with politicians who are incapable of clearly condemning the killing of over 17,000 children in Gaza, fascism can return to Germany at any time.

      Before the state visit, KriSol appealed to Federal Minister Steinmeier: “Use the anniversary celebrations as an opportunity to send a signal for an end to violence, for justice and for humanity. Invite Israeli peace activists, human rights defenders, critical journalists and intellectuals, Holocaust survivors, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and committed civil society organizations such as Standing Together, Israelis for Peace, Breaking the Silence, and B’Tselem. Strengthening these voices would send an important signal in the current situation—both to the people in the region and to the international community—that Germany is not selectively but consistently committed to human rights and international law” (translated by the editors).

      ↗ https://taz.de/Steinmeier-in-Israel/!6087915

    • Statement from peace and conflict research against German raison d’état and self-censorship

      Arbeitskreis Herrschaftskritische Friedensforschung: Wissenschaftsfreiheit als Prämisse von Friedens- und Konfliktforschung [Academic freedom as a prerequisite for peace and conflict research], March 2025.

      As in other disciplinary fields, the same applies to German speaking peace and conflict research: it is easy to lament threats to academic freedom in distant countries. Opposition/dissent is welcome as long as the attacks on research, teaching, and civil society in one’s own country are aimed at the so-called political center from the far right. However, when science itself is involved in defining and controlling the spaces of the (un)speakable, things become complicated—and controversial.

      At the beginning of the year, members of the Working Group on Peace Research Critical of Power within the German-language academic association for peace and conflict studies, which has existed since 1968, came together to draft a statement. The occasion was the two “antisemitism resolutions” passed by the German Bundestag in November 2024 and January 2025, which seek to commit eligible science and civil society organizations to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is controversial in expert discourse.

      Ironically, the very academic field that claims to study the conditions that make war and peace possible has so far remained remarkably silent when colleagues are disinvited, spaces are taken away, and research projects and publications are obstructed. In particular, when it comes to containing and silencing critical positions on the genocide in Palestine/Israel and the complicity of Western actors such as the Federal Republic of Germany, reasons of state and self-censorship sometimes become powerful tools of war itself, even among academics.

      The working group’s statement aims to raise awareness of this and to mobilize opposition. At the general meeting of the Working Group for Peace and Conflict Research (AFK e.V.), this has so far only been partially successful. Despite the expected controversy, however, the text was ultimately discussed with broad approval on March 20, thus providing an important impetus for the AFK as a whole to continue its engagement with the topic.

      ↗ https://afk-web.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Critical-Peace-Res-WG-Statement-.pdf

    • Life-affirming lessons from Rosa Luxemburg’s herbarium

      Agata Lisiak: Notes on plant companionship: from Rosa Luxemburg’s herbarium to Jumana Manna’s Foragers, Journal of Visual Culture (2024) 23 (2), 131–155.

      In “Notes on plant companionship: From Rosa Luxemburg’s herbarium to Jumana Manna’s Foragers,” Lisiak argues that Luxemburg’s analyses of interlocking systems of oppression provide a framework not only for understanding, but also resisting today’s genocides, wars, occupation, extractivism, and ecological destruction. Luxemburg’s political ecology as well as the work of contemporary artists Milena Bonilla, Marwa Arsanios, and Jumana Manna further expand this framework to include life-affirming lessons drawn from plant companionship. As these women demonstrate, plant companionship can generate liberatory ways of relating to the present and provide a steadfast commitment to keeping our futures open. Only if the future is open can we conceive of alternatives to past and present violence.

      ↗ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14704129241270246

    • Statement by the CCC editorial collective on the ongoing genocide in Gaza

      The CCC Editorial Collective: A statement on the ongoing genocide in Gaza, Communication, Culture & Critique (2025) 18 (1), 3-8.

      Communication, Culture and Critique has been the leading venue for critical approaches to communication and media studies since its inauguration in 2008. In January 2025 a newly formed international and interdisciplinary Editorial Collective took over responsibilities. Their first issue combines a sharp protest with a programmatic editorial statement and an analysis of how technology provision for targeted killings and media censorship go together. The Editorial Collective sees as „the glaring epicenter of the prevailing global order’s efforts to reproduce itself: the State of Israel’s ongoing campaign of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and its gradual expansion into the West Bank.“ But it welcomes „critical anticolonial analysis of ethno-nationalist and extractive violence and opposition” from all scenes of these reproduction efforts, „including the Chinese state’s targeting of the Uighur minority; the Indian state’s occupation of Kashmir and ongoing dehumanization of Muslims and oppressed religious and caste communities; the Turkish state’s repression against the Kurds; the Ethiopian ethnic cleansing of Tigrayans, and so on.“ 

      The statement, as an ↗ article of the journal, is now behind a paywall. While we are waiting for the Canadian website we are providing a pdf here: 

      CCC statementHerunterladen