Category: Case Update

Categories
Case Update Press Release

Attempted criminalisation of the slogan ‘Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea’. Hearing at the Tiergarten District Court suspiciously postponed  

On Monday, 27 January 2025, another case in the attempted criminalisation of the slogan ‘Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea’ should have been heard at the Tiergarten District Court. The Berlin public prosecutor had opened an investigation against filmmaker Dror Dayan for the use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations (§ 86a StGB), pressing charges. The case concerns a Twitter comment from November 2023, in which Dror Dayan denounced the criminalisation of the slogan in Germany.  

However, the judge postponed the ruling on spurious grounds, citing that an expert witness could not attend the trial for health reasons. The witness in question is a police officer in the Berlin State Criminal Police who had previously written and submitted an extensive report to clarify whether the slogan “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” constitutes a symbol of Hamas.  

Importantly, the expert noted that the attempt to establish the use of the slogan as Hamas praxis would be reductive, highlighting that is had been used by a large political spectrum for many decades.  Moreover, after reviewing a sizeable number of Hamas publications, including those dating back to 1988, the year of the group’s founding, the expert did not find a single publication which featured the slogan and thus concluded that there was no compelling evidence to claim that the slogan constituted a Hamas symbol.  

Nadija Samour, Senior Legal Officer at the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) representing the defendant comments: “This is highly suspicious. The expert had already delivered their report to the judge in a written form. The judge could have ruled that day. We suspect that the judge artificially prolonged the trial for political reasons, probably fearing repercussions. A ruling in our favour would constitute a legal precedent for other ongoing trials regarding the attempted criminalisation of the slogan ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’. The judges seem avoidant to take a clear stance even though the police itself came to a clear conclusion.’’ 

Earlier, German Justice Minister Marco Buschmann had declared that expressing the slogan constituted a crime. This came right after the administrative court Bremen had ruled it was lawful. This must be considered an interference of the government in the judiciary. The tweet was widely understood as a warning and criticism of the court’s judgment. 

Not isolated cases: Germany’s systematic repression of Palestine solidarity 

There are currently dozens of ongoing cases concerning the slogan “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’’, many of which have been artificially prolonged in similar ways. Furthermore, expressions of the slogan, are currently variously charged as three separate criminal offences, including as ‘incitement to hatred’ (§ 130 StGB), ‘displaying symbols of unconstitutional organisations’ (§ 86a StGB) or ‘endorsement of criminal acts’ (§ 140 StGB). This indicates that German authorities are politically motivated to criminalise the expression of the slogan, even if it does not clearly and conclusively meet any criminal offence defined in the German criminal code.   

These are not isolated cases. German authorities have only been expanding their alarmingly violent measures to suppress the Palestine solidarity movement. The German Federal Minister of Interior Nancy Faeser, for instance, declared the slogan illegal. 

In May 2024, the German Federal Ministry of Justice reiterated Nancy Faeser’s decree and declared the slogan to be a “Hamas slogan’’ and therefore punishable. Merely days after this declaration, the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia banned the Palestine Solidarity Duisburg group over alleged support for Hamas for the group’s use of the slogan. This resulted in several raids targeting the homes of the activists in May 2024.  

While much of the repression against the Palestine solidarity movement is issued at the German Federal level, the ruling Government of Germany’s capital, Berlin, has been particularly eager to press for even more authoritarian measures.  For instance, the push to remove students from universities in Berlin, specifically in relation to Palestine solidarity on campus, should be of utmost concern as it effectively denies the right to education based on political beliefs.  

Nevertheless, attempts to criminalise the slogan have been successfully pushed back against in German courts. In June 2024, a court in Munich reaffirmed the right to express the slogan ‘From the River to the Sea’ at demonstrations. 

The association Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost e.V. had called for a rally in front of the courthouse to protest the trial and oppose German complicity in Israel’s genocidal campaign in Palestine.  

Deutsch:

Versuchte Kriminalisierung des Slogans ‘Palästina wird frei sein, vom Fluss bis zum Meer’ Anhörung vor dem Amtsgericht Tiergarten verdächtig verschoben  

Am Montag, den 27. Januar 2025, sollte vor dem Amtsgericht Tiergarten ein weiterer Fall der versuchten Kriminalisierung des Slogans „Palästina wird frei sein, vom Fluss bis zum Meer“ verhandelt werden. Die Berliner Staatsanwaltschaft hatte ein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen den Filmemacher Dror Dayan wegen Verwendung von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger und terroristischer Organisationen (§ 86a StGB) eingeleitet und Anklage erhoben. Der Prozess dreht sich um einen Twitter-Kommentar vom November 2023, in dem Dror Dayan die Kriminalisierung des Slogans in Deutschland anprangerte. Die Richterin vertagte die Entscheidung jedoch mit fadenscheinigen Begründungen, da angeblich eine Sachverständige aus gesundheitlichen Gründen nicht an der Verhandlung teilnehmen könne. 

Bei der besagten Zeugin handelt es sich um eine Polizeibeamtin des Landeskriminalamts Berlin, die zuvor einen ausführlichen Bericht verfasst und vorgelegt hatte. Dieser sollte klären, ob der Slogan „Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea“ ein Symbol der Hamas darstellt.  

Insbesondere merkte die Gutachterin an, es sei eine unzulässige Verkürzung, den Slogan als Hamas-Symbol zu werten, da er seit vielen Jahrzehnten von einem breiten politischen Spektrum verwendet werde. Nach Durchsicht einer beträchtlichen Anzahl von Hamas-Publikationen, die bis ins Gründungsjahr 1988 zurückreichen, fand die Gutachterin zudem keine einzige Veröffentlichung, in der der Slogan vorkam. Sie kam daher zu dem Schluss, dass es keine überzeugenden Belege dafür gibt, den Slogan als Hamas-Symbol einzuordnen.  

Nadija Samour, Senior Legal Officer beim European Legal Support Center (ELSC), die den Angeklagten vertritt, kommentiert: „Das Ganze ist höchst suspekt. Die Sachverständige hatte dem Gericht ihren Bericht bereits in schriftlicher Form vorgelegt. Die Richterin hätte an diesem Tag urteilen können. Wir vermuten, dass die Richterin das Verfahren aus politischen Gründen künstlich in die Länge zieht, wahrscheinlich aus Angst vor Konsequenzen. Ein Urteil zu unseren Gunsten würde einen Präzedenzfall für andere laufende Verfahren zur versuchten Kriminalisierung des Slogans „Palestine will be free from the river to the sea“ schaffen. Die Gerichte scheinen eine Entscheidung zu vermeiden, obwohl sogar die Polizei selbst zu einem eindeutigen Schluss gekommen ist.“  

Zuvor hatte der deutsche Justizminister Marco Buschmann erklärt, dass die Äußerung des Slogans eine Straftat darstelle. Dies geschah unmittelbar nachdem das Verwaltungsgericht Bremen entschieden hatte, dass die Verwendung des Slogans rechtmäßig sei. Dies muss als Eingriff der Regierung in die Justiz angesehen werden. Der Tweet wurde weithin als Warnung und Kritik am Urteil des Gerichts verstanden.  

Keine Einzelfälle: Deutschlands systematische Unterdrückung der Palästina-Solidarität  

Derzeit gibt es Dutzende von laufenden Verfahren wegen dem Slogan „Palestine will be free from the river to the sea“, von denen viele auf ähnliche Weise unnötig in die Länge gezogen werden. Darüber hinaus werden Äußerungen des Slogans derzeit auf dreierlei Weise als Straftatbestände verfolgt, darunter als Volksverhetzung (Paragraf 130 StGB), als Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen (Paragraf 86a StGB) oder als Billigung von Straftaten (Paragraf 140 StGB). Dies deutet darauf hin, dass die deutschen Behörden politisch motiviert sind, die Äußerung des Slogans zu kriminalisieren, auch wenn er eindeutig und abschließend keiner im deutschen Strafgesetzbuch definierten Straftat entspricht.  

Dies sind keine Einzelfälle. Die deutschen Behörden haben ihre alarmierend gewalttätigen Maßnahmen zur Unterdrückung der Palästina-Solidaritätsbewegung nur ausgeweitet. So erklärte die deutsche Bundesinnenministerin Nancy Faeser den Slogan für illegal. 

Im Mai 2024 bekräftigte das Bundesjustizministerium Nancy Faesers Erlass und erklärte den Slogan zu einem „Hamas-Slogan“ und damit für strafbar. Nur wenige Tage nach dieser Erklärung verbot das Bundesland Nordrhein-Westfalen die Gruppe „Palästina Solidarität Duisburg“ wegen angeblicher Hamas-Unterstützung, weil die Gruppe den Slogan verwendet hatte. Dies führte im Mai 2024 zu mehreren Razzien in den Wohnungen der Aktivist*innen.  

Während ein Großteil der repressiven Maßnahmen gegen die Palästina-Solidaritätsbewegung auf Bundesebene erlassen wird, ist die Regierung der Hauptstadt Berlin besonders darauf erpicht, auf noch autoritärere Maßnahmen zu drängen. So sollte beispielsweise das Bestreben, Studierende von Berliner Universitäte im Zusammenhang mit Palästina-Solidarität auf dem Campus zu exmatrikulieren, Anlass zu größter Sorge geben. Denn damit würde das Recht auf Bildung aufgrund politischer Überzeugungen verwehrt. 

Dennoch wurden Bestrebungen, den Slogan zu kriminalisieren, erfolgreich vor deutschen Gerichten abgewehrt. Im Juni 2024 bestätigte ein Gericht in München erneut das Recht, den Slogan „from the river to the sea“ bei Demonstrationen zu verwenden.  

Der Verein Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost e.V. hatte zu einer Kundgebung vor dem Gerichtsgebäude aufgerufen, um gegen den Prozess und die deutsche Mitschuld an Israels Völkermordkampagne in Palästina zu protestieren. 

محاولة تجريم شعار “فلسطين ستكون حرّة من النّهر إلى البحر”: تأجيل محكمة منطقة تيرغارتن الألمانيّة لجلسة الاستماع للقضيّة في ظروف مريبة ومثيرة للشكّ. 

بتاريخ 27 جانفي/يناير، كان من المتوقّع أن تبتّ محكمة منطقة تيرغارتن الألمانيّة في جلسة قضيّة أخرى متعلّقة بمحاولة تجريم شعار “فلسطين ستكون حرة من النهر إلى البحر”. للتّذكير، فتحت النّيابة العامّة في برلين تحقيقًا ضدّ المخرج السّينمائيّ درور ديان ووجّهت له اتّهامات على خلفيّة استخدامه لرموز منظّماتٍ تُعتبرُ إرهابيّة ومخالفة للدّستور (المادّة 86 أ من القانون الجنائيّ الألمانيّ). تتعلّق القضيّة بتغريدةٍ نشرها درور ديان على تويتر في شهر نوفمبر/تشرين الثّاني 2023 للتّنديد بالتّجريم الذّي يستهدفُ هذا الشّعار في ألمانيا. بيْدَ أنّ القاضي أجّلَ النّظر في القضيّة متعلّلاً بأسباب غير شرعيّة، ألا وهي عدم قدرة شاهدٍ خبيرٍ على حضور جلسة المحاكمة لأسباب صحيّة. في هذه القضيّة، الشّاهد الخبير هو ضابط شرطة ينتمي إلى فرقة شرطة ولاية برلين، وهو نفس الشّخص الذّي حرّر وقدّم تقريرًا مفصّلاً للعدالة للتّقصّي فيما إذا كان شعار “فلسطين ستكون حرّة من النّهر إلى البحر” يمثّلُ رمزًا من رموز حركة حماس. 

من المهمّ التّذكير بأنّ الشّرطيّ الخبير قد أشار إلى أنّه لا يجدر بنا قوقعة هذا الشّعار في شكل رمز من رموز حماس واعتباره مجرّد شعار لهذه الحركة، فقد شدّد هذا الأخير على أنّ مختلف الحركات السّياسيّة استخدمت هذا الشّعار خلال عقودٍ من الزّمن. علاوةً على ذلك، بعد الاطّلاع على العديد من منشورات حماس، بما في ذلك تلك التّي نُشرت في عام 1988، أيْ السّنة التّي رأت فيها الحركة النّور، لم يجدْ الخبير أيّ منشور كان يتضمّنُ أو يشيرُ إلى الشّعار المعنيّ. بالتّالي، يُبيّنُ استنتاج الخبير غيابَ أيّ دليل مقنعٍ وقاطعٍ لتحجّج بأنّ الشّعار يمثّلُ رمزًا من رموز حماس. 

نادية سمور، مسؤولة عن الاستشارة القانونيّة في المركز الأوروبيّ للدّعم القانونيّ (ELSC)، وممثّلة المدّعي عليه: “هذا الأمر مريبٌ للغاية. فقد سبقَ أن سلّم الخبير نسخة تقريره المكتوبة إلى القاضي الذّي كان بإمكانه إصدار حكم في ذلك اليوم. لذا، فنحن نشكّكُ في مصداقيّة سبب التّأجيل ونعتقد أنّ القاضي قام بتأجيل المحاكمة بشكل متصنّع لأسباب سياسيّة، ربّما خوفًا من العواقب. بعبارة أخرى، قد يمثّلُ الحكم لصالحنا سابقةً من نوعها في السّاحة القانونيّة، فيؤثّرُ بذلك على مجرى قضايا حاليّة أخرى تتعلّق بمحاولة تجريم شعار “فلسطين ستكون حرّة من النّهر إلى البحر”. يبدو أنّ القضاة يتجنّبون اتّخاذ مواقف واضحة وقرارات صارمة على الرّغم من أنّ الشّرطة بحدّ ذاتها قد توصّلت إلى استنتاج واضح.” 

في وقت سابق، أعلن وزير العدل الألمانيّ، ماركو بوشمان، أنّ استخدام هذا الشّعار للتّعبير عن التّضامن مع فلسطين يعتبرُ جريمة. جاء هذا الإعلان مباشرةً بعد أن أصدرت المحكمة الإداريّة في بريمن حكمًا ينصّ على أنّ هذا الأمر قانونيّ. بالتّالي، يُعتبرُ هذا الأمر تدخّلاً مباشرا في نطاق صلاحيّات السّلطة القضائيّة. 

هذه القضايا ليست مجرّد قضايا معزولة: القمع المنهجيّ الذّي تمارسه ألمانيا ضدّ أيّ شكل من أشكال التّضامن مع فلسطين 

في الوقت الرّاهن، هناك عشرات من القضايا الجارية المتعلّقة بشعار “فلسطين ستكون حرّة من النّهر إلى البحر” التّي تمّ تأجيلها لتمديد تاريخ الحكم بشكل مفتعل من خلال تطبيق طرق واستراتيجيّات مماثلة. علاوةً على ذلك، يتمُّ تجريم استخدام هذا الشّعار اعتمادًا على اتّهامات تُصنّفُ وفق ثلاثة أنواع من الجرائم الجنائيّة التّي لا تتعلّق ببعضها البعض، بعبارة أخرى “التّحريض على الكراهيّة” (المادّة 130 من القانون الجنائيّ الألمانيّ)، “عرض رموز منظّمات غير دستوريّة” (المادّة 86 أ من القانون الجنائيّ الألمانيّ)، أو “تأييد أعمال إجراميّة” (المادّة 140 من القانون الجنائيّ الألمانيّ)، ممّا يعكسُ توجّه السّلطات الألمانيّة، أيْ دوافعها السّياسيّة الهادفة إلى تجريم استخدام الشّعار والتّعبير عن مضمونه الذّي لا يُمثّلُ بأيّ طريقة كانت وبشكل واضح وقطعيّ جريمةً جنائيّة بموجب القانون الجنائيّ الألمانيّ. في الواقع، لا تُعتبرُ هذه القضايا مجرّد حالات معزولة، فهي مرآة تعكسُ مدى انتشار الإجراءات العنيفة والقهريّة والمثيرة للقلق التّي تلجأ لها السّلطات الألمانيّة لقمع حركة التّضامن مع فلسطين. في هذا السّياق مثلاً، أعلنت وزيرة الدّاخليّة الألمانيّة، نانسي فايسر، أنّ هذا الشّعار غير قانونيّ. 

في شهر ماي/مايو 2024، تبنّت وزارة الدّاخليّة الألمانيّة مرسومَ نانسي فايسر وأعلنت أنّ الشّعار يُعتبرُ من “شعارات حركة حماس” وبالتّالي يُعاقبُ عليه بموجب القانون. بعد أيّام قليلة من هذا الإعلان، قامت ولاية شمال الرّاين وستفاليا بحظر كيان مجموعة التّضامن مع فلسطين في دويسبورغ وأنشطتها بسبب دعمها المزعوم لحماس على خلفيّة استخدام هذه المجموعة المعنيّة للشّعار، ممّا أدّى إلى العديد من المداهمات التّي استهدفت منازل النّشطاء والنّاشطات في ماي/مايو 2024. 

حتّى وإن كانت معظم الإجراءات القمعيّة المستهدفة لحركة التّضامن مع فلسطين إجراءات تتّخذها الحكومة الألمانيّة، أي على المستوى الوطنيّ، من الجدير بالذّكر أنّ مكتب الحكومة في العاصمة برلين كان حريصًا كلّ الحرص على تعزيز الضّغط من خلال اللّجوء إلى تدابير وإجراءات كانت ذات صبغة أكثر استبداديّة. على سبيل المثال، يُعتبرُ السّعي إلى إبعاد الطّلاب من الجامعات في برلين، على وجه الخصوص في إطار التّعبير عن التّضامن مع فلسطين في حرم الجامعات، أمرًا مثيرًا للقلق بشكل هامّ، فهو إجراء يغتصبُ الحقّ في التّعليم على أساس المعتقدات السّياسيّة الفرديّة. 

غير أنّ محاولات تجريم الشّعار فشلت فشلاً ذريعًا في المحاكم الألمانيّة. في شهر جوان/يونيو 2024، أكّدت محكمة في مونيخ مجدّدًا على شرعيّة الحقّ في التّعبير عن التّضامن مع فلسطين في المظاهرات عبر شعار “من النّهر إلى البحر”. 

دعت جمعيّة Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost e.V.  إلى تنظيم مظاهرة أمام المحكمة احتجاجًا على المحاكمة وللتّعبير عن معارضتها لتواطؤ ألمانيا المساندة لحملة الإبادة الجماعيّة التّي تشنّها إسرائيل على فلسطين

Categories
Case Update

BDS Austria against Municipality of Vienna recognised as Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation by Coalition Against SLAPPs In Europe 

BDS Austria against Municipality of Vienna recognised as Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation by Coalition Against SLAPPs In Europe

The legal action initiated by the Municipality of Vienna against an activist member of BDS Austria has now been officially recognised as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) by CASE, a coalition of non-governmental organisations across Europe united in recognition of the threat posed to public watchdogs by SLAPPs. The coalition has, for instance, recently classified lawsuits by Shell against Greenpeace as SLAPP. 

A SLAPP consists of an abusive court proceeding pursued to harass and intimidate activists and civil society on matters of public interest. By exploiting an imbalance of power between the parties, the goal of a SLAPP is accomplished if the defendant is compelled by fear, financial strain, intimidation, or exhaustion to cease their critique or advocacy. In April 2024, the European Union adopted Directive  2024/1069 to protect victims of SLAPPs across the region. 

Amidst the 2021 unified Palestinian uprising against Israel’s apartheid regime, the Municipality of Vienna filed a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP) against a member of BDS Austria for sharing online a picture of the famous poster “Visit Apartheid”. In line with the Municipality’s anti-democratic anti-BDS resolution, this lawsuit is part of a larger strategy to intimidate BDS Austria and rights advocates through systematically repressing their fundamental rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  
 

To add to its shameful affront to democracy and rights, the Municipality of Vienna later proposed a settlement requesting the activist to pay 17.000 euros – the total amount of damages previously asked, includinglegal fees. Additionally, the Municipality demands that the activist refrain from claiming  it had brought “SLAPP suits” against BDS. Against this backdrop, this official recognition by CASE is an important success for the activists who have been facing legal challenges since 2021 and are still in legal proceedings as the Municipality of Vienna refuses to give up on their unreasonable claims. The case is currently pending before the Austrian Supreme Court. 

Take action, BDS Austria needs your support!  Show your solidarity and donate. 

Categories
Case Update

Court Victory against corporate complicity in Germany’s authoritarianism 

In June 2024 Berlin Appellate Court ruled that the freezing and cancellation of the association Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost – EJJP Deutschland e. V. / Jewish Voice for Just Peace in the Middle East – EJJP Deutschland e. V.‘s bank account by the partly state-owned bank Berliner Sparkasse was illegal. Jüdische Stimme is a non-profit, independent Jewish association acting as the German branch of the umbrella organisation “European Jews for a Just Peace” (EJJP). 

Ahmed Abed, the lawyer representing Jüdische Stimme stated: 

“In a gross violation of the terms of agreement and general civil law, the bank had frozen the association’s account on short-notice and cancelled their contract in March 2024. The bank argued that the business relationship with Jüdische Stimme could harm its reputation and a cancellation was necessary due to money laundering and terror-financing laws, to which the court found no basis whatsoever.” 

The decision of the bank to move against the human rights activist group needs to be understood in the context of the unprecedented authoritarian crack-down against the Palästina Kongress in Berlin. Palästina Kongress was planned as an assembly of Palestinian, Jewish, German and international voices calling for an end of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and denouncing Germany’s complicity. It was ultimately prevented from taking place in an illegal attack by German authorities with heavy police presence. Jüdische Stimme had previously administered donations for the Palästina Kongress via their bank account. In a statement following the bank’s cancellation of its account, Jüdische Stimme hinted at pressure by the German police that had repeatedly harassed the group, after the bank demanded a complete list of all the group’s members. 

Moreover, German security agencies evidently used a range of extralegal measures to repress and shut down the congress. Their shameful actions include intimidating venues to pressure them not to host the event, preventing speakers from attending, including through issuing travel bans such as in the case of Ghassan Abu-Sittah, and not least the raid that ultimately stopped the congress. 

German authorities are clearly acting outside of the law and are actively encouraged by increasingly authoritarian politicians. For instance, Germany’s minister of interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) had openly pressured the Berlin police to ”crack down hard” on the Kongress, and Berlin’s mayor Kai Wegener (CDU) declared: ”It is intolerable that a so-called Palestine Congress will take place in Berlin”. 

Corporate complicity 

German officials don’t necessarily need to resort to openly announcing illegal orders, they can often rely on corporate complicity. This is not the first time an unhinged misinformation campaign by German media and German authorities led to a cancellation of Jüdische Stimme’s bank account. 

This is part of a broader phenomenon known as derisking, where financial institutions limit or terminate business relationships to avoid perceived risks. This practice has notably increased in cases involving Palestinians and Palestinian organisations, reflecting a wider pattern of financial exclusion. Beyond account closures and freezing, derisking often includes blocking transactions and other financial services, all with the ultimate goal of hindering the flow of funds towards the Palestinian cause and Palestinian civil society. Such actions are part of a concerted effort to economically isolate and disempower entities associated with Palestinian advocacy. Jüdische Stimme’s experience is a vivid example of this larger context, where financial strategies are used to marginalise and stifle support for Palestinian rights.  

Berliner Sparkasse, the bank that has now been ordered by the court to reopen Jüdische Stimme’s bank account, has repeatedly demonstrated and continues to demonstrate their anti-Palestinian commitment. While it claims to celebrate and foster ”ethnic diversity in Berlin”, it hosts bank accounts of the far right Alternative für Deutschland Party as well as the Neo-Nazi Party Die HEIMAT and the Israeli lobby group ELNET. 

Furthermore, the state of Israel has recently thanked the bank for posting an Israeli propaganda message through all their ATMs.  Berliner Sparkasse also collected donations for the organisation Jüdisches Forum für Demokratie und gegen Antisemitismus e.V. (Jewish Forum for Democracy and against anti-Semitism), which surveils Palestinians in Germany, targets them with smearing and regularly engages in racist, anti-Palestinian incitement such as Nakba denial. 

Article VI of the Genocide Convention specifies that legal “persons” (including corporations) may be held liable for genocidal acts. Dr. Irene Pietropaoli, expert in Business and Human Rights at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law recently stated: “These companies and their managers risk charges of complicity in genocide and other international crimes in their home States or international courts. Banks and other financial institutions that finance companies selling arms or other military supplies to the Israeli military or that provide funds directly to the Israeli State may also be contributing to the commission of genocide in Gaza.” 

We will continue to call out and take legal action against corporate complicity in the ongoing genocide in Palestine and Germany’s authoritarianism. 

DEUTSCH 

Sieg gegen die Komplizenschaft deutscher Unternehmen und dem Autoritarismus des deutschen Staates 

Im Juni 2024 entschied das Kammergericht Berlin, dass die Sperrung und Löschung des Kontos des Vereins Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost – EJJP Deutschland e. V. durch die teilstaatliche Berliner Sparkasse rechtswidrig war. Die Jüdische Stimme ist ein gemeinnütziger, unabhängiger jüdischer Verein, der als deutscher Zweig der Dachorganisation “European Jews for a Just Peace” (EJJP) agiert. 

Ahmed Abed, der Anwalt der Jüdischen Stimme, erklärte: 

“Unter grobem Verstoß gegen die Vertragsbedingungen und das allgemeine Zivilrecht hatte die Bank das Konto des Vereins kurzfristig gesperrt und den Vertrag zum März 2024 gekündigt. Die Bank argumentierte, dass die Geschäftsbeziehung mit der Jüdischen Stimme ihrem Ruf schaden könnte und eine Kündigung aufgrund von Geldwäsche- und Terrorfinanzierungsgesetzen notwendig sei, wofür das Gericht keinerlei Grundlage fand.” 

Die Entscheidung der Bank, gegen die Menschenrechtsgruppe vorzugehen, ist im Zusammenhang mit dem beispiellosen autoritären Vorgehen gegen den Palästina Kongress in Berlin zu verstehen. Der Palästina Kongress war als eine Versammlung palästinensischer, jüdischer, deutscher und internationaler Stimmen geplant, die ein Ende des israelischen Völkermordes in Gaza forderten und die Mitschuld Deutschlands anprangerten. Er wurde schließlich durch einen illegalen Angriff der deutschen Behörden unter einem enormen Polizeieinsatz verhindert. Die Jüdische Stimme hatte zuvor über ihr Bankkonto Spenden für den Palästina-Kongress verwaltet. In einer Erklärung nach der Kündigung des Kontos durch die Bank deutete die Jüdische Stimme an, dass die Bank von der deutschen Polizei unter Druck gesetzt worden sei, nachdem die Bank eine vollständige Liste aller Mitglieder der Gruppe verlangt hatte. Die Gruppe wurde wiederholt von der deutschen Polizei schikaniert. 

Darüber hinaus haben die deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden offensichtlich eine Reihe von extralegalen Maßnahmen ergriffen, um den Kongress zu unterdrücken und zu beenden. Zu ihren beschämenden Maßnahmen gehören die Einschüchterung von Betreibern von Veranstaltungsräumen, um sie unter Druck zur Ausladung der Veranstaltung zu treiben, das Verhindern der Teilnahme von Redner*innen, auch durch die Verhängung von Reiseverboten wie im Fall von Ghassan Abu-Sittah, und nicht zuletzt die Razzia, die den Kongress schließlich beendete. 

Die deutschen Behörden handeln eindeutig außerhalb des Gesetzes und werden von zunehmend autoritären Politikern aktiv ermutigt. So hatte die deutsche Innenministerin Nancy Faeser (SPD) die Berliner Polizei offen gedrängt, “hart gegen den Kongress vorzugehen”, und der Berliner Bürgermeister Kai Wegener (CDU) erklärte: “Es ist unerträglich, dass in Berlin ein so genannter Palästina-Kongress stattfindet”. 

Komplizenschaft der Unternehmen 

Deutsche Beamte müssen nicht unbedingt offen illegale Anordnungen verkünden, sie können sich oft auf die Komplizenschaft von Unternehmen verlassen. Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass eine gezielte Desinformationsskampagne deutscher Medien und deutscher Behörden zur Streichung des Bankkontos der Jüdischen Stimme geführt hat. 

Dies ist Teil einer größeren Entwicklung, die als “Derisking” bekannt ist und bei der Finanzinstitute Geschäftsbeziehungen einschränken oder beenden, um vermeintliche Risiken zu vermeiden. Diese Praxis hat insbesondere in Fällen zugenommen, in denen Palästinenser*innen und palästinensische Organisationen betroffen sind, was ein systematisches Phänomen der finanziellen Ausgrenzung darstellt. Neben der Schließung und dem Einfrieren von Konten umfasst das Derisking häufig auch die Sperrung von Transaktionen und anderen Finanzdienstleistungen mit dem Ziel, den Fluss von Geldern für die palästinensische Sache und die palästinensische Zivilgesellschaft zu behindern. Solche Maßnahmen sind Teil einer konzertierten Aktion zur wirtschaftlichen Isolierung und Entmachtung von Organisationen, die sich für die palästinensische Sache einsetzen. Die Vorgänge rund um die Jüdischen Stimme sind ein eindringliches Beispiel für dieses Phänomen, dem Einsatz finanzieller Unterdrückung, um die Unterstützung für die Rechte der Palästinenser*innen an den Rand zu drängen und zu behindern. 

Die Berliner Sparkasse, welche nun vom Gericht angewiesen wurde, das Konto der Jüdischen Stimme wieder zu öffnen, hat wiederholt ihr antipalästinensisches Engagement unter Beweis gestellt und tut dies auch weiterhin. Während sie behauptet, die “ethnische Vielfalt in Berlin” zu zelebrieren und zu fördern, führt sie Bankkonten der rechtsextremen Partei Alternative für Deutschland sowie der Neonazi-Partei Die HEIMAT und der israelischen Lobbygruppe ELNET. 

Außerdem hat sich der Staat Israel kürzlich bei der Bank dafür bedankt, dass sie an allen Geldautomaten eine israelische Propagandabotschaft ausgestrahlt hat. Die Berliner Sparkasse sammelte auch Spenden für die Organisation Jüdisches Forum für Demokratie und gegen Antisemitismus e.V., die Palästinenser*innen in Deutschland überwacht, sie gezielt verleumdet und regelmäßig rassistische, antipalästinensische Hetze wie die Leugnung der Nakba betreibt. 

Artikel VI der Völkermordkonvention legt fest, dass juristische “Personen” (einschließlich Unternehmen) für völkermörderische Handlungen haftbar gemacht werden können. Dr. Irene Pietropaoli, Expertin für Wirtschaft und Menschenrechte am Britischen Institut für internationales und vergleichendes Recht , erklärte kürzlich: “Diese Unternehmen und ihre Manager riskieren, in ihren Heimatstaaten oder vor internationalen Gerichten der Komplizenschaft bei Völkermord und anderen internationalen Verbrechen angeklagt zu werden. Banken und andere Finanzinstitute, die Unternehmen finanzieren, die Waffen oder andere militärische Güter an das israelische Militär verkaufen, oder die dem israelischen Staat direkt Gelder zur Verfügung stellen, tragen möglicherweise ebenfalls zum Völkermord in Gaza bei.” 

Wir werden auch weiterhin die Komplizenschaft von Unternehmen mit dem anhaltenden Völkermord in Palästina und dem deutschen Autoritarismus anprangern und rechtliche Schritte dagegen einleiten. 

.العربية

انتصار قضائي في مواجهة التواطؤ المؤسسي مع الاستبداد الألماني

في يونيو 2024، أصدرت محكمة برلين حكمًا يُبطل قرار بنك شباركاسه (المملوك جزئيًا من الدولة) تجميد وإلغاء حساب منظمة “الصوت اليهودي من أجل السلام العادل في الشرق الأوسط” – “يوديشه شتيمه” EJJP ألمانيا. تُعد “يوديشه شتيمه” منظمة يهودية مستقلة غير ربحية، وهي الفرع الألماني للمنظمة الأم “يهود أوروبيون من أجل سلام عادل”.

صرّح المحامي أحمد عابد، الذي يمثل “يوديشه شتيمه”:

“في انتهاك صارخ للقانون المدني وشروط الاتفاق، جمد البنك حساب المنظمة بشكل فوري وألغى عقدها في مارس 2024. برر البنك هذا الإجراء بأن العلاقات التجارية مع “يوديشه شتيمه” قد تضر بسمعته، وأن الإلغاء كان ضروريًا بموجب قوانين مكافحة غسل الأموال وتمويل الإرهاب، وهي ادعاءات لم تجد المحكمة لها أي أساس على الإطلاق.”

قرار البنك بالتحرك ضد مجموعة حقوقية ناشطة يجب أن يُفهم في سياق الحملة القمعية الشرسة التي استهدفت مؤتمر فلسطين في برلين. كان من المفترض أن يكون هذا المؤتمر منبرًا للأصوات الفلسطينية واليهودية والألمانية والدولية التي تطالب بوقف الإبادة الجماعية الإسرائيلية في غزة وتدين التواطؤ الألماني. إلا أن السلطات الألمانية، في هجوم غير قانوني مترافق مع حضور مكثف للشرطة، منعت انعقاد المؤتمر. كانت “يوديشه شتيمه” تدير التبرعات لصالح المؤتمر عبر حسابها البنكي، وبعد إلغاء الحساب، أشارت المنظمة إلى ضغوط من الشرطة الألمانية التي كانت قد طالبت بالقائمة الكاملة لأعضاء المجموعة.

علاوة على ذلك، استخدمت وكالات الأمن الألمانية إجراءات قمعية غير قانونية لإغلاق المؤتمر. تضمنت هذه الإجراءات ترهيب الأماكن المحتملة لاستضافة المؤتمر للضغط عليها لمنع الحدث، ومنع المتحدثين من الحضور، بما في ذلك إصدار حظر سفر كما حدث مع الطبيب غسان أبو ستة، وأخيراً المداهمة التي أوقفت المؤتمر.

تصاعد النزعة الاستبدادية في المشهد السياسي الألماني يشجع السلطات على التصرف خارج إطار القانون. على سبيل المثال، مارست نانسي فيزر (SPD)، وزيرة الداخلية الألمانية، ضغوطًا علنية على شرطة برلين “لتتصرف بصرامة” تجاه المؤتمر، بينما صرّح عمدة برلين، كاي فيجنر (CDU)، قائلاً: “من غير المقبول أن يُعقد ما يسمى بمؤتمر فلسطين في برلين.”

التواطؤ المؤسسي

المسؤولون الألمان لا يحتاجون للإعلان عن الأوامر غير القانونية علنًا، بل يعتمدون في كثير من الأحيان على التواطؤ المؤسسي لتنفيذها. وليست هذه المرة الأولى التي تؤدي فيها حملة التضليل المنظمة من الإعلام والسلطات الألمانية إلى إغلاق حساب “يوديشه شتيمه”، بل إنها جزء من ظاهرة أوسع تعرف باسم “تقليل المخاطر” (derisking)، حيث تقوم المؤسسات المالية بإنهاء أو تقليص العلاقات التجارية لتجنب المخاطر المحتملة. وقد تفاقمت هذه الظاهرة بشكل ملحوظ في الحالات المتعلقة بالفلسطينيين والمنظمات الفلسطينية، مما يعكس نمطًا واسعًا من الإقصاء المالي.

تشمل إجراءات “تقليل المخاطر” تجميد الحسابات وحجب المعاملات والخدمات المالية الأخرى بهدف عرقلة تدفق الأموال إلى القضية الفلسطينية والمجتمع المدني الفلسطيني. هذه الإجراءات جزء من جهد منسق لعزل وإضعاف الكيانات التي تدافع عن الحقوق الفلسطينية. تجربة “يوديشه شتيمه” هي مثال حي لهذا السياق الأوسع، حيث تُستخدم الاستراتيجيات المالية لتهميش ودحر دعم الحقوق الفلسطينية.

بنك برلينر شباركاسه، الذي أُمر الآن بإعادة فتح حساب “يوديشه شتيمه”، قد أظهر مراراً التزامه بسياسات مناهضة للفلسطينيين. في الوقت الذي يدّعي فيه شباركاسه تعزيز “التنوع العرقي في برلين”، يحتفظ بحسابات بنكية لحزب “البديل من أجل ألمانيا” اليميني المتطرف وحزب النازيين الجدد ”دي هايمات” ومجموعة الضغط الإسرائيلية “إلنِت”. علاوة على ذلك، شكرته دولة إسرائيل مؤخرًا على نشره رسائل دعائية عبر أجهزة الصراف الآلي الخاصة به، كما جمع تبرعات لمنظمة “المنتدى اليهودي للديمقراطية ومكافحة معاداة السامية”، التي تستهدف الفلسطينيين في ألمانيا بـ التشهير والتحريض العنصري وإنكار النكبة.

تنص المادة السادسة من اتفاقية منع جريمة الإبادة الجماعية والمعاقبة عليها على أن “الأشخاص” القانونيين (بما في ذلك الشركات) قد يتحملون المسؤولية عن أعمال الإبادة الجماعية. وقد صرحت مؤخرًا الدكتورة إيرين بيتروبولي، خبيرة في مجال الأعمال وحقوق الإنسان في المعهد البريطاني للقانون الدولي والمقارن، بأن “هذه الشركات ومديريها يخاطرون بتلقي تهم التواطؤ في الإبادة الجماعية وجرائم دولية أخرى سواء في دولهم الأصلية أو أمام المحاكم الدولية. البنوك والمؤسسات المالية التي تمول الشركات التي تبيع الأسلحة أو المعدات العسكرية الأخرى للجيش الإسرائيلي أو التي توفر أموالًا مباشرة للدولة الإسرائيلية قد تكون شريكة في ارتكاب الإبادة الجماعية في غزة.”

سوف نستمر في فضح ومقاضاة التواطؤ المؤسساتي في الإبادة الجماعية الجارية في فلسطين والاستبداد الألماني.

Categories
Case Update

Moving against intransparency and deafening silence: further legal action against Germany’s war weapons deliveries to Israel 

MOVING AGAINST INTRANSPARENCY AND DEAFENING SILENCE: FURTHER LEGAL ACTION AGAINST GERMANY'S WAR WEAPONS DELIVERIES TO ISRAEL

The Lawyers Collective (Anwält:innenkollektiv) supported by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), Law for Palestine, Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD) and  Forensis (Forensic Architecture Berlin) has paved the way for further legal action against Germany’s deliveries of war weapons to Israel.  

In its decision of 10.06.2024 (Az. VG 2 L 119/24), the Administrative Court of Berlin dismissed an urgent appeal that was filed by Palestinians in Gaza and the Lawyers Collective to demand an immediate halt to the supply of weapons used by Israel in its continuous genocidal onslaught on Gaza. 

The court concluded that no ban on future exports of war weapons would be necessary, arguing that the Federal Government had revised its licensing practice at the beginning of 2024 and no new licenses have been issued since. The court further assumes that the Federal Government will take its decisions on future licenses in accordance with international law and, if necessary, will also make use of the possibility to refuse future license requests. The court did not fundamentally deny the right to enforce a delivery stop. 

ELSC Senior Legal Officer Nadija Samour states:

This opens the way for further legal action through freedom of information requests, main proceedings, and urgent proceedings based on a case by case finding with regards to specific authorizations of weapons exports once they become known, as the factual assumption for the court’s ruling is highly questionable. The court relied on the facts provided by the government, which we view with caution because the authorization procedure is partly secret. We will now dedicate our resources to prevent Germany from illegally selling weapons in violation of the court’s decision.

The Federal Government of Germany has kept the information about current licensing procedures secret and has not provided any information on halted delivery of weapons of war to Israel. The German Government’s communication strategy and flat-out denial of any transparency eminently suggests fear of accountability, as it restricts German courts in reviewing future arms trade licenses.   

When confronted and pressured by protestors to stop Germany’s weapons deliveries to Israel in May, Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock claimed: “We can’t stop delivering weapons [to Israel], because we have not delivered any.”  

However, a comprehensive report recently published by Forensis, Forensic Architecture’s Berlin-based affiliate, proved that in 2023 the German government had issued arms exports licenses to Israel worth 326.5 million euros. The majority of these exports were approved after 7 October 2023, constituting a tenfold increase compared to 2022. The German government is currently supporting the Israeli army by approving the supply of 3,000 portable anti-tank weapons, 500,000 rounds of ammunition for machine guns, submachine guns or other fully or semi-automatic firearms, as well as other military equipment, while in early 2024 Germany was preparing the authorisation of 10,000 rounds of 120mm tank ammunition. 

Ahmed Abed, lawyer and member of the Lawyers’ Collective, explains:  

We cannot understand why the Administrative Court does not address the German arms exports mentioned in the Forensic Architecture report, e.g. 500,000 pieces of firearms ammunition. The German government’s tactic of silence about war weapons and war crimes endangers the lives of our clients. However, the German government has a duty to take all measures to end the genocide in Gaza that has been going on for months.

New legal action demanding the halt of weapons exports altogether is the logical follow-up. UN experts have just recently reiterated their demand to stop the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel immediately as they may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk state complicity in international crimes, including genocide. 

We are saying – loud and clear – that the time for Germany’s enabling of the genocide in Gaza is over. We need to hold our governments accountable and refuse complacency until our demands are met. 

We cannot do it alone 

Using legal avenues implies huge financial costs on the solidarity movement – legal fees are unfortunately infamously sky high;we need the movement to band together and show its strength in numbers to help cover the fees of this case and its developments. We’re still at a deficit of 5,400 Euros and we need your help! Funds raised will be used to cover court and lawyer fees amongst other administrative costs related to how the case progresses. 

We ask you to please consider putting aside whatever amount you’re able to contribute to the steadfast movement’s efforts to hold Germany accountable. 

DONATE NOW

You can read more about Germany’s deadly deals with Israel in this comprehensive report recently published by Forensis, that brings together governmental records with data from monitoring groups and other initiatives and provides significant insights on past, current and potential future arms exports from Germany to Israel. 

Gegen Intransparenz und ohrenbetäubendes Schweigen: Rechtliche Schritte gegen Deutschlands Kriegswaffenlieferungen an Israel 

Das Anwält:innenkollektiv, das vom European Legal Support Center (ELSC), Law for Palestine, Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD) und  Forensis (Forensic Architecture Berlin) unterstützt wird, hat Türen für weitere rechtliche Schritte gegen die deutschen Kriegswaffenlieferungen an Israel geöffnet. 

Mit dem Beschluss vom 10.06.2024 (Az. VG 2 L 119/24) wies das Verwaltungsgericht Berlin einen Eilantrag von Palästinenser*innen aus Gaza und des  Anwält:innenkollektiv zurück, indem ein sofortiger Stopp von Waffenlieferungen an Israel gefordert wurde, da sie bei einem anhaltenden genozidalen Angriff auf Gaza verwendet werden. 

Das Gericht kam zu dem Schluss, dass ein Verbot künftiger Kriegswaffenexporte nicht nötig sei, da die Bundesregierung ihre Genehmigungen Anfang 2024 überarbeitet habe und seitdem keine neuen Genehmigungen mehr erteilt worden seien. Das Gericht geht weiter davon aus, dass die Bundesregierung ihre Entscheidungen über künftige Genehmigungen im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht treffen und gegebenenfalls auch von der Möglichkeit Gebrauch machen wird, künftige Genehmigungsanträge abzulehnen. Das Recht, einen Lieferstopp in das Kriegsgebiet durchzusetzen, hat das Gericht nicht grundsätzlich verneint. 

Nadija Samour, Senior Legal Officer der ELSC, erklärt dazu:

Damit ist der Weg frei für weiteres rechtliche durch Auskunftsanträge, Hauptsacheverfahren bzw.  bedarfsorientierte neue Eilverfahren gegen konkrete Genehmigungen von Waffenexporten nach deren Bekanntwerden. Die angenommene Tatsachengrundlage für die Entscheidung des Gerichts ist höchst fragwürdig. Das Gericht stützte sich auf die von der Regierung offengelegten Informationen, die wir mit Skepsis betrachten müssen. Das Genehmigungsverfahren unterliegt teilweise der Geheimhaltung. Wir werden uns darauf konzentrieren, zu verhindern, dass Deutschland entgegen der Entscheidung des Gerichts illegal Waffen verkauft.

Die deutsche Bundesregierung hat Informationen über die laufenden Genehmigungsverfahren geheim gehalten und keine Angaben zur Lieferung von Kriegswaffen gemacht. Diese Kommunikationsstrategie der Bundesregierung, eine pauschale Verweigerung jeglicher Transparenz, deutet stark auf die Sorge vor rechtlichen Konsequenzen hin. Deutsche Gerichte könnten mit einer Überprüfung künftigen Waffenhandel einschränken.  

Als die deutsche Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock im Mai von Demonstranten konfrontiert und aufgefordert wurde, die deutschen Waffenlieferungen an Israel zu stoppen, behauptete sie: “Wir können die Waffenlieferungen [an Israel] nicht stoppen, weil wir keine Waffen geliefert haben.” 

Ein umfassender Bericht, der kürzlich von Forensis, der Berliner Niederlassung von Forensic Architecture, veröffentlicht wurde, belegt jedoch, dass die deutsche Regierung im Jahr 2023 Waffenexportgenehmigungen im Wert von 326,5 Millionen Euro an Israel erteilt hat. Der Großteil dieser Exporte wurde nach dem 7. Oktober 2023 genehmigt, was eine Verzehnfachung gegenüber 2022 bedeutet. Derzeit unterstützt die Bundesregierung die israelische Armee, indem sie die Lieferung von 3.000 tragbaren Panzerabwehrwaffen, 500.000 Schuss Munition für Maschinengewehre, Maschinenpistolen oder andere voll- oder halbautomatische Schusswaffen sowie andere militärische Ausrüstung genehmigt, während Deutschland Anfang 2024 die Genehmigung von 10.000 Schuss 120-mm-Panzermunition vorbereitet. 

Ahmed Abed, Rechtsanwalt und Mitglied des  Anwält:innenkollektiv, erklärt:

Wir können nicht verstehen, warum sich das Verwaltungsgericht nicht mit den deutschen Waffenexporten befasst, die im Bericht von Forensis erwähnt werden, z.B. 500.000 Stück Schusswaffenmunition. Die Schweigetaktik der deutschen Regierung zu Kriegswaffen und Kriegsverbrechen gefährdet das Leben unserer Mandanten. Die Bundesregierung hat jedoch die Pflicht, alle Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um den seit Monaten andauernden Völkermord in Gaza zu beenden.

Neue rechtliche Schritte, die einen vollständigen Stopp der Waffenexporte fordern, sind die folgerichtige Konsequenz. UN-Experten haben erst kürzlich ihre Forderung bekräftigt, die Lieferung von Waffen und Munition an Israel sofort zu stoppen. Sie stellen einen schwer Verstoß gegen die Menschenrechte und das humanitäre Völkerrecht dar. Es besteht die Gefahr, dass sich Staaten an internationalen Verbrechen, einschließlich Völkermord, beteiligen. 

Wir sagen laut und deutlich, dass die Zeit, in der Deutschland den Völkermord in Gaza unterstützt, enden muss. Wir müssen unsere Regierungen zur Rechenschaft ziehen und uns weigern einzulenken, bis unsere Forderungen erfüllt sind. 

Wir schaffen es nur gemeinsam 

Leider ist der Rechtsweg mit enormen finanziellen Kosten verbunden, weshalb wir eure Unterstützung brauchen. 

Die Bewegung kann hier ihre Stärke zeigen und die Kosten für künftige Rechtsfälle decken. Wir bitten euch, einen finanziellen Beitrag zu leisten, um Deutschland zur Verantwortung zu ziehen. Wir haben immer noch ein Defizit von 5.400 Euro und wir brauchen eure Hilfe! Die gesammelten Gelder werden zur Deckung der Gerichts- und Anwaltskosten sowie anderer Verwaltungskosten im Zusammenhang mit dem Fortgang des Falles verwendet. 

SPENDEN SIE JETZT: KEINE WAFFEN FÜR VÖLKERMORD: Unterstützen Sie unseren neuen Rechtsstreit gegen Deutschlands Waffenexporte nach Israel | European Legal Support Center (Powered by Donorbox) 

Sie können mehr über Deutschlands tödliche Geschäfte mit Israel in diesem umfassenden Bericht lesen, der kürzlich von Forensis veröffentlicht wurde und der Regierungsunterlagen mit Daten von Monitoringgruppen und anderen Initiativen zusammenführt und wichtige Einblicke in vergangene, aktuelle und potenzielle zukünftige Waffenexporte von Deutschland nach Israel liefert. 

مناهضةَ عدم الشفافية والصمت المطبق: مزيد من الإجراءات القانونية ضد تصدير ألمانيا للاسلحة إلى “إسرائيل”

مهد تجمع المحامين/ات المدعوم من المركز الأوروبي للدعم القانوني  ومحامين/ات من أجل من أجل فلسطين ومعهد فلسطين للدبلوماسية العامة والعمارة الجنائية الطريق لمزيد من الإجراءات القانونية ضد إيصال ألمانيا للأسلحة الحربية إلى “إسرائيل”.

رفضت المحكمة الإدارية في برلين في قرارها الصادر في 01 حزيران/يونيو 4202 (42/911 L 2 GV .zA)، الاستئناف العاجل الذي قدمه فلسطينيين/ات من غزة وتجمع المحامين/ات الذي يطالب بإيقاف فوري لتصدير الأسلحة المستخدمة من قبل إسرائيل في هجوم الإبادة الجماعية المستمر على غزة.

توصلت المحكمة إلى أنه ليس هناك ضرورة لفرض حظر على صادرات الأسلحة في المستقبل، متذرعين أن الحكومة الإتحادية قد راجعت ممارساتها في منح التراخيص في بداية عام 2024 ولم يتم إصدار أي رخص جديدة منذ ذلك الوقت. تفترض المحكمة أن الحكومة الاتحادية سوف تتخذ قراراتها بشأن التراخيص المستقبلية وفقاً للقانون الدولي، وفي حال لزوم الأمر، سوف تستفيد من إمكانية رفض منح طلبات ترخيص مستقبلية. لم تقم المحكمة بإنكار الحق حق فرض 

وقف التسليم بشكل جذري.

صرحت ناديا سمور senior المسؤولين القانونيين في المركز الأوروبي للدعم القانوني: “هذا بفتح الطريق أمام المزيد من الإجراءات القانونية من خلال طلبات حرية المعلومات والإجراءات الرئيسية والإجراءات العاجلة على أساس النظر في كل حالة على حدى فيما يتعلق بتراخيص صادرات الأسلحة بمجرد أن تصبح معروفة، حيث أن افتراض الوقائع لحكم المحكمة مشكوك فيه للغاية. اعتمدت المحكمة على الوقائع التي قدمتها الحكومة، والتي ننظر إليها بحذر نظراً إلى أن إجراءات الترخيص سرية جزئياً. وسوف نكرس مواردنا الآن لمنع ألمانيا من بيع الأسلحة بشكل غير قانوني منتهكةّ لقرار المحكمة”. 

أبقت الحكومة الاتحادية الألمانية المعلومات المتعلقة بإجراءات الترخيص الحالية سرية، ولم تقدم أي معلومات حول وقف تسليم أسلحة حربية إلى “إسرائيل.” توحي استراتيجية التواصل التي تتبعها الحكومة الألمانية ونكرانها الصريح لأي شفافية بالخوف من المساءلة، حيث أنها تقيد المحاكم الألمانية في مراجعة تراخيص تجارة الأسلحة في المستقبل.

عندما ووجهت وزيرة الخارجية الألمانية آنالينا بايربوك وتم الضغط عليها من قبل المحتجين/ات لوقف توصيل الأسلحة من قبل ألمانيا إلى إسرائيل، ادعت الوزيرة “لا يمكننا وقف تسليم الأسلحة [إلى إسرائيل]، لأننا لم نقم بتوصيل أي أسلحة”.

إلا أن التقرير الشامل الذي نشرته مؤخراَ الجنائية، وهي شركة تابعة لشركة العمارة الجنائية التي مقرها برلين، أثبت أن الحكومة الألمانية أصدرت تراخيص تصدير أسلحة إلى إسرائيل عام 2023 بقيمة 326.5 مليون يورو. تم الموافقة على أغلبية هذه الصادرات بعد 7 أكتوبر 2023، وبما شكل مضاعفة التصدير بعشرات الأضعاف مقارنةَ مع 2022. تقوم الحكومة الألمانية حالياَ بدعم الجيش “الإسرائيلي” من خلال الموافقة على توصيل 3000 قطعة سلاح مضادة للدبابات و500000 طلقة ذخيرة للرشاشات ورشاشات وغيرها من الأسلحة نصف الآلية، بالإضافة إلى معدات عسكرية أخرى. بينما كانت تستعد ألمانيا في أوائل عام 2024 للتصريح بتصدير 10000 طلقة ذخيرة دبابات عيار 120 مم.

يشرح المحامي عضو تجمع المحامين/ات، أحمد عبد:

“لا يمكننا أن نفهم لماذا لا تتطرق المحكمة الإدارية إلى صادرات الأسلحة الألمانية المذكورة في تقرير العمارة الجنائية، مثالاَ ال500000 قطعة من ذخائر الأسلحة النارية. سياسة الصمت المتبعة من قبل الحكومة الألمانية فيما يخص أسلحة الحرب وجرائم الحرب يعرض حياة عملائنا للخطر. بالرغم من ذلك، من واجب الحكومة الألمانية اتخاذ جميع التدابير اللازمة لإنهاء الإبادة الجماعية في غزة المستمرة منذ أشهر.”

تحرك قانوني جديد مطالبةَ بوقف تصدير الأسلحة تماماً هو الخطوة التالية المنطقية. وكرر خبراء من الأمم المتحدة مؤخراَ مطالبهم بوقف نقل الأسلحة والذخائر إلى “إسرائيل”، فوراَ لأنها تشكل انتهاكات خطيرة لحقوق الإنسان والقانون الإنساني الدولي وتنطوي على خطر تواطؤ الحكومة في جرائم دولية بما يتضمن الإبادة الجماعية.

نقول بصوت – واضح وعالي- انتهى زمن تمكين ألمانيا للإبادة الجماعية في غزة. علينا أن نحاسب حكوماتنا ونرفض التهاون حتى يتم تحقيق مطالبنا.

لا نستطيع القيام بذلك وحدنا

ينطوي استخدام السبل القانونية على تكاليف مالية ضخمة على حراك التضامن – الرسوم القانونية للأسف باهظة الثمن، ونحن بحاجة إلى أن يتكاتف الحراك ويظهر قوته في الأرقام للمساعدة في تغطية تكاليف هذه القضية وتطوراتها. لا يزال ينقصنا 5400 يورو ونحن بحاجة إلى مساعدتكم! سيتم استخدام الأموال التي سيتم جمعها لتغطية أتعاب المحكمة والمحامين من بين التكاليف الإدارية الأخرى المتعلقة بتطورات القضية. 

نرجو منكَِ التفكير في تخصيص أي مبلغ تستطيع/ين المساهمة به لدعم جهود الحركة المستمرة لمحاسبة ألمانيا.

NO WEAPONS FOR GENOCIDE: Support our new legal battle against Germany’s arms exports to Israel | European Legal Support Center (Powered by Donorbox) 

يمكنكَِ قراءة المزيد حول صفقات ألمانيا القاتلة مع “إسرائيل” في هذا التقرير الشامل الذي نشرته الجنائية مؤخراَ والذي يجمع سجلات حكومية وبيانات من مجموعات الرصد والمبادرات الأخرى ويقدم رؤى مهمة حول صادرات الأسلحة السابقة والحالية والمحتملة في المستقبل من ألمانيا إلى “إسرائيل”.

Categories
Case Update

Erfolg für Palästina Aktivistin Yasemin Acar 

ENGLISH BELOW

Pressemitteilung – Berlin, 24. Mai 2024

Das Landgericht Berlin hat zugunsten Yasemin Acar gegen den Tagesspiegel entschieden. Das Gericht hat eine einstweilige Verfügung verhängt, welche die Tageszeitung mit Sitz in Berlin zwingt, gleich mehrere Falschbehauptungen über die Aktivistin zurückzunehmen und zukünftig zu unterlassen. Yasemin hatte mit Unterstützung der Rechtsanwältin Ingrid Yeboah und dem ELSC gegen einen Anfang März erschienenen Artikel geklagt.

Rechtsanwältin Ingrid Yeboah kommentiert:

Bei dem Artikel handelt es sich um eine beschämende Diffamierung der Berliner Aktivistin und ihres Engagements gegen Rassismus und für Menschenrechte. Darin wurde die Aktivistin mehrfach falsch zitiert, ihre Aussagen und Sachverhalte grob verzerrt dargestellt und aus dem Kontext gerissen. So entstand ein Bild einer von Hass zerfressenen Extremistin, welches auf die Entwürdigung und Entmenschlichung der Aktivistin zielt.

Bei diesem Angriff auf Yasemin Acar handelt es sich nicht um einen Einzelfall. Die im Artikel bedienten, rassistischen Klischees sind typisch für die Berichterstattung deutscher Medien. Insbesondere in den letzten Jahren wurde ein schockierendes Level an anti-palästinensischem Rassismus in deutschen Medien sichtbar. Dieser äußert sich, unter anderem, immer häufiger auch in verleumderischen Beiträgen. Diese zielen häufig auf die gesamte Palästina-solidarische Bewegung, bestimmte Palästina-solidarische Gruppen und auf einzelne Aktivist*innen ab.  

Unter dem Schlagwort ”Israelhass” wird weder davor zurückgeschreckt Namen, Gesichter und Arbeitgeber der Aktivist*innen zu veröffentlichen, noch ihre Aussagen grob falsch wiederzugeben. Deutsche Medien gehen dabei zunehmend skrupelloser vor. Die BILD etwa veröffentlicht mittlerweile regelmäßig Listen, die in ihrer hemmungslosen Hetze an dunkelste Zeiten der deutschen Presse erinnern. Der Fall ist damit typisch für ein allzu oft vorkommendes Muster deutscher Medien. Das Kulturzentrum Oyoun setzte sich erst vor kurzem vor Gericht erfolgreich gegen die Diffamierungen des Tagesspiegel durch.

Karim Bohnhoff Advocacy and Communications Officer bei ELSC sagt:

Das häufig verwendete Label ”Israelhass” offenbart eine völlige Missachtung der Lebensrealität und politischen Anliegen palästinensischer, muslimischer oder rassifizierter Menschen nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern weltweit. Mit dem Begriff “Israelhass” wird versucht jegliche Kritik an den systematischen Verbrechen an Palästinenser*innen durch den Staat Israel zu diffamieren. Scharfe Kritik an dem Völkermord an Palästinenser*innen, Protest und Solidarität sind legitim!

Ironischerweise hatte der Tagesspiegel Yasemin einst für ihr Engagement gelobt. Als überzeugte Antirassistin setzt sich Yasemin bereits seit Jahrzehnten unermüdlich für die Rechte aller Menschen ein. Sie ist besonders in der Geflüchtetenhilfe tätig. Zuletzt wurde sie für ihre Arbeit für die Rechte der Geflüchteten aus der Ukraine öffentlich gewürdigt. Vielen ist sie auch durch ihren Einsatz gegen Armut und Obdachlosigkeit bekannt.

Erst seit sie sich für Palästina einsetzt, wurde sie zur Zielscheibe der rassistischen Diffamierung durch deutsche Medien. Die Attacke auf Yasemin offenbart noch ein weiteres Problem deutscher Medien: struktureller Sexismus. Auffällig häufig richten sich entsprechende Hetzkampagnen gegen von Rassismus betroffene Frauen, insbesondere muslimische und arabische Frauen.

Und die Hetze bleibt nicht ohne Folgen: Yasemin erhält seit Monaten regelmäßig Morddrohungen und wird immer wieder verbal, aber auch physisch attackiert. Unter diesen Angreifern sind häufig auch Journalisten, welche Yasemin mit Kamera auflauern und versuchen, sie durch Beleidigungen und Handgreiflichkeiten zu provozieren. 

Die Polizei weigert sich jedoch beharrlich, bei derartigen rassistischen Angriffen weiter zu ermitteln. Die deutsche Polizei selbst agiert zunehmend autoritär gegen Palästina Aktivist*innen. Das vollkommen rechtswidrige Vorgehen gegen die Palästina-Kongress hatte zuletzt internationales Aufsehen erregt. Vorangegangen war eine beispiellose mediale Hetze gegen die Veranstalter*innen, zu denen auch Yasemin gehört. 

Es besteht kein Zweifel, dass deutsche Medien rassistische und autoritäre Tendenzen stärken und anfeuern. Sie schaffen so wesentlich ein Klima, in der rassistische Gewalt durch Staat und Rechtsradikale zunehmend eskaliert. 

Trotz dieses gewalttätigen Klimas ließ sich Yasemin nicht einschüchtern und ging dagegen vor. Ihr Erfolg gegen den Tagesspiegel ist deshalb ein Erfolg für die gesamte Palästina-Solidaritätsbewegung. Er beweist einmal mehr, dass wir illegale rassistische Diskriminierung nicht dulden und uns erfolgreich wehren werden!

Für Presseanfragen an Yasemin Acar und ELSC wenden Sie sich bitte an Karim Bohnhoff: karim@elsc.support   

Victory for Palestine Activist Yasemin Acar

Press release – Berlin, 24 May 2024

Berlin Regional Court has ruled in favour of Yasemin Acar against the Tagesspiegel. 

The court issued a restraining order forcing the Berlin-based daily newspaper to remove and not publish again several false allegations about the activist. With the support of lawyer Ingrid Yeboah and the ELSC, Yasemin had taken legal action against an article published at the beginning of March.

Lawyer Ingrid Yeboah shares:

The article constituted a shameful defamation of the Berlin activist and her commitment against racism and for human rights. In the article, the activist was misquoted several times, her statements and political positions were grossly distorted and taken out of context. The result was an image of an extremist consumed by hate, aiming at ultimately degrading and dehumanising the activist.

This attack on Yasemin Acar is not an isolated case. The racist clichés used in the article are typical of reporting in German media. In recent years in particular, a shocking level of anti-Palestinian racism has spread in German media. Among other things, this is increasingly expressed in defamatory articles. These often target the entire Palestine-solidarity movement, certain Palestine-solidarity groups and individual activists.  

Evoking the buzzword “Israelhass” (hatred of Israel), journalists do not shy away from publishing the names, faces and employers of activists, nor from grossly misrepresenting their statements. German media are becoming increasingly unscrupulous in their approach. BILD, for example, now regularly publishes lists that are reminiscent of the darkest times of the German press in their unrestrained agitation. The case is thus typical of an all too common pattern in the German media. Oyoun cultural center in Berlin was also recently defamed in the Tagesspiegel and successfully challenged the newspaper in court.

Karim Bohnhoff, Advocacy & Communications officer at the ELSC says:

The frequently used label “Israelhass” reveals a complete disregard for the lived reality and political aims of Palestinian, Muslim or racialized people, not only in Germany but worldwide. It is used in an attempt to silence criticism of the systematic crimes committed against Palestinians by the state of Israel. Sharp criticism of the genocide against Palestinians, protest and solidarity are legitimate!

Ironically, the Tagesspiegel once praised Yasemin for her commitment. As a staunch anti-racist, Yasemin has been tirelessly campaigning for the rights of all people for decades. She is particularly active in helping refugees. Most recently, she was publicly recognised for her work for the rights of refugees from Ukraine. She is also known to many for her work against poverty and homelessness.

It is only since she began campaigning for Palestine that she has become the target of racist defamation by the German media. The attack on Yasemin reveals yet another problem in the German media: structural sexism. Such smear campaigns are conspicuously often directed against women affected by racism, and particularly Muslim and Arab women.

And the incitement is not without consequences: Yasemin has been receiving regular death threats for months and is repeatedly harassed, verbally or sometimes physically. Journalists are often among these attackers, ambushing Yasemin with cameras and attempting to provoke her with insults and violence. 

However, the police stubbornly refuse to investigate such racist attacks any further. The German police themselves are acting in an increasingly authoritarian manner against Palestinian activists. The completely unlawful action against the Palestine Congress recently caused an international stir. It was preceded by unprecedented media agitation against the organisers, including Yasemin.

There is no doubt that the German media strengthen and encourage racist and authoritarian tendencies. They are essentially creating a climate in which racist violence by the state and right-wing extremists is increasingly escalating.

Despite this violent climate, Yasemin remained undeterred and pushed back. Her success against the Tagesspiegel is a success for the entire Palestine solidarity movement in Germany. It shows we are able to successfully push back against anti-Palestinian media! We will not tolerate any further illegal racist discrimination!

For press inquiries to Yasemin Acar and ELSC please contact Karim Bohnhoff: karim@elsc.support 

Categories
Case Update

VICTORY FOR DR GHASSAN ABU SITTAH: ELSC and ICJP overturn Schengen-wide travel ban 

May 15, 2024 

Berlin, Administrative court Potsdam slams German Federal Police: Schengen-Information-System entry for Prof. Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah has no legal basis and is to be revoked immediately after an emergency appeal by ELSC lawyer Alexander Gorski with support from lawyers from the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP). This effectively ends the Schengen-area travel ban imposed on Prof. Dr. Abu Sittah by German authorities. He was previously prevented from entering Germany, France and most recently the Netherlands. 

The court’s ruling follows ELSC lawyer Alexander Gorski’s arguments in all points and recognizes the urgency of the case vis-a-vis developments in Gaza. The court rejects all accusations by German Federal Police against Dr Abu Sittah and holds that the Federal Police provided no grounds according to the legal basis provided by Art. 24 EU-Verordnung 2018/1861 and § 30 Abs. 5 BundespolizeiG. 

“This victory cannot be overstated“

Alexander Gorski shares: “German police delivered a surprisingly weak reasoning for the entry ban issued against Dr Ghassan Abu Sitta in front of the court. By rejecting it as lacking any substantial evidence, the court affirms our case and calls the entire investigation into question. Professor Ghassan worked tirelessly to help Palestinians in Gaza, in dreadful conditions, and yet he has faced such unfair treatment upon his return.  
 
This decision means that Ghassan’s freedom of expression and freedom of movement are no longer under threat, and he can speak out about what he witnessed in Gaza. This victory cannot be overstated.” 

This victory highlights the illegality of Germany’s increasingly authoritarian anti-Palestinian state repression and should encourage everyone to speak up against the ongoing genocide on Gaza. We thank Prof. Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah for his courage in speaking up against the crimes he has witnessed first handedly and against the shameful attempt by the German state to silence critics of the genocide it is funding. Abu Sittah is due to speak on the 17th May 2024 to Dutch MPs and in public events organised by civil society organisations and at the University of Amsterdam. 

The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) is the first and only independent organisation defending and empowering the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe through legal means. We provide free legal advice and assistance to associations, human rights NGOs, groups and individuals advocating for Palestinian rights in mainland Europe and the United Kingdom. 

  1.  For press inquiries for Alexander Gorski and the ELSC, please contact Karim Bohnhoff karim@elsc.support
  2. For press inquiries for ICJP, please contact press@icjpalestine.com

Sieg für Dr GHASSAN ABU SITTAH: ELSC und ICJP kippen Schengen-weites Einreiseverbot  

15. Mai 2024  

Berlin, Verwaltungsgericht Potsdam rügt deutsche Bundespolizei: Die Schengen-Einreise für Prof. Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah entbehrt jeder rechtlichen Grundlage und ist sofort zu widerrufen. Das Urteil folgt auf einen Eilantrag des ELSC Anwalts Alexander Gorski mit Unterstützung von Anwälten des International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP). Damit ist das von den deutschen Behörden gegen Prof. Dr. Abu Sittah verhängte EU-Einreiseverbot nichtig. Zuvor war er an der Einreise nach Deutschland, Frankreich und zuletzt in die Niederlande gehindert worden.  

Das Gericht folgt den Argumenten des ELSC-Anwalts Alexander Gorski in allen Punkten und erkennt die Dringlichkeit des Falles angesichts der Entwicklungen in Gaza an. Das Gericht weist alle Vorwürfe der deutschen Bundespolizei gegen Prof. Dr. Abu Sittah zurück und stellt fest, dass die Bundespolizei keinerlei Begründung gemäß der Rechtsgrundlage des Art. 24 EU-Verordnung 2018/1861 und § 30 Abs. 5 BundespolizeiG vorweisen kann. 

“Dieser Erfolg kann nicht hoch genug geschätzt werden“

Alexander Gorski kommentiert: „Die Bundespolizei hat vor Gericht eine überraschend schwache Begründung für das gegen Prof. Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta erlassene Einreiseverbot geliefert. Indem das Gericht sie als nicht stichhaltig zurückweist, bekräftigt es unser Anliegen und stellt die gesamten polizeilichen Ermittlungen in Frage. Professor Ghassan hat Palästinenser*innen in Gaza unter schrecklichsten Bedingungen unermüdlich geholfen, und dennoch wurde er nach seiner Rückkehr so ungerecht behandelt.   

Diese Entscheidung bedeutet, dass Prof. Abu Sittah Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung und Freizügigkeit nicht mehr bedroht ist. Er kann wieder frei darüber sprechen, was er in Gaza erlebt hat. Dieser Erfolgkann nicht hoch genug geschätzt werden.“  

Dieser Erfolgverdeutlicht die Rechtswidrigkeit der zunehmend autoritären anti-palästinensischen Repression durch den deutschen Staat und sollte jeden ermutigen, seine Stimme gegen den anhaltenden Völkermord in Gaza zu erheben. Wir danken Prof. Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah für seinen Mut, sich gegen die Verbrechen auszusprechen, die er mit eigenen Augen miterlebt hat. Ebenso ächten wir den beschämenden Versuch des deutschen Staates, Kritiker*innen des von ihm finanzierten Völkermords zum Schweigen zu bringen.  Abu Sittah wird am 17. Mai 2024 mitniederländischen Abgeordneten und vor zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen an der Universität Amsterdam sprechen.  

Das European Legal Support Center (ELSC) ist die erste und einzige unabhängige Organisation, die die Palästina-Solidaritätsbewegung in Europa mit rechtlichen Mitteln verteidigt und stärkt. Wir bieten Verbänden, Menschenrechts-NGOs, Gruppen und Einzelpersonen, die sich für die Rechte der Palästinenser*innen auf dem europäischen Festland und im Vereinigten Königreich einsetzen, kostenlose Rechtsberatung und -hilfe an.  

  1. Für Presseanfragen an Alexander Gorski und ELSC wenden Sie sich bitte an Karim Bohnhoff: karim@elsc.support
  2. Für Presseanfragen zu ICJP wenden Sie sich bitte an press@icjpalestine.com
Categories
Case Update

VICTORY: “From the river to the sea” is protected speech, Dutch court rules! 

At a time when expressions of support for the Palestinian cause are facing criminalisation at utterly unprecedented levels across Europe, we draw attention to the Dutch court ruling: “From the river to the sea” fully legitimate!

What happened? 

After a Dutch activist gave a speech at a Palestine solidarity rally in May 2021 in Amsterdam, he was reported to the police by a supporter of Israel for ‘inciting hatred and violence against Jews’ by shouting ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ and expressing support for ‘Palestinian resistance’. 

The Dutch public prosecutor, however, refused to prosecute the activist, saying that the pro-Palestinian slogans he used are ‘are subject to various interpretations’ rather than calls for illegal conduct. The prosecutor added that they found the expressions ‘to relate to the state of Israel and possibly to people with Israeli citizenship, but do not relate to Jews because of their race or religion’.  

What was the role of the ELSC?  

After the prosecutor refused to prosecute the activist, the pro-Israel individual complained to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal against the prosecutor’s decision. This is when the ELSC stepped in and helped the activist find a lawyer from our network, Willem Jebbink. We also provided an academic expert to assist the lawyer in writing a defence statement. After more than two years, on the 15th of August, the court confirmed that the activist had not committed a criminal offence when chanting the slogan ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’. The court’s decision is final and cannot be appealed. 

Why is this an important victory? 

Some European states have weaponised the events of October 7th, 2023, enforcing unprecedented levels of repression against the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe. We are witnessing extraordinary restrictions being imposed on virtually all expressions of solidarity: Palestinian flags and kuffiyeh scarves are being banned and protest rallies are being systematically prohibited. The slogan ‘from the river to the sea’ is also increasingly being used as justification for repression on the false premise that it incites violence against the Jewish people. 

The strategy behind portraying this slogan as antisemitic is to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and silence discussion around and advocacy for the Palestinian cause. ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ holds incredible significance to all Palestinians because it reaffirms the right of return, the liberation of Palestine and freedom for the Palestinian people. It represents a political manifesto increasingly recognised around the world: justice for all Palestinians in historic Palestine and in exile.  

In view of Professor Marc Lamont Hill’s dismissal from U.S.-based news network CNN for expressing this very slogan, as well as the prosecution of several activists in Germany for chanting it, which is prohibited under a very limited reading of its significance, we welcome the Dutch court’s decision to protect human rights and political freedoms over Western states’ interests in repressing solidarity!  

With our help, this activist won this important legal battle. Both the public prosecutor and the court concluded that the slogan is not punishable and thus not worth prosecuting. This is a victory for all Palestinians and Palestinian rights activists, especially in these times of unprecedented anti-Palestinian racism and repression. 

Through collective action, we can succeed. This was only made possible thanks to your continuous support and deep dedication!  

SHARE THIS VICTORY 

As attacks against Palestinian rights advocacy continue in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, we invite you to join us in supporting the Palestinian struggle for liberation. Help us defend the right to advocate for justice! 

DONATE 

Any donation, large or small, will make a huge difference. We are stronger together! 

In solidarity, 

The ELSC team 

 

Categories
Case Update

Dr Anna Younes Surveillance’s Case: the Fight Continues with Two New Lawsuits

On 2 November 2022, exactly three years after she discovered RIAS’ covert surveillance of her activities and after two legal victories, Dr Anna Younes launches two new lawsuits. She requests the Administrative Court of Berlin to find the preparation and transmission of the secret dossier on her unlawful, and she requests compensation.

On November 1 2019, RIAS/MBR shared a secret dossier it had compiled on Dr Anna Younes with the head of Die Linke/The Left, framing her as an anti-Jewish racist, sexist, and terrorist sympathizer. This led to her hasty disinvitation from a panel discussion held the next day by the political party Die Linke/The Left. Three years later, the scholar is continuing her legal battle against this surveillance and censorship.

Dr Younes has already two legal victories to her credit since the Berlin District Court ordered RIAS/MBR to provide Dr Younes access to the secret dossier and the Berlin Data Protection Authority (DPA) ruled that RIAS/MBR violated European data protection law. However, the DPA found the preparation and transmission of the dossier by RIAS/MBR lawful on the basis of their ‘legitimate interest’ in influencing political actors. In doing so, the DPA failed to motivate its decision and to take into consideration the fundamental rights, freedoms, and interests of the scholar.

Today, Dr Younes demands that the administrative court review the controversial DPA’s decision and acknowledge that RIAS/MBR’s surveillance and false labelling of Dr Younes as an anti-Jewish racist violated her right to privacy and right to reputation.

In addition, she is filing a new civil lawsuit so that judges finally find the preparation and transmission of the dossier unlawful and order RIAS/MBR to cease the collection of her personal data. Dr Younes will also request compensation for the ensuing harm inflicted by RIAS/MBR for over two years.

“The two lawsuits are of paramount importance to challenge the repressive practices exercised by state-funded organisations such as RIAS Berlin and MBR. As long as German courts do not confirm their unlawfulness, those methods would become common-practice, unfettered and conducted without consideration of the individuals’s reputation and fundamental rights and freedoms. This is a crucial and collective legal battle.”

Giovanni Fassina, Director of the ELSC.

Indeed, Dr Younes is not alone in facing smears, repression and censorship for exercising her freedom of expression and bringing the Palestinian narrative into the public discourse around racism. For this reason, third parties will also intervene in the administrative lawsuit to portray the extent of the harm inflicted by such surveillance practices.

TAKE ACTION

Read more about the case and watch this video

Read and sign the support letter

Listen to the podcast featuring Dr Younes, Inna Michaeli and Alice Garcia (Advocacy and Communications Manager at ELSC

Donate to support Dr Younes in her legal battle as she reclaims her rights in court

Categories
Case Update Press Release

Four UN Special Rapporteurs Address Their Concerns to Austrian Authorities About Anti-BDS Resolution and Lawsuit Against Activist 

UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, SR on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, SR on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and SR on the situation of human rights defenders sent a communication to Austrian authorities, asking clarification on the City of Vienna’s anti-BDS resolution and the lawsuit the City filed against a BDS activist.  

In the communication sent on 20 May 2022, the SR raised their concerns about the resolution adopted in 2018, “which includes undue restrictions to the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and of association”. They further expressed “concern that the City of Vienna’s filing of a lawsuit against a member of BDS Austria may hinder the peaceful activities of human rights defenders committed to monitor and denounce human rights violations in occupied Palestine, shrinking the civic space available to them to express legitimate grievances”.  

The BDS Austria activist published a social media post showing a picture of the famous poster stating “Visit Apartheid” that was stuck on a billboard along with the official logo of the Municipality of Vienna. The post had the sarcastic caption “We are pleased that the City of Vienna also takes note of apartheid and publicly states it”.  In November 2021, the City of Vienna filed a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) against the activist on the grounds of defamation and unlawful use of the City’s logo. It claimed that the BDS movement “incites to hatred against Israeli people” and therefore being publicly associated with BDS would amount to defamation since “the designation of the situation in Israel/Palestine as an “Apartheid” constitutes damage to our reputation”. In a highly contestable decision delivered on 6 April 2022, the Commercial Court of Vienna endorsed the City’s lawsuit and ruled against the BDS activist. 

The SR are worried that “this judgement in the first instance consolidates the City of Vienna’s motion against the BDS movement”. The resolution, which falsely labels the BDS movement as “antisemitic”, was indeed invoked by the City in the lawsuit. As stated in a legal opinion commissioned by the ELSC and authored by Professors Xavier Dupré De Boulois, Eric David, Richard Falk and John Reynolds, the resolution infringes on the fundamental rights of freedoms of expression, association and assembly of Palestinian rights advocates. 

Moreover, the SR recalled the legality and legitimacy of the BDS movement: “we point out that expressing support for, or opposition to, BDS, is fully guaranteed by the rights to freedom of opinion, expression and association” enshrined in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights. They also cited the European Court of Human Rights milestone judgement Baldassi and Others v. France and positive case law confirming the right to BDS in France and Germany. The SR further added that “this is in line with the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)” which “stipulates that ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states’.” 

On 8 July 2022, the Austrian authorities replied to the communication, failing to respond to most of the requests sent by the Special Rapporteurs. Instead, they reiterated their baseless and unfounded claims targeting BDS Austria: “Their movement’s campaigns are often referred to as antisemitic”. They stood firm in a problematic position that was observed in the context of the lawsuit against BDS Austria and that contradicts the freedom of expression and protection of human rights defenders. 

The reply of the Austrian authorities makes the legal battle of the activist even more necessary in order to challenge the suppression of Palestinian rights advocacy in Austria. The BDS activist appealed the Court decision and is ready, if necessary, to stand before the European Court of Human Rights to assert his fundamental right to freedom of expression, a right enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

SUPPORT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – TAKE ACTION 

  • Donate to help the activist covering the legal fees 
  • Sign the petition co-sponsored by the ECCP to ask the Municipality of Vienna to stop its lawfare against BDS activists 

Read more about the case.

Categories
Case Update Press Release

New Course at Vienna Fine Arts Academy Signals Further Erasure of Palestinian Narrative

The ELSC expressly condemns the holding of a course that is likely to fuel insidious censorship of genuine anti-racist discourse.

In May 2022, Palestinian scholar Dr. Walaa Alqaisiya was hastily disinvited from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts’ Spring Curatorial Programme: Art Geographies. While the Academy refused to apologise and to clarify the internal process that led to her censorship, Walaa and her supporters pushed back and obtained the withdrawal of the remainder of the event from the Academy’s premises.

Adding insult to injury, the Academy is now hosting a year-long course entitled “Antiantianti: Conflicts about Antiantisemitism and Antiracism in the Politicized Art World”. While Eduard Freudmann and Petja Dimitrova, the course organisers, purportedly intend to reflect on “develop[ing] practices of solidarity that are simultaneously anti-racist and anti-anti-Semitic”, the abstract manifestly misrepresents the Palestine solidarity movement. It states that, “for decades, the conflict served as a projection screen for a political left” and that “supporting the Palestinian cause was taken for granted”.

Moreover, the course organisers chose two subjects of study: Dr. Alqaisiya’s disinvitation and the dismantling of an artwork in this year’s documenta edition. Neither Dr. Alqaisiya nor any contributor to the documenta fifteen exhibition were contacted prior to the preparation of this course. By cherry-picking two isolated incidents, Freudmann and Dimitrova deliberately extricate them from their broader context and thereby exclude entire fragments of the events.

In particular, the full picture of racism, and specifically anti-Palestinian racism, which took place in both instances, is absent from the course description, and its importance is explicitly downplayed. Had the course organisers intended to engage in a fully informed discussion on anti-racism, the abstract should have referred to a comprehensive factual overview, including the accounts relating to Dr. Alqaisiya’s differential treatment and to the unabashed, systematic racism that occurred at documenta fifteen.

The course further intends to study “different definitions of racism and antisemitism”, which begs the question – will the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and its examples be used as a parameter for discussion? If so, the course would likely steer the conversation away from anti-racism by eliminating the Palestinian narrative in favour of a widely criticised definition of antisemitism that conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism. This equation is extremely harmful to the global struggle against racism and the just pleas of the oppressed Palestinian people.

A space must be provided in academia for the free expression of sentiments of Palestinian solidarity, without repression. The ELSC therefore strongly condemns the maintenance of this course under the preconceptions expressed in its abstract, which is likely to harm individuals who are already facing outrageous smears and attacks.

Photo: Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, Schillerplatz 3, 1st district of Vienna, Peter Haas / CC BY-SA 3.0

Categories
Case Update Press Release

German Court Rules in Favour of Scholar Dr. Anna Younes in Digital Surveillance Case

European Legal Support Center (ELSC), Amsterdam and Berlin, May 17, 2022

On 6 May 2022, the Berlin District Court upheld Dr. Younes’ claims and ordered VDK – the German state-funded organisation that legally represents RIAS Berlin and MBR – to give Anna Younes access to data that the two civil society organisations had gathered on her and passed on to others. The information released so far reveals that RIAS and MBR have been collecting people’s personal data based on their “positions on Israel and BDS.”

In November 2019, RIAS and MBR created a secret dossier which depicted Dr. Younes as an anti-Jewish racist, terrorist sympathiser and sexist. The dossier was then sent to Katina Schubert, the head of the political party Die Linke/The Left in Berlin. This resulted in Dr. Younes’ exclusion from a public event organised by the party. This conduct infringed upon Dr. Younes’ right to privacy, freedom of expression, and academic freedom. RIAS/MBR’s actions amount to digital surveillance.

In March 2020, Dr. Younes, with the support of her lawyer and the ELSC, requested RIAS provide access to her personal data, based on data rights under EU Data Protection Law. RIAS/MBR refused. Therefore, she brought her case to the Berlin Data Protection Authority (DPA), and then to court. Additionally, she had to file two lawsuits at the beginning of April 2022, due to the non-processing of her case by the DPA.  

However, it was only after a public media campaign was launched and more than 1,000 scholars, organisations, artists, journalists and activists supported her, that the DPA finally acknowledged Dr. Younes’ right to access her data. On 2 May 2022, RIAS/MBR withdrew their original position that Dr. Younes had no right to access her data, released the secret dossier previously disseminated and finally acknowledged the merits of her claim. A few days later, the court also handed down its decision in favour of Dr. Younes.

Most importantly, RIAS/MBR admitted to collecting data on, “Dr. Younes’ positions on Israel and the BDS movement.” The latter is a classification that most likely derives from MBR/RIAS’ use of the contested “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism”.

Dr. Anna Younes and the ELSC welcome the decision of the District Court and the reconciliatory reaction of the DPA. The ELSC expects the DPA to acknowledge that RIAS and MBR illegally passed the secret dossier on to Katina Schubert, which led to a violation of Dr. Younes’ privacy rights – amongst other things.

Following this victory, Dr. Younes and her lawyer will request damages in court as RIAS/MBR prevented her from accessing her information for approximately two years. It also remains to be clarified whether RIAS and MBR have been storing further data other than those revealed in the disseminated dossier. 

“This is an important victory because organisations using the IHRA definition for the surveillance of Palestinian rights advocates will be required to provide access to the information they collect on individuals. We believe that this is not an isolated case and that there is a structural issue of profiling Palestinians and Palestinian rights advocates in Germany. This is what we intend to challenge further in court. This demeanour creates a chilling effect and limits democratic participation in public debate.” – Giovanni Fassina, Director of the ELSC.

Read more about the case and watch this video

Read and sign the support letter

Donate to support the case

Listen to the podcast featuring Dr Younes, Inna Michaeli and Alice Garcia (Advocacy and Communications Manager at ELSC)

Categories
Case Update Press Release

Viennese Court Endorses the City of Vienna’s SLAPP Against Palestinian Rights Advocate

European Legal Support Center (ELSC), Amsterdam and Vienna, April 13, 2022

In a highly contestable decision delivered on 6 April 2022 in the case between the City of Vienna and a member of BDS Austria, the Commercial Court of Vienna endorsed the City’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), ruling against the BDS activists. The Austrian activists will appeal this decision.

The judge ordered that the BDS activist must no longer use the logo of the City of Vienna in connection with any publication or public statement in order to avoid that the latter may be interpreted as issued by the City. The Court forbade the use of the City’s logo, although it was not proven in any way that the activist had ever done so.

The City sued the activist for publishing a sarcastic social media post that contained a picture of the famous “Visit Apartheid” poster attached to a billboard carrying the official logo of the City of Vienna. The City alleges that the BDS movement holds “antisemitic views” and “incites hatred against Israeli people”. Accordingly, it claimed that being publicly associated with BDS and with “the designation of the situation in Israel/Palestine as ‘Apartheid’ causes damage to [its] reputation”, and that this would therefore amount to defamation.

The judgement of the Vienna Court significantly deviates from prior judgments issued by the European Court of Human Rights, notably its judgment in Baldassi and Others v. France, as well as from emerging case law in Germany, all of which confirm the legitimacy of the Palestinian civil society-led BDS movement.

The Court’s decision is deeply problematic for the following reasons:

  1. The Court exclusively based its reasoning on the City’s documents, while disregarding the 22 pieces of evidence submitted on behalf of the BDS activist, including legal opinions of renowned international and Israeli scholars.
  2. The Court also ignored that the existence of an Israeli system of apartheid that oppresses the Palestinian people is a fact that has been meticulously documented by leading human rights organizations and UN experts, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’tselem and the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
  3. It was clear from the BDS activist’s social media post that the apartheid poster did neither originate from the City nor express the views of the City. The activist’s post was not a factual assertion but rather satirical humour, which was taken out of context and used to silence advocacy for Palestinian rights.

The BDS activist intends to appeal the decision and is ready, if necessary, to stand before the European Court of Human Rights to assert his fundamental right to freedom of expression, a right enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Regarding next steps, the activist’s lawyer, Elisabetta Folliero, said:

“My client wants to proceed with the appeal, which is crucial for the defence of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The City’s claim of financial compensation for damages and the cost of the legal proceedings, which my client will be required to pay if the appeals court upholds this controversial judgement, has already a chilling effect on support for Palestinian rights in Austria. For this reason, we ask for solidarity, including donations, which will support our appeal.”

TAKE ACTION

Categories
Case Update

Ask the Mayor of Vienna to End Strategic Lawsuit Against Palestinian Rights Advocate

In November 2021, the City of Vienna filed a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) against an activist to deliberately repress and intimidate BDS-Austria and Palestinian rights advocates. Such a tactic threatens democratic values and fundamental rights.

On 6 April 2022, in a highly contestable decision, the judge ruled in favor of the City of Vienna and ordered that the BDS activist must no longer use the logo of the City of Vienna in connection with any publication or public statement. Nevertheless, BDS Austria won’t be silenced and is determined to denounce the Israeli apartheid. The activist will appeal.

It is time to reinforce the pressure and show the City of Vienna that it cannot keep silencing lawful and legitimate activism!

Send an email to the Mayor of Vienna and ask him to end this undemocratic lawsuit.

Here is the content of the email that will be sent to the Vienna Mayor (the original email will be sent in German):

Dear Mayor Ludwig,

I am writing to you in protest of the City of Vienna’s recent intimidation lawsuit against Viennese activists of the worldwide, Palestinian-led, non-violent human rights campaign BDS. I am asking you to personally advocate for the City of Vienna to drop this lawsuit immediately.

The City‘s lawsuit against BDS Austria based on a Facebook post cannot be assessed as anything other than an attempt by the City of Vienna to intimidate civil society activism. In this case, the City of Vienna is suing BDS Austria because it made a social media post of a photo (!) of a poster with the inscription “Visit Apartheid”. The unknown poster-makers used the logo of the City of Vienna, and BDS Austria commented on sarcastically in the post. BDS Austria has committed neither defamation nor slander; instead, it has exercised its fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is not to be persecuted in a democratic society.

BDS Austria’s posts fit within the context of the Israeli occupation and annexation that violate international law and the implementation of an apartheid system (see e.g. the most recent Amnesty International Report on this). BDS is a human rights campaign – as seen in the anti-apartheid movement in the South African context – launched by Palestinian civil society; it is perfectly legal and legitimate to advocate for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against occupying regimes.

The City of Vienna is rightly in the crossfire of criticism already, after threatening Lobau climate activists with so-called SLAPPs (‘Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation’), which are clearly abusive lawsuits with the purpose of preventing critical civil society engagement, intimidating critics and financially draining them. This absurd new SLAPP contributes to this trend and negatively affects the City of Vienna’s image, in Austria and abroad.

It is also a continuation of the years-long practice of silencing Palestinian and Palestine-solidarity voices: from smear campaigns and unfounded allegations to undemocratic municipal and national council resolutions explicitly condemning the global, nonviolent BDS campaign. The current lawsuit by the City of Vienna follows this trend by demanding the deletion of a Facebook post and a multi-digit payment of damages (along with already intimidating effects of high court and legal fees) to the local BDS campaign. 

As a citizen concerned by freedom of expression and of assembly, I urge you to end these arbitrary restrictions and the criminalization of peaceful advocacy and human rights work and to personally advocate for the cessation of the lawsuit by the City of Vienna. Especially in times of crisis and upheaval, prudent and clear leadership that is transparently based on constitutional and human rights principles is important.

Regards

[people’s information here]

What else can you do to support the case?

  • Sign the petition to ask the City of Vienna to drop its lawsuit and repeal its anti-BDS resolution
  • Donate to help the activist with the legal fees
  • Spread the word on your social media with the hashtag #ViennaVisitApartheid

Categories
Case Update

The Negative Impact of the Vienna Anti-BDS Motion on the Rights of Freedoms Of Expression, Association and Assembly

This executive summary of the legal opinion published by the ELSC outlines how the ‘anti-BDS motion’ adopted by the Vienna City Council on 27 June 2018 and currently invoked in a lawsuit against BDS activist, infringes on the fundamental rights of freedoms of expression, association and assembly.

On the 29th of August 2021, BDS Austria published a social media post with a picture of the famous poster stating “Visit Apartheid” that was stuck on a billboard along with the official logo of the Municipality of Vienna. In November 2021, a member of BDS Austria was notified that the Municipality of Vienna officially filed a lawsuit against him. The Municipality, among other claims, accuses the BDS movement of “inciting hatred against Israeli people” and therefore being publicly associated with BDS would amount to defamation, since “the designation of the situation in Israel/Palestine as an ‘Apartheid’” constitutes damage to their reputation.

In response to these accusations, the Legal Opinion written by Professors Xavier Dupré De Boulois, Eric David, Richard Falk and John Reynolds establishes the legitimacy of the BDS movement and of the right to boycott by drawing on public international law, European and international human rights law.

Firstly, the Opinion illustrates that the BDS movement pursues a legitimate human rights agenda grounded in public international law, since:

I. Israel’s violations of peremptory norms of public international law are factually established. International bodies have consistently reported Israel’s non-compliance with, inter alia, the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the unlawful transfer of civilian population. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and leading human rights organisations have also substantially documented that the State of Israel commits the crime of apartheid.

II. Against this backdrop, the international community of State and non-State actors has a responsibility to take action:

A. States have a twofold duty to:

  1. refrain from recognising as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm of international law, and to
  2. refrain from providing aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such a breach.

B. The European Union and its Member States must respect and promote public international law, especially as regards the jus cogens right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and its ramifications.

C. Corporations must ensure respect for all internationally recognised human rights, as sanctioned by the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

III. Accordingly, the BDS movement pursues a legitimate aim by urging States and non-State entities to comply with their public international law obligations. Moreover, BDS is rooted in anti-racist principles, and it endorses non-violent measures to achieve its goals. It enjoys a broadly recognised legitimacy by UN Special Rapporteurs, international experts and scholars, civil society organisations, and officials of State and public institutions.

Secondly, the Opinion analyses the legitimacy of the BDS movement’s right to call for boycott from the perspective of international human rights law and ECHR law.

I. International human rights law affirms the BDS movement’s right to call for boycott

Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights respectively guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The right to promote, discuss and participate in boycott campaigns to raise awareness and advocate for the respect of human rights, is subsumed within these rights.

Under international human rights law, boycotting goods or institutions belonging to or coming from a given State does not constitute discrimination if it pursues a legitimate aim. In fact, BDS has the following goals:

  • Affecting the foreign commercial policy of the State of Israel, which commits grave violations of international law, and pressuring that State to cease such violations;
  • Targeting specifically those products that originate in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and those institutions, companies and individuals that are involved or complicit with the State of Israel’s grave violations of international law;
  • Inciting, rather than constraining, consumers to freely choose the products that they buy.

Therefore, the goal of the BDS call for boycott is not to advocate for an arbitrary discrimination of Israeli citizens, but to target a deliberate State policy and to promote compliance with public international law. The differential treatment afforded to the State of Israel by the BDS movement is solely directed at its policies and practices, not at the Jewish people.

II. The law of the Council of Europe affirms the BDS movement’s right to call for boycott

Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect the rights to freedom of expression, of association and of assembly. In particular, freedom to impart information and ideas, as a subset of freedom of expression, allows political debate and criticism of the government, which are crucial indicators of a free and democratic society.

The BDS movement is therefore entitled to criticise Israeli government policies and to inform the public about Israel’s violations of public international law, including through a call for boycott. In the recent case of Baldassi and Others v. France, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that “boycott is above all a means of expressing an opinion of protest. The call for a boycott […] therefore falls within the scope of […] Article 10 of the Convention”. It further stated: “incitement to differential treatment does not necessarily amount to incitement to discriminate”.

In conclusion, any action taken to silence the BDS movement or to obstruct its call for boycott represents an arbitrary and unlawful interference with the rights to freedom of expression, of association and of assembly, protected under European and international human rights law. The Vienna City Council’s anti-BDS motion as well the SLAPP initiated by the Municipality of Vienna both illustrate a few of the techniques used to curtail fundamental rights.

Download the executive summary.

Download the full legal opinion.

Categories
Case Update

Europeans Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) support BDS Austria and urge the Mayor of Vienna to desist from its lawsuit

On 25 January 2022, Europeans Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) sent a letter to the Mayor of Vienna, urging the Municipality to drop its lawsuit against a Palestinian rights advocate member of BDS Austria.

We urge the Municipality to desist from this meritless claim brought against BDS Austria in order to silence their voice. As a State institution, we ask you to stand alongside those who respect the law and to desist from your lawsuit, which constitutes an unjustified attack on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

States the letter.

As Jewish groups which stand up for human rights and international law, they reject the allegations brought against the activist and BDS Austria as well as the anti-BDS motion of the City Council of Vienna. EJJP defends the legitimacy of BDS Austria and argues that the group lawfully criticises the State of Israel’s policies, including Israeli apartheid.

EJJP is a federation of 11 European Jewish peace groups campaigning in 9 countries throughout Europe against the occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel and in favour of a durable peace solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Read the whole letter here.

Also see the EJJP annex listing rulings where courts acknowledged the lawfulness of BDS advocacy.

Picture: City Hall of Vienna © Creative Commons, Wien Rathaus hochauflösend, Thomas Ledl, 3 June 2015

Categories
Case Update

German Court dismisses the complaint against the Bundestag’s anti-BDS resolution. The plaintiffs announce: “We will appeal!”

On October 7, 2021, the Administrative Court of Berlin held the first hearing on the complaint filed in 2020 by the Palestinian-Jewish-German initiative Bundestag 3 for Palestine (BT3P) that aimed at challenging the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolution adopted by the Bundestag in 2019.

Since 2020, the ELSC has been supporting the BT3P team and lawyer Ahmed Abed to challenge the resolution that falsely condemns the movement as antisemitic and severely impacted Palestinian rights advocacy resulting in smears and denial of public space whilst infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Read more in our case summary here.

Also see the summary of the statement of claim in the proceedings before the Administrative Court of Berlin.

During the hearing, BT3P clarified that their efforts to guarantee equal rights for all people in Palestine and Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Conversely, the Bundestag’s legal representatives questioned the BT3P’s legal standing to challenge the resolution, as the latter does not directly mention the plaintiffs. Moreover, the Bundestag’s legal team challenged the jurisdiction of the Court on the complaint and pointed out that the legal issues at stake should be addressed to the Federal Constitutional Court.

The Court did not agree with these preliminary remarks made by the Bundestag and recognised both its jurisdiction on the case and BT3P’s legal standing to challenge the resolution. On the merits, the three judges ruled that the fundamental rights of the complainants have not been violated and the Bundestag is allowed to use the controversial IHRA-WDA as a parameter to assess antisemitism.

The hearing was followed by a press conference in which Associate Professor of International Law John Reynolds, who was instructed by the ELSC to write a legal opinion on the motion along with three other renowned scholars of international law[1], underlined that the Bundestag anti-BDS resolution is incompatible with international and European human rights standards, including the right to freedom of expression. Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK’s director Ben Jamal, and Bertrand Heilbronn, president of the AFPS (Association France Palestine Solidarité) also contributed, expressing solidarity and sharing their experience of anti-BDS policies and legislation in France and the UK.

Amir Ali, one of the plaintiffs, stated the following: “We will appeal. With this complaint we are opposing the systematic suppression of human rights work for Palestinians in Germany ”. The legal representative of the BT3P initiative, lawyer Ahmed Abed, pointed out that it is already a success that the Court has rejected the Bundestag’s attempt to exclude the plaintiffs’ right to challenge the Bundestag’s resolution and added: “We see good chances for the next instance”.

See the BT3P website and support them here.

Watch the press conference (in German) – See in English John Reynolds’ and Ben Jamal’s interventions from min 14:40 to 22:30 and Bertrand Heilbronn’s intervention from 48:00 to 52:00.

© picture: Mathilde Babo

References

References
↑1 Eric David, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Xavier Dupre De Boulois, Professor of Law of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University and Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, Queen Mary University London
Categories
Case Update Event

Berlin Administrative Court holds hearing for lawsuit of BT3P against German Bundestag

Since 2020, the ELSC has been supporting the BT3P team with lawyer Ahmed Abed to challenge the German Bundestag’s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution that condemns the movement as antisemitic. Next week, the Berlin Administrative Court will hold a hearing on the case.

The Palestinian-Jewish-German initiative Bundestag 3 for Palestine (BT3P) filed their lawsuit against the Bundestag’s in May 2020. Their goal is to nullify the anti-BDS resolution which was adopted in May 2019. The resolution has had a significant chilling effect on Palestinian rights advocacy resulting in smears and denial of public space whilst infringing on the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Read more in our case summary here.

On October 7, 2021 at 12pm, the Berlin Administrative Court will hold a hearing on the case where the parties to submit their oral arguments.

The BT3P team is calling all interested parties to rally in front of the building of the Berlin Administrative Court on October 7, 2021 at 11am (Kirchstrasse 7 in Berlin).

A press conference will take place after the hearing at 4pm with the BT3P team and their lawyer Ahmed Abed, and international partners including Ben Jamal, Director of the UK Palestine Campaign Solidarity, Bertrand Heilbronn, President of AFPS (France Palestine Solidarity Association), Professor John Reynolds, expert on International Law (National University of Galway, Ireland).

You can register here:

  • to join us and be present at the rally and/or at the press conference in Berlin
  • or to join the press conference online
Categories
Case Update

New Lawsuit against Denial of Public Space for Palestine-Related Event

In Germany, the campaigners Bundestag 3 for Palestine (BT3P) have initiated another strategic litigation. They are now challenging the city of Munich before the Administrative Court to be granted a public facility to host a panel discussion.

The event is planned for 20 March to coincide with the Israeli Apartheid Week 2021. Judith Bernstein, Amir Ali and Christoph Glanz will discuss the Israeli regime of apartheid, and how the German public can take steps to denounce and challenge the oppression of the Palestinian people.

Last November, BT3P had successfully petitioned the Administrative Court of Hessen against the City of Frankfurt. Similar to earlier decisions of three other German Courts, the Hessian Administrative Court ruled that the denial of public spaces for BDS events violates fundamental rights and instructed the City to revoke the facility ban.

These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle against the Bundestag anti-BDS motion brought by BT3P campaigners represented by lawyer Ahmed Abed and assisted by the ELSC.

Filed in May 2020, the complaint against the Bundestag argues that, despite its non-legally binding nature, the motion has a law-like effect leading to restrictions on the freedoms of expression and assembly. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the motion exposes human rights organisations and activists to public defamation as antisemitic rather than granting them protection and support.

After a request for delay granted by the Administrative Court of Berlin, the Bundestag is finally due to handover its first legal defence on 25 March.

BT3P has just launched an English version of their website! You can support by sharing the campaign and donating to cover the cost of legal proceedings.

Categories
Case Update

German court ruled the denial of public spaces for BDS events is violating fundamental rights

On 4 December, the city of Frankfurt has been ordered by a temporary injunction from the Administrative Court of Hessen to provide a venue to the Bundestag 3 for Palestine (BT3P) campaigners to host an event.

As the Bavarian Administrative Court, the Cologne Administrative Court and the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court, the Hessian Administrative Court ruled that it could not find any antisemitic claims in the BDS movement and thus lifted all room bans for BDS activists and supporters.

This is another significant victory for the right to boycott and an encouraging support to the ongoing lawsuit brought by BT3P asking to nullify the 2019 Bundestag anti-BDS motion.

Read more [German]

Categories
Case Update

We are suing the German Bundestag over its 2019 anti-BDS motion

Over the past months, the ELSC has been assisting the Berlin-based lawyer Ahmed Abed who is representing three plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought before the Administrative Court of Berlin challenging the lawfulness of the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) motion passed by the German Bundestag on 17 May 2019. The public campaign Bundestag 3 for Palestine (BT3P) is raising awareness and support for the lawsuit. We hope you will be able to support it through your network and channels.

What the case is about

The action aims to nullify the Bundestag anti-BDS motion based on its violation of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and assembly both under German law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR – Article 10 and Article 11).

The plaintiffs are: Judith Bernstein, a Jewish German activist born in Jerusalem; Amir Ali, a Palestinian German citizen whose family was displaced from Haifa during the Nakba in 1948; and Christoph Glanz, an anti-racism and Palestinian rights activist.

“What unites us three plaintiffs is our unconditional commitment to human rights. We oppose all forms of racism, discrimination and oppression without any exception. Our commitment to the Palestinian cause and BDS arises from this very obligation and these values,” states their principles.

Called “Resisting the BDS movement decisively – fighting antisemitism”, the Bundestag motion claims without any basis that “the pattern of argument and methods of the BDS movement are antisemitic”. Consequently, it calls on all authorities to withhold funding, and deny public spaces to organisations or groups that show support for the BDS movement.

Although the Bundestag motion is not legally binding, states (Länder), municipalities and local authorities as well as private companies de facto comply with it. Moreover, several states and cities had already adopted similar motions since 2017.

The dangerous conflation of the movement with antisemitism rests upon the acceptance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism – which is quoted in the Bundestag anti-BDS motion – that allows for an illegitimate and inaccurate amalgam of antisemitism and criticism of the State of Israel.

These have created a significant chilling effect on advocates for Palestinian rights in the country: German and international artists, intellectuals and academics have had invitations to events or prizes withdrawn, speeches cancelled and applications for public spaces denied, in direct violation of their fundamental rights.

Why you should support
The ELSC has mobilised resources to assist lawyer Abed in the preparation of the case. Among others, we provided the expert opinion “Legal implications of the anti-BDS Decision adopted by the German Bundestag on 17 May 2019” signed by four professors of international law (Eric David, Emeritus Professor of International Law at the Université Libre de Bruxelles; Xavier Dupré De Boulois, Professor of Law of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne;

Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University and Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, Queen Mary University London; and John Reynolds, Lecturer of Public International Law and Programme Director of the International Justice LL.M at the National University of Ireland Maynooth).

Submitted to the court on 15 July 2020, the opinion demonstrates that the Bundestag motion is incompatible with European and international human rights standards. We are now waiting for the court to set a hearing date.

The ELSC and lawyer Abed have already successfully carried out legal actions against local anti-BDS motions. On 13 September 2019, the Administrative Court of Cologne thwarted the City of Bonn’s anti-BDS motion, ruling it is unlawful and undermined the fundamental right of freedom of expression as well as freedom of assembly protected under Article 5(2) of the Basic Law. Furthermore, the recent landmark judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case Baldassi and Others v. France confirmed and reinforced that the call to boycott is a citizen’s right, and a legitimate tool of protest that falls within the freedom of expression protected by Article 10(1) of the ECHR.

This lawsuit aims to stop the use of soft law instruments for criminalising peaceful activities calling on Israel to comply with International law. This is a crucial legal battle for freedom of speech; the first of its kind at federal level.

Support us by spreading the word about the lawsuit, organising discussion rounds and lectures, donating to cover the costs of the lawsuit or by publicly speaking out for freedom and justice for Palestinian people.

#BT3P #RightToBoycott #RightToBDS #FreedomOfExpression #NoIHRA

Read our case summary

Categories
Case Update

Best Quotes of the Milestone Judgement for the Right to Boycott

ECtHR Logo
European Court of Human Rights logo

Thursday 11 June 2020 marked a decisive victory for freedom of expression of Palestinian rights defenders in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights Court (ECtHR) rendered its judgement, unanimously ruling that the French highest court’s criminal conviction of BDS activists campaigning for a boycott of Israeli products violated their freedom of expression, protected by article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In 2009, 11 campaigners advocating for Palestinian rights were charged with ‘incitement to economic discrimination’ under an anti-discrimination law of 1881 for distributing leaflets in supermarkets in eastern France calling for the boycott of Israeli goods. They were sentenced with a suspended fine of €1,000 and €7,000 in damages in 2013 and France’s highest appeals’ court upheld the convictions in 2015, positioning the country as the only democracy where the call for a boycott by a citizens’ movement to criticize the policies of a third state is prohibited.

The ECtHR ruling provides that “the Court considered that the applicants’ conviction had lacked any relevant or sufficient grounds,” and that the call to boycott is a citizen’s right, a legitimate tool of protest, as long as it is motivated by criticism of a state and its policies. Therefore, it is not in itself discriminatory and should be considered in the light of all the circumstances.

Moreover, the court stresses that the respect of international law by Israel and the human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory are subjects of general interest, part of a contemporary debate, open in France and throughout the international community.

In addition to the judgement, Judge O’Leary expressed a partly dissenting opinion arguing there is also a violation of article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no punishment without law) as claimed by the applicants since they were convicted on the basis of section 24(8) of the Law of 29 July 1881 on freedom of the press of ‘incitement to economic discrimination’, whereas that law doesn’t cover economic discrimination.

This ECtHR decision is a clear message to all European states that are misusing anti-discrimination laws to target peaceful activists campaigning against human rights violations perpetrated by Israel. The BDS movement is beyond any doubt an anti-racist and anti-discriminatory movement pursuing a legitimate human right agenda for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality.

Here are the best quotes from the judgement:

It is undisputed that a call for a boycott of Israeli products falls under the right of freedom of expression protected by article 10 ECHR.

1. “The applicants’ conviction amounted to an “interference” with their freedom of expression. Moreover, this aspect did not give rise to any controversy between the parties.” (§58)

2. “The boycott is above all a means of expressing an opinion of protest. The call for a boycott, which aims to communicate those views while also calling for specific actions linked to them, therefore falls within the scope of the principle protected by Article 10 of the Convention.” (§63)

3. “The call for a boycott is, however, a special modality of exercising freedom of expression in that it combines the expression of a protesting opinion and encouraging differential treatment so that, depending on its circumstances, it may to constitute a call for discrimination of others. The call for discrimination falls within the scope of the call for intolerance, which, together with the call for violence and the call for the hatred, is one of the limits not to be exceeded under any circumstances in the context of the exercise of freedom of expression (see, for example, Perinçek, cited above, § 240) However, incitement to differential treatment does not necessarily amount to incitement to discriminate.” (§64)

4. “On the other hand, the applicants obviously sought to provoke or stimulate the debate among consumers in supermarkets by carrying out the actions calling for a boycott that led to the prosecution they denounce before the court.” (§70)

5. “The Court goes on to observe that the applicants have not been convicted for uttering racist or antisemitic remarks or for calling for hatred or violence. Nor have they been convicted for violence or for causing damage during the events of the 26 September 2009 and 22 May 2010. It is also very clear from the record that there was no violence or damage. The hypermarket in which the applicants carried out their actions, moreover, were not a party to the civil proceedings before the domestic courts.” (§71)

Political discourse, such as BDS, is matter of general interest and is essential in a democratic society.

6. “In other words, the internal [French] judge did not establish that, with respect to the circumstances of the case, the applicants’ conviction on the grounds of their call for a boycott of products from Israel was necessary, in a democratic society, to achieve the legitimate aim pursued, namely the protection of the rights of others, in the sense of the second paragraph of Article 2(2) of the Convention paragraph of Article 10.” (§77)

7. “A detailed motivation, however, was all the more essential in this case where Article 10 of the Convention requires a high level of protection of the right to freedom of expression. On the one hand, the actions and comments of the applicants concerned a subject of general interest, that of the State of Israel’s respect for public international law and the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, and were part of a contemporary debate, open in France as well as in the entire international community. On the other hand, these actions and statements were political and militant. The Court has repeatedly pointed out that Article 10-2 leaves little room for restrictions on freedom of expression in the area of political discourse or matters of general interest.” (§78)

8. “Political discourse by its very nature is a source of controversy and is often virulent. It is still in the public interest, however, unless it degenerates into a call for violence, hatred or intolerance. The latter is the limit that must not be exceeded. » (§79)

9. “The Court concludes from this that the applicants’ conviction is not based on relevant and sufficient grounds. It is not satisfied that the judge has applied rules that are in conformity with the principles enshrined in Article 10 and based on an acceptable assessment of the facts.” (§80)