“All of a sudden nobody is responsible; everyone has power, but nobody is responsible. You can’t talk to them because they will not meet any of your demands. They will not support you if you’re not showing both sides… If you have a one-sided conversation, I want to bring another side to it.” (Interview with anonymous participant 1, conducted by the author on 25.06.2024 in Potsdam).
This quote comes from one of the many student activists I interviewed in connection with this project. The research, conducted over 3 months, seeks to document the dynamics of pro-Palestine student activism in Berlin, particularly in relation to the movement’s interaction with university administrations and state authorities. To achieve this, I adopted a qualitative approach, focusing on one-on-one in-depth interviews with activists from various collectives across Berlin’s universities. These interviews aim to capture the personal narratives and diverse experiences of students involved in the movement, allowing for a detailed analysis of their motivations, challenges, and strategies for navigating institutional repression. Institutional repression in this context involves university administrations and state authorities systematically attempting to stifle pro-Palestinian activism. This includes measures such as denying permits for events and demonstrations, implementing restrictive policies that limit freedom of assembly, monitoring and surveillance of activist groups, and taking disciplinary actions against students who participate in protests.
The research includes participants from key organizations such as the Student Coalition Berlin (SCB)[1] and Stand Up for Palestine (SU4P)[2], whose decentralized and anti-colonial organizing principles form the backbone of the movement. Ethical considerations are central to the project, with all participants being fully informed of their rights and ensuring their anonymity to protect their safety. This approach allows the study to offer a nuanced understanding of how the Pro-Palestinian movement in Berlin both reflects and diverges from broader global trends in student activism, contributing to a deeper exploration of the political and social impact of such movements in contemporary society.
This stark observation, made in the initial quote, by a student activist in Berlin encapsulates the frustrations and growing fears of those participating in the ongoing pro-Palestinian student movement. The student’s frustration with the ambiguous power of the state, and more specifically the police, reflects the deeper issues of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, [1980] 1990, 2001) and police brutality that have marred protests across the globe, including recent incidents in Berlin. Symbolic violence, as defined by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, refers to the subtle ways power is exerted through societal norms and expectations, often resulting in marginalized groups being systematically silenced. In this case, university policies and policing practices subtly undermine the legitimacy of pro-Palestinian activists, reinforcing state control without overt coercion. From the streets of Berlin to the campuses of Humboldt University, police brutality has become a highly visible manifestation of state power, as activists challenge the legitimacy of institutional violence, drawing both from historical examples and their lived experiences.
The phenomenon of police brutality in Berlin’s pro-Palestinian student movement is not an isolated event. It reflects a broader historical pattern of state repression against dissent that has occurred throughout history. The recent protests, including the Humboldt University (HU) occupation, saw law enforcement employing aggressive tactics that resulted in the injury and criminalization of protesters (Casey, 2024). The HU occupation, in particular, became a focal point of controversy, as police moved in to quell the protests, following orders from Berlin Mayor, Kai Wegner, leading to violent altercations between law enforcement and students (Casey, 2024).
A significant comparison can be made between these recent events and historical instances of state repression, such as the 1969 student protests in the Congo. This comparison underscores the persistent global pattern of using police brutality to maintain the status quo. According to Monaville (2013), students in the Congo, dissatisfied with the incomplete process of decolonization, mobilized to challenge the remaining colonial structures. This was not simply a protest about the present—it was about the unfulfilled promises of independence. Yet, when these students took to the streets to demand change, they were met with brutal police violence. The state’s violent response mirrored the repression seen in other parts of the world during times of social upheaval, illustrating a global pattern of using police brutality as a tool to maintain the status quo. In the Congo, the repression of student activism underscored the lengths to which the state would go to silence dissent. The violence was not just about maintaining order but also about sending a message: those who challenge the state risk their lives and livelihoods. This violent crackdown served to fragment and delegitimize the student movement, branding activists as violent extremists—a tactic that has been used repeatedly across different contexts, including in Berlin.
As one reflects on these historical examples, a recurring theme becomes clear: state violence is used not only to suppress dissent in the immediate moment but also to undermine the legitimacy of protest movements over time. However, it’s important to recognize that the scale and intensity of police responses can vary significantly. In Berlin, while there have been instances of excessive force, the police response often includes tactics like surveillance and the enforcement of restrictive protest laws. In contrast, the 1969 student protests in the Congo were met with far more brutal and overt violence. Whether in the streets of Berlin or in post-colonial Congo, the state’s use of force seeks to delegitimize protesters, presenting them as threats to public order, rather than as individuals seeking justice (Monaville, 2013).
The violence witnessed during the Humboldt University occupation offers a window into how police brutality manifests in contemporary Berlin. This can be seen in the following excerpt from an interview:
“…the person who was like smashed to the ground with their head that person could have died that day. It was just that it did not happen, not because the police know how to handle things and how to bring people close to death but not kill them. He was just fortunate really. And if they continue doing things that they didn’t learn in there, then they will become like Auschwitz. Like for example beating with their fists, that’s not de-escalation, that’s just escalating and showing violence. Kicking people as well is not de-escalation, especially if no one attacks you, and showing up in this kind of uniform, with this kind of weapons that they have, I feel like it’s just going towards more and more escalation, and maybe even serious injury or death” (Interview with anonymous participant 2, conducted by the author on 25.06.2024 in Potsdam).
This haunting statement reflects the severity of the situation: law enforcement’s aggressive tactics were not only repressive but potentially life-threatening. The interviewee’s comparison, though extreme, highlights the profound fear and anger felt by activists who perceive the police actions as an affront to their rights and freedoms. It underscores the intense emotional response elicited by the German Staatsräson[3] and the broader implications of state power on personal liberties.
The police response, marked by the use of fists, kicks, and riot gear, escalated the situation rather than de-escalating it (Casey, 2024). The interviews I conducted revealed how, Protesters, many of whom were non-violent, were met with unnecessary force, creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust. This overwhelming show of force, with officers equipped in riot gear pushing protesters onto narrow streets, created panic and confusion. These tactics echoed those used in historical protests, where law enforcement has often sought to intimidate and silence activists through physical violence (Monaville, 2013).
The fear that this violence may escalate into something even more dangerous is deeply rooted in historical precedent. As Frantz Fanon (1961) elucidated in his analysis of revolutionary movements, state violence often intensifies in response to challenges from the oppressed. This pattern is evident in the escalation of police brutality witnessed during the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s worldwide. In the context of the current protests in Berlin, such historical insights raise significant concerns about the potential for increased state repression. These concerns highlight the precarious position of activists who face not only immediate physical dangers but also the broader implications of state power exerting control over dissent.
Beyond the physical violence witnessed during the protests, there is also the issue of symbolic violence. Symbolic violence, as theorized by Pierre Bourdieu ([1980] 1990, 2001), refers to the subtle, often unnoticed ways in which institutions reinforce social hierarchies and inequalities. In the case of the Humboldt University protests, symbolic violence was manifest in the refusal of university administrators to engage meaningfully with student demands. The decision by HU President Blumenthal to halt negotiations with students, coupled with Berlin Mayor Kai Wegner’s authorization of the police crackdown, exemplified how institutional power operates to suppress dissent without necessarily resorting to overt physical force (Casey, 2024).
The HU protests were not just a confrontation between students and police; they were a confrontation with the institution itself. The university, a place ostensibly dedicated to knowledge and free inquiry, became a site of repression, legitimizing both symbolic and physical violence against its students. This reflects a broader global pattern, seen in student protests in places like South Africa during the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements. In these cases, the university became a battleground where students fought against the symbolic violence of colonial legacies and economic exclusion, only to be met with harsh physical repression (Ferguson, 2017).
At HU, the protests became an arena where symbolic and physical violence intersected. The students’ demands for justice and decolonization were met not with dialogue but with riot gear and batons, illustrating how institutions often enact multiple forms of violence to maintain control. This multifaceted repression—comprising police brutality, administrative intransigence, and ideological dismissal—reinforces the power structures that students are protesting against. The perception of the Humboldt University occupation among students further underscores this paradox. One interviewee remarked:
“I don’t think there was an outcome in the university besides students being criminalized very harshly… It just looks like the university is not a safe place. And it just shows that without the occupation, the students wouldn’t have had the opportunity to talk to the president or anyone else, because no one’s listening to them, even if they occupy a building, they just remove them because they don’t care about them” (Interview with anonymous participant 1, conducted by the author on 25.06.2024 in Potsdam).
Frantz Fanon’s analysis of revolutionary movements provides a useful framework for understanding the state’s response to student activism. In his seminal work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon (1961) observed that when the oppressed begin to challenge their oppressors, they are often urged to “be reasonable” and avoid allowing their movements to become violent or regressive. This call to moderation serves to maintain the status quo, as it discourages genuine, transformative change. In the context of the Berlin protests, this dynamic is evident in the authorities’ responses, which often emphasize maintaining public order over addressing the root causes of dissent. By invoking Fanon’s perspective, we can see how these responses are part of a broader strategy to suppress transformative activism, highlighting the systemic barriers to substantial change and the need for a decolonial approach to addressing these issues.
One interviewer noted that the police treated the pro-Palestinian activists as though they were dangerous, even though they were non-violent. The interviewee remarked, “they treat actual criminals as humans… but when you stand outside a building and ask for a ceasefire, the police try to remove you in riot gear.” This reflects Fanon’s observation that when activists rise up, they are immediately branded as irrational and dangerous, triggering a violent backlash from the state (Fanon, 1961).
The parallels between Berlin and other historical contexts, such as the student protests in South Africa and the Congo, underscore how violence is employed to reinforce symbolic power and maintain the status quo. The first-hand accounts from the HU protests highlight the fear and escalation of violence that characterize these encounters, reflecting a persistent global trend. This analysis suggests that the events in Berlin are part of a recurring cycle of repression and resistance, raising critical concerns about the potential for increased brutality and its impact on the future of activism. As the international community demands accountability, it becomes increasingly important to recognize and address the historical roots of state violence to protect the rights to protest and free expression in democratic societies.
Bibliography
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford, Ca: Stanford University Press.
Casey, R. (2024) ‘Punched, choked, kicked: German police crack down on student protests’, Al Jazeera, 25 May. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/5/25/punched-choked-kicked-german-police-crack-down-on-student-protests (Accessed: 13 August October 2024).
Fanon, F. (1961). The Wretched of the Earth. Cape Town: Kwela Books.
Ferguson, R.A. (2017). We Demand : the University and Student Protests. University Of California Press.
Fröhlich, A. (2024). Die Selbsttäuschung der Humboldt-Universität: Die Besetzung in Berlin war kein Dialog. [online] Tagesspiegel.de. Available at: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/die-selbsttauschung-der-humboldt-universitat-die-besetzung-in-berlin-war-kein-dialog-11709164.html [Accessed 13 Aug. 2024].
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. (2024). Statement zum Ende der Besetzung des Instituts für Sozialwissenschaften der HU am 23. Mai 2024. [online] Available at: https://www.hu-berlin.de/de/pr/nachrichten/mai-2024/nr-24523-1 [Accessed 13 Aug. 2024].
Interview with anonymous participant 1, conducted by the author on 25 June 2024 in Potsdam.
Interview with anonymous participant 2, conducted by the author on 25 June 2024 in Potsdam.
Interview with anonymous participant 3, conducted by the author on 25 June 2024 in Potsdam.
Jäckels, P. (2024). HU-Besetzung:»Wir haben etwas Außergewöhnliches erreicht«. [online] nd-aktuell.de. Available at: https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1182496.krieg-in-gaza-hu-besetzung-wir-haben-etwas-aussergewoehnliches-erreicht.html [Accessed 13 Aug. 2024].
Klikauer, T. (2018). Alternative for Germany: Germany’s new right-wing extremists. Journal of Labor and Society, 21(4), pp.611–629. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/wusa.12365.
Lakhani, A. (2018). Umberto Eco, Fascism and Tradition.
Lui, A. (2000). Looking Back at Tiananmen Square. Peace Review, 12(1), pp.139–145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/104026500113935.
Melka, R. (1969). Nazi Germany and the Palestine question. Middle Eastern Studies, 5(3), pp.221–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206908700130.
Monaville, P. (2022). Students of the world : global 1968 and decolonization in the Congo. Durham: Duke University Press.
Pohlandt-McCormick, H. (2010). “I saw a nightmare– ” doing violence to memory : the Soweto uprising, June 16, 1976. Columbia University Press.
Rubinstein, E.A. (1969). Paradoxes of student protests. American Psychologist, 24(2), pp.133–141. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027212.
Settler, F. (2019). Curating Violence: Reflecting on Race and Religion in Campaigns for Decolonizing the University in South Africa. Religions, 10(5), p.310. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10050310.
Sisifo Mxolisi Ndlovu (1998). The Soweto uprisings : counter-memories of June 1976. Randburg: Ravan Press.
Staff, A. (2024). Amnesty slams German police violence against peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters. [online] Aa.com.tr. Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/amnesty-slams-german-police-violence-against-peaceful-pro-palestinian-protesters/3307859 [Accessed 13 Aug. 2024].
Stevkovski, L. (2015). The Rise of Right-Wing Extremism in European Union. International Studies. Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, 17(1), pp.43–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ipcj-2015-0004.
[1] The SCB serves as the “umbrella” organization for all other Berlin Collectives. Their official description is “Anti-colonial coalition of 10+ student collectives, upholding the liberation of Palestine as a political compass for collective justice and liberation.”
[2] They describe themselves a “political movement of students at the University of Potsdam for the freedom of Palestine and the decolonization of science and university policy!”, as translated from German to English from their official Instagram biography, found at: https://www.instagram.com/stand_up_forpalestine/.
[3] Staatsräson is a German term that translates to “reason of state” or “national interest.” It refers to the principle that the survival and well-being of the state are paramount and can justify actions that might otherwise be considered illegal or unethical12. This concept is often invoked in discussions about state security, foreign policy, and other critical areas where the state’s interests are considered to override other considerations
