Offener Brief von Lehrenden, Universitätsangestellten, Studierenden und Bürger*innen an Bundeskanzler Merz

Vigorous words are not enough

Open letter from teachers, university employees, students, and citizens in Germany to Chancellor Merz dated 9 July 2025

Dear Chancellor Merz

The military attacks on the Gaza Strip and Israel’s widespread refusal to allow humanitarian aid into the area have now been going on for over 20 months.
  At least 50,000 people have been killed. According to medical experts, an unknown but enormous number of people have died from hunger, malnutrition, war-related illness or lack of medical treatment. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many renowned international law experts now describe Israel’s actions as genocide, while other observers, such as the Israeli human rights group B’tselem, speak of ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
  In addition to these terrible terms, there is now also a new word that particularly concerns us as university members: scholasticide. Among other things, it means that since October 2023, no child in the Gaza Strip has attended school regularly, that over 10,000 schoolchildren and hundreds of their teachers have been killed, and that Israel’s attacks have destroyed all universities in the Gaza Strip. Irreplaceable archives, document collections and libraries were also affected.
  Against this backdrop, Western countries have voiced sharp criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war in recent weeks. You and the Federal Government you lead have also spoken out clearly on occasion – a development that we welcome and support.
  But as in the example of American President Joe Biden – who repeatedly set red lines for Israel, and which Israel disregarded each time without consequence – vigorous words are not enough.
  Israeli government officials, from Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and Defence Minister Israel Katz to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have repeatedly made outrageous statements expressing an intent to violate international law along with the most basic principles of humanity.
  Unfortunately, the Israeli government’s actions show that this is not just heated rhetoric, but rather intentions that guide Israel’s military and political actions. We believe that the commendable clear statements made by the most powerful European states, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, must now be followed by action.
  Because of its great power, but also because of the dark periods in its past, Germany in particular has a responsibility here. Germany must make it clear that the magnificent and timely slogan “Never again is now” applies to everyone.
  We must take a stand against genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless of who commits these acts. Germany must therefore now advocate for:

• An immediate ceasefire.

• The immediate resumption of international aid deliveries to Gaza.

• The release of all Israeli hostages in exchange for the release of most of the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israel and the occupied territories.

• The complete withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and a definitive end to hostilities.

• The reconstruction of the Gaza Strip without the displacement of Palestinians and with international assistance.

In fact, this was precisely what was stated in the agreement negotiated between Israel and Hamas in January 2025 with the mediation of the United States, which brought relief to all sides.
  Unfortunately, Israel unilaterally broke this agreement in March 2025, with disastrous consequences for prisoners on both sides, but above all for the civilian population in Gaza.
  Even after more than 20 months of devastating warfare, Israel continues to rely on violence, and this path of violence must finally be stopped.
  Fortunately, Germany has many legitimate non-military means at its disposal to achieve this, including:

• A clear language that defines all crimes as crimes, not only when they are committed by Hamas or other opponents, but also when they are committed by Israel.

• The unequivocal clarification that the Federal Republic of Germany’s commitment to Israel can never be a commitment to the crimes of the respective Israeli government.

• An immediate arms embargo against Israel, which, at least in theory, also applies retroactively to weapons that have already been delivered and are still in use.

• The revocation of economic (e.g., EU Association Agreement) and other privileges that Israel enjoys as a non-European state in Germany and Europe.

• Targeted but drastic economic sanctions as long as Israel continues to engage in what human rights organisations describe as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Germany, the EU, Europe, and the US can do all this individually and collectively, joining forces with the frequently invoked international community.
  As the head of government, you and your colleagues in your government are surely aware of many other practical measures that can be taken.
  We urge you to make use of all these measures and to inform the democratic public about the results.

Teachers, university staff, students, and citizens
  call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2025/nr-17-5-august-2025-1/starke-worte-reichen-nicht-aus

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Secret antisemitism research. Envoy Jillian Segal hides evidence?
by Emma Thomas

Jillian Segal, the government-appointed Special Envoy for Antisemitism, has refused to answer questions from the NSW parliament about her plan. Emma Thomas reports.

The Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism has been heavily critiqued since it was released last month. The plan proposes a suite of interventions across government and civil society, including allowing the Special Envoy to weigh in on immigration issues and to ‘monitor’ public media.

Among the plan’s more controversial (and impractical) recommendations is a proposal to withhold government funding from universities and arts bodies that fail to meet the Special Envoy’s criteria.

Since the plan’s release on 10 July, critics have denounced it as “authoritarian”, “insulting”, designed to “enforce ideological conformity” while risking “deepening community divisions.” The plan is marred by a “biased argument”, “weak evidence”, and silence on Gaza and is “simultaneously too thin [on facts…] and overblown in its recommendations”, commentators say. It has been labelled “one of the worst public policy documents produced in recent years”.

The plan’s architect, Jillian Segal, has meanwhile retreated from public view. This follows her seemingly ill-prepared appearance on ABC on 10 July (coinciding with the release of the plan) and a 12 July report detailing her family trust’s $50,000 donation to the right-wing lobby group Advance, which is known for promoting racism and campaigning against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Last week, however, the Special Envoy responded to a series of questions about her plan posed by the parliamentary committee inquiring into antisemitism in NSW.

The plan’s lack of sources, statistics or citations – that is, any evidence that might support its claims and underpin its proposed policies – has been widely noted and critiqued.

Yet, in her response to the NSW parliamentary inquiry, Segal claimed that there is a “wide base of research” behind her plan, which includes “commissioned surveys, consultations with community organisations, and international comparisons.” The plan, she insists, “is a policy framework grounded in both evidence and expert practice.”

She has, however, refused to provide evidence or publicly release any research supposedly conducted by her taxpayer-funded office, citing “security and privacy reasons.”

When asked specifically about what data or evidence supports her claim of systemic antisemitism in Australia’s public sector, Segal simply reasserted the claim that “There is clear evidence of antisemitic discrimination in parts of the public sector.” Although she provides none, she suggests the committee “review publicly available data.” Again, no such data was provided.

When asked for evidence of “foreign funding” supporting “clusters of antisemitism” in Australian universities, Segal pointed only to “credible concerns” that this “could” be happening. Pressed for specific examples of universities failing to act against antisemitism or of media outlets presenting “false or distorted narratives”, she again provided none. Instead, she described that plan as “proactive” and “precautionary”.

Neither in her plan nor in her responses to the NSW inquiry does Segal cite a single study, piece of evidence or expert assessment, from either the national or international context, that might support the efficacy of her plan to combat antisemitism. It’s possible that there are none.

Segal’s plan hinges on Australia’s widespread adoption and application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism – “including its illustrative examples”. 

The 11 illustrative examples are highly contested because seven of them relate to criticism of the State of Israel, whose prime minister is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

The examples are so contentious that IHRA’s decision-making body, the Plenary, itself has not endorsed them as part of the definition. IHRA itself describes the examples only as “illustrations” that may guide the organisation’s own work. Segal’s suggestion that the definition, along with the examples, be “required” across all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies 

goes well beyond IHRA’s own framework.

First published in 2005 by the European Union agency, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, the definition was intended for use in data collection, not policymaking. In 2013, the definition was abandoned. It was repackaged as the “IHRA’s non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” in 2016.

In the nine years since the definition’s adoption by IHRA, no evidence has been provided that it is effective in combating antisemitism – not in Segal’s plan, nor in external studies, 

nor on IHRA’s own website. 

There is, however, a wealth of academic and legal critique showing that the definition fosters self-censorship and penalises speech on Israel’s violations of international law and advocacy for Palestinian rights. The definition’s efficacy – like that of Segal’s proposed plan – lies in the “proactive” and “precautionary” implementation. And as historian Avi Shlaim states, it

has little to do with antisemitism.

Dr Emma Thomas is a researcher and writer based in the Greater Sydney area. As a historian, she has spent the last fifteen years studying and teaching at universities in Australia and the United States. One of the first things she teaches all her students is that opinions and evidence-based arguments are not the same thing.

https://michaelwest.com.au/secret-antisemitism-research-envoy-jillian-segal-hides-evidence/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.