{"id":211315,"date":"2022-05-16T12:01:19","date_gmt":"2022-05-16T11:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=211315"},"modified":"2022-05-14T05:03:35","modified_gmt":"2022-05-14T04:03:35","slug":"all-the-questions-were-about-israel-inside-deutsche-welles-purge-of-arab-journalists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/05\/all-the-questions-were-about-israel-inside-deutsche-welles-purge-of-arab-journalists\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018All the Questions Were about Israel\u2019: Inside Deutsche Welle\u2019s Purge of Arab Journalists"},"content":{"rendered":"

5 May 2022 – When Deutsche Welle fired seven Arab journalists over accusations of antisemitism, many in Germany took its decision at face value. But a closer look shows DW’s investigation was riddled with political motives.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>

Pro-Palestine activists march during the annual May Day demonstration in Berlin, May 1, 2017.
(Keren Manor\/Activestills.org)<\/p><\/div>\n

I am not collateral damage. I am a Palestinian Jordanian female journalist who went the hard way to improve her life and career here in Germany\u2026 [My comments were] ripped out of context\u2026 [No one was] interested in hearing my side of the story\u2026 It feels like I am still waking up to a reality where non[e] of the ethics I believed in or the values that I worked for and defended [were] applied to my case.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Farah Maraqa, who wrote these words in a series of blog posts<\/a>, is one of five Arab journalists who, in December 2021, were suspended by the international German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW). A few weeks earlier, Maraqa \u2014 along with Maram Salama from Palestine, Basil al-Aridi and Dawood Ibrahim from Lebanon, and Murhaf Mahmoud from Syria \u2014 had been accused of antisemitism in a Nov. 30 article by S\u00fcddeutsche Zeitung<\/a>, one of Germany\u2019s largest daily newspapers, based on a series of social media posts.<\/p>\n

DW eventually fired the five employees on Feb. 7, the same day that an external investigation<\/a> into the allegations commissioned by the broadcaster was released to the public. The investigation did not find \u201csystematic antisemitism\u201d at the broadcaster\u2019s Arabic section, where the journalists worked, but did conclude that there were \u201cregrettable isolated cases\u201d in which antisemitism was identified, as one senior staffer explained. A week later, on Feb. 14, two other Palestinian journalists at DW, Yasser Abumuailek and Zahi Alawi, were also fired.<\/p>\n

Many German<\/a> and international <\/a>media outlets have taken DW\u2019s accusations against the journalists at face value, with many assuming that the employees indeed expressed antisemitic views. A closer examination, however, portrays a very different picture.<\/p>\n

Through a series of interviews and further investigation, +972 found that DW\u2019s firings of the Arab journalists have not only raised allegations that the company violated German labor laws, but that DW\u2019s external investigation into their cases was far from transparent or well-intentioned. In fact, the targeted journalists have expressed that the investigation appears to have been politically motivated and focused on scapegoating Arab and especially Palestinian journalists, leaving an environment of fear, distrust, and strict self-censorship when it comes to Israel-Palestine at an already mismanaged<\/a> and scandal-ridden<\/a> DW.<\/p>\n

\u2018We tried to warn about his impartiality, but nobody listened\u2019<\/b><\/h3>\n

The investigative report commissioned by DW was authored by Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, a former Federal Minister of Justice, and Ahmad and Beatrice Mansour, founders of a for-profit consultancy group called MIND prevention<\/a>. The latter organization, according to its website, seeks to \u201cprevent Muslim extremism and antisemitism\u201d in Germany, and claims to protect youth who are deemed to be at risk from Salafist and jihadist influence.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headquarters<\/a><\/p>\n

Headquarters of Deutsche Welle in Bonn, Germany, August 31, 2014. (Christian Wolf\/CC BY-SA 3.0)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Far from being an \u201cindependent commission of experts,\u201d as DW claims, however, the selection of the Mansours reflects \u2014 according to current and former DW employees with whom +972 spoke \u2014 a clear political motive behind the investigation. Many of those interviewed for this report asked to remain anonymous either in fear of reprisal, or because public statements might jeopardize their ongoing cases against DW.<\/p>\n

Ahmad Mansour is a self-identified Arab-Israeli psychologist and a favored commentator on German television on the topic of Muslim radicalization and antisemitism. However, Georgetown University\u2019s Bridge Initiative, a multi-year research project on Islamophobia, has described him as an anti-Muslim author<\/a> who regularly portrays Arabs and Muslims as \u201cbackward and irrational.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSome Arabs are savages and some are not,\u201d Mansour said<\/a> in a Haaretz interview in 2019. He elaborated: \u201cLet\u2019s define \u2018savage.\u2019 I think mainstream Arabs have huge problems with democracy and everything connected to human rights. There are problems of violence that are related to culture. I don\u2019t think most Arabs want to murder, but I think we do have a problem. Forget the Jews. Look how many Arabs murdered Arabs in recent years. It\u2019s a lot.\u201d<\/p>\n

Esra \u00d6zy\u00fcrek, an anthropologist and professor at the University of Cambridge, writes that<\/a> Mansour\u2019s 2014 bestseller book, \u201cGeneration Allah,\u201d is plastered with \u201cpseudoscientific statements\u201d which describe all Muslim youth as troubled and potentially vulnerable to radicalization.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe moment they named Mansour as one of the \u2018experts\u2019 in the committee, I thought \u2018OK, this is not going to go very well,\u2019\u201d said one of the fired DW employees. \u201cHe is a known Islamophobe and has extreme opinions with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So we tried to warn DW about his impartiality, but nobody listened.\u201d<\/p>\n

When asked about the hypocrisy of hiring an individual with a racist background of his own for an anti-racism investigation, DW\u2019s corporate spokesperson, Christoph Jumpelt, told +972 that DW is \u201cconfident that the independent commission conducted their work unbiased and objectively.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"Ahmad<\/a><\/p>\n

Ahmad Mansour, founder of MIND prevention, delivering a lecture on religious extremism among youth, January 19, 2016. (BayernSPD-Landtagsfraktion\/CC BY-ND 2.0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cIt didn\u2019t make sense,\u201d said a current DW employee whom Mansour interviewed for the report. \u201cHe\u2019s a political figure with a pro-Israel bias. I do not see how this investigation can be considered fair.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mansour also has links to pro-Israel groups as well as organizations that have been accused of Islamophobia. For example, he was program director at the European Foundation for Democracy (EFD), a Brussels-based think tank which Georgetown\u2019s Bridge Initiative argues<\/a> is focused on \u201cdefaming Muslim civil society organizations.\u201d EFD is heavily funded<\/a> by donors that include The Paul E. Singer Foundation, which supports<\/a> the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and The Marcus Foundation Inc., which funds<\/a> Christians United for Israel, Friends of the IDF, and the Jewish National Fund<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it remains unclear why Mansour\u2019s wife was invited to participate in the investigation. Beatrice Mansour is a co-founder of MIND prevention and a jurist specializing in criminology, but she is not an expert on antisemitism. Neither DW\u2019s press conference nor the report itself clarified why she was brought onboard. \u201cNobody explained what she was doing. She did not clarify her contribution, and she didn\u2019t introduce herself. Nobody understood why she was even sitting there,\u201d said a current DW journalist.<\/p>\n

Mansour did not respond to +972\u2019s request for comment by press time.<\/p>\n

\u2018All the questions were only related to Israel\u2019<\/b><\/h3>\n

The investigation\u2019s problems, however, do not end with the credibility of two of its main authors. According to DW employees who spoke with +972, Mansour\u2019s investigation was meant to provoke an emotional and incriminating reaction from those he interviewed.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey did not ask me one question about the supposed antisemitic Facebook posts that I wrote,\u201d Maram Salama, one of the fired journalists, told +972. \u201cInstead, they asked me about my upbringing, what I thought about Hamas, and, most troublingly, how I felt about Israeli children getting killed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mansour also reportedly asked questions about the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)<\/a> movement, whether the interviewees supported a one-state or two-state solution, and even asked an individual, \u201cFor whom does [their] heart beat: Israel or Palestine?\u201d<\/p>\n

While not given a concrete reason for her dismissal \u2014 as was the case with the majority of the fired employees \u2014 Salama believes she was fired because of a Facebook post in which she expressed that freedom of speech in Germany was limited when it comes to Palestinians. \u201cI did not even mention Israel in the post itself,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

The dismissal caught Salama by surprise. A few weeks earlier, DW had given her an award for outstanding journalism; two days later, the management sent her an email notifying that she was not allowed to continue work pending an external probe. \u201cI felt that my job was secure, because here is DW giving me an award even after the article broke. Then all of a sudden I was suspended and asked to take part in an investigation,\u201d Salama said. \u201cDW did not defend me from baseless accusations, and as a Palestinian, I instead had to defend that I was in fact human.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen Mansour asked to interview me, he did not tell me I was under investigation or that I was accused of antisemitism,\u201d said a fired employee. \u201cI agreed to speak to Mansour, then was taken aback when, in the middle of the meeting, he interrogated me about my political opinions and Facebook posts. I had nothing to hide, but it was still very uncomfortable.\u201d<\/p>\n

One employee with whom +972 spoke noticed that Mansour hardly even mentioned the word \u201cJewish\u201d in his questioning, nor asked about their definition of antisemitism. \u201cMansour said the word \u2018Jewish\u2019 once, and it was in a question of whether I defined Israel as a Jewish-only country. All the questions were only related to Israel,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

Dubious notions of antisemitism<\/b><\/h3>\n

In February, 100 human rights groups<\/a> and activists condemned the firings in a joint statement, arguing that they are part of a widespread anti-Palestinian smear campaign intended to silence Palestinian voices and restrict freedom of expression around their cause.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe DW report,\u201d the statement reads, \u201cadopts a problematic framework that conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and seeks to position legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitism\u2026 This approach also dangerously associates the actions of the Israeli authorities with Jewish communities around the world, and falsely links them to the systemic oppression of Palestinians.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"Hundreds<\/a><\/p>\n

Hundreds of Palestinians and supporters protest in front of the U.S. embassy against President Trump\u2019s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Berlin, Germany, December 8, 2017. (Anne Paq\/Activestills)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The DW report relies on the IHRA definition<\/a> of antisemitism, which has been rejected by over 40 Jewish groups<\/a>, numerous academics<\/a>, and even its initial lead drafter<\/a>. The definition is widely criticized for its lack of clarity on key issues relating to anti-Jewish bigotry, and for its widespread instrumentalization by governments, universities, and other bodies to suppress criticism of Israel<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In addition to its use of the dubious IHRA definition, several legal experts believe that the DW report contains an implicit bias. \u201cThe way the report is written is basically implying that Arab employees are more likely to be antisemitic or to make antisemitic statements than any other partner or employee,\u201d Alice Garcia, a lawyer with the European Legal Support Center, told +972.<\/p>\n

A clear example of this is laid out almost explicitly in the DW report: \u201cEspecially for DW as a public institution,\u201d it reads, \u201cit seems crucial that no one-sided attitudes toward the Middle East conflict and various actors involved manifest themselves among the staff against the background of different personal and biographical experiences of the employees from Arab regions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMansour is essentially telling DW that Arab employees have views that need to be monitored because they could easily be antisemitic,\u201d Garcia explained.<\/p>\n

The DW report begins by citing various comments made on social media by the fired journalists. Yet they are printed without their relevant context, in no discernible order, and without a system that would assign each comment to a particular writer. It is also not clear how many comments were under investigation and over which time period. \u201cThe report was supposed to look into the accusations of antisemitism against the DW employees,\u201d said Garcia. \u201cInstead, it is a convoluted document that mentions many other unrelated things and shifts the focus away from the individuals completely.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a result, clear antisemitic statements (such as \u201cJews control the minds of the people through the arts, the media, and music\u201d) are mixed and conflated with criticisms of Israel (\u201c[Palestinians] pay the price for Europe\u2019s atrocities,\u201d or the hashtag #SaveSheikhJarrah, a popular slogan referring to Israel\u2019s attempts to expel Palestinians from the East Jerusalem neighborhood). It is also unclear if it was just one or several staffers who were guilty of making certain antisemitic statements.<\/p>\n

\n

\"People<\/a><\/p>\n

People walk by a mural depicting a combination of the Israeli and German flag on the Berlin wall. March 13, 2016. (Noam Revkin Fenton\/FLASH90)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The most straightforward evidence for the political motivation behind the investigation, however, is its probe into DW\u2019s previous reporting on Israel-Palestine. The report criticizes several DW articles as \u201cportraying wrong information as facts,\u201d and finds that they are \u201cantisemitic,\u201d \u201ccater to Hamas ideology,\u201d and \u201cdeny Israel\u2019s right to exist.\u201d<\/p>\n

In one instance, the report denounces a DW article claiming that the 2018-2019 demonstrations in Gaza (the Great March of Return<\/a>) were organized by Palestinian civil society, a fact evidenced by a UN Commission of Inquiry that investigated the events. Instead, the report contends that the demonstrations were organized by the \u201cterror organization Hamas\u201d as there is \u201cno independent civil society in Gaza.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report also denounces the mere mention of the word \u201cNakba\u201d (\u201ccatastrophe\u201d), the term used by Palestinians to describe the 1948 war. On page 15 of the document, the report further claims that Palestinians were expelled as a consequence of Arab provocations during the war. \u201cThey [Palestinians], at the request of Arab commanders, fled the war on the promise that they would return as long as the goal of the war \u2014 the annihilation of Israel \u2014 is achieved,\u201d the report stated. Prominent Palestinian<\/a> and Israeli<\/a> historians have long refuted this claim, including through the uncovering of Israeli state archives.<\/p>\n

The pivot to Israel-Palestine coverage \u201chas nothing to do with the original cause of the investigation,\u201d argued Garcia, who added that DW instead shifted the focus to a \u201csupposedly flawed Arab perspective on the situation in Israel and Palestine.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018I had no help from a union that is supposed to protect workers\u2019<\/b><\/h3>\n

Ahmed Abed, a lawyer representing some of the dismissed DW employees, argues that his clients\u2019 terminations are a clear violation of labor laws, firstly for their violation of \u201cduty of care.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDW did not inform the employees of their termination in due time,\u201d Abed told +972. \u201cUsually employers would give two weeks\u2019 notice \u2014 my clients had no warning. After the press conference, they just sent them the termination documents without a reason written. Usually your superior and HR would sit down and discuss the investigation findings \u2014 that didn\u2019t happen. The legal bases for their terminations are just so vague.\u201d<\/p>\n

The second violation was the prejudiced attitude. \u201cIt is illegal to investigate an employee because they are Palestinian or for beliefs you think<\/i> they have,\u201d Abed added. \u201cThese employees have been working for DW for years. The way they treated them is just undignified and without honor.\u201d<\/p>\n

The employees also complained that beyond Mansour\u2019s lack of qualifications, there was also no professional translator involved in the investigation. \u201cMy German is not that good, so I needed to jump between English and Arabic sometimes,\u201d said Salama. \u201cI want to reiterate that even if Mansour is an Arab, it does not qualify him to translate anything of this caliber.\u201d<\/p>\n

Representatives within the Verdi Union, Germany\u2019s second largest trade union which represents DW journalists, internally agreed that not only are the grounds for dismissal of some of the DW employees vague, but that the antisemitism definition has not been specified anywhere in DW, and a person\u2019s support for BDS is not a justification for termination.<\/p>\n

Despite suspicions of wrongdoing, however, the Verdi Union did not reach out to many of the fired employees after their termination to provide support. \u201cNo one contacted me, no one questioned my termination. I had no help from a union that is supposed to protect workers,\u201d one of the former employees told +972.<\/p>\n

DW\u2019s elected staff council representative in Bonn, Daniel Sheschkewitz, told +972 that he did in fact contact several of the impacted employees, however faced limitations. \u201cthe staff council in Bonn has in one instance even argued in a written statement to DW against the dismissal and informed the person\u201d Sheschkewitz said. \u201cUnfortunately, we do not have the legal means to prevent dismissals within the German labor legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, +972 found that the decision to fire the seven Arab journalists was not the result of an executive committee formed to evaluate the findings of the investigation; rather, it was handed down by an executive order from DW Director General Peter Limbourg.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the former employees told +972 that their immediate superiors in their respective work sections were not aware of what was being decided about their employment over the course of the investigation. \u201cMy boss kept asking me for updates once we found out I was being investigated,\u201d one said. \u201cNo one knew anything. We were all confused.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"Peter<\/a><\/p>\n

Peter Limbourg, Director General of Deutsche Welle, at the DW Global Media Forum 2019, May 27, 2019. (DW\/P. B\u00f6ll\/CC BY-NC 2.0)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

When asked<\/a> by German journalist Markus Trantow about allegations of a climate of fear within DW, Limbourg strongly denied the accusations. \u201cThat is an absurd claim that is unfortunately repeatedly made by individual journalists,\u201d he responded. \u201cDW employees have the opportunity at any time to express their opinions, to address their concerns and questions to the management, executives and complaints offices of DW and to discuss them until they are clarified. The management is committed to an open, fear-free corporate culture and actively encourages our managers to support this.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018A very convenient scapegoat\u2019<\/b><\/h3>\n

During the press conference on Feb. 7, Limbourg insisted that employees would have the opportunity to voice their concerns over the investigation process. But the Arab journalists who attended the various interdepartmental meetings told +972 that the environment within DW was filled with journalists and staff who were fearful of whether their personal opinions were now grounds for dismissal. DW could not answer questions about whether there would be intense social media monitoring, or whether their Facebook likes or Instagram followers could lead to termination.<\/p>\n

When asked about their staff\u2019s concerns, DW\u2019s spokesperson Jumpelt told +972 that \u201cevery journalistic organization can expect their employees to adhere to the basics of what is generally referred to as \u2018netiquette.\u2019 Anything published by a person on social media can fall back on that person\u2019s employer.\u201d<\/p>\n

On March 2, Gerda Meuer, DW\u2019s Managing Program Director, reportedly told the Arabic department that nothing is private, according to those who were present at the time. \u201cWhen you write something on your private accounts,\u201d she said, \u201cyou risk damaging the image of DW. So be wary of what you write.\u201d<\/p>\n

Many employees within the Arabic department took this warning as a signal not to write anything about Palestine or to be political outside of their approved DW reporting. Notably, this aversion to talking about Palestine starkly differed from DW\u2019s open stance<\/a> in support of Ukraine\u2019s right to freedom and self-defense against Russia\u2019s invasion and military occupation in late February.<\/p>\n

During the DW press conference, a recording of which was made available to +972, Mansour highlighted that there appeared to be serious divisions between staff and management.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Participants<\/a><\/p>\n

Participants for #FreedomOfSpeech, Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2017, June 19, 2017. (DW\/S. Takato\/CC BY-NC 2.0)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThis is not the first time that the Arabic editorial team has unfortunately been part of negative reporting in recent years. It is not just about antisemitism, but other things like lack of dialogue between an editorial team with over 200 employees who have different attitudes and come from different countries\u201d Mansour said. Schnarrenberger echoed this sentiment, adding \u201cThere is no pronounced trust in the management of the editorial department.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tom Wills, who worked on DW\u2019s data journalism team, strongly disagrees with the claim that serious faults lie only within the Arabic department. \u201cThe idea that all of DW\u2019s problems are within the Arabic department has come up before. They are racist tropes echoing down the corridors of DW about this being a result of conservative cultural issues or somehow connected with the politics of the Middle East,\u201d he told +972.<\/p>\n

Indeed, DW has been riddled with accusations of labor abuses before, as detailed in a Guardian article<\/a> published in January 2020. Several DW workers said they were silenced and fired for speaking up about racism, sexual harassment, antisemitism, and bullying in the organization. DW strongly denied the accusations, stating that they were all \u201cunfounded.\u201d<\/p>\n

Outraged by DW management\u2019s response, 250 employees wrote a letter in February 2020 directly to Limbourg that was leaked<\/a> to the press. In it, the employees stated that the incidents described in The Guardian were far from isolated cases, emphasizing instead that \u201cDW has a problem with abuse of power.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere was no question for us that the problems were more widespread than the Arabic department, but of course that was a very convenient scapegoat for them to try to confine it to,\u201d said Wills. \u201cBut the facts just don\u2019t back it up.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wills, who was among the letter\u2019s signatories, recounts that there was a recurring issue of freelancers being fired when they reported abuse by a staff member. \u201cThere is a very obvious pattern of mistreatment,\u201d he said. \u201cOne of the structural problems of DW is that there is a big divide in the workforce where freelancers are not protected under German labor laws. Because of that, freelancers, many of whom are foreigners, are simply moved around or fired, contributing to a racist dynamic in a fundamentally, structurally unequal work environment.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Deutsche<\/a><\/p>\n

Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2017, Shababtalk with Jaafar Abdul Karim, June 20, 2017 (DW\/S. Takato\/CC BY-NC 2.0)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThose who were fired some months ago from the Arabic department had [written] within their letters of dismissal that there was a \u2018breakdown of trust in the senior management of the organization,\u2019\u201d Wills added. \u201cSo it was spelled out in black and white that people were being fired partly because they have been critical of senior management.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the antisemitism probe, DW has also cut off<\/a> ties with Jordanian broadcaster Roya TV over accusations of anti-Israel comments and caricatures spread by the broadcaster on social media. An insider source, however, told +972 that DW has, in fact, suspended a majority of its projects in the MENA region out of Arab news outlets\u2019 refusal of the terms<\/a> of their new cooperations that include vague definitions of antisemitism.<\/p>\n

During the press conference, Director General Limbourg announced that DW has also been working to incorporate an antisemitism definition within their employee contracts that includes a firm stance on Israel\u2019s right to exist; but according to the insider, some staff are unwilling to acquiesce. \u201cNobody wants a vague definition of antisemitism in a work contract. It could be interpreted in any way,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

\u2018It\u2019s horrible that journalists have a personal censor\u2019<\/b><\/h3>\n

Germany has a history of singling out Palestinian, Arab, and other journalists of color for alleged antisemitism. A prominent case was that of Nemi El-Hassan<\/a>, a Palestinian-Lebanese journalist who last year was denied a previously-granted position on public television after photos of her at a 2014 pro-Palestine rally were revealed in right-wing media.<\/p>\n

In July 2019, German authorities barred<\/a> Palestinian-Canadian journalist Khaled Barakat from speaking at a Palestine solidarity event in Berlin, claiming his \u201cantisemitic\u201d speeches posed a threat to public order and could undermine the country\u2019s relations with Israel. He was threatened with up to one year in prison and has been prohibited from attending any future political events in Germany.<\/p>\n

Last May, during the Israeli assault on Gaza, DW took down<\/a> an interview with Palestinian-American journalist and executive director of Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah, and apologized for airing it. Soon after, the broadcasting company sent an internal memo<\/a> banning its employees from using words such as \u201capartheid\u201d and \u201ccolonialism\u201d to describe Israel.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Nemi<\/a><\/p>\n

Nemi El-Hassan. (Paul Alexander Probst)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Yet the persecution goes beyond journalists who support Palestine. In 2019, the German Bundestag passed<\/a> a resolution categorizing the BDS movement as antisemitic, effectively giving state institutions and pro-Israel groups license to attack Palestinian organizations, artists, academics, and individuals by restricting<\/a> them from public funds and public space.<\/p>\n

Self-censorship has since become an unfortunate reality in Germany, with the ensuing fear leading many journalists, including within DW, to police themselves. \u201cEven if my colleagues want to communicate with me, they tell me not to tell anyone in case they\u2019ll face repercussions,\u201d said Salama.<\/p>\n

\u201cJournalists within DW are scared, and they\u2019ve been scared into silence,\u201d she continued. \u201cIt is really horrible that journalists have a personal censor. It is a really dangerous trend in Germany that you cannot criticize Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n

For Salama, the consequences of this systemic hostility are all too real. \u201cI worked really hard at my job as a journalist for 15 years, and now these accusations destroy my chances with any international media outlet,\u201d she lamented. \u201cI can\u2019t believe that an institution like DW could put their journalists through this insane situation.\u201d<\/p>\n

__________________________________________________<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Hebh Jamal is a Palestinian-American journalist and advocate currently based in Germany.<\/em><\/p>\n

Lena Obermaier is a PhD candidate for Middle Eastern politics at the University of Exeter. She previously taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original – 972mag.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

5 May 2022 – When Deutsche Welle fired seven Arab journalists over accusations of antisemitism, many in Germany took its decision at face value. But a closer look shows DW’s investigation was riddled with political motives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":211319,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[928,87,2414,2416,767,771,427,85,880,1025,886],"class_list":["post-211315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-palestine-israel-gaza-genocide","tag-bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions","tag-gaza","tag-israeli-apartheid","tag-israeli-occupation","tag-middle-east","tag-nakba","tag-palestine","tag-palestine-israel","tag-state-terrorism","tag-west-bank","tag-zionism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211315","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211315\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/211319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}