Germany’s Die Linke fractures over youth wing’s divisive stance on Israel-Palestine
Tensions have risen within Germany's Die Linke party after its youth wing, Solid, passed a controversial resolution on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The move has sparked criticism from within and outside the party, with some calling for action against Solid.
Solid's resolution, adopted recently, accused both Die Linke and itself of failing to address the Israel-Palestine conflict effectively over the past two years. It also criticized the German left's lack of engagement with international debates and leftist diaspora communities. The resolution claimed that the 'liberation of Palestine' must be seen as part of a broader democratic and socialist revolution, and accused Israel of colonialism and racism, alleging genocide in Gaza. This stance was deemed incompatible with Die Linke's official position by a group of 17 Bundestag members, who demanded action against Solid.
In response to the resolution, Die Linke co-chairs Jan van Aken and Ines Schwerdtner attempted to smooth over the situation by rebuking Solid's stance. However, the controversy deepened when an event on 'The Radical Jewish Tradition' was denied a venue linked to Die Linke due to the speakers' refusal to pledge support for Israel's right to exist. This decision was criticized as further evidence of Die Linke's perceived anti-Israel bias.
Mahmood Mamdani, a prominent political scientist, weighed in on the debate in an interview. He criticized the nation-state project as inseparable from ethnic cleansing and violence, using the case of Israel as an example. Mamdani distinguished between a Jewish homeland and a Jewish state, arguing that the latter was a Zionist idea. He advocated for living in diversity beyond national identity, echoing views of Palestinian-American historian Ussama Makdisi and many Jewish intellectuals in North America.
The controversy surrounding Solid's resolution has highlighted deep divisions within Die Linke over its stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. While some call for action against Solid, others argue for more open debate and engagement with diverse views within the party. The party leadership faces the challenge of navigating these tensions while maintaining its commitment to democratic socialism and human rights.
