Let’s Call it What it is: Germany’s Anti-Palestinianism

Rarely do you hear about an international treaty being adopted (almost) unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). However, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) defied the odds. It was adopted in 1965 by a vote of 106 to none. Since it entered into force on January 4th, 1969, more countries have signed and ratified the Convention, bringing the total to 182 states committed to eliminating discrimination. As one of the first important “core” human rights conventions, the ICERD obliges State Parties to combat racial discrimination. The preamble to the Convention emphasises the importance of such a commitment, rejecting any doctrines of racial superiority as scientifically false, morally condemnable, and socially unjust. Despite its almost universal character and the prohibition against racial discrimination being described as jus cogens and erga omnes, anti-racist measures seem to always fall short.

The rise of racism against people of colour has been reported in many European countries, including Germany. Even the official monitoring body for the ICERD, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has made note of this. One of the common denominators for both reports is the consistent mention of so-called anti-muslim discrimination. What both reports lack is the mention of anti-Palestinian discrimination, which tends to be generally subsumed under anti-muslim discrimination. This is especially the case when it comes to reporting on the rising cases of anti-muslim discrimination in Germany after October 7th, 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups attacked Israeli territory, triggering the 2023-2025 military operation against Gaza. As Germany is bound by the ICERD, this analysis examines how the Convention’s  framework can be applied to anti-Palestinian racism, and the measures that the state must take in response.

Anti-Palestinianism

The classification of anti-Palestinian racism as a separate term may be considered new in Europe, but it has already been explored in the US, where the term “anti-Palestinianism” has been coined. However, it is not universally defined. Several factors contribute to this ambiguity: one undeniable part of it is that anti-Palestinianism cannot be accurately defined or addressed without first acknowledging its existence as a distinct form of discrimination. This reluctance to contextualise the oppression faced by Palestinians has hindered the development of a clear definition.

What characterises Anti-Palestinianism, in contrast to anti-muslim racism, is the discrimination based on Palestinian identity, support, and advocacy. This  presents itself in the dehumanisation of Palestinians, the normalisation of violence against them, the erasure of their cultural identity, and especially the attribution of inherent antisemitism to every Palestinian and every supporter of Palestine until proven otherwise. With that, a systematic undermining of Palestinian’s credibility and legitimacy as scholars and advocates manifests itself in their exclusion. This particular manifestation examplifies what Miranda Fricker terms as testimonial injustice, e.g. as someone “wronged specifically in her capacity as a knower”. In the very specific sense, Palestinians are thus protrayed in an “orientalist” logic as described by Edward Said as the irrational or violent “others”, thereby rationalising their exclusion. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognise that anti-Palestinian racism does have an impact on non-Palestinians, as evidenced by the cancellation of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s events in Munich and in Berlin in February 2025. Finally, anti-Palestinian racism operates on both individual and collective levels, targeting not only specific persons but also entire communities and groups identified with the Palestinian people or their cause.

Is the Term ‘anti-Palestinianism’ Necessary?

The recognition of anti-Palestinianism as a distinct category of racial discrimination is imperative to ensure comprehensive protection under international law. Right now, incidents of anti-Palestinianism are routinely framed as political expressions rather than as racially motivated acts of exclusion. This mischaracterisation obscures the structural nature of anti-Palestinianism, preventing it from being adequately addressed under legal frameworks. Therefore, establishing anti-Palestinianism as its own term is a necessary legal clarification. This shifts the discourse from the political sphere into the realm of enforceable human rights obligations, thereby strengthening the normative protection of those affected.

Moreover, formal recognition of the term has significant implications for its visibility. Without a distinct category, instances of anti-Palestinian discrimination are often grouped under anti-muslim racism or anti-Arab racism. This dilutes their empirical visibility and legal significance. Furthermore, state authorities and appropriate bodies are unable to assess the scale or systemic nature of anti-Palestinian discrimination. Without a consistent practice or jurisprudential threshold, the concept remains legally indeterminate, hindering the development of a coherent definition of anti-Palestinianism.

Anti-Palestinianism in Germany

While some of the most noticeable restrictions on pro-Palestinian expression came in the aftermath of the October 7th attacks, these measures were nothing new. Rather, they built upon an existing trajectory of state repression, examplified by the database Index of Repression from European Legal Support Center (ELSC), which since 2019 has documented growing restrictions against Palestinian solidarity, intensified after October 7th. For example, authorities in Hamburg issued a “general ruling” (Allgemeinverfügung) that banned all “unregistered and unconfirmed assemblies whose content relates to support for Hamas or its attacks on Israeli territory (so-called pro-Palestinian protests)”. This ban remained in effect for more than seven weeks before the administrative court overturned it, ruling that its general scope and failure to evaluate each protest individually violated the constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

Around the same time, Berlin’s Senator for Education, Kathrin Günther-Wünsch, circulated a letter to all schools authorising them to prohibit the Keffiyeh, a Palestinian cultural scarf, as well as other “symbols, gestures, and expressions of opinion that do not yet meet the threshold of criminal conduct,” but might nevertheless be interpreted as expressing support for or tolerance of violence against Israel.

This climate of heightened suspicion was further reflected in a public address by President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who called on people “of Arab origin and Muslims” to distance themselves from Hamas. This conflation reflects how anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Muslim racism can overlap, as both rely on racialised assumptions about ‘collective responsibility’ and presumed violence. However, recognising their interrlation should not obscure the specific manifestations of anti-Palestinianism within this broader spectrum of racism.

Taken together, these examples illustrate a broader pattern of anti-Palestinianism: the tendency to connect Palestinian identity, symbols, and culture with violence. Such associations contribute to a perception of Palestinians as inherently threatening or violent simply by expressing or displaying elements of their cultural identity. This perception aligns with a broader pattern of racism: the categorisation of groups of people as homogeneous entities with negative inherent traits. This leads to the reinforcement of hierarchical distinctions between the ’good’/’civilised’/modern’ and ’bad’/uncivilised’/’traditional’ groups (see DeZIM, Rassistische Realitäten, p. 42 ff.).

Anti-Palestinianism Under the ICERD

To establish legal obligations under the ICERD, anti-Palestinianism must fall within the scope of the Convention. According to Art. 1 (1) ICERD, racial discrimination means “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”. This definition reflects three elements: (1) the conduct itself, (2) the grounds the conduct are based on , and (3) the purpose or effect of the conduct.

The Convention requires that the discrimination be “based on” one of the protected grounds. Initially, this wording might imply that only individuals who themselves belong to the targeted group are protected, thereby excluding non-Palestinians. However, the CERD has clarified that protection also extends to “groups or persons who may be perceived as having the traits” listed in Art. 1(1). The commentary does not specify whether this perception must be based on physical features (for instance, someone being perceived as Palestinian due to appearance) or could also include other attributes (such as being presumed Palestinian because one expresses solidarity with Palestine).

It is important, however, to distinguish between perception and association. The former occurs when a person is treated adversely because they are mistakenly perceived as belonging to a protected group, while the latter concerns adverse treatment due to the association or solidarity with a particular group. For example, the situation of Francesca Albanese describes the second form, as she is someone who may face discrimination not because she is perceived as Palestinian, but because of her association with Palestinian advocacy.

Although Art. 1(1) ICERD requires discrimination “based on” specific grounds, the CERD’s General Recommendation No. 14 (1993) emphasised that this should not be read narrowly, noting that “[a] distinction is contrary to the Convention if it has either the purpose or the effect of impairing particular rights and freedoms” and thus allowing a broader interpretation of the scope. This understanding is consistent with the views of other human rights bodies. Both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Škorjanec v. Croatia (2017) and the UN Human Rights Committee in Broeks v. Netherlands (1987) have recognised racial discrimination “by association”.

However, even under this broader understanding, establishing associative discrimination requires a sufficiently plausible link between the adverse treatment and the protected ground. In the case for individuals advocating for Palestinian rights, this adverse treatment must arise specifically from racial animus. Where the casual link is uncertain, protection under other provisions, such as the right to freedom of speech and the right to assembly, may also be considered more appropriate measures.

Germany’s Legal Obligations

Under the ICERD, Germany is required not only to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination but also to prevent it. According to Art. 2 (1) (a), the state must refrain from engaging in any act or practice of racial discrimination and must ensure that all public authorities and public institutions shall act in conformity with this obligation. However, the systematic policing of Palestinian gatherings and blanket bans on demonstrations associated with Palestinian identity and culture reveal adverse treatment rooted in ethnicity rather than conduct. Furthermore, Art. 4 (c) obligates the state to prevent and sanction any public authorities or institutions that promote or incite such discrimination. Nonetheless, statements and campaigns from state representatives have, as also highlighted above, at times normalised narratives portraying Palestinians as inherently suspect or violent, reinforcing racialised stereotypes. Under Art. 5, Germany must guarantee equal enjoyment of rights, such as security of person, freedom of opinion and expression, and cultural participation. Reports of racial profiling, surveillance, and cultural censorship targeting Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity suggest that these rights are not equally protected. Finally, Art. 7 requires proactive education and cultural measures to combat prejudice. Yet, the erasure of Palestinian history and identity from public discourse indicates a failure to counteract non-state forms of anti-Palestinian racism and stereotyping.

These obligations are not merely abstract but may also be enforceable. Since 2001, Germany has accepted the so-called ‘individual communications procedure’ under Art. 14 (1) ICERD. Individuals or groups of victims of Convention violations may submit individual communications, also known as ‘complaints’, against the State party. The victim must first exhaust the domestic remedies before filing the complaint, unless these remedies are deemed ineffective, unavailable, or unreasonably delayed, Art. 14 (7) (a) ICERD. The Committee examines those complaints and adopts ‘views’. These ‘views’ are legal findings that are not binding; however, states are expected to comply and report on the ICERD implementation, and therefore also the CERD’s views, in their periodic reports, Art. 9(1) ICERD. Furthermore, the CERD may appoint a special rapporteur to follow up on the implementation of these views (Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure to the ICERD, August 21, 2025, UN Doc. CERD/C/35/Rev.4).

Anti-Palestinianism constitutes a form of racial discrimination that Germany’s current policies and measures fail to recognise. Its manifestations reveal that it is not merely isolated incidents, but rather a structural pattern of racialised exclusion. While the focus of protection must rest on Palestinians as the directly targeted group, one cannot forget discrimination due to perception and association. Nonetheless, by centering the analysis on anti-Palestinianism as a form of racism directed at Palestinians, the legal framework also safeguards those who are discriminated against based on presumed or associated Palestinian identity.

Germany’s ongoing omission to address this issue undermines its compliance with obligations under the ICERD and risks perpetuating the structural marginalisation of Palestinians within German society. In order to fulfil its international obligations and uphold the principle of equality before the law, Germany should recognise anti-Palestinianism as a racial issue rather than only a political one. Such recognition is not only legally necessary but also pivotal to confronting the deeper structures of racism in Germany.