A Campus Divided: How a BDS Endorsement Unraveled the Hertie School

On the clear morning of Thursday, 5 March, students across the Hertie School clicked on an unassuming email from the Hertie Student Representatives (HSR) titled ‘HSR Announcements’.

Among a graduation party preferences form and news of an upcoming town hall, the email announced the student government’s formal endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign: an international, Palestinian-led movement that calls for economic and political pressure campaigns against Israel.

The endorsement of BDS outlined a plan aimed at divesting HSR-controlled funds and resources from ‘organizations that are credibly linked to policies and practices that violate international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories’.

The response was muted in the private WhatsApp groups until that afternoon, when Hertie School President Dr. Cornelia Woll responded with an email of her own. On behalf of university administration, she rejected the resolution and ‘any antisemitic stances tied to the [BDS] movement’.

A number of students expressed support for the campaign, commending the HSR’s advocacy and celebrating in social media comments, while others raised concerns based on the German authorities’ characterisation of BDS activities as ‘radical’ and ‘antisemitic’.

Two days later, the Hertie-Stiftung (Foundation) released a public statement renouncing the resolution and made a cryptic reference to the series of ‘concrete consequences’ that would result from the endorsement. Meanwhile, German media rapidly reported on the HSR’s ‘blatant abuse of mandate’ and the Hertie School’s ‘climate of fear’.

The backlash did not stop with Hertie leadership. That same day, a coalition of students identified as Hertie Students for an Open University announced a motion of no confidence in the HSR. In less than 24 hours, over 15% of the student body provided signatures in support of the motion, the required threshold to cast an official vote of no confidence.

Just after midnight on Saturday, 14 March, Student Life made the announcement: 52% of the student body (312 votes) voted to dissolve the current HSR with immediate effect, and a new student government will be elected in its place in the coming week.

How did we get here?

Within a week, Hertie became a case study of the global debate surrounding institutional neutrality and international solidarity. By reconstructing the events of the past week and those leading up to it, this piece intends to explore the legal and ethical implications of the endorsement, the institutional response and the symptoms of an increasingly polarised university community.

What is the BDS movement, and why is it controversial?

Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, BDS is a decentralised campaign founded in 2005 by a coalition of 170 Palestinian civil society organisations and has since been supported by a number of international NGOs, research partners and political parties.

The movement calls for divestment from Israel until the state complies with international law and evokes three demands: an end to its occupation and colonisation of all Arab lands; the recognition of Palestinian equal rights; and the promotion and protection of the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

While the campaign has faced intense backlash from world leaders, state governments and pro-Israel advocacy organisations, the BDS movement maintains that it ‘does not tolerate any act of discourse which adopts or promotes’ prejudice, including antisemitism.

The United States and Germany have had particularly hard stances on the BDS campaign in recent years. U.S. lawmakers have made several attempts to pass an anti-boycott act on the federal level, and over 35 states have passed anti-BDS legislation in the past decade.

In 2019, the German Bundestag (Parliament) formally condemned the BDS movement as antisemitic. In a resolution titled ‘BDS-Bewegung entschlossen entgegentreten – Antisemitismus bekämpfen’ (Resolutely Opposing the BDS Movement – Combatting Antisemitism), the joint motion argued that the ‘radical nature’ of the campaign ‘leads to the stigmatisation of all Israeli citizens of Jewish faith’.

Similarly, a 2023 report published by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) wrote that the BDS movement exhibits ‘connections to secular Palestinian extremism’ and ‘violates the principle of international understanding’. It also notes that support of BDS can be linked to ‘extremist intentions’.

Hamas is part of the broader Palestinian National and Islamic Forces–a council made up of 12 major Palestinian political factions–that is represented within the BDS National Committee. However, there is no widely-verified consensus that the BDS movement is explicitly tied to extremist groups.

Dr. Peter Lintl is a political scientist at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (the German Institute for International and Security Affairs) and a guest lecturer on the Israel-Palestine conflict at Hertie who helped explain why BDS is considered controversial.

Lintl pointed out that the BDS campaign’s objectives as a nonviolent, rights-centered movement are stated on its website: the return of refugees, equal rights for all and the end of the occupation of Arab land. With regard to the latter, however, Lintl noted that the website does not clarify if it relates to the entire land between the river and the sea or to lands occupied in 1967.

Some confusion, he explained, lies in the sheer diversity of its support base – but also in regard to the question of which solution for the conflict BDS supports.

Lintl acknowledged the movement’s commitment to nonviolence and its rights-centered approach, but also the uncertainty surrounding the campaign’s ties to extremist groups.

‘I would say one can differentiate between leading heads of BDS and groups that support BDS around the globe’, he said.

For example, Lintl said the early BDS movement in Germany focused strongly on the occupation of 1967 and the settlement movement, whereas South African BDS groups have consistently focused on the State of Israel.

While many ‘front supporters’ of the BDS campaign are human rights-focused, Lintl gave examples of several alleged controversial actors affiliated with the movement, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Similarly, Lintl said Omar Barghouti–founder of Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel–is one individual affiliated with BDS whose advocacy for a single, democratic state encompassing historic Palestine is ‘framed in the language of rights-based discourse’.

However a closer reading, he continued, suggests a more specific political position: Barghouti argues that only Palestinians possess a right to self-determination between the river and the sea, while Jews, whom Lintl said Barghouti does not regard as a nation, do not.

In that sense, Lintl said on the central question of the conflict–who has collective rights to the land–Barghouti ‘assigns such rights exclusively to Palestinians’. In this framework, Lintl explained that Jews would be limited to individual rights.

In a set of responses to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Barghouti maintained that the BDS campaign ‘does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict’. Nonetheless, he explained that opposition to a two-state solution does not automatically imply a desire to eliminate the State of Israel.

Still, Lintl said that BDS normally ‘does not cooperate’ with Israelis who are fighting the occupation of Palestinian territory, further complicating a negotiated way forward between Israelis and Palestinians.

However, Lintl said he found the characterisation of the entirety of the BDS campaign as antisemitic to often be under-complex.

While he acknowledged that there are likely antisemitic actors who support BDS, Lintl considers the definition of antisemitism adopted by Germany in 2017–resting on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition and the ‘Three Ds’ (delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards)--too broad.

‘[The Three Ds] is an element that you’ll find in every conflict in the world,’ Lintl pointed out. ‘The Israelis do it to the Palestinians, the Palestinians do it to the Israelis; the Pakistanis do it to the Indians, the Indians do it to the Pakistanis. This is an element every conflict in the world has, and I found that too sweeping’.

The resolution: An overview

On Wednesday, 4 March, the HSR voted to formally adopt ‘A Resolution to Endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Campaign and to Divest Hertie Student-Controlled Funds from Organizations Complicit in Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)’. The resolution was passed with 11 votes in favour, one abstention and supported by 41 student signatures.

The resolution outlined the establishment of a Student Divestment Review (SDR) aimed at divesting the approximately €20,000 in student reimbursements from organisations that participate in ‘policies and practices that violate international law’ in Palestine. These funds are usually spent on snacks, catering or materials for small gatherings and student club events at Hertie.

‘HSR affirms the right of students and student bodies to engage in peaceful political advocacy and to call for institutional accountability consistent with academic freedom and applicable constitutional, European, and international law’, the resolution states.

Convened by the HSR’s Ethical Funding Committee, SDR is to be composed of an external expert from a human rights organisation, two Hertie students with ‘demonstrable research experience in international human rights or corporate accountability’, a faculty/staff advisor and two HSR representatives.

The committee would suggest for approval a list of companies from which students would be fully or partially precluded from paying with funds that would later be reimbursed by the HSR. If approved by HSR, the new reimbursement policy would come into effect the following academic semester.

A divestment of funds would not apply to Hertie’s institutional financing, which falls under the jurisdiction of the school’s governing bodies. The resolution notes that the SDR would provide students or affected individuals with notice before funding suspension or denial is finalised, as well as an opportunity to respond.

Intended to operate ‘on a clear evidentiary standard’, the SDR would publish a public report of divestment recommendations with ‘citable evidence’ and invite petitions or appeals for reconsideration.

The resolution would further ‘establish, in parallel with the SDR, a Campus Dialogue Event that brings together diverse voices–including students, faculty, legal scholars, representatives of Palestinian and Israeli civil society, and human rights experts–to discuss the legal, moral, and practical implications of BDS, divestment, and institutional accountability’.

To further ensure the university’s investments are consistent with human rights law, the resolution also urges Hertie leadership to conduct a similar review of institutional funds, procurements and partnerships.

The backlash

Hertie campus and WhatsApp groups were relatively quiet in the hours following the passing of the resolution. That silence was broken, however, by a statement from Hertie School President Dr. Cornelia Woll emailed to the student body at 14:14.

‘Management does not support the resolution,’ Woll wrote in an email to the student body. While Hertie community members have the right to freely express their opinions–if consistent with the law–she emphasised that school policies will remain unaffected by the endorsement.

Woll specifically highlighted that the resolution was a student initiative voted in favour by 11 elected representatives on behalf of the entire student body, about 850 students. She pointed students to the HSR town hall that would take place on 18 March, where she said students can ‘controversially’ discuss how well-represented they feel by the resolution.

‘As a university, we have no connection to the BDS and distance ourselves in the strongest possible way from any antisemitic stances tied to the movement’, Woll wrote.

In an email response to Woll and the student body, HSR Chairperson and second-year MIA student Andrew Hastings criticised German state repression on discussions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict and a decline in academic freedom in the country.

Still, several students voiced similar concerns related to the BDS campaign’s alleged ties to extremist groups and antisemitism in WhatsApp groups. Many defended the HSR’s resolution in response.

On the late afternoon of Saturday, 7 March, an anonymous group who described themselves as ‘students for an Open University’ initiated a motion of no confidence in the HSR. The email was sent by first-year MPP student Eva Marroni on behalf of the group.

In an email statement to The Governance Post, Marroni acknowledged that—as a representative democracy—there are many cases that directly impact student life and academic policy in which the HSR must make decisions regarding student interests without conferring with the student body.

The endorsement of the BDS campaign, however, ‘raised fundamental questions about representation and mandate’, she wrote.

‘Regardless of one’s individual views on BDS or on the broader political issues involved, endorsing such a politically contentious campaign in the name of the entire student community is a significant step’, Marroni wrote. ‘A decision of that magnitude should only be taken after broader consultation within the student body, particularly given the nuanced views that clearly exist within the Hertie community’.

Advocacy on issues that affect everyday student life is one thing, Marroni explained, while decisions that create a public-facing position for the collective student body–particularly political ones–are another.

While some Hertie students have characterised the motion as an attempt to silence political advocacy related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Marroni stressed that this is not the case.

‘Students at Hertie, like students everywhere, should absolutely be free to advocate for political causes they believe in, including issues related to Gaza, Israel, or the broader conflict in the Middle East’, Marroni wrote. ‘The question raised by this motion is whether the student representatives, in their official role, should publicly associate the entire student body with a specific political campaign such as BDS, especially without prior consultation’.

Considering the required threshold of 15% of the student body for a vote of no confidence was reached so quickly, Marroni wrote that many students likely had similar feelings regarding adequate representation in the HSR. A significant number of students had expressed to Marroni and Hertie Students for an Open University that they felt the resolution did not represent the varying views held throughout the student body.

However, Marroni added that the HSR’s endorsement of BDS was not the only concern students had expressed to her.

‘The broader climate of discussion around the issue has also played a role. The intensity of the debates in group chats and other forums has made some students feel uncomfortable participating in the conversation’, she wrote. ‘For many of them, supporting the motion was a way to signal that they would like to see a more constructive and inclusive form of student representation moving forward.’

Following the initiation of the motion of no confidence, the HSR stated that the student government ‘unequivocally condemns antisemitism and recognises it as a growing threat to Jewish life in Germany and globally’.

On behalf of the student government, Hastings went on to cite the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), a definition drafted by hundreds of scholars in response to the IHRA’s definition. The JDA clarifies that ‘evidence-based criticism’ and ‘non-violent political measures’ taken against the State of Israel, such as boycotting, are not considered antisemitic.

Hastings emphasised that the BDS movement targets the State of Israel–not Jewish people as a whole–and focuses on institutions via nonviolent economic and cultural pressure rather than individuals.

That same day, the Hertie-Stiftung issued a public statement on behalf of Chairwoman Annette Schavan at around 19:00 that evening, condemning the endorsement. Both the founder of and a major donor to the Hertie School, the Hertie-Stiftung is one of Germany’s largest private, nonprofit foundations.

‘The call by the student representatives at the Hertie School to support the BDS campaign against Israel is unacceptable. It contradicts the spirit of the institution and undermines the principles and goals that led to its founding’, Schavan wrote. ‘This constitutes a blatant abuse of mandate’.

Schavan called for a general assembly for students to discuss the endorsement and how it contradicts Hertie’s mission statement and institutional self-image. She further questioned why the HSR could vote on such a resolution, noting the campaign’s classification as a ‘suspected extremist threat’ and echoing Woll’s comments on the HSR representative-to-student ratio.

‘The relationship between the Hertie School and the Hertie Foundation has been profoundly damaged and shaken by this incident. I will invite the members of the Foundation's board of directors to a special meeting to discuss and decide on concrete consequences’, Schavan wrote. She did not elaborate on said consequences.

When asked for further comment, a representative for the Hertie-Stiftung wrote in an email statement to The Governance Post on 17 March that ‘given the ongoing internal discussions and clarifications’, the foundation is ‘currently refraining from making further comments’.

While eight representatives had resigned by the end of the vote, the HSR was dissolved as of Saturday, 14 March following a successful vote of no confidence. A new HSR election will take place from Wednesday, 25 March until Sunday, 29 March. Student Life will announce the election results on Monday, 30 March.

Following the HSR’s dissolution, Hastings wrote in an email statement to The Governance Post that the endorsement likely sparked the highest voter turnout in HSR history.

Because the former HSR was dissolved by a narrow 35 votes, Hastings encouraged the next student government to consider the 47% of the student body who support efforts to boycott Israel.

‘The next HSR must take into account the hundreds of students at Hertie who see boycotting Israel’s illegal occupation as upholding the mission of good governance and democratic values’, Hastings wrote. ‘I call on the Hertie Stiftung and school leadership to cease their campaign of fear mongering, foster critical discourse on campus, and respect the autonomy of student governance’.

Student perspectives

First-year MPP student Miles Höckel didn’t think much about the BDS resolution when it was initially announced to the student body. What did catch his interest, however, were the allegations of antisemitism made against the campaign.

As a Jewish German-American descendent of Holocaust survivors, Höckel argued that labeling political stances against the State of Israel as antisemitic can minimise real acts of prejudice made against Jewish people as a whole – particularly as Germany and other countries around the globe see a rise in neo-Nazism.

‘If you’re throwing around accusations of antisemitism it kind of insinuates that there are no Jewish voices that are in support of these ideas’, Höckel said. ‘I think you devalue the term and remove its necessary sort of shock value’.

There are a number of Jewish voices around the globe–including within Israel–who have criticised the Israeli government, Höckel explained, and several Jewish organisations support the BDS movement.

Hertie School and its foundation responded not out of concern for Jewish students, Höckel believes, but to preserve the university’s relationship with several Israeli and German institutions. Hertie School currently has an ongoing partnership with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; however, the exchange program has been suspended for several years due to the ongoing armed conflict.

‘I think whether or not I support BDS in my own private life as a Jewish individual is kind of not the point’, Höckel said. ‘The first time I ever really felt alienation as a result of my identity was when the university, and this foundation and the media started launching these accusations [of antisemitism] at my fellow students, who I know and have had nothing but positive experiences with’.

German media outlet WELT reached out to Hertie students regarding claims of Hertie’s environment being antisemitic. Höckel provided a statement to WELT upon request with similar sentiments to those expressed here. While several Jewish student and alumni perspectives were published, his statement was not included.

Though Jewish students quoted in the article allege that the Hertie school environment is antisemitic and polarising, Höckel said he hasn’t had the same experience.

‘[WELT] failed to even mention that there was any dissenting voice in the Jewish community at school’, Höckel said. ‘Which, again, is a perfect example of this type of erasure’.

When second-year MIA student Fabio Leocata realised the arguments that had erupted on and off campus were about the HSR’s endorsement of the BDS campaign, he wasn’t surprised.

The Berlin-based student group Solidarity Collective (SoliCo) has long advocated for a boycott on Israeli institutions, Leocata explained, particularly through its petition to cut academic ties with Hebrew University. The HSR is unaffiliated with SoliCo – however, several former representatives were endorsed by the group last election.

Leocata is not against the endorsement itself, and said he firmly stands by the HSR’s right to pass the resolution as an elected student government and their good faith in doing so.

However, Leocata admitted he thought the HSR’s decision lacked ‘political savvyness’. Such a politically-charged issue should be deliberated with the entire student body, he argued, either through a referendum or a forum like last week’s town hall.

‘Of course there was going to be backlash, there was going to be a reaction, a strong reaction, because that’s a highly contentious, controversial issue. Especially in Germany’, Leocata said.

But his biggest concern was not the HSR’s alleged abuse of mandate; it was the Hertie-Stiftung's. The threat of ‘concrete consequences’ violates the Hochschulrahmengesetz (Higher Education Framework Act), he argued, which formalises the student right to self-rule.

Leocata fears the decision–and a potential rescinding of the BDS resolution by a newly-elected HSR–could set a dangerous precedent for student self-governance at Hertie. He said such a ‘veiled threat’ will have lasting implications for how Hertie leadership responds to controversy.

Among such ambiguous outcomes for the school, he said Hertie leadership should have fought against the allegations of antisemitism and the leaking of student names and photos to WELT.

‘What about the next controversy? Let’s say in the future it’s not about Israel, it’s about something else’, Leocata said. ‘Will they react again in the same way?’

Similarly, first-year MIA student Falk Vambrie was not surprised by the passing of the resolution – particularly due to the ties that several representatives have with the advocacy group SoliCo.

Regardless, he took issue with the HSR’s decision.

While the HSR admitted their procedural mistakes later on, Vambrie said he believes the HSR abused their role as an elected student government to advocate for controversial political objectives.

‘In that sense it is, I think, crossing a certain threshold of activism that, in my opinion, does not [and] should not have a place within the HSR’, Vambrie said.

Vambrie admits that he–like many other students–did not attend prior town hall meetings hosted by the HSR. The HSR’s election in September also featured incredibly low voter turnout, with no more than 57 votes for a single candidate.

Still, he said the HSR should have established more democratic feedback processes, especially regarding the BDS endorsement.

The movement is not only labeled antisemitic for its criticism of the State of Israel, he argued, but for its alleged ties to extremist groups and efforts to undermine Israeli-Palestinian coexistence. As a critic of the current Israeli administration, he went on to explain how these alleged links to extremism can be counterproductive.

‘I think, even if you have an interest to pressure the Israeli state, this is not – jumping into bed with terrorists is not the way to go’, Vambrie said.

As for the Hertie-Stiftung's response to the endorsement, Vambrie said he finds it entirely reasonable to threaten consequences considering its role as the Hertie School’s primary donor.

However, Vambrie questioned if such a decision should impact students who took no part in the vote. But as a private entity, he said the foundation has a right to ensure the university meets its established mission without it being considered a violation of academic freedom.

‘I personally can only hope that the impeachment procedure [vote of no confidence] will succeed and that a new HSR will be elected with a higher vote turnout’, Vambrie concluded. ‘And hopefully that other people will be elected to, in my opinion, pursue more reasonable policies that actually serve the student community and not an external political narrative’.

On the afternoon of 20 March–about a week after the HSR’s dissolution and the town hall–four Hertie students and alumni proposed a joint call to oppose ‘all forms of antisemitism’ and ‘group-based hatred’ in light of the BDS endorsement.

In an email statement, the students wrote that recent discussions ‘have affected many of us, including ourselves’ and ‘left a mark’ on the university. The students called on the Hertie community to sign the open letter in support.

The day of the town hall

Hertie’s Forum likely never hosted so many students at once.

Around 250 people gathered at the start of the Wednesday, 11 March town hall, which was hosted by Hertie leadership following instructions from the Hertie-Stiftung. Students lined up in chairs, sat on the floor and crowded in the hallway, peering in and whispering to one another throughout the two-and-a-half hour town hall.

At the start of the town hall, Woll, Hastings and Marroni gave opening statements on behalf of Hertie leadership, the HSR and Students for an Open University respectively.

The HSR’s endorsement of BDS ‘merits a discussion where we can be in a room together’, Woll began on behalf of Hertie leadership. She then urged the HSR to rescind the BDS resolution immediately.

The resolution was a breach of mandate, Woll argued, and unrelated to ‘issues of internal decision-making’ that are within the bounds of the HSR’s authority.

While dissent is essential to good governance and democracy–the principles the Hertie School was founded on–Woll explained it is essential that the university practices ‘institutional restraint’ in order to protect and promote a variety of ideas. She said student representatives must practice the same restraint.

‘The BDS-endorsement is a profound abuse of their institutional voice. It elevates the political activism of a minority to the supposed claim of the collective student body,’ Woll said. ‘It drags the entire student body, and by extension the Hertie School as a whole, and with us the Hertie Foundation, into the political activism of a small group and makes all of us jointly liable and responsible.’

Woll stressed that the institution, its students, alumni and funders would suffer reputational damage following the endorsement, among other consequences. She specified that such a decision can gravely impact the ability to find work, earn security clearance, remain eligible for public funding or visas and so on.

Similarly, Woll noted that public and private sponsors have reacted negatively to the endorsement, as well as guest lecturers who have considered withdrawing their presentations.

When asked by The Governance Post to elaborate on the potential financial consequences the institution could face, as of 11 March, Woll said she had not spoken to the Hertie-Stiftung since the endorsement.

However, considering the foundation’s financial contributions–about one-third of Hertie’s annual budget–Woll said the Hertie-Stiftung does not need to specify what those consequences may look like.

‘All of this can have grave consequences for research collaborations, professional internships, or future funding, and at the same time affects the career prospects of our students and alumni’, Woll said in her opening statement.

Both Hastings and Marroni gave opening statements similar to the information included in this article. Interested readers can find their statements here and here, respectively.

Following the three opening statements, a total of 35 students, alumni and a professor posed questions and comments to each party, who sat opposite of them on the Forum stage.

Individuals spoke on topics ranging from the legitimacy of the HSR’s mandate and deliberation process to the ability to impose institutional restraints on academic freedom. Others spoke more broadly on the Israel-Palestine conflict as a whole. Students showed support for both the HSR and Students for an Open University.

Photography, audio and video recording were prohibited and students are to remain anonymous.

A Culture of Remembrance

Perhaps the most influential aspect of the response to the resolution is not necessarily the HSR’s endorsement itself – but the cultural context in which it was made.

‘The German-Israeli relationship is very complex and it’s highly identity-driven’, Lintl explained. ‘Israel has become, in the overall thinking of the German memory culture, ever more important’.

Because of Germany’s role in the Holocaust–in which the Nazi regime systematically persecuted and exterminated approximately six million European Jews between 1933 and 1945–Lintl said Germans take ‘historical responsibility’ for the atrocity. He added that this includes a responsibility for the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Israel’s role in German collective memory was further solidified by Angela Merkel’s formulation of the Staatsräson (reason of state) in 2008, affirming Israel’s right to statehood and Germany’s enduring commitment to its security.

‘Israel has become basically the central point of German memory culture’, Lintl said. ‘Good relations with Israel indicates that Germany does a good job in fighting its demons of the past’.

When historical memory is taken into context, Lintl said, the BDS endorsement’s backlash becomes clearer.

‘Just a notion of boycotts rings, of course, a bell in Germany. You know, “Don’t buy at Jewish stores, boycott Jews”’, Lintl explained, referencing the boycotting of Jewish-owned businesses in Nazi Germany. ‘This is just such a sensitive topic, due to the German history, that it is very hard, for a long time, very hard for [many] Germans to grasp this idea of BDS.’

The Hertie-Stiftung, whose origins lie in the Jewish-owned Hermann Tietz department stores that were forcibly aryanised by the Nazi Regime, has its own history to reflect on. After student-led efforts to shed light on the injustice succeeded, the foundation later commissioned a historical study published in 2023, where it alleged that the families who previously owned the retail chain were compensated in the post-war period.

Höckel, on the other hand, said aspects of German collective memory have slowly transformed into the objectification of Jewish people. He said remembrance culture often treats Jewish people as a single, monolithic group and implicitly assumes a shared political stance in support of Israel.

German foreign policy is often made on behalf of the State of Israel and its military, Höckel said, rather than on behalf of Jewish individuals. In reality, Höckel argued that Jewish people and organisations have a variety of political, religious and cultural positions – including differing views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

‘Invoking antisemitism as a political cudgel where it doesn’t exist is antisemitic’, Höckel said.

Jewish people have long held a variety of views on both Zionism and Israel, he argued, and to group Jewish people collectively as supporters of Israel–particuarly in the way that German institutions do–is antisemitic in itself.

As an international student, Leocata agrees that historical memory deeply influences discussions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict in Germany.

Leocata–who did an exchange program in Bavaria prior to his time at Hertie–said he always appreciated how his German peers did not shy away from conversations about the Holocaust. However, he said the Israel-Palestine conflict has made him wonder if the lessons that Germany took away about genocide are limited to the Holocaust.

For example, Leocata argued that while remembrance culture is largely restricted to the Third Reich, the German Empire also committed genocide in Namibia at the turn of the 20th century.

‘Genocide is not only about a specific victim, or a specific perpetrator, it’s about understanding the conditions that lead to that: imperialism, xenophobia, nationalism, the economic crises that lead to these factors’, Leocata said.

Students Look Ahead

In the end, what unfolded at Hertie was not simply a debate over one resolution – but a test of how a small university community navigates questions that extend far beyond campus.

But the intensity of the response also reflects something much larger. In Germany, debates surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict are not just political; they are inseparable from history, memory and responsibility. For others, the conflict is similarly personal; a reflection of long-standing grievances and the struggle for recognition, dignity and equal rights.

As the student body prepares to head to the polls, a core tension remains unresolved: How does an academic institution balance political expression in an increasingly polarised environment? That question did not begin with this vote – and it will not end with it.

Several documents were originally written in German and translated for this article. This is a developing story; updates will be provided as more information becomes available.