This transcribed interview was originally published as a podcast by Annuschka Zak on 99 ZU EINS.
Annuschka Zak (AZ) Hello, and welcome to a new episode of 99 Zu Eins. I'm Annuschka. Today I'm talking to Benjamin Düsberg about the trial of the so-called Ulm5, a group of activists, who last year broke into the subsidiary of Israeli weapons company Elbit and allegedly damaged things. Hi Benjamin, great to have you here.
Benjamin Düsberg (BD) Hello, thank you for the invitation.
AZ Benjamin, you work as a lawyer in Berlin with a focus on criminal defence and at the moment you frequently go to Stammheim, because you're defending a person there, and because the trial against the Ulm5 is taking place in the notorious high-security courtroom, which was built especially for the Red Army Faction trial on the prison grounds. Maybe you can first give us a little background. What happened there on 8 September 2025 in Ulm?
BD Yes, I'd be glad to. On 8 September 2025, five people ... The Stuttgart Attorney General's office, which is conducting the investigation, assumes that there were also other people involved in the action at least peripherally. But what is certain is that five people entered the operating rooms of Elbit Systems Germany – which is located in Ulm – they entered through a window and then with different tools, somehow broke through various doors inside, gained access to the company premises, both to the office and laboratory premises of the company, and there to a certain extent caused property damage to office equipment and laboratory equipment. The Stuttgart Attorney General's office assumes about one million (euros) in property damage. And it's important to understand that this is a military equipment company. So it's about military production. We'll get to that later, I think, what exactly they do there. And the five, who were inside, remained relatively undisturbed by the on-site security. That is, they had quite some time to cause damage. What probably accounted for much of the damage is some of this laboratory equipment, which is supposed to be quite expensive. Then, at the end, they shut themselves in this lab and waited for the police to arrive. And the five allowed themselves to be arrested, without resisting. Since then, they've been in pre-trial detention. This is actually a classic case of property damage, I would say.
AZ Why or what are the clients accused of?
BD Altogether there are four things that they're accused of in the indictment. Damage to property; that this was a trespass. Then there's also ‘From the River to the Sea’. It's maybe important to mention: The action was filmed, or the five filmed themselves doing it. It subsequently posted online, and it was all there to see, what was done there. Also, in the interior, certain slogans were sprayed. And there was supposed to be ...
The Attorney General's office – oh yeah, and each of the five also created a kind of testimonial videos, which have also gradually been published. And here and there the Attorney General's office found the expression: ‘From the river to the sea Palestine will be free’. And that's why the five are also accused of using slogans of terrorist organisations. Because, as you know, the slogan, or this sequence of words, is erroneously ascribed to Hamas, which makes no sense. But that's another topic. That's the third charge, which is kind of tacked on, but fits into the whole framing, which the Attorney General's office is trying to treat as ... That is, the whole action is not treated as what it really was, namely an antimilitarist action to prevent or disrupt a genocide. Rather, the whole thing is assumed to have an anti-Semitic background. This is the strange idea from the Attorney General. And that's why using this element, ‘From the River to the Sea’, is not entirely irrelevant, apparently.
So the whole thing is not being treated as a classic property damage offence, but rather ...
As I already mentioned, the Stuttgart Attorney General's office very quickly took over the investigation. At the start it was with the Public Prosecutor's office in Ulm, which is normal, because that's where it happened. The Attorney General then decided that the whole thing – that the five were members of a criminal organisation. Palestine Action Germany being the name of this supposed criminal organisation. And this act was supposed to have happened as part of this membership, a so-called operational action. And that's why there is also Section 129 of the German Criminal Code as another, the most serious, charge.
AZ And what was the goal of the whole action?
BD Er, yes, so the goal is relatively obvious. Our clients expressed it in the statement videos.
There was ... on the same day a kind of press release was published by ... it supposedly came from our clients. And the goal was very clearly formulated. Namely, to do something against the Genocide in Gaza.
As I said, this all happened on 8 September 2025. We know that 8 days later, on 16 September 2025, the UN Human Rights Council International Commission of Inquiry unanimously concluded that the actions of the Israeli Army in Gaza is a genocide. It's a very detailed report. All human rights organisations, all important genocide researchers see it that way now, that the warfare of the Israeli army in Gaza had a genocidal character.
And ... the thing is, as we all know, Germany is the second largest Weapons supplier to Israel and is extremely involved in this. And gave significant support to Israel the whole time, not only politically, but above all also militarily, so in a very material way.
We know that Germany, in the whole period from October 2023 to September 2025 approved about 500 in military equipment, the export of military equipment, to the amount of half a billion euro i.e. around 500 million euro. Including very essential things like transmissions for tanks, anti-tank weapons, leased drones were returned, a lot of ammunition for rifles and tanks, a whole lot of electronic equipment. And we'll come back to that later.
Also, of course, the deliveries from Elbit Systems Germany were approved. And this constitutes an aid to genocide, what Germany has done as a state. Which, of course, also means, under individual criminal law, responsibility of the politicians who approved it. Also for the directors of the companies that were involved in these exports. And that, in turn, represents a clear violation of the ... So, individually, these are violations of the People's Criminal Code.
This is complicity in genocide. And at the state level, as I said, it is also complicity in genocide. And there is the Genocide Convention, which Germany also joined which obliges1 ... In a situation where a genocide is taking place or there's a high risk that it's taking place all states are obliged not only to not support it, but also to do everything possible to prevent it. So there is a concrete duty to act.
Germany not only has done nothing, but the whole time, as I have just explained is still actively fuelling it. And also, as I said, delivered things without which the tanks there could not have operated. Not the tank engines, tank transmissions. In any case, in such a situation, Germany ... it has clearly violated its obligations under international law.
And also all the demonstrations against it, which have taken place in Germany, have not led to a change in policy. On the contrary, they are brutally quashed. Thousands, tens of thousands of preliminary investigations have been launched against Palestine solidarity activists. And among other things our clients were also very actively involved at demonstrations and in other contexts.
Also, all possible legal remedies, that have tried to stop this delivery of weapons, the supply of military equipment, ultimately failed because the courts apparently consider this inadmissible and take no interest in it.
And in September 2025 ... Well, it has been culminating all this time, but September 2025 was another culmination point of the whole thing. The level of starvation in Gaza was among the highest ever recorded, as UN organisations have pointed out.
And events continue unchecked, with German support.
And in this situation, the goal of the action was to do something concrete against this complicity in genocide, by damaging this specific military equipment company, which also played a role. And if only for a few days, to stop the production of weaponsused in this genocide.
Ultimately, it's about saving lives. I've talked a lot. Ultimately, the goal was to save lives. And of course it was also about generating attention, media attention, and maybe to motivate others to do something too, and maybe even to move politicians to rethink things.
But yes, in the foreground materially, the goal was to save lives. And yes, I would also say the Ulm5, the five activists, of course they are political prisoners.
AZ What are the conditions of their incarceration?
BD Of course, the whole thing was a political act. In that it's being criminalised in the way that it is. The term ‘political prisoners’ is apt. Because you could really ... Because they are actually being treated as political prisoners. So if you viewed the whole thing just as property damage, it wouldn't occur to anyone to, for example, insist on pre-trial detention.
There is absolutely no flight risk. I already mentioned that the 5 waited for the police to arrive on the scene. So, there was absolutely no attempt to evade any potential criminal proceedings. The five filmed their faces during the act and published it. So there were absolutely no intentions of obstruction of justice or concealment. All five have their lives in Germany. Families, education, housing, studies, employment, they are contactable. So there is absolutely no reason here. Pre-trial detention serves to ... the five haven't been convicted. The proceedings are only just beginning, and it's yet to be determined whether they committed a crime or not. And until then, accused persons are normally out on bail. Unless there's a flight risk or a risk of obstruction of justice. And here, there is quite obviously neither.
So this alone shows that ... and of course, this shows that the whole ... that the five here are perceived as ... as a special kind of criminals. Otherwise, they wouldn't have thought to add Section 129 of the German Criminal Code. That's the classic political Section that has always been used against socialists, communists, squatters, leftists in the broadest sense. This is the history of Section 129.
Meanwhile, the concept of criminal organisation has been expanded somewhat. We now also occasionally categorise white-collar criminal organisation as criminal organisation. This is relatively new. The classic application was always against those considered dangerous to public order. And these were mostly, as I said, Social Democrats, socialists, communists, leftists involved in this surveillance law. Why surveillance law? The sentencing expectation is naturally higher, but it also allows for, above all, a whole range of investigative measures. Including covert measures, such as telecommunications surveillance ... Very broad investigations, which then become justified by this Section. And there's ... In the file there's ... Yes, we might come back to that later.
There are few reasons for even bringing up this Section in this case. By doing this, the whole thing is actually treated as political, and this is reflected also in the conditions of detention. They're all not just in pre-trial detention, but subjected to special security measures in pre-trial detention. This is the so-called Section ... or not so-called, it's Section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: special restrictions based on grounds for detention. This means that all outside communication is monitored. There is no unmonitored external communication except with the lawyers. So every visit from family members and friends is being watched by an official and an interpreter. Every phone call must be approved individually, and then someone is listening in. And the five are also separated from each other. So, they're all in different prisons.
Life in prison is also restricted by the special security measures. It's more difficult to get work. For example, Daniel, my client, is in solitary confinement 23 hours a day. They have one hour of visiting time per month. That means their father, for example, travels from Ireland, to visit them for half an hour. And then there's a second slot per month, another half hour. Otherwise, they sit, eat alone in their cell, drink alone in their cell and has one hour of exercise per day. That's basically it. We had to fight for about 5 months for them to have the right to order books. Until then they were referred to the prison library, with 25 English-language books, not of great quality.
Those are a few details that show that the conditions of detention — also for the others — are made more difficult. So, they're being treated as seriously criminal and dangerous subjects.
And all this for an action that ultimately involves damage to arms production.
AZ And you just told me, the five activists are all well-integrated and, uh, not professional revolutionaries. So, how are things going now under these detention conditions?
BD Of course it's terrible. So all five are separated from their loved ones, from their families, from their relationships. Of course, the rest of their lives ... Their studies are interrupted, jobs are interrupted, the future is uncertain for everyone. No one knows how this will end, how long they will have to remain in custody. And then these isolating conditions are an enormous psychological burden for everyone. And at the same time, there's no alternative. They all ...
Well, I can mostly just talk about Daniel. I don't have direct access to the other four. I think the details are different for each person. I can only say about Daniel that they are somewhat stable despite everything. Anxious. But stable. And there's no other way. To somehow try to learn survival strategies and to cope with such a situation, to come to terms with it. So they’re now trying ...
They now have the right to order books. We had to, as I said, fight for that. It's completely crazy, what's happening in the Ulm prison. They now spend a lot of time simply reading, and writing, and ... The receive many letters. That's also very important. There's a lot of solidarity from the outside. That helps, of course; it's also absolutely essential for survival. Daniel receives a lot of letters, tries to reply to all the letters they receive. That takes time. An extremely long time because every letter is read. That means sometimes Daniel doesn't get a letter for weeks, and then suddenly 20 at once. And it then takes just as many weeks until the replies reach the senders. Because the Attorney General reads everything first. And that leads to enormous delay.
But yes, so Daniel tries to do a lot of exercise, every day, as much as possible. They have access to the gym, just once a week, I mean. Otherwise, they can try – this is important – to do any kind of exercise in their cell. There's not much else they can do. I notice that he's trying to ... that Daniel is trying to – I sometimes say ‘he’, that's wrong – Daniel is non-binary. So ... ‘he’ is not correct. Daniel is stable so far and it has of course helped in a way now, that the trial has begun and the five could see ... There was a large audience, outside there were demonstrations. And of course, that too has brought some life and movement into the game.
AZ You are a team of defence lawyers ...
BD Yes.
AZ ... for the five. What's your defence strategy?
BD Yeah, big question. Um ...
AZ Only what you're allowed to reveal.
BD Yes. No, no, that's no secret at all. So, we've basically been shocked, for quite some time that the five are still in custody. We tried everything, went through all possible appeals against detention to somehow get the five out. Because it's simply incomprehensible. There's no justification for this pre-trial detention, especially not under these conditions. Then the proceedings started very late. Although the Attorney General's office filed the charges relatively quickly, after just three months, the Stuttgart Regional Court didn't start the trial until the end of April. And by then they had been in custody for almost 8 months. Actually, the court is obliged to begin within 6 months in detention cases. And then the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart had to decide whether continued detention was justified. They said, ‘It's fine, it's not a problem’. That alone reveals the political nature of it. There is absolutely nothing fine or justifiable about it. Because, as I explained, there is no risk of flight. And certainly not the special requirements to justify it, to allow this to continue for so long. Those aren't met at all. The Stuttgart Regional Court could have made an effort to start the trial more quickly. The Higher Regional Court then justified this by stating that, among other things, there was a risk of flight because the expected sentence was so high. And instead of simply letting them out and then negotiating the proceedings calmly, they then justified and said all of this ... But their own decision, to keep the five in custody, had to be somehow justified. They then did this by saying that the expected sentence is so high, and ultimately thereby justified the risk of flight. And that is considered extraordinary, by many, for the Regional Court to suggest that the sentence could be particularly high. This is hostile, what's happening, has been for a long time. And ... and of course we have to somehow align our defence strategy with that.
Of course, our main goal is, in the interests of our clients, that the five get out. At least after the verdict is delivered, whatever the outcome. Even if a longer prison sentence is imposed, they could at least be spared prison time. The court can decide that. Until it's legally binding. So, in the clients' interests, that's definitely the main goal, to somehow find a way to get the five out of there. At the same time we are actually told the whole time that they have absolutely no chance to get out, because the Higher Regional Court made it pretty clear, that we can't even expect a suspended sentence.
AZ But how do they know that? That's ...
BD They don't know that. Exactly. It's very presumptuous.
AZ What kind of crystal ball are they looking into?
BD Yes, it's very presumptuous. They justify it by saying they get to decide the conditions of detention and then make a kind of prognosis. But ultimately, the trial hasn't happened yet. And our hope was ... that the State Security Chamber, which handles the proceedings, at the Stuttgart Regional Court, is as independent of this as possible.
Maybe I'll say something more about why this hope turns out to be not at all realistic. The State Security Chamber at the Stuttgart Regional Court operates in an equally hostile way. We also have to incorporate this into our strategy somehow.
But to put it simply, what we want in this trial is, that the five are acquitted. Aside from the tactical, strategic concerns related to bail and continued detention. In essence, we want an acquittal for the five, and we believe that is easy to justify. Because the property damage and the trespassing – which are obviously present here, purely objectively – were justified. In that it was a legitimate act of property damage and a legitimate act of trespassing.
Why? There are several sections in the penal code, which, under certain circumstances, allow for an acquittal based on the justification of an act based on self-defence or emergency. And that is relatively clear here. So, Section 32, Self-Defence, says that a person will not be punished, has not acted unlawfully if the action is necessary, is appropriate and necessary to prevent a present or imminent attack on legally protected interests. Classic self-defence ... You know the concept of self-defence! Or defence of others is when the act is committed for the benefit of third parties. So if Person A attacks Person B on the street – for whatever reason – and Person C then falls into the arms of Person A and perhaps even hurts Person A in the process, or perhaps even injures Person A. If all of this is necessary, to repel this attack on Person B, Person C will, of course, not be punished for it. They prevented a greater injustice. They caused pain to Person A and perhaps also injured them, but prevented a greater injustice. And that is exactly what happened here.
So, I talked about it at the beginning, to equip the Israeli army, which is currently in the process of committing genocide. This is the attack. This is the attack on the civilian population of Gaza. Elbit Systems as a corporate group, with its wholly-owned subsidiary in Ulm, is also directly involved. They are part of the attacker, quite clearly. And now one wants to defend against this attack. Legal measures are of course the primary option. But as we've heard, all legal measures have failed. The administrative courts have refused to do anything ... the permit s... Well, Germany would have to ... They should stop approving these military goods, then Elbit Systems Germany couldn't supply anything. Germany doesn't do that. It approves everything. And the legal remedies against it have failed.
The demonstrations too, you could say. One could also join parties that might prevent it. But the parties have all tolerated it. So, political means have no effect, the demonstrations that our clients all tried have not led to any change in policy.
That means, in such a situation, we actually come to the point where taking matters into your own hands is justified, is even necessary. And that is the threshold of necessity. Have all other means to prevent this – all other milder means to prevent this, been exhausted? Yes. And that's why the five were allowed to take matters into their own hands. And then the only question is, was that actually appropriate? And that's obvious — what they did, is obviously appropriate, to destroy or damage a weapons factory. It is of course appropriate in order to interrupt the supply to the respective army.
And then there's another one: threshold of necessity. That's what it's called in the self-defence clause. And this excludes certain scenarios, where an obvious disproportion is then no longer justified. So, the old scenario is where I kill the apple thief, to prevent the apple theft. Or chop off his arm. That's actually how far the right of self-defence extends. So, these are quite ... Just to ward off the attack, even completely disproportionate discrepancies are permitted in the legally protected interests. Only ruling out very extreme cases. This is the classic example, where you'd say, then it's no longer necessary. This is obviously not the case here, because no one was even harmed.
AZ Exactly, they didn't hurt anyone.
BD Exactly, no one at all was harmed. It was purely material damage, specifically, material damage to toxic things, I would say. Not even, uh, goods worthy of protection. So, armaments are actually not worth protecting per se. And certainly not those used in the way I outlined. And that's why, legally speaking, this is a a very clear scenario of necessity as a justification – defence even. Necessity also exists as a possible justification. But we're even talking about defence of a third party here, which justifies the whole thing.
And one can even go further, that it was not only justified, but actually legally and morally necessary. One could even say, the five actually fulfilled a human duty here. The Genocide Convention also says so, and it's applicable law in Germany. And international law can ... Article 25 of the Basic Law states that it can also create rights and obligations for individuals and if we have a state failure, you can also say, no, the five were actually obliged to do it, by the fact that Germany had completely failed. And one could also say, every person is morally obligated, to do what is possible, to prevent serious crimes. As long as that is also proportionate – and it obviously is here. In that sense, one could say that the five didn't merely commit a minor wrongdoing that was justified, they actually did something commendable, and deserve honour rather than punishment. And that is our defence. So that part in parenthesis
But the defence strategy is based on Section 32 of the German Criminal Code and we will submit motions for evidence for each of these thresholds and provide evidence for each one. So what actually happened in Gaza? Why was this genocide? Why was this action necessary? Why was it appropriate? These are ultimately three steps. And we'll bring this into the trial, whether the court wants it or not.
AZ We have already spoken with Benjamin several times. You and your colleagues have already used or tried out some legal measures, to stop permits for military shipments or punish the people who approve them.
BD Yes, that's right.
AZ Feel free to take a look at it. I find it quite interesting.
BD Yes. Exactly. The criminal complaint against the Federal Attorney General is still pending, is still ongoing.
AZ Against Mr Rommel.
BD Yes. Not against him. For him to investigate the government, the members of the government who approved the arms shipments, and several arms company CEOs. Yes, and Mr Rommel would be responsible for hopefully checking this out properly.
AZ We'll be watching with interest to see if that happens. We talked about that last year.
BD Yes.
AZ And there hasn't been much news yet, I guess.
BD But yes, you're right. It's actually not unrelated to this, because it's actually this failure – of the administrative courts – which keep permitting the arms deliveries, or rather military equipment deliveries. to such a horrendous extent. If it weren't for that, if Germany had done, what it was supposed to do, namely, a halt to military exports, to pronounce a boycott, then the five would not have been in a position to do this. And now they're being punished for it. It's crazy. Or they want to punish them.
AZ And what does Elbit Germany produce in Ulm? And how is that relevant to Israel's conduct of the war?
BD Yes, that's a good question. Because Elbit Systems Germany, if you look at the website and so on, then of course it's all very vague. You can learn a little bit. Everything remains very vague, and not much is really revealed, except that they produce for the German Armed Forces, among others. So, it gives the impression that they don't have much to do with Israel. But the opposite is true. This company in Ulm does quite a lot. And you could say, perhaps the most important aspect that's relevant here is the so-called high-frequency technology. I'll say a little more about that.
Since 2007, this company has belonged to ... Back then, it was still called Telefunken Radio Communication Systems GmbH & Co. KG. That was its previous name. It was integrated into the Elbit group in 2007, still with this name, as a wholly owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems, headquartered in Israel. So it's an independent company in Germany, Elbit Systems Germany, with its own managing director and so on. But it belongs to the Elbit group structure, as a wholly owned subsidiary. And here we have to ... – this is perhaps the first step –the Elbit group as such with the integral component of Elbit Systems Germany is the most important supplier of equipment to the Israeli armed forces, and as such plays a very central role in warfare, including in Gaza.
The corporation supplies a total of approximately 85% of the drone systems, tank technology, ammunition, and surveillance systems for the Israeli Army. And Elbit Systems Germany with the Ulm site, produces, as I mentioned, various things.
An important element is the so-called SDR technology. SDR stands for Software Defined Radio. So, software-controlled shortwave radio systems. You can already see the connection to Telefunken. Telefunken has a long history in Germany. It was founded in 1903, I believe, by AEG and Siemens, and has always been known for this high-frequency technology.
AZ As early as 1903?
BD Founded as early as 1903. Exactly. And still relevant. They have thousands of patents, including inventing colour television at some point, radio technology, radar technology. Telefunken has always had a combination of civilian and military applications. So these shortwave radio systems, have always been militarily relevant. Especially during the world wars. In the First world War obviously more. In other times the civilian sector was more relevant again. In the 90s, late 80s, 90s it was again predominantly military use. And has belonged to Elbit Systems completely since 2007. And plays a very important role in the group, especially with these shortwave radio systems.
And ... this is how it works: these SDR systems, software-controlled shortwave radio systems, these are integrated into the Israeli units, also in Gaza, are used by infantry, and also installed in tanks and aircraft. And it's used in ... a number of Israeli military operations. Clearly also in the Gaza Strip. And these SDR systems transmit data that's collected virtually in real time, and then allow the officers to control the whole thing as if they were playing a video game. So all the data that these individual units collect in real time, is passed on to the officers, who then look at a kind of screen, like in a computer game. And they have a satellite map of the battlefield in front of them, the officers or superiors see this from a bird's-eye view. And every unit equipped with such a radio from Ulm, which constantly transmits information – information about what the individual unit sees, hears, whether there are losses, whether ammunition is running low – are centrally linked and displayed on the screen of the individual commander. And that's a very important function.
And the company in Ulm manufactures so-called laser target markers, which are used for both defence and attack. So, quite simply, to mark targets and then destroy them. Regardless of the type of object. So it could be about incoming missiles, but it could also be about residential buildings and vehicles. So, with this laser, the officers can mark the target and ... another unit can then hit this target with a grenade or missile.
These systems are being used, as I said, in the context of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, deployed extensively by the Army, the Air Force and Navy.
And – this is very important – this genocidal warfare in Gaza is largely AI-controlled. This is very well known. The Lavender system, Gospel system, Where Is Daddy. E.g. Where Is Daddy, it's called that because ... well, these AIs are – as we know – set up in such a way that, for a person who has been somehow linked with Hamas, depending on whether it's a higher or lower rank attributed to the person, roughly between 25 and 100 civilian casualties allowed. So, when an alleged commander is seen, and there are 100 civilians around, the thing goes off. It's set up that way. And it's called Where Is Daddy because some of them are set up in such a way that it starts right when the alleged Hamas fighter is home. So, especially if they are part of a larger family group, because it's assumed that, then the person is very easy to locate.
And that's how the AI is configured. And this SDR technology manufactured in Ulm, serves to collect all this information, in real time, integrates itself into databases – the database is called Alchemist – and this database used by the Israeli military, is essentially the raw material for this AI-controlled warfare. In that sense, one could say that ... And Elbit Systems congratulates itself, on this so-called ... they call it integrated combat management. Integrated – one could also say very efficient and perfidious warfare.
AZ Yes. What a formulation!
BD Exactly. And this networking of different elements, i.e., drones – what the drones do, what the tanks do, what the individual soldiers do, what the officer at the screen does. This network is largely supplied by this SDR, by this shortwave technology, which is manufactured in Ulm. And as I said, there are other things, like these laser target markers and other optical instruments. And we have clear indications that such military goods were shipped multiple times from Ulm in 2025 to Israeli ports or transported by plane. We have received information about this. We want to incorporate all this into the trial. And what's really nice is that Elbit Systems has tested these systems in Gaza – one example, now particularly prominent – tested systems, which they then market as value-added, as ‘battle proven’. For example, to the German Armed Forces. Sure, their systems developed in Ulm are also marketed and sold to the German Armed Forces and other armies. But that doesn't mean they didn't test it beforehand in Gaza. And not just test it, but use it regularly. So, military equipment such as target acquisition systems, laser warning systems, laser target designators, transmitters and receivers, other optical instruments, were delivered to Israel over the course of the year 2025. This is the period that interests us most. Of course also before and after, and still today. But the actions of our clients were in September 2025 and therefore quite obviously appropriate to disrupt this delivery or delay it.
And we raised this issue with the Stuttgart Attorney General's office during the preliminary investigation, that such investigations should be conducted. And that it's important for the proceedings. They refused to do that, to take such investigations seriously, or to conduct them, arguing that that wasn't the goal of our clients at all; that the purpose of the action was purely antisemitic. It actually says that in the indictment. Absolutely ridiculous, and shows once again what kind of … the prejudiced and politically biased way that the investigating authorities are approaching the case.
AZ Wow, that's so crazy. Yeah, I think someone else belongs in jail, not your clients. I don't understand why the Elbit bosses aren't in Stammheim. After ... Yeah.
BD Yes.
AZ I'm really shocked right now by these AI weapon systems.
BD Yes, exactly. So, it's not just some accessory that is produced there, it's absolutely central to the warfare. And yes, indeed, the people responsible for this supply ... So, where this is happening, the management of Elbit Germany and German politicians, who all along have been promoting and approving it. Yes, they're the ones who belong in the dock and certainly not our clients. And that is also part of what we want to demonstrate in the trial. We basically want to turn the tables, turn the charges around and show very clearly that the charges are going in the wrong direction. It targets people who have saved lives, and the people who destroy lives aren't sitting there. And what has become of the legal system, that it applies such standards? And that is our goal for the trial.
AZ Exactly. And then came the first hearing on 27 April ...
BD Yes.
AZ ...and the news went viral ...
BD Yes.
AZ ... in the media. How did the first day of the trial go?
BD Yes, it went ... how should I put it? From the outside, I think it looked relatively wild and chaotic. I don't even know if that's really how it was. Well, I just described, what we're planning for the trial. We were already prepared with all these things on the first day of the trial. That means the defence is willing, has been striving to get our clients out of prison as quickly as possible. We want to present these points. We had our clients' statements. They wanted to make statements. We had prepared opening statements. So we wanted to get started right away, but we're relying on a court, that is, judges who are open to hearing such arguments, And we also rely on a trial setting, which enables normal communication on serious matters. And what we found in Stammheim is, it ... mocks all standards of the rule of law. And yes, this was already apparent beforehand, that the presiding judge increasingly stopped communicating with us about any organisational matters. And we had ... it was strange from the very beginning, that Ms Lauchstädt, the presiding judge ... why Stammheim was ... maybe I'm getting ahead of myself ... something you wanted to ask. So, the question is, why are we even in Stammheim?2
AZ Yes.
BD In this high-security courtroom.
AZ Yes, I can ... Can I ask a quick question? Because that confuses me.
BD Yes.
AZ Why is the case even being tried in Stammheim? The Ulm District Court should have jurisdiction.
BD Correct. Exactly. Perhaps we should mention this first, and then ... because this is part of the backstory, what actually happened on the first day. So, in fact, if this were simply treated as normal property damage and trespass, then the Ulm public prosecutor's office would have had to file charges at the Ulm District Court. And then — as I said — the Stuttgart Attorney General's office took over the case with the argument that this is a serious organisation offence, i.e., Section 129 of the German Criminal Code, criminal organisation and so on. And that establishes the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. And they, in turn, forwarded it of the State Security Chamber ... So the State Security Chamber of the regional court is responsible for 129 offences. And that's why the indictment was filed with the Stuttgart Regional Court.
But that still doesn't explain the choice of Stammheim as the court location. Because Stammheim is actually the court location for ... because it's a high-security courtroom ... for proceedings involving charges of terrorist organisation. i.e., Sections 129a and 129b of the German Criminal Code. This is very unusual. I don't know, I think it's — well, according to my information, it has never happened before, that the Stuttgart Regional Court, including at the State Security Chamber, held trials in Stammheim. So, that was their arbitrary decision, to move the whole thing to Stammheim. Apparently, because they already thought then that our clients were so incredibly dangerous, that they need a high-security courtroom. We were never given any other reason.
We now also know, that courtrooms in the normal courtroom of the Stuttgart Regional Court, which – I don't know for sure, I think it's on U-Bahnstrasse in Stuttgart – were not even requested. Of course, the trial could have taken place there, as normal. So it's ... The corresponding requests from us: Why there? – were not answered at all. And then ...
AZ Did the presiding judge, Katrin Lauchstädt, kind of ghost you beforehand?
BD Yes, you could say that. Yes, that's perhaps the right word. So at some point we received the information, that we were no longer ... allowed ... that she didn't want to talk to us on the phone anymore, or even write emails to us. So, we could only submit any enquiries ...
AZ By post?
BD ... by post. And the file shows that Ms Lauchstädt had no problem writing emails to the Attorney General's office, for example. Yes, that was noteworthy, that many of our requests were simply ignored. So it was relatively ... Yes, and we already anticipated, that when we are in Stammheim, the defendants are supposed to be sitting in a kind of glass cell there. Of course, you can set it up differently. They don't have to be back there. There's lots of room up front. The whole courtroom is very large. So it could be done differently. But this is how the courtroom is arranged for now. The accused persons sit behind a glass partition and the lawyers separately at the front. And since we had anticipated this, we wrote to Ms Lauchstädt relatively early on, without receiving a reply, so we assumed that we'd be sitting beside our clients. And because there are absolutely no ... security reasons, that could even remotely justify, why our clients are separated from us lawyers, sitting behind us in a glass cell. And the enquiries remained unanswered. And then ... Yes?
AZ You have to talk to each other.
BD Yes, exactly. That's another thing. So, to have a conversation, I'm supposed to, seriously, to talk to Daniel, first, I have to press a button. It's called the intercom function. Put on headphones, Daniel also puts on headphones, then I am supposed to speak into the open room, while the hearing continues. I don't hear the proceedings then, because I have Daniel in my headphones. And Daniel can't follow what the interpreter is translating, while I'm talking to Daniel. Just that alone. Whereas, if you sit normally next to each other, you can whisper in each other's ear and continue listening with the other ear. None of that works here. Or a spontaneous exchange, with hands and feet, I mean with body language. Or something brief ... Facial expressions. Facial expressions are completely impossible, because Daniel is sitting behind me. It's the same for the other lawyers and other defendants.
AZ You can't even see Daniel?
BD No, I can't see Daniel. Correct. And that makes any communication completely unnatural. And then, to make matters worse, behind Daniel – behind each of our clients – there's also a guard. So they're not just locked in the glass cell, they're in the glass cell with five court officers. And how are our clients supposed to speak to us confidentially? Because they can also hear each other, and my colleagues can hear Daniel, and the court officers. So all these people without the right to refuse to testify, and without confidentiality obligations. Confidential communication is structurally impossible.
That's one thing, and then there's also, that this kind of display is of course a blatant contradiction to the presumption of innocence. So, if our clients are handcuffed – incidentally, all our previous inquiries in that regard also went unanswered – Do they really have to be presented to the press and the public in handcuffs?
And then it happened exactly like that. The five were led into the glass cell one after another, like objects, in handcuffs. And then for several minutes, the press was able to photograph them, take pictures. And that naturally creates an image – in front of the press, but also the lay judges – well, the judges, but the three professional judges know the case file. But the lay judges are supposed to come into the trial relatively untainted. And the first thing they see are five apparently highly dangerous people in the glass box with handcuffs, separated from their defence lawyers. And that, of course, creates an image, which already looks very guilty. That's why the jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice for human rights, for example, is very strict regarding this arrangement of ...
It's always popular in Germany to scandalise the way trials in Russia are carried out against Navalny and others. And they always show this glass – how inhumane, he sits there like an animal, the accused person inside the glass case. And people find that really awful. And it is. and contrary to the rule of law. But why is it okay now, in Stammheim, in Germany? And with people accused of property damage? So not even ...
AZ It's not even assault or something.
BD Yes. And then, regarding our inquiries after the first day of the trial, the press office, I think ... Was it the press office? I don't remember anything more. Reference was made to a European Court of Human Rights decision, which I believe came sometime last year, where in one case such a complaint against the glass box was rejected. And that was seriously compared to this. That person was accused of multiple murders, and was on the run for over 10 years. So, this is the context in which it was placed. But the standards of the European Court of Human Rights are that strict. They generally say no. Because ... very problematic due to the presumption of innocence. And only if there is a very specific, extremely poor trial prognosis, can such a thing be justified. And none of this exists here. There was no individual hazard assessment back then. And if one had been carried out, something might have come out of this, that would have justified it. And that was all about the presumption of innocence.
Completely independent of that, and what is completely unacceptable, is that we can't communicate properly and confidentially with our clients. So, this is simply ... the lawyer-client relationship is impossible to uphold. In short, it's impossible to proceed under such conditions.
And ... and that was it. Since Ms Laustädt didn't want to communicate with us beforehand, we were then forced to ... That took an hour and a half on the first day. We started an hour and a half late. I went to the usher three times and asked if he could tell Ms Lauchstädt that I'd like to discuss a few things with her.
AZ Yes.
BD Among other things, this display in handcuffs, also note takers for the defence. We want a note taker. We hired a note taker. Access was denied on the first day of the trial. I would have liked to have decided all these things beforehand. No, Ms Lauchstädt wasn't available.
AZ What did she do for an hour and a half?
BD Yeah, we don't know either. In any case, she didn't use the time to sort out any kind of organisational stuff with us.
AZ Yes, but she didn't even start the trial, start the hearing.
BD No, not that either. In fact, it took a while until ... because there were extremely strict security checks, because there was a large public crowd, who were then let in in a trickle. And every single person was checked for a very long time. That's why it took so long, until the hall filled. Yes, and then we ... Then the case was called. We wanted to submit the applications, that all these things, that we clarify them now. The seating arrangements – the handcuffs were done, they were already presented like that. But seating arrangement, note takers, there were also technical problems with the system here and there. We had some issues with the interpreters. On the first day, there were also problems with the public. We might get to that in a moment. We wanted to discuss all of this, before we got to the content.
So, first civil matters. And then Ms Lauchtstädt simply decided, that our applications, which we had all already submitted or formulated, didn't count as submitted, in her opinion. She didn't accept them, whatever that means. Because a submitted application is a submitted application. It doesn't need to be accepted first. She can consider whether she might want to decide later. But she simply made the decision: We did not have the floor. And no motions would be accepted. And following our protest, this was then confirmed by court order, where it was simply stated: until the end of the reading of the indictment we do not have the floor and can't make any motions. All of our submitted applications were considered invalid. Across the board. We did't have the floor. Never mind our clients, we don't … we simply don't have the floor. Until after the indictment is read. And that's completely crazy, because she couldn't even say, what all our concerns were. Well, we did express one or two things, but not everything. And some things needed to be dealt with immediately. Hence all the fuss.
And it's completely pointless. It doesn't even save time. And it disrupts the entire structure of the trial. Aside from the fact that we weren't prepared to begin negotiating, under such unlawful conditions. It's simply not possible. sometime after the indictment has been read, then ... Because after the indictment has been read, we want to respond substantively to the indictment with opening statements, and no more discussing seating arrangements. So it's ... This could have been dealt with before the hearing or at the beginning of the hearing. But through this blanket decision, that all of this cannot happen, she has created a situation where we are essentially not present. It's simply not possible. and our clients are not present.
So we then filed motions for recusal. And formulated it like this: that there has to be a subject. A legal subject. Because our clients were deprived of their agency. They were not just paraded around like objects. They were no longer authorised, as objects, to say anything against it, no matter what they might have to say. It's truly an absolute absurdity. And she just wanted to continue. And we had to file applications, as I said. Certain things must be done immediately. For example, applications for recusal, if the grounds have already arisen, before the questioning of the person. And then she wanted to begin questioning the person. And we couldn't even file a motion to adjourn. Or a motion for recusal. And we wouldn't be able to file it later. That means we couldn't do anything else at that moment except go outside. And that's what we did. We left together, because we had no other option to defend ourselves, that is, to uphold the rights of our clients. And that was perfectly obvious to the court, that it was a pure reaction to this procedural violation. It was a kind of procedural self-defence that we exercised. We had no intention of going back home. We simply gathered in front of the ... It's like this ... She can't continue, when the defence is all outside, because it's a case of necessary defence. That means, by taking this measure, we can effectively ... Well, we can halt the proceedings, because she can't continue without us. But, as appointed public defenders, we're not allowed to just leave, under normal circumstances. We have to be there.
AZ But you weren't allowed to submit an application either ...
BD Right. That's what I mean and ... Correct, and that's why it was an exceptional situation, where we had no other choice than to do exactly that. And we actually just wanted to have a quick consultation, about how to deal with this now. And then Ms Lauchstädt ... Oh yeah, and then, without our consent, Ms Lauchstädt simply interrupted proceedings for two hours. We were then asked to leave the area in front of the court. We then went to the lawyers' chambers. So we stayed in the courthouse. And thought about what to do.
And then the idea came up, as a compromise: Okay, then we'll go to our clients. We don't want to be in a glass cell either. But if this is the only chance right now, to sit beside our clients, then we'll do it this way. That was actually the point of going into the area behind the glass box.
AZ So, after the two-hour break, did you just ...?
BD We just went in there.
AZ To your clients in the glass cell.
BD Right, because we obviously had to go straight in there. Because if our clients had arrived, they would have closed the door, and possibly not let us in, the officers. So we thought we'd just go straight in and receive our clients there. And Ms Lauchstädt maliciously interpreted our leaving as ... we're no longer available for defence. And she interpreted this going into the glass box as a blockade of the court. It was the opposite. But she didn't listen to us about that either. Then she came in, saw that, gave us a 5-minute ultimatum. Back to our places. Our places are beside our clients, dammit. But what she considered our places. Five minutes, and if ... And at the same time threatened to dismiss us all, to throw us all out of the trial, to suspend the trial if we don't do this. Without even asking us why we're doing it. And then the 5 minutes were up.
We were still back there in that area. And then she simply broke off the hearing. And at first didn't dismiss us, but then produced a document, where she threatened us with this again. And two hearings were cancelled. So the trial was adjourned for a total of two weeks.
And then she sent us a letter, that she now, in the interests of procedural efficiency, would not dismiss us, not suspend the trial, but reprimanded us all, literally ‘reprimanded’. Which is crazy, because a judge ... The word ‘reprimand’ doesn't exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It exists in labour law, a reprimand. But obviously she sees us as subordinates or employees. And if we don't do what she wants, then that seems to be grounds for her to reprimand us. So, a yellow card, and then a red card next time. That's how she operates, and what the results of the first day of the trial were.
AZ I'll summarise that again. So, Judge Katrin Lauchstädt initially didn't allow any motions. And then somehow threatened you ...
BD Yes.
AZ ... threatened to dismiss the defence lawyers. And then somehow invented a fantasy punishment, a reprimand that doesn't even exist.
BD Yes.
AZ And is this kind of behaviour common?
BD No, I've never ... I don't know if that's normal for Ms Lauchstädt. I've never experienced anything like it. This is all completely intolerable and scandalous. And, this might be important to add, to tell this in context, because it seemed a bit ... So the press reports were relatively okay overall. But at times it seemed as if we were somehow ... at least on the first day of the trial, that our behaviour was somewhat wild and anarchistic. It ... it wasn't at all. Perhaps we were a little upset at times by Ms Lauchstädt's behaviour. Because, in a way, our hands were tied, when we weren't allowed to speak but needed to speak. Then we might have looked outwardly a little agitated, or as if we weren't following the court's instructions. But the instructions were simply grossly unlawful. There was ... I think in Cicero or something ... I only skimmed it, but an article about this ‘action’ of ours, and that it was a ‘moral spectacle’, in which the lawyers ... I don't know what the author ... I think she might be in the Ethics Council. But I don't know what information she had. It had absolutely nothing to do with morality. And we didn't violate any procedural rules. The only person who trampled the Code of Criminal Procedure and the European Convention on Human Rights was the presiding judge, and with her the court. And everything we did, was a kind of makeshift effort to uphold the rights of our clients.
AZ There were other interventions, e.g. interventions in the work of the press.
BD Yes.
AZ You, as defence lawyers, had prepared a press kit. That's also common practice.
BD Yes.
AZ So it's not like that in every trial, but it does happen. And handed it out to the journalists? In front of the court? Or they could take them?
BD Mm-hmm.
AZ Those who showed interest.
BD Yes, I don't remember exactly how it went. A colleague of ours distributed this press kit to interested journalists. I don't remember exactly how. We weren't allowed into the area where the journalists were. I don't remember exactly how it was distributed. But anyway, some press kits were distributed. They were then confiscated. They were taken away from the journalists again.
AZ By the court bailiffs. And in the presence of the court's press officer.
BD Yes, that's what I heard too. Exactly. Yes. Yes, and most didn't get them back later. Later it was said that yes, anyone who wanted to could have got them back afterward. Maybe. I don't know. But I also don't know if the journalists were even informed, that they could theoretically get them back. In any case, they were confiscated. I believe — from what I've heard — some journalists even had to take the press kit that they themselves had already locked in their lockers, even take those out and hand those in. So, completely without legal basis. The defence is surely allowed – just like the court and the prosecutor – to conduct press work and distribute press kits. There was no legal basis for confiscating it. I don't know, I hope, that perhaps some of the affected journalists file a complaint or ...
AZ I could also understand, from the perspective of a journalist, that you might, at the end, very quickly ... have to submit the text or produce the text, because the editorial deadline is approaching. Or maybe it needs to go online quickly. And then there's no time left at the end, to stand in line again somewhere to pick something up. With a number and a name and have your ID copied again, etc.
BD Yes, for example. A very clear infringement on freedom of the press. Yes. Another thing, the public as a whole was not allowed to take anything in, not even paper or pens.
AZ Not even a pencil?
BD Not even a pencil or paper. Sometimes it happens, that these are handed out, but not even that was ... The public was left with no opportunity to take notes. Simply unlawful.
AZ And how did the second day of the trial go? After this two-week break?
BD The presiding judge's tone had changed slightly. At first, she seemed a bit more friendly and open. But it was purely superficial. Nothing at all has changed. Everything was exactly the same. Our clients were still in the glass box. Our note-takers were not allowed in. Even in the Stammheim trial in 1975, that wasn't a problem, the defence had its own note-takers.
AZ Probably on typewriters back then.
BD Yes. Or by hand, whatever. And the trial was even recorded. And little by little, even the defence transcriptions were left to the recording. Incidentally, there were no glass boxes in the 1975 trial either. Although I don't really want to compare them. It's maybe inappropriate. But it's still noteworthy, that even by those standards, the show trial, which it was back then, which ended with the death of all the defendants – that's why I don't want to compare them now. But if you're interested in comparing them, it's quite surprising, that the court is more inflexible in certain respects today. What was the question?
AZ Second day of the trial.
BD Exactly, that was on 11 May and ... We wanted to reiterate the same motions. And then came the decision again, that we would not have the floor until the indictment was read. And paradoxically, the judge then said – after she had just decided that we would again not be given the floor – that we should announce now whether we have any motions, and if so, which ones. To outline it roughly. We all did that. And then she made the decision again that we could only submit motions after the indictment had been read. Well, it was a bit strange. Because she said at the beginning, we didn't get the floor again, but then she kept giving us the floor, to say what we wanted to do, if we ever got the floor.
AZ It makes absolutely no sense.
BD No, it was not logical. And that, too, took hours. And for us, absolutely nothing had changed. Nothing at all changed in the entire arrangement. Also regarding the dilemma that we don't want to submit these motions only after the indictment has been read, when we want to discuss the content. We could then consider: Okay, we'll go with it for now, make our opening statements, everything stays as it is, and then submit our applications at some point when our clients have become involved. But ... this also leads to crucial negotiation steps taking place under conditions that are simply unacceptable. For example, we want the note-takers to be there, to take notes and document everything. That's why they're there, from the beginning. And especially in these moments, when we read the indictment, when our clients make their opening statements, we need our clients by our side. Something spontaneous might come to mind. Or they want to quickly tell me something. That's ... that's why we can't just say, we'll just leave everything as it is. It's a violation of human rights, and against all the principles of a constitutional state. But we'll let it run like this for now. And let's listen to the indictment. And deliver our opening statements. This is ... completely impossible. Especially because then we begin to talk about the content, with a court that we just rejected for good reason, because of bias. So, why should I even start communicating with them? When they keep signalling to us that they don't give a shit about what we say. What our clients want, or can say, or might bring up, is completely irrelevant to them. So, if at its core, at the beginning, the whole arrangement is such that that in their view our clients are highly dangerous criminals, who don't even need to be heard, at least at the beginning ... Where is the hope supposed to come from, if the whole setup is already so blatantly in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Where is the hope supposed to come from to have any meaningful conversation with these judges about the content we actually want to be discussing? And that's why we basically can't start the negotiations properly at all, until all of this is cleared up. Until all of this has been properly rectified, and the judges have essentially apologised for everything that has happened so far. That's why I don't see any solution at the moment, except that this court actually resigns of its own accord or the recusal motions are granted. Because these judges are obviously biased. And you can't have a normal conversation with them about the issues at hand. And basically, that was the topic on the second day of the trial. The court tried not to change anything at all, and started anyway. And we kept saying: No, actually, this isn't going to work. The whole arrangement here is structured in a way that makes it impossible to begin negotiations in a reasonable manner. And with these discussions, the second day was over.
AZ And that's also from the court ... or the court is putting you in a bit of a dilemma with this, because you don't want your clients in pre-trial detention any longer. The longer the process is delayed, if Ms Lauchstädt says another two weeks ...
BD Correct.
AZ ... interruption. Or cancels or terminates court dates, then that means your clients' time, they remain in prison ...
BD Correct. At least that's what she's trying ... Exactly, that's definitely an important consideration, that we need to keep in mind. Right, so she puts us in these dilemmas. And she thinks she can threaten us, right? With dismissal and suspension, so that everything will take much longer. But in a certain sense, if you think it through to the end, these are empty threats. Because, given the way the court is behaving, our clients will ... They've already decided that our clients will be in prison for a long time. So even if it takes longer now ... If it leads to us getting different judges here, then it's a success. And ultimately, it won't extend our clients' detention. Because long prison sentences ... these judges will mean long sentences.
AZ Yes.
BD And they have to go. And then our clients might have a chance at a fair trial.
AZ And is it possible that your motion for recusal will be successful? What are your chances of that?
BD Yes, well, it's always possible. If we have independent courts deciding this, then they should actually go through. The problem is that most ... recusal motions almost never go through, because they are judges from the same court; often they sharing neighbouring offices.
AZ How shitty is that?
BD Yes, it's an organisational ... Functionally, it's ... simply a system error, that ... regarding recusal motions, as a rule, the judges who decide, are very close to judges they're assessing. Because usually one crow doesn't peck out the eye of another. That's how the saying goes, I think. And it's usually the same in cases of bias. Motions for recusal are usually unsuccessful.
AZ They go to the cafeteria together, and chat and eat ...
BD Exactly that.
AZ ... and drink coffee.
BD And, in exceptional there might be antipathy. Then maybe the motion will be successful. Or the matter is so obvious, so, so, so obvious, that even the judge's friend has no other choice. So, we can't harbour any illusions. But we justified that precisely over 20 pages, the whole backstory ... They were submitted after the first trial day. And if we somehow get sensible decision-makers involved, then they should actually go through. But still, objectively speaking, the chances are probably slim.
AZ And your clients are charged under Section 129: forming a criminal organisation. Is the prosecutor also looking for connections to Palestine Action in the UK?
BD Yes, that was there from the start. The indictment is also full of references to Palestine Action UK. But the structure of the indictment is now different. So, they don't say that our clients are members of the same association ... or that it's some kind of large association, where our clients are supposed to be members. The structure is that there is a German branch of Palestine Action, Palestine Action Germany. And that is supposedly the criminal organisation, i.e., the German branch of Palestine Action. And our clients are supposedly members of that. There is relatively little evidence for this. Criminal organisation requires a minimum level of established organisational structures, which are independent of the roles of our clients. And there's practically nothing for that. Our clients have obviously simply operated under that label. They wore t-shirts with ‘Palestine Action’ on them and it was posted on an Instagram page by Palestine Action Germany. But that simply means, that one has used this name ... or invoked this name. It says absolutely nothing about established organisational structures. So, this will be a discussion point in the trial.
AZ And yes, without wanting to get moralistic, but isn't it perfectly justified to try to prevent the delivery of weapons that are used in genocide? And how is this classified legally?
BD Yes, right. We've already discussed that a bit. Well, I think it's ... I can think of relatively few weapons factories worldwide, where it wouldn't be a blessing, to simply destroy them. It's just machines, which produce destruction. And breaking them is kind of a good deed in itself. And here's where a lot more comes in, that there is this direct connection between the factory in Ulm and the genocide in ... by Israel or the Israeli army, the insane genocide in Gaza. To throw a wrench in the works of this war machine, by attempting to damage parts of the operation, is obviously justified. Morally speaking, it's a good deed, and I think ... I don't know who's received the Federal Cross of Merit, but it's probably been given to quite a few idiots. Well, if it weren't already so contaminated, those five should really get the Federal Cross of Merit.
AZ I don't think they want it.
BD No, they don't want it. Exactly, you wouldn't want it. But morally speaking, it is of course a commendable ... They fulfilled a duty. I would really go that far. It's a human duty, that the five of them demonstrated to us. And what does that say about a country? – Germany, which keeps referring to how wonderfully it has dealt with its past.
AZ Purified, zero hour ...
BD Exactly. And has turned ‘never again’ into an enterprise. But what does ‘never again’ mean if it doesn't apply universally? And if anyone took that seriously, then certainly not Germany, because they supported – ‘never again’ or not – a genocide, with massive military aid and diplomatic aid and whatever else. These five took it seriously, that no genocide should happen, by committing this courageous act. But the repression against the five, this is basically just the tip of the iceberg, against which ... The entire Palestinian solidarity movement seems to have struck a nerve. This German moral self-identification as the purified state, which proves itself to be a good subject of history ...
It's precisely this unconditional solidarity with Israel that it has made it's ‘reason of state’. That's the extent of the atonement. And this is an utterly crazy construct, that's being created here. Because the lesson of history or remembrance can only be, when human rights are universally respected. And not this instrumentalisation, of the lessons to then be in solidarity with a state, even to the point of the most serious violations of international law. And the whole movement against this hits a nerve. Germany isn't even concerned about Israel here. Of course, even less about Jews.
In the end, Germany is only concerned with itself, militarising itself, and at the same time about being the most moral player in world history. And projecting that image. That's all it's about. And that's why this whole Palestine solidarity movement, hits a nerve of this self-perception, this self-identification. Therefore, for reasons of state, this repression had to take place, in order to uphold this self-image. And not to budge an inch from it. And this concerns the ... And the spearhead, or the tip of the iceberg is what's happening now to these five. That was ... Yes. And on top of that, it was also an ... an anti-militarist action. An arms factory was attacked. And that at a time when Germany had made it a further national objective to endlessly rearm itself, to be ready for a war against Russia.
AZ If you could give us a brief outlook of what will happen next in the trial?
BD So, as I said, we simply hope, that we somehow get to deal with judges, who somehow deserve that title, who are impartial, who listen to and weigh our arguments, and come to a fair decision. And as soon as we get the impression that we are dealing with such judges, or our current judge undergoes a metamorphosis in a way that makes this assumption seem justified., then we'll begin negotiating and communicating here. Until then, we'll show these judges that we're not prepared to be a fig leaf here, a legal fig leaf for a sham trial. We, as lawyers, will not stoop to that. We want …
Currently, the only thing that helps our clients is ... not to recognise or legitimise this court, as it is currently behaving. That's the only thing we can do for our clients right now. Because these judges are quite obviously completely biased against them. And as I said, as soon as we have reasonable signs that something will change, we'll participate in the hopefully lawful, reasonable court proceedings. As long as it continues like this, we'll show that the current situation is untenable, and that negotiation is not possible. Because the conditions, that the court is now creating, are hostile to the rule of law and make a mockery of any possible communication. And we must make that clear. That's why I can't predict at all, how this will continue. We are incredibly reliant on public awareness. That's why, up until now, it has been very, very important, that there has been so much trial observation. Human rights organisations are looking at this. The Committee on Fundamental Rights is here and writing reports. Amnesty International is looking at this. Members of the German Bundestag were also present. There is a relatively large press presence. There are many interested listeners here. The families of our clients are here. And that's very important.
Also, that this press continues to report on it. Because what's happening here is truly the axe in the tree of the rule of law, insofar as it still exists. And they simply want to make an example of our clients. The whole thing is intended as a show trial. And we need publicity for this, to show it for the scandal that it is. And again, if this somehow ... Because these kinds of questions keep coming up: Are we helping our clients by blocking the proceedings?
AZ You're not blocking them.
BD We have everything here, we have everything prepared, we want to proceed. The court is blocking progress here. It doesn't help our clients if we agree to these conditions with this court, which is obviously biased. Then we harm our clients. That means we have to fight here, for these basic things ... to get to a point, where our clients are actually heard.
AZ Yes, so from us, solidarity to Ulm5, and thank you for being here and for telling us about this trial.
BD You're welcome. Thank you for your interest. I'm very pleased that I was able to report on this in such detail. Because, in most formats, you can only ever say a few sentences, and explaining the context is not so easy. The motion for recusal, as I said, is 20 pages long. And you kind of have to start from scratch to understand it. So I was glad to be able to report on it in such detail.
AZ Yes. And thank you all for watching, and see you next time.