The intersection of art, activism, and free speech has rarely felt so fraught as it does in the wake of recent controversies in both Germany and the United Kingdom. Two high-profile cases—one involving acclaimed Jewish American photographer Nan Goldin in Berlin, the other British-Palestinian doctor Rahmeh Aladwan in London—have ignited impassioned debates over the limits of criticism, the boundaries of antisemitism, and the right to dissent regarding Israel’s policies in Gaza and beyond.
On November 22, 2024, the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin opened its doors for Nan Goldin’s much-anticipated retrospective, "This Will Not End Well." But the art on the walls quickly took a back seat to the artist’s opening speech. Goldin, whose Jewish grandparents escaped antisemitic pogroms in Russia, used the occasion to deliver a pointed critique of Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon, accusing the state of genocide and lambasting Germany’s unwavering solidarity with Israel. According to Deutsche Welle, Goldin declared, “I decided to use this exhibition as a platform to amplify my position of moral outrage at the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon.” She went further, comparing the destruction in Gaza to the violence her own ancestors fled: “What I see in Gaza reminds me of the pogroms that my grandparents escaped.”
Goldin’s words did not fall on deaf ears. The opening quickly transformed into a scene of activism, with pro-Palestinian supporters waving keffiyehs and Palestinian flags, chanting “Viva Palestine,” and unfurling banners outside the museum. The phrase “Staatsräson is genocide”—a direct jab at Germany’s official doctrine of unwavering support for Israel—was prominently displayed. Adam Broomberg, a Berlin-based South African artist and activist, described the moment on Instagram as a breath of fresh air: “Her fearless words of care and clarity resonated throughout this country, which is currently using the full force of the law, media, cultural and academic institutions to silence and criminalize the Palestinian solidarity movement.”
Yet the backlash was immediate and fierce. Klaus Biesenbach, director of the Neue Nationalgalerie, attempted to respond but was nearly drowned out by the crowd. He later reiterated the museum’s position: “As a museum, we are deeply committed to freedom of art and freedom of expression, even if we do not agree with what is being expressed,” Biesenbach stated, as reported by Deutsche Welle. He added, “Equally important is our commitment to the dignity of every individual, which requires a firm rejection of all forms of antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and all other forms of hatred, bigotry and violence.” Biesenbach did not mince words regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel: “Hamas' attack on the Jewish state... was a cruel act of terrorism that cannot be justified by anything. At the same time, we sympathize with the civilian population in Gaza and Lebanon, whose suffering must not be overlooked.”
The exhibition’s tumultuous opening was just the latest flashpoint in an ongoing German debate over where criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitism. Meron Mendel, director of the Anne Frank Educational Center in Frankfurt, noted a significant shift in the pro-Palestinian protest movement. “The protests are now less about the demand to end the war or to reach a ceasefire but rather, in most cases, about what is meant by anti-Zionism: namely the idea that Israel has no right to exist as a state and that everything 'from the river to the sea' is Palestine,” Mendel told Deutsche Welle. He also highlighted the broader context: Germany, home to Europe’s largest Palestinian diaspora, has seen a surge in canceled exhibitions and events involving Palestinian or pro-Palestinian artists since October 7, 2023, including the postponement of an award ceremony for Palestinian author Adania Shibli at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
Complicating matters further, the German Bundestag recently passed a resolution titled “Never again is now: Protecting, preserving and strengthening Jewish life in Germany,” which reinforced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This definition, critics argue, is so broad that statements like Goldin’s—drawing parallels between Israeli policy and historical pogroms—could be construed as antisemitic. The debate has left many in Germany’s cultural sector feeling caught in a climate of self-censorship and mistrust.
In response to the heated atmosphere at Goldin’s exhibition, the Neue Nationalgalerie organized a symposium, “Art and Activism in Times of Polarization,” intended to foster dialogue among Palestinians, Israelis, Zionists, anti-Zionists, Jews, and non-Jews. Goldin declined to participate, and some pro-Palestinian activists attempted to disrupt the event, threatening both panelists and museum staff. Nevertheless, Mendel called the symposium a success, noting that “about 500 people spoke interestedly and critically with one another.”
Meanwhile, across the English Channel, a parallel drama was unfolding in the United Kingdom. On September 28, 2025, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) ruled that Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan, a British-Palestinian NHS doctor, was fit to practice medicine—rejecting accusations of antisemitism related to her social media posts and public appearances. The case, brought by UK Lawyers for Israel, marks the second time Dr. Aladwan has successfully defended her license against such complaints.
At the heart of the case was Dr. Aladwan’s use of the term “Jewish supremacy” instead of “Zionism,” which complainants alleged amounted to harassment of British Jews and posed a risk to Jewish patients. The Tribunal, however, dismissed these charges, emphasizing the crucial legal distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism in professional conduct. In its decision, the Tribunal cited Dr. Aladwan’s right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that “in a democracy, quite rightly, [this] holds more authority than the Zionist lobby.”
Dr. Aladwan’s supporters, including three other doctors facing similar allegations in pending tribunals, rallied to her defense. Dr. Ellen Kriesels, a UK NHS doctor, voiced her opposition to the “genocide in Gaza” and criticized “the Zionist lobby working overtime to suppress doctors’ free speech.” Dr. Aladwan herself commented on the nature of the complaints, saying, “I felt like there was a sense of shame from GMC Council. They were not there because I’ve harmed anyone, and they were not there because I’m a danger. They were there so that they do not upset the Israel lobby.”
Campaigners in the UK argue that Dr. Aladwan’s case is not isolated but part of a broader pattern of pro-Israel advocacy groups targeting professionals—teachers, lawyers, and now doctors—who express pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist views. Zillur Rahman, of Rahman Lowe Solicitors, summed up the stakes: “There’s no purpose in having a free speech if it doesn’t entitle you to offend other people. We live in a democracy, and that’s meant to be a cornerstone of our society. So Adwan has done nothing here today, apart from exercising that right to free speech, and we all must do so.”
Both the Berlin and London cases highlight the growing polarization around the Israel-Palestine conflict and the challenge of maintaining open dialogue in the face of heated rhetoric and institutional pressures. The debates are not likely to subside soon, but the efforts to keep channels of communication open—however messy and contentious—may prove vital for democratic societies grappling with questions of justice, memory, and dissent.
