Genocide: What is it With The Germans?

• CrossFireArabia
• October 8, 2025

By Tarek Bae 

Since the beginning of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, German media have been accused of pro-Israeli bias. A new investigation shows that one of Germany’s largest outlets, public broadcaster ZDF, systematically silences criticisms on Israel.

ZDF is as close as Germany gets to state TV. It is funded through a mandatory broadcasting fee, enforceable by court, and legally obliged to foster free opinion-forming, reflect social diversity, and remain objective and impartial. The gap between that mandate and reality is stark. Surveys show 73% of Germans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, while only 13% see Israel’s actions as appropriate. Even ZDF’s own polling found 61% think the government should pressure Israel more strongly. These are the opinions of the majority, the “reasonable realities” ZDF is supposed to reflect — yet its coverage does not reflect them.

Instead, ZDF censors them. Internal sources confirmed that its social media accounts automatically hid comments containing “genocide,” “Volkermord,” “war of exhaustion,” and even “Palestine.” When confronted, ZDF admitted the filters existed, claiming they ensured “netiquette” and protected against “criminal-law concerns.” But repeated test runs showed comments with these terms never appeared, while posts denying or belittling Gaza’s suffering were unaffected. That selective standard shows the problem clearly: potential “criminality” was invoked only when Israel was criticized. Blanket blocking of terms central to describing Israel’s actions suppresses legitimate perspectives and breaches ZDF’s mandate of pluralism.

Criminalizing the debate

The absence extends beyond comment sections. “Not only in the comments but also in ZDF heute’s reporting the term genocide is barely visible,” says journalist Fabian Goldmann. “That’s despite major human rights groups, UN experts, and leading legal scholars repeatedly calling it the most precise term for Israel’s actions.”

Palestinian Ambassador Laith Arafeh calls such blocking “regrettable,” stressing that it suppresses vital debate on horrors the Palestinian population faces. He points out that the International Court of Justice found plausible grounds to investigate Israel for genocide. Political scientist Jules El-Khatib adds that calling the term a netiquette violation is “frankly absurd,” since genocide is a legal definition, not an insult. Goldmann argues ZDF’s rationale fits a wider pattern: instead of naming Israeli war crimes, those who do so are criminalized.

Pressure on staff

Censorship also targets employees. One staff member reports being pressured to delete a private post quoting UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s genocide accusation. ZDF did not respond to questions about the case. The contrast with presenter Andrea Kiewel is striking: she faced no repercussions after wearing on-air a necklace showing a map of “Greater Israel,” symbolically erasing Palestine. Kiewel continues to host Fernsehgarten, one of ZDF’s most prominent shows, broadcasting from her residence in Israel, which she openly describes as “my home.” The asymmetry speaks volumes: criticism of Israel is suppressed, while overt nationalist symbolism in its favor is tolerated.

Another employee alleges ZDF’s editorial independence was compromised by calls from Israel’s ambassador Ron Prosor, who demanded sharper pro-Israel coverage. According to this account, ZDF altered the texts afterwards. Again, the broadcaster offered no explanation. Reporters Without Borders has likewise warned of repeated Israeli embassy pressure on German newsrooms through emails, letters, and calls.

Distortion as practice

Despite these concerns, ZDF spokesperson Thomas Hagedorn insists the broadcaster reports “comprehensively, independently and from many perspectives.” But the record shows otherwise.

A telling example is the BILD scandal of November 2024. Germany’s biggest tabloid published what it claimed was a Hamas “war document,” saying it proved ceasefires would only benefit Hamas. Netanyahu cited the article to justify rejecting a ceasefire. The New York Times later revealed the documents were fabricated at Netanyahu’s behest. Yet ZDF repeated the claim that Hamas was waging “psychological warfare” without verifying the source. No correction or apology followed, even after the forgery was exposed. In effect, ZDF had laundered Netanyahu’s talking points into German public discourse.

Broader content analysis reinforces the pattern. By December 2024, Gaza’s death toll was more than 24 times Israel’s, yet ZDF referred to Israelis as “victims” 33% more often. An Itidal review of 500 ZDF pieces (October 2023–December 2024) found the word “barbaric” overwhelmingly applied to attacks on Israel (90.7% of cases) and never to attacks on Gaza. Even in Ukraine coverage, the term appeared in just 4.6% of cases. This vocabulary echoed government messaging: Netanyahu called the Oct. 7 Hamas attack “barbaric,” a framing ZDF and other outlets quickly adopted.

Political entanglement

ZDF’s structure amplifies the concern. A study by the Otto Brenner Foundation found 62% of its Television Council members belong to political parties, despite a Constitutional Court ruling limiting party representation to one-third.

Public broadcasters already average an excessive 41%, ZDF surpasses even that, making it the German broadcaster closest to “state media.”

This entanglement shapes coverage. ZDF has labeled the slogan “Freedom for Palestine” antisemitic. Right-wing commentator Ninve Ermagan used ZDF to stigmatize protests against Gaza’s genocide as a “radicalized pro-Palestine scene.” Government positions criticized by experts as repressive are given prominence, while dissenting voices struggle to appear. In effect, ZDF often functions as a keyword provider for Israeli hardline circles or as an extension of government messaging.

El-Khatib observes: “In Germany, free speech is too often constricted when Israel is the subject. The idea of banning ‘Free Palestine’ was abandoned as absurd, yet suppression persists in other forms. The term ‘genocide’ is still treated as a combat word, even as human rights groups, legal scholars, and most of the German public consider it accurate.”

Restoring trust

A public broadcaster should broaden democratic language, not narrow it. Restoring trust requires dismantling word filters, disclosing external pressures, protecting staff from censorship, and correcting the record when disinformation has been amplified. Anything less is not a moderation glitch. It is a failure of duty.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu’s editorial policy.