Berlin Holocaust Memorial stabbing suspect wanted to kill Jewish people, prosecutors say
The suspect in a stabbing at Berlin's Holocaust Memorial two days before Germany's election was a Syrian refugee who apparently wanted to kill Jews, according to prosecutors.
The 19-year-old was arrested almost three hours after the knife attack on a Spanish tourist.
The victim, aged 30, sustained life-threatening injuries in the incident on Friday evening but survived, officials said. He underwent an emergency operation and was put into an artificial coma, however his life is no longer in danger.
Police and prosecutors said the suspect, who approached officers with blood on his hands and clothes, arrived in Germany in 2023 as an unaccompanied minor and successfully applied for asylum. He lives in Leipzig.
Evidence so far suggests the attack was linked to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. He is believed to have chosen to mount the attack at the memorial after deciding to target Jewish people, prosecutors said.
They are working to establish if the suspect, who is under investigation on suspicion of attempted murder and bodily harm, suffers from any mental illness. They said he was not previously known to police or judicial authorities in Berlin.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser described the attack as "an abhorrent and brutal crime" and said that "we will use all the means at our disposal to deport violent criminals to Syria again."
At the time of his arrest, he was carrying a backpack containing a prayer mat, a Quran, a sheet with verses from the Quran as well as Friday's date, and the knife allegedly used in the attack.
An eyewitness told local broadcaster RBB24 that two men had appeared to approach each other before the victim was suddenly stabbed at around 6pm local time (5pm UK time).
Video of city centre, near the Brandenburg Gate, showed emergency vehicles and heavily armoured police lined along one side of the 1.9 hectare (4.7 acres) memorial site, which had been sealed off as investigators combed the scene.
The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, one of the German capital's most sacred sites, commemorates the six million Jews murdered by Adolf Hitler's Nazis during World War Two.
The stabbing came just two days before Germans vote in a national election on Sunday, with the campaign marred by a series of high-profile attacks.
Polls suggest a far-right party could come in second place for the first time in nine decades.
One of the recent attacks was a stabbing in which two were killed, including a toddler, which was blamed on an Afghan immigrant. That prompted a fraught debate on immigration and demands from the front-runner conservatives for the border to be closed.
In December, a Saudi man who had lived in Germany for years and whose posting history showed he sympathised with the far-right, rammed a Christmas market with a car, killing six, including a child, and injuring hundreds.
Earlier on Friday, an 18-year-old Chechen was arrested on suspicion of planning an attack on the Israeli embassy in Berlin, Bild newspaper reported.
German news agency dpa, which cited unidentified security sources, said that the suspect was planning to leave Germany to join the Islamic State group.
On Saturday, a suspicious object resembling explosives was found during a related search of an apartment in Potsdam and taken away to be defused elsewhere, police said.
More about
Berlin Germany
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
28 minutes ago
- Metro
Dozens killed and injured in suicide bombing on Greek Orthodox Church in Syria
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video A suicide bomber opened fire then detonated an explosive vest inside a Greek Orthodox church in Syria during Sunday mass. As many as 22 worshippers have been killed and another 63 injured in the 'terrorist attack' in Damascus. The gunman – believed to be linked with the Islamic State – entered the Mar Elias Church, shouting 'You pigs!' as he aimed his weapon at the crowd and proceeded to shoot people indiscriminately. He then blew himself up, detonating an explosive belt he was wearing. Footage circulating on social media from inside the church shows piles of dead bodies, with blood visible throughout the scene. Syrian resident, Lorance Meamari, said: 'He entered and started shouting 'You Pigs'. 'When he started firing, some men tried to grab him, but he blew himself up right in that spot near the crater. 'I personally extracted more than 10 victims, these were the ones I carried myself. More Trending 'We also extracted 10 or 15 bags of body parts.' The attack was the deadliest of its kind in Syria in years, and it has raised fresh concerns over the re-emergence of extremist sleeper cells in the war-torn nation. It comes as Damascus under its de facto Islamist rule is trying to win the support of minorities. Syria's foreign ministry described it as 'a desperate attempt to undermine national coexistence and to destabilise the country'. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: All 9 countries on the UK Foreign Office 'no go' travel list
The Herald Scotland
37 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump vowed to keep US out of wars. What changed with Iran attack?
It's not clear what exact damage was done in Iran. The White House says U.S. bombers decimated three uranium enrichment facilities. What comes next is also far from certain: additional U.S. strikes, Iran's retaliation, a resumption of diplomacy, even? Is this the start of the collapse of Iran's clerical regime? Is it a historical moment akin to the breakup of the Soviet Union? What's indisputable is that one pull factor for the U.S. is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long, complicated relationship with recent American presidents. The U.S. bombing of Iran is also the culmination of a process that traces at least as far back to the 1990s when Netanyahu, then a young lawmaker, predicted the Islamic Republic, Israel's sworn enemy, would one day either acquire, or be on the cusp of acquiring, a nuclear weapon and Israel would be forced to act - ideally with U.S. help. "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb," Netanyahu said in 1992. His prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, "Fighting Terrorism." Netanyahu's constant refrain: bomb Iran Netanyahu is the longest-serving Israeli prime minister in the Jewish state's history. He's occupied the role on and off for more than 17 years. In every one of those years he's sought to convince American presidents to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy purposes only. Netanyahu has appeared at the United Nations with elaborate maps and cartoon-style drawings of bombs. He worked hard to scupper the 2015 nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that Trump exited because he said Iranian officials could not be trusted. In 2002, Netanyahu told a U.S. congressional committee that both Iraq and Iran would soon have a nuclear bomb. A year later the U.S. invaded Iraq. In 2009, he told members of Congress in private that Iran was just a year or two away from producing a nuclear weapon, according to a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks. Successive American presidents have listened and acted on Netanyahu's Iran warnings, most substantively politically in the form of the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, which was designed to limit Iran's uranium enrichment in return for relief of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. When Trump, in his first term, exited that agreement it was working in the sense that Iran was not enriching uranium at a level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Netanyahu's public and private relationships with recent American presidents have been marked by chilly tensions and insults. In 2015, Netanyahu's spokesman apologized to former President Barack Obama. He has also clashed with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. Netanyahu has even annoyed Trump, although their relationship trends toward mutual lavish praise. But no American president - until now - has gone along with Netanyahu's war plans for Iran, fearing the U.S. could be dragged into a wider Middle East war. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan still haunt U.S. presidents. "The president more than anybody is worried about protracted military conflicts and that is not what we are getting ourselves involved in," U.S. Vice President JD Vance said on ABC's "This Week" program on June 22. Vance said the Trump administration is also not trying to force regime change in Iran. Reading Trump's Iran tea leaves Trump may also not be as risk averse to military actions as is sometimes portrayed, including by himself. In his first term, he ordered a missile attack in Syria to punish then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons; a raid to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and a drone attack that killed Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander much beloved in Iran whose death led to Iranian reprisals on U.S. bases in Iraq. Also in the background: The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, and former U.S. officials such as Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration, say Iran's nuclear capabilities have advanced since Trump exited the nuclear deal. "Iran cannot be left with an enrichment capability, able to produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing," Shapiro wrote in a recent blog post. Trump has made various comments for years that reflect that sentiment. The main thrust of his remarks in recent weeks have been to say he won't allow Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program, and Tehran could give it up through negotiation or through what he called "the hard way." After first pushing for a diplomatic solution, Trump's tone changed after Israel on June 13 struck dozens of nuclear and military targets in Iran, killing many of Iran's military elite and senior nuclear scientists. By June 17, the president was threatening Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on social media, calling him an "easy target." See updated maps, satellite images: Iran's nuclear sites before and after Israeli attacks Trump likes a winner. He often says so himself. In the days leading up to the U.S. strike, Israel appeared to be winning. "Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a statement as he addressed the world on June 22 to update them on the war's latest development. He spoke in English, not Hebrew. In his own address, to the American people, Trump said, "I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel." Not mentioned: U.S. intelligence agencies assessed earlier this year that they did not think Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb. Contributing: Francesca Chambers, Tom Vanden Brook
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Only Trump supporters are surprised by the President's bombing decision
POOL/AFP via Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Over the weekend, President Trump's bombing of Iran's three nuclear sites has split his Make America Great Again supporter base. His normally outspoken and brazen acolytes have been learning to mid-air somersault as they seek to rationalise and excuse the President's decision. These commentators, after all, are the ones who have bleated an America First policy of non-interventionism. The bombing goes against everything the MAGA movement stands for. They say domestic policy, protectionist trade, and American nationalism are utterly incompatible with global interventionism and that spinning the Middle East roulette wheel and claiming you can foresee the outcome is utter madness. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But why are they surprised? The MAGA movement aspires to a status of selective global engagement. For most of the 19th century, Britain was diplomatically isolated, having what Lord Palmerston called "no eternal allies" to whom she owed favours. The obverse of this, of course, was that no other country owed favours to her. Trump's hostility to NATO lends credence to this ambition, but his unwavering allegiance to Israel continues to tie America's fate to the Middle East. His decision to strike Iran on the back of Israel's attack on June 13 can hardly come as a shock when the President has continued America's tradition of long-standing military and economic support for the country. American foreign policy has always been split: on the one hand, some believe the country should be an inspiring "Shining City on a Hill" example to others. Conversely, others are convinced that only intervention and a total military and economic global hegemony will liberate the world from despotism and fanaticism and shape it in America's image. The two dominant ideologies in the United States about foreign policy are interventionism, which encourages military and political intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, and isolationism, which discourages this. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is an old controversy dating back to the Founding Fathers, who struggled to reconcile the opportunities of continental security with the realities of a British, Spanish, and French imperial world. No president has ever managed to reconcile their ambition with what our own former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, called "Events, dear boy, events." In the American tradition, there has never been a clear demarcation between Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, on whether the US should embrace a global role. "America First," after all, was first deployed by Woodrow Wilson, who was reluctant for the country to enter World War 1 (it, of course, subsequently did in 1917). Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson's Republican bitter rival and predecessor, believed the country should "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy was to negotiate peacefully and maintain a strong military presence to back up one's words. In the 19th century, the United States transitioned from an isolationist, post-colonial regional power to a trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific power. Debates about restraint and international engagement are still the same as they were at the turn of the last two centuries and just as self-deludingly hypocritical. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad President James Monroe declared the eponymous Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It stated that further European colonisation or intervention in the Americas would be viewed as hostile toward the United States. Monroe nevertheless expanded trade and pacified relations with Great Britain while growing the United States at the expense of the Spanish Empire, including obtaining Florida with the Adams–Onís Treaty in 1819. Likewise, Dollar diplomacy, notably during the presidency of William Howard Taft, sought to minimise the use or threat of military force by using the United States' economic power to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia. With no loss of irony, Taft was a proponent of American imperialism in the early 20th century, and like his presidential descendant, he considered North American economic integration with Canada inevitable. More often than not, internationalism is forced upon leaders. America passed successive Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to keep the country out of the Second World War. By the time of the Pearl Harbour attacks on December 8, 1941, America had been involved in a Destroyers-for-bases deal in 1940, and this was followed by the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which allowed the U.S. to sell, lend or give war materials to nations Roosevelt wanted to support: Britain, France, and China. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 likewise promised unabated assistance to anti-communist allies. Security does not begin or stop, as Trump tends to forget, at a literal border. No one presumably ever wants war, but it is a house of cards to build a cult of personality, as Trump has done, around the notion that he is not an international adventurer, a NeoCon imperialist, or an American Caesar. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Iranian regime is one of the most awful the world has seen. Since the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, they have tortured and tormented their people more than any foreign power. The regime's clear ambitions have consistently drawn strong opposition from Western countries and neighbouring states in the Middle East. The Trump presidency cannot pretend this reality does not exist, and Israel certainly cannot. "Trust in Trump" is now an exercise in faith. The problem, as Trump supporters will soon discover, is that the central tenets of MAGA are contradictory and more at home in a pre-WW2 world where the world was less interconnected. Complexity begets complexity, and only the stupid believe that war is an Occam's razor. You can do nothing, you cannot do everything. This is the irony of superpowers. America has been, and very likely will always be, caught in a game of setting an example to the world and being the world's policeman. It is a question for history as to whether this example is a good one or not. To defend its interests, the US has engaged in extrajudicial, covert, and military engagements in the name of everything from security to humanitarianism.
