We, the IARC orga team, would like to respond to some of the accusations brought against the event itself or against us as the orga team after last year's conference.
We unequivocally condemn the ongoing and systematic violence carried out by the Israeli government against Palestinian civilians. The scale of the destruction in Gaza–including mass killings, displacement, the targeting of hospitals and civilian infrastructure, and the restriction of food, water, and medical aid–is a war crime. Multiple human rights organizations, UN experts, and the International Court of Justice have warned that these actions may amount to genocide, as defined under international law. We echo these concerns and call for immediate accountability, an end to the violence, and the protection of all civilian lives.
At the same time, we condemn the attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians, as well as their authoritarian control and actions that harm both Israelis and Palestinians. Targeting civilians is never acceptable, no matter who is responsible.
We consider the right of both Israel and Palestine to exist to be non-negotiable. Our vision aligns with international law and longstanding UN resolutions calling for a peaceful coexistence between two sovereign states within secure and recognized borders.
The incident described was not an attempt to silence pro-Palestinian voices, nor did we ask anyone to remove keffiyehs or other symbols of solidarity. We chose not to feature photos of keffiyehs on our social media channels. This decision was based on the fact that, in Germany, keffiyehs have at times been used by individuals or groups advocating the destruction of Israel. We want to stress that we do not believe everyone wearing a keffiyeh holds such views; rather, we were concerned about the symbol being misinterpreted. However, anybody was free to take pictures at the conference and in front of our official photo wall with keffiyehs and to publish them on their social media.
The observation that the organizing team primarily consists of animal rights activists from Germany and Luxembourg is indeed correct. While our events involve many volunteers from around the world, very few individuals have approached us to join the core conference team, which involves organization and preparation throughout the entire year. Organizing the conference is a volunteer effort and requires significant resources. Due to logistical constraints, it's essential that most of the organizing team is based relatively close to the conference location. This has made it challenging for us to build a fully international organizing structure. Nevertheless, we are open to receiving feedback on how to make the team and the event more inclusive and representative of our global community.
The current state of the world also seems overwhelming and disastrous to us. We are conscious of our privileges but also recognize the limitations of our capacity to solve complex global crises. We are a collective of volunteers striving to build a community centered on animal rights while integrating intersectional perspectives and broader social justice concerns.
We want to make it clear that we welcome participants, speakers, and helpers from around the world to the conference, as long as they agree to respect the Conference Guidelines, and we will do our best to ensure that the conference is a safe space for everyone, regardless of their background or origin. We have never and will not exclude people solely based on their nationality. People coming to IARC never represent a country or state–they come as individuals, sharing their knowledge, experiences, and perspectives as part of a global community.
After a dispute at the IARC2024 about how and whether the IARC should be obliged to position itself officially in the Gaza/Israel conflict, a group of activists called for a boycott of the IARC2025. In this call for boycott, some claims have been made, to which the IARC2025 orga team wants to respond, as they do not portray the situation properly. In the claims below, "they"/"their" refers to the IARC2024 orga team.
claim: It was quite clear to us that their "apolitical" policy doesn't apply to other widely accepted social justice issues, such as feminism or queer rights–which they openly support, for example, by using rainbow-pride coloured name tags as labels for their "awareness team."
response: The conference does not have an apolitical policy. Since the start of the conference, it has been the goal of the conference to provide a platform where many different, and sometimes also conflicting, positions can be presented, as long as the topics presented do not discriminate against certain groups. The conference aims to provide intersectional discussions and not exclude any topics within the bounds of the conference guidelines (e.g., the Conference Guideline 2025). This is depicted in the conference's Goal & Vision and Concept.
claim: they invited a speaker who talked about providing vegan food to the Ukranian army, which shows, in their view, that Ukranian/white resistance—as long as they eat vegan—is acceptable, but brown resistance is terrorism or complicated
response: As we have been doing for many years at the IARC, no speakers were invited – we started a general call for contributions, and anybody who had a topic relating to animal rights could apply as a speaker. In 2024, a speaker presented on the topic "#StopEcocideUkraine: the influence of war on nature and animals", and this same speaker also presented a report on animal rights in Ukraine during the morning plenary. In 2024, we did not have any speaker applications from activists in Palestine, but if that had been the case, certainly, they would have also contributed to the conference. At the IARC, we have had speakers from Palestine in the past, so there is no preference for speakers from Ukraine to present compared to speakers from Palestine.
The interpretation that emerges from the misrepresentation of our speaker selection process that we would classify brown resistance as terrorism or complicated is simply wrong. Making claims based on incorrect interpretations or misinformation and presenting them as facts does not constitute constructive criticism.
claim: After this incident, attendees attempted to engage in a dialogue with IARC organisers on a larger scale. However, the organisers wanted to limit the conversation to as small a group as possible to keep it private, turning it more into a conflict resolution session than an open discussion. Many people who care about Palestine didn't even know this conversation was happening.
response: The IARC2024 orga team did not organize the discussion, but the discussion came up spontaneously, and about 40 people joined. A part of the IARC2024 orga team was able to join this discussion – most did not even have the time since there were many tasks running in parallel that had to be taken care of.
At no point was the discussion group restricted in size or limited in duration. The doors to the room remained open throughout the entire session, allowing anyone to join at any time. There were sufficient opportunities for all participants to be informed about and engage with the discussion, including through communication channels such as our telegram groups.
The discussion began around 9:30 p.m. and continued for over three hours. The organizing team had been on site since 6 a.m., working continuously throughout the day. Given the intensity of the schedule, there was no time slot in which all team members could participate in a meaningful exchange without disrupting the ongoing conference program.
The discussion was moderated by persons who, ad-hoc, decided to take on that role but were not chosen or even known at that time to the orga team members.
claim: Instead of taking our needs seriously, IARC organizers fixated on the risk of being perceived as antisemitic by German "left-wing" groups and people.
response: We took the concerns seriously at all times; otherwise, we wouldn't have joined a three-hour discussion and addressed the situation in numerous hour-long meetings after the conference. The "risk of being perceived as antisemitic" was one concern we raised during the discussion regarding the publication of photos with keffiyeh through our official channels, since, at least in Germany, keffiyehs are also misused by right-wing or clearly antisemitic groups.
claim: We realised all our efforts in good faith to reform the conference had been totally ignored.
response: Unfortunately, we did not receive constructive suggestions. During the on-site discussion, we explicitly stated that we welcome applications for presentation slots addressing the situation in Palestine, provided there is a connection to animal rights, and that anyone is invited to contribute to making the conference more diverse.
Instead, following the conference, we were subjected to pressure via social media, based on claims that we had not responded quickly enough to related email inquiries or had not made further public statements on the matter. In some cases, individuals publicly insulted us. Retrospective claims that these actions were driven solely by good intentions are, in this context, difficult to take seriously.
claim: The "awareness team", which is supposed to address such situations with fairness, appeared to consist solely of organisers operating by their own standards of racism, which exclude acknowledgement of the genocide in Palestine.
response: The primary role of the awareness team is to mediate and prevent interpersonal conflicts, particularly those arising from discriminatory behavior. Our focus lies in addressing specific, individual issues where a resolution appears possible and within our scope. This mandate does not extend to moderating or resolving political conflicts, wars, or broader global issues.
At the same time, we acknowledge that we, like most people, carry internalized forms of racism and have gaps in our knowledge on many complex topics. We are committed to ongoing reflection and learning in this regard.
We have repeatedly been accused of "canceling" or "silencing" people and acts of showing solidarity with Palestine – a claim that is incorrect and which we must clearly refute:
Our social media channels are dedicated to promoting our annual event – the IARC. Our focus lies in sharing information about the IARC, showcasing contributions of speakers to the conference, and advertising the conference within the animal rights community. We do not use these platforms for general educational work or to raise awareness about specific issues. Many great accounts and organizations in the animal rights bubble are committed to that, but we are not one of them since we are not an animal rights organization either. Our role is limited to organizing and promoting this one event.
We hope that our statement helps to foster a better understanding of the overall situation. We were deeply unsettled by the speed and intensity with which hate, threats, and personal insults were directed at us, both as an organization and as individuals.
There comes a point where the line between constructive criticism and unacceptable behavior is clearly crossed, and that point has been reached in several instances.
We would like to make it clear: we do not tolerate hate speech or hate comments – online and offline. Such messages and comments will be deleted. Individuals who persist in spreading hate, insults, or blatantly false accusations will be blocked and excluded from participation in the IARC. We do not join discussions in comment sections and do not moderate them.