[flagged]
>It's not that hard as a foreign student to not join political protests in favor of terrorist groups.
I obviously don't support terrorism, but people unambiguously have the right to protest in favour of terrorist groups. It's only when they provide material support to these groups that they actually commit a crime.
Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism.
Nothing in that article implies supporting terrorism. They support Palestine.
People conflating supporting Palestine with supporting terrorism should be ashamed of themselves, as Israel is the biggest terror state in the world.
Well, when it comes to conflating, I'll take your calling Israel a terror state as a standard: The democratically elected government of Gaza-Palestine is the Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. Thus by your conflation regarding Israel to be a terror state, the Gaza strip part of Palestine is as well. Its population chose a known terrorist organisation, everything is run by a terrorist organisation, they did terrorist things such as bombings, abductions and murders of innocent civilians. Thus (Gaza-)Palestine is therefore a terror state. Supporting it is therefore supporting terrorism.
Thus either you apply your conflating standard equally, Palestine and Israel are both terror states, and any support of them is supporting terrorism. Or you rather differentiate, and separate Palestine as an abstract concept of a hypothetical future homestead of the Palestinians from the Hamas, the Fatah and other (mostly terrorist) organisations that govern it, and the population that, in parts, is governed by them and elects and supports or opposes them and their actions. But if you do that, you will also have to differentiate between Israel as a state, its military, government, parties, population and their respective support and actions.
In that second case you can support Palestine as an abstract idea without supporting terrorism, you can support the population and their rights, hopes and struggle. As you can do with Israel and their people. However, on pro-Palestine protests, I've never really seen this kind of differentiation applied, I've seen far too many Hamas flags, heard far too many calls to wipe Israel from the map, far too many praises for terrorists (called "martyrs"). Thus, in practically all cases, I'd without hesitation call supporters of Palestine supporters of terrorism.
> Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation.
According to the New York Times, Netanhayu was propping up Hamas in the weeks and months before the current conflict ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). This has been happening since the beginning of Hamas.
The government over there has been supporting Hamas since the beginning, because they don't want to deal with Fatah going to the UN. Everything recently is the result of that. So don't come around talking about Hamas. Especially since Netanyahu and his US counterparts are trying to sideline Fatah, and are persecuting secular Palestinians like Samidoun and the PFLP more than Hamas. The US, Canada, Germany etc. crack down on the seculat, left-leaning Samidoun so that only Hamas is left standing in Gaza.
I think it's wise to separate the future of both Israel and Palestine from their present. In 100 years there will be surviving Israelis and surviving Palestinians and they'll have a view of the present generation.
"The antisemite does not accuse the Jew of stealing because he thinks he stole something. He does it because he enjoys watching the Jew turn out his pockets to prove his innocence."
Although I laud your unassailable argument highlighting yet another instance of double standards against Jews, ultimately there is little upside in engaging with the "no, no, technically there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism" crowd. I am sad that Hacker News is rife with this kind of bigotry, but I don't see the tide of this battle turning anytime soon.
In case, dear reader, you are one of the intellectually curious ones who holds the opposing viewpoint, ask yourself why you demand that only the Jews lack the right to self determination?
I'll bite.
Most demands for self-determination were for self-rule on land already inhabited by the group in question.
Zionism was unique in that it demanded self-determination on land inhabited almost 100% by a different group of people.
Given that the Jews were forcibly expelled from their homeland by the Romans, by definition, any Jewish self-determination would need to take place in a land that is at least partially[0] already inhabited. You now have two choices:
1. Deny Jews the right to self-determination altogether, continuing the dispossession of an actively persecuted people, indeed, the same one that was about to face the Holocaust in Europe, thereby punishing them for their own historical victimization, or
2. Acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination, even if it takes root in their historical homeland and entails negotiating with and sharing the land with other peoples, thereby accepting that historical justice often requires grappling with imperfect realities, and that two national claims can coexist without one invalidating the other.
Or are you arguing that self-determination only applies to groups of people who haven't been exiled from their homeland (i.e. the people that need self determination the least)?
[0] Before Zionism, the population of Mandatory Palestine was 98% smaller than the same region today. Even the Arab population has increased 26-fold. So, yes, technically it was inhabited, but dramatically less developed. And even then, Jerusalem was 60% Jewish.
> Given that the Jews were forcibly expelled from their homeland by the Romans
2000 years ago.
You're saying that events from millennia in the past mean that the Palestinians should have had to cede the land they lived on to a group of outsiders from Europe.
People can make of that what they may (I think it's ridiculous), but you at least have to admit that it completely invalidates your argument that Zionism is just like any other demand for self-determination. We're talking about a demand for other people's land, based on appeals to events from thousands of years ago.
You're changing the topic. Nobody is talking about ceding land, we're talking about re-establishing a nation in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. And besides, no Zionist demanded land or induced anyone to cede their land prior to 1947 anyway, since all Zionist land acquisition was through voluntary purchases and legal land transfers.
So are you arguing that the Jews are not a people that merit self determination? Or are you saying that because they were expelled from their homeland so long ago, they forfeited the legitimate claim to self determination?
> Nobody is talking about ceding land, we're talking about re-establishing a nation in the historic homeland of the Jewish people
You're saying the same thing with different words. In order to "re-establish" that nation, they had to take over control of Palestine, against the will of the people who actually lived there.
> no Zionist demanded land or induced anyone to cede their land prior to 1947 anyway
That's not true at all. The entire point of Zionism was to take over political control of Palestine and found a Jewish state there. The mainstream Zionist movement wanted all of Palestine, and the radical right wing of Zionism (the "Revisionists," who eventually became Likud, Netanyahu's party) even wanted what is now Jordan.
> all Zionist land acquisition was through voluntary purchases and legal land transfers
That's formally correct before 1947, but the goal was to take over all of Palestine. The leadership of the Jewish Agency (the Zionist quasi-government in British-run Palestine until early 1948) knew that ultimately, it would come down to war with the Arabs, and they prepared for it. They were also very interested in forced "population transfer" (which today would be called "ethnic cleansing"), which they hoped the major powers would agree to.
Even the land purchases were extremely predatory. Imagine the worst aspects of gentrification, but at the scale of a country and enacted for explicitly racist reasons. The Zionists bought up land from landlords who didn't even live in Palestine, and then forcibly removed the Palestinian farmers who lived on the land.
Even so, they never purchased more than about 6% of Palestine, before they forcibly took most of the rest in 1947-48.
> So are you arguing that the Jews are not a people that merit self determination?
First, the obvious question, as I've said, is "where?" Is easy and relatively harmless to say in the abstract that "this group of people is a nation and deserves self-determination." But when you start laying claims to other people's lands, that becomes a problem.
I don't really want to get into who is "a people," but I'll just point out that what you're saying implies that American Jews are just Israelis who happen to live abroad. I think that's incredibly wrong. Jews belong to many different nationalities.
It sounds like you're against the idea of national self determination altogether. Can you think of an example of a successful assertion of the right to self determinism which didn't involve a national entity asserting sovereignty over a body of land populated by a diverse group of people?
As we have already established, the population in the land of the historical mandate has exploded, including a manifold increase of Arabs (living peacefully within the borders of modern Israel as equal citizens, I might add), so clearly it is possible to accommodate this diverse population in a Jewish state.
Are you against all national self determination? Or is there some threshold of homogeneous concentration of one people after which it becomes legitimate? If the Zionist pioneers had managed to achieve a 99% majority of Jewish population in Palestine through legal immigration before asserting sovereignty, would that pass your test?
Or would you just prefer to see the European Jewry perish in toto under the Holocaust and Eastern European pogroms?
> If the Zionist pioneers had managed to achieve a 99% majority of Jewish population in Palestine through legal immigration before asserting sovereignty, would that pass your test?
The whole enterprise was illegitimate, because it was carried out against the will of the population of Palestine. The population did not want a foreign group of people to come in, settle the land and take over. The British colonial rulers forced Zionism on the Palestinian population undemocratically.
You keep on appealing to self-determination, but you completely ignore the Palestinians' right to self-determination on the land they had inhabited for centuries.
> Or would you just prefer to see the European Jewry perish in toto under the Holocaust and Eastern European pogroms?
The way to avert the Holocaust would have been to prevent the rise of fascism in Europe. The vast majority of Jews were anti-Zionist, and did not want to leave their home countries. The idea that Polish Jews would have all left Poland for the Middle East before WWII is just fanciful. Only a small percentage of them wanted to pack up and go to Palestine, a far-away place they knew nothing about.
This isn't a serious argument. You want the Jews to have self determination if and only if they can conjure into existence a magical fairy land free of compromise or can will into existence powers like militarily defeating the Nazis despite lacking even a basic police force.
> Only a small percentage of them wanted to pack up and go to Palestine, a far-away place they knew nothing about.
And pray tell, what happened to the ones who stayed?
> You want the Jews to have self determination if and only if they can conjure into existence a magical fairy land free of compromise
I think it's much more serious than arguing that they had the right to take over land already inhabited by another group of people, because of events from 2000 years ago. It just doesn't seem to occur to you that the Palestinians also have rights, and shouldn't have been forced to give up their land.
> or can will into existence powers like militarily defeating the Nazis despite lacking even a basic police force.
You're supposing that Jews would have left Europe en masse for Palestine. They wouldn't have. Most Jews before WWII did not accept Zionism. For example, in Poland, the dominant Jewish political movement was the Jewish Labour Bund, which was hostile to Zionism and which strove for Jewish civil rights inside the Polish Republic. In the real world, the only way the Jews of Europe could have been saved would have been by preventing the rise of fascism.
To get back to your original point, you still haven't acknowledged that Zionism was fundamentally different from other movements for self-determination. It was a movement for self-determination on land that the group in question did not inhabit, and which an entirely different group of people already inhabited. When Zionism succeeded, it created a massive refugee population (the previous inhabitants of the land the Zionists wanted for their own "self-determination") and sparked a conflict that has been going on for nearly a century now.
No, you're dodging the point. You're basically saying Jews deserved self-determination only if they could pull off the impossible: either magically prevent fascism, or create a homeland without upsetting anyone. That's not how history works. Zionism wasn't a luxury ideology, it was a response to existential threat. Jews didn't have the option to stay in Europe: Europe made that brutally clear. And yes, the land was inhabited, but so what? Every nationalist movement has had to contend with messy realities. The alternative you're proposing amounts to telling the Jews: stay stateless, stay vulnerable, or wait for miracles. That's not a serious moral position; at best it's an abdication, at worst a double standard against the Jews (i.e. antisemitism).
Actually, I've never said that Jews deserved self-determination in a separate country specifically created for Jews. Jews lived (and still live today) in many countries. They deserve equal rights in their home countries.
> The alternative you're proposing amounts to telling the Jews: stay stateless, stay vulnerable
Jews were not stateless. They were Polish, German, French, Russian, English, American, etc. You mean to say that there was no Jewish state, which is something entirely different from being stateless. American Jews today, for example, are "stateless" by your loose terminology, but arguably have more rights than and are safer than Israeli Jews.
> Jews didn't have the option to stay in Europe: Europe made that brutally clear.
Without the rise of Hitler, Jews would have been able to remain in Europe. The rise of fascism and WWII were a catastrophe for civilization, which could have been averted.
> magically prevent fascism
There's nothing magic about it. For example, if the Social Democrats and Communists had coordinated against fascism, they might have been able to prevent Hilter's rise. If France and Britain had decided to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938 or prevent the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, there may very well have been no WWII and no Holocaust. However, one thing I can tell you for certain is that the chance that most Jews would have decided to move to the Middle East is basically zero. They weren't Zionists and didn't want to leave their home countries.
> Every nationalist movement has had to contend with messy realities.
You're hiding a lot behind that phrase, "messy realities."
I have yet to see you acknowledge the Palestinians and their rights in any way. You're asserting the right of Jews to take over control of Palestine, depriving the Palestinians not only of the right of self-determination, but taking their land and expelling them. You've now justified this in two completely different ways: first by an appeal to ancient history, and then by an appeal to the Holocaust.
> That's not a serious moral position; at best it's an abdication, at worst a double standard against the Jews (i.e. antisemitism).
I was wondering how long it would take you to explicity come out and start accusing me of antisemitism. But if you really want to choose the right insult, you should call me a "self-hating Jew."
Let me just summarize your position: European Jews, facing extermination, should have tried harder to stop Hitler, trusted the same governments that sold them out, stayed put in countries that were turning into slaughterhouses and politely avoided seeking refuge in the only place in the world that would take them just because it might offend your sensibilities. And now, after a few of them survived the industrial attempt to wipe them out, you want to tell them they were wrong to have escaped.
You dress up your objection to Zionism behind a pseudomoralistic veneer of Palestinian rights, but your real position is that Jewish survival was a problem because it confuses your personal narrative of Palestinian nationalism. That’s not a serious moral argument. That’s historical cruelty crudely disguised as moral purity.
And no, I never insulted you, but the position that European Jews should have just tried harder against the Nazis is a laughably sadistic viewpoint regardless of who holds it.
You did a terrible job of summarizing my position.
> the position that European Jews should have just tried harder against the Nazis
If you think I wrote anything like that, you have a serious lack of reading comprehension.
> your real position is that Jewish survival was a problem because it confuses your personal narrative of Palestinian nationalism.
Oh gee, thanks for informing me that my "real" position is that I shouldn't survive.
I'll bite as well.
There is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The former is condemning a land-grab because of some 2000 year old claim. The latter is hating Jews because they are Jews. There is a world of difference there.
The forefathers of everyone in Europe, with very few exceptions, occupied a different strip of land 2000 years ago and were driven out by romans, goths, huns, germans or whomever. Most pieces of land changed hands a dozen times or more. Should we now rearrange all the maps and revert to our 2000 year old original national lands and identities? Why 2000 years, why not 500, 5000 or 10000? The maps looked different in those periods as well.
Set aside the 2000 year old history for a moment. Given that the Jews were a persecuted minority across Europe - and indeed faced the a campaign of extermination far worse than early Zionists feared - one can see the moral necessity for their self determination.
Anti-Zionism is antisemitic because it declares that no, it is preferable for Jews to continue to face the Holocaust and other attempts at their genocide than to concede their right to self defense as a people.
There are different things here that you are glossing over and conflating.
Yes, there is a moral right and necessity for self-determination and self-defense for the Jews after the Holocaust. But there is no necessity or justification for that to happen in Palestine, especially when this means displacing and slaughtering the Palestinians who have lived there for quite a few centuries. And indeed Palestinians do have a moral right of self-determination and self-defense as well. So the essence of Zionism, which is the idea of taking over Palestine for a Jewish state, is deeply immoral because of that. And this immorality doesn't simply disappear because of the wrongs that were done to the Jews by non-Palestinians. And because of that, anti-Zionism is a moral imperative, because it aims to correct an immorality. Whereas antisemitism is something completely different.
> Anti-Zionism is antisemitic because it declares that no, it is preferable for Jews to continue to face the Holocaust and other attempts at their genocide than to concede their right to self defense as a people.
Which means that you think the only possible way to avoid a genocide of Jews and for Jews to defend themselves is to settle in Palestine? Nothing else would have done? Given that there were quite a few wars around the establishment of Israel which could have very well wiped Israel off the map that is quite a bold statement.
I rather think this idea of self-defense and self-determination of the Jewish people being only possible in Israel/Palestine is a religiously derived idea, nothing that has any basis in political and military facts or morals. It was just a "wouldn't it be nice to do this in Gods Promised Land?" kind of thing, current inhabitants be damned...
Got it, so you only specifically object to the Jews settling in their ancestral homeland which they immigrated to legally and was 98% less populated than today, because the Nazi-aligned mufti of Jerusalem objected to their presence.
Care to suggest a superior choice of venue for Jewish sovereignty where the Jews had a better claim to the land, and the locals were prepared to welcome their national project?
A few issues:
- "The democratically elected government of Gaza-Palestine is the Hamas" Hamas is not a democratic government, period. Elections you're talking about were almost 20 years ago. It's like calling Trumpistan 20 years from now a democracy, if Trump today declares he'll live forever, and that there will be no more elections, and enough MAGA Americans help him persevering.
- Israel's struggle is the Zionist dream of creating a Jewish state by any means. Means have been pretty violent and treacherous, from international terrorism, assassinations of diplomats, to mass killings and violent displacement of 100s of thousands of indigenous people, unilateral declaration of statehood over someone else's land, etc. Indigenous people have been revolting against this since way before Hamas even existed. It's quite something to bothside this, or even invert this, and call indigenous people terrorists, while violent immigrant invaders and land thieves are somehow legitimate state.
- Martyr != terrorist, it's anyone killed in some manner in relation to the above political context. If a child is shot in the head by Israel's soldiers, it will be called a martyr. Executed ICRC workers were called martyrs, etc.
The Hamas government isn't democratic, but it was democratically elected. And voters knew whom they were voting for, Hamas didn't change, they were a terrorist organization back then as well. Voters democratically elect all kinds of dictatorships. Still their fault.
Indigenous people (legitimately imho) started a war over that territory and lost it. Started a few more and lost those as well, together with some neighboring states. If you lost the war for that land, it isn't your land anymore. Simple as that. And terrorism isn't an acceptable means of warfare.
I'm pretty sure the violent colonizers who implemented a pre-meditated plan of conquest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet are those who started the war in this case. "Right of conquest" was not part of international law anymore at that time.
They did not really win either, given that indigenous people, and their descendants, did not yet settle for their complete submission. Unless you call victory as having to hide behind walls and running to shelters every once in a while, and constantly making new enemies by bombing shit out of everyone around you.
As to the fault of the voters for what happened after elections. Yeah, that's easily debatable, given the massive foreign interference into the post-election Palestine's politics and society from occupation, and third countries, and attempts to coopt oposition for violent overthrow of elected government. Also Palestinians did not vote for terrorism, but for "change and reform" at the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606482.stm
It literally doesn't matter.
What Hamas did or does, doesn't give any right to Israel to ethnically cleanse, forcibly displace, massacre 100+ people every day and commit a genocide in Gaza. 100 people, most of them kids!
These are people with lives, families, hope and compassion. Just imagine if the Ukrainian war came even close to this. People are not numbers.
And these are WARCRIMES, the entire global system was built to stop such things from happening, letting the occupation do whatever it wants while making a joke of any and every concept of the "international rule based order" will come back to bite the west, hard.
If this is allowed to happen, what's different about Taiwan and Ukraine then? Let the stronger one win right?
As we are currently seeing in international relations, the "international rule based order" needs someone to impose order, otherwise it won't work. Putin called the bluff and he seems to win that hand.
So as in all the other areas of life, rules are for the small, puny ones, not for the big or well-connected ones. If you are big or have big supporters, might makes right. Morals and rules are then only relevant for propaganda, not for actual behavior
> Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries.
Which ones?
In the UK we don't discriminate based on citizenship, or even if the protests are political or not !
Protest marches - no wait, the term is less specific: "public processions" - can have restrictions imposed for basically any reason. Restrictions can be imposed if (this is just a selection):
- They basically generate noise
- May cause prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service
- May cause the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities
- May cause the prevention of, or a delay that is more than minor to, the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product
Not forgetting there are probably 10-20 general Public Order Offences that can be used against a person, such as wilful obstruction of a highway or public nuisance.
Then we also have Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs). SDPOs are civil orders that enable courts to place conditions or restrictions on an individual aged over 18 (such as restrictions on where they can go and when) with the aim of preventing them from engaging in protest-related activity that could cause disruption. Breaching an SDPO is a criminal offence.
And the cherry on the cake: by law you must tell the police in writing 6 days before a public march if you're the organiser (which is to say, get the police's permission)
Laws around protests here in the UK are certainly problematic, but I haven't heard of ant cases where this would have been specifically used against students from abroad.
The subjects of His Majesty have never been free
Technically we're subjects but the King has zero executive powers. His soft powers are perhaps another topic. Point being we're in effect, citizens and subject to the (very variable) laws of the country like any other country. Currently freedom of expression in the UK is highly problematic but that's a temporary issue with the current administration. No subjects or citizens in any country are ever free as in free beer. So I suppose you're correct.
There are very very few people who can be classed as "British subjects", the vast majority are British citizens since at least 1983.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject :
"Currently, it refers to people possessing a class of British nationality largely granted under limited circumstances to those connected with Ireland or British India born before 1949. Individuals with this nationality are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens."
Germany bans pro-Palestine protests (officially they're still legal, but they've been arresting people since it began and they've just started deporting people for participating in completely legal protests) but I think that's a slightly different criterion than the one you asked for.
While the protests are per se not illegal, the people arrested aren't accused of just protesting, they are accused of supporting a terrorist organisation. The right to free speech isn't as all-encompassing in Germany as it is in the USA, so shouting the wrong slogans can very well get you in trouble.
Also, the right to protest in public only applies to German citizens: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_8.html
Foreigners are usually still free to do it, but they don't have a constitutionally protected right to public protests.
> While the protests are per se not illegal, the people arrested aren't accused of just protesting, they are accused of supporting a terrorist organisation. The right to free speech isn't as all-encompassing in Germany as it is in the USA, so shouting the wrong slogans can very well get you in trouble.
Yes, that's correct. Anyone who protests and grabs the attention of the police is accused of supporting a terrorist organisation. That's why I added the information that although they protest completely legally, they still get arrested and deported. The pretense for the arrest and deportation is that protesting to stop the carpet bombing of Gaza supports Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organisation.
Thousands for weeks on end protested the carpet bombing of Gaza, Germans as well as Foreigners. Many respectable foreign and German organisations invited to participate and organized those protests. And only very few of those protesting were arrested or even investigated.
Those who were usually did something more than protest, like showing support for terrorist organizations like Hamas or ISIS by showing the respective flag, harassing counter-protesters, shouting controversial slogans like "from the river to the sea..." (which is thought to imply destroying Israel and therefore "Volksverhetzung", although I'm not sure if the courts are already through with that one) or just plainly calling for the killing of Jews or the eradication of Israel.
Actually, the police was very patient and tame with those protests, too patient and too tame for the taste of many. A common, not totally unjustified opinion was that if those protests were just Germans protesting about a strictly German issue (like "Stuttgart21" or "Startbahn West" back in the day) and behaving like the pro-Palestine protestors did, there would have been riot police tear-gassing and bludgeoning everyone within half an hour.
Non-citizens in Germany have no free speech rights period. You get banned and deported even for making lectures about unfavorable topics, as it seems.
That's quite different from protesting, since you're not making anyone listen to you. Lecture/conference is an offer, that Germans and others may take out of their own interest to learn about what you have to say.
That also infringes on the German citizens, because you're attempting to limit them from what they may choose to learn.
> Non-citizens in Germany have no free speech rights period. You get banned and deported even for making lectures about unfavorable topics, as it seems.
No, the right to utter your opinion in Germany applies to everyone, not only Germans. The constitution has two categories of people, Germans and Everyone, some rights apply only to Germans, some to Everyone. The right to assembly and public protests is one just for Germans, the right to freely utter your opinion applies to everyone.
However, that right isn't what Americans think when they hear "free speech" (which is why I avoided the term earlier): There are far more limits to it, like the criminalization of giving offense ("Beleidigung"), promoting or misinforming about Nazism and other crimes against humanity ("Volksverhetzung"), deadnaming, speaking ill of foreign heads of state or domestic politicians, and condoning criminal acts. Also, only an opinion is protected, not a statement of fact, no matter if it is right or wrong. For example, a journalist was fined for writing about chancellor Schroeder dying his hair. The court didn't even try to find out if it was right or wrong, it was a statement of fact, so unprotected, and it was offensive to Schroeder, so an offense ("Beleidigung").
So in conclusion you are kind of right in that there is actually no freedom of speech for anyone in Germany, not even Germans, that right simply doesn't exist. Its just that foreigners are treated the same as Germans, there is no difference in rights there.
Several counterexamples recently:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/video-donald-trump-germany-cr...
22:20 ("social center raid for a progressive resistance flyer") 26:20 ("hate crimes") 30:25 (shutting down a congress) ...
Those are not counterexamples, you are agreeing with me. There is no such thing as free speech in Germany, only some weaker right. There are laws limiting speech, and actually (as that article seems to complain about) they are applied to citizens and non-citizens equally, meaning that even a Jewish citizen of Israel can be deported from Germany for uttering anti-semitic statemens. Everyone arrested should have known about those laws, they have been there since the founding of the modern german state after WW2.
What I don't know about is the turn of things in the US, US laws didn't include those kinds of crimes and used to protect freedom of speech in a far more comprehensive manner. Things seem to have changed there, I don't know.
Btw. my personal opinion is that Germany should have US-like free speech and that the only limits to free speech should be where someone is directly and immediately put in danger of physical harm by it. (e.g. shouting "Jump!" to a suicidal person on a railing, or shouting "Fire!" in a dense crowd)
If Germany keeps finding that Jewish citizens of Israel are being antisemitic and wishing for their own deaths, perhaps it's actually Germany's antisemitism detector that is miscalibrated?
Not many people in Germany dare to bring this up, because suggesting that German's antisemitism detector could be miscalibrated, is, itself, something which Germany detects as antisemitism. Which, if you think for more than five milliseconds, is further evidence that it might be the case.
So in other words,
> Non-citizens in Germany have no free speech rights period. You get banned and deported even for making lectures about unfavorable topics, as it seems.
and neither do citizens, who get fined and imprisoned instead of banned and deported.
Some restrictions on speech are reasonable, including the ones Germany claims to have, but not the ones it actually has.
Correct. Here's a DW video on it: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deport-pro-palestinian-prot...
There is a fight over this being done with or without due process.
Incorrect:
"They are accused of indirectly supporting Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany."
2nd sentence from your link.
Supporting terrorist organizations is not legal in Germany. Supporting terrorist organizations is not the same a being Pro-Palestinian. Unless you think that all Palestinians are terrorists, which I do not.
Yes, and Germany considers protests against anything Israel does in Gaza to be support for Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany.
That's why I told you: officially, protesting is legal, but they still arrest and deport people for protesting.
This newspaper may not think they're the same thing, but the police do.
> Germany considers protests against anything Israel does in Gaza to be support for Hamas
This is patently untrue.
I live in Berlin and constantly see protests. Far from being too strict, the police are way to lax in enforcing applicable laws.
The Jewish community in Berlin is scared, because they feel completely left alone by the authorities. We have people running around freely in effin Berlin, right next to the Holocaust memorial calling of the extermination of the Jewish state and all Jews. And virtually nothing is being done about it.
It's perverse.
I live in Berlin, I've visited some protests, I constantly see police arrest people. I visited a camp in front of the Reichstag building. The organizers told me about ridiculous police behaviour. Then I saw some ridiculous police behaviour at that camp. Arrests and intimidation tactics. The police banned speaking any language other than German or English. I saw them take away some people in handcuffs for the crime of speaking Arabic. I know that was the reason, because the police told the leaders, who told the whole camp. I saw them "patrol" by walking in random straight lines through the camp, pushing away everyone who happens to be in the path of that straight line even if they could easily walk around. I did not see any threatening behaviour from the camp members, just holding signs and chanting, as you would expect at any legal protest.
I've observed street marchse too. Police are required to let these happen provided they are registered in advance. Nonetheless I see police barge into crowds (again being violent against everyone who happens to be standing in the straight line between A and B), grab someone seemingly at random, and haul them off to who knows where. One time I tried to film such a thing happening, and was shouted at, then kicked until I put my phone down, so. I won't be releasing that video for fear of further retaliation.
I don't believe Jews are feeling scared, but I don't actually know any Jews (or Muslims), so feel free to prove me wrong. Every synagogue has a permanent police watch outside it, even before the 2023 escalation of the Gaza genocide, and I don't hear of any crimes or attempted crimes there. Now look at the other side, and it's people getting assaulted, arrested and deported for protesting. I sure would be scared if I believed that Netanyahu did something wrong, because if the government thought I disliked Israel's genocide on Gaza, it certainly seems like I could be deported for that.
Interestingly enough, I heard of one cultural institution (but I forgot which) that's hosting a lot of anti-genocide events... because the government had already set a date for it to shut down, so it had nothing to lose. Something in the general vicinity of Möckernbrücke.
There was another cultural institution somewhere in Neukölln that was shut down, immediately, following the choice to host one speech one time about Gaza.
And there was a *Jewish center* that was raided by police for hosting a Yanis Varoufakis speech by video call. If Jewish centers should be afraid of anything right now, it seems to be the police.
It makes me angry when people continually deny police misbehaviour that I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my ears and felt on my skin. I have to wonder if it's a particular kind of terminal online-ness where things one reads on the internet feel absolutely true because it's the closest to truth that one ever engages with. The alternative is that I'm clinically insane and shouldn't trust my own lying eyes, which I don't think is true. I never go to protests any more, even to observe, because I am afraid of the police. Most of the pro-Palestine protestors (as opposed to the COVID-19 protestors) I've ever talked with have seemed like relatively reasonable people, and I never saw violence instigated by anyone other than the police. Unless, of course, you believe that signs and chants are violent terrorism, as Germany apparently does.
Someone told me it's not Germany-wide, and not federal thing, but specifically the Berlin police who are ruthless with Palestine protests, and that there's no problem with Palestine protests in any other part of Germany. I wouldn't know, since my eyeballs don't reach Germany-wide. Given the disconnect between media and observed reality in Berlin, I don't rely on the media for information about how the rest of Germany is doing on this issue.
What is your rebuttal?
> The police banned speaking any language other than German or English.
Incorrect. That was a court order, because people were quite obviously subverting the prohibition of calling for genocide by using languages law enforcement does not understand.
> I don't actually know any Jews (or Muslims),
I know both Jews and Muslins: you are incredibly wrong.
"You are incredibly wrong." is such a great rebuttal. It applies in any situation and you don't even have to bring any evidence.
My rebuttal to your rebuttal: You are incredibly wrong.
(And who cares if it was the police or the courts? Both are branches of the government. And if the court order was as you described, then why did the police march someone off in handcuffs for speaking Arabic privately to another person who spoke Arabic?)
It is sufficient when you admit that you actually have no data to back up your claims.
And if you can't tell, or don't care about, the difference between police overreach and the police enforcing the law of the land, we don't have anything further to discuss.
Have a good day.
No. What is not allowed is calls for genocide ("From the river to the sea") and support for terrorist organizations.
And yes, if you are a guest in a country, supporting genocide and terrorism can get you deported.
But the police has been extremely lax in enforcement. These protests still basically always have these characteristics and there is no action by the police.
It is pathetic.
Protesting against Israel's carpet bombing and mass starvation of civilians, targeted missile strikes and sniper strikes on journalists (more than any other war in history and there might not be any left by now) and so on is considered to be supporting Hamas. Because if you weren't a Hamas terrorist, you'd support everything Israel says it does to get rid of Hamas. That six year old girl and the paramedics trying to save her? All Hamas. The flour massacre? Hamas. Journalists? Hamas. I'm skeptical that you haven't seen this rhetoric constantly since Oct 7 2023.
Are you aware that people were chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", because it rhymes, and they were not chanting "from the river to the sea, let's gas all the Jews again"?
> is considered to be supporting Hamas.
No it is not. Even if it almost certainly is. These protests used to run almost daily, and were often allowed to proceed even if actual calls for genocide were included.
And of course you are also wrong on the content: those accusations are largely untrue, and Israel is an absolute leader in avoiding civilian casualties in urban combat, achieving a 1:1 ratio of civilian to combatant deaths, whereas the world average is 10:1. And this despite Hamas's openly stated and obviously carried out policy of creating as many civilian casualties in their own population as possible.
And no, calling for genocide does not become legal if it rhymes.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Supporting Palestinians that Israel has been killing for over a year (+50k killed, most were women and children), while starving the rest and ethnically cleansing them, is not supporting terrorism.
Too many have been killed, for sure, but you should probably use sources other than the Hamas Health Ministry:
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
>Too many have been killed
How many killed would have been "not too many"?
That depends on your vantage point.
If you accept the mainstream Palestinian viewpoint, i.e. the one that endorses Hamas and the Simchat Torah massacre, there is no such thing as too many, because every Palestinian death furthers the jihadist cause of demonizing Israel.
If you accept the mainstream Israeli viewpoint, all of these deaths were unnecessary because they directly resulted from an unprovoked onslaught against innocent civilians, and all of the casualties could have been avoided but for the Gazan misadventure of October 7th.
I'm not sure which camp GP subscribes to, however.
1. Hamas bears the moral responsibility for all of the suffering in the war they started on October 7th, and the Palestinian people bear the moral responsibility of electing and supporting them (and participating in the invasion, and not returning the hostages).
2. Even Hamas now admits most deaths have been military aged males: https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592
3. How can you argue that Gaza has been starved and ethnically cleansed when the population of the Gaza strip has increased since the start of the war?
I strongly agree, unfortunately they feel strongly differently after spending a lot of money to get on the courses. Frankly the law of the land is the latter, but this is one of the problems with cladding cultures and attitudes which needs addressing rather than glossing over...