| ▲ | mlindner a day ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | matteoraso 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >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. |
|
| ▲ | nl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism. |
| |
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | thefounder 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe Palestine should stop supporting Hamas. It looks like they couldn’t get enough of it. | | | |
| ▲ | adhamsalama 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | regularization 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | | |
| ▲ | whatshisface 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | megous 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | megous 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 |
|
| |
| ▲ | jacooper 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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? | |
| ▲ | settrans 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "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? | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | settrans 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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... |
|
| |
| ▲ | DiogenesKynikos 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | settrans 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | DiogenesKynikos 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | settrans 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | DiogenesKynikos 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | settrans 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | DiogenesKynikos 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jl6 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This guy perhaps? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c934y9kv07eo.amp |
|
|
| ▲ | _fizz_buzz_ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries. Which ones? |
| |
| ▲ | switch007 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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) | | |
| ▲ | ratatoskrt 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | worik 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The subjects of His Majesty have never been free | | |
| ▲ | vixen99 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | UncleSlacky 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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." |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | immibis 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | megous 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | immibis 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | thyristan 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3D30497420 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mpweiher 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ok_dad 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
|
| ▲ | adhamsalama 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | kitd 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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... | | |
| ▲ | tome 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Too many have been killed How many killed would have been "not too many"? | | |
| ▲ | settrans 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | settrans 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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? | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not supporting Palestine is supporting terrorism. |
|
|
| ▲ | LtWorf 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Except that in USA "You're brown, I don't like you" is terrorism. |
| |
|
| ▲ | rob_c 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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... |
|
| ▲ | lqstuart a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
