this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
207 points (98.1% liked)

World News

38500 readers
2649 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Berlin court has convicted a pro-Palestinian activist of condoning a crime for leading a chant of the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a rally in the German capital four days after the Hamas attacks on Israel, in what her defence team called a defeat for free speech.

The presiding judge, Birgit Balzer, ordered 22-year-old German-Iranian national Ava Moayeri to pay a €600 (£515) fine on Tuesday, rejecting her argument that she meant only to express support for “peace and justice” in the Middle East by calling out the phrase on a busy street.

Balzer said she “could not comprehend” the logic of previous German court rulings that determined the saying was “ambiguous”, saying to her it was clear it “denied the right of the state of Israel to exist”.

MBFC
Archive

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 73 points 1 month ago (6 children)

People 100% do use it both ways. That the court convicted and fined them without showing which one it actually was. And rejecting their defense stating that it wasn't intended in that way. Is very troubling.

It's absolutely plain to see that Germany is erring too far in a different direction so it's not seen as attacking Jewish populations in any way. But as a result they are helping push back other vulnerable populations. I don't think it's the good look they're hoping it was.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

It's State racism.

Racism isn't just picking on some ethnicities and attacking those who are members of it, it's also deeming some ethnicities and their members as special and deserving of superior treatment versus others: back in the day they were openly NAZI the German state deemed the Arian Race as special and criticism of it AND OF THOSE WHO SELF-PROCLAIMED TO REPRESENT IT (the NAZIs themselves then, same as the Zionists do now for Jewish ethnicity) as a crime.

Ever since Israel has started the most genocidal stage of their destruction of Palestinians, Germany has progressivelly uncovered a mindset of racism and authoritarianism with far too many parallels with their "old ways" only this time around it's a different "superior race" and it's a different group of ethno-Fascists that is illegal to criticise.

That the mental and moral posture of old is still alive and well even IN DEFENSE OF EXTREME GENOCIDE - even if now the beneficiaries are a different group of murderous ethno-Fascists claiming to represent a different ethnicity than last time around - is genuinely alarming for me as an European: if now Germany puts ethnicity above Humanitarianism even in the face of Genocide, accepts the same old logic as the NAZIs used from ethno-Fascists that they represent a whole ethnicity and uses the law to silence criticism of that Genocide and those ethno-Fascists, they will likely do it again, and next time around the victims of the genocidal ethno-Fascist that Germany supports might be a lot closer to home than Gaza.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Germany has progressivelly uncovered a mindset of racism and authoritarianism with far too many parallels with their “old ways”

There's been plenty of pro-Palestinian protests in Germany. Most of the news you're hearing regarding this are from Berlin (as in the state, not "the federal government" or something), where previously there was a great tohuwabohu from people like you over Nakhba protests being outlawed. Very similar lines of argument already back then.

And it's also been bullshit back then: The Berlin police outlawed them, and courts upheld that ban, because in each and every previous year the Nakhba protests turned violent. Organisers did not have the protesters under control, public safety got endangered, and organisers could not demonstrate how this time it would be differently.

So, rather unsurprisingly, Berlin also reacted harsh to the protests post 7th of October. Elsewhere everything went very differently, not the least because the Palestinian diaspora elsewhere in Germany is saner.

What I don't get though is what you people are trying to achieve by pushing that kind of narrative.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

And rejecting their defense stating that it wasn’t intended in that way.

That all happened on 11th of October, IIRC that was before the IDF went into Gaza, at a protest ostensibly about violence at schools, at which no slogans regarding violence at schools were chanted.

Maybe she really meant it in a completely harmless sense -- but did those others chanting with her? She's leading a chant, some political awareness and responsibility should be assumed. If she really did mean it as a message of peace, let those 600 Euro be a lesson in clear messaging, then.

Oh, those 600 Euro: Couldn't find any proper reporting so working back from the average net wage she's got sentenced to a week (Germany doesn't do short prison stays, it's 1 day lock-up == one day disposable income). I also can't find what statute she's been sentenced under -- I guess general endorsement of crimes? The maximum there (three years) matches with what I read, a week is pretty much the lowest possible sentence while still being considered guilty. tl;dr: Definitely a slap on the wrist.

[–] Atin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Both ways? It is unambiguously a call for genocide.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

How is that?

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Do you have any facts to back that claim up? Because I've heard a number of people say it without that intention. It absolutely can be ambiguous. You would need evidence of a person's actions outside the claims to understand whether or not it was intended that way. But that's not what you're advocating for.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A Bavarian court ruled in June that the phrase expected to be used in an upcoming demonstration in Munich did not constitute a crime and could not be banned outright, finding that the “benefit of the doubt” around the slogan must prevail.

Yes, both way. People do see it in one way though, and that one way also openly call for genocide. Whoops 🤷

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It's absolutely plain to see that Germany is erring too far in a different direction so it's not seen as attacking Jewish populations in any way.

It's kinda funny (not haha funny) how after all this time, Germany is still using state power to help keep a genocide going. A really weird 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' sort of deal

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Using it both ways should not be a problem regardless.

There is nothing wrong with being against a less than 100 year old settler state that’s actively engaging in genocide. The land and the people do not have to be under the jurisdiction of a racist ethnostate.

What would actually help is not continuing to conflate Israel with Judaism.

[–] steventhedev@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (16 children)

calling for the destruction of a country is never ok, and is always a problem

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, way too many western countries have knee-jerked the opposite direction so hard that they're willing to support another Holocaust, albeit against a different minority.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why must it be evaluated in the context of "the biggest massacre of Jews since the Shoah" and not "the biggest massacre of Palestinians since the Nakba?"

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Because in this case it was said on the 11th of October, before Isreal began its genocidal attacks on Gaza but after Hamas murdered over 1000 Isrealis.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That’s not an entirely unreasonable decision. The slogan is not one of peaceful coexistence but of maximalist territorial claims. It was a supremacist slogan when the Zionists coined it, and remains one when appropriated by the other side.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Being free in your homeland doesn't imply anything about Israel except the dissolution of its apartheid, occupying systems. At least when used as a Free Palestine chant. When the Zionists say it, it does imply a supremacist mindset but mostly because we've seen them use it to justify a genocidal settler colonialist colony.

It's like the difference between the US saying from coast to coast during the manifest destiny phase, and comparing it to Native Americans saying from coast to coast they'll be free after they're being put into reservations and have been getting pushed West.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Why fix the problem when you can persecute the symptoms.

[–] Eggyhead@kbin.run 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is there any historical significance behind the “River to the sea” reference?

Edit:

“Between the river and the sea” is a fragment from a slogan used since the 1960s by an array of activists with different agendas. It has a range of interpretations around the world, from the genocidal to the democratic.”

”The full saying is a reference to land between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, encompassing Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The river to the sea are the traditional pre British intervention borders. They're not arguin saying Jews can't live there there just saying they want their country back which seems to be a fairly reasonable request.

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

New Germans same as the old Germans.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. German wankers.

load more comments
view more: next ›