To save its democracy and respect the Holocaust, Germany must stop blindly backing Israel | Opinion
www.haaretz.com
***

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28684388

In a recent escalation, Berlin authorities ordered the deportation of four pro-Palestine activists – three EU citizens and one American, none of whom were convicted of a crime. Rather, citing Staatsräson, their threatened deportation was for holding anti-Israel views. Although one of these deportations was later deemed invalid by the Berlin Administrative court, the move followed 18 months of cancellations, bans and dismissals of artists, academics and speakers – Palestinians, Jews, Israelis and others – for speaking out against Israel.

In a cruel historical twist, Germany, the perpetrator of the Holocaust, has enabled what numerous observers, including Amnesty International, have identified as a genocide of Palestinians. Rather than learning a universal historical lesson that applies to all people, Germany chose a particularist interpretation of its history, centered on the state’s relation to Israel.

The recent deportation order suggest a dramatic escalation in the influence of Staatsräson, which now seems to extends beyond foreign policy. For example, one controversial clause in a draft of the coalition agreement leaked last month proposes stripping dual nationals of German citizenship if they are found to be “supporters of terrorism, antisemites or extremists who jeopardize the free democratic order.”

  • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
    82·
    7 days ago

    As it explains further in your article in the next paragraph:

    Erforderlich ist für die §§ 125, 125a StGB, dass “Gewalttätigkeiten gegen Menschen oder Sachen” oder entsprechende Drohungen “aus einer Menschenmenge heraus mit vereinten Kräften” begangen werden, und zwar in einer die öffentliche Sicherheit gefährdenden Weise. Im Fall der Besetzung der Humboldt-Universität im Mai 2024 sei dieses Delikt nicht einmal angeklagt worden, sagt O’Briens Rechtsanwalt Benjamin Düsberg. Auch im Fall der Belagerung eines Fähranlegers zum Nachteil von Wirtschaftsminister Robert Habeck im Januar 2024 verneinte die Staatsanwaltschaft ein organisiertes Vorgehen.

    For the crimes of §§ 125, 125a StGB is is required that “acts of violence against people or property” or respective threats are made “from a crowd of people, working with unified/united force”, in such a way that it endangers public security. In regards to an occupation of the Humboldt-University in May 2024 this delict was not even accused, said O’Briens lawyer. In another case of people “besieging” a fairy carrier to the disadvantage of the federal minister of the economy Rober Habeck in January 2024 the state attorneys denied an organized action.

    For clarity for non Germans, the event mentioned regarding the minister occurred in a different state in Germany and was in relation to farmer protests against reducing subsidies on diesel fuel.

    So the question of “Landfriedensbruch” is in regards to the entirety of the events, by which then an individual participation could be claimed on the basis of being present. It does not require the individuals charged to actually have been violent or threatening violence. If they were part of an organized crowd from which violence was enacted or threatened that is considered enough.

    These kind of charges are often politically motivated, such as with charges and convictions surrounding the G20 summit and protests in Hamburg in 2017:

    https://www.dw.com/en/hamburg-g20-riots-polish-man-becomes-first-charged/a-40028143
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/30/prot-a30.html
    https://taz.de/Urteil-im-G20-Rondenbarg-Prozess/!6032364/

    • Quittenbrot@feddit.orgEnglish
      21·
      7 days ago

      Note that the lawyer specifically talks about an occupation of the HU in May, not the famously violent one of the FU in October that is discussed in the rest of the article.

      Also, the article states that it is currently still investigated by the public prosecutor, outcome unknown.

      Therefore, I find it difficult to claim that none of these persons is ‘investigated for violent crime in relation to the FU occupation’, Even if they should decide against ‘Landfriedensbruch’ specifically, something we don’t know, who’s to say it won’t be something else instead?

      E: formatting