this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2215 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 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.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] crewman_princess@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Calling for the destruction of a STATE is fine. I for one am glad that the racist state of Rhodesia is no more. I am sure a lot of Czech and Slovakian people are glad to get rid of Czechoslovakia. It's not the same as calling for the destruction or removal of people.

[–] steventhedev@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

No reasonable person would hear "destroy Mexico" and think "oh, he must really dislike the government and state of Mexico". They will automatically assume that you mean to bring about the destruction of Mexico *\including the people who live there*.

if you truly intended to advocate merely for the immediate dissolution of the state, you would have said so.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Free Palestine is not a call for the destruction of Israel. It is a call for a Free Palestine.

[–] steventhedev@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes.

"From the river to the sea" on the other hand is a call for the destruction of one or the other. Neither is ok.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Free Ireland did not mean the destruction of the Protestants. End to Apartheid South Africa did not mean the destruction of the Afrikaners and the other whites. A free democratic Palestine can and should be the national home for Israelis and Palestinians with equal rights freedoms from the river to the sea.

[–] steventhedev@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So for the people who think like you do, it's an explicit rejection of a two state solution, and publicly declaring that the only path to peace is one state shared by everyone.

I'd like to understand why you think a one state solution is the most viable path to peace?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Honest to god, my ideal peace solution was for a long time the two state solution. But I don't think that is feasible any more. The Israelis killed that option by installing 700k settlers in the best lands of the place where a Palestinian state could have existed. These people will never vote to leave their homes, and they will never accept to be transferred to palestinian jurisdiction. The Israelis have also completely integrated the economy and the everyday life of the Palestinians in their apartheid system in a way that I just don't see realistic to untangle. So, at this point, realistically, at best, "two state solution" in practice would mean Bantustans and Reservations. At worst, it is just a stalling tactic of "warfare by negotiation" to eat up the salami while pretending the other side has no interlocutor.

Put simply, the Israelis worked very hard for 30 years to create "facts on the ground". Those are now just the facts. And Israelis have to reckon with the consequences of the facts they created.

The single democratic state solution on the other hand just cuts the Gordian knot. Human rights for all, a truth and reconciliation process, humanity has done this before. It's not guaranteed to work, but nothing is, and what's happening now isn't working either.

[–] steventhedev@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Thank you for explaining your rationale.

I think you are dangerously wrong. How do you suggest to prevent violence? some of the issues you are facing are historically Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem launching terror attacks against settlers living there who purchased the land their grandparents were forced from (the actual situation is even more complicated than this one sentence explanation). Now imagine needing to solve that, but on a very large scale.

If you suddenly grant Palestinians full rights and movement, there is nothing preventing them from launching a genocidal campaign against Jewish Israelis. Hamas, PIJ, and other Palestinian groups have declared they will not stop until all Jews within Israel are dead.

Your rationale for wanting a one state solution is idealistic, but ultimately naive. It fails to capture the complexity of the conflict and serves to further violent interests while screaming their slogan.

[–] Atin@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Both ways? It is unambiguously a call for genocide.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It only means genocide to Israelis because they can only fathom Israel as a mono-ethnic state with all others genocided. Anyone supporting a free and united Palestine supports the multicultural community that has been in the area for millennia.

[–] Atin@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You don't know much about the region do you?