Memes are not critique, they are often (as in this case) just an attack on the personal level. If they are harmless, no one would take them seriously - but calling someone a nazi is an insult in Germany, so everyone who is offended by it, can sue.
26 karma · joined May 7, 2020
Every day, there are rallies in Germany by the so-called "pro-Palestinian" groups. Every single one is allowed by the local administration. They are even protected by the police. The only reason for intervention by the state force is an illegal action - e.g. violence against other people, insults, calls for the capital crimes, racism or the like.
There are very high legal thresholds for disbanding or forbidding of organisations in Germany, so the reasons need to be incredibly severe, like preparation or calls to violence against other people (primarily German citizens), instigation of racial hatred, propaganda against the German state or the democratic principles, etc.
Not a single person was ever detained in Germany for being a Palestinian.
Punishment for torrenting movies was basically enforced by the copyright holders, usually leading to fines in the dimension of 100-200 euros, something that even jobless people can afford.
And the public hotspots were absolutely not illegal, there was just a lot of uncertainty about the legal implications of the crimes that may be committed by the people using the free access points. This is why Germany had no free wifi for so long - it was not forbidden, it was just not regulated and providers were afraid of being sued.
The point was not the war declaration or the lack of it - the point is - if someone announces he's going to kill you and then does basically everything to prove that it's not a bluff and no one else is stopping him, then you're allowed to do whatever it takes to save your life.
And actually, Geneva Conventions don't really apply to a military action against a Gazan terrorist organisation that is committed to genocide.
The validity of the interpretation itself, on the other hand, is questionable - as the newspaper highlights, other courts do have a different point of view on this topic, so it is by no means a mainstream opinion.
And there is actually no confusion about the "Palestinians" in the Arab world - as Egypt annexed Gaza, they made it pretty clear that they will not allow an Arab state there and also that they will never accept Gazans as their equals. Same happened in Jordan after annexing the West Bank. No one really wants them in the region, because Palestinians are THE source of instability and they cost the Arab countries actually way too much. And basically the only reason why they support the Palestinian cause is the chance for political emancipation of the united Arab world from the western dominance.
And now to your points - the word "Aschkenaz" IS actually of middle-eastern origin. It describes people who lived in the area of modern day eastern Turkey, north-eastern Syria, and north-western Iran - similar to the area where Kurdish people live today. The meaning of the word changed over time, and yes - nowadays it does have some relationship with Europe - it describes Jewish people who were driven out of Judea and Samaria by Romans and later settled in the middle and eastern Europe. So - yes - they are by definition Palestinian refugees with a right to return to their native lands.
But, of course, they are only one group of the Jewish people and not even the only one who lived in Europe. There are also displaced Jews and their descendants in Irak, Iran, northern Africa, India, even in China and Japan. But in the end, every one of them, including the "European" Aschkenazim still have substantially better claims to the land of Israel than the Arabs who are by definition just invaders in that region.
The arabs themselves never wanted to be called Palestinians - they used the name "Syrian Arabs". Yassir Arafat, former leader of the PLO, was one of the most prominent opponents of the word "Palestinians" with regard to the arab population - he only changed his mind as Jordan and Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, because he wanted to distance himself from these "traitors".
One of the problems he (and also most arabs) had with the word "Palestina" - it has exactly ZERO relationship to arabs and to Arabic languages. It's a greek word with actually Hebrew roots. It means "land of the Philistines" - and the Philistines, according to many historians, are a mixed group of people, mostly from western Mediterranean (modern-day Italy, France, Spain, northern Africa), also called "the sea people", or, in other words - pirates. The Romans introduced this name to the region to wipe out the original names Judea and Samaria (which IS actually a sign of a genocide).
2. Having no right to return to the country you fled is pretty common situation in the world and by no way specific to the Middle East. An additional point is that people were not fleeing Israel - they were fleeing e.g. the British Empire and Israel has absolutely no legal obligation to allow the refugees from the British Empire to enter. And, additionally, nowhere else in the world are descendants of refugees, who are born in other countries, are considered refugees. They may be considered illegals, though - which is still a completely different situation.
3. Syria and Lebanon are basically failed states with no real power to expel anyone. Situation with Jordan is even more interesting - the Kingdom of Jordan actually occupied (1948) and annexed (1950) the West Bank, making "Palestinians" in the West Bank actually Jordanians. So calling anyone of them "refugee" is more than questionable.
But as you may remember, German television specifically targeted Germans on vacation in Spain (specifically Mallorca) and also Germans living close to the borders to vote for Germany from abroad on multiple occasions in the last years, which can be considered voter fraud without any grey areas.
On the other hand, you didn't join the German-British-Society or the German-Swedish-Society or any other society to check if they behave according to your self-defined standards, so I would say, you need to check your own moral compass.
So, sending one newsletter to a tiny group is considered a gray area. I'm just curious, what do you think about massive advertising campaign for the German duo that run basically day and night for about a week on every major TV channel in Germany?
2. For every freedom, as it understood in Europe, holds true that "your freedom ends where freedom of other people begins". It means that your free speech is (and was) never allowed to attack other people personally (every kind of insults), professionally (e.g. reputational harm), as a member of specific group (any kind of sexism, racism, defamation, etc.)
Police and courts were not always strictly following this, due to various reasons, but it doesn't change the definition. And it is valid for online speech in exactly the same way as for any other kind of speech.
And actually, also in the US it was defined in the same way - it just wasn't written down, since it was a common understanding at that time - and manners, also covering the art of speaking to each other were actually much stricter back then compared to today.