The police justification? "There is a risk that a speaker will repeatedly be shown via video who in the past made antisemitic remarks and glorified violence. For this reason, the gathering was ended and banned on Saturday and Sunday as well." - nothing that actually happened, but rather for a suspicion that words might be said later, the entire conference was immediately terminated, banned, and violently evicted. There is not much video of the eviction since filming private gatherings is generally illegal in Germany. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/04/police-raid-berlin-conference...
No sane resident of Germany would risk it. You comply with the government or else, no different than Russia or China.
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.
I'm stating it this way to not push the responsibility only to the individual settlers, it's a concerted operation with broad support from a cohort of Israel's society.
Also, HN is tech site, not political site, so I'm not surprised by this, such articles may be considered off-topic.
Here I thought the genocide of the Palestinian people was a violent and malignant land grab and ethnic cleansing with the added touch of being religiously righteous in the eyes of the oppressors, but you've opened my eyes that these efforts are in fact meant to achieve "80% efficient solar power AND 80% reduction in power usage in data centers AND increase power output from most existing power plants by 30% AND solve power storage problem".
Thank you for your enlightening perspective.
I mean, I am still wondering how any of those metrics justify killing and starving and entire population, but I guess, "line go up!"
(Not that any particular submitter is to blame; the issue is systematic.)
And which stories? The one about the Israeli US Attorney letting an Israeli pedophile flee the US?
{total # of HN readers} * {% who are American voters} * {% who bother reading submissions/comments on this topic} * {% who meaningfully change their opinion on the subject as a result of such reading} * {% who change to strongly opposing US support for Israel (because politicians don't much care about druthers)} * {% who "stick" in that new position, long-term} * ...
Multiply it out. Then compare to the number of US voters who'd need to switch to strongly opposing support for Israel, for the politicians to notice or care.
I'll stick with my 0.000%.
I don't think that's a proper characterization. Migration way strongly regulated back then. Only after WWII when the crimes of the Nazis became public, mass migration to the southern Levante were allowed. It's therefore not a colonial project, but driven by what happened at that time (Holocaust). Arabic/Muslim and other citizen are well integrated into society as far as I am aware so I am not convinced supremacist/ethnostate is a fitting description either.
Furthermore, it is inherintly colonial as a former colonizer (the brits) gave the land away to new colonizers. Worth noting that Balfour was an antisemite who wanted the Jews out of his country, hence the declaration and the first wave if immigration before 48. Back then, many Palestinians got expelled from their homes, sometimes from the very jewish people they willingly hosted. All under the protection of the british army.
Something I think that has a chance to spark constructive discussion is when there are significant changes in such a thing, be that change positive or negative. And those discussions usually stay on the HN pages too, because while I'm sure many are flagging them, many are voting for them as well. As the HN guidelines put it: "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
ml-anon•5mo ago
clort•5mo ago
I've seen stuff on youtube, I've seen internet articles, I've seen thinly veiled references but this is a respectable organisation reporting what they have seen, on the front page.
seszett•5mo ago