Comment by mlindner
Comment by mlindner 8 days ago
[flagged]
Comment by mlindner 8 days ago
[flagged]
Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism.
Nothing in that article implies supporting terrorism. They support Palestine.
People conflating supporting Palestine with supporting terrorism should be ashamed of themselves, as Israel is the biggest terror state in the world.
Well, when it comes to conflating, I'll take your calling Israel a terror state as a standard: The democratically elected government of Gaza-Palestine is the Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. Thus by your conflation regarding Israel to be a terror state, the Gaza strip part of Palestine is as well. Its population chose a known terrorist organisation, everything is run by a terrorist organisation, they did terrorist things such as bombings, abductions and murders of innocent civilians. Thus (Gaza-)Palestine is therefore a terror state. Supporting it is therefore supporting terrorism.
Thus either you apply your conflating standard equally, Palestine and Israel are both terror states, and any support of them is supporting terrorism. Or you rather differentiate, and separate Palestine as an abstract concept of a hypothetical future homestead of the Palestinians from the Hamas, the Fatah and other (mostly terrorist) organisations that govern it, and the population that, in parts, is governed by them and elects and supports or opposes them and their actions. But if you do that, you will also have to differentiate between Israel as a state, its military, government, parties, population and their respective support and actions.
In that second case you can support Palestine as an abstract idea without supporting terrorism, you can support the population and their rights, hopes and struggle. As you can do with Israel and their people. However, on pro-Palestine protests, I've never really seen this kind of differentiation applied, I've seen far too many Hamas flags, heard far too many calls to wipe Israel from the map, far too many praises for terrorists (called "martyrs"). Thus, in practically all cases, I'd without hesitation call supporters of Palestine supporters of terrorism.
> Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation.
According to the New York Times, Netanhayu was propping up Hamas in the weeks and months before the current conflict ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). This has been happening since the beginning of Hamas.
The government over there has been supporting Hamas since the beginning, because they don't want to deal with Fatah going to the UN. Everything recently is the result of that. So don't come around talking about Hamas. Especially since Netanyahu and his US counterparts are trying to sideline Fatah, and are persecuting secular Palestinians like Samidoun and the PFLP more than Hamas. The US, Canada, Germany etc. crack down on the seculat, left-leaning Samidoun so that only Hamas is left standing in Gaza.
I think it's wise to separate the future of both Israel and Palestine from their present. In 100 years there will be surviving Israelis and surviving Palestinians and they'll have a view of the present generation.
"The antisemite does not accuse the Jew of stealing because he thinks he stole something. He does it because he enjoys watching the Jew turn out his pockets to prove his innocence."
Although I laud your unassailable argument highlighting yet another instance of double standards against Jews, ultimately there is little upside in engaging with the "no, no, technically there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism" crowd. I am sad that Hacker News is rife with this kind of bigotry, but I don't see the tide of this battle turning anytime soon.
In case, dear reader, you are one of the intellectually curious ones who holds the opposing viewpoint, ask yourself why you demand that only the Jews lack the right to self determination?
A few issues:
- "The democratically elected government of Gaza-Palestine is the Hamas" Hamas is not a democratic government, period. Elections you're talking about were almost 20 years ago. It's like calling Trumpistan 20 years from now a democracy, if Trump today declares he'll live forever, and that there will be no more elections, and enough MAGA Americans help him persevering.
- Israel's struggle is the Zionist dream of creating a Jewish state by any means. Means have been pretty violent and treacherous, from international terrorism, assassinations of diplomats, to mass killings and violent displacement of 100s of thousands of indigenous people, unilateral declaration of statehood over someone else's land, etc. Indigenous people have been revolting against this since way before Hamas even existed. It's quite something to bothside this, or even invert this, and call indigenous people terrorists, while violent immigrant invaders and land thieves are somehow legitimate state.
- Martyr != terrorist, it's anyone killed in some manner in relation to the above political context. If a child is shot in the head by Israel's soldiers, it will be called a martyr. Executed ICRC workers were called martyrs, etc.
It literally doesn't matter.
What Hamas did or does, doesn't give any right to Israel to ethnically cleanse, forcibly displace, massacre 100+ people every day and commit a genocide in Gaza. 100 people, most of them kids!
These are people with lives, families, hope and compassion. Just imagine if the Ukrainian war came even close to this. People are not numbers.
And these are WARCRIMES, the entire global system was built to stop such things from happening, letting the occupation do whatever it wants while making a joke of any and every concept of the "international rule based order" will come back to bite the west, hard.
If this is allowed to happen, what's different about Taiwan and Ukraine then? Let the stronger one win right?
As we are currently seeing in international relations, the "international rule based order" needs someone to impose order, otherwise it won't work. Putin called the bluff and he seems to win that hand.
So as in all the other areas of life, rules are for the small, puny ones, not for the big or well-connected ones. If you are big or have big supporters, might makes right. Morals and rules are then only relevant for propaganda, not for actual behavior
If that was the case the west bank would at peace, instead it's getting annexed with a pending ethnic cleaning plan.
They literally shot ambulances a few days ago on purpose:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-isr...
Well Hamas’s massacre didn’t buy Palestine any good will/support, did it? I think the approval rate of Hamas was at historic levels after the massacre so that should tell you about the people in Gaza/Palestine(politically speaking of course)
Now Israel can do whatever they want because “nobody” is going to support what seamed like a terrorist state.
They chose violence and violence they get. It didn’t pay off. Not many people want to get involved into Palestine now. Not even the Arab states.
This guy perhaps?
> Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries.
Which ones?
In the UK we don't discriminate based on citizenship, or even if the protests are political or not !
Protest marches - no wait, the term is less specific: "public processions" - can have restrictions imposed for basically any reason. Restrictions can be imposed if (this is just a selection):
- They basically generate noise
- May cause prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service
- May cause the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities
- May cause the prevention of, or a delay that is more than minor to, the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product
Not forgetting there are probably 10-20 general Public Order Offences that can be used against a person, such as wilful obstruction of a highway or public nuisance.
Then we also have Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs). SDPOs are civil orders that enable courts to place conditions or restrictions on an individual aged over 18 (such as restrictions on where they can go and when) with the aim of preventing them from engaging in protest-related activity that could cause disruption. Breaching an SDPO is a criminal offence.
And the cherry on the cake: by law you must tell the police in writing 6 days before a public march if you're the organiser (which is to say, get the police's permission)
Laws around protests here in the UK are certainly problematic, but I haven't heard of ant cases where this would have been specifically used against students from abroad.
Technically we're subjects but the King has zero executive powers. His soft powers are perhaps another topic. Point being we're in effect, citizens and subject to the (very variable) laws of the country like any other country. Currently freedom of expression in the UK is highly problematic but that's a temporary issue with the current administration. No subjects or citizens in any country are ever free as in free beer. So I suppose you're correct.
There are very very few people who can be classed as "British subjects", the vast majority are British citizens since at least 1983.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject :
"Currently, it refers to people possessing a class of British nationality largely granted under limited circumstances to those connected with Ireland or British India born before 1949. Individuals with this nationality are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens."
Germany bans pro-Palestine protests (officially they're still legal, but they've been arresting people since it began and they've just started deporting people for participating in completely legal protests) but I think that's a slightly different criterion than the one you asked for.
While the protests are per se not illegal, the people arrested aren't accused of just protesting, they are accused of supporting a terrorist organisation. The right to free speech isn't as all-encompassing in Germany as it is in the USA, so shouting the wrong slogans can very well get you in trouble.
Also, the right to protest in public only applies to German citizens: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_8.html
Foreigners are usually still free to do it, but they don't have a constitutionally protected right to public protests.
> While the protests are per se not illegal, the people arrested aren't accused of just protesting, they are accused of supporting a terrorist organisation. The right to free speech isn't as all-encompassing in Germany as it is in the USA, so shouting the wrong slogans can very well get you in trouble.
Yes, that's correct. Anyone who protests and grabs the attention of the police is accused of supporting a terrorist organisation. That's why I added the information that although they protest completely legally, they still get arrested and deported. The pretense for the arrest and deportation is that protesting to stop the carpet bombing of Gaza supports Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organisation.
Thousands for weeks on end protested the carpet bombing of Gaza, Germans as well as Foreigners. Many respectable foreign and German organisations invited to participate and organized those protests. And only very few of those protesting were arrested or even investigated.
Those who were usually did something more than protest, like showing support for terrorist organizations like Hamas or ISIS by showing the respective flag, harassing counter-protesters, shouting controversial slogans like "from the river to the sea..." (which is thought to imply destroying Israel and therefore "Volksverhetzung", although I'm not sure if the courts are already through with that one) or just plainly calling for the killing of Jews or the eradication of Israel.
Actually, the police was very patient and tame with those protests, too patient and too tame for the taste of many. A common, not totally unjustified opinion was that if those protests were just Germans protesting about a strictly German issue (like "Stuttgart21" or "Startbahn West" back in the day) and behaving like the pro-Palestine protestors did, there would have been riot police tear-gassing and bludgeoning everyone within half an hour.
Non-citizens in Germany have no free speech rights period. You get banned and deported even for making lectures about unfavorable topics, as it seems.
That's quite different from protesting, since you're not making anyone listen to you. Lecture/conference is an offer, that Germans and others may take out of their own interest to learn about what you have to say.
That also infringes on the German citizens, because you're attempting to limit them from what they may choose to learn.
Correct. Here's a DW video on it: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deport-pro-palestinian-prot...
There is a fight over this being done with or without due process.
Incorrect:
"They are accused of indirectly supporting Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany."
2nd sentence from your link.
Supporting terrorist organizations is not legal in Germany. Supporting terrorist organizations is not the same a being Pro-Palestinian. Unless you think that all Palestinians are terrorists, which I do not.
No. What is not allowed is calls for genocide ("From the river to the sea") and support for terrorist organizations.
And yes, if you are a guest in a country, supporting genocide and terrorism can get you deported.
But the police has been extremely lax in enforcement. These protests still basically always have these characteristics and there is no action by the police.
It is pathetic.
Protesting against Israel's carpet bombing and mass starvation of civilians, targeted missile strikes and sniper strikes on journalists (more than any other war in history and there might not be any left by now) and so on is considered to be supporting Hamas. Because if you weren't a Hamas terrorist, you'd support everything Israel says it does to get rid of Hamas. That six year old girl and the paramedics trying to save her? All Hamas. The flour massacre? Hamas. Journalists? Hamas. I'm skeptical that you haven't seen this rhetoric constantly since Oct 7 2023.
Are you aware that people were chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", because it rhymes, and they were not chanting "from the river to the sea, let's gas all the Jews again"?
> is considered to be supporting Hamas.
No it is not. Even if it almost certainly is. These protests used to run almost daily, and were often allowed to proceed even if actual calls for genocide were included.
And of course you are also wrong on the content: those accusations are largely untrue, and Israel is an absolute leader in avoiding civilian casualties in urban combat, achieving a 1:1 ratio of civilian to combatant deaths, whereas the world average is 10:1. And this despite Hamas's openly stated and obviously carried out policy of creating as many civilian casualties in their own population as possible.
And no, calling for genocide does not become legal if it rhymes.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Supporting Palestinians that Israel has been killing for over a year (+50k killed, most were women and children), while starving the rest and ethnically cleansing them, is not supporting terrorism.
Too many have been killed, for sure, but you should probably use sources other than the Hamas Health Ministry:
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
That depends on your vantage point.
If you accept the mainstream Palestinian viewpoint, i.e. the one that endorses Hamas and the Simchat Torah massacre, there is no such thing as too many, because every Palestinian death furthers the jihadist cause of demonizing Israel.
If you accept the mainstream Israeli viewpoint, all of these deaths were unnecessary because they directly resulted from an unprovoked onslaught against innocent civilians, and all of the casualties could have been avoided but for the Gazan misadventure of October 7th.
I'm not sure which camp GP subscribes to, however.
1. Hamas bears the moral responsibility for all of the suffering in the war they started on October 7th, and the Palestinian people bear the moral responsibility of electing and supporting them (and participating in the invasion, and not returning the hostages).
2. Even Hamas now admits most deaths have been military aged males: https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592
3. How can you argue that Gaza has been starved and ethnically cleansed when the population of the Gaza strip has increased since the start of the war?
I strongly agree, unfortunately they feel strongly differently after spending a lot of money to get on the courses. Frankly the law of the land is the latter, but this is one of the problems with cladding cultures and attitudes which needs addressing rather than glossing over...
>It's not that hard as a foreign student to not join political protests in favor of terrorist groups.
I obviously don't support terrorism, but people unambiguously have the right to protest in favour of terrorist groups. It's only when they provide material support to these groups that they actually commit a crime.