That headline is complete nonsense, by the way, even though it’s already present in the source they cite.
The actual ruling hardly cares that Israel is mentioned in the comparison. The lawsuit is purely about the use of a swastika, which is for the most part illegal here in Germany.
But because the swastika was used in a historical context and clearly with a critical stance towards Nazi Germany, its use is legal here.
That’s the whole ruling. It could’ve also been a comparison Nazis vs. pineapple on pizza. It practically didn’t matter.
Not quite. The article linked above doesn’t mention it because it conflates the use of unconstitutional symbols and Volksverhetzung (hate speech targeted at an ethnic group) but the court commented on the latter as well. Here is the relevant excerpt from the ruling:
18 a) Im Hinblick auf § 130 Abs. 1 und 2 StGB liegt bereits das Tatbestandsmerkmal „Teile der Bevölkerung“ nicht vor. Der vorliegende Post soll offensichtlich Kritik am Staat Israel sowie dessen militärischem Vorgehen üben und richtet sich nicht an die Bevölkerungsgruppe der Israeliten oder der Juden. Allein gemeinsame politische oder wirtschaftliche Interessen lassen jedoch keine Gruppe zustande kommen. Staaten werden somit von der Norm nicht erfasst. Durch Beschimpfung fremder Staaten sind nämlich weder deren in Deutschland lebende Staatsangehörige (schon) als Gruppe oder Teil der (hiesigen) Bevölkerung angegriffen noch Teile der deutschen Bevölkerung, die sich dem anderen Staat besonders verbunden fühlen.
18 a) With regard to Section 130(1) and (2) of the German Criminal Code (StGB), the element of “sections of the population” is not met. The post in question is clearly intended to criticise the State of Israel and its military actions and is not directed at the population group of Israelis or Jews. However, shared political or economic interests alone are not sufficient to constitute a group. States are therefore not covered by the provision. This is because insulting foreign states does not (already) constitute an attack on their nationals living in Germany as a group or as part of the (local) population, nor does it constitute an attack on segments of the German population who feel a particular connection to the other state.
Just because some people conflate criticism with Israel with antisemitism, doesn’t mean it’s true. It starts becoming antisemitic when people mention “the Jews/Judaism” or say shit like “there are no civilians in Israel” (I have seen this one a few times by lemmy.ml and hexbear users before).
That headline is complete nonsense, by the way, even though it’s already present in the source they cite.
The actual ruling hardly cares that Israel is mentioned in the comparison. The lawsuit is purely about the use of a swastika, which is for the most part illegal here in Germany.
But because the swastika was used in a historical context and clearly with a critical stance towards Nazi Germany, its use is legal here.
That’s the whole ruling. It could’ve also been a comparison Nazis vs. pineapple on pizza. It practically didn’t matter.
Not quite. The article linked above doesn’t mention it because it conflates the use of unconstitutional symbols and Volksverhetzung (hate speech targeted at an ethnic group) but the court commented on the latter as well. Here is the relevant excerpt from the ruling:
That’s really significant. Many Germans are afraid to say anything against Israel because they will be considered anti-semitic.
Just because some people conflate criticism with Israel with antisemitism, doesn’t mean it’s true. It starts becoming antisemitic when people mention “the Jews/Judaism” or say shit like “there are no civilians in Israel” (I have seen this one a few times by lemmy.ml and hexbear users before).
Sure, agreed.
That’s bold, but not anti-semitic. Explain why you think it is, without arguing like a Zionist.
Something something universal military draft. Which is also stupid.