Regular readers know, and indeed some are reliably upset, by this writers’ views on the Israeli war on Hamas in the Gaza strip. There is no need to re-iterate those views at length here, other than perhaps to say that there are few more naïve and idiotic ideas on the planet at present than the notion of a “one state solution” in which Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in a secular state with equality for all: If you think the bloodshed is bad at the moment, wait until several million Palestinians educated in Irish funded UN-run schools to believe killing Jews is their religious duty are given the freedom of Tel Aviv or Hebron.
Nevertheless, if believing in naïve and idiotic ideas were a crime, half the country would be in jail. And in Germany, it appears, that’s the road they’re heading down:
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”.
The Germans, self-evidently, have particular historic reasons to get a little jumpy when people start taking sides against the Jewish state. Like most countries including Ireland, the Germans also have laws against incitement to violence. Unlike most countries, they also have specific laws around anti-semitism, which extend to making it a crime to deny the occurrence or extent of the Holocaust.
Recently, Germany changed its immigration laws to demand that all new citizens recognise the right of Israel to exist.
But here’s the thing: Does a theoretical one-state solution deny Israel’s right to exist, or deny the Jewish people the right to a homeland in Judea? In practice, it almost certainly does. In theory however, it does not. The difference between things working in practice and things working in theory is hardly the basis for a law demanding that the theory not be explored or advocated.
In this specific case, a woman has been fined for what could be interpreted at its most benign as a call for a one-state solution.
First, I think the courts in any situation have a duty to give the accused person the benefit of the doubt, and to interpret their words or actions in the most benign possible light. It is of course possible that the convicted woman meant “from the river to the sea” in a “we should exterminate the jews” way, but it strikes me that doing so would be deeply unfair to her.
Second, even if we were to accept that this woman deeply felt – for the most antisemitic reasons possible – that the State of Israel had no right to exist, what right does the state have to punish her for that opinion?
There are, of course, many people on this island who believe that the state of Northern Ireland (or the British occupation of Northern Ireland, take your pick) has no right to exist. There are a good number of people here who believe that the votes of the people of Northern Ireland should not count in deciding that question. There are even some – a hardcore minority, but they exist – who regard Unionist votes on the issue as illegitimate because Unionists are not really Irish, as they see things. Those people, most of us would accept, have a right to their esoteric and occasionally genocidal opinions. Indeed, the idea of a Gaelic Northern Ireland for the Gaels is often presented as romantic, rather than there being much thought given to the practical implications.
Aside from all of that, I’d argue, the case for Israel’s existence cannot be reliant on the law to prop up the argument. Any argument that relies on the punishment of those who dispute it is inherently weakened by virtue of its own protection: If the perception were to arise that the right of Israeli statehood could not be challenged because of laws prohibiting such a thing that do not apply, for example, to Northern Ireland, then that would likely deepen rather than appease suspicions that Israel was receiving special treatment.
Ultimately, it is for those of us who know why “from the river to the sea” is a genocidal slogan to explain why that is the case. The Germans, in relying on the authoritarian power of the state to make the argument, are taking the risk that they’re ultimately doing more to foment anti-semitism than combat it.
Free speech has to extend to extend even to the dumbest slogans, otherwise it is not free at all.