top of page

Balancing Freedom and Security in Europe's Response to Palestine

The recent development of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, triggered by Hamas's campaign on October 7th, has presented European nations with significant challenges. They now grapple with the complex task of balancing the preservation of freedom of expression against the imperative of safeguarding national security. This article delves into the legal dilemmas European countries face in their responses to civil displays of support for Palestine during these tumultuous times, arguing that these nations, while prioritising national security, are raising serious questions about their commitment to fundamental democratic values.

To begin, on October 10th, the United Kingdom's Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, issued a directive ordering increased scrutiny on displays of support for Palestine, citing Hamas as a recognised terrorist group. While the U.K.'s commitment to national security is unquestionable, Braverman's actions have come under scepticism. Braverman risks stifling freedom of expression by deeming slogans such as "from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free" or waving the Palestinian flag as potential criminal offences. Critics argue that the directives she issued risk curtailing freedom of expression. The criminalisation of slogans and flag-waving may suppress dissent and stifle a fundamental democratic value: the right to express one's views openly. The impact of such restrictions on the Palestinian community and the broader implications for civil liberties necessitate a more balanced approach by the government.

Across the English Channel, France's Interior Minister, Gérald Darminin, announced a ban on pro-Palestinian rallies on October 12th because they could disturb public order. While public safety is paramount, using tear gas and water cannons to disperse peaceful gatherings and make subsequent arrests raised concerns about the heavy-handedness of the government's approach.

In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz also declared a ban on any public support shown for the pro-Palestine group Samidoun on October 12th. This stance is rooted in opposition to anti-Semitism and the purported support for Hamas by Samidoun. While Germany has historically and culturally grappled with its Anti-Semitic legacy, underscored by the German Penal Code’s bans on public Holocaust denial and the online spread of Nazi propaganda, this article questions whether Germany's response is proportionate, given that Samidoun is an international organisation primarily focused on supporting Palestinian prisoners. The assertion that the group's activities risk prosecution if they openly support Hamas or engage in flag-burning necessitates a more in-depth review, striking the right balance between anti-terrorism measures and preserving civil rights.

A pattern of bias and partiality becomes evident in dissecting Europe's responses to the Israel-Palestine conflict. While concerns about safety and anti-Semitism are undeniably valid, the legal measures embraced by the UK, France, and Germany have faced criticism for their potential impact on freedom of expression, civil liberties, and impartiality. This interplay encapsulates the global struggle between the preservation of liberty and the assurance of safety.

Europe's response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a microcosm of the global struggle to balance freedom of expression and national security. It is incumbent upon these nations, as "defenders of democratic values", to strike a balance that respects both liberty and safety. As one of the world's most enduring conflicts continues, it remains crucial to address these dilemmas and uphold democratic principles to set precedents for future conflicts. In doing so, we move closer to a just and lasting resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

bottom of page