A London surgeon who has provided testimony over the current war in Gaza after operating during the conflict has been denied entry to France, where he was due to speak in the French senate later on Saturday.
After arriving at Charles de Gaulle airport north of Paris on Saturday morning on a flight from London, Prof Ghassan Abu-Sitta, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, was informed by French authorities that Germany had enforced a Schengen-wide ban on his entry to Europe.
French police said the German authorities, who had previously refused Abu-Sitta entry to Germany in April, had put a visa ban on him for a year, meaning he was banned from entering any Schengen country. It is not clear whether Abu-Sitta was aware of this before flying to Paris.
“They are preventing me from entering France. I am supposed to speak at the French senate today,” said Abu-Sitta, who had been invited by Green party parliamentarians to take part in a conference at the Sénat, the upper house, to speak about Gaza. The theme of the conference was: France and its responsibility in the application of international law in Gaza.
It’s interesting that France has lost its autonomy here. Can they not even permit him entry with an escort?
It seems Abu-Sitta was denied entry into Germany because he was going to attend another conference that the Germans felt might cause a disturbance. A conference he never made it to. And now cannot visit other “sovereign” nations in the zone:
(From the April German ban)
Abu Sitta said his ban was to last until Sunday, covering the planned duration of the Berlin conference he was to attend, entitled the Palestine Congress. The gathering was to discuss a range of topics, including German arms shipments to Israel and solidarity with what organizers called the Palestinian struggle.
Berlin police said later Friday they pulled the plug on the event, attended by up to 250 people, on its first day after a livestream was shown of a person who is banned from political activity in Germany. They wouldn’t identify the person, but said they decided after a legal assessment to end the congress and asked those attending to leave.
Germany feels so much guilt about perpetuating one Holocaust that it is preventing information about another Holocaust from getting out.
Its so shameful how the goverment of the country i call home is behaving. I wonder how historians will look at this in a couple decades.
It’s worth contemplating how absolutism influences our various cultures. Genocide feeds on it.
And you know what’s the worst thing: The opposition is even worse. Friedrich Merz is basically German Donald Trump and the AfD with people like Björn Höcke is just the spiritual successor to the NSDAP
At least the job is being done by a master in the field.
Stop that “guilt” talk please that’s a literal Nazi narrative. Responsibility is the word you’re looking for.
And, no, Germany isn’t preventing anything from getting out DW is pretty much blasting Gazan plight 24/7. Then, you won’t hear them say it publicly to not risk damaging diplomatic relations but the government definitely thinks that there’s a genocide going on – otherwise they wouldn’t have stopped weapon exports.
So then why not talk about it if they know genocide is happening? Why prevent this guy from speaking in France?
So then why not talk about it if they know genocide is happening?
Because cutting off ties with Israel doesn’t change Israel’s mind, especially if you’re Germany, while with intact relations you can still work from the inside. Germany has deep ties to all aspects of Israeli society, not just the government. Or, differently put: Breaking ties won’t happen until the Kahanites outlaw the Haaretz.
On the flipside I don’t see any other possible explanation for the lack of issued weapons export permits than them being of the opinion that there’s at least a strong risk that those weapons would be used in a genocide. You might’ve heard that the ICJ didn’t enact any preliminary rulings against Germany to stop weapons exports, that is why: There’s no exports that could be reasonably used in the perpetration of a genocide.
Why prevent this guy from speaking in France?
Germany never decided that, Germany, or rather Berlin (as in the state government in its role as municipality, not the federal government) decided he should not speak in Germany on grounds of public order concerns. I suppose it has something to do with him glorifying war criminals, no matter how often he says that he disavows terrorism. The convention he was to speak at also showed videos of someone else already banned, there might be some degree of getting caught in the cross fire involved. He’s not a German citizen thus political activism within Germany is not a right but privilege.
Plenty of Palestinians are not getting banned from Germany like that because they’re way less iffy, and with that I don’t mean “Don’t criticise Israel”.
France is free to make arrangements that allow him to enter France without risking him entering Schengen states he’s banned from. Also this would’ve looked differently without Brexit as then he’d still be a EU citizen and the ban wouldn’t have automatically extended to Schengen so why aren’t you blaming the Tories instead of Germany.
The only way any country would agree to being part of a geographic zone with no internal border controls is if they could disallow individuals from the whole area. Not much point refusing a man entry into Germany if he can just go to France and rent a car, drive to Berlin.
They wouldn’t rent a car. They’d take the train.
Not really the takeaway here but ok.
Carrying a huge rucksack which makes an odd ticking noise.
Weird source, they absolutely identified the person, and it was Abu Sitta. He was the reason the conference had to be stopped.
edit.: I’ve looked for a somewhat decent German source to share and found something interesting. The Palestine conference was banned because a speaker named Abu Sitta wanted to hold a speech, who is banned from political activity in Germany. This guy is specifically pro Hamas and said, if he was younger he would’ve participated in the Hamas attack himself. At the same time this other person was banned from entry into the country, also named Abu Sitta. I’m now left wondering if this Schengen ban was mistakenly issued and meant for the other guy.
It’s internal politics.
The other article I read said that the guy was invited by a member of the opposition (EELV, the Greens), and when contacted the Élysée (head office of the executive) literally said “there’s not much the police could do about a Schengen ban”.
… i.e. of course France could have allowed him in. The executive just chose not to exercise its power because that would not have benefitted the majority.
Germany had enforced a Schengen-wide ban on his entry to Europe
Why the fuck is this even possible? One country shouldn’t be able to decide over all of Europe, what the hell
How Orwellian
Something’s a bit iffy with this story. Surely, Germany would have made clear the particulars of the ban to Abu-Sitta. If this is the case, is this just a consciousness raising stunt on by Abu-Sitta? If he did know there are ways around the ban. Could it be that he isn’t Schengen banned at all and France is using it as a pretext.
Well I suspect he thought that France might waive the ban because the Senate had invited him specifically. I imagine the police will be getting an angry phone call from a senator.
French police said the German authorities, who had previously refused Abu-Sitta entry to Germany in April, had put a visa ban on him for a year, meaning he was banned from entering any Schengen country. It is not clear whether Abu-Sitta was aware of this before flying to Paris.
Because it was unclear to the writer whether Abu-Sitta was aware doesn’t affect whether it was unclear to Abu-Sitta.
Surely, Germany would have made clear the particulars of the ban to Abu-Sitta.
On what do you base this wonderful faith in governments to clearly explain their bureaucracies?
If this is the case, is this just a consciousness raising stunt on by Abu-Sitta?
So what if it was? This is framed like the story is about whether governments explain themselves well and if he knew about his EU-wide ban this story would be unfounded and manipulative, but whether Germany explained its actions well enough is not the issue, it’s that a country banned someone for speech and then extended that ban to most of a continent.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
