On 02.09.2026 a peculiar court hearing took place in Berlin. The asylum of the Palestinian refugee and former Samidoun member, Zaid Abdulnasser, was revoked in 2024 by the federal office for migrants and refugees (BAMF) after claiming he is against the “goals and principles of the United Nations”. After submitting an appeal, the administrative court had to decide whether the BAMF’s decision is to be overturned or not. The court dismissed the appeal and Zaid continues to be without papers. In this column, we will touch on the political significance of this case, and how it fits into a larger framework of delegitimization and taboosation of the Palestinian resistance in political discourse.
The court accepts that Zaid is not a member of any organisation on the “EU-terror list” and that he did not take part in “terrorist activities”. Nevertheless, the BAMF argues that mere political statements he made are to be considered “ideological and propaganda support of Hamas”, therefore “support of terrorism” and “against the goals and principles of the UN”, which is grounds to revoke his subsidiary protection according to §4 Abs. 2 Satz 3 AsylG. Articles and interviews by Zaid and his lawyer describe in detail the court hearing, the decision, and its consequences.
Evidence used to construct the “support of terrorism” allegations range from describing the Palestinian resistance as “legitimate and necessary”. To framing the 7th of October in the wider context of long history of legitimate Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation. To referring to Baklava distribution in the Sonnenallee on the 7th of October as “no big deal”. All the way to describing Hamas as a mass militant organisation that is leading the Palestinian resistance today, and that any contradictions it has with the marxist-leninist PFLP is secondary while the collective contradiction with the occupation is primary. And so on.
In the legal sense, decades ago you would take an active part in a militant action, and a criminal court would have to prove your exact role in the action and criminally prosecute you. With the rise of revolutionary movements in Germany and worldwide in the late 60s and 70s, and the build up of militant groups, what we know today as “anti-terror laws” was first introduced in many countries, making a person’s role in a militant action is no longer the threshold, but the mere membership in the militant organisation. This framework in Germany was expanded to include so-called “supporters”, who can land in jail for providing help to people in militant organisations, like falsified passports, housing, financial and logistical support, or even flyer distribution – without being themselves members. This criterion is so vaguely formulated that it includes an even more abstract category: the sympathizers. This included people expressing sympathy towards militants imprisoned by the German state, who were then tortured and eventually murdered in Stammheim. Here, it’s important to remember that we are still navigating within the framework of the criminal legal system.
Even accounting for the expansive reach of Germany’s anti-terror laws in the criminal code, using residency, citizenship, asylum, and association laws, casts an even wider net. “The threshold for criminal liability does not have to be crossed” as the judge insisted. In other words, while nothing Zaid said is punishable by criminal law, nor can be prosecuted within the anti-terror framework of the German penal system, these quotes can still cross the threshold of “support of terrorism” per asylum law, and can be grounds to strip him of his status.
Anti-terror laws are by-design unconstitutional and undemocratic, and are meant to circumvent any standard penal procedure. On the question of Palestinian resistance, however, the anti-terror regime is being spread like a cancer into every corner of the German legal system, breaking in its wake any resemblance of “rule of law”. Using the Associations law (VereinsG) the German state bans Samidoun Palestinian Prisoners Solidarity Network for “celebration of terrorism”, Palästina Solidarität Duisburg for “spiritual support of Hamas” and Palästina e.V. for “supporting the armed struggle against the State of Israel”. Using the citizenship law, it revokes Abdullah’s German citizenship for posting a story on Instagram that allegedly celebrates the Palestinian resistance. And using asylum law, Zaid can lose his subsidiary protection. Non are criminally liable for the actions that are used to justify the extreme repressive measures they’re subjected to.
There are many layers to this topic: a constitutional free speech perspective, where the protection of political speech is in itself essential for a democratic society. An antifascist perspective, where these instances set a dangerous precedent, and while the current government is only applying it to Palestine solidarity, tomorrow it will apply to everyone else. An anti-racist perspective, where the weaponisation of asylum law means a refugee can be severely punished for something a German or EU citizen can not be even fined for. A political perspective, where eliminating the Palestinian resistance from political discourse renders the Palestinian liberation struggle a humanitarian issue, and Palestinians a people without agency. Or from an organisational perspective, where the criminalisation of the resistance is used to crush the international solidarity movement.
But what we will highlight in our conclusion is the deeply dehumanising element to this practice. In the midst of suffocating blockade, occupation and genocide, Palestinians are to accept their extermination in silence. Not only is any resistance illegitimate/illegal/terrorist, but the mere positive reference to it is to be punished to the extreme. Imposing this taboo on political discourse, and especially on Palestinian refugees, is profoundly grotesque. And in this sense, the rejection of this taboo is a partial reclamation of their humanity.
