- cross-posted to:
- palestyna@szmer.info
- europe@feddit.de
- dach@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- palestyna@szmer.info
- europe@feddit.de
- dach@feddit.de
On 25 March 2024, our account with the Berliner Sparkasse was frozen with immediate effect. In a letter, the Sparkasse informed us that it had taken this step as a precautionary measure and that we should submit numerous internal documents by 5 April to update our customer data. As a public corporation, the bank is bound by public law and may therefore not arbitrarily freeze accounts without providing an explanation, which it did not. It is also highly unusual that the required documents include a list of our members with their full names and addresses.
And BDS is considered an antisemitic organization by several agencies. I don’t agree with that assessment, but that’s exactly what KYC is for. Banks don’t want to be involved with such organizations and it’s not necessarily their job or authority to draw the line. These banks are either AöR or cooperatives, they have an internal ruleset, set by the owners/members. And that ruleset probably has a paragraph about extremism and antisemitism. If the bank now lets this client openly operate with entities that are considered extremist, they are not compliant. Simple as that.
Again, I’m not a fan of the BDS categorization, but acting like the banks are somehow targeting that client specifically is plain wrong.
Wait and your point is that a state-owned bank persecuting an org for its political position is totally normal there’s nothing to see here? 100% sure there’s no political pressure are you? You called them “professional victims” you fuck.
Being insulting is probably a really good way to convince people.
Anyway, this is not “persecution”, it’s KYC and compliance. Banks don’t want to deal with extremist organizations. At all. And if your business deals with organizations that are considered extremist, banks don’t want you as a customer.
The reason behind that is simply that BDS is considered an antisemitic organization. Be angry at whoever decided that, but don’t blame banks for doing their job. I bet your opinion would be very very different, if the organization in question happened to be AfD related. And that’s what experts call double standards.
And “professional victims” is not an insult? You fucking started with the insults. And again, it’s not a business. And yes, obviously I think racists should be persecuted, and anti-racists should not. That does not make me a hypocrite. Seriously your argument is that I should not complain about political persecution (or whatever you want to call it) by a bank because banks just routinely do that?
Banks are businesses, no matter who owns them. Even stateiest state business is - as the name implies - a business. And businesses and internal rules. It’s not “racist” either.
Again, be angry at whoever made BDS antisemitic, not the bank.
On a more personal note: do you really think that your childish tantrums are helping your cause? I don’t even disagree with your point, but just try to explain the reasoning behind the situation and why your critic, and that of the paper here is wrong - and you call me names. Do you think that helps? Do you think, you’ll be taken seriously like that? Foaming mouths don’t seem very convincing, even if they do have good points .
Why are settler groups allowed to finance and collect donations without ramifications?
I also disagree with your conflation of the founder with the overall sentiments of the group.
It’s not my conflation, it’s the “official” conflation in Germany, I wrote that several times in this thread.
Settler groups are, as far as I know, not automatically illegal or sanctioned. If there were persons that were sanctioned, this would look different, though. Also, a newspaper is just more public. If you don’t advertise that your account is used for potentially extremist reasons, you will probably be able to fly under the radar.
Spot the problem? You referred to the customer, in this case a Verein, as a business. You did that twice, and I twice corrected you that it is not a business. Now you’re lecturing me on the fact that banks are businesses. Why?
I’m not conceding the point that this is “not unusual” and no political pressure was put on the bank (which you said something like you’re 100% sure about, which you could not possibly know), but for the sake of argument, let’s say for a moment that it is:
It still makes no sense for you to call them “professional victims” for complaining about it. Like just because this is (possibly) legal for the bank to do, and they did so because of routine compliance shit and not because of pressure, does not mean it is not a political persecution. Even this scenario, they are actual real victims of political persecution, are they not?
Also don’t fucking tone police me.
Removed by mod
There it is.