Try it for yourself
111Expression & its limits

The prohibited act is a public call for the destruction of Israel.

The question distinguishes political criticism and discussion from a call for destruction. Criminal assessment of an actual statement depends on its precise content and context.

About 4 min readReviewed: 20 October 2026
AI-generated peaceful discussion room with two facing chairs and a closed book.
Criminal CodeSections 111 and 130
Symbolic space for discussion, not a political event or historical photograph.
The short answer

The answer is a public call for the destruction of Israel.

The catalogue answer identifies a public call for destruction. Incitement to violent destruction is not ordinary criticism of government policy; depending on content and circumstances, provisions such as those against public incitement to crime or hatred apply.

Try it for yourselfExam question · No. 111
Which action related to the state of Israel is prohibited in Germany?

Choose one answer. Your result stays on this page only.

Focus on the action being described.

Three answers concern an opinion, a conversation or displaying a flag. The fourth publicly calls for destruction. The distinction is not whether Israel is mentioned, but what the person says or does.

Article 5 also protects controversial political expression. Criticism of a government’s decisions must not automatically be equated with criminal incitement to violence. Equally, calling something an “opinion” does not legalise incitement to crime. The relevant criminal provisions must be assessed against their specific requirements.

Two fictional adults with long straight black hair and short silver curls talk calmly at a library table.
AI-generated respectful conversation. These people do not represent any national, religious or political group.

The other three answers

The alternatives are not prohibited merely because they concern Israel.

Publicly criticizing Israel's policies.

Public criticism of Israeli policy is in principle protected by freedom of expression. Whether a particular statement also contains criminal material is a separate question; criticism alone is not the prohibited act sought.

Hanging an Israeli flag on private property.

Displaying an Israeli flag on private property is not prohibited in itself. This option contains no incitement to violence or destruction.

A discussion about Israel's policies.

Political discussion is not prohibited merely because of its subject. Exchanging different views must be distinguished from the expressly described call for destruction.

The short exam answer does not decide an individual case.

Section 111 concerns public incitement to unlawful acts. Section 130 contains several offences; subsection 1 includes the requirement of suitability to disturb public peace. A keyword from a debate is not enough to assert all the legal elements without examining them.

A state, its government, its population and Jewish people worldwide are not interchangeable categories. Explaining political criticism must neither assign collective responsibility nor infer political beliefs from origin or religion.

Sections 111 and 130 · Criminal Code ↗
Your memory cue

Identify the act: discuss, criticise or call for destruction.

The fourth answer describes the prohibited call for destruction. Merely discussing the political subject is not enough.

Three words for this question

der Aufrufcall / appeal
An appeal asking others to take action.
öffentlichpublicly
Perceptible to a wider audience rather than only a private circle.
die Meinungsfreiheitfreedom of expression
The right to express views within constitutional limits.
Strafgesetzbuch · § 111 ↗
Put understanding into practice

One question understood. Ready for the next?

Practise all 310 questions for your state in our four free modes. No account needed. No advertising.

Optional: Plus for history, statistics and targeted revision. €4.99/month including VAT, renewing monthly.

Sources & context

An independently written study guide, not an official BAMF publication or advice for an individual case. The sources below were reviewed on 20 October 2026 for the claims explained here; the test question comes from the existing question bank.

The two editorial pictures are AI-generated illustrations. They do not document real events or official proceedings.