On Friday afternoon, Budapest became the scene of two sharply contrasting demonstrations. On Fővám Square, the Palestinian Community Living in Hungary held a pro-Palestinian demonstration in support of Palestinian prisoners and Dr Hussam Abu Safieh, whom Israeli authorities identify as a Hamas figure. At the same time, around 100–150 people gathered at Herzl Tivadar Square in front of the Dohány Street Synagogue for a pro-Israel counter-demonstration, standing up for Israel’s right to self-defence and the safety and civil rights of Hungary’s Jewish community.
While only a few dozen people attended the pro-Palestinian demonstration, the larger gathering at Herzl Square featured Hungarian and Israeli flags and speeches emphasizing that the issue was not only Israel’s security, but also whether Hungarian Jews should be able to live openly, display an Israeli flag and express solidarity with Israel without being treated as legitimate targets.
The Budapest Police Headquarters (BRFK) cleared a demonstration expressing solidarity with Palestinian prisoners and Dr Hussam Abu Safieh, whom Israeli authorities identify as a Hamas figure. The decision raises a question that would have been difficult to imagine after 7 October: has Hungary’s ‘zero tolerance’ approach toward demonstrations supporting Hamas come to an end?
The BRFK confirmed on 19 August that it reviewed a notification for a gathering scheduled to take place in Budapest on 21 August and found no legal grounds to prohibit it.
‘On August 21, 2026, a private individual announced a meeting falling under the scope of the Assembly Act. BRFK, as the assembly authority, examined the notification and acknowledged it in the absence of a prohibitory reason,’ the police communications department told Hetek.
The Community of Palestinians Living in Hungary announced the demonstration, describing itself in the call as the ‘administrative body of the Palestinian Community of Hungary’. According to the announcement, the event took place on Vámház Boulevard from 2pm last Friday.
‘Glory to the martyrs! Freedom to the prisoners! Long live Palestine!’
The organizers said the demonstration was being held ‘in support of Palestinian prisoners detained in occupied Palestine and in solidarity with Dr Hussam Abu Safieh’. Their call concludes with the slogans: ‘Glory to the martyrs! Freedom to the prisoners! Long live Palestine!’
The wording is significant. The demonstration was not simply a general expression of support for Palestinian civilians. It explicitly identified Abu Safieh as a person whom participants were being asked to support in relation to his imprisonment.
Who Is Hussam Abu Safieh?
Abu Safieh, the former director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, has become a prominent figure in international campaigns calling for the release of Palestinian detainees. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Amnesty International and others have called for his release, presenting him as an innocent doctor whose detention deprives Gaza’s civilians of essential medical care.
Israel, however, alleges that Abu Safieh was far more than a physician caught up in the war.
The IDF has identified him as a Hamas colonel and says he was detained on suspicion of terrorist activity. Israeli authorities have also alleged that Kamal Adwan Hospital was used by Hamas as a command and control centre and that Abu Safieh was involved in the organization’s activities.
These allegations are supported, according to NGO Monitor, by publicly available Arabic-language sources, local media reports and social-media material. A 2016 photograph appears to show Abu Safieh wearing a Hamas military-style uniform alongside military and security commanders. Palestinian medical websites and local media have also reportedly referred to him as a colonel.
Israeli officials have further pointed to evidence concerning the hospital itself. During an IDF operation at Kamal Adwan, hundreds of people were detained, with Israel saying that some were subsequently identified as having participated in the 7 October massacre. Israeli officials have also cited testimony from the hospital’s previous director, detained in December 2023, who allegedly admitted during interrogation that Hamas used the facility to conceal personnel and conduct military activity.
The IDF has additionally argued that Kamal Adwan operated under Hamas-controlled security structures rather than simply as a civilian medical institution, and has released or cited photographs showing him wearing Hamas’s uniform.
Abu Safieh’s supporters dispute the allegations, maintaining that he is a medical professional and that his detention is unjustified. But the distinction is crucial: the person being celebrated at the Budapest demonstration is not simply an unnamed Palestinian doctor. He is an individual whom Israel identifies as a senior Hamas figure and whose hospital, according to Israeli authorities, was used by the terrorist organization for military purposes.
That context is largely absent from the organizers’ appeal, which calls the demonstration a ‘victory and support’ for imprisoned Palestinians and concludes with ‘Glory to the martyrs! Freedom to the prisoners!’ Before Budapest hosts a demonstration in his name, the Hungarian public deserves to know the full picture.
Departure from Hungary’s Approach since 7 October
The decision is particularly notable because Hungary adopted an exceptionally firm position toward demonstrations perceived as supporting Hamas following the 7 October 2023 massacre.
Days after the attack, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated that demonstrations supporting terrorist organizations would not be permitted in Hungary. Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony subsequently declared that there was ‘no place’ in Budapest for demonstrations supporting Hamas and said that the city rejected any attempt to relativize terrorism. Karácsony made the statement after consulting with Budapest’s police leadership.
That position became part of Hungary’s broader political response to the massacre, which killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel and resulted in the abduction of hundreds of hostages.
Since then, demonstrations perceived as directly supporting Hamas have been treated very differently from ordinary political protests.
The 21 August event therefore represents a significant development. The BRFK has not merely indicated that it will tolerate a spontaneous gathering. It has formally reviewed the notification under Hungary’s Assembly Act and concluded that no legal basis exists to prohibit it.
That does not necessarily mean that a government decree or formal ‘ban’ has been repealed. Nor does the police statement itself establish that the government has deliberately changed its policy. The BRFK’s wording is narrower: as the authority responsible for assemblies, it found no legal ground for prohibiting this particular gathering.
Nevertheless, the contrast with the political position articulated after 7 October is impossible to ignore.
Where Did the ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy Go?
Hetek contacted the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government Spokesperson’s Office to clarify whether Hungary’s post-7 October ‘zero tolerance’ policy remains in force.
The Ministry of the Interior referred the matter to the BRFK, whose response was that the demonstration had been acknowledged because there was no prohibitory reason.
At the time of publication, the Government Spokesperson’s Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had not provided substantive answers.
This leaves an important question unanswered: if Hungary’s post-7 October policy against demonstrations supporting Hamas remains in force, why is a demonstration explicitly expressing solidarity with an individual whom Israeli authorities identify as a Hamas officer being permitted?
If that policy has changed, when was the decision made, and by whom?
The distinction matters. In a constitutional democracy, freedom of assembly is a fundamental right, and restrictions on demonstrations must have a clear legal basis. The police cannot simply prohibit an assembly because its political message is controversial or offensive.
‘The police cannot simply prohibit an assembly because its political message is controversial or offensive’
At the same time, Hungary’s political leadership previously established a clear principle after 9 October: support for terrorism would not be given a public platform in the country.
The 21 August demonstration appears to put these two principles into direct tension.
Israeli Ambassador to Hungary Maya Kadosh Reacts
Israeli Ambassador to Hungary Maya Kadosh released a video statement addressing the demonstration and said that ‘there is no place in Hungary for demonstrations supporting terrorism.’
Kadosh argued that the Hungarian public should know the facts about Abu Safieh before presenting him as a martyr. She also defended Israel’s decision to detain him and emphasized allegations that Kamal Adwan Hospital had been used by Hamas.
‘A white coat does not erase membership in a terrorist organization,’ the ambassador said.
Her intervention reflects the wider Israeli concern that Abu Safieh has increasingly become an international symbol of the Palestinian medical community while allegations concerning his links to Hamas receive comparatively little attention.
For Israel, the issue is therefore not simply one of freedom of assembly. It is also about what the public symbolism of such a demonstration communicates.
Hungary’s Commitment to Israel Faces a New Test
The controversy also comes at a sensitive time for Hungary’s relationship with Israel and its Jewish community.
Budapest has repeatedly presented itself as one of Israel’s strongest European allies and has emphasized its commitment to combating antisemitism and protecting Jewish life. That commitment was particularly visible after 7 October, when Hungary adopted a markedly different approach to pro-Palestinian demonstrations than many other European countries.
The 21 August gathering therefore presents a test—not necessarily of whether Hungary should permit controversial political speech, but of whether its rules are applied consistently.
If the demonstration is legal under Hungary’s current Assembly Act, the police are correct to acknowledge it. But then the government should explain clearly whether the policy announced after 7 October has changed, rather than leaving the public to infer that it has quietly disappeared.
Conversely, if the government still maintains that demonstrations supporting Hamas or glorifying its members constitute an unacceptable security or public-order threat, it should explain why this particular event does not meet that threshold.
For now, the most striking fact is simple: a Budapest demonstration explicitly advertised as an expression of solidarity with Hussam Abu Safieh and Palestinian prisoners had been cleared to proceed.
Whether this represents a genuine policy shift or simply the application of Hungary’s existing assembly laws to a particular case remains unanswered. The question of whether the new government can uphold the Orbán government’s post-7 October ‘zero tolerance’ approach now faces its most visible test yet.
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
