crossed swastika would still be considered distribution of Nazi symbols. there was already a criminal case many years ago where (if I'm remembering it correctly) a student putting "no nazis"-stickers with a crossed swastika had to defend himself at the court.
but nevertheless - claiming to be victim of censorship is such a common trope nowadays, so maybe the author even reported himself to get some publicity. he is actually a pretty crappy - or let's say controversial - historian and is not really interesting enough for anyone to purposefully discredit him.
there is an old story that exists in numerous variants and goes roughly like this:
A town’s electricity generator failed and various engineers were unable to fix it, so an elderly electrician was summoned. He examined the generator carefully, then tapped it lightly once with a hammer, and power was instantly restored. He submitted his bill for $1,000 and as he was asked for the explanation, answered: “Tapping — $1. Knowing where to tap — $999.”
First of all - most people also in the US obviously don't know that there are exceptions from the First Amendment, excluding certain categories of speech from protection. Second, the First Amendment at the time it was created had a much more limiting interpretation of this freedom - e.g. insults were actually punishable.
Additionally - freedom of speech has never been absolute - it was limited in Ancient Greece, where it originated, it was limited as it was declared in the French Revolution (which was used as the template for the First Amendment), and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - which provides the internationally valid definition of freedom of speech, its scope is also limited.
As opposed to the US, in Germany, the legal system is built consistently from the most generally valid principles to the most specific ones. The most universally valid principle is the one of the human dignity - this is why it's prominently placed in the first sentence of the German Basic/Fundamental Law. Everything else is more or less directly derived from the First Law, making them subordinate to it - thus if freedom of speech violates someone's dignity, the dignity is more important and has to take precedence, limiting the freedom of speech.
And this is consistent and concordant with the international definition.
this is exactly what other countries do since ages - US, UK, France - just to name a few - they all have territories under their control, but not integrated into the state itself, with population having different, but usually lesser rights than the population of the state proper.
on the other hand, the situation in so-called palestinian territories is completely different. Gaza strip was officially annexed by Egypt, West Bank was officially annexed by Jordan - so the official government would be these countries, and if we're talking about Apartheid, then it would be committed by these countries.
jews are the indigenous population. at least from all existing people, jews have the oldest and most substantial historical rights to the modern-day Israel.
It's not a legal site according to German law (crucial parts are missing). And its terms of use are insane. And the creator needs a German language course - there are many mistakes on the site.
but nevertheless - claiming to be victim of censorship is such a common trope nowadays, so maybe the author even reported himself to get some publicity. he is actually a pretty crappy - or let's say controversial - historian and is not really interesting enough for anyone to purposefully discredit him.