New German citizens required to affirm Israel's right to exist
New German citizens required to affirm Israel's right to exist
Questions added to citizenship test on antisemitism, Israel and Germany's responsibility towards Jewish people
You're viewing a single thread.
The new Nazis and the old Nazis teaming up is a sight to behold.
Acknowledging a country's right to exist is the opposite of Nazi policy...
Maintaining that an Apartheid state has the right to keep being an Apartheid state is very Nazi-like.
This is not agreeing that Israel is allowed to continue committing genocide. This is just saying that country is allowed to exist as a country. Or do you think that once a country commits a horrific act that they should no longer be allowed to exist?
I'm more interested in the inverse: when does colonizing an already-inhabited area turn into a recognized country? Because Israel was created by a stroke of the pen out of Palestinian land. Or is it purely "might makes right"?
Oh. Could you educate us more about this? Why exactly was it created with the stroke of a pen and when? And by whom? By the mighty Jewish people?
not OP, but, google Mandatory Palestine
No, sorry.
If you're not willing to learn, then don't ask people to educate you!
I wanted him to write out his opinions. Since COVID I’m done with people who just throwing a link to me and say educate yourself.
the thing is...WTF do people care about Israel, Brazil, Uganda, Madagascar, etc. when applying for German citizenship? That's the whole point of this absurdity.
You can’t understand that a county that once did a genocide tried to make amends?
A country being shitty doesn't mean they don't have a right to exist. Does Russia not have a right to exist? Did Iraq not have a right to exist?
Countries, as a rule, don't have a right to exist. People have a right to self-determination. These are different things. That said, Israel is fundamentally an Apartheid state. If Israel stopped being an Apartheid state it'd stop being Israel. And if a state needs to treat half the people in it as second class citizens to exist then it can go die in a ditch.
no state has a right to exist. None of them.
Points for consistency, but no points for nihilism because the points are meaningless anyway.
I don't consider myself a nihilist, so where did that come from?
White South Africa did not have the right to exist. Rhodesia did not have a right to exist.
That's what we are talking about.
Israel has become a Jewish supremacist apartheid state. Its crimes have become so egregious and so entrenched ("facts on the ground") that it is not unreasonable to argue that it cannot be reformed in its present form. In this case it is reasonable to argue for its replacement by a democratic successor state in which Jews and others will all have the same rights to freedom and safety.
So funny story, South Africa was able to end apartheid without not existing.
Imagine that!
Wake me up when Israel institutes universal suffrage and legal equality for everyone from the river to the sea, elects Marwan Barghouthi as president and changes it flag and anthem to incorporate Palestinian national symbolism. If such a country would like to still call itself Israel, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Because this is what ending apartheid means, buddy. Not just getting rid of Netanyahu, but deep structural change, and a commitment to justice, truth and reconciliation.
I favor a two state solution myself, as it is my understanding that is the desire of the majority of Palestinians.
Yes, it is the Fatah line as well. If it were feasible, I would also support it. However, Israeli created "facts on the ground" say it isn't. It is impossible to extract the entrenched colonists from the West Bank and it is impossible for Israel to accept a sovereign Palestine that is anything more than a Bantustan. Worse, it might just mean that Israel will have not one but two Gazas on its doorstep. It's a recipe for more death and destruction.
The 2SS was reasonable 30 years ago. That time has very sadly passed. Just like the Palestinians lost their chance in '48, so did the Israelis lose their chance at Camp David in 2000. The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side "cleansing" the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.
The current mess is a knot that can only be solved by a single state solution. And if that is the case, and we agree that either side “cleansing” the other is completely unacceptable, then universal equality from the river to the sea, a democratic country, is the only game left.
We disagree on whether a two state solution is possible but do agree that either side committing genocide on the other is unacceptable.
I disagree that a single state solution is possible, even if we named it Peaceland because the same conflict you say prevents the two state solution will still exist and the conflict will continue within the single state. Forcing two opposing cultures into a single state against their will is how we get ethnic cleansing, aka genocide.
We obviously also disagree on what causes the conflict. I don't see it as a clash between opposing cultures, which by definition is irreconcilable. It is a clash over land, over sovereignty, over rights, over resources. These can of course be resolved and have been resolved even at least tentatively in many countries in the region. With justice can come peace.
If Serbs and Muslims can coexist in Bosnia, if Macedonians and Albanians can coexist in North Macedonia, if Protestants and Catholics can coexist in Northern Ireland, if Flemings and Waloons can coexist in Belgium, if the various denominations can coexist in Lebanon, if English and French can coexist in Quebec, then Israelis and Palestinians can work it out as well. Note that the above examples are at a varying degree of peace and harmony, from not very much to quite a lot. But none of them are genocidal cases. In fact, a couple are societies that coexist after a genocide took place (Bosnia, Ireland).
Do you mean you support Russian ownership of Crimea?
No, because Crimea is part of Ukraine.
What makes it different from Israel on occupied Palestine?
Honestly, time. Time eventually changes things and Russia's occupation of Crimea was only a decade ago and the founding of Israel was like 80 years ago. Israel's continued expansion and settlement is wrong and comparable to Russia occupying Crimea.
Then why isn't Germany recognizing Palestine? Those people have been there quite a while.
Only the 75 year old Israel appears to enjoy existence for Germany. Of course supporting Israel's now open and blatant annexation of the West Bank and planned annexation of Gaza.
Germany should recognize Palestine!
But the fact that they don't doesn't mean they shouldn't be actively opposing antisemitism in Germany. Opposing Israel's actions is different than "Israel shouldn't exist" because in the context of Germany and the neo mazid, not existing is literal and includes the people of Israel.
Germany is famous for being a primary enabler of the Genocide in Gaza. Only beaten by America the original Nazis from Manifest Destiny.
Supporting the white nationalist ethnostate of Israel only solidifies the Nazi reputation of Germany being as strong as ever.
This pretense of antisemitism is just a dogwhistle for white nationalists to hide their racism
If you have 11 people and a Nazi at a dinner party, you have 12 Nazis.
The historical Nazi Germany was actually quite supportive of zionist efforts and interestingly the reverse was also true for some time before the holocaust got into full swing.
The Nazi party supported zionist plans because they wanted more options for expelling Jews. That was antisemetic.
Modern Germany is supporting the state of Israel's existence because of modern antisemitic rhetoric about how Israel shouldn't exist. This requirement is in opposition to antisemitism.
The context is completely different.
What's anti-semitic about saying israel shouldn't exist?
When any other country commits genocide, nobody says that country shouldn't exist. They say that they should stop doing those things.
There were a bunch of countries that were consolidated, created, or had lines redrawn after WWII along with Israel. Other than some choosing to split themselves once they gained autonomy, such as Yugoslavia, nobody is saying that those countries shouldn't exist.
The only country that regularly has people say it shouldn't exist is Israel. The only reason people say that is because it is a Jewish ethno state. It is surrounded by ethno states that nobody says shouldn't exist. The primary people pushing the "Israel shouldn't exist" are antisemitic groups like neo nazis.
Now, that isn't to say that creating Israel was a good idea or done for good reasons, but enough decades have passed that it is established. There is plenty of criticism to be had about the genocide, apartheid, borders, and what Israel does wrong without leaping to the antisemitic idea that Israel shouldn't exist.
Israel gains the right to exist when Palestinians grant it the right to exist.
As it stands Palestinians do not recognize israel. There is an opportunity for israel right now to have a two state solution and have Palestinians recognize them. Yet israel is not accepting it. Because in their infinite Nazi wisdom they want to keep expanding the Lebensraum.
Found the hasbara bot. Just for the record states have no eight to exist. This concept doesn’t exist.
Let’s assume for a second though that states would have such a right. When Nazi Germany committed genocide, hell yeah people said that state shouldn’t exist and they were right to say so. Apartheid South Africa, that state also shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
To spin this further, the settler colonial states that got established through genocide on the indigenous population, e.g. the USA, Canada and Australia should have never existed in the first place. It’s not so difficult.
Hence, why should I agree to an anyway non existing right for a settler colonial state to exist that can only keep existing through genociding the indigenous population and otherwise keeping it under an apartheid regime.
I think you have confused the structure and implementation of a state as a culture with a collective identity of people located within a rough geographic area.
A state's right to exist is not the right to act a certain way, but the right to not be wiped off the map. A colonial state colonizing is only wrong because they are conquering other states that had their own right to exist. Otherwise there would be no reason to say that Palestine should exist, and Palestine should absolutely exist.
So do I understand correctly that colonizing most of Africa, and e.g. the USA, Canada or Australia was not wrong? I’m not aware of indigenous people being organized in states. Hence, the colonization must have been okay by your logic?
The populations of Africa and the Americas had all kinds of states! The Mayan culture was a state or a collection of city states. Although most media about Native Americans focus on the tribes that were more nomadic, there were tons of tribes that had established cities and locations that were their territory all throughout the two continents Hell, even nomadic cultures tend to occupy a space even though they move a lot within it.
Africa and Australia had a lot too, I just don't know them off the top of my head. Colonizers destroyed as much of their cultures as possible to erase their identity as a culture and state.
You have fallen for the colonizer's myths of unorganized native populations, which they used to justify conquering so that they could "civilize" those populations. The colonizers were absolutely wrong.
Alright got it. So for example were the Mayan states part of the UN? What kind of state were they organized in? What about people colonized by the Mayans?
So are established cities and locations and being nomadic without having a state designated by the UN enough for being protected against colonization?
So let me get your stance correct: you think that because Israel is currently committing genocide that they don't have the right to exist as a country?
Answering this question would have impact on my ability to acquire German citizenship.
Then that's your own issue. Germany is a sovereign country who can choose who it wants as citizens. They have chosen to not allow in their country the kind of people who actively work against the right of a certain type of person to exist. Maybe you aren't that kind of person and are just opposed to the creation of Israel in the middle of someone else's country without their consent (which I agree was very wrong to do, but at some point we as civilized people need to move forward and figure out how to live in peace instead of constant fighting), but the vast majority of people who say Israel doesn't have a right to exist are the kind of people who deny the holocaust and think Jewish people don't have the right to exist. Germany doesn't want any MORE of that kind of person in their country.
Now, the inverse SHOULD also be true where they require people to say that Palestine has the right to exist as a country, but that excludes most of the world right now.
But people are conflating recognizing Israel as a sovereign state with approving and condoning their actions. If all countries were held to that standard, there wouldn't be any countries around. The shit my own country does would exclude us from being recognized as a country under that standard.
Denying the right of the Jewish state to exist is not denying the right of the Jewish people to exist IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as denying the right of white Afrikaner South Africa to exist is not a call for the genocide of white Afrikaners.
Afrikaners have a right to life and a right to safety. They don't have the right to set up an Afrikaner ethnostate on top of the rest of the people who inhabit the land.
Germany is right 100% to combat antisemitism. They are wrong, entirely wrong, to use recognition of Israel as a metric to detect it. It is in fact extremely dangerous and ultimately a generator of antisemitism. Attitudes towards Israel should never be used as proxy for attitudes towards Jews. Anti-semitism is irrational and atavistic at its core. Opposition to the existence of Israel as such is a spectrum of nuanced, but rational positions about land, rights, justice and so on. By lumping in rational arguments with atavistic feelings, they are giving the legitimacy of reason to Anti-semitism.
In fact the majority of European antisémites have zero problem with the existence of Israel "out there". They are more than happy to see the Jews leave Europe for the middle east. American antisémites are fantasizing that Israel will be the site of the Second Coming of Christ who will then turn all the Jews into Christians. This observation alone should tell you everything about why it is stupid and wrong to use attitudes towards Israel as proxy measures for attitudes towards Jews. When the antisémites pass your metric with flying colours whereas Jewish anti-Zionists fail it, your metric is just shit, simple as that.
Germany is making an extremely dangerous choice here, when they really don't need to. They don't have to take a maximalist pro-revisionist-zionism position. They are in fact taking sides in an internal debate between Jews and picking and choosing certain Jews as good and others as bad. Under these statutes Jewish people who speak out against Zionism are automatically labelled as ... antisémites.
This is wrong wrong wrong in every way and it makes the world worse for Jews first and foremost.
So what is your solution to all of the people living in Israel (not in the occupied West Bank)? Where do they go?
They stay right where they are. They may need to pay reparations to Palestinians they displaced however, and any laws restricting land ownership or buying and selling to Jews should be abolished.
Who is the government? Is it an elected body? Who elects them?
Because either you appoint a government that is made from basically Hamas (that'll be peaceful!), or you open elections for a new country where Jewish people are 73% of the population... so basically Israel again but now with officially more territory.
Universal suffrage and equal rights for everyone from the river to the sea. That, as a basic universal principle that any reasonable person wherever in the world can assert as the basic requirement for democracy. If you don't like that, you're against democracy, and I don't know if anything else can be discussed.
The details beyond that are not for me to decide.
I never said I was against that. I'm just trying to figure out the much harder act of implementing that very simple view of the world. If you just say, "here's a new country that's fully democratic with equal rights for all... but it now includes both Gaza and West Bank and is 73% Jewish," you have effectively given Israel an even larger country. Hell, in the US we have universal suffrage and equal rights for everyone from the ocean to the ocean... but only theoretically. Ask a black man how equal he feels in the US, even though he has all the rights and suffrage of a white man. That's how Palestinians would be treated except probably way worse.
The details beyond that are what is actually difficult and why peace hasn't been achieved. It's all fine and good to say, "we should all be happy brothers" but it ignores how hard that is to do when the two brothers want each other dead. I'm in favor of a two state solution along with reparations, but that will also be very difficult to achieve, as evidenced by the many times it has been attempted over the decades.
Your math doesn't really check out. Israel has 9 million people 2 million of which are Arabs, and Palestine is 5 million. A binational state would be about 50-50 Arab and Jewish.
Also, you're misrepresenting the difference between the current apartheid state present in Israel/Palestine and the American problem of racism. One has different rules, different courts, different rights, and different protections there is no universal standard. The other often fails to live up to its universal standard. The latter can be improved, the former cannot.
Ultimately, getting lost in the weeds and the details has been an israeli tactic for maintaining the status quo for 50 years. The way you're nickel and diming the details of what would happen after freedom is like asking Lincoln to produce a full account of systemic racism as a precondition to the Emancipation Proclamation. No! I don't care what the details are and I don't need to care, and I refuse to be bogged down with shitty minutiae while injustice reigns. The current system is unacceptable and must be dismantled in favour of universal democratic human rights. Let the people be free and let them decide. Prolonging an insufferable situation just because you don't know every little detail about what freedom might look like is despicable, slavish and cowardly.
Around 30% if Jewish Israelis weren’t even born there. Most of the rest are just one generation in.
the thing is, why the fuck do I have to answer questions about Israel, China, Uganda, or Madagascar or any country, other than Germany, when applying for a German citizenship? That's absurd!
Because Germany has a history that they want to put behind them. The already have way too many citizens who are white power, neo-nazi assholes who still call for death to Jews, so it's somewhat logical that they decided they don't want any more of that mindset as citizens who can vote.
Filling out a piece of paper prevents no one from being racist
To be fair, they've been speed running the country checklist of "really shouldn't have a right to exist" they've done more to convince me that Zionism is a plague on our species than anyone else. The whole genocide is happening because of the idea of Israel so yes, if it goes away then that's a first step.
Found the nazi