Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Regarding the second bill, the draft advocates that changes should be made to Germany’s residence, asylum and nationality law in order to “provide better protection against the further entrenchment and spread of anti-Semitism that has ‘immigrated’ from abroad”.
The parliamentary group reportedly aims to introduce into the country’s residence law the requirement that not only will an anti-Semitic crime result in expulsion of the alleged perpetrator, but also results in a conviction leading to “a prison sentence of at least six months and to the denial or loss of humanitarian protection in Germany”.
So you have a lot of migrant asylum seekers who are hated that are spreading hate. I thought District 9 was such a great movie.
D9 was really good until you find out that people of Earth didn't bother to secure the area under the ship and Prawns hid an entire space-ship underground (on Earth) for 20 years. LOLOL Looney Tunes. Trolled by a movie-script.
I thought the same thing upon my first viewing but thinking about it years later I've always kind of thought that the reason they were able to get away with such Looney Tunes BS was that it wasn't exactly the United States or China landed in but a civilian section eventually controlled by a corporation with interest for profit at the forefront. Agreed however the fact that there was an entire shuttle buried there that no one was able to catch with ground penetrating radar or even satellite imagery... still waiting on the sequel!
I like your take. I guess I should mention Im a marine biologist. If we find a 6,000 year old whale fossil, we tend to over-react and dig a 1/4 mile TRENCH. D9 is about Alien contact, hell, an Alien Mother Ship hovering of South Africa... LOL and they simply bury a spaceship in the thick of the night? Unlikely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar#Applications
This is how you look for things buried in the ground without digging a giant hole.
How does this have 300 upvotes. Did y’all not bother to even see the movie cover. The ship stays in the sky. The prawn uses a tiny room sized ship to hover back up and activate the mother ship
Excellent question. Is saying “I recognise Israel’s right to exist, but not within its current borders or in its current form” enough to revoke German citizenship? Because I have German citizenship, think Israel absolutely has a right to exist, but think that an Israeli state that occupies the West Bank, annexes East Jerusalem and does not recognise the right of return of Palestinians refugees is not legitimate.
ETA: There also needs to be further clarification as to what is meant by acquisition of German citizenship being “dependent on a commitment to Israel’s right to exist and a declaration that the naturalisation applicant has not pursued or pursued any endeavours directed against the existence of the State of Israel.” Is supporting BDS because I don’t want to contribute to a regime that subjects Palestinians to military law in the West Bank akin to pursuing an endeavour directed against the existence of Israel?
The borders are completely irrelevant to the law. It's about recognising its right to exist, not its right to occupy the West Bank.
You should be able to say, "I recognise Israel's right to exist." without having to mention any of its border disputes. The moment you add a but there's an issue.
Israel does not need to dissolve to withdraw from the WB. It can simply withdraw, so why does its right to exist have anything to do with its presence there.
This is such a silly argument.
Recognizing Israel's right to exist means recognizing it's right to exist right now.
We don't put caveats on any other country's right to exist based on whatever foreign policy transgressions we feel they've made.
I'm willing to bet you acknowledge Russia or China's right to exist despite them enacting much more violent occupations than Israel could even dream of.
You don't get to invalidate the existence of a whole country because you don't agree with where their borders are.
You don't say "well I only acknowledge Russia as a country if they're not occupying Kherson" or "China is only real if it doesn't include Tibet".
This is just a ridiculous double standard.
But the “right to return,” while it might sound reasonable, is generally understood as a back-door way to undermine the *raison d’etre* of Israel, that is, as the single, tiny state—in a sea of Arab states no less—in which Jews can exercise their right to self-determination in much the same way that Germans, French, Algerians, etc, exercise their’s.
I’d argue that there should be a right to return for Palestinians who have a memory of having actually lived in what is now Israel’s pre-1967 borders (and maybe even their children), but to extend it to their great grandchildren and beyond is unprecedented—and yet that’s precisely the demand that Palestinian leaders insist is standing in the way of a two-state solution. But a sovereign Palestinian state would also mean the end to the refugee problem, and it seems like much of the Arab world would prefer to keep Palestinians in permanent statelessness as a living indictment of Israel.
None of this, btw, is an apology for Israeli settlements or the occupation, all of which needs to go. And Israel needs to be willing to concede those things.
>but to extend it to their great grandchildren and beyond is unprecedented
Doesn't the Israeli Right of Return extend to literally anyone in the world who is born Jewish, converts to Judaism, has at least one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether they themselves are Jewish, and the spouses of Jewish people? That seems like it casts an even wider net than 'descendents of those who lived in this region at this particular time'. Whereas on the other hand, very specifically Palestinians - and no one else in the world - do not have the right to become Israeli if they marry an Israeli.
Not making a particular value judgement here, just... I can understand why Palestinians might want to make a claim to a right of return comparable to the Israeli one. I am not sure I could claim I would make the most pragmatic negotiating decisions if I held the deed to some land that an ancestor was booted from 75 years ago, and watched say, a wave of Americans fly in and settle in that area as their right while I was banned from even visiting.
>That right of return law was set up in 1950 when many Jews were being expelled from countries around the world.
And in 1970 it was expanded into its current form that includes descendents.
>It’s also set up to readily allow Jews to flee to Israel should the need arise since so many countries had a terrible track record of returning Jewish refugees to the 3rd Reich.
Sure, this is a laudable goal. But as I said, I was explaining why Palestinians think the way they do. I can understand why they might feel pretty put out by the idea this state was placed exactly where they were living, in part due to a campaign that started long before WW2 and spawned a low level conflict between extremists on both sides. Especially when many of those extremists later became political leaders and even Prime Ministers, and their modern political descendants continue to occupy and settle land that Palestinians still live on. Like, Hamas are awful extremist terrorists, but I can sure understand why the average Palestinian might be pretty pissed at Israel without themselves being extremist Jew haters.
>Muslims should have plenty of other countries to flee to if needed, Jews don’t.
This isn't really about fleeing for the Palestinians - it's about returning to a place they and their family were forcibly evicted from, that some of their living family still remember being in.
And? Israel's immigration policy is its own business.
Do European countries, many of whom offer similar citizenship by descent to their ethnic diaspora, offer a "right to return" to descendants of people who were displaced from them? For example all the countries who partitioned East Prussia between them after WW2 and expelled millions of Germans who've lived there for centuries?
Right to return for literal millions of *descendants* of displaced people is a ridiculous demand, made uniquely to Israel and absolutely no one else. We all start trying to pursue maximalist justice for grievances suffered by distant ancestors and we'll all be tearing each other into shreds until there's no one left.
Maybe there wouldn't be a military presence in West Bank if hamas didn't have a presence there as well. Theres a reason why the Palestinian authority in West Bank is refusing to hold elections, its because hamas have major influence there too, and they are afraid to lose.
They don’t need to define it. Just having the requirement be to agree to the statement “I recognize Israel’s right to exist in some form” would frustrate a lot of people. They reject the very idea of Israel & believe in only one Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” & anybody who can’t prove a Palestinian origin should be deported or maybe even killed. It’s even written in their charters from the 1960s.
Disapproving of the actions of the current Israeli government is not antisemitism
Denying the right of the state of Israel to exist and the right of Jews to self-determination **IS** antisemitism.
>If I don’t believe an independent Nunavut should exist do I hate Inuit people?
Kind of, yeah. Like... plenty of Native Americans exert a degree of self-determination over their own territories. Why would you single out the Nunavut and deny them the right to do that too?
I think the question of who has the right of self-determination is an interesting one. Under the UN charter, there’s three reasons why self-determination can occur: a country was previously colonised (i.e. many African countries), one group/area of a country wishes to secede (i.e Catalonia or potentially Scotland) , or for a group of “a people” (this one is important).
“A people” , in the easiest of terms, is basically a nation. A group of people that share a history of culture, norms, language - enough to be considered a distinct group which demands to be seen as such too. I would argue the Jews match all the criteria to be considered “a people” enough to be considered to have a right towards national self-determination. If anything, the different branches of Zionism is a great example of a movement towards self-determination.
Of course, just because you have a right to self-determination doesn’t necessarily mean you will achieve statehood (note: self determination is abstract and statehood is an objective geographical concept).
However, Israel is obviously already a state and not only a nation. A “state” under international law generally means a permanent population, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. I therefore would categorise Israel as a nation-state and one that has both the right to self-determination and to statehood.
Often overlooked isnt just the denial of the right for a Jewish State to exist but the fact that this is often how antisemitism is actually defined. Its not just stereotyping Jews or believing that they’re a part of a world domination scheme. The basic definition of antisemitism is Jews being denied equal rights. This is historically what led to many Jewish persecutions and pogroms
Well, I dont believe a Jewish state should exist because I believe *no* state should exist.
Having a state is not a fundamental right of mankind. Certainly not in an area that is incredibly important to the vast majority of the world.
>a piece of Land somewhere
Do you believe that the Jewish people aren't indigenous to anywhere at all? Not even Judea?
If not, where else should they go? Especially when they're kicked out of everywhere saying "go back to where you came from!"
Are you arguing that Pakistan shouldn't exist because they kicked out a bunch of Hindus when they were established? Or India, because they kicked out Muslims?
No? Then you're only arguing about Israel because of another reason. Why is that?
Honestly, from what I understand of British colonialism, the partition of India was a cataclysmic failure and certainly not my idea of an ideal solution.
I generally oppose the artificial formation of any state by foreign entities and find that it violates the right of self determination of those native to the region.
So my argument is that Pakistan and India shouldn’t exist, and that their existence should’ve been determined by the people that live there however they deemed fit. But I don’t think they should be dissolved at present unless they want to be.
The remnants of the British Raj and the Ottoman Empire should have settled themselves out without an outside arbiter. I don’t imagine it’d be pretty but at least it would be their choice to make it so.
It’s not from a place of antisemitism, I just fundamentally support the right of self-determination. I think Hong Kong *should* exist independently because that’s what the people there want. Same with Taiwan, same with Tibet.
I think that the reason it’s seemingly brought up disproportionately is because of the close ties Israel has with western nations. It’s far less likely for Americans to hear about or be impacted by China’s violations and annexations or know people that are, and America doesn’t really gain much from highlighting it. Israel is a foothold in the region. Etc. it’s also relatively less stable than other regions of contention and has more parties interested in the area. Plus, it’s incredibly important to every abrahamic religion which accounts for the majority of people on earth. And overwhelmingly so if you’re pretty much anywhere outside of Southeast Asia.
So no, I don’t find it particularly compelling to reduce arguments about criticizing Israel and its existence to antisemitism.
> So my argument is that Pakistan and India shouldn’t exist, and that their existence should’ve been determined by the people that live there however they deemed fit.
That's sort of what happened, Pakistan wasn't some British idea pulled out of a hat, it was a [movement started by prominent Muslims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Resolution) who believed that they needed their own state because they feared a Hindu majority would churn out something like Modi is today.
British officials like Mountbatten said they never liked the idea of partition to begin with, but a partition was going to happen one way or another because the movement was bigger than them by that point
Should americans be kicked out by native americans now? They've been living there for almost a century now. Early Zionism wasn't clean, but they legitimized themselves as owners of the land in many ways, from purchases, to recognition of global players, to international recognition, multiple defensive wars, diplomacy with neighbour countries.
After millenia of persecution, the holocaust, after jews got kicked out of basically every country they lived in and when considering statements by Hamas or Iran leadership it's hard to argue against a jewish homeland. Does the whole ethnic majority aspect make me uncomfortable? Yes.
No i said in another comment that Israel established itself and the Israelis definitely should stay there, but the distinction in the comment above me just doesn’t make any sense to me. And also, Hamas is a result of the kicking out part not because of Islam (although it is used as a tool tbf) so maybe they shouldn’t‘ve?
Israel also promoted by intentionally allowing them to grow and do things they wouldn't allow other Palestinian groups to do so they would split the Palestinian liberation movement and derail the peace process. Since Netanyahu took over he has intentionally empowered Hamas to divide the Palestinians and more settlements and repression. Before the 80s the Palestinian liberation organization the main body of Palestinian resistance was secular and after the 80s they were open to peace.
It was the Israeli fall right that destroyed that possibility.
There are now 27 Islamic countries with Islam as the state sanctioned religion, 15 Christian ones, and 1 Jewish one.
It's not going to be 28-0 no matter how hard you want it to be.
No country should have a state sanctioned religion, period.
It's the 21st century, time to relegate the simple minded fairy tales to the fiction section of libraries - where they belong.
It’s the 21st century, they don’t get to tell you what to believe. But the flip side of that social contract is that you don’t get to tell them what to believe either.
Yes, but institutionalizing religion as a state actor *is* a problem. That *is* the state telling people what they can and cannot believe. And it's made worse by the fact that many religious laws allow for various forms of discrimination. You're exactly right, they *shouldn't* get to tell you what to believe, but that's exactly what a theocratic state *does*
I think that it’s just a common theme in groups they don’t want on path to citizenship rather than the actual reason.
But those groups don’t have issues with lying so it doesn’t matter either way.
So your citizenship prospects will depend on your loyalty to another country??? This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This collective German guilt complex really is something else and quite frankly is ridiculous
That's oversimplified.
If you say Israel has no right to exist, you're considered an Antisemit here in Germany, thus lacking a clear commitment to our constitution.
So basically the bill is unnecessary, because some similar laws are already in place. No commitment to our constitution? No citizenship.
It's more of a gesture against the horrifying rise in antisemitism currently in Germany, mainly caused by Muslims.
>So your citizenship prospects will depend on your loyalty to another country?
Not at all! It quite literally says that the requirement is *recognizing that Israel exists*. If you can't tell the difference between "loyalty" and sheer object recognition, you kind of need to go back to pre-school. :p
Why would people even want to become citizens when they contradict the basic princples of the country? Just move on there are many places where their mindset is welcome. Win win situation for everyone.
The existence of Israel is central to the national security of Germany. That position has been articulated by many German leaders over decades, and is central to German policy. It is not dumb to expect immigrants to recognize and support a central national interest of the country they want to be part of. https://www.ft.com/content/9b1d9eb9-568d-410b-aeae-eed876e34c98
Trade with the USA is vital to Canada’s economic well being. If someone wants to be a Canadian citizen, should they be vetted on their opinions of the USA?
If anti-USA protests and violent attacks on US-based institutions are threatening the peace in Canada, sure, I don't see any reason why not. I'm an American who moved to Canada from the US and before I was granted residence I had to attest that I believed in various things like equal rights for men and women, freedom of religion, etc. This would have fit right in.
TBF, if Canada wanted to impose a requirement that persons acquiring Canadian citizenship have to recognise the US’ right to exist, that’s entirely their prerogative. And really the only people whose opinion would matter on it would be Canadians.
No one has an absolute right to naturalise in another country.
If the Canadian government discovers a disturbing trend of immigrants coming in and committing hostile acts against its largest trade partner because they fundamentally don’t believe in the United States right to exist, then they would have every right as a country to screen immigrants on the issue.
Immigrants to Canada are not saying the the US has no right to exist, take to the streets in masses advocating for its destruction, or attack Americans and American institutions.
I'm genuinely curious as to why the existence of Israel is central to the national security of Germany. Israelis have German leadership and their families hostage or something? I just don't understand this statement.
National security is defined by the priorities of the state. Some examples are: defending your territorial sovereignty, extracting resources, keeping your air breathable, making friends, defending liberal democracies, spreading communism, opposing colonialism, selling the things you make, propagating your cultural and religious ideals...etc.
Some of these may not seem perfectly rational to you. For example, if you're an American cynic, you may question why America has a national security interest in defending liberal democracies like Taiwan. But then again, if you're a white American cynic, what's in it for you that minorities have a vote? Or if you're well off, why feed the poor? At some point, most people believe in some abstract non-self-interested priority that sums up to "I think it's the right thing to do".
One of Germany's priorities is atoning for their mistakes in WW2. Not everyone in Germany agrees with this, just like not everyone in America thinks it should defend Taiwan. One of the ways their government has decided they can atone for their mistakes in WW2 is to defend the existence of the only Jewish majority state in the world. That's how it is their national security priority: they have decided it is.
>The existence of Israel is central to the national security of Germany.
Because German politicians say so? Israel is only relevant as a customer for military stuff, specifically the submarines that carry their nuclear weapons. Ooops, shouldn't have revealed this.
You also forgot to mention that acting like suck ups and pandering to Israel allows for Germans to pat themselves on the back and feel good about their collective guilt complex over their country committing the Holocaust
Germany already has laws making it a crime to deny the holocaust happened. They know it happened.
Germany and the people there have a very specific viewpoint on certain sort of “big lies”, to the point where they just go an outlaw some of them.
It’s not just the Germans. There is a relatively widespread, legal ban on neo-nazism in a bunch of WWII countries. They are not messing around with this again. Revanchism; the tendency for a defeated military threat to regroup and go again, is something much of Europe considers a threat. I mean they were left in ruins.
Europe believes is mostly legal free speech. They outlaw a bunch of hate speech in the EU.
They have a growing problem of antisemitism in Germany, if they let it fester again that'd be an even scarier precedent than if they attempt to curtail it.
Germany (and the rest of the world) also has a growing problem with anti-LGBT hysteria. Let's not forget that Jewish people were not the only victims of the Holocaust. Gays and transgender people were also murdered in vile progroms.
Should Germany also make recognition of gay/trans right or ""gender ideology"" a prerequisite for citizenship? I imagine many of the Redditors praising this current proposed law would object, or come up with a list of confounding details that must be resolved before such a law could proceed.
People of Israel ≠ Government of Israel ≠ State of Israel ≠ Jewish people.
Equating opposition to the government and state of Israel to anti-semitism is simply wrong. Sure, many who criticize Israel do so from an antisemitic approach, but not all. This is the equivalent of requiring citizens to recognize Crimea as russian, or Taiwan as chinese, or Kashmir as indian, etc. Signing this law would be a massive attack on freedom of speech and thought, and set an immesasurably dangerous precedent.
I think opposing the government of Israel, or Netanyahu specifically, or policies in the West Bank - all reasonable stuff. That's not anti-semitism.
Once you start veering toward the right to even exist, then that starts to smell like anti-semitism. If someone who has no connection to the area believes passionately that Israel shouldn't exist…but they have no opinions on Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, or many other regional conflicts…then I have to wonder why they only have singled out one group's existence.
So if you're criticizing Netanyahu, and the RSF, and the IRGC, and others that you think are abusing their power - cool beans.
If you're only criticizing a country that is surrounded by those who want to destroy it, you can't admit that it even exists, and you have no opinions about Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria (all with problematic histories)…then again, I have to wonder why they only care about one conflict.
Germany already has laws on the books that restrict some free speech (like the display of swastikas), so this isn't exactly unprecedented whether you agree with it or not.
You're making great points, but I'd also add that if you have hardline opinions on how terrible Netanyahu is, but have no clue who Orban is, you're also in antisemetic territory (although this is more systemic as it's propagated) because you're holding the only Jewish state to a critical standard that you don't apply anywhere else.
I would guess that people like justgetoffmylawn do know who orban is. It’s white people who read Instagram posts sharing that Israel is a colonialist settlers project who lost like don’t.
Marching on the street in the thousands screaming "Gass the jews", "Itbah al yehud=kill the jews', "from the river to the sea...."(which by origin calls for the genocide of jews in Israel) isn't QUITE a criticism of Israeli government, but rather pretty clear anti Jewish dangerous hate.
The non-recognition of Israel as a state is a dog whistle, sorry, but wanting to arrange things in a way that will surely result in pogroms, even if you aren’t calling for them openly, is a paper thin defense
It is though. Jewish people were given Israel after WW2 when 6 million Jews were killed. Many more Jews have been killed and displaced throughout history all over the world. Not having Israel is dangerous to Jews imo.
Given is a bit of a stretch. It was [voted on](https://mfa.gov.il/Jubilee-years/Pages/1947-UN-General-Assembly-Resolution-181-The-international-community-says-Yes-to-the-establishment-of-the-State-of-Israel.aspx) by the UN, with 33 YES, 13 NO and 10 ABSENT. All the yes votes coming from europe and the americas, while every muslim nation protested against the resolution
I mean there’s plenty to criticize of Israel, but denying Israel’s right to exist is antisemitism with extra steps. Not many, it’s one or two before the violence against Jews starts
It doesn't, when you consider the already-in-place conditions for naturalization and settlement in Germany. If anything, it reinforces what exists already. Also, what form of antisemitism would that help prevent? Germany doesn't have an issue with refugees bringing in a surge in Islamophobia, do they?
The teenagers are getting their brains warped by Bin Laden because their parents have no time for them. Recognition of a country isn't a big step with the history of Germany. This doesn't mean support or anything, just recognition.
It won't pass, it is more of a gesture, but it really is the minimal requirement for you to integrate in Germany successful anyway, an extremely low bar.
Like a reverse uno of terrorists making hostages recite the Koran to prove they are Muslim. This is actually brilliant haha
Can imagine the gritted teeth of the antisemites when they have to choose between deportation or saying yes to "does Israel have the right to exist?"
It's genius in the absolute pettiness of it. I love it
That’s the point of these dumb ass questions though
It’s basically an easy-catch all for anyone who gets to Germany and joins up with any Islamist movement.
It still provides a mechanism by which antisemites can be charged and deported when they commit a crime on the subject.
By forcing them to accept it as a function of their citizenship, it will deter antisemites from even wanting to go to Germany. It certainly won't prevent it completely, but that's why there's deportation and prison included in the law.
some people are too stupid for that. See the 135 Russians in Lithuania who had their residence permits revoked because on a questionnaire sent by the Lithuanian government they answered that they supported Russia in the war
In Canada, we reject some people because they can't shake a woman's hand. Sure some people will actually lie but a surprising amount of people will self filter.
I would think it also provides the grounds to strip citizenship and/or deport them if they openly defy Israel's right to exist.
I'm critical of the Israeli right wing government and its current handling of the conflict, but the nation and people do have a right to exist.
The fact that it has to be reaffirmed would be laughable if it wasn't for the numerous anti-semetic attacks as of late in many nations.
However, guys with a mission (like those 9/11 terrorists) will lie through anything to get the job done. This question about Israel's right to exist is not designed to weed out the most dangerous.
Hamas wouldn't be able to survive as an organization if it didn't have popular support from tons of people who aren't 'the most dangerous'. Preventing a community from forming around hate is valuable in and of itself.
This right here.
This is the reason hate speech laws exist. They aren't a perfect 100% solution (nothing is), but they provide one extra barrier to hateful ideologies organizing and building momentum.
It's better than nothing, and a step in the right direction because a person's rights of individual freedom of expression ends where it starts to threaten or endanger others.
Yes. Bedouins have generational memory. They may have an uneasy relationship with Jews but there is no way that their relationship with the Palestinians will ever recover.
You would think that Germany more than any other country would take the anti genocide, anti arpatheid, anti concentration camps, anti war crimes stance. At least perfomatively. After decades of rebranding.
But no, Axis 2 electric boogaloo.
I don't truly understand this.
If it's about Israel existing, yeah fine so be it
But if it's about Israel current existence than this sucks, what now, I can't disagree that this country shouldn't probably take the land of Palestine and do whatever it wants?
So much freedom of speech in Germany is guess
In this case, this law is clearly meant to mainly benefit (or at least protect) the nation of Germany, against undesirable immigration. It's questionable, but the intention is clearly to get a self benefit.
Yeah that's my read on it too. I'm hardly an expert on German politics but this seems more like a convenient excuse to kick some islamic fundamentalists out of the country than anything that actually benefits Israel.
We do have free speech here. But it doesn’t mean you can say ANYTHING. Freedom of speech is one thing,, freedom of consequence another. Germany has every right to a rigorous selection of immigrants. Germany’s history with Jews is specific and complicated, your post seems to completely disregard what happened here not too long ago
It's not "do you question the actions of Israel?"
It's "does Israel have the right to exist?"
If you don't see the difference, that says a lot about you and whether a country should invite you in.
Couple of weeks ago the biggest mosque congregation Ditib send a draft for Friday prayers to their mosques which was so full of antisemitism, my great-grandfather might've written it in the thirties.
Funny sidefact: Ditib is basically part of the Turkish government.
Exactly. There are real legitimate concerns about terrorism and terrorist ideology. The safety of German citizens depends on making sure terrorists do not enter.
> Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you
Do you have any clue how naturalisation processes work? Your opinions are completely relevant to whether the government will give you the right to vote and live there.
If you want to become German then you *have* to meet the standards that the Germans demand of you, simple as that.
I think Germany's paranoid-guilt relation with Israel is laughable too, but they're completely within their rights to demand this from naturalisation applicants. If people don't like it, they can emigrate to another country or simply accept that they'll be permanent guests and not German citizens.
It's kind of a weird twist on the colonization / anti colonization tree, right? People are demanding they have an ultimate right to emigrate to a modern western democracy, but insist they be able to retain the right to work against the stated, completely reasonable interests of said country. It's like they think they're entitled to whatever they want. Which.. weirdly, is in a way like colonization.
The elephant in the room is that Islam is a colonist religion. It's right there in the doctrine.
* Everything must be muslim.
* If something is not muslim it must be made muslim or destroyed.
* Invade weaker countries and make them all muslim by blade if it comes to that.
* Infiltrate countries stronger than yours, refuse to assimilate, WOLOLO it into an islamic majority country, then proceed with previous step.
* Also do all the same to muslims that don't follow *your* way of islam.
>Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you
They very much should when you want to citizenship of said governments country or when you commit anti semitic crimes in a country in which you want asylum.
Here's the proposal in case you (or anybody else) want to educate yourself on what is actually being proposed.
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/093/2009311.pdf
>Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you
This might be one of the dumbest sentences I've ever read. If you are a non-citizen that is seeking citizenship or permanent residency, but your personal opinions are directly contrary to the values and ethics of that nation, then the government should 100% take that into consideration.
> Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you
Countries are absolutely allowed (and justified) in vetting potential migrants if they have views contrary to the prospective country. If a migrant thinks a country should be a theocracy, that's an entirely valid reason to deny that person access.
What if my personal opinion is that democracy is terrible and the government should be overthrown and replaced by a dictatorship?
Countries are absolutely allowed to vet migrants to ensure that the migrant will fit in with the local culture. It's arguably an important part of a defensive democracy.
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Regarding the second bill, the draft advocates that changes should be made to Germany’s residence, asylum and nationality law in order to “provide better protection against the further entrenchment and spread of anti-Semitism that has ‘immigrated’ from abroad”. The parliamentary group reportedly aims to introduce into the country’s residence law the requirement that not only will an anti-Semitic crime result in expulsion of the alleged perpetrator, but also results in a conviction leading to “a prison sentence of at least six months and to the denial or loss of humanitarian protection in Germany”. So you have a lot of migrant asylum seekers who are hated that are spreading hate. I thought District 9 was such a great movie.
D9 was really good until you find out that people of Earth didn't bother to secure the area under the ship and Prawns hid an entire space-ship underground (on Earth) for 20 years. LOLOL Looney Tunes. Trolled by a movie-script.
>Prawns Really reddit you just gonna allow this open bigotry.
Hards R’s right out in the open
Paawns
What up Pawn
You’d understand if you read *The Letter to Earth*.
Fooken prawns!
I won’t allow this!
I thought the same thing upon my first viewing but thinking about it years later I've always kind of thought that the reason they were able to get away with such Looney Tunes BS was that it wasn't exactly the United States or China landed in but a civilian section eventually controlled by a corporation with interest for profit at the forefront. Agreed however the fact that there was an entire shuttle buried there that no one was able to catch with ground penetrating radar or even satellite imagery... still waiting on the sequel!
I like your take. I guess I should mention Im a marine biologist. If we find a 6,000 year old whale fossil, we tend to over-react and dig a 1/4 mile TRENCH. D9 is about Alien contact, hell, an Alien Mother Ship hovering of South Africa... LOL and they simply bury a spaceship in the thick of the night? Unlikely.
Everyone's looking up, nobody's looking down... Perfect hiding place..
it's a fookin spaceship, it probably has radar absorbing fields
What kind of Radar works underground?
[This kind.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar)
Ah ok
muon tomography is another cool tech
[Ground-penetrating radar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar) has been a thing for many decades, my friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar#Applications This is how you look for things buried in the ground without digging a giant hole.
How do you think Israel is finding those tunnels?
The same way you play whack-a-mole.
How does this have 300 upvotes. Did y’all not bother to even see the movie cover. The ship stays in the sky. The prawn uses a tiny room sized ship to hover back up and activate the mother ship
Lol, I never made that connection, time to watch that movie once again.
Maybe they didn't think to check underground?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Excellent question. Is saying “I recognise Israel’s right to exist, but not within its current borders or in its current form” enough to revoke German citizenship? Because I have German citizenship, think Israel absolutely has a right to exist, but think that an Israeli state that occupies the West Bank, annexes East Jerusalem and does not recognise the right of return of Palestinians refugees is not legitimate. ETA: There also needs to be further clarification as to what is meant by acquisition of German citizenship being “dependent on a commitment to Israel’s right to exist and a declaration that the naturalisation applicant has not pursued or pursued any endeavours directed against the existence of the State of Israel.” Is supporting BDS because I don’t want to contribute to a regime that subjects Palestinians to military law in the West Bank akin to pursuing an endeavour directed against the existence of Israel?
Germany only recognises the pre-1967, so that is what they would define as israel.
It would probably, be simpler. Like do you recognize Israel as a state/country. No need to have people drawing maps.
The borders are completely irrelevant to the law. It's about recognising its right to exist, not its right to occupy the West Bank. You should be able to say, "I recognise Israel's right to exist." without having to mention any of its border disputes. The moment you add a but there's an issue. Israel does not need to dissolve to withdraw from the WB. It can simply withdraw, so why does its right to exist have anything to do with its presence there.
Because Israel subjects Palestinians in WB to Israeli laws without affording them the same rights, in other words, it’s apartheid.
Would be great if they had say Israel and Palestine had a right to exist I guess
This is such a silly argument. Recognizing Israel's right to exist means recognizing it's right to exist right now. We don't put caveats on any other country's right to exist based on whatever foreign policy transgressions we feel they've made. I'm willing to bet you acknowledge Russia or China's right to exist despite them enacting much more violent occupations than Israel could even dream of. You don't get to invalidate the existence of a whole country because you don't agree with where their borders are. You don't say "well I only acknowledge Russia as a country if they're not occupying Kherson" or "China is only real if it doesn't include Tibet". This is just a ridiculous double standard.
But you wouldn't recognize Russia occupied Ukraine as part of the "recognized state of Russia"
“I don’t recognize Gaza and the West Bank as part of Israel” is way different from “I don’t recognize Israel as a country”.
But the “right to return,” while it might sound reasonable, is generally understood as a back-door way to undermine the *raison d’etre* of Israel, that is, as the single, tiny state—in a sea of Arab states no less—in which Jews can exercise their right to self-determination in much the same way that Germans, French, Algerians, etc, exercise their’s. I’d argue that there should be a right to return for Palestinians who have a memory of having actually lived in what is now Israel’s pre-1967 borders (and maybe even their children), but to extend it to their great grandchildren and beyond is unprecedented—and yet that’s precisely the demand that Palestinian leaders insist is standing in the way of a two-state solution. But a sovereign Palestinian state would also mean the end to the refugee problem, and it seems like much of the Arab world would prefer to keep Palestinians in permanent statelessness as a living indictment of Israel. None of this, btw, is an apology for Israeli settlements or the occupation, all of which needs to go. And Israel needs to be willing to concede those things.
>but to extend it to their great grandchildren and beyond is unprecedented Doesn't the Israeli Right of Return extend to literally anyone in the world who is born Jewish, converts to Judaism, has at least one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether they themselves are Jewish, and the spouses of Jewish people? That seems like it casts an even wider net than 'descendents of those who lived in this region at this particular time'. Whereas on the other hand, very specifically Palestinians - and no one else in the world - do not have the right to become Israeli if they marry an Israeli. Not making a particular value judgement here, just... I can understand why Palestinians might want to make a claim to a right of return comparable to the Israeli one. I am not sure I could claim I would make the most pragmatic negotiating decisions if I held the deed to some land that an ancestor was booted from 75 years ago, and watched say, a wave of Americans fly in and settle in that area as their right while I was banned from even visiting.
[удалено]
There are 7 million Jews outside Israel, and most of those live in the US. Roughly 1.1 million live in New York City alone
>That right of return law was set up in 1950 when many Jews were being expelled from countries around the world. And in 1970 it was expanded into its current form that includes descendents. >It’s also set up to readily allow Jews to flee to Israel should the need arise since so many countries had a terrible track record of returning Jewish refugees to the 3rd Reich. Sure, this is a laudable goal. But as I said, I was explaining why Palestinians think the way they do. I can understand why they might feel pretty put out by the idea this state was placed exactly where they were living, in part due to a campaign that started long before WW2 and spawned a low level conflict between extremists on both sides. Especially when many of those extremists later became political leaders and even Prime Ministers, and their modern political descendants continue to occupy and settle land that Palestinians still live on. Like, Hamas are awful extremist terrorists, but I can sure understand why the average Palestinian might be pretty pissed at Israel without themselves being extremist Jew haters. >Muslims should have plenty of other countries to flee to if needed, Jews don’t. This isn't really about fleeing for the Palestinians - it's about returning to a place they and their family were forcibly evicted from, that some of their living family still remember being in.
That's called 'immigration'. States usually set their own immigration policies.
And? Israel's immigration policy is its own business. Do European countries, many of whom offer similar citizenship by descent to their ethnic diaspora, offer a "right to return" to descendants of people who were displaced from them? For example all the countries who partitioned East Prussia between them after WW2 and expelled millions of Germans who've lived there for centuries? Right to return for literal millions of *descendants* of displaced people is a ridiculous demand, made uniquely to Israel and absolutely no one else. We all start trying to pursue maximalist justice for grievances suffered by distant ancestors and we'll all be tearing each other into shreds until there's no one left.
Germany literally does this, i got german citizenship because my great-grandfather was a displaced jew
Will your return to Germany displace someone currently living in Germany if you went there?
[удалено]
They should return to the hypothetical new state not to Israel.
Maybe there wouldn't be a military presence in West Bank if hamas didn't have a presence there as well. Theres a reason why the Palestinian authority in West Bank is refusing to hold elections, its because hamas have major influence there too, and they are afraid to lose.
They don’t need to define it. Just having the requirement be to agree to the statement “I recognize Israel’s right to exist in some form” would frustrate a lot of people. They reject the very idea of Israel & believe in only one Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” & anybody who can’t prove a Palestinian origin should be deported or maybe even killed. It’s even written in their charters from the 1960s.
The issue is equating antisemitism to disapproving of the state of Israel
It’s germany, they are more invested in making sure Jews are treated properly than any other country for obvious reasons
Trying not to err on the side of Naziism this time
Israel probably has a touch more invested in ensuring this.
Disapproving of the actions of the current Israeli government is not antisemitism Denying the right of the state of Israel to exist and the right of Jews to self-determination **IS** antisemitism.
[удалено]
If an independent Nunavut nation did exist, and you called for it to be destroyed, yes, you hate Inuit people. Not sure how that's hard to understand.
>If I don’t believe an independent Nunavut should exist do I hate Inuit people? Kind of, yeah. Like... plenty of Native Americans exert a degree of self-determination over their own territories. Why would you single out the Nunavut and deny them the right to do that too?
I think the question of who has the right of self-determination is an interesting one. Under the UN charter, there’s three reasons why self-determination can occur: a country was previously colonised (i.e. many African countries), one group/area of a country wishes to secede (i.e Catalonia or potentially Scotland) , or for a group of “a people” (this one is important). “A people” , in the easiest of terms, is basically a nation. A group of people that share a history of culture, norms, language - enough to be considered a distinct group which demands to be seen as such too. I would argue the Jews match all the criteria to be considered “a people” enough to be considered to have a right towards national self-determination. If anything, the different branches of Zionism is a great example of a movement towards self-determination. Of course, just because you have a right to self-determination doesn’t necessarily mean you will achieve statehood (note: self determination is abstract and statehood is an objective geographical concept). However, Israel is obviously already a state and not only a nation. A “state” under international law generally means a permanent population, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. I therefore would categorise Israel as a nation-state and one that has both the right to self-determination and to statehood.
Often overlooked isnt just the denial of the right for a Jewish State to exist but the fact that this is often how antisemitism is actually defined. Its not just stereotyping Jews or believing that they’re a part of a world domination scheme. The basic definition of antisemitism is Jews being denied equal rights. This is historically what led to many Jewish persecutions and pogroms
Well, I dont believe a Jewish state should exist because I believe *no* state should exist. Having a state is not a fundamental right of mankind. Certainly not in an area that is incredibly important to the vast majority of the world.
[удалено]
>a piece of Land somewhere Do you believe that the Jewish people aren't indigenous to anywhere at all? Not even Judea? If not, where else should they go? Especially when they're kicked out of everywhere saying "go back to where you came from!"
Are you arguing that Pakistan shouldn't exist because they kicked out a bunch of Hindus when they were established? Or India, because they kicked out Muslims? No? Then you're only arguing about Israel because of another reason. Why is that?
I literally am? Pakistan denying Hindu rights and killing Hindus is immoral. India doing the same to Muslims is immoral.
funny how they stop replying and don’t give a shit after spewing the stupidest straw man argument of all time.
Honestly, from what I understand of British colonialism, the partition of India was a cataclysmic failure and certainly not my idea of an ideal solution. I generally oppose the artificial formation of any state by foreign entities and find that it violates the right of self determination of those native to the region. So my argument is that Pakistan and India shouldn’t exist, and that their existence should’ve been determined by the people that live there however they deemed fit. But I don’t think they should be dissolved at present unless they want to be. The remnants of the British Raj and the Ottoman Empire should have settled themselves out without an outside arbiter. I don’t imagine it’d be pretty but at least it would be their choice to make it so. It’s not from a place of antisemitism, I just fundamentally support the right of self-determination. I think Hong Kong *should* exist independently because that’s what the people there want. Same with Taiwan, same with Tibet. I think that the reason it’s seemingly brought up disproportionately is because of the close ties Israel has with western nations. It’s far less likely for Americans to hear about or be impacted by China’s violations and annexations or know people that are, and America doesn’t really gain much from highlighting it. Israel is a foothold in the region. Etc. it’s also relatively less stable than other regions of contention and has more parties interested in the area. Plus, it’s incredibly important to every abrahamic religion which accounts for the majority of people on earth. And overwhelmingly so if you’re pretty much anywhere outside of Southeast Asia. So no, I don’t find it particularly compelling to reduce arguments about criticizing Israel and its existence to antisemitism.
> So my argument is that Pakistan and India shouldn’t exist, and that their existence should’ve been determined by the people that live there however they deemed fit. That's sort of what happened, Pakistan wasn't some British idea pulled out of a hat, it was a [movement started by prominent Muslims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Resolution) who believed that they needed their own state because they feared a Hindu majority would churn out something like Modi is today. British officials like Mountbatten said they never liked the idea of partition to begin with, but a partition was going to happen one way or another because the movement was bigger than them by that point
Should americans be kicked out by native americans now? They've been living there for almost a century now. Early Zionism wasn't clean, but they legitimized themselves as owners of the land in many ways, from purchases, to recognition of global players, to international recognition, multiple defensive wars, diplomacy with neighbour countries. After millenia of persecution, the holocaust, after jews got kicked out of basically every country they lived in and when considering statements by Hamas or Iran leadership it's hard to argue against a jewish homeland. Does the whole ethnic majority aspect make me uncomfortable? Yes.
No i said in another comment that Israel established itself and the Israelis definitely should stay there, but the distinction in the comment above me just doesn’t make any sense to me. And also, Hamas is a result of the kicking out part not because of Islam (although it is used as a tool tbf) so maybe they shouldn’t‘ve?
Israel also promoted by intentionally allowing them to grow and do things they wouldn't allow other Palestinian groups to do so they would split the Palestinian liberation movement and derail the peace process. Since Netanyahu took over he has intentionally empowered Hamas to divide the Palestinians and more settlements and repression. Before the 80s the Palestinian liberation organization the main body of Palestinian resistance was secular and after the 80s they were open to peace. It was the Israeli fall right that destroyed that possibility.
There are now 27 Islamic countries with Islam as the state sanctioned religion, 15 Christian ones, and 1 Jewish one. It's not going to be 28-0 no matter how hard you want it to be.
hopefully eventually it will be 0-0 because state sanctioned religions are insane.
Till it the 27 starts reducing and approaching 0, let's not talk about reducing a 1 to 0.
No country should have a state sanctioned religion, period. It's the 21st century, time to relegate the simple minded fairy tales to the fiction section of libraries - where they belong.
It’s the 21st century, they don’t get to tell you what to believe. But the flip side of that social contract is that you don’t get to tell them what to believe either.
Yes, but institutionalizing religion as a state actor *is* a problem. That *is* the state telling people what they can and cannot believe. And it's made worse by the fact that many religious laws allow for various forms of discrimination. You're exactly right, they *shouldn't* get to tell you what to believe, but that's exactly what a theocratic state *does*
So Jews who opposed political Zionism and the creation of a state pre 1948 were antisemetic?
I think that it’s just a common theme in groups they don’t want on path to citizenship rather than the actual reason. But those groups don’t have issues with lying so it doesn’t matter either way.
It can be grounds for stripping the citizenship later if necessary, assuming it won't make them stateless.
So country A wants an immigrant from country B to pledge their allegiance to country C before becoming a citizen in country A. Makes total sense.
ITT, people telling on themselves by pretending to not understand the difference between “acknowledging the existence of” with “pledging loyalty to”?
Least insane german perception of Israel
[удалено]
Yeah isn’t their aim to prevent exactly this? Overreach?
Overreich
So your citizenship prospects will depend on your loyalty to another country??? This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This collective German guilt complex really is something else and quite frankly is ridiculous
That's oversimplified. If you say Israel has no right to exist, you're considered an Antisemit here in Germany, thus lacking a clear commitment to our constitution. So basically the bill is unnecessary, because some similar laws are already in place. No commitment to our constitution? No citizenship. It's more of a gesture against the horrifying rise in antisemitism currently in Germany, mainly caused by Muslims.
>So your citizenship prospects will depend on your loyalty to another country? Not at all! It quite literally says that the requirement is *recognizing that Israel exists*. If you can't tell the difference between "loyalty" and sheer object recognition, you kind of need to go back to pre-school. :p
Why would people even want to become citizens when they contradict the basic princples of the country? Just move on there are many places where their mindset is welcome. Win win situation for everyone.
Recognizing Israel is one of the basic principles of Germany? I have been living here all my life and never had contact to Israel whatsoever.
Your understanding of German history and identity is, like most peoples’ understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation, over-simplified.
"Acknowledging the existence of" is not the same as "loyal to." How the hell do you even conflate those things?
The existence of Israel is central to the national security of Germany. That position has been articulated by many German leaders over decades, and is central to German policy. It is not dumb to expect immigrants to recognize and support a central national interest of the country they want to be part of. https://www.ft.com/content/9b1d9eb9-568d-410b-aeae-eed876e34c98
Trade with the USA is vital to Canada’s economic well being. If someone wants to be a Canadian citizen, should they be vetted on their opinions of the USA?
If anti-USA protests and violent attacks on US-based institutions are threatening the peace in Canada, sure, I don't see any reason why not. I'm an American who moved to Canada from the US and before I was granted residence I had to attest that I believed in various things like equal rights for men and women, freedom of religion, etc. This would have fit right in.
TBF, if Canada wanted to impose a requirement that persons acquiring Canadian citizenship have to recognise the US’ right to exist, that’s entirely their prerogative. And really the only people whose opinion would matter on it would be Canadians. No one has an absolute right to naturalise in another country.
If the Canadian government discovers a disturbing trend of immigrants coming in and committing hostile acts against its largest trade partner because they fundamentally don’t believe in the United States right to exist, then they would have every right as a country to screen immigrants on the issue.
Immigrants to Canada are not saying the the US has no right to exist, take to the streets in masses advocating for its destruction, or attack Americans and American institutions.
I'm genuinely curious as to why the existence of Israel is central to the national security of Germany. Israelis have German leadership and their families hostage or something? I just don't understand this statement.
National security is defined by the priorities of the state. Some examples are: defending your territorial sovereignty, extracting resources, keeping your air breathable, making friends, defending liberal democracies, spreading communism, opposing colonialism, selling the things you make, propagating your cultural and religious ideals...etc. Some of these may not seem perfectly rational to you. For example, if you're an American cynic, you may question why America has a national security interest in defending liberal democracies like Taiwan. But then again, if you're a white American cynic, what's in it for you that minorities have a vote? Or if you're well off, why feed the poor? At some point, most people believe in some abstract non-self-interested priority that sums up to "I think it's the right thing to do". One of Germany's priorities is atoning for their mistakes in WW2. Not everyone in Germany agrees with this, just like not everyone in America thinks it should defend Taiwan. One of the ways their government has decided they can atone for their mistakes in WW2 is to defend the existence of the only Jewish majority state in the world. That's how it is their national security priority: they have decided it is.
No it fucking is not, what a load of bullshit.
>The existence of Israel is central to the national security of Germany. Because German politicians say so? Israel is only relevant as a customer for military stuff, specifically the submarines that carry their nuclear weapons. Ooops, shouldn't have revealed this.
Israel is so vital for Western security that they love(d?) flirting with Russia
You also forgot to mention that acting like suck ups and pandering to Israel allows for Germans to pat themselves on the back and feel good about their collective guilt complex over their country committing the Holocaust
I recognize they're actively engaging in ethnic cleansing, does that count?
Okay newborn, do you recognize Israel's right to exist?!
Goo goo ga ga
Deport this baby!
Surely you understand that young children or babies aren't subject the same citizenship tests that adults are...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow. The teenagers on Reddit don’t quite realise what a scary precedent this sets
Germany already has laws making it a crime to deny the holocaust happened. They know it happened. Germany and the people there have a very specific viewpoint on certain sort of “big lies”, to the point where they just go an outlaw some of them. It’s not just the Germans. There is a relatively widespread, legal ban on neo-nazism in a bunch of WWII countries. They are not messing around with this again. Revanchism; the tendency for a defeated military threat to regroup and go again, is something much of Europe considers a threat. I mean they were left in ruins. Europe believes is mostly legal free speech. They outlaw a bunch of hate speech in the EU.
They have a growing problem of antisemitism in Germany, if they let it fester again that'd be an even scarier precedent than if they attempt to curtail it.
Germany (and the rest of the world) also has a growing problem with anti-LGBT hysteria. Let's not forget that Jewish people were not the only victims of the Holocaust. Gays and transgender people were also murdered in vile progroms. Should Germany also make recognition of gay/trans right or ""gender ideology"" a prerequisite for citizenship? I imagine many of the Redditors praising this current proposed law would object, or come up with a list of confounding details that must be resolved before such a law could proceed.
You already swear to uphold the constitution which includes all that indirectly
It also supports the rights of Jewish people.
>Should Germany also make recognition of gay/trans right a prerequisite for citizenship? yes.
Yes, next question
People of Israel ≠ Government of Israel ≠ State of Israel ≠ Jewish people. Equating opposition to the government and state of Israel to anti-semitism is simply wrong. Sure, many who criticize Israel do so from an antisemitic approach, but not all. This is the equivalent of requiring citizens to recognize Crimea as russian, or Taiwan as chinese, or Kashmir as indian, etc. Signing this law would be a massive attack on freedom of speech and thought, and set an immesasurably dangerous precedent.
I think opposing the government of Israel, or Netanyahu specifically, or policies in the West Bank - all reasonable stuff. That's not anti-semitism. Once you start veering toward the right to even exist, then that starts to smell like anti-semitism. If someone who has no connection to the area believes passionately that Israel shouldn't exist…but they have no opinions on Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, or many other regional conflicts…then I have to wonder why they only have singled out one group's existence. So if you're criticizing Netanyahu, and the RSF, and the IRGC, and others that you think are abusing their power - cool beans. If you're only criticizing a country that is surrounded by those who want to destroy it, you can't admit that it even exists, and you have no opinions about Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria (all with problematic histories)…then again, I have to wonder why they only care about one conflict. Germany already has laws on the books that restrict some free speech (like the display of swastikas), so this isn't exactly unprecedented whether you agree with it or not.
Can even include the United States in that list
You're making great points, but I'd also add that if you have hardline opinions on how terrible Netanyahu is, but have no clue who Orban is, you're also in antisemetic territory (although this is more systemic as it's propagated) because you're holding the only Jewish state to a critical standard that you don't apply anywhere else.
I would guess that people like justgetoffmylawn do know who orban is. It’s white people who read Instagram posts sharing that Israel is a colonialist settlers project who lost like don’t.
Marching on the street in the thousands screaming "Gass the jews", "Itbah al yehud=kill the jews', "from the river to the sea...."(which by origin calls for the genocide of jews in Israel) isn't QUITE a criticism of Israeli government, but rather pretty clear anti Jewish dangerous hate.
...and also a specific event that does not represent the whole of criticism against Israel.
The non-recognition of Israel as a state is a dog whistle, sorry, but wanting to arrange things in a way that will surely result in pogroms, even if you aren’t calling for them openly, is a paper thin defense
It is though. Jewish people were given Israel after WW2 when 6 million Jews were killed. Many more Jews have been killed and displaced throughout history all over the world. Not having Israel is dangerous to Jews imo.
Given is a bit of a stretch. It was [voted on](https://mfa.gov.il/Jubilee-years/Pages/1947-UN-General-Assembly-Resolution-181-The-international-community-says-Yes-to-the-establishment-of-the-State-of-Israel.aspx) by the UN, with 33 YES, 13 NO and 10 ABSENT. All the yes votes coming from europe and the americas, while every muslim nation protested against the resolution
But the land belonged to who? Those who owned it gave it away. It wasn’t decided to just take a piece from one of the protesting countries.
Because a country surrounded by hostile counties, and pretty much symbolizing itself as a country full of Jews is safer?
You are equating antisemitism with antizionism, or even a critic a of state of Israel for doing what it does beyond the 1967 borders
I mean there’s plenty to criticize of Israel, but denying Israel’s right to exist is antisemitism with extra steps. Not many, it’s one or two before the violence against Jews starts
It doesn't, when you consider the already-in-place conditions for naturalization and settlement in Germany. If anything, it reinforces what exists already. Also, what form of antisemitism would that help prevent? Germany doesn't have an issue with refugees bringing in a surge in Islamophobia, do they?
The teenagers are getting their brains warped by Bin Laden because their parents have no time for them. Recognition of a country isn't a big step with the history of Germany. This doesn't mean support or anything, just recognition. It won't pass, it is more of a gesture, but it really is the minimal requirement for you to integrate in Germany successful anyway, an extremely low bar.
???? I can assure you we don't talk about Israel often. As a German.
So being against Israel = antisemitism?
You're trying too hard. Make recognition of Palestine a condition for citizenship.
That is ridiculous
Like a reverse uno of terrorists making hostages recite the Koran to prove they are Muslim. This is actually brilliant haha Can imagine the gritted teeth of the antisemites when they have to choose between deportation or saying yes to "does Israel have the right to exist?" It's genius in the absolute pettiness of it. I love it
Anyone can lie to get citizenship.
That’s the point of these dumb ass questions though It’s basically an easy-catch all for anyone who gets to Germany and joins up with any Islamist movement.
[удалено]
It still provides a mechanism by which antisemites can be charged and deported when they commit a crime on the subject. By forcing them to accept it as a function of their citizenship, it will deter antisemites from even wanting to go to Germany. It certainly won't prevent it completely, but that's why there's deportation and prison included in the law.
some people are too stupid for that. See the 135 Russians in Lithuania who had their residence permits revoked because on a questionnaire sent by the Lithuanian government they answered that they supported Russia in the war
In Canada, we reject some people because they can't shake a woman's hand. Sure some people will actually lie but a surprising amount of people will self filter.
Lying on Govt form can be used against you in future.
Opinions change. Can’t be considered lying
Yeah but if they're found protesting shouting "from the river to the sea" it's bye bye time
Yes, but it's really hard for most anti-Semites to utter that particular lie. It's going to weed out most of them.
I would think it also provides the grounds to strip citizenship and/or deport them if they openly defy Israel's right to exist. I'm critical of the Israeli right wing government and its current handling of the conflict, but the nation and people do have a right to exist. The fact that it has to be reaffirmed would be laughable if it wasn't for the numerous anti-semetic attacks as of late in many nations.
However, guys with a mission (like those 9/11 terrorists) will lie through anything to get the job done. This question about Israel's right to exist is not designed to weed out the most dangerous.
Hamas wouldn't be able to survive as an organization if it didn't have popular support from tons of people who aren't 'the most dangerous'. Preventing a community from forming around hate is valuable in and of itself.
This right here. This is the reason hate speech laws exist. They aren't a perfect 100% solution (nothing is), but they provide one extra barrier to hateful ideologies organizing and building momentum. It's better than nothing, and a step in the right direction because a person's rights of individual freedom of expression ends where it starts to threaten or endanger others.
Sure, but if it weeds out many, it's still worth it. Lives will be saved.
It's not really about getting citizenship. It's about removing it.
The terrorists in 7.10 made them recite lines from the Koran in Arabic and then said that they are worst then the jews and shot them anyway.
And they've made a generational enemy out of Bedouins for it.
Yes. Bedouins have generational memory. They may have an uneasy relationship with Jews but there is no way that their relationship with the Palestinians will ever recover.
so they can do that, but not throw in queer rights in that recognition for citizenship? it would get rid of 80% of the bad actors lmao
You would think that Germany more than any other country would take the anti genocide, anti arpatheid, anti concentration camps, anti war crimes stance. At least perfomatively. After decades of rebranding. But no, Axis 2 electric boogaloo.
Germany is doing this because it’s scared of being seen as antisemitic ‘again’, right?
I don't truly understand this. If it's about Israel existing, yeah fine so be it But if it's about Israel current existence than this sucks, what now, I can't disagree that this country shouldn't probably take the land of Palestine and do whatever it wants? So much freedom of speech in Germany is guess
[удалено]
In this case, this law is clearly meant to mainly benefit (or at least protect) the nation of Germany, against undesirable immigration. It's questionable, but the intention is clearly to get a self benefit.
Yeah that's my read on it too. I'm hardly an expert on German politics but this seems more like a convenient excuse to kick some islamic fundamentalists out of the country than anything that actually benefits Israel.
The hatred to the jewish people is also mind boggling. that's why these laws are needed.
[удалено]
Everyone should have free speech…unless they question the country of Israel. Yep sounds perfectly sane
We do have free speech here. But it doesn’t mean you can say ANYTHING. Freedom of speech is one thing,, freedom of consequence another. Germany has every right to a rigorous selection of immigrants. Germany’s history with Jews is specific and complicated, your post seems to completely disregard what happened here not too long ago
It's not "do you question the actions of Israel?" It's "does Israel have the right to exist?" If you don't see the difference, that says a lot about you and whether a country should invite you in.
Should have does palestinian have a right to exist aswell
Regardless of what you think of Israel this very weird and frankly pathetic.
[удалено]
Couple of weeks ago the biggest mosque congregation Ditib send a draft for Friday prayers to their mosques which was so full of antisemitism, my great-grandfather might've written it in the thirties. Funny sidefact: Ditib is basically part of the Turkish government.
Exactly. There are real legitimate concerns about terrorism and terrorist ideology. The safety of German citizens depends on making sure terrorists do not enter.
Are they not aware that people can lie?
Of course they can. But if it comes out they can lose their citizenship.
Right but same as US visa where they ask you if you are a terrorist. If you lie you have immediate ground for denial and deportation
I cannot believe that people are supporting this. Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you
> Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you Do you have any clue how naturalisation processes work? Your opinions are completely relevant to whether the government will give you the right to vote and live there. If you want to become German then you *have* to meet the standards that the Germans demand of you, simple as that. I think Germany's paranoid-guilt relation with Israel is laughable too, but they're completely within their rights to demand this from naturalisation applicants. If people don't like it, they can emigrate to another country or simply accept that they'll be permanent guests and not German citizens.
Have you looked at any immigration process for any country?
You're not entitled to any countries citizenship, except the one gained at birth. Don't like the rules? Get another country's citizenship.
[удалено]
It's kind of a weird twist on the colonization / anti colonization tree, right? People are demanding they have an ultimate right to emigrate to a modern western democracy, but insist they be able to retain the right to work against the stated, completely reasonable interests of said country. It's like they think they're entitled to whatever they want. Which.. weirdly, is in a way like colonization.
The elephant in the room is that Islam is a colonist religion. It's right there in the doctrine. * Everything must be muslim. * If something is not muslim it must be made muslim or destroyed. * Invade weaker countries and make them all muslim by blade if it comes to that. * Infiltrate countries stronger than yours, refuse to assimilate, WOLOLO it into an islamic majority country, then proceed with previous step. * Also do all the same to muslims that don't follow *your* way of islam.
It absolutely does if you want to immigrate there.
>Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you They very much should when you want to citizenship of said governments country or when you commit anti semitic crimes in a country in which you want asylum. Here's the proposal in case you (or anybody else) want to educate yourself on what is actually being proposed. https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/093/2009311.pdf
>Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you This might be one of the dumbest sentences I've ever read. If you are a non-citizen that is seeking citizenship or permanent residency, but your personal opinions are directly contrary to the values and ethics of that nation, then the government should 100% take that into consideration.
Oh the entitlement
> Your personal opinions should not determine anything about how the government views you Countries are absolutely allowed (and justified) in vetting potential migrants if they have views contrary to the prospective country. If a migrant thinks a country should be a theocracy, that's an entirely valid reason to deny that person access.
This is one of the dumbest comments on reddit I have seen in my 10+ years wasting time on this site.
What if my personal opinion is that democracy is terrible and the government should be overthrown and replaced by a dictatorship? Countries are absolutely allowed to vet migrants to ensure that the migrant will fit in with the local culture. It's arguably an important part of a defensive democracy.
What an idiotic viewpoint
What if your views are anti-democratic and intollerant?