|
Effectronica posted:I'm not seeing the huge difference between hyperbolic accusations against Israel (and supporters of Israel) and hyperbolic accusations against Palestinians (and supporters of Palestine) that would make "calling Israelis Nazis" unacceptable where "insisting that supporters of Palestinians are murderous antisemites" is acceptable. Unless we assume that doing so would make this a very one-sided thread, which is sad but unsurprising. The push against hyperbolic use of the word "Nazi" wasn't because it's too mean but because it's incredibly easy to leverage into a pointless idiot derail. I'd be fine with a "no hyperbole" rule in general, honestly, as hyperbolic and exaggerated accusations almost always lead to a tremendous lovely derail because the person being accused inevitably responds with some quibble about how the details are very dissimilar and then the accuser doubles down and the next thing you know any genuinely interesting talk has been buried five pages deep in a heated argument about whether Netanyahu is literally the reincarnation of Hitler. Actually, the jus sanguinis principle of citizenship being passed down by blood is far more common than the jus soli birthright citizenship seen in the US and a few other countries, and a number of countries - especially ones founded in the 20th century, ones that had high rates of historical emigration, and ones that expelled large numbers of minorities under a previous government - have some ethnic or blood connection involved in their citizenship laws. For example, Irish citizenship is available to anyone with an Irish grandparent, Japan has a special visa category for the descendants of Japanese emigrants for up to three generations, Turkey grants accelerated citizenship to "persons of Turkish origin" (including previously expelled minority groups), Serbia opens citizenship to ethnic Serbs living abroad, Portugal grants guaranteed citizenship to anyone who can prove they are a descendant of the Jews expelled from the country in the 16th century, and the Liberian constitution states that only sub-Sarahan Africans can become full citizens. The way we Americans think of citizenship is the exception, not the rule. There's still one major difference between those citizenship/right of return policies and Israel's right of return, though: the presence of an actual, verifiable blood link. You can't "convert" to being an ethnic Serb or a grandchild of an Irish citizen. Japan and Turkey aren't letting in poor third-worlders who claimed to have discovered their ancient ancestry from the country after falling on hard times. I have no verifiable blood link to the region of Israel or the Jews who inhabited it two millennia ago, and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel wouldn't consider me to be Jewish, yet I am still just as eligible for the Jewish Law of Return as an Orthodox rabbi or a group of Indian farmers who cut a deal with a Likud-connected missionary group in exchange for citizenship in a first-world country. That's, quite frankly, absurd.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, I'm not interested in pedantry, or else I'd be arguing that Nazism doesn't inherently imply any hostility towards Palestinians etc. We all know what "wants Israel to cease to be" connotes. I'm just saying that if it's unacceptable to engage in disgusting hyperbole, and I think it is, it should be equitably unacceptable, and people who argue from a position of Arabic savagery or anti-Israel is anti-Jewish should receive censure too, unless that would reduce meaningful dissent to minimal levels. Sadly, I think it would, but I would love to be proved wrong. The thing is, accusing someone of thinking that they "want Israel to cease to be" may or may not be an awful slur or to may be accurate. You can't just assume that every possible scenario is automatically okay or bad. I wouldn't want it said against myself and when TIC made a similar comment about me a few posts ago I explained why he was wrong. On the other hand if someone said it about some high up member of PIJ or the more militant right-wing sections of Hamas who have gone on the record calling for the destruction of Israel, that seems pretty accurate. Calling someone a Nazi because they express dismay about Israelis being killed by Palestinian rockets or whatever is ridiculous, while on the other hand if you call some extremely zionist Israeli politician a Nazi for calling for the ethnic cleansing and annexation of the west bank then the allusion seems fairly clear and obvious. I don't see why we can't just treat it like every other issue and if someone says something ridiculous then report them and not report them if they're making an accurate statement or comparison. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Issues I have with the right of return: Do the Sudeten Germans want to return? I've had a google and can't find anything although perhaps I'm just not seeing it. If not then the issue is compensation which seems to have been resolved, even if not above board, by getting the WW2 reparations and the refugee compensation to effectively cancel each other out. This allowed the German government to then pay the refugees with money that would have gone to Czech reparations, which isn't great because it was done on a national level and there was no individual choice in the matter, but which has at least lead to a far far better situation for the Sudeten Germans than the Palestinians. The peace process is already Israeli-Arab and in some ways (like control of the Al Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount in a peace settlement) Jewish-Muslim. Not only that but getting rid of the right of return doesn't magically take away the Israeli-Arab part of the peace process, it takes that one dimension of it and makes it come down squarely in favour of the Israelis (in contravention of International laws). Israel does have valid claims and hopefully these could be resolved in a multi-lateral peace process. I'd however be happy to see multi bilateral peace processes as war crimes and crimes against humanity do not suddenly become okay if the other side (Or a third party) is committing them too.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:47
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The push against hyperbolic use of the word "Nazi" wasn't because it's too mean but because it's incredibly easy to leverage into a pointless idiot derail. I'd be fine with a "no hyperbole" rule in general, honestly, as hyperbolic and exaggerated accusations almost always lead to a tremendous lovely derail because the person being accused inevitably responds with some quibble about how the details are very dissimilar and then the accuser doubles down and the next thing you know any genuinely interesting talk has been buried five pages deep in a heated argument about whether Netanyahu is literally the reincarnation of Hitler. You understand that I am not referring to sanguine law on who gets to claim citizenship here? I am referring to the argument that Israel's Jewish identity relies on having a certain minimum proportion of Jews, in this analogy with Japanese views of citizenship. It's also worth noting that Liberia's naturalization law is itself heavily criticized both inside and outside Liberia. And while you can convert for the purposes of the Law of Return (though not if you go through an Orthodox rabbi who isn't on the approved list, thanks to a loophole where only Reform and Conservative converts must be recognized due to court rulings), you can't convert for the purposes of being recognized as Jewish for marrying in the Jewish tradition, if you migrated after 1990. You have to show four generations of matrilineal Jewish descent (seven if you're Ethiopian) and prove that you were officially recognized as Jewish within your home country to meet the standards of the rabbinical courts. Jewish identity in Israel privileges ethnicity over religiosity.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You understand that I am not referring to sanguine law on who gets to claim citizenship here? I am referring to the argument that Israel's Jewish identity relies on having a certain minimum proportion of Jews, in this analogy with Japanese views of citizenship. It's also worth noting that Liberia's naturalization law is itself heavily criticized both inside and outside Liberia. Or you can just re-convert with an Orthodox rabbi recognized by the rabbinical courts, although you may have to go out of your way to show that you are living a properly and sincerely Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. This isn't an active policy so much as it is a conflict between various state organs and their purposes - the Rabbinate seeks to increase its power and authority and so goes out of its way to exercise its discretion and herd immigrants who weren't subject to its authority through extra hoops, while the modern Law of Return ignores as many of the religious rules as possible because it seeks to import as many non-Arabs who identify with Judaism as possible in order to counter the demographic trends and keep the Arabs a minority. It's just another instance of the friction between the secular arms of the state and the religious arms: the rabbinate would very much like the Law of Return to be a lot stricter and really would like to be the arbiters of it themselves, but the secular aspects of the government purposely excluded them from having a say in the immigration rules because they felt that importing as many pro-Jewish non-Arabs as possible was too important to be strictly selective over religion, so the rabbinate pushes back by being extra strict when the immigrants reach something the rabbinate does have control over.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Israel does have valid claims and hopefully these could be resolved in a multi-lateral peace process. I'd however be happy to see multi bilateral peace processes as war crimes and crimes against humanity do not suddenly become okay if the other side (Or a third party) is committing them too. A multi-lateral peace process involving not only Jewish claims against Arab nations but Palestinian claims against Arab nations would possibly be worse than the status quo
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:53
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Or you can just re-convert with an Orthodox rabbi recognized by the rabbinical courts, although you may have to go out of your way to show that you are living a properly and sincerely Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. This isn't an active policy so much as it is a conflict between various state organs and their purposes - the Rabbinate seeks to increase its power and authority and so goes out of its way to exercise its discretion and herd immigrants who weren't subject to its authority through extra hoops, while the modern Law of Return ignores as many of the religious rules as possible because it seeks to import as many non-Arabs who identify with Judaism as possible in order to counter the demographic trends and keep the Arabs a minority. It's just another instance of the friction between the secular arms of the state and the religious arms: the rabbinate would very much like the Law of Return to be a lot stricter and really would like to be the arbiters of it themselves, but the secular aspects of the government purposely excluded them from having a say in the immigration rules because they felt that importing as many pro-Jewish non-Arabs as possible was too important to be strictly selective over religion, so the rabbinate pushes back by being extra strict when the immigrants reach something the rabbinate does have control over. This actually doesn't explain why the Rabbinical courts require multiple generations of halakhic Jewishness in order to consider you properly Jewish, beyond a vague sense of being power-hungry. (And for that matter, doesn't really explain why they would then proceed to exercise discretion on American immigrants and FSU Jewish immigrants, who are at a disadvantage when it comes to their requirements). The simplest explanation, and the one which makes the most sense with the origins of Zionism as a movement, is that Jewish identity in Israel for legal purposes is primarily an ethnic one, not a religious one. There's really not that much of a problem with this in and of itself, but it does put an ugly spin on arguments about maintaining the Jewishness of Israel, doesn't it?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:A multi-lateral peace process involving not only Jewish claims against Arab nations but Palestinian claims against Arab nations would possibly be worse than the status quo The Palestinians aren't in a conflict with the Arab states. As far as I can see although there are things they would want to get resolved, like Egypt stopping its blockade and what have you, they wouldn't necessarily need to do anything major as part of the peace process and could just use normal diplomatic channels once a Palestine state exists. I think bilateral is more likely anyway, especially with Syria in no position to pursue talks over the Golan Heights
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:The Palestinians aren't in a conflict with the Arab states. If Israel weren't the overwhelmingly pressing issue, Jordan and Syria would be major bones of contention.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Issues I have with the right of return: This is why I am not big on Right of Return, the Mizrahi would then have every reason to make claims and actually expand the problem. Also for Absurd, is there any factual basis for this claim I found on Mondoweiss of Israel wanting to go to war with Hizbellah in southern Lebanon? Or is it just Mondoweiss being paranoid? Also if it is true, who the gently caress wants to repeat 2006? Especially since Hizbellah managed to hold off Israel preety well last time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:(And for that matter, doesn't really explain why they would then proceed to exercise discretion on American immigrants and FSU Jewish immigrants, who are at a disadvantage when it comes to their requirements). To force those immigrants to go through a rabbinical-sanctioned Orthodox conversion where they can personally evaluate the prospective Jew's lifestyle and determine whether it's Jewish enough, rather than taking the word of some far-off Orthodox rabbi. The motive? Well, they're the loving Haredim, I'm pretty sure they get off on telling women they can't be Jewish because their skirts are too short or their boyfriends aren't religiously observant enough. More seriously, religion is not a settled issue in Israel, and the Haredim like the ability to force the issue by forcing people to a free with their conception of Judaism in order to be formally considered Jews. Legality has nothing to do with it; it's all about pushing the views of their sect and exploiting their privileged position to force people to fall in line with their religious beliefs. You can't just fake them, either, or they will literally retroactively revoke your conversion because you don't act Jewish enough anymore. As far as they're concerned, their job isn't to spread happiness and hand out marriage licenses, it's to act as the holy gatekeepers of the Jewish faith and prevent the filthy seculars and disgusting poser casuals from being falsely recognized as Jews. In fact, they find particular importance in ensuring Jewishness to their exacting standards in cases of marriage, since not only is interfaith marriage not permitted in Israel, but if the mother is not sufficiently Jewish then the the child could be religiously considered a bastard or non-Jew, unable to marry Jews. Immigrants are singled out because their conversion or upbringing wasn't under the direct control and scrutiny of the rabbinate, and also because American and FSU Jews are notoriously unlikely to be strictly observant Orthodox Jews. Can you point me to something about this "four generations" thing you're talking about, by the way? I've never heard of it, and looking around, I still can't find anything about it. I'm probably not googling the right thing or something, but I just have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:58
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:A multi-lateral peace process involving not only Jewish claims against Arab nations but Palestinian claims against Arab nations would possibly be worse than the status quo This is demonstrably true because it was the official Israeli policy to not engage in direct negotiations with Palestinians and to insist on a total peace process with the Arab nations for a very long time and all that served as was an excuse to never have to bother and a way of using Syria as a scapegoat for never getting anywhere in a settlement, or leaving Palestine's fate entirely up to Jordan.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I don't get the insinuation. Punish the perpetrators. Oh wait, they're 99% dead. Beneficiaries weren't for the most part born then or were children. Not their fault. team overhead smash posted:In regards to the right of return in general, once again you seem to be retreating into fantasy and as a result we seem to be talking about two different rights of return. Pfft, and you're calling my system wrong? "Hey, here's an arbitrary cut-off point decided by developed nations when half of the nations in the world were still colonies. Oh, you're a descendant of a refugee before that? Get hosed." team overhead smash posted:Then there's the right of return that exists in your head, where even though I laid it all out for you in my previous post you've decided to make believe that the right of return works in the stupidest possible way because doing so helps your argument rather than engaging honestly with the issue. I'm not inventing anything. The Palestinian right of return somehow in your opinion doesn't equally seem to apply to other people in exact same situation. team overhead smash posted:Also the Arab nations actually aren't under an obligation to resettle the refugees. To help prevent the occupation and ethnic cleansing from being accepted as the status quo (along with other reasons) the convention of the status of refugees from 1951 was not ratified by the surrounding Arab nations. Now not having signed up to the treaty does not stop refugees from being integrated into their nation of residence and integration does not stop refugees from having the right of return. Jordan, for instance who probably has one of the better track records with dealing with the refugees, isn't a signatory and and has integrated large numbers of refugees who still have the right to return. I don't give a poo poo about treaties or what countries have signed. I don't give a poo poo when Israel resorts to that and I don't give a poo poo when Arab nations do. Someone is born in your country in several generations of people being born in your country they're your responsibility. It's pretty great how all the D&D morals and ideas about how refugees and immigrants should be treated flies out of the window if you can use it to stick it to Israel. And by great I mean hypocritical. team overhead smash posted:This isn't universal, even within Jordan, and many refugee's lives are poverty stricken and bereft of the rights accorded to citizens of their resident country. Ideally they would be granted full rights akin to citizenship without being classified as citizens so there is no quibbling over refugee status. However it also doesn't make a difference to the point being discussed because it isn't relevant to Israels obligations to return the land it has stolen, which is not effected by trying to get other countries to pay for Israeli crimes. Crimes that were done by people who are not alive now. You get why blaming an entire nation for the crimes of its past leaders hasn't exactly been a winning combination in the past (and has in fact led to a lot of refugee crises)? Israel has a lot of ongoing crimes. It is an apartheid state that actively practices colonialism right this moment. I think that should be a focus. Main Paineframe posted:Why is it a double standard? They're two entirely different things. Israel expelled the Palestinians and confiscated all the property they left behind, while the Arab countries accepted them in as refugees but sometimes didn't grant them full citizenship. I am arguing for its total and utter abolishment and the end of the Jewish state. Zionism is a disgusting ideology that has no place in the modern world. Have you met me? Main Paineframe posted:Lebanon doesn't have birthright citizenship. A child born in Lebanon isn't a citizen unless they were born to a Lebanese father.. Oh, I guess that makes it ok then to deny entire generations of people who have lived in your country full participation in society! Main Paineframe posted:Nah, not really. Ethnic cleansings aren't really that common in world history; [citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer#Cases_of_population_transfer_.28Europe.29 They're common enough that there are a lot of people who could claim the same thing as the Palestinians. Main Paineframe posted:for one thing, the bureaucratic and physical infrastructure necessary to carry them out with any degree of thoroughness wasn't really there from the end of the Roman period until well into the colonial era, except against small native tribes. You get that there are like half a dozen ethnic groups that actually hail from where they are now? People wiped out other people or drove them away in massive migrations throughout history. Main Paineframe posted:In Europe and Asia, it was far more common for the natives to be simply ruled over by the newcomers and eventually culturally absorbed into the nation - as, indeed, happened to the Jews who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago. Also, when genocides happened they tended to be very effective at reducing the population; there are more Palestinian refugees in Jordan alone than there are Native Americans in the entire US including reservations. That was mostly smallpox. And in Europe and Asia there were absolutely massive migrations, invasions and changes in population. Main Paineframe posted:Besides, has anyone argued against allowing actual ethnic cleansing survivors or the descendants of those survivors a right of return? You're just assuming as a given that it's ridiculous and that everyone else thinks so too, but if you went to the effort of constructing a real case instead of waving around a vague strawman, you might find it less of a settled case than you expected! Allowing survivors of ethnic cleansing, or their descendants, to return to the countries they were driven out from isn't the hilariously absurd thing you appear to think it is. Yes, a lot of people here seem to think that other people with the exact same justifications as Palestinians somehow don't deserve the same thing. It's hilariously absurd because they weren't born there, their parents weren't born there and their grandparents weren't born there. I'm in favor of letting people have full lives in their home countries, I suppose that makes me a bad guy  Main Paineframe posted:So when does the Holocaust stop being q crime? When the last direct survivor of the concentration camps dies or when the last Nazi concentration camp employee dies? It doesn't stop being a crime? Doesn't mean that the entire German nation is responsible for it until the end of times and people who weren't even born then are blamed for it or that you can pull out the Holocaust card every time Israel gets criticized. Main Paineframe posted:Why would it? Only a few countries have unlimited jus soli citizenship laws. Automatically gaining citizenship in a country just because you were born there and grew up there is the rule, not the exception. It's actually a rule in most places of the world. Despite all the ethnic cleansings and population transfers that have taken place in history, most people in the world have a citizenship. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c155.html Let's be fair and add in 20 million people to that to cover all bases. That's 0.4% of the world's population. Usually when you get into the fourth loving generation of living in a country, you're a citizen and a national. Even if you are discriminated against. When this doesn't happen you're considered a bizarre horrible outlier, see Myanmar and the Rohingya for example. Main Paineframe posted:The push against hyperbolic use of the word "Nazi" wasn't because it's too mean but because it's incredibly easy to leverage into a pointless idiot derail. I'd be fine with a "no hyperbole" rule in general, honestly, as hyperbolic and exaggerated accusations almost always lead to a tremendous lovely derail because the person being accused inevitably responds with some quibble about how the details are very dissimilar and then the accuser doubles down and the next thing you know any genuinely interesting talk has been buried five pages deep in a heated argument about whether Netanyahu is literally the reincarnation of Hitler. Also the fact that Jews aren't the only native group to Israel. Jus sanguinis policies of other countries don't exclude parts of the native ethnic groups from the policy except in the case of other apartheid states. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:27 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also for Absurd, is there any factual basis for this claim I found on Mondoweiss of Israel wanting to go to war with Hizbellah in southern Lebanon? Or is it just Mondoweiss being paranoid? There have been repeated reports about conflict with Hezbollah being a possibility, especially after an Israeli airstrike in Syria killed a bunch of their members along with Iranian military figures a few months ago. I could conceive of that being a venue to try and sabotage the Iran nuclear deal. That being said, it's not a really frequent refrain, and I get the impression that the current focus is a lot more inwards towards Israeli society, into the West Bank expansion, and into this whole Hasbara business. If it were on the table, I could conceive of it being much easier to do now, as Hezbollah has been focusing so much effort in Syria. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much for Israel to gain from it. Yay, they take back swaths of South Lebanon, what's in it for even the expansionists when they are so focused on the West Bank? I just don't really see it. Could you link to the specific story on Mondoweiss, maybe it'll be easier for me to have a specific critique if I knew what they were basing their claims on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There have been repeated reports about conflict with Hezbollah being a possibility, especially after an Israeli airstrike in Syria killed a bunch of their members along with Iranian military figures a few months ago. I could conceive of that being a venue to try and sabotage the Iran nuclear deal. That being said, it's not a really frequent refrain, and I get the impression that the current focus is a lot more inwards towards Israeli society, into the West Bank expansion, and into this whole Hasbara business. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/turning-israels-against The article is claiming that because Gold has made threats about Israel disarming Hizbellah therefore Israel wants in invade southern Lebanon. Also wouldn't this just be a repeat of the gaza war but worse for Israel? Plus it would win back enmity that Hezbollah has gotten in Syria for supporting Assad.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/turning-israels-against Eh, looks a bit far-fetched to me. The IDF's pattern has been hitting weapons caches and convoys rather than going all-out ground war. It would be dumb and serve no purpose for them to get deeper in a situation where Hezbollah and Assad are already bleeding themselves against ISIS and FSA. I just don't get the impression that any of this is actually being reflected in intra-Israeli discourse to the point where public opinion is being prepared for any kind of serious offensive, although whoever's on the ground over there is welcome to add what their sense is.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:[citation needed] Not all that many, actually, considering the thousands of years of human history and the vast size of the world! Your first two links together list maybe a dozen ethnic cleansings prior to the 19th century, several of which are so old and vague they're likely more legendary than historical. And the third is just a cluttered, vague mess that talks about voluntary migrations from ancient times and Nazi deportation in the next. Not nearly enough to support your claim that literally everybody in the world would be uprooted if indefinite rights of return were instituted for all forcibly-displaced peoples. Yes, few ethnic groups today are the "original" inhabitants of the land. But that doesn't necessarily mean they deported or slaughtered the previous inhabitants! That was a thing in the colonial era, and it occasionally happened in ancient times, but for the most part conquerers were perfectly happy to leave the original inhabitants in ace as long as they paid their taxes and didn't get too uppity, and eventually either the natives would assimilate into the conquered people (most famously in the case of the Romans) or the conquerors would assimilate into the natives (like the Normans in Britain). Some native ethnic groups retained a distinct identity, partially or fully, but some didn't and just vanished into another larger group. quote:Yes, a lot of people here seem to think that other people with the exact same justifications as Palestinians somehow don't deserve the same thing. It's hilariously absurd because they weren't born there, their parents weren't born there and their grandparents weren't born there. I'm in favor of letting people have full lives in their home countries, I suppose that makes me a bad guy Maybe, but try calling those specific people out and arguing with them instead of painting the whole thread with that brush. Because I, for one, am just fine with a right of return for the Mizrahi to the countries that expelled them, a right of return for Native Americans to the United States, and so on. quote:It doesn't stop being a crime? Doesn't mean that the entire German nation is responsible for it until the end of times and people who weren't even born then are blamed for it or that you can pull out the Holocaust card every time Israel gets criticized. It's not just a philosophical question, since Germany is still paying reparations to the state of Israel for the Holocaust to this very day, on top of yearly reparations payments to all known Holocaust survivors, and is under legal pressure to provide reparations to the children of Holocaust survivors as well. If you know of a line in the sand beyond which Germany is no longer responsible in any way for Nazi atrocities, the state of Germany would probably love to know exactly where that line is. quote:It's actually a rule in most places of the world. Despite all the ethnic cleansings and population transfers that have taken place in history, most people in the world have a citizenship. Yes, they do...but not necessarily for the country they were born in! Typically, people don't get citizenship based on what country they were born in, but rather what citizenship their parents hold. If a male child is born in Japan to a Lebanese father and an American mother, they will have Lebanese citizenship and American citizenship but not Japanese citizenship. If that child grows up in Japan, is unable or unwilling to go through the naturalization process for gaining Japanese citizenship as an adult, marries a Haitian mother, and has a child, that child could potentially be entitled to Lebanese, American, and Haitian citizenship - but not Japanese citizenship. Being born in a country, by itself, does not necessarily entitle you to automatic citizenship, no matter how many generations your family has lived there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Punish the perpetrators. Oh wait, they're 99% dead. So why not punish the 1% still alive? As for the beneficiaries, we are talking about the settlers, yes? It is nigh-impossible for them to not be aware of the history of the land they were choosing to settle on. They knew they were taking part in a campaign of dispossession and ethnic cleansing, but didn't care either for social/religious reasons or for the selfish reasons of tax breaks, etc. Either way, it's not an excuse. Buying stolen jewellery doesn't make the jewellery yours. With land and homes, this is even more improtant. Most importantly I notice that you also didn't bother to respond to my mention of bringing justice and restitution to the victims. Apparently that aspect of it was beneath consideration. quote:Pfft, and you're calling my system wrong? "Hey, here's an arbitrary cut-off point decided by developed nations when half of the nations in the world were still colonies. Oh, you're a descendant of a refugee before that? Get hosed." Your system is wrong. You're claiming it's being inconsistently applied when you have misunderstood the basis of how it even works. You stated "The right of return, if applied equally to all descendants of people who have been driven from their lands, would neccessitate the movement of pretty much every single human being on Earth." but as I have pointed out, it doesn't work like that. This isn;t a subjective matter of preference It isn't arbitrary. The basis for pretty much all modern law everywhere in the world is that it isn't retroactive. It would be nice if Genghis Khan hadn't hosed up so many places, but we're not exactly going to make Mongolia pay hundreds of billions of pounds worth as restitution for the genocide and wars of aggression he conducted even though they clearly don't fit with modern international military law - because that law didn't exist then. No matter how stupid you think laws might be, them being retroactive would be stupider. Besides, your arguement is inconsistent. You first of all complain about how the right of return being applied to all refugees forever is unworkable. Then once it's explained how it isn't applied retroactively forever but from a set point in time (making your former complaint irrelevant), you turn 180 degrees complain that it doesn't cover everyone in human history by stretching back retroactively to conclude them. Why the switch? You seem more focused on rubbishing the right of return than having any solid position about how such a right would work. quote:I don't give a poo poo about treaties or what countries have signed. I don't give a poo poo when Israel resorts to that and I don't give a poo poo when Arab nations do. Well then maybe don't state that Arab states are under obligations to do things when they aren't quote:Someone is born in your country in several generations of people being born in your country they're your responsibility. I don't really get this. I've explained how this doesn't make sense as a legal point and if you're making a moral point then surely even temporary refugees which weren't born in your country and will only be there temporarily should be looked after and treated well. quote:It's pretty great how all the D&D morals and ideas about how refugees and immigrants should be treated flies out of the window if you can use it to stick it to Israel. And by great I mean hypocritical. I've pointed out how the same laws are being consistently applied to everyone. On the other hand you do seem to have completely flipped your position once I explained the right of return to allow you to continue complaining about it even if it is from a position that is mutually exclusive with the position you were holding just a post or two before. quote:Crimes that were done by people who are not alive now. You get why blaming an entire nation for the crimes of its past leaders hasn't exactly been a winning combination in the past (and has in fact led to a lot of refugee crises)? It's not just a case of blame, it's a case of justice and restitution for the victims. Even if every single perpetrator dropped dead yesterday there would still be a right of return today and the right of return is a key part of the apartheid state with people who have a right to live in Israel being denied entry on the basis of their race/religion.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
It isn't obvious that his point is that the right of return is ridiculous in and of itself? I thought it was clear Darkcrawler was arguing that ethnic cleansing is something people just have to deal with and it's the responsibility of countries that play host to refugees to grant them citizenship and rights. If you don't want an ethnic minority just clear them out. Is that not his position?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Amazing and pathetic: http://forward.com/news/308902/shadowy-web-site-creates-black-list-of-pro-palestinian-activists/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:It isn't obvious that his point is that the right of return is ridiculous in and of itself? I thought it was clear Darkcrawler was arguing that ethnic cleansing is something people just have to deal with and it's the responsibility of countries that play host to refugees to grant them citizenship and rights. If you don't want an ethnic minority just clear them out. Is that not his position? By this same logic, Germany shouldn't be paying reparations for the crimes the Nazi regime committed. It's the countries where the Holocaust survivors moved that should be paying reparations.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
It seems like there's a pretty big moral hazard in telling a country that has been kicking people off their land and just taking it for decades and decades on up to this very day that the longer they can delay a peace settlement, the more of that land they get to keep and the less reparations they are obligated to pay
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
What's the best source for news on Palestine specifically? The Israeli media is obviously concerned chiefly with Israeli affairs and the Israeli perspective, and the wheels have been kind of falling off Al-Jazeera lately.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It seems like there's a pretty big moral hazard in telling a country that has been kicking people off their land and just taking it for decades and decades on up to this very day that the longer they can delay a peace settlement, the more of that land they get to keep and the less reparations they are obligated to pay I'm all for it as long as Israel gets to refund Germany for the war reparations.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:It isn't obvious that his point is that the right of return is ridiculous in and of itself? I thought it was clear Darkcrawler was arguing that ethnic cleansing is something people just have to deal with and it's the responsibility of countries that play host to refugees to grant them citizenship and rights. If you don't want an ethnic minority just clear them out. Is that not his position? It's obvious that's what he's trying to say but his rationale for saying that is all over the place. First of all he complains about how unworkable it is because everyone in history having the right of return would be chaos. Then when it's pointed out that isn't how it works he switched around and complains that it isn't fair because some people have the right of return and some don't have the right of return because it doesn't effect everyone in human history. While it is good for refugees to be granted rights and integrated into their host countries, it is also good for refugees to have their right of return fulfilled and be able to return to their home country. Neither seems very likely to change at the moment and focusing exclusively on the Arab countries and instantly and automatically waiving Israel of its obligation seems a bit of a strange and odd choice especially as the right of return doesn't just cover return to Israel (which is the sticking point) but also compensation which is much needed by the refugees and where there is much less of a problem in regard to peace talks. Darth Walrus posted:What's the best source for news on Palestine specifically? The Israeli media is obviously concerned chiefly with Israeli affairs and the Israeli perspective, and the wheels have been kind of falling off Al-Jazeera lately. Electronicintifada.net is probably the main online source. Haaretz is Israel's paper of record and is more open to left-wing and anti-zionist voices than other Israli papers.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Sure, but I was thinking specifically about Palestine's inner workings. Most stuff from other sources seems to be more about how they're affecting and being affected by the rest of the world (which is a big thing, sure, but not the only story out there).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 10:53
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It seems like there's a pretty big moral hazard in telling a country that has been kicking people off their land and just taking it for decades and decades on up to this very day that the longer they can delay a peace settlement, the more of that land they get to keep and the less reparations they are obligated to pay Well there's also a moral hazard involved in building settlements in greater numbers, faster, in areas with low incidence of reprisals and attacks, but that is exactly what Israel is of course doing.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:It's obvious that's what he's trying to say but his rationale for saying that is all over the place. First of all he complains about how unworkable it is because everyone in history having the right of return would be chaos. Then when it's pointed out that isn't how it works he switched around and complains that it isn't fair because some people have the right of return and some don't have the right of return because it doesn't effect everyone in human history. Actually I think his point is more that he disagrees with the start point for the right of return and thinks it's unfair that it came into being before Israel carried out its removal of the Palestinians. Obviously to make it workable a line has to be drawn at the point the law is created and Darkcrawler thinks they should have waited until 1968. You're right that the insistence that the Arab nations the refugees moved to have a moral obligation to settle them but the country responsible for their refugee status doesn't because they really don't want to is a very odd position.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:It's pretty great how all the D&D morals and ideas about how refugees and immigrants should be treated flies out of the window if you can use it to stick it to Israel. And by great I mean hypocritical. I think a lot of you are warping darkcrawler's original points in order to construct an argument. Has the dialogue in this thread receded to such a level that now we're eating our own just in order to prove a loving point? I'm pretty sure we can all agree the nakba was an extremely hosed up thing and that victims should be given some form of reparation! But can you realistically picture a scene in today's geopolitical climate where israel has to give in to ANY major demands from the palestinian diaspora regarding a just question to the refugees and children of refugees? It's just cruel to even entertain that option in a serious negotiation when you know full well the israelis have not come to the table in good faith.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:It isn't obvious that his point is that the right of return is ridiculous in and of itself? I thought it was clear Darkcrawler was arguing that ethnic cleansing is something people just have to deal with and it's the responsibility of countries that play host to refugees to grant them citizenship and rights. If you don't want an ethnic minority just clear them out. Is that not his position? I think DarkCrawler's position is "why should responsibility for crimes - or the responsibility to make up for them - pass to descendants or larger organizations? The crime should be between the original victim and the original perpetrator, and other members of the family and/or organization shouldn't be punished for it". It's one of those things that sounds reasonable at first glance, but it's essentially the same thing you'd hear from a white American high school senior complaining about minority-only scholarships and affirmative action in college admissions. "I didn't own any slaves and I haven't institutionally discriminated against minorities, and slavery ended long before I was born, so why should I be negatively affected by restitution for historical crimes I wasn't involved in?" He'd probably be okay with a right of return in, say, 1952, but he thinks that Palestinian national identification and refugee status and land claims should have died off with the original expellees and that their descendants should have integrated as Jordanians and Lebanese. Darth Walrus posted:What's the best source for news on Palestine specifically? The Israeli media is obviously concerned chiefly with Israeli affairs and the Israeli perspective, and the wheels have been kind of falling off Al-Jazeera lately. I like Palestine News Network; the English-language site still tends to focus on I/P stuff, but I think it's the best you're going to get if you can't speak Arabic. It's at least close to the ground and tends to focus on individual events like single home demolishings or larger events like Israel confiscating 202 acres of land in Ramallah, displacing over 140 Palestinian families, to build a garbage dump, rather than overall foreign relations stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It seems like there's a pretty big moral hazard in telling a country that has been kicking people off their land and just taking it for decades and decades on up to this very day that the longer they can delay a peace settlement, the more of that land they get to keep and the less reparations they are obligated to pay
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I think a lot of you are warping darkcrawler's original points in order to construct an argument. Has the dialogue in this thread receded to such a level that now we're eating our own just in order to prove a loving point? I'm pretty sure we can all agree the nakba was an extremely hosed up thing and that victims should be given some form of reparation! But can you realistically picture a scene in today's geopolitical climate where israel has to give in to ANY major demands from the palestinian diaspora regarding a just question to the refugees and children of refugees? It's just cruel to even entertain that option in a serious negotiation when you know full well the israelis have not come to the table in good faith. Today's geopolitical climate isn't necessarily tomorrow's, and it's certainly worth discussing who is held responsible for acts of ethnic cleansing even as a general principle. Too, the attitude that "Israel doesn't need to give any concessions, so stop talking about Israel giving concessions", in and of itself perpetuates Israel's ability to dismiss any discussion of right of return/reparations/etc as fringe talking points.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
You know, Darkcrawler might still continue to post in this thread and keep explaining their position, so you may want to not spend pages egging each other on into pushing your interpretation of that position into directions you find more and more offensive for shock value. At some point (which I think has already passed) that just becomes back-patting and cheerleading. Just a thought.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
In other news, France is now pushing an I/P peace initiative of its own. The so-called "French Initiative" will be submitted to the UNSC on June 30th (the US asked them to delay it till then), and if it passes the UNSC vote, it will form a roadmap for peace negotiations in an accelerated timeline. Nothing particularly game-changing in the terms of the French proposal: two-state solution, 1967 borders, mutual land swaps for settlements, no Palestinian right of return, official recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and so on. Same old poo poo. The new thing France brings to the table, though, is a stick - they threaten that if there is still no final agreement 18 months after the resolution is passed, France will unilaterally recognize Palestine as a state, no conditions necessary. Before we get too excited, though, there's a caveat. It has to pass the Security Council first before that deadline provision comes into effect. If the US vetoes, that's it. It's pretty clearly a challenge to Obama and Netanyahu - a threat to Netanyahu to put their foot down if he doesn't at least give in to America, and a test for Obama to check the sincerity about all his post-election rhetoric toward Netanyahu.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
The U.S. not veto-ing an agreement that has unilateral recognition of Palestine as the stick for non-compliance is very nearly equivalent to the U.S. recognizing Palestinian statehood themselves, which probably means it's hopeless even with Obama's relatively harder line.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Wait, is the provision that France will recognize Palestine, or that the UN will? Why would the UNSC have veto power over France's foreign policy?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Wait, is the provision that France will recognize Palestine, or that the UN will? Why would the UNSC have veto power over France's foreign policy? France will recognize Palestine. However, they're submitting that agreement to the UNSC, and only going to implement that agreement if it passes a UNSC vote. As far as I can tell, there's no particular reason they need to do that, as the plan doesn't really call for international involvement. They're willingly seeking UNSC approval of their own accord, which means the offer is probably more of a political move and not really what it seems. At first glance, it's a solid commitment to unilaterally forcing the peace process forward, but putting it in front of the Security Council means France is neither solidly committing to anything nor are they really interested in doing it unilaterally - in other words, they're taking a seemingly extreme position in front of other countries and challenging them to haggle it down to a more moderate proposal, while giving those most affected by the proposal a warning to change their political tone. Basically, the UNSC wouldn't normally have veto power, but France is going out of their way to offer them a chance to veto this, almost certainly for a variety of political and diplomatic reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:What's the best source for news on Palestine specifically? The Israeli media is obviously concerned chiefly with Israeli affairs and the Israeli perspective, and the wheels have been kind of falling off Al-Jazeera lately. Look up Ma'an News Agency. It's the main Palestinian news outlet.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:France will recognize Palestine. However, they're submitting that agreement to the UNSC, and only going to implement that agreement if it passes a UNSC vote. As far as I can tell, there's no particular reason they need to do that, as the plan doesn't really call for international involvement. They're willingly seeking UNSC approval of their own accord, which means the offer is probably more of a political move and not really what it seems. At first glance, it's a solid commitment to unilaterally forcing the peace process forward, but putting it in front of the Security Council means France is neither solidly committing to anything nor are they really interested in doing it unilaterally - in other words, they're taking a seemingly extreme position in front of other countries and challenging them to haggle it down to a more moderate proposal, while giving those most affected by the proposal a warning to change their political tone. Oh, that makes more sense then. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Been seeing a bit of this on the social media:
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Been seeing a bit of this on the social media:  I'm not sure what it is with Polish marketers. They're nowhere near as balls-out insane as Japanese ones, but they seem to produce a lot of slightly off stuff. (Might just be selection bias too, or the Polish sense of humor being finely honed and rather dark.)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
