5 ms·

I think the citizenship requirement of publicly acknowledging the right of existence of Israel is quite strong on the "not free" political speech, no matter one

I think the citizenship requirement of publicly acknowledging the right of existence of Israel is quite strong on the "not free" political speech, no matter one's private opinion on the matter. https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-citizenship-rule-pledge-to-israel-stirs-debate/a-67673872 https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-citizenship-rule-pledge-t...

oezi 2y ago
Well, in Germany we think that being against the right of existence of Israel isn't something that is an opinion that anyone can have. But how about the US Oath of Allegiance, would you consider it a restriction of "Free Speech" that you have to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty? Is it a restriction of free speech that you have to say something if you want to become a citizen? "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
- megous 2y ago
  Israel state as it is doesn't have a right to exist. No state does. Neither does Germany. State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of often violent organization some group of people form at a time to organize their affairs (and force some others into or out of, usually) for their own benefit. (For Israel, this includes defacto permanent military subjugation of millions of people, and stripping them of their rights. This makes it doubly ridiculous that this is almost the only state where you constantly hear from the supporters that it has the "right to exists" somehow.) States either do exist (if enough people are willing to fund and maintain such an organization, and/or let themselves get killed and/or kill others for it) or they don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist It's just a philosophical issue. That Germany decided preserving existence of particular current form of Israeli state is useful target for thought policing is basically just ridiculous. Calls for "destruction" of Israel as a state as it currently is (eg. change of regime from racist religious ethnostate to true democracy) are not necessarily "bad". The state I was born in doesn't exist anymore, BTW. It was replaced with a different state because people called for ending it in '89. And then again at the end of '92. Not many people are crying over it. States come and go all the time.
  - mariusor 2y ago
    With the risk of splitting the hairs even more, I think that what is commonly meant by "the right of the Israel state to exist" is that the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      That the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel. And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination. It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist. (And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
      - mariusor 2y ago
        The reason why I left out anything was to avoid my clarification being taken as evidence of some personal bias. Alas I failed. As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about. Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist. But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there. So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take. At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further). The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.
- mariusor 2y ago
  Yes, when a country imposes naturalized future citizens any kind of pledge (especially when it does not apply to local born ones) I think its claims of free speech are tenuous. Frankly I had no idea you had to do that as part of the US citizenship process and it only serves to confirm my biases. To get to the point of my previous comment. Do you expect that demanding anti-zionists to publicly say Israel deserves to be a state will have any impact on their belief? The DW article acknowledges that a very strong anti zionist (or rather plain anti jewish) sentiment exists already in the locals. What good does it do to force people to say this one specific thing?
  - oezi 2y ago
    Certainly, I find it ridiculous that new immigrants need to give a pledge that existing locals don't have to give. On the other hand, I don't think any of this pertains to Free Speech. Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.
    - mariusor 2y ago
      > Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech. When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
      - oezi 2y ago
        a.) As a refugee you don't have to become a German citizen. Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech. b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).
aguaviva 2y ago
There seems to be some misquoting of the content of the new Citizenship Test (Einbürgerungstest), possibly out of confusing with a local edict in one of the federal states (Saxony-Anhalt) last year. The new federal test does not require affirmation of any belief about the State of Israel; only "knowledge" of the basic issues of laws regarding Antisemitism in Germany, and of Jewish life and hstory in Germany in general. Here's a list of the actual questions, from a recent article in Die Welt: 1. Vor wie vielen Jahren gab es erstmals eine jüdische Gemeinde auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Deutschlands? a) vor etwa 300 Jahren b) vor etwa 700 Jahren c) vor etwa 1150 Jahren d) vor etwa 1700 Jahren* 2. Wer darf bei den rund 40 jüdischen Makkabi-Sportvereinen Mitglied werden? a) nur Deutsche b) nur Israelis c) nur religiöse Menschen d) alle Menschen\* 3. Welche Städte haben die größten jüdischen Gemeinden in Deutschland? a) Berlin und München\* b) Hamburg und Essen c) Nürnberg und Stuttgart d) Worms und Speyer 4. Wie heißt das jüdische Gebetshaus? a) Basilika b) Moschee c) Synagoge\* d) Kirche Thema Existenzrecht Israel 5. Auf welcher rechtlichen Grundlage wurde der Staat Israel gegründet? a) eine Resolution der Vereinten Nationen\* b) ein Beschluss des Zionistenkongresses c) ein Vorschlag der Bundesregierung d) ein Vorschlag der UdSSR 6. Woraus begründet sich Deutschlands besondere Verantwortung für Israel? a) aus der Mitgliedschaft in der Europäischen Union (EU) b) aus den nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen\* c) aus dem Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland d) aus der christlichen Tradition Thema Antisemitismus 7. Was ist ein Beispiel für antisemitisches Verhalten? a) ein jüdisches Fest besuchen b) die israelische Regierung kritisieren c) den Holocaust leugnen\* d) gegen Juden Fußball spielen 8. Woran erinnern die sogenannten Stolpersteine in Deutschland? a) an berühmte deutsche Politikerinnen und Politiker b) an die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus\* c) an Verkehrstote d) an bekannte jüdische Musiker 9. Wie kann jemand, der den Holocaust leugnet, bestraft werden? a) Kürzung sozialer Leistungen b) bis zu 100 Sozialstunden c) gar nicht, Holocaustleugnung ist erlaubt d) mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe\* 10. Welche Handlung mit Bezug auf den Staat Israel ist in Deutschland verboten? a) die Politik Israels öffentlich kritisieren b) das Aufhängen einer israelischen Flagge auf dem Privatgrundstück c) eine Diskussion über die Politik Israels d) der öffentliche Aufruf zur Vernichtung Israels\* https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250754984/Einbuergerungstest-Israel-und-Antisemitismus-die-neuen-Fragen-fuer-Bewerber-um-den-deutschen-Pass.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250754984/Ein...

oezi 2y ago

Well, in Germany we think that being against the right of existence of Israel isn't something that is an opinion that anyone can have. But how about the US Oath of Allegiance, would you consider it a restriction of "Free Speech" that you have to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty? Is it a restriction of free speech that you have to say something if you want to become a citizen? "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

megous 2y ago
Israel state as it is doesn't have a right to exist. No state does. Neither does Germany. State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of often violent organization some group of people form at a time to organize their affairs (and force some others into or out of, usually) for their own benefit. (For Israel, this includes defacto permanent military subjugation of millions of people, and stripping them of their rights. This makes it doubly ridiculous that this is almost the only state where you constantly hear from the supporters that it has the "right to exists" somehow.) States either do exist (if enough people are willing to fund and maintain such an organization, and/or let themselves get killed and/or kill others for it) or they don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist It's just a philosophical issue. That Germany decided preserving existence of particular current form of Israeli state is useful target for thought policing is basically just ridiculous. Calls for "destruction" of Israel as a state as it currently is (eg. change of regime from racist religious ethnostate to true democracy) are not necessarily "bad". The state I was born in doesn't exist anymore, BTW. It was replaced with a different state because people called for ending it in '89. And then again at the end of '92. Not many people are crying over it. States come and go all the time.
- mariusor 2y ago
  With the risk of splitting the hairs even more, I think that what is commonly meant by "the right of the Israel state to exist" is that the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    That the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel. And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination. It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist. (And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
    - mariusor 2y ago
      The reason why I left out anything was to avoid my clarification being taken as evidence of some personal bias. Alas I failed. As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about. Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist. But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there. So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take. At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further). The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.
mariusor 2y ago
Yes, when a country imposes naturalized future citizens any kind of pledge (especially when it does not apply to local born ones) I think its claims of free speech are tenuous. Frankly I had no idea you had to do that as part of the US citizenship process and it only serves to confirm my biases. To get to the point of my previous comment. Do you expect that demanding anti-zionists to publicly say Israel deserves to be a state will have any impact on their belief? The DW article acknowledges that a very strong anti zionist (or rather plain anti jewish) sentiment exists already in the locals. What good does it do to force people to say this one specific thing?
- oezi 2y ago
  Certainly, I find it ridiculous that new immigrants need to give a pledge that existing locals don't have to give. On the other hand, I don't think any of this pertains to Free Speech. Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.
  - mariusor 2y ago
    > Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech. When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
    - oezi 2y ago
      a.) As a refugee you don't have to become a German citizen. Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech. b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).

aguaviva 2y ago

There seems to be some misquoting of the content of the new Citizenship Test (Einbürgerungstest), possibly out of confusing with a local edict in one of the federal states (Saxony-Anhalt) last year. The new federal test does not require affirmation of any belief about the State of Israel; only "knowledge" of the basic issues of laws regarding Antisemitism in Germany, and of Jewish life and hstory in Germany in general. Here's a list of the actual questions, from a recent article in Die Welt: 1. Vor wie vielen Jahren gab es erstmals eine jüdische Gemeinde auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Deutschlands? a) vor etwa 300 Jahren b) vor etwa 700 Jahren c) vor etwa 1150 Jahren d) vor etwa 1700 Jahren* 2. Wer darf bei den rund 40 jüdischen Makkabi-Sportvereinen Mitglied werden? a) nur Deutsche b) nur Israelis c) nur religiöse Menschen d) alle Menschen\* 3. Welche Städte haben die größten jüdischen Gemeinden in Deutschland? a) Berlin und München\* b) Hamburg und Essen c) Nürnberg und Stuttgart d) Worms und Speyer 4. Wie heißt das jüdische Gebetshaus? a) Basilika b) Moschee c) Synagoge\* d) Kirche Thema Existenzrecht Israel 5. Auf welcher rechtlichen Grundlage wurde der Staat Israel gegründet? a) eine Resolution der Vereinten Nationen\* b) ein Beschluss des Zionistenkongresses c) ein Vorschlag der Bundesregierung d) ein Vorschlag der UdSSR 6. Woraus begründet sich Deutschlands besondere Verantwortung für Israel? a) aus der Mitgliedschaft in der Europäischen Union (EU) b) aus den nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen\* c) aus dem Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland d) aus der christlichen Tradition Thema Antisemitismus 7. Was ist ein Beispiel für antisemitisches Verhalten? a) ein jüdisches Fest besuchen b) die israelische Regierung kritisieren c) den Holocaust leugnen\* d) gegen Juden Fußball spielen 8. Woran erinnern die sogenannten Stolpersteine in Deutschland? a) an berühmte deutsche Politikerinnen und Politiker b) an die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus\* c) an Verkehrstote d) an bekannte jüdische Musiker 9. Wie kann jemand, der den Holocaust leugnet, bestraft werden? a) Kürzung sozialer Leistungen b) bis zu 100 Sozialstunden c) gar nicht, Holocaustleugnung ist erlaubt d) mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe\* 10. Welche Handlung mit Bezug auf den Staat Israel ist in Deutschland verboten? a) die Politik Israels öffentlich kritisieren b) das Aufhängen einer israelischen Flagge auf dem Privatgrundstück c) eine Diskussion über die Politik Israels d) der öffentliche Aufruf zur Vernichtung Israels\* https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250754984/Einbuergerungstest-Israel-und-Antisemitismus-die-neuen-Fragen-fuer-Bewerber-um-den-deutschen-Pass.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250754984/Ein...