Operation Pillar of Cloud -- Gaza Under Siege

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It was my impression that while Germany has a fast track “right of return” it has not erected extra hurdles for specific ethnicities. Or is there some special hurdle that a Turk must overcome that a Tibetan does not?

Until a decade ago or so, Turks were not entitled to citizenship by birth in Germany. This was not done by means of an express ethnic preference - it applied, as I understand, to all “foreigners” - but practically speaking, as it was well understood by everyone in those days, the only “guest workers” present in Germany in large numbers were Turks. So it was a facially neutral law which had a disproportionate impact on Turks.

Today, the same issue is present in the German treatment of dual citizenship.

Turks in Germany | Citizenship

Ethnic preferences are bad but ethnic bigotry like we see in Israel natulization laws is pretty disgusting.

What you seem to miss is that its exactly the same thing. All that differs is your judgment - that Germany’s is somehow not “disgusting ethnic bigotry” while Israel’s is.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Dissonance

You are basing your entire claim that one can’t criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite on one comment from Brazil to you in a thread in the BBQ pit over a year ago and the failure of the ‘apologists’ of Israel to denounce him? The way Der Trihs is always called out every time he makes over the top comments? Being that this is not the pit, I’ll restrict my commentary on Brazil to noting that his opinions aren’t held in the highest regard; he is best known as the poster who begins 1 in 4 paragraphs with ‘lol’ and maintains a blog where he lists people he has ‘banned’ (apparently the word ‘ignore’ isn’t in his vocabulary) along with a list of his rules of debate. Der Trihs isn’t called out on every over the top comment he makes for the same reason Brazil isn’t; people have grown to expect their behavior.

I have been critical of Israel and have never been called or had it implied that I’m an anti-Semite on this board, and the only people I’ve called (or implied) were anti-Semites were in fact anti-Semitic. The happily long departed Sevastopol comes to mind.

If accusations of antisemitism are as rare as you say, I would have thought that someone would have commented on it earlier. Not a year after the fact when it is rubbed in your face.

@Ibn_Warraq

To echo Dissonance, you are basing your argument that it’s difficult to criticize Israel either on the Dope or in public based on comment made by Brazil84 over a year ago in the Pit.

As Dissonance pointed out, Brazil84 is hardly representative of the Dope nor all that respected and is mostly known for responding to arguments with “LOL” and “banning” posters who fail to abide by his “rules.” I can’t go any further without violating the rules, though I’ll note I’m one of the people he “banned” for some conversation that I don’t even remember.

Claiming you can’t criticize Israel without being accused of being called an anti-Semite based on Brazil84 is like claiming you can’t say you’re a Republican without being accused of being stupid, racist, and a monster based on comments by a number of posters on this board, including one you already noted.

Furthermore, in the comment linked Brazil84 doesn’t claim that all critics of Israel are anti-Semites, but instead that “most probably” are, which is different.

Moreover, saying he accused you of being an anti-Semite is a bit incomplete. You asked him if he thought you were an anti-Semite and he said “probably yes.”

Was his comment obnoxious?

Yes, but what you’re doing is a little like me asking someone if they think I’m lying and when they say “yes” running to the mods and screaming that I’ve been called a liar.

Like Dissonance, I’ve been extremely critical of Israel and can’t remember ever being called an anti-Semite.

So now you’re saying that because I asked a clarifying question and Brazil84 only said I was “probably” an anti Semite it wasn’t really an accusation of antisemitism?

@amanset

Yes, that is clear cut. But it is a single person. Most of the people that post in these threads are more subtle about it. I have on many occasions been subjected to it myself, especially from FinnAgain.

Yeah same here. He doesn’t want to be put I the same category as people seem to be putting people who actually call critics of Israel antisemites, so he just implies it by “just asking questions”

@Ibn_Warraq

Er… “or to a parent who is settled in the United Kingdom”.
Meaning, as I said, “a resident.”

The children of Pakistani immigrants in the UK gain British citizenship automatically.

The children of Turkish immigrants, not so much.

One of the 911 hijackers was shocked to find out that the university he went to in Germany was supposed to be more than half “foreign” but virtually all the “foreigners” there had been born in Germany and in some cases they were the children of people who’d been born there.

Wait. What!? So the children of Pakistani immigrants are automatically citizens by being born in UK but the children of Turkish parents born in the UK are not?

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Wait. What!? So the children of Pakistani immigrants are automatically citizens by being born in UK but the children of Turkish parents born in the UK are not?

He’s saying children born in the UK to Pakistani parents are automatically UK citizens - but children born in Germany to Turkish parents are not automatically German citizens.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

Until a decade ago or so, Turks were not entitled to citizenship by birth in Germany. This was not done by means of an express ethnic preference - it applied, as I understand, to all “foreigners” - but practically speaking, as it was well understood by everyone in those days, the only “guest workers” present in Germany in large numbers were Turks. So it was a facially neutral law which had a disproportionate impact on Turks.

Today, the same issue is present in the German treatment of dual citizenship.

Turks in Germany - Wikipedia

What you seem to miss is that its exactly the same thing. All that differs is your judgment - that Germany’s is somehow not “disgusting ethnic bigotry” while Israel’s is.

So before I condemn Germany as disgustingly racist, when was this facially neutral law passed?

It is certainly possible to be disgustingly bigoted while being facially neutral.

[Tristan]

Well, despite a minor hiccup or two, it appears this peace will last, at least for a while.

I was wrong in my prediction. I am happy to say that.

[Latro]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So before I condemn Germany as disgustingly racist, when was this facially neutral law passed?

It is certainly possible to be disgustingly bigoted while being facially neutral.

You forgot that Pakistan was part of the British Empire. After independence Pakistani’s and Indians could legally enter Britain because they were already British.

So there’s a different history…

[FinnAgain]

@amanset

I have on many occasions been subjected to it myself, especially from FinnAgain.

You really want to claim that I’m one hell of a coy motherfucker? Seriously? With a straight face?
Especially given the fact that I could already say that your arguments are anti-Semitic, even in GD, and be 100% within the rules? Just like I can point out that your argument now relies on paranoid reasoning and is fictional? You think I couldn’t say “Oh, and it’s an anti-Semitic argument, too?” You think it’s more likely that I’m out to get you and I secretly think you’re an anti-Semite but I just can’t bring myself to say it?

Your call, I guess.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yeah same here. He doesn’t want to be put I the same category as people seem to be putting people who actually call critics of Israel antisemites, so he just implies it by “just asking questions”

As an amateur internet psychologist, you make a great gardener.
Of course, I have indeed called certain anti-Semites on this board out for it. Sevastopol is an example, a poster in this thread is another. Curiously, I haven’t said you are. In fact, I’ve stated that I don’t think you are, and I’ve applied a much more apt adjective, in posts directly to you. Claiming that I’m secretly out to get you is a persecution fantasy. It’s not factual.

[Trinopus]

@FinnAgain

You really want to claim that I’m one hell of a coy motherfucker? Seriously? With a straight face?

But, dude, you are coy, at least now and then…

Especially given the fact that I could already say that your arguments are anti-Semitic, even in GD, and be 100% within the rules? Just like I can point out that your argument now relies on paranoid reasoning and is fictional? You think I couldn’t say “Oh, and it’s an anti-Semitic argument, too?” . . .

See? That’s what I’d call (a little) coy.

I certainly wouldn’t call you an “m.f.” and not solely because the rules forbid it. I actually have more respect for you than for most of the “regulars” in these threads. I can usually understand what you are saying, which isn’t always true for…ah…parties unnamed.

[RedFury]

UN upgrades Palestinian status in body, bolsters statehood claim

**The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution on Thursday giving implicit recognition to Palestinian statehood despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding funds for the West Bank government.

A resolution that lifts the Palestinian Authority’s U.N. observer status from “entity” to “non-member state,” like the Vatican, easily passed the 193-nation General Assembly with 138 nations voting in favor, with 41 abstaining, including the United Kingdom. Nine were opposed.

Israel, the United States and a handful of other members that voted against what they see as a largely symbolic and counterproductive move by the Palestinians, which takes place on the 65th anniversary of the assembly’s adoption of resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

<snip>

The U.K. had committed to voting for the resolution if Abbas had shown commitment to resuming peace negotiations without preconditions. Lacking that assurance, Britain abstained from the vote.

Following the vote at the UN General Assembly the Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "We continue to believe that the prospects for a swift return to negotiations on a two state solution — the only way to create a Palestinian state on the ground — would be greater today if President Abbas had been able to give the assurances we suggested, and without which we were unable to vote in favor of the resolution.

"In particular, we called on President Abbas to set out a willingness to return to negotiations without preconditions, and to signal that the Palestinians would not immediately seek action in the International Criminal Court, which would be likely to make a return to negotiations impossible…**

It’s a start, though clearly some are none too happy about the resolution.

[brazil84]

@amanset

Sorry for not getting back to you. Been a bit ill over the weekend.

There is that very real chance. Unfortunately, as the link I gave said, a lot of the targets were not rocket launch sites and there is a high amount of doubt that they had anything to do with rockets (storage or whatnot). More likely is that “smart bombs” are never as accurate as those dropping them claim they are. Either than or they just don’t give a shit where they drop them.

Ummm, does that mean yes or no?

For the most part, yes.

So, for example, if the majority of people living in the Jewish settlements on the West Bank want to join up with Israel, it’s perfectly okay with you if that happens?

And if the Jewish people living in Rockland County, New York, become a majority (which they are likely to do very soon) and want to secede from the United States and set up a second Jewish State, that’s perfectly okay with you?