Israel Is a Sham

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 17 NEXT
 

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
Quite impossible, Americans aren't a nationality. Colonial British are. Americans are an ethnic group. They have no set nation. Now Colonial British can go and claim to be American, but prior to the creation of America a matching nationality cannot have existed as it lacked a nation. Easy.
.

That doesn't work very well since Israel is a nation and 'Colonial British' don't have a matching nation of 'Colonial Britain'. So there you go, your analogy is dead already.

.
Colonial British have the 13 colonies which received some autonomy from Britain in its self administration.

There are no more colonies, there's a nation called the United States of America. Ergo, your comparison has failed.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

But they could get in so long as they have the right ethnicity, no? Regardless of their practices. At least that's what's implied by the word 'descent', which really has nothing to do with what you practiced. It isn't the emphasis, that I would agree with you on, but it certainly favors one ethnicity, doesn't it?

.
Jews are not an ethnicity. You can become a Jew without any ethnic connections to the people which once lived in Israel 2000 years ago. Get over it.

Ethnoreligious group. There's an ethnic element in there that gets favored. Come on now, the people who aren't throwing a bloody tantrum are busy talking with a common understanding I think.

.
Why do you not realize that being a Jew does not constitute you being of any ethnicity? Why do you keep sticking to this argument I don't know where you got at all?

Mortai Gravesend:
But they could get in so long as they have the right ethnicity, no? Regardless of their practices. At least that's what's implied by the word 'descent', which really has nothing to do with what you practiced. It isn't the emphasis, that I would agree with you on, but it certainly favors one ethnicity, doesn't it?

I edited my post as you were already writing, unfortunately. Here's what I added:
"They don't have to convert because they're part of the religious community, even if only vaguely (like a typical Catholic in Germany, for example)."

I think of it sort of like being born to Catholic parents, but in the case of Atheistic Jews. Just because you are baptized, just because you went through various rituals doesn't mean you necessarily believe church dogma. Even at all. But in the eyes of the church, you belong to that religious community regardless, due to your birth and baptism. Due to your descent.

In Germany, about 30% of the population are listed as Catholics. Yet less than 13% are actually practicing. Something is clearly not adding up unless loads of "Catholics by birth" are also Agnostics, Atheists, Apatheists or something else that doesn't line up with church dogma.

That's basically how I see it in regards to the issue of Atheistic Jews, also.

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
Jews are not an ethnicity. You can become a Jew without any ethnic connections to the people which once lived in Israel 2000 years ago. Get over it.

Ethnoreligious group. There's an ethnic element in there that gets favored. Come on now, the people who aren't throwing a bloody tantrum are busy talking with a common understanding I think.

.
Why do you not realize that being a Jew does not constitute you being of any ethnicity? Why do you keep sticking to this argument I don't know where you got at all?

I didn't say that being Jewish meant you had to be part of a certain ethnicity. So try again?

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

Ethnoreligious group. There's an ethnic element in there that gets favored. Come on now, the people who aren't throwing a bloody tantrum are busy talking with a common understanding I think.

.
Why do you not realize that being a Jew does not constitute you being of any ethnicity? Why do you keep sticking to this argument I don't know where you got at all?

I didn't say that being Jewish meant you had to be part of a certain ethnicity. So try again?

.
You said that Jews are an Ethnoreligious. In that word, "Ethno", ergo you said that Jews is an ethnic group boun by ethnic characteristics together with religion.
You're wrong.

Skeleon:

Mortai Gravesend:
But they could get in so long as they have the right ethnicity, no? Regardless of their practices. At least that's what's implied by the word 'descent', which really has nothing to do with what you practiced. It isn't the emphasis, that I would agree with you on, but it certainly favors one ethnicity, doesn't it?

I edited my post as you were already writing, unfortunately. Here's what I added:
"They don't have to convert because they're part of the religious community, even if only vaguely (like a typical Catholic in Germany, for example)."

I think of it sort of like being born to Catholic parents, but in the case of Atheistic Jews. Just because you are baptized, just because you went through various rituals doesn't mean you necessarily believe church dogma. Even at all. But in the eyes of the church, you belong to that religious community regardless, due to your birth and baptism. Due to your descent.

In Germany, about 30% of the population are listed as Catholics. Yet less than 13% are actually practicing. Something is clearly not adding up unless loads of "Catholics by birth" are also Agnostics, Atheists, Apatheists or something else that doesn't line up with church dogma.

That's basically how I see it in regards to the issue of Atheistic Jews, also.

Hmm. I guess I could argue that even if they aren't part of the religious community they'd be accepted, but that seems like it would be quite rare for someone of Jewish descent. Eh, I still feel like there's a bit of a racial element in there, but I suppose it really isn't the big problem, the big problem is the religious element.

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
Why do you not realize that being a Jew does not constitute you being of any ethnicity? Why do you keep sticking to this argument I don't know where you got at all?

I didn't say that being Jewish meant you had to be part of a certain ethnicity. So try again?

.
You said that Jews are an Ethnoreligious. In that word, "Ethno", ergo you said that Jews is an ethnic group boun by ethnic characteristics together with religion.
You're wrong.

Citation please on the meaning of ethnoreligious. Otherwise I'm going to just say you don't know what you're talking about. Ethnicity certainly has something to do with it otherwise you wouldn't be claiming things based on your ancestors, like the old nation of Israel.

Mortai Gravesend:

Skeleon:

Mortai Gravesend:
But they could get in so long as they have the right ethnicity, no? Regardless of their practices. At least that's what's implied by the word 'descent', which really has nothing to do with what you practiced. It isn't the emphasis, that I would agree with you on, but it certainly favors one ethnicity, doesn't it?

I edited my post as you were already writing, unfortunately. Here's what I added:
"They don't have to convert because they're part of the religious community, even if only vaguely (like a typical Catholic in Germany, for example)."

I think of it sort of like being born to Catholic parents, but in the case of Atheistic Jews. Just because you are baptized, just because you went through various rituals doesn't mean you necessarily believe church dogma. Even at all. But in the eyes of the church, you belong to that religious community regardless, due to your birth and baptism. Due to your descent.

In Germany, about 30% of the population are listed as Catholics. Yet less than 13% are actually practicing. Something is clearly not adding up unless loads of "Catholics by birth" are also Agnostics, Atheists, Apatheists or something else that doesn't line up with church dogma.

That's basically how I see it in regards to the issue of Atheistic Jews, also.

Hmm. I guess I could argue that even if they aren't part of the religious community they'd be accepted, but that seems like it would be quite rare for someone of Jewish descent. Eh, I still feel like there's a bit of a racial element in there, but I suppose it really isn't the big problem, the big problem is the religious element.

.
So you're finally saying that the problem here is the religious requirement and not the racial one?

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

Skeleon:

I edited my post as you were already writing, unfortunately. Here's what I added:
"They don't have to convert because they're part of the religious community, even if only vaguely (like a typical Catholic in Germany, for example)."

I think of it sort of like being born to Catholic parents, but in the case of Atheistic Jews. Just because you are baptized, just because you went through various rituals doesn't mean you necessarily believe church dogma. Even at all. But in the eyes of the church, you belong to that religious community regardless, due to your birth and baptism. Due to your descent.

In Germany, about 30% of the population are listed as Catholics. Yet less than 13% are actually practicing. Something is clearly not adding up unless loads of "Catholics by birth" are also Agnostics, Atheists, Apatheists or something else that doesn't line up with church dogma.

That's basically how I see it in regards to the issue of Atheistic Jews, also.

Hmm. I guess I could argue that even if they aren't part of the religious community they'd be accepted, but that seems like it would be quite rare for someone of Jewish descent. Eh, I still feel like there's a bit of a racial element in there, but I suppose it really isn't the big problem, the big problem is the religious element.

.
So you're finally saying that the problem here is the religious requirement and not the racial one?

If you actually read what was written the answer would be obvious. I think it takes a huge backseat to it and is mostly irrelevant overall in comparison.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

I didn't say that being Jewish meant you had to be part of a certain ethnicity. So try again?

.
You said that Jews are an Ethnoreligious. In that word, "Ethno", ergo you said that Jews is an ethnic group boun by ethnic characteristics together with religion.
You're wrong.

Citation please on the meaning of ethnoreligious. Otherwise I'm going to just say you don't know what you're talking about. Ethnicity certainly has something to do with it otherwise you wouldn't be claiming things based on your ancestors, like the old nation of Israel.

.
But the religion expanded. When the expulsion happened, Jews settled around the globe in Europe, Africa and Asia. Other people joined the community via either marriage or conversion. Therefore, they joined the group which was the Jews. They had their own background, language, religion, and culture which they all shared. Such persons joining the group would then also be considered Jews. Therefore if a man had converted into Judaism, and Israel is a country for Jew - A Jewish state, then he has a right to go there for being a Jew.

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
You said that Jews are an Ethnoreligious. In that word, "Ethno", ergo you said that Jews is an ethnic group boun by ethnic characteristics together with religion.
You're wrong.

Citation please on the meaning of ethnoreligious. Otherwise I'm going to just say you don't know what you're talking about. Ethnicity certainly has something to do with it otherwise you wouldn't be claiming things based on your ancestors, like the old nation of Israel.

.
But the religion expanded. When the expulsion happened, Jews settled around the globe in Europe, Africa and Asia. Other people joined the community via either marriage or conversion. Therefore, they joined the group which was the Jews. They had their own background, language, religion, and culture which they all shared. Such persons joining the group would then also be considered Jews. Therefore if a man had converted into Judaism, and Israel is a country for Jew - A Jewish state, then he has a right to go there for being a Jew.

So is that a concession on the meaning of ethnoreligious? I don't see you citing any sources.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

Citation please on the meaning of ethnoreligious. Otherwise I'm going to just say you don't know what you're talking about. Ethnicity certainly has something to do with it otherwise you wouldn't be claiming things based on your ancestors, like the old nation of Israel.

.
But the religion expanded. When the expulsion happened, Jews settled around the globe in Europe, Africa and Asia. Other people joined the community via either marriage or conversion. Therefore, they joined the group which was the Jews. They had their own background, language, religion, and culture which they all shared. Such persons joining the group would then also be considered Jews. Therefore if a man had converted into Judaism, and Israel is a country for Jew - A Jewish state, then he has a right to go there for being a Jew.

So is that a concession on the meaning of ethnoreligious? I don't see you citing any sources.

.
You citing wikipedia isn't all that grand either. Remember where a person deleted half of the page for lulz? Yeah... no.

It's not. It means that Jews were a religious group, without much affiliation to ethnicity due to intermarriage with the gentiles and conversions. After the formation of Israel, a Jewish state, Jews were also a nationality which had received the right to be a citizen of Israel in its law dating to 1952.

Mortai Gravesend:
Hmm. I guess I could argue that even if they aren't part of the religious community they'd be accepted, but that seems like it would be quite rare for someone of Jewish descent. Eh, I still feel like there's a bit of a racial element in there, but I suppose it really isn't the big problem, the big problem is the religious element.

Bolded: I'd say so, yes.
Considering the urgency that Jewish religious communities put on the introduction of newborns into their group (just think of the parallel discussion on this subforum about circumcision), I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to find a Jew who hasn't been introduced. Less than a week for male circumcision, right?
Much more difficult even than for Catholics. I was at a baptism not long ago and the baby in question was 6 months old. Unlike in the past, when infant death was a much bigger deal, Catholics no longer focus on introducing newborns immediately within the first few days of life. Jews, to my knowledge, mostly still do, though.

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
But the religion expanded. When the expulsion happened, Jews settled around the globe in Europe, Africa and Asia. Other people joined the community via either marriage or conversion. Therefore, they joined the group which was the Jews. They had their own background, language, religion, and culture which they all shared. Such persons joining the group would then also be considered Jews. Therefore if a man had converted into Judaism, and Israel is a country for Jew - A Jewish state, then he has a right to go there for being a Jew.

So is that a concession on the meaning of ethnoreligious? I don't see you citing any sources.

.
You citing wikipedia isn't all that grand either. Remember where a person deleted half of the page for lulz? Yeah... no.

Okay, so you don't get that it got changed back mostly and that someone tried to vandalize the page is quite irrelevant? Alright, I can deal with you being unreasonable. Not as if it's ever been otherwise. Anyway, that doesn't absolve you of the need to provide a citation. So it seems you must be conceding.

It's not. It means that Jews were a religious group, without much affiliation to ethnicity due to intermarriage with the gentiles and conversions. After the formation of Israel, a Jewish state, Jews were also a nationality which had received the right to be a citizen of Israel in its law dating to 1952.

Citation needed. Intermarriage, btw, does not mean there was not much affiliation to ethnicity. Says nothing of amount, nor does it somehow mean that the ethnicity was eradicated or vanished. Some people marrying it doesn't make an ethnicity vanish.

Skeleon:

Mortai Gravesend:
Hmm. I guess I could argue that even if they aren't part of the religious community they'd be accepted, but that seems like it would be quite rare for someone of Jewish descent. Eh, I still feel like there's a bit of a racial element in there, but I suppose it really isn't the big problem, the big problem is the religious element.

Bolded: I'd say so, yes.
Considering the urgency that Jewish religious communities put on the introduction of newborns into their group (just think of the parallel discussion on this subforum about circumcision), I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to find a Jew who hasn't been introduced. Less than a week for male circumcision, right?
Much more difficult even than for Catholics. I was at a baptism not long ago and the baby in question was 6 months old. Unlike in the past, when infant death was a much bigger deal, Catholics no longer focus on introducing newborns immediately within the first few days of life. Jews, to my knowledge, mostly still do, though.

.
It's one of Judaism's major tenants (?). Also, it's eight days. But there are exceptions if the child itself is ill or the surgery is dangerous. Also, if a young child under the age of 8 days dies (a boy) then he is circumcised post-mortem.

Skeleon:

Mortai Gravesend:
Hmm. I guess I could argue that even if they aren't part of the religious community they'd be accepted, but that seems like it would be quite rare for someone of Jewish descent. Eh, I still feel like there's a bit of a racial element in there, but I suppose it really isn't the big problem, the big problem is the religious element.

Bolded: I'd say so, yes.
Considering the urgency that Jewish religious communities put on the introduction of newborns into their group (just think of the parallel discussion on this subforum about circumcision), I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to find a Jew who hasn't been introduced. Less than a week for male circumcision, right?
Much more difficult even than for Catholics. I was at a baptism not long ago and the baby in question was 6 months old. Unlike in the past, when infant death was a much bigger deal, Catholics no longer focus on introducing newborns immediately within the first few days of life. Jews, to my knowledge, mostly still do, though.

Fair enough, it really is such a corner case I'd have to wonder if it's ever come up when you include that they may just not care to go if they would even have fit that criteria XP

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

So is that a concession on the meaning of ethnoreligious? I don't see you citing any sources.

.
You citing wikipedia isn't all that grand either. Remember where a person deleted half of the page for lulz? Yeah... no.

Okay, so you don't get that it got changed back mostly and that someone tried to vandalize the page is quite irrelevant? Alright, I can deal with you being unreasonable. Not as if it's ever been otherwise. Anyway, that doesn't absolve you of the need to provide a citation. So it seems you must be conceding.

It's not. It means that Jews were a religious group, without much affiliation to ethnicity due to intermarriage with the gentiles and conversions. After the formation of Israel, a Jewish state, Jews were also a nationality which had received the right to be a citizen of Israel in its law dating to 1952.

Citation needed. Intermarriage, btw, does not mean there was not much affiliation to ethnicity. Says nothing of amount, nor does it somehow mean that the ethnicity was eradicated or vanished. Some people marrying it doesn't make an ethnicity vanish.

.
I treat your source of information which can be edited at any time for any purpose as unreliable while you don't acknowledge it and when I gave you information sources you tear them apart with no consideration as if they were nothing.
.
Look at the talk page of your precious "Enthroreligious" group. Look at the citations. Where are the definitions besides UK specific law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnoreligious_group

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
You citing wikipedia isn't all that grand either. Remember where a person deleted half of the page for lulz? Yeah... no.

Okay, so you don't get that it got changed back mostly and that someone tried to vandalize the page is quite irrelevant? Alright, I can deal with you being unreasonable. Not as if it's ever been otherwise. Anyway, that doesn't absolve you of the need to provide a citation. So it seems you must be conceding.

It's not. It means that Jews were a religious group, without much affiliation to ethnicity due to intermarriage with the gentiles and conversions. After the formation of Israel, a Jewish state, Jews were also a nationality which had received the right to be a citizen of Israel in its law dating to 1952.

Citation needed. Intermarriage, btw, does not mean there was not much affiliation to ethnicity. Says nothing of amount, nor does it somehow mean that the ethnicity was eradicated or vanished. Some people marrying it doesn't make an ethnicity vanish.

.
I treat your source of information which can be edited at any time for any purpose as unreliable while you don't acknowledge it and when I gave you information sources you tear them apart with no consideration as if they were nothing.

I'll shed a tear for your sources then D=

Or maybe I'll point out that I didn't tear them apart, I tore apart your interpretation of them and pointed out they didn't really support you like you wanted. Like using a fucking archaic definition.

And I never cited the ethnoreligious page.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

Okay, so you don't get that it got changed back mostly and that someone tried to vandalize the page is quite irrelevant? Alright, I can deal with you being unreasonable. Not as if it's ever been otherwise. Anyway, that doesn't absolve you of the need to provide a citation. So it seems you must be conceding.

Citation needed. Intermarriage, btw, does not mean there was not much affiliation to ethnicity. Says nothing of amount, nor does it somehow mean that the ethnicity was eradicated or vanished. Some people marrying it doesn't make an ethnicity vanish.

.
I treat your source of information which can be edited at any time for any purpose as unreliable while you don't acknowledge it and when I gave you information sources you tear them apart with no consideration as if they were nothing.

I'll shed a tear for your sources then D=

Or maybe I'll point out that I didn't tear them apart, I tore apart your interpretation of them and pointed out they didn't really support you like you wanted. Like using a fucking archaic definition.

.
Just read the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnoreligious_group
See it doesn't hold up as a proper page.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

Okay, so you don't get that it got changed back mostly and that someone tried to vandalize the page is quite irrelevant? Alright, I can deal with you being unreasonable. Not as if it's ever been otherwise. Anyway, that doesn't absolve you of the need to provide a citation. So it seems you must be conceding.

Citation needed. Intermarriage, btw, does not mean there was not much affiliation to ethnicity. Says nothing of amount, nor does it somehow mean that the ethnicity was eradicated or vanished. Some people marrying it doesn't make an ethnicity vanish.

.
I treat your source of information which can be edited at any time for any purpose as unreliable while you don't acknowledge it and when I gave you information sources you tear them apart with no consideration as if they were nothing.

I'll shed a tear for your sources then D=

Or maybe I'll point out that I didn't tear them apart, I tore apart your interpretation of them and pointed out they didn't really support you like you wanted. Like using a fucking archaic definition.

And I never cited the ethnoreligious page.

.
You use the term as if it's a real one. It's not a recognized one. Where did you find it then?

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
I treat your source of information which can be edited at any time for any purpose as unreliable while you don't acknowledge it and when I gave you information sources you tear them apart with no consideration as if they were nothing.

I'll shed a tear for your sources then D=

Or maybe I'll point out that I didn't tear them apart, I tore apart your interpretation of them and pointed out they didn't really support you like you wanted. Like using a fucking archaic definition.

And I never cited the ethnoreligious page.

.
You use the term as if it's a real one. It's not a recognized one. Where did you find it then?

Oh do prove it isn't recognized. And I don't have to tell you where, that's quite irrelevant.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

I'll shed a tear for your sources then D=

Or maybe I'll point out that I didn't tear them apart, I tore apart your interpretation of them and pointed out they didn't really support you like you wanted. Like using a fucking archaic definition.

And I never cited the ethnoreligious page.

.
You use the term as if it's a real one. It's not a recognized one. Where did you find it then?

Oh do prove it isn't recognized. And I don't have to tell you where, that's quite irrelevant.

.
Proof - it isn't mentioned in Israeli law. Jews aren't defined as enthroreligious group under Israeli Law. And when talking about immigration of Jews to Israel, what matters is Israeli Law, not British law.

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
You use the term as if it's a real one. It's not a recognized one. Where did you find it then?

Oh do prove it isn't recognized. And I don't have to tell you where, that's quite irrelevant.

.
Proof - it isn't mentioned in Israeli law. Jews aren't defined as enthroreligious group under Israeli Law. And when talking about immigration of Jews to Israel, what matters is Israeli Law, not British law.

Nope, Israeli law isn't what's relevant when we're talking about what constitutes racism.

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

Oh do prove it isn't recognized. And I don't have to tell you where, that's quite irrelevant.

.
Proof - it isn't mentioned in Israeli law. Jews aren't defined as enthroreligious group under Israeli Law. And when talking about immigration of Jews to Israel, what matters is Israeli Law, not British law.

Nope, Israeli law isn't what's relevant when we're talking about what constitutes racism.

.
But we ARE talking about Israeli law here. We're not talking about any other country. Israeli law doesn't recognize such a tag for Jews. Jews is a nationality, which has a right to call Israel their national home.

TheIronRuler:
Snip

Mortai Gravesend:

-Can you fucking comprehend that it doesn't matter what you want? That doesn't make it not racist. Why the hell are you always dodging with irrelevant shit like this?

-Why the flying fuck do you always try to defend against accusations of racism with things that DO NOT MEAN IT ISN'T RACIST?

Mortai,

I want to ask and say a thing.
1. Could you describe your position, and IronRuler's position? Where are you debating about, what do you think about it and what does IronRuler think about it?
2. Could you please be a little more polite? IronRuler is staying quite polite and I see no reason why your posts could not be a little less aggressive.

TheIronRuler:

Mortai Gravesend:

TheIronRuler:

.
Proof - it isn't mentioned in Israeli law. Jews aren't defined as enthroreligious group under Israeli Law. And when talking about immigration of Jews to Israel, what matters is Israeli Law, not British law.

Nope, Israeli law isn't what's relevant when we're talking about what constitutes racism.

.
But we ARE talking about Israeli law here. We're not talking about any other country. Israeli law doesn't recognize such a tag for Jews. Jews is a nationality, which has a right to call Israel their national home.

We're not talking about any country's definitions. We're talking about what racism is. Favoring people who form a group based on descending from people from a particular nation would be racist. Jews are certainly more than a religious group. And they're still not a nationality, Israeli is a nationality.

Danyal:

TheIronRuler:
Snip

Mortai Gravesend:

-Can you fucking comprehend that it doesn't matter what you want? That doesn't make it not racist. Why the hell are you always dodging with irrelevant shit like this?

-Why the flying fuck do you always try to defend against accusations of racism with things that DO NOT MEAN IT ISN'T RACIST?

Mortai,

I want to ask and say a thing.
1. Could you describe your position, and IronRuler's position? Where are you debating about, what do you think about it and what does IronRuler think about it?
2. Could you please be a little more polite? IronRuler is staying quite polite and I see no reason why your posts could not be a little less aggressive.

1. Mine? That the immigration policy is a bit racist and completely discriminatory. IronRulers? Not sure quite. He seems to think there's no racism at all involved and is fine with the religious discrimination as far as I can tell.

2. I don't consider dishonest tactics like his diversions polite.

Mortai Gravesend:
1. Mine? That the immigration policy is a bit racist and completely discriminatory. IronRulers? Not sure quite. He seems to think there's no racism at all involved and is fine with the religious discrimination as far as I can tell.

And you're talking about Israels immigration policy? What's the problem with it?

Mortai Gravesend:
2. I don't consider dishonest tactics like his diversions polite.

Could you give me an example - with quotes!- of his 'dishonest tactics'?

Danyal:

Mortai Gravesend:
1. Mine? That the immigration policy is a bit racist and completely discriminatory. IronRulers? Not sure quite. He seems to think there's no racism at all involved and is fine with the religious discrimination as far as I can tell.

And your talking about Israels immigration policy? What's the problem with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Favoring people of a certain ethnic background and those who are or convert to one religion.

Mortai Gravesend:
2. I don't consider dishonest tactics like his diversions polite.

Could you give me an example - with quotes!- of his 'dishonest tactics'?

Prime example:

In France, the French fiercely defend the teaching of the French language as the country's main and forbid others from being taught in state schools. They deny rights of minorities to exist as they want to absorb them into the culture and make them French. Israel on the other hand allows such an autonomy to its non-Jewish local population. Does that mean that Israel is more liberal than France?

When I talk of racism he starts bringing up what other countries do. But what other countries do does not make the practice in question more or less racist. PLUS that last sentence... what does that have to do with anything? The whole paragraph is nothing but a red herring.

Also I don't feel like searching for it, but you can find the parts where he keeps trying to bring up that I'm American.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_50.pdf

"
The treatment of German Jews by Nazi Germany is a
case in point. The Reich Citizenship Law of 15 September
1935 provided that Jews, though German subjects or
nationals {Staatsangehorige) could not be Reich citizens
(Reicfisbiirger). Jews had no political rights. In the course
of its policy of persecution Jews were, by legislative and
administrative measures, gradually deprived of all rights
usually attributed to nationals under municipal law, and
of the protection by the law. Their status was inferior to
that of aliens. By the 11th Ordinance under the Reich
Citizenship Law of 25 November 1941, German Jews who
had their ordinary residence abroad were deprived of German nationality.

German Jews were forced to emigrate from Germany;
later, the Government resorted to mass deportation, and,
ultimately, to the extermination of the Jews. German
Jews abroad were not given diplomatic protection; thus,
a usual consequence of nationality was denied them.

2. General remarks regarding the relationship between municipal law and international law in the field of nationality
In principle, questions of nationality fall within the
domestic jurisdiction of each State.
This rule has been codified in The Hague Convention
on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws in the following manner:
" Article 1. It is for each State to determine who are
its nationals....
" Article 2. Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be
determined in accordance with the law of that State.
"
.
The Hague Convention says that the state defines its own nationality, and by having Israel define its nationality Jewish, it means that all people of the Jewish religion are therefore able to become an Israeli citizen if they so please (There are some conditions like criminal past, etc.).
.
It continues-
3. Power of a State to confer its nationality and duty of a
State to confer its nationality
(a) As regards conferment of nationality at birth
The links of attribution of nationality at birth are,
according to municipal law, either descent {jus sanguinis)
or birth on the territory {jus soli) or a combination of
these links. The law of the Vatican City State under which
nationality is not acquired at birth but by the exercise
of an office or the authorization to reside in the territory
only forms an exception which finds its explanation in the
specific nature of that State.
This uniformity of nationality laws seems to indicate a
consensus of opinion of States that conferment of nationality at birth has to be based on either, on jus soli or on
jus sanguinis, or on a combination of these principles.
It may be a moot question whether this rule merely constitutes usage or whether it imposes a duty on States under
customary international law.

Mortai Gravesend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Favoring people of a certain ethnic background and those who are or convert to one religion.

1. In the 40s and 50s, the Dutch government thought that the Netherlands were 'full'. Dutch people should move to for example Canada and Australia, and a lot of them did. Is it racist to offer those people the right to come back?
2. After the Second World War, Indonesia became independent and 'Dutch people' (whites) were forced to leave the country. Is it racist if the Netherlands accept those people, but not 'native Indonesians' and Malaysians?
3. Should we all acknowledge that 'the Law of Return' is a tad racist but keep the law, or should we abolish the law?

Mortai Gravesend:
When I talk of racism he starts bringing up what other countries do. But what other countries do does not make the practice in question more or less racist. PLUS that last sentence... what does that have to do with anything? The whole paragraph is nothing but a red herring.

Okay, it's kind of a bad argument, and I don't want to force you to be supernice, but *WHY THE FLYING FUCK ARE YOU* doesn't improve communication in general :)

Mortai Gravesend:

Danyal:

Mortai Gravesend:
1. Mine? That the immigration policy is a bit racist and completely discriminatory. IronRulers? Not sure quite. He seems to think there's no racism at all involved and is fine with the religious discrimination as far as I can tell.

And your talking about Israels immigration policy? What's the problem with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Favoring people of a certain ethnic background and those who are or convert to one religion.

Mortai Gravesend:
2. I don't consider dishonest tactics like his diversions polite.

Could you give me an example - with quotes!- of his 'dishonest tactics'?

Prime example:

In France, the French fiercely defend the teaching of the French language as the country's main and forbid others from being taught in state schools. They deny rights of minorities to exist as they want to absorb them into the culture and make them French. Israel on the other hand allows such an autonomy to its non-Jewish local population. Does that mean that Israel is more liberal than France?

When I talk of racism he starts bringing up what other countries do. But what other countries do does not make the practice in question more or less racist. PLUS that last sentence... what does that have to do with anything? The whole paragraph is nothing but a red herring.

Also I don't feel like searching for it, but you can find the parts where he keeps trying to bring up that I'm American.

So I have to wonder, if this is a race issue, how would Israel treat citizenship of Zimbabwe Jews, with thousands of years of jewish heritage and history and DNA proof of of their semitic orgins?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

I really have to wonder though, why on earth would anyone want to go there if not for religious purposes? It isn't like it is that great of a place to live. I can understand those who have a religious connection to the region, but why would anyone else want to go there? That would seem like the opposite of what you would want to do.

TheIronRuler:
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_50.pdf

"
The treatment of German Jews by Nazi Germany is a
case in point. The Reich Citizenship Law of 15 September
1935 provided that Jews, though German subjects or
nationals {Staatsangehorige) could not be Reich citizens
(Reicfisbiirger). Jews had no political rights. In the course
of its policy of persecution Jews were, by legislative and
administrative measures, gradually deprived of all rights
usually attributed to nationals under municipal law, and
of the protection by the law. Their status was inferior to
that of aliens. By the 11th Ordinance under the Reich
Citizenship Law of 25 November 1941, German Jews who
had their ordinary residence abroad were deprived of German nationality.

German Jews were forced to emigrate from Germany;
later, the Government resorted to mass deportation, and,
ultimately, to the extermination of the Jews. German
Jews abroad were not given diplomatic protection; thus,
a usual consequence of nationality was denied them.

2. General remarks regarding the relationship between municipal law and international law in the field of nationality
In principle, questions of nationality fall within the
domestic jurisdiction of each State.
This rule has been codified in The Hague Convention
on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws in the following manner:
" Article 1. It is for each State to determine who are
its nationals....
" Article 2. Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be
determined in accordance with the law of that State.
"
.
The Hague Convention says that the state defines its own nationality, and by having Israel define its nationality Jewish, it means that all people of the Jewish religion are therefore able to become an Israeli citizen if they so please (There are some conditions like criminal past, etc.).
.
It continues-
3. Power of a State to confer its nationality and duty of a
State to confer its nationality
(a) As regards conferment of nationality at birth
The links of attribution of nationality at birth are,
according to municipal law, either descent {jus sanguinis)
or birth on the territory {jus soli) or a combination of
these links. The law of the Vatican City State under which
nationality is not acquired at birth but by the exercise
of an office or the authorization to reside in the territory
only forms an exception which finds its explanation in the
specific nature of that State.
This uniformity of nationality laws seems to indicate a
consensus of opinion of States that conferment of nationality at birth has to be based on either, on jus soli or on
jus sanguinis, or on a combination of these principles.
It may be a moot question whether this rule merely constitutes usage or whether it imposes a duty on States under
customary international law.

Article 1 contains, however, in the second sentence, the
following important qualification:
" This law shall be recognized by other States in so
far as it is consistent with international conventions,
international custom and the principles of law generally
recognized with regard to nationality."

Do remember to put *all* the relevant parts.

" The legislation of each State must nevertheless take
account of the principles generally recognized by States.
These principles are, more particularly:
" As regards acquisition of nationality :
" Bestowal of nationality by reason of the parents'
nationality or of birth on the national territory, marriage
with a national, naturalization by or on behalf of
the person concerned, transfer of territory.

So, nope doesn't really work out as Jews don't necessarily have any parents from the modern state of Israel.

Danyal:

Mortai Gravesend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Favoring people of a certain ethnic background and those who are or convert to one religion.

1. In the 40s and 50s, the Dutch government thought that the Netherlands were 'full'. Dutch people should move to for example Canada and Australia, and a lot of them did. Is it racist to offer those people the right to come back?
2. After the Second World War, Indonesia became independent and 'Dutch people' (whites) were forced to leave the country. Is it racist if the Netherlands accept those people, but not 'native Indonesians' and Malaysians?
3. Should we all acknowledge that 'the Law of Return' is a tad racist but keep the law, or should we abolish the law?

1. Didn't they already have citizenship?
2. Possibly. Were the other groups being forced to leave too? If not then there's a clear distinction besides race.
3. Well after talking to Skeleon I'd say the racist bit is the least of it, it's the religious discrimination that makes me think they ought to get rid of it.

Mortai Gravesend:
When I talk of racism he starts bringing up what other countries do. But what other countries do does not make the practice in question more or less racist. PLUS that last sentence... what does that have to do with anything? The whole paragraph is nothing but a red herring.

Okay, it's kind of a bad argument, and I don't want to force you to be supernice, but *WHY THE FLYING FUCK ARE YOU* doesn't improve communication in general :)

True, it doesn't. But when I'm feeling like communication has broken down since he kept doing the same annoying thing where he dragged in other countries I kind of stop caring.

Lil devils x:

Mortai Gravesend:

Danyal:

And your talking about Israels immigration policy? What's the problem with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Favoring people of a certain ethnic background and those who are or convert to one religion.

Could you give me an example - with quotes!- of his 'dishonest tactics'?

Prime example:

In France, the French fiercely defend the teaching of the French language as the country's main and forbid others from being taught in state schools. They deny rights of minorities to exist as they want to absorb them into the culture and make them French. Israel on the other hand allows such an autonomy to its non-Jewish local population. Does that mean that Israel is more liberal than France?

When I talk of racism he starts bringing up what other countries do. But what other countries do does not make the practice in question more or less racist. PLUS that last sentence... what does that have to do with anything? The whole paragraph is nothing but a red herring.

Also I don't feel like searching for it, but you can find the parts where he keeps trying to bring up that I'm American.

So I have to wonder, if this is a race issue, how would Israel treat citizenship of Zimbabwe Jews, with thousands of years of jewish heritage and history and DNA proof of of their semitic orgins?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

I really have to wonder though, why on earth would anyone want to go there if not for religious purposes? It isn't like it is that great of a place to live. I can understand those who have a religious connection to the region, but why would anyone else want to go there? That would seem like the opposite of what you would want to do.

I'd say ethnicity is a minor part of it. Not the full thing. Not even the biggest, which I'd say is religious discrimination.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked