quote:Harm implies that something is being taken away from them that is theirs by right.
And, to clarify, no one should feel that it is their right to live with their spouse in their country of origin?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You know, it is true that I have a view of this that you may not subscribe to. I get my view of this sort of thing from the Declaration of Independence which may not be a document that holds a lot of water with respect to Israel.
But, for what it's worth, I do believe that each of is born with inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And, just so long as individual Palestinians are not causing anyone harm inside of Israel, then denying them liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to me to palpable harm instituted by the state.
If you'd prefer a different set of inalienable rights, or none at all, I think we'll just have to disagree. I find your stance to be dishonest in that you excuse your lack of caring by saying "it's not really harm." Only arising from your uncaring attitude does this situation equate to "no harm." You may feel as if the state doesn't owe a Palestinian person anything, but the only way you can get to that conclusion is by first concluding that they have fewer rights than other citizens in your society. That means that they are ipso-facto treated as sub-human.
It doesn't matter how many rights they might enjoy compared to others OUTSIDE of Israel, the point is that an Israeli Jew can marry a non-Israeli and that person can come and live inside of Israel. But a Palestinian cannot.
Inequity in the law is a grave problem. If you establish a systematic and permanent underclass, you will never have security or peace inside your own borders. Forget what the outside world does to you. Israel will disintegrate from within without any assistance from the rest of the world.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Harm implies that something is being taken away from them that is theirs by right.
And, to clarify, no one should feel that it is their right to live with their spouse in their country of origin?
If you know in advance that X is not allowed into the country, then no, you shouldn't feel that you have a right to go and marry X elsewhere and then bring X into the country.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But, for what it's worth, I do believe that each of is born with inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You do get that that's the American Declaration of Independence, right? And you do get that "pursuit of happiness" != "happiness", right?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, just so long as individual Palestinians are not causing anyone harm inside of Israel, then denying them liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to me to palpable harm instituted by the state.
They used to put blinders on horses so that they could only see what was directly in front of them. Human beings are capable of more than that. You are capable of more than that. Most of the atrocities carried out by the Arabs against Israel (other than the several wars of annihilation they've tried) have been carried out by Arabs walking unimpeded through Israel cities. They know they're at war with us. I don't get why you're blind to that fact.
Furthermore, no one is denying them liberty. The alien spouses are not entitled to anything whatsoever, and the citizens are at liberty to go and live with their spouses.
This is an issue of them needing to make a choice. To claim that you're not at liberty because you have to choose is infantile. Quite literally. It's a child's way of looking at the world. It's not as though the belligerents in this war are wearing uniforms. They have put us in a situation where in order to protect ourselves, we must generalize. Since they, as a group, have made this choice, they, as a group, must live with the repercussions of that choice. Given that, if an Israeli citizen who is Arab makes the choice to marry a non-citizen Arab, they have to live with the fact that Israel has no obligation to endanger itself.
Quite frankly, they are fully conscious of what they are doing. At least some of them. Those who quite honestly fall in love and get married, without bad intent... well, they still have to live with their choices. They didn't get married inside of Israel, which means they were able to marry wherever they did. They can live there as well.
You have this blind outlook that results in Israel having to endanger itself for the sake of principles which do not apply. And completely devoid of context.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If you'd prefer a different set of inalienable rights, or none at all, I think we'll just have to disagree. I find your stance to be dishonest in that you excuse your lack of caring by saying "it's not really harm."
You lie, sir. I've gone to the trouble of requoting exactly what I said. Do I need to do it again? You are the second person to misrepresent me as saying "it's not really harm". What I said is that the precautions cause no harm. And they don't. They save lives.
When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Only arising from your uncaring attitude does this situation equate to "no harm." You may feel as if the state doesn't owe a Palestinian person anything, but the only way you can get to that conclusion is by first concluding that they have fewer rights than other citizens in your society. That means that they are ipso-facto treated as sub-human.
"Non-equal" does not equate to "sub-human". And since I don't have the patience to deal with someone dishonest enough to equate them, I'll stop here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Does the law apply to any foreigner or is it only Palestinians from outside Israel who can't marry into the country?
If an Arab person was from Kuwait or Lebanon, for example, could they come in?
What if they were a Christian Palestinian?
What if a Jew living inside Israel fell in love with and married a Palestinian who lives outside Israel?
If a Jew living in the West Bank marries a Palestinian woman living inside Israel, can he move into the country?
What if a Palestinian converted to Judaism and then married -- could he or she get into the country then?
How about a non-Jew, non-Palestinian citizen of Israel marrying someone from outside the country, but who isn't Arab?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
It may as well from the perspective of the persons being maltreated.
And, as for harm, you've said repeatedly it causes no harm and even if it does, you don't care. I don't think I've misrepresented your position a bit. If you'd like to clarify, then go ahead.
As for the US Declaration of Independence, yes, of course I know that -- didn't I say that it probably doesn't hold much regard in Israel.
Too bad. It's as good an universal a governing vision as has ever been produced by mankind.
Pursuit of happiness may not mean a right to happiness, but it does mean that the government doesn't go around putting up barriers, especially ones that apply unequally to different segments of the population.
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that there is no civil marriage in Israel to begin with. Since only Orthodox Judaism is acknowledged, and Orthodox Rabbis won't perform interfaith ceremonies, aren't ALL interfaith marriages pretty much null and void there? Right or wrong (fitting for another debate) at least it tells me in this case they are at least not just targeting Palestinians.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
If all religions acknowledged that all religions are legitimate you would be correct. Take it from someone in one, and struggling to make it work.
Literal Jewish doctrine does not acknowledge it as a legal marriage, strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you, and I'm sure Islam has something similar to one or the other. How can someone truly following strict doctrine in any of those circumstances enter into a mixed marriage?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to put this thread on pause for a moment, and ask everybody to take a look at how it devaulved from a conversation about a recent news story into yet another thread with Lisa playing the part of Israeli fanatic V. everyone else.
Did it strike anyone else as bizzare that Lisa's first post in the thread was throwing out an accusation against Nato that she had to know would start this very fight?
Do you remember how she's said in the past that she enjoys arguments like this? There hasn't been one on the front page for a couple of days now. Were you just feeling bored, Lisa, and figured you'd whip the usual suspects up into a froth for a little on-line distraction?
I whistled your first post as soon as I saw it, Lisa. I don't think unprovoked attacks on other members of the community are appropriate here. I believe that what you say about what Holocaust deniers do is accurate, but I don't believe Nato has done those things yet. I think you've seized on him as a convenient adversary, who you know you can tickle into playing with you when you want a fight. And your accusations against him are so weak that of course others are going to defend him, and turn the thread into exactly the mud wallow you were looking for all along.
Of course, the rest of you might be enjoying this, too. And if this is the kind of conversation you value and want to have on Hatrack, then I will quietly bow out of this thread and let you all have your fun. But some of you seem to be frustrated and incredulous, not having fun. I ask you to consider that Lisa knows exactly what she's saying, and exactly how you're going to respond to it, in feelings if not in words. She's manipulating this thread and this community to give herself a playground, to set herself up as the lone person with all the wisdom/information/insight against all her naive/bleeding heart/dishonest/foolish detractors. Sure, there are places on the web that are much more in tune with her way of thinking, but it would be no fun doing it where people agreed with her.
The original topic of the thread pretty much hasn't been mentioned since half-way down the first page. That's not so unusual. What I find more telling is that since about that same time, no one has addressed anything to anyone but Lisa, except for a few posts asking Nato to clarify his position so the rest of us can better respond to. . . Lisa. Huh. Imagine that.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok then, back on topic. I can see the value that opening these archives would have to family members and for statistical analysis, but what other benefits are there? I think the victims' privacy is still a very important concern, and I'm not sure that all of this information should be made completely public quite yet.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on what kind of information we're talking about. Names, dates, causes, and locations of death? Absolutely. Photographs where people are identifiable? Depends on the content, and if the person's identity is know, the family's wishes. Camp reports? Also certainly. I hope there will be a review board who will treat the information with dignity and sensitivity, while still getting the vast majority of it out there for historians.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, as for harm, you've said repeatedly it causes no harm and even if it does, you don't care. I don't think I've misrepresented your position a bit. If you'd like to clarify, then go ahead.
No clarification necessary. Just repetition:
quote:And I'm not sure what kind of moral viper would bring a simple safety precaution that harms no one into a discussion about genocide. Oh, actually that's not true. I know exactly what kind of moral viper would do that.
You need to learn how to read. I was quite precise with my words, and cannot be blamed for your distortions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Though you're right. In liquor store robberies, when fatalities occur, they usually aren't on the scale that the Palestinians aim for.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
If all religions acknowledged that all religions are legitimate you would be correct. Take it from someone in one, and struggling to make it work.
Literal Jewish doctrine does not acknowledge it as a legal marriage, strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you, and I'm sure Islam has something similar to one or the other. How can someone truly following strict doctrine in any of those circumstances enter into a mixed marriage?
Actually, the insane State of Israel, in its unceasing efforts to accomodate those who hate us, has determined that the child of a Muslim father and a Jewish mother, who is considered Muslim by the Muslims and Jewish by the Jews, is marked as legally Muslim.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Did it strike anyone else as bizzare that Lisa's first post in the thread was throwing out an accusation against Nato that she had to know would start this very fight?
I had to know that pointing out Nato's Holocaust denial would lead to people comparing Israel's refusal to allow unlimited immigration of an enemy population to Nazi atrocities?
You give me far too much credit. In my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you
Not sure what you mean by strict, but it isn't Catholic doctrine.
Just generalizing (which I know I shouldn't do), but will Catholic priests marry someone who admits they want to bring their kid up in 2 faiths?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is something starkly magical about the public release of these names.
It's like when they read all the names of those killed in 9/11 at the one year anniversary. They rang a bell for each name, and the tedium of reading 2500 names, standing and listening to them all, until your knees shake, and your mind numbs... all these words that were once people, that are now memories that are not yours.
Terrible old things; they are nightmares and dead wishes, written in murderer's ink. What do we do with them? What do we do with the words "Jacob Van Der Meer, Auschwitz, May 1940?" What are we to make of the lists of his clothes, his birthdate, these mundane things that we once called a person, a soul? We cannot do anything with this magic, we stumble at it, our hands glide along the sterile pages, our minds can't grasp the list and what it means...
And thank God for that, that we cannot know what it means, to be the murdered. Yet we press our minds against the blunt stone edge of the fact of their genocide, so that we get a sense of the senselessness. So we can grasp at futile, unmagic, words and try to explain to eachother what we felt from the stone.
Or we find a name that matches our own, or our maternal grandmother's father's name. Dodd. Klein. The stone edge sharpens, and we willingly cut ourselves on it. It's not a list any longer. It is a spell. The magic awakens, even if this isn't one of our people, even if we are far removed from the German or Polish or Austrian, or Italian branch of our family. We are ridden by the magic, and we glimpse...something. Grand and terrible. Mud and thunder.
These were not my fathers-- but my heart longs for them, the noble and the knave alike.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
im sorry, i was reading the 2nd page where they were fighting about whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.
Posts: 19 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, the insane State of Israel, in its unceasing efforts to accomodate those who hate us, has determined that the child of a Muslim father and a Jewish mother, who is considered Muslim by the Muslims and Jewish by the Jews, is marked as legally Muslim.
I submit that the need to mark anyone as "legally" Muslim or "legally" Jewish is indeed insane, and the State of Israel should stop even caring about the distinction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, the insane State of Israel, in its unceasing efforts to accomodate those who hate us, has determined that the child of a Muslim father and a Jewish mother, who is considered Muslim by the Muslims and Jewish by the Jews, is marked as legally Muslim.
I submit that the need to mark anyone as "legally" Muslim or "legally" Jewish is indeed insane, and the State of Israel should stop even caring about the distinction.
posted
You yawn? Perhaps you consider it self-evident that worrying about being "legally Jewish" prior to the return of the Messiah is pretty stupid?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Though you're right. In liquor store robberies, when fatalities occur, they usually aren't on the scale that the Palestinians aim for.
Well, by that logic, EVERYONE is a potential enemy combatant.
Also:
quote: Lisa playing the part of Israeli fanatic V.
Did anyone else stop reading there and not notice the reset of the sentence at first?
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
But what about the person who, because of his ethnicity, isn't allowed into the store at all because you’ve determined that he has a chance of being a thief? There are many other stores that he can go to, so he can surely be happy going to those stores. And since you've warned that ethnicity beforehand that you won't allow them into the store, they shouldn't expect the right to enter the store, thus, no harm done, right?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
But what about the person who, because of his ethnicity, isn't allowed into the store at all because you’ve determined that he has a chance of being a thief? There are many other stores that he can go to, so he can surely be happy going to those stores. And since you've warned that ethnicity beforehand that you won't allow them into the store, they shouldn't expect the right to enter the store, thus, no harm done, right?
It's not a matter of ethnicity. This was done specifically with regards to the Arabs in Hamastan, where terror and atrocities are the national sport.
Don't compare it to the US, which hasn't ever had to deal with such things.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should read this blog entry by Robert Avrech. The people he is describing are the people who aren't being allowed to claim automatic Israeli citizenship by virtue of having married an Israel Arab. If you have a problem with that, you're daft.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You sure you linked to the right entry, sL? He's basically griping about peace movements and Palestinians in general. I saw very little mention anywhere in the entry about marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Though you're right. In liquor store robberies, when fatalities occur, they usually aren't on the scale that the Palestinians aim for.
Well, by that logic, EVERYONE is a potential enemy combatant.
Especially gays. That's why they can't be allowed in the military.
This forum really needs threaded messages.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
Heh. Beyond naive.
Spot on. Insular behavior is what causes these problems. I'd go so far as to say that mixed marriages are an essential part of the solution.
There must be a word that has the same value as naive, but means someone who oversimplifies in a way that assumes the worst about a person, rather than the best about a person. Paranoid doesn't quite make it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Well, seeing as you admit it's an error, I'm satisfied.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Scott, I have. And weaseling is exactly what he was doing. What the deniers do (except for the most extreme) is say, "Oh, I don't deny the Holocaust happened. But the numbers involved have been adjusted and adjusted and the whole six million thing has been completely disproven, and oh, right, there's killing all over the place that's just as bad as what happened during WWII."[/URL]. He quotes Rense.com, which is well known for Holocaust denial.
If that's what the deniers do then Nato obviously isn't one, because HE DIDN'T DO THAT!
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
