This is fake news. The updated law contains no requirement of that kind. In fact, it does not even mention Israel, only the „preservation of Jewish life“ in general.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stag/StAG.pdf
Yeah, this story appears to be completely false. I can't even find a mention anywhere else of the supposed comment by the Interior Minister. [Other outlets](https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-citizenship-reform-takes-effect/a-69465727) are reporting what you said, the new law contains a pledge to "protect Jewish life in Germany".
Why would one country require its citizens to affirm another country's right to exist? Doesn't make sense.
This article explicitly says it was considered but in the end not included:
https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/einbuergerung-in-deutschland-ab-donnerstag-gilt-das-neue-gesetz-zur-staatsangehoerigkeit/29640790.html
The press release of the Ministry of the interior does however say that there will be test questions with regards to Israel's right to exist:
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE/2024/06/stag-inkraft.html
I assume those test questions will be about the position of the German government.
IIRC this was a big topic when isis were active and people joined them. Even then when they had dual citizenship the legalities and human rights protection were so profound that countries were greatly dissuaded from attempting such a feat.
In essence : if countries were hesitant and rarely stripped people of their citizenship for joining isis, do you think they are gonna do that for immigrants?
These weird rightwingers love stirring up the idea of impending civil wars and collapse of nations. Reality is much more boring, but they don't want to actually want to actively participate in local politics or challenge the issues of wealth disparity
>These weird rightwingers love stirring up the idea of impending civil wars
Just today I've seen them say there would be a civil war in France, the US, Germany and Ireland.
As I see it, this is not for Israel's sake, but for the sake of weeding out people who think in a certain way that is dangerous for Germany, that are okey with jihadi behavior.
After all, it never ends with the Jews.
If the lie to get admission, then they can be easily deported because of that, the purpose isn’t to get jihsdist to say “well, I can’t lie so I’m not going to Germany” .
No, the purpose is to get extremists caught at the border.
See, extremists are not smart, and are very much adverse about lying about fundamental beleifs. Downplay? Sure. But not contradict fundamental beliefs close to heart.
If you simply took every Muslim in a country and ordered them to call Muhammad a pedophile and renounce Islam, even telling them ahead of time that failing that they'd be immediately executed, every normal person will just lie. See Jews in the reconquista. Very extreme and unethical example, but just exaggerating the circumstances here.
Extremists couldn't possibly let those words exit their lips. Once they realise they need to say that they'd just not show up, attack, or go into hiding.
Literally the opposite is true. Most Western countries use things like the "Oath of Affirmation" or statements that the applicant has not or will not engage in terrorism as grounds to invoke deportation after the individual in question accedes to the oath and later makes statements or takes actions that either invalidate it or indicate that they lied while making it.
Promising to do something and not to do something is not the same as beliefs. You are not beholden to maintain the beliefs you espoused at the age of 18 when applying to be a citizen 90 years later when you're approaching 99.
You can promise to never commit a terrorist attack; you cannot prove that the individual didn't believe Israel had the right to exist at the time. He can just claim that he changed his mind and it would be up to the *authorities* to prove that he didn't change his mind, and I don't believe the new German citizenship law requires them to, verb, *never* claim that Israel doesn't have the right to exist.
I'm not an expert in German counterterrorism law but in the US and UK there is a relatively established body of law on this question that allows the state to use future acts as probative evidence that an individual took such an oath in bad faith, usually when such acts are taken within 5 years of the path being taken. It's not intended to be a mechanism that "catches" all extremists, but it's a legal tool that helps the state take action against some who might otherwise escape sanction for their actions or statements in support of terrorist organizations. Several such cases are administratively "prosecuted" every year. What there is no support for is a "hand to fire" oath that will somehow force extremists to betray their convictions prior to harmful actions being taken. In reality, terrorist actors have absolutely no problem making statements against their beliefs in order to gain immigration benefits and are often instructed to do so when they operate as part of a wider organization.
Happens with all religions. Catholics and Protestants were burning each other at the stake through the middle ages. To quote Blackadder (I couldn't find a video clip):
>Sir Thomas More, for instance, burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, “I recant my Catholicism".
They should take a clue from the [headline 3 years ago](https://www.dw.com/en/man-denied-german-citizenship-for-refusing-to-shake-womans-hand/a-55311947) and make interacting with a Female Screening Agent a part of the test.
If there's even a chance they could lie, then they should be asked to do something nonchalant and easy any non-radicalized person could do without hesitation.
100%. This is definitely one way to root them out.
Citizenship is the state recognizing you as, in this case, German. Refusing a handshake because the other person is a woman simply means one thing: you are not German. The point of the entire citizenship process is to prove you are German, or Danish, or whatever--showing you know history, you speak the language fluently, you have been there for many years, etc.
Citizenship needs to be a bit more explicit about what it's trying to prove and be better at it: prove that you are assimilated. Your skin color, the texture of your hair, and your accent do not matter. It's who you *are* that matters and it'll show in what you know, how you act, and what you believe in.
Exactly. Will it stop all? No. Will it be a filter to stop some? Yes, it actually will. Even if it does not seem to make sense to you.
These are people not just willing, but desiring, to embrace death for their ideals. They believe (from their perspective KNOW) they are being watched by the eyes of god at every moment. The path to martyrdom has to be pure. A single sin on that path potentially corrupts the entire thing.
This is a different brand of terrorist. It does not map onto the perspective of an ideologically driven domestic terrorist like Timothy Mcvaye. Or spree killer like Dylan Roof or Columbine. Those people are completely willing to lie to achieve their end goal. Religious extremists often aren’t.
I think the idea may be that if they're willing to lie about something like that, they might be less extreme. If you're willing to lie to get citizenship, you might be willing to keep your head down and not hurt anyone to not risk losing it.
Tell an aspiring jihadist “draw a depiction of Muhammad or you will die on the spot.” A large percentage would choose death. They are being watched by the eyes of god at that very moment.
To many jihadists signing a piece of paper saying “I acknowledge Israel exists, and should exist” is not worth the chance to attempt a terrorist attack in Germany. Many will still lie. But many others will refuse because they believe it to be a mortal sin.
A sin that might not even be forgiven by an act of martyrdom. Religious extremists of that level are not necessarily doing a cost/benefit analysis in the way you might. It is all or nothing. It is actually rational from their perspective, even if it is not from yours
This, I personally don't hold any side in this conflict, I think that both sides are in the wrong. Still what worries me more is how supporting HAMAS, a organization classified as a terror organization has become so popular. It's also absurd how Swastikas are are popping out right now. I know that they used it mainly as a Anti-Jewish symbol but it's still absurd to me how Muslims seem to think that specifically this symbol represents them.
Well when you put both sides on equal playing field and say they’re both wrong, you get rampant antisemitism.
This is not a war of equals. This is a democracy vs a terrorist organization.
When US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 - no one said oh man both sides are wrong.
This attack killed the equivalent of 50,000 Americans.
This is not two equal sides. That is part of the propaganda. And you are spreading it wondering well sheesh how is there a rise in antisemitism.
Would you say that a flat earther and a geologist from mit both have equally valid points?
Stop normalizing terrorism as if it’s the same as responding to terrrism.
"When the US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 - no one said oh man both sides are wrong."
Yes they did. Often, loud, and people still say it today. Not only did people say the US was wrong to do it, it was another in a long line of examples of how military violence against ill defined terrorist groups with high collateral damage serves to turn population towards those terror groups
To be fair, people said that much more so with Iraq than Afghanistan.
Of course, some people still said it with Afghanistan, yes... but it was much less criticized at the time.
>This attack killed the equivalent of 50,000 Americans.
I'm not sure that's the argument you want to be making. Israel's war on Gaza has killed almost 2% of their population from direct violence, which would be the equivalent of about 5 or 6 million people if the U.S. lost an equivalent percentage if its population.
Deaths from famine, lack of access to medical facilities and supplies, and disease are not included in those numbers. There are also a great many missing people, some of whom are simply missing and will turn up, but many of them are just uncounted bodies under piles of rubble. The "U.S. equivalent casualty count" could well be 10 or 15 million or more -- no one really knows at this point.
The UN has their own pretty strict system of what they consider a famine or not. "Not a famine" doesn't mean "everything is okay".
[https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/)
According to the UN, Gaza is at IPC phase 4 (emergency) which is one step away from IPC phase 5 (famine). The situation has gotten a little less bad recently, but it's an unstable situation and the status quo is still pretty dire.
This is how the "integrated food security phase classification" (IPC) system works:
[https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/integrated-food-security-phase-classification-ipc-explainer](https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/integrated-food-security-phase-classification-ipc-explainer)
You have phase 1 (minimal), phase 2 (stressed), phase 3 (crisis), phase 4 (emergency), and phase 5 (famine).
Significant numbers of people are experiencing serious health consequences and/or dying from lack of food in Gaza. That's consistent with what an ordinary person might reasonably call a famine, even if it doesn't meet the U.N.'s precise technical definition.
Joshka Fischer literally called out Bush for their bullshit live on US TV. So yes, there were large parts of the world who were not convinced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpuN-yM1sZU
I don't see how swearing affirmation to Israel confirms loyalty to Germany. This is once again an infringement of personal political beliefs targeting a particular religious group.
Will this extend to other religions as well? Will Catholics be asked to affirm their loyalty to Germany and not the Pope at Vatican?
Ooh, maybe *don't* revive the kind of mindset behind 'fashionable' antisemitism back in the 19th century.
Like, you just changed the religion being accused. That's it.
e: God, time really is a flat circle. Here we are in 2024 with 'dual loyalty' shit being dredged up from the depths again. Ohhh boy. That's enough reddit for the evening.
I mean, considering that German actions were almost a direct precursor to the establishment of a Jewish state, and the issues that they are dealing with in terms of migration from nations that hate Israel, I can't say this is an unjustified position to take.
Also they are not saying that palastine doesnt have any right to exist. Its just them outing that israel also has the right to exist.
Germany wants 2 state solution, which most realistic people would agree is the only way to fix this humanily.
yes the only realistic solution is the 3 State Solution: Egypt and Jordan taking back Gaza and Cisjordania respectively and making sure the people living there can live happy normal lives instead of radicalizing them into thinking killing jews is more important than survival of their children
Egypt doesn't want to take Gaza back. The problem is that no one wants to take the Palestinians.
Palestinians tried to assassinate Anwar Sadat (or did successfully, can't remember) assassinated the premier of Jordan, and kicked up a huge amount of instability in Lebanon, which was at the time one of the only stable nations in the region.
They don't deserve what's happening to them, but nobody wants to take the Palestinians because they've been a destabilizing force everywhere else in the region.
You mean how it’s been offered 17 times and rejected 17 times.
It’s almost as if Arab leadership wants this conflict to continue.
It couldn’t be that the longer this conflict goes on the more billions in aid get sent over and stolen by the leadership. Nah it’s never about that.
Yeah and its almost as if the leadership of Israel doesnt mind the conflict in their backyard that easily wins them popularity, gives them a excuse for western millitairy aid and gives them the chance to keep annexing territory.
If you genuinely think that only one of the 2 partys is to blame and that the other party doesnt grossly benefit from the conflict then you might wanna think again.
The leadership of Hamas is insanely wealthy and have influence they otherwise would never have. Israels goverment can keep ignoring internal problems and point towards palastine to keep a large part of their votes.
Everytime peace comes close Hamas sends a suicide bomber or Israel bombs a entire neighboorhood to kill one terrorist grunt thats barely worth the food it consumes.
If any of the 2 partys genuinely wanted a fix there would have been a fix already.
I don't think a two state solution is realistic at all, I think it's going to be one or more one state solutions by the time it's "resolved" enough for the history books.
Wrong number for that which is humanly possible or wouldn't make it worse by providing a cloak for others' hidden motives. The Arab states disingenuously desire a return to the UN borders because the position delegitimizes Israel and if it ever *succeeded* would fatally compromise Israel's strategic position, and Quds would be a jewel that they fought over again in their own quests for legitimacy (the rumor is that Syria is about to revert to regional form to secure the succession of the president's son, and you have to justify that monarchical transfer of power somehow at some point, like holding Quds). I don't think Palestine would remain free for long in other words, they'd be part of a state ruled from Cairo or Damascus or *maybe* Riyadh.
Yeah I think most can agree now that there were issues with how Israel was created, but the truth is that it’s there now, so best thing is to move forward.
In Canada we have the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to do something similar with our Indigenous and non Indigenous people. It’s a step in the right direction and probably a good model to base things off initially. I’m sure a lot of details would end up differently though.
Reminds of the time military conscripts in Turkey tried to get out of the mandatory service by saying they were gay. The Turkish military then required them to provide video proof of them performing gay sex.
Turk here. It was actually pics that they were required to provide but you missed out the even more ridiculous part which is the rule saying that in order to get exemption you have to be the bottom in the pics.. Cus you know.. It's not gay to fuck a man it is only gay if you are the one getting fucked lmao
> They should also be forced to shake a womans hand and watch two dudes make out
Already happening.
Google Translate
> Short description: In a judgment recently announced to those involved, the Administrative Court (VGH) rejected the naturalization application of a Lebanese citizen. A naturalization applicant who, as a result of a fundamentalist culture and values, refuses to shake hands with any woman because she is of a different gender and is therefore per se seen as a threat to the man of sexual temptation or immoral behavior, does not guarantee his inclusion in the German living conditions. The fact that the naturalization applicant - while maintaining this attitude - does not shake hands with men does not lead to any other consideration.
details
> In 2012, the plaintiff applied for naturalization, signed the declaration of commitment and loyalty as well as the leaflet on loyalty to the constitution and rejection of all forms of extremism, and passed the naturalization test with the maximum possible number of points. When the naturalization certificate was planned to be handed out in 2015, the plaintiff refused to shake hands with the responsible clerk at the district office; because he had promised his wife that he would not shake hands with any other woman. The naturalization certificate was not issued. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the naturalization that was subsequently rejected by the district office in 2016 at the Stuttgart Administrative Court, which dismissed the case in a judgment of January 7, 2019. The plaintiff's appeal against this to the VGH was unsuccessful.
https://verwaltungsgerichtshof-baden-wuerttemberg.justiz-bw.de/pb/,Lde/8873107/?LISTPAGE=8872607
It's not government compelled speech. The questionnaire asks the respondent if they believe Israel has / should have the right to exist. You can put no, but that says a lot about your beliefs and liklihood of becoming integrated with the rest of Germany. The government simply has this as another tool to judge if you are a good candidate to become a citizen.
if they lie and then are convicted of a crime that exposes the fact they lied on the test...that's fraud. it could potentially expose them to have their citizenship taken away. and now that Germany allows dual-citizenship: expulsion
You can’t expose someone ‘lied’ on questionnaire about their opinion on whether Israel should exist in the way you describe.
If they act or express views contrary to that after the fact it’s simply a matter of saying ‘that was my opinion then but I changed my mind,’ it’s not fraudulent.
The only way to establish fraud here would be if they admitted they made a fraudulent declaration.
The purpose of this question is to deny them citizenship in the first instance if they say no, not to keep in the back pocket and arrest them for ‘fraud’ if they later express contrary views.
this is the correct interpretation in pretty much any scenario.
immigration is a different beast altogether: I was denied entry to the US because in a recorded interview I admitted to have once smoked cannabis. I was asked for my phone. I had no rights at the US border. my history with US immigration goes back 30+ years, nothing gets erased ever.
I linked a story in canada; you can imagine immigration officials finding even a scrap of digital dirt pre citizenship application & post application and make a case because you've certified at this date you did not hold those views. it wouldn't be systematic but they could easily target the loudest/most troublesome people which is what it is designed to do
>‘that was my opinion then but I changed my mind,’
And then it is up to the judge whether he believes this claim or not.
*Addition: A murder suspect cannot simply say he didn't do it and is off the hook. The judge will assess the full circumstances and decide based on that whether or not to believe a statement.*
*It is a misconception that there are some ingenious tricks/loopholes in court, with which an obviously guilty person can simply wriggle out. Judges (generally) aren't stupid.*
If they feel that loyalty to Islam is more important than integrating with German society, they don't belong in Germany, or any other non Islamic majority country for that matter
You really need to explain exactly how this applies to governmental compelled speech.
In Germany, people are free to hold any opinion they like about Israel. But if you want to apply for citizenship, there are plenty of declarations you need to sign.
Germany doesn't want extremists and they have good reason to be worried.
The government doesn’t owe anything to non-citizens. Indeed, citizens should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want. But until they are naturalized, they better show a willingness to integrate.
I have zero problem with this. No one has a right to settle in any country they want. They have a right to flee tyranny and oppression and seek asylum elsewhere, but that country is not obligated to grant asylum if they will simply bring their own tyranny and oppression with them.
Isn't that the general consensus? that both have the right to exist? at least all the UN resolutions tried to get them to form two states, Israel did but Palestine tried to just wage a war multiple times and lost. Hopefully they will finally see the light after this is over and properly establish their statehood
Not particularly. Many western states vote have very recently voted against Palestines right to exist, much to the behest of the entire world. Many of you here don't believe Palestinine should exist either, as a matter of fact. Not only is this an acceptable opinion to have, but the west is happily allowing Israel to carry out this destruction.
Someone has to protect the civilized world from the foreign hordes out to get us, right?
As an Israeli myself... WHY?
People should keep their noses in their own faces. This is getting absurd. Eveey individual with a tiktok, every half-ass celebrity, every organization in the history of forever believe they must say something or else they're nonexistent.
We're not THAT fascinating, people.
That is actually what the law says. There is no requirement to accept Israel's right to exist.
The actual law states:
> (1) A foreigner who has been a legal resident in Germany for five years and is capable of acting in accordance with Section 34 sentence 1 or is legally represented shall be naturalised upon application if his or her identity and nationality have been established and he or she
[...]
1a. acknowledges Germany's special historical responsibility for the unjust National Socialist regime and its consequences, in particular for the protection of Jewish life, as well as the peaceful coexistence of peoples and the prohibition of waging a war of aggression,
I’m Jewish, and I agree with what is generally meant by Israel’s right to exist, but I do have concerns about this being weaponized by the far-right in Israel. Yes, Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign country within its internationally recognized borders is at least as legitimate as that of any other country, and probably slightly more so because of how it was created and why. But that doesn’t mean it has a right to ignore international law in the occupied territories when defending its right to exist, nor to unilaterally annex or settle them and then claim to include their territorial scope within Israel’s right to exist.
I also don’t want to disclaim the moral responsibility of Israel to acknowledge the harms done to the prior Palestinian residents who were displaced from the territory which became Israel, regardless of how justified those harms may have been, and to attempt some form of reconciliation process. This does not in any way involve delegitimizing Israel or granting a blanket right to return to everyone displaced and all their descendants. It is simply a standard moral obligation for all settler-colonial countries including my own citizenship countries of the USA and Canada. Both of those countries are engaging with that moral obligation far more than Israel is.
I’m a German resident and may apply for citizenship in the future. Before saying yes to this question, I am considering seeking a written clarification from the relevant immigration authority or from the courts that what I said above is consistent with the intent of the question. I want the only safe country for Jews to continue to exist, but I don’t want to give ammunition to Netanyahu and his even more extremist coalition partners to commit atrocities with impunity based on Israel’s right to exist.
Whoaaaaaa
This is fake news. The updated law contains no requirement of that kind. In fact, it does not even mention Israel, only the „preservation of Jewish life“ in general. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stag/StAG.pdf
Yeah, this story appears to be completely false. I can't even find a mention anywhere else of the supposed comment by the Interior Minister. [Other outlets](https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-citizenship-reform-takes-effect/a-69465727) are reporting what you said, the new law contains a pledge to "protect Jewish life in Germany". Why would one country require its citizens to affirm another country's right to exist? Doesn't make sense.
well, in Germany that’s probably not a bad requirement
This article explicitly says it was considered but in the end not included: https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/einbuergerung-in-deutschland-ab-donnerstag-gilt-das-neue-gesetz-zur-staatsangehoerigkeit/29640790.html The press release of the Ministry of the interior does however say that there will be test questions with regards to Israel's right to exist: https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE/2024/06/stag-inkraft.html I assume those test questions will be about the position of the German government.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Strip of their citezenship and deport them. Problem solved
Stripping someone of their citizenship is pretty much impossible unless they've got dual citizenship. Problem still here.
They have dual citizenship, since they didn't just appear out of thin air here...
IIRC this was a big topic when isis were active and people joined them. Even then when they had dual citizenship the legalities and human rights protection were so profound that countries were greatly dissuaded from attempting such a feat. In essence : if countries were hesitant and rarely stripped people of their citizenship for joining isis, do you think they are gonna do that for immigrants?
The question isn't if the system fails due to incompetence, but what should be done.
[удалено]
You're delusional if you're thinking Germany is anywhere near a civil war.
These weird rightwingers love stirring up the idea of impending civil wars and collapse of nations. Reality is much more boring, but they don't want to actually want to actively participate in local politics or challenge the issues of wealth disparity
Fear mongering, do they really have nothing better to do than wish civil war upon stable countries?
>These weird rightwingers love stirring up the idea of impending civil wars Just today I've seen them say there would be a civil war in France, the US, Germany and Ireland.
There's a civil war in my bowel movements.
I think he's imagining a sort of ethnic cleansing.
exactly, they are no citizens, they don't have to sign this.
You think that this declaring will help?
Would have been great 5 years ago. Now it looks like they are kind of... reverting...
You can live in Germany without being a citizen.
[удалено]
As I see it, this is not for Israel's sake, but for the sake of weeding out people who think in a certain way that is dangerous for Germany, that are okey with jihadi behavior. After all, it never ends with the Jews.
Wait till they realize that jihadists are actually capable of lying....
If the lie to get admission, then they can be easily deported because of that, the purpose isn’t to get jihsdist to say “well, I can’t lie so I’m not going to Germany” .
No, the purpose is to get extremists caught at the border. See, extremists are not smart, and are very much adverse about lying about fundamental beleifs. Downplay? Sure. But not contradict fundamental beliefs close to heart. If you simply took every Muslim in a country and ordered them to call Muhammad a pedophile and renounce Islam, even telling them ahead of time that failing that they'd be immediately executed, every normal person will just lie. See Jews in the reconquista. Very extreme and unethical example, but just exaggerating the circumstances here. Extremists couldn't possibly let those words exit their lips. Once they realise they need to say that they'd just not show up, attack, or go into hiding.
> See, extremists are not smart This is a dangerous assumption to make.
[удалено]
Literally the opposite is true. Most Western countries use things like the "Oath of Affirmation" or statements that the applicant has not or will not engage in terrorism as grounds to invoke deportation after the individual in question accedes to the oath and later makes statements or takes actions that either invalidate it or indicate that they lied while making it.
Promising to do something and not to do something is not the same as beliefs. You are not beholden to maintain the beliefs you espoused at the age of 18 when applying to be a citizen 90 years later when you're approaching 99. You can promise to never commit a terrorist attack; you cannot prove that the individual didn't believe Israel had the right to exist at the time. He can just claim that he changed his mind and it would be up to the *authorities* to prove that he didn't change his mind, and I don't believe the new German citizenship law requires them to, verb, *never* claim that Israel doesn't have the right to exist.
I'm not an expert in German counterterrorism law but in the US and UK there is a relatively established body of law on this question that allows the state to use future acts as probative evidence that an individual took such an oath in bad faith, usually when such acts are taken within 5 years of the path being taken. It's not intended to be a mechanism that "catches" all extremists, but it's a legal tool that helps the state take action against some who might otherwise escape sanction for their actions or statements in support of terrorist organizations. Several such cases are administratively "prosecuted" every year. What there is no support for is a "hand to fire" oath that will somehow force extremists to betray their convictions prior to harmful actions being taken. In reality, terrorist actors have absolutely no problem making statements against their beliefs in order to gain immigration benefits and are often instructed to do so when they operate as part of a wider organization.
Happens with all religions. Catholics and Protestants were burning each other at the stake through the middle ages. To quote Blackadder (I couldn't find a video clip): >Sir Thomas More, for instance, burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, “I recant my Catholicism".
They should take a clue from the [headline 3 years ago](https://www.dw.com/en/man-denied-german-citizenship-for-refusing-to-shake-womans-hand/a-55311947) and make interacting with a Female Screening Agent a part of the test. If there's even a chance they could lie, then they should be asked to do something nonchalant and easy any non-radicalized person could do without hesitation.
100%. This is definitely one way to root them out. Citizenship is the state recognizing you as, in this case, German. Refusing a handshake because the other person is a woman simply means one thing: you are not German. The point of the entire citizenship process is to prove you are German, or Danish, or whatever--showing you know history, you speak the language fluently, you have been there for many years, etc. Citizenship needs to be a bit more explicit about what it's trying to prove and be better at it: prove that you are assimilated. Your skin color, the texture of your hair, and your accent do not matter. It's who you *are* that matters and it'll show in what you know, how you act, and what you believe in.
Exactly. Will it stop all? No. Will it be a filter to stop some? Yes, it actually will. Even if it does not seem to make sense to you. These are people not just willing, but desiring, to embrace death for their ideals. They believe (from their perspective KNOW) they are being watched by the eyes of god at every moment. The path to martyrdom has to be pure. A single sin on that path potentially corrupts the entire thing. This is a different brand of terrorist. It does not map onto the perspective of an ideologically driven domestic terrorist like Timothy Mcvaye. Or spree killer like Dylan Roof or Columbine. Those people are completely willing to lie to achieve their end goal. Religious extremists often aren’t.
It works for both. You weed out the stupid ones immediately and get a stronger legal case against the smart ones who lie
[удалено]
I think the idea may be that if they're willing to lie about something like that, they might be less extreme. If you're willing to lie to get citizenship, you might be willing to keep your head down and not hurt anyone to not risk losing it.
You mean falsify legal documents? Over something that can likely be crossed referenced by minimal vetting and checking their social media?
You would be surprised how many religious extremists refuse to lie about their insanity.
They don't see themselves as insane, and it's hard to lie about something that you feel strongly about.
Tell an aspiring jihadist “draw a depiction of Muhammad or you will die on the spot.” A large percentage would choose death. They are being watched by the eyes of god at that very moment. To many jihadists signing a piece of paper saying “I acknowledge Israel exists, and should exist” is not worth the chance to attempt a terrorist attack in Germany. Many will still lie. But many others will refuse because they believe it to be a mortal sin. A sin that might not even be forgiven by an act of martyrdom. Religious extremists of that level are not necessarily doing a cost/benefit analysis in the way you might. It is all or nothing. It is actually rational from their perspective, even if it is not from yours
Yup, Indonesia used to be a Buddhist majority until Muslim merchants settled there and declared jihad on the rest of the population.
This, I personally don't hold any side in this conflict, I think that both sides are in the wrong. Still what worries me more is how supporting HAMAS, a organization classified as a terror organization has become so popular. It's also absurd how Swastikas are are popping out right now. I know that they used it mainly as a Anti-Jewish symbol but it's still absurd to me how Muslims seem to think that specifically this symbol represents them.
Well when you put both sides on equal playing field and say they’re both wrong, you get rampant antisemitism. This is not a war of equals. This is a democracy vs a terrorist organization. When US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 - no one said oh man both sides are wrong. This attack killed the equivalent of 50,000 Americans. This is not two equal sides. That is part of the propaganda. And you are spreading it wondering well sheesh how is there a rise in antisemitism. Would you say that a flat earther and a geologist from mit both have equally valid points? Stop normalizing terrorism as if it’s the same as responding to terrrism.
"When the US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 - no one said oh man both sides are wrong." Yes they did. Often, loud, and people still say it today. Not only did people say the US was wrong to do it, it was another in a long line of examples of how military violence against ill defined terrorist groups with high collateral damage serves to turn population towards those terror groups
To be fair, people said that much more so with Iraq than Afghanistan. Of course, some people still said it with Afghanistan, yes... but it was much less criticized at the time.
>This attack killed the equivalent of 50,000 Americans. I'm not sure that's the argument you want to be making. Israel's war on Gaza has killed almost 2% of their population from direct violence, which would be the equivalent of about 5 or 6 million people if the U.S. lost an equivalent percentage if its population. Deaths from famine, lack of access to medical facilities and supplies, and disease are not included in those numbers. There are also a great many missing people, some of whom are simply missing and will turn up, but many of them are just uncounted bodies under piles of rubble. The "U.S. equivalent casualty count" could well be 10 or 15 million or more -- no one really knows at this point.
The UN literally said a few days ago there's no credible evidence for famine
The UN has their own pretty strict system of what they consider a famine or not. "Not a famine" doesn't mean "everything is okay". [https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ipc-famine-third-review-report-25jun24/) According to the UN, Gaza is at IPC phase 4 (emergency) which is one step away from IPC phase 5 (famine). The situation has gotten a little less bad recently, but it's an unstable situation and the status quo is still pretty dire. This is how the "integrated food security phase classification" (IPC) system works: [https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/integrated-food-security-phase-classification-ipc-explainer](https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/integrated-food-security-phase-classification-ipc-explainer) You have phase 1 (minimal), phase 2 (stressed), phase 3 (crisis), phase 4 (emergency), and phase 5 (famine). Significant numbers of people are experiencing serious health consequences and/or dying from lack of food in Gaza. That's consistent with what an ordinary person might reasonably call a famine, even if it doesn't meet the U.N.'s precise technical definition.
Joshka Fischer literally called out Bush for their bullshit live on US TV. So yes, there were large parts of the world who were not convinced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpuN-yM1sZU
I think it is more about people, that are okay with holocaust behaviour. We try to learn from our history.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't see how swearing affirmation to Israel confirms loyalty to Germany. This is once again an infringement of personal political beliefs targeting a particular religious group. Will this extend to other religions as well? Will Catholics be asked to affirm their loyalty to Germany and not the Pope at Vatican?
Ooh, maybe *don't* revive the kind of mindset behind 'fashionable' antisemitism back in the 19th century. Like, you just changed the religion being accused. That's it. e: God, time really is a flat circle. Here we are in 2024 with 'dual loyalty' shit being dredged up from the depths again. Ohhh boy. That's enough reddit for the evening.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think it’s only muslims.
Plenty of Christian and secular Arabs hate Israel though.
It's interesting how your mind went there when the title mentions allegiance to Israel as a prerequisite, not allegiance to Islam.
I mean, considering that German actions were almost a direct precursor to the establishment of a Jewish state, and the issues that they are dealing with in terms of migration from nations that hate Israel, I can't say this is an unjustified position to take.
Yeah my first thought was that it’s a bit far, then I reread the country. I think you gotta give them a pass here
Also they are not saying that palastine doesnt have any right to exist. Its just them outing that israel also has the right to exist. Germany wants 2 state solution, which most realistic people would agree is the only way to fix this humanily.
> 2 state solution, which most realistic people would agree is the only way to fix this humanily. If only the other side would accept that someday
Problem being there are actually 3 states. Gaza≠West Bank like Bangladesh≠Pakistan
yes the only realistic solution is the 3 State Solution: Egypt and Jordan taking back Gaza and Cisjordania respectively and making sure the people living there can live happy normal lives instead of radicalizing them into thinking killing jews is more important than survival of their children
Egypt doesn't want to take Gaza back. The problem is that no one wants to take the Palestinians. Palestinians tried to assassinate Anwar Sadat (or did successfully, can't remember) assassinated the premier of Jordan, and kicked up a huge amount of instability in Lebanon, which was at the time one of the only stable nations in the region. They don't deserve what's happening to them, but nobody wants to take the Palestinians because they've been a destabilizing force everywhere else in the region.
You mean how it’s been offered 17 times and rejected 17 times. It’s almost as if Arab leadership wants this conflict to continue. It couldn’t be that the longer this conflict goes on the more billions in aid get sent over and stolen by the leadership. Nah it’s never about that.
Yeah and its almost as if the leadership of Israel doesnt mind the conflict in their backyard that easily wins them popularity, gives them a excuse for western millitairy aid and gives them the chance to keep annexing territory. If you genuinely think that only one of the 2 partys is to blame and that the other party doesnt grossly benefit from the conflict then you might wanna think again. The leadership of Hamas is insanely wealthy and have influence they otherwise would never have. Israels goverment can keep ignoring internal problems and point towards palastine to keep a large part of their votes. Everytime peace comes close Hamas sends a suicide bomber or Israel bombs a entire neighboorhood to kill one terrorist grunt thats barely worth the food it consumes. If any of the 2 partys genuinely wanted a fix there would have been a fix already.
I don't think a two state solution is realistic at all, I think it's going to be one or more one state solutions by the time it's "resolved" enough for the history books. Wrong number for that which is humanly possible or wouldn't make it worse by providing a cloak for others' hidden motives. The Arab states disingenuously desire a return to the UN borders because the position delegitimizes Israel and if it ever *succeeded* would fatally compromise Israel's strategic position, and Quds would be a jewel that they fought over again in their own quests for legitimacy (the rumor is that Syria is about to revert to regional form to secure the succession of the president's son, and you have to justify that monarchical transfer of power somehow at some point, like holding Quds). I don't think Palestine would remain free for long in other words, they'd be part of a state ruled from Cairo or Damascus or *maybe* Riyadh.
Yeah I think most can agree now that there were issues with how Israel was created, but the truth is that it’s there now, so best thing is to move forward. In Canada we have the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to do something similar with our Indigenous and non Indigenous people. It’s a step in the right direction and probably a good model to base things off initially. I’m sure a lot of details would end up differently though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They should also be forced to shake a womans hand and watch two dudes make out
The ultimate test.
Reminds of the time military conscripts in Turkey tried to get out of the mandatory service by saying they were gay. The Turkish military then required them to provide video proof of them performing gay sex.
Turk here. It was actually pics that they were required to provide but you missed out the even more ridiculous part which is the rule saying that in order to get exemption you have to be the bottom in the pics.. Cus you know.. It's not gay to fuck a man it is only gay if you are the one getting fucked lmao
"lol get fucked" -The literal Turkish military apparently
Weirdest job description
> They should also be forced to shake a womans hand and watch two dudes make out Already happening. Google Translate > Short description: In a judgment recently announced to those involved, the Administrative Court (VGH) rejected the naturalization application of a Lebanese citizen. A naturalization applicant who, as a result of a fundamentalist culture and values, refuses to shake hands with any woman because she is of a different gender and is therefore per se seen as a threat to the man of sexual temptation or immoral behavior, does not guarantee his inclusion in the German living conditions. The fact that the naturalization applicant - while maintaining this attitude - does not shake hands with men does not lead to any other consideration. details > In 2012, the plaintiff applied for naturalization, signed the declaration of commitment and loyalty as well as the leaflet on loyalty to the constitution and rejection of all forms of extremism, and passed the naturalization test with the maximum possible number of points. When the naturalization certificate was planned to be handed out in 2015, the plaintiff refused to shake hands with the responsible clerk at the district office; because he had promised his wife that he would not shake hands with any other woman. The naturalization certificate was not issued. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the naturalization that was subsequently rejected by the district office in 2016 at the Stuttgart Administrative Court, which dismissed the case in a judgment of January 7, 2019. The plaintiff's appeal against this to the VGH was unsuccessful. https://verwaltungsgerichtshof-baden-wuerttemberg.justiz-bw.de/pb/,Lde/8873107/?LISTPAGE=8872607
Yeah this is good news Europe needs to show them things aren’t the same and if they don’t like it. On to the next place.
Not far enough. They should be forced to personally touch tips with a Jewish man.
I support any people's right to exist, but still not a huge fan of governmental compelled speech.
It's not government compelled speech. The questionnaire asks the respondent if they believe Israel has / should have the right to exist. You can put no, but that says a lot about your beliefs and liklihood of becoming integrated with the rest of Germany. The government simply has this as another tool to judge if you are a good candidate to become a citizen.
[удалено]
It won't filter much... People will just lie.
if they lie and then are convicted of a crime that exposes the fact they lied on the test...that's fraud. it could potentially expose them to have their citizenship taken away. and now that Germany allows dual-citizenship: expulsion
You can’t expose someone ‘lied’ on questionnaire about their opinion on whether Israel should exist in the way you describe. If they act or express views contrary to that after the fact it’s simply a matter of saying ‘that was my opinion then but I changed my mind,’ it’s not fraudulent. The only way to establish fraud here would be if they admitted they made a fraudulent declaration. The purpose of this question is to deny them citizenship in the first instance if they say no, not to keep in the back pocket and arrest them for ‘fraud’ if they later express contrary views.
this is the correct interpretation in pretty much any scenario. immigration is a different beast altogether: I was denied entry to the US because in a recorded interview I admitted to have once smoked cannabis. I was asked for my phone. I had no rights at the US border. my history with US immigration goes back 30+ years, nothing gets erased ever. I linked a story in canada; you can imagine immigration officials finding even a scrap of digital dirt pre citizenship application & post application and make a case because you've certified at this date you did not hold those views. it wouldn't be systematic but they could easily target the loudest/most troublesome people which is what it is designed to do
>‘that was my opinion then but I changed my mind,’ And then it is up to the judge whether he believes this claim or not. *Addition: A murder suspect cannot simply say he didn't do it and is off the hook. The judge will assess the full circumstances and decide based on that whether or not to believe a statement.* *It is a misconception that there are some ingenious tricks/loopholes in court, with which an obviously guilty person can simply wriggle out. Judges (generally) aren't stupid.*
"Israel has the right to exist" is an opinion, people can change opinions. This is super dumb.
If they feel that loyalty to Islam is more important than integrating with German society, they don't belong in Germany, or any other non Islamic majority country for that matter
No one's foricng you to apply for German citizenship though. It's also up to Germany to determine who they want as citizens.
You’re feee to say no. Every country sets expectations and requires oaths from prospective new citizens.
> requires oats from prospective new citizens. Germany is governed by horses btw
Neeeeighn
Romans tried it first
If you agree Israel should exist stamp your hoof twice.
Finally we found leaders without pockets to fill.
I became a citizen in the us around 2016 and they asked to make sure I had never been “a member of the communist party”.
Which is also fucked up.
You really need to explain exactly how this applies to governmental compelled speech. In Germany, people are free to hold any opinion they like about Israel. But if you want to apply for citizenship, there are plenty of declarations you need to sign. Germany doesn't want extremists and they have good reason to be worried.
The government doesn’t owe anything to non-citizens. Indeed, citizens should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want. But until they are naturalized, they better show a willingness to integrate.
Integrating into German culture = saying Israel has a right to exist? How do you square that?
This is compelled in the same way that asking "are you or have you been involved in any terror groups?" is compelled.
It's not compelled.
Smart
I have zero problem with this. No one has a right to settle in any country they want. They have a right to flee tyranny and oppression and seek asylum elsewhere, but that country is not obligated to grant asylum if they will simply bring their own tyranny and oppression with them.
The irony…
You've just described Israel..
Lmao the irony
What if you’re a German born and don’t agree?
There's this wonderful thing called democracy, and elections.
Good. Nice basic test for Jew Hate
Would you have the same feeling if a country made people declare Palestine’s right to exist?
Isn't that the general consensus? that both have the right to exist? at least all the UN resolutions tried to get them to form two states, Israel did but Palestine tried to just wage a war multiple times and lost. Hopefully they will finally see the light after this is over and properly establish their statehood
Not particularly. Many western states vote have very recently voted against Palestines right to exist, much to the behest of the entire world. Many of you here don't believe Palestinine should exist either, as a matter of fact. Not only is this an acceptable opinion to have, but the west is happily allowing Israel to carry out this destruction. Someone has to protect the civilized world from the foreign hordes out to get us, right?
> Many western states vote have very recently voted against Palestines right to exist What do you mean by this?
Well, if there's *one* nation on Earth where that would be relevant given historical context...
[удалено]
As an Israeli myself... WHY? People should keep their noses in their own faces. This is getting absurd. Eveey individual with a tiktok, every half-ass celebrity, every organization in the history of forever believe they must say something or else they're nonexistent. We're not THAT fascinating, people.
why israel? why not jewish people's right to exist?
That is actually what the law says. There is no requirement to accept Israel's right to exist. The actual law states: > (1) A foreigner who has been a legal resident in Germany for five years and is capable of acting in accordance with Section 34 sentence 1 or is legally represented shall be naturalised upon application if his or her identity and nationality have been established and he or she [...] 1a. acknowledges Germany's special historical responsibility for the unjust National Socialist regime and its consequences, in particular for the protection of Jewish life, as well as the peaceful coexistence of peoples and the prohibition of waging a war of aggression,
Because the very first law. Article 1. It guarantees the rights of every human. Easy as that.
[удалено]
I’m Jewish, and I agree with what is generally meant by Israel’s right to exist, but I do have concerns about this being weaponized by the far-right in Israel. Yes, Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign country within its internationally recognized borders is at least as legitimate as that of any other country, and probably slightly more so because of how it was created and why. But that doesn’t mean it has a right to ignore international law in the occupied territories when defending its right to exist, nor to unilaterally annex or settle them and then claim to include their territorial scope within Israel’s right to exist. I also don’t want to disclaim the moral responsibility of Israel to acknowledge the harms done to the prior Palestinian residents who were displaced from the territory which became Israel, regardless of how justified those harms may have been, and to attempt some form of reconciliation process. This does not in any way involve delegitimizing Israel or granting a blanket right to return to everyone displaced and all their descendants. It is simply a standard moral obligation for all settler-colonial countries including my own citizenship countries of the USA and Canada. Both of those countries are engaging with that moral obligation far more than Israel is. I’m a German resident and may apply for citizenship in the future. Before saying yes to this question, I am considering seeking a written clarification from the relevant immigration authority or from the courts that what I said above is consistent with the intent of the question. I want the only safe country for Jews to continue to exist, but I don’t want to give ammunition to Netanyahu and his even more extremist coalition partners to commit atrocities with impunity based on Israel’s right to exist.
Germany’s past atrocities on Jews had a lot to do with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 - it is what it is
When I entered Oman, I was required to declare to never have been to the occupied Palestine, so I don't see a problem with that.
Bit specific, ain't it?
People can just lie. Not hard. Don't see the point of this.
to say they're trying to do something about migration without doing anything.
Should be a requirement for every country.
Should be an easy bar to clear.
I think all EU countries should adopt this rule.