#passport mandates

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Source

As one commenter said, it is a driver's license. It's still a British Mandate document.

[alexjcrowley]

Btw not enough cryptid lover in the f1 fandom. What do you mean none of you has an au in which they're all different monsters.

[scary-ivy]

My horny ass should NOT be stopped by the TSA for a pat-down

[immaculatasknight]

Sorry not sorry

[leroibobo]

pictures from the old city of jerusalem's "african quarter", which comprises of ribat al-mansuri and ribat al-basiri. mamluks built the compounds in the late 13th century to house muslim pilgrims and the poor. ottomans used them as prisons, and the british closed the prisons when they occupied jerusalem in 1917. the ribats then came under the ownership of the islamic waqf, and were leased to the local afro-palestinian community.

afro-palestinians have an array of origins. like some other diaspora communities in palestine, some came through pilgrimage - al-aqsa was on their hajj path, and while many would visit to pray there, some decided to settle in jerusalem. there are also some who came to palestine enslaved or conscripted, most recently to ottomans. some came during the time of the british mandate, many as conscripted laborers to the british. afro-palestinians who can trace their ancestry do so to nigeria, chad, senegal, or sudan.

jerusalemite afro-palestinians were employed to guard al-aqsa throughout the ottoman period. during the 1948 palestine war, some joined the arab liberation army and fought with fellow palestinians to defend al-aqsa and their presence in jerusalem. the position of guards has been taken by occupation soldiers since the 1967 war, after which a quarter of the afro-palestinian population became refugees in surrounding countries.

jerusalem's afro-palestinian community still live in the compounds today, which also house the local african community society. (the door in the last picture is theirs.) afro-palestinians as a whole face the same legal, social, and economic restrictions and maltreatment as other palestinians, compounded with the same anti-black racism from israeli government and police which ethiopian jews and eritrean asylum seekers face, which result in a form of "passport racism" unique to them.

[opencommunion]

"My father was born in 1905 in Bethlehem as an Ottoman citizen with Ottoman identification papers. As a teenager he witnessed the Ottomans being replaced by the British, and suddenly, almost overnight, he became a citizen of Mandate Palestine with a Palestinian passport issued by the British Mandate government. In 1949, when Bethlehem became part of Jordan, he became suddenly a citizen of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. And when he died in 1975, he died under Israeli occupation with an ID card issued by Israel. But he was the same person throughout those geo-political vicissitudes and had no choice but to adjust to changing political and imperial realities.

Throughout Palestinian history empires have occupied the land for a certain number of years but were then forced to leave. Most of the time an empire departed only to make space for another empire. The majority of the native people of the land seldom left. Throughout history and starting with the Assyrian Exile, only a small minority was deported, and only a small percentage decided to leave. The vast majority of the native people remained in the land of their forefathers (2 Kgs 25:11). They remained the Am Haaretz, the native 'People of the Land,' in spite of the diverse empires controlling that land. This is why in this book I choose the people of the land as the description for the native inhabitants throughout history, for it is they who are the enduring continuum.

Their identity, however, was forced to change and develop according to the new realities and empires in which they found themselves. They changed their language from Aramaic to Greek to Arabic, while their identity shifted from Canaanite, to Hittite, to Hivite, to Perizzite, to Girgashite, to Amorite, to Jebusite, to Philistine, Israelite, Judaic/Samaritan, to Hasmonaic, to Jewish, to Byzantine, to Arab, to Ottoman, and to Palestinian, to mention some. The name of the country also changed from Canaan to Philistia, to Israel, to Samaria and Juda, to Palestine. ... And yet they stayed, throughout the centuries, and remained the people of the land with a dynamic identity. In this sense Palestinians today stand in historic continuity with biblical Israel. The native people of the land are the Palestinians. The Palestinian people (Muslims, Christians, and Palestinian Jews) are a critical and dynamic continuum from Canaan to biblical times, from Greek, Roman, Arab, and Turkish eras up to the present day. They are the native peoples, who survived those empires and occupations, and they are also the remnant of those invading armies and settlers who decided to remain in the land to integrate rather than to return to their original homelands. The Palestinians are the accumulated outcome of this incredible dynamic history and these massive geo-political developments."

Mitri Raheb, Faith in the Face of Empire: The Bible Through Palestinian Eyes (2012)

[reality-detective]

Rick Scott’s name is being floated as a potential replacement for Mitch McConnell as the new Republican Senate leader.

Is Rick Scott really America First?

Rick Scott supported COVID-19 vaccines, calling them our best defense against the virus, but he opposed vaccine mandates and was against vaccine passports.

Rick Scott called the January 6 protests disgusting and called for the prosecution of those involved.

Personally I wouldn't trust him. He lied about his own family using IVF (in vitro fertilization) and he got rich from insider trading. But again I will let you do your research and decide. 🤔

[sgiandubh]

Thank you for answering my Qs about citizenship. Very interesting. Multiple passports....easier to travel when your parents travel for a living ;)

Dear Citizenship Anon,

It is very rare for an Anon to come back and thank me, so kudos to you, really, 😘😘😘. I simply examined the matter in theory, as I have no proof of this whatsoever (and how could I, since children's data are protected all over the world, for all the excellent reasons one could think of).

If such a child exists (remember I am answering you seriously, here), they would have to travel with their parents, nannie or other relatives (extra documents, such as a Travel Consent signed by the parents, may be needed in the latter cases), even if in the US and in Ireland all children must have their own travel documents. FYI, in the UK, many children are included on either one or both their parents' passports, but they can also have their own document (to avoid applying for an US visa, if included on a parent's passport, for example) - an US passport comes in handy, here, for obvious reasons.

So not sure if it would be easier: traveling with a child is always a hassle.

I cannot stress enough that my answer to you only covers the situation where the child would have been born in the USA/elsewhere. If born in the UK, they would either have a British passport (father) and an Irish passport (mother), or be included on the father's British passport and have an Irish passport (mother).

[Later edit]: @harriethattie is correct to remind me that if the parents are not married at the time of birth, a child born abroad from a British father and an Irish mother would have to be registered for British citizenship. To the above and conversely, I will add that if born in the UK, the father will pass on his nationality/citizenship, subject to proof of paternity (simple DNA test required, which cannot be mandated, or Court order).

[darkmaga-returns]

The plans were drawn up by the Technocrat tyrants at the CDC, but nobody knew that America dodged the bullet at the last minute. That they would conceive such a plan in the first place should serve as a warning that evil runs deep. Criminalizing the sick? Green zones? “Physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population”? Don’t think we are out of danger because the perpetrators still work at the CDC! ⁃ TN Editor

No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.

Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.

It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.

Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.

Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.

The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”

[riflebrass]

As word gets around that we're preparing to go back into covid restrictions I just want to remind you that:

BLM rioters got a free pass for completely disregarding the lockdowns while people were being reported to the police for going to church or having a cookout with their friends.

Your elected officials got busted violating the lockdown orders and disregarding the mask mandates while they still forced their servants to mask up.

The jab did NOT work as promised and it's not just because the virus keeps mutating. It was never going to stop the spread of the virus which was the entire reason people wanted mandates and jab passports.

[southeastasianists]

A deadly stampede outside a passport office that took two lives and unending lines outside embassies - these are just some examples of what has been happening in Myanmar since the announcement of mandatory conscription into the military.

Myanmar's military government is facing increasingly effective opposition to its rule and has lost large areas of the country to armed resistance groups.

On 1 February 2021, the military seized power in a coup, jailing elected leaders and plunging much of the country into a bloody civil war that continues today.

Thousands have been killed and the UN estimates that around 2.6 million people been displaced.

Young Burmese, many of whom have played a leading role protesting and resisting the junta, are now told they will have to fight for the regime.

Many believe that this is a result of the setbacks suffered by the military in recent months, with anti-government groups uniting to defeat them in some key areas.

"It is nonsense to have to serve in the military at this time, because we are not fighting foreign invaders. We are fighting each other. If we serve in the military, we will be contributing to their atrocities," Robert, a 24-year-old activist, told the BBC.

Many of them are seeking to leave the country instead.

"I arrived at 03:30 [20:30 GMT] and there were already about 40 people queuing for the tokens to apply for their visa," recalled a teenage girl who was part of a massive crowd outside the Thai embassy in Yangon earlier in February. Within an hour, the crowd in front of the embassy expanded to more than 300 people, she claims.

"I was scared that if I waited any longer, the embassy would suspend the processing of visas amid the chaos," she told the BBC, adding that some people had to wait for three days before even getting a queue number.

In Mandalay, where the two deaths occurred outside the passport office, the BBC was told that there were also serious injuries - one person broke their leg after falling into a drain while another broke their teeth. Six others reported breathing difficulties.

Justine Chambers, a Myanmar researcher at the Danish Institute of International Studies, says mandatory conscription is a way of removing young civilians leading the revolution.

"We can analyse how the conscription law is a sign of the Myanmar military's weakness, but it is ultimately aimed at destroying lives... Some will manage to escape, but many will become human shields against their compatriots," she said.

Myanmar's conscription law was first introduced in 2010 but had not been enforced until on 10 February the junta said it would mandate at least two years of military service for all men aged 18 to 35 and women aged 18 to 27.

Maj-Gen Zaw Min Tun, the spokesperson for the military government, said in a statement that about a quarter of the country's 56 million population were eligible for military service under the law.

The regime later said it did not plan to include women in the conscript pool "at present" but did not specify what that meant.

The government spokesperson told BBC Burmese that call-ups would start after the Thingyan festival marking the Burmese New Year in mid-April, with an initial batch of 5,000 recruits.

The regime's announcement has dealt yet another blow to Myanmar's young people.

Many had their education disrupted by the coup, which came on top of school closures at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In 2021, the junta suspended 145,000 teachers and university staff over their support for the opposition, according to the Myanmar Teachers' Federation, and some schools in opposition-held areas have been destroyed by the fighting or by air strikes.

Then there are those who have fled across borders seeking refuge, among them young people looking for jobs to support their families.

In response to the conscription law, some have said on social media that they would enter the monkhood or get married early to dodge military service.

The junta says permanent exemptions will be given to members of religious orders, married women, people with disabilities, those assessed to be unfit for military service and "those who are exempted by the conscription board". For everyone else, evading conscription is punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine.

But Robert doubts the regime will honour these exemptions. "The junta can arrest and abduct anyone they want. There is no rule of law and they do not have to be accountable to anyone," he said.

Wealthier families are considering moving their families abroad - Thailand and Singapore being popular options, but some are even looking as far afield as Iceland - with the hope that their children would get permanent residency or citizenship there by the time they are of conscription age.

Others have instead joined the resistance forces, said Aung Sett, from the All Burma Federation of Student Unions, which has a long history of fighting military rule.

"When I heard the news that I would have to serve in the military, I felt really disappointed and at the same time devastated for the people, especially for those who are young like me. Many young people have now registered themselves to fight against the junta," the 23-year-old told the BBC from exile.

Some observers say the enforcement of the law now reveals the junta's diminishing grip on the country.

Last October, the regime suffered its most serious setback since the coup. An alliance of ethnic insurgents overran dozens of military outposts along the border with India and China. It has also lost large areas of territory to insurgents along the Bangladesh and Indian borders.

According to the National Unity Government, which calls itself Myanmar's government in exile, more than 60% of Myanmar's territory is now under the control of resistance forces.

"By initiating forced conscription following a series of devastating and humiliating defeats to ethnic armed organisations, the military is publicly demonstrating just how desperate it has become," said Jason Tower, country director for the Burma programme at the United States' Institute of Peace.

Mr Tower expects the move to fail because of growing resentment against the junta.

"Many youth dodging conscription will have no choice but to escape into neighbouring countries, intensifying regional humanitarian and refugee crises. This could result in frustration growing in Thailand, India, China and Bangladesh, all of which could tilt away from what remains of their support for the junta," he said.

Even if the military does manage to increase troop numbers by force, this will do little to address collapsing morale in the ranks. It will also take months to train up the new troops, he said.

The junta had a long history of "forced recruitment" even before the law was enacted, said Ye Myo Hein, a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"So the law may merely serve as a facade for forcibly conscripting new recruits into the military. With a severe shortage of manpower, there is no time to wait for the lengthy and gradual process of recruiting new soldiers, prompting [officials] to exploit the law to swiftly coerce people into service," he said.

Even for those who will manage to escape, many will carry injuries and emotional pain for the rest of their lives.

"It has been really difficult for young people in Myanmar, both physically and mentally. We've lost our dreams, our hopes and our youth. It just can't be the same like before," said Aung Sett, the student leader.

"These three years have gone away like nothing. We've lost our friends and colleagues during the fight against the junta and many families have lost their loved ones. It has been a nightmare for this country. We are witnessing the atrocities committed by the junta on a daily basis. I just can't express it in words."

[beardedmrbean]

A new lawsuit from a local conservative group seeks to force election officials in Arizona's most populous county to take extra steps to verify the citizenship status of about 26,000 voters.

The suit, filed against Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer by Trump-aligned America First Legal on behalf of Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona, is the latest in a series of legal challenges regarding voters who register to cast ballots in federal races without providing documentary proof of citizenship. It comes weeks after the law group sent out demand letters to counties statewide and hits during a key period for voter registration before the high-stakes presidential election in November.

Nationwide, registration forms generally require voters to attest that they are American citizens. Voters do so under the penalty of perjury, meaning they can be held criminally liable if they are found to have provided false information. But Arizona also requires voters to hand over a birth certificate, a passport or one of a handful of other documents proving their citizenship.

Of the state's 4.1 million registered voters, about 42,000 haven't provided that proof, creating a unique, two-track system. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that state lawmakers can block voters who have not shown citizenship documents from participating in state and local races, but must allow so-called "federal-only voters" to cast ballots in federal contests. That includes the upcoming presidential race, U.S. Senate contest and congressional matchups.

These voters still go through checks.

State law mandates that county recorders "use all available resources to verify the citizenship status" of those registering to vote, including checking the citizenship status of federal-only voters against an immigration status verification service provided by the Department of Homeland Security when practicable. That system requires specific identification numbers that county officials don't have for every federal-only voter.

Voter rolls are also routinely checked with information from the U.S. Social Security Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Maricopa County Jury Commissioner’s Office.

But attorneys with America First Legal said that isn't enough and raised concerns about growing numbers of federal-only voters in recent months. Their suit accuses Richer of failing to perform required voter list maintenance — a claim his office denies.The lawyers say county officials should take extra steps to verify the citizenship of federal-only voters, such as directly requesting citizenship information from the Department of Homeland Security under provisions of federal codes that requires government entities to exchange information about a person's citizenship status for purposes mandated in law.

"This lawsuit seeks to restore public trust in our State’s electoral system by holding Recorder Richer accountable for his failures and to ensure that the list maintenance required by the law — and common sense — is performed," the suit reads.

Sierra Ciaramella, a spokesperson for the Maricopa County Recorder's Office, said the agency maintains "accurate, up-to-date voter rolls."

"Under Recorder Stephen Richer, voter list maintenance has remained a top priority, removing more than 400,000 voters from the rolls since January 2021," she said. "As an administrative office, we will continue to follow the letter of the law."

Ahead of election, conservatives raise concerns about federal-only voters

The lawsuit against Maricopa County comes on the heels of several dizzying swerves in an ongoing legal appeal that ultimately aims to require all Arizona voters to show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The appeal, brought by GOP legislative leaders and national Republicans, challenged a federal judge's decision to block portions of two laws passed in 2022. Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed that decision and said voters registering on state forms could see their applications rejected for not providing proof of citizenship. The court determined voters could continue to register to vote in federal races if they used federal voter registration forms.

It then swiftly reversed its decision, ruling last week that Arizonans would again be allowed to register to vote in federal races with state forms without having to prove citizenship. Republican officials have since vowed to seek an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ciaramella said at least 200 voter registration requests were rejected in the time period between the two court decisions. She said the most recent ruling didn't include a retroactive reconsideration of those registration attempts, but county officials are in the process of sending letters to rejected voters informing them of the new ruling and how they can register to vote.

[i-merani]

Lawfare and discrimination against Palestinians by Arab countries

Hey I want to talk about something that is a very uncomfortable truth regarding Arab countries and their attitude towards Palestinians. Arab countries, which claim that they support Palestine, only do so to fulfill their own self interest. The reality of their "support" is different. Palestinians are not allowed to be in certain arab countries, they are not allowed to get citizenship, residence permit, pasport. Palestinians cannot fully live in Arab countries.

First read this info about Palestinians in Israel: All persons legally resident and registered, born or naturalised in Palestine under the British Mandate (1919-1948) were British Protected Persons, holders of British (Palestine) passports. Citizenship in both Jewish and Arab states – proposed by the Partition Plan set out in UN Res. 181 in 1947 – was meant to be granted to all inhabitants. However, when Britain promptly ended its mandate on 15 May 1948, it was left to the successor state, Israel, to determine entitlement to nationality.

Here are some facts:

Today more than half of the eight million or so Palestinians are considered to be de jure stateless persons. These fall broadly into three categories:

• holders of the 'Refugee Travel Document' (RTD) issued by Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and some other Arab countries (not a pasport/citizenship)

• holders of nationalities of convenience - mainly temporary Jordanian passports (not a pasport/citizenship)

• holders of the Palestinian passport issued by the Palestinian Authority (PA) which is considered as a travel document pending formation of a fully-fledged Palestinian state.

Policies of Arab countries regarding Palestinians:

Two main principles - set out in an Arab League protocol signed in Casablanca in 19651 - have determined the treatment of Palestinian refugees in host Arab states:

1. Granting Palestinian refugees full citizenship rights but denying them naturalisation (meaning, if a Palestinian is born in a certain Arab state, they will get a citizenship but a Palestinian not born in e.g. Egypt, will not get a citizenship even if they've lived there for 20 years)

2. Issuing them with Refugee Travel Documents (RTD) in order to maintain their refugee status (again, not granting citizenship)

But protocol was not followed through by some Arab countries, including Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Meaning that Palestinians were not only denied possibility of citizenship, but even their refugee statuses (RTD).

Additionally, Palestinians were expelled en masse from Kuwait in 1991 and from Libya in 1995. Palestinians in Iraq had to endure acts of vengeance including killings, evacuation and deportation.

Instititional discrimination against Palestinians in Arab countries:

The legal status, residency and civil rights of Palestinian communities in the Arab World are increasingly uncertain, particularly in Lebanon and Egypt where they are denied rights to secure residency, employment, property, communal interaction and family unification (this part is very similar how Jews were treated in Europe).

Procedures to allow nonresidents to apply for naturalisation in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia do not apply to stateless Palestinians.

Palestinian refugees in Jordan have Jordanian nationality but are denied equal political participation and subjected to subtle forms of discrimination. Jordanian authorities refuse to offer naturalisation to those Palestinians who at the time of their displacement in 1967 did not hold Tordanian passports. Some 60,000 stateless Palestinians, mainly from Gaza and original holders of Egyptian RTDs, were allowed to stay but have been denied any civil rights and most are confined to a camp near the northern city of Jarash.

What is my point?

I want to demonstrate how Arab countries are directly harming Palestinians. While Arab countries express their support for Palestine, restricting their freedom of movement by elaborate rules of law that deny them possibility of pursuing better life outside Palestine is a blatant violation of human rights.

At this moment, while Israel is bombing Palestine, Egypt and Jordan are refusing to open their borders to Palestinians fleeing the bombs.

Arab countries are physically trapping Palestinians in Palestine not giving them proper means to live in the Arab world outside Palestine.

Palestinians don't have anywhere to go and that is not a hyperbole, it is a deliberate lawfare against them by their "brothers" from the Arab world. While Israel is destroying Palestine, it is also important to see how much harm the policies of Arab countries cause regular Palestinians who want to flee the conflict zone and live a better life.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

I really don't get how these racist women can't seem to understand why they're being called racist, like I think you all have explained it quite clearly and they still don't get it; it reminds me of a post I saw a while back wherein a woman wrote of something that happened to her at the farmacy I think, where she just had to mention the race of a man that she saw being disrespectful towards another woman, and she just couldn't understand why she was called a racist. Honestly I cannot understand what's so hard to get-it's not the race it's the culture, like there are white musilm men and they are just as awful towards women.

its not about race. so many white men would love to roll back womens rights and think womens rights have gone too far. liberal and centrist men support the sex industry, conservative men still promote the „traditional“ family where the woman stays home, and altright men become incels and think they should have state mandated girlfriends. western „passport bros“ hate western women and fetishise what they deem traditional women from eastern europe (who are also white), southeast asia or latin america because they think they will submit to them. white men are pushing back against womens rights in so many ways…

its also ironic they dont seem to understand that their whiteness gives them different status. there are no big articles whenever a white man rapes any woman, none when a brown man rapes a brown woman, only when a brown man rapes a white woman, because that way politicians can push for stricter border politics because they have no policy proposals at hand that actually protect women, only populism. and they are playing right into their hands! its embarrassing frankly.

and yeah thats not even touching on confusing race, nationality, religion and culture. or on the fact that other factors such as class and education as well as citizenship and other things play into how blatantly and in what way a man exhibits his misogyny.

[lazyscience]

Voter suppression shenanigans afoot at the Circle K Capitol again. Despite the fact that there is NO evidence of immigrant voter fraud, and it is ALREADY illegal to vote in elections for noncitizens, this mess if it becomes law will require ALREADY REGISTERED VOTERS to provide either a valid passport - which only about a third of US adults have - OR a Real ID/equivalent military or federal employee ID AND a birth certificate -to document their citizenship at at the polls.

This idiocy is first of all burdensome, because if you don't have a certified copy of your birth certificate it costs between $20-30 and takes a month to get by mail if you don't have time to go to a vital record processing center during business hours (many people are not gonna be able to get time off to do that, and may not have ready access to a printer and a notary public to send in a request by mail - I'm using MN state requirements here as an example, your state might differ in some particulars). A passport can take MONTHS to be processed, and costs around $200 depending on whether you want a book or card, and whether you have $85 or so to shell out to expedite processing and shipping.

This will of course disproportionately affect

young voters - I mean, a lot of them have never had to interact with a system that doesn't allow you to just put in a credit card number and call it good as opposed to mailing notarized documents,

poor voters/seniors on fixed incomes, for whom time off, travel and administrative fees are a burden when everybody's already feeling the pinch of shameless greedflation

voters with insecure housing situations,

voters who have discrepancies between their birth documentation and state ID (married women, trans people)

It'll also impose a significant increased administrative burden for election commissions and judges (which are already hard to get enough of) , and because that increased paperwork isn't gonna file itself, a considerable unfunded mandate for the states that they don't EXPECT them to be able to absorb easily.

You know what to do. Call/write your senators and let them know in no uncertain terms to knock this shit the fuck off, this is shameless voter suppression in action and if they allow this to get voted into law, they have only themselves to blame if they're unemployed in January. It's unlikely that it'll pass - but unlikely isn't impossible, and this fucking year, I'm not giving it any more chances to screw us over. It's important to make sure your senators and reps know that you do not give a fuck about made-up immigration boogiemen.

[eretzyisrael]

As the publicity increases for the new "Golda" movie, and anti-Israel activists are freaking out over the possibility that people might watch it and learn that Israel isn't wholly evil, let's revisit the quote that the haters consider the most damning and racist from Golda Meir.

Wikipedia traces Golda Meir's supposedly bigoted quote denying that there were a Palestinian people.

1969:  "There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist."

Fact check: True. The quote is often butchered, but her words are precise: There was no independent Palestinian people in a Palestinian state. It was considered "southern Syria" by the Arabs and Westerners included Transjordan in "Palestine" which usually meant Biblical Israel and Judah. While there were isolated exceptions, Palestinian Arabs did not consider themselves a "Palestinian people," by and large, until the 1960s. 

1970: "When were Palestinians born? What was all of this area before the First World War when Britain got the Mandate over Palestine? What was Palestine, then? Palestine was then the area between the Mediterranean and the Iraqian border. East and West Bank was Palestine. I am a Palestinian, from 1921 [to] 1948, I carried a Palestinian passport. There was no such thing in this area as Jews, and Arabs, and Palestinians, There were Jews and Arabs....I don't say there are no Palestinians, but I say there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people."

Fact check: Mostly true. I would argue that by 1970 there was an emergent "Palestinian people" that had been formed by decades of Arab mistreatment of and marginalization of Palestinian Arabs - and the Arab League decisions to maintain their stateless status until Israel is destroyed. 

What she didn't say is that the creation of a Palestinian people was specifically to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state and ultimately meant as a weapon to destroy Israel. Their Arab "brethren" (and their own leaders) did everything they could to destroy Israel, and when they couldn't do it militarily, they decided that they could appeal to the Western proclivity to root for the underdog. Before 1967, Israel was the clear underdog, so they needed to create a Palestinian people who could make Israel look like the bully and the tiny, stateless Palestinian people as the hapless victims. 

Meir's comments were in the context of that deliberate re-framing of history, as she witnessed this change in the meaning of the word "Palestinian" and the emergence of the new phrase "Palestinian people" to refer to Arabs.