|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1182591) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 11 04:00:24 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 14:02:15 2014. Oops forgot to respond to the rest again.The whole point of this debate is whether Israel should have a double standard. Add to that question about what is doable for Israel. Then you'll have your answer. (b) Even if they were generally tolerant and accepting, what would happen if the Christians became a majority and started demanding their holidays be recognised as official and opening businesses on Shabbos and so forth? Israel would lose its Jewish character you seem so protective of; are you OK with that? If they can reproduce and/or convert enough people to Christianity to create a Christian majority, then that's a problem Israel will have to deal with. Does it matter? If Israel's policy was that any Jew fleeing persecution was welcome, that would be understandable— a double standard, perhaps, but not a thoroughly odious one. However, that's not the case. Israel's policy is that any Jew is welcome for any reason even while people fleeing persecution are turned away. That's what I have a problem with. It would be a little weird to reject Jews from entering a supposed Jewish haven and homeland, without a really good reason (like the person is a serial killer or a terrorist). No, but ideas like democracy and equality have been consistently gaining traction Democracy? Maybe. Equality? Not so much. If anything, it's brought the inter-demographic hatred to the forefront. You're right about Asia, though— a good chunk of the continent is controlled by the Soviet Union which is highly unpleasant and... ...no, wait, the Soviet Union collapsed. The countries carved out of its former territory are hardly paradises but all to most of them are doing better than in Soviet days. Places like Georgia are approaching "reasonably tolerable," Poland seems to be doing pretty well, and the Soviet half of Germany seems to have nearly caught up. Except Poland and Germany are not in Asia. China, Myanmar, and Thailand are, for example. And lately they've been demonstrating how enlightened they are. And the countries carved out of the Soviet Union? The majority of the ones in Asia have turned into corrupt tinpot dictators, if not outright puppets of Russia. The point is, you used the Republicans as an example to show that historical progress is being reversed and I pointed out it shows the opposite. Hmm, a party that was known for being conservative but reasonable - sometimes even liberal - has turned into an amalgamation of corporatist elitist jerks, illogical fanatics, and Christian evangelicals. Yet they carry nearly half the states in the Union, and have a majority in the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. That does not sound like progress. You missed the point entirely. Dictators can't come to power without, at minimum, the tolerance or passivity of the population. If more than a few Germans were willing to oppose him (or if other countries were less accepting of him, or if they hadn't squeezed Germany to bursting under the treaty of Versailles) then he'd never have had the chance to kill anyone. By the time military power is the only solution, humanity has already failed. I mostly agree, but the point is that your example of changing human nature involved a massive military campaign, trials, imprisonment, and executions. Moreover, you did a nice job of confusing a subset of humanity defined by geography with a subset defined by an ideology. Last time I checked, Germany still exists and its nature has been quite definitively changed since the 1940s. In fact, they've actually banned statements in support of Naziism. Why it's almost as if some people who didn't accept Naziism as an inevitable product of human nature stepped in and changed the prevailing beliefs and habits of a lot of people. Since you mentioned Nazis, I mentioned Nazis. Germany still exists because we were primarily after NAZIS not Germans as a whole. And after all that, we STILL have Nazism (as neo-Nazism), even in Germany (though much more underground). So an Afghan atheist, a Saudi Christian and a Canadian Jew all have to go through the same naturalisation process and risk not making it through? No, the Jew would go through a different one. Nice dodge. Sarcastic answer for a sarcastic question. I asked how the religious persuasion of a given number of refugees determines whether or not it's an achievable goal to take them in. Try answering that. 1) Why was Israel created? 2) Given its stated purpose, how much further beyond that purpose can it support, given its available resources? That's your answer. |
|
|
|