|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1182796) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 22:43:28 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Sun May 11 13:22:00 2014. That would imply you believe all non-Israeli Arabs want to wipe out Israel.Do you believe that all non-Israeli Arabs want to wipe out Israel? Nope. My point of view is based on the point you make that Palestinians should be incorporated into Israel. If he did and they turned him away, that's wrong and that's their fault. However, that three other people have stood by and done nothing in the face of injustice does not excuse your own apathy, especially when you have plainly demonstrated the ability to address that injustice. The question is when you claim that the immigration policy is "at his expense", what exactly did it take away from him that he had before? As you can see, I never said, suggested, or implied that I "can't even begin to imagine what it was like to be through the Holocaust or a pogrom," I pointed out that neither exists in 2014, and your argument based on the political situation of the 1940s is not relevant to what policies should be implemented today. Actually you are implying it, or at least your still dodging it. I never said "place yourself in the Holocaust happening right now in country XYZ", I said this was a HYPOTHETICAL situation where you and your group are being targeted. You are demonstrating again and again that you are unwilling or unable to even try to imagine what it's like to be in that situation. (a) If I'm not mistaken, 1948 is, in fact, the "late 1940s." (b) I have/had/would have had no objections to Israel's Law of Return policy in 1948, so asking me to ignore it in your hypothetical is unfair. That a law was expected or acceptable in different circumstances does not justify its existence now. a) Isn't that great that somebody was nice enough to create a haven for you. What would happen if it was between 1939 and 1947? b) Ah, so you ARE for the Law of Return if it was around 1948 or so, when it was necessary, but you think it's obsolete now. Except that the Jews don't think so, and your solution would end up filling Israel and pretty much ruin the solution they had set up for themselves, leaving them scrambling for another haven. Indeed. However, I think it's time they managed to move on to second and third priorities. The situation re: Judaism and worldwide acceptance thereof seems pretty much sorted. I think Jewish people would beg to differ. History is filled with many examples of countries being persuaded to abandon a double standard. I'll call it "achievable." Nice ideal, totally lacking in hard physical fact. The Romani still have trouble finding a country that will accept them. They didn't fare much better than the Jews during the Holocaust, so maybe Israel can grant them "right of return" as well? Any proof that they claim roots in a territory or want to set down roots in a territory? Frankly, the same could be said about the Holocaust itself. Come on, the best justification you can think of for the policy is the fact that it exists? You can't seriously believe that. Strawman. No one is recommending wiping out a demographic, or otherwise committing a crime against humanity. Otherwise, it's working as a haven for Jews, just as intended. That counts as a working, implemented solution. There's going to be no massive worldwide persecution of Jews in the "foreseeable" future either. Another Holocaust and Israel becoming unlivable are both possibilities and neither is clearly more likely than the other. This sounds like yet another strawman. It doesn't have to be a "massive, worldwide persecution", it could be the persecution of a group in a single country. Allowing unlimited refugee emigration to Israel will fill it up rather quickly, as well. Both possibilities sound kind of plausible, except the second one is caused by a misguided change in policy. My point is that it's not an optimal solution. Having a lifeboat on an ocean liner is better than not having one, but it is neither preferable to nor precludes the possibility of having enough lifeboats for all of the passengers. So your goal should be the latter, get enough lifeboats for all the passengers, not overload the first lifeboat and sink it. This goes back to my previous remarks about passively accepting a bad policy as the inevitable product of human nature vs. actually working to change it. You're trying to use your apathy as justification for itself— other countries don't currently accept me, so there's no reason to persuade them to. Except what your trying to do is to change a policy before you've made the change to human nature which would otherwise increase the chances of your policy change's success. And your proposing to do it first to a small, limited resource country, which is a poor starting point. Although given how concerned you seem to be about another holocaust, did it not occur to you that campaigning for other countries to be more accepting wouldn't just provide a backup haven to flee to but also eliminate the chance of that country participating in the antisemitism you think any country is about to erupt into? I would think that preemptively combatting antisemitism before another holocaust is even a remote possibility would be right up your alley. What makes you think people aren't trying to defuse anti-semitism also? It must have occurred to you that people are already doing that too, right? I proposed an effort to change other countries' immigration policies. You said that not doing so would be easier than doing so. I pointed out that yes, apathy is always easier than action. No, the point is that you recommended the Jews alter their haven in a way which would reduce its viability in the long term, on the premise that if other countries can be convinced to do it, the haven will be unnecessary. My point is that the current haven is already viable for the long term, so it shouldn't be altered until you get your solution implemented elsewhere. I'm glad you weren't around in the 1940s, since you'd probably be telling everyone that creating a Jewish State is an unachievable goal and that America's semi-open immigration policy was better than nothing since there won't be anything else in the foreseeable future. And they seem to have gotten farther with their solution than yours. Since there either wasn't a solution or the current solution clearly failed, that seems unlikely. Once again, you use your apathy to justify itself. "It hasn't been built yet, so there's no reason to try building it." See above. |
|
|
|