|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1181922) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 14:02:15 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 9 02:44:38 2014. Yeah, countries that said they were willing to take immigrants...except when it came to all those Jews. Turn them back.No country has ever been completely accepting of immigrants. It's doubtful Jews were singled out specifically. Just off the top of my head, I can remember America and Canada turning away Chinese immigrants, and of course America would never accept black immigrants, and I'd have a hard time naming any country at the time that would have accepted Romani (or gay) immigrants. Then there was America's imprisonment of anybody of Japanese descent— not exactly the best welcome wagon for Japanese people fleeing their home country because they don't support the war and don't want to fight in it. They have enough resources to solve one problem, that others failed to address. Try to solve all of them, they'll end up solving none. It's called overreaching. The problem that persecuted refugees need somewhere to go when no one else will take them? Yeah, they can probably solve that one. Pity they're not even trying. And how does that hypothetical problem fit with the goal that Israel set for itself? Oh come on, you can't seriously be that stupid. The whole point of this debate is whether Israel should have a double standard. Asking how my hypothetical problem is inconsistent with the double standard is the most irrelevant nonsense you could have spewed without ignoring my argument entirely. Still better than hypocrisy. Oh that's a fun argument. Yeah, slavery was definitely mitigated by the fact that we openly declared the slaves to be inferior. You know, I'm actually inclined to draw the parallel to the Nazis themselves— they were largely unashamed to admit to their double standard, so I suppose they weren't hypocrites either. No, you put out a situation where the Israeli Christians started acting like comical fundies. (a) There are Christians who act like comical fundies, so it's hardly impossible that they might infringe on Israel at some point— after all, a good chunk of America's support for Israel is based on the Christian right's belief that they need all the Jews to go there in order to start the apocalypse. (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? See above about trying to solve all the world's problems. The problem of refugees needing a country that won't kill them is not all of the world's problems. If they have a relative in CR, they can return. If you have a relative living in Israel, then presumably you can "return" there whether you're Jewish or not. I asked about someone who just decided to move there, but whose sole connection to the country is distant ancestry or a self-declaration that he's Czech (which doesn't work so well with regard to a nationality but that's a flaw in the analogy rather than the argument, since anyone can declare themselves to be Jewish with relative ease). Has there been a chronic problem with anti-Czech sentiments? 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. Actually in some ways it has. Ever heard of something called Sharia law? Wasn't so popular before, seems to be more popular now. There's been some fun curb stomping in Asia too. Western countries don't occupy as much of the world you think it does. No, but ideas like democracy and equality have been consistently gaining traction— in an area that has never had either, the difference between bloodshed and tension likely to cause bloodshed hardly registers. 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. Who ever said I'm not? 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. Yeah, the Nazis were defeated with military power. We didn't so much change their nature as smashed and hunted them down. You mean we should do that to change human nature? 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. 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 they apparently have a naturalization process, it would depend on how many people would make it through. 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? Maybe the brains to make sure they have an achievable goal? Nice dodge. 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. |
|
|
|