|
|
| Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar (1182134) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Fri May 9 17:05:50 2014, in response to Re: Palestinian university students’ trip to Auschwitz causes uproar, posted by Nilet on Fri May 9 13:22:04 2014. Nope. Still racist.Where does it say that a country is obligated to take in a people extremely hostile to it? Yes, two warring populations divided their homeland. However, in a separate decision at best tangentially related to that, one country decided to declare itself a home for one limited and arbitrary demographic at the expense of any other. Which you can't seem to wrap your head around. It's actually seriously related, since you'd probably want to keep the people trying to destroy your new country out of said country, and at least in the beginning want to focus on your original task. And please define "at the expense of any other". By that your implying Israel closed existing doors to emigrants or otherwise took away something from them. Good. Then it should have no trouble accepting, say, a tenth of that. Regardless of their religious persuasion. That's something that Israel's Interior Ministry (or whatever the department is called) will have decide. Sigh, I keep forgetting that you can't understand anything less subtle than an anvil to the face. The point is, in 2014 there is no holocaust underway, so your hypothetical is irrelevant. If you modify your hypothetical to assume I'm in 1940, then it's irrelevant to the topic of this debate, as Israel didn't exist in 1940 and I'd have no problem with it prioritising refugees fleeing from the Nazis if it did. You better hold on to that anvil, because you need it for own head. I was commenting on your total lack of empathy and possibly imagination, which explains your overly idealistic views and in your inability to respond to the situation I proposed. Not to mention I excluded Israel's right of return, so Israel was already off the table as a surefire haven. After all, racism, sexism, and many other forms of prejudice are commonplace, religious schisms are hardly unheard of, and democracies do sometimes become dictatorships, especially when they have a lot of government secrecy and a habit of "targeted killings" of anyone they deem a threat. Since you admit that such attitudes are still a problem, why, again, do you propose torpedoing an existing working solution for one that has much less chance of working, especially in the long term? In fact why don't you try putting out more working examples of your solution (in places which can actually handle the numbers) before trying to fix something as complicated as Israel? If you're making long-term disaster plans for a potential genocide, then relying on the continued existence, stability, and acceptance of/from one particular country is probably not a good idea anyway. It's better than trying to change the immigration policies of every country in the world, at the very least a damn sight more achievable. You keep missing the point, that after being rejected by other countries, it's a bit hypocritical to build your own country and start rejecting others. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit to a double standard, but that's also wrong. They voted to create a Jewish state primarily for Jews, since none existed, and never said otherwise. Unless they start abusing the non-Jewish citizens of their country, I'm more than satisfied to leave it at that. |
|
|
|