we know that people, who go to protests, go because they feel strongly about the issue. however is it proper to STIFLE and silence opinions based on the possibility of violence?
i recently saw a video called exodus- at one point the british representative explained that "our mission is to keep peace and if we allow jews to come here, then the Arabs will riot in Palestine [the name in the '40s for a land in which both arab and jewish Palestinians lived].
The idea in this video of "Suspecting the arabs doing a violent" response has the problem of "generality and racism" accusing the race of arabs of violent responses.
he should not be suspecting the arabs of actually doing violent acts and should not decide based on this possibility. instead he should do whatever commitment the government made about authorizing the jews to return to the land once called "juda" a name preserved in the New testament and from which the people of that land were called "jews" without suspecting that arabs awould actually be violent. In doubt he could prepare for the possibility by sending police to watch and observe and be present to deter the possibility- while keeping the commitment to allow return as explained.
whatever- it was only a video
but what about in real life?
in a university in Israel two rival political parties wanted to have a protest. in order to "prevent violence" one side was silenced and forbidden to counter-protest. so which is worse: the racism of suspecting the arab protesters of a violent response OR the SILENCING of one side from making a counter protest?
In comparison a different university in Israel allowed both sides to protest and prepared by separating the two groups. which part of the decision was worse?
what do you think?
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה