- #31
Adam
- 65
- 1
Anyone got a brick wall I can bang my head against?
Hypocrit EU builds Apartheid Wall
- Context: News
- Thread starter kat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Wall
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the construction of walls and fences by the EU and their implications, particularly in relation to immigration and security. Participants explore the perceived hypocrisy of the EU's actions compared to their criticisms of Israel's security measures, as well as the broader context of border security in various countries.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express hope that the wall will effectively control immigration both in and out of the EU.
- Others point out that similar walls and fences have existed in Britain and France for years, suggesting a precedent for such measures.
- A viewpoint is presented that the EU is justified in building fences to manage illegal immigration and enhance security.
- Concerns are raised about the perceived hypocrisy of the EU constructing walls while criticizing Israel's security fence.
- Some argue that the EU's wall serves different purposes than Israel's, which is seen as exacerbating tensions in a conflict zone.
- Participants discuss the legality of Israel's security fence and its implications for ethnic cleansing, with conflicting interpretations of what constitutes such actions.
- There are assertions that the wall does not forcibly remove or relocate people, thus questioning the classification of it as ethnic cleansing.
- Some participants challenge the emotional arguments surrounding the wall, advocating for a logical approach to the discussion.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the EU's wall or the legality and morality of Israel's security measures. Multiple competing views remain regarding the definitions and consequences of such actions.
Contextual Notes
The discussion includes various assumptions about immigration, security, and international law that are not universally accepted. Participants reference historical and contemporary examples that may not be directly comparable.