too much or inappropriate wondering is a sickness — tim wood

How is that claim true? That’s tim wood’s opinion put in the language of fact.

But, inasmuch as your existence is uniquely yours, why would you - or could you - allow anyone else to explain your existence for you? — tim wood

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness

If we are talking hypotheticals anyways, the ability to never have been born into the society in the first place. True freedom right there. Anything else posing as freedom is absolute bullshit. If you say that is impossible, then you already have your answer for the possibility of a better civilization.

We are the only animal that has the extra burden of justifying our own survival. I would ignore most posts that say something like “most people don’t think” because the fact is that every decision is it’s own micro decision. People could have done otherwise. So every waking moment we are justifying why we do anything and using all sorts of heuristics to keep the juggling going. There is no turning the juggling off until you’re dead so start liking juggling, “LIKE EVERYONE ELSE”.

:clap:

Is it any better living day to day self sufficient though? Eating grubs and chasing the next meal?

I'm liking the Schopenhauer :up: .. And Benatar ain't bad either, darth.

I'm going to take a more abstract (philosophical?) stance on WWII. I think WWII (mainly German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese nationalism) and the Soviet Union are products of differing notions of 19th century ideas of "progress" in a metaphysical/totalizing form. It's the idea that society itself is some reified existential being that has its own trajectory and will. One can place it even earlier with the 18th century notions of Enlightenment (the French Revolution/Reign of Terror). First off, Nazism/Fascism is an ideology, as is Marxism/Communism. These ideas developed from:

1) Utopianism ala Enlightenment-progress. This first reared its head in the French Revolution. You had the Jacobins, Sans-Coulattes, and Dantonists who wanted to start history anew with months like Thermidor and the like. This got its wings in Marxist ideas of the "withering of the state" after a workers takeover.

2) Hegelian ideas of "progress" in history. He thought that each stage in history had nascent in it a contradiction leading to the next level. To him, the Prussian State circa 1820s was the height of historical progress and the last stage.. but it was the groundwork for Marx's economic version of this.

3) Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and Ubermensch. Certainly, the version corrupted by Hitler/German racists was not what Nietzsche was necessarily saying, but the idea that a new dawn of history where morals of the past were set aside for a new one based on taking power (yes yes not in the original sense but still influential in its corrupted form).

4) Karl Marx- took Hegel's approach and made it about economic stages.. At the end is withering away of state and a final stage in history-society.

There's some other ones liker Herder and Fichte, Sorel, Spencer, and the like in there, but these are the major ones I believe.

The Soviet Union, Italian Fascism, and German/Japanese ethnic-based fascism are all kind of totalizing ideas of history that was a culmination of the 19th century ideas in political-social theory.

The Anglo-American ideal of a relatively free economic system was a holdover from the 18th century ideas of market ideas.. The liberal version of this is mixed economy with strong emphasis on multiculturalism.. a holdover from mainly pragmatism of late 19th early 20th century. Cultural pluralism, etc.

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive. — ChatteringMonkey

But I think people are saying that I think. It’s as if experience wins some sort of points for some reason over non experience. As we’ve agreed, that isn’t a valid evaluation. Error or undefined ensues.

If what they mean is that they really like the experiences of working, maintenance, and seeking forms of entertainment, what makes this any better than nothing? Still invalid.

To further make the point, let's say there were these two scenarios:
1) A universe devoid of any experience. No people working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

2) A universe with experience. People working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

Because of what we have said earlier, there is no reason why scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 in any inherent way. It is absurd if you follow the logic to say that it is.

Thinking plays a role, but not fundamentally. We can reflect on certain valuations, and maybe switch them around a bit or change the ordering, but you always have to start with some base of valuation... you cannot get them out of nothing, thinking needs something to work with. — ChatteringMonkey

But your contention was:

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does. — ChatteringMonkey

We may not want to live. We only can know life, true, but to want it over some imaginative other thing (like not having to do the tasks required of life), would be different.

I think the same thing applies to us generally valuing life, we want homeostasis, to propagate our living being in time. You cannot get around it really. Even Schopenhauer himself didn't believe in his own pessimistic philosophy, Nietzsche says, because he played the flute! — ChatteringMonkey

Again, I don't think we want it, but once alive most homeostatic activity becomes what we want out of shear fear of pain of death and being destitute.

From the perspective of non-life, from the perspective of nothingness, the question isn't even a valid question to ask because there is nobody to make that value-judgement... it's like asking how much an idea weighs, it doesn't make sense. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed, but just as being "non-life" is nonsensical from the perspective nothingness, so is the perspective that life needs to perpetuate, and that existence is somehow "good".

I think we are actually on the same page as to the nonsensicalness of the idea that existence is "good". I'm just pointing out that it is often a fallacy in philosophical thinking when people say, "existence itself is a good". But as we are both pointing out, that is nonsensical at best, and wrong at worst.

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does. — ChatteringMonkey

But other life does it unthinkingly. We know how life perpetuates and can even prevent it. It wouldn't be enough to say, "That's just what humans do" because it's precisely because humans can freely evaluate and act upon it that this can be a debate; it is not inevitable, but contingent on each person's choices and actions.

Right, without experience there is no one even able to make the valuation of good or bad. — ChatteringMonkey

We have a need to get things done in order to survive, stay comfortable, and stay entertained. I don't see why this particular arrangement is "good". In that respect, what we do is inevitable. This situation does not change. But why do we want this situation in perpetuity? Your fingernails grow and have to be cut, weeds have to be pruned, vegetables need water, the deer has to be chased after and hunted, the nuts and berries have to be cultivated.. and on and on and on.

Nothingness is something foreign to us. It is an imaginative leap we take symbolized by voidness, sleep, the idea of nothingness. Why is this bad? Again, the stage of experience, and striving after, what's so good anyways?

Enough people want this conflict to go on. Especially the religious fanatics. People can have this strange discussion of who is morally more justified than the other in a long conflict like this. A better discussion would be how the conflict could be ended. Without the virtue signaling. — ssu

Absolutely agree. You’ve actually managed to sum up my points in my last few posts better than I so kudos. I was first seeing If the indignity went both ways, but the broader point I was getting at is pretty much what you stated in your last post.
I refer everyone to it as a summation of this thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/545926

The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile. — BitconnectCarlos

Give up Right of Return. Give up big settlements in West Bank. Make sure things like assassinations (Rabin) and increasing suicide bombings (Hamas/Hezbollah or whatnot) doesn't occur during process. If this happens, the moderates crack down on their own extremes. Not sure how that looks.

That's my answer. It just depends on the specific scenario. For example, if the IDF invaded Gaza, Palestinian militants would be justified in resisting the invasion with force. Just as if Palestinian militants invaded Israel, the converse would be true. Sometimes one or the other may be more or less justified in using violence. The asymmetry is that Israel is the occupier. In that sense, their violence is constant. — Baden

What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas.

But this is what happens, tit-for-tat punishment attacks against the innocent create a spiral of hatred that prolongs conflicts. — Baden

Yep, becomes reprisal tit-for-tat, revenge, etc. Israel can sort of try to claim "deterrence" too, but I don't see suicidal terrorists being deterred anyways. Once they used up most of their supply, they will stop more likely. I'm not sure what makes Hamas "stop" though.. It certainly isn't seeing their own innocents die anymore than Israel sending over missiles in response to intended violence towards them. Israel too should take into account that Hamas just doesn't give a fuck if a bunch of people die in response to their rockets. As long as they have a show of force, and show they are "really pissed", they are good with it, no matter the consequences towards their own people.

I still don't really know what you're getting at here. — Baden

It goes back to this:

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence? — schopenhauer1

Or more elaborated version whereby if "BitCarlos cannot say "We are justified to use violence because of X (security)", similarly you cannot say on Palestinian side, "We are justified to use violence because of X (occupying force)". I was looking to make sure there wasn't just blatant bias going on.

I also wanted to see the propensity one has for condoning violence against one side or how even-handed was it. In other words, if you perceive that you are occupied, how violent are you allowed to be and to whom? Conversely, if your civilians are being purposefully targeted (like in the case of Israel's citizens), what is the proper response if those very perpetrators hide back in the crowds? Hence my question here:

What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas. — schopenhauer1

@BitconnectCarlos
In an imaginary world where all Palestinian factions decided 1967 borders were acceptable and right of return was stricken from the table, do you think Israelis would even vote for it?

Granted that's very imaginary as that right of return thing is always the kicker..

Also, just wondering, besides "spoils of war" was there an initial reason for the settlements? I do know the ultra-orthodox tend to want control of that area because it aligns more with the ancient Judean kingdom/province, so has Biblical and historical significance.

Edit; Nevermind.. I answered my own question.. In the name of security I'm guessing. But military outposts would have been more appropriate to actual security. Settlements seem to be gambling with people's lives on both fronts.

Trying to align it.. Correct me when you're rested.

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified? — schopenhauer1

Baden: No

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1

Baden: Yes

If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?

Baden: No.. (though I guess kind of confusing but this question would have only been contingent if you said "No' to the previous question. If you did answer "yes" to the question above, then you already agreed that "other options than violence should be used". However, all of this confusion on my part can be due to the fact that I am not aligning this to the right question).

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence? — schopenhauer1

Baden: Sometimes

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends? — schopenhauer1

Baden: No..

This could all be misaligned, but if you have corrections, please let me know.

(Those are my answers to your original edited post btw). — Baden

Can you quote which particular questions you are answering in the "original edited post" (is that the first in the recent exchange)? I can't quite align it, unless you're trying to be cheeky or something and those aren't real answers to anything.

By the way, how did my response get positioned before yours? Haha

No, yes, no, sometimes, no. Good night. — Baden

I mean you can just say, "edit your responses to be more clear". Not sure if you are trying to say that in a clever way or something.

"That's what I was thinking you were getting at"?

Are you using your phone and getting auto-corrected or English is not your native language or what? Serious question. — Baden

NO I just like to get my reply out without editing. I go back and edit later. As I did even before you pointed that out.

Incorrect. The correct answer is "general", which is why it was wrong in a very obvious way. The specific stuff you wrote later. — Baden

I'm not getting your point. I used the term "violence".. You were more specific that you were against "targeting civilians" which is more specific. That's was I was thinking you were getting at.

I then came to the conclusion (maybe wrong, you tell me then) that you are okay with violence against military.

It's hard to think of a group that Westerners care more about being killed than the Palestinians actually, aside from other Westerners in wealthy nations. It's a high profile conflict that has been given the weight of the Culture War.

The recent war in Armenia and the ongoing war in Ukraine is killing more people, and white people at that, and it isn't particularly interesting to Western audiences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As an experiment, you should start a thread and see how many unenthusiastic responses you get for it. You'll get your answer. Or rather, just see how long that thread goes.. Harder to judge enthusiasm for a topic, but it's clear in the animus and emotion in the responses.

Now, is this conclusion, as it is phrased, general or specific in terms of the target of the violence? — Baden

What do you want me to agree with? Specific, and then I went a bit further.. Now are you reading the full posts?

Yes, targeting civilians.. So as long as its military force its a-ok. Got it. So not violence in general, only towards military targets.. And I would guess if Israel acted (for parity) you would say the only legitimate action would be targeting Hamas fighters (assuming Israel is simply trying to get rid of the threat at hand and not solve the whole crisis which is a much bigger issue than the violence happening on the ground). But I put a lot in there, so you can parse away. — schopenhauer1

Don't worry, you'll get there. What is that a condemnation of, specifically? — Baden

Yes, targeting civilians.. So as long as its military force its a-ok. Got it. So not violence in general, only towards military targets.. And I would guess if Israel acted (for parity) you would say the only legitimate action would be targeting Hamas fighters (assuming Israel is simply trying to get rid of the threat at hand and not solve the whole crisis which is a much bigger issue than the violence happening on the ground). But I put a lot in there, so you can parse away.

No, you're again not able to read English. Keep trying. Read the posts again and try to figure out where you went wrong. — Baden

No, not falling for the bait.. Now you're trying to have some caveat..things that I address (even if you have less weapons).. You brought up ideas of occupying force (maybe that to you allows for justification for something.. not violence though it seems but some sort of "fighting").. Otherwise, I don't get why you won't accept the conclusion I have made, because you seemed to have a strong condemnation by focusing mainly on this statement (the un-wishy-washy one) here:

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) — Baden

Honestly, you are probably the least able of anyone I've ever debated here to understand basic English or logical connections. — Baden

What's the point of saying this? If it's because you are trying to say, "How can you not have interpreted me as being UNEQUIVOCALLY against Hamas' actions in the last 30 years?!!", then I don't care. I got your conclusion and said I'm cool with it. I had some reason based on a couple statements I pointed out that you might have been wishy washy on it, but you seem clearly against it so again, we can leave it as you condemn it and find it EQUALLY as unjustified, and I am ok with that.

Cool, so my conclusion is correct then here:

Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power). — schopenhauer1

And we can leave it at that. I have no problem if that is your view.

Let's start with that and slowly make progress. — Baden

Are you not okay with the conclusions I have made?

I said show me the "rather" in that sentence. See that one, the one I just quoted above. — Baden

No, I don't see a "rather" in that sentence. That alone is a strong condemnation.. It was this one that I saw hemming and hawing:

But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance — Baden

Show me the "rather" in that sentence. — Baden

You said:

But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance — Baden

Sorry not rather not, but just "rather" same thing based on the context of that sentence with the use of "justified in fighting"... which is also similarly wishy washy.. Yes you brought up that at the end of the day "think of the children" but again, it seemed to be hemming and hawing about it.

The two sentences are different. The first sentence clearly refutes the idea that I support "exactly" what Hamas has been doing for the past 30 years, seeing as that, by definition, includes targeting civilians. The other sentence as it came after the first one is contextualized by the first one. — Baden

Okay, I'm going to try to lower the tension on this point because based on this stronger condemnation and emphasis I will now put you in the YES camp. Cool with me then.

"What part of what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the past 30 years is justified?" then you need to rephrase your question. The way it's phrased currently means "Is exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years justified?". The former (which you didn't ask) is an information question and the latter (which you did ask) a yes/no question, the answer to which, as I mentioned, can directly be inferred from my previous posts. — Baden

Yes, is the violence and actions over the last 30 years justified from Hamas, even though they have less weapons? (If I was to combine both of my ideas). You have much more apparently sided with the YES camp to this question (which I am okay with as at least its parity in terms of starting bias):

Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security".

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified? — schopenhauer1

Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power).

Me: Nobody including Hamas is justified in targeting civilians
Small distracted fish: So, you are justifying Hamas killing civilians
Me: Read what I wrote.
Small distracted fish: Sounds like you are OK with Hamas killing civilians. — Baden

Yes, "Rather not" in any use in the English language is pretty damn wishy washy. It's not a strong condemnation, so it counters (a bit) the other claims as you seem to have some hesitation.

No, it's as clear and unequivocal as day. — Baden

That's what I'm trying to understand, whether you think the morality is unequivocal.. your language not so clear..

Look, if you don't understand English, you don't belong in this conversation. — Baden

I don't care if you're condescending. Doesn't change it was kind of wishy washy.

Oh I was going to say you were on the YES camp on this, but then you wrote:

I'm going to answer this. This time, please listen. A) The labels do not matter. Whatever I say applies equally to any party in a similar context. B) Violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified C) Options other than violence should always be considered first. D) If you want to know whether in a certain scenario, I think violence would be justified, give me the precise scenario. — Baden

So, now I can start being condescending and ask if you understand English, because clearly I said:

Ok, that's what I wanted to know. So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years? — schopenhauer1

So the precise scenario is the actions of Hamas/Palestinian fighters over the last 30 years.

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas) — Baden

Ok, well you had a varying views there, so you can see why it's confusing.. Again, kind of wishy washy. So just to circle back to the OP's phrasing for parity:

Just as BitconnectCarlos cannot use the defense "But this is justified for X" (in this case security), — schopenhauer1

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1

Would you agree with those statements, the way they are phrased? Yes or no? If no, why?

Also keep in mind I acknowledged this:

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends? — schopenhauer1

You seemed to answer NO on that, so I simply need the first question answered yes or no.

JFC, at least read the post that replied to you. You have the attention span of a fucking budgie. — Baden

I'd rather see non-violent resistance in any conflict, not because I have any sympathy for occupying military forces but because civilians, including children, on both sides usually bear the brunt of these kinds of conflicts. — Baden

Yes I saw that. But the key word was "rather see" which is REALLY hard to nail down there. Sounds like you are okay with it cause rather not is not much of a condemnation, but a kind of "meh, not great but it's acceptable" at least how I interpret it.

But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. — Baden

Ok, that's what I wanted to know. So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years?

@StreetlightX@Benkei@BitconnectCarlos@ssu@Baden

Just curious. And I think this is completely valid in this particular thread as everyone has been ALL over the place on this one, moving it away from this specific incident to the conflict in general, to everything else.

Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security".

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified?

I only ask this to see if there is parity between the two sides or if this is more of a pile on. Just as BitconnectCarlos cannot use the defense "But this is justified for X" (in this case security), are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?

I'm just curious the thought process and reasoning here as I think it would reveal a lot of the beginning positions of the participants.

Edit: I would like people to also understand I know that Israel is the more "powerful" country in terms of weapons.. That is factored into this. The questions still remain:

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence?

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends?

This has some information too:

At its peak in 1947, the Jewish displaced person population reached approximately 250,000. While the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) administered all of the displaced persons camps and centers, Jewish displaced persons achieved a large measure of internal autonomy.

A variety of Jewish agencies were active in the displaced persons camps. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee provided refugees with food and clothing, and the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ORT) offered vocational training. Jewish displaced persons also formed self-governing organizations, and many worked toward the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. There were central committees of Jewish displaced persons in the American and British zones which, as their primary goals, pressed for greater immigration opportunities and the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

In the United States, immigration restrictions strictly limited the number of refugees permitted to enter the country. The British, who had received a mandate from the League of Nations to administer Palestine, severely restricted Jewish immigration there largely because of Arab objections. Many countries closed their borders to immigration. Despite these obstacles, many Jewish displaced persons attempted to leave Europe as soon as possible.

The Jewish Brigade Group, formed as a unit within the British army in late 1944, worked with former partisans to help organize the Brihah (literally "escape"), the exodus of 250,000 Jewish refugees across closed borders from inside Europe to the coast in an attempt to sail for Palestine. The Mosad le-Aliyah Bet, an agency established by the Jewish leadership in Palestine, organized "illegal" immigration (Aliyah Bet) by ship. However, the British intercepted most of the ships.

In 1947, for example, the British stopped the Exodus 1947 at the port of Haifa. The ship had 4,500 Holocaust survivors on board, who were returned to Germany on British vessels. In most cases, the British detained the refugees—over 50,000—in detention camps on the island of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The British use of detention camps as a deterrent failed, and the flood of immigrants attempting entry into Palestine continued.

The internment of Jewish refugees—many of them Holocaust survivors—turned world opinion against British policy in Palestine. The report of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry in January 1946 led US president Harry Truman to pressure Britain into admitting 100,000 Jewish refugees into Palestine.

As the crisis escalated, the British government decided to submit the problem of Palestine to the United Nations (UN). In a special session, the UN General Assembly voted on November 29, 1947, to partition Palestine into two new states, one Jewish and the other Arab, a recommendation that Jewish leaders accepted and the Arabs rejected.

After the British began the withdrawal of their military forces from Palestine in early April 1948, Zionist leaders moved to establish a modern Jewish state. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, announced the formation of the state of Israel, declaring,

"The Nazi Holocaust, which engulfed millions of Jews in Europe, proved anew the urgency of the reestablishment of the Jewish State, which would solve the problem of Jewish homelessness by opening the gates to all Jews and lifting the Jewish people to equality in the family of nations."

Holocaust survivors from displaced persons camps in Europe and from detention camps on Cyprus were welcomed into the Jewish homeland. Many of them fought in Israel's War of Independence in 1948 and 1949. In 1953, Yad Vashem (The Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority), the national institution for Holocaust commemoration, was established. — https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/postwar-refugee-crisis-and-the-establishment-of-the-state-of-israel

Probably not, no, but why can't they go to Palestine? In hindsight its all clear the mess we're in but the 40s and 50s were different times and jews were interested in building their own communities in that region. — BitconnectCarlos

Not sure if this informs one way or the other:

Once it became obvious that repatriation plans left many DPs who needed new homes, it took time for countries to commit to accepting refugees. Existing refugee quotas were completely inadequate, and by the fall of 1946, it was not clear whether the remaining DPs would ever find a home.

Between 1947 and 1953, the vast majority of the "non-repatriables" would find new homes around the world, particularly among these countries:[10]

Belgium was the first country to adopt a large-scale immigration program when it called for 20,000 coal mine workers from the DP ranks, bringing in a total of 22,000 DPs near the end of 1947. The program met with some controversy, as critics viewed it as a cynical ploy to get cheap labor.
The United Kingdom accepted 86,000 DPs as European Voluntary Workers as part of various labor import programs, the largest being "Operation Westward Ho". These came in addition to 115,000 Polish army veterans who had joined the Polish Resettlement Corps and 12,000 former members of the Waffen SS Ukrainian Halychyna Division.
Canada first accepted a number of refugees through Orders in Council and then implemented a bulk-labor program to accept qualified labor and a close-relatives plan, that ultimately took the form of a sponsorship plan. By the end of 1951, Canada had accepted 157,687 refugees.
Australia had initially launched an immigration program targeting refugees of British stock, but expanded this in late 1947 to include other refugees. Australia accepted a total of 182,159 refugees, principally of Polish and Baltic origins.[11]
By the time Israel was established in 1948, as many as 50,000 refugees had entered the country legally or illegally. Completely opening its doors to all Jewish refugees regardless of age, work ability, health, etc., Israel accepted more than 652,000 refugees by 1950.
France accepted 38,157 displaced persons.
In Latin America, Venezuela accepted 17,000 DPs; Brazil 29,000; and Argentina 33,000.
French Morocco accepted 1,500 immigrants; Iraq extended an invitation to ten unmarried medical doctors.
Norway accepted about 492 Jewish refugees, largely based on their ability to perform manual labor. These were scattered throughout the country, and most left as soon as they could, primarily to Israel.
The United States was late to accept displaced persons, which led to considerable activism for a change in policy. Earl G. Harrison, who had previously reported on conditions in the camps to President Harry S. Truman led the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons that attracted dignitaries such as Eleanor Roosevelt, David Dubinsky, Marshall Field, A. Philip Randolph, and others. Meeting considerable opposition in the United States Congress with a bias against Central and Eastern European intellectuals and Jews, The American program was the most idealistic and expansive of the Allied programs but also the most notoriously bureaucratic.
After World War II ended in 1945, there were 7 to 11 million displaced people, or refugees, still living in Germany, Austria and Italy. To have some of these refugees come to the United States, Truman asked Congress to enact legislation. Truman’s administration, along with a lobbying group for refugees, Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons, favored allowing European refugees from World War II to enter the United States. Truman signed the first Displaced Persons Act on June 25, 1948. It allowed 200,000 displaced persons to enter the country within the next two years. However, they exceeded the quota by extending the act for another two years, which doubled the admission of refugees into the United States to 415,000. From 1949 to 1952, about half the 900,000 immigrants that entered the United States were displaced persons.[12] In order to qualify for American visas, only those that were in internment camps by the end of 1945 were eligible. The displaced persons that were trying to come to America had to have a sponsor and a place to live before their arrival, a guarantee that they would not displace American workers and, even more preferable, was that they had a relative that is an American citizen. Voluntary social service agencies, created by religious and ethnic groups, helped the refugees settle into American life.[13] Of the DPs the US admitted from eastern Europe between 1941 and 1957, 137,450 were European Jews.[14]

By 1953, over 250,000 refugees were still in Europe, most of them old, infirm, crippled, or otherwise disabled. Some European countries accepted these refugees on a humanitarian basis. Norway accepted 200 refugees who were blind or had tuberculosis, and Sweden also accepted a limited number. In the end most of them were accepted by Germany and Austria for their care and ultimately full resettlement as citizens. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_persons_camps_in_post%E2%80%93World_War_II_Europe

Are you going to tell holocaust survivors in 1945 that they can't go to Israel? The one place where jews aspire to be ruled by other jews and not risk being murdered by their own host countries? Israel wasn't even a state at this point, it was just jews living in British controlled palestine. — BitconnectCarlos

They wouldn't have been murdered surely if they just went to US, Canada, and UK, no?

US, Canada, UK, or Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

But surely they should have just went to US, Canada, and the UK and foregone Israel, no? As @Judaka and others are claiming, these are ecumenical countries. Israel is a monolithic one- ironically treading against the tide of history which is moving towards ecumenicalism/multiculturalism/diversity.

Assimilation can always be an option, but it should never be something to be pushed or forced on a group of people. It takes an incredible degree of arrogance to come as a complete outsider to another group and just tell them outright that they need to "be like us" or "become western" - whatever that means. We've already seen this narrative play out so many times in the Western world like with the Native Americans I just can't believe some people haven't learned by now. — BitconnectCarlos

Surely after WWII, the dispossessed Jews should just reclaim their homes in Germany, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, and such right? What to do with the displaced persons? There have been ideas I've heard to have carved out something in Germany maybe to protect them. No one was interested in that.

So @Judaka's contention is that no nation should ever be built for ethnic historical reasons. Case closed for Israel.