Hook: When answering the question, “Should the U.S. intervene?” I turn to the words of Eli Wiesel. As mentioned in his speech “The Perils of Indifference” “Some of them – so many of them – could be saved” (Wiesel, Page 3).
Background Information: To be a humanitarian state is to provide aid. The U.S. is known to be a large provider of humanitarian support to countries struggling worldwide. Following this title is to be expected that the U.S. should intervene in times of crisis. Allowing human abuses to occur is a blight against the morality of all people. To stop is a duty laid out in the world to prevent occurrences such as the Holocaust from …show more content…
Support #1: Elie Wiesel, a man who lived through the dehumanizing experience of the Holocaust, has stated in his speech “The Perils of Indifference” as he discusses Roosevelt’s response to the St. Louis case “Why didn’t he allow these refugees to disembark? . Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering victims?” (Wiesel, Page 3).
Analysis: Wiesel’s words cause us to think. Had the U.S. intervened, had they allowed these refugees to come, they may have had a chance at a better life. This applies to modern-day as well. So many suffering people are rejected at the U.S. border. No intervention is made to the suffering that occurs in their lives. How can the U.S. be known as a supporter of liberty, but turn away those that come searching for freedom in their situations of suffering?
Transition: Elie Wiesel has spoken many times of the injustices he faced during the Holocaust.
Support #2: In his memoir Night, Elie Wiesel discusses his experiences during the Holocaust. While Elie is being located in the Auschwitz concentration camp, he witnesses their incineration facilities and states “How was it possible that men, women, and children were being burned and that the world kept silent?” (Wiesel, Page