ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I did not say "teaching YOU modern Jewish history 101"

You seem to be under the impression that youre the first person to either ask a question about Israel, or make an assertion, or make an assertion in the form of a question.

Well, I'm sory but that was the imnpression you left. Since it was I was the person to whom the statements were directed. I can only work with what I have.

Im tired of teaching modern Jewish history 101 over and over again in thread after thread. In this case, given how little you apparently knew (and know) about the history of the Jews since 1800, which involved not so much a specific fact but an entire misunderstanding of the nature of Jewish identity in most of the world from 1800 on, I really felt that suggesting a good book was far more appropriate than posting anything specific. I still feel that way.

You have every right to make uneducated presumptions on my level of education or information. The fact that this makes you look like a presumptive ass not withstanding.

Tom P.

BTW, thank you for the book suggestion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You guys do realize that Israel already exists, right?

It wont for long, according to Khaled Meshaal.

[Arrian]

You've displayed your lack of knowledge pretty clearly, Tom P.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Your point?

Edit: Damn you Arrian.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Madagascar was never offered by France, the colonial power. It was suggested by Poland, that Madagascar be given by france to Poland, where Polish Jews would then be settled, still under Polish soveriegnty, accomplishing the dual purpose of finding a home for eastern european Jews, and satisfying Polands colonial ambitions. France was never interested in this, nor did anyone else take it seriously. A few Germans tossed the old idea around, but they envisioned something more like a prison camp, and they dropped it fairly quickly.

So again there was never any real "offer" of Madagascar to the Jews. Had France, say offered it in 1938, they would have had to face problems with the locals just as bad as in Palestine, plus no existing Jewish population or infrastructure, plus no historical or emotional connection to the land.

Dammit! I did it again. I appologize. I confused Madagascar and Uganda.

Crap.

Tom P.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah
[Q] Originally posted by lord of the mark

You have every right to make uneducated presumptions on my level of education or information. The fact that this makes you look like a presumptive ass not withstanding.

My presumption was based on the words you posted. A question "Why did the Jewish RELIGION have a claim to a country" in regard to the period when Zionists first asserted their claims, is not consistent with a familiarity with modern Jewish history, which would show that the question of whether Jews were a religion, a nation, or something else, was the key debate among Jews at the time, and that nature of the answer was central to the relations of different jewish groups to Zionism. If you actually DO read up the subject, you will gather how much your original question revealed ignorance.

[Arrian]

Discussions concerning the legitimacy of Israel necessarily result in rehashing its creation.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Madagascar

[Patroklos]

1. After WW Two it was a british problem because Britain only held Palestine due to the League Mandate, and the mandate specified the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. France and Italy, in 1946, expected the problem to be solved IN Palestine because that was what the League had agreed on way back in 1919. There would have been no reason to suggest a French or Italian colony. France could well have responded that if UK had no interest in fulfilling the mandate then UK should have let France have the mandate in 1919.

How many other now defunct League mandates received such strict interpretation, or any standing whatsoever? Who the hell was Italy to demand anything at all?

Your use of the word pipe dream prejudges the question. In fact Israel has proven to be quite viable. Its one of the more successful states in the world today. If Israel today is "not viable" then neither are about 3/4 of the members of the UN.

Since when has Isreal been viable? It is viable with tens of billions of aid a year (God only knows how much overall), economic and financial. Hell, what group wouldn't be viable with a dozen divisions of free tanks, a whole air force of free modern aircraft, and not to mention strategic guarantees from the most powerful nations of the world over the decades? Perhaps the Palestinians? Not to say your efforts are not admirable/extraordinary but they alone would have got you nill. Hell, you were GIVEN the land in the first place.

Viable now, yes, during most of its history, no.

3. in 1946 most Zionists were amenable to a partition, which would have meant the Palestinians would have had their own state for their millions, and the Jews their state for their millions.

Matters not, what did the ones in charge actually do?

I rather suspect that in 1946, after a war that took tens of millions of lives, and in which 5-6 million Jewish civilians had been murdered, there was perhaps a greater tolerance for "problems".

Interesting, I would have though after 5-6 million killed, a drop in the bucket to the 50 odd million killed overall, problems were the last thing anyone wanted, Jews or the governments of Europe/US.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos

How many other now defunct League mandates received such strict interpretation, or any standing whatsoever? Who the hell was Italy to demand anything at all?

All of them did, actually. The UN considered itself heir to the League, and enforced the old mandates, as well as creating new ones as "trust territories"

Italy wasnt the principle country demanding Brit adherence to the mandate, but it was not a minor power, and certainly had an Italian territory been suggested as a substitute, it would have been relevant.

Since when has Isreal been viable? It is viable with tens of billions of aid a year (God only knows how much overall), economic and financial.

No, they get just under 3 billion a year from the US, an actual decline in nominal terms of what they began to get in 1979, and a considerable decline in real terms. They could do without that, but the left in Israel wants to keep it in part as a tool against the right (if we dont listen to uncle Sam we lose 3 billion) and its seen by many as adding to US leverage. Thats disputed of course (by Arrian here for ex) and some Israelis in Likud would prefer to give up the money and avoid the leverage. However I think theres no doubt they could survive without if if they had to. You seem to have a very exageratted idea of the amount of aid Israel receives, which is not surprising given how much people talk about it.

Matters not, what did the ones in charge actually do?

They accepted the idea of partition, and attempted to negotiate the terms. The ones who rejected it were the right wing parties, who were not in charge.

Interesting, I would have though after 5-6 million killed, a drop in the bucket to the 50 odd million killed overall, problems were the last thing anyone wanted, Jews or the governments of Europe/US.

No one wanted problems, but if they were necessary to achieve a desirable aim, they didnt look quite so intimidating compared to what everyone had gone through. IMO.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


My presumption was based on the words you posted. A question "Why did the Jewish RELIGION have a claim to a country" in regard to the period when Zionists first asserted their claims, is not consistent with a familiarity with modern Jewish history, which would show that the question of whether Jews were a religion, a nation, or something else, was the key debate among Jews at the time, and that nature of the answer was central to the relations of different jewish groups to Zionism. If you actually DO read up the subject, you will gather how much your original question revealed ignorance.

This is a point, being a non-religious American, that I have a problem overcomming. It is not that I don't understand that they feel Judaism is a religion AND a race. Rather I don't understand why they don't make a distinction (or at least a clear one).

You may have interpreted my question to come from a place of ignorance but that was no cause to treat me with the dismissive "read a book".

Does my apparent lack of Jewish history negate my original point? (That the Jewish would be better served settling in a place that wasn't so dead set on their extermination)

Does it negate my extended point? (That neither side is dealing with this issue in a pragmatic manner and as such it will never go away)

That's an elitist snob attitude.

Tom P.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You guys do realize that Israel already exists, right?

Oh, be quiet! If anybody wants to come to an acceptable solution in the ME extensive discussion about what could have been done more than half a century ago is essential

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah


This is a point, being a non-religious American, that I have a problem overcomming. It is not that I don't understand that they feel Judaism is a religion AND a race. Rather I don't understand why they don't make a distinction (or at least a clear one).

You may have interpreted my question to come from a place of ignorance but that was no cause to treat me with the dismissive "read a book".

Does my apparent lack of Jewish history negate my original point? (That the Jewish would be better served settling in a place that wasn't so dead set on their extermination)

Does it negate my extended point? (That neither side is dealing with this issue in a pragmatic manner and as such it will never go away)

That's an elitist snob attitude.

Tom P.

1. to understand the history of the distinction, the clarity or lack of it, etc is TOO big an issue to go into here.

2. I dont find "read a book" dismissive. I consider myself obligated to inform myself of basics of a subject areas before expecting others to fill me in.

3. Your original question was not about Palestine vs Uganda, but about why "the jewish religion was owed a country"

4. Its not so much a question of your point being negated, but that is pointless trying to discuss the matter without your knowing some basic background. Which means, since no one else is giving that to you, that either I do so, or I leave your points unresponded to. Since Im not in the mood to keep giving you basic background, it means I cant debate most of your points.

5. Im sorry if you think expecting someone to gain basic knowledge before making assertions, or questions based on assertions, in a controversial area, is snobbish. I dont see it that way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


Oh, be quiet! If anybody wants to come to an acceptable solution in the ME extensive discussion about what could have been done more than half a century ago is essential

Not only that, but extensive discussion about the whether the Palestinians are really a people is also helpful. And a discussion of the evil of 19th c colonialism, a discussion of whether the Jews were actually a people, etc.

Even more helpful would be a discussion of the falsehood of the bible, and the idiocy of religion, to be followed by a discussion of whether atheism is in fact a religion. If abortion and the IQ of George Bush can be brought in, so much the better.

all of which is far better, than say, discussing the leadership struggles within Fatah, the question of where to draw a line between Maaleh Adumin and the Pal territory while assuring Pal access to East Jerusalem, or the future of the Kadima party. All of which would involve actual detailed knowledge of current events.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Arrian
You've displayed your lack of knowledge pretty clearly, Tom P.

-Arrian

What I have displayed and what I posses may be a point of contention.

Be that as it may, that does not give anyone the right to dismis an argument with a simple "read a book".

Fine, the Jewish regard themselvs as a race not just a religion. The question still stands: Why does that demand they be given a country?

None of the American Indian tribes are trying to get their own country. And what about the Aztec and Mayan Indians in South America; not trying to make their own country. There are plenty of races without countries.

And there are plenty of countries without racial backing: Canada, France, The U.S....

My collosal ignorance aside: Why do the Jewish feel they need/deserve/are owed a country?

Tom P.