ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


come to the USA to make the Indian nations soveriegn? Come to the USA to establish Jewish soveriegn nations on US territory? Really, youre not being clear. Please state what you are talking about explicitly, Id rather not make any assumptions.

I guess I'm just not grasping the importance of having a state. I suppose the Native American tribes have tribal govt that the Jewish people don't have and wouldn't have a right to.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



The Greeks already have an independent sovereign state on the land of historic Greece. So Id put their getting back Constantinople in the same category as Israel retaining Shechem and Hebron

Or Jerusalem

Greeks were autochtonic population and large minority in Constantinople, moreover, the city was surrounded by greek-speaking territory both in Europe and Asia Minor.

I'd say it'd be like Greeks trying to regain control over Ikonion, Antioch, Alexandria, or even Marseilles.

[Arrian]

Kid,

Methinks the idea was to have a safe haven. Instead of a widespread, and terribly vunerable, diaspora, have a state with an army that can defend itself properly.

That's not to say that I agree it *had* to be in Palestine... though as we have discussed, if it was to be at all, it wasn't as if options were popping up all over the place.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I forget if we've ever discussed it, LotM... what is your opinion about the Palestinian demand for a ROR?

-Arrian

I think that when a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and Gaza, that state should have full control over its own immigration policy. Should they choose to establish an absolute right of return for Palestinian Arabs, and to exclude Jews, they will have that right. Similarly Israel should retain ITS sovereign right to control its own immigration policy.

Thats what two sovereign states means - two states EACH of which controls its own immigration policy.

Thats the ideal. In reality the PA pols are so far gone on rhetoric demanding a right of return to ISRAEL that it may ease the peace process for Israel to accept some nominal number of Palestinians to enable the Pal pols to say they won on the ROR. That however will be a concession, and will need to be balanced by other aspects of the settlement that address particular Israeli concerns.

And of course some settlement will need to be made of material claims by Pals for property lost in 1948. IMO assets that Israel hands over in the West Bank settlements that are given up, as well as Jewish property claims against Arab countries from which Jews fled, should be accounted in the balance.

BTW, whatever happened to those greenhouses at the Gaza settlements? They were thoroughly vandalized, werent they? Makes one wonder how seriously to take all the agonizing about "stolen" property.

[Heresson]

I think NW Germany would be a safer haven for Jews and a better place for their state than Palestine.

[Kuciwalker]

Now it would, sure. You think they wanted to live there in 1948?

[Kidlicious]

I think some of it has to do with where the US wanted them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I guess I'm just not grasping the importance of having a state. I suppose the Native American tribes have tribal govt that the Jewish people don't have and wouldn't have a right to.

You mean why didnt the Jews just move to the US and buy land?

At the time (1882 to 1918) there was growing hostility in the US to immigration, esp Jewish immigration, culminating in immigration restrictions imposed in 1920 or so. Which restrictions were not lifted when Jews were fleeing Hitler, not even during WW2. The Zionist movement arose at a time of massive persecution of Jews in Russia, at a time when large scale migration to the West was causing both movements to restrict immigration, and causing rising antisemitism. The need for a state was a need for a guaranteed place for immigration, in essence.

Even in Palestine, Jews were generally ok with the Mandate as long as immigration was open. It was with the reduction of immigrant visas, and the the closure to immigration by the White Paper in 1939, that statehood was demanded.

[Arrian]

Herresson,

Probably so. At least now. Was that likely in 1946? I don't know. Was it ever offered? No.

...

LotM,

Interesting. So you reject the RoR for Palestinians who fled during the 1948 war (other than as perhaps a concession in negotiations - which means you don't really think it's right, but it's something that may have to be done). Why?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
I think NW Germany would be a safer haven for Jews and a better place for their state than Palestine.

the most active group militating for Jewish autonomous political expression in Europe was theBund. They didnt even want territory - all they wanted from the state with large Yiddish speaking jewish populations, mainly Poland, was the ability to have jewish taxes for education and culture set aside and controlled by elected jewish councils, the whole structure to be headed by a minister for Jewish affairs headed by someone elected by the Jews, and a guaranteed seats in the Polish parliament. Had the Polish state seen fit to grant them that, it would have taken alot of wind out of Zionist sails, and vastly strengthened their Bundist opponents. However the Bundist agenda proved even more unrealistic than the Zionist agenda had appeared.

[RGBVideo]

you got called out on the first reply, but your thread is still going strong

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Israel, Iran top 'negative list'



Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger...

Funny also how the US is viewed more negatively than NK...

Still, maybe countries like Iran and NK can be forgiven for seeking nukes in the face of nations like the US and Israel who regularly attack countries that haven't attacked them...

3.3/10

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You mean why didnt the Jews just move to the US and buy land?

Yes, and create communities.

At the time (1882 to 1918) there was growing hostility in the US to immigration, esp Jewish immigration, culminating in immigration restrictions imposed in 1920 or so. Which restrictions were not lifted when Jews were fleeing Hitler, not even during WW2. The Zionist movement arose at a time of massive persecution of Jews in Russia, at a time when large scale migration to the West was causing both movements to restrict immigration, and causing rising antisemitism. The need for a state was a need for a guaranteed place for immigration, in essence.

Even in Palestine, Jews were generally ok with the Mandate as long as immigration was open. It was with the reduction of immigrant visas, and the the closure to immigration by the White Paper in 1939, that statehood was demanded.

Now see this is where I think the US was in the wrong. They wouldn't allow the Jewish people to all migrate here, but they want to establish a state for them on another land.

[Arrian]

Of course! It was NIMBY, writ large.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Herresson,

Probably so. At least now. Was that likely in 1946? I don't know. Was it ever offered? No.

...

LotM,

Interesting. So you reject the RoR for Palestinians who fled during the 1948 war (other than as perhaps a concession in negotiations - which means you don't really think it's right, but it's something that may have to be done). Why?

-Arrian

for the same reason I reject Israeli soveriegnty over Hebron, Nablus, and Gaza. These are two different nations, each entitled to their own state. That includes the right to control their own immigration policy, and to maintain their national distinctiveness.


Partition is partition. Happened in India. Something analogous happened in Czecho and Poland. Happened between Greeks and Turk and Slavs.

To send hundreds of thousands of Pals into Israel would a formula for another lebanon, a battle on the streets of Israel about the nature and future of the state. It might look appealing to some pals hoping to get not only a state on the West Bank, but also to take back what is now Israel, but I think even for them it would not be a bright future. For Israel it would be a disaster.

But I can understand that they want to retain it as a negotiating chip. In their shoes, I would too.

[Arrian]

Ah. So you view it as a cynical ploy to destroy Israel from within.

I don't necessarily disagree - I don't really know enough to decide on that either way.

-Arrian