ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[Kuciwalker]

<- idiot

[Arrian]

We coulda used ya in the Copenhagen thread, Tom. Or did you post there (after ~1500 posts I lose track).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by padillah
It really gets to me.

Tom P.

But why should we care, and why is it relevent?

[padillah]

Originally posted by Arrian

The British Uganda Program was a plan to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland.

The offer was first made by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to Theodore Herzl's Zionist group in 1903. He offered 5000 square miles of the Mau Plateau in what is today Kenya. The offer was a response to pogroms against the Jews in Russia, and it was hoped the area could be a refuge from persecution for the Jewish people.

The idea was brought to the Zionist Congress at its sixth meeting in 1903 meeting in Basel. There a fierce debate ensued. The African land was described as an "ante-chamber to the Holy Land", but other groups felt that accepting the offer would make it more difficult to establish a Jewish state in Palestine (the historical Land of Israel). Before the vote on the matter the Russian delegation stormed out in opposition. In the end the motion passed by 295 to 177 votes.

The next year a three man delegation was sent to inspect the plateau. Its high elevation gave it a temperate climate making it suitable for European settlement. However the observers found a dangerous land filled with lions and other creatures. Moreover it was populated by a large number of Maasai who did not seem at all amenable to an influx of Europeans.

After receiving this report the Congress decided in 1905 to politely decline the British offer. Some Jews viewed this as a mistake and the Jewish Territorialist Organization split with the explicit aim of establishing a Jewish state anywhere, not just in the Holy Land. A handful of Jews did move to Kenya, but most settled in the urban centres. Some of these families remain to this day.

Note that a community of native Ugandans, known now as the Abayudaya, decided around the 1920s to convert to Judaism.

The Uganda proposal was revived during the Second World War by Winston Churchill, but by this time Zionist organizations were firmly committed to settling in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Uganda_Program

How about bolding it this way? I think I was remembering the second time, when they refused simply because they wanted to settle in Palestine, no matter what. (but it still wasn't a formal offer)

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Arrian
We coulda used ya in the Copenhagen thread, Tom. Or did you post there (after ~1500 posts I lose track).

-Arrian

I havn't even read it TBH.

(and after 1500 posts I'm not sure I will either )

Tom P.

[Arrian]

You can bold it anyway you want, it doesn't remove the other bits. I was pointing out problems with the Uganda idea, hence the bolding that I chose. Further, I wanted to point out that, while some argued against it because they wanted Palestine, the motion still passed!

Look, if one objects to the idea of setting up a Jewish state in the midst of a bunch of other people who don't want them there, one CANNOT argue for Uganda.

That was my point.

-Arrian

[padillah]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But why should we care, and why is it relevent?

Umm, OK don't.

I'm not sure what you want from me... If an undue sense of entitlement bothers you, agree with me. If it doesn't - don't. I'm not gonna establish your values for you. You have to do that on your own.

Tom P.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by padillah


Umm, OK don't.

I'm not sure what you want from me... If an undue sense of entitlement bothers you, agree with me. If it doesn't - don't. I'm not gonna establish your values for you. You have to do that on your own.

Tom P.

I suggest that you stop appealing to emotion and get your **** together if you are going to debate LotM, that is all.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by padillah
Oh, I didn't realize Madagascar wasn't an offer. OK, well they had Uganda and I thought another (off the coast of Africa as well, but I can't remember well enough). But the offer isn't finally my point it's the refusal to appreciate the situation - the "forced" martyrdom, if you will.

I fail to see the difference between the implementation of an artificial Jewish state in Uganda, and the implementation of an artificial Jewish state in Palestine. Except that the Jews are quite less alien to Palestine than to Uganda.

Basically, the pressure for indigenous autodetermination would have been the same, and the Jewish state would either have had to disappear (like French Algeria) or to be especially dire toward the locals (like apartheid South Africa).

[padillah]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I suggest that you stop appealing to emotion and get your **** together if you are going to debate LotM, that is all.

Actually I see the situation in the opposite:I'm apealing for a pragmatic, realistic look at the state of affairs as it stands and others are appealing to emotion to make you feel bad for the Jewish people and give in to them.

How is a call for assesing the situation and dealing with it in a pragmatic and reasonable manner "appealing to emotion "?

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I fail to see the difference between the implementation of an artificial Jewish state in Uganda, and the implementation of an artificial Jewish state in Palestine. Except that the Jews are quite less alien to Palestine than to Uganda.

Basically, the pressure for indigenous autodetermination would have been the same, and the Jewish state would either have had to disappear (like French Algeria) or to be especially dire toward the locals (like apartheid South Africa).

Read the quote you posted: My point is not with the establishment of a state but with the reasoning behind it's refusal.

Tom P.

[padillah]

@LOTM: I did not mean to offend your Jewish sensibilities. I have no quarel with ethnic pride (heck I'm proud of my Scotts herritage and my family hasn't been Scots for 300 years.

I just wanted to be sure and be clear about where I stand. I suppose I should have simply posted "I agree" to Salva and been done with it.

Tom P.

[Arrian]

Actually I see the situation in the opposite:I'm apealing for a pragmatic, realistic look at the state of affairs as it stands and others are appealing to emotion to make you feel bad for the Jewish people and give in to them

Most of us favor a realistic, pragmatic response to the situation. Which, at present, is an acceptance of Israel's existance, the creation of a Palestinian state, and a few other minor ( ) details. Duh.

As for emotional appeals, both sides in this mess use them constantly. That's a two-way street.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by padillah
Read the quote you posted: My point is not with the establishment of a state but with the reasoning behind it's refusal.

I read it. You seem to believe the choice was between martyrdom and easiness. That Uganda was easier. And that the Jews chose martyrdom, so we shouldn't feel sorry for them.

I was just pointing out that there was nothing easier with settling in Uganda. As a result, I fail to understand why you bring that point at all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by padillah


Actually I see the situation in the opposite:I'm apealing for a pragmatic, realistic look at the state of affairs as it stands and others are appealing to emotion to make you feel bad for the Jewish people and give in to them.

How is a call for assesing the situation and dealing with it in a pragmatic and reasonable manner "appealing to emotion "?

Tom P.

The sense of entitlement comming from Israel is staggering.