ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[Arrian]

The Wiki mentions an attempt to revive it by Churchill. No formal offer.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah


Please take your sanctimony and shove it up your... You are just like every other Zealot I've spoken with about this. You have no intention of trying to educate me because to do that you'd end up with an opponent that knew you were picking and choosing facts out of your bum just the same as you claim others do...

Given your tone, your hostility, your refusal to acknowledge your own ignorance on the matter while demanding other people educate you, Im not surprised that even the most moderate Israel supporters end up reacting to you in anger, confirming you in your belief that they are zealots.

[Arrian]

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.

It does not state the REASONS for being committed to Palestine. The historical homeland/religious reasons were clearly part of the mix. But I find it quite plausible to think that in addition, Palestine was seen as a more viable option because there were more Jews already there (having been moving in for a while, and buying up land) and the aforementioned problems with Uganda.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

I can't see why the Brits didn't offer more locations, they had plenty of areas that were sparcely populated and since LotM seems to think the Jews were all about self help, why not Western Australia?

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



WTF? Since when do I have an obligation to educate you?

Since you assumed that obligation by assuming you could educate me.

Look, ive posted gazillions of historical facts on Israel and Judaism to this board. But frankly even i sometimes get bored with that, and Im certainly not going to do it for the benefit of someone who is hostile to me.

Whereas I appreciate your knowledge of the subject I was hostile to you because you were sactimonious to me.

Sounds like YOURE the one with the sense of entitilement. You are NOT entitiled to my time or energy. If you want to be educated, go by a book and learn.

Feh!

You are right in the statement that I am not entitled to your time and energy. So stop wasting them on me. It's your perogative.

I am, however, entitled to my own opinion. And to the right to be treated with a modicum of respect.

Tom P.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Wiki mentions an attempt to revive it by Churchill. No formal offer.

-Arrian

While he was still in office? That was only a few months after the end of the war before Atlee beat him. In fact Atlee actually beat him BEFORE VJ day, though after VE day.

Anyway, was it ever approved by the cabinet? Or just another idea that popped out Winnies ever creative head? Alongside English speaking unions, anglo-French unions, invasions of the Balkans, relief for Finland, and lots of other things.

according to Richard Overy Sir Harry Dill resigned as Chief of Staff in part because he couldnt deal with Winstons constant profusion of hare brained schemes. Alan Brooke was much more patient, and shot every one down.

I think Winnie was a great man, but taking every one of his harebrained schemes as if it was UK policy is a tad silly.

[Arrian]

edit: crosspost. In response to Patroklos:

Who knows? Maybe nobody saw fit to offer it. For all we know somebody asked and was laughed at. For all we know my favorite tongue-in-cheek scenarios(Montana or New Jersey, depending on my mood) were inquired about, but the Americans told them ****s to take a hike!

It's not like anybody really wanted them.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I can't see why the Brits didn't offer more locations, they had plenty of areas that were sparcely populated and since LotM seems to think the Jews were all about self help, why not Western Australia?

The brits offered Uganda in 1905 cause they wanted a friendly population to secure the area. They didnt need that in Western Australia, so why offer it. You seem to be under the misimpression that the Uganda offer was made out of altruism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah

Originally posted by lord of the mark



WTF? Since when do I have an obligation to educate you?

Since you assumed that obligation by assuming you could educate me.

I assumed no such thing. If someone is posting wrong or misleading info, I will attempt to correct it. If someone is clearly lacking in info, I will suggest they buy a book. If someone is asking politely and in a positive spirit for info I will try to help them find it.

[padillah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Evidently so much so that you view the actions of people who valued physical labor and self help above all through the prism of "entitlement"

No, I view the lack of addressing the current situation from a rational stand-point zealot.

I call the refusal to meet with duely elected leaders simply because you know they won't roll over and play dead, zealot.

I call the support of carpet bombings and extensive military action, actions that have been frowned upon by most world leaders including the US, in response to the kidnapping of 6 soldiers, zealot.

You call it "industrious". Hey, tomato - tomahto.

Tom P.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I can't see why the Brits didn't offer more locations, they had plenty of areas that were sparcely populated and since LotM seems to think the Jews were all about self help, why not Western Australia?

Hmmm, the north of England is depopulating and needs some regeneration.

[Patroklos]

The brits offered Uganda in 1905 cause they wanted a friendly population to secure the area. They didnt need that in Western Australia, so why offer it. You seem to be under the misimpression that the Uganda offer was made out of altruism.

The Uganda offer may not have, but the Palistine one sure as hell was. Again, after WWII, there were plenty of places that were not densly populated with enemies and could be economically viable and were within the sphere of British influence.

And why was this a British problem? Why not a tract of land in New Mexico. There are plenty of areas the size of Isreal in the US with hardly anyone living there even today. Alaska? Alberta?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


It does not state the REASONS for being committed to Palestine. The historical homeland/religious reasons were clearly part of the mix. But I find it quite plausible to think that in addition, Palestine was seen as a more viable option because there were more Jews already there (having been moving in for a while, and buying up land) and the aforementioned problems with Uganda.

-Arrian

there half a million Jews there, and more arriving every day. There were cities, towns, kibbutzim, and non-communal agricultural settlements. There was a University, and arts school, and an educational network. There was a trade union federation, which in turn owned a construction firm and other industries, as well as private capitalist industry. There were political parties, intellectual circles, religious organizations. In short there was a Jewish society. By spring of 1945 the Jewish percentage of Palestine exceeded that of any other "country" in the world. The absolute population was one of the largest Jewish populations in the world.

The population included not only european Jews, but large numbers of middle eastern Jews. While the war and the british white paper had reduced migration of Jews from Europe, there was in 43 and 44 a large scale migration of Jews from Iraq, smuggled across the desert.

[Arrian]

Which is what I was saying, but said in a much more detailed and knowledgeable way.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The Uganda offer may not have, but the Palistine one sure as hell was. Again, after WWII, there were plenty of places that were not densly populated with enemies and could be economically viable and were within the sphere of British influence.

And why was this a British problem? Why not a tract of land in New Mexico. There are plenty of areas the size of Isreal in the US with hardly anyone living there even today. Alaska? Alberta?

Palestine was not offered till WW1, at which point the UK thought Zionist support would help them diplomatically. It also may at the time have seemed a way to establish a friendly population in an area where Brit claims conflicted with France. It was NOT clear at the time that this would alienate arabs, as the arab position on the Jews was unclear - the Hashemite dynasty was NOT unalterably opposed to a Jewish homeland in Palestine.


Palestine was of course not British at the time of the Balfour declaration.

The US had no particular motivation to offer US territory. BTW, since when did Alberta belong to the US?