Not saying it is. But it wouldn’t be the first country/state that wanted some protective buffer land.
Well yes of course people always like to push boundaries and want more. It’s human nature. But it doesn’t make em the good guys.
1 Like
Sure doesn’t.
This thread seems to be continuing to consider merits of this one location and whether such decisions are valid in light of historic issues in other parts of the world. The big take away from the Green party decision is not the bit about racism but the subsequent but about removing Israel completely. That might seem to some to be equally racist.
1 Like
Yep. Given that the day after Israel declared itself up and running, a mere 3 years after the holocaust, it was attacked by several (mostly Islamic) states and there is a large rhetoric wanting to utterly annihilate it and indeed all things Judaic, one can understand why it’s a moot point.
However, this does not justify it retaliating without restraint.
The trouble is that there is no possible solution to this problem that will ever be acceptable to all sides since it would involve “compromise” which doesn’t seem to be within the psyche of the key antagonists.
Yep human bods don’t want to hear there is no solution, this started in the office, now its global.
there’s certainly no solution in the current political climate. Perhaps Argentina or Brazil would have been a better bet after all?
2 Likes
I recall reading a few holocaust denial books a while ago (was curious of their reasoning). One suggested that the “final solution” was actually to set up a new country/state for the Jews in Madagascar.
I’ve read that too and I understand it was a serious suggestion within Nazi government. However all this shows is that the old European colonial thinking was still very much in place through that period of the 20th century. Even the idea of south America as a location has the same basis. That is, who cares which locals are displaced and lose their land? They don’t matter.
That line of thinking was always going to lead to problems.
2 Likes
Indeed so. I think that even here in the UK, the rate of change of demographics is leading to a not dissimilar type of trouble and disorder.
But, it was and ever will be the case.
1 Like
If you have read the history, you will know the creation of Israel was just as much driven by anti-Semitism as idealism. You don’t have to read Marjorie Morningstar to learn how the US socially segregated Jews in the 1930s, but it’s as good an account as any. We of course had Mosley here.
That is an excellent point to highlight - there was a strong ‘anywhere but my backyard’ thinking behind a location for a Jewish state. Given the poor efforts (or was it significant reluctance) by many countries to accept Jews trying to flee mainland Europe in the 1930’s this is particularly damning.
Seems a bit of a strange place to suggest as a homeland, surrounded by a fair few countries with a strong antipathy towards Judaism.
For all we know, there may have been an expectation that it wouldn’t have lasted beyond a few weeks before it failed and it reverted to some kind of assimilation.
1 Like
I suspect the views of nearby countries were not seen as important. The UK felt it had the right to control Iran / Iraq through its interests in the Anglo-Persian oil company. Egypt was also British along with Palestine. France probably still referred to Lebanon and Syria as the Levant. Oil was yet to make the Arab countries rich and influential.
2 Likes
That’s all worked out well. 
There is nothing like carefully applied foresight… and that was nothing like …
1 Like
Just another example of the British government doing something and disregarding the mood of the people.
1 Like
Not really Foxy. The UN voted for the partition in 1947 (I think) and Britain left them to it as the surrounding Arab nations were far from happy with it.
1 Like
I thought the Brits left because of Sergeants affair
From what I can see, it will have contributed but not the main reason.