And yet, here we are, continuing to scrutinize and vilify the motives of the Polish Jew.
The international community of nations (UN). In the post war years 1945-1960, dozens of new nations were formed due to de-colonization, mostly in Asia and Africa. But Israel is the one that’s most often found at the sharp end of people’s tongues. Why is that?
Yes, they played a large role. Already established. Why keep harping on the point?
The survivors had lost everything and everyone. Many did not have homes or even villages and towns to return to. Some were afraid to return to a place where they were turned in by their neighbors. Some, understandably, wanted a new start far away from the tragedy they barely survived.
Some had that in mind, not all, specifically those few migrating prior to the rise of fascism. But in the aftermath, survival was their primary motive, not colonization and contempt for indigenous people of Palestine. Most just wanted a safe place to live in peace and a chance to restart and rebuild their lives.
The answer’s quite obvious: it’s the most visible conflict in a politically and economically important part of the world.
I don’t discount that a great many of those who fled Europe to modern-day Israel did so in no small part because of the persecutions against them. But as you say, there were some who, all along, had the vision of creating a Jewish nation-state. It takes a lot for “immigration” to become a nation. It takes people. It takes political energy. Doesn’t it?
Of course we are, because it’s a thread about anti-semitism. If you want to start a thread about North Africa and Southern Europe, start one.
I meant that it’s the conversation most often had in the context of “colonialism”. And I think you know that.
It does. No-one has denied that. I’ve asked this question of you before but I will ask it again more succinctly… Are you opposed to all migrations of populations throughout history, regardless of cause/justification?
Well what about now? Is Israel claiming sovereignty over seized property for the purposes of survival, or is it something else? A lot of countries can do a lot of awful things in the name of national security - I won’t single Israel out here, considering we’ve been a pretty habitual offender as of late. But I don’t buy that Israel or that Zionists have behaved strictly out of fear for their own survival. And as claro pointed out earlier, they pretty soon realized that they weren’t “safe” in Palestine either.
I understand that the history of Israel is complicated, and yes, I admit, I have said some harsh things that could have been phrased more delicately. But one problem that I see is that people always feel this pressure to tiptoe around Israel and the political activism that inspired it, and as I linked to already, there are activists now who want to punish American citizens for their counter-activism against Israel, which is total bullshit. So I sometimes speak harshly out of concern that by tiptoeing around these issues we encourage Israeli activists to continue hijacking foreign policy in the name of “keeping Israel safe”. FFS, Israel is a dominant military and technological power. They don’t need America to keep them safe anymore.
I believe I addressed your question at the start of post #551. I am not opposed to migration per se; I am saying that migration has consequences. I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that Jews couldn’t migrate into Palestine, nor have I said that Israel is an illegitimate state. I have pointed out that their migration and that coming over with the idea of establishing a Jewish state in a place that is predominately Muslim, and to a lesser extent Christian, is inevitably going to lead to tensions, which it did. This is common sense, really.
No they were not. Are you suggesting they had better options and simply chose poorely?
Did these activists get their way? No they did not. And rightly so. Israel is a dominant military and technological power precisely because of their mutually beneficial friendship with America. Are you saying America is not getting anything out of this bi-lateral relationship?
I’m sorry, but this isn’t at all insightful or revelatory in the way that perhaps you intend it to be.
You’re right, not insightful at all, as common sense is common sense.
nm
The post that best summarizes my position in the thread.
The enemy of my enemy…
It’s also worth pointing out that the US supported the Mujahideen and negotiated business with the Taliban (we’re still negotiating with the Taliban, in fact). Suffice it to say, we have pragmatic relationships with evil doers from time to time. Does that make the United States terrorists, too?
I missed this.
Already addressed it.
Wrong, 27 states have already signed some laws prohibiting businesses and individuals that take money from the states (presumably business contractors) to engage in anti-Israel boycotts. There have been various versions of these bills introduced into congress. In fact it was included in the very first bill proposed in the Senate this year – at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers were not even receiving paychecks, it was more important to discuss why we should punish American citizens who participate in anti-Israel boycotts. Again, why is Israel that important? Or is it antisemitic to ask that question?
No, but what does that have to do with my point? Are you now supporting Iran as well as Palestine and the PLO?
The answer to this is: We choose our friends over our enemies. Probably not very satisfying to you but, as you say, “common sense”.
It’s not anti-semitic to ask the question.
Why do you take the position that people who do not unequivocally support Israel are enemies?
That’s fair. Poor choice of words on my part. Not all who disagree with us are our enemies.
We tend to support our friends & allies. Even when they are sometimes wrong.