Additional *realistic* post-1800 cases of nations acquiring Lebensraum (living space)?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Jesk,

Clearly the Israelis don't agree that "living space is a myth" because they displaced numerous Palestinians in creating their state and won't let any of them return to their pre-1948 family homes!

Rightly or wrongly, whatever anyone's motivations, I would suggest that Israel looks very like a "realistic post-1800 case of a nation acquiring living space."

And that is the subject of the thread.

Cheers,

Sid.

[jesk]

Clearly the Israelis don't agree that "living space is a myth" because they displaced numerous Palestinians in creating their state and won't let any of them return to their pre-1948 family homes!

Rightly or wrongly, whatever anyone's motivations, I would suggest that Israel looks very like a "realistic post-1800 case of a nation acquiring living space."

And that is the subject of the thread.

In 1947, the Arabs announced their right to the entire territory of Palestine and disagreement with the UN resolution. The war began. Israel's actions can be considered fairly hostile.

[South]

Good afternoon Sid,

I've got all kinds of books on Mideast politics with all kinds of population numbers. I contend these numbers are irrelevant to "Lebenstraum".

Now, you are changing the geographic areas . Palestine pre-Mandate and the 1948 new Israel.

From memory, post Ottoman, was the British Mandate. London split their mandate with the eastern portion assigned to the Hashemites with the final result being "Transjordan" . The area west of Transjordan was allocated for those in the area. The UN assignment for the new nation of Israel was 2 triangles of land. The rest was for the area Arabs. Regardless, hostilities broke out. The result was the new nation called Israel having armistice lines with more land than allocated by the UN. This land acquisition was NOT for the civilian population but for security.

The rest of my post related to the relatively new Israeli "garrison" on Cyprus located near the reputed birth place of Miss Aphrodite. Again, it's not for civilian "settlement".

As an aside, the US Sinai Support Mission, based out of Rome (in practical terms based out of Sigonella, Sicily, Italy (NATO base) entered the Sinai so as to "displace" Israeli "settlements" such as (1982?) Yamit, Sinai, Egypt on Med. There were non-military personnel there but overall, the place was a garrison.

Hope I clarified.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Jesk,

This thread is not about the rights and wrongs of the situation in Palestine/Israel.

It is about "Additional *realistic* post-1800 cases of nations acquiring Lebensraum (living space)?"

The fact is that where there were about 15,000 Jews in 1900 there are now about 6,500,000 and a large displaced population of the previous inhabitants and their descendants as well. This looks a lot like a "case of a nation acquiring living space", whichever way one slices it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi South,

You write, "I've got all kinds of books on Mideast politics with all kinds of population numbers. I contend these numbers are irrelevant to "Lebensraum"."

You will have to explain why? Zionists did not acquire land in Palestine for its own sake. They did so in order to settle there. This they have since done.

Nope, I am not changing the area. Israel is part of the pre-Mandate area of Palestine. However, as the boundaries of neither Israel nor Palestine are settled in the minds of either side, it is necessary to consider both.

As I have said before, several times, this thread is not about the rights or wrongs of the situation, or peoples' motivations. It is about "Additional *realistic* post-1800 cases of nations acquiring Lebensraum (living space)?" The creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine looks very much like a realistic post-1800 case of a nation acquiring living space.

So far, posters replying to me have been so anxious to wander off-thread to justify Israel's existence and motivations, they have failed to address this very much on-thread point.

Cheers,

Sid.

[jesk]

From memory, post Ottoman, was the British Mandate. London split their mandate with the eastern portion assigned to the Hashemites with the final result being "Transjordan" . The area west of Transjordan was allocated for those in the area. The UN assignment for the new nation of Israel was 2 triangles of land. The rest was for the area Arabs. Regardless, hostilities broke out. The result was the new nation called Israel having armistice lines with more land than allocated by the UN. This land acquisition was NOT for the civilian population but for security.

It should be noted that the UN resolution was ugly. Instead of two states, they drew a puff cake. It is all the more surprising when ethnic cleansing in Europe and the USSR was conducted at the same time. The Germans, Poles, Chechens, Crimean Tatars were put on trains and taken away.

[jesk]

This thread is not about the rights and wrongs of the situation in Palestine/Israel.

It is about "Additional *realistic* post-1800 cases of nations acquiring Lebensraum (living space)?"

The fact is that where there were about 15,000 Jews in 1900 there are now about 6,500,000 and a large displaced population of the previous inhabitants and their descendants as well. This looks a lot like a "case of a nation acquiring living space", whichever way one slices it.

This is understandable, the Jews were allocated land in Palestine. But the area of Israel is only 20 thousand square kilometers, 10 times less than Belarus, where 9.4 million people live. The density of the population is also 10 times higher, respectively.

[jesk]

The UN plan for the partition of Palestine, i would call antisemitic. Obviously, Israel will have to fight for safer borders.

[Futurist]

Sid, I absolutely agree with you that Israel is an excellent example of acquiring Lebensraum after 1800. In fact, I'd argue that Israel was insufficiently expansionist in 1948-1949 and that it should have also, at the very least, conquered the southern West Bank during this time. The southern West Bank probably wouldn't have posed a significant demographic threat to Israel had Israel only annexed it and left the northern West Bank alone--and Israel could have gotten away with it had it done this in 1949.

[Futurist]

The UN plan for the partition of Palestine, i would call antisemitic. Obviously, Israel will have to fight for safer borders.

Based on the ethnic demographics of Palestine, the proposed Jewish state in 1947 was actually very generous to the Jews. Heck, the Jewish state even got the Negev so that it would have additional Lebensraum to settle future Jewish immigrants to Palestine.

[South]

Good morning Sid,

I understand how you're using the term "living space".

Frequently enough, Lebensraum is not used for armistice/frontier acquisitions and "adjustments".

Regardless, if, for example, a(n) historian only calls the Korean Police Action (1950-1953) a "police action", the discussion can continue among historians - but not a broader audience.

Personally, when I glance at maps and see that Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula, left Lebanon south of the Latani River, left Yamit, the Med section of Sinai,.. I do not view situation as - acquiring - living space - .

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Futurist]

Good morning Sid,

I understand how you're using the term "living space".

Frequently enough, Lebensraum is not used for armistice/frontier acquisitions and "adjustments".

Regardless, if, for example, a(n) historian only calls the Korean Police Action (1950-1953) a "police action", the discussion can continue among historians - but not a broader audience.

Personally, when I glance at maps and see that Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula, left Lebanon south of the Latani River, left Yamit, the Med section of Sinai,.. I do not view situation as - acquiring - living space - .

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

So far, though, Israel is holding onto and actively settling the West Bank. Of course, most Israeli settlements in the West Bank are near the Green Line, but this could theoretically change in the future.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi South,

You post, "Personally, when I glance at maps and see that Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula, left Lebanon south of the Latani River, left Yamit, the Med section of Sinai,.. I do not view situation as - acquiring - living space - ." Neither do I and nor, I suspect, does anyone else.

But what about Israel proper and the various other settlements it has allowed to spring up beyond the pre-1967 frontier? Neither Israel, nor these settlements existed in 1900, when Jews made up only about 3% of the population of Turkish-ruled Palestine.

The creation of Israel looks very much like a "realistic post-1800 case of a nation acquiring living room", as asked for in the thread title.

Cheers,

Sid.

[South]

God afternoon Futurist,

Concur, but these places are more for security than living space. Otherwise the public sector subsidies would not be present.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[South]

Good afternoon Sid,

I do not - nor do many other historians - use the term "Lebensraum" for all land acquisitions.

For example, after WWII, the US acquired huge areas of the Pacific - the Marshalls, the Marianas, etc - and these areas are NOT for "living space" nor even referred to as living space.

You're using the term to mold the subject to your point of view.

Leaving the Sinai Peninsula at least appears to be the antithesis of land acquisition for Lebensraum.

You're really discussing security arrangements.

Reflect on your introduction of the term "Manifest Destiny".


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA