Allies could have saved 4 million Jews, says Bibi

[Sheldrake]

This whole thread is based on a BS comment by an Israeli politician whose Likud party which spent WW2 fighting a terrorist campaign against the British. Its a distraction unrelated to the strategic reality. It is more about sustaining an Israeli national myth that only a Jewish state can safeguard the interests of Jews.

Although the holocaust was probably the most monstrous manifestation of Nazi evil, WW2 wasn't about the extermination of the Jews. The world went to war because of German, Italian and Japanese aggression, abetted by the Soviet Union. The Jews weren't the only, or even the most numerous victims of the conflict. By label, more Chinese and Soviet civilians died.

Likud did not exist during WWII.
What do you mean by more Soviet civilians died than Jews ? Many killed Jews were Soviet nationals (and the large majority were civilians). Of course the majority of Soviet victims were not Jews (Jews were a small minority there).

True, the Likud is a more recent grouping, but does include the political lineage of Likud founder Menachem Begin. Begin led an organisation that drove out the non Jewish members of the Palestine Brigade and from Feb 1944 carried out terrorist attacks on Britain.http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bac ... rgun-etzel

Sharon's own party has its origins an organisation which was a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany. His pronouncements on what could have been done in Ww2 needs to be put in the context of his predecessor Menachem Begin's wartime priorities.

[wm]

but it is difficult, after the so-called "Holocaust" and many current attitudes in the Middle East, to disagree with the proposition that a Jewish state is the best safeguard of Jewish survival.

A state is the best safeguard of survival of any nationality. But this doesn't give anybody the right to possess territory, or justify the doctrine of the right of conquest.

, it has to be acknowledged that the Jewish experience was the most extreme and awful of any people in WWII.

Although suffering is invariably individual, ascribing human emotions to abstract concepts like the Jews (who largely lived outside the occupied by the Nazis territories anyway) really assumes telepathy exists.

[Gorque]

Likud not exist during WWII.

Hi Nora:

Isn't Likud the successor to the Herut party which was the successor to the Irgun organization?

[Sheldrake]

A state is the best safeguard of survival of any nationality. But this doesn't give anybody the right to possess territory, or justify the doctrine of the right of conquest.

The first statement is a tautology, adding second raises some obvious and well known challenges...

If a population defines itself as a "nation" then it implies the right to own and defend its borders. That may be fine where there are no other competing claims, but that is rarely the case.

Is a world of nation states the best safeguard for humanity - the sum of nationaities, in a nuclear age? Or is it better to pool sovereignty to allow nationalities to share resources?

[David Thompson]

Sheldrake -- You asked:

Is a world of nation states the best safeguard for humanity - the sum of nationaities, in a nuclear age? Or is it better to pool sovereignty to allow nationalities to share resources?

In democracies, these political questions are left to the affected voters, and AHF is an apolitical forum.

[wm]

The first statement is a tautology, adding second raises some obvious and well known challenges...

There are many large and very distinct nationalities without their own land, and without their own countries: the Kurds, Tibetans, Chechens, Tatars, the Zhuang people. And their fate shows it's nice to have an own country.

If a population defines itself as a "nation" then it implies the right to own and defend its borders. That may be fine where there are no other competing claims, but that is rarely the case.

But nationality means ethnic group too...

Is a world of nation states the best safeguard for humanity - the sum of nationaities, in a nuclear age? Or is it better to pool sovereignty to allow nationalities to share resources?

Yes, it the best safeguard because diversity in itself is efficient, economical, and resilient to mistakes. It means that mistakes made by the Venezuelans stay in Venezuela and don't affect others.
Mother Nature knew that from the beginning, this is why she creates so many species constantly. Monoculture is deadly and very inefficient.

And what problems really do need global sharing of resources - in times when medium-sized private businesses are able to create satellite launch vehicles superior to anything built by governmental bureaucracies, and have sufficient expertise and money at their disposal to reach Mars.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

You write, "A state is the best safeguard of survival of any nationality. But this doesn't give anybody the right to possess territory, or justify the doctrine of the right of conquest." Agreed. Your point is?

Nationality is a state of mind, not an ethnicity. If a group of people think they are on, they are one. Jews are not ethnically cohesive, but Palestinians are. Yet Palestinian nationality did not exist a century ago.

[wm]

Well, if we agree it's a good thing I suppose
Probably I thought it was a justification for the events described by Ilan Pappé in his The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

[Attrition]

Hi wm,

You write, "A state is the best safeguard of survival of any nationality. But this doesn't give anybody the right to possess territory, or justify the doctrine of the right of conquest." Agreed. Your point is?

Nationality is a state of mind, not an ethnicity. If a group of people think they are on, they are one. Jews are not ethnically cohesive, but Palestinians are. Yet Palestinian nationality did not exist a century ago.

Sez who?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Attrition,

Sez the facts.

The Palestinian and Israeli national identity are both defined by their enemies.

Anyone who would have been targeted by the Nazis' Nuremburg Laws is eligible for Israeli citizenship.

A distinct Palestinian national identity did not exist separately from the wider Arab identity until Jewish settlement of Palestine began a little over a hundred years ago and developed in opposition to it.

About ten years ago I was at an archaeological site in the Negev in Southern Israel It was the city of Avdat. It is in modern Israel but was built two thousand years ago by Nabataean Arabs. It is therefore educationally interesting to both Jews and Palestinians and coach loads of secondary school children arrived while I was there. You could tell which was which immediately they got off the vehicles. The Israelis were a very mixed bunch, from the occasional blondes through brunettes to black Falashas. By contrast, the Palestinians were very similar to each other in Middle Eastern look and colour. The former were not very ethnically homogeneous, but the latter were.

Yet the Jewish national identity was around three thousand years old, while the Palestinian one was barely a hundred years old.

In this case, race and nationality clearly did not coincide.

Yet both are nations because they think they are.

Look further, at the USA. Is the United States a nation? I rather think so. Is it racially homogeneous? Hardly! The USA is a nation because it thinks it is.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Attrition]

The place you called "Israel" doesn't have a citizenship law, it has a nationality one instead http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/07/ ... n-israeli/. The idea that indigenous Palestinians don't deserve to be allowed to live in their own country by colonialists is pernicious bunk.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

You write, "The idea that indigenous Palestinians don't deserve to be allowed to live in their own country by colonialists is pernicious bunk."

I agree. So, currently, does the Israeli state.

What Israel won't do is allow those Palestinians (and their far more numerous descendants) from inside Israel's post 1948 borders who have been in exile since, to return to within those borders.

There seem to be two main reasons.

On pragmatic grounds the return of over 6 million exiled Palestinians and their descendants would mean that Israel was no longer a Jewish state, as a majority of the population would be Palestinian.

Secondly, a high proportion of Palestinian exiles were not directly driven out by the Israelis but ordered to flee by their own leaders in 1948 precisely to create a refugee crisis that the United Nations would have to address by direct intervention. No such intervention followed by repatriation occurred. Instead, UN refugee camps were set up outside what has become recognized as Israel. Had they stayed put, they would have remained within Israel, again threatening its identity as a Jewish state.

In the long run, the Palestinians within Israel might still win out on their own through higher fertility. Despite massive Jewish immigration since 1948, Israeli Arab natural increase has kept pace with Jewish population growth. With Israel now containing over half the world's Jews, the well from which to draw more immigrants is beginning to run dry. By contrast, there is no reason to think that Israeli Arab fertility need fall drastically. Currently Israeli Arabs make up about 20% of the population and this looks set to increase. We will then see if Israel's internal democratic system can survive the pressure.

Cheers,

Sid.

[David Thompson]

An off-topic political opinion post by Attrition was removed. Please discuss the thread topic and avoid personal political notions.

[Attrition]

I'd be grateful if you did the same to Sid's personal political notions too. Regards

[wm]

You write, "The idea that indigenous Palestinians don't deserve to be allowed to live in their own country by colonialists is pernicious bunk."

To be quite correct it wasn't my words. For the reason I didn't know the word pernicious.

But still exiles are byproduct of any war. It really doesn't matter why they fled.
In 1939 millions of Poles (and Jews) fled before the advancing German Army. Millions of them actually on orders of their leaders.
But eventually the Germans allowed them to returned to their homes, even by going so far as to create repatriation commissions rescuing people who had fled to the USSR.