[skinster]

My point stands.

And none of this implies any "support" on my part for Zionism. I actually have no strong views either way, and I am merely analysing Zionism as an interesting case study of the relationship between the interests of a human community as a whole and the interests of the individual members of that community.

Yeah, okay.

[wat0n]

Many representatives at the conference were not permitted to talk - but attended as observers - presenting plans either orally or in writing. Golda Meir was the attendee from the Jewish Agency for Palestine. But there was also the New Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress as well. The problem was that this conference was held during the depression. Most nations didn't have the resources for their own populations let alone refugees. The conference must be looked at in the environment of the time when it happened, not in a vacuum of just the plight of the Jewish refugees with no consideration of what is going on at home of those being asked to take them.

But even then I agree the conference failed the Jews of Europe. But the failure of the conference is no yard stick of the influence of the Zionist movement, just because they failed does not mean the Zionist movement was not influential.

The Zionist movement could have simply offered to pay the minimum cost of fair to leave Europe - that alone could have saved thousands. But yet there was land to buy in Palestine. Dirt was more important than people.

No Tailz, the Jewish Agency was simply not allowed to speak at all. Not even in the commissions.

The idea of their offers to pay countries to accept refugees is sound, but money was only part of the problem. There were also those governments who believed that it would be wholly undesirable to accept Jews regardless of how money they could bring to the table.

They didn't condition support for leaving Europe on immigrating to Palestine - because they didn't offer support - generally you had to get there under your own steam. There were not government backed plans like there are today. Thus the rich could make it, the poor were left behind.

They most certainly offered Jews support to move to Mandatory Palestine, the examples of Aliyah Bet can attest to that.

I tried to find the information about the Zionist Movement lobbying the UK and US in regard to immigration, but the info appears to have disappeared from the Wiki. I suspect a concerned "editor" removed it, because of its implications and who it made look bad.

[pugsville]

In the late 1920's Zionism was failing. more Jews were leaving Palestine than arriving. much bigger numbers were going to the Americans or elsewhere. hitler, rising racism. the stock market crash saved zionism.

if other countries welcomed Jews zionism would have been in serious trouble.

[Rich]

In the late 1920's Zionism was failing. more Jews were leaving Palestine than arriving. much bigger numbers were going to the Americans or elsewhere. hitler, rising racism. the stock market crash saved zionism.

if other countries welcomed Jews zionism would have been in serious trouble.

And so? You talk as if the eviction of the Palestinians was some great tragedy of world historic proportions. There were a large number of huge ethnic displacements and in some cases genocides in the twentieth century. Who cares about the Palestinians? Just for once Muslims got the tiniest taste of what they've been dishing out for the last 1400 years. Its not like they've lifted a finger to get justice for the Armenians, who suffered a hundred fold greater wrong. There's no practical reason that the whole of the Muslim population of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank could not be relocated to Muslim majority countries. Problem solved.

[redcarpet]

There is, Rich. It's called ethnic cleansing. It's illegal remember.

People have the right to live where they are born, whether it is a full-blown nation state or a pre-state area.

[Rich]

There is, Rich. It's called ethnic cleansing. It's illegal remember.

People have the right to live where they are born

No they don't. I was born in a hospital, but I have no right to live in the hospital, nor the flat that my parents were renting a the time. In fact if you were born in London as I was, you may not be able to afford live in London, so you don't even have the right to live in the city of your birth. There is certainly no right to live in the country of your birth. Because in the case of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union those countries no longer exist.

People just invent rights when it suit their ideological purposes and forget about them or just pay lip service to them when its ideologically inconvenient. So in fact Boris Johnson, who may well be Britain's next prime minster referred to new housing benefit laws as a form of ethnic cleansing when it suit his political purposes.

I don't mean to in any way attack you personally Redcarpet, but this is what people do. "People have the right to live where they are born." Oh that sounds nice, without ever really thinking what these things actually mean and how you would ever enforce them. What sounds straight forward and common sense is actually complex and illusive. So take the evictions of the Arabs in 47 /48, most of them tenants, so whose rights were abused here the tenants or the absentee landlords. Most were born in the Ottoman empire or in Transjordan, two states that had no longer existed.

[skinster]

If your parents were forced to flee their flat when you were born to make way for other people, that analogy may be able to work vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Not being able to afford to live in a particular city is very different to being forced to live under restrictions or being imprisoned by an occupying force.

Palestinians rights to live freely on their land are not inventions but something offered to them under international law.

Every time you enter a thread you make shit comparisons as though it would kill you to stick to a topic, or more likely; you don't know how. I tend to ignore you because of this but sometimes things need to be pointed out.

[Tailz]

No Tailz, the Jewish Agency was simply not allowed to speak at all. Not even in the commissions.

Many groups were not given a chance to voice their views. I have already stated this - and that the conference was a failure - so why are you harping on about it. The point has been given and agreed with.

The idea of their offers to pay countries to accept refugees is sound, but money was only part of the problem. There were also those governments who believed that it would be wholly undesirable to accept Jews regardless of how money they could bring to the table.

Indeed, but remember, this was during the Great Depression. No government would have been able to get their population to accept refugees when they could hardly look after their own at the time.

They most certainly offered Jews support to move to Mandatory Palestine, the examples of Aliyah Bet can attest to that.

But the Jewish Agency didn't support Aliyah Bet, they feared illegal immigration would cause the British to restrict legal immigration. The support network was mainly american veterans in europe and the haganah in Palestine.

The jewish agency (or was it the Zionist congress, i forget which) did come up with a plan in the 30's that even Hitler accepted. Jewish families living in europe could sell everything they owned to the Jewish agency who would then give 100,000 to the germans {this paid to have the families transfered to palestine} the rest was then used to buy property in palestine.

:lol:

You dont think people would remove such information? Wikipedia has locked israeli-Palestinian history pages because of "edit wars" between editors who are pro or anti one side or the other.

[wat0n]

But the Jewish Agency didn't support Aliyah Bet, they feared illegal immigration would cause the British to restrict legal immigration. The support network was mainly american veterans in europe and the haganah in Palestine.

It was led by the Betar movement (closely related to the Irgun). The Jewish Agency was opposed at the beginning, but as the '30s progressed it became neutral and in the '40s it outright supported the efforts (it would try to make sure that the ships captured by the UK would not be able to set saol, and from 1945 onwards started to participate directly in the operation).

The jewish agency (or was it the Zionist congress, i forget which) did come up with a plan in the 30's that even Hitler accepted. Jewish families living in europe could sell everything they owned to the Jewish agency who would then give 100,000 to the germans {this paid to have the families transfered to palestine} the rest was then used to buy property in palestine.

Indeed, it proved to be quite effective in actually rescuing people from Europe. One thing people tend to forget nowadays is that the Nazi regime was not really a pariah in the '30s, but actually a legitimate international actor and one far too powerful for the Jew - Zionist or not, working together or separately - to deal with any way that did not involve negotiating with it.

[Pongo]

Taliz, where do you live? You know quite a lot.

[Tailz]

Tailz wrote: But the Jewish Agency didn't support Aliyah Bet, they feared illegal immigration would cause the British to restrict legal immigration. The support network was mainly american veterans in europe and the haganah in Palestine.

It was led by the Betar movement (closely related to the Irgun). The Jewish Agency was opposed at the beginning, but as the '30s progressed it became neutral and in the '40s it outright supported the efforts (it would try to make sure that the ships captured by the UK would not be able to set saol, and from 1945 onwards started to participate directly in the operation).

Of course from 1945 onwards the game changed for the Zionist movement as a whole - which is quite an important implication when we are discussing issues prior the end of the European conflict of World War II. The support networks expanded exponentially with the discovery of the holocaust in Europe. But this supports my point, prior the end of WWII the support offered to Jew fleeing Europe and heading to somewhere other than Palestine, was almost non-existent. Because Jews fleeing Europe for a destination other than Palestine were of no use to an ethno-religious nationalist movement (the Zionist movement) attempting to build a population base in a place they were attempting to settle and ultimately control. Their presence was only of use if they were in Palestine helping to build the Jewish population.

Tailz wrote: The jewish agency (or was it the Zionist congress, i forget which) did come up with a plan in the 30's that even Hitler accepted. Jewish families living in europe could sell everything they owned to the Jewish agency who would then give 100,000 to the germans {this paid to have the families transfered to palestine} the rest was then used to buy property in palestine.

Indeed, it proved to be quite effective in actually rescuing people from Europe. One thing people tend to forget nowadays is that the Nazi regime was not really a pariah in the '30s, but actually a legitimate international actor and one far too powerful for the Jew - Zionist or not, working together or separately - to deal with any way that did not involve negotiating with it.

This is true, although one must say, a line is being crossed when a state offers a portion of its people up for sale with the express intention of expelling them from the state while such open and public discrimination is the backdrop for that "sale." While those who seek to exploit that "sale" and the perdicament of those European Jews, because it helps them achieve their own goals... well you tell me, is there any moral high ground left in such a situation? I don't think there is. The Jewish refugees became pawns of Nazi greed and Zionist ambition in Palestine...

Taliz, where do you live? You know quite a lot.

Does it matter?

[wat0n]

Of course from 1945 onwards the game changed for the Zionist movement as a whole - which is quite an important implication when we are discussing issues prior the end of the European conflict of World War II. The support networks expanded exponentially with the discovery of the holocaust in Europe. But this supports my point, prior the end of WWII the support offered to Jew fleeing Europe and heading to somewhere other than Palestine, was almost non-existent. Because Jews fleeing Europe for a destination other than Palestine were of no use to an ethno-religious nationalist movement (the Zionist movement) attempting to build a population base in a place they were attempting to settle and ultimately control. Their presence was only of use if they were in Palestine helping to build the Jewish population.

I would not say it was as much as whether their presence was useful or not - if anything, I think it was very much desired - but that the conditions at the time simply did not allow the Jewish Agency to go against the British in such a frontal way.

This is true, although one must say, a line is being crossed when a state offers a portion of its people up for sale with the express intention of expelling them from the state while such open and public discrimination is the backdrop for that "sale." While those who seek to exploit that "sale" and the perdicament of those European Jews, because it helps them achieve their own goals... well you tell me, is there any moral high ground left in such a situation? I don't think there is. The Jewish refugees became pawns of Nazi greed and Zionist ambition in Palestine...

So how could have the Jewish Agency actually helped them back then? If it was hard enough to get them to Mandatory Palestine, where they at least represented a major demographic group of the area and yet even then they weren't in a position of opening the doors to every Jew to move there, they were in an even more precarious position to organize emigration of the Jews from Germany to other regions (as shown by what transpired in the Évian Conference).

As far as morality goes, I think that rescue had a higher priority than who you were talking to.

[Tailz]

So how could have the Jewish Agency actually helped them back then?

Not exploit them for the movements nationalist profit?

If it was hard enough to get them to Mandatory Palestine, ...

Of course is was hard to get to Palestine, no one would say it would be easy. But getting anywhere would be hard, the point is they should have been helping European Jews flee to anywhere posible.

...where they at least represented a major demographic group of the area...

This comment only makes sense if you too buy into the idea that the Jews of europe were only of worth as a part of that Palestinian demographic. This comment demonstrates that you see them as only having value if they added to the demographic, this is exploitation and the very profiteering i was describing.

...and yet even then they weren't in a position of opening the doors to every Jew to move there, ...

Nowhere was going to take every European Jew, not even Palestine. It would have been better to have multiple open doors - even if some of those doors were only open a little - rather than just one open door which the Zionists were keeping open with a wedge anyway.

...they were in an even more precarious position to organize emigration of the Jews from Germany to other regions (as shown by what transpired in the Évian Conference).

You're basing your argument on just one conference? The German authorities set up the immigration tables in lines to make getting out of the country for "undesirables" as smooth as possible at exit points such as docks. The Germans tries to make it as easy as possible for undesirables to leave, it was not till conflict broke out that borders were closed that the Nazi's then tried to sell them, the Zionists purchased train loads of them, ship loads - all headed for Palestine. It was not hard to get out of Germany until the shooting started.

As far as morality goes, I think that rescue had a higher priority than who you were talking to.

If it was a case of rescue, then any point of the compass would have been on the table. Not just Palestine. Palestine was on the table as a means of profiteering from the suffering of European Jews. The Zionists needed to increase the Jewish population in Palestine in order to make their case, the European Jews offered a population in crisis ready to escape persecution - the Zionists saw an opportunity, and they exploited it for their own profit. As said by Ben Gurion, they left the European Jews to their fate.

[wat0n]

Not exploit them for the movements nationalist profit?

So you have no answer then.

Of course is was hard to get to Palestine, no one would say it would be easy. But getting anywhere would be hard, the point is they should have been helping European Jews flee to anywhere posible.

And yet it was easier to get them there...

This comment only makes sense if you too buy into the idea that the Jews of europe were only of worth as a part of that Palestinian demographic. This comment demonstrates that you see them as only having value if they added to the demographic, this is exploitation and the very profiteering i was describing.

...Because of the fact that Jews were a major demographic group in the Mandate made it easier for them to have a strong community that was able and willing to provide for them.

See? There is another, quite practical reason of what I mentioned.

Nowhere was going to take every European Jew, not even Palestine. It would have been better to have multiple open doors - even if some of those doors were only open a little - rather than just one open door which the Zionists were keeping open with a wedge anyway.

The only reason that door was open was precisely because that was the place with a Jewish community that was big enough to be able to open such door.

You're basing your argument on just one conference?

The most important one on the matter, one that was dedicated to it and one in which governments signalled their willling to help.

The German authorities set up the immigration tables in lines to make getting out of the country for "undesirables" as smooth as possible at exit points such as docks. The Germans tries to make it as easy as possible for undesirables to leave, it was not till conflict broke out that borders were closed that the Nazi's then tried to sell them, the Zionists purchased train loads of them, ship loads - all headed for Palestine. It was not hard to get out of Germany until the shooting started.

Yes, the Germans wanted them out but no one wanted many of them in, which is why they didn't have the chance to actually do so.

If it was a case of rescue, then any point of the compass would have been on the table. Not just Palestine. Palestine was on the table as a means of profiteering from the suffering of European Jews. The Zionists needed to increase the Jewish population in Palestine in order to make their case, the European Jews offered a population in crisis ready to escape persecution - the Zionists saw an opportunity, and they exploited it for their own profit. As said by Ben Gurion, they left the European Jews to their fate.

Palestine was the best bet given what I mentioned above on demographics and the willingness by the JA to actually take them in. Only the Dominican Republic offered asylum to any substantial amount of Jewish refugees (100,000, which was still too little overall).