What if Britain had let all the Jews of Europe into Israel in the 30s?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is important to try and keep this thread from becoming politicized and into anti-particular ethnic group. We are not here to criticize either the Palestinians nor Israelis.

The purpose was to determine what could of been done regarding helping Jewish people fleeing persecution in the 1930s. Let’s keep all discussion to before the war. If we wish to discuss the post WW2 situation we should create a separate thread.

That being said when discussing this we have a lot of strong opinions on both sides and some very firm beliefs. I myself included but I remind us all to be considerate of others feeling and keep all discussions civil and respectful for all.

Thanks
Lusitania

The problem is you are talking about relocating 9m+ people, they have to go somewhere, and the list of places that's going to welcome with open arms 9m+ people even in abstract is very short. That's even before we consider pre-existing specific prejudices and opinions about Jews in 1930+ especially since we're talking about a pretty diverse group, for example what language do all 9m+ European Jews speak?

So perhaps a more fundamental question is who's in the market for an extra 9m+ people?

I know the US is often cited as the goto destination (large population to absorb people in, an even larger land area to absorb them in, pre-existing Jewish and European emigre population) but in terms of an immediate increase in population 9m is still a massive chunk even for the US! (that's what 7% increase in total US 1930 pop)

It was also pretty much against the then immigration policy for the US, and things like the great depression makes it less likely as well. Similarly what true for the US is going to be even more true for smaller countries!
 
Last edited:
The purpose was to determine what could of been done regarding helping Jewish people fleeing persecution in the 1930s.
The problem is you are talking about relocating 9m+ people, they have to go somewhere,
I would repeat I think its far easier to defeat the German army (preferably early on in 35-38 to minimize casualties on both sides) and therefore end the persecution than it is to move 9m+ people?
 
I would repeat I think its far easier to defeat the German army (preferably early on in 35-38 to minimize casualties on both sides) and therefore end the persecution than it is to move 9m+ people?
That would have been the best policy, though it took the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust to get it through people's skulls that antisemitism (and racism in general) is Bad.

Plus, who's going to take on Germany in '38 for violating the terms of its treaties? France and Britain were war-weary, even 20 years after WW1, because of how brutal and bloody it was, and many of its generals feared a war would turn into yet another meatgrinder similar to the butchery they faced as soldiers in the trenches. The Soviet Union could beat Germany, but not many people had faith in its ability; it was generally regarded as a banana republic with a weak military, especially given the poor performances in 1917 and the Polish-Soviet War of 1921, something which would be reaffirmed by the 1940 Winter War debacle.

Also, does anyone really want Uncle Joe's fingers all over Central Europe, especially back then?
 
Plus, who's going to take on Germany
But if that's easier than moving 9m+ people and still nobody was willing to do it..........hindsight is powerful & wonderful but most people or nations don't have time machines and looking at history as if they did is questionable.
 
But if that's easier than moving 9m+ people and still nobody was willing to do it..........hindsight is powerful & wonderful but most people or nations don't have time machines and looking at history as if they did is questionable.
The nations throwing their armies against Germany's (even an underpowered one in 1938) would beg to differ. Casualties are still casualties. Why the **** would they do all this for some "bagel-eating yids"?
 
I will try to get this back to the original thread. Let's imagine that in the 1930s the British allow completely free immigration of Jews to Palestine. This does not mean that suddenly 9-11 million Jews in Europe suddenly pack up and move to Palestine. Why would they? Few people foresaw the true depravity of Hitler. I would say that on the high side you would get 1-2 million more (German and Austrian Jews; some middle class Polish and Hungarian Jews and that's about it). As a number of folks have suggested this would substantially increase instability and violence in the region. Now let's imagine that 1941-42 plays out roughly the same as IOTL. At this point you have Rommel roaring across North Africa but behind the British Army in Egypt you have the Levant in full revolt. The British are forced to commit troops to put down the revolt, meaning Rommel defeats the British Army and breaks through to the canal and then breaks through to Palestine. At this point Einsatzgruppe Egypt is transported from Athens (where there is some evidence it was waiting IOTL) to Palestine and this Einsatzgruppe does to the Jews of Palestine what they did to the Jews of the western Soviet Union. In other words, I believe there is a plausible argument that limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1930s and preserving a vaguely stable Palestine saved the million or so Jews already in Palestine. I recognize many will find this suggestion surprising but I am interested in reactions.
 
There were German plans to "deal" with the Jews of Palestine should the German Army get there. Through the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local population was expected to "assist" this effort both through spontaneous action and organized cooperation. While adding 1-2 million Jews from 1930-39 would have perhaps inspired an Arab revolt in Palestine, the presence of all those Jews many of military age, would have tilted the local balance rather strongly in favor of keeping a lid on things. IMHO any diversion of British troops to deal with this would be small, and perhaps if there was a perceived need this would keep as many troops from going to Greece where they were lost as the "revolt" would be flattened quickly even if it simmered. These troops would then be used elsewhere not lost. In any case the combination of German/Italian logistic constraints and the geography won't change and the absence (potentially) of a relatively small amount of infantry won't tilt the balance. Also, remember that you'll have a lot of Jews of military age joining the British forces who can be used in Palestine or elsewhere - OTL a Palestinian (Jewish) unit was deployed (and lost) in Greece.

The key point is that NOBODY and I mean NOBODY really cared much about the Jews of Europe until after the war when what happened in the Holocaust was revealed. Even the relatively small numbers from Germany/Austria/Czechoslovakia who would have been willing to leave to go anywhere had no place to go. Some prominent or highly skilled folks were cherry picked, some children accepted but that is it. Speaking from an American perspective the idea that "good Christian American boys" should be killed or maimed to save a bunch of European Jews would have required a battalion of ASBs to implement, as well as providing the money to support this effort. Even letting a trickle of refugees in was beyond acceptance.

While stopping Hitler in the mid to late 30s before things got out of hand was something the UK and France might have done, doing anything for the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe would not have been anywhere on the list of "why we should do this".

Again, throwing around the number of 9 million Jews is a straw man. Prior to 1939 the only Jews who would have been highly motivated to leave were those in Germany/Austria/Czechoslovakia. Other European Jews might have Zionist leanings, but very few would be coming from the countries with the largest populations. Once the war starts, almost all of that becomes impossible. At most you would see 1-2 million Jews, probably the lower end.
 
I think 'Kinder transport' and other actions by various groups and NGO's give the lie to the statement that "The key point is that NOBODY and I mean NOBODY really cared much about the Jews of Europe until after the war" people did care but many governments were constrained by the 'Real Politics' of the period. In hindsight it is all very well to point the finger and say 'more could have been done' but in doing so please come up with a plausible OTL alternative. Within the constraints of the 'Palestine Mandate' as dictated by the LoN, Britain as the controlling power in Palestine was caught between a 'rock and a hard place' in trying to balance the conflicting asperations of the Jews and Arabs in Palestine in the inter war years.
 
There were German plans to "deal" with the Jews of Palestine should the German Army get there. Through the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local population was expected to "assist" this effort both through spontaneous action and organized cooperation. While adding 1-2 million Jews from 1930-39 would have perhaps inspired an Arab revolt in Palestine, the presence of all those Jews many of military age, would have tilted the local balance rather strongly in favor of keeping a lid on things. IMHO any diversion of British troops to deal with this would be small, and perhaps if there was a perceived need this would keep as many troops from going to Greece where they were lost as the "revolt" would be flattened quickly even if it simmered. These troops would then be used elsewhere not lost. In any case the combination of German/Italian logistic constraints and the geography won't change and the absence (potentially) of a relatively small amount of infantry won't tilt the balance. Also, remember that you'll have a lot of Jews of military age joining the British forces who can be used in Palestine or elsewhere - OTL a Palestinian (Jewish) unit was deployed (and lost) in Greece.


The key point is that NOBODY and I mean NOBODY really cared much about the Jews of Europe until after the war when what happened in the Holocaust was revealed. Even the relatively small numbers from Germany/Austria/Czechoslovakia who would have been willing to leave to go anywhere had no place to go. Some prominent or highly skilled folks were cherry picked, some children accepted but that is it. Speaking from an American perspective the idea that "good Christian American boys" should be killed or maimed to save a bunch of European Jews would have required a battalion of ASBs to implement, as well as providing the money to support this effort. Even letting a trickle of refugees in was beyond acceptance.

While stopping Hitler in the mid to late 30s before things got out of hand was something the UK and France might have done, doing anything for the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe would not have been anywhere on the list of "why we should do this".

Again, throwing around the number of 9 million Jews is a straw man. Prior to 1939 the only Jews who would have been highly motivated to leave were those in Germany/Austria/Czechoslovakia. Other European Jews might have Zionist leanings, but very few would be coming from the countries with the largest populations. Once the war starts, almost all of that becomes impossible. At most you would see 1-2 million Jews, probably the lower end.

I do not disagree with your first point in general terms. In other words, it is plausible that having 200,000 more motivated soldiers in the Jewish Brigade could throw Rommel back more quickly. However, it is also plausible that massive instability in the Levant would deplete the British army. Obviously the degree of depletion would depend on the degree of depletion.

I completely disagree with your second point. AS noted by Yad Vashem, the Polish Government-in-Exile strongly and vocally opposed the massacres occurring in Poland in 1942. https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 5735.pdf . The Danish government spirited nearly all of their Jews to Sweden in 1943 In 1944 the Swedish government in the ICRC sent Raoul Wallenberg to Budapest to save the last great population of Jews in Europe. He succeeded in saving approximately 250,000. The Allies made clear that they would prosecute the Nazi's and their collaborators for War Crimes after the war. There is decent evidence that this threat caused the collaborationist governments to resist collaborating with the Nazis (think Romania, Bulgaria and until it was occupied Hungry in 1944). Without these actions the Holocaust would have been even worse (as horrifying as that notion is to contemplate).
 

Lusitania

Donor
I will try to get this back to the original thread. Let's imagine that in the 1930s the British allow completely free immigration of Jews to Palestine. This does not mean that suddenly 9-11 million Jews in Europe suddenly pack up and move to Palestine. Why would they? Few people foresaw the true depravity of Hitler. I would say that on the high side you would get 1-2 million more (German and Austrian Jews; some middle class Polish and Hungarian Jews and that's about it). As a number of folks have suggested this would substantially increase instability and violence in the region. Now let's imagine that 1941-42 plays out roughly the same as IOTL. At this point you have Rommel roaring across North Africa but behind the British Army in Egypt you have the Levant in full revolt. The British are forced to commit troops to put down the revolt, meaning Rommel defeats the British Army and breaks through to the canal and then breaks through to Palestine. At this point Einsatzgruppe Egypt is transported from Athens (where there is some evidence it was waiting IOTL) to Palestine and this Einsatzgruppe does to the Jews of Palestine what they did to the Jews of the western Soviet Union. In other words, I believe there is a plausible argument that limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1930s and preserving a vaguely stable Palestine saved the million or so Jews already in Palestine. I recognize many will find this suggestion surprising but I am interested in reactions.
Ok, I like the first part, you are right we cannot foresee the extent of the Nazi atrocities in the 1930s and the numbers of emigrant be about right. What I beg to differ is in that the British army could count on 100-200,000 Jewish troops to help in the fight against the Nazi. So I believe the situation in North Africa would actually improve. Mass confusion would afflict Nazi units as Jewish German speaking soldiers would cripple German response.
 
With more Jewish immigration to Palestine, Orde Wingate would have an even larger base for recuits for his 'Special Night Squads' who trained the Haganah. In 1938 pretty much were doing what the CIA was doing with Phoenix in Vietnam, to hobble the Arab uprising.
 
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, these two things are NOTHING alike..

It is good you appreciate it.

1) Germany kind of started the whole mess,

Actually the same came be said of the Palestinians, with there refusal to accept anything, and after the UN voted to create Israel, it was the Palestinians that started the fighting in open warfare. If they had not gone to war, they would have most the area of Israel now.

and it's been drilled into their children and grandchildren that "German Nationalism = Bad".

Except German acceptance started long before these children and grandchildren came on the scene.

Perhaps a bit overly so. But there was an eventual acceptance that while much of old Germany was lost, there is still plenty of it left. By contrast, the Palestinians effectively lost their entire country to foreigners. They eventually got Gaza and the West Bank back, but even then, these are dotted with Israeli settlements and security checkpoints (not to mention the infamous 10' concrete wall in Gaza) that people feel they haven't really gained any of it back.

2) While the Germans in former Prussian territory were forcibly evicted by Soviet, Polish, and Czech authorities post-war, they still had the territory of modern day Germany (or East and West Germany back then) to resettle, recover, and eventually their great-grandchildren accepted the loss and moved on with their lives - because they have something worth living for.


There is actually plenty of Palestine left in Arab hands. If you look at a map of the British mandate here
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WFaOZdbd...n-EFk_1XRqsCACLcB/s1600/mandate-palestine.jpg

You will see that even in 1970, the Arabs have 77% of the mandate by area. Since then the amount has gone up as Gaza and much of the West Bank has been given up by Israel. Let me also add that historical terms Gaza and West Bank is the best and richest areas in the region. The Palestinians actually have the plum areas.




The Palestinians never had that. The Palestinian diaspora carried the weight of the lost homeland around with it as part of its cultural identity, and while many eventually settled down in decent social and economic positions in many countries, most Palestinians never did. The majority of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars were forced to live in temporary refugee camps that had to become long-term population center. Many of these 'refugee camps' are now urban centers similar to Detroit at its worst times, particularly those in Lebanon (where the Palestinians were never truly accepted) and some in Jordan (which took the bulk of these refugees). The countries housing these people never truly accepted them, or still has considerable ethnic tensions regarding them. Jordan, which reportedly has anywhere between 40 to 60% of its population as of Palestinian origin, still has problems with the Palestinian-Jordanian divide, with the latter feeling they've been forced to accept foreigners onto their land, and the Palestinians sometimes feeling unwanted despite knowing there's really no other place for them now. Palestinians may become captains of industry and business in Jordan, but the problems are still there. The Syrians treated their refugees slightly better, but everyone knows it's mostly for propaganda purposes and to create people willing to fight Israel for them in the long run.

This is an internal Arab issue which you cannot blame Israel for, Israel also took large numbers of Arab Jews, as did the Germans you quoted above and succeeded in integrating them, why not the Arabs.


The 1990s peace talks were supposed to give the Palestinians a homeland at long last, something to call their own. And yet even after two decades, every step forwards seems to be matched by another step back. Much of the Palestinian lands are still under Israeli control. They don't have control of their borders, they're under constant pressure to kowtow by Israel on security issues, and they don't have much in terms of resources. The PLO proved a corrupt administrator. Many feel noting has been gained, which is why HAMAS won elections in Gaza and the Palestinians becoming more and more disgruntled about a peace "that has given us nothing". And things keep on going.

Again this cannot blame Israel for this, these Palestinians organisations were voted into power by the Palestinian people.

The Germans, for however screwed they got after WW2, were at least given a chance to recover, rest, and move on. The majority of Palestinians keep getting shafted, and so they could do nothing but seethe in anger for decades.


It was not the Palestinians were not given the chance, it is because unlike the Germans and the Jews, in your words *they did not move on*.
 
Ok, I like the first part, you are right we cannot foresee the extent of the Nazi atrocities in the 1930s and the numbers of emigrant be about right. What I beg to differ is in that the British army could count on 100-200,000 Jewish troops to help in the fight against the Nazi. So I believe the situation in North Africa would actually improve. Mass confusion would afflict Nazi units as Jewish German speaking soldiers would cripple German response.

You seem to suggest that it is certain the situation in North Africa would improve. If this is what you are saying, I disagree. I think it is plausible perhaps even probable that the situation in North Africa would improve. I do not think it would take much of a change from OTL to cause Rommel to lose at Tobruk in which case he never gets near the canal etc etc. That said, I do think it is also plausible that chaos in the Levant significantly weakens the British Army. I think details will matter significantly. For example, if you have 150,000 more Jews come to Palestine every year from 1933 to 1939 chaos seems less likely in 1941 and more troops seem more likely. On the other hand, if you have huge waves of refugees (say 500,000 per year) coming in 1938 and 1939 chaos is more likely and it is likely to be difficult to integrate significant soldiers from these huge waves of refugees into the British army.
 

Lusitania

Donor
You seem to suggest that it is certain the situation in North Africa would improve. If this is what you are saying, I disagree. I think it is plausible perhaps even probable that the situation in North Africa would improve. I do not think it would take much of a change from OTL to cause Rommel to lose at Tobruk in which case he never gets near the canal etc etc. That said, I do think it is also plausible that chaos in the Levant significantly weakens the British Army. I think details will matter significantly. For example, if you have 150,000 more Jews come to Palestine every year from 1933 to 1939 chaos seems less likely in 1941 and more troops seem more likely. On the other hand, if you have huge waves of refugees (say 500,000 per year) coming in 1938 and 1939 chaos is more likely and it is likely to be difficult to integrate significant soldiers from these huge waves of refugees into the British army.
You have heard enemy of my enemy is my ally. The Jewish for all their attacks or problems with the British in Palestine would by 1940-1941 be completely against Nazi Germany and its Ally Italy. Calls for volunteers to fight the Axis would of been responded to in the tens of thousands. So while the British would of had to deploy additional troops to quell the anger amongst the Arab/Palestinians whey would of received a huge boost in terms of men willing to serve against the Axis. So I do not see the British loosing and as the number of troops increase the British would be stronger.
 
@sonofpegasus : I do not dispute the actions of INDIVIDUALS prior to WWII. The actions of the Danish Government after occupation are, of course, a shining example. Similarly the actions of Wallenberg at ultimate personal cost are exemplary. The Polish Government in Exile did protest, however the actions of Poles on the ground were often supportive of the roundup of Jews. The point is that all of these actions came after the start of the war. How many refugees did Sweden allow in BEFORE the war? Yes there was the Kindertransport, and the number of children transported was quite limited by the receiving countries. I might add telling parents they could send their children away to potential safety, but could not go with them - not because the country of origin (Großdeutschesreich) would not let them go but because the country of reception would not take them - is a variation on the biblical sacrifice of Abraham. As a matter of fact, most of the children of the Kindertransport never saw their parents or nontransported siblings ever again.

I will modify my statement, some people (other than Jews elsewhere) cared about these Jews. Some organizations made efforts to save some, and we are told "he who saves a single life it as if he has saved the entire world". However PRIOR to WWII no government made any significant effort to accommodate Jewish refugees, and many governments such as the USA and UK made efforts to ensure that these refugees were denied access to countries other than the USA and UK - in the former case, putting extreme pressure on western hemisphere countries to refuse any Jews and in the latter case making entrance to Imperial or Commonwealth countries extremely difficult. Even once the war had started, and during the war, Jews who managed to escape the borders of Nazi occupation had a hard time finding shelter.

The whole question in this thread is about 1930-1939, not 1939-1945 or thereafter. All 6-9 million Jews in Europe, and that includes Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, etc would not have picked up and moved to Palestine before September, 1939. As I and others have said, between those who were Zionist already and German/Austrian/Czech Jews at most 1-2 million might go, probably at the low end.
 
To be really blunt. Why would you want to give up your comfortable middle class European life to go an live in a middle eastern country where everyone still hates you?

You have religious nut jobs who see it as some sort of destiny, and you have those persecuted enough to be willing to move. Even in Germany no one really wanted to go, if only because the Nazis were robbing them blind on the way out.
 
To be really blunt. Why would you want to give up your comfortable middle class European life to go an live in a middle eastern country where everyone still hates you?

.
German Jews might have been okay economocally, but ecomical situation of Jews in Poland was similar to that of citizens of other ethnicities which was - bad.
 
@sonofpegasus : I do not dispute the actions of INDIVIDUALS prior to WWII. The actions of the Danish Government after occupation are, of course, a shining example. Similarly the actions of Wallenberg at ultimate personal cost are exemplary. The Polish Government in Exile did protest, however the actions of Poles on the ground were often supportive of the roundup of Jews. The point is that all of these actions came after the start of the war. How many refugees did Sweden allow in BEFORE the war? Yes there was the Kindertransport, and the number of children transported was quite limited by the receiving countries. I might add telling parents they could send their children away to potential safety, but could not go with them - not because the country of origin (Großdeutschesreich) would not let them go but because the country of reception would not take them - is a variation on the biblical sacrifice of Abraham. As a matter of fact, most of the children of the Kindertransport never saw their parents or nontransported siblings ever again.

I will modify my statement, some people (other than Jews elsewhere) cared about these Jews. Some organizations made efforts to save some, and we are told "he who saves a single life it as if he has saved the entire world". However PRIOR to WWII no government made any significant effort to accommodate Jewish refugees, and many governments such as the USA and UK made efforts to ensure that these refugees were denied access to countries other than the USA and UK - in the former case, putting extreme pressure on western hemisphere countries to refuse any Jews and in the latter case making entrance to Imperial or Commonwealth countries extremely difficult. Even once the war had started, and during the war, Jews who managed to escape the borders of Nazi occupation had a hard time finding shelter.

The whole question in this thread is about 1930-1939, not 1939-1945 or thereafter. All 6-9 million Jews in Europe, and that includes Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, etc would not have picked up and moved to Palestine before September, 1939. As I and others have said, between those who were Zionist already and German/Austrian/Czech Jews at most 1-2 million might go, probably at the low end.

The notion that the Jews could not escape Germany (and later Austria) prior to WWII is not really accurate. Of the 500K in Germany in 1933 approximately 300K escaped to other countries. A substantial fraction of those remaining were elderly (and hence not likely to emigrate). https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-jewish-refugees-1933-1939 The problem is that many of these people escaped to countries such as the Netherlands and France. They were then swept up when the Nazi's took over these countries. Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight we can say that these people should have fled further (to the US) and that with the benefit of hindsight the US should have had more open refugee policies. My basic problem with the argument that the Holocaust would have been less horrid if countries in the 1930s had had more open policies (which I strongly support on principle) is that it starts to feel like one is arguing that these other countries the US, Britain etc, bear some moral culpability for the Holocaust, and therefore Nazi's bear less. This is of course a deeply troubling perspective since the Holocaust happened because of the depravity of the Nazi's full stop.
 
Actually the same came be said of the Palestinians, with there refusal to accept anything, and after the UN voted to create Israel, it was the Palestinians that started the fighting in open warfare. If they had not gone to war, they would have most the area of Israel now.
There had been fighting long before that. There was the uprising of 1936, in response to the growing Israeli presence in the country and the increasingly strict rules the Arabs lived under compared to the Israelis. For example, the Israelis were allowed to form their own militia and carry firearms openly, while it was a crime punishable by death for an Arab to carry an heirloom dagger.
Except German acceptance started long before these children and grandchildren came on the scene.
The Germans had a little something called WW2 and the Holocaust to atone for. Which, again, is something the Europeans did and the Palestinians wound up paying the bill for, despite them not having a hand in it at all. If the Europeans were so bleeding heart about the Jews, why didn't any of them offer their lands as a new homeland for the Holocaust survivors? Why is it the Palestinian who is forced to give up his ancestral lands to make amends for something he didn't do?
There is actually plenty of Palestine left in Arab hands. If you look at a map of the British mandate here
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WFaOZdbd...n-EFk_1XRqsCACLcB/s1600/mandate-palestine.jpg
You mean that big chunk of land we call 'Jordan'? Yeah, what a real privilege, being allowed to keep your land. Maybe the Pals and Jordanians can commiserate over their loss while they generously give their lands away to the European Jews, who've never been to this land for millennia.

The Israeli politicians had several opinions on this. Some radicals wanted to claim it all as "rightful Israeli land", and kick out the Jordanians too so the whole farce is applied to other Arabs. Others just wanted to dump the Palestinians there in reservations and the like, never mind they'd be tossed out of ancestral homes and places they've been living in for generations.

The whole point is, Germany's losses were the result of Germany's actions, and they happened after WW2, when they were too exhausted and tired to object and just wanted to rebuild. The Palestinians had every choice and issue forced on them, and when they resisted, people made them out to be the bad guys. The 1936 Revolt failed, so they tried the 1948 War. That failed, so they continued to be resentful and angry over choices they never made but were instead forced upon them.
You will see that even in 1970, the Arabs have 77% of the mandate by area. Since then the amount has gone up as Gaza and much of the West Bank has been given up by Israel. Let me also add that historical terms Gaza and West Bank is the best and richest areas in the region. The Palestinians actually have the plum areas.
Please stop lumping in Jordan with Palestine. It just shows ignorance of the situation on the ground. And Jordan is mostly desert, except for Irbid, Amman, and Kerak.

Calling the West Bank and Gaza "plum areas" is insulting. Gaza is one of the most heavily populated areas in the world, almost two million people stuck in a two-by-one kilometer area, and they have no control over their borders or their harbors. Gaza was effectively isolated and dependent on Israel's goodwill, and this was before Israel and Gaza got into a prolonged cold/hot war for the past decade now. The main reason Israel wants to be rid of Gaza is because it's a demographics time bomb; ever since they conquered it in 1967, they never really managed to get it under their yoke, and they never could Hebrew-ify it because the Palestinians there breed like rabbits. They couldn't get enough settlers there, and if they keep it they'll end up buried up to their armpits in Arabs, which is severely damage the status and identity of the Israeli state.

While the West Bank is better off, it's still suffering from chunks of it being shaved off for settlements, plus a lot of the historically and religiously important areas are a bureaucratic battleground between Arab and Israeli authorities to claim as much of the Holy Land as possible. And the Israelis have by far the bigger and better budget.
This is an internal Arab issue which you cannot blame Israel for, Israel also took large numbers of Arab Jews, as did the Germans you quoted above and succeeded in integrating them, why not the Arabs.
Because by doing so, they break the very foundation of Israel. By accepting and assimilating the Arabs, Israel goes from "Hebrew State" to "Arab-Hebrew Dual Ethnic State". And to top it off, the Arabs breed fast, so in a decade or so, it'll end up flipping over to being a Jewish minority in an Arab majority state - and into an Arab state. The Arabs will win simply by virtue of the ballot box, rendering the Israelis a minority in their own state - and that's something they created Israel to avoid.

I can't blame Israel for the shitty neighborhood, nor for the governments overseeing the camps. However, when the Palestinian living in said camps under said regimes is stopped for the 20th time for a minor suspicion by the cops who clearly don't like him and don't want him there, the mystique of a Palestinian homeland is going to be much more alluring. And by dwelling on the loss - which was forced on their parents and grandparents, by the way - they get more and more bitter about the forced handover of Palestinian territory to foreigners.
Again this cannot blame Israel for this, these Palestinians organisations were voted into power by the Palestinian people.
The PLO got into power because it was the only organization with any sense of organization or presence in the Palestinian territories, and it was the official representative of the Palestinians. Over time, however, it proved unable to stand up for Palestinian rights, as it was either forced to accept all Israeli demands on security and gain little back, or fight the Israeli government and get bitch-slapped down. Inevitably, the PLO is tainted as it's seen as a collaborator, and a more radical regime becomes the popular option.
It was not the Palestinians were not given the chance, it is because unlike the Germans and the Jews, in your words *they did not move on*.
Staying between other Arabs who had their own issues and weren't pleased with having to put up with them (introducing a new ethnic group to a system teeming with them doesn't improve stability), having no prospects, no choices, and having to swallow every bullshit others force on them. Like how Trump's "Deal of the Century" basically means the Pals have to eat shit and give up any claim to Jerusalem, their historic and religious ancestral capital.

Remember when Mahmoud Abbas went on Palestinian TV and started insulting Trump in what has to be the least professional action and most obvious public breakdown? It's because he knows he got fucked, hard and proper. For years, decades even, the PLO tried to show itself as "the moderate option", that working with the USA and Israel will bear fruit - only for Trump, in the most obvious Israel-pandering act possible, declares Jerusalem the sole capital of Israel, an act that previous US Presidents have been very reluctant to make to avoid angering the Arabs, and then offers the Palestinians a token amount to shut up and take it like a good bitch. Prince Mohammed Bin Salman was also recently revealed to have offered Abbas US$25M to take the deal. An act which would have destroyed any remaining credibility or legitimacy for the PLO. Abbas knows he got fucked hard, and if he accepted the cash, he would have destroyed himself as a politician. He had the rug pulled out from under him, and his years of work as the 'moderate voice' have been undone in an instant. No wonder the man's mad; he's practically desperate at this point.

It's shit like this that pisses off the Palestinians. Someone else does shit and forces them to swallow it.
 
Many European Jews wanted to move to Israel when Hitler rose to power, but to appease the local Arabs, the Brits didn’t allow many to move.

Firstly it isn't true that many wanted to move, even in Germany itself there was little enthusiasm for emigration and certainly not to Israel. Outside of Germany why would the Jewish population choose to emigrate? They weren't experiencing any worse oppression than they had known historically and they certainly didn't expect Nazi Germany to occupy their homelands. You also have to bear in mind that much of the Jewish population saw itself as German, French, Polish, etc. and had no real cohesion.

Also even if they all decided to move and the British stood aside who exactly was going to finance it? One of the constraints on Jewish emigration from Germany was the question of how to convert the assets of the emigrants and Germany's desire to hold onto as much of those assets as possible. Then you have the issue of feeding and housing all those Jews in a world where anti-Semitism is endemic and there's no sense of guilt over the Holocaust to cause the Western nations to offer any sort of support. The reality is that large scale Jewish migration to Palestine isn't going to happen without the Holocaust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top