Trending Topics:

Whether it’s Brexit or Zionism – going it alone makes little sense

Opinion
on 35 Comments

Two issues have dominated the UK over the last twelve months: Brexit and antisemitism in the Labour Party. The politics of both debates turn out to have much in common.

Conflicting national narratives; opposing notions of self-determination; a complex question presented as having a simple solution; a lack of civility in public debate; the use of fear tactics; and the demonisation of opponents.

In short, both issues have created plenty of heat but not much light.

The Brexit and antisemitism debates were running in parallel for most of 2018. In fact, the allegations of antisemitism made against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, was the only story to regularly push Brexit from the top of the domestic news agenda.

As we begin 2019 and the House of Commons confronts its on-going multi-dimensional gridlock, the same themes and poor behaviours have returned to both debates.

Brexit is a very British tragicomedy and, as our Prime Minister said this week, we could be heading for “uncharted waters”. The same ominous language could be applied to the antisemitism debate.

For full disclosure, I should say at the outset that I voted to ‘Remain’ in the EU in the June 2016 referendum. I voted as a UK citizen, as a European Jew and as a campaigner for Palestinian rights. On all counts I saw our biggest challenges as requiring an international approach with the need for greater co-operation between nations. I haven’t changed my views on that.

Looking at the similarities between Brexit and the antisemitism debate is a helpful way to understand the dynamics at play particularly within the Jewish community. That could turn out to be even more relevant if the Brexit deadlock leads to a second referendum or even a General Election in 2019. At that point, the Brexit and antisemitism debate will become part of a single story.

National narratives

Since the leadership of the Jewish community in the UK (and around the world) insists that all discussion of antisemitism must now be understood within the context of Israel and Zionism, it’s safe to say that both Brexit and antisemitism have become debates about what constitutes national identity and national self-determination.

Jewish history can be read as a never ending story about how best to achieve Jewish security as a minority community.

After the European Enlightenment of the 17th century the options for security and success appeared to multiply for Jews as individuals but remained highly problematic for Jews collectively. The emerging European nationalism had a regressive outlook about who could or could not ‘belong’ and who would be forever ‘alien’. Even the most successful and assimilated Jews, even the most radical and revolutionary, turned out to be ‘foreigners’ when it really counted.

In Zionist thought, the Holocaust is seen as the final proof of the ultimate impossibility of Jewish acceptance and the failure of all survival strategies pursued up to that point.

While leaving or remaining in the EU still divides the UK population as a whole, over the last 70 years the debate over how best to secure long-term Jewish security appears to have been settled once and for all.

Zionism and its belief that Jewish peoplehood and national self-determination are best defined in the context of a nation state with the same ethnic bias as 18th century European states, has won the day. So much so that it’s no longer possible to even present this strategy as a once competing ideology among many. Zionism is now understood as timeless, essential and beyond criticism. It’s a truly remarkable achievement.

What was once a political programme is now an article of faith for the vast majority of religious Jews, and common sense for secular Jews. For religious and non-religious, the necessity of Zionism is no longer a question of political affiliation, it’s an emotional disposition. It’s this which makes the debate over what is and isn’t antisemitism so difficult both within the Jewish community and beyond. Jewish critics of Zionism become traitors and non-Jewish critics become antisemites. Palestinian objections are also reduced to a timeless hostility towards Jews as the root cause of their antipathy.

But despite our emotional attachment to Zionism, half the world’s Jewish population still choose to live in countries other than Israel. There’s no barrier to Jews moving to Israel to exercise and guarantee our self- determination individually and collectively. Yet, 50% of us are still trying our luck elsewhere.

In theory we’re in no doubt about Israel. In practice we’re ambivalent. Squaring this circle is usually achieved by viewing Israel as a ‘life raft’ with guaranteed seats reserved. It’s comforting to know you have a ‘spare country’ if things get tricky, as they often have, and could do again. Most minority groups have no such option.

False promises

Zionism, to use the campaign rhetoric of the Brexiteers, is all about ‘taking back control of our destiny’. There are other Brexit similarities too. Zionism believes it’s possible to ‘go it alone’ and that this is the best way to address the challenges we face. But like those that believe ‘Leaving’ the EU is a panacea for all our woes, Zionism has also presented us with a false prospectus, a simple solution to complex problems.

If safety and security and the ‘normalisation of the Jewish condition’ was the promise of Zionism, then surely it’s been a failure.

Creating a garrison state based on European style settler colonialism which we present to ourselves and the world as a ‘Return’ hasn’t solved the question of how to be Jewish. However, it has, as I wrote to commemorate Israel’s 70th anniversary last year, created a whole host of new problems.

A longer reading of Jewish history, including our previous biblical attempts at nationhood, should have alerted the 19th century Zionist thinkers of the shortcomings of this strategy. We’ve tried this before.

The kingdoms of Ancient Israel were fragile and vulnerable, dependent on endless compromise and negotiation with more powerful neighbours. Ancient Israel was either protected or vanquished at the whim of regional empires. Has anything changed? Yesterday’s Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Roman empires are today’s America, Russia and China.

A toxic debate

Brexit has created a general hardening of political discourse in the UK and a disturbing decline in civility in public life.

One prominent Remain voting Tory MP, Anna Soubry, was this week called a Nazi by pro-Brexit supporters as she took part in a live BBC interview outside Westminster. It was a rare occurrence of ‘Nazi’ being used as a term of abuse outside of an Israel/Palestine context.

Like Brexit, the debate about antisemitism has also become increasingly toxic and uncivil, with accusations of Nazism (from all directions) all too common.

The reason for the toxicity within Jewish affairs is the need to defend Zionism against the charge of racism which, if it sticks, not only undermines the legitimacy of the State of Israel but will cause the unraveling of our modern, Zionist-anchored, Jewish identity too.

So, just as with Brexit, the stakes are high. Both debates feel, and are treated as, existential in their implications.

It explains the concerted efforts by the Jewish establishment in the UK to vilify Jeremy Corbyn for his Palestinian solidarity. It explains the agenda behind the promotion of the IHRA definition of antisemitism along with its illustrations, including the insistence that calling Israel “a racist endeavor” is an example of antisemitism.

It also explains the abuse directed at young Jews in the UK who last year had the temerity to think the Palestinian protestors killed by Israeli snipers along the Gaza fence were worthy of their Jewish prayers.

Those that publicly prayed for the dead of Gaza were accused by a leading mainstream orthodox rabbi, Yitzchak Schochet, of being no better than “Kapos” – the Jewish concentration camp inmates who helped the Nazis with their killing.

Liberal and Reform Rabbis, such as Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, have called for greater civility, fearing the debate over Israel could “destroy” the community. Similar calls have been made in the Brexit context.

It’s a shame that even our most progressive rabbis are trapped in a Zionist outlook that severely limits their critique. The Book of Deuteronomy tells us “justice, justice, shall you pursue” but today, when it comes to Israel, it seems we must make do with a better run debating society.

The absence of civility may not be destroying the Jewish community just yet, but it’s certainly pointing towards a growing generational fracturing over Israel, just as we’re seeing in the United States. These are our “uncharted waters”.

Project fear

Hardline pro-Brexiteers like to accuse their opponents of running a scare campaign about the consequences of a no-deal departure from the EU this spring. Corbyn’s accusers within the Jewish community have been running their own version of ‘project fear’. And this is where it starts to look as if the Brexit and antisemitism debates are intersecting.

Last summer’s incendiary claim that the Jewish community faces an “existential threat” under a future Corbyn government was being re-stoked at the turn of the year.

Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, the pro-Brexit City Editor for the Pro-Brexit Daily Mail, Alex Brummer, set out the financial reasons why the Jewish community should fear a Corbyn government. The article was headlined “The thought of Corbyn has Jewish investors running for the hills”.

If it hadn’t been written by a Jewish journalist and published in a Jewish newspaper it would certainly have been held up as gross antisemitism. It presented the Jewish community as obsessive about its wealth and in fear of Labour’s “chilling” tax hikes targeting the well-off. And before too long, Brummer was invoking the Holocaust as a precedent for Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s potential taxation plans.

“In the 1920s and 1930s, the confiscation of Jewish assets in Germany and elsewhere signaled the start of the Holocaust, a period that is built into Jews’ DNA.”

I thought the former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, was foolish in likening Corbyn to Enoch Powell last August, but clearly there’s no longer a political or moral filter in place when it comes to defending Israel and Zionism.

If Theresa May fails to get Commons backing for her EU departure deal (currently the vote’s scheduled for 15th January) any number of scenarios could start to play out. Including a General Election. If that happens, the anti-Corbyn version of project fear will have accusations of antisemitism baked into it.

The communities we build together

Faith in the rejuvenating powers of Brexit or faith in the notion that Jewish national self-determination is sacrosanct both turn out to be false messiahs.

There is no such thing as ‘taking back control’ or ‘going it alone’ for any of us.

For the UK, the challenges of global capitalism, climate change or mass migrations, cannot be addressed in isolation from our nearest trading partners. For the Jewish community, defending an ethnic nation state built on the dispossession of another people, will never achieve security or normality. Antisemitism is real, it always will be, and it will not disappear because we have a nation state.

Knowing how to adapt to changing circumstances will continue to be the Jewish story both in Israel and around the world. Jewish peoplehood rather than Jewish nationhood will stand the test of time but not without setbacks and tragedies as we saw in Pittsburgh last October.

For all of us, we are only as safe and secure as the communities we build together locally and internationally. Everything else is an illusion.

A version of this article was originally published by Robert A.H. Cohen on his blog at Patheos on January 9, 2019.

Robert Cohen
About Robert Cohen

Cohen is a British writer. He blogs at Micah's Paradigm Shift. http://micahsparadigmshift.blogspot.co.uk/

Other posts by .


Posted In:

35 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo on January 16, 2019, 11:53 am

    Brexit and Antisemitism coming together in the Houses of Commons during the debate of the “Vote of no confidence” this morning.

    Clearly Teresa May was rattled by comments from the opposition Party members re her history making defeat last evening , so in the absence of any further relevant response, she decided to attack Jeremy Corbyn and accuse him of turning the Labour Party into a “Den of Antisemitism” , instead of spending his time working for the People of the UK..This response was both childish and had no relevance to the debate in progress.

    She repeated this accusation later on in the debate.

    This is a regular occurrence over the last two plus years , both by May and a coterie of bought and paid for CFI shills.

    This behaviour is no longer restricted to the UK.It is now raising it,s ugly head on US MSM .

    Over the last two months ,CNN has been running an ad multiple times daily claiming Antisemitism has increased 40% in the US .This ad includes short vids depicting scenes from the the prison camps and eastern Europeans stating that Jews control world finances.

    This is clearly an example of what is “Coming to America” to your schools/theatres/campuses/workplaces, etc etc.

    Clearly America,s Jews are downtrodden and victimised and must be saved from the desperate fate they face in the USA.

    Thanks for the article.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on January 16, 2019, 12:10 pm

      “Antisemitism has increased 40% in the US “

      Wait, I thought antisemitism was already running about 70% overall, and up to 50% among the Orthodox. And this has been going on for decades! Don’t try and minimize the problem!

      • amigo
        amigo on January 16, 2019, 12:57 pm

        “Wait, I thought antisemitism was already running about 70% overall, and up to 50% among the Orthodox.” Mooser.

        Excuse me Mooser, take it up with CNN.

        Surely , Wolf (in sheep,s clothing ) Blitzer wouldn,t minimise the problem.He wouldn,t lie —would he.

    • annie
      annie on January 16, 2019, 12:11 pm

      amigo, did you hear about the woman’s march? all these co sponsoring groups are backing out, allegedly over the farrakhan thing. he has nothing to do with the woman’s march, it’s just a hook to denounce it ever since that zionist woman’s group was not welcome a while ago. (that’s my theory anyway, a bunch of baloney). anti semitism is continually center stage when it was perfectly clear the group was unwelcome because the ideology of the march was anti-oppression, and zionism is oppressive. but now it’s all about anti semitism. i wasn’t really following the woman’s march to begin with, i can’t keep up w/all the bs.

      it’s like the go to smear of all time. what does it have to do with brexit? nothing!

      • amigo
        amigo on January 16, 2019, 1:09 pm

        Hi Annie, yes I have just become aware of it.I will read it and get back to you.

  2. eljay
    eljay on January 16, 2019, 12:21 pm

    … The kingdoms of Ancient Israel were fragile and vulnerable, dependent on endless compromise and negotiation with more powerful neighbours. Ancient Israel was either protected or vanquished at the whim of regional empires. Has anything changed? …

    Sure: Israel…
    – is “Captain Israel” strong;
    – doesn’t need anything from anyone (aside from a bare minimum of unwavering political, economic, military and financial support from a world superpower): and
    – will last a Thousand Years! (and maybe even forever).

    • amigo
      amigo on January 16, 2019, 1:12 pm

      “– will last a Thousand Years! (and maybe even forever).”Eljay

      930 still to go.

  3. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson on January 16, 2019, 3:36 pm

    RE: “If Theresa May fails to get Commons backing for her EU departure deal (currently the vote’s scheduled for 15th January) any number of scenarios could start to play out.” – Cohen

    Amid Brexit Chaos, Theresa May’s Government Survives Confidence Votehttps://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/685907618/amid-brexit-chaos-u-k-parliament-holds-no-confidence-vote-on-theresa-may

  4. Keith
    Keith on January 16, 2019, 5:09 pm

    ROBERT COHEN- “Jewish peoplehood rather than Jewish nationhood will stand the test of time….”

    I see that you share the Zionist goal of combating assimilation. Jews as a people apart. Not physically separate from the surrounding non-Jewish community as in medieval times, but rather, a psychological separation induced by neo-Zionist ideology reinforced by goal-seeking activity in Jewish organizations. Underpinning it all, an exaggerated concern with anti-Semitism not supported by empirical reality. Non-Jews as the eternal other. Rather than the overt Jewish sectarianism of Israel, the unspoken Jewish sectarianism of the multicultural West which has proved so beneficial to Jewish success. Paranoia with a purpose. Zionism without Zion. And your conflation of the Corbyn smear with the Brexit “debate” is disingenuous at best. Two quotes from Norman Finkelstein regarding Labour’s alleged anti-Semitism along with a link to his must read article.

    “The degree of anti-Semitism infecting British society has been the subject of numerous polls over a sustained period of time. These surveys have uniformly, consistently, and unambiguously concluded that anti-Semitism (1) has long been a marginal phenomenon in British society, infecting under 10 percent of the population, (2) is far less salient than hostility to other British minorities, and (3) is less pronounced in the UK than almost anywhere else in Europe.
    ….
    …the researchers themselves sought to answer a different question: “Why [do] the levels of anxiety found within the UK Jewish population about the scale of contemporary antisemitism appear to be so far out of sync with the low levels of antisemitic sentiment observed among the general UK population?”
    (Norman Finkelstein) http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/25/finkelstein-on-corbyn-mania/

    • RoHa
      RoHa on January 16, 2019, 9:26 pm

      What’s even worse, Keith, is that Cohen has put a comma after a subject clause.

      “In fact, the allegations of antisemitism made against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party ***,*** was the only story to regularly push Brexit from the top of the domestic news agenda.”

    • Mooser
      Mooser on January 17, 2019, 7:12 pm

      “Not physically separate from the surrounding non-Jewish community as in medieval times, but rather, a psychological separation induced by neo-Zionist ideology reinforced by goal-seeking activity in Jewish organizations.”

      Yeah, and sometimes a bagel is just a bagel.

      • Keith
        Keith on January 17, 2019, 8:45 pm

        MOOSER- “Yeah, and sometimes a bagel is just a bagel.”

        Corbyn doesn’t like bagels? Wait until Hophmi hears about this! Move over Alice Walker!

    • annie
      annie on January 17, 2019, 9:01 pm

      And your conflation of the Corbyn smear with the Brexit “debate” is disingenuous at best.

      well, i only dabble in british politics and have not followed up on this but i heard, after corbyn called for a vote of no-confidence in May’s government on tuesday after the historic defeat of her brexit plan the next day both her and corbyn (as head of the opposition) were to address parliment, she to save herself and him to tank her… and that instead of talking about brexit her speech was about corbyn’s anti semitism, rather shockingly. like i said, i have not followed up on this. but if it’s the case and that’s what she did, while i totally agree conflation of the Corbyn smear with the Brexit debate is totally disingenuous, it’s not cohen or anyone else’s fault for calling it out if it’s happening in parliament. maybe there’s a brit around who can confirm.

      never mind, i will go google it myself.

      edit, here it is https://www.c-span.org/video/?456982-1/theresa-clashes-jeremy-corbyn-ahead-confidence-vote

      not hearing the anti semitism part yet, if it what i heard is accurate.
      oh here she goes, he’s let antisemitism run rampant!

  5. wondering jew
    wondering jew on January 16, 2019, 6:36 pm

    “Most minority groups have no such option.”

    This sentence should cause pause. Most minorities in the US are majorities elsewhere who have chosen to come to a place where they are a minority. (True: Most African Americans did not choose to come to this country or to this hemisphere and they would feel very out of place in Africa. And most minorities would feel out of place back in their “home” countries once they have been here for a year or two or a generation or two or a century or two) But to state this sentence without a hint of a pause seems superficial.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew on January 16, 2019, 6:44 pm

      Brexit is really quite different from Zionism. If Zionism is not a sufficient answer to the Holocaust, that is because there is no sufficient answer to the Holocaust. Brexit is an answer to what? resentment at being ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels? A step away from the homogeneity of Europe? An assertion of tradition? Hardly a pressing existential problem when compared to a third of your population being murdered and the utter ruination of the mother community to most of the world’s surviving Jews. One should comment on the Zionist project seriously and to put it in the same category as the Brexit vote is cartoonish.

    • Mooser
      Mooser on January 17, 2019, 6:51 pm

      ” Most minorities in the US are majorities elsewhere who have chosen to come to a place where they are a minority.”

      And sometimes a matzoh is just a half-baked cracker.

  6. eljay
    eljay on January 16, 2019, 8:08 pm

    || wondering jew: “Most minority groups have no such option.”

    This sentence should cause pause. Most minorities in the US are majorities elsewhere who have chosen to come to a place where they are a minority. … ||

    No cause for pause: Just because people from other countries choose to come to the U.S. doesn’t mean they have a “life raft” country to which they can return.

    What should “cause pause” is the fact that Americans who choose to be Jewish can Zionistically “return” to Israel while non-Jews expelled from Israel cannot actually return to their homes and lands.

    I know you understand the injustice and immorality of this but I also know that because you’re a Zionist you just don’t give a shit.

  7. echinococcus
    echinococcus on January 16, 2019, 11:29 pm

    “That could turn out to be even more relevant if the Brexit deadlock leads to a second referendum or even a General Election in 2019”

    So it seems that what we suspected all along is true: the goal of all these shenanigans since the vote is to deny the British their clear wish of getting free from the Brussels bureaucracy.

    Of course, even that isn’t independence, as the UK still isn’t more than a US Territory without a vote. The losers will again be the Europeans, not the gov’ts but the people, forced to continue to remain tied to that American Trojan Horse of England..

  8. RoHa
    RoHa on January 17, 2019, 1:13 am

    For once I find myself agreeing with Yonah.

    Cohen seems to have the idea that any international community – even one as flawed as the EU – is better than none. But perhaps he has been drinking too much Coke.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

    Here’s a touch of reality.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-15/germany-and-france-come-apart-so-too-will-eu

    • Keith
      Keith on January 17, 2019, 11:49 am

      ROHA- “…even one as flawed as the EU….”

      That is exactly correct! As we enter the end of the hydrocarbon era, it is essential that we achieve a high degree of local autonomy. To think globally but act locally. Globalization, of which the EU is part, effectively creates economic and financial interdependencies controlled by the corporations and financial system. We are headed towards a form of neo-feudalism, the very antithesis of democracy. The system was designed to make leaving the system difficult and painful. Yet, it seems to me that it is better to get out from a dead end system in spite of the pain, than to remain and allow Wall Street and the Central Banks to lead us to ruin.

      • Citizen
        Citizen on January 22, 2019, 4:41 am

        Remember who first spoke out publicly about “The New World Order,” and when he did so?

      • Keith
        Keith on January 22, 2019, 11:06 am

        CITIZEN- “Remember who first spoke out publicly about “The New World Order,” and when he did so?”

        Actually, no. I am getting old so cut me some slack.

    • RoHa
      RoHa on January 17, 2019, 8:51 pm

      A bit more on Brexit.

      https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/brexitosis-when-the-only-outcome-is-that-nobody-wants-nothing/

      I’m thinking of making “IABATO” my motto.

      • mikeo
        mikeo on January 18, 2019, 1:43 pm

        I’m from the UK.

        That is a woefully misinformed “article”.

        It is possible to make an argument for Brexit but an argument that denies the compromises or costs that will have to be made is not a realistic or honest one.

        That’s bullshit right out of the Boris Johnson unicorns and sunny uplands playbook…

  9. Ossinev
    Ossinev on January 17, 2019, 7:23 am

    @WJ
    “One should comment on the Zionist project seriously”

    Whoops I think you have just dropped a clanger there matey. Zionism a project ! OMG what a foul A/S assertion. Zionism is a dream,an aspiration,a yearning,a beating heart,a vision of loveliness , a sublimity (cont p92). Not in the least way a clinical project.

  10. Vera Gottlieb
    Vera Gottlieb on January 17, 2019, 9:34 am

    Generally speaking, I don’t see that being against israel’s policies towards Palestinians is anti Semitism – because it isn’t. israel is blowing this out of proportion and trying to blackmail everyone who thinks differently. What I AM IS ANTI ZIONISM.

  11. pabelmont
    pabelmont on January 24, 2019, 7:22 pm

    I reply to “In the 1920s and 1930s, the confiscation of Jewish assets in Germany and elsewhere signaled the start of the Holocaust, a period that is built into Jews’ DNA” as an explanation of horror, eetc., at a Labour proposal to raise taxes on the rich.

    Well, I don’t live in the UK and I don’t know, but suppose it is true (or suppose it is widely believed in the UK) that the only people rich enough to be caught by the proposed tax are wealthy Jews. In that case, the proposed tax may properly be thought of as a proposed wealth-tax on Jews,

    If, as seems more likely, UK has lots of non-Jewish wealth, then this argument is hogwash. And, in either case, a tax on wealth doesn’t single out Jews even if (in effect) only Jews are hit by the tax.

    Some new progressive Congressfolks in the USA are proposing a 70% marginal income tax. Is anyone complaining here in the USA that this proposal would be a tax specifically on Jews?

    • Mooser
      Mooser on January 25, 2019, 2:46 pm

      “Some new progressive Congressfolks in the USA are proposing a 70% marginal income tax. Is anyone complaining here in the USA that this proposal would be a tax specifically on Jews?”

      A tax which falls hardest on Jews? That’s classic anti-Semitism!

  12. wdr
    wdr on January 25, 2019, 3:31 am

    Wrong on both counts. If Israel had existed in the1930s, hundreds of thousands of Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have found refuge there; Israel could have launched attacks specifically on Nazi death camps, and could have eliminated the many Arabs who supported the Nazis and were friendly to Hitler, like the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s buddy. As for the EU, the UK
    joined it because it was a free trade agreement with Europe’s most successful economies in the Common Market, at a time when the UK economy was notoriously bad. Without anyone topping what happened, it morphed into a super-state with powers superior to the British Parliament’s, and has a European Parliament in which the UK elects only 12 per cent of the members. The UK somehow managed to become the world’s leading power 300 years before the EU existed, and will be a lot better off outside of it.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer on January 25, 2019, 4:49 pm

      @wdr

      “If Israel had existed in the1930s, hundreds of thousands of Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have found refuge there; Israel could have launched attacks specifically on Nazi death camps, and could have eliminated the many Arabs who supported the Nazis and were friendly to Hitler, like the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s buddy. ”

      Silliest thing I’ve read all day.

      • Keith
        Keith on January 25, 2019, 6:12 pm

        OLDGEEZER- “Silliest thing I’ve read all day.”

        Indeed. This is a perfect example of Zionist myth-history. We have covered this extensively on Mondoweiss in the past. Zionism was NOT about refugeeism, even going so far as to favor young American Jews over old “unsuitable” European Jews. And by refusing to postpone state-building and divert funds to refugees. The majority of European Jews were doomed once Hitler invaded Eastern Europe, killing million upon millions of people. Perhaps a couple hundred thousand more Jews could have been saved if the Zionists had put their efforts into settling them in the West rather than obstructing these efforts in favor of creating a Jewish state.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer on January 26, 2019, 9:10 am

        @Keith
        “…a couple hundred thousand more Jews could have been saved if …”

        Well at least you started that with Perhaps.

        For me alternate realities amount to speculation. I think some can be justified. Some are inane. wdr’s was stupid and silly. Yours possible but again we will never know.

    • RoHa
      RoHa on January 26, 2019, 1:29 am

      I like the idea that an Israeli column could cut through the Wehrmacht from Greece to Poland. Or possibly Israeli bombers could reach the camps, even though RAF Lancasters could not.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer on January 26, 2019, 9:13 am

        @RoHa

        Or that a country of 6ish million could take on the worlds mightiest army whereas the other first world states were merely rolled over by the juggernaut.

        Had Israel existed it would have presented a very tempting target at some point to the nazis intent on exterimination.

    • eljay
      eljay on January 26, 2019, 9:54 am

      || wdr: … If Israel had existed in the1930s … ||

      Had Israel existed in the 1930s, it might have been able to…
      – steal, occupy and colonize far more territory;
      – ethnically cleanse or murder countless more Palestinians,
      …than it has in a post-WWII world in which – much to the dismay of the state and its supremacist enablers and supporters – its actions are increasingly less likely to take place “in the dark, without witnesses and cameras”.

Leave a Reply