[aldo_14]

Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.

Ancient history said it.  It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!"  I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion.  Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?

How many, do you think, of the WW2 Allies would be willing to give up territory in Europe or the Americas to house Jewish refugees?

[NGTM-1R]

The Russians probably would. Stalin backed the creation of a Jewish state as a way of giving the Brits the finger.

[karajorma]

Ancient history said it.  It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!"  I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion.  Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?

Actually there were lots of other suggestions

Argentina
Uganda
USSR

Not to mention Canada, Australia, Iraq, Libya, and Angola. Many of these schemes were actually suggested by Jews.

In fact even the Nazis and Japanese wanted to put them somewhere else.


Oh and while we're at it be careful about comments such as "I know you're smarter than that" just because someone disagrees with you. I've managed to avoid making comments about your intelligence. I expect you to do the same to me or anyone else on this thread.

[Nuclear1]

Oh and while we're at it be careful about comments such as "I know you're smarter than that" just because someone disagrees with you. I've managed to avoid making comments about your intelligence. I expect you to do the same to me or anyone else on this thread.

I think that message came across as wrong.  In context, I meant that I wasn't intending to insult your intelligence by suggesting something so trivial and obvious.  So, basically, I was more complimenting than degrading you.   My apologies if it came off as otherwise.

Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.

Ancient history said it.  It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!"  I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion.  Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?

How many, do you think, of the WW2 Allies would be willing to give up territory in Europe or the Americas to house Jewish refugees?

That didn't have anything to do with my question. 

Karajorma's examples show that the USSR was prepared to give up its territory near the Manchurian border for a Jewish state, as well as Canada and Argentina, though none of that was my point.

[Turambar]

why couldnt the jews just kinda move in, in a peaceful, legal, non-militaristic fasion.

also, wouldnt putting them all together just make them easier to wipe out as a group?

also, werent they supposed to wait for the messiah to lead them back to the holy land?

[Gank]

I don't think abolishing it under duress after a massive revolt and then reintroducing it 8 years later really counts.

Unlike the British the French government at the time was not continuous, those were the actions of two seperate regimes. Irregardless, they were the first whether you think it counts or not. Did the British do more? yes, but like I said they were cleaning up their own mess.
 

Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.

The British empire specifically promised the jews a homeland in the middle east in 1917 under the balfour declaration. Arguing that it would have happened anyways so its not the fault of the british is a non-starter when they encouraged it, long before it was on anyone elses agenda.

why couldnt the jews just kinda move in, in a peaceful, legal, non-militaristic fasion.

Because it wouldnt have worked?

also, wouldnt putting them all together just make them easier to wipe out as a group?

They're not altogether, Israelis are a minority among the jewish community

also, werent they supposed to wait for the messiah to lead them back to the holy land?

For religious reasons, zionism isnt based solely on that, the main reason behind it was to escape persecution in europe.

[karajorma]

I don't think abolishing it under duress after a massive revolt and then reintroducing it 8 years later really counts.

Unlike the British the French government at the time was not continuous, those were the actions of two seperate regimes.

If you're going to use that argument you're still wrong about it being the French who were first. The Commonwealth of Vermont abolished slavery over 15 years previous to that. When they joined the US that was overturned but by the rules you're trying to claim for this that still pre-dates the French. Oh and while we're at it you can probably find much earlier cases throughout history where slavery was abolished and then later reinstated.

And you completely missed the point about why the French abolished it. The British abolition was due to the fact that there was a grass roots movement in the UK that slavery was morally wrong. The French did it because they were scared of other revolts like the one in Haiti. When that's the reason why you abolish something you have little proof that the same government wouldn't simply re-establish the practice as soon as they thought they had the power to do so.

Did the British do more? yes, but like I said they were cleaning up their own mess.

Yes. But afterwards they forced everyone else to clean up their mess too. Britain was notable in pressuring nations like Portugal to give up slavery in it's colonies.
 

The British empire specifically promised the jews a homeland in the middle east in 1917 under the balfour declaration. Arguing that it would have happened anyways so its not the fault of the british is a non-starter when they encouraged it, long before it was on anyone elses agenda.

Wrong. If you'd bothered to click the links I posted you would have noticed that several of those attempts to create a Jewish homeland pre-date the declaration. The British are responsible for choosing possibly the worst place in the world they could possibly have put the Jews but they aren't responsible for the zionist movement as that started long before they got involved.

[Gank]

If you're going to use that argument you're still wrong about it being the French who were first. The Commonwealth of Vermont abolished slavery over 15 years previous to that. When they joined the US that was overturned but by the rules you're trying to claim for this that still pre-dates the French. Oh and while we're at it you can probably find much earlier cases throughout history where slavery was abolished and then later reinstated.

Vyper specifically said peers, which i took to mean nations of similar and contempary stature, if you think Vermont counts as such I wont argue with you. And I'm not missing the point, if you read up on it you'll find that the emancipation was more due to the efforts of several leaders of the revolution who were abolitionists, Abbe Gregoire, Lafayette, Condorcet to name a few. The revolting slaves were incorporated into the french revolutionary army and fought against Napoleon when he tried to recapture the colonies, why do this if you're intending to enslave them again? You say I've no proof they wouldnt have reinstated it again yet provide no proof they would have, nor does anything I've read on the matter. 

Wrong. If you'd bothered to click the links I posted you would have noticed that several of those attempts to create a Jewish homeland pre-date the declaration. The British are responsible for choosing possibly the worst place in the world they could possibly have put the Jews but they aren't responsible for the zionist movement as that started long before they got involved.

The only plan there that predates the balfour declaration is another british one, I'm discounting the argentinian one because it was a zionist one and not taken up by any government.  The Oblast was formed in '28 and was for soviet jews, not the jewish people as a whole. Dunno why you'd think I'd hold britain for the start of zionism, possibly because of the it wasnt on anyone elses agenda remark? I was discounting zionism there because they were the ones who began the jewish homeland thing, obviously it was on their agenda. I quite clearly said it was the result of european persecution. And if the british are responsible for choosing the place of the jewish homeland why is it unfair to point this out? Do you think they were obliged to give the jews a homeland? Would a better course of action not have been to address the problems instead of dumping its victims on another continent?

[Unknown Target]

Gank, I'm beginning to believe you hate every country

[Gank]

Equally though, I'm not prejudiced.

[vyper]

Equally though, I'm not prejudiced.

He's Irish alright...

[Unknown Target]

That's exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to say it

[karajorma]

Vyper specifically said peers, which i took to mean nations of similar and contempary stature, if you think Vermont counts as such I wont argue with you.

And I took that mean a regime that lasted more than a handful of years. Which neither post revolutionary France nor Vermont really qualify for.

Dunno why you'd think I'd hold britain for the start of zionism, possibly because of the it wasnt on anyone elses agenda remark? I was discounting zionism there because they were the ones who began the jewish homeland thing, obviously it was on their agenda.

But the fact is that Zionism pre-dates the Balfour Declaration by a pretty long time. So saying "The Jews wanted a homeland in the middle east cause of Britain" is a very poor argument. The declaration wasn't the start of Zionism. Merely another step on the road for it.

I quite clearly said it was the result of european persecution. And if the british are responsible for choosing the place of the jewish homeland why is it unfair to point this out?

Because with the Zionist movement gathering pace after WWII they would have ended up somewhere. The British made a bad choice of location but the Jews wanted a homeland after the war. They weren't packed off and sent to Israel against their will. As I said in my original post the blame the British have is for their choice of location not the fact that they decided to set up a Jewish homeland. That would have happened anyway and it would have caused trouble wherever it was.

Would a better course of action not have been to address the problems instead of dumping its victims on another continent?

You act as though the Jews didn't want to go to Israel and were sent there by the UK.

[Gank]

But the fact is that Zionism pre-dates the Balfour Declaration by a pretty long time. So saying "The Jews wanted a homeland in the middle east cause of Britain" is a very poor argument. The declaration wasn't the start of Zionism. Merely another step on the road for it.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying its their fault for encouraging them to take one.

Because with the Zionist movement gathering pace after WWII they would have ended up somewhere. The British made a bad choice of location but the Jews wanted a homeland after the war. They weren't packed off and sent to Israel against their will. As I said in my original post the blame the British have is for their choice of location not the fact that they decided to set up a Jewish homeland. That would have happened anyway and it would have caused trouble wherever it was.

Saying its not the fault of the British for helping them because they would have done it anyways is quite frankly stupid. Besides theres no guarantee they would have succeded without outside help, the ottomans and arabs werent exactly receptive to the idea, and its unlikely anyone else would have been to losing their land to europeans. If this was going to cause trouble wherever it was established then you're damned for supporting it at all, choosing to fix an injustice on one people with an injustice on another doesn't earn you credit. And if you're going to start putting ifs into it, the balfour declaration was made in return for help defeating the germans in ww1, the results of which brought about ww2, stick some ifs in there and you get interesting results.

You act as though the Jews didn't want to go to Israel and were sent there by the UK.

I'm acting as though the British choose to address a problem in a way which benefited them, not solved the problem.

[karajorma]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying its their fault for encouraging them to take one.

Given that somewhere around 30,000 Jews moved to the country under the Ottomans during the first Aliyah and that the British government actually put quotas in place to try to limit the immigration I suspect that you're subjecting the British government to a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't.
 
Had they enforced immigration more firmly and thereby prevented the formation of the Jewish state I'm betting that today you'd probably be arguing just as bitterly that the British government's callous indifference to the Jews led to the death of hundreds of thousands in Nazi Europe.

Saying its not the fault of the British for helping them because they would have done it anyways is quite frankly stupid. Besides theres no guarantee they would have succeded without outside help, the ottomans and arabs werent exactly receptive to the idea

Except that as I pointed out above thousands of Jews did move to the area under the Ottomans too. Yes more moved to the region under the British but they also had more of a reason to move under the British that was nothing to do with encouragement and everything to do with wanting to get away from the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.

If you think that the British should have enforced stricter quotas at the time I'd love to know what the **** they should have done?

[Gank]

Given that somewhere around 30,000 Jews moved to the country under the Ottomans during the first Aliyah and that the British government actually put quotas in place to try to limit the immigration I suspect that you're subjecting the British government to a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't.
 
Had they enforced immigration more firmly and thereby prevented the formation of the Jewish state I'm betting that today you'd probably be arguing just as bitterly that the British government's callous indifference to the Jews led to the death of hundreds of thousands in Nazi Europe.

You're completely ignoring the fact that the Ottomans told the zionists they could have a homeland in palestine over their dead bodies. 30,000 is a relatively small number compared to the native population at the time and its highly unlikely any further build up would have been tolerated or any attempt to establish one would have been successful. As for british attempts to curb immigration they werent very effective, the jewish population rose from 80,000 to 450,000 between the two white papers on the matter of 1922 and 1939. You had a change of ownership from one regime which was hosile to a jewish state on its territory and was just after commiting genocide on another ethnic group and a regime which had just openly supported it and you think this had a negative effect on immigration? Thats really not going to wash.

Had they enforced immigration more firmly and thereby prevented the formation of the Jewish state I'm betting that today you'd probably be arguing just as bitterly that the British government's callous indifference to the Jews led to the death of hundreds of thousands in Nazi Europe.

You could argue that anyways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference

Except that as I pointed out above thousands of Jews did move to the area under the Ottomans too. Yes more moved to the region under the British but they also had more of a reason to move under the British that was nothing to do with encouragement and everything to do with wanting to get away from the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.

If you think that the British should have enforced stricter quotas at the time I'd love to know what the **** they should have done?

Yes jews immigrated to the area under the ottomans, were the ottomans sympathetic towards a jewish state? No. Whether or not it would have happened on somebody elses watch is pure speculation, you cant just insert country a instead of b and say things would have been the same, its far more complex than that. Britain took up the cause of the jewish homeland in palestine for their own political reasons, the fact that the strictest limits on immigration were passed in 1939 when anti-semitism was at its worst in europe clearly shows that wasnt a factor. When things got too out of hand they failed to come to a solution which pleased everybody they cut their losses and ran. The british were responsible for ruling that part of the world and the people who lived in it, they are directly responsible for the situation that came out of it.

[IceFire]

Did you guys know that this thread was about this....


You know...stealth...semi-stealth....VTOL...sometimes...many nations involved...US doesn't want to share the code with its closest ally...etc.

[Unknown Target]

The situation was resolved, as was posted earlier in the thread - the US will be sharing the code with some caveats or something. Looks like that news got lost, however

[IceFire]

Oh super...so the project goes ahead.  Will be interesting to see what the end result is.  With so many countries lined up to buy them.

[Dysko]

Non-technical comment:
  I always said that this fighter is ugly.
Well, not extremely ugly as the X-32, but anyway... F-16 forever