BF2S Forums Hindsight

South America

Mutantsteak wrote:

ATG wrote:

South America

Why, or are you just being silly

They could hang out with all the nazis who fled there.

There would have been people inhabiting or owning any location in America, Europe or Palestine taken to create a Jewish homeland. They would have deserved compensation.

Reciprocity wrote:

Shoulda given 'em a little chunk of Australia.  A nice little piece of horrible, useless land.  Just like Israel.

Hey hey, steady on there....

Why do they get a homeland? They're not a race, they're a religion. Religions don't get countries, they get to fuck up everyone's head in EVERY country.

Now if you had said "Gypsies", or the Romani people, I could go with that. They're a race, they should have a place.

Let's give a country to every pissy little sect with their own deluded ideas, that'll fix everything.

CameronPoe wrote:

Theodore Herzl is recognised as one of the first advocates of a 'Jewish homeland'. In hindsight, 60 years after the birth of Israel and all of the carnage that has entailed, where in the world do you think would have been the best place for that homeland? Where would the Jewish people have been most at peace, where would they have been able to prosper? What was the most sensible destination for the Jewish people (given that said homeland is/was almost entirely immigrant-based)? Please give reasons for your choice.

Well, since the Jewish peoples have lived in the area now called Isreal for thousands of years, and the Islamic faith has only moved in over the last 1000, and that through conquest, I say Isreal.

Reciprocity wrote:

imortal wrote:

Well, since the Jewish peoples have lived in the area now called Isreal for thousands of years, and the Islamic faith has only moved in over the last 1000, and that through conquest, I say Isreal.

That rationale is humorous coming from a Texan, much less an American.

Thanks.  Irony is not dead.

Okay, how about "Finders, keepers; losers, weepers?"

Last edited by imortal (2008-06-04 20:30:54)

Why do they need one?

Well, since the Jewish peoples have lived in the area now called Isreal for thousands of years, and the Islamic faith has only moved in over the last 1000, and that through conquest, I say Isreal.

Look at it another way.

10,000 years ago Palestine was populated by semites, arabs, persians who knows what else.
At various points they formed various groups, some worshipped stone idols, some golden calfs, some got into made up mumbo-jumbo called judaism, others goobledegook based on ramblings of a carpenters son, others followed someone they called a 'prophet' for no obvious reason except a he wrote a lot.

Tell me which of the above groups has the right to turf all the others out?

They are all basically arabs of a kind, believing in their own weird supernatural fairy stories.
Even if each group were black, green, orange or had different numbers of heads from the others what difference would it make?

No one group has more rights than the others, they do have humanitarian obligations if they want to be considered part of the human race though.

Anyway, why don't you guys give Utah to the FLDS? I'm sure they reckon they're god's chosen people, and you won't need to worry about what they do to little girls as it won't be your business. Wins all round

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-05 01:19:17)

My first choice: Nowhere. It clearly caused more problems than it resolved, and I'm not sure creating a country for a specific religion (regardless of its historic persecution) is a good precedent for secular society.

If there HAD to be a place, I'd say initially part of eastern europe, to include a large portion of Germany. However, that could have just as readily led to its own problems a la the Versailles Treaty.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-06-05 02:26:32)

Palestine.

(specify) Historic-archaeological reasons.

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

Palestine.

(specify) Historic-archaeological reasons.

But it doesn't seem to have worked out so good - you'll be fighting wars forever. The question is where would have been best in the interests of those that would be Israeli citizens. Quite frankly I don't think Palestine is that place.

But everething what is in the interests of those that would be Israeli sitizens, is in Palestine.

I'd have given them one of the dusty arid US states. Does anyone really want New Mexico?

Amazingly a friend wondered what would have happened if the nation of Israel was actually located in Northern Ireland in 1948.

Would we have less trouble or 4x much trouble?