• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Israel without the Nazis and the Holocaust

Also, without the 1948 Partition, it is very possible that a different sort of war could break out in the middle east. The Transjordanian King was conspiring with his cousin in Baghdad and the Turkish Government to ally against Republican Syria. Republican Syria had a pact with Egypt and Saudi Arabia developing. The Hashemites of Jordan were intending to provoke a Druze rebellion just over the Yarmouk and use that as pretext to seize the throne in Damascus - eliminating the Arab Republican regime in Syria which was perceived as a great threat to both neighboring monarchies and which rejected the legitimacy of the the French cession of Alexandretta/Iskenderum to Turkey.

Refugee problems and conflict between Pro and Anti Abdullah factions would likely would spill over into Lebanon.
 
EDIT: Fascinatingly, there's very little evidence of Roman-era conversions of Jews to Christianity (though there is some evidence of Samaritans who did so), but some Modern Palestinian and Negev Bedouin families are descended from Sephardim who fled the inquisition. The question of Crypto-Jews (not dissimilar, say, to the question of Crypto-Armenians in Eastern Turkey today) is an entirely different can of worms.

Reading more on this, I get the following understandings:

(a) Roman Christianity had a kind of theological reason for not converting Jews. They needed Jews around as a kind of living fossil for pre-Christian religion to be understood. This led to some interesting stuff happening in Europe - like conservative Jewish religious authorities getting Christian leaders to go after perceived Jewish heretics, since Jewish heresy was as much a threat to the Jewish establishment as it was to the Christian theological idea. Because of this, the idea of forcibly converting samaritans was far less theologically problematic than forcibly converting Jews, even though Samaritans as a practical matter probably did just start as a different faction of the ancient Israelites. Israel split into Judah (the Jews) and Samaria (Samaritans). Jewish texts say the Samaritans were deported first and replaced with Arameans who merely adopted local custom and pretended to be Israelites, but in all likelihood it was just the Samaritan elite who were deported and the people who came back were probably persons of some mixed background. Just as the Samaritan Torah is similar but not identical to the Jewish Torah, the same applies to the Dead Sea Scrolls Torah.
(b) Some monks had certain moral ideas about the idea that you cannot compel somebody to believe things, or it isn't belief.

From the page of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius on Wikipedia. (b) seems to sort of tie into the part I marked off.

1657209295559.png


Honestly, the idea of a prophecy that circumcised people would come for his Empire is sort of funny because it ultimately did happen ... but it was the Arabs and not the Jews. I vaguely recall elsewhere (I can't remember the source) that the East Romans initially thought the Arab invaders were a Jewish revolt. Imagine things from a Roman point of view when Islam hadn't emerged yet: A bunch of angry semites going off about the one true Gd? Oh no, the Jews are at it again.
 
Last edited:
Also, without the 1948 Partition, it is very possible that a different sort of war could break out in the middle east. The Transjordanian King was conspiring with his cousin in Baghdad and the Turkish Government to ally against Republican Syria. Republican Syria had a pact with Egypt and Saudi Arabia developing. The Hashemites of Jordan were intending to provoke a Druze rebellion just over the Yarmouk and use that as pretext to seize the throne in Damascus - eliminating the Arab Republican regime in Syria which was perceived as a great threat to both neighboring monarchies and which rejected the legitimacy of the the French cession of Alexandretta/Iskenderum to Turkey.

Refugee problems and conflict between Pro and Anti Abdullah factions would likely would spill over into Lebanon.
Another complicating factor is that King Taal wanted Palestine to be part of Jordan while other Arab leaders wanted an independent Palestine.
 
Another complicating factor is that King Taal wanted Palestine to be part of Jordan while other Arab leaders wanted an independent Palestine.

You mean Talal?

I don't think anybody really wanted an Independent Palestine except for some of the people who would become the Palestinians themselves.[1] Even the supposedly 'All Palestine Government' in Gaza which the Egyptians set up as a rival/alternative to the Jordanian vision of a single Jordanian people[2] was mainly intended to be a puppet of a wider pan-Arab state ruled by Nasser. Nasser wanted a United Arab Republic (AUR) supposedly of equal members on paper but in practice it was to be Egypt playing the role of Russia in the USSR with the others as mere satellites/provinces to a Cairo-based government. Even major leaders of the Arabs in Palestine tended to view themselves as part of something greater (the Mufti wanting a pan-Arab state of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria it seems; or the rival Nashashibis or Jabari's being content to pledge loyalty to the King in Amman). The foundation of the PLO and the PFLP were, in a sense, a declaration of Independence from other Arab identities as much as they were declarations of war against the Jews/Zionists/Israelis.

If there was ever to be Arab unification, a Russian/Soviet model would not have worked, since Russia has a central city whereas the Arab world has a great diversity of centers of culture and identity. Arab unification would have had to be something more akin to German unification - federal and coordinated, respecting the autonomy and history of the various components within it.


[1] I say 'the people who would become the Palestinians' because national identity is fluid and hard to pin down. By the 1960s, it seems quite firmly true that the Palestinian identity was predominant, though tying their fate to Jordan also was still sort of an option to 1988 but mainly in a confederal context. But earlier on, whether to identify with a pan-Arab identity from Morocco to Iraq, a pan-Arab identity comprised of Egypt to Iraq, a pan-Arab identity comprised of the Arabs of Southwest Asia, a pan-Arab identity comprised of the fertile crescent, a pan-Syrian identity comprise of Palestine-Jordan-Lebanon-Syria, a united Jordanian/Palestinian identity comprised of Palestine-Jordan, or being Palestinian specifically ... there was a lot of fluidity and uncertainty. Palestinians in particular had a challenge because, to be frank, very few people are entirely from the area since everybody had an ancestor from someplace else because it's a crossroad region. Again, none of this should be read as me rejecting the idea of a distinct Palestinian people today or in the late 20th century. But there were no Americans in 1676, for example - only British people in a colony across the sea. Yet by 1776, there was clearly a distinct identity and sense of self.
[2] Composed of Transjordan (modern day Jordan, ergo the East Bank of the River Jordan) and Cisjordan (the West Bank of the River Jordan, and/or or all of mandatory Palestine)
 
Last edited:
I don't want to deviate from the topic and no offense, but how serious are you with this statement? The Exodus as described in the Old Testament almost certainly never happened.



There have been, in the past two and a half millenia, one or two Jews who lived in Egypt.

Alexandria, for example, was known to host at least dozens at a time, and quite recently too.
 


There have been, in the past two and a half millenia, one or two Jews who lived in Egypt.

Alexandria, for example, was known to host at least dozens at a time, and quite recently too.
I am perfectly aware of the large historic Jewish presence in Egypt. However, @Jackson Lennock's wording made it unclear what time period he was refering to. I actually meant to ask him but forgot. Also, the fact that he immediately followed that statement with one about the Babylonian Captivity suggested to me that he was refering to the Exodus.
 
@Ricardolindo I thought I answered your question in the post that you quoted.

1657232189781.png


Do I think the Exodus happened? I suppose its a bit like asking whether the Trojan War happened. For a long time we had little evidence of the latter other than the stories people told, but eventually we found out that some sort of event sort of roughly analogous - though much much much less grandiose than the stories described - did occur. There's not much evidence that a Davidic united monarchy existed, but there are some coins which archeologists dug up recently in Syria which referenced a House of David, and I assume that there's some validity to the oral narratives passed down through generations. I don't see why discussion of an Ancient Jewish kingdom should be treated very differently than ancient discussions of the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt (for whom we don't have much evidence, though generally assume something happened), the Greek myths (once divorced of the narrative fluff), the Three Kingdoms period of China, etc.

But to repeat myself from my prior post and from the top of this post - My answer to your question is that it's sort of irrelevant whether it literally happened. The Talmud says over 80% of Jews/Israelites did not leave Pharaoh's Egypt. The Exodus text addresses the notion that many Jews who fled Egypt would chicken out and go back to what they knew, and accordingly the path out of Egypt was a roundabout one done so as to avoid direct confrontation with Pharaonic forces. If statistics and general statistical/sociological rules of group organization are generally constant no matter what year you're looking at, then it makes sense to me that the 80% figure (or, the more general 80-20 principle which plays out mathematically across normal distributions in statistic) would apply with respect to people getting up and moving. It's a story to get a principle out of, and Jews view it as a history of their culture. And Jews have a particular way of reading the stories which puts much more emphasis on the narrative and figurative over the literal; they impose an added gloss of their own historic cultural attitudes, such that words which mean one thing to them often have a very different meaning to somebody from a different cultural background who is reading the old testament after it's been translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English or whatever other language. Different languages have different grammar, syntax, double-entendre, etc. Just as some Ancient Greeks complained that writing stories down would result in their losing meaning (because of concerns about pace, inflection, tone, etc. which could not be put to page but are very important for understanding the meaning of a text) the same principle applies to how Judaism had a written torah and an oral torah (which was later written down).

I treat the Jewish texts and narrative history as I would treat any other cultures: I think it's very important to understand the cultural perspective and context and assumptions and habits of the people who wrote something down. In English, how does one know whether "bank" refers to the edge of a river or a financial institution without context? Or whether "cool" means positive/fashionable or a temperature without context?
 


There have been, in the past two and a half millenia, one or two Jews who lived in Egypt.

Alexandria, for example, was known to host at least dozens at a time, and quite recently too.

Often those were Jewish communities which came to Egypt later. The Ptolemies, for example, tended to enjoy employing Jewish mercenaries. Many Jews moved to Egypt when Alexander took over. Prior to the Ptolemies, some Jews were invited to set up a garrison on an island in Southern Egypt called Elephantine, and their unfamiliarity with various Jewish customs indicates what year they were invited to move there.

To say a Jew in 1000 is the same as a Jew in 500 BCE is akin to saying a Byzantine Greek is the same as a Classical Greek. To some extent, the continuity is there, but there's also notable differences in custom, habit, practice, culture, relation to various other communities, etc. depending on what year you're looking it.
 
@Ricardolindo I thought I answered your question in the post that you quoted.

View attachment 56210


Do I think the Exodus happened? I suppose its a bit like asking whether the Trojan War happened. For a long time we had little evidence of the latter other than the stories people told, but eventually we found out that some sort of event sort of roughly analogous - though much much much less grandiose than the stories described - did occur. There's not much evidence that a Davidic united monarchy existed, but there are some coins which archeologists dug up recently in Syria which referenced a House of David, and I assume that there's some validity to the oral narratives passed down through generations. I don't see why discussion of an Ancient Jewish kingdom should be treated very differently than ancient discussions of the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt (for whom we don't have much evidence, though generally assume something happened), the Greek myths (once divorced of the narrative fluff), the Three Kingdoms period of China, etc.

But to repeat myself from my prior post and from the top of this post - My answer to your question is that it's sort of irrelevant whether it literally happened. The Talmud says over 80% of Jews/Israelites did not leave Pharaoh's Egypt. The Exodus text addresses the notion that many Jews who fled Egypt would chicken out and go back to what they knew, and accordingly the path out of Egypt was a roundabout one done so as to avoid direct confrontation with Pharaonic forces. If statistics and general statistical/sociological rules of group organization are generally constant no matter what year you're looking at, then it makes sense to me that the 80% figure (or, the more general 80-20 principle which plays out mathematically across normal distributions in statistic) would apply with respect to people getting up and moving. It's a story to get a principle out of, and Jews view it as a history of their culture. And Jews have a particular way of reading the stories which puts much more emphasis on the narrative and figurative over the literal; they impose an added gloss of their own historic cultural attitudes, such that words which mean one thing to them often have a very different meaning to somebody from a different cultural background who is reading the old testament after it's been translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English or whatever other language. Different languages have different grammar, syntax, double-entendre, etc. Just as some Ancient Greeks complained that writing stories down would result in their losing meaning (because of concerns about pace, inflection, tone, etc. which could not be put to page but are very important for understanding the meaning of a text) the same principle applies to how Judaism had a written torah and an oral torah (which was later written down).

I treat the Jewish texts and narrative history as I would treat any other cultures: I think it's very important to understand the cultural perspective and context and assumptions and habits of the people who wrote something down. In English, how does one know whether "bank" refers to the edge of a river or a financial institution without context? Or whether "cool" means positive/fashionable or a temperature without context?
Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the last sentence of your post I quoted. Thanks for the reply. BTW, if you don't mind me asking, are you Jewish, yourself? You seem quite knowledgeable on this.
 
Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the last sentence of your post I quoted. Thanks for the reply. BTW, if you don't mind me asking, are you Jewish, yourself? You seem quite knowledgeable on this.

Over time, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to not reveal too many personal details in anonymous online forums because (a) it might lead to people trying to assume that I have motivated reasoning based upon my personal characteristics and (b) online forums are full of smart people who can probably parse together a few sporadic personal details to figure out who I am in reality.

But with complicated historic issues, I think it's always better to err on being more thorough, explaining things more, and trying to understand the mindsets and attitudes of the people involved. What doesn't make sense to us however many years later or however many miles away often makes complete sense to the person or people who have a certain way of viewing things based upon their own experiences and suppositions, and the reason that things are incomprehensible is because we don't have knowledge of their experiences or suppositions. Lots of understandings in life and history are more a product of experience than of logic. Lots of things in theory could work out, but theories hold constant a great many more facts and details than reality does.

Jewish history (along with other diasporic histories - Afro-diaspora, Armenian, Palestinian, Lebanese, Indian, overseas Chinese, etc.) is just an interesting example because you have a constant (one 'people' or 'cultural group') in a whole bunch of different times, environments, and social contexts. Often very different cultural groups in very different places end up being positioned in similar socioeconomic niches, and its interesting to try and figure out why that plays out the way it does.
 
Wasn't there a Polish plan to try to get a colony in Africa for themselves by using/forcing their own large Jewish population as settlers?

No.

There was a 19th Century scheme to set up a 'New Poland' in Cameroon.
There was the 20th Century 'Madagascar Plan' to get rid of Poland's Jews. But it wasn't about Poland getting a colony, it was about Poland getting rid of people the Poles didn't want around.
 
No.

There was a 19th Century scheme to set up a 'New Poland' in Cameroon.
There was the 20th Century 'Madagascar Plan' to get rid of Poland's Jews. But it wasn't about Poland getting a colony, it was about Poland getting rid of people the Poles didn't want around.

I thought I remembered a scheme in the 1920s or 1930s to settle Jews in Liberia, ultimately using them as a bloc to make Liberia a Polish Colony.
 
I thought I remembered a scheme in the 1920s or 1930s to settle Jews in Liberia, ultimately using them as a bloc to make Liberia a Polish Colony.

I think there were ideas about Poland getting some tracts of land for a small-c colony (akin to how the US had a 99-year concession in Liberia, or how there were various historic small-c colonies of Poles in Ukraine) but I don't recall any outright capital-C colonial proposals.

EDIT: Wikipedia's page on Colonization attempts by Poland says the following:

1657374039318.png


For what it's worth, it seems like when discussing colonialism we often conflate or equate small-c colonialism (sending groups of people to live someplace) with capital-C colonialism (outright imperialism, conquest, declaration of protectorate, and/or running the place). Obviously, the two often went hand-in-hand and the difference is more one of twilight than a clear night/day distinction, but it's still worth making the distinction in the abstract I think.

Anyways - they wanted to settle Poles, not Jews. There were also many other places in the interwar period where Poland considered similar settlement schemes. The Parana region of Brazil, the Peruvian interior east of the Andes, and portions of Angola and Mozambique. Some Poles thought Poland was entitled to Tanganyika and Cameroon because a Polish explorer got there before other Europeans and because Europe should have expressed gratitude to the Poles for being the bulwark against the Soviet ... but clearly nobody else in Europe was really into that kind of idea.


It's also really ironic and sad that one of the last places in Africa to have legal slavery was the country founded by freed slaves.
 
Last edited:
It would still be *tried* in the 20th century even without the Nazis and the Holocaust.

With a smaller size and population it may stand a greater chance of being *destroyed* in a war or politically *transformed* or absorbed into another state that lacks a Jewish centric basis and right of return.
 
Back
Top