The economics of Theodor Herzl and his Zionist vision

I had never read The Jewish State before, so I was surprised to see how much economics it contained.  Here are a few points, most but not all economics:

1. Herzl considered Argentina as a possible alternative to Palestine for the Jewish state.

2. Zionism would require the creation of a large land acquisition company, to sell the homes of departing Jews in an orderly fashion and to coordinate real estate purchases in the new Jewish home.  It would be incorporated in London as a joint stock company under English law.  Many of the shareholders likely would be Christians.

3. In essence swapping European homes (and businesses) and arbitraging into cheaper homes would allow the joint stock company to turn a profit, thereby financing a new Jewish society and state.  The company also would ensure that Jewish buyers of the new lands do not overpay, and provide a liquidity bridge so that Jewish businesses in Europe could be sold at fair prices to Christians.  Some parts of Herzl’s description one can interpret as seeing the foundation of the forthcoming “state of Israel” as a kind of sovereign wealth fund, combined with micro-lending functions.  Herzl doesn’t quite spell out all the links, but I sense an understanding that the company will bring together settlers, internalize urban externalities, and boost real estate values, thereby creating another source of both profit and social value.

4. As for the new setting, “the detached houses in little gardens will be united into attractive groups in each locality.”  The cited architectural model was the United States, but with one crucial modification: houses will be arranged so that the Temple is visible from a great distance.

5. The main initial labor source would be poor Jews from Rumania and Russia.  After spending three years building homes, they would receive homes of their own.  During the early years of settlement, this process would be run in part like a “company town,” with some payments in services to allow for subsistence.

6. The regular working day would not exceed seven hours.  Overtime pay always should be in terms of cash, never barter.  The joint stock company also will serve as a very large labor union/cartel to help enforce these terms for work.

7. The new society also would create “comprehensive modern Jewish statistics” to help matters run smoothly.

8. “Making markets” through the above-discussed profit-seeking means is likely to be more successful than philanthropy-induced settlement.

9. Democratic monarchy is the best form of government, but impractical for the new Jewish state, because the kings of earlier times are now gone.  So the new state should try to model itself upon the old aristocratic republic of Renaissance Venice, which is otherwise the best system of government known to mankind (Gordon Tullock would have agreed).  The new government was not to be a theocracy.


10. Throughout I was reminded of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, the famed theorist of Antipodean colonization, yet that connection does not seem to have been noted by the literature.


'I had never read The Jewish State before, so I was surprised to see how much economics it contained. '

You really enjoy this alt-right age we've entered, don't you? As do a number of your commenters, it seems (though thankfully, someone has taken care of that stupid parentheses marking trick).

You mean Zionism is alt right now? Good to know we've finally gotten through to you.

And what do you mean "taken care of" ((()))?

If Zionism is racist-authoritarian like the alt-right, then what better country is there to eliminate Zionism than Germany?

Well, then there's that.

I had never heard of Edward Gibbon Wakefield before, but he sounds like quite a guy.

Wakefield: I wouldn't put South Australia up as a pinnacle of achievement

Compared to what? We have got stuck with an absurd ruling elite that indulges in petty - and stupid - status marking. Part of that is making what appear to be clever comments putting their own people down.

I don't think I could say much about South Australia. But that is probably a measure of its success. If they had been burning people to death like more vibrant countries, I probably would have heard of them. So I am going to go with assuming that since Wakefield, South Australia has had a boring history of fairly good but unambitious government, law and order, an excellent, if dull, legal system, high levels of welfare, and generally outstanding - if very boring - social harmony. I bet the biggest political scandal ever involved the sale of some livestock. Probably pigs. Provincial Anglo-Canada without the snow or polar bears.

Looking at the rest of the world, that would put them in the top 1% of successful societies. Tell me I am wrong.

Well, Australia is certainly in the top 1% of successful societies in history.

So, Right On with the Right On's, Brother!!

NB in distinction with NSW & VIC in the 19thC, it was a 'free state', meaning it wasn't initially populated with British convicts.

South Australia is at the origin of up with the largest, most well-known and probably most respected set of travel guides across hundreds of cities and countries.

So, I think that's worth something. These days though, it almost seems as though their recommendations are too often used as a "here's where to find inexperienced travellers whom you might fleece" sort of list. But fortunately, the book always contains some information to be prepared for the styles of fleecing preferred in different times and places ...

So it seems Carlos may be on to something after all. It looks like the State is best known for Escape Manuals.

I may be wrong about the place.

Anyone for an Iron Curtain in America?

@carlospin - note the Greek surname from the first link: ("My InDaily story, Adelaide's Decline and Fall appeared to rattle SA Treasurer, Tom Koutsantonis, as it contained damning statistics and polemic which were 'unmentionable'. Unearthing the 'unmentionables' – the hidden assumptions that many of us recognise but are reluctant to discuss – causes considerable distress to some.")

MR AU readers: And what is the unmentionable? Is it from an AU deplorable? Seems so, Adelaide, which is the capital of federal AU my schoolbook says, sounds like the USA's Texas without the growth... "in the land time forgot" LOL that was my impression of all of Australia when I visited some years ago...trying to ape California. They should just throw in the towel and invite a half billion SE Asians to live there IMO.

"They should just throw in the towel and invite a half billion SE Asians to live there IMO"

Fuck off, Ray!

& learn some geography.

Oops, my bad, I was thinking of the backwater called Canberra. Oh well, no big loss and it's all the same thing: a backwater of 20M people in the land that time forgot... oh, sorry about your GDP/capita, which stats show a few years ago was above the USA's but now is rightfully below it. Comes from depending too much on digging stuff out of the ground and selling it to China, a bad way to make money. A half billion Asians would set things right though...

Australia's carrying capacity without declining current living standards probably cannot exceed 100 million or so ...

When we lived in South Australia it was a lovely spot. So was NZ when we lived there. So there are two places to Wakefield's credit.

Mind you, I had earlier lived in NJ, so my standards for ex-colonies might have been undemanding.

Wakefield would never have had such problems in Greece or the Philippines: (Wikipedia): "Although wealthy by contemporary standards, Wakefield was not satisfied. ... He almost managed to wed yet another wealthy heiress in 1826 when he abducted 15-year-old Ellen Turner, after luring her from school with a false message about her mother's health [Wakefield was 30 years old at the time, a mere double of his other--RL]. ... He then attempted to overturn his father-in-law's will and get his hands on the remainder of his dead wife's money. ... there were strong suspicions that in order to strengthen his case he had resorted to forgery and perjury, although he was never tried for these." Sounds like "quite a guy"!

There's a more detailed description of the abduction in Wikipedia, it's interesting:

Guess partners half one's age are not that uncommon.

President Temer is married to a woman less than half his age, who borne his child. Former president Goulart started dating his future wife when she was less than half his age.

"Zionism would require the creation of a large land acquisition company, to sell the homes of departing Jews in an orderly fashion and to coordinate real estate purchases in the new Jewish home. It would be incorporated in London as a joint stock company under English law. Many of the shareholders likely would be Christians."
How does it makes money?

I know, I know. "In essence swapping European homes (and businesses) and arbitraging into cheaper homes would allow the joint stock company to turn a profit, thereby financing a new Jewish society and state." But would it be enough to please investors
and "financing a new Jewish society and state."

I think TR perhaps you're mistaken. Jews like socialism, and think of the arbitrage as a sort of 'home owners association fee' necessary to create a unified state.

But what about the CHRISTIAN shareholders? And would the surplus be big enough to finance the early stages of their state? And if Jews like socialism so much, what happened to the kibbutz model and the Bund?

"Jews like socialism".

Whites like socialism. What's more socialist than the Nordic states?
Whites like communism. Russia, after all.
Whites like fascism. Italy. Spain. Greece.
Whites like Naziism. Obviously.

Do you see how stupid this is? Maybe you know...not be a stupid racist?

@Just Saying : so, not sure if your post is meant to be ironic, but you apparently believe there's such a thing as a "white race"? Though it's true that the phenotype explains what your eyes see, it's not clear that there's such a thing as "race". Also, I can't be a stupid racist since I have an IQ of at least 120 last I checked (probably higher) and I date and will marry a girl from outside my "race", however you might define that. Ball is back in your court, racist. And the Jews do like socialism, note that Marxism in the USSR was largely driven by kibbutz loving Bund-ish Jews, see:

But would it even be Marxism as we know it? The ocial-Democrat Party broke up with the Bund before the Revolution happened, assigning its Jewish members, Trotsky for instance, with the tsk of attacking it in the Party Congress in order to shrink from Anti-semitism charges. After the Revolution, like any other Socialist party, the Bund was given a chance to surrender and be absorbed by the Bolsheviks or be crushed. It is not obvious we can blame the Bund for the Revolution, War Communism or the collectivization under Stalin.

It is a stupid comment but at its heart it is saying something that is true. Whites, or more specifically Catholics, did like Fascism. It was a largely - but not entirely - lapsed Catholic ideology. It found little support among religious Catholics or among Protestants.

Still one of the most prominent Nazis these days is Tilla Tequila. The world is a strange and wonderful place.

On the other hand the Nordic states are not very socialist. They are liberal states with a heavy dose of redistribution. Even the Fire Service is often private. As for Russia, they had to kill 60 million Russians to make them accept Communism. That does not look like they liked it to me.

Meanwhile, when Jews stop being religious they do, very often, turn to Marxism. They were grossly over-represented in the Soviet party, especially in the early years, and in the parties in Eastern Europe. The leadership of parties like Romania's, Poland's and Hungary's were almost entirely Jewish. The world's Trotskyite parties are often Jewish. It may be insensitive and it is worth discussing the reasons why this is true, but it is true.

Everyone likes socialism. It is the dominant government philosophy of our time. Most Europeans live in socialist states of some sort. Same for Asians. Same for the western hemisphere. Saying "Jews prefer socialism" is like saying "Jews prefer the beach." I mean, sure. Yeah, they do, I guess. Like everyone. What's worth singling out one race among, like, literally all of them?

By the way, what do you mean when you say "Jew"? Do you mean Jewish by race? By religion? If I am 1/8th Jew by blood but a practicing Reformed Jew, do I prefer socialism? If I'm 100% Jewish by blood, and a pagan, am I a socialist? If I'm an atheist Israeli, what then? If I'm a Messianic Jew, who believes in Jesus Christ as the Risen King, am I a Jew at all?

It's a dumb label. Israel is too recent a state to be used as a determinant of "Jew". Much like "White".

From today's news, the UK officially defines anti-semitism: - 12/11/16 - The definition calls anti-Semitism "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." --seems a bit too broad, because of the word 'may'. In other words, without the hatred, a 'certain perception of Jews' would be deemed anti-Semitic, even if you say (for example) 'all Jews are smarter than average or richer than average' (however mistaken that view may be).

I thought Socialism was unknown in the world today, but all the countries who tried it were European? Or maybe some Latin American countries? Venezuela?

This Catholics and fascism association has come up a few times, but if anyone says anything you disagree with in interpretations of religious perspectives, you berate them for the nerve to speak on someone else's behalf (usually in the same breath as expressing some diversity of forms of ignorance on the subject in some few words).

Considering that the existence of "don't fuck your neighbour and maybe help someone get up if they're in a bad state" kinds of values are, by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, often attributed as having their origin in Judeo-Christian thought (as though I'd love backstabbing people if I'd never read the Good Book) ...

... I just fail to see anything potentially constructive in that comment.

And, moreover, and more obviously, there are more socialist and more capitalist people within all groups, most certainly including those who identify as Jews.

So, the pope didn't stop Hitler.

FYI, the pope hasn't had a personal army for about 500 years.

At 1940, the pope hasn’t had a personal army for 70 years (since 1870).

I'm thinking the sort of size that makes a difference in a "stop Hitler" sort of situation, not an oversized armed retinue to ensure his safety, etc.

Throughout I was reminded of Edward Gibbon Wakefield,

I can't see Herzl as a serial predator on jail bait early-teen Heiresses. In fact this bit shows how quaintly Victorian, middle class and genteel Zionism was. As it turned out, they did not sell Jewish homes in Europe. They were expelled. In turn they expelled the Palestinians and took their homes and land. In turn that encouraged - with some alleged Israeli help - the Arab states to expel their Jews.

It all ended up owing more to the politics of the Assyrian Empire than to Victoria's.

In turn they expelled the Palestinians and took their homes and land.

Taking Ilan Pappe seriously is foolish.

The Jewish settlement up to 1948 incorporated voluntary land purchases only. Mluch of the Arab population left in 1948, partly in panic and partly to clear the decks for an invasion by surrounding Arab states. You saw some expulsions co-incident with certain military operations, not the sort of mass ethnic cleansing the Croat government practiced in Krajina (to take one example). There was a large Arab population left in the Galilee because they didn't leave and they weren't in the way. And, of course, there were no expulsions after 1967 bar in the Golan Heights, again for security considerations.

"You saw some expulsions co-incident with certain military operations": such diplomatic phraseology.

No, it's descriptive phraseology. Pseudo-clever babble I leave to the British, who made such a hash of the Near East between 1918 and 1958.

Purchases from absent landlords who got land title by empire land claim and distribution for political favor.

Palestine had not been a republic by any measure for thousands of years since the Jews invited Rome in to defend them.

Most land in the US was "purchased" from a "crown" or an American government, but not from the people the land belonged to.

But that was based on the white people view that non-white people living in the Americans did not discover the New World, so finders keepers, the New World belongs to white people, not the First Peoples with 15,000 years of tradition of their gods giving them the Americas.

The problem in Palestine is the Jews didn't systematically kill 90% of the residents and then take the remaining children away and force them to be Jews. That was what Hitler was trying to do with Poland. Once the Jews were eliminated, the Catholics would follow.

The second problem, too many Jews are moral and see Israel as a project as white people taking the land of non-whites in Africa and America's. And that Israel is like South Africa.

I speak as a white person whose great..grandfather came to take land by force 400 years ago based on a belief God gave white people the New World. Or simple greed.

"Purchases from absent landlords who got land title by empire land claim and distribution for political favor."

I'm not sure what this matters unless there were other claimants?

And Europeans certainly did not systematically kill 90% of American Indians or anything close to that. And in fact they did "buy" a lot of the land from the Indians although there was a lot of confusion over who actually owned the lands, even between the Indian tribes, and obviously a lot of treaties were broken by both parties. I don't know why you think the American Indians had a 15,000 year tradition of their gods giving them the Americas, I would be very interested to read any source for that.

I'm pretty sure that expelling Arabs was what set the scenes for the retaliation.

How dumb do you think people would have to be to believe that the story is a) first in time, they left their homes for the purpose of retaliating against having to leave their homes, and b) second in time, the retaliation occurred after having self-caused the reason to retaliate.

As with many Americans, perspectives on this question are easily identified as the programming and propaganda of a specific time and place, specifically, one where more debate on such matters exists in Israel itself than is even allowed among the most powerful movers and shakers in the most powerful country on the planet.

Art - how about be a good patriot and help that tail to wag the dog some more?

I’m pretty sure that expelling Arabs was what set the scenes for the retaliation.

Political violence against Jews was a feature of the Mandatory period, no matter what fantasy you're 'pretty sure' of.

Absurd and counterfactual. Is there really any question whatsoever that the great majority of Palestinians who left did so voluntarily?

Well apparently there is a question.

Still, the Arabs are the ones who invaded. If they had won they would have murdered all the Jews. So I hardly think they need a reason to retaliate, only an opportunity.

Here's the option.

Leave voluntarily.

Or, leave involuntarily.

Now, you've heard what happens to people who don't leave voluntarily, right?

Voluntary my ass.

Cliff - where the hell did you ever get the insane notion into your head that if the result of that invasion was a military victory, that genocide of civilians would have been the next step?

OK. Dumb question. But all the same, it's not what would have happened.

We all know you are a troll, Nathan, but you seldom telegraph your lack of knowledge this blatantly. If you read the literature on this vexed issue you will see that the Arab elite were so confident of their impending victory that they advised villagers to leave before the shooting started. Claims of ethnic cleansing are overblown.

It is odd that not a single piece of evidence has ever been found to support the claim the Arab elites told their people to leave. Despite the British government monitoring Arab broadcasts from Cyprus. As did the US government.

It is almost as if that is a lie put about by friends of Israel for decades. You know, like the denials that they regularly torture suspects.

Nathan is an idiot. But there is no credible literature that claims the Arabs told their people to flee.

That's pretty lame. People got tired of being called ignorant for failing to tow the ZIonist line years ago.

Nothing against "the Jews". But the Zionists weren't very nice, and it's pretty understandable that the people whose land was targeted for their colonist expedition didn't just roll over. It would be good if we could get on with things, but colonist expansion is ongoing, and, bloody hell, they still haven't completely rolled over even after 70 years of military occupation.

It is odd that not a single piece of evidence has ever been found to support the claim the Arab elites told their people to leave.

That you're unfamiliar with the history does not mean it did not happen. Erskine Childers made this claim 50 years ago. It was debunked at the time. Nadav Safran discusses this issue in his survey of Israel's history.

There is no evidence at all that they left voluntarily.

Now you're just lying. Go away.n

Art Deco December 12, 2016 at 11:48 am

That you’re unfamiliar with the history does not mean it did not happen. Erskine Childers made this claim 50 years ago. It was debunked at the time. Nadav Safran discusses this issue in his survey of Israel’s history.

That Israelis claim it is undeniable. That is not what I said. I said that there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence for it. That you throw insults instead of citing any such evidence is pretty good evidence I am right. Because I am. Childers is an irrelevance.

This is a case where you are unfamiliar with the evidence. Or in fact any recent debates. Or much else. But I am not judgemental. The BBC transcripts are easily available. They are available online. If there is evidence of the Arab elites calling for their people to flee - as politically and militarily stupid as that would be - it ought to be a trivial task for you to go and find some evidence that they did so.

I will wait.

I have never taken Pappe seriously before and I am not about to now. Much of the population was driven out. There is no evidence at all that they left voluntarily. It is obvious nonsense to claim they left to help an invasion. Refugees clog roads, they disrupt all transportation, they demand food, shelter and water, they take supplies away from soldiers - and they are unable to offer support to soldiers in turn. No conventional Army, anywhere in the world, has benefited from refugees in their way and none of them have tried to create any.

On the other hand, all those refugees clogging the Arab roads certainly benefited the Israelis. Who wanted and planned for this. Who have admitted to doing it. Cui bono? Not the Arabs.

It was exactly like the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. In both cases the Civil War was used as an excuse to remove politically problematic populations and create a more ethnically homogeneous state under the cover of the fighting. The Arabs of the Galilee remain because the local military commander refused to expel them without a written order. Which he did not get.

The ethnic cleansing could not have had anything to do with the Arab states. It took place even before the Mandate ended - the Deir Yassin massacre took place outside territory given to the Jews before the British had left. It took place in parts of Israel where there was no fighting expected. It did not take place in Galilee where the most competent Arab Army - the Syrians - were expected.

Is this all surmise on your part? I certainly could imagine people leaving because they didn't want to die in a war, for example. I am not really familiar with the literature but there seems to be lots of evidence that a significant number of Palestinians left voluntarily

Are we reading the same Wikipedia page? Look if you take out the idiots on both sides - Pappe for one, Gelber and Karsh on the other - what are you left with? Not a single piece of evidence that the Arabs called on anyone to leave. Plenty of evidence that the Israelis expelled the Arab population. Starting with premeditation:

During the "long seminar," a meeting of Ben-Gurion with his chief advisors in January 1948, the main point was that it was desirable to "transfer" as many Arabs as possible out of Jewish territory, and the discussion focussed mainly on the implementation.

Throughout the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans. Haganah Radio announced that "the day of judgement had arrived" and called on inhabitants to "kick out the foreign criminals" and to "move away from every house and street, from every neighbourhood occupied by foreign criminals." The Haganah broadcasts called on the populace to "evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven." Jewish tactics in the battle were designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition; demoralisation was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal. The orders of Carmeli's 22nd Battalion were "to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered" and to set alight with fire-bombs "all objectives that can be set alight. I am sending you posters in Arabic; disperse on route."

Undoubtedly, as was understood by IDF intelligence, the most important single factor in the exodus of April–June was Jewish attack. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during or in the immediate wake of military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before the Haganah/IZL assault… The closer drew the 15 May British withdrawal deadline and the prospect of invasion by Arab states, the readier became commanders to resort to "cleansing" operations and expulsions to rid their rear areas.[7]:265 [R]elatively few commanders faced the moral dilemma of having to carry out the expulsion clauses. Townspeople and villagers usually fled their homes before or during battle… though (Haganah commanders) almost invariably prevented inhabitants, who had initially fled, from returning home…

A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948," dated 30 June 1948, affirms that:

At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations. To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%… of the emigration." A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases…

Even Yitzak Rabin, that well known antisemite, admitted it:

What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities… Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward… Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out!… "Driving out" is a term with a harsh ring… Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. ("Soldier of Peace", p. 140–141)

Even some evidence that the Arabs tried to stop the Palestinians leaving:

Around 22 March, the Arab governments agreed that their consulates in Palestine would issue entry visas only to old people, women, children and the sick.[7]:134 On 29–30 March the Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS) reported that "the AHC was no longer approving exit permits for fear of [causing] panic in the country."

Keep in mind there is a lot of hair splitting going on:

Overall, Morris concludes that during this period the "Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish—Haganah, IZL or LHI—attacks or fear of impending attack" but that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect."

So the Israelis-to-be shell civilians, mortar marketplaces, blow up truck bombs in residential areas all with the intent of causing terror and this is not expulsion.

I could quote more but I won't. That article is from the notoriously politically correct Wikipedia. But even so, it has a wealth of evidence of what Israel did. And no evidence of what Israel claimed the Arabs did. Why would anyone dispute the facts?

Look if you take out the idiots on both sides – Pappe for one, Gelber and Karsh on the other

Again, Pappe has been called a fabrictor by none other than Morris. As for Morris, he represents a controversial strand of Israeli historiography, not the gold standard.

Art Deco December 12, 2016 at 11:51 am

Again, Pappe has been called a fabrictor by none other than Morris. As for Morris, he represents a controversial strand of Israeli historiography, not the gold standard.

I assume that you need to pretend I am arguing in bad faith because otherwise you would have to admit you are wrong. No one is defending Pappe. Morris is another matter. Of course any gold standard - and no one is claiming Morris is - is bound to be controversial.

But perhaps we can agree that Yitzak Rabin is not a raging self-loathing anti-semite? And that there is no reason whatsoever to dismiss his admission that he, on the direct orders of Ben Gurion, took part in these expulsions?

All the evidence is on my side. The Palestinians were expelled. No evidence is on your side. No matter how deep your commitment to the Jewish state is, no matter how angry you get when people point out the facts, nothing is going to change that.

There is no evidence at all that they left voluntarily.

Again, this is false. Either you know nothing of the history or you are lying.

You have to remember that in Herzl time Israel was under Ottoman control, and no one saw WW1 or de-colonization coming.
Both were instrumental to the creation of Israel. The hollocaust played a much smaller part than you might think - most of the refugees from the war came after the war of independence.

Israel hoovered up the Sephardic and Mizrahi population fairly quickly. Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Iran, and Syria were the only Arab and Near Eastern states that had more than about 1,000 Jews after 1952.

I hope you remember that outlook next time you try to tell us that population movements of Jews from Arab majority lands to former Arab majority lands was due to oppression on the part of Arabs against Jews and not due to explicit efforts to attract these people into that former Arab majority land.

Yeah, hundreds of thousands of Jews up an moved to Israel because they were perfectly satisfied where they were.

Does reality matter to you at all? Have Arab states ever denied driving out their Jewish populations?

Do you deny raping the girl you had coffee with last night?

If not, you're guilty. Because you didn't deny it.

I think it's safe to say that with the Zionist project ongoing at that time, that there would very likely have been animosity in a lot of places where there were more Jewish populations. I have no idea how much. But whatever the case, I have not been convinced that "Arab states", in the sense of governing authorities, set about efforts to expel Jewish populations.

Exactly, it was after the independence war at 48.
This means that those people played a minor rule in the establishment of the state.

Some say independence, some say conquest.

Some say debatable, some say only traitors debate.

On Herzl, I can warmly recommend Schorske's essay "Politics in a New Key" featured in his book Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. He casts Herzl as a classical European liberal with anglophile leanings who lost faith in European civilization through encounters with anti-semitism, most decisively through the Dreyfus affair which he covered as a correspondent for the liberal Viennese newspaper Neue Freie Presse.

After dabbling with a number of utopian schemes for countering anti-semitism (including mass conversion to Christianity and the urging of jews to challenge anti-semites to duels whenever anti-semitic comments were made), he settled for what we today know as Zionism, which at the time was not viewed as much less crazy than his other ideas.

Just as Tyler writes in the post, the aim of Zionism was more to create a mini-England that would be more liberal and European than the flawed European civilization left behind.

The essay is also worth reading as it captures the shock of liberal elites in the face of populist uprisings, in this case during the 1860s in Vienna. The second paragraph starts

"The social forces that rose to challenge the liberal ascendancy could not fail to baffle an observer who viewed them through a liberal conceptual screen and with a liberal's expectations of history"

a sentence that feels eerily close to describing many reactions to the Trump presidency.

In those days, the presumed moral right of a white man to give precisely zero consideration to the individual or collective property rights of a non-European in a non-European place was quite normal ...


His plan was actually that the land should be given voluntarily, because there would otherwise be lingering animosity (no shit). In line with economic reasoning, he was sure some would be happy to give as land valuea would increase in the surroundings of the new state due to agglomeration effects.

Link to essay:

Herzl sought cooperation from many very different sources in his efforts to create a separate Zionist state, perhaps the boldest was his offer (1901) to Sultan Abdulhamid II (of the Ottoman Empire, or Turkey): the Jews would pay the Turkish foreign debt and attempt to help regulate Turkish finances if they were given Palestine as a Jewish homeland under Turkish rule. The Sultan rejected Herzl's offer, but one has to appreciate the dark humor: the Jews, believed (or feared) to be expert in matters of money and finance, would manage the Turk's money in return for protection from the Turks.

If Jews are best at managing money, why do many wish to sever the Jews from their historic role managing the world's money and finance? A major complaint of anti-semites is that Jews control the world's money and finance, to the benefit of the Jews but to the detriment of everyone else. Rather than wrest control of money and finance, some enterprising anti-semites have promoted an alternative scheme: digital money. That Herzl actually believed he could leverage the Jewish reputation for managing money and finance reveals how much has changed since 1901.

If I'm recalling the history correctly, that was pretty much the role played by many Ashkenazim in medieval Europe in service to Christian nobles.

If Herzl was an economic nationalist, why would he propose that the Zionist state be part of Turkey and under Turkish control? What if the Sultan had accepted Herzl's offer and the Zionist state had been created in collaboration with the Turks rather than as (in some minds) a rogue state? To Herzl, the worst anti-semites were in France and Germany and Russia, not in the middle east.

By that time, Turkey lacked the ability to control its periphery; a Jewish state could have exercised substantial independence as long as they did not claim to be independent. See Egypt btw/ when the French left and WWI.

In those days, Arabs and Jews got along much better than, say, Christians and Jews.

Jewish and Muslim traditions share many more commonalities than Christianity has with either group, and moreover, Jews and Arabs mostly got along fairly OK (including the systematic discrimination in the form of a 1.5% "protection tax" on all non-Muslims which was extremely explicit) through the first 1350 of the last 1400 years after Mohammed.

Also, the Ottomans had a long history of allowing religious diversity in quite a lot of ways, so long as their was not revolutionary dissent and tax were forthcoming.

So, from his historical perspective, it's quite reasonable to think that an early Zionist would have seriously considered the possibility that a Jewish homeland might be safe and secure under the Ottomans or Turks.

Things have changed since then ...

In those days, Arabs and Jews got along much better than, say, Christians and Jews.

No, Arabs and Jews did not 'get along' in the Yemen or Iraq.

Are we talking about today? (basically no Jews in those places)

20 years ago? (exceedingly few Jews in those places).

In 1948? (A fair few Jews in those places. For some VERY STRANGE REASON, relations between Jews and Arabs went downhill fast right around this time. Probably about pedophile rapist imams terrifying young Jewish girls by virtue of their improper gait while fleeing their former homes to make space for the colonists of very different culture than the earlier real estate prospectors, etc?)

200 years ago? 500? 1000? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. But the point is that they used to get along better than today. Some story about some specific time and place of accidents or violence 100 years ago or 500 years ago does not change that general situation.

Yep. The Egyptian Copts also love to be discriminated against since ~700 CE.

Within the 80s and 90s even in 'liberal' Tunisia a Jew could be clubbed to death without any consequences. I'm still hoping to be reported of a single legal trial in the last 100 years in Northern Africa where hate crimes against Jews resulted in persecution of the culprit.

Some murders go unsolved. Just because a murder of a Jew one time went unsolved does not mean that the state protected non-Jews but refused protection of Jews. Is there reason to believe that there is statistical relevance to what you say?

Also, the issue of Copts and Jews are very different. For starters, there's the theology, and making man into God (Jesus) is a problem for a lot of Muslims, even though Jesus the man (prophet) is one of the most respected figures in Muslim tradition and theology.

Tyler, would you give ethnic and economic nationalism an even-handed consideration in any other context?

Israel seems to have done well by both.

Even-handed consideration is not permitted in US media with regard to Zionism.

Observe that by "even-handed", you mean "make it look good" as compared to the criticisms presently coming from diverse quarters about other sources of economic nationalist thought and political speech.

Even-handed consideration is not permitted in US media with regard to Zionism.

You're a knucklehead on continuous loop on this issue. If they were 'even-handed', you'd never know.

Consider that your comeback is always a short cheapshot insult (with zero substance to boot) on this question ...

Nathan, you don't know much. People point out to you what you've gotten wrong, and it's down your personal memory hole. If you want respect, quit being callow.

I know that Art cannot stand to make a correction without building in an insult, in the case that he can detect a point of ideological disagreement with respect to Republican doctrines of the 1970s and 80s.

Any thoughts about applicability to future settlement of Mars or other off world locations?

"To Herzl, the worst anti-semites were in France and Germany and Russia, not in the middle east."

I think he was proven right.

No, he was proven right about Germany and Austria.

What about Russia, under the czars and the Bolsheviks?

"Long-standing repressive policies and attitudes towards the Jews were intensified after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 13 March 1881. This event was blamed on the Jews and sparked widespread Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, which lasted for three years, from 27 April 1881 to 1884.[13] A hardening of official attitudes under Tsar Alexander III and his ministers, resulted in the May Laws of 1882 which severely restricted the civil rights of Jews within the Russian Empire. The Tsar's minister Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev stated the aim of the government with regard to the Jews was that "One third will die out, one third will leave the country and one third will be completely dissolved in the surrounding population".[13] In the event, the pogroms and the repressive legislation did indeed result in the mass emigration of Jews to western Europe and America. Between 1881 and the outbreak of the First World War, an estimated 2.5 million Jews left Russia - one of the largest group migrations in recorded history.[14]"

Alexander III was long gone by 1920.

Well, the years of crisis from 1905 to 1917 were wonderful for scapegoating (and Nicholas II was a hardliner like Alexander III -- even if devoided of any talent -- rather than a reformist like Alexander II, so things were garanteed to be bad until at least 1917). After 1917, there was all the anti-religion thing, but Jewish secular intellectuals probably got a somewhat better situation than they would under the czarist system weird obsession with them. After Stalin became "today's Lenin" and took over, things get pretty worse at least for those who were in the top echelons of the Party structure -- they were purged, and I may be wrong but I think the purges in the technical organs caught a disproportional number of Jews, too. All in all, aside Nazist persecution, it seems hard to think Western/Central Europe was worse than Russia.

"Six years ago, France’s Council of State brought to the public’s attention that the Vichy government, especially, was partly responsible for the deportation of the Jews and that not all of the blame could be put on the Germans. Nazi officials had constantly claimed that they did not force the French to betray their citizens.

One of the documents stated that the French exceeded the expectations the Germans had of them. Resistance fighter Lucien Guyot said that the French took an interest in the deportation of Jews of all ages, and sent them to the concentration camps without further thought."

France was partially occupied in 1940 and fully occupied in 1942. The Vichy ministries were grotesquely pragmatic in their dealings with the Germans, turning over foreign residents quite readily. They worked to protect French Jews, who generally survived the war.

"The truth is that France has never fully come to terms with Vichy and its anti-Semitism. There are huge sections of French society that continue to deny the complicity of their officials with their German masters in assisting with the Holocaust.
Arguments made by the likes of its apologists that cunning French officials supposedly played a double game against the Germans are well rehearsed — and completely without foundation.
The fact is that Vichy started undertaking measures against the Jews almost as soon as the Nazis had marched in — and did so willingly and without Nazi encouragement.
As the French historians Eric Conan and Henry Rousso have observed, anti-Semitism in France was — and perhaps remains — ‘a principle of political and social exclusion ingrained at the heart of a certain French tradition’.
That explains why, on July 22, 1940, just a month after the French and Germans signed the Armistice, the newly formed Vichy Government had already formed a Denaturalisation Commission that would eventually strip thousands of Jews of their French citizenship.
But Vichy would go much further. At the beginning of October, the government passed its first ‘Statut des Juifs’, which stopped Jews from being able to take senior roles in the judiciary and civil service and also banned them from teaching, journalism and even directing films. By the middle of that month, Jews were forbidden from running businesses.
It is important to stress that such early measures against the Jews were not taken because the Germans ordered the French to do so — they were taken against the Germans’ wishes. The French were motivated, quite simply, by anti-Semitism."

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"Alexander III was long gone by 1920."

Sadly, anti-Semitism wasn't.

One of the many mysteries is how Rome became the center of Christianity. When Herzl sought the help of Pope Pius X, the response was that the Church would not support Jews as long as they denied the divinity of Christ. The gentiles in Rome, having crucified the Jew called Jesus, refused to help His people unless they accepted the divinity of the Jew the gentiles in Rome had crucified. Go figure.

Herzl died in 1904, just a year after St. Pius X was elected. I doubt the two were more than tangentially acquainted. I'm not sure why you'd expect the Bishop of Rome to involve himself in Theodore Herzl's political projects (or anyone else's, for that matter).

Political project? The Pope's rejection was delivered by Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val. Subsequent events in Europe might suggest it was more than a political project. That Jesus was a Jew is an historical fact, an observant Jew no less. It was Paul, who persecuted the followers of Jesus before his conversion, who transformed what was a Jewish sect to a gentile religion, Paul having been rejected by the leaders of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem, James, Peter, and John, His closest Disciples (unlike Paul, who never even met Jesus - except in his imagination).

No, the Pope granted him an audience about five months before his death. Herzl gave a precis of the audience in his diaries. The audience was a courtesy. He had no real claim on the Pope's attention.

There have been many Popes. Some were great theologians, others were wonderful people who inspired everybody they met, some were accomplished diplomats. You know that. St Pius X had one God-given desire that counted - to be a saint - and, to the extent that he thought, while he lived on this earth, that any other fellow human being did not have a claim on his attention, he failed. All saints fail at one thing or another - either they live to regret it, or they effectively repent of it in Purgatory before they find themselves in Heaven.

I spend a lot of time with old people. Very few - actually none - have expressed a regret that they did not spend more time at Christmas wearing ironically "ugly" sweaters. Either you care about other people or you don't.

and, to the extent that he thought, while he lived on this earth, that any other fellow human being did not have a claim on his attention, he failed.

Whether he's a saint or not, there are only 17 hours in the waking day. My great-grandfather never had an audience with the pope and it likely would never have occurred to him that the pope would take an interest in what the municipal government over which he presided was up to. Herzl's projects were Herzl's projects. The Roumanian National Party had their projects at the time in the Hapsburg dominions. Did they expect papal assistance? Exactly how is the Church's mission advanced or inhibited by whatever Herzl was up to.

"Historical fact" is a bit much. In fact there is not great evidence that Jesus existed at all.

Says you.

In fact there is not great evidence that Jesus existed at all.

If you define 'not great evidence' as anything short of video. There are very few figures of the era not occupying thrones who are as well-attested, so if Jesus did not exist, you'd have to consign pretty much all of period history to the fiction bin. (There is, for example, very little extra-Biblical information about Pontius Pilate, though he was among the most consequential figures in the eastern Mediterranean at the time). See Carsten Thiede on the antiquity of papyrus fragments of New Testament works, discussion of the Christian communities in parallel 1st century sources (Josephus, Suetonius), &c.

The union of church and stated preceded the separation of church and state by about 1600 years.

"One of the many mysteries is how Rome became the center of Christianity." But it didn't, did it? Unless you mean Western Christianity for a few centuries. Then the answer is obvious: the invasions of the Moslems elsewhere.

I haven't met a lot of Eastern Orthodox Africans or Latin Americans ...

Historical demographers put the population of the Byzantine dominions at about 10.5 million after the 6th century plagues and the loss of Egypt and the Maghreb. Visigothic Spain is supposed to have had 3.5 million inhabitants in the early Medieval period; the Visigoths abandoned Arianism in the late 6th century, the Franks were never Arian, and the Lombards abandoned Arianism in the mid-7th century . The Merovingian, Burgundian, and Lombard dominions are supposed to have had about 5 million around that time and the British Isles about 0.5 million. Antioch and Alexandria had rival Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian patriarchs from the mid-5th century, with the non-Chalcedonian the more important in Egypt, so Egypt was already off the reservation before the Muslim conquest. Byzantium / Constantinople would have had a position of pre-eminence from the 4th century to the 7th century, not before or after.

"One of the many mysteries is how Rome became the center of Christianity."

Some say it's just a part of it. We've got to fulfill the book.

"Others will fashion softly-breathing bronzes—
this I believe; they will lead living faces from marble;
they will entreat more sweetly the causes, and they will demarcate paths
of the sky with a compass and shall invoke the rising heavens:
You, Roman, remember to rule with the people with decree;
these ares will be for you; and to establish law for peace,
to spare those vanquished, and to crush the haughty." -- Virgil

There have been three Romes, there won't be a fifth.

Remarkably timely piece. As the full deranged depths of anti-Christian hatred are exposed with the New Left Crusade labeling anything and anybody "alt-right," the Trump Administration may provide a brief window of tolerance in which Christians and others being persecuted by the clerisy have an opportunity to determine their future. The next Democrat administration is likely to make Diocletian look like a piker. The options appear to be gambling that Trump will be the U.S.'s Gorbachev and usher in a new, unheralded era of tolerance, or, an opportunity to cut and run. With renewed productive relations with Russia, Putin may be willing to provide a homeland for non-Orthodox Christians. It would be a win-win for Christians and Russia. Perhaps the US Roman Catholic Cardinals could open a dialogue.

That's a special kind of brainwashing. Maybe someone else would like to unpack the various plays on black and white thinking behind the manipulations here.

I wonder what effects on South America a jewish state carved out of Argentina would have caused. I believe Middle east would still be riddled with conflict, Israel or no.

Probably. Religious differences, nationalist aspirations, lust for oil (remember Saddam in Kuwait), the Cold War and the European domination relics), but hardly that many Arab states would have found someone to converge upon their hatred as easily as they did with Israel post-1948.

Pretty much likeley. One significant culprit was the shattering of an Arabic Nation. Sikes-Picot delayed that question into the 2000s++. There is no Kurdistan. Armenians barely have the lands they've once occupied. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is just a very prolonged version of what accompanied European Nation-Building as well: the cleansing.

"The next Democrat administration is likely to make Diocletian look like a piker."
Hahahahaha. I still remember when Bill Clinton was supposed to crush the Church. He must have got sidetracked on those idyllic days in the Oval Room. Sometimes I really wonder if the Neo Nazis really buy their own paranoia and wouldn't be able to tell the difference if real persecution ever come or if they really think anyone who hasn't drunk their Kool-Aid yet will believe in their "Boy who Cried Wolf" stories.

What I find most confusing is how to tell the difference between a settler movement with an explicit plan to move in more and more people until they can form their own state, and how we can compare this to disorganized movements of people fleeing war. (oh, but they can find some info about routes through Facebook, therefore "they" are otherwise also organized in every possible manner that I could possible fear ...)

Orchestrated plans to create a new state on some existing piece of land. Compared to a bunch of refugees seeking temporary jobs, temporary assistance, temporary housing, and temporary lots of other things.

How, oh how, can we ascertain whether the goals and objectives of the first are similar to the second.

I know! We'll call those temporary assistance centres "invader centres", and then my genius neighbours will understand that helping refugees is like giving your country away.

Intentions don't really matter.

Especially when all the paranoia directly pertains to ... intentions.

Herzl considered Argentina in *Der Judenstaat*, but it was clear he never really thought it was possible. He was certain that nowhere could draw Jews to create a successful state like the land of Israel.

This seems the real world Jewish Agency, no?

Herzl founded The world zionist organization:

Yeah, I would be very interested to see a straight comparison to the functioning of the Jewish Agency. The primary difference is the real world JA was primarily a charity, funded on the backs of (predominantly American) benefactors. I doubt it ever made a profit.

"The new government was not to be a theocracy." The founder of Pakistan, Jinnah, said that although it was established as a Muslim homeland, all religions will be shown respect. That was not to be and there is nothing surprising about it: a nation founded on religious grounds is very vulnerable to degenerate into a theocracy. Recently Israel has been officially designated a Jewish state. There is always the danger that in future the Jewish fundamentalists will misuse this to replace establish a theocracy.

Among those identifying on the basis of a religious affiliation, I think secularism is most common in Jewish self identification, and this is quite generally so in a lot of ways in Israel.

Due to the specific privileges for those who spend their lives studying theology, etc., there's a pretty strong counterbalance of just how far potential seeds for a theocratic state can go before the secularists get more sensible in that regard.

In the meantime, it seems like the fundamentalists are mostly pre-occupied with justification of colonizing the West Bank, which does not tend to cause huge aggravation to the secularists. But it's the welfare for fundamentalism that most likely cannot be sustained if it grows in a manner that could lead to a theocracy. And if not that, then what other pathway?

I think the principle of being "a Jewish State" is intended more to be an exclusionary principle with demographic intentions and democratic preference being highly related. Despite the presence of potential seeds for a theocratic state, it just doesn't seem likely to play out that way.

We need to be very wise with the economic thing, if we trade with careful approach then we could gain a lot, but if our approach is not right then things will become harder. I do it all very nicely through OctaFX and their master piece features that include tidy spreads starting from 0.1 pips for all major pairs while there is also rebate scheme where I get 50% back on all trades which is also with the losing trades too.

Ethnic Cleansing in 1948: true or false?
Here is what newspapers reported:
Don't like what they say? Search yourself the numerous archive sites from virtually any country.

Comments for this post are closed