Well, but where they were supposed to go? Uganda plan? Anywhere they'd go, there would have been other people there. And then what? Another occupation, just some place else.

Three possibilities:

1) American Zionists could have campaigned for opening up the U.S. to Jewish immigrants instead of campaigning against it to promote moves to Israel. A larger Jewish minority than we have today in the U.S. would not have been bad for either that minority or the U.S. That might actually have been achievable at the time.

2) If one insists on the right to a state at the expensive of someone else then the nations responsible for the Holocaust should have had to give up territory. There was a reasonable case for making Germany and Austria give up some of their territory to a Jewish state. Actually the European part of the Jewish Diaspora would have had more roots there than in Israel. Not practical, but in the long run neither may Israel be. The actual possible alternative was 1. In spite of U.S. anti-Semitism at the time it might have been possible if U.S. Jewish population had not actively supported low quotas.

3) There was another form of Zionism that is probably even less realistic - but still a counterfactual. The Palestinian rhetoric about a "Democratic Secular State" actually came from early Zionists who advocated a Palestine-Israel federation in which no land except a few sacred sites was reserved for any one religion, in which equal rights were guaranteed. One person/one vote across the whole area that was given combined to Israel and Palestine in 1947. Bear in mind that Palestians at the time were mostly secular. The extreme Islam of today was a minority. Jews, Christians and Muslims in the area were all more "pink" than religious. In spite of massacres going both ways, Jews and Muslims and Christians had managed to live in peace in the area. Something where Jews were immigrants and members of a secular state might have been a basis for a peaceful permanent solution.

So there were alternatives. At least one possible. At least one advocated by some Zionists.

And I don't see the parallels to early European tribes jostling for position. I think one difference is the huge number of immigrants to Israel that were not Middle Eastern Jews, but from the European Diaspora - with no recent ties to Israel. And even the Middle Eastern Jews were not moving as tribes. They came as individuals, families or at most villages from all over the place.

And I think seeing this is important, because it helps understand that Arabs who opposed the formation of Israel in 1947 were not just being evil anti-Semitic bastards. They were being asked to pay a price for a horrifying European Holocaust they did not commit, and for which those who did commit it were not asked to pay a comparable price. Even if you don't agree with their point of view (which I do) I hope you can see how someone not anti-Semitic could hold that point of view.

Ghada Karmi's book "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine" tells the story well.

"Two rabbis,visiting Palestine in 1897,observed that the land was like a bride,"beautiful,but married to another man". By which they meant that, if a place was to be found for Israel in Palestine, where would the people of Palestine go? "

I don't agree with her proposal for a solution today. But I think her history is valid and important.

Billytea, cleaning the affected area well and letting his bottom air dry then slathering it with a good brand of cream should form a barrier to help keep the rash from getting worse. I hope the wee man isn't too uncomfortable.

I've got a whole load of friends I've met once or twice at most.

Me too.

DebetEsse, I love it when people get auction fever!

Question for the hivemind. We are having a new refrigerator delivered tomorrow. We paid a $40 delivery fee (get it back in a $40 store credit) and the store tells us this is an independent contractor, not a store employee. Should we tip him, or how much of that $40 is he going to see?

Billytea, cleaning the affected area well and letting his bottom air dry then slathering it with a good brand of cream should form a barrier to help keep the rash from getting worse. I hope the wee man isn't too uncomfortable.

Thanks Cash. His nappy rash is much improved today, thankfully. (There's a papaw ointment we've been using with him since he was just a few weeks old, which works wonders for protecting him.) He still has the diarrhoea, though.

The Palestinian rhetoric about a "Democratic Secular State" actually came from early Zionists who advocated a Palestine-Israel federation in which no land except a few sacred sites was reserved for any one religion, in which equal rights were guaranteed

Well, that's an alternative, but a real possibility? These were such a minority, even more than the Israeli radical left today.

They were being asked to pay a price for a horrifying European Holocaust they did not commit, and for which those who did commit it were not asked to pay a comparable price.

I never thought that they didn't have to pay a price. I never thought they were anti-Semitic - I know many more in Europe were anti-Semitic at that time, post WW2. But sooner or later, everyone pays a price - life isn't fair, and especially wasn't fair at that time. And I can see this stand develops into (or backing up) anti-Semitic one pretty quickly.

I don't agree with her proposal for a solution today.

What's her proposal?

Probably viral, bt. I hope oit clears up, poor noodle.

Well, that's an alternative, but a real possibility.

Probably not. Though remember, Israel came into existence through being granted land. If the a Democratic secular state had been what the newly formed Un granted instead of two gerrymandered States, might both the Zionists and Palestians accepted it.

But probably not possible. No, as I said the real possibility was immigration into the U.S. - if a push for that had been made equal to the push for creating Israel then all the Jews who sent to Israel could have been admitted to the U.S. I admit part of my bias is that this would have made the U.S. a better place than today.

But sooner or later, everyone pays a price - life isn't fair, and especially wasn't fair at that time.

At the same time I've heard you complain about unfairness to Israel of various positions, double standards and stuff. So this particular unfairness needs to be dismissed as "life is unfair"? I mean one of the problems is that in much of the debate, it is part of the Israeli Peace camp position (not you, but much of the 'moderate left') that basically the Palestinians were the bad guys opposing Jewish immigration into Palestine and the formation of the State of Israel and Israel, not being saints, over reacted to Palestinian criminality, but really who can blame them. And for the sake of peace, the moderate Israeli peace movement is willing to forgive the Palestinians their crimes and give more concessions that reasonable (any) in return for their promising and giving concrete guarantees that they will never ever commit such crimes against Israel again. So it seems to me that part of making peace is acknowledging that formation of Israel was a crime, one that could not be reversed at this point without committing worse crimes but nonetheless a crime. And a peace process will also require Palestinian acknowledgment that much of their resistance to Israeli crimes took the form of crimes. I honestly that whatever think hope of peace there is will have to include both sides facing the trauma's that the other side has suffered, that both the foundation of Israel and the 67 war (not started by the Palestinians) were catastrophes for the Palestinians and that when they refer to them as catastrophes this is a simple statement of fact. And the Palestinians need to understand and acknowledge that all the attacks on Israeli civilians over the decades (especially those on children) were not heroic resistance but criminal acts, and that it is not unjustified for these things to terrify Israelis and make them distrustful. I think it is a fundamental part of reconciliation between angry parties that at some point both sides have to acknowledge the legitimacy of one anothers anger.

The problem with arguing that Israel should never have been formed is that, equally, the Brits should never have gone into Ireland and the Americans should never have taken land from the native Americans. But today's Northern Irish are not expected to leave Ireland - they live there - and today's USA is not going to hand back enormous tracts of land to native Americans - they live there.

I don't fully understand the politics, but I know that the creation of the State of Israel was set up not just between the British (and allies) and the Jews, but also the way was paved for it as far back as the British Mandate (I believe the UK is responsible for a sizeable majority of political problems in the world today) and the way the Brits left, the Turkish Mandate before that, and a whole lot of political wrangling and even the Crusades before that. We're talking a lot of history that a lot of people don't take into account. (And also let's try not to forget that six million Jews had just been massacred when Israel was created.)

It's also worth remembering the the UN voted overwhelmingly for the creation of the State of Israel, the British left it in a mess, the Arab nations - with armies - attacked the day after the state was created, and it was all downhill from there. The people of Israel were fighting for their lives from the moment they arrived.

I *in no way* support most of the policies of Israel. The Girl and I argue an awful lot about this (and she's fairly liberal on such things too, so I'm clearly a radical freak). Palestine needs a state, Israel needs to be held to account for war crimes (and some Palestinian organizations need to be held to account for terrorism) and a lot needs to change in the region. Israel, specifically its politicians and policy-makers, has a lot to answer for. But I fail to see the point of arguing that the State of Israel should never have been created. Unless, as I said, you're also going to argue that the USA should never have taken land from the native Americans and that Britain should never have walked into Ireland. All true, to some extent, but all more complicated than that too. Especially today.

It's also worth remembering the the UN voted overwhelmingly for the creation of the State of Israel, the British left it in a mess, the Arab nations - with armies - attacked the day after the state was created, and it was all downhill from there. The people of Israel were fighting for their lives from the moment they arrived.

I think that gets forgotten a LOT.

The grossly-simplified "the Arabs hate the Jews and have always hated the Jews and just want to slaughter them to the last man because they always have" simply isn't true. The Arabs were fucked for generations by successive European powers and then one of them finally set up camp and stayed. If Israel were a nation of Presbyterians they'd have been greeted the same way under those circumstances.

I'm not saying there isn't historic emnity between the Jews and the Muslims in that chunk of the world, of course there is. It is not eternal and all-encompasing, however. Nor is it the entirety of this conflict. How does this really important little fact get so easily dismissed?

(I mean, I know how - we want yer white hats and yer black hats and life is so much simpler if y'all just hush and let us have 'em.)