Seems like people assume that end of WW2 signaled some magic switch in European antisemitism.
Jews often couldn’t return home, because it was either destroyed or other people settled here. Some stories ended in murders of said Jews trying to return home.
Israel at that point had to happen, because nobody really cared about what happens to Jews now, and nobody really cared to bring people like Adolf Eichmann to justice.
That said, modern Israel is a fascist country. But those that doubt reasons for its very creation are absolutely misled.
Israel didn’t ‘have’ to happen at that point. Israel ‘happening’ has much more to do with Interwar politics, not WW2 - the vast majority of those present in Israel at the date of its creation were those who engaged in colonization projects during the British Mandate of Palestine, with Jewish survivors of WW2 largely not emigrating until after the state of Israel had been formed.
You can argue that the desire to escape European antisemitism was valid, but Zionism, as a project, was never all that wholesome in practical terms. From the start of the British Mandate after WW1, Zionist settlers were very clear that they envisioned their colonization in terms that European colonizers would have been familiar with - the suppression of the indigenous population under the presumption that they brought ‘real’ and racially superior civilization - even though the post-WW1 world order had become increasingly hostile to such notions even from Christian Europeans.
I do not doubt that Zionism as a project is evil, with parts that go about removing Arabs from Palestine.
But I still doubt it would succeed as it did if interwar and WW2 antisemitism spike didn’t happen (and not like it was all good pre-WW1, Russian Beilis trial as prime example).
It “had” to happen simply because everyone was keen on giving Jews ample reasons not to stay where they were chronically unsafe.
Israel at that point had to happen, because nobody really cared about what happens to Jews now, and nobody really cared to bring people like Adolf Eichmann to justice.
So you’re either woefully misinformed or defending the Nakba. Which is it?
Seems like people assume that end of WW2 signaled some magic switch in European antisemitism.
Jews often couldn’t return home, because it was either destroyed or other people settled here. Some stories ended in murders of said Jews trying to return home.
Israel at that point had to happen, because nobody really cared about what happens to Jews now, and nobody really cared to bring people like Adolf Eichmann to justice.
That said, modern Israel is a fascist country. But those that doubt reasons for its very creation are absolutely misled.
Israel didn’t ‘have’ to happen at that point. Israel ‘happening’ has much more to do with Interwar politics, not WW2 - the vast majority of those present in Israel at the date of its creation were those who engaged in colonization projects during the British Mandate of Palestine, with Jewish survivors of WW2 largely not emigrating until after the state of Israel had been formed.
You can argue that the desire to escape European antisemitism was valid, but Zionism, as a project, was never all that wholesome in practical terms. From the start of the British Mandate after WW1, Zionist settlers were very clear that they envisioned their colonization in terms that European colonizers would have been familiar with - the suppression of the indigenous population under the presumption that they brought ‘real’ and racially superior civilization - even though the post-WW1 world order had become increasingly hostile to such notions even from Christian Europeans.
I do not doubt that Zionism as a project is evil, with parts that go about removing Arabs from Palestine.
But I still doubt it would succeed as it did if interwar and WW2 antisemitism spike didn’t happen (and not like it was all good pre-WW1, Russian Beilis trial as prime example).
It “had” to happen simply because everyone was keen on giving Jews ample reasons not to stay where they were chronically unsafe.
So you’re either woefully misinformed or defending the Nakba. Which is it?