Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Huh, that sounds a lot like "from the river to the sea". [View all]Eko
(8,871 posts)15. Its nothing like it except for the part where they wont take them in.
One can easily say that the reason Arab countries wont take in Palestinians is indeed because of the fear of Hamas or other terrorist groups increasing in strength in their countries and destabilizing them. One could also say that the reason for the countries not taking in Jews was because of racism that included threats to national security just like the Arab countries of now.
In June 1940, seventy-one percent of Americans thought Germany had already started to organize a fifth column in the United States. Roosevelt warned that even Jewish refugees could become a threat, aiding Nazi Germany in exchange for the lives of loved ones held hostage in Europe. The FBI warned Americans to be on guard.
The State Department instituted additional restrictions on immigration in 1941, citing national security concerns. Among these restrictions was the announcement that any refugee with close family still in enemy territory would be ineligible for a US immigration visa. American consulates closed in Nazi-occupied territory in July 1941, cutting off many applicants from the US diplomats issuing visas. At the same time, the State Department announced that all visa applicants had to be approved by an interdepartmental visa review committee in Washington, DC. This decision further delayed the departure of those refugees who had managed to make it to southern France or Lisbon, Portugal, the only places in Europe from which they could still escape.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united-states-and-the-refugee-crisis-1938-41
I think that kinda makes your point that "No country unwilling to take Jewish refugees at the end of WWII was concerned that they would get dragged into further wars due to Jewish terrorist attacks against other countries from within their borders." historically incorrect.
Lastly I cant say if that was always Israels plan. Proving intent is always a hard thing to do and I tend to shy away from that argument. It's much easier to argue that if that was not their intent then the results seem to be trending to the same. In the end that is what matters.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
You should just be able to agree that it is a horrible argument without having to turn around and attack someone else.
Eko
Dec 28
#9
You didn't make much of a case, and one extremely tenuous claim does not comprise "reasons".
lapucelle
Dec 29
#11
Well I will bow to you as to the exact time frame I was talking about when I did not give an exact time frame.
Eko
Dec 29
#37
Yes, I'm sure about it. "Someone said something half a century ago" is not convincing evidence
lapucelle
Dec 29
#17
I think you can be against the smuggling of arms to a terrorist origination which was why the area was cleared
Eko
Dec 29
#38