Hi neolib; Re: "I still maintain that there is no modern equivalent of the creation of the state of Israel, and I really do think most of the problems there stem from this act not being carried out carefully enough. I do think the idea was OK, but execution of it resulted in many problems which plague the region today."
Nadine is quite right when she notes that there were massive population displacements as a result of WW2 (and WW1 as well). These are facts of history.
The creation of the state of Israel is different in that it was not enforced by the big dogs. That is, the awarding of Alsace-Loraine to France was enforced by France, a major power. The awarding of East Prussia to Poland, and East Poland to the USSR was enforced by the Soviet Union. The transfer of various islands in the Pacific was enforced by the United States.
By contrast, the creation of Israel was enforced only by the Israelis. Not being a big dog, they have had great difficulty making it stick.
The human race argues with each other on a basis of what is "right", but relations between nations are decided on the basis of "might". In pointing out these differences I do not mean to justify them, or to unjustify them (whatever that means). I mean instead to explain them, that is, to explain why it is that there isn't much fighting going on in former East Prussia.
The reason is not because Germans are inherently more peaceful than the Arabs, but instead because they were crushed militarily and put into a position of having to accept unconditional surrender. None of the Arab states has ever been forced to unconditionally surrender to Israel. Israel does not have the forces required to obtain that sort of military victory. (By the way, in the present international arrangement, nukes are quite useless.)
-- Carl |
