But that doesn’t explain why Jews, facing a non-friendly (to say the least) government in Germany wouldn’t have happily migrated to a dozen other countries. Palestine/israel would have been far down the list. The idea that “a Rabbi” in London (especially considering that Judaism doesn’t have a central religious leader like the pope) seems to stretch credulity.
I am not so sure it was unfriendly. After the first window breaking called Crystal Nacht, which was a response to the Judean Boycott , emergency legislation was passed to stop it, otherwise the Haavara contract would not have been made.
There was even talk about using Madagascar as a Jewish Homeland as the previous deal with a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and TransJordan within the Arab League turned to nothing due to weak British action regarding the emergence of the Kingdom of Jordan.
So, I don't know. It may be considered hostile. On the other hand, having your own land and being boss there without Jew supremacy (Banking, News, Theater, Law, sciences, etc) is, based on the idea within that time frame of "every people have the right to choose their own destiny, not totally unreasonable.
And the Haavara deal was a deal that benefited both parties to the contract.
Of Kissinger it is said he fled Germany in 1938. The funny part is, emigration was positively viewed. And the details of the story show Kissinger went away with the blessing of the German Government. And they even worked with the Mossad precursor to achieve what was necessary.
The peace treaty of Versailles simply drew arbitrary lines on a map, in service of Empire building. And here we also find the root causes of dissension in many areas currently having to deal with political instability. It seems to me the IDEA, flowing from the sovereignty of every man and woman, that a people contain the highest form of sovereignty, and thus are perfectly set to choose their own destiny was not a bad idea.
Today this is replaced by a Rules based international order. The rules are made by the power structures behind this idea, running roughshod over the question of sovereignty of the people.
But that doesn’t explain why Jews, facing a non-friendly (to say the least) government in Germany wouldn’t have happily migrated to a dozen other countries. Palestine/israel would have been far down the list. The idea that “a Rabbi” in London (especially considering that Judaism doesn’t have a central religious leader like the pope) seems to stretch credulity.
I am not so sure it was unfriendly. After the first window breaking called Crystal Nacht, which was a response to the Judean Boycott , emergency legislation was passed to stop it, otherwise the Haavara contract would not have been made.
There was even talk about using Madagascar as a Jewish Homeland as the previous deal with a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and TransJordan within the Arab League turned to nothing due to weak British action regarding the emergence of the Kingdom of Jordan.
So, I don't know. It may be considered hostile. On the other hand, having your own land and being boss there without Jew supremacy (Banking, News, Theater, Law, sciences, etc) is, based on the idea within that time frame of "every people have the right to choose their own destiny, not totally unreasonable.
And the Haavara deal was a deal that benefited both parties to the contract.
Of Kissinger it is said he fled Germany in 1938. The funny part is, emigration was positively viewed. And the details of the story show Kissinger went away with the blessing of the German Government. And they even worked with the Mossad precursor to achieve what was necessary.
The peace treaty of Versailles simply drew arbitrary lines on a map, in service of Empire building. And here we also find the root causes of dissension in many areas currently having to deal with political instability. It seems to me the IDEA, flowing from the sovereignty of every man and woman, that a people contain the highest form of sovereignty, and thus are perfectly set to choose their own destiny was not a bad idea.
Today this is replaced by a Rules based international order. The rules are made by the power structures behind this idea, running roughshod over the question of sovereignty of the people.