"On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million. That would mean the end of Israel."
Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state under George Bush, suggested in 2008 Palestinian refugees could be resettled in South America. "Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind," she said. "Chile, Argentina, etc."
I am actually without words, beyond that exhausted phrase "without words." We live in an unspeakably ugly time.
LESS: How did you hit on that? (Madagascar Plan?)
ReplyDeleteEICHMANN: Emigration had dropped to practically nothing as a result of the war. If you don't mind my going back again: Theresienstadt had not been a
solution, and the Nisko on the San experiment had failed, too. Then the French campaign got under way, and that gave me new hope of at least a
temporary solution. I remembered Theodor Herzl's efforts to bring about a Jewish state, described by Adolf Böhm, and that at one time Herzl had
considered plans for Madagascar. I also remembered that in this connection he had met with considerable opposition in his own ranks. I said to myself: It's all the same to me how we get soil and living space, the main thing is to do something. The situation was getting more and more acute as the Jews were driven out of one part of the country after another, on the one hand by
legal restrictions, and on the other by party pressure on the non-Jewish population to boycott the Jews. It was plain as day, you didn't have to be a genius to see that if things went on that way, the result would be turmoil, the nature of which I really didn't foresee at the time. I certainly suspected nothing like what happened later on. But something had to be done, I said to myself, because a boiler full of water, with a fire under it and no safety valve, is bound to explode. I, in my little job, wanted to help look for that valve, and it seemed to me that my efforts to find ways and means of resttlement were just such a safety valve. The Madagascar plan struck me as a new hope for a solution.
Monroe Doctrine, ergo NIMBY?
ReplyDelete/
Because, you know, it is not only the needs of the market that atomize and diasporize, but the needs of the geopolitical strategies that result from the needs of the market.
/
We could give it a catchy name, as long as we remember "Oklahoma" has already been taken.
Ugh, even a logical frame for arguing against it just breaks down.