5 ms·

"Not to disregard the main claim" is what I started my comment with. Not sure why you keep reiterating it when I just pointed that native population at the ti

by almog 2y ago

"Not to disregard the main claim" is what I started my comment with. Not sure why you keep reiterating it when I just pointed that native population at the time (when Einstein addressed it) is estimated to be more than double what you stated.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
They weren't native. They were almost all Europeans and Americans who had just recently arrived.
- almog 2y ago
  And yet they were estimated to be over 11%, not less than 5% or less 8% when Einstein addressed it. That's all I was saying, you quoted a wrong stat, which IMO is independent of the other statement you made yet you keep repeating the other statement.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    If you really want to obsess over a few percent, the actual percentage of the population that was Jewish before the Zionist movement began was 3%.
    - almog 2y ago
      >If you really want to obsess over a few percent You brought up the percentage of Jewish population, not me. I just pointed out your mistake. Now you're suggesting it's not important by claiming I'm "obsessing over it"? If in fact the size of Jewish population at the time isn't relevant to the point you're trying to make, why would you even bring it in the first place? P.S. you again quote a wrong stat. The Zionism movement is considered to have started on 1897. At the time (1890), Jewish population was estimated to be 7.9%, not 3%.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Certainly the ballpark size of the ca 1897 population is relevant. Just not the fine grain of whether it was 3 or 5 or 8 percent. Either way, the commenter's salient point still stands: like all Zionists at every point in the history of the movement, regardless of subvariant -- Einstein never paid enough attention to the rights of the non-Jewish native population of region (being variously an absolutely overwhelming majority of the population up until about 1936, to a still thoroughly solid majority until 1948).
        almog 2y ago
        > the commenter's salient point still stands Was I at any point arguing with the main premise he tried to make? No, and and I emphasized this a couple of times. > Certainly the ballpark size of the ca 1897 population is relevant. Sure, it is relevant to many things, however, the number that caught my eye (see my first comment here) was mentioning Einstein's blind spot and other "in his (Einstein's) time" yet continues to quote a figure that was false even when Einstein was but a baby, let alone "in his time" which I take as when he published his views on Zionism (on 1931). There is no ballpark similarity in numbers _here_, which is what I commented on. It's okay to get that number wrong but when someone points it out, I think a reasonable thing would be to either explain why the numbers do not matter in this case the explain why if did they chose to include that figure in the first place, or if the numbers do matter explain how it changes the rest of their argument.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        And yet, the commenter's primary point still stands.
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        We've already established that the number was true when Einstein was a baby (about 3% of the population of Palestine was Jewish in 1879). You're pointing to later figures on the number of Jews in Palestine to argue that the native Jewish population was substantially larger. The problem there is that you're considering European Jews who had just recently immigrated to Palestine (or at best, who were born to European parents) to be part of the "native" population. The basic conflict in 1948 was between an overwhelmingly Arab native population and a European Jewish population. There was also a tiny Jewish population with mich deeper roots in Palestine, but they were actually very skeptical of Zionism.

by almog 2y ago

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

They weren't native. They were almost all Europeans and Americans who had just recently arrived.

almog 2y ago
And yet they were estimated to be over 11%, not less than 5% or less 8% when Einstein addressed it. That's all I was saying, you quoted a wrong stat, which IMO is independent of the other statement you made yet you keep repeating the other statement.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  If you really want to obsess over a few percent, the actual percentage of the population that was Jewish before the Zionist movement began was 3%.
  - almog 2y ago
    >If you really want to obsess over a few percent You brought up the percentage of Jewish population, not me. I just pointed out your mistake. Now you're suggesting it's not important by claiming I'm "obsessing over it"? If in fact the size of Jewish population at the time isn't relevant to the point you're trying to make, why would you even bring it in the first place? P.S. you again quote a wrong stat. The Zionism movement is considered to have started on 1897. At the time (1890), Jewish population was estimated to be 7.9%, not 3%.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Certainly the ballpark size of the ca 1897 population is relevant. Just not the fine grain of whether it was 3 or 5 or 8 percent. Either way, the commenter's salient point still stands: like all Zionists at every point in the history of the movement, regardless of subvariant -- Einstein never paid enough attention to the rights of the non-Jewish native population of region (being variously an absolutely overwhelming majority of the population up until about 1936, to a still thoroughly solid majority until 1948).
      - almog 2y ago
        > the commenter's salient point still stands Was I at any point arguing with the main premise he tried to make? No, and and I emphasized this a couple of times. > Certainly the ballpark size of the ca 1897 population is relevant. Sure, it is relevant to many things, however, the number that caught my eye (see my first comment here) was mentioning Einstein's blind spot and other "in his (Einstein's) time" yet continues to quote a figure that was false even when Einstein was but a baby, let alone "in his time" which I take as when he published his views on Zionism (on 1931). There is no ballpark similarity in numbers _here_, which is what I commented on. It's okay to get that number wrong but when someone points it out, I think a reasonable thing would be to either explain why the numbers do not matter in this case the explain why if did they chose to include that figure in the first place, or if the numbers do matter explain how it changes the rest of their argument.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        And yet, the commenter's primary point still stands.
        DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        We've already established that the number was true when Einstein was a baby (about 3% of the population of Palestine was Jewish in 1879). You're pointing to later figures on the number of Jews in Palestine to argue that the native Jewish population was substantially larger. The problem there is that you're considering European Jews who had just recently immigrated to Palestine (or at best, who were born to European parents) to be part of the "native" population. The basic conflict in 1948 was between an overwhelmingly Arab native population and a European Jewish population. There was also a tiny Jewish population with mich deeper roots in Palestine, but they were actually very skeptical of Zionism.