4 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoAnd yet, the commenter's primary point still stands.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y agoWe'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.