One week on-line and ready for replacement, with barely 170 Comments/Responses when along comes “JustMe” with a series of questions challenging fundamentals to the inevitability to the next and final Final Solution to Christendom’s Jewish Problem!

David, do you accept the idea that if there was an Israel back in the 1930s, the Holocaust could have been mitigated or prevented? (On the opposite side of that question, there is also an idea that Nazi Germany treated the Jews so atrociously because we were a people without a country.)”

So, if you do accept that idea, then what’s there to prevent a future generation of Israelis from helping out Jews in danger and preventing their massacre?”

And here’s another point – Israel was established as a safe haven for Jews. If things get bad in the future, they have an option to flee and receive immediate citizenship and protection, unlike in 1939. So why do you put so much effort into your doomsday scenario? At a certain point, isn’t it the responsibility of those Jews overseas to decide where is best to survive?”

DT: All excellent questions, JustMe. Without a doubt were there a sovereign state of the Jews there would at least have been one country committed to to serve as haven. Of course your question is loaded with “what[-ifs.” Hitler several times suggested releasing German Jews willing to leave, and while I suspect his motives were to put pressure on and embarrass Roosevelt, in particular, then they would at least have had a destination in Israel. But would he have been so willing were there a receiving nation? And if so (the so-called Transfer Agreement) to what end? Recall that as late as 1943 Roosevelt still considered a German victory possible. A state of the Jews would have, to his plan, served well as a “reservation” for Jews, a “collection” point such as the “proposed” Madagascar reservation. A convenient holding cell to be dealt with after the anticipated German victory.

And the “what-ifs” continue. If we accept that Hitler would have provided such a “reservation” then he would not have had to divert military personnel and materiel and transport to fight his war against the Jews and could have concentrated on the war with the “Allies.” This likely would have extended the war (likely lost regarding his overall ambitions due to Operation Barbarossa, invasion of Russia) and possibly have led to standoff in the West.

Lots of “what-ifs.”

A State of Israel in 1945 would certainly have provided sanctuary for the survivors and ended that period in which DPs suffered until 1948.

“what’s there to prevent a future generation of Israelis from helping out Jews in danger and preventing their massacre?” Nothing. And virtually all responsible Israelis with any awareness of history would agree. In my calculus Israel is pivotal in mitigating the next and final Final Solution.

“If things get bad in the future, [the Jewish people] have an option to flee and receive immediate citizenship and protection, unlike in 1939. So why do you put so much effort into your doomsday scenario?” Christendom’s Jewish Problem is eternal, which means Jewish survival is terminal. The Holocaust is the latest in 2000 years of history and Jewish experience. Does this experience mean we Jews have absorbed the obvious lesson? Jewish Denial is the reason I put “so much effort into [that which you describe as my] doomsday scenario.” As you so succinctly put it, “At a certain point, isn’t it the responsiblity of those Jews overseas to decide where is best to survive?”

And I answer, with dread in my heart, YES. Because seventy years after German Jewry in ignorance of the possibility of such as a Final Solution to Christendom’s Jewish Problem insisted on the “exceptionality” of their fatherland and chose to remain, so seventy years later and in full awareness of the likelihood of a Final Solution American Jewry likewise assert the “exceptionality” of our own Jerusalem on the Hill.