'Made in Israel settlements'

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

And as has been pointed out before, this will likely lead to the Israeli companies who employ Palestinian workers in the West Bank to close those factories and move to within the 1948 markings, causing a loss of jobs for those workers.

Frankly it saddens me to see pro-Israel people resort to claims such as "Arabs will lose their jobs if you boycott products from J&S" in order to justify the Jewish presence in Yehuda and Shomron and in order to denounce (quasi-)boycotts against Jewish companies in J&S. I mean, you're factually 100% right and I won't argue about that, and we absolutely agree about the fact that this boycott is bad, but I'm afraid this argument will convince absolutely nobody. The symbolic value of this quasi-boycott obviously trumps the (negligible) effects of it, and both the EU and the PA seem interested in these symbolics rather than the effects, so continuing to argue about its effectiveness is like speaking another language, which is generally not fruitful in advocating your cause.

Israel failing to focus on the reasons why this is symbolically wrong rather than effectively is illustrative of the failure of Israel's side (StandWithUs, Israel Project etc. etc. etc.) to understand what this conflict is essentially about, and that's partly because the political elites themselves have forgotten this -- the mainstream right (i.e. Likud) much more than the mainstream left, because Likud's position is as intellectually dishonest as it gets, even if I prefer it to the intellectually honest yet anti-Zionist position of the mainstream left. We need to understand what our cause is essentially about, and it's not about democracy, Arab jobs, hummus or startups (as much as I like all of them) -- it is about Jewish rights to Israel, and in this case specifically to Judea and Samaria. We have a right to be there and this is the argument we should present as convincingly as possible to the world.

I see what you're saying, but I feel like that's a different issue that we need to debate separately.

What I want to focus on when it comes to this specific issue of the European labeling and possible boycott is that they very clearly care more about hurting Israel than they do about helping the people they claim to be standing for. In fact, they're willing to actively hurt them if it hurts Israel too.

[DavidB.]

I see what you're saying, but I feel like that's a different issue that we need to debate separately.

What I want to focus on when it comes to this specific issue of the European labeling and possible boycott is that they very clearly care more about hurting Israel than they do about helping the people they claim to be standing for. In fact, they're willing to actively hurt them if it hurts Israel too.

They know. And they don't care about it. Frankly almost nobody does. Why do they not care? Because they think defying Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria (and, in the long run, to all of Israel) is symbolically right and will in the long run lead to justice "on the ground".

And even though I very clearly understand your point, this is exactly why we cannot discuss these issues separately. We need to speak the same language as the people who constantly deny Jewish claims to Israel. We need to tell people why embracing Jewish claims to Israel, to Judea, to Samaria, and to Jerusalem is the only just thing to do. We need to tell the world the real story, the story of a people that came back to its land rather than "invaded" it. The story of Jewish continuity in Zion and continuity of longing for Zion.

As long as we keep arguing that boycotting Israel or parts of Israel is bad because of Arab jobs, as long as we keep telling people why Israeli startups are great while people are interested in justice and the other side tells its story along the lines of justice (even though they clearly advocate a disgusting distortion of that), we fail to see what this issue is essentially about: our claims to the land, our claims to live on the land. And if we are to lose "the PR war", it is because people on our side are too shy to tell people the most beautiful and compelling story there is.

(This is also why it is Jews who lead charters of JVP and SJP. There is one thing they want: justice. For if you are an 18-year-old college kid, you want the world to be just, and you see it as your mission to contribute to that. So they feel justice is important (they might even connect this to concepts like tikkun olam which they have heard about in Reform shul, probably without understanding it), and they are already interested in the issue because they are Jewish. The only thing the Israeli side can talk about is fycking startups and beautiful beaches and democracy. And then they meet this person talking about their grandparents being forced to move from Ramla. It sounds compelling, and all of a sudden it seems like Israel's existence is based on a big lie. They have never learned what our story is about, who the Maccabees were, who the first Zionists were, what value Israel has for Jews, because if you are not raised religious (and I wasn't) you're probably not gonna learn it (and even if you are raised religious you're probably not going to learn it because their education is often sh*t, too). And all we keep doing is talk about Israel's prosperity, the beautiful Ayalon highway, hummus, LGBT rights, and "eventually a two-state solution but not now". Most people who do this are honest and they mean it, but all of Israel's beauty and modernity only makes the country look uglier to the college kid who believes the story they heard. It is one of the tragedies of our time that Jewish kids our age are not taught our story of justice, the real story. I am all for coexistence, for startups, for democracy, but I argue along the lines of justice for the Jewish people, not on the basis of the Shoa or on the basis of "indefensible borders", but on the basis of our ties to the land, our history, present, and future in the land. A future based on coexistence and justice. This is the compelling story people need to hear about.)

[MalaspinaGold]

I see what you're saying, but I feel like that's a different issue that we need to debate separately.

What I want to focus on when it comes to this specific issue of the European labeling and possible boycott is that they very clearly care more about hurting Israel than they do about helping the people they claim to be standing for. In fact, they're willing to actively hurt them if it hurts Israel too.

They know. And they don't care about it. Frankly almost nobody does. Why do they not care? Because they think defying Jewish claims to Judea and Samaria (and, in the long run, to all of Israel) is symbolically right and will in the long run lead to justice "on the ground".

And even though I very clearly understand your point, this is exactly why we cannot discuss these issues separately. We need to speak the same language as the people who constantly deny Jewish claims to Israel. We need to tell people why embracing Jewish claims to Israel, to Judea, to Samaria, and to Jerusalem is the only just thing to do. We need to tell the world the real story, the story of a people that came back to its land rather than "invaded" it. The story of Jewish continuity in Zion and continuity of longing for Zion.

As long as we keep arguing that boycotting Israel or parts of Israel is bad because of Arab jobs, as long as we keep telling people why Israeli startups are great while people are interested in justice and the other side tells its story along the lines of justice (even though they clearly advocate a disgusting distortion of that), we fail to see what this issue is essentially about: our claims to the land, our claims to live on the land. And if we are to lose "the PR war", it is because people on our side are too shy to tell people the most beautiful and compelling story there is.

(This is also why it is Jews who lead charters of JVP and SJP. There is one thing they want: justice. For if you are an 18-year-old college kid, you want the world to be just, and you see it as your mission to contribute to that. So they feel justice is important (they might even connect this to concepts like tikkun olam which they have heard about in Reform shul, probably without understanding it), and they are already interested in the issue because they are Jewish. The only thing the Israeli side can talk about is fycking startups and beautiful beaches and democracy. And then they meet this person talking about their grandparents being forced to move from Ramla. It sounds compelling, and all of a sudden it seems like Israel's existence is based on a big lie. They have never learned what our story is about, who the Maccabees were, who the first Zionists were, what value Israel has for Jews, because if you are not raised religious (and I wasn't) you're probably not gonna learn it (and even if you are raised religious you're probably not going to learn it because their education is often sh*t, too). And all we keep doing is talk about Israel's prosperity, the beautiful Ayalon highway, hummus, LGBT rights, and "eventually a two-state solution but not now". Most people who do this are honest and they mean it, but all of Israel's beauty and modernity only makes the country look uglier to the college kid who believes the story they heard. It is one of the tragedies of our time that Jewish kids our age are not taught our story of justice, the real story. I am all for coexistence, for startups, for democracy, but I argue along the lines of justice for the Jewish people, not on the basis of the Shoa or on the basis of "indefensible borders", but on the basis of our ties to the land, our history, present, and future in the land. A future based on coexistence and justice. This is the compelling story people need to hear about.)

Again, none of this is really about Jewish rights to the land. I'm sure EU bureaucrats couldn't care one way or the other. The problem is that settlements are in violation of international law. This is solvable in one or two ways: get out of the occupied territories, or do what you're supposed to do when you've taken over a territory, namely give full citizenship rights to everyone who lives there. In other words, put up or shut up, none of this inbetween bull****.

[DavidB.]

Again, none of this is really about Jewish rights to the land. I'm sure EU bureaucrats couldn't care one way or the other. The problem is that settlements are in violation of international law. This is solvable in one or two ways: get out of the occupied territories, or do what you're supposed to do when you've taken over a territory, namely give full citizenship rights to everyone who lives there. In other words, put up or shut up, none of this inbetween bull****.

Not true. The debate about the Israeli-Arab conflict goes much further than international law, not solely because international law is only relevant if 1) deemed relevant and 2) the actors who interpret it matter. Nobody really bases their position in the Israeli-Arab conflict on international law, not even actors in international relations. International law is only the framework that actors use to implement what they think is just (or strategically beneficial). People base their position in the Israeli-Arab conflict on what they think is just. The last part of your post is your sincerely held opinion, but it is based on your assessment of what is just, not on what is international law.

[MalaspinaGold]

Again, none of this is really about Jewish rights to the land. I'm sure EU bureaucrats couldn't care one way or the other. The problem is that settlements are in violation of international law. This is solvable in one or two ways: get out of the occupied territories, or do what you're supposed to do when you've taken over a territory, namely give full citizenship rights to everyone who lives there. In other words, put up or shut up, none of this inbetween bull****.

Not true. The debate about the Israeli-Arab conflict goes much further than international law, not solely because international law is only relevant if 1) deemed relevant and 2) the actors who interpret it matter. Nobody really bases their position in the Israeli-Arab conflict on international law, not even actors in international relations. International law is only the framework that actors use to implement what they think is just. People base their position in the Israeli-Arab conflict on what they think is just. The last part of your post is your sincerely held opinion, but it is based on your assessment of what is just, not on what is international law.

Now true international law isn't worth the paper its written on and hasn't ever been. My point is that the reason the EU is taking these actions is not because they somehow don't believe in Jewish rights to the land (they really couldn't care much either way), but because Palestinians in the West Bank do not have rights, most importantly voting rights. Even if you managed to convince the Europeans of the Jewish connections to the West Bank, their logic would still stand.

[DavidB.]

Now true international law isn't worth the paper its written on and hasn't ever been. My point is that the reason the EU is taking these actions is not because they somehow don't believe in Jewish rights to the land (they really couldn't care much either way), but because Palestinians in the West Bank do not have rights, most importantly voting rights. Even if you managed to convince the Europeans of the Jewish connections to the West Bank, their logic would still stand.

Glad we agree about the (lack of) real importance of international law. However, I do not necessarily agree with the rest of your post. If one convinces Europeans and Americans that Jewish presence in J&S is just, the problem of J&S Arabs being "stateless" obviously still stands and Europeans/Americans will continue to find their situation important, but at least it would lead to a better understanding of the fact that both groups have a legitimate claim to the entire land. And if people were to understand this, Europeans and Americans might pressure Israel to giving Arabs voting rights, which I could understand, but they would not pressure Israel toward ceding J&S, which would then be considered a legitimate part of Israel -- and pressuring Israel toward ceding J&S and moving toward an imposed two-state "solution" is obviously what Europe's labelling policy is about.

[MalaspinaGold]

Now true international law isn't worth the paper its written on and hasn't ever been. My point is that the reason the EU is taking these actions is not because they somehow don't believe in Jewish rights to the land (they really couldn't care much either way), but because Palestinians in the West Bank do not have rights, most importantly voting rights. Even if you managed to convince the Europeans of the Jewish connections to the West Bank, their logic would still stand.

Glad we agree about the (lack of) real importance of international law. However, I do not necessarily agree with the rest of your post. If one convinces Europeans and Americans that Jewish presence in J&S is just, the problem of J&S Arabs being "stateless" obviously still stands and Europeans/Americans will continue to find their situation important, but at least it would lead to a better understanding of the fact that both groups have a legitimate claim to the entire land. And if people were to understand this, Europeans and Americans might pressure Israel to giving Arabs voting rights, which I could understand, but they would not pressure Israel toward ceding J&S, which would then be considered a legitimate part of Israel -- and pressuring Israel toward ceding J&S and moving toward an imposed two-state "solution" is obviously what Europe's labelling policy is about.

Pretty sure Americans and Europeans have better things to worry about .
(Now obviously one could ask why are they bothering with labeling then, it's much harder to get someone to stop wasting their time on something than to waste time on it.)

And EU pressuring for voting rights for Palestinians is well and good, but do you realize what would happen to anyone who dared advocate for that? It wouldn't be pretty.

[DavidB.]

Pretty sure Americans and Europeans have better things to worry about .
(Now obviously one could ask why are they bothering with labeling then, it's much harder to get someone to stop wasting their time on something than to waste time on it.)

And EU pressuring for voting rights for Palestinians is well and good, but do you realize what would happen to anyone who dared advocate for that? It wouldn't be pretty.

Well, let me make this clear: I am obviously not in favor of currently advocating that, and I am certainly not in favor of the US and the EU acting like colonialists and pressuring Israel to do so (I think both peoples, not the EU and the US, should decide to a common future in one state). The point is that I would consider such pressure a far less harmless outcome than the endless nonsense about ceding J&S, the nonsense about a two-state "solution" that would neither lead to justice nor to peace being the panacea for all of the Middle East's problems.

And whereas Americans and Europeans certainly do have better things to worry about (and they better start doing so), the fact is that they are worrying about the Israeli-Arab conflict, which affects Israel. It will, indeed, be too hard to stop them from doing so. That is why I want them to have a better understanding of Jewish rights, which would lead them to expressing their worry over the current status-quo in ways that are less harmless and more prone to lead to justice in the future (i.e. toward a one-state solution instead of a two-state "solution").

(But I'm off to the gym now, reply to this thread later.)

[MalaspinaGold]

Pretty sure Americans and Europeans have better things to worry about .
(Now obviously one could ask why are they bothering with labeling then, it's much harder to get someone to stop wasting their time on something than to waste time on it.)

And EU pressuring for voting rights for Palestinians is well and good, but do you realize what would happen to anyone who dared advocate for that? It wouldn't be pretty.

Well, let me make this clear: I am obviously not in favor of currently advocating that, and I am certainly not in favor of the US and the EU acting like colonialists and pressuring Israel to do so (I think both peoples, not the EU and the US, should decide to a common future in one state). The point is that I would consider such pressure a far less harmless outcome than the endless nonsense about ceding J&S, the nonsense about a two-state "solution" that would neither lead to justice nor to peace being the panacea for all of the Middle East's problems.

And whereas Americans and Europeans certainly do have better things to worry about (and they better start doing so), the fact is that they are worrying about the Israeli-Arab conflict, which affects Israel. It will, indeed, be too hard to stop them from doing so. That is why I want them to have a better understanding of Jewish rights, which would lead them to expressing their worry over the current status-quo in ways that are less harmless and more prone to lead to justice in the future (i.e. toward a one-state solution instead of a two-state "solution").

(But I'm off to the gym now, reply to this thread later.)

I'l believe it when I see it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

it is about Jewish rights to Israel, and in this case specifically to Judea and Samaria. We have a right to be there and this is the argument we should present as convincingly as possible to the world.

Then you'll fail to be convincing.  That right you trumpet is based upon a particular interpretation of an ancient text that itself is no longer accepted by many in the developed world as being inerrant truth, the US and Russia excepted, and even there you're fighting an uphill battle.  Or is there some non-theological basis for a Jewish "right" to the West Bank you were referring to?

[DavidB.]

Then you'll fail to be convincing.  That right you trumpet is based upon a particular interpretation of an ancient text that itself is no longer accepted by many in the developed world as being inerrant truth, the US and Russia excepted, and even then you're fighting an uphill battle.  Or is there some non-theological basis for a Jewish "right" to the West Bank you were referring to?

Again, I'm not going to discuss Zionism with you since it has been abundantly clear to me that you are someone who is very disrespectful to Jews in general, regardless of Zionism/Israel (well, save for the "I'm Jewish and that's it"-crowd), and to me in particular. I wonder if that is derived from religion or that it's just you. However, I do not waste my time arguing with SJP people and similarly I will not waste my time arguing with you.

However, my point is not derived from a "religious" tradition but from the fact that Jews are indigenous to Israel. You do not have to be religious in order to relate to indigenous rights issues.

[Blair]

Hopefully this isn't one of the tickboxes on the Samson option

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, I'm not going to discuss Zionism with you since it has been abundantly clear to me that you are someone who is very disrespectful to Jews in general, regardless of Zionism/Israel (well, save for the "I'm Jewish and that's it"-crowd), and to me in particular. I wonder if that is derived from religion or that it's just you. However, I do not waste my time arguing with SJP people and similarly I will not waste my time arguing with you.

I am disrespectful of Zionism when it claims the "right" to take land from others based upon ancient settlement practices.  I don't think any group has it.  On the other hand, please don't lump me in with the SJP crowd.  Leaving aside the fact that I think their tactics aren't going to achieve their goal, trying to rehash history is something I think is better left for fiction than politics.  How we got to the current sorry situation is fairly unimportant compared to how to get out of it.  I'll admit that I fail to see a good way forward, but doubling down on settlement construction is an obvious bad way forward.

However, my point is not derived from a "religious" tradition but from the fact that Jews are indigenous to Israel. You do not have to be religious in order to relate to indigenous rights issues.

Maybe you can come up with a non-religious rationale that validates the right of Jews to move into the West Bank while at the same time denying the right of Arabs descended from those who fled in 1948-49 to return to inside the 1949-1967, but I doubt it.  Without such a rationale, you'll never be able to convince those of a non-theological bent that Israelis have a right of return while the Arabs do not.

[ag]

A very reasonable measure for fighting contraband and making sure everybody pays the customs dues they should. Nothing really to discuss.  Though, of course, it would make even more sense to require export permits from the appropriate ministry in Ramallah.

[MalaspinaGold]

Really loving the tears of the zionazi crowd right here.

Keep doing what you're doing, Europe!

If only you were so excited about fighting actual monsters, such as ISIS, rather then attacking the Israeli Right-wing.

He's an anti-semite who mocked the idea that Europe was a dangerous place for Jews in the years after the Holocaust, so keep that in mind.

Ah, "anti-semite."

Look, I know zionazis such as yourself have a hard time making logical arguments grounded in reality, but I care far more for the Jewish people than you.

Stop

[ag]

Really loving the tears of the zionazi crowd right here.

Keep doing what you're doing, Europe!

If only you were so excited about fighting actual monsters, such as ISIS, rather then attacking the Israeli Right-wing.

He's an anti-semite who mocked the idea that Europe was a dangerous place for Jews in the years after the Holocaust, so keep that in mind.

Ah, "anti-semite."

Look, I know zionazis such as yourself have a hard time making logical arguments grounded in reality, but I care far more for the Jewish people than you.

Stop

You want me to start?

[DavidB.]

Without such a rationale, you'll never be able to convince those of a non-theological bent that Israelis have a right of return while the Arabs do not.

Which is, therefore, also not something you have seen me saying. I am getting so sick of the people who deliberately misrepresent my arguments, which is something I have experienced on Atlas far too often lately. Seriously. I sometimes do this in the heat of the debate if I disagree with a politician, but doing this to another poster is the height (low?) of disrespect.

(This is not an invitation to futher debate with you -- on the contrary, it reminds me of what kind of person you are -- but rather a rebuttal of you misrepresenting my views.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll admit to being surprised at you being willing to accept an Arab right of return, which is why I assumed you would be against it. Whatever the justice of such a right may be, the Israeli right is correct that it would mean the end of the State of Israel.

The demographic impact of an Arab return eliminates the possibility of a democratic Jewish state in the area.  Either the Arabs would have to be disenfranchised, it which case it wouldn't be democratic or the Jews would be in the minority politically as well as demographically, in which case I can't see how the goal of a Jewish homeland would be achieved, especially with the tension between the two sides after close to a century of conflict.  While in many respects a peaceful one-state solution with a Jewish minority in the area would be a utopian ideal, beneficial to both sides, I don't see it as achievable now, and it hasn't been achievable since the 1920's, if it ever was.

Even a two-state solution with free return for both sides would require an Israel smaller than the 1949-1967 borders, and maybe even one smaller than the 1948 partition borders to have Israel be a Jewish majority state, and again, the Israeli right is correct that such borders would be indefensible.

Maybe you see a way to square the circle and make all sides happy in a peaceful multiethnic Palestine, be it with one or two states, but I just don't see it as being possible now, and I doubt it ever was.

[MalaspinaGold]

I'll admit to being surprised at you being willing to accept an Arab right of return, which is why I assumed you would be against it. Whatever the justice of such a right may be, the Israeli right is correct that it would mean the end of the State of Israel.

The demographic impact of an Arab return eliminates the possibility of a democratic Jewish state in the area.  Either the Arabs would have to be disenfranchised, it which case it wouldn't be democratic or the Jews would be in the minority politically as well as demographically, in which case I can't see how the goal of a Jewish homeland would be achieved, especially with the tension between the two sides after close to a century of conflict.  While in many respects a peaceful one-state solution with a Jewish minority in the area would be a utopian ideal, beneficial to both sides, I don't see it as achievable now, and it hasn't been achievable since the 1920's, if it ever was.

Even a two-state solution with free return for both sides would require an Israel smaller than the 1949-1967 borders, and maybe even one smaller than the 1948 partition borders to have Israel be a Jewish majority state, and again, the Israeli right is correct that such borders would be indefensible.

Maybe you see a way to square the circle and make all sides happy in a peaceful multiethnic Palestine, be it with one or two states, but I just don't see it as being possible now, and I doubt it ever was.

Funnily enough, I just met with a settler today over lunch, and started discussing this very issue with him. He said that he would rather live under a state called Palestine with a "Palestinian" flag, but nevertheless imbibed deep Jewish values, then see a two-state solution. He further said that any solution must see the annexation of "Judea and Samaria", Gaza, and a Palestinian Right of Return. Now, tbh, I don't see how all this wouldn't go up in flames like a Roman Candle, but this guy's job literally is bringing together the "hilltop youth" (yes, that hilltop youth), and the more radical Palestinian youth, so he would have more first-hand experience than any of us.

(Needless to say I still oppose both a one-state solution and a right of return for materialist reasons).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How exactly was Europe at any point post-WWII more dangerous than Israel for Jews?

Israel actually had a war and Europe didn't. Germany was under Allied military rule and strict Denazification. The largest Jewish population was in France which still has the world's third largest Jewish population and was a place where fascists and collaborationists were being treated brutally. No one was going to be able to go after Jews. Paris was a safer city fir Jews than Jerusalem in 1948.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Funnily enough, I just met with a settler today over lunch, and started discussing this very issue with him. He said that he would rather live under a state called Palestine with a "Palestinian" flag, but nevertheless imbibed deep Jewish values, then see a two-state solution. He further said that any solution must see the annexation of "Judea and Samaria", Gaza, and a Palestinian Right of Return. Now, tbh, I don't see how all this wouldn't go up in flames like a Roman Candle, but this guy's job literally is bringing together the "hilltop youth" (yes, that hilltop youth), and the more radical Palestinian youth, so he would have more first-hand experience than any of us.

Well, I wish him luck. I can't see where there is enough luck to be had, but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong in thinking he's engaging in wishful thinking. Personally, I think the attempt would not only go up like a Roman candle, but like one of Nero's candles.

[YaBoyNY]

How exactly was Europe at any point post-WWII more dangerous than Israel for Jews?

Israel actually had a war and Europe didn't. Germany was under Allied military rule and strict Denazification. The largest Jewish population was in France which still has the world's third largest Jewish population and was a place where fascists and collaborationists were being treated brutally. No one was going to be able to go after Jews. Paris was a safer city fir Jews than Jerusalem in 1948.

But, but

muh Zionist revisionism!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

How exactly was Europe at any point post-WWII more dangerous than Israel for Jews?

Israel actually had a war and Europe didn't. Germany was under Allied military rule and strict Denazification. The largest Jewish population was in France which still has the world's third largest Jewish population and was a place where fascists and collaborationists were being treated brutally. No one was going to be able to go after Jews. Paris was a safer city fir Jews than Jerusalem in 1948.

Well, Germany may have been under occupation, but look into the purges done against Jews in Poland. Poland had the largest Jewish population pre-war in Europe and was still one of the centers of the culture, and the locals were determined to wipe it out once and for all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944–46
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom

Beyond that, can you imagine the terror of being a small minority in a place that literally just wiped out almost your entire culture in ten years? I can see being able to fight for your freedom in a place that was yours being much more appealing than sitting around in your family's ashes waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[DavidB.]

Jews who returned to the Netherlands were fycked over by both the people and the government. Many ordinary people wanted to take advantage of them and weren't happy with Jews returning to their homes, which led them to being horrible, whereas the government decided to let these people pay taxes for the time that they had been outside the country.

[YaBoyNY]

How exactly was Europe at any point post-WWII more dangerous than Israel for Jews?

Israel actually had a war and Europe didn't. Germany was under Allied military rule and strict Denazification. The largest Jewish population was in France which still has the world's third largest Jewish population and was a place where fascists and collaborationists were being treated brutally. No one was going to be able to go after Jews. Paris was a safer city fir Jews than Jerusalem in 1948.

Well, Germany may have been under occupation, but look into the purges done against Jews in Poland. Poland had the largest Jewish population pre-war in Europe and was still one of the centers of the culture, and the locals were determined to wipe it out once and for all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944–46
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom

Beyond that, can you imagine the terror of being a small minority in a place that literally just wiped out almost your entire culture in ten years? I can see being able to fight for your freedom in a place that was yours being much more appealing than sitting around in your family's ashes waiting for the other shoe to drop.

So an incident where about forty Jews were killed (by soldiers who were later tried and executed by the government) versus sending them to an ongoing warzone where the Zionists were trying to take the land over from the people who had already lived there for millennia.

Gotcha. Man, you are insanely deluded.