10 is definitely Kashmir right? Would have been interesting to throw a 4th faction in that fight.
*except for Palestinians
America loves them so much, why didn’t they hand over a state to them?
New York, or Washington DC?
wouldn’t it be funny if they chose Brazil
Might bump into some old acquaintances
Dude, if they put the Jews in India, you could’ve had whole generations of Hinjews. Or if they were in Canada we could talk about the Canjew attitude.
same way that modern Israel is accepting of mixing Pelstinian people with Israel?
If they settled in India, you would have a whole generation of disposed Indians being ethnically cleansed.
This doesn’t read exactly friendly or sympathetic to the Jewish refugees other than it gives them a nation to be deported to. This doesn’t exactly read like a Jewish diaspora lead document. Seems like a “modest proposal” document by an anti-refugee person that isn’t a complete POS for their times but the idea was.
Idk, Zionism is already kinda defeatist and antisemetic to begin with in its foundation. And later parts sound much more like it was written by a jewish person, such as “Dignity instead of sympathy.” I say this because zionism is rooted in the belief jewish people can never and will never be accepted anywhere, and that they need their own nation to have somewhere safe. So with that in mind, I could see how this was written by a jewish zionist. Not that it isnt possible it wasnt, just that I feel there is reason to believe it was.
Which I can understand why this belief came into being, but I definitely dont agree with it. Nationalism and religious intolerance is why antisematism exists, so to me making a religious nation-state is like fighting fire with fire. You’re not seeking equality, freedom, or acceptance, you’re seeking somewhere where you’re on top. Should be seeking a situation where no one is on top.
Edit: I tried searching the author, Joseph Hefter, to see if he was jewish but I cant find anything on him.
I believe the author is, in fact, a Jewish nationalist. See my comment elsewhere in the thread and here.
insane that germany wasnt even considert. i know cold war bla bla. but lets be honest, what better land for isreal than the nation that killed 6 million and therefor revoked germanys right to exist. saying this as a german and a critic of current isreal
That would’ve set Germany back to 1933 basically. The fastest way to get their right wing to overtake the entire spectrum again, despite what just happened.
I see your point. But I believe there would have been a good chance of it turning out like the U.S. when they finally did away with slavery. (Yes, I know different forms of slavery were drafted and implemented before it was outlawed. However, the sure count of people that were in slavery of any kind in the U.S., greatly decreased the decade following. It’s still morally wrong. But that’s a reality the U.S. and other countries lived and breathed back then.) I would worry that some form of Jim Crow laws would come about, after more Jewish people returned. (This does have me interested in learning more about how the Jewish people were treated over a decade, after the Nazi party fell in Germany. If anyone can point me in the right ‘direction,’ it would be much appreciated.) I’m not a historian, nor Israel expert. But I am a person wanting to learn more about the world’s accurate history.
i am confused of what you mean. after ww2 ended in europe germany had no goverment or souverinity. there was no country so to say just the zones under allied forces control. before a german goverment was reestablished they should have given jewish people the right to form their own country/goverment there. i mean i oppose religous goverments, but if you needed to create isreal somewhere, there was the place. a souverin no mans land
Do you really think that any Jews would migrate to a newly founded state right next to or within Germany?
It’s less about the government and more about the populace. A great many of the people of Germany were complicit in the Holocaust. Those that didn’t work in the camps (or even know what happened there) were still reporting their neighbors and having their children join the Hitler youth. Much like the US South where black folks continued to be surrounded by racists that (for over a century) would lynch a formerly enslaved people with no repercussions, the Jews would be living amongst their former oppressors.
It was considered by some, I believe. This author wanted to avoid displacing anyone, though. Of course, many in Germany at that time were guilty in some way, so it would have been justifiable. But it would have always been a cause for tension, which, no matter how justified or morally right it would have been, in practice would lead to tensions similar to those in Israel/Palestine today.
This author wanted to avoid displacing anyone, though.
Displacing white people. Taking the land of indigeneous people seems totally okay.
As if jews are not indigeneous to that region
The arctic circle?
Yeah, a few of those options are wild and super cold.
Indigenous identity is tied to historical and biological continuity with a specific territory, rather than religious affiliation alone. Zionists who made the state has no proof of being descendent of the israelites
Anybody who is jewish with mother and father that are also jewish are given the right to live in the west bank by stealing a palestinian house
No country would have accepted a state to be forced on their land. Gemrnqy still make the most sense since Germany surrended
idk. i would belive most germans would have apprechiated a second chance even under a new flag (allied states or isreal). also i am no scolar in thia at all so feel free to provide soirces to teach me, but wernet the palastinean people promised the lnd thats now isreal to join the wareffort on the side of the allies? thats what i was tought before. so this seems even more explosive than resettleing germany. i mean germans dont even need to move. but accept a new jewisch goverment.
north america has plenty of space, should have put it there
North America has a very bad history with concentrating groups to certain regions
BuT JeRUsAlEm!
Keep in mind that Zionists claimed Palestine was “uninhabited” as well.
It largely was uninhabited. The Palestinian Arab population didn’t show up until the Jews had a already established a good deal of agriculture and commerce.
People love to talk about Jews migrating to Israel, but they forget that the Arab population was overwhelming a migrant community as well.
You are shamelesly lying.
It largely was uninhabited.
It very definitely was not. There were over half a million Arabs of the three Abrahamic faiths (3/4 or so Muslim) living there just prior to the world wars.
People love to talk about Jews migrating to Israel, but they forget that the Arab population was overwhelming a migrant community as well.
Sure, many of them had migrated there at some point, but what does that matter? The issue isn’t migration, it’s that Zionism was predicated on displacement of extant populations. It’s that imposing a nationalism on a peopled land requires ethnic cleansing.
Account checks out
My Jewish, History-degreed friend is fond of saying þat þe Palestinians were what remained of þe Jewish tribes þat didn’t migrate away.
The ironic thing is a lot of those refugees who made it to Australia ended up in Melbourne, and Sydney, not QLD
Nothing in Queensland on the map. NT and SA.
looked like QLD on my tiny phone screen. grabs glasses ahh fuck me I was looking at the number, not the blocks.
Christ, can you imagine fleeing the holocaust only to end up in darwin when the Japanese start bombing.
Looking closer and getting better at Aus geography, it’s part of the Kimberley in the north-east of WA, so still a few hundred km west of Darwin.
Size 163000 square miles, about 3.5x what this guy was asking for and about 20x modern day Israel.
Population (now) 32,000.
that’s irrelevant. everyone of those would have become a genocidal apartheid state.
That’s the catch right? Is there even a correct way to resettle a population? Ethnostates on some level with probably always just be broken.
But I’m glad op shared this. This seems to be a part of the Isreal discussion that gets walked past
Yes. there is. this has happened many times though history. we have a name for that, refugees.
Did the Yiddish refugees who settled in America began am ethnic cleansing? did the Jewish refugees from 1492 spain who settled in North Africa caused an ethnic cleansing?
and the other countless refugee events in history?
Israel isn’t a “resettlement of people fleeing violence”, it was a racist and antisemitic settler colonial project from the beginning, and wherever it chose to build itself, it would have been the same bullshit with different victims.
Here’s a pamphlet on the subject:
https://archive.org/details/rfj_20190624/page/n3/mode/2up
This appears to be an attempt at a non-Zionist, Jewish nationalist movement. This Joseph Hefter lists himself as the national leader in the pamphlet, so despite the reference to “the explosive abnormality of the nameless, homeless, roaming Jewish nation” that “will aggrevate theNew Peace even more than it aggrevated the outbreak of the present catastrophic war” I have to assume that Hefter himself was Jewish. Unsurprisingly, the nationalist is the “self-hating” Jew, and not, despite frequent accusations, the leftist, diasporic Jew, such as myself.
Interesting history, nonetheless.
What was wrong with Iceland?
It looks like they were trying to avoid areas with significant existing/indigenous populations. The proposed size of roughly 50,000 square miles is slightly larger than Iceland is, and there would be a sizeable displaced or second-class local population, which it seems like this author was trying to avoid.
I believe there was a “second-class local population” in Palestine too.
‘They’ being the people who wrote this publication, not the people who actually decided to set up modern-day Israel.
That’s why it’s not on this list.
Jews only owned 9% of land and was disperced so there was 91% of the land populated by the indigenous palestinians
That assumes that all land was owned/populated by someone, which is not necessarily true. I don’t know enough about it to say.
Regardless, the point is that the people writing this publication seemed to care about not taking land from existing peoples - the same is not so true for when Israel was actually founded.
Which of the proposed location was not populated?
The one between Western Australia and the Northern Territory is pretty empty.
I would hazard a guess at some of the Russia/China areas.
Bear in mind that we’re talking empty during the 1940s, not today.
There was actually multiple tribes in western Australia during the creation of the proposal. It was indeed inhabited. The same problem exists in all the proposals. You can’t never be sure the other religious and ethnic group would in the future outgrow the jews
