In my readings of AH scenarios, I have heard references to the establishment of a Jewish state in areas other than Palestine, including Uganda, Madagascar, and Alaska (really!). My question is: wouldn't these alternate Israels run into the same problem as OTL Israel: an angry, displaced native population, and neighboring countries angered at Israel for the displacement? Or is the Middle East a unique case?
A question regarding alternate Israels
- Thread starter Adam Parsons
- Start date
I'm not so sure. If one analyzes the issues in the middle east you see a number of issues that aren't necessarily present elsewhere.
First, we have the whole 'promised land' thing that ultra orthodox jews tend to use as justification for expansion of the jewish state.
Second, we have the whole crusader issue that arabs see as a parallel to what is happening now.
Third, you have the conflict tied up with the flow of middle east oil.
Fourth, you have displacement of very large numbers of people. Other areas had smaller populations.
Fifth, the populations that are displaced are part of a larger ethno-cultural community (Islam and the arab world).
Sixth, the middle east is actually pretty small and in the center of a lot of different cultures. Other lands are a bit more isolated.
All in all, if I were an ASB and wanted to replace one people with another, forcing the first out, the middle east is about the place most likely to cause major problems.
First, we have the whole 'promised land' thing that ultra orthodox jews tend to use as justification for expansion of the jewish state.
Second, we have the whole crusader issue that arabs see as a parallel to what is happening now.
Third, you have the conflict tied up with the flow of middle east oil.
Fourth, you have displacement of very large numbers of people. Other areas had smaller populations.
Fifth, the populations that are displaced are part of a larger ethno-cultural community (Islam and the arab world).
Sixth, the middle east is actually pretty small and in the center of a lot of different cultures. Other lands are a bit more isolated.
All in all, if I were an ASB and wanted to replace one people with another, forcing the first out, the middle east is about the place most likely to cause major problems.
Norman's brought up some good points....
but Uganda could have brought about plenty of population displacement. And I could see some degree of African unity against it, as against South Africa. There would be a little bit less of this Madagascar,which was culturally unique.
Alaska wouldn't have the numbers or types of displaced people who could have effectively made a big stink. Of course, once its a US territory, the US isn't going to tolerate the establishment of a juridically separate ethnic nation-state, but the jews might have been content to make it a Jewish Utah. If some Jewish settlement were attempted by the Tsarist regime before 1867, the US might object on the basis of "not invented here".
A better bet for the lowest number of side effects would have been by placing Israel somewhere in the "new world" and not someplace with centuries of continuous nationalism, and Alaska fits into that theme.
There are of course several features that go against the plausibility of an alternate Israel
#1 Lack of Jewish interest in places besides Palestine
#2 Superior suitability of a Mediterranean country to European settlement when compared with Alaska or tropical regions.
# 3 Even if you could get a fragment of Zionists to accept Uganda, would the Jews be able to resist the temptation to start relying completely on native labor? That could encourage an end to the colonization project even before the Holocaust.
# 4 In places that could be a good bet like Belize or Guyana, the US might object for "not invented here" reasons.
but Uganda could have brought about plenty of population displacement. And I could see some degree of African unity against it, as against South Africa. There would be a little bit less of this Madagascar,which was culturally unique.
Alaska wouldn't have the numbers or types of displaced people who could have effectively made a big stink. Of course, once its a US territory, the US isn't going to tolerate the establishment of a juridically separate ethnic nation-state, but the jews might have been content to make it a Jewish Utah. If some Jewish settlement were attempted by the Tsarist regime before 1867, the US might object on the basis of "not invented here".
A better bet for the lowest number of side effects would have been by placing Israel somewhere in the "new world" and not someplace with centuries of continuous nationalism, and Alaska fits into that theme.
There are of course several features that go against the plausibility of an alternate Israel
#1 Lack of Jewish interest in places besides Palestine
#2 Superior suitability of a Mediterranean country to European settlement when compared with Alaska or tropical regions.
# 3 Even if you could get a fragment of Zionists to accept Uganda, would the Jews be able to resist the temptation to start relying completely on native labor? That could encourage an end to the colonization project even before the Holocaust.
# 4 In places that could be a good bet like Belize or Guyana, the US might object for "not invented here" reasons.
I do agree that middle east is most likely the place to cause the most conflicts. But how would anybody make the jews to go anywhere else?
they would not like to live in Alaska, even if the clothing of the orthodox jews would fit better to alaska than to uganda.
but Palastine has a lot of possible pods for a different israel. Example: What if the arabs take jerusalem in 1948? The jews manage to stay around tel aviv.
they would not like to live in Alaska, even if the clothing of the orthodox jews would fit better to alaska than to uganda.
but Palastine has a lot of possible pods for a different israel. Example: What if the arabs take jerusalem in 1948? The jews manage to stay around tel aviv.
I often wonder also about greater earlier migration to Palestine. Greater Arab nationalism leads the Ottomans to see the Jews as a possible buffer against this? Get a client population in Palestine that relies on the Ottomans for their security due to resentment of the Arabs at Jewish settlement. A dangerous policy, I admit. Possibly Armenians and Greeks too so that this client population is not unified?
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Alasdair Czyrnyj said:
Why would any Jew have any reason to willingly go to any of these places? And yeh, forcibly resettled refugees do have some tendency to cause resentment from the indigenes, though its logically to the exiler rather than their victims
ASB solution needed!
Clearly, the only place that you might be able to get the Jews to accept, other than present Israel, might be if you could offer them sole possession of and transportation to their own, presently uninhabited planet! Since human technology does not include this ability yet, you would need the help of the ASBs!
Question: Assuming such a move was possible, could you get the Jews to go for it?
Clearly, the only place that you might be able to get the Jews to accept, other than present Israel, might be if you could offer them sole possession of and transportation to their own, presently uninhabited planet! Since human technology does not include this ability yet, you would need the help of the ASBs!
Question: Assuming such a move was possible, could you get the Jews to go for it?
How about a stronger back to Israil movement in the 1880-90's. As they move in buying the land at market, the Palistines would move in a more natual way.
When WW1 and the ?Balfor declaration? comes along, there is a large scale movement into the area around Jeluselum.
There is another movement in the Thirties as Hitler and AntiSemitism take hold in Europe.
As it is a British protectorate, Large numbers of Palistine Jews enlist in the British Army, during WW2, thereby aquiring Military Training.
After WW2 we have the Holocaulst Survirors [Not as many as OTL due to more escaping before]
In 1948 with the formation of Israil, with a larger population and more military training, the Jews take the West Bank, Gaza, and part of the Sinai.
As there were larger Jewish Settlements in these areas, there are less Refugees, and the are easiler assimulated into the surrounding countries. Israil has it's natural borders, so It's less Belligerent. As more of the Land was Purshased, there is no Cry for the Right of Return.
While the Surrounding Countries are not happy with what happened, there is not OTL's bitterness. By the Late sixties, Early Seventies, most of the Countries have accepted Isrial, and are in the process of normalizing relations.
When WW1 and the ?Balfor declaration? comes along, there is a large scale movement into the area around Jeluselum.
There is another movement in the Thirties as Hitler and AntiSemitism take hold in Europe.
As it is a British protectorate, Large numbers of Palistine Jews enlist in the British Army, during WW2, thereby aquiring Military Training.
After WW2 we have the Holocaulst Survirors [Not as many as OTL due to more escaping before]
In 1948 with the formation of Israil, with a larger population and more military training, the Jews take the West Bank, Gaza, and part of the Sinai.
As there were larger Jewish Settlements in these areas, there are less Refugees, and the are easiler assimulated into the surrounding countries. Israil has it's natural borders, so It's less Belligerent. As more of the Land was Purshased, there is no Cry for the Right of Return.
While the Surrounding Countries are not happy with what happened, there is not OTL's bitterness. By the Late sixties, Early Seventies, most of the Countries have accepted Isrial, and are in the process of normalizing relations.
DuQuense said:
There would still be Arab bitterness at losing land, the legal sale of land to Jews pre-war was opposed by many Arabs. Also the Arabs would still wish to retain control over Jerusalem. Would the Arabs look to Germany for support? Could some form of war broke out in Palestine between Jewish settlers and Arabs? Consequences?
I do not want to look to much pc, but we are short before defining people just for their belive. Obviosly the "jews" in europe felt more like french, german or whatever. the zionist idea sounded ridiculous for a lot of those people. Would anybody join a call for all the lefthanded to change the country and go in a very underdeveloped area, while you can enjoy cars, daily newspapers and live music?
I dont know about the jewish people in eastern eurrope.
I dont know about the jewish people in eastern eurrope.
The unusual thing is that when there was a sizable migration of jews to USA, they did not look for a jewish state (something like the mormons OTL), but they were happy to stay in the cities on the East Coast. Ok, they usually settled in all-jewish areas, but almost all of first generation migrants did.
I wonder what would have happened if there was a movement to re-create Israel somewhere in the West.
BTW, it would be very interesting to see Jews and Mormons living side to side. In a way they had a lot in common. They are not expansionist religions, they both have the idea of the selected fews against a sea of unbelievers, both have proven to be very good farmers, even in difficult conditions.
I wonder what would have happened if there was a movement to re-create Israel somewhere in the West.
BTW, it would be very interesting to see Jews and Mormons living side to side. In a way they had a lot in common. They are not expansionist religions, they both have the idea of the selected fews against a sea of unbelievers, both have proven to be very good farmers, even in difficult conditions.
OK. Instead of the Jews scattering throughout Europe in the 15th Century, have The Holy Inquisition force them to the New World as it is discovered. Or even make that another reason to send Columbus out and about: Finding somewhere to "dump all these unbelieving Jews".
Better yet, have the Jews, fleeing The Inquisistion, be the ones who "discover" the New World.....
Better yet, have the Jews, fleeing The Inquisistion, be the ones who "discover" the New World.....
Jews living side by side with native americans, introducing Judeo-Greek thought without gun in hand, living in jewish ghettos in the Iriquois nation...
Has a nice ring to it. Surprise, whitey.
Has a nice ring to it. Surprise, whitey.
Yeah, that was my idea. The Republic of New Sepharad (which has a very nice ring) side by side with the Republic of Deseret. Very much AHStraha said:
Straha
Banned
Deseret is such a cliche in AH I'm glad to see that not too many TLS on here have had it so far, maybe it will fade from clichedom?LordKalvan said:Yeah, that was my idea. The Republic of New Sepharad (which has a very nice ring) side by side with the Republic of Deseret. Very much AH
Maybe you're right. New Sepharad could attract much larger numbers of migrants, from Eastern Europe and Germany at least. I wonder if one of the first Rotschilds (say around 1825-30) could not have financed such a colony. I would place it in Texas, though (if I remember right, there was a German colony in Texas sometime around that period). It would take a lot of money, though. And it is quite likely that the Mexican church would be less than delighted. The other big issue would be self defense, then.Straha said: