The Un-Promised Land: A Jewish State in Australia.

In the 1930s and 40s The Kimberley Plan was a proposal the establish a Jewish state in an empty part of North West Australia. If successful, it would have been 25% larger than the current State of Israel; without any of the racial and religious problems of Israel/Palestine. The plan was vetoed by the Canberra Government in 1945. What if it had happened?
 
Isn't that part of Australia still fairly empty? Can it even support a large number of inhabitants?

From what I can tell the whole of Western Australia has about 2.5 million people, with most of them being concentrated in the South West; c.90% or so. There must be a reason that barely anyone lives there. The terrain seems very inhospitable.

So my guess is that if it had happened then we might see small scale settlement, but a population the size of Israel would be hard to sustain, so perhaps people arrive there, but they may then try to move on to more hospitable areas of Australia.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Isn't that part of Australia still fairly empty? Can it even support a large number of inhabitants?

From what I can tell the whole of Western Australia has about 2.5 million people, with most of them being concentrated in the South West; c.90% or so. There must be a reason that barely anyone lives there. The terrain seems very inhospitable.

So my guess is that if it had happened then we might see small scale settlement, but a population the size of Israel would be hard to sustain, so perhaps people may arrive there, but then move on to more hospitable areas of Australia.

The Kimberley's most hospitable than the Indian state of Rajasthan is. More temperate than Rajasthan, with more rainfall and better soils. It's considerably larger too. And yet, Rajasthan still manages to support a population of over 68M people, and it's still a net exporter of food.
 
The Kimberley's most hospitable than the Indian state of Rajasthan is. More temperate than Rajasthan, with more rainfall and better soils. It's considerably larger too. And yet, Rajasthan still manages to support a population of over 68M people, and it's still a net exporter of food.

Except that there wouldn't be the need in Australia to stay and try to eke out an existence in the Kimberley Region. There are much nicer areas which are also not overly populated (total population of Australia was c.7million in 1940). So why would they stay?

I understand your point, that if they had to then they could, but I don't think they would if there were another option. Which given how sparsely populated Australia was, there would have been plenty.

A reason the scheme failed was that the Australians were a bit afraid that any settlers would just flood into the already inhabited areas, because they wouldn't want to stay in the North West.
 
So Jews would forgo moving some where nice, and somewhere historically and religiously significant to move to one of the biggest shitholes on earth?
 

Das_Colonel

Banned
So Jews would forgo moving some where nice, and somewhere historically and religiously significant to move to one of the biggest shitholes on earth?

Yeah thats a bit off. Youve probably never even been there. I sure have, and I can assure you that Its an incredibly beautiful and ancient corner of the world.

Reported.

That aside, its not just a matter of bulldozing land an putting crops in. Especially in the east kimberley where the terrain is very rugged, rocky and full of hills. Not easy country.
 
I've been to the Pilbara, and as awesome and picturesque it is to visit the fact of the matter is that it's a rocky desert in which nothing grows particularly easy or well, not even along fresh watercourses. This is why despite Asian seafarers visiting the area for millennia and Europeans from 1600 onwards the area was left to the Aborigines until 1881. This is hardly the area to settle a million displaced Jewish people in the 20s and 30s.
 

Das_Colonel

Banned
I've been to the Pilbara, and as awesome and picturesque it is to visit the fact of the matter is that it's a rocky desert in which nothing grows particularly easy or well, not even along fresh watercourses. This is why despite Asian seafarers visiting the area for millennia and Europeans from 1600 onwards the area was left to the Aborigines until 1881. This is hardly the area to settle a million displaced Jewish people in the 20s and 30s.

That's nice, but that's the Pilbara, not the Kimberley. Don't try to obfuscate Riain.

No need to take a dump on everyone that lives there if you haven't even walked on said country.
 
Would this be a part of Australia or would it become its own country?

Even though this scenario is ludicrous (there would be far to much opposition to 'alien settlement' on Australia in both government and in public to really get the Kimberly Plan off the ground), I would imagine the region becoming some form of 'autonomous territory'; the citizens receiving no benefits from the Australian government and no representation in parliament, but are, however, left mostly to their own devices.

Of course, if such an unlikely event ever were to come about, many (as most of the public and government ministers feared) would ultimately leave Kimberly towards larger cities around the nation following a period of small scale settlement, or simply immigrate to Israel following WW2 (if Israel would be founded in such a scenario) leaving a small minority of settler Jews behind in a similar vain to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast.

Of course, for settlement to be a viable option you would have to get past the Labor government of the time (one of the tenants of which was the strict endorsement of the White Australia Policy), as well as a highly xenophobic public who feared any and all foreigners settling in the country (even in small numbers), and the West Australian government who which would be unwilling to go along with giving up any land that belonged to the state, even if it was dictated by the government in Canberra; so I don't see this as being a very realistic scenario.
 

SinghKing

Banned
So Jews would forgo moving some where nice, and somewhere historically and religiously significant to move to one of the biggest shitholes on earth?

More likely, ITTL, you have two separate Jewish states- one in the Palestinian territories, and one in the Kimberley. And without having to face the sheer levels of pressure and ill sentiment, from their neighbours and the displaced natives, which the Israelis had to face IOTL (which shaped the current 'the whole world is against us' Israeli mentality, and drove them to become the relatively militant state that they are today), you get the impression that while the climatological conditions in the Kimberley Jewish state may well be somewhat harsher (albeit not markedly so) that those of Israel, the size of their economy, and their actual quality of living (HDI), may well be superior to those of Israel by the time they reach the present day.
 
There was some discussion among the early Zionists about whether or not they should attempt settling in the American southwest or some other empty territory; my hazy memory seems to recall Australia as a possible destination. As things worked out the call to return to their ancient homeland won out.
 
That's nice, but that's the Pilbara, not the Kimberley. Don't try to obfuscate Riain.

No need to take a dump on everyone that lives there if you haven't even walked on said country.

I've never been to the Sahara or Antarctica either, but can tell you that when it comes to being suitable for a Jewish homeland for a million people in the 20s and 30s both are shit.

I am not taking a dump on the people who live there but will point out that there are only 35, 000 of them in an area twice the size of Victoria which holds 5.8 million. This is not indicative of a land suitable for intensive settlement.
 

SinghKing

Banned
I've never been to the Sahara or Antarctica either, but can tell you that when it comes to being suitable for a Jewish homeland for a million people in the 20s and 30s both are shit.

I am not taking a dump on the people who live there but will point out that there are only 35, 000 of them in an area twice the size of Victoria which holds 5.8 million. This is not indicative of a land suitable for intensive settlement.

So, if the Australians had offered them their own state in the Kimberley back then, either in the immediate aftermath of WW2 or with the war (and the Holocaust) still ongoing in the background, would the Jews have felt the same way? Would they have been so hasty to snub the 'shit' Kimberley region, along with the opportunity to establish a Jewish nation, safe-haven and potential new homeland there? Or would they have grabbed the offer with both hands regardless? After all, the implication isn't that they're giving up on establishing Israel back in their ancestral homeland- it's that the Zionists can use their new nation in the Kimberley as a stepping stone to get there.
 
Up until 1948 Jewish people who wanted to leave Europe had 2 options. Move to a good country away from persecution such as America, Australia and the like, about 90% of Jews that moved took this option. The second option was to move to Palestine by legal and illegal means to live in the ancient homeland of the Jews as mentioned in their prayers, about 10% took this option.

The Kimberley plan introduces a third option, to move to an undeveloped, infertile rocky desert that Asians and Europeans had shunned for centuries on the promise of statehood. Would statehood be enough of a drawcard to attract settlement away from the economic opportunities of wealthy democratic countries and the historic and religious significance of Palestine? Personally I'm doubtful.
 
Would there even be much in the way of Jewish funding for such a colony? I imagine it would be dammed expensive to build basic infrastructure for a base town / port let alone wider development and then of course immigration and jobs.

It would be akin to setting up a new colony, given the distance from heavily settled areas.
 

RalofTyr

Banned
Australia's carrying capacity is about 15 million people. Unless by some divine intervention, I do not think they can live in they area you mentioned. Well, they can live, but only for a short time. They would live longer as occupiers in Palestine than in Western Oz.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Would there even be much in the way of Jewish funding for such a colony? I imagine it would be dammed expensive to build basic infrastructure for a base town / port let alone wider development and then of course immigration and jobs.

It would be akin to setting up a new colony, given the distance from heavily settled areas.

Back then, the Kimberley was actually more populated than it is today, with a larger population and a comparable population density to that of the Aden Protectorate (present-day Yemen)- or at least, it did have a larger population than it does today, prior to the mass deportation of the Japanese, who had been the largest ethnic group in the Kimberley region prior to WW2. This offers a more cynical explanation for the Australians' motives in offering the Jews settlement in this region- to fill the vacant towns and cities left behind by the deported Japanese Australians. For the most part, these towns and ports already existed, as did the basic infrastructure needed to support the settlers.

They'd have been filling a vacancy. Not setting up a new colony, but moving into an existing colony (albeit a relatively derelict and neglected one, with the existing infrastructure and industrial base being sub-par; akin to Russian America or the Danish West Indies) after having purchased it (or, rather, been gifted it as a gesture of good-will) from its previous owners. Pearling was still a relatively profitable industry (albeit becoming less so), and the way was clear to exploit the Kimberley's massive gold deposits and diamond fields. The region's oil and gas fields hadn't been discovered yet, but they'd still be there in abundance, just waiting to be developed.
 
Top