Indeed, you will definitely not be viewed as Moses leading the Israelites to the Promised Land.
I’ve been reading a little history here and there, and it turns out that secession has been a really gnarly legal problem in the past. Of course, instead of actual secession we could just stick them on a reservation overseen by the Bureau of Jewish Affairs. What could possibly go wrong with that scheme? I mean, unless it turns out that the land has oil shale or valuable minerals.
Stranger
It’s not like our Indigenous People were ever told to move again after being told the land we “gave” them would be theirs forever.
“Forever” is a very fungible concept, especially when great wealth is involved.
Stranger
Besides, “Jew Montana” sounds like a football player.
580,000 approximately. But you’re in the ballpark.
I’m not sure that @AskNott is even on the same planet.
Stranger
Okay, it’s a crazy idea, and not even “just crazy enough to work.” It always seems crazy, the way countries get carved up and renamed after a war. And again, and again.
The US still has a lot of people that don’t like Jews.
Also…
I always find it fascinating that people who aren’t Jewish have so many plans for them.
And do you understand the part where no one actually moved Jews to Israel, they just gave political power to people already there? (And then other Jews choose to go there.)
The only other place that could possibly have worked was NYC, perhaps Brooklyn. But i didn’t thank the US would have let it secede, either
Staten Island, on the other hand…
Stranger
In early 1948, maybe a third of the people in Palestine were Jewish.
Even in 1848, there may have been a higher percent of Jews in what is now Palestine than in any other country except Poland (where of course there were few Jews by 1948).
Also, the victors of World War II did not dump Jews in Palestine. The British tried to keep Jews out, and both the Americans and British had an arms embargo.
They even made an epic movie about it with Paul Newman and Eve Marie Saint (most notable for ending the Hollywood Blacklist but also got a nod in an episode of Mad Men):
Stranger
Historically speaking, the OP’s idea isn’t as crazy as it might seem. It wasn’t until about thirty years into the history of the Zionist movement (at the 6th and 7th World Zionist Congresses) that the movement decided it was crucial that their new State be located in Palestine. Since the Zionists at that time were all atheists, it’s hard to see any good reason for that decision other than to cynically pander to (what they viewed as) the foolish religious sentimentality of the Jewish masses.
The minority faction, which wanted to find a spot with ample space, abundant natural resources, and a relative lack of hostile neighbors, were called Territorialists. I’m sure they would have jumped at the chance to take Montana, and it probably would have worked out better for all concerned. My synagogue recently had a fascinating exhibit of photos from Territorialist colonies established in the early twentieth century around Galveston, Texas. Just think, if things had gone a little differently, the Cowboys might have a six-pointed star on their helmets today!
Of course, no nation in the early twentieth century was realistically ever going to voluntarily hand any desirable land over to Jews. The only way to get a country was to persuade enough Jews to move there to constitute a majority.
Nitpick: The Yiddish Policemen’s Union is a great book, but it isn’t science fiction, except insofar as it’s set in an alternate history.
From the linked Wikipedia page:
The Yiddish Policemen’s Union won a number of science fiction awards: the Nebula Award for Best Novel, the Locus Award for Best SF Novel, the Hugo Award for Best Novel, and the Sidewise Award for Alternate History for Best Novel. It was shortlisted for the British Science Fiction Association Award for Best Novel and the Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Novel.
Well, thanks for the clarification. I was thinking this exchange could actually lead to a spinoff thread about whether “alternate history” should be considered a subgenre of “science fiction”, even if it involves no futuristic technology of any kind. But clearly that debate has been settled.
I think you misunderstand the nature of nationalism. Many (not all) of the original Zionists may have been atheists, but they very much thought of themselves as ethnically and culturally Jewish, and had a strong interest in Jewish history. The connection most of them felt to the Land of Israel, as they called it, was as strong as that of any religions Jew - stronger, in fact, as the Orthodox establishment at the time was openly opposed to resettling the land before the Messiah came.
Zionism was not a suit generis movement - it was part of the great nationalist revival that took place in the latter half of the 19th Century, which led to the reunification of Germany, the reunification of Italy, the Balkan independence from the Ottomans and ultimately, the breakup of the European multi-ethnic empires. None of these movements were religious in nature, although they used religion as needed. It was all about land and language, history and heritage - things atheists can also believe in.
Also, the 7th Zionist Conference of 1905 was only 8 years after the 1st Conference and the official foundation of the Zionist movement. You’re probably counting from the First Aliyah (starting 1881), which was pre-organized Zionism and not geared towards independence.
True, no one loaded Jews into boats and forced them ashore in the Levant at gunpoint, but there were a lot of things going on in Europe that made Jews uncomfortable and even fear for their lives, that is, a strong incentive to go elsewhere. In the 1940’s the “elsewhere” open to Jews was pretty much either British Palestine or the US. Which is why the vast majority of the world’s Jews live in one or the other of those two places today. Saying that migration was entirely voluntary ignores all the many reasons why the migration was taking place in the first place.
Also:
Yet European Jews were pouring into Palestine. Why? I dunno - maybe the extermination of 6 million of them in the first half of the 1940’s made them think that staying put in Europe was more hazardous than sneaking into the Levant? I also wish to point out that the US Displaced Persons Act of 1948 sharply limited the ability of European Jewish refugees to enter the US. Essentially, by 1948 it wasn’t legal for Jews to emigrate to either Palestine or the US. What were they supposed to do?
Given the circumstances suggesting setting aside a chunk of the US as a Jewish homeland was laughable because by 1948 the US had made it clear they didn’t want them either. Sure, there were already Jews in the US, they’d keep those, but no more, no more.
There are still quite a few of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who feel that way.
An issue with that line of argument is that taking land from the Palestinians is just as unethical, and involves plenty of bloodshed. It reeks of “It’s OK when the people being ethnically cleansed are Muslim”.
Any creation of a “Jewish homeland” was going to turn into ethnic cleansing; there’s just not any desirable places of land out there that don’t already have people there.