I’ve been reading an interesting history of the first half of the 20th century (A.N. Wilson’s After the Victorians, if anyone’s looking for a good read), and it makes a brief mention of early attempts by Zionists to secure a homeland, including a passing reference to having a Jewish Homeland in Uganda, of all places (the British Uganda Program).
I have to admit that, not being Jewish (and there not being many Jewish people locally at all) I’m not an expert of Zionism or the formation of Israel etc. beyond knowing that it was the British Mandate of Palestine until May 14, 1948 when the League of Nations mandate given to Britain expired and the Brits took their cricket bats and balls and went home, with the State of Israel being declared around breakfast that morning, and much of the rest of the Arab world invading the new state shortly after dinner (so to speak).
Anyway, it does make me wonder how things might have turned out had the Zionists accepted the British offer to locate Israel in Uganda? Given than the Israelis beat the stuffing out the Pan-Arabian forces before the ink on their application to join the UN was even dry, I can’t imagine that a few disgruntled Masai tribesmen would be in much of a position to object to the location of Israel within Uganda.
So, the debate is this: How might things have turned out if Israel was founded in Uganda (or another British African colony?) Better? Worse? Let’s hear your views!
Personally, I think they should’ve chosen New York City. The result wouldn’t have been too much different from what we have today, and sure as heck a lot more peaceful.
Just a nitpick - the “invasion phase” of the Israeli War of Independance lasted over a year and cost the Israelis roughly 1% of their total population; there were parts, especially towards the beginning, that were very much touch-and-go. Certainly not a cakewalk.
Anyway, as to the OP, Uganda wouldn’t have worked. The original Zionists knew that, which is why it never got off the ground. While Zionism, originally, was not a religious movement it was very much a Romantic one. It would have been impossible to convince hundreds of thousand of Jews to come and live in a country to hich they felt no historical or emotional connection, especially a landlocked colony in sub-Saharan Africa; nor would they have fought so hard to keep it.
Bottom line - it would have ended up another Birobidzhan, at best.
Well, for starters, I doubt any Jews would have moved to Ugandisrael, and the state would probably have been overthrown and renamed in the 1960’s independence movements.
Keep in mind that there were already a lot of Jews living in Palestine at the time Israel was created - they constituted a healthy minority of the total population and a majority in certain areas. And there already was a movement to get Jews to move back - with or without a formal nation. I think that if the UNGA hadn’t created the state of Israel, it would have formed naturally in the 1950’s or 1960’s through a much more nebulous route - probably a protracted guerilla war by Zionists followed by secession from British Palestine and a similar War for Independence against the pan-Arabian forces.
Take the hostages! I didn’t really like the PLO that much anyway!
They couldn’t have made Israel anywhere but Israel. Lots of Jews already had homes in places other than Israel. Why move from where they are to another country that’s not Israel?
Michael Chabon’s novel, The Yiddish Policeman’s Union, presents an alternate history in which the Jewish state is established in Alaska (which was an actual proposal made in Congress in the 40’s).
I think a responsible decision on the part of the UK and the US would have been first of all to decide that a separate jewish state was not required. Jews certainly had faced in Germany and other countries substantial discrimination and bigotry but this is no different than the discrimination faced by Kurds, Blacks, Gypsies, Armenians… this list goes on and on. Nevertheless the point is moot… Israel was founded and is a reality.
Having decided to found a separate state and new country you would think they would place it in a sparsely populated area without a large hostile population nearby. Certainly not smack dab in the center of a large muslim country with an established population and close to religious sites that muslims would rather die fighting for than give up. Nonetheless its also a mott point because that is exactly what they decided to do. So far 0-fer-2.
In hindsight a portion of Alaska would have been appropriate. There are also large areas of Eastern Europe/Western Asia that would have fit the bill. Any of these places would have given the Jews a safe haven blessed with abundant natural resources with friendly neighbours. In retrospect the reality of what happened almost seems like a cruel joke!
Except that ignores the fact that the establishment of the state of Israel wasn’t driven by the US and the UK. It was driven by the zionists themselves, who moved to the area and established the state of Israel, to various reactions of lukewarm support or lukewarm opposition or furious opposition from various parties around the world.
Considering the fact that the Zionist movement was started in the late 1800’s when Palestine was still ruled by the Turks, I don’t see how the U.S. or the U.K. were ever asked to make any sort of decision where to “place” the Jewish state.
