Display:
Haven't heard of this one but my impression was that various ideas were floated about a place for a Jewish state, most prominently Uganda or a piece of S. America, but no actual full blown offers. But I'm not sure why you seem to think that it would have been morally preferable for the Jews to take over someone else's land in Australia or Canada (or Africa or S. America) rather than where they did.
by MarekNYC on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 05:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that was the point - it was uninhabited land
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 05:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Either you're applying to the Australian aboriginals and the Inuit the "land without a people" meme, or you expect the Jews to want to settle in the middle of the Australian outback, or on the Canadian arctic plains?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 05:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
nope.  if you've ever been to either country, you would know that there are thousands of square miles of uninhabited land that belongs to the "Crown".  very nice land too.  that's why these countries are so open to immigration.
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 05:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope. The early Zionists very well realised that the land they want would NOT be uninhabited. Considerations that the locals should feel they profit from the immigrants' presence and that some re-settlement of them so that there is a Jewish majority precede the final decision for Palestine.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 24th, 2006 at 03:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series