….Why didn’t the west set them up in Madagascar after the war?
I know, I know ancestral homelands and all that, but surely that would have been a better alternative to being surrounded on all sides by people that hate them.
Or, why didn’t we just carve off a piece of Canada or the US? Washington wouldn’t have exactly been a tremendous loss.
Hell, the British probably could have given them New Zealand, right?
Why, by all that is holy, did the post war west think putting Jews next to Arabs was a good idea?
Well displacing the Malaygasy people is probably just as unjustified as displacing Palestinians if we go with that angle. Plus there were already lots of Israelis/Jews in Palestine by the time.
There are very few places to create new Homelands for people and I guess they figured Palestine made the most sense because of the historical ties and the number of Jews there plus all of the Jewish/Zionist Lobbying... and terrorism.
Bits of Canada or the United States would've been part of those countries I guess and not a Jewish State. Plus the Colonial Powers of the time weren't going to give up their territory. They're already going through decolonization. Surely they can use one of those soon to be lost territories and then bail after they set everything up.
Sounds like a good topic for the Alternate History forum to be honest. I'm sure it's already been done in some form.