this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
58 points (96.8% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
6140 readers
2 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What was wrong with Iceland?
It looks like they were trying to avoid areas with significant existing/indigenous populations. The proposed size of roughly 50,000 square miles is slightly larger than Iceland is, and there would be a sizeable displaced or second-class local population, which it seems like this author was trying to avoid.
I believe there was a "second-class local population" in Palestine too.
That's why it's not on this list.
'They' being the people who wrote this publication, not the people who actually decided to set up modern-day Israel.
Jews only owned 9% of land and was disperced so there was 91% of the land populated by the indigenous palestinians
That assumes that all land was owned/populated by someone, which is not necessarily true. I don't know enough about it to say.
Regardless, the point is that the people writing this publication seemed to care about not taking land from existing peoples - the same is not so true for when Israel was actually founded.
Which of the proposed location was not populated?
The one between Western Australia and the Northern Territory is pretty empty.
I would hazard a guess at some of the Russia/China areas.
Bear in mind that we're talking empty during the 1940s, not today.
There was actually multiple tribes in western Australia during the creation of the proposal. It was indeed inhabited. The same problem exists in all the proposals. You can't never be sure the other religious and ethnic group would in the future outgrow the jews