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.

[–] username_1@programming.dev 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I believe there was a "second-class local population" in Palestine too.

[–] zout@fedia.io 12 points 4 days ago

That's why it's not on this list.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago

'They' being the people who wrote this publication, not the people who actually decided to set up modern-day Israel.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Jews only owned 9% of land and was disperced so there was 91% of the land populated by the indigenous palestinians

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Which of the proposed location was not populated?

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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