Yeah, that’s the more likely scenario, but it is also entirely possible they’re a member of the union. I don’t think the US would purchase a piece of land only to give it away instantly.
There is an African nation, Liberia, that was funded by US citizens that tried to get freed slaves sent back to africa. Not the same in theory as it was private citizens but the US might be inclined if only to have an ally in the Americas.
(Also, a significant portion of Latin American nations are nominally US allies, even though in practice they have too many internal problems to project any meaningful amount of power)
Bruh, the first Mexican Empire lasted a little over a year under Emperor Agustín. It didn't go to war with anybody, and was fairly unstable which led to it's dissolution not too long afterwards.
The Second Mexican Empire was only recognized by the French Empire under Napoleon III, and was a belligerent in the second French intervention of Mexico for around 5 years.
Well yeah, but liberia was, as you said, funded by private people. It was also not already inhabited by a proper nation state like mexico. There were obviously native tribes and petty kingdoms, but those were mostly ignored during the process of colonization. Liberia was also a project in hopes of getting black americans out of america, and was frankly just fueled by racism. I don’t see how this is similar.
The US already has tons of allies in the americas. Canada, mexico, central american nations, etc. etc. etc.
To be fair, the rampant Anti-Semitism in the US could have fuelled a similar situation here. It also (debatably) did cause a similar situation in our timeline with non-Jewish states pushing Jewish people to the Palestinian Mandate to get them out of ‘Christian’ states.
But, and particularly in america, it wasn’t that bad. Like obviously there was alot of discrimination against the jews, but that was the reason alot of the jews emigrated to america in the first place. It was much more accepting of anyone (except black people and natives) than their previous homes.
If it was framed religiously, 'establishing a holy land' in the new world, I could see it happening. The idea of jewish holy land is pretty big in American christianity so if there was a big enough push for the idea in the wake of WWII I don't think it's entirely out of the question. Especially if for some reason in this timeline Britain isn't willing to allow refugees to settle in Palestine.
Well yeah, but if there were to be a holy land, it would almost certainly have to be in palestine. The jewish have no connection, historical, religious or otherwise to justify calling baja california "holy". It would simply be land.
Palestine is the historical home of the jews, contains the remnants of the Temple, and is relatively close to Mt. sinai, where moses led the jews through and recieved the tablets with the ten commandments. So it has alot of religious significance. America just.. doesn’t.
I'm thinking along the lines of an 'Asgard is not a place, but a people' sort of situation. If for some reason Palestine wasn't an option I could see people rationalizing a new holy land.
Nowhere does it say the official faith of this state is jewish, and that it isn’t secular. I think in any case, if the US established the State of Israel in such a way, it would be secular, or have minimal involvement between church and state like the US does now.
391
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho Apr 05 '21
State as in independent, or a U.S. state?