Crossing the Rubicon2 quotes from an article by Sever Plocker at Ynet, "It wasn't the Holocaust". The thesis of the article is that rather than play a significant role in the founding of the state of Israel, the Holocaust actually hurt the effort to create a new Jewish commonwealth. It's an interesting thesis and goes against the conventional wisdom. (Especially that of the Arab world: It was the European world that tried to destroy the Jews why should sympathy for that crime lead to our dispossession. Forget that the Arab world was all too ready to help the Nazis or that Zionism was already a vibrant movement that was claiming the Jewish homeland prior to WWII.) Plocker argues that if Europe's Jews had survived WWII there political pressure in Europe to get rid of the Jews by getting them to Israel would have been overwhelming; though he seems to indicate that had the modern state of Israel been founded under these circumstances might not have occurred as quickly, but it would have occurred regardless.
Plocker seems to have a larger point that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people as it draws Jews from all around.
That's also the thesis of Charles Krauthammer in an article, "At last Zion". Krauthammer notes that Jewish populations of all countries except for the US and Iserael are in decline and notes that Israel is becoming the center for all Jews. For that reason he cautions that if Israel would fall, it would mark the end of the Jews. I don't agree with him on that, but the article is still compelling reading. To some degree it was caution that Israel (and the United States) should be careful when making peace because so much was riding on Israel's continued existence.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad