Chungus Maximus
Banned
Would there still be conflicts with the local Arabs, or no, since there were very few people there?
[ how come in OTL there aren't Jewish temples at Mt. Sinai? It's where God literally showed up in person to hand Moses the Ten Commandments... ]
The two fundamental problems are that a) the various Zionist groups were pretty set on Palestine being the site of a new Israeli state and b) Sinai has a much lower carrying capacity than even the territory granted to Israel under the 1948 plan.
There was an offer of Uganda or some other spot in Africa as an alternative. It was seen at first as a possible solution, but it was eventually rejected in favor of the historic Israeli territory of Palestine.But to get back on topic. It's pretty much this. The leadership of the Zionist movement were dead-set on Palestine as a Jewish state and rejected anything else. Sinai wouldn't support the waves of Jewish immigration that were coming in, plus Sinai was never seen as part of the Land of Israel.
For all its vastness, Sinai was smaller than the territories Israel got in 1948...
There was an offer of Uganda or some other spot in Africa as an alternative. It was seen at first as a possible solution, but it was eventually rejected in favor of the historic Israeli territory of Palestine.
But basically, said territory would have at least had the basics to support an expanding population of European-based immigrants. Sinai doesn't have zip, and almost half its population is squeezed up against the Suez Canal, closer to the Egyptian heartland and focused along the port cities of Port Said and Suez.
But to get back on topic. It's pretty much this. The leadership of the Zionist movement were dead-set on Palestine as a Jewish state and rejected anything else. Sinai wouldn't support the waves of Jewish immigration that were coming in, plus Sinai was never seen as part of the Land of Israel.
Ah, my bad. Still, it's not like it can support as many people as Palestine could.The Sinai peninsula is ~60,000 sq km; pre-1967 Israel was about 20,000 sq km.
Except Sinai today has a million people, half of which are spread out sparsely in the south, and the rest huddled up against the Suez border, near the Egyptian heartland. Sinai can't handle unlimited Jewish migration; at least the original plan allowed the Israelis to take the Jaffa and Haifa regions, which have water, good ports, and plenty of good agriculture.I think there's one crucial difference between Sinai and the Uganda situation mentioned above- that the Sinai is adjacent to Israel/Palestine. So I think it's more likely that the Zionist movement might see Jewish settlement in Sinai as a base from which to support Jewish national aspirations in Israel too.
So I'm guessing a timeline could look like this:
1) Sinai is somehow split from the rest of Egypt by the UK at some point a few decades prior to WW1; Sinai as well as the Suez Canal region become directly administered as a British colony rather than by Egypt. Zionist movement approves of settlement in Sinai, considering that it might become a part of a future Israeli state
2) the British government allows a lot of Jewish migration to the Sinai
3) WW1 happens, much the same as in OTL, but as in OTL it restricts Jewish migration to Palestine. Sinai, on the other hand, is allowed to continue to have unlimited Jewish migration to (as the very small population as well as the lack of religious importance of the Sinai means that opposition to this from Arabs is much less)
By the time there's the war of independence, I think Israel would end up consisting of both Sinai and Palestine, but Sinai would have a much bigger role than in OTL.
Sinai today has 1.4 million people, which is significant but not much.Except Sinai today has a million people, half of which are spread out sparsely in the south, and the rest huddled up against the Suez border, near the Egyptian heartland. Sinai can't handle unlimited Jewish migration; at least the original plan allowed the Israelis to take the Jaffa and Haifa regions, which have water, good ports, and plenty of good agriculture.
Not to mention that while Egypt probably wouldn't have had as big a loss comparatively as the Palestinians, they're still stuck with 'foreigners' occupying their lands, and even closer to the Egyptian heartland than last time. They're not going to sign any peace treaties, and the biggest gain Israel had from OTL Camp David was it no longer had to worry about Egypt's threat.
Sinai has been historically Egyptian territory for millennia. And even Egypt could afford or somehow ignore the loss of Sinai, it'll cause problems with the Suez Canal. Any fight between the two would result in the Canal being closed for months, if not years (which is what admittedly happened in the 1967-1978 period when Israel held Sinai).Sinai today has 1.4 million people, which is significant but not much.
I expect that back around 1900 it would probably have only had about 100,000 people at most, and I expect you could get a few hundred thousand Jewish settlers to add to that.
Though... yes, you're right, it wouldn't really be able to support unlimited numbers of settlers. I was thinking more along the lines of "the UK government _allows_ unlimited Jewish settlers to go there"... but that's not to say that the land would be able to support them (it wouldn't).
As for the Egyptian perception of it as a "foreign occupation"- I was thinking that if Sinai was split off early enough (pre-1900), the Egyptians might not end up seeing it that way (in a similar way that Egypt no longer has a claim over Sudan, etc)
Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, proposed Arish as a Jewish homeland since neither the Sultan nor the Kaiser supported settlement in Palestine. In 1903, Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, agreed to consider Arish, and Herzl commissioned the lawyer David Lloyd George a charter draft, but his application was turned down once an expedition, led by Leopold Kessler had returned and submitted a detailed report to Herzl, which outlined a proposal to divert some of the Nile waters to the area for the purpose of settlement.
In October 1902, Herzl met with the British colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, and England tentatively offered El Arish in the Sinai Peninsula for Jewish colonisation. This would lead, years later, to the Balfour Declaration.[4] During the negotiations, Herzl had Kessler in mind to participate in the expedition. Oskar Marmorek, an Austro-Hungarian Zionist, appealed to Kessler: "I know of no-one who could equal you and your knowledge for our expedition. It is therefore your duty, as a loyal comrade, to make the almost impossible, possible."[5]
Herzl received a document about El Arish from the British foreign secretary, Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, and noted in his diary that it suggested Marmorek, an architect; Kessler, an engineer; and Otto Warburg, an agricultural expert, for the expedition. Petty-Fitzmaurice wrote that in Kessler, he saw a "coolness and calmness" he admired, and that "because of his composure, I like Kessler very well as the leader" of the expedition. Herzl instructed Kessler to return with a report on the feasibility of settling El Arish. With that report, he hoped to obtain the charter.
In a letter dated January 28, 1902, Herzl authorised Kessler’s leadership of the expedition and laid out his role and responsibilities. Other members of the expedition included Selig Soskin, an agricultural expert, and Hillel Yaffe, a physician to the Jewish colonies in Palestine. Kessler had become friendly with these men during his visit to Palestine in 1900. Also on the team were Marmorek; Albert Goldsmid, a colonel who had taken over Baron Maurice de Hirsch’s Jewish colonies in Argentina in 1892–93; Emile Laurent, a professor at the Agricultural Institute at Gembloux; H. Stephens, an engineer, to investigate water problems; and a representative of the Egyptian government. Kessler himself was chief of the expedition, treasurer, and geological expert.
The team toured the area from February 11 to March 25, 1903. The report signed by Kessler and the other members concluded that the project depended on water supply and, therefore, that the Egyptian government should give permission to divert some water from the Nile. The Egyptian government, calculating that the plan would require five times the amount of water Stephens had estimated, turned down the proposal. Kessler, in a supplementary report, stressed that colonisation could be carried out without Nile waters (by damming wadis, sinking wells, etc.), and Stephens reiterated his calculations with fresh evidence, but permission was once more refused. Kessler and Goldsmid then pursued futile political discussions with Egypt.
This is really really ASB but . . . an acquaintance of mine had a proposal which he said would be to the advantage of all parties. The Western Wall, being the holiest place in Jerusalem, should be moved to New Mexico, and the Jewish population of Israel relocated there. That way, he said, that would bring the U.S. an intake of trained, educated, skilled people while satisfying the needs of the indigenous people.
The depth of ignorance in this proposal staggered me. To take the first example, the Western Wall is not holy in and of itself but because it is a remnant of the Temple.
And the influence such a move would have on secular Jews would range from nil to negative.
Yet this sounds almost plausible compared to some other proposals I have seen.
Yet this sounds almost plausible compared to some other proposals I have seen.
Ya, moving the Wall ect... sounds messed up. Still, it sounds somehow plausible that a combination of US policy and motivated Jewish leaders could somehow turn the Pheonix/Tuscon region into a defacto Jewish homeland. I'm trying to imagine the sort of culture and other changes that would emerge from this US version of the getto & shetel.
If the Egyptian government had opted to okay the diversion of Nile waters, then I could see a viable Zionist polity being established.