Greater Israel

I realize that this is not a particularly probable scenario, but still one I feel would be interesting for someone to explore. Israel has numerous challenges, some demographic but also many geographic. Physically it is a small country, one that if history had unfolded differently could be larger and have different balance within it. Is it conceivable to have a larger Israel with a different ethnic/religious mix?

Idea: The British had a different approach to the Zionist issue and started to more actively work for the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East before the Great War. The British separate the Sinai from Egypt to serve as part of the new Jewish homeland. Following the War, Mandate of Palestine is created, nominally awarded by the League of Nations and divided into two sections Jordan and Palestine. Palestine includes the historic Palestine, Lebanon, and parts of Syria (Quneitra, Daraa, and As-Suwayda Governorates... the Golan and Druze areas). Palestine is quickly reorganized as a de facto Crown Colony and the Sinai is joined to it. The British authorities conduct a census of the territory and take notice of the distinction between Druze and Muslims. They work to help facilitate a positive relationship between the Christians, Jews, and to a lesser extent the Druze. This partnership is sympathetic towards Zionist aims and will work to increase Jewish settlement in Southern Palestine (Israel/West Bank/ Sinai). Gradually tensions increase between the Partnership and the Arab Muslims over the Jewish Question). In order to put down the Arab Revolt (1936-1939) the British colonial government works very closely with Jewish, Christian, and Druze groups to maintain public order and security in its zone of influence in the Middle East. While its ties with Arab Muslims suffer it is able to maintain its grip over the Middle East.

Follow the War, Palestine is on the edge of revolt despite Jewish, Christian, and to a lesser extent Druze being comfortable with the British rule. With the defeat of Germany it becomes clear that many Jews do not want to return to their former countries and are settled in Palestine.

In 1946, Jewish groups in Palestine succeed at getting the Palestine transformed into the Crown Colony of Israel on a Southern Rhodesian basis. In 1949 the Mandate is formally terminated, and Israel becomes a Dominion. This is the trigger for the Second Arab Revolt. During this revolt Muslims in Palestine revolt against the mostly Christian and Jewish led Dominion government. The revolt is put down, by local forces not British, and involving substantial ‘rouge’ elements of the Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi, and Egyptian militaries. It serves to solidify the three major groups within the new Dominion. As a consequence of this revolt a de facto expulsion of most Muslims from Israel occurs and an expulsion of Jews (and Christians from Syria and Jordan) from the rest of the Middle East occurs.

Other consideration: France is bought off with concessions in Africa (Gambia, northern Nigeria, Cameroons), US interests are more pro-Jewish/Christian in Palestine then Muslim
 
If it had developed more up to WW1 and afterward, WW2 might be a little different maybe, regarding the fates of people.
 
Greater Israel is extremely unlikely, and if attempted as a Rhodesia will collapse in the attempt. And Israel if it expels all those Muslims will have nowhere near the population to make up for the loss of all that population, and if it attempts to fill the vacuum with just what it has the economic collapse that follows will be swift and total. A generation after it, people will bemoan the tragedy of the PLO's wars against Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt for the rise of a Palestinian homeland and the PLO would be seen as a PKK equivalent.
 
In this scenario you will get a large influx of Jews during the 30's from Germany/Austria, and may see Jews from USSR occupied Poland/Baltics, Hungary, and Romania in 1939/40, perhaps even some from Italy prior to the Italian declaration of war in spring 1940. Remember that Hungary and Romania would have been happy for the Jews to leave, albeit sans financial resources & prior to war in 1939 Germany would have had no problems with German/Austrian Jews leaving (again with goods etc left behind) to go to Palestine. During the war the existence of a "welcoming" Palestine would have aided the escape of Jews from Europe - not a lot but certainly some as places like Turkey might be more willing to let Jews in knowing they were merely in transit with an assured destination "elsewhere".

After the war in this scenario you would have more Jews coming to Palestine and sooner without the British policy OTL of keeping them out. Some (hard to say how many) who went elsewhere instead of Palestine would go there ITTL.

In OTL 1947 (before significant postwar Jewish immigration) Palestine (west of Jordan River) was approx 60% Muslim, 35% Jewish out of population of ~2 million. In this scenario could see as many as 500,00 Jews arrive before/during WW2 making Muslim and Jewish populations roughly equal & small bits of Christians and Druze. If 2/3 of Muslims leave 1945-50, the incoming Jewish population from Europe and Arab countries will more than make up for this loss in numbers alone, and (being blunt) the skill/educational level of the newcomers will be well above the departed. You may also see Christian populations from Arab countries coming to Israel in some numbers depending on how bad things get for non-Muslims.

Adding the Sinai to Israel changes no demographics, and the numbers here include the "west bank" & Gaza. Golan heights are also not very populated so adding them to "Greater Israel", if I recall correctly southern Lebanon was in 1945 mostly Christian & Druze so also some could be added without difficulty.

A "Greater Israel" encompassing Israel, "west bank", Sinai, Golan Heights, small chunk of s. Lebanon can be adequately populated with >80% Jews, limited Muslims, and small but significant Christian & Druze communities in this scenario by 1950.
 
I agree that the earlier acceptance and even support for Jewish emmigration could save hundrets of thousands before and during the war and will attract much more thereafter.

Anyway, to get the numbers even better: What about the British trying to stir up confessional differences within the Muslims? Maybe that leads to only Sunni Muslims fleeing, while Alevite and Shia groups remain and become fully accepted loyal citizens, ensuring the support of Persia for the new state?

Additionally, with the Sinai as part of Israel, wouldn't the British (nad French, fo rthat matter), try to keep the Suez channel as an "international" zone?
 
Um, people, how exactly do you think more Jewish immigrants 1) happens without the Palestinians doing anything against it, and 2) means Palestinians flee their own homelands because Israel LOL? I mean you're not exactly arguing from a real-world basis here, this kind of immigration 1) requires masses that never existed IOTL at times that never happened IOTL, and 2) requires Palestinians either be invisible or non-existent. Neither are going to apply here, and the odds of Arab states coughing up large extents of their own territory here pushes this solidly past ASB territory.
 
I agree that the earlier acceptance and even support for Jewish emmigration could save hundrets of thousands before and during the war and will attract much more thereafter.

Anyway, to get the numbers even better: What about the British trying to stir up confessional differences within the Muslims? Maybe that leads to only Sunni Muslims fleeing, while Alevite and Shia groups remain and become fully accepted loyal citizens, ensuring the support of Persia for the new state?

Additionally, with the Sinai as part of Israel, wouldn't the British (nad French, fo rthat matter), try to keep the Suez channel as an "international" zone?

There aren't many Alevite or Shia Muslims in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and the odds of Israel conquering either right out of the starting gate on anything approaching a semi-realistic basis are slim to non-existent. And if the British realize just what this is leading to, Zionism will be gutted by the British who will not in the least want to have Jewish terrorists carving up a vital territory of their Empire. And from the POV of ATL Britain, the *Israel here will be starting out as that. This POD also ignores that historically the initial wave of Arab nationalists and even earlier versions of the PLO had very strong Christian influences, and this isn't going to change with the scenario in the OP.
 
I think divide and rule among the Muslim groups could be effective, that is demonstrated partially in my initial post with including the Druze as a separate group from the outset. Smaller groups and Bedouin could exist within Israel just as in RL.

One of the points in the initial post was also that it would include Lebanon as well as the Sinai, Golan and Jabal al-Druze. This represents a sizeable Christian and Druze community from the outset, one which by the RL independence date would be a majority of Greater Israel's population. Lebanon had a very sizeable Christian population, forming a majority of the Lebanese diaspora.
Using a variation of the Millet system it could be possible to stir divisions between Palestinians in a 'politically acceptable' way.

the 2nd Arab Revolt is supposed to represent the RL 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but it would not officially be considered a war between states due to the nature of the Cold War and the British Empire still being considered a major power.
 
Last edited:
I think divide and rule among the Muslim groups would be effective, that is demonstrated partially in my initial post with including the Druze as a separate group from the outset. Smaller groups and Bedouin could exist within Israel just as in RL.

One of the points in the initial post was also that it would include Lebanon as well as the Sinai, Golan and Jabal al-Druze. This represents a sizeable Christian and Druze community from the outset, one which by the RL independence date would be a majority of Greater Israel's population. Lebanon had a very sizeable Christian population, forming a majority of the Lebanese diaspora.
Using a variation of the Millet system it could be possible to stir divisions between Palestinians in a 'politically acceptable' way.

the 2nd Arab Revolt is supposed to represent the RL 1948 Arab-Israeli War, but it would not officially be considered a war between states due to the nature of the Cold War and the British Empire still being considered a major power.

You're missing a tremendous difference between your scenario and OTL: a much smaller amount of Jewish immigration IOTL touched off the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-9. ITTL if there are more Jewish immigrants clearly intending to use the British Empire as a springboard to an independent state, the Zionist Kibbutzim have exchanged incompetent enemies for the British Empire.

And frankly put the Israelis of the time didn't discriminate between Palestinians and other Arabs, relying on the Lebensraum/Manifest Destiny view that Palestine was a Land Without People. Your whole scenario shows no understanding of how early-variant Israeli Zionism actually worked. :rolleyes: And this isn't even mentioning the huge, major, impossible to overstate issue that bringing in super-Israel into former French imperial territory and destabilizing it right off the bat adds France to Israel's list of enemies, not to mention the not-insignificant question of why you think Palestinians are going to voluntarily flee their homeland ITTL and how this super-state with the mass immigration that never happened IOTL is going to handle much more territory than it has people. IOTL Israel relied heavily on Palestinian labor, ITTL it's expelled them all and the problems this causes are magically handwaved. And again, Christian and Muslim Palestinians were both united on a Palestine for Palestinians. Hamas was decades away in the 1940s.
 
A major problem with the original scenario is that it doesn't fit international politics. First, Britain did not have any right to split the Sinai off from Egypt, which was its own independent country. Egypt was never a colony officially, although the British de facto ran the country. Second, it completely ignores the wishes of the French whose major interest in the Middle East was the Christian populations around Lebanon. These would never be given to Britain without very good reason. Third, you can't both say that "Palestine" would be a League of Nations mandate (implying eventual self rule) and make it a de facto Crown Colony that would become a British dominion. Another thing to remember is that many of the Christians in the area are Arab Christians who would oppose Zionism for nationalistic reasons. The politics are just messed.

An alternate scenario that might lead to a "greater Israel" is one where the Ottoman Empire does not enter WWI. Jewish immigration continues under the Ottomans who suppress Arab nationalists. When Hitler comes to power, German Jews flee to Ottoman Palestine without much restriction. In the eventual aftermath of World War II, the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist with both Arabs and Jews seeking independence. Eventually the Jews win state borders much greater than the 1949 borders IOTL owing to a higher Jewish population and perhaps slightly more favorable circumstances. Looking into the details might undermine the idea, but it may have less problems than other scenarios.
 
A major problem with the original scenario is that it doesn't fit international politics. First, Britain did not have any right to split the Sinai off from Egypt, which was its own independent country. Egypt was never a colony officially, although the British de facto ran the country. Second, it completely ignores the wishes of the French whose major interest in the Middle East was the Christian populations around Lebanon. These would never be given to Britain without very good reason. Third, you can't both say that "Palestine" would be a League of Nations mandate (implying eventual self rule) and make it a de facto Crown Colony that would become a British dominion. Another thing to remember is that many of the Christians in the area are Arab Christians who would oppose Zionism for nationalistic reasons. The politics are just messed.

An alternate scenario that might lead to a "greater Israel" is one where the Ottoman Empire does not enter WWI. Jewish immigration continues under the Ottomans who suppress Arab nationalists. When Hitler comes to power, German Jews flee to Ottoman Palestine without much restriction. In the eventual aftermath of World War II, the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist with both Arabs and Jews seeking independence. Eventually the Jews win state borders much greater than the 1949 borders IOTL owing to a higher Jewish population and perhaps slightly more favorable circumstances. Looking into the details might undermine the idea, but it may have less problems than other scenarios.

Now that would be an interesting POD to explore.
 
A major problem with the original scenario is that it doesn't fit international politics. First, Britain did not have any right to split the Sinai off from Egypt, which was its own independent country. Egypt was never a colony officially, although the British de facto ran the country. Second, it completely ignores the wishes of the French whose major interest in the Middle East was the Christian populations around Lebanon. These would never be given to Britain without very good reason. Third, you can't both say that "Palestine" would be a League of Nations mandate (implying eventual self rule) and make it a de facto Crown Colony that would become a British dominion. Another thing to remember is that many of the Christians in the area are Arab Christians who would oppose Zionism for nationalistic reasons. The politics are just messed.

An alternate scenario that might lead to a "greater Israel" is one where the Ottoman Empire does not enter WWI. Jewish immigration continues under the Ottomans who suppress Arab nationalists. When Hitler comes to power, German Jews flee to Ottoman Palestine without much restriction. In the eventual aftermath of World War II, the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist with both Arabs and Jews seeking independence. Eventually the Jews win state borders much greater than the 1949 borders IOTL owing to a higher Jewish population and perhaps slightly more favorable circumstances. Looking into the details might undermine the idea, but it may have less problems than other scenarios.

The butterflies from no Ottomans in WWI might well butterfly Hitler and Nazism, though they might not butterfly an attempt to create an Israel without either. Zionism was going to aim for a Jewish state no matter what the political circumstances around it.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
An alternate scenario that might lead to a "greater Israel" is one where the Ottoman Empire does not enter WWI. Jewish immigration continues under the Ottomans who suppress Arab nationalists. When Hitler comes to power, German Jews flee to Ottoman Palestine without much restriction. In the eventual aftermath of World War II, the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist with both Arabs and Jews seeking independence. Eventually the Jews win state borders much greater than the 1949 borders IOTL owing to a higher Jewish population and perhaps slightly more favorable circumstances. Looking into the details might undermine the idea, but it may have less problems than other scenarios.

This will not work either. Under the Ottomans, the the Muslims, Christians and local Spanish Jews did not want more Germanized Jews. The Ottomans might accept a very little amount of Jewish immigration at symbolic sites for the right amount of cash. This assumes the site was largely uninhabited by modern locals. The might also accept some Jews to develop and run desired infrastructure and mines if the Jews paid for it, the the Ottomans would be careful not to create anything near a Jewish majority area. Iraq or Anatolia is a likely site around WW1. If you go into the 1950's, they might allow Jewish investor to invest in the Saudi oilfields, assuming they controlled it. Or some other similar area that needs men and money.

Or they might allow small settlements if there was a revolt as punishment for the revolt. For example, Arabs used to rob trains in Southern Jordan and NW Saudia Arabia pre WW1. So it is conceivable that the Ottomans might get tired of the constant raiding and punish the Arabs by expelling them from the local Oasis and allowing Jewish immigrants.

None of these type of activities will get you the type of Greater Israel the thread is looking for. Without the Ottomans in WW1, you get no Israel (most likely), USA as worlds largest Jewish population (Nazi still arise or something near it), Jewish state in Belarus area, or perhaps small Jewish area somewhere odd.
 
I agree that there are certainly problems with it, but it's still a possibility if you go with "greater israel" being an independence war that starts with a higher Jewish population than OTL and ending with larger borders than OTL 1949 borders. The "greater israel" of the OP is not achievable.

The Ottomans wouldn't want to encourage Jewish immigration, but my understanding is that they were very lax about preventing it, and that Ottoman law said if a a roof existed, a house couldn't be torn down. So there's not much stopping immigration.

Explicit Zionism - meaning let's grab this territory from the Ottomans and turn it into our own state - certainly would not be tolerated, but I think it's possible that Jewish immigrants would adopt a more accomodationist attitude of simply "returning the Jews to Israel" and promising to be loyal to the Ottoman Sultan. Whether such sentiments would be sincere or false is probably immaterial, as once the opportunity for independence presents itself, explicit independence would be sought.

I think the crucial thing is how Arab nationalism threatens the ability of the Ottomans to control the area. As Arab nationalism rises, Constantinople might be more willing to tolerate Jewish immigration provided they had assurances of loyalty and such immigrants helped them retain control of the area and develop it economically.
 
Top