The Law of Return

Yom homasozeh ve batoleh ("Day of the Holocaust and Heroism") known in English as Holocaust Remembrance Day, is observed as the Ottoman State's day of commemoration for the millions of Jews who perished in the Holocaust as a result of the actions carried out by National Socialist Germany and its accessories, and for the Jewish resistance in that period. Throughout the Ottoman State, it is a national memorial day and public holiday, although it is of particular importance in the Syrian and some Anatolian provinces, where a great number of descendants of Holocaust survivors live; as well as in the Mesopotamian provinces and the autonomous regions of Tarablus (or "Tripoli") and Yemen, with large native Jewish populations. It was inaugurated in 1949, anchored by a law presented by the Ottoman National Council and Grand Vizier Mustafa Nahhas Pasha and signed by Sultan Osman V. In other countries there are different commemorative days, particularly in nations with large Jewish populations, such as Egypt (who shares a sultan with the Ottomans), Ethiopia, France, Morocco, Russia and United States.

Yom Homasozeh was inaugurated in 1949, anchored in a law passed in the Ottoman National Council by Grand Vizier Mustafa Nahhas Pasha and simultaneously signed by the Sultan. Outside of the Ottoman State, many Jewish communities hold a solemn ceremony on this day, similar to the formalised one performed by the Hakham Bashi (Ottoman Chief Rabbi) in Constantinople, but there is no institutionalized ritual accepted by all Jews. Lighting memorial candles and reciting the the prayer for the departed are common. The Mahafeza (Conservative Judaism) movement in the Ottoman State (itself brought by American and European immigrants to the Ottoman State in the 1970's) has created Megillat Hashoah, a scroll and liturgical reading for Yom Homasozeh, a joint project of Jewish leaders in Canada, Egypt, France, Morocco, the Ottoman State, and the United States. In the 1990's, conservative rabbis outside of the states with the largest populations of the descendants of Holocaust survivors began suggesting a program of observance for the holiday, including fasting. This has yet to be accepted by Jews universally, although the day has, since the 1960's, been considered a fasting day by American, French and Ottoman Jews alike.
 
Last edited:
What...? How on earth can a universe in which there is a surviving Ottoman Empire which controls not just the territories it had in 1914, but also appears to have either kept control of or regained Tunis (the former could alter Franco-German relations and lead to no WWI, the latter could only be the result of an extremely over the top crushing victory for the central powers), still have the Nazis rise to power in Germany, institute a holocaust against the Jewish people and then be defeated in a similar timeframe to OTL? The mere existence of such an expansive Ottoman state implies that many of the socio-economic impetuses for the rise of Nazism are unlikely to be present, and even if for some reason (neutral OE in WWI? Doesn't tie with Tunis though) they are Hitler's rise to power (and you need Hitler or someone very like him for mass extermination of Jews rather than simple progroms and encouraged emigration to take place) was so fraught with quirks of fate and chance that it was incredible it even happened in the first place.

If you want to write about a post-war Israel with a different policy on the Law of Return, the Ottomans don't belong there, but if you want to talk about the effects of an Ottoman Palestine, then the presence of Nazi Germany is incongrous.
 
You are very correct, I meant Tarablus ("Tripoli"), not Tunis. I will correct this mistake. The idea is to put together the story in installments and as a direct consequence, the history is learned. However, I will concede that the idea is of a neutral Ottoman Empire in WWI that leads to future, weaker capitulations leading up to WWII, and an increasingly independent "nationalist" (more correctly, "Ottomanist" following the concepts of the Young Ottomans and Ottomanism) take during WWII and beyond with oil revenues. The security and ability for this to take place will be the concrete alliance and relationship formed between Ottoman sultan and President Franklin Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy at the Yalta Conference.

I believe: 1) Neutral and reorganising and weak Ottoman Empire during WWI; 2) A weaker but still existent "Sick Man of Europe" during the interwar years, paired with 3) A newfound industrialisation of sorts and an American alliance during WWII could allow for a similar history to real life through the Second World War. I believe significant changes come with the Cold War and the presence of a strong U.S. ally in the Ottomans. Let me know what you think, I know it is rough, this is why I thought to write it in interesting encyclopedia articles because it would come together as I write it with input from everyone who reads, as opposed to posting a timeline and re-editing constantly.

I am new to this :eek:
 
I'm not entirely sure I agree, though the Tripoli in Lebanon as opposed to Tunis makes a lot more sense. Neutral Ottomans could lead to neutral Bulgaria, and it certainly helps the Entente to supply Russia and Serbia more easily. Indeed if Bulgaria is still on the Central powers, it becomes entirely feasible that the Entente can do a replay of early 1918 much earlier, pushing the CPs back and taking enough of Macedonia to convince the government that Sofia would be in very real danger. Neutral Bulgaria makes this even more of a possibility, at which point the entire outcome of the war is thrown in doubt as we could have Austria-Hungary collapsing militarily in the balkans as early as late 1915 or early 1916, while Russia is still relatively stable. In any case it throws vast tracts of the situation in doubt, up to and including the strength of communism in Russia that was a big part of the fear tactics Hitler and others in the far right drew on. Not to mention that the earlier the war ends, the better the economic prospects of Germany are in the post-war situaiton, and once you start removing hyperinflation and those assorted problems, we reach a point where Germany slips into the 'as likely to go communist as fascist in the depression with the right catalyst' category as most of europe was at the time.

This isn't to say that you couldn't have some sort of right wing, militarily agressive, anti-semetic regime in Germany after the war, but a holocaust approaching the scale of OTL's is unlikely in such a scenario.
 
I'd agree that the holocaust is less likely to happen in its current form if the Ottomans stay neutral in World War 1, but your ideas for how the Ottoman Empire would develop are quite interesting. A question about the Ottoman Jewish population in your TL, are they still comprised mainly of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews or has there been immigration from Europe?
 
I'd agree that the holocaust is less likely to happen in its current form if the Ottomans stay neutral in World War 1, but your ideas for how the Ottoman Empire would develop are quite interesting. A question about the Ottoman Jewish population in your TL, are they still comprised mainly of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews or has there been immigration from Europe?

I was trying to allude to Yemen, Iraq and Tarablus (Libya) having large native Ottoman Jewish populations (Mizrahi) while the "Syrian and Anatolian provinces" AKA, Istanbul area and Palestine having larger immigrant populations as a result of the Holocaust, since the Ottoman stance was pro-immigration to an extent. I think the Ottoman Empire being in tact allows for larger scale Jewish immigration to the Holy Land and surrounding area as the borders for Palestine do not exist, and the larger major cities would likely be more attractive, namely, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Damascus, Beirut, etc. Additionally, Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews are in put in Yemen, Iraq, North Africa, etc.

I don't mean to gruesome or disrespectful but I like the ideas of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust peacefully being welcomed and settling in the nation where they prospered and historically were welcomed...the Ottoman Middle East.:eek:

[I have so many ideas I will have to flesh out. For now that I have to finish packing up my apartment here in NYC as I fly out to Manama on Sunday!]
 
Rough concept of the region, 2012.

OLR2.png
 
When did the Ottomans conquer the Saudis and british Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait, why are the Trucial states controlled by Oman, and why does what was the Aden protectorate get the British zone of the Rub al-Khali when it's useless desert to them, and they'd probably have to go through Oman to get to it anyway.
 
When did the Ottomans conquer the Saudis and british Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait, why are the Trucial states controlled by Oman, and why does what was the Aden protectorate get the British zone of the Rub al-Khali when it's useless desert to them, and they'd probably have to go through Oman to get to it anyway.

Well first of all, the timeline is in a post-1900 forum so that means 1900 is the history we are dealing with. "Saudis" are actually Jabal Shammar and Najd, territories ruled as vassals of the Ottomans under the Al Rasheed. And even when Al Saud was in power in Najd, they recognized Ottoman suzerainty. Eventually in a world with a longer lasting and powerful Ottoman state, rule of the Arabian Peninsula would be a cornerstone.

Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait all also flew the Ottoman flags from their palaces and recognized the suzerainty of the Ottoman state over them. Again in a world with no Arab nationalism and a strong, united Ottoman State with claims and recognition to the Caliphate, in facing the danger of an irredentist Iran, it naturally makes sense for Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait to ascend to the Ottoman State formally as centralization will likely be happening throughout the 20th century.

Although I initially thought to include Trucial Oman in Oman post-expiration of British treaties, I am thinking to revise and make what is the U.A.E. in real life, just that.

Aden Territory having the British sphere is resulting from a Britain increasingly weakened after WWII, as in real life, with a US-Ottoman (Oil for Security) alliance on the raise, it would make sense for them to include this Empty Quarter which the Ottomans legally recognized as a British area in 1904, to be attached to Aden, which becomes what it initially was in real life, another UAE of various Yemeni sultanates, sheikhdoms and states. This way the British are able to check the expansion of the Ottomans to an extent.
 
The problem with that is that the trend in Arabia at the time was of the various Sheikh's seeking more autonomy from the Ottoman Empire, not less. The Ottoman-Rashidi alliance was unpopular with the people of the emirate, and judging from their OTL performance, when the Saudis attempt to retake Nejd I really don't have a lot of confidence of the Rashidis pushing them back-the 6th Amir is really the only hope because when he died the entire family basically descended into civil war, at the same time the Sheikh of Kuwait had already signed an agreement with the British in 1899 which saw him effectively set up as a de facto independent ruler under British protection, though the state of affairs wasn't recognised by the Ottomans until 1913, Bahrain had been a British protectorate since 1860 and Qatar had forced the Ottomans to accept non-direct control and effective independence in 1893.

I'm not saying the rise of the Saudis is inevitable, as certainly if the Rashidis had been better organised they probably could have defeated them, but at the same time while the Rashidis felt an alliance with the Ottomans had been beneficial and wanted to continue it despite opposition, they certainly would not appreciate losing their independence. Take that in combination with the strong British influence in the gulf states and I think the best the Ottomans can really aim to do without alienating most of their supporters in Arabia is to limit British influence in Kuwait and Qatar and have a large, allied and freindly Rashidi state in the interior.
 
Very interesting. Does the Ottoman State in 2012 still use a millet system? If so, are the Jews considered a single millet (as would be suggested by the existence of an "Ottoman Chief Rabbi") or is each Jewish religious movement a separate one? If separate, how many are there? If a single millet, how much conflict is there between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform religious authorities? (The Reform movement began in Germany in the early 19th century, and some of the Holocaust survivors in the Ottoman State would probably follow it.)

How much autonomy do the Jews (and Christians for that matter) have over religious worship, education and cultural expression? Is there an option for those who prefer to secularize?

What is the Ottoman State's form of government? There is obviously a Sultan, but is he mainly a religious figurehead in a parliamentary democracy or does he have real power? Is there some version of the OTL constitution? Are there any autonomous regions other than Trablus and Yemen - Mount Lebanon, maybe? Outside the autonomous regions, is the state still divided into vilayets, and has there been any decentralization of local administration? Are there any special arrangements in Palestine or, alternatively, in Jerusalem alone?

I assume, also, that there's a reason the Ottoman State isn't called the Ottoman Empire.

The name of the holiday is in Hebrew - is that one of the official languages of the State? Also, what is the source of American Jewish immigration? Presumably the American Jews wouldn't have suffered from the Holocaust and wouldn't need a refuge, so their immigration must be ideological. Is it some version of Zionist ideology which stresses immigration plain and simple rather than independent statehood? Is there a *Tel Aviv as an outgrowth of Jaffa?

I'd certainly like to hear more about this timeline when you're settled in at Manama.
 
Top