Say, for the sake of argument, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement) went a bit differently, and the Knesset voted to elect Faisal of Iraq and Syria to be King of Israel. How would this work? Could an Austro-Hungarian-style dual monarchy emerge? Could the Hashemites use Jews and other minorities (Kurds, Assyrians, etc) to buttress their reign against Baathist insurrection? Could the Sharifian Caliphate endure and hold custodianship of Mecca and Medina, with the Saudis relegated to an-Najd? How would this affect the rise of the Nazi Party, and its relationship with Arab fascists like Haj Amin al-Husseini or Rashid Ali al-Gaylani?

I will probably write this timeline later. I have some ideas of my own, but I am looking for help too. This will be my first timeline on this site, and I appreciate any feedback y'all can offer!! :)
 
One thing I'm imagining is the Jews and Arabs being united by a shared hatred for the Europeans. With the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French had betrayed their agreement with the Jews (the Balfour Declaration) and the Arabs (the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). The region's Turkish rulers had tried to make Turkey more Western than the Westerners -- a process which began under the Young Turks, and culminated in the proclamation of the Turkish Republic under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; the same Westernisation and nationalistic processes which prompted the Arab Revolt in the first place. (The Young Turks also made for many Armenian refugees after a rather infamous genocide; perhaps the Armenians could be another displaced nation which the Hashemite Kings could settle in their realm?) And of course, the Nazis in Germany would force a great many European Jews to flee their homes.

Perhaps the Zionist Organisation could help King Faisal retake the Kingdom of Syria, after he was ousted by the French? I don't know. Just spitballing.
 
I can't see this happening. Why Jews would accept Muslim monarch or Muslim would accept to be king of Jews? And this deal would be totally unacceptable to other Arabs. And Zionist movement was ratherly quiet leftist so it hardly would be intrested about monarchy anyway. So not any chances with Hshemite Israel if then it not be part of Jordan or king would convert to Judaism and abdicate his title. And apostasy is serious thing in Islamic world.
 
Or perhaps, a war could be fought between the Turkish Republic and the Kingdom of Syria over Alexandretta and Antioch? In OTL, the predominantly-Arab Sanjak of Alexandretta seceded from French-occupied Syria to join the Turkish Republic (after briefly becoming the independent Republic of Hatay). This was very controversial within Alexandretta/Antioch, especially among the Arab populace. If, in this timeline, the Zionist Organisation organises military support for the Kingdom of Syria against the Turkish Republic, this could lead to greater cooperation between the ZO and the Hashemite Kings (including the Sharifian Caliph), and possibly help stabilise Hashemite rule over Syria.
 
I can't see this happening. Why Jews would accept Muslim monarch or Muslim would accept to be king of Jews? And this deal would be totally unacceptable to other Arabs. And Zionist movement was ratherly quiet leftist so it hardly would be intrested about monarchy anyway. So not any chances with Hshemite Israel if then it not be part of Jordan or king would convert to Judaism and abdicate his title. And apostasy is serious thing in Islamic world.

Because both would be in an unstable position, and have common enemies. The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement were the culmination of a series of negotiations between Faisal, son of the Sharifian Caliph of Mecca and King of Iraq and Syria (including Palestine), and President Chaim Weizmann of the Zionist Organisation (who were petitioning him for recognition within Palestine). Since the ZO were petitioning the King for recognition, and both sides were notably trying to reach an agreement without British or French involvement, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that the King would recognise the Zionists as his subjects. He already ruled several different realms with very diverse populations -- Iraq and Syria; with his father ruling the Hejaz -- and of these, only the Hejaz was not under foreign occupation. Also, the Hejaz was the only of these that was not threatened by Baathist revolutionaries. Instead, the Hejaz was threatened by the Saudis. Faisal's goal would be to solidify control over his domain, and if that means giving regional representation to the Zionist Organisation, then that might have to do.
Meanwhile, the Jews likewise want stable, sovereign power. If becoming part of a greater regional entity is the best way forwards, then they, like the Hashemites, might agree entirely out of pragmatism. Think of Lebanon with a monarchy. Or the Ottoman Empire without Turkey. President Weizmann was reportedly interested in the Agreement, but it was rejected by the rest of the Zionist Organisation.
 
The first problem is that the colonial powers (more France than Britain, but probably both) are not going to let anything like that pass.
It is conceivable that Faisal and the Zionists could reach some sort of mutally acceptable agreement, though that's hard (and, in particular, the local Palestinian Arab leaders would likely feel double-crossed by any sort of such agreement, that would clearly happen over their heads, unless they are consulted). But neither party of such agreement, even in the unlikely event that they both actually have a clear majority of their own peoples behind, has the power to enforce anything on the ground on its own in the relevant timeframe. They'd need external support - the least unlikely form it may take is perhaps the US giving a damn and supporting a Wilsonian approach to the region, but this seems to run counter the political trends of the US in the twenties. And certainly the Americans are not going to risk conflict with France over the Levant.
In general, the Hashemites are not in a nice spot post WWI (which is precisely why Faysal had reached out to the Zionists of all people) and that is difficult to change without having at least the British more supportive...
Another possibility for external support is a very different Russian revolutionary government (either not-Bolshevik, or Bolshevik without Brest-Litovsk, so that they are actually at the peace table as a member of the Entente) who still wants to denounce Sykes-Picot. Hmmm... I don't see a very plausible route to that, honestly.
 
I can't see this happening. Why Jews would accept Muslim monarch or Muslim would accept to be king of Jews? And this deal would be totally unacceptable to other Arabs. And Zionist movement was ratherly quiet leftist so it hardly would be intrested about monarchy anyway. So not any chances with Hshemite Israel if then it not be part of Jordan or king would convert to Judaism and abdicate his title. And apostasy is serious thing in Islamic world.

They wouldn't. It's not that the Zionist movement was anti-monarchist, but that it wasn't interested in one. Many of the leaders of pre-state Israel (the Yishuv) were either socialists, social democrats, democratic socialists, classical liberals, or outright communists. Nearly - if not all outright - every party or faction would be opposed to it. The two groups may have been in a position with mutual enemies, but I don't see an Arab king of Israel or indeed, any king of Israel.
 
It is important to stress that, for the most part, the British called the shots in the area at the end of WWI and in the aftermath.
In hindsight, it is easy to see how they horribly, horribly mismanaged that. They played divide and conquer, leaving lasting damage to the region, which gravely impacts it to this day. It is also very questionable that Britain benefitted from the confused, paternalistic and sometimes cross-purposed regional policies upheld the Interwar, which thus prove short-sighted even by an Imperial perspective, despite the fact that many British officials involved were individually well-intentioned.
Britain felt, understandbly, that her ties to France were more important than whatever agreement with non-Western leaders whose own clout, they thought, was almost entirely own to British support itself anyway.
There's also the problem that Britain had no coherent single direction for policy in the region, which different admnistrations within the Imperial power structure sidestepping each other and promoting competing options, with Colonial Office and Foreign Office having different priorities and the local offices in Cairo having a different perspective from both.
Worst, they reasoned with paradigms that were both utterly inadequate to realities on the ground, and self contradictory (namely, the colonial model and the nation state). Cooperation of the local actors in the long-term might go a long way to create the basis to heal the damage, as opposed to aggravating it as we have seen IOTL, but would not immediately change either the balance of power (which overwhelmingly favors Britain, and France) or the underlying reasons for the British (mostly) unwittingly creating a major mess (and systemacally co-opting all local actors who aligned to the trend of making the mess worse. See for instance how they promoted raising Amin al-Husayni as Mufti even when he was not yet fully qualified for the post, in the - obviously mistaken, as we now know - hope he would prove pliable.)
 
The first problem is that the colonial powers (more France than Britain, but probably both) are not going to let anything like that pass.
It is conceivable that Faisal and the Zionists could reach some sort of mutally acceptable agreement, though that's hard (and, in particular, the local Palestinian Arab leaders would likely feel double-crossed by any sort of such agreement, that would clearly happen over their heads, unless they are consulted). But neither party of such agreement, even in the unlikely event that they both actually have a clear majority of their own peoples behind, has the power to enforce anything on the ground on its own in the relevant timeframe. They'd need external support - the least unlikely form it may take is perhaps the US giving a damn and supporting a Wilsonian approach to the region, but this seems to run counter the political trends of the US in the twenties. And certainly the Americans are not going to risk conflict with France over the Levant.
In general, the Hashemites are not in a nice spot post WWI (which is precisely why Faysal had reached out to the Zionists of all people) and that is difficult to change without having at least the British more supportive...
Another possibility for external support is a very different Russian revolutionary government (either not-Bolshevik, or Bolshevik without Brest-Litovsk, so that they are actually at the peace table as a member of the Entente) who still wants to denounce Sykes-Picot. Hmmm... I don't see a very plausible route to that, honestly.

They wouldn't. It's not that the Zionist movement was anti-monarchist, but that it wasn't interested in one. Many of the leaders of pre-state Israel (the Yishuv) were either socialists, social democrats, democratic socialists, classical liberals, or outright communists. Nearly - if not all outright - every party or faction would be opposed to it. The two groups may have been in a position with mutual enemies, but I don't see an Arab king of Israel or indeed, any king of Israel.

It is important to stress that, for the most part, the British called the shots in the area at the end of WWI and in the aftermath.
In hindsight, it is easy to see how they horribly, horribly mismanaged that. They played divide and conquer, leaving lasting damage to the region, which gravely impacts it to this day. It is also very questionable that Britain benefitted from the confused, paternalistic and sometimes cross-purposed regional policies upheld the Interwar, which thus prove short-sighted even by an Imperial perspective, despite the fact that many British officials involved were individually well-intentioned.
Britain felt, understandbly, that her ties to France were more important than whatever agreement with non-Western leaders whose own clout, they thought, was almost entirely own to British support itself anyway.
There's also the problem that Britain had no coherent single direction for policy in the region, which different admnistrations within the Imperial power structure sidestepping each other and promoting competing options, with Colonial Office and Foreign Office having different priorities and the local offices in Cairo having a different perspective from both.
Worst, they reasoned with paradigms that were both utterly inadequate to realities on the ground, and self contradictory (namely, the colonial model and the nation state). Cooperation of the local actors in the long-term might go a long way to create the basis to heal the damage, as opposed to aggravating it as we have seen IOTL, but would not immediately change either the balance of power (which overwhelmingly favors Britain, and France) or the underlying reasons for the British (mostly) unwittingly creating a major mess (and systemacally co-opting all local actors who aligned to the trend of making the mess worse. See for instance how they promoted raising Amin al-Husayni as Mufti even when he was not yet fully qualified for the post, in the - obviously mistaken, as we now know - hope he would prove pliable.)

Thank you both for your help. I really appreciate it. I admit this is a really far-fetched scenario, and there are a lot of factors which would have to go very differently. I'm trying to make this work without resorting to ASB. I'm wondering if there's some way the Hashemites could wrest some sovereign power from the British and French in the region. Maybe through support from a completely different Russian government than in OTL, but that's a whole different thing that I don't want to deal with. Perhaps support could come from Italy? Italy had some resentment against the British and the French, and Mussolini's government wasn't as foundationally anti-Semitic as Hitler's...
 
Thank you both for your help. I really appreciate it. I admit this is a really far-fetched scenario, and there are a lot of factors which would have to go very differently. I'm trying to make this work without resorting to ASB. I'm wondering if there's some way the Hashemites could wrest some sovereign power from the British and French in the region. Maybe through support from a completely different Russian government than in OTL, but that's a whole different thing that I don't want to deal with. Perhaps support could come from Italy? Italy had some resentment against the British and the French, and Mussolini's government wasn't as foundationally anti-Semitic as Hitler's...
Well, Italy had other priorities at the time, and not much leverage. Also, by the time Mussolini was in power, colonial powers had entrenched themselves in the Levant. It is possible that Italy plays an active role in supporting the Hashemites (IOTL they cared little) but that requires significant changes, and is also unlikely to have a major impact simply because Italy was not that strong in the area at the time.
 
Thank you both for your help. I really appreciate it. I admit this is a really far-fetched scenario, and there are a lot of factors which would have to go very differently. I'm trying to make this work without resorting to ASB. I'm wondering if there's some way the Hashemites could wrest some sovereign power from the British and French in the region. Maybe through support from a completely different Russian government than in OTL, but that's a whole different thing that I don't want to deal with. Perhaps support could come from Italy? Italy had some resentment against the British and the French, and Mussolini's government wasn't as foundationally anti-Semitic as Hitler's...

Like Falecius said, Italy had very different views at the time and was not really capable of throwing its weight around. I don't see a way for there to be a Hashemite king of Israel, and the Hashemite revolt in Syria was put down hard by the French. A lot of things would have to go differently for this, I'm afraid.
 

Deleted member 94680

If you had the Hashemites lose control of the Arabian area they coveted as OTL, but had other things change, it might be possible?

Maybe given a different Sykes-Picot, the Americans refuse their offered (rumoured?) Palestine Mandate but take another area American Armenia for instance, or the Turkish War of Independence goes differently, or the Ottomans hold out longer and require greater Arab support to defeat, or some other such PoD and maybe the Great Powers decide the best vehicle for control of the “International Zone” is a Hashemite monarch?
 
Yeah, the sense I'm getting is that the US is the only nation with enough influence to seriously affect British or French policy in the region. In OTL, the US stayed out of the League of Nations and returned to a mostly-isolationist foreign policy (except for in the Western Hemisphere). Woodrow Wilson would have wanted the US to play a more active role in international relations, but the Wilsonian model was very pro-nation-state, and against multinational dynastic empires like a pan-Levantine Hashemite Empire. I don't know. What if someone like Robert La Follette held the presidency, and there was a stronger Progressive presence in Congress?
 

Deleted member 94680

Yeah, the sense I'm getting is that the US is the only nation with enough influence to seriously affect British or French policy in the region. In OTL, the US stayed out of the League of Nations and returned to a mostly-isolationist foreign policy (except for in the Western Hemisphere). Woodrow Wilson would have wanted the US to play a more active role in international relations, but the Wilsonian model was very pro-nation-state, and against multinational dynastic empires like a pan-Levantine Hashemite Empire. I don't know. What if someone like Robert La Follette held the presidency, and there was a stronger Progressive presence in Congress?

It’s not so much that the US could affect Anglo-French policy in the region with their influence, rather that if they had taken up the tentatively offered Mandates therein they could affect what land the British and French took for themselves. An American-backed Armenia or Kurdistan probably means the British take less or none at all of what became Northern Iraq, if the Americans place themselves in the Levant the French might be less inclined to take Syria as well as the Lebanon. The likelihood of a “buffer state”, where a kind of new Great Game might be played for influence of a ‘pliable’ ruler, makes the possibility of a Hashemite Kingdom appear. Failing the placement of a ‘supplicant’ Arab kingdom to the northern swathe of land, is there the chance a Hashemite polity is created to the West of the region to ensure America doesn’t control the Holy Places? An upshot of this might be the Jews of the region find themselves under a Hashemite monarchy...
 
It’s not so much that the US could affect Anglo-French policy in the region with their influence, rather that if they had taken up the tentatively offered Mandates therein they could affect what land the British and French took for themselves. An American-backed Armenia or Kurdistan probably means the British take less or none at all of what became Northern Iraq, if the Americans place themselves in the Levant the French might be less inclined to take Syria as well as the Lebanon. The likelihood of a “buffer state”, where a kind of new Great Game might be played for influence of a ‘pliable’ ruler, makes the possibility of a Hashemite Kingdom appear. Failing the placement of a ‘supplicant’ Arab kingdom to the northern swathe of land, is there the chance a Hashemite polity is created to the West of the region to ensure America doesn’t control the Holy Places? An upshot of this might be the Jews of the region find themselves under a Hashemite monarchy...

I see. I know Wilson proposed an independent Armenia which would include Van and Trabzon, and Mahmud Barzanji tried to establish a Kurdish kingdom in northern Iraq. If Wilson had his way, how likely would US support for Barzanji's revolt have been?

Also, were the Americans offered direct governance of any territory? If so, where? They were left out of Sykes-Picot, so any territory they took would have to be the result of a new agreement.
 
The consensus here seems to be that the OTL situation post WW1 makes such a scenario quite unlikely, especially due to French and British interests. But what about a scenario where the CP pull off a victory (or White Peace) in Europe, but the Ottomans still lose Syria and Palestine? Could Germany be interested in the OP’s solution?
 
The consensus here seems to be that the OTL situation post WW1 makes such a scenario quite unlikely, especially due to French and British interests. But what about a scenario where the CP pull off a victory (or White Peace) in Europe, but the Ottomans still lose Syria and Palestine? Could Germany be interested in the OP’s solution?

I doubt it. If the Central Powers win, but the Ottomans still lose Syria and the Levant, it stands to reason that the area falls under British control. The Balfour Declaration would (very likely) still be issued in November 1917 during the course of the war against the Ottomans, and I doubt the Germans would care much about putting an Arab king in British Palestine. Now, there are various factors like when the Ottoman Empire falls, how Germany and Austria-Hungary win in Europe, to take into consideration, but I sincerely doubt the Germans would care much about the area.
 
The consensus here seems to be that the OTL situation post WW1 makes such a scenario quite unlikely, especially due to French and British interests. But what about a scenario where the CP pull off a victory (or White Peace) in Europe, but the Ottomans still lose Syria and Palestine? Could Germany be interested in the OP’s solution?
I'd wager that a "German Sykes-Picot" after a late CP victory is indeed in the cards, considering that Germany and Turkey quarreled numerous times on the issue of oil-rich Transcaucasia after Russia's collapse. IIRC, the Germans wanted to negotiate for independent, semi-neutral states in the Caucasus that would serve as a buffer against Russian and Turkish ambitions, while the Ottoman Empire dreamed of annexing the region all the way to Azerbaijan (with the Armenians being... disposed of, as "an obstacle"). You could have tensions boil over on this issue. It could lead to a Turco-German war, or, more lightly, a compromise in which Turkey gets what it wants in the Caucasus while giving up the Fertile Crescent area to Germany, who promptly establishes dominance over the area.
As to how Germany would deal with the Jewish-Palestinian Question, no clue. Events could unfold rather spontaneously.
 
One thing I'm imagining is the Jews and Arabs being united by a shared hatred for the Europeans. With the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French had betrayed their agreement with the Jews (the Balfour Declaration) and the Arabs (the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence). The region's Turkish rulers had tried to make Turkey more Western than the Westerners -- a process which began under the Young Turks, and culminated in the proclamation of the Turkish Republic under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; the same Westernisation and nationalistic processes which prompted the Arab Revolt in the first place. (The Young Turks also made for many Armenian refugees after a rather infamous genocide; perhaps the Armenians could be another displaced nation which the Hashemite Kings could settle in their realm?) And of course, the Nazis in Germany would force a great many European Jews to flee their homes.

Perhaps the Zionist Organisation could help King Faisal retake the Kingdom of Syria, after he was ousted by the French? I don't know. Just spitballing.

Don’t know how plausible it is, but it’s alot of fun. I figure the leftist Zionists could tolerate Faisal as a constitutional monarchy. Would be interesting to see this backed by the Americans
 
Top