WI: Britain doesn't separate Transjordan from Palestine, and the Jewish state includes both

Hierosolyma

Banned
The original plan was for the reconstituted Jewish state to include both modern-day Israel/Judea and Samaria/Gaza and Jordan, but Jordan was broken off in the early 1920s to appease local Arabs, and to reward a Hashemite prince with a kingdom. What if the Brits had stuck to the original plan, and given both Palestine and Transjordan to the Jews?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The original plan was for the reconstituted Jewish state to include both modern-day Israel/Judea and Samaria/Gaza and Jordan, but Jordan was broken off in the early 1920s to appease local Arabs, and to reward a Hashemite prince with a kingdom. What if the Brits had stuck to the original plan, and given both Palestine and Transjordan to the Jews?
Britain never had any intention of giving the Jews Jordan.
 
Plan was never to give any land to the Jews solely. Even after WW2 it was meant to be a state with Jews and Arabs as equals but with free Jewish immigration. It did not work for OTL Israel and would have worked even less for a larger entity. Don't know where you are getting the idea of a purely Jewish state planned in the 20's, that might be a demand by Zionist groups but no one else would have taken it seriously, the Balfour Declaration was just to allow Jews to settle and expressly stated no existing rights of the inhabitants were to be infringed.
 
Things would be even shittier. Western nations wouldn't get any Arab friends in Middle East. In toher hand thibngs might be so hard that Israeli government would be even more willingful accept independent Arab state which would have at least West Bank.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
That's what the original Balfour Declaration said.
The original Balfour Declaration didn't even say anything about an independent Jewish state, it just said there would be an "Jewish National Home" IN Palestine. Not including all of Palestine, IN Palestine. The wording already implies it was never supposed to include Jordan.
 
That would be a very large area for the state of Israel to defend.
main-qimg-815656aa817ac06f1bf1512ac7595e60-c
 
That would be a very large area for the state of Israel to defend.
main-qimg-815656aa817ac06f1bf1512ac7595e60-c

True. And Arab population would be markable in whole area. More workable would be give Palestine to Kingdom of Jordan. Jordan might even be in better position when it has more productive ground and more of seashore. And surely Jerusalem would be more attractive for tourism than Amman or Petra.
 

Germaniac

Donor
The original plan was for the reconstituted Jewish state to include both modern-day Israel/Judea and Samaria/Gaza and Jordan, but Jordan was broken off in the early 1920s to appease local Arabs, and to reward a Hashemite prince with a kingdom. What if the Brits had stuck to the original plan, and given both Palestine and Transjordan to the Jews?

Seriously are you just trolling? Im just waiting for the what if a 20th century crusade to liberate the middle east from those evil muslims happened...
 
There were three possible approaches to take in regards to creating a Jewish state in the Middle East:

1. A South Africa style state from the beginning where the country is run by and for Jews and Arabs and anyone else are explicitly second class citizens or lower, and in this case it woudln't matter if Jews are the minority. Such a country could include Trans Jordan.

2. An essentially Arab Middle Eastern state with religious liberty and Jews are given guaranteed rights to settle. The closest something like this has actually happened in the Middle East is Lebanon, which had a really complicated power balancing arrangement. Such a country could also include Trans Jordan.

3. The Ulster approach of gerrymandering borders where the Jewish settlers were a minority. This obviously could not include Trans Jordan, and IOTL this was pretty much the route taken.

So including Trans Jordan means changing more than the borders, you have to change your concept of "Jewish state in the Middle East" from the start. Also, in the 1930s and 1940s the world was simply not going to get option # 2, colonialism was still very much alive and people really just didn't think in those terms. So you are left with #1, which would be an interesting but butterfly rich and controversial alternative history scenario.
 
That's what the original Balfour Declaration said.

As others have pointed out, the Balfour Declaration said no such thing: it only referred to a Jewish national home "in" Palestine, without specifying its borders or even whether the "national home" would be an independent state. The idea of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan was not Great Britain's but that of Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionists--though even they ultimately gave up on it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30245747?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


begin.jpg
 
Top