WI: Canaanism instead of Zionism

Canaanism OTL was a political movement among Jews in the 1930s and 1940s that grew out of Revisionist Zionism. Essentially, it believed that Jews should abandon the Jewish religion (and encourage Palestinian Arabs to abandon Islam) and join together in a secular Hebrew / Canaanite identity:

Its members believed that much of the Middle East had been a Hebrew-speaking civilization in antiquity. Kuzar also says they hoped to revive this civilization, creating a "Hebrew" nation, disconnected from the Jewish past, which would embrace the Middle East's Arab population as well. They saw both "world Jewry and world Islam" as backward and medieval; Ron Kuzar writes that the movement "exhibited an interesting blend of militarism and power politics toward the Arabs as an organized community on the one hand and a welcoming acceptance of them as individuals to be redeemed from medieval darkness on the other.

Ultimately it was only a small movement within Levantine Jews that never went anywhere. But what if it had become the dominant philosophy among Zionists, instead of the moderately secular and mildly socialist Jewish-exclusive Ashkenazi-centered nationalism that 20th century Zionism was OTL?

Questions to answer:

1. Would the Palestinian Arabs be amenable to Canaanism?

If they reject it, that kind of takes the wind out of Canaanism's sails and we go back to OTL Zionism.

2. If they are, would the rest of the Arab world?

I don't really see how this would avert the rise of Arab antisemitism (given antisemitism's long history in the Muslim world, especially in the modern era), but if it does then most Mashriqi Jews probably won't need to flee to Israel/Palestine.

The initial war against this Jewish state (and the neighboring Arab Muslims will certainly see a Canaanite country as a Jewish state, as I can expound on in a later comment) will probably happen. Jordan and Egypt can be clearly seen OTL as disinterested in establishing a Palestinian state, but instead desired to own the territory themselves.

But assuming that the new state wins the 1948 war: what then?

3. How would this impact relations between American and Israeli Jews?

To this, I have no idea.

And then, after the British Mandate expires and !Israel is established, what next? OTL American Cold War policy was, after 1967, to maintain separate Israeli and Arab pro-American pillars against Soviet influence. That clearly won't happen here.

What are your thoughts?
 
1. Would the Palestinian Arabs be amenable to Canaanism?

If it were a fair deal, not one where the new identity was rather based on Judaism and excluded aspects of Islam, or if it's apparent at the start that Palestinians will be economically or politically disadvantaged, given that the new state will be constructed around the proto-state the Zionists set up.

I don't really see how this would avert the rise of Arab antisemitism (given antisemitism's long history in the Muslim world, especially in the modern era), but if it does then most Mashriqi Jews probably won't need to flee to Israel/Palestine.

It would depend if they saw the Palestinians as being converted forcibly to this new secular position, and there would be no complaints about the Nakba at the core of whatever Arab anti-Semitism does appear. Mashriqi and other Middle Eastern Jews probably would still move to Israel in large numbers, in many cases they had to break the law to leave for Israel, here there might be normal relations that allow them to move more easily.

The initial war against this Jewish state (and the neighboring Arab Muslims will certainly see a Canaanite country as a Jewish state, as I can expound on in a later comment) will probably happen. Jordan and Egypt can be clearly seen OTL as disinterested in establishing a Palestinian state, but instead desired to own the territory themselves.

If the Palestinians are on board there might not be an invasion, this would depend on what kind of deal the Caananite identity would truly be. If it's Judaism but with less religious language, and Palestinians are expected to give up their traditions and follow these ones, and Palestinians are disadvantaged in other ways, then they'd definitely see it as a form of Jewish state. If it's a new secular thing that combines the traditions of both peoples, they might see it as another imperialist colony or socialist state, or as a new religion distinct from Judaism or Islam or Christianity, and respond like that.

There were many reasons Arab states invaded in OTL, but the clincher was that the Brits left in shambles, no partition plan was agreed to, and the Zionists were expelling Palestinians before the Israeli declaration of independence. Here the British won't be leaving to get out of a civil war full of sectarian violence, there won't be a partition of this territory, and there won't be any of the ethnic cleansing in the Nakba, and so the major causes for the invasions are gone.

If there is a war, they'd be invading British held territory in Mandatory Palestine, fighting against British soldiers and locals who are expecting independence in a timely manner. Palestinians and Zionists and British fighting alongside each other would be more effective than the British leaving the Zionists to fight both the Palestinian civilian population and the Arab armies, and this conflict would cement the new Caananite identity. On the other hand, with no Palestinian refugees to take care of, the neighboring states will have better war-making capacity for longer, and will have more economic development and less unrest in years to come, and so may be able to align in such a way as to threaten the strengthened Israel!Palestine.

I'd be surprised if the final borders in this scenario differed from the borders of Mandatory Palestine in either direction, except that Jerusalem is more likely to remain a separate state, an enclave in Israel!Palestine.

3. How would this impact relations between American and Israeli Jews?

Could go really well. ITTL Israel might be the most peaceful and democratic state in the region, and it wouldn't have been excluding Palestinians from before it's inception.
 
Much more unstable middle east, but less of that instability aimed at the west. You remove the anti-western impetus without a refugee problem in palestine, but you don't removeo ther causes ofr instability. Why? Well, a functional binational jewish-arab democracy as a model would be extremely disruptive to the region's norms, particularly the iraqi/syrian dictatorships given both's multiethnic natures.
 
If it’s from the beginning, then it would require pretty significant changes to OTL in the 1910s-1940s.

If it’s a later movement, I could see it being really just a form of secular center-left politics in Israel where they want to move towards a one-state solution with Palestinians and Israelis being one people under the law and the nation as a whole might even be called Canaan.

This could be some sort of conclusion to the incarnation of the Arab-Israeli conflict we’ve seen since 1947. I cannot see Israelis and Palestinians abandoning their religions at all, but the political sphere of their united country could have a secular element to it. Tensions (rather severe ones) would still exist and always have a chance of boiling over, but every year would be easier than the previous so long as the leadership on both sides are actively trying to smooth things over. I worry that as soon as this happens, the formerly Israeli public would quickly shift to very reactionary, anti-Muslim leaders like what happened IOTL in the early 2000s and the Palestinians, whether independently or in reaction, pick leaders nearly or equally as bad.

It could be doable. Only real questions IMO are:
Who would be most likely to do it?
When?
Is Canaan a neutral enough name for Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians to both accept?
Would it last?
 
Much more unstable middle east, but less of that instability aimed at the west. You remove the anti-western impetus without a refugee problem in palestine, but you don't removeo ther causes ofr instability. Why? Well, a functional binational jewish-arab democracy as a model would be extremely disruptive to the region's norms, particularly the iraqi/syrian dictatorships given both's multiethnic natures.

Without the Palestinian refugee crisis and the associated disruptions, Lebanon would be more likely to survive as a similar binational democracy, another model for how it works, Jordan is more likely to liberalize and democratize, and Egypt is less likely to radicalize without the demands of the Gaza Strip and the attacks of the Suez Crisis. With these more functional and more secular and more democratic states as a model, Iraq and Syria might not last as botched together multi-nation-states, or they might federalize.

I'd say less instability, more friendly to Jews and Palestinians in Israel!Palestine, but more independent from the West, and so less 'friendly', less willing to make crooked deals for corrupt leaders.

Who would be most likely to do it?
When?
Is Canaan a neutral enough name for Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians to both accept?
Would it last?

The Zionists are the most likely to be able to do it, they were the most powerful faction in the region, and they're the ones who suggested it IRL, and they're more likely to convince the British to go along with it. The British might very well support this plan if the Zionists were on board, and if it was in line with the Balfour Agreement, Palestinians would support it too.

The timing is key. By the time the British left, the Zionists were certain they could capture most of the land they wanted, and the Palestinians knew they couldn't safely stay on the wrong side of that border. This Canaan arrangement would have to be in the pipeline for a while before that, maybe even before the War, to convince them that they'd be better off working on a binational state with the British and Palestinians and civil rights and rule of law, than they would be fighting towards a Jewish state with a large Jewish majority and the borders of Mandatory Palestine / ancient Israel.

It couldn't actually be 'they must cease to be religious', only that they would be equal citizens under the law whether they were Jewish or Muslim or Christian or anything. Canaan is a neutral enough name for them to accept (or something with Levant in it), so long as the actual state is actually treating members of all faiths equally.
 
Top