WI: Monarchist Israel under Rothschilds

When Muhammad Ali is defeated in 1841, have the boundaries of Egypt include the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem. From there, hold most of OTL history constant. When the Pogroms start up in Russia, Britain offers British Palestine as a place of refuge.

It isn't as if the British were necessarily averse to sticking Jews in Egypt OTL. There was the OTL El Arish Proposal from 1903.

You proceed to have a huge wave of Jews (mostly orthodox and conservative) moving into Palestine, financed by the Rothschilds and Jacob Schiff. Britain shortly thereafter decides to carve off Palestine from Egypt in a Belgium-like manner and declare Rothschild King of Palestine (orthodox Jews contesting that a King of Israel must be of the House of David).

Jewish tradition holds that the claiming of the title of King by the Hasmoneans was what led to their downfall, as only a member of the House of David could do such a thing. I think if a Kingdom were established, it could not be named Israel. Palestine is one option. Judea/Judah is another.

A Jewish State certainly cannot be named Kingdom of Jerusalem...

Alternatively, the monarch could just have a title other than King. Grand Duchy or Principality seem like the best options available.
 
Last edited:
They were willing to give the ultraorthodox perks just for existing bc they wanted to preserve what they thought was a dying culture, so no reason you couldn't see an Israel ruled by a monarch or a set of judges instead of OTL's democratic setup for similar reasosn --the logic is that modernity failed as shown by the holocaust, so the only solution is theocratic monarchy or just pure theocracy.

A flat-out theocratic state (or theocratic monarchy) is not plausible or even really possible. Calbear mentioned a few reasons why, but the big one is that the leaders of pre-State Israel (the Yishuv) would be utterly opposed to it.

Hm. Good point. I suspect to make a theocratic state or even any sort of monarchy possible you'd likely need to move jewish migration out of russia/poland earlier than OTL, leading to earlier *zionism.

Messier *polish partition leading to the big wave of jewish/polish migration being post-1815 instead of post-1890 might so it. Not even remotely post-1900 for the POD, even if *Israel is founded in 1915 or 1930.

If you want to increase Jewish emigration to Mandate Palestine, keep the British from passing the White Paper of 1939. Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe (3,1 million in 1931) and Zionism was making substantial inroads into the Jewish community there. A monarchy is possible, but it requires the right set of circumstances, but a theocratic state is not as likely.

I think if a Kingdom were established, it could not be named Israel. Palestine is one option. Judea/Judah is another.

A Jewish State certainly cannot be named Kingdom of Jerusalem...

Alternatively, the monarch could just have a title other than King. Grand Duchy or Principality seem like the best options available.

The name Palestine wouldn't work for a Jewish state. The Principality/Kingdom of Judea (or Israel) is certainly a title that would work for a Jewish royal state but I doubt it would ever be accepted. I'm not sure about the style of Grand Duchy though. However, just look at the provisional state government for Israel - they were debating the name of the future state. Some wanted Judea, or Zion, Jeshurun, Ever, State of the Jews, or Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) among other names.

Israel
worked as a unifying name, Jewish works refer to the our people as the B'nei Yisrael (Children of Israel) or Am Yisrael (the People of Israel). Prayers refer to the Jewish people as Yisrael - the people of Israel.

Judea could certainly work but personally? I'd say either the Principality of Israel or the Kingdom of Israel would be the official name.
 
What if post Great War Palestine wouldn't have been governed by Britain as a League of Nations mandate, but turned into a Dominion of the British Empire with full independence under a common monarch as a future goal, but with the Jews and Palestinians unable to agree on a common Jewish or Arab monarch, King George V becomes a compromise candidate: GEORGIVS V - DEI GRA BRITT OMN REX - FID DEF - IND IMP - ISR REX.
 
What if post Great War Palestine wouldn't have been governed by Britain as a League of Nations mandate, but turned into a Dominion of the British Empire with full independence under a common monarch as a future goal, but with the Jews and Palestinians unable to agree on a common Jewish or Arab monarch, King George V becomes a compromise candidate: GEORGIVS V - DEI GRA BRITT OMN REX - FID DEF - IND IMP - ISR REX.

As a dominion? That would not work, I'm sorry, but it flat out would not work. And everyone would object to George V becoming the King.
 

SsgtC

Banned
What if post Great War Palestine wouldn't have been governed by Britain as a League of Nations mandate, but turned into a Dominion of the British Empire with full independence under a common monarch as a future goal, but with the Jews and Palestinians unable to agree on a common Jewish or Arab monarch, King George V becomes a compromise candidate: GEORGIVS V - DEI GRA BRITT OMN REX - FID DEF - IND IMP - ISR REX.
Big time shades of the Crusades right there. If you're making Israel a British Dominion, you might as well call it the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
Socialist or no, I think you could get a constitutional monarchy if leading figures thought it was the only way they could earn foreign support and recognition. Half a socialist loaf is better than none. The tricky part, though, is that you probably want someone from an existing dynasty, but then the monarch is Christian. Sounds messy.
Maybe the Rothschilds/Whoever could marry into an existing dynasty.
 
Top