WI: No British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine

100 years ago on 2nd November 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent Lord Rothschild, a prominent figure in the British Jewish Community, a message to be passed along to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, in which the British government officially proclaimed support for a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. The Federation received the message and published it in the press on 9th of November.

This declaration incensed the native Arabs who were promised a united Arab nation stretching from modern day Syria to Yemen and led to the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine, which became the site of extreme (and in some cases, violent) friction between the Arabs and the Jews, especially those that came from Nazi-occupied Europe. The British overseers proposed several solutions to resolve the tensions, all of which were turned down by one side or the other, most of which included partitioning Palestine between a Arab state and a Jewish state.

After the Holocaust, it became explicitly clear that the Jews needed a country of their own and on 14th May 1948, the State of Israel declared it's independence.

But what if the United Kingdom refused to have anything to do with the Zionists and refused to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine?
 
100 years ago on 2nd November 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent Lord Rothschild, a prominent figure in the British Jewish Community, a message to be passed along to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, in which the British government officially proclaimed support for a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. The Federation received the message and published it in the press on 9th of November.

This declaration incensed the native Arabs who were promised a united Arab nation stretching from modern day Syria to Yemen and led to the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine, which became the site of extreme (and in some cases, violent) friction between the Arabs and the Jews, especially those that came from Nazi-occupied Europe. The British overseers proposed several solutions to resolve the tensions, all of which were turned down by one side or the other, most of which included partitioning Palestine between a Arab state and a Jewish state.

After the Holocaust, it became explicitly clear that the Jews needed a country of their own and on 14th May 1948, the State of Israel declared it's independence.

But what if the United Kingdom refused to have anything to do with the Zionists and refused to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine?

In that case, they're basically forced to offer it to the Hashmites: which has trend of strengthening Pan-Arabism, certainly. With the combined strength of Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Jordan, they also put France's position in Syria on a much more fragile foundation.
 
Perhaps a unified Hashemite Arabia forms to counterbalance the Saudi Arabia of the peninsula.

Both are probably western aligned, though i can see it as a point of tension between the UK and the US as the British likely continue to support the Hashemites whilst the US does the same for the Saudis.

It is possible that if events stay broadly similar to the point that an nationalist Egyptian government seizes the Suez canal, that the Hashemites will be part of the Anglo-French coalition to retake it. This might lend some legitimacy to the effort as the Anglo-French would then have a significant and definitely local backer for their ambitions of creating a canal zone under their control. The Hashemites likely getting a share in the company and the Sinai for their contributions to the cause.
Possibly even an occupation of Egypt primarily with Hashemite troops, which is then either absorbed into the Hashemite kingdom, or become a protectorate of it. (Though either is unlikely to last long)

A United Hashemite Kingdom would likely form part of a troika that would divide the Islamic world along with the Saudis and Iran. With occasional conflict erupting between the three powers.
 
In that case, they're basically forced to offer it to the Hashmites: which has trend of strengthening Pan-Arabism, certainly. With the combined strength of Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Jordan, they also put France's position in Syria on a much more fragile foundation.
That also avoids strangling Zionism in its cradle. The Hashemites were willing to accommodate Jewish settlement (at least Abdallah was), and would not tolerate troublemaking by the Husseinis. (A different Mufti of Jerusalem, to begin with.) But the Zionists would be accepted only as long as they were useful and posed no threat; unlimited immigration would be right out.

The Labor Zionists could accept this, for a while, but the Revisionist Zionists probably would fight at some point.
 
Cynically it appears that Britain was seeking to create a sphere of influence inside the Ottoman Empire, the French had pursued the Catholic population, the Russians claimed the Orthodox peoples, and Britain was courting the Jewish minority. Against this one would consider that British investment into the Ottomans and the past conflict with the Saud clan, putting Britain in line to champion the other Arab tribes adjacent to her holdings on the peninsula and in Persia might extinguish support for a relatively useless position in Palestine. Then I suspect that Britain might have built a strong Arab Kingdom and enjoyed a closer relationship with it. My suspicion is that the then far more Christian Britain would pursue the Holy Land as a sort of duty, but what real consequences if they in effect abandon both the local Jewish populace and the Zionists in Britain? Jerusalem is another holy city to the Moslems that under British rule might be as offensive in any event. It sure does evoke notions of the crusades, perhaps still fuelling a rift with the Arabs who now hold Mecca and Medina. Britain may find itself no longer a distant friend but an enemy in the tent. Arab nationalism may combine with Islamic fervor to focus on Britain as the foremost enemy to both. Thus I am doubtful British affairs in the Middle East go any better than they did, in fact they may go far worse and sooner.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
But what if the United Kingdom refused to have anything to do with the Zionists and refused to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine?

Without the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist movement does not get the same boost of confidence and fundraising clout it got among global Jewry that it got in OTL.

However, Jewish immigration and grassroots labor Zionism existed even in Ottoman times, so there is no reason for it to stop under the British Mandate.

Without a loud declaration, Arabs may be less mobilized against Jewish immigration.

Without the belief in British officialdom that the Balfour Declaration created a messy, provocative commitment, the British authorities might ironically come down harder on any anti-Jewish or anti-British disturbances by the Arabs. Rather than people being stuck enforcing a problematic policy, they would see putting down disturbances as simply a matter of keeping good order in the territory. Mandatory authorities might be appreciative of tax receipts from local Jewish communities and resisdents There would be landholders willing to sell to Jewish settlers in the ATL unless there's a government authority explicitly dedicated to preventing it.

Without a Balfour Declaration and formal commitment to a Jewish National Home things might not be as different from OTL as we might suppose.

The big factors would be- do the British set up, and do the Arabs accept, establishment of an assembly elected by all inhabitants that after a short period could probably vote in majorities seeking to control immigration and land sales to immigrants, that the British mandate authorities would then feel obligated to support?

And would the British consider a corporation of the Palestinian Jews, dedicated to holding lands in the Jewish community's interest (like OTL's Jewish Agency which allowed no selling back to to non-Jewish buyers) to be a legal corporation or not?

Such an organization, and fairly open immigration policies actually might *not* be inconsistent with typical laws governing protectorates and colonies within the British Empire at the time. Maybe there is someone with some expertise on the subject of British law as applied to the Empire who could contribute to the discussion.
 
Top