WI: Palestine under French rather than British mandate

Hendryk

Banned
This isn't a historical matter I have any particular expertise in, so I'm asking the question to the board. Would it have been possible for the Sykes-Picot agreement to put Palestine under French rather than British mandate? This would have presumably preempted the Balfour Declaration which, in OTL, was issued the following year.

What would have been the consequences for the region?
 
The British would probably put a lot of focus on Egypt, Cyprus, the Hejaz, and Mesopotamia, then. (Which, of course, brings up the possibility of a Hejaz-run Arabia under the Hashemites over a Nejd-run Arabia run by the Sauds.) Of course, we don't know if Syria and Lebanon are awarded to the British - if they are, could there be the possibility of the British consolidating at least Syria and Mesopotamia into one country?
 

Hendryk

Banned
(Which, of course, brings up the possibility of a Hejaz-run Arabia under the Hashemites over a Nejd-run Arabia run by the Sauds.)
That in itself would be a positive development. But what of Jewish settlement in Palestine?
 
That in itself would be a positive development. But what of Jewish settlement in Palestine?

Depends on what Paris wants to do with the place - and if Syria and Lebanon are going to the British and if the British combine at least their Mandate for Mesopotamia and Syria into one country.
 
divide et impera

could there be the possibility of the British consolidating at least Syria and Mesopotamia into one country?

I doubt if they would do so. Syriraq would be quite a heavyweight in the region and I am not sure if that were too close to being a template for an Arab nation state which the British and French just stopped.

I am not quite sure, but France might, as a mandate-power in Palestine, be even a bit more concerned about Jewish settlement and try to prevent it even more than the British did in OTL.

Then they are the nasty butterflies of a possible Vichy-Palestine?!?!
 
WW2 would be interesting, with a Vichy-French Palestine the direct other side of Egypt from Axis Libya. I could imagine the Germans putting a lot more pressure on its governor to allow forces into it

And of course there would be Jews there - but with France not part of the Balfour Declaration presumably Paris hasn't been sponsoring Jewish immigration between the wars

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Lebanon is certainly a French mandate due to historical link while Palestine went British because of their military conquest and its links Egypt to the other British mandates geographically. However due to the Suez Canal I doubt its a nessecary link.

Say for whatever reason French forces are heavily involved in liberating Palestine and the Brits focus their Imperial forces at Mesopotamia. Really I imagine the French would quite want Syria maybe they demand the whole 'Levant' due to their general role in the war and direct role in liberating Jerusalem and other cities, afterall colonially France got pretty shafted a Versailles, a more aggressive Premier (Poncaire?) readresses the balance?
 
...afterall colonially France got pretty shafted a Versailles, a more aggressive Premier (Poncaire?) readresses the balance?

How do you figure? France got most of Kamerun and Togoland, Syria, and Lebanon. The UK got small parts of Kamerun and Togoland, the majority of East Africa, Zanzibar, Iraq,Transjordan and Palestine. South Africa got South West Africa. Australia got New Guinea. Belgium got a small part of East Africa. Japan got the Pacific Islands. France also got their primary goal, the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine.
 
If Palestine ends up being controlled by Vichy (and maybe a peace with the allies), maybe the Germans could impliment a plan similar to the "Madagascar Plan" that was floating around at the time, except Palestine becomes the destination.
 
Hendryk

Apart from the points mentioned Jape about the reasons why Palestine went to Britain and Syria to France there's another small problem. As far as I'm aware those mandates were allocated after the war. The Balfour Declaration was 2-11-17 so was already in play. Unless you want to have some underhand manouvering so that Britain agrees to France getting the mandate for Palestine in part so it can't be tied to the Declaration.;) However the fact that Britain had paid heavily in driving the Turks from the region, one of their few clear military successes and the proximity of the canal means I suspect Britain would be pretty unwilling to give it up.

Steve
 

Hendryk

Banned
However the fact that Britain had paid heavily in driving the Turks from the region, one of their few clear military successes and the proximity of the canal means I suspect Britain would be pretty unwilling to give it up.
Well, that could be the POD: things play out differently for Britain in the region, so that by 1916 they can't make a solid claim for the place, and instead focus on the oil-rich regions of Mesopotamia, leaving the French to deal with that overrated piece of real estate.
 
Perhaps the POD could be even earlier, in 1915. Have the British adopt Kitchner's plan to attack Alexandretta instead of Gallipoli. Not only does this shorten WWI, it also gives Britain much more of an interest in Syria.

Post-war, the Ottoman Empire is split up with Lebanon and Palestine going to France while Britain maintains Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. No Balfour declaration In TTL, but still Jews begin to migrate en masse from France and elsewhere to French Palestine.

Come WWII, French Palestine falls under the Vichy Regime's control, negotiations with the axis powers prompt the Jewish population to rise up in concert with a Commonwealth invasion. The Vichy forces meanwhile side with the Arabs causing a brief violent struggle that eventually sees Vichy French Palestine occupied, with the Jewish population effectively in control. Post-war this defacto control is made legal through the creation of the State of Israel.
 
If the commander of forces in French Palestine doesn't declare for the Free French immediately after the Armistice, then it's more than likely that the British will invade at about the same time as they attack the fleet at Mers-El-Kbir...

As to the original question, even if the Sykes-Picot agreement had given Palestine to the French (which meant diddly by '19, seeing as the French OTL were supposed to get Mosul as well), by the end of the War you've got Clemenceau as PM... the radical anti-clerical Clemenceau. I think the last thing he'd want would be for France to rule over Jerusalem.
 
Top