WI - Republic of Israel after WW1?
- Thread starter twistedirregular
- Start date
Brunaburh
Banned
Crating a Jewish state to rule over a non-Jewish majority would be a violation of their civil rights.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Israel in 1918 is much harder to survive than in 1948 but still as @Joshua Ben Ari said, certainly possible. The thing is, the Hashemites are just at the border. If they feel like there is no British threat they'll invade. And if Egypt gets free in 1919 (butterflies, I know) They'll might try it as well.
If the British Armies stay until the French occupy Syria then Israel has better odds.
If the British Armies stay until the French occupy Syria then Israel has better odds.
Pretty much. I'd imagine the British stay in some places (the Port of Haifa, which the British and Theodor Herzl in Altneuland both saw as a good deep-water port, probably a base in Eilat to keep watch over the Red Sea and shipping through to the Suez) which keeps the Hashemites and Egypt from doing anything. When the British leave, these alt!Israelis are decent in terms of military strength. I could even see the British relying on the alt!Israelis to keep watch over the Red Sea to keep shipping through the Suez unimpeded after maybe a decade or two.
With an earlier Israel, I think there's a greater chance the French might try to push for an independent Christian Lebanon.
And why would the Jews accept a Christian king?
It's possible to get an "Israeli Free State" like Eire but I'd consider it very unlikely. While having a king isn't outside the realm of possibility (I gave two examples earlier, but more of the Dutch Statdholder-type of king), having a Christian king like George V or a Hapsburg isn't. Most of the Jews in this alt!Israel are either Russian Jews who escaped the Tsar, Orthodox Jews who would accept no king but from the House of David, or Labor Zionists and are small-r republicans. A republic is the best choice because it offends the least number of people.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
But you do forget one thing. A 1918 Israel is not entirely Jewish. There will be a decent Arab population. To keep things 'equal'... there might be a stadholder type appointed as Albania as well got a Protestant King to keep it 'fair'.
Can't see it too successful but there might definitely be a try to do that.
With Lebanon, I can see Phoenicianism on the rising for it.
That depends on the nature of the state. Sure, you can get a something with a hard-right persecutive government like you’ve got today, or you could also get something like the utopian model portrayed by Herzl in Altneuland, which is nominally the “Jewish State” while also having equal rights for everyone.
Would the Muslims there accept a Christian king or stadtholder? I'm not sure they would, which leads to a republic being the only real palatable choice.
And that's true. In 1914, there were 94,000 Jews and around 500,000 Muslims. But if there is an earlier Israel in 1918, I can see much larger waves of Jewish immigration to alt!Israel. Either from Europe itself (probably Polish and Russian Jews would form the bulk of those arriving) or from the Jewish communities in the Middle East.
In OTL, land that Edmond James de Rothschild bought in then-Ottoman Palestine, Arabs and Jews worked and lived together with no real grievances. So having that utopian Altneuland style Jewish and Democratic State (with full civil, religious, and political rights for non-Jews) is possible. Early Labor Zionist leaders like Ber Borochov and Berl Katznelson saw Jewish-Arab brotherhood and cooperation as the way forward and, with an earlier Israel, I think they'd have more influence on an earlier Israeli government.
Could Israel support the Hashemites? Let's be real here, the Hashemites should have won over the Saudis, but they screw up, and the rest is history. Here, the British and the Jews would be more supported of the Hashemites. (Or at least have them not break ties with London.)
Hashemite Arabia would be one big Jordan with pilgrimage revenue, but less oil. (Most of it is in the east mind you.)
Hashemite Arabia would be one big Jordan with pilgrimage revenue, but less oil. (Most of it is in the east mind you.)
I suppose this would be an appropriate place to plug my own timeline about that topic (Sand and Steel: the Story of the Modern Middle East).
It's certainly possible that this Israel would back the Hashemites. I think it also depends if the British back the Hashemites against the Saudis or if they go the route of OTL.
Don't have the Hashemites break with the British, and have the British take a harder stance against the Saudis. (And don't underestimate the Saudis.) With that, you can avoid Turaba.
Wasn't the Arab/Muslim population of Britain still pretty tiny around WW1?
Palestine in 1918 was about eight percent Jewish. Unlike 1947, I don't see how you can carve out a Jewish-majority (let alone "entirely Jewish") state. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.or...h-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present
Or are the British supposed to declare Palestine as a whole a Jewish dominion? (The original post asked "Let's say the British government actually owns up to the Balfour Declaration and establishes the Kingdom of Israel in 1918-20 as a Protectorate/Dominion of the British Empire." ) Last I heard, British dominions had parliaments that did not disfranchise nine-tenths of the population (except of course in South Africa but to treat the Palestinian Arabs as equivalent to South African blacks would go against the Balfour declaration's promise not to prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine).
I'm really astonished that so many posts here seem to ignore this little difficulty. They don't say the Arabs should be expelled or disfranchised; they don't say that Jewish immigration could have been so much greater by 1920 that a carved-out Jewish majority state would already be viable. They just act as though the problem of the non-Jewish nine-tenths of Palestine would not exist...
I for one said that either socialist pan-Semitism or essentially keeping the Millet system could solve that problem. Regardless the early Zionists were chill with the State being Jewish in name but allowing equal rights to all residents including in elections. I think that the more likely immediate threat comes from without rather then within in the form of someone (read: the Hashemites) wanting to nom some clay.
Phoenicianism is definitely a possibility, but it depends how France treats Lebanon after Israeli independence.
I think the biggest reason posts in this thread don't talk about it is because we're not entirely sure how that particular issue is going to be resolved. In OTL, Israel's birth was followed immediately by war and the movement of hundreds of thousands of people, both Jewish and Arab. In TTL, it's wholly different and - for me personally - I'm just not sure how to talk about that and what it would be like. I suppose population exchanges wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility (like the Greece-Turkey one in '23), where some Arab Muslims in alt!Israel are moved out and replaced by Jews from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Even the OTL Peel Plan in 1937 recommended a population exchange.
But I think the reason posts don't talk about it is because we're not sure how it would be resolved. I'm not sure about it.
An interesting thread indeed, got a sub!
As for a Balfour Israel? That'd be a shit show and a half. I don't think relations with the Hashemites would be nearly as rosy as some might think. Faisal viewed Palestine as an integral part of his Syrian kingdom and only really supported Zionism because it 1) got him in the good graces of his British sponsors and 2) he wanted Jewish assistance and investment to improve Arab lands. So, if you go with a TL where Faisal gets established in Syria then you have him jostling with the Brits for influence in Palestine. The you have the Husseinis who were anti-Zionist and anti-Hashemite. It'd be a four way fight between the Zionists, Hashemites, Husseinis, and British.
If you go with a TL without a Hashemite Syria and have Abdullah in Jordan as in OTL, then perhaps you'd have a similar progression as in OTL, just a few decades sooner. Zionist violence drives Palestinians into Jordan etc, etc. But, an influx of Palestinians into Jordan at that early of a stage of Hashemite control might threaten the monarchy there, creating plenty of ripples.
As for a Balfour Israel? That'd be a shit show and a half. I don't think relations with the Hashemites would be nearly as rosy as some might think. Faisal viewed Palestine as an integral part of his Syrian kingdom and only really supported Zionism because it 1) got him in the good graces of his British sponsors and 2) he wanted Jewish assistance and investment to improve Arab lands. So, if you go with a TL where Faisal gets established in Syria then you have him jostling with the Brits for influence in Palestine. The you have the Husseinis who were anti-Zionist and anti-Hashemite. It'd be a four way fight between the Zionists, Hashemites, Husseinis, and British.
If you go with a TL without a Hashemite Syria and have Abdullah in Jordan as in OTL, then perhaps you'd have a similar progression as in OTL, just a few decades sooner. Zionist violence drives Palestinians into Jordan etc, etc. But, an influx of Palestinians into Jordan at that early of a stage of Hashemite control might threaten the monarchy there, creating plenty of ripples.
danteheadman
Banned
Forget about immigration in the 1920s. But if the British Empire didn't restrict Jewish immigration starting in the 1930s, the Jewish population would have been that much greater. Between 1918 and 1931, the Jewish population tripled from 60,000 to 174,000; between 1931 and 1936, the Jewish population exploded by another 200,000. The British Empire then cut down legal Jewish immigration by two-thirds, and then in 1939 further cut down legal immigration for the five years following 1939 to a grant total of 75,000.
If not for those policies, we can anticipate that a significant number of Jews would immigrate and the population would skyrocket. The creation of a republican and nominally Jewish "Free State of Palestine" in the 1920s would do even more.
I only see one way for the British to allow the creation of such a state: if they decide to endorse the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement and create a "Free State of Palestine." I note Faisal's 1919 Arab Memorandum to the Paris Peace Conference:
The creation of a republic under nominal British rule, where the crown acts as that "great trustee," is more or less what the TL is asking for.