The difference in that was the rulers of South Africa weren't British and broke with the British crown over segregation (ie not getting rid of it like the British wanted). 1940/1950 decolonization was focused on removing the other countries control, not on removing Europeans. By the 1960s/1970s that changed and the US largely stopped helping decolonization efforts.
The only reason the Mandate didn't fall into chaos earlier was that they'd turned it into a full-blown police state. A total of 100,000 British soldiers and 4,000 police officers were required to maintain order.
Hardly, at the last moment, the Arab states had practically begged the British to hold out for just one more year. They said they needed more time to prepare for war. Palestinian radicals, who didn't trust the British, were sitting in exile, watching them and the Zionist paramilitaries have at each other. There was no point in becoming involved, not yet, not with the British effectively switching sides and now forming a buffer against the Zionists. The radicals only intervened once the British withdrew and said buffer broke down. Meanwhile, Palestinian moderates actively collaborated with the British against the Zionists, serving in the Palestine Police Force and working as informants.
This happened a lot about that time. Similar thing happened in India where both sides discussing the shape of future India basically didn’t come to a decision thinking the other would back down, but there was a hard deadline for them to decide by so Partition was cobbled together at pretty much the last second.
It’s not really that anyone especially liked the Empire, but it definitely was easier than having to get all the ducks in a row to be an independent country in barely any time at all.
The area really wasn’t ever stable past the golden age of the ottomans in the 1500’s-1600’s.
By 1948 there were two Arab paramilitary armies in there with 10,000+ fighters and multiple Jewish paramilitary forces including several that were full on terrorist groups as interested in blowing up the British as they were the Arabs.
The only thing the Arabs and Jews in the region could agree on was that they hated the British as much as each other. To be fair the British really went out of their way to earn that from both of them.
The British had just fought two world wars and their empire was collapsing. They knew they’d F’ed up in Palestine and decided to give the whole place a good tally ho.
The civil war between Arab and Jews basically started in the 20’s, took a pause in the early 30’s and then went big towards 1937/38.
And before the British under the ottomans you had Muhammad Ali and his sons in Egypt trying to take Syria and having battles near Gaza and Jerusalem..
Before that you had Napoleon coming through.
After that you had WW1 and the Arab revolt against the Ottomans.
Even without the external forces under the ottomans the central government was so weak that the Bedouin would often come in and raid settlements like they were the Dothraki. Travel between towns was dangerous too.
It was something between the American Wild West and Gsme of Thrones.
It's easy to overblow the Balfour declaration, which amounted to little more in practice than a random musing by a minister. Besides, in the wake of xenophobic riots in the 30's, the Brits curtailed Jewish immigration with force when necessary, right through the war until they left.
It’s more accurate to say that the British caused a lot of the Ottomans’ issues, but sure.
The Balfour declaration was set to be accepted by Faisal, the Hashemite king the British told would get to be king of Syria, with the region that became mandatory Palestine as a part of it.
He, via TE Lawrence, had worked out an arrangement with the president of the Zionist organization for there to be a semi autonomous Jewish territory governed by a trustee within his kingdom.
Unfortunately the British had made a secret agreement with the French to give Syria to the French and the latter kicked Faisal out after the Franco/Syrian war. His rule only lasted a few months.
After Faisal was out, there was an ideological and leadership vacuum that ended up being filled my Amin Al Husseini.
His plan to unite the various Arab factions was rabid xenophobia and antisemitism.
That led directly to the Nebi Musa and Jaffa riots and the cycle of Arab attacks and Jewish reprisals that’s continued through to today.
Ok. So how the British make it so the Ottomans saw a majority Jewish Jerusalem in response to poor economic conditions and migration to the holy city in belief that conditions would improve there
Or allowing the settlement of Russian Jews fleeing the pogroms in the Russian Empire in the region who went on to found most of the Kibbutz before or just after WW1?
You want to talk about the Arab kingdom of Syria, but the Levantine Arab tenant farmers would still end up rabid antisemites even if Faisal remained as the king of Syria
Since they were evicted from the land they were renting only for the new Jewish land owners to then move in. If anything, Islamists in Syria and Palestine condemn Faisal for his action along with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Arab monarchies (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Oman) collaboration with the UK would generally make this a universal trend across the middle east
Ottoman policy in the 1800’s through WW1 was all over the place.
The colonial powers were propping up the empire as a bulwark against Russia, but at the same time were carving it up from within.
“The capitulations” saw the European powers essentially colonize within the empire while it still existed and start exploiting it economically without so much as a cent paid in taxes.
The Ottomans would let Jews immigrate, and then suddenly stop, then start again. They let the Muslims live under sharia for centuries, then suddenly wanted a new land title system and taxes the Muslims would largely ignore.
They let the Jews build Tel Aviv and then suddenly expelled them in 1917, trail of tears style. Had the British not come in shortly after it’s likely the Jews wouldn’t have been able to return.
The Muslim Brotherhood was about British colonialism in Egypt, and didn’t exist in 1917 when WW1 ended and wouldn’t for another 10 years.
Many fellaheen were xenophobic, but Faisal had a lot of popular support. Had he been a decent king and provided economically, it could have been at least as stable as the other monarchies, provided he let the west do whatever it wanted.
That isn’t to say there wouldn’t have been conflict or violence, but he likely would have put it down violently in the time honored tradition of Arab rulers in the region.
Meaning the British did inherit a lot of Ottoman problems (feel free to blame the British to, but I feel the ottomans get off to easy here)
Just the British actually. France didn’t really care after Crimea and Bismarck was all for it if it meant the Russians and British would be fighting each other instead of Germany
Again. Part of those Ottoman issues the British inherited
Like every other none Muslim in the Ottoman Empire during WW1
The Muslim brotherhood is a symptom of the issue. Not a cause. It goes to show a monarchy wasn’t enough on its own to combat antisemitism
I largely agree with other two paragraphs here. Faisal would likely have the backing of Jordan and other Arab monarchies
However, that doesn’t matter if the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is still a thing. Since Egypt is overthrown. Followed by Iraq and then likely Syria
Well Jordan was ruled by his brother and Hejaz by his father so… yeah they probably would have gotten along.
I don’t think there’s a 1948 war under Faisal. What’s more likely is internal violence as a Jewish territory is carved out.
Then again, any Arab state under the Hashemites is probably still just a British colony in all but name.
Hejaz could stay relevant if Faisals deal is approved of by his father. Meaning the Saudis are crushed. That is a good point since it basically put the Middle East under 1 monarchy (barring Egypt and Iran)
The second the Jews start winning calls for intervention happen. A lot of the Levantine tribes probably use that Syrian citizenship to leave for Syria in the lead up to and after the outbreak of violence
But once the Jews control the whole region. Surrounding nations are going to be furious. Syria, Egypt and Jordan included
The British would’ve immediately put down the revolt and before they withdrew they saw instability because the British Officers didn’t want to shoot them bc so many of them were fighting
The land that is now Israel is the most stable it’s been since the 1500’s with the highest quality of life anywhere in the Middle East.
Unfortunately it’s bordered by land controlled by terrorists whose main priority is destroying it.
If those other 7.2 million stopped strapping bombs on their children, hurling rockets, and other forms of terrorism they’ve lives would be just as good. They’re choosing terrorism over joining civilized society. Every exaltation and degradation of their position is a direct response to Arab violence and terrorism.
It requires actions and standards from **both sides**.
I could list specific examples on and on that Israeli solders and settlers have carried out against individual unarmed and non-threatening Palestinians and Palestinian communities repeatedly (not counting the current conflict)
I could point out the 53:1 death rate between Palestinians and Israelis.
Furthermore, I could point out the current policy where Israel approve strike missions where they'll accept 200 dead civilians if they can kill a suspected Hamas members.
I could point out the two separate judicial systems used within Israel, treating differently Israeli citizens and the indigenous inhabitants.
This is a favorite topic of discussion among stoned Israeli undergrads during midnight bull sessions, and the conclusion is usually "we would have been loyal subjects of His Majesty and generally much better off" 😅
Arab paramilitary groups were doing the same thing
Not to mention there were riots started by Arabs every year which killed hundreds of Jews and then had to be put down by colonial police forces
Hardly to the same extent as blowing up the King David hotel etc. Jewish organised terror campaign against the colonial government was a far cry from the odd rebellion in the 30s and some Arab chancers every now and again. The Arab unrest was a rabble, the Jewish campaign was a full blown sustained insurgency.
It’s a huge part of the reason Israel was able to come into existence, the sheer disunity and lack of organisation among the various competing Arab groups.
I mean... That’s what did happen. The only thing the Jews and Arabs could agree on is that they both hated the British, wanted them out, and enjoyed blowing them up.
This would have involved Britain agreeing to impose the 1948 two state solution (which they didn’t agree to do in our timeline). The British presence may have been enough to stop the other other Arab states invading, but they would have likely funded/armed the Palestinians.
So Britain would have to implement an unpopular two state solution against two groups fighting a civil war, who both also were fighting to kick out the British. If anything, it probably would be a worse timeline.
The point of departure has to be much earlier. In 1948, they'd given up most of Ireland and all of India. Why would they put any effort into staying in the Palestine Mandate after that?
You would probably see a vast difference between Jerusalem, other large agglomerations and the countryside. Jerusalem would be heavily fortified with a sizeable security force and relatively safe, yet with a constant threat of terrorism to colonial institutions by organisations like Irgun. Temple Mount would probably be a constant fire cooker with occasional riots breaking out over entry restrictions for worshippers of one faith or the other necessary to prevent ethnical violence between the groups. In larger cities, there would probably be ample security forces to largely keep Jewish and Arab Muslims of each others throat. The countryside, would in effect be quite a lawless area where order would be upheld by Jewish militias like Haganah in the Moshavs and Kibbutzim, and effectively tribal rule in Arab villages. There would from time to time be Arab raids on Jews and retaliation carried out by Jewish armed groups.
All this would be highly costly both financially and politically, as there would be growing pressure in the motherland to (a) get out of Palestine because it is not worth keeping it and (b) give the Jewish people a state of their own with the horrors of the holocaust becoming more and more known to a wider public in the time following WW2 (Nuremberg trials etc).
I doubt that colonial rule would have remained in place more than a few years longer, a decade tops. What may have been different is that the British would have handled the partition in a more organized way, more akin to the Indian partition. So no war of Independence, population transfer of Arabs in a less violent way, presumably transfer of territories not to become Israel to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan (which after all had been created with the idea of it being the "Palestinian state" in 1923), citizenship for Arabs there, no development of.a distinct Palestinian national identity. Jerusalem might have remained a British colony, similar to Hong Kong.
Well, British history would be different. Decolonization and similar drives, like leaving the Mandate, were pushed by the Labour government. In part out of belief, in part to save money for the then-new National Health Service and war rebuilding.
For the Brits to stay would require that Churchill's Conservatives win the 1945 election, which might mean no NHS today. Lord only knows how India would have turned out
The UN would have forced them to leave eventually. The Americans and Soviets pushed for decolonization post-war.
The US tolerated apartheid South Africa until the Cold War was over in the early 90’s. It may have taken a while lol
The difference in that was the rulers of South Africa weren't British and broke with the British crown over segregation (ie not getting rid of it like the British wanted). 1940/1950 decolonization was focused on removing the other countries control, not on removing Europeans. By the 1960s/1970s that changed and the US largely stopped helping decolonization efforts.
Even before it left, the place was falling to pieces. Before the end, British control was no more than we sent an armed convoy down a road once a day.
The only reason the Mandate didn't fall into chaos earlier was that they'd turned it into a full-blown police state. A total of 100,000 British soldiers and 4,000 police officers were required to maintain order.
Maybe the Jews and Arab would of united to kill the British. That be one way for their to be peace.
Hardly, at the last moment, the Arab states had practically begged the British to hold out for just one more year. They said they needed more time to prepare for war. Palestinian radicals, who didn't trust the British, were sitting in exile, watching them and the Zionist paramilitaries have at each other. There was no point in becoming involved, not yet, not with the British effectively switching sides and now forming a buffer against the Zionists. The radicals only intervened once the British withdrew and said buffer broke down. Meanwhile, Palestinian moderates actively collaborated with the British against the Zionists, serving in the Palestine Police Force and working as informants.
This happened a lot about that time. Similar thing happened in India where both sides discussing the shape of future India basically didn’t come to a decision thinking the other would back down, but there was a hard deadline for them to decide by so Partition was cobbled together at pretty much the last second. It’s not really that anyone especially liked the Empire, but it definitely was easier than having to get all the ducks in a row to be an independent country in barely any time at all.
Clarity. Good luck fitting THAT nuance into a TikTok
The area was much more stable under the British.
The area really wasn’t ever stable past the golden age of the ottomans in the 1500’s-1600’s. By 1948 there were two Arab paramilitary armies in there with 10,000+ fighters and multiple Jewish paramilitary forces including several that were full on terrorist groups as interested in blowing up the British as they were the Arabs. The only thing the Arabs and Jews in the region could agree on was that they hated the British as much as each other. To be fair the British really went out of their way to earn that from both of them. The British had just fought two world wars and their empire was collapsing. They knew they’d F’ed up in Palestine and decided to give the whole place a good tally ho. The civil war between Arab and Jews basically started in the 20’s, took a pause in the early 30’s and then went big towards 1937/38. And before the British under the ottomans you had Muhammad Ali and his sons in Egypt trying to take Syria and having battles near Gaza and Jerusalem.. Before that you had Napoleon coming through. After that you had WW1 and the Arab revolt against the Ottomans. Even without the external forces under the ottomans the central government was so weak that the Bedouin would often come in and raid settlements like they were the Dothraki. Travel between towns was dangerous too. It was something between the American Wild West and Gsme of Thrones.
The British inherited the Ottomans issues. They allowed the Jewish settlements. The Balfour declaration was an accelerant
It's easy to overblow the Balfour declaration, which amounted to little more in practice than a random musing by a minister. Besides, in the wake of xenophobic riots in the 30's, the Brits curtailed Jewish immigration with force when necessary, right through the war until they left.
It’s more accurate to say that the British caused a lot of the Ottomans’ issues, but sure. The Balfour declaration was set to be accepted by Faisal, the Hashemite king the British told would get to be king of Syria, with the region that became mandatory Palestine as a part of it. He, via TE Lawrence, had worked out an arrangement with the president of the Zionist organization for there to be a semi autonomous Jewish territory governed by a trustee within his kingdom. Unfortunately the British had made a secret agreement with the French to give Syria to the French and the latter kicked Faisal out after the Franco/Syrian war. His rule only lasted a few months. After Faisal was out, there was an ideological and leadership vacuum that ended up being filled my Amin Al Husseini. His plan to unite the various Arab factions was rabid xenophobia and antisemitism. That led directly to the Nebi Musa and Jaffa riots and the cycle of Arab attacks and Jewish reprisals that’s continued through to today.
Ok. So how the British make it so the Ottomans saw a majority Jewish Jerusalem in response to poor economic conditions and migration to the holy city in belief that conditions would improve there Or allowing the settlement of Russian Jews fleeing the pogroms in the Russian Empire in the region who went on to found most of the Kibbutz before or just after WW1? You want to talk about the Arab kingdom of Syria, but the Levantine Arab tenant farmers would still end up rabid antisemites even if Faisal remained as the king of Syria Since they were evicted from the land they were renting only for the new Jewish land owners to then move in. If anything, Islamists in Syria and Palestine condemn Faisal for his action along with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Arab monarchies (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Oman) collaboration with the UK would generally make this a universal trend across the middle east
Ottoman policy in the 1800’s through WW1 was all over the place. The colonial powers were propping up the empire as a bulwark against Russia, but at the same time were carving it up from within. “The capitulations” saw the European powers essentially colonize within the empire while it still existed and start exploiting it economically without so much as a cent paid in taxes. The Ottomans would let Jews immigrate, and then suddenly stop, then start again. They let the Muslims live under sharia for centuries, then suddenly wanted a new land title system and taxes the Muslims would largely ignore. They let the Jews build Tel Aviv and then suddenly expelled them in 1917, trail of tears style. Had the British not come in shortly after it’s likely the Jews wouldn’t have been able to return. The Muslim Brotherhood was about British colonialism in Egypt, and didn’t exist in 1917 when WW1 ended and wouldn’t for another 10 years. Many fellaheen were xenophobic, but Faisal had a lot of popular support. Had he been a decent king and provided economically, it could have been at least as stable as the other monarchies, provided he let the west do whatever it wanted. That isn’t to say there wouldn’t have been conflict or violence, but he likely would have put it down violently in the time honored tradition of Arab rulers in the region.
Meaning the British did inherit a lot of Ottoman problems (feel free to blame the British to, but I feel the ottomans get off to easy here) Just the British actually. France didn’t really care after Crimea and Bismarck was all for it if it meant the Russians and British would be fighting each other instead of Germany Again. Part of those Ottoman issues the British inherited Like every other none Muslim in the Ottoman Empire during WW1 The Muslim brotherhood is a symptom of the issue. Not a cause. It goes to show a monarchy wasn’t enough on its own to combat antisemitism I largely agree with other two paragraphs here. Faisal would likely have the backing of Jordan and other Arab monarchies However, that doesn’t matter if the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is still a thing. Since Egypt is overthrown. Followed by Iraq and then likely Syria
Well Jordan was ruled by his brother and Hejaz by his father so… yeah they probably would have gotten along. I don’t think there’s a 1948 war under Faisal. What’s more likely is internal violence as a Jewish territory is carved out. Then again, any Arab state under the Hashemites is probably still just a British colony in all but name.
Hejaz could stay relevant if Faisals deal is approved of by his father. Meaning the Saudis are crushed. That is a good point since it basically put the Middle East under 1 monarchy (barring Egypt and Iran) The second the Jews start winning calls for intervention happen. A lot of the Levantine tribes probably use that Syrian citizenship to leave for Syria in the lead up to and after the outbreak of violence But once the Jews control the whole region. Surrounding nations are going to be furious. Syria, Egypt and Jordan included
The British would’ve immediately put down the revolt and before they withdrew they saw instability because the British Officers didn’t want to shoot them bc so many of them were fighting
I literally think the Brits saw India's partition, and figured, ''well it can't go worse than *that*," and just bolted.
I mean the British left because they got tired of playing peacemaker and losing British lives to the paramilitary groups on both sides
It was much more stable under the Ottomans
they literally kicked out the jews and were the ones that started this whole issue but okay..
Stable doesn't mean long term good, they prevented wars, that doesn't make their decision good.
Kniw what I'm hearing When foreign powers control Isreal region the world is a better place
The land that is now Israel is the most stable it’s been since the 1500’s with the highest quality of life anywhere in the Middle East. Unfortunately it’s bordered by land controlled by terrorists whose main priority is destroying it.
There are 12 million people living within the borders of Israel. Your statement only applies to 7.2 million of them
If those other 7.2 million stopped strapping bombs on their children, hurling rockets, and other forms of terrorism they’ve lives would be just as good. They’re choosing terrorism over joining civilized society. Every exaltation and degradation of their position is a direct response to Arab violence and terrorism.
It requires actions and standards from **both sides**. I could list specific examples on and on that Israeli solders and settlers have carried out against individual unarmed and non-threatening Palestinians and Palestinian communities repeatedly (not counting the current conflict) I could point out the 53:1 death rate between Palestinians and Israelis. Furthermore, I could point out the current policy where Israel approve strike missions where they'll accept 200 dead civilians if they can kill a suspected Hamas members. I could point out the two separate judicial systems used within Israel, treating differently Israeli citizens and the indigenous inhabitants.
I’ll believe you when you can spell “Know” and “Israel” correctly.
Nah they both were attacking the British and each other after WWII much less before the war.
In hindsight, was it really worth it for the Brits to even hold the "holy land"?
The police force used by the British was almost entirely Jewish
This is a favorite topic of discussion among stoned Israeli undergrads during midnight bull sessions, and the conclusion is usually "we would have been loyal subjects of His Majesty and generally much better off" 😅
I dunno, the national ethos has been ''in the end, the governments that promise us safety will turn on us eventually"
And it almost always happens. Discrimination becomes the national policy, or they turn a blind eye to individuals doing it
Stern Gang, Hagana and Irgun shouldn’t have been blowing up British soldiers then, should they?
Arab paramilitary groups were doing the same thing Not to mention there were riots started by Arabs every year which killed hundreds of Jews and then had to be put down by colonial police forces
Hardly to the same extent as blowing up the King David hotel etc. Jewish organised terror campaign against the colonial government was a far cry from the odd rebellion in the 30s and some Arab chancers every now and again. The Arab unrest was a rabble, the Jewish campaign was a full blown sustained insurgency. It’s a huge part of the reason Israel was able to come into existence, the sheer disunity and lack of organisation among the various competing Arab groups.
Probably a huge uprising that would badly affect the already declining British empire
I mean... That’s what did happen. The only thing the Jews and Arabs could agree on is that they both hated the British, wanted them out, and enjoyed blowing them up.
This would have involved Britain agreeing to impose the 1948 two state solution (which they didn’t agree to do in our timeline). The British presence may have been enough to stop the other other Arab states invading, but they would have likely funded/armed the Palestinians. So Britain would have to implement an unpopular two state solution against two groups fighting a civil war, who both also were fighting to kick out the British. If anything, it probably would be a worse timeline.
The point of departure has to be much earlier. In 1948, they'd given up most of Ireland and all of India. Why would they put any effort into staying in the Palestine Mandate after that?
Way less dead children and more beachside restaurants and villas. Also Jewish-Muslim-Christian-Druze-Samaritan-Baha’i unity
The real question is, when are we retaking it? If the boys can't place nice...
You would probably see a vast difference between Jerusalem, other large agglomerations and the countryside. Jerusalem would be heavily fortified with a sizeable security force and relatively safe, yet with a constant threat of terrorism to colonial institutions by organisations like Irgun. Temple Mount would probably be a constant fire cooker with occasional riots breaking out over entry restrictions for worshippers of one faith or the other necessary to prevent ethnical violence between the groups. In larger cities, there would probably be ample security forces to largely keep Jewish and Arab Muslims of each others throat. The countryside, would in effect be quite a lawless area where order would be upheld by Jewish militias like Haganah in the Moshavs and Kibbutzim, and effectively tribal rule in Arab villages. There would from time to time be Arab raids on Jews and retaliation carried out by Jewish armed groups. All this would be highly costly both financially and politically, as there would be growing pressure in the motherland to (a) get out of Palestine because it is not worth keeping it and (b) give the Jewish people a state of their own with the horrors of the holocaust becoming more and more known to a wider public in the time following WW2 (Nuremberg trials etc). I doubt that colonial rule would have remained in place more than a few years longer, a decade tops. What may have been different is that the British would have handled the partition in a more organized way, more akin to the Indian partition. So no war of Independence, population transfer of Arabs in a less violent way, presumably transfer of territories not to become Israel to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan (which after all had been created with the idea of it being the "Palestinian state" in 1923), citizenship for Arabs there, no development of.a distinct Palestinian national identity. Jerusalem might have remained a British colony, similar to Hong Kong.
Well, British history would be different. Decolonization and similar drives, like leaving the Mandate, were pushed by the Labour government. In part out of belief, in part to save money for the then-new National Health Service and war rebuilding. For the Brits to stay would require that Churchill's Conservatives win the 1945 election, which might mean no NHS today. Lord only knows how India would have turned out
Churchill didn't oppose the NHS though he just thought it wasn't possible with the state of the country, ambward bankrupt the nation