So I'm aware that the idea of promoting a Jewish state in Palestine dated back pretty early (1917 IIRC?), but by 1945 there were still several questions as to the how and what. I'm wondering, though, whether the question of Jewish nationalism would still have been such a high priority if the Nazis had been avoided, and the Holocaust had never happened.
No Holocaust, No Israel?
- Thread starter Emperor-of-New-Zealand
- Start date
lordapocalipsis
Banned
If jews are not persecuted, nor killed, nor hated; i guess they can live freely in any country they want (while they respect the laws of the country); so no reason to exist for a country
marathag
Banned
Jews were trying to get to the Mandate and buy what land they could, before Hitler was doing his thing. Jews fleeing the Russian Civil War moved in, and with other immigration and natural pop. increase, Jewish growth was on the rise
So there would still be an effort to hold the British to Balfour, and even without Hitler, you would still have the Arab Revolt in the late '30s that really got things on the trajectory for eventual Partition
Without the nazis and the Holocaust, Jews would have still been persectued, killed, and hated (and I think the consensus in this forum is that without Nazism, antisemitism post-1945 would be much stronger). Nazism was a consequence of that antisemitism, not the cause.
In fact the main reason Herzl became convinced of the necessity of a Jewish state was the Dreyfus Affair, and the main motivator for Jewish emigration to Ottoman Palestine were the Pogroms.
So no, without the Nazis the main motivator for Jewish emigration to the Mandate would still be there, and would be there for longer.
Adding onto what @marathag said, the situation was already on collision course when the Nazis came into power, and the question would be what would the British do with no WW2 (that is, if we assume that if we replace the Nazis WW2 doesn't happen, which I find unlikely, since I believe another authoritatian right wing party would have assumed power and pushed too far for some Polish or Czechoslovak territory. If so, the situation in the Middle East is probably very similar to OTL).
Some other things to take into account that come to my head:
Some other things to take into account that come to my head:
- Without the Holocaust there are 6 more million Jews, so there is a much bigger amount of potential immigrants.
- Without the Holocaust, the main motivator to escape Europe for many Jews is not there, and some left-wing Jewish movements were wary of Zionism, opting instead for pursuing labor politics in the countries of their origin. Such an example is the Bund. (In any case, I think the previous point quantitatively offsets this one, so I predict a net gain for Jewish emigration).
- If there is no WW2 at all, which again I find unlikely, many of the jewish volunteers that fought for Israel in the 1948 war might have less or no military experience.
To be clear, it’s not just the idea of a Jewish state in the Levant that predated 1945, but the actual mass settlement of Jews in Mandatory Palestine:
If the Arabs in Palestine had not revolted, the British would not have crushed the revolt and made it easier for Jewish people to take over later. The Hagenah stayed quiet during the Arab revolt to let the British deal with the Arabs for them.
The Jews of Eastern Europe were a persecuted people long before WWII, there's still plenty of incentive to emigrate to Palestine and the Jewish homeland promised in the Balfour Declaration.
Even if fewer were to emigrate they'd healthy and have both personal belongings and money, not refugees with little more than the clothes on their backs and their health ruined by the camps. Emigrants also tend to be mostly young adults and families.
A common mistake that many people make is to think that Israel is a consequence of the Holocaust, a kind of "compensation" for the Jewish people.
The reality is very different, the Zionist project had been officially promoting Jewish migration to Eretz Israel for more than 40 years. Without the Holocaust, some State for the Jewish people would inevitably have arisen, perhaps not in the territory that OTL the UN designated in 1947, perhaps more, perhaps less.
Without the Holocaust, Israel would definitely have more population, even before World War II, Jews were officially discriminated against by some laws or by the general population.
The reality is very different, the Zionist project had been officially promoting Jewish migration to Eretz Israel for more than 40 years. Without the Holocaust, some State for the Jewish people would inevitably have arisen, perhaps not in the territory that OTL the UN designated in 1947, perhaps more, perhaps less.
Without the Holocaust, Israel would definitely have more population, even before World War II, Jews were officially discriminated against by some laws or by the general population.
RuneGloves
Banned
Without the holocaust, i don't think it would be seen a morally acceptable, it would be in the same vein as South Africa and Rhodesia.
Although this is assuming world wars happened, and social views became negative towards settler colonialism.
Although this is assuming world wars happened, and social views became negative towards settler colonialism.
Deleted member 90949
Jews would probably be a dominant ethnic group in the region of Palestine no matter what state governs it. They had been buying land in the region for decades. With no Holocaust there are more Jews to immigrate, escaping persecution in eastern Europe.
It may not be called Israel, but whatever state exists there is going to be heavily influenced by Jews. I have always been fond of the idea of a Hashemite state with a predominantly Jewish population.
It may not be called Israel, but whatever state exists there is going to be heavily influenced by Jews. I have always been fond of the idea of a Hashemite state with a predominantly Jewish population.
RuneGloves
Banned
Well it's unlikely, as the native population is going to not want to be settler colonised. So if Natives have self-determination or British-Mandate, immigration is going to be limited. As for buying up land, Poland has done policies that exclude Germans from buying land, so that is also a potential.
Good point. But if you avert the rise of the Nazis (to forestall the Holocaust), that would probably slow down the Jewish immigration surge of 1933-1936, which added to pressures leading to the Arab Revolt.
Well, the Haganah kept a low-profile in terms of independent action, but encouraged young men to serve in the British police and formed auxiliary squads to work under the British (Palmach) to put down the rebels.
The Arab revolt ultimately led to a British appeasement policy to slow down Jewish legal immigration, but it gave Jews the advantage of military practice while decimating potential Arab Palestinian military leaders and making most Palestinians (except for those willing to serve through Arab Legion channels) estranged and unreliable for service (and experience) in WWII.
So without an Arab revolt, the Jewish population in the Palestine mandate might have been a bit larger but it might have been a bit "softer" and less practiced in counter-insurgency/low-intensity conflict/inter-communal warfare.
This - there's a deeper pool of potential immigrants for Palestine, but getting to Palestine.....and only Palestine...is not quite as urgent, and there is less unity and consensus about any means necessary being OK to move to and take control of the land.
IE, Britain will eventually leave Palestine (and give Zionists a chance to try to take over) even without WWII, colonialism in general will probably fade out. Likely.
On the other hand, if Britain honors its 1930s pledge to be out of Egypt by 1944, and Egypt goes nationalistic to the point of Nasserism soon thereafter, Britain may want to stretch out the Palestine mandate to hold on to a regional base to be able to project forces back into the Canal Zone. With Arab Palestinians probably liking Cairo or Damascus based Arab Nationalism (France's Syrian mandate was due to end in 1944 also), the British may not be above dusting off the Balfour declaration and using the protection of the Jewish community as an excuse to stay in Palestine, and the Palestinian Jews may not be above working with the British if the Jews get free immigration, arms, training, diplomatic cover, favorable rulings on land and protection in the bargain.
Motives for emigration from Europe will remain certainly. Although not so desperately as in the shadow of Nazism. And, the Americas and Oceania won't be the open ports they were before the 1920s. So that adds up to making Palestine marginally more attractive, especially as more creature comforts are set up in its cities with a larger Jewish base population. But Aliyah to Palestine will still only be the choice of a minority.
This moral difference would be the biggest difference influencing behavior. The number of Jewish immigrants over decades may be the same or less or more.
But, the Arab Palestinian case against encroachment or displacement will be far more sympathetically heard by people worldwide, including Jews.
Without the Holocaust there will be support for settling in Palestine and charitable funds available, but nothing like lockstep unity among the world Jewish diaspora in favor Zionism, and certainly not in favor of instances of Zionists doing terrorism or expulsions of non-Jewish populations.
Even within Palestinian Jewish communities there will be more debate, dissent, and effective opposition to attempts to bully out Christians and Muslims at gunpoint.
The Holocaust won't be there as the all-purpose justification for getting them before they get you.
Now, inter-sectarian warfare in Palestine itself can fuel some large-scale evictions and expulsions if it gets large enough. If there's enough instances where Arab Palestinians temporarily get the upper hand and do some massacres of Jews or mass casualty terrorist attacks, then things can escalate and the Zionists could use the occasion to evict populations for security reasons.
I think its less about generic attitudes toward settler colonialism and more about whether each side's violence is considered proportional to the provocation. You could end up with Palestine, especially its cities, very crowded with Jewish and Arab populations *both* growing. Outright war is avoided, but the Arabs are feeling swamped. Jews are moving in everywhere, but they're not kicking anyone out of the country. The cost of living is just going up.
Displacement may occur through gentrification (I can live better in Amman) than through panicked flight.
(Not just Eastern Europe)
Problem is though that Zionism wasn't as unanimously popular in the pre-Holocaust Jewish world as we would expect. Religious Ashkenazi Jews* opposed it for its attempt to forcibly alter what Jewishness meant and putting religion on the backburner. Socialists opposed it for multiple reasons. Middle Eastern Jews opposed it for the racism and paternalism of the Mapainiks. Assimilated Western European and American Jews outright loathed it because it reminded them that they were in fact part of a Jewish people. And don't forget there were many people who were Zionists that just didn't pack up and leave for whatever reason; either because they had concerns or they were just lazy. I would be willing to bet that most of the Jews killed in the Holocaust opposed Zionism to varying extents. The survivors and the surrounding world were convinced after the fact.
*Excluding the Mizrachi movement