A "Greater Jordan" is created after the end of WWI

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
What if a "Greater Jordan" under the leadership of the Hashemites would have been created after the end of WWI in the territories of Jordan, Palestine (all of Palestine--including what is now Israel), and western Iraq? For the record, this "Greater Jordan" would not be required to accept any Jewish immigrants due to the fear that they would try to destabilize this state and eventually secede from it if large numbers of them will move to Palestine (which, again, is a part of "Greater Jordan" in this scenario).
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
A couple of big questions:

1. Is this Greater Jordan going to want to conquer most or all of Syria after Syria is decolonized by the French?

2. Is there still going to be a lot of settlement in coastal Palestine (Arab, not Jewish like in real life) in this scenario? If so, is the population destiny in coastal Palestine going to be comparable to that in real life--except with Arabs rather than Jews being the dominant population there?
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Jordan (including this version) would have been a mandated territory of Britain, with eventual promises of independence. The western desert is sparsely populated and largely worthless, so its inclusion is inconsequential.
Also of note is that Jordan proper had little of worth aside from the city of Ammon (A small town at the time), as such it would probably establish a larger city in Palestine as its capital.
Jewish migration to Palestine had limits put on it by Britain after the arabs complained but they were unable/unwilling to enforce this. In this scenario it would be little different until independence.
The Israeli war of independence would still happen, just as a separatist movement rather than a war of survival. The Israelis would have it much harder since they don't have a territory of their own to build their strength and if they succeed in separating it would be a much smaller state (at least for a while).
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Jordan (including this version) would have been a mandated territory of Britain, with eventual promises of independence.
Yes, or it could have been given independence immediately. The Mandate part does appear to be more likely due to the dominant ideas of White/European supremacy back then, though.

The western desert is sparsely populated and largely worthless, so its inclusion is inconsequential.
Actually, Sunni Arabs (who live in the western part of Iraq) make up something like 20% of Iraq's total population--and Iraq is much more populous than Jordan is. Thus, including these Sunni Arabs in Greater Jordan would probably be beneficial for Greater Jordan.

Also of note is that Jordan proper had little of worth aside from the city of Ammon (A small town at the time), as such it would probably establish a larger city in Palestine as its capital.
You mean like Jerusalem?

Jewish migration to Palestine had limits put on it by Britain after the arabs complained but they were unable/unwilling to enforce this. In this scenario it would be little different until independence.
So, independence should come as soon as possible, no?

Also, have Britain aggressively crack down on Zionist separatists in this scenario before they actually pull out of Greater Jordan.

The Israeli war of independence would still happen, just as a separatist movement rather than a war of survival. The Israelis would have it much harder since they don't have a territory of their own to build their strength and if they succeed in separating it would be a much smaller state (at least for a while).
Yes, but I would prefer there not to be a Jewish state in Palestine at all for the purposes of this scenario. This is why I made my suggestion right above this sentence--specifically having Britain aggressively crack down and crush the Zionist separatists in Greater Jordan before the British will actually withdraw from Greater Jordan and give Greater Jordan its independence.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
Yes, or it could have been given independence immediately. The Mandate part does appear to be more likely due to the dominant ideas of White/European supremacy back then, though.

Actually, Sunni Arabs (who live in the western part of Iraq) make up something like 20% of Iraq's total population--and Iraq is much more populous than Jordan is. Thus, including these Sunni Arabs in Greater Jordan would probably be beneficial for Greater Jordan.

You mean like Jerusalem?

So, independence should come as soon as possible, no?

Also, have Britain aggressively crack down on Zionist separatists in this scenario before they actually pull out of Greater Jordan.

Yes, but I would prefer there not to be a Jewish state in Palestine at all for the purposes of this scenario. This is why I made my suggestion right above this sentence--specifically having Britain aggressively crack down and crush the Zionist separatists in Greater Jordan before the British will actually withdraw from Greater Jordan and give Greater Jordan its independence.
Britain used the mandate system as a way of ruling these states, they planned to maintain control for a long time, only later as the empire weakened did true independence become inevitable.

I assumed you meant the western desert region, did you mean the Baghdad/central Iraq area?

Yes.

Britain had little intention of true independence.

If Britain cracked down on immigration during this time much more than in real life (possibly no Balfour declaration), then a pan arab state is possible. Jewish separatism is still a threat due to the Zionist movement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
I mean the yellow regions on this map, with the exception of those yellow regions near the Saudi border:



Baghdad would not be included since rump Iraq would want that as its capital.

Agreed with the other stuff that you wrote here other than for the last part. I don't think that Jewish separatism would have been too much of a problem if Britain would have actually succeeded in keeping Jews out of Palestine en masse.

As for true independence, please keep in mind that WWII could still eventually occur in this TL. If it doesn't, though, then true independence will still likely eventually come about, but it will simply take longer. For what it's worth, AFAIK, Britain already gave Egypt true independence in 1922 and Iraq true independence in 1932.
 
Apr 2017
1,654
U.S.A.
A Palestine-Jordan-central Iraq state would have difficulties in maintaining itself. The western desert separates the two main population centers. A Jordan-Palestine state would probably base itself around Jerusalem (or another major city) whereas central Iraq would be geographically closer tied to Syria (via tigris/Euphrates).

If this state did hold itself together, then yes it would probably be interested in taking Syria/Lebanon to link itself together and rule the central middle-east (if its not plagued with separatism).

What about Mosul and Kurdistan in this scenario?

There were jews already in Palestine before WW1, Zionism had been picking up steam around this time (didn't hit full steam till after the war but it had begun).

Don't see much need for arabs to colonize Palestine, they already control it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,629
A
There were jews already in Palestine before WW1, Zionism had been picking up steam around this time (didn't hit full steam till after the war but it had begun).
Not veey many and without the organisation the british allowed and support the British thee mass Jewish immigration is will not happen.
The British are a vitally necessary element in sucessful Zionsism in Palestine. Without them it simply will not happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,629
2. Is there still going to be a lot of settlement in coastal Palestine (Arab, not Jewish like in real life) in this scenario? If so, is the population destiny in coastal Palestine going to be comparable to that in real life--except with Arabs rather than Jews being the dominant population there?
Settlement on the coast happened around teh levenat regardless of the existstance or not of a Jewish population. Revial of the coast and it's increasing population compared to the interroir arpound teh levant was a on going thing before the first world war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
A Palestine-Jordan-central Iraq state would have difficulties in maintaining itself. The western desert separates the two main population centers. A Jordan-Palestine state would probably base itself around Jerusalem (or another major city) whereas central Iraq would be geographically closer tied to Syria (via tigris/Euphrates).
You mean eastern desert, no?

Also, the reason that western Iraq would join this state is because it is under British rule while Syria is under French rule.

If this state did hold itself together, then yes it would probably be interested in taking Syria/Lebanon to link itself together and rule the central middle-east (if its not plagued with separatism).
How successful would it be?

What about Mosul and Kurdistan in this scenario?
Mosul would be a part of this state, but Kurdistan wouldn't.

There were jews already in Palestine before WW1, Zionism had been picking up steam around this time (didn't hit full steam till after the war but it had begun).
Relatively few of them. Jews only made up 11% of Palestine's total population in 1922.

Don't see much need for arabs to colonize Palestine, they already control it.
They could use the extra space, though.