Consequences of Israel Outright Losing a war

Redhand

Banned
So my question is if Israel was somehow able to be overrun and defeated, be it in 1948, 1967, 1973, or even if somehow an Intifada leads to an Arab army overrunning the country, what happens from there?

I realize that this just wouldn't happen, but I am asking you to consider the consequences.

Is it likely that Israelis will be massacred in droves and literally driven into the sea, or do you think that Hamas and co., or whoever makes the decisions in such a scenario, would come to a negotiated agreement and avoid genocidal type behavior?

Would such a scenario get the UN to intervene, or maybe even the US?
 

abc123

Banned
Redhand said:
Is it likely that Israelis will be massacred in droves and literally driven into the sea,

Would such a scenario get the UN to intervene, or maybe even the US?
Click to expand...

Yes

and

Yes ( at least the US if not UN ).;)
 
Last edited:
Maeglin

Maeglin

Depends on the war. The Arabs in 1973 weren't trying to drive Israel into the sea (for starters, the Soviet Union would never let them). It was a land-grab - seize territory then hunker down and wait for the counter-attack.
 
Yuelang

Yuelang

Banned
if it happened in 2000s intifada, before Israel falls, NATO will invade Middle East to prop up Israel (rather than risk Israel use Nuke against all major islamic majority nations)
 

Linkwerk

I think a lot of the "annihilation" scenarios are more based in the rhetoric *both* sides have used in the Arab-Israeli wars. Post-1948, I don't see the existence of the state of Israel being called into question -barring WMD use in 1973 but that would rapidly turn into a not-just-Israel problem.

I think the "driven into the sea" Israeli defeat TL that gets tossed around (but curiously, never written) on this site is a strange amalgamation of contemporary Radio Cairo rhetoric and the (in a historical perspective, obviously valid) deep-seated fear of extermination rhetoric within the Israeli political/security community. What is interesting is that neither of those sources formed their rhetoric based off of an analysis of the strategic balance at the time.

The really interesting political/historical/social PODs in this scenario are, I think, Israel loosing in a limited manner. Even the perceptions of victory and defeat could do really interesting things to the political scene. I was talking with a friend of mine recently, an Israeli historian, who made the point that "1973 is a war we feel like we lost and the Egyptians feel like they won." 1973 is a war that militarily ended in Israel's favor but at a cost and in a manner that deeply troubled the Israeli security establishment. What if the Egyptian military had followed it's Soviet-recommended defensive plan in 1967 and the six day war is a two-week war that Israel militarily wins but emerges from feeling that it barely survived?

What if 1973 grinds to a halt with the Arab militaries neutralized, but the Syrian army still holding onto (however nominally) parts of the Golan within Israel proper?

What if 1956 goes badly for any number of reasons and the Egyptian army holds onto Gaza?
 

Redhand

Banned
Linkwerk said:
I think a lot of the "annihilation" scenarios are more based in the rhetoric *both* sides have used in the Arab-Israeli wars. Post-1948, I don't see the existence of the state of Israel being called into question -barring WMD use in 1973 but that would rapidly turn into a not-just-Israel problem.

I think the "driven into the sea" Israeli defeat TL that gets tossed around (but curiously, never written) on this site is a strange amalgamation of contemporary Radio Cairo rhetoric and the (in a historical perspective, obviously valid) deep-seated fear of extermination rhetoric within the Israeli political/security community. What is interesting is that neither of those sources formed their rhetoric based off of an analysis of the strategic balance at the time.
Click to expand...

I think that the rhetoric of Israeli opponents, even in Europe and not just places like Gaza, leads to me thinking about what it could possibly mean to the entire post WW2 order of the world if Israel was wiped out as so many of its detractors seem to advocate. I think it would radically change the entire consensus of the world if it happened, but I don't know how.

Of course, I doubt that it could happen, seeing as they are able to handle their business and have not been in danger of being overrun in a long time.

A limited defeat in my mind wouldn't amount to much other than Israel simply ramping up on its defense and deciding to try to be more ready next time. But I don't think that a limited defeat for them is going to happen, as their entire war making strategy is based on quickly defeating all of its enemies before natural population advantages and the ravages of its collapsing economy destroy their war making ability. They play an all or nothing game, and we haven't seen what happens if they lose.

The concept of an intifada becoming a real existential threat, while likely ASB, also poses an interesting question of whether or not Israelis are going to be forced off of their land and killed by their fellow citizens of Arab heritage.

The concept of wholesale slaughter of Israelis isn't in my view sensationalistic, but rather a legitimate outcome of a defeat of Israel based on the rhetoric of people who most likely would be leading the fight on them. People do not usually brag of extermination being an outcome period, and they almost never brag of it if they do not plan to do it.
 

zoomar

Linkwerk said:
I think a lot of the "annihilation" scenarios are more based in the rhetoric *both* sides have used in the Arab-Israeli wars. Post-1948, I don't see the existence of the state of Israel being called into question -barring WMD use in 1973 but that would rapidly turn into a not-just-Israel problem
Click to expand...

Unless I misunderstand your point, I honestly don't see how you can say that. Although a complete Israeli military collapse leading to complete defeat and occupation by Arab armies is highly unlikely anytime after at least 1956 (because the US would simply not allow this to happen, and even the Soviets probably wouldn't as well because of the real risk it would result in a nuclear war involving the US and USSR), if the Arabs did acheive such a total victory, Israel would just cease to exist. There might be some flowery language banded about promising some Jews the ability to still live in Palestine if they accepted the new order, but I suspect most Israelis would be rounded up and forced at gunpoint to leave Israel, and those who resisted would be massacred. Perhaps not an "annihilation" in the true sense, but certainly "ethnic cleansing" in the modern sense.
 

Linkwerk

zoomar said:
Unless I misunderstand your point, I honestly don't see how you can say that. Although a complete Israeli military collapse leading to complete defeat and occupation by Arab armies is highly unlikely anytime after at least 1956 (because the US would simply not allow this to happen, and even the Soviets probably wouldn't as well because of the real risk it would result in a nuclear war involving the US and USSR), if the Arabs did acheive such a total victory, Israel would just cease to exist. There might be some flowery language banded about promising some Jews the ability to still live in Palestine if they accepted the new order, but I suspect most Israelis would be rounded up and forced at gunpoint to leave Israel, and those who resisted would be massacred. Perhaps not an "annihilation" in the true sense, but certainly "ethnic cleansing" in the modern sense.
Click to expand...

To clarify my point: I was referring to the deep unlikelihood of Israeli military collapse.
 

pattersonautobody

Official government policy of the occupiers won't be the outright annihilation of Jews, but they will likely not offer Jews any protection under the law and dismantle Jewish institutions. The violence, crime, and oppression will encourage most Jews to leave or die in the process. Make no mistake, there would be Pogroms and such, just no gas chambers.

If the US/UN gets militarily involved, I suppose they can enjoy an occupation, but they would win of course. Any scenerio where Israel goes down leaves the victor in bad shape.
 

mike of mass

pattersonautobody said:
Official government policy of the occupiers won't be the outright annihilation of Jews, but they will likely not offer Jews any protection under the law and dismantle Jewish institutions. The violence, crime, and oppression will encourage most Jews to leave or die in the process. .
Click to expand...

You say that despite the evidence of what groups like , Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIL and every poll in enlightened Arab polities such as Jordan and the Palestinian territories openly espouse.
 

sloreck

Given the relatively small size of Israel, it is doubtful that the US could intervene in such a way as to prevent Israel losing before the majority of the country was occupied. You might get the Marines to occupy Tel Aviv/Haifa area as a "safe zone" protected by carrier aircraft. You would not see the US bombing Arab military installations or even tactical airstrikes except to protect the limited coastal area. Whatever coastal enclave is the protected zone will only serve as a holding area for Jews as they leave the country, the Arabs are NOT (never ever) going to give up one inch of conquered territory and this is too small an area to be a country of any sort. The stated goal of ALL of the Arab states yo say nothing of Fatah, Hamas, Hizbollah et al, is the complete and total elimination of the state of Israel. Those countries with treaties (Egypt, Jordan) changed from elimination to undoing the 1967 war results, but started with elimination.

Until the fighting ends you will see Jews killed on a large scale, rapes, looting etc. It won't be einsatzgruppen & so forth but killings by soldiers, "fighters", and random civilians wanting to get their back. The best you might see is, per lots of proclamations from various Arab sources, is that those Jews who can trace being in "Palestine" to prior to 1948, or 1945, or 1930 or whenever can stay - the rest are "illegals" and must go. Those who stay are second class citizens at best. The more extreme elements would say convert, leave, or die. In any case most of the property, personal belongings, businesses, etc would be expropriated (as an example see the expulsion of the Jews from Iraq following 1948). Expect that synagogues, graveyards, etc will either be destroyed or converted to other uses.

The reality is that any war Israel "loses" means no more Israel. How ugly that gets is a matter for debate, and may depend upon who wins and when.
 
Plumber

Plumber

An Arab victory in 1948 probably ends up with Jewish refugees—a reversal of OTL. A victory in 1967 and 1973 would end with a two state solution. Nasser and Sadat didn't ever have the intention to wipe Israel to the sea. They knew that was military and politically impossible.
 
Historyman 14

Historyman 14

Plumber said:
An Arab victory in 1948 probably ends up with Jewish refugees—a reversal of OTL. A victory in 1967 and 1973 would end with a two state solution. Nasser and Sadat didn't ever have the intention to wipe Israel to the sea. They knew that was military and politically impossible.
Click to expand...

I think we need a TL on the Arab victory in 1948.
 
The Kiat

The Kiat

Given their supposed nuclear stockpile, isn't Israel likely to take ALL of their enemies down with them? Even if not, they would use whatever they have as a last-ditch effort.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I recall a quote (I believe from Moshe Dayan) just before the preemptive air strike was launched in 1967:

"If we do not win, we will have nowhere to come back to."
 

brovane

The Kiat said:
Given their supposed nuclear stockpile, isn't Israel likely to take ALL of their enemies down with them? Even if not, they would use whatever they have as a last-ditch effort.
Click to expand...

Present day yes. Back in the 1973 no they didn't have enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top