What would a Palestinian state have looked like?

[A Piece of History]

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly proposed and passed the UN Resolution 181 otherwise known as the Partition Plan for Palestine. It divided the Mandate of Palestine into two separate Jewish and Arab States, with Jerusalem given to neither state, as shown below.

WHile the Jews approved of the plan, the Arabs rejected it out of hand, claiming it violated their rights of self-determination under the UN Charter. This led to a civil war, followed by the Arab-Israeli War and today's debacle in Palestine.

Though this is very ASB, let's imagine that the Arabs, both in Palestine and surrounding nations, accept this deal and the Mandate of Palestine is partitioned. What would a Palestinian state have looked like with these borders? What kind of government would it have had? What would have been it's relationship with Israel?

 

[bernardz]

Well, the big problem such a Palestine has is that a large chunk is next to Lebanon, another near Egypt and another next to Jordan, assuming we handwave away Israel. Now in the OTL, all these countries tried to grab a bit of Palestine. What stopped their advance was Israel. If Israel was to stand back, they would grab their part. This would not necessarily be seen by many of the Palestinians as bad as most of them they did consider themselves to be part of these communities.

What was the immediate problem was Jordan! Jordan wanted Jerusalem but it is was suppose to be under international control so what Jordan needed is for the peace between Israel and Palestine to breakdown so it could get Jerusalem. Under the guise of protecting Palestine, Jordan moved in.

The long term problem is Syria, the Syrian government even today considers the region to be part of Syria, it is militarily much more powerful then Jordan and if Israel did not exist, Jordan probably would be crushed already. So in the long term, I would expect either Syria or Jordan and Egypt to take over the whole of the Palestine region.

 

[thekingsguard]

Barring that the Palestinians don't once again bet the farm that they can drive the Jews into the sea and take the whole thing, only to lose?

Honestly, the situation cannot hold - both Israel and Palestine have borders that are entirely untenable and undefendable. It's the same reason the modern attempt at a two-state solution has likely failed. That little sliver of land between the Sinai and the Jordan River is about the size of New Jersey, surrounded by neighbors that either is hostile or will take decades to warm as they want the land for themselves. Putting aside religion or politics, that's been the major reason for much the instability surrounding Israel.

The best bet? Before the Israelis and Palestinians fight each other, have the neighbors invade to try and claim it for themselves. The Israelis and Palestinians realize they will either need to fight together or be subjugated together, so they fight their common foes as one. Post-war, with a bond forged by war, they form a federation.

 

[Minchandre]

Let's take a moment and pretend that there will be peace and examine the possible government, since that's what I think the OP wants.

It's hard to say. The Zionists had a whole proto-state before 1948, complete with taxes, police, a military, education, and almost any other trapping of government you'd like to name.

The Palestinian Arabs...didn't. There was a Palestinian nationalist movement, but it had relatively little support; more a bunch of independent groups angry at the Jews for being there. Especially outside of urban areas, the people were still largely tribal when it came to loyalties and identity. There were some leaders, but none who could claim to speak for anything like the entirety of the population.

So what we're looking at honestly isn't too different from other European colonial withdrawals. The British might try to put a government into power and gift it all the remaining British governing institutions in the territory granted to it. Such a hypothetical government would have - if it could hold onto them - a corps of veteran police and soldiers, so it can probably maintain a good grip on the monopoly of violence that helps define a government, and it'll have the physical infrastructure of government: roads, power plants, school buildings, etc.

But it seems likely to me that in order to keep power, they'd need to consolidate, one-by-one eliminating other armed groups, whether by incorporation, peace, or violence. If the British lend a hand, this should work fine; if they don't...well, now we're opening ourselves up again to foreign or Zionist influence.

Let's say everything works fine; I see no reason to assume anything other than a putsch sooner rather than later, and an Arab nationalist/Arab Socialist aligned military dictatorship, like happened in most of the other Arab states. And even if not, irredentism will be a constant force in their politics, probably crippling any leader who doesn't declare war on Israel within a few years, leading to a revolving-door like in early Syria. So that's fun.

 

[sdgottsch]

While the Jews approved of the plan, the Arabs rejected it out of hand...

I think the biggest issue is when we (in the West) state, "Arabs rejected" it, we must understand there was no unified Palestinian leadership or even an organization at the time to either approve or disapprove. Instead, the Arab countries leadership (read Arab League) spoke for the Palestinian people. Then when the 1947 Israel independence occurred and the Arab countries lost the war, the Palestinians had nowhere to go but to the countries that attacked Israel (exodus of 1947/48) and they weren't allowed to assimilated to those countries (meaning no ability to become a citizen of the country).

 

[Scott Washburn]

And despite any talk to the contrary, the Zionists never had any intention of sharing the land with the Arabs. Their plans (well formulated and well prepared) had always been to drive the Palestinians out.

 

[sdgottsch]

And despite any talk to the contrary, the Zionists never had any intention of sharing the land with the Arabs. Their plans (well formulated and well prepared) had always been to drive the Palestinians out.

Mr. Washburn, you may need to relook at history. 1st, not all Jewish land owners were Zionists...all you need to do is look at the Ottoman Empire's Land Code of 1858 which allowed Ottoman citizen owners of land in Palestine to sell legally. For 50 years (until the England stopped the selling of land), people of Jewish decent bought land that did not have tenants and then established their own households. That is just fact. Yes, there were very large organizations buying land (e.g., JNF, PICA).

 

[marathag]

. Then when the 1947 Israel independence occurred and the Arab countries lost the war, the Palestinians had nowhere to go but to the countries that attacked Israel (exodus of 1947/48) and they weren't allowed to assimilated to those countries (meaning no ability to become a citizen of the country).

The Palestinian Arabs would have been better off staying in place, rather than listening to the Egyptian and Syrian calls to flee the Area.
And yes, I know that there was some effort by the Jews to do some ethnic cleansing of their own, there was terrorism by both sides leading up to 1948

 

[marathag]

And despite any talk to the contrary, the Zionists never had any intention of sharing the land with the Arabs. Their plans (well formulated and well prepared) had always been to drive the Palestinians out.

They did a pretty piss poor job of, given the opportunities presented to do just that.

 

[marathag]

Mr. Washburn, you may need to relook at history. 1st, not all Jewish land owners were Zionists...all you need to do is look at the Ottoman Empire's Land Code of 1858 which allowed Ottoman citizen owners of land in Palestine to sell legally. For 50 years (until the England stopped the selling of land), people of Jewish decent bought land that did not have tenants and then established their own households. That is just fact. Yes, there were very large organizations buying land (e.g., JNF, PICA).

The Jews of Yemen started the return in the 1880s, til by the 1940s, most were in the Mandate.

 

[alexmilman]

And despite any talk to the contrary, the Zionists never had any intention of sharing the land with the Arabs. Their plans (well formulated and well prepared) had always been to drive the Palestinians out.

Term “Palestinians” in its modern meaning (just the Arabs) did not exist until 1964 when the Soviets subsidized creation of the PLO: it was the 1st time used in PLO charter written in Moscow.

 

[Dan1988]

The Palestinian Arabs would have been better off staying in place, rather than listening to the Egyptian and Syrian calls to flee the Area.

That would have required a series of PODs in the early Mandate period to make cooperation between the olim and the fedayeen/âyân possible and hence a more positive, constructive relationship in spite of the British, including a more moderate Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from the get-go rather than Amin al-Husayni. That way the Palestinians could have stayed on.

 

[marathag]

Term “Palestinians” in its modern meaning (just the Arabs) did not exist until 1964 when the Soviets subsidized creation of the PLO: it was the 1st time used in PLO charter written in Moscow.

The area was known and administered as South Syria from when the Byzantines were kicked to the curb, to the mid 19thC when the area was split off to form the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem and Beirut Vilayet.

Palestine was what western countries called it. Think of how France names their neighbor to the east, Allemange, but the Alemanni Tribe hadn't been in charge there for a very long time.

That area hadn't been Palaestina Prima and Secunda for a similar long time-- and when it was, it was Majority Christian

 

[alexmilman]

The area was known and administered as South Syria from when the Byzantines were kicked to the curb, to the mid 19thC when the area was split off to form the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem and Beirut Vilayet.

Palestine was what western countries called it. Think of how France names their neighbor to the east, Allemange, but the Alemanni Tribe hadn't been in charge there for a very long time.

That area hadn't been Palaestina Prima and Secunda for a similar long time-- and when it was, it was Majority Christian

You did not get it. The area was called “Palestine” and all population “Palestinians” (if somebody was talking about the local Arabs, they were “Palestinian Arabs”). I was talking about the post-1964 change of the meaning where the term “Palestinians” starts being applied exclusively to the Arabs and term PLO meant “liberation of Palestine”, all of it, from the Jews.

 

[marathag]

You did not get it. The area was called “Palestine” and all population “Palestinians” (if somebody was talking about the local Arabs, they were “Palestinian Arabs”). I was talking about the post-1964 change of the meaning where the term “Palestinians” starts being applied exclusively to the Arabs and term PLO meant “liberation of Palestine”, all of it, from the Jews.

The Europeans referred to the whole area as Palestine.
Locals, Muslim,Christian and Jew, referred to the area as South Syria or Jordan before the British kicked the Ottomans out. The British and French called it Mandatory Palestine and TransJordan rather than the Ottoman Districts.

Those Districts were changed in the 19thC, due to European pressure to the Ottomans to make the Eyalet of Damascus do something about the local anti-Christian pogroms from the fallout from the Egyptian/Ottoman warring in Syria where Austrian and British Forces had intervened.

 

[BigBlueBox]

The best bet? Before the Israelis and Palestinians fight each other, have the neighbors invade to try and claim it for themselves. The Israelis and Palestinians realize they will either need to fight together or be subjugated together, so they fight their common foes as one. Post-war, with a bond forged by war, they form a federation.

Absolutely ASB. Palestinian national identity was formed by the Nakba. Before that they would gladly welcome their fellow Levantine Arabs as liberators from the Jews. Even today Fatah has never denounced pan-Arabism.

 

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

The Palestinian Arabs would have been better off staying in place, rather than listening to the Egyptian and Syrian calls to flee the Area.
And yes, I know that there was some effort by the Jews to do some ethnic cleansing of their own, there was terrorism by both sides leading up to 1948

They did a pretty piss poor job of, given the opportunities presented to do just that.

In that war, Israel did almost all the ethnic cleansing, expelling 90% of the non-Jewish Palestinians in the territory they controlled, amounting to almost one million people. Israel didn't go on to expel the remaining 10% once they decided to stick to what became the final armistice lines.

 

[thekingsguard]

Absolutely ASB. Palestinian national identity was formed by the Nakba. Before that they would gladly welcome their fellow Levantine Arabs as liberators from the Jews. Even today Fatah has never denounced pan-Arabism.

Then so too is the idea of a palestinian nation in the 40s. They bet the farm that they could drive the Jews into the sea and rolled snake eyes.

 

[bernardz]

I think the biggest issue is when we (in the West) state, "Arabs rejected" it, we must understand there was no unified Palestinian leadership or even an organization at the time to either approve or disapprove. Instead, the Arab countries leadership (read Arab League) spoke for the Palestinian people. Then when the 1947 Israel independence occurred and the Arab countries lost the war, the Palestinians had nowhere to go but to the countries that attacked Israel (exodus of 1947/48) and they weren't allowed to assimilated to those countries (meaning no ability to become a citizen of the country).

They were allowed and did assimilate in Jordan.

 

[bernardz]

In that war, Israel did almost all the ethnic cleansing, expelling 90% of the non-Jewish Palestinians in the territory they controlled, amounting to almost one million people. Israel didn't go on to expel the remaining 10% once they decided to stick to what became the final armistice lines.

Actually there have been several court cases in Israel on this question. The figure is much less then 90%. The evidence is that these non-Jewish Palestinians left before the Israeli army arrived. There is an interesting diary of a Palestinian mayor that is well worth reading on this question what he talks about is the breakup of society even before the British left, the lack of public utilities, food shortages etc and the fact that many Palestinians had relatives outside of Palestine.

However, what is clearly indisputable is that ethnic cleansing was practised by the Arab governments after the war and still to this day by these Arab governments and the Palestinians.

http://jcpa.org/article/the-jewish-exodus-from-arab-landstoward-redressing-injustices-on-all-sides/