AH Challenge: the URSS suports Israel during the cold world; the US doesn't.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to have the Soviet Union supporting Israel during the Cold War, and the West (the US, mainly) being neutral or supporting its Arab neighbours. The POD must be after 1948.

EDIT: I meant the Cold WAR, not the cold world.
 
Last edited:
Come on, it isn't that hard (I think)! In the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, there were quite a Sionists who were socialists, both in Europe and Latin America (mainly in Argentina). The link between the early kibbutz movement and socialist ideas is reasonably clear, if I'm not wrong. And I think that some of the weapons the Israelis used in the early days of the war of 1948 had been bought in Checkoslovakia (Communist Checkoslovakia).

I know that the Soviet Union didn't officially support Israel, except in the brief period that preceded the creation of Israel (when they thought that by doing so they would cause some problems to the British in Palestine). But given that many of the founders of Israel were secular and had left-leaning/socieldemocratic/socialist ideas, a certain "rapprochment" between Israel and a post-Stalinist* Soviet Union doesn't seem impossible in the early 50s. Or it does???

I know that the other part of the challenge (a West who doesn't support Israel) is much harder to achieve. But that's why it's a challenge.

* Giving Stalin's paranoid and (according to several sources) Antisemitic views (at least) in his late days, this situation doesn't seem likely under his rule.
 
Last edited:
-------bump-------

Eh...the Soviets as an ally of Israel might be possible to manage, IIRC they recognized it as soon as the US did. What might be required to change it would be a greater US investment in Arab oil, while the Soviets decide to counter that with allegiance to Israel. When Moscow's regime falls apart, what happens to Israel is a good question....
 
Getting Stalin out ASAP after 1945 would also be a start: having someone other than a renowned anti-Semite in control during the years immediately before Israel's existence would be a place to start.
 
Eh...the Soviets as an ally of Israel might be possible to manage, IIRC they recognized it as soon as the US did. What might be required to change it would be a greater US investment in Arab oil, while the Soviets decide to counter that with allegiance to Israel. When Moscow's regime falls apart, what happens to Israel is a good question....

The problem with a Soviet-backed Israel is how do you reconcile the atheist Soviet Union with the religiously founded Israel. Don't forget that the Jews believe that Israel is the Promised Land mentioned in the Bible.
 
Eh...the Soviets as an ally of Israel might be possible to manage, IIRC they recognized it as soon as the US did. What might be required to change it would be a greater US investment in Arab oil, while the Soviets decide to counter that with allegiance to Israel. ....

I was thinking that, if there's no Nasser revolution in Egypt, and thus this country (as well as other Arab countries, like Irak or Lybia) remain under the rule of monarchs who are internally conservative but externally pro-western, Israel might get closer towards the Soviet block. The west might adopt a "realistic" approach typical of the cold war era: these governments are authoritarian and corrupt, but they are better than communists and/or Arab nationalists, and they sell us oil at low prices; so, we should support them.

As these goverments, no matter who pro-western they may be, would probably still be against Israel, Israel might seek Soviet support, in order to counter this situation. A more "better" Soviet Union (less totalitarian and more technologically advance than IOTL) might be more attractive as a model to follow (for Israel), and this might make this scenario more likely.

The URSS with probably support both Israel and Arab nationalists (who would constitute the semi-clandestine opposition to their own governments). This would be contradictory, but it shouldn't surprise us: the British made contradictory promises to Sionists and Arabs in WWI, and the Soviets did the same to Italian and Yugoslav Communists concerning the future status of Trieste. It wouldn't be that strange for the URSS to back both Arab nationalist (not in power) and Israel, and to have her denounce the "corrupt, conservative and pro-western" Arab monarchies. The problem would come only when these nationalists come to power in their home countries. Only then would the Soviets be forced to chose between Israel and the Arabs. But as long as that doesn't occur, the URSS could have supported both Arab nationalists and Israel.
 
The problem with a Soviet-backed Israel is how do you reconcile the atheist Soviet Union with the religiously founded Israel. Don't forget that the Jews believe that Israel is the Promised Land mentioned in the Bible.

But not all of those who founded the Sionist movement were religious. At the early years of the XX century, there were proposals of founding this state in Uganda or Patagonia, for example. "Palestine" was prefered for many reasons, not all of them religious: Palestine was, both for religoius and non religious Jews, the place of origin of the Jewish culture and nation. There were even some ultra-Orthodox Jews who were against the creation of the Sate of Israel, because they considered thet this state would only be established when the Messiah came.

Still, I agree that this situation would cause problems. For the Soviet official doctrine, the Jews would stopped being oppressed only when the capitalist system had fallen, and communism had been adopted everywhere. Jews should fight for this goal wherever they where. When this was achieved (or, "in order to achieve this"), religion would/should be abandoned. Traditional cultures (like the Jewish culture) and languages (like Yiddish) would survive for quite a while, but they would only be folkloric relics of the past, destined to dissapear in the long term.

The problem with Sionism (for the Soviet official doctrine) was not only a religious one (as not all Sionists were religious); it was that it gave Jews, both in an out the Soviet Union, a goal which was different from the one the Soviets had established. The idea that Jews in the Soviet Union should consider themselves a separate ethnic, cultural and/or religious group who should try to emigrate to Israel or, at least, hold a certain sort of "loyalty" to this state, was something that a totalitarian state like the URSS couldn't accept, as totalitarian states tend to ask their citizens to be entirely loyal to their regime.

This is why a less toatilatarian Soviet Union might make this scenario more likely. However, even if this isn't the case, we shouldn't discard the possibility of an Israeli/Soviet alliance. After all, diplomacy is ruled more by pragmatic reasons than by ideology. I mean, the US and Saudi Arabia haven't got much in common ideologically, and that doesn't stop them from being allies.
 
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure, but wasn't Israeli-Soviet in the first years after the independence somewhat close? I mean, some kind of friendship between the two countries wasn't out of the question at that time IIRC. So what if Nasser doesn't come to power in Egypt, Egypt remains pro-american, some convenient coup in Siria also keeps Siria out of the Soviet sphere of influence and then, Israel, feeling threatened from south and north, aproaches the USSR? And if so far is plausible, WI the USSR tries to base fighterbombers in Israel in some escalation of some conflict in the region or a diplomatical issue during the cold war?
 

Hendryk

Banned
The problem with a Soviet-backed Israel is how do you reconcile the atheist Soviet Union with the religiously founded Israel. Don't forget that the Jews believe that Israel is the Promised Land mentioned in the Bible.
That's a revisionist interpretation of the founding of Israel, which was propagated by the second generation of Jewish immigrants to Israel, the religious ones who came after the battle, as it were. The original founders of Israel were mostly secular socialists who had little patience for eschatological speculation, all the more so as they knew that they were going against established Jewish prophecy: normally the people of Israel weren't supposed to return to the Promised Land until the coming of the Messiah.
 
One possibility would be that Truman did not recognize Israel at the moment of its own declaration. Secretary of State George C. Marshall argued forcefully against the idea. Many of the State Department officials were Arabists anyway.

If Truman had followed Marshall's advice (not hard to imagine given that Truman greatly respected Marshall), and had lacked the self-confidence to go against the State Department professionals, that might have left an opening for the Soviet Union to exploit.

It makes me wonder how the Suez Crisis would have played out in 1956. By then, the Soviets were vitriolically anti-Israel. But if they were pro-Israel that would have made things very interesting indeed.
 
That's a revisionist interpretation of the founding of Israel, which was propagated by the second generation of Jewish immigrants to Israel, the religious ones who came after the battle, as it were. The original founders of Israel were mostly secular socialists who had little patience for eschatological speculation, all the more so as they knew that they were going against established Jewish prophecy: normally the people of Israel weren't supposed to return to the Promised Land until the coming of the Messiah.

Yes, I think you're right. I took a class on the history of Israel way back in college, and my recollection is that the first wave of Zionists were not especially religious.
 
I could imagine this bare-bones timeline:

1947: Truman will not unilaterally recognize Israel on the advice of George C. Marshall and other State Department experts. Soviets DO recognize Israel. Soviet Ambassador to Israel asks Ben Gurion, "what did the capitalist powers ever do for the Jews? Didn't they keep your people out when you were trying to flee Hitlerism? Now they oppose your state! Socialist nations must come together."

1948: Truman defeated for re-election by Thomas E. Dewey. One of Dewey's issues is "who lost Israel to the Communist bloc?" He wins several states carried by Truman IOTL because of increased Jewish support (I'm thinking Ohio, Illinois and California).

After that I'm not sure what happens. Shortest timeline ever!
 
Well you get greater support for the Baghdad Pact, possibly Marshall Aid style funding for the monarchies to ensure the Islamists and Arab Socialists dont take power. This means no Suez Crisis.

The Con Mons would also be less likely to provoke war with Israel.

Israel's standing is interesting though. Without the USA's gargantuan funding, what state would the Israeli military be in, or the nation as a whole for that matter?
 
Given that the Suez Crisis was caused largely by the unique incompetence of Secretary of State Dulles and the State Department, cutting off promised aid to Nassar because he made a public criticism of the Soviet Union which they somehow concluded showed him to be dangerously pro-Marxist:rolleyes:, I have little confidence the chain of events won't prevent France and the UK from trying something.

Through the mid-1970s Israel is better off militarily as US aid was minimal prior to the Six Day War and still dramatically inferior in scale to what the Soviets could provide to their allies through the Carter Administration. Imagine Israel in 1967 with twice as many more modern tanks...

The big question is what happens if Nassar still rises to power and becomes a friend of Israel's instead of a foe. Not impossible as many Israelis considered the coup against the Egyptian monarchy to be a good thing and thought well of Nassar personally as practical fellow who had seen the reality of war.


An even bigger question is what happens if the US is entirely dependent on the Arab monarchies, ie, of questionable stability and militarily worthless(except for Jordan). One suspects(fears?) that a Soviet incursion into the Middle East and Persian Gulf in the 1970s, with support from Israel and socialistic Arab states(Egypt? Iraq?) would prove all too likely to succeed.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Some historical facts:
The soviet Union was one of, or even the first country to open diplomatical relationships with Israel.
When Golda Meir, as israels first embassador went to meet Stalin in Moscow, it resulted in the first spontanious Demonstration in the USSR for 28 years. Soviet Jews gathered in Moscow to celebrate.
Stalin was quite polpular in Israel, and without Soviet Weapons Israels history might have been over in 1948.
 
While the US was the first country to recognize the State of Israel de facto, the USSR was the first to recognize it de jure. Israel's external arms supplies during the 1948 war came from the Soviet Bloc. The Arab countries were all ruled by British-allied monarchs; the Soviets saw in the kibbutzim and moshavim a potential ally. Then the Israelis went ahead and established a democracy and a market economy in their newly independent state, and Stalin got pissed off.

Hmm.

Idea: The USSR, which characterized the 1948 war as aggression by the Arab states, sends five thousand "advisors" in May 1948 to help Israel repel the Arab states under Article 51 of the UN Charter. A mixture of gratitude and practical influence convinces Israel to actively align itself to the USSR, both with a mildly more socialist economy and with, say, a naval base lease on the Mediterranean, and perhaps on the Gulf of Aqaba.
 
Top