I've seen threads that speculate about a Soviet backed Israel as opposed to an American backed one. But what about the third option. Is there any POD that could see Israel join the non-aligned movement or even replace Egypt as one of the founding nations?
AHC: Israel in the non-aligned movement.
- Thread starter Great Laxit
- Start date
Sure. All you have to do is amicably resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict in a manner that all the major parties would be okay with and establish friendly relations between Israel and its neighbours. Shouldn't be too hard 
.
Edit: on a more serious note maybe have Israel founded in a more peaceful manner. Maybe have a partition plan that the Arab countries and native Palestinians would agree too, but again that's much easier said than done.
.Edit: on a more serious note maybe have Israel founded in a more peaceful manner. Maybe have a partition plan that the Arab countries and native Palestinians would agree too, but again that's much easier said than done.
Sure. All you have to do is amicably resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict in a manner that all the major parties would be okay with and establish friendly relations between Israel and its neighbours. Shouldn't be too hard
Edit: on a more serious note maybe have Israel founded in a more peaceful manner. Maybe have a partition plan that the Arab countries and native Palestinians would agree too, but again that's much easier said than done.
Or maybe found the country as a unitary state without partition between the Arabs and Jews. Though that might be a tall order.
Then it wouldn't be Israel. Though it would have a much better chance of staying out of Cold War affairs.
Deleted member 9338
For the record the US did not support Israel until after the Six Day War. I guess they wanted to back a winner.
The IDF needs an arms supplier and initially will lean in that direction. The is why France was viewed favorably.
If you can find a non-aligned arms supplier Israel will look favorably on them, but that is tough
The IDF needs an arms supplier and initially will lean in that direction. The is why France was viewed favorably.
If you can find a non-aligned arms supplier Israel will look favorably on them, but that is tough
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
An Israeli version of non-alignment would be different in tone from the Egyptian, Indonesian and Indian varieties.
To them, non-aligned meant most specifically "not aligned with Britain, Netherlands or the west in general" even if quite extension cooperation with the USSR was fine by them.
An Israeli version would be more pragmatic, and basically striving to be friendly with and avoid giving offense to any of the great powers, to maximize potential benefits of interaction with all of them while avoiding getting in their cross-hairs. It would be more Swiss or Swedish or Austrian style, rather than defiant and third wordist.
To them, non-aligned meant most specifically "not aligned with Britain, Netherlands or the west in general" even if quite extension cooperation with the USSR was fine by them.
An Israeli version would be more pragmatic, and basically striving to be friendly with and avoid giving offense to any of the great powers, to maximize potential benefits of interaction with all of them while avoiding getting in their cross-hairs. It would be more Swiss or Swedish or Austrian style, rather than defiant and third wordist.
Deleted member 9338
The IDF had a strange mix of armaments with capitalist arms merchants supplying half and the Soviet Union the other half. Not sure how long they could keep that up, that would allow for a certain level of non alliance.
Working on a time line with a more western Egypt that could align with this idea.
Working on a time line with a more western Egypt that could align with this idea.
The only Soviet arms Israel had were captured from the arabs. At least that was true from '56 onward.
Support stemmed from arab alignment with the USSR and domestic political pressure. The US made a much greater investment in South Vietnam--not much of a winner.
That's why Israel couldn't in the long run be a nonaligned state; it was either the US or finis. Other states, notably France and the USSR, preferred dealing with the arab states because they were so much bigger and in the aggregate, richer. Only the US was so rich and strong it could afford to indulge in the impractical.
Wallet
Banned
Israel was founded by Europeans. I don't remember the source but English and German were more commonly spoken in Israel then Hewbrew in its early years. I even think French, Russian, and Polish were common too.
It be like if Australia or South Africa pre apartheid joined the non-aligned movement. Technically they could, but if the Cold War was a European people's based conflict why would European settler nations want to miss out on all those juicy weapon deals?
It be like if Australia or South Africa pre apartheid joined the non-aligned movement. Technically they could, but if the Cold War was a European people's based conflict why would European settler nations want to miss out on all those juicy weapon deals?
I'm not sure how impractical it was. By the time the US backed Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were already firmly in the Soviet camp. Israel made sense as a counterweight, even putting domestic politics aside.
Yes, there was Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia in the 60s was still quite weak, and Jordan was still more British-aligned than the Americans cared for.
A "fourth option" might be a separate non-aligned organization. The non-aligned movement was very anti-imperialistic. I suspect that many countries (most of Central and South America, for one, maybe Thailand, Pakistan, maybe some of the neutral European states) might be tempted into a bloc that's neutral but not anti-West.
Israel was founded by Europeans, but within a decade of foundation, Middle Easterners were a majority of the population. Plus, Jews weren't considered to be particularly European by the Europeans, and their history as an oppressed people throughout Europe could have been made to resonate with anti-colonialist factions. Certainly the Israelis didn't consider themselves to be a European settler nation.
Even outside of Israel, the narrative of Israel as a European colony wasn't very popular/common in the period being discussed.
To the arabs, the USSR was essentially just a source of weapons to fight Israel. Had the US been willing to provide arms, it probably could've displaced the USSR in the Mideast but for domestic political reasons, arming arabs against Israel wasn't possible.
Backing Israel proved impractical in other ways. Besides making the bigger arab world, or much of it, dependent on Moscow, it risked alienating arab oil, and lucrative markets.