AHC/WI: Greater Israel, successful United Arab Republic, New Palestine

[Eurofed]

Assume, by one or more PoD to be devised, occurring as late as possible, that all of the following events happen:

* During the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War, Israel wins a total military victory, leading to its annexation of the sum of OTL Israel and West Bank. Transjordan remains an Arab state, Gaza may or may not turn out like OTL, or be annexed by Israel as well.

This might be the effect of a greater amount of European Jews remaining alive during WWII and emigrating to the Zionist homeland, or extra-European ones emigrating to Palestine in greater numbers (e.g. the USSR allows Soviet Jews to emigrate), or any number of military butterflies.

* As a result of the conflict, the vast majority of the Arab population in the West Bank flees (or is expelled, depending on your preferred political poison) to Arab lands, just like the one in OTL Israel, so that by modern times, the demographic character of Greater Israel is as predominantly Jewish as IOTL, with Arab citizens making up no more than 20% of the population.

* Either a) The United Arab Republic union of Egypt and Syria successfully endures and it is extended to Iraq (as it was planned) OR b) Pan-Arabism takes a different but just as successful path, which leads to the formation of a Egypt-Lybia-Sudan union and a Syria-Iraq union.

* The UK does not intervene to support Kuwaiti independence when the UAR or Syria-Iraq claims it as a part of Iraq immediately after the end of British colonial rule, so Kuwait becomes a part of the UAR/Syria-Iraq.

* Palestinian revolutionary groups overthrow the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan and turn Transjordan into the Palestinian homeland.

Which kind of PoDs and butterflies do you deem necessary and sufficient to make this sum of events turn out, and which consequences would they have on the course of Cold War and Post-Cold War Middle East history ?

 

[Urban fox]

A union of Eygipt & Syria working in the long-term is ASB, you'd be better off joining (north) Sudan & Libya to Eygpt and just having an Iraqi-Syraian Union also.

I dont see Jordan/Palastine giving up any historic claims, and Israeli-Arab realtions will if anything be much worse than OTL.

Also for the Soviets to allow Zionist-leaning Jews to leve would require major POD's to the point of making Israel neutral or Soviet-leaning during the Cold War.

Of course even then it's unlikely that many Soviet Jews would leave the U.S.S.R Anti Zionism/Cold War anti-semitism notwithstanding most Soviet Jews were pretty much assimilated and would have no desire to leave the U.S.S.R barring a total political & economic break down like OTL, after the U.S.S.R liquidated itself.

 

[Eurofed]

A union of Eygipt & Syria working in the long-term is ASB, you'd be better off joining (north) Sudan & Libya to Eygpt and just having an Iraqi-Syraian Union also.

That may be a valid alternative, too. I did not mean the Pan-Arab part of the scenario to be necessary based on the success of the UAR. It's just that historically it was the attempt that apparently came closer to success. The other 1970s attempts that involved Egypt, Libya, and Sudan never really took off the ground.

Nonetheless, I see no harm into allowing the variant scenario you mentioned as an alternative. But the Syria-Iraq union necessarily must still include Kuwait, using the butterfly I provided.

I dont see Jordan/Palastine giving up any historic claims, and Israeli-Arab realtions will if anything be much worse than OTL.

Who says that Jordanian Palestine is going to give up historic claims any time soon ? In all likelihood they shall be as reluctant to do so as our PLO for a long, long time. And I doubt that Israeli-Arab relations could ever go be much worse than OTL.

But a overwhelmingly Zionist Greater Israel and a Jordanian Palestine make for a radically different *Six Days' War and aftermath.

Likewise, the existence of a Palestinian homeland removes the PLO presence from Lebanon, sending its civil war on a wholly different trajectory.

Moreover, the Palestinian cause loses almost all its moral and political mainstream support in the Western world (and within Israeli-ruled territory) from the 1970s-1980s onwards, with an established Palestinian state and without the intifada irredentist struggle of the West Bank Palestinians to give it legitimacy.

 

[black angel]

* During the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War, Israel wins a total military victory, leading to its annexation of the sum of OTL Israel and West Bank. Transjordan remains an Arab state, Gaza may or may not turn out like OTL, or be annexed by Israel as well.

my guess on this happening King Abdullah I gives in to pan-Arab wishes and puts the Arab world's best army, his Arab Legion under Iraqi command, The Arab Legion's General John Glubb steps down in protest and under shitty leadership (like 1967) the Legion goes down the way all the other Arab Armies did, I can see a Jordan flooded by even more Palestinians over throwing the Monarchy and setting up a Palestinian state, though the Hashemites of Jordan are very very good at staying in power....

as said though a working UAR is unlikely also a change in the 1948 war could easily kill Nasser....

 

[Snake Featherston]

If Israel's able to annex OTL West Bank and Gaza it'd just go for broke and try for Transjordan, too. That, after all, is what a significant part of proto-Israel's military wanted and the momentum of conquest might seem irresistible at that point.

 

[black angel]

If Israel's able to annex OTL West Bank and Gaza it'd just go for broke and try for Transjordan, too. That, after all, is what a significant part of proto-Israel's military wanted and the momentum of conquest might seem irresistible at that point.

I doubt it, you might see the Irgun try something, but Ben-Gurion was very scared to piss of Jordan's ally the UK so I doubt the Haganah would have cross the river

 

[Snake Featherston]

I doubt it, you might see the Irgun try something, but Ben-Gurion was very scared to piss of Jordan's ally the UK so I doubt the Haganah would have cross the river

If they've defeated the same Jordanians who stopped their conquest of the West Bank IOTL, would Ben-Gurion be able to resist Irgun pressure to follow up on the victory and make Israel match their proposed map for it? And it would hardly be the first time the British promised the Hashemites something only to say "Well, sorry, we changed our minds."

 

[Eurofed]

my guess on this happening King Abdullah I gives in to pan-Arab wishes and puts the Arab world's best army, his Arab Legion under Iraqi command, The Arab Legion's General John Glubb steps down in protest and under shitty leadership (like 1967) the Legion goes down the way all the other Arab Armies did, I can see a Jordan flooded by even more Palestinians over throwing the Monarchy and setting up a Palestinian state, though the Hashemites of Jordan are very very good at staying in power....

Yup, this seems like a valid PoD.

as said though a working UAR is unlikely also a change in the 1948 war could easily kill Nasser....

Well, I edited the Pan-Arab part of the scenario to allow the alternative path proposed by Urban Fox: an Eygpt-Sudan-Libya union and a Syria-Iraq-Kuwait union. The latter at least would be based on the Baa'th Party and hence independent from Nasserism. Moreover, Nasser was not the only Free Officers Egyptian nationalist leader that was highly interested in a union with Sudan. E.g. Naguib strongly supported it, too.

 

[Eurofed]

Well, the Israeli conquering the entire British Mandate of Palestine is another very interesting scenario, but its long-term consequences are so different from the present one of "the Zionists get the homeland they want, the Palestinians the homeland they need" as to warrant its own discussion.

Unless you guys can suggest another scarcely populated Arab state that Palestinian refugees can take over and turn into their own homeland. Hmm, North Yemen or Oman, perhaps ?

 

[black angel]

If they've defeated the same Jordanians who stopped their conquest of the West Bank IOTL, would Ben-Gurion be able to resist Irgun pressure to follow up on the victory and make Israel match their proposed map for it? And it would hardly be the first time the British promised the Hashemites something only to say "Well, sorry, we changed our minds."

relations between the Irgun and.... every one else were poor at best, and broke into outright war during the 1948 war when the Irgun over ran most of Tel Aviv and had to be driven out by the IDF, very nasty, Ben-Gurion fear of great powers very very deep seeded to the point of phobia.

Well, I edited the Pan-Arab part of the scenario to allow the alternative path proposed by Urban Fox: an Eygpt-Sudan-Libya union and a Syria-Iraq-Kuwait union. The latter at least would be based on the Baa'th Party and hence independent from Nasserism. Moreover, Nasser was not the only Free Officers Egyptian nationalist leader that was highly interested in a union with Sudan. E.g. Naguib strongly supported it, too.

I could see a Syrian-Iraq Baa'th nation

 

[black angel]

Unless you guys can suggest another scarcely populated Arab state that Palestinian refugees can take over and turn into their own homeland. Hmm, North Yemen or Oman, perhaps ?

Libya springs to mind oddly.....

 

[Snake Featherston]

Well, the Israeli conquering the entire British Mandate of Palestine is another very interesting scenario, but its long-term consequences are so different from the present one of "the Zionists get the homeland they want, the Palestinians the homeland they need" as to warrant its own discussion.

Do you think Irgun would give a damn about a Palestinian homeland?

Unless you guys can suggest another scarcely populated Arab state that Palestinian refugees can take over and turn into their own homeland. Hmm, North Yemen or Oman, perhaps ?

In a scenario where Israel's defeated all comers they in all likelihood are no more likely to grant a Palestinian state than the Soviet Union would be to grant an independent Ukraine. Their ideology has been vindicated, the Arabs are military jokes, what motivation is there to reward a movement that would be a clear and present danger to the larger Israeli state?

relations between the Irgun and.... every one else were poor at best, and broke into outright war during the 1948 war when the Irgun over ran most of Tel Aviv and had to be driven out by the IDF, very nasty, Ben-Gurion fear of great powers very very deep seeded to the point of phobia.

And here the Israelis have destroyed literally everything sent at them, including the best Arab force, while the Irgun going to annex Transjordan would give Ben-Gurion time to smash them in the wake of their own success. It is never in the nature of ideological states whose ideology seems clearly vindicated to do something they'd see as a threat, the Israelis won't give Palestinians a homeland they'll see as a likely source for war against them, the idea of conquest of Transjordan when the Arab Legion is destroyed is pretty easily done, and well......

 

[Eurofed]

Libya springs to mind oddly.....

Very true. And in your opinion a Palestinian Libya (or Libyan Palestine) would still seek a union with Egypt-Sudan or stick separate as the "PLO Nation" ?

 

[black angel]

And here the Israelis have destroyed literally everything sent at them, including the best Arab force, while the Irgun going to annex Transjordan would give Ben-Gurion time to smash them in the wake of their own success. It is never in the nature of ideological states whose ideology seems clearly vindicated to do something they'd see as a threat, the Israelis won't give Palestinians a homeland they'll see as a likely source for war against them, the idea of conquest of Transjordan when the Arab Legion is destroyed is pretty easily done, and well......

I see your point, I think they might go to the old Zionist line in Jordan:

but its all about defensible borders, I think if the Arab Legion is broken and Gaza overrun, wouldn't they push south deep into the Sinai to get a buffer between them and the most powerful of the Arab states? the River is their buffer with Jordan, Syria is "weak and far away" Jordan's East Bank might turn into the Golan in 1967 where there just isn't an army left to fight and Israelis are making a mad dash to grab as much land as they can before the war ends, but I still think the IDF would put more force into taking the Sinai or the Golan (or both) and I'm unsure if the Irgun on their own would have the man power to do it (or if they'd think of it) one worry is of course what nearly happened in OTL with the Irgun and Stren gang coming close to blowing up the Dome of the Rock.

 

[black angel]

Very true. And in your opinion a Palestinian Libya (or Libyan Palestine) would still seek a union with Egypt-Sudan or stick separate as the "PLO Nation" ?

hard to say, Gaza's millions would be stuffed into Egypt so I can see Egypt forcing them over into a puppet Libyan, short lived union with Syria brings Syria's Refugees, likely Lebanon's and Iraq's too....

 

[Eurofed]

Do you think Irgun would give a damn about a Palestinian homeland?

I misexplained myself. I did not mean that. I mean that if Israel conquers West Bank, but not Transjordan, it happens by butterflies that are independent of the goodwill of the Zionist leadership (as you point out, not going to exist) e.g. out of their fear to piss off the great powers, or because they see the wisdom of the Jordan river border, and the scenario of "Zionist Israel + West Bank, Palestinian homeland in Transjordan" and the one of "Zionist Israel + West Bank + Transjordan, even more stateless Palestinians refugees than OTL" are IMO so different in their long-term consequences that they don't really belong in the same discussion.

 

[Eurofed]

I see your point, I think they might go to the old Zionist line in Jordan:

but its all about defensible borders, I think if the Arab Legion is broken and Gaza overrun, wouldn't they push south deep into the Sinai to get a buffer between them and the most powerful of the Arab states? the River is their buffer with Jordan, Syria is "weak and far away" Jordan's East Bank might turn into the Golan in 1967 where there just isn't an army left to fight and Israelis are making a mad dash to grab as much land as they can before the war ends, but I still think the IDF would put more force into taking the Sinai or the Golan (or both) and I'm unsure if the Irgun on their own would have the man power to do it (or if they'd think of it) one worry is of course what nearly happened in OTL with the Irgun and Stren gang coming close to blowing up the Dome of the Rock.

Very interesting map. Black Angel. Just I can't entirely grasp the sequence of events that you propose.

I seem to understand that ITTL the East Bank would become the West Bank equivalent, an Arab land that Israel takes over in the 1967 war equivalent and keeps for security and settlement purposes.

What about the Golan and southern Lebanon, when Israel is supposed to get them, permanent annexation cum demographic changes in 1948-49 or conquest and occupation in *1967 ? I would guess the latter.

I seem to understand that IYO, Israel would also annex that stripe of northern Sinai.

So the rought sequence would be:

1948-49 war, the Zionists conquer OTL Israel, West Bank, Gaza, El-Arish Strip. The Arab population flees, ensuring the lasting Jew demographic character of the conquered lands.

1967 war, Israel conquers the Golan Heights, Sinai, southern Lebanon, and the East Bank, entrenches its military occupation, the Arab population stays.

Is it right ?

 

[black angel]

Very interesting map. Black Angel. Just I can't entirely grasp the sequence of events that you propose.

the map is the original planned borders for a Jewish state laid out by the Jewish Agency in 1917, I was just saying that I could see, if Jordan was broken a push to get to that 1917 border inside Jordan but not all of Jordan to the Iraq border like Snake seemed to be saying, I view the taking of all Jordan as unworkable in nearly any TL.

 

[Eurofed]

the map is the original planned borders for a Jewish state laid out by the Jewish Agency in 1917, I was just saying that I could see, if Jordan was broken a push to get to that 1917 border inside Jordan but not all of Jordan to the Iraq border like Snake seemed to be saying, I view the taking of all Jordan as unworkable in nearly any TL.

But what would be the gain for the Zionists to conquer the East Bank in 1948-49 if as you say, taking over all of Transjordan is unworkable ? I see the Jordan river itself as a much better (more defensible) border than the one in the map. After all, the 1917 map was proposed when nobody expected the rise of militant Arab nationalism in Palestine. If anything, I can see a much stronger Israel to be willing and take over the East Bank in 1967.

 

[black angel]

But what would be the gain for the Zionists to conquer the East Bank in 1948-49 if as you say, taking over all of Transjordan is unworkable ? I see the Jordan river itself as a much better (more defensible) border than the one in the map. After all, the 1917 map was proposed when nobody expected the rise of militant Arab nationalism in Palestine. If anything, I can see a much stronger Israel to be willing and take over the East Bank in 1967.

I'd agree, the river is a better border.