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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see your point, I think they might go to the old Zionist line in Jordan:

pd1_125.jpg

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.

I think a means for Ben-Gurion to have his cake and eat it too is to let the Irgun go ahead and try to do what they want to do, then smash them and claim to the Great Powers that it was a group of extremists who went out of control, enabling him to intimidate whatever takes over in Jordan while getting rid of Irgun and showing himself able to rule Israel. Of course this sounds simple, the sounding simple part turning into the doing part is what's hard.

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.

It depends on how much the Great Powers would actively be willing to intervene. I don't know how much that would be in 1947, two years after WWII and in the early Cold War, when the British have effectively little teeth and I'm not sure France, the USSR, or USA would have much willingness to step in.
 

Eurofed

Banned
It depends on how much the Great Powers would actively be willing to intervene. I don't know how much that would be in 1947, two years after WWII and in the early Cold War, when the British have effectively little teeth and I'm not sure France, the USSR, or USA would have much willingness to step in.

The Zionist leadership may still err on the side of caution. Moreover, there is still the issue of the border. Putting it on the Jordan river grants Israel more long-term strategic benefits than one anywhere in Transjordan. A West Bank ahem largely devoid of Arabs yields huge economic and strategic benefits to Israel, no question about it. To own Transjordan gains Israel exactly what ? True, it stops it from becoming a Palestinian homeland, but so what ? Egypt, Syria, and Iraq are not going to disappear because of this.
 
I think a means for Ben-Gurion to have his cake and eat it too is to let the Irgun go ahead and try to do what they want to do, then smash them and claim to the Great Powers that it was a group of extremists who went out of control, enabling him to intimidate whatever takes over in Jordan while getting rid of Irgun and showing himself able to rule Israel. Of course this sounds simple, the sounding simple part turning into the doing part is what's hard.

thoughts: I know Ben-Gurion was worried about a left wing coup Palmach (Special Forces) who were largely members of the far-left Mapam, so a left-right civil war between the Palmach and the Irgun? :eek:

also rough Irgun blowing up the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque is... likely isn't the right word but yeah
 
The Zionist leadership may still err on the side of caution. Moreover, there is still the issue of the border. Putting it on the Jordan river grants Israel more long-term strategic benefits than one anywhere in Transjordan. A West Bank ahem largely devoid of Arabs yields huge economic and strategic benefits to Israel, no question about it. To own Transjordan gains Israel exactly what ? True, it stops it from becoming a Palestinian homeland, but so what ? Egypt, Syria, and Iraq are not going to disappear because of this.

The leadership might, the Irgun isn't likely to. And how Ben Gurion is going to resist them when the momentum of conquest seems unstoppable is a pretty big problem. "See, the Arabs can't stop us, why stop ourselves?". If Ben-Gurion could do so he might let them as a precondition to smashing the Irgun and removing one challenge to his power, though letting extremists do what they do best is not a good thing at any point.

thoughts: I know Ben-Gurion was worried about a left wing coup Palmach (Special Forces) who were largely members of the far-left Mapam, so a left-right civil war between the Palmach and the Irgun? :eek:

also rough Irgun blowing up the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque is... likely isn't the right word but yeah

That could be bad, yes. This situation seems ripe for an Irgun overreach and even if they can be tamed, the Arabs now have every reason in the world to want to crush the Israelis, who very nearly overran the Transjordan. How much the USA would buy an "Israel needs badly our money to defend themselves" sales pitch ITTL......
 

Eurofed

Banned
The leadership might, the Irgun isn't likely to. And how Ben Gurion is going to resist them when the momentum of conquest seems unstoppable is a pretty big problem. "See, the Arabs can't stop us, why stop ourselves?". If Ben-Gurion could do so he might let them as a precondition to smashing the Irgun and removing one challenge to his power, though letting extremists do what they do best is not a good thing at any point.

Again, to annex the Transjordan what real good does to Israel ? They may want to stop at the Jordan river simply because going further gives them no real benefits. Transjordan is not exactly brimming with natural resources, if they are getting the West Bank they don't really need the little fertile land the other bank has, and a long desert border with Syria-Iraq and Saudi Arabia is much, much more difficult to defend than the Jordan river, and they already have strategic depth.

That could be bad, yes. This situation seems ripe for an Irgun overreach and even if they can be tamed, the Arabs now have every reason in the world to want to crush the Israelis, who very nearly overran the Transjordan.

Doubt the Arabs could ever hate Israel any really more than they did IOTL.

How much the USA would buy an "Israel needs badly our money to defend themselves" sales pitch ITTL......

Did Egypt, Syria, and Iraq suddenly disappear ?
 
Here's a thought:

In this timeline, part of the reason Israel took the Golan was to prevent the Syrians damming the tributaries to the River Jordan. With an already established 'Greater Israel' that includes the Golan Heights, the Syrians won't be able to dam the river, and perhaps a war with Syria could be avoided.
As the majority of the populations in this area are Druze, they become more integrated into Israeli society at earlier point (a lot of Golan Druze work in Israel and make good money)
With better relations with Syria, the borders are effectively open, allowing the Druze to visit families either side.

Israel still has its equivalent of the 6 day war, but in this time line does not advance into Jordan, but rather holds at the River as it is much easier to defend (I think taking out Amman would stretch Israel's resources)

Israel occupies the Sinai, and in addition Southern Lebanon south of the Litani River.

An equivalent 'Camp David' peace treaty with UAR (assuming UAR is Egypt, Libya and north Sudan) sees the Sinai returned to them as per OTL.

OTL: The Egyptians are also offered the return of the Gaza strip, but refuse because it's just too problematic.
In this timeline, the UAR accepts the offer, and effectively has its own 'Palestinian problem' with the Gaza strip. (this borders ASB though, so I'm inclined to think Israel still gets the Gaza strip and all the inherent problems.


In the early 90's. Israel makes peace with Lebanon (the OTL equivalent of the Jordan-Israel peace process)
Lebanon is offered the portion south of the Litani River, but declines risking incorporating a hostile population.

The Southern portion of Lebanon becomes this timelines equivalent of the 'West Bank', with all the inherent problems.

Later, a deal is made turning South Lebanon into a Palestinian state.

The ATL Arab spring : Mass demonstrations in Tahrir square result in a brutal crackdown. The protest moves to Benghazi, which fairs better. Civil war breaks out in UAR between a rebel held Benghazi, and the government in Cairo.
Seizing the opportunity, Bedouin tribes in the Sinai arm themselves and start their own tribal conflict - turning the Sinai Peninsula into a lawless area.
Islamic extremists launch a missile strike on the port of Eilat from the lawless Sinai region.

Israel has no choice but to respond, seeing as the UAR civil war is spiralling out of control, Netenyahu orders the IDF to bomb the extremists and 'take control' of the situation....
UN sends a peacekeeping force.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Here's a thought:

In this timeline, part of the reason Israel took the Golan was to prevent the Syrians damming the tributaries to the River Jordan. With an already established 'Greater Israel' that includes the Golan Heights, the Syrians won't be able to dam the river, and perhaps a war with Syria could be avoided.
As the majority of the populations in this area are Druze, they become more integrated into Israeli society at earlier point (a lot of Golan Druze work in Israel and make good money)
With better relations with Syria, the borders are effectively open, allowing the Druze to visit families either side.

Israel still has its equivalent of the 6 day war, but in this time line does not advance into Jordan, but rather holds at the River as it is much easier to defend (I think taking out Amman would stretch Israel's resources)

Israel occupies the Sinai, and in addition Southern Lebanon south of the Litani River.

An equivalent 'Camp David' peace treaty with UAR (assuming UAR is Egypt, Libya and north Sudan) sees the Sinai returned to them as per OTL.

OTL: The Egyptians are also offered the return of the Gaza strip, but refuse because it's just too problematic.
In this timeline, the UAR accepts the offer, and effectively has its own 'Palestinian problem' with the Gaza strip. (this borders ASB though, so I'm inclined to think Israel still gets the Gaza strip and all the inherent problems.


In the early 90's. Israel makes peace with Lebanon (the OTL equivalent of the Jordan-Israel peace process)
Lebanon is offered the portion south of the Litani River, but declines risking incorporating a hostile population.

The Southern portion of Lebanon becomes this timelines equivalent of the 'West Bank', with all the inherent problems.

Later, a deal is made turning South Lebanon into a Palestinian state.

The ATL Arab spring : Mass demonstrations in Tahrir square result in a brutal crackdown. The protest moves to Benghazi, which fairs better. Civil war breaks out in UAR between a rebel held Benghazi, and the government in Cairo.
Seizing the opportunity, Bedouin tribes in the Sinai arm themselves and start their own tribal conflict - turning the Sinai Peninsula into a lawless area.
Islamic extremists launch a missile strike on the port of Eilat from the lawless Sinai region.

Israel has no choice but to respond, seeing as the UAR civil war is spiralling out of control, Netenyahu orders the IDF to bomb the extremists and 'take control' of the situation....
UN sends a peacekeeping force.

An interesting TL outline, but I can't say I grasp every part of it. ITTL, does Greater Israel take the Golan Heights in 1948-49 or in the Six-Day War equivalent ?? :confused: It could happen both ways, although I would find it more plausible if it happens in the 6-day war.

I seem to understand that ITTL Gaza Strip still remains to Egypt (later Egypt-Libya-North Sudan) and sis crowded with Palestinians. Plausible. Theoretically, however, the E-L-NS state could take over the Gaza Strip and dump its population somewhere in Libya. Or even more natural, the Gaza Strip could be handed over to Jordanian Palestine. Why is it not happening ? Because the area has an Hamas equivalent problem ?

I take that in the scenario you proposed, southern Lebanon becomes the West Bank equivalent. It is feasible, but I still find it more plausible if the Palestinian refugees population clusters in Transjordan after 1948, not Lebanon, and takes it over as a "PLO nation", instead of southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon may still end up an area occupied by Israel after the 6-day war, but the restive locals would be native Shiites, not Palestinians, as per OTL.

Lebanon should be eager to be returned the area that is officially a part of its territory, if it is offered, unless... let's say that with Southern Lebanon under Israeli occupation, the Christian militias are butterflied into winning the Lebanon civil war (because they get Israeli support), and so they don't really want a southern Lebanon returned that is full with Shiites, to unbalance the new demographic balance which favors Christians. So Israel would have an Hezbollah equivalent problem.

Interesting Arab Spring butterflies you propose for the E-L-NS state. Unless part of the divergence is that the British set up separate North Sudan (to Egypt, later Egypt-Libya) and South Sudan states, it would also have a civil war problem in South Sudan for most of its history, until SS eventually breaks away by means similar to OTL.

And then there is the Syria-Iraq-Kuwait state. Of course, there is never a Gulf war nor an Iraq war ITTL. This may or may not butterfly Al-Quaeda away, or if the Iranian Revolution is not butterflied away, it could make Islamist terrorism a mainly Shiite problem (instead of an Iraq war, NATO invades Iran at some point, and there is an Iran war ?). If the Iranian Revolution still happens, a S-I-K state is even more likely to start the Iran-Iraq war, and to win it to some degree. If it wins a sufficiently decisive victory (annexation of Khuzestan ?), it could lead to the downfall of the Islamist Iranian regime, which would prevent the Iran War. Or a defeated iran could radicalize, overtly support terrorism, and drive NATO to invade it. Much like OTL Syria, the S-I-K entity would be in the throes of the Arab Spring now.

For the purposes of making this discussion simpler, I would hereby propose the following nomenclature for the various Pan-Arab states:

-the union of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait would be the United Arab Republic (UAR)
-the union of Egypt, Libya, and (North) Sudan would be the Federation of Arab Republics (FAR)
-the union of Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait would be the Arab Federation (AF)

by picking the closest OTL equivalent.
 
Again, to annex the Transjordan what real good does to Israel ? They may want to stop at the Jordan river simply because going further gives them no real benefits. Transjordan is not exactly brimming with natural resources, if they are getting the West Bank they don't really need the little fertile land the other bank has, and a long desert border with Syria-Iraq and Saudi Arabia is much, much more difficult to defend than the Jordan river, and they already have strategic depth.

Without the Arab Legion to stop them they have nothing to really halt them and they have a crapload of desert to slow down Arab armies and logistically unhinge them before smacking into them on more mobile terrain. Without any good forces on their side, the Arabs can't do much to Israel, but Israel can do quite a bit to them.

Doubt the Arabs could ever hate Israel any really more than they did IOTL.

Hate but more so is quite easy, making people like each other is the hard part.

Did Egypt, Syria, and Iraq suddenly disappear ?

In the UAR the first two did, unless we want another failed version of same. Iraq is in no position to menace Israel here, and a failed UAR to Israel is going to be "*eyeroll* I'll believe this is a threat when I see it."
 

Eurofed

Banned
Without the Arab Legion to stop them they have nothing to really halt them and they have a crapload of desert to slow down Arab armies and logistically unhinge them before smacking into them on more mobile terrain. Without any good forces on their side, the Arabs can't do much to Israel, but Israel can do quite a bit to them.

Theoretically speaking, it is true that to own Transjordan adds Israel even more strategic depth. OTOH, it gives a much longer and less defensible desert border against infiltration by Arab guerrillas. Hence I remain dubious that the security balance would be really that positive in the end for Israel.

Nonetheless, I remain under the impression that a Zionist state spanning the entire British Mandate of Palestine is so strategically and politically different from the scenario I proposed (Greater Israel includes OTL Israel plus the West Bank, Palestinian homeland in Jordan) that they both warrant their own discussions, perhaps in separate threads.

Nor I'm convinced yet that if the Zionist forces reach the Jordan river, conquest of Transjordan is by that point really inevitable under any circumstances. IMO both kinds of scenarioes remain viable.

Hate but more so is quite easy, making people like each other is the hard part.

Short of the Israeli nuking Medina and Mecca, I remain rather dubious that ATL Arabs could ever hate Israel much more intensely than they did IOTL. It's an issue of scale. :eek:

In the UAR the first two did, unless we want another failed version of same. Iraq is in no position to menace Israel here, and a failed UAR to Israel is going to be "*eyeroll* I'll believe this is a threat when I see it."

Well, a necessary component of the scenario is that a stronger Greater Israel causes a greater success of Pan-Arabism. It seems that most posters deem the success of Egypt-Libya-(North) Sudan FAR and Syria-Iraq-Kuwait AF more plausible than the one of the Egypt-Syria-Iraq-Kuwait UAR. That's quite fine by me.

If we wish to add a failed UAR to the mix, we may easily assume that at some point an attempt is made to unite the FAR and the AF into a larger Panarab state, which soon fails, reverting the situation to separate FAR and AF. Barring extreme events, I strongly doubt that once created and given a minimum of stabilization, Egypt-Libya-(North) Sudan and Syria-Iraq-Kuwait unions could ever be easily broken (even if the former shall inherit the secessionist problem of South Sudan).
 
Last edited:
Theoretically speaking, it is true that to own Transjordan adds Israel even more strategic depth. OTOH, it gives a much longer and less defensible desert border against infiltration by Arab guerrillas. Hence I remain dubious that the security balance would be really that positive in the end for Israel.

In this case the Israelis might retain relatively light forces in said desert primarily to tempt the Arab forces into the kind of attacks that increase their weaknesses while giving Israel the chance to maximize its strength. They wouldn't bother using all of it as a defensive border, it'd be akin to Siberia WRT Russia.

Well, a necessary component of the scenario is that a stronger Greater Israel causes a greater success of Pan-Arabism. It seems that most posters deem the success of Egypt-Libya-(North) Sudan FAR and Syria-Iraq-Kuwait AF more plausible than the one of the Egypt-Syria-Iraq-Kuwait UAR. That's quite fine by me.

If we wish to add a failed UAR to the mix, we may easily assume that at some point an attempt is made to unite the FAR and the AF into a larger Panarab state, which soon fails, reverting the situation to separate FAR and AF. Barring extreme events, I strongly doubt that once created and given a minimum of stabilization, Egypt-Libya-(North) Sudan and Syria-Iraq-Kuwait unions could ever be easily broken (even if the former shall inherit the secessionist problem of South Sudan).

I don't see that this is a necessary component of greater Israeli success, though.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I don't see that this is a necessary component of greater Israeli success, though.

Of course a greater success of Pan-Arabism is not a necessary consequence of greater Israeli success. However it is a quite plausible and fairly likely consequence. I meant necessary in the sense that the OP (me) rules that both things (and the creation of a Palestinian homeland outside Palestine) happen ITTL when the scenario is created.
 
I think whe have to go back to 1921 when King Faisal I of Syria [1919-1921] was deposed by the French and fled to Jordan.
The British made Him - King of Jordan, and his brother Abbullah - King of Iraq.

So lets flip this - King Faisal flees to Baghdad, and becomes King of Iraq, with his brother being King of Jordan.

1947
The Israelis have declared Independence, and have pushed the Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians back.
The French are pulling out of Syria. King Faisal sends the Iraqi Army into Syria, Stating He intends, to regain his stolen Throne, and unite both Half's of His Kingdom.
Syrian troops [temporary, or so claimed] pull out of the Israeli War.
With the open Troops Israel pushes into the West Bank, and Gaza. Going on to Capture Al Arish.
With the French protecting Lebanon's southern Border, several hundred Thousand Palestine refugees flood into Jordan.
At the same time thousands of Egyptians flee across the Sinai.

1948
UN imposed crease fire.
All lines are frozen pending negotiations on a final peace treaty. [Same as OTL]
Arab Forces refuse to negotiate. [Same as OTL]
Israel begins developing all within TTL's expanded green Line.

1950's
Palestine's in Jordan revolt, over thrown King Abbullah. [OTL He was overthrown in the 50's by the Iraqis] Jordan renamed as Palestine.
Meanwhile Egypt moves to annex The Sudan.
 
If Israel conquer the whole golan hights it will establish a Druz buffer state between Israel proper and Syria, althought it will probebly annex a few kilometers of the westren cliffes.
 
Last edited:
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 ?

A few issues here:

1. For Libya to join an Arab union, you would have to A) butterfly away Qaddafi (or let some rebels do it for us) or B) have Qaddafi run the damn thing. B is very unlikely, as an Arab union is almost inevitably Arab dominated.

2. Jordan would not be designated the Palestinian homeland. Although some Palestinian nationalists wanted Jordan as part of a 'Greater Palestine', they would still want Palestine proper.

What you could do is have Nasser create the UAR, fund successful rebellions in Iraq and Jordan against the Hashemites, get Yemen on board (can'r remember which one, but have a victory in the Yemeni civil war). A non-Qaddafi Libya may join, as will the Sudan, but autonomy would have to be given to Southern blacks for stability. With limited Algerian support, the new UAR could defeat Israel in a battle of attrition (If they had a decent defensive strategy) as they would have Soviet weaponry. The USA would likely support Israel covertly, but not get involved in the actual war. This prestige boost would further align other Arab nations to the UAR, such as Oman if the fundamentalists could be gotten rid of. America would get super close with the Saudis to keep their oil supplies, and Iran and Turkey would be pushed further into the Western camp. but overall, the Middle East is dominated by a pro-Soviet UAR, engaged in a cold war with the Sauds and their gulf allies (Bahrain, UAE, Qatar etc.). The UAR would be reorganised in a similar way to Titoist Yugoslavia, although there may be issues in Iraq with Kurds and Shi'ites. Also, there may be ethnic strife between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, but I doubt that the UAR would commit any atrocities, as it would be too bad for their image.
 
* Palestinian revolutionary groups overthrow the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan and turn Transjordan into the Palestinian homeland.
I don't think that they (Palestinian revolutionary groups) will overthrow the Hashemites; in my opinion, the monarch will comply to their demands; two of these demands were amending the constitution and a new parliamentary election.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think that they (Palestinian revolutionary groups) will overthrow the Hashemites; in my opinion, the monarch will comply to their demands; two of these demands were amending the constitution and a new parliamentary election.

Really?

15 months and and revived to debate with a Banned member?

Really?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top