Discussion about a potential Neo-Holocaust had the Arabs won the 1948 war

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kick
In this scenario, the Arabs are able to set aside their differences and unify their militaries against Israel, also managing to convince the British to support them. With this improved and united Arab army, the State of Israel is overwhelmed within 3 months, and partitioned between Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Naturally, the Arabs would want to finish what the Nazis started.

That's what this thread is about. What would this genocide be like? Would it be like the medieval European pogroms, or would it be like the original Holocaust? Would only Jews of the religious kind be targeted, or Jews of the ethnic kind? What would happen to any Jews who converted to Islam?
 
Last edited:
In this scenario, the Arabs are able to set aside their sifference and unify their militaries against Israel, also managing to convince the British to support them. With this improved and united Arab army, the State of Israel is overwhelmed within 3 months, and partitioned between Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Naturally, the Arabs would want to finish what the Nazis started.

That's what this thread is about. What would this genocide be like? Would it be like the medieval European pogroms, or would it be like the original Holocaust? Would only Jews of the religious kind be targeted, or Jews of the ethnic kind? What would happen to any Jews who converted to Islam?

That’s an interesting POD, I think British support for the Arabs would be ASB, ambivalence was certainly a possibility though I think if things started to go south for Israel the USA would step in/apply enormous pressure on the British Government. Still I think there is a possibility the British would dig in their heels.

My great Uncle was a peacekeeper in Palestine after the war and he hated Jews with a passion until the day he died. Many of the British forces viewed themselves as “the good guys,” for want of a better term and were simply trying to keep the peace.

When Jewish settlers started killing British soldiers there was widespread outrage among the British troops, they saw themselves as the men that stopped the holocaust and we’re sickened that those they saved were attacking and killing them after they’d managed to survive WWII.

If there was a large British death toll ( Just over 300 OTL) or a large scale massacre of British soldiers/administrators/wives children I could see a much more hardline response from the British come the Arab invasion.

That said if the Arabs won and tried for a holocaust 2.0 I think you’d see America boots on the ground in very short order.
 
Naturally, the Arabs would want to finish what the Nazis started.

Uhm, okay, really want to know whats natural about that. Why would the British support this exactly? Or do you suppose the British just look away when Arabs go in to start a massacre.

Sounds a lot like Srebrenica too.

Not sure where you are going with this thread to be honest.
 
Uhm, okay, really want to know whats natural about that. Why would the British support this exactly? Or do you suppose the British just look away when Arabs go in to start a massacre.

Sounds a lot like Srebrenica too.

Not sure where you are going with this thread to be honest.

The Arab protagonist nations are on record saying they wanted to “drive the Zionists into the sea.” If they won and were unchecked by the international community there would have been similar actions to those in East Germany as the Soviets advanced on Berlin.
 
Britain created Israel. Why would they want the country destroyed right after they created it?

That makes no sense.
 
Britain created Israel. Why would they want the country destroyed right after they created it?

That makes no sense.
Getting a response in before this thread gets locked.

While it's true Britain had created the seeds for the state of Israel as far back as 1917 (though it helped Israeli entrepreneurs bargain with the Ottoman sultan to buy lands in Palestine in exchange for reduction of debt as far back as the turn of the century), by 1948 the situation had changed. Initially, Israel was to be created as a British "client state", a factor of instability in the Middle East that would basically require the British Empire to have an excuse to play peacekeeper for the long term. While there were those who helped create Israel out of religious belief, the Empire worked as always on a purely pragmatic concept, thus creating Israel would be another loyal British client state, or loyal Empire subject for years if not decades to come.

It took a careful balancing act; while the Israelis needed to be armed to defend themselves, and were used as a police force against the native Arabs, the British government had to limit immigration to prevent the Arabs from going up in arms all at once, earning the distrust of the Israeli settlers. Not to mention it was clear Britain had no intention of leaving soon, meaning the Israelis who wanted self-rule found themselves stymied.

By 1948, the balance had completely changed. Britain's efforts in WW1 and WW2 had left its treasury empty and unable to support its aging empire, was up against the clock, and everyone knew it. The Israelis, morally bolstered by the revelation of the Holocaust, rose up and demanded independence, and the more militant groups began assassinating British officers and soldiers. The British could not retaliate for fear of being compared to Nazi Germany, and the Israeli radicals grew bolder. Furthermore, with Britain forced to abandon its empire, it was heavily dependent on Arab and Muslim good will for its oil, so it shifted to that direction and grew displeased with Israel, the very state it created.

Overall, the British saw the Israelis as ingrates who wanted out when it suited them after all the Empire did to give them a new home. And the Israelis saw Britain as opportunists who wanted to keep Israel forever under their thumb.
 
The Arab protagonist nations are on record saying they wanted to “drive the Zionists into the sea.” If they won and were unchecked by the international community there would have been similar actions to those in East Germany as the Soviets advanced on Berlin.

Source, preferably peer-reviewed academic ones, please.
 
Source, preferably peer-reviewed academic ones, please.

It appears to go back to this statement from Dr Fadhil Jamali, Iraqi representative to the UN, quoted in "The Arab States and the Arab League" by Muhammad Khalil -

I asked them how Palestine was lost. It had been lost for two basic reasons: one, because we deluded ourselves by underestimating the power of our opponent and by thinking that the Jews were not powerful. The highest official in the League said that with 300 soldiers or North African Volunteers we could throw the Jews into the sea. The war started and His Excellency then said that with 3,000 North African Volunteers we could throw them into the sea. The second reason was that we thought that we were strong enough to face the world but the fact was that we did not estimate our own strength correctly. This then was the issue of Palestine. It seemed a trifling thing at the time but we did not know that behind the Jews of Palestine stood World Zionism with its resources in every major country.

It's also attributed to Nasser, but that incident seems to have been a sarcastic comment on Arab complacency going into the war rather than a serious statement of intent. And yes, I know the difference between "could" and "would", but on the other hand mass expulsions are what the Arab countries did to their own Jewish populations after the war OTL, I'm not sure why we should automatically expect the Jews of Palestine to be treated any better.
 
That said if the Arabs won and tried for a holocaust 2.0 I think you’d see America boots on the ground in very short order.
In 48-49 could the US do much? This was around the nadir of US military capacity, just after the '48 renewal of the SSA and before Korea. Almost 90% of the WW2 military had been demobilised, ships were scrapped and sealift lacking. It "[reduced the army] to a state of near impotency,....weakened the prestige of our national policy, and endangered the security of the Nation".
 
<snip>
Overall, the British saw the Israelis as ingrates who wanted out when it suited them after all the Empire did to give them a new home. And the Israelis saw Britain as opportunists who wanted to keep Israel forever under their thumb.
An both were right...
 
This subject has been discussed here in various ways more than once. I respectfully ask this be locked as such discussions rapidly degenerate in ways unhelpful. I say no more.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In this scenario, the Arabs are able to set aside their differences and unify their militaries against Israel, also managing to convince the British to support them. With this improved and united Arab army, the State of Israel is overwhelmed within 3 months, and partitioned between Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Naturally, the Arabs would want to finish what the Nazis started.

That's what this thread is about. What would this genocide be like? Would it be like the medieval European pogroms, or would it be like the original Holocaust? Would only Jews of the religious kind be targeted, or Jews of the ethnic kind? What would happen to any Jews who converted to Islam?
"Naturally" an entire ethnic group would want to commit genocide?

SMH

Kicked for a week.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top