Greatest Possible Extent of Israel in 1948?

Simply put, what is the largest territory Israel could have conquered in 1948, during their war of independence? Could they have captured East Jerusalem? Could they have made it all the way to the Jordan River? How would holding all of Jerusalem from the beginning change Israel and its foreign relations?


NOTE: This thread is NOT for discussing whether or not Israel SHOULD have conquered that territory, nor for discussing current Israeli policy. I am only asking if they had the capability (in numbers, arms, morale, etc.) to capture more than they did in 1948.
 
If the war had gone on a little longer they probably could have captured East Jerusalem and a collar of territory around Jerusalem. They might have gotten more of the Sinai and Gaza. I doubt they could have taken all of the west bank. The issue is basically how long the war goes on before the USA, UK, UN force an armistice.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If the war had gone on a little longer they probably could have captured East Jerusalem and a collar of territory around Jerusalem. They might have gotten more of the Sinai and Gaza. I doubt they could have taken all of the west bank. The issue is basically how long the war goes on before the USA, UK, UN force an armistice.
Didn't Israel have a large numerical advantage in terms of forces after its ceasefire with Egypt? If so, couldn't Israel have simply overwhelmed Jordan in the West Bank? Indeed, would Britain, the U.S., and/or the U.N. actually be willing to do anything meaningful about this?
 
There's a low possibility that the Jordanians bow out of the conflict - King Abdullah privately favored a Jewish state.
 
The Israelis had a very tough time at Latrun, but toward the end they were on the verge of isolating it. Jerusalem also proved very costly to them. For its size, the Arab Legion was the toughest opponent Israel ever faced.
Israel might've taken the whole Sinai since it seemed the Egyptians were on the run after the failure of their offensive.
 
There's a low possibility that the Jordanians bow out of the conflict - King Abdullah privately favored a Jewish state.
But would he have given up control of the Old City? That seems unlikely, even for him.

The Israelis had a very tough time at Latrun, but toward the end they were on the verge of isolating it. Jerusalem also proved very costly to them. For its size, the Arab Legion was the toughest opponent Israel ever faced.
Israel might've taken the whole Sinai since it seemed the Egyptians were on the run after the failure of their offensive.

I would think the British might step in to secure the Suez canal if that happened. Wasn't that the reason for the Suez crisis?
 
Simply put, what is the largest territory Israel could have conquered in 1948, during their war of independence? Could they have captured East Jerusalem? Could they have made it all the way to the Jordan River? How would holding all of Jerusalem from the beginning change Israel and its foreign relations?
The war was a balance act about how far they could go without causing a foreign intervention. In the late part of the war they might have been able to defeat any of the opponents, but they would then risk what they had gained - a Jewish majority state holding even more territory than they had got in the UN negociations - so why gamble? They could deal in secret with Transjordan, so going far in that direction is a bad move. Golan heights and the eastern coast of Sinai are more attractive targets, but the political risks are too great.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The war was a balance act about how far they could go without causing a foreign intervention. In the late part of the war they might have been able to defeat any of the opponents, but they would then risk what they had gained - a Jewish majority state holding even more territory than they had got in the UN negociations - so why gamble? They could deal in secret with Transjordan, so going far in that direction is a bad move. Golan heights and the eastern coast of Sinai are more attractive targets, but the political risks are too great.
Just how likely would foreign intervention have been even in the event of a foreign land grab, though?
 
I would think the British might step in to secure the Suez canal if that happened.

Right, after the Israelis came closer to the canal in the '48 war, the British got concerned and I think there was a clash.

Wasn't that the reason for the Suez crisis?

That was just the ostensible reason or pretext. It was prearranged that Israel would invade Sinai and Britain and France intervene, supposedly to protect the canal but actually to get rid of Nasser.
 
No, Britain and France called upon Israel to invade Egypt while they protected the Suez from Egyptian take over.


Nasser had already nationalized the canal prior to the '56 war. The idea was to intervene, supposedly to protect the vital waterway from war damage, but Britain wanted more-to get it back--and France wanted Nasser eliminated so Egypt wouldn't support the Algerian rebels anymore.
 
Just how likely would foreign intervention have been even in the event of a foreign land grab, though?

The Soviets flatly told the Egyptians they couldn't intervene. Geography prohibited it. But US clout was so strong then all the US had to do was to tell the attackers to lay off.
 
Top