How big can Israel get?

If Israel has any kind of expansion into Lebanon, it's going to remain south of the Litani River.

Basically, the biggest - I think, anyways - that Israel could realistically get is Israel, the West Bank/Judea & Samaria*, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Sinai, and Lebanon south of the Litani. Anything more than that is too far.

*Or whatever other names that region has, I tend to default to those two.

I can imagine a ATL where the Jews ally with Christians in the region as a joint protection against Arabs.
 
this is an extremely unsavory scenario.... but if Israel genocided most of the population of Egypt by destroying the Aswan dam [as they've threatened to do IOTL], it would not be very hard for an extremist/far-right/fascist Israel to occupy most of the depopulated country afterwards [maybe using the Biblical Exodus as justification.]
 
this is an extremely unsavory scenario.... but if Israel genocided most of the population of Egypt by destroying the Aswan dam [as they've threatened to do IOTL], it would not be very hard for an extremist/far-right/fascist Israel to occupy most of the depopulated country afterwards [maybe using the Biblical Exodus as justification.]
They'll need to nuke the Aswan dam to destroy it... and some one else will probably nuke them in turn to stop things from getting out of hand.
 
this is an extremely unsavory scenario.... but if Israel genocided most of the population of Egypt by destroying the Aswan dam [as they've threatened to do IOTL], it would not be very hard for an extremist/far-right/fascist Israel to occupy most of the depopulated country afterwards [maybe using the Biblical Exodus as justification.]
if they nuked the Aswan dam, I wouldn't discount the possibility that they wind up destroying both themselves and Egypt (since not even Israel is exempt from the nuclear taboo). And some nearby power gobbles up the land of both countries in the aftermath.
 
The largest plausible state of Israel would probably be
- The former Palestine Mandate
- Transjordan
- The Golan Heights
- The Sinai Peninsula

In a scenario where WW2 and the Shoah don't occur, the massive Revisionist Zionist movement in Poland would have a stronger influence on the Zionist movements, and there would be millions more potential zionist settlers, depending on conditions in Europe and migration restrictions on Soviet Jewry.

The Revisionist Zionists claimed both Palestine and Transjordan as integral areas of a future Jewish homeland based on a historical claim that the 12 tribes of Israel inhabited both sides of the Jordan river. A larger number of potential Jews making Aliyah could provide the demographic support to fulfill this ideological claim. OTL, the Revisionist Zionists abandoned their claim to Transjordan in the '50s in recognition of the demographic and geopolitical constraints of their new country.

I listed the Golan Heights and the Sinai because these territories have a small enough population and a large enough strategic importance that it would be plausible for an Israeli government to try to hold onto them long term. Golan Heights, an important water source and strategic position overlooking Damascus, only has around 100,000 people nowadays. The Sinai Peninsula in 1967 had less than 100,000 people, mostly Berber nomads.

There would be major diplomatic consequences, but it seems plausible that Israel could consolidate these territories.
 
I think the Shia make a majority of the population in Lebanon south of the Litani.

I've heard that the Shia make either a plurality or out-right majority, but I see your point.

I can imagine a ATL where the Jews ally with Christians in the region as a joint protection against Arabs.

I can easily see that as well. They'd probably look primarily at the Maronites, who (iirc) by and away the largest of the Christian groups in Lebanon, though they'd also work with the other Christian groups. I could even see the Druze getting added as well.
 
Or, even more likely, Lehi's plot to kill Truman in 1947 works and the historically pro-Arab Secretary of State George Marshall becomes president. With a large increase in anti-semitism in the US, along with Marshall's historic anti-Zionism, let's say things don't go well relations between Israel and the United States...

Oooh, I likes this idea!

I mean, not in the sense that I want Truman dead, but this has serious potential.
 
this is an extremely unsavory scenario.... but if Israel genocided most of the population of Egypt by destroying the Aswan dam [as they've threatened to do IOTL],

Never heard of an Israel threatening to do so and any nuclear country could do so, so Israel could do so. Maybe if Israel had a MAD policy like the US had in the Cold War and Israel was attacked with nukes by Egypt it would do something like this?

Now if you have operational control like Israel could have if it wanted to have in 73, have killed but not genocided, a lot of the population of Egypt. They did not do this either.

it would not be very hard for an extremist/far-right/fascist Israel to occupy most of the depopulated country afterwards [maybe using the Biblical Exodus as justification.]

It would still have a population much bigger than Israel. Plus extremist/far-right/fascist Israel party are very small and hardly much in the way of fascist. Besides what is in Egypt for Israel? Some oil but that is it, overall Israel trade with Egypt is small. It was a moderate right-wing party in Israel that agreed to give Egypt back the Sinai and then left the Gaza many years later.
 
The largest plausible state of Israel would probably be
- The former Palestine Mandate
- Transjordan
- The Golan Heights
- The Sinai Peninsula

In a scenario where WW2 and the Shoah don't occur, the massive Revisionist Zionist movement in Poland would have a stronger influence on the Zionist movements, and there would be millions more potential zionist settlers, depending on conditions in Europe and migration restrictions on Soviet Jewry.

The Revisionist Zionists claimed both Palestine and Transjordan as integral areas of a future Jewish homeland based on a historical claim that the 12 tribes of Israel inhabited both sides of the Jordan river. A larger number of potential Jews making Aliyah could provide the demographic support to fulfill this ideological claim. OTL, the Revisionist Zionists abandoned their claim to Transjordan in the '50s in recognition of the demographic and geopolitical constraints of their new country.

I listed the Golan Heights and the Sinai because these territories have a small enough population and a large enough strategic importance that it would be plausible for an Israeli government to try to hold onto them long term. Golan Heights, an important water source and strategic position overlooking Damascus, only has around 100,000 people nowadays. The Sinai Peninsula in 1967 had less than 100,000 people, mostly Berber nomads.

There would be major diplomatic consequences, but it seems plausible that Israel could consolidate these territories.

The British had been running Transjordan as an independent mandate (despite technically being part of the Palestine Mandate) since 1922, and they made it clear that it wouldn't be part of any future Jewish state. While the Revisionists may have abandoned their claim in the 1950s, there was a minuscule chance that any Jewish state would have possession of it.

Even with World War II happening and the Shoah occurring, I could see most of this fulfilled. The only one that won't happen is Transjordan (for the reasons stated above). If you have Israel score more victories in the War of Independence, break the Jordanian hold in eastern Jerusalem (or even just have the war last a bit longer), you could see the Israelis pushing the Jordanians back over the River Jordan. Gaza could be done if Operation Horev in '48-'49 goes well. The Sinai could be kept in a successful Anglo-French intervention in Egypt in '56, or the failure of a peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

EDIT: Corrected minor grammar mistakes
 
Last edited:
The British had been running Transjordan as an independent mandate (despite technically being part of the Palestine Mandate) since 1922, and they made it clear that it wouldn't be part of any future Jewish state. While the Revisionists may have abandoned their claim in the 1950s, there was a minuscule chance that any Jewish state would have possession of it.

Even with World War II happening and the Shoah occurring, I could most of this fulfilled. The only one that won't happen is Transjordan (for the reasons stated above). If you have Israel score more victories in the War of Independence, break the Jordanian hold in eastern Jerusalem (or even just have the war last a bit longer), you could see the Israelis pushing the Jordanians back over the River Jordan. Gaza could be done if Operation Horev in '48-'49 goes well. The Sinai could be kept in a successful Anglo-French intervention in Egypt in '56, or the failure of a peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
I see what you mean, the potential annexation of most or all of a separate state would be qualitatively different from a conflict within the former Palestine mandate. Israel would have to be on really good terms with another great power to deal with British opposition. Britain's relations with either the US or France would have to be so chilly that the latter two are willing to spite or isolate Britain, or the USSR is willing to green-light the conquest of Jordan for some reason and back up Israel in the UNSC.

Even if Israel had the political will, demographic strength, and military victory to "re-settle" Transjordan along Revisionist lines there would be a severe backlash from the UN and the Great Powers.

An Israeli puppet state/client state with de jure sovereignty in Israel's neighbors are a more plausible form of Israeli control over Jordan due to a power vacuum in Jordan or a more one-sided military victory in some conflict.

A POD relating to the Yom Kippur War in '73 present a similar question if Damascus falls to the Israelis and the Syria state ceases to exist. This might result in a "temporary" Iraqi occupation of Syria east of the Euphrates and a pro-Israeli/pro-western Syrian government in the Golan, greater Damascus, and southern Syria. Iraq and Syria had been in talks to unify the two Baathist states for a while, Saddam would have a plausible ideological justification for annexing and puppet-izing as much of Syria as he can.
 
I see what you mean, the potential annexation of most or all of a separate state would be qualitatively different from a conflict within the former Palestine mandate. Israel would have to be on really good terms with another great power to deal with British opposition. Britain's relations with either the US or France would have to be so chilly that the latter two are willing to spite or isolate Britain, or the USSR is willing to green-light the conquest of Jordan for some reason and back up Israel in the UNSC.

Exactly right. And there was an Israeli general (Yigal Alon) who realized in late 1948 that there were no Egyptian defenses west of el-Arish and planned an invasion of the Sinai. But the British threatened to activate the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 and become directly involved in the conflict (along with the British officers who were fighting with the Arab Legion under Jordanian command). I can't see the Israelis having any territory in Sinai until a kind of Six Day War or a successful Anglo-French intervention in Egypt over Suez.

You could see stronger French support (France was Israel's main backer until '67) but I'm not sure how one would get that (or if France would be willing to directly aid the Israelis). I think the only way you'd get Soviet support is if Stalin kicks the bucket in 1945 and is replaced by someone like Andrei Zhdanov or another Soviet leader.

Even if Israel had the political will, demographic strength, and military victory to "re-settle" Transjordan along Revisionist lines there would be a severe backlash from the UN and the Great Powers.

An Israeli puppet state/client state with de jure sovereignty in Israel's neighbors are a more plausible form of Israeli control over Jordan due to a power vacuum in Jordan or a more one-sided military victory in some conflict.

Pretty much. A puppet state is probably the only way that Israel could exercise any kind of control over Jordan. You might see something like that if Black September goes worse, or if there's a coup like the Iraqi one in 1958. But direct Israeli control over Jordan is pretty much out of the question.

A POD relating to the Yom Kippur War in '73 present a similar question if Damascus falls to the Israelis and the Syria state ceases to exist. This might result in a "temporary" Iraqi occupation of Syria east of the Euphrates and a pro-Israeli/pro-western Syrian government in the Golan, greater Damascus, and southern Syria. Iraq and Syria had been in talks to unify the two Baathist states for a while, Saddam would have a plausible ideological justification for annexing and puppet-izing as much of Syria as he can.

I could see that. Any Israeli-backed Syrian government will probably transition into a being a generalized pro-Western government (which will have butterflies on Lebanon as well). The pro-Israel/West Syrian government will probably sign over the Golan Heights. And I could definitely see Saddam going through with annexing as much of Syria as he could, which is not going to end well for Syrian Kurds.
 
And I could definitely see Saddam going through with annexing as much of Syria as he could, which is not going to end well for Syrian Kurds.

Would be interesting seeing both Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan merge with each other into an autonomous region in the aftermath of the ATL Gulf Wars, perhaps there would be more rationale for an independent Kurdish state to punish Turkey in the event they still refuse to let the US coalition forces invade ATL Iraq from the north, etc.
 
I don't know isn't Israel stugaling to hold the taratory it's already got (amidaly do to foren gripes and not actual usraly strength).
 
Top