How many wars would happen in Middle East if Israel never existed

Part of the reason there would be as many if not more wars than OTL. This area would be contested between the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt at the very least.
They don't call this a bit of a bad neighborhood for nothing...:rolleyes:

Syria might stake a claim if opportunity arises.

However, this raises the question of WHY exactly Israel is not there ITTL.
If the POD is "no meaningful Zionism arising" (dunno, kill Theodor Herzl) then there would be no such a thing as Mandate of Palestine to begin with, not to mention Jordan. The whole diplomacy around the Arab Revolt is different and you might even get the united Arab State promised to the Hashimites, albeit in a reduced form (no way it would include Lebanon). There will be conflicts for sure, but with differents borders and different players. No Balfour Declaration could bring to a similar scenario, though by that point, Zionism would be at least a minor local factor already.
If the POD is "Israel is defeated in 1948" you have more or less OTL outline of borders except in Mandate of Palestine. By this point, many Palestinians might or might not be willing to be rule by either Jordan or possibly Syria, it depends to many factors including how the war had played out. You'd have also some problems regarding what to do with 600 thousand odd Jews immigrated there, some of them with horrible histories from Europe.
Jordanian claim is going to be the more solid, but then, Jordan might reconsider her willingness to get the whole mess and let Egypt and Syria take a share of the fruits of the victory, out of "arab solidarity" (read: we're not going to afford tidying this disaster alone).
In any case, the Egyptian monarchy is more solid and stronger. This butterflies the whole ideological confrontations that ensued, at least as long as the fifties go.
Will Britain do something stupid in Suez ITTL without Israel as a willing local proxy?
 

Jason222

Banned
Syria might stake a claim if opportunity arises.

However, this raises the question of WHY exactly Israel is not there ITTL.
If the POD is "no meaningful Zionism arising" (dunno, kill Theodor Herzl) then there would be no such a thing as Mandate of Palestine to begin with, not to mention Jordan. The whole diplomacy around the Arab Revolt is different and you might even get the united Arab State promised to the Hashimites, albeit in a reduced form (no way it would include Lebanon). There will be conflicts for sure, but with differents borders and different players. No Balfour Declaration could bring to a similar scenario, though by that point, Zionism would be at least a minor local factor already.
If the POD is "Israel is defeated in 1948" you have more or less OTL outline of borders except in Mandate of Palestine. By this point, many Palestinians might or might not be willing to be rule by either Jordan or possibly Syria, it depends to many factors including how the war had played out. You'd have also some problems regarding what to do with 600 thousand odd Jews immigrated there, some of them with horrible histories from Europe.
Jordanian claim is going to be the more solid, but then, Jordan might reconsider her willingness to get the whole mess and let Egypt and Syria take a share of the fruits of the victory, out of "arab solidarity" (read: we're not going to afford tidying this disaster alone).
In any case, the Egyptian monarchy is more solid and stronger. This butterflies the whole ideological confrontations that ensued, at least as long as the fifties go.
Will Britain do something stupid in Suez ITTL without Israel as a willing local proxy?
Order for the Arab states not fight over spoil you needed change Egypt war plan after beat the Jews to try grapped part the West Bank and Jerusalem for themselves. Which was part military planing. Then of course Syria think they might try take part of fire fight with Jordan force Jerusalem to make simple fire works only get starter after Arab victory over Zionist 1948. Worst yet without Israel blame for the economic problems you have thing Arab spring happen though out Middle East. Radical and social dictatorships imagine USA having from defense pack government like Muslin brotherhood. No way know who friend USA and who friend USSR. Socialer leftest and radical Muslin have no love for each other.
 
When this, that or the other is happening, who has control of the Suez Cannal? If Britian and France do, I can see them taking Egypt out if Egypt wants to try for it.
 

Jason222

Banned
When this, that or the other is happening, who has control of the Suez Cannal? If Britian and France do, I can see them taking Egypt out if Egypt wants to try for it.

Great world war III in all honost I think happen if Israel did exist just need oil fact USA and USSR pull in if not Israel keep radical leftness and radical muslin in line.
 
Even if Israel did not exist many of the disputes between the Arab states would remain as in OTL. The Iran-Iraq conflict, Saudi-Iran rivalry, Egypt-Sudan dispute or Morocco-Algeria dispute etc. are all likely to occur. More powerful states like Egypt, Iraq, Syria etc. may try to dominate their weaker neighbors. Another contest that may occur is between the conservative kingdoms and emirates on one side and left leaning secular military regimes on the other side. In the Cold War period both sides are likely to be supported by U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. respectively. In the absence of Israel the reactionary regimes can rally behind U.S.A. and NATO without any reservations. Hence the absence of Israel is not going to reduce the conflicts in the Middle East, but aggravate them.
 

sharlin

Banned
Lets be honest here. Its the middle east. They hate one another for the most part and only stand together against a 'threat' when its convenient.
 
Probably just as much conflict, if not more. Israel in OTL at least provides a reason for the various states to put on an "united front" even if they hate each other in reality (for example: King Hussein, Nasser and the Syrian Baathists all despised each other in 1967 but nevertheless fought a war together) . Without Israel as a target to at least rally against, the other rivalries and grievances rise to the fore. One problem is that the ideological confrontation in the Cold War between Arab nationalists and conservatives won't go away in this time line (so you still have Baathists and Nasserists hating the Hashemites and Saudis). Also, as a result of irrational colonial borders drawn up by the imperialist powers, ethnic and religious tensions will still exist both between states and within states will continue. Alawites, Maronites, Copts, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Druze etc. aren't going to get along any better than in OTL and neither are the states in which those groups live (and often overlap across borders drawn by colonialists).
 
Even if Israel did not exist many of the disputes between the Arab states would remain as in OTL. The Iran-Iraq conflict, Saudi-Iran rivalry, Egypt-Sudan dispute or Morocco-Algeria dispute etc. are all likely to occur. More powerful states like Egypt, Iraq, Syria etc. may try to dominate their weaker neighbors. Another contest that may occur is between the conservative kingdoms and emirates on one side and left leaning secular military regimes on the other side. In the Cold War period both sides are likely to be supported by U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. respectively. In the absence of Israel the reactionary regimes can rally behind U.S.A. and NATO without any reservations. Hence the absence of Israel is not going to reduce the conflicts in the Middle East, but aggravate them.

Iran is not an Arab country. Sudan-Egypt dispute never led to significant fight, as far as I know, neither did the Algeria-Morocco one as far as the military forces of both countries are concerned, with Algeria only supporting POLISARIO. Powerful states did try to dominate the others IOTL, and that won't change I guess. As I repeatedly said, the emergence of military left leaning regimes without Israel is not a given, with the possible exceptions of Syria and especially Algeria. That the absence of Israel might aggravate conflicts is possible, but this depends on the POD. It is not like the conservative monarchies in the ME were not in the West's row anyway, they feared "communism" way more than they feared the Zionist Entity most of the time. If Egypt remains a relatively conservative constitutional monarchy a la Jordan, which is possible at least for a while without Israel, that changes the whole pattern of the Cold War in the area.
Conflicts are there regardless of Israel with the post-WWI border patterns and will happen anyway. I don't see significant way they will be aggravated except for a possible fight over the former Mandate of Palestine, depending on the POD.
No Israel means far less civil strife in Jordan and Lebanon after the seventies relative to OTL. Some sort of sectarian unrest is likely to emerge in Lebanon anyway, but I think it will not become the horrible lengthy bloodbath of OTL.
Iraq might enjoy a little more internal stability as well, though bloody conflicts with Iran are still quite likely.
 
Sudan-Egypt dispute never led to significant fight, as far as I know,

How much of that is because the Sudan has been too busy with the on-again-off again north-south civil war to take on Egypt while Egypt has been busy with Israel and to a lesser extent Libya at the same time? Have a slightly more united Sudan in this Israel-less mideast and I could see an Egypt-Sudan border war at least on a scale equivalent to the Egypt-Libyan clashes of the late '70s.
 

Soundgarden

Banned
So Israel was the reason the Arab League formed? Guess the old saying goes, "an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine".
 

Jason222

Banned
Nasser rise to power few reason 1948 war only one other two was fact that Egypt government allow UK and France control Sinai canal and issues king cheating own people when came bribes other things.

Arab League existed way before Israel during World War II it existed.
 
Top