If Israel lost in 1948, how would Palestine be divided?
- Thread starter El_Presidente
- Start date
It depends on how they lose. The first truce / partition plan borders are considered an unacceptable situation or loss for Israel by posters in this thread, so there could still be a division in the territory that was the Mandate, while Israel does not achieve the same borders as in OTL.
Perhaps a major section of Isreal is given autonomy and put under Jordanian protection, with UN troops being stationed to enforce a ceasefire. The rest is partitioned between the victorious powers.
Or the Lebanon, since they barely participated in the conflict.
Something like the UNRWA could be stationed there to administer aid, and eventually Israel would find some local and global allies, likely Lebanon, and maybe France, Britain, America, or Russia.
While some shrunken territory under UN "protection" is possible, the reality is it would simply be a large refugee camp without the ability to be self sufficient in any way. This assumes that the Arab armies will stop "permanently" rather than only long enough to allow the Jews to evacuate the country before they advance to the sea. I doubt if a military victory was in sight they would stop short of their announced goal. Would the "right of return" be enforced to allow any Arabs who left the Jewish occupied territory to return - if not expect the Arab refugees to become a running sore. In 1948 Israel had to scramble to find arms to defend itself, who would want to piss off the Arabs to preserve some sliver of territory. The only force that has been effective is "preserving the peace" is the US force in the Sinai, blue helmet forces in Southern Lebanon, the Straits of Tiran, and elsewhere have all been ineffective. In Southern Lebanon, they merely reported cross border attacks or use of artillery etc, and the evacuation of UN forces at Tiran led to war. If some sliver of land is left to the Jews, if th Arabs decide to remove that "stain" you can be sure the blue helmets will not fight to stop it. UN forces are "peacekeepers" not "peacemakers" and operate under strict ROE thast essentially forbid fighting except in extreme cases of self defense.
The Arab states will continue to demand this, but they'll be occupied for some time fighting Palestinian resistance and each other. A smaller Israel in territory that sticks close to the partition, and one that is too occupied with refugees from Europe to develop a military threat, is easier for the Arab leaders to ignore, and that's what they'd prefer to do. Without a massive Palestinian refugee population and the costs and hazards associated with that, and with the borders ending up close to the partition, they don't have that much pressure to do anything.
This wouldn't mean permanent peace, it would mean temporary peace, that the history of the region could still progress with a smaller Israel, and the alliances would shake out differently.
Britain and France could still bring Israel in on this timelines Suez crisis, an over-extended Egypt without Jordanian support might not do so well. It's possible that Israel goes on to support Palestinian freedom fighters against Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, ten or twenty years down the line.
Ramontxo
Donor
No. They (the Arabs leaders) would be pressured by their rhetoric and the few really fanatic leaders to do things most of then would (in private) regret and an ethnical cleansing (both of Palestine and their own countrys) would probably be the lest bad outcome. With tens of thousands deads not really that improbable.
Marc
Donor
I would disagree, the West knew very well about the Holocaust in 1948.
If they choose to ignore a repeat - which they did repeatedly over the decades with different peoples - that is on their souls.
But they knew
This is assuming that they have a free hand to do it, but they'd have to start a whole new war to do it, and this doesn't happen instantly. The longer both sides kept to a truce, the stronger the border of the truce. In real life Israel and it's neighbors ended the conflict on armistice line borders, and they went to war several more times over the next few decades, I'm sure this will happen in a timeline where Israel gained less territory during the initial conflict.
Both sides could have accepted the 'Bernadotte' proposal, an armistice at the first truce. This might not count as a loss for Israel, since they had gained territory during the conflict, but it's basically the partition borders, so it's a loss compared to OTL.
If it's vital that Israel gain territory for strategic depth or living space, they'd have a chance if there is a Suez crisis, or at the first crisis that places the Arab states in opposition to the western, or communist, powers.
This seems likely - the British government may feel they have no choice but to allow many of the refugees into camps in Cyprus (they would not be integrated into Cypriot society I think though - like the Palestinians in Jordan OTL they would remain refugees) - the locals would not want them to stay and neither would the British so it is an interesting question where they would go. Many Jews who historically found it necessary to move to Israel would of course simply stay where they were, as I think without a still extant Israel anti-Semitism would be a far weaker thing in the Islamic world and the Soviet bloc.
I'm not sure the British would want them settling a colony in Africa given everything that had happened in Palestine in the past few years, so any hope of a new Israel may come down to France (or maybe the Belgian Congo?).
Of course they are probably more likely to scatter across the world, ending up all over the place.
Last edited:
excepting the Middle East, of course.
2nd World Nations are probably out, too.
Areas they can go is getting smaller and smaller
Egypt gets the lion share of it. Mostly Negev desert, Gaza and Jaffa/Tel Aviv region along the coast.
Jordan will get West Bank, Jerusalem etc. Pretty much Palestinian West Bank in 1948 borders suggested by the UN.
Northern Israel will be Syrian. This might even trigger Syria to annex Lebanon.
Jordan will get West Bank, Jerusalem etc. Pretty much Palestinian West Bank in 1948 borders suggested by the UN.
Northern Israel will be Syrian. This might even trigger Syria to annex Lebanon.
Ending up in Cyprus creates a really interesting situation. The Greek Cypriots will hate it and see it as soiling their unification plan with Greece. The Turkish Cypriots might see it as a way to hinder the Greek Cypriots. It might even turn in to a three way Civil War.
After being thrown out by Arabs the small minority of Arab Maronites might heavily be discriminated by the Jewish Cypriots.