Is there any way of having a less charged, tense Israel/Levant in general?

Are there any obvious historical mistakes or blunders that could've been avoided to make Israel and/or the Levant as a whole a less politically charged series of nations without removing the nations entirely?

Please do not mention Ottoman Empire, that's an obvious and frequently touted solution.

---If you're seeing this, it means I unsubsrcibed from this discussion. If you revived it and want a response from me, please PM me---
 
Last edited:
Well, there could be a nuclear war or massive pandemic that destroyed civilization.

Obviously, the Ottomans, but you ruled out the only reasonable solution.

LESS charged, could have the Likud be less successful, an actual peace deal (of sorts), and fewer West Bank settlements.... But there'd still be Gaza and suicide bombers and...
 
If you had earlier influx of Jewish settlers, like before 1900/late 19th century, this could work. A fair number of the current "Palestinians" trace their ancestry to folks who immigrated later 19th/early 20th century. If there is a large enough Jewish presence in the area early on things may go smoother. Especially since a lot of land transfers will be "accepted" and long standing. Other than that, hard to see how.
 
If you had earlier influx of Jewish settlers, like before 1900/late 19th century, this could work. A fair number of the current "Palestinians" trace their ancestry to folks who immigrated later 19th/early 20th century. If there is a large enough Jewish presence in the area early on things may go smoother. Especially since a lot of land transfers will be "accepted" and long standing. Other than that, hard to see how.

Where did you get that?
 
It would require a pre-1900 POD. Even if the problems that come with Zionist and the*first Aliyah, there are still all the long standing ethnic and religious resentments and grievances that would have to be mitigated.
 
If you had earlier influx of Jewish settlers, like before 1900/late 19th century, this could work. A fair number of the current "Palestinians" trace their ancestry to folks who immigrated later 19th/early 20th century. If there is a large enough Jewish presence in the area early on things may go smoother. Especially since a lot of land transfers will be "accepted" and long standing. Other than that, hard to see how.

Oh my . . . well, I better flag this thread for deletion. No-one has taught me how to do that, by the way. Do I just send a report on the OP?
 

Czar Kaizer

Banned
If you had earlier influx of Jewish settlers, like before 1900/late 19th century, this could work. A fair number of the current "Palestinians" trace their ancestry to folks who immigrated later 19th/early 20th century. If there is a large enough Jewish presence in the area early on things may go smoother. Especially since a lot of land transfers will be "accepted" and long standing. Other than that, hard to see how.
Wow, I've never heard this Zionist conspiracy before
 
Are there any obvious historical mistakes or blunders that could've been avoided to make Israel and/or the Levant as a whole a less politically charged series of nations without removing the nations entirely?

Please do not mention Ottoman Empire, that's an obvious and frequently touted solution.

During the Arab Revolt in Palestine in 1936-1939, an Arab band ambushes and partly massacres a British road convoy; the survivors being rescued by the intervention of Zionist Hashomer militiamen. The Arab group includes some deserters from the Arab Legion.

This causes Britain to shift wholeheartedly to support of Zionism in Palestine. Britain decides to establish a Hebrew Legion as its security force in Palestine, largely replacing the Arab Legion, and to open Palestine to unlimited Jewish immigration. (This will provide a population base for recruiting the Legion, and establish a loyal majority in Palestine.)

By 1946, over two million Jews have arrived in Palestine, and the Arabs have abandoned any thought of a military challenge to Jewish settlement and dominance. Britain grants Dominion status to Palestine. Another two million Jews arrive by 1950.

There is no Arab-Jewish war. Some disgruntled Arabs emigrate, but none flee war or are forcibly expelled, i.e. there are no "Palestinian refugees". None of the neighboring countries ever go to war against Israel; by 1960, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt have all established peaceful relations. Syria remains fanatically hostile, but never dares to push it to war. By 1975, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia establish relations with Israel to resume use of pipelines to the Mediterranean.
 
Alternatively say the Arab governments decide to integrate Palestinian refugees into their own societies rather than keeping them concentrated and angry in camps.

This would almost certainly require massive bribery by an outside player, most likely the United States who was probably not interested early enough to make a difference but if it was then yes the political mood in the entire Middle East would likely be very different.

Though the Iranians still would suspect the British of everything :D
 
Alternatively say the Arab governments decide to integrate Palestinian refugees into their own societies rather than keeping them concentrated and angry in camps.

This would almost certainly require massive bribery by an outside player, most likely the United States who was probably not interested early enough to make a difference but if it was then yes the political mood in the entire Middle East would likely be very different.

Though the Iranians still would suspect the British of everything :D

If no one is likely to bribe them than what's the point? The pod can't happen, can it?
 
The Israeli intervention in 1982 Lebanon comes to mind. Two things came out of that which haunts Israel today.

1) The PLO was not wiped out, but was evacuated to Tunisia under US diplomacy. If the PLO was destroyed, then any post-Gulf War peace initiative would mean Israel negotiating with the locals, not the Tunisian based PLO. The corruption of the Palestinian Authority of the PLO destroyed any credibility of Fatah except for its anti-Israel credentials which is why Arafat turned down the peace deal. A local Palestinian government that wasn't corrupt might have signed the peace deal since they'd have other credibility in providing good governance.

2) The Israeli security zone and Israeli links to the Phalange massacre at Sabra/Shatilla helped drive Shi'ites to Hezbollah. Without the intervention, Hezbollah would likely not have become as dominant.

Overall, the intervention failed to achieve its objectives. So we have several possible alternatives.

1) Israel never intervenes. Eventual status of PLO and Hezbollah unknown. Limited benefits to the PLO situation, possible benefits in regards to Hezbollah.

2) Israel intervenes and destroys the PLO, but otherwise the intervention is the same. That solves the PLO problem, but we have the same Hezbollah conflict as today.

3) Israel intervenes and destroys the PLO, but does not intervene in the Lebanese Civil War otherwise. It does not support the Lebanese Forces and is seen mostly as a neutral party that withdraws fully from Lebanon. Bachir Gemayel is not assassinated - no attempt is made. No Multinational Force (MNF) enters the country. Bachir leads a generally pro-Israel foreign policy although no peace deal happens as the civil war winds down in stalemate. In the 1990s or 2000s, Lebanon perhaps is able to make a peace deal with Israel. Perhaps the best scenario.

4) Israel intervenes and destroys the PLO. Israel supports the Lebanese Forces as IOTL, but Bachir Gemayel is not assassinated (perhaps a failed attempt is made). No massacre is carried out in retaliation. Gemayel is still tainted by association with Israel, but the peace is kept. MNF still enters the country angering factions who believe they are intervening on behalf of Lebanese Forces. Probably a worse case than the third, but perhaps better if the combined efforts of the MNF and Israel allows Lebanon civil war to end with victory for Lebanese Forces. A lot of risk here.

There are a lot of moving components here. The Israeli intervention. The assassination of Gemayel. The intervention by the MNF. The massacres and foreign intervention that helped build Hezbollah.
 
I believe that's the thesis of the book From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters. As you can see from the article, her analysis is far from universally accepted, even among mainstream historians.

If by "far from universally accepted" you mean "almost universally rejected," then sure. In particular, the Arab demographic expansion in mandatory Palestine from when the Ottomans started doing censuses in the late 19c to the Nakba is consistent with falling death rates due to modernization. (Jaffa was already showing signs of industrialization on the eve of Zionism, with the soap industry; that's why Tel Aviv was founded there.)
 
Plenty of ways. Of course, it's harder if you want the present nations with the borders defined at the San Remo conference, because it almost automatically kills whatever hope may have existed to have a Hashimite Greater Syria or something similar and, therefore, the framework in which the Faisal-Weissman accords had a chance (not that they had much of one, but that's a possibility).
The British fairly consistently mishandled the situation in the Interwar, incidentally managing to alienate both the Arab and Jewish leaderships. Had they avoided to support the rise of Hajj Amin al-Husayni to any prominence (apparently he lacked religious credentials and his choice as Mufti was political, with colonial support) for example, that would have contributed a lot. Even with a better British management, the situation is likely to grow tenser through the Twenties and Thirties, but you have better chances that cooler heads may prevail on either side (or develop more balanced views toward the Other). The best endgame in this situation is likely a single binational state with something akin to Dominion status (probably not actually a formal Dominion however) whose national identity might conceivably cemented in the participation to WWII. Lots of luck required, and I don't think that putting al-Husayni out of the equation would be anywhere near enough.
However, you'll need the British have the rare foresight to realize that it was imperative to build trust between the parties (the lack of which has been arguably the single most important factor in the ongoing and increasing intractable nature of the conflict) and help them reaching a stable political settlement.
There were plenty of occasions post-war for at least limited detente, which turned out to nothing. One notices a worsening pattern of hardliners on both sides getting a larger say in dictating the line.
But arguably, there were times when the pattern could be broken.
For example. have Nasir somehow manage to obtain the Suez Canal kinda amicably, without the 1956 war. Israel is not as widely perceived as the Imperialism's agent in the region, and the Egyptian regime has less reason see it as the quintessential enemy (this might improve the lot of Egypt considerably). The is probably no occupation, no recognizable Six Days War, no settlements whatsoever. Jordan, essentially a Palestinian state in this scenario, probably has some ugly moments ITTL, but in the end a final settlement with Israel with a mutually acceptable border is agreed upon and, if the Israelis feel less pressured and paranoid, may accept to some sort of compensation scheme for refugees, who, however, cease to be refugees and have Jordan to go. Someone would have to throw some money at it, the US might. Of course, I am extrapolating a best case scenario here. Plenty of ways for everthing to go wrong at any turn with comparable premises.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Let me take a crack at the Levant in general:

Maybe if you could avoid the rise of the House of Saud with the help of the British with a much more secular group(or just have them not support Arab nationalism at all).

Not only would you have a less charged Levant, but an over all less charged Middle East in general.

Throw in a lack of a CIA backed coup of the Iranian government in 1953 and you've got the makings of a peaceful Middle East!
 
Let me take a crack at the Levant in general:

Maybe if you could avoid the rise of the House of Saud with the help of the British with a much more secular group(or just have them not support Arab nationalism at all).

Not only would you have a less charged Levant, but an over all less charged Middle East in general.

Throw in a lack of a CIA backed coup of the Iranian government in 1953 and you've got the makings of a peaceful Middle East!

But who would fill the void left by the house of Saud? I can't even think if any secular faction that the British were on good terms with, and furthermore wouldn't that mean Iran has to take a side in the Cold War to avoid angering the USA?

Also, pardon my ignorance (I'm young) but how would no house of Saud stop or make less tense the formation of Israel or the situation of the levant as a whole? And what else is that going to cause?
 
I think even if the whole Levante is peaceful, certain other events in the nearby region could backfire. Pan-Arabism had an influence, namely with Egypt messing around with Syria, and Syria messing around with Lebanon. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 had effects, with Iran starting to support Islamist groups. Even Zia ul-Haq's Islamisation of Pakistan had an influence on the Middle East. And then there was the Iran-Iraq war, and civil wars in Afghanistan and Algeria, which all led to a radicalisation of other countries in the region. As with many other regions, the best solution would be to somehow prevent the Cold War, or better still, also WW1 and WW2. I also don't buy into the "stable, peaceful Ottoman Empire" trope, it would have dissolved nonetheless due to rising Turkish nationalism. But Sykes-Picot, the influence of European fascism plus later the mingling of both the US and the Soviets certainly helped to screw things up.

Alternatively say the Arab governments decide to integrate Palestinian refugees into their own societies rather than keeping them concentrated and angry in camps.

This would almost certainly require massive bribery by an outside player, most likely the United States who was probably not interested early enough to make a difference but if it was then yes the political mood in the entire Middle East would likely be very different.

Though the Iranians still would suspect the British of everything :D

That would definitely be a good starting point. I'm not sure if this could prevent the civil war in Lebanon, but without the radicalisation of both the PLO and the Falange, the worst bloodshed might be prevented.
 
Find some way to tweak the outcome of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War so that Israel is held off from being able to reinforce Jerusalem with it and a West Bank slightly larger than our timeline's go to Jordan when the cease-fire comes into effect. In the six Day War the Israelis capture West Jerusalem, parts of the West Bank so that it becomes roughly similar to what we know, and the Gaza Strip. A secret détente is mostly hammered out between Jordan and Israel that sees them trying to keep the peace between each other as much as possible so that aside from the small expeditionary force sent to the Golan Heights Jordan stays out of the Yom Kippur War. Over time the Palestinians become restless which forces the Jordanian government to slowly grant them increasing levels of devolved self-government since the international status of the West Bank is contested with few countries recognising Jordan's announcement of annexation. After the Camp David Accords and Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty Jordan uses it as an excuse to also officially make peace with Israel. The Palestinians are still somewhat bitter but with the choice between eventual independence from Jordan versus shouting, ineffectual, demands at Israel they eventually grudgingly accept the loss of the Gaza Strip and that there's never going to be a right of return and likewise make peace. The US, the Gulf States, Japan, and other Western countries would likely throw a collection of several, or possibly tens of, billion dollars together to help try and smooth things over as well.

For Lebanon there's a couple of possible ideas. Avoiding the Israeli invasion has already been mentioned. The French not institution a denominational system of government that falls apart later when the demographics start to change is one. Slightly more contentious would be offering land and subsidies to Muslim families in Lebanon during the colonial period to move to Syria, likewise buying up land in Lebanon and offering it and subsidies to Christians in the region to move to Lebanon to try and create a more 'Western' Christian Lebanon as the French saw it.


But who would fill the void left by the house of Saud? I can't even think of any secular faction that the British were on good terms with, and furthermore wouldn't that mean Iran has to take a side in the Cold War to avoid angering the USA?
Well there was the Hashemites and the Kingdom of Hejaz, they weren't secular but they certainly weren't the religious extremists the House of Saud and the Wahhabists were. There was a debate shortly after WWI within the British government between the Foreign Office and the India Office over whether to support the Hashemites or the Saudis respectively, the Indian Office won the argument and facts on the ground saw the Saudis win things. I've always seen the idea of a surviving Kingdom of Hejaz, including Asir, containing the religious sites and a Saudi Arabia with all the oil money as rather interesting.
 
Are there any obvious historical mistakes or blunders that could've been avoided to make Israel and/or the Levant as a whole a less politically charged series of nations without removing the nations entirely?

Israel's rejection of the Saudi peace initiative ten years ago has to rank near the top. The Arab League dangled full normalization of relations in exchange for withdrawal from the Territories... and Israel ignored the proposal.

Mind: that's Israel, not the Levant. The biggest flashpoint in the Levant right now is Syria (only 300,000 dead, no biggie compared with the horror of 50,000 dead in all Arab-Israeli wars combined). That's less deeply rooted - the grievances only go back to recent growth in inequality; the Arab Spring protests in Syria began in Daraa, whereas in Egypt they began in the capital.
 
If by "far from universally accepted" you mean "almost universally rejected," then sure. In particular, the Arab demographic expansion in mandatory Palestine from when the Ottomans started doing censuses in the late 19c to the Nakba is consistent with falling death rates due to modernization. (Jaffa was already showing signs of industrialization on the eve of Zionism, with the soap industry; that's why Tel Aviv was founded there.)

While the canard that Palestinians are migrants from Syria and Egypt is Revisionist propaganda designed to deny their claim to the land, there was a significant degree of migration from the densely populated hill country (what now the West Bank, Jerusalem and chunks of the Galilee such as the "Arab Triangle") into the more sparsely populated Jordan river valley, the rest of the Galilee and the coastal strip. It began as seasonal migration and became increasingly permanent due to the exposure of Ottoman Palestine to Ottoman and foreign capital and international commodity markets, which gave rise to cash crop agriculture (rather than the feudally organized subsistence farming practiced by the felaheen) and urbanization in the coastal port towns like Gaza, Jaffa, Akko and Haifa. Jewish in-migration on a large scale began a couple of decades after this process of internal migration began.

Basically, the myth above is a lie by Zionists aiming to lay sole claim to Palestine (just like Arab claims that Jews have no historic connection to Eretz Yisrael because they are Khazars or some bullshit is a lie), but there is some degree of truth backing it up (like most propaganda).
 
Top