Israel captures the West Bank in 1948/1949

We can talk about how things should be if you wish, but I was under the impression this board dealt in how things are likely going to be.

This is relevant to the reaction of people in the timeline, that's why I'm mentioning it. Is it likely that the UN devotes more resources to a much larger Palestinian refugee crisis? That's a discussion, I think they wouldn't.

My point exactly.

Right it's just a bad way to put it. It's sort of saying Palestinians calling themselves Palestinians are causing Palestinians to have any problems, that they are refusing to give up what is essentially an invented identity and assimilate and this is the route of their problems.

Thing is, is there such a thing as a Palestinian identity in 1948? And do the countries have the wherewithals to absorb them? Political will is another story.

There are people being expelled, when they start to call themselves Palestinian is beside the point. There are more than in OTL, and there are more remaining in Israel, maybe a majority depending on how extensive the expulsions are. They couldn't absorb them when it was a smaller number in OTL, I don't think they'll have an easier job or more political will ITTL.

That's going to be even messier than OTL, but it's a different sub-scenario.

I think it has a bearing on the international response to Israel. If it's messier than OTL, the UN could intervene, or there may be more hostility from neighbors, or less support from world Jewry.

Now, this is something I'd like to ask an expert about: how easy is integration for migrants between Arab countries? Is it something like moving between Hispanic countries in South/Central America?

To my limited knowledge, conversations online and a few in person, it's usually quite straightforward. In the case of Palestinians IOTL they did not have a recognized citizenship or refugee status to begin with, and this complicates matters anywhere in the world.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
I don't think that the general trajectory of the conflict would change.

- The Palestinian diaspora might develop a completely different political outlook. I could see Pan Arabism (and later Islamism) as the driving ideology and not Nationalism. Maybe the disenfranchised refugees will develop the idea that Palestinians will only prosper in a Pan Arab State (later a Pan Arab Caliphate).

Lingustically and culturally the Palestinians, like Jordanians, Lebanese and Western Syrians are Levantine Arabs. Traditionally in this region the divisions have been particular religious groups and tribes.
 
This is relevant to the reaction of people in the timeline, that's why I'm mentioning it. Is it likely that the UN devotes more resources to a much larger Palestinian refugee crisis? That's a discussion, I think they wouldn't.

In 1948 the UN counted just 58 members, most of third-world countries still not having been de-colonised, so I think they would go for the option that ruffles fewer feathers among oil producing nations.

Right it's just a bad way to put it. It's sort of saying Palestinians calling themselves Palestinians are causing Palestinians to have any problems, that they are refusing to give up what is essentially an invented identity and assimilate and this is the route of their problems.

I stand by my statement. National identities are not set in stone: they can merge, separate, subsume into one another or emerge through shared history, language, circumstances and, more often than not, war.

There are people being expelled, when they start to call themselves Palestinian is beside the point.

In my opinion it does matter, if permanent resettlement is an option.
Would Arab countries still keep them in refugee camps and promise return when such an endeavour would be more difficult militarily and have less international support?

There are more than in OTL, and there are more remaining in Israel, maybe a majority depending on how extensive the expulsions are. They couldn't absorb them when it was a smaller number in OTL, I don't think they'll have an easier job or more political will ITTL.

I think it has a bearing on the international response to Israel. If it's messier than OTL, the UN could intervene, or there may be more hostility from neighbors, or less support from world Jewry.

If, when the dust settles, there are more Palestinians left in the West Bank than OTL it's a different scenario.
It would mean instability, revolt, probably an earlier war than 1956/1967 or maybe a more serious attempt at the 2 state solution.
But it's a radically different situation than one with a nearly empty WB.
 
Would Arab countries still keep them in refugee camps and promise return when such an endeavour would be more difficult militarily and have less international support?

They'd be facing a situation where there was both a larger refugee population, and possibly a larger disenfranchised population in Israel, or one where there was more extensive expulsions, I think they'd have more reason to want to repatriate their Palestinian refugee populations when the situation is new. There was no funding or will to house Palestinian refugees anywhere in OTL, and I doubt there would be any in this timeline, where the problem is much larger. It would be on the Arab states entirely, more than OTL, and their first response would be to so what they had to in order to send the Palestinians home, and ideally set up a nice puppet government on the way.

If, when the dust settles, there are more Palestinians left in the West Bank than OTL it's a different scenario.

That's one of the key questions for this timeline. Would a similar number of Palestinians be expelled from the West Bank as from the rest of Israel OTL? Would this be enough to create a Jewish majority, and if not, how does the state proceed? If more remained, how does a definite Jewish minority change how the state develops? This all happens during and in the immediate aftermath of an Israel captures the West Bank scenario, and influences how everything happens following it.

If there really is an empty West Bank, that implies one kind of capture and one kind of response from the neighboring states. And if there is an Israel which is majority Muslim in 49, it will have to make different decisions than in OTL.
 
They'd be facing a situation where there was both a larger refugee population, and possibly a larger disenfranchised population in Israel, or one where there was more extensive expulsions, I think they'd have more reason to want to repatriate their Palestinian refugee populations when the situation is new. There was no funding or will to house Palestinian refugees anywhere in OTL, and I doubt there would be any in this timeline, where the problem is much larger. It would be on the Arab states entirely, more than OTL, and their first response would be to so what they had to in order to send the Palestinians home, and ideally set up a nice puppet government on the way.

That's one of the key questions for this timeline. Would a similar number of Palestinians be expelled from the West Bank as from the rest of Israel OTL? Would this be enough to create a Jewish majority, and if not, how does the state proceed? If more remained, how does a definite Jewish minority change how the state develops? This all happens during and in the immediate aftermath of an Israel captures the West Bank scenario, and influences how everything happens following it.

I understand your point now.

With a 1948/49 capture of the West Bank, three things can happen with regard to the residents:
  1. Most of them stay
  2. Most of them leave
  3. Some stay and some leave, but in larger numbers than OTL
I already stated my view about option #2, option #3 is messier than OTL but not
substantially different.

Option #1 is terra incognita.

If there really is an empty West Bank, that implies one kind of capture and one kind of response from the neighboring states. And if there is an Israel which is majority Muslim in 49, it will have to make different decisions than in OTL.

Despite what Herzl wrote, I don't think Israelis would like to share the land with an equal or even higher number of Arab Muslims, especially after having spilt blood to conquer it.

It's an ugly scenario, full segregation or more likely mass expulsion.
Most likely a population exchange à la Pakistan vs. India.
 
There is a huge difference between people fleeing as refugees and being expelled. Those fleeing may be doing so simply to avoid being caught in the middle of the fighting (artillery is non-discriminatory), fleeing because they are afraid of what the conquerors will do (think Germans and Russians in WWII), or because "their" side encourages them to clear the zone to return after their victorious side gets rid of the enemy {there were many broadcasts to this effect from the Arab side in 1948 - basically get out of the way and then come back to your place and loot the Jews}. Those expelled are willing to stay put and then are forced out of their homes and pushed over the border. The former was the case with the vast majority of Arabs in 1948, the latter the case of the Jews in Arab countries after 1948.

If Israel has the entire West Bank, the concept of a 2-state solution never happens. As in OTL Gaza is occupied by Egypt, and is their problem - in this scenario safeguarding this border is less difficult as the Israel-Jordan border is much less difficult to defend than OTL.

A difference from OTL is that the fig leaf of the 2-state solution that some Arab/Palestinian groups espouse won't be there. Even the PLO has never retreated from its position that the ultimate goal is the elimination of Israel as a state, most of the Palestinian groups are even more up front about this. ITTL it is clear that the "Palestinian" goal is precisely exactly the destruction of Israel, and expulsion of any Jews who can't trace their family back to the pre-Mandate time if not further back (this is a reality OTL in many documents). While many countries outside the area can support a 2-state solution due to the changing borders, supporting the elimination of a state and expulsion of much of its population is a bridge too far for most folks.

IMHO with an Israel with these borders I see more Jewish immigration than OTL and fewer Israelis emigrating due to an overall more secure environment. Hence a larger Jewish population.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
with Israel having borders which would be much easier to defend than in OTL.

n this scenario safeguarding this border is less difficult as the Israel-Jordan border is much less difficult to defend than OTL

I always hear this, and yes, green line, pre-1967 Israel had a skinny, vulnerable-looking "waist" in the middle of the country next to its biggest population centers, but how hard was it to defend really?

The Israeli central coast never got invaded by anybody after '49. I don't think there was even an attempt at a Jordanian logistical build-up for an offensive option right in front of the "narrow waist", ever. In the 6 Day War the Jordanians did not try to advance in the area, rather they shelled bordering parts of Israel and their troops occupied a UN buffer zone, and then they quickly got shellacked by the Israelis. Ironically, the neutral, not Israeli, area where the Jordanians advanced was probably where central Israel was at its widest, because it was in Jerusalem.

In any case, although the OP specified that Israel conquers the whole of the West Bank, intermediate results between this and OTL's artistice line are also plausible. For instance, the Israelis perhaps advancing up to the crest of the Judean and Samarian hills, or holding East Jerusalem, or both. If they did the former, Jericho and the Jordan Valley east of the hills but the west of the river might be more crowded and "Gaza Strip"-ish after '49. Although not really because I think Jordanian law was more permissive of West Bankers moving to the East Bank than Egyptian law was for Gazan's moving to the mainland of Egypt or Sinai.
 
You are right, probably not, I have these thought bubbles sometimes and don't think things out much, forgive me.

No worries, Teejay!

I always hear this, and yes, green line, pre-1967 Israel had a skinny, vulnerable-looking "waist" in the middle of the country next to its biggest population centers, but how hard was it to defend really?

The Supreme Court, the Prime Minister and President's residence, the Knesset, Lod (later Ben-Gurion) International Airport and most Israeli ministries were located in western Jerusalem. A big fear was the ability of any potential invasion to cut off air support or potential resupply at the airport, as well as destroying basic infrastructure of the Israeli government.

I think it was fairly difficult to defend, but I'm not that well-versed in military matters.

Most likely a population exchange à la Pakistan vs. India.

I can see this happening, as well as the arrival of the 850,000 - 1 million Jews from the Arab and Muslim world.
 
Top