Israel Continues the War in Early 1949

CaliGuy

Banned
Reading Benny Morris's book 1948, I am wondering if, had Israel chosen to continue the war in early 1949, it would have been able to capture and acquire additional territory--indeed, perhaps even all of Mandatory Palestine. Thus, here is my question to you:

Had Israel's War of Independence continued beyond early 1949, what would its outcome have been?

Any thoughts on this?
 
By 1949 the international community pushed hard for a cease fire and the Israeli army was pretty tired from fighting non stop for almost two years. I think that the most doable is to capture Gaza as the Egyptian army was collapsing and the Sinai was invaded. Also you will see a needless spill of blood to drive of the Iraqis from territories they gave up in the cease fire, but this time the arab population of those areas would have fled rather the stayed were they are. You might see the fall of Judea and east Jerusalem but the Jordanians were strong on that front. So better to focus on an earlier pod for that. But again, its not the Arabs you have to worry about , but the Americans, the soviets and the British. The cease fire agreement would have been better and their will be less arabs in israel, but all the gains will be inside the mandat, so no expansion in Lebanon or syria with such a late pod.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
By 1949 the international community pushed hard for a cease fire and the Israeli army was pretty tired from fighting non stop for almost two years.

Didn't the war begin in mid-1948, though?

I think that the most doable is to capture Gaza as the Egyptian army was collapsing and the Sinai was invaded.

Would Israel have been able to stay in the Sinai long enough to successfully use it as a base to capture Gaza, though?

Also you will see a needless spill of blood to drive of the Iraqis from territories they gave up in the cease fire, but this time the arab population of those areas would have fled rather the stayed were they are.

OK.

You might see the fall of Judea and east Jerusalem but the Jordanians were strong on that front. So better to focus on an earlier pod for that.

How strong was Jordan in early 1949 relative to 1948, though?

But again, its not the Arabs you have to worry about , but the Americans, the soviets and the British.

What exactly would they have been willing to do about additional Israeli expansion, though?

The cease fire agreement would have been better and their will be less arabs in israel, but all the gains will be inside the mandat, so no expansion in Lebanon or syria with such a late pod.

Less Arabs in Israel? By "Israel," are you also including the West Bank and Gaza?
 
Didn't the war begin in mid-1948, though?

The war started in 1947, in 1948 it stopped being a civil war and became a real war.

Would Israel have been able to stay in the Sinai long enough to successfully use it as a base to capture Gaza, though?

Maybe. I think the logic is to surround Gaza and to trap the Egyptian army there and force them to surrender.

OK.



How strong was Jordan in early 1949 relative to 1948, though?

Jordan had the stongest most competent arab army. A plausible pod is to have them expel the british advisers and thus they would have been a much weaker opponent.

What exactly would they have been willing to do about additional Israeli expansion, though?

Nothing but make life harder and the arms ambargo harsher.

Less Arabs in Israel? By "Israel," are you also including the West Bank and Gaza?
I include the lands occupied by Israel by the end of the war.
Answers in bold
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I include the lands occupied by Israel by the end of the war.
Answers in bold
Two questions:

1. How exactly would the Great Powers make life harder for the Israelis other than with a harsher arms embargo?

2. What about having Israel defeat Jordan and conquer the West Bank by launching a new offensive against Jordan after the armistice with Egypt is concluded? After all, in such a scenario, wouldn't Israel have something like 100,000 troops to Jordan's 12,000 troops?
 
Two questions:

1. How exactly would the Great Powers make life harder for the Israelis other than with a harsher arms embargo?

2. What about having Israel defeat Jordan and conquer the West Bank by launching a new offensive against Jordan after the armistice with Egypt is concluded? After all, in such a scenario, wouldn't Israel have something like 100,000 troops to Jordan's 12,000 troops?
1. Early Israel really cared about what the great powers thought about it, and wanted to arive to an agreement with the arab states , which we thought would soon lead to a peace agreement.
But I think that the arms ambargo is the maximum that they will do.
2. I truly don't know, but I really don't think that this is soo simple as that. If I remember correctly , the cease fire agreements were pretty much one after the other with the last one signed with syria.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
1. Early Israel really cared about what the great powers thought about it, and wanted to arive to an agreement with the arab states , which we thought would soon lead to a peace agreement.
But I think that the arms ambargo is the maximum that they will do.
2. I truly don't know, but I really don't think that this is soo simple as that. If I remember correctly , the cease fire agreements were pretty much one after the other with the last one signed with syria.
1. OK.

Also, though, did Israel value its relations with the Great Powers to protect its interests in the future (as in, good ties with the Great Powers could result in them giving more economic aid, et cetera to Israel in the future)?

2. Would Egypt have broken its ceasefire and armistice agreement with Israel had Israel continued the war with Jordan, though?
 
1. OK.

Also, though, did Israel value its relations with the Great Powers to protect its interests in the future (as in, good ties with the Great Powers could result in them giving more economic aid, et cetera to Israel in the future)?

2. Would Egypt have broken its ceasefire and armistice agreement with Israel had Israel continued the war with Jordan, though?
1. Yes
2. Maybe, probably no. The Egyptian army was angry of its government and soon enough overthrew the king and Nasser rose to power. The king was seen as the real reason why they lost so in a worst defeat , the king will fall sooner and the army would have other things to do then to re continue the war.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
1. Yes
2. Maybe, probably no. The Egyptian army was angry of its government and soon enough overthrew the king and Nasser rose to power. The king was seen as the real reason why they lost so in a worst defeat , the king will fall sooner and the army would have other things to do then to re continue the war.
OK.

Also, in regards to #2, wouldn't my point here thus be valid--specifically about Israel being able to conquer the entire West Bank had it already made peace with Egypt beforehand?
 
OK.

Also, in regards to #2, wouldn't my point here thus be valid--specifically about Israel being able to conquer the entire West Bank had it already made peace with Egypt beforehand?
Again , maybe. Real life aren't a strategy game, so israel won't have all the 100000 soldiers of the idf, which included non combat soldiers in that number, and had to gurd the other fronts. If Israel had enough men and ammunition , and enough time and no British intervention to save their puppet in Jordan , then yes, Israel will push Jordan out of the mandat in the end.
 
1. How exactly would the Great Powers make life harder for the Israelis other than with a harsher arms embargo?

The US had some leverage. In 1949, U.S. citizens were giving the new Israeli state much needed military and economic expertise. Likewise and probably more importantly, large scale Israeli fund raising was being openly conducted in the US.

The U.S. government could threaten US citizens giving such expertise with prosecution under the Hatch Act (giving expertise is arguably a form of diplomacy) and also drive the fund raising underground. Doing so would greatly reduce it's scale. In 1949, a lot of Israeli weapons in the form of high quality small arms and artillery were being purchased from the Czechs who were still very capitalistic in regards to finding buyers of Skoda Works products. Reduced fund raising in the US would probably quickly mean reduced purchases of Czech weapons.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
The US had some leverage. In 1949, U.S. citizens were giving the new Israeli state much needed military and economic expertise. Likewise and probably more importantly, large scale Israeli fund raising was being openly conducted in the US.

The U.S. government could threaten US citizens giving such expertise with prosecution under the Hatch Act (giving expertise is arguably a form of diplomacy) and also drive the fund raising underground. Doing so would greatly reduce it's scale. In 1949, a lot of Israeli weapons in the form of high quality small arms and artillery were being purchased from the Czechs who were still very capitalistic in regards to finding buyers of Skoda Works products. Reduced fund raising in the US would probably quickly mean reduced purchases of Czech weapons.
Why exactly would less Israeli purchases of U.S. weapons mean less Israeli purchases of Czech weapons, though?
 
Why exactly would less Israeli purchases of U.S. weapons mean less Israeli purchases of Czech weapons, though?

At that time, the Israelis were not purchasing many US weapons. Rather, they were using funds raised in the US to purchase large quantities of Czech weapons. Thus reductions in Israeli fund raising amongst US private citizens would impact their economy and their ability to obtain weapons.
 
Last edited:
Reading Benny Morris's book 1948, I am wondering if, had Israel chosen to continue the war in early 1949, it would have been able to capture and acquire additional territory--indeed, perhaps even all of Mandatory Palestine. Thus, here is my question to you:

Had Israel's War of Independence continued beyond early 1949, what would its outcome have been?

Any thoughts on this?

What do you mean by "Mandatory Palestine"? The bit to the west of the river Jordan, or all of the former British mandate (i.e. including what is now Jordan)?
If the former, then I think it's feasible that Israel everything west of the Jordan if the war drags on long enough. If the latter, I think capturing all of what is now Jordan would be very difficult for Israel.

One thing I'm wondering: let's suppose that Israel traps the Egyptian army in Gaza, and forces them to surrender. Israeli then demands that Egypt recognizes the existence of Israel, and permanently cedes Gaza and the Sinai to Israel, establishing the final border between the two countries on the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal itself is legally declared to be international waters.

How would Egypt respond to this? It's obviously humiliating for Egypt, but I don't know they could do other than accept it.

Also, how would the international community (USA, Britain, France, USSR) respond to this? Would they be supportive of Israel? Such an agreement, having two different countries on each side of the Suez Canal, would make it very difficult for anyone to nationalize/ seize control of the canal in the future. So I assume the international community would be fairly supportive of Israel?
 
One thing I'm wondering: let's suppose that Israel traps the Egyptian army in Gaza, and forces them to surrender. Israeli then demands that Egypt recognizes the existence of Israel, and permanently cedes Gaza and the Sinai to Israel, establishing the final border between the two countries on the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal itself is legally declared to be international waters.

How would Egypt respond to this? It's obviously humiliating for Egypt, but I don't know they could do other than accept it.

I think Egypt would need to accept it, but only on paper.

In 1949, the Israeli army was very similar to say, the Union Army of the US civil war. Though the Israeli army was professionalizing quickly, it largely consisted of militia infantry units led by dedicated, but inexperienced officers. The Israeli government even had limited control over some of these militia units.

As the Israeli army was mostly dismounted militia infantry, their ability to threaten Egypt by taking the war into Egypt proper was limited. My guess is that even with a smashed Sinai army, the Egyptians would obtain basic weapons from the USSR to create new emergency "People's Divisions" Soviet style and negate the Israeli infantry threat to Egypt proper.

Egypt then settles into a shaky cease fire with Israel. Israeli positions in the Sinai are periodically bombarded by artillery fire, better trained and motivated Egyptians infiltrate across the canal to place mines on roads, and even periodically ambush Israeli patrols or convoys.
 
Last edited:
Rather, they were using funds raised in the US to purchase large quantities of Czech weapons

The window for buying Czech weapons was closing.
After the split with Tito, Stalin cracked the whip on independent policies like that. By Summer 1948, sales were pretty much done.

That's why I think they went for peace.
 
The window for buying Czech weapons was closing.
After the split with Tito, Stalin cracked the whip on independent policies like that. By Summer 1948, sales were pretty much done.

That's why I think they went for peace.
Good points. Once Stalin applied the pressure, any residual sales of Czech weapons to Israel from brokers were not going to be large scale. As a side note, the Czechs were selling weapons to both sides during the build up to war.
 
Top