Middle East without Israel.

How would be the middle east ant the Arab countries if the State of Israel never existed?
Imagine that after WW-II is given another country for the new Jews nation ( were is not important in this thread).
So what consequences on the middle east and islamic nations?
Egypt,Syria and Iraq remain Monarchies?
 
How would be the middle east ant the Arab countries if the State of Israel never existed?
Imagine that after WW-II is given another country for the new Jews nation ( were is not important in this thread).
So what consequences on the middle east and islamic nations?
Egypt,Syria and Iraq remain Monarchies?
The where is rather important.

For one, there is still a lot of Jews in the Middle East because of the Balfour Declaration. Two, the question largely relies on the POD used.
 
I've mulled this thought over myself.


I'd guess that there would be more conflict between arab states. The differences between, say, Arab and non-Arab muslims, religious and secular forces, as well as the Sunni, Shia and Shiite, and so on, seem minor compared to the existence of Israel in the holy land. Without this I think we'd see a lot more violence in the middle east, especially since the USA and USSR will be playing sides against each other. And without the US focussing on Israel for support, they will be able to do a lot more damage, though probably without drawing much aggression onto themselves.

I would compare it to, what if the Raj went into independence as a single India, instead of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh). We wouldn't have the Indo-Pakistani wars, but probably we'd have a lot more violent divides within this India, which is already fairly unstable in parts. In this case, we'd maybe even see seven or eight 'Pakistans' form out of the Raj by the modern day.
 

Cook

Banned
Easy enough scenario to set up.

Rothschild and the Zionists accept the British alternative offer of a Homeland in the Australian Kimberly and Pilbara regions.

Or Hitler’s “Final Solution” was a bit more complete then in OTL, leaving too few Jews left to try to establish Israel.

Or Israel looses the war in 1948, which is what everyone (except the Jews themselves) expected to happen anyway.

As to what happens then...

Would Egypt’s President Nassar have been able to unite the Arab World behind him? Without being checked militarily by the Israeli’s he may have been able to topple the old Kingdoms. An Arab nation spanning from the Western Desert to the Persian Gulf, with control of much of the world's oil?

Trans Jordan’s King Abdullah would initially rule a much richer Kingdom, and would perhaps use his stronger position to renew his rivalry with the House of Saud for leadership of the Conservative Arabs.
Would the Hashemite Kingdom of Arabia, guardian of the three Holy Cities of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem be the result?
Or would they be forced to unite with the other kingdoms against Nassar’s Arab Nationalism?

The exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon and Palestine (Trans Jordan) probably wouldn’t have taken place, making both of those countries more colourful.

At first glance the rise of Muslim militancy as a political force in the Middle East is seems less likely. But maybe the rivalry between Sunni and Shia would develop and would still lead to militancy.
 
Or Hitler’s “Final Solution” was a bit more complete then in OTL, leaving too few Jews left to try to establish Israel..

Except that most of the Jews had already left and there were a sizeable number of Jews in Israel prior to everything Hitler did in Europe.

As for the future of the Middle East, it becomes an even more heated proxy-war filled battle as the US starts supporting nations across the board trying to beat out the USSR.
 
At first glance the rise of Muslim militancy as a political force in the Middle East is seems less likely. But maybe the rivalry between Sunni and Shia would develop and would still lead to militancy.

Islamic militancy and extremism, while given a boost by Israel's existence, is not dependent on it.

To really prevent it would require keeping the Ottomans around since they were really the ones keeping Wahabism and other
extremist ideas from spreading.


As for the OP Question it'd likely be the same but different.

You'd have countries like pre-Invasion Iraq, that is authoritarian states that enforce secularism, countries like Saudi Arabia and
countries like Turkey and Jordan.
Actually I think Turkey and Jordan would be the same, if not better while Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine (assuming it's not part of
Jordan and possibly Syria would be similar to the latter two.

Their probably would be more wars between the Mid-Eastern states, though likely few major ones, just alot of minor skirmishes.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Would Egypt’s President Nassar have been able to unite the Arab World behind him? Without being checked militarily by the Israeli’s he may have been able to topple the old Kingdoms. An Arab nation spanning from the Western Desert to the Persian Gulf, with control of much of the world's oil?


...

At first glance the rise of Muslim militancy as a political force in the Middle East is seems less likely. But maybe the rivalry between Sunni and Shia would develop and would still lead to militancy.

I think you came to the logical conclusion, in my opinion. Look at how much Egypt, Syria, and Jordan alone distrusted and outright lied to each other. Right now I'm reading The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinovich (he covered the war for the Jerusalem Post) and there's practically a whole chapter on the Arab governments telling each other one thing, their militaries another, and the Soviets something else. And this is in 1973, when they were probably at their most brutally honest with themselves. Heck, Jordan was so honest about their chances it sat it out.

Myself, I just don't see them getting along. Instead of Israel being the "Western" country, maybe it'd be Jordan like it always was. Maybe the Suez Crisis might happen, and who knows? Without Israel there to be an odd bit in the equation that whole campaign might have gone differently. Nasser still would've had a reason to dislike the West.
 

Cook

Banned
"Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East." By Michael B. Oren is also a very good read.
 
The militant islamism has been born in Egypt in the early 1920s (or, one might argue, with al-Wahhab in the 19th century) and is not dependent on Israel. But Israel's existence and activities certainly gave it a boost.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The militant islamism has been born in Egypt in the early 1920s (or, one might argue, with al-Wahhab in the 19th century) and is not dependent on Israel. But Israel's existence and activities certainly gave it a boost.

But that was based, in many ways, on cleansing what they believed where unclean aspects of their own societies. Or being used as convenient schock troops (like the Saudis did). It wasn't until the 1970s or 80s that this thought of hating the West in general started to happen. Sure, it's not like there wasn't a general distrust anyway: we did invade Sinai in '56, but it's awful hard to simplify that stuff.
 
Easy enough scenario to set up.

Rothschild and the Zionists accept the British alternative offer of a Homeland in the Australian Kimberly and Pilbara regions.
This is a FANTASTIC solution!
It covers an area of 423,517 square kilometres (163,521 sq mi), which is about three times the size of England or comparable to the size of California or 15% larger than Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_(Western_Australia)

kimberley20map.jpg


thekimberley.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have found this,seems interesting:
In May 1948, after the end of the mandate and British withdrawal, King Farouk sent the Egyptian army into Palestine.[29] Nasser served in the 6th Infantry Battalion.[30] During the war, he wrote of the unpreparedness of the army, saying "our soldiers were dashed against fortifications." Nasser was deputy commander of the Egyptian forces that secured the area known as the Falluja Pocket. By August 1948, his brigade was surrounded by the Israeli Army and appeals for help from Jordan's Arab Legion went unheeded. Nonetheless, Nasser refused to surrender, but negotiations between Israel and Egypt resulted in the ceding of Falluja to Israel.[29]
In February 1949, Nasser was sent as a member of the Egyptian delegation to Rhodes to negotiate a formal ceasefire with Israel, and reportedly considered the terms humiliating.[31]
Upon returning to Egypt, Nasser was summoned and interrogated by Prime Minister Ibrahim Abdel Hadi who suspected he was forming a secret group of dissenting officers, an allegation which he "convincingly" had denied.[31] After 1949, this group adopted the name "Association of Free Officers" and "talked of... freedom and the restoration of their country’s dignity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser
 

Cook

Banned
I'm not sure that Fantastic is how the Australians would describe it Lounge60 but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
 
I'm not sure that Fantastic is how the Australians would describe it Lounge60 but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

Well it's not like they'd be using it, I mean Australia is a huge place with a very low population, so it's not like they'd miss it that much.
 

Cook

Banned
I can think of a large number of people who'd be immensly annoyed.

On a funny note, it'd give Jewish Diamond merchants first crack at Argyle.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Wouldn't no Balfour declaration as a POD be efficient to butterfly away a Jewish state? (Perhaps not).
Anyway, there'd probably be some kind of small Palestinian State. I don't think the Egyptian monarchy could have survived, I even doubt the Iraqi monarchy would have survived, I think they'd still be overthrown. There would probably as OTL be sectarian trouble in Lebanon and rifts between secular Arab Nationalism and Conservative Islamic nationalism. Radical Islamism would probably be weaker though.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Well it's not like they'd be using it, I mean Australia is a huge place with a very low population, so it's not like they'd miss it that much.

Actually, it contains significant value in terms of raw resource exports. We'd be pretty pissed off , some decades after ceding it as a Jewish homeland whenm the resources were discovered.

I'd also point out that...well...it's part of Australia. I'd imagine that the Australians would be within their rights to say "we didn't give up borders to the Japanese, and we're not doing for the Jews now."
 
Top