The UN Rejects a Partition of Palestine in 1947

CaliGuy

Banned
What if, for whatever reason, the U.N. General Assembly would have voted against partitioning Palestine in 1947?

For the record, the vote in the UNGA in our TL was only barely above the necessary two-thirds majority; thus, with a less sympathetic U.S. President (perhaps due to FDR picking a different VP back in 1944) and thus less U.S. pressure on various countries, this should probably be doable.

Anyway, what exactly would happen afterwards in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, for the record, my guess is that the Zionists launch an insurgency in Palestine and still end up winning their war of independence if they are able to acquire large amounts of arms from somewhere; indeed, AFAIK, the Arabs were very disorganized in 1948-1949 and the Palestinians had most of their military capacity destroyed by the British in 1936-1939 during the Great Arab Revolt in Palestine.

However, Israel might very well have legitimacy problems after 1948-1949 in this TL; in turn, this could result in less cooperation between Israel and countries such as the U.S. and France in the post-independence war years. Thus, Israel might develop nukes (somewhat) later in this TL and also might perhaps perform less well in the Six Day War in this TL.
 
One way or another the British were going to bail out of Palestine. There were far too many reasons they wanted out to list here. The entire problem was dumped in the lap of the UN, and in 1947/48 the UN had very little (if any) experience with peacekeeping, and not a lot of cash to pay for that. The third world militaries that do a lot of the "contract peacekeeping" now did not even exist in 1947/48. Nobody in Western Europe would have been happy to see troops from communist countries (still occupied by the Red Army) "volunteer" to go as peacekeepers, and the western European countries that had militaries capable of being deployed both had no desire desire to do so, and in many cases were involved with dealing with insurgencies in their colonies (North Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc).

Absent a partition plan the British will give a pullout date and wash their hands of the situation. There will be rounds of tut-tutting as the situation devolves in to civil war, as it did OTL. At some point the fighting stops as the two sides reach a military stalemate. I expect the Israelis do somewhat better than OTL if there is less external pressure for the final cease fire as there is no official division of the space. Jordan will still incorporate those bits of Palestine on the West Bank they occupy. Egypt will incorporate Gaza, and to the extent Lebanon or Syria occupies anything over the old borders they will do likewise. After some interval those countries that recognized the State of Israel will do so.

Since there was never a partition plan, never an "international" Jerusalem, etc discussions about borders based on those plans will never happen. Naturally there will be Palestinian irridentism but from the start there will be no "return to partition borders" but a straightforward "one state" solution, for a "multiethnic" state, of course based on only those there before 1948 or some earlier date having a right to be there.

Like OTL you won't see a Palestinian state created from the parts of Palestine occupied by Arab countries/armies at the end of the fighting. That was doable in 1948 and at any time between 1948 and 1967 and it never happened for lots of reasons. Jordan and Egypt only gave up "Palestinian" territory after 1967 to a "Palestinian State" when they no longer occupied that land, it is easy to give away what you do not control. IMHO if the Palestinians/Arabs accomplish their purpose and throw the vast majority of Jews in to the sea in 1948 then maybe, just maybe you see a "Palestinian" state, but even then do not bet on it being the pre-1948 boundaries of the Mandate or controlling the Al-Aqsa mosque - that will probably fall to the Hashemites.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
One way or another the British were going to bail out of Palestine. There were far too many reasons they wanted out to list here. The entire problem was dumped in the lap of the UN, and in 1947/48 the UN had very little (if any) experience with peacekeeping, and not a lot of cash to pay for that. The third world militaries that do a lot of the "contract peacekeeping" now did not even exist in 1947/48. Nobody in Western Europe would have been happy to see troops from communist countries (still occupied by the Red Army) "volunteer" to go as peacekeepers, and the western European countries that had militaries capable of being deployed both had no desire desire to do so, and in many cases were involved with dealing with insurgencies in their colonies (North Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc).

Absent a partition plan the British will give a pullout date and wash their hands of the situation. There will be rounds of tut-tutting as the situation devolves in to civil war, as it did OTL. At some point the fighting stops as the two sides reach a military stalemate. I expect the Israelis do somewhat better than OTL if there is less external pressure for the final cease fire as there is no official division of the space. Jordan will still incorporate those bits of Palestine on the West Bank they occupy. Egypt will incorporate Gaza, and to the extent Lebanon or Syria occupies anything over the old borders they will do likewise. After some interval those countries that recognized the State of Israel will do so.

Since there was never a partition plan, never an "international" Jerusalem, etc discussions about borders based on those plans will never happen. Naturally there will be Palestinian irridentism but from the start there will be no "return to partition borders" but a straightforward "one state" solution, for a "multiethnic" state, of course based on only those there before 1948 or some earlier date having a right to be there.

Like OTL you won't see a Palestinian state created from the parts of Palestine occupied by Arab countries/armies at the end of the fighting. That was doable in 1948 and at any time between 1948 and 1967 and it never happened for lots of reasons. Jordan and Egypt only gave up "Palestinian" territory after 1967 to a "Palestinian State" when they no longer occupied that land, it is easy to give away what you do not control.

Frankly, all of this certainly makes sense! Indeed, the one thing that I am unsure about is whether international recognition of Israel in this TL would be as large as it was in our TL; after all, supporting a successful insurgent/separatist movement before it has been recognized by the legitimate (in this case, Palestinian) government of a country could be perceived by Western and other countries as asking for trouble on their own territory. After all, the inviolability of borders was already becoming a sacred concept during this time!

IMHO if the Palestinians/Arabs accomplish their purpose and throw the vast majority of Jews in to the sea in 1948 then maybe, just maybe you see a "Palestinian" state, but even then do not bet on it being the pre-1948 boundaries of the Mandate or controlling the Al-Aqsa mosque - that will probably fall to the Hashemites.

How realistic is an Arab victory in 1948-1949 in this TL, though?
 
IMHO recognition of Israel would probably be more or less what it was OTL, perhaps a bit slower. After all the UK, UN, and everyone else basically said to the folks in Palestine "you sort it out". As far as the Arabs winning, it depends on whether or not external events go as OTL. The British were very pro-Arab when they left with weapons and key positions turned over to the Arabs, often in spite of locations that were supposed to be Jewish. The Arab Legion was an active participant. It was extremely difficult for the Israelis to get arms, not so for the Arab governments. The British could have continued their blockade of Palestine after they left to intercept migrants and weapons. More direct aid/assistance could have been given to the Arabs. The few countries that did sell weapons to the Israelis might not do so.

Assuming the external factors don't change in a major way to further favor the Arabs, I don't see them achieving their goal of tossing the Jews out or cramming the Jews in to such a small area that it is unsustainable as a state. If the butterflies cause a major change in externals, yes it could happen.

I don't see the UK holding on to Palestine. It has been a royal pain in the ass and has no valuable resources. Even with an Allied victory in 1941 the British Empire is going to have the sun set on it. Furthermore it was never really part of the Empire but rather something they were to hold on to temporarily until some sort of local control was established although what and how long was not defined. While the British have more resources and less war weariness ITTL than OTL, their resources are still limited and the will of the British people to spend treasure and blood for imperial holdings is constrained and therefore efforts over and above what happened OTL will be directed to areas that matter more.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
IMHO recognition of Israel would probably be more or less what it was OTL, perhaps a bit slower. After all the UK, UN, and everyone else basically said to the folks in Palestine "you sort it out". As far as the Arabs winning, it depends on whether or not external events go as OTL. The British were very pro-Arab when they left with weapons and key positions turned over to the Arabs, often in spite of locations that were supposed to be Jewish. The Arab Legion was an active participant. It was extremely difficult for the Israelis to get arms, not so for the Arab governments. The British could have continued their blockade of Palestine after they left to intercept migrants and weapons. More direct aid/assistance could have been given to the Arabs. The few countries that did sell weapons to the Israelis might not do so.

Assuming the external factors don't change in a major way to further favor the Arabs, I don't see them achieving their goal of tossing the Jews out or cramming the Jews in to such a small area that it is unsustainable as a state. If the butterflies cause a major change in externals, yes it could happen.

I don't see the UK holding on to Palestine. It has been a royal pain in the ass and has no valuable resources. Even with an Allied victory in 1941 the British Empire is going to have the sun set on it. Furthermore it was never really part of the Empire but rather something they were to hold on to temporarily until some sort of local control was established although what and how long was not defined. While the British have more resources and less war weariness ITTL than OTL, their resources are still limited and the will of the British people to spend treasure and blood for imperial holdings is constrained and therefore efforts over and above what happened OTL will be directed to areas that matter more.
Thanks for all of this information! :)

Also, out of curiosity--does the delay in international recognition of Israel hurt Israel in regards to things such as nuclear weapons development and building a better army with more modern weapons?
 
I don't expect the delay would be significant. If France, for example, delays recognition by 10 years, then yes, but I expect those countries that recognized Israel OTL will do so here and any delays won't be significant long term.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I don't expect the delay would be significant. If France, for example, delays recognition by 10 years, then yes, but I expect those countries that recognized Israel OTL will do so here and any delays won't be significant long term.
OK; understood.
 
If partition is rejected as solution, then what does that mean? Continued existence as a mandate? Unlikely. The British were done with trying to herd cats and made it known their mandate would end in 1948 (originally in August 1, then moved up to May 14 after the approval of the partition plan). Recognition of a single Arab-Jewish state? How since the two sides were unreconciliable at that point. How are you going to organize a government or elections? If you move towards a UN Trusteeship, who exactly is going to drink from that poisoned chalice?

I really don't see the end result being much different from OTL except for the fortunes of war.
 
Thanks for all of this information! :)

Also, out of curiosity--does the delay in international recognition of Israel hurt Israel in regards to things such as nuclear weapons development and building a better army with more modern weapons?

Depends if they drift into the Warsaw Pact or not. Not out of the question, OTL did get some Czech weapons besides the WWII stuff from scrapyards till after Tito's split with Stalin, Uncle Joe wanted all East Block nations to follow the Soviet Line, that was working out to a be an antisemitic purge in the making.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If partition is rejected as solution, then what does that mean? Continued existence as a mandate? Unlikely. The British were done with trying to herd cats and made it known their mandate would end in 1948 (originally in August 1, then moved up to May 14 after the approval of the partition plan). Recognition of a single Arab-Jewish state? How since the two sides were unreconciliable at that point. How are you going to organize a government or elections? If you move towards a UN Trusteeship, who exactly is going to drink from that poisoned chalice?

I really don't see the end result being much different from OTL except for the fortunes of war.
Completely agreed.

Also, though, I've got another question--would Britain do the same thing (just withdraw from Palestine and let the parties fight it out among themselves) in a scenario where France doesn't fall in WWII and where WWII thus ends early in an Allied victory?

Any thoughts on this?
 
If you want to prevent a two-thirds majority, maybe Stalin's mind could be easier to change than Truman's--after all, he doesn't have to worry about elections! :p
 

CaliGuy

Banned
If you want to prevent a two-thirds majority, maybe Stalin's mind could be easier to change than Truman's--after all, he doesn't have to worry about elections! :p
Very true! Thus, if you want, we can change Stalin's mind rather than Truman's.
 
If you want to prevent a two-thirds majority, maybe Stalin's mind could be easier to change than Truman's--after all, he doesn't have to worry about elections! :p

And that changes several additional votes: Belarus and Ukraine, obviously, also Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.

There's an important additional effect from this change: Czechoslovakia was a major source of arms for Israel in 1948, including Czech-built Me-109 fighters. If Stalin opposes partition, that arms traffic gets shut down too.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
And that changes several additional votes: Belarus and Ukraine, obviously, also Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.

Yes; correct!

There's an important additional effect from this change: Czechoslovakia was a major source of arms for Israel in 1948, including Czech-built Me-109 fighters. If Stalin opposes partition, that arms traffic gets shut down too.

Exactly how much would that have hurt Israel in 1948-1949?
 
'One' of the problems that the British had was stopping the influx of Jewish peoples from Europe without looking like absolute scumbags given the sympathy the Jewish peoples of Europe 'enjoyed' at the time.

Indeed it was a 'lose - lose' situation as far as Britain was concerned

Had the UN done as the OP suggests then this would give the British an internationally supported mandate and to that end greater freedom to stop and deport Jewish Migrants as well as greater freedom to prevent the build up of arms and equipment as well as greater freedom to act against the more militant factions either militarily or by having greater powers of arrest etc.
 
Top