Try to avoid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Impossible as long as Israel is founded in its present state. The Palestinians felt, with good reason, wronged and their lands stolen. And the rest of the Middle East loathed this destabilizing force in their midsts (democratic, liberal, and 'alien'). Israel is an anomaly in the region and seen the same as the Crusader States of the Middle Ages (artificial and threatening). There can be no understanding or compromise. Think Texas while it was still part of Mexico. This conflict is unavoidable.
 
Have the Arabs defeat Israel in 48, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole desire to drive Israelis into the sea became a by product of consecutive Arab defeats. This would avoid anger towards native Jewish populations and likely prevent the appeal of Islamism
 
Have the Arabs defeat Israel in 48, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole desire to drive Israelis into the sea became a by product of consecutive Arab defeats. This would avoid anger towards native Jewish populations and likely prevent the appeal of Islamism

No, the whole "drive the Jews into the sea" thing is present in Arab declarations in the '48 war as well. For example, the founder of the Muslim brotherhood is quoted in an August 1948 NYTimes interview saying "If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea." This isn't precisely what we're looking for, since it's a statement of what is expected to happen, not a call for it to happen, and it's actually describing Diaspora Jews in Arab countries, not Zionists in Israel.

There's also a direct statement about intending to throw the Jews into the sea. The Iraqi representative to the UN made a little speech to the Arab League in 1955 which included the following (Khalil, M 1965, pg 223), referring to '48 (though the statement was made 7 years later).

"I asked them (Arab League members) how Palestine was lost. It had been lost for two basic reasons: one, because we deluded ourselves by underestimating the power of our opponent and by thinking that the Jews were not powerful. The highest official in the League said that with 300 soldiers or North African Volunteers we could throw the Jews into the sea. The war started and His Excellency then said that with 3,000 North African Volunteers we could throw them into the sea."

These are representative examples; apocryphally, it was a very common cry, though e.g. Nasser formally denied ever having said it.

I'm also like 90% sure that there are statements by Palestinian Arab leaders in the Mandatory period calling for throwing the Jews into the sea, but I can't find any primary resources.
 
The Central Powers win World War I and the Ottoman Empire subsequently remains intact and doesn't allow major Jewish immigration to Palestine.
I don't personally think the Ottoman Empire would have survived with all it's territory intact even if they reversed their decline by picking the winning side in World War 1. The effects of the Arab Revolt would be felt for a long time and I doubt the Arabs would tolerate being under Turkish yoke. Even if they somehow retain most of their territory and don't become a rump state I think they would be very unstable internally.
 

zen23

Banned
Impossible as long as Israel is founded in its present state. The Palestinians felt, with good reason, wronged and their lands stolen. And the rest of the Middle East loathed this destabilizing force in their midsts (democratic, liberal, and 'alien'). Israel is an anomaly in the region and seen the same as the Crusader States of the Middle Ages (artificial and threatening). There can be no understanding or compromise. Think Texas while it was still part of Mexico. This conflict is unavoidable.
How was Israel a destabilizing force in the Middle East?
 

zen23

Banned
Also, initially, Jewish settlers in the 1900's were legally purchasing land from absentee landlords.


Source: John Green
 

Archibald

Banned
Great Britain not screwing up things in 1947 would be a good start. Or having Sykes & Picot crushed by a meteorit or run over by camels.
 
Great Britain not screwing up things in 1947 would be a good start.
How pray tell did Britain '[screw] up things in 1947'? Neither side, Arab or Israeli, wanted them there and were in many cases taking shots at them to get them to leave.
 
How was Israel a destabilizing force in the Middle East?
Perceived as a foreign invader that many despotic regimes could use as 'the other' rallying their people behind them.

Creation of PLO, Hezbollah, etc. whose goal was the end of Israel and whose impact has been less than positive.

Lebanon and the plight they're in now.

The issues with a fledgling Palestinian state that has radicalized many and continues to inflame parts of the Middle East every time there is an incursion into Palestinian territory.
 
Do you see margin for a financial agreement with the likes of Syria, Jordan and Egypt to take in refugees and settle the matter?

Another option would be no UN intervention and a more protracted war carried on until both sides were exhausted. I mean, Egyptian children are taught the 1973 war was a triumph even though they lost it, so if they could save face perhaps things would stop there. But just perhaps.
 
Top