W.I. Israel conquers the whole of the West Bank in 1948

Suppose a less severe Holocaust happens, or a Foreign power backs Israel to the tilt in the War of Independence. What would the effects be of a much larger Palestinian diaspora be? What would the effect be of all of Jerusalem falling into Israeli hands? Would Al-Aqsa still be around? Would ultimate peace in the Middle East be to achieve?
 
Mmm. You don't need a big POD for this. The Israëli's manage to capture/secure the road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. There is a bigger panic among the Arabs and most of them flee toward Jordan. In 1948 Israel is bigger and more secure (In OTL it was only 19 km wide at some point). The West Bank becomes a "non-issue" because it is now a part of "core" state of Israel.
 
I think you've pretty much just butterflied away the entire Israeli-Palestinian issue.

As Duckie says a slightly bigger panic, possibly coupled with the Israelis being slightly better armed with a little bit more heavy equipment (artillery/tanks/aircraft) than OTL...

Taking Gaza and getting up onto the Golan wouldn't hurt either.
 
An important question is how many of the Moslem Arab inhabitants of the West Bank decide to leave as the Israelis advance. While the population of the West Bank is much lower in 1948, the higher fertility rate means you'll get a substantial minority in Israel over time. No matter what percent leaves this will have a significant butterfly on Jordan - the "indigenous population of prewar Transjordan will be significantly outnumbered by Palestinians. This can destabilize the Hashemites, and turn Transjordan into a "Palestinian" state.

IMHO this CHANGES the Israeli-Palestinian issue it does not make it go away even if Transjordan now becomes "Palestine". The Arab countries will not accept the existence of Israel, and the refugees will not be assimilated but will be ghettoized in refugee camps as OTL. The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries will still happen, and possibility more violently (note over a few years after 1948 roughly 850,000 Jews were expelled or "encouraged" to leave Arab countries where they had lived for centuries).

The odds are the number of Moslem Arabs living in Israel ITTL in 2017 is smaller than OTL, the number of Jews may be somewhat higher due to more immigration to a "safer" Israel and less emigration from the post-1948 state. You will probably see more Christian Arabs still in Israel, as the exodus of Christian Arabs from the West Bank OTL under pressure from the more extreme Moslem elements won't be happening. I expect Christian Arabs seeing more toleration in Israel than Arab countries will be more pro-Israel than OTL, and not making common cause with the PLO and other elements.

Israel including the West Bank from 1948 will be geographically safer, although given the hostility of the neighboring states and the demand for elimination of Israel by some elements, and the demand for return of all refugees and descendants I don't see the IDF being drastically different. The first big butterfly is, given the better geography they have, will the Israelis throw in with the British and French for the 1956 Suez affair if it happens at all.
 
Would a "total victory" for Israel give greater credence to the 1947 partition plan?

OTL: The UN tries to forestall conflict. Arabs balk. War happens. Israel is winning. Arabs try for advantage at the negotiation table. Eventually the results at the table outmatch Israeli desire/ability (depending on your stance) to stay in the war. War ends, stalemate begins.

ATL: The UN tries to forestall conflict. Arabs balk. War happens. Israel just plain wins. Maybe the Arabs try for advantage, maybe they don't, either way their efforts don't outmatch Israeli desire/ability to stay in the war, or the whole thing ends before they even get a chance. Needing a way to save face, Arab leaders go back to the starting point of negotiations and ask for the initial offer.

IOTL the Israelis were ready to take the deal. Winning that much might change a lot of minds, but it's not out of the question that caution (or some other driver) might win the day.
 
The partition plan, as originally mapped out, was an abortion that would have resulted in an Israel that was disjointed and indefensible. It was accepted because it was the best deal they could get, I do wonder if the Israelis realized the Arabs would never agree so the map was only a starting point. I can see the Israelis giving up some territory in the wake of the complete win, but only for recognition by the Arab states with an acceptance of the borders as permanent. This would require Skippy the ASB to be at the negotiating table, OTL the Arabs did not want to even sit in the same room as the Israelis.

Frankly neither side liked the 1947 partition plan. The reality was that neither side was going to give back territory it seized militarily over the allotment in the 1947, and nobody did. Transjordan did not give back the West bank, Egypt did not give back Gaza to the proposed Palestinian state. Once the war started the map of the 1947 plan was as dead as the Dodo.
 

Anchises

Banned
An important question is how many of the Moslem Arab inhabitants of the West Bank decide to leave as the Israelis advance. While the population of the West Bank is much lower in 1948, the higher fertility rate means you'll get a substantial minority in Israel over time. No matter what percent leaves this will have a significant butterfly on Jordan - the "indigenous population of prewar Transjordan will be significantly outnumbered by Palestinians. This can destabilize the Hashemites, and turn Transjordan into a "Palestinian" state.

IMHO this CHANGES the Israeli-Palestinian issue it does not make it go away even if Transjordan now becomes "Palestine". The Arab countries will not accept the existence of Israel, and the refugees will not be assimilated but will be ghettoized in refugee camps as OTL. The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries will still happen, and possibility more violently (note over a few years after 1948 roughly 850,000 Jews were expelled or "encouraged" to leave Arab countries where they had lived for centuries).

The odds are the number of Moslem Arabs living in Israel ITTL in 2017 is smaller than OTL, the number of Jews may be somewhat higher due to more immigration to a "safer" Israel and less emigration from the post-1948 state. You will probably see more Christian Arabs still in Israel, as the exodus of Christian Arabs from the West Bank OTL under pressure from the more extreme Moslem elements won't be happening. I expect Christian Arabs seeing more toleration in Israel than Arab countries will be more pro-Israel than OTL, and not making common cause with the PLO and other elements.

Israel including the West Bank from 1948 will be geographically safer, although given the hostility of the neighboring states and the demand for elimination of Israel by some elements, and the demand for return of all refugees and descendants I don't see the IDF being drastically different. The first big butterfly is, given the better geography they have, will the Israelis throw in with the British and French for the 1956 Suez affair if it happens at all.

I don't think that Israel-Palestine issue would have gone either.

We have a larger diaspora and the issue of Transjordan.

I think there would be a huge problem for Jordan. IOTL the palestinians were not integrated into the society after the 6 Day War. ITTL they have to deal with this starting in the late 40s.

Maybe in TTL the PLO is able to gain the upper hand and turns Jordan into a terror state.

Maybe the Palestinians and Jordanians create a new and shared identity.

Maybe the Palestinian extremists are driven out and they reach Lebanon or Syria earlier.
 
The conflict would probably be still long lasting, but simpler. No settlers, no disputed status of Jerusalem, no partially-empowered Palestinian Authority. Just Israel, a PLO based outside of Israeli borders, and Arab neighbors that want to initially invade them but may, like OTL Jordan and Egypt, be pragmatic.

As others have mentioned, the diaspora will be an issue. With a much larger number leaving, at an earlier time, will a Black September type attempt to take control of Jordan happen earlier, and possibly be successful? If it fails, Syria and Lebanon would likely see an earlier and larger wave of refugees than they did in the OTL 70's, which exacerbated Lebanese tensions in the lead up to their civil war and won't exactly be a stabilizing force 30 years earlier.

IOTL, I still see a second attempt to invade happening. Israel's borders are much more defensible now, but the temptation to believe several countries vs one will be a winnable war will, I believe, still lead to another conflict. It probably will not lead to such a severe territorial dispute as the current West Bank and Gaza, but Israel might still try for somewhere defensible, like the Golan/Sinai as OTL (if Syria and Egypt invade) or the Jordan River Valley if a Palestinian-run Jordan is leading the charge.
 

Anchises

Banned
The conflict would probably be still long lasting, but simpler. No settlers, no disputed status of Jerusalem, no partially-empowered Palestinian Authority. Just Israel, a PLO based outside of Israeli borders, and Arab neighbors that want to initially invade them but may, like OTL Jordan and Egypt, be pragmatic.

As others have mentioned, the diaspora will be an issue. With a much larger number leaving, at an earlier time, will a Black September type attempt to take control of Jordan happen earlier, and possibly be successful? If it fails, Syria and Lebanon would likely see an earlier and larger wave of refugees than they did in the OTL 70's, which exacerbated Lebanese tensions in the lead up to their civil war and won't exactly be a stabilizing force 30 years earlier.

IOTL, I still see a second attempt to invade happening. Israel's borders are much more defensible now, but the temptation to believe several countries vs one will be a winnable war will, I believe, still lead to another conflict. It probably will not lead to such a severe territorial dispute as the current West Bank and Gaza, but Israel might still try for somewhere defensible, like the Golan/Sinai as OTL (if Syria and Egypt invade) or the Jordan River Valley if a Palestinian-run Jordan is leading the charge.

Well if an earlier "Black September" fails we are probably going to see a much earlier erruption of tensions in Lebanon.

And I don't think Israel would just stand by in TTL because the Lebanese Civil War would threaten their borders just like OTL.

A larger Diaspora that starts a Civil War in Jordan and is heavily participating in a Lebanese Civil War in the 50s or 60s might create even stronger resentments against the Palestinian refugees than OTL.

The PLO might have real trouble in finding reliable Arab allies.
 
The partition plan, as originally mapped out, was an abortion that would have resulted in an Israel that was disjointed and indefensible. It was accepted because it was the best deal they could get, I do wonder if the Israelis realized the Arabs would never agree so the map was only a starting point. I can see the Israelis giving up some territory in the wake of the complete win, but only for recognition by the Arab states with an acceptance of the borders as permanent. This would require Skippy the ASB to be at the negotiating table, OTL the Arabs did not want to even sit in the same room as the Israelis.

Frankly neither side liked the 1947 partition plan. The reality was that neither side was going to give back territory it seized militarily over the allotment in the 1947, and nobody did. Transjordan did not give back the West bank, Egypt did not give back Gaza to the proposed Palestinian state. Once the war started the map of the 1947 plan was as dead as the Dodo.

If things were so contentious IOTL I wonder if we can get an armistice under these circumstances. I take it the reason the Arabs agreed IOTL was that the situation allowed them hope to alter things in the future. What reason do they have ITTL?
 
From a military standpoint, when the final armistice was signed the Arabs were losing and with the by pass road to Jerusalem completed the Israeli position had markedly improved. Had the fighting continued it is not impossible Israel would have taken most if not all of Jerusalem, other territory in the west bank, and some of the Sinai. It was the prospect of the Israelis getting more territory, with the Arabs realizing that the military situation was not going to turn around in their favor, that drove the Arabs to accept the international mediation for the armistice. The Israelis accepted it, at least in large part, because they were concerned that if they did continue advancing there would be repercussions internationally.
 
In OTL the Palestinian diaspora in Chile currently stands at 500k and is the largest outside of the Middle East. What if in this scenario a significant number eventually made their way earlier on to Chile (perhaps after Black September or after Israel gains more territory in 1948), leaving the latter with an Arab Chilean population potentially closer to Argentina's own Arab Argentine population by the present and roughly equal to the ATL diaspora remaining in Jordan? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_diaspora

Additionally how would an enlarged ATL Palestinian diaspora in Chile impact Israel's ATL relations with the rest of Latin America (including Chile)? Would the Chilean or other South American governments have allowed the establishment of a PLO base or few in this scenario and allowed the latter to incite the Arab descended population in South America?
 
I wonder what percentage of the Palestinians in South America OTL are Christian, rather than Muslim Arabs? Even with the numbers quoted, or even larger numbers, they represent minorities, and to the extent they are Muslim not Christian this represents potentially a real issue for the radical elements of the Arab minority. I can't see most, if any, of the South American countries tolerating a Hamas, PLO, or Hizbollah element of any magnitude. Sending money to some Arab country where these organizations are through a "charity" yes, but being a base for military training and planning operations, not so much. Given that I would expect these organizations to target the USA sooner or later, the South American countries DO NOT want to be seen as bases for terrorists targeting the US/US interests. Some of these countries may be at odds with the USA, like Venezuela OTL, or even Cuba, but none of them would want to piss off the USA by being implicated in an attack on the US or US interests. None of the Arab/Muslim countries that might be supportive of these organizations can protect some country that has pissed off the US in such a way - unlike Cuba after Castro took over, the Soviet Union is unlikely to be the protector/patron of one of these countries.

I wonder how things would be in a South American country that went communist with a fanatic muslim minority - that won't work well, look at how the USSR treated Muslims from the revolution onwards.
 
A large number of the diaspora from 1948 onwards might decide to follow the example of Carlos Memem who was born into a Muslim family originally from Syria, prior to becoming a Catholic to advance his career in Argentine politics though it may have already been the case that a large number of the Arab diaspora who moved to South America did likewise in OTL (or would have at least become secular or embraced atheism depending on the Latin American country they move to).

It is also possible that a South America regime or few might be too supportive of the Palestinian diaspora they welcomed into their country in this ATL scenario, which once the regime has fallen could have similar consequences to the diaspora in OTL Iraq and Kuwait.
 
Top