West Jerusalem falls to the Jordanians in 1948

CaliGuy

Banned
What if West Jerusalem (basically, all of Jerusalem) would have also fallen to the Jordanians in 1948 due to Israel somehow failing to finish the Burma Road in time?

How much weaker would the Israeli side become in Israel's War of Independence with the loss of all of Jerusalem?

Any thoughts on this?
 
"So who do we name road after Mickey?," the Israeli soldier leaned on his shovel and asked now that it was complete.

"Simon," his commander turned to him and smiled, "We will call it the Burma Road."

"Really want to screw with History Buffs, eh Mick?," Simon took a drink from his canteen and laughed.
 
Without any part of Jerusalem maybe Palestine is a Muslim country with Israeli enclaves.

or what if the surrounding powers think it best to partition the land?

So No Israel, No Palestine.

Who gets what, and does this lead to future conflict?
 

Pangur

Donor
Without any part of Jerusalem maybe Palestine is a Muslim country with Israeli enclaves.

or what if the surrounding powers think it best to partition the land?

So No Israel, No Palestine.

Who gets what, and does this lead to future conflict?
I dont see how you are joining the dots that way. The question is in regards to Jerusalem and not anywhere else. My guess is that the war in 1956 happens in this TL then the Israelis would be very tempted to have a good at taking the city with all the inpacts re the UK/Jordan in the mix. Just how it would impact the idea of a Palestian state being set up in `48 is maybe the key question.
 
I was thinking that if all of Jerusalem is taken by the Jordanians then the Israelis may well lose in '48.

Lose big enough that Israel wouldn't exist.

So many of the conflicts for Israel have been fights for survival, if you lose a fight for survival . . .
 

Pangur

Donor
I was thinking that if all of Jerusalem is taken by the Jordanians then the Israelis may well lose in '48.

Lose big enough that Israel wouldn't exist.

So many of the conflicts for Israel have been fights for survival, if you lose a fight for survival . . .

I just dont see how that works, Jerusalem is not Israel so loosing the city does not mean no Israel. Mhhm that last sentence should perhapes have the word physically as Israelies may very well an Israel with out Jerusalem as not been Israel as it were. They were far from in troubel else where at the time so how do they loose the lot?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I dont see how you are joining the dots that way. The question is in regards to Jerusalem and not anywhere else. My guess is that the war in 1956 happens in this TL then the Israelis would be very tempted to have a good at taking the city with all the inpacts re the UK/Jordan in the mix. Just how it would impact the idea of a Palestian state being set up in `48 is maybe the key question.
Why would Israel attack Jordan in 1956 when Jordan wasn't involved at all in the Suez Crisis, though?
 

Pangur

Donor
Why would Israel attack Jordan in 1956 when Jordan wasn't involved at all in the Suez Crisis, though?
Fair comment however I find it hard to believe that the Israelis would not be looking for a chance to take the city. 1956 comes to mind as an opportunity however there is a matter of relations between Jordan and the UK and to add to that how would Jerusalem that is fully in the hands of Jordan effect the UK and Israel? Change it to the point where Suez is not possible? I honestly dont know
 
Top