What if Britain bugs out of Palestine in ’45, ’46 or ’47 instead of ’48?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Is the result of an even more rushed British departure, an early Israel and Arab-Israeli war? Is Israel more likely to be wiped out? Or would it do better? Why so?

Illegal immigration and arming accelerated to boost the Zionist Yishuv after the war, although the base of leadership and infrastructure was still pre-war migrants. At the same time, I don't know what the schedule of recruiting and training and equipping of the armies of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tranjordan and Iraq were, and if they had grown in relative strength and capability by '48 compared with what they had and and could do in late '45, 46 or 47.

Also, the French did not quit Syria until sometime in 1946, so I don't know if Syrian or Lebanese intervention against the nascent Israelis, as occurred in 1948, is plausible if there are still French forces contesting control of Beirut and Damascus.
 
But what would cause an earlier British departure?

From a British POV, it would certainly be beneficial, but I cannot see what event could be the catalyst. Up to referral of the matter to the UN, Britain was seeking to achieve a settlement between Arabs and Jews which would be acceptable, or rather not totally rejected by them both. When that became obviously impossible, with increasing violence, Britain transferred its Mandate to the UN.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
But what would cause an earlier British departure?

Faster development of illegal immigration and terrorism? Earlier bombing of King David Hotel?

Or maybe the winter of 45-46 is as bad as the the winter of 46-47, leading to an earlier acute foreign exchange crunch?
 
Faster development of illegal immigration and terrorism? Earlier bombing of King David Hotel?
Orde Wingate lives, released proposals to the Press on what to do with the Mandate area , and public pressure convinces Churchill to do a partition in the Mandate area after the Death Camps are liberated to give the Jews a homeland, and the UK doesn't restrict immigration to the Mandate area in 1945
As DP flood in, there is more Arab terrorism, followed by Jewish reprisals.
All the while while British forces, having seen as having washed their hands of the area, really aren't targeted-- as they are leaving.
 
Faster development of illegal immigration and terrorism? Earlier bombing of King David Hotel?

Or maybe the winter of 45-46 is as bad as the the winter of 46-47, leading to an earlier acute foreign exchange crunch?
I think faster development of illegal immigration and terrorism would probably be the best POD. An earlier King David bombing wouldn't be enough; an increased general level of violence probably would.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Orde Wingate lives, released proposals to the Press on what to do with the Mandate area , and public pressure convinces Churchill to do a partition in the Mandate area after the Death Camps are liberated to give the Jews a homeland, and the UK doesn't restrict immigration to the Mandate area in 1945
As DP flood in, there is more Arab terrorism, followed by Jewish reprisals.
All the while while British forces, having seen as having washed their hands of the area, really aren't targeted-- as they are leaving.

Ah, this is an interesting scenario, where things are a deliberate British to Zionist peaceful handover of power. It gets the British out faster, but peacefully, and with a better relationship with Israel long-term, perhaps Orde-Wingate as Marshal of Israel?

Arabs will be angry and demonstrate and there will be acts of terror, but I don't think they will be very successful, organized, or widespread, despite popular anger, because I think the leaderships of Arab groups will not have had time to recover from suppression of the Arab Revolt of the 1930s.

"Smooth" takeover of areas granted to the Israelis in a partition means crowding of the area with migrants, but not mass expulsions, because disorders never get too large. Except for some expelled, imprisoned or killed ringleaders, the Arab masses live in villages under Zionist military government and surveillance, like in pre-1966 Israel, but in much larger numbers, an interesting political issue later on.

Any partition set aside for an Arab state would be attached to Transjordan, and the Arab Legion would have to be used to enforce the plan. They may have trouble maintaining internal stability doing this and could be primed for internal radical revolution before the 1940s are out.

I think faster development of illegal immigration and terrorism would probably be the best POD. An earlier King David bombing wouldn't be enough; an increased general level of violence probably would.

This is a better simulation of what OTL's free-for-all of the years 1947-1949 were like.

Do either the Israeli or Arab state side gain a relative advantage, possibly a decisive one, from this situation emerging a year or two earlier than OTL?
 
where things are a deliberate British to Zionist peaceful handover of power. It gets the British out faster, but peacefully, and with a better relationship with Israel long-term, perhaps Orde-Wingate as Marshal of Israel?

Arabs will be angry and demonstrate and there will be acts of terror, but I don't think they will be very successful, organized, or widespread, despite popular anger, because I think the leaderships of Arab groups will not have had time to recover from suppression of the Arab Revolt of the 1930s.
The problem for the British is what do they do about Egypt/Suez Canal and Gulf once the Arabs make it clear that so publicly picking the Israeli side has consequence.....
 
The problem for the British is what do they do about Egypt/Suez Canal and Gulf once the Arabs make it clear that so publicly picking the Israeli side has consequence.....
Egypt had already gave asylum to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a Nazi collaborator and propagandist responsible for Holocaust related atrocities and massacres of Serbs in Yugoslavia. The relationship between Egypt and the UK was complicated to say the least.

The UK is not going to give up Suez at this point in time, though.
 
The problem for the British is what do they do about Egypt/Suez Canal and Gulf once the Arabs make it clear that so publicly picking the Israeli side has consequence.....

Much more likely for the Brits to intervene in an Egyptian Coup in 1946 than they were in 1952
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the quitting of Palestine is accelerated, we could have an early Arab-Israeli War that the Israeli side loses because they have less time to grow the population and procure modern arms. So Israel is tried out, but thrown into the sea by the Arab armies (Egypt, Arab Legion, Iraq and Arab militias minimum, maybe Lebanese and Syrian) before 1946 is over.

This might just be one of the few ways we could end up with a "Jewish state in Europe" that is mentioned from time to time on the board.

The principle objection to a Jewish state in European, say, ex-German territory, is generally that the Jews wanted their state to be in Palestine for a variety of reasons. But in a scenario where they've tried and failed there, you could have pressure to both accomodate the refugees somehow, and they will have to take what they can get where they can get it. So, say, Schleswig-Holstein, which comes from the British zone of occupied Germany, gets set up as the Jewish state in 1947-1948.

For a Jewish homeland I think Schleswig-Holstein would be the best choice. It has ocean access, land access both to Western Allies and Soviet Union and a fairly friendly country northwards. No one would care a bit about German feelings plus even the devastated infrastructure would be absurdly better than anything in Palestine. The question is, what would be a Jewish homeland like without a militaristic frontier culture? Jewish state might be treaty bound to neutrality but in reality a Western ally (a la Swedish model) and most probably due to WW2 experience have a large standing military, but there wouldn't be an experience of constant war.

Schleswig-Holstein might have been a good choice. It could be argued that it would be most fair to establish the Jewish state in a part of Germany where the nazis had been particularly strong. However, as most of these areas came under Soviet control, one could opt for an area within Western control where the nazis had been strong, which, according to this map, would make Schleswig-Holstein a good choice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germa...rch_1933#mediaviewer/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png

some examples of this discussion:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...out-of-german-territory.355355/#post-10816659

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/jewish-state-in-europe.323058/
 
Top