What would a Palestinian state have looked like?

[CalBear]

Yep you would have to imagine a major change to the OTL, something that it very unlikely.




It would and did not happen.





One notable but dubious case. What we do know is the majority left long before the Israeli army arrived.





Huh, we have been discussing the Arab Jews where this happen, unlike the Palestinian, whether it happened we do know this is real.

there are also many examples after ww2 in Eastern Europe. India after the British left was another example.




Try listing these countless examples, I notice by the way you are continuing to whitewash Arab crimes which were real.

There is an observation I find it the Arabs including the Palestinians paid the Jews for what they took from them, the Palestinians could be paid out of petty cash.

Anyway, this is getting tiring unless you have something decent to discuss, I am moving on.

Well, yet another case of whitewashing/whataboutism of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Is this the season for folks just failing to understand that no one is pure white?

BTW: Using what remains one of the great Crimes Against Humanity in the post WW II Era (the expulsion of Ethnic Germans from regions where their roots went back to before the "discovery" of the New World) isn't exactly a good justification or example.

This was a real wobbler, but we'll try the lesser action.

Kicked for a week.

 

[CalBear]

States just love to cave into Invasions and Terrorism
/s

Palestinians wanted Wars to get their desire.
failed.

Then they thought that killing civilians would do it.
failed.

Those aren't incentives to give the Arabs what they had in 1948, and outright rejected that more than half for having it all.

They never will get all that they want. Don't be surprised with 70 years of losing, you don't get what was desired.

Hmm...

Broad brushing an entire population and blaming them for violence or criminal activity of a fraction of that population.

Whitwashing history.

Might makes right, forget about signed international treaties, international norms, and, oh ya, the Geneva Conventions.

AND

Current politics outside of Chat (and about a Hot Button Chat issue at that).

You HAD to know how this would end.

Kicked for a week.

 

[CalBear]

COME ON FOLKS!

How many members have to crash onto these rocks before it sinks in?

Whataboutism regarding Crimes Against Humanity IS A BAD THING

Supporting Ethnic Cleansing IS A BAD THING

Doing either of them outside of Chat IS A REALLY BAD THING

SMH

 

[oberdada]

Let's assume for a moment that after the war the armistice line is almost as the proposed division lines.
Only Jerusalem is Arab and Israel has secured both bottlenecks.

What would happen then?

( I know it sounds pretty ASB, especially with Jaffa, but the Korean War ended almost where it had started)

 

[sloreck]

Returning to specific POD, IMHO the partition lines were nonfunctional. Aside from semi-disconnected territories, you have created two entities that are both probably economically non-viable. If you had some sort of confederation with a common currency, common civil law as least as it related to commercial matter, but leaving things like family law to the community (somewhat like the Ottoman millet system), and common criminal code that is a potential solution. I expect this is the solution that the UN hoped would come about, from necessity due to the marginal viability of either entity as a free standing state. However there are all sorts of issues with this, movement from one "canton" to another, land sales could Arabs buy Jewish land or vice versa, and the big killer - immigration. If the Jews of Europe are allowed to come in to the "Jewish" cantons, if there is free movement, if there is free land sales you can see how this is problematic.

If the Jews of Europe, specifically from Germany/Austria and Eastern Europe in now communist countries who are in DP camps west of the Iron Curtain, are not going to be able to go to "Israel" in large numbers because of legal or physical limitations on immigration in the "divided mandate" solution, where do they go.Will the USA take them, the British Commonwealth, or will they be forced back behind the Iron Curtain or move back to the same neighborhoods where their neighbors at best turned away when they were hauled off, or more commonly clapped and then looted.

This doesn't mean a two state solution is not a good idea, but the lines of 1948 won't do it.

 

[Saint_007]

Let's assume for a moment that after the war the armistice line is almost as the proposed division lines.
Only Jerusalem is Arab and Israel has secured both bottlenecks.

What would happen then?

( I know it sounds pretty ASB, especially with Jaffa, but the Korean War ended almost where it had started)

The Israelis won't rest unless they have something of Jerusalem. They may or may not start the next war, but rest assured, they'll try and find a way to take Jerusalem and incorporate it into their country. It's holy land, after all. Similarly, the Palestinians won't rest easy unless they secure Jerusalem's entrances, as leaving them in Israeli hands is a chokehold on Jerusalem and renders it useless as a capital (you'd basically have to move all traffic and business past Israeli checkpoints).

 

[oberdada]

The Israelis won't rest unless they have something of Jerusalem. They may or may not start the next war, but rest assured, they'll try and find a way to take Jerusalem and incorporate it into their country. It's holy land, after all. Similarly, the Palestinians won't rest easy unless they secure Jerusalem's entrances, as leaving them in Israeli hands is a chokehold on Jerusalem and renders it useless as a capital (you'd basically have to move all traffic and business past Israeli checkpoints).

With bottlenecks I wasn't referring to anything close to Jerusalem, just that the Jewish controlled area is not divided, while the Arab is.

In the early years Israel wasn't that focused on holy sites, considering that the Western Wall was in sight of the frontline, and there still was an armistice.

 

[Saint_007]

With bottlenecks I wasn't referring to anything close to Jerusalem, just that the Jewish controlled area is not divided, while the Arab is.

In the early years Israel wasn't that focused on holy sites, considering that the Western Wall was in sight of the frontline, and there still was an armistice.

Having part of Jerusalem was the first step, basically the foot in the door. Once they had a presence in Jerusalem, the religious figures would steer public opinion to regaining the Holy Sites.

I'd say a West/East divide would be better than Israeli Jerusalem splitting Arab Jerusalem.

 

[oberdada]

Having part of Jerusalem was the first step, basically the foot in the door. Once they had a presence in Jerusalem, the religious figures would steer public opinion to regaining the Holy Sites.

I'd say a West/East divide would be better than Israeli Jerusalem splitting Arab Jerusalem.

I don't know. That's not what I proposed.

I said armistice line close to UN proposal, but Jerusalem in Arab hands.

Bottlenecks Jewish.

Never anything about Jerusalem Jewish, not a square meter.

 

[htgriffin]

A very big variable is how many Arabs leave the area assigned to Israel and under what circumstances. A few who, out of either a sense of nationalist consciousness or mistrust of long term prospects under 'Zionist' rule, sell their property and leave is by far the best case scenario even if a subset of same agitate against cooperation with/economic ties to Israel on principle.

The Israelis do seem to have a head start on setting up a government, so... hmm....

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Maybe the Israeli's will decide they've gotten enough settlements, or that the occupation has gone on long enough?

The Gaza and South Lebanon withdrawals left bitter tastes in Israel's mouth - withdrawal means getting shot at. Unless there's a stable government in the West Bank with the ability to clamp down on factions that want to keep shooting at Israel, the Israelis aren't getting out. Look at Lebanon and Gaza. In Gaza Hamas runs the show, but now that they want to stop shooting at the Israelis so much they're facing the issue of the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad shooting at Israel... and Hamas is having trouble controlling them. Likewise the Lebanese government cannot control Hezbollah. Even if there were a Palestinian State established that isn't hostile to Israel, there's the issue of the country having the capacity to control factions within it.

And unlike with Lebanon and Gaza, the WB overlooks core Israeli population centers. There's much less room for error on the Israeli side.

And this is why Israel had no choice but to start planting settlements in the occupied territories? Maintaining the occupation without immediately beginning settlement programs, maintaining an occupation with an end-goal of creating an independent Palestine, would have been tantamount to national suicide?

Which Israelis? Which settlements? These are key questions.

The first settlements were a mix of people rebuilding places that had been destroyed in 1948 (Kfar Etzion for example) and people settling on hilltops that made for good observation posts because they expected another war soon. Hilltops, Jerusalem, and areas just over the border were where pretty much all WB settlements were until the 2000s, with the exception of Kiryat Arba by Hebron.

As for what changed in the 2000s, it was probably a mix of Netanyahu consolidating power and the negative lessons learned from Gaza and Lebanon withdrawal.

-------------------------

As for what a Palestinian state would look like, I don't see why it wouldn't end up taken over by Israel following some Arab-Israeli war. Israel had a proto-state for a long time, was organized, disciplined, etc. Palestine didn't have much of a state at all. If there's a conflict, either Israel is destroyed or Israel occupies Palestine.

There's also likely going to be a lot of instability within Palestine. Palestinian National Consciousness as we understand it today only consolidated in the late 60s in response to the Zionists and Arab Occupiers. There'd likely be internal divisions between Greater Syria advocates, Pan-Arabists, and advocates for some kind of Palestine.

As for the issue of expulsion, Israel didn't outright expel people after 1967 OTL. Odds are Israel and Jordan will come up with an agreement to divvy up the place, assuming Abdullah doesn't get shot TTL. Palestine is defeated in a conflict, Jordan comes in to "protect" it, boundaries end up something like OTL's with Israel probably a bit bigger (Gaza, Judean Hills, etc).

 

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

As for what a Palestinian state would look like, I don't see why it wouldn't end up taken over by Israel following some Arab-Israeli war. Israel had a proto-state for a long time, was organized, disciplined, etc. Palestine didn't have much of a state at all. If there's a conflict, either Israel is destroyed or Israel occupies Palestine.

There's also likely going to be a lot of instability within Palestine. Palestinian National Consciousness as we understand it today only consolidated in the late 60s in response to the Zionists and Arab Occupiers. There'd likely be internal divisions between Greater Syria advocates, Pan-Arabists, and advocates for some kind of Palestine.

As for the issue of expulsion, Israel didn't outright expel people after 1967 OTL. Odds are Israel and Jordan will come up with an agreement to divvy up the place, assuming Abdullah doesn't get shot TTL. Palestine is defeated in a conflict, Jordan comes in to "protect" it, boundaries end up something like OTL's with Israel probably a bit bigger (Gaza, Judean Hills, etc).

The scenario demands that the British or some other outside power stick around until there is a Palestinian state, something along the lines of the partition. Depending one when the PoD is actually placed, if the civil war happens like in OTL, they'd have to defeat the Israel proto-state to halt the civil war, and then stay present for it to be built back up alongside a Palestinian state.

Palestinian national consciousness would be developing here alongside an Israel that hasn't expelled most of their people, and hasn't expanded as far as possible by force. It wouldn't look like the one we have in OTL, and the other Arab states wouldn't be molded by the effects of the Palestinian refugee crisis. Here half the Palestinian population would be living under Israeli rule, if the partition lines were followed, and how they are treated by Israel would influence the whole national consciousness.

If the UN partition lines were completely unacceptable, then one of the other proposals might be implemented, the final British proposal was the Morrison-Grady Plan. This would probably result in a two-way population transfer which would have to be overseen by the British or whoever ends up managing the region, the 'colonial' power would catch much of the animosity created by this. Zionists would be frustrated at only getting a small fraction of the territory, not controlling Jerusalem and other holy sites, and more cramped conditions for displaced persons arriving from overseas. This could create the pressure that would trigger them to go to war to expand their territory, and if they're in a less dominant position this could go badly for them. Palestinians would be frustrated for the same reasons as in OTL, but this would be greatly reduced with their own state.

Once the British or whoever leaves, then we'd see Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attempt to lead a greater Arab state, and they'd probably want to include Palestine in this. This would be ten years down the line, and Palestine wouldn't necessarily be on board with it. If this Israel is very focused on gaining territory, they could be the ones who align with the greater Arab state to divide up Palestine.

 

[MatthewB]

The Israelis won't rest unless they have something of Jerusalem. It's holy land, after all. .

Most Jews and Israelis are secular. They want safety, security and opportunity.

 

[Saint_007]

Most Jews and Israelis are secular. They want safety, security and opportunity.

That's probably true.

Except there's a lot of ultra-religious Orthodox believers who won't rest until Jerusalem has been Hebrewfied. They're not a majority in any sense, but they have a lot of clout.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Most Jews and Israelis are secular. They want safety, security and opportunity.

Yes. This. Although the existing nationalist-conservative-religious coalition makes things less than representative for the majority.

That's probably true.

Except there's a lot of ultra-religious Orthodox believers who won't rest until Jerusalem has been Hebrewfied. They're not a majority in any sense, but they have a lot of clout.

Well... no.

Shas and UTJ are the ultra-orthodox parties in the Israeli Government. Shas wasn't officially a zionist party until it joined the World Zionist Party in 2010. UTJ is not a zionist party.

It's mostly the modern orthodox who are the basis for the settler movement. Plus the influx of Refuseniks (who lean nationalist center-right security-minded hawkishness) in the 90s moved things in that direction. Plus the growth of the hasidic and orthodox populations due to the good-old-fashioned way impacted Israeli politics.

Any Israeli government until the 80s or so would have no issue just getting the Jewish bits of the old city.