Where would the Jews go without Israel?

Post '48? Now we're looking at a massive humanitarian crisis as the Arabs push the Israelis to the sea, and if it's in the '60s or later that means nukes flying. Here, the US accepts the refugees, then depending on how hawkish and pro-Israel the regime is, every major city in the Middle East glows in the dark, anyone insufficiently Jewish is purged from Palestine, and the US moves the Israelis back in as the defenders of FREEDOM (tm) or something idiotic like that. Then the US undergoes a political crisis in the fallout.

US wasn't massively pro-Israel until 1973 and when the US became that say goodbye to any chance of the Arabs winning. An idea I've thought of if Lehi's plot to kill Truman in 1947 worked, making Secretary of State George Marshall become president. Marshall was pro-Arab, so he could probably make US foreign policy support the Arabs. Alongside that the Israeli right was weak until the 1970s, so Israel might become pro-Soviet. Wonder what the pro-Arab US and Zionist USSR does in an Arab victory scenario in the conflict as you've mentioned.
 
US wasn't massively pro-Israel until 1973 and when the US became that say goodbye to any chance of the Arabs winning. An idea I've thought of if Lehi's plot to kill Truman in 1947 worked, making Secretary of State George Marshall become president. Marshall was pro-Arab, so he could probably make US foreign policy support the Arabs. Alongside that the Israeli right was weak until the 1970s, so Israel might become pro-Soviet. Wonder what the pro-Arab US and Zionist USSR does in an Arab victory scenario in the conflict as you've mentioned.
Whoah.

OK, that's actually probably going to end fairly interestingly. First wave would be Marshall, using the outrage at the Stern Gang blowing up Truman, clamping down so fucking hard on the Zionist colonialist movement that they'd probably never even get off the ground, and if they tried the US would send support to the Arabs...which would lead to the colonialists switching to the USSR...which would lead to something akin to the Korean War happening early with the colonialists promising the USSR a warm-water Med port and the US in the unenviable position of trying to prop up a bunch of unpopular monarchies.

So we have Mandatory Palestine being handed over to probably Jordan, with a massive Soviet-backed insurgency...so the US will blockade it. And the Middle East goes to America, unless we're stupid enough to back Britain during the Suez Crisis which we wouldn't because we'd blame them for starting the whole mess with the Balfour Declaration, which means a more strained US/UK relationship and a weaker NATO...

Probably insurgency in Palestine effectively ends by the mid-'50s, but the Soviets try to build more of a navy and stuff for smuggling through the blockade, which could lead to a more strained Soviet economy and an earlier Soviet collapse.

Thoughts?
 
Whoah.

OK, that's actually probably going to end fairly interestingly. First wave would be Marshall, using the outrage at the Stern Gang blowing up Truman, clamping down so fucking hard on the Zionist colonialist movement that they'd probably never even get off the ground, and if they tried the US would send support to the Arabs...which would lead to the colonialists switching to the USSR...which would lead to something akin to the Korean War happening early with the colonialists promising the USSR a warm-water Med port and the US in the unenviable position of trying to prop up a bunch of unpopular monarchies.

So we have Mandatory Palestine being handed over to probably Jordan, with a massive Soviet-backed insurgency...so the US will blockade it. And the Middle East goes to America, unless we're stupid enough to back Britain during the Suez Crisis which we wouldn't because we'd blame them for starting the whole mess with the Balfour Declaration, which means a more strained US/UK relationship and a weaker NATO...

Probably insurgency in Palestine effectively ends by the mid-'50s, but the Soviets try to build more of a navy and stuff for smuggling through the blockade, which could lead to a more strained Soviet economy and an earlier Soviet collapse.

Thoughts?

Sounds pretty interesting, though I'm sure the Israeli government will counter with "But we didn't do anything! Lehi is not in our control!" which might lead the US to back off a bit, but still view them with suspicion. I don't think the US will blockade as they've got troubles in China and Korea to deal with. Here's another scenario I've been thinking of:

Israel survives. The US recognizes Israel when Marshall's presidency ends in 1949 (Marshall was apolitical and wouldn't run for re-election), but keeps a pro-Arab tinge. The Lavon Affair is revealed but a little too late, leading to only one American building being attacked instead of the numerous ones that were planned to be, leading the US to be even more pro-Arab. When the Suez Crisis happens, the US makes good on the promise of tanking the pound and the franc, leading to a European bloc being formed, so now Israel has allies in London, Paris and Moscow, but the former two aren't as enthusiastic.

The USSR had better technology than the US, along with the Arab states still following the idea of coup-proofing, which in turns leads to an Israeli victory in 1967. Ten years later another war happens with the same outcome and with more Soviet involvement, but this time the Arab states impose an oil embargo on the USSR leading to a Soviet collapse in the early 1980s. The Israeli nuclear program is severely hampered when a surviving UAR commits airstrikes on the nuclear facilities much as how Israel did to Iraq in 1981 IOTL. When the Soviets collapse another war starts with a quick Arab victory, but by this point enough Jews have settled in Israel that they won't just leave. Expect the conflict to continue, and possibly Jewish extremists committing waves of attacks in the US in the late 1980s-early 1990s.

I am thinking of writing a TL off of this, but I will first do some research on the politics of the Arab states and Israel so the TL isn't just talking about the conflict but their different politics.
 
Sounds pretty interesting, though I'm sure the Israeli government will counter with "But we didn't do anything! Lehi is not in our control!" which might lead the US to back off a bit, but still view them with suspicion. I don't think the US will blockade as they've got troubles in China and Korea to deal with. Here's another scenario I've been thinking of:

Israel survives. The US recognizes Israel when Marshall's presidency ends in 1949 (Marshall was apolitical and wouldn't run for re-election), but keeps a pro-Arab tinge. The Lavon Affair is revealed but a little too late, leading to only one American building being attacked instead of the numerous ones that were planned to be, leading the US to be even more pro-Arab. When the Suez Crisis happens, the US makes good on the promise of tanking the pound and the franc, leading to a European bloc being formed, so now Israel has allies in London, Paris and Moscow, but the former two aren't as enthusiastic.

The USSR had better technology than the US, along with the Arab states still following the idea of coup-proofing, which in turns leads to an Israeli victory in 1967. Ten years later another war happens with the same outcome and with more Soviet involvement, but this time the Arab states impose an oil embargo on the USSR leading to a Soviet collapse in the early 1980s. The Israeli nuclear program is severely hampered when a surviving UAR commits airstrikes on the nuclear facilities much as how Israel did to Iraq in 1981 IOTL. When the Soviets collapse another war starts with a quick Arab victory, but by this point enough Jews have settled in Israel that they won't just leave. Expect the conflict to continue, and possibly Jewish extremists committing waves of attacks in the US in the late 1980s-early 1990s.

I am thinking of writing a TL off of this, but I will first do some research on the politics of the Arab states and Israel so the TL isn't just talking about the conflict but their different politics.
The bombing would be in '47, though, before Israel was a thing.

So we have a Euro bloc that's uneasily eyeing the Americans and the Soviets...Firm American/French split means that America turns on them in Vietnam and starts backing Ho Chi Minh once he wins the elections out of realpolitik, so no Vietnam War.

I doubt that the Israelis would still win '67 even if they managed to get a state together because United. States. Navy. (Yes, they have the Pacific rim problem, but the USN is and was fucking huge, like an order of magnitude bigger than the Soviet navy, we can cover multiple fronts with it). Also, while the USSR had more functional tech, the US's tech was consistently about 5 years ahead of the USSR throughout the Cold War. Soviet doctrine revolved around pared-down, good-enough designs that could be made cheap and in large numbers. Worked like a charm in Vietnam and played to the USSR's strengths, but didn't work so well in the ME.

My big concern in a war like you posit would be Arab military culture. If they can't form a robust NCO corps and institute an American-style approach to social class in the military, then they lose; if they succeed they win.

I think a lot of it depends on when Truman dies, if he dies before Haganah and company launch the colonial conquest in earnest, then Israel never comes to be, if after, then shit gets interesting.
 
You think there is no antisemitism in US?

I am very aware of the anti semitism in the US. There were no proms as in Russia & Europe, & like most immigrants here the Jewish arrivals had economic opportunities.

To be blunt, your question is a bit illogical, are you trolling?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The big issue with all these WI Israel didn't exist is nobody addresses why doesn't Israel exist. There are two basic ways. Get rid of the Nazis so you don't get the surge of migration in the 30s and 40s which allowed the Jews to overcome the Arabs. Or get rid of the Balfour Declaration so there's no imperative for a Jewish national home and the British just don't allow the migration past about 1925.

Now getting rid of the Balfour Declaration seems easy but it's not. There are only two real ways to do it. First you can stop the fall of the Asquith government. Second you can change the circumstances of november 1917 so it's not issued. There are two parts to those circumstances, Wilson's reluctance to commit significant numbers of troops to France and uncertainty due to the Russian Revolution. You have to change one or both.

So no matter how you do it, getting rid of the Balfour Declaration unleashes quite a horde of killer butterflies

You know I think that even in “no Balfour Declaration” scenario, as long as it is a British Palestine there may be a lot of immigration anyway. There was immigration under the Ottomans and a British administration would seem more attractive to migrants. For the most part the Jewish settlers establishing “facts on the ground” would be higher taxpayers than natives and thus admired by the colonial administration. Without the formal Balfour mandate for a Jewish home, the Arabs may take longer to make a fuss than OTL if just dealing with a process of immigration and land purchasing. British administrators might not feel stuck with a politically provocative “project” and just regard Arab riots as simple banditry to be suppressed.
 
What if no suez kept the closeness between Israel and France? As far as another location apartheid South Africa welcomes any white immigrants not English. Australia and New Zealand were offering 10 pound passage
 
Just out of left field if Israel has a pro Europe orientation could that lead to the survival of Biafra? Nigeria could be split.
 
Where do what Jews go?

The German and Polish Zionists who made aliyah in the 1920s and 1930s?

The Jewish refugees and DPs in post-WW-II Europe?

The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa, largely displaced to Israel after 1948?

Soviet Jewish emigrants, who arrived in Israel in the 1970s and 1980s?

And what is meant by "no Israel"?

No Zionism? I.e. no Weiszmann et al advocating a Jewish homeland in the Holy Land? (Perhaps because there is no Dreyfus Affair to highlight the intensity of anti-semitism in "advanced" Europe?)

No Balfour Declaration, committing Britain to allowing mass Jewish migration to Palestine?

Britain never gets the League of Nations Mandate?

Zionism doesn't catch on? No significant immigration to Palestine?

Britain rescinds the Balfour Declaration and blocks the Zionist project in the 1920s-1930s?

The UN never votes to partition Palestine?

The Arab attackers overrun the Zionists in 1948?

Before trying to answer any question, one must know exactly what has been asked.
 
Last edited:
How about an alternate Balfour Declaration, where the UK government commits to the creation of a homeland for Jews, without actually specifying its location? That way the Uganda (Kenya really) or Australia options can still be interpreted as fulfilling this promise.
 
Top