Would radical Palestinian revolution/insurrection/terrorism still happen if 1967 and subsequent hot wars do not happen?

[The Banker]

So I am working on a scenario where Nasser dies in 1965. Zakaria Mohieddin takes over and cools things down atleast to a degree where a hot war is prevented. Syria is also under General Abd Al-Karim Nahlawi who isn't as radical as the Baathist government after him.

So if the 1967 war doesn't happen then will Palestinian terrorism/guerilla warfare still happen?
I am aware that such kinds of things existed already before 1967 but they really only became the hardcore bloody mass movement after the terrible defeat of 1967.

So what would happen in this timeline?
Would it be more akin to the IRA fighting?

If you think that it will still happen
Then how would it be? What would be the trigger point and what sort of shape would this take?

Final note: I am aware that in any timeline, a list of possible stuff could happen. But tell me your 'most likely events' response.

@raharris1973 @starman

 

[Monk78]

Can Palestinian anger be directed more against Egypt and Jordan in this TL ?

 

[danteheadman]

Any hot war with Jordan where Israel is winning will require Israel to proceed to the Jordan River in order to end the war. War with Jordan along the 1948 Armistice Lines can end in only one of three ways: Jordan (and other Arab states) push to the Mediterranean; Israel pushes to the Jordan; a third party steps in and forces a ceasefire. The latter is what happened in 1948.

Even if hot war with Jordan is averted in 1967, what's to prevent wars from happening in the future? Assuming Israel doesn't get nukes much sooner than ITTL that is.

If Israel is seen to be winning the existential Arab-Israeli conflict by conquering to the Jordan instead of being conquered and ethnically cleansed, there will be immense Palestinian terrorism. This will occur regardless of when the conquest occurs and regardless of whether it leads to occupation or annexation, apartheid or citizenship.

Palestinians are pushed to commit stochastic terrorism against Israel and Jews by their leadership, and their leaders kick-off Intifadas, because those leaders cannot get a professional Arab army to commit ethnic cleansing - because they are under Israeli control. If they were direct clients of Arab states, or had their own states, the Palestinian leadership would try to do this. (This is not a statement about Palestinian people but about their leadership, who exploit Palestinian oppression to embezzle immense international aid and maintain their position within Palestinian society through a combination of basic thuggery and rabid antisemitic propaganda.)

1967 wasn't the cause of the Intifada. Israeli possession of the West Bank was, and to a deeper degree Israeli existence and its geopolitical needs.

 

[jacob ningen]

Can Palestinian anger be directed more against Egypt and Jordan in this TL ?

That was my thought too. Ie Black September on steroids.

 

[The Banker]

Any hot war with Jordan where Israel is winning will require Israel to proceed to the Jordan River in order to end the war. War with Jordan along the 1948 Armistice Lines can end in only one of three ways: Jordan (and other Arab states) push to the Mediterranean; Israel pushes to the Jordan; a third party steps in and forces a ceasefire. The latter is what happened in 1948.

Even if hot war with Jordan is averted in 1967, what's to prevent wars from happening in the future? Assuming Israel doesn't get nukes much sooner than ITTL that is.

If Israel is seen to be winning the existential Arab-Israeli conflict by conquering to the Jordan instead of being conquered and ethnically cleansed, there will be immense Palestinian terrorism. This will occur regardless of when the conquest occurs and regardless of whether it leads to occupation or annexation, apartheid or citizenship.

Palestinians are pushed to commit stochastic terrorism against Israel and Jews by their leadership, and their leaders kick-off Intifadas, because those leaders cannot get a professional Arab army to commit ethnic cleansing - because they are under Israeli control. If they were direct clients of Arab states, or had their own states, the Palestinian leadership would try to do this. (This is not a statement about Palestinian people but about their leadership, who exploit Palestinian oppression to embezzle immense international aid and maintain their position within Palestinian society through a combination of basic thuggery and rabid antisemitic propaganda.)

1967 wasn't the cause of the Intifada. Israeli possession of the West Bank was, and to a deeper degree Israeli existence and its geopolitical needs.

I sincerely think that 1967 could have been averted if Nasser died earlier, Syria was under a less radical dictatorship and if a little luck was involved

so all I am asking is what would the PLO do in such conditions when the West Bank is under Jordan instead of Israel

Note that even in this scenario tensions would be red hot

 

[jacob ningen]

I sincerely think that 1967 could have been averted if Nasser died earlier, Syria was under a less radical dictatorship and if a little luck was involved

so all I am asking is what would the PLO do in such conditions when the West Bank is under Jordan instead of Israel

Note that even in this scenario tensions would be red hot

Also at the time Syria was in a reorganization of the Baath party and Assad was the moderate wing. at least WRT Israel.

 

[The Banker]

Also at the time Syria was in a reorganization of the Baath party and Assad was the moderate wing. at least WRT Israel.

there was an even more moderate option
If the army under General Nahlawi had maintained a dictatorship and crushed the Baathists then we could have seen a more moderate military junta type of regime aligned with the middle class instead of a radical 'revolutionary' type regime

 

[danteheadman]

I sincerely think that 1967 could have been averted if Nasser died earlier, Syria was under a less radical dictatorship and if a little luck was involved

so all I am asking is what would the PLO do in such conditions when the West Bank is under Jordan instead of Israel

Note that even in this scenario tensions would be red hot

Then the status quo would continue (cross-border Palestinian terrorism against Israel from Lebanon, Egyptian Gaza, and Jordanian West Bank; and Palestinian fedayeen agitation against the Jordanian monarchy in the Jordanian West Bank) until something breaks: either a civil war in Jordan or a cross-border war between Israel and Jordan.

The post-1948 Armistice status quo was inherently unsustainable.

 

[The Banker]

Then the status quo would continue (cross-border Palestinian terrorism against Israel from Lebanon, Egyptian Gaza, and Jordanian West Bank; and Palestinian fedayeen agitation against the Jordanian monarchy in the Jordanian West Bank) until something breaks: either a civil war in Jordan or a cross-border war between Israel and Jordan.

The post-1948 Armistice status quo was inherently unsustainable.

yes but once again, I dislike historical determinism

nothing is inevitable, least of all hot wars that can destroy the lives of thousands. Even the most radical of radicals thoughout history have atleast tried once to avoid a war they themselves dreamed up of
with the right conditions, 1967 could have been avoided

 

[aaronupright]

Yes it would.
Preventing it requires the Israelis to at least treat Palestinians as actual human beings. Which they are wont to not do.

 

[jacob ningen]

Then the status quo would continue (cross-border Palestinian terrorism against Israel from Lebanon, Egyptian Gaza, and Jordanian West Bank; and Palestinian fedayeen agitation against the

But theres no influx of refugees from the WB and Karameh never happens.

 

[jacob ningen]

So I am working on a scenario where Nasser dies in 1965. Zakaria Mohieddin takes over and cools things down atleast to a degree where a hot war is prevented. Syria is also under General Abd Al-Karim Nahlawi who isn't as radical as the Baathist government after him.

So if the 1967 war doesn't happen then will Palestinian terrorism/guerilla warfare still happen?
I am aware that such kinds of things existed already before 1967 but they really only became the hardcore bloody mass movement after the terrible defeat of 1967.

So what would happen in this timeline?
Would it be more akin to the IRA fighting?

If you think that it will still happen
Then how would it be? What would be the trigger point and what sort of shape would this take?

Final note: I am aware that in any timeline, a list of possible stuff could happen. But tell me your 'most likely events' response.

@raharris1973 @starman

Is Shukeri sidelined as IOTL?

 

[The Banker]

Is Shukeri sidelined as IOTL?

yes Nahlawi's doesn't give over all power to the civilian government and maintains a junta instead.
He also crushes the Baath after a failed Baathist coup

 

[jacob ningen]

yes Nahlawi's doesn't give over all power to the civilian government and maintains a junta instead.
He also crushes the Baath after a failed Baathist coup

Im referring to Ahmed Shukeri first president of the PLO. The question is does the Arafat or Habash factions manage to take over the PLO.

 

[The Banker]

Im referring to Ahmed Shukeri first president of the PLO. The question is does the Arafat or Habash factions manage to take over the PLO.

yes that will still happen at some point when the PLO realizes that they need to be aggressive

 

[jacob ningen]

My question is because Shukeri was known for making provocative statements in Lebanese newspapers before the 1967 conflict that were retroactively used as justification for 67.

 

[The Banker]

My question is because Shukeri was known for making provocative statements in Lebanese newspapers before the 1967 conflict that were retroactively used as justification for 67.

same would be done by Arafat. PLO radicalism would inevitably increase
'Is a hot war in middle east preventable' is one of those things that I absolutely unable to comprehend or give an answer too even after so much reading and research.

Because Arab and Israeli rhetoric at that time was highly jingoistic, hot, tense and even after everything(like Nasser dies etc) all it would take to have a hot war is one wrong move by some Palestinians somewhere in the Levant at any point of time
add to that the factor of Israeli establishment preferring a conventional war instead of nuclear deterrence diplomacy. Thus they will launch a war if something happens instead of merely using nukes to scare others into peace

If I was a rich man irl, I would pay 100s of informed researchers and history teachers on this matter to hold a massive tribunal and answer this question
Is a hot Arab-Israeli war in the 60s and 70s preventable at all(even if we give it advantages like Nasser's death and Zakaria/Sadat taking over etc)?

Its just one of those things thats hard to justify
Its on par with 'Can Nazis win WW2' types of questions. Impossible to say and preventing said war will require historical luck. Although history has been lucky like that in other places.