Would there be a mass genocide against Israelis if Israel lost the 1948 War?

[Major Major]

Yes.

The Mufti and the Führer

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[CalBear]

OTOH, as the Tutsis of Rwanda found out in 1994 with the Rwandan Genocide, genocide does not require gas chambers or even firing squads, with how the method of genocide of the Tutsis consisted of machetes and shortwave radios for the most part with 800,000 Tutsis dying in a hundred days. And on that note, where would surviving Jews largely move after being kicked out of Palestine? Would we see situations where generations of Jews, in a mirror of how Palestinian refugee camps are still occupied after 75 years and have become permanent settlements, live in "temporary" refugee camps which have become permanent towns?

They would wind up in the U.S. (which already had the worlds largest Jewish population in 1945 at 4.6m), the UK/Commonwealth or stay in Palestine (some folks, especially true Zionists are not going to leave Palestine except in a box, just how it is). There were, according to the Jewish Virtual Library website ~716,000 Jews in Israel in 1948.

Depending on just how bad things got before sanity returned, you could see a couple hundred thousand stay or you could see 20,000 stay, but some would stay. The rest go elsewhere. After a few more newsreels about the conditions in Palestine, and a couple movies like Judgement at Nuremberg hit the theaters, the U.S; grants visas to as many of the survivors as want to come. American perceived guilt over not doing something sooner would make that happen.

 

[rfmcdonald]

This destruction of young Israel would have major consequences on Arab relations with the West (and, too, perhaps the Soviet bloc). I am not sure exactly what these would be, apart from greater distance and hostility.

This could conceivably impact decolonization elsewhere in the Arab world, especially in Algeria.

 

[Riain]

I think there would be uncontrolled killing of Jews, or attempts to at least. However Palestine in 1948 is not Germany of the 30s, I think that even with the defeat of 'the IDF' in the field the Jewish settlers were armed and very well organised (its why they won the war) so there will be an ongoing guerrilla war with the occupying Arabs and the Jewish settlers whenever the Arabs try to kill Jews.

 

[Jürgen]

The Rwandans genocide is the exception not the rule and as with the Rwandan genocide and Biafran war(and arguably also the recent Tigrayan) war show, Genocide is more likely in these post-colonial situations when it is seen as a purely internal affair, that's one of the many reasons why White settlers in Zimbabwe and Kenya weren't genocided.

The Rwandan Genocide was not an exception, it‘s how genocides usually look. But in this case I think the Ottoman massacres of Christian minorities would be the more likely model; mass killing, enslavement of some women and children, and the rest of the population being expelled.

Of course a lot also depend on whether the British send it troops to occupy Tel Aviv and protect the population and refugees from massacres.

 

[Jürgen]

I think there would be uncontrolled killing of Jews, or attempts to at least. However Palestine in 1948 is not Germany of the 30s, I think that even with the defeat of 'the IDF' in the field the Jewish settlers were armed and very well organised (its why they won the war) so there will be an ongoing guerrilla war with the occupying Arabs and the Jewish settlers whenever the Arabs try to kill Jews.

Unlikely, the Jewish settlers didn’t live places which lend itself to guerrilla fighting. Their settlements will be overrun if their military fails.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

The Rwandan Genocide was not an exception, it‘s how genocides usually look. But in this case I think the Ottoman massacres of Christian minorities would be the more likely model; mass killing, enslavement of some women and children, and the rest of the population being expelled.

It is the exception not to genocide but to how post-colonial violence occurs. Tho, it isn't necessarily an exception given the Biafran war had elements of that.

However, what characteristic both had was the post-colonial state/similar political group only carried(talked of in the case of Nigeria's war against Biafra) out genocide against what was considered an internal population.

So I expect White Jews would be treated similarly to whites in Zimbabwe or Kenya, an external group to be deported.

Tho, I guess Haiti's treatment of French is a counter example but Israel is more similar to Rhodesia than French Haiti to me.

Of course a lot also depend on whether the British send it troops to occupy Tel Aviv and protect the population and refugees from massacres.

Or just general Soviet and American pressure.

 

[dcguy3]

PLEASE NOTE: I do not support Israel’s past/current actions in occupied Palestine - nor the advocation of Israel’s destruction and genocide of Jews living there.

With that said, Israel and Zionists that defend it will cite that had Israel lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War - there would be a truly massive ethic cleansing that would render the Jews - already reduced in numbers after the Holocaust - near extinct and reduced to ethnic enclaves in Western cities.

But is this really true? Would level heads prevail and give the Israelis autonomy - with something else happening with Jerusalem? (IIRC, the earliest Zionists only wanted a Jewish state, didn’t have to include Jerusalem, though correct me if I’m wrong) Or would the Arab armies release their pent-up nationalistic anger and slaughter the Jews? Or would something else happen that’s neither of these things? How would the West react?

It would have been a complete and utter slaughter, I'd say yes. 1948 was a battle for survival.

 

[Riain]

Unlikely, the Jewish settlers didn’t live places which lend itself to guerrilla fighting. Their settlements will be overrun if their military fails.

The point is that the Jewish settlements will fight back, so the can't be slaughtered by ragtag bunches of out of control troops as such troops will be met with resistance. As such the settlements will have to be overrun by formed units conducting deliberate attacks, which in my mind makes genocide a touch less likely as I think mass killings would be done at the lowest levels with no direction, rather than by an organised murder campaign.

 

[Belisarius II]

The point is that the Jewish settlements will fight back, so the can't be slaughtered by ragtag bunches of out of control troops as such troops will be met with resistance. As such the settlements will have to be overrun by formed units conducting deliberate attacks, which in my mind makes genocide a touch less likely as I think mass killings would be done at the lowest levels with no direction, rather than by an organised murder campaign.

On what became the West Bank Jewish settlers were disarmed by the Arab Legion, and then Palestinian militia killed them. After a defeat Jews would be disarmed and left to the mercy of mobs. The world would sit back, and say, "How sad."

 

[LordYam]

Yes.

The Mufti and the Führer

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The Mufti's influence has been WAY overstated, and all to often he's used as a prop to try and argue that Palestinians are Nazis. The guy was a psychopathic asshole but when the Holocaust Museum gives him more focus than Himmler and Heydrich something is wrong.

JVL is in general not a very good source when it comes to Zionism (They blatantly mischaracterized what happened at Deir Yassin for instance).

On what became the West Bank Jewish settlers were disarmed by the Arab Legion, and then Palestinian militia killed them. After a defeat Jews would be disarmed and left to the mercy of mobs. The world would sit back, and say, "How sad."

Didn't the Jordanian Legion stop large scale acts of violence? And again, given how recent the holocaust is I doubt the world would just stand by and ignore it.

There would definitely be ethnic cleansing and expulsions but I honestly doubt that every single Jew would have been killed. Survivors definitely would have been reduced to second class citizenship.

 

[alspug]

As many have said the Jordanian Legion was a very proffesional force of very well led soldiers trained to a fairly high standard in comparison to the remainder of the Arab armies of the time.

The problem for the Jewish people would have been the locals after they lost the war. I understand that deaths of civilians during warfare is not uncommon because a bullet does not have to be deliverately aimed at an individual to kill that person. IE suppresive fire can and does kill people with nothing to do with the reason for the suppresive fire etc. Artillery also has no eye's.

After the battle is over the remaining jews would be removed one way or another in order to remove the problem for ever. This would not be a preplanned idea but one that is common the world over and seems to be why Genocide occurs. This notion that someone is at fault due to ethnic origin or skin color or eye color or maybe some other dumbarse way of trying to seperate HUMAN BEINGS into different pidgeon holes in order to better control them. So any men and boys or women above childbearing age would be removed from the gene pool and the remaining kept to be used as the victors have used the defeated throughout history.

Please note I am not saying the actions would be different to what has been observed in every part of the planet at different times in history and no group of people can claim their branch of humanity has never done it.

I myself doubt the entire Jewish population would be removed and if they got removed they would likely be given the same instructions they got throughout the remainder of the middle east at around this time and that was to leave everything and leave. I think some places allowed luggage and others did not. Also worth noting the expulsion was not immediate and many places it was almost voluntary.

BTW it is interesting to note that during the Middle Ages when Jews got perscuted in Europe the Middle East was a relative safe haven with less chance of death by organised persecution etc.

It is also worth noting that populations of Jews in North Africa who have been present for several thousand years in the same place are actually protected by the local muslims.
I remember seeing a documentary on one of the "lost tribes" of Israel where a population who refuse to go to israel are the main silver jewlery workers for the region and generate significant income for the region.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

The point is that the Jewish settlements will fight back.

They may gather in more defensible locations and fortify their settlements (like Polish self-defence unit tried, sometimes successfully, in Volhynia), but in the long run they'll run out of food propably if their farmland is overrun.

 

[TDM]

It's going to be bloody awful as we will be talking about ethnic cleansing no matter what way you cut it, but if the Israelis themselves managed to do it without resorting to killing every Palestinian they moved prior to 1948, I'm not sure why we would assume that the Arab nations would automatically have more bloodthirsty desires when they do it?

And as other have said the Arab nations will know the eyes of the world will be on them

Yes there were extremists on the Arab / Palestinian side calling for driving all Jews into the sea etc, etc, but frankly there were extremists in Israel calling for similar when it came to them taking land.

 

[LordYam]

Regrettably yes. Years of conflict (as well as the utter decimation of Arab society in the Arab Revolt) had ensured that in 1948 the fanatics were calling the shots in both groups. Unless the UN did something like say make their own mandate it was going to end badly.

Both sides were ethnic cleansing jerks the Israelis happened to be the ones who came out on top

 

[mike of mass]

The Arab side was actively boasting that the war in '48 would be a massacre to rival the Mongol invasions. Given how effective the Nazis were in bringing European style antisemitism to the Arab world, a massacre would have been inevitable had they won.

 

[Sarthak]

From marauding Arab militia bands, there would be violence yes, as OTL shows but as OTL shows as well, the armed forces of the Arab countries would also protect the Jewish citizens. The Jordanian and Egyptian Armed Forces and the Arab Legion were actively protecting the Jewish citizens from marauding Arab militias even getting into firefights over it OTL.

 

[boredviewer1234]

I think while their would be many massacres both from Arab armies facing unexpected losses, hatred of their enemies as well as Palestinian and Arab militias butchering their way it would be bad but not a genocide.

One factor though that may vastly increase the body count of Israelis though is both supplies and treatment of defeated population as logistics I know where a issue in a couple Arab armies so besides standard looting could see them focus on feeding themselves and leave the civilians and prisoners of war to starve, suffer from to improper medical treatment ect.

It's also got the whole deadlock going in a Arab victory, after all who get's what? You have over 5 armies and various militias a lot of distrust and different ambitions I can well see the Israelis being left at the bottom of the list if the world does not a issue of it. So yes there will be deliberate massacres but also I suspect a lot of ''unintentional'' deaths in this war and the aftermath.

 

[Bregil]

No, this is the 40s. Palestine would be split between Egypt, Syria, Jordan and maybe Lebanon. With Jordan gaining the largest share

Good point, the only reason there even IS a Palestinian people and state today is because their Arab neighbors kept them around as a convenient stick to beat Israel with. Said states outright changed their laws to ensure they couldn't assimilate into other Arab nations (to the point that someone of Palestinian descent is STILL not able to become a citizen of most countries that are a part of the Arab League). It's all couched in paternalistic terms about "wanting to preserve" the Palestinian identity but it's really about keeping a permanent population of refugees around.

Have the Arabs win in '48, and King Abdullah gets a lot more "Jordanian" citizens under his rule as well as a decent number of Jewish subjects (perhaps even citizens). He initially offered comparatively generous terms to the Jews if they would accept his rule. He might being willing to offer similar terms again in the case of victory. He very much seemed to view himself as a benevolent ruler after all.

 

[boredviewer1234]

Good point, the only reason there even IS a Palestinian people and state today is because their Arab neighbors kept them around as a convenient stick to beat Israel with. Said states outright changed their laws to ensure they couldn't assimilate into other Arab nations (to the point that someone of Palestinian descent is STILL not able to become a citizen of most countries that are a part of the Arab League). It's all couched in paternalistic terms about "wanting to preserve" the Palestinian identity but it's really about keeping a permanent population of refugees around.

Palestinians would exist for a bit as they had before before 1948, as in a oppressed group facing large scale pressure to submit. I think they would still in a Arab victory for a surprisingly large period both because of their own resilience but also as cut out choice in the Arab world incentive is still there.

That said I admit I don't hope for there chances long term of being a distinct thing given the assimilation policies they would endure except maybe as a diaspora elsewhere akin to other ''small'' Arab identities who push to hard. Palestinian nationalists for example existed in Jordan and where cracked down pretty harshly for separatism.