A Happy Israel?

I thought it would be topical to wonder if Israeli history could have gone a little differently and produce an Israeli state that could live in peace, without the constant issues of Palestinians, disputed territories and wars with her neighbours.

Is there a realistic way in which Israel could have overall enjoyed peace?

(This is not a thread asking for the rights and wrongs of the conflict).
 
I thought it would be topical to wonder if Israeli history could have gone a little differently and produce an Israeli state that could live in peace, without the constant issues of Palestinians, disputed territories and wars with her neighbours.

Is there a realistic way in which Israel could have overall enjoyed peace?
If it had been formed somewhere else.
 
The problem predates the founding of Israel.

If you manage to get a peacefull cohabitiation between jewish pioneers and arabs in the 1930s, you may get somewhere.
 

maverick

Banned
Its possible...we just need to ISOT all of the world's muslims to an alternate universe...or maybe we can put them on a rocket and send them to the moon...
 

Hashasheen

Banned
So is there any way Arab aggression could have been nipped in the bud?
the Mufti was a propogator of anti-Jewish sentiment. build up the TransJordan up enough and you might just have something, since the TransJordan was one of the states that voted for the parition.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Secular Zionists had no problem coexisting with the Arabs, (baring in mind there were nowhere near as many of them in the early 20th Century as there are today).

It was the religious element that had a problem, the element that believed that a Jewish homeland should either be only for Jews, or that if non-Jews were to be there, they should be as a subservient class.

For there to be a shiny happy Israel, you need to have the latter group be told as early and as firmly as possible to STFU. When it comes time for the independent state to write its constitution, they should be excluded, and, instead some token Arab groups included instead, (the majority of the Arab population was quite backward at this time, only a few urban Arabs would take part).

In exchange, the hardcore theocrats would probably put up a violent resistance, instigating numerous terrorist attacks. However, these attacks will help to unite Jewish and Arab Israelis - and, because the ethnic element is removed, Israel will react much more humanely, (i.e. no turning areas where theocratic Israelis exist into giant concentration camps).

In addition, there will probably be some foreign wars. But this Israel, so long as it has Western support, will easily be able to take care of its national defence in that regard.
 
Maybe have the british brutaly massacre loads of arabs before most of the jews come, and have the arabs and the jews fight of the british together?

I have no idea.
 
The main problem with that idea is that the British were reluctant to get involved because I think they foresaw the conflict as a future problem (though the probably underestimated just how bad it would eventually get). As such, I do not see them slaughtering tens of thousands of people. Instead, I think that ninebucks has the right idea.
 
What if we have a POD a while earlier? Say the Second Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem succeeds? If not bloated by raids in the East, at least as a sliver along the coast? It would still have its problems, but the ongoing continuation of the Kingdom from the Fifteenth Century onward would allow Jewish resettlement at least somewhere within the Kingdom (as the slaughter of Muslims and Jews only happened the first time around. Afterwards, things were tolerated a bit more.)
 
There was a path to a Happy Israel it was called the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. Basically the President-elect of the World Zionist Organization got together with the Shariff of Mecca (via his son) and hammered out a deal where there would be a Jewish homeland in what is today Israel/Palestine with bits of OTL Jordan Syria and Lebanon. In return for the land the Jews would provide capital,educated people and connections to help build up the planned Arab state. Of course a couple of months after the Jews and Arabs had this hammered out the Brits and French showed up and basically stole anything not nailed down and thus started the mess we have today.
 
I understand that I'm throwing myself into a snake pit, but something should be done to modern Islamic way of thinking about infidels, if you want happy Israel. I mean, look at the border of Islamic world where said borders are not seashores. Central Africa: There are low-intencity wars in Nigeria, Niger, CAR, Chad, Ethiopia, etc.
Middle East: Israel
Balkans: Bosnia, Kosovo
Caucasus: Chechnya, Karabakh, low-intensity Islamic guerilla in Dagestan, Ingushetia, Cherkessia
Central Asia: there was vicious civil war between Islamists and seculars in Tajikistan in 1991-1995 and secular dictatorships of Stans are waging permanent low-intencity repression campaign to keep Islamists under the proverbial lid
Subcontinent: Pakistan and India. Do I need to say more?
China: East Turkestan
Indochina: Islamic guerillas in Thailand, Moro rebellion in Philippines, Aceh, East Timor.
One might claim that "other" side isn't blameless in those conflicts too and I'll be the 1st one to agree. Russia or China are hardly pillars of human rights and Balkans were murderous free-for-all for centuries. However, if you're fighting with all your neighbours at once, it is so much easier to assume that something is not quite right with you than to blame rest of humankind for your woes.

Secular Zionists had no problem coexisting with the Arabs, (baring in mind there were nowhere near as many of them in the early 20th Century as there are today).

It was the religious element that had a problem, the element that believed that a Jewish homeland should either be only for Jews, or that if non-Jews were to be there, they should be as a subservient class.
U R wrong. Religious Zionists are relatively new phenomena and they became a political force long after conflict had been shaped. I would say that POD should be well before 1921 (before 1st Jerusalem Pogrom in Mandate), and religious Zionists are nowhere to be found before 1930s.

There was a path to a Happy Israel it was called the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. Basically the President-elect of the World Zionist Organization got together with the Shariff of Mecca (via his son) and hammered out a deal where there would be a Jewish homeland in what is today Israel/Palestine with bits of OTL Jordan Syria and Lebanon. In return for the land the Jews would provide capital,educated people and connections to help build up the planned Arab state.
It all sounds fine and dandy, but are you sure that "Arab street" would wholeheartedly support Hachemites in implementation of this agreement? After all, they were not too successful in winning popular support.
 
It all sounds fine and dandy, but are you sure that "Arab street" would wholeheartedly support Hachemites in implementation of this agreement? After all, they were not too successful in winning popular support.
Wholeheartedly? No. Pan-Semitic agreement on anything is like herding cats no matter which side of the family tree you are on. But assuming the British follow through with their promises (which would mean no Sykes-Picot which will effect the war though I know not how) the Shariff will be in a position where he is flush with both Pan-Arab sentiment and the support of a major world power. Now of course this doesn't mean it will be easy. The first years are likely to be very bloody as he consolidates his powerbase and removes rivals. But between the Brits and the WZC I think his chances of ending up on top are greatly increased.
 
Top