Israel defeated

Lets say that there is no truce. The Jews don't have time to reorganize or prepare for the next round. And then lets have a different leader in Jordan that commits the Arab Legion to do more.

End result Israel is destroyed, there is a Palestine, and the Arab nations pick up the pieces and get slightly bigger. So with no Israel how would this new middle east turn out in the cold war?

Im talking about the 1948 war btw.
 

wormyguy

Banned
It would undoubtedly end up in a 12-page flame war with 17 ignore-listings, 3 kickings, and one banning.
 
Leaving aside the fact that the Jews had more people under arms, better equipment on average, better intelligence, etc etc (we can say ASB if we want, or whatever)...

The Middle East ends up exactly the same, except perhaps slightly less technologically advanced, as there is no Israel to give them military incentive. Also, there's no oil or tourism industry in the Sinai, as that was all done by Israel.

What a lot of people don't realize is that American support for Israel didn't really pick up until '67; before then, the USA and USSR would playing major tug-of-war over the various nations. Honestly, I think it would be much the same: the only difference is that with no Israel, Egypt and Iraq might have kept their kings. But probably not. The only major difference I would expect is that Egypt might slant towards NATO, but even then, the Egyptians didn't like the British. Something about colonialism.
 
Leaving aside the fact that the Jews had more people under arms, better equipment on average, better intelligence, etc etc (we can say ASB if we want, or whatever)...

Yeah but it was during the truce that they had time to train the troops and reorganize the IDF. Also it was during this time that they got a ton of weapons from the Czechs, without those weapons Israel is screwed.

If the Arabs, aggressively pushed (I'm looking at you Legion), they might have defeated Israel before the weapons came.
 
So its ok to have Israel win and enslave the world but its not ok to have them lose?:confused::mad:

No, it would be in anticipation of borderline Kahanist freaks like me, Socialists, and if there are any Muslims here getting into it with a flame war to rival an actual fire fight; and with that statement, you just helped me point along with how you worded your question...
 
Israel enslaving the world? I'm hearing the echoes of a "Jews are secretly in control of every powerful institution" conspiracy in your posts, buddy. I'm not exactly pleased.

Just doin' my part
 
I'd tend to think the basic problems for the Arab world are still there so the cold war dynamics would be relatively similar. There'd be lots of butterflies from Arab victory in 1948 though (though I tend to think the monarchies wouldn't last). There'd be somewhat more Jews in the U.S, which leads to intriguing butterflies right there. Whether Jews in the Arab world would tend to emigrate is an intriguing question. How badly run a Palestinian state would be (or is there workable *UAR...nah) also could be interesting. I'd assume that Palestine would be more Poland then Lebanon in terms of ethnic diversity.
 
I'd tend to think the basic problems for the Arab world are still there so the cold war dynamics would be relatively similar. There'd be lots of butterflies from Arab victory in 1948 though (though I tend to think the monarchies wouldn't last). There'd be somewhat more Jews in the U.S, which leads to intriguing butterflies right there. Whether Jews in the Arab world would tend to emigrate is an intriguing question. How badly run a Palestinian state would be (or is there workable *UAR...nah) also could be interesting. I'd assume that Palestine would be more Poland then Lebanon in terms of ethnic diversity.

An interesting dynamic would be: what about the Jews that stay in Israel after the defeat? Perhaps they give the Palestinians trouble of the violent sort? Meir Kahane ends up TTL's counter part Arafat? Jews murder Palestinians? (that's ASB Jewwank territory I think though...)
 
I'd tend to think the basic problems for the Arab world are still there so the cold war dynamics would be relatively similar. There'd be lots of butterflies from Arab victory in 1948 though (though I tend to think the monarchies wouldn't last). There'd be somewhat more Jews in the U.S, which leads to intriguing butterflies right there. Whether Jews in the Arab world would tend to emigrate is an intriguing question. How badly run a Palestinian state would be (or is there workable *UAR...nah) also could be interesting. I'd assume that Palestine would be more Poland then Lebanon in terms of ethnic diversity.

I don't think a Palestinian state would be particularly poorly run - but I also don't think it would last. My money would be on it either getting absorbed into Jordan (possibly coincident with a republic revolution there), or joining the UAR, and sticking with either Egypt or Syria in the aftermath. Maybe even getting split down the middle. The thing to remember here is that in 1948, Palestinian nationalism doesn't exist at all; there's nothing really stopping the people from joining another nation (probably Syria, though the Negev could easily go to Egypt).

An interesting dynamic would be: what about the Jews that stay in Israel after the defeat? Perhaps they give the Palestinians trouble of the violent sort? Meir Kahane ends up TTL's counter part Arafat? Jews murder Palestinians? (that's ASB Jewwank territory I think though...)

There aren't going to be a whole lot of Jews left after a military defeat; essentially the entire male population between the ages of 16 and 60 was under arms by the end of the war. Whoever's left probably goes wherever they can; considering how willing everyone was to absorb Jews post-WWII, we might get a permanent refugee population like the OTL's Palestinians, though I'd like to think they'd manage to assimilate somewhere.

The Jews in Arab nations (and Iran) is another issue: I really decide whether the Muslims would just let them chill, or there would be anti-Jewish backlash.
 
Palestinian nationalism doesn't exist at all;

At risk of starting the flame war: 'Palestinians' didn't exist at all prior to 1948. There was a population of Arabs there, the ones to whom the Balfor declaration promised the lands that the Hashimtes ultimately got.
 
At risk of starting the flame war: 'Palestinians' didn't exist at all prior to 1948. There was a population of Arabs there, the ones to whom the Balfor declaration promised the lands that the Hashimtes ultimately got.

Exactly my point. "Palestinian Arabs", like "Jordanian Arabs", don't exist yet. At the most, they probably consider themselves Syrian, if anything.
 

Tellus

Banned
Israel enslaving the world? I'm hearing the echoes of a "Jews are secretly in control of every powerful institution" conspiracy in your posts, buddy. I'm not exactly pleased.

Just doin' my part

I think the guy meant "its ok to have PODs where Israel does better, so it should be fair to have PODs where Israel does worse".

Anyhow, thats how I understood his point, and he'd be right about that. Theres no reason to consider the destruction of Israel a taboo. They were lucky to survive their first few wars. Coulda lost in 48. Coulda lost in 67.

I suspect the Middle East would be slightly less of a mess, but there'd still be flashpoints. The Sunni/Shiite tensions would take precedence now that the common enemy is gone. Dictatorships may be a bit less stable without the threat of war. Religious Radicals a bit less empowered without the Israeli conflict as well. Unless its defeated LATE and radicalism is seen as the vehicle of victory, but Im assuming we are talking an early victory, as it is more realistic.

Palestinian/Jordarnian economy would probably look like any other Arab state in the region right now. No Israeli miracle. Thats bad, because the Israelis ARE handy to have around and quite innovative in terms of science. No doubt some Israelis manage to become successful in the diaspora, but not to the extent provided by the opportunities of a nascent Jewish state with generous support from the diaspora and sympathetic western countries.

Larger diaspora, universaly seen with pity and sympathy in the western world. Probably a larger political voice as a result in Europe, maybe also in the US.

Speaking of which, the US will need more allies in the middle-east to make up for the loss of Israel and may tolerate things that were no-go's in OTL, such as say, an Iraqi takeover of Kuweit, if they needed a well-placed ally. Without support for Israel, the US would probably still end up disliked in the region because it still needs to flex its muscles over energy and early on, to oppose Soviet influence.

All in all, thats quite a few butterflies to take into account. Id say, no need to see topic as flamebait, its potentially very interesting.
 

Deleted member 5719

Egypt would be a stronger country, probably still tending to Arab Socialism, but perhaps without Nasser. The King is toast sooner or later as much for personal reasons than anything else, he had about a quarter of the Shah's political nous, and the Shah was an imbecile.

Political Islam would be a weak, marginal political force, as Arab governments would concentrate on economic development rather than constant sabre rattling, reduced millitarisation leads to less coups. Afleki Baathism would be kinder and gentler... UAR? Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Lebano?
 

Deleted member 5719

Oh, and the Communists would be a lot stronger in most Arab countries. We might see a few Red states.
 
Top