WI: 1949 - Israel and Palestine

Thanos6

Banned
Let's make our PoD here the premature death of David Ben-Gurion; whether by heart attack, car accident, or something else. Without his loud and passionate voice, the other Zionist Jews are willing to compromise more eagerly, which in turn empowers Ibrahim Hashem Pasha, the Nashashibis, and other pro-partition Arab/Palestinian leaders. There is violence from both sides, yes, but it is limited and sporadic compared to OTL, and the leaders are able to bring it under control fairly easily. States are formed according to the UN Partition Plan, with Jerusalem run by the UN, either permanently or temporarily.

Thoughts? Further PoDs that this spawns in future? Or am I ASBing here?

(My first ATL here, be kind, but give me all the criticism you have)
 

GTAmario

Banned
Ben gurion wasn't the only one unwilling to compromise. BTW after January 7 1949 Israel had already occupied the territories in question
 

Thanos6

Banned
I'm aware the Ben-Gurion wasn't the only one, but he was certainly their leader and the loudest. Remove him from the equation, and his followers may lose some of their nerve.

(Or they may not! :) )
 
ASB'ing I would have thought. It depends exactly when in 1949 your POD is, but the War of Independence was over by March 1949 (though the real fighting was basically over by the middle of January) and a series of armistice agreements between February and July established the Green Line that would be the effective border until 1967. Also, the massive wave of immigration that would effectively double Israel's Jewish population in the next three years was getting underway and Israel needed the land gained in the war to have somewhere to put them all.

It's really difficult to imagine the Israelis giving up on all this and retreating to the partition line. Your best bet would be a Palestine on what's left, but it's the Arabs who rejected that idea.
 
I'm agreeing with RPW@Cy on this. The Arabs rejected the partition plans and are most likely unwilling to try and establish themselves as a state. OTL progress as usual.

So basically, ben Gurion dies earlier (he died in '73, IIRC). He won't have his premiership, maybe there is Franco-British collaboration with Israel over Nasser's nationalization of the Suez, no Lavon affair in 1954 (a failed Israeli intelligence plan). More or less OTL
 
Neither side wanted the UN Partition Plan, so killing one person doesn't solve this. Ben-Gurion was actually the leader of the more moderate branch of the Zionist movement.
 
What if we knock Ben-Gurion's death back to '46 or '47?

How would that change the Arabs? They weren't that fond of partition either.

IMHO, you'd need at least a palestinian nationality which separates them from neighbouring Arab countries.
 

Thanos6

Banned
Neither side wanted the UN Partition Plan, so killing one person doesn't solve this. Ben-Gurion was actually the leader of the more moderate branch of the Zionist movement.

He was? My research indicated he wanted all of Palestine for Israel.

(Not saying you're wrong, just saying that's not what I saw)

Monty Burns: Some did, some didn't. That's why I was trying to increase the voice of some of the pro-partition Arabs.
 
He was? My research indicated he wanted all of Palestine for Israel.

That was fairly moderate in 1948. The Revisionist Zionist opposition rejected the UN partition plan outright, insisted on a Jewish state encompassing Transjordan (as well as Palestine) and waged a guerilla campaign against the British.
 
An early death of Ben-Gurion would, if anything make it more likely that a more radical Zionist party would be ascendant in Israel after the war. A less steadfast national leader would have been less likely to confront the Irgun.

No Ben-Gurion probably means that the IDF does not destroy the Altalena in 1948 and its weapons end up in the hands of Irgun fighters. With those weapons in hand the Jewish State may not lose East Jerusalem to the Jordanians. This would make it more likely that Begin would be a more prominent figure in Israeli politics early on. A stronger Irgun movement would mean more annexations of Palestinian land to Israel, and probably more expulsions too at this date.
 
While there would be expulsions of Palestinians, I think that most would leave of their own free will. Most would leave for either Syria, Lebanon or Jordan. IIRC, most of Jordan's population is ethnic Palestinian. So, it's possible any Palestinians who leave either Israel or the territories would head for Jordan.

No Altalena sinking means that there is various Israeli armed factions vying for control, particularly the Irgun and Palmach. The Israeli government might not be established as a legitimate polity, but would probably solve the problem of the armed factions. But Antipater is right, the whole of Jerusalem would have been unified under Israeli control. Which means that if a Six-Days War occurs, it would just be Israel assuming control over Judea/Samaria and Gaza.

@Antipater: When you say Palestinian land, do you mean the land currently claimed by the PA?
 
@Antipater: When you say Palestinian land, do you mean the land currently claimed by the PA?

Yeah. Using "Palestinian" in the 1940's is a bit of an anachronism in any case, since "Palestine" was divided between Syria to the North, Egypt to the South, and Jordan to the East.

I completely agree with you about East Jerusalem. If the Jordanians had not captured in it 1948 and expelled its Jewish residents, "East Jerusalem" would not even be an issue on the negotiating table.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Yeah. Using "Palestinian" in the 1940's is a bit of an anachronism in any case, since "Palestine" was divided between Syria to the North, Egypt to the South, and Jordan to the East.

I completely agree with you about East Jerusalem. If the Jordanians had not captured in it 1948 and expelled its Jewish residents, "East Jerusalem" would not even be an issue on the negotiating table.

shush - nobody is supposed to know about that.....
 
Yeah. Using "Palestinian" in the 1940's is a bit of an anachronism in any case, since "Palestine" was divided between Syria to the North, Egypt to the South, and Jordan to the East.

So what was the Mandate of Palestine? Did it not exist? Palestinian national identity was well established by 1948, having been forged in the nationalist struggle against British colonial rule and Jewish immigration.
 
A stronger Irgun may mean the early death of Israel.

Ben Gurion was absolutely correct in the need to disarm the Irgun and sink the Altalena on the historically proven basis that a nation is unlikely to prosper if there is effectively more than one government, more than one military and more than one military/foreign policy.

In the case of a small and poor nation like Israel in 1948 with contested boundaries and enemies over the borders it would not be prosperity but survival which was at risk.


All that mistake would have meant was, at best, a much bloodier conflict between the Haganah/IDF and the Irgun, with all the inevitable divisions and other consequences for the nascent state. On the other hand I'm sure the British would have gotten a good laugh over Shamir, Begin and others being executed or expelled...
 
From my knowledge of Israeli history (and I am an Israeli) this is totally ASB. Not only Jordan-Egypt wanted Palestinian territories, Israel already took the grounds in question. DBG's death won't stopd the occupation and Annexation of those lands. Furthermore, the partition-plan borders are unrealistic, undefendable, and there is no territorial sequence for both sides. On the other hand, Palestinian, half-puppeted state, is not that ASB.

BTW- it's not called "Irgun", but "Irgun Zva'i Le'umi" ("millitary national organization").
 
Top