What if Palestinian Arab beat Israel during war of independents

Jason222

Banned
It would have been a genocide if Palestinian Arab were able to defeat Jews any help form Arab armies.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean without any intervention from the other Arab states, making it more or less a small scale civil war? Or with the massive intervention that was the case IOTL?

Answers would be somewhat different in the two cases.
 
I assume that, based upon the OP's use of the word "Palestinian" in the question, he means before the the local Arabs. Now, Israel declared its independence a day before the British Mandate of Palestine expired, so in the following day Arab nations invaded, as it was no longer British territory. That would mean that the Arabs would have to defeat the Jews while the mandate is still in effect. That might take a POD before '47.
 
If the state of Israel is crushed in its infancy expect that a great many Jews will be killed, and the rest (even long term/multigeneration residents) expelled. Various Arab leaders (local and other) will divide up whatever is valuable, and I expect that Arab neighbors will take parts of the Mandate, leaving some token Palestinian state - certainly not all of the Mandate.

Most likely those Jews expelled from Israel and also many DPs from Europe end up dispersed. Some get in to the USA, some to Canada, and perhaps Australia welcomes a fair number under the "white Australia" immigration policy. South Africa might also accept a fair number, having a reasonable and well accepted Jewish community already there and willing to accept a bump in white population. Odds & sods end up here & there (South America, etc).

In 2012 "Palestine" is an economic basket case (no natural resources & no educational system etc), politically some sort of typical Arab despotism. because Palestinians re no longer refugees there is no UN funding for anything for them, and other Arab states, especially those with oil money, see no reason to donate to the "Palestinian cause" absent a "cause" - they have their own state, Jews are expelled etc. And, BTW, Jewish holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere have been systematically desecrated/destroyed and Jews are not permitted to visit them as tourists.

You may not agree with this analysis, but you can be 100% sure the one possibility you would not see is a "multi-ethnic/multi-religious" democracy with Muslims and Jews living side by side in harmony and equality.
 
In 2012 "Palestine" is an economic basket case (no natural resources & no educational system etc)
And there isn't an educational system why? I also don't see why it is automatically an economic basket case. At the very least it's going to have a pretty decent tourist industry.
 

amphibulous

Banned
If the state of Israel is crushed in its infancy expect that a great many Jews will be killed.

But is your expectation based on anything other than racism? The Israelis were the atrocity prone side. Even after Deir Yassin there were no full-on retaliatory massacres - the closest approach involved people who had murdered family members executing a few captured Israeli fighters - not civilians including women and children as at DY -and even this was brought to a halt by other combatants.
 

Jason222

Banned
It more the idea Palestinian Arabs and irregulars more successful before British had chance to leave let say week or two before. Two way could happen either Palestinian had national militias force or Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini and brought more Nazi may few thousand or so chance the balance of power in Palestinian favor. When the ALA had artillery and the Jews force did not. Battle Mishmar Ha'emek would like want differently
 

Jason222

Banned
But is your expectation based on anything other than racism? The Israelis were the atrocity prone side. Even after Deir Yassin there were no full-on retaliatory massacres - the closest approach involved people who had murdered family members executing a few captured Israeli fighters - not civilians including women and children as at DY -and even this was brought to a halt by other combatants.
When Palestinian allow to do as they wish their full scale masucers only one they get chance to do was in Kfar Etzion. If wish see evidence please read Benny Morris 1948 The First Arab and Israeli war. In remain Jews village West Bank if Jordan forces that well to take POW all Jews would have been killed if Jordan army escort and protect POW p169. P.219 When East Jerusalem surrender if Jordan army that had protect both Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews from being kill off by mobs. Than Egypt in Negev is another piece of evidence Palestinian done by themselves all Jews killed. The Egyptian army need to prevent the local militiaman that had fought beside them form massacre the POWs. Then of course is Safad Arab town militiaman commander said follow sentence Moral is still very strong the young are enthusiastic we will slaughter them. By way must Jews living in Safad were ultra orthodox . Must if not all ultra orthodox Jews at that time were anti Zionist p 158. So Palestinian pull off must of Jews would have been killed if not all.
 
That would require 1) the Palestinians to have a full army, and 2) the other Arab states *not* to intervene in the war in an attempt to partition Palestine. The great, savage irony of the 1948 war is if the Arab *states* win the war there will still be some variant of a PLO that shows up focusing on liberating Palestine *from other Arabs*. Even more savagely ironic would be if Yasser Arafat shows up as the leader of this ATL PLO and is just as vicious as he was IOTL.

The elephant in the room with achieving this is the Arab Revolt of 1936-9 which gutted Palestinian leadership and meant that they had no means to exploit the beginning of the end of the Mandate. And a butterfly at that specific time will have a *tremendous* impact on the overall nature of the emergence of the Mandate. As for one thing if the British still decide on a White Paper but the Palestinians hold off on a revolt and then the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi start breaking the White Paper and attacking the British as per OTL, well.....:eek:

Even then I'm not sure it would have mattered *that* much as the Haganah and the like were simply better at conventional war and Hajj Amin Husseini was frankly put bad at politics and war both.
 
When Palestinian allow to do as they wish their full scale masucers only one they get chance to do was in Kfar Etzion. If wish see evidence please read Benny Morris 1948 The First Arab and Israeli war. In remain Jews village West Bank if Jordan forces that well to take POW all Jews would have been killed if Jordan army escort and protect POW p169. P.219 When East Jerusalem surrender if Jordan army that had protect both Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews from being kill off by mobs. Than Egypt in Negev is another piece of evidence Palestinian done by themselves all Jews killed. The Egyptian army need to prevent the local militiaman that had fought beside them form massacre the POWs. Then of course is Safad Arab town militiaman commander said follow sentence Moral is still very strong the young are enthusiastic we will slaughter them. By way must Jews living in Safad were ultra orthodox . Must if not all ultra orthodox Jews at that time were anti Zionist p 158. So Palestinian pull off must of Jews would have been killed if not all.

There are two problems with this: 1) Palestinians weren't exactly blessed with an abundance of independent leadership IOTL and 2) it was the Israelis that cleansed their territory of Arabs far more than the other way around. There's another additional problem, far bigger, in that to ensure there's even a possibility of this the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-9 must be averted and if it is then that opens far too many butterflies to say precisely what *would* have happened.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
Having either eradicated or expelled the Jewish settlers, the region is divided. Lebanon takes unnofficial control of Al-Malkiyya, Syria annexes Golan Heights, Jordan, under King Abdullah, takes control of the North Bank, and Egypt occupies South Palestine, with many of the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab Liberation Army also settling there. However many of the Palestinians, initially hopeful of a new era of independence and self-government, begin to resent what they increasingly view as occupation by Jordan, and it becomes clear that King Abdullah had every intention of annexing Palestinian territories to Jordan. The leftist elements of Palestine form the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, a peaceful group who begin nonviolent demonstrations against the Jordanian authorities. However the Jordanians crack down hard on the protesters, seeking to curb the new radical movement. The PLO fighters, commonly known as fedayeen, escalate their conflict with Jordan, to the point that Jordan requests US and British help to contain the conflict. However the British and Americans refuse, partly because of Jordans alleged human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories. With Syria threatening to invade on behalf of the PLO (with their own interests in the Palestinian territories) Jordan backs down and grants the region Independence.
In the meantime, after the Egyptian Revolution, Gamal Abdul Nasser grants independence to Southern Palestine, after years of being nothing more than a controlled territory of Egypt, administered by a military Governor. The Muslim Brotherhood, many of whom initially had fled the Egyptian Revolution, move into Southern Palestine and establish a political party, Hamas, controversially claiming all former Palestinian territory for an Islamic state. They narrowly defeat their opponents Fatah, allied to the PLO in the north. However soon after the election fighting breaks out between the two sides, spilling over into the North Bank as well. The PLO are supported by PKK and Hezbollah, the latter whom worry about a Sunni Islamic regime close to their heartland in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese armed forces then also join the battle on the side of Hamas, seeing the opportunity to destroy militant factions who effectively control Al-Malkiyya and threaten the south of Lebanon.
 
I could totally see wars between various Arab states over spoils later on. Perhaps Syria versus Jordan with Iraq and Egypt on the sidelines.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
I could totally see wars between various Arab states over spoils later on. Perhaps Syria versus Jordan with Iraq and Egypt on the sidelines.

The main split initially in the OTL was transjordan vs everyone else, King Abdullah had well known ambitions to annex Palestinian territories. Once all those factions are in the region, its only a matter of time before it all kicks off. The Egytpian and Syrian revolutions and Lebanese civil wars would add much fuel to the fire, although its debatable if the Lebanese civil war was only made possible by the great number of Palestinian refugees. However you're still left with the Baathists, PLO and other more leftist groups, versus right-wing/ conservative 'Islamic statist' Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, Pan-Arabists. Do the christians remain, or flee to Lebanon? As for the druze and bedouin, do they become second class citizens to the Arabs (although they are Arab and Muslim I think they still regard themselves seperately, to the extent that in OTL they fight for the Israeli armed forces!) And if there are significant numbers of Shia Muslims from Lebanon (who fought for Hezbollah in the War of Independence) that could also lead to regional tensions.
 
Last edited:

amphibulous

Banned
When Palestinian allow to do as they wish their full scale masucers only one they get chance to do was in Kfar Etzion.

This is silly, as well as being misleading in a quite Hitlerian fashion.

Kfar Etzion was the revenge massacre for Deir Yassin that I referred to. Unlike DY, it was the site of combat; the only people killed were combatants; and DY was the explicit motivation. From wikipedia:

When the hopelessness of their position became undeniable on May 13, the defenders of Kfar Etzion laid down their arms and attempted to surrender. The number of people killed and the perpetrators are in dispute. According to one account, the main group of about 50 defenders were surrounded by a large number of Arab irregulars, who shouted "Deir Yassin!" and ordered the Jews to sit down, stand up, and sit down again. Suddenly someone opened fire on the Jews with a machine gun and others joined in the killing. Those Jews not immediately cut down tried to run away but were pursued.


You really can't expect to be able to kill large numbers of civilians - and as you mention Benny Morris, I remind you that he considers there was a widespread use of massacre by the Israelis, intended to cause the Palestinians to flee - and then to able to have your combatants surrender safely when they get scared or bored.
 

amphibulous

Banned
That would require 1) the Palestinians to have a full army, and 2) the other Arab states *not* to intervene in the war in an attempt to partition Palestine. The great, savage irony of the 1948 war is if the Arab *states* win the war there will still be some variant of a PLO that shows up focusing on liberating Palestine *from other Arabs*.

In fact we now know, thanks to research in declassified Israeli diplomatic files, that Israel and Jordan were de facto allies - a marriage made by the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

In 1946–47, Abdullah said that he had no intention to "resist or impede the partition of Palestine and creation of a Jewish state."[28] Hostile towards Palestinian nationalism, Abdullah wished to annex as much of Palestine as possible.[29] Ideally, Abdullah would have liked to annex all of Palestine, but he was prepared to compromise.[30][29] He supported the partition, intending that the West Bank area of the British Mandate allocated for Palestine be annexed to Jordan.[31] Abdullah had secret meetings with the Jewish Agency (at which the future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was among the delegates) that reached an agreement of Jewish non-interference with Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (although Abdullah failed in his goal of acquiring an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea through the Negev desert) and of Jordanian agreement not to attack the area of the Jewish state contained in the United Nations partition resolution (in which Jerusalem was given neither to the Arab nor the Jewish state, but was to be an internationally administered area). In one stunning diplomatic coup, the strongest Arab army agreed not to attack the Jewish state.[32] However, by 1948, the neighbouring Arab states pressured Abdullah into joining them in an "all-Arab military intervention" against the newly created State of Israel, that he used to restore his prestige in the Arab world, which had grown suspicious of his relatively good relationship with Western and Jewish leaders.[28]
Abdullah's role in this war became substantial. He saw himself as the "supreme commander of the Arab forces" and

...Prepare for any of Hitlers or the IJN's stupidities to be surpassed...

"persuaded the Arab League to appoint him" to this position.[33] Through his leadership, the Arabs fought the 1948 war to meet Abdullah's political goals.


The bizarre result was that the supreme commander of anti-Israeli forces was actually an effective Israeli ally!
 
An Israeli ally? No.

Having certain goals more likely to be met via arrangement with Israel than certain Arab governments, particularly a mutual enemy like the Mufti? Yes.


amphibulous, actually the Mount Scopus massacre of an unarmed medical convoy was what triggered Deir Yassin, although the Irgun and their associates needed little excuse to kill people(in my opinion).

As for Kfar Etzion, the entire population certainly did not consist of combatants and they did not surrender due to boredom but due to the success of the Arab Legion in a military assault.
 
This is silly, as well as being misleading in a quite Hitlerian fashion.

You really can't expect to be able to kill large numbers of civilians - and as you mention Benny Morris, I remind you that he considers there was a widespread use of massacre by the Israelis, intended to cause the Palestinians to flee - and then to able to have your combatants surrender safely when they get scared or bored.

Both sides conducted massacres. Neither one held moral superiority over the other. The Hadassah Medical convoy massacre is a prime example of a massacre against the Jewish population, and not even combatants. The Hadassah convoy massacre took place four days after the Deir Yassin massacre. One attack does not justify the actions of the other, and vice versa.
 
An Israeli ally? No.

Having certain goals more likely to be met via arrangement with Israel than certain Arab governments, particularly a mutual enemy like the Mufti? Yes.

Indeed. The prospect of an independent, nationalist Palestine conflicts as much with the international goals of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in particular as it does with the existence of Israel. It's the double-bind Palestinian nationalism's been forced to deal with and IMHO is why a treacherous, two-timing rat bastard like Arafat was able to rise as high and as far as he did: being treacherous, two timing rat bastards is the only way any kind of independence for a PLO would be preserved but that's a very poor basis to build rational, realpolitik politics off of.

To call Jordan and Israel allies overstates the term. Or at least an alliance of anything else other than convenience for a specific timeframe.
 
Top