Result of Israeli defeat in various wars.
- Thread starter Samm
- Start date
Riain
Banned
I don`t think the great powers would have accepted the complete destruction of Israel in 1967, which is about the only war after 1949 where Israel didn`t have an overt great power backer. In 1956 Britain and France were on Israels side and in 1973 the US was, not a combattant per se but rushed supplies to Israel during the fighting.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Assuming the result somehow were to be the expulsion of the Israelis, the PLO five minutes later starts bushwhacking its fellow Arabs and Arafat starts demanding "Palestine for the Palestinians and the rest of you fuck off."
I think the most likely war for a complete Israeli defeat was 1948 in which case the result would have been large scale massacres of the Jewish settlers and the state of Israel being essentially throttled at birth. The Arabs probably came close asd it was.
In '48 there really weren't any. Most of the Arab states entered fairly last-minute when the British unilaterally terminated the mandate, and that was a concession to popular pressure.
The only Arab state that had the capacity to inflict real damage on the Israelis was Transjordan, and King Abdullah was operating on a secret treaty with the Zionist leadership to split the land between them. He hoped to grab just the Arab parts according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Having more troops would help as much if not more. Israel want really as outnumbered in 49 as commonly believed. The Israelis also had the benefit of being more experienced than their opponents
Snake Featherston
Banned
Nope. The agreement with Transjordan to give the bulk of the non-Israeli part of the Mandate with them meant that the Arab states were not acting as a unified bloc, while Hajj Amin Al-Husseini ensured Palestinian leadership was liked and trusted by nobody.
Orville_third
Banned
If Soviets supplied the Arabs more, or if the US struck back after the sinking of the USS Liberty, or if peacekeeping forces took action after Israeli killings of peacekeepers, 1967 could turn into a defeat.
1973 could have turned into a defeat had the Syrian's continued their advance rather than pausing while Jordan also attacked at the same time rather than staying neutral. As it was it was a close-run thing. Of course Israel did have the nuclear option but if they were forced to do that then they will have already lost politically.
Because Arab assassins would infiltrate the West and kill all the Jews living there?
Seriously, Israeli scare tactics aside, there isn't much evidence that the Arabs would be any more bloody towards the Jewish population then the Israelis were towards the Palestinians. There will be mass expulsions, certainly, but to say that there would be genocide, or even a second holocaust really overestimates the bloodlust of the Arabs.
OS fan
Banned
No, rather because I think it would kill the spirit of the Jews if their last resort was destroyed and noone cared.
Even in our world, many American Jews intermarry and don't care much for either their culture or religion. I think this would be even worse if Israel was destroyed.
While the Orthodox Jews may well continue (their birth rate is quite high), they'd be a small minority, and we can't exclude the possibility that somewhen in the future something happened to them.
Even in our world, many American Jews intermarry and don't care much for either their culture or religion. I think this would be even worse if Israel was destroyed.
While the Orthodox Jews may well continue (their birth rate is quite high), they'd be a small minority, and we can't exclude the possibility that somewhen in the future something happened to them.
:sigh:
Again, in '73, neither Syria nor Israel were seeking to destroy Israel. Sadat had already offered peace - publicly - if Israel gave back the Sinai. The objective of that campaign was simply to regain the Sinai and the Golan - and maybe, if successful enough, get Israel to handover Gaza and the WB. Neither Egypt nor Syria had the capacity to destroy Israel proper.
Again, in '73, neither Syria nor Israel were seeking to destroy Israel. Sadat had already offered peace - publicly - if Israel gave back the Sinai. The objective of that campaign was simply to regain the Sinai and the Golan - and maybe, if successful enough, get Israel to handover Gaza and the WB. Neither Egypt nor Syria had the capacity to destroy Israel proper.
Oh, I misunderstood what you meant. Apologies.
Still, Jews have survived as a minority in Europe and the Middle East (admittedly, not very well at times) for 1000's of years, so there is no reason to think that the loss of a state in its infancy would permanently harm the Jewish identity sufficiently enough to cause the long term extinction of the Jewish people.
What could UN peacekeepers possibly do to seriously damage Israel? Launch strategic bombing raids on Jerusalem?
Snake Featherston
Banned
Given Israeli Jews have made it clear that they can define who is and isn't a Jew (and American Jews aren't meeting their self-proclaimed standard) then perhaps. It would be worth the question of why the disappearance of a fourth Jewish state would create the end of Jewish identity when the prior three did nothing of the sort.
I see. So how, then, did Jewish identity survive in that thousands of years when the only Jewish state was the Khazar Khanate? Why does Jewish identity need a state to last? Palestinians have managed to keep a national identity despite convolutions in that as convoluted as anything with Jews, why are Jews less capable of sustaining a national or cultural identity than the Palestinians are?
I doubt the arabs could have won in 1967. The Israeli vs Arab unit and officer quality gap was simply too much. Too my knowledge, the Israelis never even suffered a tactical defeat, much less were put in danger of losing the war. The best cances for an Israeli defeat would be 1948, before the quality gap developed and 1973, when more competent arab militaries inflicted tactical defeats on the Israelis. Also, 1973 could see Jordan (the best army in the arab world) entering the war.
OS fan
Banned
In pre-enlightenment times, the Jews formed separate societies within Christian and Muslim states. They weren't safe from pogroms, but they could keep their culture. What would happen with the diaspora in the long run? As I said, more intermarriages, less Jews caring about their culture and religion, not to mention falling birthrates.
I think the same happened to the "lost Jewish tribes" who were forcibly resettled in Babylon.
Besides, I can't believe how you are neglecting the shock factor. I am not Jewish myself, but I think they would have been deeply shocked if shortly after the horros of WWII and the holocaust the young state of Israel was destroyed. Don't you think they'd lose hope?
And comparing Jews and Palestinensians is simply ridicilous. Especially since I was talking about a time interval several times the time the Palestinensians have been displaced.