America in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War

[IchBinDieKaiser]

How close was America to getting involved in Israel's war of independence in 1948? By getting involved I mean America actually declaring war on the Arab powers and sending soldiers to the middle east. I've heard that Truman supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palistine, especially due to his longtime jewish friend. He was being told not to recognize Israel because it would have cut the United States ties to oil in the region.

So basically, what would it take to get the U.S. involved militarily in the conflict? How would the rest of the world respond, and how would this effect the election of 1948?

 

[gemini83]

It seems highly unlikely. Israel`s military efforts in 1948 were aided largely by Czechslovakian guns (ah the irony), and her army until 1967 was heavily aided by France (ah the irony). The Arab world is too important for America to intervene on behalf of Israel in 1948. By `67 the cold war battle lines had hardened some making the dynamics rather different.

 

[Orville_third]

Wallace supported ending the embargo on Israel...he had even visited the country and made a major speech (for US audiences on US issues) there. I'm not sure what Dewey's position was, or Thurmond's for that matter.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Orville, does it seem likely that the US would refuse to sell arms to a country but would then go to war on behalf of that country?

 

[Minchandre]

How close was America to getting involved in Israel's war of independence in 1948? By getting involved I mean America actually declaring war on the Arab powers and sending soldiers to the middle east. I've heard that Truman supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palistine, especially due to his longtime jewish friend. He was being told not to recognize Israel because it would have cut the United States ties to oil in the region.

So basically, what would it take to get the U.S. involved militarily in the conflict? How would the rest of the world respond, and how would this effect the election of 1948?

Getting the US to intervene militarily in the '48 War is pretty ASB. Honestly, if they were to intervene, it would probably be on behalf of the Arabs in aid of their British homies.

The only way I can see the US helping the Jews directly is if the Soviets help the Arabs directly.

 

[andys]

I recall reading somewhere many years ago that one of the fantasies that the Arabs/Palestinians came up with to explain their defeat in '48 was that the 7th Fleet had helped the Israelis by carrying out airstrikes against the various invading Arab forces.

ASB to you and me but given the Arab propensity for believing this kind of nonsense to explain away their own incompetence...

 

[joea64]

I recall reading somewhere many years ago that one of the fantasies that the Arabs/Palestinians came up with to explain their defeat in '48 was that the 7th Fleet had helped the Israelis by carrying out airstrikes against the various invading Arab forces.

ASB to you and me but given the Arab propensity for believing this kind of nonsense to explain away their own incompetence...

I think that was actually 1967. The whole sequence of events leading up to the Six-Day War has always seemed a bit ASB to me, for that matter. Surely, if the UN and the great powers had been thinking rationally/not been distracted by other things, they'd have sat - hard - on Nasser to compel him to quit provoking Israel, and absolutely not given in to his demand that UN troops be withdrawn from the Sinai.

 

[andys]

I think that was actually 1967. The whole sequence of events leading up to the Six-Day War has always seemed a bit ASB to me, for that matter. Surely, if the UN and the great powers had been thinking rationally/not been distracted by other things, they'd have sat - hard - on Nasser to compel him to quit provoking Israel, and absolutely not given in to his demand that UN troops be withdrawn from the Sinai.

It was definitely '48, there was mention of one of the last British servicemen leaving the country seeing the 7th steaming in the opposite direction, which I thought sounded highly unlikely, having read a few books on the subject previously. Meh, whichever it was, '48 or '67, it's just Arab fantasy/ASB.
In '67 I was 11 years old and vividly recall the impression given by the UK media that little Israel was about to get wiped off the map, only to be totally amazed at what actually happened. I wasn't the only one either. If nothing else, it just goes to show you can always trust the media to get it wrong .

 

[Blitzhund]

I would think that the USA getting involved in '48 on behalf of Israel is incredibly unlikely.

What would have been in it for the USA? As other posters have suggested the Cold War's battle grounds were still being formulated and at that time I don't believe the USSR was supporting any (please let me know if I'm wrong) Middle Eastern nations.

Let's butterfly that all away. The USA gets involved, sends troops, aircraft, materiale and ships to Israel. Israel's independence is simply quickened and USA and UK relations are damaged far more than that of the coming Suez Crisis. The USA loses some soldiers, Israel sends them home without so much as a thank you. What it may hasten, if there is continuing military cooperation between Israel and the USA is Israel getting the bomb before it does in the 70s (or 60s or 80s or maybe it doesn't even have it -HA!).

 

[Dave Howery]

In '67 I was 11 years old and vividly recall the impression given by the UK media that little Israel was about to get wiped off the map, only to be totally amazed at what actually happened. I wasn't the only one either. If nothing else, it just goes to show you can always trust the media to get it wrong .

I remember doing some research on the war, and looking through some old issues of Time magazine. I recall a letter from an Egyptian reader printed the week before the war, basically calling the Israelis cowards and daring them to come out and fight. You can guess how the other readers commented on that the week after the war...

 

[gladiator8085]

Soviet support in 1948

I wrote a paper one time talking about the Soviet/US relations to Israel in 1948. A lot of people thought that Israel would naturally have a very cozy relationship to the USSR because many of the Jews who moved to Palestine after WWII were from Eastern Europe and the USSR.

 

[Minchandre]

I wrote a paper one time talking about the Soviet/US relations to Israel in 1948. A lot of people thought that Israel would naturally have a very cozy relationship to the USSR because many of the Jews who moved to Palestine after WWII were from Eastern Europe and the USSR.

I did the same, and found the same . Plus, a lot of people thought that the British would push the Americans into supporting the Arabs. To someone in 1947, the modern US/Israeli relationship probably looks a little ASB.

I think that was actually 1967. The whole sequence of events leading up to the Six-Day War has always seemed a bit ASB to me, for that matter. Surely, if the UN and the great powers had been thinking rationally/not been distracted by other things, they'd have sat - hard - on Nasser to compel him to quit provoking Israel, and absolutely not given in to his demand that UN troops be withdrawn from the Sinai.

I actually heard a theory (originally posited by Malcolm Kerr) that Nasser didn't want the UN to remove their forces from Sinai. The theory goes that he was just posturing, trying to use Israel as a tool to get troops out of Yemen without losing face, as well as strengthen ties with the always troublesome Syrians. When the UN withdrew for no reason, he was sort of stuck, unable to withdraw without losing massive face. And once he had the Sinai, he couldn't just let the Straits of Tiran stay open...