What would be the scientific, strategic and military consequences of Israel being defeated in 1948 or not existing ?

TheRejectionist

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
2 February 2022
Messages
236
Reaction score
63
What would would happen in a scenario where there Arab coalition DEFEATED the newborn state of Israel OR it is NEVER voted in the UN to exist ?
 
All the surviving Jews would have emigrated to the USA, strengthening the lobby and the Democratic Party even more, taking advantage of the psychological impact of the Soah Mk. II
 
All the surviving Jews would have emigrated to the USA, strengthening the lobby and the Democratic Party even more, taking advantage of the psychological impact of the Soah Mk. II
Why the Democratic party specifically? Just because they were the ruling party of the time?
 
Why the Democratic party specifically? Just because they were the ruling party of the time?
To avoid the "Lindbergh Effect" by all means

 
Without Israel to hate on, all the Arab nations fall upon each other in one of the bloodiest, most genocidal wars in history. The civilized world builds a fence around the Middle East and watches and waits; when they finally wipe each other out, it's back to 19th century colonialism as France and Britain and Russia and Andorra rush to snag now-depopulated terrain and natural resources. But by this time the world has gotten along for a generation or two without ME oil, so the now Atom powered global civilization only needs oil for stuff like plastic.

The European Jews who immigrated en masse to the US in the late 1940s now immigrate into the newly formed state of Greater Israel, stretching from the wastes formerly known as Cairo to the new theme park on the remains of what once was Mecca.
 
Andorra could use its Carrier Battle Groups and Marine Expeditionary Division to stake its claim.
Yup. In this new timeline, Andorra, Switzerland and the Papal States of Rome, Naples and Medina evolve into substantial naval powers.
 
Egypt, Jordan and Syria would still have thrown off British and French administration. They would then have fought endless wars for control of Palestine and Lebanon.
The US and USSR would have vied for influence. Egypt and the Suez Canal would most likely have been secured by the Americans one way or another. Likewise Russia would probably have backed Syria.
The Palestinians would have backed losers as political leaders and Palestine been partitioned between Egypt (Sinai and Gaza) Jordan (Jerusalem and West Bank) Syria (Coastal and Northern).
Jordan would have been still backed by Britain but in the 1950s been absorbed by Iraq which would then have confronted Egypt and Syria for control of Jerusalem.
Exiled Jewish groups in the United States would have urged Eisenhower and then Kennedy to support Egypt. Egypt's ruling monarchy would have survived like the Gulf rulers with Western backing.
The Eid War of 1973 saw Egypt square up against Iraq and Syria for control of Palestine and Jerusalem. General Anwar Sadat used his US supplied F4 Phantoms to wipe out Iraq and Syria's Migs and Sukhois in a "preventive strike". Egyptian M60s and M113s faced hordes of Iraqi and Syrian infantry equipped with Sagger ATGW and RPGs.
As Egyptian forces closed in on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem the USSR put its 103 Airborne Division on standby to deploy. President Nixon responded by landing elements of the Sixth Fleet Marine TF at Haifa.
Kissinger and Gromyko met in New York and organised a UN backed ceasefire. Egypt control the coast, Gaza and Sinai while Syria retained the Golan Heights. Iraq kept the West Bank but Jerusalem would be controlled by the UN.
 
What would would happen in a scenario where there Arab coalition DEFEATED the newborn state of Israel OR it is NEVER voted in the UN to exist ?
UN would likely not allow outright defeat of Israel. It would seriously harm the prestige of great powers, to get their decisions openly denied. So if the Israel would be losing, USA and USSR would likely interfer, pushing for the UN approval of "police action" first, and sending military forces second.

The likely result would be Israel being much more "limited" - likely an outright UN protectorate with American and Soviet forces as peacekeepers on borders.
 
There is an alternative history novel, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yiddish_Policemen's_Union, which is based on a scenario in which during WW II a temporary settlement for Jewish refugees is established in Alaska (of all places - oy vey!) in 1941, and incipient Israel is subsequently destroyed in 1948. Personally, I think though that as opposed to putting people with a hot desert dweller ancestry from historically living roughly around 30 degrees latitude North of the Equator into a climate and culture shock like that, my favorite and in my view much more plausible alternative scenario would instead be a US post WW II strictly voluntary permanent Jewish refugee resettlement offer onto US Federal Land in Nevada, since it is the state with the highest percentage of USG national owned real estate property, with 80.1% of its total landmass being federally managed, and, let's face it, present day Israel is a desert nation as well. I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to compare total land dry and wet areas and carve out favorite gerrymandering maps on the basis of the relevant area sizes between Israel and Nevada. One could even imagine the associated territory before long becoming the 49th state of the union way before Alaska and Hawaii - let's call it New Judea, New Israel, New Bethlehem, or some other such pseudo religio-cute hoyty-toyto hifalutin moniker. It's anyone's guess how many more casinos that state might have by now, but imagine also the potential impact on both national and international politics - please discuss...
 
Last edited:
... resulting in a 'golden era' of peace, prosperity and technological advancement across the progressive Arab states :)
Sure, why not, but with respect to US domestic/internal politics you might want to consider the potential impact of an additional newly minted US state with a presumably staunchly/mostly liberal/leftist/progressive electorate on nationwide house, senate, and presidential elections - I really hope I'll wake up in that alternate universe tomorrow...
 
Last edited:
Without Israel to hate on, all the Arab nations fall upon each other in one of the bloodiest, most genocidal wars in history. The civilized world builds a fence around the Middle East and watches and waits; when they finally wipe each other out, it's back to 19th century colonialism as France and Britain and Russia and Andorra rush to snag now-depopulated terrain and natural resources. But by this time the world has gotten along for a generation or two without ME oil, so the now Atom powered global civilization only needs oil for stuff like plastic.

The European Jews who immigrated en masse to the US in the late 1940s now immigrate into the newly formed state of Greater Israel, stretching from the wastes formerly known as Cairo to the new theme park on the remains of what once was Mecca.
The Arabs have only hated the Jews since 1947, but they have hated the Europeans since the Crusades, it has been fortunate for us that they wasted so much time attacking Israel... before fracking.
 
To avoid the "Lindbergh Effect" by all means

I am a mix of ethnicities and nationalities and while passionate about (mostly contemporary) history, I am not following what Lindbergh has to do with it.
Without Israel to hate on, all the Arab nations fall upon each other in one of the bloodiest, most genocidal wars in history. The civilized world builds a fence around the Middle East and watches and waits; when they finally wipe each other out, it's back to 19th century colonialism as France and Britain and Russia and Andorra rush to snag now-depopulated terrain and natural resources. But by this time the world has gotten along for a generation or two without ME oil, so the now Atom powered global civilization only needs oil for stuff like plastic.

The European Jews who immigrated en masse to the US in the late 1940s now immigrate into the newly formed state of Greater Israel, stretching from the wastes formerly known as Cairo to the new theme park on the remains of what once was Mecca.
I have somewhat doubtful they will TURN on EACH OTHER that quickly or that they will go "Dirlernwanger" on their neighbors.
There is an alternative history novel, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yiddish_Policemen's_Union, which is based on a scenario in which during WW II a temporary settlement for Jewish refugees is established in Alaska (of all places - oy vey!) in 1941, and incipient Israel is subsequently destroyed in 1948. Personally, I think though that as opposed to putting people with a hot desert dweller ancestry from historically living roughly around 30 degrees latitude North of the Equator into a climate and culture shock like that, my favorite and in my view much more plausible alternative scenario would instead be a US post WW II strictly voluntary permanent Jewish refugee resettlement offer onto US Federal Land in Nevada, since it is the state with the highest percentage of USG national owned real estate property, with 80.1% of its total landmass being federally managed, and, let's face it, present day Israel is a desert nation as well. I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to compare total land dry and wet areas and carve out favorite gerrymandering maps on the basis of the relevant area sizes between Israel and Nevada. One could even imagine the associated territory before long becoming the 49th state of the union way before Alaska and Hawaii - let's call it New Judea, New Israel, New Bethlehem, or some other such pseudo religio-cute hoyty-toyto hifalutin moniker. It's anyone's guess how many more casinos that state might have by now, but imagine also the potential impact on both national and international politics - please discuss...
I read it and funnily enough I understood MORE about these alternate scenario than how they found the "whodunit". I don't particulary enjoy on his work on Stark Trek (and from I heard he's a very unethical person in his non-working-life).
... resulting in a 'golden era' of peace, prosperity and technological advancement across the progressive Arab states :)
That's the premise of many "what ifs" I heard from Levantine and North Africans and other pro-Palestinians but I am doubtful of an idyllic scenario. I think it is a middle...ground to what you and @Orionblamblam said, also because many of the things that happen post-1947/8 can be construed or considered AS a result of Israel's coming (or returning) on the map.
Sure, why not, but with respect to US domestic/internal politics you might want to consider the potential impact of an additional newly minted US state with a presumably staunchly/mostly liberal/leftist/progressive electorate on nationwide house, senate, and presidential elections - I really hope I'll wake up in that alternate universe tomorrow...
Aren't adherents to Judaism in the United States mostly secular or what be construed as "left-leaning" / "progressive" and the remaining part a mish mash of followers to "Kahanism", Orthodox Judaism and then anything in between?
The Arabs have only hated the Jews since 1947, but they have hated the Europeans since the Crusades, it has been fortunate for us that they wasted so much time attacking Israel... before fracking.
There's was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Damascus in 1890s if I recall corretly. But I think it is a mixed bag mostly.

Sociologically, I think without an Israel that defeats the secular autocracies that it neighbors today, pan-Arabism might have much less steam, same thing goes for Wahabi-salafists (or whatever was the definition) movements (even with Gulf monarchies backing), there's a somewhat decent margin of the Egytpian monarchy surviving but their penultimate monarchs had a Jewish mistress, mismanaged their affairs and other stuff so there might be ENOUGH fuel to overthrow him, Syria's democracy might survive past the late 1940s and mid-1950s, Jordan's Abdullah I might NOT be assassinated and the union between Iraq and Jordan could last if the coup plotters don't have traction and it wouldn't surprise me if Syria DOES absorb sooner or later Lebannon, I don't see Eisenhower having trouble arguing for an alliance with MENA countries if he doesn't have the "baggage" of Israel.

Technologically, we don't see bullup guns that much in media. Likewise, depending if Uziel Gal survives or not, the Uzi submachine gun MIGHT be invented somewhere else OR not at all. There's also no Desert Eagle or IT DOES look EXTREMELY different than what we know today.We don't see the Merkava tanks.

Geopolitically, the NATO side might have LESS things to worry about in the Mediterranean, with exception to the 1956 Lebannon Crisis, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the Algerian War (wouldn't surprise me if it lasts longer BECAUSE Israel falls, since I am very doubtful it would be a clean affair).
 
I bought the book when it came out because I had read some of Michael Chabon's earlier work. Loved it, as everything since I have read by him.
I don't particulary enjoy on his work on Stark Trek (and from I heard he's a very unethical person in his non-working-life).
I haven't come across any of that, news to me. I bailed on ST several decades ago.
 
It's impossible to extrapolate the consequences of a hypothetical event in 1948, on 2025. So predictions can only be vague.
  1. 1948 - Israel is split between Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

  2. 1948 - 1980s:
    1. Civil war does not erupt in Lebanon.
    2. Syria occupies Lebanon permanently.
    3. USSR militarily dominates middle east.

  3. 1990 - 2025s:
    1. Arab nations start slowly opening to US influence.
    2. Central conflict becomes Arab-Iranian.
    3. Iran militarily and politically dominates the region.
    4. Central conflict evolves to become Turkish-Iranian.
    5. Iran and potentially other Arab states obtain nuclear weapons.
Overall, Israel is an island of western influence in the middle east. Without it, it'd simply develop in ways that would be very much contrary to western interests.
 
Last edited:
Well, who knows how things develop - there are so many branching points.

However, with the absence of an Israel to support, anti-Western feelings will be lessened (but NOT eliminated). Oil shocks around Suez may be avoided, and the Yom-Kippur War will be avoided - and so the world economy and scientific development* should be better.

The Simonstown Agreement will likely not be necessary, meaning British influence East of Suez will be easier to maintain.

Britain may not be ejected from Iraq in 1958, and Iran may be less revolutionary.

Britain probably maintains more influence in the Middle East, and North Sea Oil development is slower. A knock-on is maintaining influence/control in the Med.

Some of these spin-offs from no Suez undoubtedly benefit France too, though Algeria is still likely to be a problem.

Also, without an Israel as a key buyer, does Dassault prosper?

* e.g. Maglev research was pioneered in the UK, but was stopped by the 1973 Oil Shock.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom