futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 31, 2018 19:30:35 GMT
What if Israel would have successfully captured the southern West Bank (the territory with East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron) in 1949?
Would this region have looked much more Jewish right now in this scenario?
Would this have any effect on the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars?
Also, would it have been possible to set up an independent Palestinian state in only the northern West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,447
Likes: 12,053
|
Post by stevep on Aug 31, 2018 21:05:06 GMT
What if Israel would have successfully captured the southern West Bank (the territory with East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron) in 1949? Would this region have looked much more Jewish right now in this scenario? Would this have any effect on the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars? Also, would it have been possible to set up an independent Palestinian state in only the northern West Bank and the Gaza Strip? Any thoughts on this?
Given the number of Palestinians fleeing the Israeli advance I suspect there would have been a lot less Palestinians in that territory, which might mean more end up in Jordan and something like the coup to take over that country, in 1970 IIRC, might well succeed. Which would mean that a Palestine would exist, but largely in what's now Jordan.
I suspect that Gaza would probably stay under Egyptian control, at least unless/until they lose it in a war with Israel.
A Yom Kippur War with this Palestinian controlled Jordan is likely to have it joining Egypt and Syria in an attack on Israel. Which given the long border and how tight the situation was in the early days for Israel could make it very nasty and you might end up seeing nukes used. If this doesn't occur then you might have a better chance of a lasting peace, although the status of Jerusalem is likely to be a sticking point.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 31, 2018 22:16:50 GMT
What if Israel would have successfully captured the southern West Bank (the territory with East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron) in 1949? Would this region have looked much more Jewish right now in this scenario? Would this have any effect on the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars? Also, would it have been possible to set up an independent Palestinian state in only the northern West Bank and the Gaza Strip? Any thoughts on this?
1. Given the number of Palestinians fleeing the Israeli advance I suspect there would have been a lot less Palestinians in that territory, which might mean more end up in Jordan and something like the coup to take over that country, in 1970 IIRC, might well succeed. Which would mean that a Palestine would exist, but largely in what's now Jordan.
2. I suspect that Gaza would probably stay under Egyptian control, at least unless/until they lose it in a war with Israel.
3. A Yom Kippur War with this Palestinian controlled Jordan is likely to have it joining Egypt and Syria in an attack on Israel. Which given the long border and how tight the situation was in the early days for Israel could make it very nasty and you might end up seeing nukes used. If this doesn't occur then you might have a better chance of a lasting peace, although the status of Jerusalem is likely to be a sticking point.
1. Yeah, I suspect that a fair number of additional Palestinian Arabs would flee in this scenario. However, some might stay behind due to the fact that, AFAIK, the southern West Bank was mountainous terrain and thus not as easy to flee from. Also agreed that this would probably increase the odds of a Palestinian coup in Jordan in 1970 succeeding since there'd probably be more Palestinians in Jordan in this scenario. 2. Agreed. Also, the question is whether the Six Day War still breaks out on schedule in this scenario. 3. First things first--if the Six Day War still breaks out in this scenario, does Israel go for the northern West Bank or is it content to allow Jordan to keep this territory? As for the Yom Kippur War, Yes, theoretically nukes could be used in this war--though I would think that Great Power intervention would probably be enough to prevent this outcome. As for Jerusalem, considering that Israel would capture it in 1949 in this scenario, there is probably no way in Hell that Israel would be willing to compromise over it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,447
Likes: 12,053
|
Post by stevep on Sept 1, 2018 10:55:02 GMT
1. Given the number of Palestinians fleeing the Israeli advance I suspect there would have been a lot less Palestinians in that territory, which might mean more end up in Jordan and something like the coup to take over that country, in 1970 IIRC, might well succeed. Which would mean that a Palestine would exist, but largely in what's now Jordan.
2. I suspect that Gaza would probably stay under Egyptian control, at least unless/until they lose it in a war with Israel.
3. A Yom Kippur War with this Palestinian controlled Jordan is likely to have it joining Egypt and Syria in an attack on Israel. Which given the long border and how tight the situation was in the early days for Israel could make it very nasty and you might end up seeing nukes used. If this doesn't occur then you might have a better chance of a lasting peace, although the status of Jerusalem is likely to be a sticking point.
1. Yeah, I suspect that a fair number of additional Palestinian Arabs would flee in this scenario. However, some might stay behind due to the fact that, AFAIK, the southern West Bank was mountainous terrain and thus not as easy to flee from. Also agreed that this would probably increase the odds of a Palestinian coup in Jordan in 1970 succeeding since there'd probably be more Palestinians in Jordan in this scenario. 2. Agreed. Also, the question is whether the Six Day War still breaks out on schedule in this scenario. 3. First things first--if the Six Day War still breaks out in this scenario, does Israel go for the northern West Bank or is it content to allow Jordan to keep this territory? As for the Yom Kippur War, Yes, theoretically nukes could be used in this war--though I would think that Great Power intervention would probably be enough to prevent this outcome. As for Jerusalem, considering that Israel would capture it in 1949 in this scenario, there is probably no way in Hell that Israel would be willing to compromise over it.
3) - I would say that Jordan would still be attacked in a 67 equivalent as they were still viewed as potential enemies at that stage by Israel and also N Palestine is a lodgement that potentially threatens to cut Israel in two. At that point Israel have very little depth to protect it against sudden attack and this is most clearly the case in regards to Israel/Jordan. Reduced somewhat because Jordan doesn't have the population and military strength that Egypt or even Syria has but Israel is very thin at this point. Also while the dominant element in Israel at the time was still predominantly secular and liberal there would still be groups arguing for the securing of all the traditional Jewish state.
In terms of Yom Kippur Israel struggled initially because it underestimated elements of the Arab armies, being caught by surprise by the breaching of the Suez Canal defences and then by Egyptian missiles inflicting heavy losses on Israeli armour and airpower in initial counter-strikes, while in the north they were very heavily outnumbered. If a Palestinian controlled Jordan was also among their attackers, especially if it still have the northern West Bank it could mean that Israel is in serious danger of losing quickly, or simply being unable to counter-attack decisively and hence get drawn into a war of attrition that they simply can't afford. In that case some use of their nuclear force, or the threat of it, to at least force a cease-fire might occur.
I agree that Israel would be unwilling to compromise about Jerusalem but given its historical and religious importance I can see a lot of Muslims being unwilling to either, even given Israel's tolerance on the issue of access.
|
|
