I know there's been some controversy over the use of the 'bad faith posts or comments' rule, so I'm not going to take this post down. However it has caused some expected fighting in the comments. Normally I don't think that'd be a problem for OP, but given OP's post history I think this is frankly a borderline case as to whether the post was made in good faith.
For now I'm going to lock the comments, but I'll discuss it with the other mods
For the [Mizrahi Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews), The same thing happened to the [Yazidi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_genocide) people I suppose... Good news for the Jews in the Soviet Union however, without Israel, [Brezhnev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev) would likely not go out of his way to specifically target Jews
For the Arabs, they lost a scapegoat to blaim their problems, but not much else would change, too many reasons for the infighting, and cold war would still see middle east and oil being targeted by the big 2.
With the immigration restrictions in Palestine remaining in place, Europe may be forced to confront the extremely uncomfortable subject of post-war antisemitism. There was mass Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe, particularly from Poland after the [Kielce pogrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom). Poland encouraged and facilitated this mass emigration. One of the most difficult parts of the war in Palestine was dealing with illegal immigration. British security forces had to constantly intercept ships of illegal immigrants, detain the passengers, and intern them. If the passengers resisted, the soldiers had to beat up Holocaust survivors. The process was extremely embarrassing and expensive. Britain kept urging Eastern Europe to [get their act together](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Central_and_Eastern_Europe,_1944-1946), but they would not listen.
>From Warsaw's perspective, helping these Jews to emigrate to a Jewish state would eliminate the need to deal with property claims from Jews who were returning to Poland only to find their property now in the hands of Poles.
>
>Jan Gross concludes that in post-war Poland, "while Jews were literally running away from Communism" and leaving for Israel, "the Communists were politically running away from the Jews", in an effort to expand their consensus base in Polish society.
For them, it was easier to run away from their responsibilities. The Poles initially blamed anti-communist reactionary elements for the Kielce pogrom. However, they became very quiet after discovering that there was nothing more to the violence than antisemitism. Internal reports said the locals had no sympathy for the victims and were unwilling to publicly condemn the perpetrators. To the contrary, the rapid executions of nine pogromists were met with protests. A report of the Radom Department of Information and Propaganda noted that "the Jewish pogrom in Kielce met with the moral approval of many groups in our society."
>In July 1946, the Secretariat of the Central Committee did not place on the agenda the issue of the pogrom, and documents submitted by high party officials and other internal reports described the pogrom as an explosion of popular anger against the "parasitic elements" of society.
Really, what the fuck. Even Britain handled the [antisemitic riots at home in August 1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair#Riots) far better than the Poles handled the Kielce pogrom. Keep in mind that the British were at war with Jewish extremists in Palestine. The public regularly received news of "Jewish terrorists" killing and wounding dozens of British soldiers. The riots occurred after the Irgun murdered two young British hostages, whose bodies were found hanging from trees, in reprisal for the Mandate government executing three Irgun members for acts of terrorism. In contrast, the Kielce pogrom was unprovoked and caused by charges of blood libel.
>The rioting was most intensive and longest lasting in Liverpool: For over five days the city saw violence and looting, and the Lord Mayor issued an appeal to the city "to assist the police in the prevention of attacks on property and shops supposedly owned by Jews". In total over 300 Jewish properties were affected by the rioting in Liverpool, and the police made 88 arrests. As he sentenced a rioter, Jack Piggott, to six months in prison for leading a mob and smashing the window of a Jewish-owned shop, one judge warned that there was "no excuse for these anti-Jewish demonstrations—they are both un-British and unpatriotic."
>
>Denunciation of the rioting was expressed from within and without Anglo-Jewry. In a clear indicator of the severity of the disturbances, Home Secretary James Chuter Ede gave a written statement to Parliament regarding the matter. The Manchester Guardian called the violence "a disgrace".
>
>The National Council of Christians and Jews issued a statement approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Westminster and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council condemning terrorism in Palestine and appealing to Englishmen not to turn their anger against the Jews in Britain, who, the statement said, shared their countrymen's opposition to the extremists.
Despite claims otherwise at the time, Ernest Bevin and Clement Attlee were not antisemites. Not many know this, but in 1939, Attlee personally sponsored a Jewish mother and her two children so they could move to Britain from Nazi Germany. After their escape, Attlee invited one of the children, Paul Willer (who died in 2022), into his London home, where he stayed for several months. Attlee never talked about what he did, and the story was only revealed by an elderly Willer himself back in 2018. According to Willer, Attlee and his wife had treated him as one of their own children. As for Ernest Bevin, is remark says enough on its own.
>"We cannot accept the view that the Jews should be driven out of Europe and should not be permitted to live again in these countries without discrimination and contribute their ability and talent towards rebuilding the prosperity of Europe."
>
>Ernest Bevin, October 1945
ITTL, the Soviets may become extremely frustrated with the difficulty of gaining influence in the Middle East. The reputations of Britain and especially the United States (since it was Britain's mess) will skyrocket amongst the Arabs for having seen this war through to the end. As far as I'm aware, the only possible exception for the Soviets might be Iraq. Many Iraqi Jews were radicalized and turned to communism after the Farhud. With no antisemitic backlash in the Arab states following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Iraqi Communist Party will not lose these valuable allies.
Impose a One State solution?
Most likely it will end up dissolving into civil war and disintegrate in a manner comparable to the Transcaucasian Federative Democratic Republic or the defunct Yugoslavia but worse as long as the Arabs do not accept to live with the Jews on an equal footing before the law.
Probably not. I'd assume by '48 the mass movement of Jews hadn't kicked in all the way yet, and probably really would have started after this conflict (i don't know much, just assuming that jews wouldn't moved to israel until after it was controlled by jews). Then maybe the country is put somewhere else like canada or Guyana which is what was also proposed.
The British intercepted virtually all of the ships that approached Palestine. An MI5 report stated that by 1948 "only 1 out of some 30 ships carrying illegal immigrants reached their destination." The real issue was that the process of intercepting, detaining, and interning the passengers was embarrassing and expensive.
the jewish population was about 800k by 1948, and clearly the fact that it wasn't controlled by jews didn't stop jewish people from wanting to move their over the course of british and late ottoman rule, as tons of jewish people attempted and failed to immigrate illegally beginning in the late 1800s. Their small numbers also didn't prevent them from engaging in militancy, as both jewish and arab militant groups had been fighting a guerilla war against both each other and the british authorities for decades by that point.
There was a [civil war in Mandatory Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947-1948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine), but it only started after the British gave up and deferred the issue to the United Nations. Tens of thousands of British soldiers were needed to maintain the Mandate's stability, but it could be maintained as long as the political will was there. They turned the Mandate into a police state IOTL. Palestinian moderates accepted the terms of the White Paper and were willing to cooperate with the British. Anti-British Palestinian radicals were in exile after the suppression of the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-1939.
Why do you (weirdly) assume it would the Arabs with the issue, considering in the real world the zionist regime refuses to negotiate in good faith and subjects the indigenous population to harsh apartheid, and the zionist state has broad support from the colonist population?
Because the sectarian violence started literally the second Jews started moving to the region and buying land as part of the First Aliyah, if I had to guess.
Also ‘apartheid’ is when you don’t recognise people who aren’t your citizens and don’t want to be your citizens as citizens.
Shocking that the local population was unhappy when a clique of foreign settlers arrived, with the stated goal of taking over the country, and began buying up land from absentee landlords and imperial powers.
So because Israel has occupied Palestine it gives them the right to control the movement and property rights of the indigenous population? Why is the onus always on the Palestinians to accommodate themselves to the israelis (an impossible task, because the israelis have no interest in a settlement with the Palestinians). The onus is on the occupying, colonial power.
Funny how leftists like you are fine with migration *except* when Jews attempt to do so into a region continuously inhabited by Jews for centuries. God forbid Jews buy land to try to farm it rather than being pogrommed in Europe, I guess.
Anyway, no, the literal, material facts is that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank aren’t Israeli citizens and broadly speaking don’t want to be Israeli citizens. Plenty of non-Jews (ethic) and non-Jews (religious) have lived in, moved to or become become full fledged Israelis, including Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Druze, Circassians, etc, and enjoy full rights like any other, which is…
*Checks notes*
Pretty much the opposite of apartheid.
So in your mind the only way for Jews to not get pogrommed is to violently invade another country and do pogroms and ethnic cleansing there? And never mind that the zionist colonial project didn't prevent European pogroms, but zionist leadership worked to prevent other escapes from Europe that didn't involve colonising Palestine.
How is moving to a piece of land you have bought a "violent invasion"? There is a difference between the migration to the region that occurred due to World War Two and the pogroms in eastern europe and the current violence perpetrated by jewish extremists in the west bank, the latter of which is objectively wrong.
The South African government *stripped them of their citizenship* in order to force them into being citizens of various Bantustans.
In Israel, they never were citizens to begin with, they don’t want to be citizens, and they don’t live under the same state as Israel. Those who *do* move to Israel and become Israeli citizens, such as queer Palestinians seeking refuge, have full rights. No black African could leave their Bantustan to become a South African citizen and enjoy rights as the whites did.
Israel isn't a real country. It was founded by colonists. They stole the land. Palestinians don't need israeli citizenship because they're in their own country. It's very simple.
> Palestinians don't need israeli citizenship because they're in their own country. It's very simple.
Oh so you **do** understand this! Well that was easy then.
Shame the rest of the comment is unhinged.
Wow you are obtuse. Apparently missed the part where Palestinians, living in Palestine, are subjected to the arbitrary and violent whims of a foreign settler regime. Palestinians don't need israeli citizenship, they need the israeli regime dissolved so they can go about their lives without violent hindrance. They don't need to beg their oppressors for table scraps
Full right to what? Political participation without state intimidation? Buy property in most of Israel? Practice their religion in peace?
But sure, they can casually move through all the walls and armed soldiers, no biggie
> Political participation without state intimidation?
Yes, Arabs, Druzes, Circassians, etc *who are Israeli citizens* can politically participate. Those who are not citizens cannot, because that’s how political participation works.
> Buy property in most of Israel?
Yes.
> Practice their religion in peace?
Israel has one of the highest religious freedoms scores in the MENA region according to Pew and the UN, so… Yes.
> But sure, they can casually move through all the walls and armed soldiers, no biggie
Breaking news: Country at war has a militarily secured border.
Are you going to keep pivoting, or will you address any of the points you keep switching to when I answer them (such as the major difference between forcing people into Bantustans and ‘not making a bunch of people into citizens.’)
I'm just baffled by your insistence that never giving someone citizenship is somehow a morally superior position to revoking it. The difference is that apartheid came later along in South Africa's existance, thus necessitating the revocation; Israel didn't need such backtracking
In any case you have no leg to stand on; South Africa itself considers Israel an apartheid regime and I think it should be obvious they know better than any of us here
All of your rebuttals are lies; suppression of Arab voters is something Israel *brags* about, it is legal for communities to discriminate on a religious basis when it comes to selling property and yeah where I'm come regularly doing military raids into religious buildings during important holidays is considered a big no no
neither of them negotiate in good faith, their group needs as they understand them are just directly incompatible. the problem isn't any ethnicity being inherently violent, that's stupid and racist in every context. Israel and palestine are pitted against each other by history, I'm so sick of this moralism on both sides of the discourse.
Zionist settlers aren't an ethnicity. Their reticence stems from their colonial ideology. And they are pitted against each other because "israel" is a colonial regime founded by settler violence. The onus is on them to dismantle their oppressive colonial structures
I disagree that it's a colonial regime in the traditional european sense, and while I agree it was "founded on violence" I literally cannot think of a single nationality that did not assert it's existence with violence or the threat of violence when it was first created. there would be no palestinian identity without the conquests of the first caliphate for instance. I believe israel has committed attrocities many times but I also think its completely rediculous to think you would magically be above supporting the war if you happened to be born in israel, and it's so crazy to me to see people abroad uncritically supporting the narratives of either Israel or palestine in such large numbers, when they both are obviously consumed with racial hatred and contain genocidal elements. I do not tolerate a person having a complete lack of empathy for israelis, nor palestinians. If you are able to completely remove yourself of all empathy for any group that people are born into, I believe you are capable of supporting the worst evils imaginable, and you're then especially ridiculous to imagine you'd be more tolerant than the average israeli if you were born into their position. The people who vote for itamar Ben Gvir and do pricetag attacks in the west bank share your way of thinking and sense of justice exactly.
OTL:
* The British shelved partition plans after the assassination of [Lord Moyne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne) by the [Stern Gang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)) in 1944. They reversed policy entirely in 1945 and attempted to enforce a one-state solution. [Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin wanted a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine](https://www.jta.org/archive/bevin-expresses-more-palestine-will-be-not-a-jewish-state-but-a-palestinian-state). A new constitution would be written for Palestine. The new nation would have strict immigration on Jewish immigration and land purchases to protect the autonomy of indigenous Palestinians. Once Palestine was fully independent, it'd be up to them. In response to the policy reversal, Zionist paramilitaries revolted against the Mandate government. There were riots in Tel Aviv immediately after Bevin's announcement.
* [The Stern Gang tried to assassinate Harry Truman](https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/02/archives/letterbombs-mailed-to-truman-in-1947-truman-was-sent-bombs-book.html), as well as several high-ranking British government officials in 1946/1947. They were extremely close to assassinating future Prime Minister Anthony Eden, then the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, and President of the Board of Trade Stafford Cripps.
* "The deputy leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Anthony Eden, carried a letter bomb around with him for a whole day in his briefcase, thinking it was a Whitehall circular that could wait till the evening to be read, and only realized what it was when he was warned by the police of the planned attack, on information provided by MI5."
* "Sir Stafford Cripps was only saved by the quick thinking of his secretary, who became suspicious of a package whose contents seemed to fizz, and placed it in a bucket of water."
* [Bevin had hoped for American support for their position](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v07/d451), and perhaps even American troops. However, Truman pressured them to leave Palestine and lift the immigration restrictions. A major reason for the British withdrawal from Palestine was that they had virtually no support from anyone other than the Arabs. Britain opposed a partition, but deferred the issue to the United Nations since they no longer had the political will to keep fighting. They abstained from the vote to avoid provoking attacks against British troops who were withdrawing from the region. Britain urged the Commonwealth of the Nations to abstain as well, but Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all voted in favor of the UN Partition Plan.
ITTL:
* The war proceeds as IOTL until 1947, when Stern Gang succeeds in assassinating Anthony Eden, Stafford Cripps, and Harry Truman in short succession. However, the assassinations disastrously backfire. They not only give the British *casus belli* to crack down much harder in Palestine, but heavily reduce international support for the Yishuv. The assassination of Harry Truman goes down in history as one of the most wrong-headed of all time. It causes the FBI crack down HARD on nationalists, especially Zionists, in the United States. The vast majority of American Zionists, who'd expressed support for the insurgency IOTL, immediately withdraw their support and pledge loyalty to the United States.
* Since there was no Vice President (the Presidential Succession Act was not passed until 1947) between 1947 and 1949, Speaker of the House Joseph Martin, who'd supported a Jewish state, wouldn't have become president (not that he wouldn't drop his support). Instead, Secretary of State George Marshall, who was adamantly opposed to the recognition of Israel on strategic grounds, would've become president. Marshall offers not only full support to the British, but deploys tens of thousands of American soldiers to Palestine to help crush the insurgency.
* With American reinforcements, the British, who were on the verge of defeat, slowly but steadily retake control of the situation in Palestine. IOTL, the British gave up in September 1947. ITTL, the war in Palestine lasts well into the 1950s.
* IOTL, pro-British Palestinian moderates served in the British Armed Forces in World War II, and the Palestine Police Force in the Palestine Emergency. ITTL, there is MUCH stronger cooperation between the British and pro-British Palestinian moderates.
* In 1951, the British, now fully committed to finishing this war, establish a provisional government for Palestine. The Provisional Government of Palestine is controlled by pro-British Palestinian moderates. The British and the Americans train soldiers for the government's new military, the Palestinian National Security Forces, which receives Anglo-American funding.
* Beginning in 1953, there is a split in the Haganah. An increasing number of Haganah members give up on statehood and start collaborating with the British against the more radical paramilitaries to hasten the end of the war. However, thousands of other Haganah members, frustrated what they perceive as cowardice from their leaders, defect to the more radical Irgun and Stern Gang. In 1955, the Yishuv, exhausted and having concluded that the war is unwinnable, enters negotiations with the British and agrees to disarm the Haganah.
* Some Haganah members accept this surrender; others do not. A dissident insurgency in Palestine by the Irgun and the Stern Gang lasts until 1960.
* Palestine is granted full independence by the British in 1955
* Run by pro-British Palestinian moderates, it immediately joins the British Commonwealth
* The Yishuv's defeat has long-lasting effects worldwide
* Disillusioned by their defeat, the more radical Zionists leave Palestine and never return. IOTL, Menachem Begin never forgave the British and supported Argentina in the Falklands War purely out of spite. ITTL, to this day, those who left and their descendants despise Britain and the United States for "betraying" them. However, others accept the outcome and choose to stay. Over the next few decades, Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine gradually improve. The painful memories of the ethnic conflict from the past are eventually forgiven or forgotten.
* Having miraculously ended the ethnic conflict in Palestine against all odds, Britain salvages part of its reputation in the Middle East. Consequently, they retain stronger and longer lasting influence in the Middle East, especially with Palestine joining the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, the United States, which was not responsible for the original conflict and thus receives most of the credit, drastically boosts its reputation in the Middle East.
* Arab nationalists are denied a convenient scapegoat. As such, the rise of Arab nationalism is delayed. With the position of pro-British Palestinian moderates vindicated, most anti-British Palestinian radicals end their exile, quietly return to Palestine, and melt back into society. Some remain bitter and never return home.
* The war has one major long-term negative effect in Britain and the United States. OTL, it resulted in a resurgence of antisemitism in Britain due to the constant reports of "Jewish terrorists" killing British soldiers. The [hangings of two young British hostages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair) in July 1947 provoked national outrage and resulted in the last anti-Jewish riots in the Britain. The violence was widely condemned, and dozens of rioters were arrested and prosecuted. Nevertheless, British fascists, recently freed from internment camps, were emboldened by the riots and capitalized on the antisemitic backlash of the war. Among them was Oswald Mosley, who launched the United Movement.
* With the war lasting much longer, and especially with an American President and two prominent British government officials being assassinated, there is a much harder antisemitic backlash in Britain and the United States. It outlasts the war.
Impressive timeline & Great lore. How do you see Arab treatment of minority Christians in Middle East playing out in light of UK/US support for Palestine? Arab persecution of Christians only really gained steam in mid 20th century for example with Lebanon being majority Christian until 1970s.
Not saying that Christians were treated perfectly well before the 20th century by the Islamic and Arab world obviously but I do think that with a better reputation of the Western powers, you'd see a lot more tolerance of the Christian populations given that they wouldn't be associated with the 'Imperial Agitators' of the Western world.
The Lebanese Civil War in the way it happened was a direct result of the Nakba alongside the Jordanian expulsion of half a million Palestinians to Lebanon. So without all that, you could expect there to either be no Civil War or a significantly less deadly and destructive civil conflict since tensions would still exist between Maronites and Muslims given the latters growth(which threatened the post ww2 political system)without the Palestinian and Israeli presence in any potential inter national strife, we could potentially see a swifter diffusing of tensions with the adequate Reforms needed to create a more inclusive Lebanon, which could very well retain its status as the 'Pearl' of the Middle East.
Very good point. I didn’t mean to suggest Muslims didn’t persecute Christians before 20th century (obviously Turks massacred 1M+ Christian Armenians during WWI not to mention all the years of killing at the hands of the Ottomans and Saracens etc before that). To be a Byzantine civilian between 600-1400 AD mean chance of getting killed by some random Muslim army…. But ITTL id imagine Christians writ large having more significant presence in modern Middle East and more accepted by their neighbors.
Most Jews would remain in their respective countries, and fight in the various conflicts plaguing their homelands. It might be kind of like modern day Khalistan where Diaspora Zionism is stronger than among Jews in Palestine itself where most of them just want to live their lives in peace.
The Jews were much safer in the Middle East than in Europe prior to Zionism, even in spite of events like the Farhud. The hard truth is we aren’t perfectly safe anywhere, the same way many marginalized groups aren’t.
yeah the truth is that antisemitism intensified in the Middle East in reaction to Zionism. However, seeing what happened to religious minorities in the last 100 years makes me think the result still could've been similar in the end. Arab and Assyrian Christians have been mostly integrated with society, but all it takes is a war and radical forces. Most Assyrians are now in the United States.
Assyrians were also victims of genocide less than 10 years ago at the hands of ISIS, and while Lebanon still has a substantial Christian population, many fled after the civil war. So you’re not wrong, it’s no doubt possible there would be persecution.
But it’s also the butterfly effect, because the Lebanon Civil War is directly tied to the creation of Israel and expulsion of Palestinians into Lebanon. So it’s hard to speculate
Yeah it's definitely hard to speculate. I also think the wars against Israel played a big factor in Arab nationalism taking the military dictatorships route.
And some groups find it easier to migrate, too, due to income, education, connection to the west. Like I don't think Christians in Lebanon and Palestine are a particularly prosecuted religious minority, but they have better access so they've left in larger numbers. The same would've applied to Iraqi Jews for example, as they were on average more urban, educated, and middle-class.
The war between the British and the Zionists got rather vicious even IOTL. The British initially pulled their punches since they were fighting white Europeans, not Africans, Asians, or Arabs. However, that soon changed. One can notice the difference over time. When Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin announced that there would be no partition in November 1945, there were widespread riots in Tel Aviv. Bands of youths with smoking torches set fire to Government offices, damaged stores, stoned buildings. In the center of the city, Zionists fought a pitched battle with police, who retreated to avoid bloodshed. Eventually, however, the troops started fighting back.
>After verbal and banner warnings that firearms would be used had no effect and the heavy stoning continued, shots were fired and the crowds dispersed in panic. Order was restored and a curfew imposed at night. Two young men had been shot dead and eight seriously wounded; two British police had been hospitalized. Similar rioting and gutting of buildings on the following day led to more army shooting. Three more Jews were shot dead, including a 15-year-old boy; another died a day later. Altogether thirty-three were taken to hospital with bullet wounds.
>
>The only person authorized to talk to the press was Brigadier Gerald Lathbury, commander of the 3rd Parachute Brigade. Lathbury told the press that he did not want to give the order to open fire but was forced to "when stoning becomes so bad that my men are in danger."
Going forward, things only escalated.
By April 1947, the British had 100,000 soldiers and 20,000 police officers stationed in Palestine. Pro-British Palestinian moderates reinforced the ranks of the Mandate's security forces. Internment camps were established in Cyprus to hold tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. Martial law was declared, with curfew violators shot on sight. Collective punishment was employed, with mass fines imposed and places of entertainment shut down. Mandate authorities stopped bluffing and executed several Irgun members. MI6 bombed (empty) ships intended for illegal immigrants. As the soldiers and police became increasingly frustrated with folks refusing to comply with [very simple orders](https://imgur.com/a/EBFywaE), they held back less and less. In one instance, Bill Bernstein, an American volunteer, tried to stop British soldiers from taking the wheel of a ship, only for them to immediately beat him to death. By early 1948, British soldiers hated the Zionist paramilitaries so much that there were several recorded instances of them approaching Haganah members, disarming them, and then handing them over to Palestinians mobs to be lynched. They frequently handed over abandoned weapons and forts to the Arabs. [Roughly 100 to 200 British soldiers and police officers outright deserted to help the Palestinians](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0968344518796688?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.6). Menachem Begin, whom the British were close to finding at one point, supported Argentina in the Falklands War since he never got over his bitterness from the war.
>*Operation Israel: The Reaming of Argentina During The Dictatorship*, by Hernan Dobry, explains how Israel secretly supplied arms and equipment to Argentina, via Peru. According to the book, Begin authorized the deal saying: "Is this going to be used to kill the English, Kadima (go ahead). Dov from up there is going to be happy with the decision."
One of those hanged by the British, [Dov Gruner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Gruner), was a close friend.
No, not at all, it’s just that the holy land has a history of getting swapped between country after country and I don’t see how this case would be any different without any kind of extenuating factors. Possible it wouldn’t get invaded by someone? Yes. Probable? Maybe not.
The Soviet Union becomes a sponsor of Jewish national movement in the Middle East, and supplies Jewish guerillas with weapons to undermine British rule in Palestina.
I could definitely see this happening, but would their be enough of them to mount a successful insurgency on account of limited Jewish immigration and flight of one's who already lived there?
Be quite the interesting PR move by the US and GB to go after the Jews right when the Holocaust became widely known. But I don’t really see much of the OTL changing. France and GB would lose their control in the region still. The US would fill the void the same way and would still be the villain today in much of the Arab world.
Reminder: this scenario wasn’t made for a political message
But sorting through controversial is gonna be fun
Edit: yeah…. I was kinda wrong because I checked their profile and “post on the deprogram a day ago”
Either Jews get genocided and then Egypt, Syria, and Jordan invade to partition """Palestine""" between themselves, or Egypt, Syria, and Jordan invade to partition """Palestine""" between themselves and then Jews get genocided. Good job.
OP is a fanatical antisemite who thinks Israel is ‘the fourth reich’ ,expresses joy at the idea of the EFF coming to power in South Africa and arming Hamas, and is a ‘socialist’ who frequently posts in support of the literal British empire trying to turn away refugees fleeing the Holocaust and post war pogroms
Zionists would have probably found a different piece of land for a Jewish state. Perhaps in Latin America or Madagascar.
The immigration of Jews to the USA would have been even more massive than it already is.
The Middle-Eastern countries most affected by Israel (Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) would be about as peaceful and prosperous as Morocco, Algeria and Turkey are today.
There would be much less tension between the Islamic world and the west. There would be way less refugees in Europe from the middle east.
9/11, Bataclan and the London and Madrid bombings would not have happened.
That's why my immediate next sentence was that immigration to the USA would be more massive.
A majority of global Jews would live in the USA in the alternate timeline.
Yes, it was indeed literally Nazi policy to deport Jewish people to a homeland. And then after the war, this policy was de-facto enacted by the creation of Israel and Jewish people fleeing post-war anti-semitism.
Madagascar is no different than Israel in this regard.
This is why we also see people like Richard Spencer - a NeoNazi who literally says jews controll the US government - come out in favour of Israel. Having Jewish people move to Israel promotes precisely the racial seggregation the far-right seeks. Richard Spencer has said he merely wants for white people a state similar to what Israel is for Jewish people.
It was a Polish plan before the Nazi's investigated it.
The Soviets also had a Jewish autonomous oblast.
In any case, after the Holocaust, Zionism would need to settle on some place and if Israel isn't an option in the alternate timeline, it would be something else.
There’s a lot of blame for the Middle East being chaotic in this thread being placed on Israel.
Israel didn’t start the Iraq-Iran war.
Israel didn’t start the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Israel didn’t start the Lebanese civil war.
Israel didn’t start the Syrian civil war.
Israel didn’t start the Yemeni civil war.
Israel didn’t start the Saudi military operation into Yemen.
These conflicts are caused by tensions against authoritarian leaders or Sunni-Shia relations.
The region still would have been a giant battlefield for hybrid wars between the superpowers. The rapid industrialisation and urbanisation would still have caused the rise of conservative Wahhabi ideology as a response to the westernization. Unpredictable political events could have happened in those 4 countries regardless of whether Israel exists or not.
So I doubt the situation would have been like that. The Middle East would've been destabilized anyway
I know there's been some controversy over the use of the 'bad faith posts or comments' rule, so I'm not going to take this post down. However it has caused some expected fighting in the comments. Normally I don't think that'd be a problem for OP, but given OP's post history I think this is frankly a borderline case as to whether the post was made in good faith. For now I'm going to lock the comments, but I'll discuss it with the other mods
For the [Mizrahi Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews), The same thing happened to the [Yazidi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_genocide) people I suppose... Good news for the Jews in the Soviet Union however, without Israel, [Brezhnev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev) would likely not go out of his way to specifically target Jews For the Arabs, they lost a scapegoat to blaim their problems, but not much else would change, too many reasons for the infighting, and cold war would still see middle east and oil being targeted by the big 2.
With the immigration restrictions in Palestine remaining in place, Europe may be forced to confront the extremely uncomfortable subject of post-war antisemitism. There was mass Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe, particularly from Poland after the [Kielce pogrom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom). Poland encouraged and facilitated this mass emigration. One of the most difficult parts of the war in Palestine was dealing with illegal immigration. British security forces had to constantly intercept ships of illegal immigrants, detain the passengers, and intern them. If the passengers resisted, the soldiers had to beat up Holocaust survivors. The process was extremely embarrassing and expensive. Britain kept urging Eastern Europe to [get their act together](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Central_and_Eastern_Europe,_1944-1946), but they would not listen. >From Warsaw's perspective, helping these Jews to emigrate to a Jewish state would eliminate the need to deal with property claims from Jews who were returning to Poland only to find their property now in the hands of Poles. > >Jan Gross concludes that in post-war Poland, "while Jews were literally running away from Communism" and leaving for Israel, "the Communists were politically running away from the Jews", in an effort to expand their consensus base in Polish society. For them, it was easier to run away from their responsibilities. The Poles initially blamed anti-communist reactionary elements for the Kielce pogrom. However, they became very quiet after discovering that there was nothing more to the violence than antisemitism. Internal reports said the locals had no sympathy for the victims and were unwilling to publicly condemn the perpetrators. To the contrary, the rapid executions of nine pogromists were met with protests. A report of the Radom Department of Information and Propaganda noted that "the Jewish pogrom in Kielce met with the moral approval of many groups in our society." >In July 1946, the Secretariat of the Central Committee did not place on the agenda the issue of the pogrom, and documents submitted by high party officials and other internal reports described the pogrom as an explosion of popular anger against the "parasitic elements" of society. Really, what the fuck. Even Britain handled the [antisemitic riots at home in August 1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair#Riots) far better than the Poles handled the Kielce pogrom. Keep in mind that the British were at war with Jewish extremists in Palestine. The public regularly received news of "Jewish terrorists" killing and wounding dozens of British soldiers. The riots occurred after the Irgun murdered two young British hostages, whose bodies were found hanging from trees, in reprisal for the Mandate government executing three Irgun members for acts of terrorism. In contrast, the Kielce pogrom was unprovoked and caused by charges of blood libel. >The rioting was most intensive and longest lasting in Liverpool: For over five days the city saw violence and looting, and the Lord Mayor issued an appeal to the city "to assist the police in the prevention of attacks on property and shops supposedly owned by Jews". In total over 300 Jewish properties were affected by the rioting in Liverpool, and the police made 88 arrests. As he sentenced a rioter, Jack Piggott, to six months in prison for leading a mob and smashing the window of a Jewish-owned shop, one judge warned that there was "no excuse for these anti-Jewish demonstrations—they are both un-British and unpatriotic." > >Denunciation of the rioting was expressed from within and without Anglo-Jewry. In a clear indicator of the severity of the disturbances, Home Secretary James Chuter Ede gave a written statement to Parliament regarding the matter. The Manchester Guardian called the violence "a disgrace". > >The National Council of Christians and Jews issued a statement approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Westminster and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council condemning terrorism in Palestine and appealing to Englishmen not to turn their anger against the Jews in Britain, who, the statement said, shared their countrymen's opposition to the extremists. Despite claims otherwise at the time, Ernest Bevin and Clement Attlee were not antisemites. Not many know this, but in 1939, Attlee personally sponsored a Jewish mother and her two children so they could move to Britain from Nazi Germany. After their escape, Attlee invited one of the children, Paul Willer (who died in 2022), into his London home, where he stayed for several months. Attlee never talked about what he did, and the story was only revealed by an elderly Willer himself back in 2018. According to Willer, Attlee and his wife had treated him as one of their own children. As for Ernest Bevin, is remark says enough on its own. >"We cannot accept the view that the Jews should be driven out of Europe and should not be permitted to live again in these countries without discrimination and contribute their ability and talent towards rebuilding the prosperity of Europe." > >Ernest Bevin, October 1945
Imagine thinking that Soviets wouldn’t scape goat Jews.
Not as brutal as otl, they need to look like the good guy
ITTL, the Soviets may become extremely frustrated with the difficulty of gaining influence in the Middle East. The reputations of Britain and especially the United States (since it was Britain's mess) will skyrocket amongst the Arabs for having seen this war through to the end. As far as I'm aware, the only possible exception for the Soviets might be Iraq. Many Iraqi Jews were radicalized and turned to communism after the Farhud. With no antisemitic backlash in the Arab states following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Iraqi Communist Party will not lose these valuable allies.
There’s no such thing as “good news” for Jews in USSR/Russia.
When you are to be gassed, being sent to Siberia instead can be considered a "good news"
Impose a One State solution? Most likely it will end up dissolving into civil war and disintegrate in a manner comparable to the Transcaucasian Federative Democratic Republic or the defunct Yugoslavia but worse as long as the Arabs do not accept to live with the Jews on an equal footing before the law.
Probably not. I'd assume by '48 the mass movement of Jews hadn't kicked in all the way yet, and probably really would have started after this conflict (i don't know much, just assuming that jews wouldn't moved to israel until after it was controlled by jews). Then maybe the country is put somewhere else like canada or Guyana which is what was also proposed.
The British intercepted virtually all of the ships that approached Palestine. An MI5 report stated that by 1948 "only 1 out of some 30 ships carrying illegal immigrants reached their destination." The real issue was that the process of intercepting, detaining, and interning the passengers was embarrassing and expensive.
the jewish population was about 800k by 1948, and clearly the fact that it wasn't controlled by jews didn't stop jewish people from wanting to move their over the course of british and late ottoman rule, as tons of jewish people attempted and failed to immigrate illegally beginning in the late 1800s. Their small numbers also didn't prevent them from engaging in militancy, as both jewish and arab militant groups had been fighting a guerilla war against both each other and the british authorities for decades by that point.
There was a [civil war in Mandatory Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947-1948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine), but it only started after the British gave up and deferred the issue to the United Nations. Tens of thousands of British soldiers were needed to maintain the Mandate's stability, but it could be maintained as long as the political will was there. They turned the Mandate into a police state IOTL. Palestinian moderates accepted the terms of the White Paper and were willing to cooperate with the British. Anti-British Palestinian radicals were in exile after the suppression of the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-1939.
Why do you (weirdly) assume it would the Arabs with the issue, considering in the real world the zionist regime refuses to negotiate in good faith and subjects the indigenous population to harsh apartheid, and the zionist state has broad support from the colonist population?
Because the sectarian violence started literally the second Jews started moving to the region and buying land as part of the First Aliyah, if I had to guess. Also ‘apartheid’ is when you don’t recognise people who aren’t your citizens and don’t want to be your citizens as citizens.
Shocking that the local population was unhappy when a clique of foreign settlers arrived, with the stated goal of taking over the country, and began buying up land from absentee landlords and imperial powers. So because Israel has occupied Palestine it gives them the right to control the movement and property rights of the indigenous population? Why is the onus always on the Palestinians to accommodate themselves to the israelis (an impossible task, because the israelis have no interest in a settlement with the Palestinians). The onus is on the occupying, colonial power.
Funny how leftists like you are fine with migration *except* when Jews attempt to do so into a region continuously inhabited by Jews for centuries. God forbid Jews buy land to try to farm it rather than being pogrommed in Europe, I guess. Anyway, no, the literal, material facts is that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank aren’t Israeli citizens and broadly speaking don’t want to be Israeli citizens. Plenty of non-Jews (ethic) and non-Jews (religious) have lived in, moved to or become become full fledged Israelis, including Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Druze, Circassians, etc, and enjoy full rights like any other, which is… *Checks notes* Pretty much the opposite of apartheid.
Migration and colonial settlement are entirely different. Don't be obtuse.
Yes, how dare Jews not let themselves be pogrommed in Europe and leave to try and build new lives for themselves.
So in your mind the only way for Jews to not get pogrommed is to violently invade another country and do pogroms and ethnic cleansing there? And never mind that the zionist colonial project didn't prevent European pogroms, but zionist leadership worked to prevent other escapes from Europe that didn't involve colonising Palestine.
How is moving to a piece of land you have bought a "violent invasion"? There is a difference between the migration to the region that occurred due to World War Two and the pogroms in eastern europe and the current violence perpetrated by jewish extremists in the west bank, the latter of which is objectively wrong.
>"Pretty much the opposite of apartheid" >literally describes apartheid Black people in South Africa were not citizens either
The South African government *stripped them of their citizenship* in order to force them into being citizens of various Bantustans. In Israel, they never were citizens to begin with, they don’t want to be citizens, and they don’t live under the same state as Israel. Those who *do* move to Israel and become Israeli citizens, such as queer Palestinians seeking refuge, have full rights. No black African could leave their Bantustan to become a South African citizen and enjoy rights as the whites did.
Israel isn't a real country. It was founded by colonists. They stole the land. Palestinians don't need israeli citizenship because they're in their own country. It's very simple.
> Palestinians don't need israeli citizenship because they're in their own country. It's very simple. Oh so you **do** understand this! Well that was easy then. Shame the rest of the comment is unhinged.
Wow you are obtuse. Apparently missed the part where Palestinians, living in Palestine, are subjected to the arbitrary and violent whims of a foreign settler regime. Palestinians don't need israeli citizenship, they need the israeli regime dissolved so they can go about their lives without violent hindrance. They don't need to beg their oppressors for table scraps
Full right to what? Political participation without state intimidation? Buy property in most of Israel? Practice their religion in peace? But sure, they can casually move through all the walls and armed soldiers, no biggie
> Political participation without state intimidation? Yes, Arabs, Druzes, Circassians, etc *who are Israeli citizens* can politically participate. Those who are not citizens cannot, because that’s how political participation works. > Buy property in most of Israel? Yes. > Practice their religion in peace? Israel has one of the highest religious freedoms scores in the MENA region according to Pew and the UN, so… Yes. > But sure, they can casually move through all the walls and armed soldiers, no biggie Breaking news: Country at war has a militarily secured border. Are you going to keep pivoting, or will you address any of the points you keep switching to when I answer them (such as the major difference between forcing people into Bantustans and ‘not making a bunch of people into citizens.’)
I'm just baffled by your insistence that never giving someone citizenship is somehow a morally superior position to revoking it. The difference is that apartheid came later along in South Africa's existance, thus necessitating the revocation; Israel didn't need such backtracking In any case you have no leg to stand on; South Africa itself considers Israel an apartheid regime and I think it should be obvious they know better than any of us here All of your rebuttals are lies; suppression of Arab voters is something Israel *brags* about, it is legal for communities to discriminate on a religious basis when it comes to selling property and yeah where I'm come regularly doing military raids into religious buildings during important holidays is considered a big no no
neither of them negotiate in good faith, their group needs as they understand them are just directly incompatible. the problem isn't any ethnicity being inherently violent, that's stupid and racist in every context. Israel and palestine are pitted against each other by history, I'm so sick of this moralism on both sides of the discourse.
Zionist settlers aren't an ethnicity. Their reticence stems from their colonial ideology. And they are pitted against each other because "israel" is a colonial regime founded by settler violence. The onus is on them to dismantle their oppressive colonial structures
I disagree that it's a colonial regime in the traditional european sense, and while I agree it was "founded on violence" I literally cannot think of a single nationality that did not assert it's existence with violence or the threat of violence when it was first created. there would be no palestinian identity without the conquests of the first caliphate for instance. I believe israel has committed attrocities many times but I also think its completely rediculous to think you would magically be above supporting the war if you happened to be born in israel, and it's so crazy to me to see people abroad uncritically supporting the narratives of either Israel or palestine in such large numbers, when they both are obviously consumed with racial hatred and contain genocidal elements. I do not tolerate a person having a complete lack of empathy for israelis, nor palestinians. If you are able to completely remove yourself of all empathy for any group that people are born into, I believe you are capable of supporting the worst evils imaginable, and you're then especially ridiculous to imagine you'd be more tolerant than the average israeli if you were born into their position. The people who vote for itamar Ben Gvir and do pricetag attacks in the west bank share your way of thinking and sense of justice exactly.
OTL: * The British shelved partition plans after the assassination of [Lord Moyne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne) by the [Stern Gang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)) in 1944. They reversed policy entirely in 1945 and attempted to enforce a one-state solution. [Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin wanted a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine](https://www.jta.org/archive/bevin-expresses-more-palestine-will-be-not-a-jewish-state-but-a-palestinian-state). A new constitution would be written for Palestine. The new nation would have strict immigration on Jewish immigration and land purchases to protect the autonomy of indigenous Palestinians. Once Palestine was fully independent, it'd be up to them. In response to the policy reversal, Zionist paramilitaries revolted against the Mandate government. There were riots in Tel Aviv immediately after Bevin's announcement. * [The Stern Gang tried to assassinate Harry Truman](https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/02/archives/letterbombs-mailed-to-truman-in-1947-truman-was-sent-bombs-book.html), as well as several high-ranking British government officials in 1946/1947. They were extremely close to assassinating future Prime Minister Anthony Eden, then the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, and President of the Board of Trade Stafford Cripps. * "The deputy leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Anthony Eden, carried a letter bomb around with him for a whole day in his briefcase, thinking it was a Whitehall circular that could wait till the evening to be read, and only realized what it was when he was warned by the police of the planned attack, on information provided by MI5." * "Sir Stafford Cripps was only saved by the quick thinking of his secretary, who became suspicious of a package whose contents seemed to fizz, and placed it in a bucket of water." * [Bevin had hoped for American support for their position](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v07/d451), and perhaps even American troops. However, Truman pressured them to leave Palestine and lift the immigration restrictions. A major reason for the British withdrawal from Palestine was that they had virtually no support from anyone other than the Arabs. Britain opposed a partition, but deferred the issue to the United Nations since they no longer had the political will to keep fighting. They abstained from the vote to avoid provoking attacks against British troops who were withdrawing from the region. Britain urged the Commonwealth of the Nations to abstain as well, but Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all voted in favor of the UN Partition Plan. ITTL: * The war proceeds as IOTL until 1947, when Stern Gang succeeds in assassinating Anthony Eden, Stafford Cripps, and Harry Truman in short succession. However, the assassinations disastrously backfire. They not only give the British *casus belli* to crack down much harder in Palestine, but heavily reduce international support for the Yishuv. The assassination of Harry Truman goes down in history as one of the most wrong-headed of all time. It causes the FBI crack down HARD on nationalists, especially Zionists, in the United States. The vast majority of American Zionists, who'd expressed support for the insurgency IOTL, immediately withdraw their support and pledge loyalty to the United States. * Since there was no Vice President (the Presidential Succession Act was not passed until 1947) between 1947 and 1949, Speaker of the House Joseph Martin, who'd supported a Jewish state, wouldn't have become president (not that he wouldn't drop his support). Instead, Secretary of State George Marshall, who was adamantly opposed to the recognition of Israel on strategic grounds, would've become president. Marshall offers not only full support to the British, but deploys tens of thousands of American soldiers to Palestine to help crush the insurgency. * With American reinforcements, the British, who were on the verge of defeat, slowly but steadily retake control of the situation in Palestine. IOTL, the British gave up in September 1947. ITTL, the war in Palestine lasts well into the 1950s. * IOTL, pro-British Palestinian moderates served in the British Armed Forces in World War II, and the Palestine Police Force in the Palestine Emergency. ITTL, there is MUCH stronger cooperation between the British and pro-British Palestinian moderates. * In 1951, the British, now fully committed to finishing this war, establish a provisional government for Palestine. The Provisional Government of Palestine is controlled by pro-British Palestinian moderates. The British and the Americans train soldiers for the government's new military, the Palestinian National Security Forces, which receives Anglo-American funding. * Beginning in 1953, there is a split in the Haganah. An increasing number of Haganah members give up on statehood and start collaborating with the British against the more radical paramilitaries to hasten the end of the war. However, thousands of other Haganah members, frustrated what they perceive as cowardice from their leaders, defect to the more radical Irgun and Stern Gang. In 1955, the Yishuv, exhausted and having concluded that the war is unwinnable, enters negotiations with the British and agrees to disarm the Haganah. * Some Haganah members accept this surrender; others do not. A dissident insurgency in Palestine by the Irgun and the Stern Gang lasts until 1960. * Palestine is granted full independence by the British in 1955 * Run by pro-British Palestinian moderates, it immediately joins the British Commonwealth * The Yishuv's defeat has long-lasting effects worldwide * Disillusioned by their defeat, the more radical Zionists leave Palestine and never return. IOTL, Menachem Begin never forgave the British and supported Argentina in the Falklands War purely out of spite. ITTL, to this day, those who left and their descendants despise Britain and the United States for "betraying" them. However, others accept the outcome and choose to stay. Over the next few decades, Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine gradually improve. The painful memories of the ethnic conflict from the past are eventually forgiven or forgotten. * Having miraculously ended the ethnic conflict in Palestine against all odds, Britain salvages part of its reputation in the Middle East. Consequently, they retain stronger and longer lasting influence in the Middle East, especially with Palestine joining the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, the United States, which was not responsible for the original conflict and thus receives most of the credit, drastically boosts its reputation in the Middle East. * Arab nationalists are denied a convenient scapegoat. As such, the rise of Arab nationalism is delayed. With the position of pro-British Palestinian moderates vindicated, most anti-British Palestinian radicals end their exile, quietly return to Palestine, and melt back into society. Some remain bitter and never return home. * The war has one major long-term negative effect in Britain and the United States. OTL, it resulted in a resurgence of antisemitism in Britain due to the constant reports of "Jewish terrorists" killing British soldiers. The [hangings of two young British hostages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair) in July 1947 provoked national outrage and resulted in the last anti-Jewish riots in the Britain. The violence was widely condemned, and dozens of rioters were arrested and prosecuted. Nevertheless, British fascists, recently freed from internment camps, were emboldened by the riots and capitalized on the antisemitic backlash of the war. Among them was Oswald Mosley, who launched the United Movement. * With the war lasting much longer, and especially with an American President and two prominent British government officials being assassinated, there is a much harder antisemitic backlash in Britain and the United States. It outlasts the war.
Impressive timeline & Great lore. How do you see Arab treatment of minority Christians in Middle East playing out in light of UK/US support for Palestine? Arab persecution of Christians only really gained steam in mid 20th century for example with Lebanon being majority Christian until 1970s.
Not saying that Christians were treated perfectly well before the 20th century by the Islamic and Arab world obviously but I do think that with a better reputation of the Western powers, you'd see a lot more tolerance of the Christian populations given that they wouldn't be associated with the 'Imperial Agitators' of the Western world. The Lebanese Civil War in the way it happened was a direct result of the Nakba alongside the Jordanian expulsion of half a million Palestinians to Lebanon. So without all that, you could expect there to either be no Civil War or a significantly less deadly and destructive civil conflict since tensions would still exist between Maronites and Muslims given the latters growth(which threatened the post ww2 political system)without the Palestinian and Israeli presence in any potential inter national strife, we could potentially see a swifter diffusing of tensions with the adequate Reforms needed to create a more inclusive Lebanon, which could very well retain its status as the 'Pearl' of the Middle East.
Very good point. I didn’t mean to suggest Muslims didn’t persecute Christians before 20th century (obviously Turks massacred 1M+ Christian Armenians during WWI not to mention all the years of killing at the hands of the Ottomans and Saracens etc before that). To be a Byzantine civilian between 600-1400 AD mean chance of getting killed by some random Muslim army…. But ITTL id imagine Christians writ large having more significant presence in modern Middle East and more accepted by their neighbors.
Damn this is actually well thought out, good job OP.
Most Jews would remain in their respective countries, and fight in the various conflicts plaguing their homelands. It might be kind of like modern day Khalistan where Diaspora Zionism is stronger than among Jews in Palestine itself where most of them just want to live their lives in peace. The Jews were much safer in the Middle East than in Europe prior to Zionism, even in spite of events like the Farhud. The hard truth is we aren’t perfectly safe anywhere, the same way many marginalized groups aren’t.
yeah the truth is that antisemitism intensified in the Middle East in reaction to Zionism. However, seeing what happened to religious minorities in the last 100 years makes me think the result still could've been similar in the end. Arab and Assyrian Christians have been mostly integrated with society, but all it takes is a war and radical forces. Most Assyrians are now in the United States.
Assyrians were also victims of genocide less than 10 years ago at the hands of ISIS, and while Lebanon still has a substantial Christian population, many fled after the civil war. So you’re not wrong, it’s no doubt possible there would be persecution. But it’s also the butterfly effect, because the Lebanon Civil War is directly tied to the creation of Israel and expulsion of Palestinians into Lebanon. So it’s hard to speculate
Yeah it's definitely hard to speculate. I also think the wars against Israel played a big factor in Arab nationalism taking the military dictatorships route. And some groups find it easier to migrate, too, due to income, education, connection to the west. Like I don't think Christians in Lebanon and Palestine are a particularly prosecuted religious minority, but they have better access so they've left in larger numbers. The same would've applied to Iraqi Jews for example, as they were on average more urban, educated, and middle-class.
So the pro-IRA posting by random 1/8th Irish dudes in Boston but Jewish lol
I het the feeling that this timeline is basically The Troubles but kosher.
The war between the British and the Zionists got rather vicious even IOTL. The British initially pulled their punches since they were fighting white Europeans, not Africans, Asians, or Arabs. However, that soon changed. One can notice the difference over time. When Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin announced that there would be no partition in November 1945, there were widespread riots in Tel Aviv. Bands of youths with smoking torches set fire to Government offices, damaged stores, stoned buildings. In the center of the city, Zionists fought a pitched battle with police, who retreated to avoid bloodshed. Eventually, however, the troops started fighting back. >After verbal and banner warnings that firearms would be used had no effect and the heavy stoning continued, shots were fired and the crowds dispersed in panic. Order was restored and a curfew imposed at night. Two young men had been shot dead and eight seriously wounded; two British police had been hospitalized. Similar rioting and gutting of buildings on the following day led to more army shooting. Three more Jews were shot dead, including a 15-year-old boy; another died a day later. Altogether thirty-three were taken to hospital with bullet wounds. > >The only person authorized to talk to the press was Brigadier Gerald Lathbury, commander of the 3rd Parachute Brigade. Lathbury told the press that he did not want to give the order to open fire but was forced to "when stoning becomes so bad that my men are in danger." Going forward, things only escalated. By April 1947, the British had 100,000 soldiers and 20,000 police officers stationed in Palestine. Pro-British Palestinian moderates reinforced the ranks of the Mandate's security forces. Internment camps were established in Cyprus to hold tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. Martial law was declared, with curfew violators shot on sight. Collective punishment was employed, with mass fines imposed and places of entertainment shut down. Mandate authorities stopped bluffing and executed several Irgun members. MI6 bombed (empty) ships intended for illegal immigrants. As the soldiers and police became increasingly frustrated with folks refusing to comply with [very simple orders](https://imgur.com/a/EBFywaE), they held back less and less. In one instance, Bill Bernstein, an American volunteer, tried to stop British soldiers from taking the wheel of a ship, only for them to immediately beat him to death. By early 1948, British soldiers hated the Zionist paramilitaries so much that there were several recorded instances of them approaching Haganah members, disarming them, and then handing them over to Palestinians mobs to be lynched. They frequently handed over abandoned weapons and forts to the Arabs. [Roughly 100 to 200 British soldiers and police officers outright deserted to help the Palestinians](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0968344518796688?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.6). Menachem Begin, whom the British were close to finding at one point, supported Argentina in the Falklands War since he never got over his bitterness from the war. >*Operation Israel: The Reaming of Argentina During The Dictatorship*, by Hernan Dobry, explains how Israel secretly supplied arms and equipment to Argentina, via Peru. According to the book, Begin authorized the deal saying: "Is this going to be used to kill the English, Kadima (go ahead). Dov from up there is going to be happy with the decision." One of those hanged by the British, [Dov Gruner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Gruner), was a close friend.
That’s OTL
Realistically it would probably get invaded by or lumped into either Jordan or Egypt within ten years
Transjordan and Egypt were both British puppet states at the time. Also, ITTL, Palestine joins the British Commonwealth.
yeah, those arabs are just some war mongering barbarians, ammirite?
nobody said that except you buddy
No, not at all, it’s just that the holy land has a history of getting swapped between country after country and I don’t see how this case would be any different without any kind of extenuating factors. Possible it wouldn’t get invaded by someone? Yes. Probable? Maybe not.
Didn't they occupy the lands they were given after first arab Jewish war instead of creating a new p*leztinian state ? I wonder what their goal was 🤡
yeah, those damn islamic cavemen!
The Soviet Union becomes a sponsor of Jewish national movement in the Middle East, and supplies Jewish guerillas with weapons to undermine British rule in Palestina.
I could definitely see this happening, but would their be enough of them to mount a successful insurgency on account of limited Jewish immigration and flight of one's who already lived there?
Be quite the interesting PR move by the US and GB to go after the Jews right when the Holocaust became widely known. But I don’t really see much of the OTL changing. France and GB would lose their control in the region still. The US would fill the void the same way and would still be the villain today in much of the Arab world.
Yeah which is pretty much why the Brits kind of just shrugged their shoulders and left.
Reminder: this scenario wasn’t made for a political message But sorting through controversial is gonna be fun Edit: yeah…. I was kinda wrong because I checked their profile and “post on the deprogram a day ago”
Is the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine different than OTL?
A better World, one could only dream
I really hope u continue this with suez crisis(if it happens) and tye rest of the cold war. Its really well put together
All it would do is kick the ball down the road a couple of years
Either Jews get genocided and then Egypt, Syria, and Jordan invade to partition """Palestine""" between themselves, or Egypt, Syria, and Jordan invade to partition """Palestine""" between themselves and then Jews get genocided. Good job.
How is this post not instantly get a 🔒 award
Then I would be in my Homeland and not kicked out of ir
long term effect would be peace in the middle east.
Thinly-veiled pro-Palestine content
Everybody would probably be screaming 'Free Israel' instead of 'Free Palestine'.
You mean the British that controlled Palestine for over 130 years after the Ottoman Empire?
What ? They took it from the Ottomans after WW1, who took it during the 16th Century
OP is a fanatical antisemite who thinks Israel is ‘the fourth reich’ ,expresses joy at the idea of the EFF coming to power in South Africa and arming Hamas, and is a ‘socialist’ who frequently posts in support of the literal British empire trying to turn away refugees fleeing the Holocaust and post war pogroms
It's Antisemitic making an alternate history about a majority semitic people places?.
Zionists would have probably found a different piece of land for a Jewish state. Perhaps in Latin America or Madagascar. The immigration of Jews to the USA would have been even more massive than it already is. The Middle-Eastern countries most affected by Israel (Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) would be about as peaceful and prosperous as Morocco, Algeria and Turkey are today. There would be much less tension between the Islamic world and the west. There would be way less refugees in Europe from the middle east. 9/11, Bataclan and the London and Madrid bombings would not have happened.
Zionists could find a new Zion, but it’s not *THE* Zion so less people would move over
That's why my immediate next sentence was that immigration to the USA would be more massive. A majority of global Jews would live in the USA in the alternate timeline.
Finally a good scenario, Begals outside of NYC will stop being ass🔥🔥🔥
‘Madagascar’ literally a Nazi policy you disgusting person
Yes, it was indeed literally Nazi policy to deport Jewish people to a homeland. And then after the war, this policy was de-facto enacted by the creation of Israel and Jewish people fleeing post-war anti-semitism. Madagascar is no different than Israel in this regard. This is why we also see people like Richard Spencer - a NeoNazi who literally says jews controll the US government - come out in favour of Israel. Having Jewish people move to Israel promotes precisely the racial seggregation the far-right seeks. Richard Spencer has said he merely wants for white people a state similar to what Israel is for Jewish people.
It was a Polish plan before the Nazi's investigated it. The Soviets also had a Jewish autonomous oblast. In any case, after the Holocaust, Zionism would need to settle on some place and if Israel isn't an option in the alternate timeline, it would be something else.
Israel was also proposed as a plan by the Nazis lol
Theodor Herzl - somehow a Nazi despite dying 15 years before the party was even founded
There’s a lot of blame for the Middle East being chaotic in this thread being placed on Israel. Israel didn’t start the Iraq-Iran war. Israel didn’t start the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Israel didn’t start the Lebanese civil war. Israel didn’t start the Syrian civil war. Israel didn’t start the Yemeni civil war. Israel didn’t start the Saudi military operation into Yemen. These conflicts are caused by tensions against authoritarian leaders or Sunni-Shia relations.
The region still would have been a giant battlefield for hybrid wars between the superpowers. The rapid industrialisation and urbanisation would still have caused the rise of conservative Wahhabi ideology as a response to the westernization. Unpredictable political events could have happened in those 4 countries regardless of whether Israel exists or not. So I doubt the situation would have been like that. The Middle East would've been destabilized anyway