Cheeseburger Gothic

Would there be an Israel in a post Transition world?

Posted January 26, 2013 by John Birmingham

While I was plotting out Stalin's Hammer: Cairo, I spent a couple of days pondering the fate of Israel. Unfortunately a couple of days poorly spent because I was so tired and brain fucked from being in multiplie deadline hell dimensions while running kids to and from holiday sport (anywhere between 6-8 trips a day, usually of 30 mins minimum duration each on the worst days) that I actually confused my own trilogies. For a coupla days there I laboured under the misapprehension that things were going to be a lot more difficult this time around because of all those nukes Tel Aviv had tossed around up the timeline.

Bzzzt. Wrong end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it series.

At the end of WW 2.3 the Holocaust is still a thing, but the orgy of mass killing that preceded the end of the original war hadn't happened. And knowledge of the Holocaust had arrived, making it difficult to ignore and adding another push factor to Jewish inward migration to Palestine.

OTOH you have Arab and Palestinian foreknowledge of Israel, and British foreknowledge of its policy failures at the end of the war in the OTL. Plus a long and bloody future history of revolution and counter revolution in the ME.

I've made my choices now. But given its a long wet weekend, feel free to share yours. Not just about what becomes of Israel but what happens to all the mid eastern regimes post 1944.2


35 Responses to ‘Would there be an Israel in a post Transition world?’

yankeedog mumbles...

Posted January 26, 2013
There would be a Jewish state. Tailors, bankers, and comedians have to come from someplace. They don't just GROW on trees, you know...

Maybe there'd be an 'Israel', just not in Palestine. It might be somewhere else. Maybe in the Catskills of New York state...

Respond to this comment

NBlob mutters...

Posted January 26, 2013
Yeah but no.
By my Limited understanding the powerful forces that pushed for the creation of Israel rejected every offer on the table that was not the Holy Lands. Canada, North Western Australia, South America are all very nice, but they aint the Promised Land. The Wailing Wall is The Wailing Wall and no substitution will suffice.

Mind you there is an interesting sub group that say that Israel isn't Israel because it was made by Men. The creation of Israel as a foretold precursor to the arrival of the Messiah can only be done by God. Therefore that nation we call Israel Is Not the Land of Israel as foretold.

Thankyou for the Thinky while I had a cup of coffee. Now back to shifting ancient files up put of floodwaters reach. (I have drawn an arbitrary line @ 1m off the floor. If we go under > than 1m. Too Fkn Bad.)

Respond to this comment

sibeen is gonna tell you...

Posted January 26, 2013
There was a Kimberly Plan for a Jewish State within northern Australia back in those days. Curtin put a kybosh on that plan in about 1940. It may get raised again.

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 is gonna tell you...

Posted January 26, 2013
Sibeen, KP sounds very very interesting, especially as they would know about the resources etc.. separate or integrated to OZ?

And now..I must get ready for sport, out tommoz too JB..PORTLAND FISHING OFFSHORE for BIG FKN SNAPPER!. This is a good topic too...shall return

Respond to this comment

Murphy swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 26, 2013
If anything, I think those who would be responsible for the creation of Israel would be even more determined to make sure it happened. I suspect Truman and Kolhammer would have moved forward regardless of the possible consequences.

Some things, I think, would happen no matter what.

Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

w from brisbane mutters...

Posted January 26, 2013
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Respond to this comment

insomniac is gonna tell you...

Posted January 26, 2013
I'd be happy for Israel to exist where it does but I think they should take on board the current problems and also create Palestine as a separate state at the same time. Might save a few lives and a whole lot of hand wringing.

Respond to this comment

Tony Grijmans ducks in to say...

Posted January 26, 2013
W from Brisbane, I like that sort of question.

Interestingly around the turn of the century (last century that is) there was a serious proposal to establish a Jewish State in Kenya. I wonder what the world would look like today if that had happened. Hypothetical question but interesting to ponder.

Respond to this comment

ChrisB swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 26, 2013
Now that is an interesting proposal. Ancestral homeland vs carving it out of a post-war Europe. I'd tend to think that the new timeline leaders would make the Jewish state larger and, hopefully, more inclusive to avoid the decades-long conflict. Kinda like an EU of the ME. Cheers to whatever you decide JB, as it'll be awesome. Can't wait to read.

Respond to this comment

Bunyip ducks in to say...

Posted January 26, 2013
The question is also begged as to what would happen to Palestine? Would it be carved out of the West Bank?

This is really a having one's cake and eating it question.

Respond to this comment

David reckons...

Posted January 26, 2013
Israel will bulldoze Palestine into the sea - reinforcing the idea of a "Jewish State" - and not facing the demographic challenges that original timeline Israel faces. The overall goal of the uptimers is to make a better world in which the path that lead to American decline are not taken. For example, Vietnam is won convincingly and American dignity is retained.

The Uptimers will stop the Chinese revolution of 1949. Kohlhammer will ensure that China, Japan and Europe will be toothless in the new timeline. Anything that can possibly threaten American power from the original timeline will be taken off the board and ground into dust.

Assassinations as people who were going to grow into leaders in the original timeline will be common place.It won't just be people like Mugabe, Chavez, Hussein, Arafat, Jerry Adams - but even minor players will be removed from the board before they can cause problems. If you caused problems for the United States in the original timeline, your life is forfeit in the revised one.

Respond to this comment

WarDog mumbles...

Posted January 26, 2013
I believe that there are enough strident forces that recreating Israel is a foregone conclusion. But I'm with Insomniac in that Kolhammer would try to recreate it such that future tensions are diffused. Eg by creating a separate Palestinian state at the same time and choosing more appropriate borders.

BTW I've loved these questions. Just generally don't feel qualified enough to comment. Wake me up when software or nano tech is involved.

Respond to this comment

Sweet Jane Says reckons...

Posted January 26, 2013
No. You may remove your starters, but life has a deep bench. The B-Team, or the JV Team will send its players into the fray. As certainly as some from the future may want to protect an Israel in its current location, a brazen group of soldier-historians from the future will blow to hell the Wailing Wall and fuck Israel. Many see a big difference between being Jewish and being Zionist.

Respond to this comment

Murphy reckons...

Posted January 26, 2013
One intractable element to the Israeli Palestinian problem, which will exist regardless of the timeline in question, is that both sides want 100% of the territory for themselves. I sat in more than one public presentation in grad school where the Islamic Students at UMKC made this point.

"Why would you cut a deal with someone to let you have 22 percent of what is yours when what you really want is all of it?"

When that is your starting point, you get Thunderdome, geopolitical style.

Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

pi is gonna tell you...

Posted January 26, 2013
Just can't see israel happening. The anger that formed it in the first place just isn't there. Sure, there'd be a lot of people that would like it, but with the alternate history there too, there just wouldn't be enough pity of the jewish people to take a blind eye to the solution that was implemented v1.0. The same heads that would have helped v1.0 will be looking at the problem caused by v1.0, and make sure it doesn't happen again. It's inventing a problem that you know is going to blow up.

And seeing as the fleet goes back at even now a point in the future, they might have taken a few JB books like the Wave series. If Kolhammer is a fan (and why wouldn't he be?) he'd have a good understanding of what the israeli's could be capable of.

And finally... the reason why everyone tip-toes around israel is because of their ownership of nuclear weapons. They certainly won't have them in v2.0, at least not when the 'solution' is being applied. You really think Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia are going to wait for that to happen? Not a chance in hell.

As for stopping the revolution in China? Fat chance.

People are over-estimating the ability of military types to effect political solutions. Sure, there are lots of weapons, but as the afghani's, and vietnamese can tell you, that is only a temporary solution. Real problems involving lots of people require political solutions.

Respond to this comment

johnbirmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 26, 2013
When you play this make believe game you have to remember not to confuse your idea of what should be with what would be.

Respond to this comment

NBlob ducks in to say...

Posted January 26, 2013
How pissed would Lang Hancock have been if we'd given all that lovely Iron Ore in the Pilbarra to the Israelis?

Respond to this comment

Bunyip has opinions thus...

Posted January 26, 2013
@JB: When you play this make believe game you have to remember not to confuse your idea of what should be with what would be.

Given that the Hashemite royality of Jordan would have a stake in a stable Palestine, rather than a political will for the negation of Israel, they may not go for their blanket annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. To keep it in the realm of realism, it would come down to who would feel motivated to quell the door squeaking of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan, whilst not dramatically alienating the supporters of the formation of Israel.

What Murph said is the spanner in the works.

Respond to this comment

Bunyip is gonna tell you...

Posted January 26, 2013
Sorry Spanner. Could have thought of a more neutral metaphor.

Respond to this comment

Murphy ducks in to say...

Posted January 26, 2013
Decades in the works, per Israel.

History doesn't turn on a dime in most instances. You've got a lot of things which were brewing years, decades and even centuries before 1942. In the case of the creation of Israel, the Jewish Diaspora had been working pretty hard to make it happen. The Holocaust, which still happens in the AoT timeline (probably accelerated in fact), provides the additional impetus. It is unlikely that Truman would change his position even if he had access to all of the books written on Israel since its creation (anymore than he'd likely change his mind about using nuclear weapons if it came to that). I can't see Kolhammer pulling back from that policy either.

So Israel is going to happen, just as Pakistan is going to happen.

I may have typed this before and I'm probably not the only one but the further you get away from your breakpoint in the original timeline, the harder it will be to use the original historical timeline to affect events in the new timeline. You can use technology to extend lives, changing living habits, perhaps locate resources and use those resources more efficiently. Maybe if there is a push for going green sooner the Western Powers can avoid funding the future member states of OPEC, which is what really provides the funding for Islamic Terrorism.

In any case, while the maps may look different, I think the same basic problems are going to exist circa 1954-55 in the AoT timeline which existed in our timeline.

Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches

Respond to this comment

Darth Greybeard would have you know...

Posted January 26, 2013
Re Murph's point above, read somewhere in the past that there were Jewish independence movements operating in Palestine, sometimes violently, from at least the early 1920's. Would the US have supported an Israel v2 to provide an anti-Arab force in the middle east or used a no Israel policy to curry favour with the proto-Saudis and Egyptians? What about Suez? Would the US tendency in our postwar timeline to support anyone who wasn't communist survive seeing how badly that turned out?

I just think there'd be too many powerful but not necessarily wise people second-guessing the futures of too many countries. By 1954 you could pick any reasonably feasible future and go for it. As for picking off potential enemy leaders, as Blarkon I think said earlier, anyone in our timeline born after the transference could be assumed not to exist. And if you bumped off, say, Breznev in his 40's, how many potentially more able leaders would there be to replace him? I suspect there have been very few people who were uniquely placed to influence history. Pickett's charge?

Respond to this comment

NBlob swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 26, 2013
Completely off topic, but I've been waiting for a chance to share this.

Vidal Sassoon Yes, That Vidal Sassoon. Purveyor of hair and beauty products. Vidal Sassoon of the overly tight pants, mincy walk, fondness for giggles, bubbles and all things effete.
The same man led a gang in London in the early 30's, one of several such mostly Jewish gangs who used fists, boots, razors and the occasional cosh to take it up to Mosely's brown shirts.
They deliberately and consciously rejected the whole pacifism thing and met like with like. He tells a story of the English version of Krystal Nacht nipped in the bud by some kosher lads who weren't afraid to get busy and defend their community.

Respond to this comment

keghughes asserts...

Posted January 26, 2013
I'm picturing a role reversal for Israel/Palestine with the starting conditions of WWII.2 -
Formation of Israel starts with Zionist terrorism in the Palestinian territories - IEDs very much frowned upon by uptimers.

Stalin MkII, if pushing for effective Soviet expansion into the mid-east, may not be as willing to permit the emigration Israel needs to seed its starter population, in order to get the ME on-side ('we had hoped the first time you would push the Jewish state into the sea - this time we will push them into the sea with you,' or the like).

Given all the efforts uptimers made to curb the final solution, there may not be the European guilt necessary for an Israeli state to be ratified by the UN (or alt-equiv), particularly with the foresight about how much fkn around that state would get up to.

Uptimers may have enough influence on their temp govs to encourage jewish diaspora migration to the west, and enough guerilla marketing skill to counter Zionist 'promised land' propaganda to entice diaspora somewhere outside the range of arab bottle rockets.

What you'd have left then is an existing Palestinian people more aware than ever of the necessity of statehood post Mandate, and a small, ideological fanatical core of Zionists fkn sh't up. Version II, Israel doesn't exist except in the minds of Zionists dreaming of a mirror image of UBL's Caliphate.

Respond to this comment

damian ducks in to say...

Posted January 26, 2013
Is/ought versus Might/would be cool?

Respond to this comment

Brian reckons...

Posted January 26, 2013
There were Jewish independence movements in Palestine pre-WW2.
What really ignited the business were rich Zionists buying land from absentee Arab land lords and evicting tenant farmers. The same problem existed in China and India.
One wonders if the idea of micro loans and land reform on an international basis may have shifted things a bit.
As to the Zionists . . .its not talked about much today, but Jewish extremists blew up the King David hotel . . .at the time, it was as big as the Twin Towers.
I think Israel will come about. But it won't be as big as now.

Respond to this comment

w from brisbane has opinions thus...

Posted January 26, 2013
If Palestine was forcibly partitioned to make Israel, I think something like an extension of the Marshall Plan to support the riven Palestine would have possibly reduced later troubles.
Perhaps more importantly, as others have referred to, the borders created by the 1947 U.N Partition plan seem ridiculous. A difficult job sharing out coastline and aquifers etc, but holy crap (no pun intended), a patchwork!
Over here in Australia, one country with a shared culture and economy, we annually hear that daylight saving differences between states are "a nightmare".

Respond to this comment

w from brisbane mutters...

Posted January 26, 2013
Not taking sides, but I heard an Australian ABC (the Aus. BBC) correspondent being interviewed.
He said, I have experienced my first racist set of traffic lights.
What do you mean?
Well, I was traveling with a Palestinian family and we got to a set of traffic lights controlled by the Israelis. There was an occasional car coming from the Israeli side. Often long gaps. But we just sat. After about 40 minutes, an Israeli soldier casually walked over to briefly flick the switch to let some cars from the Palestinian direction thru. The Palestinian family said it was always like this. Sometimes 20 minutes. sometimes an hour, at the whim of the soldiers. Seemed a bit petty and designed to irritate.

Respond to this comment

Tony Grijmans swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 26, 2013
Brian you have nailed it. Jewish people were buying the land long before the end of WW2. Started with the Balfour declaration 30 or so years before the end of the war. By the way, the first recognized Zionist was Herzl. He's the guy who was pushing for a Jewish state in Kenya!

These days the world would not create an Israel because the whole Jewish thing is on the nose. They are so sucessful dammit. They are winners and not at physical sport so they must be doing something wrong.

Respond to this comment

Matthew K asserts...

Posted January 26, 2013
"British foreknowledge of its policy failures at the end of the war in the OTL."
Well Britain knew that making extravagent promises to whoever for short term expediance (Balfour Declaration for example) was a bad idea but they apparently just trusted that it would be alright on the night. Or something.
(I suspect that more of the Britsh Empire' policy was just winging it than is generally realised.)
Anyhoo, Palestine wasn't a "proper" colony but a mandate so I also wonder if was less valued by Whitehall as a result.

Respond to this comment

Bunyip would have you know...

Posted January 26, 2013
Point re: Zionist settlement. Rosh Pinna was settled in 1882, and a lot of the land sold to Zionists before WWI was done so by Greek landowners based in Beirut, who had no qualms with rending their then 'Syrian' tenants homeless.

Respond to this comment

Tarl is gonna tell you...

Posted January 27, 2013
Israel as an ethnic region existed de-facto long before the UN declaration. The Irgun and Stern Gang were guerrilla movements that predated even WW-II, trying to get autonomy. Arab-Jewish violence dates to the late 1920's.

That some variant of Israel will exist is largely predetermined. Unless you figure out how to kill off the large Jewish population that lives there and has nowhere else to go (note: A large component of Israel's population is not descended from immigrants, but from people who lived there. Mizrahi Jews.)

The partition into Arab and Jewish lands was essentially de-facto recognition of where people lived (with some fudging, the Jewish side cooperated with the commission setting the boundary, the Arab side refused to have anything to do with the commission, which influenced decisions). But what ended up as the original borders was a division that mostly recognized existing ethnic divisions. Coming up with different borders requires relocating people on an ethnic basis.

In our world, since the Arab position was (and is) that Israel shall not exist, the Arab League sent forces into Israel the day the Palestinian Mandate ceased to exist. That was the 1948 arab-israeli war, which resulted in different borders yet, and numerous atrocities causing people to "voluntarily" relocate. Unless you can come up with a way to prevent the 1948 war, all you can do is select a victor in that war by sending troops.

Personally, I can't see Kolhammer sending troops into that meatgrinder. Particularly not to help the Arab League army.

Which tells me that Israel will exist.

Respond to this comment

Brian mutters...

Posted January 27, 2013
Point on Israel's size.
There may not be tha avalanche of Holacaust survivors into Israel nor the immigration of Soviet Jewery.
Several issues. The Soviets know that Israel is a Western client state in the old time line, so it's unlikely to aid and abet its creation nor to contribute to its population. The Soviets main export in the old time line was weaponry (same for the US as well) - will the new USSR play that game? Maybe, maybe not.
Who's to say that the USSR may not bend every effort to make Israel IT'S client state. It certainly can play the hostage card by holding on to it's Eastern Jewery.

Respond to this comment

tqft puts forth...

Posted January 27, 2013
I am not so sure the uptimers will have a lot of sympathy for modern israel
USS Liberty
https://www.google.com/search?q=sraeli+palestinian+massacres&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=seamonkey-a#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=seamonkey-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&spell=1&q=israeli+palestinian+massacres&sa=X&ei=TRQFUYzDCeiXiAfG5IC4DQ&ved=0CDAQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aGc&fp=deb56171417f9671&biw=1093&bih=517

Respond to this comment

Mark R. Whittington swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted January 28, 2013
My sense is, as with most of the posters, that there will be an Israel in the altered timeline. Likely the uptimers have regarded the Jewish state as an ally in the long war on terror and would be keen to make sure that Israel 2.0 serves the same purpose. That may mean military intervention in whatever Israeli War of Independence happens in the revised timeline with a view of pushing Palestinians into Jordan, which would be set up as a defacto Palestinian state with the Jordan River between them as a more stable border. Of course the USSR, not liking that outcome, might try to intervene on the side of the Arabs, setting up a proxy war with nasty and unforeseen consequences.

Respond to this comment

A Little Late swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted May 23, 2014
This thread is way old but I just wanted to throw in my two cents since it got me thinking: tl;dr version is basically that there'd be an Israel though it might not have quite the same borders as in the original timeline.

To make a long story short, basically by the 1930s the Jews of the Mandate had all the essentials of a state (gov't, self-defense, economy) so the question to ask here is what would prevent them from becoming independent in the altered circumstances of the new timeline? The Soviets probably conquered outright Iran which means all the various Arab armies that would have invaded have other things to worry about. (I can't figure the Soviets conquering the entire Middle East; just holding the extra territory you have them conquer in Europe and Asia leaves them extremely overextended.)

That leaves on four major players on the ground in the Mandate itself: Britain, Palestinian Arabs, Israelis, and the Hashemites of Jordan. With the Soviets grabbing territory deeper into the Mediterranean the British would probably strip the Mandate of every troop it had to reenforce its hold on Egypt, Cyprus, and Crete. As for Jordan, they and their army were still basically under British control (they didn't become independent before 1946) and if the Soviets have Iran the Jordanians would probably have to send all their troops east to reenforce Iraq where there was after all another Hashemite monarchy in control. They could even have turned north to try and take Damascus which is territory that Britain originally promised the Hashemites anyway but had to renege on because of the French who aren't an issue in the altered timeline. That leaves the Israelis and Palestinians. The problem for the Palestinians is that their leadership was basically the Mufti of Jerusalem who spent the war in Berlin and is probably radioactive vapor in the new timeline. Plus the Palestinians had spent the late 1930s unsuccessfully revolting against Britain and eliminating all potential competitors to the Mufti. So basically they are in worse shape to revolt and put together a Palestinian state than they would have been in the original timeline. That leaves the Israelis who have a government, the core of an army, and with the Holocaust aborted, have a much larger population to count on in the long run.

About the only thing that would change is borders; the British would want Egypt and Transjordan to be linked so would probably push to have the Negev kept out of Israeli hands (something that was kicked around in the 1950s of the mainstream timeline as part of peace proposals). I'd guess that Britain would keep the Negev but give Israel territory from the Sinai adjacent to what is the Gaza Strip in the mainstream timeline.

By the 1940s the ability to outright prevent Israel from coming into being becomes something very difficult to prevent and with all the other chaos and changes going on in the altered timeline, what makes it important to any major power to stop them from being independent?

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Would there be an Israel in a post Transition world?'

Follow along with RSS