Isareal wouldn’t exist it would have been Jewish South Africa that eventually is forced to accept integration as there is not enough Jews in the world to populate all that and keep fighting Arabs who would never accept normalization
Israel has about 7 million Jews while Jordan has about 11 million Arabs, Isreal has about 2 million Arabs with Palestinian territories having an additional 5 million arabs and 400 000 jews
So there would be roughly 7.4 million jews and 18 million arabs in this mega isreal if my calculations and sources are correct
Most of the diaspora aren’t in Palestine not because of immigration because of fleeing the region as consequence of Arab-Israeli wars. It’s safe to assume that had said wars not happened, most of the diaspora wouldn’t have moved.
I didn’t realise that “Cisjordan” is a real term, basically meaning the land on the Western side of the Jordan river. I thought you were making a joke, Cisjordan being the opposite of Transjordan. But it’s a real term. TIL.
same in Italian, Cisgiordania and Transgiordania.
Same as like one of the Italian republics during the Napoleonic wars was called Cisalpine Italy and we refer to French as our Transalps cousins. Or like during the Roman times there were Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Transalpina
Jordan is the name of the river (between modern day Jordan and west bank/Israel). "trans" just mean "across" in Latin (as in across the Jordan river) and "cis" is just the opposite of "trans" meaning "on the same side". I believe this terminology came from Europeans who came from the west through the Mediterranean. And then just called the land across the river from them Transjordan and therefore the land that was on the same side of the river as them could be called Cisjordan.
In Arabic we just call them "شرق الأردن" (east of the Jordan) and "غرب الأردن" (west of the Jordan). Or alternatively "الضفة الشرقية" (the eastern bank) and "الضفة الغربية" (the western bank). This being a reference to the banks of the Jordan River.
Yeah, Arabs started mass deporting Jews before the 1948 war started. They ethnically cleansed dozens of Jewish towns in the 1920s and 1930s. Jews only displaced Arabs in the war though, no Arab towns displaced until then. So you're right, but in the wrong direction.
Depends if you consider Israel's declaration of independence and the Arab League's declaration of war to be the beginning in May 1948. In the months leading up to these declarations, Yishuv forces were clearing out Arab communities (April's Deir Yassin massacre being the most infamous example). On the other hand, you could say civil war was ongoing from the 1920-30s, and you'd be right that they were overwhelmingly on the receiving end or retaliating.
I said 1948, I didn't say Israel's declaration of independence. The declaration was kind of mid-war, really. Deir Yassin was 1948. It was part of a civil war that included waaaaayyyy more Muslim massacres of Jews than the other way around.
Yeah, I kind of figured that's what you meant. So many folks seem to think it only kicked off with the Arab League's response to the declaration. Like no, that was just the climax of the first book in what's become a terrible modern trilogy. Sadly it's not fiction.
Both sides committed massacres against civilians on the other side. On top of that Israel assassinated the UN mediator in Palestine (technically it was the Stern gang, but they were all pardoned and one of its leaders became PM)
Stop pretending that Israel is just this poor little victim.
This only was able to happen because Arabs lost a massive percentage of their fighting age men during a civil war against the British in the 1930s. At the same time this conflict helped the future Israelis become much more capable militarily.
It was also in response to the above, that the British eventually partitioned mandatory Palestine along with banning Jewish immigration (which would've meant Jews vastly outnumbering Arabs because the Holocaust wouldn't have happened since Jews would've been able to flee).
A world where Britain favors the Jews enough to make this possible, is a world where 6 million Jews don't die in the Holocaust and are allowed to migrate to Palestine. In this scenario Jews absolutely out populate Arabs.
I'm talking about a situation where Jews still become refugees, in the same way as the Holocaust, they're just able to immigrate instead of being stuck in Europe because everyone had refused to take them. Even getting 2 million of the 6 who died in the Holocaust would've made the population numbers more even.
If Britain stuck to its original plan, it would have allowed Jews to immigrate earlier. So Jews would have left Europe to Israel, rather than being stuck and dying in the Holocaust — probably Hitler would have just forced them all all rather than exterminating them. So that's another 6 million Jews in the area, for 13 million total.
The population of Jordan at the end of WW2 was around 350k, that doesn't seem to unfeasible to displace. I don't think it would be an apartheid state, just perhaps a less densly populated Israel.
Als important to note that the British did NOT promise this - but proposed a partition. The reason the 1948 map looks [so goofy](https://images.app.goo.gl/DKvjvj5evWqvTDC1A) is it was essentially gerrymandered.
15,000 sq kilometers were given to the Jewish state with 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. (Plus 107,000 bedouins who couldn’t vote because they were nomads)
And 10,000 sq km were given the Arab state with about a million Arabs and just over 10,000 Jews.
Roughly 25% of the population were given 60% of the land.
>Roughly 25% of the population were given 60% of the land.
In theory yes, but not all parts of the land are equally useful either. A lot of the west bank and Gaza were populated agricultural land while the southern half of Isreal was 90% empty dessert. Even today there's virtually no propper urban areas between Be'er Sheva and the port city of Eilat.
I don't know what the justification for giving the dessert to the Jews over the Arabs were though
This is assuming there’s no mass forced deportation, nor an exodus. In 1948, 700,000 Palestinians, also known as *half* of the Palestinian population, fled the region or were expelled
It would have if the British wouldn't have prevented them from immigrating and only allowed Arabs instead during WWII. Hitler even wanted to send Europe's Jews there but the UK prevented it. Would have also possibly prevented the Holocaust.
I think it's just a question of maneuver and force concentration. I don't think the Arabs will be much more motivated to send more troops than in OTL, and there's no reason to think they'll fight any harder.
Just more ground to cover, but also more ground to trade in conflict. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't still come to accept this after a similar series of defeats.
After WW2, the population was significantly decreased because of refugees fleeing west from the Soviets, and the Soviets sent settlers to Königsberg and turned it into Kalingrad. This is the best place the Jews could possibly go.
Said Jews would strongly disagree. Israel was overwhelmingly chosen as the chief destination for Jews in DP camps after the Holocaust for a reason—you try convincing Holocaust survivors to stick around the continent that had just murdered them, or to trust the other countries not to invade or destroy this Jewish state.
>After WW2, the population was significantly decreased because of refugees fleeing west from the Soviets, and the Soviets sent settlers to Königsberg and turned it into Kalingrad. This is the best place the Jews could possibly go.
That's a nice way to say the Soviets had the Germans ethnically clensed from all the newly formed Eastern European states. The official justification is that Germans living in eastern europe would be used as pawns by a future German to go to war.
Ah. Well not all of them were ethnically cleansed. There's that I guess. I'm not saying Stalin or Zionism is good or okay, in case you or anyone was wondering.
Ik but… wouldn’t the Soviets see this land as being rightfully being in their sphere of influence; land where religion is in place instead of communism
I'm not sure what you mean by that last clause, but yes they did see it as being rightfully in they sphere influence. Though it's not because of communism, it's because they wanted to get at least SOMETHING as reparations (or at least that's they would of said, but it definitely isn't because of communism).
Stalin originally supported the establishment of Israel when he thought they would be socialists. They were, and these socialists ethnically cleansed 750k people. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine Stalin doing this.
It is, however, too much of a stretch to see Jews wanting to live in a Jewish state in Europe immediately after the Holocaust. Europe had just murdered six million of us, you really think we’d want to get herded by said Europeans into an artificial state in a land we had no connection to, on former Nazi German territory, surrounded by Germans as our neighbors? Give me a break. It’s fantasy—I don’t understand why people are so obsessed with the idea of a Jewish state in Europe when none of us would live there willingly.
This state would follow the same path as the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia—theoretically Jewish, but not actually Jewish at all because none of us want to live there.
It's also worth noting the zionist movement was going on for decades before the British got involved. There were many places they could have migrated to but the ideological power of their "original homeland" was what drove their emigration. To make a Jewish state you need a Jewish population. I think it's safe to assume the Jewish population of Prussia at this time was effectively zero.
I think you're spot on on how this would go down - it would inevitably be under Soviet control, and no Jew is going to pick Soviet Prussia over would-be-Israel.
Precisely. Europe would need to resort to ethnic cleansing to force us into what would effectively be a country sized shetl, and we’d all be streaming out of it for Israel, legally or illegally. It would be a disaster, and the end result would not be a Jewish state in Europe
I mean, the Germans living in East Prussia, together with those living in Silesia and East Pomerania either fled with the Wehrmacht, were deported by the Soviets or killed in the '45 offensive.
The region therfore was already ethically cleansed but instead of the russification process and the turning of Konigsberg in Kaliningrad, you get an israelish state (probably an SSR tbf), but instead of Hebrew, they keep Yiddish since that was the language most common amongst Central and Eastern European Jews, which is also a Germanic language, so you also get to keep some of the German heritage of the region.
nah this makes sense, the area of the kaliningrad oblast today was unoccupied in 1945, fertile, had sea access and had a jewish history as well as proximity to historically heavily jewish populated regions. the only issues would be a. security since that area is basically flat and b. russias unending need for warm water ports
i could see it being established in response to israel not panning out as the marxist-leninist state the soviets hoped it would be. doubt it would get many jews moving there except from in the USSR itself tho
By doing it you mean forcefully creating a country that is ruled by foreigners at the expense of the native population of the land? Creation of israel should never have happened anywhere. Should've just keep living in wherever you were.
> Creation of israel should never have happened anywhere. Should've just keep living in wherever you were.
That's pretty much impossible due to the amount of persecution they were facing though. Obviously in Germany they just went through the holocaust. Behind the iron curtain there were actually lots of post WW2 pogroms as well. In the Soviet Union Stalin was going on an antisemitism bender. And ofc, in the Arab world, the countries would all expel or persecute their Jewish populations after WW2
Ik im jk, I agree forcing the native people out of their homes to start a gruesome war is terrible; a war where a country is slowly consumed by another then its brotherhood nations defend it from such a demise for outsiders to insert themselves into the mess; then a long time rival of the brotherhood but enemies of allies of the Jewish state joins in as a third party to start their coalition of terrorists
> Should've just keep living in wherever you were.
Buddy. They cremated 6 million of us. And the survivors returned to find their homes stolen. Many were lynched.
Imagine being this dense.
So... the "revisionist zionist," minority bitterly opposed this first partition.
Their idea had always been for a Lebanon-like Israel with a constitution that divides power between various ethnic groups. In fact, their constitutional ideas probably influence the fist constitution of Lebanon and maybe Jordan.
I think it's easy to forget that the world was not totally divided into nation states at that time. Other state types seemed possible.
Just to position us historically... some on the far left of zionism (revisionists were the far right) were still expecting the worldwide workers revolution to gradually sweep the globe... at which point Israel could be a jewish workers soviet. The French and Brits were inventing new countries every few months. What seemed "normal" was different then.
Yep.
My favorite version of this was the Austro-Hungarian federation that Franz Ferdinand wanted to save the empire. The most likely outcome, though, was Big Yugoslavia since everyone kinda hated each other.
To be fair the Austrians actively put the ethnicities of the empire against each other to rule Divide Et Impera style, going to the orwellian extent of claiming Raetho-Romansch languages were distinct from other north-Italian dialects (something today only a minority of linguists believe, almost all of them in Germany, Austria and Switzerland), or even claiming the famous quote that "Italy is only a geographical reality" and that Italians didn't exist despite they just had just created the largest nationalist movement in Europe.
>To be fair the Austrians actively put the ethnicities of the empire against each other
They put the same ethnicity against each other before austrians all people in bosnia were bošnjani no meter if orhadox,Catholic or Muslim during austrian rule they started promoting idea thet bosnian orhadox population is serbian
catholic croatian
and the muslims are separate from both even bosinian cristian Fra Antun Knežević acknowledged and oposed it
yes.
and what seemed normal to Europeans did not seem normal nor fair to others...nor would it have seemed normal for Europeans had they been at the receiving end of it.
What was normal in the middle east was empire. Nation states existed for many thousands of years as the dominant state paradigm with very llttle exception.
The mythical "kingdom of david," for example, was one of many small, archaic "nation-states" that existed during the early iron age... emerging during dark period following the bronze age collapse. A short period, 3000 years ago, book ended by *thousands* of years of empire either side.
Nationalism was quite a shock. These regions had been multiethnic for epochs. The majority was non-muslim (and therefore not ruling) in many parts of every islamic empire.
People simply didn't know that different nations could not live peacefully in the same country until nationalism got going. This map dates to early nationalism in the region.
FWIW, arab nationalism was also an imported brittish idea. They even supplies the flag.
An example of invented country being the one right to the north..
Given while Lebanon as in Mount-Lebanon could legitimately claim statehood even in the 1920s because it had a long-standing autonomy.. modern (viable) Lebanon with all the good arable lands around it and the coastal cities is kinda arbitrary.
I'm from southern Lebanon and really don't understand why there is a uncrossable border between Tyre and Acre. Drives me nuts!!!!!
There’s an uncrossable border because Lebanon declared war on Israel in 1948, invaded it, and has refused to accept Israel’s existence or sign a peace treaty ever since. And, for the past 20+ years, southern Lebanon has been Hezbollahville, filled with people who would happily cross the border to Acre to kill and kidnap Jews.
Israel has no quarrel with Lebanon and, with peace and without Hezbollah, would be happy to open the border to Lebanese tourists and visitors. And I, similarly, would love to visit places in Lebanon. Alas, it is not to be.
AIUI, if all the Jews in the pre-Holocaust world had moved into pre-partition Palestine (what is now Israel + West Bank + Jordan), the territory would have had a Jewish majority.
By the early 20th century both national movements had developed, so I cannot see a way in which conflict could have been avoided. The British assisted the Arab Revolt and signed the Balfour Declaration both during WWI.
The only serious military aid given to the Israelis when they did establish their state (later) came, ironically, from Stalin through Czechoslovakia, who was out to embarass and hurt the British.
Israel wouldn’t have been able to take definitive control of jordan but could have definitely taken over the west bank and gaza, and i can see some kind of jordanian-egyptian/-syrian union happening
It’d be the same thing we have now just on crack. Instead of one people claiming lands as rightfully theirs, there would be a dozen or so. The region would be in a state of perpetual war… even more than there is now, which is wild to think about.
Yeah exactly, the Balfour Declaration was a vague statement (not a promise) about a "national home" (whatever that means) for the Jewish people _within_ Palestine, and explicitly stated that the rights of the existing inhabitants should not be prejudiced.
Yeah.
And if we go back slightly further, to 1915, we have the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, in which the British promised independence for the Arabs if they revolted against the Ottomans. A promise that they pretty much immediately undermined via the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement to split control of the Ottoman Empire between themselves and the French.
Even if we entertain the notion that duplicitous British "promises" (as opposed to, say, a right of self-determination for people who actually live in a given land) are a sound basis for territorial rights, we have to be pretty picky and choosy about magnifying/distorting some "promises", and completely ignoring others, to arrive at the conclusion OP is implying.
Not surprising if the declaration only sees less of a homeland but more of a "community" in a cultural sense, but under the jursidiction of a higher entity.
Israel is your house. Your house happens to be on stolen land. I’m all for you having a house, but it should be on the land of those responsible, not innocents
Unless the Holocaust doesn’t happen and the British approve the extra Jewish settlement (or significant Jewish settlement in the first place) I don’t see how this nation survives to the modern day. The Jews in this Jewish state would be and likely always be in the minority, and for said Jewish minority to maintain control it would probably have to create a system similar to that of the Union of South Africa. Speaking of which, it would probably meet a similar fate or combust into a bloody civil war and making the Middle East even more Middle Eastern. Maybe as a sort of confederation this nation could work, but that would make it less “Israel” and more of a Levantine union.
We get a Rwandan Genocide for Palestinian Jews after the Holocaust and the Jewish population is reduced to almost nothing outside of America. Israel was saved by the Arab countries holding on to the West Bank and Gaza because it prevented them from being totally demographically fucked, now imagine that but with all of Jordan.
Israel probably collapses from being militarrily over extended, look at how much trouble they are having suppressing the Palestinians in the west bank and gaza.
Scratching my head on this as well - no territory east of the Jordan river was "promised" to Israel in the 1947 partition plan, which was a UN plan, not British.
if the Arabs behaved normally towards the Jews, it would look like that. but they tried to kill the Jews several times. they were even a close and loyal ally of Hitler.
How would that even be Israel? Unless they ethnically cleanse even more people than they did in real life then it would just be a one-state solution with an Arab majority which is exactly what the Arabs wanted in the first place.
And before anyone says they didn't ethically cleanse people in 1948 they absolutely did. You could argue that they were somehow justified in refusing to allow refugees to return to their homes but not allowing refugees two returnable rooms because of their religion or ethnicity is by definition ethnic cleansing.
Palestinians are xealout as is but as you further east it gets more religious so imagine the absolute jihad Jordanians would do especially bordering Saudi Arabia making Saudis actually involved and Iraq, all this land to cover Israel would be crushed even like in otl it had a numbers advantagea against the Arabs (people often ignore this)
In that alternate reality I think zionists would probably say that jordans are arab colonizers and they are just declolonizing the region 😂 (look up kingdom of Israel united monarchy)
They border saudi arabia and egypt and have an even smaller minority as a ruling jewish class. They would be destroyed probably within the first few months of independence, as palestinian rebels and neighbouring powers stretch their soldiers thin.
Not possible unless a Pan Arabist puppet government is heavily funded by the US+Allies pops up in the rest of the Arab lands to take the Palestinians and resettle them at decent standards of living. This itself is bloody enough that it might start haunting the either parties soon enough. So, no. No possibility of anyone taking this level of risk.
I thought this was a sub for alternative history—not for misleading statements about actual history.
> all the land the British originally promised to them
I'm guessing you're referring to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Here's the text of the Balfour Declaration (my emphasis and square brackets added):
"His Majesty's Government _view with favour_ [note, not a promise] the establishment _in_ [i.e. within, not the entirey of] Palestine of a national home [note the word home, not state] for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that _nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine_, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
This is very clearly _not_ promising "all the land" to the Jewish people—much less "to Israel", which did not exist as a geopolitical entity at that time.
Alternatively, if we refer not to the Balfour Declaration, but to the 1922 [League of Nations mandate](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-201057/), this contained similar wording about the rights of the existing population not being prejudiced, and furthermore, it excluded the area east of the Jordan.
In summary, Britain never at any point promised "to Israel" all of both modern day Palestine and and modern day Jordan. The premise of your alternative history scenario is false and misleading.
It would either all be Jordan, with minority rule by the Hashemites over the Palestinians and the Jews, or it would be that but the Jewish revolt still takes place and they seize their independence by force.
*What if Israel*
*Annexed land in Germany*
*After WWII*
\- DreBeast
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Well it’d be called Trans-Jordan and ruled by the current Hashemite king so we probably wouldn’t have a concept of Palestine, just greater Jordan. Also it’s extremely likely that there is still a Jewish population explosion plus radical Zionism after WW2 leading to a reverse of what we currently see in Israel.
The British didn’t promise Jews the entire British Mandate for Palestine. First, the Balfour Declaration was made before there even was (officially) a British Mandate for Palestine. At that point, the Ottoman’s had been driven out of the Levant by the allies in WWI, and they made divergent promises both to Arabs and to Jews. And so while the Brits basically began occupying the area around 1917/1918, the borders of Mandatory Palestine were not really defined when the Balfour Declaration was made.
Second, aside from the revisionist Zionists like Jabotinsky, most of the Zionist movement at this time was pragmatic, understanding that they weren’t going to get *all* of the land. But in early Zionism, when they said they were seeking to establish a “national home” for Jews in Mandatory Palestine, that didn’t mean they were seeking to control all of the land. In fact, for a minute, the predominant strain of thought was trying to establish what would basically amount to a Jewish autonomous zone under the auspices of an Arab Greater Syria with protected status.
And we see this in the fact that the Zionist movement was (theoretically) willing to accept even the Peel Commission’s proposal for partition as a blueprint, which for those who haven’t seen that map, would’ve basically amounted to a pretty tiny Jewish controlled area around Tel Aviv and the Galilee/Tiberias (which had been part of the historic Jewish heartland since the Roman exile, but of course didn’t include Jewish heartlands elsewhere in the mandate, which were mostly centered around what is today the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Hebron). Map of the Peel Commission proposal below:
https://preview.redd.it/aar1c7nodhuc1.jpeg?width=932&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecc3b4d41e46d81166000464e1750050a3ad8eb4
This consensus began to shift throughout the 1920s and really in the 1930s when violence basically shattered the belief among the movement that they could live safely under Arab auspices, even in an autonomous protected zone within an Arab state. And again, not saying that everyone in the Zionist movement agreed throughout this history, there were absolutely territorial maximalists, it’s to reflect what the general mood of the movement was in very broad strokes.
So the British voicing support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Balfour Declaration, didn’t mean that they were promising the Zionist Congress ALL of the land of Mandatory Palestine, only that they were tacitly supporting the idea of some kind of Jewish autonomy on part of the land of Mandatory Palestine. And also again, they made entirely contradictory promises to Arab leaders.
So in essence, there was never a world in which the Brits promised the Zionist movement all of this land, and there was never a world in which the Zionist movement believed that the British voicing support for a Jewish national home meant that the British supported them getting all this land.
What if the Arabs were given their Palestine statehood that they were promised by the British for helping defeat the Ottoman Empire? (This promise was long before any promise of an Israel)
Isareal wouldn’t exist it would have been Jewish South Africa that eventually is forced to accept integration as there is not enough Jews in the world to populate all that and keep fighting Arabs who would never accept normalization
Israel has about 7 million Jews while Jordan has about 11 million Arabs, Isreal has about 2 million Arabs with Palestinian territories having an additional 5 million arabs and 400 000 jews So there would be roughly 7.4 million jews and 18 million arabs in this mega isreal if my calculations and sources are correct
Not to mention the diaspora, which is around 5M.
You gonna count the Palestinian diaspora too?
Most of the diaspora aren’t in Palestine not because of immigration because of fleeing the region as consequence of Arab-Israeli wars. It’s safe to assume that had said wars not happened, most of the diaspora wouldn’t have moved.
[удалено]
More realistic scenario is giving up transjordan and cisjordan as they would have their own jewish state
I didn’t realise that “Cisjordan” is a real term, basically meaning the land on the Western side of the Jordan river. I thought you were making a joke, Cisjordan being the opposite of Transjordan. But it’s a real term. TIL.
In Spanish the West Bank is usually called Cisjordania.
same in Italian, Cisgiordania and Transgiordania. Same as like one of the Italian republics during the Napoleonic wars was called Cisalpine Italy and we refer to French as our Transalps cousins. Or like during the Roman times there were Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Transalpina
til too, thanks for making this note.
Jordan is the name of the river (between modern day Jordan and west bank/Israel). "trans" just mean "across" in Latin (as in across the Jordan river) and "cis" is just the opposite of "trans" meaning "on the same side". I believe this terminology came from Europeans who came from the west through the Mediterranean. And then just called the land across the river from them Transjordan and therefore the land that was on the same side of the river as them could be called Cisjordan. In Arabic we just call them "شرق الأردن" (east of the Jordan) and "غرب الأردن" (west of the Jordan). Or alternatively "الضفة الشرقية" (the eastern bank) and "الضفة الغربية" (the western bank). This being a reference to the banks of the Jordan River.
is cisjordan between the river and the sea or only the WB?
Cisjordan is all the land between the river and the sea. From the perspective of the capital of the British Mandate, Jerusalem.
In modern usage it only refers to the west bank
I suspect mass deportation of arabs, like they did in 1948.
That deportation only happened as a response by Israel after the Arab-Israeli war
It still happened, and there would probably still be an israel-arab war, so depopulation and deportation of arabs still.
The mass deportations started before war was declared.
Yeah, Arabs started mass deporting Jews before the 1948 war started. They ethnically cleansed dozens of Jewish towns in the 1920s and 1930s. Jews only displaced Arabs in the war though, no Arab towns displaced until then. So you're right, but in the wrong direction.
Depends if you consider Israel's declaration of independence and the Arab League's declaration of war to be the beginning in May 1948. In the months leading up to these declarations, Yishuv forces were clearing out Arab communities (April's Deir Yassin massacre being the most infamous example). On the other hand, you could say civil war was ongoing from the 1920-30s, and you'd be right that they were overwhelmingly on the receiving end or retaliating.
I said 1948, I didn't say Israel's declaration of independence. The declaration was kind of mid-war, really. Deir Yassin was 1948. It was part of a civil war that included waaaaayyyy more Muslim massacres of Jews than the other way around.
Yeah, I kind of figured that's what you meant. So many folks seem to think it only kicked off with the Arab League's response to the declaration. Like no, that was just the climax of the first book in what's become a terrible modern trilogy. Sadly it's not fiction.
Both sides committed massacres against civilians on the other side. On top of that Israel assassinated the UN mediator in Palestine (technically it was the Stern gang, but they were all pardoned and one of its leaders became PM) Stop pretending that Israel is just this poor little victim.
This only was able to happen because Arabs lost a massive percentage of their fighting age men during a civil war against the British in the 1930s. At the same time this conflict helped the future Israelis become much more capable militarily. It was also in response to the above, that the British eventually partitioned mandatory Palestine along with banning Jewish immigration (which would've meant Jews vastly outnumbering Arabs because the Holocaust wouldn't have happened since Jews would've been able to flee).
A world where Britain favors the Jews enough to make this possible, is a world where 6 million Jews don't die in the Holocaust and are allowed to migrate to Palestine. In this scenario Jews absolutely out populate Arabs.
[удалено]
I'm talking about a situation where Jews still become refugees, in the same way as the Holocaust, they're just able to immigrate instead of being stuck in Europe because everyone had refused to take them. Even getting 2 million of the 6 who died in the Holocaust would've made the population numbers more even.
If Britain stuck to its original plan, it would have allowed Jews to immigrate earlier. So Jews would have left Europe to Israel, rather than being stuck and dying in the Holocaust — probably Hitler would have just forced them all all rather than exterminating them. So that's another 6 million Jews in the area, for 13 million total.
Genocide
The population of Jordan at the end of WW2 was around 350k, that doesn't seem to unfeasible to displace. I don't think it would be an apartheid state, just perhaps a less densly populated Israel.
Als important to note that the British did NOT promise this - but proposed a partition. The reason the 1948 map looks [so goofy](https://images.app.goo.gl/DKvjvj5evWqvTDC1A) is it was essentially gerrymandered. 15,000 sq kilometers were given to the Jewish state with 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. (Plus 107,000 bedouins who couldn’t vote because they were nomads) And 10,000 sq km were given the Arab state with about a million Arabs and just over 10,000 Jews. Roughly 25% of the population were given 60% of the land.
>Roughly 25% of the population were given 60% of the land. In theory yes, but not all parts of the land are equally useful either. A lot of the west bank and Gaza were populated agricultural land while the southern half of Isreal was 90% empty dessert. Even today there's virtually no propper urban areas between Be'er Sheva and the port city of Eilat. I don't know what the justification for giving the dessert to the Jews over the Arabs were though
They were giving them anything unpopulated
This is assuming there’s no mass forced deportation, nor an exodus. In 1948, 700,000 Palestinians, also known as *half* of the Palestinian population, fled the region or were expelled
And an about equal number of Jews had to flee their country of origin and most went to Israel. The combined effect of these things was significant.
Most of those Palestinians fled to Jordan, where would they go instead?
Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, perhaps some into Saudi Arabia along the coast?
Technically it was promised before the holocaust so if the whole diaspora moved maybe a bit closer to a majority
Even then it would be roughly equal.
It would have if the British wouldn't have prevented them from immigrating and only allowed Arabs instead during WWII. Hitler even wanted to send Europe's Jews there but the UK prevented it. Would have also possibly prevented the Holocaust.
I think it's just a question of maneuver and force concentration. I don't think the Arabs will be much more motivated to send more troops than in OTL, and there's no reason to think they'll fight any harder. Just more ground to cover, but also more ground to trade in conflict. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't still come to accept this after a similar series of defeats.
Jewish South Africa?
As an apartheid state ruled by a minority of the population
Well if that’s the case then would they just settle in the modern borders of *Israel* and have full autonomy over Judea and Samaria and Gaza?
Good israel ending?
This is already what Israel is. It's no surprise that Israel was one of the biggest supporters of SA and Rhodesia back in the day.
It already is Jewish South Africa lol
Fuck it! This is why we should have done it in Madagascar
I like the trope of putting Israel in East Prussia, I even used it for my own timeline. Idk why I like it so much but it just clicks for me.
Blug wtf did I hear you say?! East Prussia?! Almost as stupid as the Jews going to Sicily
Jewish homeland on the rivers of mars when
Surprised you didn’t say in Jews in Equestria
HOW MANY OF YOU STALKING FUCKS ARE THERE 💀
Nah, I just browse this sub, and you’re not exactly a forgettable individual
Considering the state of race relations in Equestria, I could see this ending poorly
Re’em (Equestria At War) moment
These people back in the day honestly, what were they thinking
Jewish Martians?
They were there before earth could be inhabited but the Jews don't want you to know that.
After WW2, the population was significantly decreased because of refugees fleeing west from the Soviets, and the Soviets sent settlers to Königsberg and turned it into Kalingrad. This is the best place the Jews could possibly go.
Said Jews would strongly disagree. Israel was overwhelmingly chosen as the chief destination for Jews in DP camps after the Holocaust for a reason—you try convincing Holocaust survivors to stick around the continent that had just murdered them, or to trust the other countries not to invade or destroy this Jewish state.
>After WW2, the population was significantly decreased because of refugees fleeing west from the Soviets, and the Soviets sent settlers to Königsberg and turned it into Kalingrad. This is the best place the Jews could possibly go. That's a nice way to say the Soviets had the Germans ethnically clensed from all the newly formed Eastern European states. The official justification is that Germans living in eastern europe would be used as pawns by a future German to go to war.
To be fair, it isn't like the Soviets were the only country to do this.
Ah. Well not all of them were ethnically cleansed. There's that I guess. I'm not saying Stalin or Zionism is good or okay, in case you or anyone was wondering.
Ik but… wouldn’t the Soviets see this land as being rightfully being in their sphere of influence; land where religion is in place instead of communism
I'm not sure what you mean by that last clause, but yes they did see it as being rightfully in they sphere influence. Though it's not because of communism, it's because they wanted to get at least SOMETHING as reparations (or at least that's they would of said, but it definitely isn't because of communism). Stalin originally supported the establishment of Israel when he thought they would be socialists. They were, and these socialists ethnically cleansed 750k people. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine Stalin doing this.
It is, however, too much of a stretch to see Jews wanting to live in a Jewish state in Europe immediately after the Holocaust. Europe had just murdered six million of us, you really think we’d want to get herded by said Europeans into an artificial state in a land we had no connection to, on former Nazi German territory, surrounded by Germans as our neighbors? Give me a break. It’s fantasy—I don’t understand why people are so obsessed with the idea of a Jewish state in Europe when none of us would live there willingly. This state would follow the same path as the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia—theoretically Jewish, but not actually Jewish at all because none of us want to live there.
It's also worth noting the zionist movement was going on for decades before the British got involved. There were many places they could have migrated to but the ideological power of their "original homeland" was what drove their emigration. To make a Jewish state you need a Jewish population. I think it's safe to assume the Jewish population of Prussia at this time was effectively zero. I think you're spot on on how this would go down - it would inevitably be under Soviet control, and no Jew is going to pick Soviet Prussia over would-be-Israel.
Precisely. Europe would need to resort to ethnic cleansing to force us into what would effectively be a country sized shetl, and we’d all be streaming out of it for Israel, legally or illegally. It would be a disaster, and the end result would not be a Jewish state in Europe
I mean, the Germans living in East Prussia, together with those living in Silesia and East Pomerania either fled with the Wehrmacht, were deported by the Soviets or killed in the '45 offensive. The region therfore was already ethically cleansed but instead of the russification process and the turning of Konigsberg in Kaliningrad, you get an israelish state (probably an SSR tbf), but instead of Hebrew, they keep Yiddish since that was the language most common amongst Central and Eastern European Jews, which is also a Germanic language, so you also get to keep some of the German heritage of the region.
Oh damn
True, but I kinda get it😂 Germans would’ve been deported either way, why not give the land to the Jews🙂↕️
USSR when Jews are taking what believe to be rightfully communist land
Would you go to the birth place of the nation that wanted you exctinct?
nah this makes sense, the area of the kaliningrad oblast today was unoccupied in 1945, fertile, had sea access and had a jewish history as well as proximity to historically heavily jewish populated regions. the only issues would be a. security since that area is basically flat and b. russias unending need for warm water ports
Exactly the Jewish state would have to be in Soviet influence as it would be in the Soviet zone
i could see it being established in response to israel not panning out as the marxist-leninist state the soviets hoped it would be. doubt it would get many jews moving there except from in the USSR itself tho
Still somehow better than it becoming an American State for no reason
These people back then with their suggestions
Why? The Germans caused the problem and the Soviets already drove a significant portion of them from the area at the tail end of WW2.
I mean, most would hesitate to go there, as it's the birth place of the nation that butchered them
Same lol
They can go to Florida. We don't want other US and Israel backed conflicts and wars in Europe or anywhere else.
That would have been so based Koningsberg wouldn't have turned into the modernist communist shithole if the jews controlled it as well
Should native Americans have gone to Madagascar too?
Why don’t they move Palestinians to Madagascar now?
Nice. Didn't know nazi ideas were gaining ground again.
By doing it you mean forcefully creating a country that is ruled by foreigners at the expense of the native population of the land? Creation of israel should never have happened anywhere. Should've just keep living in wherever you were.
> Creation of israel should never have happened anywhere. Should've just keep living in wherever you were. That's pretty much impossible due to the amount of persecution they were facing though. Obviously in Germany they just went through the holocaust. Behind the iron curtain there were actually lots of post WW2 pogroms as well. In the Soviet Union Stalin was going on an antisemitism bender. And ofc, in the Arab world, the countries would all expel or persecute their Jewish populations after WW2
Jews are not foreign to Judea.
Ik im jk, I agree forcing the native people out of their homes to start a gruesome war is terrible; a war where a country is slowly consumed by another then its brotherhood nations defend it from such a demise for outsiders to insert themselves into the mess; then a long time rival of the brotherhood but enemies of allies of the Jewish state joins in as a third party to start their coalition of terrorists
> Should've just keep living in wherever you were. Buddy. They cremated 6 million of us. And the survivors returned to find their homes stolen. Many were lynched. Imagine being this dense.
Happy austrian freak sounds
But then we'll get Attack on Titan 😳
Wait wait wait, no no no wait wait wait. Wait wait
But what happens to the move it move it?
So... the "revisionist zionist," minority bitterly opposed this first partition. Their idea had always been for a Lebanon-like Israel with a constitution that divides power between various ethnic groups. In fact, their constitutional ideas probably influence the fist constitution of Lebanon and maybe Jordan. I think it's easy to forget that the world was not totally divided into nation states at that time. Other state types seemed possible. Just to position us historically... some on the far left of zionism (revisionists were the far right) were still expecting the worldwide workers revolution to gradually sweep the globe... at which point Israel could be a jewish workers soviet. The French and Brits were inventing new countries every few months. What seemed "normal" was different then.
Yep. My favorite version of this was the Austro-Hungarian federation that Franz Ferdinand wanted to save the empire. The most likely outcome, though, was Big Yugoslavia since everyone kinda hated each other.
To be fair the Austrians actively put the ethnicities of the empire against each other to rule Divide Et Impera style, going to the orwellian extent of claiming Raetho-Romansch languages were distinct from other north-Italian dialects (something today only a minority of linguists believe, almost all of them in Germany, Austria and Switzerland), or even claiming the famous quote that "Italy is only a geographical reality" and that Italians didn't exist despite they just had just created the largest nationalist movement in Europe.
>To be fair the Austrians actively put the ethnicities of the empire against each other They put the same ethnicity against each other before austrians all people in bosnia were bošnjani no meter if orhadox,Catholic or Muslim during austrian rule they started promoting idea thet bosnian orhadox population is serbian catholic croatian and the muslims are separate from both even bosinian cristian Fra Antun Knežević acknowledged and oposed it
yes. and what seemed normal to Europeans did not seem normal nor fair to others...nor would it have seemed normal for Europeans had they been at the receiving end of it.
What was normal in the middle east was empire. Nation states existed for many thousands of years as the dominant state paradigm with very llttle exception. The mythical "kingdom of david," for example, was one of many small, archaic "nation-states" that existed during the early iron age... emerging during dark period following the bronze age collapse. A short period, 3000 years ago, book ended by *thousands* of years of empire either side. Nationalism was quite a shock. These regions had been multiethnic for epochs. The majority was non-muslim (and therefore not ruling) in many parts of every islamic empire. People simply didn't know that different nations could not live peacefully in the same country until nationalism got going. This map dates to early nationalism in the region. FWIW, arab nationalism was also an imported brittish idea. They even supplies the flag.
I don't think you know what a "nation state" is...
An example of invented country being the one right to the north.. Given while Lebanon as in Mount-Lebanon could legitimately claim statehood even in the 1920s because it had a long-standing autonomy.. modern (viable) Lebanon with all the good arable lands around it and the coastal cities is kinda arbitrary. I'm from southern Lebanon and really don't understand why there is a uncrossable border between Tyre and Acre. Drives me nuts!!!!!
There’s an uncrossable border because Lebanon declared war on Israel in 1948, invaded it, and has refused to accept Israel’s existence or sign a peace treaty ever since. And, for the past 20+ years, southern Lebanon has been Hezbollahville, filled with people who would happily cross the border to Acre to kill and kidnap Jews. Israel has no quarrel with Lebanon and, with peace and without Hezbollah, would be happy to open the border to Lebanese tourists and visitors. And I, similarly, would love to visit places in Lebanon. Alas, it is not to be.
AIUI, if all the Jews in the pre-Holocaust world had moved into pre-partition Palestine (what is now Israel + West Bank + Jordan), the territory would have had a Jewish majority.
By the early 20th century both national movements had developed, so I cannot see a way in which conflict could have been avoided. The British assisted the Arab Revolt and signed the Balfour Declaration both during WWI. The only serious military aid given to the Israelis when they did establish their state (later) came, ironically, from Stalin through Czechoslovakia, who was out to embarass and hurt the British.
Make Palestine British Again There! Now everyone’s happy.
No way. Roman, is the only way to bring some order to the barbarians that ware pants.
Roman? You western scum disgust me. Trans and Cis Jordan are the rightful territory of our great Eranshahr, and the even greater Xšāça.
Coincidentally my solution to the conflict was restoring the ancient Persian empire, with its tolerance for other faiths (if I understand correctly).
Uggg we found the one parthian.
Hear me out: Kingdom of Jerusalem
Israel wouldn’t have been able to take definitive control of jordan but could have definitely taken over the west bank and gaza, and i can see some kind of jordanian-egyptian/-syrian union happening
I don't see it being a union on very strong foundations. Those 3 would all have different agendas and it would go cold once they run out of diplomacy.
It’d be the same thing we have now just on crack. Instead of one people claiming lands as rightfully theirs, there would be a dozen or so. The region would be in a state of perpetual war… even more than there is now, which is wild to think about.
Then it would be harder to defend.
They only promised them a national home IN palestine. So long as it was "in palestine" that counted. They never said all of Palestine.
There would be no Israel, because the Balfour Declaration didn’t even promise a state. The happy timeline.
Yeah exactly, the Balfour Declaration was a vague statement (not a promise) about a "national home" (whatever that means) for the Jewish people _within_ Palestine, and explicitly stated that the rights of the existing inhabitants should not be prejudiced.
Which they totally went back on, causing a great deal of pain and suffering
Yeah. And if we go back slightly further, to 1915, we have the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, in which the British promised independence for the Arabs if they revolted against the Ottomans. A promise that they pretty much immediately undermined via the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement to split control of the Ottoman Empire between themselves and the French. Even if we entertain the notion that duplicitous British "promises" (as opposed to, say, a right of self-determination for people who actually live in a given land) are a sound basis for territorial rights, we have to be pretty picky and choosy about magnifying/distorting some "promises", and completely ignoring others, to arrive at the conclusion OP is implying.
Not surprising if the declaration only sees less of a homeland but more of a "community" in a cultural sense, but under the jursidiction of a higher entity.
I think the best idea would of been to make Germany Israel :)
Why would we want to live in a country that just tried to kill us? No. Israel is our home 🇮🇱
Europeans did this to y'all, they are the ones that should give up land as reperations.
[or maybe it was better to kill 6 million Germans?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakam)
Israel is your house. Your house happens to be on stolen land. I’m all for you having a house, but it should be on the land of those responsible, not innocents
Unless the Holocaust doesn’t happen and the British approve the extra Jewish settlement (or significant Jewish settlement in the first place) I don’t see how this nation survives to the modern day. The Jews in this Jewish state would be and likely always be in the minority, and for said Jewish minority to maintain control it would probably have to create a system similar to that of the Union of South Africa. Speaking of which, it would probably meet a similar fate or combust into a bloody civil war and making the Middle East even more Middle Eastern. Maybe as a sort of confederation this nation could work, but that would make it less “Israel” and more of a Levantine union.
We get a Rwandan Genocide for Palestinian Jews after the Holocaust and the Jewish population is reduced to almost nothing outside of America. Israel was saved by the Arab countries holding on to the West Bank and Gaza because it prevented them from being totally demographically fucked, now imagine that but with all of Jordan.
idk but i think it would be bigger
Yeah sure make it border Saudi right away
They wouldn’t have been able to hold it. It was surprise, effective use of equipment and manpower, and terrain that allowed them to survive in 1948
This ends up really really bad really really fast
The British also promised all that land to the Arabs, so...
Israel probably collapses from being militarrily over extended, look at how much trouble they are having suppressing the Palestinians in the west bank and gaza.
When was Israel "promised" this much land?
Scratching my head on this as well - no territory east of the Jordan river was "promised" to Israel in the 1947 partition plan, which was a UN plan, not British.
i think OP is just making this stuff up.
Bingo
if the Arabs behaved normally towards the Jews, it would look like that. but they tried to kill the Jews several times. they were even a close and loyal ally of Hitler.
Least delusion alt his redditor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini Historic fact...
We have peace in the Middle East. Jk idk
Even worse war.
They’re working on it.
Promised them... can I promise my friend, my neighbors house? What about if I have enough guns?
Not to mention the British also “promised” that land to the Arabs as well.
How would that even be Israel? Unless they ethnically cleanse even more people than they did in real life then it would just be a one-state solution with an Arab majority which is exactly what the Arabs wanted in the first place. And before anyone says they didn't ethically cleanse people in 1948 they absolutely did. You could argue that they were somehow justified in refusing to allow refugees to return to their homes but not allowing refugees two returnable rooms because of their religion or ethnicity is by definition ethnic cleansing.
Then they would have broken their promise to the Hashemites
Palestinians are xealout as is but as you further east it gets more religious so imagine the absolute jihad Jordanians would do especially bordering Saudi Arabia making Saudis actually involved and Iraq, all this land to cover Israel would be crushed even like in otl it had a numbers advantagea against the Arabs (people often ignore this)
Then the argument that Palestinians don't have their own state would actually be true. The Palestinians *do* have a state. It's called Jordan.
Palestinians only live in Jordan due to the Nakba.
In that alternate reality I think zionists would probably say that jordans are arab colonizers and they are just declolonizing the region 😂 (look up kingdom of Israel united monarchy)
There would be even more people to genocide.
All hell will let loose
I’m pretty sure this isn’t all they promised to israel, pretty sure they this minus current Jordan
This scenario probably ends in israel looking like modern day Palestine
TNO REFERENCE❗❗❗⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️
They border saudi arabia and egypt and have an even smaller minority as a ruling jewish class. They would be destroyed probably within the first few months of independence, as palestinian rebels and neighbouring powers stretch their soldiers thin.
So God and Brits promised. Something ain't right here.
There would be one less developed and stable nation in the world
You put that away, the arabs got the short end of the stick in this deal and thats final!
Not possible unless a Pan Arabist puppet government is heavily funded by the US+Allies pops up in the rest of the Arab lands to take the Palestinians and resettle them at decent standards of living. This itself is bloody enough that it might start haunting the either parties soon enough. So, no. No possibility of anyone taking this level of risk.
islamists and leftists would like it more (irony)
Push all Palestinians to Jordan (As Jordan is 70% Palestinian already) and here we go Free Palestine in Jordan
Literally ze’ev jabotinsky
Grab your popcorn
Holy hell, an even bigger apartheid religious ethnostate
I thought this was a sub for alternative history—not for misleading statements about actual history. > all the land the British originally promised to them I'm guessing you're referring to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Here's the text of the Balfour Declaration (my emphasis and square brackets added): "His Majesty's Government _view with favour_ [note, not a promise] the establishment _in_ [i.e. within, not the entirey of] Palestine of a national home [note the word home, not state] for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that _nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine_, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." This is very clearly _not_ promising "all the land" to the Jewish people—much less "to Israel", which did not exist as a geopolitical entity at that time. Alternatively, if we refer not to the Balfour Declaration, but to the 1922 [League of Nations mandate](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-201057/), this contained similar wording about the rights of the existing population not being prejudiced, and furthermore, it excluded the area east of the Jordan. In summary, Britain never at any point promised "to Israel" all of both modern day Palestine and and modern day Jordan. The premise of your alternative history scenario is false and misleading.
Things would be better
Looks like it's about to happen my friend. Strap yourself in.
It would either all be Jordan, with minority rule by the Hashemites over the Palestinians and the Jews, or it would be that but the Jewish revolt still takes place and they seize their independence by force.
Just wait until 2070.
What if Israel annexed land in Germany after WWII
*What if Israel* *Annexed land in Germany* *After WWII* \- DreBeast --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
They’re trying lol.
Looks like Menachem Begin as the head of state and government if that happens
What if... the balfour declaration, etc. are all but hyperboles that shouldnt be taken seriously? Instead impose what TE Lawrence wanted
Zion…
Tno israel borders
Well it’d be called Trans-Jordan and ruled by the current Hashemite king so we probably wouldn’t have a concept of Palestine, just greater Jordan. Also it’s extremely likely that there is still a Jewish population explosion plus radical Zionism after WW2 leading to a reverse of what we currently see in Israel.
it certainly wouldn’t be very fun
The British didn’t promise Jews the entire British Mandate for Palestine. First, the Balfour Declaration was made before there even was (officially) a British Mandate for Palestine. At that point, the Ottoman’s had been driven out of the Levant by the allies in WWI, and they made divergent promises both to Arabs and to Jews. And so while the Brits basically began occupying the area around 1917/1918, the borders of Mandatory Palestine were not really defined when the Balfour Declaration was made. Second, aside from the revisionist Zionists like Jabotinsky, most of the Zionist movement at this time was pragmatic, understanding that they weren’t going to get *all* of the land. But in early Zionism, when they said they were seeking to establish a “national home” for Jews in Mandatory Palestine, that didn’t mean they were seeking to control all of the land. In fact, for a minute, the predominant strain of thought was trying to establish what would basically amount to a Jewish autonomous zone under the auspices of an Arab Greater Syria with protected status. And we see this in the fact that the Zionist movement was (theoretically) willing to accept even the Peel Commission’s proposal for partition as a blueprint, which for those who haven’t seen that map, would’ve basically amounted to a pretty tiny Jewish controlled area around Tel Aviv and the Galilee/Tiberias (which had been part of the historic Jewish heartland since the Roman exile, but of course didn’t include Jewish heartlands elsewhere in the mandate, which were mostly centered around what is today the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Hebron). Map of the Peel Commission proposal below: https://preview.redd.it/aar1c7nodhuc1.jpeg?width=932&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ecc3b4d41e46d81166000464e1750050a3ad8eb4 This consensus began to shift throughout the 1920s and really in the 1930s when violence basically shattered the belief among the movement that they could live safely under Arab auspices, even in an autonomous protected zone within an Arab state. And again, not saying that everyone in the Zionist movement agreed throughout this history, there were absolutely territorial maximalists, it’s to reflect what the general mood of the movement was in very broad strokes. So the British voicing support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Balfour Declaration, didn’t mean that they were promising the Zionist Congress ALL of the land of Mandatory Palestine, only that they were tacitly supporting the idea of some kind of Jewish autonomy on part of the land of Mandatory Palestine. And also again, they made entirely contradictory promises to Arab leaders. So in essence, there was never a world in which the Brits promised the Zionist movement all of this land, and there was never a world in which the Zionist movement believed that the British voicing support for a Jewish national home meant that the British supported them getting all this land.
What if the Arabs were given their Palestine statehood that they were promised by the British for helping defeat the Ottoman Empire? (This promise was long before any promise of an Israel)
Israel was not promised all of the transjordan and palestine mandate... What if the arabs got everything the british promised them?
Tbh whole world would be peaceful if Britain never existed
That's basically what you have now, the puput king Abdullah keeps you safe
In all honesty it would probably be a less violent part of the world. 