Alt History: Israel loses in 1948

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Alright, then we need a statesman, as opposed to a politician, who is also a more gifted demagogue, and who has more voter cred, than Churchill had in the post-war years.

But we're doing AH. We can have such a statesman, if we want to.

Do we want to? I mean sure, I can see someone invoking the horrors of Auschwitz to convince people to open American doors to a few hundred thousand Israeli refugees (although I'm confident that some would simply stay and plant bombs same as they were doing before the war). But what's the gaming reason we want that to happen?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Do we want to? I mean sure, I can see someone invoking the horrors of Auschwitz to convince people to open American doors to a few hundred thousand Israeli refugees (although I'm confident that some would simply stay and plant bombs same as they were doing before the war). But what's the gaming reason we want that to happen?

I'm not talking about "invoking the horrors of Auschwitz". Try going back and read what I actually wrote.

[The Colonel]

Even allowing for the possibility of the displaced Israelites having somewhere to go, we still seem to be assuming that the Arab states wouldn't have made good on their promises of genocide before they had a chance to leave.
There's an excellent chance that the numbers able to escape in any organised manner might well have been quite small.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Even allowing for the possibility of the displaced Israelites having somewhere to go, we still seem to be assuming that the Arab states wouldn't have made good on their promises of genocide before they had a chance to leave.
There's an excellent chance that the numbers able to escape in any organised manner might well have been quite small.

Depends on what you mean by organized. We call things genocides when they *target* a group, but the literal meaning, in which they actually succeed in killing all, or even most, of the members of a group in your territory, is actually quite rare. It's hard to kill nations - both because there are a limited number of your own troops who are willing to slaughter unarmed women and children who are pleading for mercy and just as a simple logistical problem.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Even allowing for the possibility of the displaced Israelites having somewhere to go, we still seem to be assuming that the Arab states wouldn't have made good on their promises of genocide before they had a chance to leave.
There's an excellent chance that the numbers able to escape in any organised manner might well have been quite small.

Oh there would have been an ugly slaughter, and the Arabs would take it as an excuse to lecture the West on its immorality. It makes no sense, but it would be done. Claims of moral superiority, combined with attacks on the moral worth of whomever is seen as powerful, is a commonplace today. Psudeo-Phillosophical drivel to paper over the disasters of the local rulers.

One reason why I suggest that anti-semetic slurs directed at America would be more common in the Israeli destruction parallel. America already has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, in this parallel the USA would be the center of the world's Jewish population. That would lead to a festival of nasty cheap-shots.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Even allowing for the possibility of the displaced Israelites having somewhere to go, we still seem to be assuming that the Arab states wouldn't have made good on their promises of genocide before they had a chance to leave.
There's an excellent chance that the numbers able to escape in any organised manner might well have been quite small.

Active genocide seems very unlikely for that period, and even somewhat unlikely today, assuming it's performed by actual government-employed soldiers.

Putting them in camp, and giving them inadequate food, and not caring much about the sanitary conditions... That'd do the trick, but I honestly don't know how doable that'd be in the Moslem countries in the region, back in the late 40s. One thing to keep in mind is that Islamic fundamentalism wasn't much of a thing. Anti-semitism might have been a thing, for all I know, but it's an interesting fact that a generation or two ago, almost no Egyptian women wore headscarves - now most do.

So I'd imagine that drumming up stark religious fanaticism back then would have been quit a challenge. We'd need another super-demagogue to kindle that fire. Very high Charisma (or the equivalent in other systems) and a bunch of high Skills (a Skill for public speaking, a Skill to represent the ability to quote fluently from the Quran, possibly another Skil to represent familiarity with Islamic theological scholarship, and preferably a 4th skill to represent demagogic and sophisti shenanigans).

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Active genocide seems very unlikely for that period, and even somewhat unlikely today, assuming it's performed by actual government-employed soldiers.

That is not clearly a requirement. There was plenty of slaughtering going on by people who were not actual government-employed soldiers at the time and is to this day all around the world. In any case granting the chivalry and discipline of Arab royalist soldiers, it is still hard to believe such qualities of the Grand Mufti's followers.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Active genocide seems very unlikely for that period, and even somewhat unlikely today, assuming it's performed by actual government-employed soldiers.

Putting them in camp, and giving them inadequate food, and not caring much about the sanitary conditions... That'd do the trick, but I honestly don't know how doable that'd be in the Moslem countries in the region, back in the late 40s. One thing to keep in mind is that Islamic fundamentalism wasn't much of a thing. Anti-semitism might have been a thing, for all I know, but it's an interesting fact that a generation or two ago, almost no Egyptian women wore headscarves - now most do.

So I'd imagine that drumming up stark religious fanaticism back then would have been quit a challenge. We'd need another super-demagogue to kindle that fire. Very high Charisma (or the equivalent in other systems) and a bunch of high Skills (a Skill for public speaking, a Skill to represent the ability to quote fluently from the Quran, possibly another Skil to represent familiarity with Islamic theological scholarship, and preferably a 4th skill to represent demagogic and sophisti shenanigans).

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (not an insignificant figure, nor lacking in popular following) was very buddy-buddy with Mad Uncle Adolph and had been associated with previous violence against Balfour Settlers during the mandate, up to and including an attempt to roll naval mines into a Jewish village - apparently Orde Wingate got quite a bit of useful practice in fending off various attacks on the settlers. He was not the only local worthy fond of a spot of Jew-murder, simply the most prominent, and it doesn't take government troops to massacre civilians ... in fact, militias, rabbles and mobs seem to be better at it. I could very easily see victorious Arab units carrying out whatever atrocities they might with a mob of ghazis following on once their victims were defenceless to finish the job up.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Active genocide seems very unlikely for that period, and even somewhat unlikely today, assuming it's performed by actual government-employed soldiers.

What did the armed forces, whether military or irregular, of the belligerents opposed to Israel in 1948, lack that the Turkish had after WWI?

The entire Arab League certainly had the manpower, organisation and equipment of Turkey some thirty years earlier. And they had plenty of irregularrs to carry out much of the killing, which has worked very well on multiple occasions in Africa and Asia in the 20th century. Worked in Europe too, for that matter, in the Balkans.

Why shouldn't the Arab League and the forces allied to it be able to do what less wealthy, less technologically sophisticated and less populous polities were able to do repeatedly in the 20th century?

[jason taylor]

In any case the Yishuv was a more efficient state with a better idea of how to marshal resources for a modern war. It also had a good supply of help from Jews and sympathizers abroad, including volunteers who were World War II veterans. Despite the theoretical disparities, the probability was always for an Israeli victory.