What If Israel Was Never Created?

The Actual History

The creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948 emerged from complex historical forces including the centuries-old Jewish connection to the land, the rise of Zionism as a political movement in the late 19th century, the horrors of the Holocaust, and the geopolitics of the post-World War II era.

Zionism as a formal political movement began with Theodor Herzl's publication of "Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State) in 1896, advocating for a Jewish homeland as a solution to persistent European antisemitism. The movement gained momentum after the British government issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which supported "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" while also stating that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Following World War I, the League of Nations granted Great Britain a mandate over Palestine in 1922. During this period, Jewish immigration increased significantly, particularly after the Nazi rise to power in Germany in 1933. This immigration created growing tensions between the Jewish and Arab populations, leading to the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939.

By the end of World War II, the full horror of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were systematically murdered by Nazi Germany, created tremendous international sympathy for the Zionist cause. Concurrently, Britain found its position in mandatory Palestine increasingly untenable due to violent resistance from both Jewish militias and Arab opposition.

In February 1947, Britain announced its intention to terminate the mandate and handed the question of Palestine's future to the newly formed United Nations. The UN Special Committee on Palestine recommended partition into separate Jewish and Arab states with Jerusalem under international administration. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, approving this partition plan with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.

The Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan, while Arab leaders and governments rejected it. As British forces withdrew, intercommunal fighting intensified. On May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate officially terminated, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. The following day, armies from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the former mandate territory, beginning the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

When fighting ended in 1949, Israel controlled more territory than allocated under the UN partition plan. Jordan annexed the West Bank, while Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. Approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from territories that became Israel, creating a refugee crisis that remains unresolved to this day.

In subsequent decades, Israel fought major wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and numerous smaller conflicts. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in Israel occupying the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights. While Israel later withdrew from Sinai and unilaterally from Gaza, the status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem remains deeply contested.

Peace treaties were eventually signed with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), but comprehensive peace has remained elusive. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s established the Palestinian Authority with limited self-governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza, though a final status agreement has never been achieved. Today, Israel exists as a developed, technologically advanced nation of approximately 9.3 million people, while the unresolved Palestinian question and regional tensions continue to shape Middle Eastern geopolitics.

The Point of Divergence

What if the State of Israel was never created in 1948? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the complex interplay of historical forces that led to Israel's establishment unfolded differently, preventing the formation of a Jewish state in the former British Mandate of Palestine.

Several plausible divergence points could have led to this alternate outcome:

First, the United Nations vote on the Partition Plan (Resolution 181) could have failed. The actual vote was relatively close, with 33 in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. If a few key nations had voted differently—perhaps due to more effective Arab diplomatic pressure, less effective Jewish advocacy, or different calculations by the United States or Soviet Union—the resolution might have failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority. Without UN endorsement, the Jewish leadership would have lacked crucial international legitimacy for declaring independence.

Alternatively, Britain might have chosen a different approach to ending its mandate. Rather than simply withdrawing and allowing local forces to determine the outcome, Britain could have implemented a unitary state solution or extended its mandate while seeking a different resolution. Had Britain maintained control longer or transferred authority to an international trusteeship under UN supervision, the unilateral declaration of Israel might never have occurred.

A third possibility involves the critical period between the UN vote in November 1947 and May 1948. During this time, intercommunal violence escalated dramatically. If Arab forces had achieved greater military success in this pre-state period, or if Jewish defense organizations had been less prepared or united, the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) leadership might have concluded that declaring independence was too risky.

Finally, American or Soviet support—both crucial to Israel's early survival—might have been withheld. President Truman's recognition of Israel came against the recommendation of his State Department. If he had followed their advice or if domestic political considerations had been different, American support might have been withheld. Similarly, if Stalin had calculated differently about the geopolitical advantages of supporting a Jewish state, Soviet bloc support might never have materialized.

In our alternate timeline, we'll consider a scenario combining several of these factors: The UN Partition Plan narrowly fails to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in November 1947, Britain extends its mandate temporarily while seeking an alternative solution, and without clear international legitimacy or assured superpower support, David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency Executive decide against declaring independence as British forces withdraw in 1948.

Immediate Aftermath

British Transitional Administration

With the UN Partition Plan rejected but facing intense pressure to resolve the Palestine question, Britain reluctantly extends its mandate for a transitional period of two years. The British government announces a plan to gradually transfer power to local administrative bodies while international negotiations continue. This extension is bitterly opposed by both Jewish and Arab armed groups, leading to intensified attacks on British personnel throughout 1948.

Prime Minister Clement Attlee, facing severe economic challenges at home and the costs of maintaining over 100,000 troops in Palestine, negotiates with the United Nations to establish a UN Trusteeship Administration. By early 1949, Britain begins transferring authority to this international body, completing the handover by mid-1949.

The UN Trusteeship

The UN Trusteeship Administration in Palestine (UNTAP) takes control in 1949 with a multinational peacekeeping force. Its mandate includes maintaining order, facilitating negotiations between communities, and preparing the territory for eventual self-governance. The Trusteeship Council appoints a respected international diplomat as Administrator, with deputies from both Jewish and Arab communities.

Initial proposals for a federal solution with cantons or provinces where each community would have substantial autonomy meet resistance from both sides. Arab leaders demand a unitary democratic state, knowing their demographic majority would ensure political control. Jewish leaders, traumatized by the recent Holocaust and distrustful of minority status, insist on political autonomy in areas of Jewish majority.

Continued Jewish Immigration

Without a sovereign Jewish state controlling immigration, the flow of Jewish refugees to Palestine slows considerably. The UNTAP establishes immigration quotas significantly lower than what Jewish leaders had hoped for. Many Holocaust survivors and Jews fleeing persecution in Arab countries are diverted to other destinations:

The United States, pressured by American Jewish organizations, revises its immigration policies to admit more Jewish refugees
Britain allows increased Jewish settlement in Cyprus and some colonial territories
France accepts thousands of North African Jews facing increasing hostility following decolonization
Argentina, Australia, and Canada also become significant destinations

Nevertheless, Jewish immigration to Palestine continues at a reduced pace, primarily directed to areas of existing Jewish settlement along the coastal plain and in the Galilee.

Violence and Factionalism

Despite the UN presence, intercommunal violence continues throughout 1949-1950, though at a lower intensity than during the 1947-48 period. Within both communities, divisions emerge over how to respond to the new reality:

Among the Jewish community:

The mainstream Haganah largely cooperates with UNTAP while maintaining defensive capabilities
The Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, launches occasional attacks against UNTAP installations, demanding unrestricted Jewish immigration
The more extreme Lehi (Stern Gang) conducts assassinations of UN officials they perceive as anti-Zionist

Within the Palestinian Arab community:

Moderate factions aligned with the Arab Higher Committee advocate working within the UNTAP framework
The militant Holy War Army, supported by volunteers from neighboring Arab states, continues attacks on Jewish settlements
Various clan-based militias establish control in different regions

Regional Powers' Response

The Arab League states, initially pleased by the prevention of a Jewish state, soon fragment in their approach to Palestine:

Egypt and Saudi Arabia advocate for a unitary Arab-majority state
Jordan's King Abdullah secretly negotiates with moderate Jewish leaders about a potential division of territory or federation
Syria demands immediate UNTAP withdrawal and Arab control
Lebanon, concerned about sectarian balance, prefers a federal solution that might serve as a model for its own fragile system

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Transjordan until 1949) emerges as particularly active, expanding its influence in the central highlands and Jerusalem. King Abdullah's Arab Legion, the most professional Arab military force, secures effective control of areas that would have become the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and its holy sites.

The Cold War Dimension

By 1950, the Palestine question becomes increasingly entangled in Cold War dynamics. The Soviet Union, disappointed that its support for partition failed to produce a potentially sympathetic Jewish state in the Middle East, shifts toward backing Arab nationalist movements as vehicles for expanding influence.

The United States, concerned about Soviet penetration in the oil-rich region, increases support for moderate elements in both communities willing to work toward a stable settlement. The CIA becomes actively involved in supporting factions deemed compatible with American interests.

The Jerusalem Question

The status of Jerusalem emerges as particularly contentious. Under the failed partition plan, the city would have been internationally administered. In this timeline, UNTAP maintains direct control over the city and its holy sites. Religious authorities from Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions form an uneasy consultative council on access to sacred places.

Practically, however, West Jerusalem remains predominantly Jewish, while East Jerusalem and the Old City have Arab majorities, with Jordanian influence growing in the eastern sections. By 1951, a de facto division of the city emerges despite UNTAP's nominal authority over the entire urban area.

Long-term Impact

The Evolution of Palestine: 1950s-1970s

The Federal Solution

By the mid-1950s, after years of negotiations and periodic violence, the UN Trusteeship Administration implements a federal governance structure for the territory. The "United Provinces of Palestine" (UPP) is formally established in 1956, consisting of:

A Jewish-majority Western Province along the Mediterranean coast, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and the Galilee
An Arab-majority Eastern Province encompassing the central highlands and Jerusalem
A jointly administered Federal District of Jerusalem covering the Old City and holy sites
A southern Negev Province under continued UN administration due to its sparse population and strategic importance

This federal structure includes a weak central government with representatives from both communities, provincial governments with substantial autonomy, and continued UN oversight of defense, foreign affairs, and immigration for an initial ten-year period.

Regional Integration

Without Israel as an independent state viewed as a colonial implant by neighboring countries, the trajectory of Middle Eastern politics takes a different course:

Jordan maintains de facto control over much of the Eastern Province, eventually formalizing a confederation in the 1960s
Egypt, under Nasser's pan-Arab nationalism, maintains influence in Gaza and views the UPP arrangement with suspicion
Syria, experiencing a series of coups throughout the 1950s-60s, alternates between interference and pragmatic acceptance
Lebanon's fragile confessional balance is not disrupted by Palestinian refugee inflows, potentially avoiding its later civil war

The 1956 Suez Crisis unfolds differently in this timeline. Without Israel as a military partner, Britain and France pursue a different strategy against Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Their unilateral military action faces the same American opposition but lacks the regional pretext of Israeli involvement, further damaging European influence in the region.

Palestinian and Jewish National Identities

Both national movements evolve significantly in this environment:

The Zionist movement splits into competing factions:

"Territorialists" focus on building autonomous Jewish life within the Western Province
"Diasporists" argue for renewed emphasis on strengthening Jewish communities worldwide
A militant "Revisionist" faction continues to advocate for a Jewish state, conducting occasional terrorist campaigns against federal institutions and Arab targets

Palestinian Arab identity develops in a complex relationship with pan-Arabism:

Without the trauma of the Nakba (the mass displacement of Palestinians that occurred in our timeline), Palestinian nationalism develops more gradually and with stronger ties to neighboring Arab identities
Various political movements emerge, ranging from Western-oriented democrats to Arab nationalists to Islamists
The absence of refugee camps and occupied territories means Palestinian identity forms around different experiences and grievances

Cold War Dynamics

The Cold War plays out differently in the Middle East:

Without Israel as a reliable Western ally, the United States develops closer relationships with conservative Arab monarchies earlier and more extensively
The Soviet Union finds more opportunities for influence, particularly supporting Arab nationalist movements
Egypt's pivot from Western to Soviet alignment still occurs under Nasser, but with different regional implications
The absence of Arab-Israeli wars means military aid patterns and defense relationships develop along different lines

Global Repercussions: 1970s-2000s

Oil Politics and Energy Security

The 1973 Oil Crisis unfolds differently without the Yom Kippur War as a trigger. Arab oil producers still seek to use petroleum as a geopolitical weapon but focus more on Western support for conservative monarchies versus revolutionary regimes. Oil price shocks still occur but are triggered by different regional events.

The United States develops a different security architecture in the region:

Greater emphasis on bases in Turkey, Greece, and eventually Egypt
Different relationships with Gulf states, potentially including earlier direct military presence
Naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean organized around different strategic calculations

The Fate of Jewish Communities Worldwide

Without Israel as a national homeland and potential refuge:

Jewish communities in Europe develop different post-Holocaust identities, perhaps with greater focus on integration versus emigration
Soviet Jewish activism takes different forms without "aliyah" (immigration to Israel) as its central demand
Jews in Arab countries likely face similar pressure during decolonization but follow different migration patterns, primarily to Western countries
American Jewish identity evolves without the centrality of Israel, perhaps maintaining more diverse religious and cultural expressions

The Rise of Political Islam

Islamic political movements emerge in response to different conditions:

Without the Palestinian cause centered on opposition to Israel, Islamist movements focus more on opposition to secular regimes and Western influence
The Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations still gain prominence but with different focal points
Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution still occurs, driven by internal Iranian dynamics, but its regional implications differ
Jihadist movements that emerged in our timeline partly in response to the Israel-Palestine conflict focus on different grievances

The Modern Middle East: 2000s-2025

Governance in the Former Mandate

By the 2000s, the federal structure has evolved significantly:

The Western Province has developed into a prosperous, largely Jewish-governed region with advanced technology and close Western ties
The Eastern Province and Jordanian Confederation have developed more slowly, with greater political instability
Jerusalem remains contested despite its special status, with periodic religious tensions
Internal migration has created more mixed areas than in our timeline's completely separated territories

Economic integration has proceeded unevenly:

The Western Province's economy resembles Israel's in our timeline but with greater regional trade
Water resources are managed through tense but functional cooperation agreements
Tourism to holy sites provides significant revenue under international management
Technology transfer between regions occurs but with persistent disparities

Regional Position in the 21st Century

The Middle East of 2025 in this timeline:

Lacks the specific Arab-Israeli conflict but still experiences significant tensions along religious, ideological, and economic lines
Has different borders and alliance patterns without the catalyzing effect of multiple Arab-Israeli wars
Experienced the Arab Spring or similar democratic movements, but with different focal points and outcomes
Has different relationships with global powers, particularly the United States, whose regional policy was never as centered on Israeli security

Global Security Implications

Terrorism and international security developed along different lines:

Without the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a rallying cause, international terrorism finds different focal points
The absence of the specific grievances related to Israeli occupation means different radicalization patterns
Western military involvement in the region follows different patterns and justifications
Nuclear proliferation in the region potentially follows a different path without Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal

Expert Opinions

Dr. Sarah Abramson, Professor of Middle Eastern History at Columbia University, offers this perspective: "The creation of Israel represented a fulcrum point in modern history. Without it, we would likely see a Middle East with different boundary lines but not necessarily a more peaceful one. The fundamental tensions between traditionalism and modernization, authoritarianism and democracy, and competing religious visions would still exist. What would be dramatically different is the refugee experience of Palestinians and the development of Palestinian nationalism, which in our timeline was profoundly shaped by displacement and occupation. Jewish history would also be radically altered, as the post-Holocaust narrative of national redemption through statehood provided a powerful, if contested, framework for Jewish identity in the latter half of the 20th century."

Professor Khalid Al-Masri, Chair of International Relations at the American University of Beirut, suggests: "The absence of Israel would have altered the political trajectory of every Arab state. The Palestinian cause served as a unifying issue that authoritarian regimes exploited to deflect from domestic shortcomings. Without this convenient external enemy, Arab governments might have faced greater pressure for reform earlier. However, I believe pan-Arabism would have remained a powerful force for longer without the decisive military defeats that discredited it. The interesting counterfactual is whether this would have led to greater Arab unity or simply different configurations of inter-Arab rivalry. As for Palestinian national identity, it would certainly exist—it predated Israel's creation—but would likely be more integrated into a broader Levantine or Arab identity without the crucible of dispossession and resistance."

Dr. Jonathan Meyer, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Security Studies in Tel Aviv, argues: "This scenario underestimates the determination of the Yishuv leadership to establish sovereignty after the Holocaust. Even without a UN partition plan, some form of Jewish state would likely have emerged, perhaps in a smaller territory or under different circumstances. That said, had this alternate history somehow unfolded, Jewish security concerns would remain paramount but addressed through different mechanisms. I suspect we would see heavily armed Jewish autonomous regions even within a federal structure. As for global Jewry, the absence of Israel would have profoundly affected religious and cultural developments. The revival of Hebrew, the ingathering of diverse Jewish communities, and the unique synthesis of ancient tradition and modern nationalism that characterizes Israeli society would be unrealized, fundamentally altering Jewish experience worldwide."