What If Palestine Became an Independent State in 1948?

The Actual History

In the aftermath of World War II, the British Empire was rapidly retreating from its colonial possessions worldwide. Among these was the Mandate for Palestine, a territory the British had administered since 1920 following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Throughout the Mandate period, tensions had steadily grown between the Arab Palestinian population and Jewish immigrants, many fleeing persecution in Europe and later the Holocaust.

By February 1947, the British government, exhausted from World War II and facing resistance from both communities, announced its intention to terminate the Mandate and hand the Palestine question to the newly formed United Nations. The UN established a Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) which, after investigating the situation, recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem and its surroundings to be placed under international administration.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, approving a modified version of UNSCOP's partition plan. The resolution allocated approximately 56% of Palestine to the proposed Jewish state, despite Jews constituting only about one-third of the population and owning less than 7% of the land. The remaining territory (excluding Jerusalem) was allocated to a proposed Arab state.

The Jewish leadership, led by David Ben-Gurion, accepted the partition plan despite reservations about its boundaries. In contrast, Palestinian Arab leaders and neighboring Arab states rejected it outright, arguing it violated the principles of national self-determination by forcing a minority's will upon the majority population.

As the British prepared to withdraw, communal violence intensified. On May 14, 1948, the day before the British Mandate expired, Jewish leaders proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. The following day, armies from Egypt, Transjordan (later Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the former Mandate territory, marking the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

When the fighting ended in 1949, Israel controlled approximately 78% of the former Mandate territory—significantly more than allocated under the UN partition plan. The remaining areas—the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—came under Egyptian and Jordanian control respectively, rather than forming an independent Palestinian state. Approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from territories that became Israel, creating a refugee crisis that remains unresolved to this day.

The 1948 war, known to Israelis as the War of Independence and to Palestinians as the Nakba (Catastrophe), set the stage for decades of conflict. Subsequent wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and numerous smaller conflicts have further complicated the situation. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in Israel occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories that Palestinians still claim for their future state.

Multiple peace initiatives over the decades—from the Camp David Accords to the Oslo Process and beyond—have failed to resolve the fundamental issues of borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. As of 2025, Palestinians remain stateless, with limited self-governance in fragmented territories, while the prospects for a two-state solution have dimmed considerably.

The Point of Divergence

What if Palestine had actually become an independent state alongside Israel in 1948? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the partition plan outlined in UN Resolution 181 was successfully implemented, resulting in the establishment of both a Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state.

Several plausible mechanisms could have facilitated this divergence:

Enhanced International Implementation Force: In our timeline, the UN lacked effective mechanisms to implement its partition resolution. In this alternate scenario, the major powers—particularly the United States, Soviet Union, and Britain—could have agreed to deploy a robust international peacekeeping force with a clear mandate to oversee the implementation of the partition plan and prevent intercommunal violence.

Arab State Acceptance: The Arab League's unanimous rejection of the partition plan was pivotal in our timeline. However, had certain Arab states—particularly Transjordan, whose King Abdullah harbored ambitions to incorporate parts of Palestine—been persuaded to pragmatically accept partition, even reluctantly, the outcome could have been dramatically different. Diplomatic pressure or incentives from Western powers might have facilitated such acceptance.

Palestinian Leadership Strategy: Rather than rejecting the partition outright, the Palestinian leadership might have reluctantly accepted it as an interim solution while working within the international system to address grievances. This approach would have required Palestinian leaders to calculate that having a state on 43% of historic Palestine offered better prospects than continued conflict.

Moderated Israeli Territorial Ambitions: In our timeline, Ben-Gurion and other Jewish leaders privately harbored plans to expand beyond the UN-allocated borders when opportunity permitted. A more moderate Israeli leadership committed to strict adherence to the UN borders could have contributed to successful partition.

The most plausible point of divergence combines elements of these factors: Perhaps in late 1947, the United States and Soviet Union—despite their emerging Cold War tensions—cooperated on implementing the Palestine partition as a showcase for the new UN system. Their joint diplomatic pressure convinced both Transjordan and Egypt to adopt a pragmatic position, which isolated hardline rejectionists. Simultaneously, the UN deployed a substantial international force that effectively contained intercommunal violence during the transition period.

Thus, on May 15, 1948, as Israel declared independence within its UN-allocated borders, a parallel declaration established the independent State of Palestine. Both declarations were immediately recognized by the major powers, and the twin states began their uncertain journey side by side.

Immediate Aftermath

Establishing Twin States

The simultaneous birth of Israel and Palestine in May 1948 would have created a radically different Middle Eastern landscape. Both new states would have faced immediate existential challenges:

Palestine's Governance Challenges: The newly independent Palestine would have struggled with establishing governance structures. Unlike the Jewish community, which had developed proto-state institutions during the Mandate period, Palestinian Arabs had less institutional infrastructure. The Arab Higher Committee, led by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, would likely have formed the nucleus of the new government, though its leadership had been weakened by exile during World War II. Internal rivalries between prominent families like the Husseinis and Nashashibis would have complicated state-building efforts.

Israeli Development Path: Israel would have developed along similar lines to our timeline, though within considerably smaller borders. The Jewish state would still have faced the challenge of absorbing hundreds of thousands of immigrants, particularly Holocaust survivors from Europe and Jewish refugees from Arab countries. However, without the territorial gains of the 1948 war, Israel would have been significantly more compact, with serious security concerns about its narrow waist (just 9 miles wide at Netanya).

Regional Response

The establishment of twin states would have fundamentally altered regional dynamics:

Transjordanian Ambitions Checked: King Abdullah I of Transjordan harbored ambitions to incorporate Arab Palestine into his kingdom. In our timeline, he annexed the West Bank in 1950. In this alternate scenario, Abdullah might have attempted to influence the Palestinian state through political alliances or even military pressure, potentially creating a client state relationship.

Egyptian-Palestinian Relations: Egypt, as the largest Arab state, would have sought influence in Palestine. Cairo would likely have provided military advisors and economic assistance, while attempting to position itself as Palestine's patron and protector.

Arab League Dynamics: The Arab League, formed in 1945, would have included Palestine as a founding member. This would have created a different power dynamic within the organization, with Palestine able to directly advocate for its interests rather than having them represented by other Arab states with their own agendas.

Economic and Social Realities

The economic situations of both states would have developed quite differently from our timeline:

Palestinian Economic Development: Palestine would have retained key agricultural areas in the Galilee and the coastal plain. With international investment and technical assistance, the new state might have developed a primarily agricultural economy initially, with urban centers in East Jerusalem, Nablus, Hebron, and Jaffa. However, the state would have faced significant development challenges and dependency on foreign aid.

Israeli Economy: Without the territorial expansions of 1948, Israel would have had a somewhat smaller agricultural base but retained most key urban centers. The Jewish state would still have developed its characteristic emphasis on technology, education, and industrial development due to limited natural resources.

Refugee Situation Averted: Most significantly, the massive Palestinian refugee crisis of our timeline—where approximately 700,000 Palestinians were displaced—would have been largely averted. While some population movement would have occurred as communities sought to live under their preferred government, the catastrophic dispossession known as the Nakba would not have taken place on the same scale.

Jerusalem as International Zone

The UN partition plan designated Jerusalem and its surroundings as an international zone (corpus separatum) under UN administration:

Implementation Challenges: The internationalization of Jerusalem would have faced practical challenges, as both Israelis and Palestinians considered the city central to their national identities. The UN administration would have struggled to maintain neutrality and security.

Religious Site Management: The international administration would have established special provisions for managing holy sites sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. This might have included international committees with religious representation to oversee access and maintenance of sites like the Western Wall, Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Divided Loyalties: Jerusalem's population would have held divided loyalties, with Jews generally identifying with Israel and Arabs with Palestine. The international administrators would have faced constant pressure from both sides to favor their communities, creating ongoing tension.

Border Tensions and Security Arrangements

Despite the successful partition, security concerns would have dominated the early years:

Border Incidents: Low-level border clashes would have been inevitable as both states sought to solidify their territories. International peacekeepers would have been regularly called to intervene in flashpoints, particularly around Jerusalem and areas where the border created impractical divisions.

Water Disputes: The partition created water access challenges, as key water resources crossed borders. Early agreements on water sharing would have been necessary but contentious, particularly regarding the Jordan River system.

Military Development: Both states would have rapidly developed military capabilities. Israel would have established the Israel Defense Forces similar to our timeline, while Palestine would likely have created a national guard with assistance from other Arab states, particularly Egypt and Transjordan.

By 1950, the two-state reality would have been tentatively established, though with significant tensions and unresolved issues. The international community would have remained heavily engaged, seeing the successful implementation of partition as a crucial test case for the post-war international order.

Long-term Impact

Geopolitical Landscape (1950s-1960s)

The existence of twin states would have fundamentally altered the Middle East's geopolitical trajectory:

Cold War Alignments: While Israel would likely have maintained its Western orientation, Palestine might have become a battleground for Cold War influence. The Soviet Union, seeking to expand its influence in the region, could have provided substantial economic and military aid to Palestine as a counterweight to Western-aligned Israel. This might have resulted in a situation reminiscent of divided Germany, with two neighboring states representing opposing Cold War blocs.

Suez Crisis Recalibrated: The 1956 Suez Crisis, which in our timeline involved Israel collaborating with Britain and France against Egypt, would have played out differently. With Palestine existing as a buffer state, Israel might have been less inclined to join the European powers in their endeavor. Alternatively, if Palestine had aligned with Egypt's Nasser, it might have been drawn into the conflict, potentially leading to the first direct Israeli-Palestinian war.

Pan-Arabism and Palestine: The rise of pan-Arabism under Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s would have viewed an independent Palestine differently than the Palestinian refugee cause in our timeline. Rather than serving as a rallying cry for Arab unity, Palestine would have been pressured to align with Nasser's United Arab Republic experiment, potentially causing internal divisions between pan-Arabists and Palestinian nationalists seeking to maintain independence.

Economic Development Trajectories

The economic paths of both states would have diverged significantly by the 1970s:

Palestinian Development Model: Palestine would likely have adopted a state-led development model common among newly independent states in the 1950s-60s. With limited natural resources but significant agricultural potential, the Palestinian economy might have focused on agricultural exports and light manufacturing. International aid, particularly from Arab oil states after the 1973 oil boom, would have been crucial for infrastructure development.

Israeli Economic Miracle: Israel would still have developed its characteristic focus on technology and human capital, though perhaps at a different pace. The absence of the territorial gains from 1948 would have created a more densely populated state from the beginning, potentially accelerating the shift from agriculture to technology and services. By the 1970s, Israel would likely have still emerged as the region's most advanced economy.

Economic Interdependence: Despite political tensions, economic necessity would have driven some cooperation. Israel's advanced agricultural techniques and Palestine's labor force could have created complementary economies. By the 1970s, formal economic agreements might have emerged, facilitated by international organizations, creating limited but significant economic interdependence.

Evolution of Jerusalem's Status

The international status of Jerusalem would have faced mounting challenges:

Practical Governance Challenges: The international administration of Jerusalem would have struggled with practical governance as the city grew. By the 1960s, pressure would have mounted to revise the arrangement, possibly through a condominium model with shared Israeli-Palestinian administration under continued international oversight.

Religious Site Management Success: One area where internationalization might have succeeded is in the management of religious sites. By establishing clear protocols for access and maintenance, the international administration could have defused religious tensions that have frequently sparked wider conflicts in our timeline.

De Facto Division Pressures: Despite the formal international status, Jerusalem might have experienced gradual de facto division along ethnic lines, with Jews congregating in western neighborhoods and Arabs in eastern areas. This unofficial division might have eventually led to proposals for formal partition of the city by the 1970s.

Military Dynamics and Regional Conflicts

The security situation would have evolved dramatically over the decades:

Balance of Power: Israel would have maintained military superiority due to technological advantages and organizational efficiency, but Palestine—with support from Arab allies and potentially the Soviet bloc—would have developed sufficient military capability to make direct conflict costly for both sides.

1967 Equivalent Crisis: Without the territories gained in 1948, Israel might have felt even more vulnerable to threats from surrounding Arab states. A crisis similar to 1967 might still have occurred, possibly triggered by disputes over water rights or border incidents. However, with Palestine as a buffer state potentially aligned with moderate Arab positions, the dynamics would have been significantly different.

Nuclear Question: Israel's nuclear program, which began in the late 1950s in our timeline, would likely have proceeded similarly given Israeli security concerns. However, the existence of Palestine might have altered the timeline or public posture regarding this capability, as direct existential threats might have seemed less immediate.

Political Evolution of the Twin States

By the 1980s-1990s, both states would have undergone significant political evolution:

Palestinian Political System: Initially dominated by traditional notable families and pan-Arab nationalists, Palestinian politics would likely have evolved toward greater pluralism by the 1980s. Islamic movements similar to Hamas might have emerged as political forces, especially if economic development lagged, but would have operated within a state structure rather than as resistance movements. A Palestinian democracy might have emerged, albeit with the challenges typical of post-colonial states.

Israeli Political Development: Israel's politics might have been less dominated by security concerns and territorial disputes. Without the post-1967 settlement enterprise of our timeline, Israeli politics might have focused more on economic and social issues, potentially leading to a more stable political center and less polarization between hawks and doves.

Peace Processes Unnecessary: The elaborate peace processes of our timeline—from Camp David to Oslo—would have been unnecessary. Instead, diplomatic relations would have focused on practical matters like water sharing, Jerusalem's status, and economic cooperation. By the 1990s, normalized if cool relations might have developed between the states.

Into the 21st Century

By the 2000s and into the 2020s, the two-state reality would have become an established fact:

Technology and Economic Convergence: Israel's technological edge would have remained, but Palestine might have developed significant sectors in agriculture, tourism, and services. Economic disparities would persist but might have narrowed with effective governance and international investment.

Regional Integration: Both states might have been integrated into regional frameworks by the 2010s. The discovery of Eastern Mediterranean gas fields would have necessitated cooperation between Israel, Palestine, and other regional states, potentially creating economic interdependencies that transcended historical animosities.

Palestinian Diaspora Dynamics: Without the refugee crisis of our timeline, the Palestinian diaspora would be substantially smaller and differently constituted. Instead of refugee communities in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, the Palestinian diaspora might more closely resemble other immigrant communities, maintaining cultural ties while integrating into host societies.

Reflections on Alternative History: By 2025, historians in this alternate timeline might reflect on how close the region came to decades of conflict had the partition plan failed. The successful two-state implementation would be studied as a pivotal moment in international relations, demonstrating how decisive international action prevented a protracted conflict.

The most profound difference by 2025 would be human: hundreds of thousands of lives not lost to warfare, millions who grew up with national self-determination rather than occupation or exile, and communities that developed with a focus on building rather than surviving. While not without serious challenges and conflicts, this alternate Middle East would have avoided the cycles of violence that have defined the region in our timeline.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, offers this perspective: "The successful implementation of two states in 1948 would have fundamentally altered the trajectory of modern Middle Eastern history. While Palestinian sovereignty would have faced significant challenges from both internal governance issues and external pressures from neighboring Arab states, particularly Jordan, the establishment of state institutions from 1948 onward would have created a vastly different reality than the fragmented, occupation-defined Palestinian experience of our timeline. The absence of the refugee catastrophe alone would have transformed Palestinian society, allowing for development of civic institutions and economic structures that were instead stunted by displacement and statelessness."

Professor Anita Shapira, Israeli historian and Professor Emerita at Tel Aviv University, suggests: "An Israel constrained to the 1947 partition borders would have developed very differently from the Israel we know. Without the territorial gains of 1948-49, Israel would have been more densely urban from the beginning, potentially accelerating its transition to a technology-focused economy. Security concerns would have remained paramount given the narrow territorial boundaries, but the absence of occupied territories and settlements after 1967 would have prevented the deep political polarization that has characterized Israeli society in recent decades. Most significantly, Israeli identity would have evolved differently without the military occupation becoming a central moral and political issue dividing the nation."

Dr. Ibrahim Fraihat, Professor of International Conflict Resolution at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, provides this analysis: "The existence of two states from 1948 would not have eliminated all conflicts—border disputes, water rights, and Jerusalem's status would have remained contentious issues. However, these conflicts would have taken place between sovereign entities with direct diplomatic channels rather than between an occupying power and a stateless population. This fundamental difference would have enabled international law and institutions to function more effectively as arbiters. The relationship might have evolved similarly to other post-conflict neighboring states—like France and Germany after World War II—where pragmatic cooperation gradually replaced historical enmity, particularly when faced with common regional challenges."