What If The Arab-Israeli Wars Never Happened?

The Actual History

The Arab-Israeli Wars represent a series of armed conflicts that have defined the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East since the mid-20th century. These conflicts emerged in the context of competing national aspirations and the aftermath of European colonialism in the region.

The first major conflict, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (known to Israelis as the War of Independence and to Palestinians as the Nakba or "Catastrophe"), erupted immediately following Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. As British forces withdrew from Mandatory Palestine, armies from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the newly declared state. The war resulted in Israel securing its independence, though with borders different from those proposed in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes, creating a refugee crisis that remains unresolved to this day. Jordan annexed the West Bank, while Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip.

The 1956 Suez Crisis (or Sinai War) followed Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Israel, in collusion with Britain and France, invaded the Sinai Peninsula. International pressure, particularly from the United States and Soviet Union, forced a withdrawal, but Israel gained temporary shipping rights through the Straits of Tiran.

The Six-Day War of June 1967 dramatically altered the region's geography. Following a period of escalating tensions, including Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran and the mobilization of Arab forces along Israel's borders, Israel launched preemptive strikes against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In six days, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. This tripling of territory under Israeli control created new realities that continue to shape the conflict today.

The War of Attrition (1967-1970) saw Egypt attempting to reclaim the Sinai through sustained artillery barrages and commando raids, leading to a war of attrition along the Suez Canal that ended in stalemate.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War (or October War) began with surprise attacks by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. Initial Arab gains were eventually reversed, but the war shattered the myth of Israeli invincibility and ultimately paved the way for the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty—the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state.

Subsequent conflicts included the 1982 Lebanon War, when Israel invaded Lebanon to eliminate PLO presence there; the First Intifada (1987-1993), a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation; the Second Intifada (2000-2005), a period of intensified Israeli-Palestinian violence; and multiple Gaza conflicts (2008-2009, 2012, 2014, 2021, and 2023-ongoing).

These wars have profoundly shaped the Middle East. Israel emerged as a regional military power with strong Western support, particularly from the United States. The Palestinian national movement evolved from seeking Israel's destruction to advocating for a two-state solution, though this remains unrealized. The conflicts contributed to regional instability, refugee crises, economic disruption, and the rise of militant groups. The Arab-Israeli conflict also became a focal point of Cold War competition and continues to influence global politics and international relations to this day.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Arab-Israeli wars never happened? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the cycle of armed conflicts that defined the Middle East for generations was averted through a combination of different diplomatic decisions, political compromises, and altered historical circumstances.

The most plausible point of divergence would occur around the formation of the state of Israel in 1947-1948. Several alternative paths could have prevented the outbreak of the first Arab-Israeli War:

One scenario involves a more successful implementation of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. In our timeline, the Arab states rejected the plan outright, while Jewish leadership accepted it despite reservations. In this alternate timeline, moderate Arab leaders might have recognized the inevitability of some form of Jewish state and chosen pragmatic engagement rather than military confrontation. Perhaps Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud Fahmi Nokrashy Pasha, who privately exhibited some flexibility on the Palestine question before his assassination, could have survived and led a coalition of Arab states toward conditional acceptance of partition with modifications.

Alternatively, British policy during their withdrawal from the Mandate could have played a decisive role. Rather than the abrupt departure that created a power vacuum, the British might have implemented a more gradual, managed transition with robust peacekeeping mechanisms. A temporary international trusteeship, seriously considered by some American policymakers at the time, could have provided space for tensions to cool and negotiations to proceed.

A third possibility involves the role of the United States and Soviet Union. If these emerging superpowers had found rare common ground in supporting a negotiated settlement—perhaps motivated by mutual desire to limit British influence in the region—their combined diplomatic pressure might have restrained both Arab and Jewish maximalists.

Finally, local leadership decisions could have altered the course of events. If moderate voices in both communities had prevailed—figures like Judah Magnes among Jewish intellectuals who advocated for a binational state, or Fawzi Darwish al-Husseini among Palestinians who sought accommodation—the spiral toward war might have been interrupted.

In this alternate timeline, we'll explore a scenario where a combination of these factors—particularly more engaged international mediation and the emergence of pragmatic leadership on both sides—leads to a negotiated implementation of a modified partition plan that, while satisfying neither side completely, prevents the outbreak of full-scale war in 1948. This crucial divergence would remove the first link in the chain of conflicts that defined the region for generations.

Immediate Aftermath

A Fragile Peace Emerges

In the immediate aftermath of Israel's establishment in May 1948, our alternate timeline sees an uneasy but maintained peace. Rather than invading with five armies, neighboring Arab states reluctantly accept the modified partition plan while publicly expressing their continued support for Palestinian rights. Israel's borders roughly follow the UN partition lines, though with some negotiated adjustments.

The absence of the 1948 War has profound immediate consequences:

Refugee Crisis Averted: Without the fighting and mass displacement of our timeline, the Palestinian refugee crisis is significantly smaller in scale. While some population movement occurs as communities voluntarily relocate to be within "their" state's boundaries, the absence of war means there is no mass exodus of 700,000+ Palestinians. This fundamentally alters the demographic reality of the region and removes one of the most intractable issues of the conflict.
Jerusalem's Special Status: Jerusalem becomes an internationally administered city, as originally envisioned in the UN plan. Neither Israel nor Arab states are fully satisfied with this arrangement, but international guarantees of access to holy sites creates a workable compromise.
Economic Cooperation Begins: By 1950, pragmatic Israeli and Arab leaders establish limited economic cooperation. Water-sharing agreements, particularly regarding the Jordan River, become an early focus of necessary coordination.

Regional Diplomatic Landscape

The diplomatic environment of the early 1950s evolves very differently without the legacy of the 1948 War:

Arab World Divisions: The decision not to go to war in 1948 creates significant tensions within the Arab world. The Arab League, formed in 1945, experiences internal strife as some members accuse others of betraying the Palestinian cause. King Abdullah I of Jordan, who had harbored ambitions of incorporating parts of Palestine into his kingdom, is particularly frustrated by the outcome.
Palestinian Politics: Without the collective trauma of the Nakba, Palestinian national identity develops along different lines. Various Palestinian political factions emerge, with some accepting the partition as a starting point while others maintain maximalist positions. However, without the experience of defeat and exile, Palestinian politics is more rooted in civil institutions rather than armed resistance.
Early Recognition: By the early 1950s, several non-Arab nations establish diplomatic relations with Israel, including Turkey, Iran (still under the Shah), and most Western nations. However, most Arab states maintain their official non-recognition policy while engaging in quiet, pragmatic cooperation on specific issues.

Internal Developments in Israel

Israel's internal development follows a different trajectory without the formative experience of the War of Independence:

Security Orientation: Without the existential threat of the 1948 War, Israel develops a less militarized national identity. While maintaining a capable defense force, the absence of immediate external threats allows more resources to be directed toward civilian infrastructure and economic development.
Immigration Patterns: Jewish immigration to Israel continues, though perhaps at a somewhat slower pace without the urgency created by the victorious war narrative. North African and Middle Eastern Jewish communities experience less immediate pressure to leave their countries of origin, though discrimination still prompts significant migration throughout the 1950s.
Political Landscape: Ben-Gurion's Labor Zionist leadership maintains dominance, but with more significant opposition from both liberal and religious parties who advocate different approaches to the state's relationship with its Arab neighbors and minority Palestinian population.

The Suez Question

By 1956, when the Suez Crisis emerged in our timeline, the geopolitical landscape is fundamentally different:

Alternative Resolution: When Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal in July 1956, Israel has less incentive to join Britain and France in military action. Without the experience of the 1948 War and with established channels of communication with Egypt, Israel pursues diplomatic guarantees for passage through the Straits of Tiran.
Cold War Dynamics: The Soviet Union and United States still compete for influence in the region, but without the Arab-Israeli conflict as a proxy battlefield, their competition focuses more on economic development projects and ideological influence rather than military aid.
Pan-Arabism's Different Path: Nasser's pan-Arab nationalism still rises but is less focused on opposition to Israel and more on opposition to continued European influence and advocacy for Arab unity and development.

Palestinian State Formation

The nascent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza begins developing its institutions:

Governance Challenges: The Palestinian state faces significant challenges in establishing effective governance, particularly given its non-contiguous territory. International aid plays a crucial role in developing basic infrastructure and institutions.
Jordan's Influence: Jordan maintains significant influence in the West Bank, with economic and political ties that some Palestinian nationalists view with suspicion. Tensions between Jordanian-aligned and independent Palestinian factions characterize much of the state's early political life.
Economic Dependence: The Palestinian economy remains heavily dependent on Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, with labor, trade, and monetary policy all deeply interconnected with its neighbors.

By the early 1960s, the Middle East in this alternate timeline has avoided the first two major Arab-Israeli Wars. While tensions certainly remain and occasional border incidents occur, the absence of these formative conflicts creates space for diplomatic engagement and economic development that was impossible in our timeline. However, the underlying issues of competing nationalisms and limited resources ensure that the peace remains fragile and contentious.

Long-term Impact

Geopolitical Transformation by the 1970s

By the 1970s, the geopolitics of the Middle East would have evolved along strikingly different lines without the Arab-Israeli wars:

Regional Alliances and Cold War Dynamics

Reduced Superpower Involvement: Without the Arab-Israeli conflict serving as a Cold War proxy battlefield, American and Soviet involvement in the region would be less militarized. Israel never develops the "special relationship" with the United States that emerged after 1967 in our timeline, instead maintaining a more balanced relationship with both superpowers.
Different Oil Politics: The 1973 oil embargo, which was directly linked to Arab states' response to U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, never occurs. Oil-producing Arab states still leverage their resources for political influence, but without the catalyst of major Arab-Israeli wars, OPEC's political use of oil is more moderate and primarily focused on pricing and production autonomy rather than geopolitical pressure related to Israel.
Regional Organizations: New forms of regional cooperation emerge that were impossible in our timeline. By the late 1970s, a Mediterranean Economic Cooperation framework might include Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, and European Mediterranean states, focusing on trade, tourism, and environmental cooperation.

The Palestinian Question

Two-State Reality: The Palestinian state, established in the West Bank and Gaza following the modified partition plan, develops its institutions gradually. While facing economic challenges and internal political divisions, by the 1970s it functions as a sovereign entity with international recognition.
Jerusalem's Evolution: The international administration of Jerusalem evolves toward a condominium system by the 1970s, with joint Israeli-Palestinian administration of the city under continued international oversight. Holy sites are managed by respective religious authorities with guaranteed access for all faiths.
Refugee Integration: Without the massive refugee crisis of our timeline, Palestinian communities across the region develop differently. Those who remained in Israel become a significant minority population with evolving political rights, while Palestinians in neighboring countries are fewer in number and more integrated into host societies.

Economic and Social Developments Through the 1980s

Regional Economic Integration

Water and Energy Cooperation: Without the barrier of active conflict, regional cooperation on crucial resources develops earlier. By the 1980s, integrated water management systems for the Jordan River basin and early solar energy projects create models of functional cooperation.
Trade Networks: Trade networks between Israel and Arab states develop gradually. Israel's technological expertise particularly in agriculture and later computing creates economic incentives for cooperation that overcome political hesitations.
Tourism Development: A Middle East without wars sees much earlier development of regional tourism. Religious pilgrimages to Jerusalem, historical tourism throughout the region, and Mediterranean beach resorts all develop without the security concerns that plagued our timeline.

Social and Cultural Exchange

Academic and Cultural Cooperation: Universities across the region develop exchange programs and research partnerships by the 1980s. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Cairo might establish joint research initiatives in archaeology, agricultural science, and medicine.
Media and Cultural Production: Cultural exchange flourishes in ways impossible in our timeline. Arab-Israeli film co-productions, translated literature, and music collaborations create a more integrated cultural space that acknowledges differences while building on shared regional heritage.

Security and Military Developments into the 1990s

Different Military Establishments

Israel's Defense Posture: Without the experience of multiple existential wars, Israel's military develops as a smaller, defensive-oriented force rather than the regional powerhouse of our timeline. Israel still maintains technological superiority but devotes a much smaller percentage of GDP to defense spending.
Nuclear Ambiguity: Israel's nuclear program likely still develops but might remain at an earlier stage or take a different form, possibly as a civilian energy program with latent military potential rather than the widely-assumed arsenal of our timeline.
Regional Arms Control: By the 1990s, regional arms control agreements might emerge, limiting certain weapons systems and establishing verification mechanisms that would have been unthinkable in our timeline's atmosphere of mutual suspicion.

The Absence of Militant Movements

Different Forms of Resistance: Without the trauma of military defeats and occupation, militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah either never form or emerge as conventional political parties rather than armed resistance movements.
Reduced Terrorism: The lack of major wars means the cycles of violence that fed terrorism in our timeline never gain momentum. Political violence still occurs, but at significantly reduced levels, allowing civil society and moderate political voices more space.

The Modern Middle East (2000-2025)

Political Evolution

Israeli Politics: Without the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the resulting moral and practical dilemmas, Israeli politics evolves differently. The right-wing shift observable in our timeline from the 1970s onward is less pronounced, with Israeli politics more centered on social and economic issues rather than security and territorial concerns.
Arab Democracy Movements: When the Arab Spring erupts (perhaps still around 2011, driven by similar economic and governance factors), it unfolds differently. Without the polarizing effect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, reformist movements might find more success in some countries as regimes have fewer security pretexts to justify repression.
Palestinian Democracy: The Palestinian state, while still facing challenges, develops more stable democratic institutions without the disruptions of war and occupation. By 2025, it might be a flawed but functioning democracy with regular power transitions.

Regional Position by 2025

Economic Development: By 2025, the region benefits from decades of stability and gradual integration. The Israeli and Palestinian economies develop complementary strengths, with Israeli high-tech coordination with Palestinian manufacturing and agriculture.
Refugee Question Resolved: Without the massive refugee crisis of our timeline, the issue of Palestinian refugees has largely been resolved through limited repatriation, compensation, and integration, removing one of the most intractable issues of our timeline's conflict.
Regional Security Framework: A regional security framework emerges by the 2020s, perhaps driven by common concerns about climate change, water scarcity, and threats from extremist movements in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa.

Global Implications

Middle East in World Affairs: Without being defined by conflict, the Middle East's role in global affairs is significantly different. The region is less of a symbol of intractable conflict and more recognized for its economic potential, cultural heritage, and strategic location connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Religious Relations: Interfaith relations, particularly between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, develop along more cooperative lines with Jerusalem serving as a model of coexistence rather than a flashpoint for conflict.
Migration Patterns: Without the instability caused by repeated conflicts, migration patterns from the Middle East to Europe and North America differ substantially. Diaspora communities maintain stronger connections to home countries, with more circular migration and knowledge transfer.

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, while the Middle East certainly isn't without challenges and tensions, it exists as a more integrated, stable region where cooperative frameworks have gradually replaced the cycles of conflict that dominated our timeline. The absence of the Arab-Israeli wars removed a crucial driver of regional militarization, extremism, and great power competition, allowing for development paths foreclosed in our own history.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Nadia Ibrahim, Professor of Middle Eastern History at Oxford University, offers this perspective: "The Arab-Israeli wars functioned as critical junctures that repeatedly foreclosed potential paths toward accommodation. In their absence, we would likely see a Middle East where pragmatic cooperation gradually overcame ideological hostility. The refugee crisis created by the 1948 war, in particular, generated a demographic reality and collective trauma that made reconciliation exponentially more difficult. Without that foundational catastrophe, subsequent developments would unfold in a context where compromise seemed less like capitulation and more like prudent statecraft. That said, we should be careful not to imagine some utopian outcome—competing nationalisms and resource conflicts would still generate tensions, just without the particular intensity and international dimensions of our timeline's conflicts."

Professor David Levine, Distinguished Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, provides a contrasting analysis: "While it's tempting to envision a peaceful Middle East without the Arab-Israeli wars, we must consider whether the absence of conventional warfare might have simply led to other forms of conflict. Israel's conventional military victories, particularly in 1967, paradoxically created conditions that forced Arab states eventually to accept its existence. Without those clarifying defeats, rejectionist positions might have persisted longer in a chronic low-level conflict. Additionally, Israel's national cohesion was forged in these wars; without them, internal divisions might have been more pronounced. The wars were tragic but also served to eventually define boundaries and expectations in ways that may have been necessary for the eventual peace agreements that did emerge with Egypt and Jordan."

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahrani, Director of the Gulf Research Center and former diplomat, suggests: "The absence of the Arab-Israeli wars would fundamentally alter the political economy of the region. Without the massive militarization that followed 1948 and accelerated after 1967, Arab governments might have directed more resources toward development and democratization. Egypt under Nasser, for instance, might have focused more successfully on economic modernization rather than military competition with Israel. The oil wealth that began flowing in the 1970s could have funded regional infrastructure and education rather than weapons purchases. Furthermore, without the distraction and emotional power of the conflict, authoritarian regimes would have had more difficulty deflecting domestic criticism by focusing public attention on the external enemy. This might have accelerated political reforms by decades."