Todayinah Ed. says, If you're interested in viewing samples of my other work why not visit Todayinah site.
| May 25 |  |
Editor says, what if Truman rather than Marshall had backed down over the recognition of Israel? We're grateful to my colleague David Atwell for his input into the development of this thread. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the Editor's own views.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1951, following the conclusion of a ceasefire with its Arab neighbours, the State of Israel finally emerged from a three-year "war of independence" - but unexpectedly, as a communist client state of the Soviet Union.
A Communist Israel, Part 1 - the Victims of Hitler's MadnessOtherwise Israel stood alone, and most likely would have been defeated by the overwhelming Arab forces that had been secretly supported by a sympathetic Great Britain.
And President Harry S. Truman had been forced to heed the advice of George Marshall (pictured). Because his Secretary of State had stated "If you (recognize the state of Israel) and if I were to vote in the election, I would vote against you".
Truman had been inclined to give the "victims of Hitler's madness" the opportunity to "build new lives". But the level-headed Marshall had publicly declared that "We are in the midst of a very critical situation. We should therefore carefully avoid approach international problems on an emotional basis". And on May 12th 1948, two days before the end of the British Mandate, Truman summoned Marshall to the White House to confirm that he was nevertheless planning to recognise the State of Israel. Marshall, who had already given assurances to Arab rulers that America would not, and exploded, accusing Truman of "a transparent dodge to win the Jewish Vote" and insisting "they don't need a state, they don't deserve a state, it isn't theres, its stolen that land". Click 
to watch PBS - 50 years war Israel and the Arab Episode One
In the midst of this fracture in the US leadership, Stalin now saw an opportunity to recognise Israel first. Only later did US foreign policy makers realise that America had "Lost Israel" giving the Soviet Union an unwelcome entry into the Middle East. And the weapons that would be used to defend Tel Aviv would arrive from Czechoslakia.
It would take three years of bitter fighting to win the war of independence. And ultimately, the actions of irregular forces, operating out of their Kibbutz communities who would imbue a genuinely Marxist-Leninist perspective into the victorious Zionist's psyche.
Meanwhile on the Zionists western flank, the huge military bases of the British Army would be repurposed - to protect the Suez Canal from this terrifying new communist threat to Western oil supplies..
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Communist Israel Source: American Heritage Labels: George Marshall, Israel, Palestine, America, Harry S. Truman.
~ If Israel had been a Soviet client state, the US would have backed the
Arabs, all the way. The repercussions on US domestic politics would have
been very interesting.
~ And what, out of interest, did Isreal get exactly out of all this arm twisting? Or, more to the point, what did the USSR get out of all this?
~ Israel has no choice thats the purpose of the 'vein of life' comment that Sadat made, but in OTL about America. Soviet Union possibly still pursuing detente in this scenario avoid the Israelis dragging them into a war with America.
~ The Isrealis will want more because if they've developed anything akin to the OTL, ie they have nukes, then the vein of life isn't all that threatening. So they'll want guarrentees of peace akin to the OTL. The USSR will want far more than merely detente. They'll want something tangable & significant - either something in return for North Korea, akin to the Isreal deal, for instance, or cheap oil for the next 25 years. Otherwise they have no need to twist the arm of Isreal if, by having Isreal as a close ally in the region, they gain more by keeping to the status quo.
~ Surely according to your logic, they wouldnt get nukes in this ATL because France was friendly with the Arab nations e.g. its former colonies of Syria and Lebanon?
~ There's no reason why the Isrealis wouldn't get a Soviet reactor instead of the French one. Afterall the WARSAW Pact allies of the USSR were supplied with nuclear reactors. Given what the USSR can get in return, by having a strong ally in the Mediterranean & Middle East such as Isreal, the cost of giving Isreal a small reactor, at the height of the Cold War, would be cheap in comparision. And if it pissed off the Americans, so much the better... ;)
~ I wonder what impact such a realignment of Middle Eastern politics will have over the years to come...
~ This would throw the cat among the pigeons in American politics, for sure!
~ Yeah, it would certainly make for interesting domestic US politics... so would the US become more liberal or conservative I wonder?
~ Ironically, some members of the Soviet government were as anti-Semitic as the Nazis; in fact, anti-Semitism has been a problem in Russia since the days of the Tsars.
~ FDR could have done such a thing and gotten away with it. Truman was by no means the God-Emperor that FDR had been with the American people, and was much too practical a politician to voluntarily alienate a large part of the Democratic coalition.
~ Does the US just not recognize Israel or does the USG take actual steps to keep American Jews from bankrolling and to a fair extent arming Israel? The first doesn't matter. The second probably results in Israel being stillborn.
~ The point is that the key for Israel wasn't the PR victory of recoignition. Now had we lobbied the UN against Partition that matters. Had we actually enforced the Neutrality Acts against the US Jewish Community that is decisive.
Comment from an Brian Keith Burgess on Facebook: It is argued by some that the US has always supported Isreal because of so called Zionists in the US government. If this is the case, then the US, being both financially able and religiously convicted, made it their business to support Isreal. I think it is important to remember that Marshall under the Marshall Plan sought to protect Europe from ... Read Morethe Communists. If he had known that the Czecs had their eyes on Isreal, he would never had been against supporting them. Isreal was, I think, already poised to ally itself with the US and accept US support because of US actions in WWII.
Comment from an Brian Keith Burgess on Facebook: A Russian allied Israel could have happened, but I think only if the US had not provided support. I don't see how US Jewish supportr alone would have made a signifcant difference.
~ US politics undoubtably played a large part in Truman's decision but US officialdom in that era was pro-British and anti-IUsraeli. The push was from the political operatives looking at ethnic votes in NYC, LA and a few other major cities. The Czech arms deals started before the Communist Coup and were motivated by cash. Czechs had the skoda ... Read Morecomplex and a pile of ex-Nazi weapons the Soviets had no use for. Israelis were offering dollars which is where the US Neutrality Acts come into play. What happened was nominally illegal but the USG chose not to make it an enforcement prioirty. There were a few arrests but nothing compared to the depth of support. Israeli politics are tricky. There was a quite pro-Soviet left wing of the Labor Movement. Beyond that good feeling for the US was a matter of Tel aviv sweet talking the US Jews out of more cash. Israel tried to be neutral until Korea when we did twist arms and Israel geeked. This in turn led to the Soviet arms sales to Egypt.
Comment from an Brian Keith Burgess on Facebook: Thats a lot of details about communist envolvement that I was unaware of. Still its hard for me to understand how Marshall could have been opposed to US support had he thought that Russia could really get a hold in Israel. Perhaps he thought a communist Israel did not matter. I think too that one should look real close at Truman and his personal feelings about Israel as well as other politicians at that time.
Comment from an Brian Keith Burgess on Facebook: One thing is for sure. Marshall was afraid of the destablization that a US backed Israel might create.
~ Marshal as with most of the US diplomatic and military establishment expected Israel to lose the independence war. Beyond that, even if they won all they would have is a bankrupt ghetto on some worthless land. The Arabs had oil, numbers and the Suez Canal. The Muslim world as a whole had still more oil, vastly more numbers and a lot of Cold War real estate bordering the USSR. From his POV it was a simple equation.
~ Truman recognised Israel but declared an arms embargo which almost destroyed it since he knew full well France and Briain were supplying the arabs. But tehre will be consequences to him delaying his recognition 1. Soviets get a strong foothold in the middle east that they would exploit until they decide to swap allies during which we coudl get Israel back into the western fold but that will cost us. What happens next depends on if Israel goes communist or tries to develpe a socialist democracy. 2.I would say a lot of America's politics would be well messed up. In some quarters anti semitism would become more fashionable than usual but mostly it is going to be bad on how Marshall sold out the victims of Hitler and would likely be seen as either a very opportunist politician or worse. Of courese, I never thought much of Marshall. He was more politician than soldier . Might even cost Truman and the democrats badly with Jewish voters questionign their reasons for their political support for him and his party while evangelical voters would certainly be looking twice at him qith many many questions.
~ To keep balance, the US would need to back Arab states. Also, the Red Scare fallout from the Jewish community in America would cut even more deeply.
~ Since the left follows the Soviet Union's lead, the left would now be enthusiastically supporting Israel, and for good reason: the socialist Israelis, with their kibbutzes, kept defeating the feudal Arabs...which is exactly what Marx had in mind. The right, on the other hand, would denounce Israel for its socialist and feminist tendencies. Which was, incidentally, exactly the alignment before the Soviet Union turned against Israel.
~ Since the left follows the Soviet Union's lead, the left would now be enthusiastically supporting Israel, and for good reason: the socialist Israelis, with their kibbutzes, kept defeating the feudal Arabs...which is exactly what Marx had in mind. The right, on the other hand, would denounce Israel for its socialist and feminist tendencies. Which was, incidentally, exactly the alignment before the Soviet Union turned against Israel.
May 27
Editor says, our "Communist Israel" requires us to resite the Camp David Accords in a similiar setting but inside the Soviet Union. Unsurprisingly we imagine that the Russians are somewhat more insistent than the "Georgia Giant" Jimmy Carter. We're grateful to our colleague David Atwell for his input into the development of this thread. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the Editor's own views.
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1979, following weeks of intense (and often arm-twisting) diplomacy at his Gosdacha in Zavidovo, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (pictured) emerged to announce the conclusion of a peace settlement between its client state Israel and their Arab neighbours.
A Communist Israel, Part 2 - Zavidovo Gosdacha AccordsAs expected, Israel returned the Sinai Desert which it had seized in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Also returned was the Golan Heights which Israel had seized in 1967. Because Israeli military success had so nearly engaged the superpowers when the defeated nations of Egypt and Syria had appealed to the United States for decisive intervention.
And so even at the height of the Cold War, both superpowers now realised that it was fundamentally unwise to fight their proxy wars in the Middle East. The region which generated the world's supply of oil already had enough conflict of its own.
And Brezhnev would succeed in defusing both sources of tension by forcing the warring parties to accept a Palestinian mini-state in the Gaza Strip. Afterwards, Egyptian Premier Anwar Sadat wisely noted that Israel's "the vein of life" lead to Russia - and it was this jugular that Brezhnev had threatened to cut in order to force a settlement upon the Zionists.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Communist Israel Source: Wikipedia Labels: George Marshall, Israel, Palestine, America, Harry S. Truman. Editor says, a "Gaza First" Policy was actually mooted during the Oslo Accords.
~ And what, out of interest, did Isreal get exactly out of all this arm twisting? Or, more to the point, what did the USSR get out of all this?
~ Quite a few Israelis had roots in the Combloc countries. Slipping ringers into Israel wouldn't have been hard for the KGB.
April 14
Editor says, what if the United States and Israel were bitter enemies? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: | Facebook | Twitter |
In 1989, the impending collapse of the Soviet Bloc forced the People's Republic of Israel to sign a new strategic partnership with China; this dramatic but not wholly unexpected move provoked bitter condemnation from both the United States and also the border states that were her Arab allies.
Stolen LandWhilst her Kibbutzim shared a natural community affinity with Israel's partners (old and new), the emergence of a Communist Israel was far from inevitable at the close of World War Two. Ironically, the hero of that conflict, George Marshall (pictured) was the senior leadership figure most directly responsible for the loss of both Israel and China.
President Truman had been inclined to give the "victims of Hitler's madness" the opportunity to "build new lives". But his Because his Secretary of State had countered "If you (recognize the state of Israel) and if I were to vote in the election, I would vote against you".
And on May 12th 1948, two days before the end of the British Mandate, Truman summoned Marshall to the White House to confirm that he was nevertheless planning to recognise the State of Israel. Marshall, who had already given assurances to Arab rulers that America would not, exploded, accusing Truman of "a transparent dodge to win the Jewish Vote" and insisting "they don't need a state, they don't deserve a state, it isn't theres, its stolen that land".
In the midst of this fracture in the US leadership, Stalin saw an opportunity to recognise Israel first. Only later did US foreign policy makers realise that America had "Lost Israel" giving the Soviet Union an unwelcome entry into the Middle East. And the weapons that would be used to defend Tel Aviv would arrive from Czechoslakia.
By the late eighties, it was clear that Soviet Union was no longer a reliable source of weaponry, because in Mikhael Gorbachev, Israel saw a weak leader who was pressing the self-destruct button. With the United States dependent on Arab Oil, America was determined to prevent China from arming Israel. It was a fateful foreign policy decision that would escalate into a major confrontation between the United States and China.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Communist Israel Source: Wikipedia Labels: Israel, George Marshall, China, Fall of Soviet Union, America. ~ It could have gone down this way. Like China's Kuomintang, a lot of Israel's leaders were ideologically closer to the Soviet Union than to the US---and a good few of them _came from_ there.
~ What happens with China here?
Older Posts
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
