In 1948 the UN voted on a two state solution for Palestine. 33 for the resolution, 13 against, and 10 abstains. It seems like the vote wasn't close. But what would have happened if the results were flipped? What would have happened if the UN voted against the two state solution? If I am not mistaken, after World War Two, and at the onset of decolonization, the British were trying to rid themselves of the Palestinian colony. Would the British have been forced to take back Palestine as a colony if the UN was not in favor of the two state solution?

This question is not a hypothetical. The answer will explain the status of Palestine in 1948, who owned it, and what the nations of the world, especially those not in favor of Resolution 181, had in plan for Palestine.

  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a question about a counter-factual.
    – user13123
    May 16 '17 at 6:13
  • Ok, but I explained why it wasn't a hypothetical... @HorusKol May 18 '17 at 3:28
  • "what would have happened if" leads to asking for a counterfactual - you do have a couple of seeds for what may be good questions, but as your question currently stands it is a broad hypothetical.
    – user13123
    May 18 '17 at 6:43

Logically, there were several options: to create one state instead, to split the territory between the neighboring states, or to combine these two things.

I do not think UN could force Britain to do something it did not want.

It is another matter that in those circumstances, any feasible solution would probably lead to a war. And if the British stayed they would face a strong resistance movement.

  • indeed. The only other option was a one state solution, creating a Jewish state only which would have changed nothing except the Lebanon would not exist, or create a muslim state only which would make the UN guilty of helping with the extermination of the Jews in the Middle East.
    – jwenting
    May 16 '17 at 6:30
  • @jwenting - "A one-state solution" would have created a majority Muslim state. Continuing to rule that state indefinitely as a "Jewish" state simply could not have been done under a "one person one vote" Democracy. So that option would never have been accepted by the Jewish agency.
    – T.E.D.
    May 16 '17 at 19:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.