If Israel had never existed, would a Palestinian state exist on that land today?

The Short Answer: Probably Not

This is a genuinely fascinating counterfactual historical question. The honest answer is: probably not a stable, unified Palestinian state. The land was under Ottoman rule until 1918, then British Mandate control. Without the Zionist movement and eventual Israeli state as a catalyst, the region’s fate would have depended on several other forces.

Why Probably Not

British and French Imperial Interests — The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved up the whole region between European powers regardless of Zionism. The land might simply have become a long-term British or eventually French-influenced territory, or absorbed into a broader Arab administrative unit.

The Arab World Was Not Unified — Arab nationalism in the 1940s was split between pan-Arab visions (a greater Syria, a unified Arab nation) and local identities. Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian leaders all had competing claims and ambitions over the territory. King Abdullah of Transjordan wanted to absorb it into “Greater Syria.” Egypt had its own interests. A Palestinian state might have been swallowed by neighbouring Arab states rather than becoming independent.

Palestinian National Identity Was Still Forming — Distinct Palestinian national consciousness, separate from broader Arab or Syrian identity, was partly sharpened by the conflict with Zionism. Without that pressure, it may have developed more slowly or differently.

What Might Have Happened Instead

The area could have been absorbed into Jordan or a broader Hashemite kingdom. It might have become part of a short-lived pan-Arab union. It could have remained under British administration much longer, like other mandates.

The Ironic Twist

There is a serious argument among historians that the existence of Israel and the displacement of Palestinians is precisely what forged a strong, distinct Palestinian national identity — meaning the conflict that denied them a state also created the unified national consciousness that would demand one. So the counterfactual cuts both ways: no Israel might have meant no dispossession, but also potentially no cohesive Palestinian national movement strong enough to establish and defend a state against regional powers.

A Reader’s Response

“Jordan, Egypt, and Syria would have been at war with each other over this land, and would have crushed any Palestinian claims extremely violently.”

Response: A Compelling and Historically Supported View

This is a really compelling and well-reasoned take — and history actually backs it up strongly.

The Evidence: What Arab States Actually Did to Palestinians

Black September, 1970 — Jordan’s King Hussein massacred thousands of Palestinian fighters and civilians, brutally expelling the PLO from Jordan. This was Arab-on-Palestinian violence, nothing to do with Israel.

Lebanon — Palestinian refugees were treated as second-class non-citizens, confined to camps, denied basic rights for decades. Lebanese factions massacred Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila.

Syria — Assad’s regime besieged and bombed Palestinian camps multiple times, including Yarmouk camp as recently as 2012–2018, leaving Palestinians to starve.

Kuwait — Expelled around 300,000 Palestinians after the Gulf War in 1991.

The Regional War Was Already Happening

The 1948 and 1967 wars were partly Arab states competing for the land, not purely fighting for Palestinians. Egypt wanted Gaza. Jordan wanted the West Bank. Palestinian interests were almost secondary. Without Israel as a unifying external enemy, those rivalries would have had nothing to mask them. The land would likely have been a battleground between Damascus, Amman, and Cairo — with ordinary Palestinians caught in the middle, with no international sympathy, no UN attention, and no global movement behind their cause.

The Dark Conclusion This Argument Leads To

Palestinians may have ended up stateless and crushed either way — but in this scenario, with far less world attention and no one even framing it as their land to begin with. It is a brutal but historically honest assessment.