Avoiding the Yom Kippur War

[Tony Jones]

In 1967, after the Six Day War, in OTL the National Unity Government of Israel voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab states by the U.S. government. The U.S. was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, who thus apparently never received the offer. The decision was kept a closely guarded secret within Israeli government circles and the offer was withdrawn in October, 1967. This eventually led to the Yom Kippur War.

So, what if Egypt and Syria do get this offer?

Do we avoid the Yom Kippur War entirely, or does some other war come along to take its place? By avoiding the Yom Kippur War do we get rid of the 1973 oil crisis?

And where does history go from here?

Could we end up with a more peaceful Middle East, or is that just hopelessly wishful thinking?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

This could have huge implications -- I think no Oil Embargo in 73 is a safe assumption, so no major shortages would be felt until the Iranian Revolution (which, OTL, actually weakened OPEC). The global economy and the energy market look very different...

 

[Atomo]

This could have huge implications -- I think no Oil Embargo in 73 is a safe assumption, so no major shortages would be felt until the Iranian Revolution (which, OTL, actually weakened OPEC). The global economy and the energy market look very different...

A better economy and energy market would have implications on the Iranian Revolution as a whole. An America that isn't weakend and scared of a Middle East backlash via OPEC might do more to get those hostages out.
By this it may also play into the revolution itself being stopped by direct intervention.

 

[black angel]

I'm not sure if the Israelis would be willing to give up East Jerusalem, not that it really matters, if all the middle Eastern nations make peace their governments are at risk, long have the Egyptian and Syrian governments used Israel (and the fight against them) to hold themselves up, Jordan now with the West Bank (with-out East Jerusalem) has a hell of a Black September, maybe even loose to the PLO

 

[Cook]

I'm not sure if the Israelis would be willing to give up East Jerusalem...

And there we go.

Use the word Israel on this web site and everyone goes off on a tangent without focusing on what was proposed.

Tony’s suggesting an Egypt – Israel Peace without the Yom Kippur / Ramadan War taking place, so let’s try to focus on that shall we?

Personally I doubt Anwar Sadat would have had the credibility amongst his own people to sign a peace with Israel if he hadn’t fought the War of Attrition and Yom Kippur before that.

Let’s see if we can go three or four posts before someone says Gaza.

 

[black angel]

And there we go.

Use the word Israel on this web site and everyone goes off on a tangent without focusing on what was proposed.

Tony’s suggesting an Egypt – Israel Peace without the Yom Kippur / Ramadan War taking place, so let’s try to focus on that shall we?

um the POD is post-6 day war, the Israeli give back Arab lands they took in the war he said it himself

In 1967, after the Six Day War, in OTL the National Unity Government of Israel voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab states by the U.S. government. The U.S. was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, who thus apparently never received the offer. The decision was kept a closely guarded secret within Israeli government circles and the offer was withdrawn in October, 1967.

 

[Cook]

Well if you are suggesting that the Egyptian government would be unlikely to enter into negotiations without including Jordan please say so.

I doubt they’d feel any need to insist on Amman being included, they didn’t in OTL, or that King Husain would have been ready in the early ‘70s to talk anyway.

 

[black angel]

Well if you are suggesting that the Egyptian government would be unlikely to enter into negotiations without including Jordan please say so.

I doubt they’d feel any need to insist on Amman being included, they didn’t in OTL, or that King Husain would have been ready in the early ‘70s to talk anyway.

the Israeli plan was land for peace with all parties, and In general I don't think the Egyptian government in 1967 would settle for just their land being given back, nor does Israel want the West Bank

 

[Dan1988]

um the POD is post-6 day war, the Israeli give back Arab lands they took in the war he said it himself

He only mentioned the Sinai and the Golan, not the West Bank/Cisjordan and the Gaza Strip. Now, Nasser would probably be a bit elated over the return of the Sinai, so that would be easier done than said with him around. With the Golan, maybe if a repeat of the UNEF/UNDOF takes its role so that the entirety of the Golan becomes a DMZ (preferably, IMO, with Canada in the lead ), so that the Israelis are reassured that Syria wouldn't use it to try to go ahead with their "Greater Syria" plans.

And another big plus? The Good Fence is maintained, maybe even expanded, so Israel and Lebanon would probably have a better relationship than OTL (maybe even Lebanese recognition of Israel).

 

[Dan1988]

the Israeli plan was land for peace with all parties, and In general I don't think the Egyptian government in 1967 would settle for just their land being given back, nor does Israel want the West Bank

Hey, if it helps keep Nasser quiet . . . . .

 

[aktarian]

Israelis were never serious about this land-for-peace deal as Arabs weren't in position to talk from strength and Israel never withdraws unless forced out by military force (or at least relatively good military performance with potential for improvement)

Also Israel started colonizing those areas and rejected Egyptian offer which was what Israel claimed to want (peace treaty for Sinai).

So if Syria and Egypt get this offer and accept it Israel will simply change the offer, claiming that this is what they wanted in the first place.

 

[Cook]

Israelis were never serious about this land-for-peace deal as Arabs weren't in position to talk from strength and Israel never withdraws unless forced out by military force (or at least relatively good military performance with potential for improvement)

Also Israel started colonizing those areas and rejected Egyptian offer which was what Israel claimed to want (peace treaty for Sinai).

So if Syria and Egypt get this offer and accept it Israel will simply change the offer, claiming that this is what they wanted in the first place.

So the Camp David Accords of 1978 never took place then?

Refer to my earlier comments regarding Nitwits ranting.

 

[Atreus]

Israelis were never serious about this land-for-peace deal as Arabs weren't in position to talk from strength and Israel never withdraws unless forced out by military force (or at least relatively good military performance with potential for improvement)

Also Israel started colonizing those areas and rejected Egyptian offer which was what Israel claimed to want (peace treaty for Sinai).

So if Syria and Egypt get this offer and accept it Israel will simply change the offer, claiming that this is what they wanted in the first place.

Actually, with a bit of hindsight, Israel has a lot to gain from making this deal. Neutralizing its two gravest military threats in exchange for minimal loses. Israel never really colonized either the Golan or the Sinai, nevermind on the scale that we see today in the West Bank. And Israel has demonstrated that, given time, it isn't too opposed to giving up either territory. Finally, Israel in that day was a different creature in several respects, and I doubt that they would just back away from their own peace offering without some cause. No, the real issues are with Egypt and Syria. both can probably live with these terms, but the question is one of will: is either willing to lay down their arms? Possibly, but it is by no means certain.

Things get interesting in Jordan, though. The PLO and the other Palestinian factions will suddenly find themselves a lot more adrift, with Jordan their only supporter in the region in any sense. Does Hussein stick closer to the Palestinians, either out of sympathy or fear? Or do the events of Black September get moved forward? Could swing either way, but my gut says the latter: Hussein will find himself in a position of relative strength at this point. It's going to be terrible PR to kick out the Palestinians, but that will be mitigated by Nasser signing off on a peace agreement. Meanwhile, he does have the Palestinians in a state of relative weakness...

 

[aktarian]

So the Camp David Accords of 1978 never took place then?

Refer to my earlier comments regarding Nitwits ranting.

They accepted the peace in 1978 because:
-Egypt showed good performance in 1973 and Israelis figured that next time they may actually win
-Israel had to secure their southern flank to give full attention to Lebanon (which would mean conflict with Syria)

None of that was present in prior to YKW so such Egyptian offer was rejected.

 

[aktarian]

Actually, with a bit of hindsight, Israel has a lot to gain from making this deal. Neutralizing its two gravest military threats in exchange for minimal loses.

The problem in that 1967 was such a big military victory that simialr performance was expected anytime, anyplace. So why agree to compromise peace when you can win every war?

Israel never really colonized either the Golan or the Sinai, nevermind on the scale that we see today in the West Bank.

But colonized they were/are. There was a good performance for media when one such colony in Sinai was dismantled. Forgot the name though.

Golan is colonized, to the extent of few thousand people.

And Israel has demonstrated that, given time, it isn't too opposed to giving up either territory. Finally, Israel in that day was a different creature in several respects, and I doubt that they would just back away from their own peace offering without some cause. No, the real issues are with Egypt and Syria. both can probably live with these terms, but the question is one of will: is either willing to lay down their arms? Possibly, but it is by no means certain.

After 1967 Israel withdrew from two territories, from both it was forced out (from one by somewhat good military performance, from other by simply realizing it costs too much lives to continue to hold it).

As for Arabs, Egypt was willing to do just that. But Israel rejected giving back territory so it fell through

Things get interesting in Jordan, though. The PLO and the other Palestinian factions will suddenly find themselves a lot more adrift, with Jordan their only supporter in the region in any sense. Does Hussein stick closer to the Palestinians, either out of sympathy or fear? Or do the events of Black September get moved forward? Could swing either way, but my gut says the latter: Hussein will find himself in a position of relative strength at this point. It's going to be terrible PR to kick out the Palestinians, but that will be mitigated by Nasser signing off on a peace agreement. Meanwhile, he does have the Palestinians in a state of relative weakness...

That depends on what Jordan can get. If it simple capitulation like 1994 then Jordanians are in world of troubles. If they can get most of West Bank they can simply move Palestinians there, turn it over to PLO and lift hands from it all.

 

[loughery111]

Good to know we have the obligatory anti-Israel rant out of the way. Anyone want to give the anti-Palestine rant so we can get on with the business of actual discussion?

Anyhow, you have absolutely no evidence for the assertion that the Israeli offer following the 6-Day War was a sham, because the offer was never delivered. Unless, of course, you are claiming either to have access to documents proving that Israel would have rejected any offers made in response, or be able to read the minds of long-dead Israeli leaders.

 

[Cook]

They accepted the peace in 1978 because:
-Egypt showed good performance in 1973 and Israelis figured that next time they may actually win
-Israel had to secure their southern flank to give full attention to Lebanon (which would mean conflict with Syria)

None of that was present in prior to YKW so such Egyptian offer was rejected.

Really, on what planet did that happen?

I would have thought Israel’s flanking the Egyptian Army, crossing the Suez Canal and getting between the bulk of the Egyptian Army and Cairo is an indication of the relative performance in that war.
And just to prove it wasn’t a fluke they cut past and threatened to encircle Damascus.

And as to Egyptian offers, prior to Sadat they weren’t interested in talking.

 

[Cook]

Good to know we have the obligatory anti-Israel rant out of the way. Anyone want to give the anti-Palestine rant so we can get on with the business of actual discussion?

Anyhow, you have absolutely no evidence for the assertion that the Israeli offer following the 6-Day War was a sham, because the offer was never delivered. Unless, of course, you are claiming either to have access to documents proving that Israel would have rejected any offers made in response, or be able to read the minds of long-dead Israeli leaders.

Oh, to be able to channel Moshe Dayan’s tactical skills!

 

[loughery111]

Agreed. Would serve me well as an infantry officer.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Imagine what the economies of the West would be like without the second oil shock (noting of course something similar could occur in a different way). Just looking at my country (NZ) this would probably stop the massively expensive energy infrastructure investments that contributed in large part to the National government's unpopularity as well as corroding the economic position of the government. The latter of which then required massive structural change in the 1980s and early 1990s.


Interesting!