Avoiding the Yom Kippur War

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.

It said why it was a sham. They started colonizing occupied areas almost at once and rejected Egyptian offer that was almost exactly what Israelis claimed to offer (only that it covered just Egypt not general peace treaty)

And that's not "Israel would have rejected" but "Israel did reject" Egyptian peace offer.
 
Really, on what planet did that happen?

Earth

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.

Yes, nobody is disputing Israelis won. However Egypt gave good erformance, massive improvement from 1967. So Israelis figured that by next time they'll improve even further.Backed by numbers it spelled potential troubles for Israel

And just to prove it wasn’t a fluke they cut past and threatened to encircle Damascus.

I'm talking about Egypt here, not Syria

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

And once Sadat came to power they were. But Israelis weren't willing to listen
 

Cook

Banned
Yes, nobody is disputing Israelis won. However Egypt gave good erformance, massive improvement from 1967. So Israelis figured that by next time they'll improve even further.Backed by numbers it spelled potential troubles for Israel

Getting an arse kicking in three weeks instead of six days is not a significant improvement, particularly when they achieved full strategic surprise, something that there would be no possibility of achieving again and even with that surprise didn’t manage to get more than 30 miles from the Suez Canal.

Israel negotiated because they wanted a peace treaty with Egypt, not though fear of Egyptian strength.

And once Sadat came to power they were. But Israelis weren't willing to listen


Since Israel entered into negotiations with Egypt at the earliest indication that Sadat was open to them your statement is baseless.

You seem to be deliberately being obtuse.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Getting an arse kicking in three weeks instead of six days is not a significant improvement, particularly when they achieved full strategic surprise, something that there would be no possibility of achieving again and even with that surprise didn’t manage to get more than 30 miles from the Suez Canal.
The only reason they got their "arse" kicked was because of the damn Syrians and everyone recognises that fact. If the Syrians hadn't done what they did, they would have come off a lot better.
 

Cook

Banned
The only reason they got their "arse" kicked was because of the damn Syrians and everyone recognises that fact. If the Syrians hadn't done what they did, they would have come off a lot better.

Forgive me if I fail to see the fact that everybody apparently recognises.
I suggest you clarify further.

If anyone seriously believes that the Israeli’s were in a position of weakness verses the Egyptians prior to Camp David could they kindly explain why the Israeli Army would be so keen to give up a hundred mile wide stretch of perfect defensive terrain?

Especially given that the people they were negotiating with had just achieved Strategic surprise.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Forgive me if I fail to see the fact that everybody apparently recognises.
I suggest you clarify further.
The Syrians were totally fucking clueless at how to prosecute a war, and they kept harassing the Egyptians to pressure the Israelis on the southern border by saying they were facing a majority of the aerial and ground forces Israel had. At the time, the Egyptians were bleeding the Israelis under defensive anti-air missile blankets and were holding a lot of ground. Under Syrian promises and lies, they moved out of the blanket, and promptly got fucked ten different ways to Sunday, which led to the following moments you mentioned.
 

Cook

Banned
The Syrians were totally fucking clueless at how to prosecute a war, and they kept harassing the Egyptians to pressure the Israelis on the southern border by saying they were facing a majority of the aerial and ground forces Israel had. At the time, the Egyptians were bleeding the Israelis under defensive anti-air missile blankets and were holding a lot of ground. Under Syrian promises and lies, they moved out of the blanket, and promptly got fucked ten different ways to Sunday, which led to the following moments you mentioned.

Given that the Egyptians dug in and attempted a static defence of terrain instead of a mobile fight it would not be far wrong to suggest that at the time Egypt’s knowledge of how to prosecute a war was not much better than the Syrians.
Both at the time used Soviet doctrine, weapons and tactics.

This ignores my earlier point. No-one gives up a hundred miles of perfect defensive terrain to someone they feel threatened by.

I am willing to be a sizable sum that they do not give lectures at the Egyptian war college beginning with the title: “1973 - How we kicked arse!”
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Well at least the Egyptians weren't planting trees next to their artillery positions like their Damascene allies were :rolleyes:

EDIT: My bad, that was the '67 War.
 
Last edited:
Getting an arse kicking in three weeks instead of six days is not a significant improvement, particularly when they achieved full strategic surprise, something that there would be no possibility of achieving again and even with that surprise didn’t manage to get more than 30 miles from the Suez Canal.

Israel negotiated because they wanted a peace treaty with Egypt, not though fear of Egyptian strength.

Significant improvement was that in first phase Egypt neutralized 3 cornerstones on which Israeli defences lay. They breached Suez/Bar Levi line, they defeated Israeli armoured counter-attack and neutralized IDF to an extent that they were not able to operate freely and give required support to ground troops.

Egypt made a mistake of advancing in second phase, when they were defeated.

However coming up with such plan, executing it and giving Israel bloody nose when they stuck to it showed clear improvement. And if they went from crappy performance in 1967 to this in 6 years they might improve even further till next war. And as always Egypt would be able to field bigger army than Israel. If they leadership would steadily improve and some point this (which would likely still be worse than Israeli leadership) combined with numbers would be enough to actually win the war. Or make Israel whip out nukes at which point it would be whole other game

Since Israel entered into negotiations with Egypt at the earliest indication that Sadat was open to them your statement is baseless.

You seem to be deliberately being obtuse.

If what you are saying was true Israel would have accepted 1971 peace offer. Which was more or less what Camp David was all about anyway. Israel wasn't interested in negotiated peace because they believed that they can always win easily. 1973 showed that while they could still win it woun't always be easy or cheap. So they made peace.

Plus they needed to remove egyptian threat so they could give their full attention to Lebanon, which would mean conflict with Syria. (compare scope and objectives of pre-Camp David "Litani" and post-Camp David "Peace for Galilee")
 


Given that the Egyptians dug in and attempted a static defence of terrain instead of a mobile fight it would not be far wrong to suggest that at the time Egypt’s knowledge of how to prosecute a war was not much better than the Syrians.
Both at the time used Soviet doctrine, weapons and tactics.

It's called strategic offensive/tactical defensive. Basically you move in your enemy territory, dictating when and where battle will be fought, capitalizing on advantages of offensive. Then you dug in and let enemy come to you, capitalizing on advantages of defensive (prepared positions....)

This ignores my earlier point. No-one gives up a hundred miles of perfect defensive terrain to someone they feel threatened by.

Unless you can tag on conditions that improve your position and you need to remove one enemy to focus on anaother

I am willing to be a sizable sum that they do not give lectures at the Egyptian war college beginning with the title: “1973 - How we kicked arse!”
[/QUOTE]

No, but strategic surprise is often quoted in various intel analyses.
 
Top