challange arab isreal war

Does the challenge mention that there had to be a specific PoD? IIRC, it just said that the wars of 1948 and 1967 had to be fought without the involvement of a superpower.


This Israeli labour party was not communist. Get over yourself.

I admit what I said was a bit rough, but it is actual history (for some of us, the present as well). Trust me, I know.

I wouldn't call them truly red, although they were the pinkiest of all pinkos, on the scale approaching Yugoslavia, but without official marriage between Party and Government.

Precisely said.

Well, once you stopped Balfour it isn't a challenge anymore. I read OP as a call to create TL where Arabs defeat Israel numerically comparable to IOTL strength. And I would say that it might be possible in 1948 (although you pretty much need to make Murphy working against Israel full-time, on the scale unheard of since Russo-Japanese War), extremely problematic later on.

If you really want to destroy Israel, you have to eliminate the UN resolution for the Partition of Palestine. Since it was a UN decision, they were intent on making sure it takes place, to a certain extent. Since the war ended the way it did, the UN did nothing but send guys to try and maintain the peace. If it would have ended in preparations for a second holocaust, I'd say American marines would have been all-over the Levant by 49'.
 
If you really want to destroy Israel, you have to eliminate the UN resolution for the Partition of Palestine. Since it was a UN decision, they were intent on making sure it takes place, to a certain extent.
I'm not saying that this is unlikely POD, I just don't understand how "no partition decision" affects events "on the ground", so to speak. Middle Eastern politic is very tough and bloody business, one can call it "primal". Questions of "prestige" and "setting a precendent" are often distant second to a desire to control particularly convenient machinegun position. So, in this primal sense, what could be different, if British left and there's no partition decision? It would be free-for-all of Bosnian kind, but I didn't see significant difference in outcome. Neighbouring Arab regimes would still invade, Israel (Yishuv) would still comb the black market for weapons and court Czech, Arab Liberation Army would still be there. What critical strength for Arabs or weakness for Jews is generated by absense of the plan ITTL?
 
If there is no partition plan, there would be an alternative plan. The British won't just withdraw from Palestine all of a sudden with no future plans for the land. They are supposed to, by the definition of their mandate, prepare the country for autonomy. So if there is no UN partition plan, there is a different plan, which would therefor yield different results "on the ground".
 

Vault-Scope

Banned
1967: President Nasser doesn´t ordered the UN peacekeeping forces out of the Sinai Peninsula, including the Suez Canal area.
1971: Concerned over arabe military becoming more powerfull, isreal launch an offensive westward, crushing the UN peacekeepers.
UN send condemnations but under US pressure, there are no meaningfull sanctions.
Syria and Jordan declares war but their attacks are easely defeated, isreal continue push against Cairo itself.
The UN condemns the capture of the city and Nasser sucessfully escapes southward, Egypte doesn´t surrender and its allies doesn´t sue for peace, brutal fighting in Egyptian cities.
1972: Unable to advance much deeper into Egypte, isreal attempst to knock Syria & Jordan out of the war with large-scale offensives.
1972: Amman falls but Damas prooves well-fortified, armed resistance in occupied arabe territories increases, Iraq begin large-scale intervention, much military lend-lease from other arabe countries.
1973: Iraqi-Syrian counter-attacks takes back Damas, trapping isreal armies there. Israelit armoured offensive into Egypte is defeated by the ELA
1974: Major battle in Egypte between Egyptian and israelit forces, results in a clear defeat for isreal.
Liberation of Egypte, Jordan, Lebanon and remaining occupied Syria. Due in no small measures to large-scale muslime insurrections.
Situation is particulary grime in Lebanon, where christian militias have comitted widspread atrocities with the help of tsahal, a significant part of lebanon´s christian population is massacred, rest is deported as labour forces for the war effort and later expelled to the west. By December, arabe armies are within shelling distance of the israeli borders, arabe caution porooves well-founded when isreal launch a desperate counter-offensives.
This attack is defeated hovewer
1975: Having lost much of its equippement in the previous years, isreal is incapable of defending its territories when arabe armies finally breakes throught in January.
Much of the country is well defended hovewer, it takes several months for the .
There are much posturing between the superpowers, soviet-union threaten retaliation if isreal launch a nuclear attack against the arabes and the USA in return threatens to retaliate against sovietic territories. No side hovewer dare intervene in the conflict, least it start war with the other.
In march, secret agreements are reached between between the belligerents, no nuclear attack in exchange for the safe evacuation of isreal´s population to the united states after the war.
Militant nationalist group attempts an unsucessfull military coup by the end of ther month, even as Jerusalem is being encircled.
April 9th 1975, official surrender of isreal to the arabe alliance, much of the country is thorougly devastated.
Kuwait civil war, when pan-arabe nationalists wages a coup, with the help of Iraqi veterans they are sucessfull by July 15th.
Despite seizure of remaining infrastructures and help from the soviet-union & red china, reconstruction will take a number of years.
One positive side hovewer, is the union of Egypte/Syria/Palestine/Iraq/Lebanon/Jordan into a single military and economical alliance.
In the following decade, there would be much tensions between the arabe union and revolutionnary Iran.
War was finally avoided when Iranians intervened in the Afghan civil war, triggering Pakistani intervention...
 
Aye, its a little bit different, with some more breathing room in '73 than '67. But does a couple kilometers really make that much of a difference?

If those kilometers involve the occupation of population centers (which could get VERY ugly) or trigger an extreme response by the Israelis, yes.

I think the Israelis considered nuclear release in 1973 if the Syrians got just a bit farther. In 1967, I don't think the Israelis had nukes (I thought they got them in 1969), but they might have other options...
 
About superpower involvement, the Russians threatened to intervene in 1973 if the Israelis attacked Damascus. They had paratroopers lined up (with Jewish soldiers transferred elsewhere).

The US went on a worldwide nuclear alert and CalBear explained in another thread how that could mushroom into a nuclear exchange, if American fighters interdicted the Soviet airborne force and the Soviets attacked the CBG launching the attack.
 

Vault-Scope

Banned
The US went on a worldwide nuclear alert and CalBear explained in another thread how that could mushroom into a nuclear exchange, if American fighters interdicted the Soviet airborne force and the Soviets attacked the CBG launching the attack.


Nah, they would have sissied out of it, even faster than in 62´.

Hovewer, it is striking that the US have gone such lenght in supporting isreal, what exactly is the strategic sens?
 
Nah, they would have sissied out of it, even faster than in 62´.

Hovewer, it is striking that the US have gone such lenght in supporting isreal, what exactly is the strategic sens?

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?

Well, Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors give the US a free testing-ground for how our equipment would perform against the Soviets.
 
rly? i was under the impression that the weapons used were out dated and past there prime

ex using t-55 and t-62 while the union had already shifted to t-72
 
Remove the involvement of all the various powers in 1948? And 1967?

I mean... that'd pretty much do it. I don't think Israel could've won the way it did without foreign support.

The easiest one is for the US and GB to wait for the newly formed united nations to formally make a decision on which side to support after the veto by the SU, Israel would have been destroyed before any high level government help arrived.
 
If there is no partition plan, there would be an alternative plan. The British won't just withdraw from Palestine all of a sudden with no future plans for the land. They are supposed to, by the definition of their mandate, prepare the country for autonomy. So if there is no UN partition plan, there is a different plan, which would therefor yield different results "on the ground".
Yes, this part (different plan) is understood, but what advantages could Arabs gain (if we're striking down possibility of Britons actively messing into war, as in transferring "police forts" to Arab militias and conducting devastating raids against Jewish militias, aimed at their total disarmament)? Wouldn't it be Partition Plan, Bevin would most likely transfer governing over the land to some fictious "united provision government", deeply split along ethnic lines (let's say Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben­ Zvi from Yishuv and someone of Nashashibi and someone of al-Husayni from Arabs), which will disperse almost immediately Bosnia-style. Just as IOTL, post-war realities will be defined by military successes "one the ground", which IMHO are not to be deeply afected by legal niceties.

1967:
1971:
1972:
1973:
1974:
1975:...
ASB on so many levels, from Israel fighting full-blown war for a number of years (they haven't got resources for long hot war of attrition, any ME war was and will be lost or won in sequence of fast strikes), to Arabs defending Damascus and generally fighting a long war to too many technical details which are so fantastic I wouldn't even care to list unless specifically asked. In short, ASB.

I think the Israelis considered nuclear release in 1973 if the Syrians got just a bit farther.
Yes, idea of Syrians breaking through Golans and descending toward Haifa area was always Israel's nightmare and they could use nukes to stop Syrians before that (once tanks are on Coastal Plain, it becomes little ME version of Blitzkrieg when defending force can't forecast direction of future attacks and war is essentially lost, as it only takes one successfull tank attack to get from Haifa to Tel Aviv).

About superpower involvement, the Russians threatened to intervene in 1973 if the Israelis attacked Damascus. They had paratroopers lined up (with Jewish soldiers transferred elsewhere).

The US went on a worldwide nuclear alert and CalBear explained in another thread how that could mushroom into a nuclear exchange, if American fighters interdicted the Soviet airborne force and the Soviets attacked the CBG launching the attack.
I used to know some Russian (ethnic definition is correct, as Soviets went to a great length to exclude Jewish officers from any stage of planning or execution) participants personally and read a great deal of books describing American decision-making and I always was under the impression that both sides were seriously BS-ing. Neither were Soviets seriously preparing to enter the war on Arab's behalf (and actual "ability" of Soviets to move tens of thousands paratroopers to ME in a single leap and supply them there), nor Americans were ready to fight Soviets. It was more of typical Cold War show "my dong is longer than yours". None of extensive preparations required before Soviets entered Czechoslovakia in 1968 had been carried out in 1973 and, unlike jump to Damascus, 1968 was mostly peaceful business.

rly? i was under the impression that the weapons used were out dated and past there prime

ex using t-55 and t-62 while the union had already shifted to t-72
Past their prime and dumbed down? Yes. Outdated? No. T-62 is still in active duty with Russian Army, as of 2008. Those tanks were backbone of the Soviet tank forces when they were supplied in mid-1960s.Soviets supplied "mainstream", not "cutting edge".

Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors give the US a free testing-ground for how our equipment would perform against the Soviets.
Yes, and Soviets used ME as proving ground for their weaponry too. Big time. Thanks to extensive involvement of Soviet military advisors, Soviets had adequate idea of how what shortcomings are design's failures, and what are operators' fault.

The easiest one is for the US and GB to wait for the newly formed united nations to formally make a decision on which side to support after the veto by the SU, Israel would have been destroyed before any high level government help arrived.
Could you please clarify?
 
Top