Could Israel win a Prolonged War?

Say that Israel (like it did OTL) ends up in a war with the Arab league;
only instead of the Arab nations agreeing to peace rather quickly, they do a sort of USSR and do a build up while Israel makes headway into the many nation its at war with.

Given the situation if the war lasts for 5 maybe 10 years can Israel still win?
They have a rather small population and i'm just not sure if they can win a long war; but israel is not my area of expertise so can someone smarter than me answer?
 
Say that Israel (like it did OTL) ends up in a war with the Arab league;
only instead of the Arab nations agreeing to peace rather quickly, they do a sort of USSR and do a build up while Israel makes headway into the many nation its at war with.

Given the situation if the war lasts for 5 maybe 10 years can Israel still win?
They have a rather small population and i'm just not sure if they can win a long war; but israel is not my area of expertise so can someone smarter than me answer?

The problem is: Israel is sort of in a similar situation as long as occupation goes, since second intifiada. Long, asymmetrical, on average low-intensity conflict.
Israel has been able to afford such a thing only because no other Arab state is directly involved (with the occasional exception of Lebanon, but it does not change the picture).
If you refer to what is happening in a conventional war among states, I think that
a) neither Israel or the Arab countries can vaguely afford conventional war effort for very long time; both rely on external help to do so and
b) that among other things brings the Great Powers in very quickly asking clearly for a ceasefire.

In a Cold War context, it is difficult to have a long war because the US and SU have the leverage and the will to stop that, and the combatants just can't fight without their consent.
The alternative is a long war spiraling out, which most of the time the Superpowers did not want.
 
This sort of is otl, Israel fought low level wars with the Arabs for decades. As for a all out war how would the Arabs sustain it. They generally quited because they were losing. Even if they tried the USSR would likely withdraw backing if it thought they were being stupid.
 
Israels considerable conventional military superiority will ensure that it doesn`t have to. It will win battles and take defensible territory.
 
Israels considerable conventional military superiority will ensure that it doesn`t have to. It will win battles and take defensible territory.

Low-Level wars aren't conventional wars. Israel did "win" the War of Attrition which would qualify as this in a sense but even then the War of Attrition had much more of a flavor of modern-day bushwhacking than a sustained conventional war.

This sort of is otl, Israel fought low level wars with the Arabs for decades. As for a all out war how would the Arabs sustain it. They generally quited because they were losing. Even if they tried the USSR would likely withdraw backing if it thought they were being stupid.

The same way every other state does. If we're assuming this happens then the will or lack thereof of the superpowers has to be meaningless for this to happen at all. If the Israelis are put up to a serious, sustained modern war against a larger coalition that gains more of the time needed to raise armies more suited to the size of armies it could, in theory, raise, then the Israeli state in all probability gets destroyed and five seconds later Fatah starts bushwhacking the new Arab masters of Palestine, replacing the Israeli-Arab Wars with the Palestinian Wars.
 
in a real shooting war, absolutely not, israel's conscription program is too massive and disruptive to the economy to be maintained for more than a month or two at any one point in mobilization mode
 
Furthermore, how do you defeat an enemy that that armed with simple weaponry and equipment and with Al-Aqsa in the front and Mecca at the back?:rolleyes:
 

Pangur

Donor
I would think this is the nightmare of the Israelie general staff. Their defence forces are geared up for a quick win as it were. The deeper they go into any country let alone many exposes supply lines that don't have to be cut to hurt, disrupting them is enough to bring defeat. They also would have the issue of perception If they are seen as fighting for their survival they are ok on that score but get bogged down on several fronts in what is a war of agression they loose. Their nukes wont save them either, quite the opposite actually. That would confirm their bully status.

Their is a simple recipe for victory

1: Define exactly what you want to do - what is victory
2: Define how to achieve that quickly
3: Make sure your side understands that above
4: Make sure that you do it
5: Dont change the plan
 
The same way every other state does. If we're assuming this happens then the will or lack thereof of the superpowers has to be meaningless for this to happen at all. If the Israelis are put up to a serious, sustained modern war against a larger coalition that gains more of the time needed to raise armies more suited to the size of armies....

And then Israel begins using chemical and biological weapons and possibly tactical nuclear weapons....
 
I don't know enough about the public opinions in the Middle East at the time to answer this, but would the Arab League's leader been able to retain power while sitting through the losing portion of this war before they could bring the necessary weight to bear to defeat Israel? It seems like they could easily face revolutions in their own countries as their citizens watch their friends and family killed in a war their governments started and refuse to stop.
 
I might be mistaken but in the lead up to the Yom Kippur war Egypt mobilized their reserves, forcing Israel to mobilize theirs and then Egypt would demobilize. Then repeat the whole process again so when they did actually attack the Israeli's didn't bother mobilizing because it would have hurt their economy too much to have another needless mobiliziation.
 
The point is that if they have to Israel will go nuclear. Once they go nuclear, the middle east is gone. If the US has to it will decisively intervene on Israel's side to prevent nuclear war.
 
And then Israel begins using chemical and biological weapons and possibly tactical nuclear weapons....

At which point Israel loses no matter what it does, as it survives intact in a region where fallout will endanger it and totally and completely isolated, having confessed that at long last it is completely incapable of sustaining itself in a serious war.

I don't know enough about the public opinions in the Middle East at the time to answer this, but would the Arab League's leader been able to retain power while sitting through the losing portion of this war before they could bring the necessary weight to bear to defeat Israel? It seems like they could easily face revolutions in their own countries as their citizens watch their friends and family killed in a war their governments started and refuse to stop.

Honestly, we really don't have any way to know. The superpowers enabled both sides to get short wars that limited the damage that could come of them. In a protracted war, the Arab states arguably would find it in them to go through with them, but then the Arab states would not go into it expecting the USSR to hold their hands and pull them away from the hot stove.

The point is that if they have to Israel will go nuclear. Once they go nuclear, the middle east is gone. If the US has to it will decisively intervene on Israel's side to prevent nuclear war.

And then Israel is totally isolated except for the USA.......
 
Snake, Israel can survive a few decades of isolation better than a successful Arab invasion. And isolation won't last forever. Especially if Israel refrains from attacking cities with strategic nukes and only uses tactical warheads on the battlefields. The world will fully expect Israel to go nuclear in the event of imminent destruction, so it won't come as a complete shock.

After decades or perhaps a century, the world will begin to forget. Israel will slowly reintegrate into the world, though I'm sure the consequences won't be really severe, because, as stated previously, Israel will be fully expected to use nuclear weapons.

And as to who Israel is isolated from, the most severe repercussions will come from Europe. There will be huge diplomatic consequences, and if Israel goes beyond attacking Arab armies with tactical nukes and goes after cities with strategic nukes, economic repercussions as well. But China and India will probably remain loyal trading partners.
 
Say that Israel (like it did OTL) ends up in a war with the Arab league;
only instead of the Arab nations agreeing to peace rather quickly, they do a sort of USSR and do a build up while Israel makes headway into the many nation its at war with.

Given the situation if the war lasts for 5 maybe 10 years can Israel still win?
They have a rather small population and i'm just not sure if they can win a long war; but israel is not my area of expertise so can someone smarter than me answer?

Short answear, yes.

Longer version:

A war of 5-10 years is ASB, but at this point so is a war between Israel and the entire Arab world.

Now, nukes are off the table. There is simply no reason to use them. Maybe in a tactical sense, but I don't think it will even get to that.

A war between Israel and it's immediate neighbors will end rather quickly, as they all have in the past(assuming you ignore 1948, for a large number of reasons), with Israel in either the smae borders, or with new defensible borders.
But then you ask a rather odd question, can the Arab countries keep up the war effort? and another, can Israel?

In regards to the Arab nations: Those that do not share a border with Israel will send troops, supplies, money. But they have those in limited numbers. You cannot sent your entrie forces. What will be left behind? Ignoring "regime keeping forces" like someone mentioned earlier, those countries still share borders with other countries. Not to mention the logistics of it all.

Now to equipment, based on previous losses in wars, and the ability of the Israeli army to repair(The total number of tanks that were eliminated from the IDF stores in it's entire history is negligable, most were put back in service during the conflicts they were damaged in. The same cannot be said about the Arab armies) and my knowledge of current Russian wartime manufacturing capability, I don't think that even in a scenario of a year long conflict, the Arab armies could buy enough to replace losses. Egypt has a facility to manufacture spare parts for it's M1A1 fleet, but that would still be problematic, not to mention in range of IAF airstrikes.

Now of course Russia can send some of the many abandoned tanks it has just sitting in storage, but they require refurbeshing. Not to mention that new crews are to be trained, and that most are outdated and not in the same "wieght class" as the Israeli tanks. All this takes time. Time you don't have during a modern war.
Buying tanks from the US isn't going to happen, nor from the EU. Maybe some second hand western tanks from non NATO nations, but I don't see many purchases like that happenning.

The only weak point for Israel is replacing lost aircraft. Though that can happen faster then one might think. Lost ships is another problem, but no one is going to carry a D-Day style invasion of Israel, and naval blockade is easier said then done.

Now to ammunition. Again from personal knowledge, Israel has enough in storage. Not to mention Israel's arms industry. The Arab armies can purchase and make enough aswell though.

Now to the war economy: To all who said that Israel cannot stay in a war long enough due to it's economy, that is pure myth. Yes, the Israeli economy will take a nosedive, just like it did in 1967 and 1973, when reservists had to stay for months after the wars in case hostilities were to start again. The world economies took decades to pay for WW1 and WW2. Last time Israel was at total war was 1948, when children passed messages, and women carried guns. The same effect will be felt in many Arab countries, when those engage in a conflict they cannot win and keep throwing money and men at it.

Seeing your economy will go to shit is not always a good enough reason to avoid war, more so when this scenario was an Arab combined attack on Israel. Also, nukes are not, have not, and hopefully will not be the first reaction of Israel to a combined Arab assault. Not much is known about the Israeli nuclear policy, but the preconditions for the use of nuclear weapons are a little more tough then simply being attacked from all directiones. You have to be also losing.

Hopes this helps
 
Snake, Israel can survive a few decades of isolation better than a successful Arab invasion. And isolation won't last forever. Especially if Israel refrains from attacking cities with strategic nukes and only uses tactical warheads on the battlefields. The world will fully expect Israel to go nuclear in the event of imminent destruction, so it won't come as a complete shock.

After decades or perhaps a century, the world will begin to forget. Israel will slowly reintegrate into the world, though I'm sure the consequences won't be really severe, because, as stated previously, Israel will be fully expected to use nuclear weapons.

And as to who Israel is isolated from, the most severe repercussions will come from Europe. There will be huge diplomatic consequences, and if Israel goes beyond attacking Arab armies with tactical nukes and goes after cities with strategic nukes, economic repercussions as well. But China and India will probably remain loyal trading partners.

Israel broke the taboo of using nuclear weapons, the isolation will geopolitically last forever, while the consequences of irradiating oilfields needed by Europe and Asia will last a very, very long time. If Israel also does this because its armies are on the brink of collapse, it winds up looking like a nation of cowards and bullies who finally were incapable of accepting limits to their own power. But I forget I'm talking to someone who claims the West Bank and Gaza Strip aren't Occupied Territories.
 
Israel broke the taboo of using nuclear weapons, the isolation will geopolitically last forever, while the consequences of irradiating oilfields needed by Europe and Asia will last a very, very long time. If Israel also does this because its armies are on the brink of collapse, it winds up looking like a nation of cowards and bullies who finally were incapable of accepting limits to their own power. But I forget I'm talking to someone who claims the West Bank and Gaza Strip aren't Occupied Territories.

First off, I think Israel won't glass the region. It will resort to using tactical nukes against Arab forces, so the oil fields can be secure. As stated previously, Israel will be isolated, but only to Europe, though it can still maintain good trade with the US and Asia, and if it doesn't target civilians and waits a while, economic ties with Europe can begin returning to normal. Israel can be a geopolitical pariah for quite some time. But "forever" is a long word. I can see isolation lasting 50-100 years, but how about in 150-200 years' time?

Israel's reaction to people calling it a "coward" and a "bully" will be "Meh. At least we're still alive".
 
First off, I think Israel won't glass the region. It will resort to using tactical nukes against Arab forces, so the oil fields can be secure. As stated previously, Israel will be isolated, but only to Europe, though it can still maintain good trade with the US and Asia, and if it doesn't target civilians and waits a while, economic ties with Europe can begin returning to normal. Israel can be a geopolitical pariah for quite some time. But "forever" is a long word. I can see isolation lasting 50-100 years, but how about in 150-200 years' time?

Israel's reaction to people calling it a "coward" and a "bully" will be "Meh. At least we're still alive".

The Samson Option, which it will use in this kind of situation, *is* glassing the region.
 
Top