Could Israel win a Prolonged War?

Israel does not have the manpower or the financial or manufacturing resources to sustain a war similar to say the Iran-Iraq war. But on the other hand the "Arab" world does not have the unity to make such a war happen. The Strongest among the Arab nations the Egyptians might play the occasional lip service to pan Arabism, but realistically Egyptians while devout Muslims they also see themselves as Egyptians, racial heirs to the Pyramid builders. They don't see Syrians (who sometimes consider themselves heirs to the Assyrians) as racial equals. Saudi Arabians also consider themselves superior. The only country in the region who really wants a sustained war with Israel is Iran. But because of geography they can only do this by Proxy through Hammas and Hezbollah.
 
How would an economic war fare between Israel and the Arabs? I imagine that in between intensive fighting there would be attacks on economic targets such as oil and gas facilities and power plants as part of the Attriytional phase of fighting.
 
I`m also talking about a prolonged conventional war, much like WW1 and WW2. These wars were a succession of offensives/operations to reach a certain objective followed by pauses to rebuild offensive capacity and consolidate gains. In the western desert the British/Axis tried to capture a forward position with a port behind it to accept shippments of replacement equipment. On the Eastern front offensives hoped to reach positions like major rivers so counter attacks would be easier to defend against.

In the Arab/Israeli context these battle rhythms would be prolonged since these states don`t have the resources of the major powers of WW1 & 2. The offensives would be short and the recovery period prolonged, while both sides recovered their battle damaged equipment, fortified their stop lines, treated their wounded, trained replacements, mitigated economic damage, built and purchased replacement weapons.

The comparison with Iran/Iraq is not appropriate because of the lack of long open borders between the combattants. Borders would be the Golan Hieghts, Litani and Jordan Rivers and Suez canal or Sinai passes. These are not suitable places for human wave attacks when the high tech weaponary runs low. Human wave attacks mounted by Arabs against these positions will result in no military gains for them, but fightful slaughter by simple weapons like towed artillery and machine guns.

WWII only became a *prolonged* conventional war in 1941, before that it proceded in fits and starts, while in Asia it degenerated into a giant counterinsurgency after 1939. World War I was an atypical war. Arguing from the world wars is useless for this kind of example, except perhaps for the Arabs who are a coalition like both sides in both world wars.
 
Israel does not have the manpower or the financial or manufacturing resources to sustain a war similar to say the Iran-Iraq war. But on the other hand the "Arab" world does not have the unity to make such a war happen. The Strongest among the Arab nations the Egyptians might play the occasional lip service to pan Arabism, but realistically Egyptians while devout Muslims they also see themselves as Egyptians, racial heirs to the Pyramid builders. They don't see Syrians (who sometimes consider themselves heirs to the Assyrians) as racial equals. Saudi Arabians also consider themselves superior. The only country in the region who really wants a sustained war with Israel is Iran. But because of geography they can only do this by Proxy through Hammas and Hezbollah.

Coalition wars aren't exactly renowned as providing examples of unity IOTL. Louis XIV, after all, did quite splendidly as one guy against a whole bunch of other guys giving as good as and more often better than he got.
 
If you have issues with the Israeli military's assessment of its strategic and tactical abilities and limitations, then go take it up with them.

If you insist on attributing imaginary qualities, well, that's your lookout. But I'm afraid that I'm not going to entertain you.

Where exactly in the IDF's doctrine do you see that it states the IDF has no ability to fight long wars as a reason for the *Determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively* principle? Are you sure it's not just wishfull thinking on your part? There is a difference between wanting to avoid a prolonged war and not being able to fight one. No country want's a long war, do you say the US cannot fight a prolonged war?

If we take the Germans as an example or Japan all the brutality in the world when structured for a long world merely gets you the enemy raising a flag over your capital and bombing and smashing his way through unhindered.

Again you compare things that have very little in common. Japan fought the US and the USSR. You can't exactly compare.
 
Clint, if you don't understand military matters, that's no crime. But at the same time, I have no obligation to try and educate you. Frankly, I don't think that's a useful task, as my impression is that you are wedded to your opinions. My comments were entirely straightforward, I don't see your problem with them, and I don't see that you've offered a meaningful rebuttal.

Perhaps you should do something more useful with your time? It strikes me that you are wasting a lot of your energy on Israel threads. You could work on your Vinland timeline, which I'm sure is unique and groundbreaking and clearly meticulously researched. I'm certain everyone is waiting for that.

In any event, I respectfully decline to engage. Feel free to argue with Featherstone and others.
 
Last edited:
Again you compare things that have very little in common. Japan fought the US and the USSR. You can't exactly compare.

Actually it fought China mostly, the USSR in two short intervals, plus the UK, USA, Australia, and various Asian resistance movements.
 
Israel does not have the manpower or the financial or manufacturing resources to sustain a war similar to say the Iran-Iraq war. But on the other hand the "Arab" world does not have the unity to make such a war happen. The Strongest among the Arab nations the Egyptians might play the occasional lip service to pan Arabism, but realistically Egyptians while devout Muslims they also see themselves as Egyptians, racial heirs to the Pyramid builders. They don't see Syrians (who sometimes consider themselves heirs to the Assyrians) as racial equals. Saudi Arabians also consider themselves superior.

You are correct that there is very little unanimity in the Muslim world. This was a major obstacle in and of itself, to Arab unification efforts by Nasser and the Baathists.

It's unlikely that the Arab nations could ever manifest the sort of cohesion to actively engage a war with Israel politically. Economically and militarily it is beyond them as well.

The only country in the region who really wants a sustained war with Israel is Iran. But because of geography they can only do this by Proxy through Hammas and Hezbollah.

I don't accept that even Iran wants a war with Israel, or considers it any kind of adversary. There's a lot of hugger-muggery and hot air over the subject. But the truth is that the countries have cooperated more than they've fought.

I think that the reality is that a 'war of words and newspaper editorials' serves them each very well.
 
WWII only became a *prolonged* conventional war in 1941, before that it proceded in fits and starts, while in Asia it degenerated into a giant counterinsurgency after 1939. World War I was an atypical war. Arguing from the world wars is useless for this kind of example, except perhaps for the Arabs who are a coalition like both sides in both world wars.

I gave two examples from WW2 that were from 1941, the Eastern Front and Nth Africa.

How was WW1 atypical? It had periods of intensive activity as well as lulls, this is the nature of prolonged wars. The Iran-Iraq war has been likened to WW1, in fact a lot of wars have been likened to WW1, starting with 2/3 of the Korean war

Can you give me an example of what you consider your template of a prolonged war to be?
 
I gave two examples from WW2 that were from 1941, the Eastern Front and Nth Africa.

How was WW1 atypical? It had periods of intensive activity as well as lulls, this is the nature of prolonged wars. The Iran-Iraq war has been likened to WW1, in fact a lot of wars have been likened to WW1, starting with 2/3 of the Korean war

Can you give me an example of what you consider your template of a prolonged war to be?

Except that in the case of the Eastern Front the USSR was very dependent on outside logistical aid while in a continuation and exaggeration of the WWI pattern the Nazis ignored logistics altogether. WWI was atypical because all the powers fought relatively self-contained aspects of a coalition war, while it is also typically viewed in the light of the Western Front despite having a great abundance of mobile operations.

We have no way to know how either Israel or the Arabs would hold up to a serious, sustained, conventional war.
 
Everyone keeps on tearing down Israel's ability to wage a long-term conventional war and I don't disagree. However, I don't think the Arab countries that Israel would be fighting would have such an ability, either.
 
Everyone keeps on tearing down Israel's ability to wage a long-term conventional war and I don't disagree. However, I don't think the Arab countries that Israel would be fighting would have such an ability, either.

The Arabs don't need to have brilliance or skill, just more ability to sustain a war than Israel......
 
And where, when the Israelis can bring into production the Merkerva tank and into prototype status the Lavi fighter, does this Arab capability come from? Where are the Arab equivilents to these highest end weapons. Indeed where are the Arab equivilents of the avionics spine on the F16 and the ERA armour for tanks? It`s all well and good that the Arabs have tens of thousands of infantry with small arms, but a single squadron of fighters with cluster bombs and napalm will quickly cripple those as an offensive force.
 
And where, when the Israelis can bring into production the Merkerva tank and into prototype status the Lavi fighter, does this Arab capability come from? Where are the Arab equivilents to these highest end weapons. Indeed where are the Arab equivilents of the avionics spine on the F16 and the ERA armour for tanks? It`s all well and good that the Arabs have tens of thousands of infantry with small arms, but a single squadron of fighters with cluster bombs and napalm will quickly cripple those as an offensive force.

Would Israel be able to sustain fuel for those fighters without massive foreign subsidies for a prolonged war, the scenario under discussion? Their running out of fuel that rapidly in 2006 against the much less formidable Hezbollah is not a good starting point for an argument.
 
And where, when the Israelis can bring into production the Merkerva tank and into prototype status the Lavi fighter, does this Arab capability come from?
I was getting the impression that one of the main issues discussed is
HOW are the Israelis going to bring into production the Merkeva tank
and into prototype status the Lavi fighter when their armed forces
are fully mobilised, reducing the number of people available to build
them?
 
Clint, if you don't understand military matters, that's no crime. But at the same time, I have no obligation to try and educate you. Frankly, I don't think that's a useful task, as my impression is that you are wedded to your opinions. My comments were entirely straightforward, I don't see your problem with them, and I don't see that you've offered a meaningful rebuttal.

DValdron, if you don't understand military matters, that's no crime. But at the same time, I have no obligation to try and educate you. Frankly, I don't think that's a useful task, as my impression is that you are wedded to your opinions. My comments were entirely straightforward, I don't see your problem with them, and I don't see that you've offered a meaningful rebuttal.

I've served as a tank commander for 3 years in the IDF, now I'm in the reserve. I have known people from all parts of the IDF, military industry, intelligence agencies, and many more. I also had and still have some, access to classefied material that helps my judgement. In this thread you can find me bringing statistics, precedents, and simple logic based on knowlegde of past events and understanding of the modern military balance in the region. You, however, brought nothing but your *gut feeling*, which is based on nothing but your view of Israel. So please, if you want to stick to your beliefe that *I don't like that country = It is incompetent in combat*, that is your problem, not mine.

Perhaps you should do something more useful with your time? It strikes me that you are wasting a lot of your energy on Israel threads. You could work on your Vinland timeline, which I'm sure is unique and groundbreaking and clearly meticulously researched. I'm certain everyone is waiting for that.

In any event, I respectfully decline to engage. Feel free to argue with Featherstone and others.

Besides trolling, what does this segment contribute to this discussion?
 
I was getting the impression that one of the main issues discussed is
HOW are the Israelis going to bring into production the Merkeva tank
and into prototype status the Lavi fighter when their armed forces
are fully mobilised, reducing the number of people available to build
them?

The Lavi is dead and buried, but the Merkava production line is mostly operated by people past the age of reserve service, or are exempt from service.
 
I was getting the impression that one of the main issues discussed is
HOW are the Israelis going to bring into production the Merkeva tank
and into prototype status the Lavi fighter when their armed forces
are fully mobilised, reducing the number of people available to build
them?

Israel would only need to be fully mobilised for short periods, to undertake offensives to secure defensible boundaries to enable defence against counter-attack using the unmobilised IDF. Prolonged stalemates would occur acoss these natural obstacles while the opponents prepared for the next round.

The fact remains that after 60 years of constant warfare Israel has a very strong military-industrial complex capable of producing the highest end weapons such as tanks, fighters, naval ships and Anti-ballistic missiles. I`ve yet to see the Egyptian gen 4.5 fighter, the Syrian TABM, the Jordanian MBT or the Saudi FAC-M.

With regard to outside financing the US FMF programme gives Israel $3 billion, Egypt $1.5 and Jordan $.35 billion every year. So not only would the removal of outside funding hurt Israel it would also hurt the Arabs. In addition the removal of US support in the form as denail of access to the FMS programme would cripple the Arabs militaries far more than Israels as they lack the support of an advanced M-I complex. The weapons to fight this prolonged war would have to be purchased on the open market, where the Arabs have the advantage unless Israel cripples their single stream economies with well aimed strikeas against economic targets and sinks the ships delivering the equipment.
 
Top