How long can the Six-Day* War last?

The basic scenario is that the War is the same in the first six days, and Israel conquers the same regions from her neighbours. The POD is in the sixth day, when no ceasefire is signed and Israel instead crosses the Suez Canal, and possibly even the Jordan river, and pushes onwards into Syria, Jordan and Egypt. My questions are:

1. What modifications have to be made into OTL to make the ceasefire not happen?

2. What would it take for Israel to at least efficiently fight on and probably be successful, and what would it require the Arabs to do to counter that?

3. How successful can Israel be? IE would it conquer any Arab capitals? Would crossing the Canal even have good chances of success? Would Jordan or Iraq decide to pull out and give in to Israeli demands in such a scenario, or would they just fight on more vigorously?

4. What are the international consequences? Regarding both the relations of the Western World with Israel, the USSR's relations with Israel, Soviet relations with Arab countries (maybe becoming even more dependent on the Soviets and becoming pretty much their puppets?), and especially: would a successful Israel in this scenario mean a prolonging of the conflict, or would Arab powers capitulate more easily and agree to normalize relations with Israel in return for conquered land? What would the borders of the middle east might look like after an Israeli victory?

5. For the Palestinians, what would it mean? In the Shabak, the Israeli security service, a few years after 67', some ideas of founding a Palestinian state that would basically be an Israeli dependency came up. Is that scenario plausible? If not, in the long term (i.e 40+ years) what would happen in the West Bank and Gaza? Much like OTL, maybe, or worse?

6. How long can the war last, if Israel crosses the Suez Canal, before Arab Powers capitulate, or Israel capitulates, or the US and USSR force a ceasefire?
 
This may be the answer to that question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jun/10/israel1

And if the Soviets intwervened as this newspaper article suggests that, given the situation at the time would draw in the US as well. Which would have resulted in WW3 and very likely a nuclear war. And if that happened I doubt there would be many left around in position to consider the issue of Middle Eastern borders. And if it looked as thought the IDF were abot to capture an arab capital that would very likely be the trigger for Soviet intervention and WW3.
 
This may be the answer to that question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jun/10/israel1

And if the Soviets intwervened as this newspaper article suggests that, given the situation at the time would draw in the US as well. Which would have resulted in WW3 and very likely a nuclear war. And if that happened I doubt there would be many left around in position to consider the issue of Middle Eastern borders. And if it looked as thought the IDF were abot to capture an arab capital that would very likely be the trigger for Soviet intervention and WW3.

Never really understood why the Soviets believed the Mideast was so important to their interests as to risk nuclear war over. If Israel takes Damascus, so what? How does it harm the USSR in the long run?

The US, sure given the West's dependence on Mideast oil, but the USSR wasn't reliant on it.
 
Never really understood why the Soviets believed the Mideast was so important to their interests as to risk nuclear war over. If Israel takes Damascus, so what? How does it harm the USSR in the long run?

The US, sure given the West's dependence on Mideast oil, but the USSR wasn't reliant on it.

I believe the article suggests the Six Day War had an impact on uninvolved Soviet allies and proxies. The USSR had to guarantee security to its clients or risk loosing them.
 
The Soviets saw certain Arab nations as strategic allies certainly until the mid 1970s in the case of Egypt and much longer than that in the case of Syria and Iraq. Which is why these nations got (and in Syria's case still get Russian equipment for as long as these nations co-operated with Russian interests. Both the US and the Soviets knew dominanance of the Middle East meant control ov he oil. Which is why both Superpowers did whatever they could to further their influence in the region. Which still happens today though there have been changes o allegiances to a certain etent since the 1980s
 
The last thing the Israelis wanted to do was get involved in urban warfare in someplace like Cairo or Damascus. Sure the IDF was much better trained and equipped but in cities, especially ones like these the other side would be able to inflict significant casualties. Additionally there would be significant civilian casualties, which regardless of the "facts" would be blamed on the Israelis & cause a lot of PR issues. Finally if they actually occupied one of these cities, they would then be responsible for keeping order (preventing looting, general lawlessness) as well as providing for the needs of the civilian population - a huge task.

Coming to the edge of these cities, or mostly surrounding them would be enough and artillery on government buildings would be pretty accurate.
 
The US, sure given the West's dependence on Mideast oil, but the USSR wasn't reliant on it.
Getting control over the oil doesn't just mean using it yourself but denying it to others.

Think if the USSR could have gotten enough influence over their clients that the US couldn't get Mideast oil at any price.
 

katchen

Banned
In 1970, when the Israeli town of Beit Shan was being shelled from the Jordanian province of Irbid, Dayan remarked that his one regret was not continuing the war long enough to cross the Jordan and take Irbid. Not Amman. Just Irbid and I would assume, Amman and Mafraq to the Zerka Canyon (the Jabbok. And the cliffs east of the Jordan to the Dead Sea. Possibly the Jordanian Panhandle to the Iraqi border, cutting Jordan off from all other countries but Saudi Arabia by land and the Red Sea at Aqaba. But not Amman.
I would carry that just a little bit further in light of the current situation. Israel should have carried on the Syrian offensive long enough to take Deraa, the Hauran, the Jabal Druse with it's provincial capital of Suweida and up to the outskirts of Damascus, entering Damascus just long enough to evacuate Damascus's Jewish community and then withdrawing to the outskirts. And ocupying the mountains west of Damascus between Damascus and Beirut. This would make Damascus untenable as a capital for Syria and force the Syrian government to remain at Aleppo, possibly leading to Atassi's overthrow by Assad earlier. The Druse would be separated from Syria and would be mostly living in Israel and allegiant to Israel. At a time like we are seeing now, this would mean a more stable border for Israel and very likely Syria's Palestinian refugees from 1948 relocated much farther from Israel--to Homs and Hama at least, maybe Aleppo. And after Black September, Palestinian refugees fleeing Jordan's King Hussein would not be able to go to Lebanon, destabilizing things there, but only pass through Saudi Arabia, possibly to Yemen, South Yemen or Sudan--well away from Middle East action.Though they might well, now that I think about it, get involved with guerillas fighting the British and Australians in Oman.
 
Never really understood why the Soviets believed the Mideast was so important to their interests as to risk nuclear war over. If Israel takes Damascus, so what? How does it harm the USSR in the long run?

The US, sure given the West's dependence on Mideast oil, but the USSR wasn't reliant on it.

Because control of the middle east affects (a) global oil supplies which while not vital as an import to USS are a fungible commodity that affects the rest of the globe, (b) provides for control of the eastern mediterranean that affords for control of the med as a whole once you account for NATO domination of all northern countries/ports, and (c) Syria and Egypt would have provided the only warm water ports available to Russia, which would in turn divert US resources to patrolling the med much more vigorously at the expense of something else ... say, the Baltic sea or even the North sea ... or perhaps the Indian ocean ...
 

Cook

Banned
6. How long can the war last...?

Probably another two days - four at the most – but not for the reasons you listed.

The tempo of operations that the Israelis were operating at for that week was truly extraordinary; they were maintaining literally twenty-four hour continuous operations for nearly the entire week – when you are young, fit, highly trained and motivated you can do it, but after about ten days you are completely shattered.

Combine the complete physical and mental exhaustion of the troops with the enormous drain on their ammunition stockpiles, equipment spare parts, fuel and lubricants and the Israeli capacity for continued offensive operations was going to peter out not long after the cease-fire imposed in our time occurred – which is why the Israelis so readily accepted it.
 
Of course, if the sinking of the Liberty went any differently than OTL, the Soviets wouldn't be the only superpower thinking of intervening.
 
Top