• Post made for three hours last night (9pm-12am EST) have been deleted. This was necessary due to some problems with server maintenance. Anyone who had problems logging into their account during this time should be fine now.

Israel goes bat shit crazy and expels all the arabs after winning the 6 days war?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The purpose of this thread is not to re-litigate who is at fault for the constant Israeli-Arab conflicts of the 20th century.

Suffice to say it would be very unlikely for Israel to order a forced mass exodus (ironic) of Arabs from it's territory the way the Arab states did to their Jewish populations. We would need a significant POD decades at least before the 6 day war to butterfly such a thing. Israel still being lead by either HOLOCAUST survivors or their children at this time. You're not going to see them commit blatant genocide on millions of its own civilian population after they just had to endure one of the most terrible ones in history.
Honestly the idea that Israel just goes "batshit crazy" is not conducive to a good alt-history story or thread. That's not something nation states do.

Finally a word when discussing the "right" way to wage war/declare war/commit acts of war: “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.” -Winston Churchill.

This is the reality of war. No resolution or restitution can be made to those who die or are broken by warfare. It's important to remember that before we point fingers and weapons at our fellow humans.
 
Nasser and the Soviets knew very well that their actions would provoke an Israeli attack. Nasser was told if he deployed his army in Sinai the chances of war (i.e. Israeli attack) would be 50%. If he ejected the UNEF the chances would rise to 80%. If he closed the titan strait, it would be 100%. But it's important to note that while the arabs were being very provocative they still had no intention of launching a full-scale war.



If fact only two regular divisions were sent to the border--to man static defensive positions.



Israeli intelligence was very good (Yariv is said to have provided full intelligence "down to the quality of Egyptian field rations and lint on their belly buttons"). The Israelis obviously knew about arab deployments and their defensive nature so they'd have the initiative. At the time the Pentagon had predicted that due to shortcomings in Egyptian forces the earliest confrontation date would be 1970. Israel actually welcomed an opportunity to destroy arab forces before they were really combat ready.

If he got those estimates and Nasser still went along with it then he either was planning for war or was an idiot. If you are doing things you know will provoke a war then be prepared to fight it. Whether they had "no intention of launching a full scale war" or not the chances of war would have been around 0% if he did none of those things.

Which could have been changed in hours or days. Why would Israel (or any other country really) allow troops to get ready to attack when they are massing along their border with their leader calling for war and an existential war at that?

Again, so what? If someone is planning to attack the US and we have a chance to hit them first before they are totally ready then attack them we shall. No country is going to wait for a country to fully prepare for war against them if they can help it.
 
Israel would lose all remaining credibility with the Western European mainstream, which was still quite strong in the 60s, and we'd see support for Israel becoming a partisan issue in the US. Israel would be much weaker and diplomatically, politically, and increasingly economically isolated.

We should also probably mention that the chances of this happening are, while not exactly ASB, infinitesimal.
 
If he got those estimates and Nasser still went along with it then he either was planning for war or was an idiot.

Lol no, he and his Soviet advisors thought "the Egyptian defense in depth would absorb the (Israeli) blows, with the cease fire line being drawn somewhere in eastern Sinai."

Why would Israel (or any other country really) allow troops to get ready to attack when they are massing along their border...

As I said before arab rhetoric belied actual intentions revealed by actual deployments. The bulk of the Egyptian forces including their armor were not deployed along the border. Egypt's offensive power was a much farther back and intended to counter attack not launch it.

If someone is planning to attack the US and we have a chance to hit them first before...

But the arabs had no plan to attack. Well before '67 they had a plan codenamed Kahir and trained for it. The plan called for armored reserves to counterattack an Israeli penetration.
 
Lol no, he and his Soviet advisors thought "the Egyptian defense in depth would absorb the (Israeli) blows, with the cease fire line being drawn somewhere in eastern Sinai."



As I said before arab rhetoric belied actual intentions revealed by actual deployments. The bulk of the Egyptian forces including their armor were not deployed along the border. Egypt's offensive power was a much farther back and intended to counter attack not launch it.



But the arabs had no plan to attack. Well before '67 they had a plan codenamed Kahir and trained for it. The plan called for armored reserves to counterattack an Israeli penetration.

If you provoke a war that you hope might draw the line of your borders a mile or two in your favor , you are an idiot.

Which can be brought forward in a matter of hours or days. Tanks do move after all.

If you have no plan to attack then don't provoke one by doing things that you have an estimate of 100% of starting it. Nassar could have easily avoided this war by doing absolutely nothing.
 
Lol no, he and his Soviet advisors thought "the Egyptian defense in depth would absorb the (Israeli) blows, with the cease fire line being drawn somewhere in eastern Sinai."



As I said before arab rhetoric belied actual intentions revealed by actual deployments. The bulk of the Egyptian forces including their armor were not deployed along the border. Egypt's offensive power was a much farther back and intended to counter attack not launch it.



But the arabs had no plan to attack. Well before '67 they had a plan codenamed Kahir and trained for it. The plan called for armored reserves to counterattack an Israeli penetration.
It doesn't change the overall equation that Nasser closing the straits, kicking out the UN and putting divisions onto the border were root causes for the war, making the war mostly his fault. Israel would not have invaded Egypt if he didn't do any of those things. If his Soviet advisors told him that closing the straits would 100 percent lead to war... and Israel declared publicly that closing the straits would lead to war, and he closed the straits anyway (in violation of a treaty he, himself was party to) then how do we call Israel the aggressor?

it's not like letting Arabs mobilize for war and attack first did the Israeli's any favors in 1973 when they didn't respond to the same sorts of aggressive provocations; only the depth they kept from 67 saved them from destruction in that war, most of the Israeli leadership where old enough to know what happened at Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa, and had... negative opinions of appeasement/tolerating brinksmanship
 
If you provoke a war that you hope might draw the line of your borders a mile or two in your favor , you are an idiot.

Nasser anticipated some territorial loss not gain, as he and the Soviets expected a cease fire line in eastern Sinai not the negev.
 
Israel gets condemned internationally for it for about 1-3 years before some thing more important eclipses it.

People kind of forget just how insane the 60s were something like this would be a blip compared to the other insanity that happened that decade.
Yeah, this is probably true. Tragically, people will get over quick and final instances of tremendous cruelty but will become very bothered by drawn-out struggles.

Additional Palestinian refugees in Jordan might mean the Black September War goes differently. Jordan might end up as a Palestinian state here.
I think their is a misconnection at work here, Israel is pretty famous for foreign condemnation, this is less a issue between world powers and the direct ethnic cleansing in the local area, something even the US would be on board with defending much given the need of keeping not permanently alienating the Arab world.



Population of Palestinians expelled would be 661,700 in and estimated 354,700 in Gaza , respectively. However, according to the Egyptian estimate for 1966 there were 454,900 inhabitants in the Gaza Strip.



That is more than a million people before adding in the Golan heights.



These are wounds that plague the region for decades and led to far more attacks on Israeli land by the traumatized refuges. Need I remind you the idea of the ''refuge question'' being settled has been going on for a long time and the idea that people just give up has been proven false by the PLO, RPA, the many, many insurgencies of Myanmar like the Rohingya where the Myanmar's final solution of ending it permanently failed as the salvation army is there.



I can see the UN eventfully give up but expecting the Palestinians to just give up, Syria and Egpyt who also have their Sinai and Golan population made refuges is very unlikely.





Though I can see the Muslim world at large though a boycott of Israel possibility even Iran due to the rapid progression of events.

A Israel launches a war of aggression and destroys all the nearby state air forces and captures what they say is all of Biblical Israel.

B Israel then starts ethnically cleansing the population despite widespread news coverage and international condemnation.

C What next? Will Israel destroy all the non Jewish religious sites? This might seem extreme but plenty of Israelis wanted to rebuild the third temple. This concern would unite both the Muslim and Vatican/Christian world together to protect what really matters, the religious sites, then Iran would be fine.


Let's be honest, while the Palestinian cause won't give up, would you for your homeland?

Other issues are it won't be a ''clean'' ethnic cleansing. By that the only Arab force not humiliated by the 6 day war was a PLO unit who either fought to a stand still and the Israelis withdrew for other objectives or defeated them. This means Israel will have some resistance in the West, something that will likely spill a lot of blood as they would react with artillery, tanks and air support. Jordan and Lebanon's Palestinian population will be far larger as will Syria, this will dramatically change the Middle East forever.


It doesn't change the overall equation that Nasser closing the straits, kicking out the UN and putting divisions onto the border were root causes for the war, making the war mostly his fault. Israel would not have invaded Egypt if he didn't do any of those things. If his Soviet advisors told him that closing the straits would 100 percent lead to war... and Israel declared publicly that closing the straits would lead to war, and he closed the straits anyway (in violation of a treaty he, himself was party to) then how do we call Israel the aggressor?

it's not like letting Arabs mobilize for war and attack first did the Israeli's any favors in 1973 when they didn't respond to the same sorts of aggressive provocations; only the depth they kept from 67 saved them from destruction in that war, most of the Israeli leadership where old enough to know what happened at Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa, and had... negative opinions of appeasement/tolerating brinksmanship
? Israel did not have strategic depth in 1973, they wanted to occupy the Sinai and Golan for decades as seen by the Suez crisis when they wanted keep the land. They would of kept the Sinai forever if it was possible and exert a large of influence on it today.

Likewise 1973 war was fought with limited objectives of retaking Syrian and Egyptian land, not to retake Palestine, not to destroy Israel, this can be seen by the plan of setting up Sams on for defending the land they retook.
 
It doesn't change the overall equation that Nasser closing the straits, kicking out the UN and putting divisions onto the border were root causes for the war, making the war mostly his fault. Israel would not have invaded Egypt if he didn't do any of those things. If his Soviet advisors told him that closing the straits would 100 percent lead to war... and Israel declared publicly that closing the straits would lead to war, and he closed the straits anyway (in violation of a treaty he, himself was party to) then how do we call Israel the aggressor?

Because it launched an actual, full-scale war. It may have been justifiable due to provocations but wasn't really necessary for survival.

it's not like letting Arabs mobilize for war and attack first did the Israeli's any favors in 1973 when they didn't respond to the same sorts of aggressive provocations; only the depth they kept from 67 saved them from destruction in that war,

Lol, the arabs had no intention, let alone capability, of destroying Israel in '73. In fact, inasmuch as arab armies advanced no more than about 10km on both fronts, Israel's existence wouldn't have been threatened even without the occupied territories. The inferiority of arab tanks and jets, in particular, and long lines of communication in sinai, exposed to air attack, would've been serious issues.
 
Because it launched an actual, full-scale war. It may have been justifiable due to provocations but wasn't really necessary for survival.



Lol, the arabs had no intention, let alone capability, of destroying Israel in '73. In fact, inasmuch as arab armies advanced no more than about 10km on both fronts, Israel's existence wouldn't have been threatened even without the occupied territories. The inferiority of arab tanks and jets, in particular, and long lines of communication in sinai, exposed to air attack, would've been serious issues.
IOW, you expect Israel not to react like every other country in the World does when there is a threat to its territory. If Mexico masses troops along the US border even if it is only to take parts of NM and TX you damn well can expect a reaction before it would kick off even though the loss of NM and TX aren't necessary for US survival.
 
IOW, you expect Israel not to react like every other country in the World does when there is a threat to its territory. If Mexico masses troops along the US border even if it is only to take parts of NM and TX you damn well can expect a reaction before it would kick off even though the loss of NM and TX aren't necessary for US survival.
? Ethiopia did not attack Sudan and Egpyt despite prior to their army exercise this month rejecting a treaty with Ethiopia which means Sudan has claims 10% on Ethiopian land. Ethiopia did not react much seeing it just them trying to get concessions with the Dams.

Sabre rattling is a long tradition in the region.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
No, it was not. The Egyptian expulsion of the UN tropos in the Sinai border was in itself a very provocative act but the Red Sea blockade impossed by Egypt on Israel that followed was by itself an act of war. And as being member of this community is something quite dear to me I shall refrain to tale part in this TL
 
Last edited:
No, it was not. The Egyptian expulsion of the UN tropos in the Sinai border was in itself a very provocative act but the Red Sea blockade impossed by Egypt on Israel that followed was by itself an act of war. And as being member of this community is something quite dear to me I shall abstein from this TL
To be 'fair'' Nasser wanted to keep the UN troops there, he just wanted to move them a bit to allow him to sabre rattle, move them to another corner of the desert.

The UN rightfully viewing this as Egypt actively asking them to take a side in the Arab Israeli conflict refused and told him either they leave or stop sabre rattling, he told them to leave.
 
We would need a significant POD decades at least before the 6 day war to butterfly such a thing. Israel still being lead by either HOLOCAUST survivors or their children at this time. You're not going to see them commit blatant genocide on millions of its own civilian population after they just had to endure one of the most terrible ones in history.
I don't see why that matters. Ethnic cleansing is not genocide. Israel has and does ethnical cleanse Arabs from areas under it's control. Also the whole never again attitude has made Israel treatment of the Arabs more harsh not less.
 
? Ethiopia did not attack Sudan and Egpyt despite prior to their army exercise this month rejecting a treaty with Ethiopia which means Sudan has claims 10% on Ethiopian land. Ethiopia did not react much seeing it just them trying to get concessions with the Dams.

Sabre rattling is a long tradition in the region.

Unless Sudan and Egypt were calling for Ethiopia's destruction over the last several months over the radio, massed troops just across its border after ordering UN troops to leave and blockaded Ethiopian trade it is not the same thing!
 
No, it was not. The Egyptian expulsion of the UN tropos in the Sinai border was in itself a very provocative act but the Red Sea blockade impossed by Egypt on Israel that followed was by itself an act of war. And as being member of this community is something quite dear to me I shall refrain to tale part in this TL
Understandably. This is a touchy subject and I reflect your discipline in not engaging.

I don't see why that matters. Ethnic cleansing is not genocide. Israel has and does ethnical cleanse Arabs from areas under it's control. Also the whole never again attitude has made Israel treatment of the Arabs more harsh not less.
This feels like it is going to end up in chat...
 
Unless Sudan and Egypt were calling for Ethiopia's destruction over the last several months over the radio, massed troops just across its border after ordering UN troops to leave and blockaded Ethiopian trade it is not the same thing!
They sort of have.

Well except the trade (they have been working on that through sanctions mainly) and the Un troops.

Though fair point on the differences.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
To be 'fair'' Nasser wanted to keep the UN troops there, he just wanted to move them a bit to allow him to sabre rattle, move them to another corner of the desert.

The UN rightfully viewing this as Egypt actively asking them to take a side in the Arab Israeli conflict refused and told him either they leave or stop sabre rattling, he told them to leave.
Apparently Nasser (and everibody else) was quite surprised by the fast acceptance of his demands, but it was still he who followed and scaled things up with the alliance with Jordan among public declararions for the destrution of Israel and throwing everibody to the sea (and if he was just bluffing there was a lot of other Arabs, from militias to other leaders that would have make it very, very difficult for him to backtrak). And anyway closing the Israel access to the Red Sea was an act of war.

Sorry but I am not going to follow with this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top