Israel loses the 1973 war

Losing territory after losing a war, especially one that you start, is simply a fact of life. Even excluding the results of WWII, which had things like Russia keeping bits of Poland they took due to agreements with the Nazis, the Baltic states, and parts of Finland, there have border changes large and small from conflicts. Other than the border changes around Israel, some of which (Sinai, Gaza) have been returned and others are not officially annexed (much of West Bank) you don't hear a lot of international angst. Pakistan lost the war with India, and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was created as the result of Indian arms - no UN resolutions about that. China/Tibet, a cause you rarely hear about. I could go on and on.

Part of the problem with "getting territory back through a political process" is if one side is unwilling to recognize the other as a legal entity, side #2 is unliely to be willing to give land back especially when said land has been used for attacks in peacetime.
 
Pakistan lost the war with India, and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was created as the result of Indian arms - no UN resolutions about that.

A key difference is that the Bengalis themselves wanted independence.

Part of the problem with "getting territory back through a political process" is if one side is unwilling to recognize the other as a legal entity, side #2 is unliely to be willing to give land back especially when said land has been used for attacks in peacetime.

Generally arab states have been willing to recognize Israel, or have done so, for quite some time. The territories taken in '67 hadn't been used for attacks by the armed forces of arab states since the '48 war. Israel occupation did not halt attacks; if anything it exacerbated them.
 
The territories taken in '67 hadn't been used for attacks by the armed forces of arab states since the '48 war.

Golan Heights and the Artillery?

In the period between the first Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War, the Syrians constantly harassed Israeli border communities by firing artillery shells from their dominant positions on the Golan Heights.[76] In October 1966 Israel brought the matter up before the United Nations. Five nations sponsored a resolution criticizing Syria for its actions but it failed to pass due to a Soviet veto.[77][78]

Former Israeli General Mattityahu Peled said that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarised area."[79] Israeli incursions into the zone were responded to with Syrians shooting. Israel in turn would retaliate with military force.[65] Sir Alec Douglas-Home, former Prime Minister of the UK, stated that when he was visiting the Galilee a few months before the 1967 war "at regular intervals the Russian-built forts on the Golan Heights used to lob shells into the villages, often claiming civilian casualties."
 

Lusitania

Donor
Golan Heights and the Artillery?

In the period between the first Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War, the Syrians constantly harassed Israeli border communities by firing artillery shells from their dominant positions on the Golan Heights.[76] In October 1966 Israel brought the matter up before the United Nations. Five nations sponsored a resolution criticizing Syria for its actions but it failed to pass due to a Soviet veto.[77][78]

Former Israeli General Mattityahu Peled said that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarised area."[79] Israeli incursions into the zone were responded to with Syrians shooting. Israel in turn would retaliate with military force.[65] Sir Alec Douglas-Home, former Prime Minister of the UK, stated that when he was visiting the Galilee a few months before the 1967 war "at regular intervals the Russian-built forts on the Golan Heights used to lob shells into the villages, often claiming civilian casualties."

So how do we achieve piece with a country who is determined to with kill your citizens or sponsor groups who are. Political discussions are very heated and many different sides get very upset if anyone says otherwise.

Also all discussion on this thread after 1973 war are very nice but out of scope. Only the situation prior to 1973 war and during war are to be discussed.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Syria had nothing against a negotiated settlement provided it got back what it lost in '67. Syria negotiated via Kissinger in '74 to get a disengagement agreement and recognized Israel.



I don't know of any complaints or claims prior to the '67 war.



I'm sure they would've had no problem getting it back--all back--via a political process. The key problem was Israeli unwillingness to return the Golan.
Also 1974 views are outside this thread. That was a result of their failure to capture it militarily.
 
Former Israeli General Mattityahu Peled said that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarised area."[79]


Right the Syrian view was that they were only responding to Israeli violations. If building settlements in the demilitarized area was a security policy, they must've been armed, which could be interpreted as a breach of the ceae fire terms.


 

Lusitania

Donor
Watch spelling. :)



No doubt many Israelis once said the same with regard to Nasser's Egypt.
Yes thanks.

The world after 1973 was definitely very different. But prior to 1973 it was different.

I think that peace with Syria could of been possible with some special security guaranty that Golan Heights not be militarized and used against Israel.
 

Right the Syrian view was that they were only responding to Israeli violations. If building settlements in the demilitarized area was a security policy, they must've been armed, which could be interpreted as a breach of the ceae fire terms.


Settlements were civilian, so were in compliance with demilitarized. Depopulated was not part of the cease fire
 
Yes thanks.

The world after 1973 was definitely very different. But prior to 1973 it was different.

I think that peace with Syria could of been possible with some special security guaranty that Golan Heights not be militarized and used against Israel.

Prior to 1974, or even later, I doubt the Israelis would've pulled out of all of Golan or more than about half, in exchange for such a guarantee. Before the Munich incident hardened Israeli attitudes, Israeli was willing to give back two thirds of Sinai in exchange for peace. By 1973 they would only give back half....Even Egypt, under the rather moderate leadership of Sadat c 1971-73, had next to no hope of regaining Sinai through negotiation. Israel's attitude stemmed not only from distrust of arabs but--probably more importantly-- a belief that the defeats of 1967-70 had effectively cowed them into submission. Since they were too effete to go to war there was no pressing urgency to meet their demands, certainly not all of them.
 
But settlers were armed; building them was a security policy, which could be interpreted as a breach of the terms.

Small arms, not even machine guns?

Yeah, Syrians were looking for a fig-leaf for shooting 130mm cannons at farmers living in the Galilee
 
In Israel, almost every male and many females are armed. A farming settlement with folks with small arms, even a machine gun or two is not a military outpost. FYI under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 medical personnel (doctors, corpsmen etc) can carry small arms (pistols/rifle) for self protection and the protection of the wounded, and protecting these facility with machine guns manned by regular forces is also legitimate. Under this sort of concept, settlers on farms/in towns armed with small arms, possibly a few perimeter machine guns are no way any sort of violation of a DMZ. Don't forget that these places have women and children there, not something you see in forward military outposts.
 
Small arms, not even machine guns?

Probably uzi submachineguns, at least.

Yeah, Syrians were looking for a fig-leaf for shooting 130mm cannons at farmers living in the Galilee

Well, if weapons were not supposed to be in a demilitarized area...The Israelis also fired first when the Syrians crossed a red line of Israel's choosing.
 
In Israel, almost every male and many females are armed. A farming settlement with folks with small arms, even a machine gun or two is not a military outpost.

But this was part of a security policy as an Israeli made clear. Armed men, as well as civilians, were arriving in larger numbers into what was supposed to be a demilitarized area. The Syrians could interpret it as a breach of the agreement.
 
"Oh no, you put armed farmers in the DMZ, we'd better shoot them with artillery!" might have the geographic high ground, but it lacks the moral high ground.
 

Lusitania

Donor
We better never have a demilitarized area in the US especially in Texas. The presence of “armed Americans” would definitely cause problems.
 
In Israel, Druze and Muslim (and Christian) Arabs may volunteer for the military, but are not subject to the draft/national service. There are both in the IDF.
 
Top