Israel loses the 1973 war

If by lose you mean Egypt getting back all of Sinai back with an intact military and the same for Syria with the Golan heights , it’s not implausible, would definitely change the mentality of negotiations and relations between the three countries.

If you mean occupy Israel, then its impossible unless with some borderline ASB POD like America turning on Israel or something forcing a nuclear disarmament on Israel prior to the war
 
If by lose you mean Egypt getting back all of Sinai back with an intact military and the same for Syria with the Golan heights , it’s not implausible,

Syria might have wrested back the Golan heights but Egypt getting back all of Sinai, by military means is highly implausible.

would definitely change the mentality of negotiations and relations between the three countries.

I'll say.
 
Yes I believe most people having lived through they did and facing the adversaries they did would behave that wAy.

I think that we need to think it like this. You having been attacked in your old home, victim of home invasion which caused part of your family to die.

You move back to your hometown but no longer welcome there and the day after you move in your neighbors attack you. Luckily you are able to repel them.

For next years these neighbors continue to say they going to destroy you.

Therefore it acceptable you believe them even if they say it was all talk.


Only "move back to your home town in this" case means coming back to an area you haven't lived en mass in for a 1000+ years and doing your best at kicking everyone else out, based on an a-piori claim of "all this is ours because our book says so", and then treating everyone else as squatters for the last x000 years (even though even back then they far from the only people in the area, and before the diaspora also included a long period of time when lost of different people lived there), so yeah that tends not make you welcome.

aka not really a home town, not really just move back in

But yeah the rest is about right even if i don't agree on the bit above
 
Let me be clear what I meant by a humiliating peace. Somewhere along the lines of what Egypt got in Camp David. Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and restoration of trade. Syria would have their Golan Heights possessions restored. And possibly some sort of autonomy for Palestine or at least a loosening of the Occupation. By no means did I mean that Sadat could roll the tanks right on into Jerusalem.
Thats... actually looks like a great peace? The war ends, and we have 1982 borders and peace treaties and free trade? That is exactly the spirit of the peace offerings immidetly after 1967, and even harsher. I think that even Golda would happily sign this peace, and it would be hailed as a great victory, a signe that reason won the day in the middle east.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Only "move back to your home town in this" case means coming back to an area you haven't lived en mass in for a 1000+ years and doing your best at kicking everyone else out, based on an a-piori claim of "all this is ours because our book says so", and then treating everyone else as squatters for the last x000 years (even though even back then they far from the only people in the area, and before the diaspora also included a long period of time when lost of different people lived there), so yeah that tends not make you welcome.

aka not really a home town, not really just move back in

But yeah the rest is about right even if i don't agree on the bit above

Let’s try this when they moved back after WW2 before partition they did not kick anyone out. That happened after all the neighbors tried to attack them. Then some of the neighbors (those living closest to them) lost their homes.
 
Syria might have wrested back the Golan heights but Egypt getting back all of Sinai, by military means is highly implausible.



I'll say.
Yeah that might be pushing it and definitely needs earlier POD and Egyptian Generals being more competent but not ASB levels I think.


Though would these changes to relations be better or worse I wonder
 
Let’s try this when they moved back after WW2 before partition they did not kick anyone out. That happened after all the neighbors tried to attack them. Then some of the neighbors (those living closest to them) lost their homes.

I think you need to read up a bit about what happened in the run up and during partition. Partition itself is an an issue why do the palestinians have to give up control of chunks of their territory? (would you be happy if it was your country even if it was by a UN resolution)

And this is the underlying issue, as a basic statement "there should be a Jewish homeland" is perfectly reasonable, even more so in the aftermath of the Holocaust (not to mention centuries of persecution). But the issue is unlike what churchill wrote Palestine was not a "barren and empty land" (it would have been so much easier if it was) and since there are no unpopulated suitable areas of the world "there should be a Jewish homeland" inherently means "and it will made at someone else's expense". So OK who's expense? Well losing a war is normally a good way to lose territory ,quite often to the gain of those you lost to or your victim, but had Palestine lost a war here? Moreover it wasn't ever going to be just any reasonable chunk of someone else's territory was it? No it was going to this specific bit because of history, only are there any other bit's of current territory we'd like to redistribute based on cultural preferences and religious claims?


Finally I'm losing track of who are the Neighbours in this metaphor is it Egypt et al (who certainly attacked, but didn't lose many homes) or the palestinians who where already there?
 
Last edited:
Yeah that might be pushing it and definitely needs earlier POD and Egyptian Generals being more competent....


Shazly and most other Egyptian generals were competent. Pollack blamed intermediate grade officers but I think the the real problem was Sadat. He made at least three blunders that cost Egypt the war.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I think you need to read up a bit about what happened in the run up and during partition. Partition itself is an an issue why do the palestinians have to give up control of chunks of their territory? (would you be happy if it was your country even if it was by a UN resolution)

And this is the underlying issue, as a basic statement "there should be a Jewish homeland" is perfectly reasonable, even more so in the aftermath of the Holocaust (not to mention centuries persecution). but the issue is unlike what churchill wrote palestine was not a "barren and empty land" (it would have been so much easier if it was) and since there are no unpopulated suitable areas of the world "there should be a Jewish homeland" inherently means "and it will made at someone else's expense". So OK who's expense? Well losing a war is normally a good way to lose territory quite often to the gain of those you lost to or you victim, but had Palestine lost a war here? Moreover it wasn't ever going to be just any reasonable chunk of someone else's territory was it? No it was going to this specific bit because of history, only are there any other bit's of current territory we'd like to redistribute based on cultural preferences and religious claims?


Finally I'm losing rack of who are the Neighbours in this metaphor is it Egypt et al (who certainly attacked, but didn't lose many homes) or the palestinians who where already there?

Again there are a lot of issues in regards to this and this is not the thread to do it.

FYI: I have read extensively on it and as I said two sides to everything. My point was to try and explain the thinking of the Israeli people in the runner up to the 1973 war.

As I indicated and my metaphor was trying to convey is that there had been history of violence and repeated talk (be it real or just talk) of driving the Israeli to the seas.

So any perception by Israel that it was about to be invaded and not just loose the occupied territories it would of resorted to nuclear option. Which would of been a defeat for all humanity and not just either party.
 
Again there are a lot of issues in regards to this and this is not the thread to do it. FYI: I have read extensively on it and as I said two sides to everything

Fair enough (and sorry "read up a bit" was uncalled for by me!)

. My point was to try and explain the thinking of the Israeli people in the runner up to the 1973 war.

As I indicated and my metaphor was trying to convey is that there had been history of violence and repeated talk (be it real or just talk) of driving the Israeli to the seas.

So any perception by Israel that it was about to be invaded and not just loose the occupied territories it would of resorted to nuclear option.

Yep definitely I agree with all that,

Which would of been a defeat for all humanity and not just either party.


I'm not actually sure Israel using nukes would actually set off a Global nuclear escalation though, mainly because I can't see either the US or the USSR wanting to go out in flames over Israel (or Damascus, Cairo, Riyadh etc)


if nothing else Israel has kind of snuck into the Nuclear club by the back entrance, they're officially not supposed to have them so both super powers can kind of play Israel chucking them around as "rogue nation using nukes, oh look how important it is to keep these things well controlled" i.e. that don't have to make Israel going Nuclear part of their own official (and thus hard to duck) nuclear exchanges policies, in the same way as say Russian tanks getting far enough to western Europe might be. This is good thing because the super powers are at trigger point anyway, you really don't want such a volatile situation as Israel and co being the trigger for all out nuclear war.

Or put it another way, 1973 was the 3rd attack on Israel by it neighbours in 15 years, is the US & the USSR really going to bank on Israel beating back it neighbours every time as the only thing stopping MAD? Basically while both relaying on MAD to keep the other in check both the US and the USSR like continuing to exist, and both liked to to keep potential flash points at least within their direct control!
 

Lusitania

Donor
I'm not actually sure Israel using nukes would actually set off a Global nuclear escalation though, mainly because I can't see either the US or the USSR wanting to go out in flames over Israel (or Damascus, Cairo, Riyadh etc)

if nothing else Israel has kind of snuck into the Nuclear club by the back entrance, they're officially not supposed to have them so both super powers can kind of play Israel chucking them around as "rogue nation using nukes, oh look how important it is to keep these things well controlled" i.e. that don't have to make Israel going Nuclear part of their own official (and thus hard to duck) nuclear exchanges policies, in the same way as say Russian tanks getting far enough to western Europe might be. This is good thing because the super powers are at trigger point anyway, you really don't want such a volatile situation as Israel and co being the trigger for all out nuclear war.

Or put it another way, 1973 was the 3rd attack on Israel by it neighbours in 15 years, is the US & the USSR really going to bank on Israel beating back it neighbours every time as the only thing stopping MAD? Basically while both relaying on MAD to keep the other in check both the US and the USSR like continuing to exist, and both liked to to keep potential flash points at least within their direct control!

When I stated it would be a defeat for humanity. I mean that there would be hundred of thousands of casualties right away. Two countries would of collapsed, potentially millions of refugees streaming into neighboring countries could cause other countries to collapse but regardless become major humanitarian crises. So a huge loss for humanity. Plus all other Arab states be racing to become nuclear powers.

Rest I agree, peace in region became crucial. Shame we have abandoned those goals. But that like other topics for another thread.
 
When I stated it would be a defeat for humanity. I mean that there would be hundred of thousands of casualties right away. Two countries would of collapsed, potentially millions of refugees streaming into neighboring countries could cause other countries to collapse but regardless become major humanitarian crises. So a huge loss for humanity. Plus all other Arab states be racing to become nuclear powers.

Rest I agree, peace in region became crucial. Shame we have abandoned those goals. But that like other topics for another thread.

Ah Ok, sorry I may have read your post with others in this thread in mind, yeah I agree it would have been a disaster in it's own right
 
Fair enough (and sorry "read up a bit" was uncalled for by me!)



Yep definitely I agree with all that,




I'm not actually sure Israel using nukes would actually set off a Global nuclear escalation though, mainly because I can't see either the US or the USSR wanting to go out in flames over Israel (or Damascus, Cairo, Riyadh etc)


if nothing else Israel has kind of snuck into the Nuclear club by the back entrance, they're officially not supposed to have them so both super powers can kind of play Israel chucking them around as "rogue nation using nukes, oh look how important it is to keep these things well controlled" i.e. that don't have to make Israel going Nuclear part of their own official (and thus hard to duck) nuclear exchanges policies, in the same way as say Russian tanks getting far enough to western Europe might be. This is good thing because the super powers are at trigger point anyway, you really don't want such a volatile situation as Israel and co being the trigger for all out nuclear war.

Or put it another way, 1973 was the 3rd attack on Israel by it neighbours in 15 years, is the US & the USSR really going to bank on Israel beating back it neighbours every time as the only thing stopping MAD? Basically while both relaying on MAD to keep the other in check both the US and the USSR like continuing to exist, and both liked to to keep potential flash points at least within their direct control!

Are Israeli Nukes illegal? I was under the idea that Israel never signed the non proliferation treaty unlike say Iran.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Are Israeli Nukes illegal? I was under the idea that Israel never signed the non proliferation treaty unlike say Iran.

Israel technically does not have any nukes. They refuse to answer any questions and do not deny or acknowledge the existence of them.

Correct Israel is not a signatory of any treaty.

So technically we are only speculating they would use a nuclear bomb that may or may not exist.

What we do know is that they have a nuclear facility and refuse any inspection of the facility.
 
Are Israeli Nukes illegal? I was under the idea that Israel never signed the non proliferation treaty unlike say Iran.

Not sure (but then I didn't say ilegal anyway?), legal kind of doesn't really mean what it normally does at this level anyway*, or rather possession is most definitely nine tenths of the law. Maybe a better way to put it is that it was most definitely not part of either the USSR's & US's nuclear policy towards each other

Given the Israeli policy was to deny their existence for decades (odd policy since they are after all a deterrent) and how they got them in the first place (lots of either directly under the counter help, faux looking away and leaving doors unlocked at opportune times, or just out and out espionage), it's all been a bit of a game anyway.


*what's pretty certain is the current nuclear club is generally speaking pretty damn anti any new members (and generally always has been to a lesser or greater degree)!
 
Last edited:
Israel technically does not have any nukes. They refuse to answer any questions and do not deny or acknowledge the existence of them.

Correct Israel is not a signatory of any treaty.

So technically we are only speculating they would use a nuclear bomb that may or may not exist.

What we do know is that they have a nuclear facility and refuse any inspection of the facility.

Right but schrodinger's Nuclear arsenal is becoming less and less tenable as a policy

TBH I've never known why the Israelis don't officially admit to it, what's going to happen? Most of the current nuclear club got nuclear weapons despite the wishes of the presisteing members, (it's one the paradoxes of the bloody things we all agree it would best for the world if they didn't exist but often we're less clear about whether that means we should have them)
 

Lusitania

Donor
Right but schrodinger's Nuclear arsenal is becoming less and less tenable as a policy

TBH I've never known why the Israelis don't officially admit to it, what's going to happen? Most of the current nuclear club got nuclear weapons despite the wishes of the presisteing members, (it's one the paradoxes of the bloody things we all agree it would best for the world if they didn't exist but often we're less clear about whether that means we should have them)
Oh I not disagree. Plus the other two Asian nuclear members Pakistan and India also are non signatory members of I remember correctly. The only sanctioned nuclear country is North Korea.

Note: Israel developed a MERV missle but since they technically are non nuclear country they use it with conventional warheads.
 
Oh I not disagree. Plus the other two Asian nuclear members Pakistan and India also are non signatory members of I remember correctly. The only sanctioned nuclear country is North Korea.

Note: Israel developed a MERV missle but since they technically are non nuclear country they use it with conventional warheads.

Yep and the thing is I'm not even sure I disagree with India's stance on it (all from the wiki for ease).

India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

well it didn't beyond we don't Want any more people to have them

of course I also like:



India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[41]


Well yes everyone's against proliferation after they get them ;)!

Ultimately though we sanction NK because its NK is just even more of an issue that they have a nuclear capability, we don't sanction India or Pakistan.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Yep and the thing is I'm not even sure I disagree with India's stance on it (all from the wiki for ease).

India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

well it didn't beyond we don't Want any more people to have them

of course I also like:



India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[41]


Well yes everyone's against proliferation after they get them ;)!

Ultimately though we sanction NK because its NK is just even more of an issue that they have a nuclear capability, we don't sanction India or Pakistan.

So as far the treaty is concerned it is useless. Like the chemical weapons even though the big boys all have tons of it.

But again that is another topic and sorry if we got into another sideline.
 
Top