Israel`s Defeat
- Thread starter Tetsu
- Start date
Xen
Banned
I did an Alternate Timeline once where the Nazi's never killed the Jews instead they were busy in Spain trying to build the Atlantic Wall as slave labor. The allies liberated Spain in 1943, and the British, Canadians or Americans rescued nearly every Jew in Nazi Europe. This resulted in an increased population for Israel, and in a 1969 war, Israel had different leaders, which resulted in their loss of territory to the north. This became the Palestinian Free State, with its "temporary" capital in Nazareth.
Of course the Arabs turned on one another in the early 1970's with Syria and Palestine fighting Jordan over the West Bank, when Iraq joined Syria and Palestine, Jordan relinquished control to the Palestinian Free States. In 1977 another Israeli-Arab War erupted, with an Arab alliance of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, this time Israel kicked their butts. Palestine was forced to withdrawal from Jerusalem, losing a large part of the southern West Bank, and Gaza Strip, Egypt lost the Sinai, all which was annexed by Israel.
Israel moved its capital back to Jerusalem, and Palestine Free State moved its capital back to Nazareth. Lebanon was occupied by Israel who gave control to the Christians. The Christian government expelled the Muslims, resulting in Egypt expelling the Coptic's. The Coptic's found a home in Lebanon and are closely allied to Israel, the expelled Muslim's settled in Palestine Free State as refugees. The Lebanese Muslims played a crucial roll in the rise of the Palestinian Baathist Party in the 1980's. They became citizens of Palestine. The Republic of Palestine is closely allied with Syria after a falling out with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Palestine is constantly at the throats of Israel and Lebanon, feeling trapped by Judeo-Christian allies. However unlike their foes, Palestine’s military is very outdated, using old Soviet equipment. In the 1990’s the military got small upgrades with French equipment, but still lag behind their hated enemies.
Of course the Arabs turned on one another in the early 1970's with Syria and Palestine fighting Jordan over the West Bank, when Iraq joined Syria and Palestine, Jordan relinquished control to the Palestinian Free States. In 1977 another Israeli-Arab War erupted, with an Arab alliance of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, this time Israel kicked their butts. Palestine was forced to withdrawal from Jerusalem, losing a large part of the southern West Bank, and Gaza Strip, Egypt lost the Sinai, all which was annexed by Israel.
Israel moved its capital back to Jerusalem, and Palestine Free State moved its capital back to Nazareth. Lebanon was occupied by Israel who gave control to the Christians. The Christian government expelled the Muslims, resulting in Egypt expelling the Coptic's. The Coptic's found a home in Lebanon and are closely allied to Israel, the expelled Muslim's settled in Palestine Free State as refugees. The Lebanese Muslims played a crucial roll in the rise of the Palestinian Baathist Party in the 1980's. They became citizens of Palestine. The Republic of Palestine is closely allied with Syria after a falling out with Saddam Hussein in 1983. Palestine is constantly at the throats of Israel and Lebanon, feeling trapped by Judeo-Christian allies. However unlike their foes, Palestine’s military is very outdated, using old Soviet equipment. In the 1990’s the military got small upgrades with French equipment, but still lag behind their hated enemies.
Doutfull
I have read about the 73 war and started a book on the 67 war. The Iseralis outclassed the Arabs in trainning, weapontry and lacked the cooradition to destory the Jewish state.
For example, Iserali tanks were trained to take out tragets at 3000 meters. They excelted in unit trainning and their superior gunnery and command and control were shown in the 7th Birgade's stand on the Northren Golan.
The main problem I see is a lack of cooridation between the Arab states. Egypt and Syria may of attacked at the same time but afterwards their actions were seperate of each other. When the Iseralis turned the tide in the Sinai Sadat began to seek a way out of the war without consulting the Syrains. Neither state got major support from the USSR. Sure they gave them new tanks and SAMs but the Soviets were unwilling to back the Arabs and risk major conflict with the United States.
I have read about the 73 war and started a book on the 67 war. The Iseralis outclassed the Arabs in trainning, weapontry and lacked the cooradition to destory the Jewish state.
For example, Iserali tanks were trained to take out tragets at 3000 meters. They excelted in unit trainning and their superior gunnery and command and control were shown in the 7th Birgade's stand on the Northren Golan.
The main problem I see is a lack of cooridation between the Arab states. Egypt and Syria may of attacked at the same time but afterwards their actions were seperate of each other. When the Iseralis turned the tide in the Sinai Sadat began to seek a way out of the war without consulting the Syrains. Neither state got major support from the USSR. Sure they gave them new tanks and SAMs but the Soviets were unwilling to back the Arabs and risk major conflict with the United States.
Depends on what you man by "victory". If you mean, "drive Israel into the sea", then, no. As other posters have noted, that was simply beyond Arab military capability at the time. OTOH, it might have been possible for them to do well enough that they retain Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. The Arabs would have done better, but Israel would still have given them black eyes in '67, and in '73, and would still retain its 1966 borders, perhaps with the addtion of Gaza.
This would mean that there is no Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which will keep world opinion as solidly pro-Israeli as it was in the '60s. Moreover, there would be less Arab support for the Palestinian cause. OTL, Jordan was lukewarm to the Palestinians for many years, because Palestinian refugees were viewed as a divisive element. In this event, the Camp David Accords of 1977 might well have included Jordan, with some kind of treaty with Syria following in a few years. Essentially, everybody would get to keep their 1966 borders, and the idea of a Palestinian state would never have come up. With many fewer Arab friends, the PLO pretty much folds up in the late '70s, and the Arab-Israeli conflict is over.
There might still be an Iranian revolution, and therefore Islamic fundamentalism would still exist. However, the secular Arab nationalisms would be both opposed to the Islamists, and also, having settled their quarrel with Israel, pro-Washington. After all, better the Americans than the Godless Communists. This could give the Gulf War of 1980-1988 a very different character, if Iraq is joined by other Arab nations. While this would probably not produce the collpase of Iran, it might lead to a postwar Iraq that was not desperate for ways to pay its war-debts.
And that means no Gulf War in 1991, no American troops in Saudi Arabia, and no Al Qaeda......
This would mean that there is no Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which will keep world opinion as solidly pro-Israeli as it was in the '60s. Moreover, there would be less Arab support for the Palestinian cause. OTL, Jordan was lukewarm to the Palestinians for many years, because Palestinian refugees were viewed as a divisive element. In this event, the Camp David Accords of 1977 might well have included Jordan, with some kind of treaty with Syria following in a few years. Essentially, everybody would get to keep their 1966 borders, and the idea of a Palestinian state would never have come up. With many fewer Arab friends, the PLO pretty much folds up in the late '70s, and the Arab-Israeli conflict is over.
There might still be an Iranian revolution, and therefore Islamic fundamentalism would still exist. However, the secular Arab nationalisms would be both opposed to the Islamists, and also, having settled their quarrel with Israel, pro-Washington. After all, better the Americans than the Godless Communists. This could give the Gulf War of 1980-1988 a very different character, if Iraq is joined by other Arab nations. While this would probably not produce the collpase of Iran, it might lead to a postwar Iraq that was not desperate for ways to pay its war-debts.
And that means no Gulf War in 1991, no American troops in Saudi Arabia, and no Al Qaeda......
tetsu-katana said:
Here's TL in which Israel looses.
June 1982. Israel, under pretext for assasiantion of it's ambassador invades Lebanon. They defeat Syrian forces in Lebanon and PLO evacuates Lebanon. Radicals in Amal militia split of and form their own militia with substantial Iranian help. They call it Party of God, Hizb Allah in Arabic.
1983. Series of suicide bombings by above mentioned new militia.
June 1985. Israel withdraws to 20 km wide strip on border. Let's call it Security Zone.
1989. Lebanese civil war ends, militias disarm. Above mentioned militia keeps arms to continue struggle agaisnt Israel.
1990s. Fighting in Security Zone continues with no apparent end in sight. Series of bloody events (couple of sucesful ambushes, helicopter crash or two) make certain parts of Israeli popualtion oposed to war.
May 2000. Israel unilaterally withdraws from Lebanon without defeating this militia or sign peace treaty with either Lebanon or Syria.
Effects? Well, Pelestinian groups would feel emboldened by this defeat and would likelly stage another uprising. It's quite possible Israeli PM will help them with some provocative gesture.
Two possibilities both from 1973.
1) Sadat does not allow the Egyptians to move forward out of their SAM /AAA umbrella. As I understand it, the whole Egyptian plan was to breach the Bar-Lev line, thereby winning a victory. Then to withstand an Israeli counter-offensive froma carefully arranged defensive position. A cease fire under UN auspices at any time would leave Egypt on what had been Israeli held territory. For the Arabs, that would be victory.
2) Syria on the Golan - this was the proverbial 'close run thing'. Something as simple as an ammo resupply truck being blown might have led to the elusive breakthrough as the Israelis were very low on ammo by the time they forward brigades were relieved.
Of the two, I feel the partial victory of scenario 1 was the more likely. I suspect that the Syrians would probably not be content with just reoccupying the Golan and may have pushed a step too far.
1) Sadat does not allow the Egyptians to move forward out of their SAM /AAA umbrella. As I understand it, the whole Egyptian plan was to breach the Bar-Lev line, thereby winning a victory. Then to withstand an Israeli counter-offensive froma carefully arranged defensive position. A cease fire under UN auspices at any time would leave Egypt on what had been Israeli held territory. For the Arabs, that would be victory.
2) Syria on the Golan - this was the proverbial 'close run thing'. Something as simple as an ammo resupply truck being blown might have led to the elusive breakthrough as the Israelis were very low on ammo by the time they forward brigades were relieved.
Of the two, I feel the partial victory of scenario 1 was the more likely. I suspect that the Syrians would probably not be content with just reoccupying the Golan and may have pushed a step too far.
The Syrians were utterly incompetent in 1973 and could not have won. In fact, a study of the maps of the time show that half the Golan territory was never even at risk and since the Syrian plan required pushing the IDF off before a counterattack could be mustered all that was done was an invitation for the Israelis to come up behind the Syrians on one flank and cut off the entire army.
Egypt was exactly as said. Only the decision to abandon the plan in an effort to save Syria gave Israel its chance. Since it is most unlikely Syria would have reciprocated, that was probably an error in every category.
So what would have happened if Syria was crushed and the Assad regime destroyed while Egypt scored a clean and conclusive victory?
Egypt was exactly as said. Only the decision to abandon the plan in an effort to save Syria gave Israel its chance. Since it is most unlikely Syria would have reciprocated, that was probably an error in every category.
So what would have happened if Syria was crushed and the Assad regime destroyed while Egypt scored a clean and conclusive victory?
Lets say the Syrian government spend more resources on training their forces, while the Soviets provided them with more instructors. The Soviets also send a bunch of strategists to help plan a campaign against Israel, since Syria’s own ones were incompetent.
Lets also say that Arafat’s takeover in Jordan in 69' is successful. The Republic of Palestine is thus created.
The war breaks out on schedule.
With Jordan (Palestine) fully in the war the Israeli lines of defence are overstretched, the more competent Syrians breakthrough in Golan (Oct. 7) and Palestinian troops make some (minor) headway in the West Bank. A full scale Arab rebellion begins in the West Bank. (Oct. 8) Israeli forces at the Jordan front are forced to turn inward to “fight” the 10 000s people on the streets. In a combination of good luck, mistake, incompetence, Arab brilliance and a bunch of butterflies the Syrians resuming their offensive break through the neglected flanks of the Israeli troops defending the Golan-Akko highway and encircle a pretty huge Israeli army (Oct. 9). The Lebanese joins the war, though they can’t do much more then keep the Israelis even more overstretched. Arafat launches an offensive south of lake Tiberius. (Oct. 9) Israel launch a counterattack toward the Syrians, it’s a failure (Oct. 10). The Israelis encircled by the Syrians surrender (no access to water can be catastrophic). Israel goes into a defensive mode, launching no more counter offensives. Fronts start to stabilize, neither side are capable of launching any new offensives. Iraqi forces arrive. (Oct.14). A film, showing an Israeli massacre on Palestinian “demonstrators” dating back to Oct. 9 is showed in Western television. This pictures enrages the American public. The OPEC cuts oil deliverances to the West after Arafat begged them to do so in a public statement. The Egyptians have by now secured their objectives (Sinai) (Oct.15). The American government, hard hit by the embargo and by the film showing Israelis massacring civilians starts to press the Israelis for peace. Syrian troops, mostly infantry (lots of infantry) makes some gains in the north. At October 25 the cease-fire is signed.
What do you think? Is it even remotely possible?
The region after the cease-fire:
After the war, the former friends Syria and Palestine would turn more hostile towards each other after Syria refuses to give Golan and the conquerd land west of Golan to Arafat, who has laid claim the the land.
Lets also say that Arafat’s takeover in Jordan in 69' is successful. The Republic of Palestine is thus created.
The war breaks out on schedule.
With Jordan (Palestine) fully in the war the Israeli lines of defence are overstretched, the more competent Syrians breakthrough in Golan (Oct. 7) and Palestinian troops make some (minor) headway in the West Bank. A full scale Arab rebellion begins in the West Bank. (Oct. 8) Israeli forces at the Jordan front are forced to turn inward to “fight” the 10 000s people on the streets. In a combination of good luck, mistake, incompetence, Arab brilliance and a bunch of butterflies the Syrians resuming their offensive break through the neglected flanks of the Israeli troops defending the Golan-Akko highway and encircle a pretty huge Israeli army (Oct. 9). The Lebanese joins the war, though they can’t do much more then keep the Israelis even more overstretched. Arafat launches an offensive south of lake Tiberius. (Oct. 9) Israel launch a counterattack toward the Syrians, it’s a failure (Oct. 10). The Israelis encircled by the Syrians surrender (no access to water can be catastrophic). Israel goes into a defensive mode, launching no more counter offensives. Fronts start to stabilize, neither side are capable of launching any new offensives. Iraqi forces arrive. (Oct.14). A film, showing an Israeli massacre on Palestinian “demonstrators” dating back to Oct. 9 is showed in Western television. This pictures enrages the American public. The OPEC cuts oil deliverances to the West after Arafat begged them to do so in a public statement. The Egyptians have by now secured their objectives (Sinai) (Oct.15). The American government, hard hit by the embargo and by the film showing Israelis massacring civilians starts to press the Israelis for peace. Syrian troops, mostly infantry (lots of infantry) makes some gains in the north. At October 25 the cease-fire is signed.
What do you think? Is it even remotely possible?
The region after the cease-fire:
After the war, the former friends Syria and Palestine would turn more hostile towards each other after Syria refuses to give Golan and the conquerd land west of Golan to Arafat, who has laid claim the the land.
Peter said:
The former negates the alter. You make such important change in TL and then assume nothing will change. It's like saying Germany doesn't annex CS and Austria but WW2 kicks of on schedule.
Peter said:
Once it becomes clear lines can't be held Israelis will start throwing nukes aound and woun't be perticularry picky about targets. I'd say cca 3 on Golan, 3-4 Sinai beachead, 1 for Damascus, 1-2 for Cairo and maybe some on Amman and Beirut for good measure.
And 1-2 on Kiev if Sovs start to complain.
tetsu-katana said:
I think there is an extremely likely possibility, which has been neglected in this thread so far.
The war of 1948.
This was extremely cloase run.
The israeli hung by a very narrow thread. The heroism of their youth brigades against the arab armies backed by Uk. ( N.B. USSR supported Israel in this war ).